PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JANUARY 2000
^eos^
XvX
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Volume 2D-Book 4 of 4
Bioaccumulation Models
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JANUARY 2000
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Volume 2D - Book 4 of 4
Bioaccumulation Models
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
-------
Tables
-------
Table 2-1. A Comparison of the BAF Range Predicted
by Gobas and Thomann Models
The ratio of the 90lh to the 10th percentile of Bioaccumulation Factors (BAF)
predicted by the Gobas and Thomann models for a piscivorous fish for a log n-
octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow) of 6.5 using the uncertainties of the
individual input parameters.
Parameter
I^OW
Temperature
Sediment organic carbon
HSOCW
Weight of Piscivorous Fish
Lipid Content of Piscivorous Fish
Feeding Preference of Smelt (Fish)
A Ratio of the concentration of chemical
Input parameter
uncertainty
(C.V.,%)
(assumed distribution)
0.2% (log normal)
10% (normal)
63% (normal)
1 5% (log normal)
50% (normal)
5% (normal)
40% (normal)
Ratio of 90lh to 10th
percentile predicted BAF/J
Cobas Model Thomann Model
1.41 2.88
1.15 Not used
1 .00 Not used
3.09 2.19
1.05 1.00
1.12 1.10
1.58 1.05
in sediment organic carbon to the concentration in overlying water.
MCA/TetratTech
-------
Table 4-1 Count of NYSDEC Hudson River Fish Samples for PCB
Aroclor Quantitation Collected between River Miles 142 and 193 by
Laboratory and Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
"Hazleton" (Warnia,
Raltech, Hazleton, HES,
EnChem)
0
0
179
142
163
216
149
194
203
249
166
209
65
246
45
132
0
10
302
225
251
182
20
NYSDEC Hale Creek
Field Station
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
349
492
8
0
0
0
6
Other Laboratories
65
49
10
0
0
0
0
0
24
2
0
0
74
0
0
3
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: 11/17/1998 update to NYSDEC database.
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-2 Aroclor Standards and NYSDEC Rules for Calculating
Total PCBs from Analyses Reported by Hazleton and Hale Creek for
Upper Hudson River Samples
Laboratory
Hazleton
Hale Creek
Hazleton
Years
1977- 1990
1990- 1993
1993- 1997
Aroclor Standards
1221, 1016, 1254
1016, 1254/60
1248, 1254, 1260
Total PCB Calculation
1016+ 1254
1016+ 1254/60
1248 + 1254+ 1260
Note: A 1242 standard was applied in 1994 (only) by Hazleton for analysis of Lower Hudson fish (not
used in this analysis).
Source: Butcher et al. (1997) and personal communications from Ron Sloan (NYSDEC).
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-3 Packed-Column Peaks Used by NYSDEC Contract
Laboratory "Hazleton" and Associated PCB Congeners for Upper
Hudson Fish Sample Aroclor Quantitation
Year
1977
1979
1983
1992
Aroclor
1016
1254
1016
1254
1016
1254
1248
1254
1260
Packed-Column Peaks
(RRT)
.37
.47
1.04
1.25
.32
.37
.98
1.04
1.25
1.46
1.74
.37
.40
1.25
1.46
1.74
.37+.40
.28
.32
1.25
1.46
1.74
2.03
3.72
4.48
5.28
Associated PCB
Congeners (BZ #)
25,26,28,29,31
47,48,49,52,75
77,110
82,107,118,135,144,
149,151
16,24,27,32
25,26,28,29,3
85,87,97,119,136
77,110
82,107,118,135,144,
149,151
105,132,146,153
129,138,158,175,178
25,26,28,29,31
20.22.33.45.51.53
82,107,118,135,144,
149,151
105,132,146,153
129,138,158,175,178
20,22,23,25,26,28,29,
31,45,52,53
15,17,18
16,24,27,32
82,107,118,135,144,
149,151
105,132,146,153
129,138,158,175,178
128,167,183,185,187
189,196,198,199,201,
203
195,208
194,206
Note: Aroclor 1221 quantitations are not used in this analysis and are therefore omitted from this table.
Source: Butcher et al. (1997) and analysis of sample quantitation sheets provided by NYSDEC.
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-4 Weight Percents of Congeners in Packed-Column Peaks Used
for "Hazleton" Aroclor Quantitation Schemes, based on Capillary
Column Analyses of Aroclor Standards
Year
1977
1979
1983
1992
Aroclor
1016
1254
1016
1254
1016
1254
1248
1254
1260
Weight Percent of PCB Congeners in Quantitation
Peaks (%)
32.3
42.8
27.7
51.4
34.4
30.7
23.6
33.2
8.2
Hudson River Database Release 4.1h
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-5 NYSDEC Upper Hudson Fish Concentrations as mg/kg-lipid
Converted to Tri+ PCBs for Bivariate BAF Analysis
Brown Bullhead
Group 1
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Mean
1513
1247
1106
1010
372
112
942
718
341
356
250
Median
1299
879
1091
734
284
626
866
422
321
391
226
Count
20
24
20
20
18
20
9
19
19
3
24
2
Mean
1987
1606
1763
459
600
536
546
673
370
418
142
358
244
164
162
114
515
Median
1852
1313
1677
408
552
511
506
568
324
278
145
272
278
108
145
99
162
Count
30
30
30
20
20
20
19
23
20
20
20
24
8
15
20
6
3
3
Mean
228
Median
228
Count
2
4
Mean
745
395
373
201
204
185
225
148
93
69
88
44
109
136
100
92
Median
667
385
387
145
173
191
192
139
81
62
77
39
109
136
71
81
Count
30
11
22
21
30
10
24
19
18
16
23
3
2
5
20
4
Goldfish
Group 1
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Mean
534
410
380
583
Median
537
347
338
567
Count
9
20
9
4
2
Mean
5710
5385
1462
357
383
437
364
289
178
Median
3863
2644
1244
241
269
405
288
289
199
Count
14
30
30
20
20
11
18
2
4
3
Mean
Median
Count
4
Mean
757
65
Median
277
59
Count
30
4
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-5 (continued)
Largemouth Bass
Group 1
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Mean
2246
1586
1603
1331
2416
1572
1686
2215
1236
1077
778
568
Median
2124
1459
1647
1060
2311
1248
1319
1931
1128
1100
771
569
Count
30
20
18
20
20
6
20
20
20
20
20
33
2
Mean
4844
3497
2084
1121
1166
957
1101
930
941
828
445
438
502
479
557
347
264
Median
4514
3260
2125
998
940
654
931
825
971
783
456
475
464
447
543
312
223
Count
14
30
25
20
20
20
21
21
20
20
8
20
20
19
20
8
6
3
Mean
1516
436
217
Median
1215
403
173
Count
30
11
12
4
Mean
1170
378
269
264
340
229
228
211
Median
1170
372
275
268
351
196
174
181
Count
2
19
5
9
6
20
9
5
Pumpkinseed
Group 1
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Mean
227
338
954
382
566
636
647
379
155
309
123
Median
127
154
1007
310
479
603
578
380
138
293
125
Count
11
41
15
4
11
12
21
29
24
31
30
2
Mean
1309
831
542
438
592
388
357
353
242
419
176
525
182
220
240
164
72
Median
1326
812
576
446
588
377
335
340
257
434
178
532
175
222
228
161
71
Count
16
25
49
43
45
25
22
21
25
15
12
17
36
31
20
30
8
3
Mean
150
268
Median
151
284
Count
10
8
4
Mean
608
387
514
247
271
243
179
132
97
68
119
125
114
30
67
89
55
Median
647
376
512
249
206
234
181
142
94
66
115
107
98
32
63
94
49
Count
7
22
26
38
37
53
25
8
24
7
15
11
15
3
10
16
12
MCA/TctraTech
-------
Table 4-5 (continued)
White Perch
Group 1
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Mean
Median
Count
2
Mean
Median
Count
3
Mean
229
203
Median
213
192
Count
18
21
4
Mean
1081
765
376
516
382
340
349
248
154
215
139
278
103
126
Median
887
749
359
462
292
281
275
185
120
206
126
250
92
73
Count
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
17
20
20
19
20
3
Yellow Perch
Group 1
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Mean
964
1433
2723
432
Median
844
964
2032
358
Count
10
12
20
3
2
Mean
2848
1168
507
653
182
513
319
171
Median
2473
1134
507
589
174
481
287
94
Count
30
7
2
7
12
12
4
3
3
Mean
66
362
Median
66
307
Count
2
10
4
Mean
1772
2857
133
283
190
Median
1150
1364
139
266
190
Count
20
4
6
10
2
Notes: All concentrations converted to consistent estimate of Tri+ PCBs as described in text.
Single-fish samples have been dropped from analysis.
Key to Groups: Group 1 Lower Thompson Island Pool, River Mile 188-193
Group 2 Stillwater area. River Mile 168-176
Group 3 Waterford area. River Mile 155-157
Group 4 Below Federal Dam, River Mile 142-152
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b and NYSDEC November 17. 1998 update to fish database.
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-6 Assignment of Water Column Concentrations to Fish
Sampling Locations in the Upper Hudson River
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1991
1996
1997
1998
Thompson Is. Pool
RM 188-193
USGS-Stillwater
x 1.292xCF
USGS Ft. Miller
X 1.0 xCF
GE TID-West
Stillwater
RM 168-176
USGS Stillwater
GE Stillwater Bridge
EPA Stillwater
USGS Stillwater
GE Rt. 29 Bridge
x 0.912
Waterford
RM 155-157
USGS Waterford
GE Rt. 4 Bridge
EPA Waterford FA
USGS Waterford
GE Rt. 29 Bridge
x 0.746
Below Federal Dam
RM 142-152
USGS Waterford
x 0.585
GE Rt. 4 Bridge
x 0.585
EPA Green Island
USGS Waterford
x 0.585
GE Rt. 29 Bridge
x 0.436
Notes: GE TID-West observations represent nearshore conditions. Estimates for the Thompson Island Pool
prior to 1991 from downstream USGS monitoring are corrected to a consistent nearshore basis via a
correction factor (CF). CF is set to 1.14 when flow at Fort Edward is less than 4,000 cfs, and 1.0 when
flow at Fort Edward is greater than 4,000 cfs.
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib and GE database update of 10/12/1998, Thurston (1998).
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-7 Summer Average Water Column Concentrations of
Tri+ PCBs (ng/1) used for Bivariate BAF Analysis
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Thompson Is. Pool
RM 189-193
993.0
755.1
752.7
475.0
266.2
156.0
591.0
373.0
169.9
34.0
30.0
25.2
36.9
56.8
140.4
316.6
106.6
92.3
87.0
43.6
55.9
42.7
Stillwater
RM 168-175
681.5
535.7
516.7
323.5
183.3
106.7
447.2
280.0
116.0
24.6
45.0
21.0
42.1
68.8
55.5
129.0
45.4
15.0
34.7
24.3
34.9
38.1
Waterford
RM 155-160
355.0
447.4
364.7
303.8
143.8
135.7
207.7
118.3
98.3
22.5
42.0
23.8
23.2
50.0
37.8
118.3
48.2
20.0
28.7
21.0
28.5
31.2
Below Federal Dam
RM 142-155
207.7
261.7
213.3
177.7
84.1
79.4
121.5
69.2
57.5
13.2
24.6
13.9
13.6
29.3
22.1
69.2
24.5
11.7
16.8
12.3
16.7
18.2
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b and GE database update of 10/12/1998, Thurston (1998).
MCA/TetraTcch
-------
Table 4-8 Annual Average Surface Sediment Tri+ PCB Concentrations
(ug/g-OC) used in Bivariate BAF Analysis
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Group 1
7221
6339
5593
5011
4535
4074
3538
3145
2814
2492
2261
1961
1774
1492
1328
1306
1142
1023
976
868
765
Group 2
1429
1061
876
788
698
595
506
422
393
337
287
247
221
183
163
180
176
161
154
131
109
Group 3
829
693
598
539
491
437
389
345
316
281
250
225
202
179
162
158
150
137
128
117
105
Group 4
145
149
176
125
181
132
129
93
99
113
132
71
28
46
64
75
74
66
64
50
43
Notes: See text for computation methods.
Key to Groups: Group 1 Lower Thompson Island Pool, River Mile 188-193
Group 2 Stillwater area, River Mile 168-176
Group 3 Waterford area, River Mile 155-157
Group 4 Below Federal Dam, River Mile 142-152
Source: Output from HUDTOX model as described in the text, except for Group 4. where concentrations through
1992 are estimated from High Resolution Core 11 (Hudson River Database Release 4.lb)
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-9 BAF Models of Mean Tri+ PCB Concentration in NYSDEC
Hudson River Fish Samples (mg/kg-Lipid) Regressed on Water Column
Concentration Only
Species
Brown
Bullhead
Goldfish
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkinseed
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Coefficients
Constant
80.49
135.5
287.3
75.91
111.6
- 0.20*
Water (ppt)
1.92
1.62
4.20
1.87
2.21
4.03
Adjusted
Multiple R2
(%)
42.1
33.7
50.5
70.9
65.8
71.2
Standard
Error
39.6
36.8
51.3
33.0
20.6
31.7
Log- 10 BAF
(L/kg-lipid)
6.28
6.21
6.62
6.27
6.34
6.61
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TelraTech
-------
Table 4-10. BAF Models of Mean Tri+ PCB Concentration in NYSDEC
Hudson River Fish Samples (mg/kg-Lipid) Regressed on Sediment
Concentration Only
Species
Brown
Bullhead
Goldfish
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkinseed
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Coefficients
Constant
94.9
166.6
340.8
133.3
41.7*
38.8*
Sediment
(Mg/g-OC)
0.56
0.20*
0.77
0.29
2.19
1.27
Adjusted
Multiple R2
(%)
52.1
15.8
51.2
22.0
26.0
54.4
Standard
Error
36.0
41.4
50.9
54.0
30.2
39.9
Notes: * Coefficient not statistically different from zero at 95% confidence level.
Estimates based on 1977-1997 samples from River Miles 142 to 195.
Goldfish model calculated with two outliers deleted (see text)
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TctraTcch
-------
Table 4-11. Bivariate BAF Models of Mean Tri+ PCB Concentration in
NYSDEC Upper Hudson Fish Samples (mg/kg-Lipid) Regressed on
Water Column and Sediment Concentration
Species
Brown Bullhead
Goldfish
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkinseed
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Coefficients
Constant
16.4*
37.6*
192.0
55.7
85.4*
-29.2*
Sediment
(Mg/g-OC)
0.44
0.19
0.55
0.13
0.37*
0.49*
Water
(PPO
1.38
1.56
2.96
1.70
2.06
3.03
Adjusted
Multiple
R2 (%)
71.9
50.4
72.4
74.7
63.8
74.1
Standard
Error
27.6
31.8
38.3
30.7
21.1
30.0
Log- 10 BAF
(L/kg-lipid)
6.14
6.19
6.47
6.23
6.31
6.48
Notes: * Coefficient not statistically different from zero at 95% confidence level.
Estimates based on 1977-1997 samples from River Miles 142 to 195.
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 4-12. Percentage of Variance, Beta Coefficients, and Elasticities for Water and Sediment as Explanatory
Variables for Fish PCB Tri+ Body Burden (mg/kg-Lipid) in the Bivariate BAF Models
Percentage of
Variance
Normalized Beta
Coefficients
Elasticities
Water (ng/1)
Sediment (mg/g-OC)
Water (ng/1)
Sediment (mg/g-OC)
Water (ng/1)
Sediment (mg/g-OC)
Fish Species
Brown Bullhead
42.7
52.7
0.47
0.58
0.46
0.46
Goldfish
45.6
31.0
0.60
0.44
0.49
0.37
Largemouth Bass
44.8
45.6
0.51
0.52
0.37
0.31
Pumpkinseed
68.3
14.9
0.77
0.22
0.57
0.16
White Perch
54.6
1.7
0.77
0.09
0.52
0.14
Yellow Perch
46.5
15.3
0.66
0.31
0.77
0.36
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Hudson
Table 5-1: Coefficient of Variation in Forage Fish Samples by
River Mile from US EPA Dataset
Wet Weight PCB
River Mile (n)
113.8(3)
25.8 (3)
58.7 (6)
47.3 (3)
159 (3)
143.5 (7)
191.5(3)
100 (3)
137.2(3)
88.9 (8)
122.4(3)
169.5(6)
189.5 (10)
TIP (24)
194.1 (11)
196.9(16)
CoeffofVar
1.9
9.4
13.1
13.6
14.6
18.4
19.3
23.2
25.6
29.1
29.8
47.0
54.9
81.9
91.5
146.1
Lipid Normalized PCB
River Mile
113.8
47.3
137.2
122.4
25.8
100
143.5
159
191.5
169.5
189.5
88.9
TIP
194.1
58.7
196.9
CoeffofVar
10.0
10.4
11.4
15.8
17.0
21.7
22.9
27.1
29.1
31.0
48.8
61.0
61.4
66.2
87.0
95.9
Lipid Content
River Mile
113.8
47.3
137.2
25.8
100
143.5
196.9
159
169.5
88.9
122.4
191.5
189.5
194.1
TIP
58.7
CoeffofVar
11.9
13.3
18.2
20.0
20.1
28.1
34.6
37.7
40.8
42.0
46.0
50.8
65.1
69.2
70.0
94.6
River Database Release 4. 1 b MC A/TetraTech
-------
Table 5-2: Final Distributions Used in Empirical Probabilistic Model
Ratio
BSAF: Biota:Sediment Accumulation Factor
Water BAF: Water: Water Column Invertebrate Accumulation
Factor*
FFBAF: Forage Fish: Diet Accumulation Factor
Brown Bullhead BSAF (RM 189)
Brown Bullhead BSAF (RM 168)
Brown Bullhead BSAF (combined)
PiscBAF: Largemouth Bass:Pumpkinseed Accumulation
Factor
Geometric
Mean
0.74
13.25
1.08
0.8
0.45
0.56
2.7
Geometric
Standard
Deviation
0.34
0.29
1.7
0.45
0.33
0.59
1.45
* Water BAF given as LN(average)
All distributions characterized as lognormal
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 5-3: Relative Percent Difference Between Predicted and Observed for Empirical Probabilistic Model
Largemouth Largemouth Largemouth Bass Brown Bullhead Pumpkinseed Pumpkinseed
Bass Lipid Bass Lipid Lipid Brown Bullhead Lipid Lipid Lipid
Normalized Normalized Normalized Lipid Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized
River Mile --ป 189 168 155 189 168 189 168
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
240%
-25%
-18%
-46%
-33%
-74%
-59%
-61%
-71%
-55%
-57%
-51%
-48%
-46%
-40%
-2%
24%
47%
-19%
-28%
-33%
-20%
-44%
-7%
-11%
-3%
-28%
10%
-43%
-79%
-68%
-67%
0%
-46%
-50%
-57%
-61%
-37%
-55%
-72%
-32%
-4% -20%
-5% 50% -60%
-18% 198% -49%
-6% 108% 29%
1% 206% -50%
-37%
-8%
-14%
1%
5%
-11%
-34%
-14%
-51%
5%
-38%
-38%
-22%
Hudson Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Table 6-1: Initial Empirical Distributions for FISHRAND
I'umpkinseed
Diet: Water (percent)
Diet: Sediment (percent)
Lipid (percent)
Weight (grams)
Largemouth Bass
Diet: Water (percent)
Diet: Sediment (percent)
Diet:Fish (50% pksd and 50% spottail) (percent)
Lipid (percent)
Weight (grams)
Brown Bullhead
Diet: Water (percent)
Diet: Sediment (percent)
Dief.Fish (50% pksd and 50% spottail) (percent)
Lipid (percent)
Weight (grams)
Spottail Shiner
Diet: Water (percent)
Diet: Sediment (percent)
Diet:Phytoplankton (percent)
Lipid (percent)
Weight (grams)
Yellow Perch
Diet: Water (percent)
Diet: Sediment (percent)
Ijpid (percent)
Weight (grams)
White Perch
Diet: Water (percent)
Diet: Sediment (percent)
Lipid (percent)
Weight (grams)
Phytoplankton
Organic carbon (percent)
Uenthic invertebrates
Jpid (percent)
Water column invertebrates
Jpid (percent)
ซ--Triangular Distribution--ป
M1N MODE
70 80
10 20
0.8 3.3
3.4 18.5
MAX
90
30
6.6
33
MIN MODE
0 5
5 10
75 85
0.1 1
200 830
MAX
10
15
90
6.5
2500
MIN MODE
0 10
85 90
0 0
0.1 2.8
50 421
MAX
15
95
5
13
970
MIN MODE
40 70
15 25
0 5
0.4 1.2
0.3 1.5
MAX
75
60
10
4
4
MIN MODE
40 75
10 25
1.0 3.4
45 165
MAX
90
60
7.0
610
MIN MODE
0 25
50 75
0.5 3.0
100 157
MAX
50
100
14
2200
% MIN % MODE
0.5 1
%MAX
5
% MIN % MODE
0.2 2.2
%MAX
6
% MIN % MODE
0.00 0.21
%MAX
0.80
Tri+ PCBs
teg K,,v
Sediment
Total organic carbon outside TIP (percent)
Total organic carbon inside TIP (percent)
MIN MODE
5.12 6.60
MAX
8.30
% MIN % MODE
0.002 1.86
0.002 2.19
%MAX
3.6
6.9
Bold and italicized parameters indicate calibration parameters
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 6-2: Empirical, Prior, and Posterior Distributions for RM 189 (Thompson Island Pool)
Pumpkinseed
Lipid (percent)
Largemouth Bass
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate Coefficient2
Brown Bullhead
Lipid (percent)
Spottail Shiner
Lipid (percent)
Yellow Perch
Lipid (percent)
Tri+ PCBs
LogKow(189)
Sediment
Total organic carbon inside TIP (percent)
Empirical Distribution
(Triangular)
MIN MODE MAX
0.8 3.3 6.6
MIN MODE MAX
0.1 1.4 11.8
0.01
MIN MODE MAX
0.1 2.8 13
MIN MODE MAX
0.4 1.2 4
MIN MODE MAX
1.0 3.4 7.0
MIN MODE MAX
5.12 6.60 8.30
%MIN %MODE %MAX
0.5 4.7 10
Corrected Prior Distribution
(LogNormal)
Geo. Mean Stdev
3.0 1.2
Geo. Mean Stdev
1.4 1.2
MIN MODE MAX
0 0.008 0.05
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.4 1.3
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.4 1.3
Geo. Mean Stdev
1.1 2.1
MIN MODE MAX
5.12 6.60 8.30
%MIN %MODE %MAX
0.5 4.7 10
Posterior Distribution
(LogNormal)
Geo. Mean Stdev
3.0 1.2
Mean1 Stdev1
1.1 0.3
MIN MODE MAX
0 0.008 0.05
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.2
Geo. Mean Stdev
1.4 1.4
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.9 1 .9
MIN MODE MAX
5.12 6.60 8.30
%MIN %MODE %MAX
0.5 4.7 10
Notes:
1: Largemouth bass posterior lipid distribution is normally distributed.
