PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2B - PRELIMINARY MODEL CALIBRATION REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
OCTOBER 1996
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Volume 2B
Book 2 of 2
Limno-Tech, Inc.
and
Menzie Cura & Associates, Inc.
and
The CADMUS Group, Inc.

-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE	TITLE
3-1	Comparison of Upper Hudson River HUDTOX Geometry with 1984
Feasibility Study Estimates
4-1	Hudson River HUDTOX Model Segmentation Geometry
4-2 Average Flows in the Upper Hudson River for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-3 Total Suspended Solids Loads to the Upper Hudson River for the Model
Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-4 Total PCB Loads to the Upper Hudson River for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-5 Upper Hudson River External Loads for HUDTOX Calibration Period
(1/1/93-9/30/93)
4-6	HUDTOX Temperature Forcing Functions for January-September 1993
Calibration
4-7 HUDTOX Initial Conditions of Sediment Solids for Calibration
4-8 Total PCBs in the 0-5 cm Sediment Layer Estimated from GE 1992
Sediment Data
4-9 Definition and HUDTOX Solids Model Process-related Parameters
4-10 Definition and HUDTOX PCB Model Process-related Parameters
4-11 Phase 2 Monitoring Program Sampling Stations in Relation to the HUDTOX
Model Segmentation
4-12 1993 HUDTOX Solids Model Calibration Parameter Values
4-13 Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) - 1993 Calibration Period
4-14 1993 HUDTOX PCB Model Calibration Parameter Values
4-15 Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Total PCBs (ng/l) -1993 Calibration Period
4-16 Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Apparent Dissolved PCBs (ng/l) - 1993 Calibration Period
4-17 Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Particulate PCBs (ug/g solid) - 1993 Calibration Period
i

-------
5-1	Comparison of Manning's 'n' from Previous Studies
5-2	Modeled Hudson River Flows in the TIP
5-3	Comparison of Model Results with Rating Curve Data
5-4	Effect of Manning 'n' on Model Results for 100 Year Flow Event
5-5	Effect of Turbulent Exchange Coefficients on Model Results
6-1	Thompson Island Pool Erodability Study Data Requirements
6-2 Summary of Inputs for Depth of Scour Model at Each High Resolution Core
6-3 Predicted Depth of Scour Range for 100 Year Flood at Each High Resolution
Core
6-4 Summary of Design Flows
6-5	Mass of Solids and PCBs Eroded From Cohesive Sediments in TIP
7-1	Component Analysis - Exposure Model
7-2 Component Analysis - Bioaccumulation Model
7-3 Sensitivity Analysis - Exposure Model
7-4	Sensitivity Analysis - Foodchain Model
8-1	Variables Used in Probabilistic Food Chain Model
8-2 Relationship Between Fish Species and Compartments
8-3	Three-Phase Partition Coefficient Estimates
9-1	Count of NYSDEC Fish Samples, Hudson River Mile 142 to 195
9-2 Lipid-Based Aroclor Concentrations by Species in NYSDEC Fish Samples
from River Miles 142 through 195 in the Hudson River, 1975-1992
9-3 Mean Aroclor 1016 Concentrations as ng/g-lipid in NYSDEC Samples of Fish
from Hudson River Miles 142 to 195
9-4 Mean Aroclor 1254 Concentrations as ^g/g-lipid in NYSDEC Samples of Fish
from Hudson River Miles 142 to 195
9-5 Packed-Column Peaks and Associated PCB Congeners Used in the
NYSDEC Fish Sample Aroclor Quantitation
9-6 Weight Percents of Congeners in Packed-Column Peaks Used for NYSDEC
Aroclor Quantitation Schemes, based on Capillary Column Analyses of
Aroclor Standards
ii

-------
9-7 Relationships Used to Correct Older NYSDEC Aroclor Quantitations in Fish
(ppb) to 1983 Basis
9-8 Summer (June-Sept.) Average Water Column Concentrations of Total PCBs
('n'g/L) from USGS Monitoring in the Upper Hudson River
9-9 Models of Mean PCB Aroclor Concentration in NYSDEC Upper Hudson Fish
Samples Based on Water Column Concentration Only (mg/kg-Lipid)
9-10 Models of Mean PCB Aroclor Concentration in NYSDEC Upper Hudson Fish
Samples Based on Water Column Concentration and Constant Sediment
Concentration Normalized to Organic Carbon (mg/kg-Lipid)
9-11	Estimated Proportion of Variability Explained by Bivariate BAF Relationships
Attributed to Water and Sediment Pathways in NYSDEC Fish Samples from
Hudson River Miles 142 through 195
10-1	TAMS/Gradient Phase II Ecological and Water Column Sampling Locations
10-2 Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species on
Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
10-3 Ration of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species on
Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
10-4 Ration of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species on
Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
10-5 Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10 cm to Lipid-Normalized
Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1016
10-6 Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10 cm to Lipid-Normalized
Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1254
10-7 Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed (all sizes) to Lipid-Normalized
Multiplate Samplers for Total PCBs
10-8	Bioaccumulation Factors for Brown Bullhead
10-9	Look-Up Table for the 15th Percentile Yellow Perch Model
10-10	Look-Up Table for Mean Concentrations for Yellow Perch Model
10-11	Look-Up Table for the 75th Percentile for Yellow Perch Model
10-12	Look-Up Table for 95th Percentile for Yellow Perch Model
iii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE title
1 -1	Hudson River Watershed
1-2	Upper and Lower Hudson River
1-3	Upper Hudson River
1-4	Lower Hudson River
1-5	Thompson Island Pool
3-1	PCB Mass Balance Model Conceptual Diagram
3-2	Conceptual Framework for HUDTOX Solids Model
3-3	State Variables in HUDTOX Model
3-4	Conceptual Framework for HUDTOX PCB Model
3-5	Upper Hudson River Model (HUDTOX) Water Column Segmentation
3-6	Approximate Locations of GE 1991 Bathymetric Survey Cross-Sections
3-7	HUDTOX Water Column and Sediment Segmentation Schematic
3-8	6 Mile Reach of Thompson Island Pool (shaded)
3-9	Finite Element Model Grid
3-10	Thompson Island Pool Depth of Scour Model Conceptual Approach
3-11	Food Web Interactions Used in Lower Hudson Food Chain Model
3-12	Lower Hudson Model Spatial Domain and Physicochemical Model
Segmentation
4-1	Historical Trends of USGS Flow, TSS and Total PCBs in the Upper Hudson
River at Fort Howard
4-2 Recent Trends of Flow TSS and Total PCBs in the Upper Hudson River at
Fort Edward and Thompson Island Dam
4-3 USGS Daily Flow Records for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-4 USGS TSS and Daily Flow at Fort Edward for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-5 Total PCBs and Daily Flow at Ft. Edward for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-6 Upper Hudson River External Water, Solids and DOC Loads for HUDTOX
Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
iv

-------
4-7 Estimated Daily TSS Loads for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-8 Estimated Total PCB Loads for the Model Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-9 Upper Hudson River External PCB Loads for HUDTOX Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-10 TSS Calibration for Upper Hudson River for January - September 1993
4-11 Hudson River TSS Calibration - Cumulative TSS Flux at USGS Stillwater
Station January - September 1993
4-12 Hudson River TSS Calibration - Cumulative TSS Flux at USGS Waterford
Station January - September 1993
4-13	HUDTOX Predicted TSS vs. Observed Values (mg/l) 1993 Calibration Period
4-14	Total PCB Calibration - ZPCBs for January - September 1993
4-15	Total PCB Calibration - BZ#4 for January - September 1993
4-16	Total PCB Calibration - BZ#28 for January - September 1993
4-17	Total PCB Calibration - BZ#52 for January - September 1993
4-18	Total PCB Calibration - BZ#101 and 90 for January - September 1993
4-19	Total PCB Calibration - BZ#138 for January - September 1993
4-20	Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - ZPCBs for January - September 1993
4-21	Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#4 for January - September 1993
4-22	Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#28 for January - September 1993
4-23	Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#52 for January - September 1993
4-24	Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#101 and 90 for January -
September 1993
4-25	Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#138 for January - September 1993
4-26	TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - ZPCBs for January - September 1993
4-27	TSS Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#4 for January - September 1993
4-28	TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#28 for January - September 1993
4-29	TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#52 for January - September 1993
4-30 TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#101 and 90 for January - September
1993
4-31 TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#138 for January - September 1993
4-32 HUDTOX Predicted Total PCB Concentrations vs. Observed Values (ng/L)
Phase 2 Transect Data
v

-------
4-33 HUDTOX Apparent Dissolved PCB Concentrations vs. Observed Values
(ng/L) Phase 2 Transect Data
4-34 HUDTOX Particulate PCB Concentrations vs. Observed Values (ug/g solid)
Phase 2 Transect Data
4-35 Solids Component Diagram for Upper Hudson River without Pore Water
Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-36 Solids Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool without Pore Water
Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-37 TSS Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-38 Total PCBs Component Diagram for Upper Hudson River without Pore
Water Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-39 Total PCBs Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool without Pore
Water Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-40 XPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With
No Pore Water Advection
4-41 BZ#4 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With
No Pore Water Advection
4-42 BZ#28 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With
No Pore Water Advection
4-43 BZ#52 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With
No Pore Water Advection
4-44 BZ#101+90 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
4-45 BZ#138 PCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period
(1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With No Pore Water Advection
4-46 BZ#4 Component Diagram for Upper Hudson River with Pore Water
Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-47 BZ#4 Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool with Pore Water
Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-48 BZ#4 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With
Pore Water Advection in Thompson Island Pool
4-49 Total PCBs Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool with Pore Water
Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-50 ZPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93) With
Pore Water Advection in Thompson Island Pool
4-51 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for
Total PCBs January - September 1993
vi

-------
4-52 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for
BZ#4 January - September 1993
4-53 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for
BZ#28 January - September 1993
4-54 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for
BZ#52 January - September 1993
4-55 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for
BZ#101 90 January - September 1993
4-56 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for
BZ#138 January - September 1993
4-57 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%)
for Total PCBs January - September 1993
4-58 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%)
for BZ#4 January - September 1993
4-59 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to UDp~rei'¦,~, Boundary Conditions (+/-30%)
for BZ#28 January - September 199b
4-60 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%)
for BZ#52 January - September 1993
4-61 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Condition (+/-30%)
for BZ#101 and 90 January - September 1993
4-62 HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%)
for BZ#138 January - September 1993
4-63 EPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Initial Conditions
(+/-30%) for Sediment PCBs (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
4-64	XPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream
Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for PCBs (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
5-1	Finite Element Model Segmentation
5-2 Location of Gauges 119 and 118
5-3 Location of USGS Discharge Measurement Transects
5-4 Computed Velocities in Thompson Island Pool for the 100-Year Flow
5-5	Comparison of Shear Stress Conversions for the Four Methods
6-1	Core HR-26:Rogers Island East Likelihood of Scour
6-2 Core HR-25:Rogers Island West Likelihood of Scour
6-3 Core HR-20:Thompson Island Pool Likelihood of Scour
vii

-------
6-4 Core HR-23:Thompson Island Pool Likelihood of Scour
6-5 Core HR-19:Thompson Island Pool Likelihood of Scour
6-6 Likelihood of Potential Local Scour as a Function of Applied Shear Stress
6-7	Estimating the Chances of Scour for a 100 Year Event at Selected Core
Locations
7-1	Salinity Calibration for Lower Hudson River
7-2 Suspended Solids Calibration for: (Top) Lower Hudson River, (Bottom) East
River and Long Island Sound
7-3 Comparison of Lower Hudson Physicochemical Model Output as Sum of
Homologs for 1978 to Sum of Observed Data for Period 1977-1979
7-4 Lower Hudson Physicochemical Model Sediment Depih PCB Calibration,
Segments #1-5
7-5 Calibration of Lower Hudson Food Chain Model to White Perch Data for
Total PCB, Region #2
7-6 Lower Hudson Food Chain Model Striped Bass Total PCB Calibration,
Region #2: (Top) 1946-1987, (Bottom) 1980-1987
7-7	Sensitivity of Lower Hudson Physicochemical Model Calibration to Alternate
Assumption of Upstream Load
8-1	Conceptual Framework for Hudson River Probabilistic Bioaccumulation
Model
9-1	Comparison of Sum of PCBs Calculated by NYSDEC 1977 Methodology and
Sum of Congeners for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
9-2 Comparison of Sum of PCBs Calculated by NYSDEC 1979 Methodology and
Sum of Congeners for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
9-3 Comparison of Sum of PCBs Calculated by NYSDEC 1983 Methodology and
Sum of Congeners for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
9-4 Comparison of Aroclor 1016 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983
Method and NYSDEC 1977 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson
River Fish Samples
9-5 Comparison of Aroclor 1016 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983
Method and NYSDEC 1979 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson
River Fish Samples
9-6 Comparison of Aroclor 1254 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983
Method and NYSDEC 1977 method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson
River Fish Samples
viii

-------
9-7 Comparison of Aroclor 1254 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983
Method and NYSDEC 1979 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson
River Fish Samples
9-8 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1016 Concentrations in
Hudson River Pumpkinseed (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation
Basis)
9-9 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1016 Concentrations in
Hudson River Largemouth Bass (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation
Basis)
9-10 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1016 Concentrations in
Hudson River Brown Bullhead (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation
Basis)
9-11 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1254 Concentrations in
Hudson River Pumpkinseed (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation
Basis)
9-12 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1254 Concentrations in
Hudson River Largemouth Bass (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation
Basis)
9-13 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1254 Concentrations in
Hudson River Brown Bullhead (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation
Basis)
9-14 Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1016 in
Pumpkinseed at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
9-15 Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in
Pumpkinseed at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
9-16 Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1016 in
Largemouth Bass at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
9-17 Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in
Largemouth Bass at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
9-18 Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1016 in Brown
Bullhead at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
9-19	Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in Brown
Bullhead at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
10-1	Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for BZ#4
10-2 Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for BZ#28
10-3 Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for BZ#52
10-4 Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for BZ#101 and BZ#90
ix

-------
10-5	Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for BZ#138
10-6	Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for Aroclor 1016
10-7	Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for Aroclor 1254
10-8	Average Sediment Concentration by River Mile for Total PCBs
10-9	Mean +-1 SE Benthic: Sediment Ratios by River Mile for BZ#4
10-10	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for BZ#4
10-11	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#4
10-12	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for BZ#4 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-13	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for BZ#28
10-14	Mean +-1 SE Benthic.Sediment Ratios by Species for BZ#28
10-15	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#28
10-16	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for BZ#28 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-17	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for BZ#52
10-18	Mean +-.1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for BZ#52
10-19	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#52
10-20	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics of BZ#52 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-21	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for BZ#101 and BZ#90
10-22	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for BZ#1Q1 and BZ#90
10-23	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#101
and BZ#90
10-24	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for BZ#101 and BZ#90 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-25	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for BZ#138
10-26	Mean +- 1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for BZ#138
10-27	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#138
10-28	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for BZ#138 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-29	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for Aroclor 1016
10-30	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for Aroclor 1016
10-31	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for Aroclor
1016
10-32	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Aroclor 1016 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-33	Mean +- 1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for Aroclor 1254
10-34	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for Aroclor 1254
x

-------
10-35	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for Aroclor
1254
10-36	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Aroclor 1254 in Benthic Invertebrates
10-37	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by River Mile for Total PCBs
10-38	Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios by Species for Total PCBs
10-39	BSAF versus Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for Total
PCBs
10-40	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Total PCBs in Benthic Invertebrates
10-41	Distributional Analysis for Aroclor 1016
10-42	Distributional Analysis for Aroclor 1254
10-43	Distributional Analysis for Total PCBs
10-44	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized BZ#4 Concentrations by River Mile
10-45	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for BZ#4
10-46	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized BZ#28 Concentrations by River Mile
10-47	Mean +- SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for BZ#28
10-48	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized BZ#52 Concentrations by River Mile
10-49	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for BZ#52
10-50	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized BZ#101 and BZ#90 Concentrations by River
Mile
10-51	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for BZ#101 and
BZ#90
10-52	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized BZ#138 Concentrations by River Mile
10-53	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for BZ#138
10-54	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized Aroclor 1016 Concentrations by River Mile
10-55	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for Aroclor 1016
10-56	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized Aroclor 1254 Concentrations by River Mile
10-57	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for Aroclor 1254
10-58	Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations by River Mile
10-59	Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations by River Mile for Total PCBs
10-60	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Aroclor 1016 in Forage Fish
10-61	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Aroclor 1254 in Forage Fish
10-62	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Total PCBs in Forage Fish
10-63	Goodness-of-Fit for Aroclor 1016 in Forage Fish
xi

-------
10-64	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Aroclor 1254 in Forage Fish
10-65	Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Total PCBs in Forage Fish
10-66	Modeled Yellow Perch Bioaccumulation Factors for Total PCBs
10-67	Modeled Concentrations for Yellow Perch Total PCBs
10-68 Ratio of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed by River Mile and Year for
Aroclor 1016
10-69 Ratio of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed by River Mile and Year for
Aroclor 1254
10-70 Ratio of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed by River Mile and Year - Total
PCBs
10-71 Sample Yellow Perch Bioaccumulation Model Application: Monte Carlo
Output
xii

-------
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE
TITLE
6-1
Study Site
6-2
Sediment Distribution
6-3
100-year Event Velocity
6-4
100-year Event Shear Stress
6-5
100-year Event Cohesive Sediments Mass Eroded
6-6
100-year Event Cohesive Sediments Depth of Scour
6-7
100-year Event Cohesive Sediments Mass of PCBs Eroded
6-8
1983 Event Velocity
6-9
1983 Event Shear Stress
6-10
1983 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass Eroded
6-11
1983 Event Cohesive Sediments Depth of Scour
6-12
1983 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass of PCBs Eroded
6-13
Spring 1994 Event Velocity
6-14
Spring 1994 Event Shear Stress
6-15
Spring 1994 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass Eroded
6-16
Spring 1994 Event Cohesive Sediments Depth of Scour
6-17
Spring 1994 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass of PCBs Eroded
6-18
Spring 1992 Event Velocity
6-19
Spring 1992 Event Shear Stress
6-20
Spring 1992 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass Eroded
6-21
Spring 1992 Event Cohesive Sediments Depth of Scour
6-22
Spring 1992 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass of PCBs Eroded
6-23
1991 Event Velocity
6-24
1991 Event Shear Stress
6-25
1991 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass Eroded
6-26
1991 Event Cohesive Sediments Depth of Scour
6-27
1991 Event Cohesive Sediments Mass of PCBs Eroded
xiii

-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX	TITLE
A	Fish Profiles
B	Mathematical Modeling, Technical Scope of Work

-------
Table 3-1
Comparison of Upper Hudson River HUDTOX Geometry with 1984 Feasibility Study Estimates
HUDTOX
Segment
Upstream
River Mile
Segment
Surface
Area
(sq. ft.)
Segment
Surface
Area
(Acres)
Estimated
Reach Area
(Acres)
NUS Reach
Surface
Area
(Acres)
Upper Hudson River Reach Description
(NUS 1984 Feasibility Study)
1
194.6
1.360E+07
312.2,



2
191.6
4.789E+06
109.9 \



3
190.3
7.894E+06
181.2 \
447
445
'South end of Rogers Island to Tl Dam
4
188.4
9.063E+06
208.1 -
208
220
Ti Dam to Lock 6
5
186.1
1.233E+07
283.0 —
283
270
Lock 6 to Lock 5
6
183.4
1.929E+07
442.8,


Near Batten Kill to south of Fish Creek
7
177.5
1.377E+07
316.1 \


South of Fish Creek to RM 174
8
173.8
2.195E+07
503.9
1263
1260
RM 174 to Lock 4
9
168.0
1.474E+07
338.3
338
330
Lock 4 to Lock 3
10
166.0
1.266E+07
290.6
291
330
Lock 3 to Lock 2
11
163.4
1.940E+07
445.3
445
420
Lock 2 to Lock 1
12
159.4
1.413E+07
324.3


Lock 1 to Mohawk River
13
156.5
1.414E+07
324,6 ^
~ 649
560
Mohawk River to Federal Dam (RM 153.9)
Federal Dam
153.9

	

	
Federal Dam
Totals

1.777E+08
4080.4
3924
3835
< 5% difference over Upper Hudson
'Note: 50% of Segment 1 area included in estimate for comparison to 1984 Feasibility Study (NUS)
References:
NUS, April 1984, Volume 1, Feasibility Study, Hudson River PCBs Site, New York, EPA Contract No. 68-01-6699.
Table 4-2, page 4-13.
1UL3-I.XLS: Table 3-1
lnterprcia!ion:8/29/96
Database Release 2.0
Prepared by: Scot! Hin/., LTI
Data Status: Preliminary

-------
Table 4-1
Hudson River HUDTOX Model Segmentation Geometry
Page 1 of 2







Surficial
Downstream

Water





Interface
Cross-section
Segment
or
Depth
Volume
Adjacent Segments
Area
Interface Area
Number
Sediment
(m)
(m3)
Above
Below
Downstream
(m2)
(m2)
1
w
2.70
3.410E+06

14
2
1.26E+06
708
2
w
3.34
1 485E+06

15
3
4.45E+05
754
3
w
3.33
2.439E+06

16
4
7.33E+05
649
4
w
2.20
1.851E+06

17
5
8.42E+05
734
5
w
3.67
4.204E+06

18
6
1.15E+06
786
6
w
3.20
5.740E+06

19
7
1.79E+06
754
7
w
4.21
5.384E+06

20
8
1.28E+06
839
8
w
3.54
7.216E+06

21
9
2.04E+06
1198
9
w
3.81
5.220E+06

22
10
1.37E+06
1152
10
w
2.43
2.856E+06

23
11
1.18E+06
884
11
w
3.88
6.993E+06

24
12
1.80E+06
1175
12
w
4.49
5.893E+06

25
13
1.31E+06
1523
13
w
5.68
7.459E+06

26
Federal Dam
1.31 E+06

14
s
0.05
6.317E+04
1
27

1.26E+06

15
s
0.05
2.224E+04
2
28

4.45E+05

16
s
0.05
3.667E+04
3
29

7.33E+05

17
s
0.05
4.210E+04
4
30

8.42E+05

18
s
0.05
5.726E+04
5
31

1.15E+06

19
s
0.05
8.959E+04
6
32

1.79E+06

20
s
0.05
6.395E+04
7
33

1.28E+06

21
s
0.05
1.020E+05
8
34

2.04E+06

22
s
0.05
6.845E+04
9
35

1.37E+06

23
s
0.05
5.879E+04
10
36

1.18E+06

24
s
0.05
9.009E+04
11
37

1.80E+06

25
s
0.05
6.562E+04
12
38

1.31 E+06

26
s
0.05
6.567E+04
13
39

1.31 E+06

27
s
0.05
6.317E+04
14
40

1.26E+06

28
s
0.05
2.224E+04
15
41

4.45E+05

29
s
0.05
3.667E+04
16
42

7.33E+05

30
s
0.05
4.210E+04
17
43

8.42E+05

31
s
0.05
5.726E+04
18
44

1.15E+06

32
s
0.05
8.959E+04
19
45

1.79E+06

33
s
0.05
6.395E+04
20
46

1.28E+06

34
s
0.05
1 020E+05
21
47

2.04E+06

35
s
0.05
6.845E+04
22
48

1.37E+06

36
s
0.05
5.879E+04
23
49

1.18E+06

37
s
0.05
9.009E+04
24
50

1.80E+06

38
s
0.05
6.562E+04
25
51

1.31 E+06

39
s
0.05
6.567E+04
26
52

1.31 E+06

40
s
0.15
1.895E+05
27
53

1.26 E+06

41
s
0.15
6.672E+04
28
54

4.45E+05


-------
Table 4-1
Hudson River HUDTOX Model Segmentation Geometry
Page 2 of 2






Surficial
Downstream

Water




Interface
Cross-section
Segment
or
Depth
Volume
Adjacent Segments
Area
Interface Area
Number
Sediment
(m)
(m3)
Above
Below Downstream
(m2)
(m2)
42
s
0.15
1.100E+05
29
55
7.33E+05

43
s
0.15
1.263E+05
30
56
8.42E+05

44
s
0.15
1.718E+05
31
57
1.15E+06

45
s
0.15
2.688E+05
32
58
1.79E+06

46
s
0.15
1.919E+05
33
59
1.28E+06

47
s
0.15
3.059E+05
34
60
2.04E+06

48
s
0.15
2.053E+05
35
61
1.37E+06

49
s
0.15
1.764E+05
36
62
1.18E+06

50
s
0.15
2.703E+05
37
63
1.80E+06

51
s
0.15
1.969E+05
38
64
1.31 E+06

52
s
0.15
1.970E+05
39
65
1.31 E+06

53
s
0.25
3.159E+05
40
66
1.26E+06

54
s
0.25
1.112E+05
41
67
4.45E+05

55
s
0.25
1.834E+05
42
68
7.33E+05

56
s
0.25
2.105E+05
43
69
8.42E+05

57
s
0.25
2.863E+05
44
70
1.15E+06

58
s
0.25
4.480E+05
45
71
1.79E+06

59
s
0.25
3.198E+05
46
72
1.28E+06

60
s
0.25
5.099E+05
47
73
2.04E+06

61
s
0.25
3.423E+05
48
74
1.37E+06

62
s
0.25
2.940E+05
49
75
1.18E+06

63
s
0.25
4.505E+05
50
76
1.80E+06

64
s
0.25
3.281 E+05
51
77
1.31 E+06

65
s
0.25
3.284E+05
52
78
1.31 E+06

66
s
0.50
6.317E+05
53
79
1.26E+06

67
s
0.50
2.224E+05
54
79
4.45E+05

68
s
0.50
3.667E+05
55
79
7.33E+05

69
s
0.50
4.210E+05
56
79
8.42E+05

70
s
0.50
5.726E+05
57
"9
1.15E+06

71
s
0.50
8.959E+05
58
79
1.79E+06

72
s
0.50
6.395E+05
59
79
1.28E+06

73
s
0.50
1.020E+06
60
79
2.04E+06

74
s
0.50
6.845E+05
61
79
1.37E+06

75
s
0.50
5.879E+05
62
79
1.18E+06

76
s
0.50
9.009E+05
63
79
1.80E+06

77
s
0.50
6.562E+05
64
79
1.31 E+06

78
s
0.50
6.567E+05
65
79
1.31 E+06

79
s
0.50
8.256E+06
66
0



-------
Table 4-2
Average Flows in the Upper Hudson River
for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
HUDTOX
Segment
Note
Gaged
Flow
(ft3/sec)
Ungaged
Tributary
(ft3/sec)
Remaining
Ungaged
(ft3/sec)
1
Ft. Edward
5418
—
0
2

—
—
27
3

—
—
40
4

—
—
48
5

—
—
57
6
Batten & Fish
—
1169
124
7

--
—
78
8

—
—
122
9
Hoosic River
1445
—
0
10

—
—
129
11

—
—
199
12

—
—
0
13
Mohawk River
6851
—
72
Source: Processed from USGS data in TAMS/Gradient Database.

-------
Table 4-3
Total Suspended Solids Loads to the Upper Hudson River
for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
HUDTOX
Segment
Location
Gaged
Tributary
(tons)
Ungaged
Tributary
(tons)
Minor
Ungaged
Tributary
and Nonpoint
(tons)
Algal
Production
(tons)
1
Ft. Edward
35,664
~
—
333
2

~
~
91.2
116
3

—
—
134
191
4

-
-
161
222
5

--
--
190
302
6
Batten Kill + Fish Creek1
-
52,264
-
473
7

-
--
260
337
8

--
-
407
664
9
Hoosic River
86,654
—
--
446
10

-
--
432
383
11

--
~
664
587
12

-
-
240
428
13
Mohawk River
248,723
-
~
428
Total

371,041
52,264
2,579
4,910
Estimated on a daily basis as described in Section 6.0
Source: Processed from data in TAMS/Gradient Database and Cole et al. (1992).

-------
Table 4-4
Total PCB Loads to the Upper Hudson River
for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
HUDTOX
Segment
Note
Gaged
Tributaries
(kg)
Ungaged
Tributary
(kg)
Remaining
Ungaged and
Nonpoint
(kg)
1
Ft. Edward
354
~
—
2

~
—
0.182
3

—
—
0.267
4

—
—
0.323
5

~
—
0.379
6
Batten & Fish
--
8.52
—
7

—
—
0.520
8

—
—
0.814
9
Hoosic River
22.1
—
—
10

—
—
0.864
11

—
—
1.33
12

—
—
0.479
13
Mohawk River
88.1
—
—
Source: Processed from EPA and General Electric data in TAMS/Gradient Database.

-------
Table 4-5
Upper Hudson River External Loads for
HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
a) Entire Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93): DAY 1 through DAY 272



Upstream
Batten Kill &





Non-point
(Ft Edward)
Fish Creek
Hoosic River
Mohawk
River

Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
TSS
2.58E+6
0.6
3.55E+7
8.5
5.16E+7
12.3
8.56E+7
20.4
2.45E+8
58.3
DOC
2.49E+6
4.9
1.74E+7
34.2
4.36E+6
8.5
4.62E+6
9.1
2.21 E+7
43.3
Total PCBs
5.157
1.1
351.96
74.3
769
1.6
21.72
4.6
86.87
18.3
BZ#138
0.126
2.3
1.60
29.0
0.07
1.2
0.55
9.9
3.19
57.6
BZ#101&90
0.153
1.7
4.92
55.0
0.13
1.5
0.55
6.1
3.19
35.7
BZ#52
0.176
1.0
13.47
77.0
0.12
0.7
0.55
3.1
3.19
18.2
BZ#28
0.121
0.4
24.17
89.2
0.10
0.4
0.41
1.5
2.30
8.5
BZ#4
0.434
2.2
13.47
69.2
0.70
3.6
1.57
8.1
3.28
16.9












Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Water
5.14E+8
4.9
3.61 E+9
34.2
9.02E+8
8.5
9.57E+8
9.1
4.57E+9
43.3
b) Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93): DAY 85 through DAY 130



Upstream
Batten Kill &





Non-point
(Ft. Edward)
Fish Creek
Hoosic River
Mohawk
River

Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
TSS
1.25E+6
0.3
3.03E+7
8.3
4.72E+7
12.9
7.83E+7
21.5
2.08E+8
57.0
DOC
1.21E+6
4.2
7.67E+6
26.6
2.75E+6
9.5
2.92E+6
10.1
1.43E+7
49.5
Total PCBs
2.510
0.8
247.18
76.2
4.85
1.5
13.71
4.2
56.14
17.3
BZ#138
0.061
1.7
1.17
31.7
0.04
1.1
0.35
9.4
2.06
56.1
BZ#101&90
0.075
1.1
3.97
60.7
0.08
1.3
0.35
5.3
2.06
31.5
BZ#52
0.086
0.7
10.08
79.7
0.07
0.6
0.35
2.7
2.06
16.3
BZ#28
0.059
0.3
18.93
91.0
0.06
0.3
0.26
1.3
1.49
7.2
BZ#4
0.211
2.9
3.58
48.8
0.44
6.0
0.99
13.5
2.12
28.9












Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Water
2.50E+8
4.2
1.59E+9
26.6
5.69E+8
9.5
6.04E+8
10.1
2.95E+9
49.5
c) Non-Event Period



Upstream
Batten Kill &





Non-point
(Ft. Edward)
Fish Creek
Hoosic River
Mohawk River

Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
Load (kg)
%
TSS
1.32E+6
2.4
5.26E+6
9.5
4.40E+6
7.9
7.29E+6
13.2
3.71 E+7
67.0
DOC
1.28E+6
5.8
9.78E+6
44.1
1.61E+6
7.2
1.71E+6
7.7
7.82E+6
35.2
Total PCBs
2.647
1.8
104.78
70.3
2.84
1.9
8.02
5.4
30.73
20.6
BZ#138
0.065
3.5
0.44
23.5
0.02
1.3
0.20
10.9
1.13
60.8
BZ#101&90
0.079
3.3
0.95
39.3
0.05
2.0
0.20
8.4
1.13
46.9
BZ#52
0.091
1.9
3.39
69.8
0.04
0.9
0.20
4.2
1.13
23.2
BZ#28
0.062
1.0
5.24
83.1
0.04
0.6
0.15
2.4
0.81
12.9
BZ#4
0.223
1.8
9.89
81.7
0.26
2.1
0.58
4.8
1.16
9.6












Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Load (m3)
%
Water
2.64E+8
5.7
2.02E+9
44.1
3.33E+8
7.2
3.53E+8
7.7
1.62E+9
35.2
Source: TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Database

-------
Table 4-6
HUDTOX Temperature Forcing Functions
for January-September 1993 Calibration

Station 4


Station 5


Station 8

(Route 197)

(Thompson Island Dam)
(Waterford)

Temp.

Julian
Temp.

Julian
Temp.

Julian
(cleg. C)
Date
Day
(cleg. C)
Date
Day
(deg. C)
Date
Day
2.10
2/3/93
33
5.27
2/3/93
33
7.63
2/3/93
33
4.27
2/23/93
53
7.09
2/23/93
53
6.87
2/23/93
53
9.43
3/29/93
87
8.17
3/29/93
87
17.25
3/29/93
87
4.40
4/13/93
102
7.63
4/13/93
102
21.57
4/13/93
102
5.30
4/23/93
112
5.60
4/23/93
112
16.75
5/3/93
122
7.45
4/25/93
114
7.90
4/25/93
114
16.55
5/5/93
124
7.90
4/27/93
116
7.75
4/27/93
116
16.80
5/7/93
126
8.25
4/29/93
118
8.20
4/29/93
118
21.50
5/12/93
131
9.25
5/1/93
120
9.75
5/1/93
120
17.25
5/14/93
133
11.00
5/3/93
122
11.25
5/3/93
122
18.00
5/16/93
135
11.75
5/5/93
124
11.90
5/5/93
124
17.75
5/18/93
137
12.25
5/7/93
126
12.55
5/7/93
126
16.00
5/20/93
139
16.25
5/12/93
131
17.15
5/12/93
131
17.00
5/22/93
141
15.75
5/14/93
133
15.50
5/14/93
133
19.25
5/24/93
143
16.00
5/16/93
135
16.85
5/16/93
135
18.50
5/26/93
145
15.25
5/18/93
137
15.25
5/18/93
137
20.25
6/2/93
152
15.75
5/20/93
139
15.75
5/20/93
139
21.50
6/4/93
154
17.00
5/22/93
141
17.25
5/22/93
141
23.50
6/8/93
158
15.75
5/24/93
143
16.25
5/24/93
143
24.00
6/10/93
160
16.75
5/26/93
145
16.75
5/26/93
145
27.00
6/12/93
162
16.75
6/2/93
152
16.75
6/2/93
152
27.00
6/14/93
164
17.00
6/4/93
154
17.25
6/4/93
154
23.25
6/16/93
166
15.75
6/6/93
156
15.75
6/6/93
156
26.17
6/27/93
177
17.25
6/8/93
158
17.50
6/8/93
158
26.15
7/6/93
186
18.25
6/10/93
160
18.25
6/10/93
160
31.00
7/8/93
188
18.50
6/12/93
162
19.00
6/12/93
162
31.50
7/10/93
190
22.25
6/14/93
164
22.00
6/14/93
164
27.50
7/12/93
192
21.00
6/16/93
166
21.00
6/16/93
166
29.25
7/14/93
194
23.63
6/27/93
177
23.27
6/27/93
177
28.25
7/18/93
198
26.00
7/6/93
186
24.75
7/6/93
186
26.00
7/20/93
200
25.75
7/8/93
188
27.00
7/8/93
188
27.50
8/4/93
215
27.75
7/10/93
190
27.75
7/10/93
190
25.00
8/6/93
217
26.25
7/12/93
192
26.75
7/12/93
192
26.50
8/8/93
219
26.50
7/14/93
194
27.50
7/14/93
194
25.50
8/10/93
221
25.25
7/16/93
196
26.20
7/16/93
196
24.50
8/12/93
223
25.50
7/18/93
198
25.75
7/18/93
198
21.00
8/14/93
225
23.00
7/20/93
200
23.50
7/20/93
200
27.75
8/16/93
227
24.50
8/2/93
213
24.75
8/2/93
213
26.80
8/26/93
237
24.75
8/4/93
215
25.50
8/4/93
215
26.80

270
24.00
8/6/93
217
24.00
8/6/93
217



23.75
8/8/93
219
23.50
8/8/93
219



24.00
8/10/93
221
24.75
8/10/93
221



22.75
8/12/93
223
23.75
8/12/93
223



21.75
8/14/93
225
23.50
8/14/93
225



25.00
8/16/93
227
25.75
8/16/93
227



26.50
8/26/93
237
24.43
8/26/93
237



26.50

270
24.43

270



S-iRP 002 1240

-------
Table 4-7
HUDTOX Initial Conditions of Sediment Solids for Calibration.
Water
Active
Bulk
Lower
Bulk
Deep
Bulk
Column
Sediment
Density
Sediment
Density
Sediment
Density
Segment
Segment No
(g/m3)
Segment No
(g/m3)
Segment No.
(g/m3)

Thickness 5 cm
5 cm
15, 25, 50 cm
1
14
1.28E+06
27
1.30E+06
40, 53, 66
1.36E+06
2
15
9.63E+05
28
9.88E+05
41,54. 67
1.08E+06
3
16
1.12E+06
29
1.08E+06
42, 55. 68
1.72E+06
4
17
1.27E+06
30
1.20E+06
43, 56. 69
8.80E+05
5
18
1.41E+06
31
1.31 E+06
44, 57. 70
1.36E+06
6
19
1.31 E+06
32
1.12E+06
45, 58. 71
9.94E+05
7
20
1.13E+06
33
1.10E+06
46, 59, 72
1.06E+06
8
21
1.31 E+06
34
1.15E+06
47. 60, 73
1.12 E+06
9
22
9.84E+05
35
6.90E+05
48. 61. 74
5.60E+05
10
23
1.18E+06
36
8.55E+05
49, 62. 75
8.62E+05
11
24
1.27 E+06
37
9.60E+05
50, 63. 76
9.10E+05
12
25
1.19E+06
38
1.09E+06
51.64. 77
1.08E+06
13
26
1.00E+06
39
6.90E+05
52, 65. 78
7.00E+05

Average Bulk Density
1.19E+06
1.04E+06
1.05E+06

-------
Table 4-8
Total PCBs in the 0-5 cm Sediment Layer
Estimated from GE 1992 Sediment Data
PCB Mass per Bulk Volume of Sediment
Water
Column
Segment
Active
Sediment
Segment
Total
PCB
(ug/g)
BZ#4
(ug/L)
BZ#28
(ug/L)
BZ#52
(ug/L)
BZ#101
+ 90 ,
(ug/L)
BZ#138
(ug/L)
1
14
86,597
15,163
1,690
1,399
451
172
2
15
31,632
6,893
1,605
774
211
65
3
16
40,797
8,021
891
898
329
113
4
17
8,531
1,796
215
248
83
45
5
18
16,074
2,673
909
450
134
41
6
19
6,465
939
454
198
66
24
7
20
10,450
1,297
697
262
71
26
8
21
4,686
473
249
149
58
33
9
22
1,506
117
146
45
16
6
10
23
2,060
160
108
70
30
15
11
24
20,163
2,022
1,690
890
333
88
12
25
8,963
899
227
172
54
28
13
26
434
44
31
20
9
4
PCB Mass per Sediment Solid
Water
Column
Segment
Active
Sediment
Segment
Total
PCB
(ug/g)
BZ#4
(ug/g)
BZ#28
(ug/g)
BZ#52
(ug/g)
BZ#101
+ 90
(ug/g)
BZ#138
(ug/g)
1
14
67.654
11.846
1.320
1.093
0.353
0.134
2
15
32.848
7.157
1.666
0.803
0.219
0.067
3
16
36.426
7.161
0.795
0.801
0.293
0.101
4
17
6.717
1.414
0.169
0.195
0.066
0.035
5
18
11.400
1.896
0.645
0.319
0.095
0.029
6
19
4.935
0.717
0.347
0.151
0.050
0.018
7
20
9.248
1.148
0.617
0.232
0.063
0.023
8
21
3.577
0.361
0.190
0.114
0.044
0.025
9
22
1.530
0.119
0.148
0.046
0.017
0.006
10
23
1.746
0.136
0.091
0.059
0.026
0.012
11
24
15.876
1.592
1.331
0.701
0.262
0.070
12
25
7.532
0.755
0.191
0.144
0.045
0.023
13
26
0.434
0.044
0.031
0.020
0.009
0.004
Source: Processed from General Electric data in TAMS/Gradient Database.

