LIFE HISTORIES OF SEVEN FISH SPECIES
THAT INHABIT THE HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY
Testimony of
John Boreman, Ph. D.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Power Plant Team
2929 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
PREPARED FOR THE
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
April 1979
-------
ABSTRACT
The fish species discussed in this exhibit are striped bass, white
perch, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, Atlantic tomcod, and
bay anchovy. For each species, the discussion includes: (1) spawning,
ichthyoplankton, and juvenile spatial and temporal distributions during
1974 and/or 1975; (2) coastal movements of juveniles and adults; (3)
past and present fisheries, if any; and (4) trophic relationships among
members of each species and other populations of the Hudson River aquatic
community. The life histories are confined to information related
specifically to the populations in the Hudson River. However, this
information is sometimes supplemented by data reported for other popu-
lations of the same species.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
INTRODUCTION 1
STRIPED BASS 2
Spawning 2
Eggs 2
Larvae 6
Juveniles 9
Adults 19
Fisheries - Past and Present 19
Trophic Relationships 20
WHITE PERCH 20
Spawning 20
Eggs 23
Larvae 23
Juveniles 23
Adults 30
Fisheries - Past and Present 30
Trophic Relationships 35
BLUEBACK HERRING AND ALEWIFE 35
Spawning 35
Eggs 36
Larvae 36
Juveniles 43
Adults 49
Fisheries - Past and Present 49
Trophic Relationships 49
AMERICAN SHAD 49
Spawning 50
Eggs 50
Larvae 50
Juveniles 55
Adults 58
Fisheries - Past and Present 58
Trophic Relationships 60
ATLANTIC TOMCOD 60
Spawning 62
Eggs 62
Larvae 62
Juveniles 67
Adults 69
Fisheries - Past and Present 74
Trophic Relationships 74
111
-------
Page
BAY ANCHOVY 7\
Spawning ;~
Eggs 76
Larvae '°
Juveniles °1
Adults 85
Fisheries - Past and Present %5
Trophic Relationships 85
REFERENCES CITED.
86
tv
-------
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this exhibit is to present the biological basis for
subsequent analyses of power plant impacts on selected Hudson River fish
species. The life histories included here are confined to information
related specifically to the populations in the Hudson River. However,
this Information sometimes is supplemented by data reported for other
populations of the same species.
The fish populations inhabiting the Hudson River discussed in this
exhibit are striped bass, white perch, blueback herring, alewife,
American shad, Atlantic tomcod, and bay anchovy. For each population,
the discussion includes: (1) spawning, ichthyoplankton, and juvenile
spatial and temporal distributions during 1974 and/or 1975; (2) coastal
movements of juveniles and adults; (3) past and present fisheries, if
any; and (4) trophic relationships among members of each population and
other populations of the Hudson River aquatic community.
The spatial and temporal distributions of each population were
derived from data collected during the Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) Long
River, beach seine, and fall shoals sampling programs. The spatial ~\
distributions of each life stage of each population represent the pro-
portions of the average wee kjy_jjtandjng Lcrop of thatjjfe^ta^epresent
in each region of the estuary during a given year. [ITfe~7tag|^syanqj^g
were derived by multiplying the average regional Iden si tjeT~oT°each
"
life stage during each sample week by the total regionTTwater "volume
(for Long River Survey data), the shorezone water volume (for beach
seine data)Y(op the jshoal _ water volume (for fall shoals survey data).
(jj^ average re"gT^hTI"dinsTty7 of each life stage of each fish population,
as w₯TT~as~waTeF"vbl'umes" for the depth strata of each region, were
provided to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the utilities
(Marcellus 1977a, 1978a, 1978b, 1978d, 1979a).
The temporal distributions of each life stage of each species are
based on the proportion of the sum of the estimated weekly standing
crops of that life stage present in the estuary during a specified week.,
The temporal distributions of life stages for which data are available
that (relate life stage duration to water temperatures are adjusted~"to^
account for the possibility that capture depends on the length of time a
member of a given life stage is present in the water body. This adjust-
ment is accomplished by dividing the proportion of the total estimated
standing crop present during a specified week by the duration of that
life stage, based on the average river temperature recorded for that
week. The resultant proportions are then normalized to unity. Weekly
average water temperatures are based on measurements at the City of
Poughkeepsie Water Works, which were supplied to EPA by the utilities
(Marcellus 1978c).
-------
STRIPED BASS
Goodyear (1978) reported that the striped bass (Morone saxatilis)
is perhaps the most sought after and most studied jsport fish taken by
the small boat livery and trailer fisheries on the/ Atlantic coast. The
1965 Salt-Water Angling Survey (Deuel and Clark 1968) revealed sport
fishermen landed an estimated 57 million pounds of striped bass along-
the Atlantic coast that year; Koo (Table 2, 1970) indicated another 8
million pounds were landed in 1965 by commercial fishermen along the
Atlantic coast. In 1970, sport fishermen along the Atlantic coast
landed an estimated 73 million pounds (Deuel 1973) and commercial fish- '
ermen accounted for an additional 11 million pounds (Westin and Rogers
1978). Thus, within five years (1965-1970) landings of striped bass
increased approximately 1.3 times along the Atlantic coast. This value
to sport and commercial fishing, as well as its vulnerability to power
plant impacts, has caused the striped bass to be a principal concern in
this case.
SPAWNING
Striped bass spawn in the Hudson River from early May through June.
Peak spawning activity occurs in mid-May (p. 6.6, Exhibit UT-4). Based
on 1974 and 1975 TI Long River Survey collections of striped bass eggs
(figures 1 and 2), spawning activity was concentrated between the
Croton-Haverstraw and West Point regions (RM 34-55).
Fecundity of Hudson River striped bass ranges from approximately
400,000 to 2,600,000 ova per female (Table 2-VIII-l, Exhibit UT-3). A
few female striped bass are mature at age 3; all are mature by age
9 (Table 2-VIII-l, Exhibit UT-3). However, determination of the overall
age composition of the spawning stock in the Hudson is hampered by the
size selectivity of gill nets for smaller striped bass (p. 2-VII-9, --
Exhibit UT-3).
EGGS
The spatial distribution of striped bass eggs within the Hudson
River during 1974 and 1975 are shown in figures 1 and 2. The peak
estimated weekly standing crop occurred in the West Point region (RM 47-
55) during both years. The overall distribution of eggs was slightly"!,
more downriver in 1975 than in 1974.
Documented durations of the incubation period of striped bass eggs
at different water temperatures are listed in Table 1. Based on these
data, egg incubation periods range from 48-72 hours. Rogers et al.
(1977) developed a regression equation for calculating the duration of
the egg Incubation period based on water temperature. Their equation
was as follows:
-------
48
20
0
40
i-
"7 Oft
in 20
UJ
U
tt 0
LJ
^40
20
0
40
*HO
20
0
"
-
-
YK
i 1
Bo
TZ
I
[
P
n
ul
f
\
Ch
!no
1
n
ine
P
i
i
ion
^-\
\
WP
Pt
JUVENILES
n _n , ,
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
1 1
YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
i 1 1 i
Rose ton '
i
CU PK HP KG SG CK AL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 1. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of
early life stages of striped bass during 1974, based on TI
Long River Survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b).
-------
48
28
1
48
7 20
Z Co
LJ
0 Q
a «
LJ
°- 48
28
40
28
-
-
-
-
YK
I '
Bo
TZ
I
_
r
r
u!
i
Ch
!nc
|
ine
P
an
UP
Pt
niv/rwTi re
OUVLJNiLt.o
1 , . .
DOCT vni ^CAO i ADV/AC
rUbl TULI\oAL LAKVAt
*^^^
YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
i
Rose ton
CU PK HP KG SG CK AL
8 18 20 30 48 58 68 70 88 98 188 118 128 130 140 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 2. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of
early life stages of striped bass during 1975, based on TI
Long River Survey data supplied to EPA (Marcel!us 1977b).
-------
Documented Durations of Early Life Stages of Striped Bass
Temperature(°C)
Duration
Source
16.7-17.2
17.9
14-18
16-20
18.3
16.6
-
irva 12
15
18
21
24
-
-
-
-
;ac larva 15
18
21
24
-
-
-
le juvenile
-
48 hr
48 hr
48-70 hr
40-58 hr
48 hr
56 hr
48 hr
9 days
8.3 days
7.75 days
5.1 days
3.8 days
4-6 days
12 days
4-10 days
6 days
67.66 days
33 days
23.9 days
22.66 days
20 days
20-30 days
22 days
30 days
20-30 days
Mansueti 1958
Pearson 1938
Rogers et al . 1977
H
p. 7.45, Exhibit UT-4
n
NRC 1975
Rogers et al . 1977
n
n
n
n
p. 8.3, Exhibit UT-4
p. 12.6, Exhibit UT-4
Hardy 1978
NRC 1975
Rogers et al . 1977
ii
M
n
p. 12.6, Exhibit UT-4
p. 8.3, Exhibit UT-4
NRC 1975
p. 12.6, Exhibit UT-4
p. 8.3, Exhibit UT-4
-------
duration(hr) = 258.5e'0'09341(°C) (1)
The regression of the linear form of this model has an revalue of 0.93
(n=42).
Equation 1 was used to estimate the average durations of the
striped bass egg incubation periods during 1974 and 1975 in the Hudson
River, as well as to adjust the 1974 and 1975 temporal distributions to
account for the relationship between the duration of the life stage and
the probability of capture of the life stage in the weekly sampling.
Table 2 lists the temporal distributions of egg standing crops based on
data collected during the TI Long River surveys, the average weekly
water temperatures recorded at Poughkeepsie, the associated egg incubation
periods based on equation 1, and the resultant adjusted temporal distri-
butions of egg standing crops. The average incubation periods, derived7
by weighting the durations by the adjusted standing crop proportions
they represent, were 2.5 days and 2 days for 1974 and 1975, respectively.
LARVAE
Figures 1 and 2 show that the average weekly standing crops of
yolksac and post yolksac larvae were more upriver in 1974 than in 1975.
The peak average weekly standing crop of yolksac larvae occurred in the
Poughkeepsie region (RM 62-76) in 1974 and the West Point region (RM 47-
55) in 1975. The peak average weekly standing crop of post yolksac
larvae occurred in the Indian Point region (RM 39-46) in both 1974 and
1975. However, regions upriver from Indian Point contained higher
proportions of the average weekly river-wide standing crop in 1974 than
in 1975. A higher freshwater discharge during June, 1975 (Table 2.2-1,
Exhibit UT-4), which coincides with the period of egg and larval occurrence
in field collections, may have caused the concentrations of these life
stages further downriver during that year.
Documented durations of the yolksac larval stage of striped bass in
relation to water temperature are listed in Table 1. Based on these__
data yolksac larva life stage durations range from 4 to^T2~tteys-r^^^'"^
Durations of the yolksac larval life stage in the Hudson River during
1974 and 1975 and temporal distribution among sample weeks can be de-
rived by the same method used to determine the egg incubation periods
and temporal distributions for those years. Based on data presented by
Rogers et al. (1977), the following regression equation was developed:--""^
duration (days) = 24.34e'°'0737(°C) (2)
o
The r -value of the linearized form of this equation is 0.85 (n=5).
Applying the same method used for derivation of the average striped
bass egg incubation periods to derive the average durations of the
yolksac larval life stage results in average durations of approximately
7 and 5.5 days for 1974 and 1975, respectively (Table 3). Table 3 also
lists the temporal distributions of yolksac larvae standing crops
during 1974 and 1975, adjusted for weekly water temperatures.
-------
Table 2. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages of Striped
Bass Egg Standing Crops during 1974 and 1975, Adjusted for Weekly
Water Temperatures
Year
1974
1975
4/29
5/6
5/13
5/20
5/27
6/3
6/10
6/17
6/24
5/11
5/18
5/25
6/1
6/8
6/15
6/22
Week
- 5/5
- 5/12
- 5/19
- 5/26
- 6/2
- 6/9
- 6/16
- 6/23
- 6/30
- 5/17
- 5/24
- 5/31
- 6/7
- 6/14
- 6/21
- 6/28
Proportion8
0.30
13.75
45.25
35.04
4.76
0.38
0.31
0.20
0.10
4.61
55.35
35.42
3.55
0.06
0.40
0.61
Ave. Temp.
(°C)
12.8
13.5
13.9
15.8
16.8
16.9
18.8
20.5
20.5
13.5
16.6
19.4
20.8
20.5
20.6
22.4
Duration1"
(hr)
78.2
73.3
70.6
59.1
57.5
53.3
44.7
38.1
38.1
73.2
54.8
42.2
37.0
38.1
37.7
31.9
Adjusted
proportion
0.25
12.26
41.89
38.75
5.41
0.47
0.46
0.34
0.17
3.09
49.52
41.15
4.70
0.08
0.52
0.94
?based on TI Long River surveys (Marcellus 1977b)
°from Poughkeepsie Water Works (Marcel!us 1978c)
based on equation 1 in text
-------
Table 3. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Striped
Bass Yolksac Larvae Standing Crops during 1974 and 1975, Adjusted
for Weekly Water Temperatures
Year
1974
1975
5/6 -
5/13
5/20
5/27
6/3
6/10
6/17
6/24
7/1
5/11
5/18
5/25
6/1
6/8
6/15
6/22
Week
5/12
- 5/19
- 5/26
- 6/2
- 6/9
- 6/16
- 6/23
- 6/30
- 7/7
- 5/17
- 5/24
- 5/31
- 6/7
- 6/14
- 6/21
- 6/28
Proportion3
1.44
0.83
15.33
43.27
18.35
18.49
1.99
0.28
0.01
0.05
4.44
52.21
42.20
0.88
0.14
0.07
Ave. Temp.
C°C)
13.5
13.9
15.8
16.8
16.9
18.8
20.5
20.5
21.4
13.5
16.6
19.4
20.8
20.5
20.6
22.4
Duration0
(days)
9.0
8.7
7.6
7.1
7.0
6.1
5.4
5.4
5.0
9.0
7.2
5.8
5.3
5.4
5.3
4.7
Adjusted
proportion
1.11
0.66
13.97
42.20
18.15
20.99
2.55
0.36
0.01
0.03
3.47
50.60
44.76
0.92
0.15
0.08
?based on TI Long River surveys (Marcel 1 us 1977b)
from Poughkeepsie Water Works (Marcellus 1978c)
cbased on equation 2 in text
8
-------
Documented durations of the post yolksac larval Hfe stages are
listed in Table 1. Rogers et al. C197/1 presented data from which a
regression equation for t&e duration of the post yolksac larval life
stage versus water temperature (can be developed.) Their equation is as
follows: n i9mr°M
duration Cdays 1 = 345. 2e"u' uu'l Ll (J31
2
The linearized form of this equation has an r -value of 0.86 (n=4).
Using the same method applied to eggs and yolksac larvae, the
average life stage durations for the post yolksac larvae of striped bass
during 1974 and 1975 are approximately 33 days and 28 days, respectively
(Table 4). Table 4 lists the temporal distributions of post yolksac
larvae standing crops during 1974 and 1975, adjusted for weekly water /
temperatures. Since the fish are actively seeking food by this stage,
duration of the post yolksac larval life stage is influenced by more
than water temperature. Life stage durations based solelyjCMLstudies
conducted under controlled laboratory cond1tions/"afe~probably not truly
representative of the actual situation 1n the Hudson River, which could
generally be expected to be somewhat longer because of increased activity
due to predator avoidance and searching for food.
An alternative approach to derivation of the life stage durations
of striped bass post yolksac larvae during 1974 and 1975 is examination
of the temporal distributions of this and the following life stage
(juveniles) in field collections. The life stage duration of post
yolksac larvae is approximately equal to the time period between peak
weekly standing crops of post yolksac larvae and juveniles or the time
period between the first appearance of post yolksac larvae and the first
appearance of juveniles in field samples. These approaches to estimating
life stage durations are influenced by differential recruitment to the
life stages as well as differential mortality of cohorts within each
life stage.
