-------
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 ฆ
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
ฐ 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
ซ 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
ฆO
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 :
ป"
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
ฃ 150
o
O
s 100
ro
E
0
z
1
*D
Q.
50-
N =
OTESS
T
o SPOT
I ฆ
3
i
4
7 ~
3
i
8
j
6
~r~
11
* SPOT
oTESS
X
8tMง
* 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
ฆD
"CL
110
100-
90
80-
70-
60
50
40i
30-
20-
10
0
N :
I
3
I
3EZ
T
4
6
"i"
8
ฆ 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 ป
1ฐ- 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
ฆO
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
@Tiงง
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
@Tiงi
11
T
6
* SPOT
13
ซ 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) 1600ฆ
~ 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
ฃ 2000-
o
Z
ฆ
"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
/
ฆn
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>
ฆt*
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
ฆ 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-
ฃ 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
ฆ95
\~
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
ฆ 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
rป
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
WMซrCoปAF
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 !,ซฆ
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 +ฆ 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-cohซsive
-------
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
Qป47,330 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
ซซ
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
ฉ
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
ฆQ
ฉ
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
0ป
-------
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
Qซ 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
Qซ 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
-6ป
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 ฆ>
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.
1ฎ irito
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Centimeters
Qซ 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 10ฐC 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., 1ฃ86 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 27.8ฐC and avoid
temperatures that are below 9.5ฐC or above 34.5ฐC.
White perch prefer shallow and wetland areas to other habitats, but
undertake extensive migrations within the estuary (Carlson, 1986 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 16ฐ and 20ฐC. Hudson
River white perch tend to spawn beginning in April when the water temperature
reaches 10ฐ to 12ฐC, and continue spawning through June. In years when the
water temperature increases gradually, the peak spawning period lasts from four to
six weeks (Klauda et al., 1988 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 45-52ฐF
in April and May in New York waters {Smith, 1985). Males arrive at the spawning
ground first. Spawning occurs in 5 to 10 feet of water over sand, rubble, or
vegetation. Eggs are often draped over logs or vegetation.
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 27ฐC in May and June.
They prefer to spawn among roots of aquatic vegetation, usually near the
protection of a stump, rock or tree, near shores or creek mouths. Males,
sometimes aided by females, build nests under overhangs or obstructions (Smith,
1985). Eggs are guarded.
A 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 8.5ฐ C. Pumpkinseed forage
on hard shelled gastropods and are able to exploit food sources not available to
other fish, particularly mollusks (Sadzikowski and Wallace, 1976 A comparison of
food habits of). Food is mainly a variety of insects and, secondarily, other
invertebrates. Small fish or other vertebrates, e.g., larval salamanders, can also
contribute significantly to the pumpkinseed diet (Scott and 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 60ฐF and lasts
approximately 11 days. Nesting substrates include sand, sandy clay, mud,
limestone, shells and gravel. Females lay from 600 to 5,000 eggs (Smith, 1985).
Males guard the nest for one week after hatching.
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
ฆirti-
-------
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 9-14ฐC (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 10-18ฐC.
Age and size of the fish at maturity varies by latitude (Gilbert, 1989). In the
Hudson River, females first spawn at approximately 9-10 years and males at 11-20
years. Spawning does not occur each year and is most likely controlled by
environmental factors rather than by endocrinology.
Shortnose sturgeons produce approximately 40,000-200,000 eggs per
spawning in New York waters.
A 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
ซ 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. 68S9-2001,
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
-------