View source for NL-08-006, Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application

{{Adams
| number = ML080110372
| issue date = 01/04/2008
| title = Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application
| author name = Dacimo F R
| author affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Northeast
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000247, 05000286
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = FOIA/PA-2009-0193, NL-08-006
| document type = Letter type:NL
| page count = 249
| project = 
| stage = Response to RAI
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Entergy Entergy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel 914 788 2055 Fred Dacimno Vice President License Renewal January 4, 2008 Re: Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 N L-08-006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

==SUBJECT:==
.Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application NRC letter dated December 5, 2007; "Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 License Renewal Application (TAC Nos. MD541 1 and MD541 2)" 

==Reference:==

==Dear Sir or Madam:==
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc is providing, in Attachment 1, the additional information requested in the referenced letter pertaining to NRC review of the License Renewal Application for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3. The additional information provided in this transmittal addresses Environmental staff questions.
There are no new commitments identified in this submittal.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. R. Walpole, Manager, Licensing at (914) 734-6710.I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _______.Sincerely, Fred R. Dacimo Vice President License Renewal-Al&#xfd;y N L-08-006 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 2 of 2 cc: next page Attachment I -Reply to NRC Request For Additional Information Regarding I License Renewal Application (Environmental)
Enclosure 1 -Striped Bass Winter Population Survey (marked recapture)
Enclosure 2 -Atlantic Tomcod Spawning Stock Survey (Table with mark and recapture data)cc: w/Attachment 
& Enciosures Mr. Bo M. Pham, NRC Environmental Project Manager Ms. Jill Caverly, NRC Environmental Project Manager Mr. John P. Boska, NRC NRR Senior Project Manager Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Sherwin E. Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel, Special Counsel IPEC NRC Senior Resident Inspector Office w/o Enclosures Mr. Paul D. Tonko, President, NYSERDA Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Dept. of Public Service ATTACHMENT I TO NL-08-006 REPLY TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (Environmental)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286 NL-08-006 Attachment I Page 1 of 4 INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (LRA)REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or staff) has reviewed the Environmental information provided by the applicant in the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (1P2 and 1P3) LRA. The staff has identified that additional information is needed to complete the review as addressed below.Environmental RAI 1 Provide a copy of the final report, a preliminary version of which was briefly described in a presentation at the site audit that discusses the development of a conceptual groundwater flow model for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 including monitoring well locations, sampling data, and site geology. Further, discuss the pertinence of the report to license renewal, this information is necessary to complete the review of the environmental impacts of the proposed project for groundwater and surface water resources, insofar as it may affect license renewal.Response for RAI 1 The final report discussing the development of a conceptual groundwater flow model for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 including monitoring well locations, sampling data, and site geology is in the process of being finalized and will be submitted to the NRC by'January 31, 2008. Its pertinence to license renewal will be fully described in that submittal.
Environmental RAI 2 Provide the following information as it is necessary to complete the review of the environmental impacts for aquatic resources.
Provide a copy of Year Class Report Table E Series Density Data for Hudson River Long River Studies: " lchthyoplankton Survey (1 974-2005 density data)o Long River Fall Shoals (juvenile fish) Survey (1985-2005 density data)1985-2005 employed the same gear o Long River Beach Seine Survey (1974-2005 density data)o Striped Bass Winter Population Survey (marked recapture)" In-river mark recapture estimator (series of annual reports)table with mark and recapture data o Atlantic Tomcod Spawning Stock Survey -table with mark and recapture data Also, provide water quality data for each study and year for lcthyoplankton and Fall survey (March-October)
N L-08-006 Attachment I Page 2 of 4 Provide the following data regarding impingement:
o Continuous sampling Unit 2 and 3 operation through 1980 (4-5 years)1981-1990:
Stratified random program 110 samples per year Supplemental Ristroph studies 1 screen in 1985, special studies to 1990-99"olImpingement abundance to include Indian Point Monitoring Reports (1975-1 990)Provide the following data regarding entrainment:
o Abundance 
(# per unit volume 2 per week in April-October) o Years of study 1981, 1983, 1985-87 (abundance)
Provide the following regarding data types: o Abundance indices o Weekly densities o Weekly standing crops from the Barnthouse et al. report on Hudson River Fish Trends Provide the Barnthouse et al compilation of fish trends in the Hudson River.Response for RAI 2&#xfd;The following items have previously been submitted to the NRC on December 20, 2007, letter number NL-07-156.
o lchthyoplankton Survey (1974-2005 density data)o Long River Fall Shoals (juvenile fish) Survey (1985-2005 density data)1985-2005 employed the same gear o Long River Beach Seine Survey (1974-2005 density data)o Continuous sampling Unit 2 and 3 operation through 1980 (4-5 years)1981-1990:
Stratified random program 110 samples per year Supplemental Ristroph studies 1 screen in 1985, special studies to 1990-99 o Impingement abundance to include Indian Point Monitoring Reports (1 975-1 990)o Abundance 
(# per unit volume 2 per week in April-October) o Years of study 1981, 1983, 1985-87 (abundance) o Abundance indices o Weekly densities Copies of the following reports and studies are attached: " Striped Bass Winter Population Survey (marked recapture) (Enclosure 1)" Atlantic Tomcod Spawning Stock Survey -table with mark and recapture data (Enclosure 2)The following item is still being compiled and will be provided by January 11, 2008 o Water quality data for each study and year for lcthyoplankton and Fall survey (March-October)The Barnhouse et al compilation of fish trends in the Hudson River is expected to be finalized by January 22, 2008 and will subsequently be provided to the NRC in a timely manner.
N L-08-006 AttachmentI Page 3 of 4 An additional report was listed in the RAI request [in-river mark recapture estimator (series of annual reports), table with mark and recapture data]. This request is redundant to the information being provided in Enclosures 1 and 2 of this letter.Environmental RAI 3 During the environmental scoping process, the NRC staff received comments (ADAMS accession nos. ML071 990093 and ML0731 00985) which indicate that the reactor vessel heads of both Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and.3 may be replaced in anticipation of license renewal. Please discuss whether vessel head replacements are being planned at Indian Point and if so, the relation of these plans to license renewal; and please discuss the associated impacts of such refurbishment activities on each of the pertinent environmental issues listed under Table B-i of Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Response for RAI 3 As set forth in the IPEC license renewal application, based on the demonstrations provided in Appendix B of the application, the effects of aging associated with the reactor vessel, internals, and reactor coolant system will be managed such that there is reasonable assurance that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis during the period of extended operation.
See IPEC License Renewal Application, Section 3.1 (including associated tables). Therefore, no reactor vessel head replacements are required for purposes of aging management during the period of extended operation.
Accordingly, no evaluation of the environmental impacts of reactor vessel head replacement as a refurbishment activity is required or presented in the Environmental Report. As stated in the Environmental Report: The evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 has been completed and is described in the body of the IP2 and IP3 License Renewal Application.
This evaluation did not identify the need for refurbishment of structures or components for purposes of license renewal and there are no such refurbishment activities planned at this time. Although routine plant operational and maintenance activities will be performed during the license renewal period, these activities are not refurbishments as described in Sections 2.4 and 3.1 of the GElS and will be managed in accordance with appropriate Entergy programs and procedures.
IPEC Environmental Report, Section 3.3 at 3-23 to 3-24.The comments cited by the NRC staff appear to relate to an Entergy project to procure long lead items for replacement reactor vessel heads for the Indian Point Units. That activity consists of ordering long lead replacement head forgings and Inconel and stainless steel materials needed for fabrication of the reactor heads. An economic decision to financially invest in and continue with final fabrication of the replacement heads into a final product that can be installed on a reactor will be made based upon inspection activities in accordance with Inservice Inspection NL-08-006 Attachment I Page 4 of 4 and Water Chemistry Control Programs.
Moreover, the decision to proceed with procurement of long lead items is strictly economic; i.e., it is intended to reduce potential future costs if future inspections indicate the need for repairs. This pragmatic approach is analogous to the current practice of considering storage for long lead spare and replacement parts and equipment, such as those currently maintained in storage at the plant.In other words, it reflects a prudent business decision to prepare for future contingencies.
Thus, there is no planned "major refurbishment outage" activity as defined in the GElS.
ENCLOSURE 1 TO NL-08-006 Striped Bass Winter Population Survey (marked recapture)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286 HUDSON RIVER STRIPED BASS PROGRAM NOVEMBER 2000 -APRIL 2001 DECEMBER 2006 Hudson River Striped Bass Program November 2000 -April 2001 Program conducted under contract with NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY 123 Main Street White Plains, New* York 10601 Jointly financed by Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.New York Power Authority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Mirant Corporation Report prepared under contract with ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, New York 10601-5029 Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.25 Nashua Road Bedford, NH.03110 R-17443.003 December 2006 2000--2001 Striped Bass Report Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE 

==SUMMARY==
...............................................................................
viii 

==1.0 INTRODUCTION==

.................................................................................
1..2.0 METHODS............................................................................................
5 2.1 FIELD PROCEDURES 
..................................................................................
5 2.1.1 Field Sampling .........................................................................
5 2.1.2 Water Quality Sampling................................. 
;.............................
6 2.2 LABORATORY METHODS ............................................................................
6 2.2.1 Biocharacteristics and Food Habits...................................................
6 2.2.2 Age of Striped Bass Using Scales ....................................................
7 2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS........................................................................
7 2.3.1 Analysis of Catch Characteristics 
....................................................
8 2.3.1.1 Catch Per Unit Of Effort ...................................................
8 2.3.1.2 Length-Frequency 
...........................................................
8 2.3.1.3 Handling Mortality 
.........................................................
8 2.3.2 Stratified Sampling for Age Determination and Mean Length at Age ...........
9 2.3.2.1 Estimated Number of Striped Bass in Each Age Category .............
9 2.3.2.2 Stratified Mean Length in Each Age Category .....................
10 2.3.3 Recaptured Striped Bass.............................................................
12 2.3.4 Population Movement................................................................
12 2.3.5 Population Size .......................................................................
13 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
...................................................................
14 3.1 CATCH CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 9 m TRAWL.............................................
14 3. 1.1 Catch Per Unit Of Effort.............................................................
14 3.1.2 Length-Frequency Distributions 
....................................................
14 3.1.3 Handling Mortality....................................................................
15 3.2 STRIPED BASS LENGTH AND AGE DISTRIBUTION 
...........................................
16 3.2.1 Length Distribution and Associated Statistics for Each Age Cohort.............
16 3.2.2 Estimated Proportion and Number of Age 0+ Through Age 3+ Striped Bass....................................................................................
17 3.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF RECAPThRED'STRIPED BASS......................................
17 3.3.1 Striped Bass Internal Anchor-Tagged, Released, and Recaptured During the 2000-2001lWinter Program......................................................
18 3.3.2 Striped Bass Internal Anchor-Tagged and Released Prior to, and Recaptured During the 2000-2001 Winter Program...............................
19 3.3.3 Condition of the Catch...............................................................
20 3.4 STRIPED BASS POPULATION SIZE ................................................................
21 4.0 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................
25 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 ii Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 11Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report FIGURES TABLES APPENDICES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: Gear Characteristics Water Quality Striped Bass Catch Characteristics Striped Bass Mark/Recapture Studies Striped Bass Biocharacteristics and Food Habits oc 12/21/2006 i Striped F3ass 2000-2001A Vormandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report List of Figures Page Figure 1-1. Weekly mean bottom temperature in the Battery region of the Hudson River during 2000-2001 compared to the weekly mean and 95% confidence intervals for the 1985-1986 through 1999-2600 Hudson River Striped Bass Programs ...................
29 Figure 2-1. Sampling regions in the lower Hudson River and New York Harbor during the winter 2000-2001 Hudson River Striped Bass Program.......................................
30 Figure 2-2. Tags used to mark striped bass during the 1984-pre'sent Hudson River Striped Bass Programs .....................................................................................
31 Figure 3-1. Weekly mean catch per ten minute tow (use code 1 tows only) by a 9m trawl in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ............................................................................
32 Figure 3-2. Length-frequency distribution for striped bass captured by a 9m trawl in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ............................................................................
32 Figure 3-3. Standardized length-frequency of striped bass captured by a 9m trawl in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River, 1985-1986 through 2000-2001 .................................................................................................
33 Figure 3-4. Weekly length-frequency distributions for striped bass caught per ten minute tow in a 9m trawl in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 .........................................................
314 Figure 3-5. Length-frequency distributions for Age 0+, 1+, 2+ and 3+ striped bass captured by a 9m trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.(Note the Vertical scales differ among the graphs) ............................................
35 Figure 3-6. Mean length at age (and 95% confidence interval) for Age 0+ through Age 3+wild striped bass of the 1983 through 2000 cohorts caught in a 9m trawl in the Hudson River. (Note the vertical scales differ among the graphs)...........................
36 Figure 3-7. Striped bass recapture proportion (R{1 1) Q 1 versus cumulative number of striped bass tagged in the combined Upper Harbor and Battery regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ...............................................
37 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 ivNormandeau Associates, Inc.-I 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report List of Tables Page Table 1-1. Comparison of Sampling Designs and Selected Results of the 1984 through 1999-2000 Hudson River Striped Bass Programs.....................................................
39 Table 3-1. Mean Catch of Striped Bass per Ten Minute Tow by a 9 mn Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ...............................................
40 Table 3-2. Mean Catch of Striped Bass per Ten Minute Tow by a 9 mn Trawl in the Battery Region of the *Hudson River During Common Time Periods in the Winters of 1985-1986 through 2000-2001....;..............................................................
40 Table 3-3. Descriptive Statistics for the Length-Frequency Distribution of Striped Bass Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in the Upper Harbor And Battery Regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ...............................................
41 Table 3-4. Handling Mortality for Striped Bass (Percentage of Dead Striped Bass in a Temperature Increment)
Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in Relation to Hudson River Bottom Water Temperature,,6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001......................
41 Table 3-5. Handling Mortality for Striped Bass (Percentage of Dead Striped Bass at a Temperature Increment)
Captured by a 9 mn trawl Among Common Bottom Water Temperature Increments during the 1985-1986 through the 2000-200 1 Hudson River Striped Bass Programs .....................................................................
42 Table 3-6. Relationship between the Number of Scale Samples Selected for Age Determination by Neyman Sample Allocation and Precision of the Stratified Estimate of Proportion and Total Number of Age 1 + Striped Bass Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001....................
44 Table 3-7. Estimated Proportion and Number of Age 0+ through Age 3+ Striped Bass Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001............................................................. 
.............................
44 Table 3-8. Recapture of Tagged Striped Bass Cross-Classified by Release and Recapture Region in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ................ 
.....45-Table 3-9. Recapture of Tagged Striped Bass Cross-Classified by Release and Recapture Month for Fish Released and Recaptured by Trawls in the Combined Upper Harbor and Battery Regions of the Hudson River from 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 ......................................................................................
46 Table 3-10. Recapture Statistics for Striped Bass Tagged, Released and Recaptured in the Hudson River by a 9 mn Trawl, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001...................
47 Table 3-11. Incidence of Tag Number Abrasion and, Condition of the Tag Insertion Site for Hudson River Striped Bass that were at Large at Least One Year Prior to their Recapture during the 1988-1989 through 2000-2001 Programs..............................
48 Table 3-12. Recapture Statistics for Striped Bass Tagged and Released in Years Prior to, and Recaptured in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001................
49 Table 3-13. Recapture Statistics for Striped Bass Tagged and Released Prior to November 2000, and Recaptured in the Hudson River by a 9 mn Trawl, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.............................................................................
50 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 v Stried Bss 000-001.doc12/1/206 vNormandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-14. Striped Bass Recaptured in the Hudson River with other Agency Tags, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001 .........................................................
51 Table 3-15. Incidence of Fish in Poor Condition Among Unmarked vs. Recaptured Striped Bass Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April2001 
..........................................................................................
52 Table 3-16. Nature of Injuries and Abnormalities Observed in Striped Bass Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 200 1.1..............
53 Table 3-17. Estimated Population of Age 1+ and Older Striped Bass > 15 0mmn by Age Cohort in the Lower Hudson River, Winter 2000-2001................................................
54 Table 3-18. Estimated Population of Age I+ and Older Striped Bass > 200 mm by Age Cohort in the Lower Hudson River, Winter 2000-01...................................................
55 Table 3-19. Estimated Number of Striped Bass-200 mm and >150mnm Present in the Lower Hudson River during the Winters of 1985-1986 through 2000-2001 
........................
56 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 vi Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report*The Program Manager for Normandeau Associates was Dr. Mark T. Mattson.SThe Program Manager for the New York Power Authority was Dr. Dennis J. Dunning.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 vii Stried ass200-201.do 1221/006viiNormandeau Associates, Inc.
2000--2001 Striped Bass Report EXECUTIVE 

==SUMMARY==
" The Hudson River utilities no longer operate a striped bass hatchery in Verplanck, New York." The estimated size of the 2000-2001 winter striped bass population 
!150 mm in upper New York Harbor and the Battery region was 388,000 fish with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 293,000 and 570,000." Age 0+ striped bass accounted for 2% (5,700 fish) of the winter population, Age 1+ contributed 79% (306,000 fish), Age 2+ contributed 17% (66,000 fish), Age 3+ contributed 1% (5,000 fish), and Age >3+ contributed 1% (4,000 fish)." During the 2000-200 1 striped bass program, 14,287 fish !150mmn were caught and 13,363 fish in good condition were tagged and released bringing the total number of striped bass tagged and released in these programs since 1984 to 256,17 1. An additional 513 fish with one or more gross external injuries were tagged and released in 2000-2001, bring the total number of these fish tagged and released to 4,690. Of the 185 fish-that were recaptured, 155 were tagged and released in the present program, 21 were from 1999-2000, and 5 fish were from the 1998-1999, 2 were from 1997-1998, and 2 were from 1996-1997 program." Overall mean catch per unit of effort (CPUE) in the Battery region was 22.0 striped bass per ten-minute tow. Mean CPUE during mid-December through miid-March increased annually from .1985 -1986 to a peak of 45.3 in the 1989-1990 program. Mean CPUF decreased following 1989-1990 to 14.3 in the 1995-1996 program, and increased again to 38.4 and 31.7 in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, respectively.
The mean CPUE during mid-December through mid-March was 26.1 in 2000-2001." Handling mortalit 'was less than 1% and was comparable to previous programs even though smaller fish (between 150 and 200 mm) were tagged compared to programs prior to 1988-1989.
No relationship between water temperature and handling mortality was observed.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 1212112006 viii Stried ass2000200.do 12111206 iiiNormandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 

