Abstract

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), located on the upper Chesapeake Bay, in Aberdeen, MD, has served the U.S. Army for more than 75 years as a site for research, development, and testing of munitions and military chemicals. Due to the toxic nature of many of the compounds which were disposed of "on site," APG is on the National Priorities List for environmental contamination. This is a source of concern for local citizens and fishermen. In order to better understand effects of potential chemical contamination on local vertebrate fauna, and to enhance public relations between the U.S. Army and local residents, the U.S. Army and the University of Maryland Aquatic Pathobiology Center initiated a cooperative study. This effort involved public outreach and participation through an angler survey. Persons catching fish of "questionable health" near APG were encouraged to submit their specimens for diagnostic evaluation by the study. Animals were examined by gross necropsy and histopathology. Examination results were recorded according to standard pathology protocols and then translated for outreach to citizens and fishermen. Development of non-technical response formats for survey results as well as outreach to fishing clubs and citizens' groups represents an important venue for risk communication of technical information to the public. Survey design and outreach materials are presented to show angler questionnaires, lay-translated gross necropsy/histopathology reports and correspondence to survey participants.

Introduction

Recreational fishing is a popular activity in the waters surrounding Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland. In recent years, anglers have reported concern and the occurrence of "unusual looking" or unhealthy fish caught near APG. In an effort to preliminarily assess fish health in and around APG, and to address citizen concerns, a collaborative fish health study was initiated, combining the efforts of the U.S. Army and the University of Maryland Aquatic Pathobiology Center. This effort also serves to develop a prototype for toxicology/pathology risk communication of technical information to a community lay audience.

Project Methods

Citizen Awareness

Fishing clubs, citizen's groups and individuals were made aware of the collaborative fish health survey by a) presentations at fishing club meetings, b) community newsletter mailings, and c) car side solicitation at boat ramps during fishing tournaments. Through these venues, anglers and citizens were supplied with Fish Health Survey submission forms and given supplemental verbal information on how to participate in the survey. The reverse side of the submission forms contained a Mission Statement for the project.

Angler Participation

Anglers submitted five (or fresh on ice) fish for diagnostic evaluation in this study either a) at the tournament weigh-ins where a trained project member accepted the fish and submission form(s), or b) via a telephone call to our response line, indicating that a five or fresh specimen was awaiting immediate pickup at a designated marina. Marina personnel assisted in this study by accepting specimens from anglers, insuring completeness in Fish Health Submission Forms, and maintaining live fish in holding tanks until pickup by project personnel.

Biological Data Acquisition

Specimens accessed through this study were transported off site for necropsy. Animals were euthanized with buffered MS222 and cervically transacted. Necropsy included systematic tissue sampling for histopathology, parasitology and photography. H&E-stained glass slides from each specimen were evaluated by two fish pathologists. Abnormalities were recorded according to type and location, and ranked for severity. Photographic images from gross necropsies and glass slides were obtained and digitized for archiving and incorporation into reports.

Citizen Outreach

Persons submitting a specimen(s) for evaluation under this study received two mailed correspondences from the University of Maryland Aquatic Pathobiology Center (sample correspondences are attached this report). The first correspondence acknowledged the angler's participation in the study and receipt of the specimen. The second correspondence was the associated diagnostic report. This report contained a cover letter reiterating the importance of their participation, how their specimen was handled, and a lay-translated pathology report. A glossary of pathology terms used in the report was included with the mailing. Additional community outreach consisted of summary reports back to fishing clubs and citizen groups and newsletter releases.

Results and Discussion

This collaborative project was designed to preliminarily evaluate potential health problems of fish in and around APG using diagnostic pathology, and to address citizen concern about possible contaminant effects on fish near APG. We estimate that over 1,500 anglers and citizens have been made aware of this project. There were 19 specimens submitted during the first year of the study. These animals were submitted from both non-tournament recreational angling and largemouth bass tournament weigh-ins.

In most cases, specimens were submitted because of small red ulcers on the body surface or fins. These lesions were, for the most part, non-specific in origin and probably related to the season and spawning. A few cases were submitted because of skeletal deformations (scoliosis, brachygnathia), healed-over fishing lesions (gill arches protruding through opercula), a missing eye, and morbidity. Two cases of striped bass revealed specific and non-specific gram positive acid fast staining bacteria, indicating probable and possible mycobacterial infections, respectively. Parasitism was common to all cases in varying degrees. There was a differential presentation of digenetic trematodes in the bulbus arteriosis of bluegiu and largemouth bass; trematode cysts in bluegill were typically found in the adventitia, while in largemouth bass cysts were noted in the media and endothelium.

Based on the number and type of cases which were submitted for diagnostic evaluation in this project, there does not appear to be obvious or recurrent contaminant-related problems to the recreational fishery surrounding APG. Additional on-going studies using biochemical markers of exposure (hepatic ECOD and MCOD metabolic alteration in caged Fundulus), as well as histopathology, will supplement this database.

Biological data obtained from this project included high resolution image capture of histopathology observations. In combination with gross photographs, these micrographs are included in the summary reports for the Army Directorate of Safety, Health and the Environment, state agencies and fish health laboratories. These reports serve as a prototype for a fish health database which includes gross necropsy findings, histopathology, case summary, and notable findings in picture format. Ultimately, we hope to maintain these data on distributable CD-ROM disks with high resolution, full-color photographs and micrographs. This format will permit fish health personnel easy access to cases for purposes of cross referencing and teaching.