2: Largemouth bass growth rate coefficient defined as triangular.
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Table 6-3; Empirical, Prior, and Posterior Distributions Defined in FISHRAND for RM 168 (Stillwater)
Pumpkinseed
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Largemouth Bass
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Brown Bullhead
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Spottail Shiner
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Yellow Perch
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Tri+ PCBs
Log Kow
Sediment
Total organic carbon (Uniform)
Empirical Distribution
(Triangular)
MIN MODE MAX
0.8 3.3 6.6
0.01
MIN MODE MAX
0.1 1.4 11.8
0.01
MIN MODE MAX
0.1 2.8 13
0.01
MIN MODE MAX
0.4 1 .2 4
0.01
MIN MODE MAX
1.0 3.4 7.0
0.01
MIN MODE MAX
5.12 6.60 8.30
%MIN %MODE %MAX
0.002 1.86 3.6
Corrected Prior Distribution
(LogNormal)
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.7 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.01 0.02
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.5 1 .2
Mean Stdev
0.03 0.009
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.5 1.2
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.02
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1.5
Mean Stdev
0.02 0.02
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1.3
Mean Stdev
0.02 0.02
MIN MODE MAX
6.30 7.11 8.30
MIN MAX
0.05 2.7
Posterior Distribution
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.7 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.004 0.001
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1.0
Mean Stdev
0.032 0.004
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.05 0.006
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.006
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1.2
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.008
MIN MODE MAX
5.12 6.47 8.30
Avg1 Stdev1
0.91 0.37
Notes:
1: Posterior TOC distribution defined as Normal with parameters mean and standard deviation.
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 6-4: Summary of Relative Percent Difference Between Modeled and Observed for FISHRAND
River Mile ->
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
ซซ
Lipid-
Normalized
189
220%
-8%
58%
-22%
25%
-68%
-56%
-29%
24%
-2%
-30%
-21%
Wet
Weight
189
34%
1%
48%
13%
36%
-12%
100%
4%
-8%
-16%
-16%
3%
Largemouth Bass
Lipid- Wet
Normalized Weight
168 168
-32%
-4%
21%
-7%
45%
62%
26%
1%
-6%
-17%
35%
53%
45%
14%
42%
55%
82%
0%
-5%
-2%
-2%
-2%
100%
26%
90%
-36%
-3%
-2%
-8%
3%
Lipid-
Normalized
155
11%
-35%
20%
9%
104%
-9%
-1%
45%
2%
Wet
Weight
155
31%
-8%
4%
-28%
100%
-10%
-49%
-23%
-3%
* <'
-------
Table 6-4: Summary of Relative Percent Difference Between Modeled and Observed for FISHRAND
River Mile ->
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
^^V"^- _ _ __
Lipid-
Normalized
189
6%
44%
5%
14%
38%
-39%
-29%
53%
89%
29%
Wet
Weight
189
5%-
38%
41%
2%
12%
-11%
8%
-1%
6%
Brown Bullhead
Lipid- Wet
Normalized Weight
168 168
-16%
184%
-39%
49%
-3%
-5%
12%
7%
16%
2%
-8%
-24%
-1%
78%
23%
66%
-56%
7%
9%
39%
-6%
1%
-2%
-11%
1%
-30%
34%
-38%
-6%
30%
-1%
-5%
>*>'"*ป^>'>
Lipid- Wet
Normalized Weight
155 155
42% 22%
24% 1 88%
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Table 6-4: Summary of Relative Percent Difference Between Modeled and Observed for FISHRAND
River Mile ->
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
ซ-- White Perch --ป
Lipid- Wet
Normalized Weight
155 155
7% 1%
26% -10%
-71% -32%
D,,m,-,i.;.,roo^i ^^^
Lipid-
Normalized
189
26%
-10%
-56%
38%
16%
26%
-15%
Wet Lipid-
Weight Normalized
189 168
60%
22%
-53%
14%
4%
7%
-9%
-10%
18%
28%
-9%
21%
22%
-2%
0%
-49%
19%
-18%
-26%
-10%
"^-
Wet
Weight
168
-1%
-3%
36%
12%
19%
18%
14%
3%
-18%
26%
-18%
-22%
-8%
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Table 6-5: Posterior Distributions Defined in FISHRAND for RM 168 (Stillwater) Using Full Dataset and
pre-1990 Only Dataset in Partial Validation
Pumpkinseed
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Largemouth Bass
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Brown Bullhead
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Spottail Shiner
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Yellow Perch
Lipid (percent)
Growth Rate (Normal Distribution)
Tri+ PCBs
Log Kow
Sediment
Total organic carbon
Posterior Distribution Using
Full Dataset
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.7 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.004 0.00 1
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1.0
Mean Stdev
0.032 0.004
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.05 0.006
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.006
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1 .2
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.008
M1N MODE MAX
5.12 6.47 8.30
Avg' Stdev1
0.91 0.37
Posterior Distribution Using pre-
1990 Data
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.7 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.004 0.001
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1.5
Mean Stdev
0.032 0.004
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.05 0.006
Geo. Mean Stdev
2.3 1.1
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.006
Geo. Mean Stdev
0.6 1 .2
Mean Stdev
0.04 0.008
MIN MODE MAX
5.12 6.34 8.30
Avg' Stdev1
1.65 1.30
Notes:
1: Posterior TOC distribution defined as Normal with parameters mean and standard deviation.
Bold and italicized values indicate differences between full dataset and partial dataset.
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 6-6: Difference in Wet Weight ppm Between Forecasts using Partial Dataset Calibration Results
as Compared to Concentrations Obtained Using Full Dataset Calibration Results
LMB BB YP
Year LMB 25th median LMB 95th BB 25th median BB 95th YP25th median YP95th
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
0.65
0.36
0.22
0.22
0.17
0.31
0.25
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.19
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.09
1.55
1.18
1.01
0.82
0.74
0.69
0.70
0.63
0.53
0.48
0.52
0.49
0.41
0.37
0.35
0.37
0.38
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.29
0.34
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.20
0.24
0.26
2.58
2.37
2.06
1.71
.52
.40
.34
.25
.12
.02
0.99
0.95
0.84
0.79
0.72
0.69
0.70
0.68
0.69
0.67
0.59
0.65
0.59
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.50
0.46
0.44
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.37
0.46
0.49
-0.23
-0.11
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.10
-0.08
-0.06
-0.07
-0.07
-0.06
-0.06
-0.04
-0.05
-0.04
-0.06
-0.06
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
0.00
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
0.43
0.36
0.33
0.28
0.23
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
2.56
2.37
1.97
1.67
1.48
1.47
1.38
1.22
1.12
1.05
1.02
0.93
0.82
0.75
0.67
0.69
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.70
0.84
0.71
0.68
0.64
0.60
0.60
0.57
0.53
0.49
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.38
0.34
0.31
0.38
0.48
-0.19
-0.21
-0.14
-0.16
-0.15
-0.06
-0.10
-0.10
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.07
-0.07
-0.05
-0.07
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.06
-0.05
0.00
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.03
-0.03
-0.05
-0.04
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.01
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
0.10
0.06
0.15
0.09
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
1.01
0.71
0.86
0.59
0.46
0.54
0.40
0.41
0.38
0.34
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.18
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.23
0.22
0.32
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.13
-------
Table 6-6: Difference in Wet Weight ppm Between Forecasts using Partial Dataset Calibration Results
as Compared to Concentrations Obtained Using Full Dataset Calibration Results
LMB BB YP
Year LMB 25th median LMB 95th BB 25th median BB 95th YP25th median YP95th
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.45
0.41
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.32
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.07
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
-0.01
0.47
0.37
0.43
0.53
0.54
0.47
0.51
0.55
0.52
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.38
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.36
0.33
0.34
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.03
-0.01
-0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.14
0.12
Values shown are the difference between forecasts predicted using partial dataset calibration results
and concentrations obtained using full dataset calibration results expressed as ppm wet weight.
-------
Table 6-7: Relative
Percent Contributions
Normalized Beta Coefficients
Elasticities
Importance of Sediment
Water (ng/1)
Sediment (mg/kg)
Water (ng/1)
Sediment (mg/kg)
Water (ng/1)
Sediment (mg/kg)
vs. Water
Brown
Bullhead
4.6
95.4
0.09
0.88
0.09
0.94
Pathways from FISHRAND
Combined Results
Largemouth
Bass Pumpkinseed
27.3 76.7
72.7 23.3
0.30 0.85
0.68 0.20
0.31 0.81
0.71 0.19
Hudson Database Release 4. Ib
Regression
White Yellow
Perch Perch
NA 63.8
NA 36.2
NA 0.72
NA 0.35
NA 0.67
NA 0.32
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Table 7-1: Asymptotic Tri+ PCB Concentrations for Standard Fillet Approached by Fish Body Burden Forecasts
River Mile 189
Ong/L
10 ng/L
30 ng/L
Median
0.05
1.5
3.5
Confidence 95th
Interval2 percentile
(0.03 - 0.08)
(0.8 - 2.3)
(1.8-5.3)
0.1
3.4
8.1
Confidence
Interval2
(0.05 - 0.2)
(1.7-5.1)
(4.1 - 12.2)
River Mile 168
Ong/L
10 ng/L
30 ng/L
0.02
0.3
1
(0.005 - 0.06)
(0.08 - 0.9)
(0.3 - 3)
0.03
0.4
2.3
(0.008 - 0.09)
(O.I - 1.2)
(0.6-7)
River Mile 154
Ong/L
1 0 ng/L
30 ng/L
0.01
0.1
0.4
(0.007 - 0.02)
(0.07 - 0.2)
(0.3 - 0.8)
0.01
0.2
0.5
(0.007 - 0.02)
(0.1 -0.4)
(0.3 - 1 .0)
ซ
Median
0.1
0.7
1.8
Confidence 95th
Interval percentile
(0.06-0.12) 0.2
(0.4-0.8) 1.1
(1.0-2.2) 2.6
Confidence
Interval"
(0. 1 - 0.24)
(0.6-1.3)
(1.4-3.1)
ซ
0.02
0.6
1.5
(0.01 - 0.04) 0.03
(0.3 - 1 .2) 0.9
(0.8 - 3.0) 2.6
(0.015-0.06)
(0.5- 1.8)
(1.4-5.2)
ซ
0.01
0.2
0.6
Notes:
1 -- Yellow Perch for river miles 1 89 and 168; white perch for river mile 154.
2 -- Confidence intervals estimated from maximum and minimum relative percent
(0.005 - 0.02) 0.02
(0.1-0.4) 0.3
(0.3 - 1 .2) 0.9
difference (Table 6-2)
(0.01 - 0.04)
(0.15-0.6)
(0.5- 1.8)
<
Median
0.05
1.4
3.8
Confidence
Interval2
(0.03 - 0.06)
(0.7-1.5)
(1.9-4.2)
i
95th
percentile
0.1
3.5
6.1
Confidence
Interval2
(0.05-0.11)
(1.8-3.9)
(3.1-6.7)
<
0.01
0.2
0.7
(0.005 - 0.02)
(0.1 -0.4)
(0.4 - 1 .4)
P h1
0.02
0.3
1.5
(0.01 - 0.04)
(0.15-0.6)
(0.8 - 3.0)
<
0.01
0.2
0.6
'ฃ Whitp 1
(0.005 - 0.02)
(0. 1 - 0.4)
(0.3- 1.2)
3 ป,'
0.02
0.4
1.2
(0.01 - 0.04)
(0.2 - 0.8)
(0.6 - 2.4)
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Table 7-2: Year by Which Selected Targets Levels are Achieved
Under the 10 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition Using FISHRAND
Species River Mile
Largemouth Bass 1 89
Largemouth Bass 168
Largemouth Bass 155
Brown Bullhead 189
Brown Bullhead 168
Brown Bullhead 155
Yellow Perch 189
Yellow Perch 168
Yellow Perch 155
White Perch 155
Geometric Mean
2.0 1.1 0.2 0.02
2010-2026(2017) 203 8a
1 998 - 2005 (2002)2003 - 201 0 (2006) 2058a
2000b 2005b 2016-2029(2022;
2009 - 2020 (20 1 3) 20 1 7 - 2030 (2020)
2001 - 2010 (2005)2008 - 2027 (2015)
2001b 1998-2006(2003) 2020-2024ฐ
2006-2020(2018) 2020a
2002b 2010b 2055-2067(2060)
b 2002b 2007-2020(2012)
2000b 2001-2006(2003)2025-2045(2032)
95lh Percentile
2.0 1.1 0.2 0.02
2059b
2000 - 2007 (2003) 2005 - 2020 (20 10)
b 1 998 - 2005 (2000)2028 - 2037 (2032;
20 1 4 - 2030 (202 1 ) 2025 - 2050 (2030)
2006 - 2024 (20 1 5) 2020 - 2035 (2025)
2002 - 2005 (2003) 2004 - 20 1 3 (2008) 2040a
2010-2025(2014) 2050a
1998-2013(2005)2002-2020(2012) 2045a
2003b 1 998 - 2009 (2002)2020 - 2039 (2030;
2002 - 2008 (2005) 2009 - 2015 (2012) 2050a
Notes:
Value in parentheses represents best estimate. Range shown reflects uncertainty in the best estimate.
--: does not achieve specified level by end of modeling period (2067)
a: Lower bound approaches column value asymptotically starting this year; best estimate and upper bound asymptote slightly exceed this value (see Table 7-1 )
b: Median concentrations already at this level at start of modeling period (1998); year shown represents upper error bound
c: Predicted concentrations approach this column value asymptotically (see Table 7- 1 ); years shown are earliest and latest this is predicted to occur
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 8-1: Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Spearman
Rank Correlation -- Lipid Normalized
Epiphyte %
Mile
189
168
157
154
Species
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
Fish % Lipid
-0.516
-0.477
-0.620
-0.541
-0.418
-0.502
-0.515
-0.425
-0.630
-0.580
-0.535
-0.623
-0.493
-0.411
-0.621
-0.561
-0.556
-0.628
-0.496
-0.403
-0.624
-0.538
-0.541
-0.622
Lipid
0.434
0.534
0.247
0.266
0.103
0.531
0.574
0.318
0.366
0.059
0.204
0.540
0.580
0.33
0.377
0.086
0.245
0.520
0.556
0.323
0.353
0.067
0.219
Benthic %
Lipid
0.223
0.185
0.151
0.254
0.341
0.311
0.113
0.073
0.078
0.134
0.393
0.294
0.080
0.054
0.089
0.375
0.25
0.096
0.065
0.070
0.119
0.387
0.278
Kow
0.207
0.343
-0.083
0.180
-0.182
-0.128
0.376
0.464
0.379
-0.163
0.403
0.486
0.416
-0.124
0.061
0.372
0.441
0.363
-0.149
Organic
Carbon in
Sediment
-0.277
-0.199
-0.193
-0.273
-0.366
-0.357
-0.065
-0.065
-0.09
-0.264
-0.225
-0.058
-0.250
-0.195
-0.050
-0.061
-0.080
-0.261
-0.219
Percent
Diet
-0.120(E)
0.056 (B)
0.084 (P)
-0.052 (E)
0.1 10 (P)
0.1 19 (P)
0.059 (E)
0.109(P)
....
Notes:
(E): Percent of diet consisting of water column invertebrates
(B): Percent of diet consisting of benthic invertebrates
(P): Percent of diet consisting of phytoplankton
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTcch
-------
Table 8-2: Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Partial
Rank Correlation -- Lipid Normalized
Mile
189
168
157
154
Species
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
Fish %
Lipid
-0.525
-0.463
-0.818
-0.618
-0.562
-0.675
-0.516
-0.414
-0.832
-0.612
-0.684
-0.775
-0.488
-0.389
-0.819
-0.585
-0.71
-0.776
-0.502
-0.395
-0.814
-0.573
-0.689
-0.771
Epiphyte %
Lipid
0.503
0.54
0.327
0.304
0.073
0.158
0.567
0.579
0.408
0.365
0.135
0.265
0.578
0.579
0.425
0.377
0.173
0.311
0.564
0.563
0.415
0.359
0.147
0.281
Benthic %
Lipid
0.269
0.219
0.227
0.288
0.490
0.418
0.150
0.114
0.139
0.172
0.497
0.360
0.109
0.078
0.104
0.122
0.467
0.309
0.134
0.098
0.122
0.155
0.488
0.345
Kow
0.291
0.393
-0.084
0.298
-0.255
-0.130
0.459
0.540
0.471
-0.205
0.503
0.566
0.087
0.518
-0.151
0.081
0.467
0.542
0.060
0.477
-0.191
Organic
Carbon in
Sediment
-0.286
-0.220
-0.223
-0.287
-0.457
-0.400
-0.115
-0.066
-0.084
-0.117
-0.318
-0.246
-0.086
-0.066
-0.084
-0.301
-0.214
-0. 1 1 1
-0.061
-0.085
-0.109
-0.315
-0.235
Percent
Diet
-0.098 (E)
0.055 (B)
0.091 (P)
0.103(P)
0.109(P)
0.077 (E)
0. 1 1 1 (P)
....
Notes:
(E): Percent of diet consisting of water column invertebrates
(B): Percent of diet consisting of benthic invertebrates
(P): Percent of diet consisting of phytoplankton
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 8-3: Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Spearman Rank Correlation
Wet Weight
Mile
189
168
157
154
Species
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
Fish %
Lipid
0.584
0.641
0.497
0.386
0.052
0.136
0.706
0.684
0.246
0.546
0.149
0.426
0.703
0.679
0.800
0.551
0.209
0.529
0.686
0.650
0.749
0.496
0.167
0.456
Epiphyte %
Lipid
0.297
0.232
0.382
0.368
0.483
0.463
0.144
0.098
0.246
0.212
0.685
0.596
0.098
0.066
0.175
0.145
0.685
0.515
0.121
0.080
0.197
0.173
0.680
0.557
Benthic %
Lipid
0.276
0.411
-0.195
0.254
-0.295
-0.214
0.502
0.551
0.553
-0.318
0.528
0.566
0.111
0.597
-0.264
0.110
0.492
0.516
0.073
0.501
-0.300
-
Kow
-0.363
-0.251
-0.429
-0.398
-0.563
-0.550
-0.097
-0.056
-0.157
-0.132
-0.495
-0.446
-0.060
-0.109
-0.081
-0.491
-0.379
-0.084
-0.140
-0.103
-0.495
-0.421
Organic
Carbon in
Sediment
0.133 (B)
0.057 (B)
0.052 (P)
O.I37(P)
-0.103(E)
0.081 (P)
0.182(P)
0.061 (E)
0.088 (P)
0.178(P)
0.051 (E)
0.078 (P)
0.176(P)
0.070 (E)
Percent
Diet
0.087
0.079
0.073
-
0.076
-
Notes:
(E): Percent of diet consisting of water column invertebrates
(B): Percent of diet consisting of benthic invertebrates
(P): Percent of diet consisting of phytoplankton
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table 8-4: Results of Sensitivity Analysis for Partial Rank Correlation -- Wet
Weight
Mile
189
168
157
154
Species
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
YP
PK
LMB
SPOT
BB
WP
Fish %
Lipid
0.611
0.638
0.593
0.434
0.078
0.234
0.684
0.662
0.781
0.529
0.182
0.464
0.681
0.655
0.801
0.530
0.251
0.544
0.670
0.638
0.771
0.494
0.202
0.481
Epiphyte %
Lipid
0.319
0.244
0.400
0.388
0.636
0.608
0.173
0.118
0.248
0.222
0.750
0.614
0. 1 22
0.081
0.181
0.152
0.736
0.525
0.155
0.103
0.217
0.190
0.740
0.583
^ Benthic %
Lipid
0.338
0.447
-0.153
0.364
-0.318
-0.186
0.541
0.599
0.085
0.594
-0.299
-r
0.580
0.624
0.158
0.648
-0.229
0.141
0.546
0.594
0.109
0.577
-0.277
-
Kow
-0.336
-0.253
-0.390
-0.371
-0.586
-0.578
-0.122
-0.080
-0.151
-0.147
-0.475
-0.416
-0.087
-0.055
-0.109
-0.101
-0.468
-0.362
-0.115
-0.076
-0.139
-0.127
-0.472
-0.395
Organic
Carbon in
Sediment
0.119(B)
0.059 (P)
0.127(P)
0.065 (P)
0.139(P)
0.075 (E)
0.068 (P)
0.131 (P)
0.061 (E)
0.132(E)
0.063 (P)
0.144(P)
0.084 (E)
Percent
Diet
0.112
0.09
0.081
0.091
-
Notes:
(E): Percent of diet consisting of water column invertebrates
(B): Percent of diet consisting of benthic invertebrates
(P): Percent of diet consisting of phytoplankton
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figures
-------
Figure 3-1: Conceptual Framework for Empirical Probabilistic Model
Piscivorous fish
(Largemouth Bass) body
burden
t
Piscivorous
BAF
Piscivorous fish weighted
concentration in diet
Forage fish
body burden
FFBAF
I
Water column
invertebrates
Forage fish weighted
concentration in diet
Benthic invertebrates
TOC-
normalized
sediment
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Schematic of FISHRAND Model
Largemouth Bass
Epiphytes
Epiphytes
Epiphytes
Benthic Invertebrates
Phytoplankton
NOTE: Icons for fish species are for descriptive
purposes; resemblance to actual species is not implied.