-------
Table 4-9
Definition and HUDTOX Solids Model Process-related Parameters
Symbol
Definition
Units
Source
vs
Gross solids settling velocity; assumed
constant.
m/day
Literature
vr
Solids resuspension velocity; spatially
variable, enhanced during flood events.
m/day
Literature;
Calibration
Vb
Sediment soilds burial velocity; assumed
constant.
m/day
Literature;
Program Data
Ds
Vertical diffusion coefficient for pore water
DOC.
m2/sec
Literature
Dsw
Vertical active sediment-water interface
diffusion coefficient for pore water DOC.
m2/sec
Literature
Dl
Longitudinal dispersion.
m2/sec
Estimated
kd
Sediment solids degradation rate.
day"1
Calibration
Y
(TS to DOC)
Yield of TS to DOC from sediment solids
degradation.
Dimen-
sionless
Applied as
100%
GPP
Internal water column solids generation rate
by gross primary production.
g/m2-day
Literature
^gpp
Arrhenius temperature correction factor for
gross primary production.
Dimen-
sionless
Literature

-------
Table 4-10
Definition and HUDTOX PCB Model Process-related Parameters
Symbol
Definition
Units
Source
Kpoc
Partition coefficient for sorbate on POC
based on three-phase equilibrium
partitioning model; chemical specific.
LAg carbon
Analysis of Phase 2
data
(TAMS, 1994a)
Kdoc
Partition coefficient for sorbate on DOC
based on three-phase equilibrium
partitioning model; chemical specific.
L/kg carbon
Analysis of Phase 2
data
(TAMS, 1994a)
tsf
Temperature slope factor constant effecting
partitioning; chemical specific.
°K
Analysis of Phase 2
data
(TAMS, 1994a)
Ux
Particle concentration effect constant for
three-phase equilibrium partitioning model;
chemical specific.
dimension-
less
Not utilized for
HUDTOX calibration
Dsi
Vertical diffusion coefficient for pore water
DOC.
m2/sec
Literature
Dswi
Vertical active sediment-water interface
diffusion coefficient for pore water DOC.
m2/sec
Literature
Ht
Henry's Law Constant; chemical specific,
and temperature dependent.
atm m3/mole
H at 25 °C from Andren
(1992?) compilation
MW
Molecular Weight; chemical specific.
g/mole
Andren (1992?)
compilation
foe
Fraction organic carbon on particulate solids.
dimension-
less
Analysis of Phase 2
data
(TAMS, 1994a)

-------
Table 4-11
Phase 2 Monitoring Program Sampling Stations
in Relation to the HUDTOX Model Segmentation
Sample
Geographic
River
Notes
HUDTOX
Station
Location
Mile

Segment
1
Glens Falls
200.5
Background
--
2
Fenimore Bridge
197.3
Background
—
3
Remnants
195.8
Background
—
4
Rt. 197
194.4

Upstream
5
TID
188.5

3
6
Schuylerville
181.3

6
7
Stillwater
168.2

8
8
Waterford
156.6

12
9
Saratoga
Springs
—
Used as Blank
—
10
Lock 7
194

~
11
Batten Kill
~
Tributary
—
12
Hoosic River
—
Tributary
—
13
Mohawk River
—
Tributary
~
14
Green Island
Bridge
153
Tidal fresh
water
13
15
Coxsackie
110
Tidal fresh
water
~
16
Cementon
102
Tidal fresh
water
—
17
Highland
77
Tidal fresh
water

19
Mechanicville
165.2
TSS only
10
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database.

-------
Table 4-12
1993 HUDTOX Solids Model Calibration Parameter Values
Parameter
Units
Value
Source
vs
m/day
2.0
Literature
Vr
m/day
3.65E-06 to
5.48E-06
(1.3 to 2.0 mm/year)
Literature; Calibration
Vb
m/day
6.0E-06
(2.2 mm/year)
Literature; Assessment of Phase 2 data
Ds
m2/sec
2.0E-09
Literature
Dsw
m2/sec
2.0E-10 (active)
1.0E-10 (deep)
Literature
Du
m2/sec
11.6; 0.0 at dam
interfaces
Estimaated
k
-------
Table 4-13
Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) -1993 Calibration Period
HUDTOX
Segment
Parameter
Mean
Data Model
Variance
Data Model
Count
R
P (T<=t)
a=0.05
P>a ?
3
TSS
4.3
4.5
33.3
40.7
12
0.521
0.920
pass
6
TSS
8.2
26.7
128.7
2239.5
6
0.461
0.343
pass
8
TSS
34.9
33.9
1268.0
751.1
23
0.781
0.844
pass
10
TSS
2.8
3.1
3.6
0.1
119
0.050
0.055
pass
11
TSS
12.6
19.0
269.7
634.1
79
0.852
0.000
fail
12
TSS
25.1
35.4
1321.2
2018.5
41
0.611
0.157
pass








% Pass =
83%

-------
Table 4-14
1993 HUDTOX PCB Model Calibration Parameter Values
Parameter
Units
Calibration Value
Source
Total PCB
BZ#4
BZ#28
BZ#52
BZ#101+90
BZ#138
log Kpoc
log (L/kg C)
5.61
5.108
5.868
5.821
6.165
6.605
Median value from
Phase 2 data analysis
(TAMS, 1994a)
log K
-------
Table 4-15
Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Total PCBs (ng/l) -1993 Calibration Period
HUDTOX

Mean
Variance


a=0.05
Segment
Parameter
Data
Model
Data
Model
Count
P (T<=t)
P>a ?
3
BZ#4
38.00
25.01
491.48
141.55
11
0.101
pass

BZ#28
4.30
5.22
3.31
20.12
11
0.341
pass

BZ#52
3.24
3.40
1.20
7.09
11
0. 830
pass

BZ#101+90
0. 84
1. 04
0.09
0. 66
11
0.325
pass

BZ#138
0.29
0.38
0. 01
0. 07
11
0.228
pass

ZPCBs
146.36
144.34
3714
8965
11
0.947
pass
6
BZ#4
18.03
17.27
258.43
67. 66
6
0.899
pass

BZ#28
7 .20
6. 05
95.69
61.95
6
0.215
pass

BZ#52
3.84
3.25
16.38
13.97
6
0. 087
pass

BZ#101+90
1.11
1.00
1.57
1. 61
6
0.002
fail

BZ#138
0.46
0.35
0.26
0.17
6
0. 034
fail

ZPCBs
127.41
122.81
11976
10983
6
0. 642
pass
8
BZ#4
7.51
11.76
51. 90
40. 97
3
0.623
pass

BZ#28
8.98
7.16
146.84
92.55
3
0.355
pass

BZ#52
4.43
3. 63
30.18
21.77
3
0.311
pass

BZ#101+90
1.37
1.20
2.49
2.77
3
0.362
pass

BZ#138
0.53
0.40
0.33
0.30
3
0.139
pass

ZPCBs
128.36
121.19
20851
18007
3
0.749
pass
12
BZ#4
14. 80
20.13
90.11
78.32
10
0.025
fail

BZ#28
5.71
4.55
34 .19
6.19
10
0.402
pass

BZ#52
3.50
2.58
6.17
1.46
10
0.118
pass

BZ#101+90
1. 08
0.83
1. 09
0.28
11
0.317
pass

BZ#138
0. 58
0.32
0.51
0. 04
10
0.203
pass

ZPCBs
102.95
105.54
4681
1532
10
0.891
pass







% Pass =
88%

-------
Table 4-16
Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Apparent Dissolved PCBs (ng/l) -1993 Calibration Period
HUDTOX

Mean
Variance


a = 0.05
Segment
Parameter
Data
Model
Data
Model
Count
?
V
Q.
P > a ?
3
BZ#4
34.10
23. 08
550.27
93.45
12
0.119
pass

BZ#28
3.32
2.94
1.55
1.45
12
0.257
pass

BZ#52
2.54
1.97
0.99
0.44
12
0. 018
fail

BZ#101+90
0.503
0.463
0.046
0. 084
12
0.482
pass

BZ#138
0.113
0.140
0. 003
0. 009
12
0.202
pass

IPCBs
123.27
102.06
3579
1533
12
0. 098
pass
6
BZ#4
16.92
14.05
267.23
89. 69
6
0. 648
pass

BZ#28
3.49
1.90
5.62
1.53
6
0. 050
pass

BZ#52
2.06
1.15
1.42
0.46
6
0. 029
fail

BZ#101+90
0.394
0.225
0 036
0.029
6
0. 002
fail

BZ#138
0.121
0. 065
0. 004
0. 002
6
0. 022
fail

LPCBs
78.83
63.56
2036
1577
6
0.257
pass
8
BZ#4
4.95
8.48
59.01
32.92
3
0. 693
pass

BZ#28
2. 67
1.81
5.65
3. 63
3
0.176
pass

BZ#52
1.40
0.99
1.09
1.02
3
0.224
pass

BZ#101+90
0.282
0.171
0. 023
0.033
3
0.222
pass

BZ#138
0.073
0.042
0.001
0. 001
3
0.159
pass

SPCBs
44.73
50.02
617
2164
3
0.803
pass
12
BZ#4
12.52
17.83
108.26
84.36
11
0.028
fail

BZ#28
2 . 69
2.13
2.03
1. 03
11
0.261
pass

BZ#52
1. 90
1.29
0.59
0.36
11
0.017
fail

BZ#101+90
0.356
0.270
0. 034
0.019
12
0.228
pass

BZ#138
0. 097
0.072
0.001
0. 002
11
0.059
pass

SPCBs
58.74
68 .39
559
1087
11
0.200
pass







% Pass =
71%

-------
Table 4-17
Paired Two Sample t-Test for Means of HUDTOX Model Output vs. Data
Particulate PCBs (ug/g solid) -1993 Calibration Period
HUDTOX

Mean
Variance


oc=0.05
Segment
Parameter
Data
Model
Data
Model
Count
P (T<=t)
P>a ?
3
BZ#4
0.395
0.461
0.123
0. 027
11
0. 571
pass

BZ#28
0.425
0.478
0.021
0. 029
11
0.174
pass

BZ#52
0. 333
0.296
0.012
0.006
11
0.292
pass

BZ#101+90
0.170
0.153
0. 005
0. 005
11
0. 370
pass

BZ#138
0. 087
0.073
0.001
0.002
11
0.108
pass

SPCBs
8.503
8.099
8. 692
6. 835
11
0. 647
pass
6
BZ#4
0.219
0.308
0.012
0.023
6
0.149
pass

B2#28
0. 370
0.326
0.044
0.046
6
0.245
pass

BZ#52
0.238
0.184
0.011
0. 011
6
0.121
pass

BZ#101+90
0.115
0. 077
0 . .
.002
6
0. 086
pass

BZ#138
0. 065
0. 034
0. 001
0.000
6
0. 019
fail

ZPCBs
6.548
5. 397
8. 962
8.567
6
0.275
pass
8
BZ#4
0.162
0.195
0. 019
0. 021
3
0.421
pass

BZ#28
0.208
0.288
0. 037
0. 074
3
0.242
pass

BZ#52
0. 113
0.148
0. 008
0.017
3
0. 312
pass

BZ#101+90
0. 053
0. 057
0. 002
0. 003
3
0.860
pass

BZ#138
0. 028
0. 022
0. 001
0. 000
3
0. 627
pass

SPCBs
3.295
4.101
5.788
11.680
3
0. 303
pass
12
BZ#4
0.107
0.340
0. 010
0. 022
11
0. 000
fail

BZ#28
0.210
0.328
0. 010
0. 016
11
0. 009
fail

BZ#52
0.161
0.179
0. 006
0. 005
11
0.377
pass

BZ#101+90
0. 090
0. 081
0. 002
0. 001
11
0. 404
pass

BZ#138
0. 046
0. 036
0. 000
0. 000
11
0. 036
fail

EPCBs
3. 623
5.078
2. 432
3. 968
11
0. 007
fail







% Pass =
79%

-------
Table 5-1
Comparison of Manning's 'n' from Previous Studies

Main Channel
Floodplain

'n'
'n'
Zimmie
0.027
0.065
FEMA
0.028 - 0.035
0.075
Source: Zimmie, 1985; FEMA, 1982
Table 5-2
Modeled Hudson River Flows in the TIP
Flow Description
River Discharge,

(cfs)
Peak flow during spring and fall surveys, 1991
8,000
Peak flow for GE high flow survey, April 2^-24, 1992
19,000
Peak flow for TAMS Phase 2 survey, April 12, 1993
20,300
Peak flow for spring 1994 (Bopp, 1994)
28,000
Peak flow in 1983
35,000
5-year high flow
30,126
25-year high flow
39,883
100-year high flow
47,330
Source: USGS Gaging Records, Butcher, 1 993

-------
Table 5-3
Comparison of Model Results with Rating Curve Data
Flow
(cfs)
Downstream
Boundary
Condition
(NGVD)
Model Predicted
Upstream
Elevations
(NGVD)
Rating Curve
Gauge 119
(Upstream)
Elevations
(NGVD)
10,000
120.6
121.5
121.2
20,000
122.2
123.8
123.6
30,000
123.8
126.1
126.1
Source: Pierce, 1994, RMA-2V Model Results


Table 5-4
Effect of Manning's 'n' on Model Results
for 100 Year Flow Event

Main
Channel
(NGVD)
Floodplain
(NGVD)
River Elevation
at Roger's Island
(NGVD)
Baseline
0.020
0.060
129.1
High 'n'
0.035
0.075
131.1
Low 'n'
Main Channel
0.015
0.060
128.6
Low 'n'
Floodplain
0.020
0.040
128.9
High 'n'
Floodplain
0.020
0.080
129.3
Source: RMA-2V Model Results

-------
Table 5-5
Effect of Turbulent Exchange Coefficients on Model Results

Turbulent Exchange
Coefficients
River Elevation
Roger's Island
(NGVD)
Baseline
100
129.1
Low Turbulent
50
128.8
Exchange Coefficients


High Turbulent
200
129.7
Exchange Coefficients


Source: RMA-2V Model Results

-------
Table 6-1
Thompson Island Pool Erodability Study Data Requirements

Data / Process
Data Description
Purpose
Origin
Form
Ref.





Hydrodynamic
Sub-Model
Stage-discharge
relationships
USGS rating curves
For specifying
boundary conditions
and for calibration
USGS
Paper
Memo dated
9/20/93

Flood frequency
analysis
Recurrence intervals for
flood events
Develop estimates
for Velocities for
various recurrence
Analyses of
Hydrologic data by
John Butcher
Paper
Memo datec
6/18/93
Bottom elevations
Bathymetric surveys
To develop FEM grid
GE
Disk
O'Brien &
Gere Rep.
5/1/93
Overflow areas
Characterizing flood plains
To develop FEM grid
USGS typographic
maps
Paper







Depth of Scour
Sub-Model
Bottom sediment
distribution
Sediment type distribution -
coarse/fine
To map TIP
sediments by
erosional behavior
Side-scan sonar
studies by R. Flood
GIS
Cov.
Report
dated
10/29/93

Critical shear
stress
Laboratory flume studies at
different shear stresses and
settling times
To assign critical
shear stress for
erosion and
deposition time-
related parameters
GE
Paper
HydroQual
(1995)
Resuspension
function
(cohesive)
Shaker studies
To quantify mass
resuspended as a
function of applied
shear stress
GE
Paper
HydroQual
(1995)






PCB Erosion Sub-
Model
Sediment PCB
distribution
PCB concentration
distributions as a function of
depth
To estimate quantity
of PCBs remobilized
from cohesive
sediment due to a
resuspension event
Historical (1984
NYSDEC Survey)
and project2 (Phase
2)
Disk

1.	Extrapolated from other sites (no in-situ data available)
2.	High resolution cores and Grab samples

-------
Table 6-2
Summary of Inputs for Depth of Scour Model at Each High Resolution Core
Core Name
100 Year Flood
Shear Stress (dynes/cm2)
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
HR-19
16.095
1.223
HR-20
35.86
1.123
HR-23
14.106
1.441
HR-25
57.029
1.404
HR-26
24.876
1.152

-------
Table 6-3
Predicted Depth of Scour Range for 100 Year Flood at Each High Resolution Core
Core
Name
Depth of Scour (cm)

Median
5th Percentile
95th Percentile
Depth of PCB Peak (cm)
HR-19
0.047
0.009
0.236
20-24
HR-20
0.587
0.094
3.656
24-28
HR-23
0.027
0.005
0.13
28-32
HR-25
1.865
0.253
13.743
2-4
HR-26
0.191
0.034
1.058
12-16

-------
Table 6-4
Summary of Design Flows
Event
Flow
(cfs)
Mean velocities in TIP
(fps)
Mean shear stresses
in cohesive areas of
TIP (dynes/cm2)
Mean shear stresses
in non-cohesive areas
of TIP (dynes/cm2)
GIS map
of
velocities
GIS map
of shear
stresses
100 year
47330
3.67
19.50
29.20
Plate 6-3
Plate 6-4
1983
34800
0.55
13.98
21.22
Plate 6-8
Plate 6-9
1994 Spring
28000
0.49
12.67
18.93
Plate 6-13
Plate 6-14
1992 Spring
19000
0.38
8.04
12.33
Plate 6-18
Plate 6-19
1991
8000
0.18
2.48
4.03
Plate 6-23
Plate 6-24

-------
Table 6-5
Mass of Solids and PCBs Eroded from Cohesive Sediments in TIP
Event
Flow (cfs)
Mass of
Solids
eroded
(MT/event)
Mass of
PCBs
eroded
(kg/event)
% of 1984
PCB
reservoir
eroded1
Depth of Scour (cm)





Median
5th Percentile
95th Percentile
100 year
47330
834
25.00
0.78
0.16
0.03
0.97
1983
34800
304
8.75
0.27
0.06
0.01
0.32
1994 Spring
28000
220
6.58
0.21
0.04
0.01
0.22
1992 Spring
19000
55.3
1.57
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.05
1991
8000
1.68
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 Mass reservoirs based on the Kriging analysis of 1984 NYSDEC data (Butcher et al., 1994)

-------
Table 7-1
Component Analysis - Exposure Model
Exposure
Component
Maximum
Year
Model

Magnitude

Segment

(ug/l/da y)

2
Loading
0.00608
1970
15
Loading
0.00524
1970
17
Loading
0.00121
1970
28
Loading
0.00014
1970
2
Net Advection
0.08174
1972
15
Net Advection
0.02035
1974
17
Net Advection
0.00017
1974
28
Net Advection
-2.00E-06
1970
2
Net Dispersion
0.00065
1972
15
Net Dispersion
0.01279
1974
17
Net Dispersion
-0.00107
1970
28
Net Dispersion
0.00003
1970
2
Net Settling
4
1972
15
Net Settling
0.00734
1974
17
Net Settling
0.00029
1970
28
Net Settling
0.0001
1970
2
Volatilization
0.05823
1972
15
Volatilization
0.00403
1974
17
Volatilization
0.0003
1974
28
Volatilization
0.00011
1970
Source: LTI 1994
HRP 002

-------
Table 7-2
Component Analysis - Bioaccumulation Model
Foodchain
Year

Component Magnitude, 1974

Model
Class

(ug/g/day)

Segment

Uptake
Consumption
Loss
Total Loss
2
0
0.098
1.534
1.126
1.486
2
2
0,018
0.500
0.160
0.332
2
6
0.016
0.398
0.142
0.183
2
17
0.014
0.350
0.047
0.052
3
0
0.008
0.166
0.280
0.421
3
2
0.006
0.112
0.199
0.256
3
6
0,003
0.084
0.080
0.092
3
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
0
0.009
0.177
0.328
0.454
4
2
0.007
0.127
0.300
0.356
4
6
0.003
0.078
0.093
0.104
4
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
0
0.000
0.000
0.070
0.075
5
2
0.000
0,000
0.069
0.074
5
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
17
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: IT!, 1994

-------
Table 7-3
Sensitivity Analysis - Exposure Model
Exposure

Dissolved


Model

or
Parameter
Brief
Segment
Parameter
Total
Range
Result

Settling
11IPPI


	 2	
Settling
	t	
+)- 50% of Excess
Not Sensitive
1IIIIIH
^Settlinig\

RliiilSii?::

	15	
Settling
	T	
+/-50%ofExcess
Not Sensitive
wtfrm
liilillili

*/-50%of E^ss:

17
Settling
	t	
+/- 50% of Excess
NotSensitive
lllllii'
Seltong

I

	28	
Settling
	T
+/- 50% of Excess
Not Sensitive
2
Biodegradation
SIi£lI>l
High, 0.1*high
Sensitive, same for H and L
2
Biodegradation
	T	
High, 0.1*high
Sensitive, same for H and L
15
Biodegradation

High, 0.1*high
Very Sensitive
15
Biodegradation
	T
High, O.rhigh
Very Sensitive
17
Biodegradation
D
High, O.rhigh
Quite Sensitive
17
Biodegradation
T
High, 0.1*high
Quite Sensitive
28
Biodegradation
D
High, 0.1*high
Quite Sensitive
28
Biodegradation
" T "
High, 0^1'high
Quite Sensitive

Loadings
itllDf
+/- 50%
Not Sensitive
2
Loadings
T
+/- 50%
Not Sensitive
15


+/- 50%
Slightly Sensitive
15
Loadings
	T
+/- 50%
Slightly Sensitive
17


+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
17
Loadings
	 T
+/ 50%
Quite Sensitive
28
Loadings
fvb ^
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
28
Loadings
T
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
2
Upstream Load
D
*1- 50%
Quite Sensitive J
2
Upstream Load
T
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
15
Upstream Load
D
K +/• 50%:
i Quite Sensitive
15
Upstream Load
T
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
17
Upstream Load
D
+/- 50%
Slightly Sensitive
17
Upstream Load
T
+/- 50%
Slightly Sensitive
28
Upstream Load
D
+/- 50%
¦ Slightly Sensitive
28
Upstream Load
T
+/- 50%
Slightly Sensitive
2
Volatilization
D
^ +/- 50%
Not Sensitive
2
Volatilization
T
+/- 50%
Not Sensitive
15
Volatilization
D
: +/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
15
Volatilization
T
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
i.;i.7 ¦
Volatilization
D
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
17
Volatilization
T
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
-V:28:
Votatililafioh
:Q tiffin
W.50%
::^-iQui^:$ehsitive
28
Volatilization
T
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

-------
Table 7-4
Sensitivity Analysis - Foodchain Model
Foodchain

Model

Parameter
Brief

Segment
Parameter
Range
Result

2
BCF's
+/- 5Q%
Very Sensitive

3
BCF's
+/- 50%
Very Sensitive

4
BCPs' ..
+/- 50%
Very Sensitive

5
BCF's
+/- 50%
Very Sensitive

2
Respiration
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

3
Respiration
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

4
Respiration
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

5
Respiration
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
Note
2
Growth Rates
+/-10%
Slightly Sensitive
M
3
Growth Rates
+/-10%
Slightly Sensitive
m
4
Growth Rates
+/-10%
Slightly Sensitive
n
5
Growth Rates
+/- 10%
Moderately Sensitive


PCB Assim Eff

Vjeirygenitive

3
PCB Assim Eff
+/- 0.2 from base fraction
Very Sensitive

4
PCB Assim Eff +/- 0.2 from base fraction
Very Sensitive

5
PCB Assim Eff
+/- 0.2 from base fraction
Very Sensitive


Dissolved Cone.
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

3
Dissolved Cone.
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

4
Dissolved Cone.
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive

5
Dissolved Cone.
+/- 50%
Quite Sensitive
Note: Due to error in Thomann inputs, done with corrected baseline

-------
Table 8-1
Variables Used in Probabilistic Food Chain Model
Variable
Symbol
Units
water exposure concentration
W
vvconc
ugPCB/gPOC
sediment exposure concentration
^conc
ugPCB/gTOC
water-invertebrate accumulation
factor
PWAF
unitless ratio: lipid-
normalized

concentrations
sediment-invertebrate
BSAF
unitless ratio: lipid-
normalized
concentrations
accumulation factor
pelagic organisms - concentration
Pccnc
ugPCB/g lipid
benthic organisms - concentration
®conc
ugPCB/g lipid
fraction pelagic invertebrates in
diet
Pfrac
unitless
fraction benthic invertebrates in
diet
Bfrac
unitless
forage fishrdiet accumulation
factor
FFAF
unitless ratio: lipid-
normalized

concentrations
fish level I: forage fish
concentration
FF conc
ugPCB/g lipid
forage fish % lipid
FF up
%
forage fish fillet concentration
FF^^copc
ug PCB wet weight
% forage fish in piscivorous fish
diet
FFfrac
unitless
1-FFfrac; contribution to


piscivorous fish diet from
INVfrac
unitless
invertebrates


fraction benthic invertebrates in
piscivorous diet
^ Pfrac
unitless
fish level II: piscivorous fish
concentration
PF
' ' conc
ugPCB/g lipid
piscivorous fish % lipid
PF lip
%
piscivorous fish fillet
concentration
PF
' 1 wweone
ug PCB
VAR&LS.XLS
Page 1 of 1
HRP

-------
Table 8-2
Relationship Between Fish Species and Compartments
Compartment Media Contributing
Compartments
Water
Water (PCBs associated with
POC
none
Sediments
Sediment (PCBs normalized
to sediment TOC)
none
Water Invertebrates
Water
Water
Sediment Invertebrates
Sediment
Sediment
Forage Fish
Water and Sediment
Water invertebrates,
Sediment invertebrates
Pumpkinseed
Water
Water invertebrates
Spottail Shiner
Water and Sediment
water invertebrates,
oediment invertebrates
Brown Bullhead
Sediment
Sediment invertebrates
Yellow Perch
Water and Sediment
Water invertebrates,
Sediment invertebrates,
Forage fish
White Perch
Water and Sediment
Water invertebrates,
Sediment invertebrates,
Forage fish
Largemouth Bass
Water and Sediment
Water invertebrates,
Sediment invertebrates,
Forage fish
VaRBLS.XLS
1 of 1

-------
Table 8-3
Three-Phase Partition Coefficient Estimates
PCB Congener
Dissolved Fraction
DOC Fraction
POC Fraction
BZ#4
0.62
0.27
0.11
BZ#38
0.50
0.01
0.49
BZ#52
0.53
0.01
0.46
BZ#101
0.29
0.04
0.67
BZ#138
0.20
0.07
0.73
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database Rel. 3.1 except for BZ#4, which
is based on unvalidated database release 2.4. Following data
validation, BZ#4 was dropped from the three-phase partition coefficient
analyses due to high non-detects.
VARBLS.XLS
1 Of 1

-------
Table 9-1. Count of NYSDEC Fish Samples, Hudson River Mile 142 to 195.

Sample
Brown
Cyprinids
Large-
Pumpkin-
Yellow
Other

Prep.
Bullhead

mouth
Bass
seed
Perch
Species
1975
NS
0
0
0
0
1
9

Other
1
0
0
0
0
2

SF
4
0
3
0
0
20

WH
0
0
2
0
5
2
1976
SF
0
0
1
0
0
2

WH
1
17
18
1
3
6
1977
NS
0
2
4
0
0
4

SF
60
14
16
0
50
40
1978
SF
11
60
30
7
4
30
1979
SF
52
0
31
0
0
52

WH
0
0
0
38
0
0
1980
NS
2
4
2
0
2
5

Other
0
2
0
0
2
1

SF
51
30
26
0
7
54

WH
0
0
0
50
0
0
1981
SF
30
0
0
0
0
32

WH
0
0
0
' 49
0
0
1982
SF
30
20
20
0
2
42

WH
0
0
0
80
0
0
1983
SF
46
26
23
2
5
27

WH
0
0
0
98
0
0
1984
SF
39
11
50
50
7
78

WH
0
0
0
0
0
16
1985
SF
37
18
41
29
0
40

WH
0
0
0
1
0
0
1986
SF
59
11
39
45
0
50
1987
SF
40
0
8
25
0
66
1988
SF
63
20
59
0
0
14

WH
0
0
0
73
0
17
1989
WH
0
0
0
45
0
0
1990
SF
41
13
43
0
0
33

WH
0
0
0
4
0
0
1991
NS
46
1
33
47
34
226
1992
Other
1
0
0
6
7
66

SF
45
6
61
43
37
215








Totals:

659
255
510
693
166
1149
Notes: SF: Standard Filet
WH: Whole Fish
NS: Not specified
Other: Roe, muscle, hepatopancreas, etc.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1.	hrp

-------
Table 9-2. Lipid-Based Aroclor Concentrations by Species in NYSDEC Fish Samples from
River Miles 142 through 195 in the Hudson River, 1975-1992
Species
Number
of
Samples
with
PCB
data
Average
Percent
Lipid
Aroclor 1016 (as ^/g/g-lipid)
converted to 1983
quantitation basis
(see text)
Aroclor 1254 (as //g/g-lipid)
converted to 1983 quantitation
basis
(see text)



Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Mean
Median
Standard
Deviation
Brown
Bullhead
657
2.94
265.5
164.0
309.1
281.7
164.2
376.4
933.8 I
Cyprinids
(Carp)
255
10.01
684.7
147.1
2855.7
413.4
263.7

Largemouth
Bass
499
1.25
561.5
364.4
598.8
623.2
509.8
450.6
Pumpkinseed
693
2.64
191.6
140.9
157.4
133.6
107.5
101.7
Yellow Perch
166
0.84
634.3
373.1
724.62
447.7
279.8
462.7
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1
HHP 002 1268

-------
Table 9-3. Mean Aroclor 1016 Concentrations as //g/g-lipid in NYSDEC Samples of Fish from Hudson River Miles 142 to 195
River Mile 142 to 155

River Mile
175




Year
Brown
Bullhead
Cyprinids
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkin
seed
Yellow
Perch
Year
Brown
Bullhead
Cyprinids
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkin
seed
Yellow
Perch
1977
349.1

351.5

750.0
1977
1006.6
3050.3
2101.9

1209.3
1978
184.0
366.5

267.6
1248.8
1978

2762.8
1652.2


1979
161.0

565.4
191.8

1979
667.4

432.1
640.9

1980
74.7
101.9
478.9
128.4
41.4
1980
646.4
502.8
778.8
453.2
386.8
1981
55.3




1981



287.9

1982
40.3


60.0

1982
147.0
77.3
389.6
192.9
136.1
1983
66.4
23.4

89.6
13.8
1983
202.3
81.4
331.4
279.5

1984
51.1


83.4

1984
206.4
87.4
259.1
209.7
262.1
1985
23.2


58.6

1985
207.0
60.2
350.4
174.4

1986
16.2


28.9

1986
161.2
159.5
220.6
132.0

1988
31.9

52.8
32.6

1988
125.2

151.3
102.6

1989



51.9

1989



191.1

1990
73.0

162.4


1990
156.9
27.1
189.6


1991
13.6
24.2
76.0
40.0
47.6
1991
100.3

342.5
124.4
128.5
1992
76.7
49.8
186.6
78.8
199.8
1992
253.1
546.5
309.7
366.4
351.9

9 160



River Mil
e 1 to 19
3



1987
18.8

64.4
58.9

1980
236.4
442.0
316.6

315.4
1991
85.0

126.7
57.4
35.7
1983
202.1
162.0
201.5
122.9
459.2
1992


153.4
189.0
255.7
1984


766.9






1985


573.5


Note: Data corrected to 1983 quantitation basis {see text)
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1
1986
494.0
178.8
357.6


1987
255.4


107.9

1988
343.4
73.4
330.9
161.2

1989



522.7

1990
422.5
78.5
795.5
202.6

1991
254.9

1026.7
385.8
859.5
1992
482.7
411.9
1191.2
412.3
917.6

-------
Table 9-4. Mean Aroclor 1254 Concentrations as //g/g-lipid in NYSDEC Samples of Fib. from Hudson River Miles 142 to 195

142 to 155





Year
Brown
Bullhead
Cyprinids
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkin
seed
Yellow
Perch
Year
Brown
Bullhead
Cyprinids
Largemouth
Bass
Pumpkin
seed
Yellow
Perch
1977
186.1

528.6

475.2
1977
382.5
831.9
1069.7

851.8
1978
100.6
177.5

165.8
838.8
1978

992.8
896.2


1979
144.5

649.5
110.9

1979
602.8

425.2
361.3

1980
107.0
232.6
533.7
263.5
159.0
1980
710.3
607.0
845.9
184.2
703.4
1981
106.3




1981



129.0

1982
104.9


147.3

1982
206.3
200.5
539,6
144.7
260.3
1983
106.1
124.0

96.5
91.9
1983
257.0
212.0
560.5
173.5

1984
62.2


53.4

1984
203.6
247.3
472.8
87.6
237.2
1985
48.1


42.4

1985
210.9
218.4
492.1
98.9

1986
36.7


45.5

1986
353.7
61.6
490.8
138.1

1988
35.0

236.5
19.5

1988
157.7

568.4
82.6

1989



39.1

1989



129.6

1990
97.4

344.8


1990
162.9
108.7
443.9


1991
18.1
15.9
113.9
47.4
61.1
1991
65.7

308.0
79.7
71.3
1992
29.6
27.2
281.5
47.5
195.3
1992
147.7
360.4
149.0
160.3
170.9
River Mile
160




River Mile
189 to 193




1987
121.4

727.7
295.1

1980
510.7
847.9
583.7

746.5
1991
76.4

200.5
50.0
37.4
1983
495.4
684.1
567.0
325.4
1021.1
1992


127.8
106.9
171.9
1984


951.9


Note: Data corrected to 1983 quantitation basis (see text)
1985


639.9


1986
663.6
229.6
868.7


1987
662.6


65.7

1988
502.8
240.0
687.3
97.5

1989



207.0

Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1.

1990
349.9
212.3
1053.0
89.7


1991
236.5

551.5
242.7
282.0

1992
916.3
392.1
940.8
337.8
610.5
002 1270

-------
Table 9-5. Packed-Column Peaks and Associated PCB Congeners Used in the NYSDEC
Fish Sample Aroclor Quantitation
II Year
Aroclor
Packed-Column
Peaks (RRT)
Associated PCB
Congeners (BZ #)
1977
1016
37
25,26,28,29,31


47
47,48,49,52,75

1254
104
77,110


125
82,107,118,135,
144,149,151


146
105,132,146,153


174
129,138,158,175,178
1979
1016
32
16,24,27,32


37
25,26,28,29,31

1254
98
85,87,97,119,136


104
77,110


125
82,107,118,135,
144,149,151


146
105,132,146,153


174
129,138,158,175,178
1983
1016
37
25,26,28,29,31


40
20,22,33,45,51,53

1254
125
82,107,118,135,
144,149,151


146
105,132,146,153


174
129,138,158,175,178
Source: Gauthier (1994), based on personal communication from John F. Brown, Jr.
Congener assignments refined based on personal communication from R.F. Bopp to T.
Gauthier.
002

-------
Table 9-6. Weight Percents of Congeners in Packed-Column Peaks Used for NYSDEC
Aroclor Quantitation Schemes, based on Capillary Column Analyses of Aroclor Standards
Year
Aroclor
Weight Percent of PCB Congeners in
Quantitation Peaks
(%)
1977
1016
32.258
1254
42.776
1979
1016
27.667
1254
51.405
1983
1016
34.368
1254
30.652
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1 (April 1994 analysis).
HRP
O 0 2
1272

-------
Table 9-7. Relationships Used to Correct Older NYSDEC Aroclor Quantitations in Fish
(ppb) to 1983 Basis
j Aroclor
Quantitation
Method
Constant
Coefficient on
Observation
R2 of
Regression
1016
1977
-243.1
0.531
97.5
1979
-22.3
0.937
99.5
1254
1977
114.0
0.976
99.6
1979
155.0
0.913
99.2
HRP

-------
Table 9-8
Summer (June-Sept.) Average Water Column
Concentrations of Total PCBs (//g/L) from USGS Monitoring in
the Upper Hudson River
Year
Waterford,
River Mile 156.5
Stillwater, River
Mile 168
Schuylerville,
River Mile 181
Fort Edward, River
Mile 194.2
1975
0.40



1976
0.70



1977
0.38
0.73
0.64

1978
0.49
0.56
0.73
0.21
1979
0.39
0.60
0.80
0.17
1980
0.29
0.33
0.37
0.18
1981
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.08
1982
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.09
1983
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.07
1984
0.10
0.18
0.17
0.09
1985
0.09
0.12
0.16
0.11
1986
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.07
1987
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.05
1988
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.04
1989
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
1990
0.01
0.10

0.01
1991
0.08
0.12

0.17
1992
0.07
0.15

0.21
Note: Table shows arithmetic averages with non-detects included at one-half the
detection limit. Detection limits for total PCBs were 0.1 mq/L through Oct. 1986 and
0.01 pg/L thereafter.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Table 9-9. Models of Mean PCB Aroclor Concentration in NYSDEC Upper Hudson Fish
Samples Based on Water Column Concentration Only (mg/kg-Lipid)
Aroclor
Species
Coefficients
R2 (%)
Standard
Error
Log BAF I
(L/kg)


Constant
Water
(ppb)



Sum of
1016 +
1254
Pumpkinseed
162.82
1395.76
51.5
305.7
6.15

Largemouth
Bass
566.55
3301.73
57.1
893.8
6.52

Brown
Bullhead
258.97
1641.62
37.5
693.8
6.22

Cyprinids
-380.42
5988.80
87.4
765.9
6.78

Yellow Perch
354.66
2567.03
54.8
763.9
6.41
1016
Pumpkinseed
79.58
957.67
50.1
215.7
NA

Largemouth
Bass
110.74 *
2480.93
68.9
524.2
NA

Brown
Bullhead
63.59 #
1164.34
65.9
278.9
NA

Cyprinids
-473.91
4715.78
86.1
421.6
NA I

Yellow Perch
194.74 •
1462.18
46.4
511.0
NA I
1254
Pumpkinseed
83.24
438.10
31.2
144.3
NA

Largemouth
Bass
455.81
820.80
21.9
464.5
NA

Brown
Bullhead
195.37
477.28
8.7
453.8
NA

Cyprinids
93.49 #
1273.03
68.2
270.36
NA

Yellow Perch
159.92 •
1104.85
50.0
360.4
NA
Notes: *	Not statistically different from zero at 95% confidence level.
NA BAF is only appropriate for total PCBs, since water column
measurements are totals. Estimates based on 1977-1992 samples
from River Miles 142 to 195, converted to 1983 quantitation basis.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1.
~

-------
Table 9-10. Models of Mean PCB Aroclor Concentration in NYSDEC Upper Hudson Fish
Samples Based on Water Column Concentration and Constant Sediment Concentration
Normalized to Organic Carbon (mg/kg-Lipid)
1 Aroclor
Species
Coefficients
R2 {%)
Standard
Error
Log BAF
(L/kg)


Constant
Sediment
(mg/kg OC)
Water
(ppb)



Sum of
11016 +
1254
Pumpkinseed
50.07 •
0.122
1366.2
73.3
227.0
6.14

Largemouth
Bass
81.68 *
0.370
3260.5
73.4
704.2
6.51

Brown
Bullhead
-47.63*
0.312
1538.8
76.0
430.1
6.19

Cyprinids
-816.1
0.292
6184.9
90.0
680.8
6.79

Yellow Perch
183.8 *
0.185 •
2457.4
57.6
740.7
6.39
1016
Pumpkinseed
-3.40 *
0.090
913.8
74.6
153.8
NA

Largemouth
Bass
-117.7 *
0.174
2461.5
76.1
459.2
NA

Brown
Bullhead
-51.77 *
0.118
1125.7
84.2
190.0
NA

Cyprinids
-693.3
0.147 *
4814.5
86.7
623.7
NA

Yellow Perch
103.80 *
0.099 *
1403.8
47.1
507.6
NA
1254
Pumpkinseed
53.47
0.032
422.4
39.3
135.5
NA

Largemouth
Bass
199.4
0.196
413.2
59.6
301.9
NA

Brown
Bullhead
4.20 *
0.195
413.2
59.6
301.9
NA

Cyprinids
-122.80 •
0.145
1370.4
80.9
224.9
NA

Yellow Perch
80.00 *
0.087 *
1053.6
52.9
349.8
NA
Notes: *	Not statistically different from zero at 95% confidence level.
NA BAF is only appropriate for total PCBs, since water column
measurements are totals. Estimates based on 1977-1992 samples
from River Miles 142 to 195, converted to 1983 quantitation basis.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1.
HRP
002

-------
Table 9-11. Estimated Proportion of Variability Explained by Bivariate BAF Relationships
Attributed to Water and Sediment Pathways in NYSDEC Fish Samples from Hudson River
Miles 142 through 195

Proportion of Variability (%) J
I Species
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254

Water (%)
Sediment (%)
Water (%)
Sediment {%)
Brown Bullhead
73.2
26.8
13.7
86.3
Cyprinids
99.7
0.03
94.7
5.3
Largemouth Bass
88.5
11.5
41.5
58.5
j Pumpkinseed
61.4
38.6
71.6
28.4
Yellow Perch
83.9
16.1
80.7
19.3
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1.

-------
Table 10-1
TAMS/Gradient Phase II Ecological and Water Column Sampling Locations
Ecological Phase
River
Water Column


II Station Location
Mile
Sampling Station
River Mile
Description
1
203.3


Background
20
196.9
0001 thru 0003
199.5 thru 195.5
Upper River
2
194.1
0004 & 0010
194.6 and 193.7
Upper River
3
191.5
0010 & 0005
193.7 and 188.5
Upper River
4
189.5
0010 & 0005
193.7 and 188.5
Upper River
5
189
0010 & 0005
193.7 and 188.5
Upper River
6
188.7
0010 & 0005
193.7 and 188.5
Upper River
7
188.5
0005
188.5
Upper River
8
169.5
0006 & 0007
181.3 and 168.3
Upper River
9
159
0007 & 0008
168.3 and 156.5
Upper River
10
143.5
0014 & 0015
151.7 and 125
Lower River
11
137.2
0014 & 0015
151.7 and 125
Lower River
12
122.4
0015 & 0017
125 and 77
Lower River
13
113.8
0015 & 0017
125 and 77
Lower River
14
100
0015 & 0017
125 and 77
Lower River
15
88.9
0015 & 0017
125 and 77
Lower River
16
58.7


Lower River
17
47.3


Lower River
18
25.8


Lower River
Page 1 of 1
HRF
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column





PCB


Lipid-Normalized






Concen-


Individual Species



River


tration

mg PCB
Concentration
Ratio of Species
Parameter
Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
per kg OC
(mg/kg)
to PCB - OC
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1980
0.16
5.21
0.84
13.39
15.86
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1980
0.17
4.27
0.74
37.58
50.58
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1980
0.18
3.12
0.55
16.76
30.73
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1980
0.18
3.12
0.55
9.41
17.25
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1981
0.22
5.21
1.15
6.82
5.94
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1981
0.25
4.27
1.08
4.17
3.84
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1981
0.32
3,12
1.00
1.88
1.89
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1982
1.46
5.21
7.61
6.10
0.80
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1982
3.36
4.27
14.34
32.61
2.27
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1982
1.00
3.12
3.12
9.14
2.93
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1983
0.49
3.12
1.54
30.57
19.89
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1984
0.50
5.21
2.61
18.18
6.98
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1984
0.50
5.21
2.61
21.88
8.39
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1984
0.50
5.21
2.61
13.99
5.37
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1984
0.50
5.21
2.61
11.19
4.30
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1984
0.20
4.27
0.85
33.60
39.35
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1984
0.20
4.27
0.85
21.26
24.90
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1984
0.20
4.27
0.85
11.28
13.21
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1984
0.20
3.12
0.62
17.07
27.38
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1984
0.20
3.12
0.62
29.31
47.01
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1984
0.20
3.12
0.62
31.06
49.82
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1985
0.40
5.21
2.09
10.53
5.05
Aroclor
016
197.6
7
1985
0.40
5.21
2.09
18.45
8.85
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1985
0.40
4.27
1.71
40.29
23.59
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1985
0.40
4.27
1.71
38.31
22.44
Aroclor
016
197.6
8
1985
0.40
4.27
1.71
32.50
19.03
Aroclor
016
197.6
9
1985
0.10
3.12
0.31
9.29
29.79
Aroclor
016
193.9
7
1978
6.83
5.04
34.45
180.98
5.25
CONCS.XLS12-2
Page 1 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
PCB	Lipid-Normalized
Concen-	Individual Species
Pa
ameter
River
Mile
Month
Year
tration
{mg/kg)
TSS/POC
mg PCB
per kg OC
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Ratio of Species
to PCB - OC
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1980
1.12
5.04
5.65
34.86
6.17
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1980
1.12
5.04
5.65
79.49
14.07
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1980
1.12
3.17
3.55
30.16
8.50
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1980
1.12
3.17
3.55
47.49
13.38
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1980
0.31
2.58
0.80
9.47
11.86
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1980
0.31
2.58
0.80
36.88
46.16
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1981
6.92
5.04
34.90
61.58
1.76
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1981
2.93
3.17
9.28
52.36
5.64
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1981
2.93
3.17
9.28
62.91
6.78
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1981
2.93
3.17
9.28
43.42
4.68
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1981
2.74
2.58
7.06
74.59
10.56
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1982
6.22
5.04
31.37
133.94
4.27
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1982
6.22
5.04
31.37
206.25
6.57
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1982
4.39
3.17
13.91
107.01
7.69
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1982
4.39
3.17
13.91
209.92
15.09
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1982
3.80
2.58
9.79
63.00
6.43
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1983
2.53
2.58
6.52
85.25
13.07
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1983
2.52
2.58
6.49
73.98
11.39
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1984
10.10
5.04
50.94
262.15
5.15
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1984
10.10
5.04
50.94
241.30
4.74
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
125.36
4.74
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
128.99
4.87
Aroclo
1013
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
134.29
5.08
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
103.81
3.92
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
103.40
3.91
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
87.10
3.29
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1984
8.35
3.17
26.46
126.13
4.77
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1984
4.71
2.58
12.14
138.05
11.37
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1984
4.71
2.58
12.14
60.06
4.95
C0NCS.XLS1 2-2
Page 2 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Norrnalized PCR Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
PCB	Lipid-Normalized
Concen-	Individual Species
Pa
ameter
River
Mile
Month
Year
tration
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
mg PCB
per kg OC
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Ratio of Species
to PCB - OC
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1984
4.71
2.58
12.14
104.38
8.60
Aroclo
1016
193,9
9
1984
4.71
2.58
12.14
97.18
8.01
Aroclo
1016
193,9
9
1984
4.71
2.58
12.14
103.95
8.56
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1985
4.34
5.04
21.89
334.37
15.28
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1985
4.34
5.04
21.89
195.98
8.95
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1985
4.34
5.04
21.89
192.59
8.80
Aroclo
1016
193.9
7
1985
4.34
5.04
21.89
213.17
9.74
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1985
4.92
3.17
15.59
130.68
8.38
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1985
4.92
3.17
15.59
235.77
15.12
Aroclo
1016
193.9
8
1985
4.92
3.17
15.59
150,82
9.67
Aroclo
1016
193.9
9
1985
5.27
2.58
13.58
290.64
21.40
Aroclo
1016
189.4
7
1978
18.86
4.34
81.80
479.86
5.87
Aroclo
1016
189.4
7
1978
19.13
4.34
82.97
479,86
5.78
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
4.16
4.18
17.40
27.14
1.56
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
4.16
4.18
17.40
42.69
2.45
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
4.16
4.18
17.40
41.40
2.38
Aroclo
1016
189,4
6
1980
4.16
4.18
17.40
15.27
0.88
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
2.44
4.18
10.20
27.14
2.66
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
2.44
4.18
10.20
42.69
4.18
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
2.44
4.18
10,20
41.40
4.06
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
2.44
4.18
10.20
15,27
1.50
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
11.90
4.18
49.76
27.14
0.55
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
11.90
4.18
49.76
42.69
0.86
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
11.90
4.18
49.76
41.40
0.83
Aroclo
1016
189.4
6
1980
11.90
4.18
49.76
15.27
0.31
Aroclo
1016
189,4
7
1980
1,81
4.34
7,85
38.41
4.89
Aroclo
1016
189,4
7
1980
1.81
4.34
7,85
33.01
4.21
Aroclo
1016
189.4
8
1980
0.90
3.00
2.69
50.74
18.88
Aroclo
1016
189.4
8
1980
0.90
3.00
2.69
36.72
13.67
CONCS.XLS12-2
Page 3 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Parameter
River
Mile
Month
Year
PCB
Concen-
tration
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
mg PCB
per kg OC
Lipid-Normalized
Individual Species
Concentration
(mg/kgj
Ratio of Species
to PCB - OC
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1980
0.42
2.70
1.12
13.85
12.36
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1980
0.42
2.70
1,12
17.32
15.46
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1981
9.15
4.34
39.68
111.03
2.80
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1981
9.15
4.34
39.68
122.36
3.08
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1981
4.02
3.00
12.07
78.43
6.50
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1981
4.02
3.00
12.07
46.73
3.87
Arocior 1016
189.4
8
1981
4.02
3.00
12.07
127.34
10.55
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1981
3.71
2.70
10.01
117.92
11.78
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1981
3.71
2.70
10.01
84.34
8.42
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1981
3.71
2.70
10.01
57.96
5.79
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1982
26.10
4.34
113.20
159.64
1.41
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1982
26.10
4.34
113.20
130.77
1.16
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1982
26.10
4.34
113.20
99.19
0.88
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1982
26.10
4.34
113.20
136.77
1.21
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1982
6.36
3.00
19.09
139.53
7.31
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1982
6.36
3.00
19.09
119.87
6.28
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1982
6.36
3.00
19.09
117.14
6.14
Arocior 1016
189.4
8
1982
6.36
3.00
19.09
107.97
5.66
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1982
2.87
2.70
7.74
77.64
10.02
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1982
2.87
2.70
7.74
61.79
7.98
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1983
3.08
2.70
8.31
118.18
14.22
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1983
3.08
2.70
8.31
154.37
18.57
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1984
5.60
4.34
24.29
184.96
7.62
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1984
5.60
4.34
24.29
331.06
13.63
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1984
5.60
4.34
24.29
333.33
13.72
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1984
11.40
3.00
34.22
64.38
1.88
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1984
11.40
3.00
34.22
62.11
1.82
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1984
11.40
3.00
34.22
104.35
3.05
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1984
11.40
3.00
34.22
107.25
3.13
CONCS.XLS1 2-2
Page 4 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column