The difference between the estimated peak weekly standing crops of
post yolksac larvae and juveniles was five weeks in 1974 (which corre-
sponds closely to the 33 day duration estimated using equation 3), and
six to seven weeks in 1975 (which is greater than the 28 days estimated
by using equation 3). The periods between the first appearance of
striped bass post yolksac larvae and juveniles in field collections were
four weeks in 1974 and five weeks in 1975. Combining the information
derived from the temporal distribution and laboratory temperature study
approaches, a four week duration for post yolksac larvae during 1974 and
1975 is a minimum value for the Hudson River striped bass population.
JUVENILES
Juveniles are defined as the life stage of striped bass (and all
other populations discussed in this testimony) following post yolksac
larvae. For discussion, juvenile life stage of striped bass is divided
-------
into two categories: early juveniles (through mid-August) and fall
juveniles (mid-August through December). The basis of the mid-August
cut-off is a change in sampling programs by TI at this time during both
1974 and 1975; the Long River Survey was completed and the fall shoals
survey was initiated.
Early juveniles
In figures 3 and 4, the average weekly distributions of early
juveniles, based on the 1974 and 1975 TI Long River surveys, are compared
to the average weekly distributions of early juveniles based on the 1974
and 1975 TI beachseine surveys (before mid-August). The distributions
based on the beach seine surveys represent the standing crops of juveniles
in the shorezone (<10 ft in depth) only. The beach seine data reflect a ,
higher abundance of juveniles further upriver during 1974 and 1975 than
the Long River Survey data. This may have resulted from movement of
early juvenile striped bass out of the depth strata sampled by the Long
River Survey (> 10 ft in depth) and into the shorezone, or from avoidance
of Long River Survey gear by larger fish. Both surveys indicate juveniles
were more dispersed in the estuary than earlier life stages. This
apparent dispersion could have been caused by movement and/or differential
spatial mortality. V
Juvenile striped bass first appeared in field samples during mid----
June of both 1974 and 1975 (Table 5). Peak abundance of this life stage »
occurred in mid-July during both years, according to the Long River
Survey data, and late-July to early-August, according to the beach seine
data. No data are available to relate growth in the early juvenile life-
stage to water temperatures in the Hudson River. Length data collected
by the TI beach seine, bottom trawl, and fall shoals surveys during 1974
and 1975 are presented in tables 6 and 7. These data indicate that
juvenile striped bass in the Hudson River began to attain a length of 50
mm (considered maximum entrainable size in this testimony) by mid-July.
The minimum recorded lengths began to surpass 50 mm by late September in
1974 and by late August in 1975. Since post yolksac larvae disappeared
from field collections during late July in 1974 and 1975 (Table 4), a
life stage duration of four to six weeks for entrainable juveniles is
probably appropriate for 1974. Four weeks is a minimum value for 1975.
Fall juveniles
Figures 5 and 6 show the distributions of fall juvenile striped
bass in the Hudson River during 1974 and 1975, respectively. These
distributions are based on the TI beach seine (after mid-August) and
fall shoals surveys. The fall shoals survey distributions represent
standing crops estimated only for the shoal habitat (<20 ft in depth,
Tr. 6853-6854) of the Hudson River. Figures 5 and 6 indicate a distinct
downriver shift 1n the distribution of fall juveniles as compared to
earlier life stages. However, the observation by TI of bi-directional
movement of fin-clipped striped bass released during the fall contradicts
the hypothesis of continuous downriver displacement of the entire juvenile
population during fall and early winter (p. V-84, Volume I, TI 1977).
11
-------
Table 4. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Striped
Bass Post Yolksac Larvae Standing Crops during 1974 and 1975
Adjusted for Weekly Water Temperatures
Year
1974 5/13
5/20
5/27
6/3
6/10
6/17
6/24
7/1
7/8
7/15
7/22
1975 5/18
5/25
6/1
6/14
/15
6/29
7/6
7/13
7/20
Week
- 5/19
- 5/26
- 6/2
- 6/9
- 6/16
- 6/23
- 6/30
- 7/7
- 7/14
- 7/21
- 7/28
- 5/24
- 5/31
- 6/7
- 6/21
- 6/28
- 7/5
- 7/12
- 7/19
- 7/26
Proportion3
0.01
0.12
6.00
10.04
29.63
36.71
12.94
2.44
1.19
0.86
0.05
0.01
1.30
50.75
40.59
3.06
2.26
1.01
0.11
0.01
Ave. Temp.
(°C)
13.9
15.8
16.8
16.9
18.8
20.5
20.5
21.4
22.3
23.9
23.6
16.6
19.4
20.8
20.5
20.6
22.4
24.5
25.3
25.5
Duration0
(days)
65.0
51.8
45.9
45.4
36.1
29.4
29.4
26.4
23.7
19.6
20.3
47.0
33.6
28.4
29.4
29.1
23.4
18.2
16.5
16.1
Adjusted
proportion
0.01
0.08
4.28
7.24
26.89
40.89
14.42
3.03
1.64
1.44
0.08
0.01
1.10
50.86
39.30
2.99
2.75
1.58
0.19
0.02
.based on TI Long River surveys (Marcel!us 1977b)
°from Poughkeepsie Water Works (Marcellus 1978c)
based on equation 3 in text
10
-------
40
20
u
o
a.
u
d
8
40
20
0
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
LONG RIVER SURVEY
J b
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
i
Ch
IP
WP
cy
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 78 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 3. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of
early juvenile striped bass during 1974, based on TI Long
River and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcel!us 1977b)
12
-------
w
40
28
z 8
-
u
0
a
°- 68
48
28
0
-
-
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
n
i , . ,
LONG RIVER SURVEY
i i i i
Bow ne Rose ton
i t
YK
TZ
*
IP WP CU PK HP KG SG CK AL
Ind an Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 4. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile striped bass during 1975, based on TI Long River
and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b).
13
-------
Table 5. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Striped
Bass Juvenile Standing Crops during 1974 and 1975, Based on the
TI Long River Surveys
Year Week Proportion
1974 6/10
6/17
6/24
7/1
7/8
7/15
7/22
7/29
8/5
8/12
1975 6/22
6/29
7/6
7/13
7/20
7/27
8/3
8/10
- 6/16
- 6/23
- 6/30
- 7/7
- 7/14
- 7/21
- 7/28
- 8/4
- 8/11
- 8/18
- 6/28
- 7/5
- 7/12
- 7/19
- 7/26
- 8/2
- 8/9
- 8/16
0.19
0.20
0
3.63
15.62
20.69
25.40
17.25
7.27
9.76
1.78
9.68
18.72
21.13
21.98
17. 5g
u
9.13
a
jMarcellus (1977b)
no sampling conducted
14
-------
Table 6. Average Lengths and Size Ranges Recorded for Juvenile Striped
Bass Sampled in the Hudson River by TI during 1974
Week
6/23 -
6/30 -
7/7 -
7/14 -
7/21 -
7/28 -
8/4 -
8/11 -
8/18 -
8/25 -
9/1 -
9/8 -
9/15 -
9/22 -
9/29 -
10/6 -
6/29
7/6
7/13
7/20
7/27
8/3
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/7
9/14
9/21
9/28
10/5
10/12
Average length (mm)
24
28
33
41
34
51
59
63
68
57
80
78
82
85
86
98
Range (mm)
18 -
21 -
22 -
28 -
20 -
23 -
24 -
44 .
41 -
34 -
32 -
31 -
47 -
57 -
54 -
49 -
30
35
45
63
70
75
75
85
118
119
120
119
129
130
130
130
abased on Tables A-85 to A-88 in TI (1977) averaged for all gear each week
15
-------
Table 7. Average Lengths and Size Ranges Recorded for Juvenile Striped Bass
Sampled in the Hudson River by TI during 1975
Week Average length (nm) Range (mm)
6/15 -
6/22 -
6/29 -
7/6 -
7/13 -
7/20 -
7/27 -
8/3 -
8/10 -
8/17 -
8/24 -
8/31 -
9/7 -
9/14 -
9/21 -
9/28 -
10/5 -
6/21
6/28
7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2
8/9
8/16
8/23
8/30
9/6
9/13
9/20
9/27
10/4
10/11
20
26
32
44
44
55
60
67
71
76
81
83
85
88
90
92
95
13
14
19
25
17
28
29
27
32
44
48
53
21
53
28
7
37
- 25
- 28
- 52
- 63
- 74
- 86
- 83
- 90
- 101
- no
- no
- 127
- 120
- 130
- 128
- 133
- 148
lbased on Table B-71 in TI (1978) averaged for all gear each week
16
-------
48
28
u
o
tt
u
fl.
0
48
28
8
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
FALL SHOALS
NS NS NS NS NS
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
CH
IP
i
WP
cu
1
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
8 18 28 30 48 58 60 70 88 98 180 118 128 130 140 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 5. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
Juvenile striped bass during 1974, based on TI fall shoals data
(Table A-3, Volume II, TI 1977) and beach seine data supplied
to EPA (Marcel1 us 1977b).
17
-------
48
28
£ 8
y
o
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
DU
48
28
-
FALL SHOALS
NS NS NS NS NS
Boul ine Reset on
i t
YK
TZ
i
Ch
i
P UP CU PK HP KG SG CK AL
i
Indian Pt
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 188 118 128 138 148 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 6. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile striped bass during 1975, based on TI fall shoals data
(Table B-23, TI 1978) and beach seine survey data supplied to
EPA (Marcel!us 1977b).
18
-------
Mark-recapture data suggest that yearlings present in the lower
bays in the Hudson River vicinity do not move back into the river but
remain in the lower bays or continue emigration to the marine environment
(p. 7.119, Exhibit UT-4). Some members of the juvenile population that ~>
do remain in the lower river to overwinter may actually move back upriver
to the Indian Point region (RM 39-46) by the following spring (p. V-84,
Volume I, TI 1977).
ADULTS
Coastal movement of striped bass tagged in the Hudson River and its
vicinity is quite extensive. Adult striped bass released by TI in
Manhassett and Little Neck bays (western Long Island Sound) were captured
by sport fishermen as far away as Chincoteague, Virginia, and Falmouth,
Maine (p. IV-24, Volume III, TI 1977). Adult striped bass tagged by TI
in the Hudson River during 1976 were recaptured from Chatham, Massachusetts,
to Cape May, New Jersey (Marcellus 1977a). Alperin (1966) tagged over
1,900 predominately two and three year old striped bass in Great South
Bay, Long Island. Of the total number recaptured (281), 11 percent were
recaptured in New England waters (Connecticut to Maine); 26 percent were
recaptured in waters south of New York (New Jersey to Virginia). The ^ ,
remaining recaptures were in the Hudson River and Long Island waters.
Tagging studies reported by Clark (1968) support the extensive movement
patterns shown by Alperin (1966) and TI (1977).
FISHERIES - PAST AND PRESENT
.Reported commercial landings of striped bass in the Hudson River
during 1931-1975 ranged from 4,500 Ib to 133,100 Ib (Table 7.2-1,
Exhibit UT-4). A peak in landings was reached in the 1940's coinciding
with the large number of gill nets licensed during World War II (p. IV-
12, Volume I, TI 1977). The largest peak, however, occurred during the
late 1950's subsequent to a change from linen to more efficient nylon
gill nets (Klauda et al. 1976). The accuracy of these data in reflecting
actual landings is unknown. Due to PCB contamination the commercial
fishery for striped bass in the Hudson River has been closed since 1976.
The sport fishery for Hudson River striped bass is of undetermined
size, but it appears presently to be much larger than the commercial
fishery. Based on recapture data pertaining to striped bass tagged in
the Hudson River during 1972-1974 (Table 7.8-10, Exhibit UT-4), the
ratio of tags returned by sport fishermen to tags returned by commercial
fishermen was 7.3:1. Of the 34 tags returned by sport fishermen, 10
were recaptured in the Hudson River, as far as 320 miles from the tagging
site. Of the 146 tags returned by fishermen who caught striped bass
tagged in the Hudson River during 1976 (Marcellus 1977a), 84 percent
were returned by sport fishermen and the remaining 16 percent by commercial
fishermen for a ratio of 5.3:1. Despite PCB contamination, sport fishing
for striped bass in the Hudson River is not restricted.
19
-------
TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
Food preference studies conducted by TI during 1972-1974 (p. V-16,
TI 1976b) indicate that during the first year of life striped bass fed
primarily on harpacticoid, calanoid, and cyclopoid copepods; Gammarus spp.;
and chironomid larvae. As striped bass increased in total length, they
progressed from copepods to chironomid larvae to Gammarus spp. to fish.
Striped bass greater than 75 mm fed on bay anchovies. Those greater
than 116 mm fed on clupeids, Atlantic tomcod, mummichogs, Morone spp.
and banded killifish. l(
Studies conducted by Lawler^Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, Inc.
(IMS 1975) indicated that (ijmaljer)striped bass selected amphipods
during summer and fall, ancTcopepods during late fall and spring.
Larger juvenile striped bass also selected copepods during the winter
and spring, while tomcod and clupeids comprised a large part of their
diet in summer and fall. Dew and Hecht (1976) stated it is possible -
that tomcod are "a critical link in the food chain necessary to perpetuate !
a viable stock of Hudson River striped bass."
Reported predators upon striped bass in the Hudson River are
bluefish (TI 1976a), older striped bass, white perch, and tomcod (Table
10.1, Exhibit UT-4). Predation on striped bass by American eels has
also been suggested (Tr. 4109-4110).
WHITE PERCH
The white perch (Morone americana) is distributed along the Atlantic
coast from Nova Scotia to South Carolina (Woolcott 1955). It is one of
the more commoji_t,eleost food fishes in estuarine waters along the Atlantic
coast and, (^hereve^) the white perch is found, it has brought about an
intensive spoftTTTshery (Mansueti 1961).
\ , r _;."/ ,. - '_. ; ,
^-_^" ' /:V '*" ^ ' ~ "* D ^ ~f ^ ' ''"'"?
SPAWNING
The spawning season for the Hudson River population of white perch
lasts from April to July (p. 5.15, Exhibit UT-4; Tr. 10816). Based on
TI Long River Survey collections of white perch eggs during 1974 (Figure
7), the peak spawning activity for that year was concentrated in the
Croton-Haverstraw region (RM 34-38), although eggs were found in all
river regions except Yonkers (RM 14-23). In 1975, spawning activity was
less concentrated in any single region (Figure 8); peak egg collections
occurred in the Tappan Zee (RM 24-33), Poughkeepsie (RM 62-76), and
Catskill (RM 107-124) regions.
Sexual maturation begins for both sexes at two years of age. All
males and females are mature by three and four years of age, respectively
(p. 5.15, Exhibit UT-4). Fecundity of Hudson River white perch ranges
from 10,000 to 70,000 ova per female (p. 5.17, Exhibit UT-4). Fecun-
dities of over 200,000 ova per female have been reported for other
populations (Sheri and Power 1968; Taub 1969).
20
-------
40
20
0
40
Z20
Id
0
&
y
40
20
0
40
20
0
JUVENILES
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
i
Ch
IP
1
yp
cw
i
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 58 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 7. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
Hfe stages of white perch during 1974, based on TI Long River
Survey data supplied to EPA (Mareel!us 1977b).
21
-------
40
28
0
40
Z 20
y
o
QL
id
o.
0
40
20
0
40
20
0
JUVENILES
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
Cl-
IP
i
UP
cw
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pi
0 10 20 30 40 53 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 8. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
life stages of white perch during 1975, based on TI Long River
Survey data supplied to EPA (Marcel!us 1977b).
22
-------
EGGS
Spatial distributions of white perch eggs^in the Hudson River
during 1974 and 1975 are shown in figures 7 and 8. As previously
mentioned, egg deposition appears to have been more widespread in 1975.