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 3- 3 Comparison of FISHRAND, FISHPATH and Gobas Field
Measurements for Lake Ontario
Mean water temperature , C
Organic content of the water, kg/I OM (j
Organic carbon content of the sediments, % oc f j
Density oflipids, kg/I DI
Density of organic carbon, kg/I Doc
Metabolic transformation rate constant, 1/day
Octanol-water partition coefficient
Total water concentration, ng/l
Sediment concentration, ng/g dw
Phytoplankton
Lipidcontent,% Lph
Zooplankton
Lipid content,% Lzฐฐ
Pontoreia
Lipid content,% LPฐn
Oligochaetes
Lipid content,% Lo'
Sculpin
Lipidcontent,% Lsc
Wei9ht, 9 Vsc Q
Diet,%
_ . ., Psczoo ( )
Zooplankton V_y
Pontoreia Pscpon f~*\
I of? MCA/I'ctraTcch
-------
Alewife
LaieO
P ale zoo C j
Lipid content, %
Weight, g Vale
Diet,%
Zooplankton
Pontoreia P ale pon ^J
Smelt
Lipid content,% sm \_J
Weight, v sm
Diet,%
Zooplankton Psmzoฐ Q
Pontoreia ; P sm pon Q J
Sculpin Psmsc r j
Salmonids
Lipidcontent,% Lsai f J
Weight, g v*ai
Diet,%
Scu/p/n Psalsc C*}
Alewife Psalale C J
Smelt Psalsm ^J
2 of 7 MCA/retraTccli
-------
BIOAVAILABILITY:
| BSF
4.75e-001
BSF
Kow
OM
Dom
BIOACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC MICROPHYTES:
Cp=Cwd*(Lp/100)*Kow [kg/kg]
Cph
Phytoplankton
C zoo Cwd
Zooplankton
Lzoo
Kow
Table 1 Graph 1
Gobas.1993, ug/g
Predicted
Phytoplankton 0.011
Mysids 0.11
Observed FISHRAND, Steady-State
0.05 0.0104
0.33 0.104
FISHPATH, Steady-State
kg/kg
L cph
| Czoo
1.04e-008
1 .04e-007
3 of?
MCA/TetraTech
-------
BIOACCUMULATION IN BENTHIC INTERBRATES: Cb=Cs*Lb/OC [kg/kg]
Pontoreia
C pon
Oligochaetes
Col
L pon
Table 2
Graph 2
Gobas,1993, 1e-6g/g
Predicted
Pontoreia 0.86
Oligochaetes 0.29
Observed FISHRAND, Steady-State
0.79 0.855
0.18 0.285
FISHPATH, Steady-State
kg/kg
C pon
Col
8.55e-007
2.85e-007
Mr'A/TclrriTech
-------
BIOACCUMULATION IN FISH Cf [kg/kg] :
Note: we use one dimensional array to describe various fish species
1) Transport rates in aqueous and lipid phases [liters/day]
Qw=88.3*VfA0.6; QI=Qw/100; Vfinkg
Vsc Va|e Vsm Vsal
Qw[Sculpin]
Qw[Alewife]
Qw[Smelt]
Qw[Salmonides]
3.85e+000
1.12e+001
7.39e+000
1.50e+002
2) Gill uptake rate constant k1=1/(Vf/Qw+Vf/(QI*Kow))) [I/kg/day]
Kow
3) Gill elimination rate constant k2=k1/(Lf*Kow) [1/day]
k2
L sc L ale L sm L sal
k1[Sculpin]
k1[Alewife]
k1 [Smelt]
k1[Salmonides]
7.13e-t-002
3.50e+002
4.62e+002
6.21e+001
k2[Sculpin]
k2[Alewife]
k2[Smelt]
k2[Salmonides]
2.24e-003
1.26e-003
2.90e-003
9.756-005
5 of 7
MCA/TetraTech
-------
4) Dietary uptake rate constant: kd=Ed*Fd/Vf [1/day]
Uptake efficiency Ed=1/(5.3e-8*Kow+2.3)
Ed
Kow
Ed
3.98e-001
Food ingestion rate [kg food/day] Fd=0.022*VfA0.85*exp(0.06*T)
Fd[Sculpin]
Fd[Alewife]
Fd[Smelt)
Fd[Salmonides]
4.20e-004
1.91e-003
1 .066-003
7.51e-002
kd[Sculpin]
kd[Alewife]
kd[Smelt]
kd[Salmonides]
3.10e-002
2.376-002
2.63e-002
1.246-002
5) Fecal egestion rate constant: ke=0.2*kd [1/day]
ke[Sculpin]
ke[Alewife]
ke(Smelt)
ke[Salmonides]
6.206-003
4.756-003
5.27e-003
2.486-003
6) Growth rate constant [1/day]: kg=0.01*VfA(-0.2), T>10C
kg=0.002*VfA(-0.2), T<=10C
6 of?
MCA/TetniTeeli
-------
7) Finally Cf [ng/g] : dCf/dt=k1*Cwd+kd*Cd-(k2+ke+km+kg)*Cf
Pale zoo f } Psmzoo
v y
P ale pon
ป..-"
P sm sc
P sal ale
P sm pon
P sal sc
P sal sm
8) Steady-state solution [kg/kg]: Cfs=(k1*Cwd+kd*Cd)/(k2+ke+km+kg)
Gobas,1993, ug/g: FISHRAND
Predicted Observed
Steady-State
Sculpin 1.6 1.6 1.61
Alewife 0.99 1.3 0.98
Smelt 1.4 1.4 1.34
Salmonids 3.5 4.3 3.46
FISHPATH
Steady-State , kg/kg
Cfs[Sculpin]
Cfs[Alewife]
Cfs[Smelt]
Cfs[Salmonides]
1.61e-006
9.80e-007
1.34e-006
3.46e-006
7 of 7
MCAATetrnTecli
-------
Figure 3-4 Comparison of FISHRAND and FISHPATH for Gobas
Dynamic Model
Comparison of FISHRAND, FISHPATH, and Gobas Measurements for
Lake Trout
0.000005
0.0000045 -
0.000004 -
I? 0.0000035 .-
* 0.000003
1 0.0000025 -
^ 0.000002
3 0.0000015 -
0.000001 -
0.0000005 -
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Time
median X FISHPATH O Gobas, 1995 Measurements
0.000002
0.0000018
0.0000016 -
eo 0.0000014 -
1| 0.0000012 -
c 0.000001 -
| 0.0000008 -
& 0.0000006 -
0.0000004 -
0.0000002 -
0
Comparison of FISHRAND, FISHPATH, and Gobas Field
Measurements for Sculpin
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993
Time
median A Gobas, 1995 X FISHPATH
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 3-4 Comparison of FISHRAND and FISHPATH for Gobas
Dynamic Model, continued
0.000007
0.000006
00
5/5
0.000005 -
0.000004 -
0.000003 -
0.000002
0.000001 -
0
Comparison of FISHPATH, FISHRAND, and Gobas Field
Measurements for Smelt
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Time
median
Gobas, 1995,Measurements X RSHPATH
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 3-5: Flow Chart for Bayesian Monte Carlo Simulation Procedure in FISHRAND
Select values for uncertainly parameters
of the model
Select values for variability parameters
of the model
Nullify likelihood function, append the row of random values of
uncertainty and variability parameters to the "Bayesian table"
SdCCt values Tor initial PCB concentration in individual fishes (one for each of species
and in their diets using distributions obtained at previous lime interval
Simulate PCB concentration in individual fishes of each of species
Calculate contribution of each individual fish to the likelihood function
using available measured PCB distributions for given time interval
Are the selected
number of iterations
completed (fishes)
Write the value oflikelihood in the current row of'Oayesian table" (likelihood of
given set ofvalues of uncertainty and variability parameters).
Build distributions of PCB concentrations in fish species for given set of
values of uncertainty and variability parameters
Are the selected
number of iterations
complete (variability)
Are the selected number
of iterations com plete
(uncertainty)
Make rcweiuhtine of rows of'Bayesian Table" (weights are proportional to
orrespondine values ofthe likelihood), build updated irewciehicd ) distributions of
tish I'CB concentrations and values of uncertainty anj variability parameters
o
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 3-6: Schematic for Bayesian Updating Procedure
Prior inputs x
Updated (posterior) inpuis
x
Monte Carlo Simulation
with computer model
Bayesian Rule
Likelihood ofcalculated outputs
y
Measurements of y
Prior outputs y
Updated (posterior) outputs
y
MCA/TetraTech
-------
1977 Method
1979 Method
60,000
1,50.000
-*c
o>
~ 40,000
m
eg
ฃ 30,000
o
g 20,000
8
< 10,000
10,000 20.000 30,000 40,000 50,000
PCB Congener Sum Tri+ (ug/kg WW)
60,000
60,000
5
1,50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
< 10,000
05
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
PCB Congener Sum Tri+ (ug/kg WW)
50,000
60,000
60,000
1983 Method
10,000 20,000 30,000 40.000 50,000
PCB Congener Sum Tri+ (pg/kg WW)
60,000
60,000
<ฃ 50,000
n
40,000
30,000
20,000
_O
o 10,000
CJ
o>
o>
1992 Method
10,000
20,000 30,000 40,000
PCB Congener Sum Tri+ (ug/kg WW)
50,000
60,000
Figure 4-1. Comparison of Hazleton PCB Quantitations and Sum of Tri+ Congeners
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b MCA/TetraTech
-------
1000
800
O)
c
o
600
(D
g 400
o
O
Waterford *? Green Is.
200
0
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986 1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Figure 4-2. Summer Average Water Column Exposure Concentration, Tri+ PCBs
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Brown Bullhead
DC
LU
Q
Ul
CO
T.
CO
J_L
Goldfish
fl
rr
WATER SEDIMENT FISH WATER SEDIMENT FISH
Note: Ellipse shows 68.3% bivariate confidence interval about sample means.
Pumpkinseed
cr
LU
Sc
ง
LU
Q
LU
CO
Tn-rr
White Perch
DC
LU
ง
LU
5
LU
0)
I
w
r-|
X
V
fa
"Ln
Si "
#'
Largemouth Bass
fl
fh
"**"//'
flk^
DC
LU
LU
Q
LU
C/)
I
CO
WATER SEDIMENT
FISH
-d
Yellow Perch
nTH>
WATER SEDIMENT FISH WATER SEDIMENT FISH WATER SEDIMENT FISH
Figure 4-3. Scatterplot Matrices for Fish Lipid, Sediment, and Water Tri+ PCB Concentrations
in the Upper Hudson River, 1977-1997
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b MCA/TetraTech
-------
1400
1200 -f-
^1000
Q.
Q.
.+ 800
'Q. eoo
400
200
0
2
4
0
100
200 300 400
Summer Water Tri+ (ng/l)
500
600
Figure 4-4. Relation of Mean Tri+ Concentration in Pumpkinseed
to Summer Average Water Column Concentration
Note: Labels show River Mile groups (see text).
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
2000
=5*1500
^o.
Q.
Q.
ฑ 1000
I-
o
T3
Q)
500 -
0
0
R2 = 71.9%
500
1000
Observed Tri+ (ppm-lipid)
1500
2000
Figure 4-5. Observed versus Predicted Concentrations of Tri+ PCBs for Brown Bullhead
from Bivariate BAF Model
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
5000
4000
.3000
o
T3
S>
QL
1000
0
1978 Group 2
0
1000
2000 3000
Observed Tri+ (ppm-lipid)
4000
1977 Group 2
R2 = 72.4%
5000
Figure 4-6. Observed versus Predicted Concentrations of Tri+ PCBs for Largemouth Bass
from Bivariate BAF Model
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
1400
1200
|.1000
I-
o
800
600
ฃ 400
200
0
1989 Group 1
R2 = 74.7%
0
200
400
600 800
Observed Tri+ (ppm-lipid)
1000
1200
1400
Figure 4-7. Observed versus Predicted Concentrations of Tri+ PCBs for Pumpkinseed
from Bivariate BAF Model
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Group 2: River Miles 168-176
2500
2000 - -.
J500--
CO
g 1000
o>
o
500
Legend:
i Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
I I,i 1
H 1 1 1 1 1 h
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
1987
Year
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Group 4: River Miles 142-152
1000
800--
ID
'a.
O)
g
CD
O
c
o
O
600--
400 --
200--
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
M"
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
H
.i.::
1 - 1
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
1987
Year
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Figure 4-8. Comparison of Bivariate BAF Model Predictions and Observations
of Mean Summer Body Burden of Tri+ PCBs in Brown Bullhead
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Group 2: River Miles 168-176
1600
.1200 --
'a.
6>
.2 80ฐ
O)
a
o
0 400
:*<.
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
.'I
1 1 h
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
Year
1991 1993 1995 1997
Group 4: River Miles 142-152
ouu -
-600-
[g.
If
1
ง"400-
1
c
o>
o
ฐ200 -
0 -
_ ซ
',
X
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
\ *
- x
i 'x
y
x
ฃ--!"'ฃ'.
* I'v-. i.-i'i'-x.
M--x ^ ฃ-ซ.x.-x
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 i 1 I 1 1
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Year
Figure 4-9. Comparison of Bivariate BAF Model Predictions and Observations
of Mean Summer Body Burden of Tri+ PCBs in Pumpkinseed
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Grouo 2: River Miles 168-176
6000
5000
=r4000
O)
ง3000
'
ฃ2000
o
O
1000 --
-I
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
x x *.. .x
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
1987
Year
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Group 4: River Miles 142-152
1500
T1000
o
O
500
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
, I
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
Year
Figure 4-10. Comparison of Bivariate BAF Model Predictions and Observations
of Mean Summer Body Burden of Tri+ PCBs in Largemouth Bass
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Pumpkinseed
3000
S
f'aooo--
! 1000 - -
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
1984 1965 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
Brown Bullhead
3000
ฐr 2000 -
S 1000--
a
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
- X- Bivariate model predictions
^ ' -* - -x
^ 5
- -x
$
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
Largemouth Bass
3000
ง
1
1000 -
Legend:
Observed means with 95% confidence limits
X- Bivariate model predictions
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Bivariate BAF Model Predictions and Observations
of Mean Summer Body Burden of Tri+ PCBs for Thompson Island Pool
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-1: TOC-Normalized PCB Concentration in the Hudson River
Based on Phase 2 1993 Data
TOC-Normalized PCB Concentrations in the Upper River
u
o
-2ฐ
ง
u
o
U
OQ
ซ
1500
1000
500
-500
I
N= 5 4 5 5 5
159 169.5 188.5 188.7 189
189.5 191.5 194.1 196.9 203.3
River Mile
TOC-Normalized PCB Concentrations in the Lower River
u
o
bO
OQ
U
W)
3
O
O
U
CO
a
120 i
100
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
^^H
1
^^H
M
MM
I
1
^^B
^B
^^
1
1
II ,
^^
_
[
1 _
^^
rl '
^^H
1
I
^^m
N=4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5
25.8 47.3 58.7 88.9 100 113.8 122.4 137.2 143.5
River Mile
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-2 BSAF Results
BSAF by Species Across All River Miles
U
m
ON
00
O i ' ' ' '
mmm
6 .
4 .
2, I
"JT
0 , ^~ "'
-2 . mm
AM - Amphipod
BV - Bivalve
CH - Chironomid
GA - Gastropod
IS - Isopod
T T
1 m
V
i
-4
N= 6 4 3 5 7 3
AM BV CH GA IS OD
OD - Odonoata
OL - Oligochaete
ST - Sorted total
UT - Unsorted total
~T J n
5 20 28
OL ST UT
Species
BSAF by River Mile Across All Species
<i 3
U
PL
<
00
OQ
-2
^ll
N= 5 44
25.8 47.3 88.9
4 3 13 14 7 12 15
100 122.4 188.5 188.7 189 189.5 191.5
River Mile
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-3: Cumulative Distribution Function for BSAF
0
0.1 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.4 2.9
BSAF (unitless)
3.5
4.0
4.6 More
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-4 Water Column to Water
Column
Invertebrate BAF
Results
Total Water: Water Column Invertebrate BAF
Using NYS DOH Data
8.
7.
Uw
CQ ,
n 6l
O
5 i
4.
3
~T
I -p
fHi
*
N= 28 17 24 17
153.3 158.1 169.0 181.8
T
21 21
189.4 193
, i
^ i
ซ
I"
15
.3 193.5
III
34
193.9 193.9
River Mile
Cumulative Distribution for BAF
jn
35-
30-
o
I20-
ฃ 15-
10-
5-
0 -
FTJ3 ^
J-xl
j-i n n rbsa= _._ 1-^ 1
11
lxl
1.
3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.6
Bin
i
H
1
|/
1
5.9
I.
>1
!
6.2
^
I
6.5
^0-
1
- 90%
-- 80%
-- 70%
--60%
-- 50%
--40%
--30%
- 20%
- 10%
6.8 7.1 More
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-5 Forage Fish Concentrations and FFBAF Results
Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration
in Fish < 10 cm in 1993
2500
ฃ 2000
^ 1500
3 1000
o! 500
8 3 3 3 3 7
b 1U 3 II
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
River Mile
Cumulative Distribution for FFBAF
0.6 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.3 3.9 More
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCAyTetraTcch
-------
Figure 5-6 Summary of Largemouth Bass
to Pumpkinseed Ratios
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Individual Largemouth Bass
6
o
rt
4
2
0
to Average Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed
T T
llpl1 1
-1-
1
tm
N= 19 17
168- 168-
1982 1983
\
T
IUiiii
^
21 21
168- 168-
1985 1986
T
J
i
M
20
168-
1988
T
1
20
168-
1990
River Mile and
D
^-
A
1
19
168-
1994
Year
TXr
^L jp^'i^VI u
20 20 20
168- 189- 189-
1995 1990 1994
r
in
L
20
189-
1995
Cumulative Frequency of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed Ratios
40
35
30 -
g 25 -
U
I 20
u.
15 -
10
e
0 -
1
1
^
Oil 0 60 1.07 1
IB
1 1
I/
I 1
11
1
i.
\
54 201 2.48
4
\
/
|
1
2951
^
\\
^^
1
42 1 89 4 16
Bin
^M " '
1.......
481 5 10 5 77 6 24 6
^ \ 00%
90%
- 80%
-- 70%
- 60%
- 50%
- 40%
30%
- 20%
10%
\ Rw> 0"0
71 More
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCAATetraTech
-------
Figure 5-7: Summary of Brown Bullhead to Sediment Accumulation Factors
Combined Cumulative Distribution Function for Brown
Bullhead:Sediment (RM 189 and RM 168)
0)
ง
100%
-- 60%
-- 40%
-- 20%
0%
Bin
Brown Bullhead :Sediment Accumulation Factor for River Mile 168
ป
Bin
Brown Bullhead.-Sediment Accumulation Factor for River Mile 189
80
Bin
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Figure 5-8: Whole Water and TOC-Normalized Sediment
Concentrations Predicted by HUDTOX
Hindcasting Whole Water
Summer PCB Concentrations
0.0004
0.00035
0.0003
| 0.00025
a
ซ 0.0002
ฃ 0.00015
o
ฃ 0.0001
0.00005
168 Whole Water Cone
189 Whole Water Cone
154 Whole Water Cone
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Year
Hindcasting Results for TOC-Normalized Sediment Concentrations
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Year
MCA/TetraTech
-------
FIGURE 5-9: Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model for Largemouth Bass
40 -i
S35 -
-'-"
ฃ30 ,
ฃ25-
">, | C
> '5 -
5 10 -
^ 5 -
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Largemouth Bass at 189
^ T T ' ' ,
^/HT T - I
' .. XN. j I " I I
T .
i
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
20 ;
1.5
00 m
3 '0 -
** s -
^ -J
ฃ
0 -
Median Data =/- 95% Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Largemouth Bass at 168
\ A
^ \l
J f~^ ^NF
J ixป ^T~
1979 1984 1989 1994
* Median Data +/- 95% Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
E for Largemouth Bass at 189
ง Z5UI) - -
N
1
;| 1000 -
_Q.
v T -,
\ j {
1 "^- ^^ *
1 ^^
I
r
1"
1 "
I
J T
^N^_ I
" __
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997
Cor
E 1400-
ft 1200
| 1000-
'a 8oo-
| 600-
Z 400-
S 200-
c.
