EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1984, 1986 and 1988, analyses of PCB concentrations were made on a total of 720 specimens of fishes from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. In upstream to downstream order, these stations were Cornwall, a riverine stretch including part of the State of Connecticut Trout Management Area, the reservoir of the Bulls Bridge dam, Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar. Analyses were done on 13 species, with emphasis on smallmouth bass (197 specimens, from all four stations), brown trout (96 specimens from Cornwall), white catfish and white perch (92 and 86 specimens, respectively, from.Lillinonah and Zoar), and yellow perch, largemouth bass and brown bullhead (89, 57 and 48 specimens, respectively, from the three reservoirs). Most fish analyzed from Cornwall (brown trout and smallmouth bass in all three years and rainbow trout in 1988) had PCB concentrations greater than 2.0 mg/kg wet wt, with highest concentrations in holdover brown trout (trout in the river « through at least one winter). Among samples from the other stations, a majority of smallmouth bass from Bulls Bridge, white catfish from Lillinonah and Zoar, and carp from all three reservoirs had concentrations greater than 2.0. Concentrations were lower in other groups. In general, most of sunfish and yellow perch from any of the reservoirs, smallmouth and largemouth bass from Lillinonah and Zoar, and white perch, brown bullhead and eel from Zoar had concentrations less than 2.0. Within species, PCB concentrations decreased in a downstream direction in all three study years. In analysis of covariance models of year, station, sex, age and lipid effects, these differences were statistically significant for all species with moderate sample sizes at several stations, except white catfish, for which there were significant interaction terms between station and age or lipid. There were some differences in PCB concentrations between the study years which were detectable after adjustment for age, i lipid and sex effects. However, these between-year differences differed in direction and occurrence among different species and did not appear to form consistent trends. These differences could have resulted from between-year differences in fish metabolism, feeding, growth, etc., related to differences in flow, temperature, food availability, or other environmental factors. These differences could also have resulted from fluctuations in PCB inputs, although such fluctuations would be expected to & produce consistent trends over groups of species and stations. There was a significant between-year difference in PCB gg concentrations in newly-stocked brown trout in Cornwall, with concentrations in 1984 significantly lower than in 1986 or 1988. When the time of stocking and collection is accounted for, the newly-stocked trout showed similar rates of uptake in 1984 and 1986, but the 1988 concentrations were higher than predicted from * time in the river. Extrapolation of this uptake curve to exposure times greater than a year predicted concentrations in general «l agreement with those observed among holdover trout. Although there were no clear trends in the 1984-1988 period, ^ concentrations in 1984-1988 were markedly lower than concentrations in 1979 analyses. The 1984-1988 concentrations were somewhat higher than 1983 data, although these differences may have resulted from different analytic procedures used in 1983 and sampling of smaller fish in poorer condition than in the * later samples. For most species, PCB concentrations increased with lipid * content and age of the fish. These effects were seen as statistically significant covariate effects in analysis of ^ covariance models. The highest individual PCB concentrations were seen in older individuals of species with high lipid content (e.g., white catfish, carp, and brown trout). Analogously, interspecific differences in PCB concentrations were related to age and lipid * content of the species. Interspecific differences were reduced after adjustment for age and lipid effects (either by calculation * ii of least square means in analysis of covariance models or by calculation of lipid-based PCB concentrations). However, interspecific differences were present which were not accounted for by age and lipid. Some, but not all, of these residual differences could be related to feeding habits (e.g., higher concentrations than predicted from age or lipid in fish-eaters like bass relative to invertebrate-eaters like white perch) or habitat (e.g., higher PCB in brown bullhead, a benthic species, than predicted on the basis of lipid or age). The size distributions of specimens analyzed were compared with estimates of the size structure of the wild populations from which they were taken and with size distributions of fish caught by fishermen. Because of the choice of a range of sizes for analysis, very large fish were over-represented in samples, while intermediate modes were under-represented. In a few cases, small fish or smaller intermediate modes were under-represented. Size selectivity of angling was variable among the three species for which there were data, ranging from over-representation of large « and very large brown trout; over-representation of large smallmouth bass and under-representation of very large bass; or little selectivity of white perch. The frequency of large trout in anglers' catch may have been affected by the no-kill fishery restrictions. These data on size distributions of fish in wild populations and size-specific estimates of PCB concentrations were used to estimate average PCB concentrations in the populations. In general, the population means were slightly less (when the main difference was under-representation of intermediate-sized fish of intermediate PCB concentrations) to moderately less (when smaller fish were under-represented in the analyzed fish) than the sample means. The average PCB concentration in fish analyzed in 1986 was similar to the estimated average in fish caught by fishermen. The average PCB concentration of smallmouth bass in the samples was similar to that estimated for fish kept by fishermen, greater than that iii estimated for fish caught by fishermen, and less than the estimated population mean. In 1988, samples of young-of-year were analyzed to determine their potential usefulness for monitoring. Composite samples of whole (as opposed to fillets) young-of-year bluegill, pumpkinseed and largemouth bass (and 2 yearling largemouth bass) from the reservoirs were analyzed. In the lower stations, PCBs were not detected in all samples. Where detected, PCS concentrations in the young-of-year were similar to that of older fish, suggesting lower concentrations in fillets. Young-of-year could be effectively used for monitoring annual changes in uptake, although variation within stations (e.g., from no detection to moderate concentrations) may be greater than in adult fish. In 1988, adult fish of several species were analyzed from background localities near the Housatonic River. PCBs were not detected in any of these samples, indicating that atmospheric deposition is not a major source of PCBs in the region. No PCBs were detected in water and sediment samples taken from these background localities4 . A total of thirty-four hatchery trout were analyzed in 1987, 1988 and 1989. With the exception of two individuals, no PCBs were detected in these fish. The occurrence of the PCBs in the two individuals is unexplained. There are no data on water concentrations of PCBs during the 1984-1988 period. However, a few data are available for 1989. Using these as representative values, approximate bioconcentration factors (BCFs) were calculated. Average values were in the range noted in other studies as being potentially due to water uptake alone. However, higher estimated BCFs in many individuals (especially older fish) suggests the importance of food chain bioaccumulation as well. PCBs in samples were quantified as mixtures of Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260, with Aroclor 1260 usually in higher concentrations. No clear differences in proportions of the two mixtures (e.g., between years, stations, or species) were noted. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES ix INTRODUCTION 1 LOCATION OF SAMPLING AREAS 5 Housatonic River Collecting Stations 5 Background Sampling Stations 6 METHODS 10 Collection and Sample Preparation 10 Aging of Fish 17 Analyses of PCBs 21 Statistical Analysis 25 RESULTS 34 Sample Composition 34 PCB Concentrations 37 Precision of Measurements 86 DISCUSSION '. 102 LITERATURE CITED 113 FIGURES 115 APPENDIX A 143 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table l. Summary of collecting dates for PCB analyses at four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut 11 Table 2. Summary of collecting dates for various techniques at four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut 12 Table 3 Age distribution of specimens analyzed for PCB concentrations in 1984, 1986, and 1988 studies on the Housatonic River, Connecticut, by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia ,35 Table 4. Geometric means and ranges of PCB concentrations in fishes from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut 38 Table 5. Arithmetic means of PCB concentrations and LNTPCB values, and proportions of samples with PCB concentrations greater than 2.0, from ANSP analyses of fish from the Housatonic River, Connecticut, in 1984, 1986 and 1988, by year 39 Table 6. Geometric means and ranges of PCB concentrations of fishes from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut, from 1984, 1986 and 1988, by year , ,42 Table 7. Summary of results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of PCB data from 1984, 1986 and 1988 on 4 stations on the Housatonic River. ... ,43 Table 8. Multiple contrasts and least square means for significant effects in intraspecific ANCOVA models of PCB concentrations in fishes from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut.. .44 Table 9. Average lipid content (%) of fillets of specimens analyzed for PCBs at four stations in the Housatonic River, Connecticut ,51

VI LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Page Table 10. Geometric means and ranges of lipid-based PCB concentrations in fishes from stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut ,52 Table 11. Comparison of interspecific ANCOVA models with LNTPCB as the independent variable, and various groups of dependent variables. . . . ,58 Table 12. Least square means (LSMs) for species groups at each station in the Housatonic River. . . ,61 Table 13. Estimated mean LNTPCB and PCB concentrations in fish populations in the Housatonic River. . .64 Table 14. Comparison of age or size distributions of brown trout at Cornwall used for PCB analysis and estimates of the distributions in the populations at large and in the anglers' catch in 1986 66 Table 15. Distribution of sizes of brown trout collected from the Housatonic River at Cornwall in 1988 and of brown trout analyzed from Cornwall in 1984, 1986 and 1988 67 Table 16. Distribution of total lengths of smallmouth bass in samples and catches from four stations on the Housatonic River from 1988 68 Table 17. Comparison of size distributions of specimens of smallmouth bass from Lake Lillinonah analyzed for PCB with estimates of the anglers7 catch 69 Table 18. Distribution of total lengths of white perch in specimens analyzed for PCB, in a creel survey performed by the State of Connecticut, and among subsamples of fish captured during 1988 sampling. ., 70 Table 19. Distribution of lengths of yellow perch in samples and in catches of yellow perch form three stations on the Housatonic River in 1988.. . .71

vii LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Page Table 20. Distribution of total lengths of white catfish from samples and catches from two stations on the Housatonic River in 1988.. ,72 Table 21. Distribution of total length among samples and catches of largemouth bass from three stations on the Housatonic River in 1988.. .73 Table 22. Size distribution of sunfish in samples at three stations in the Housatonic River in 1988, . .74 Table 23. size distribution of bluegill, redbreast sunfish and pumpkinseed in samples at three stations on the Housatonic River in 1988.. . ,75 Table 24. Size distribution of carp in 1988 collections and among fish analyzed for PCBs in 1984 and 1988 , 76 Table 25. Results of PCB analyses on hatchery trout and on trout from selected background localities.. .80 Table 26. Results of PCB analyses of fishes from several background localities 81 Table 27. Total PCB concentrations of young-of-year and juvenile fishes from three reservoirs on the Housatonic River, Connecticut ,83 Table 28. Concentration of PCBs in sediment samples from reservoirs on the Housatonic River and from background localities ,85 Table 29. Average proportions of Aroclor 1260 in samples of fishes from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut ,87 Table 30. Results of replicate analyses of samples from the Housatonic River from 1984, 1986 and 1988 88 Table 31. Comparison of geometric means and ranges of PCB concentrations in samples of fishes from the Housatonic River, Connecticut, from 1979, 1982, 1983 and 1984-1988 105

Vlll LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Average LNTPCB in smallmouth bass by year and station . 116 2 Average LNTPCB in yellow perch by year and station. . . 117 3 Average LNTPCB in white catfish by year and station . . 118 4 Average LNTPCB in selected species from Bulls Bridge by year 119 5 Average LNTPCB in selected species from Lake Lillinonah by year 120 6 Average LNTPCB in selected species from Lake Zoar by year 121 7 Average LNTPCB in brown trout from Cornwall by year and river age 122 8 LNTPCB values in brown trout from Cornwall by year and age . .* 123 9 LNTPCB values in smallmouth bass from Cornwall by year and age 124 10 LNTPCB values in smallmouth bass from Bulls Bridge by year and age 125 11 LNTPCB values in smallmouth bass from Lake Lillinonah by year and age • 126 12 LNTPCB values in smallmouth bass from Lake Zoar by year and age 127 13 LNTPCB values in yellow perch from Bulls Bridge by year and age 128 14 LNTPCB values in yellow perch from Lake Lillinonah by year and age 129 15 LNTPCB values in yellow perch from Lake Zoar by year and age 130 16 LNTPCB values in white catfish from Lake Lillinonah by year and age 131

ix LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Figure page 17 LNTPCB values in white catfish from Lake Zoar by year and age 132 18 LNTPCB values in brown bullhead from Bulls Bridge by year and age 133 19 LNTPCB values in brown bullhead from Lake Lillinonah by year and age 134 20 LNTPCB values in brown bullhead from Lake Zoar by year and age 135 21 LNTPCB values in largemouth bass from Bulls Bridge by year and age 136 22 LNTPCB values in largemouth bass from Lake Lillinonah by year and age 137 23 LNTPCB values in largemouth bass from Lake Zoar by year and age 138 4 24 LNTPCB values in white perch from Lake Lillinonah by year and age 139 25 LNTPCB values in white perch from Lake Zoar by year and age 140 26 Fit of observed mean PCB concentrations of newly- stocked brown trout to a first-order model 141 27 Relationship between the coefficient of variation of lipid content and standard deviation of LNTPCB . . . 142 INTRODUCTION «*

Between 1984 and 1989, the Academy of Natural Sciences of *» Philadelphia (ANSP) conducted a study of PCB concentrations in fish in the Housatonic River for General Electric Company. As m part of this study, analyses of PCB concentrations were performed on fish collected in 1984, 1986 and 1988. The findings of each

— year's sampling were reported in three Academy reports (ANSP, 1985; 1987 and 1989). The primary goals of the study were to assess PCB concentrations in a variety of species from four sites in the river and to compare patterns of PCB concentrations between sites <* and between the three study years. Emphasis was placed on brown trout from Cornwall, smallmouth bass from all four stations, 41 white catfish from Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar, yellow perch and brown bullhead from Bulls Bridge, and white perch from Lake Lillinonah. These species were chosen to include species of potential fishery importance which might be expected to accumulate PCBs. Smaller numbers of specimens of other species or 41 ' ^ from additional stations were also analyzed to provide data on temporal and spatial trends. Rainbow trout were stocked in the rf Housatonic River in 1988, so specimens of that species were analyzed to determine whether it showed uptake of PCB similar to 01 the brown trout. In addition to measuring PCB concentrations, the sex, age and lipid content of each specimen analyzed were determined, allowing statistical adjustment for relationships between PCB and sex, age and lipid. In addition to the primary sampling program, the program "* included several other elements to address additional questions about PCB dynamics in the system: M» 1) Analyses of PCB in hatchery-raised brown and rainbow ^ trout collected prior to stocking in 1987, 1988 and 1989 were done to confirm that observed concentrations of PCB A in river-caught fish resulted from riverine uptake;

4 2) Analyses of PCB in several species from areas with no * known PCB inputs were done to determine the extent of accumulation of PCBs from background sources. These data m will be useful in predicting the future dynamics of PCBs in the river: the rate of decrease of PCB concentrations will be lower if appreciable concentrations are taken up from background sources (cf. literature review in LMS, 1987). Background sampling was conducted only in 1988. * The sites chosen for these analyses were Bantam Lake, 1 Lake Waramaug, Saugatuck Reservoir, the Farmington River, H and several small streams with trout populations. 3) Analyses of PCB in water and sediment from the background

— sites were done to determine whether background inputs of PCBs produce significant source pools of PCB. Analyses of water and sediment from Lake Lillinonah and Bulls Bridge 4 were also done, to allow comparison of ANSP findings with other studies of water and sediment. Water and sediment * samples were taken only in 1988. « 4) Analyses of PCB in young-of-year (YOY) bluegill, d pumpkinseed and largemouth bass from Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah, Lake Zoar, Bantam Lake and Lake Waramaug were done to determine whether uptake of PCBs by YOY would be more advantageous for monitoring PCB dynamics than surveys of adult fish. Uptake may occur rapidly in YOY fish, use of YOY would avoid complications of PCB-age relationships and would provide direct information on ** uptake within the year of collection, and YOY can usually be collected in large numbers by simple techniques. 4 5) Estimation of the size distribution of sport species of fish using distributions in the ANSP samples and creel census data from the State of Connecticut. Using these data and PCB-size relationships, the frequency distributions of PCB concentrations in the various fish populations were estimated, providing better measures of potential exposure of consumers to PCBs. 2

* The raw data on PCB concentration, age, lipid, etc. are * presented in the Appendix. In the report, these data are summarized in several ways:

• 1) Mean PCB concentrations and proportion of samples with PCB concentrations above 2.0 mg/kg; these summaries are most relevant to regulatory thresholds. 2) Means and standard deviations of log-transformed PCB concentration data and geometric means of PCB concentrations; these summaries are more useful for statistical comparisons, * because of the skewed distribution of PCB concentrations. However, these means do not control for differences in sex 41 ratio, age structure or lipid content among specimens analyzed. 3) Least square means of log-transformed PCB concentrations estimated from statistical models of the spatial and temporal patterns of PCB concentrations within each species. These 4t means provide, estimates of mean PCB values within each year and station after adjustment for sex, age and lipid effects. 41 These means are most useful for making standardized comparisons within species across years and stations. 01 4) Least square means of log-transformed PCB concentrations for each species within each station. These means are derived from models of PCB differences between species within each station. They allow comparison of species differences after adjustment for interspecific and intraspecific differences in sex, age iril and lipid content. 5) Estimates of mean PCB concentrations in real fish populations. iri These means are calculated by stratifying the populations on the basis of size, and weighting the estimated PCB m concentration within each size class by estimates of the proportion of the target population within that class. Target populations include the wild fish populations (size distributions estimated from ANSP and Connecticut DER collecting data), and fishes caught by fishermen and fishes kept by fishermen (estimated from creel surveys). These means provide the best estimates of the actual mean concentration of PCB in the study species, as affected by differences in the size structure of the population at any time or place, as well as by differences in the availability of PCBs. 6) Estimates of the standard deviations and coefficients of variation of PCB concentrations among replicate analyses of the same specimens. These provide information on the precision of measurement.

In addition to estimation of these types of summaries, statistical comparisons between species, stations, years, sexes, etc., are performed using analysis of covariance, analysis of variance, regression and t-tests. LOCATION OF SAMPLING AREAS

Housatonic River Collecting Stations

The four main stations on the Housatonic River from which fish were collected in 1984, 1986 and 1988 were, in downstream order, Cornwall, Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar. In general, the same areas within each station were sampled in the different years, although some areas of Cornwall and Lake Lillinonah were sampled in 1988 which were not sampled in the other years.

Cornwall

Fish were collected in the free-flowing reach around the covered bridge in West Cornwall. Most fish were collected from the "Abutments" and "Pushemup", areas about 3 to 4 km above the covered bridge. Other areas sampled include the area immediately • above and below the covered bridge (October 1988), around the mouth of Mill Creek (October 1988), and the area around the mouth of Furnace Brook, about 7.4 km south of West Cornwall (1986 and 1988).

Bulls Bridge

Fish were collected throughout the reservoir, from the dam up to a point just above Kent, i.e., about 0.6 km above Route 341. The uppermost area sampled included some areas of slow to moderate current; the rest of the area had imperceptible current. Electroshocking was done over parts of the shoreline in places throughout the reservoir, primarily covering the upper half of the reservoir and the lower section near the dam. Gill netting, trot lining and angling were done only in the main reservoir (i.e., not in the upper, more riverine end). Seining for young­ of-year was done in the lower end of the reservoir, along the left bank of the main channel about 0.2 to 0.6 km above the dam, and along the right channel about 0.2 to 0.5 km above the dam on that channel. Smallmouth bass were collected mainly in the upper and middle sections of the reservoir. Specimens of other species came from throughout the reservoir.

Lake Lillinonah

All specimens were collected from the reservoir above the Shepaug Arm (flooded mouth of Shepaug River). Most specimens were taken in inlets and along the shore from about 1.2 km below Route 133 to about 6 km above Route 133* Seining for young-of-year fish was done in two coves about 0.8 km and 4 km above the bridge.

Lake Zoar

Sampling was done along both banks along both the upper and lower ends of the reservoir and at a few places within the middle section of the reservoir. Sampling for adult fish in the upper end was from the boat ramp at Lakeside up to the outlet spillway of Lake Lillinonah. Sampling for adult fish in the lower end was from about 0.6 km above Stevenson Dam to the vicinity of the cove at Kettleworth State Park, about 5 km above Stevenson Dam. Seining for young-of-year fish was done in a right-bank cove about 0.5 km above Stevenson Dam, the beach area at Kettleworth State Park, at Jackson Cove, the area upstream from the boat ramp at Lakeside, and a right-bank cove near Rocky Glen.

Background Sampling Stations

Stations sampled for analyzing background levels of PCS were chosen on the basis of proximity to the Housatonic River, isolation (relative to possible movement of fish) from the Housatonic River, absence of known point-source inputs of PCBs, and presence of target species of fish. Background sources of i PCBs may derive from atmospheric deposition and/or from runoff draining local sources. Since the magnitude of land-based inputs would vary with land use, drainages were chosen to represent a range of land uses (but excluding urban and industrial sites with possible point sources). On these bases, the Farmington River was chosen for sampling of brown trout and smallmouth bass, several small streams were chosen for sampling of brown trout, and Bantam 1 Lake, Lake Waramaug and the Saugatuck Reservoir were chosen for j analysis of smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, brown bullhead, I yellow perch, white perch and sunfish. Young-of-year were collected from. Bantam Lake and Lake Waramaug, but were not

( analyzed because of the undetectable levels of PCBs in adult fish from these background lakes.

Farmington River

* Th e Farmington River was sampled in the area above « Unionville known as the "Boulders", an area of boulder riffles

M and runs from about 2 km above Route 179 to Route 179. Based on its size and relatively large upstream drainage area, this site is the background site most similar to the Cornwall station on the Housatonic River. As at Cornwall, brown trout is the main sport species in the reach, and smallmouth bass are also present. * This site was sampled by the Connecticut Department of Fisheries 1 on 12-13 October 1988. * Sandy Brook m Sandy Brook is a tributary of Still Brook (a Farmington River tributary). Sandy Brook was sampled at a site northwest of Robertsville, above the first road crossing of Sandy Brook Road and Sandy Brook west of Route 8. The drainage area of Sandy Brook * is largely forested or rural, so that this site probably represents the most undisturbed of the background stream sites. Collections were made on 4 August 1988.

Mill Brook

Mill Brook enters the Housatonic River at West Cornwall. It was sampled below the first road crossing of Route 128 and the brook east of West Cornwall. This site is above a very steep section of the brook, so that movement of fish from the Housatonic River into the brook is considered to be very unlikely. The drainage area of the brook is forested and rural. Collections were made on 5 August 1988.

Coppermine Brook

Coppermine Brook enters the Pequabuck River (a Farmington River tributary) at Bristol. It was sampled just above its crossing with Itein Street between Edgewood and Whigville. Its drainage above this point is rural and suburban. Collections were made on 4 August 1988.

Pootatuck River

The Pootatuck River enters the Housatonic River in Lake Zoar, but fish movement between the river and reservoir is prevented by a dam. The Pootatuck was sampled in the town of Sandy Hook. Its drainage is the most developed of the background stream sites, including the small town of Sandy Hook and a part of 1-84. Collections were taken on 5 August 1988.

Lake Waramaua

The shoreline of Lake Waramaug has extensive residential development, although the watershed of the lake is more rural. The shoreline was sampled at places throughout the perimeter of 8 the lake, concentrating on points and coves. The lake was sampled primarily by electrofishing, with a few specimens collected by angling. Collections were made on 5 and 11 August 1988.

Bantam Lake

The shoreline of Bantam Lake has extensive residential development. The watershed of the lake (including that of Bantam River, an influent to the lake) includes more rural areas, as well as the town of Litchfield. The lake was sampled primarily by electrofishing, with a few specimens collected by angling. Collections were made along Keeler Cove, the west side of Point Folly, the western edge of North Bay (including the east side of Point Folly), the western side of March Point, along Deer Island and along South Bay. Collections were made on 10, 17 and 18 August 1988.

Saugatuck Reservoir 4

The watershed of Saugatuck Reservoir is protected and is largely undeveloped, because of its use for water supply. Because of its depth, collecting was limited to the shallower north end and the left bank in the middle part of the reservoir. Specimens were collected by angling by personnel of ANSP and the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company and by electroshocking. Collections were made on 12, 18 and 19 August 1988. METHODS

Collection and Sample Preparation

Fish

Fish were collected by staff of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia or of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut (personnel of the Bridgewater Hydraulic Company provided a few specimens from Saugatuck Reservoir). Fish were caught using electroshocking, gill nets, trot lines, traps, seines and by angling. The uses of these techniques at the main stations and the dates of sampling are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. In addition to its use at Cornwall (Tables 1 and 2), backpack electroshocking was used to collect brown trout at Mill Brook (5 August 1988), Sandy Brook (4 August 1988), Coppermine Brook (4 August 1988), and the Pootatuck River (5 August 1988). Backpack shocking was done during the day in areas of the river accessible by wading. Electroshocking (generator floated or based on shore, operators wading in the river) was done in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Fisheries to collect brown trout, rainbow trout and smallmouth bass at Cornwall. The Connecticut Department of Fisheries also collected brown trout and smallmouth bass from the Farmington River on 12-13 October 1988, using similar gear (except that two generators were used concurrently at the Farmington River). Boat electroshocking was done at Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah, Lake Zoar, Bantam Lake, Lake Waramaug and Saugatuck Reservoir. Boat shocking was typically done at night, starting about a half hour after dusk; some collecting was done in the afternoon or at dusk. In addition to the sampling at the main Housatonic stations (Tables 1 and 2), boat electroshocking was done at Lake Waramaug on 11 August 1988, at Saugatuck Reservoir 10 Table l. Summary of collecting dates for PCB analyses at four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Unless otherwise noted, collections were made by ANSP.

Sampling Location May June July August October

1984 Cornwall 25 14 B* B* Bulls Bridge 8-16 14-16 E,G,T,R E

Lake Lillinonah 17-18 13-14 2-3 8-16 E* E* E* E,G* Lake Zoar 8-16 14-16 E,G,H,R E

1986 Cornwall 15 7-11 B* A Bulls Bridge 4-8 EGT Lake Lillinonah 10-12 4-8 7-11 EGT EGT E Lake Zoar

1988 Cornwall 2-6 16-20 W* W* 27-28 B,A Bulls Bridge 15-17 16-20 E,G,T,R,A E,G,T,A,S Lake Lillinonah 15 13 16-20 E E,G,T E,S 27-28 E Lake Zoar 8-10,17,20 16-20 E,G,T,R,A E,G,T,R,S * Collections by State of Connecticut B Backpack Electroshocking E Boat Electroshcoking W Hading Electroshocking R Traps G Gill Nets H Hoop Nets T Trotlines A Angling S - Seine

11 Table 2. Summary of collecting dates for various techniques at four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut.

Backpack/Wading Boat Hoop Nets/ Station Electroehockinq Electroshocking Gill Nets Traps Seining Trotlines Angling

Cornwall 25 July 1984 (B)* 10 Oct 1986 14 Oct 1984 (B) 28 Oct 1988 15 Aug 1986 (B)* 2 Aug 1988 (W)* 4,6 Aug 1988 (H) 19 Oct 1988 (W)* 28 Oct 1988 (B)

Bulls Bridge 20 Oct 1988 (H) 18 Aug 1984 12-14 Aug 1984 20 Oct 1988 12-14 Aug 1984 15 Aug 1988 15-16 Oct 1984 7-8 Aug 1986 7-8 Aug 1986 19 Oct 1988 7-8 Aug 1986 15-16 Aug 1988 16-17 Aug 1988 15-16 Aug 1988 19 Oct 1988 19 Oct 1988

Lake Lillinonah 20-21 Oct 1988 (W) 17-18 May 1984* 15-16 Aug 1984 20-21 Oct 1988 11 June 1986 13-14 June 1984* 10-12 June 1986 5-6 Aug 1986 2-3 July 1984* 5-6 Aug 1986 11-13 Aug 1988 15-16 Aug 1984 11-13 Aug 1988 10-11 June 1986 4 Aug 1986 B Oct 1986 15 June 1988 13 Aug 1988 16,27 Oct 1988

Lake Zoar 17,21 Oct 1988 (H) 11-12 Aug 1984 9-11 Aug 1984 8-10 Aug 1984 (H) 17,21 Oct 1988 6 Aug 1986 9 Aug 1988 16-17 Oct 1984 6 Aug 1986 9-11 Aug 1984 (R) 9-11 Oct 1986 8-10 Aug 1988 9-11 Oct 1986 9-10 Aug 1988 (R) 9-10 Aug 1988 17,20 Aug 1988 9-10 Aug 1988 17-19 Oct 1988 (R) 17-19 Oct 1988 17-19 Oct 1988

(H) - Hading Electroshocking (B) - Backpack Electroshocking (R) • Traps (H) - Hoop Nets * - Collections by State of Connecticut on 12 August 1988, and at Bantam Lake on 10 August 1988. In all three years, smallmouth bass were collected predominantly by boat electroshocking. Boat electroshocking was also an important collecting technique for largemouth bass (in 1984 and 1988), yellow perch (especially in 1986 and 1988), brown bullhead (especially in 1986), white perch (especially in 1988), and for carp and eel in 1988. A number of white catfish were caught by boat shocking as well in all three years. Gill nets were used by ANSP at Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah, Lake Zoar and Bantam Lake. Experimental gill nets (60-ft x 6-ft [18.3-m x 1.8-m] nets with 3 panels, one each of 2-, 3- and 4-in [5.1-, 7.6- and 10.2-cm] stretched mesh) were used predominantly. In addition, several single mesh nets (60 ft x 6 ft or 120 ft x 6 ft [18.3 m x 1.8 m or 36.6 m x 1.8 m] of 4­ in or 5-in [10.2-cm or 12.7-cm] stretched mesh) were used. These were used to increase the catch of larger fish (especially white catfish) and decrease the catch of small white perch. Gill nets were set either floating (i.e., upper edge at or near the surface) or sinking (i.e., lower edge on the bottom). Gill nets were checked at least once a day. In addition to their use at the main Housatonic stations (Tables 1 and 2), gill nets were used at Bantam Lake on 17-18 August 1988. Gill nets provided most of the specimens of yellow perch and white catfish in 1984 and white perch in 1986. Gill nets were also important for collecting smallmouth bass in all three years, white catfish and yellow perch (especially in 1986 and 1988), brown bullhead and carp (especially in 1984 and 1988), and white perch, largemouth bass and sunfish in at least one year. Trotlines were used at Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar. Trotlines were generally set during the day and either tended regularly or left overnight and checked the next day. Trotlines produced most of the brown bullheads analyzed in 1984 and the white catfish analyzed in 1986 and a few specimens of these species in 1988. A few specimens of smallmouth bass,

13 largemouth bass, yellow perch, white perch, carp and eel were also collected by trotlines (primarily in 1988). Angling was used to collect a few specimens at Cornwall (one brown trout and one smallmouth bass in October 1986, and one rainbow trout in October 1988), Bulls Bridge (mainly brown bullhead, August and October 1988), Lake Zoar (one white catfish, August 1988), Lake Waramaug (brown bullhead, August 1988), Bantam Lake (brown bullhead, smallmouth bass, August 1988), and Saugatuck Reservoir (bass, white perch, yellow perch, bluegill, brown bullhead, August 1988). Traps (baited, cylindrical, wire-mesh, with two funnel- shaped openings at one end) were used at Bulls Bridge, Lillinonah and Lake Zoar. These provided specimens of sunfish in 1984 and 1988 and white catfish in 1984. In 1984 hoop nets were used at Lake Zoar. These provided most of the white perch and a few of the yellow perch analyzed in 1984. Seining was used in 1988 to collect young-of-year for the

pilot monitoring(program. Seines were 10 to 20 ft in length (3.05 to 6.10 m) with a mesh of 1/8 in (0.32 cm). Seining was done in shallow beaches and beds of vegetation during daylight. Seining was done at Bulls Bridge (20 October 1988), Lake Lillinonah (20­ 21 October 1988), Lake Zoar (17 and 21 October 1988), Lake Waramaug (18 October 1988) and Bantam Lake (18 October 1988). Sample handling methods were virtually identical in all three years. Differences between years are noted in the text. After capture, specimens were held in water or on ice until the field processing site was reached. If possible, specimens captured alive were kept alive until field processing. Processing was typically done within 1 to 4 h of the time of capture. At the field processing site, specimens were wrapped in clean aluminum foil. Specimens of the same species from the same locality were often wrapped together. A paper label was inserted inside each package and a label was written on tape wrapped around each package. Labels contained the sample date, locality, 14 number of specimens, serial number (1988 only), and species identity. Specimens were placed on dry ice in coolers at the field processing site and kept frozen until laboratory processing. At the laboratory, they were held in freezers until they were further processed. All fish were thawed before laboratory processing. Specimens were rinsed in water, weighed and measured (standard and total length). Young-of-year fish (collected in 1988 only) were analyzed whole. Other fish were filleted. Scales were removed from adult fish with scales other than trout (e.g., bass, perch); after removal of scales, these fish were rinsed in distilled water and then filleted with the skin left on. Trout were not scaled but were filleted with the skin and scales left on. Fillets included flesh and skin from behind the head to the base of the tail, including the area along the side of the abdominal cavity. Usually only one fillet was taken from large fishes. Often, both fillets from smaller specimens were used. The entire fillet was used on all specimens to provide comparable samples across size classes. Scaleless fishes (white catfish, brown bullhead and eel) were skinned; otherwise, they were handled like the other species. Filleting was done with a stainless steel fillet knife; the knife was cleaned between filleting of different individuals. Fillets were wrapped in clean aluminum foil; the package was labeled with tape on the outside, indicating the study name, species and a sample number for each individual, and frozen until analyzed. Otoliths of most specimens were dissected and preserved separately. The remainder of each carcass was wrapped in aluminum foil, frozen, and held until the completion of the study (allowing for analysis of additional tissue, verification of identification, etc.). All samples taken from a single individual were labeled with a unique sample number for that individual.

15 : Notes on pertinent collection information (date, location, ^ method of collection, special conditions or observations, tagged fish) were kept in the field. Laboratory notes contained length and weight for each specimen (keyed to specimen number) and : additional observations on the specimen (sex, reproductive condition, evidence of disease, wounds or parasites, etc.). * Reported lengths and weights are from laboratory measurements of thawed specimens. Comparisons of field and laboratory lengths I* indicate that laboratory lengths are usually similar or slightly i less than field lengths, indicating slight shrinkage of some £ fish, presumably due to freezing. At any transfer of specimens between personnel, chain-of­ custody sheets were used to verify the transfer. These included transfers from state collecting crews to Academy field personnel and from Academy field personnel to lab personnel for storage or "* processing.

«§ Water and Sediment Samples «

— Water and sediment samples were taken in 1988. Water and sediment samples from the streams were taken from the same sites as fish samples. Sediment samples from lakes were taken along "I transects at three places (Lake Lillinonah) or two places (other reservoirs) within the waterbody, including one near the deepest * part of the lake. Sediment samples from reservoirs were taken at two sites, including one site just above the dam. Water samples M from lakes were taken along a single transect at the deepest part of the lake; water samples from reservoirs were taken at a transect above the dam. Water samples were taken in the Farmington River (4 and 9 August 1988), Coppermine Brook (4 August 1988), Sandy Brook (4 ** August 1988), Bantam Lake (4 and 17 August 1988), Pootatuck Brook (5 August 1988), Lake Waramaug (5 August 1988), immediately above m the dam at Bulls Bridge (15 August 1988) and near the Route 133 bridge at Lake Lillinonah (11 and 13 August 1988). Each water m 16 sample was a 1-L composite of three samples taken at approximately the one-quarter, one-half and three-quarter points of a transect across the stream or reservoir. Samples were taken from the surface in a stainless steel container, and 333 ml poured into a glass bottle. Samples were kept on ice in the field and maintained at 4°C in the laboratory prior to processing. Sediment samples were taken at a point along each bank in the Farmington River (9 August 1988), Coppermine Brook (9 August 1988), Pootatuck Brook (9 August 1988), Lake Waramaug (11 August 1988), Saugatuck Reservoir (11 August 1988), Lake Lillinonah (two transects above and below the Route 133 crossing on 13 August 1988; one transect above the dam on 20 October 1988), at Bulls Bridge (16 August 1988), and Bantam Lake (17 August and 18 October 1988) . Sediment samples were taken only in areas of fine particulate substrates. Sediment samples were taken with an Eckman grab sampler. Each sample was a 1-L composite of 333 ml of sediment from three separate grabs in the same vicinity. After collection, each grab was placed in a stainless steel container, allowed to settle, the supernatant poured off and 333 ml placed into a glass collecting jar. Sediment samples were held on ice in the field and maintained at 4°C in the laboratory until processing.

Aging of Fish

The ages of the specimens analyzed were estimated using otoliths (most species), scales (1984 only), pectoral spines (1984 and 1986 only) and tags (trout from Cornwall). The sizes of some unmarked trout from Cornwall were used to identify the strain and year of stocking. Ages reported by ANSP (1985) were used for 1984 samples with one exception: ages of white catfish were redetermined using otoliths (see ANSP, 1987). Ages for 1986 and 1988 fish are identical to those reported by ANSP (1987) and ANSP (1989), respectively. In 1986, otoliths were used for all species except trout (for which tags were used) and brown 17 bullhead (for which pectoral spines were used). In 1984, pectoral spines were used for catfish. In 1984, ages of most white perch were estimated using scales; comparisons made then indicated that scales and otoliths produced similar ages for that species. In 1986 and 1988, otolith aging was based on polished sections; in 1984, burn cracks were used.

Trout

Most of the brown trout collected at Cornwall were identifiable by a combination of marks, including fin clips and maxillary clips. These were stocked fish of known stocking time and age at stocking. These fish were stocked at ages 1+ (assumed 15 months or 1.25 years), or 2+ (assumed 27 months or 2.25 years); fish were stocked in April or May 1983-1988. Total ages were assumed to be age at stocking + number of full years in river + fractional years from May to month of collection (0 for fish hatchery fish collected just prior to stocking, 0.25 years for fish caught in August, 0.42 years for fish caught in October) . In 1987, both yearling (Bitterroot strain) and adult (Burlington strain, stocked at age 2+) brown trout were stocked. These fish were not clipped. Unmarked fish were assumed to be from this stocking, with the strain identified by personnel of the Connecticut Department of Fisheries, based on typical color differences between the strains and the larger size of the Burlington fish. One fish (serial number 8 8 -44 A) was identified in the field as Bitterroot Strain, but was larger than the other 1987-stocked fish of either strain. This fish was assumed to be a Burlington Strain fish stocked in 1987 (R. Orcieri, Connecticut DEP, pers. comm.); it is also possible that the fish was native or came from a tributary. One 1986 fish (serial number 86-27-75) was captured with a tag indicating either a 1981 or 1983 stocking date; based on the size of this fish relative to known sizes of fish from the two 18 stockings, this was determined to be an individual from the 1983 stocking (R. Orcieri, Connecticut DEP, pers. comm.). Four fish with no clips were analyzed in 1986. These could either have been native fish or unmarked fish which had been stocked in tributaries and moved into the main river. One of these (86-48­ 153) was aged using otoliths. The other three (86-29-85, 86-27­ 78, 86-30-93) were inferred to be of hatchery origin on the basis of extent of scale regeneration (trout lose and regenerate a high proportion of scales in hatcheries; R. Orcieri, pers. comm.); age at stocking and total age were inferred from the size of the core on regenerated scales (large on 86-29-85, presumed to be a fish maintained in a hatchery 2+ years, smaller in the other two fish, presumed to have been maintained only 1+ years in a hatchery) , the number of annuli after the regenerated portions, and the number of annuli on original scales. Rainbow trout stocked in May 1988 derived from Erwin Strain stock hatched in the fall (probably September) of 1987. These were identified by a maxillary clip. They were assumed to be 0.67 years old at' the time of stocking. While rainbow trout from private stocking also occur in the Housatonic River (R. Orcieri, pers. comm.), all rainbow trout analyzed for PCBs derived from the stocking by the state, as indicated by the maxillary clip.