Documented egg incubation periods for white perch are listed in
Table 8. The average incubation period for white perch eggs in the
Hudson River, as well as the temporal distribution of egg standing crops
adjusted for weekly water temperatures, were derived by the same method
used for striped bass (Table 9). The resultant average egg incubation
periods are approximately 2 days for 1974 and 1.5 days for 1975.
LARVAE
Both the yolksac and post yolksac larval stages of white perch were
somewhat evenly distributed from the Tappan Zee through Catskill regions
(RM 24-124) during both 1974 and 1975 (figures 7 and 8). The highest
average weekly standing crop of yolksac larvae occurred in the Tappan
Zee region both years. Post yolksac larvae peak standing crops were
evenly spread among regions bounded by Indian Point and Kingston (RM 39-
93) in 1974 and Indian Point and Saugerties (RM 39-106) in 1975.
Durations of the yolksac larval life stage of white perch obtained
from the literature are listed in Table 8. No life stage durations for
white perch post yolksac larvae were found in the literature. Temporal
distributions of post yolksac larvae and early juvenile white perch
collected in the TI Long River surveys (tables 10 and 11) indicate the
time period between the estimated peak weekly standing crop of these
life stages was seven weeks in 1974 and ten weeks in 1975.
JUVENILES
For purposes of this discussion, juvenile white perch are divided
into two categories: early juveniles (prior to mid-August) and fall
juveniles (mid-August through December). As explained earlier, the mid-
August cut-off is based on a change in TI sampling programs at that
time.
Early juveniles
Juvenile white perch collected in the 1974 and 1975 TI Long River
surveys exhibited almost bell-shaped distributions within the Hudson
River estuary (figures 7 and 8). In 1974, the estimated peak average
weekly standing crop was in the Saugerties region (RM 94-106), while in
1975 the Hyde Park region (RM 77-85) had the highest estimated average
weekly standing crop.
The 1974 and 1975 distributions of early juvenile white perch based
on TI Long River Survey data are compared to distributions of this life
stage based on TI beach seine data (before mid-August) in figures 9 and
10. The distributions based on beach seine data represent estimated
23
-------
Table 8. Documented Durations of Early Life Stages of White Perch
Life stage
Temperature (°C)
Duration
Source(s)
Egg
8.9-20
10.6-11.7
11.1
11.1-21.7
14.4
15.6
17.2
18.3
20.0
21.2-25.0
Yolksac larva
51-58 hr Taub 1966
6 days AuClair 1956
Ryder 1887
Tracy 1910
6 days Conover 1958
Raney 1959
70-73 hr Taub 1966
3-4.5 days AuClair 1956
Foster 1919
Nichols and Breder 1927
Richards 1960
Thoits and Mull an 1958
24-30 hr AuClair 1956
Lagler 1961
48-52 hr Richards 1960
Titcomb 1910
72 hr Schwartz 1960
48 hr Raney 1965
44-50 hr Raney 1965
30 hr Richards 1960
Thoits and Mullan 1958
34-42 hr Taub 1966
4 days Hildebrand and
Schroeder 1958
13 days Mansueti and
Mansueti 1955
3-5 days p. 5.17, Exhibit UT-4
24
-------
Table 9. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of
White Perch Egg Standing Crops during 1974 and 1975 Adjusted for
Weekly Water Temperatures
Year Week
1974 5/6 - 5/12
5/13 - 5/19
5/20 - 5/26
5/27 - 6/2
6/3 - 6/9
6/10 - 6/16
6/17 - 6/23
6/24 - 6/30
7/1 - 7/5
1975 5/4 - 5/10
5/11 - 5/17
5/18 - 5/24
5/25 - 5/31
6/1 - 6/7
6/8 - 6/14
6/15 - 6/21
6/22 - 6/28
6/29 - 7/5
Proportion8
0.02
5.92
22.21
8.65
33.09
28.72
0.72
0.62
0.05
0.44
6.99
19.09
56.20
8.38
1.46
6.74
0.67
0.03
Ave. Temp.
C°C)
13.5
13.9
15.8
16.8
16.9
18.8
20.5
20.5
21.4
10.6
13.5
16.6
19.4
20.8
20.5
20.6
22.4
23.1
Duration0
(days)
3
3
3
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
6
3
' 2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Adjusted
proportion
0.01
4.33
16.26
9.50
36.33
31.53
1.06
0.91
0.07
0.12
3.82
15.67
61.49
9.17
1.60
7.37
0.73
0.03
?based on TI Long River surveys (Mareel 1 us 1977b)
°from Poughkeepsie Water Works (Marcel!us 1978c)
Poughkeepsi
based on Table 8
25
-------
Table 10. Temporal Distributions Expressed as Percentages, of
Early Life Stages of White perch Sampled by the
TI Long River Survey during 1974s
5/6 -
5/13 -
5/20 -
5/27 -
6/3 -
6/10 -
6/17 -
6/24 -
7/1 -
7/8 -
7/15 -
7/22 -
7/29 -
8/5 -
8/12 -
5/12
5/19
5/26
6/2
6/9
6/16
6/23
6/30
7/7
7/14
7/21
7/28
8/4
8/11
8/18
Yolksac
larvae
1.38
4.47
45.49
21.59
8.90
15.50
1.42
0.62
0.61
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post yolksac
larvae
0
0.18
2.49
7.26
9.63
33.51
28.33
12.58
2.30
2.19
0.68
0.69
0.13
0.02
0
Early
juveniles
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.15
0.33
5.17
3.83
5.89
11.55
47.01
8.59
17.17
a
Marcel!us (1977b)
26
-------
Table 11. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Early
Life Stages of White Perch Sampled by the TI Long River Survey
during 1975a
Week
5/4 -
5/11 -
5/18 -
5/25 -
6/1 -
6/8 -
6/15 -
6/22 -
6/29 -
7/6 -
7/13 -
7/20 -
7/27 -
8/3 -
8/10 -
5/10
5/17
5/24
5/31
6/7
6/14
6/21
6/28
7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2b
8/9D
8/16
Yolksac
larvae
0.01
1.62
43.57
37.86
6.71
4.39
3.70
2.12
0.01
0
0
0
°b
u
0
Post yolksac
larvae
0
0
0.36
21.68
35.89
20.76
4.64
8.85
5.83
1.48
0.41
0.06
0.03
-
0
Early
juveniles
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
10.35
11.46
15.13
9.79
18.56
-
34.60
*Marcellus (1977b)
no sampling conducted
27
-------
40
0
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
u
o
Of.
u
60 r
40
20
LONG RIVER SURVEY
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
Ch
IP
UP
cw
1
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 9. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile white perch during 1974, based on TI Long River and
beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b).
28
-------
40
20
LI
u
E
y
60
40
20
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
LONG RIVER SURVEY
Bow!ine Roseton
YK
TZ
i
Ch
IP
UP
cw
1
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 10. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile white perch during 1975, based on TI Long River and
beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcel!us 1977b).
29
-------
standing crops for the shorezone (< 10 ft in depth) of each region. In
1974 distributions derived from the two survey programs were quite
similar. However, in 1975 the distribution derived from beach seine
data showed higher relative abundances of early juveniles both upriver
and downriver from the distribution based on Long River Survey data.
Movement of fish into the shorezone or avoidance of Long River Survey
sampling gear by larger fish may have caused the differences in the
observed distributions during 1975. These factors may also have occurred 1*
during 1974, however, their operation was not reflected in the 1974 data
base used in this analysis.
Length data collected on juvenile white perch during 1974 and 1975
are presented in tables 12 and 13. Average lengths surpassed 50 mm
(considered maximum entrainable size in this testimony) by early to mid-
August each year. The minimum recorded lengths remained below 50 mm
until late September in both 1974 and 1975. Since post yolksac larvae
disappeared from Long River Survey collections in early August each
year, the time period juveniles less than 50 mm were present in the
river was at least four weeks in 1974 and 1975.
Fall juveniles
The distributions of fall juvenile white perch, based on the TI
fall shoals (epibenthic sled) and beach seine surveys after mid-August
are shown in figures 11 and 12 for 1974 and 1975. The 1974 and 1975
distributions based on beach seine data indicated fall juvenile white
perch were abundant in regions (Hyde Park to Albany) not sampled by the
fall shoals surveys.
Fin-clipped juvenile white perch moved considerable distances in
both directions in the Hudson River from their point of release during
August-December 1974 (p. V-84, Volume I, TI 1977). Tagged juvenile
white perch apparently moved to deep water off Indian Point for overwintering
(p. V-88, Volume I, TI 1977).
ADULTS
Tagging studies conducted by TI from 1973 to 1975 indicated no
movement of white perch out of the Hudson River (Table A-101, Volume II,
TI 1977). Of the 349 tags recovered, 33 were returned by sports fish-
ermen, while 88 were recovered from white perch impinged at the Indian
Point, Lovett, Bowline, and Roseton power plants. These data indicate
that most, if not all, Hudson River white perch probably remain in the
river throughout their entire life cycle.
FISHERIES - PAST AND PRESENT
Reported commercial landings of white perch in the Hudson River
peaked during the mid-1930's to early 1940's and dwindled to almost non-
existance by the 19,70's (Table IV-2, TI 1977). This decline has been
30
-------
Table 12. Average Lengths and Size Ranges Recorded for Juvenile White
Perch Sampled in the Hudson River by TI during 1974a
Week
7/7 -
7/14 -
7/21 -
7/28 -
8/4 -
8/11 -
8/18 -
8/25 -
9/1 -
9/8 -
9/15 -
9/22 -
9/29 -
10/6 -
10/13 -
10/20 -
10/27 -
11/3 -
11/10 -
11/17 -
11/24 -
12/1 -
12/8 -
7/13
7/20
7/27
8/3
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/7
9/14
9/21
9/28
10/5
10/12
10/19
10/26
11/2
11/9
11/16
11/23
11/30
12/7
12/14
Average length (urn)
21
28
32
37
44
50
55
59
62
62
63
67
68
70
70
71
71
70
70
72
72
71
74
Range
13 -
20 -
20 -
22 -
19 -
24 -
29 -
25 -
36 -
32 -
42 -
37 -
43 -
51 -
46 -
43 -
44 -
45 -
47 -
48 -
43 -
47 -
46 -
(nm)
41
50
48
50
57
74
75
86
80
80
89
90
90
85
89
92
95
94
95
95
91
95
95
Abased on tables A-89 to A-92 in TI (1977) averaged for all gear each week
31
-------
verage Lengths and Size Ranges Recorded for Juvenile White
erch Sampled in the Hudson River by TI during 1975
»
-
-
-
-
-
-
> _
9 -
6 -
»
3 -
16 -
23 -
'30 -
n -
/14 -
/21
,/28
V5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2
8/9
8/16
8/23
8/30
9/6
9/13
9/20
9/27
10/4
10/11
10/18
10/25
11/1
11/8
11/15
11/22
11/29
12/6
12/13
12/20
Average length (mm)
16
22
24
31
35
39
44
53
58
60
68
72
71
72
74
75
75
77
80
78
74
75
76
74
81
74
74
Range
13 -
15 -
17 -
19 -
12 -
17 -
20 -
23 -
12 -
26 -
34 -
43 -
39 -
41 -
51 -
48 -
51 -
51 -
45 -
52 -
49 -
32 -
54 -
53 -
55 -
51 -
53 -
(mm
20
32
30
47
55
68
72
79
83
91
93
94
100
99
96
100
102
115
104
111
101
105
93
98
104
103
97
based on Table B-75 in TI (1978) averaged for all gear each week
32
-------
60
40
20
n
PERCETN
w CD
3 C3 G
HO
20
-
-
-
-
I
YK
Bo
TZ
I
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
I i i 1
FALL SHOALS
, NS NS NS NS NS
ul ine Reset on
i i
Ch IP UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
1
ndian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 11. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile white perch during 1974, based on TI fall shoals data
(Table A-15, Volume II, TI 1977) and beach seine survey data
supplied to EPA (Marcel 1 us 1977b).
33
-------
20
0
LJ
U
E
U
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
60
40
20
n
~
-
-
FALL SHOALS
__
DMC MC MC MC MC
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
Cl-
IP
1
UP
cw
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pi
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 12. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile white perch during 1975, based on TI fall shoals data
(Table B-24, TI 1978) and beach seine survey data supplied to
EPA (Marcel!us 1977b).
34
-------
attributed to a loss of interest by commercial fishermen in white perch
rather than a decline in the Hudson River population level (Tr. 6622-
6625). White perch landings from 1931 to 1944 also include yellow perch
landings, making these data unreliable (p. IV-12, Volume I, TI 1977).
The sport fishery for white perch in the Hudson River is still
viable, though unquantifiable, as evidenced by the number of tags placed
on Hudson River white perch that were returned by sport fishermen (Table
A-101, Volume II, TI 1977).
TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
Based on stomach analyses of the Hudson River white perch popu-
lation conducted by TI (TI 1976b), juvenile white perch initially preyed
on copepods and gradually changed to larger amphipods, isopods, and
chironomid larvae as their total lengths increased to approximately 100
mm. The importance of Gammarus spp. as a primary food item fluctuated
in response to its density in the river and the seasonal addition of new
food to the system. Gammarus spp., polychaetes, and calanoid copepods
were of major Importance to yearling white perch. LMS found that
oligochaetes comprised a large proportion of the diet of large white
perch (>170 mm) based on numbers and percent of total volume (p. 10.1-
88, Exhibit UT-6). Both TI and LMS found unidentifiable fish eggs made
up a large percentage of the spring diet in some years (p. V-27, TI
1976b; p. 10.1-88, Exhibit UT-6). Reported predators of white perch in
the Hudson River are bluefish (TI 1976a) and striped bass (TI 1976b).
BLUEBACK HERRING AND ALEWIFE
The blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) are members of the family Clupeidae, which also includes
the American shad. These species are difficult to separate due to their
similar external appearance (Leim and Scott 1966), especially in the
early life stages (Dovel 1971). This difficulty has caused TI to combine
early life stage collections of the two species and to assess their
distribution and vulnerability to power plants joint'Ly. (p. 6.47, Exhibit
UT-4). LMS chose not to distinguish American shad from these two species
at early life stages (p. 9.1-50, Exhibit UT-6).
Both species are anadromous, although landlocked populations of
alewives do exist 1n many lakes (Scott and Grossman 1973). The range of
the blueback herring is from Nova Scotia to St. John River, Florida
(Hildebrand 1963). The range of the alewife is farther north, from
Newfoundland (Winters et al. 1973) to South Carolina (Berry 1964).
SPAWNING
The alewife spawns earlier in the year than the blueback herring;
generally preceding the blueback herring by 3-4 weeks (Hildebrand and
Schroeder 1928). Alosa spp. eggs were collected in the TI Long River
35
-------
surveys from late April through mid-June during 1974 and 1975, with peak
egg collections occurring during late May each year. Based on these egg
collections, peak spawning activity occurred in the uppermost regions of
the estuary (figures 13 and 14), although Alosa spp. eggs were collected
throughout the river during both years. (Table III-3 , Boreman 1979)
Fecundities of alewives and blueback herring are similar. Each
female produces from 60,000 to over 100,000 eggs (Leim and Scott 1963).
Most male blueback herring spawn at three and four years of age. Most
females spawn at four years of age. Most male alewives spawn at four
years, and most females at five years (Marcy 1968).
EGGS
As previously mentioned, Alosa spp. eggs were collected by TI
between late April and mid-June during 1974 and 1975, with peak col-
lections in late May (Table 14). The occurrence of only a single peak
in the temporal distributions of egg standing crops during both years
indicated either substantial overlap in the spawning seasons of the two
species in the Hudson River or a much higher egg production by one of
the two species. The latter, more plausible explanation is favored by
the utilities' consultants (p. 6.47, Exhibit UT-4).