J 0-
1S
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Median
nparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Largemouth Bass at 168
/K
Nf T \ T T
1 |\. I T T I
i - iA
^^JLr
T 'S
>81 1986 1991 1996
.ป \f j' ฅ-\ / r\cm \ x -i
* Median Data /- io /o Mode
1 Median
MCA/TetraTech
-------
FIGURE 5-9: Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model for Largemouth Bass, continued
o>
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Largemouth Bass at 155
?o
t'5-
c in
1U
c
5 -
T
*
ป
^ i I
i ป ฑ
1 i T i " " r
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995
flodel Median
1997
Coi
g 1200
a 1000
1 800
| 600
1 400
a 200
3 0
1
nparison to Data Prior to Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 155
ซ
\
m
^.
ป
ป
m
- . f- "
X
^ J
T T
,, , T
1 ^^^> * i
985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
* Median Data +/- 95 L
7o Model Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-10: Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model for Brown Bullhead
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Brown Bullhead at 189
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
* Median Data +/- 95%
Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Brown Bullhead at 189
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
* Median Data +/- 95%
Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Brown Bullhead at 168
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
+/-
Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Brown Bullhead at 168
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
* Median Data +/- 95%
Model Median
1997
Hudson River Database Release 4. 1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 5-11: Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model for Pumpkinseed
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Pumpkinseed at 189
JU -
fc JC
a. 25 -
._, 9(~i .
- 20
.ฃป 15 .
J3 '>
^ 10 -
o> -
o
T
^
T T I
^-- L- _L-^-xi *
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
30 -
-5" 20 -
!ง> 15
3 '>
^ 10
1 5
0 -
19
/ r>c/w A/C j i n/i j-
Median Data +/- yj% Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic Model
for Pumpkinseed at 168
^^T
"^^^^^x x
"\^^ป^ X ^ X
ซ
79 1984 1989 1994
A * /i i' rป / ncrv PI/T A i \/i A'
* Median Data +/- yj /u Model Median
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic
Model for Pumpkinseed at 189
g 1200 T
a- inon T
1 Ron T T
fll ^T ^
2 e^r\f\ 1
g OUU 9 - -
~ 400 - ^^^
T3 ^00
Q.
13 o
1985 1987 1989
* Median Data +/- 95%
r T
J
-^-J * I
c ~ x
1991 1993 1995 1997
I/I A 1 fl/t rl"
Comparison to Data for Empirical Probabilistic
Model for Pumpkinseed at 168
inr>n
o _
Q> of\f\ Z
.N 800 - *
13
a fififi 'v
ZOซ Ann ^iv_X' ^W1
X
4UU J^^ X^-r j| *
a"" ^nn *^^ - ^ '
n
1979 1984
* Median Data +/- 9
1989 1994
j%? Model Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.1h
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-1: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment
Concentrations Predicted by HUDTOX for 1977 -1997
Hindcast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for
River Mile 189
50
100
150
200
250
Month (1 = January 1,1977)
Hindcast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River
Mile 168
50
100 150
Month (1 = January 1,1977)
200
250
Hindcast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for
River Mile 154
250
50
100
150
200
250
Month (1 = January 1,1977)
MCA/TetraTech
-------
1975
Figure 6-1: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment
Concentrations Predicted by HUDTOX for 1977 -1997, continued
Hindcast Results for Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
189E[x
168 E[x
*-!54E[x]
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-2: Lipid Distributions Used in FISHRAND
Largemouth Bass Lipid Distribution
100%
80%
60% ta
Q
- 40% u
20%
% lipid
Pumpkinseed Lipid Distribution
100%
% lipid
Brown Bullhead Lipid Distribution
100 -
80 --
60 --
40 -
20 -
0
LLiji
100%
-- 80%
- - 60%
- - 40%
-- 20%
% lipid
Spottail Shiner Lipid Distribution
% lipid
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-2: Lipid Distributions Used in FISHRAND (continued)
Yellow Perch Lipid Distribution
from NYS DEC
100%
\- \- v v
% lipid
V
White Perch Lipid Distribution
III
I.LI ill I.!.ill, I. !.!.. .
% lipid
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Yellow Perch Lipid Distribution from EPA Phase
II
% lipid
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-3: Percent Lipid versus Weight for the Fish Species
Percent Lipid versus Weight for Largemouth Bass
500
1500 2000
Weight (g)
2500 3000
Weight versus Percent Lipid for Brown Bullhead
200 400 600 800
Weight (g)
1000
1200
Percent Lipid versus Weight for White Perch
R2 = -0.9956
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Weight (g)
Percent Lipid versus Weight for Yellow Perch
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Weight (g)
Hudson River Database Release 4.lb
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-3: Percent Lipid versus Weight for the Fish Species (continued)
Lipid Percent versus Weight for Spottail Shiner
6.00
5.00
1ฐ
!ง 4.00
J
ฃ 3.00
1 .00
0.00
= ฐ-2034
0.00
2.00
4.00 6.00
Weight
8.00
10.00
Percent Lipid versus Weight for Pumpkinseed
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-4: Mean Percent Lipid by Year for the Fish Species
5 on -
I 4.00 -
-> 3.00 -
c
&> o nn
y Z.UU -
t_
n i nn -
000 -
19"
i *\n
*s o nn
Nซ3 i ^n
* i nn
o
Jj 050
n nn
H
Mean Percent Lipid for Largemouth Bass
* - - -
A
ฃ* ^|HAH
^ mi W ^ A S
^ ^ H 0 ซป vv
A * A^ 4^
75 1980 1985 1990 1995 :
Year
Mean Percent Lipid for Yellow Perch
V
H ^
Ml
A*
ซ
^ ' '
)75 1980 1985 1990 19
Year
4
m
10
9f
HF
Iif
i e
k 1.
00
?9
;s
A
)4
A
B
A
IRQ
168
157
7 no -
f. fin
g O.UU -
a"* ^ (\f\
._ J.UU "
^ 4 nn
S 7 nn .
u
u 7 no -
su i on -
0.00 -
19
s no -T
2 A nr> -
i-J i nn
^
fll o nn
S '
a! 1-00 -
n on -
19
Mean Percent Lipid for Brown Bullhead
- - - - m\
^
- _- - *.
s
f^
75 1980 1985 1990 1995 20(
Year
Mean Percent Lipid for Pumpkinseed
+ +
*- - -- _ A
_ K B HA. H V ^
HI Mi ^ V
75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2C
Year
so
68
)0
189
I Do
)00
Hudson River Database Release 4. 1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-5: Fish Weight Distributions Used in FISHRAND
Largemouth Bass Weight Distribution
100%
C-4CSCN
Weight (g)
Pumpkinseed Weight Distribution
Weight (g)
Brown Bullhead Weight Distribution
Yellow Perch Weight Distribution
100%
- 60% fa
Q
- 40% <->
illiliiLiiiiiLiii..
oooooooooooo
Weight (g)
Weight (g)
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-5: Fish Weight Distributions Used in FISHRAND (continued)
Spottail Shiner Weight Distribution
Weight (g)
100%
White Perch Weight Distribution
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-6: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Largemouth Bass
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 189
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 189
3000
J
cs
E
s
'EL
J
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 189
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 189
I
o.
a
b
o
Z
1ฐ
!ง
3000
2500
a 2000
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.1h
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-6: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Largemouth Bass, continued
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for
Largemouth Bass at 168
20 T \ f\
ป ^ A
Q. ic T \ / \
J" '5 T \ / \__^
5 T T N^
ฃ 5 J X ATT
1979 1984 1989 1994
| * Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 168
20
E
CU ic, _
CU 13 '.
6* I/A \ S\. L _
3 10 - -H f^ V ' ' 4r T
i 1 ^-ซJ/lsl-_ *_x
** 5 ' T I ~~^ ^ S^T '
H 1 1 1
1979 1984 1989 1994
I
* Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
-j-
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for
Largemouth Bass at 168
g .
5" 2500 T - -
"S "*nnn " ^A
a X
g 1000 J "* l^_L-J/ซSs>.ซ^-
Q 5UU ^ ^*~ B ^^
^ f~**-
1979 1984 1989 1994
* Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Largemouth Bass
g at 168
"2 " "r*^
N TlftO A^^v
w 1500
g -f^
O 1000 T X y TSs^- -~^T T
^ 500 ^ * ' * g^^
'5. Q
=i
t^BS
ฃ^
3 "
1979 1984 1989 1994
Median uata +/- yj/o rloHKAINL) Median
Hudson River Database Release 4. 1 b MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-6: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Largemouth Bass, continued
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 155
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 155
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median Data +/- 95%
-FISHRAND Median
ฃ
Q.
a
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 155
1400
Comparison to Data After Updating for Largemouth
Bass at 155
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-7: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure, continued
for Brown Bullhead
E
-5"40 '\
f 30
W
o 10
-!
1985
L
Lipid Normalized ppm '
10 1
(_n O Ui O I
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Brown
Bullhead at 189
"i f-^T ^ T
"* * I ^ S^-J^^
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
ป. i\i< r r\f , i nsry rioim A MT~\ i^ n A'
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Brown
Bullhead at 189
0 -i
^i^J T
ft - i-
U J. * -^
0 _ , . . . 1
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
. QCfy rifiip AMP^ \/i Hฐ
* Median Uala +/- v;> ซ/ 1 lillKAlNU Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Brown Bullhead
at 189
*ifl
S
a "^
ฃ 30-
1 20-
"S in
0
1985
Co
200
1 150
S3
= E
fe a 100
I 50
13
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
^^F^
IE ^_T J. T
* I ^ 5^-l^_
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
* Median Data +/- 95% rISHRAND Median
mparison to Data After Updating for Brown Bullhead
at 189
Q
0\. T _.
I ^"Tl^^-M^T
H 1 1 1 1 , (
1 985 1 987 1 989 1 99 1 1 993 1 995 1 997
Median Data +/- 95% risHRAND Median
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-7: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Brown Bullhead, continued
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Brown
Bullhead at 168
1979
1984
1989
1994
Data +/-
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Brown Bullhead
at 168
1979
1984
1989
1994
* Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Brown
Bullhead at 168
Comparison to Data After Updating for Brown Bullhead
at 168
1985
1980
f ป Median Data +/- 95%
1990
1995
1980
1985
1990
1995
FISHRAND Median
Median
+/-
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-8: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Yellow Perch and White Perch
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Yellow Perch
at 189
40
E
a 30
.^20-
- 10
T
T
1989
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Yellow Perch
at 189
"2
JH 1500
i e
fe n. 1000
Z e-
"I 500 -j
0
i
^4
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.lh
Comparison to Data After Updating for Yellow Perch
at 189
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
2000
B
3
~ 1500
Comparison to Data After Updating for Yellow Perch at
189
Lipid Norma
ppm
^1000
500
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
+/-
FISHRAND
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-8: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure, continued
for Yellow Perch and White Perch, continued
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Yellow Perch
at 168
20 -
15
10
X
A
/ V
1979
1984
1989
1994
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Yellow Perch at
168
1979
1984
1989
1994
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Yellow Perch
at 168
S. 1400
ฃ 1200
S 1000 ;
E 600
Z 400 -
S 200 -
^ o
4
ป
\
\^__^^
4
*T
^ T^
S 1400
ฃ 1200
Comparison to Data After Updating for Yellow Perch at
168
1000
1
o
S 200
o.
J 0
1979
1984
1989
1994
1979
1984
1989
Median Data +/-
1994
Median Data +1- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-8: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Yellow Perch and White Perch, continued
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for White Perch
at 155
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
* Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for White Perch at
155
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
* Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for White Perch at
155
n.
a
N
"3
S 400
Z 200 -
^ 0
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for White Perch at
155
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
* Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4. 1 b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-9: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Pumpkinseed
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Pumpkinseed
at 189
1985 1987
1989 1991 1993 1995
1997
* Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Pumpkinseed
at 189
1200
1000
800 -
o a.
Z a
."2
J
400
200
0
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Comparison to Data After Updating for Pumpkinseed at
189
1993 1995
1997
Median Data +/- 95% FISHRAND Median
1200
Comparison to Data After Updating for Pumpkinseed at
189
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Median Data +/-
FISHRAND
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-9: Comparison of FISHRAND Model Results Before and After Calibration Procedure
for Pumpkinseed, continued
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Pumpkinseed
at 168
1979
1984
1989
1994
E
Data +/-
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data After Updating for Pumpkinseed at
168
1979
1984
1989
1994
* Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Comparison to Data Prior to Updating for Pumpkinseed
~ at 168
a 1000 -j-
"g
N
13
E
z
73
'a
Lipid Normalized ppm
Comparison to Data After Updating for Pumpkinseed at
168
1000
1979
1984
1989
1994
1979
1984
1989
1994
* Median
Median Data +/- 95%
FISHRAND Median
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 6-10: Predicted versus Observed Quantiles for River Mile 189
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for
Largemouth Bass at River Mile 189
20 40 60 80
Observed Quantile (WW)
100
120
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for Brown
Bullhead at River Mile 189
10
20 30 40 50
Observed Quantile (WW)
60
70
80
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for Yellow
Perch at River Mile 189
a
J
o
35
30
25
20
10 -
5 -
0 -
0
10 20 30
Observed Quantile (WW)
40
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for
Pumpkinseed at River Mile 189
40
a
t*
1ฃ
1
30 -
-
10 -
10 20 30
Observed Quantile (WW)
40
Hudson River Database Release 4.1 h
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Figure 6-10: Predicted versus Observed Quantiles for River Mile 189
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for
Benthic Invertebrates at River Mile 189
s
a
40
35 -
30 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0
0
10 20 30
Observed Quantile (WW)
40
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for Spottail
Shiner at River Mile 189
1
5 10 15 20 25
Observed Quantile (WW)
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Figure 6-11: Predicted versus Observed Quantiles for River Mile 168
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for
Largemouth Bass at River Mile 168
10
20 30 40
Observed Quantile (WW)
50
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for Brown
Bullhead at River Mile 168
60
_ซ
"ฃ
10 20 30 40
Observed Quantile (WW)
50
60
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for Yellow
Perch at River Mile 168
10 15 20 25 30
Observed Quantile (WW)
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for
Pumpkinseed at River Mile 168
10 20 30
Observed Quantile (WW)
40
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/Tetra Tech
-------
Figure 6-12: Predicted versus Observed Quantiles for River Mile 155
Predicted vs. Observed Quantiles (Wet Weight) for
Largemouth Bass at River Mile 155
468
Observed Quantile (WW)
10
12
-------
FIGURE 7-1: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
Predicted by HUDTOX for 1998 - 2067 Under Zero Upstream Boundary Condition
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River Mile 189
200
300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1, 1998)
600
700
m
800
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River Mile 168
100
300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1, 1998)
600
700
800
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River
Mile 154
100
200
300 400 500 600
Month (1 = January 1, 1998)
700
800
MCA/TetraTech
-------
FIGURE 7-1: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
Predicted by HUDTOX for 1998 - 2067 Under Zero Upstream Boundary Condition
Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations for 1998 - 2067
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038
Year
2048
2058
2068
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-2: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
Predicted by HUDTOX for 1998 - 2067 Under 10 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River Mile 189
100
200
300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1,1998)
600
700
800
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River Mile 168
100
200 300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1,1998)
600
700
800
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River
Mile 154
100
200 300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1,1998)
600
700
800
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-2: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
Predicted by HUDTOX for 1998 - 2067 10 ng/L Constant Upstream Boundary Condition
Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations for 1998 - 2067
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038
Year
2048
2058
2068
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-3: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
Predicted by HUDTOX for 1998 - 2067 Under 30 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River Mile 189
100 200 300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1,1998)
600
700
800
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River Mile 168
^ 60
ซ 40
B.
"S 20
;,ซ, >.*.*>,,. jj-.ixv ; rm:rv
100 200 300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1,1998)
600
700
800
Forecast Results for Freely Dissolved Mean Water Concentration for River
Mile 154
100 200 300 400 500
Month (1 = January 1,1998)
600
700
800
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-3: Freely Dissolved Water and Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations
Predicted by HUDTOX for 1998 - 2067 30 ng/L Constant Upstream Boundary Condition
Dry Weight Sediment Concentrations for 1998 - 2067
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038
Year
2048
2058
2068
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-4: FISHRAND Median (50th Percentile) Predictions for 1998 - 2067 for Largemouth Bass
Largemouth Bass 189
8.00
0 ng/L
10 ng/L
30 ng/L
0.00
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Largemouth Bass 154
Q.
1.25
i.oo H
ง) 0.50
0.25
0.00 -I
Ong/L
10 ng/L
30 ng/L
Vv
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Largemouth Bass 168
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-5: FISHRAND Median (50th Percentile) Predictions for 1998 - 2067 for Brown Bullhead
8 00 -r-
$ 6.00 - '
oa
U <\ r\r\
& nn
JS
OJD 1 flA
0>
^ 2.00 --
oj i nn
2JJ 1 .UU
Brown Bullhead 189
^...::."v- :.._:.:
Ong/
\\
\sX
s^o--^^^ ^_^
v^:-7^ " " "Cr
^^~^-~-ii^^"^^i^--^^
0.00 H 1 1 1 1 ; i
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048
Year
L
/L
/L
2058 2068
5.00
g 4.00
0.
3s 'P 3.00
OJD C
'3 a
sj: 3 2.00
^ 1.00
0.00
1
Brown Bullhead 168
1
Ong/L
ng/L
Vx^^^
\> -. "^ "^ ^^
998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048
Year
2058 2068
Brown Bullhead 154 __
\ 7$ Ong/L
. 50 A ..._;. _ lOng/L
PQ ' i\
U IOC *ซ\ ^O llg/L
S "e1 i nn ^ \
-n | 1.00 Y X
53 g 0 ?5 \\ X
tป 0.50 \ NX *~^ ^ : J
^ 025 X^""' - , ~^=
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-6: FISHRAND Median (50th Percentile) Predictions for 1998 - 2067 for White and Yellow Perch
h
Yellow Perch 189
o 00 f)nR/
! 7.00 -
r\ ^ nn
., 4 nn .
OJ) ^ QQ .
**
n nn
\ . . . ._ _ _ _ _ - i o nj
1 \/\ Tr\ 1-1 n
\ ... - - . - . ...._.. -JOng
\'. ^"V
\'--'\ ^^"^N^^^.
'vv/^ *
^ VN...
^v _ '"' v'"x -' --^ --.-'-.
^^> >__
L
/L
/L
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
2.0(
05 '-7-
U 1.5,
- o '-2.
I* i. i-o<
ฃ ^ 0.7.
| 0.5(
0.2.
0.0(
Yellow Perch 168
1 0 ne/
) 6
->\ """
3 . \\ _ - . _ 30 nj
iV '
; C^
D\- **ป.
1 ^~^-~-~_-__^- -~~-^
L
5/L
?/L
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
D. 1
3 0.60 - '
05
O
ft in
OJJ
'5
OJ
ft fin
Yellow Perch 154
0 ng/I
i 10 ng
xx;
A^-^^^-^-^x^-^_-^_
\N^ "~^S ^-A^
\r
^----crr-rrr
/L
/L
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
2.00
U 1.50
Js /~s L25
S a 1.00
*5: CX
^ ^- 0.75
^ 0.50
0.25
0.00
1
iudson River Database Release 4. Ib
White Perch 154
Ong/L
in
\ IU ng
v\
v\
\\ N^^
\ \ ^ ^^
N^--
^----- ซ__H "_
/L
/L
998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-7: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentile Under Zero Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
For Largemouth Bass in ppm Wet Weight
Largemouth Bass RM 189
8nn
f[ 7.00 -
~ 6.00 -
CQ
U 5.00 -
i 4.00 -
Si
.2r 3.00 -
01
>? T nn
^ z.uu
1u i r\r\
5^ 1 .UU -
^ n nn
M
1 - - 25th percentile
1 I A
V\. r. \
O-, v\
V \ %<*. X/\
\ ป j.m X^
S>N^^toj^^. - _-
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Largemouth Bass RM 168
i nn
0 7S
ซซ t sn
U 2.25 -
* 2.00 -
ฃ9 1 -75 -
ง* a 1-50-
> ^ 1 .25 -
^ i nn
4> n 7^ -
^ 0 50 -
00^
n nn -
\
\
\
* 1
Li\ - 25th percentile
iซ\ - - - - - median
iS\
\\
VjX
^*^r
* ซ=*ซ. ^=aป^
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Largemouth Bass RM 155
] c.(]
a L25 " T
as , nn V 25th Percentile
r* i.uu - ซ-\ --------
^ l'\ ...... median
ซ 0.75 V\ --- - - nf., ,., --- -
js ป \ \ 95th percentile
6D "ป * \
*n o so ^%-\
^ 0.50 ^X
^ vซ\
** 0 ฐ5 ^^^V
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-8: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under Zero Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
For Brown Bullhead in ppm Wet Weight
Brown Bullhead RM 189
1 1 00 - -
, , i n no
a. 9.00 -
3> 8 00 -
g 7.00 -
a, 6.00 -
tl ^ on
2P 400
-*- ^ f\f\
v 2.UU -
^ i r\r\
* 1 .UU -
Ot\f\
\
\ 25th percentile
\ median
'. \ 95th percentile
i \ \
\\ \
v\ \
X^>v^^
'^"~*~- ^^^ | ti ir i u_^
.00 H 1 1 1 i i 1 1
1998 2008 2018 202& 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
7.00 -
M 6-ฐo -
^ 5.00 -
ฃ, 'c 4.00 -
.ฃf Q,
'> 3 3-ฐo -
3 2.00 -
^ 1.00-
0.00 -
19
Brown Bullhead RM 168
\
\
\ ~~ 25th percentile -
\\ \
*\X^
^"^^ s-^,
98 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Brown Bullhead RM 155
*- '-* ^
MO oc \
L.2.J I
^ t'7c \
j= ^, en \ \
_WJ Bl-->U \ \
^ ^ on X> \
^ l.UU V. V
"S o i^ \\\
V U. /3 V \
< n
-------
Figure 7-9: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under Zero Upstream Boundary
For Yellow and White Perch in ppm Wet Weight
I-
4 on __,
E 3.50 -
3? 3.00 -
ฐ" 200
80 1 50
E i nn
1998 2008 2018 2028, 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
2.00
'^
1.20 -
8 1.00 -
n QC\
J2
w) n An
^ n /in
*v n 90 -
0.00 -
19
\
\
\
\
__ , ..
ฃjln percentile
. - . . . 'iriedian
95th percentile
-
\ \
\ \
V, V
^<^z^^^_
i rf"TT^S=g=B
98 2008 2018 2028. 2038 2048 2058
Year
b
20
68
White Perch 155
4 on
Ui nn -
ซ- wo -
ซ งฐ
^^
w i nn .