==1.0 INTRODUCTION==

The Hudson River striped bass program began in 1984 as an evaluation of fishing gear and techniques that were most efficient and effective to catch and handle striped bass for the purpose of determining the proportion of stocked hatchery fish among the wild cohorts. The best locations, times, and fishing gear were evaluated in the 1984 through 1987-1988 programs to maximize total catch and catch per unit of effort of Age 1+ and Age 2+ striped bass. The Battery region of the Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan, and upper New York Harbor in the vicinity of Liberty Island provided the most consistent catches of Age 1+ and Age 2+ striped bass during the November through March period. The 9-in trawl was the most effective gear for capturing Age 1+ and Age 2+ striped bass, and has been the only gear used from 1988-1989 through the present program (Table 1- 1). Concurrent with these gear evaluations, handling techniques were improved to increase the survival of striped bass that were caught, tagged, scanned for hatchery -administered magnetic tags, and released (Dunning et. al. 1987, 1989). As the Verplanck hatchery increased the annual production of fish, and more striped bass were recaptured with hatchery-administered tags, we also quantified magnetic tag detection efficiency (Mattson et al. 1989) and improved the internal anchor-external streamer tag design (Mattson et al.1989; Waldman et al. 1990).The Hudson River striped bass program from 1988-1989 to the present has become primarily a stock assessment program. Hatchery production and stocking of marked striped bass fingerlings ended in October 1995. The program has emphasized consistency of sampling gear and procedures, and the refinement of laboratory techniques for scale examination to accurately determine age (e.g.Humphreys et al. 1989). Mark-recapture estimates are calculated for the total population and for the Age 1I+ and Age 2+ sub-populations of striped bass found in the combined Battery and upper New York Harbor regions during the winter. Program consistency is documented through the use of Standard Operating Procedures and a quality controllquality assurance system that has helped maintain and improve data quality (Geoghegan et al. 1989).The April-June 1984 adult striped bass program (Normandeau 1985) demonstrated that it was effective to use a 12 mn trawl and a Scottish seine to capture striped bass with an average mortality of less than 18% at water temperatures ranging from 8 to 16 'C. The 1984 program also demonstrated that striped bass !300 nmi (total length) could be externally tagged and released without significantly increasing 24-hour mortality (Dunning et al. 1987). No hatchery-tagged striped bass were recaptured during the 1984 program, and population estimates were not calculated from the relatively small sample of 737 external-tagged fish that were released (Table 1- 1).The 1985-1986 Hudson River striped bass program (Normandeau 1986) was conducted primarily in the lower Hudson, Harlem, and East Rivers from November 1985 through May 1986. Sampling with trawls in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River estuary between raid-December 1985 and mid-April 1986 produced higher catches of striped bass per tow than in the Harlem and East Rivers. When fished in the Battery region of the lower Hudson River in the same weeks, mean catch per unit of effort for a 12 mn trawl was greater than for a 9 mn trawl, but total catch and mean catch per day were similar for the two trawls because more tows could be taken with the 9 mn trawl in a day.The 12 m trawl was more efficient for capturing striped bass from 251 to 450 mm (total length), while the 9 mn trawl was more efficient for capturing striped bass <250 mm. The Scottish seine, fished in the Tappan Zee and Croton-Haverstraw regions during April and May 1986, was efficient for capturing striped bass >400 mm. Striped bass handling mortality was reduced from 17% in 1984 to Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 I Stried ass 000200Idoc12/2/206 1Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000--2001 Striped Bass Report 1% or less in programs from 1985 -86 to present by using an in-water live car to hold the fish prior to t agging (Durming et. al. 1989). No hatchery-tagged fish were recaptured during the 1985-86 program among the 20,820 striped bass examined for magnetic tags. The mid-winter population of striped bass !200 mim was estimated to be 540,000 fish in the Battery and Upper New York Harbor, and 239,000 of these fish were estimated to be Age 1+ (Table 1-1).Data from the 1984 and 1985-1986 programs (Normandeau 1985, 1986) were used to recommend sampling options and detenrnine the number of fish needed to calculate statistically reliable estimates of the proportion of hatchery-reared striped bass in the Hudson River striped bass population (MMES 1986; Heimbuch et al. 1990). Of the seven sampling options reviewed for the hatchery e 'valuation, three were recommended for further consideration:- 
(1) sampling yearling striped bass in the mouth of the river in winter, (2) sampling Age 2+ (nonharvestable adult) striped bass in the mouth of the river.in winter, and (3) sampling harvestable and nonharvestable adult striped bass down river of the spawning grounds in spring. These options were selected because the underlying statistical assumptions of the estimator could be satisfied and the required sampling effort was feasible.The 1986-1987 Hudson River striped bass program was conducted in the Croton-Haverstraw, Tappan Zee, Battery, and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River. The Battery and Upper Harbor exhibited the highest catches per ten minute tow-for both the 9 and 12 mn trawls. Use of a cod end liner (2.5 cm stretch mesh) in the 9 mn trawl did not affect the length-frequency or handling mortality of Age 1+ or older striped bass caught in the trawl. However, use of a cod end liner in the 12 m trawl significantly increased the catch of Age 1+ and older striped bass. Handling mortality was extremely low (< 1%) and was not related to gear type or the use of the cod 'end liners (Dunning et al. 1989).Stratified sampling to select scales for age analysis resulted in highly precise estimates of the proportion of Age 0+, 1+ and 2+ striped bass caught in this study (Normandeau 1987). Based on the estimated number of Age 1+ fish and the number of verified striped bass of hatchery origin that were recaptured in 1986-1987, the estimated hatchery proportion was 1.7%. The estimated over wintering population in the Battery and Upper Harbor was 394,000 striped bass !200 mm, and 108,000 of these fi sh were Age 1 + (Table 1- 1).The 1987-1988 Hudson River striped bass hatchery evaluation was conducted in the Upper Harbor and Battery regions of the Hudson River (Normandeau 1988). The Battery region received 98% of the fishing effort and exhibited a higher catch per ten minute tow for both the 9 m trawl and 12 m trawl~with a cod end similar to the 9 m trawl. The catch was dominated by the strong 1987-year class of Age 0+ fish, which contributed more than one half of the catch. The 9 m trawl was more efficient than the 12 m trawl with a 9 m trawl cod end in capturing Age 0+ and Age 1+ striped bass. Handling mortality was extremely low (< 1%) and was not related to gear type or the use of the cod end liners (Dunning~et al. 1989). Based on the estimated number of Age 1+ fish and the number of verified striped bass of hatchery origin that were recaptured in 1987-1988, the estimated hatchery proportion was 1.6%. The estimated over wintering population in the Battery and Upper Harbor was 295,000 striped bass !200 mm, and .18 1,000 of these fish were estimated to be Age 1 + (Table 1- 1).The striped bass catch in'the Battery and Upper Harbor during the 1988-1989 program was dominated by a strong 1987 cohort of Age 1+ fish (70%), and the hatchery proportion for this cohort was estimated as 0.2% (Normandeau 1990). The minimum size of striped bass that were tagged was lowered from 200 mm to 150 mm during 1988-1989 to align the tagging effort with the expected size range of this large cohort of Age 1+ fish. Handling mortality remained low (<1%) even though smaller fish were tagged for the first time. The estimated over wintering population of striped bass in Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 1212112006 2 Normandeau Associates.
Inc.y 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report the Battery and Upper Harbor was 1, 190,000 fish !150 mmn or 890,000 fish >!200 mm, and an estimated 794,000 of the fish !200 mm were from the strong 1987 Age 1+ cohort (Table 1-1).The striped bass catch in the Battery and Upper Harbor during the 1989-1990 program was dominated by a strong 1988 cohort of.Age 1+ fish (65%), and the hatchery proportion for this cohort was estimated as 0.4% (Normandeau 1991). The estimated overwintering population of striped bass was 776,000 fish !150 mmn or 528,000 fish !200 mm, and an estimated 397,000 of the fish- 200mm were from the strong 19 88 Age 1 + cohort (Table 1- 1).The striped bass population over-wintering in the Battery and Upper Harbor during 1990-1991 was estimated as 858,000 fish :150 mmn or 786,000 fish !200 mmn (Table 1-1). About 352,000 striped bass !200 mmn were Age 1+ (Normnandeau 1992). The 1989 cohort of Age 1+ hatchery fish was 0.2%of the Age 1+/- catch.The 1990 cohort of Age 1+ striped bass and the 1991 cohort of Age 0+ fish dominated the population statistics for fish caught in the Battery and Upper Harbor during the winter of 1991-1992 (Normandeau 1994). The estimated size of the mid-winter striped bass population was 1, 163,000 fish!150 mmn or 967,000 fish !200 mmn (Table 1-1). Age 1+ striped bass represented 791,000 fish among the population 
!150 mm and 709,000 fish >!200 mm. Age 2+,and Age 3+ hatchery striped bass were each about 0.3% of the respective cohort's catch. Age 0+ and Age 1+ hatchery striped bass were not tagged with CWTs and could not be differentiated from wild fish of the same cohorts.The striped bass population found in the Battery and Upper Harbor during the winter of 1992-1993 was estimated as 920,000 fish !150 mmn or 717,000 fish !200 mmi (Table 1- 1). About 475,000 striped bass !200 mmn were Age 1 + during 1992-1993. (Table 1- 1). The 1991 cohort of Age 1 + fish and the 1992 cohort of Age 0+ fish dominated the total catch, while Age 1+ and Age' 2+ fish contributed most to the population estimate.
Age 3+ hatchery fish from the 1989 cohort were 0.02%of the total catch of Age 3+/- fish. Age 1+ and Age 2+ hatchery.
striped bass were not tagged with CWTs prior to tagging and could not be differentiated from wild fish of the same cohorts.The 1993-1994 program experienced the 2 0 1h~ coldest winter on record for New York City and the'coldest in the history of the striped bass program (Normandeau 1996). Bank-to-bank ice floes limited access to the Battery and Upper Harbor regions from 17 January through 21 February 1994, and~influenced within- and among-program comparisons.
The estimated size of the midwinter striped bass population 
> 150 mmn in Upper New York Harbor and the Battery regions during 1993-1994 was 443,000 fish, with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 339,000 and 641,000 (Normandeau 1996). The 1992 cohort of Age 1 +/- striped bass and the 1991 cohort of Age 2+/- fish dominated both the catch and midwinter population estimate, accounting for 57% (253,000) and 29% (129,000) of the population 
> 150 mmii, respectively.
The estimated hatchery proportion of striped bass was 0.2% for Age 0+, 1.05% for Age 1+, and 0.05% for Age 4+ fish among the same age cohorts.The striped bass population over wintering in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions during 1994-1995 was estimated as 350,000 fish > 150 mm (LMS 1995). About 225,000 striped bass > 150 mmn were Age I+. No Age 1+ (1993 cohort) hatchery fish were captured.The 1995 -1996 program estimated the midwinter striped bass population 
> 150 mmn in the Upper New York Harbor and the Battery regions to be approximately 949,000 fish, with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 745,000 and 1,308,000 (LMS 1996). The 1994 (Age 1+) cohort dominated the catch of Hudson River striped bass and represented 77% of the population 
> 150 mmn. The total Striped Bass 2000-200 I.doc 12/2112006 3 Stried ass 0002001doc12121206 3Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report population of Age 1+ and older striped bass > 200 mm was estimated as 786,000 fish, the same as estimated during the 1990-1991 program, and the third highest calculated annually since 1985-1986.
The estimated hatchery proportion of striped bass was < 0. 1% for both Age 0+ and Age 1+ fish among the same cohorts.The estimated size of the midwinter striped bass population 
> 150 mm in Upper New York Harbo r and the Battery regions during 1996-1997 was 768,000 fish, with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 682,000 and 880,000 (LMS 1997). The'1995 cohort of Age 1+ striped bass and the 1994 cohort of Age 2+ fish dominated the catch, representing 61% (493,000) and 27% (219,000) of the population 
> 150 mm, respectively.
The estimated hatchery proportion of striped bass was < 0. 1%for Age 1+/- and for Age 2+ fish among the same age cohorts. Stocking of striped bass from the Verplanck hatchery ceased following 1995.The 1997-1998 estimate of the mid-winter striped bass population 
! 150 mm in the upper New York Harbor and Battery region was 453,000 with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 382,000 and 555,000. The population estimate was predominantly Age 1+ and 2+ fish (90%) of 203,000 and 205,000 individuals, respectively.
The population estimate for the 1998-1999 program was 333,000 striped bass'! 150 mm in the Lower Hudson River and comprised of approximately 7,000 Age 0 +, 199,000 Age 1+, 92,000 Age 2+, 26,000 Age 3+ and 9,000 Age > 3+.The estimated size of the 1999-2000 winter striped bass population 
! 150 mmn in the upper New York Harbor and Battery region was 1,377,000 with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of 1, 180,000 and 1,653,000.
Age 0 + accounted for 13% (174,000 fish), Age 1 + contributed 73% (1,012,000 fish), Age 2 + contributed 11% (147,000 fish), Age 3 + contributed 2% (30,000 fish), and Age > 3 +contributed 1% (14,000 fish). The estimated population of age 1+ and older striped bass ! 200 mmn during the winter of 1999-2000 was the highest calculated annually since 1985-1986.
Objectives of the 2000-2001 Hudson River striped bass program were to: 1 .Describe the catch characteristics of the 9-rn trawl used to capture striped bass in the lower Hudson River during the winter, 2. Describe the length- and age-distribution of striped bass in the lower Hudson River during the winter, 3. Estimate the abundance of age 1+ and age 2+ striped bass in the lower Hudson River during the winter, 4. Compare the results of objectives I through 3 with those reported from previous years.Operation of the striped bass hatchery at Verplanck, New York was discontinued following the 1995-1996 program, and the production and release of marked striped bass fingerlings ceased. The proportion of marked hatchery striped bass among the 1995 (Age 5+) and older coho rts was likely to be so small in the 2000-2001 program that we did not examine the striped bass catch for hatchery-administered magnetic coded wire tags.Bottom water temperatures during the winter of 2000-2001 in the Battery region of the Hudson River deviated from the historical (1985-86 through 1999-2000) average during much of the season (Figure 1-1, Appendix Table B-1). Temperatures were colder than normal from the beginning of November through mid-January and the beginning of March through the remainder of the study.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/2112006 4 Stried Bss 000-00 .do 1221/206 Normandeau As~sociates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 2.0 METHODS 2.1 FIELD PROCEDURES 2.1.1, Field Sampling A complete description of field and laboratory procedures is found in the 1999-2000 Hudson River Striped Bass and Atlantic Tomcod Programs Standard Operating Procedures (Normandeau 2000).These procedures have remained essentially unchanged since the start of the 1988-1989 program.The 2000-200 1 Hudson River Striped Bass Program. consisted of sampling in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the lower Hudson River (Figure 2-1) with a 9 mn trawl (Appendix Table 'A-i).Sampling locations were selected to maximize the catch per unit of effort of striped bass in the lower Hudson River,-based on the results of previous programfs (Normandeau 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 2000; LMS 1995, 1996, 1997). A 9-in trawl was used in the 2000-2001'programn to catch striped bass because the results of the 1987-1988 program showed that the 9-in trawl was more efficient than other gear in catching striped bass of the target ages of Age 1 + and Age'2+/- (Normandeau 1988). Striped bass captured in each trawl sample were enumerated and fish !150 mmn were marked with internal anchor tags (Figure 2-2) and released.For 24 weeks, from the week beginning Monday, 6 November 2000 through Friday, 20 April 2001, the 9-in trawl was deployed in the lower Hudson River. The 9-in trawl was fished in each of the 24 weeks in the Battery region and on selected days during 6 weeks in the Upper Harbor region (Appendix Table C-i). Tow duration was 10 minutes unless sampling difficulties such as bottom obstructions required shortening the tow. All striped bass captured by the trawl were handled in a manner that minimized stress before tagging. The cod end of the, net was transferred while remaining in the water to the holding facility alongside the boat. Fish were then released from the cod end into the holding facility.
Striped bass were then removed from the holding facility for processing, using the following procedures:
1 .fish were removed from the live car using a dip net, 2. all surfaces that came in con-tact with the live fish were wet, 3. striped bass were handled gently by the body and not handled by the eye sockets, gill arches, isthmus, or opercular flaps, and 4. struggling fish were quieted by covering the head and eyes with a wet hand, cloth or glove.All striped bass were measured (mm total leng~th) and visually examined for external tags and tag wounds. All striped bass !150 mm, in good condition, and not already tagged, were tagged with an internal anchor tag. Good condition was defined as: 1. -no bleeding from gills or body wounds, 2. *no significant loss of scales., 3. strong opercular movement, and 4. no obvious external abnormalities such as blindness, fin rot *or skeletal abnormalities.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 5 Stried ass 0002001doc12/2/206 5Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Starting during the 1991-1992 program, striped bass that were not in good condition were tagged, and we continued tagging these fish in the 2000-2001 program to determine if the presence of certain gross anatomical abnormalities (such as blindness or bacterial infection) affected their survival.
The nature of the particular abnormality of ea 'ch striped bass was recorded prior to release. In pirograms before 1991-1992, only striped bass in good condition were tagged.The internal anchor tag was inserted by removing a scale midway between the vent and distal tip of the depressed pelvic fins, and five to six scale rows dorsolaterally from the ventral mid-line.
This tag insertion site was selected to minimize the damage to internal organs during tag placement, based on gross,'anatomical examination of striped bass (Normandeau 1988). A horizontal incision about 5 mm long was made with a hooking movement of a curved scalpel blade. The incision was made through the musculature but not deep enough to damage the intestines.
The anchor of the tag was inserted through the incision and set with a gentle pull on the streamer.
Scalpel blades were changed frequently to avoid tearing of the tissue and all incisions were treated with a merbromin-based topical antiseptic.
Scale samples were taken from the left side from an area approximately 3-4 scale rows below the notch between the spinous and soft dorsal fins of all striped bass caught, except for fish less than 100 mm. Fish less than 100 mm were considered Age 0+/-. Scale samples from recaptured, tagged fish were taken on the right side of the fish to avoid regenerated scales from~the release sample., Scale samples were taken from recaptured fish only if the tag number indicated the fish had been released in previous programs.
Condition of the tag and tag insertion site of recaptured striped bass were also evaluated.
After processing, striped bass were released into a recovery pen (1 mn wide x 2 mn long x 1 mn deep)* deployed alongside the tagging vessel. The pen was enclosed with netting on four sides, open on the top and bottom, and provided a refuge where striped bass could recover from processing without*being preyed on by gulls. Bird predation was estimated to remove about 2.4% of the tagged fish released during the 1990-91 program (Normandeau 1992), so we began using this recovery pen to reduce this predation.
Any fish remaining in the recovery pen at the end of sample processing were considered dead. Fish were released at least 400 mnfrom active fishing gear, but within 1.5 kmn (1 mile) of the capture location.6 2.1.2 Water Quality Sampling During each trawl sample, the direction of tow, time of tow, date, and sample number were recorded.A Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) model /33 salinity-conductivity-temperature meter was used to measure surface (0.3 m) and bottom water temperature and conductivity at the end of each tow. All conductivity measurements were adjusted to 25 'C (specific conductance) for presentation in this report. Water quality data are summarized by~region and week in Appendix Table B-1.2.2 LABORATORY METHODS 2.2.1 Biocharacteristics and Food Habits Striped bass that died during sampling procedures were placed on ice and transported to the laboratory at the end of each day for determination of biocharacteristics, including length, weight, Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 6 Stried Bss 000-001.doc12/1/206 6Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report sex, and sexual condition (Appendix E). In addition, striped bass stomachs were analyzed for the presence of invertebrates, vertebrates, and Atlantic tomcod (Appendix E).2.2.2 Age of Striped Bass Using Scales Age was determined for a stratified random sample of striped bass using scales collected from the fish in the field. All striped bass less than 100 mm were considered Age 0+ and scale samples were not taken. The stratified random subsample was based on the expected number of Age 1+ striped bass in each 10 mmn length group. Expected numbers of Age 1+ striped bass in each 10 mm length group were calculated from age at length data obtained during the current and 1999-2000 programs.This program was conducted during the winter from one calendar year to the next. To eliminate confusion that may be caused by a fish becoming a year older on 1 January, the hatching date of striped bass was assumed to be 15 May. To note this, the convention of adding a "+" after the age of a fish was used. Therefore, a striped bass hatched 15 May 1998 and collected from November 1999 through April 2000 would be designated "Age I+". This same fish, captured between November 2000 and April 2001, would be designated "Age 2+".Striped bass scales were pressed on 0.050-inch thick, grade GC, acetate sheets with a Carver Press Model-C 12 ton hydraulic press equipped with a pressure gauge, electric hot plates, temperature controls and thermometers.
Scale impressions were then examined with a microfiche reader at approximately 46x magnification and the location of each annulus was determined.
Criteria used to determine the presence of annuli on striped bass scales were (1) changes in the relative spacing of circuli in the anterior field of the scale, (2) crossing of circuli across previously deposited circuli in the lateral field of the scale, and (3) variations in the thickness and shape of the circuli. Generally an annulus exhibited all three of the above characteristics.
The distance from the scale focus to each annulus was measured along a line drawn through the focus and perpendicular to the anterior edge of each scale.2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS All field samples were assigned a Use Code (1, 2, or 5) that defined their use in analytical tasks (Appendix Table C-2). Use Code 1 samples were collections from which valid data were collected and no sampling problems were encountered.
Use Code 2 samples were collections in which striped bass were captured, but sampling problems were encountered.
Sampling problems were generally related to gear deployment, which would affect computation of catch per unit of effort, such as noticing a tear in the net after a tow, or stopp ing a tow before the required 10-minute duration.
Use Code 1 and 2 samples were used for mark-recapture analysis.
Use Code 2 samples were excluded from calculations involving catch per unit of effort and length-frequency distribution.
Use Code 5 samples were Use Code 2 samples where no striped bass were caught. Use Code 5 samples were excluded from all analyses.
Most data analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software (SAS 1999).No rounding of data was done prior to the final step in each analysis.
This prevented introduction of rounding error in the final result, and may present the appearance in a table that a column of data does not sum exactly to the total shown in the last row.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 7 Stried ass2000200doc12/2/206 7Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 2.3.1 Analysis, of Catch Characteristics Characteristics of the catch were compared among locations and sampling weeks by analysis of the catch per unit of effort, length-frequency, and handling mortality.
2.3.1.1 Catch Per Unit Of Effort Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE) for the 9 m trawl was defined as catch per ten-minute tow (Use Code = 1). Mean CPUE was calculated as: X= [x1 ] Equation I where, X = The mean trawl catch per ten minute tow, Ci = total number of fish captured in trawl i, Ej = the tow duration of trawl i in minutes, and n = the number of trawls.2.3.1.2 Length-Frequency Length-frequency histograms, with the number of fish on the ordinate and total length on the abscissa were constructed to describe the characteristics of the'~catch from the 9 mn trawl (Use Code = 1 tows).Length-frequency distributions for striped bass caught by the 9 mn trawl were characterized using moment statistics and frequency histograms.
Moment statistics compare the observed length-frequency distributions with hypothetical, normal (bell-shaped) distributions.
2.3.1.3 Handling Mortality Handling mortality was expressed as the proportion of dead striped bass in a "successful" trawl sample (Use Code = 1) by the following formula for each 1 'C temperature interval: PropD,, = D,/T, Equation 2 where, Prop. D, = the proportion of dead striped bass at bottom water temperature x,.Ds= the number of dead striped bass at bottom water temperature x, and T,= total number of striped bass captured at bottom water temperature x.Comparisons of handling mortality among the 1985-1986 through 2000-200 1 programs were also made using data subsetted to include the same sampling gear deployed during comparable water temperature ranges within the Battery region in each year. Differences in striped bass handling mortality among programs (1985-1986 through 2000-2001) were assessed by comparing the percentage of dead fish in the catch in one degree bottom water temperature increments.
Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 8 Stried ass 000?00Idoc12/2/206 8Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 2.3.2 Stratified Sampling for Age Determination and Mean Length at Age 2.3.2.1 Estimated Number of Striped Bass in Each Age Category A stratified random sampling plan was used to determine the number of striped bass scale samples to be selected for age determination from the total scale samples collected during the 2000-2001 program. The stratified plan selected striped bass scale samples for age analysis in direct proportion to both the number of fish in each 10 mmn length increment and the variance of the proportion of Age 1+ fish in each 10 mm length group. This Neyman allocation scheme is considered optimal with respect to its ability to maximize precision of the estimated proportion of Age 1+ fish, and is based on the following formula (Cochran 1977, Equation 5.60): flh fl(Nh phqh/ZNh phqh) Equation 3 where nh = number of scale samples selected for age determination from length group h, n = number of scale samples to be selected from the total fish caught (N), Nh =total number of fish caught in length group h, ph = proportion of Age 1+ fish in length group h from the laboratory sample, and qh = I -Ph The stratified sampling plan was designed to select approximately 15% of the scale samples from fish caught for age analysis.
Age and length-frequency data from 1999-2000 were applied to the first of three lots of 2000-2001 length-frequency data (6 November 2000 through 7 January 2001) to permit scale analysis to proceed during the study. Age and length-frequency data from analysis of the first lot of striped bass scales in 2000-2001 were then applied to the second lot of 2000-2001 scale samples (8 January through 22 February 200 1), and the age and length frequency from the first two lots were combined and used to select scale samples from the third lot during 2000-200 1 (23 February through 20 April 2001). In each lot scale samples from approximately 15% of the fish caught were randomly selected for age determination using the Neyman allocation formula. It should also be noted that the Neyman allocation for stratified random sampling was based on variance estimates derived from the proportion of Age 1+ fish and was, therefore, most precise for estimating the proportion and number of Age 1+ fish. However, age was determined for all fish examined in the laboratory so that the number and proportion could be determined for all age groups sampled.The proportion and number of striped bass of a given age that were caught in the 2000-2001 program was estimated by stratified random sampling, as described in the preceding paragraph, using the following formula (Cochran 1977, Equation 5.5.2): psti = Y(Nhpji~/N)
Equation 4 where pi= the stratified mean proportion of Age i fish, Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 9 5t~ied ass 0002001doc12/2/206 9Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Phi =:the proportion of Age i fish in length group h, and Nh and N are as defined in Equation 3.The number of striped bass of Age i in the total catch (At) is: Ai N(pt,i) Equation 5 The sample variance for the stratified mean proportion of Age i fish in the total catch (S 2 psti) was calculated by the method of Cochran (1977, Equation 5.53): S /= N 2 [Y3[Nh (Nh -flh)I(Nh -l )][(Ph 1 qi)/(nh -1)]] Equation 6 where N, Nh, Phi, and qjj are as defined in Equation 3 for Age i fish.Confidence intervals (CI) for the stratified mean proportion of Age i striped bass and for the total number of Age i fish were calculated based on Cochran (1977) Equations 5.14 and 5.15: 95% C1 for psti = p,,i +/- t s siEquation 7 95%C~forA 1=Np,, 1+/-ts~7  Equation 8 where spi- &#xfd;S2 t Student's two-tailed t statistic for a =0.05, based on the effect ive degrees of freedom (Cochran 1977, Equation 5.16), and psti, Ai, N, s'Pt are as defined in Equations 4-7.2.3.2.2 Stratified Mean Length in Each Age Category The mean length of striped bass of a given age that were caught in the 2000-2001 program was estimated based on the same stratified random sampling plan described above in Section 2.3.2. 1, using the following formula (Cochran 1977, Equation 12. 1):[L=Si h Yhi I/N, Equation 9 h7=1 where Y = stratified mean length of striped bass of Age i among the total fish of Age i caught, Yli= mean length of Age i fish in length group h of the laboratory sample, nhi = number of Age i fish caught in length group h, N, = number of Age i fish caught in the program, and Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 10 Strisd ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 10Normandeau Associates, Inc. /
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report L= number of length groups in which at least two Age i fish were measured.
If only one Age i fish was present in a length group, its length was pooled with those of length group closest to the group containing the mean.Variance estimates and confidence intervals for the stratified mean, length of Age i fish were based on extrapolating mean length from the sample of striped bass for which age was determined (nhi) to the entire population of striped bass in the Hudson River (N 1). However, extrapolating the variance of mean length to the entire river population is a two-phase sampling procedure in which the total catch is the'primary sample and the aged fish are the secondary sample.The two-phase variance of the stratified mean length of striped bass of a given age was estimated using the following formula (simplified from Cochran 1977, Equation 12.24 with the assumption that N 1 is large and substantially larger than ni, therefore Ni 1' 0 and g'i &#xfd; 1): L 2 1 [h hi (S2~ / , 1 iV, J]+ (1/ n; )ZWtiYhi_
y-s, 1  Equation 10 h=1 h1=1 9 where s2-si= Two-phase variance of the stratified mean length of striped bass of Age i, whi = proportion of Age i fish in length group h, as estimated by the Bayes Theorum presented in Equation 11, s2 variance of the mean length of Age i fish in length group h of the laboratory sample, n'1  total number of Age i fish in the laboratory sample, Vhi proportion of Age i fish in length group h, and Yh1i, Ysti, and L are as defined in Equation 9.The Neyman allocation for selecting' scales to be aged (Section 2.3.2. 1) requires the use of the Bayes Theorem as an indirect method of estimating wl 5 1 as follows: Wi=P (L 1 , I Ai) [P(Lh) P (A I Lh 1)/ P(A 1) Equati on 11, where whi is as defined in Equation 10, Ai = Age i striped bass, P(L 1 1) = proportion of the total catch of striped bass in length group h, P (Ai I L 1 1) = proportion of aged fish in length group h that are Age i, and P(A 1) = proportion of Age i fish in the total catch.Confidence intervals for the stratified mean length of Age i fish were calculated using the following formula (Cochran 1977, Equation 5.14): 95 % CI for yti =y,,t+/- t Syst Equation 12 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 I I Stried ass 0002001oc 2/21200 11Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report where ,s~,, sT~, t =Student's t statistic for a = 0.05 based on n.' I degrees of freedom (not the effective degrees of freedom), and Ysiis as defined in Equation 9.2.3.3 Recaptured Striped Bass Three groups of recaptured, internal anchor-tagged striped bass were considered: 
(1) fish recaptured from our previous pro'grams (c~ross-year recaptures), (2) fish caught, tagged, released and recaptured.
within the current (2000-200 
: 1) program (within-year recaptures), and (3) fish recaptured with external streamer tags from other tagging programs (other recaptures).
All cross-year recaptures were examined to determine the condition of the tag legend and insertion site, recapture rate, mean length, and days at-large.
We also determined the age and growth for cross-year recaptures by examining the scale samples taken at the time of release and time of recapture.
Within-year recaptures consisted of two groups of striped bass: fish that were in good condition at the time they were tagged and released (REL-REC = 1), and fish that were tagged and released but exhibited one or more gross anatomical abnormalities (REL -REC = 6). Both groups of within-year recaptures were examined to determine the tag condition, recapture rate, mean length and days at-large.
Within-year recaptures that were in good condition at the time of release (RELREC = 1) were also used for a mark-recapture estimate of population size (Section 2.3.5). We obtained release and recapture informnation and observed the condition of the tag streamer and insertion site for other agency recaptures.