PCB


Lipid-Normalized





Concen-


Individual Species


River


tration

mg PCB
Concentration
Ratio of Species
Parameter
Mile
Month
Year
{mg/kg)
TSS/POC
per kg OC
(mg/kg)
to PCB - OC
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1984
11.40
3.00
34.22
93.20
2.72
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1984
3.96
2.70
10.69
108.20
10.13
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1984
3.96
2.70
10.69
125.52
11.75
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1984
3.96
2.70
10.69
110.77
10.37
Aroclor 1016
189.4
9
1984
3.96
2.70
10.69
92.04
8.61
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1985
3.07
4.34
13.31
151.04
11.34
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1985
3.07
4.34
13.31
167.21
12.56
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1985
3.07
4.34
13.31
138.48
10.40
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1985
3.07
4.34
13.31
146.03
10.97
Aroclor 1016
189.4
7
1985
3.07
4.34
13.31
133.14
10.00
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1985
3.03
3.00
9.10
84.46
9.29
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1985
3.03
3.00
9.10
125.83
13.83
Aroclor 1016
189.4
8
1985
3.03
3.00
9.10
106.35
11.69
Aroclor 1016
181.8
7
1981
5.38
5,61
30.18
96.03
3.18
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1978
9.53
4.78
45.51
47.20
1.04
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1978
11.90
4.78
56.83
47.20
0.83
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1978
14.79
4.78
70.63
47.20
0.67
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1980
2.00
4.78
9.55
65.52
6.86
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1980
2.00
4.78
9.55
42.40
4.44
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1980
1.63
4,25
6.92
65.52
9.46
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1980
1.63
4.25
6.92
123.90
17.90
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1980
0.68
4.55
3.09
70.12
22.71
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1980
0.68
4.55
3.09
28.12
9.11
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1981
6.16
4.78
29.42
60.81
2.07
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1981
6.16
4.78
29.42
71.07
2.42
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1981
6.16
4.78
29.42
141.29
4.80
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1981
6.16
4.78
29.42
124.85
4.24
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1981
4.87
4.25
20.69
151.90
7.34
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1981
4.87
4.25
20.69
147.56
7.13
CONCS.XLS12-2
Page 5 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column




PCB


Lipid-Normalized





Concen-


Individual Species


River


tration

mg PCB
Concentration
Ratio of Species
Parameter
Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
per kg OC
(mg/kg)
to PCB - OC
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1981
4.87
4.25
20.69
139.27
6.73
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1981
4,87
4.25
20.69
39.41
1.91
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1982
18.50
4.78
88.35
99.45
1.13
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1982
18.50
4.78
88.35
65.55
0.74
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1982
3.94
4.25
16.74
123.70
7.39
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1982
3.94
4.25
16.74
124.00
7.41
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1982
3.34
4.55
15.21
88.38
5.81
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1983
3.01
4.55
13.71
136.42
9.95
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1983
3.01
4.55
13.71
142.77
10.42
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1983
3.01
4.55
13.71
142.01
10.36
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1984
3.52
4.78
16.81
328.88
19.56
Arocior 1016
169
7
1984
3.52
4.78
16.81
297.18
17.68
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1984
3.52
4.78
1 v81
223.99
13.32
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1984
3.52
4.78
:,81
182.50
10.86
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1984
3.52
4.78
.81
169.01
10.05
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1984
3.52
4.78
.81
163.64
9.73
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1984
2.94
4.25
1^.49
101.22
8.11
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1984
2.94
4.25
12.49
42.92
3.44
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1984
2.94
4.25
12.49
12.50
1.00
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1984
2.94
4.25
12.49
375.54
30.07
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1984
2.94
4.25
12.49
109.38
8.76
Aroclor 1016
169
8
1984
2.94
4.25
12.49
97.73
7.83
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1984
2.60
4.55
11.84
153.21
12.94
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1984
2.60
4.55
11.84
175.25
14.80
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1984
2.60
4.55
11.84
181.33
15.32
Aroclor 1016
169
9
1984
2.60
4.55
11.84
188.67
15.94
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1985
3.36
4.78
16.05
129.85
8.09
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1985
3.36
4.78
16.05
63.33
3.95
Aroclor 1016
169
7
1985
3.36
4.78
16.05
122.11
7.61
CONCS.XLS12-2
Page 6 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in idividual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbt in the Water Column





PCB


Lipid-Normalized






Concen-


Individual Species



River


tration

mg PCB
Concentration
Ratio of Species
Pa
ameter
Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
per kg OC
(mg/kg)
to PCB - OC
Aroclo
1016
169
8
1985
3.89
4.25
16.52
113.35
6.86
Aroclo
1016
169
8
1985
3.89
4.25
16.52
81.63
4.94
Aroclo
1016
169
8
1985
3.89
4.25
16.52
95.13
5.76
Aroclo
1016
169
9
1985
4.05
4.55
18.44
138.48
7.51
Aroclo
1016
169
9
1985
4.05
4.55
18.44
99.62
5.40
Aroclo
1016
169
9
1985
4.50
4.55
20.49
138.48
6.76
Aroclo
1016
169
9
1985
4.50
4.55
20.49
99.62
4.86
Aroclo
1016
158
7
1980
0.92
4.94
4.54
34.08
7.51
Aroclo
1016
158
7
1980
0.92
4.94
4.54
40.00
8.82
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1980
0.59
5.73
3.40
35.12
10.33
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1980
0.59
5.73
3.40
27.81
8.18
Aroclo
1016
158
7
1982
5.72
4.94
2R.26
60.45
2.14
Aroclo
1016
158
7
1982
5.72
4.94
28.26
71.50
2.53
Aroclo
1016
158
8
1982
1.63
5.34
8.71
48.69
5.59
Aroclo
1016
158
8
1982
1.63
5.34
8.71
65.45
7.52
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1982
1.54
5,73
8.83
90.77
10.28
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1983
2.14
5.73
12.27
131.25
10.70
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1983
2.14
5.73
12.27
132.21
10.78
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1983
2.14
5.73
12.27
120.78
9.85
Aroclo
1016
158
8
1984
2.07
5.34
11.06
99.44
8.99
Aroclo
1016
158
8
1984
2.07
5.34
11.06
107.82
9.75
Aroclo
1016
158
8
1984
2.07
5.34
11.06
89.37
8.08
Aroclo
1016
158
8
1984
2.07
5.34
11.06
126.80
11.47
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1984
1.39
5.73
7.97
135.19
16.97
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1984
1.39
5.73
7.97
120.97
15.18
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1984
1.39
5.73
7.97
132.04
16.57
Aroclo
1016
158
9
1984
1.39
5.73
7.97
95.04
11.93
Aroclo
1016
158
7
1985
0.95
4.94
4.67
94.21
20.18
Aroclo
1016
158
7
1985
0.95
4.94
4.67
82.18
17.60
C0NCS.XLS1 2-2
Page 7 of 8

-------
Table 10-2
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column




PCB


Lipid-Normalized





Concen-


Individual Species


River


tration

mg PCB
Concentration
Ratio of Species
Parameter
Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
per kg OC
(mg/kg)
to PCB - OC
Aroclor 1016
158
7
1985
0.95
4.94
4.67
4.14
0.89
Aroclor 1016
158
7
1985
0.95
4.94
4.67
2.90
0.62
Aroclor 1016
158
7
1985
0.95
4.94
4.67
126.16
27.02
Aroclor 1016
158
7
1985
0.95
4.94
4.67
88.60
18.98
Aroclor 1016
158
8
1985
1.33
5.34
7.10
89.61
12.62
Aroclor 1016
158
8
1985
1.33
5.34
7.10
91.24
12.84
Aroclor 1016
153,3
7
1981
1.84
7.31
13.44
65.00
4.83
Aroclor 1016
153.3
8
1982
4.66
7.31
34.05
48.67
1.43
C0NCS.XLS1 2-2
Page 8 of 8

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg pcb per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1980
0.22
5.21
1.15
7.87
6.83
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1980
0.20
4.27
0.86
61.21
70.98
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1980
0.26
3.12
0.80
16.57
20.76
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1980
0.26
3.12
0.80
7.69
9.64
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1981
0.29
5.21
1.51
13.84
9.16
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1981
0.27
4.27
1.13
12.82
11.33
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1981
0.27
3.12
0.84
0.95
1.13
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1982
1.91
5.21
9.96
9.76
0.98
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1982
21.90
4.27
93.50
39.93
0.43
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1982
1.00
3.12
3.12
6.99
2.24
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1983
0.20
3.12
0.62
4.46
7.22
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1984
1.70
5.21
8.86
79.55
8.98
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1984
1.70
5.21
8.86
99.22
11.20
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1984
1.70
5.21
8.86
61.68
6.96
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1984
1.70
5.21
8.86
22.39
2.53
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1984
1.45
4.27
6.19
16.80
2.71
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1984
1.45
4.27
6.19
18.11
2.93
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1984
1.45
4.27
6.19
5.26
0.85
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1984
0.25
3.12
0.78
12.20
15.65
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1984
0.25
3.12
0.78
14.66
18.80
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1984
0.25
3.12
0.78
14.03
18.00
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1985
0.51
5.21
2.67
10.53
3.94
Aroclor
1254
197.6
7
1985
0.51
5.21
2.67
18.45
6.90
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1985
0.37
4.27
1.59
17.27
10.84
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1985
0.37
4.27
1.59
11.49
7.22
Aroclor
1254
197.6
8
1985
0.37
4.27
1.59
27.09
17.01
Aroclor
1254
197.6
9
1985
0.15
3.12
0.47
6.96
14.89
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1978
3.93
5.04
19.82
90.80
4.58
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1978
5.41
5.04
27.28
90.80
3.33
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 1 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg pcb per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1978
9.52
5.04
48.01
90.80
1.89
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1980
3.11
5.04
15.68
60.55
3.86
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1980
3.11
5.04
15.68
120.51
7.68
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1980
1.60
3.17
5.07
31.75
6.26
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1980
1.60
3.17
5.07
51.01
10.06
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1980
0.88
2.58
2.26
30.26
13.39
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1980
0.87
2.58
2.24
30.26
13.50
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1980
0.88
2.58
2.26
53.97
23.88
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1980
0.87
2.58
2.24
53.97
24.07
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1981
1.90
5.04
9.58
15.84
1.65
Aroclcr
1254
193.9
8
1981
0.95
3.17
3.01
17.24
5.73
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1981
0.95
3.17
3.01
16.33
5.42
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1981
0.95
3.17
3.01
13.89
4.62
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1981
0.83
2.58
2.15
40.32
18.78
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1982
4.94
5.04
24.91
61.01
2.45
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1982
4.94
5.04
24.91
68.75
2.76
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1982
3.93
3.17
12.45
180.25
14.47
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1982
3.93
3.17
12.45
299.17
24.02
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1982
1.60
2.58
4.12
80.00
19.40
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1982
1.38
2.58
3.56
80.00
22.49
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.17
2.58
3.02
20.90
6.93
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.05
2.58
2.71
20.90
7.72
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.12
2.58
2.89
20.90
7.24
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.08
2.58
2.78
20.90
7.51
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.17
2.58
3.02
18.27
6.06
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.05
2.58
2.71
18.27
6.75
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.12
2.58
2.89
18.27
6.33
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1983
1.08
2.58
2.78
18.27
6.56
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1984
4.10
5.04
20.68
93.42
4.52
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 2 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCP Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column








Lipid-









Normalized






PCB


Individual






Concen-


Species
Ratio of





tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1984
4.10
5.04
20.68
241.30
11.67
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
34.42
2.53
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
38.41
2.83
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
30.07
2.21
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
29.90
2.20
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
24.76
1.82
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
24.33
1.79
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1984
4.29
3.17
13.59
31.06
2.28
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1984
1.63
2.58
4.20
52.30
12.45
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1984
1.63
2.58
4.20
17.36
4.13
Arocior
1254
193.9
9
1984
1.63
2.58
4.20
28.06
6.68
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1984
1.63
2.58
4.20
21.86
5.21
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1984
1.63
2.58
4.20
25.76
6.13
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1985
2.02
5.04
10.19
122.14
11.99
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1985
2.02
5.04
10.19
65.53
6.43
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1985
2.02
5.04
10.19
94.65
9.29
Aroclor
1254
193.9
7
1985
2.02
5.04
10.19
97.94
9.61
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1985
1.86
3.17
5.89
37.53
6.37
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1985
1.86
3.17
5.89
62.69
10.64
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1985
1.86
3.17
5.89
65.24
11.07
Aroclor
1254
193.9
8
1985
1.86
3.17
5.89
49.07
8.33
Aroclor
1254
193.9
9
1985
1.42
2.58
3.66
77.93
21.30
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1980
1.89
17.35
32.80
60.55
1.85
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1980
1.89
17.35
32.80
120.51
3.67
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1980
1.47
12.97
19.06
31.75
1.67
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1980
1.47
12.97
19.06
51.01
2.68
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1981
1.91
12.97
24.77
17.24
0.70
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1981
1.91
12.97
24.77
16.33
0.66
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1981
1.91
12.97
24.77
13.89
0.56
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 3 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg PCB per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1981
1.30
12.97
16.86
40,32
2.39
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1982
4.60
17.35
79.82
61.01
0.76
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1982
4.60
17.35
79.82
68.75
0.86
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1982
4.30
12.97
55.77
180.25
3.23
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1982
4.30
12.97
55.77
299.17
5.36
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1983
1.07
12.97
13.88
18.27
1.32
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1983
1.07
12.97
13.88
18.27
1.32
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1984
3.05
17.35
52.92
93.42
1.77
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1984
3.05
17.35
52.92
241.30
4.56
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
2.00
12.97
25.94
34.42
1.33
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
2.00
12.97
25.94
38.41
1.48
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
:>..oo
12.97
25.94
30.07
1.16
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
2.00
12.97
25.94
29.90
1.15
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
2.00
12.97
25.94
24,76
0.95
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
2.00
12.97
25.94
24.33
0.94
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1984
2.00
12,97
25.94
31.06
1.20
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1984
1.31
12.97
16.99
52.30
3.08
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1984
1.31
12.97
16.99
17.36
1.02
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1984
1.31
12.97
16.99
28.06
1.65
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1984
1.31
12.97
16.99
21.86
1.29
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1984
1.31
12.97
16.99
25.76
1.52
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1985
1.73
17.35
30.02
122.14
4.07
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1985
1.73
17,35
30.02
65.53
2.18
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1985
1.73
17.35
30.02
94.65
3.15
Aroclor
1254
193.88
7
1985
1.73
17.35
30.02
97.94
3.26
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1985
1.33
12.97
17.25
37.53
2.18
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1985
1.33
12.97
17.25
62.69
3.63
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1985
1.33
12.97
17.25
65.24
3.78
Aroclor
1254
193.88
8
1985
1.33
12.97
17.25
49.07
2.84
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 4 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg PCB per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
193.88
9
1985
1.30
12.97
16.86
77.93
4.62
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1978
8.30
4.34
36.00
253.24
7.03
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1978
10.55
4.34
45.76
253.24
5.53
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
6.12
4.18
25.59
48.03
1.88
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
6.12
4.18
25.59
80.22
3.13
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
6.12
4.18
25.59
80.35
3.14
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
6.12
4.18
25.59
49.66
1.94
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
16.10
4.18
67.33
48.03
0.71
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
16.10
4.18
67.33
80.22
1.19
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
16.10
4.18
67.33
80.35
1.19
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
16.10
4.18
67.33
49.66
0.74
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
17.20
4.18
71.93
48.03
0.67
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
17.20
4,18
71.93
80.22
1.12
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
17.20
4.18
71.93
80.35
1.12
Aroclor
1254
189.4
6
1980
17.20
4.18
71.93
49.66
0.69
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1980
2.64
4.34
11.45
56.08
4.90
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1980
2.64
4.34
11.45
52.67
4.60
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1980
0.72
3.00
2.16
54.87
25.35
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1980
0.72
3.00
2.16
65.97
30.48
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1980
1.26
2.70
3.40
24.90
7.32
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1980
1.26
2.70
3.40
55.79
16.41
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1981
2.10
4.34
9.11
32.83
3.60
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1981
2.10
4.34
9.11
41.61
4.57
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1981
1.13
3.00
3.39
22.00
6.49
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1981
1.13
3.00
3.39
16.28
4.80
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1981
1.13
3.00
3.39
38.28
11.29
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1981
1.03
2.70
2.78
48.58
17.48
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1981
1.03
2.70
2.78
34.85
12.54
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1981
1.03
2.70
2.78
29.87
10.75
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 5 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg PCB per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1982
57.50
4.34
249.38
94.58
0.38
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1982
57.50
4.34
249.38
81.20
0.33
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1982
57.50
4.34
249.38
59.11
0.24
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1982
57.50
4.34
249.38
73.09
0.29
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1982
11.30
3.00
33.92
153.49
4.52
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1982
11.30
3.00
33.92
95.51
2.82
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1982
11.30
3.00
33.92
101.43
2.99
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1982
11.30
3.00
33.92
100.72
2.97
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1982
1.05
2.70
2.83
57.33
20.23
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1982
1.05
2.70
2.83
41.93
14.80
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1983
1.22
2.70
3.29
45.70
13.88
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1983
1.22
2.70
3.29
59.42
18.05
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1984
2.63
4.34
11.41
116.81
10.24
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1984
2.63
4.34
11.41
205.92
18.05
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1984
2.63
4.34
11.41
213.88
18.75
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1984
6.28
3.0C
18.85
30.27
1.61
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1984
6.28
3.00
18.85
29.07
1.54
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1984
6.28
3.00
18.85
38.31
2.03
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1984
6.28
3.00
18.85
41.84
2.22
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1984
6.28
3.00
18.85
49.25
2.61
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1984
1.36
2.70
3.67
40.57
11.06
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1984
1.36
2.70
3.67
59.96
16.34
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1984
1.36
2.70
3.67
41.31
11.26
Aroclor
1254
189.4
9
1984
1.36
2.70
3.67
40.58
11.06
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1985
1.20
4.34
5.20
83.46
16.04
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1985
1.20
4.34
5.20
70.79
13.60
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1985
1.20
4.34
5.20
85.24
16.38
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1985
1.20
4.34
5.20
67.30
12.93
Aroclor
1254
189.4
7
1985
1.20
4.34
5.20
52.10
10.01
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 6 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations ii individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carb< in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg PCB per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1985
1.16
3.00
3.48
32.65
9.38
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1985
1.16
3.00
3.48
53.50
15.36
Aroclor
1254
189.4
8
1985
1.16
3.00
3.48
43.65
12.53
Aroclor
1254
181.8
7
1981
1.40
5.61
7.85
49.27
6.27
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1978
2.92
4.78
13.95
134.78
9.67
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1978
3.93
4.78
18.77
134.78
7.18
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1978
14.50
4.78
69.25
134.78
1.95
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1980
3.50
4.78
16.72
66.09
3.95
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1980
3.50
4.78
16.72
106.43
6.37
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1980
2.37
4.25
10.07
100.57
9.99
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1980
2.37
4.25
10.07
123.90
12.31
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1980
0.89
4.55
4.07
63.49
15.61
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1980
0.89
4.55
4.07
36.35
8.94
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1981
1.38
4.78
6.59
16.31
2.47
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1981
1.38
4.78
6.59
24.75
3.76
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1981
1.38
4.78
6.59
40.06
6.08
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1981
1.38
4.78
6.59
40.71
6.18
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1981
1.37
4.25
5.82
83.54
14.36
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1981
1.37
4.25
5.82
43.48
7.47
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1981
1.37
4.25
5.82
38.90
6.69
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1981
1.37
4.25
5.82
12.70
2.18
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1982
38.80
4.78
185.30
58.01
0.31
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1982
38.80
4.78
185.30
74.45
0.40
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1982
3.12
4.25
13.25
95.56
7.21
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1982
3.12
4.25
13.25
100.80
7.61
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1982
1.92
4.55
8.74
75.50
8.64
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1983
1.11
4.55
5.05
47.42
9.38
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1983
1.11
4.55
5.05
50.94
10.08
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1983
1.11
4.55
5.05
48.22
9.54
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 7 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-
Normalized
PCB	Individual
Concen-	Species	Ratio of
tration	mg PCB per Concentration Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1984
1.38
4.78
6.59
152.41
23.12
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1984
1.38
4.78
6.59
181.28
27.51
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1984
1.38
4.78
6.59
103.08
15.64
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1984
1.38
4.78
6.59
77.50
11.76
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1984
1.38
4.78
6.59
83.80
12.72
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1984
1.38
4.78
6.59
80.52
12.22
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1984
1.01
4.25
4.29
52.87
12.32
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1984
1.01
4.25
4.29
21.46
5.00
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1984
1.01
4.25
4.29
6.25
1.46
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1984
1.01
4.25
4.29
198.93
46.37
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1984
1.01
4.25
4.29
57.94
13.51
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1984
1.01
4.25
4.29
41.93
9.77
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1984
0.87
4.55
3.94
56.79
14.40
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1984
0.87
4.55
3.94
73.27
18.58
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1984
0.87
4.55
3.94
65.93
16.72
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1984
0.87
4.55
3.94
67.33
17.07
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1985
1.32
4.78
6.30
52.61
8.35
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1985
1.32
4.78
6.30
48.39
7.68
Aroclor
1254
169
7
1985
1.32
4.78
6.30
62.00
9.83
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1985
1.31
4.25
5.56
46.08
8.28
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1985
1.31
4.25
5.56
27.78
4.99
Aroclor
1254
169
8
1985
1.31
4.25
5.56
34.59
6.22
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1985
1.16
4.55
5.28
64.59
12.23
Aroclor
1254
169
9
1985
1.16
4.55
5.28
40.52
7.67
Aroclor
1254
158
7
1980
0.98
4.94
4.85
35.70
7.37
Aroclor
1254
158
7
1980
0.98
4.94
4.85
46.54
9.60
Aroclor
1254
158
9
1980
0.70
5.73
4.01
52.85
13.17
Aroclor
1254
158
9
1980
0.70
5.73
4.01
51.51
12.84
Aroclor
1254
158
7
1982
9.39
4.94
46.39
33.86
0.73
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 8 of 9

-------
Table 10-3
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentrations in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column








Lipid-









Normalized






PCB


Individual






Concen-


Species
Ratio of





tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
River Mile
Month
Year
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Aroclor
254
158
7
1982
9.39
4.94
46.39
80.83
1.74
Aroclor
254
158
8
1982
2.27
5.34
12.12
88.28
7.28
Aroclor
254
158
8
1982
2.27
5.34
12.12
85.45
7.05
Aroclor
254
158
9
1982
0.66
5.73
3.76
65.58
17.44
Aroclor
254
158
9
1983
0.74
5.73
4.24
44.66
10.54
Aroclor
254
158
9
1983
0.74
5.73
4.24
44.71
10.56
Aroclor
254
158
9
1983
0.74
5.73
4.24
47.66
11.25
Aroclor
254
158
8
1984
0.77
5.34
4.11
36.80
8.95
Aroclor
254
158
8
1984
0.77
5.34
4.11
40.39
9.82
Aroclor
254
158
8
1984
0.77
5.34
4.11
39.23
9.54
Aroclor
254
158
8
1984
0.77
5.34
4.11
45.49
11.06
Aroclor
254
158
9
1984
0.50
5.73
2.86
54.54
19.07
Aroclor
254
158
9
1984
0.50
5.73
2.86
47.98
16.78
Aroclor
254
158
9
1984
0.50
5.73
2.86
57.48
20.10
Aroclor
254
158
9
1984
0.50
5.73
2.86
51.90
18.15
Aroclor
254
158
7
1985
0.33
4.94
1.62
35.75
22.06
Aroclor
254
158
7
1985
0.33
4.94
1.62
42.80
26.41
Aroclor
254
158
7
1985
0.33
4.94
1.62
8.27
5.11
Aroclor
254
158
7
1985
0.33
4.94
1.62
5.81
3.59
Aroclor
254
158
7
1985
0.33
4.94
1.62
52.43
32.36
Aroclor
254
158
7
1985
0.33
4.94
1.62
36.82
22.72
Aroclor
254
158
8
1985
0.45
5.34
2.39
30.14
12.63
Aroclor
254
158
8
1985
0.45
5.34
2.39
31.36
13.14
Aroclor
254
153.3
7
1981
0.47
7.31
3.45
23.85
6.91
Aroclor
254
153.3
8
1982
37.20
7.31
271.80
69.62
0.26
CONCS.XLS10-3
Page 9 of 9

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1980
197.6
0.383
5.21
2.00
21.26
10.65
Total PCBs
1981
197.6
0.51
5.21
2.66
20.66
7.77
Total PCBs
1982
197.6
3.37
5.21
17.57
15.85
0.90
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
2.2
5.21
11.47
97.73
8.52
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
2.2
5.21
11.47
121.09
10.56
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
2.2
5.21
11.47
75.66
6.60
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
2.2
5.21
11.47
33.58
2.93
Total PCBs
1985
197.6
0.913
5.21
4.76
21.05
4.42
Total PCBs
1985
197.6
0.913
5.21
4.76
36.89
7.75
Total PCBs
1980
197.6
0.376
4.27
1.61
98.79
61.54
Total PCBs
1981
197.6
0.519
4.27
2.22
16.99
7.67
Total PCBs
1982
197.6
25.26
4.27
107.84
72.54
0.67
Total PCBs
1984
197,6
1.65
4.27
7.04
50.40
7.15
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
1.65
4.27
7.04
39.37
5.59
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
1.65
4.27
7.04
16.54
2.35
Total PCBs
1985
197.6
0.773
4.27
3.30
57.55
17.44
Total PCBs
1985
197.6
0.773
4.27
3.30
49.81
15.09
Total PCBs
1985
197.6
0.773
4.27
3.30
59.59
18.06
Total PCBs
1980
197.6
0.431
3.12
1.34
33.33
24.81
Total PCBs
1980
197.6
0.431
3.12
1.34
17.10
12.73
Total PCBs
1981
197.6
0.59
3.12
1.84
2.83
1.54
Total PCBs
1982
197.6
2
3.12
6.23
16,13
2.59
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
0.45
3.12
1.40
29.27
20.86
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
0.45
3.12
1.40
43.97
31.34
Total PCBs
1984
197.6
0.45
3.12
1.40
45.09
32.14
Total PCBs
1985
197.6
0.25
3.12
0.78
16.25
20.85
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
10.76
5.04
54.27
271.78
5.01
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
12.24
5.04
61.73
271.78
4.40
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
12.76
5.04
64.35
271.78
4.22
CONCS.XLS12-4
Page 1 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCFt Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column
Lipid-Normalized
PCB Concen	Individual Species Ratio of
tration	mg PCB per Concentration Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
14.24
5.04
71.82
271.78
3.78
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
16.35
5.04
82.46
271.78
3.30
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
18.35
5.04
92.54
271.78
2.94
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
20.07
5.04
101.22
271.78
2.69
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
21.55
5.04
108.68
271.78
2.50
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
25.66
5.04
129.41
271.78
2.10
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
10.76
5.04
54.27
271.78
5.01
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
12.24
5.04
61.73
271.78
4.40
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
12.76
5.04
64.35
271.78
4.22
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
14.24
5.04
71.82
271.78
3.78
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
16.35
5.04
82.46
271.78
3.30
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
18.35
5.04
92.54
271.78
2.94
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
20.07
5.04
101.22
271.78
2.69
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
21.55
5.04
108.68
271.78
2.50
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
25.66
5.04
129.41
271.78
2.10
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
10.76
5.04
54.27
271.78
5.01
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
12.24
5.04
61.73
271.78
4.40
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
12.76
5.04
64.35
271.78
4.22
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
14.24
5.04
71.82
271.78
3.78
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
16.35
5.04
82.46
271.78
3.30
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
18.35
5.04
92.54
271.78
2.94
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
20.07
5.04
101.22
271.78
2.69
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
21.55
5.04
108.68
271.78
2.50
Total PCBs
1978
193.9
25.66
5.04
129.41
271.78
2.10
Total PCBs
1980
193.9
4.23
5.04
21.33
95.41
4.47
Total PCBs
1980
193.9
4.23
5.04
21.33
200.00
9.38
Total PCBs
1981
193.9
8.82
5.04
44.48
77.42
1.74
Total PCBs
1982
193.9
11.16
5.04
56.28
194.95
3.46
Total PCBs
1982
193.9
11.16
5.04
56.28
275.00
4.89
CONCS.XLS1 2-4
Page 2 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
14.2
5.04
71.62
355.57
4.96
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
14.2
5.04
71.62
482.61
6.74
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.36
5.04
32.08
456.50
14.23
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.36
5.04
32.08
261.50
8.15
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.36
5.04
32.08
287.24
8.96
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.36
5.04
32.08
290.53
9.06
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.36
5.04
32.08
307.82
9.60
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.36
5.04
32.08
311.11
9.70
Total PCBs
1980
193.9
2.72
3.17
8.62
61.90
7.18
Total PCBs
1980
193.9
2.72
3.17
8.62
98.49
11.43
Total PCBs
1981
193.9
3.88
3.17
12.29
69.60
5.66
Total PCBs
1981
193.9
3.88
3.17
12.29
79.24
6.44
Total PCBs
1981
193.9
3.88
3.17
12.29
57.32
4.66
Total PCBs
1982
193.9
8.32
3.17
26.36
287.26
10.90
Total PCBs
1982
193.9
8.32
3.17
26.36
509.09
19.31
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
159.78
3.99
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
163.41
4.08
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
163.77
4.09
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
167.39
4.18
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
164.36
4.10
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
133.71
3.34
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
128.16
3.20
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
111.43
2.78
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
12.64
3.17
40.05
157.19
3.92
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.78
3.17
21.48
168.21
7.83
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.78
3.17
21.48
298.46
13.89
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.78
3.17
21.48
301.00
14.01
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.78
3.17
21.48
199.89
9.30
Total PCBs
1980
193.9
1.187
2.58
3.06
39.74
12.99
CONCS.XLS1 2-4
Page 3 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1980
193.9
1.187
2.58
3.06
90.85
29.70
Total PCBs
1981
193.9
3.573
2.58
9.21
114.92
12.48
Total PCBs
1982
193.9
5.4
2.58
13.92
143.00
10.28
Total PCBs
1982
193.9
4.71
2.58
12.14
143.00
11.78
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.7
2.58
9.54
106.15
11.13
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.57
2.58
9.20
106.15
11.54
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.83
2.58
9.87
106.15
10.75
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.51
2.58
9.05
106.15
11.73
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.62
2.58
9.33
106.15
11.38
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.7
2.58
9.54
92.24
9.67
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.57
2.58
9.20
92.24
10.03
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.83
2.58
9.87
92.24
9.35
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.51
2.58
9.05
92.24
10.20
Total PCBs
1983
193.9
3.62
2.58
9.33
92.24
9.89
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
190.35
11.65
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
77.42
4.74
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
132.44
8.11
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
119.04
7.29
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
122.94
7.52
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
125.82
7.70
Total PCBs
1984
193.9
6.34
2.58
16.34
129.72
7.94
Total PCBs
1985
193.9
6.69
2.58
17.24
368.57
21.38
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
10.28
4.18
42.99
75.17
1.75
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
18.54
4.18
77.53
75.17
0.97
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
29.1
4.18
121.69
75.17
0.62
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
10.28
4.18
42.99
122.91
2.86
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
18.54
4.18
77.53
122.91
1.59
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
29.1
4.18
121.69
122.91
1.01
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
10.28
4.18
42.99
121.75
2.83
CONCS.XLS1 2-4
Page 4 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
18.54
4.18
77.53
121.75
1.57
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
29.1
4.18
121.69
121.75
1.00
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
10.28
4.18
42.99
64.93
1.51
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
18.54
4.18
77.53
64.93
0.84
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
29.1
4.18
121.69
64.93
0.53
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
27.16
4.34
117.79
733.09
6.22
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
27.43
4.34
118.96
733.09
6.16
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
29.41
4.34
127.55
733.09
5.75
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
29.68
4.34
128.72
733.09
5.70
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
27.16
4.34
117.79
733.09
6.22
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
27.43
4.34
118.96
733.09
6.16
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
29.41
4.34
127.55
733.09
5.75
Total PCBs
1978
189.4
29.68
4.34
128.72
733.09
5.70
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
4.45
4.34
19.30
94.50
4.90
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
4.45
4.34
19.30
85.68
4.44
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
11.25
4.34
48.79
143,86
2.95
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
11.25
4.34
48.79
163.98
3.36
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
83.6
4.34
362.58
254.22
0.70
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
83.6
4.34
362.58
211.97
0.58
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
83.6
4.34
362.58
158.30
0.44
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
83.6
4.34
362.58
209.87
0.58
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
8.23
4.34
35.69
301.77
8.45
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
8.23
4.34
35.69
536.97
15.04
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
8.23
4.34
35.69
539.25
15.11
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
8.23
4.34
35.69
544.94
15.27
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
8.23
4.34
35.69
547.21
15.33
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.27
4.34
18.52
234.51
12.66
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.27
4.34
18.52
238.00
12.85
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.27
4.34
18.52
223.72
12.08
CONCS.XLS12-4
Page 5 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.27
4.34
18.52
213.33
11.52
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.27
4.34
18.52
185.24
10.00
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
1.616
3.00
4.85
105.60
21.77
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
1.616
3.00
4.85
102.69
21.17
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
5.15
3.00
15.46
100.43
6.50
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
5.15
3.00
15.46
63.01
4.08
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
5.15
3.00
15.46
165.63
10.71
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
17.66
3.00
53.01
293.02
5.53
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
17.66
3.00
53.01
215.38
4.06
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
17.66
3.00
53.01
218.57
4.12
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
17.66
3.00
53.01
208.70
3.94
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
17.68
3.00
53.07
94.66
1.78
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
17.68
3.00
53.07
91.19
1.72
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
17.68
3.00
53.07
142.66
2.69
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
17.68
3.00
53.07
149.08
2.81
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
17.68
3.00
53.07
142.45
2.68
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.19
3.00
12.58
117.11
9.31
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.19
3.00
12.58
179.33
14.26
Total PCBs
1985
189.4
4.19
3.00
12.58
150.00
11.93
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
1.675
2.70
4.52
38.74
8.57
Total PCBs
1980
189.4
1.675
2.70
4.52
73.11
16.17
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
4.74
2.70
12.79
166.51
13.02
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
4.74
2.70
12.79
119.19
9.32
Total PCBs
1981
189.4
4.74
2.70
12.79
87.83
6.87
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
3.92
2.70
10.58
134.97
12.76
Total PCBs
1982
189.4
3.92
2.70
10.58
103.73
9.81
Total PCBs
1983
189.4
4.3
2.70
11.60
163.88
14.12
Total PCBs
1983
189.4
4.3
2.70
11.60
213.79
18.42
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
5.32
2.70
14.36
148.77
10.36
CONCS.XLS12-4
Page 6 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
5.32
2.70
14.36
185.48
12.92
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
5.32
2.70
14.36
152.08
10.59
Total PCBs
1984
189.4
5.32
2.70
14.36
132.62
9.24
Total PCBs
1981
181.8
6.78
5.61
38.04
145.30
3.82
Total PCBs
1978
169
12.45
4.78
59.46
181.99
3.06
Total PCBs
1978
169
13.46
4.78
64.28
181.99
2.83
Total PCBs
1978
169
14.82
4.78
70.78
181.99
2.57
Total PCBs
1978
169
15.83
4.78
75.60
181.99
2.41
Total PCBs
1978
169
17.71
4.78
84.58
181.99
2.15
Total PCBs
1978
169
18.72
4.78
89.40
181.99
2.04
Total PCBs
1978
169
24.03
4.78
114.76
181.99
1.59
Total PCBs
1978
169
26.4
4.78
126.08
181.99
1.44
Total PCBs
1978
169
29.29
4.78
139.88
181.99
1.30
Total PCBs
1980
169
5.5
4.78
26.27
131.61
5.01
Total PCBs
1980
169
5.5
4.78
26.27
148.83
5.67
Total PCBs
1981
169
7.54
4.78
36.01
77.12
2.14
Total PCBs
1981
169
7.54
4.78
36.01
95.83
2.66
Total PCBs
1981
169
7.54
4.78
36.01
181.35
5.04
Total PCBs
1981
169
7.54
4.78
36.01
165.56
4.60
Total PCBs
1982
169
57.3
4.78
273.65
157.46
0.58
Total PCBs
1982
169
57.3
4.78
273.65
140.00
0.51
Total PCBs
1984
169
4.9
4.78
23.40
481.28
20.57
Total PCBs
1984
169
4.9
4.78
23.40
478.45
20.45
Total PCBs
1984
169
4.9
4.78
23.40
327.07
13.98
Total PCBs
1984
169
4.9
4.78
23.40
260.00
11.11
Total PCBs
1984
169
4.9
4.78
23.40
252.82
10.80
Total PCBs
1984
169
4.9
4.78
23.40
244.16
10.43
Total PCBs
1985
169
4.68
4.78
22.35
182.46
8.16
Total PCBs
1985
169
4.68
4.78
22.35
111.72
5.00
C0NCS.XLS12-4
Page 7 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1985
169
4.68
4.78
22.35
184.11
8.24
Total PCBs
1980
169
4
4.25
16.99
166.09
9.78
Total PCBs
1980
169
4
4.25
16.99
247.80
14.59
Total PCBs
1981
169
6.24
4.25
26.50
235.44
8.88
Total PCBs
1981
169
6.24
4.25
26.50
191.04
7.21
Total PCBs
1981
169
6.24
4.25
26.50
178.17
6.72
Total PCBs
1981
169
6.24
4.25
26.50
52.12
1.97
Total PCBs
1982
169
7.06
4.25
29.99
219.26
7.31
Total PCBs
1982
169
7.06
4.25
29.99
224.80
7.50
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
154.09
9.18
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
64.38
3.84
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
241.85
14.41
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
397.00
23.66
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
574.46
34.24
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
18.75
1.12
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
70.44
4.20
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
115.63
6.89
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
167.31
9.97
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.95
4.25
16.78
139.66
8.32
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.2
4.25
22.09
159.42
7.22
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.2
4.25
22.09
109.42
4.95
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.2
4.25
22.09
129.71
5.87
Total PCBs
1980
169
1.571
4.55
7.15
133.61
18.68
Total PCBs
1980
169
1.571
4.55
7.15
64.47
9.01
Total PCBs
1982
169
5.26
4.55
23.95
163.87
6.84
Total PCBs
1983
169
4.12
4.55
18.76
183.84
9.80
Total PCBs
1983
169
4.12
4.55
18.76
193.71
10.33
Total PCBs
1983
169
4.12
4.55
18.76
190.24
10.14
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.466
4.55
15.78
210.00
13.31
CONCS.XLS12-4
Page 8 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in ndividual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbc in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.466
4.55
15.78
248.51
15.75
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.466
4.55
15.78
247.27
15.67
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.466
4.55
15.78
248.67
15.76
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.466
4.55
15.78
254.60
16.13
Total PCBs
1984
169
3.466
4.55
15.78
256.00
16.22
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.21
4.55
23.72
203.07
8.56
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.66
4.55
25.77
203.07
7.88
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.21
4.55
23.72
140.13
5.91
Total PCBs
1985
169
5.66
4.55
25.77
140.13
5.44
Total PCBs
1980
158
1.899
4.94
9.38
69.78
7.44
Total PCBs
1980
158
1.899
4.94
9.38
86.54
9.22
Total PCBs
1982
158
15.11
4.94
74.65
94.32
1.26
Total PCBs
1982
158
15.11
4.94
74.65
152.33
2.04
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
129.96
20.67
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
124.98
19.87
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
12.41
1.97
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
56.57
8.99
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
134.44
21.38
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
178.59
28.40
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
8.71
1.39
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
39.72
6.32
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
94.41
15.01
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.273
4.94
6.29
125.42
19.94
Total PCBs
1982
158
3.9
5.34
20.83
136.97
6.58
Total PCBs
1982
158
3.9
5.34
20.83
150.91
7.24
Total PCBs
1984
158
2.84
5.34
15.17
148.21
9.77
Total PCBs
1984
158
2.84
5.34
15.17
128.60
8.48
Total PCBs
1984
158
2.84
5.34
15.17
172.29
11.36
Total PCBs
1984
158
2.84
5.34
15.17
189.72
12.51
CONCS.XLS12-4
Page 9 of 10

-------
Table 10-4
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized PCB Concentration in Individual Species
on Multiplate Samplers to Particulate Organic Carbon in the Water Column






Lipid-Normalized




PCB Concen


Individual Species
Ratio of



tration

mg PCB per
Concentration
Species to
Parameter
Year
River Mile
(mg/kg)
TSS/POC
kg OC
(mg/kg)
PCB - OC
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.777
5.34
9.49
119.76
12.62
Total PCBs
1985
158
1,777
5.34
9,49
120.98
12.75
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.777
5.34
9.49
121.38
12.79
Total PCBs
1985
158
1.777
5.34
9.49
122.61
12.92
Total PCBs
1980
158
1.293
5.73
7.41
87.97
11.87
Total PCBs
1980
158
1,293
5.73
7.41
79.32
10.70
Total PCBs
1982
158
2.196
5.73
12.59
156.35
12.42
Total PCBs
1982
158
2.196
5,73
12.59
175.91
13.98
Total PCBs
1983
158
2.879
5.73
16.50
175.96
10.66
Total PCBs
1983
158
2.879
5.73
16.50
176.88
10.72
Total PCBs
1983
158
2.879
5.73
16.50
176.92
10.72
Total PCBs
1983
158
2.879
5.73
16.50
168.44
10.21
Total PCBs
1983
158
2.879
5.73
16.50
136.24
8.26
Total PCBs
1984
158
1.889
5.73
10.83
168.95
15.60
Total PCBs
1984
158
1.889
5.73
10.83
189.51
17.50
Total PCBs
1984
158
1.889
5.73
10,83
146.94
13.57
Total PCBs
1984
158
1.889
5.73
10.83
85.63
7.91
Total PCBs
1981
153.3
2.312
7.31
16,89
88.85
5.26
Total PCBs
1982
153.3
41.86
7.31
305.85
118.29
0.39
CONCS.XLS12-4
Page 10 of 10

-------
Table 10-5
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10cm to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1016
Year
Length
(mm)
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
Multiplate
Concentration
(ug/g)
Ratio
1979

672.49
160.79
4.18
1979

760.56
160.79
4.73
1979

636.36
160.79
3.96
1979

604.08
160.79
3.76
1979

729.28
160.79
4.54
1979

726.26
160.79
4.52
1979

697.80
160.79
4.34
1979

648.15
160.79
4.03
1979

705.20
160.79
4.39
1979

681.82
160.79
4.24
1979

703.49
160.79
4.38
1979

614.58
160.79
3.82
1979

723.93
160.79
4.50
1979

668.87
160.79
4.16
1979

674.42
160.79
4.19
1979

720.78
160.79
4.48
1980

535.03
66.27
8.07
1980

494.16
66.27
7.46
1980

512.50
66.27
7.73
1980

478.77
66.27
7.22
1980

411.41
66.27
6.21
1980

447.62
66.27
6.75
1980

587.93
66.27
8.87
1980

406.91
66.27
6.14
1980

506.70
66.27
7.65
1980

459.06
66.27
6.93
1980

644.51
66.27
9.73
1980

480.00
66.27
7.24
1980

601.91
66.27
9.08
1980

575.34
66.27
8.68
1980

657.28
66.27
9.92
1980

483.60
66.27
7.30
1980

453.57
66.27
6.84
1980

434.26
66.27
6.55
1980

414.35
66.27
6.25
1980

378.21
66.27
5.71
1980

384.16
66.27
5.80
1980

425.22
66.27
6.42
1980

430.51
66.27
6.50
1980

469.26
66.27
7.08
1980

441.56
66.27
6.66
1981
83
346.15
556.60
0.62
1981
90
14.47
556.60
0.03
1981
92
258.41
556.60
0.46
1981
92
300.90
556.60
0.54
1981
93
283.23
556.60
0.51
Page 1 of 3
Source: NYSDOH; NYSOEC