0.00 -
19
V
\
\
- - 25th percentile
95th percenlile
X \
^ \
^ S X
v ซu \
XN \^^
"^^H^r-~ .
^
98 2008 2018 2028, 2038 2048 2058
Year
ludson River Database Release 4. 1 b
HMD*
20
68
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure 7-10: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under 10 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
_ for LargemQuth[Bass in ppm Wet Weight
18.0C
16.0C
g 14.0C
^ 12.0C
Si's iQ.oc
1 a 8.0C
^ ^ 6.0(
Jฃ 4.0C
2.0C
O.OC
i nn
2.75 - A
ffl 2.50 -.\
CJ 2.25 - V
w 2.00 - Y~
2 9 1 .75 - -V
w> 5 i en ,
a> n 7S -
^ 050 -
OOC
n nn
1998
Largemouth Bass 189
\ \
]-\ -
M
\
! \^
^v'- ^^^^Xx\
! ><-^^%--. . ^ "^
> 1 i ^ i
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038
Year
Largemouth Bass 168
\
v\, v
25th percentile
95th percentile
~~> ->_ ^\
2048 2058 2068
- 25th percentile
..... niedian
V*~\>%- "V
X^^ ^v
"S^u^..TN_^^ ^y -~^_
^"^^ -^-----^ ^---"--- -.
entile
2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Largemouth Bass 154
| , 2< \ median
5 l.ij \
S \ 95th percentile
CQ i OA * \
S k A
^075 V\
wi v\ \\
oj U.3U \%N \
^ ^ , ^__
0.00 H 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson Kiver Database Release 4. 1 b MCA/Tetra 1 ec
-------
Figure 7-11: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under 10 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
_for Brown_Bullhead injppm Wet Weight
11.00
10.00
CQ 9.00
i ^ 7.00 -
& E 6.00
ซ ฃ 5.00
ฃ ^ 4.00
ซ 3.00
ฃ 2.00
1.00
0.00
19
7 oo
sa 6.00 -
^ 5.00 -
ฃ J 3.00 --
* o nn
^ i nn
n nn
Brown Bullhead 189
25th perc
\ j'
\ median
;ntile
V 95th percentile
. V
\ \
\\ \
v^X \
^-..^^
^"^^^s^^jglsSl^sz
)98 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Brown Bullhead 168
25th pen
i
V
V \
-^^^alMf^^^^a^u ,
:entile
:entile
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Brown Bullhead 154
07=; 25th oercentile
2 CA \ ..... maA'mn
.ju \ median
CQ ^ ฐ5 \
0 o'nn \ 95th percentile
a ^ MO %- \
.Sf1 5. V \
3* a. '-25 \\ \
f * ' i nn v \.
* 075 X
sj: o 50 ^s^/^ -. ^ ^^
0.25 "" in ;ป77^7T.r...^- ,.
n nn ,
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
MCA/TetraTech
-------
I
h
^igure 7-12: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under 10 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
for Yellow Perch and White Perch in ppm Wet Weight
n nf>
E
g- 10.00 -
CO 8 00 -
Cj
A nn
*> o.uu
JS
BO
jซ /i nn
4) 4.UU
-5 2.00 -
Yellow Perch 189
25th perc
, 'median
\ 95tn perc
u
i \-v
w/\^
^^^-.^VV^^v^^ >
entile
entile
0.00 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
4.00
33
O 3.00
Cu
1 1 2.00
H i.oo
0.00
l<
Yellow Perch 168
25th perc
i ..... median
V
^.\
entile
entile
)98 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
1 An
tt K4ฐ "
O 1.20 -
cu
ฃ 3 L0ฐ -
.2f S o 80 -
S ง;
^ > ' 0 60 -
*4
U fl ^f\ .
0 20 -
0 00 -
Yellow Perch 154
_
2jtn perc
\ A'
\_ ._. _ .. ._ r
\
\
\ \
NX \
'S^v. "^^-^-^^
"^::::;:1::^ - -~'
entile
entile
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
400-i
3cf\
ซ "
U 3.00 -
(X
<_> o <\r>
.2? E 2 no -
s g 2-w
!s ^^ i in -
"3 i no -
0.50 -
White Perch 154
- - 9Sth pprr
\
\
V \
^ x
^v^^: -~
entile
entile
0.00 -1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
ludson River Database Release 4. 1 b MCA/ 1 etra 1 ec
h
-------
Figure 7-13: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under 30 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
for Largemouth Bass in ppm Wet Weight
8 Dft -,
! 7.00 -
^ 6.00 -
03
Us nft
4 Oft -
.2f 3.00 -
^ 2.00 -
^ i nn
*J 1 .UU
^ n nn
Largemouth Bass 189
- 25th percentile
; ..
*\ **' *
entile
U.UU -j... , | | | r
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
"^ nn
2.75 -
05 2.50 -
U 2.25 -
^ ^ 2.00 -
w> 5 .',-,-.
'S 5- '->u
-CT O. 1 OS
> -i? I./D -
_ 1 .00 -
aj n TC
S n sn
OOS -j
Onn
Largemouth Bass 168
k
25th oerc
.
\
v-Oซ. ^^ ^^^\
^X^'v ___/\_^ \S ^/^* ' \^^-v
"V^^ ^*'\ ,'-^...~~~~"\ f. . ^^^
'-'"X^ ^^ ^^vy ~-^ vH^i'
entile
entile
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Largemouth Bass 154
03 1.25 - \ -
U ' V
CU i no "* \
!ง> 1.075 \v*\ NV
ป ^J:> ^\^^~^^.
g ~<~^^:^~^;.
000
25th percentile
median
^L'^ii'^^;
entile
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
Hudson River Database Release 4. 1 b
MCA/TetraTcch
-------
Figure 7-14: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under 30 ngfL Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
for Brown Bullhead in ppm Wet Weight
/ -s
a
a.
03
-------
Figure 7-15
"^ S
1. 12.00 -
^ 1 U.OU - -
y Q nn j
If
^
w 2.00 --
n nn
: FISHRAND Predictions for 25-50-95 Percentiles Under 30 ng/L Upstream Boundary Condition for 1998 - 2067
for Yellow Perch and White Perch in ppm Wet Weight
Yellow Perch 189
- - 25th perc
\ - ----- median
V^-v 95lh peic
"A
'-^C^..-...... ... .
"^ -"< ~^L . . C-II^!
entile
entile
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
I
4.00
. '-50
U 3.00
- ^ 2.50
j-f 1. 2.00
ฃ - 1.50
^ 1.00
0.50
0.00
1(
Yellow Perch 168
25th perc
\
V\
X
^ ^ S^-^^^ _s*-~^ -^
***ป
entile
entile
598 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
3 1.20-
Ui on -
ซ 0.80 -
'33
ฃ 0.40 -
^ 0.20 -
0.00 -
19
400-1
n 3.50 -
ฃ 3.00-
"WD inn
5 a
^ ~-r50 -
^ 1 .00 -
^ 0.50 -
nnn -
Yellow Perch 154
25tn pen
\
\ ne- L
\
\
^. >V x^v .
\^ '"^*^^^"^^'^_ ^ ^^V-^^*1"^-**-
^^^
'
;entile
:entile
98 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
White Perch 154
95th nprr
X'
. 'median
V
\ ^ _
Xjv_ "^
entile
entile
1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068
Year
-ludson River Database Release 4. Ib MCA/TetraTech
-------
FIGURE 8-1: Comparison of Hazleton and Intel-laboratory Mean Determinations
of Percent Lipid from 1989,1992, and 1995 Interlaboratory Comparisons
10 --
8 --
10
12
Interlaboratory Mean
Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Appendix A
-------
APPENDIX A
1. FISH PROFILES
1.1 Introduction
This section presents the life histories of the fish species selected for closer study in the
Hudson River. Profiles of the species focus on the foraging behavior, range and movement, and
reproduction of the fish species as they relate to PCB exposures in the Hudson River.
Species of interest include largemouth bass, white perch, yellow perch, brown bullhead,
pumpkinseed, spottail shiner, striped bass, and shortnose sturgeon. These species represent fish
that experience a wide variety of exposures, including pelagic and demersal feeders, stationary
and migratory species, and various trophic levels.
Information on the feeding ecology of Hudson River fish species is taken from the
literature and from several studies on the river. Important sources of information include: 1) the
Hudson River aquatic ecology studies performed by LMs Engineers in Haverstraw Bay (LMS,
1975a), above Newburgh (LMS, 1975b), and in the vicinity of Kingston (LMS, 1975c); 2)
observations on white perch feeding made as part of the TAMS/Gradient Phase II sampling
effort; 3) analyses of gut contents along with invertebrate investigations by Exponent (1998a,
1998b); and 4) analysis of several fish species collected by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation in 1997 and 1998 and analyzed by Menzie-Cura & Associates..
Additional insight into feeding ecology for fish collected from the river were obtained from
Gladden et al. (1988) and Feldman (1992).
Information relied on for evaluating the ecology of the prey base included the literature,
observations in the river reported by Exponent (1998a, 1998b), observations made by Charles
Menzie on the ecology of zoolplankton, epibenthos, and infauna in the lower river invertebrates
during 1971 - 1975 while employed by LMS, and observations reported in Gladden et al. (1988),
Simpson and Bode (1980), and Feldman (1992).
1.1.1 Habitats in the Upper Hudson River
Several 1983 reports (MPI, 1984; Makarewicz, 1983; Makarewicz, 1987) provided
primary information concerning habitat types and relative abundance in the Upper Hudson River.
These reports provided the results of a fish survey conducted for New York State from the
Federal Dam past Thompson Island. The reports identified nine habitat types in the lock pools.
beginning with the Federal Dam, in the Hudson River:
Stream mouth habitats are adjacent to the outlets of small to large streams but within the
Hudson River itself. They have slow to strong currents, depending on seasonal flow. Bottom
types range from silt in slower zones to sand and gravel in faster zones. Aquatic macrophytes
A-l MCA/TetraTech
-------
are generally absent. The shoreline has a mixture of tree cover, including willows, aspens, and
maples, with numerous areas of overhang. Depths range from 0.3 to 5 meters.
Main channel habitats are in the designated ship channel of the river. They have
moderate to strong currents depending on the specific lock pool. Aquatic macrophytes are
generally absent. The shoreline has a mixture of trees (willows, aspens, maples) with areas of
overhang. Depths range from 5 to 6 meters.
Shallows are areas adjacent to the main channel, without visible wetland vegetation.
Currents are mostly slow with some moderate to strong areas. Bottom types range from organic
sediment in slower zones to sand, gravel, and cobbles in the faster zones. Emergent and
submergent vegetation line most areas of the shoreline. The same mixture of trees with areas of
overhang plus significant growth of aquatic macrophytes provide excellent habitat areas for fish
species. Depths range from 0.3 to 2.1 meters.
Rapids contain a fast current with numerous zones of white water. The bottom is covered
with cobbles and gravel as a result of scouring action. Outcrops of bedrock are located adjacent
to steep embankment areas. Emergent and submerged vegetation areas are absent. Depths range
from 1.2 to 3.1 meters.
Embayments are coves along the shoreline. Cove water is mostly stagnant with areas of
slight current. The bottom contains mostly organic sediment with numerous patches of bottom
debris such as logs and submerged trees. Large areas of emergent and submerged vegetation
dominate. Substantial growth of water lilies, water chestnuts, and cattails choke selected areas,
particularly in late summer. Shoreline has a mixture of hardwoods, some partially submerged.
Observed schools of larval fish and adult spawning individuals demonstrate the importance of
the area as a sensitive fish habitat. Depths range from 0.2 to 2.4 meters.
Wetlands are shallow areas with emergent, floating, or submerged vegetation. Current is
slow with selected areas of stagnant water. The bottom consists of organic sediment and bottom
debris. Shoreline is partially flooded with numerous submerged willows and maples. Cattails
dominate emergent vegetation by forming extensive marsh areas. Like the embayment areas, the
wetlands represent a sensitive fish habitat. Water is shallow with a depth range of 0.3 to 1 meter.
Alternate channels are natural side channels are separated from the main channel by an
island. The current is variable ranging from imperceptible to fast. The bottom contains organic
material with a mixture of sand and gravel. The slower current areas are dominated by organic
sediment. Cattails dominate the emergent and submerged vegetation. Shorelines contain
willows and maples with areas of overhang. Depths range from 0.3 to 4.3 meters.
Artificial cuts are landcut portions of the river. Currents vary from slight to moderate.
The bottom is mostly organic sediment with bedrock outcrops along some portions of the
shoreline. A sparse growth of emergent vegetation exists. The shoreline has numerous areas of
riprap, sand, and cobbles. A mixture of hardwoods provides overhang in some areas. Depths
range from 0.2 meters in shore areas to 4.9 meters in midchannel.
A-2 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Wet dumpsites are areas designated on the NOAA charges or NYSDOT 10-year
management plan as wet dumping grounds. These areas are variable with respect to physical
features and flora. Currents tend to be moderate in summer and strong in spring. Bottom types
range from organic material and gravel to silt in slower moving zones. Macrophytes are absent
from most areas. Water is shallow, with depths ranging from 0.3 to 3 meters.
In general, the shallow and wetland areas provide ideal fish habitats with slower currents
and an abundance of floral cover.
1.1.2 Habitats in the Hudson River Estuary
In 1986, NYSDEC conducted a survey of fish and their habitats in the lower Hudson
River Estuary below Federal Dam. The study area consisted of three reaches encompassing 51
miles:
Upper reach: Troy to Coxsackie; River Miles 153-125
Middle reach: Coxsackie to Germantown; River Miles 124-107
Lower reach: Below Germantown; River Miles 106-102
This study showed the upper reach is narrow with very few tidal flats while the middle
reach is wide and shallow, containing major tributaries, islands, and numerous tidal flats. The
lower reach is characterized by moderate depth and many tidal flats. A greater proportion of
lentic backwaters and tributaries are present in the lower two reaches. Substrates through the
study area consist of fine and silty sand, with a few areas of bedrock, gravel, and boulder channel
markers. Aquatic vegetation is common in this segment of the estuary, and is mostly restricted
to and abundant in the backwaters, marshes and tributary mouths (Carlson, 1986). Carlson
identified seven distinct habitats:
Vegetated backwaters are shallow side channels or bays with silty bottoms and abundant
vegetation such as milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.) or wild celery (Vallisneria americana). Typical
areas include Inbocht Bay, Stockport Marsh, Schodack Creek and east of Green Island.
Major tributaries include the tidal portion of streams with rocky or muddy substrates and
sparse vegetation. Typical areas include Roeliff Jansen Kill, Stockport Creek, and Island Creek.
Rock piles are the bases of navigation markers constructed of large boulders positioned
near the channel or sometimes in more shallow shoal areas. The boulders provide shelter in
areas exposed to strong currents. Most rock piles are located downriver of River Mile 149.
Shore areas are generalized shallow areas with gradual slopes, muddy or rocky substrates,
and sparse cover. This category is less specific than others and often has characteristics common
to backwaters and tributaries.
Channel border or shoal areas include areas where the bottom is shallower than the 32-
Toot navigation channel but generally deeper than 10 feet. Rooted vegetation is usually lacking.
A-3 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Channel areas are within the navigation channel with substrates of sand, sand and
pebbles, and sand and silt.
Tailwater habitats are areas within 0.4 miles of Federal Dam with substrates composed
mostly of gravel and bedrock. Tidal fluctuations and flows extend to the base of the dam at all
times except during high runoff periods.
1.2 Largemouth Bass
The largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, is a relatively large, robust fish that has a
tolerance for high temperatures and slight turbidity (Scott and Grossman, 1973). It occupies
waters with abundant aquatic vegetation. Largemouth bass show a low tolerance for low oxygen
conditions. The largemouth bass represents a top predator in the aquatic food web, consuming
primarily fish but also benthic invertebrates.
1.2.1 Foraging
Young largemouth bass feed on algae, zooplankton, insect larvae, and microcrustaceans
(Boreman, 1981). Largemouth bass can grow to 136 grams on a diet consisting of insects and
plankton. Larger prey are needed to continue growth after reaching a total length of 20 mm.
Young largemouth bass compete for food with a variety of other warmwater and bottom-feeding
fishes.
Johnson (1983) found that the diets of juvenile fish foraging in the St. Lawrence River
varied somewhat by location and length of the fish. Fish, insects including corixids, and other
invertebrates made up the diets in varying proportions.
Largemouth bass longer that 50 mm total length usually forage exclusively on fish. Prey
species include gizzard shad, carp, bluntnose minnow, silvery minnow, golden shiner, yellow
perch, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and silversides. turbidity (Scott and Grossman,
1973). Cannibalism is more prevalent among largemouth bass than among many species. Ten
percent of the food of largemouth bass 203 mm and longer is made up of their own fry turbidity
(Scott and Grossman, 1973).
Largemouth bass take their food at the surface during morning and evening, in the water
column during the day, and from the bottom at night. They feed by sight, often in schools, near
shore, and almost always close to vegetation. Feeding is restricted at water temperatures below
10ฐC and decreases in winter and during spawning. Largemouth bass do not feed during
spawning.
Information on feeding habits of largemouth bass in the upper Hudson River was
obtained for 73 juvenile and adult fish collected in Spring 1997 by the New York DEC and
analyzed by Menzie-Cura & Associates. Sample locations included Griffin Island, Stillwater,
Troy, and Catskill Creek. Thirty-one of the bass (42%) had fish remains in their digestive system
and represented the most common food item for adult bass. Crayfish were eaten occasionally at
most river locations. However, six of twenty bass collected at Catskill Creek had eaten crayfish.
Benthic invertebrates were observed in the diet of juvenile bass. It is difficult to reconstruct the
A-4 MCA/TetraTech
-------
amount of food eaten on a percentage basis because of many factors including inter- and intra-
species variability in biomass and differential digestion rates for different species eaten by fish.
On the basis of the available data it is estimated that fish comprise between 75 and 90% of the
diet. The spring 1997 data indicate that the balance of the diet is made up of benthic
invertebrates.
Exponent (1998a, 1998b) conducted gut analyses of 32 adult largemouth bass from
Griffin Island, Thompson Island Pool, and Stillwater in Fall 1997 and 21 bass collected from
Griffin Island and at Coveville in Spring 1998. Results were similar to those observed by
Menzie-Cura. Thirty-one of the bass (58%) had fish in their digestive systems and crayfish were
occasionally eaten. Smaller invertebrates (insects and crustaceans) were commonly present.
Frogs were also occasionally eaten.
We analyzed the Exponent (1998a, 1998b) data to evaluate the composition of
invertebrates eaten by bass. Our analyses were qualitative and focused on the composition of
predominant species in the gut contents of the fish. We looked for associations between
invertebrates in the gut contents and those that Exponent, Inc. collected in sediments and on
plants; we also considered the possibility based on our knowledge of the river that some
invertebrates are zooplankton members (not explicitly evaluated by Exponent.) Our analyses
revealed that largemouth bass feed on a variety of invertebrates that inhabit sediments, live on
plants, or are part of the zooplankton. Predominant invertebrate species observed in the gut
contents of bass include amphipods (both Hyallella and Gammarus), isopods (Caecidotea),
cladocerans (Bosmina, Chydorus, Eurycercus, and Simocephalus), cyclopoid copepods,
ostracods (e.g., Podocopd), and some chironomid larvae (Table A-l and Table A-2). The
Crustacea observed include a number of species that inhabit the water column (e.g., Bosmina),
occupy the littoral area and also open water (e.g., Chydorus sphaericus) , and live in close
association with surface sediments (e.g., Gammaus and Caecidotea). The amphipod Gammarus
spp. also occur in the plankton of the river and are likely influence by both water and surficial
sediment exposures. The isopod is probably a surface deposit feeder and is also likely influenced
by surface water as well as surficial sediment exposure.