Otoliths

Otoliths were dissected from the fish and kept in alcohol or as dry material. 1986 and 1988 specimens were prepared by imbedding one sagitta (the largest otolith) in resin and cutting two or more sections from the imbedded otolith. Sections were examined under a dissecting microscope (12 to 50x), with either direct viewing or viewing through a video image on a monitor. In this technique, periods of low growth are visible as narrow, dark bands. 'Winter bands are typically well-pronounced, with thin, faint bands representing other cycles of growth. Age was estimated using these bands, with the innermost band assumed to 19 represent the first winter (transition between 0+ and 1+) , etc. Otoliths from fish of questionable age were typically viewed by two to three observers to arrive at a consensus estimate of age. In 1985, 1984 samples were prepared by cracking and scorching an exposed section by brief immersion in a flame. The two techniques produce comparable ages. However, the sectioning provided more consistent surfaces for examination; the sections are also preferable for archival storage. For the 1988 samples, aging using otoliths was done on all specimens except trout from Cornwall. In 1986, otoliths were used for all groups except trout and brown bullheads (for which pectoral spines were used) . For the 1984 samples, ages of most white perch were estimated using scales and ages of brown bullheads using pectoral spines. Ages of brown trout from the background sites were estimated from otolith sections. Annuli were weakly defined on sections from a number of these fish, so that ages of these fish are more uncertain than those of the remaining samples. The poorly defined otolith patterns may reflect hatchery origin of the background trout: annuli may not be regularly formed during the one or two years of hatchery life, and false annuli may be formed during periods of stress (e.g., during acclimatization subsequent to stocking).

Fin Spines

In 1984 and 1986, the ages of brown bullheads were determined using annual marks on cross-sections of the pectoral fin spines. The spines were removed close to the body of the fish and sectioned two or more times at a point just above the distal end of the basal groove to form one or more thin sections about 1 to 2 mm in thickness. Annual marks were apparent under a dissecting microscope as alternating light and dark bands (Sneed, 1951) . These bands were used as the basis for the age estimates. In

20 1988, otoliths instead of spines were used for aging brown bullheads. Sections of pectoral spines of white catfish were also prepared and examined. These appeared to be unreliable indicators of age on large specimens because of close spacing of the outermost annuli and obliteration of one or more inner annuli by the central lumen of the spine. otolith sections produced much clearer separation of annual rings and were used for aging white catfish. The ages of white catfish analyzed in 1984 were redetermined using archived otoliths. For large fish, the otolith analyses typically produced estimates several years greater than the spine analyses.

Analyses of PCBs

Analytical procedures were virtually identical throughout the study. In the following text, differences are noted in sguare brackets.

Sample Preparation

Frozen fish fillets were either placed in a precooled (dry ice) commercial meat grinder and ground or scissor minced depending on fillet size. Samples were kept frozen until analysis. At the time of analysis a 20.0 g frozen sample was weighed and placed in a 200-ml beaker [1984: 100-ml centrifuge tube] and homogenized with a Tekmar Tissumizer. The sample was homogenized at a low to medium speed until the sample consistency was uniform. Composites of several individuals per species were used for the hatchery rainbow trout, young-of-year bass and sunfish and some of the samples from the background localities, either to provide enough material for analysis (trout and young-of-year) or to reduce the amount of analysis. These specimens were handled 21 identically to other samples through the mincing step, after which the samples were combined and mixed and a portion of the mixture removed for further analysis. The homogenate was then ground with anhydrous magnesium sulfate by transferring the tissue to a glass mortar and mixing with magnesium sulfate at a ratio of 3.2 g to 1 g of tissue. The magnesium sulfate was added in small portions and after grinding the mixture was transferred to a Petri dish and spread out to dry. The sample was transferred back to the mortar and ground thoroughly until a free-flowing powder was obtained. The powder was then transferred to a pre-extracted Whatman cellulose thimble (33 x 94 mm) . The thimble was placed in a pre-extracted soxhlet apparatus (500-ml round bottom flask) [1984: 250-rol] and extracted overnight with 350 ml of 1:1 hexane:acetone. The solvent extract was dried by first adding anhydrous sodium sulfate to the round bottom flask until crystals were freely flowing. The extract was then poured through a pre-rinsed (hexane) glass* column with 10 cm of anhydrous sulfate. The dried extract was collected and the round bottom flask and column were rinsed three times with an additional small volume of hexane. The washings were then added to the extract. The remaining extract was concentrated to approximately 10 ml in a Kuderna-Danish evaporator/concentrator with a three-ball Snyder column and a 10-ml concentrator placed in a -boiling water bath. The Snyder column was rinsed with a small amount of hexane and removed. The lipid content of the sample was determined at this point by placing a 1.0-ml aliguot of the extract in a preweighed aluminum dish. The solvent was evaporated by directing a stream of nitrogen at the surface. The dish was reweighed and the % lipid calculated. The remaining extract was concentrated to 5.0 ml and quantitatively transferred to a small vial and spiked with 25 ml of hexadecane to prevent evaporative loss of lower chlorinated PCB isomers. The sample was then evaporated to dryness by directing a stream of nitrogen at the 22 solvent's surface. The sample was reconstituted with 2 ml of hexane. If required, due to lipid material, the extract was •> washed with sulfuric acid. If required, the sample extract (2 ml) was cleaned by Florisil using Waters sep-pak. The column was pre-rinsed with \ hexane and the sample passed through the column. The column was rinsed with three bed volumes of hexane and collected in a 10-ml volumetric flask. The sample was then injected into the gas chromatograph [in 1984 and 1986, the solvent was changed to iso­ j octane prior to injection]. i Analytical Conditions

Sample quantification was completed on a HP-5890 [1984 and 1986: Tracer 560] gas chromatograph equipped with split/splitless injector and electrolytic conductivity detector [1984 and 1986: electron capture detector]. Separation of PCBs was completed on a 30-m fused silica capillary column (DB-1, J&W Scientific) under *" the following, conditions: initial temperature of 55°C [1984: 60°C] for 2 min, followed by temperature programming to 275°C at 41 8°C/min [1984: 225° C at 7 deg/min] with a final hold of 8 min [10°C/min and 10 min final hold in 1984 and 1986]. The carrier _ gas was helium. The GC inlet and detector temperatures were 275°C [300°C and 350°C, respectively, in 1984 and 1986]. The base reactor temperature was 900°C. Prior to the analyses, M samples were spiked with 1,2-dichloronaphthalene to serve as an internal standard. « PCS Quantitation <*» Total aroclors in fish were calculated, based in part on the method of Carnahan and Wagner (unpublished data). This method separates the individual PCB congeners by capillary column chromatography followed by electrolytic detection [electron capture in 1984 and 1986]. Our procedure was then to quantitate * * on a characteristic group of peaks specific to each aroclor

( mixture. These peaks served as a fingerprint or identification pattern as to the type and concentration of aroclors present. The concentrations of individual congeners were determined for a group of peaks that are only present or dominate in one aroclor mixture. The actual concentration of each congener is determined ' from its weight contribution to the mixture. We quantitated the concentration of the congeners from peak number 52 to 82 for 1254 I and the peaks from 178 to 203 for 1260. From injections of i standard aroclor mixtures, a TriVector 2000 laboratory computer calculated response factors for each congener, which was used to calculate the concentration of congener present in samples. The presence of specific congeners was used in mixture identification. The concentrations of the congeners for each aroclor were summed. Since this represents a percentage of the total mixture, total PCBs were calculated by dividing the summed congener concentration for each mixture by the ratios of 55.16 P for 1254 and 42.59 for 1260 [54.58 and 40.04, respectively, in 1984 and 1986*]. Dividing the summed concentration by these ratios corrects for total PCBs. This correction accounts for the remaining congeners not used in the initial calculation.

** Quality Assurance ! 41 Prior to each analytical run, several standards were injected to confirm the analytical curve through the mixture ^ response factor. If the response factor agreed (±10%) with values from previous standard curves, the auto-sampler was loaded and run. Approximately every tenth sample was a sample replicate ** injection. A standard was run to verify the stability of auto-sampler runs. Every thirtieth sample was split and sent to 4* an outside laboratory for analysis. Certified EPA fish standards were used for quality assurance m for the 1984 and 1986 samples. Certified samples were no longer available for use in 1988.

* 24

41 Statistical Analysis • • Logarithmic Transformation of PCS Concentrations

Analysis of PCB concentrations were based on the logarithmic transform: «

LNTPCB = LN(TPCB) « j where LN is the natural logarithm, and TPCB is the PCB '4 concentration in mg/kg wet weight. The transformation is used to produce a variable whose standard deviation is independent of the M mean, which is necessary for standard statistical comparisons and to produce unbiased estimates of means. The standard deviation of TPCB measurements increase with the mean, as indicated by the replicate analyses and skewed distribution of TPCB values. Reports of the 1984 and 1986 results (ANSP 1985, 1987) used a * slightly different logarithmic transformation (LPCB=LN(TPCB+1)). LNTPCB has the advantage of being naturally related to the 0 geometric mean: the geometric mean = exp(LNTPCB). Unlike, LPCB, LNTPCB attains negative values at low PCB concentrations (LNTPCB < 0 when TPCB < 1.0); LPCB is always positive. A second logarithmic transformation was used to assess ! linearity of regressions of LNTPCB against age and lipid concentration: m LLPCB = LN(LNTPCB+3.52). m If there is a logarithmic relationship between LNTPCB and age or lipid, there will be a linear relationship between LLPCB and age or lipid. Statistical Comparisons of Year and Station Differences w Assessment of between-year and station differences was one of the major goals of the study. Tests for year and station differences were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with computations done using the

§ 26

* year, within-station) variation, increasing the power of the <•> statistical tests to detect year and station differences.

^ These additional effects were incorporated into the ANOVA and ANCOVA models as a discrete effect (for sex) or as covariates (age and lipid), and as interactions between the various variables. The resultant models estimate a single parameter for the grand mean of all LNTPCB variables, a single parameter for * each level of the discrete variables (station, year and sex), a slope for the linear relationship between LNTPCB and each 1§ covariate, and a parameter for each combination of levels of interactions between discrete variables. Where interactions ^ between discrete variables and covariates are included in the model, a separate slope is estimated for each level of the discrete variable. Significance of effects were assessed by the F-value of the type III sum of squares associated with that effect (SAS, 1985); this assesses the contribution of each effect » after all other effects in the model have been incorporated. « Tests were made for each of the major species: brown trout, 4§ smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, yellow perch, white perch, brown bullhead and white catfish. Where species were caught at more than one station, tests were made both over all stations (with station as a variable) and for data from single stations. Tests for single stations were not done for some species and wdf stations with low sample sizes (e.g., brown bullhead, yellow perch, largemouth bass at Lake Zoar; brown bullhead at Lake

J lipid) over all observations. The least square means adjust for * the covariate effects and provide estimates of LNTPCB independent of the age composition or lipid contents within each set of samples. Where there were more than two levels for a treatment variable, multiple range tests were used to indicate significant differences between individual levels (e.g., between pairs of stations or years). Where the ANOVA or ANCOVA models indicated a significant station or year effect, the Tukey and/or REGWQ tests i (SAS, 1985) were used to define differences between pairs of 4} means (the honest significant difference in the Tukey procedure and the least significant difference in the REGWQ test); the two ^g tests generally gave identical results. These tests are normally done on treatment means. This would not adjust for differences in distribution of covariate values among treatment levels (e.g., differences in age composition of samples between stations or years), which were frequent in these data. To avoid this problem, ^ the least significant difference in the REGWQ test was used on « the least square means (which adjust for the covariate values) g| rather than on the treatment means.

Estimation of Mean PCS Levels in Specified Target Populations «

Specimens analyzed for PCB concentration were not random , samples of the fish populations in the wild: in addition to inherent biases in the various sampling techniques used, *i specimens were chosen to include a variety of sizes. As a result, larger, older specimens are probably over-represented in the 41 samples. The resultant sample means are not unbiased estimates of population means. For trend analyses, this problem is addressed by statistical estimation of age, sex and lipid effects, and comparison of year and station means after adjustment for these factors. It is also desirable to estimate population means. fg While one might want to use data on the age structure of the populations, such data are unavailable. In place of age, we used * * total length, which is correlated with age, as a basis for population stratification. The estimation has two parts, the estimation of proportions of the populations in various size classes, and the estimation of the PCB concentration associated with each size class.

Estimation of Size Structure of Populations

Estimates of proportions of individuals in 1-cm size classes were made from creel survey data taken by the Department of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut and from samples collected by ANSP. Proportions were made only over "fishable" sizes, i.e., fishes likely to be kept by fishermen. These also correspond to sizes used for PCB analysis. The minimum legal length at which smallmouth bass may be kept is 12-in total length (30.5 cm) in Connecticut. However, creel surveys indicate bass as small as 25 cm being kept in Lake Lillinonah; 24.51-25.5 cm was used as the smallest size .class for bass in Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar. Smaller bass are probably more likely to be kept at Bulls Bridge and Cornwall, because of the scarcity of larger bass at these sites (pers. comm. Ct. Dept. of Fisheries). The smallest size class was 24 cm (23.51-24.5) for Cornwall and Bulls Bridge. There is no legal minimum for keeping the other species studied; creel censuses indicate that white perch of 6 in (15.2 cm) were kept, — -, while smaller fish were released. The smallest size class for yellow perch, white perch, brown bullhead and white catfish was 14.51-15.5 cm (this corresponds to the minimum size of specimens analyzed for PCBs). For sunfish, the smallest size class used was * 9.51-10.5 cm. The Department of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut made & creel surveys in Lake Lillinonah in 1986, which provide information on the size distribution of smallmouth bass and white

— perch. Fisheries personnel made measurements (total length in cm) of fish kept by fishermen and recorded sizes (total length in inches) reported by fishermen of fish caught and released. 30

* Fishermen's data from each inch class were placed into several, cm classes, assuming a uniform distribution of sizes within the inch class. For example, the 10-in class was assumed to contain fish from 9.5 to 10.5 in ( 24.13 to 26.67 cm) long; fish in this class were placed in the 24 (i.e., 23.51 to 25.5 cm), 25, 26 and 27 cm size classes in proportion 0.37/2.54, 1.00/2.54, 1.00/2.54 and 0.17/2.54, respectively. Data on the size distribution of smallmouth bass at Cornwall in 1988 was provided by the Department of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut (T. Berry, pers. comm.). Size- frequency histograms were developed from electroshocking samples from three sites in the Cornwall vicinity (Pushemup, Swifts Bridge and Turnip Isle) . These samples contained 178 fish greater than 24 cm in total length. Fish collected by ANSP provided the second source of size information. By adding data on sizes of fish collected, but not analyzed for PCB, to the distribution of sizes among analyzed samples, the precision of the population estimates can be increased (a stratified estimate should differ from the mean LNTPCB concentration only if there are data on size distributions in addition to those from the specimens analyzed) . In 1984 and 1986, there were relatively few additional size data: more specimens were collected than needed for analysis, but no attempt was made to record size distributions in samples. In 1988, lengths were recorded for most specimens caught (for electroshocking, up to 50 specimens of each species per station per sampling site, and all fish caught in other gear), even those released. These data were used to form size distributions. For released fish, field measurements of total length were used. For fish preserved, measurements of total length taken in the laboratory after thawing were used. Because of shrinkage during freezing, field measurements may be greater than lab measurements; no attempt was made to assess or adjust for this difference.

31 Estimates of size distribution were made on most species m commonly encountered in order to compare distribution of fishes analyzed for PCB with the total sample caught.

* Estimation of LNTPCB Concentrations in Size Classes

* Th e LNTPCB concentration within size classes could be estimated from specimens analyzed within each size class, or from * predictions based on LNTPCB-length relationships. The first method would have the advantage of coming directly from the data H and of not depending on model assumptions about the shape of the LNTPCB-TL curve, etc. However, the estimates within each size class would have large confidence intervals, especially where few specimens were analyzed from a size class, and this method could not be used to estimate concentrations in classes from which no ** specimens were analyzed. The use of LNTPCB-TL regressions avoids these problems, but their use depends on the validity of the «* regressions. Because of the potential problems with both techniques, a hybrid estimation procedure was used. LNTPCB-TL ^g regressions were developed. For size classes from which some specimens were analyzed, the mean of the actual LNTPCB value and the predicted value from the regression was calculated for each * specimen; the mean of these was used as the estimated mean LNTPCB value for that size class. Where no specimens were analyzed from "i^fift a size class, the predicted value was used. Predictions were only developed for species-station-year combinations which had rt statistically significant LNTPCB-TL regressions and for which population size data were available. 0 For each species, ANCOVA models were developed, predicting LNTPCB values from station, year and total length (TL). Where station and year differences were not significant, linear regressions were done of LNTPCB values against TL over groups of years and stations. Where significant station and/or year ** differences were found, separate linear regressions of LNTPCB against TL were done for stations and years. The parameters of

* 32

4 the LNTPCB-TL regressions were used to predict LNTPCB values within size classes. As explained above, for size classes containing analyzed specimens, the predicted values were averaged with the average values to form mean estimates of LNTPCB within each 1-cm size class.

33 RESULTS

Sample Composition

Age distributions between the two (1984 and 1988) or three (1984, 1986 and 1988) years of analysis were generally similar (Table 3). However, the 1986 samples of brown trout and smallmouth bass from Cornwall were dominated by one or two age classes, while the 1984 and 1988 samples contained fish of a wider range of ages. Relatively few young white catfish were collected from Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar in 1988 in comparison to the other two years. Fewer brown bullheads were collected from Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar in 1988 than in the other years; the 1988 samples contained relatively fewer young fish and more older fish. A few old yellow perch were available from Bulls Bridge in 1984 and 1986; none were analyzed in 1988 (since there is little growth among older perch, older fish may have been present but not recognized and analyzed). Since relatively high concentrations of PCBs were noted mainly from these older fish in 1984 and 1986, this difference should affect comparisons of PCB concentrations among yellow perch. For other groups, the range of ages of fish analyzed in 1988 was similar or greater to that of the previous years of study. Variability in recruitment may lead to the occurrence of single strong year classes across a series of years. In 1984 and 1986, a strong 1980 year class of smallmouth bass was noted from Cornwall, Bulls Bridge and Lake Lillinonah, and of yellow perch from Bulls Bridge. The 1980 year class was also noted in the 1988 samples of smallmouth bass from Cornwall and of yellow perch from Bulls Bridge. The high proportion of 7-year old white catfish from Lake Zoar can be traced back to a relatively high proportion of 5-year olds in 1986, and the occurrence of a 3-year old in 1984. The occurrence of these year classes across several study years permits comparison of PCB accumulation among a single cohort of fish. 34 Table 3. Age distribution of specimens analyzed for PCB concen­ trations in 1984, 1986and 1988studies on the Housa­ tonic River, Connecticut, by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Station abbreviations are C (Cornwall), B (Bulls Bridge), L (Lake Lillinonah), and Z (Lake Zoar). Ages are in years. For brown trout, ages are years since stocking.

Species iSitei Year Aae 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 27 U TOT

Brown C 1984 23 5 4 3 - 1 36 Trout* C 1986 5 10 6 1 2 - - 24 C 19 7 6 3 1 - - 36 1988 _ Small- C 1984 - . 2 5 1-11321------16 mouth C 1986 - - 13 bass C 1988 - - - --121------­ - - 13 - -_ B 1984 1 5 - - 12 Small- - - 4-1------1-----­ mouth B 1986 4 - -611------12 bass B 1988 - - 5 1 31---111--1------14 m - _ -_ 10 14 - - 26 Small- L 1984 11------­ mouth L 1986 - 2 11 4 13-21---2------26 bass L 1988 1 1 12 - - 25 _ -_ _ 5-41-1------­ Small- Z 1984 7 13 211------24 * mouth Z 1988 2 8 1-22-1------16 bass - - - _ _ Large- B 1984 5 14 221------24 mouth B 1988 23 - - - 34 bass _ _« - - 6 Large- L 1984 - 2 1 3------mouth L 1988 10 1 2 12---1------17 - - bass _ _ Large- Z 1984 1 1 - _.. ------2 mouth Z 1988 -3 -4 2 1 2--11------­ 14 bass -

White L 1984 20 4 - - 24 perch L 1986 2 4 I 1-15------1 15 L - - 5 - - 11 1988 2 ---2------­ - — — 2 White Z 1984 _ ­ 8 16 - - 24 perch Z 1988 - 1 3 3 --112-1------12 - Yellow B 1984 2 2 7 112133---1------23 perch B 1986 — — 2 3 7 17-11--2--1------25 B 1988 - - 4 8 1315-1------23 - - - - - 3 Yellow L 1984 1 2---. . ------­ L 1988 2 - - 6 perch 1 -3------­ Yellow Z 1984 2 - - 2 perch Z 1988 1 -4--11------7 - - - - _ White L 1984 4 2 2 __-l_-_l---ll------12 catfish L 1986 — — 1 2 22--111-2---2------1 15 L 1988 - - 1 5221--1----2---11- - - 16 - - - - _ _ White Z 1984 — _ 2 1 ^ --12-1211-1------12 catfish Z 1986 1 2 311-1-12211------16 Z 1988 --82---2--413--1-- - - 21

35 Table 3 (continued). Age distribution of specimens analyzed for PCB concentrations in 1984, 1986and 1988 studies on the Housatonic River, Connecticut, by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Station abbreviations are C Cornwall), B (Bulls Bridge), L (Lake Lillinonah), and Z (Lake Zoar). Ages are in years. For brown trout, ages are years since stocking.

Species Site'. Year Aae 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 27 U TOT

Brown B 1984 --451------­ ­ ­ 2 1 2 bullhead B 1986 B 1988 --4-11------­ -­6 Brown L 1984 ----21------­ - 3 bullhead L 1988 ---l.-.-l-ll!------5 Brown Z 1984 --1-1------­ ­ -­2 bullhead Z 1988 -___1122------­- ­ -­6 Carp B 1984 __!____-__-___-_---_-­- ­ -­1 B 1988 --1-1------1----­ - ­ - 3 Carp L 1984 __-_!-_-____-_--_--_-­- ­ ­ _ i L 1988 --1---1------1----­ - ­ - 3 Carp Z 1984 __-_-___!_------­- ­ -­1 Z 1988 __------_---_l------l 1 -­3 Bluegill B 1984 ____2------­- ­ -­2 B 1988 38--2----1------­ ­ --41

Bluegill L 1984 ___2 ------­- - ­ - 2 L 1988 4 5 -11-1------­ - --48 Bluegill Z 1984 ---11------­ 2 Z 1988 6 0 ----1-1------­ - --62 Pumpkin- B 1988 4 6 --2------­ - --48 seed L 1988 7 __ 2 * ------­- ­ --9* Z 1988 22-1--1------­ - --24

Red- B 1984 ___2------2 breast B 1988 _____2------2 sunfish

Red- L 1984 ___2------2 breast L 1988 ---1*1------2 * sunfish

Red- Z 1984 --11------2 breast Z 1988 ---1--1-----T------2 sunfish Eel Z 1988 -_-__. i.-.-ll------3 * One hybrid pumpkinseed x redbreast sunfish included under both parental species. + River-age (number of years since stocking) indicated. PCS Concentrations

The raw data on PCB concentrations in the samples are m presented in Appendix A. Summary statistics on the various species and on selected subgroups are presented in Tables 4-6. Reported values are mg/kg wet weight of the fillet. These summaries must be interpreted carefully, since the age and size distributions of the samples differed in the three years. Summary * statistics for single age groups and cohorts are presented in Table 5, for groups in which a number of specimens from each age m or year class was collected in the different study years. The relationships between LNTPCB and age for each species- location combination are displayed in Figures 1-7. The relationship between PCB and age for each species-location combination (except sunfish and eels, for which few specimens were analyzed) are displayed in Figures 8-25. Because of the distribution of PCB values, the logarithm of (PCB) is used as the * dependent variable in these figures; the log-transformed PCB concentration is referred to as LNTPCB. A PCB concentration of 41 2.0 corresponds to an LNTPCB value of 0.69.

Differences in LNTPCB Between Stations and Years, and Relationship Between LNTPCB and Sex. Age and Lipid Content

M The summary statistics (Tables 4-6) and Figures 1-3 indicate major station differences, and the PCB-age graphs indicate •I significant PCB-age relationships. These differences are supported by the detailed ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses; these m analyses also indicate significant sex differences, lipid effects and year differences in some cases (Tables 7 and 8). Significant interaction terms were noted in some cases, such as age-station interactions (indicating differences in the slopes of the LNTPCB- age relationships), and station-year, station-sex and sex-year interactions (indicating non-additive effects for some combinations of the variables, i.e., the PCB concentrations for • * Table 4. Number of specimens analyzed, geometric means, and ranges of PCB concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) over 1984-1988 at four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut.

N and Geometric Mean Cornwall Bulls Br. Lillinonah Zoar ALL _ _ _ Brown trout 96 3.87 . . . 96 3.87 9 Rainbow trout 9 3.14 - - 3.14 Smallmouth bass 42 2.68 38— 1.9— 0 77— 1—.1 4 40 0. 50 197 1.28 Largemouth bass 35 1.31 13 0.75 9 0. 75 57 1.06 Brown bullhead 32 1.18 8 1.54 8 0.5 8 48 1.10 Carp 4 3.75 4 3.32 4 9. 46 12 4.90 Yellow perch 71 0.85 9 0.19 9 0. 12 89 0.60 Sunfish 11 0.95 10 0.33 10 0. 14 31 0.37 White catfish 43 3.44 49 2. 76 92 3.06 White perch -— -— 50 1.92 36 0. 87 86 1.38 Eel 3 0. 89 3 0.89 — — — — ALL 147 3.44 191 1.18 214 1.42 168 0. 89 720 1.45 Ranae Cornwall Bulls Br. Lillinonah Zoar ALL

Brown trout 0.35 -23.57 0. 35 -23 .57 Rainbow trout 2.32 - 4.29 2. 32-4 .29 Smallmouth bass 0.61 -13.62 0.73 - 5.73 0.36 - 7.28 0.01 - 2.14 0. 01 -13 .62 Largemouth bass 0.34 - 8.82 0.03 - 4.81 0.24 - 4.40 0. 03 - 8.82 Brown bullhead 0.39 - 6.41 0.46 - 4.13 0.30 - 0.94 0. 30-6 .41 Carp 1.10 - 9.91 0.77 -17 .26 2.91 -25 .68 0.7 7 -25 .68 Yellow perch 0.20 - 6.30 0.03 - 1.20 0.03 - 0.37 0. 03-6 .30 Sunfish 0.03 - 4.36 0.03 - 1.90 0.03 - 1.30 0. 03-4 .36 White catfish 0.80 -55 .00 0.79 -18 .05 0. 79 -55 .00 White perch 0.79 - 5.20 0.03 - 3 .87 0. 03-5 .20 Eel 0.25 "» 1 .82 0. 25-1 .82 ALL 0.35 -23.57 0.03 - 9.91 0.03 -55.00 0.01 -25.68 0.01 -55.00 Table 5. Summary of results of PCB analyses of fish from the Housatonic River, Connecticut, conducted by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia in 1984, 1986 and 1988. Fish were collected from four sites in the river: near Cornwall (C), at Bulls Bridge Reservoir (B), Lake Lillinonah (L) and Lake Zoar (Z). PCB refers to the total concentration of PCBs (in mg/kg wet weight). LN(PCB) refers to the logarithmic transformed PCB concentration (LN(PCB)=ln(PCB)). "sd" is the standard deviation of the LN(PCB) concentrations. Prop >2.0 indicates the proportion of specimens analyzed in which the PCB concentration was greater than 2.0 mg/kg. The means and standard deviations are not adjusted for age or other covariates which may be correlated with PCB concentrations. The age distributions of specimens differed between the years. For trout, rivage is the number of years since the fish were stocked in the river (e.g., fish of rivage 0.2 were captured in July or August of the same year in which they were stocked, fish of rivage 1.2 had held over a single winter). The 1980 cohort refers to fish born during 1980 (i.e., 4+ years old in 1984, 6+ in 1986 and 8+ in 1988).

39 Table 5

Species Site « of Fish PCB LN(PCB) PrOD>2. 0 Year: 88 86 84 88 86 84 88 (sd) 86 (sd) 84 (sd) 88 86 84

Brown trout C 36 24 36 5.69 6.81 3.44 1.64(0.43) 1.71(0.65) 0.83(0.93) 1.00 0.96 0.50 rivage=«0.2 10 5 23 3.83 3.49 1.64 1.32(0.22) 1.20(0.37) 0.31(0.64) 1.00 1.00 0.26 rivage-1.2 7 10 5 7.25 5.54 7.36 1.96(0.25) 1.64(0.41) 1.93(0.41) 1.00 1.00 1.00 rivage-2. 2 6 6 3 5.52 10.08 5.42 • 1.65(0.35) 1.99(0.94) 1.64(0.41) 1.00 0.83 1.00 9 - 1.14(0.22) ­ 1.00 Rainbow trout C - - 3.20 - - - Yellow perch B 23 25 23 0.99 0.82 1.34 -0.13 (0.52) -0.39 (0.63) 0.04(0.64) 0 0.04 0.13 females 18 13 17 0.87 0.63 0.86 -0.26 (0.49) -0.59 (0.53) -0.19 (0.29) O 0 0 males 5 12 6 1.44 1.03 2.69 0. 33(0. 30)-0. 16(0. 67) 0.68(0.93) 0 0.08 0.50 age ­ 4 8 7 7 0.97 0.76 0.97 -0.17 (0.56) -0.38 (0.50) -0.08 (0.35) 0 0 0 1980 cohort 5 7 7 1.29 0.91 0.97 0.21 (0.33) -0.23 (0.52) -0.08 (0.35) 0 0.14 0 6 -2.20(1.46) ­ -0.57(0.67) 0 0 Yellow perch L - 3 0.23 - 0.66 - Yellow perch Z 7 2 0.22 0.06 -1.92(1.14) ­ -2.74(0.11) 0 0 — — — White perch L 11 15 24 1.81 2.24 2.27 0.52(0.43) 0.67(0.54) 0.71(0.48) 0.45 0.47 0.46 females 9 8 18 1.76 2.00 2.16 0.47(0.47) 0.63(0.40) 0.69(0.42) 0.44 0.50 0.44 males 2 7 6 2.03 2.50 2.59 0.71(0.02) 0.71(0.70) 0.78(0.67) 0.50 0.42 0.50 age ­ 3 4 20 1.84 2.33 0.61(0.10) 0.72(0.51) 0.25 0.50 — — — -0.20(1.50) ­ -0.10(1.34) 0.17 - 0 White perch Z 12 - 24 1.49 - 0.96 White catfish L 16 15 12 5.64 8.38 6.54 1.24(0.92) 1.55(1.07) 0.84(1.19) 0.69 0.87 0.42 White catfish Z 21 16 12 4.28 3.15 2.73 1.22(0.68) 0.91(0.70) 0.80(0.64) 0.81 0.62 0.50 Brown B 14 6 12 2.02 1.83 0.79 0.43(0.86) 0. 48(0. 56)-0. 30(0. 40) 0.43 0.33 0 - bullhead L 5 - 3 1.68 - 2.37 0.18(0.92) ­ 0.86(0.09) 0.40 1.00 Z 6 2 0.68 0.42 -0.42(0.33) ­ -0.92(0.40) 0 0 — — — Smallmouth C 13 13 16 4.76 3.22 2.40 1.36(0.62) 0.97(0.72) 0.69(0.66) 0.92 0.69 0.62 bass females 6 5 6 3.88 1.44 1.36 1.29(0.38) 0.26(0.54) 0.14(0.63) 1.00 0.20 0.33 males 7 8 10 5.52 4.33 3.03 1.41(0.81) 1.41(0.35) 1.03(0.42) 0.86 1.00 0.80 1980 cohort 2 12 5 4.56 2.99 3.28 1.51(0.11) 0.90(0.70) 1.10(0.44) 1.00 0.67 1.00 [Table 5 cont]

Species Site 1 of Pish PCB LNfPCB+li Proo>2. 0 Year: 88 86 84 88 86 84 88 (sd) 86 (sd) 84 (Sd) 88 86 84

S. bass B 14 12 12 2.83 1.57 1.90 - 0.95(0.45) 0.34(0.49) 0.58(0.37) 0.79 0.42 0.50 females 11 6 5 2.65 1.14 1.88 0.89(0.44) 0.06(0.40) 0.57(0.41) 0.73 0.17 0.40 males 3 6 7 3.51 1.99 1.91 1.16(0.51) 0.62(0.43) 0.59(0.38) 1.00 0.67 0.57 . 1980 cohort • 6 5 •" 1.39 2.04 0.21(0.52) 0.69(0.24) 0.33 0.60 — — S. bass L 25 26 26 1.41 1.59 1.20 0.19(0.54) 0.12(0.76) 0.09(0.46) 0.12 0.23 0.08 females 7 13 9 0.98 0.99 1.01 -0.10(0.42) -0.08 (0.37) -0.10 (0.48) 0 0.08 0.11 males 18 13 17 1.57 2.20 1.30 0.30(0.54) 0.32(0.99) 0.18(0.43) 0.17 0.38 0.06 age=4+ 12 4 14 1.11. 1.04 1.17 0.02(0.46) 0.01(0.29) 0.06(0.46) 0 0 0.07 _ S. bass Z 16 24 0.97 0.50 -0.31(0.82) -0.93(0.92) 0.12 0 females 7 - 13 1.50 0.40 0.30(0.54) 0 -1.22(1.12) 0.29 - males 9 - 11 0.55 0.61 -0.79(0.68) -0.59(0.43) 0 0 age«4+ 8 - 13 0.94 0.42 -0.37(0.95) -1.15(1.11) 0 - 0 — —_ Largemouth B 11 24 2.55 1.35 0.61(0.85) 0.12(0.62) 0.45 0.21 bass - females 2 14 2.92 0.98 1.00(0.52) -0.15(0.51) 0.50 - 0.07 males 9 - 10 2.47 1.86 0.53(0.91) 0.49(0.60) 0.44 0.41 age-4+ 3 - 14 1.23 1.39 -0.05(0.85) 0.13(0.67) 0.33 - 0.21 — — 7* 6 1.38 1.32 -0.71(2.00) Largemouth L 0.20(0.41) 0.14 - 0.17 bass Z 7 - 2 1.36 0.42 -0.12(0.98) -0.87(0.02) 0.14 - 0 — 3 1 6.65 1.10 1.73(0.77) 0 Carp B - 0.10 1.00 - L 3 1 7.41 2.20 1.34(1.56) 0.79 0.67 - 1.00 Z 3 — 1 16.76 4.95 2.46(1.21) 1.60 1.00 1.00 — _- Sunfish B 7 4 1.60 1.22 -0.15(1.62) 0.13(0.46) 0.29 0 - 4 0.31 1.01 - L 6 - -1.77(1.40) -0.14(0.63) 0 0 Z 6 4 0.15 0.56 -2.41(1.22) -1.22(1.43) 0 - 0 — Eel - 1.20 -0.12(1.10) Table 6. Ranges of PCB concentations (mg/kg wet weight) for each station and year at four stations (C=Cornwall, B=Bulls Bridge, L=Lillinonah, Z=Zoar) on the Housatonic River, Connecticut.

YEAR Sta 1984 1986 1988

Brown trout C 0. 35 -14 .60 1.92 -23.57 2.60 -16 .70

Rainbow trout C 2.32 - 4.29

Sroallmouth bass C 0. 61 - 6.30 0.62 - 5.99 1.59 -13 .62 B 0. 88 - 2.90 0.73 - 2.79 1.01 - 5.73 L 0. 44 - 2.80 0.36 - 7.28 0.46 - 3 .67 Z 0. 01 - 1.10 0.14 - 2.14

Largemouth bass B 0. 34 - 2.80 0.52 - 8.82 L 0. 84 - 2.70 0.03 - 4.81 Z 0. 42 - 0.43 0.24 - 4.40

Brown bullhead B 0. 39 - 1.40 0.84 - 3.08 0.39 - 6.41 < L 2. 20 - 2.60 0.46 - 4.13 Z 0. 30 - 0.53 0.37 - 0.94

Carp B 1. 10 - 1.10 2.36 - 9.91 L 2. 20 - 2.20 0.77 -17 .26 Z 4. 95 - 4.95 2.91 -25 .68

Yellow perch B 0. 46 - 6.30 0.20 - 2.12 0.40 w 1 .90 L 0. 34 - 1.20 0.03 - 0.62 Z 0. 06 - 0.07 0.03 - 0.37

Sunfish B 0. 59 - 1.60 0.03 - 4.36 L 0. 52 - 1.90 0.03 - 0.90 Z 0.0 7 - 1.30 0.03 - 0.38

White catfish L 0. 80 -55 .00 1.12 -36.46 1.02 -24 .76 Z 0. 97 - 8.75 0.79 - 9.17 0.86 -18 .05

White perch L 0. 86 - 5.20 0.86 - 5.18 0.79 - 2.80 Z 0. 55 - 2.00 0.03 - 3.87 Eel 0.25 - 1.82 Table 7. Summary of results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of PCB data from 1984, 1986 and 1988 on 4 stations on the Housatonic River., STA indicates stations included in each model. "Var" is the dependent variable (either LNTPCB=ln(TPCB) or LLPCB=ln(LNTPCB+3.5)), R2 and p are the ,to . tal variance explained and p-value for models containing only significant terms. The remaining columns show the significance (Type III sums of squares) for discrete effects (station, year, and sex), covariates (age and lipid content), and interaction terms.