Based on the method used for determining the average egg incubation
period for striped bass in the Hudson River, the average incubation
period for Alosa spp. eggs during both 1974 and 1975 was approximately
four days (Table 14). The weekly egg incubation periods used in Table
14 were derived from documented relationships between the durations of
the egg life stages of alewives and blueback herring listed in Table 15.
Table 14 also lists the temporal distributions of Alosa spp. egg standing
crops during 1974 and 1975, adjusted for weekly water temperatures.
LARVAE
Alosa spp. yolksac larvae were collected by TI in all regions of
the river except Yonkers (RM 14-23) during both 1974 and 1975. The
estimated average weekly standing crop of yolksac larvae was highest in
the Saugerties through Albany regions (RM 94-140) each year (figures 13
and 14). Post yolksac larvae were collected in all regions of the
river, but their distributions in both 1974 and 1975 were more downriver
than the earlier life stages (figures 13 and 14).
Yolksac larvae were collected during May and June of 1974 (Table
16) and 1975 (Table 17). The week of the estimated peak standing crop
of yolksac larvae occurred simultaneously with the estimated peak
standing crop of eggs during both years. Documented yolksac larval life
stage durations range from 2-5 days for the two Alosa spp. (Table 14),
which explains the one-week difference in peak standing crops of yolksac
larvae and post yolksac larvae during both years.
Post yolksac larvae of Alosa spp. were collected from early May
36
-------
88
68
48
28
88
68
£48
y 28
o
tt 8
Uon
80
\JV
48
28
8
88
68
48
28
JJVFMTI FC
POST YOLKSAC
LARVAE
i i
i
YOLKSAC LARVAE
-
' EGGS
Bowl
YK
TZ
a-
ine
IP
i
Indian
Rose ton
UP
Pt
CU
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 180 118 128 130 140 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 13. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
life stages of Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewives) during
1974, based on TI Long River Survey data supplied to EPA
(Marcellus 1977b).
37
-------
0
id
Q.
48
28
8
48
8
48
28
8
48
28
8
JUVENILES
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
Bowline Roseion
YK
T7
o-
P
UP
cw
1
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 188 118 128 138 148 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 14. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
life stages of Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewives) during
1975, based on TI Long River Survey data supplied to EPA
(Marcel 1 us 1977b).
38
-------
Table 14. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages,
of Alosa spp. (Blueback Herring and Alewife) Egg Standing
Crops during 1974 and 1975 Adjusted for Weekly Water Temperatures
Year Week
1974 4/29
5/5
5/13
5/20
5/27
6/3
6/10
1975 4/21
4/28
5/4
5/11
5/18
5/25
6/1
6/8
6/15
- 5/5
- 5/12
- 5/19
- 5/26
- 6/2
- 6/9
- 6/16
- 4/27
- 5/3
- 5/10
- 5/17
- 5/24
- 5/31
- 6/7
- 6/14
- 6/21
Proportion3
0.64
1.64
7.34
82.13
2.38
5.72
0.15
0.30
0
15.42
20.32
42.87
20.78
0.17
0.01
0.13
Ave. Temp.
(°C)
12.8
13.5
13.9
15.8
16.8
16.9
18.8
10.0
10.6
13.5
16.6
19.4
20.8
20.5
20.6
Duration0
(days)
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
10d
10
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
Adjusted
proportion
0.52
1.34
5.98
83.70
2.43
5.83
0.20
0.12
0
12.37
16.31
43.00
27.79
0.23
0.01
0.17
?based on TI Long River surveys (Marcel!us 1977b)
from Poughkeepsie Water Works (Marcel!us 1978c)
Abased on Table 15 in this testimony
ten days used due to lack of temperature data for this week
39
-------
Table 15. Documented Durations of Early Life Stages of
Blueback Herring and Alewife
Life stage
Temperature(°C) Duration
Source
Blueback Herring:
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
20-21
22
22.2-23.7
22-24
80-94 hr
50 hr
50-58 hr
2-3 days
2-3 days
4 days
Morgan and Prince 1976
Bigelow and
Schroeder 1953
Cianci 1969
p. 5.30, Exhibit UT-4
Jones et al. 1978
p. 5.30, Exhibit UT-4
Alewife:
Eggs
7.2
15.6
10-12.
20
21.1
28.9
15.5-22
Yolksac larvae
15
6
3.4-5
3-5
3.7
2.1
3-6
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
2 days
5 days
Edsall 1970
Hildebrand 1963
Cianci 1969
Jones et al. 1978
Edsall 1970
Jones et al. 1970
Leim and Scott 1966
Cianci 1969
Jones et al.
1978
40
-------
Table 16.
f/29 -
i/6 -
i/13 -
i/20 -
i/27 -
5/3 -
i/10 -
5/17 -
5/24 -
VI -
1/8 -
7/15 -
7/22 -
V29 -
3/5 -
3/12 -
Life
5/5
5/12
5/19
5/26
6/2
6/9
6/16
6/23
6/30
7/7
7/14
7/21
7/28
8/4
8/11
8/18
Stages of Alosa spp.
Sampled by TI during
Yol ksac
larvae
0.19
3.71
15.28
55.98
22.48
2.16
0.19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Blueback Herring and Alewife)
the 1974 Long River Survey
Post yolksac
larvae
0.01
0.47
1.98
7.40
21.53
27.36
17.13
13.98
6.53
0.87
1.18
0.31
0.76
0.33
0.07
0.09
Early
juveniles
0
0
0
0
1.61
0
0
0.30
0.09
0
32.83
0.52
47.23
14.54
0.06
2.82
Wcellus (1978a)
41
-------
Table 17. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Early
teek
5/4 -
5/11 -
5/18 -
5/25 -
5/1 -
5/8 -
5/15 -
5/22 -
5/29 -
7/6 -
7/13 -
7/20 -
7/27 -
B/3 -
8/10 -
5/10
5/17
5/24
5/31
6/7
6/14
6/21
6/28
7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2b
8/9D
8/16
by H during the
Yolksac
larvae
0.62
4.71
70.80
14.02
4.98
0.95
3.78
0.13
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
1975 Long River Survey
Post yolksac
larvae
0
0.23
1.76
31.21
36.07
11.60
6.85
5.16
3.40
2.53
0.77
0.25
0.16
-
0.01
Early
juveniles
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.06
0.83
3.52
20.08
14.35
16.07
13.17
31.82
-
0.08
b1
Ma reel!us (1978a)
no sampling conducted
42
-------
through early August each year (tables 16 and 17). The peak estimated
weekly r1ver-w1de standing crop of post yolksac larvae occurred in early
June of both years, while the peak standing crop of juveniles occurred
7 weeks later In 1974 and 8 weeks later in 1975. The first aooearance of
post yolksac larvae preceded the first appearance of juveniles by four
weeks each year (tables 16 and 17). Therefore, the duration of the post
yolksac larval life stage of Alosa spp. was 4-7 weeks in 1974 and 4-8
weeks 1n 1975. This wide range during both years may be a result of the
difference in spawning periods for the two species of concern.
JUVENILES
For purposes of this discussion, juvenile Alosa spp. are divided
into early juveniles (before mid-August) and fall juveniles (mid-August
through December). As explained earlier, the mid-August cut-off was
based on a change in TI sampling programs at that time. Since fall
juveniles were distinguishable to the species level by the utilities'
consultants (p. 6.47, Exhibit UT-4), blueback herring and alewives are
discussed separately under that category.
Early juveniles
Early juvenile Alosa spp. showed similar distribution patterns to
post yolksac larvae during 1974 and 1975 (figures 13 and 14). The peak
estimated average regional standing crop of early juveniles, based on
the TI Long River Survey collections, was in the Catskill region (RM
107-124) during both years. TI beach seine collections of early juveniles
(prior to mid-August) indicated a slightly greater abundance upriver
during 1974 when compared to the Long River Survey data (Figure 15).
Beach seine collections during 1975 indicated similar shorezone distribution
patterns of early juveniles when compared to the distributions derived
from the Long River Survey collections (Figure 16).
Length data for Alosa spp. collected by TI during their 1974 and
1975 beach seine and bottom trawl surveys (Table 18) indicated blueback
herring surpassed an average length of 50 mm (considered maximum entrain-
able size in this testimony) by early August each year. Alewives
surpassed an average length of 50 mm by late July of 1974 and by mid-
July of 1975. Since post yolksac larvae peaked in abundance during
early June each year, and the duration of the post yolksac larval stage
was at least four weeks, the duration of the entrainable juvenile life
stage of blueback herring and alewives was at least four weeks during
both 1974 and 1975.
Fall juveniles
Beach seine data collected by TI after mid-August of 1974 and 1975
Indicate blueback herring were distributed more upriver than alewives
during those years (figures 17 and 18). Peak average weekly standing
crops of blueback herring occurred in the Indian Point region (RM 39-46)
during 1974 and the Tappan Zee region (RM 24-33) during 1975. The peak
43
-------
20
h
Z
U
u
a
u
a.
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
40 ' LONG RIVER SURVEY
0
-
Bowl ine Rose ton
YK TZ Ch P UP Ok PK HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
i
Indian Pi
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 15. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
Juvenile Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewives) during 1974,
based on TI Long River and beach seine survey data supplied to
EPA (Marcellus 1977b, 1979).
44
-------
28
8
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
LJ
0
a
y
68
48
28
8
LONG RIVER SURVEY
Bowline Roseion
YK
TZ la-
IP
UP
cu
1
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 188 118 128 138 148 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 16. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewives) during 1975,
based on TI Long River and beach seine survey data supplied to
EPA (Mareel!us 1977b, 1979).
45
-------
Table 18. Average Lengths of Blueback Herring and Alewlves Sampled
during the 1974 and 1975 TI Beach Seine and Bottom Trawl Surveys3
fiecies Interval
lueback herring 6/1
6/15
6/29
7/13
7/27
8/10
8/24
9/7
9/21
10/5
10/19
11/2
11/16
11/30
Uewife 6/1
6/15
6/29
7/13
7/27
8/10
8/24
9/7
9/21
10/5
10/19
11/2
11/16
11/30
- 6/14
- 6/28
- 7/12
- 7/26
- 8/9
- 8/23
- 9/6
- 9/20
- 10/4
- 10/18
- 11/1
- 11/15
- 11/29
- 12/13
- 6/14
- 6/28
- 7/12
- 7/26
- 8/9
- 8/23
- 9/6
- 9/20
- 10/4
- 10/18
- 11/1
- 11/5
- 11/29
- 12/13
1974
33.2
34.6
33.6
40.2
52.4
55.2
65.9
65.5
68.2
76.8
74.4
75.0
71.3
-
36.0
32.8
42.7
50.8
55.3
71.1
76.1
80.6
83.3
87.2
86.9
93.8
81.2
1975
_b
37.0
42.7
47.6
57.4
49.0
63.9
62.4
68.4
68.5
68.1
67.5
70.9
69.2
_
38.9
52.0
66.0
73.0
77.6
84.0
83.1
87.6
89.2
91.2
97.0
94.8
91.4
jMarcellus (1978a)
none sampled during interval
46
-------
60
40
20
0
60
t-
u 0
£60
40
20
0
60
40
20
n
BEACH SEINE - BLUEBACK HERRIN
m
, ,
-
- rn ill
BEACH SEINE - ALEWIFE
FALL SHOALS - BLUEBACK HERRIN
, , NS NS NS NS NS
FALL SHOALS - ALEWIFE
1 II NS NS NS NS NS
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
i
Ch
P
WP
cw
1
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
1
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ii0 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 17. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewives) during 1974,
based on TI beach seine and fall shoals survey data supplied to
EPA (Marcel 1 us 1977b, 1979).
47
-------
68
48
28
uv
8
68
,_48
h
Q «
l68
48
28
8
68
48
28
8
»
[ BEACH SEINE - BLUEBACK HERRING
|
I 1 1 i i ,
m
-
.
BEACH SEINE - ALEVIFE
FALL SHOALS - BLUEBACK HERRING
"1 NS NS NS NS NS
-
.
-
FAI 1 SHflA! S - Al FUTFF
1 NS NS NS NS NS
Bowl ine Rose ion
i i
YK
TZ
i i
Ch P WP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
1
Indian PI
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 188 118 128 138 148 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 18. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile Alosa spp. (blueback herring and alewives) during 1975,
based on TI beach seine and Fall shoals survey data supplied to
EPA (Marcel!us 1977b, 1979).
48
-------
average standing crop of alevrives occurred in the Tappan Zee region (RM
24-33) during both years. The data presented in figures 17 and 18 imply
that alewives probably move downriver earlier than blueback herring
probably due to their larger size (Table IS) and probable older age.
The TI fall shoals surveys indicate similar distributions of alewives
and blueback herring during 1974 and a more upriver distribution of
blueback herring than alewives in 1975 (figures 17 and 18).
ADULTS
No tagging studies have been reported for the Hudson River popu-
lations of blueback herring and alewives. However, capture of yearling
blueback herring and alewives by the utilities' consultants in the
Hudson River indicates that at least part of the populations overwinter
in the estuary during their first year of life. Adults of both species
exhibit schooling behavior and inhabit a narrow band of coastal water
close to shore (Bigelow and Schroeder 1928).
FISHERIES - PAST AND PRESENT
A commercial fishery for blueback herring and alewives exists along
the Atlantic coast. Commercial landings along the Atlantic coast
reported for the two species from 1965-1975 are listed in Table 5.5-3 of
Exhibit UT-4. According to this table, the total pounds landed by
commercial fishermen declined from approximately 64 million pounds in
1965 to approximately 23.5 million pounds in 1975. The extent of the
sport fishery for the two species in the Hudson is unknown, although
both species are seined by fishermen to serve as bait fish for
other species (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research 1977).
TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
Food habits studies of the Hudson River populations of blueback
herring and alewives have not been documented by the utilities' con-
sultants. Studies elsewhere indicate that the food of blueback herring
consists of plankton, copepods, pelagic shrimp, and early life stages of
small fishes (Scott and Grossman 1973). Alewives feed chiefly on
plankton, amphipods, mysids, copepods, small fish, and fish eggs (Leim
and Scott 1963).
Reported predators of blueback herring and alewives in the Hudson
River include bluefish (Table II-2, TI 1976a), striped bass (p. V-17, TI
1976b), and white perch (p. V-28, TI 1976b).
AMERICAN SHAD
The American shad (Alosa sapidissima) is a member of the family
Clupeidae (herrings). Other members of this family that are found in
the Hudson River are alewife, blueback herring, gizzard shad, Atlantic
menhaden, Atlantic herring, round herring, and hickory shad (Table 5.6-
1, Exhibit UT-4). Of these species, the American shad adult is the
49
-------
largest. Leim (1924) reported American shad attaining a size of over 70
cm and a weight of over 6.5 Ib. Weights up to 12-14 Ib have been reported
by McDonald (1884) and Worth (1898).
SPAWNING
Based on the periods of commercial catch and presence of eggs in
field samples, the spawning season of American shad in the Hudson River
begins in late March to early April and is over by the end of June. Egg
collections by TI in 1974 indicate that the major spawning activity is
concentrated between RM 62 and 140 (Figure 19), although some spawning
probably does occur in the Indian Point region (Rm 39-46) (Table III-4,
Boreman 1979).
Table 19 presents the age composition as read by scale samples of
2,424 American shad caught in the Hudson River by commercial fishing
gear during the 1950 and 1951 fishing seasons (Talbot 1954). Ages are
weighted to catch by sex, gear, and year. More recent age composition
studies of the commercial catch of American shad in the Hudson River are
not available. The highest percentage of the adult shad caught in 1950
and 1951 were entering the river to spawn for the first time. Ninety-
three percent of this group of maiden spawners were 4-6 years of age; 88
percent of all the fish captured were 4-7 years of age (Table 19).
According to Lehman (1953), the fecundity of 22 female American
shad collected in the Hudson River during 1951 ranged from 116,000 to
468,000 ova per female, with an average fecundity of 273,000 ova. These
fish represented an age range of 3-9 years. More recent fecundity data
on the Hudson River American shad population are not available.