-------
Table 10-5
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10cm to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1016
Year
Length
(mm)
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
Multiplate
Concentration
(ug/g)
Ratio
1981
97
252.66
556.60
0.45
1981
97
372.37
556.60
0.67
1981
98
241.88
556.60
0.43
1981
99
316.72
556.60
0.57
1981
99
322.98
556.60
0.58
1982
82
158.54
227.75
0.70
1982
84
220.24
227.75
0.97
1982
85
233.22
227.75
1.02
1982
85
148.85
227.75
0.65
1982
87
263.72
227.75
1.16
1982
87
208.48
227.75
0.92
1982
88
216.55
227.75
0.95
1982
89
194.00
227.75
0.85
1982
91
158.80
227.75
0.70
1982
92
215.09
227.75
0.94
1982
92
265.25
227.75
1.16
1982
93
230.83
227.75
1.01
1982
93
243.86
227.75
1.07
1982
93
228.45
227.75
1.00
1982
93
209.26
227.75
0.92
1982
95
267.81
227.75
1.18
1982
96
231.58
227.75
1.02
1982
98
236.43
227.75
1.04
1983
79
212.80
452.86
0.47
1983
81
217.86
452.86
0.48
1983
81
253.70
452.86
0.56
1983
81
259.45
452.86
0.57
1983
81
173.85
452.86
0.38
1983
83
121.17
452.86
0.27
1983
85
230.40
452.86
0.51
1983
85
249.40
452.86
0.55
1983
85
183.75
452.86
0.41
1983
85
246.18
452.86
0.54
1983
86
273.84
452.86
0.60
1983
86
215.93
452.86
0.48
1983
86
256.62
452.86
0.57
1983
95
146.12
452.86
0.32
1984
83
150.69
384.21
0.39
1984
84
173.44
384.21
0.45
1984
84
193.06
384.21
0.50
1984
86
318.80
384.21
0.83
1984
87
206.92
384.21
0.54
1984
87
290.43
384.21
0.76
1984
88
245.60
384.21
0.64
1984
88
172.14
384.21
0.45
1984
90
204.67
384.21
0.53
Page 2 of 3
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-5
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10cm to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1016
Year
Length
(mm)
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
Multiplate
Concentration
(ug/g)
Ratio
1984
90
147.58
384.21
0.38
1984
91
210.00
384.21
0.55
1984
91
433.91
384.21
1.13
1984
92
241.25
384.21
0.63
1984
92
121.72
384.21
0.32
1984
94
247.92
384.21
0.65
1984
94
159.58
384.21
0.42
1984
94
141,60
384.21
0.37
1984
94
228.70
384.21
0.60
1984
95
234.29
384.21
0.61
1984
95
186.36
384.21
0.49
1984
95
162.42
384.21
0.42
1984
97
175.24
384.21
0.46
1984
97
225.00
384.21
0.59
1984
98
145.65
384.21
0.38
1984
99
224.83
384.21
0.59
1985
85
20.30
226.06
0.09
1985
85
148.75
226.06
0.66
1985
91
110.33
226.06
0.49
1985
93
236.00
226.06
1.04
1985
94
232.73
226.06
1.03
1985
94
149.70
226.06
0.66
1985
94
148.15
226.06
0.66
1985
94
165.00
226.06
0.73
1985
95
179.43
226.06
0.79
1985
95
197.86
226.06
0.88
1985
95
160.97
226.06
0.71
1985
95
135.94
226.06
0.60
1985
96
128.18
226.06
0.57
1985
96
126.30
226.06
0.56
1985
98
247.78
226.06
1.10
1985
98
133.55
226.06
0.59
1985
99
191.74
226.06
0.85
1985
99
107.10
226.06
0.47
MRP 002 1308
Page 3 Of 3	Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-6
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10cm to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Aroclo. 1254



Multiplate


Length
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Concentration

Year
(mm)
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
(ug/g)
Ratio
1979

433.62
206.35
2.10
1979

432.39
206.35
2.10
1979

395.45
206.35
1.92
1979

347.76
206.35
1.69
1979

416.57
206.35
2.02
1979

355.31
206.35
1.72
1979

413.74
206.35
2.00
1979

313.43
206.35
1.52
1979

401.73
206.35
1.95
1979

356.82
206.35
1.73
1979

387.21
206.35
1.88
1979

349.48
206.35
1.69
1979

386.50
206.35
1.87
1979

359.60
206.35
1.74
1979

401.40
206.35
1.95
1979

428.57
206.35
2.08
1980

172.61
105.71
1.63
1980

253.31
105.71
2.40
1980

234.38
- 105.71
2.22
1980

176.18
105.71
1.67
1980

180.18
105.71
1.70
1980

182.22
105.71
1.72
1980

152.76
105.71
1.45
1980

129.52
105.71
1.23
1980

173.44
105.71
1.64
1980

154.39
105.71
1.46
1980

200.00
105.71
1.89
1980

185.09
105.71
1.75
1980

213.69
105.71
2.02
1980

256.85
105.71
2.43
1980

246.48
105.71
2.33
1980

293.65
105.71
2.78
1980

221.07
105.71
2.09
1980

174.10
105.71
1.65
1980

139.12
105.71
1.32
1980

187.50
105.71
1.77
1980

170.38
105.71
1.61
1980

209.09
105.71
1.98
1980

192.88
105.71
1.82
1980

198.71
105.71
1.88
1980

207.79
105.71
1.97
1981
83
135.58
58.30
2.33
1981
90
4.72
58.30
0.08
1981
92
120.63
58.30
2.07
1981
92
129.82
58.30
2.23
1981
93
122.05
58.30
2.09
Page 1 of 3
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-6
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseod < 10cm to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1254
Year
Length
(mm)
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
Multiplate
Concentration
(ug/g)
Ratio
1981
97
128.84
58.30
2.21
1981
97
139.04
58.30
2.38
1981
98
96.70
58.30
1.66
1981
99
129.33
58.30
2.22
1981
99
139.44
58.30
2.39
1982
82
104.43
180.35
0.58
1982
84
153.44
180.35
0.85
1982
85
114.01
180.35
0.63
1982
85
91.98
180.35
0.51
1982
87
144.79
180.35
0.80
1982
87
166.07
180.35
0.92
1982
88
98.20
180.35
0.54
1982
89
119.20
180.35
0.66
1982
91
97.00
180.35
0.54
1982
92
175.47
180.35
0.97
1982
92
137.71
180.35
0.76
1982
93
157.50
180.35
0.87
1982
93
127.72
180.35
0.71
1982
93
123.71
180.35
0.69
1982
93
143.33
180.35
0.79
1982
95
141.10
180.35
0.78
1982
96
121.05
180.35
0.67
1982
98
138.66
180.35
0.77
1983
79
114.00
173.17
0.66
1983
81
175.00
173.17
1.01
1983
81
179.17
173.17
1.03
1983
81
185.83
173.17
1.07
1983
81
119.43
173.17
0.69
1983
83
109.91
173.17
0.63
1983
85
162.11
173.17
0.94
1983
85
172.11
173.17
0.99
1983
85
112.27
173.17
0.65
1983
85
163.05
173.17
0.94
1983
86
201.74
173.17
1.17
1983
86
160.18
173.17
0.92
1983
86
149.34
173.17
0.86
1983
95
189.32
173.17
1.09
1984
83
81.38
141.00
0.58
1984
84
65.63
141.00
0.47
1984
84
69.44
141.00
0.49
1984
86
86.00
141.00
0.61
1984
87
81.92
141.00
0.58
1984
87
90.00
141.00
0.64
1984
88
87.60
141.00
0.62
1984
88
77.50
141.00
0.55
1984
90
68.67
141.00
0.49
Page 2 of 3
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-6
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed < 10cm to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Aroclor 1254
Multiplate
Length Pumpkinseed Lipid- Concentration
Year
(mm)
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
(ug/g)
Ratio
1984
90
77.27
141.00
0.55
1984
91
114.23
141.00
0.81
1984
91
83.48
141.00
0.59
1984
92
115.83
141.00
0.82
1984
92
86.55
141.00
0.61
1984
94
86.67
141.00
0.61
1984
94
99.17
141.00
0.70
1984
94
81.20
141.00
0.58
1984
94
107.83
141.00
0.76
1984
95
85.00
141.00
0.60
1984
95
101.82
141.00
0.72
1-984
95
90.30
141.00
0.64
1984
97
93.81
141.00
0.67
1984
97
87.86
141.00
0.62
1984
98
82.61
141.00
0.59
1984
99
87.59
141.00
0.62
1985
85
78.
82.23
0.95
1985
85
104.58
82.23
1.27
1985
91
76.33
82.23
0.93
1985
93
98.33
82.23
1.20
1985
94
117.73
82.23
1.43
1985
94
106.97
82.23
1.30
1985
94
97.04
82.23
1.18
1985
94
99.33
82.23
1.21
1985
95
86.57
82.23
1.05
1985
95
123.21
82.23
1.50
1985
95
94.52
82.23
1.15
1985
95
76.88
82.23
0.93
1985
96
73.94
82.23
0.90
1985
96
77.41
82.23
0.94
1985
98
138.33
82.23
1.68
1985
98
89.35
82.23
1.09
1985
99
93.48
82.23
1.14
1985
99
69.35
82.23
0.84
H R P O 0 2! 13 .11
Page 3 Of 3	Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-7
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed (all sizes) to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Total PCBs



Multiplate


Length
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Concentration

Year
(mm)
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
(ug/g)
Ratio
79

1106.11
368.16
3.00
79

1192.96
368.16
3.24
79

1031.82
368.16
2.80
79

951.84
368.16
2.59
79

1145.86
368.16
3.11
79

1081.56
368.16
2.94
79

1111.54
368.16
3.02
79

961.57
368.16
2.61
79

1106.94
368.16
3.01
79

1038.64
368.16
2.82
79

1090.70
368.16
2.96
79

964.06
368.16
2.62
79

1110.43
368.16
3.02
79

1028.48
368.16
2.79
79

1075.81
368.16
2.92
79

1149.35
368.16
3.12
80

707.64
172.16
4.11
80

747.47
172.16
4.34
80

746.88
172.16
4.34
80

654.95
172.16
3.80
80

591.59
172.16
3.44
80

629.84
172.16
3.66
80

740.68
172.16
4.30
80

536.44
172.16
3.12
80

680.13
172.16
3.95
80

613.45
172.16
3.56
80

844.51
172.16
4.91
80

665.09
172.16
3.86
80

815.61
172.16
4.74
80

832.19
172.16
4.83
80

903.76
172.16
5.25
80

777.25
172.16
4.51
80

674.64
172.16
3.92
80

608.37
172.16
3.53
80

553.47
172.16
3.21
80

565.71
172.16
3.29
80

554.55
172.16
3.22
80

634.31
172.16
3.68
80

623.39
172.16
3.62
80

667.96
172.16
3.88
80

649.35
172.16
3.77
81
83
481.73
265.53
1.81
81
90
19.18
265.53
0.07
81
92
379.05
265.53
1.43
81
92
430.72
265.53
1.62
81
93
405.28
265.53
1.53
Page 1 of 5
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-7
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed (all sizes) to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Total PCBs



Multiplate


Length
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Concentration

Year
(mm)
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
(ug/g)
Ratio
81
97
381.50
265.53
1.44
81
97
511.41
265.53
1.93
81
98
338.58
265.53
1.28
81
99
446.04
265.53
1.68
81
99
462.42
265.53
1.74
81
101
365.28
265.53
1.38
81
101
433.64
265.53
1.63
81
101
515.61
265.53
1.94
81
102
426.53
265.53
1.61
81
102
473.54
265.53
1.78
81
103
408.57
265.53
1.84
81
104
391.23
265.53
1.47
81
104
415.73
265.53
1.57
81
104
482.23
265.53
1.82
81
105
579.25
265.53
2.18
81
105
471.88
265.53
1.78
81
105
355.26
265.53
1.34
81
107
439.46
265.53
1.66
81
111
439.25
265.53
1.65
81
113
430.69
265.53
1.62
81
118
475.70
265.53
1.79
81
118
539.35
265.53
2.03
81
119
605.25
265.53
2.28
81
121
496.30
265.53
1.87
81
122
499.03
265.53
1.88
81
124
545.20
265.53
2.05
81
127
458.45
265.53
1.73
81
131
582.45
265.53
2.19
81
133
638.06
265.53
2.40
81
138
543.75
265.53
2.05
81
141
463.61
265.53
1.75
81
143
541.36
265.53
2.04
81
144
587.45
265.53
2.21
81
144
532.36
265.53
2.00
81
150
532.72
265.53
2.01
81
152
538.60
265.53
2.03
81
154
15.30
265.53
0.06
81
161
17.89
265.53
0.07
81
161
22.00
265.53
0.08
81
170
492.89
265.53
1.86
81
171
646.61
265.53
2.44
81
172
327.72
265.53
1.23
81
176
369.81
265.53
1.39
81
185
711.17
265.53
2.68
82
82
262.97
1311.25
0.20
82
84
373.68
1311.25
0.28
Page 2 of 5
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-7
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed (all sizes) to Lipid-Normalized Multipiate Samplers for Total PCBs
Year
Length
(mm)
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
Multipiate
Concentration
(ug/g)
Ratio
82
85
347.23
1311.25
0.26
82
85
240.84
1311.25
0.18
82
87
408.52
1311.25
0.31
82
87
374.55
1311.25
0.29
82
88
314.75
1311.25
0.24
82
89
313.20
1311.25
0.24
82
91
255.81
1311.25
0.20
82
92
390.57
1311.25
0.30
82
92
402.97
1311.25
0.31
82
93
388.33
1311.25
0.30
82
93
371.58
1311.25
0.28
82
93
352.16
1311.25
0.27
82
93
352.59
1311.25
0.27
82
95
408.90
1311.25
0.31
82
96
352.63
1311.25
0.27
82
98
375.09
1311.25
0.29
82
100
542.77
1311.25
0.41
82
101
339.42
1311.25
0.26
82
103
394.83
1311.25
0.30
82
103
315.69
1311.25
0.24
82
103
216.62
1311.25
0.17
82
103
336.36
1311.25
0.26
82
104
397.45
1311.25
0.30
82
119
421.11
1311.25
0.32
82
121
383.98
1311.25
0.29
82
121
716.43
1311.25
0.55
82
122
306.10
1311.25
0.23
82
129
434.22
1311.25
0.33
82
146
364.91
1311.25
0.28
82
148
257.53
1311.25
0.20
82
149
332.57
1311.25
0.25
82
151
206.92
1311.25
0.16
82
166
454.09
1311.25
0.35
82
175
433.02
1311.25
0.33
82
175
408.38
1311.25
0.31
82
178
453.76
1311.25
0.35
82
180
338.30
1311.25
0.26
82
181
155.81
1311.25
0.12
82
182
143.70
1311.25
0.11
82
184
417.14
1311.25
0.32
82
186
350.00
1311.25
0.27
83
79
326.80
626.16
0.52
83
81
392.86
626.16
0.63
83
81
432.87
626.16
0.69
83
81
445.28
626.16
0.71
83
81
293.29
626.16
0.47
Page 3 of 5
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
Table 10-7
Ratio of Lipid-Normalized Pumpkinseed (all sizes) to Lipid-Normalized Multiplate Samplers for Total PCBs
Year
Length
(mm)
Pumpkinseed Lipid-
Normalized Cone (ug/g)
Multiplate
Concentration
(ug/g)
Ratio
83
83
231.08
626.16
0.37
83
85
392.51
626.16
0.63
83
85
421.51
626.16
0.67
83
85
296.03
626.16
0.47
83
85
409.24
626.16
0.65
83
86
475.58
626.16
0.76
83
86
376.11
626.16
0.60
83
86
405.96
626.16
0.65
83
95
335.44
626.16
0.54
83
104
594.63
626.16
0.95
83
109
646.43
626.16
1.03
83
111
466.34
626.16
0.74
83
115
449.71
626.16
0.72
83
116
504.62
626.16
0.81
83
117
522.40
626.16
0.83
83
117
536.21
626.16
0.86
83
118
478.36
626.16
0.76
83
119
596.76
626.16
0.95
83
119
467.26
626.16
0.75
83
121
517.45
626.16
0.83
83
121
422.41
626.16
0.67
83
122
589.40
626.16
0.94
83
124
544.00
626.16
0.87
83
131
474.44
626.16
0.76
83
132
447.74
626.16
0.72
83
132
372.83
626.16
0.60
83
135
634.43
626.16
1.01
83
136
499.52
626.16
0.80
83
136
461.67
626.16
0.74
83
136
411.57
626.16
0.66
83
136
502.88
626.16
0.80
83
136
532.20
626.16
0.85
83
137
455.76
626.16
0.73
83
138
488.98
626.16
0.78
83
142
433.24
626.16
0.69
83
143
605.08
626.16
0.97
83
146
431.32
626.16
0.69
83
155
334.19
626.16
0.53
83
159
376.00
626.16
0.60
83
167
351.18
626.16
0.56
84
83
232.07
525.43
0.44
84
84
239.06
525.43
0.45
84
84
262.50
525.43
0.50
84
86
404.80
525.43
0.77
84
87
288.85
525.43
0.55
84
87
380.43
525.43
0.72
Page 4 of 5
Source: NYSDOH; NYSDEC

-------
co
CO
o
0.
u
uj
Q

>-
Z
I
o
o
(/>
>

w
o
a
e
<0

0)
i2
Q.
2
D
5
¦o
a>
N
lo
6
\_
o
z
^ *
o a
a ~-»
CO
H c/>
a)
N
'<5
"O
©
a)
to
c
1*
a
e
3
a.
•o
a>
N
(Q
E
w
O
z
*6
Q.
ft}

a 3
3 o
c
m O
© u
C/5 _
C 73
SI
i I
«¦ o
z
£ _
a e
§ I
(0
-
00
CN
CO
CN
00
00
o

en
CM

r-
in
00

o
CO
<75
CN
CM

00

CO
o>
CO
CO
*t
CO
O)
CO
CO
in
CM
CN
r-.
CO
CO
*t
It
in

CO
O)
CO
*t
CO

"
Oi
in

CO
in
6
o
o
o
o
d
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
d
o
o
o
o
o


o
o
d
d
r-
o
o
o
o
*-
o
o
o
*-
»-
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
r>»
r»
r»

rv

r-




r-
r--
r*

r-.
i-*
rs
r»
r-
r-»
r^.




•
00
00
00
in
O
CN
Oi
00
CO
in
CO
CO

O)
co
r*
CO
LO


CO
o
ps
00

CN
O
r~
o
CN
in
00
o
*t
o

CN
CO
CO
00
CM
CO
o
CM
in
r*
00
m
CM

fv
q
00
CN

rv
CO
CO
CO

CO

CO
o
o
rf
00
r~
r-
«—
OT
CM
rt
o
o
00
in
in
CO
CO
CO
0)
CO
*t
*t

r>
00
*t
00
CM
cd
cri
00
CN
ci
oi
00
CN
00
CO
CO

o
CO
16

CO

LO
CN
CN
CO
CO
CN
in
CO

•
O)
TO
CL
00 00 o
*t *t *t .
r-.
00
Oi
in
in
*—
CO

*t
*t
*t
in
in
in
in
CO
CO
CO
00
cn
cn
^	
CN
CN
00

Oi
o>
CD
cn
O)
OJ
O)
cn
O)
05
O)
O)
O)
O)
00
00
CD
o>
0)
Oi
<33
O)
O)
a>
cn
CD
O)
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
o
o
o
o






































^t

•«t
*t
*¦

Tt

*t
*t
"t
•«t
¦
-------
Table 10-8
Bioaccumulation Factors for Brown Bullhead
Station
Accumulation Factor
BBAF BSAF LUTZ
BZ#4
0.82
0.58
BZ#28
2.67
0.59
BZ#52
1.48
1.42 0.88
BZ#101 WITH BZ#90
2.64
2.91
BZ#138
11.36
8.26 1.64
Total PCBS
3.77
1.81 1.48
BSAF: Biota: Sediment Accumulation Factor
BBAF: Biota: Benthic Accumulation Factor
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database; Lutz et al., 1994
Page 1

-------
Table 10-9
Look-Up Table for the 15th Percentile Yellow Perch Model
Concentration Water
1
5
10
20
I 30
40
50
Sediment







10
22.10
78.40
148.651 298.53
430.50! 577.03
720.31
25
34.60
90.95; 161.69
298.08
440.12
! 584.31
722.85
50
55.94
111.44
179.30! 327.08
463.24
606.66
753.24
75
77.55
135.54
199.32! 345.96
484.26 i 622.90
777.87
100
97.82
153.94! 224.51 366.32
505.24
647.70j 800.79
150
136.01
194.78
265.02
413.96
547.62
686.79
830.18
200
178.06;
235.82
304.84
438.07
607.07
738.28
867.83
300
263.01;
318.04
391.94
523.47
665.15
801.73; 950.89
400
343.90
396.97
465.21
619.04
752.74
896.09
1,039.09
500
422.81:
485.27
553 19
691.36
826.15
984.44
1,125.18
600
509.97
563.45
634.25
770.40
934.32
1,061.45
1,214.06
700
592.25
646.08
723.45
856.73
998.77
1,147.75
1,270.68
800
668.37
738.30! 801.06
933.91
1,088.32
1,223.59
1,350.68
900
748.33!
815.37
882.68
1,036.05
1,152.23
1,322.27
1,462.49
1000
823.35
895.74
971.46
1,099.87 j
1,261.46
1,402.53
1,528.02
1100
938.78
971.80
1,052.98
1,182.29!
1,309.80
1,460.55
1,618.23
1200
997.58
1,055.31
1,139.01
1,284.43!
1,434.03
1,543.17
1,676.27

-------
Table 10-10
Look-Up Table for Mean Concentrations for Yellow Perch Model
Concentration Water
1
5
10
20
30
40
50
Sediment

I





10
35.65
125.01
236.89
468.70
686.20
916.90
1,145.29
25
55.36
145.46
257.20
479.90
696.28
944.11
1,150.46
50
88.78
176.45
290.41
520.52
744.11
954.95
1,193.61
75
121.26
214.72
319.03
551.77
755.26
1,009.71
1,225.00
100
153.61
244.93
357.55
584.37
811.28
1,028.87
1,266.14
150
216.51
311.33
419.66
647.79
868.88
1,083.94
1,309.48
200
283.92
373.74
487.65
709.18
951.83
1,153.13
1,390.52
300
420.41
501.68
617.56
827.76
1,054.29
1,270.94
1,520.75
400
546.56
639.49
742.50
988.68
1,196.74
1,416.79
1,648.11
500
670.24
766.05
879.01
1,101.63
1,314.09
1,559.16
1,781.69
600
803.24
894.88
1,010.95
1,237.95
1,462.37
1,678.48
1,938.25
700
943.61
1,039.13
1,148.68
1,356.56
1,593.91
1,801.73
2,034.01
800
1,057.31
1,172.65
1,268.39
1,484.80
1,718.69
1,924.71
2,180.30
900
1,198.39
1,307.85
1,389.91
1,654.70
1,858.84
2,059.30
2,324.95
1000
1,327.91
1,428.76
1,569.ko
	^
1,994.61
2,221.92
2,435.63
1100
1,484.26
1,556.51
1,686.15
1,876.18
2,100.02
2,321.37
2,557.89
1200
1,592.02
1,678.69
1,811.32
2,021.10
2,284.44
2,479.57
2,681.02
Page 1
13.1

-------
Table 10-11
Look-Up Table for the 75th Percentile for Yellow Perch Model
Concentration Water
1
5
10
20
30
40
50
Sediment







10
43.93
154.36
291.87
578.91
850.26
1,147.59
1,426.10
25
68.44
179.83
317.60
599.26
862.70
1,164.64
1,422.22
50
109.97
217.31
357.44
645.97
933.61
1,172.61
1,473.50
75
150.36
267.53
393.36
680.03
960.16
1,246.17
1,514.38
100
190.90
304.04
438.44
718.99
1,004.64
1,269.82
1,554.13
150
269.24
388.48
517.47
799.04
1,083.78
1,332.07
1,611.94
200
350.64
463.39
605.32
880.19
1,172.92
1,424.90
1,729.23
300
523.02
622.81
763.15
1,027.67
1,312.11
1,588.38
1,890.96
400
674.87
790.58
917.64
1,214.47
1,466.24
1,747.92
2,043.43
500
829.50
951.46
1,088.45
1,362.14
1,626.29
1,920.30
2,206.03
600
990.97
1,116.03
1,244.05
1,543.51
1,814.26
2,080.87
2,392.84
700
1,168.41
1,309.04
1,427.49
1,695.93
1,982.96
2,206.11
2,506.72
800
1,314.08
1,454.31
1,570.53
1,829.50
2,125.05
2,372.52
2,700.87
900
1,477.40
1,607.53
1,714.85
2,038.49
2,309.35
2,540.16
2,861.85
1000
1,661.40
1,777.46
1,941.61
2,190.00
2,479.67
2,750.96
2,995.70
1100
1,832.50
1,932.57
2,096.01
2,328.05
2,581.41
2,884.99
3,151.59
1200
1,970.941
2,088.05
2,217.34
2,500.81
2,801.25
3,064.48
3,310.19
Page 1
HR!
00'.

-------
Table 10-12
Look-Up Table for 95th Percentile for Yellow Perch Model
Concentration Water
1
5
10
20
30
40
50
Sediment







10
71.93
252.81
490.55
928.05
1,391.67
1,835.90
2,287.54
25
111.40
296.57
516.55
961.65
1,402.84
1,904*98
2,319.03
50
179.12
352.35
600.03
1,045.43
1,508.31
1,908.22
2,425.23
75
235.22
432.03
640.95
1,101.02
1,553.96
2,062.02
2,435.34
100
305.24
488.36
717.81
1,204.78
1,675.42
2,066.04
2,533.72
150
436.62
623.01
834.72
1,301.17
1,736.37
2,190.46
2,598.64
200
574.91
748.16
988.96
1,431.25
1,880.55
2,264.97
2,814.13
300
853.69
1,003.16
1,252.31
1,643.05
2,120.93
2,488.68
3,081.66
400
1,109.09
1,293.98
1,475.62
2,005.64
2,437.19
2,818.49
3,277.60
500
1,356.89
1,545.08
1,809.16
2,181.91
2,618.29
3,114.67
3,532.67
600
1,624.76
1,818.51
2,057.94
2,445.56
2,866.37
3,345.84
3,934.12
700
1,868.73
2,081.92
2,314.85
2,675.96
3,242.56
3,625.94
4,084.91
800
2,114.30
2,348.87
2,565.98
3,040.03
3,475.40
3,885.56
4,417.46
900
2,382.27
2,668.01
2,780.69
3,316.69
3,722.55
4,050.80
4,675.31
1000
2,689.40
2,892.42
3,189.82
3,584.89
3,958.48
4,448.57
4,976.15
1100
2,968.65
3,153.75
3,447.55
3,735.78
4,286.17
4,708.09
5,140.61
1200
3,190.03
3,343.63
3,658.52
4,098.09
4,570.32
5,018.98
5,391.77
Page 1	HRI™ O'JsJ! 1

-------



\

. & V) k
5 i



) r


I Vermont /
ffmi ( /


Lake Ontario \



New York
1
1



t KlLfer
\U>£xv Mass-
}>WyA



> t^/) yj£'



* v-Y r/Al Connecticut

A
N
Pennsylvania
s j j ^ Tf
^/yy^iiyx
, " *T J) » V ? yL~w-—
-------
Glens Falls :
Hudson Falls
VT
Upper;
Hudson
Federal Dam\
Troy
RM1(
Albany
NY
MA
Lower
Hudson
RM 100
Kingston
'•v/,
Poughkeep$ie
CT
Newburgh
PA
RM SOi
Tappan )
Zee ^
NJ
20 mi
RMojUl York
25 km
Upper and Lower
Hudson River
Figure 1-2
fj£| Limno-Tech, Inc.

-------
Thompson
Island
Pool
WARREN
\ Hudson
Falls
Bdtxn Falls
ort EawanJ
nil 220
Lock l-Q
Mo.y/>
Thdrnpsj&n Is. Dam
WASH IN C TO N
Fort Miller Da
Lock No. 5^12^*5
SA RATOc A
StiUwater
LockW
Mechaiucvi
REN N SELAER
RMMXt Lock Wo. 1
SCH EN ECTADY
Cohoes
Federal D
Green Island
ALBANY
Upper Hudson River
Figure 1-3
flf| Limno-Tech, Inc.
HRP
1324

-------
Federal Dam
Troy
Albany
RENNSELAER
ALBANY
GREENE
COLUMBIA
U~
RM 100
Kingston
DUTCHESS
Poughkeepsie
ULSTER
Newburgh ((
PUTNAM
ORANGE
RM 50,
WESTCHESTER
i j Tappan
I Zee s
ROCKLAN
20 mi
lew
25 km
Lower Hudson River
Figure 1-4
Qi
Limno-Tech, Inc.

-------
N
Bakers Falls
S
~s,
t
Former
Fort Edward
Dam

*
2 mi
Hudsor
Falls
~
GE Hudson Falls
Plant Site
GE Fort Edward
Plant Site
FORT
EDWARD,
Rogers/
Is.
Lock No. 7
\
fj"in9S | B/tM ,S
ls- 1 ^ 190


-------
Figure 3-1
PCB Mass Balance Model Conceptual Diagram
HUDTOX - Generalized Integrated WASP4 Model Framework
Water Balance
_L
Upstream

Groundwater

. ¦	zL ¦
Groundwater

~ ~ ~
KSSf ft£KA g^gwfiCT»agagp^|^3g^^i;M
Outflow^
Predicted flow field drives advective
transport of solids and chemical
Solids Balance
Upstream
water
active
sediment
I I a
urfoocr
t
active
sediment
iiifeifeS
mdmSm
SiF-
Predicted solids concentrations and
movement drive PCB transport and phase
distribution in sediment and water
PCB Balance
Upstream
i	r
water

Outflow^
active
sediment
subsurface
sediment
;—t
1t t o.
active
sediment
subsurface
sediment
I t O.
Predicted PCB concentrations drive
accumulation in the food chain
!~!RP 002 1327

-------
Figure 3-2
Conceptual Framework for HUDTOX Solids Model
Primary	TiflwtHy Mid Nmvpoint Load	Trfaitary and Non-point Load
Production
TSS
DOC
Upstream Load
TSS
DOC
Advoction Out
TSS
DOC
TSS
DOC
Diiparsion
Water
<
to
DOC
Surface Mixed
Sediment Layer
(0-5 cm)
Mineralizotion
JT'~7
/ Diffusion
Burial
Groundwater
TSS
DOC
Subsurface Mixed Sediment kt
,(5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 ci
> / ^ / / / / / /	<

-------
Figure 3-3
State Variables in HUDTOX Model
Non-Settleable Particulate Phase
Toxic Chemical
Particulate Phase
Toxic Chemical
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Phase Toxic Chemical
Truly Dissolved Phase
Toxic Chemical
Particulate Organic Carbon
Phase Toxic Chemical
Dissolved Phase
Toxic Chemical

-------
Figure 3-4
Conceptual Framework for HUDTOX PCB Model
x
;o
n
O
o
rO
N-
C-=
w
Tributary
Loading
Triktfwy
and Runoff loading
Deposition
Air-Wit*
Exchanga
Adwction out


Bound (SorbBd) PCB
Unbound
PCB
DOC-bound
Dissohred
TSS-bound
Upstraam Loading
SBxmm
Dispersion
Water

———
O o
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
Unbound PCB
Sed DOC-bound
Dissolved
Sediiront-bound
Surface
Mixed
Sediment
Layer
(0-5 cm)


mmmm
DOC-bound
Diffusion
Truly Din.
Diffusion
Amotion
MVKten
Groundwator

-------
Figure 3-5
Upper Hudson River Model (HUDTOX) Water Column Segmentation
Fort Edward
Rogers Island \ v
1
Thompson Island
Dam
X
i /
3/,-
I \
//
Note: Islands are not shown.
8
Stillwater
I '
j, Lock No. 4
Fort Miller
Dam //'
/r
r- .//
\ \
Lock No. 6
Mechanicville f/
U Lock No. 3
Shuylerville V
Lock No. 5

10

Lock No. 2
°y'/

//
1
6 !)

//

i !
\\
\ \
Lock No. 1

12
Waterford
V
I I
//
77
13
< i
Troy
Federal Dam

-------
Figure 3-6
Approximate Locations of GE 1991 Bathymetric Survey Cross-Sections
Fort Edward
Rogers Island \\
1 "
Thompson Island
Dam
Note: Islands are not shown.
8
Stillwater
%
;4
<1
fi

Fort Miller
Dam
Lock No. 6
/V
Y
Lock No. 4
Mechanicville k '~°Ck N°" 3
10
%
• 1
1>\
\\
Shuylerville'y
Jjpr Lock No. 5
Lock No. 2
i}
,-y
^ \
\ 1

11 \\
%.
•A
j*- Lock No. 1
\ j
12 U
Waterford
H
'7
-i
h

-------
Figure 3-7
HUDTOX Water Column and Sediment Segmentation Schematic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1$
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ill
31
l|ag
33
1 W
Illtl
36
37
38
39
ill
iw§
42
43
44
Illll
4$
illll
illll
ill!
111
51
52
S3
II!
55
sill
57
58
11!
lil
61
82
111
64
m
6$
1111
68
III
70
> V
illtl
72
73
::"74|
111
76
77
lisiiill
78

79
Water Column
Active Sediment
Sediment Layer 2
Sediment Layer 3
Sediment Layer 4
Sediment Layer 5
Deep Burial
Accumulation

-------



iresra&
Source: USGS15' Quadrangle Map, 1966,1967
HRP 002 1334

-------
Finite Element Model Grid
Page 1 of 2

Source: Finite Element Grid Points Based on GE 1991 Hydrographlc Surv :y and USGS
Topographic Maps
HRF 002 1335

-------
Finite Element Model Grid
Page 2 of 2
Source: Finite Element Grid Points Based on GE1991 Hydrographic Survey and USGS
Topographic Maps

-------
Figure 3-10
Thompson Island Pool Depth of Scour
Model Conceptual Approach
Selection and parameterization of
erosion equations
Hydrodynamic
model
Computation of
velocity field for
each design flow
event
Generation of velocity and shear
stress fields for each design flow
event
Delineation of cohesive and non-
cohesive sediment areas
Creation of Grid based GIS
coverage of sediment types
Bathymetric description of site
Discretization of site into a Grid
based GIS coverage
Inventory of PCBs in sediments
(1978 and 1984)
Creation of Grid based GIS PCB
concentrations
Computation of depth of scour and
mass of solids and PCBs eroded in
cohesive sediments

-------
Figure 3-11
Food Web Interactions Used in Lower Hudson Food Chain Model
STRIPED BASS
4-5
5-6
3-4
0-7
2-3
7-8
0-1
10-17
1-2
Afl®
Class
SMALL
FI8H
0-1
1-2
2-3
ZOO-
PLANKTON
3-4
4-5
56
PHYTO-
PLANKTON
6-7
WHITE PERCH
(from Thomann et hi, 1989)

-------
Figure 3-12
Lower Hudson Model Spatial Domain and Physicochemical Model Segmentation
VERTICAL SEGMENTATION
74*
0AM
z,
,VT
MA
TROY
ALBANY

M&
CT
WATER

KINGSTON
SEDIMENT
90
POUGHKEEPSiE
Zju
HOUSATONICR.
NEWBURG!
CONN. R.
NEW LONDON
\
V new HAVEN
_ 41
PASSAIC R.
MONTAUK PT.
SUFFOLK
>NASSAU
NEWARK
AS8URY PARK
LAKEWOOD
SEAWARD
STUDY LIMIT
SCALE STATUTE MILES
10 20 30 40 50 —
ATLANTIC
CITY —v
74'
73'
72'
(from Thomann et al, 1989)

-------
Figure 4-1
Historical Trends of USGS Flow, TSS and Total PCBs in the Upper Hudson River at Fort Edward.
35,000 --
Daily Row at Ft. Edward
30,000 --
25,000 --
20,000 - -
15,000 --
10,000 --
5,000
10,000
1,000
9
1/77 1/78 1/79 1/80 1/81 1/82 1/83 1/84 1/85 1/86 1/87 1/88 1/89 1/90 1/91 1/92
YEAR

-------
t;
I
_i
u.
oc
UJ
>
a:
Figure 4-2
Recent Trends of Flow, TSS and Total PCBs in the Upper Hudson River at Fort Edward and Thompson Island Dam.
40,000
35,000--
30,000
25,000
20,000--
15,000 --
10,000
5,000 --
0
USGS Data:
	Daily Flow at Ft.
Edward
a
£
V)
(O
z
o
H
2
H
Z
UJ
o -7
Z d
O »
o B
m
o
a.
_i
<
«-
O
100
90
80 +
70
60 +
50
40
30 +
20
10
0*
10,000 w
1,000 , r
100
10 £
Jan 91
GE Data:	EPAjData:	USGS Data:
+Ft. Edward	A Ft Edward	O Ft. Edward
-Thompson Isl Dam ^Thompson Isl Dam
O
O
o
o
•C


GE Data;	EPA
Ft. Edward
Thompson Isl Dam
Data:	USGS Data:
Ft. Edward	© Ft. Edward
Thompson Isl Dam
Jan 92
Jan 93
Jan 94
YEAR

-------
Figure 4-3
USGS Daily Flow Records for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
70000
60000 - -
-	Ft. Edward
-	• Hoosic
-	- - Mohawk
50000 --
_ 40000 ¦ ¦
o
J
"" 30000--
20000
10000
0
60
90
210
120
150
270
180
240
300
Julian Date
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database

-------
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ce:
Figure 4-4
USGS TSS and Daily Flow at Fort Edward for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
O TSS
30
60
90
120
150
Julian Date
180
210
240
270
30
Database

-------
Figure 4-5
Total PCBs and Daily Flow at Ft. Edward for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
1200
1000 -¦
800 --
o>
(0
CO
o
a.
3
o
H
600
400 --
200 -•
30
60
90
120
150
Julian Date
180
210
o Transect
¦""Flow Averaged
x GE
— Flow
# X X
30000
- - 25000
240
¦ ¦ 20000
-¦ 15000
<2
o,
i
o
LL
-¦ 10000
- • 5000
270
300
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database

-------
Figure 4-6
Upper Hudson River External Water, Solids and DOC Loads for
HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)

1.2E+10

1.0E+10



8.0E+09
E

3
6.0E+09
>

A
4.0E+09
m

S


2.0E+09

0.0E+00
Non-point
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River
(a) Water
} Spring Event ¦
I Non-Event
"Cumulative ;
5.0E+08
4.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+08
O.OE+OO
~ 3.0E+08
to
co
(b) TSS
] Spring Event
I Non-Event
¦Cumulative
Non-point
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River

6.0E+07

5.0E+07
0)
jt
4.0E+07
8
s
3.0E+07
8
2.0E+07
o


1.0E+07

0.0E+00
Non-point
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River
(c) DOC
Spring Event
Non-Event
Cumulative
1345

-------
Figure 4-7
Estimated Daily TSS Loads for the Model Calibration Period (1/1/93 • 9/30/93)
18000
	Ft. Edward
	Hoosic
	Mohawk
16000 --
14000 --
12000 -•
| 10000--
»
e
B
8000 ¦
CO
OT
H
6000 -
4000
2000

300
120
240
270
0
60
90
180
210
150
Julian Date
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database

-------
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
i:T
Figure 4-8
Estimated Total PCB Loads for the Model Caibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
	Ft.Eward
	Hoosic
	Mohawk
30
60
90
120
150
Julian Date
180
210
240
270
300
Database

-------
Figure 4-9
Upper Hudson River External PCB Loads for
HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
Page 1 of 2
500
(a) Total PCBs
i
M
I I Spring Event
1^* Non-Event
"1		Cumulative
300
O 200
100
Upstream
at Fort
Hoosic
River
Non-point
Batten
Kill and
Mohawk
River
Edward	Fish
Creek
SOURCES
20.0
16.0
CZZ3 Spring Event;	j
Non-Event
;	.	i
; Cumulative |	I
12.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River
30.0
25.0
a>
a 20.0
i—i Rpnng Event;
¦¦i Non-Event 1
i
Cumulative :
15.0
10.0
5.0
0,0
Non-point Upstream	Batten	Hoosic	Mohawk
at Fort	Kill and	River	River
Edward	Fish
Creek
SOURCES
HRP
00
1348

-------
Figure 4-9
Upper Hudson River External PCB Loads for
HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/53-9/30/93)
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
Page 2 of 2
20.0
16.0
1
| 120
1 80
4.0
0.0



.

/

/

/,
	u
Non-point
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River
(d) BZ#52
CI3 Spring Event)
Non-Event
Cumulative
s
; «•
i
a
10.0
8,0
6.0
4.0
2,0
0.0




\	"
/

J


Non-point
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
(•) BZ#101 & 90
Spring Event ;
Non-Event j ;
I Cumulative I I
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River
m 3.0
Non-point
Upstream
at Fort
Edward
Batten
Kill and
Fish
Creek
SOURCES
Hoosic
River
Mohawk
River
(!) BZ0138
II Spring Event
Non-Event
Cumulative
HRP 002 1349

-------
Figure 4-10
TSS Calibration for Upper Hudson River for January - September 1993
200
150
! £ 100
! CO
: CO
H
50
0
Segment 1
- upstream
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
A.
o>
E.
; co
! £
200
150
100
Segment 3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 -
0 *==
JL

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
200
150 4-
Segment 6
I
200
150
Segment 8 i I

1 ¦ s ^
! ' o> r

j : ~ 100 4
>
! ' co ~
0
1 !* t
' jI
50 t

: ! t
ffll
3
0
r
rev*	
50 100 150 200 250 300 !
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
200
150
V)
tn
f
r
Segment 10
t
r
L
L
I
w
i co
200 -r-
150
100 i
h
I
Segment 11
K.
,
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
i
i 200
150
100
co
w
50
0
Segment 12;
-MOOEL
* <
PHASE 2 FLOW- |
AVERAGED
4. PHASE 2 TRANSECT !
i
© USGS	j
- BOPP1993	j

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13
i 100
L
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
hr p
OO
•13- 50

-------
250,000
Figure 4-11
Hudson River TSS Calibration - Cumulative TSS Flux at USGS Stillwater Station
January - September 1993
Stillwater MVUE
HUDTOX
200,000 --
CO
c
o
H
o
B
Q)
150,000 --
W
P
I 100,000
J5
3
E
E
3
o
50,000 --
50
100	150
1993 Julian Date
200
250
300

-------
Figure 4-12
Hudson River TSS Calibration - Cumulative TSS Flux at USGS Waterford Station
January - September 1993
250,000
	Waterford MVUE
---HUDTOX
200,000 --
2 150,000 --
| 100,000 --
50,000 --
0	50	100	150	200	250	300
1993 Julian Date

-------
Figure 4-13
HUDTOX Predicted TSS vs. Observed Values (mg/l)
1993 Calibration Period
TSS
200 	
Data
-	Phase 2 Transect and Flow Average
-	USGS	x '
-	Bopp
150 +	~ '
;	s'
h	R2 = 0.6943
I" +
+ +
100-
, + + ^
! . + + + +
+ + + ' + + +
- v ++ v
50 ~ i* * y* ~
L ++±+ J"
, * +
: + +
^£f+
WWTTT,	.
50	100	150	200
Observed
HRP

-------
Figure 4-14
Total PCB Calibration - IPCBs for January - September 1993
700
700 -r
Segment 3
Segment 1
600 -
600
500 -
^ 500 ~
1 400 t
to
O 300 -
Q.	'
w :
200 -r
• UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
D>
c
400
CD
O 300 -
£L
200 -
100
100
100
150 200
Julian date
250
300 !
100
200
150
Julian date
250
300
700 -r
700
Segment 6
600
600
500 i
500
f
C
¦Sm*'
400 t
CD
O
0.
w
200
100 i
100
200
250
100
150
Julian date
300
150
Julian date
200
250
300 :
700
700
Segment 10
600
600
500
_ 500
1 400
m
O 300
c 400
300
200
200 I	J
'°°U—
100
100
150
Julian date
200
250
300
100
200
250
300
150
Julian date
700
700 -
Segment 12
MODEL
Segment 13
600
600
MODEL WTPORE
WATER ADVECTtON
PHASE 2 TRANSECT ;
500
S 400 T
8 300 ]
w 200 i
¦PHASE 2 FLOW-
AVERAGED
6E
o 300
200
100 -
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300	0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date	Julian date
HRP 002 1354

-------
Figure 4-15
Total PCB Calibration - BZ#4 for January - September 1993
200
m
o
a
160 ~
120
80
40
0
200
Segment 1 ;
Segment 3 ;
— - — - UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
160 -
"S, 120 t
i CD
! CL
40
0
1
c


1
+

1

+






* '• '• ..«•»





|£—1—!¦<¦¦¦—1—1—¦—1—-
-t——'—.—w_l
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6 !
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
200
m
o
o.
160 i
t
120 |
80
40
0
Segment 10


200

160
¦a.
120
c

CD

O
0.
80
Segment 11
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
40
0
U*
-J
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
°
I Q.
200
160
120
80
I Segment 12
-MODEL
1 i
- - - -MODEL W/PORE WATER ;
ADVECTION	|
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
80
:L=J
¦PHASE 2 FLOW-
AVERAGED
I
200
160
r
Segment 13
S> 120 4
C	w
CD	t
o 80 I
40 -r
0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP 002

-------
Figure 4-16
Total PCB Calibration - BZ#28 for January - September 1993
CD
O
a
5° -
40 1
r
r
30 ~
20 ~
10

Segment 1
UPSTREAM
BOUNOARY
CONDITION
50
Segment 3
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
40
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2
TRANSECT j
—"PHASE 2 FLOW-
AVERAGED |
O GE	|
O) 30 +
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
m
£
Segment 6

50

40
1
30
m

O
Q.
20

10

0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 8
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
! S
: c
CD
S
50
i-
40 -f
30 7
20 r
«I
Segment 10 | j

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11
o> 30 r
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300
50 -r-
40 t
30
20 1
10 +
t
0 —
Segment 12
S	
50
40
30
c
CO
9 20
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
10 -i
h
h
y
0 4
Segment 13
A
*—¦ ' i
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300
f-t	i
HHP	'

-------
Figure 4-17
Total PCB Calibration - BZ#52 for January - September 1993
* Segment 3
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2
TRANSECT
-—-PHASE 2 FLOW-
AVERAGED
o GE
Segment 1
— • — - UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
25
20
Segment 6
25
20
Segment 8 I
100 150 200 250
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
300
Segment 10
Segment 11 :
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
25
20
? 15 T
CD f
£ 10 r
5 -f-
Segment 12
25
20
Segment 13
! "§> 15 -
i C
1 j CD h
I ;2»{
	TTt
A
50 100 150 200 250 300 :
Julian date	i
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP 002 1357

-------
Figure 4-18
Total PCB Calibration - BZ#101 and 90 for January - September 1993
10 "7
8 -
6 -
Segment 1
— - — - UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
100 150 200
Julian date
300 \
Segment 3
MODEL
+ PHASE 2
TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW
AVERAGED
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6 I
100 150 200
Julian date
10 -
?
m
o
a
300
Segments
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300 !
10
8
6
Segment 10
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11; !
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
10
8 T
i
if «{
i CD
!2 «:
2 +
0 -=
Segment 12 !
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300

10 T

8 -
c
6 +
r
CD


4 -

2 -
Segment 13
A__
50 100 150 200 250 300 i
Julian date
MRP 002 1^.58

-------
Figure 4-19
Total PCB Calibration - BZ#138 for January - September 1993

5.0


5.0

!¦
Segment 1



4.0 ^
— • — - UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY

4.0
c
3.0 ^
CONDmON
o>
c
3.0
CD
O
a.
2.0 ^
1
CD
:2
2.0

10 t
/vL j-\ |

1.0

0.0 H"TTTTT"5
—•—\		 1 ¦ 1 1 1 1 ¦ i 				

o
o
Segment 3
	MODEL	!
+ PHASE 2
TRANSECT
—PHASE 2 FLOW- \
AVERAGED
SO 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6
9 2.0
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

5.0

4.0
i
3.0
m

o
a.
2.0

1.0

0.0
Segment 8

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date
i 5.0 -r-
4.0 r
j "5. 3.0
! cd r
! O 2.o |
1.0
Segment 10 \

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

5.0

4.0

3.0
c

CD

O
a
2.0

1.0

0.0
Segment 11
A__
Segment 12
a> 3.0
y 2.0
50
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
"F	
4.0 -j
Segment 13
|> 3.0 j

CD t
O 2.0 |

1.0
r
-J^\	-
0.0 ——				!			!—			
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP
002
13
fic?