Species Sta Var R2 p Sta Year Sex Age Lipid Age* Age* Sta* Sta* Year* Lipid* Sta Year Year Sex Sex Sta

• Brown trout C LNPCB 0.58 0.0001 na 0.0001 ns 0.0001 0.014 na 0.0001 na na ns na rivagel C LNPCB 0.32 ns na ns ns ns 0.04 na ns na na ns na (riverage used in place of age; strain not significant) Saallmouth bass CBLZ LNPCB 0.59 0.0001 0.0001 0.0017 0.0001 0.0004 0.0012 ns ns ns 0.049 0.0033 ns CBLZ* LNPCB 0.62 0.0001 0.0001 0.0014 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 nt ns ns 0.0029 0.0037 ns 84, 88 only CBLZ* LNPCB 0.65 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.011 0.021 0.0093 nt nt nt 0.011 0.0027 nt CBL LNPCB 0.51 0.0001 0.0001 ns 0.0002 0.0002 0.0012 nt ns nt 0.055 ns 0.0003 C LNPCB 0.42 0.0001 na ns 0.0001 ns O.OOOB na ns na na 0.059 na B LNPCB 0.50 0.0001 na 0.0011 0.012 ns 0.0028 na ns na na ns na L LNPCB 0.26 0.0001 na ns 0.011 0.0001 ns na ns na na na na Z LNPCB 0.32 0.0026 na ns ns ns ns na na na na 0.0026 na Z* LNPCB 0.42 0.0002 na 0.0058 0.040 ns ns na ns na na 0.0002 na Brown bullhead BLZ LNPCB 0.52 0.0001 0.0005 ns ns 0.034 0.0001 na n« ns ns ns ns B LNPCB 0.53 0.0001 na ns ns 0.055 0.002 na ns na na ns na Largemouth bass BLZ LNPCB 0.63 0.0001 0.0067 0.018 ns 0.0004 0.0001 0.0052 ns ns na na na B LNPCB 0.59 0.0001 na ns ns 0.001 0.0002 na ns na na ns na L LNPCB 0.64 0.0057 na 0.029 ns 0.0028 ns na ns na na ns na White catfish LZ LNPCB 0.64 0.0001 ns ns 0.024 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 ns ns ns ns ns LZ LNPCB 0.64 0.0001 ns ns 0.053 0.0001 0.0003 ns ns ns ns na 0.0001 L LLPCB 0.77 0.0001 na 0.029 0.056 0.0001 0.0001 na ns na na na na Z LNPCB 0.44 0.0001 na ns 0.065 0.0001 ns na ns na na na na White perch LZ LNPCB 0.38 0.0001 0.0001 0.041 ns 0.0001 ns ns . ns ns ns ns ns 84,88 only LZ LNPCB 0.38 0.0001 0.0001 0.015 ns 0.0002 nt nt nt nt nt nt nt L LNPCB 0.079 0.051 na ns ns 0.051 ns na ns na na ns na Z LNPCB 0.22 0.015 na 0.062 ns 0.0043 ns na ns na na ns na Yellow perch BLZ LNPCB 0.84 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 ns 0.0001 ns ns 0.013 84,88 only BLZ LNPCB 0.85 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0016 0.0001 0.0012 0.0001 nt 0.0001 nt nt 0.034 B LNPCB 0.66 0.0001 na 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 na ns na na ns na ns means term not significant when other terms included in model. na means effect not applicable to data (e.g., station effect or station interaction on data from single station). nt means effect not tested in model. R2 and p are total model correlation and p value for model with only significant terms included. Z* One outlier removed from analysis Table 8. Multiple contrasts and least square means for significant effects in ANCOVA models. For significant station or year effects in ANCOVA models of LNTPCB, multiple contrasts were performed using the REGWQ procedure (SAS, 1985) on least square means for each station or year. Underlines join levels which are not significantly different (at an alpha level of 0.05) under the multiple contrast test. Least square means for each station, year or sex are shown below each level. These are the mean values of LNTPCB for each level after adjusting all significant covariate effects to the average for all individuals in the model. Least square means and residual variation (used in the REGWQ calculations) were calculated from the best ANCOVA model for each comparison containing only significant effects.

Species Sta Sta Year Sex

Brown trout C LNTPCB na 88 86 5J 1.66 1.51 1.08

rivage

rivage>l C LNTPCB na ns ns Smallnouth bass CBLZ LNTPCB 0.83 0.52 0.17 -0.61 0.44 0.17 0.078 0.42 0.040

CBLZ* LNTPCB C B L Z 88 86 84 M _£ 0.83 0.53 0.17 -0.53 0.45 0.19 0.12 0.42 0.089 * 84, 88 only CBLZ* LNTPCB 0.89 0.68 0.12 -0.,5 1 0.46 0.13 0.42 0.17

CBL LNTPCB c B L ns _H _£ 0.80 0.55 0.19 0.77 0.26

C LNTPCB na ns M _E 1.29 0.54

B LNTPCB na 88 84 86 _JJ _E 0.93 0.72 0.32 0.83 0.48

L LNTPCB na ns _H _£ 0.25 -0.066

Z LNTPCB na ns ns YEAR*SEX FSB M84 K88 F84 0.30 -0.59 -0.79 -1.22

LNTPCB na ti ~ 84_ £ __H— Z* -0.25 -0.76 -0.32 -0.69 YEAR'SEX F88 M84 M88 F84 0.30 -0.59 -0.80 -0.94

Brown bullhead BLZ LNTPCB 0.28 0.25 -0.65 B LNTPCB na ns ns

Largamouth bass BLZ LNTPCB B L Z ns [station diff »arg] 0.19 -0.15 -0.38 o7l4 -6.37 B LNTPCB na ns ns L LNTPCB na ns 0.48 0.96 Table 8 (continued). Multiple contrasts and least square means for significant effects in ANCOVA models. For significant station or year effects in ANCOVA models of LNTPCB, multiple contrasts were performed using the REGWQ procedure (SAS, 1985) on least square means for each station or year. Underlines join levels which are not significantly different (at an alpha value of 0.05) under the multiple contrast test. Least square means for each station, year or sex are shown below each level. These are the mean values of LNTPCB for each level after adjusting all significant covariate effects to the average for all individuals in the model. Least square means and residual variation (used in the REGWQ calculations) were calculated from the best ANCOVA model for each comparison containing only significant effects.

Species sta sta year

White catfish LZ LNTPCB ns 1.26 0.98

LZ LHTPCB ns 1.21 0.97

• L LLPCB 0.77 na 86 88 84 M F

0.42 0.36 0.14

LNTPCB 0.44 na ns M F (0.065) 1.11 0.80

White perch LZ LNTPCB 0.38 84 86 88 ns 0.55 -0.23 0.43 0.030 0.020 84,88 only LZ LNTPCB 0.38 0.57 -0.22 0.41 -0.052

L LNTPCB 0.1S na na ns

Z LNTPCB 0.22 na 84 88 ns (0.062) 0.08J -0.57

Yellow perch BLZ LNTPCB 0.82 B>L,Z 84,86>88 M>P

84,88 only BLZ LNTPCB 0.85 0.059 -0.63 -1.08 0.12 -1.23 -0.28 -0.82

LNTPCB 0.66 na 84 88 0.15 0.12 -0.47 0.18 -0.32

45 given levels of two variables was not equal to the sum of the effect associated with each variable singly). The mean PCB concentrations decrease downstream for most species in most of the years (Tables 4 and 5). The ANCOVAs indicate significant station differences for all species tested (smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, brown bullhead, white perch, yellow perch and white catfish) except white catfish (Tables 4­ 7). For white catfish, there were significant differences in covariate slopes between stations (indicated by the significant age-station or lipid-station interactions); either the LNPCB-age slopes or the LNPCB-lipid slopes differed between stations. These interactions indicate a steeper increase of PCB concentrations with age or lipid at Lake Lillinonah than at Lake Zoar. For the significant comparisons, the least square means also decreased downstream in all comparisons, except brown bullhead, for which the mean at Lake Lillinonah was slightly higher than that at Bulls Bridge. For smallmouth bass (all four stations) and white perch, (Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar) each station was significantly different from the others. PCB concentrations in yellow perch from Bulls Bridge were significantly higher than in yellow perch from Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar, and concentrations in brown bullhead from Lake Zoar were significantly lower. For yellow perch, there were significant age-station and station-year interactions in addition to the highly significant year term. The age-station interaction indicates that concentrations increased most steeply with age at Lake Lillinonah and least steeply at Lake Zoar. The station-year interaction indicates higher concentrations at Lake Lillinonah in 1984 and slightly lower concentrations at Bulls Bridge in 1984 than predicted by the station and year effects alone. Together, the station effect and interactions indicate decreasing concentrations downstream, with high concentrations among some older perch from Lake Lillinonah and from all perch from Lake Lillinonah in 1984. There was also a significant age-station interaction for largemouth bass (all 46 three stations), indicating the greatest increase with age at Bulls Bridge and the smallest increase with age at Lake Lillinonah. Differences between years were less evident and less consistent than the station differences. Significant year differences were seen in the ANCOVAs for brown trout, smallmouth bass (all stations combined, and Bulls Bridge), largemouth bass (all stations combined and Lake Lillinonah), white catfish (Lillinonah), white perch (both stations combined), and yellow perch (all stations and Bulls Bridge). For brown trout and smallmouth bass, concentrations were lowest in 1984 in most comparisons. Conversely, concentrations were significantly higher in 1984 for largemouth bass (all stations combined and for Lillinonah), and for white perch and yellow perch for all stations combined. The only significant age-year interaction noted was for brown trout, i.e., except for brown trout the slopes of the LNTPCB-age regressions were similar over the three study years. The significant age-year interaction for brown trout resulted from the differences in PCB concentrations in newly stocked trout over the three years, despite the similarity in concentrations among older fish. For the other species, the absence of significant age-year interactions shows the relative similarity of patterns over the three years. However, this may partly result from the relatively short period of study relative to the life span of the fishes. Since rates of uptake in younger fish in 1984 and 1986 would influence concentrations seen in older fish in 1986 and 1988, the slopes during 1984 and 1986 partly influence slopes in later years. Except for trout, virtually all the fish analyzed were 3 years old or older. As a result, the slopes of PCB-age models reflect uptake rates among older fish. Uptake rates during the early years of each fishes life are not reflected in the slopes, but in the main year effects (analogous to the intercepts of a linear regression). If uptake occurs predominantly in the early years, between-year

47 differences would be more apt to be detected as year effects than as year-age interactions. For • brown trout, concentrations in 1986 and 1988 were significantly higher than in 1984. This difference was entirely due to higher concentrations among trout stocked within the year (rivage less than 1): there was no significant difference among holdover trout (rivage greater than or equal to 1), while the difference was highly significantly among the newly stocked trout. This difference is analyzed in more detail below (see section on Uptake in newly-stocked brown trout). For smallmouth bass, 1988 concentrations were higher than those for the other years for all samples combined, and all three years were significantly different when the outlier was deleted. However, there was also a significant year-sex interaction. Furthermore, there was no significant year difference when Lake Zoar excluded (there were no smallmouth bass samples from Lake Zoar in 1986). When analyzed separately, there was a significant year difference only for Bulls Bridge and Lake Zoar (when the i outlier was deleted). For largemouth bass, 1984 concentrations were higher than 1988 concentrations for all stations combined and for Lake Lillinonah; there was no significant year effect for Bulls Bridge samples. 1984 concentrations were higher than 1988 concentrations for yellow perch as well (all stations combined, 1984 and 1988 only). Because of the unbalanced design, estimates of least square means could not be made for all three years and all stations combined. At Bulls Bridge, both 1984 and 1988 concentrations were higher than 1986 concentrations, but concentrations in 1988 and 1984 were not significantly different from each other. For white perch, 1984 concentrations were significantly higher than 1988 concentrations for all stations combined when 1986 was excluded from the analysis. Although there was a significant overall year effect for all three years, there were no significant pairwise differences.

48 For white catfish, there was no significant year effect for both Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar combined. For Lillinonah, there was a significant year effect for LLPCB (i.e., when a nonlinear LNTPCB-age relationship was modelled). Concentrations in 1986 were significantly higher than in 1984; 1988 concentrations were intermediate and not significantly different from either of the other years. Concentrations in males were significantly higher than concentrations in females for smallmouth bass (most comparisons), white catfish (weak or marginal significance) and yellow perch. Concentrations in males were higher than in females for a number of other comparisons, although these differences were not statistically significant. The difference is plausibly due to the loss of PCBs in eggs by females. Means were significantly higher for females than males for smallmouth bass at Lake Zoar; there was also a significant sex-year interaction in this case, with females from 1988 having the highest concentrations, females from 1984 the lowest, and males having intermediate concentrations. Age effects were significant for all species in most comparisons. However, for smallmouth bass, age effects were not significant for Cornwall, Bulls Bridge and Lake Zoar, although they were highly significant over all stations and at Lake Lillinonah. The lack of significance partly results from a low range of ages for some sets of samples. For example, virtually all smallmouth bass from Cornwall in 1986 were the same age. For brown trout, regressions were done using river-age (number of years since stocking, i.e., exposure time to PCBs) rather than true age. PCB concentrations also increased with lipid content in tests over groups of stations and single stations for brown trout, smallmouth bass (except from Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar), largemouth bass (except from Lake Zoar), white catfish (except from Lake Zoar) and yellow perch. Lipid was not significant for white perch in any comparison.

49 The average lipid content varied between species, and to a lesser extent, between stations (Table 9) . PCB data are often expressed relative to lipid content rather than wet weight. This may be useful in standardizing for differences in lipid, although it can create statistical problems if the measurement variance of lipid content is relatively high, and the standardization depends on the linear relationship between PCB and lipid. For purposes of comparison with other studies, PCB concentrations were calculated relative to lipid content by dividing TPCB by LIPID/100 (Table 10) . Variation in lipid-based concentrations was somewhat less than that between wet weight based concentrations, showing that differences in lipid content contributed to intraspecific and interspecific differences in PCB concentrations.

Comparisons of Single Cohorts or Acre Classes

For several species, sample sizes were sufficient to compare LNTPCB concentrations within single age classes or cohorts. This was done by one-way ANOVAs testing for year differences within stations and by ANCOVAs testing for year differences in models with lipid as a covariate. There was a highly significant between-year difference in LNTPCB concentrations among river-age 0 brown trout at Cornwall. Concentrations were significantly lower in 1984 than in 1986 and 1988; the latter two years were not significantly different. As noted in the previous section, this difference was entirely responsible for significant year differences in comparisons among all trout from Cornwall. Comparisons were made for 4-year-old yellow perch at Bulls Bridge and bass at several stations, and for 3-year old white perch at Lillinonah. One of five of these comparisons was weakly significant. There was a significant (p = 0.021) between-year difference for yellow perch at Bulls Bridge (1984 > 1988 > 1986), in a model with lipid as a covariate. Between-year differences were not significant for smallmouth and largemouth bass at Lake 50 Table 9. Average lipid content (%) of fillets of specimens analyzed for PCBs at four stations in the Housatonic River, Connecticut: Bulls Bridge (B), Cornwall (C), Lillinonah (L) , and Zoar (Z) . The column "AVE" is the average over all specimens of a species analyzed from each year.

STATION B C L Z AVE

EEL 1988 - 23.65 - 23.65 CARP 1984 1.50 10.50 6.80 6.27 1988 10.48 3.41 7.23 7.04 WHITE PERCH 1984 3.34 3.44 3.39 1986 5.16 5.16 1988 - 5.18 3.98 4.55 BROWN TROUT 1984 2.93 2.93 1986 3.79 3.79 1988 - 2.91 - 2.91 WHITE CATFISH 1984 3.18 2.32 2.75 1986 - 2.95 2.96 2.96

« 1988 2.16 1.98 2.06 BLUEGILL 1984 1.36 1.05 0.90 1.10 1988 2.17 1.11 0.58 1.38 SMALLMOUTH BASS 198 4 0.92 0.64 1.21 0.86 0.94 1986 1.33 1.03 0.86 1.02 1988 1.54 1.63 0.79 1.28 1.22 LARGEMOUTH BASS 198 4 0.80 0.93 0.67 0.82 1988 1.39 0.75 1.36 1.20 BROWN BULLHEAD 1984 0.66 1.50 0.72 0.81 1986 1.08 1.08 1988 1.03 0.50 1.12 0.94 REDBREAST 1984 0.73 0.56 0.62 0.63 SUNFISH 1988 1.17 1.02 1.17 1.14 RAINBOW TROUT 1988 - 0.95 - 0.95 YELLOW PERCH 1984 0.83 0.69 0.46 0.78 1986 1.02 1.02 1988 0.81 0.88 0.72 0.80

PUMPKINSEED 1988 0.79 0.94 0.85 0.84 0.80 PUMP X REDBR 1988 0.80 - SUNFISH — Table 10. Geometric means and ranges of lipid-based PCB concentration (ing PCB/kg lipid = TPCB/(LIPID/100)) from four stations (C=Cornwall, B=Bulls Bridge, L=Lillinonah, Z=Zoar) on the Housatonic River, Connecticut.

1984 1986 1988 ALL geom geom geom geom sta mean range mean range mean range mean range

Brown trout C 86.5 9.5 - 620.7 152.9 4*0.9 - 535.7 210 .6 98.9 ­ 518.2 138.4 9.5 ­ 620.7 Rainbow trout C 347 .2 192.0 ­ 726.3 347.2 192.0 ­ 726.3 Smallmouth bass C 327.0 48.0 - 1145.5 259.8 84.9 ­ 640.9 273 .1 107.7 ­ 2670.6 287.1 48.0 ­ 2670.6 B 206.4 104.2 - 416.7 109.9 65.4 ­ 185.4 177 .7 90.2 ­ 315.0 159.2 65.4 ­ 416.7 L 111.1 11.9 - 700.0 157.6 50.0 ­ 970.7 167 .3 45.4 ­ 946.9 142.6 11.9 ­ 970.7 Z 49.9 1.8 - 333.3 64 .1 16.8 ­ 257.3 55.1 1.8 ­ 333.3 Brown bullhead B 117.9 75.3 - 277.1 200.3 110.0 ­ 494.1 164 .0 43.4 ­ 411.6 151.4 43.4 ­ 494.1 L 157.6 143.8 - 173.3 254 .7 88.1 ­ 861.0 212.7 88.1 ­ 861.0 Z 56.8 52.6 61.6 64 .7 38.1 ­ 184.3 62.8 38.1 ­ 184.3 Carp B 73.3 68 .0 48.0 ­ 118.1 69.4 48.0 ­ 118.1 L 21.0 113 .3 21.1 ­ 662.5 74.4 21.0 ­ 662.5 Z 72.8 177 .7 26.6 ­ 679.3 142.6 26.6 ­ 679.3 Largemouth bass B 152.9 42.0 - 303.6 139 .8 36.4 ­ 447.8 148.4 36.4 ­ 447.8 L 151.4 76.4 - 323.5 67 .4 3.7 ­ 584.6 97.5 3.7 ­ 584.6 Z 66.0 48.6 90.2 79 .0 37.5 ­ 140.1 75.9 37.5 ­ 140.1

Sunfish B 126.5 28.1 - 263.2 74 .4 3.6 ­ 309.2 90.9 3.6 ­ 309.2 L 114.4 48.2 - 339.3 17 •8 2.9 ­ 74.6 37.7 2.9 ­ 339.3 Z 42.1 8.5 - 128.3 11 .4 1.8 ­ 72.5 19.3 1.8 ­ 128.3 Yellow perch B 129.0 57.0 - 851.4 75.9 22.2 - 322.2 115 .6 54.8 ­ 280.9 103.5 22.2 ­ 851.4 L 89.1 73.9 - 109.1 12 .8 3.1 ­ 82.5 24.3 3.1 ­ 109.1 Z 14.2 13.3 14.9 20 .5 4.0 ­ 55.6 18.9 4.0 ­ 55.6 White catfish L 83.9 29.3 - 1153.0 183.1 55.9 ­ 674.2 175 .9 46.0 ­ 1713.2 145.5 29.3 ­ 1713.2 Z 101.5 42.9 - 291.7 93.7 12.3 - 674.6 186 .8 31.7 ­ 408.8 129.0 12.3 ­ 674.6

White perch L 64.7 25.0 - 282.4 39.6 18.5 - 148.0 33 .1 16.1 ­ 79.2 48.4 16.1 ­ 282.4 Z 27.1 16.7 80.0 21 .8 0.6 ­ 86.3 25.3 0.6 ­ 86.3 Eel Z 3.8 1.0 ­ 9.0 3.8 1.0 ­ 9.0 Lillinonah (p > 0.17), for smallmouth bass at Lake Zoar (p = 0.12), or for white perch at Lake Lillinonah. Comparisons were made for the 1980 cohort (fish of age 4 in 1984, 6 in 1986 and 8 in 1988) for yellow perch at Bulls Bridge and smallmouth bass at Cornwall and Bulls Bridge. There was a marginally non-significant between-year difference for yellow perch (p = 0.063) and for smallmouth bass at Bulls Bridge (p = 0.067), and a non-significant difference for smallmouth bass at Cornwall (p = 0.12). In none of these comparisons was there a consistent increase in LNTPCB over the three years, as would be expected from purely age-dependent accumulation.

Uptake in Newly Stocked Brown Trout

As indicated above, different PCB concentrations were noted between years among newly stocked brown trout (river-age less than 1) . These may result from differences in stocking and collection dates. To test this, PCB concentrations were fit to a first-order model of uptake:

PCB(D) = A * (l-exp(-K*D)) (1) where PCB(D) is the concentration of PCB in fish tissue after time D, A is an asymptotic concentration, and K is a rate constant. This model may be derived from a simple model of water uptake (cf. Gobas et al., 1986):

dPCB/dt - kx*c - k2*PCB (2) where PCB is the concentration in fish tissue, C is the PCB concentration in water, and kj^ and k2 are uptake and excretion parameters. If C is constant and large enough relative to the amount of PCB in fish tissue so that depletion of water PCB by uptake can be ignored, this is equivalent to 53 PCB(D) = (C*k1/k2) * (l-exp(-k2*D)) (3)

This is equivalent to (1), with A= C*k1/k2 and K=k2. (If C is not constant, but varies around some mean, (1) may still approximate PCB(D) or a time average of PCB(D) , depending on the rate of

fluctuation of C relative to k]^ and k2.) Equation (1) may also describe uptake dynamics from water and food pathways. For example, suppose the fish feeds on a prey species which takes up PCBs through the water. The uptake by prey can be modelled by equations (2) and (3), so that

PRPCB(D) = (C*Pl/p2) * (1 - exp(-p2*D)) (4)

where PRPCB(D) is the concentration of PCB in the prey at time D

and PI and p2 are uptake and excretion parameters for the prey species. Note that PRPCB(D) is proportional to C. Under some conditions it may be valid to treat PRPCB(D) as approximately stable over time (e.g., stable age distribution of prey, or rapid approach of p*rey population to near asymptotic tissue concentration, or introduction of fish to system in which prey have been exposed and are near asymptotic tissue concentration). Then: PRPCB(D) = C * q (5) where q incorporates the prey uptake and excretion parameters and the extent of deviation from the asymptotic concentration. The uptake of PCB by the fish from the prey can be added to the model by adding a term to equation (2) corresponding to the rate of ingestion of PCBs from the prey:

dPCB/dt = kx*C + C*q*R*a - k2*PCB (6)

where R is the rate of ingestion of the prey and a is an assimilation ratio. If R and a are considered 'constant, the solution to equation (6) is identical to equation (1), where A =

C*(k1+q*R*a)/k2 and K = k2. This model is expected to be most 54 accurate over short time periods, for which the assumptions of constant prey tissue concentrations and constant water uptake, excretion, assimilation and feeding rates are most reasonable. This model could be extended to more complex and realistic ** situations (e.g., multiple prey species, prey species obtaining PCBs from water and food) with similar results: to the extent If that the PCB concentrations in prey species are relatively constant and proportional to C, uptake dynamics through water and ^ : food may be approximated by a first-order model. j Equation (1) was fit to data from newly stocked brown trout from the three years, using the time between collection and stocking as D. Stocking dates (R. Orcieri, pers. comm) were 29 May (1984), 22 April (1986), and 26 May (1988). Collection dates "** varied from 25 July in 1984 to 28 October in 1988. D varied from 56 to 154. Data were fit using least squares model fitting in SAS * (SAS, 1985). Best fit parameters were A = 8.02 and k2 = 0.0056. Mean PCB values and predicted values for the best fit are shown in Figure 26. Most of the observed data are close to the line, indicating that' much of the variation between years can be explained by differences in stocking date and sampling date. M Notably, the higher concentrations in newly stocked trout in 1986 relative to 1984 can be explained by the unusually early stocking 4 ' date in 1986 and the later sampling date. However, PCB concentrations of the August 1988 samples are higher than the 41 j fitted curve, indicating that these values cannot be explained by first-order uptake with the same uptake parameters as the other data. The 1988 results may have been due to unusual weather between May and August 1988: low flows and high water temperatures in spring and early summer were followed by high JM flows in late July.

«* Species Differences

* Within species, differences in PCB concentrations were related to age and/or lipid content for most species. a 55 Analogously, differences between species (cf. Figs. 4-6) could be related to interspecific differences in lipid content or age structure. Differences might also be related to other ecological or physiological differences, such as food (higher concentrations might be expected in piscivores or omnivores than invertebrate- feeders), habitat (higher concentrations might be expected in benthic species), growth rate, metabolic rate, etc. Interspecific differences in PCB accumulation were investigated by a series of ANCOVA models over all species within a station, with LNTPCB as the dependent variable. Several groups of independent variables were used:

1) Discrete variables separating species and trophic groups. Because of the small number of each species of sunfish analyzed, parallel models were run in which all sunfish were placed in a single group (the variable in these analyses is called SPECGRP) and in which sunfish species were kept separately (the variable in these analyses is called SPECCD). A discrete variable FOOD was defined to categorize species by typical feeding habits: fish-eaters (smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, white catfish), mixed fish- and invertebrate- eaters (white perch, yellow perch, brown trout greater than 30.5 cm in total length), omnivores (brown bullhead, eel and carp), and invertebrate-eaters (sunfish, rainbow trout, brown trout under 30.5 cm in total length). Models were run using species alone, using FOOD type alone, and using species and species nested within FOOD. Comparison of these models was used to determine the sufficiency of the food classification used to explain interspecific differences in PCB concentrations. The significance of species and/or food terms in models with other factors (age, lipid, etc.) was used to determine the sufficiency of the other variables to explain interspecific differences in PCB concentrations. 2) Year, sex. These were included because of their significance in a number of intraspecific ANCOVA models. 56 3) Age, size and growth rate variables. Models were run using one continuous variable associated with age, size and growth. Variables used were age (age in river for trout), total length, average annual growth rate (total length/age) and average annual logarithmic growth rate (LN(total length)/age). Interaction terms between the age/size/growth variable and species or food type were also included, fitting a separate slope for each species or food type. 4) Lipid content. Interactions between lipid and species or food type were also included.

Results of Interspecific Comparisons

As noted above, interspecific variation in lipid content (Table 9) accounted for some of the observed interspecific differences in PCB concentrations. The differences in PCB and lipid are roughly correlated: higher PCB concentrations were noted in carp, eel, brown trout, and white catfish, species with relatively high'lipid content, than in the basses, yellow perch or sunfish, which had lower levels of lipid. However, there were deviations. Brown bullhead, which had relatively low lipid content had relatively high PCB levels. White perch had high levels of lipid, but had lower PCB levels than white catfish or smallmouth bass at Lake Zoar. These inconsistencies may reflect other interspecific differences which affect PCB uptake: e.g., the longevity and piscivory of white catfish and smallmouth bass, and the benthic habitat of brown bullhead and white catfish might all lead to greater levels of PCB than would be expected from lipid content alone. Thus, it is possible that models incorporating lipid, age, and food habits may explain much of the interspecific differences in PCB concentrations. The interspecific comparisons indicate significant differences between species at all four stations in models with year, sex, age, and lipid terms (Table 11) . These significant species effects show that interspecific differences in PCB

' 57 Table 11. Comparison of ANCOVA models with LNTPCB as the independent variable, and various groups of dependent variables. Three different discrete variables were used to classify species: species (abbreviated as S) ; SPECGRP (abbreviated as G) is identical except that all sunfish are grouped together; FOOD (abbreviated as F) is a variable indicating typical food habits (fish­ eaters, fish and invertebrate eaters, invertebrate eaters, and omnivores); except for brown trout, all individuals of one species are in the same FOOD class. An x in an entry indicates that the effect was not included in the model; a - indicates that the p value was greater than 0.10. A *** indicates p-values less than 0.001, ** a p-value <0.01, * a p-value <0.05, and m a p-value between 0.05 and 0.10

Station R2 p (whole Species Year Se x Age Lipid Species Model model) Variable Interactio iI S Nunber and p Age Lipid Food _ Bulls 0,71 ** * S *** *** *** *** ** *** X 1 *** **» *** *** *** 0.66 S *** - X X 2 0.45 ** * s *** * *»* *** ** X X X 3 0.61 ** * G *** *** *** *** **» ** X 4 * *** ** •* - *** *** 0.57 G *** - X X 5 0.54 ** * G *** ** *** *** ** X X X 6 0.54 ** * F *** ** ** _* «** X 7 *** *** *** -*** *-* »* 8 0.63 F ** - 0.48 ** * F *** ** *** *** ** X X m 9 . • ** *** *** ** *** * 0.55 X - X 10 0.32 ** * X ** *** *** *** X X X 11 _ _ Cornwall 0.44 ** * SG ­ *** » *** *** X 1,4 4 0.44 ** * SG ­ *** *** « *** X X 2,5 **« *** - ** *• 0.35 SG m - X X X 3,6 0.46 ** * F ­ *** _ ** B ** X 7 *** *** - * - • ­ 0.42 F *** - X X 8 0.44 »* * X *** *** X 9 - - - * 0.32 ** * X **» - * *** X X X 10 - _ _ _ Lill. 0.74 ** * s *** * B «« X 1 0.72 ** * s •*** ** B * *»* X X 2 *** «** ** »•* X X r i 0.63 s *** X 3 0.70 ** * G *** * ** * *** * X 4 0.68 *• * G *** *** * *** *** X X S 0.65 ** * G *** *** ** *** X X X 6 0.56 ** • F m *** * * * X 7 0.71 ** * F B * B *** ** •- * * *** 8 0.64 ** * F *** •*» * *** * X X *** 9 *** *•* ** **» ** X 10 0.64 X B - 0.50 ** * X **• ** *** *** X X X 11 _ _ _ Zoar 0.76 »** s *» — * — X 1 0.73 ** « s *** * *** X X 2 - _ _ 0.67 *** s *** - **» - X X X 3 *** - - - 0.70 G * - B X 4 0.68 '** * G *** - *** - X X 5 - - - - 0.68 »* * G *** *»* X X X 6 - - _ 0.59 »* * F a B — * X 7 - - - 0.69 *** r B — ** 8 - 0.65 ** * F *** - —»*» —. —X X *** 9 0.67 ** » X - - ** X 10 - - - 0.52 ** * X B * «** -*** X- X X 11

58 concentrations cannot be explained wholely by interspecific differences in age structure and lipid content. However, * interspecific differences in age structure and lipid content do account for some of the differences in PCB concentrations: age m ­ and lipid effects are more highly significant when species terms are not included. Equivalently, type I sums of squares for these ^ terms are much higher than type III sums of squares. This was especially true for Lake Zoar, where most variables were highly significant using type I sums, but few were significant using j type III sums. (Type III sums of squares measure the influence of a variable after other variables have been included, while type I * sums include only some other variables; the variables included depend on the order of variables in the specification of the H model.) Models using only year, sex, age and lipid as independent ^ variables were highly significant, but they had lower R2 values than corresponding models which included species effects. For example, comparing models containing species effects, species-age * interactions and species-lipid interactions with models with no species effects or interactions (i.e., models 1 and 4 versus & model 11 in Table 11), R2 in models without species effects or interactions were 0.18 to 0.39 lower for Bulls Bridge, Lake H Lillinonah and Lake Zoar, and 0.12 lower for Cornwall. Comparing models with no interaction terms (i.e., models 3 and 6 versus 11 2 m in Table 11), R for models without species effects were 0.13 to 0.22 lower for Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar data, and 0.03 lower at Cornwall. The significant age-species and ' lipid-species interactions demonstrate differences in the slopes of the PCB-age and PCB-lipid relationships between species. * At Bulls Bridge, Lillinonah and Zoar, feeding group was not as good as species in accounting for intergroup differences in 2 m PCB concentrations. Models with FOOD had lower R , and FOOD was less significant or marginally significant than SPECCD or SPECGRP were in otherwise equivalent models. FOOD was highly significant when SPECCD-FOOD interactions were included. The order of _ 59 coefficients associated with each feeding group was not consistent between stations: for example, higher concentrations in fish-eaters than invertebrate-eaters were noted for Bulls Bridge and Lake Lillinonah, but not Lake Zoar. These results indicate that there were some consistent differences in PCB levels between different feeding groups, but there was much additional variation among species within the feeding groups. At Cornwall, FOOD was more significant than SPECCD. This is because the variation in PCB levels between holdover brown trout (classed as fish- and invertebrate-eaters) and newly stocked brown trout (classed as invertebrate-eaters) obscured species differences (and created a significant species-age interaction term), but reinforced FOOD differences. The results did not depend much on whether sunfish were treated as a single group (SPECGRP) or as separate species (SPECCD). However, models in which the sunfish were treated separately were markedly better at Bulls Bridge. Interspecific differences in PCB concentrations which are not related to age or lipid differences can be assessed by the least square means (Table 12), which estimate the mean value of a variable after adjusting covariate effects (here, age and lipid) to the mean value of the covariates over all specimens in the model. For these estimates, separate models were used for each station, so these estimates should be used to compare species within stations. Estimates were made from ANCOVA models with SPECGRP (sunfish treated as a single group), year, sex, age, lipid and age-SPECGRP interactions (i.e., model 3 in Table 11). Estimates were also made for models using SPECCD (i.e., model 1 in Table 11); except for sunfish, the results are very similar to those presented in Table 12, so these results are not presented. In general, the least square means were ordered similarly to the unadjusted, raw data; e.g., white catfish and brown trout had the highest concentrations, and sunfish and yellow perch had low concentrations. However, the differences in least square means among species were much less than those in the raw data (cf. Tables 4-6, Table 11). This also demonstrates the role of age and 60 Table 12. Least square means (LSMs) for species groups (SPECGRP) at each station in the Housatonic River. The LSMs are the estimated mean LNTPCB for a species at a station, at the mean age and lipid content for all specimens from that station. LSMs are estimated from ANCOVA models including SPECGRP, year, sex, age, lipid and age-SPECGRP interactions, 'ne' indicates that the LSM is non-estimable, because of unbalanced design of the data (e.g., only one year's data for rainbow trout and eel) .

SPECIES GROUP Cornwall Bulls Lilli­ Zoar Bridge nonah

Brown trout 1.76 Rainbow trout ne ­ ­ - Smallmouth bass 1.09 0.58 0.30 -0.32 Largemouth bass ­ 0.34 0.08 0.22 Brown bullhead ­ 0.47 0.47 -0.33 Yellow perch ­ -0.02 -1.03 -1.83 White catfish ­ ­ 0.71 0.63 White perch ­ ­ 0.57 0.22 Sunfish ­ -0.21 -1.69 -1.65 Carp ­ -1.99 0.60 0.47 Eel ' ­ ­ ­ ne

61 lipid differences in creating the interspecific differences in PCB concentrations. The least square means indicate roughly similar PCB accumulation among smallmouth bass, largemouth bass and brown bullhead at Bulls Bridge, with lower levels in yellow perch, sunfish and carp. At Lake Lillinonah, smallmouth bass, brown bullhead, white catfish, white perch and carp were roughly similar, largemouth bass were intermediate, and yellow perch and sunfish had lower levels. At Lake Zoar, largemouth bass, white perch, white catfish and carp had roughly similar levels, smallmouth bass and brown bullhead were similar and intermediate, and yellow perch and sunfish had lower levels. Analogous regressions were done using total length (TL in cm) , the average growth rate (TL/age) and the average logarithmic growth rate (ln(TL)/age). In general, TL was significant, but did not perform as well as age in comparable models (i.e., R2 was not as high in models with TL, and the significance of TL was not as great). This indicates that time of exposure was a better predictor of PCB accumulation than total growth (which could be considered a measure of metabolism or total food intake). The average growth rate and average logarithmic growth rate were highly significant in various models containing species, year, sex and lipid effects. However, the slopes of the LNTPCB-growth rate relationships were predominantly negative. This does not support the hypothesis that species with higher annual growth rates (e.g., with higher metabolic or feeding rates) accumulate more PCBs. The significant negative slopes are probably a statistical artifact of the method of calculating the growth variables. These variables were calculated by dividing TL or ln(TL) by age, so that an inherent negative correlation between these variables and age would be expected. Since LNTPCB is positively correlated with age, negative correlations between LNTPCB and the two rate variables would be expected.

62 PCB-Lenqth Relationships and Estimates of Population PCB Means f* Analyses of PCB-size relationships generally showed that age was a better predictor of PCB than length. However, modelling PCB-length relationships can be useful:

^ 1) To compare the results of this study with other studies in which age determinations were not made; 4l 2) To make inferences about the population means of PCBs from the i sample data. Information on the size structure of the fish - populations or of fishermen's catches is available from creel surveys, surveys by the Connecticut Department of Fisheries, ^ and from data on fish captured in this study but not analyzed. Analogous age data are lacking. Therefore, length is the only variable for which data are available which allow size­ * stratified estimates of PCB concentrations in the wild or in the fishery catch.