EGGS
The majority of eggs of American shad were collected by TI in the
upper half of the Hudson River estuary (RM 62-140) during their 1974
Long River Survey (Figure 19). The highest abundances of shad eggs
were recorded in the Saugerties and Catskill regions (RM 94-124) where
almost 90 percent of the estimated average weekly standing crop of eggs
occurred. Some eggs were collected in the Indian Point region (RM 39-46)
(Table III-4, Boreman 1979).
American shad eggs hatch in 2-17 days depending on water temper-
ature (Table 20). Temperatures in the Hudson River during the period of
shad egg collections (late April - mid-June, Table 21) averaged close to
16°Cj this temperature corresponds to a seven day average egg incubation
period for American shad eggs. This value is also supported by the
observed one week difference between the disappearance of eggs and
disappearance of yolksac larvae from field samples (Table 21).
LARVAE
Yolksac and post yolksac larvae were principally collected by TI in
50
-------
68
48
28
8
68
48
z 28
u
o 8
tt
u 68
(L
48
28
8
68
48
28
8
JUVENILES
_LJ_
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
i
Ch
IP
i
UP
cw
1
PK
HP
KG
S9
CK
AL
Indian Pt
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 188 118 128 138 148 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 19. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
life stages of American shad during 1974, based on TI Long River
Survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b).
51
-------
Table 19. Percentage Distribution of American shad in the Hudson River
at Capture, Age at First Spawning, and Number of Times Previously Spawned
Group Percentage in group
Total age at capture:
3 years 2
4 years 23
5 years 29
6 years 22
7 years 14
8 years 6
9 years 2
over 9 years 2
Age at first spawning:
2 years
3 years 6
4 years 47
5 years 36
6 years 10
over 6 years 1
Number of times previously spawned:
None 49
1 time 19
2 times 18
3 times lj|
4 times *
5 times z
6 times
7 times
"based on Table 10 in Talbot (1954)
52
-------
Table 20. Documented Durations of Early Life Stages of American Shad
Life Stage
Egg
Yolksac larva
Post yolksac larva
Temperature (°C)
12
12
17
27
12
17
-
Duration (days)
12-15
17
6-8
2
7
4-5
7
21-28
30
Source
Leim 1924
Ryder 1887
Leim 1924
Rice 1878
Jones et al. 1978
Jones et al . 1978
p. 5.27, Exhibit
Ryder 1887
p. 5.27, Exhibit
UT-4
UT-4
53
-------
Table 21. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages of Early
Life Stages of American Shad Samples By TJ during the 1974 Long River Survey*
Week
4/22
4/29
5/6
5/13
5/20
5/27
6/3
6/10
6/17
6/24
7/1
7/8
7/15
7/22
7/29
8/5
8/12
- 4/28
- 5/5
- 5/12
- 5/19
- 5/26
- 6/2
- 6/9
- 6/16
- 6/23
- 6/30
- 7/7
- 7/14
- 7/21
- 7/28
- 8/4
- 8/11
- 8/18
Eggs
5.77
16.92
8.26
7.22
16.87
38.62
5.52
0.80
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yolksac
larvae
0
0
0
14.74
25.74
31.71
26.74
0.58
0.16
0.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post yolksac
larvae
0
0
0
1.83
9.49
13.22
12.98
13.95
36.60
7.21
3.89
0.62
0.18
0.02
0
0
0
Early
juveniles
0
0
0
0
0.24
0.27
0.03
0.18
0.03
0.65
12.55
27.70
18.35
15.18
9.26
8.85
6.70
aMarcellus 0977b)
54
-------
their Long River Survey 1n the Poughkeepsie through Catskill regions (RM
62-124) during 1974 (Figure 19). The region of estimated peak abundance
was Saugertles (RM 94-106) for both larval life stages. Stira and Smith
(1976) presented a similar distribution pattern of American shad larvae
in the Hudson River during 1973.
Yolksac larvae were collected 1n the 1974 Long River Survey from
mid-May through June (Table 21); peak abundance occurred in late May.
Shad absorb their yolksacs 1n 4-5 days at a water temperature of 17°C
(Table 20). Based on water temperatures recorded at the Poughkeepsie
Water Works during 1974, the average temperature from mid-May through
June was 17.68C. Therefore, an average life stage duration of 4 days is
probably a minimum value for shad yolksac larvae in the Hudson River
during 1974.
Post yolksac larvae of American shad were collected from mid-May
through July of 1974 (Table 21). Peak abundance occurred in mid-June.
The peak estimated standing crop of juvenile shad, based on Long River
Survey data, occurred three weeks after the peak estimated standing crop
of post yolksac larvae, which implies at least a three week life stage
duration of post yolksac larvae during 1974.
JUVENILES
The discussion of juvenile American shad is divided into two
categories: early juveniles (prior to mid-August) and fall juveniles
(mid-August through December). As mentioned earlier, the mid-August
cut-off corresponds to a change in sampling programs by TI.
Early juveniles
Juvenile American shad collected in the 1974 TI Long River Survey
showed a distinctive downstream shift in distribution from the distributions
of earlier life stages (Figure 19). Juveniles were found in all 12
regions; almost 93 percent of the average weekly standing crop occurred
between the Tappan Zee and Kingston regions (RM 24 to RM 93).
Beach seine collections performed by TI prior to mid-August support
the downstream shift of this life stage (Figure 20). This rather abrupt
downstream shift 1n distribution was also evident in 1973 TI ichthyoplankton
collections (Stira and Smith 1976). Leim (1924) noted a similar sudden
downstream shift 1n distribution of early life stages of American shad
in the Shobenacadie River (New Brunswick). He attributed this shift to
the pelagic nature of shad larvae; most of his specimens were collected
in surface tows, Indicating they could have easily been carried downstream
by water currents.
Growth of Juvenile shad, based on TI beach seine, bottom trawls,
and epibenthic sled collections during 1974, 1s shown 1n Table 22. Shad
surpassed an average length of 50 mm (considered maximum entrainable
size 1n this testimony) by mid-July and minimum recorded lengths surpassed
50 mm for the first time by the end of August. Since post yolksac
55
-------
60
48
20
z 8
u
0
o:
u
"68
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
LONG RIVER SURVEY
Bowline Roseion
YK
TZ
i
fl-
IP
t
yp
cw
i
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 188 118 128 138 148 158
RIVER MILE
Figure 20. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile American shad during 1974, based on TI Long River and
beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b).
56
-------
Table 22. Average Lengths and Size Ranges Recorded for Juveniles
American Shad Sampled In the Hudson River by TI during 1974a
Week
6/9 -
6/16 -
6/23 -
6/30 -
7/7 -
7/14 -
7/21 -
7/28 -
8/4 -
8/11 -
8/18 -
8/25 -
9/1 -
9/8 -
9/15 -
9/22 -
9/29 -
10/6 -
10/13 ^
10/20 -
10/27 -
11/3 -
11/10 -
11/17 -
6/15
6/22
6/29
7/6
7/13
7/20
7/27
8/3
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/7
9/14
9/21
9/28
10/5
10/12
10/19
10/26
11/2
11/9
11/16
11/23
Average length (im)
33
25
30
39
42
51
56
58
63
64
70
73
73
75
75
78
79
81
85
83
86
89
91
88
Range
31
19
18
28
25
30
27
30
42
39
47
50
53
42
52
33
53
61
67
65
25
65
67
42
(nr;)
- 36
- 31
- 40
- 73
- 67
- 70
- 83
- 82
- 85
- 82
- 90
- 89
- 99
- 95
- 108
- 110
- 104
- 104
- no
- 107
- 120
- 119
- 119
- 117
abased on tables A-97 to A-100 1n TI (1977) averaged for all gear each week
57
-------
larvae reached a peak abundance 1n mid-June and disappeared from collections
1n late July (Table 21). a four week average life stage duration of
entrainable Juveniles American shad in the Hudson River during 1974 1s
appropriate.
Fall juveniles
Based on TI beach seine data after mid-August, juvenile American
shad were most abundant 1n the Tappan Zee (RM 24-33). Cornwall (RM 56-
61), and Catskill (RM 107-124) regions (Figure 21). Epibenthic sled
(fall shoals survey) data Indicated a peak abundance in the Tappan Zee
region; however this survey was limited to the lowermost seven sampling
regions (RM 14-76).
Disappearance of juvenile shad from TI river collections in November
Indicated a probable movement into coastal waters (p. V-22, Volume I, TI
1977). Chittenden and Westman (1967) and Leggett and Whitney (1972)
noted a coincidence between peak downstream migration of juvenile shad
and decline of water temperature to below 15.5°C in other river systems.
The Hudson River water temperature declines below 15.5D by the end of
October (Figure 2.2-8, Exhibit UT-4), a decline which corresponds with
the observed downstream migration of juvenile shad. Most juveniles
Migrate to coastal waters by their first winter (p. V-16, TI 1977).
ADULTS
Talbot and Sykes (1958) found that after spawning adult shad tagged
1n estuaries from the Chesapeake to the Connecticut River migrate to the
Gulf of Maine to spend the summer and fall. Evidence also Indicated
that adult shad overwintered in the deep waters along the middle Atlantic
coast, moving closer to their natal streams as spawning season approached.
Observations by Talbot and Sykes (1958) on the coastal migration behavior
of American shad were confirmed by Leggett and Whitney (1972), who noted
that migration paths followed the 13-18°C isotherm northward to the Gulf
of Maine 1n summer and southward to the middle Atlantic region in
winter. Most of the shad south of North Carolina die after spawning,
which Leggett (1972) attributed to Increased use of fat reserves during
spawning in the warmer climate. Shad have a strong homing tendancy, as
noted 1n studies by Hollis (1948), Nichols (1960), and Dodson and
Leggett (1973).
FISHERIES - PAST AND PRESENT
Several early papers describe the condition of the Hudson River
American shad fishery prior to 1900. Over 250,000 shad were taken
annually 1n New York Harbor with stake and drift gill nets, which
caused McDonald (1887) to consider the Hudson River shad fishery equal
In monetary value to the American shad fisheries of the Potomac River,
Susquehanna River, or Albermarle Sound. As early as 1896, overfishing
was considered a threat to the continued well-being of shad stocks in
the Hudson River (Cheney 1896), and 1n the early 1900's over-harvest was
being cited as a cause for observed declines in fishery landings (Blackford
1916).
58
-------
60
40
20
: 0
y
0
K
y
160
40
20
0
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
-i n , ,
i
1 1 1 r i i ,
FALL SHOALS
NS NS NS NS NS
Bowline Rose ton
YK
TZ
Ch IP UP CU PK HP KG SG CK AL
i
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 58 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 156
RIVER MILE
Figure 21. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile American shad during 1974, based on TI fall shoals and
beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b).
59
-------
Historical landings data for Hudson River shad were presented for
1915-1949 by Talbot (1954) and are reproduced with an update to 1975
(from Klauda et al. 1976) 1n Figure 22. Shad landings remained below
750,000 pounds per year until the late 1930's when landings suddenly
increased to 2-3 million pounds per year. In the mid-1940's to 1960's
landings began to decline to about 250,000 pounds per year by the 1970's,
although they increased slightly in the mid-1950's. The decline after
the mid-1940's was attributed to low escapement of spawners due to
intense fishing pressure (Talbot 1954; Burdick 1954). This is also the
major factor given for declines in landings from other systems (Connecticut
River: Fredin 1954, Wai burg 1963; Maryland: Wai burg 1955; St. Johns
River, Florida: Williams and Bruger 1972; North Carolina: Sholar
1976). The decline in landings since the 1950's has been attributed to
reduced fishing effort (Medeiros 1974) or the changeover in the mid-
1950 's to more efficient nylon nets (Klauda et al. 1976) which allow
less spawner escapement for the same unit of effort expended with linen
nets. The Susquehanna, Delaware, and New England rivers experienced
declines due to or attributed to physical obstructions (dams) and pollution
(Walburg and Nichols 1967). Attempts to relate the declines in Hudson
River shad landings to factors other than spawner escapement, such as
natural population cycles or environmental factors, have not been successful
(Talbot 1954).
TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
Juvenile American shad feed mostly on crustaceans and aquatic and
terrestrial insects ,(Walburg 1956; Massman 1963; Davis and Cheek 1966;
Levesque and Reed 1972). Some freshwater feeding by adult shad has also
been noted (Hatton 1941; Atkinson 1951; and Chittenden 1976). Hatton
(1941) found that shad collected by commercial fishermen in California
fed mainly on mysid shrimp and other crustaceans. Predators on juvenile
shad in the Hudson River include bluefish (TI 1976) and probably any
predator larger than the shad (Table 5.3-1, Exhibit UT-4).
ATLANTIC TOMCOD
The Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tpmcod) is a relatively small
member of the cod family (Gadidae), seldom exceeding a length of 12
inches (Nichols and Breder 1927). It inhabite-wi thern^aye^^^s-fEFSPtes /
and noQ-fby oaG£a4-"We^ers-"from Virginia to Labrador (Hardy 1978), J
although no accounts of tomcod spawning in estuaries south of the Hudson
River have been reported (p. 10.1-182, Exhibit UT-7). The southern
limit of the tomcod's range is apparently influenced by water temper-
ature. Tomcod are most active inshore during the period of lowest water
temperature and probably have a low optimum temperature (Howe 1971).
Warm summer temperatures in the Hudson River could potentially stress
juvenile tomcod (Grabe 1978), particularly if dissolved oxygen levels
are low (p. V-75, Volume I, TI 1977), as evidenced by reduced summer
growth and feeding activity (p. 10. 221, Exhibit UT-7).
60
-------
W
eo
(3
z
H
3500000
2500000
Z 2000000
z
o
° 1500000
I
CO 1000000
Z
<
500000
CDQ)0)ODO)0)Q)CDQ)Q)QDQ)Q)
YEAR
Figure 22. Commercial landings of American shad in the Hudson River, 1915-
1975 (from Table 10, Talbot 1954; and Table IV-3, TI 1977).
61
-------
SPAWNING
The tomcod spawns during the winter months in ice-covered fresh or
brackish water (Booth 1967; Scott and Grossman 1973). Although eggs
have not been sampled in the Hudson, tomcod in spawning condition (ripe
and spent gonads) have been collected at least as far north as RM 94 (p.
5.20, Exhibit UT-4). Based on box trap sampling conducted by TI (Tables
A-82 and A-83, Volume II, TI 1977), spawning activity appears to be
concentrated in the Indian Point to Cornwall regions of the estuary
(Table 23 and Figure 23).
Apparently, the majority of spawners are 11 to 13 months of
age, i.e., they are members of the preceding year class (p. 5.20, Exhibit
UT-4). Egg production of the Hudson River tomcod population is almost
entirely dependent on this age group (p. 10.1-182, Exhibit UT-7). This
conclusion is supported by length-frequency data collected during the TI
box trap sampling program (Table V-13, TI 1976). The average length
(158.4 mm) of tomcod caught in the box traps (which were presumed to be
spawners) during December 1975, corresponded to the average length
attained by the end of their first year of life, as shown in Table 24.
Average fecundities of tomcod for December 1973 and December 1974
were an estimated 20,260 and 11,640 ova per female, respectively (p. V-
42, TI 1976). The estimated mean fecundity of tomcod during 1972 was
approximately 15,000 ova for age 1 females and 55,000 ova for age 2
females (p. 10.1-194, Exhibit UT-7). These estimates are within the
range of published fecundity estimates (5,075-75,000) reported by Hardy
(1978) for the species in general.
EGGS
Tomcod eggs are demersal and non-adhesive, although their adhe-
siveness is a point of controversy (Booth 1967). The demersal nature of
tomcod eggs, as well as the time of the year when they were present in
the estuary, precluded their collection by the utilities consultants (p.