It is difficult to reconstruct the amount of food eaten on a percentage basis because of
many factors including inter- and intra-species variability in biomass and differential digestion
rates for different species eaten by fish. Further, food consumption varies seasonally due to
changes in the availability of different prey items. Therefore, any estimate based on a few
sampling dates and locations must be viewed as a rough indication of feeding preference. On the
basis of the available data obtained by Menzie-Cura and Exponent we estimate that fish comprise
between 75 and 90% of the average adult largemouth bass diet. The balance of the diet is made
up primarily of invertebrates including crayfish. Our estimates consider the relative size of the
prey organisms as well as the frequency of prey animals in the diet. Terrestrial animals are also
occasionally eaten. A qualitative assessment of the Exponent (1998a, 1998b) data suggests that
54% and 68% of the invertebrates are associated with sediments and 34 to 46% are associated
with water. Invertebrates associated with sediments such as amphipods and isopods are also
likely influenced by water exposures. The extent to which water or sediment affect the body
burdens of surface deposit feeders and meroplanktonic animals such as Gammarus is not known.
A-5 MCA/TetraTech
-------
1.2.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Largemouth bass have distinct home ranges and are generally found between 8 and 9
kilometers of their preferred range (Kramer and Smith, 1960). Kramer and Smith found that 96
percent of the fish remained within 91 meters of their nesting range. Fish and Savitz (1983)
found that bass in Cedar Lake, Illinois, have home ranges from 1,800 to 20,700 square meters.
The average home range was 9,245 square meters and the average primary occupation area,
defined as that area within the home range in which the fish spends the majority of its time,
including foraging, was 6,800 square meters.
Largemouth bass are almost universally associated with soft bottoms, stumps, and
extensive growths of a variety of emergent and submerged vegetation, particularly water lilies,
cattails, and various species of pond weed. It is unusual to find largemouth bass in rocky areas.
Largemouth bass are rarely caught at depths over 20 feet, although they often move closer to the
bottom of the river during the winter.
Mobility of largemouth bass also varies seasonally. Daily movements increase with
temperature from March through June, but decrease sharply during the hottest months (Mesing
and Wicker, 1986). Activity during warmer seasons occurs primarily near dawn and dusk, while
cool-water activity is most extensive in the afternoon.
A 1984 Malcolm-Pirnie report prepared for New York State describes the results of a fish
survey taken that same year. The results are reported as number of fish by habitat type as well as
number of fish by lock pool for the upper Hudson River and associated canals. The numbers
shown are not significant in terms of absolute numbers, but rather provide a qualitative
indication as to the relative distribution of fish within each habitat area and within each lock
pool. Largemouth bass were found in each of the lock pools (see Table A-3).
Largemouth bass were found throughout the Upper Hudson River in significant numbers.
Major concentrations of fish were within areas where submerged and emergent vegetation,
overhang, and bottom debris provided adequate cover (MPI, 1984). Largemouth bass were not
found in the main, natural channel of the river nor in the rapids (see Table A-3).
In the Lower Hudson River Estuary, Carlson (1986) found that largemouth bass
preferentially winter in five major areas:
Coxsackie Bay (roughly River Mile 130)
The mouth of the Catskill Creek (River Mile 115)
The mouth of the Espopus Creek (River Mile 103)
The mouth of the Rondout Creek (River Mile 92)
The mouth of the Wappinger Creek (River Mile 67)
Largemouth bass prefer to establish habitats near dense vegetation not just during winter,
primarily near milfoil (Myriophyllum verticiUatum) (Carlson, 1992). A study of largemouth bass
in two freshwater lakes in central Florida found a positive correlation between the use of specific
habitats in proportion to the availability of those habitats to the fish (Mesing and Wicker, 1986).
A-6 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Vegetative habitat covers included Panicum spp., cattails (Typha spp.), and water lilies (Nuphar
spp.).
In a 1982 survey of the Lower Hudson River Estuary (Carlson, 1986), largemouth bass
were found to prefer vegetated backwater and tributary locations, with a few fish caught in rock
piles and tailwater. This suggests a preference for nearshore areas rather than the main channel.
1.2.3 Reproduction
Largemouth bass mature at age five and spawn from late spring to mid-summer, in some
cases as late as August. Male largemouth bass construct nests in sand and/or gravel substrates in
areas of nonflowing clear water containing aquatic vegetation (Nack and Cook, 1986). This
aquatic vegetation generally consists of water chestnut (Trapa natans), milfoil (Myriophyllum
verticillatum), and water celery (Valisneria americana).
Females produce 2,000 to 7,000 eggs per pound of body weight (Smith, 1985) and leave
the nest after spawning.
1.3 White Perch
White perch, Morons americana, are resident throughout the Hudson River Estuary
below Federal Dam. They are semi-anadromous and migrate to the lower lock pools of the
Upper Hudson River to spawn. They are one of the most abundantly collected species in the
region and are the dominant predatory fish in the Lower Hudson River (Bath and O'Connor,
1981; Wells etal., 1992).
1.3.1 Foraging
Adult white perch are benthic predators, with older white perch becoming increasingly
piscivorous (Setzler-Hamilton, 1991). Insect larvae and fishes comprise the principal food of
white perch, and dipteran larvae, especially chironomids, represent the most important insect
prey. White perch have two peak feeding periods: midnight and noon. Midnight is the most
important foraging time.
In a study of Hudson River larvae, Hjorth (1988) found that white perch larvae fed almost
exclusively upon microzooplankton. Adults and copepods of Eurytemora a/finis were the
preferred food, but when they were not present, white perch larvae consumed rotifers,
cladocerans, and other seasonal zooplankters.
From August through October, young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson River feed
predominantly on amphipods supplemented by copepods and mysids (NOAA, 1984). In a study
of white perch taken from the Hudson River between Haverstraw and Bear Mountain (Bath and
O'Connor, 1985), gammarid amphipods occurred most frequently in the stomachs of immature
and mature white perch. Mature fish ate a higher proportion of isopods and annelid worms than
did immature fish during the spring and summer. During May and June, mature fish contained
between 2 and 8.6 percent by occurrence, while gammarid amphipods were the predominant
food item in July, 64 percent, and November, 75 percent. Insect larvae occurred in fewer than 2
A-7 MCA/TetraTech
-------
percent of mature fish during May and June, and were not found again during the remainder of
the sampling year. White perch in this oligohaline sector of the river fed primarily at or near the
sediment-water interface. Their preferred prey items consisted of epibenthic crustaceans and
insects.
In 1973 and 1974, Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers conducted an extensive biomass
and stomach content analysis in the lower Hudson River on behalf of Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation (LMS, 1974). Their study found that the dominant food item consumed by
the 49 white perch obtained from Roseton and Danskammer Point during the spring were
amphipods, representing 93% of the total identified food volume. During fall sampling,
amphipods (Gammarus spp. and Leptochierus plumulosus) were the dominant food item
consumed by the 36 white perch captured. Copepods were found to be a dominant prey item for
smaller white perch, but were infrequently found in larger white perch. During the 1974
sampling season, the largest size range of white perch (>17 cm) consumed amphipods and
isopods, supplemented by chronomid larvae during the spring and summer, and the decapods R.
harrissi and C. septemspinosa during the fall and winter. The data on gut contents indicate that
white perch feed primarily on benthic invertebrates and select arthropods such as amphipods and
chironomid insect larvae (based on personal knowledge of benthic invertebrates in the lower
Hudson). This fish species probably makes use of all depths in the river for foraging based on
collections made using bottom trawls and bottom gill nets in the lower Hudson River (personal
observations.)
A small subset of the white perch samples taken as part of the TAMS/Gradient Phase 2
activities were analyzed for gut contents. A large number of chironomid were found and
identified to evaluate the relative contribution of sediment and water sources to the diet of white
perch resident in the Hudson River. Table A-4 shows the results of these analyses. Spaces in the
table were left blank when the habitat and association of a prey item were unknown.
Table A-4 shows that white perch in the Hudson River generally consume chironomid
equally associated with both the water column and sediment. Particular individual fish (i.e., Fish
No. 5) appear to feed exclusively on water column sources, while others (Fish No. 1) show a
greater sediment influence. Chironomid represent a significant proportion of the available
benthos in the Hudson River. Based on the table shown above, it appears that this collection of
white perch consumed organisms that live on plants and the surfaces of sediments as well as
those that burrow into sediment.
Another group of 40 white perch from the NYS DEC 1996 sampling effort were also
evaluated by Menzie-Cura for gut contents. These fish were collected in the river at Troy and at
Catskill Creek in the Spring of 1997. Chironomid insect larvae were the most common food
item in the diet (75% offish) and amphipods were the next most common dietary item (35% of
fish). These observations are similar to those made on the fish collected during the
TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 sampling.
The data on feeding behavior for white perch indicate that this species eats invertebrates.
The species can make use of near-shore areas as well as the main river bottom for foraging.
Feeding is elective for arthropods such as chironomid insect larvae and amphipods. In nearshore
A-8 MCA/TetraTech
-------
areas where rooted aquatic plants are present, the species probably feeds on arthropods
associated with both sediments and plants. In areas along the main river bottom, the species
probably feeds primarily on benthic invertebrates. Benthic invertebrates include species that vary
in the degree of surface water, pore water, and sediment exposure. Oligochaete worms form a
small part of the white perch diet which suggests that this species does consume organisms that
are closely associated with sediment. This is also suggested by the presence of chironomid insect
larvae such as Tanytarsus, Procadius, Chironomus and Cryptochironomus in their digestive
system that are also reported to burrow into sediments rather live on surfaces of plants and
substrates (Simpson and Bode, 1980, personal observations). However, white perch also eat
benthic organisms that may be more strongly influenced by surface water exposure. These
include chironomid insect larvae such as Polypedilum illinoense grp. and Dicrotendipes
neomodestus that tend to live on the surface of substrates. The amphipod Gammarus is also
likely to be influenced strongly by water exposures because it lives on or near surface sediments
and also swims into the water column.
Based on available information we estimate that the diet of white perch contains 75%
invertebrates that are influenced primarily by sediments and 25% of invertebrates that are
influenced by water. This estimate is uncertain. If we assume that benthic species are more likely
to be exposed to sediment than to water, we estimate that the 50 to 100% of the white perch diet
consists of invertebrates that are primarily influenced by sediment exposure.
1.3.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
White perch prefer shallow areas and tributaries, generally staying close to rooted
vegetation. The position of this fish relative to the water surface varies somewhat based on size
(Selzer-Hamilton, 1991). White perch are bottom oriented fish that accumulate in areas with
dissolved oxygen of at least 6 mgL"1 (Selzer-Hamilton, 1991). Gladden et al., (1988) compared
the spatial segregation of a number of fish species in the Hudson River estuary and found the
majority of white perch over the course of three years to prefer the main channel bottom
Because white perch make spawning migrations, they are considered semianadromous.
Spawning occurs in the upper reaches of the Lower Hudson River. Eggs, larvae, and juveniles
gradually disperse downstream throughout the summer. Young-of-the-year white perch often
congregate in the Tappan Zee and Croton-Haverstraw regions, with a smaller peak from
Saugerties to Catskill (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 1992).
During the summer, white perch move randomly within the local area. Adult white perch
tend to accumulate at 4.6-6 meters depth during the day and move back to the surface during the
night (Selzer-Hamilton, 1991). White perch spend the winter in depths of 12-18 meters, but
occasionally can be found at depths as low as 42 meters. Hudson River white perch are
acclimated at 27.8ฐC and avoid temperatures that are below 9.5ฐC or above 34.5ฐC.
White perch prefer shallow and wetland areas to other habitats, but undertake extensive
migrations within the estuary (Carlson, 1986). White perch were most often found in tributaries,
vegetated backwaters, and shore areas in the Lower Hudson River. Carlson observed the greatest
increase in summertime abundance between River Mile 102 and 131. By winter, the majority of
A-9 MCA/TetraTech
-------
white perch move downriver, although some overwinter in the upper estuary in areas over 32 feet
deep (Texas Instruments, 1980).
In the Upper Hudson River, white perch were taken in the lower two lock pools (MPI,
1984). They were taken primarily in shallow and wetland habitats (see Table A-3).
All ages of white perch are adversely affected by high levels of suspended solids. Adult
white perch can be found in water with pH ranges between 6.0 and 9.0 and avoid areas with
moderate turbidity at 45 NTU, although they can be found in either clear or highly turbid areas
(Selzer-Hamilton, 1991).
1.3.3 Reproduction
Spawning is episodic, usually occurring in a two week period from mid-May to early
June when the water temperatures are between 16ฐ and 20ฐC. Hudson River white perch tend to
spawn beginning in April when the water temperature reaches 10ฐ to 12ฐC, and continue
spawning through June. In years when the water temperature increases gradually, the peak
spawning period lasts from four to six weeks (Klauda et al., 1988).
White perch prefer to spawn in shallow water, such as flats or embankments, and tidal
creeks. They generally spawn over any bottom type (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Spawning is
greatest in the fresh water regions around Albany, and between River Mile 86 and 124
(McFadden et al., 1978; Texas Instruments, 1980).
Fecundity of Hudson River white perch age 2 to 7, the maximum age of white perch in
the river, ranges from less than 15,000 to more than 160,000 eggs per female (Bath and
O'Connor, 1981). Mean fecundity in that study was 50,678 eggs per female and was dependent
upon size.
1.4 Yellow Perch
Yellow perch, Perca flavescens, are gregarious fish that travel in schools of 50-200.
They feed omnivorously on organisms from the sediment and in the water column. Yellow
perch are an important freshwater sport fish.
1.4.1 Foraging
Yellow perch feed actively early in the morning or late in the evening, with less feeding
taking place later in the day. At night the fish are inactive and rest on the bottom (Scott and
Grossman, 1973).
Young fish feed primarily upon cladocerans, ostracods, and chironomid larvae (Smith,
1985). As they grow, they shift to insects. Chabot and Maly (1986) found that fish that were
one to one and a half years old preferred large zooplankton species. Larger fish eat crayfish,
small fish, and odonate nymphs (Smith, 1985). Piavis (1991 Yellow perch habitat requirements
for) found that approximately 25 percent of the diet of yearling yellow perch was made up of
other perch. From May through August, chironomids generally comprise between 30 percent
A-10 MCA/TetraTech
-------
and 60 percent of the diet. Piavis noted that adult yellow perch forage on midge larvae,
anchovies, killifish, silversides, scuds, and caddsisfly larvae. Adults also forage on
pumpkinseed.
Information on feeding behavior of yellow perch in the Hudson is available from the
work conducted by Exponent (1998a, 1998b) and fish collected by NYSDEC in Spring 1997 and
analyzed by Menzie-Cura. The Exponent data set consists of fish that are in the range of 6.1 to
14.6 cm . The fish analyzed by Menzie-Cura were larger (median = 21.5 cm, maximum = 31.8
cm). Both data sets indicate that yellow perch feed primarily on invertebrates. Based on the
literature fish may be eaten by larger yellow perch. The diet of yellow perch indicates they eat a
wide variety of invertebrates from the water column, from plants, and from sediments Table A-l
and Table A-2). Amphipods (especially Gammarus), isopods (Caecidotea), cyclopoid copepods,
and most of the cladoceran species were predominant in yellow perch stomachs. Analyses
performed by Menzie-Cura indicated that larger yellow perch also eat small clams and snails as
well as oligochaete worms; all of these are common benthic species. Predominant insect larvae
in the guts of yellow perch (6 - 14 cm length) included species that are readily available on the
surfaces of plants and on sediments as well as diptera pupa which tend to be planktonic.
Our qualitative assessment of the Exponent (1998a, 1998b) data for yellow perch in the
6-14 cm size range suggests that benthic invertebrates could comprise as much as 70% of the
diet. However, we estimate that up to 56% of the diet could consist of invertebrates that live
primarily in the water (e.g., zooplankton and on plants). Some of the benthic invertebrates
associated with the sediments could also be strongly influenced by surface water (e.g.,
Gammarus spp.) Therefore, the component of the invertebrate diet that is exposed to surface
water could be even greater than that indicated from a simple division of benthic and non-
benthic. We estimate that this component could be as much as 65% (and might be even higher).
Oligochaete worms were observed in the gut contents of a number of larger yellow perch
(11 to 32 cm) indicating that these fish forage directly in the sediments. Larger yellow perch also
probably eat fish although none were observed in the gut contents examined by Menzie-Cura.
We estimate that fish are probably a small part of the diet of large yellow perch (i.e., less than
1.4.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Yellow perch are most abundant in waters that are clear and have moderate vegetation
and sand, gravel or mucky bottoms. Abundance decreases with increases in turbidity or with
decreases in abundance of vegetation. Adult perch prefer slow moving waters near the shore
areas where there is moderate cover.
Yellow perch studied in the freshwater Cedar Lake in Illinois stayed within a 5 to 20
kilometer home range (Fish and Savitz, 1983). The fish preferred heavy and light weeded as
well as sandy areas, and were virtually never seen in open water (see Table A-5).
Yellow perch are found throughout the Upper Hudson River (MPI. 1984), particularly
near River Mile 153 (Federal Dam) and again up near the Thompson' Island Pool area (see Table
A-5).
A-11 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Yellow perch prefer wetlands, embayments and shallow areas to other habitats, but can
be found in all types of habitats to some degree. They primarily inhabit the freshwater portion of
the estuary with an apparently even distribution of early life stage abundance from river mile 77
through 153 (Texas Instruments, 1976; Carlson, 1986).
Yellow perch require a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for all life stages of 5
mg/L-1. Seasonal lethal dissolved oxygen is 0.2 mg/L-1 in winter and 1.5 mg/L-1 in summer.
Yellow perch are poikilothermic, requiring less oxygen in winter. Suboptimal dissolved oxygen
may have acute implications, in that if a preferred habitat contains less dissolved oxygen than
necessary, then fish may leave the area, subjecting them to predation, or they may experience
retarded growth, impacting survivability (Piavis, 1991).
1.4.3 Reproduction
Yellow perch are among the earliest spring spawners, with spawning occurring near
vegetated areas and in upstream, tidal tributaries (Carlson, 1986). In the Chesapeake River, adult
yellow perch migrate from downstream stretches of tidal waters to spawning areas in less saline
upper reaches in mid February through March (Piavis, 1991). Spawning occurs when water
temperatures reach 45-52ฐF in April and May in New York waters (Smith, 1985). Males arrive
at the spawning ground first. Spawning occurs in 5 to 10 feet of water over sand, rubble, or
vegetation. Eggs are often draped over logs or vegetation.
1.5 Brown Bullhead
The brown bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus, is a demersal omnivorous species occurring
near or on the bottom in shallow, warmwater situations with abundant aquatic vegetation and
sand to mud bottoms. Brown bullhead are sometimes found as deep as 40 feet, and are very
tolerant of conditions of temperature, oxygen, and pollution (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
1.5.1 Foraging
The brown bullhead feeds on or near the bottom, mainly at night. Adult brown bullhead
are truly omnivorous, consuming offal, waste, molluscs, immature insects, terrestrial insects,
leeches, crustaceans including crayfish and plankton, worms, algae, plant material, fishes, and
fish eggs. Raney and Webster (1940) found that young bullheads in Cayuga Lake near Ithaca,
New York fed upon crustaceans, primarily ostracods and cladocerans, and dipterans, mostly
chironomids. For brown bullhead in the Ottawa River, algae have also been noted as a
significant food source (Gunn et al., 1977).
Information on the diet of brown bullhead in the Hudson River is available for the river
north of Newburgh (LMS, 1975). This work indicated that brown bullhead displayed a varied
and seemingly opportunistic feeding behavior. Smaller bullheads (size interval I) ate primarily
chironomid insect larvae, amphipods., odonata, and oligochaete worms. Larger bullheads
displayed a similar feeding behavior but also ate young-of-the-year fish. Observations made on
gut contents of brown bullheads collected in the Kingston area indicated that oligochaete worms
were a major part of the diet.
A-12 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Additional information on feeding habits of Hudson River fish is available from
Exponent (1998a, 1998b) and for fish collected in Spring 1997 and analyzed by Menzie-Cura..
The available data from these studies indicates that the diet reflects a large benthic invertebrate
component. Only one fish was observed in a gut of one bullhead. Our analysis of the Exponent
data indicate that predominant prey items for bullheads included small clams, amphipods
(Gammarus), isopods (Caecidoted), a few of the cladoceran species, and chironomid insect
larvae that are typically considered to burrow into sediments (e.g., Prodadius). Menzie-Cura
also observed that the diet of brown bullhead frequently contain oligochaete setae (worms are
usually quickly digested or unidentifiable).
A qualitative assessment of the Exponent data suggests that 71 to 83% of the
invertebrates are associated with sediments and 17 to 29% are associated with water. Because
oligochaete worms may be a major food item, the benthic percentage is probably even higher and
we estimate that it may be as high as 95%. Data for the lower Hudson reported by LMS (1975)
also support a high component of the diet as benthic in nature in that are large component was
comprised of oligochaete worms. These organisms are digested more quickly that insects and
crustaceans and are probably underrepresented in the Exponent and Menzie-Cura analyses. Fish
are considered to be a minor component of the diet (less than 5%).
1.5.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Brown bullhead, a freshwater demersal fish, resides in water conditions that are shallow,
calm and warm. In the summer, bullheads can be found in coves with ooze bottoms and lush
vegetation, especially water clover, spatterdock and several species of pond weed (Raney, 1967
Some catfish of New York). Carlson (1986) found that the vegetated backwaters and offshore
areas are the most common habitats for brown bullheads. McBride (1985) found bullhead
abundant in river canal pools (see Table A-5).
Brown bullhead were most frequently taken in wetland and embayment habitats (MPI,
1984) (see Table A-5). Brown bullhead prefer wetlands, embayments, and shallow habitats.