* Length-stratified estimates of mean population PCB

— concentrations were made by weighting estimates of mean LNTPCB concentration within 1-cm size classes by estimates of the proportion of that size class among the "fishable" population mflf (Table 13; see methods section for estimation procedures). Estimates of mean LNTPCB concentration were derived from

SPECIES STATION YEAR SOURCE POPULATION SAMPLE OF ESTIMATES DATA DATA PCB LNTPCB NP LNTPCB NS

Brown Trout Cornwall 1988 ANSP 4.95 1.60 46 1.64 36

ON Smallmouth bass Lillinonah 1986 Analyzed fish ANSP 3.06 1.11 26 0.12 26 Angl ers ' catchfis: h kept CT 1.16 0.15 53 0.12 26 Anglers' catch: all fish CT 0.75 -0.29 240 0.12 26 Largemouth bass Bulls Bridge 1988 ANSP 1.49 0.40 26 0.61 11 Lillinonah 1988 ANSP 0.47 -0.76 40 -0.71 7 Zoar 1988 ANSP 0.93 -0.07 25 -0.12 7 White catfish Lillinonah 1988 ANSP 2.99 1.10 25 1.24 16 Zoar 1988 ANSP 3.28 1.19 35 1.22 21 White perch Lillinonah 1988 ANSP 1.90 0.64 225 0.52 11 Yellow perch Lillinonah 1988 ANSP 0.11 -2.18 24 -2.20 6 species, In(weight)-age relationships were slightly poorer than analogous total length-age relationships, so that length would be expected to be a slightly better surrogate for age and predictor of PCS concentrations. * Population Distributions *> Comparisons of length-frequency distributions among creel

—. samples, population samples and among analyzed fish are shown in i Tables 14-24. The decision to analyze a few specimens from the entire range of fishable sizes is reflected in the more even rf distribution of sizes among analyzed fish than fish caught (cf., yellow perch and largemouth bass in Tables 19 and 21) . Typically, * fewer fish of modal sizes were analyzed than caught, while most large fish caught were analyzed, leading to higher proportions of 01 the larger fish and lower proportions of modal sizes among analyzed fish. In a few cases, some intermediate modes were "overanalyzed" relative to their abundance, while slightly smaller modes were "underanalyzed". This is seen in smallmouth bass from Lake Lillinonah in 1988 (27-29 cm fish over-represented * an d25-26 cm fish under-represented in samples), largemouth bass from Bulls Bridge in 1988 (32 cm fish over-represented, 27 cm «4 fish underrepresented) and white perch from Lake Zoar in 1988 (24-25 cm fish over-represented in samples, 22-23 cm fish 40. underrepresented) . For carp (Table 24), the very largest and J smallest fish were not analyzed. Intermediate-sized carp were analyzed only at Bulls Bridge; only large fish were analyzed from Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar. The sunfish analyzed (Tables 22 and 23) were a good sample of fish over 15 cm in length. However, ^ M smaller fish commonly occur and are probably caught by fishermen. There were clear differences between the distribution among «H , analyzed fish and fishermens' catches (Tables 17 and 18). For smallmouth bass at Lake Lillinonah in 1986, fishermens's catches jg contained fewer 27-28 cm fish than analyzed, but more 32-39 cm fish (in fact, no 34-39 cm fish were collected by ANSP). However, 65 Table 14. Comparison of age or size distributions -of brown trout at Cornwall used for PCB analysis and estimates of the distributions in the population at large and in the anglers' catch in 1986. Information on the population at large and the anglers' catch is derived from data collected by the Departement of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut. Classes represent fish stocked in a different year as distinguished by size distributions. The proportions in the samples are determined from known ages determined from tags.

Class II III IV V VI VII

Ave length in 21.1 28.7 33.0 35.8 39.6 42.9 46.5 Ct. samples (cm) Proportion in 0.386 0.340 0.196 0.063 0.012 0.002 0.0006 population (1986) Proportion in 1986 0.47 0.516 0.014 anglers' catch

Proportion in 1984 0.72 0.14 0.083 0.056 0.0 0.0 0.0 samples

Proportion in 1986 0.25 0.46 0.17 0.042 0.083 0.0 0.0 samples

Proportion in 1988 0.53 0.19 0.17 0.083 0.028 0.0 0.0 samples Table 15. Distribution of sizes of brown trout collected from the Housatonic River at Cornwall in 1988, and of brown trout analyzed from Cornwall in 1984, 1986 and 1988.

YEAR Total length 1984 1986 1988 1988 cm samp samp catch samp

16.51 TO 17.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.51 TO 18.5 2.8 0.0 10.9 8.3 18.51 TO 19.5 0.0 0.0 10.9 5.6 19.51 TO 20.5 2.8 0.0 13.0 11.1 20.51 TO 21.5 5.6 4.2 10.9 13.9 21.51 TO 22.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 8.3 22.51 TO 23.5 8.3 4.2 2.2 2.8 23.51 TO 24.5 13.9 8.3 0.0 0.0 24.51 TO 25.5 16.7 4.2 2.2 2.8 25.51 TO 26.5 8.3 12.5 0.0 0.0 26.51 TO 27.5 5.6 8.3 0.0 0.0 27.51 TO 28.5 5.6 12.5 2.2 2.8 28.51 TO 29.5 2.8 16.7 4.4 2.8 29.51 TO 30.5 11.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 30.51 TO 31.5 2.8 4.2 4.4 2.8 31.51 TO 32.5 8.3 4.2 4.4 5.6 32.51 TO 33.5 2.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 33.51 TO 34.5 0.0 0.0 8;7 11.1 34.51 TO 35.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 35.51 TO 36.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.6 36.51 TO 37.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.8 37.51 TO 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.51 TO 39.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.6 39.51 TO 40.5 0.0 4.2 4.4 5.6 40.51 TO 41.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.8 41.51 TO 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * 42.51 TO 43.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 J 0.0 43.51 TO 44.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.51 TO 45.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.51 TO 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.51 TO 47.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0

Median length 25 28 22 25

Number of fish 36 24 46 36

*

* 67 Table 16. Distribution of total lengths of smallroouth bass in samples and catches from four stations on the Housatonic River from 1988. Cornwall catch data are from surveys by the State of Connecticut. Other data are from ANSP samples.

Total Length Percentage in each size class (cm) C C B B L L Z catch samp catch samp catch samp catch san (CT)

23.5 - 24.51 6.7 7.7 0.0 0.0 — •w ••• — 24.5 - 25.51 13.5 23.1 20 .0 21 .4 2.4 0.0 18.8 18. 25.5 - 26.51 10.7 0.0 6.7 7.1 7.1 8.0 6.3 6. 26.5 - 27.51 10.1 15.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 4.0 12.5 12. 27.5 - 28.51 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 4.0 0.0 0. 28.5 - 29.51 7.9 7.7 20 .0 21 .4 16.7 4.0 6.3 6. 29.5 - 30.51 7.9 15.4 0.0 0.0 9.5 12.0 0.0 0. 30.5 - 31.51 7.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 14.3 20.0 0.0 0. 31.5 - 32.51 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.0 12.5 12. 32.5 - 33.51 2.2 7.7 13 .3 14 .3 4.8 8.0 6.3 6. 33.5 - 34.51 1.1 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 34.5 - 35.51 0.6 7.7 6.7 7.1 4.8 8.0 0.0 0. 35.5 - 36.51 0.6 7.7 6.7 7.1 4.8 8.0 0.0 0. 36.5 - 37.51 •o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 8.0 6.3 6. 37.5 - 38.51 0.0 0.0 6.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 12.5 12. 38.5 - 39.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 39.5 - 40.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 40.5 - 41.51 0.0 0.0 6.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.3 6. 41.5 - 42.51 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 8.0 0.0 0. 42.5 - 43.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 43.5 - 44.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O 0. 44.5 - 45.51 0.0 0.0 6.7 7.1 2.4 4.0 6.3 6. 45.5 - 46.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 46.5 - 47.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 47.5 - 48.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.

Median size 29 29 33 29 30 31 32 32 Number of 178 13 15 14 42 25 16 16 fish

68 Table 17. Comparison of size distributions of specimens of smallmouth bass from Lake Lillinonah analyzed for PCB with estimates of the anglers' catch. Data on anglers'catch are derived from a creel survey performed by the Department of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut.

Total 1984 1986 1986 1988 1988 Length ANSP ANSP Analers' Catch ANSP ANSP (cm) samples samples Fish kept All fish* catch samples

25 11.5 0.0 5.7 11.7 2.4 0.0 26 15.4 3.8 0.0 10.0 7.1 8.0 27 11.5 15.4 3.8 7.0 7.1 4.0 28 7.7 15.4 5.7 6.8 14.3 4.0 29 7.7 7.7 0.0 6.1 16.7 4.0 30 0.0 7.7 7.5 10.6 9.5 12.0 31 19.2 15.4 13.2 12.1 14.3 20.0 32 7.7 7.7 11.3 7.6 2.4 4.0 33 3.8 3.8 7.5 5.3 4.8 8.0 34 7.7 0.0 11.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 O-. 35 0.0 0.0 11.3 5.6 4.8 8.0 36 3.8 0.0 7.5 4.6 4.8 8.0 37 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.7 4.8 8.0 38 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 42 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 8.0 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 45 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 2.4 4.0 46 3.8 7.7 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 47 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Median 29 30 33 30** 30 31 No. of fish 26 26 53 240 42 25 * Proportions are those among the fishery catch greater than or equal to 25 cm in total length; 76.7% of the fishery catch was greater than or equal to 25 cm, while 23.3% was 14-24 cm in size. ** Median is over fish greater than or equal to 25 cm. The median for all fish caught was 28 cm. Table 18. Distribution of total lengths of white perch in specimens analyzed for PCB (1984, 1986 and 1988 samples), in a creel survey performed by the Department of Fisheries of the State of Connecticut (Anglers' catch), and among subsamples of fish captured (including fish released) during 1988 sampling (1988 Lake Lillinonah [Lill] catch and 1988 Lake Zoar catch).

1984 1986 1986 Lill 1988 1988 1988 1988 Lill Lill Anglers * Catch Lill Lill Zoar Zoar samples samples Fish kept All fish" catch samp catch samp

14.5 ^ 15.5 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.89 0.0 0.0 8.3 15.5 - 16. 51 0.0 0.0 7.8 8.5 1.33 0.0 7.5 0.0 16.5 - 17.5 1 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.3 0.44 0.0 13.7 0.0 17.5 - 18. 51 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.6 1.78 0.0 8.1 16.7 18.5 - 19. 51 0.0 0.0 8.8 6.3 6.22 36.4 8.7 8.3 19.5 - 20. 51 8.3 6.7 9.8 7.9 2.67 9.1 14.9 16.7 20.5 - 21. 51 12.5 6.7 23.5 16.7 8.0 9.1 25.5 8.3 21.5 - 22. 51 8.3 13.3 15.7 12.4 21.78 9.1 15.5 8.3 22.5 23. 51 0.8 26.7 4.9 6.3 31.11 9.1 4.4 8.3 — 23.5 - 24. 51 25.0 13.3 8.8 8.4 15.56 9.1 1.2 16.7 24.5 - 25.5 1 8.3 6.7 6.9 7.5 5.78 9.1 0.0 0.0 25.5 - 26. 51 12.5 13.3 4.9 5.9 4.00 9.1 0.6 8.3 26.5 - 27. 51 4.2 6.7 1.0 4.5 0.44 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 28. 51 0.0 6.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 - 29.5 1 29.5 - 30. 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 31. 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 - 32.5 1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 — 32.5 - 33. 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Median length 23 22 20 21** 23 21 20 20 Number of fish 24 15 102 204 225 11 161 12 Proportions are those among the fishery catch greater than or equal to 15 cm in total length; 88.8% of the fishery catch was greater than or equal to 15 cm, while 12.2% was 9-14 cm in size. ** Only fish greater than 14.5 cm are included in the tabulation and used in calculating the median; the median over all specimens is 20 cm. Table 19. Distribution of lengths of yellow perch in samples and in catches of yellow perch from three stations on the Housatonic River in 1988.

Total length Percentaae of fish in size class cm B B L L Z Z catch samp catch samp catch samp

14.5 - 15.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 - 16.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 - 17.51 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 17.5 - 18.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 18.5 - 19.51 0.0 0.0 8.3 16.7 4.6 14.3 19.5 - 20.51 2.0 4.3 4.2 16.7 13.6 14.3 20.5 - 21.51 4.1 8.7 4.2 0.0 18.2 14.3 21.5 - 22.51 4.1 4.3 8.3 16.7 18.2 14.3 22.5 - 23.51 4.1 0.0 45.8 33.3 22.7 14.3 23.5 - 24.51 8.2 8.7 16.7 16.7 4.6 14.3 24.5 - 25.51 10.2 8.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 - 26.51 10.2 8.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 14.3 26.5 - 27.51 8.2 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 - 28.51 12.2 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 - 29.51 12.2 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 - 30.51 14.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 - 31.51 4.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 - 32.51 ' 6.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 - 33.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Median length 27 27 23 22 22 22 Number of fish 49 23 24 6 22 7

71 Table 20. Distribution of total lengths of white catfish from samples and catches from two stations on the Housatonic River in 1988. No fish smaller than 24.5 cm were caught.

Total length (cm) Percentage at each station L L Z Z catch samp catch catch

24.5 w 25. 51 4.0 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 25.5 - 26. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 26.5 - 27. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 27.5 - 28. 51 4.0 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 28.5 - 29. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 29.5 - 30. 51 4.0 0. 0 0. 0 14. 3 30.5 - 31. 51 4.0 0. 0 8. 6 0. 0 31.5 - 32. 51 4.0 6. 3 0. 0 6. 4. 8 32.5 - 33. 51 8.0 3 11. 4 33.5 - 34. 51 8.0 6. 3 11. 4 4. 8 34.5 35. 51 16 .0 12. 5 8. 6 9. 5 — 3 4. 8 35.5 - 36. 51 8.0 6. 8. 6 5 6 9. 5 36.5 - 37. 51 12 .0 12. 8. .0 0 0. 0 0. 0 37.5 - 38. 51 0 0. 4. 8 38.5 - 39. 51 0.0 0. 0 8. 6 .0 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 39.5 - 40. 51 4 0 40.5 - 41. 51 4.0 6. 3 5. 7 0. 8 41.5 - 42. 51 4.0 0. 0 2. 9 4. 42.5 - 43. 51 0.0 0. 0 8. 6 14. 3 43.5 - 44. 51 4.0 6. 3 8. 6 14. 3 0. 0. 0 0. 0 44.5 - 45. 51 0.0 0 45.5 - 46. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 46.5 47. 51 4.0 6. 3 2. 9 4. 8 47.5 - 48. 51 0.0 0. 0 5. 7 9. 5 - 48.5 - 49. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 49.5 - 50. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 50.5 - 51. 51 4.0 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 51.5 52. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 52.5 - 53. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 - 53.5 - 54. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 54.5 - 55. 51 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 55.5 - 56. 51 4.0 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 Median length 35 37 37 39 Number of fish 25 16 35 21

72 Table 21. Distribution pf total length among samples and catches of largemouth bass from three stations on the Housatonic River in 1988.

Total length Percentaae at each station cm B B L L Z Z catch samp catch samp catch samp

22.5 ­ 23.51 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 ­ 24.51 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 ­ 25.51 3.9 9.1 2.5 14.3 4.0 0.0 25.5 ­ 26.51 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 ­ 27.51 15.4 0.0 5.0 0.0 8.0 28.6 27.5 ­ 28.51 7.7 9.1 2.5 14.3 4.0 0.0 28.5 ­ 29.51 3.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 ­ 30.51 3.9 0.0 10.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 30.5 ­ 31.51 7.7 9.1 2.5 0.0 8.0 14.3 31.5 ­ 32.51 7.7 18.2 10.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 32.5 ­ 33.51 3.9 9.1 7.5 14.3 8.0 0.0 33.5 ­ 34.51 7.7 9.1 2.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 34.5 ­ 35.51 3.9 9.1 2.5 0.0 8.0 14.3 35.5 ­ 36.51 3.9 9.1 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.5 ­ 37.51 3.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 37.5 ­ 38.51 0.0 0.0 7.5 14.3 4.0 14.3 38.5 ­ 39.51 • 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 39.5 ­ 40.51 3.9 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 ­ 41.51 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 41.5 ­ 42.51 3.9 9.1 2.5 14.3 8.0 0.0 42.5 ­ 43.51 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 12.0 14.3 43.5 ­ 44.51 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.5 ­ 45.51 0.0 0.0 2.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 45.5 ­ 46.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 46.5 ­ 47.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.5 ­ 48.51 3.9 9.1 0.0 0.0 4.0 14.3 48.5 ­ 49.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Median length 32 33 32.5 33 35 35

Number of fish 26 11 40 7 25 7

73 Table 22. Size distribution of sunfish (bluegill, redbreast sunfish, pumpkinseed, and pumpkinseed x redbreast sunfish) in samples at three stations in the Housatonic River in 1988. Only sunfish greater than 9.5 cm in total length are included in the tabulation.

Total length (cm) Percentacre in class B B L L Z Z catch samp catch samp catch samp

9.51 ­ 10.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 10.51 ­ 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 11.51 ­ 12.5 2.3 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 12.51 ­ 13.5 2.3 0.0 11.3 0.0 7.9 0.0 13.51 ­ 14.5 4.7 0.0 13.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 14.51 ­ 15.5 23.3 14.3 17.7 16.7 11.9 16.7 15.51 ­ 16.5 25.6 28.6 6.5 16.7 23.8 0.0 16.51 ­ 17.5 14.0 0.0 27.4 16.7 9.9 16.7 17.51 ­ 18.5 14.0 28.6 8.1 0.0 3.0 16.7 18.51 ­ 19.5 9.3 14.3 9.7 33.3 2.0 16.7 19.51 ­ 20.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 16.7 3.0 16.7 20.51 ­ 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 16.7 21.51 ­ 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 22.51 ­ 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.51 ­ 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.51 ­ 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.51 ­ 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.51 ­ 27.5 2.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Median length 16 18 17 18 15 18.5

Number of fish 43 7 62 6 101 6

74 Table 23. Size distribution of bluegill (B) , redbreast sunfish (RS), and pumpkinseed (P), in samples at three stations in the Housatonic River in 1988. One pumpkinseed x redbreast sunfish (total length = 18.8 cm) is not included. Only sunfish greater than 9.5 cm in total length are included in the tabulation.

Total length B B P P RS RS cm catch samp catch samp catch samp

9.51 ­ 10.5 10.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 10.51 ­ 11.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 11.51 ­ 12.5 10.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 12.51 ­ 13.5 5.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 7.6 0.0 13.51 ­ 14.5 5.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 12.6 0.0 14.51 ­ 15.5 15.0 28.6 15.2 20.0 16.8 0.0 15.51 ­ 16.5 5.0 0.0 19.6 40.0 23.5 20.0 16.51 ­ 17.5 10.0 0.0 17.4 20.0 17.6 20.0 17.51 ­ 18.5 5.0 14.3 8.7 0.0* 6.7 0.0* 18.51 ­ 19.5 15.0 14.3 2.2 20.0 3.4 60.0 19.51 ­ 20.5 10.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 20.51 ­ 21.5 2.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.51 ­ 22.5 2.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.51 ­ 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.51 ­ 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.51 ­ 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.51 ­ 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.51 ­ 27.5 2.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Median length 16 19 16 16 16 18.5

Number of fish 40 7 46 5 119 5 * Hybrid pumpkinseed x redbreast sunfish not included in tabulation.

75 Table 24. Size distribution of carp in 1988 collections (catch) and among fish analyzed for PCBs (samp) in 1984 and 1988. Because few individuals were analyzed, the sample column conatins markers for individual specimens coded by station (B — Bulls Bridge, L = Lillinonah, Z = Zoar) and year (84 = 1984, 88 = 1988) .

1988 1988 1988 1984-1988 Total length B L Z BLZ cm catch catch catch samp

16.51 TO 17.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 17.51 TO 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.51 TO 29.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 29.51 TO 30.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 30.51 TO 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.51 TO 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.51 TO 33.5 7.4 0.0 0.0 33.51 TO 34.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.51 TO 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.51 TO 36.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 B84 36.51 TO 37.5 14.8 0.0 0.0 B88 37.51 TO 38.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 38.51 TO 39.5 7.4 0.0 0.0 39.51 TO 40.5 14.8 0.0 0.0 40.51 TO 41.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 41.51 TO 42.5 7.4 8.3 0.0 L88 42. 51 'TO 43.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.51 TO 44.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 44.51 TO 45.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.51 TO 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.51 TO 47.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 47.51 TO 52.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.51 TO 53.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 53.51 TO 54.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 54.51 TO 55.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.51 TO 56.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.51 TO 57.5 3.7 8.3 0.0 L88 57.51 TO 58.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Z84 58.51 TO 59.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 59.51 TO 60.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 L84 60.51 TO 61.5 0.0 16.7 0.0 61.51 TO 62.5 3.7 0.0 14.3 Z88 62.51 TO 63.5 7.4 0.0 0.0 B88 B88 63.51 TO 64.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 64.51 TO 65.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 Z88 65.51 TO 66.5 0.0 16.7 0.0 L88 66.51 TO 67.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.51 TO 68.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.51 TO 69.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 Z88 69.51 TO 70.5 3.7 8.3 0.0 70.51 TO 71.5 0.0 16.7 0.0 71.51 TO 72.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.51 TO 73.5 0.0 8.3 14.3 73.51 TO 74.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.51 TO 75.5 0.0 0.0 14.3 Median length 40 59 65 Number of fish 27 12 7

76 more 46-50 cm bass were collected and analyzed than caught by fishermen. Among fish caught by fishermen, the tendency to keep larger bass and release smaller fish is evident from the creel surveys. For white perch at Lake Lillinonah in 1986, a slightly different pattern was seen. No white perch less than 18.5 cm in length were analyzed, although creel surveys showed that some fish as small as 16 cm were caught and kept. Among larger fish, more large perch (23-27 cm) and fewer intermediate perch (20-21 cm) were analyzed than caught or kept by fishermen. There was little difference in the size distributions of white perch caught and kept from the creel survey data. Connecticut data on the brown trout fishery at Cornwall also demonstrate the differences between population distributions and anglers' catch (Table 14). Older, larger fish are caught well in excess of their abundance in the population. While the proportions of larger fish analyzed was similar to that in the population, larger fish made up a smaller proportion of the analyzed samples than of fishermens' catch. The high proportion « of larger fish may be partly due to the catch-and-release fishery: larger fishes would likely become rarer and harder to catch if fishermen could keep their catch. These comparisons suggest that some differences may be expected between PCB concentrations in the samples, fish populations, and fishermens' catches. Where the distribution of analyzed specimens was more even than the sampled population but of similar median size, mean PCB levels may not differ greatly. However, in several cases, the sample means may be greater than the population means because of over-representation of larger fish in samples (through over-representation of very large fish, over-representation of larger modes, or exclusion of small fish in samples) . The difference between sample means and concentrations in fishermens' catches is apt to be greater: the higher proportion of smaller fish among fish caught should lead to lower average values among fish caught. However, the relationship between means among fish kept and the sample means 77 is more complex, since fish kept are apt to include fewer small fish and fewer very large fish, but may include more or fewer very small fish, intermediate-sized fish or large fish.

Estimated Population Means

For the species-stations-years analyzed, the population estimates are usually slightly less than or about equal to the sample estimates (Table 13). The estimated population mean among smallmouth bass caught by fishermen in Lake Lillinonah in 1986 was markedly lower than the sample mean, while the estimate for smallmouth bass kept is slightly higher than the sample mean. This results from the bias toward smaller sizes among fish caught, which is compensated by the tendency to preferentially keep larger fish. For smallmouth bass at Lake Lillinonah in 1986, an estimate was made for the specimens analyzed. As expected, this is very close to the actual mean, demonstrating that the estimation procedure did not distort the raw data. The population estimate for largemouth bass at Bulls Bridge in 1988 was markedly lower than the sample mean. Conversely, the population estimate for white perch at Lillinonah in 1988 was higher than the sample mean. The Connecticut data on size/age class composition for Cornwall trout in 1986 can be used to estimate PCB in the population and in anglers' catches, if the size groups are equated with river-age. In 1986, river-age 0 and 1 fish made up 47% of the anglers' catch. If these are assumed to contain 53% river-age 0 and 47% river-age 1 (i.e., if they occur in the relative proportions in which they occur in the river), then 25% of the anglers' catch is made up of river-age 0 fish, 22% of river-age 1, and 53% of fish of river-age 2 and greater. Using a mean LNTPCB of 1.20 for trout of river-age 0, 1.64 for trout of river-age 1 and 2.06 for trout of river-age of 2 or greater (cf. ANCOVA models which showed no difference among older trout), this would lead to a mean LNTPCB of 1.58 within the population in 1986 78 and 1.75 within the anglers' catch, corresponding to PCB concentrations of 4.85 and 5.75, respectively. For comparison, the sample mean LNTPCB for 1986 was 1.71, corresponding to a PCB concentration of 5.53.

Hatchery Trout

Ten specimens of brown trout (yearling Bitterroot strain) from 1987, 11 specimens of brown trout (yearling Bitterroot strain) from 1988, 12 specimens of rainbow trout (Erwin strain, less than one-year old) from 1988, 12 specimens of rainbow trout from 1989, and 15 specimens of brown trout (2-year old Burlington strain) from 1989 were analyzed (Table 25) . Because of their small size, the rainbow trout were analyzed in composites, with two specimens per composite sample. No PCBs were detected in any of the 1987 and 1989 brown trout, 9 of the 1988 brown trout or any of the rainbow trout. However, concentrations of 2.34 and 0.54 mg/kg were noted in two specimens of 1988 brown trout. PCBs « were detected in each of two replicate injections of the extracts from the two specimens (the mean of the results of the two replicate injections are reported). The combination of relatively high concentrations in just two specimens, and no detections in the remaining 32 samples suggests some error or artifact of analysis, but no likely analytic problem has been found.

Specimens From Background Sites

Results of analyses from the background sites are shown in Tables 25 and 26. No PCBs were detected (with a detection limit of 0.06 mg/kg) in any of the 45 samples of 47 individual fish analyzed.

79 Table 25. Results of PCB analyses on hatchery trout (collected prior to stocking in the Housatonic River) and trout and smallmouth bass from selected background localities.

SITE SPECIES NUMBER AGES TL TPCB OF IND mg/kg

Hatchery (1987) Brown trout 5 1 11.5-16.3

Hatchery (1989) Brown trout 15 1 14.0-17.7

Hatchery (1988) Rainbow trout 12 0 16.4-19.1

Hatchery (1989) Rainbow trout 12 0 10.1-13.2

Farmington River Brown trout 3 2 27.0-31.0

80 Table 26. Results of PCB analyses of fishes from several background localities (i.e., those with no known point sources of PCBs) .

SITE SPECIES NUMBER AGES TL TPCB OF IND mg/kg

Lake Waramaug Smallmouth bass 2 3-4 23.6-26.7

Yellow perch 3 9 19.3-21.6

White perch 2 3 18.1-18.8

Saugatuck Smallmouth bass 2 4 26.5-28.5

81 Younq-of-Year Fish

PCBs were detected in 12 of the 17 samples of young-of-year (YOY) largemouth bass, bluegill and pumpkinseed from Bulls Bridge, Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar (Table 27). PCBs were also detected in two yearling largemouth bass from Lake Zoar. PCB concentrations and frequency of detection decreased downstream. PCBs were detected in all samples from Bulls Bridge, 67% of the Lake Lillinonah samples, and 40% of the Lake Zoar samples of YOY. Species differences were not clear cut, although concentrations in largemouth bass were similar to or higher than those in the two sunfish species, and concentrations in bluegills were lower or similar to those among the other species. Concentrations in YOY were similar to or greater than those found in many adult fish, presumably because YOY analyses were done on whole samples, while fillets were analyzed from adult fish.

Sediment and Water Samples «

Sediment data are reported in Table 28. In Lillinonah, concentrations in surficial sediments near Route 133 were 0.96 and 1.6. Frink, et al. (1982) reported 1.41 mg/kg in surficial sediments (their site 94), and 0.27 and 0.49 in two core samples (their sites 92 and 93) from nearby sites. A concentration of 2.5 was found in surficial sediments of Lillinonah above the dam. Frink, et al. (1982) reported no surficial sediment data from this location. They found concentrations of 0.13-2.7 mg/kg (geometric mean of 0.66) in 12 core samples from the vicinity of the dam. At Bulls Bridge, a concentration of 0.97 mg/kg was found in surficial sediments (Table 28), compared to 0.13 from a surficial sample from the same vicinity (site 73, Frink, et al., 1982). No PCBs were detected in any sediment sample from the background sites (detection limit = 0.16 mg/kg). Frink, et al. (1982) reported no detectable PCBs in sediments from four of 82 Table 27. Total PCB concentrations of young-of-year and juvenile fishes from three reservoirs on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. All fish were collected in October 1988. Analyses were done on whole body samples of composite samples (young-of-year fish, i.e., age=0+) or individual fish (2 juvenile largemouth bass). Concentrations are mg PCB per kg wet weight. The locale column includes the sampling sites within each reservoir and the distance (km) of each sampling site from the dam forming the reservoir. Locales within the reservoirs are as follows: 1) south end of Bulls Bridge Reservoir, west bank (i.e., along west channel); 2) south end of Bulls Bridge Reservoir, east bank (i.e., along main channel); 3) cove along east bank of Lake Lillinonah, above Route 133; 4) cove along east bank of Lake Lillinonah, at Route 133; 5) cove along west bank of Lake Lillinonah, above Route 133; 6A) cove along west bank of Lake Zoar, at mouth of Halfway River; 6B) beach along west bank of Lake Zoar, just north of mouth of Halfway River; 7) cove at Kettletown State Park; 8) cove at west bank of Lake Zoar, near Rocky Glen.

83 SITE SPECIES SAMPLE LOCALE NUMBER TL AGE TPCB LIPID NUMBER DIST OF IND (cm) mg/kg %

Bulls Bluegill 266,283 1 0.2 km 20 3 .8-5.3 0+ 1.687 4.09 Bridge 286 2 0.2 km 18 3 .4-5.9 0+ 1.736 4.26

Pumpkinseed 284 1 0.2 km 24 4 .5-5.9 0+ 2.742 3.89 287 2 0.2 km 22 4.0-6. 1 0-4­ 3.136 2.82

Largemouth bass 285 1 0.2 km 12 5 .8-8.8 0+ 3.390 2.78 288 2 0.2 km 11 6 .1-8.0 0+ 2.413 3.50

Lake Bluegill 281 3 9.3 km 22 2 .8-7.5 0+

Pumpkinseed 279,301 3 9.3 km 2 6.8 0+

Lake Bluegill 230 6A 1.4 km 41 2 .9-4.6 0+ 0.832 0.41 Zoar 262 7 6.0 km 19 4 .2-6.0 0+

Pumpkinseed 244 6B 1.6 km 5 5 .3-8.5 0+

Largemouth bass 265 7 6.0 km 3 8.7-10.0 0+

SITE LOCALITY REP PCB A1254 A1260

HOUSATONIC RIVER SITES: Bulls Bridge above dam Rl 1.157 0.320 0.837 R2 0.778 0.272 0.506 MR 0.968 0.296 0.672 Lillinonah north of 133 Rl 0.928 0.354 0.574 R2 0.984 0.324 0.660 MR 0.956 0.341 0.617 Lillinonah south of 133 1.662 0.684 0.978 Lillinonah above dam 2.478 1.011 1.467

• BACKGROUND SITES • Farmington R. Unionville LB

Lake Waramaug south-central

Bantam Lake northeast end

Saugatuck Res. middle

Saugatuck Res. above dam

85 seven Connecticut lakes sampled. They did find PCBs in Bantam Lake sediments (mean concentration of 0.03 mg/kg over four samples; detection limit and frequency of detection in the four samples not indicated). * N oPCBs were detected in any water samples (detection limit of 0.16 ug/L). * Proportion of Aroclor mixtures m i Samples were quantified as Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260, with TPCB taken as the sum of the concentration of the two mixtures. Aroclor 1260 usually occurred in higher concentrations than Aroclor 1254. There were no clear interspecific, spatial or ** temporal patterns in the relative concentration of the two mixtures in the samples (Table 29). m Precision of Measurements

Replicate analyses were done on fillets from 40 individuals (Table 30). The standard deviation of replicate analyses increased with the mean, so that the variation is best expressed as the coefficient of variation (the ratio of the standard * deviation to the mean) and to the distribution of logarithmic transformations of the PCB data (i.e., the standard deviation of gf LNTPCB). The median coefficient of variation of PCB i concentration among all samples was 0.14. The median coefficient of variation of lipid content was 0.11. The median standard deviation of LNTPCB was 0.14. For comparison, Frink, et al. (1982) report results of 20 paris of replicate analyses by 2 laboratories of sediment samples split in the field. The mean standard deviation of LNTPCB of these analyses is 0.49; the " median standard deviation is 0.32. Using the median replicate standard deviation of 0.14 for H LNTPCB as the typical measurement error, measurement variance would be about 0.02. This can be compared to the variance within m 86 Table 29. Average proportion of Aroclor 1260 to total PCB (total PCB is the sum of A1254 and A1260 concentrations) in samples of fishes from 4 stations (C=Cornwall, B=Bulls Bridge, L=Lillinonah, Z=Zoar) on the Housatonic River, Connecticut.

Species Sta 1984 1986 1988 ALL

Brown trout C 0.59 0.67 0.72 0.66 Rainbow trout C - 0.72 0.72 Brown bullhead B 0.76 0.74 0.79 0.77 L 0.80 0.88 0.85 Z 0.55 0.79 0.73 Carp B 0.59 0.68 0.65 L 0.55 0.65 0.63 Z 0.54 0.68 0.65 Largemouth bass B 0.70 0.67 0.69 * L 0.63 0.78 0.72 Z 0.51 0.61 0.59 4ft Smallmouth bass B 0.73 0.72 0.74 0.73 C 0.76 0.73 0.75 0.75 L 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.68 Z 0.76 0.67 0.72

Sunfish B 0.65 0.75 0.71 L 0.61 0.89 0.78 Z 0.55 0.87 0.74 White catfish L 0.61 0.67 0.74 0.68 Z 0.66 0.57 0.69 0.64 White perch L 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.57 Z 0.44 0.59 0.49 Yellow perch B 0.78 0.64 0.69 0.70 L 0.58 0.88 0.78 Z 0.46 0.76 0.70 Eel 0.80 0.80

87 Table 30. Results of replicate analyses (including replicate extractions and analyses) of samples from the * Housatonic River, Connecticut in 1988. All analyses performed by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Replicate analyses of two samples in p which TPCB concentrations were less than the detection limit are not included in the tabulation. S.D. is the sample standard deviation for the replicate analyses of each specimen, and C.V. is the coefficient of * variation (S.D./Mean) for the replicates. Individual replicates are labelled Rl, R2 or R3. The mean value is labelled MR. TPCB is the total PCB concentration in I rog/kg wet weight. LNTPCB is the LN (total PCB ; concentration mg/kg). The MR values in the table for J LNTPCB are the transforms of the means of the TPCB t values (these differ slightly from the means of the transforms of the individual TPCB values for each specimen, which were used in calculating the S.D. of the LTPCB values).