-------
Figure 4-20
Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - ZPCBs for January - September 1993
Segment 3
Segment 1
200 -
=- 200
w 100
w 100 -i
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

300

250
§
200
c


150


w
100

50
Segment 6 |
i
I

300

250

?00
?

ffi
150
o

n
100
W

50
50 100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
Segment 8
100 150 200
Julian date
300
f
_c,
CD
O
CL
300 T	
	 ,
300
F
Segment 10

250 -P
250
200 4
C
200
r
O)

150 -
m
150
r-
o

100 if
; w
100
50 - 1*1^

50
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
Segment 11 j
100 150 200
Julian date
300
300
250 |
5 200 T
CD	150 -r
O	C
0.	-
W	100 i
50
0 -
0
Segment 12
	MOOEL
- - - -MODEL W/PORE WATER ADVECTION
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
300 —
250 |
|»|
a 150 I
o i
w 100 -
Segment 13
50
0

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
I
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRF-' 002 1360

-------
Figure 4-21
Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#4 for January - September 1993
100
80
Segment 1
100
80 -
Segment 3
150 200
Julian date
100 150 200 250
Julian date
Segments
Segment 8
a> 60 -
150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
100
80
m
o
a.
Segment 10
l m
! o
! a.
100 -j
I
80 -[
i
60 -
40 -
20 -
Segment 11 j
150 200
Julian date
300
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300
100
80
60 i
Segment 12 !
100
MODEL
MODEL WPORE WATER ADVECTION
PHASE 2 TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
: £ 40 +
a
c
CD
(J
: 0.
Segment 13
150 200
Julian date
300
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP 002 1361

-------
Figure 4-22
Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#28 for January - September 1993
m
o
o.
Segment 1
m
o
a.
Segment 3
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
100 150 200 250
Julian date
Segment 6 :
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 8
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
15 t-
m
o
a.
Segment 10
15
12 t
m
o
CL
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11 ;
100 150 200 250
Julian date
15
12 -t
t
t
9 +
CD
O
a
Segment 12
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
——PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED

15
F
"5,
c
m"
o
a
12
9 t
6 t
3 i
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-23
Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#52 for January - September 1993
Segment 1
Segment 3
m
o
o.
2 -
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segments
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
m
o
: 0-
I.
6 +
c 4
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 8 |
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
8 T"
6 -
* :
4
Segment 10
¦§>
c
CO
o
Q.
Segment 11. i
50 100 150 200
Julian date
250 300
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
I 8
6	-
S>	-
o	r
0.	r
Segment 12
l
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
—PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13 | j
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP
002

-------
Figure 4-24
Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#101 and 90 for January - September 1993
2.0
2.0
Segment 3
Segment 1
1.5
I
rf 10
o
a
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0
50
100
150
Julian date
200
150
Julian date
200
250
300
250
100
300
2.0
2.0
Segment 8 j i
Segment 6
1.5
1.5
1
1.0
1.0
CD
O
a.
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
100
150 200
Julian date
250
300
150
Julian date
200
250
100
300 i
2.0
2.0
Segment 10
Segment 11 j
1.5 -
o>
1.0 -
1.0
0.5 -
0.5
0.0
0.0
100
150
Julian date
200
250
300
200
250
100
150
Julian date
300
2.0
2.0
Segment 12
Segment 13
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
1.5
0.5
o.o
0
0.0
50
100
150
200
300
200
250
250
100
150
300
Julian date	Julian date
HRP 002 1364

-------
Figure 4-25
Apparent Dissolved PCB Calibration - BZ#138 for January - September 1993
Segment 1
o> 0.3 -l
m
o 0.2 -r

0.5

0.4
. o>
03
c

' : co

O
Q.
0.2
:
0.1
J i
i
0.0
Segment 3
100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date	i
50 100 150 200 250 300 !
Julian date
0.5 -


Segment 6
:
0.5	
Segment 8
0.4 -
h



0.4 -

1* 0.3
C



:l>
0.3 -
t-

CD
2 0.2-
+
A
+
CO
o
; Q-
0.2 -

0.1
- ,1

*—	
:
. . juV

0.0

V

¦
o.o \r"
.
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300
50
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

0.5


0.5



[ Segment 10 ;


Segment 11

0.4
i

04
-

1
0.3
- ;
*§>
c
0.3
-
J
o
: 0.
0.2
- ;
m
o
a.
0.2
-
I

0.1
T ^ /X.

0.1
-


0.0


0.0
is*


0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

0 50
I I !
100 150 200 250 300 i
Julian date
0.5
0.4
^ 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Segment 12 i
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
0.5
Segment 13
0.4 -
¦§> 0.3 j
C	t-
£ 021
L


0.1 -r
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
100 150 200 250 300 i
Julian date
HRP 002 I/CA.S

-------
Figure 4-26
TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - SPCBs for January - September 1993
Segment 1;
Segment 3
100 150 200
Julian date
Julian date
Segments
Segment 8
w 10
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
30
o>
CD
O
CL
H
25 t
20 i
15 ±
10 ^
5
0
Segment 101

30

25

20
o>
3

ffi
15
O

a.
w
10
Segment 111

50

30

25
Ol
20
3*

0Q
15
o

Q.
W
10
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 12
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
	MOOEL
- • • -MOOEL VWPORE WATER AOVECDON
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
0 50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
Segment 13
w 10 t

300
50 100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
HRP
002
13 6 6

-------
Figure 4-27
TSS Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#4 for January - September 1993
Segment 1
Segment 3
Q 0.6
O 0.6
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 6 ,
Segment 8
0.9 -
P 0.6
P 0.6
0-3 V
100 150 200
Julian date
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10
Segment 11
§ 0.9 {
£ 0.9-
u 0.6
O 0.6
100 150 200 250
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 12
Segment 13
-& 0.9 f
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
O 0.6 -
O 0.6 -
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
HRP 002 1367

-------
Figure 4-28
TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#28 for January - September 1993
2.5
Segment 3
Segment 1 |
2.0 t
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
200
100
150
Julian date
250
300
150
Julian date
200
100
250
300
2.5
2.5
Segment 6
Segment 8
2.0
2.0 -l
1.0
O 1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
150
Julian date
150
Julian date
200
250
300
100
200
300 :
100
250
2.5
2.5
Segment 10 ;
Segment 11 I
2.0
2.0
1.0
I
I
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
200
250
150
Julian date
300
0
50
100
100
150
Julian date
2.5
Segment 12 |
Segment 13
2.0
2.0
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
—PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
1.5 +
1.0 -t
0 50 100
0.5
0.0
200
250
100
150
150
300
200
250
300 !
Julian date	Julian date
HRP 002 1368

-------
Figure 4-29
TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#52 for January - September 1993
Segmentl]
Segment 3
S 0.9 {
¦a 0.9
O 0.6
O 0.6
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
: Ol
o>
3
m
o
a.
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
S
CO
£
1.5 -
1.2
0.9 -f
0.6 +
0.3 |
0.0 -P
50
Segment 6
1.5
1.2
O) „ „
o> 0.9
m
o 0.6 -f
0.3 -
100 150 200
Julian date
300
0.3
0.0 -f-
0
Segment 10
1.5
T
1.2 --
-§ 0.9 f
3	h
CO
o 0.6
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
(
I
1.5
1.2
• I
0.«
0.3
0.0
Segment 12
—! I 1-5
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
"—"PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
1.2 I
pi . . -
o> 0.9 -
3
CD
: O 0.6 -
Q.
r
0.3 -
Segment 8
50 100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
Segment 11
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
Segment 13 !
50
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300

-------
Figure 4-30
TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#101 and 90 for January - September 1993
Segment 1
Segment 3
0.2 +
0.8
0.6
§ :
m" 0 4 +
CO
o
a
0.2 -
0.8 -p
' 0.6 -
C7>
o>
Z 04 +
to L
¦ O I
; Q-
0.2 |
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6
Segment 8 j
0.6 -
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10
I
0.8
0.6
! oi
! °>
Segment 11
- 0.4 -
0.2 +
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 12
	MODEL
+ PHASE 2 TRANSECT
"—PHASE 2 FLOW-AVERAGED
I
0.8
0.6
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13
I
I O)
50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
I cq"
! a
300
- 0.4
0.2 i
0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-31
TSS-Sorbed PCB Calibration - BZ#138 for January - September 1993
Segment 1 :
Segment 3
H 0.15 +
O 0.10 -
O 0.10
0.25 -T-
0.20 -
H 0.15 1
3
0.25
0.20
"i 0.15 {
3
m"
O 0.10 X
0.05 -t
r
100 150 200
Julian date
250 300 1
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6
o 0.10
o>
0.25 -
0.20 ^
0.15 f

-------
Figure 4-32
HUDTOX Predicted Total PCB Concentrations vs. Observed Values (ng/L)
Phase 2 Transect Data
400
300 --
I 200
100
SPCBs
R2 = 0.8013
+ jV
* ~
-I-

I
100	200	300	400
Observed
BZ#4
R =0.3511
^ 60
40 60
Observed
100

30

25

20


6
15
a.


10

5

0
BZ#28
R2 = 0.8979

-+-
-+-

A
10 15 20 25 30
Observed
BZ#52
R = 0.8764
10	15
Observed
5
4
1 3
0
1	ox
a. 2 -
1
0
BZ#101+90
R2 = 0.7818
+
+

~f1
+
.V '
1	' 1 1 1 i
2	3
Observed
2.5
2.0 4-
^ 1.5
£
15
£ 1.0 --
0.5 --
0.0
&
BZ#138
R2 = 0.4935
! i
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
Observed
2.0 2.5

-------
Figure 4-33
HUDTOX Apparent Dissolved PCB Concentrations vs. Observed Values (ng/L)
Phase 2 Transect Data
300
250 *
200
*
| 150 +
£
100
50 -
0
SPCBs
R2 = 0.6858
kT +
i + rfri | rfi
I 1 1 11 I

-+-
50 100 150 200 250 300
Observed
10
8
1 6
o
CL 4
2
B Z#28
R2 = 0.4744
*' *. ¦ ^
+
+ _
+ +
+ +
H—'—'—'—h-
4	6
Observed
10
100
80
BZ#4
2 60
0
1
a: 40 +
20
0
R2 = 0.2016
+ +
-H-
, . +¦
-+-
-t-
20
40 60
Observed
80
100
BZM52
R2 = 0.5266
4 -
2 3
o
?
a: 2
+
i +
+
+
-+-

2	3
Observed
1.5
1.2 -f
1 09
0
1
; oT 0.6
0.3 --
BZ#101+BZ#90
R2 = 0.528
+
+
V" ;~
¦ -m- •—i—-
0.3
0.6 0.9
Observed
__i—
1.2
1.5
R = 0.4087
^ 0.3 -
cl 0.2
0.2 0.3
Observed

-------
Figure 4-34
HUDTOX Particulate PCB Concentrations vs. Observed Values (ug/g solid)
Phase 2 Transect Data
25
20 --
EPCBs
1
a.



RJ = 0.5
+

• +
:
	,\ ,3

10 15
Observed
20
25
BZ#4
R = 0.1961
£ 0.6

BZ#28
R = 0.6114
BZ#52
0.0 ' ' I , ' , I ' ' I I , ' , I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Observed
0.6 --
R2 = 0.5757
BZ#101+90
R' = 0.4211
0.20
BZ#138
R2 = 0.5001
0.15 -•
1
0.10 --
0-05 -- +
* ~
0.00
¦	I '

-+-

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Observed

-------
Figure 4-35
Solids Component Diagram for Upper Hudson River
without Pore Water Advection (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Upstnam Load
TSS 3.55E+07 kg
DOC 1.74E+07 kg
Primary
Production
4.85E+06 kg
Tributary md Non-point load
TSS 3.85E+08 kg
Tributary and Non-point Load
DOC 3.36E+07 kg
2.94E+05 kg
5.32E+05 kg
Water


Surface Mixed
Sediment Layer
(0-5 cm)
Mawwzitiofl
2.82E+Q5 kg
76E+08 kg
l.B4t+04kg





Diffusion
9.43E+02 kg
3.1 BE+07 kg
Subsurface Mixed Sediment
(5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 c
Advection Out
TSS 4.35E+08 kg
00C 5.17E+07 kg
TSS 0 kg
DOC 0 kg

-------
Figure 4-36
Solids Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool
without Pore Water Advection (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Primary	Noil-point Load	Non-point Load
Upstream Load
TSS 3.551+07 kg
DOC 1.74E+07 kg
TSS
DOC
3.071+04
Water
o
€9 ie
DOC
Surface Mixed
Sediment Layer
(0-5 cm)
as#;
Groundwater
7 // // // // /
Subsurface Mixed Sediment kc
,(5-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-100 a
DOC 0 kg

-------
Figure 4-37
TSS Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
a) TSS Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection
5.0E+8
4.0E+8
3.0E+8
2.0E+8
01
-X
1.0E+8
; co -1.0E+8
-2.0E+8
-4.0E+8
-5.0E+8
~ Spring Event
B Non-Event
E "S
n 2
£ I
80 UJ
a.
3 C
it
|£
I 8
t I
o W
flj t>
II
Ql
£2
CO
O
o
(A
0)
a:
5
o
£
N07E
SCALE
CHANGE
5.0E+7 -
4.0E+7 •
3.0E+7 -
2.0E+7 •
i
' ® 1.0E+7 •
. | O.OE+O
! « -1.0E+7
-2.0E+7
! -3.0E+7
-4.0E+7 -|~
-5.0E+7
b) TSS Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection
	L
1 ~ Spring Event
I	;
_ SB Non-Event
E %
T3

-------
I i^uiv -*¦ _
Total PCBs Component Diagram for Upper Hudson River
without Pore Water Advection (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Tributary
Loading
116.3 kg
Ungagad Tributary
and Runoff Loading
5.16 kg
Dirsct
Atowspharie
Demolition
0 kg
Air-Watar
Exchang*
S2.6 kg
Upstraam Loading
352.0 kg
Water
to
ca
o
CL
15
**
o
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
TSS-bound
DOC-bound
2.08 kg
0.671 kg
'1
U <
o 2
o G
in
IS
m
o
a.
—
o
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
ji.
Unbound
PCB
Dissolved
3.18 kg
Is
tSS
Unbound PCB
Surface
Mixed
Sediment
Layer
(0-5 cm)
SadmMt-bound
12795.4 kg
Sed DOC-bound
0.659 kg
n.
Dissolved
0.406 kg



/ /
Advactisn
0 kg
Truly Dim
Diffusion
lundwafar /
Groundwitar
|0 ki
surfi
f_?	7
DOC-bound
Diffusion
0.51 kg
// //

-------
Figure 4-39
Total PCBs Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool
without Pore Water Advection (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
x
x>
ro
v*
xl
•-0
Runoff Ming
0.45
0irKt
Atmosplwric
Depoiitiofl|
Air-Wit*
Exchanga
Advaction out
712.5 kg
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
unbound
PCB
TSSbound
DOC-bound
Dissolved
Upstmm Loading
352.0 kg
0.255 kg
0.120 kg
0.535 kg
Disparskm
Water

"l
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
Unbound PCB
Sediment-bound
Sad DOC-bound
Dissolved
Surface
Mixed
Sediment
layer
(0-5 cm)
0.231 kg
7344,3 kg
0.136 kg

-

77
Burial // DOC-bound
Diffusion
0.068
^2—ZZ
Amotion
Wffuiion

-------
Figure 4-40
EPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
Spring Runoff Event Period is 3/26/93 • 5/10/93
a) IPCB Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection
GD
o
K
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
•€00
-800
-1000
-1200
m
I	1
JDSBEBL
~ Spring Event
B Non-Event
£ 2
a> ?
^ ,r
§ |
to 3
<= at
t|
c 5
O CO
Z
eo
¦M
JS
o
>
V)
O
c
o
'5
or
i ¥
*»¦&
£ 8
a ^
¦o
C £
° 2
§ 2
t o
a o
a
1
1200
b) IPCB Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection

-------
Figure 4-41
BZ#4 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period <1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
Spring Runoff Event Period is 3/26/93 - 5/10/93

160

120

80
s»
40

M

m
0
S

00

o
0.
-40

-80

-120

-160
a) BZ#4 Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection
lutttirt
ummj 1
H
O Spring Event
B Non-Event
6
s
UJ
§ |
t 2
C JC
o C-
Q-
£	®
C o
o C/)
Z
.g
5
>
c
£

-------
Figure 4-42
BZ#28 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
50
40
30
20
2 10
i o
s
8 -io
o.
-20
-30
-40
-50
a) BZ#28 Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection

~ Spring Event
B Non-Event
E "2
$ i
*5 "O
LU
Q.
=> £
2s
o 
c
o
c
o
<0
ts
(A
.y
a>

a>
o.


O
>
«/>
o
CO
4>

O
a:
§ "S
if: w
Q
T3
° I
1 S
iE o
Q O
o
5
o
£
50
b) BZ#28 Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection

-------
Figure 4-43
BZ#52 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
30
25
20
15
10'
3
5.
i °
3 -s
.10-
-15 •
-20 -
-25 •
-30 •
a) BZ#52 Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection

O Spring Event
Q Non-Event
E
9>
=> jr
o	J2
2	1
•£	iE
0	o
a.
c «
M
c o
O (0
z
i
15
§
O)
c
4>
CO
8
o
0
8.
Q£
II
<0 ¦£
.•? 8
£ M
Q T3
"5
c s
0	3
1	s
?E ^
Q O
Q
O
30
b) BZ#52 Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection

-------
Figure 4-44
BZ#101+90 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
3
IS
£
CD
O
CL
15
12
9
6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
-15
a) BZ#101+90 Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection
~ Spring Event
B Non-Event
BSE
£ 1
 Ui
Q.
3 S-
a>
§ ^
o 2
2 I
it
Q.
.£ a)
w
m
jo
%
CO
3
2
O
8.
0)
ce.
% ?
m •£
M
o *o
•o
° i
I-8
Q O
Q
1
O
15
b) BZ#101+90 Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection

-------
Figure 4-45
BZ#138 PCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93-9/30/93)
With No Pore Water Advection
Spring Runoff Event Period (3/26/93 - 5/10/93)
8
6
4 ¦
a) BZ#138 Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection
~ Spring Event
S Non-Event
CD	2
a	n
i»	o •
s
m
o	o
a.	-2
-4-
-6
-8 ¦
jHHHH
¦
£
re
V
3 tr
o 3
<*> 2
-Q
^ £
o o
CL
f 2
S"3
O CO
1
s
§
a
CO
60
§
0
C
o
*35
a:
§1
11
Q id
*D
e €
O 31
fc o
a o
Q
b) BZ#138 Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection
IO Spring Event
IS Non-Event
4

-------
Figure 4-46
BZ#4 Component Diagram for Upper Hudson River
with Pore Water Advection (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Tributary
loaing
5.55 kg
Ungaged Tributary
Mill Rllflllff fldBliHSil
Direct
Atmospheric
Deposition.
Air-Water
Exchange
Advection out
151 kg
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
DOC-bound
TSS-bound
Dissolved
Upstream Loading
13.5 kg
0.424 kg
0.177 kg
0.803 kg
Dispersion
0 kg
water
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
Unbound PCB
Sad DOC-bound
Sediment-bound
Dissolved
Surface
Mixed
Sediment
Layer
(0-5 cm
0.423 kg
2014.8 kg
0.167 kg


Ainetion
8.7
DOC-bound V
Diffusion
0,334 kg
// ^
Truly Diss. V
Diffusion
0.073 kg
//
Groundwater
65.7 kg

-------
w
BZ#4 component uiagram ror I nompson island Pool
with Pore Water Advection (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Runoff lotdrng
0.038 kg
Direct
Atmotpharic
Daposition
AirWatar
txdianp
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
DOC-bound
Dtssofved
TSS-bound
Upstraani Loawig
13.6 kg

Attraction out
0.065 kg
0.130 kg
0.018 kg
Dispart ion
0 kg
Water
Unbound PCB
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
SmI DOC-bound
UISMIVM
Sediment-bound

Surface
Mixed
SecBment
Layer
(0-5 cm)
0.082 kg
0X76 kg
1343.7 kg



DOC-bound
Diffusion
0.004 kg
z/ //
Truly Oin.
Diffusion
0.014 kg
M
03

-------
I
Figure 4-48
BZ#4 Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
With Pore Water Advection in Thompson Island Pool
Spring Runoff Event Period is 3/26/93 - 5/10/93
160
120
80
I	40
8	„
S	°
ffl
£	-40
-80
-120
-160
a) BZ#4 Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
with pore water advection
.JuilliL.
H		1	'	1	rmml	f
O Spring Event
B Non-Event
I IflHIfi | BBHI |
	Sin i mm
is
C o
o  iT
.£	0>
O	P
9-	3
C	o
O
s
1
a
*5
%
o
0
(0
c
&
3
Q£
c £
0	3
11
1	O
Q O
D
L.jc;:p O02 1338

-------
Figure 4-49
Total PCBs Component Diagram for Thompson Island Pool
with pore water advection (1/1/93-9/30/93)
Runoff loaing
0.45 kg
Direct
Atmospheric
Dapoiitisn
Ak-Wattr
Exchange
Advaction out
7S3.2 kg
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
DOCbound
TSS-bound
Dissolved
Upstream loading
352.0 kg
0.134 kg
0.268 kg
0.602 kg
Dispersion
0 kg
water
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
Unbound PCB
Sad OOC-bound
Sediment-bound
Dissolved
Surface
Mixed
Sediment
Layer
0.065 kg
7310.6 kg
0.136 kg
(0-5 cm)


77%
Truly Das
Diffusion
0.010 kg
DOCbound
Diffusion
0.005 kg
// Zl
Ainectwn
J3
Groundwatir
239.8 kg

-------
Figure 4-50
IPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Period (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
With Pore Water Advection in Thompson Island Pool
Spring Runoff Event Period is 3/26/93 - 5/10/93
1200
1000
800
600
_ 400
O)
^	200
ta
«•	_
z	0
8	-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
EPCB Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
with pore water advection
-Luuil—
~ Spring Event
B Non-Event
40 UJ
CL
3 rr
Is
iS
c ;c
.E •
?- i
C O
O CO
(0
u
s
s
CO
<0
2
O
o
'
2
3
&
2>
-i
O
CO
3
(0
Q.
UJ
c

3

o
a_
h
E a>
C o
O CO
C
o>
c
o
c
o
(0
B
(0
£
a>
CO
8.
(0
02

-------
Figure 4-51
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for Total PCBs
January - September 1993
800
Segment 1
600
! C,
CD
O
Q.
400
200
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
condition

800
600
	CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
+ PHASE 2 TRAN.
PHASE 2 F A.
CO
O
a
400
200
Segment 3
100 150 200
Julian date
300
50 . 100 150 200
Julian date
250 300
m
o
Q.
Segment 6
¦=• 400
200
Segment 8

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
! ¦ ¦ -¦	1-
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
800
600 -
I ?
! m 400
I ffi
i °
CL
200 i
0 4
0
800
600 -
c
co
o
o.
400
200 -
Segment 10 :
800
600
400 -
200
Segment 11 :

A^^Hasssssgsi
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

i 1 * :—i—¦ ¦ ¦ i ¦ ¦ ¦ • i
50 100 150 200 250 300 |
Julian date
Segment 12
800
600
Segment 13 : !
I :
' O)
•="	400 -
CD	r
o	r
q.	r
200 {
JL_i
50 100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date	'
50 100 150 200 250 300 !
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-52
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#4
January - September 1993
CD
O
a
Segment 1
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
120
P 80
200
: Segment 3
160 -t
	CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
+ PHASE 2 TRAN
PHASE 2 FA
I 4
l|



z

+



E +

_






n ¦ ' i ' i I
d ...... 	
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 6
Segment 8
160 -
P 80
250 300 ¦
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10
Segment 11
160 -
160 -t
120 -t
o so -r
0
50
100 150 200
250 300 !


Julian date

200 -r	



Segment 12
160 -
120 -
200 j—
160 |
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13!
^ 120 -
c
m
O SO-
IL
40

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-53
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions {+1-30%) for BZ#28
January - September 1993
Segment 1
Segment 3
CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
+ PHASE 2 TRAN
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
PHASE 2 F A.
O GE
o, 30
m
O 20-
o.

100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 8
Segment 6
O 20
m
O
o.
50 —-
40 r
3° {
20 {
10 T
0 -
50
40
30
i-
20 -f
10
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10
JL
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

50

40
o>
30
c_

CD

O
20
0.

10

n •
Segment 11
Segment 12
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

50
40
o> 30
Segment 13

CQ
O 20
o.
**" gjg ~ JJJT J- 4
10 T
0

owmwiiinMm
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300 |
Julian date
HRP

-------
Figure 4-54
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#52
January - September 1993
Segment 3
Segment 1
CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
+ PHASE 2 TRAN
PHASE 2 F A.
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
O 10]
U 10 +
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 6
Segment 8
o 10 -


25

20
o>
15
c

m

o
10
Q.
5 f
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10:
I
jL.
25 r
20
15
! m
o 10 -
, Q-
Segment 11
5I



50
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300 |
Julian date

25

20


n>
15
c

CQ

O
10
0.


5

0
Segment 12
0


25

20
7%
15
c

m

o
10
0.


5

0
Segment 13
A

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-55
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment initial Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#101 90
January - September 1993
	CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
+ PHASE 2 TRAM.
PHASE 2 FA
Segment 3
Segment 1
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
0
50
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
0
50
100 150 200
Julian date
250
300
10 "i	



:
10 T	




10
8t
CD
2 4
Segment 6
Segment 8
100 150 200 250
Julian date
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11
Segment 10

50 100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date	!
Segment 121
! 10
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13
8 -
6 T
SsK*4

CO
O 4
a.
2
0
A.

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-56
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Sediment Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#138
January - September 1993
Segment 3
	CALIBRATION j
	SENSITIVITY !
+ PHASE 2 TRAN :
' PHASE 2 FA
Segment 1
3.0 -
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6
O)
c
CO
: O
i «¦
4.0
3.0 -f
:>.o
1.0 -
0.0
Segment 8

50 100 150 200 250 300 ;
Julian date	!
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
4.0
3.0 +
- 2.0
m
o
a.
1.0 +
0.0
Segment 10 i
!
4.0
3.0 -
Segment 11!
I
A~.
m
o
o.
2.0
1.0
0.0
_j	
50 100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date	|
Segment 12
Segment 13
3.0 -
3.0 -

50 100 150 200 250 300 ;
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date


-------
Figure 4-57
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for Total
PCBs January - September 1993
800
800
Segment 1
	 UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
600 -
— 400
800
Segment 3
- CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
¦f PHASE 2 TRAN
	PHASE 2 F A
O GE	j
400 -
200 ,
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6
Segment 8 !
— 400
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10
800 t-
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11
600
- 400

i m
i a
800
600
400 i
200
50
50
100 150 200 250
Julian date
300
600 4-
400
200
0 4-
0
50
Segment 12 j
800
600 -
— 400
CD
O
Q_
200

100 150 200 250
Julian date
300
0
0
50

100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 13

100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP 002

-------
Figure 4-58
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#4
January - September 1993
200
200
Segment 3
Segment 1
	CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
-f PHASE 2 TRAN
PHASE 2 F A.
160
160
— - UPSTREAM :
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
o>
c
120
120
_c
m
O 80
a.
m
O 80 -
a.
40 ;
100
300 ;
150
Julian date
250
100
150
Julian date
200
250
300
200
200
Segment 6
Segment 8
160
160
120
O
o.
80
40
40
0
100
150
Julian date
200
250
300
300 |
50
100
150
Julian date
200
0
250
200
200
Segment 111
Segment 10
160
160
120
^ 120
o>
c
ffi
O
Q.
(0
O 80
Q.
40
40
100
150
Julian date
200
250
300
100
150
Julian date
200
250
300
200 T
200
Segment 12
Segment 13
160
160
80
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300	0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date	Julian date

-------
Figure 4-59
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#28
January - September 1993
Segment 1
Segment 3
CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
+ PHASE 2 TRAN
PHASE 2 F A.
O GE
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITON
O 20
U 20 +
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200 250
Julian date
Segment 8
Segment 6:
O 20
O 20
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 10
Segment 11
o 20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 12
Segment 13
! O 20 +
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP

-------
Figure 4-60
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#52
January - September 1993
Segment 11
Segment 3
CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
20 -L
• UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY , |
CONDITION | | ^ 15 -
c
4- PHASE 2 TRAN i
PHASE 2 F A I
m
o 10
CL
u ioi
100 150 200
Julian date
100 150 200
Julian date
Segment 6
Segment 8
O 10-
100 150 200 250
Julian date
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10
Segment 11
O 10
100 150 200
Julian date
250 300
100 150 200 250 300 ;
Julian date
Segment 12
Segment 13
m
o 10
Q.
100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
250 300
100 150 200
Julian date

-------
Figure 4-61
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Condition (+/-30%) for BZ#101
and 90 January - September 1993
	CALIBRATION	i
	SENSITIVITY	|
+ PHASE 2 TRAN j
PHASE 2 FA.
Segment 1
[ Segment 3
UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 6
Segment 8
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
10
8
6 -
m
£ 4T
2 -
0 ^
10
8 f
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 10

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 12 i
10 -r-
8 -
o>	6 ¦
c	r-
m	~
O	4 -
Q.
Segment 13
I
2 -
0-^
A
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP

-------
Figure 4-62
HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for BZ#138
January - September 1993
Segment 1
• UPSTREAM
BOUNDARY
CONDITION
4.0
Segment 3
-CALIBRATION
	SENSITIVITY
4- PHASE 2 TRAN. I
PHASE 2 F A	i

50 100 150 200 250 300 :
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
4.0
3.0
; 2.0
m
! O
! °-
1.0 -
0.0
4.0
3.0 -
Segment 6
4.0
Ju
3.0 +
o>
m 20 *
CD
O
Q.

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
1.0
0.0
Segment 10!
4.0
3.0
Segment 8
Ju
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
Segment 11
m
o
a.
2.0
1.0
0.0 -P
JL-,
50 100 150 200 250 300 j
Julian date
50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
4.0
3.0 T
Segment 12
4.0 -
3.0 -
Segment 13!
m
2.0 4-
[
1.0 i
0.0


CQ
O
CL
2.0 4-
1.0 -
0.0

50 100 150 200 250
Julian date
300

50 100 150 200 250 300
Julian date
HRP 002

-------
Figure 4-63
IPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity
to Initial Conditions (+/-30%) for Sediment PCBs (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
Spring Runoff Event Period is 3/26/93 - 5/10/93
1200
1000
800
600
_ 400
o>
— 200
8
» 0
8 -200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
a) EPCB Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection

—r-B
"I "iy
E3 Non-Event
~ Spring Event
STOTAL
II
I/) UJ
Q.
3 rr
o s
«2
^ :c
.£	®
Q	2
C	o
o	
~	200
w
«>	.
ra	0
m
o
-400
b) EPCB Mass Balance for the Thompson Island Pool
no pore water advection
El Non-Event
~ Spring Event
§TOTAL

-200
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
in uj
Q-
3 jr
ai
§
o ™
2 I
§ £
a.
?- §
C o
O CO
c
a>
c
o
e
o
(0
5
(A
X
4)
(O
&
(0
(A

-------
Figure 4-64
IPCB Mass Balance for HUDTOX Calibration Sensitivity
to Upstream Boundary Conditions (+/-30%) for PCBs (1/1/93 - 9/30/93)
Spring Runoff Event Period is 3/26/93 - 5/10/93
a) ZPCB Mass Balance for the Upper Hudson River
no pore water advection
1200
(1 Non-Event
O Spring Event
STOTAL
1000
800
400
200
0
-200
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
C
o
o>
c
c
o
g 1
13
c
11?
I s
c
& LU
CL
O CO
fc o
Q O
u_
Q.
1200
b) IPCB Mass Balance for the Thompson island Pool
no pore water advection

-------
1405

-------
o

Source: Finite Element Grid Points Based on GE1991 Hydrographic Swvey and USGS
Topographic Maps
HRP 002 1406

-------
Cr--Wl ,Aj,

i" »-V

'	Gauge 118
/V^sTwd
Source: USGSMaps
HRP 002 1407


-------

/ x-,'-
jdhA _-V-r^°
r	«¦ A r—
»	_u	;W°
^ -V\^L . MV^
^ '^Y'
\
y po«|«<
~P'^ •/1 ^tt^T «o« -	i
--/Js ^ *•	—^ N ^
Locations of
velocity 3
Measurements ^

Source: USGS Maps and Personal Communication wilh the USGS
HRP 002
1408

-------
I
Source Velocities Based on RMA-2V Model Results
HRP 002 1409

-------
Source: Velocities Based on RMA-2V Model Results
HRP 002
1410

-------
Figure 5-5
Comparison of Shear Stress Conversions for the Four Methods
160
Velocity, fps
j	Smooth
!	Lick
I
!	Rough
{	Manning
Source: Shear Stresses Based on Four Different Conversion Methods

-------
Figure 6-1
Core HR-26 : Rogers Island East
Likelihood of Scour
0,01
5th Percentile
0,1
Median
E
o
95th Percentile
o
100 I	
0.OE+00
5.0E+05
4.0E+05
6.0E+05
3.0E+05
7.0E+05
2.0E+05
8.0E+05
9.0E+05
Total PCBs (ug/kg)

-------
Figure 6-2
Core HR-25 : Rogers Island West
Likelihood of Scour
0.1 			
5th Percentile
10
Median
95th Percentile
100 I—			1	'	'	'	r-		
4.0E+03	5.0E+03	6.0E+03	7.0E+03	8.0E+03	9.0E+03	1.0E+04
Total PCBs (ug/kg)

-------
F"	jm Mk
igure 6-3
Core HR-20 : Thompson Island Pool
Likelihood of Scour
0.01
5th Percentile
Median
E
o
Q.
®
o
95th F< centile
100 I	
0.0E+00
4.0E+05
5.0E+05
6.0E+05
3.0E+05
2.0E+05
7.0E+05
8.0E+05
1.0E+05
9.0E+05
Total PCBs (ug/kg)

-------
Figure 6-4
Core HR-23 : Thompson Island Pool
Likelihood of Scour
0.001
0.01
0.1
E
o
a
a>
a
10
5th Percentile
Median
95th Percentile
100
O.OE+OO 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05
8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06
Total PCBs (ug/kg)
1.4E+06 1.6E+06 1.8E+06 2.0E+06

-------
Figure 6-5
Core HR-19 : Thompson Island Pool
Likelihood of Scour
0.001
5th Percentile
0.01
Median
E
o
95th Percentile
100 I	
0.0E+00
1.5E+06
2.0E+06
5.0E+05
2.5E+06
Total PCBs (ug/kg)

-------
Figure 6-6
Likelihood of Potential Local Scour as a Function of Applied Shear Stress
Mean applied shear stress (cohesive sediments : 100 year
event)
100
95th percentile
10
50th percentile
1
5th percentile
xt
0.1
0.01
0.001
30
40
50
20
60
10
70
0
Applied shear stress (dynes/cm2)

-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 6-7
Estimating the Chances of Scour for a 100 Year Event at Selected Core Locations
HR-j2C
KR-26
HR-23
! i !
>1
0.1
10
1C
Depth of scour (cm)

-------
Figure 7-1
Salinity Calibration for Lower Hudson River
Q«XA : 9/16/75 - 7/5/77
*Q
9GHT pwcwrr CONC.
« minimum
30
8aiee:Wtw*we*, 1S78
25
2D
10
10
0
-50
SO
10
MUEPaNT from awronr
*a
33
30 -
25 -
S3
15 -
10 -
D*TA ; 10/15/75 - 4/17/77
:ta, 197V
+ K3TVCUM. SAMPLES
aCMT B3UNQMW CONC.-
HRF UOOtL
CALCULATION
 S ^
S3	10	0 -10
ULEPONT FROM BATTEKY
(from Thomann et al, 1989)
HRP 002

-------
Figure 7-2
Suspended Solids Calibration for: (Top) Lower Hudson River, (Bottom) East
River and Long Island Sound
		C*TA : 9/16/75 - 7/5/77
Lopand
7
C M
¦
C Ovg
A
C 5
a
Q
s
a.
»ooo -
i/>	100 -
tara: Stent (UBQ& 1971-1986)
.1978 .
HRF MOOEL CALCULATION
		t
! 70 150 130 MO 90
60	iU	10	-10 -30
ut£poe^T r:.cfc< battery
OTA : 9/16/75 - VV77
60
Legend
8arca tHycmdvo*. 1979
MEAN + 1 STO.
WON
WEAN - 1 STO.
50
HRF MOOEL CALCULATION
LIS Soundory conc.
U_PONT FROU aATTErTf
(from Thomann et al, 1989)

-------
Figure 7-3
Comparison of Lower Hudson Physicochemical Model Output as Sum of
Homologs for 1978 to Sum of Observed Data for Period 1977-1979
o
2
O
Q
a
o
o-
_l
O
o
tr
£
<
02
CJM.CUUTH3
• SLW OF HCMOUXS
?0B 1Wt
(No 0«cay)
Moan & Range
10*77-^/70
USGS Data
"J" Moan & Bang*
7/7B-12T78
@Poughk##psi#
_ Water Wata
o
7/77
NYC 2D6 0ata
I	I	I	I
«	-*o	a
UP<-M*£S FROM BATTERY ~>OC*VN
(from Thomann et ai, 1989)

-------
Figure 7-4
Lower Hudson Physicochemical Model Sediment Depth PCB Calibration,
Segments #1-5
4
2
~a
2
-o~
1
3
i
-2
1S7S-1S77
uoce. CAJjQJLATlON SEGMENTS /I -5
	SUM Cf HOMOLOGS HGH
	SUM Of HOMOLOGS U>.V
Q DATA (BOPP, 137S|
20
a
S3
SSOfcEMT Tr(AVtL TME :' (YEARS!
(from Thomann et al, 1989)

-------
Figure 7-5
Calibration of Lower Hudson Food Chain Model to White Perch Data for Total
PCB, Region #2
<5
a,
>1
Z I
o
2
1J	-
1 Jt
1.7	-
1 &	-
1.3	^
1	4
t.3 -
1.2
l.t
1
as
as
a? -
ac-
45
24
aa -
02
0.1 -
a
WHITE PERCH - REGION #2
* Mean
I
d Me<3an
Model Calcutatioo
-Tr-
io
a
r	i	\
30	43
1978 1982
(from Thomann et ni, 1989)

-------
Figure 7-6
Lower Hudson Food Chain Model Striped Bass Total PCB Calibration, Region
#2: (Top) 1946 - 1987, (Bottom) 1 980 - 1987
*
C
2
i
o
*
>—
a
«aCN 01 - *0CHTH5 HOMOLOG SUU
700 -
-
533 -
400 -
900 -
DtfxNYSOEC
1 Ml I
m i \ \im i ? ni 11
1111111 1111
1«8 1053
«n
YEARS
fCOON #2 - WE&TTED HOMOLOG SUM
D*rNYSDeC
YEARS
(from Thomann et al, 1989)

-------
Figure 7-7
Sensitivity of Lower Hudson Physicochemical Model Calibration to Alternate
Assumption of Upstream Load
Maan 4 Rang«
^ ior77-v7a
(JSCS Data
"S
CALCULATED
SIX OF HOUOCjOGS
fOR IB7»
(No Oecay)
7177
NYC 206 Data
0.3
02
35% REDUCTION
IN UPSTREAM LOAD
ai -
0
40
S3
UP<-flrtEH IJLES fTKM BATTEHY->O0»VN
Adapted from Thomann et al, 1989

-------
Figure 8-1
Conceptual Framework for Hudson River Probabilistic Bioaccumulation Model
Particulate
Concentration
in Water
PWBAF
Concentration in
Pelagic Inverts
Weighted Average
in Diet
Concentration in
Forage Fish Diet

Weighted Average
in Diet
PWBAF = pelagic invertebrate:water column accumulation factor
BSAF = biotaisediment accumulation factor
, s s BBAF = benthic invertebrate;biota accumulation factor
s FFBAF = forage fishidiet accumulation factor
s ^PFBAF = piscivorous fish:diet accumulation factor
s
s
V
s
s
s
s
%
V
X
s
s
V
s
s
%
Concentration
in Forage Fish
Concentration in
Benthic Inverts
Weighted
Average
in Diet
Weighted Aver je
in Diet
Concentration in
Piscivorous Fish Diet
BBAF
Concentration in
Piscivorous Fish
Concentration

Concentration
in Sediment
—1 BSAF1	~
in Demersal Fish

-------
Figure 9-1
Comparison of Sum of PCBs Calculated by NYSDEC 1977 Methodology
and Sum of Congeners for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
60,000
% 50,000
o.
40,000
in
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
30,000
TAMS/Gradient Total
20,000
TAMS/Gradient Total (ppb WW)
40,000
WW)
10,000
50,000
0
60,000
(ppb
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-2
Comparison of Sum of PCBs Calculated by NYSDEC 1979 Methodology
and Sum of Congeners for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
50,000
40,000
30,000
« 20,000
o
° 10,000
10,000
20,000	30,000
TAMS/Gradient Total (ppb WW)
40,000
50,000
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-3
Comparison of Sum of PCBs Calculated by NYSDEC 1983 Methodology
and Sum of Congeners for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
50,000
40,000
30,000
<2 20,000
o
° 10,000
0
10,000
20,000	30,000
TAMS/Gradient Total (ppb WW)
40,000
50,000
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-4
Comparison of Aroclor 1016 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983 Method
and NYSDEC 1977 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
50,000
£ 40,000
"§ 30,000
20,000
> 10,000
0
30,000
NYSDEC 1977 Method (ppb WW)
20,000
NYSDEC 1977
10,000
40,000
0
50,000
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-5
Comparison of Aroclor 1016 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983 Method
and NYSDEC 1979 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
25,000
5 20,000
X2
a
Q,
"§ 15,000
JZ
a>
E
£ 10,000
5,000
0
0
5,000	10,000	15,000	20,000
NYSDEC 1979 Method (ppb WW)
25,000
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-6
Comparison of Aroclor 1254 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983 Method
and NYSDEC 1977 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
20,000
$
% 15,000
10,000
5,000
0
5,000	10,000
NYSDEC 1977 Method (ppb WW)
15,000
20,000
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-7
Comparison of Aroclor 1254 Concentrations Calculated by NYSDEC 1983 Method
and NYSDEC 1979 Method for TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 Hudson River Fish Samples
20,000
£ 15,000
10,000
LU
5,000
0
10,000
IMYSDEC 1979 Method (ppb WW)
5,000
15,000
20,000
0
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-8
Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1016 Concentrations in
Hudson River Pumpkinseed (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation Basis)
Legend:
A RM 142-153
B RM 160
C RM 175
n or/! 1 «Q.1

... .







c
















































	























D




D
U









C
>
o


		
n





Dc
Dr
C &

C



U





c
A
r











B
B


B


		




















A /T
V











100
200
300	400
Observed (//g/g-lipid)
500
600
700
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-9
Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1016 Concentrations in
Hudson River Largemouth Bass (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation Basis)
2,000
1,500
'5.
O)
1,000
TJ
0)
4—*
o
©
500
D C
B
A
A

A
..A—
C&
C
C A

Legend:
A RM 142-153
B RM 160
C RM 175
D RM 189-193
0
500
1,000	1,500
Observed (/i/g/g-lipid)
2,000
2,500
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1
J'Js

-------
0
1
£
Figure 9-10
Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1016 Concentrations in
Hudson River Brown Bullhead (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation Basis)
1,000
800
¦o
"5.
% 600
o>
o>
3
¦o
«
400
200
Legend:
A RM 142-153
B RM 160
C RM 175
D RM 189-193
B
A
B
A_
D

C
200
400	600
Observed (//g/g-lipid)
800
1,000
1,200
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-11
Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1254 Concentrations in
Hudson River Pumpkinseed (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation Basis)
350
300
2 250
.9-
T
CD
a>
3200
T3
a?
2 150
a.
100
50
Legend:
A RM 142-153
B RM 160
C RM 175
D RM 189-193
H
"iT
C £
B
—A_
C

50
100
D

150	200	250
Observed (/^g/g-lipid)
300
350
400
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-12
Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1254 Concentrations in
Hudson River Largemouth Bass (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation Basis)
1,200
1,000 -
800
600
400
200
Legend:
A RM 142-153
B RM 160
C RM 175
D RM 189-193
~B~
15-
A
















c


C
D










C
_D




DD
D
D

CD
cr
D






	 .


c
c
c 8
o
O !