9.1-38, Exhibit UT-7; p. VI-41, TI 1975; p. IV-60, TI 1978). Workers in
other estuaries have also had difficulty in sampling tomcod eggs (Booth
1967; Howe 1971).
Egg incubation periods for Atlantic tomcod are listed in Table 25.
Water temperatures in the Hudson River, based on average USGS monthly
temperatures, 1959-1969, taken at Indian Point, are generally less than
4°C during the incubation period of tomcod eggs. December, January,
February, and March temperatures averaged 5°C, 1.11°C, 0.56°C, and
1.67°C, respectively. Therefore, the incubation period for tomcod eggs
In the Hudson River probably ranges from 22-70 days.
LARVAE
The 1974 Long River Survey conducted by TI began too late (April
62
-------
Table 23. Estimated Relative Distributions of Spawning
Atlantic Torocod, Expressed as Percentages
Region
YK
TZ
CH
IP
WP
CM
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
December
1973-1974
NSb
NS
0.4
51.9
34.6
6.9
NS
3.6
NS
2.6
NS
NS
- March
1974-1975
NS
0.8
0.6
2.9
64.8
29.9
1.0
NS
NS
0
NS
NS
"determined from TI box trap collections, December to March 1973-1974 and
,1974-1975 (tables A-82 and A-83, TI 1977).
NS = no sampling in region
63
-------
60
40
20
0
60
40
B 60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
:
JUVENILES
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
i
-
r~
-
YOLKSAC LARVAE
^
SPAWNERS
-
Bowline Rose ion
YK
TZ Ch IP UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
i
Indian Pi
i i t i i i i f i f i | i i i
10 20 30 40 50 68 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 23. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of spawning
Atlantic tomcod during the winter of 1974-1975, and early life
stages of Atlantic tomcod during 1975, based on TI box trap data
(Table A-83, Volume II, TI 1977) and Long River Survey data
supplied to EPA (Marcel1 us 1977b).
64
-------
Table 24. Average Lengths and Size Ranges Recorded for Juvenile
Atlantic Tomcod Sampled 1n the Hudson River by TI during 1975
Week
4/6 -
4/27 -
5/4 -
5/11 -
5/18 -
5/25 -
6/1 -
6/8 -
6/15 -
6/22 -T
6/29 -
7/6 -
7/13 -
7/20 -
7/27 -
8/10 -
8/17 -
8/24 -
8/31 -
9/7 -
9/14 -
9/21 -
9/28 -
10/5 -
10/12 -
10/19 -
10/26 -
11/2 -
11/9 -
11/16 -
11/23 -
4/12
5/3
5/10
5/17
5/24
5/31
6/7
6/14
6/21
6/28
7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2
8/16
8/23
8/30
9/6
9/13
9/20
9/27
10/4
10/11
10/18
10/25
11/1
11/8
11/15
11/22
11/29
Average length (tm)
14
27
28
36
41
50
54
61
65
69
72
74
79
71
78
82
84
85
83
84
90
95
95
102
107
113
118
118
132
141
143
Range (iron)
11
17
26
27
42
27
46
28
63
60
59
36
57
60
50
66
57
64
64
69
65
77
81
90
92
71
85
115
97
- 18
-
- 41
- 48
- 57
- 65
- 75
- 85
- 93
- 77
- 93
- 94
- 104
-
- 106
- 116
- 117
- 114
- 119
- 112
- 123
- 134
- 129
- 129
- 135
- 138
- 152
- 136
- 160
- 155
- 180
a
based on Table B-79 in TI (1978) averaged for all gear each week
65
-------
Table 25. Documented Life Stage Durations for Atlantic Tomcod
Life stage Temperature (°C)
Egg 0
1-4.5
2.2-7.8
4.4
4.5
6
6.1
-
Yolksac larva
Duration (days)
44-70
36-42
25
30
22-35
35
30
24
24
25
30
4
6
Source
Leim and Scott 1966
Hardy and Hudson 1975
Baird 1887
Mather 1887
Bigelow and Schroeder 1953
Vladykov 1955
Leim and Scott 1966
Nichols and Breder 1927
Tracy 1910
Svetovidov 1962
Svetovidov 1962
Bigelow and Schroeder 1953
Vladykov 1955
p. 5.20, Exhibit UT-4
Nichols and Breder 1927
Tracy 1910
30
Mather 1900
p. 5.20, Exhibit UT-4
66
-------
29) to sample tomcod yolksac larvae, as evidenced by the Long River
Survey data (Marcellus 1977). Yolksac larvae were present in the
Hudson River during the first Long River Survey sampling period of 1975,
which began on or about March 6. Further discussion of abundance,
distribution, and duration of ichthyoplankton life stages of Atlantic
tomcod in the Hudson River will focus on the 1975 year class.
Since the estimated weekly standing crop of yolksac larvae was
highest during the initial sampling period in 1975 (Table 26), this life
stage was probably present in the estuary prior to March. The time
difference between the weeks of peak yolksac and peak post yolksac
standing crops suggests at least a four week life stage duration for
yolk-sac larvae. This duration is comparable to the one month duration
estimate presented by the utilities (p. 5.20, Exhibit UT-4), and con-
tradicts the estimated range of 4-6 days reported by Mather (1900),
Tracy (1910), and Nichols and Breder (1927).
The 1975 average weekly distribution of yolksac larvae, as deter-
mined from the TI Long River Survey, shows a downriver shift from the
distribution of spawning adults (Figure 23). Ninety-four percent of the
1975 average weekly standing crop of yolksac larvae was collected in the
Yonkers through West Point regions (RM 14-55). No yolksac larvae were
collected above the Poughkeepsie region (RM 62-76); however, the first
three surveys in 1975, during which all yolksac larvae collections were
made, did not extend upriver past the Poughkeepsie region. The relatively
low densities of yolksac larvae in the Cornwall and Poughkeepsie regions
suggest very few, if any, members of this life stage were present in
the river above RM 76.
Post yolksac larvae were found to be concentrated even further
downriver than yolksac larvae by the 1975 Long River Survey (Figure 23).
Ninety-three percent of the estimated average weekly river-wide standing
crop of post yolksac larvae were sampled in the Yonkers and Tappen Zee
regions. Since these regions are the two lowest regions in the Long
River Survey, the data suggest a possible abundance of post yolksac
larvae below RM 14. Dew and Hecht (1976) indicate, however, that the
1975 larval life stage of tomcod was most abundant above MP 11, and
was present in relatively large numbers at MP 11 on only 3 of 12 sample
dates (March 29, April 20, and May 10),
The estimated peak standing crop of post yolksac larvae occurred
during the week beginning April 6, 1975. Based on the time interval
between the peak standing crops of post yolksac larvae and juveniles
(Table 26), the duration of the post yolksac larval stage of tomcod in
1975 was approximately 6 weeks. No estimates for the duration of this
life stage have been found in the published literature.
JUVENILES
Tomcod transform to the juvenile life stage between 10-20 mm (Howe
1971). Early juveniles (prior to mid-August) were collected in the
67
-------
Table 26. Temporal Distributions, Expressed as Percentages of Early
Life Stages of Atlantic Torocod Sampled by TI during the 1975 Long River Survey
Week
3/9 -
3/16 -
3/23 -
3/30 -
4/16 -
4/13 -
4/20 -
4/27 -
5/4 -
5/11 -
5/18 -
5/25 -
6/1 -
6/8 -
6/5 -
6/22 -
6/29 -
7/6 -
7/13 -
7/20 -
7/27 -
8/3 -
8/10 -
3/15
3/22
3/29
4/5
4/12
4/19
4/26
5/3
5/10
5/17
5/24
5/31
6/7
6/14
6/21
6/28
7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2
8/9
8/16
Yolksac
larvae
78.51
-
21.48
-
0.02
-
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
Post yolksac
larvae
14.17
-
27.91
-
46.98
-
9.63
-
1.19
0.12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
Early
Juveniles
0
-
0
-
0.16
-
0.94
-
6.65
17.82
25.75
5.18
6.05
11.51
2.34
2.58
6.55
4.16
3.87
2.42
1.27
-
1.75
aMarcellus (1977b)
Dashes indicate no sampling conducted,
68
-------
Hudson River during the TI bottom trawl, beach seine, and Long River
surveys of 1974 and 1975. After mid-August, juveniles were collected in
the bottom trawl, beach seine, and epibenthic sled (fall shoals) surveys
during both years.
Early juveniles
Based on beach seine and Long River survey data, early juveniles
showed a similar distribution pattern among the 12 longitudinal regions
of the Hudson River estuary during 1974 and 1975 (figures 24 and 25,
respectively). Juveniles were most abundant in the two lowest regions
of the estuary (Yonkers and Tappan Zee, RM 14-33). The relatively high
abundance of early juveniles in the Yonkers region implies that some
unknown fraction of this life stage might have been present in the
estuary below RM 14. Lower estuary studies by TI (Volume III, TI 1977),
which found juvenile tomcod in the lower estuary and nearby Long Island
Sound in late May and early June, 1975, support this Implication.
The bottom trawl data collected before mid-August, 1974 and 1975,
show a markedly different distribution pattern of juvenile tomcod than
the other two sampling programs, even though the bottom trawl survey
did not encompass all 12 regions. According to this survey, early
juveniles were most abundant in the Tappan Zee region (RM 24-33) in 1974
(Figure 24) and the Indian Point region (RM 39-46) in 1975 (Figure 25).
The general distribution, based on bottom trawl data, was further up-
river in 1975 than in 1974. Based on data presented in Table 24, it
appears that the 1975 year class of tomcod attained an average length of
50 mm (considered to be maximum entrainable size in this testimony) by
the end of May, which coincided with their period of peak abundance in
1975 Long River Survey samples (Table 26). If the peak standing crop of
yolksac larvae was during the week beginning March 6, 1975, and the
estimated durations of the yolksac and post yolksac larval stages were
four and six weeks, then the duration of the entrainable juvenile stage
was at least three weeks.
Fall juveniles
The 1974 and 1975 distribution patterns of juvenile tomcod in the
Hudson River after mid-August are shown in Figures 26 and 27- The
bottom trawl and epibenthic sled data showed similar fall juvenile
distribution patterns for both years, with estimated peak abundances
occurring in the Indian Point through Cornwall regions (RM 39-61). The
estimated peak abundance of fall juveniles based on beach seine data
occurred in the Tappan Zee region (RM 24-33) during both years. Since
tomcod in this life stage are epibenthic and offshore (p. V-13, Volume
I* TI 1977), the beach seine data are probably not as good an indicator
of relative distribution as the other two data sources.
ADULTS
Few tomcod older than one year of age were found in the
69
-------
60
40
20
0
z60
u
u
^20
0
60
40
20
0
»
NS
BEACH SEINES
BOTTOM TRAWLS
NS NS NS NS NS NS
LONG RIVER SURVEY
-m ,
Bowline Roseion
YK
TZ
Ch IP UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
i
Indian Pt
1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1
0 10 28 33 40 58 63 70 83 93 103 113 120 138 143 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 24. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile Atlantic tomcod during 1974, based on TI Long River,
bottom trawl, and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA
(Marcel!us 1977b).
70
-------
88
68
40
20
0
h80
y 60
g 40
u
fl-20
0
80
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
BEACH SEINES
~n
BOTTOM TRAWLS
_ NS NS NS NS NS NS
LONG RIVER SURVEY
Boul ine Rose ion
YK
TZ
i i
Ch IP UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
i
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 25. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile Atlantic tomcod during 1975, based on TI Long River,
bottom trawl, and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA
(Marcellus 1977b).
71
-------
60
40
20
R
10
i_
7 60
id
£4B
"26
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
-
-
_
BEACH SEINES
NS
^^" ^^
. RflTTOM TDAUI C
pU 1 1 Un 1 KAWLo
NS NS NS NS NS NS
^^^
EPIBENTHIC SLED
i
~] NS NS NS NS NS
Bow ine Rose I on
i i
YK
TZ
i
CI-
IP
i
UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 68 70 80 90 108 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 26. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile Atlantic tomcod during 1974, based on TI fall shoals
(eplbenthlc sled) data (Table A-27, Volume II, TI 1977) and
bottom travel and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA
(Marcel!us 1977b).
72
-------
60
40
20
Q
v
i_
z60
y
8«
kJ
^20
0
60
40
20
0
i
BEACH SEINES
1
__[""
1
BOTTOM TRAULS
NS NS NS NS NS NS
1 1
EPIBENTHIC SLED
^^^^^
_ _., MC MC NC MC MC
no INC iio no INO
Bowl ne Rose ton
YK
TZ
Ch
IP
UP
CU PK HP KG SG CK AL !
Indian Pt
iiiitiiififii<
0 10 20 30 40 50 68 70 88 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 27. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of fall
juvenile Atlantic tomcod during 1975, based on TI fall shoals
(epibenthic sled) data (Table B-79, TI 1978) and bottom trawl
and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1977b),
73
-------
60
40
20
0
Z60
U
g«
111
°-20
0
60
40
20
0
NS
BEACH SEINES
BOTTOM TRAWLS
NS NS NS NS NS NS
LONG RIVER SURVEY
Bowl ine Rose ion
YK
TZ
i i
Ct- IP UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
i
i
Indian Pt
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
8 18 28 39 40 53 63 73 83 93 103 113 120 133 143 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 24. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile Atlantic tomcod during 1974, based on TI Long River,
bottom trawl, and beach seine survey data supplied to EPA
(Marcellus 1977b).
70
-------
Hudson River during the utilities consultants' sampling programs (Marcellus
1977b). Six adult tomcod tagged during the 1974-1975 spawning season bv TI
were recovered in the lower estuary and Long Island Sound, one as late as
July 1975 (Table A-102, Volume II, TI 1977). Based on the 153 tag
recoveries, 66 tags or 43 percent were recaptured in box traps; 57 tags
or 37 percent were recovered from impingement collections at the Bowline,
Lovett, Indian Point, Roseton, and Danskanmer Power plant facilities;
and 29 tags or 19 percent were returned by sport fishermen.
FISHERIES - PAST AND PRESENT
According to Howe (1971), the cotimercial market for Atlantic
tomcod has declined during the past century. The present fishery is
essentially a sport fishery along the New England and New York coasts
(Howe 1971), although It may extend as far south as Virginia (Massman
1958, 1962). Nichols and Breder (1927) described an extensive winter
tomcod fishery In New York harbor waters. Greeley (1937) noted that
tomcod had considerable commercial value to New York in the winter
months. The importance of tomcod to New York fishermen at the turn of
the century is evidenced by an extensive hatchery program at the time in
Cold Spring Harbor, New York (Mather 1887, 1889).
Tag returns from sport fishermen during 1975, as discussed earlier,
indicate that the sport fishery for Atlantic tomcod in the lower Hudson
River and nearby Long Island Sound may be gu i te__subs_£antiaj . Unfor-
tunately, no formal reporting procedure for tomcod sport fishermen
exists, and the Salt-Water Angling surveys conducted by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (Deuel and Clark 1968; Deuel 1973) lumped
tomcod with other members of the cod family in their questionnaires.
The contribution of the Hudson River population of Atlantic tomcod
to the sport fishery in New York Bay and Long Island Sound may_J>e
since no evidence exists that tomcod spawn in long island
S^undRTchards 1959), although a spawning population was studied in the
Mystic River in eastern Connecticut (Booth 1967). The fact that no
tomcod spawning has been reported south of the Hudson River estuary
means that catches by sport fishermen in Maryland (Schwartz 1964) and
Virginia (Massman 1958, 1962) are likely to be at least partly of Hudson
River origin (Dew and Hecht 1976).
TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
The Atlantic tomcod plays a dual role in the trophic structure of
the Hudson River aquatic community. It is an opportunistic predator as
well as a prey species. Food habit studies on adult and juvenile tomcod
conducted by TI during 1975 (TI 1976b) concluded that fish constitute a
very minor portion of their diet, and adults may be more piscivorous
than juveniles. Among the adults, the percent frequency of occurrence
1n stomach samples was greatest for Gamma rus spp., Neomysis spp. , Monoculodes
spp., Crangon spp., and Chirpdotea spp. (Table V-14, TI 1976b); Morone
spp. (white perch and possibly striped bass) constituted approximately 7
74
-------
percent of the adult diet. Cannibalism of adults on tomcod eggs was
also evident. Copepods were the major food items of juveniles during
May-June, while the dietary regime switched to amohioods. mvsids. and
isooods from July-December (Grabe 1978). Prev density was not considered
limiting durinq the summer slow-growth period (Grabe 1978), therefore,
other factors (such as warmer water) probably induced the slower growth.
Stomach analyses conducted on juvenile tomcod 1n the Weweantic
River (Howe 1971) indicated they fed mostly (73 percent of their diet)
on the sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosis), a species common in the
Hudson River. Fish species preyed upon by tomcod in the Weweantic River
included fry and juvenile life stages of alewife, white perch, cunner,
toadfish, silversides, and sticklebacks. Howe (1971) concluded that
tomcod feed predominately on sand shrimp but probably eat whatever is
available in greatest numbers in their immediate environment.
Predators on tomcod include striped bass (TI 1976b) and bluefish
(TI 1977a). Dew and Hecht (1976) stated that 1t is possible that
tomcod are "a critical link in the food chain necessary to perpetuate a
viable stock of Hudson River striped bass," especially in those years
when bay anchovy abundance 1s low. They based this observation on
stomach content data of juvenile striped bass that Indicated selective
predation on juvenile tomcod during July and August.
BAY ANCHOVY
The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchelli) is a member of the family
Engraulidae and a close relative of the herrings (Clupeidae). The range
of the bay anchovy is from the Gulf of Maine to Yucatan, Mexico (Hildebrand
1963), primarily in estuarine and coastal waters (Jones et al. 1978).
It is a relatively small species, seldom exceeding 85 mm in length in
the Hudson River (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research 1977)-
SPAWNING
Based on egg collections during the 1974 and 1975 TI Long River
surveys, spawning activity of the bay anchovy is concentrated in the
lower part of the Hudson River estuary. The highest densities of bay
anchovy eggs were recorded in the lowest sampling region (RM 14-23),
indicating spawning probably occurred below this region.
The period of spawning activity during 1974 and 1975, based on the
Long River surveys, was from early June through mid-August. Because the
Long River surveys ended in mid-August, 1t 1s quite possible that
spawning activity extended into September, especially since Richards
(1959) noted a June-September spawning season for bay anchovies in
nearby Long Island Sound.
The minimum age at maturity is approximately 2.5 months; the min-
umum length at maturity is 34-40 mm (Stevenson 1958). This information
implies that anchovies spawned during June in the Hudson River may reach
75
-------
maturity and spawn themselves in late August or September of the same
year. However, the minimum age and size at maturity noted by Stevenson
is questioned by Jones et al. 0978).
EGGS
Almost all bay anchovy eggs were collected in the lowest five
regions of the Hudson River (RM 14-55} during the TI Long River surveys
(figures 28 and 29). In 1974, 71 percent of the estimated average
weekly standing crop of bay anchovy eggs was in the Yonkers region (RM
14-23). In 1975, 49 percent was in the Yonkers region and 40 percent
was in the Tappan Zee region (RM 24-33). The relatively high abundance
of eggs in the lower sample regions indicates that an unknown proportion
of the bay anchovy egg production was below RM 14 each year and, there-
fore, not vulnerable to.collection by the Long River surveys.
The period of bay anchovy egg collection was from early June to
mid-August during both 1974 and 1975 (tables 27 and 28), although, as
previously mentioned, eggs could have been spawned in the Hudson River
as late as September. Two peaks of egg abundance occurred during the
collection period; one peak was in early to mid-June and a second peak
was in early to mid-July. The one month separation between abundance
peaks indicates a double spawning by adults (or the spawning of two
adult cohorts), rather than spawning in July by young-of-the-year.
The duration of the egg incubation period for bay anchovies is
relatively short. Kuntz (1914) found that bay anchovy eggs hatch in
about 24 hr at temperatures between 27.2-27.8°C. Although these tem-
peratures are slightly higher than temperatures in the Hudson River
during the periods of egg collection, no data relating incubation
periods of anchovy eggs to temperatures less than 27.2°C could be found
in the literature. Therefore, an average egg incubation period of one
day is assumed for bay anchovies in the Hudson River over the entire
spawning period.
LARVAE
Samples of the yolksac larval life stage of bay anchovies were
collected in the lower three regions of the Hudson River (RM 14-38)
during 1974, and the Tappan Zee and Croton-Haverstraw regions (RM 24-38)
during 1975 in the TI Long River surveys (figures 28 and 29). The short
life stage duration of bay anchovy yolksac larvae (17-25 hr at 28°C,
Houde 1974) is reflected in the low numbers collected in the Long River
surveys compared to other life stages. The temporal distribution of
yolksac larvae collections (tables 27 and 28) indicate that TI missed
the first peak of yolksac larval abundance in 1974, probably due to the
short life stage duration.
Post yolksac larvae were collected in all regions of the Hudson
River except Albany (RM 125-140) during 1974 and 1975 (Marcellus 1978b).
This information indicates substantial upriver movement by this life
76
-------
60
40
20
0
60
!_40
2 20
0 o
tt. °
uS Cfi
DQ
40
20
60
40
20
0
j
~~| JUVENILES
i , ,
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
YOLKSAC LARVAE
1
-
-
-
EGGS
!
Bowl ine Roseton
YK
TZ
1 1
Ch IP UP CU PK HP KG SG CK AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 58 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 28. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
life stages of bay anchovies during 1974, based on TI Long River
Survey data supplied to EPA (Marcel!us 19785).
77
-------
40
20
20
0
40 h
20
0
JUVENILES
POST YOLKSAC LARVAE
YOLKSAC LARVAE
EGGS
Bowline Roseton
YK
TZ
i
CI-
IP
yp
cu
PK
HP
KG
SG
CK
AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 38 48 50 60 78 80 90 180 110 128 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 29. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
life stages of bay anchovies during 1975, based on TI Long River
Survey data supplied to EPA (Marcel 1 us 1978b).
78
-------
Table 27. Proportional Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Early
Life Stages of Bay Anchovy, Based on the 1974 TI Long River Survey
Meek
6/3 -
6/10 -
6/17 -
6/24 -
7/1 -
7/8 -
7/15 -
7/22 -
7/29 -
8/5 -
8/12 -
6/9
6/16
6/23
6/30
7/7
7/14
7/21
7/28
8/4
8/11
8/18
Eggs
0.78
52.54
14.86
0.47
0.35
5.69
12.79
6.27
3.26
1.18
1.81
Yolksac
larvae
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.97
0
32.44
58.58
0
Post yolksac
larvae
0
0.01
0.30
2.22
2.50
2.53
16.58
22.10
22.15
14.79
16.72
Early
juveniles
0
0.25
5.01
3.64
0
2.67
2.13
0.83
25.03
27.63
32.81
aMarcellus (1978b)
79
-------
Table 28. Proportional Distributions, Expressed as Percentages, of Early
Life Stages of Bay Anchovyt Based on the 1975 TI Long River Survey
Week
6/1 -
6/8 -
6/15 -
6/22 -
6/29 -
7/6 -
7/13 -
7/20 -
7/27 -
8/3 -
8/10 -
6/7
6/14
6/21
6/28
7/5
7/12
7/19
7/26
8/2
8/9
8/16
Eggs
27.84
4.63
0.96
0
30.12
28.38
6.89
0.98
0.20
u
0
Yol ksac
larvae
10.33
18.91
0
0
0
70.76
0
0
0
-
0
Post yolksac
larvae
0.06
2.53
0.53
3.04
2.49
34.05
20.45
20.42
10.62
-
5.81
Early
juveniles
0
0
0
0
0
2.66
0
11.67
20.66
-
- 65.01
jWellus (1978b)
no sampling conducted
80
-------
stage. The estimated peak average weekly standing crop of post yolksac
larvae occurred in the Tappan Zee region (RM 24-33) during both 1974
and 1975 (figures 28 and 29).
The period of collection of bay anchovy post yolksac larvae in the
Long River surveys was from early to mid-June through at least mid-
August each year (tables 27 and 28). Peak collections occurred in July
of each year. The time period between peak collections of post yolksac
larvae and juveniles in the Long River surveys was 2-3 weeks in 1974 and
4-5 weeks 1n 1975. Since peak juvenile abundance occurred during the
last week of data collection each year (tables 27 and 28), peak abundance
of this life stage may not have been reached by that time. Therefore,
the duration of the post yolksac larval life stage is assumed to have
been about one month (30 days) each year.
JUVENILES
Since growth data discussed in this section indicate bay anchovies
remain an entrainable size through October, the term "early juveniles"
will refer to juveniles prior to November and the term "fall juveniles"
will refer to juveniles in November and December each year.
Early juveniles
Length data collected by LMS during 1974 and 1975 indicated juvenile
bay anchovies in the Bowline region of the Hudson River, on the average,
did not surpass 50 mm (considered maximum entrainable length in this
testimony) until after October each year (Table 29). These data do not
reflect slow growth of bay anchovy juveniles, but rather a continuous
recruitment of fish into this life stage, as evidenced by the spawning
season duration previously discussed. If bay anchovies do spawn in
September in the Hudson River, as previously hypothesized, their offspring
would reach the juvenile life stage in about one month or more.
TI beach seine collections of bay anchovy juveniles through the end
of October 1974 and 1975, indicated a more downriver distribution than
the Long River surveys (figures 30 and 31). The differences in distrib-
utions between the two surveys are probably due to the much later time
period represented by the beach seine collections. Both surveys found
peak abundances of early juveniles in the Tappan Zee region (RM 24-33)
during 1975; the Long River Survey found a peak 1n the Croton-Haverstraw
region (RM 34-38) in 1974.
Based on information previously discussed, the sum of bay anchovy
Hfe stage durations through the post yolksac larval life stage is
approximately one month (32 days). Therefore, assuming the last cohort
of bay anchovies 1s spawned in mid-August (tables 27 and 28), a six week
life stage duration for entrainable juveniles would end the entrainment
Interval of this cohort at the end of October.
Juveniles
Based on beach seine collections past October, juvenile bay anchovies
almost entirely (100 percent in 1974 and 94 percent in 1975) concentrated
81
-------
Table 29. Average Lengths of Bay Anchovies Sampled In the Bowline Region
of the Hudson River during 1974 and 1975
Month 1974a 1975b
July . - 33
August 32 37
September 36 38
October 41 46
November - 59
afrom Table VI1-37 of LMS (1975)
bfrom Table VII-39 of LMS (1976)
82
-------
w
60
40
8CETNT
ro
CD «5>
U.
U
M0
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
-
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
_]
I
pi LONG RIVER SURVEY
Bowl ine Rose ton
YK
TZ
Ch IP UP CW PK HP KG S6 CK AL
Indian Pt
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 30. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile bay anchovies during 1974, based on TI Long River and
beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 1978b).
83
-------
w
60
40
20
z 0
u
u
U.
LJ
°-8B
60
40
20
0
m
BEACH SEINES - SHOREZONE
' ' ,
LONG RIVER SURVEY
[ | [
Bowl ine Rose ton
YK
TZ
i t
Ch IP UP CW PK HP KG SG CK AL
t
Indian Pt
0 10 28 30 40 50 68 70 88 96 108 118 120 138 148 150
RIVER MILE
Figure 31. Proportional distributions, expressed as percentages, of early
juvenile bay anchovies during 1975, based on TI Long River and
beach seine survey data supplied to EPA (Marcellus 19785).
84
-------
in the lowermost region of the river (RM 14-23). This indicates a
substantial proportion of the fall juvenile population of bay anchovies
probably had moved below RM 14 by this time of the year.
ADULTS
No tagging studies have been conducted on the Hudson River popu-
lation of bay anchovies. Studies elsewhere indicate that oceanic
movements are apparently limited to localized inshore-offshore migra-
tions (Hildebrand 1963).
FISHERIES - PAST AND PRESENT
In 1973, anchovies accounted for less than 500 Ib or $500 in the
New England commercial fisheries landings (NMFS 1975). No known sport
fishery exists for the species in the Hudson River. However, they are
probably used by sport fishermen as bait fish to catch other species.
TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
The bay anchovy feeds on small planktonic animals and detrital
materials 1n the Hudson River (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant
Research 1977). The bay anchovy is the principal food source for blue-
fish in the Hudson River (p. II-4, TI 1976a). Striped bass also prey on
bay anchovies (p. V-17, 1976b).
85
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Alperin, I. M. 1966. Dispersal, migration and origins of striped bass
from Great South Bay, Long Island. NY Fish and Game J. 13:79-112.
Atkinson, C. E. 1951. Feeding habits of adult shad (Alosa sapidissima)
in fresh water. Ecology 32:556-557.
AuClair, R. P. 1956. The white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin)
(in) Sebasticook Lake, Maine. M.S. Thesis. University of Maine.
84 pp.
Baird, S. F. 1887. Report of the Commissioner . U.S. Comm. Fish.
Rept. 13(1885):i-cxii.
Bean, T. H. 1903. Catalogue of the fishes of New York. N.Y. State
Mus. Bull. 60(Zool. 9): 1-784.
Berry, F. H. 1964. Review and emendation of: Family Clupeidae, p.
257-454. By Samuel F. Hildebrand, with emendations by others, and
sections on Harengula by Luis R. Rivas and on Dorosoma by Robert R.
Miller. In:Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Sears Foundation
for Marine Research, New Haven, Connecticut, Memoir I, Part 3,
630pp...Copeia 1964(4):720-730.
Bigelow, H. B., and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 53(74):577pp.
Blackford, C. M. 1916. The shad - a national problem. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 46(1):5-14.
Booth, R. A. 1967. A description of the larval stages of the tomcod,
Microgadus tomcod, with comments on its spawning ecology. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Univ. Conn. 53 pp.
Boreman, J. 1979. Chapter III. Spatial distributions of entrainable
life stages of six Hudson River fish populations; in J. Boreman et
al. Entrainment impact estimates for six fish populations inhabiting
the Hudson River estuary. Exhibit EPA - .
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research. 1977. An atlas of the
biological resources of the Hudson Estuary. Yonkers, N.Y. 104pp.
Burdick, G. E. 1954. An analysis of the factors, including pollution,
having possible influence on the abundance of shad in the Hudson
River. N.Y. Fish and Game J. 1(2):188-205.
Cheney, A. N. 1896. Shad of the Hudson River. Annu. Rep. Comm. Fish.
Game, and For., N.Y. 1895:125-134.
86
-------
Chittenden, M. E. 1976. Weight loss mortality, feeding and duration
of residence of adult American shad, Alosa sapidissima in fresh
water. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. BuTTT 74(1):151-157.
Chittenden, M. E., and J. R. Westman. 1967. Highlights of the life
history of the American shad in the Delaware River. Presented at
the public hearing on water quality standards for the Delaware
River at Trenton, N.J., January 26, 1967, by the Delaware River
Basin Comnission. 9 pp.
Cianci, J. M. 1969. Larval development of the alewife, Alosa
pseudoharengus Wilson, and the glut herring, Alosa aestivalis
Mitchell.M.S. Thesis. University of Connecticut.62 pp.
Clark, J. R. 1968. Seasonal movements of striped bass contingents
of Long Island Sound and New York Bight. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
97:320-373.
Conover, N. R. 1958. Investigations of white perch, Morone
americana (Gmelin), in Albemarle Sound and the lower Roanoke
River, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State College.
58 pp.
Davis, J. R., and R. P. Check. 1966. Distribution, food habits, and
growth of young clupeids, Cape Fear River System, North Carolina.
S. E. Assoc. Game Fish Corrni., Proc. 20th Ann. Confer. 250-260.
Deuel, D. G. 1973. 1970 salt-water angling survey. U.S. Dept. Comm.,
NOAA/NMFS. 54 pp.