Carlson (1986) found bullheads most frequently in backwaters, but also in other, deeper areas
such as the channel border. This species prefers silty bottoms, slow currents, and deeper waters.
1.5.3 Reproduction
Brown bullhead reach maturity at two years and spawn for two weeks in the late spring
and early summer. Smith (1985) noted that in New York, brown bullhead spawn when water
temperatures reach 27ฐC in May and June.
They prefer to spawn among roots of aquatic vegetation, usually near the protection of a
stump, rock or tree, near shores or creek mouths. Males, sometimes aided by females, build
nests under overhangs or obstructions (Smith, 1985). Eggs are guarded.
A-13 MCA/TetraTech
-------
1.6 Pumpkinseed
The pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus, is the most abundant and widespread fish in New
York State (Smith, 1985). In the Hudson River, they feed exclusively upon epiphytic water
column organisms. Pumpkinseed are important forage for predatory fishes.
1.6.1 Foraging
Pumpkinseed are diurnal feeders in areas with low light intensity and migrating to cooler,
deeper water at night. They do not feed in winter and only begin to feed when the water
temperature rises above 8.5ฐ C. Pumpkinseed forage on hard shelled gastropods and are able to
exploit food sources not available to other fish, particularly mollusks (Sadzikowski and Wallace.
1976 A comparison of food habits of). Food is mainly a variety of insects and, secondarily, other
invertebrates. Small fish or other vertebrates, e.g., larval salamanders, can also contribute
significantly to the pumpkinseed diet (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
Early juvenile pumpkinseed prefer chironomid larvae, amphipods, cladocerans, and, to a
lesser extent, copepods as food items (Sadzikowski and Wallace, 1976). Juvenile pumpkinseed
in the Connecticut River feed primarily upon benthic organisms (Domermuth and Reed, 1980).
A study conducted in the St. Lawrence River near Massena found that juvenile pumpkinseed
between 77 and 113 mm in length consumed 94 percent chironomids (Johnson, 1983). Feldman
(1992) found that juvenile pumpkinseed taken from Thompson Island Pool in the Hudson River
consumed zooplankton such as cladocerans, copepods, ostracods, chironomids and talitrids.
Adults consumed mostly gastropods on plants. No sediment source of food was noted.
Adult pumpkinseed primarily prefer insects and secondarily prefer other invertebrates.
As the fish age and increase in size, other fish and invertebrates other than insects constitute a
larger portion of the diet, up to 50 percent of the diet.
A small subset of the pumpkinseed samples taken as part of the TAMS/Gradient Phase 2
activities were analyzed for gut contents. A large number of chironomid were found and
identified to evaluate the relative contribution of sediment and water sources to the diet of
pumpkinseed resident in the Hudson River. Table A-6 shows the results of these analyses.
Spaces in the table were left blank when information on habitat and association were unknown.
These gut content analyses demonstrate that pumpkinseed in the Hudson River appear to feed
largely upon species associated with plants or other surface substrates.
Additional data on the diet of pumpkinseed sunfish is available from the collections of
yearling fish made by Exponent (1998a, 1998b). These data indicated that the diet of the fish was
comprised invertebrate commonly associated with benthic environments. Predominant prey
items included small clams, snails, amphipods. isopods. and insect larvae. However, most of the
invertebrate prey items live at or on the surface of substrates rather than deep within the
sediments. Gastropod snails were a predominant item in the diet similar to the observations of
Feldman who observed that these were an important part of the diet of adult fish; he presumed
they were eating gastropods living on plants. The composition of the chironomid insect larvae in
the gut contents of yearling sunfish is also suggestive that yearling fish feed on surface substrates
rather than on burrowing animals; Dicrotendipes spp. were commonly observed while
A-14 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Procladius spp. were rarely seen in the gut contents. The amphipod Gammarus spp. is also an
important item in the diet and is considered epibenthic and meroplanktonic.
The diet of pumpkinseeds changes with size and age as noted above. Young-of-the-year
fish may consume a proportionally greater amount of smaller invertebrates associated with the
water column while larger juvenile and adult sunfish may consume a proportionally greater
amount of benthic invertebrates. These benthic invertebrates largely include species that live on
or at the surface of substrates. Gastropods, for example, feed on surface substrates and are likely
exposed to water conditions directly above sediments or around stands of plants. The diet of
pumpkinseed sunfish consist of invertebrates that may be more influenced by conditions at and
above the water/sediment interface than by conditions deeper in the sediments.
1.6.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Pumpkinseed are restricted to freshwater and are found in shallow quiet areas with slow
moving water. Pumpkinseed are usually found in clear water with submerged vegetation, brush
or debris as cover. They rely on the littoral zone as a refuge from predators and for foraging
material (Feldman, 1992).
Several investigators have noted the ability of pumpkinseed to return to a home range,
even after significant displacement (Hasler and Wisby, 1958; Fish and Savitz, 1983; Shoemaker,
1952;Gerking, 1958).
Pumpkinseed are found throughout the Upper Hudson River above Federal Dam (MPI,
1984) (see Table A-7). They are found primarily in wetland, stream mouth, and embayment
habitats (see Table A-7).
1.6.3 Reproduction
Spawning occurs during early spring and summer although it can extend into late summer
(Scott and Grossman, 1973). Nests are built in water that is 6 to 12 inches deep, forming
colonies close to aquatic vegetation and other pumpkinseed nesting areas. Nesting occurs when
the water temperature reaches 60ฐF and lasts approximately 11 days. Nesting substrates include
sand, sandy clay, mud, limestone, shells and gravel. Females lay from 600 to 5,000 eggs (Smith,
1985). Males guard the nest for one week after hatching.
1.7 Spottail Shiner
The spottail shiner, Notropis hudsonius, consumes plankton, aquatic insects, and some
bottom-dwelling organisms, and is therefore exposed to sediment and water column. The
spottail shiner is consumed by virtually all other fish, including larger spottail shiners.
1.7.1 Foraging
Spottail shiners are morphologically suited for bottom foraging in that they have rounded
snouts that hang slightly over their mouths. They do not however feed exclusively upon benthic
A-15 MCA/TetraTech
-------
organisms. Spottail shiners are considered omnivorous and opportunistic feeders, feeding upon
cladocerans, ostracods, aquatic and terrestrial insects, spiders, mites, fish eggs and larvae, plant
fibers, seeds, and algae (Texas Instruments, 1980; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Smith, 1987).
Based on work in the lower Hudson River, Gladden et al. (1988) consider zooplankton to be a
major part of the spottail shiners diet.
In Lake Nipigon, Ontario (Scott and Grossman, 1973), 40 percent of the diet was made
up of Daphnia spp. Other cladocerans were also present, and aquatic insect larvae, including
chironomids and ephemeropterids, comprised another 40 percent of the spottail shiner diet.
In Lake Michigan, Anderson and Brazo (1978) found that terrestrial dipterians and fish
eggs represented the major components of the spottail shiner's diet in the spring and summer. In
the fall, chironomid larvae and terrestrial insects represent the major diet components.
Information on the diet of spottail shiners in the Hudson River was obtained by Exponent
(1998a, 1998b). We evaluated these data qualitatively and found that the major food items
appeared to be organisms with a high association for the water column (algae, cladocera, and
copepods) and species that live in close associated with surface substrates (ostracods, amphipods,
chironomid larvae and caddisfly larvae). The composition of the predominant chironomid larvae
in spottail shiner gut contents are considered surface sprawlers or epiphytic rather than sediment
burrowers.
Observations on feeding behavior of spottail shiner suggests they can range from benthic
feeders to water column feeders. Many of the benthic invertebrates include surface dwellers that
are influenced by surface water conditions. We estimate spottail shiners primarily eat
invertebrates that are more directly influenced by surface water conditions than by conditions
below the surface of sediments. However, benthic invertebrates could be an important part of the
diet based on the literature.
1.7.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Spottail shiners prefer clear water and can be found at depths up to 60 feet (Smith, 1987),
but tend to congregate in larger numbers in shallow areas (Anderson and Brazo, 1978) (see Table
A-7). Spottail shiners in the Upper Hudson River were primarily taken in wet dumpsite habitat
areas (MPI, 1984) (see Table A-7).
1.7.3 Reproduction
Spottail shiners spawn in the spring and early summer in habitats with sandy bottoms and
algae (Scott and Grossman, 1973). In New York waters, spawning usually occurs at the mouths
of streams in June or July. Ovarian egg counts range from 100 to 2,600 eggs per female.
depending upon total size (Smith, 1985).
1.8 Striped Bass
The striped bass, Morone saxatilis, is an anadromous species that enters the Hudson
River to spawn throughout the estuarine portion of the river, but particularly upstream from the
A-16 MCA/TetraTech
-------
saltfront. While most adults return to the sea after spawning, some remain within the estuary for
a period. Young of the year gradually move downstream during the summer months and move
out of the river during the winter. Historically, striped bass were an important Hudson River
fisheries species, but high polychlorinated biphenyl levels closed the fishery in 1976.
1.8.1 Foraging
Striped bass are voracious, carnivorous fish that feed in groups or schools and alternate
periods of intense feeding activity with periods of digestion (Raney, 1952). Peak foraging time
for juveniles is at twilight. Adults feed throughout the day, but forage most vigorously just after
dark and just before dawn. Adults typically gorge themselves in surface waters, then drop down
into deeper waters to digest their food. Seasonally, adult feeding intensity lessens in the late
spring and summer. Feeding ceases during spawning.
Striped bass feed primarily upon invertebrates when they are young, consuming larger
invertebrates and fish as they grow larger. Post yolk-sac larvae feed upon zooplankton. Hjorth
(1988), in a study of Hudson River striped bass larvae, found that copepodids and adults of the
calanoid copepod Eurytemora affinis were the most frequently selected prey item. Hudson River
striped bass larvae also fed upon cladocerans, especially Bosmina spp. Copepods and
cladocerans are the most common zooplankters in the Hudson River during times that striped
bass larvae are present (Texas Instruments, 1980).
A study by the Hudson River power authorities (Texas Instruments, 1980) found that
striped bass up to 75 mm preferred amphipods Gammarus spp., calanoid copepods, and
chironomid larvae. Fish from 76-125 mm preferred Gammarus and calanoid copepods. Those
from 126-200 mm preferred a fish prey, Microgadus tomcod.
Fish are generally considered to make up the bulk of the diet of adult striped bass.
Researchers commonly find engraulids and clupeids the most the most common prey
(summarized in Setzler et al., 1980). Because striped bass feed in schools, schooling species of
fish generally comprise a large portion of the diet. Striped bass are known to gorge themselves
upon schooling clupeids and engraulids, concentrating their feeding activity upon whatever
species is most abundant. Many other species have also been noted in striped bass diets, for
example, mummichogs, mullet, white perch and tomcod. Invertebrates also may persist in the
diet of adult striped bass. Schaefer (1970) found that in Long Island Sound, fish from 275-399
mm fork length fed primarily (85 percent by volume) upon invertebrates, primarily the
amphipods Gammarus spp. and Haustorius canadensis and the mysid shrimp Neomysis
americana. Fish from 400-599 mm divided their diet between fish (46 percent) (bay anchovy,
Atlantic silverside, and scup) and amphipods. Sixty percent of the diet offish from 600-940 mm
in length was made up of fish, but even these larger animals consumed amphipods, mysids, and
lady crabs. Schaefer hypothesized that the continued importance of invertebrates in larger fishes
diets may have resulted from turbidity in the surf zone making it difficult to pursue fast-
swimming fish.
A-17 MCA/TetraTech
-------
1.8.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Striped bass are anadromous, spawning in tidal rivers, then migrating to coastal waters to
mature. Abundant data on distribution and abundance of early life history stages of striped bass
are available, because the Hudson River utilities have conducted annual surveys of the
distribution of striped bass in the Hudson River since 1973. Field sampling has been conducted
from New York City, the George Washington Bridge at River Mile 12, to the Federal Dam.
Since 1981 the sampling programs have been adjusted to emphasize collection of striped bass.
Additionally, the utilities have sponsored mark-recapture studies of striped bass (e.g., McLaren
et al., 1981). These studies documented movement of the species within and outside the river.
The upstream spring migration of adult striped bass begins in March and April and ranges
up to the Federal Dam. As young striped bass grow during the summer, they move downstream.
Even at the egg stage, striped bass can be found throughout the Hudson River Estuary, although
peak abundances of eggs and larvae are usually found from the Indian Point to Kingston reaches
of the river, approximately River Miles 100-150 (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 1992).
Downstream movement is partially determined by flow rate.
At approximately 13 mm total length, striped bass form schools and move into shallow
waters (Raney, 1952). In the Hudson River, young-of-the-year striped bass begin to appear in
catches during early July. They move shoreward as well as downstream throughout the summer
and are usually found over sandy or gravel bottoms (Setzler et al., 1980). The utilities' studies
typically find peak catches of young-of-the-year fish at River Mile 35, at the southern end of
Croton-Haverstraw Bay (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly, 1992).
Some young-of-the year fish leave the estuary during the summer and fall (Dovel, 1992
Movements of immature striped bass). Dovel (1992) summarized movements of young striped
bass within the river based upon studies conducted by the utilities and others. He found that
young striped bass congregate in the vicinity of the salt front during the winter, although
movements in the Lower Hudson River continue throughout the winter. During the spring, some
yearling striped bass continue to emigrate from the river, while other move upstream. By their
second year, most striped bass have left the river, except for their returns during spawning
migrations.
1.8.3 Reproduction
In the Hudson River, striped bass spawn above the salt front and potentially as far
upstream as the Federal Dam At River Mile 153. On average, however, they do not spawn as far
upstream as white perch. During periods of low freshwater flow, striped bass spawn further
upstream than in years of high flow. Age at sexual maturity of striped bass depends upon water
temperature (Setzler et al., 1980). Males mature at approximately two years, and females mature
later. Spawning is triggered by sudden rises in temperature and occurs at or near the surface.
Spawning occurs in brief, explosive episodes. Eggs are broadcast into the water, where a single
female may be surrounded by as many as 50 males.
A-18 MCA/TetraTech
-------
1.9 Shortnose Sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, is the smaller of two sturgeons that
occur in the Hudson River. Both the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons have been prized for their
flesh and their eggs for caviar, but sturgeons were also purposely destroyed when they became
entangled in the shad nets that were once common on the Hudson River. The shortnose sturgeon
has been listed on the federal endangered species list since 1967. Because it is rare and because
historical data often link it with the Atlantic sturgeon, only limited data are available to describe
its natural history.
1.9.1 Foraging
No field studies have documented the diets of larval shortnose sturgeon. Buckley and
Kynard (1981) observed post yolk-sac larvae that they had hatched in the laboratory to feed upon
zooplankton.
Juvenile shortnose sturgeon feed mostly upon benthic crustaceans and insect larvae
(summarized in Gilbert, 1989). Juveniles of 20-30 cm fork length have been recorded as feeding
extensively upon cladocerans. Adult fish feed indiscriminately upon bottom organisms and off
emergent vegetation. Food items of juvenile and adult fish include polychaete worms, molluscs.
crustaceans, aquatic insects, and small bottom-dwelling fishes (Gilbert, 1989).
Juveniles and adults generally feed by rooting along the bottom, consuming considerable
mud and debris with food items. As much as 85-95 percent of their stomachs may contain mud
and other non-food material. Conversely, shortnose sturgeon may also feed upon gastropods
that live upon vegetation. Shortnose sturgeon from New Brunswick and South Carolina have
been reported as including almost exclusively gastropods with no non-food matter.
Shortnose sturgeon mostly feed at night or when turbidity is high, when they move into
shallow water to feed. Adults move into areas as shallow as 1-5 m and forage among the weeds
and river banks. Feeding occurs in deeper water during the summer, possibly in response to
water temperature. The relatively little feeding occurs during the winter also occurs in deeper
waters.
Shortnose sturgeon are not thought to feed in groups or schools. Mark-recapture data
(Dovel et al., 1992) suggest, however, that fish tend to move as groups. Fish of the same group
would therefore tend to eat in the same general areas.
1.9.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Shortnose sturgeon are found throughout the portion of the Hudson River below the
Federal Dam. They are considered anadromous because they are sometimes taken by
commercial fishermen at sea. However, their movements are more restricted than Atlantic
sturgeon, and most of the Hudson River population probably does not leave the river. The fish
does not require a marine component to its life cycle: a landlocked population in the Holyoke
Pool, part of the Connecticut River system, persisted from 1848 until a fish ladder was
constructed in 1955.
A-19 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Adult shortnose sturgeon winter in Esopus Meadows, approximately at River Mile 90
(Dovel et al., 1992), in the Croton-Haverstraw region, approximately River Mile 35 (Geoghegan
et al., 1992), and possibly in other small areas not yet identified.
Adult fish migrate upstream to spawn in the upper reaches of the portion of the Hudson
River south of the Federal Dam in spring and then disperse downstream to feed during the
summer. They can be taken throughout the fresh waters of the tidal portion of the river during the
summer months.
The size of the nursery area for shortnose sturgeon larvae and young is difficult to
determine, because few specimens are collected. Based upon the utilities' collections of young
of the year in Haverstraw Bay, Dovel et al. (1992) presume that the young fish occupy the same
freshwater portion of the estuary as do the adults of the species.
1.9.3 Reproduction
Shortnose sturgeons spawn in the upper reaches of the estuarine portion of the Hudson
River, approximately River Miles 130-150. Spawning is limited to the last two weeks in April
and the first two weeks in May. Throughout its range, the shortnose sturgeon spawns at water
temperatures of 9-14ฐC (summarized in Crance, 1986). Dovel and his co-workers (1992) found
that in 1979 and 1980, spawning in the Hudson River occurred at water temperatures of 10-18ฐC.
Age and size of the fish at maturity varies by latitude (Gilbert, 1989). In the Hudson
River, females first spawn at approximately 9-10 years and males at 11-20 years. Spawning does
not occur each year and is most likely controlled by environmental factors rather than by
endocrinology.
Shortnose sturgeons produce approximately 40,000-200,000 eggs per spawning in New
York waters.
A-20 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-1
Predominant Food Items in Hudson River Fish
(note: less common items are not listed)
*- (D
D ฃ
li |i il |i |i if
OJ " ^ "O *- 3
_J JZ Q- QJ CO -O > O. (0(0 > Q.
PLANT MATTER
Algae
Vegetation
**
***
BRYOZOA
Bryozoa statoblasts
***
BIVALVE MOLLUSCS (CLAMS)
Pisidium
Sphaerium
***
***
***
X
GASTROPOD MOLLUSCS (SNAILS)
Gastropods
Planorbidae
Valvata bicarinata
***
***
***
X
OLIGOCHAETE WORMS
Oligochaete worms
XX
X
AMPHIPOD CRUSTACEANS
Amphipod
Gammarus spp.
Hyalella azteca
**
**
**
***
****
***
****
***,XXX
****
**
****
XX
ISOPOD CRUSTACEANS
Caecidotea
**
**
***
*",XXX
CLADOCERAN CRUSTACEANS
Bosmina longirostris
Camptoceerus
Chydorus
Chydorus sphaericus
Cladocera
Eurycercus
Pleuoxus denticulatus
Sida
Simocephalus serrulatus
**
***
*+*
**
***
**
**
**
***
***
***
***
****
***
***
**
**
****
****
****
***
COPEPOD CRUSTACEANS
Cyclopoid copepods
**
****
**
OSTRACOD CRUSTACEANS
Ostracod
****
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
1 of 2
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-1
Predominant Food Items in Hudson River Fish
(note: less common items are not listed)
ซ- 0)
=> W -C
9 .9 -!2 -D
IS o. ง go 5 .c 1$, ซ j=
S>ซ E ซ |ฃ |B |J XQ
OJ -1-1 3-D .ฃ3 0)Q> O-.C >1>
_Jฃ 0-0) DDJ3 >-Q- C/)W SO.
Podocopa
**
**
**
AQUATIC INSECTS
Chaoborida
Chaoborus
**
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia annulate
Ablabesmyia amallochi
Chironomus spp.
pupa
Cryptochironomus
Cricotopus/OrthocaldiusOrtho
Dicrotendipes modestus
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
Polypedilum
Procaldius bellus
Procaldius
Tanytarsus spp.
**
**
A*
+ **
**
***
***
**
***
**
**
**
**
**
***
**
****
***
**+
***
XX
XX
XX
XX
XXX
XX
XX
Ephemeroptera
Caenis
**
Odonata
Coenargi
Enallagma
",X
**
Tabanidae
Tabanidae
**
Trichoptera
Oecetis
Orthotrichia
Trichoptera larave unid.