88 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-001 B Rl 2.174 1.24 0.78 R2 2.145 1.05 0.76 R3 1.610 0.86 0.48 MR 1.976 0.32 0.16 1.05 0.19 0.18 0.67 0.17 0.25 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-001 A Rl 0.560 0.34 -0.58 R2 1.310 0.58 0.27 R3 1.130 0.58 0.12 MR 1.000 0.39* 0.39 0.50 0.14 0.28 -0.063 0.45 7.14 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-002 C Rl 1.465 0.48 0.38 R2 1.426 0.38 0.35 MR 1.446 0.028 0.019 0.43 0.071 0.16 O.36 0.021 0.058 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-002 D Rl 0.492 0.61 -0.71 R2 0.427 0.70 -0.85 MR 0.460 0.046 0.10 0.66 0.064 0.097 -0.78 0.10 0.13 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-002 A Rl 5.268 0.40 1.66 00 R2 2.079 0.38 0.73 MR 3.674 2.25 0.61 0.39 0.014 O.036 1.20 0.66 0.55

SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-003 B Rl 0.652 0.40 -0.43 R2 1.165 0.62 0.15 MR 0.908 0.36 0.40 0.51 0.16 0.31 -0.14 0.41 2.93

SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-003 D Rl 0.695 0.56 -0.36 R2 0.778 0.54 -0.25 MR 0.736 0.059 0.080 0.55 0.014 0.025 -0.31 0.078 0.26

SMALLMOUTH BASS •1988 L 88-003 C Rl 3.312 0.38 1.20 R2 3.711 0.46 1.31 MR 3.512 0.28 0.080 0.42 0.057 0.14 1.26 0.078 0.062 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-003 A Rl 0.623 0.58 -0.47 R2 0.602 0.48 -0.51 MR 0.612 0.015 0.025 0.53 0.071 0.13 -0.49 0.028 0.057 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-012 B Rl 2.586 0.51 0.95 R2 8.318 1.24 2.12 R3 3.510 0.72 1.26 MR 4.805 3.08 .0.64 0.82 0.39 0.47 1.44 0.61 0.42 CARP 1988 L 88-016 Rl 16.686 2.81 2.81 R2 17.830 2.40 2.88 MR 17.258 0.81 0.047 2.61 0.29 0.10 2.84 0.049 0.017 BROWN TROUT 1988 C 88-036 Rl 4.128 2.75 1.42 R2 4.023 3.35 1.39 MR 4.O76 O.074 O.O18 3.05 0.42 0.14 1.40 0.021 0.015 BROWN TROUT 1988 C 88-043 A Rl 9.991 6.05 2.30 R2 10.201 4.95 2.32 \o MR 10.096 0.15 0.015 5.50 0.78 0.14 2.31 0.014 0.006 0 BROWN TROUT 1988 C 88-044 A Rl 8.444 4.66 2.13 R2 7.708 4.85 2.04 MR 8.076 0.52 0.064 4.76 0.13 0.028 2.08 0.064 0.031 BROWN TROUT 1988 C 88-063 B Rl 10.528 4.25 2.35 R2 8.681 8.30 2.16 MR 9.604 1.31 0.14 6.28 2.86 0.46 2.26 0.14 0.062 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 C 88-067 C Rl 5.115 1.61 1.63 R2 4.706 1.80 1.55 MR 4.910 0.29 0.059 1.71 0.13 0.079 1.59 0.057 0.04 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

EEL 1988 Z 88-075 A Rl 0.565 16.03 -0.57 R2 2.533 18.50 0.93 MR 1.549 1.39 0.90 17.27 1.75 0.10 0.18 1.06 5.89 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 Z 88-089 Rl 3.011 3.05 1.10 R2 5.785 3.23 1.76 MR 4.398 1.96 0.45 3.14 0.13 0.041 1.43 0.46 O.32

WHITE CATFISH 1988 Z 88-095 Rl 4.886 1.86 1.59 R2 5.465 1.97 1.70 MR 5.176 0.41 0.079 1.92 0.078 0.041 1.64 0.078 0.048

WHITE CATFISH 1988 Z 88-115 Rl 2.840 1.27 1.04 R2 2.496 2.02 0.91 MR 2.668 0.24 0.091 1.645 0.53 0.32 0.98 0.092 0.094

WHITE CATFISH 1988 L 88-156 C Rl 0.858 0.57 -0.15 R2 1.190 0.90 0.17 MR 1.024 0.23 0.23 0.74 0.23 0.32 0.01 0.23 23.13 VO LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-165 A Rl 0.828 0.96 -0.19 R2 0.826 0.45 -0.19 MR 0.827 0.001 0.002 0.71 0.36 0.51 -0.19 0.00 0.00

LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 L 88-167 A Rl 1.430 1.32 0.36 R2 0.518 0.39 -0.66 MR 0.974 0.64 0.66 0.86 0.66 0.76 -0.15 0.72 4.79

BLUEGILL 1988 L 88-177 A Rl 0.253 0.48 -1.37 R2 0.377 0.48 -0.98 MR 0.315 0.088 0.28 0.48 0.00 O.OO -1.17 0.28 0.24 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

CARP 1988 B 88-181 Rl 2. 750 4.2 9 1.0 1 R2 1. 960 4. 32 0.6 7 MR 2.35 5 0.56 0.24 4.3 1 0.021 0.005 0.8 4 0.24 0.29

YELLOW PERCH 1988 B 88-184 G Rl 0. 572 0.8 3 -0 .56 R2 0. 499 0. 72 -0 .70 MR 0.53 6 0.052 0.096 0.7 8 0.078 0.10 -0 .63 0.10 0.15

BLUEGILL 1988 B 88-194 Rl 3.91 2 5. 89 1.3 6 R2 4. 805 3. 77 1.5 7 MR 4.35 8 0.63 0.14 4.8 3 1.50 0.31 1.4 7 0.15 0.10 YELLOW PERCH 1988 B 88-196 G Rl 0. 462 0. 58 -0 .77 R2 0. 490 0. 68 -0 .71 MR 0.47 6 0.020 0.042 0.6 3 0.071 0.11 -0 .74 0.042 0.057

BROWN BULLHEAD 1988 B 88-197 A Rl 5. 443 2. 44 1.6 9 R2 7. 380 2. 11 2 .00 MR 6.41 2 1.37 0.21 2.2 8 0.23 0.10 1.8 5 0.22 0.12

S SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 B 88-198 Rl 3. 216 1. 97 1.1 7 R2 2. 674 2.9 8 0.9 8 MR 2.94 5 0.32 0.11 2.4 8 0.71 0.29 1.0 8 0.13 0.12

BROWN BULLHEAD 1988 B 88-205 Rl 4. 375 1. 60 1.4 8 R2 1. 313 1. 18 0.2 7 MR 2.84 4 2.17 0.76 1.3 9 0.30 0.21 0.8 7 0.85 0.98

IARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 B 88-207 Rl 0. 383 0.7 0 -0 .96 R2 0. 653 0. 74 -0 .43 MR 0.51 8 0.19 0.37 0.7 2 0.028 0.039 -0 .69 0.38 0.55 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

LARGEMOUTH BASS 1988 B 88-208 B Rl 3.080 1.57 1.12 R2 1.961 1.56 0.67 MR 2.520 0.79 0.31 1.57 0.007 0.005 0.90 0.32 0.35 BROWN BULLHEAD 1988 Z 88-238 A Rl 0.641 1.68 -0.44 R2 0.596 1.37 -0.52 MR 0.618 0.032 0.051 1.53 0.22 0.14 -0.48 0.057 0.12 WHITE CATFISH 1988 Z 88-241 A Rl 5.244 2.62 1.66 R2 5.944 2.44 1.78 MR 5.594 0.49 0.088 2.53 O.13 O.05 1.72 0.085 0.049 WHITE CATFISH 1988 Z 88-242 B Rl 8.676 3.42 2.16 R2 6.825 2.62 1.92 MR 7.750 1.31 0.17 3.02 0.57 0.19 2.04 0.17 0.083 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1988 B 88-269 B Rl 3.095 1.14 1.13 R2 5.536 1.60 1.71 MR 4.316 1.73 0.40 1.37 0.33 0.24 1.42 0.41 0.29 WHITE CATFISH 1988 L 88-304 Rl 30.422 1.71 3.42 R2 19.088 1.18 2.95 MR 24.755 8.01 0.32 1.45 0.37 0.26 3.18 0.33 0.10 RAINBOW TROUT 1988 C 88-305 Rl 3.981 1.79 1.38 R2 3.525 1.46 1.26 MR 3.753 0.32 0.086 1.63 0.23 0.14 1.32 0.085 0.064 BROWN TROUT 1988 C 88-306 F Rl 5.940 1.26 1.78 R2 5.264 1.38 1.66 MR 5.602 0.48 0.085 1.32 O.085 0.064 1.72 0.085 0.049 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

BROWN BULLHEAD 1986 B 86-43-142 Rl 2.630 1.00 0.97 R2 3.150 1.20 1.15 MR 2.890 0.37 0.13 1.10 0.14 0.13 1.06 0.13 0.12 BROWN TROUT 1986 C 86-27-76 Rl 15.340 3.80 2.73 R2 17.000 4.90 2.83 MR 16.170 1.17 0.072 4.35 0.78 0.18 2.78 0.071 0.026 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 B 86-34-108 Rl 0.690 0.74 -0.37 R2 0.770 0.95 -0.26 MR 0.730 0.057 0.078 0.84 0.15 0.18 -0.32 0.078 0.24 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 C 86-39-125 Rl 1.020 0.52 0.02 R2 2.480 0.98 0.91 MR 1.750 1.03 0.59 0.75 0.32 0.43 0.46 0.63 1.37 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 C 86-40-126 Rl 1.580 1.10 0.46 R2 1.840 1.40 0.61 MR 1.710 0.18 0.11 1.25 0.21 0.17 0.53 0.11 0.21 VO SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 L 86-4-9 Rl 0.610 0.28 -0.49 R2 0.740 0.24 -0.30 MR 0.675 O.O92 0.14 0.26 0.028 O.ll -0.40 0.14 0.35 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 L 86-41-132 Rl 0.520 1.20 -0.65 R2 0.870 1.40 -0.14 R3 1.240 1.60 0.22 MR 0.877 0.36 0.41 1.40 0.20 0.14 -0.19 0.44 2.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 L 86-5-14 Rl 2.060 0.78 0.72 R2 2.120 0.84 0.75 MR 2.090 O.042 0.020 0.81 0.042 0.052 0.74 0.021 0.028 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

SMALLMOUTH BASS 1986 L 86-5-15 Rl 5.360 0.53 1.68 R2 8.200 0.71 2.10 R3 8.280 1.00 2.11 MR 7.28O 1.66 0.23 0.75 0.24 0.32 1.97 0.25 0.13 WHITE CATFISH 1986 L 86-1-1 Rl 30.210 4.30 3.41 R2 38.450 5.60 3.65 R3 40.700 8.60 3.71 MR 36.453 5.52 0.15 6.17 2.20 0.36 3.59 0.16 0.045 WHITE CATFISH 1986 L 86-2-5 Rl 1.070 1.40 0.07 R2 1.180 1.40 0.17 MR 1.125 0.078 0.069 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.12 O.071 0.59 WHITE CATFISH 1986 L 86-2-7 Rl 3.530 1.80 1.26 R2 6.800 2.50 1.92 MR 5.165 2.31 0.45 2.15 0.50 0.23 1.59 0.46 0.29 WHITE CATFISH 1986 L 86-7-22 Rl 2.370 2.80 0.86 R2 3.390 3.30 1.22 in MR 2.880 0.72 0.25 3.05 0.35 0.11 1.04 0.25 0.24 WHITE CATFISH 1986 L 86-8-24 Rl 1.770 2.90 0.57 R2 2.190 3.80 0.78 R3 2.950 5.70 1.08 MR 2.303 0.60 0.26 4.13 1.43 0.35 0.81 0.26 0.032 WHITE CATFISH 1986 Z 86-53-169 Rl 2.190 2.20 0.78 R2 2.500 3.10 0.92 MR 2.345 0.22 0.094 2.65 0.64 0.24 0.85 0.099 0.12 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

WHITE CATFISH 1986 Z 86-54-170 Rl 1.600 1.60 0.47 R2 2.650 2.10 0.97 R3 4.490 2.80 1.50 MR 2.913 1.46 0.50 2.17 0.60 0.28 0.98 0.52 0.53 WHITE CATFISH 1986 Z 86-56-176 Rl 1.940 1.90 0.66 R2 2.630 2.20 0.97 MR 2.285 0.49 0.21 2.05 0.21 0.10 0.82 0.22 0.27 YELLOW PERCH 1986 B 86-18-50 Rl 0.850 3.80 -0.16 R2 1.390 1.90 0.33 MR 1.120 0.38 0.34 2.85 1.34 0.47 0.085 0.35 4.12 YELLOW PERCH 1986 B 86-22-61 Rl 0.330 0.39 -1.11 R2 0.380 0.35 -0.97 MR 0.355 0.035 0.10 O.37 0.028 0.076 -1.O4 0.10 O.O96 YELLOW PERCH 1986 B 86-24-66 Rl 1.290 1.40 0.25 R2 1.660 2.00 0.51 MR 1.475 0.26 0.18 1.70 0.42 0.25 0.38 0.18 0.47 BROWN BULLHEAD 1984 B 223R034B Rl 0.710 0.99 -0.34 224R034B R2 1.200 1.10 0.18 223R034B MR 0.955 0.35 0.37 1.04 0.078 0.075 -0.08 0.37 4.62 BROWN TROUT 1984 C 035R012B Rl 9.300 2.80 2.23 201R012B R2 8.300 1.90 2.12 035R012B MR 8.800 0.71 0.081 2.35 0.64 0.27 2.18 0.078 0.036 BROWN TROUT 1984 C 067R013A Rl 0.530 2.40 -0.63 071R013A R2 0.780 2.30 -0.25 067R013A MR 0.655 0.18 0.27 2.35 O.071 0.030 -0.44 0.27 0.61 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

BROWN TROUT 1984 C 101R017C Rl 0.950 1.30 -0.05 102R017C R2 1.000 1.20 0.00 101R017C MR 0.975 O.035 0.036 1.25 0.071 0.057 -0.02 0.035 1.75 BROWN TROUT 1984 C 217R018B Rl 3.400 1.40 1.22 218R018B R2 3.100 1.40 1.13 217R018B MR 3.250 0.21 0.065 1.4O O.OO O.OO 1.18 0.064 O.O54 CARP 1984 Z 321R071A Rl 4.300 6.20 1.46 340R071A R2 5.600 7.40 1.72 340R071A MR 4.950 0.92 0.19 6.80 0.85 0.12 1.59 0.19 0.12 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1984 B 251R093A Rl 2.700 1.20 0.99 252R093A R2 2.200 1.50 0.79 251R093A MR 2.450 0.35 0.14 1.35 0.21 0.16 0.89 0.14 0,16 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1984 B 297R043D Rl 2.000 0.96 0.69 298R043D R2 1.500 0.99 0.41 297R043D MR 1.750 0.35 0.20 0.98 O.O21 O.021 0.55 0.20 0.36 VO LARGEMOUTH BASS 1984 B 306R047A Rl 0.900 0.57 -0.11 307R047A R2 0.890 0.63 -0.12 306R047A MR 0.895 0.007 0.008 0.60 0.042 0.070 -0.12 0.007 0.058 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1984 B 337R093B Rl 1.100 0.59 0.10 254R093B R2 1.260 0.83 0.23 337R093B MR 1.180 0.11 0.093 0.71 0.17 0.24 0.16 0.092 0.58 LARGEMOUTH BASS 1984 Z 238R100A Rl 0.520 0.47 -0.65 239R100A R2 0.310 0.45 -1.17 238R100A MR 0.415 0.15 0.36 0.46 0.14 0.30 -0.91 0.37 0.41 t a pt. v> Wt«

SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

LARGEMOUTH BASS 1984 Z 275R063A Rl 0.390 0.91 -0.94 276R063A R2 0.460 0.84 -0.78 275R063A MR O.425 0.049 O.12 0.88 O.O49 0.056 -0.86 0.12 0.14 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 B 233R091B Rl 1.400 1.10 0.34 341R091B R2 1.600 0.89 0.47 233R091B MR 1.500 0.14 0.093 1.00 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.092 0.23 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 B 234R091C Rl 2.300 0.77 0.83 342R091C R2 2.100 0.78 0.74 234R091C MR 2.200 0.14 0.064 0.78 0.007 0.009 0.78 0.064 O.082 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 L 010R007A Rl 1.400 0.91 0.34 011R007A R2 0.580 0.39 -0.54 010R007A MR 0.990 0.58 0.59 0.65 0.37 0.57 -0.10 0.62 6.20 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 Z 240R081A Rl 0.500 0.43 -0.69 241R081A R2 0.500 0.41 -0.69 343R081A R3 0.770 0.53 -0.26 240R081A MR 0.590 0.16 0.27 0.48 0.064 0.14 -0.55 0.25 0.45 oo SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 Z 247R082B Rl 0.500 0.81 -0.69 336R082B R2 0.600 0.80 -0.51 247R082B MR 0.550 O.O7 0.13 0.80 0.007 0.009 -0.60 0.13 0.22 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 Z 259R080E Rl 0.410 0.87 -0.89 344R080E R2 0.500 0.72 -0.69 259R080E MR 0.455 0.064 0.14 0.80 0.11 0.14 -0.79 0.14 0.18 SMALLMOUTH BASS 1984 Z 261R079A Rl 0.150 0.80 -1.90 267R079A R2 0.160 0.61 -1.83 261R079A MR 0.155 0.007 0.045 0.70 0.13 0.19 -1.86 0.049 0.026 4 * * *

SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

WHITE CATFISH 1984 L 033R032A Rl 6.500 7.50 1.87 199R032A R2 2.700 3.90 0.99 033R032A MR 4.600 2.69 0.58 5.70 2.55 0.45 1.43 0.62 0.43 WHITE CATFISH 1984 L 034R032C Rl 67.000 6.60 4.20 200R032C R2 55.000 3.30 4.01 327R032C R3 43.100 4.40 3.76 034R032C MR 55.033 11.95 .O.22 4.77 1.68 O.35 3.99 0.22 0.055 WHITE CATFISH 1984 L 139R030A Rl 1.000 2.40 0.00 140R030A R2 1.900 3.60 0.64 139R030A MR 1.450 0.64 0.44 3.00 0.85 0.28 0.32 0.45 1.41 WHITE CATFISH 1984 Z 091R025A Rl 2.200 2.40 0.79 092R025A R2 3.300 2.60 1.19 091R025A MR 2.75O 0.78 O.28 2.50 0.14 O.O56 O.99 0.29 0.29 WHITE CATFISH 1984 Z 093R025B Rl 1.200 1.00 0.18 094R025B R2 1.000 0.96 0.00 093R025B MR 1.100 0.14 0.13 0.98 0.028 O.029 0.09 O.13 1.44 wo WHITE CATFISH 1984 Z 097R025D Rl 3.000 2.50 1.10 098R025D R2 3.000 2.40 1.10 097R025D MR 3.000 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.071 0.029 1.10 0.00 0.00 WHITE CATFISH 1984 Z 113R027A Rl 6.500 2.80 1.87 114R027A R2 11.000 3.20 2.40 113R027A MR 8.750 3.18 0.36 3.00 0.28 0.093 2.14 0.37 0.17 WHITE PERCH 1984 L 081R028A Rl 1.900 5.90 0.64 082R028A R2 1.300 6.70 0.26 081R028A MR 1.600 0.42 O.26 6.30 0.57 0.090 0.45 0.27 0.60 SPECIES YEAR STA SN I REP TPCB LIPID LNTPCB Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V. Value S.D. C.V.

WHITE PERCH 1984 L 083R028B Rl 2.200 2 .90 0.79 084R028B R2 1.800 2 .80 0.59 083R028B MR 2.000 0.28 0.14 2 .85 0.071 O.O25 0.69 0.14 0.20 WHITE PERCH 1984 L 085R028C Rl 2.100 4 .50 0.74 086R028C R2 2.700 5 .10 0.99 085R028C MR 2.400 0.42 0.18 4 .80 0.42 0.088 0.87 0.18 0.21 WHITE PERCH 1984 L 148R050A Rl 2.700 3 .40 0.99 149R050A R2 2.700 3 .00 0.99 148R050A MR 2.700 0.00 0.00 3 .20 0.28 0.088 0.99 0.00 0.00 YELLOW PERCH 1984 B 175R053A Rl 2.900 1.2 0 1.06 176R053A R2 3.700 1.1 0 1.31 175R053A MR 3.30O 0.57 0.17 1 .15 0.071 0.062 12.19 O.17 0.14 YELLOW PERCH 1984 B 197R056C Rl 1.200 1.0 0 0.18 339R056C R2 0.980 0.6 8 -0.02 197R056C MR 1.090 0.16 0.15 0 .84 0.23 0.27 0.08O 0.14 1.75 > YELLOW PERCH 1984 B 204R057B Rl 1.400 1.1 0 0.34 310R057B R2 0.700 0.7 0 -0.36 204R057B MR 1.050 0.50 0.48 0 .90 0.28 0.31 -0.010 0.49 49.00 Median of 40 1988 Replicate Analyses 0.125 0.13 0.135 Median Of 20 1986 Replicate Analyses 0.165 0.18 0.17 Median Of 33 1984 Replicate Analyses 0.14 0.09 0.14 Grand Median 0.14 0.11 0.14 groups of samples. The variance of LNTPCB values within samples of a species from a single station varied from 0.15-2.3 (excluding rainbow trout, which represented a very homogeneous sample). The variances within species from a single station and year (Table 5) were usually between 0.16 and 2.25 (samples with nearly all individuals below the detection limit had smaller variances). Thus, the measurement error of 0.02 represents about 0.9 to 13% of the total variation. The variance among samples of a species from all stations and years combined (again excluding rainbow trout) ranged from 0.53 to 1.30, so that measurement error represents about 1.5 to 4% of total variance. The greater range of variance for single stations or years than for combined samples is due to the greater contribution of individual specimens of high LNTPCB or groups of specimens with PCBs less than the detection limit to variance estimates from single stations or years. The variance of rainbow trout samples was 0.048, so that measurement error of this homogeneous sample (fish of uniform strain stocked and collected at the same time from one station) represents about 40% of the total sample variance. These calculations are for the typical replicate error; since there was much variation in replicate variation, the range of these measurements to sample variance estimates is probably greater for some comparisons. It is plausible that replicate variation in PCB measurements arises from variation in lipid estimates, i.e., from variance in PCB recovery associated with variation in lipid recovery. To test this, the standard deviation of LNTPCB values for replicate samples are plotted against the coefficient of variation (CV) for lipid values (Fig. 27) . This shows that replicates with relatively high lipid CVs usually also had relatively high variance in PCB estimates as well. However, some replicates with relatively high PCB variance did not have high lipid CVs. This indicates that variation introduced in the extraction of lipids led to variation in PCB estimates, but that variance in PCB estimates was also introduced in other analytical steps. DISCUSSION

The basic finding of the analyses is that there was no consistent temporal trend in PCB concentrations over the 1984­ 1988 monitoring period, but that there was a general spatial trend toward decreasing concentrations downstream. When relationships between PCB concentrations and age, sex and lipid content were adjusted for, some significant between-year differences in PCB concentrations were found, but these did not define any clear trends. In general, the magnitude of year differences was small relative to within-station variation from other sources (e.g., age, lipid content, sex), and were usually noted only for comparisons involving relatively large numbers of specimens (e.g., comparing specimens of a species from all stations together). For smallmouth bass and newly stocked brown trout, concentrations tended to be higher in 1984, while concentrations in largemouth bass, white perch and yellow perch tended to be lower in 1984, and concentrations in white catfish tended to be higher in 1986. Relationships between PCB and age, lipid and sex have two effects on the interpretation of spatial and temporal patterns. Firstly, variation in these factors within sets of samples increases within-sample variance in PCB concentrations, obscuring spatial or temporal trends due to other factors. Secondly, differences in age structure (e.g., due to the presence of strong year classes), lipid content, or sex ratio between stations or years may create apparent spatial or temporal trends. By explicitly modelling the age, lipid and sex effects, their contributions to both within-sample and between-sample variance were partly removed, increasing the power of statistical comparisons and clarifying true spatial and temporal patterns. Interpretation of differences in PCB concentrations between years, stations, species, etc., depend on the factors controlling PCB accumulation. Differences may be due to differences in inputs of PCBs to the system, differences in availability of PCBs from 102 cycling of PCBs within the system, or from differences in rates

-w of uptake and excretion by fishes. Uptake rates will depend on the balance between uptake from water and food (and possibly sediment, cf. Rubinstein, et al., 1984). Observed differences in PCB concentrations could result from physical processes controlling input and cycling, ecosystem processes controlling "* cycling within the system, or by ecological or physiological factors controlling uptake and excretion. * ; Inputs, outputs and internal cycling of PCBs into a study -I area are expected to exert major control on ultimate 40 . concentrations in fish no matter what the pathway of bioaccumulation. These factors control water and sediment concentrations, which in turn control rates of direct uptake from water or sediment as well as concentrations in various food organisms (however, if water concentrations are maintained near * solubility limits, changes in inputs may not be reflected in changes in water and food concentrations). Inputs of PCBs to the 41 . system may come from upstream (dissolved or associated with particulate matter), point sources draining into tributaries or ^ , directly into the study reaches and reservoirs, or from atmospheric sources. The absence of detectable PCBs in fishes from the background stations indicates that atmospheric l deposition is not a significant source of PCB inputs in the ! region. The occurrence of undetected local point sources cannot ^ I be discounted. However, the absence of detectable PCBs in the background sites suggests that local point sources are infrequent in the region. (Point sources may be more frequent in urban or industrial drainages, which were excluded from the background sites, since the study reach did not contain urban or industrial areas.) The downstream decrease in PCB concentrations in fish is most consistent with upstream sources rather than local sources within the study area. Long-term trends in inputs could occur from changes in the total upstream pool of available PCB, e.g., through degradation,

103 burial, etc. The lack of consistent temporal trends in the study period do not provide evidence for such trends. Although there were no consistent trends within the 1984­ 1988 period, the 1984-1988 data are lower than data reported for 1979 samples and somewhat higher than reported for 1983 samples (Table 31; 1979 data from Beck, 1982; 1983 data from unpublished data report by IT Analytical Services). In an analysis of trends from 1979-1986 (using 1979 and 1983 data from the State of Connecticut and the 1984 and 1986 data from this study), LMS (1987) concluded that decreases did occur for most of the species for which there were adequate data for trend analysis. They noted the importance of relatively high 1979 values and low 1983 values in creating these trends. The low values for 1983 may have been affected by the lower average length and lipid content of specimens analyzed in 1983 relative to the 1979 and 1984-1988 specimens (LMS, 1987). Differences in analytical techniques may also have been partly responsible for the low 1983 concentrations (LMS, 1987). The 1979 data from the State of Connecticut (Beck, 1982 and summarized in LMS, 1987 and Table 31) show higher levels than in subsequent years, suggesting a real decrease between 1979 and 1984-1988. The absence of a clear trend in the 1984-1988 data may reflect stable conditions or a slower rate of decrease (more easily masked by other sources of between-year variation) following a relatively rapid decrease from 1979-1983. since most uptake occurs during the first few years and most fish analyzed are at least 3 years old, the 1979 data mainly reflect uptake during the early to mid-1970s, before the ban on production and cessation of industrial use in 1977. Only 88 of the 720 fish (12%) analyzed from 1984-1988 were born before 1978 (including a majority of white catfish, carp and eels from Zoar and a minority of other sets of samples). The rapid decrease between 1979 and 1984 and subsequent stability may reflect an initial decrease following major decreases in discharge followed by relatively constant inputs and cycling from sediment transport, burial and resuspension. 104 Table 31. Summary of temporal trends in PCB concentrations at four stations (C=Cornwall, B=Bulls Bridge, L=Lillinonah, Z=Zoar) on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. 1982 data consisted of composite samples of 12 individuals each. Only samples prepared similarly (e.g., skin retained or removed from fillet) are summarized from 1979 data.

Species Stat Year N Geom Arith Range mean mean

Brown trout C 1979 19 14.98 16.45 4.14 - 36.58 1982(1) 1C 2.90 2.90 1982(2) 1C 5.80 5.80 1982(3) 1C 6.50 6.50 1984-1988 96 3.87 5.13 0.35 - 23.57

Rainbow trout C 1984-1988 9 3.14 3.20 2.32 - 4.29 Brown bullhead B 1979 10 2.25 2.52 1.26 - 6.48 1983 6 1.24 1.60 0.46 - 3.90 1984-1988 32 1.18 1.52 0.39 - 6.41

L 1979 10 4.08 5.38 1.04 - 11.59 1983 4 0.50 0.70 0.13 - 1.30 1984-1988 8 1.54 1.94 0.46 - 4.13

Z 1979 10 2.00 2.36 0.65 - 6.36 1983 1 0.97 0.97 0.97 - 0.97 4 1984-1988 8 0.58 0.62 0.30 - 0.94

Largemouth bass B 1979 10 2.14 2.34 1.25 - 4.45 1984-1988 35 1.31 1.73 0.34 - 8.82

L 1979 10 0.95 1.24 0.43 - 3.78 1984-1988 13 0.75 1.35 0.03 - 4.81

Z 1979 10 0.71 0.78 0.32 - 1.82 1984-1988 9 0.75 1.15 0.24 - 4.40

Sunf ish B 1979 10 0.71 0.75 0.37 - 1.25 1983 6 0.31 0.39 0.10 - 0.88 1984-1988 11 0.95 1.46 0.03 - 4.36 L 1979 10 0.92 1.17 0.28 - 2.23 1983 6 0.18 0.23 0.07 - 0.47 1984-1988 10 0.33 0.59 0.03 - 1.90

Z 1979 10 0.40 0.49 0.14 - 0.90 1983 6 0.06 0.07 0.02 - 0.13 1984-1988 10 0.14 0.32 0.03 - 1.30

Smallmouth bass B 1979 12 10.61 11.85 6.00 - 29.66 1983 6 0.34 0.51 0.18 - 1.80 1984-1988 38 1.90 2.14 0.73 - 5.73

C 1982(4) 1C 1.10 1.10 1984-1988 42 2.68 3.39 0.61 - 13.62

L 1983 2 0.91 1.10 0.49 - 1.70 1984-1988 77 1.14 1.40 0.36 - 7.28

Z 1983 1 0.16 0.16 0.16 - 0.16 * 1984-1988 40 0.50 0.69 0.01 - 2.14

105 * Table 31 (continued). Summary of temporal trends in PCB concentrations at four stations (C=Cornwall, B=Bulls Bridge/ L=Lillinonah, Z=Zoar) on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. 1982 data consisted of composite samples of 12 individuals each. Only samples prepared similarly (e.g., skin retained or removed from fillet) are summarized from 1979 data.

Species Stat Year N Geom Arith Range mean mean

White catfish L 1979 10 12.24 12.77 8.02 - 20.51 1983 6 1.25 1.50 0.43 - 2.60 1984-1988 43 3.44 6.85 0.80 - 55.00 Z 1979 10 8.52 8.81 5.06 - 12.30 1983 4 0.79 0.87 0.40 - 1.30 1984-1988 49 2.76 3.53 0.79 - 18.05 White perch L 1979 10 5.04 5.77 2.23 - 13.31 1983 6 1.36 1.50 0.56 - 2.10 1984-1988 50 1.92 2.16 0.79 - 5.20 Z 1979 10 3.82 4.13 2.36 - 7.61 1983 6 0.72 0.81 0.39 - 1.80 1984-1988 36 0.87 1.14 0.03 - 3.87 Yellow perch B 1979 10 1.22 1.30 0.68 - 2.03 1983 5 0.57 0.71 0.22 - 1.30 « 1984-1988 71 0.85 1.04 0.20 - 6.30 L 1979 10 0.84 1.05 0.33 - 2.48 1983 6 0.21 0.28 0.08 - 0.65 1984-1988 9 0.19 0.38 0.03 - 1.20 Z 1979 10 1.04 1.52 0.28 - 5.51 1983 6 0.10 0.11 0.07 - 0.18 1984-1988 9 0.12 0.19 0.03 - 0.37 Carp B 1979 7 3.50 4.81 0.81 - 13.70 1984-1988 4 3.75 5.26 1.10 - 9,91 L 1979 10 2.84 5.79 0.49 - 27.57 1984-1988 4 3.32 6.10 0.77 - 17.26 Z 1979 10 1.02 2.46 0.24 - 10.20 1984-1988 4 9.46 13.81 2.91 - 25.68 Eel Z 1979 3 7.86 8.76 4.61 - 14.32 1983 4 2.13 3.10 0.95 - 7.10 1984-1988 3 0.89 1.20 0.25 - 1.82

(1) Rivage =0.3 (2) Rivage ­ 1.3 (3) Rivage « 2.3 (4) Total length 19.5 - 35.0, mean » 27.5

106 Wilson and Forester (1978) noted ' a similar pattern of decreasing concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in oysters in the Escambia Bay: concentrations dropped from about 2.7 mg/kg to about 0.7 mg/kg over a 4-year period, but then remained stable for the subsequent 3-year period. Armstrong and Sloan (1988) noted stable or relatively slow decreases of Aroclor 1254 concentrations in fish from the Hudson River from 1977-1980, while concentrations of Aroclor 1016 in the same samples decreased markedly. Between-year differences from 1984 to 1988 could result from differences in flow affecting transport and dilution of PCBs. Flow was variable throughout the study period. There were high spring flows in 1982-1984 (R. Orcieri, pers. comm.). In 1988, spring and early summer flows were low, but midsummer flows were high. The effects of such variations on accumulation are ambiguous— for example, they could lead to lower short-term uptake rates by lowering water concentrations by dilution, higher short-term rate^ by resuspending sediments or through erosion of new sediments, and could increase uptake over longer periods due to transport of PCBs into the system. The relatively high PCB concentrations (after adjustment for stocking and sampling dates) in newly-stocked brown trout in August, 1988, could have resulted from the unusual flow conditions. Armstrong and Sloan (1988) suggested that high concentrations in fish from the Hudson River were partly correlated with high river flows, although long-term trends were seen during periods of relatively stable river flows as well. Input variability would be expected to have the greatest effect at Cornwall, which presumably does not have as large a sediment pool of PCBs as the other stations. In addition, input variability would be expected to affect a number of species at a station and would have greatest effect on younger fish. The between-year difference in concentrations in newly stocked brown trout at Cornwall are consistent with these predictions. Like trout, concentrations in smallmouth bass at Cornwall were also 107 lower in 1984. However, between-year differences were noted at the other stations, and differences were not consistently seen among all species at a station. Uptake of PCBs is expected to occur through direct water uptake and from food. Contact with sediment may be a factor, as indicated by experimental evidence of higher bioaccumulation of fish in contact with sediment containing PCBs relative to fish isolated from the same sediment or control fish exposed to clean sediment (Rubinstein et al., 1984). However, the actual route of uptake (uptake from water just above the sediment, ingestion of sediment or suspended particulates, or integumental absorption) was not established. Tissue concentrations resulting from water uptake can be estimated from the water uptake bioconcentration factor (BCF), which has been reported to typically range from 20,000-40,000, with an upper bound of about 106 (Thomann and Connolly, 1984). Assuming that bioconcentration occurs principally through water-lipid partitioning, a lipid-based BCF has been derived from the octanol-water partition coefficient (Schnoor, 1980) '. Thomann and Connolly (1984) report a lipid BCF up to io6-72 (=5.2 *106). Food-chain bioaccumulation will increase the apparent BCF. For instance, the model of Thomann and Connolly (1984) predicted an increase of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude for lake trout in the Great Lakes. BCFs for the Housatonic cannot be estimated, since data on water concentrations during the study period are not available (e.g., concentrations in water samples taken in 1988 were below the detection limit of 1 ug/L). However, rough estimates can be made using estimates of concentrations in water made in 1989 (IMS, pers. comm.) Three to four measurements were taken over three seasons at Falls (above Cornwall), Kent (just above Bulls Bridge), Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar. These were used to estimate BCFs for the 1984-1988 period, assuming no trends in the 1984-1989 period. Mean concentrations were 49 ng/L at Falls, 38 ng/L at Kent, 12 ng/L at Lake Lillinonah (using one-half the detection limit for one sample below detection) and 17 ng/L at 108 Lake Zoar. Using geometric mean PCB values for species at the different stations, BCFs are estimated to range from about 6000 to 300,000, with most values between 20,000 and 90,000. Some individual fish would have much higher BCFs; the maximum PCB concentration recorded would correspond to a BCF around 4,500,000. On a wet weight basis for whole fish, BCFs from water uptake are usually estimated around 50,000 to 100,000 (from BCFs of 200,000 to 400,000 on a dry weight basis; Thomann and Connolly, 1984). The Housatonic data are for fillets. The relationship between PCB concentrations in fillets and whole tissue is variable. Thomann and Connolly (1984) considered 0.5 to 1 as typical fillet to whole body ratios. A median ratio of 0.97 was noted by ANSP (1986) from data in Guiney et al. (1979) and Zabik et al. (1978). From these data, BCFs around 25,000 to 100,000 might be expected for fillets from water uptake. Thus, while the mean values for species from all stations are within ranges that might be expected from water uptake alone, higher PCB concentrations were noted throughout the study area. The BCFs estimated for these fish would be greater than those expected from water uptake alone. These conclusions are dependent on the assumption that the 1989 data are similar to 1984-1988 water concentrations. Analogously, lipid BCFs can be estimated, using the PCB and lipid data (Tables 9 and 10) from this study and the IMS water measurements. Using mean PCBLIP values for species at each station over all years (Table 10), estimated lipid-based BCFs are 3-6*106 for Cornwall, 2-4*106 for Bulls Bridge, 2-20*106 for Lake Lillinonah and 0.2-8*106 for Lake Zoar. The extreme values are for the eel (which had very high lipid content) and the brown bullhead. As noted in the analysis of interspecific differences, brown bullhead had higher PCB concentrations than expected from its relatively low lipid content. The high values for brown bullhead may reflect its benthic habitat, including areas containing fine, organic sediments (e.g., it is typically exposed to much higher water concentrations, so that the BCFs are 109 underestimated, it eats food with high PCB concentrations, etc.). These ranges, calculated from species means, are smaller than those for individual fish, which would have a range about an order of magnitude greater in each direction. As with fillet- based BCFs, these data suggest mean BCFs in the range that might be expected from water-lipid partitioning, but higher values in some individuals, especially older fish, suggest other mechanisms. Armstrong and Sloan (1988) conjectured that PCB-lipid correlations would be highest nearest single riverine sources of PCBs, and would decrease downstream as other factors affected PCB availability. They suggested that weak PCB-lipid dependence in lakes (e.g., Lake Cayuga and Lake Ontario) occurs for similar reasons. The Housatonic River data provide some support for this suggestion (Table 7) . Significant lipid effects in the ANCOVAs were seen for smallmouth bass at the upper two stations, but not in Lakes Lillinonah or Zoar, for largemouth bass at Bulls Bridge but not at Lake Lillinonah, and for white catfish at Lake Lillinonah but not at Lake Zoar. This phenomenon could partly be a statistical artifact. Lower concentrations of PCBs at downstream sites should decrease the total range of PCB variation, making it more difficult to separate trends or covariate effects from residual variation. However, the pattern was seen in white catfish, for which this problem should not occur. Bioconcentration from water has been found to occur rather rapidly, with tissue concentrations approaching asymptotes at time scales of days to months (although changes may occur over longer periods if lipid content, metabolism, gill area, etc. change with age). This contrasts with food-chain accumulation, which can lead to continued increase in tissue concentration over the life of a fish (cf. Thomann and Connolly, 1984) . An increase in PCBs with age (after adjustment for lipid content) was noted for most species in this study, suggesting the importance of food-chain accumulation. There was a rough correlation between 110 food habits and PCB concentrations (after adjustment for lipid effects), with fish-eaters showing higher concentrations, also supporting the importance of food-chain accumulation. The uptake of PCBs by newly-stocked brown trout was modelled by a first-order uptake model. The best-fit model parameters lead to a predicted asymptote of 8.0, and an estimated time of 411 days of exposure to reach 90% of the asymptote (7.2) and 534 days to reach 95% of the asymptote (7.6). The data on concentrations on older trout were consistent with these predictions: geometric J means of fish in the river about 440 days were 5.1 in 1986, 6.9 in 1984 and 7.1 in 1988. Geometric means among older fish were ; also around 7.0. There was no significant difference in PCB concentrations among fish in the river over a year. These 1 observations indicate that accumulation in older brown trout is consistent with uptake patterns among newly-stocked fish. Using \ the 1989 data of 49 ng/L for water concentrations at Cornwall (see above) and the asymptotic concentration, a BCF of 1.6*105 is obtained. This is somewhat higher than typical BCFs expected from water uptake alone, but the difference is not as great as the 1 to 2 orders of magnitude modelled by Thomann and Connolly (1984). ! While both water and food chain uptake are probably important for brown trout at Cornwall, the relatively low estimated BCF may i i j reflect greater relative importance of water uptake relative to ' food-chain uptake than for the other species. If true, this could t . be explained by the smaller sediment pool of PCBs at Cornwall 1 relative to the other stations (leading to lower bioaccumulation among food items), the moderate trophic level of brown trout at Cornwall (fish are probably taken by larger trout, but the abundance of forage fish is relatively low at Cornwall), and the possible importance of terrestrial insects as trout food. Assuming both water and food-chain uptake of PCBs, variation I in accumulation among individuals within sets of samples or between sets of samples (e.g., from different years) can occur i due to differences in metabolism (affecting rates of feeding, assimilation, lipid metabolism, excretion, growth, etc.), food I 111 habits (e.g., from variation in the abundance of various food items), habitat use, etc. These differences may be created by meteorological variation affecting flow and temperature (affecting metabolism, habitat use), variation in community structure (affecting food availability and bioaccumulation in food organisms), and by individual variation in fish behavior and i physiology. Together with variations in PCB inputs and PCB pools, : these differences can generate some of the observed differences , between species, between study years and stations, and among J individuals from the same station and year.

112 LITERATURE CITED

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP). 1985. Interim report on PCB concentrations in fish from the Housatonic River, Connecticut, for General Electric. Rept. No. 85-10F. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 35 pp. . 1986. A compilation of published data on bioaccumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by fish. Report No. 86-5. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 24 pp. . 1987. PCB concentrations in fishes from the Housatonic River, Connecticut, in 1986. Rept. No. 87-15. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 64 pp. . 1989. Preliminary findings on PCB concentrations in fishes from the Housatonic River, Connecticut, in 1988. Rept. No. 89-7. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 97 pp. Armstrong, R.W. and R.J. Sloan. 1988. PCB Patterns in Hudson River fish: I. Resident freshwater species. Pages 304-324 in C.L. Smith, ed., Fisheries research in the Hudson River. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. 407 pp. Beck, G.J., 1982. PCBs in Housatonic River fish, statistical analysis. tReport to Connecticut State Department of Health Services, January, 1982. Frink, C.R., B.L. Sawhney, K.P. Kulp and C.G. Fredette. 1982. Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut: Determination, distribution and transport. Bull. 800. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. New Haven. Gobas, F.A.P.C., A. Opperhuizen and O. Hutzinger. 1986. Bioconcentration of hydrophobia chemicals in fish: relationship with membrane permeation. Env. Toxic, and Chem. 5:637-646. Guiney, P.O., M.J. Melancon, Jr., J.J. Lech and R.E. Peterson. 1979. Effects of egg and sperm maturation and spawning on the distribution and elimination of a polychlorinated biphenyl in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 47:262-272. Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers (IMS). 1987. Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB sediment management study; program for monitoring the natural recovery of the river. Proj. 337-017 Pearl River, N.Y.