====2.3.4 Population====

Movement The two regions of the study area, Battery and Upper Harbor (Figure 2-1), were combined and treated as one region for analyses of population movement and abundance because they are contiguous.
Movement within this combined lower Hudson River area was determined directly by plotting and by comparison of recapture rates and recapture proportions in each week: Recapture rate =Rij/Mj Equation 15 where R= number of tagged striped bass recaptured in time period (week) i in region j, and Mj number of tagged striped bass released during time period (week) i in region j.Recapture Proportion 
= Rij/Cij Equation 16 where Rj= number of tagged striped bass recaptured in time period (week) i in region j, and Cj= number of striped bass caught and examined for tags in time period (week) i in region J.Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 12 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 12Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 2.3.5 Population Size The Schumacher-Eschmeyer estimator was used to estimate striped bass population size because it is a multiple census population estimator which permits tagging and recapture efforts to occur concurrently.
This estimator is a weighted linear regression of R 1/Cj as a function of Mi (where Mi is the cumulative number marked prior to time i) with the restriction that the regression line must pass through the origin. The model is R,/Ci = f3Mi + ei where P3 is the slope of the regression line and ei is a random error term with a mean of 0 (Seber 1982). When the squared residuals (Ri/C 1-j3Mi) are weighted by the catch (Ci), then N equals the slope, .The Schumacher-Eschmeyer estimator (Ricker 1975) is N' = X(CiMi 2)/YX(RiMi)
Equation 17 where N = estimated population size, C, = total catch during time interval i, Mi total number of marked fish tagged and released in good condition and available for recapture at the midpoint of time interval i, and R= number of recaptured fish in C 1.The variance of the reciprocal of the population size (11N) is estimated by first calculating the mean of squared deviations from the regression as s 2  ( 0 1RmJ I(ii rn-i Equation 18 where S2 =mean of squared deviations from the regression model described above, m = the number of data points in the regression, and Ci, M. and R. are as defined above in Equation 17.The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the reciprocal of the population size (1/N) is computed as CI S 2/yCiMi 2 X tmj_ Equation 19 where t,,,_ = Student's t-statistic for rn-I degrees of freedom and cU=0.05 Confidence limits for the population size N are obtained by first computing the 95% CI about 1IN and then inverting.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.d6c 12/21/2006 13 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 13Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

===3.1 CATCH===
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 9 m TRAWL 3.1.1 Catch Per Unit Of Effort A total of 826 valid, ten minute tows with no sampling problems (use code =1) were taken with the 9-in trawl in the lower Hudson River between 6 November 2000 and 20 April 2001 with 800 in the Battery region, and 26 tows in the Upper Harbor region (Table 3-1, Appendix Table C-i). For all sampling weeks combined, the mean CPUE for striped bass in the Upper Harbor region (35.6 striped bass per 10-minute tow) was greater than the mean CPUE for the Battery region (22.0, Table 3-1), although sampling was only conducted in the Upper Harbor region during the first several weeks of the program (Appendix Table C-i). Past results indicate that striped bass are generally more abundant in the Upper Harbor region than in the Battery during November and early December and this trend was evident in 2000-2001 (Appendix Table C- I, Figure 3. 1). The largest weekly mean CPUE in the Upper Harbor region (44.4 striped bass per 10-minute tow) was during the week of 27 November, highest CPUE in the Battery (43.7) was during the week of 4 December.The greatest sampling effort during the 2000-2001 program was in the Battery region of the lower Hudson River (Appendix Table C-2) and the largest mean CPUE in the Battery was at river miles 5 and 8 (Appendix Table C-3). River mile 3 in the Battery actually had the highest CPUE, however there was only one tow conducted at this site (Appendix Table C-3). Historically, the Battery region has received the greatest sampling effort and data from this area were examined for annual comparisons of CPUE, after restricting the annual databases to a similar collection period (Table 3-2).The annual mean CPUE for the 9-in trawl in the Battery region increased from 8.1 (striped base per 10-minute tow) in the 1985-1986 program to a peak of 45.3 in 1989-1990.
The increased catch during the 1988-89 and 1989-90 programs may be related to greater recruitment of the numerically dominant 1987 and 1988 year classes to the 9-rn trawl (CES 1989, 1991). The decrease in CPUE observed after the 1989-90 program may be due to migration from the lower Hudson River of the older year classes from 1987 and 1988 cohorts and lower abundance of the 1989 through 1999 year classes. Sampling effort for part of the mid-winter period was low in 1993-1994 because extremely cold temperatures caused bank to bank ice floes in the Battery which restricted access to the river.Effort was also low in 1994-1995 and 1995-1996.
During recent years, mean CPUE was lowest in the 1995-1996 program (14.3 striped bass per 10-minute tow) but has increased since then to 31.7 and 26.1 in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 programs, respectively.
3.1.2 Length-Frequency Distributions For the 2000-2001 program, overall mean length of striped bass caught by the 9-mn trawl was larger in the Upper Harbor region (324 mm) than in the Battery (225 mim, Table 3-3). The range of striped bass lengths was considerabl Iy greater in the Battery than in the Upper Harbor region. Additional length-frequency i'nformation by size-class for the combined Battery and Upper Harbor regions is provided in Appendix Tables C-4 and C-5. The length-frequency distributions, compared to a bell-shaped normal distribution, for the two separate regions and regions combined were skewed to the right, i.e., more fish Were smaller than the mean length and the kurtosis was leptokurtotic, i.e., more fish were found in length groups close to the mean length (Table 3-3). The length frequency Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 
' 12/21/2006 14 Siried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 14Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report distribution was unimodal in both the Battery and Upper Harbor regions, with peaks in the 251-300 mim length group (Figure 3-2). The modes in the 251-300 mm length group in both sampling regions were Age 1+ fish from the 1999 year class. Based on the overall length frequency distributions from the 2000-200 1 program, it was apparent that in the Battery region Age 0+ fish (< 150 mm) and Age 1 + fish were common, but in the Upper Harbor region Age I+ fish were dominant with few Age 0+fish present. The unimodal length frequency distribution for the. 2000-2001 program when both regions were combined differs from 1999-2000 when a bimodal distribution pattern was evident (Figure 3.3). A bimodal length distribution pattern was also evident during the winters of 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1991-1.992, 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 (Figure 3-3).Weekly mean length of striped bass caught by the 9 mn trawl in the Battery region during the 2000-2001 program was largest early in the program peaking during the week of December 25, declining to a low in January through mid March, and increasing during the remainder of the program (Appendix Table C-6). The cause for the change in weekly mean length was due to prevalent length groups collected weekly (Figure 3-4). The larger length groups were dominant during November and December, with smaller groups dominating January through mid March followed by an increase in the prevalence of larger length groups through April. This pattern of highest mean length occurring early in the program was similar to that observed in 1995-1996 and 1999-2000 when weekly mean lengths were highest during the beginning and end of the program. During the 199 1-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 programs, weekly mean length was largest.during the first nine or ten weeks. In the 1994-1995 and 1996-1997 programs the highest weekly mean lengths were observed near the end of the program.3.1.3 Handling Mortality Overall striped bass handling mortality in the 9 mn trawl was 0.5% during 2000-2001 at bottom water temperatures from 2 to 130 C (Table 3-4). A total of 86 striped bass died out of 18,561 fish caught in Use Code = 1 tows that had river bottom water temperature data associated with each tow. The highest handling mortality of 0.9% was observed at bottom water temperatures of 6 and 7 'C, and the second highest handling mortality was at 10 'C (0.8%). The relatively consistent, low handling mortality indicated there was no relationship between handling mortality and water temperature for the 9 m trawl over bottom water temperatures of 2 to 13 'C experienced in this study. The 2000-200 1 data were not examined for an interaction between water temperature, fish length and immediate handling mortality because this interaction was not significant in previous programs (Dunning et al.1989).For historical comparisons, striped bass handling mortality in the 2000-2001 program at water temperatures ranging from 4 to 12 'C was 0.6%, similar to the pooled mortality for the 1985-1986 through 1990-1991 programs, and generally less or comparable to the mortality observed in the 1991 -92 through 1999-2000 programs (Table 3-5). The apparent increase in handling mortality observed following the 1990-1991 program was probably due to an underestimate of handling mortality during the 1985-1986 through 1990-1991 programs.
During the 1985-1986 through 1990-1991 programs, bird predation on released striped bass was not considered to be a significant problem and little effort was made to quantify the bird predation rate. All striped bass that were not immediately identified as dead upon release were assumed to have survived.
However, at the end of the 1990-1991 program it became apparent that bird predation on released striped bass was significant.
Approximately 2.4% of the 2,969 tagged striped bass released between 12 March and 12 April 1991 were removed from the Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 15 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 15Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report water by gulls (Normandeau 1992). Therefore, handling mortality in the 1985-1986 through 1990-1991 programs may have been underestimated.
Field procedures were modified in 1991-1992 and these modifications continued through the 2000-2001 program to both quantify and minimize gull predation.
After tagging, fish were released into a recovery pen that was deployed in the water alongside the boat. The pe 'n was a 1 mn x 2 m x 1 m deep enclosure with 0.9 cm mesh netting on four sides, open on the top and bottom, with the top of the frame suspended at the water surface. Striped bass released into the pen were provided a refuge alongside the boat where they could recover from handling, stress without drifting away from the boat during recovery and possibly being preyed on by gulls. Fish in good condition typically escaped from the pen through the bottom. Stunned fish typically remained at the surface for several minutes until they recovered and escaped through the bottom of the pen. Any fish remaining in the recovery pen at the end of sample processing were considered dead and were removed and taken to the lab. A field technician also observed fish as they escaped from the recovery pen and recorded instances of gull predation.
These procedures both minimized gull predation and accuraitely recorded handling mortality.
Quantitative comparison of the difference in handling mortality between the 1985-1986 through 1990-1991 programs and the 1991-1992 through 2000-2001 programs are probably not meaningful due to the change in field procedures.
Striped bass handling mortality statistics from the recent programs are probably more accurate than previous programs because use of the observer and the recovery pen allowed more assessment of accurate bird predation data. Handling mortality during the 1991-1992 through 2000-2001 programs was probably lower than handling mortality recorded for previous programs because the recovery pen provided a refuge against gull predation.
Handling mortality in all programs conducted after the 1985-1986 program was approximately ten times less than that observed in the 1984 program (Normandeau 1992). The primary reason for the decrease in handling mortality observed after 1984 was the use of a submerged holding facility and the increased tagging efficiency of field crews (Dunning et al. 1989).3.2 STRIPED BASS LENGTH AND AGE DISTRIBUTION