Deuel, D. G., and J. R. Clark. 1968. The 1965 salt-water angling
survey. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Resource Publ. 67-51 pp.
Dew, C. B., and J. Hecht. 1976. Observations on the population dynamics
of the Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) in the Hudson River
Estuary. Fourth Symposium on Hudson River Ecology, March 28-30.
Hudson River Environmental Society, Inc. Paper 25. 8 pp.
Dodson, J. J., and W. C. Leggett. 1973. Behavior of adult American
shad (Alosa sapidissima) homing to the Connecticut River from Long
Island Sound. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:1847-1860.
Edsall. T. A. 1970. The effects of temperature on the rate of development
and survival of alewife eggs and larvae. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
99:376-380.
Exhibit UT-3. Supplement I to influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and
other steam electric generating plants on the Hudson River estuary,
with emphasis on the striped bass and other fish populations.
Edited by J. T. McFadden and J. P. Lawler. Submitted to Consol-
idated Edison Company of New York, Inc. July 1977.
87
-------
Exhibit UT-4. Influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric
generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on the
striped bass and other fish populations. Edited by J. T. McFadden.
Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1977.
Exhibit UT-6. Roseton Generating Station. Near-field effects of once-
through cooling system operation on Hudson River biota. Central
Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation. July 1977.
Exhibit UT-7. Bowline Point Generating Station. Near-field effects of
once-through cooling system operation on Hudson River biota.
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. July 1977.
Foster, F. J. 1919. White perch notes and methods of propagation.
Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 48(3):160-165.
Fredin, R. A. 1954. Causes of fluctuations in abundance of Connecticut
River shad. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 54:247-259.
Goodyear, C. P- 1978. Management problems of migratory stocks of
striped bass, pp. 75-84 i_n_ H. Clepper (ed.), Marine recreational
fisheries 3: Proceedings of the Second Annual Marine Recreational
Fisheries Symposium. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D. C.
176 pp.
Grabe, S. A. 1978. Food and feeding habits of juvenile Atlantic
tomcod, Microgadus tomcod, from Haverstraw Bay, Hudson River.
Fish. Bull. 76(l):89-94.
Greeley, J. R. 1937. Fishes of the area with an annotated list,
p. 45-103 i£ E. Moore and Associates, A biological survey of the
lower Hudson watershed. Suppl. 26th Ann. Rept., 1936. N.Y.
Consv. Dept. 183 pp.
Hardy, J. D., Jr. '1978. Development of fishes of the mid-Atlantic
bight. Volume III, Aphredoderidae through Rachycentridae. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-78/12. 394 pp.
Hardy, J. D., Jr., and L. L. Hudson. 1975. Descriptions of the eggs
and juveniles of the Atlantic tomcod, Microgadus tomcod. Univ. Md.
Nat. Resour. Inst. Chesapeake Biol. Lab, Ref. 75-TTT4pp.
Hatton, S. R. 1941. Feeding habits of the striped bass and shad.
Calif. Conservationist 6(5):ll-22.
Hildebrand, S. F. 1943. A review of the American anchovies (Family
Engraulidae). Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Collect. Yale Univ. 8(2):
1-165.
Hildebrand, S. F. 1963a. Family Engraulidae. Pages 152-249 in Fishes
of western North Atlantic. Sears Found. Mar. Res., Mem. 1(3).
-------
Hildebrand, S. F. 1963b. Family Clupeidae. Pages 257-385, 397-442,
452-454 ^ Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Sears Found. Mar.
Res. Mem. 1(3).
Hildebrand, S. F., and L. E. Cable. 1930. Development and life history
of fourteen teleostean fishes at Beaufort, N. C. U.S. Bur. Fish.,
Bull. 46:383-488.
Hildebrand, S. F., and W. C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake
Bay. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 42(1926):77-85.
Hollis, E. H. 1948. The homing tendency of shad. Science 108(2804):
332-333.
Howe, A. B. 1971. Biological investigations of the Atlantic tomcod,
Microgadus tomcod (Walbaum), in the Weweantic River Estuary,
Massachusetts, 1967. MS Thesis, Univ. Mass. 82 pp.
Jones, P. W., F. D. Martin, and J. D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development
of fishes of the mid-Atlantic bight. Volume 1. Acipenseridae
through Ictaluridae. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-78/12.
366pp.
Klauda, R. J., M. Nittel, and K. P. Campbell. 1976. The commercial
fishery for American shad in the Hudson River: fishing effort and
stock abundance trends, pp. 107-134 ir^ Proceedings of a workshop on
American Shad. USFWS/NMFS. 350 pp.
Koo, T. S. Y. 1970. The striped bass fishery in the Atlantic states.
Chesapeake Sci. ll(2):73-93.
Kuntz, A. 1914. The embryology and larval development of Bairdiella
chrysura and Anchovia mitchelli. U.S. Bur. Fish., Bull. (1913)
33:1-19.
Lagler, K. F. 1961. Freshwater fisheries biology. William C. Brown
Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 421 pp.
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, Inc. (IMS) 1975. 1974 Hudson
River aquatic ecology studies - Bowline Point and Lovett Generating
Stations. Volume II, Chapters VII-XII. Prepared for Orange and
Rock!and Utilities, Inc.
Lawler, Matusky, Skelly Engineers (IMS). 1976. 1975 Hudson River
aquatic ecology studies - Bowline Point and Lovett Generating
Stations, Volume I. Chapters I-IX. Prepared for Orange and Rock-
land Utilities, Inc.
Leggett, W. C. 1972. Weight loss in American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
during freshwater migration. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 101:549-552.
89
-------
Leggett, W. C., and R. R. Whitney. 1972. Water temperature and the
migrations of American shad. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull.
70(3):659-670.
Lehman, B. A. 1953. Fecundity of Hudson River shad. U.S. Fish Wildl.
Serv. Res. Rep. 33, 8 pp.
Leim, A. H. 1924. The life history of the shad (Alosa sapidissima
(Wilson)) with special reference to the factors limiting its
abundance. Fish. Res. Board Can. Cont. to Can. Biol. 2(11):163-
284.
Leim, A. H., and W. B. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic coast of
Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 155. 485 pp.
Levesque, R. C., and R. J. Reed. 1972. Food availability and consumption
by young Connecticut River shad, Alosa sapidissima. J. Fish Res.
Board Can. 29:1495-1499.
Mansueti, R. J. 1958. Eggs, larvae and young of the striped bass,
Roccus saxatilis. Md. Dept. Res. Educ. Ches. Biol. Lab., Contrib.
112. 3F~pp~:
Mansueti, R. J. 1961. Movements, reproduction, and mortality of the
white perch, Roccus americana, in the Patuxent River Estuary.
Maryland. Chesapeake Sci\ 2(3-4):142-205.
Mansueti, R. J. 1964. Eggs, larvae, and young of the white perch,
Roccus americana, with comments on its ecology within the estuary.
Chesapeake Sci. 5(1-2):3-45.
Mansueti, R. J., and A. J. Mansueti. 1955. White perch eggs and larvae
studies in lab. Maryland Tidewater News 12(7):l-3. *
Marcel1 us, K. L. 1977a (pers. comm.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated October 31, 1977.
Marcel 1 us, K. L. 1977b (pers. comm.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated November 30, 1977.
Marcel 1 us, K. L. 1978a (pers. cornn.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated February 14, 1978.
Marcellus, K. L. 1978b (pers. comm.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated February 21, 1978.
Marcellus, K. L. 1978c (pers. comm.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated February 27, 1978.
Marcellus, K. L. 1978d (pers. comm.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated April 12, 1978.
90
-------
Marcellus, K. L. 1979 (pers. comm.). Letter to Henry Gluckstern (EPA)
dated March 2, 1979.
Marcy, B. H., Jr. 1968. Age determination from scales of Alosa
pseudoharengus (Wilson), and Alosa aestivalis (Mitchell), in
Connecticut waters. M.S. Thesis. University of Connecticut. 25
pp.
Massman, W. H. 1962. Water temperatures, salinities, and fishes
collected during trawl surveys of Chesapeake Bay and York and
Pamunkey Rivers, 1956-1959. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Spec. Sci. Rep.
27. 51 pp.
Massman, W. H. 1958. A check list of fishes of the Virginia waters
of Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Finfish Prog. Rept.
60. 14 pp. (mimeo).
Massman, W. H. 1963. Summer food of juvenile American shad in Virginia
waters. Chesapeake Sci. 4(4):167-171.
Mather, F. 1887. Report of operations of Cold Spring Harbor, New
York, during the season of 1885. U.S. Comm. Fish. Rept. 13(1885):
109-120.
Mather, F. 1889. Report of operations at Cold Spring Harbor, New York,
during the season of 1886. U.S. Comm. Fish. Rept. 14(1886):721-
728.
Mather, F. 1900. Modern fish-culture in fresh and salt water. Forest
and Stream Publ. Co., New York. 333 pp.
McDonald, M. 1884. The shad - Clupea sapidissima. p. 594-607 2L
G. B. Goode and Associates (eds.), The Fisheries and Fishing
Industry of the United States. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. XXXIV +
895 pp.
McDonald, M. 1887. The fisheries of the Hudson River. P. 658-659 1^
G. B. Goode and Associates (eds.), The Fisheries and Fishing
Industries of the United States. Section V. History and Methods
of the Fisheries. Vol. I. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish.
Medeiros, W. W. 1974. Legal mechanisms to rehabilitate the Hudson
River shad fishery. NY Sea Grant Program. SS-406:49 pp (manuscript)
Morgan R. P., II.. and R. D. Prince. 1976. Chlorine toxicity to
estuaHne fish eggs and larvae. Chesapeake Biol. Lab., Univ. Md.
Cent. Eniron. Stud. UMCEES Ref. 76-116 CBL. 122 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1975. New England fisheries,
annual summary 1973. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6815. 11
pp.
91
-------
Nichols, J. T., and C. M. Breder, Jr. 1927. The marine fishes of
New York and southern New England. Zoologica 9(1):1-192.
Nichols, P. R. 1960. Homing tendency of American shad, Alosa sapidissima
In the York River, Virginia. Chesapeake Sci. 1(3-4)T^00^20T7
Pearson, J. C. 1938. The life history of the striped bass, or
rockfish, Roccus saxatilis (Walbaum). U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull
49(28):825-851.
Raney, E. C. 1959. Some young freshwater fishes of New York. N.Y
State Conserv. 14(l):22-28.
Raney, E. C. 1965. Some pan fishes of New York - yellow perch,
white perch, white bass, freshwater drum. N.Y. State Conserv.
19(5):22-28.
Richards, S. W. 1959. Pelagic fish eggs and larvae of Long Island
Sound. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Collect. Yale Univ. 17(1):95-124.
Richards, W. J. 1960. The life history, habits and ecology of the
white perch, Rocus americana (Gmelin) in Cross Lake, New York.
M.S. Thesis. State Univ. Coll. Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y. 113 pp.
Rogers, R. A., D. T. Westin, and S. B. Saila. 1977. Life stage duration
studies on Hudson River striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum),
Univ. of Rhode Island, Mar. Tech. Rept. No. 3T~! Ill pp.
Ryder, J. A. 1883. Observations on the absorption of the yolk, the
food, feeding, and development of embryo fishes, comprising some
investigations conducted at the Central Hatchery, Armour Building,
Washington, D.C., in 1882. U.S. Conm. Fish. Bull. 2(1882):179-
205.
Ryder, J. A. 1887. On the development of osseus fishes, including
marine and freshwater forms. U.S. Comm. Fish. Rept. 13(1885):488-
604.
Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada.
Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 184. 966 pp.
Schwartz, F. J. 1960. The perches. Md. Conserv. 37(2):20-23.
Schwartz, F. J. 1964. Fishes of the Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays
near Ocean City. Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 5(4):172-193.
Sheri, A. N., and G. Power. 1968. Reproduction of white perch,
Roccus americana. 1n the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 25(10):2225-2231.
92
-------
Sholar» I' M- 1976.' status of American shad 1n North Carolina, p. 17-
31 j£ Proceedings of a Workshop on American shad. USFWS/NMFS 350
DD.
PP-
Stevenson, R. A., Jr. 1958. A biology of the anchovies, Anchoa
mitchelli mitchelli Cuvier and Valenciennes 1848 and Anchoa
hepsetus hepsetus Linnaeus 1758. M.S. Thesis. University of
Delaware. 56 pp.
Stira, R. J., and B. A. Smith. 1976. The distribution of early life
stages of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 1n the Hudson River
estuary, p. 179-189 in Proceedings of a Workshop on American Shad.
USFWS/NMFS. 350 pp.~~
Svetovidov, A. N. 1962. Fauna of the U.S. S. R. Fishes. Vol. 9,
No. 4. Gadiformes (Transl. from Russian) Israel Program for
Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. 304 pp.
Talbot, G. B. 1954. Factors associated with fluctuations in abundance
of Hudson River shad. U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv. Fish Bull. 56(101):373-
413.
Talbot, G. B., and J. E. Sykes. 1958. Atlantic coast migration of
American shad. U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv. Fish. Bull. 58(142):473-490.
Taub, S. H. 1966. Some aspects of the life history of the white perch,
Roccus americana (Gmelin), in Quabbin Reservoir, Massachusetts.
M.S. Thesis. Univ. Mass. 63 pp.
Taub, S. H. 1969. Fecundity of the white perch. Prog. Fish-Cult.
31(3):166-168.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1976a. Predation by bluefish in the
lower Hudson River. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1976b. Hudson River ecological study
in the area of Indian Point. 1975 annual report. Prepared for
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1977. 1974 year-class report for the
multiplant impact study of the Hudson River Estuary, Volumes I-III.
Prepared under contract with Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1978. 1975 year-class report for the
multiplant impact study of the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared
under contract with Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Thoits, C. F., and J. W. Mullan. 1958. A compendium of the life history
and ecology of the white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin). Mass.
Div. Fish Game, Fish, Sec., Fish. Bull. 24. 19 pp.
93
-------
Titcomb, J. W. 1910. Fish culture practices in the United States
Bureau of Fisheries. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 28(1908, pt. 2):699-
/D/
Tracy, H. C. 1910. Annotated list of fishes known to inhabit the
waters of Rhode Island. R.I. Com. Inland Fish. Annu. Rept.
49(1910):35-176.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Final environmental
statement related to operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Plant Unit No. 3. Docket No. 50-286.
Vladykov, V. D. 1955. Cods. Fishes of Quebec. Que. Dep. Fish.,
Album 4. 12 pp.
Hal burg, C. H. 1956. Observation on the food and growth of juvenile
American shad, Alosa sapidissima. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 86:302-
306.
Wai burg, C. H. 1963. Parent-progeny relation and estimation of optimum
yield for American shad in the Connecticut River. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 92(4):436-439.
Wai burg, C. H., and P, R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and management of
the American shad and status of the fisheries, Atlantic coast of
the United States, 1960. U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.,
.Fish. 550: 105 pp.
Westin, D. T., and B. A. Rogers. 1978. Synopsis of biological data
on the striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum 1792). Univ. of
Rhode Island. Mar. Tech. Rept. No. 67- 153 pp.
Williams, R. 0., and 6. E. Bruger. 1972. Investigations of American
shad in the St. Johns River. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Tech. Ser.
66:49 pp.
Winters, G. H., J. A. Moores, and R. Chaulk. 1973. Northern range
extension and probable spawning of gaspereau (Alosa pseudoharengus)
in the Newfoundland area. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:860-861.
Woolcott, W. S. 1955. Comparative osteology of serranid fishes of
the genus Korone (Mitchel) and intraspecific variation in Morone
americanus (Gmelin). Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell University. 90 pp.
Worth, S. G. 1898. The shad. Rep. U.S. Fish Corim. 1897. 23:133-158.
94
------- |