113 Rubinstein, N.I., W.T. Gilliam and N.R, Gregory. 1984. Dietary accumulation of PCBs from a contamination sediment source by a demersal fish (Leiostomus xanthurus). Aquatic Toxic. 5:331-342. SAS, 1985 SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc. Gary, N.C. 956 pp.

Schnoor, J.L. Field validation of water quality criteria for hydrophobia pollutants; Fifth ASTM Symposium on aquatic toxicology, Philadelphia, Pa. Oct 7-8, 1980. Sneed, K.E. 1951. A method for calculating the growth of channel catfish, Ictalurus lacustris punctatus. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 80:174-183. Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. The Principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W.H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco. 776 pp. Thomann, R.V., and J.P. Connolly. 1984. Model of PCS in the Lake Michigan lake trout food chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18(2):65-71. Wilson, A.J., and J. Forester. 1978. Persistence of Aroclor 1254 in a contaminated estuary. Bull. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 19(5):637-640. Zabik, M.E., B. Olson and T.M. Johnson. 1978. Dieldrin, DDT, PCBs, and mercury levels in freshwater mullet from the upper Great Lakes, 1975-1976. Pesticides Monit. J. 12(l):36-39.

114 FIGURES

115 SMALLMOUTH BASS

21.U­ ^1984 CZD 1986 1.5­ B221988 j R? 1.0­ CQ g A y O n^ s p: 0.5­

J 0.0­ ! In! .^

^ ^ -0.5­ |

1 n. S B STATION

Figure 1. Average LNTPCB value [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in smallmouth bass samples from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut: Cornwall (C) , Bulls Bridge (B), Lake Lillinonah (L) and Lake Zoar (Z) . Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. Stations are listed in upstream to downstream order. Averages are not adjusted for differences in age distributions of specimens from the stations and study years (specimens were chosen to include a range of ages).

116 YELLOW PERCH

0.0- \\ O( j -0.5­ 1 m 1 n O -1.0­ V1 Q_ & X X X X X ^ -1.5­ X X X X _J X X X X & -2.0- E31984 %•X CZ31986 -2.5­ E^1988

3 .un_ i i i B L I T STATION

Figure 2. Average LNTPCB value [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in yellow perch samples from three stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut: Bulls Bridge (B), Lake Lillinonah (L) and Lake Zoar (Z) . Values of LNTPCB <­ 3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. Stations are listed in upstream to downstream order. Averages are not adjusted for differences in age distributions of specimens from the stations and study years (specimens were chosen to include a range of ages).

111. WHITE CATFISH z.u­ ^1984 CD1986 1.5­ ^31988 m o D_ 1.0- 1

'////K7//////, 1 **v>v %wv 0.5­ %»*v w %v • %*xv* w%v n n. «x« L i Z STATION

Figure 3. Average LNTPCB value [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in white catfish samples from Lake Lillinonah (L) and Lake Zoar (Z) on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB-0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. Stations are listed in upstream to downstream order. Averages are not adjusted for differences in age distributions of specimens from the stations and study years (specimens were chosen to include a range of ages).

118 BULLS BRIDGE 2.0 ^1984 1986 1.5 1988 m -1.0­ o Q_ H^ X 0.5

0.0

-0.5 BB CARP 1MB SMB YP SPECIES

Figure 4. Average LNTPCB value [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in selected species from Bulls Bridge Reservoir on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Averages are not adjusted for differences in age distributions of specimens from the study years (specimens were chosen to include a range of ages). Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. Species are coded as follows: brown bullhead (BB), largemouth bass (1MB), smallmouth bass (SMB) and yellow perch (YP). LAKE LILLINONAH

1.5­ [H11986 E2B1988 J 0.5­ CD O El CL -0.5­

-1.5­

-2.5 1MB SMB WC WP YP SPECIES

Figure 5. Average LNTPCB value [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in selected species from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Averages are not adjusted for differences in age distributions of specimens from the study years (specimens were chosen to include a range of ages). Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. Species are coded as follows: largemouth bass (LMB), smallmouth bass (SMB), white catfish (WC), white perch (WP) and yellow perch (YP).

120 LAKE ZOAR

1 .»J ­ 1 RS — 0.5­ 8 \ Is jf L&J ftj ^ a g m ^ ^ o 0.5­ ^ Q_ s ^ ^s g1 •1.5­ is 18 s IMI CS 1984 2.5­ 1986 ESS 1988 ^ .T *. 1MB SMB WC WP YP SPECIES

Figure 6. Average LNTPCB value [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is 'J the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in selected species from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Averages are not adjusted for differences in age distributions of specimens from the study years (specimens were chosen to include a range of ages). Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. Species are coded as follows: largemouth bass (LMB), smallmouth bass (SMB), white catfish (WC), white perch (WP) and yellow perch (YP).

121 CORNWALL BROWN TROUT

3.5 ^1984 3.0­ CU 1986 ESS 1988 2.5­

o Q_ 1.5­

1.0­

0.5­

0.0 m } 0+ 0.42 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ RIVER AGE

Figure 7. Average LNTPCB [LNTPCB=LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in rag/kg wet weight, in brown trout from Cornwall on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. RIVER AGE is the number of years of habitation in the river. 0+ refers to fish captured in July or August of the year of stocking (i.e., fish in the river 0.2-0.3 years), 0.42 to fish captured in October of the year of stocking. For older fish, RIVER AGE is the integral number of full years in the river. The single vertical lines enclose two standard errors above and below the mean.

122 • 4

3

0* X D i N T P 0­ C B 1­

10 -2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

RIYAEE 0 1964 D 1986 X

Figure 8, LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in brown trout from Cornwall on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. RIVAGE is the number of years of habitation in the river (i.e., since stocking). 3 X X 2­ X v D 0 X D if : 1- 5 I "x * N " ^ !' 0 P 0 C 0­ B 0 0 0 0 0

• i • i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 If

AGE 1964 D 1986 X 1988

Figure 9. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in smallmouth bass from Cornwall on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. c.v X i.5­ X II X D x X 0 1.0­ 8 t 1 II ' N 0.5­ 1 T 1 D P l C 0.0­ X B 0 0 to i" 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 IB

AGE 0 1984 X

Figure 10. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in sroallroouth bass from Bulls Bridge on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 3

2 0 D 1 D

L N 0 T I P C B -H ts> -2 0 6 8 10 12 14

AGE 1964 0 1986 X

Figure 11, LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in smallmouth bass from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <­ 3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 1- D I 0- 0 -1- H L N -2 T P -3­ C B -4­ -5 1 7 8 10 11

A6E 0 1984 Figure 12. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in smallmouth bass from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 0 0 1 x B N 0 0 » P C J B -1

N>

-2 i 0 8 10 12 14 16

AGE 1964 0 1986 X

Figure 13. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in yellow perch from Bulls Bridge Reservoir on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 0 0 D -1- 0 0 N T P C B -3­ re 1 2

A6E 1964

Figure 14. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in yellow perch from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <­ 3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. -1 D

-2 L N P C -3 B D 01 o -4 I ' I I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' 0 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

ABE * 1964

Figure 15. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in yellow perch from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 4i 3 2 I X X N X 1 P I 0 X C I D B 0 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

A6E 1964 D 1986 X 1966

Figure 16. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in rag/kg wet weight, in white catfish from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <­ 3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. « * i ft ft * fc 4 t * Al l

4

2 D X N 1 D 8 D X P D D C X B X A0 u> N9 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

0 1984 D 1986 X 1988 Figure 17. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in rag/kg wet weight, in white catfish from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. c.u* X 1.5­ X 1.0­ 5 D X X D it 0.5­ 1 1 «" X 0.0- v X N 1 P C -0.5­ o 0 0 x B -1.0- * X U) co -1.5- i 1 • | i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1(

AGE 0 1984 0 1986 X 1988

Figure 18. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in brown bullhead from Bulls Bridge Reservoir on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 L N 0.0 P C B -0.5 0 u> -1.0 0 4 6 10 12 14

AGE 1984

Figure 19. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCS concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in brown bullhead from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <­ 3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 D -0.6 L N -0.8 P -1.0­ C B -1.2­ -1.4 0 2 3 7

AGE 0 1964 Figure 20. LNTPC B values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in brown bullhead from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. i —" I ,

3

2­

1- 0 0 • o L

N 0- 0 P C B -1

u> -2 0 B 10 12 14

AGE 0 1984 Figure 21. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in largemouth bass from Bulls Bridge Reservoir on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 2

1^ D 0 D -1­ N -2­ P C B -3­ -4 1 8 10 11

AGE 0 1964 Figure 22. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in largemouth bass from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <­ 3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 2

1

L 0 N P 0 0 C -1 B

CO 00 -2 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10

AGE 1984

Figure 23. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in largemouth bass from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. I L

C.V"

D 1.5- V D 0 1.0­ °- x D I X 1 0 N 0.5­ I T X P 0 D C B 0.0- 1 I X J 0 UJ V0

0 1 2 3 B 10

AGE 1964 0 1986 X 1968

Figure 24. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in white perch from Lake Lillinonah on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. 2 D 1 0­ i D D L -1­ N -2 P C B -3 D D -4 012 3 7 8 9 10 11 12

AGE 1984 D 1988

Figure 25. LNTPCB values [LPTCB = LN(TPCB)], where TPCB is the total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight, in white perch from Lake Zoar on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Values of LNTPCB <-3.5 correspond to TPCB concentrations less than the detection limit; LNTPCB=0 corresponds to TPCB=1.0; LNTPCB=0.69 corresponds to TPCB=2.0. AGE is the integral age of each specimen in years. • i .

5.5 5.0­ 4.5­ 4.O­ O 3.5­ X 3.O­ £.5­ P C a.o- B 1.5- 1.0- 0.5- 0.0 50 70 O 90 1OO 110 120 13O 140 150 160 170 ISO

RIUDAY 0 0 0 1984 X 1986 f 1988

Figure 26. Fit of observed mean PCB concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) of newly- stocked brown trout (i.e., collected less than one year after stocking) to a first-order model of uptake. Trout were collected from the Housatonic River at Cornwall, Connecticut, in 1984, 1986, and 1988. Days of time in the river (RIVDAY) were calculated from stocking dates supplied by the State of Connecticut and by collecting dates (for some samples collected over a 2-3 day period, a single collecting date was used). Parameters of the model PCB(D) = A(l-exp(­ k2*D) were A=8.02 and k2=.0056. i.i- X 1.1 • i.i­ 1.1•

1.7­ + 7 V« + 7 s I.I D * L I.S­ _ * » + 7 « * N T 1.4 • 7 7 4.+ $« . p h • * C I.S- 7 B 1.2­ ^° " V i \ •K * A • • » A * n 1.1 • 1 47 trBrf^ * * T \ f * 0 * • to I.I • !fJ>*?• i « i ¥ i " i * i ' i * i " I.I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 I.I 1.7 1.

CYUP 0 BB D BT X E + U6 A N V 96 I NC 1 YP

Figure 27. Relationship between the coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of lipid content and standard deviation of LNTPCB (In(TPCB)) for replicate lipid and PCB extractions from PCB analyses of fishes from four stations on the Housatonic River, Connecticut, from 1984, 1986 and 1988. Species analyzed are brown bullhead (BB), brown trout (BT), eel (E), largemouth bass (LMB), smallmouth bass (8MB), white catfish (WC), yellow perch (YP), and bluegill, rainbow trout, carp and white perch (M). Appendix A Data on PCB concentrations and other attributes of fish from 1988, 1986 and 1984 studies on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Abbreviations used in the appendix are as follows:

Heading Data Sta Station C Cornwall B Bulls Bridge L Lake Lillinonah Z Lake Zoar Far Farmington River 'j San Sandy Brook Mil Mill Brook Poo Pootatuck River Cop Coppermine Brook Ban Bantam Lake War Lake Waramaug Sau Saugatuck Reservoir H Hatchery No station is used for hatchery trout for the 1986 and 1984 samples. MO Month of capture of fish. TPCB Total PCB concentration in mg/kg wet weight of the fillet. REP Replicate and composite identifier R, Rl, Individual replicate R2, R3 M or Mean of replicate values blank (1984 and 1986 data) MR Mean of replicate values (1988 data) Specimen was analyzed as part of a composite sample COM Values pertaining to composite CR1, CR2 Replicate value of composite sample MCR Mean of replicates for composite sample

143 Appendix A (continued) . Data on PCB concentrations and other attributes of fish from 1988, 1986 and 1984 studies on the Housatonic River, Connecticut. Abbreviations used in the appendix are as follows:

AGE Age of fish for all species except brown trout at Cornwall, for which river-ages (years since stocking) are given. TL Total length (cm). TW Wet weight of fish (g). S Sex of fish (M = male; F = female) ST Strain (hatchery origin of trout) B Bitterroot U Burlington Q Quinebaug N Presumed native E Erwin LIPID Lipid content of fillet. SN Serial number of sample. « IND Individual code (within serial number); 1988 only. i A1254 Concentration of Aroclor 1254 (mg/kg wet weight). A1260 Concentration of Aroclor 1260 (mg/kg wet weight). D Detection limit indicator. D Concentration was less than the detection limit. The number given is one-half the detection limit. Concentration was at or near the detection limit.

144 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BLUEGILL B 1984 10 0.59 4 17.5 114. 7 M 2.10 235 097A 0.26 0.34 BLUEGILL B 1984 8 1.20 4 20.0 179. 8 M 0.62 288 065A 0.42 0.74 BLUEGILL B 1988 8 1.20 15.5 82. 7 F 0.96 88-182 A 0.35 0.85 BLUEGILL B 1988 8 1.12 3 18.2 144. 1 F 0.73 88-182 B 0.33 0.79 BLUEGILL B 1988 8 3.91 Rl 8 26.6 569. 5 M 5.89 88-194 1.32 2.59 BLUEGILL B 1988 8 4.81 R2 8 26.6 569. 5 M 3.77 88-194 1.62 .3.19 BLUEGILL B 1988 8 4.36 MR 8. 26.6 569. 5 M 4.83 88-194 1.47 2.89 BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.2 1. 1 88-266 A BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.3 2. 4 88-266 B BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.6 1. 4 88-266 C BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 3.9 0. 8 88-266 D BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.2 2. 0 88-266 E BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.0 1. 8 88-266 F BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.9 1. 9 88-266 G BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.9 1. 5 88-266 H BLUEGILL B 1988 10 1. 69 COM 4.09 88-266,283 0.60 1.09 BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 3.8 0. 7 88-283 A BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.1 0. 9 88-283 B BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.1 2. 0 88-283 C BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.2 0. 9 88-283 D BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.1 0. 9 88-283 E BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.0 0. 8 88-283 F BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.3 2. 2 88-283 G BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.3 2. 1 88-283 H BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 3.9 0. 8 88-283 I BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.7 1. 4 88-283 J BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 3.8 0. 6 88-283 K BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.0 2. 1 88-283 L BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.9 3. 2 88-286 A BLUEGILL B 1988 10 1. 74 COM. 4.26 88-286 A-R 0.48 1.26 BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.0 0. 8 88-286 B BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.2 1. 0 88-286 C BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.5 2. 4 88-286 D BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.7 1. 6 88-286 E BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.3 1. 1 88-286 F BLUEGILL B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.0 1. 9 88-286 G SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.1 1.1 88-286 H BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.2 0.9 88-286 I BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.6 1.4 88-286 J BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.4 2.6 88-286 K BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.0 0.8 88-286 L BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.2 2.1 88-286 M BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33. 5.6 2.7 88-286 N BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 3.4 0.5 88-286 0 BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.4 1.3 88-286 P BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.3 1.1 88-286 Q BLUEGILL B 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.4 1.1 88-286 R BLUEGILL L 1984 5 0.52 3 19.5 164.5 F 1.00 237 099A 0.12 0.40 BLUEGILL L 1984 5 0.53 3 20.5 198.0 M 1.10 286 072A 0.24 0.29 BLUEGILL L 1988 6 AGE 2 19.0 179.6 M 88-007 B BLUEGILL L 1988 8 0.25 Rl 5 19.9 181.5 M 0.48 88-177 A 0.03D 0.25 BLUEGILL L 1988 8 0.38 R2 5 19.9 181.5 M 0.48 88-177 A 0.03D 0.38 BLUEGILL L 1988 8 0.32 MR 5 19.9 181.5 M 0.48 88-177 A 0.03D 0.32 BLUEGILL L 1988 8 0.90 3 19.5 189.1 M 1.21 88-177 B 0.35 0.55 BLUEGILL L 1988 8 0.33 2 15.2 85.0 M 1.63 88-177 C 0.09 0.24 BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.9 3.2 88-281 A BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 0.03D CO M 2.82 88-281 A-V 0.03D 0.03D BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 6.2 3.3 88-281 B BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 7.1 5.1 88-281 C BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 3.3 0.4 88-281 D BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.6 2.4 88-281 E BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 6.2 3.6 88-281 F BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 7.5 5.9 88-281 G BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 3.8 0.7 88-281 H BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.7 1.4 88-281 I BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.0 1.5 88-281 J BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 6.5 3.6 88-281 K BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 3.5 0.4 88-281 L BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.6 2.4 88-281 M BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 3.9 0.8 88-281 N BLUEGILL L 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.9 1.6 88-281 O BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.2 3.3 88-281 P L­

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.2 1 .0 88-281 Q BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0. 33 0.7 88-281 R BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 4.7 1.3 88-281 S BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 7.1 5.3 88-281 T BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 2.8 0.2 88-281 U BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.1 3.3 88-281 V BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33­ 6.1 3.3 88-295 A BLUEGILL L 1988 10 1.18 COM 3.63 88-295 A-J 0.42 0.75 BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.9 5.0 88-295 B BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.8 4.7 88-295 C BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 3.8 0.7 88-295 D BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 7.0 4.7 88-295 E BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 4.3 0.9 88-295 F BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.9 4.2 88-295 G BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.2 3.4 88-295 H BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.2 3.2 88-295 I BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 7.0 4.6 88-295 J BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 5.9 2.9 88-297 A BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 2.6 0.2 88-297 B BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 5.0 1.6 88-297 C BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 4.2 1.0 88-297 D BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 3.5 0.6 88-297 E BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 3.5 0.5 88-297 F BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 2.5 0.2 88-297 G BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 2.8 0.2 88-297 H BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 0.2 88-297 I BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 0.6 88-297 J BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 5.7 2.4 88-297 K BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 5.4 2.2 88-297 L BLUEGILL L 1988 10 C 0.33 6.0 3.0 88-297 M BLUEGILL Z 1984 10 0.77 4 20.9 161.4 F 0.60 269 085A 0.31 0.47 BLUEGILL Z 1984 8 1.30 3 17.5 112 .1 F 1.20 277 069A 0.11 1.14 BLUEGILL Z 1988 8 0.03D 7 21.0 267 .1 F 0.64 88-070 A 0.03D 0.03D BLUEGILL Z 1988 8 0.38 5 19.6 260.6 M 0.52 88-070 B 0.15 0.23 BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0.33 3.8 0.8 88-230 A BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 0.83 COM 0.41 88-230 A-0 0.37 0.46 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.5 0.5 88-230 AA BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.4 1.3 88-230 B BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 0.9 88-230 BB BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.2 1.1 88-230 C BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.3 0.5 88-230 CC BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.9 0.8 88-230 D BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33. 3.4 0.6 88-230 DD BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.4 1.2 88-230 E BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.4 0.6 88-230 EE BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.3 1.2 88-230 F BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 0.9 88-230 FF BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.3 1.2 88-230 G BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.3 0.5 88-230 GG BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.9 0.9 88-230 H BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.4 0.6 88-230 HH BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.2 1.1 88-230 I BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.1 0.4 88-230 II oo BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.0 0.9 88-230 J BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.0 0.4 88-230 JJ BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.1 0.9 88-230 K BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.5 0.6 88-230 KK BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.8 0.8 88-230 L BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 2.9 0.4 88-230 LL BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.6 1.3 88-230 M BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.3 0.5 88-230 MM BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.1 1.0 88-230 N BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.4 0.5 88-230 NN BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.5 1.4 88-230 0 BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 2.9 0.4 88-230 00 BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.3 1.2 88-230 P BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.4 0.5 88-230 Q BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.1 0.9 88-230 R BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.9 0.8 88-230 S BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.8 0.7 88-230 T BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 4.3 1.0 88-230 U BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 c 0.33 3.0 0.3 88-230 V SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 3.4 0.5 88-230 W BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 3.4 0.6 88-230 X BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 1.0 88-230 Y BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 3.5 0.6 88-230 Z BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.3 2.6 88-262 A BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 0.03D COM 4.51 88-262 A-S 0.03D 0.03D BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33. 5.1 2.2 88-262 B BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 2.2 88-262 C BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.3 1.1 88-262 D BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.5 1.4 88-262 E BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.7 1.6 88-262 F BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 1.6 88-262 G BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.2 1.1 88-262 H BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.2 2.4 88-262 I BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 6.0 3.4 88-262 J BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.8 1.7 88-262 K BLUEGILL ' Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.2 2.3 88-262 L BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.7 1.6 88-262 M BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.2 1.1 88-262 N BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.1 1.8 88-262 0 BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.8 1.6 88-262 P BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.1 2.1 88-262 Q BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.0 "2.0 88-262 R BLUEGILL Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.2 2.2 88-262 S BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.55 4 29.2 361.3 F 0.73 211 029A 0.35 0.57 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 1.40 3 27.4 302.0 F 0.94 212 029B 0.19 1.24 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.97 25.8 272.2 M 0.58 213 029C 0.22 0.80 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.69 3 26.0 241.7 F 0.75 214 029D 0.19 0.50 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.54 2 19.1 100.5 M 0.56 215 029E 0.20 0.35 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 1.10 3 27.5 293.7 F 0.76 219 033A 0.30 0.85 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.44 2 23.0 168.0 F 0.58 220 033B 0.16 0.29 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.39 2 23.2 162.1 M 0.35 221 033C 0.94 0.29 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.97 3 27.5 268.2 M 0.35 222 034A 0.28 0.69 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.96 M 2 28.9 297.5 F 1.04 223R034B 0.23 0.71 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.71 R 2 28.9 297.5 F 0.99 223R034B 0.18 0.52 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 1.20 R 2 28.9 297.5 F 1.10 224R034B 0.28 0.90 >—i e

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.56 3 25.4 205.4 M 0.56 225 034C 0.22 0.34 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1984 8 0.96 25.5 222.1 M 0.67 226 034D 0.24 0.72 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 1.96 2 28.1 278.3 M 0.96 86-43-139 0.69 1.27 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 0.96 2 28.2 342.3 M 0.66 86-43-141 0.23 0.73 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 2.90 M 5 34.7 704.4 F 1.10 86-43-142 0.56 2.34 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 2.63 R 5 34.7 704.4 F 1.00 86-43-142 0.48 2.15 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 3.15 R 5. 34.7 704.4 F 1.20 86-43-142 0.63 2.52 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 1.23 2 30.5 417.9 F 0.79 86-43-143 0.32 0.91 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 0.84 2 25.5 230.0 F 0.17 86-43-144 0.23 0.61 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1986 8 3.08 4 34.0 588.8 F 2.80 86-44-145 0.82 2.26 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 5.44 Rl 8 31.5 417.2 F 2.44 88-197 A 2.07 3.38 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 7.38 R2 8 31.5 417.2 F 2.11 88-197 A 1.50 5.88 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 6.41 MR 8 31.5 417.2 F 2.28 88-197 A 1.78 4.63 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 2.07 4 29.2 378.4 F 1.06 88-197 B 0.46 1.60 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 0.39 6 28.7 304.9 F 0.90 88-202 A 0.10 0.30 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 1.41 6 29.5 340.5 F 0.38 88-202 B 0.30 1.11 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 1.50 4 25.7 242.0 M 0.89 88-204 A 0.42 1.08 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 0.75 3 26.6 269.3 F 0.75 88-204 B 0.19 0.56 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 4.38 Rl 9 31.3 378.0 F 1.60 88-205 0.81 3.57 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 1.31 R2 9 31.3 378.0 F 1.18 88-205 0.31 1.01 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 8 2.84 MR 9 31.3 378.0 F 1.39 88-205 0.56 2.29 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 3.68 9 31.0 418.5 F 1.75 88-273 A 0.65 3.03 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 0.51 5 31.3 445.3 M 0.75 88-273 B 0.03D 0.51 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 2.44 25.5 202.0 M 0.86 88-274 A 0.42 2.01 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 2.84 30.4 362.3 M 0.69 88-274 B 0.68 2.16 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 1.22 2 26.6 232.8 M 0.81 88-274 C 0.33 0.89 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 0.97 4 28.6 286.9 F 0.91 88-277 A 0.20 0.77 BROWN BULLHEAD B 1988 10 1.21 4 25.7 205.0 F 0.94 88-277 B 0.33 0.88 BROWN BULLHEAD BAN 1988 8 0.03D 29.7 342.9 M 0.71 88-118 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD BAN 1988 8 0.03D 29.0 322.1 M 1.61 88-118 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD L 1984 6 2.20 4 32.9 481.0 M 1.40 015 005A 0.27 1.96 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1984 6 2.30 4 28.5 304.3 M 1.60 016 005B 0.66 1.67 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1984 6 2.60 5 30.0 400.8 F 1.50 017 005C 0.59 2.01 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1988 6 0.46 12 32.6 474.4 F 0.32 88-014 A 0.07 0.47 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1988 6 2.31 11 31.8 480.1 F 0.32 88-014 B 0.64 1.67 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1988 6 4.13 10 34.5 594.4 M 0.48 88-014 C 0.31 3.82 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1988 10 0.81 8 31.9 357.5 M 0.58 88-220 A 0.08 0.73 BROWN BULLHEAD L 1988 10 0.69 3 29.1 309.0 M 0.78 88-220 B 0.12 0.56 BROWN BULLHEAD SAU 1988 8 0.03D 5 34.2 616.6 M 2.46 88-157 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD SAU 1988 8 0.03D 7 35.7 635.8 M 1.85 88-214 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD SAU 1988 8 0.03D 4 35.8 623.9 M 0.83 88-214 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD WAR 1988 8 0.03D 4 22.3 124.5 M 0.66 88-058 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD WAR 1988 8 0.03D 3. 25.4 194.5 M 0.91 88-058 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD WAR 1988 8 0.03D e" 27.0 257.1 M 0.67 88-139 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1984 8 0.53 4 31.4 411.3 F 0.86 289 064A 0.15 0.37 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1984 8 0.30 2 21.3 122.1 M 0.57 290 064B 0.18 0.12 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 8 0.94 7 30.7 399.6 F 1.51 88-074 A 0.30 0.64 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 8 0.37 7 32.0 493.7 F 0.98 88-074 B 0.03D 0.37 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 8 0.87 4 32.2 441.1 M 0.47 88-074 C 0.14 0.73 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 8 0.62 6 29.0 322.0 M 0.66 88-117 0.14 0.47 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 10 0.64 Rl 6 32.7 486.5 F 1.68 88-238 A 0.11 0.53 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 10 0.60 R2 6 32.7 486.5 F 1.37 88-238 A 0.13 0.47 M (J1 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 10 0.62 MR 6 32.7 486.5 F 1.53 88-238 A 0.12 0.50 BROWN BULLHEAD Z 1988 10 0.68 5 31.7 477.3 F 1.55 88-238 B 0.25 0.43 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.90 25.5 183.5 M N 2.80 022 010A 0.79 1.13 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 2.20 0.2 21.2 100.3 M B 2.60 023 010B 0.92 1.67 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 12.20 1.2 29.9 317.9 F U 6.90 024 010C 4.40 7.78 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.55 0.2 25.2 159.5 M B 2.60 025 010D 0.27 0.28 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 3.40 3 24.0 142.8 M N 4.10 026 010E 2.28 1.09 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 2.50 0.2 29.2 253.9 F U 3.00 028 011A 0.89 1.64 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 2.60 0.2 24.5 157.0 M B 2.90 029 011B 1.09 1.51 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.35 0.2 24.6 160.6 M U 3.70 030 011C 0.16 0.19 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 6.80 1.2 30.2 277.8 M U 2.10 031 012A 1.63 5.21 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.60 0.2 26.2 215.2 M B 4.30 032 012C 0.66 0.97 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 8.80 M 3.2 31.5 308.7 F Q 2.35 035R012B 4.48 4.31 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 9.30 R 3.2 31.5 308.7 F Q 2.80 035R012B 5.02 4.29 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.66 M 0.2 25.4 179.6 M B 2.35 067R013A 0.28 0.39 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.53 R 0.2 25.4 179.6 M B 2.40 067R013A 0.29 0.24 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 4.50 1.2 27.6 201.6 F Q 2.10 068 013B 1.51 3.02 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 2.00 0.2 26.0 185.1 M B 3.80 069 013C 0.84 1.12 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.00 0.2 27.4 191.0 M U 2.30 070 013D 0.31 0.68 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.78 R 0.2 25.4 179.6 M B 2.30 071R013A 0.26 0.53 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 4.10 0.2 23.2 136.4 M B 3.10 099 017A 0.93 3.19 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.77 0.2 23.6 142.6 F B 2.20 100 017B 0.34 0.43 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.98 M 0.2 26.5 174.4 M B 1.25 101R017C 0.60 0.48 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.95 R 0.2 26.5 174.4 M B 1.30 101R017C 0.55 0.58 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.00 R 0.2 26.5 174.4 M B 1.20 102R017C 0.64 0.38 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 4.50 2 18.4 80.8 M N 4.70 103 017D 1.53 2.96 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.80 0.2 17.4 59.1 M B 0.29 117 015A 0.76 1.03 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.60 0.2" 26.6 194.9 M B 2.00 119 015C 0.53 1.07 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 7.00 2.2 31.8 320.8 M Q 1.90 144 014B 0.70 1.62 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 14.60 3.2 32.4 297.2 F U 3.60 145 014C 1.24 3.68 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 8.40 1.2 30.1 285.4 F U 3.50 146 014D 2.44 5.94 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.20 0.2 19.9 80.9 M U 2.70 147 018A 0.49 0.67 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 2.90 0.2 24.2 148.2 M U 3.10 163 016B 1.06 1.87 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.80 0.2 23.9 144.1 M U 2.00 164 016C 0.53 1.25 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 8.30 R 3.2 31.5 308.7 F Q 1.90 201R012B 3.94 4.33 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.50 0.2 23.0 137.3 M B 2.80 208 011D 0.68 0.86 1/1 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.00 0.2 20.6 86.4 F B 2.80 209 011E 0.39 0.57 10 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.20 0.2 25.1 165.4 F U 2.90 216 016D 0.46 0.76 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 3.25 M 2.2 32.1 334.9 M U 1.40 217R018B 0.96 2.35 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 3.40 R 2.2 32.1 334.9 M U 1.40 217R018B 0.92 2.43 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 3.10 R 2.2 32.1 334.9 M U 1.40 218R018B 0.85 2.27 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 1.10 0.2 24.9 147.1 M B 3.60 270 015D 0.51 0.61 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 3.80 0.2 22.7 133.3 M B 3.30 272 015B 1.26 2.49 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 0.55 0.2 30.1 304.3 F U 5.00 320 012D 0.25 0.30 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 6.00 2.2 33.0 380.5 F Q 3.40 328 014A 2.10 3.93 BROWN TROUT C 1984 7 4.90 1.2 27.7 208.6 F Q 1.90 329 016A 1.59 3.31 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 8.55 3.2 35.0 463.2 F Q 3.70 86-27-75 2.86 5.69 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 16.17 M 4.2 40.2 696.2 M B 4.35 86-27-76 5.11 11.06 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 15.34 R 4.2 40.2 696.2 M B 3.80 86-27-76 4.80 10.54 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 17.00 R 4.2 40.2 696.2 M B 4.90 86-27-76 5.42 11.58 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 9.35 2.2 35.3 428.6 M B 1.90 86-27-77 2.65 6.70 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 1.92 2.2 26.0 208.9 M 4.70 86-27-78 0.70 1.22 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 6.78 1.2 28.1 287.7 M B 3.50 86-28-80 2.18 4.60 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 5.39 0.2 28.0 280.6 F B 6.10 86-28-81 2.39 3.00 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 2.73 0.2 24.3 164.5 M B 2.20 86-29-84 1.21 1.52 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 3.50 1.2 26.3 190.4 M 2.30 86-29-85 1.10 2.40 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 23.57 2.2 33.4 422.6 F B 4.40 86-29-86 8.33 15.24 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 8.47 2.2 31.3 330.9 M B 3.70 86-29-87 2.11 6.36 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 5.36 1.2 29.5 316.4 F B 3.70 86-29-88 1.77 3.59 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 2.02 0.2 23.1 164.1 M B 3.40 86-30-89 0.75 1.27 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 14.08 2.2 31.8 350.6 M B 3.40 86-30-90 4.26 9.82 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 5.60 1.2 29.2 277.0 M B 3.20 86-30-91 1.88 3.72 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 2.27 1.2 ­ 29.4 290.7 F B 4.40 86-30-92 0.88 1.39 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 3.10 2.2 27.0 244.7 F 3.90 86-30-93 1.02 2.08 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 3.50 0.2 21.5 137.2 M B 3.40 86-31-94 0.30 3.20 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 9.64 1.2 25.0 207.8 M B 6.10 86-31-95 2.83 6.81 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 3.79 0.2 25.8 211.3 M B 5.10 86-31-96 1.24 2.55 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 4.42 1.2 29.2 293.5 M B 2.50 86-31-97 1.38 3.04 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 7.82 1.2 28.2 287.9 F B 5.00 86-32-100 2.56 5.26 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 5.28 1.2 23.6 148.2 M B 2.80 86-32-98 1.79 3.49 BROWN TROUT C 1986 8 4.74 1.2 26.8 361.4 F B 4.80 86-32-99 1.62 3.12 BROWN TROUT C 1986 10 5.29 4.9 47.0 943.4 F 2.40 86-48-153 2.24 3.05 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.69 2.25 39.4 689.9 M B 3.65 88-032 1.54 3.15 U> BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.76 3.25 40.4 792.3 M B 4.45 88-033 1.47 3.29 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 5.74 4.25 40.8 689.7 M B 3.60 88-034 2.01 3.73 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 6.09 2.25 39.5 767.1 M B 6.16 88-035 1.77 4.32 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.13 Rl 2.25 40.0 779.4 M U 2.75 88-036 1.06 3.07 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.02 R2 2.25 40.0 779.4 M U 3.35 88-036 1.19 2.83 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.08 MR 2.25 40.0 779.4 M U 3.05 88-036 1.13 2.95 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 3.55 2.25 36.8 607.3 M B 2.80 88-037 1.14 2.41 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 5.07 2.25 36.3 591.5 F B 4.25 88-038 1.69 3.39 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 3.77 0.25 19.8 81.5 M B 2.25 88-039 A 1.01 2.77 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.66 0.25 18.2 68.4 M B 2.55 88-039 C 1.48 3.17 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 2.83 0.25 18.1 65.1 M B 1.43 88-039 D 0.88 1.96 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 3.49 0.25 21.9 92.7 M B 1.80 88-040 A 0.81 2.68 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 3.73 0.25 19.9 78.4 M B 2.20 88-040 B 0.97 2.76 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 4.77 0.25 21.3 89.6 F B 1.75 88-040 C 1.38 3.38 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 5.31 0.25 20.7 94.4 M B 2.31 88-040 E 1.42 3.89 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 3.62 0.25 18.7 62.8 F B 1.50 88-041 A 0.88 2.74 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 3.51 0.25 17.8 59.5 M B 1.37 88-041 B 0.87 2.64 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 2.60 0.25 20.6 85.8 M B 1.65 88-041 C 0.77 1.84 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 9.99 Rl 1.25 33.6 459.8 F U 6.05 88-043 A 2.98 7.02 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 10.20 R2 1.25 33.6 459.8 F U 4.95 88-043 A 2.90 7.30 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 10.10 MR 1.25 33.6 459.8 F U 5.50 88-043 A 2.94 7.16 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 6.37 1.25 31.6 342.6 M U 2.66 88-043 B 1.77 4.59 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 8.32 1.25 31.8 385.4 M U 3.40 88-043 C 2.22 6.09 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 8.44 Rl 1.25 36.0 524.6 F U 4.66 88-044 A 2.50 5.94 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 7.71 R2 1.25 36.0 524.6 F U 4.85 88-044 A 2.16 5.55 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 8.08 MR 1.25. 36.0 524.6 F U 4.76 88-044 A 2.33 5.75 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 5.00 1.25 28.5 236.4 M B 3.44 88-044 B 1.45 3.55 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 7.49 1.25 30.8 364.7 F B 6.35 88-045 A 2.51 4.98 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 5.43 1.25 29.2 335.5 M B 4.15 88-045 B 1.76 3.67 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 14.17 3.25 34.5 506.8 F B 4.75 88-063 A 3.58 10.58 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 10.53 Rl 2.25 34.5 475.5 M B 4.25 88-063 B 3.41 7.12 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 8.68 R2 2.25 34.5 475.5 M B 8.30 88-063 B 2.62 6.06 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 9.60 MR 2.25 34.5 475.5 M B 6.28 88-063 B 3.01 6.59 BROWN TROUT C 1988 8 16.70 3.25 34.5 423.6 F B 4.71 88-066 4.78 11.92 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 3.50 0.42 21.2 108.2 M B 0.98 88-260 A 1.01 2.49 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 4.15 0.42 19.2 78.6 F B 2.05 88-260 B 1.47 2.67 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 7.66 0.42 24.7 160.9 M B 2.23 88-261 1.87 5.80 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 3.74 0.42 20.4 76.4 M B 0.75 88-306 A 0.87 2.88 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 3.94 0.42 20.5 87.5 M B 0.76 88-306 B 0.93 3.01 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 4.17 0.42 22.1 108.0 M B 0.90 88-306 C 1.04 3.12 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 3.22 0.42 21.6 103.9 F B 1.07 88-306 D 0.75 2.48 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 5.18 0.42 23.1 132.3 M B 1.81 88-306 E 1.36 3.82 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 5.94 Rl 0.42 21.3 97.6 F B 1.26 88-306 F 1.50 4.45 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 5.26 R2 0.42 21.3 97.6 F B 1.38 88-306 F 1.39 3.88 BROWN TROUT C 1988 10 5.60 MR 0.42 21.3 97.6 F B 1.32 88-306 F 1.44 4.16 BROWN TROUT COP 1988 8 0.03D 2 14.2 31.9 M 2.69 88-053 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT COP 1988 8 0.03D 2 25.3 157.6 F 2.25 88-053 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT COP 1988 8 0.03D 3 27.0 196.4 F 2.90 88-053 D 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT FAR 1988 10 0.03D 2 30.2 290.3 M 1.98 88-302 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT FAR 1988 10 0.03D 2 31.0 354.3 F 2.04 88-302 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT FAR 1988 10 0.03D 2 27.0 217.1 M 2.78 88-302 C 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 52.0 B 0.21 87-58-183 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 75.9 B 0.25 87-58-184 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.06D 0 51.0 B 0.20 87-58-185 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 27.9 B 0.13 87-58-186 0.03D 0.03D SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 17.8 B 0.20 87-58-187 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 365.2 Q 0.45 87-59-189 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 360.0 Q 0.54 87-59-189 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 307.7 Q 0.64 87-59-190 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 299.2 Q 0.70 87-59-191 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D M 0 437.8 Q 0.60 87-59-192 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D R 0. 437.8 Q 0.58 87-59-192 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D R 0 437.8 Q 0.58 87-59-192 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1987 5 0.03D 0 407.6 Q 0.48 87-59-193 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 18.5 60.2 B 2.12 88-026 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 2.34 0 17.1 45.7 B 1.01 88-030 A 0.27 2.07 BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 17.8 57.7 B 2.00 88-030 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 17.7 51.2 B 2.04 88-030 C 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 19.1 74.3 B 2.68 88-030 D 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 17.6 53.6 B 0.95 88-030 E 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 16.5 41.5 B 2.18 88-031 A 0.03D 0.03D