====3.2.1 Length====
Distribution and Associated Statistics for Each Age Cohort Age-length frequency histograms, presented by 10 imm length groups for Age 0+ through Age 3+striped bass (Figure 3-5) demonstrate minimal overlap in size of Age 0+ and Age 1+ striped bass caught during the 2000-2001 program. Most of the fish in each length group < 150 mm were Age 0+, while most of the fish in length groups between 150 and 300 mm were Age 1+. Age 1+ and Age 2+striped bass overlapped in size primarily between 270 and 350 mm. Age 3+ striped bass overlapped with Age 2+ fish starting at about 360 mm. However, few-fish Age 3+ or older were.< 400 mm.The 9 m trawl with 7.6 cm (stretch) mesh in the body and 3.8 cm (stretch) mesh in the cod end was the only gear that was consistently used among the 1986-1987 through 2000-200 1 programs.Therefore, the striped bass catch by this gear was used for comparisons of mean length at age among programs.
The 95% confidence intervals about the estimated mean length of each age cohort was used for the comparison of mean length at age. The 2000 cohort of Hudson River striped bass at Age 0+ was larger than only the 1987 and 1994 cohorts and not significantly different from the 1989, 1990, 1992, 1997 and 1998 cohorts at Age 0+ (Figure 3-6, Appendix Table C-7). The 2000 cohort Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12121/2006 16 'Stried ass20002001 .oc 1/21200 16Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report, was smaller than the 1986, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1999 cohorts at Age 0+. At Age 1+, the 1999 cohort was smaller than the 1986, 19.93, 1995, 1996 and 1998 cohorts, equal in length to the 1990 and 1994 cohorts, and larger than the other seven year classes compared.
At Age 2+, the 1998 cohort was larger than all previous year classes with the exception of the 1997 cohort. 'Among the Age 3+ striped bass, the 1997 cohort had a greater estimated mean length than the 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1993 cohorts. The 1997 cohort at Age 3+ observed in the 2000-2001 program did not differ in mean length from the 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995, or 1996 year classes at Age 3+.3.2.2 Estimated Proportion and Number of Age 0+ Through Age 3+ Striped Bass Stratified random sampling of about 23% of the scale samples resulted in extremely precise estimates of the proportion and number of Age 1+ striped bass in the 2000-2001 program (Table 3-6). For the allocation of 4,184 scale samples actually selected, the precision'based on 95% confidence limits was 0. 9% corresponding to an error term of 10 1 fish.Relatively little gain in precision would be realized compared to the cost if age were determined for more than about 10% of the total sample (18,560 fish caught and measured in Use Code = I tows in 2000-200 1). By determining the age from scale samples from as few as 500 fish, the total number of Age 1+ striped bass (11,498) out of the 18,560 fish caught and measured in use code = 1 samples during 2000-Ol could be estimated with 95% confidence limits of++/- 317 fish (precision 
=2.8%, Table 3-6). Using the stratified sampling plan, scales were selected for age analysis in direct proportion to both the number of Age 1 + fish in each 10 mm length group and' the variance of the proportion of Age 1+ fish in each length group. However, the stratified designx was also precise for estimating the proportion and number of Age 0+ through Age 2+ striped bass (Table 3-7), which collectively comprised 98% of the fish caught in this program. Only 200 of the 18,560 striped bass caught and measured in use code = 1 samples were estimated to be 'Age 3+, and 79 of the fish caught were older than Age 3+ in the 2000-0 1 program. The number of Age 0+ fish was estimated more -precisely than would be expected based on Age 1+ fish because there was little overlap in size between these ages (Figure 3-5). The 1999 cohort of Age 1+ striped bass was approximately 62% of the total catchi during 2000-2001.
The number and proportion of Age 2+ striped bass (1998 cohort) were much less than these values for Age 1+ fish, but estimated with lower precision because the Age 2+ were more evenly distributed over a wide range of size groups (, and the sample size was smaller for these fish.The number of Age 3+ striped bass was estimated with relatively low precision because, more than half of the catch of these fish were > 400 mm and few scale samples were selected from this size group (Figure 3-5).3.3 CHIARACTERIZATION OF RECAPTURED STRIPED BASS During the 2000-200 1 w inter sampling program, 13,876 striped bass were tagged with an internal anchor-externial streamer tag (internal anchor tag) inserted into the body cavity through the abdominal Musculature.
Of these tagged fish, 13,363 were released in good condition (Rel Rec=l) and an additional 513 striped bass with external abnormalities were released (RelRec=6).
All striped bass were examined in the field for the presence of internal anchor tags or tag wounds at the insertion site.Intemnal anchor tag numbers for recaptured fish were recorded in the field and used to link recapture data with release data (Appendix Tables D-lI and D-2). We recaptured 159 of the 13,876 striped bass tagged in 2000-2001L Two of these fish were recaptured on more than one occasion resulting in 161 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 17 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 17Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report within year recapture events. Of the 161 recapture events, six were from the 513 Re! Rec=6 striped bass tagged and 155 were from the 13,363 striped bass that were tagged and released in good condition (Re!_Rec=
1). We also recaptured 30 striped bass with internal anchor tags implanted during previous programs, 12 fish were recaptured with suspected tag wounds, no fish were recaptured with illegible tag numbers, and eight fish were recaptured with tags from other tagging studies. These groups are described below in separate sections.
A complete description of the number of fish caught, tagged with different types of internal anchor-external streamer tags since 1984, and the associated reward values printed on the external streamers is presented in Appendix Tables D-6 and D-7. Only internal anchor tags were used during the 2000-200 1 program.3.3.1 Striped Bass Internal Anchor-Tagged, Released, and Recaptured During the 2000-200lWinter Program The majority (13,342 or 93%) of the taggable-size (>150 mm) striped bass (14,287) were caught in the Battery region as were 150 or 97% of the 155 fish tagged, released in good condition and, recaptured during this study (Table 3-8, Appendix Table D-1). This is not surprising since most (97%) of the trawl sampling effort was allocated to the Battery during 2000-200 1 based on the high CPUE in this region during the previous programs (Normandeau 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000; LMS 1995, 1996, 1997). Recapture rates (R/M) and recapture proportions (RIC) can be used to examine the recapture of fish among different space or time frames. Recapture rates from the column totals compare the number of fish recaptured throughout the program (recaptured any time on or after the release date) to the number of fish released in a particular region or time period.Recapture rates from the row totals compare the number of fish recaptured in a region or time period to the number marked throughout the program. For example, in Table 3-8, the recapture rate for striped bass tagged, released and recaptured in the Battery (cell total) was 146/12,483 or 0.01170.The recapture rate for striped bass tagged and released in the Battery and recaptured throughout the study area (column total) was 150/12,483 or 0.0 1202. In contrast, recapture proportions (RIG) from columrn totals compare the number of fish released in a particular region to the number examined for tags throughout the program, while recapture proportions from the row totals compare both the number of fish recaptured in a particular region (regardless of origin) to the number of fish caught and examined for tags in that region. For example, in Table 3-8, the recapture proportion for striped bass tagged, released, and recaptured in the Battery among all fish examined for tags in the Battery (cell total) was 146/13,343 or 0.01094. It is generally most informative to examine recapture rates from the column totals and recapture proportions from the row totals since these statistics best describe specific movement among regions (or time periods).Examination of monthly recapture rates (R/M) and recapture proportions (RIG) can provide insight into the movements of marked striped bass during the study period. Recapture rates that are stable with time (Schaefer 195 1) and recapture proportions that increase with time suggest little movement of the marked population (Cormack 1968). Striped bass monthly recapture rates (RIM column totals;Table 3-9, Appendix Table D3) were generally stable for the November 2000 through mid-March 2001 period, with a fluctuation around a high in the first week of February 200 1. Monthly recapture proportions (RIG row totals) steadily increased from January through early March 2001 followed by a decline through the rest of the sampling period. Both recapture rates (RIM) and recapture proportions (RIG) were lowest in April 2001. The pattern of reasonably stable monthly recapture rates and increasing recapture proportions during January 2001 through early March 2001 suggests that this was a period of little movement of the striped bass population in the lower Hudson River. The results Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/2112006 19 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 18Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report from linear regression analyses during this period showed that the slope over time (weeks) was not significant for recapture rates (p=0.837) but was significant (p < 0.00 1) for recapture proportion.
Striped bass tagged and released in the combined Battery and upper New York Harbor regions, and subsequently recaptured in those regions were at-large an average of 26 days and ranged in size between 151 mmn and 512 mmn (Table 3-10). Approximately 29% (45/155) of the striped bass were recaptured on the same day as they were tagged and released, and 71% (110/155) of the fish were recaptured within 30 days of release, suggesting most fish had remained in the contiguous region for approximately a month after they were tagged and released.
Within two months (60'days), 85%(13 1/15 5) of the striped bass were recaptured, and the maximum days at-large was 13 6 days. Days at-large and recapture length data for the 2000-200 1 program were similar to previous years (Normandeau 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; 1999, 2000; LMS 1995, 1996, 1997).3.3.2 Striped Bass Internal Anchor-Tagged and Released Prior to, and Recaptured During the 2000-2001 Winter Program A total of 30 striped bass were recaptured during 2000-200 1 with internal anchor tags identified from previous programs (Appendix Table D-2). Of these, 27 recaptured striped bass had the external portion of the tag (streamer) present, all tags numbers were completely legible, and none exhibited any abrasion on the external streamer (Table 3 -1 1). An additional 12 striped bass were observed with suspected tag wounds but no tag streamer was present. Three of these fish with suspected tag wounds had Hallprint (MARK_-CD 
= 98) anchors in the abdominal cavity containing the tag number indicating fishermen had cut off the external streamer.
The remaining nine fish either had the tag and anchor removed by fishermen, had wounds unrelated to tagging, or had shed the tag. Upon autopsy, four of these nine striped bass had internal scars suggesting a tag anchor had been present, the other five fish had wounds judged to be unrelated to tagging. Tag numbers were defined as completely illegible if one or more digits of the 6-digit tag number could not be read in the field. Tag abrasion was first observed during 1986-1987, is time dependent, and the tagged fish must be at-large for at least six months for abrasion to affect the legibility of the legend on the external streamer (Mattson et al. 1990). In previous programs illegible tags were observed on 12-20% of the recaptured str~iped bass judged at-large at least one year, and 20-30% exhibited some degree of tag number abrasion (Normandeau'1987, 1988, and 1990). Changes in tag design since 1986-1987 have virtually eliminated tag abrasion, and no abraded tags were observed in the 2000-2001 program.Prior to the 1986-1987 program, Floy internal anchor-external streamer tags were used: abrasion was observed in 28%. of the recaptured fish at-large for at least six months (Mattson et al. 1990). During the 1986-1987 program, Floy internal anchor tags were first used with a clear, PVC tube over the external streamer to protect the legend from abrasion.
Unfortunately, this tubing could not be sealed watertight and algal or bacterial growth proliferated between the clear tube and legend, making most of the external streamer legends unreadable.
These tubing-type tags also had the number printed on the anchor, so the release information could be determined by sacrificing the fish and extracting the internal anchor.Hallprint internal anchor tags were first used in 1987-1988.
These tags have the legend sealed between layers of polyethylene on the external streamer, which is bonded to a monofilament core.The streamer was angled so that its distal end is posterior to the tag site. A similar but short length of streamer containing the tag number is used for the anchor (Figure 2-2). The external streamer on the Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 19 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 19Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Haliprint tag has exhibited no abrasion or information loss due to abrasion.
However, the streamer had an exposed section of monofilament core at the site of tag anchor insertion.
A longitudinal scar at the tag wound site was observed frequently during early 1988-1989 from fish tagged and released during 1987-1988 with the exposed filament Haliprint tag (Normandeau 1990). Apparently, as continuous force was applied to the tag during swimming, the monofilament strand cut through the ventral body wall of the fish forming a longitudinal scar from the tag insertion site to the end of the abdominal cavity at the vent. When the tag reached the end of the abdominal cavity, it was displaced out of the fish and shed.The Haliprint tag was modified in 1989 so that there was no exposed monofilament core. This modified extended-streamer Haliprint tag appears to have significantly reduced or eliminated the tag shedding problem. In 1988-1989, 13/26 fish recaptured with a wound at the insertion site exhibited a longitudinal scar and an additional 9/68 of the fish recaptured with a tag exhibited poste'rior displacement and a longitudinal scar. The 1988-1989 data suggested a long-term shedding rate for the original Hallprint tag with an exposed filament of 22/94 or 23%. Among the 9 fish with suspected tag wounds (and no anchor found) caught during the 2000-200 1 program, 4 fish had a longitudinal scar suggesting they may have shed a tag and 5 fish had wounds that were judged to be not related to tagging. Changing to the H~allprint tag in 1987-1988 has virtually eliminated the problem of lost streamer information due to tag abrasion,-and the change to the modified Haliprint tag with extended streamer in 1988-1989 has reduced tag loss due to shedding.
Among the 30 striped bass recaptures from previous programs during 2000-2001 were 2 fish that had been tagged and released during 1996-1997, 2 fish that had been tagged and released during 1997-1998, 5 fish that had been tagged and released during 1998-1999, and 21 fish that had been tagged and released during 1999-2000 (Table 3-12, Appendix Table D-2). Three of the thirty cross-year recaptured striped bass in 2000-2001 were initially recaptured in programs prior to this year and these records are noted in Appendix Table D-2. Days at large and distance traveled calculations for these fish~are determined from the last time they were handled (their initial recapture) rather than from the ini 'tial release date.. All recaptured fish from the 1992-1993 through 2000-2001 programs were caught, tagged and released from the 9 m trawl, which was the only gear used. Recaptured fish were at-large between 223 and 1477 days, and ranged in length between 260 mm and 621 nmm (Table 3-13).Eight striped bass were recaptured in 2000-2001 with tags originating from other tagging programs (Table 3-14). Four fish were recaptured with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal anchor tags and four fish were recaptured with Littoral Society spaghetti tags.3.3.3 Condition of the Catch Some of the striped bass caught in the 9 mn trawl displayed one or more types of injury or abnormality, such as blindness 
' fin rot, fungal infection, skeletal deformity, or visible wounds. The incidence of such conditions among all fish that had not been previously caught (i.e., those without tags or tag wounds) was 3.4% ( Table 3-15). About 76% (13,944 of 18,387) of all unmarked fish were subsequently tagged and released.
Most of the fish not tagged were less than 150 mm and too small to tag, or were judged to be poor condition and not tagged. These groups of fish were either released without tags or were dead and taken to the laboratory for processing.
The proportion of injured or anomalous striped bass among those tagged and released was 3.7% (52 1/13,944).
The incidence of injuries or anomalies among recaptured fish (with tags or suspected tag wounds) was 11.5% (24 of 209). The most frequently observed conditions of unmnalked striped bass were fin rot and stress from Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12121/2006 20 Stried ass200-20I~dc 1/21200 20Normiandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report the sampling gear. Of the unmarked fish, 0.2% displayed more than one type of injury or abnormality.
Each of the six general categories of poor condition were further classified (Table 3-16). Blindness in both eyes was nearly twice as frequent as blindness in one eye. Fin rot most commonly occurred on the caudal fin. Fungal infections, when present, were generally on both sides of the body. Skeletal anomalies included scoliosis (lateral spine curvature), head deformities (e.g., "pugnose"), or lordosis (dorso-ventral spine curvature) and damage from fishing hooks. Many of the visible wounds on the body were healed over. Other commonly noted wounds were damaged gills and missing or damaged fins. Infrequently observed conditions included hemorrhaged (bloodshot) eyes, bulging eyes ("pop-eye"), wounds to the eye, and tumors.Fin rot and fungus accounted for a much larger proportion of the injuries/anomalies in recaptured striped bass (85%) than in unmarked fish (32%) (Table 3-16). Stress from the sampling gear among unmarked fish was 0.2% and not found among recaptured fish. Skeletal deformities among unmarked fish was 0.2% and not found among recaptured fish. The incidence of other types of conditions (blindness, wounds) was similar in recaptured fish to what was in unmarked fish or tagged fish.3.4 STRIPED BASS POPULATION SIZE An important objective of the 2000-200 1 program was to estimate the size of the striped bass population that overwintered in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River. The Schumacher-Eschmeyer regression technique was selected because it is a multiple census estimator which permits tagging and recapture efforts to occur concurrently.
This estimator was used during the 1985-1986 through 2000-2001 programs to estimate the size of the mid-winter striped bass population in the Upper Harbor and Battery regions of the lower Hudson River (Normandeau 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000; LMS 1995, 1996, 1997).Eight assumptions must be satisfied to estimate the winter striped bass population size in the lower.Hudson River estuary using the Schumacher-Eschmeyer method or related methods (Cormack 1968;Ricker 1975; Seber 1982; MIMES 1986): 1. mortality is not different for tagged and untagged bass, 2. tagging does not affect bass catchability, 3. tagged bass do not lose their marks,-4. all tags are recognized and reported, 5. natural marking does not occur or is recognizable, 6. immigratio n, emigration, and recruitment are negligible in the study area i.e., the population is closed, 7. tagged bass are randomly distributed among untagged fish or the distribution of recapture fishing effort is proportional to the abundance of fish in various river regions, and 8. marked fish have the same probability of being caught as unmarked fish.Striped Bass 2000-200 I.doc 12/21/2006 21 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 21Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report With regard to Assumption 1, Dunning et al. (1987) observed no difference in mortality between tagged and untagged striped bass retained (1) in the Hudson River, for 24 hours and (2) in holding pools for up to 18,0 days. However, during the 1990-199 1 program, predation by birds (gulls) was obsgrved to remove about 2.4% of the tagged fish as they wjere released from the tagging vessel (Normandeau 1992). Most of the bird predation was observed to occur as the released fish drifted away from the tagging vessel before sounding.
In the 199 1-1992 through present programs, all striped bass were released into a recovery pen that was suspended in the water alongside the tagging vessel'. The pen provided cover until the fish sounded, and virtually eliminated bird predation.
Therefore, the number of tagged striped bass at-large was not adjusted for mortality during the 2000-2001 program.Differential catchability of tagged and untagged striped bass during the winter (Assumption 
: 2) was probably not significant.
With respect to trawling as recapture gear, tagged fish would not be differentially caught due to the presence of tags. This assumption is more a problem with gill nets or other recapture methods which rely on entanglement to catch fish.With regard to Assumption 3, field crews were specifically instructed to examine fish for tag wounds (Normandeau 1998) which would provide evidence of tag loss. QAIQC procedures (Normandeau 1998) and audits provide documentation that incorrect identification or non-reporting of tags by field crews did not occur. Dunning et al. (1987) found 97.7% of tagged fish held for 180 days in pools retained their tags. Based on a 2.3% loss rate (Dunning et al. 1987) and the recapture of 155 fish out of 13,363 tagged fish, approximately 4 fish would be expected to have lost tags in the 2000-200 1 program. However, the tag loss rate from Dunning et al. (1987) was based on Floy style tags which may exhibit a higher shedding rate than the Hallprint tags now used. Throughout the 2000-200 1 program, 14,287 striped bass were examined for tags and tag wounds, and 12 fish were observed with suspected tag wounds. Three of these fish had anchors present without streamers indicating the streamer was cut and removed by fishermen.
It was judged that of the remaining nine fish, five exhibited a longitudinal scar, suggesting the scar originated from shed Hallprint tags and the remaining four fish with scars were not attributed to tagging. Therefore, loss of internal anchor tags for fish tagged and released during 2000-2001 was considered to be near zero. This assumption provides a conservative estimate of abundance.