	




C
A





- 	-
A
A
A
B




A







200
400	600	800
Observed (//g/g-lipid)
1,000
1,200
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
600
500 -
*o
a.
I
O)
o>
"O
CD
«-»
o
©
£
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 9-13
Comparison of Observed and Predicted Aroclor 1254 Concentrations in
Hudson River Brown Bullhead (Corrected to NYSDEC 1983 Quantitation Basis)
rB	
Legend:
A RM 142-153
B RM 160
C RM 175
D RM 189-193

B

D
100
200
300	400	500
Observed (//g/g-lipid)
600
700
800
TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-14
Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Arocior 1016 in
Pumpkinseed at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
700
600
a
x 500
CD
"ra
3
<£ 400
o
| 300
o
200
100














































	,\l
1











































	


	

>
	

¦
1








. . .

	
L	


u	

1978
1980
1982
1984	1986
Year
1988
1990
1992
Observed
Predicted
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-15
Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in
Pumpkinseed at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
400
350
J 300
T
o>
O) „ _ _
250
in
200
150
100
50
1984
1986
1982
1988
1990
1980
1992
1978
Year
r
~n
r-J
4*
&
i-*
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1
a Observed —<— Predicted

-------
Figure 9-16
Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1016 in
Largemouth Bass at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
2,500
¦
2,000
T3
CD 1,500
«- 1,000
500
1982
1984
1986
1980
1988
1978
1990
1976
1992
Year
Observed —•— Predicted
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
1,200
Figure 9-17
Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in
Largemouth Bass at Hudson River Mile 175 {1983 Quantitation Basis)
1,000 -
t 600
in
1978
1980
1982
1984
Year
1986
1988
1990
1992
x
Ti
o
K5
Observed
Predicted
v-i
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 9-18
Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1016 in
Brown Bullhead at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
1,200
1,000

¦o
'a.
% 800
O)
to 600 -
r—
O
•	
t-
o
o
o
400
<
200
1984
1986
1982
1988
1980
1990
1978
1992
1976
Year
¦ Observed —Predicted
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
* 400
in
CM
1 300
o
J 200
100
Figure 9-19
Observed and Predicted Average Concentrations of Aroclor 1254 in
Brown Bullhead at Hudson River Mile 175 (1983 Quantitation Basis)
3 600
:
	:	
-	
	!¦¦¦•
	!	
:
:
	)••••
!
:
	:¦¦¦¦
:
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
Year
1986
1988
1990
Observed
Predicted
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-1
Average Sediment Concentration
by River Mile for BZ#4
250
O)
3
o
c
o
Q
"O
0)
N
75
E
0
Z
1
O
o
200
150
100
50
0
* 63
a

N
^	y mn
5 5
f ,3-fL. n| .«ri-
5 5 5
_T_
4
r
5
» 55
i —
5
r*~
4
o 71
o69
~i	
o 81
^UDA..
5
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 188.7 189.5 194.1 203.3
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 188.5 189.0 191.5 196.9
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 4 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-2
Average Sediment Concentration
70
by River Mile for BZ#28
O)
O)
o
c
o
o
"O
(D
N
"ro
£
0
Z
1
o
O
h-
60-
50
40-
30-
20
10-
0
N
* 5
r—
5
¦^-Z7h=..
T"
5
5 5 5 5 5 5
25.8 58.7 100.0
47.3 88.9 113.8
~r
55455555
122.4 143.5 169.5 188.7 189.5
137.2 159.0 188.5 189.0 191.5
iX
5
63
* 75
r—i

* 76
I
T
, I -r
5 3 5
194.1 203.3
196.9
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 4 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-3
Average Sediment Concentration
70 t—
60
-5*
O)
o
c
o
O
TJ

-------
Figure 10-4

8i

7-


O)

O)
6-
3



O
5-
c

0

0
4-
¦0

Q)

N
3-
75

EE

i—
2-
0

Z

6
1-
0


0.
N =
Average Sediment Concentration
by River Mile for BZ#101 and BZ#90
071

L

05
F=l
o ?Qt * 3
* ->f-
5T55555554355555535
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 188.7 189.5 194.1 203.3
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 188.5 189.0 191.5 196.9
T~
5
1
5
T~
5
i
5
1
5
1
5
¦~i
S
.. -T._
3
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 6 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-5
Average Sediment Concentration
O)
o>
U
o
c
o
O
*o

-------
Figure 10 6
jcn
CTJ
3
o
c
o
O
"O
m
N
*55
0
1
O
O
H
1600-I
1400-
1200-
1000-
800-
600-
400
200-|
0
Average Sediment Coi .centration
by River Mile for Aroclor 1016
I

63
E-3
_ *,g ¦
5 5
N= 555555555455555553
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 188.7 189.5 194.1 203.3
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 188.5 189.0 191.5 196.9
¦$3£-
I

r	

_r

_l




r-	!


"JZ


5
T
4
T~
5
"T
5
_r_
5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 4 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-7
•£?
en
=3
O
c
o
O
*D
OJ
N
15
E
t.
o
z
•
Q
O
500
400
300
200
100
0
« 5
Average Sediment Concentration
by River Mile for Aroclor 1254
T
o 63


L
| ~T~ [


o 76
o 4 g n ¦! p	*
T~ i *~IJ H"1—t
__jl27 o,
"T
5
T-
5
,-T
5
r~
5
• r
5
T*
5
r~
5
_1_
S
~T~
5
-r
5
N = 5 5 5 5 S 5 5
25,8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 188.7 189.5 194.1 203.3
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 188.5 189.0 191.5 196.9
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 5 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-8
Average Sediment Concentration
o
Z
•
o
o
1600 t
1400-
1200-
1000-
800-
O)
O)
Zi
o
c
o
O
"O

-------
Figure 10-9
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by River Mile for BZ#4
14 T
12
10-
8-
6-
4-

2-
0
N =
4
25.8
—-j-
47.3
T"
3
88.9
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1
4
100.0
3
122.4
I—
12
River Mile
-1
14
_r-
9
188.5 188.7 189.0
12
189.5
15
191.5

-------
20-r
10-
5-
N =	6	4	1	1	8	2	5
am bv ch ga is od ol
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
301
25
20
15-
10
Figure 10-11
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#4
O


ik
20
30
x
40
50
60
x
SPECIES1
9
<">
Unsorted Total
"	Sorted Total
n	OL
~	OD
*	IS
*	GA
*	Epibenthic
*	CH
*	BV
70
80
90 100
AM
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-12
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
*5?
OJ
ZJ
o
c
o
O
13
N
O
2
¦
•g
*Ql
2500
2000-
1500-
1000-
500
BZ#4 in Benthic Invertebrates
'T
!\
S
I !i
i i
i i
I	I
i «
II
4
T
f
3=
A-
V j A
• !\
v


191.50
Model Max
Model 50th
Model 90th
Measured
191.50	189.50	189.00	188.70	188.50
191.50	189.50	189.50	188.70	188.70	188.50
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-13
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
2.5
by River Mile for BZ#28
2.0-
1.5
1.0-
.5-
UL
<
in
03 0.0
N =
I
— i—
5
25.8
I
4
47.3
_T_
4
r
4
_T_
3
i
13
i
14
88.9
100.0 122.4 188.5 188.7
d
189.0
12
15
189.5 191.5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-14
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Se liment Ratios
by Species for BZ#28
HZ
zzzac
' J	1	 I	T	T~		?	1	1
N =	6	4	3	5	B	3	5
AM BV CH GA IS OD OL
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
5-
3-
2-
1
<
CQ o

Figure 10-15
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#28
O

O

x
«
o
x
*
A
—I	
10
x
X
X
4
I

o
4
x
<)
20
25
x
8
S
SPECIES1
O	Unsorted Total
x	Sorted Total
~	OL
~	OD
«	IS
*	GA
4	Epibenthic
~	CH
¦	BV
•	AM
30
35
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-16
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
BZ#28 in Benthic Invertebrates
Rsq = 0.8197
thru origin
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-17
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
<
CO
CD
10
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4
3-
2-
1 -
0
N =
~T~*
5
by River Mile for BZ#52
T
4
"T"
4
25.8
47.3
88.9
4
100.0
3
122.4
13
188.5
14
188.7
T
9
189.0
12
189.5
15
191.5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-18
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by Species for BZ#52
N :
~T~
6
AM
-T~
4
BV
3
CH
5
GA
8
IS
1.11... M.i I
— j—
3
OD
T
5
OL
21
ST
—T—-
28
UT
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1
SPECIES

-------
Figure 10-20
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
BZ#52 in Benthic Invertebrates
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1
Rsq = 0.9214
thru origin

-------
Figure 10-21
Mean +-1 SE Benthic.Sediment Ratios
by River Mile for BZ#101 and BZ#90
7			_	
6"
5-
4-	„
3-	"	
2- 		—i	 —— —— " —— __L_
UL 1 ¦	'
< 		
u>
CQ 0		1	1	T	I I I T			1			 |—
N= 5 4 4 4	3 13 14 9	12	15
25.8 47.3 88.9 100.0 122.4 188.5 188.7 189.0 189.5 191.5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-?2
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Seument Ratios
by Species for BZ#101 & BZ#90
I
-1—	 —i—		1	t		1	? 	 i			r	1	
N=6	4	3	5	8	3	5	21
AM BV CH GA IS OD OL ST
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-23
<
w
CO
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#101 & BZ#90 speciesi
O Unsorted Total
x Sorted Total
° OL
>	OD
4	IS
*	GA
*	Epibenthic
#	CH
'	BV
•	AM
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Cone (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-24
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
BZ#101 & BZ#90 in Benthic Invertebrates
Rsq = 0.9189
thru origin
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-25
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by River Mile for BZ#138
5-
4-
3"
2- ——
1-	n	"		 	
U.	" "				— —
< 		 		
CO			
cq n
J	 r—		r	r	r	i		~i	1	r	1	1—
N =	5 4 4 4	3 13 14 7	12	14
25.8 47.3 88.9 100.0 122.4 188.5 188.7 189.0 189.5 191.5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
6
5
41
3-			
2-			
I |	mmmmmmLmrn
Ll ^	¦;	 , ~	—		
<
CO			
OQ 0 J	 - T		1	i		—i	 —	i	i	r			r—•—		r •
n=6 4 3 5 8	3 5 20	26
am BV CH GA IS OD OL ST UT
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1
Figure 10-26
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by Species for BZ#138

-------
Figure 10-27
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for BZ#138
<
w
QQ
SPECIES1
O Unsorted Total
x	Sorted Total
o	OL
»	OD
-	IS
'	GA
*	Epibenthic
~	CH
¦	BV
•	AM
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-28
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
BZ#138 in Benthic Invertebrates
Rsq = 0.8261
thru origin
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-29
Mean +-1 SE Benthic;Sediment Ratios
by River Mile for Aroclor 1016
10	
8-
6-
4-
25.8 47.3 88.9 100.0 122.4 188.5 188.7 189.0 189.5 191.5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
8
7
5
4
3
2
1
0
N :
—r
6
AM
Figure 1(K0
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by Species for Aroclor 1016
"I"
4
BV
3
CH
5
GA
8
IS
3
OD
- T	
5
OL
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3,1

-------
Figure 10-31
LL
<
W
CO
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for Aroclor 1016 speciesi
O	Unsorted Total
x	Sorted Total
Q	OL
"	OD
4	IS
*	GA
4	Epibenthic
*	CH
'	BV
*	AM
500 550
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-32
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Aroclor 1016 in Benthic Invertebrates
W
m
8
i_

Z

-------
Figure 10-33
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by River Mile for Aroclor 1254
5-
11 ^
<
C/5
CD 0
N
5
25.8
4
47.3
~~T~
4
~T
4
_T_
3
T
f3
._r..
14
88.9
100.0 122.4 188.5 188.7
9
189.0
—i—
12
i
15
189.5 191.5
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1
River Mile

-------
Figure 10-34
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
by Species for Aroclor 1254
1
<
CO
CD 0
i ¦
N -
_T-
4
AM
BV
3
CH
5
GA
8
IS
r-
3
OD
OL
-1—
21
ST
28
UT
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-35
li_
<
CO
m
12
10
8
0
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for Aroclor 1254
X

O
<>
K
° I $
$
I
25
50
75
100
_._T	
125
SPECIES1
150
175

O Unsorted Total

x Sorted Total

o
O

> OD

4 IS

* GA

* Epibenthic
A
~ CH
~ V



ll
• BV
1?
• AM
200
225
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-36
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Aroclor 1254 in Benthic Invertebrates
Rsq = 0.9206
thru origin
LNBPRED
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
)
10 -j
8-
4-
2-
'=*=z ~r~ —I— ——J— —=3=	—ir-
0J	,	1		T	T	1	I	I	I	1	T	
N=	5	4	4	4	3	13	14	9	12	15
25.8 47.3 88.9 100.0 122.4 188.5 188.7 189.0 189.5 191.5
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 15 Jul 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-38
Mean +-1 SE Benthic:Sediment Ratios
7
6
5
4
3
1
0
N =
	r -
6
AM
~T~"
4
BV
by Species for Total PCBs
_ (
3
CH
5
GA
8
IS
3
OD
—,—
5
OL
—i—
21
ST
SPECIES
Prepared by KvS 8 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-39
20
<
W
m
15
10
0
BSAF versus Geometric Mean
Sediment Concentration (ug/g) for Total PCBs
o
%
$
x
100
200
300
o

400
500
x
A
SPECIES1
O Unsorted Total
x	Sorted Total
~	OL
~	OD
«	IS
*	GA
*	Epibenthic
~	CH
•	BV
•	AM
600
TOC-Normalized Geometric Mean Sediment Concentration (ug/g)
Prepared by KvS 1 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-40
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Total PCBs in Benthic Invertebrates
10
8-
4-
0
Rsq = 0.9668
thai origin
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-41
Distributional Analysis for Aroclor 1016
Crystal Ball Report
Aroclor 1016
Forecast: Water Column BAF for Aroclor 1016	Cell: 06
Summary:
Display Range is from 0.00 to 27,50
Entire Range is from 0.00 to 56.21
After 10,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 0.06
Statistics:	Value
Trials	10000
Mean	9.71
Median	8.50
Mode
Standard Deviation	6.48
Variance	42.01
Skewness	1.27
Kurtosis	5.63
Coeff. of Variability	0.67
Range Minimum	0.00
Range Maximum	56.21
Range Width	56.20
Mean Std. Error	0.06
Forecast: 06
181 Outliers ;
215
Frequency Chart
10,000 Trials
.022 ,	
161
.016
53.7
L.
GL
.000
20.63
27.50
6.88
13.75
Page 1 of 2
HRP 002
435

-------
Figure 10-41
Distributional Analysis for Aroclor 1016
Forecast: 06 (cont'd)
Percentiles:

Value
0%
0.00
10%
2.64
25%
5.04
50%
8.50
75%
12.94
90%
18.23
100%
56.21
End of Forecast
Assumption: 1
Extreme Value distribution with parameters:
Mode	6.29
Scale	5.20
Selected range is from 0.00 to -(-Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 9,71
4 51	6 29	16.70
End of Assumptions
Page 2 of 2

-------
Figure 10-42
Distributional Analysis for Aroclor 1254
Crystal Ball Report
Aroclor 1254
Forecast: Water Column BAF for Aroclor 1254
Cell: 07
Summary:
Display Range is from 0.00 to 30.00
Entire Range is from 0.21 to 70.02
After 10,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 0.08
Statistics:
Trials
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
Coeff. of Variability
Range Minimum
Range Maximum
Range Width
Mean Std. Error
Value
10000
8.37
5.93
7.95
63.18
1.89
8.14
0.95
0.21
70.02
69.81
0.08
10,000 Trials
.034
.025 L
¦O
CO
.a
o
.017
.008
.000 J
~
0.00
Forecast: 07
Frequency Chart
232 Outliers
	 335
	 251
167
7.50
15.00
n
J3
C
n>
83.7
lliUiUJiiuuiiiLi.ui		
4
22.50	30.00
MRP 002 'i 4;:::
Page 1 of 2

-------
Figure 10-42
Distributional Analysis for Aroclor 1 254
Forecast: 07 (cont'd)
Percentiles:
Percentile
0%
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
100%
End of Forecast
Cell: 07
Value
0.21
1.15
2.63
5.93
11.61
18.90
70.02
Assumption: 1
Cell: N7
WeibuII distribution with parameters:
Location	0.21
Scale	8.39
Shape	1.030937444
Selected range is from 0.21 to + Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 8.37
End of Assumptions
Page 2 of 2
MRP
002
1

-------
Figure 10-43
Distributional Analysis for Total PCBs
Crystal Ball Report
Total PCBs
Forecast: Water Column BAF for Total PCBs
Cell: L6
Summary:
Display Range is from 0.00 to 27.50
Entire Range is from 0.00 to 58.24
After 10,000 Trials, the.Std. Error of the Mean is 0.07
Statistics:
Trials
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
Coeff. of Variability
Range Minimum
Range Maximum
Range Width
Mean Std. Error
Value
10000
8.53
6.80
6.91
47.69
1.40
5.52
0.81
0.00
58.24
58.24
0.07
10,000 Trials
.025 .—
Forecast: L6
Frequency Chart
.019
3 .013 _j_
<0
ja
o
A" 006 ..
0.
.000 i_
~
0.00
202 Outliers
- 254
	; 1 90

rt
127 xa
c
rt
3
63.5
6.88
13.75
20.63
llllhii j. 0
4
27.50
Page 1 of 2
HHP

-------
Figure 10-43
Distributional Analysis for Total PCBs
Forecast: L6 (cont'd)	Cell: L6
Percentiles:
Percentile	Value
0%	0.00
10%	1.52
25%	3.30
50%	6.80
75%	11.81
90%	18.03
100%	58.24
End of Forecast
Assumption: K6
Cell: K6
Beta distribution with parameters:
Alpha	1.36
Beta	18.31
Scale	124.31
Selected range is from 0.00 to + Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 8.53
'9.48	29.21	38.95
End of Assumptions
Page 2 of 2
HRp 002

-------
80
-21 60
oi
13
a
c
o
O 40
T3
Q>
N
m
E
L.
o
z
"D
Q.
20
0
N :
»"
3
Figure 10-44
Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized
BZ#4 Concentrations by River Mile
* TESS
* TESS
8
T
3
_r*
6 8 3 4 3 3 8 3 6 11 6 13 16 13
25 8	58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
1—
3
6
~T_
6
" T -
13

River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-'5
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
25
~ 20
4?
oi
13
U ic
c 13
o
O
-O


-------
Figure 10-46
Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized
BZ#28 Concentrations by River Mile
250 T
— 200-
O)
~CT)
3
£ 150
o
O
s 100
ro
E
0
z
1
*D
Q.
50-
N =
OTESS
T
o SPOT

I ¦
3
i
4
7 ~
3
i
8
	j —
6
~r~
11
* SPOT
oTESS
X
8tM§
* TESS

_T_..
13
' T"
16
HP
13
3468343dOJom6
25.8	58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-47
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
by River Mile for BZ#28
O)
O)
ZD
-g
o.
1201
100-
80
o
c
o
O 60 H
~a

-------
Figure 10-48
Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized
200n
150
CT)
O
c
o
O 100
u
m
N
"m
o
Z
~6
Q.
50
0
N =
3
25.8
~r~
4
BZ#52 Concentrations by River Mile
oTESS
oTESS

* BRSI
o SPcrr'-'-jCT"	J
E
.	J!1
6 8 3
58,7 100.0
47.3 88.9
T
4
~?'
3
3
("
8
i
3
" "T"
* SPOT
~T '
13
* TESS
3 8
5 11 6
122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5
113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1
_T-
16
13
196.9
203.3
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
r"'	A A A A
Figure 10-49
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
by River Mile for BZ#52
O)
OJ
3
O
c
o
O
"O
0)
N
15
0
Z
1
¦D
"CL
110
100-
90
80-
70-
60
50
40i
30-
20-
10
0
N :
I
3
I
3EZ
T
4
6
"i"
8
¦ i
3
i
4
r
3
i
8
r
3
"T
5
11
13
""T
16
13
25.8
47.3
6
58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------

160

140-


03
120-
OJ

Z3

a
100-
c

0

O
80-
TJ


-------
Figure 10-51
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
by River Mile for BZ#101 & BZ#90
60-	„
50-	L~
40-		
30 -	|
20 -
i »
1°-	—t
0 - 		| 	i—	—i	r	— i f 	~i	~'i" 		i	 i •? • i	t	1—
N= 3468343 3836 11 6 13
25.8	58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------

90-

80-
o>
70-
O)

3
60-
o

c
o
50-
O

¦O
40-
 BRSI
—r
N = 3
"•T"
4
3

-J
r ~
6
r
8 3 4 3 3 8 3
25.8	58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47.3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
_r_
3
r
3
T....
6
11
_r_
6
* SPOT
*	TESS
*	BB
g=TTJ
r~
13
16 13
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-( 3
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
by River Mile for BZ#138
351
30 H
O)
~> 25-1
o
C 20
O
"S 15
N
15
E 10
i
"O
oi
N
—j-
3
~r
4
IE
v
6
8
-j-
3
~T "
433836 11 6
25.8	58.7	100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47.3	88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
i
6
i—
13
T
16
13
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-54
Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized
O)
O)
13
O
c
o
O
~a

-------
Figure 10-55
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
1400
1200
3
O) 1000
3
O
c
o
O
TJ
0)
N
"ci
800
600
400
by River Mile for Aroclor 1016
i
U
200
0
N :
H
r
3
r'
4
" T"
6
i
8
"T~"
3
_r~
3
T
3 4 3 3 8 3 6 11 5 14 16 13
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47,3 88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
r
6
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-56
Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized
Aroclor 1254 Concentrations by River Mile
3600
3000 H
O)
3 2400
o
c
o
O 1800H
T3
0)
N
'to 1200H
E
I
-g
Q.
600-
0
N
* SPOT
@Ti§§
X
C3
31
* BRSI
T
* TESS
Er
8
i
3
"i
3
"T"
8
r
6
i
11
6 8 3 4 3 3 8 3 6 11 5 14 16 13
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4 143.5 169.5 191.5 196.9
47.3	88.9 113.8 137.2 159.0 189.5 194.1 203.3
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-57
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
by River Mile for Aroclor 1254
18001
1600
"5> 1400
at
3
O
c
o
O
*o

-------
Figure 10-58
Forage Fish Lipid-Normalized
4200
3600-
O)
O) 3000H
3
| 2400
O
"g 1800
N
"m
E 1200 H
%—
0
Z
1
*2
"o.
600
0
N
T
3
4
Total PCB Concentrations by River Mile
* BRSI
8
"i
3
i
4
-r*
3
6
25.8 58.7 100.0 122.4
47.3	88.9 113.8
• i •
8
T
6
@Ti§i
11
T
6
* SPOT
13
« TESS
L1!7:'i * SMB
• j ^
13
i
16
143.5 169.5
137.2 159.0
191.5 196.9
189.5 194.1 203.3
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-59
Mean +-1 SE Forage Fish Concentrations
by River Mile for Total PCBs
2200 		 	 	
2000 -	—
^ 1800 *
O)
"q) 1600¦
~ 1400-
O 1200-
O
U 1000-

-------
Figure 10-60
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Aroclor 1016 in Forage Fish
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-61
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Aroclor 1254 in Forage Fish
10 T
~~
7
~ ~
6
5-
4
3
1
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-62
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Total PCBs in Forage Fish
Probabilistic Model Percentile Results
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1
Rsq = 0.9827
thru origin

-------
Figure 10-63
4000
3000
Oi
O)
3
o
c
o
O
"O
<1)
N
15
0
Z
1
-g
Q.
2000
1000
Goodness-of-Fit for Aroclor 1016 in Forage Fish
196.9 196.9 194.1
196.9 194.1 194.1
191.5
T":—' •.
TT\v^—v

s. _
\
189^5
=P
Measured
Model 50th
Model 90th
189.5
169.5 143.5 113.8 88.9
169.5 143.5 122.4 88.9
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-64
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
8000
o>
O)
o
c
o
O
*0
0)
N
4000
£ 2000-
o
Z
¦
"D
Q.
0
Aroclor 1254 in Forage Fish
i!
i!
it-


I	.
I i
r..l
f\!V i.

196.90 196.90
196.90 196.90
	f	T ——T	r
194.10 191.50
194.10
189.50
189.50 189.50
\.'S*
169.50
-1	1
Model Max
Model 90th
Model 50th
Measured
143.50 113.80 88.90
143.50 137.20 100.00
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-65
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for
Total PCBs in Forage Fish
Ui
3
o
c
o
O
~o
CD
N
15
O
Z
"2
*CL
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500 H
0
/
¦n
a/\ /;
196.90
196.90
										'W
196.90 194 10 ' 19150 ' 189^50 ' 169.50 * 143.50 ' 113.80 88.90
196.90 194.10 189.50 189.50 143.50 137.20
Measured
Model 50th
Model 90th
Model Max
100.00
River Mile
Prepared by KvS 10 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-66
Modeled Yellow Perch Bioaccumulation Factors
for Total PCBs
Trend Chart
8.0Q
6.0
4.0'
2.0
0.00	
<
T)
GO
>
T1
O
|NJ
100%
90%
75%
50%
m 25%
-<
"D
oo
>
n
o
to
-C
"D
CO
>
n
o
-C
"0
CO
>
n
o
CO
-<
T>
GO
>
TI
-a
l\J
Certainties Centered on Medians
The geometric mean bioaccumulation factor = 2.88, standard deviation = 1.55
Page 1
TAMS/Gradient Database Release 2.4

-------
Figure 10-67
Modeled Concentrations for Yellow Perch
Total PCBs
Trend Chart
6,000.00
4,500.
3,000.
1,500,
0.0
100%
90%
75%
50%
<
-<
-C
<
-C
<
-<
<
"0
T>
"0
"0
"D
"0
"0
ID
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

rv>
u>
¦t*
CJ1

"Si
CO
ro
Certainties Centered on Medians
Station
Known GeoMean

Concentration

ug/g
1
7.91
2
1,769.58
3
713.49
4
1,084.96
5

6

7

8
620.10
9

10
292.77
11

12
128.80
13

14

15
87.81
16

17

18

002 IS14
Page 1
TAMS/Gradient Database Release 2.4

-------
Figure 10-68
Ratio of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed
by River Mile and Year for Aroclor 1016
3-
o 2H
00
tr
CO
o
o
o
< 0
N =
04
o65
16
i
16
20
¦ T"
21
o 104
o 95
21
o 130
i
19
20
16
RM175-1979	RM175-1982	RM175-1984	RM175-1989
RM175-1981	RM175-1983	RM175-1985	RM190-1989
River Mile and Year
Prepared by KvS 5 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
25 t
20-
15-
£ 10
uo
CM
o
o
o
5-
0
N =
Figure 10-^9
Ratio of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed
by River Mile and Year for Aroclor 1254
o 3
16
* 86
* 97
•65
o 32
o 30
o 82
o 88
¦95
\~
16

20
i
21
i"
21
i
19
20
16
RM175-1979	RM175-1982	RM175-1984	RM175-1989
RM175-1981	RM175-1983	RM175-1985	RM190-1989
River Mile and Year
Prepared by KvS 4 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-70
Ratio of Largemouth Bass to Pumpkinseed
CO
DC
co
o
15
o
10
8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
-2.
N
o5

by River Mile and Year - Total PCBs
o 64
*85
o81
i
16
f
20
¦ i ~
21
* 96
o 94
xz
' "f"
21
20
16	16	16	20	21	21	20
RM175-1979	RM175-1982	RM175-1984	RM175-1989
RM175-1981	RM 175-1983	RM175-1985	RM190-1989
River Mile and Year
Prepared by KvS 4 Aug 96
Database Release 3.1

-------
Figure 10-71
Sample Yellow Perch Bioaccumulation Model Application:
Monte Carlo Output
Forecast: Yellow Perch Concentration	Cell: K5
Summary:
Display Range is from 0.00 to 90.00 ug/g lipid
Entire Range is from 4.70 to 159.11 ug/g lipid
After 10,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 0.19
Statistics:	Value
Trials	10000
Mean	35.56
Median	31.42
Mode
Standard Deviation	18.58
Variance	345.09
Skewness	1.51
Kurtosis	6.63
Coeff. of Variability	0.52
Range Minimum	4.70
Range Maximum	159.11
Range Width	154.41
Mean Std. Error	0.19
10.000 Trials
.029
Forecast: YellowPerchConc
Frequency Chart
22.50
45.00
ug/g lipid
67.50
161 Outliers
	1. 285
213
142
e
r»
lllli.i---..
71.2
<
90.00
YPPRED.XLSREPORT
Page 1 of 3
HRP 002 151?
TAMS.'Gradient Database Release 2 4

-------
Figure 10-71
Sample Yellow Perch Bioaccumuiation Model Application;
Monte Carlo Output
Forecast: YeJIowPerchConc (cont'd)
Cell: K5
Percentiles:
Percentile
0%
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
100%
uo/Q I'D'd
4.70
16.56
22.39
31.42
44.14
59.61
159.11
End of Forecast
Assumptions
Assumption: WaterColBAF
Normal distribution with parameters;
Mean	6.85
Standard Dev.	0.70
Selected range is from -Infinity to + Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 6.86
Cell: C4
WM«rCo»AF
Assumption: BSAF
Normal distribution with parameters:
Mean	0.88
Standard Dev.	0.09
Selected range is from -Infinity to + Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 0.88
Cell: C6
BSAF
NOTE: the standard error is used rather than the standard deviation to incorporate
uncertainty about the mean estimate. These distributions are considered normal.
HRP
Oi !,«¦
YPFRED.XLSREPORT
Page 2 of 3
TAMS/Gradient Database Release 2 4

-------
Figure 10-71
Sample Yellow Perch Bioaccumulation Model Application:
Monte Carlo Output
Assumption: FF6AF
Normal distribution with parameters:
Mean	5.38000
Standard Dev.	0.72000
Selected range is from -Infinity to + Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 5.37095
Cell: G5
FFMF
inooo 4 30000 13HQ0 *44000
Assumption: YPBAF
Cell: J5
Lognormal distribution with parameters:
Mean	2.88
Standard Dev.	1.50
Selected range is from 0.00 to +¦ Infinity
Mean value in simulation was 2.88
YPtAF
n.tt
End of Assumptions
YPPRED.XLSREPORT
Page 3 of 3
002
TAMS/Gradient Database Release 2 4

-------
Former "
Fort Edward
HM190
Snook
	 Stream
	 Road
Railroad
Mw milts ippraxfmtte.
Thompson Island Pool
Study Site
0 Limno-Toch. Inc.

-------
X
Ui
M
M
y
ThDRiisan
m|)*a
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
Sediment Distribution
Plate 6-2
Q Limno-Toch, inc.
SOO MM
CohMiva
Non-coh«sive

-------
c
J
FORT
EDWARD
niompson
Island
Dam
SbooIc
Thompson Island Pool
100-year Event
Velocity
1/2 mis
500 melws
Hate 6-3
m Limno-Tach, In
0 12 3 4
Feet per second
Q»47,330 ClS

-------
Thompson Island Pool
100-year Event
Shear Stress
Plate 6-4
0 Limno-Tach, Inc.

-------
c
3
S
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
100-year Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass Eroded
Plate 6-5
fjfl Limno-Tech, Inc.
1/2 rrite
SOO melen
0 5 10 15 20 25
Kilograms per square meter
Q- 47.330 Cfs


-------
D
s,
Snook
V
Tbompton
Mans
Mm
i
-!}
O
O
W
Thompson Island Pool
100-year Event
Cohesive Sediments
Depth of Scour
Plats 6-6
fQi Umno-Tisch, Inc.
IS irito
500 mam*
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2S
Centimeters
Q-47,330 CfS
w
M
O-

-------
J


Thompson
Snook
««
M
Vl
Thompson Island Pool
100-year Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass of PCBs Eroded
Plate 6-7
^ Limno-Tech, Inc.
1/2 mBe
500 maian
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 125
Grams per square meter
Q=47,330 Cfs

-------
Thompson Island Pool
1983 Event
Velocity
R3 Umno-Tech, Inc.
g Plata 6-8
0 1 2 3 4 5
Feet per second
Q = 34,800 Cfs

-------
3
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
1983 Event
Shear Stress
Plate 6-9
M
<1
M Lhnno-lech, Inc.
1/2 mBe
500 motefs

0 20 40 60 80 100
Dynes per square centimeter
Q = 34,800 cfs

-------

D
EDWARD

Snook
i
15
o
©
w
Thompson Island Pool
1983 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass Eroded
Hate 6-10
fjjj Llmno-Tach, Inc.
1/2 mite
500 mams
0 5 10 15 20 25
Kilograms per square meter
CU 34,600 cfs
U!
'A
O

-------
I
25
15
O
O
M
0
$
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
1983 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Depth of Scour
Plate 6-11
m Limno-Tech, Inc.
0 0.5 1.0 15 2J)
Centimeters
Q=34,800 cfs

-------
53
-c-
O
o
Is)
tn
w
rj
O

iitomptM
Itiand
Dam
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
1983 Even!
Cohesive Sediments
Mass of PCBs Eroded
1/2 mis
Hat# 6-12
M Umno-Tach, Inc.
500 msiao
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1J2S
Grams per square meter
Q = 34,800 cfs

-------
c
o
Thompwn
Island
Dam
Saook
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1994 Event
Velocity
Plats 6-13
IS Limno-Tach. Inc.
0 1 2 3 4 S
Feet per second
Q- 28,000 cfs

-------
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1994 Event
Shear Stress
1/2 m*e
500 tmteis
Plate 6-14
fQ\ Urn no-Tech, Inc.
0 20 40 60 BO 100
Dynes per square centimeter
Q = 28,000 cfs

-------
EDWARD
s
Snook
T
¦Q
©
Q
to
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1994 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass Eroded
Plate 6-15
limno-Tech, Inc.
1/2 rria
0 5 10 15 20 25
Kilograms per square meter
Q = 28,000 cfs
Xjt
KM
0»

-------

c
n
3
EDWARD

mom won
Island
Dam
Snook
35
D
O
O
N
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1994 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Depth of Scour
Plate 6-16
Qj Umno-Tach, Inc.
1It tnfla
500 matsn
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Centimeters
Q« 28,000 cfs
W
04
0"

-------

r>
D
EDWARD

Shook
TBomDton
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1994 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass of PCBs Eroded
m Plate 6-17
0 Limno-Tech, Inc.
500 matem
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Grams per square meter
Q = 28,000 cfs
U

-------
3
EDWARD
Snook ^J
V.
			
•s
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1992 Event
Velocity
8 Plata 6-18	fCfj Limno-Tach. Inc.
Mkl
0 1 Z 3 4 5
Feet per second
Q-19,000 cfs

-------

c
-J....

D
Shook
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1992 Event
Shear Stress
1/2 mfle
500 meten
7i
TS
a
w
a
w
Plate 6-19
a Llmno-Tech, Inc.
0 a 40 60 80 100
Dynes per square centimeter
Q = 19,000 cfs

-------
c
3

TliomBion
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1992 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass Eroded
Plata 6-20
0 limno-Tech, Inc.
1/2 mis
500 motors
0 5 10 1S 20 25
Kilograms per square meter
Q = 19,000 Cfs

-------
c
S	^ \ EDWARD

iMfnptsn
Island
Dam
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1992 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Depth of Scour
c Plate 6-21
O
K)
0 Limno-Toch. Inc.
500 msteis
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Centimeters
Q« 19,000 cfs

-------
c
X '
I
7
EDWARD

Thompton
Shook
Thompson Island Pool
Spring 1992 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass of PCBs Eroded
Plate 6-22
Qj Limno-Toch, Inc.
1/2 mKe
500 metem
0 0,25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Grams per square meter
G = 19,000 cfs

-------
3
Shook
Tlompion
hand
Thompson Island Pool
1991 Event
Velocity
X
01
-6»
Plata 6-23
m Umno-Tech, Inc.
500 mMwa
0 12 3 4
Feet per second
Q = 8,000 cts

-------

Snook

Thompson Island Pool
1991 Event
Shear Stress
Plate 6-24
0 Umno-Tsch, Inc.
1/2 mie
500 motere
0 20 40 60 80 100
Dynes per square centimeter
Q = 8,000 cfs

-------
r\
'V ¦>
D
(j>

Snook
Thompson Island Pool
1991 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass Eroded
Plats 6-25
Q Umno-Tech, Inc.
1/2 mite
SOO moteis
0 5 10 15 20 25
Kilograms per square meter
Q-8,000 cfs

-------
c
3
FORT
EDWARD
lock
No, 7
Snook
m
m
Thompson Island Pool
1991 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Depth of Scour
Plate 6-26
Q Umno-Tach, Inc.
1® irito
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Centimeters
Q« 8,000 cfs

-------
EDWARD
Snook
Thompson Island Pool
1991 Event
Cohesive Sediments
Mass of PCBs Eroded

O
hi
Plat* 6-27
Q Umno-Tech, inc.
500 IMMIS
0 0-25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Grams per square meter
Q - B.QOO Cts
*
vl

-------
APPENDIX A
FISH PROFILES
CONTENTS
A 1.1 Introduction	A-4
A 1.1.1 Habitats in the Upper Hudson River	A-4
A 1.1.2 Habitats in the Hudson River Estuary	A-6
A 1.2 Largemouth Bass	A-7
A1.2.1 Foraging	A-7
A1.2.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-7
A1.2.3 Reproduction		A-9
A 1.3 White Perch	A-9
A1.3.1 Foraging	A-9
A1.3.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-10
A1.3.3 Reproduction			A-11
A1.4 Yellow Perch	A-12
A1.4.1 Foraging	A-12
A1.4.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-12
A1.4.3 Reproduction	A-13
A 1.5 Brown Bullhead	A-13
A1.5.1 Foraging	A-13
A1.5.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-14
A1.5.3 Reproduction	A-14
A1.6 Pumpkinseed	A-14
A1.6.1 Foraging	A-14
A1.6.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-15
A1.6.3 Reproduction	A-16
A1.7 Spottail Shiner	A-16
A1.7.1 Foraging	A-16
A1.7.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-16
A1.7.3 Reproduction	A-17
A1.8 Striped Bass	A-17
A1.8.1 Foraging	A-17
A1.8.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-18
A1.8.3 Reproduction	A-19
A 1.9 Shortnose Sturgeon	A-19
A1.9.1 Foraging	A-19
A1.9.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River	A-20
A1.9.3 Reproduction			A-21

-------
A 1.10 Composite Forage Fish			A-21
A1.10.1 Potential Forage Fish	A-22
A1.1Q.2 Ranking Forage Fish By Abundance					.A-22
Al.10.3 Calculating Relative Abundance	A-22
A1.10.4 Estimating Feeding Habits of Forage Fish	A-22
A1.10.5 Estimating Composite Fish Feeding Habits				 A-24
A-2

-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE	TITLE
A-1	Distribution of Largemouth Bass by Lock Pool for Upper Hudson
A-2	Preferential Habitats for Largemouth Bass in Upper Hudson
A-3	White Perch Chironomid Identification for the Hudson River
A-4	Distribution of White Perch in the Upper Hudson River
A-5	White Perch Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type
A-6	Distribution of Yellow Perch in the Upper Hudson River
A-7	Yellow Perch Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type
A-8	Distribution of Brown Bullhead in the Upper Hudson River
A-9	Bullhead Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type
A-10	Pumpkinseed Chironomid Identification from Hudson River
A-11	Distribution of Pumpkinseed in the Upper Hudson River
A-12	Pumpkinseed Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type
A-13	Distribution of Spottail Shiner in the Upper Hudson River
A-14	Spottail Shiner Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type
A-15	Estimate of Composite Forage Fish Diet
A-16	Sampling Locations, Composite Forage Fish and Feeding Strategies
A-3

-------
A1. FISH PROFILES
A1.1 Introduction
This section presents the life histories of the fish species selected for closer
study in the Hudson River. Profiles of the species focus on the foraging behavior,
range and movement, and reproduction of the fish species as they relate to PCB
exposures in the Hudson River.
Species of interest include largemouth bass, white perch, yellow perch,
brown bullhead, pumpkinseed, spottail shiner, striped bass, and shortnose
sturgeon. These species represent fish that experience a wide variety of
exposures, including pelagic and demersal feeders, stationary and migratory
species, and various trophic levels.
A1.1.1 Habitats in the Upper Hudson River
Several 1983 reports (MPI, 1984 New York State Barge Canal; Makarewicz,
1983 Champlain Canal fisheries study; Makarewicz, 1987 Hudson River fisheries
study) provided primary information concerning habitat types and relative
abundance in the Upper Hudson River. These reports provided the results of a fish
survey conducted for New York State from the Federal Dam past Thompson Island.
The reports identified nine habitat types in the lock pools, beginning with the
Federal Dam, in the Hudson River:
Stream mouth habitats are adjacent to the outlets of small to large streams
but within the Hudson River itself. They have slow to strong currents, depending
on seasonal flow. Bottom types range from silt in slower zones to sand and gravel
in faster zones. Aquatic macrcphytes are generally absent. The shoreline has a
mixture of tree cover, including willows, aspens, and maples, with numerous areas
of overhang. Depths range from 0.3 to 5 meters.
Main channel habitats are in the designated ship channel of the river. They
have moderate to strong currents depending on the specific lock pool. Aquatic
macrophytes are generally absent. The shoreline has a mixture of trees (willows,
aspens, maples) with areas of overhang. Depths range from 5 to 6 meters.
Shallows are areas adjacent to the main channel, without visible wetland
vegetation. Currents are mostly slow with some moderate to strong areas. Bottom
types range from organic sediment in slower zones to sand, gravel, and cobbles in
the faster zones. Emergent and submergent vegetation line most areas of the
shoreline. The same mixture of trees with areas of overhang plus significant
growth of aquatic macrophytes provide excellent habitat areas for fish species.
Depths range from 0.3 to 2.1 meters.
A-4
HRP

-------
Rapids contain a fast current with numerous zones of white water. The
bottom is covered with cobbles and gravel as a result of scouring action. Outcrops
of bedrock are located adjacent to steep embankment areas. Emergent and
submerged vegetation areas are absent. Depths range from 1.2 to 3.1 meters.
Embayments are coves along the shoreline. Cove water is mostly stagnant
with areas of slight current. The bottom contains mostly organic sediment with
numerous patches of bottom debris such as logs and submerged trees. Large areas
of emergent and submerged vegetation dominate. Substantial growth of water
lilies, water chestnuts, and cattails choke selected areas, particularly in late
summer. Shoreline has a mixture of hardwoods, some partially submerged.
Observed schools of larval fish and adult spawning individuals demonstrate the
importance of the area as a sensitive fish habitat. Depths range from 0.2 to 2.4
meters.
Wetlands are shallow areas with emergent, floating, or submerged
vegetation. Current is slow with selected areas of stagnant water. The bottom
consists of organic sediment and bottom debris. Shoreline is partially flooded with
numerous submerged willows and maples. Cattails dominate emergent vegetation
by forming extensive marsh areas. Like the embayment areas, the wetlands
represent a sensitive fish habitat. Water is shallow with a depth range of 0.3 to 1
meter.
Alternate channels are natural side channels are separated from the main
channel by an island. The current is variable ranging from imperceptible to fast.
The bottom contains organic material with a mixture of sand and gravel. The
slower current areas are dominated by organic sediment. Cattails dominate the
emergent and submerged vegetation. Shorelines contain willows and maples with
areas of overhang. Depths range from 0.3 to 4.3 meters.
Artificial cuts are landcut portions of the canal/river. Currents vary from
slight to moderate. The bottom is mostly organic sediment with bedrock outcrops
along some portions of the shoreline. A sparse growth of emergent vegetation
exists. The shoreline has numerous areas of riprap, sand, and cobbles. A mixture
of hardwoods provides overhang in some areas. Depths range from 0.2 meters in
shore areas to 4.9 meters in midchannel.
Wet dumpsites are areas designated on the NOAA charges or NYSDOT 10-
year management plan as wet dumping grounds. These areas are variable with
respect to physical features and flora. Currents tend to be moderate in summer and
strong in spring. Bottom types range from organic material and gravel to silt in
slower moving zones. Macrophytes are absent from most areas. Water is shallow,
with depths ranging from 0.3 to 3 meters.
The shallow and wetland areas provide ideal fish habitats with slower
currents and an abundance of floral cover.