***
**
***
ARACHNIDA
Fish (unidentified species)
****
observed
***
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
2 of 2
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
Collection
Length Weight Date ' Location
275
311
282
323
306
310
337
340
340
311
325
297
330
349
257
285
298
289
305
329
345
285
346
271
334
290
302
345
310
338
355
280
345
460
300
555
460
435
560
610
640
420
565
390
560
415
260
350
335
320
405
520
690
325
640
280
675
410
470
650
460
485
765
330
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
Sex
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
U
F
F
F
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
5
0
10
0
0
1
3
12
0
0
35
0
2
44
6
1
0
0
52
0
16
0
0
2
3
1
15
5
4
0
0
22
0
7
24
29
0
8
3
2
0
0
1
0
30
1
5
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
1
1
0
2
5
17
24
12
8
16
24
0
14
13
21
54
9
23
0
16
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
17
0
1
1
0
1
9
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
10
0
0
0
26
15
0
0
0
8
9
1
18
1
0
0
5
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
4
46
0
13
0
0
6
0
17
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
. 0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
1 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
275
311
282
323
306
310
337
340
340
311
325
297
330
349
257
285
298
289
305
329
345
285
346
271
334
290
302
345
310
338
355
280
345
460
300
555
460
435
560
610
640
420
565
390
560
415
260
350
335
320
405
520
690
325
640
280
675
410
470
650
460
485
765
330
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
U
F
F
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
yes
0 yes
yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
yes
0
yes
0 yes
yes
0
0 yes
yes
0
yes
0
0
yes
yes
yes
0
yes
yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
2 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date Location
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB Totals
264
352
321
292
288
324
336
258
231
235
280
296
269
269
253
297
330
264
251
227
240
205
230
206
200
275
725
550
355
335
470
490
270
170
205
320
450
330
290
260
410
665
310
240
175
195
120
165
110
100
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
Sex
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
3
32
0
7
4
0
2
4
10
5
2
24
6
5
3
6
5
3
2
4
10
14
4
0
382
6
10
0
40
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
227
11
10
0
9
6
5
0
12
0
6
6
15
15
7
5
1
15
1
6
0
1
0
1
0
0
443
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
137
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
12
10
0
1
0
6
0
0
178
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
3 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB Totals
264
352
321
292
288
324
336
258
231
235
280
296
269
269
253
297
330
264
251
227
240
205
230
206
200
275
725
550
355
335
470
490
270
170
205
320
450
330
290
260
410
665
310
240
175
195
120
165
110
100
Location
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson
stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
5/13/97 Hudson
stillwater
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
@ Griffin Island
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
3 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0
3
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
0
yes
0
0 yes
yes
0
yes
yes
yes
yes
0
yes
yes
yes
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
4 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
1MB
1MB
1MB
LMB
1MB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
Collection
Length Weight Date . Location
472
411
409
347
389
364
370
361
339
352
416
353
336
333
307
360
462
345
419
342
396
404
345
314
398
435
295
317
364
315
429
419
1860
1070
1130
630
920
860
660
890
580
730
1290
700
460
540
420
570
1740
680
1170
700
1040
1030
530
470
750
1280
410
480
640
440
1230
930
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek .
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudsonฎ Troy
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
Sex
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
5 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
472
411
409
347
389
364
370
361
339
352
416
353
336
333
307
360
462
345
419
342
396
404
345
314
398
435
295
317
364
315
429
419
1860
1070
1130
630
920
860
660
890
580
730
1290
700
460
540
420
570
1740
680
1170
700
1040
1030
530
470
750
1280
410
480
640
440
1230
930
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/1 2/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson @ Troy
6/12/97 Hudson ฉTroy
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
6 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
425
402
402
394
367
358
386
385
529
481
413
250
289
295
325
318
288
252
235
409
433
447
388
296
300
273
260
303
266
270
235
232
920
850
910
940
740
680
950
960
2300
1990
1010
185
350
415
545
480
395
225
180
1030
1400
1560
860
350
435
335
255
460
250
260
165
180
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson River
5/12/97 Hudson River
5/12/97 Hudson River
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/1 2/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
Sex
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
7 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
425
402
402
394
367
358
386
385
529
481
413
250
289
295
325
318
288
252
235
409
433
447
388
296
300
273
260
303
266
270
235
232
920
850
910
940
740
680
950
960
2300
1990
1010
185
350
415
545
480
395
225
180
1030
1400
1560
860
350
435
335
255
460
250
260
165
180
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson River
5/12/97 Hudson River
5/12/97 Hudson River
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
5/13/97 Hudson @ Griffin Island
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
8 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB Totals
265
242
231
192
191
172
185
182
280
289
260
170
165
90
90
60
75
80
315
375
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson t
5/13/97 Hudson
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date
LMB
1MB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB
LMB Totals
265
242
231
192
191
172
185
182
280
289
260
170
165
90
90
60
75
80
315
375
5/13/97 Hudson t
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
5/13/97 Hudson ซ
Location
1 Griffin Island
% Griffin Island
J Griffin Island
1 Griffin Island
3 Griffin Island
S Griffin Island
3 Griffin Island
? Griffin Island
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson ซ
ฃ Troy
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
10 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
178
174
177
176
167
166
159
182
167
211
182
167
177
160
171
160
156
160
152
146
196
220
204
206
185
163
183
176
174
163
181
170
80
70
75
65
70
60
55
80
65
135
80
65
70
55
60
50
45
50
50
40
105
170
110
130
85
60
90
75
70
65
75
65
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
Sex
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
M
M
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
8
3
11
1
4
9
6
1
20
35
29
2
15
24
12
0
10
17
2
0
0
2
10
5
7
3
6
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
7
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
11 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
178
174
177
176
167
166
159
182
167
211
182
167
177
160
171
160
156
160
152
146
196
220
204
206
185
163
183
176
174
163
181
170
80
70
75
65
70
60
55
80
65
135
80
65
70
55
60
50
45
50
50
40
105
170
110
130
85
60
90
75
70
65
75
65
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/22/97 Catskill Creek
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0 yes
1
0
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
12 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP Totals
157
166
161
194
160
168
150
163
55
60
60
100
60
60
45
60
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
5/28/97 Hudson
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP Totals
157
166
161
194
160
168
150
163
55
60
60
100
60
60
45
60
5/28/97 Hudson <
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
5/28/97 Hudson t
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
5/28/97 Hudson t
5/28/97 Hudson <
5/28/97 Hudson H
5/28/97 Hudson ซ
Location
9 Troy
9 Troy
9 Troy
% Troy
8 Troy
S Troy
9 Troy
ฃ Troy
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
14 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
292
195
267
154
290
280
318
188
288
235
266
196
291
215
240
226
185
193
169
175
171
169
166
161
163
169
272
276
270
266
264
263
408
102
290
220
370
296
418
241
366
184
281
102
362
136
188
150
75
90
60
75
65
65
55
55
50
60
270
275
245
215
225
200
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
Sex
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
4
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
10
7
5
1
5
4
3
0
6
0
6
6
5
2
7
4
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
25
1
3
10
1
2
0
6
12
0
0
5
5
10
9
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
18
0
0
52
0
0
0
2
23
0
22
13
0
1
0
26
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
15 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
292
195
267
154
290
280
318
188
288
235
266
196
291
215
240
226
185
193
169
175
171
169
166
161
163
169
272
276
270
266
264
263
408
102
290
220
370
296
418
241
366
184
281
102
362
136
188
150
75
90
60
75
65
65
55
55
50
60
270
275
245
215
225
200
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
16 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
252
213
252
242
208
185
185
153
156
143
273
246
285
268
216
219
175
268
305
260
235
233
203
210
196
216
209
220
226
243
295
180
210
130
185
160
120
85
70
40
40
25
270
210
330
290
147
135
72
259
393
247
177
179
115
131
116
134
132
188
139
212
336
72
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/1 7/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
Sex
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
F
M
Cray Chironom Amphi
Fish fish id pods Isopods
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
8
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
52
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
20
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
2
2
21
3
12
22
6
22
0
5
87
1
3
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
30
12
0
2
27
0
0
1
1
2
5
200
42
140
47
42
33
11
0
9
67
1
Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
18
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
4
5
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
7
0
0
1
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
17 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish
Species
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
Collection
Length Weight Date Location
252
213
252
242
208
185
185
153
156
143
273
246
285
268
216
219
175
268
305
260
235
233
203
210
196
216
209
220
226
243
295
180
210
130
185
160
120
85
70
40
40
25
270
210
330
290
147
135
72
259
393
247
177
179
115
131
116
134
132
188
139
212
336
72
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder darn
5/28/97 Hudson @ Troy
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/12/97 Hudson stillwater
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/14/97 Hudson above feeder dam
5/18/98 TIP
5/1 8/98 TIP
5/1 8/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
5/18/98 TIP
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
F
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
yes
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
18 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date Location
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP Totals
224
220
195
260
249
258
156
155
125
110
116
296
150
199
212
153
147
199
149
147
143
129
153
99
213
212
245
41.4
50.9
20.3
14.2
17.8
324
44.3
80.6
174.1
43.2
43.7
100.3
43.3
32.8
33.6
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/1 7/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
Sex
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
Cray Chironom Amphi Dragonfly Caddisfly Damsel Fly
Fish fish id pods Isopods Snails Clams Nymph Nymph Nymph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
80
0
0
0
130
0
4
1
35
8
0
1
0
15
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
3
16
8
10
457
0
32
0
10
4
0
4
0
4
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
7
0
11
867
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
77
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
223
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
10
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
19 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-2 Hudson River Fish Stomach Contents
Fish Collection
Species Length Weight Date Location
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP
YP Totals
224
220
195
260
249
258
156
155
125
110
116
296
150
199
212
153
147
199
149
147
143
129
153
99
213
212
245
41.4
50.9
20.3
14.2
17.8
324
44.3
80.6
174.1
43.2
43.7
100.3
43.3
32.8
33.6
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/1 7/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
6/17/98 Feeder Dam Pool
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
5/21/98 Coveville Marina
Mosquito Caddisfly Horse Fly Adult Oligochaete
Sex Larvae Larvae Nymph Insect Pupa Diatoms Setae Daphnidae
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0 yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 yes
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0
yes
0 yes
0
0
0
yes
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
0 yes
0 yes
0
0
0 yes
yes
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
0
18
0
0
500
500
0
0
0
27
1139
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
20 of 20
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-3 Distribution and Preferential Habitats of
Largemouth Bass and White Perch
Distribution of Largemouth Bass by Lock Pool in the Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
Dam to
Lockl
17
Lock 1 to
Lock 2
5
Lock 2 to
Lock3
24
Lock 3 to
Lock 4
3
LOCk 4 tO
Locks
downstream
41
LOCk 4 tO
Locks
middle
11
LOCk 4 tO
Locks
upstream
15
Lock 5 to
Lock6
15
Lock 6 to
Lock?
4
Preferential Habitats for Largemouth Bass in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
Artificial
Cut
12
Shallow
14
Wetland
34
Stream
Mouth
28
Wet
Dumpsite
13
Alt.
Channel
4
Embayme
nt
37
Distribution of White Perch by Lock Pool in the Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
Dam to
Lockl
44
Lock 1 to
Lock 2
17
Lock 2 to
LockS
0
Lock 3 to
Lock 4
0
LOCK 4 to
LockS
downstream
0
Lock 4 to
LockS
middle
0
Lock 4 to
LockS
upstream
0
Lock 5 to
Lock6
0
Lock 6 to
Lock 7
1
Preferential Habitats for White Perch in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
Artificial
Cut
6
Shallow
24
Wetland
13
Stream
Mouth
8
Wet
Dumpsite
4
Alt.
Channel
6
Rapids
2
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-4
White Perch Chironomid Identification for the Hudson River
Taxon
Fish No. 1
Ablabesmyia simpsoni
Coelotanypus
Procladius (Holotanypus)
Cryptochironomus
Cryptotendipes
Paralauterborniella
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Tanytarsus
Fish No. 2
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
Fish No. 3
Ablabesmyia simpsoni
Procladius (H.) sp.
Procladius (Ps.) bellus
Chironomus
Cryptochironomus
Cryptotendipes
Hamishchia
Polypedilum halterale grp.
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Paralauterborniella
Tanytarsus
Pupa
Copepoda
Fish No. 4
Meropelopia
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
Glyptotendipes
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Fish No. 5
Cricotopus bicinctus grp.
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Number
4
1
9
1
86
1
1
11
13
9
8
5
1
5
1
48
2
1
1
4
2
2
1
4
1
6
1
15
37
Habitat
sprawler
burrower
burrower
sprawler & burrower
burrower
clinger
clinger
burrower
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler
burrower
burrower
burrower
sprawler & burrower
burrower
clinger
sprawler
sprawler
clinger
burrower
sprawler
clinger
sprawler
clinger
sprawler
sprawler
Association
epiphytic
sediment
sediment
both
sediment
epiphytic
epiphytic
sediment
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
sediment
sediment
sediment
both
sediment
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
sediment
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
P. scalaenum 1 clinger epiphytic
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-5 Distribution and Preferential Habitats of
Yellow Perch and Brown Bullhead
Distribution of Yellow Perch by Lock Pool in the Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
Dam to
Lockt
23
Lock 1 to
Lock 2
1
Lock 2 to
LockS
12
Lock 3 to
Lock 4
12
LOCk 4 tO
LockS
downstream
6
LOCk 4 tO
LockS
middle
8
Lock 4 to
Locks
upstream
20
Lock 5 to
LockG
36
Lock 6 to
Lock?
24
Preferential Habitats for Yellow Perch in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
Artificial
Cut
15
Shallow
20
Wetland
46
Stream
Mouth
17
Wet
Dumpsite
13
Alt.
Channel
14
Embaym
ent
37
Distribution of Brown Bullhead by Lock Pool in the Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
Dam to
Lockl
6
Lock 1 to
Lock 2
1
Lock 2 to
Lock 3
24
Lock 3 to
Lock 4
14
Lock 4 to
LockS
downstream
27
Lock 4 to
LockS
middle
8
Lock 4 to
LockS
upstream
6
Lock 5 to
Lock6
3
Lock 6 to
Lock?
8
Preferential Habitats for Brown Bullhead in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
Artificial
Cut
0
Shallow
5
Wetland
43
Stream
Mouth
10
Wet
Dumpsite
5
Alt.
Channel
13
Embaym
ent
30
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-6
Pumpkinseed Chironomid Identification for the Hudson River
Taxon
Fish No. 1
Cricotopus bicinctus grp.
Cricotopus sylvestris grp.
Psectrocladius
Synorthocladius
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
Polypedilum convictum grp.
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Rheotanytarsus
Fish No. 2
Cricotopus sylvestris grp.
Psectrocladius
Polypedilum convictum grp.
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Paratanytarsus
Rheotanytarsus
Chrioonomidae pupae
Lepidoptera larvae
Fish No. 3
Ablabesmyia simpsoni
Cricotopus sylvestris grp.
Psectrocladius
Thienemanniella
Polypedilum convictum grp.
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
Number
1
1
3
1
3
3
8
3
1
1
1
9
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
25
Habitat
sprawler & burrower
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler
spawler
sprawler & burrower
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler
sprawler & burrower
sprawler
clinger
sprawler
sprawler
Association
both
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
both
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
both
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
epiphytic
Rheotanytarsus 1 clinger epiphytic
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Table A-7 Distribution and Preferential Habitats of
Pumpkinseed and Spottail Shiner
Distribution of Pumpkinseed by Lock Pool in the Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
Dam to
Lockl
98
Lock 1 to
Lock 2
12
Lock 2 to
Lock 3
123
Lock 3 to
Lock 4
67
LOCK 4 tO
Locks
downstream
164
Lock 4 to
Locks
middle
33
LOCk 4 to
LockS
upstream
46
Lock 5 to
LockG
157
Lock 6 to
Lock 7
96
Preferential Habitats for Pumpkinseed in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
Artificial
Cut
35
Shallow
82
Wetland
234
Stream
Mouth
210
Wet
Dumpsite
50
Alt.
Channel
35
Embayme
nt
182
Distribution of Spottail Shiner by Lock Pool in the Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
Dam to
Lockl
26
Lock 1 to
Lock 2
3
Lock 2 to
LockS
27
Lock 3 to
Lock 4
1
LOCK 4 to
LockS
downstream
13
Lock 4 to
LockS
middle
22
Lock 4 to
LockS
upstream
7
Lock 5 to
Lock6
36
Lock 6 to
Lock 7
36
Preferential Habitats for Spottail Shiner in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
Artificial
Cut
3
Shallow
g
Wetland
32
Stream
Mouth
2
Wet
Dumpsite
68
Alt.
Channel
35
Embayme
nt
4
Hudson River Database Release 4.1
MCA/TetraTech
-------
Appendix B
-------
APPENDIX B
FISHRAND Exposure Concentrations for Risk Assessments*
1. Introduction
The HUDTOX fate and transport model and the FISHRAND bioaccumulation model
were developed and refined over a period of years. Concurrent with these modeling
efforts, EPA conducted the risk assessments for the Reassessment. Accordingly, in the
risk assessments, EPA used modeled concentrations of PCBs in sediment, water and fish
from the most updated versions of HUDTOX and FISHRAND that were available at the
time. The FISHRAND results for the Upper Hudson River that were used in the risk
assessments are presented below. The HUDTOX results that were used in the risk
assessments are presented in Appendix A of Book 2.
2. FISHRAND Results Used in the August 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for the
Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)1
For the August 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Hudson River, EPA evaluated
current and future risks to ecological receptors in the Upper Hudson River for the time
period 1993 through 2018. EPA used the calibration and forecast results for total PCBs
in fish for 1993-2018, as presented in the May 1999 Baseline Modeling Report (BMR).
These were computed from FISHRAND based on HUDTOX results using initial
conditions in sediment specified from the 1991 GE composite data set and a PCB
concentration of 10 ng/L in the water column at the upstream boundary.
The FISHRAND forecasts for PCBs in fish at River Miles 189, 168, and 154 from the
May 1999 BMR that were used in the August 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment (1998 to
2018) are compared to the results for this RBMR (as presented in Chapter 7) in Figures
B-l through B-3, respectively.
3. FISHRAND Results Used in the August 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Upper Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)2
For the August 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River, EPA
estimated concentrations of PCBs in fish, up to 40 years for the point estimate
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2E - Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, Hudson River PCBs
Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared for US EPA by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Menzie-Cura & Associates,
Inc., US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, August 1999.
" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2F - Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River,
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared for US EPA by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Gradient
Corporation. US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, August 1999.
B-l MCA/TetraTech
-------
calculations and up to 70 years for the Monte Carlo analysis. For 1999 through 2018,
EPA used concentrations of PCBs in fish from FISHRAND, as presented in the May
1999 BMR. To estimate the trend of decreasing PCB concentrations in fish over time
beyond 2018, EPA extrapolated the concentrations using an exponential trend/regression
line fit to the historical and modeled annual PCB concentrations in fish from FISHRAND
(see, August 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River).
The FISHRAND forecasts for PCBs in fish at RMs 189, 168, and 154 that were used in
the August 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River (1999 to
2018) are compared to the results for this RBMR (as presented in Chapter 7) in Figures
B-l through B-3, respectively. Note that the Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Upper Hudson River used an exposure point concentration for fish that was averaged
over location and weighted by species-consumption fractions (see, the Human Health
Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River).
4. FISHRAND Results Used in the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for
Future Risks in the Lower Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)3
In the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson
River, EPA evaluated risks to ecological receptors in the Lower Hudson River for the
time period 1993-2018. The concentrations of PCBs in fish were calculated using
FISHRAND and are presented in the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for
Future Risks in the Lower Hudson River. They are not provided here because they are
not part of the baseline modeling of the Upper Hudson River.
5. FISHRAND Results Used in the December 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Mid-Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)4
For the December 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson River, EPA
estimated concentrations of PCBs in fish for the time period 1999-2039, based on
FISHRAND results for 1999-2039. The FISHRAND results that were used are presented
in the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson
River. They are not provided here because they are not part of the baseline modeling of
the Upper Hudson River.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (US EPA). 1QQ9. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2E-A, Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower
Hudson River. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by JAMS Consultants, Inc. and
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc., US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, December 1999.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (US EPA). 1999. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2F-A, Human Health Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson River.
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Gradient Corporation,
US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, December 1999.
B-2 MCA/TetraTech
-------
Figure B-l: May 1999 and January 2000 Wet Weight Forecast Results for River Mile 189
Largemouth Bass Wet Weight Concentrations
at River Mile 189: Prediction Period
-May 1999 Median
*-May 199995th
ซ Jan 2000 Median
-X-Jan 2000 95th
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
Brown Bullhead Wet Weight Concentrations
for River Mile 189: Prediction Period
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
Yellow Perch Wet Weight Concentrations
at River Mile 189: Prediction Period
May 1999 Median
May 199995th
Jan 2000 Median
0.0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
-------
Figure B-2: May 1999 and January 2000 Wet Weight Forecast Results for River Mile 168
Largemouth Bass Wet Weight Concentrations
at River Mile 168: Prediction Period
0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
Yellow Perch Wet Weight Concentrations
at River Mile 168: Prediction Period
May 1999 Median
-* May 199995th
Jan 2000 Median
-*- Jan 2000 95th
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
Brown Bullhead Wet Weight Concentrations
for River Mile 168: Prediction Period
May 1999 Median
May 199995th
Jan 2000 Median
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
-------
Figure B-3: May 1999 and January 2000 Wet Weight Forecast Results for River Mile 154
Largemouth Bass Wet Weight Concentrations
at River Mile 154: Prediction Period
U
Q.
O.
-May 1999 Median
*May 1999 95th
Jan 2000 Median
-X-Jan 200095th
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
Yellow Perch Wet Weight Concentrations
at River Mile 154: Prediction Period
a
0.
a.
May 1999 Median
May 199995th
Jan 2000 Median
-Jan 2000 95th
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
White Perch Predicted Wet Weight PCB Concentrations
for River Mile 154: Prediction Period
Brown Bullhead Wet Weight Concentrations
for River Mile 154: Prediction Period
May 1999 Median
* May 1999 95th
Jan 2000 Median
-X-Jan 2000 95th
May 1999 Median
May 199995th
Jan 2000 Median
-Jan 2000 95th
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Year
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2^0$ 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
------- |