If tag loss did occur and we adjusted for it, abundance estimates would be higher.The recognition and reporting of tags, Assumption 4, was addressed by field and laboratory standard operating procedures andQA/QC procedures reviewed by the NYSDEC (Normandeau 1993, Geoghegan et al. 1990). Since this program provided both marking and recapture efforts, non-reporting of tags did not occur. Assumption 5 was satisfie'd because marking techniques which could be imitated by natural conditions (e.g., fin-clips) were not used in this study. Furthermore, tags from other programs (e.g., New York University or Littoral Society) were observed by field crews and easily distinguished from the internal anchor tags used in this study.Immigration and emigration (Assumption 
: 6) were apparently negligible during most of the study period (November 2000 through April 200 1) as indicted by recapture rates, recapture proportions, and previous studies of the movement of striped bass in the lower Hudson River (Appendix Table D-3, Normandeau 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996; LMS 1995, 1996, 1997). A linear regression of weekly recapture proportions (RIC) on cumulative number of marked fish (Figure 3-7)was significant and &#xfd;positive and exhibited the largest coefficient of determination (r 2) for the 'Weeks 1 January 2001 through the week of 5 March 2001 (Appendix Tables D-4 and D-5). In addition, the Striped Bass 2000-200 1. doe 12/21/2006 22 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/21200 22Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-200.1 Striped Bass Report results from linear regression analyses during this period showed that the slope over time (weeks) was not significant for recapture rates (RIM, p= 0.83 7) but was significant for recapture proportion (RIG, p= < 0.001). In previous programs, a late November through mid-March period of about 15-17 weeks was found to be representative for the population estimator (Normnandeau 1994). However, the plot of recapture proportions against cumulative number of marked fish exhibited relatively high variability in November through December 2000 (Figure 3 -7). In recent years (1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999), the January through March period has been used because of high variability in November and December (LMS 1997; Normandeau 1999). In the 1999-2000 program all weeks were included in the Schumacher-Eschmeyer population estimator.
The significant linear regression (Appendix Table D-5), which formed the basis for the Schumacher-Eschmeyer closed population estimator, supported the assumption of random mixing of tagged and untagged striped bass during the 2000-200 1 program (Assumption 7). Further-more, step-wise polynomial regressions did not significantly improve goodness of fit, which indicated a linear model was appropriate for the selected period.With regard to Assumption 8, marked fish in the winter striped bass population of the Battery and Upper Harbor regions do not appear to be differentially exposed to recapture.
This assumption is generally applied to fish populations where one or more age groups of tagged fish may migrate out of the study area while other age groups remain in the area. The winter population in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions was composed primarily of immature fish (Section 3.2; Appendix E) of similar size and age composition which probably are equally exposed to the trawl recapture effort..The assumptions of a closed population, mark-recapture, population estimator appeared to be satisfied for the weeks of 1 January 2000 through the week of 5 March 2001 in this study. The Schumacher-Eschmeyer population estimate of the mid-winter striped bass population in Upper New York Harbor and the Battery during 2000-2001 was 388,000 fish > 150 mm, with upper and lower 95% confidence limits (based on the't-distribution) ranging from 293,000 to 570,000 fish. The age composition of the winter population was approximated using the population estimate and the data from Section and the estimated population of Age 1+ and older striped bass during 2000-2001 was 381,000 fish (Table 3-17).For comparison with previous programs, the total population of Age 1+ and older striped bass !200 mm was estimated as 319,000 fish by adjusting the estimate derived for the entire population of fish>!150 mm, based on the proportion of Age I+ fish between 150 and 200 mm (Table 3-18). This estimate was the third lowest calculated annually since 1985-86 (Table 349). The 1999 cohort of Age 1+ fish was the primary contributor to this estimate of Hudson River striped bass in the winter population during 2000-200 1.The Schumacher-Eschmeyer population estimate presented in this report section provides an index of absolute abundance of Age 1+ and Age 2+ striped bass over-wintering in Upper New York Harbor and the Battery region of the Hudson River. It is a "closed" population estimate (Cormack 1968), meaning that this estimator relies on satisfying Assumption 
#6 that immigration, emigration, and recruitment are negligible in this study area during the evaluation period. Recruitment is negligible during the'study period because striped bass spawn in May in the Hudson River and because the program tags and recaptures fish older than Age 0+. Recapture rates and recapture proportions are systematically examined each year to select a mid-winter period when these rates demonstrate that immigration into, and emigration out. of the contiguous Upper New York Harbor and Battery-regions are negligible, thus satisfying Assumption 
#6. Therefore, the Schumacher-Eschmeyer estimate Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 23 Stried ass2000200I .oc 1/21200 23Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000--2001 Striped Bass Report presented in this report section provides an absolute estimate of the abundance of striped bass found in the two regions sampled. However, it is possible that the entire population of Age 1+ and Age 2+Hudson River striped bass may not be found exclusively within Upper New York Harbor and the Battery region in all winters. Evidence from the earlier programs (1985-1986, and 1986-1987) suggests that in some years a portion of the striped bass population may over-winter either in the Hudson River just north of the Battery region (i.e. in the Yonkers or Tappan Zee regions), or in the Harlem River and East Rivers (Normandeau 1986, 1987). In years when the entire Hudson River population of Age 1+ and Age 2+/- striped bass is not found over-wintering in the study area, the Schumnacher-Eschmeyer estimate presented in this report becomes an index of abundance, but may underestimate the total population size. Age 1+ and Age 2+ population estimates calculated by one or more of the "open" population estimators that do not require Assumption 
#6 (i.e. Jolly-Seber estimator, MMES 1986, Seber 1982), based on the striped bass tagged in this program as the release sample and angler tag returns as the recapture sample (Waldman et al. 1990), may provide a more robust estimate of absolute population abundance.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doe 12/21/2006 24 Stried Bss 000-00 doc 2/2/200 24Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 4.0 LITERATURE CITED CES (Coastal Environmental Services).
1989. Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessmen t Workshop.
Final Report. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
CES (Coastal Environmental Services).
1991 draft. 1991 supplement to the Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessment.
Final Report. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 428 PP.Cormack, R.M. 1968. The statistics of capture-recapture methods. Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev., 1968(6):455-506.
Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, J. Waldman, and M.T. Mattson. 1987. Tag retention and tagging mortality in Hudson River striped bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7(4):535-538.Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, B.R. Friedman, and K.L. Marcellus.
1990. Coded wire tag retention by, and tagging mortality of, striped bass reared at the Hudson River Hatchery.
AFS Symposium No. 7.Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, M.T. Mattson, P. Geoghegan, and'J.R. Waldman. 1989. Mortality of Hudson River striped bass captured in seines and trawls. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9(2): 171-176.EA (EA Science and Technology).
1989. Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery 1988 Fish Tagging and Stocking Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.EA (EA Science and Technology).
1990. Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery 1989 Fish Tagging and Stocking Program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.EA (EA Science and Technology).
1994. Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery 1993 Overview.Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.Geoghegan, P., M.T. Mattson, D.J. Dunning, and Q.E. Ross. 1990. Improved data quality through quality control and quality assurance in a large scale striped bass tagging program. AFS Symposium No. 7: 7 14-719.Gutreuter, S.J. 19 87. Considerations for estimation and interpretation of annual growth rates. pp.115-126 in: Age and Growth of Fish. R.C. Summerfelt and G.E. Hall eds., Iowa State University Press, 544 p.HRF (Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc.) 1985. 1984 Hudson River Striped Bass Tagging Program. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Heimbuch, D.G., D.J. Dunning, and JR. Young. 1992. Post yolk sac larvae abundance as an index of year class strength of striped bass in the Hudson River. IN: C.L. Smith, ed. Estuarine Research in the 1980's. State University of New York Press. pp. 376-39 1, Humphreys, M., R.E. Park, J.J. Reichle, M.T. Mattson, D.J. Dunning, and Q.E. Ross. 1990.Stocking checks on scales as an internal mark for identifying hatchery striped bass in the Hudson River. AFS Symposium No. 7:78-83.LMS (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers).
1989. Distribution of hatchery striped bass in the Hudson River. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 25 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 25Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report LMS (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers).
1995. Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessment Program November 1994 -April 1995. Draft. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
LMS (Lawler, Matusky &.Skelly Engineers).
1996. Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessment Program November 1995 -April 1996. Draft. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
LMS (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers).
1997. Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessment Program November 1996 -April 1997'. Draft. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Mattson, M.T., B.R. Friedman, D.J. Dunning, a nd Q.E. Ross. 1990. Magnetic tag detection efficiency in a Hudson River striped bass hatchery evaluation program. AFS Symposium No.7:267-27 1.Mattson, M.T., J.R. Waldman, D.J. Dunning, and Q.E. Ross. 1990. Internal anchor tag abrasion and protrusion in Hudson River striped bass. AFS Symposium No. 7:121-126 McLaren, J.B., J.C. Cooper, T.B. Hoff, and V. Lander. 198 1. Movements of Hudson River Striped Bass. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 1 10: 15 8-167.Merriman, D. 1941. Studies on the striped bass (Roccus saxatilis) of the Atlantic coast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Fish. Bull. 50(35):1-77.
MMES (Martin Marietta Environmental Systems).
1986. An Overall Study Design for a Hatchery Evaluation and Population Assessment for Hudson River Striped Bass. Prepared for New.York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1985. Adult Striped Bass Tagging Program. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1986. '1985-86 Hudson River Striped Bass Program.Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1987. 1986-87 Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery Evaluation.
Prepared for New York, Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1988. 1987-88 Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery Evaluation.
Prepared for New York Power Authority, Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1990. 1988-89 Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery Evaluation.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1991. 1989-90 Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery Evaluation.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1992. 1990-91 ,Huds on River Striped Bass Hatchery Evaluation.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1994. Hudson River Striped Bass Hatchery Evaluation/Monitoring Program November 1991 -May 1992. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1996a. Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessment Program November 1992 -April 1993. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normnandeau Associates, Inc.). 1996b. Hudson River Striped Bass Stock Assessment Program November 1993 -April 1994. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doe 12121/2006 26 Stried ass 0002001oc 2(21200 26Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Normandeau. (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1999. Hudson River Striped Bass Program November 1997-April 1998. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2000. Hudson River Striped Bass Program November 1998-April 1999. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2000. 2000-200 1 Hudson River Striped Bass and Atlantic Tomcod Programs Standard Operating Procedures.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations.
Bull.Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 19 1:382 pp.Rulifson, R.A., and S.A. McKenna. 1987. Food of striped bass in the upper Bay of Fundy, Canada.Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 117:119-122.
Schaefer, M.B. 195 1. Estimation of the size of animal populations by marking experiments.
U.S.Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 52:189-203.
SAS (Statistical Analysis System). 1999. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The Estimation of Animal Abundance, Second ed., MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.Smale, M.A. and W.W. Taylor. 1987. Sources of back-calculation error in estimating growth of lake whitefish.
pp. 189-202 in: Age and Growth of Fish. R.C. Sumnmerfelt and G.E. Hall eds., Iowa State University Press, 544 pp.TI (Texas Instruments, Inc.). 1977. Feasibility of Culturing and Stocking Hudson River Striped Bass An Overview 1973-1975.
Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.TI (Texas Instruments, Inc.). 1981. 1979 Year Class Report for the Multiplant Impact Study of the Hudson River Estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York.Waldman, J.R., D.J. Dunning, Q.E. Ross, and M.T. Mattson. 1990. Range dynamics of Hudson River striped bass along the Atlantic coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 766-778.Wells, A.W., D.M. Randall, D.J. Dunning, and J.R. Young. 1991. Dispersal of hatchery young of year striped bass in the Hudson River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:381-392.
Westin, D.T., and B.A. Rogers. 1978. Synopsis of the biological data on the striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum) 1972. URI Marine Technical Report 67:1-154.Striped Bass 2000-200 1. doe 12/21/2006 27 Srried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 27Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass 'Report FIGURES'K Striped Bass 2000-200 .doc 12/21/2006 28 Normandeau Associates, Inc.V 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report E-)CC, H-0 M z 20 16-14-12-10-8-6-4-___1985-86 THROUGH 1999-2000 2000-2001 Vertical bars represent 95% confidence interval about the weekly mean."N I~N I N +/-4: NOV DEC JAN I FEB MAR APR 3 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 01 02 03 04 05 SAMPLING WEEK 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Figure 1-1. Weekly mean bottom temperature in the Battery region of the Hudson River during 2000-2001 compared to the weekly mean and 95% confidence intervals for the 1985-1986 through 1999-2000 Hudson River Striped Bass Programs.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 29 Stried Bss 000-00ldoc 2/2/200 29Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report V41 Note: Yonkers ends at NY/NJ border YonkerseogWabntaBde (RNI 12-23, kmn 19-37)(RM 11, km 18)TRWL SMTS (RM0-11, km 0-18).Raritan Bay\\ Sandy Hook Figure 2-1. Sampling regions in the lower Hudson River and New York Harbor during the winter 2000-200 1 Hudson River Striped Bass Program.Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 30 Stried Bss 000-00ldoc 2/2/200 30Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report ts'l Haliprint Internial Anchor-External Strzazner Tag (1988-present)(with covered filament)65 minz25mm Lags for fish 2300mlnTL 50 mm x 20 mm tags for fish 150-299mmTL MARK-CD =98 YELLOW EXTERNAL STREAMER LINE 1: REWARD SIO-SIOQO No ##-###LINE 2: MAIL TO HRF BOX 1731 G.C.S. NY NY 10163 ANCHOR: YELLOW No 4#i####K25 or 201 Halprint, Internal Anchor-Externial Streamrer Tag (1987-1988) mm 1  (with exposed filaiment)
MARK...CD 
= 98 YELLOW EXTERNAL STREAMER LINE 1: REWARD S1O-41000 NQ ###44#LINE 2: MAIL TO HRF BOX 1731 G.C.S. NY NY 10163 ANCHOR: YELLOW NQ #*254 is -_&#xfd;l Modified Floy Internal Anchor-External Streamer Tag (1987)(with clear vinyl tubing over external streamer)MARKCD = 97 PINK EXTERNAL STREAMER LINE 1: REWARD S10451000 
#####LINE 2: MAIL TO HRF BOX 1731 GCS NY NY 10163 ANCHOR: (BLUE 26 mm x 6 mm for fish 300 mmTL, RED 20 mmn x 5 mm for fish 200-299 mmTL)same legend as lines I and 2 of the external streamer Flay Internal Anchor-External Streamer Tag (1984-1987)
MARK-CD = 96 YELLOW EXTERNAL STREAMER LINE 1: REWARD SIO-SIOOO 
##~##LINE 2: MAIL TO HRF BOX 1731 GCS NY NY 10163 ANCHOR: (BLUE 26 mm x 6 mm for fish >300 mmTL, RED 20 mm x 5 mm for fish 200-299 mmTL)no legend<0 Floy FD-68B Anchor Tag (1984)MARK..CD = 82 YELLOW EXTERNAL STREA14ER LINE 1: REWARD Sl0-SIOOO A.###." LINE 2: RET TO HRF BOX 1731 GRAND CENTRAL STIN NY 10 163 ANCHOR: monof ilament. no legend Figure 2-2. Tags used to mark striped bass', during the 1984-present Hudson River Striped Bass Programs.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 31 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 5!E-4-S4;1 S3: S31 2: 21 0 CD 0 CD 10 C CD -C C -C C -C --C -S0 0 C 0 0 C: 0 0 C&#xfd; 0 (= 0 C C o O ~ < < < <' 3 ~ .~C -C z z z z --'0 0 ,e CD co C r- M, to -C ~C C C" in C\1 co C Q Mac CD C' C cc C: -C) ' -N C') C C0 C') C' 0 ' 'WEEK Figure 3-1. Weekly mean catch per ten minute tow (use code 1 tows only) by a 9m trawl in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.00 STotal Number of Fish Ce 55 in the Upper Harbor 50-C 0 F-0 03 C/)C C 0, C-F-0)0, C F-z C~)0, C, 45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-324 291 iptured Total Number of Fish Captured=926 in the flattery Region =17635 4288 1078 37 2546r7 201120174 1 12 328 ,. H F7&#xfd;00 1)5-174 5-0 0 2R-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C co n UPE HABO TH B aa a a a ATTERY a LENGTH GROUP (mm)REGION.Figure 3-2.Length-frequency distribution for striped bass captured by a 9m trawl in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 200 1.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 32 Swipd Bas 200-204 doc 2/2/200 32Normandeau Associates, Inc.
CL -Length Group (mm)a)w551-600 f7io L i L i L L i U L i L i L CD. 01 <01 .0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0z 01.0 1.0 <0.1 .0.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 151-20 ,- ~ 451I-500 S. 05 2 2 .185 1.6 9.1 17. 17.8 / .5 26.9 25.1 1.8 4.7 12.7 2.07 327 1 .10 6 83 2.5. 2. .5 7.1 6.0 9.4 7.0 9120 0. 3. 0 1.4 102 .7 20.2 12.5 12.16 .29 50 35140-8-8 8-8 8-8 8-898990909191929293 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 9-9 9-9 9-0 0-0 R2er01 8-98tr2g500201
: 10. 20 195 2. .23 .4445 95 84 1.
CL, 0. ..301 01 39 03 .....0 45 -00/ , L &#xfd; , aj I?< 1<'') 01 010 4_ 1- 31vL>. '0.3 0.3 0.6 9. 0.4 0.6 0.4 10.5 1.1 < 0.1 0.2 0. .0.1 0.2 0.1 K 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 351-400 IUP UUU U U 'P( Coi 0I U ULIi (2.1 0).a 4.2 -A 7.7 0.7 3.1 2.3 3.8 2.3 0.5 0.6 2 .0.0 0.9 1.0 3.3 2.4 1.2 1.7 5.1 5.4 6 2 / 06 .4.8 5.0 1.0 7.0 9. 1204 6.0 4.0 2.2 2.0 2.5 24 8.2 3.5 3.3 368 7.0 60 4.7 5.4 7.1 5.9 4.6 0.0 8.9 K.1 <0. () .13 0.6 1.2.3 0. 6 2&#xfd; 1. 44D 3. 41 3 20 6 7. 5 4 6 5 5 3 4 .....51-2100 IU '< 0.1 0.1 0.3 30. 0.5 1.10 .5 2 466 15 2 0 2 0 6 0 ....0)rein of th0usnRvr, oe br200truh2 pi 0 .z9) , , 4 ...2329 5 ,/<.- I.)&#xfd; jZ Z2/ ,L/I/Ol 'OBo o 0o 7o 4e Ie 1D 5-05nGn. 1J. 2Jn Ma 5e 2e 9~ 6~ 5_ 12a ga 6~ 2p .p 6p (A Fgr -.Wel eghfeunydsrbtosfrsrpdbs agtprtnmnt o na9 rw nteBteyadUprHro 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report z U)14 0 N lx)0 0 z 0 Ci)Ca, 0 N N 0 0 N 0 Ci)La.Lx, C N N 0 0 N C U)Lx, 0 N Lx)C 0 0.N 2000-Age 1+N=t11498 1500-10t00t a t at a t a t a a t a t a t t a t a t at a t a , a N t o N a a N t t N N at N -t o Ma I -LENGTH GROUP'(mm) 500&#xfd;450 -Age 2+400- N=2435 350 3500 200-150 100%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~~~ ~~~~~~ ..t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t .t at at at. t V t V t V t t N V t N N N o tO N N t N L- N GT N GR OU N (mm) N -N o to N N N t N 3 N N N N N N N N N N t 200-2.50 Na20 150-1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-E .N N .o .t to N t C -o t N N N a LENGTH GROUP (mm)Figure 3-5. Length-frequency distributions for Age 0+, 1+, 2+ and 3+ striped bass captured by a 9m trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 200 1. (Note the Vertical scales differ among the graphs).Striped Bass 2000-200 I.doc 12/21/2006 35 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/21200 35Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 140-130-120-I Age 0+T T C T I 110-100-T]_= T T T I I 290 2800 E,~ 270 260 4 250 W~ 240 S 230 S 220 210 S 200 380 360-. 340 z Ci4 320 S300 260 S240 650 6~000 550 U3 500 N~ 450<400 350 E- 300 250 S 200 1093 1994 1095 19086 19987 1900 1099 1900 1991 1092 1003 1094 1995 1000 1&#xfd;97 19'98 19199 20'00 COHORT Age I+EE 1903 1904 19035 1090 19'87 19908 1999 19'90 1991 1992 1993 19'94 19'95 1996 1997 19098 1999 2000 COHORT Age 2+19'83 1994 1095 19110 19937 109'8 1989 1990 1991 1092 1093 1904 19'95 1996 10'97 1998 1999 2&#xfd;000 COHORT Age 3+TI 19033 1084 1905 19B6 1987 19098 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19906 1997 1998 1999 2000 COHORT Figure 3-6. Mean length at age (and 95% -confidence interval) for Age 0+ through Age 3+wild striped bass of the 1983 through 2000 cohorts caught in a 9m trawl in the Hudson River. (Note the vertical scales differ among the graphs).Stipned Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 36 Normandeau Asso ciates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report 0.030 -0.025 -..~0.020-C 0.015-V 0.010-01JAN01 I 01JAN0105MAR01 SCHUMACHER-ESCHMEYER PERIOD I 02APR 0.005-0.000 -0IJJAN Figure 3-7.0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 Cumulative Number of Striped Bass Marked Striped bass recapture proportion (R(1 I)/ Q 1 versus cumulative number of striped bass tagged in the combined Upper Harbor and Battery regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 200 1.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/2112006 37 Stried ass2000200I .oc 1/21200 37Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report TABLES Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 38 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 38Normandeau Associates, Inc.
C,, co 0&#xfd;.0 0 Table 1-1. Comparison of Sampling Designs and Selected Results of the 1984 through 1999-2000 Hudson River Striped Bass Programs.Catch Statistics Population Estimates Hatchery Sampling N- Handling TTFot al Proportion Program Gear Dates Regions N-Tows CPUE N-Total N-Tagged Recaptured N-Hatchery Mortality 