-------
A1.1.2 Habitats in the Hudson River Estuary
In 1986, NYSDEC conducted a survey of fish and their habitats in the lower
Hudson River Estuary below Federal Dam. The study area consisted of three
reaches encompassing 51 miles:
•	Upper reach: Troy to Coxsackie; River Miles 153-125
•	Middle reach: Coxsackie to Germantown; River Miles 124-107
•	Lower reach: Below Germantown; River Miles 106-102
This study showed the upper reach is narrow with very few tidal flats while
the middle reach is wide and shallow, containing major tributaries, islands, and
numerous tidal flats. The lower reach is characterized by moderate depth and many
tidal flats. A greater proportion of lentic backwaters and tributaries are present in
the lower two reaches. Substrates through the study area consist of fine and silty
sand, with a few areas of bedrock, gravel, and boulder channel markers. Aquatic
vegetation is common in this segment of the estuary, and is mostly restricted to
and abundant in the backwaters, marshes and tributary mouths (Carlson, 1986 Fish
and their habits in). Carlson identified seven distinct habitats:
Vegetated backwaters are shallow side channels or bays with silty bottoms
and abundant vegetation such as milfoil Myriophyllum spp. or wild celery,
Vallisneria americana. Typical areas include Inbocht Bay, Stockport Marsh,
Schodack Creek and east of Green Island.
Major tributaries include the tidal portion of streams with rocky or muddy
substrates and sparse vegetation. Typical areas include Roeliff Jansen Kill,
Stockport Creek, and Island Creek.
Rock piles are the bases of navigation markers constructed of large boulders
positioned near the channel or sometimes in more shallow shoal areas. The
boulders provide shelter in areas exposed to strong currents. Most rock piles are
located downriver of River Mile 149.
Shore areas are generalized shallow areas with gradual slopes, muddy or
rocky substrates, and sparse cover. This category is less specific than others and
often has characteristics common to backwaters and tributaries.
Channel border or shoal areas include areas where the bottom is shallower
than the 32-foot navigation channel but generally deeper than 10 feet. Rooted
vegetation is usually lacking.
Channel areas are within the navigation channel with substrates' of sand,
sand and pebbles, and sand and silt.

-------
Tailwater habitats are areas within 0.4 miles of Federal Dam with substrates
composed mostly of gravel and bedrock. Tidal fluctuations and flows extend to the
base of the dam at all times except during high runoff periods.
A1.2 Largemouth Bass
The largemouth bass, Micropterus sa/moides, is a relatively large, robust fish
that has a tolerance for high temperatures and slight turbidity (Scott and Crossman
1973, Freshwater fishes of Canada). It occupies waters with abundant aquatic
vegetation. Largemouth bass show a low tolerance for low oxygen conditions.
The largemouth bass represents a top predator in the aquatic food web, consuming
primarily fish but also benthic invertebrates.
A1.2.1 Foraging
Young largemouth bass feed on algae, zooplankton, insect larvae, and
microcrustaceans (Boreman, 1981 Life histories of seven fish). Largemouth bass
can grow to 136 grams on a diet consisting of insects and plankton. Larger prey
are needed to continue growth after reaching a total length of 20 mm. Young
largemouth bass compete for food with a variety of other warmwater and bottom-
feeding fishes.
Johnson (1983, Summer diet of juvenile fish) found that the diets of juvenile
fish foraging in the St. Lawrence River varied somewhat by location and length of
the fish. Fish, insects including corixids, and other invertebrates made up the diets
in varying proportions.
Largemouth bass longer that 50 mm total length usually forage exclusively
on fish. Prey species include gizzard shad, carp, bluntnose minnow, silvery
minnow, golden shiner, yellow perch, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth bass, and
silversides turbidity (Scott and Crossman, 1973 Freshwater fishes of Canada).
Cannibalism is more prevalent among largemouth bass than among many species.
Ten percent of the food of largemouth bass 203 mm and longer is made up of their
own fry (Scott and Crossman, 1973 Freshwater fishes of Canada).
Largemouth bass take their food at the surface during morning and evening,
in the water column during the day, and from the bottom at night. They feed by
sight, often in schools, near shore, and almost always close to vegetation. Feeding
is restricted at water temperatures below 10°C and decreases in winter and during
spawning. Largemouth bass do not feed during spawning.
A1.2.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Largemouth bass have distinct home ranges and are generally found between
8 and 9 kilometers of their preferred range (Kramer and Smith, 1960 Utilization of
nests of largemouth). Kramer and Smith found that 96 percent of the fish remained

-------
within 91 meters of their nesting range. Fish and Savitz (1983 Variations in home
ranges of) found that bass in Cedar Lake, Illinois, have home ranges from 1,800 to
20,700 square meters. The average home range was 9,245 square meters and the
average primary occupation area, defined as that area within the home range in
which the fish spends the majority of its time, including foraging, was 6,800
square meters.
Largemouth bass are almost universally associated with soft bottoms,
stumps, and extensive growths of a variety of emergent and submerged vegetation,
particularly water lilies, cattails, and various species of pond weed. It is unusual to
find largemouth bass in rocky areas. Largemouth bass are rarely caught at depths
over 20 feet, although they often move closer to the bottom of the river during the
winter.
Mobility of largemouth bass also varies seasonally. Daily movements
increase with temperature from March through June, but decrease sharply during
the hottest nonths (Mesing and Wicko., 1£86 Home range of Florida largemouth).
Activity during warmer seasons occurs primarily near dawn and dusk, while cool-
water activity is most extensive in the afternoon.
A 1984 Malcolm-Pirnie report prepared for New York State describes the
results of a fish survey taken that same year. The results are reported as number
of fish by habitat type as well as number of fish by lock pool for the upper Hudson
River and associated canals. The numbers shown are not significant in terms of
absolute numbers, but rather provide a qualitative indication as to the relative
distribution of fish within each habitat area and within each lock pool. Largemouth
bass were found in each of the lock pools (see Table A-1).
Largemouth bass were found throughout the Upper Hudson River in
significant numbers. Major concentrations of fish were within areas where
submerged and emergent vegetation, overhang, and bottom debris provided
adequate cover (MPI, 1984 New York State Barge Canal). Largemouth bass were
not found in the main, natural channel of the river nor in the rapids (see Table A-2).
In the Lower Hudson River Estuary, Carlson (1986 Fish and Their Habitats in)
found that largemouth bass preferentially winter in five major areas:
•	Coxsackie Bay (roughly River Mile 130)
•	The mouth of the Catskill Creek (River Mile 115)
•	The mouth of the Esopus Creek (River Mile 103)
•	The mouth of the Rondout Creek (River Mile 92)
•	The mouth of the Wappinger Creek (River Mile 67)
A-8
oo:;

-------
Largemouth bass prefer to establish habitats near dense vegetation not just
during winter, primarily near milfoil Myriophy/lum verticillatum (Carlson, 1992
Importance of wintering refugia to). A study of largemouth bass in two freshwater
lakes in central Florida found a positive correlation between the use of specific
habitats in proportion to the availability of those habitats to the fish (Mesing and
Wicker, 1986 Home Range, Spawning Migrations and). Vegetative habitat covers
included Panicum spp., cattails Typha spp., and water lilies Nuphar spp.
In a 1982 survey of the Lower Hudson River Estuary (Carlson, 1986 Fish and
Their Habitats in), largemouth bass were found to prefer vegetated backwater and
tributary locations, with a few fish caught in rock piles and tailwater.
A1.2.3 Reproduction
Largemouth bass mature at age five and spawn from late spring to mid-
summer, in some cases as late as August. Male largemouth bass construct nests in
sand and/or gravel substrates in areas of nonflowing clear water containing aquatic
vegetation (Nack and Cook, 1986 Characterization <->f spawning and nursery). This
aquatic vegetation generally consists of Wdiei ^nestnut, Trapa natans, milfoil,
Myriophy/lum verticillatum, and water celery, Valisneria americana.
Females produce 2,000 to 7,000 eggs per pound of body weight (Smith,
1985). Females leave the nest after spawning.
A1.3 White Perch
White perch, Morone americana, are resident throughout the Hudson River
Estuary below Federal Dam. They are semi-anadromous and migrate to the lower
lock pools of the Upper Hudson River to spawn. They are one of the most
abundantly collected species in the region and are the dominant predatory fish in
the Lower Hudson River (Bath and O'Connor, 1981 The biology of the white; Wells
et al., 1992 Abundance trends in Hudson River).
A 1.3.1 Foraging
Adult white perch are benthic predators, with older white perch becoming
increasingly piscivorous (Setzler-Hamilton, 1991 White perch habitat requirements
for). Insect larvae and fishes comprise the principal food of white perch, and
dipteran larvae, especially chironomids, represent the most important insect prey.
White perch have two peak feeding periods: midnight and noon. Midnight is the
most important foraging time.
In a study of Hudson River larvae, Hjorth (1988 Feeding selection of larval
striped) found that white perch larvae fed almost exclusively upon
microzooplankton. Adults and copepodids of Eurytemora affinis were the preferred
A-9
HRP
1 Six

-------
food, but when they were not present, white perch larvae consumed rotifers,
cladocerans, and other seasonal zooplankters.
From August through October, young-of-the-year white perch in the Hudson
River feed predominantly on amphipods supplemented by copepods and mysids
(NOAA, 1984 Emergency striped bass study). In a study of white perch taken from
the Hudson River between Haverstraw and Bear Mountain (Bath and O'Connor,
1982 Food of white perch), gammarid amphipods occurred most frequently in the
stomachs of immature and mature white perch. Mature fish ate a higher proportion
of isopods and annelid worms than did immature fish during the spring and
summer. During May and June, mature fish contained between 2 and 8.6 percent
by occurrence, while gammarid amphipods were the predominant food item in July,
64 percent, and November, 75 percent. Insect larvae occurred in fewer than 2
percent of mature fish during May and June, and were not found again during the
remainder of the sampling year. White perch in this oligohaline sector of the river
fed primarily at or near the sediment-wat3r interface. Their preferred prey items
consisted of epibenthic crustaceans and insects.
A small subset of the white perch samples taken as part of the
TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 activities were analyzed for gut contents. A large number
of chironomid were found and identified to evaluate the relative contribution of
sediment and water sources to the diet of white perch resident in the Hudson River.
Table A-3 shows the results of these analyses. Spaces in the table were left blank
when the habitat and association of a prey item were unknown.
Table A-3 shows that white perch in the Hudson River generally consume
chironomid equally associated with both the water column and sediment. Particular
individual fish (i.e., Fish No. 5) appear to feed exclusively on water column sources,
while others (Fish No. 1) show a greater sediment influence. Chironomid represent
a significant proportion of the available benthos in the Hudson River. Based on the
table shown above, it appears white perch consume organisms from both the water
column and benthos in relatively even proportions.
A1.3.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
White perch prefer shallow areas and tributaries, generally staying close to
rooted vegetation. The position of this fish relative to the water surface varies
somewhat based on size (Selzer-Hamilton, 1991). White perch are bottom oriented
fish that accumulate in areas with dissolved oxygen of at least 6 mgL-1 (Selzer-
Hamilton, 1991).
Because white perch make spawning migrations, they are considered
semianadromous. Spawning occurs in the upper reaches of the Lower Hudson
River. Eggs, larvae, and juveniles gradually disperse downstream throughout the
summer. Young-of-the-year white perch often congregate in the Tappan Zee and
A-10
HRP 002 155

-------
Croton-Haverstraw regions, with a smaller peak from Saugerties to Catskill (Lawler,
Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 1992 1990 year class report of).
During the summer, white perch move randomly within the local area. Adult
white perch tend to accumulate at 4.6-6 meters depth during the day and move
back to the surface during the night (Selzer-Hamilton, 1991). White perch spend
the winter in depths of 12-18 meters, but occasionally can be found at depths as
low as 42 meters. Hudson River white perch are acclimated at 27.8°C and avoid
temperatures that are below 9.5°C or above 34.5°C.
White perch prefer shallow and wetland areas to other habitats, but
undertake extensive migrations within the estuary (Carlson, 1986 Fish and Their
Habitats in). White perch were most often found in tributaries, vegetated
backwaters, and shore areas in the Lower Hudson River. Carlson observed the
greatest increase in summertime abundance between River Mile 102 and 131. By
winter, the majority of white perch move downriver, although some overwinter in
the upper estuary in areas over 32 feet deep (Texas Instruments, 1980 1978 year
class report for).
In the Upper Hudson River, white perch were taken in the lower two lock
pools (MPI, 1984).
They were taken primarily in shallow and wetland habitats (see Tables A-4
and A-5).
All ages of white perch are adversely affected by high levels of suspended
solids. Adult white perch can be found in water with pH ranges between 6.0 and
9.0 and avoid areas with moderate turbidity at 45 NTU, although they can be
found in either clear or highly turbid areas (Selzer-Hamilton, 1991).
A1.3.3 Reproduction
Spawning is episodic, usually occurring in a two week period from mid-May
to early June when the water temperatures are between 16° and 20°C. Hudson
River white perch tend to spawn beginning in April when the water temperature
reaches 10° to 12°C, and continue spawning through June. In years when the
water temperature increases gradually, the peak spawning period lasts from four to
six weeks (Klauda et al., 1988 Life history of white perch in).
White perch prefer to spawn in shallow water, such as flats or
embankments, and tidal creeks. They generally spawn over any bottom type (Scott
and Crossman, 1973). Spawning is greatest in the fresh water regions around
Albany, and between. River Mile 86 and 124 (McFadden et al., 1978 Influence of
the proposed Cornwall; Texas Instruments, 19C0).
A-11
HRP

-------
Fecundity of Hudson River white perch age 2 to 7, the maximum age of
white perch in the river, ranges from less than 15,000 to more than 160,000 eggs
per female (Bath and O'Connor, 1981). Mean fecundity in that study was 50,678
eggs per female and was dependent upon size.
A1.4 Yellow Perch
Yellow perch, Perca flavescens, are gregarious fish that travel in schools of
50-200. They feed on bottom organisms and in the water column. Yellow perch
are important freshwater sport fish.
A1.4.1 Foraging
Yellow perch feed actively early in the morning or late in the evening, with
less feeding taking place later in the day. At night the fish are inactive and rest on
the bottom (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Young fish feed primarily upon cladocerans, ostracods, and chironomid larvae
(Smith, 1985). As they grow, they shift to insects. Chabot and Maly (1986
Variation in diet of yellow) found that fish that were one to one and a half years old
preferred large zooplankton species. Larger fish eat crayfish, small fish, and
odonate nymphs (Smith, 1985). Piavis (1991 Yellow perch habitat requirements
for) found that approximately 25 percent of the diet of yearling yellow perch was
made up of other perch. From May through August, chironomids generally
comprise between 30 percent and 60 percent of the diet. Piavis noted that adult
yellow perch forage on midge larvae, anchovies, killifish, silversides, scuds, and
caddsisfly larvae. Adults also forage on pumpkinseed.
A1.4.2 Range, Movement ana Habitat within the Hudson River
Yellow perch are most abundant in waters that are clear and have moderate
vegetation and sand, gravel or mucky bottoms. Abundance decreases with
increases in turbidity or with decreases in abundance of vegetation. Adult perch
prefer slow moving waters near the shore areas where there is moderate cover.
Yellow perch studied in the freshwater Cedar Lake in Illinois stayed within a
5 to 20 kilometer home range (Fish and Savitz, 1983). The fish preferred heavy
and light weeded as well as sandy areas, and were virtually never seen in open
water (see Table A-6).
Yellow perch are found throughout the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984),
particularly near River Mile 1 53 (Federal Dam) and again up near the Thompson'
Island Pool area (see Table A-7).
Yellow perch prefer wetlands, embayments and shallow areas to other
habitats, but can be found in all types of habitats to some degree. They primarily
A-12

-------
inhabit the freshwater portion of the estuary with an apparently even distribution of
early life stage abundance from river mile 77 through 153 (Texas Instruments,
1976 Hudson River ecological study in the; Carlson, 1986).
Yellow perch require a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for all life
stages of 5 mg/L-1. Seasonal lethal dissolved oxygen is 0.2 mg/L-1 in winter and
1.5 mg/L-1 in summer. Yellow perch are poikilothermic, requiring less oxygen in
winter. Suboptimal dissolve oxygen may have acute implications, in that if a
preferred habitat contains less dissolved oxygen than necessary, then fish may
leave the area, subjecting them to predation, or they may experience retarded
growth, impacting survivability (Piavis, 1991).
A1.4.3 Reproduction
Yellow perch are among the earliest spring spawners, with spawning
occurring near vegetated areas and in upstream, tidal tributaries (Carlson, 1986).
In the Chesapeake River, adult yellow perch migrate from downstream stretches of
tidal waters to spawning areas in less saline upper reaches in mid February through
March (Piavis, 1991). Spawning occurs when water temperatures reach 45-52°F
in April and May in New York waters {Smith, 1985). Males arrive at the spawning
ground first. Spawning occurs in 5 to 10 feet of water over sand, rubble, or
vegetation. Eggs are often draped over logs or vegetation.
A1.5 Brown Bullhead
The brown bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus, is a demersal species occurring
near or on the bottom in shallow, warmwater situations with abundant aquatic
vegetation and sand to mud bottoms. Brown bullhead are sometimes found as
deep as 40 feet, and are very tolerant of conditions of temperature, oxygen, and
pollution (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
A1.5.1 Foraging
The brown bullhead feeds on or near the bottom, mainly at night. Adult
brown bullhead are truly omnivorous, consuming offal, waste, molluscs, immature
insects, terrestrial insects, leeches, crustaceans including crayfish and plankton,
worms, algae, plant material, fishes, and fish eggs. Raney and Webster (1940 The
food and growth of) found that young bullheads in Cayuga Lake near Ithaca, New
York fed upon crustaceans, primarily ostracods and cladocerans, and dipterans,
mostly chironomids. For brown bullhead in the Ottawa River, algae have also been
noted as a significant food source (Gunn et al., 1977 Filamentous algae as a food
source for)
A-13
,.jRp

-------
A1.5.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Brown bullhead, a freshwater demersal fish, resides in water conditions that
are shallow, calm and warm. In the summer, bullheads can be found in coves with
ooze bottoms and lush vegetation, especially water clover, spatterdock and several
species of pond weed (Raney, 1967 Some catfish of New York). Carlson (1986)
found that the vegetated backwaters and offshore areas are the most common
habitats for brown bullheads. McBride (1985 Distribution and relative abundance
of) found bullhead abundant in river canal pools (see Table A-8).
Brown bullhead were most frequently taken in wetland and embayment
habitats (MPI, 1984) (see Table A-9).
Brown bullhead prefer wetlands, embayments, and shallow habitats. Carlson
(1986) found bullheads most frequently in backwaters, but also in other, deeper
areas such as the channel border. This species prefers silty bottoms, slow
currents, and deeper waters.
A1.5.3 Reproduction
Brown bullhead reach maturity at two years and spawn for two weeks in the
late spring and early summer. Smith (1985) noted that in New York, brown
bullhead spawn when water temperatures reach 27°C in May and June.
They prefer to spawn among roots of aquatic vegetation, usually near the
protection of a stump, rock or tree, near shores or creek mouths. Males,
sometimes aided by females, build nests under overhangs or obstructions (Smith,
1985). Eggs are guarded.
A 1.6 Pumpkinseed
The pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus, is the most abundant and widespread
fish in New York State (Smith, 1985). In the Hudson River, they feed exclusively
upon epiphytic water column organisms. Pumpkinseed are important forage for
predatory fishes.
A1.6.1 Foraging
Pumpkinseed are diurnal feeders in areas with low light intensity and
migrating to cooler, deeper water at night. They do not feed in winter and only
begin to feed when the water temperature rises above 8.5° C. Pumpkinseed forage
on hard shelled gastropods and are able to exploit food sources not available to
other fish, particularly mollusks (Sadzikowski and Wallace, 1976 A comparison of
food habits of). Food is mainly a variety of insects and, secondarily, other
invertebrates. Small fish or other vertebrates, e.g., larval salamanders, can also
contribute significantly to the pumpkinseed diet (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
A-14
1561

-------
Early juvenile pumpkinseed prefer chironomid larvae, amphipods,
cladocerans, and, to a lesser extent, copepods as food items (Sadzikowski and
Wallace, 1976). Juvenile pumpkinseed in the Connecticut River feed primarily upon
benthic organisms (Domermuth and Reed, 1980 Food of juvenile American shad).
A study conducted in the St. Lawrence River near Massena found that juvenile
pumpkinseed between 77 and 113 mm in length consumed 94 percent chironomids
(Johnson, 1983). Feldman (1992 PCB accumulation in Hudson River pumpkinseed)
found that juvenile pumpkinseed taken from Thompson Island Pool in the Hudson
River consumed zooplankton such as cladocerans, copepods, ostracods,
chironomids and talitrids. Adults consumed mostly gastropods on plants. No
sediment source of food was noted.
Adult pumpkinseed primarily prefer insects and secondarily prefer other
invertebrates. As the fish age and increase in size, other fish and invertebrates
other than insects constitute a larger portion of the diet, up to 50 percent of the
diet.
A small subset of the pumpkinseed samples taken as part of the
TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 activities were analyzed for gut contents. A large number
of chironomid were found and identified to evaluate the relative contribution of
sediment and water sources to the diet of white perch resident in the Hudson River.
Table A-10 shows the results of these analyses.
Spaces in the table were left blank when information on habitat and
association were unknown.
These gut content analyses demonstrate that pumpkinseed in the Hudson
River appear to feed largely upon epiphytic, water column species.
A1.6.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Pumpkinseed are restricted to freshwater and are found in shallow quiet
areas with slow moving water. Pumpkinseed are usually found in clear water with
submerged vegetation, brush or debris as cover. They rely on the littoral zone as a
refuge from predators and for foraging material (Feldman, 1992).
Several investigators have noted the ability of pumpkinseed to return to a
home range, even after significant displacement (Hasler and Wisby, 1958 The
return of displaced largemouth; Fish and Savitz, 1983; Shoemaker, 1952 Fish home
areas of Lake Myosotis; Gerking, 1958 The restricted movements of fish).
Pumpkinseed are found throughout the Upper Hudson River above Federal
Dam (MP!, 1984) (see Table A-11).
They are found primarily in wetland, stream mouth, and embayment habitats
(see Table A-1 2).

-------
A1.6.3 Reproduction
Spawning occurs during early spring and summer although it can extend into
late summer (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Nests are built in water that is 6 to 12
inches deep, forming colonies close to aquatic vegetation and other pumpkinseed
nesting areas. Nesting occurs when the water temperature reaches 60°F and lasts
approximately 11 days. Nesting substrates include sand, sandy clay, mud,
limestone, shells and gravel. Females lay from 600 to 5,000 eggs (Smith, 1985).
Males guard the nest for one week after hatching.
A1.7 Spottail Shiner
The spottail shiner, Notropis hudsonius, consumes plankton, aquatic insects,
and some bottom-dwelling organisms, and is therefore exposed to sediment and
water column. The spottail shiner is consumed by virtually all other fish, including
larger spottail shiners.
A1.7.1 Foraging
Spottail shiners are morphologically suited for bottom foraging in that they
have rounded snouts that hang slightly over their mouths. They do not however
feed exclusively upon benthic organisms. Spottail shiners are considered
omnivorous and opportunistic feeders, feeding upon cladocerans, ostracods, aquatic
and terrestrial insects, spiders, mites, fish eggs and larvae, plant fibers, seeds, and
algae (Texas Instruments, 1980 1978 Year Class Report; Scott and Crossman,
1973 Freshwater Fishes of Canada; Smith, 1987 Trophic Status of the Spottail).
In Lake Nipigon, Ontario (Scott and Crossman, 1973 Freshwater Fishes of
Canada), 40 percent of the diet was made up of Daphnia spp. Other cladocerans
were also present, and aquatic insect larvae, including chironomids and
ephemeropterids, comprised another 40 percent of the spottail shiner diet.
In Lake Michigan, Anderson and Brazo (1978 Abundance, feeding habits and
degree) found that terrestrial dipterians and fish eggs represented the major
components of the spottail shiner's diet in the spring and summer. In the fall,
chironomid larvae and terrestrial insects represent the major diet components.
A1.7.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Spottail shiners prefer clear water and can be found at depths up to 60 feet
(Smith, 1987 Trophic Status of Spottail), but tend to congregate in larger numbers
in shallow areas (Anderson and Brazo, 1978 Abundance, feeding habits and degree)
(see Table A-13).
Spottail shiners in the Upper Hudson River were primarily taken in wet
dumpsite habitat areas (MPI, 1984 New York State Barge Canal) (see Table A-14).
A-1 6

-------
A1.7.3 Reproduction
Spottail shiners spawn in the spring and early summer in habitats with sandy
bottoms and algae (Scott and Crossman, 1973). In New York waters, spawning
usually occurs at the mouths of streams in June or July. Ovarian egg counts range
from 100 to 2,600 eggs per female, depending upon total size (Smith, 1985).
A1.8 Striped Bass
The striped bass, Morone saxati/is, is an anadromous species that enters the
Hudson River to spawn throughout the estuarine portion of the river, but
particularly upstream from the saltfront. While most adults return to the sea after
spawning, some remain within the estuary for a period. Young of the year
gradually move downstream during the summer months and move out of the river
during the winter.
Historically, striped bass were an important Hudson River fisheries species,
but high polychlorinated biphenyl levels closed the fishery in 1976.
A1.8.1 Foraging
Striped bass are voracious, carnivorous fish that feed in groups or schools
and alternate periods of intense feeding activity with periods of digestion (Raney,
1952 The life history of the). Peak foraging time for juveniles is at twilight. Adults
feed throughout the day, but forage most vigorously just after dark and just before
dawn. Adults typically gorge themselves in surface waters, then drop down into
deeper waters to digest their food. Seasonally, adult feeding intensity lessens in
the late spring and summer. Feeding ceases during spawning.
Striped bass feed primarily upon invertebrates when they are young,
consuming larger invertebrates and fish as they grow larger. Post yolk-sac larvae
feed upon zooplankton. Hjorth (1988 Feeding selection of larval striped), in a study
of Hudson River striped bass larvae, found that copepodids and adults of the
calanoid copepod Eurytemora affinis were the most frequently selected prey item.
Hudson River striped bass larvae also fed upon cladocerans, especially Bosmina
spp. Copepods and cladocerans are the most common zooplankters in the Hudson
River during times that striped bass larvae are present (Texas Instruments, 1980
1978 Year Class Report for).
A study by the Hudson River power authorities (Texas Instruments, 1976
Hudson River Ecological Study) found that striped bass up to 75 mm preferred
amphipods Gammarus spp., calanoid copepods, and chironomid larvae. Fish from
76-125 mm preferred Gammarus and calanoid copepods. Those from 126-200 mm
preferred a fish prey Microgadus tomcod.
A-17
HRP
564

-------
Fish are generally considered to make up tho bulk of the diet of adult striped
bass. Researchers commonly find engraulids and clupeids the most the most
common prey (summarized in Setzler et al., 1980 Synopsis of biological data on).
Because striped bass feed in schools, schooling species of fish generally comprise a
large portion of the diet. Striped bass are known to gorge themselves upon
schooling clupeids and engraulids, concentrating their feeding activity upon
whatever species is most abundant. Many other species have also been noted in
striped bass diets, for example, mummichogs, mullet, white perch and tomcod.
Invertebrates also may persist in the diet of adult striped bass. Schaefer (1970
Feeding habits of striped bass) found that in Long Island Sound, fish from 275-399
mm fork length fed primarily (85 percent by volume) upon invertebrates, primarily
the amphipods Gammarus spp. and Haustorius canadensis and the mysid shrimp
Neomysis americana. Fish from 400-599 mm divided their diet between fish (46
percent) (bay anchovy, Atlantic silverside, and scup) and amphiDods. Sixty percent
of the diet of fish from 600-940 mm in length was made up of fish, but even these
larger animals consumed amphipods, mysids, and lady crabs. Schaefer
hypothesized that the continued importance of invertebrates in larger fishes diets
,ay have resulted from turbidity in the su'f zone making it difficult to pursue fast-
swimming fish.
A1.8.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Striped bass are anadromous, spawning in tidal rivers, then migrating to
coastal waters to mature. Abundant data on distribution and abundance of early
life history stages of striped bass are available, because the Hudson River utilities
have conducted annual surveys of the distribution of striped bass in the Hudson
River since 1973. Field sampling has been conducted from New York City, the
George Washington Bridge at River Mile 12, to the Federal Dam. Since 1981 the
sampling programs have been adjusted to emphasize collection of striped bass.
Additionally, the utilities have sponsored mark-recapture studies of striped bass
(e.g., McLaren et al., 1981 Movements of Hudson River striped). These studies
documented movement of the species within and outside the river.
The upstream spring migration of adult striped bass begins in March and
April and ranges up to the Federal Dam. As young striped bass grow during the
summer, they move downstream. Even at the egg stage, striped bass can be found
throughout the Hudson River Estuary, although peak abundances of eggs and larvae
are usually found from the Indian Point to Kingston reaches of the river,
approximately River Miles 43-90 (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 1992 1990
Year class report for). Downstream movement is partially determined by flow rate.
At approximately 13 mm total length, striped bass form schools and move
into shallow waters (Raney, 1952). In the Hudson River, young-of-the-year striped
bass begin to appear in catches during early July. They move shoreward as well as
downstream throughout the summer and are usually found over sandy or gravel
A-18
¦irti-

-------
bottoms (Setzler et al., 1980). The utilities' studies typically find peak catches of
yourig-of-the-year fish at River Mile 35, at the southern end of Croton-Haverstraw
Bay (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly, 1992).
Some young-of-the year fish leave the estuary during the summer and fall
(Dovel, 1992 Movements of immature striped bass). Dovel (1992) summarized
movements of young striped bass within the river based upon studies conducted by
the utilities and others. He found that young striped bass congregate in the vicinity
of the salt front during the winter, although movements in the Lower Hudson River
continue throughout the winter. During the spring, some yearling striped bass
continue to emigrate from the river, while other move upstream. By their second
year, most striped bass have left the river, except for their returns during spawning
migrations.
A1.8.3 Reproduction
In the Hudson River, striped bass spawn above the salt front and potentially
as far upstream as the Federal Dam At River Mile 153. On average, however, they
do not spawn as far upstream as white perch. During periods of low freshwater
flow, striped bass spawn further upstream than in years of high flow. Age at
sexual maturity of striped bass depends upon water temperature (Setzler et al.,
1980). Males mature at approximately two years, and females mature later.
Spawning is triggered by sudden rises in temperature and occurs at or near the
surface. Spawning occurs in brief, explosive episodes. Eggs are broadcast into the
water, where a single female may be surrounded by as many as 50 males.
A1.9 Shortnose Sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, is the smaller of two
sturgeons that occur in the Hudson River. Both the shortnose and Atlantic
sturgeons have been prized for their flesh and their eggs for caviar, but sturgeons
were also purposely destroyed when they became entangled in the shad nets that
were once common on the Hudson River. The shortnose sturgeon has been listed
on the federal endangered species list since 1967. Because it is rare and because
historical data often link it with the Atlantic sturgeon, only limited data are available
to describe its natural history.
A1.9.1 Foraging
No field studies have documented the diets of larval shortnose sturgeon.
Buckley and Kynard (1981 Spawning and rearing of shortnose) observed post yolk-
sac larvae that they had hatched in the laboratory to feed upon zooplankton.
Juvenile shortnose sturgeon feed mostly upon benthic crustaceans and insect
larvae (summarized in Gilbert, 1989 Species profiles: life histories and). Juveniles
of 20-30 cm fork length have been recorded as feeding extensively upon
A-19
HRP 002 lb6

-------
cladocerans. Adult fish feed indiscriminately upon bottom organisms and off
emergent vegetation. Food items of juvenile and adult fish include polychaete
worms, molluscs, crustaceans, aquatic insects, and small bottom-dwelling fishes
(Gilbert, 1989).
Juveniles and adults generally feed by rooting along the bottom, consuming
considerable mud and debris with food items. As much as 85-95 percent of their
stomachs may contain mud and other non-food material. Conversely, shortnose
sturgeon may also feed upon gastropods that live upon vegetation. Shortnose
sturgeon from New Brunswick and South Carolina have been reported as including
almost exclusively gastropods with no non-food matter.
Shortnose sturgeon mostly feed at night or when turbidity is high, when they
move into shallow water to feed. Adults move into areas as shallow as 1-5 m and
forage among the weeds and river banks. Feeding occurs in deeper water during
the summer, possibly in response to water temperature. The relatively little feeding
occurs during the winter aiso occurs in ucjeper waters.
Shortnose sturgeon are not thought to feed in groups or schools. Mark-
recapture data (Dovel et al., 1992 Biology of the shortnose sturgeon) suggest,
however, that fish tend to move as groups. Fish of the same group would
therefore tend to eat in the same general areas.
A1.9.2 Range, Movement and Habitat within the Hudson River
Shortnose sturgeon are found throughout the portion of the Hudson River
below the Federal Dam. They are considered anadromous because they are
sometimes taken by commercial fishermen at sea. However, their movements are
more restricted than Atlantic sturgeon, and most of the Hudson River population
probably does not leave the river. The fish does not require a marine component to
its life cycle: a landlocked population in the Holyoke Pool, part of the Connecticut
River system, persisted from 1848 until a fish ladder was constructed in 1955.
Adult shortnose sturgeon winter in Esopus Meadows, approximately at River
Mile 90 (Dovel et al., 1992 Biology of the shortnose sturgeon), in the Croton-
Haverstraw region, approximately River Mile 35 (Geoghegan et al., 1992
Distribution of the shortnose sturgeon), and possibly in other small areas not yet
identified.
Adult fish migrate upstream to spawn in the upper reaches of the portion of
the Hudson River south of the Federal Dam in spring and then disperse downstream
to feed during the summer. They can be taken throughout the fresh waters of the
tidal portion of the river during the summer months.
The size of the nursery area for shortnose sturgeon larvae and young is
difficult to determine, because few specimens are collected. Based upon the
A-20

-------
utilities' collections of young of the year in Haverstraw Bay, Dovel et al. (1992)
presume that the young fish occupy the same freshwater portion of the estuary as
do the adults of the species.
A1.9.3 Reproduction
Shortnose sturgeons spawn in the upper reaches of the estuarine portion of
the Hudson River, approximately River Miles 130-150. Spawning is limited to the
last two weeks in April and the first two weeks in May. Throughout its range, the
shortnose sturgeon spawns at water temperatures of 9-14°C (summarized in
Crance, 1986 Habitat suitability index models and). Dovel and his co-workers
(1992) found that in 1979 and 1980, spawning in the Hudson River occurred at
water temperatures of 10-18°C.
Age and size of the fish at maturity varies by latitude (Gilbert, 1989). In the
Hudson River, females first spawn at approximately 9-10 years and males at 11-20
years. Spawning does not occur each year and is most likely controlled by
environmental factors rather than by endocrinology.
Shortnose sturgeons produce approximately 40,000-200,000 eggs per
spawning in New York waters.
A 1.10 Composite Forage Fish
The model's forage fish component uses a fish with a composite diet
developed from previously collected field data. Malcolm Pirnie (1984) provides the
abundance by fish species captured by electrofishing and seining in nine reaches of
the Hudson River from the Troy Dam to Lock Six. The typical composite forage
fish was estimated by:
•	developing a list of potential forage fish species for the Hudson River
from Troy Dam to Lock 7;
•	ranking the species by abundance;
•	calculating the relative abundance of each species to the total forage
fish abundance in the summed catch;
•	estimating the feeding habits of each species as percentage time that
the species probably feeds off the bottom or from epiphytic plants;
•	summing the products of individual relative abundance and fraction of
a composite forage fish diet from the bottom to obtain the composite
diet from the bottom.
A-21
HRP
002
1 fiAf-

-------
A1.10.1 Potential Forage Fish
The fish listed in Malcolm Pirnie (1984) as shown in Table A-15 represent
the fish community in the reach of the Hudson between Troy Dam and Lock 7. This
list does not include migratory forage fish such as blueback herring or gizzard shad
because their exposure to local conditions is transient.
Note that the migratory fish may provide a significant, but unspecified
fraction of a piscivorous fish's diet. The model does not account for this as a
source of total PCB or PCB congeners. The effect of migratory fish as forage fish
introduces an unquantified source of uncertainty into the predictions of total PCB
and PCB congener body burdens.
A1.10.2 Ranking Forage Fish By Abundance
The abundance of each species among the nine river sections from the Troy
Dam to Lock 7 were summed and ranked by abundance. The assumption is that
those fish most vulnerable to capture by seining and electroshocking are the most
likely prey of higher order piscivores.
A1.10.3 Calculating Relative Abundance
We calculated relative abundance of each ranked species of forage fish as:
RE = IA/T	(A-1)
where:
RE = relative abundance
IA = abundance of an individual species caught between Troy Dam
and Lock 7;
T = total forage fish catch between Troy Dam and Lock 7.
A1.10.4 Estimating Feeding Habits of Forage Fish
It is assumed that forage fish have two possible feeding habits: sediment
feeding and feeding off epiphytic invertebrates on submerged aquatic vegetation.
For forage fish with a relative abundance greater than 2%, literature reviews and
site specific data collected during the current measurement program were used to
estimate feeding habits. For the remaining fish in Table A-15, it was assumed that
their feeding habits were similar to the most closely related species among the
more abundant.
It was assumed that the epiphytic invertebrate diet represents a surface
water exposure route.
A-22
HRP
>02

-------
The forage fish, with a relative abundance greater than 2% include:
pumpkinseed, rockbass, bluegill, redbreast sunfish, common shiner, spotfin shiner,
and spottait shiner.
Pumpkinseed: Smith (1985) describes pumpkinseed as an opportunistic
feeder on many kinds of insects, amphipods, mollusks, larval salamanders, and
small fish. Scott and Crossman (1973) describe food taken in descending order as:
dragonfly nymphs, ants, larval salamanders, amphipods, mayfly nymphs, midge
larvae, roundworms, snails, water boatman, and other insect larvae. Food is taken
off the bottom, at the surface and in the water column.
The examination of selected fish stomach contents from the Phase II dataset
as described above (see Section A1.6.1) indicate that pumpkinseeds in the 2.9 to
4.6 cm size range fed primarily on chironomids. The species of chironomids in the
stomach contents were those that live on aquatic plants. Pumpkinseed were
estimated to feed 20 percent of the time on the bottom and 80 percent of the time
from the water column, based on the above.
Rockbass: Smith (1985) describes rockbass as feeding mostly on the
bottom, but may also take food from the surface or water column. They feed on
copepods, cladocerans, and insects. Scott and Crossman (1973) indicated that the
food of small rockbass (under 7 cm) in one lake to include: chironomids (in 50
percent of stomachs), Ephemeroptera (in 35 percent of stomachs), Odonata (in 30
percent of stomachs), Cladocera (in 40 percent of stomachs), Amphipoda (in 30
percent of stomachs), Isopoda (in 15 percent of stomachs), surface insects (in 30
percent of stomachs). Most of these organisms are bottom dwellers. We estimate
rockbass to be feeding from the bottom approximately 90 percent of the time.
Bluegill: Smith (1989) describes bluegills as feeding throughout the water
column on a wide variety of organisms including plant material. Scott and
Crossman (1973) describe the diet of bluegill as generalized, and feeding off the
bottom, in the water and at the surface. In one lake the major foods, based on
food volume, were: chironomid larvae (in 50 percent of stomachs), Cladocera (in 30
percent of stomachs), amphipods and isopods (in 10 percent of stomachs), flying
insects (in 35 percent of stomachs), Odonata nymphs (in 20 percent of stomachs),
ephemeroptera nymphs (in 10 percent of stomachs), Trichoptera larvae (in 15
percent of stomachs), fish fry (in 10 percent of stomachs) and molluscs (in 15
percent of stomachs). Bluegills probably feed 50 percent of the time on the bottom
and 50 percent of the time from the water column, based on the above.
Redbreast Sunfish: Smith (1973) indicates that redbreast sunfish feed on
plankton and a variety of aquatic insects. Scott and Crossman describe the diet as
immature aquatic insects. Adult insects, molluscs, and other bottom invertebrates
make up a minor part of the diet. It was estimated that redbreast sunfish feed 50
A-23

-------
percent from the sediments and 50 percent from the water column based on this
information.
Common Shiner: Smith describes the common shiner as feeding usually near
the surface, but will also feed off the bottom. Insects and insect larvae are the
dominant food. Scott and Crossman also describe it as mostly insectivorous. It
was estimated that the spotfin is a 75 percent surface feeder and 25 percent
bottom feeder.
Spottail Shiner: Smith describes the diet of spottail shiner to include
zooplankton, insect larvae, and algae. The undershot mouth of the spottail shiner
suggests that it is a benthic feeder. Scott and Crossman indicate that the spottail
may be a plankton feeder because Daphnia forms 40 percent of its diet. They also
feed on insect larvae and filamentous algae. We estimate that this species is 50
percent a surface water feeder and 50 percent a bottom feeder.
A1.10.5 Estimating Composite Fish Feeding Habits
The relative abundance and feeding habits of individual forage fish were used
to estimate the fraction of a composite forage fish diet from the bottom and from
epiphytic plants as:
Bf = Ft * Fb	(A-2)
Sf = 1-Bf	(A-3)
where:
Bf = fraction of a composite fish diet from the bottom.
Ft = the relative abundance of each species to the total forage fish
abundance in the catch
Fb = fraction of diet the forage species probably feeds off the
bottom
Sf = fraction of composite forage fish diet from surface.
To further refine the analysis, the TAMS/Gradient Phase 2 dataset was
evaluated to determine the data available for fish less than 10 cm in length, likely to
be consumed as forage fish. The data indicated that tesselated darters, spottail
shiners, cyprinid species, sucker species, and young-of-year largemouth bass
provided the best dataset. Young-of-year largemouth bass were assumed to be
biologically similar to pumpkinseed. Table A-16 shows the results of the feeding
analyses when combined with the Phase 2 dataset to derive feeding patterns
appropriate for the particular species. This table also shows the composition of
A-24

-------
forage fish data and the feeding proportions assumed for each station in model
calibration.
The data show that forage fish body diet is primarily from water column
organisms (67 percent) when averaged over the entire Hudson River. The remaining
33 percent of diet is from sediment dwelling organisms. The model assumes that a
forage fish at any given location is best represented by a prototypical forage fish
constructed in the manner described above. These forage fish consume 67 percent
water column invertebrates and 33 percent benthic invertebrates.
The PCB body burdens for forage fish were estimated using this 67 percent
to 33 percent distribution of food sources in the diet. The result of this estimate is
the expected concentration in the diet of forage fish. To derive bioaccumulation
factors between forage fish and their diet, individual forage fish concentrations
were divided by the average (geometric mean) concentrations in the diet for a given
model segment.
The uncertainty in estimating water column invertebrate concentrations is
reflected in the BAF between forage fish anu	sources. Theoretically, the
relationship between forage fish body burdens and dietary sources of PCBs should
be consistent regardless of location. Biologically, this is probably true, but given
the uncertainty inherent in the data representing the critical step between water
column concentrations and water column invertebrates, it is possible that the
derived BAFs are artifacts of the model. In other words, model application can only
confidently be accomplished through a greater understanding of the water column
invertebrate box, which impacts all subsequent compartments.
The weighted average composite forage fish diet is 33 percent benthic
invertebrates and 67 percent water column invertebrates. The spottail shiner diet is
50 percent from each compartment. Each fish species can be analyzed separately
within the model.