Sample Acknowledgment Letter

Aquatic Pathobiology Center
410.706.7230; 410.706.8414 - FAX
akane@ukmabnet.ab.ulmld.edu
27 September 1995
Mr. Eager Fishman
4321 Red Gill Road Baltimore, Maryland 21214

Dear Mr. Fishman,

Thank you for participating in our Fish Health Survey concerning waters surrounding Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. This survey is being conducted by the University of Maryland Aquatic Pathobiology Center in collaboration with the U.S. Army to examine fish collected by persons fishing the APG and surrounding waters through September 30, 1995. We acknowledge receipt of a fish submitted by you. Fish submitted for health analysis are assigned with unique code (accession) number for identification. Your specimen has been coded as follows:

We will evaluate your specimen using several diagnostic tools. These include an external examination and an internal examination (or necropsy, which is analogous to an autopsy). The necropsy examination is an in-depth dissection where we look for any signs of disease. During the necropsy, samples from different fish tissues will be prepared for detailed microscopic examination by a trained doctor of fish pathology (one who studies fish disease processes). This microscopic analysis by the pathologist is important in understanding how the animals' organs and cells respond to external stress. In the case offish, stress may include disease, pollution, mating and environmental changes.

The Aquatic Pathobiology Center at the University of Maryland School of Medicine will evaluate the necropsy results, prepare specimens for analysis, perform a pathological (microscopic) examination, and write a detailed diagnostic report based on all findings. This report will be used to gain insight into fish health in the northern areas of Chesapeake Bay which surround the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Within approximately 60 days you win be sent a copy of this report showing results from your specimen. In the meantime, please feel free to write or call me if you have any questions.

Again, thank you for assisting with this important study.

Sincerely,
Andrew S. Kane, M.S., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, UM Aquatic Pathobiology Center APG-UM Fish Health Study Coordinator

Sample Diagnostic Report Cover Letter

Aquatic Pathobiology Center
410.706.7230; 410.706.8414 - FAX
akane@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
22 November 1995

Mr. Eager Fishman
4321 Red Gill Road Baltimore, Maryland 21214

Dear Mr. Fishman,

Thank you for participating in the Summer 1995 Fish Health Survey conducted by the University of Maryland Aquatic Pathobiology Center in collaboration with the U.S. Army. This survey was designed to gain initial insight into the health offish in waters immediately surrounding Aberdeen Proving Ground and to involve local citizens who fish these waters. During the later part of last year, you should have received a letter acknowledging that our facility (Aquatic Pathobiology Center) has acquired a specimen submitted by you. If your specimen were submitted alive, it were humanely euthanized prior to examining it. This package contains pathology reports on the following specimen:

The report includes observations from an external examination and a detailed internal examination of the fish. During the internal examination (or necropsy) small tissue samples were taken for detailed analysis by a trained doctor of fish pathology (one who studies disease processes). In order for the pathologist to examine these tissues under the microscope, the samples were preserved, then sliced extremely thin (0.0002 inches thick) and placed on a glass microscope slide. After the sliced tissues are on the glass slide, they are stained to enhance seeing detail of the tissues and cells. This preparation is called histology (study of biological tissues) processing.

After histological processing, the pathologist examined the tissues under a microscope and evaluated them to determine if they looked normal or abnormal. If they were abnormal, observations regarding the abnormalities were described. These observations may have included location and size of the abnormalities (or lesions), how much of the tissue(s) was affected, and any host (fish) response to the abnormality. Inflammation is a typical host response to many types of injuries, disease processes and parasites.

Letter to E. Fishman
22 November 1995, page 2

The enclosed diagnostic fish health reports contain technical information on both necropsy and microscopic observations. To help you understand some of the technical language, we have also enclosed a glossary of some of the more common terms used.

The sores which you noticed on the body surface are not necessarily uncommon due to the season and spawning activities. However, the degree of parasitism on this animal was high, and most likely predisposed it to other stress factors. Evidence of multicellular parasites (i.e. trematodes) was seen in multiple internal organ systems, including the liver, part of the heart, stomach, intestines, spleen, kidney and skin. The fish's immune response to the parasites was evidenced by inflammation. The gills, liver and kidney did not show evidence of contaminant exposure, and therefore we do not feel that the skin lesions arose primarily from contaminant-related sources. On the other hand, it is possible that water-quality related stress could have affected the immune system of this animal, thus predisposing it to greater parasitism (although this is only hypothetical).

This specimen had one of the highest rankings of parasitism observed in this study, and it is a notable finding. It was interesting to note the occurrence of parasites in the bulbus arteriosis (major vessel leading from the heart). There were sufficient parasitic nodules in this site to cause a bulge into the middle of this vessel, which might have restricted blood flow (this may or may not have had any overt, long-term effects on the fish). Other than the aforementioned lesions which this fish persevered, this animal's self-repair process was obviously sufficient to respond to the loss of its left eye (one of the reasons you submitted the fish).

Thanks to your support, information derived from this survey will be important for the University of Maryland, the Maryland Department of natural Resources and the U.S. Army to preliminarily evaluate fish health in the waters surrounding Aberdeen and Edgewood. This information will also be disseminated to local fishing clubs, including The Maryland Bass Catchers Club. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please feel free to contact me in writing (be sure to include your current address and daytime phone number). Again, thank you for participating in this collaborative Fish Health Survey.

Sincerely,
Andrew S. Kane, M.S., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, UM Aquatic Pathobiology Center APG-UM Fish Health Study Coordinator
Renate Reimschuessel, V.M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, UM Aquatic Pathobiology Center

Sample Diagnostic Report

Fish Health Survey in Cooperation with the U.S. Army

Figure 1. This specimen was missing the left eye. Two reddened ulcers were noted under the left pectoral fin (arrow).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Patricia Franzen, Mike Ciarlo, Larry Thebeau, Eric May, Charles Poukish and Rudolph Lukacovic for their time and valuable insight. This project was supported by the U.S. Army Directorate of Safety, Health and the Environment through Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., subcontract 19K-FYT55V, and the University of Maryland Aquatic Pathobiology Center.