(%) ?~200 mm) Age 1i- Age I+ (%)1984 12 m trawl 9Apr-7Jun TZ,CH,[P, WP,CW,PK 200 2.8 345 0 18-Scottish seine 9Apr-7Jun TZ,CH,CW 139 2.2 392 0 16--Total 339 2.6 1,620 737 0 0 17 --0 1985-1986 9m trawl I IlNov-]8May BT 900 8.2 -6,366 01 12 m trawl I I Nov-I 8May BT,HR,ER,LH 346 20.7 7,265 0 2 Scottish seine 3lMar-18MaY TZ,CH 226 .19.4 4,856 0 Total 1,472 12.9 20,820 18,487 171 0 1 540,000 239,000 0 1986-1987 9m trawl 2l1Dec-9May BT 845 9.8 5,349 741 12m trawl 21lDec-9May BT 219 24.1 4.039 20 Total BY. 1,064 12.7 14,136 9,388 261 94 1 394,000 108,000 1.7 198719-88 9m trawl 9Nov-22Apr9 BT 896 20.0 18,075 7,582 176 <1 12mn trawl Nov22Apr BT 296 33.9 10,117 4,854 62 <I Total BT1,9 23.5 28,192 12,436 465 238 <1 9,0 8,0 1.6 1988-1989 9m trawl 3l1Oct-lS5Apr BT 1,151 28.5 32,975 24,393 453 213 <I 890,000 794,000 0.2 1989-1990 9m trawl 3l1Oct-I 5Apr BT 891 37.3 33,386 24,362 655 141 <1 528,000 397,000 0.4 1990-1991 9m trawl 12Nov-20Apr BT 971 29.7 29,346 22,406 865 52 <1 786,000 352,000 0.2 1991-1992 9m trawl 4Nov-7May BT 1,169 29.3 34,202 23,514 631 17 < 1 967,000 709,000 a 1992-1993 9m trawl 2Nov-l6Apr BT 818 34.0 27,778 20,847 345 190 1.6 717,000 475,000 a 1993-1994 9m trawl 1lNov-2OApr BT 794 36.2 28,739 17,500 333 134 1.6 379,000 217,000 0.01 1994-1995 9mn trawl 2Nov-l4Apr BT 819 15.4 12,635 6,837 75 54 <1 325,000 225,000 1.0 1995-1996 9mn trawl 6Nov- I Apr BT 806 16.9 13,643 10,889 111 9 1.5 786,000 621,000 0.08 1996-1997 9m trawl 4Nov- I3Apr BT 954 15.1 14,377 12,794 125 2 1.2 694,000 425,000 0.0001 1997-1998 91n trawl 2Nov-l6Apr BT 1,004 20.1 20,222 14,428 193 0 0.6 427,000 184,000 a 1998-1999 9m trawl 2Nov-l6Apr BT 941 20.9 19,715 11,203 187 0 0.5 280,000 153,000 a 1999-2000 9-rn trawl I Nov- 14 Apr BT, YK 781 27.3 21,338 12,587 80 0 0.3 1,180,000 986,000 SAMPLING REGIONS: BT =Battery and Upper New York Harbor, Hudson River Miles 0- 11 (kmn 0- 18) and Upper New York Harbor. YK = Yonkers, Hudson River Miles 12-23 (kmn 19-37), TZ = Tappan Zee, Hudson River Miles 24-33 (kmn 38-53). CH = Croton-Haverstraw, Hudson River Miles 34-38 (kmn 54-6 1). IP =Indian Point, Hudson River Miles 39-46 (kmn 62-74). CW = Cornwall, Hudson River Miles 56-61 (kmn 90-98). PK &#xfd; Poughkeepsie, Hudson river miles 62-76 (kmn 99-122). HR= Harlem River. ER=East River. LH = Lower New York Harbor.aHatchery striped bass were not tagged before release in 1990 or 199 1, and the hatchery operation was discontinued following the 1995-96 programn.
Therefore an Age 1 +hatchery proportion was not computed.C3, CO)0-.z 0 0 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-1. Mean Catch of Striped Bass per Ten Minute Tow by a 9 m Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Number of Mean Catch per Ten Standard Region Number of Tows' Fish Caught Minute Tow Error Battery 800 17,635 22.0 0.8 Upper Harbor 26 926 35.6 7.0'Use Code = I tows only.Table 3-2. Mean Catch of Striped Bass per Ten Minute Tow by a 9 m Trawl in the Battery-Region of the Hudson River During Common Time Periods in the Winters of 1985-1986 through 2000-2001.
Year Period Tows Mean CPUE 95% Cl 1985-1986 23 Dec 85 -21 Mar 86 638 .8.1 +/- 1.0 1986-1987 21 Dec 86 -21 Mar 87 .385 12.2 +/- 1.2 1987-1988 20 Dec 87 -19 Mar 88 437 28.5 +/- 2.5 1988-1989 19 Dec 88 -18 Mar 89 527 38.9 +/-+3.3 1989-1990 18 Dec 89 -16Mar 90 458 45.3 + 4.3 1990-1991 17 Dec 90'- 15 Mar 91 477 40.7 +/- 3.5 1991-1992 23 Dec 91 -21Mar 92 578 35.5 +/-+2.2 1992-1993 21 Dec 92 -20 Mar 93' 397 .32.7 +/- 2.9 1993-1994 20 Dec93 -20 Mar 94 341 33.7 +/-+5.2 1994-1995 19 Dec 94 -19Mar 95 .291 21.9 +/-+2.2 1995-1996 18 Dec 95 -17 Mar 96 299 14.3 + 2.0.1996-1997 16 Dec 96 -16Mar 97 476 19.6 +/-+1.8 1997-1998 22 Dec 97 -22 Mar 98 487 23.5 + 1.9 1998-1999 21 Dec 98 -21 Mar 99 384 38.4 +/- 3.1 1999-2000 20 Dec 99 -19MarO00 402 31.7 +/-+3.5 2000-2001 18 Dec00-l18 Mar 0l 453 26.1 +/-+4.6 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12121/2006 40 Sripd Bss 200-001.oc 2121200 40Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-3. Descriptive Statistics for the Length-Frequency Distribution of Striped Bass Captured by a 9 mn Trawl in the Upper Harbor And Battery Regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Mean TL Skewness Kurtosis Region N (mm) Range S.D. (95% C.1.) (95% C.1.) Description Upper Harbor 926 324 191-651 63 1.77++/-0.16 6.79 +0.32 Right skewness leptokurtoic Battery 17,634a 225 54-824 95 0.41 + 0.04 0.83 +0.07 Right skewness leptokurtoic ,Combined 118,560 1 230 154-824 96 10.37 +/- 0.04 10.77 +/- 0.07 Right skewness leptokurtoicj N = Number caught TL = Total length S.D. = Standard Deviation 95% C.I. = 95% confidence interval Right skewness = Significant positive skewness indicating more striped bass were smaller than the mean length than would be expected from a normnal distribution.
Leptokurtosis 
= Significant positive kurtosis indicating that more striped~bass were close to the mean length than would b~e expected from a normal distribution.
No length recorded for one fish collected in the Battery Region for use code =1.Table 3-4. Handling Mortality for Striped Bass (Percentage of Dead Striped Bass in a Temperature Increment)
Captured by a 9 m Trawl in Relation to Hudson River Bottom Water Temperature, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Bottom Water Temperature 
(*C) % Of Catch Dead' Number Dead' Total Catch'2 0.0 0 505 3 0.2 6 '4,101 4 0.5 32 6,358 5 0.6 11 1,900 6 0.9 18 1,934 7 0.9 6 703&#xfd;8 0.7 9 1,274 9 0.1 1 '874 10 0.8 1 125 11 0.3 ..1 303 12 0.0 0 166 1L3 0.3 1 318 2-13 0.5 86 18,561'Mortality and catch data for striped bass caught in use code I tows for which river bottom water temperature was available.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12121/2006
.41 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/21200 41Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Table 3-5. Handling Mortality for Striped Bass (Percentage of Dead Striped Bass at a Temperature Increment)
Captured by a 9 m CD trawl Among Common Bottom Water Temperature Increments during the 1985-1986 through the 2000-2001 Hudson River Striped Bass Programs.BotmWater Temperature (CL)C0 C&#xfd;Program Statistic 4 5 6 7 8 0 11 12 4-12-C C 0 1985-1986 through 1990-1991% Dead 0.31 0.31 02 .0.21 0.5 0. 0.3 0.31 0.3 (19-92 n/N 151/16,1551 58/21,0711 43/18,783 43/11,785 120/8,7311 29/5,7091 8/4,8431 11/3,185 6/1,9951 269/92,257'
% Dead 0.5 1 0.21 1.51 1.01 1.41 0.91 LIE 0.61- 0.51 0.8 n/N 45/9,6851 13/5,4191 98/6,4381 26/2,7281 29/,3 1/,3 2/,87 1 5/879 1/187 248/30,501 jD 1992-1993 
~% Dead 1 3.51 2.21 18 .2.21 0.21 0.71 0.51 0.21 1.7 19194 n/N 1107/3,0901 86/3,8581 44/2,3801 16/1,347 17/7561 3/1,3611 6/806 17/3,4061 1/4341 297/17,438 I% Dead 3.=3 1.21 2.01 1.4-1 2.11 0. 0.01 0.31 0.51 1.9 I n/N 1156/4,7131 53/4,4381 65/3,2061 36/2,5641 29/1,3541 1/196 -0/911 4/1,4241 2/2431 346/18,409 1994-1995
______________________________________
%Dead 0.31 0.61 0.41.0.3 =_ 2/361 0.1/4 3/836 0/205 0/.0 0.4 n/N 1 6/1,79 1526921 /97 4/1,585 /21 160 /31 025 /9 39/10,186 1995-1996
_____I% Dead [ 0.71 1.21 1.51 1.71 0.2] 0.91 02 1.0 T1=1 1.0 0n/N 1 3/4481 8/6641 18/1,1801 34/1,9891 4/1,9351 17/1,7901 1/5781 16/1,6171 5/4471 106/10,648 1996- 1997% Dead 1 2.01 1.01 0.91 1.61 2.31 0.01 0.01 o-091 1.2 n/N 160/3,0301 34/3,5001 32/3,5711 18/1,1101 11/4711 0/4891 081 ...__ _ 1/212 1/1101 157/12,674 1997-1998 Wo % Dea 0.01 0.61 0.91 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.6 n/N 0/260 35/5,913 43/5,043 91 46 0/21/8 0/4651 1/4251 02 81,0 1998-1999'A %ead .6 04 0. 0.01.9 0.1 0.5 1.20.05__n/N _L55/9,4931 16/2,436.
0/ 1 35 0/4831 4/2131 1/8521 1/1941 1/851 01 81,0 Table 3-5. (Continued)
CL M Bottom Water Temperature (0 C)Program Statistic 45 6 7 8 910112-2C 1999-2000 C?% Dead 0.31 0.51 0.71 0.31 0. 01 0.11 01 0 0.4 0n/N 8/2,3961 14/2,4011 12/1,7581 21/2,9671 2/2,353 1 0/5251 1/1,5821 0/9971 0/2481 58/15,727 2000-20101 I% Dead 1 0.51 0.61 0.91 0.91 0.71 0.1 0.81 0.31 01 0.6 I n/N 32/6,3581 11/1,9001 18/1,9341 6/7031 9/1,2741 1/8741 1/125 1/303 0/1661 79/13,637 n =Number of dead striped bass collected at a temperature (Use Code = I samples only).N =Total number of striped bass caught at a temperature (Use Code =I samples only).z~
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-6. Relationship between the Number of Scale Samples Selected for Age Determination by Neyman Sample Allocation and Precision of the Stratified Estimate of Proportion and Total Number of Age 1+ Striped Bass Captured by a 9 m Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Estimated Number Of Age I+ Fish Caught Proportion Stratified Sample size Age I+ Totalb Lower 95% C.1 Upper 95% C.1 P ,recision 
(%)a 500 0.620 11,498 11,181 11,815 2.8 1,000 0.620 11,498 11,283 11,713 1.9 2,000 0.620 11,498 11,355 11,641 1.2 3,000 0.620 11,498 11,389 11,607 0.9 4,000 0.620 11,498 11,410 11,586 0.8 4,1 84c 0.620 .11,498 11,397 11,599 0.9 5,000 0.620 11,498 11,426, 11,570 0.5 a Precision 95% confidence interval (CI) half width/stratified total x 100.b Based on 18,560 striped bass caught and measured in use code = 1 samples from the Battery and Upper Harbor.cResults for sample size =4,184 are based on actual allocations from use code = I samples which deviate slightly from the Neyman sample allocations because some scale samples consisted of regenerated scales and could not be used for age determination.
Table 3-7. Estimated Proportion and Number of Age 0+ through Age 3+ Striped.Bass Captured by a 9 m Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Estimated Number of Fish Caught Year .Stratified Lower Upper 95%Age Class Proportion Total' 95% CI CI Precision 
(%)0+ 2000 0.230 4,260 4,214 4,307 1.1 1+ 1999 0.620 11,498, 11,397 11,599 0.9 2+ 1998 0.131 2,437 2,332 2,541 4.3 3+ -1997 0.011 200 155 245 22.5 a Based on a laboratory sample of scales from 4,184 striped bass selected by stratified random sampling from 18,560 fish caught and measured in use code =I samples from the Battery and Upper Harbor regions.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 44 Siried Bss 000-00Idoc 2/2/200 44Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-8. Recapture of Tagged Striped Bass Cross-Class ified by Release and Recapture Region in the Hudson River,*6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Number Number of Recaptures By Release Region Examined Recapture for Marks Upper Harbor Battery Total Region (C) Statistic M= 880 M= 12,483 M=13,363 IR 2 4 6 RIM 0.00227 0.00032 0.00045 Upper Harbor 944 R/C 0.002 12 0.00424 0.0063 6 R 3 146 149 R/M 0,00341 0.01170 0.01115 Battery 13,343 R/C 0.00022 0.01094 0.01117 R 5 150 155 R/M 0.00568 0.01202 0.01160 Total 14,287 R/C 0.00035 0.01050 0.01085 Recaptures include only fish released during the current sampling season.LEGEND: R = number of striped bass recaptured M = number of striped bass !150 mm marked and released C = number of striped bass >_150 mum caught and examined for tags RIM = recapture rate R/C = recapture proportion Striped Bass 2000-2001.doe 12121/2006 45 Stried ass2000200I .oc 1121200 45Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-9. Recapture of Tagged Striped Bass Cross-Classified by Release and Recapture Month for Fish Released and Recaptured by Trawls in the Combined Upper Harbor and Battery Regions of the Hudson River from 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Number Number of Recaptures by Release Month Examined Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Ap Total Recapture for.Month Marks Statistic M=1617 M=2932 M=2455 M=2665 M=2573 M=1121 M=13363 Nov CG=1709 R 7 ____7 R/M L 0.00433 _____ 0.00052 R/G 0.00410 ___ ___ 0.00410 Dec C =3110 R 6 21 27 RIM 0.0037 1 0.007 16 _____0.00202 RIC 0.0035 1 0.00675 _____ 0.00868 Jan C =2578 R 0 3 11 14 RIM 0.00000 0.00102 0.00448 0.00105 RIG 0.00060 0.00096 0.00427 0.005431 Feb C =2873 R 2 6 11 22 41 RIM 0.00124 0.00205 0.00448 0.00826 0.00307 RIG 0.00117 0.00193 0.00427 0.007661 0.01427 Mar C =2772 R 3 5 9 18 14 49 RIM 0.00186 0.00171 0.00367 0.00675 0.00544 0.00367 RIG 0.001761 0.00161 0.00349 0.00627 0.00505 0.01768 Apr C =1245 R 0 4 2 2 7 2 17 R/M 0.00000 0.00136 0.00081 0.000751 0.00272 0.00178 0.00127 RIG 0.00000 0.00129 0.00078 0.00070 0.00253 0.00161 0.01365 Total C 14287 R 18 39 33 42 21 2 155 RIM 0.011131 0.01330 0.01344 0.01576 0.00816 0.00178 0.01160 RIG 0.001261 0.00273 0.00231 0.002941 0.00147 0.00014 0.01085 Recaptures include only fish released during the current samnpling season.LEGEND: R = number of striped bass recaptured M = number of striped bass :150 mm marked and released C = number of striped bass,>150 mmn caught and examined for tags R/M = recapture rate R/G = recapture proportion Striped Bass 2000-200 1. doe 12/2112006 46 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2121200 46Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-10.Recapture Statistics for Striped Bass Tagged, Released and Recaptured in the Hudson River by a 9 mn Trawl, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Number Tagged (>15 0mm) M 13,363 Number Examined for.Tags (>: 150 mm) C 14,287 Number Recaptured R 155 Size Range of Recaptured Fish (mm) Min 151 Max 512 Mean 248 S.D. 61 Days At-Large Min 0 Max 136 Mean -26 S.D. 33 Frequency Of Days At-Large 0 Days 45 1- 5Days 12 6-l10Days 14 11- 20 Days 21 21- 30Days 18 31- 40Days 9 41- 50Days 9 51- 60 Days 3 61- 70Days 4 71- 80 Days 5 81- 90Days 5 91-100 Days 2 101-110ODays 1 111-120ODays 3 121-130 Days 1 131-140 Days 3 141-150 Days 0 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 47 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1/21200 47Normandeau Associates, Inc.
CD, C>, CD, C>3 0 0 Table 3-11. Incidence of Tag Number Abrasion and Condition of the Tag Insertion Site for Hudson River Striped Bass that were at, Large at Least One Year Prior to their Recapture during the 1988-1989 through 2000-2001 Programs.Number of Fish Recaptured-during Program*Condition of 1988- 1989- 1990- 1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997-1 1998- 1999-&#xfd; 2000-Description Tag Insertion 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 95** 96** 97** 1998 1999 2000 2001 Tag number completely Healed 34 63 206 102 118 -116 27 4 37 67 54 30 22 legible Infected 13 6 22 15 14 14 2 1 0 5 5 1 2 47 69 228 117 132 130 29 5 37 72 59 31 24 (Anchor Protruding) 
(5) (0) (6) (1) (0) (14) (0) 1(0) (0) 1(0) (0) (1) 13 Tag number partly or Healed 0 0 1 2 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 completely missing and Infected 0 0 a_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 not legible 0 0 1 2 0 0 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Anchor Protrudin~g) 
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)Suspected tag wound, Healed 4 6 69 43 57 28 0 0 0 22 25 8 4 tag and anchor missing Infected 0 0 3 4 7 3 0 0 0 3- 1 3 0 4 6 72 47 64 31 0 0 0 25 26 11 4 Suspected tag wound, Healed 2 0 9 10 12 18 0 0 0 7 12 4 2 anchor present Infected 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 9 10 15 18 0 0 0 8 13 5 3*Striped bass that were tagged and released prior to the program which could be cross-classified by degree of tag number abrasion and condition of the tag insertion site.**Data from LMS (1997).0 C, CO 0, 0 Table 3-12. Recapture Statistics for Striped Bass Tagged and Released in Years Prior to, and Recaptured in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Length of Recaptured Fish (mm)Number Number Recapture Rate Release Year Release Gear Released (M) Recaptured (R) (RIM) *Min Max Mean S.D.1999-2000 9 mtrawl 12,587 21 0.00167 260 435 336 9 1998-1999 9mrntrawl 11,203 5 0.00045 315 452 368 24 1997-1998 9 mtrawl 14,428 2 0.00014 530 64 576 46 1996-1997 9mrntrawl 12,794 2 0.00016 335 550 443 108 C',5 Ib CD 0 CD (4 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-13.Recapture Statistics for Striped Bass Tagged and Released Prior to November 2000, and Recaptured in the Hudson River by a 9 mn Trawl, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Total Number Tagged a M 221,057 Number Age 2+/- or Olderb Examined for Tags C 2,802 Number Recaptured R 30 Recapture Rate .RIM 0.00014 Recapture Proportion RIC 0.01071 Length of Recaptured Fish (mm) Min 260 Max 621 Mean 364 S.D. 81 Days At-Large Min 223 Max 1477 Mean 552 S.D. 350 Frequency of Days At Large 20 1-250 Days 3 251-300 Days 1 301-350 Days 5 351-400 Days .4 401-450 Days 6 451-500 Days 2 501-550 Days 0 551-600 Days 0 601-650 Days 0 651-700 Days 0 701-750 Days 4.751-800 Days 0&#xfd;.801-850 Days 1 851-900 Days 0 90 1-950 Days 0 951-1000 Days 0 1001-1050 Days 0 105 1-1100ODays 0 1101-1150ODays 1 1151-1200 Days 0 1201-1250 Days 1>1251 Days 2 bExamined during 2000-2001 programn.1985-1986 through 1999-2000 programs.Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/2112006 50 Stried ass 0002001oc 2/21200 50Normandeau Associates, Inc.
C,, CL C3 0 0 Table 3-14. Striped Bass Recaptured in the Hudson River with other Agency Tags, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Tag Condition Recapture Tag Tag Anchor Agency Number Site No. Address Reward Orientation Protrusion Date River Mile Length U.S. Fish & Wildlife 298482 1 4 4 4 2 N 10 Nov 00 3 434 U.S. Fish & Wildlife 320939 1 4 4 4 2 N 10 Nov 00 3 325 Littoral Society 526614 1 4 4 4 17 NovO00 2 392 Littoral Society 522139 1 4 4 4 27 NovO00 8 488 Littoral Society 499129 2 4 4 4 4 N 28 Dec 00 7 501 Littoral Society 505328 2 4 4 4 4 N 28 Dec 00 7 3S87 U.S. Fish & Wildlife 299492 1 4 4 4 2 N 18 Jun 01 8 296 U.S. Fish & Wildlife 374011 1 4 4 4 2 N 11 Apr 01 9 389 0.Tag Variable Comment Description Tag Site Number Address Reward Number orientation Anchor protrusion I= Legend completely missing 2 = Abraded and partly missing 3 = Abraded but completely legible 4 = Completely legible A =Tag number facing anterior (Head)P = Tag number facin posterior (Tail)Y = Yes N =No I= Tag present, wound healed 2 = Tag present, wound poorly healed, evidence of infection or swelling (D Ib 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-15.Incidence of Fish in Poor Condition Among Unmarked vs. Recaptured Striped Bass Captured by a 9 m Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Incidence Among 18,387 Unmarked Fish Incidence Among 13,944 Incidence Among 2 09 Type(s) of Injury or Captured Tagged b Recaptured Fishc Abnormality' Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Blind only 72 0.39 72 0.52 3 1.44 Stress only 127 0.69 39 0.28 Fin rot only 155 0.84 153 1.10 8 3.83 Fungus only 11 0.06 10 0.07 1 0.48 Skeleton only 24 0.13 22 0.16 Other only 172 0.94 '167 1.20 2 0.96 Blind/stress 2 0(01 1 0.01 Blind/fin rot/other 1 0.01 1 0.01 Blind/skeleton 3 0.02 2 0.01 Blind/other 4 0.02 .4 0.03 Skeleton/stress 2 0.01 1 0.01 Stress/other 2 0.01 Fin rot/fungus 11 0.06 11 0.08 10 4.78 Fin rot/skeleton 4 0.02 4 0.03 Fin rot/other 4 0.02 4 0.03 Skeleton/other 2 0.01 2 0.01 Finrot/skeleton/stress 1 0.01 Finrot/stress 
.10 0.05 7 0.05 Fungus/stress 1 0.01 1 0.01 Unclassified 21 0.11 20 0.14 Total 629 3.42 521 3.74 24 11.48'Categories are described in more detail in Table 3-16.btxcludes 4,443 not tagged.'Including fish with suspected tag wounds.Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 52 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 52Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-16. Nature of Injuries and Abnormalities Observed in Striped Bass Captured by a 9 m Trawl in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Incidence Incidence Among 18,387 Incidence Among 209 General Unmarked Among 13,944 Recaptured Category Specific Condition Fish Captured Fish Tagged Fish''Blindness Blind in one eye 29 28 Blind in both eyes 53 52 2 Stress Net rash 31 30 Crushed 1 1 Handling stress .112 18 Fin rot On caudal fin 142 138 6 On pectoral fin(s) 8 8 2 On pelvic fin 1 1 On dorsal fin(s) 6 6 On multiple fins, 29 27 10 Fungus On one side of body 5 5 1 On both sides of body 18 17 10 Skeleton Side to side spine curvature 6 5 Top to bottom spine curvature 4 4 Head abnormalities 10 8 Fish hook damage to mouth/gills 16 14 Other Body wounds, damaged fins, etc. 185 178 2 Totaib __________________
657 540 34'Includes individuals tagged by another agency and suspected tag wounds.b Totals exceed those in Table 3-15 because somne fish exhibited more than one condition.
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 53 Stried ass 0002001oc 2121200 53Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-17. Estimated Population of Age 1+ and Older Striped Bass>&#xfd; 150 mm by Age Cohort in the Lower Hudson River, Winter 2000-2001.
Total Number Total Catch Proportion of >150 Age Collected 
>150 mm mm Collected Estimated Population' 1+ 11,498 11,238 0.7886 306,000 2+ 2,437 2,437 0.1710 66,000 3+ 200 200 0.0140 5,000>3+ 165 165 0.0116 4___________
Total 14,300 14,040 0.9852 381,000 a'Estimated population is based on a Schumacher-Eschmeyer estimate of the number of Age 1+ and older striped bass >150 mum marked, released and recaptured in the Upper Harbor and Battery regions of the Hudson River from 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001. Age 0+/- striped bass were 1.5% (5,800) of the population 
: 150 mm. Estimated total population of striped bass > 150 mm was 388,000.Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 54 Stried ass200-201 .dc 1121200 54Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Table 3-18.Estimated Population of Age 1+ and Older Striped Bass : 200 mm by Age Cohort in the Lower Hudson River, Winter 2000-01.Total Catch :150 Total Catch :200, Proportion of >200 Estimated Age mm mm mm Collected Population' 1+ 11,238 8,945 _ 0.6277 244,000 2+ 2,437 2,437 0.1710 66,000 3+- 200 200 0.0140 5,000>3+ 1165 1165 0.01 16 4,000 Total 14,040 11,747 0.8243 319,000'The total population estimate based on fish !150mrm (388,000) was adjusted for the estimated proportion of striped bass 200 mm (1 1,747/14,251=
0.8243).Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 55 Stried ass2000200I .oc 1121200 55Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Tab le 3-19. Estimated Number of Striped Bass !200 mm and 2!150 mm Present in the Lower Hudson River during the Winters of 1985-1986 through 2000-2001.
Estimated Number Estimated Number Program !200 mm !150 mm 2000-2001 319,000 388,000 1999-2000 1,180,000 1,377,000 1998-1999 280,000 333,000 1997-1998 427,000 453,000 1996-1997 694,000 768,000 1995-1996 786,000 949,000 1994-1995 325,000 350,000 1993-1994 379,000 443,000 1992-1993 717,000 920,000 11991-1992 967,000 1,163,000 1990-1991 786,000 858,000'1989-1990 528,000 776,000 1988-1989 890,000 1,190,000 1987-1988 295,000 a 1986-1987 394,000 a 1985-1986 1540,000 1a 1994-1995, 1995-1996, and 1996-1997 estimates from LMS (1997)'Fish <200 mm were not tagged and we did not extrapolate to estimate the population of fish 150 mm for the 1987-1988, 1986-1987 and 1985-1986 programns.
Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 56 Stried Bss 000-001doc 2/2/200 56Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report APPENDIX A Gear Characteristics Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table A-i. Specifications of the 9-rn Trawl.9-rn Trawl Head rope length 6.9 m Foot rope length (sweep) 9.0 M Legs (between doors and net) 6.0 m Approximate vertical lift 3.6 m Doors (steel V-doors) 1.0 M Net body length 5.2 m Cod end section 2.3 m M~esh -body of net 7.6-cm (stretch) mesh polypropylene; polypropylene; 3-mm diameter twine-cod end 3.8-cm (stretch) mesh, knotless poly-propylene; 3-mm diameter twine Roller gear 25.4-cm rollers spaced with 5-cm cookie disks Striped Bass 2060-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report APPENDIX B Water Quality Striped Bass 2000-200 I.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table B-i. Weekly Regional Average Water Temperature and Conductivity During Trawl Sampling in the Hudson River, Winter 2000-2001.
Surface Water Surface Water Bottom Water Bottom Water Temperature Conductivity Temperature Conductivity Sample Week (Deg C) (umbos) (Deg C) (umhos)Upper Harbor 6-Nov- 2000 13.0 35970 13.0 39451 13-Nov-2000 11.8 .29467 12.0 36915 20-Nov-2000 10.0 31655 10.6 36190 27-Nov-2000 