-------
Table A-1
Distribution of Largemouth Bass by Lock Pool for Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
iDamto
Lockl to
Lock2 to
Lock3 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock4to
LockS to
Lock6 to
iLockl
Lock2
Lock3
Lock4
Lock5dnst
Lock5
LockSupstrm
Lock6
Lock?
|



rm
middle



I 17
5
24
3
41
11
15
15
« 1
Table A-2
Preferential Habitats for Largemouth Bass in Upper Hudson (MPI, 1984)
1 artificial cut
shallow
wetland
stream
mouth
wet
dumpsite
alt. channel
embay-ment
I 12
14
34
28
13
4
37

-------
Table A-3
White Perch Chironomid Identification for the Hudson River
Taxon
Number
Habitat
Association
Fish No. 1



Ablabesmyia simpsoni
4
sprawler
epiphytic
Coelotanypus
1
burrower
sediment
Procladius (Holotanypus)
9
burrower
sediment
Cryptochironomus
1
sprawler & burrower
both
Cryptotendipes
86
burrower
sediment
Paralauterborniella
1
dinger
epiphytic
Potypedilum illinoense grp.
1
dinger
epiphytic
Tanytarsus
11
burrower
sediment
Fish No. 2



Potypedilum illinoense grp.
13
sprawler
epiphytic
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
9
sprawler
epiphytic
Fish No. 3



Ablabesmyia simpsoni
8
sprawler
epiphytic
Procladius (H.) sp.
5
burrower
sediment
Procladius (Ps.) bellus
1
burrower
sediment
Chironomus
5
burrower
sediment
Cryptochironomus
1
sprawler & burrower
both
Cryptotendipes
48
burrower
sediment
Harnischia
2
dinger
epiphytic
Potypedilum halterale grp.
1
sprawler
epiphytic
P. illinoense grp.
1
sprawler
epiphytic
Paralauterborniella
4
dingers
epiphytic
Tanytarsus
2
burrower
sediment
Pupa
2


Copepoda



Fish No. 4



Meropelopia
1


Dicrotendipes neomodestus
4
sprawler
epiphytic
Gtyptotendipes
1
dingers
epiphytic
Potypedilum illinoense
6
sprawler
epiphytic
Fish No. 5



Cricotopus bicinctus grp.
1
dinger
epiphytic
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
15
sprawler
epiphytic
Potypedilum illinoense
37
sprawler
epiphytic
P. scalaenum
1
dinger
epiphytic
Sources for chironomid identification: Merritt and Cummins, 1978 An Introduction to the; Menzie 1980, The
Chironomid (Insecta:Diptera) and; Simpson and Bode, 1980 Common Larvae of Chironomidae (Diptera).

-------
Table A-4
Distribution of White Perch in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
| Dam to
Lockl to
Lock2 to
Lock3 to
Lock4 to
Lock4to
Lock4 to
Lock5 to
Lock6 to
I Lockl
Lock2
Lock3
Lock4
Lock5dnst
Lock5
Lock5upstrm
Lock6
Lock7
|



rm
middle



I 44
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Table A-5
White Perch Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type (MPI, 1984)
artificial cut
shallow
wetland
stream
wet
alt. channel
rapids 1



mouth
dumpsite

|
6
24
13
8
4
6
2
Table A-6
Distribution of Yellow Perch in the Upper Hudson River {MPI, 1984)
I Dam to
Lockl to
Lock2 to
Lock3 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock5 to
Lock6 to Lock?
| Lockl
Lock2
Lock3
Lock4
Lock5dnst
Lock5
Lock5upstrm
Lock6

|



rm
middle



1 23
1
12
12
6
8
20
36
24 |
Table A-7
Yellow Perch Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type (MPI, 1984)
artificial cut
shallow
wetland
stream
mouth
wet
dumpsite
alt. channel
embay-ment
15
20
46
17
13
14
37 I
Table A-8
Distribution of Brown Bullhead in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
J Dam to
Lockl to
Lock2 to
Lock3 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock5 to
Lock6 to |
I Lockl
Lock2
Lock3
Lock4
Lock5dnst
Lock5
Lock5upstrm
Lock6
Lock? |
|



rm
middle


9
I 6
1
24
14
27
8
6
3
8 ||

-------
Table A-9
Bullhead Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type (MPi, 1984)
artificial cut
shallow
wetland
stream
mouth
wet
dumpsite
alt. channel
embay-ment |
0
5
43
10
5
13
30 I
Table A-10
Pumpkinseed Chironomid Identification from Hudson River
Taxon
Number
Habitat
Association
Fish No. 1



Crictopus bicinctus grp.
1


C. sylvestris grp.
1


Psectrocladius
3


Synorthocladius
1


Dicrotendipes nemodestus
3
sprawler
epiphytic
Polypedilum convictum grp.
3
sprawler
epiphytic
P. illinoense grp.
8
sprawler
epiphytic
Rheotanytarsus
3
sprawler
epiphytic
Fish No. 2



Cricotopus sylvestris grp.
1
sprawler, burrower
both
Psectrocladius
1
sprawler
epiphytic
Polypedilum convictum grp.
1
sprawler
epiphytic
P. illinoense grp.

sprawler
epiphytic
Paratanytarsus
1
sprawler
epiphytic
Rheotanytarsus

sprawler
epiphytic
Chironomidae pupae
1


Lepidoptera larvae
1


Fish No. 3



Ablabsesmyia simpsoni
1
sprawler
epiphytic
Cricotopus sylvestris grp.

sprawler, burrower
both
Psectrocladius
1
sprawler
epiphytic
Thienemanniella
1
dinger
epiphytic
Polypedilum convictum grp
3
sprawler
epiphytic
Polypedilum illinoense grp.
25
sprawler
epiphytic
Rheotanytarsus
1
clinger
epiphytic
Sources for chironomid identification: Merritt and Cummins, 1978 An Introduction to the; Menzie 1980, The
Chironomid (Insecta:Diptera) and; Simpson and Bode, 1980 Common Larvae of Chironomidae (Diptera).

-------
Table A-11
Distribution of Pumpkinseed in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
| Dam to
Lockl to
Lock2 to
Lock3 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock5 to
Lock6 to |
[Lockl
Lock2
Lock3
Lock4
Lock5dnst
LockS
Lock5upstrm
Lock6
Lock7 |
|



rm
middle


|
I 98
12
123
67
164
33
46
157
96 |
Table A-12
Pumpkinseed Distribution in the Upper Hudson by Habitat Type (MPI, 1984)
1 artificial cut
shallow
wetland
stream
mouth
wet
dumpsite
alt. channel
embay-ment
35
82
234
210
50
35
182
Table A-13
Distribution of Spottail Shiner in the Upper Hudson River (MPI, 1984)
[Dam to
Lockl to
Lock2 to
Lock3 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
Lock4 to
LockS to
Lock6 to 1
| Lockl
Lock2
Lock3
Lock4
LockSdnst
Lock5
Lock5upstrm
Lock6
Lock7
|



m
middle



I 26
3
27
1
13
22
7
36
36
Table A-14
Spottail Shiner Distribution in the Upper Hudson by
Habitat Type (MPI, 1984)
artificial cut
shallow
wetland
stream
mouth
wet
dumpsite
alt. channel
embay-ment
1 3
9
32
2
68
35
4

-------


Table A-15




Estimate of Composite Forage Fish Diet





Fraction
Fraction
Hypothetical Fish

Catch Between Troy
Epiphyte
Sediment
Epiphyte
Sediment
Species
Dam and Lock 7
Diet
Diet
Diet
Diet
Pumpkinseed
796
53.35%
0.8
0.2
0.4268
0.1067
Spottail Shiner
171
11.46%
0.5
0.5
0.0573
0.0573
Bluegill
149
9.99%
0.5
0.5
0.0499
0.0499
Rockbass
87
5.83%
0.1
0.9
0.0058
0.0525
Spotfin Shiner
52
3.49%
0.75
0.25
0.0261
0.0087
Redbreast Sun fish
43
2.88%
0.5
0.5
0.0144
0.0144
Common Shiner
33
2.21%
0.75
0.25
0.0166
0.0055
Emerald Shiner
24
1.61%
0.75
0.25
0.0121
0.0040
Bluntnose Minnow
22
1.47%
0.5
0.5
0.0074
0.0074
White Crappie
20
1.34%
0.5
0.5
0.0067
0.0067
Black Crappie
13
0.87%
0.75
0.25
0.0065
0.0022
Steel Color Shiner
13
0.87%
0.75
0.25
0.0065
0.0022
Satinfm Shiner
12
0.80%
0.75
0.25
0.0060
0.0020
Johnny Darter
10
0.67%
0.5
0.5
0.0034
0.0034
Bigmouth Shiner
7
0.47%
0.75
0.25
0.0035
0.0012
Mimic Shiner
7
0.47%
0.75
0.25
0.0035
0.0012
Silvery Minnow
7
0.47%
0.5
0.5
0.0023
0.0023
Comely Shiner
5
0.34%
0.75
0.25
0.0025
0.0008
Pug nose Shiner
4
0.27%
0.75
0.25
0.0020
0.0007
Rosyface Shiner
4
0.27%
0.75
0.25
0.0020
0.0007
Bridle Shiner
3
0.20%
0.75
0.25
0.0015
0.0005
Eastern Banded Killifish
2
0.13%
0.75
0.25
0.0010
0.0003
Fall Fish
2
0.13%
0.75
0.25
0.0010
0.0003
Blackchin Shiner
1
0.07%
0.75
0.25
0.0005
0.0002
Central Mudminnow
1
0.07%
0.5
0.5
0.0003
0.0003
Creek Chub
1
0.07%
0.5
0.5
0.0003
0.0003
Fathead Minnow
1
0.07%
0.5
0.5
0.0003
0.0003
Log perch
1
0.07%
0.75
0.25
0.0005
0.0002
Troutperch
1
0.07%
0.75
0.25
0.0005
0.6676
0.0002
0.3324
Total Fish
1492








Fraction
Fraction
Hypothetical Fish

Catch Between Troy
Epiphyte
Sediment
Epiphyte
Sediment
Species
Dam and
_ock7
Diet
Diet
Diet
Diet
Pumpkinseed
796
69.95%
0.8
0.2
0.5596
0.1399
Spottail Shiner
171
15.03%
0.5
0.5
00751
0.0751
Rockbass
87
7.64%
0.1
0.9
0.0076
0.0688
Redbreast Sunfish
43
3.78%
0.5
0.5
0.0189
0.0189
Bluntnose Minnow
22
1.93%
0.75
0.25
0.0145
0.0048
Johnny Darter
10
0.88%
0.75
0.25
0.0066
0.0022
Silvery Minnow
7
0.62%
0.75
0.25
0.0046
0.0015
Central Mudminnow
1
0.09%
0.75
0.25
0.0007
0.0002
Fathead Minnow
1
0.09%
0.75
0.25
0.0007
0.0002





0.6883
0.3117
Total Fish
1138





Page 1 of 1
HRP 002 1
Source: Malcolm-Pirnie, 1984

-------
Table A-16
Sampling Locations, Composite Forage Fish and Feeding Strategies

Water



Ecological Phase
Column

Sediment
Epiphytic
II Station
Sampling
Forage Fish (<10 cm)
Feeding
Feeding
Location
Station
Species Represented
Sources
Sources
1

CYPD, LMB, RBRS, TESS


2
0004
CYPD, LMB, SPOT, TESS
69%
31%
3
0010
SPOT
50%
50%
4
0005
LMB, RBRS, SPOT, TESS
69%
31%
5
0005



6
0005



7
0005



8
0012
LMB, SPOT
69%
31%
9
0008
SPOT
50%
50%
10

SPOT


11

SPOT


12
0015
SPOT
50%
50%
13

SPOT


14

SPOT


15

SPOT, LMB


16

SPOT


20
0002
CYPD, SKSP, TESS
69%
31%
Notes:
LMB = juvenile Largemouth Bass
CYPD = Cyprinid Species
TESS = Tesselated Darter
SPOT = Spottail Shiner
SKSP = Sucker Species
Prepared by KvS 7 Dec 94 modetcb.xls
HiRP
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database

-------
APPENDIX B
MATHEMATICAL MODELING
OF PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT FOR
HUDSON RIVER PCB REASSESSMENT RI/FS
TECHNICAL SCOPE OF WORK
Prepared for:
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Bloomfield, New Jersey
Prepared by:
Limno-Tech, Inc.
and
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.
and
The CADMUS Group, Inc.
October 1996

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.	UMNO-TECH, INC	1
BACKGROUND	1
OBJECTIVES			1
PROGRESS TO DATE	1
REVISED TASKS	2
TASK 9 - Baseline Modeling	2
Sub task 9-A: Upper Hudson River Modeling.	2
Subtask 9-B: Lower Hudson River Modeling.	4
Sub task 9-C: Thompson Island Pool Modeling.	5
Subtask 9-D: Ecological Data Tabulation, Statistics and Modeling.	6
Subtask 9-E: Combined Geochemical and Ecological Data Interpretation and Modeling.	6
Subtask 9-F: Assemble, Review, and Finalize the Document.	7
Subtask 9-G: Prepare the Review Copy.	7
2.	MENZIE-CURA & ASSOCIATES, INC	8
BACKGROUND	8
OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS	8
TASKS			9
Task l: Planning and Coordination	9
Task 2: Progress Meetings	9
Task 3: Public Meetings	9
Task 4: Ecological Data Tabulation, Statistics, and Modeling	9
Subtask 4.1: Correlation of fish PCB burdens to environmental concentrations in both sediment and
water via a bivariate BAF approach	9
Subtask 4.2: Development of probabilistic bioaccumulation models	9
Subtask 4.3: Evaluation of models through yearly hindcasting.	II
Task 5: Combined Data Interpretation and Modeling	12
Subtask 5.1: Coordination of Task 4 with Task 5 modeling efforts of Limno-Tech	12
Subtask 5.2: Estimate body burdens of PCBs under No Action, major flood, and various remedial scenarios.	12
Task 6: Preparation of Draft Phase 2 report	12
Task 7: Preparation of Final Phase 2 Report	12
Task 8: Preparation of Draft Feasibility Study Report	13
Task 9: Preparation of Final Feasibility Study Report	13
Task 10: Responsiveness Summary	13
3.	THE CADMUS GROUP, INC	14
BACKGROUND	14
TASK 9	14
Subtask 9-D: Ecological Data Tabulation, Statistics and Modeling.	14
Subtask 9-E: Combined Geochemical and Ecological Data Interpretation and Modeling.	15
Subtask 9-F: Assembly, Internal Review and Finalization of the Document	15
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page ii

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
1. LIMNO-TECH, INC.
BACKGROUND
In December 1989 U.S. EPA decided to reassess the No Action decision for Hudson River
sediments. This reassessment consists of three phases: Interim Characterization and Evaluation
(Phase 1); Further Site Characterization and Analysis (Phase 2); and Feasibility Study (Phase 3).
Limno-Tech, Inc. (LTI) was selected by TAMS to provide services for mathematical modeling
activities identified in the Phase 2 Work Plan.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the original LTI Technical Scope of Work (March 25, 1993) were the following:
1.	Develop and apply a predictive model for PCB levels in water and sediments over long-term
(decadal), quasi-steady state conditions in the Upper Hudson River.
2.	Evaluate the impacts of PCB loadings from the Upper Hudson River on fish body burdens in
he freshwater portion of the Lower Hudson Ri\ er.
3.	Evaluate the potential for resuspension of contaminated sediments from the Thompson Island
Pool (Upper Hudson River) in response to flood events, and evaluate potential downstream
impacts in terms of PCB levels in water and sediments.
4.	Evaluate and apply quantitative relationships between PCB water and sediment concentrations
and fish body burdens in the Upper and Lower Hudson River.
5.	Apply the Hudson River PCB models to predict river response to select remedial alternatives in
terms of resulting PCB levels in sediment, water and fish.
PROGRESS TO DATE
During the first part of the project, LTI developed mass balance models for PCB transport and fate
in the Upper Hudson River water column and sediments, and applied a previously-developed
model for PCB transport and fate in the Lower Hudson River which also included bioaccumulation
in striped bass. The Cadmus Group, Inc. (CADMUS) developed statistical models relating PCB
concentrations in water and sediments to fish body burdens in the Upper and Lower Hudson
Rivers. CADMUS also conducted several important data analysis activities including kriging of
sediment PCB data, estimation of long-term flows and loadings to the Upper Hudson River,
determination of PCB phase partitioning relationships and investigation of relationships among
congener groups, total PCBs and Aroclors. Finally, Menzie-Cura & Associates (MCA) developed
a probabilistic bioaccumulation model to describe exposure-body burden relationships in fish using
a mechanistic approach.
HRP 002
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 1

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
REVISED TASKS
The following revised tasks are necessary towards completion of the original project objectives on
this Hudson River PCB Reassessment RI/FS. The structure of these tasks follows the format of the
Hudson River PCB Reassessment RI/FS project tasks developed by TAMS.
TASK 9 - Baseline Modeling
Subtask 9-A: Upper Hudson River Modeling.
Subtask 9-A. 1:	Calibration of revised HUDTOX model to Spring 1994 high-flow surveys.
The purpose of this task is to reduce uncertainties in specification of model parameters for gross
solids settling and resuspension velocities. As part of Subtask C.3 the spatial segmentation grid for
HUDTOX will be revised to better represent horizontal differences in sediment physical-chemical
properties in TIP. The revised model will then be calibrated to daily suspended solids data for
April 1994, the peak flow period for the year. The maximum flow during this month corresponded
to approximately a 5-year flood and represents the most useful solids data available for wet weather
resuspension calibration.
This task will also include an assessment of all available flow and suspended solids concentration
data for the Upper Hudson River from 1973 to the present. The purpose of this assessment will be
to develop site-specific, empirical relationships that can be used to help parameterize gross settling
and resuspension velocities as functions of flow. In addition, available sediment data for TIP will
be used to help parameterize resuspension velocities as functions of segment-specific, physical-
chemical properties. These data will include side-scan sonar, confirmatory measurements of
particle sizes and sediment types, and data from the Phase 2 low-resolution coring effort.
To ensure cost-effective conduct of this task, required data sets must be delivered to LTI in
complete, validated and final form before work can be initiated.
Subtask 9-A. 2:	Calibration of revised HUDTOX model using Phase 2 low-resolution
sediment coring data.
The purpose of this task is to reduce uncertainty in the existing HUDTOX model calibration which
was conducted using unvalidated Phase 2 monitoring data, and which did not include results from
the Phase 2 low-resolution sediment coring effort. The time period for this application will be
January 1 to September 30, 1993. The scientific credibility of the HUDTOX calibration will be
improved for three principal reasons: (1) the revised spatial segmentation grid in TIP (Subtask C.3)
will better represent horizontal differences in sediment-water interactions in TIP; (2) calibration of
the revised HUDTOX model to daily suspended solids data for April 1994 (Subtask A.l) will
reduce uncertainties in solids settling and resuspension velocities; and (3) the low-resolution
sediment coring data will allow more accurate specification of sediment PCB initial concentrations
than the 1991 GE sediment data used in the existing HUDTOX model calibration.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 2

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
The HUDTOX model calibration will be conducted for total PCBs and three PCB congeners.
Calibration of HUDTOX to three PCB congeners, which cover a range of sorption properties, is
sufficient to demonstrate the ability of the model to simulate most, if not all, PCB congeners.
However, the HUDTOX model applications described in Subtask 9-A will be conducted for total
PCBs, three PCB congeners and up to two other indicators represented as specific PCB congeners,
homologues, or Aroclor mixtures.
To ensure cost-effective conduct of this task, required data sets must be delivered to LTI in
complete, validated and final form before work can be initiated.
Subtask 9-A. 3:	Sensitivity analyses with revised HUDTOX model.
This Subtask will include model sensitivity evaluations similar to those analyses presented in the
Draft Copy of the Phase 2 Preliminary Model Calibration Report.. The purpose of this task is to
gain a better quantitative understanding of PCB dynamics in the Upper Hudson River and to
strengthen the scientific credibility of the overall model calibration. Model parameters to be
evaluated using sensitivity analysis will include external solids and PCB loadings, sediment PCB
initial concentrations, solids settling and resuspension velocities, PCB partitioning, PCB pore water
concentrations, sediment-water diffusion rates and assumed pore water advection.
Subtask 9-A. 4:	Long-term hindcasting calibration of revised HUDTOX model for
total PCBs.
The purpose of this task is to reduce prediction uncertainty by ensuring that model output for water
column and sediment PCB concentrations are consistent with observed changes over a decadal time
scale (1984-1993) in the Upper Hudson River. Two principal data tasks must be conducted before
this long-term hindcasting calibration: (1) assessment of available data for different PCB forms and
selection of the most appropriate state variable for a long-term mass balance; and (2) determination
of monthly external loadings for water, solids and the chosen PCB state variable, especially at Fort
Edward. It is proposed that TAMS and/or CADMUS conduct these data synthesis tasks.
To ensure cost-effective conduct of th:s task, required data sets must be delivered to LTI in
complete, validated and final form before work can be initiated.
Subtask 9-A. 5:	Use of calibrated HUDTOX model to estimate impacts of No Action
and major floods.
The calibrated, revised version of HUDTOX will be used to simulate impacts due to No Action and
major flood scenarios. For the No Action scenario, HUDTOX will be run for a decadal-scale
simulation period sufficiently long to establish quasi-steady state conditions. Design specifications
for this scenario must be determined jointly among EPA, TAMS/Gradient, LTI, CADMUS and
MCA. In particular, long-term time series must be constructed for hydraulic flows and external
loadings of solids and PCBs. PCB water column and sediment concentrations from this No Action
simulation will be delivered to CADMUS and MCA for use in their fish body burden models.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page J

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
Major flood scenarios will include hydrographs corresponding to the high flow events during April
1993, April 1994 and a computed 100-year flood. For each of these flood scenarios, HUDTOX
will be run for a seasonal-scale simulation period sufficiently long to estimate perturbations in pre-
event PCB water column and sediment concentrations. PCB water column and sediment
concentrations from these flood scenarios will be delivered to CADMUS and MCA for use in their
fish body burden models.
Subtask 9-A. 6:	Linkage of revised HUDTOX model with Thomann model.
To investigate potential downstream impacts in the freshwater portion of the Lower Hudson River,
exposure outputs from HUDTOX must be linked as exposure inputs to the Thomann model for the
Lower Hudson River. Exposure outputs from HUDTOX are in the form of total PCBs and three to
five individual congeners or co-eluting congener groups. The PCB state variables in the Thomann
model are in the form of PCB homologs. In order to link these two models, output from HUDTOX
must be converted from total PCBs and/or PCB congeners to PCB homologs at Federal Dam. It is
proposed that TAMS process HUDTOX model output at this location and conduct appropriate PCB
conversions to satisfy the input requirements of the Thomann model.
Subtask 9-B: Lower Hudson River Modeling.
Subtask 9-B.l:	Estimation of downstream impacts of No Action and major floods.
The purpose of this task is twofold: (1) estimate the relative contribution of PCB loadings at
Federal Dam to PCB water column and sediment concentrations in the freshwater portion of the
Lower Hudson River; and (2) estimate impacts on striped bass populations using the food chain
component of the model. These estimates will be developed for the base calibration period, and for
the No Action and major flood scenarios described in Subtask 9-A.5.
Subtask 9-B. 2:	Delivery of PCB water column and sediment exposure fields to
CADMUS and MCA.
The CADMUS and MCA fish body burden models must be linked with PCB concentrations in the
water column and sediment. LTI will deliver model outputs for these PCB exposures in the
freshwater portion of the Lower Hudson River to CADMUS and MCA. These PCB exposures will
be in the form of daily, weekly or monthly average concentrations for each of the water column and
sediment segments. PCB exposure outputs from the Thomann model are in the form of PCB
homologs. If exposures are required in terms of different PCB forms, it is proposed that TAMS
process these exposure outputs and conduct appropriate PCB conversions to satisfy the input
requirements of the fish body burden models.
NOTE: EPA understands that as of September 1996, the Thomann model is being updated
under a grant from the Hudson River Foundation, and that certain corrections have been
made to the published model. EPA is evaluating whether the updated model will be
available or appropriate for use in this Hudson River RI/FS.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 4

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
Subtask 9-C: Thompson Island Pool Modeling.
Subtask 9-C. 1: Revision of the TIP resuspension model to include cohesive and
non-cohesive sediment areas.
The purpose of this task is to develop a more complete and internally consistent representation of
potential resuspension of contaminated sediments from TIP in response to major flood events. The
existing TIP resuspension model represents sediment areas consisting of only "cohesive" sediment
types. Although sediments in these areas are considered to encompass most of the known PCB
"hotspots" in TIP, these spatially limited areas represent only approximately 29 percent of the total
PCB mass reservoir in TIP. The remaining 71 percent is located in larger sediment areas consisting
of "non-cohesive" sediment types, thus necessitating a revised modeling approach.
This task will include a detailed characterization of TIP sediments in terms of particle type, particle
size distributions, clay content, porosity, and total PCB concentration. Results from this
characterization will be used to develop a finer-scale horizontal segmentation grid for both
cohesive and non-cohesive sediment areas. Each of the sediment segments in this grid will be
characterized by a unique set of values for a suite of physical-chemical parameters, including the
proportional distribution of total solids mass into multiple particle size classes.
Using the best available information from the scientific literature, critical shear stresses will be
estimated as a function of the physical characteristics and particle size classes in each sediment
segment. For a flood event with a given maximum flow, applied shear stresses will be estimated
for each sediment segment using water velocities from the existing fine-scale hydrodynamic model
of TIP. Given these segment-specific physical-chemical properties and applied shear stresses,
maximum solids/PCB masses resuspended and depths of scour will be estimated for cohesive and
non-cohesive sediment types in each segment. These results can be summed to form cumulative
gross resuspension estimates for TIP, or they can be used to characterize different areas in TIP with
respect to erodability.
The revised TIP resuspension model will be used to estimate solids and total PCBs resuspended
during peak flow events in April 1993, April 1994 and an assumed 100-year flood. For the 1993
and 1994 flow events, cumulative gross resuspension estimates from the TIP resuspension model
will be compared with cumulative gross resuspension results from the TIP portion of the revised
HUDTOX model. Finally, statistical uncertainty analyses will be conducted to quantify ranges of
uncertainty in solids/PCB resuspension estimates as a function of principal model parameters.
To ensure cost-effective conduct of this task, required data sets must be delivered to LTI in
complete, validated and final form before work can be initiated.
Subtask 9-C. 2:	Application of revised TIP resuspension model to results from the
Phase 2 low-resolution sediment coring effort.
The purpose of this task is to reduce uncertainties in estimated solids and PCB resuspension in TIP
due to uncertainties in specification of sediment physical-chemical characteristics. The existing
TIP model was applied to sediment data acquired in the 1984 NYSDEC sediment survey. More
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 5

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
recent sediment data were acquired as part of the Phase 2 low-resolution sediment coring effort.
Results from this effort will be used to update and/or revise assignments of sediment physical-
chemical characteristics in the TIP spatial segmentation grid.
To ensure cost-effective conduct of this task, required data sets must be delivered to LTI in
complete, validated and final form before work can be initiated.
Subtask 9-C.3: Revision of TIP portion of HUDTOX spatial segmentation.
The purpose of this task is to develop a more finely-resolved spatial segmentation grid for TIP that
more accurately represents horizontal differences in sediment physical-chemical characteristics.
This revised grid will consist of 20-30 spatial segments and it will replace the three TIP segments
in the existing version of HUDTOX. The grid will represent cohesive and non-cohesive sediment
areas, and will be internally consistent with and fully coupled to the overall HUDTOX model.
This task will build upon the detailed characterizations of TIP sediments, water velocities and
applied shear stresses as part of Subtask 9-C. 1. It is expected that the revised spatial segmentation
grid for the TIP portion of HUDTOX will be a superset of the fine-scale horizontal segmentation
grid for the TIP resuspension model in Subtask 9-C.l.
Subtask 9-D: Ecological Data Tabulation, Statistics and Modeling.
Under this Subtask, the TAMS team will perform the primary ecological interpretation and
modeling aspects of the program. LTI will be providing support to MCA, the primary investigator
in this Subtask. LTI will also provide support for the additional ecological analyses being
performed by CADMUS. The support LTI will provide is described by the following subtask.
Subtask 9-D. 1:	Internal review of bioaccumulation models.
CADMUS and MCA will continue to develop models relating PCB water column and sediment
exposures to PCB body burdens in fish in the Upper and Lower Hudson Rivers. LTI will continue
to provide guidance and internal review for these modeling efforts. This will include review of
model assumptions, parameterization, calibration/verification and predictive
performance/reliability. Emphasis will be placed on confirming that these modeling efforts are
designed to provide the best possible answers to the principal questions in the Reassessment RI/FS.
Subtask 9-E: Combined Geochemical and Ecological Data Interpretation and Modeling..
This subtask represents the integration of the various modeling efforts by the TAMS team. In
particular, model results provided by LTI will be used by other team members to estimate PCB
body burdens in fish using the biological models developed in Subtask D under the no action and
flood event future scenarios described in Subtask A. The following subtasks describe the LTI
technical support related to this integration of the modeling efforts.
HRp oo2
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 6

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
Subtask 9-E. I:	Delivery of PCB water column and sediment exposure fields to
CADMUS and MCA.
The CADMUS and MCA fish body burden models must be linked with PCB concentrations in the
water column and sediment. These PCB exposure concentrations for forecast simulations will be
determined by the LTI transport and fate models for the Upper and Lower Hudson Rivers. LTI will
deliver model outputs for PCB exposures to CADMUS and MCA for use in the PCB fish body
burden models. These PCB exposures will be in the form of daily, weekly or monthly average
concentrations for each of the water column and sediment segments in the Upper and Lower
Hudson River transport and fate models. These exposures will correspond to model simulations for
the No Action, and major flood scenarios described in Subtask A.5.
Exposure outputs from HUDTOX (Upper Hudson River) are in the form of total PCBs and three to
five individual congeners or co-eluting congener groups. Exposure outputs from the Thomann
model (Lower Hudson River) are in the form of PCB homologs. If exposures are required in terms
of different PCB forms, it is proposed that TAMS process the HUDTOX and/or Thomann model
exposure outputs and conduct appropriate PCB conversions to satisfy the input requirements of the
fish body burden models.
Subtask 9-E. 2:	Phase 2 geochemical, ecological, and modeling review.
LTI will participate in a series of discussions led by TAMS which will be focused on developing an
overall perspective of the geochemical, ecological, and modeling aspects of the Phase 2 program.
These discussions will be reflected in the summary and conclusions of the baseline modeling
report.
Subtask 9-F: Assemble, Review, and Finalize the Document.
LTI will contribute resource materials to the Draft Copy of the baseline modeling report. This will
include, as appropriate, involvement in development of a report outline, data synthesis and
interpretation, preparation of modeling results, and preparation of other relevant work products
from the proposed modeling of PCB fate and transport.
Subtask 9-G: Prepare the Review Copy.
LTI will contribute resource materials and provide technical review, as appropriate, for preparation
of the Review Copy of the baseline modeling report for the Reassessment RI/FS. LTI will assist in
revising the Draft Copy of the report to respond to review comments as directed by TAMS.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 7

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
2. MENZIE-CURA & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BACKGROUND
The scope of work described below is part of a team effort involving TAMS Consultants, Limno-
Tech, Inc., Cadmus Group and Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. This effort is part of the US EPA
December 1989 decision to reassess the No Action decision for the Hudson River. Specific
components relative to the analysis of PCB stores in river sediments, fate and transport of PCBs in
the Hudson, and bioaccumulation of PCBs in fish were contained in TAMS Consultants, Inc.
request for proposal (RFP) No. 5200-108, under ARCS Region II EPA Contract No. 68—S9-2001,
released in August, 1992. In response to a proposal submitted in September, 1992, Menzie-Cura &
Associates, Inc. was selected to provide support on the bioaccumulation component of the overall
project. The initial work plan for these activities was provided in the March 24, 1993 Scope of
Work document. This scope of work outlines the proposed Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. work
plan for the continuing effort on the Hudson River PCB Reassessment RI/FS.
OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The original objectives of the Menzie-Cura & Associates, mc. scope of work submitted on March
24, 1993 were as follows:
1.	Evaluate and apply quantitative relationships between PCB water and sediment concentrations
and fish body burdens in the upper and lower Hudson River.
2.	Develop and apply a bioaccumulation model to predict fish responses to select remedial
alternatives based on predicted sediment and water concentrations from the LTI models.
3.	Review and incorporate the bivariate statistical model developed by Cadmus to evaluate fish
responses to changing sediment and water concentrations in the upper and lower Hudson River.
4.	Provide estimates of PCB body burdens under specific scenarios for use in the human health
and ecological risk assessments.
During the first part of the project, Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. reviewed available Phase 1 and
Phase 2 data and developed a framework for relating body burdens of PCBs in fish to exposure
concentrations in Hudson River water and sediments. This framework is used to understand
historical and current relationships as well as to predict fish body burdens for future conditions.
The Cadmus Group, Inc. developed statistical models relating PCB concentrations (on an Aroclor
basis) in water and sediments to fish body burdens in the upper and lower Hudson Rivers. Menzie-
Cura & Associates, Inc. developed preliminary probabilistic bioaccumulation models to describe
exposure-body burden relationships using a mechanistic approach. These probabilistic food chain
models provide information on the fractions of the fish populations that are at or above particular
PCB levels and explicitly incorporate variability inherent in the underlying data to complement the
single population statistics provided by the statistical models.
HRP 002 .1 C;H
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 8

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
The models are designed to be implemented in one of three forms: a Monte Carlo spreadsheet
model, equations combining individual distributions into cumulative distributions, and a
nomograph or look-up table.
Progress to date in accomplishing these objectives is summarized in the Phase 2 Preliminary Model
Calibration Report of September, 1996..
TASKS
Each of the following proposed tasks is designed to address one or more of the recommendations
above. The proposed work plan follows a similar format to the original March 24, 1993 scope of
work. The task numbers correspond to the task numbers used for billing and reporting purposes in
part one of model development and calibration.
Task 1: Planning and Coordination
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. will coordinate project planning activities with TAMS and other
subcontractors on the project team. These activities include delineation of data requirements for
. proposed modeling activities, and a discussion of the management questions to be addressed by
the modeling effort.
Task 2: Progress Meetings
Details not applicable.
Task 3: Public Meetings
Details not applicable.
Task 4: Ecological Data Tabulation, Statistics, and Modeling
Subtask 4.1: Correlation of fish PCB burdens to environmental concentrations in both
sediment and water via a bivariate BAF approach.
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. will continue to provide guidance and internal review of the
statistical regression analyses being conducted by Cadmus Group, Inc. This task also involves
tabulating values from the literature on relationships for PCBs between water, sediment and fish.
Subtask 4.2: Development of probabilistic bioaccumulation models.
These models are designed to identify the relative contribution of PCBs in Hudson River sediments
and water to body burdens of six selected fish species. These species include largemouth bass,
yellow perch, white perch, spottail shiner, pumpkinseed, and brown bullhead. Because forage fish
(spottail shiner and pumpkinseed) comprise the bulk of the diet for piscivorous fish such as the
largemouth bass, these forage fish are evaluated in terms of a composite forage fish.
HRP 002 159C
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 9

-------
September 1996			Revised Technical Scope of Work
Preliminary models have been developed based on Phase 2 data and data from other agencies (New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health,
United States Geological Survey, and General Electric). These models incorporate information on
the physiological capacity for accumulating PCBs, dietary habits, food sources, general behavior,
and trophic level. The bioaccumulation factors between trophic levels are expressed as
distributions rather than single point estimates to incorporate the observed variability in the
underlying data and uncertainty about feeding preferences. This provides information on the
fraction of the fish populations that are at or above particular PCB levels (i.e., 90% of the fish
population is expected to be at or below a particular concentration).
The models require validation datasets, which are not available for all fish species. Consequently,
a multifaceted approach is being taken. The bivariate statistical model and the probabilistic model
represent two approaches; use of a third model, such as the Gobas (1993) gastrointestinal
biomagnification model is also being explored.
Water Column to Water Column Invertebrate Component
Results from the preliminary models indicate that the water column to water column invertebrate
pathway represents a significant exposure pathway. There are no water column invertebrate data
from the Phase 2 dataset. Further analysis on this pathway is required and included in this task.
There are a number of alternate approaches presented in the Phase 2 report. These approaches will
be explored in greater detail as part of this task.
Largemouth Bass and Other Piscivorous Fish Models
The model for the largemouth bass needs to be refined. There are no data available from the Phase
2 dataset for largemouth bass of a size suitable for human consumption. Consequently, the
bioaccumulation relationship between largemouth bass and its primary food sources rely on data
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Phase 1 data. There are
additional NYSDEC data available for 1995 which were not used in model development. It is
anticipated that the HUDTOX model will generate water and sediment exposure concentrations for
use with the probabilistic model, which will be validated against these 1995 data.
Further analysis needs to be done to incorporate a benthic invertebrate pathway in the largemouth
bass model. Some of the data used in the bivariate statistical model may be appropriate for this
purpose. The use of this sediment data will be explored.
The yellow perch model has been developed based on unvalidated Phase 2 data. This model will
be recalibrated using validated Phase 2 data, and verified by hindcasting using NYSDEC data.
The approach for white perch, similar to largemouth bass, will rely on NYSDEC data through
1993. The model will be validated using 1995 NYSDEC data and any other biological data that
becomes available.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 10

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
The primary concerns in using the NYSDEC data have been somewhat elaborated upon in the
development of the bivariate statistical model. One concern is the quantitation techniques between
and among sampling programs, and the other is the appropriate sediment exposure data to be used.
There is great uncertainty in sediment concentrations, as the only data available are from two
different programs at different times.
It is anticipated that the HUDTOX model hindcasting will be useful in defining exposure
concentrations for use with the historical NYSDEC data. This will be explored in this task.
Congener Profiles: Exploring NOAA and NYSDEC Analyses
NOAA and NYSDEC are currently exploring PCB patterns in Hudson River fish by comparing
congener patterns over a geographic gradient. The pattern of congener uptake between and among
fish species provides important information on the nature of PCB uptake generally. Initial
exploration into congener profiles reveals that this approach can provide a clearer understanding of
how fish are exposed to PCBs and the relative importance of sediment versus water pathways.
Model Implementation
The models are designed to be implemented in three ways: Monte Carlo spreadsheet models,
equations combining individual distributions into cumulative distributions, and as nomographs or
look-up tables. The Monte Carlo spreadsheet models have been developed. Final equations
combining individual distributions into cumulative distributions still need to be derived, and the
final nomograph or look-up tables created based on validated data. The look-up tables can also be
expressed as equations.
Use of Other Modeling Approaches, i.e.. Gobas
Based on data availability and to insure that the results from the probabilistic model are consistent
with other modeling approaches, use of the Gobas model (1993) is being explored. This model has
recently been revised and incorporates both sediment and water column food sources, as well as a
Monte-Carlo based uncertainty analysis. This model is based on the fugacity, or chemical potential
theory. In this model, biomagnification of organic contaminants is primarily a function of
digestion and gastrointestinal absorption. Several meetings with the author of the Gobas model are
planned.
Subtask 4.3: Evaluation of models through yearly hindcasting.
The probabilistic bioaccumulation models are developed by evaluating relationships between
particular trophic levels (as represented by specific species) and their food sources (taking into
account information on the physiological capacity for accumulating PCBs, dietary habits, food
sources, and general behavior). The models need to be validated by "predicting" historically
observed levels of PCBs, and/or comparison to data from ongoing field studies {i.e., General
Electric, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and United States
Geological Survey). This hindcasting will be done on an annual basis for each of the years that
data are available and for those species for which data are available (primarily forage fish).
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page II

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
Note that in the case of the largemouth bass, the historical dataset has already been used to develop
the model. In addition, all the models would benefit from additional synoptic sampling of
sediment, benthic invertebrates, water column, water column invertebrates, and fish. Currently,
there are numerous data gaps (i.e., locations where benthic invertebrates were collected but no
forage fish, there are no Phase II congener water column invertebrate data, there are no data for
largemouth bass of a size suitable for consumption, and so on).
Task 5: Combined Data Interpretation and Modeling
Subtask 5.1: Coordination of Task 4 with Task 5 modeling efforts of Limno-Tech.
Exposure outputs from the Limno-Tech, Inc. models will be used as starting concentrations for the
probabilistic models. These exposure outputs are in the form of total PCBs and five individual
congeners or coeluting congener groups. Exposure outputs from the Thomann model (lower
Hudson River) are in the form of PCB homologues. These exposure outputs will need to be
converted to run the probabilistic models. This is because the probabilistic models will be used for
the human health and ecological risk assessments, which require selected Aroclors and total PCB
concentrations. Note that the human health risk assessors require a distribution of predicted fish
concentrations.
This task requires interaction with other project team members, particularly Limno-Tech, Inc. and
Cadmus Group to insure that PCB concentrations are expressed in a form that is useful to other
aspects of the project.
Subtask 5.2: Estimate body burdens of PCBs under !Wo Action, major flood, and various
remedial scenarios.
The HUDTOX model will be used to simulate impacts due to No Action and major flood scenarios
for the upper Hudson River. The HUDTOX model and the Thomann model will be used to
simulate impacts in the lower Hudson River. PCB water column and sediment concentrations from
the No Action and major flood simulations will drive the food chain models (both statistical and
probabilistic). The probabilistic models require annual averages on an Aroclor and total PCB basis
in support of the human health and ecological risk assessments.
This task will also include conducting up to four predictive model simulations for various remedial
scenarios. These scenarios could include evaluation of selected dredging and/or containment
scenarios in the upper Hudson River between Fort Edward and the Federal Dam. Design
specifications for these scenarios will be determined jointly between project team members.
Task 6: Preparation of Draft Phase 2 report
Not applicable.
Task 7: Preparation of Final Phase 2 Report
Not applicable.
Limno-Tech. Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 12

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
Task 8: Preparation of Draft Feasibility Study Report
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc., together with other subcontractors on the project, will contribute
resource materials to the Draft Feasibility Study Report. This will include, as appropriate, report
outline development, data synthesis and interpretation, preparation of modeling results, and
preparation of other relevant work products.
This task will include the results of up to four predictive model simulations for various remedial
scenarios as described in Subtask 5.2.
Task 9: Preparation of Final Feasibility Study Report
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. will review the comments on the draft report and revise the report
as directed by TAMS in response to the review comments. This task includes revisions to the
predictive modeling simulations.
Task 10: Responsiveness Summary
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. will contribute resource materials, as appropriate, to the
Responsive Summary to be prepared as part of the Reassessment RI/FS.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
1.594
Page 13

-------
September 1996	Revised Technical Scope of Work
3. THE CADMUS GROUP, INC.
BACKGROUND
Cadmus prepared a Technical Scope of Work on March 29, 1993 for support of the Phase II
modeling effort for the Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS, as well as other activities related
to the Reassessment. This Scope of Work was submitted to TAMS Consultants to address a
portion of the work described in TAMS request for proposal (RFP) No. 5200-108, under ARCS
Region II EPA Contract No. 68-S9-2001, released in August 1992. Cadmus' Scope of Work was
subsequently incorporated into TAMS Scope of Work for continuing work on the Hudson River
PCBs Reassessment, submitted to Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on April 25,
1996, under Contract No. DACW41-96-D-9002.
TASK 9
Under Task 9, Cadmus will continue to provide support to TAMS and the Reassessment team in
accordance with the task area originally identified as Subtask 2a in Cadmus' Scope of Work of
March 29, 1993: Correlation of Fish PCB Burdens to Environmental Concentrations in Both
Sediment and Water via a Multivariate BAF Approach. As part of Task 4 under USACE Contract
No. DACW41-96-D-9002 (Phase 2 Preliminary Model Calibration Report), Cadmus has submitted
a draft analysis and multivariate BAF model based on currently available data. Additional work on
this subtask will be incorporated into Task 9 (Baseline Modeling).
Cadmus' proposed Scope of Work for completing Task 9 includes the following subtasks:
Subtask 9-D: Ecological Data Tabulation, Statistics and Modeling.
Cadmus will extend and recalibrate the Multivariate BAF approach to include additional data as
they become available. Important new data anticipated to be useful to the model include:
NYSDEC 1995 Fish Data and USGS 1995 Water Column Data: The Multivariate BAF
approach currently utilizes NYSDEC fish analyses for 1977 through 1992. NYSDEC fish
results for 1995 have recently been released, but have not yet been included in the analysis
because USGS has not yet released the corresponding water column data. These data
should be available in September, 1996.
GE 1990 Fish Analyses: GE collected approximately 100 fish samples in 1990; however,
the initial PCB results were rejected during QA. GE reports that the sample extracts have
now been reanalyzed using NEA capillary column methods and the results are being
provided to EPA.
NOAA Fish Analyses: Results predicted by this method will be compared to results of fish
samples collected by NOAA in addition to those collected as part of EPA's Phase II
sampling effort.
l-IRP 002 1595
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
Page 14

-------
September 1996
Revised Technical Scope of Work
Sediment Data: Cadmus will also evaluate any new sediment PCB data which become
available for use in the model. We will also re-examine potential use of 1977-78 sediment
sampling results.
In addition, Cadmus will work closely with MCA to coordinate interpretation and application of
the Multivariate BAF results and the Probabilisitic Bioaccumulation Model. As part of this effort,
Cadmus will review and comment on application of the Gobas model proposed by MCA.
Subtask 9-E: Combined Geochemical and Ecological Data Interpretation and Modeling.
This subtask represents the integration of the various modeling efforts by the Reassessment team.
As part of this effort, Cadmus will provide model results and interpretation for the Multivariate
BAF approach. In particular, Cadmus will use results of sediment compartment hindcasting
provided by LTI to analyze and potentially refine the sediment pathway representation in the
Multivariate BAF approach. Also as a part of this effort, Cadmus will participate in a series of
discussions led by TAMS to obtain an overall perspective on the geochemical, ecological and
modeling aspects of the Phase 2 program.
Subtask 9-F: Assembly, Internal Review and I inalization of the Document
Cadmus will participate in the internal review of the baseline modeling document, with particular
emphasis on review of the bioaccumulation modeling and integration of the Multivariate BAF and
bioaccumulation approaches.
Limno-Tech, Inc./Menzie-Cura, Inc./The CADMUS Group, Inc.
HRP
Page 15

-------