Ut BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 16.4 44.0 B 1.38 88-031 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 17.9 52.3 B 1.79 88-031 C 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D 0 18.1 56.4 B 1.46 88-031 D 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.54 0 16.2 42.1 B 2.36 88-031 E 0.16 0.38 BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 17.7 48.1 Q 3.28 89-2 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 16.0 39.9 Q 3.26 89-2 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 17.5 51.6 Q 4.60 89-2 C 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 16.1 47.2 Q 4.86 89-2 D 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 14.0 29.5 Q 89-2 E BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM Q 3.04 89-2 EM 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 16.3 41.0 Q 3.58 89-2 F 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 16.0 43.9 Q 4.10 89-2 G 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 17.4 52.0 Q 4.98 89-2 H 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 14.4 36.8 Q 3.22 89-2 I 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 15.0 35.8 Q 1.99 89-2 J 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 16.7 43.0 Q 3.33 89-2 K 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 15.4 37.4 Q 2.54 89-2 L 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 14.6 29.5 Q 89-2 M BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 17.2 51.0 Q 4.12 89-2 N 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D 16.5 41.8 Q 3.52 89-2 0 0.03D 0.03D SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

BROWN TROUT MIL 1988 8 0.03D 3 26.5 208.6 F 4.65 88-056 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT MIL 1988 8 0.03D 2 25.7 181.8 F 3.61 88-056 C 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT MIL 1988 8 0.03D 2 17.0 49.6 M 2.50 88-056 D 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT MIL 1988 8 0.03D 2 17.4 53.5 F 1.64 88-056 E 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT POO 1988 8 0.03D 2 16.5 51.3 M 4.40 88-055 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT POO 1988 8 0.03D 2 22.2 106.1 F 2.70 88-055 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT SAN 1988 8 0.03D 3. 24.1 145.4 M 2.10 88-054 A 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT SAN 1988 8 0.03D 3 25.4 166.6 F 3.15 88-054 B 0.03D 0.03D BROWN TROUT SAN 1988 8 0.03D 3 25.1 159.4 F 0.55 88-054 C 0.03D 0.03D CARP B 1984 8 1.10 2 35.9 759.2 M 1.50 322 077A 0.43 0.65 CARP B 1988 8 2.75 Rl 2 37.5 861.8 F 4.29 88-181 0.93 1.82 CARP B 1988 8 1.96 R2 2 37.5 861.8 F 4.32 88-181 0.62 1.34 CARP B 1988 8 2.36 MR 2 37.5 861.8 F 4.31 88-181 0.78 1.58 CARP B 1988 8 9.91 17 62.3 3967.1 F 20.62 88-185 2.93 6.98 CARP B 1988 8 7.69 4 63.0 4047.1 F 6.51 88-186 2.68 5.01 CARP L 1984 6 2.20 4 59.6 3700.0 F 10.50 006 009A 1.00 1.20 CARP L 1988 6 16.69 Rl 17 66.0 3995.8 F 2.81 88-016 4.97 11.72 CARP L 1988 6 17.83 R2 17 66.0 3995.8 F 2.40 88-016 5.45 12.38 CARP L 1988 6 17.26 MR 17 66.0 3995.8 F 2.61 88-016 5.21 12.05 CARP L 1988 8 0.77 2 41.8 1031.1 M 3.62 88-143 0.27 0.49 CARP L 1988 8 4.20 6 57.5 2450.6 M 4.01 88-145 1.59 2.61 CARP Z 1984 8 4.30 R 8 58.5 2528.6 M 6.20 321R071A 1.86 2.26 CARP Z 1984 8 4.95 M 8 58.5 2528.6 M 6.80 340R071A 2.19 2.66 CARP Z 1984 8 5.60 R 8 58.5 2528.6 M 7.40 340R071A 2.52 3.06 CARP Z 1988 8 25.68 25 69.0 4824.5 F 3.78 88-046 6.28 19.39 CARP Z 1988 8 2.91 13 62.0 3141.7 M 10.92 88-047 1.11 1.80 CARP Z 1988 8 21.70 22 65.5 4466.3 M 6.99 88-048 6.39 14.56 EEL Z 1988 8 0.57 Rl 6 58.1 308.7 16.03 88-075 A 0.17 0.39 EEL Z 1988 8 2.53 R2 6 58.1 308.7 18.50 88-075 A 0.68 1.86 EEL Z 1988 8 1.55 MR 6 58.1 308.7 17.27 88-075 A 0.43 1.12 EEL Z 1988 8 0.25 11 63.0 439.1 26.20 88-075 C 0.03D 0.25 EEL Z 1988 8 1.82 12 64.7 490.0 27.48 88-087 0.58 1.24 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.45 M 4 31.1 452.5 M 1.35 251R093A 0.67 1.81 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.70 R 4 31.1 452.5 M 1.20 251R093A 0.79 1.93 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.20 R 4 31.1 452.5 M 1.50 252R093A 0.54 1.69 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.26 R 4 29.4 348.8 F 0.83 254R093B 0.41 0.85 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.92 4 31.9 589.5 F 0.90 291 042A 0.31 0.61 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.64 4 31.1 494.1 F 0.74 292 042B 0.18 0.46 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.52 4 33.0 569.1 M 1.10 293 042C 0.19 0.34 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 1.20 3 26.0 269.1 M 0.40 294 043A 0.48 0.72 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 1.10 3 25.0 241.7 F 0.40 295 043B 0.37 0.74 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.54 3 26.8 287.6 F 0.58 296 043C 0.21 0.33 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 1.75 M 5. 32.1 545.7 M 0.98 297R043D 0.48 1.29 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 2.00 R 5 32.1 545.7 M 0.96 297R043D 0.56 1.43 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 1.50 R 5 32.1 545.7 M 0.99 298R043D 0.40 1.14 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 2.50 4 31.8 499.9 M 1.30 299 044A 0.68 1.83 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.34 4 29.0 394.8 F 0.81 300 044B 0.10 0.24 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.85 4 30.0 414.6 F 0.28 301 044C 0.80 0.67 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.76 5 32.2 517.0 F 0.44 302 045A 0.29 0.48 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 2.80 4 30.9 494.8 M 1.10 303 045B 0.83 1.97 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.72 4 31.4 522.9 F 0.55 304 045C 0.25 0.47 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.65 3 25.2 224.1 M 0.53 305 046A 0.20 0.46 U1 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.90 M 6 40.5 1332.1 F 0.60 306R047A 0.26 0.64 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.90 R 6 40.5 1332.1 F 0.57 306R047A 0.24 0.66 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.89 R 6 40.5 1332.1 F 0.63 307R047A 0.28 0.61 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 0.64 3 27.5 295.9 F 0.39 308 048A 0.21 0.43 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.00 4 30.6 420.0 M 0.99 314 094A 0.53 1.49 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 0.69 4 . 31.5 457.0 F 0.67 315 094B 0.24 0.45 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.80 4 29.1 401.0 F 1.30 316 094C 0.58 1.26 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.00 4 30.7 436.2 M 1.30 318 093C 0.45 1.55 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.70 6 40.5 1241.4 M 0.93 324 095A 0.81 1.91 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.70 7 44.4 1707.5 F 0.90 325 095B 0.77 1.96 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.18 M 4 29.4 348.8 F 0.71 337R093B 0.37 0.83 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.10 R 4 29.4 348.8 F 0.59 337R093B 0.32 0.81 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 8.82 12 48.3 2184.9 M 1.97 88-187 2.26 6.57 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 0.64 3 25.5 259.3 M 1.75 88-190 A 0.50 0.14 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 3.27 8 35.9 835.2 M 1.60 88-190 B 1.01 2.27 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 0.66 4 31.0 482.6 M 0.80 88-191 A 0.20 0.46 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 1.79 7 34.6 781.6 M 0.94 88-191 B 0.47 1.32 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 2.07 3 31.9 533.2 M 1.76 88-201 B 0.62 1.45 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 0.38 Rl 4 34.1 747.3 M 0.70 88-207 0.12 0.26 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 0.65 R2 4 34.1 747.3 M 0.74 88-207 0.18 0.47 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 0.52 MR 4 34.1 747.3 M 0.72 88-207 0.15 0.37 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 1.90 3 31.7 573.6 F 1.41 88-208 A 0.51 1.40 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 3.08 Rl 4 32.8 577.1 M 1.57 88-208 B 1.03 2.05 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 1.96 R2 4 32.8 577.1 M 1.56 88-208 B 0.61 1.35 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 2.52 MR 4 32.8 577.1 M 1.57 88-208 B 0.82 1.70 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 1.92 27.6 329.0 M 1.45 88-276 A 0.62 1.30 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 3.95 • 42.4 1381.2 F 1.31 88-276 B 0.84 3.11 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.2 3.4 88-285 A LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 3.39 COM 2.78 88-285 A-L 0.94 2.45 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.4 3.3 88-285 B LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.6 4.0 88-285 C LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.5 3.4 88-285 D LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 5.8 2.5 88-285 E LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 8.0 5.8 88-285 F LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 8.8 8.5 88-285 G LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.0 2.8 88-285 H LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 8.6 7.2 88-285 I 00 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 5.9 2.6 88-285 J LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 5.8 2.4 88-285 K LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.2 4.9 88-285 L LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 8.0 6.2 88-288 A LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 2.41 COM 3.50 88-288 A-K 0.69 1.78 LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.8 4.0 88-288 B LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.0 4.4 88-288 C LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.9 6.3 88-288 D LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.1 4.9 88-288 E LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.0 4.6 88-288 F LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.2 4.9 88-288 G LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.1 4.6 88-288 H LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.9 4.2 88-288 I LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 6.1 3.5 88-288 J LARGEMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 C 0 7.3 5.2 88-288 K LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 1.20 4 38.1 862.1 M 0.53 002 002B 0.40 0.80 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 1.10 3 31.9 439.9 F 0.76 285 075A 0.43 0.64 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 0.98 5 40.5 1080.3 F 0.93 312 076A 0.37 0.61 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 0.84 5 40.3 1072.1 F 1.10 313 076B 0.36 0.48 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 1.10 3 34.5 639.9 M 0.34 317 075B 0.30 0.81 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 2.70 5 39.5 1032.8 F 1.90 319 002A 1.08 1.60 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.56 Rl 6 45.0 1613.6 F 0.34 88-001 A 0.14 0.42 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.31 R2 6 45.0 1613.6 F 0.58 88-001 A 0.37 0.94 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.13 R3 6 45.0 1613.6 F 0.58 88-001 A 0.25 0.88 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.00 MR 6 45.0 1613.6 F 0.50 88-001 A 0.26 0.75 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 2.17 Rl 6­ 38.1 825.4 M 1.24 88-001 B 0.74 1.43 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 2.15 R2 6 38.1 825.4 M 1.05 88-001 B 0.71 1.44 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.61 R3 6 38.1 825.4 M 0.86 88-001 B 0.51 1.10 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.98 MR 6 38.1 825.4 M 1.05 88-001 B 0.66 1.32 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 2.59 Rl 10 41.9 1115.2 M 0.51 88-012 B 0.59 2.00 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 8.32 R2 10 41.9 1115.2 M 1.24 88-012 B 1.76 6.56 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 3.51 R3 10 41.9 1115.2 M 0.72 88-012 B 0.94 2.57 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 4.81 MR 10 41.9 1115.2 M 0.82 88-012 B 1.10 3.71 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 0.83 Rl 4 32.9 552.5 M 0.96 88-165 A 0.31 0.52 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 0.83 R2 4 32.9 552.5 M 0.45 88-165 A 0.34 0.49 Ln LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 0.83 MR 4 32.9 552.5 M 0.71 88-165 A 0.32 0.50 VO LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.43 Rl 5 32.4 520.8 M 1.32 88-167 A 0.49 0.94 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 0.52 R2 5 32.4 520.8 M 0.39 88-167 A 0.11 0.40 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 0.97 MR 5 32.4 520.8 M 0.86 88-167 A 0.30 0.67 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 0.03D 28.3 228.8 M 0.53 88-224 C 0.03D 0.03D LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 0.03D 25.0 211.9 F 0.82 88-225 B 0.03D 0.03D LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 C 0 9.1 8.2 88-280 A LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 1.81 COM 1.72 88-280 ABC 0.57 1.24 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 C 0 8.0 6.6 88-280 B LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 C 0 9.5 9.3 88-280 C LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 C 0 10.4 12.9 88-296 B LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 1.64 COM 1.33 88-296 BC 0.52 1.12 LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 C 0 10.5 12.7 88-296 C LARGEMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 2.24 C 0 12.8 21.3 1.99 88-296 D 0.57 1.67 LARGEMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 28.5 372.7 88-162 B LARGEMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 C 3 28.5 320.2 M 88-162 C LARGEMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 C 6 31.8 483.3 M 88-162 D LARGEMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 0.03D CR1 0.76 88-162,210CD , 0.03D 0.03D LARGEMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 0.03D CR2 1.28 88-162,210CD , 0.03D 0.03D LARGEMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 MCR 1.02 88-162,210CD , SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 LARGEMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 8 88-137 LARGEMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 8 88-137 LARGEMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 8 88-156 LARGEMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 10 88-251 LARGEMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 10 88-251 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.42 M 5 30.6 374.0 F 0.46 238R100A 0.20 0.22 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.52 R 5 30.6 374.0 F 0.47 238R100A 0.25 0.26 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.31 R 5 30.6 374.0 F 0.45 239R100A 0.14 0.18 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.43 M 4 25.8 285.4 M 0.88 275R063A 0.22 0.21 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.39 R 4 25.8 285.4 M 0.91 275R063A 0.19 0.20 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.46 R 4 25.8 285.4 M 0.84 276R063A 0.24 0.22 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 2.00 8 43.5 1442. 8 F 2.09 88-049 0.78 1.22 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.53 3 30.7 399.3 F 0.50 88-050 A 0.15 0.38 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.41 5 35.1 868.9 M 0.69 88-050 B 0.15 0.26 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 1.03 5 38.3 959.8 M 1.49 88-051 0.48 0.55 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 3.01 Rl 9 48.2 2158. 2 F 3.05 88-089 1.18 1.83 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 5.79 R2 9 48.2 2158. 2 F 3.23 88-089 2.04 3.75 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 4.40 MR 9 48.2 2158. 2 F 3.14 88-089 1.61 2.79 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.90 2 26.9 296.3 F 1.00 88-100 A 0.42 0.48 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 0.24 2 27.3 262.8 F 0.64 88-239 B 0.10 0.14 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 C 0 10.0 11.3 88-265 A LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 0.03D COM 2.99 88-265 ABC 0.03D 0.03D LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 C 0 8.8 9.2 88-265 B LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 C 0 8.7 7.7 88-265 C LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 0.75 1 11.5 20.7 3.29 88-265 D 0.33 0.43 LARGEMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 1.70 1 12.3 24.1 3.33 88-292 0.66 1.04 PUMPKINSEED B 1988 8 0.55 3 16.3 88.9 M 0.74 88-183 A 0.15 0.40 PUMPKINSEED B 1988 8 0.03D 3 16.4 93.0 F 0.83 88-183 B 0.03D 0.03D PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.0 1.8 88-284 A PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 2.74 COM 3.89 88-284 A-X 0.81 1.93 PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.3 2.2 88-284 B PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.9 2.0 88-284 C PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 4.7 1.7 88-284 D PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.2 2.2 88-284 E PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.3 2.3 88-284 F PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 C 0.33 5.5 2.4 88-284 G * *.

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0.3 3 5. 5 2.7 88-284 H PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 3 2.2 88-284 I PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 0 2.0 88-284 J PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 6 3.1 88-284 K PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 5 1.5 88-284 L PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 0 1.8 88-284 M PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33. 5. 9 3.2 88-284 N PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 7 1.6 88-284 0 PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 9 1.8 88-284 P PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 7 1. 3 88-284 Q PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 6 2 .7 88-284 R PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 2 2.2 88-284 S PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 1 2.2 88-284 T PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 5 2.5 88-284 U PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 1 2.3 88-284 V PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 1 2.1 88-284 W PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 7 1.7 88-284 X PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 5 2.7 88-287 A PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 3.14 COM 2.82 88-287 A-V 0.95 2.19 PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 1 2.4 88-287 B PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 4 1.4 88-287 C PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 2 1.1 88-287 D PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 0 2.0 88-287 E PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 6 1.6 88-287 F PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 2 2.2 88-287 G PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 7 1.6 88-287 H PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 7 1.7 88-287 I PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 0 2.1 88-287 J PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 3 2.4 88-287 K PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 3 2.7 88-287 L PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 9 3.6 88-287 M PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 9 1.7 88-287 N PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 0 0.9 88-287 0 PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5. 4 2.4 88-287 P PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 6. 1 3 .8 88-287 Q PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 4. 3 1 .2 88-287 R « t - L. _

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5.8 3.0 88-287 S PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5.4 2.8 88-287 T PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5.9 3.2 88-287 U PUMPKINSEED B 1988 10 c 0. 33 5.8 3.3 88-287 V PUMPKINSEED L 1988 6 AGE 2 17 .1 110 .0 M 88-009 C PUMPKINSEED L 1988 8 0.03D 3 17 .0 107 .8 F 0.94 88-132 0.03D 0.03D PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.6 2.4 88-231 A PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 1. 04 COM 2.43 88-231 A-E 0.42 0.62 PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 C 0. 33 7.5 6.9 88-231 B PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 C 0. 33 6.9 5.1 88-231 C PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.5 2.4 88-231 D PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 C 0. 33 6.2 3.6 88-231 E PUMPKINSEED L 1988 10 0.03D COM 2.80 88-279, 301 0.03D 0.03D PUMPKINSEED WAR 1988 10 88-253 PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 8 0.19 5 18 .3 132 .0 F 0.55 88-072 A 0.03D 0.19 PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 8 0.03D 2 14 .6 65 .1 F 1.14 88-081 0.03D 0.03D PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 8.5 10 .9 88-244 A ro PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 0.03D COM 3.63 88-244 A-E 0.03D 0.03D PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.6 2.6 88-244 B PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.9 2.9 88-244 C PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.4 2.5 88-244 D PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.3 2.3 88-244 E PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 3.8 0.8 88-264 A PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 0.88 COM 3.46 88-264 A-Q 0.52 0.36 PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 1.8 88-264 B PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 1.7 88-264 C PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 1.8 88-264 D PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.4 1.3 88-264 E PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 2.0 88-264 F PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.1 2.1 88-264 G PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 3.6 0.7 88-264 H PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.1 2.0 88-264 I PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.7 1.6 88-264 J PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 5.1 2.0 88-264 K PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 4.9 1.9 88-264 L PUMPKINSEED Z 1988 10 C 0. 33 3.4 0.6 88-264 M SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

PUMPKINSEED z 1988 1 0 C 0.33 4.9 1.8 88-264 N PUMPKINSEED z 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.7 3.0 88-264 O PUMPKINSEED z 1988 1 0 C 0.33 5.9 3.4 88-264 P PUMPKINSEED z 1988 1 0 C 0.33 6.0 3.6 88-264 Q REDBREAST SUNFI B 1984 1 0 1.60 3 19.4 149.8 F 0.88 236 098A 0.45 1.14 REDBREAST SUNFI B 1984 8 1.50 3 17.8 132.8 F 0.57 287 066A 0.43 1.02 REDBREAST SUNFI B 1988 8 1.3 7 5. 17.9 123.7 F 1.50 88-193 B 0.37 1.00 REDBREAST SUNFI B 1988 8 2.57 5 19.0 158.4 F 0.83 88-193 C 0.75 1.82 REDBREAST SUNFI L 1984 6 1.90 3 18.4 126.3 M 0.56 280 074A 0.55 1.31 REDBREAST SUNFI L 1984 6 1.10 3 18.9 129.7 M 0.55 281 074B 0.57 0.49 REDBREAST SUNFI L 1988 8 0.03D 4 16.4 83.7 F 1.02 88-133 0.03D 0.03D REDBREAST SUNFI Z 1984 8 0.11 2 18.3 104.4 F 0.42 278 070A 0.11 0.03D REDBREAST SUNFI Z 1984 8 0.07 3 16.1 79.9 F 0.82 279 070B 0.07 0.03D REDBREAST SUNFI Z 1988 8 0.27 6 18.6 128.6 F 0.69 88-071 B 0.10 0.17 REDBREAST SUNFI Z 1988 8 0.03D 3 17.3 106.2 F 1.64 88-071 D 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 3.93 0.25 19.2 70.7 M E 1.24 88-105 A 1.17 2.76 H 0\ RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 2.95 0.25 18.8 60.7 M E 0.82 88-105 B 0.88 2.07 OJ RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 2.95 0.25 20.0 83.3 M E 1.04 88-105 C 0.85 2.10 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 3.40 0.25 19.0 65.9 F E 0.72 88-105 D 0.96 2.44 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 2.3 4 0.25 19.1 77.7 M E 1.22 88-105 E 0.82 1.52 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 4.2 9 0.25 18.2 51.6 F E 0.59 88-105 F 0.77 3.52 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 2.91 0.25 20.6 93.2 F E 0.60 88-105 G 0.83 2.08 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 8 2.32 0.25 18.8 75.0 M E 0.73 88-106 0.6.9 1.63 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 1 0 3.98 Rl 0.42 25.4 180.5 E 1.79 88-305 1.09 2.89 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 1 0 3.53 R2 0.42 25.4 180.5 E 1.46 88-305 0.96 2.57 RAINBOW TROUT C 1988 1 0 3.75 MR 0.42 25.4 180.5 E 1.63 88-305 1.02 2.73 RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 C 0 13.2 24.5 E 88-021 A RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 0.03D CO M E 5.38 88-021 AB 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 C 0 12.1 21.1 E 88-021 B RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 C 0 14.1 32.6 E 88-022 A RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 0.03D CO M E 5.10 88-022 AB 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 C 0 11.6 17.9 E 88-022 B RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 C 0 12.8 25.4 E 88-023 A RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 0.03D CO M E 6.54 88-023 AB 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 198 8 5 C 0 13.0 23.9 E 88-023 B RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 C 0 12.4 22.6 E 88-023 C I

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D COM E 4.94 88-023 CD 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 C 0 13.2 28.4 E 88-023 D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 C 0 13.8 28.6 E 88-025 A RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D COM E 5.27 88-025 AB 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 C 0 13.1 26.5 E 88-025 B RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 C 0 12.2 23.1 E 88-025 C RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 0.03D COM * E 5.93 88-025 CE 0.03D -0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1988 5 C 0 12.5 24.9 E 88-025 E RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 11.7 19.4 B 89-1 A RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM B 8.15 89-1 AD 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 11.2 20.1 B 89-1 B RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM B 7.37 89-1 BC 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 11.1 18.2 B 89-1 C RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 10.3 15.7 B 89-1 D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 10.2 14.2 B 89-1 E RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM B 7.74 89-1 EF 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 12.0 23.3 B 89-1 F RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 11.4 15.8 B 89-1 G RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM B 7.31 89-1 GK 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 10.8 15.5 B 89-1 H RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM 8.65 89-1 HL 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 13.2 34.4 B 89-1 I RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 0.03D COM B 8.51 89-1 IJ 0.03D 0.03D RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 10.1 13.9 B 89-1 J RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 11.9 20.6 B 89-1 K RAINBOW TROUT HAT 1989 5 C 11.5 19.2 B 89-1 L PUMP X REDBR L 1988 8 0.28 3 18.8 148.9 F 0.80 88-176 0.03D 0.28 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 2.30 4 25.0 181.6 F 0.70 123 049A 0.70 1.57 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.00 7 33.5 484.3 F 0.96 229 090A 0.35 0.66 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 0.88 5 28.5 262.1 M 0.69 230 090B 0.17 0.72 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.50 5 28.2 244.4 M 0.60 231 090C 0.66 1.82 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.50 3 25.9 204.0 F 0.99 232 091A 0.46 1.08 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.50 M 4 25.8 205.5 M 1.00 233R091B 0.53 0.97 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.40 R 4 25.8 205.5 M 1.10 233R091B 0.47 0.90 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.20 M 4 26.3 202.0 M 0.78 234R091C 0.51 1.72 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.30 R 4 26.3 202.0 M 0.77 234R091C 0.54 1.80 L..

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.1 0 5 28.1 252. 5 M 0.73 264 091E 0.42 1.73 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.6 0 4 26.6 220. 5 M 0.82 265 091D 0.86 1.77 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1. 60 4 25.6 209. 3 M 0.99 266 091F 0.47 1.11 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 8 1.7 0 5 27.4 246. 4 F 0.69 309 049B 0.42 1.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2.9 0 16 45.5 1436. 1 F 2.10 323 092A 0.87 2.02 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 1.6 0 R 4 25.8 205. 5 M 0.89 341R091B 0.59 1.04 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1984 10 2. 10 R 4. 26.3 202. 0 M 0.78 342R091C 0.48 1.63 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 2.0 7 3 26.4 275. 8 M 1.60 86-33-102 0.55 1.52 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.8 5 6 28.8 362. 0 F 1.30 86-33-103 0.25 0.60 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 2.7 9 7 31.6 474. 3 M 2.00 86-33-104 0.60 2.19 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.9 6 8 34.0 589. 5 F 1.20 86-33-105 0.32 0.64 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 2.1 5 6 30.3 419. 4 F 1.60 86-34-106 0.73 1.42 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 2.4 1 6 29.6 369. 1 M 1.30 86-34-107 0.59 1.82 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.7 3 M 6 31.1 437. 1 F 0.84 86-34-108 0.22 0.51 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.6 9 R 6 31.1 437. 1 F 0.74 86-34-108 0.25 0.44 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.7 7 R 6 31.1 437. 1 F 0.95 86-34-108 0.19 0.58 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 1.3 4 3 26.6 290. 5 F 1.40 86-35-109 0.29 1.05 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 2.4 2 3 25.8 227. 7 M 1.70 86-35-110 0.80 1.62 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.9 2 3 27.1 277 .8 M 0.96 86-35-111 0.27 0.65 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 1.3 5 6 28.4 320. 0 M 0.84 86-35-112 0.33 1.02 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1986 8 0.8 3 6 30.1 388. 6 F 1.20 86-36-113 0.24 0.59 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 3. 39 3 25.1 228. 7 F 2.01 88-188 A 0.89 2.50 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 2.3 2 3 25.3 214. 5 F 2.37 88-188 B 0.69 1.62 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 1.4 4 3 25.9 220. 1 F 1.56 88-188 C 0.42 1.02 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 1.0 1 4 29.3 351. 8 F 1.12 88-188 D 0.34 0.67 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 5.7 3 5 32.6 459. 1 M 1.96 88-189 B 1.47 4.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 3.2 2 Rl 10 38.5 872. 7 F 1.97 88-198 0.83 2.39 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 2.6 7 R2 10 38.5 872. 7 F 2.98 88-198 0.57 2.10 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 8 2. 95 MR 10 38.5 872. 7 F 2.48 88-198 0.70 2.24 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 3. 31 12 40.7 1039. 8 F 1.12 88-268 0.97 2.34 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 1.6 7 5 34.7 547. 1 F 1.56 88-269 A 0.43 1.23 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 3. 10 Rl 11 35.6 661. 8 F 1.14 88-269 B 0.61 2.49 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 5.5 4 R2 11 35.6 661. 8 F 1.60 88-269 B 0.92 4.62 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 4.3 2 MR 11 35.6 661. 8 F 1.37 88-269 B 0.76 3.55 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 2.4 4 29.0 324. 1 M 0.95 88-270 A 0.49 1.94 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 2.3 7 3 25.5 177. 1 F 0.83 88-270 B 0.51 1.86 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 2.34 5 32.7 538.7 M 1.04 88-270 C 0.66 1.69 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 3.53 3 29.0 349.2 F 1.68 88-275 A 0.74 2.80 SMALLMOUTH BASS B 1988 10 2.81 15 45.5 1308.3 F 1.47 88-275 B 0.79 2.02 SMALLMOUTH BASS BAN 1988 8 0.03D Rl 36.4 752.7 F 1.21 88-203 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS BAN 1988 8 0.03D R2 36.4 752.7 F 0.98 88-203 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS BAN 1988 8 0.03D MR 36.4 752.7 F 1.10 88-203 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS BAN 1988 8 0.03D 41.6 1013.2 F 5.17 88-213 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 10 1.80 3" 26.0 233.7 M 1.04 088B 0.40 1.43 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 3.30 5 24.2 179.5 M 0.53 104 019A 0.76 2.55 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 1.50 7 27.2 229.3 M 0.57 105 019B 0.26 1.26 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 2.70 3 22.4 126.4 F 0.66 106 019C 0.58 2.12 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 3.10 4 24.1 168.9 M 0.65 107 021A 0.95 2.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 6.30 4 23.0 142.5 M 0.55 108 021B 1.28 4.98 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 2.30 4 23.0 138.2 M 0.64 109 021C 0.65 1.66 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 2.60 4 22.4 140.5 M 0.66 110 021D 0.74 1.84 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 1.30 9 32.4 428.7 F 0.60 127 020C 0.40 0.85 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 3.20 9 32.4 403.7 M 0.43 128 022A 0.55 2.70 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 0.83 8 30.6 361.0 F 0.43 129 022B 0.25 0.58 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 4.10 10 32.3 479.5 M 0.47 173 022C 0.51 3.58 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 2.10 9 33.0 384.4 F 0.40 174 022D 0.29 1.83 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 10 2.10 4 27.4 249.0 M 0.79 326 088A 0.55 1.52 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 0.63 10 29.5 358.2 F 0.57 333 020A 0.26 0.37 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1984 7 0.61 11 33.5 569.5 F 1.27 334 020B 0.18 0.43 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 2.90 6 27.1 253.6 M 0.78 86-37-117 0.60 2.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 3.26 6 25.5 225.4 M 1.00 86-38-120 0.75 2.51 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 4.25 6 27.3 262.0 M 1.10 86-38-121 1.01 3.24 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 2.43 6 25.6 258.0 M 1.00 86-38-122 0.60 1.83 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 5.70 6 25.1 220.7 M 1.30 86-39-123 1.48 4.22 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 2.25 6 25.0 202.3 F 1.20 86-39-124 0.45 1.80 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 1.74 M 6 25.3 322.6 F 0.75 86-39-125 0.44 1.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 1.02 R 6 25.3 322.6 F 0.52 86-39-125 0.29 0.73 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 2.48 R 6 25.3 322.6 F' 0.98 86-39-125 0.60 1.88 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 1.70 M 6 25.0 211.9 F 1.25 86-40-126 0.48 1.22 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 1.58 R 6 25.0 211.9 F 1.10 86-40-126 0.55 1.03 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 1.84 R 6 25.0 211.9 F 1.40 86-40-126 0.42 1.42 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 0.62 6 25.4 250.9 F 0.73 86-40-127 0.28 0.34 « I

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 4.13 6 26.5 236.8 M 1.20 86-40-128 1.06 3.07 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 0.87 6 24.8 207.9 F 0.90 86-40-129 0.26 0.61 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 8 5.96 7 28.1 281.4 M 0.93 86-40-130 1.60 4.36 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1986 10 5.99 6 27.5 256.3 M 1.30 86-49-154 1.72 4.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 2.72 3 24.5 197.2 M 1.35 88-042 0.83 1.90 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 4.21 8 29.8 412.0 F 1.57 88-060 A 1.01 3.19 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 2.49 6. 29.7 401.3 F 1.04 88-060 B 0.49 2.00 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 1.59 3 25.2 268.7 M 1.15 88-061 A 0.50 1.09 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 6.29 3 27.0 310.9 F 2.91 88-061 B 1.58 4.71 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 2.64 3 25.4 246.9 F 2.45 88-061 D 0.75 1.89 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 6.0 3.0 88-062 A SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 6.2 3.7 88-062 B SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 6.0 3.6 88-062 C SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 6.6 4.2 88-062 D SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 4.2 1.1 88-062 E SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 5.7 3.0 88-062 F SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 0 5.0 1.8 88-062 G SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 2 19.4 107.4 88-062 H SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 1 12.8 30.6 88-062 I SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 1 14.6 48.2 88-062 J SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 1 15.8 56.5 88-062 K SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 AGE 2 18.7 103.0 88-062 L SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 2.82 9 36.0 598.2 M 1.00 88-064 0.77 2.05 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 11.42 6 33.3 558.4 M 3.83 88-065 2.77 8.65 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 2.75 4 27.1 293.3 F 1.32 88-067 A 0.69 2.06 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 2.64 7 29.5 378.1 M 0.75 88-067 B 0.64 2.00 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 5.12 Rl 8 31.2 482.1 F 1.61 88-067 C 1.24 3.87 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 4.71 R2 8 31.2 482.1 F 1.80 88-067 C 1.29 3.41 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 4.91 MR 8 31.2 482.1 F 1.71 88-067 C 1.27 3.64 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 3.82 3 25.0 242.3 M 1.63 88-068 A 1.07 2.75 SMALLMOUTH BASS C 1988 8 13.62 14 35.1 457.2 M 0.51 88-105 J 0.92 12.70 SMALLMOUTH BASS FAR 1988 10 0.03D 5 28.8 298.1 F 0.99 88-303 A 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS FAR 1988 10 0.03D 5 26.0 243.7 F 1.00 88-303 B 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS FAR 1988 10 0.03D 6 25.6 207.2 F 1.73 88-303 C 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 1.30 5 36.5 611.0 F 0.71 003 003A 0.39 0.94 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 0.58 4 31.4 442.1 F 0.64 004 003B 0.03D 0.58 § 1