===8.3 27796===
8.7 37140 4-Dec-2000 6.5 1 31113 7.5 39644 8-Jan-2001 

===3.5 36095===
3.5 39886 The Battery 6-Nov-2000 13.0 26626 12.8 35123 13-Nov-2000 12.2 278 .72 12.3 34471 20-Nov-2000 

===9.8 24555===
10.7 31289 27-Nov-2000 

===8.4 23508===
8.6 35609 4-Dec-2000 

===5.9 21004===
7.7- 37543 11-Dec-2000 

===5.6 27097===
5.9 34136 18-Dec-2000 4.6 8751 5.2 .20459 25-Dec-2000 

===1.5 18226===
4.3 36664 1 -Jan-2001 

===0.6 18387===
2.4 34580 8-Jan-2001 

===2.2 27001===
2.5 33931 15-Jan-2001 

===1.9 18330===
2.7 31879 22-Jan-2001 

===2.6 24015===
3.4 34307 29-Jan-2001 

===2.5 19898===
3.2 33362 5-Feb-2001 

===3.3 26524===
3.3 33410 12-Feb-2001 
-3.1 14433 3.3 27758 19-Feb-2001 

===3.2 21604===
3.6 33746 26-Feb-2001 

===2.8 15028===
3.5 30704 5-Mar-2001 

===3.4 24716===
3.5 30798 12-Mar-2001 

===3.8 17811===
3.5 27451 19-Mar-2001 

===5.1 11961===
4.9 31833 26-Mar-2001 

===5.1 12587===
5.1 28558 2-Apr-2001 

===5.8 11804===
5.5 27371 9-Apr-2001 7.8 1699 6.9 5293 I1I6-Apr-2001 6.7 1 5818 15.7 1 31175 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass2000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report APPENDIX C Striped Bass Catch Characteristics Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried Bss 000-001dc 1/21/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table C-i. Regional and Weekly Mean Catch of Striped Bass per Ten Minute Tow (CPUE) For the 9 M Trawl in the Lower Hudson River, 6 November 2000 Through 20 April 2001.CPUE Lower 95% Upper 95%Region and Week Tows N CI Mean CI S.E.Ujpper Harbor 6-Nov-00 2 19 -111.2 9.5 130.2 9.5 13-Nov-00 4 139 3.9 34.8 65.6 9.7 20-Nov-00 6 235 / 15.5 39.2 62.9 9.2 27-Nov-00 12 533 15.1 44.4 73.7 13.3 4-Dec-00 1 0 0.0 11I-Dec-00 0 18-Dec-00 0 25-Dec-00 0 ______1-Jan-01 0 8-Jan-01 1 0 0 15-Jan-01 0 22-Jan-01 0 ______29-Jan-01 0 5-Feb-01 0 12-Feb-01 0 19-Feb-01 0 26-Feb-01 0 5-Mar-01 0 12-Mar-01 0 19-Mar-0 1 0 26-Mar-01 0 2-Apr-01 0 9-Apr-01 0 16-Apr-0 1 0______ Total 26 926. 21.1 35.6 50.1 7 The Battery 6-Nov-00 25 238 1.9 9.5- 17.1 3.7 13-Nov-00 57 88 0.9 1.5 2.2 0.3 20-Nov-00 18 193 1.2 10.7 20.2 4.5 27-Nov-00 26 428 9.6 16.5 23.3 .3.3 4-Dec-00 35 1529 24.6 43.7 62.8 9.4 11 -Dec-00 34 594 13.3 17.5 21.6 2.0 18-Dec-00 43 625 7.0 14.5 22.1 3.8 25-Dec-00 10 357 19.5 35.7 51.9 7.2 1 -Jan-0 1 28 497 13.3 17.8 22.2 2.2 8-Jan-01 43 907 16.0 21.1 26.2 2.5 15-Jan-01 42 872 14.4 20.8 27.1 3.1 22-Jan-01 35 1088 22.8 31.1 39.4 4.1 29-Jan-0 1 43 1458 27.2 33.9 40.6 3.3 5-Feb-01 33 605 13.6 18.3 23.1 2.3 12-Feb-01 45 1211 21.3 26.9 32.5 2.8 19-Feb-01 34 1024 21.3 30.1 38.9 4.3 26-Feb-01 42 1611 31.9 38.4 44.8 3.2 5-Mar-01 14 301 15.4 21.5 27.6 2.8 12-Mar-0 1 41 1189 23.1 29.0 34.9 2.9 19-Mar-01 35 771 16.2 22.0 27.9 2.9 26-Mar-01 29 689 17.9 23.8 29.6 2.8 2-Apr-01 40 782 12.2 19.6 26.9 3.6 9-Apr-01 23 108 1.8 4:7 7.6 1.4 16-Apr-01 25 470 9.1 18.8 28.5 4.7______ Total 800 17635 1 20.4 22 1 23.7 0.8 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table C-2. Number of Samples, Striped Bas s Caught, and Striped Bass Tagged in the Hudson River Cross-Classified By Region and UseCode for the 9 m Trawl, 6 November 2000 Through 20 April 2001.Number of Striped Number of Striped Region Use Code Number of Samples Bass Caught Bass Tagged'Upper Harbor. 1 26 926 863 2 2 18 17 Total: 28 944 880 The Battery_ 1 800 17635 12467 2 1 17 16 5 1 0 0 Total- 802 17652 12483 Total Over AllRe~gions:
830 1 18596 13363 a Includes fish tagged and released in good condition (RelRec =1).Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 12211t06Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2,001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table C-3. Regional and River Mile Mean Catch of Striped Bass Per Ten Minute Tow (CPUE) For the 9 m Trawl in the Lower Hudson River, 6 November 2000 Through 20 April 2001.Region and River Mile Tows'a N LCL CPUE UCL S.E.Upper Harbor __________
2 11 466 11.6 42.4 73.1 13.8 3 15 460 15.6 30.7 45.7 7.0 Total 26 926 21.1 35.6 50.1 7.0 The Battery 1 45 1065 104 23.7 36.9 6.6 3 1 32 32.0 5 86 2344 20.2 27.3 34.3 3.6 6 1 0 0.0 7 156 3375 18.7 21.6 24.6 1.5 8 263 67122.9 25.7 28.4 1.4 9 233 3896 14.6 16.7 18.8 1.1 10 15 172 4.3 11.5 18.6 3.3 Total 1800 117635 1 20.4 122.0 1 23.7 1 0.8 Total Over All Regions 1826 118561 2 0.8 122.5 1 24.1 0.a Includes Use-Code = 1 tows ol Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 Stried ass2000200 .dc 12211006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
CD 0.w DC DC DC 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 CC 0 0 0 0 0.(I)0 Appendix Table C-4. Weekly Report of Striped Bass Caught in- a 9m Trawl in the Combined Battery and Upper Harbor Regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Number of Fish in Length Group (mm 20NvO 10, 3251 24 00 3 57 1 0 0 42 2 27ovD..6 3619 3 0 2 12 46 428 53 7 6 200 97 5 28eO 5,2 205 43 0 8C 52 31 140 30 6C 1D 1 00 6553 5 8 1JnOv0 1 , 2 A 345443 27 0 02 015 4 86 14 12 17 4 010 0 257 253 1 210 1 1 13JNo00 12.3 34631 61 0 26 15 283 103 29 5 0 0 0 0 2727 2019 2 16 0 22Ja0Nov 3.4 32514 24 0 19 90 239 157 19 1 0 2 0 0 42884217 2 19 2 2 27JNovO 8.6 33611 439 0 21 129 466 421 5 7 6 2 10 0 97659 93 2 51 1 4DecOO 733- 37657 37 0 261 109 1097 280 201 0 0 0 0 0 15325 1432 17 251 47 11 lFecOO 5.9 34136 345 0 459 427 340 144 29 1 1 00 0 5941 529 53 459 02 1 8ebOO 5.2 207459 343 0 810 527 314 147 0 30 6 1 102 00 625 533 5 1 0 6 2SFecOO 4.3 36664 42 0 26 33 6 9 3130136 3 9 21 0 3734 6 23 161 107 2 6 1Jan01 2.4 345980 28 0 215 30 851 20- 37 4 0 0 0 49 28 3 1 21 5 6 1 05 8JMan01 2.6 374066 44 0 4924 159 427 40 4 0 0 011 0 119077473 43 4924 2 4 15Jan0 1 2.7 31879 42 0 389 175 32 284 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 872 51 6 2 3689 06 1 22Jan01 3.4 34307 35 0 197 920 2547 118 17 5 1 2 0 0 1088 877 71 197 0 7 12Feb01 3.3 273758 45 0 465 275 408 574 42 1 0 1 0 0 1821 670 13 465 22 2 19Feb01 3.6 523376 3 2 00 17 494 1374 10 3. 3 0 10 0 1024 801 17 200 5 1 5Mapr0l1 3.5 301798 142 0 73 65 1 2531 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 3701 2319 6 71 06 15 2Apr0 5.5 277 4030 058 95 70725 1341 0 4 12 2 4 00 0 829613867 105 95346 K), (to c/)
CO, C)C>CD C?60 0 Appendix Table C-5. Weekly Mean Catch of Striped Bass Per Ten Minute Tow in a 9 m Trawl for 50 mm Length Groups in the Battery and Upper Harbor Regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Upper Harbor Length Group (mjm)Week and Number of e7 IT Tows A, " 6-Nov-00 2 5 3 0.5 1 13-Nov-00 4 0.8 8.3 9.3 10.5 4.3 1.5 0.3 20-Nov-00 6 __ _ 2.3 18.7 9.7 6.5 1.3 0.3 0.2 ________0.2
_______27-Nov-00 12 0.2 3 14.1 15.8 7.7 2.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 ________Total 26 o.1 2 12.5 11.2 6.7 2.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.02 (continued) 0 Cb (n 0 C, (b p Nl)0~0 0 (0 0 CC 0.LU C.)Appendix Table C-5. (Continued)
Battery _ __Length Gro~upji(mm o3Nv 7 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.1 0.1 0.10 00Nv0 18 0. 0. 1. 4.0. 0. 0.4 0.1 0.o7Nv0 26 <0 e0 .4 2I 7.9 4C 1. 0. ...0--ec0 35 0. 0. 3.1 10. 21~ 7 1( 0. 0.10 6 I-Nov-00 25 0. ...7 5. 2. 1.1 0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1.13-Nov-00 57 <0.5 <0.1 0.1 0.3 05 0.2 0. 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 <0I 0I 20-Nov-00 10 15.8 0.1 0. ..86 1. .5 1.9 4.4 2.4 0.9 0.4- 0.1 0.1 27-JNo-001 26 <05 .1 <0 .1 0 .4 21799 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 <0.1 4-Dec-00 135 0.1 0.6 3.1 10.3 216 0. 1. 0.4 <0.1<.I 0 11-Dec-00 342 0.6 1.1 41. 43. 6. 3.19 ..0.20. <.1 01 18-Dec-00 435 0.5 1. 1.2 2.3 5. 2.3 1. 0.5 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0. 1 0.1_ <.25-Dec-00 10 1.5 080.6 1. ..3 2.2 3.8 8.63 05 25 1. ..0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1-Jan-01 28 5.5 2.1 1.1 41 2. 2.49 ..0.2 0.1 0. <0 0.1 0.I__82-Jan-01 43 5.3 4.6 3.7 .3.8 2. 1.6 0.3 0.1 <0. I___ <0.1 <0.1.22-Jan-01 35 2.7 3. 5.7 7.4 8.2 2.7 0.7 0.3 <0.21 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.29-Jan-01 43 106 6268 5. 4 3.6 0. .94 .0. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1I 5-Feb-01 33 2.2 2.8 4.7 54. 3.3 0.9 0.2 <0.1 <010.12-Feb-01 45 5.8 4.6 6. 5.2 3.8 1.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <01<.19-Feb-0 1 34 2.4 3.6 5.2 7.4 7.1 3.4 0.6 0.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.26-Feb-01 429 8. 5.5 3.1 7.5 7. 7. 2.5 .5 0.1 0. 1 <0.1I 2-Apr-01 40 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.7 4.7 6.3 2.4 0.2 0.1 <0.1I <0.1I <0. 1 0.1 9-Apr-0 1 23 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 16-Apr-01 25 0.2 0.4 1.2 8.9 4.8 2.3 0.7 0.2 <0.1I Total 800 2.9 1 2.5 3.2 .3.8 1 5.4 1 2.6 1 0.9 1 0.4 10.1 1 0.1 1<0.1 I<0.1 I<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table C-6. Weekly Mean Length (mm) of Striped Bass Captured by a 9 m Trawl in the Upper Harbor and Battery Regions of the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 Through 20 April 2001.Region and Week Number of Fish [Mean Length j S.D J S.E.Upper Harbor 6-Nov-00 19 309 49.49 11.35 13-Nov-00 139 347 60.4 5.12 20-Nov-00 235 312 56.37 3.68 27-Nov-00 533 323 65.31 2.83 4-Dec-00 0 8-Jan-0 1 0 All Weeks 926 324 62.96 2.07 The Battery.6-Nov-00 238 307 64.63 4.19 13-Nov-00 88 302 92.87 9.9 20-Nov-00 193 292 67.25 4.84 27-Nov-00 428 296 61.09 2.95 4-Dec-00 1529 266 48.5 1.24 11 -Dec-00 594 269 83.52 3.43 18-Dec-00 625 265 92.92 3.72 25-Dec-00 357 381 116.73 6.18 1-Jan-0 1 497 222 136.12 6.11 8-Jan-0 1 907 171 82.67 2.74 15-Jan-0 1 872 174 73.94 2.5 22-Jan-0 1 1088 225 83.8 2:54 29-Jan-0 1 1458 162 77.99 2.04 5-Feb-01 605 196 74.35 3.02 12-Feb-0 1 1211 178 77.6 2.23 19-Feb-01 1024 224 80.24 2.51 26-Feb-0 1 1610 189' 81.07 2.02 5-Mar-01 301 203 .73.02 4.21 12-Mar-0 1 1189 192 78.02 2.26 19-Mar-01 771 271 86.53 3.12 26-Mar-0 1 689 240 88.99 3.39 2-Apr-0 1 782 275 87.85 3.14 9-Apr-0 1 108 306 106.3 10.23 16-Apr-0 1 470 301 55.23 2.55 All Weeks, 17634 1 225 1 94.77 1 0.71 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass 000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table C-7.Mean Length at Age and 95% Confidence Intervals for Age 0+ through Age 3+ Wild Striped Bass Captured by a 9 m Trawl in the Hudson River during the 1986-87 through 2000-2001 Striped Bass Programs.Stratified Lower 95% Upper 95%Mean Length Confidence Confidence Age Cohort Program Na (mm) Limit Limit 0+ 2000 2000-01 400 116 114 117 1999 1999-00 708 126 124 128 1998 1998-99 306 117 113 120 1997 1997-98 273 115 112 118 1996 1996-97 51 120 119 121 1995 1995-96 207 127 126 128 1941994-95 216 104 104 105 1993 1993-94 828 123 121 125 1992 1992-93 473 116 114 118 091 1991-92 818 131 127 135 1990, 1990-91 206' 119 116 122 1989 1989-90 368 112 109 115 1988 1898-89 1,007 121 117 125 1987 1987-88 190 108 104 112 1986 1986-87 83 128 123 134 1+ 1999 2000-01 2,679 245 243 247 1998 1999-00 2,403 266 264 268 1997 1998-99 1,860 236 233 238 1996 1997-98 2,041 250 &#xfd;248 252 1995 1996-97 1,410 260 258 263 1994 1995-96 1,501 246 244 248 1993 1994-95 1,216 260 258 262 1992 1993-94 2,695 237 236 238 1991 b 1992 3,899 231 229 233 19, 1991-92 3,675 245 244 246 1989 1990-91 2,174 239 237 241 1988 1989-90 3,514 214 213 215 1987 1988-89 3,623 227 226 229 1986 1987-88 1,503 253 251 255 1985 1986-87 285 221 215 227 2+ 1998 2000-01 1009 '347 344 351 1997 1999-00 622 37355 359 1996 1998-99 935 328 321 336 1995 1997-98 1,901 37334 339 1994 1996-97 686 306 302 310 1993 1995-96 35312 306 318 1992 1994-95 455 312 308 316 1991b 1993-94 1,631 317 307 328 19, 1992-93 1,378 329 325 333 1989 1991-92 961 324 319 328 1988 1990-91 2,109 321 317 324 1987 1989-90 1,216 298 295 301 1986 1988-89 361 325 318 331 1985 1987-88 574 317 312 322 1984 1986-87 359 299 293 305 (continued)
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass2000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table C-7. Continued)
Stratified Lower 95% Upper 95%Mean Length Confidence Confidence Age Cohort Program Na (mm) Lim-it Limit 3+ 1997 2000-01 62 425 404 445 1996 1999-00 84 438 422 454 1995 1998-99 219 383 330 437 1994 1997-98 154 -407 396 418 1993 1996-97 82 334 320 348 1992 1995-96 53 346 332 360 1991 1994-95 99356 346 366 19, 1993-94 152 424 246 602 19g 1992-93 125 414 400 428 1988 1991-92 153 386 378 394 1987 1990-91 69 381 360 401 1986 1989-90 55 382 362 403 1985 1988-89 57. 396 378 415 1984 1987-88 273 367 360 375____ 1983 1986-87 54 369 354 385 number of fish aged from use code 1 Tows b Stratified mean length for the 1990 and 1991 wild cohorts of striped bass represents hatchery and wild fish combined, because hatchery fish were not tagged prior to stocking and therefore could not be distinguished from wild fish.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001, Striped Bass Report APPENDIX D Striped Bass Mark/Recapture Studies K Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass2000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
I\cj, (b 0.En a N)0 0 0 N)0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 CD cn 0 C, CD~5n p Appendix Table D-1. Release and Recapture Data for Striped Bass Marked, Released and Recaptured in the Hudson River, 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.Recapture Release Distance Length Length Days At Traveled Distance Tag Date _ m) Region Mile km Date (mm) Region Mile km Large (Miles) Traveled (Kin) Number 13-Nov-00 324 The Battery 1 2 13-Nov-00 324 The Battery 1 2 0 0 0 478198 13-Nov-00 262 The Battery 1 2 13-Nov-00 262 The Batter 1' 2 0 0 0 1486222 17-Nov-00 
*363 Upper Harbor 2 3 8-Nov-00 362 The Battery 1 2 9 3 5 478134 2 1-Nov-00 281 Upper Harbor 3 5 9-Nov-00 281 The Battery 1 121 12 4 -~6 486184 28-Nov-00 314 Upper Harbor 2 3 28-Nov-00 313 Upper Harbor 2 3 0 0 0 478597 28-Nov-00 300 The Battery 5 8 28-Nov-00 300 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 478629 30-Nov-00 275 Upper Harbor 3 5 8-Nov-00 272 The Battery 1 2 22 4 6 486068 1 -Dec-001 395 Upper Harbor 3 5 9-Nov-00 406 The Battery 1 2 22 4 6- 478158 1-Dec-00 315 Upper Harbor 3 -5 29-Nov-00 316 Upper Harbor 2 3 2 1 2 478798 1 -Dec-00 360 Upper Harbor 3 5 1 -Dec-00 360 The Battery 3 5 0 6 10 478939 1 -Dec-00 288 The Battery 5 8 .30-Nov-00 288 The Battery 5 8 1 0 0 486865 5-Dec-00 245 The Battery 5 8 5-Dec-00 245 The Battery 5 8 0 .0 0 -. 487190 6-Dec-00 328 The Battery 5 8 5-Dec-00 329 The Battery 8 13 1 3 5 479065 6-Dec-00 211 The-Battery 5 8 5-Dec-00 211 The Battery 5 8 -1 0 0 487206 6-Dec-00 219 The Battery 5 8 5-Dec-00 220 The Battery 5 8 1 0 0 487248.6-Dec-00 263 The Battery 5 8 6-Dec-00 266 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 487311 6-Dec-001 271 The Battery 5 8 6-Dec-00 271 The Battery 5 8 0 0 -0 487313 6-Dec-00 289 The Battery 5 '8 6-Dec-00 291 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 487459 6-Dec-00 275 The Battery 5 8 6-Dec-00 277 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 487476 7-Dec-00 233 The Battery 5 8 30-Nov-00 235 The Battery 5 8. 7 0 0 486907 7-Dec-00 217 The Battery -5 8 4-Dec-00 218 The Battery 5 8 3 0 0 487024 7-Dec-00 232 The Battery 5 8 Dec-00 233 The Battery 5 8 1 0 0 487379 7-Dec-00 270 The Battery 1 2 6-Dec-00 267 The Battery 5 8 1 4 6 487547 7-Dec-00 215 The Battery 5 8 6-Dec-00 214 The Battery 5 8 1 0 0 487684 7-Dec-00 280 The Battery 5 8 7-Dec-00 280 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 487751 8-Dec-00, 262 The Battery 5 8 7-Dec-00 260 The Battery 5 8 1 0 0 487809 8-Dec-00 202 The Battery 1 2 7-Dec-00 199 The Battery 1 2 1 0 0 487861 14-Dec-00 297 The Battery 8 13 28-Nov-00 300 The Batters' 5 8 16 3 5 478654 15-Dec-00 270 The Battery 5 8 15-Dec-00 270 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 488401 (continued)
CO)CD CX CD Appendix Table D-1. (Continued)
CL 0 0______Recap tore Release -Distance Length Length Days at Traveled Distance Tag Date (mm Region Mile km Date (mm) Region Mile kmn Large (Miles) Traveled (kmn) Number 18-Dec-00 207 The Battery 9 14 18-Dec-00 207 The Battery 10 16 0 1 2 488512 2 1-Dec-00 355 The Battery 5 8 2 1-Nov-00 351 Upper Harbor 3 5 30 8 13 478443 2 1-Dec-001 259 The Battery 5 8 15-Dec-00 260 The Battery 5 18 16 0 0 487241 2 1-Dec-001 289 The Battery 5 8 20-Dec-00 287 The Battery 9 14 1 4 6 488597 2 1-Dec-001 295 The Battery 5 8 2 1-Dec-00 298 The Battery 5 8 0 0 0 488682 28-Dec-001 312 The Battery 7 11 20-Dec-00 314 The Battery 7 11 8 0 0 479594 29-Dec-001 407 The Battery 9 14 29-Dec-00 407 The Battery 7 11 0 2 3 479930 5-Jan-01 298 The Battery 7 11 5-Jan-01 299 The Battery 7 11 0 0 0 488959 8-Jan-01 368 The Battery 8 13 29-Dec-00 368 The Batter 9 14 10 1 2 479973 12-Jan-01 216 The Batter 7 11 12-Jan-01 221 The Batter 7 11 0 0 0 489379 12-Jan-01 272 The Battery 7 11 12-Jan-01 273 The Battery 7 11 0 0 0 489383 12-Jan-01 272 The Battery 7 11 12-Jan-01 273 The Battery 7 11 0 0 0 489383 17-Jan-01 291 The Battery 8 13 12-Jan-01 295 The Battery 8 13 5 0 0 489309 22-Jan-01 291 The Battery 9 14 11 -Dec-00 292 The Battery 5 8 42 4 6 488153 22-Jan-01 212 The Battery 7 11 22-Jan-01 212 The Battery 8 13 0 1 2 489890 22-Jan-01 197 The Battery 7 11 22-Jan-01 197 The Battery 8 13 0 1 2 489894 25-Jan-01 512 The Batter 8 13 25-Jan-01 512 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 480333 25-Jan-01 275 The Battery 8 13 9-Jan-01 274 The Battery 9 14 16 1 2 489072 25-Jan-01 250 The Battery 8 13 25-Jan-01 252 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 490265 26-Jan-01 262 The Battery 8 13 26-Jan-01.
262 The Battery 9 14 0 1 2 490550 3 1-Jan-0 1 207 The Battery 8 13 7-Dec-00 205 The Battery 5 8 55 3 5 487847 1-Feb-01 187 The Battery 8 13 26-Jan-01 187 The Battery 9 14 6 1 2 490544 2-Feb-01 273 The Battery 8 13 2 1-Nov-00 275 Upper Harbor 3 5 73 11 18 486354 2-Feb-01 248 The Battery 7 11 31-Jan-01 250 The Battery 8. 13 2 1 2 490982 7-Feb-01 253 The Battery 7 11 7-Feb-01 253 The Battery 7 11 00 0 491476 7-Feb-01 234 The Battery 7 11 7-Feb-01 234 The Battery 7 11 0 0 0 491479 8-Feb-01 232 The Battery 8 13 22-Dec-00 238 The Battery 9 14 48 1 2 488813 9-Feb-01 202 The Battery 7 11 30-Nov-00 202 The Battery 5 8 71 2 3 486901 112-Feb-011 220 The Battery 8 13 22-Jan-01 221 The Battery 9 4 21 1 2 489922 112-Feb-011 198 The Battery 9 14 2-Feb-011 198 1 The Battery 7 1 10 2 1 3 1491213 CO)CD 0 (continued)
Appendix-Table D-1. (Continued)(CL ca ro 0)0 0D 0 0 0 0 CD W)Recapture Release Dsac Length Length Days at Traveled Distance Tag Date (m) Region Mil~ekm Date (mm Region Mile Fkm Large (Miles) Traveled (kin) Number 12-Feb-01 182 The Battery 8 13 6-Feb-01 182 The Battery 7 11 6 1 2 491318 13-Feb-01 186 The Battery 8 13 5-Jan-01 188 The Battery 7 11 39 1 .2 488963 13-Feb-01 212 The Battery 8 13 29-Jan-01 215 The Battery 9 14 15 1 2 490702 13-Feb-01 239 The-Battery 8 13 31-Jan-01 241 The Battery 8 13 13 0 0 490984 14-Feb-01 204 The Battery 8 13 17-Jan-01 207, The Battery 8 13 28 0 0 489646 14-Feb-01 151 The Battery 8 13 9-Feb-01 151 The Battery 8 13 5 0 0 491656 16-Feb-01 232 The Battery 7 11 6-Dec-00 233 The Battery 5 8 72 2 3 487336 16-Feb-01 237 The Battery 7 11 1-Feb-01 240 The Battery 8 13 15 1 2 491091 16-Feb-01 200 -The Battery 7 11 13-Feb-01 200 The Battery 8 13 3 1 2 491869 20-Feb-01 310 The Battery 8 13 20-Feb-01 310 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 480935 20-Feb-01 289 The Battery 8 13 20-Feb-01 289 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 480936 20-Feb-01 250 The Battery 8 13 20-Feb-01 250 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 481127 20-Feb-01 243 The Battery 8 13 4-Dec-00 242 The Battery 1 2 78 7 11 487143 20-Feb-01 234 The Battery 8 13 20-Dec-00 232 The Battery 8 13 62 0 0 488602 20-Feb-011 250 The Battery 8 13 24-Jan-01 252 The Battery 9 14 27 1 2 490166 20-Feb-01 253 The Battery 8 .13 8-Feb-01 255 The Battery 7 11 12 1 2 491613 20-Feb-01 156 The Battery 8 13 16-Feb-01 155 The Battery 7 11 4 1 2 491986 21-Feb-01 240 The Battery 9 14 6-Feb-01 240 The Battery 7 11 15 2 3 491312 22-Feb-01 318 The Battery 8 13 3-Jan-01 319 The Battery 8 13 50 0 0 480126 22-Feb-01 256 The Battery. 8 13 14-Feb-01 260 The Battery 8 13 8 0 0 480692 23-Feb-01 156 The Battery 8 13 20-Feb-01 155 The Battery 8 '13 3 0 0 481031 23-Feb-01 231 The Battery 8 .13 20-Feb-01 232 The Battery 8 13 3 .0 0 488602 26-Feb-01 177 The Battery 9 14 14-Feb-01 180 The Battery 8 13 12 1 2 480725 26-:Feb-0I 157 The Battery 8 13 2 1-Feb-0 1 155 The Battery 7 11 5 1 2 481358 27-Feb-01 236 -The Battery 10 16 5-Dec-00 234 The Battery 5 8 84 5 8 487249 27-Feb-01 156 -The Battery 10 16 12-Feb-01 155 The Battery 8 13 15 2 3 491754 27-Feb-01 158 The Battery 8 13 14-Feb-01 160 The Battery 8 13 13 0 0 491945 28-Feb-01 191 The Battery 8 13 21-Feb-01 185 The Battery 9 14 7 1 2 481307 28-Feb-0 24 The Battery 8:j 13 2 21 -Fe b- 01 2 239 The Battery 7 11 7 1 2 481347 28-Feb-01l 340 1 The Battery 18_ 13 122-Feb-011 341 1 The Battery 18 1131 6 0 1 0 1481497 (continued) 0 0X 03 CD, Appendix Table D-1. (Continued)
CO)Ct, CO CD 0 (0 W 0~______Recapture Release -Distance Length length Days at Traveled Distance Tag Date (mm Region Mile kmn date (mm) Region Mile km Large (Miles) Traveled (kin) Number 28-Feb-01 210 The Battery 9 14 27-Feb-01 209 The Battery 8 13 1 1 2 481847 28-Feb-01 225 The Battery 8 13 12-Jan-01 222 The Battery 8 13 47 0 0 489272 28-Feb-01 167 The Battery 8 13 24-Jan-01 170 The Battery 8 13 35 0 0 490245 28-Feb-01 The Battery 8 13 7-Feb-01 258 The Battery 8 13 21 0 0 491444 1 -Mar-O01 364 The Battery 9 14 8-Jan-01 372 The Battery 8 13 52 1 2 480174 1-Mar-01 191 The Battery 7 11 27-Feb-01 190 The Battery 9 14 2 2 3 481905 2-Mar-0 1 360 The Battery 9 14 7-Dec-00 366 The Battery 1 2 85 8 13 479262 2-Mar-0 1 264 The Battery 8 13 2-Mar-0 1 263 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 482680 2-Mar-01 230 The Battery 8 13 8-Dec-00 236 The Battery 1 2 84 7 11 488097 2-Mar-01 222 The Battery 8 13 12-Jan-01 220 The Battery,, 8 13 49 0 0 489257 2-Mar-01 266 The Battery 8 13 22-Jan-0 1 268 The Battery 7 11 39 1 2 489930 2-Mar-01 181 The Battery 8 13 6-Feb-01 182 The Battery 7 11 24 1 2 491363 2-Mar-01 226 The Battery 8 13 12-Feb-01 225 The Battery 8 13 18 0 0491776 8-Mar-01 210 The Battery 8 13 14-Feb-01 211 The Battery 8 13 22 0 0 480632 8-Mar-01 164 The Battery 8 13 27-Feb-01 163 The Battery 8 13 9 0 0 481867 8-Mar-01 200 The Battery 8 13 8-Mar-0 1 200 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 482751 9-Mar-01 220 The Battery 7 11 26-Feb-01 218 The Battery 9 14. 11 2 3 481795 9-Mar-01l 303 The Battery 7 11 28-Feb-01 300 The Battery 8 13 9 1 2 482121 9-Mar-01 233 The Battery 10 16 31-Jan-01 231 The Battery 8 13 37 2 3 490957 12-Mar-0 1 276 The Battery 8 13 26-Feb-01 275 The Battery 8 13 14 0 0 481729 12-Mar-0 1 248 The Battery -7 11 13-Nov-00 246 The Battery 1 2 119 6 10 486234 12-Mar-0 1 191 The Battery 8 13 8-Feb-01 195 The Battery 8 13 32 0 0 491606 12-Mar-0 1 164 The Battery 8 13 14-Feb-01 163 The Battery 7 11 26 1 2 491917 13-Mar-01 312 The Battery -7 11 8-Nov-00 313 The Battery 1 2 125 6 10 478119 13 -Mar-0 1 264 The Battery 7 11 8-Dec-00 267 The Battery 1 2 95 6 10 488089 14-Mar-0 1 231 The Battery 9 14 26-Feb-01 230 The Battery 9 14 16 0 0 481763 14-Mar-0 1 180 The Battery 9 14 26-Feb-01 180 The Battery 9 14 16 0 0 481804'14-Mar-0 1 180 The Battery 8 13 1 -Mar-0 1 179 The Batter9y1 13 1 2 482358 14-Mar-0 1 164 The Battery 8 13 25-Jan-01 166 The Battery 8 13 48 0 0 490414 115-Mar-011 208 1 The Battery 8 13 13-Feb'011 206 1 The Battery 7 111 30 1 2 491812 (continued)
CO)lb Appendix Table D-1. (Continued)
CL, Cr, 0)0)0 W 0 Recapture Release -Distance Length Length Days at Traveled Distance Tag Date _ m) Region Mile km Date (mm) Region Mile &#xfd;Km Large (Miles) Traveled (kin) Number 15-Mar-01 170 The Batter 8 13 16-Feb-01 170 The Battery 7 11 27 1 2 491981_19-Mar-01 289 The Battery 7 11 1-Mar-01 294 The Battery 9 14 18 2 3 482331 19-Mar-0 1 154 The Battery 7 11 13-Mar-01 151 The Battery 7 11 6 0 0 483195 19-Mar-01, 202 The Battery 8 13 7-Feb-01 201 The Battery 7 11 40 1 2 491495 20-Mar-01 315 The Battery 7 11 21-Feb-01 310 The Battery 8 13 27 1 2 481311 20-Mar-01 335 The Batter 8 13 16-Mar-0 1 337 The Battery 8 13 4 0 0 483354 20-Mar-0 1 280 The Battery 7 It 15-Dec-00 281 The Battery 8 13 95 1 2 488422 22-Mar-01 310 The Battery 9 14 16-Jan-0 1 309 The Battery 8 13 65 1 2 480223 22-Mar-0 1 190 T he Battery 7 11 8-Jan-01 190 The Battery 8 13 73 1 2 488990 22-Mar-0 1 193 The Battery 8 13 25-Jan-01 193 The Battery 8 13 56 0 0 490320 22-Mar-01 160 The Battery 8 13 6-Feb-01 158 The Battery 7 11 44 1 2 491382 23-Mar-01 310 The Battery 7 11 15-Feb-01 307 The Battery 8 13 36 1 2 480823 23-Mar-01 180 The Battery 9 14 28-Feb-01 178 The Battery 8 13 23 1 2 482216 23-Mar-01 265 The Battery 7 11 23-Mar-01 264 The Battery 9 14 0 2 3 492671 23-Mar-01 218 The Battery 7 11 23-Mar-01 218 The Battery 8 13 0 1 2 492701_26-Mar-0 1 193 The Battery 8 13 9-Mar-01 195 The Battery 7 11 17 1 2 482904 26-Mar-0 1 303 -The Battery 7 11 15-Mar-01 305 The Battery 7 11 11 0 0 483323 26-Mar-0 1 263 The Battery 8 13 6-Dec-00 263 The Battery 5 8 110 3. 5 487474 26-Mar-0 1 177 The Battery 9 14 19-Mar-01 176 The Batter-y 7 11 7 2 3 492430 27-Mar-01 192 The Battery 9 14 25-Jan-01 194 The Battery 8 13 61 1 2 490283.27-Mar-01 152 The Battery 9 14 23-Mar-01 156 The Battery 9 14 4 0 0 492696 28-Mar-0 1 305 The Battery 7 11 30-Nov-00 306 Upper Harbor 3 5 118 1016 478872 28-Mar-011 166 The Battery 8 13 27-Mar-0 1 161 The Battery 9 114 1 1 2 492849 29-Mar-01 286 The Battery 9 14 19-Mar-01 290 The Battery 7 11 10 2 3 492434 2-Apr-0 1 180 The Battery 7 11 116-Feb-01 182 -The Battery 7 11 45 0 0 480874 2-Apr-0 1 310 The Battery 8 13 2-Apr-0 1 310 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 483872 3-Apr-01 367 The Battery 7 11 12-Mar-01 367 The Battery 8 13 22 1 2 483120 5-Apr-0 1 269 The Battery 9 14 20-Feb-01 265 .The Battery 9 14 44 0 0 481165 5-Apr-01 174 -The Battery 8 13 12-Jan-01 170 The Battery 8 131 83= 0 0 489299 15-Apr-011 286 1 The Battery 9 1 141 22-Mar-011 295 The Battery 7 1 11 14 1 2 3 492658 (continued)
'0 0 0L Appendix Table D-1. (Continued)
CD C3 CD 0 0 F0 Recapture Release Distan ce Length Length Days at Traveled Distance Tag Date (m) Region Mile km Date (mm) Region Mile km Large (Miles) Traveled (kin) Number 5-Apr-01 251 The Battery 8 13 5-Apr-0 1 251 The Battery 8 13 0 0 0 493408 17-Apr-01 246 The Battery 5 8 13-Mar-01 246 The Battery 7 11 35 2 3 483276 17-Apr-01 210 The Battery 5 8 6-Dec-00 210 The Battery 5 8 132' 0 0 487282 17-Apr-0 1 295 The Battery 5 8 22-Mar-01 295 The Battery 9 14 26 4 6 492595 18-Apr-01 351 The Battery 7 11 23-Mar-01 356 The Battery 7 111 26 0 0 483630_1 8-Apr-0 1 270 The Battery 7 11 16-Dec-00 269 The Battery 5 8 133 2 3 487587 19-Apr-01 350 *The Battery 5 8 22-Dec-00 358 The Battery 8 13 118 3 5 479694 19-Apr-0 1 224 The Battery 5 8 25-Jan-01 224 The Battery 8 13 84 3 5 490293 19-Apr-0 1 265 The Battery 5 8 19-Mar-0 1 261 The Battery 8 13 31 3 5 492399 20-Apr-01 300 The Battery 7 11 22-Mar-01 303 The Battery 9 14 29 2 3 483561 20-Apr-0 1 362 The Battery 7 11 23-Mar-01 362 The Battery 9 141 28 2 3 483590 20-Apr-01, 289 TeBtry 8 1 5-Dec-001 287 1 The Battery 5 81 136 1 3 5 487242"0 0 (I, 0 CD C,)C,)0 CD C,)C.)