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 1.40 4 32.7 457.1 M 0.20 005 003C 0.48 0.90 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 1.50 6 45.6 1387.6 M 0.94 008 008A 0.48 1.00 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 0.99 M 3 29.5 248.9 M 0.65 010R007A 0.40 0.58 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 1.40 R 3 29.5 248.9 M 0.91 010R007A 0.54 0.82 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 0.58 R 3 29.5 248.9 M 0.39 011R007A 0.25 0.33 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 1.20 3 26.3 198.7 M 0.57 012 007B 0.30 0.86 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 7 1.00 3. 27.5 243.4 M 0.66 013 007C 0.33 0.68 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 1.50 4 30.8 383.3 M 1.10 018 001A 0.52 0.97 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 0.48 4 32.0 394.0 M 1.30 019 001B 0.18 0.31 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 0.89 4 31.3 341.3 M 0.78 020 001C 0.26 0.63 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 5 1.50 4 31.0 318.2 M 0.74 021 001D 0.47 1.02 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 0.75 4 27.7 263.3 F 1.50 036 038A 0.37 0.38 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 1.30 4 27.5 294.2 F 2.10 037 038B 0.55 0.98 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 0.78 4 28.1 308.4 F 1.90 038 038C 0.46 0.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 0.72 3 25.7 226.1 F 2.20 039 038D 0.40 0.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 0.44 3 26.2 236.1 F 3.70 041 039B 0.18 0.26 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 0.59 4 29.5 293.9 M 2.90 042 039C 0.19 0.40 co SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 8 2.80 3 26.6 234.0 M 2.60 043 039A 0.74 2.04 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 2.10 4 31.3 374.5 F 1.50 072 041A 0.78 1.29 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 1.50 4 33.9 465.1 M 0.65 073R041B 0.33 1.15 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 1.30 4 31.7 361.2 M 0.71 074 041C 0.46 0.84 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 1.10 3 25.9 161.1 F 0.70 075 041D 0.43 0.70 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 1.90 3 25.4 174.9 M 0.67 076 041E 0.66 1.26 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 1.70 4 33.9 465.1 M 0.73 116R041B 0.48 1.24 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 1.00 3 25.1 162.5 M 0.67 170 041F 0.32 0.69 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1984 6 0.88 3 25.5 198.2 M 0.60 171 041G 0.30 0.58 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.77 3 27.2 245.6 F 0.53 8-6-18 0.18 0.59 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.61 6 32.9 432.6 F 1.20 86-10-27 0.20 0.41 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 5.66 9 45.6 1358.2 M 2.70 86-11-28 2.24 3.42 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 2.58 13 49.9 1673.4 M 0.84 86-11-29 0.66 1.92 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 2.63 6 32.0 364.1 M 1.20 86-11-30 0.82 1.81 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.66 6 31.0 369.3 M 0.62 86-4-10 0.25 0.41 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.76 4 27.9 246.2 F 0.58 86-4-11 0.21 0.55 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.87 3 27.4 231.5 F 0.24 86-4-12 0.28 0.59 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.88 3 32.0 392.3 F 0.22 86-4-13 0.27 0.61 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.67 M 3 29.5 302.9 M 0.26 86-4-9 0.25 0.42 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.61 R 3 29.5 302 .9 M 0.28 86-4-9 0.24 0.37 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.74 R 3 29.5 302 .9 M 0.24 86-4-9 0.26 0.48 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.36 3 27.7 250 .6 M 0.72 86-41-131 0.22 0.14 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.87 M 4 31.2 367 .7 F 1.40 86-41-132 0.28 0.59 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.52 R 4 31.2 367 .7 F 1.20 86-41-132 0.16 0.36 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.87 R 4 31.2 367 .7 F 1.40 86-41-132 0.27 0.60 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 1.24 R 4­ 31.2 367 .7 F 1.60 86-41-132 0.42 0.82 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.69 8 42.5 909 .1 F 0.63 86-41-134 0.24 0.45 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.60 3 27.3 250 .0 M 0.89 86-41-135 0.21 0.39 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 8 0.72 3 26.1 241 .7 F 1.20 86-41-136 0.21 0.51 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 2.10 M 8 46.0 1237 .8 F 0.81 86-5-14 0.62 1.48 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 2.06 R 8 46.0 1237 .8 F 0.78 86-5-14 0.61 1.45 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 2.12 R 8 46.0 1237 .8 F 0.84 86-5-14 0.62 1.50 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 7.28 M 13 48.0 1587 .2 M 0.75 86-5-15 2.00 5.28 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 5.36 R 13 48.0 1587 .2 M 0.53 86-5-15 1.40 3.96 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 8.20 R 13 48.0 1587 .2 M 0.71 86-5-15 2.92 5.28 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 8.28 R 13 48.0 1587 .2 M 1.00 86-5-15 1.68 6.60 NO SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 10 0.66 3 30.7 334 .3 M 1.20 86-50-156 0.22 0.44 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 10 0.72 5 29.6 378 .8 M 0.92 86-50-157 0.24 0.48 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 10 4.51 2 26.6 267 .2 M 1.00 86-51-158 1.51 3.00 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 10 1.46 4 28.4 296 .0 F 1.80 86-51-159 0.52 0.94 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 10 0.83 3 26.5 229 .4 M 1.20 86-51-160 0.27 0.56 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 1.43 3 30.8 326 .9 M 0.53 86-6-16 0.55 0.88 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 1.37 2 29.5 280 .5 F 0.40 86-6-17 0.34 1.03 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 0.62 3 30.3 321 .9 F 0.26 86-6-19 0.21 0.41 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1986 6 1.09 4 28.4 296 .3 F 0.38 86-6-20 0.27 0.82 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 5.27 Rl 7 34.8 481 .7 M 0.40 88-002 A 1.33 3.94 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 2.08 R2 7 34.8 481 .7 M 0.38 88-002 A 0.54 1.54 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 3.67 MR 7 34.8 481 .7 M 0.39 88-002 A 0.94 2.74 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.99 4 29.8 289 .6 M 0.38 88-002 B 0.54 1.45 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.47 Rl 4 29.5 297 .2 M 0.48 88-002 C 0.37 1.10 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.43 R2 4 29.5 297 .2 M 0.38 88-002 C 0.37 1.04 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.45 MR 4 29.5 297 .2 M 0.43 88-002 C 0.37 1.07 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.49 Rl 4 30.0 363 .5 F 0.61 88-002 D 0.17 0.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.43 R2 4 30.0 363 .5 F 0.70 88-002 D 0.12 0.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.46 MR 4 30.0 363 .5 F 0.66 88-002 D 0.15 0.31 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.62 Rl 7 37.2 602.9 M 0.58 88-003 A 0.14 0.49 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.60 R2 7 37.2 602.9 M 0.48 88-003 A 0.16 0.45 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.61 MR 7 37.2 602.9 M 0.53 88-003 A 0.15 0.47 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.65 Rl 4 30.7 341.8 M 0.40 88-003 B 0.18 0.47 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 1.17 R2 4 30.7 341.8 M 0.62 88-003 B 0.28 0.89 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.91 MR 4 30.7 341.8 M 0.51 88-003 B 0.23 0.68 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 3.31 Rl 5. 31.1 325.9 M 0.38 88-003 C 0.91 2.41 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 3.71 R2 5 31.1 325.9 M 0.46 88-003 C 0.87 2.85 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 3.51 MR 5 31.1 325.9 M 0.42 88-003 C 0.89 2.63 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.70 Rl 4 30.8 343.2 M 0.56 88-003 D 0.23 0.47 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.78 R2 4 30.8 343.2 M 0.54 88-003 D 0.23 0.55 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 6 0.74 MR 4 30.8 343.2 M 0.55 88-003 D 0.23 0.51 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.12 4 29.8 290.7 M 0.65 88-131 0.40 0.72 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.82 8 45.0 1086.3 M 1.21 88-144 0.45 1.37 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.24 7 42.5 904.9 M 0.72 88-146 0.34 0.91 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 3.40 7 42.0 1133.2 M 1.90 88-149 A 1.38 2.02 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.27 5 32.0 360.2 M 0.65 88-149 B 0.46 0.81 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.14 10 35.6 556.4 F 0.85 88-150 A 0.41 0.74 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 0.88 4 31.4 449.9 F 0.73 88-150 B 0.14 0.57 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.23 4 31.5 375.4 M 0.89 88-155 0.25 0.98 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.12 5 34.6 546.2 M 1.01 88-173 0.35 0.77 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.02 3 25.8 197.1 M 0.76 88-178 A 0.36 0.66 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 8 1.49 4 27.1 226.2 M 0.44 88-178 B 0.50 0.99 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 1.81 4 28.3 222.4 F 0.77 88-226 A 0.54 1.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 0.70 4 33.3 483.6 F 0.71 88-226 B 0.21 0.49 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 0.60 4 36.4 698.4 M 1.32 88-226 C 0.19 0.41 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 1.11 2 26.5 233.8 M 1.29 88-227 A 0.26 0.84 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 1.02 5 36.6 640.5 F 1.04 88-227 B 0.25 0.78 SMALLMOUTH BASS L 1988 10 0.85 32.6 443.8 F 0.89 88-227 C 0.25 0.61 SMALLMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 0.03D 4 26.5 216.9 M 0.53 88-163 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS SAU 1988 8 0.03D 4 28.5 295.7 M 0.83 88-211 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 8 0.03D 4 26.7 257.9 M 2.41 88-138 A 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS WAR 1988 8 0.03D 3 23.6 186.4 M 2.07 88-138 B 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.48 4 38.2 738.6 F 1.40 111 023A 0.19 0.29 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 1.10 5 36.1 526.5 M 0.33 112 023B 0.35 0.73 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.97 7 35.5 648.1 M 0.71 162 060A 0.31 0.66 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.38 4 25.1 191.1 M 0.52 172 058A 0.11 0.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 8 0.01D 4 26.2 209.9 F 0.57 202 059A 0.03D 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.59 M 5 36.0 455.2 F 0.46 240R081A 0.23 0.36 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.50 R 5 36.0 455.2 F 0.43 240R081A 0.16 0.34 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.50 R 5 36.0 455.2 F 0.41 241R081A 0.19 0.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 1.10 3 25.2 207.8 M 2.30 242 081B 0.33 0.75 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.89 4. 28.3 284.0 F 0.83 243 081C 0.13 0.19 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.36 6 24.6 189.6 F 0.73 244 081D 0.09 0.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.53 3 25.0 173.0 M 1.00 245 081E 0.23 0.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.36 3 25.5 212.7 M 1.00 246 082A 0.13 0.23 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.55 M 3 26.2 221.9 M 0.81 247R082B 0.15 0.40 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.50 R 3 26.2 221.9 M 0.81 247R082B 0.14 0.36 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.46 3 25.8 213.7 M 0.71 248 082C 0.15 0.32 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.37 4 26.8 244.0 M 0.78 249 082D 0.14 0.23 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.26 3 25.1 172.3 F 0.72 250 082E 0.12 0.14 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.67 4 26.0 224.7 F 1.30 255 080A 0.27 1.78 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.50 4 26.2 207.4 F 0.99 256 080B 0.19 0.31 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.33 4 27.6 237.3 F 0.63 257 080C 0.15 0.19 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.44 4 26.9 233.4 F 0.77 258 080D 0.17 0.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.46 M 4 26.7 228.2 M 0.80 259R080E 0.17 0.28 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.41 R 4 26.7 228.2 M 0.87 259R080E 0.15 0.26 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.20 3 25.4 188.2 F 0.62 260 080F 0.20 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.16 M 4 27.1 235.6 F 0.71 261R079A 0.16 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.15 R 4 27.1 235.6 F 0.80 261R079A 0.15 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.37 4 26.4 195.3 F 0.88 262 079B 0.16 0.21 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.43 4 26.6 257.3 M 1.00 263 079C 0.17 0.26 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.16 R 4 27.1 235.6 F 0.61 267R079A 0.16 0.03D SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.60 R 3 26.2 221.9 M 0.80 336R082B 0.16 0.44 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.77 R 5 36.0 455.2 F 0.53 343R081A 0.35 0.42 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1984 10 0.50 R 4 26.7 228.2 M 0.72 344R080E 0.19 0.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.85 4 32.4 384.6 M 0.62 88-069 A 0.33 0.52 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.53 3 27.0 239.5 M 0.86 88-069 B 0.15 0.38 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 1.93 24.7 183.9 F 0.75 88-098 A 0.60 1.33 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.23 4 24.9 203.4 M 0.78 88-098 B 0.08 0.16 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 2.14 10 45.0 1139.3 F 2.98 88-099 0.68 1.46 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.46 8 47.9 1490.1 F 1.61 88-108 0.16 0.31 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 1.4 5 7 41.4 944.5 M 1.12 88-109 0.70 0.75 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.5 2 5 37.8 841.8 M 1.62 88-110 A 0.17 0.35 SNALLNOUTH BASS Z 1988 8 0.3 6 8 37.1 781.5 M 2.16 88-110 B 0.12 0.25 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 0.4 6 4 27.3 235.9 M 0.74 88-234 A 0.19 0.26 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 0.4 3 3 25.2 185.4 M 0.88 88-234 B 0.20 0.23 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z . 1988 10 1.6 4 4 28.6 185.3 F 0.73 88-234 C 0.34 1.30 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 1. 03 4. 33.4 500.4 F 1.38 88-235 0.39 0.64 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 2.0 5 7 37.8 754.7 F 2.21 88-243 0.82 1.23 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 0.1 4 4 25.6 192.9 M 0.70 88-282 A 0.03D 0.14 SMALLMOUTH BASS Z 1988 10 1.2 5 4 32.0 430.4 F 1..4 0 88-282 B 0.47 0.78 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 6 1. 00 3 29.2 313.0 M 1.,2 0 007 006A 0.32 0.68 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 5 3.9 0 17 42.0 1392.8 M 1.40 009 004A 0.86 3.00 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 4.6 0 M 4 35.8 597.6 M 5.70 033R032A 2.41 2.21 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 6. 50 R 4 35.8 597.6 M 7.50 033R032A 3.45 3.08 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 55. 00 M 16 54.0 2081.3 F 4.77 034R032C 23.96 31.13 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 67. 00 R 16 54.0 2081.3 F 6.60 034R032C 31.97 35.27 . WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 1. 45 M 3 31.0 365.9 M 3.00 139R030A 0.53 0.93 ts) WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 1.0 0 R 3 31.0 365.9 M 2.40 139R030A 0.39 0.65 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 1. 90 R 3 31.0 365.9 M 3.60 140R030A 0.66 1.21 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 1. 10 2 22.4 137.5 F 2.70 141 030B 0.56 0.52 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 0.8 5 2 22.9 135.9 M 2 .90 142 030C 0.32 0.53 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 1.8 0 8 42.0 1042.9 F 5,,1 0 143 030D 0.74 1.36 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 0. 80 2 23.9 158.9 M 2,,6 0 160 031A 0.37 0.43 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 3.0 0 4 32.7 429.0 F 4,,8 0 161 031B 1.17 1.87 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 2. 70 R 4 35.8 597.6 M 3,,9 0 199R032A 1.37 1.34 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 55.0 0 R 16 54.0 2081.3 F 3,,3 0 200R032C 26.49 28.49 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 0. 98 2 23.8 147.1 M 3. 10 203 032B 0.45 0.51 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 43. 10 R 16 54.0 2081.3 F 4.40 327R032C 13.43 29.64 WHITE CATFISH L 1984 8 4. 00 12 43.0 988.9 M 0.86 346 031C 1.10 2.90 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 36. 46 M 17 54.0 2400.0 F 6.17 86-1-1 11.05 25.41 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 30. 21 R 17 54.0 2400.0 F 4.30 86-1-1 12.93 17.28 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 38. 45 R 17 54.0 2400.0 F 5.60 86-1-1 8.25 30.20 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 40.7 0 R 17 54.0 2400.0 F 8.60 86-1-1 11.96 28.74 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 6. 54 10 42.0 1000.0 M 1.50 86-1-2 1.16 5.38 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 2. 35 3 28.0 296.7 F 3.00 86-1-3 0.84 1.51 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 26. 97 16 53.4 2080.5 M 4.00 86-12-31 7.63 19.34 I— .

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.43 3 28.0 252.3 F 3.90 86-12-32 1.00 1.43 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 9.06 13 39.5 802.0 M 3.30 86-12-33 2.97 6.09 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 1.12 M 9 38.2 617.5 F 1.40 86-2-5 0.42 0.70 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 1.07 R 9 38.2 617.5 F 1.40 86-2-5 0.42 0,65 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 1.18 R 9 38.2 617.5 F 1.40 86-2-5 0.42 0.75 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 5.16 M 5 32.3 421.7 M 2.15 86-2-7 1.75 3.42 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 3.53 R 5 32.3 421.7 M 1.80 86-2-7 1.30 2.23 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 6 6.80 R 5 32.3 421.7 M 2.50 86-2-7 2.20 4.60 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 1.34 11 33.1 414.2 F 1.40 86-57-180 0.22 1.12 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.21 2 15.5 36.8 M 0.78 86-7-21 1.41 0.80 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.88 M 6 38.0 671.3 M 3.05 86-7-22 1.08 1.80 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.37 R 6 38.0 671.3 M 2.80 86-7-22 0.92 1.45 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 3.39 R 6 38.0 671.3 M 3.30 86-7-22 1.24 2.15 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.29 6 40.8 724.8 F 1.50 86-7-23 0.75 1.54 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.31 M 5 42.7 1191.8 F 4.13 86-8-24 1.06 1.25 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 1.77 R 5 42.7 1191.8 F 2.90 86-8-24 0.91 0.86 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.19 R 5 42.7 1191.8 F 3.80 86-8-24 1.01 1.18 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 2.95 R 5 42.7 1191.8 F 5.70 86-8-24 1.25 1.70 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 13.95 17 47.5 1262.6 F 3.40 86-9-25 2.69 11.26 WHITE CATFISH L 1986 8 10.60 13 43.2 1299.9 F 4.60 86-9-26 2.55 8.05 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 2.56 5 35.3 569.2 M 2.52 88-127 0.73 1.83 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 3.71 8 41.0 847.8 M 1.69 88-147 A 0.93 2.77 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 1.46 6 36.5 589.6 F 1.28 88-147 B 0.36 1.11 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 1.97 11 40.1 760.7 F 1.55 88-148 0.48 1.49 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 8.59 16 47.4 1641.1 F 3.10 88-152 A 1.92 6.67 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 2.12 5 35.5 535.0 M 4.32 88-152 B 0.73 1.39 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 22.53 21 50.8 1850.2 M 3.18 88-153 3.71 18.82 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 1.96 6 28.5 237.2 M 1.05 88-156 A 0.55 1.41 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 2.47 5 32.0 358.4 F 1.74 88-156 B 0.71 1.77 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 0.86 Rl 7 33.2 379.1 F 0.57 88-156 C 0.22 0.64 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 1.19 R2 7 33.2 379.1 F 0.90 88-156 C 0.28 0.91 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 1.02 MR 7 33.2 379.1 F 0.74 88-156 C 0.25 0.78 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 4.79 7 37.0 613.5 M 1.82 88-168 1.49 3.30 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 2.31 5 33.6 426.2 F 1.93 88-171 0.50 1.81 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 1.63 2 25.4 180.3 M 3.55 88-172 A 0.54 1.10 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 2.93 5 37.1 613.9 M 2.98 88-172 B 0.72 2.21 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 8 5.46 16 44.1 1254.5 M 1.69 88-179 1.31 4.14 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 10 30.42 Rl 20 56.5 2298.5 F 1.71 88-304 6.27 24.15 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 10 19.09 R2 20 56.5 2298.5 F 1.18 88-304 3.98 15.11 WHITE CATFISH L 1988 10 24.76 MR 20 56.5 2298.5 F 1.45 88-304 5.13 19.63 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 2.75 M 8 35.9 550.3 M 2.50 091R025A 0.97 1.78 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 2.20 R 8 35.9 550.3 M 2.40 091R025A 0.76 1.47 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.30 R ? 35.9 550.3 M 2.60 092R025A 1.18 2.09 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.10 M 12 33.6 466.3 F 0.98 093R025B 0.39 0.73 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.20 R 12 33.6 466.3 F 1.00 093R025B 0.38 0.86 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.00 R 12 33.6 466.3 F 0.96 094R025B 0.39 0.59 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.50 7 35.9 677.7 M 3.40 096 025C 1.31 1.95 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.00 M 11 33.2 450.8 M 2.45 097R025D 0.96 2.00 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.00 R 11 33.2 450.8 M 2.50 097R025D 1.00 1.95 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.00 R 11 33.2 450.8 M 2.40 098R025D 0.94 2.05 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 8.75 M 15 55.5 2624.4 M 3.00 113R027A 2.81 5.78 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 6.50 R 15 55.5 2624.4 M 2.80 113R027A 2.27 4.26 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 11.00 R 15 55.5 2624.4 M 3.20 114R027A 3.35 7.29 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.40 13 43.5 1201.7 M 1.70 121 024A 0.98 2.37 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.40 3 28.6 302.9 M 3.00 130 026A 0.61 0.81 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.50 2 25.9 190.2 M 1.90 131 026B 0.50 0.95 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 0.97 8 34.0 507.2 F 1.70 132 026C 0.28 0.69 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 3.30 11 36.4 574.7 M 1.40 137 026D 1.00 2.29 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.20 2 23.3 129.4 F 2.80 138 026E 0.46 0.75 WHITE CATFISH Z 1984 8 1.90 10 40.5 951.4 M 3.00 210 024B 0.73 1.41 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 7.42 14 48.5 1503.3 F 1.10 86-15-41 3.25 4.17 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 3.25 9 45.0 1384.2 M 4.30 86-15-42 1.51 1.74 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 2.78 7 42.2 1023.9 M 5.20 86-16-43 1.34 1.44 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 0.79 5 32.5 440.5 F 6.40 86-16-44 0.40 0.39 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 1.57 3 27.5 205.1 F 2.30 86-46-147 0.58 0.99 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 1.79 5 26.5 220.6 F 1.90 86-47-148 0.85 0.94 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 1.30 5 30.5 318.6 F 3.70 86-47-149 0.79 0.51 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 1.33 4 29.2 272.5 F 3.70 86-47-150 0.62 0.71 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 8 9.17 12 34.0 504.3 M 2.80 86-47-152 3.00 6.17 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.34 M 4 36.5 563.0 M 2.65 86-53-169 0.98 1.36 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.19 R 4 36.5 563.0 M 2.20 86-53-169 0.85 1.34 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.50 R 4 36.5 563.0 M 3.10 86-53-169 1.12 1.38 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.91 M 12 44.1 1162.4 M 2.17 86-54-170 1.06 1.85 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 1.60 R 12 44.1 1162.4 M 1.60 86-54-170 0.68 0.92 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.65 R 12 44.1 1162.4 M 2.10 86-54-170 0.91 1.74 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 4.49 R 12 44.1 1162.4 M 2.80 86-54-170 1.59 2.90 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 3.95 13 43.1 1026.8 M 1.40 86-54-171 1.28 2.67 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 5.49 15 52.0 1884.9 M 1.60 86-55-173 2.75 2.74 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 0.90 13 51.2 2051.6 M 3.70 86-55-174 0.27 0.63 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 3.07 11 39.5 772.8 M 2.40 86-55-175 1.09 1.98 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.29 M 6 33. 4 487.1 M 2.05 86-56-176 1.00 1.29 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 1.94 R 6 33.4 487.1 M 1.90 86-56-176 0.96 0.98 WHITE CATFISH Z 1986 10 2.63 R 6 33.4 487.1 M 2.20 86-56-176 1.03 1.60 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 1.17 7 33.4 525.1 M 2.03 88-073 0.42 0.74 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 3.57 8 35.0 498.1 M 1.20 88-085 0.92 2.66 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 1.98 7 31.5 385.5 M 0.89 88-086 A 0.41 1.57 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 2.16 7 31.4 358.0 F 2.09 88-086 B 0.61 1.55 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 1.78 12 48.2 1565.1 M 1.64 88-090 0.58 1.20 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 6.21 17 37.1 665.7 M 1.78 88-091 1.71 4.51 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 18.05 17 43.4 1312.5 F 5.80 88-093 4.47 13.59 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 4.89 Rl 12 43.7 1367.2 M 1.86 88-095 1.68 3.21 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 5.47 R2 12 43.7 1367.2 M 1.97 88-095 1.63 3.84 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 5.18 MR 12 43.7 1367.2 M 1.92 88-095 1.65 3.52 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 6.83 15 47.0 1523.7 M 1.67 88-102 1.77 5.06 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 4.55 7 31.1 390.4 M 2.11 88-103 A 1.44 3.11 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 4.09 16 42.6 1277.0 M 1.59 88-103 B 1.41 2.68 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 3.35 15 38.6 863.9 M 1.22 88-104 A 0.99 2.36 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 4.06 7 37.5 706.3 M 1.07 88-112 1.46 2.60 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 2.38 7 35.4 556.8 M 1.32 88-113 0.77 1.61 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 2.84 Rl 43.8 1153.9 M 1.27 88-115 0.71 2.14 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 2.50 R2 43.8 1153.9 M 2.02 88-115 0.68 1.81 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 8 2.67 MR 43.8 1153.9 M 1.65 88-115 0.70 1.97 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 5.24 Rl 17 48.5 1645.3 F 2.62 88-241 A 1.79 3.46 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 5.94 R2 17 48.5 1645.3 F 2.44 88-241 A 1.84 4.10 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 5.59 MR 17 48.5 1645.3 F 2.53 88-241 A 1.82 3.78 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 0.86 7 36.5 691.8 F 2.72 88-241 B 0.31 0.56 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 2.36 7 34.0 482.3 F 1.96 88-242 A 0.88 1.48 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 8.68 Rl 15 41.7 1097.5 M 3.42 88-242 B 2.67 6.01 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 6.83 R2 15 41.7 1097.5 M 2.62 88-242 B 1.79 5.04 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 7.75 MR 15 41.7 1097.5 M 3.02 88-242 B 2.23 5.52 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 2.79 8 44.0 1149.7 M 1.94 88-255 1.03 1.76 WHITE CATFISH Z 1988 10 2.56 20 43.0 1080.5 F 1.38 88-256 0.85 1.71 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.60 M 3 22.7 200.8 F 6.30 081R028A 0.78 0.82 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.90 R 3 22.7 200.8 F 5.90 081R028A 0.94 0.98 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.30 R 3 22.7 200.8 F 6.70 082R028A 0.62 0.65 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 2.00 M 4 25.5 261.6 M 2.85 083R028B 0.98 1.11 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 2.20 R 4 25.5 261.6 M 2.90 083R028B 0.93 1.22 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.80 R 4 25.5 261.6 M 2.80 084R028B 0.83 1.00 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 2.40 M 3 23.7 219.1 M 4.80 085R028C 1.27 1.11 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 2.10 R 3 23.7 219.1 M 4.50 085R028C 1.01 1.04 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 2.70 R 3 23.7 219.1 M 5.10 086R028C 1.53 1.18 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.80 3 21.6 171.7 F 4.40 087 028D 0.86 0.90 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 0.86 3 21.7 158.7 M 2.80 088 028E 0.45 0.41 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.20 3 23.0 196.8 F 3.30 089 037A 0.57 0.58 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.30 4 25.5 262.8 F 2.80 090 037B 0.53 0.74 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 2.70 M 4 25.3 214.7 F 3.20 148R050A 1.05 1.61 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 2.70 R 4 25.3 214.7 F 3.40 148R050A 1.02 1.61 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 2.70 R 4 25.3 214.7 F 3.00 149R050A 1.08 1.61 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 2.00 4 26.6 241.9 F 1.70 150 050B 0.71 1.28 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 2.90 3 22.3 197.3 F 2.70 151 050C 1.29 1.63 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 2.00 3 23.3 189.4 F 3.60 152 050D 0.89 1.12 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 5.20 3 23.5 192.3 M 4.10 153 050E 2.11 3.14 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 3.00 3 22.4 153.1 F 3.60 154 050F 1.24 1.76 WHITE PERCH L 1984 6 4.80 3 24.1 189.3 F 1.70 155 051A 1.89 2.92 WHITE PERCH L 1984 6 3.80 3 21.2 127.7 M 3.10 158 051D 1.96 1.82 WHITE PERCH L 1984 6 2.60 3 20.0 114.2 F 3.10 159 051E 1.08 1.50 WHITE PERCH L 1984 7 1.30 3 20.0 121.3 M 2.20 165 052A 0.52 0.78 WHITE PERCH L 1984 7 2.70 3 21.3 148.5 F 3.60 166 052B 0.96 1.74 WHITE PERCH L 1984 7 1.20 3 22.3 168.8 F 2.70 167 052C 0.23 0.97 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 0.96 3 22.6 164.8 F 3.30 205 037D 0.31 0.66 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 2.30 3 22.6 186.4 F 4.60 206 037C 0.97 1.31 WHITE PERCH L 1984 8 1.50 3 20.5 150.1 F 6.00 207 037E 0.59 0.93 WHITE PERCH L 1984 6 3.00 3 18.9 83.9 F 1.80 268 089A 1.32 1.63 WHITE PERCH L 1984 5 1.40 3 19.1 97.2 F 1.80 271 087A 0.65 0.73 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A126( WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 5.18 8 24. 7 229. 2 M 3. 50 86-13-34 2.26 2.9; WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 1.18 8 27. 4 301. 1 M 3. 10 86-14-35 0.61 0.5: WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 0.86 8 24.9 246. 0 F 4. 10 86-14-36 0.61 0.2? WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 2.97 8 26.0 284.3 M 2.5 0 86-14-37 0.96 2.0] WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 1.88 3 20. 8 141. 4 M 4. 60 86-14-38 0.77 1.13 WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 1.75 3 22. 5 168. 8 F 7. 10 86-14-39 0.73 i.o; WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 1.85 5 22. 9 191.6 F 5. 80 86-14-40 0.70 1.15 WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 2.06 4 22. 5 175. 4 F 5. 60 86-42-137 0.70 1.3( WHITE PERCH L 1986 8 2 .09 3 21. 6 169. 2 F 7. 80 86-42-138 0.97 1.12 WHITE PERCH L 1986 10 2.09 8 24. 2 238. 9 F 5. 60 86-52-161 0.28 1.83 WHITE PERCH L 1986 10 4.31 7 23. 5 218. 3 M 4. 80 86-52-162 1.89 2.4; WHITE PERCH L 1986 10 3.69 22.0 176.4 F 7.2 0 86-52-163 1.43 2.2( WHITE PERCH L 1986 10 1.64 3 21. 0 148. 5 F 6. 30 86-52-164 0.66 0.9* WHITE PERCH L 1986 10 0.98 2 19.7 110. 0 M 5. 30 86-52-165 0.52 0.4* WHITE PERCH L 1986 10 1.01 2 19. 5 108. 5 M 4. 10 86-52-166 0.47 0.54 WHITE PERCH L 1988 6 AGE 8 26. 1 264. 0 F 88-005 E WHITE PERCH L 1988 8 2.44 5 23.7 196.8 F 5. 38 88-135 B 0.86 1.58 WHITE PERCH L 1988 8 2.49 9 25. 8 258. 8 F 3. 15 88-135 H 0.98 1.51 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 1.37 2 18. 7 94. 8 F 4, 25 88-228 A 0.65 0.72 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 2.00 2 19.0 99.0 M 4.6 4 88-228 B 0.92 1.08 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 2.24 4 21. 5 146. 9 F 5. 89 88-228 C 1.15 1.08 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 2.80 9 24. 6 217.5 F 4. 00 88-228 D 0.94 1.86 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 0.79 19. 1 104. 9 F 4. 78 88-229 B 0.28 0.51 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 0.97 2 19. 5 110. 3 F 5. 02 88-229 C 0.47 0.50 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 1.05 •2 19.7 119. 8 F 6.5 2 88-229 D 0.44 0.61 WHITE PERCH L 1988 10 2.06 4 21.9 161. 4 M 6. 10 88-229 E 0.97 1.09 WHITE PERCH L 1988 1 0 1.71 5 23. 5 194. 6 F 7.2 8 88-229 F 0.69 1.01 WHITE PERCH SAU 1988 8 0.030 4 27.0 280. 3 F 2.0 4 88-158 0.03D 0.03 WHITE PERCH WAR 1988 8 0.030 3 18. 8 86. 5 M 2. 33 88-140 A 0.030 0.03 WHITE PERCH WAR 1988 8 0.03D 3 18. 1 81. 2 M 3. 20 88-140 B 0.030 0.03 WHITE PERCH Z 1984 8 2.00 3 20.8 130. 3 M 4.7 0 044 036A 1.12 0.92 WHITE PERCH Z 1984 8 0.62 3 21. 2 125. 2 M 2. 50 045 036B 0.37 0.25 WHITE PERCH Z 1984 8 1.10 3 21. 6 143. 3 F 4. 00 046 036C 0.68 0.39 WHITE PERCH Z 1984 8 0.89 3 21. 7 143. 4 M 3. 80 047 0360 0.42 0.47 WHITE PERCH Z 1984 8 0.8 8 3 20. 5 125. 0 F 3. 60 048R036E 0.49 0.39 WHITE PERCH Z 1984 8 1.2 0 2 18.3 99.1 M 4. 00 049 036F 0.67 0.51 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260

WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.77 3 20.3 109.2 M 1.70 050 036G 0.44 0.33 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.96 3 21.5 147.0 M 3.50 051 035A 0.55 0.41 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 1.10 3 19.7 118.6 M 2.90 052 035B 0.53 0.57 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.91 2 19.4 115.3 M 4.60 053 035C 0.51 0.40 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.55 3 20.5 127.3 F 2.60 055R035E 0.32 0.23 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.80 2 17.6 91.1 M 4.00 056 035F 0.46 0.39 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.75 . 2 17. 8 89.3 F 2.90 057 035G 0.42. 0.33 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 1.50 3 20.6 133.3 M 3.20 058 035H 0.84 0.66 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.57 2 17.4 83.0 M 2.80 059 0351 0.32 0.25 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.9 3 2 18.9 106.8 F 3.10 060 035J 0.52 0.41 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.68 2 17.5 86.9 M 3.30 061 035K 0.44 0.24 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.82 2 17.5 78.1 F 3.70 062 035L 0.37 0.37 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.8 9 3 18.6 101.4 M 5.00 063 040A 0.44 0.45 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.68 3 18.6 96.3 F 3.80 064 040B 0.39 0.29 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.71 3 16.8 81.4 M 4.10 065 040C 0.46 0.25 WHITE PERCH z 1984 8 0.6 5 3 18.1 85.4 M 3.90 066 040D 0.39 0.26 WHITE PERCH z 1984 1 0 1.20 3 23.7 172.5 F 1.50 227 083A 0.52 0.65 oo WHITE PERCH z 1984 1 0 1.80 3 22.8 173.6 F 3.40 228 083B 0.86 0.92 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 0.06 L 2 18.3 92.1 M 4.85 88-076 B 0.03D 0.031 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 0.88 11 25.9 242.3 F 2.62 88-076 D 0.30 0.58 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 3.87 9 24.1 194.9 M 4.48 88-076 E 1.57 2.29 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 1.13 2 17.9 88.4 F 3.41 88-076 F 0.36 0.76 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 1.74 4 21.6 145.9 M 2.68 88-076 H 0.75 0.99 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 1.71 4 20.2 134.7 F 5.38 88-076 I 0.85 0.85 WHITE PERCH z 1988 8 0.83 g 23.0 196.0 F 3.09 88-088 0.34 0.49 WHITE PERCH z 1988 1 0 3.87 7 21.2 153.2 F 6.06 88-236 A 1.99 1.88 WHITE PERCH z 1988 1 0 1.29 9 23.7 184.7 F 2.00 88-236 D 0.62 0.67 WHITE PERCH z 1988 1 0 0.56 1 14.9 40.8 F 2.83 88-237 A 0.31 0.25 WHITE PERCH z 1988 1 0 0.03D 18.6 87.7 F 5.04 88-237 B 0.03D 0.031 WHITE PERCH z 1988 1 0 1.96 4 20.0 114.8 F 5.26 88-237 D 1.01 0.95 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 3.30 M 7 26.8 275.5 M 1.15 175R053A 1.02 2.30 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 2.90 R 7 26.8 275.5 M 1.20 175R053A 0.87 2.04 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 3.7 0 R 7 26.8 275.5 M 1.10 176R053A 1.16 2.56 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.20 8 26.9 255.5 F 0.70 178 053B 0.31 0.92 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 3.40 10 25.0 211.8 M 0.98 179 053C 0.67 2.73 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.82 9 26. 7 236.4 F 0.59 180 053D 0.26 0.57 I i

SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.80 4 25.0 210.0 F 0.79 181 053E 0.21 0.59 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.49 2 19.8 107.1 F 0.86 182 054A 0.18 0.31 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.74 10 26.5 216.2 F 0.78 183 054B 0.23 0.50 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.00 4 25.1 222.0 F 1.10 184 054C 0.35 2.89 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.84 10 26.6 252.0 F 0.97 185 054D 0.28 0.56 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.20 4 24.8 206.0 M 0.71 186 054E 0.38 0.81 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.65 3 20.9 110.6 F 0.73 187 054F 0.21 0.44 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.50 4 22.3 140.6 M 0.90 188 055A 0.43 1.04 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.46 2 19.7 92.4 M 0.78 189 055B 0.13 0.33 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 6.30 14 25.9 219.7 M 0.74 190 055C 1.32 5.01 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.10 4 25.3 221.2 F 0.88 191 055D 0.38 0.73 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.83 9 27.0 240.9 F 0.63 193 055F 0.22 0.62 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.20 6 26.1 254.5 F 1.10 194 055E 0.35 0.81 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.52 3 21.1 120.7 F 0.87 195 056A 0.21 0.31 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.54 4 23.1 173.1 F 0.80 196 056B 0.24 0.30 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.09 M 5 27.8 292.9 F 0.84 197R056C 0.41 0.71 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.20 R 5 27.8 292.9 F 1.00 197R056C 0.41 0.83 *£> YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.68 4 25.4 213.2 F 0.73 198 057A 0.17 0.51 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.05 M 7 27.3 264.2 F 0.90 204R057B 0.35 0.73 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.40 R 7 27.3 264.2 F 1.10 204R057B 0.48 0.96 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.70 R 7 27.3 264.2 F 0.70 310R057B 0.21 0.50 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 1.10 9 26.9 250.2 F 0.46 311 057C 0.45 0.60 YELLOW PERCH B 1984 8 0.98 R 5 27.8 292.9 F 0.68 339R056C 0.40 0.58 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.61 6 27.6 331.3 M 0.62 86-17-46 0.20 0.41 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.14 6 25.7 267.1 M 1.50 86-17-47 0.40 0.74 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.28 12 26.0 263.4 M 0.66 86-17-48 0.43 0.85 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.66 4 27.8 337.5 F 1.70 86-18-49 0.24 0.42 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.12 M 4 25.2 290.9 F 2.85 86-18-50 0.46 0.66 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.85 R 4 25.2 290.9 F 3.80 86-18-50 0.41 0.44 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.39 R 4 25.2 290.9 F 1.90 86-18-50 0.51 0.88 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.52 6 27.2 382.9 F 1.30 86-18-51 0.19 0.33 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.71 4 26.6 277.0 M 1.40 86-19-52 0.30 0.41 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.32 5 25.2 251.0 M 0.54 86-19-53 0.12 0.20 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 2.12 6 28.3 375.7 M 1.40 86-20-55 0.82 1.30 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.49 6 27.1 351.5 M 0.46 86-20-57 0.18 0.31 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.50 4 27.0 365.9 F 1.20 86-21-58 0.17 0.33 SPECIES STA YEAR MO TPCB REP AGE TL TW S ST LIPID SN IND A1254 A1260 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.32 8 30.1 403.1 F 0.50 86-21-59 0.11 0.21 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.50 4 26.2 289.4 F 1.10 86-22-60 0.21 0.29 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.35 M 4 27.6 324.1 F 0.37 86-22-61 0.10 0.25 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.33 R 4 27.6 324.1 F 0.39 86-22-61 0.12 0.21 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.38 R 4 27.6 324.1 F 0.35 86-22-61 0.09 0.29 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.40 9 25.8 255.5 M 1.10 86-23-63 0.48 0.92 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.42 2 25.0 216.5 F 0.60 86-23-64 0.17 0.25 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.74 15 26.3 256.4 M 0.54 86-23-65 0.72 1.02 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.48 M 4 28.5 367.3 F 1.70 86-24-66 0.40 1.08 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.29 R 4 28.5 367.3 F 1.40 86-24-66 0.28 1.01 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.66 R 4 28.5 367.3 F 2.00 86-24-66 0.51 1.15 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.29 2 21.6 136.0 M 0.48 86-24-67 0.12 0.17 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.81 6 30.9 469.6 F 1.10 86-24-68 0.34 0.47 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.20 3 26.4 267.4 F 0.90 86-25-69 0.08 0.12 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 1.60 12 26.3 282.2 M 0.51 86-25-70 0.43 1.17 YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.62 3 25.0 232.8 M 0.90 86-25-71 0.22 0.40 oo YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.67 6 27.9 377.4 F 0.90 86-26-73 0.24 0.43 o YELLOW PERCH B 1986 8 0.61 3 26.3 311.9 F 1.10 86-26-74 0.16 0.45 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 AGE 2 22.9 128.5 88-184 A YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 1.10 7 28.3 309.8 M 0.93 88-184 B 0.32 0.78 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.60 2 20.9 110.4 F 0.90 88-184 C 0.22 0.38 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.44 2 21.1 109.2 F 0.72 88-184 D 0.14 0.30 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 1.38 6 26.4 189.3 M 0.81 88-184 E 0.45 0.93 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.74 8 28.2 308.7 F 0.89 88-184 F 0.25 0.49 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.57 Rl 10 29.5 346.8 F 0.83 88-184 G 0.17 0.41 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.50 R2 10 29.5 346.8 F 0.72 88-184 G 0.13 0.37 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.54 MR 10 29.5 346.8 F 0.78 88-184 G 0.15 0.39 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.40 6 30.4 302.2 F 0.58 88-184 H 0.14 0.26 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 AGE 2 23.1 151.3 88-195 A YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.54 2 22.4 123.8 F 0.32 88-195 B 0.14 0.40 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.97 2 19.7 87.0 M 0.66 88-195 C 0.27 0.70 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 1.49 8 29.0 324.7 F 0.53 88-195 D 0.43 1.06 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 1.68 8 32.1 511.5 F 1.15 88-195 E 0.55 1.13 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.69 4 25.5 202.0 F 0.74 88-196 A 0.19 0.49 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 1.90 5 27.3 262.0 M 1.54 88-196 B 0.62 1.28 YELLOW PERCH B 1988 8 0.40 4 24.4 182.4 F 0.73 88-196 C 0.14 0.26