_O Appendix Table D-2. Release and Recapture Data for Striped Bass Marked Prior to, and Recaptured During, the 2000-2001 Hudson Rie tipdBsOPorm CLRvrSrpd asPorm 0 0 Recapture Release Distance Distance Length Length Days at Traveled Traveled Tag Date (mm) Region Mile km Date (mm) Region &#xfd;Mile km Large (Miles) (kin) Number 17-Nov-00 293 Upper Harbor 2 3 3 1-Mar-00 233 The Battery 8 13 231 10 16 484989 2 1-Nov-00 355 Upper Harbor 3- 5 12-Apr-00 256 Upper Harbor 3 5 223 0 0 465970 29-Nov-00 334 Upper Harbor 2 3 11 -Apr-00 254 Upper Harbor 3 5 232 j1 2 465036 30-Nov-00 350 Upper Harbor 3 5 20-Jan-00 248 The Battery 9 14 315 12 19 475551 8-Dec-00 364. The Battery 5 18 9-Mar-00 237 The Battery 9 14 274* 4 6 477124 13-Dec-00 289 The Battery 5 8 6-Jan-00 238 The Battery 9 14 342 4' 6 474214 13-Dec-00 308 The Battery 5 8 6-Jan-00 231 The Battery 5 8 342 0 0 474273 14-Dec-00 452 The Battery 8 13 23-Dec-98 337 Upper Harbor 2 3 722 10 .16 454774 29-Dec-00 351 The Battery 9 14 18-Nov-99 273 Upper Harbor 3 5 407 12 19 471374 29-Dec-00 621 The Battery 9 14 8-Dec-97 396 The-Battery 8 13 1117 1 2 428034 30-Jan-01 335 The Battery 9 14 24-Jan-97 194 The Battery 10 16 1467 1 2 437688 9-Feb-01 343 The Battery 8 13 20-Mar-00 283 The Battery 8 13 326 0 0 477974 13-Feb-01 344 The Battery 8 13 6-Apr-00 247 Upper Harbor 3 5 313 11 18 485612 14-Feb-01 328 The Battery 8 13 10O-Dec-99 199 Upper Harbor 3 5 432 11 18 472584 20-Feb-01 339 The Battery 8 13 15-Dec-99 307 Upper Harbor 3 5 433 11 18 463328 20-Feb-01 392 The Battery 8 13 4-Jan-00 296 The Battery 5 -8 413 3 5 474035 22-Feb-01 305 The Battery 8 13 8-Mar-00 205 The Battery 9 14 351 1 2 477042 22-Feb-01 349 The Battery 8 13 16-Mar-99 196 The Battery 7 11 709 ____1 __2 .461620 22-Feb-01 550 The Battery 7 11 6-Feb-97 428 The Battery 10 16 1477 3 5 394193(l)27-Feb-01 356 The Battery 8 13 1 -Mar-00 332 The Battery 9 14. 363 1 2 464247 13-Mar-01 315 The Battery 7 11 3-Mar-99 170 The Battery 5 8 741 2 3 460316 19-Mar-01 365 The Batter 8 13 Mar-00 322 The Battery 1 2 374 7 11 464327 19-Mar-01 302 The Battery 7 11 20-Mar-00 228 The Battery 7 11 364 0 0 464476 22-Mar-01 435 The Battery 7 11 8-Dec-99 395 Upper Harbor 3 5 470 10 16 462856 22-Mar-01 343 The Battery 9 14 12-Mar-99 204 The Battery 7 11 741 2 3 458248(2)26-Mar-0 1 382 The Battery 8 13 17-Dec-98 182 The Battery 1 2 830 .7 11 468482 28-Mar-01 260 The Battery 8 13 8-Dec-99 240 Upper Harbor 3 5 476 11 18 472227 4-Apr-0 1 355 The Battery 8 13 21-Jan-00 286 The Battery 8 13 439' 0 0 475668 4-Apr-0l1 283 The Battery 8 13 27-Jan-001 213 The Battery 8 13 433 0 0 475757 15-Apr-01l 530 1 The Battery 9 114 111-Dec-97 1380 Upper Harbor 3 15 1211 12 19 436983(3)(1) Fish 394193 was first captured and released on December 21, 1993, with a length of 189 mm.(2) Fish 458248 was first captured and released on January 27, 1999, with a length of 2 04 mmi-.(3) Fish 436983 was first captured and released on January 16, 1997, with a length of 282 mm.0.CD Appendix Table D-3. Recapture of Tagged Striped Bass Cross-Classified by Release and Recapture Week for Fish Released and CD Recaptured by Trawls in the Combined Upper New York Harbor and Battery Regions of the Hudson River, 6 Nov 2000 through 20 April 2001.C)C)Numnber Release Week Exami.ne 6-Nov 13-Nov 20-Nov 27-Nov 4-Dec I I-Dec 18-Dec 25-Dec I-Jan 8-Jan 15-Jan 22-Jan 29-Jan 5-Feb 12-Feb 19-Feb 26-Feb 5-Mar 12-Mar 19-Mar 26-Mar 2-Apr 9-Apr 16-Apr Total 0 Re~..~re dMfrkMs= = M M= M= M= M= M M= M= N= M= M= M= M= M= M= M= M= M= M= M M= M=M1k0 tasl 242 222 408 917 1420 524 517 329 275 464 473 842 709 420 675 767 987 213 763 605 501 625 87 409 13363 6Nox' 257 R 0 0 0R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 13Nov 225 R 1 2 3 RIM 0.00413 0.0093 0.00661 zt R/C 0.00444 0.00889 0.0 1333 r 2O-Nov 427 R 1 01 C)RIM 0.0043 0.000 0.00116 R/C 0.00234 0.00000 0.00234 27Nov 974 R 2 0 0 4 6 R/M 0 00826 000000 0 00000 0 004,61 00033 7 Q 0.0 0 (D 0 (D Pn RI/C 4-Dec 1506 R RIM RIC 11l-Dec 535 R RIM RIC I10-Dec 544 R RIM RIC 25-Dec 351 R RIM RIC I-Jan 282 R RIM RIC 0-Jan 403 R RIM RIC 15-Jan 504 R RIM RIC 22-Jan 891 R RIM RIC 29-Jan 743 R RIM RIC 5-Feb 444 R RIM RIC 12-Feb 746 R RIM RIC 19-Feb 824 R RIM RIC 26-Fob 1050 R RIM RIC 5-Mar 220 R RIM RIC 12-Mar 797 R RIM RIC 19-Mar 682 R RIM RIC 26-Mar 549 R RIM RIC 21-Apr 687 R RIM RIC 9-Apr 94 R RIM RIC 16-Apr 464 R RIM RIC 0.00205 11.00000 0.00000 0.00411 0 0 0 I 0.00000 11.006000 0.00000 0.00 109 0.00000 0.100010 0.00000 0.00066 0 0 0 1 0.00000 01.00000 0.00000 0.00109 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00187 0 0 I 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00245 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 184 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.008000 0.000(10 0.00000 0.00000 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 I 0 0.00000 0.)00(00 0.00245 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00135 0.00000 0 0 0 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00109 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00225 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00)0(0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 I 1 0 0 0.00413 0.00472 0.00000 0.00000 0.00125 0.00125 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 I 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00109 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00182 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.001000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.000001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 I5 0.0 1064 0.00996 0 1 0.00000 0.00195 0.00000 0.00187 1 0 3 0.00071 0.00000 0.00580 0.00184 0.00000 0.00551 0 0 0 I 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00304 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0028!0 0 0 (0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000(0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000(0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000030 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000020 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000(0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000(0 I 0 0.00000 0.00195 0.00000 00000OC 0.00000 0.00112 0.00000 0.0000(1 0 0 C 0.00071 0.00000 0.000X OOO 0.00 135 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 I C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00193 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00225 0.00000 1 0 0 0 0.00071I 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00134 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1 0 2 0 0.00071 0.00000 0.00387 0.00000 0.00121 0.00000 0.00243 0.00000 3 0 0 0 0.002 13 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800 0.00286 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800C 1 0 0 0 0.00071 0.00000 0.00000 0.080000 0.00 125 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 I 0 0 0.00000 0.00195 0.00000 0.008000 0.00000 0.00147 0.00000 0.00000 1 0 0 0 0.00071 0.00080 0.00000 0.008000 0.00 182 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000011 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3 0 I 0 0.002 13 0.00000 0.00 193 0.00000 0.003641 0.00355 0 3 0.00000 0.00647 0.00000 0,00621 0 1 0 0.00000 0.00216 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 198 0.00000 0 I 0 5 0.00000 0.00216 0.00000 0.00595 0.00000 0'.00112 0.00000 0.00561 0 0 0 1I 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00119 0.00141 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 135 0.00 135 0 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1 0 1 1 4 0.00364 0.00000 0.00211 0.00119 0.00564 0.00134 0.00000 0.00134 0.00134 0.00536 1 0 0 1 0 0.00364 0.00000 0.00000 0.00119 0.00000 0.00121 0.00000 0.00000 0.00121 0.00000 0 3 0 2 0 0.00000 0.00647 0.00000 0.00238 0.00000 0.00000 0.00286 0.00000 0.00 190 0.00000 0 0 0 0 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00141 0.08000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00439 0 0 0 1 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00119 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 25 0.00000 0 I 1 1 0 0.00000 0.00216 0.00211 0.00119 0.00000 0.00000 0.00147 0.00147 0.00147 0.00000 0 0 0 1 0 0.80080 0.00000 0.00000 0.00119 0.D00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00 182 0.00000 0 I 0 0 0 0.00080 0.00216 0.080000 0.00000 0.00000 0.800080 0.00146 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0 0.00000 0.000006 0.00800 0.00000 0.000006 0.00000 0.00000 0.800800 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 1 0 0.00880 0.800000 0.00000 0.00119 0.00000'3.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00216 0.008000 0.002380 0.00225 2 1 0.00476 0.00148 0.00268 0.00134 2 2 4 0.00476 0.00296 0.00522 0.00243 0.00243 0.00485 0.606 16 16 0.00502 0.00054 0.00374 0.00118 0.009 19 0.00022 0.00285 0.00021 0.00355 0.00076 0.00828 0.666017 0.060198 0.060106 0.00786 4 0.00055 0.00538 0.00039 0.00676 0.660131I 0.0 1475 13 0.600142 0.601578 26 0.600197 6.0 1905 6 0.00065 0,02632 0.00099 0.013 80 14 0.00119 0.02053 9 0.00074 0.0 1639 0.00054 0.01019 0.060000 10 0.00075 2 4 3 3 0.00476 0.00593 0.06391 I0.00304 0.06190 0.00381 0.00286 0.00286 6 1 0 3 0.00660 0.00148 0.00000 0.00304 0.06866 0.00439 0.00000 0.01316 1 3 0 3 0.00238 0.00444 0.00000 0.00304 0.060125 0.00376 0.00000 0.00376 2 1 I 2 0.00476 0.00148 0.00130 0.00203 0.00293 0.00147 0.00147 0.00293 0 6 0 0 0.00000 0.000008 0.06000 0.60000 0.060060 0.060066 0.600000 0.000600 0 1 I 0 0.00000 0.00148 0.00130 0.006000 0.60060 0.00146 0.00146 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0.600080 0.66000 0.00000 0.606006 0.60660 0.00800 0.006000 0.006006 0 8 6 0 0.060060 0.00680 0.00000 0.00000 6.080060 0.00000 0.006006 0.060000 0.00469 0.00439 0 0 0.0000 0.608000 0.00060 0.06000 0 2 2 0.006000 0.00262 0.00331 0.00000 0.00293 0.00293 1 3 1 0.00469 0.800131 0.00496 0.00200 0.00182 0.00182 0.00546 0.00182 0 1 I 0 0.00000 0.00131 0.00165 0.00000 0.00000 0.00146 0.00146 0,00000 0 6 0 8 0.00000 0.00060 0.00806 0.608000 6.00000 0.00060 0.060000 0.608000 0 1 4 0 0,00000 0.00131 0.00661 0.806000 0.00000 0.00216 0.00862 0000060 2 0.00320 0.08291 0 0 0.600600 0.006000 0.00000 0.00600 0 0 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.08000C 0.00000 0.00000 000000 000000 000647 000000 000216 000000 I 0.021)5 Total 14287 R 1 5 3 2 9f 27 3 7 1 3 1 4 0 1 0 13 0:002 2 0 0 15f RI 6886 .1156040 .07I0.11 .0540015 .068 .1910015 .02 60656004 .2310092 .1736014 00990.05 .6630608I0632610000OOOI00 O RIC 186005.020266 
.601 0.0141500098.802.606094900140.002 068002.00146.069 0000005.607460001..0063002070 
.60240.00300.800006802.000000800000.00 0116(008 2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table D-4. Intermediate Computational Data used in the Calculation of a Schumacher-Eschmeyer Population Estimate of the Striped Bass Population Size in the Combined Upper Harbor and Battery Regions of the Hudson River, Winter 2000-2001.
Sampling (>150 mm) (>150 mm) Cum M R Week C total M total Total Total RIC 1 Jan 01 282 275 0 0 0.00000 8 Jan 01 483 464 275 0 0.0000*0 15-Jan 01 504 473 739 1 0.00198-22 Jan 01 891 841 1212 1 0.00112 29 Jan 01 743 709 2053 1 0.00135 5 Feb 01 444 -420 2762 0 0.00000 12 Feb 01 746 675 3182 9 0.01206*19 Feb 01 824 ( 767 3857
* 6 0.00728 26 Feb 01
* 1050 987 4624 14 0.01333 5 Mar 01 228 213 5611 5 0.02193 Total 6195 5824 24315 37 0.05906 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 1212112006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table D-5.Analysis of Variance for the Unweighted Regression of Weekly Recapture Proportion (RIC) Against the Weekly Cumulative Number of Striped Bass Tagged and Released (in) in the Battery and Upper Harbor Regions of the lower Hudson River from the Week of 6 November 2000 through 20 April 2001.ISource df I SS I MS I F I p>F Model 1 0.000443 0.000443 68.05 <0.00 1 IError I 8 0.000052 0.000007 Total 9 0.000495 Regression Equation:
R/CG (Cumulative M) X + error, where, X =3.68 x 10-6 and Standard Error of X = 4.46 x 10-7 R2= coefficient of determination 
= 0.895 df = degrees of freedom SS =sum of squares MS = mean square F = calculated F-ratio p>F = probability of obtaining a larger F-ratio Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table D-6. Tag Type and Number of Striped Bass Tagged and Released during the Hudson River Striped Bass Program, 1984 to Present.Number Tagged by Rei-Rec Number Tagged by Tag Type Modified I nternal Internal Internal Internal Small Program Anchor Anchor Anchor Anchor Dart Year RelRec I RelRec 6 Total Anchor (Floy) Tube (Floy) (Hal 1)' (Hall)' (Hall)'1984 737 0 737 737 b 737---1985-1986 18,448 c 0 18,448 -18,448 ----1986-1987 9,7 d 0 9,473 -7,258 2,215-1987-1988 12,433 c 0 12,433 -1,598 2,360 8,475 1988-1989 24,393 0 24,393 ---7,927 16,466 819"b 1989-1990 24,362 0 24,362 ----24,362 659 b 1990-1991 22,406 0 22,406 ----22,406 -1991-1992 23,514 793 24,307 ----24,307-1992-1993 20,847 899 21,746 --.- -21,746-1993-1994 17,500 810 18,310 ---- 18,310-1994-1995 6,837 0 6,837 ----6,837-l995&#xfd;l996 10,889 126 11,015 -- --11,015-1996-1997 12,794 217 13,011 ----13,011-1997-1998 14,428. 558 14,986 ---- 14,986-1998-1999 11,203 439 11,642 -- --11,642-1999-2000 12,587 335- 12,922 ----12,922-2000-2001 13,363 513 13,876 --I -I -1 13,876-Total 256,214 4,690 260,904 737" 28,041 4,575 16,402 211,886 1,478""Hall = Hallprint bNot included in row total because fish were double tagged.'Differences between the 1985-86 total number of fish tagged and released (18,448) and the number reported in Normandeau (1986) of 18,487 (see Table I- 1) is explained in Nortnandeau (1990) as follows: 18,487 fish tagged and released in the 1985-86 Program+ 23 fish tagged and released during 1985-86 hatchery broodfish capture effort (EA)+ I fish with tag number verified by recapture-63 fish released with missing tag numbers, or with missing alive/dead status code Total: 18,448 d Differences between the 1986-87 total number of fish tagged and released (9,473) and the number reported in Normandeau (1987) of 9,388 (see Table I -1) is explained in Normandeau (1990) as follows: 9,388 fish tagged and released in the 1986-87 Program+ 65 fish tagged and released by a sport fisherman (Tom Lake)+ 27 fish discovered with wrong alive/dead status+ 2 fish with status changed due to recapture information
-9 fish with missing tag numbers Total: 9,473 C'Three fish were tagged and released without the tag number recorded and could not be classified by tag type or reward value. 12,436 fish were tagged and released in 1987-88: 12,436-3 = 12,433.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200~do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table D-7. Description of the Different Types of Internal Anchor External Streamer Tags and Reward Values for Striped Bass Caught, Tagged and Released during the 2000-2001 Hudson River Striped Bass Program.Reward Number of Fish Tagged Tag Anchor* Streamer Value and Released Haliprint Small, yellow, Yellow polypropylene with $5-$S1000 3,900 Internal Anchor legend covered filament Haliprint Small, yellow, Yellow polypropylene with $1 0-s1000 4,029 Internal Anchor legend covered filament Hallprint Large, yellow, Yellow polypropylene with $54S1000 2,968 Internal Anchor legend covered filament Hallprint Large, yellow, Yellow polypropylene with $1 0-$ 1000 2,979 Internal Anchor legend covered filament 2000-2001 Total: _______ 13,876*Striped bass >1 50 mnm TL and < 300 mm TL in good condition were tagged with small anchor (20 mm) tags and released.Striped bass >300 mmn TL in good condition were tagged with large anchor (25 mm) tags and released.Total includes 13,363 fish that were tagged and released in good condition (REL REC = 1) and 513 fish tagged and released with one or more external anomalies (REL REC =6).Striped Bass 2000-200 I.doc 12/21/2006 Stried Bss 000-00Ldc 1/21/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report APPENDIX E Striped Bass Bio characteristics and Food Habits Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12121/2006 Ivormandeau Assoc res, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report E.1.O INTRODUCTION Striped bass that died during collection and tagging operations conducted between 6 November 2000 and 20 April 2001 were taken to the laboratory and examined in fresh condition to determine length, weight, sex, sexual conditions, and food habits. This laboratory program gathered incidental data on striped bass biocharacteristics and food habits without sacrificing fish specifically for these observations.
Similar biocharacteristics data were obtained during the 1985-1986 through 1999-2000 programs (Normandeau 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2000; LMS 1995., 1996, 1997). Analysis of striped bass food habits was initiated in 1985-1986 at the request of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (letter from Horn to Dunning dated 7 November 1985), specifically to determine the predominance of Atlantic tomcod as a winter food item for striped bass. Merriman (1941) observed Atlantic tomcod to be rare in the diet of Hudson River striped bass during the spring, but striped bass with tomcod present in their stomachs were found to consume tomcod approximately 50% of their body length (200 mm tomcod).E.2.0 LABORATORY METHODS E.2.1 Length, Weight, Sex, and Sexual Condition of Striped Bass Length, weight, sex, and sexual condition were determined for 82 striped bass that either died during field sample processing or had suspected tag wounds and were brought back to the lab. Total length was measured to the nearest mm. Total weight was measured to the nearest 50.0 g for fish less than or equal to 10 kg, and to the nearest 100.0 g for fish greater than 10 kg. Sex and sexual condition were determined through examination of the gonads using the criteria' in Table B-i.E.2.2 STRIPED BASS STOMACH CONTENTS ANALYSIS A sample of 82 striped bass that were processed as described above in Section E.2. 1 were also examined for stomach contents.
Stomachs were excised from fresh striped bass and analyzed in the laboratory.
The presence of invertebrates and vertebrates in the stomach was determined.
If vertebrates were present, it was determined if they were fish, and if so, if they were Atlantic tomcod.The presence of bony structures (vertebrae) was used to separate fish and invertebrate remains in striped bass stomach contents.
Atlantic tomcod were differentiated from other fish species by comparing vertebral counts and, if necessary, vertebral shape from fish specimens in the stomach contents to stained and cleared specimens of Atlantic tomcod.E.3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION E.3.1 Striped Bass Sexual Condition Immature striped bass were most abundant in the biocharacteristics samples from the 2000-200 1 striped bass program (Tables E-2 and E-3). Forty-two of the forty-three female striped bass examined were in the immature stage, one was in the resting stage. Thirty of the thirty-nine male striped bass examined were immature, nine were in the resting stage. No examined striped bass had gonads in the developing stage.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doe 12/21/2006 Stried ass2000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report The lack of ripe or ripe and running striped bass in the 2000-2001 biocharacteristics samples. agrees with the findings of the 1985-1986 through 1999-2000 programs (Table E-4). The majority of female* fish examined, including previous programs, were immature (96%) and none of the females were found to be ripe or ripe and running. The majority of male fish examined, including the previous programs, were also in the immature (65%) and resting (21%) stages with the remainder in the developing stage (14%). The lack of ripe or ripe and running striped bass is not surprising because the majority of the fish captured in these programs were of pre-spawning size (< 400 m~m) and the programs terminated before the onset of peak spawning (Normandeau 1986; TI 198 1). The general increase from November to April in the percentage of males in the developing stage during the 1985-1986 through 2000-200 1 programs indicated the approach of the spawning season, and that m-ale striped bass may undergo a longer period of gonadal development prior to spawning than females.Due to both the small size of striped bass sampled, and the time period during which the program was conducted, the majority of the fish sampled were immature or resting.E.3.2 Striped Bass Food Habits Food habits were determined from 82 striped bass, that died during collection in the 2000-200 1 program, by identifying stomach contents as invertebrates, vertebrates, or Atlantic tomcod. Only 3 fish were captured in the larger (> 400 mm) length groups and one of these fish had empty stomachs (Table E-5). Presence of Atlantic tomcod in striped bass stomachs was of specific interest, because both striped bass and Atlantic tomcod are present in the 'Hudson River estuary during the winter, and as a result, Atlantic tomcod may be a winter food item of striped bass. No Atlantic tomcod were observed in any of the striped bass stomachs examined.
All vertebrate remains were identifiable as fish,' and those that could be identified included blueback herring and other unidentified clupeid and gobiid species as incidentally noted by laboratory personnel.
In the 2000-200 1 program the majority of fish < 200 mm had empty stomachs (Table E-5). The percentage of striped bass with food items in their stomachs increased for fish in the 201-300 mm and 30 1-400 mm length groups. Among striped bass < 400 mm with non empty stomachs, invertebrate remains were the predominate prey items. Only three striped bass > 400 mm were examined for stomach contents and only two of those had prey items. The two fish > 500 mm with non empty stomachs had consumed invertebrates (sand shrimp and blue crab) although it is not feasible to discern any differential preferences in diet between the smaller length groups and fish > 500 mmn with the 2000-200 t data because of the'small.
sample size of larger striped bass.The sample sizes for food habit analyses from individual programs were generally too small to idnify trends. However, when the foods habit data from the 1985-1986 through 2000-2001 programs were pooled several trends became evident (Table E-6). Invertebrates were the dominant prey item as 74% of nonempty striped bass stomachs exam 'ined only contained invertebrate remains.A change in food habits was apparent when striped bass reached about 300 mm as the importance of invertebrates as a prey item decreased while vertebrate prey items increased.
About 80% of the striped bass less than 300 mm with food items present in their stomachs had invertebrates only, while 50% of the 'stomachs of striped bass greater than 300 mm with food items present contained invertebrates only. This trend of increasing importance of fish as food items as striped bass length increases has been observed elsewhere (Schaefer 1970; Westin and Rogers 1978; Rulifson and McKenna 1987). No Atlantic tomcod were observed in any of the 2,687 striped bass stomachs examined since 1985.Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-1. Criteria for Determining Sex and State of Maturity of Striped Bass'.State of Maturity Code Females Males Gravid or 1 Ovaries full of yellowish granular Testes white, less firm in milting (ripe) eggs that are partially translucent, texture, and if~compressed will Eggs can be released when ovary is readily milt.compressed.
Ripe and 2. Adult prepared to spawn Adult prepared to spawn running immediately; expulsion of eggs with immediately; expulsion of milt_____________little provocation, with little provocation.
Partially spent 3 Ovaries somewhat flaccid and Testes whitish, somewhat convoluted, with a variable number of flaccid and convoluted, with eggs left. Ovarian membrane free flow of milt.somewhat vascular.Spent 4 Ovaries flaccid, few translucent eggs Testes brownish white, flaccid, left. Ovarian membrane very vascular convoluted, with no flow of milt or sac-like, upon compression.
Immature 5 Ovaries very small and string-like, Testes very small and stringlike, thicker than testes, somewhat opaque thinner than ovaries, somewhat and gelatinous in appearance.
translucent, and extremely tender.Not gravid or 6 Underdeveloped ovaries in an adult Underdeveloped testes in an not milting female. Ovaries larger, more firm, adult male. Testes larger, more (Resting) opaque, and relatively thick. No eggs firm, opaque, but still tender.______________discernible to naked eye.Semi-gravid 7 Subripe females heading into Subripe males heading into semi-milting spawning season. Ovaries spawning season. Testes (developing) considerably larger, yellow, granular considerably larger, white, firm in consistency.
Eggs discernible to in exture, but milt not running.naked eye, but not readily released when ovary is compressed.
'Fromn Con Edison Data Dictionary Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-2. Sexual Condition of Hudson River Striped Bass Examined from a Sample of Fish that Died During the 2000-2001 Program.Male Female Sexual Condition Sexual Condition Immature Resting All Immature Resting All Month N7% N % N % N % N %, N %Jan 6 100 0 0' 6 100 5 83 1 17 6 100 Feb 5 83, 1 17 6 100 6 -100 6 100 Mar 7 88 1' 13 8 100 12 100 12 100 Apr 4. 67 2 33 6 100 6 100 .6 100 Nov 1 33 2 67 3 100 6 100 6 100 Dec 7 &#xfd;70 3 30 10 100 7 100 7 100 All 30 77 9 23 39 100- 42.- 98 1 2 43 100 Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass2000200.do 121 1l006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-3. Length, Weight, Sexual Condition and Food Habits of Hudson River Striped Bass that Died During the 2000-2001 Program.Length Weight Sexual Date LRiver Mile (mm) (g Sex Condition Gut Contents Upper Harb~or 2 1-Nov-00 3 385 602.0 Female Immature Empty 2 1-Nov-00 3 381 667.1 Male Resting Verts 29-Nov-00 2 334 375.6 Male Immature Empty Battery 8-Nov-001 1 363 486.5 Female Immature Empty 10O-Nov-00 1 260 181.6 Female Immature Inverts & Verts 15-Nov-00 9 363 503.0 Male Resting Inverts 20-Nov-00 9 327 314.4 Femnale Immature ,Empty 22-Nov-00 1 206 85.3 Female Immature Inverts 27-Nov-001 9 190 56.4 Female Immature Verts 4-Dec-00 5 195 63.8 Female Immature Inverts 5-Dec-00 5 173 39.8 Femnale Immature Inverts 5-Dec-00 5 217 90.2 Male Immature Empty 5-Dec-00 5 220 93.1 Male Resting Inverts 6-Dec-001 5 312 277.1 Male Immature Inverts 6-Dec-00 5 292 254.6 Female Immature Empty 6-Dec-00 5 206 73.6 Male Immature Inverts 6-Dec-00 5 229 110.6 Femnale Immature Inverts 7-Dec-00 1 286 295.3 Female Immature Empty 8-Dec-001 1 186 54.5 Female Immature Inverts 8-Dec-00 1 392 568.2 Male Immature Inverts 2 1-Dec-00 5 310 291.9 Male Immature Empt 22-Dec-00 5 252 157.4 Female Immature Empty 22-Dec-00 5 170 41.7 Male Immature Inverts 22-Dec-001 5 208 71.7 Male Immature Inverts 22-Dec-00 5 206 111.8 Male Resting Inverts 28-Dec-00 7 437 1081.8 Male Resting Empty 8-Jan-01 .9 208 85.9 Male Immature Inverts 8-Jan-01 9 166 38.2 Male Immature Empty 10O-Jan-01I 1 824 5250.0 Femnale Resting Inverts 12-Jan-01 9 151 29.6 Female Immature Empty 17-Jan-01 8 334 388.6 Female Immature Inverts 23-Jan-011 8 279 225.0 Male Immature Empty 24-Jan-0 1 8 210 81.3 Femnale Immature Empty 24-Jan-0 1 8 172 45.5 Male Immature Empty 24-Jan-0 1 8 254 158.3 Femnale Immature Empty 25-Jan-01 8 167 40.9 Male Immature Empty 25-Jan-0 1 8 182 50.4 Femnale Immature Empt 26-Jan-0 1 9 232 114.7 .Male Immature Inverts 1-Feb-01 8 210 79.9 Male Immature Empty 2-Feb-01 8 270 189.9 Female Immature InvertsE 13-Feb-01 8 .243 135.5. Female Immature .Empty (continued)
Striped Bas&#xfd; 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-3. (Continued)
Length Weight Sexual Date River Mile (mm) (g) Sex Condition Gut Contents 14-Feb-01 8 174 45.0 Male Immature Empty 22-Feb-01 8 300 287.6 Female Immature Inverts 22-Feb-01 7 550 1956.8 Male *Resting Inverts 23-Feb-01 9 184 56.0 Male Immature Empty 27-Feb-01 8 234 140.5 .Female Immature Empty 28-Feb-01 10 150 27.0 Femnale Imi-ature Empty 28-rFeb-01 8 196 65.4 Male Immature Empty 28-Feb-01 8 180 45.5 Femnale Immature Empty 28-Feb-01l 8 225 96.5 Male Immature Inverts 2-Mar-01 8 215 91.3 Fernale Immature Inverts 9-Mar-01 10 307 309.7 Female Immature Inverts 9-Mar-0 1 10 288 227.3 Female Immature Empty 15-Mar-01 8 174 41.3 -Male Immature Empty 16-Mar-01 9 184 51.9 Male Immature Empty 16-Mar-0 1 9 172 46.4 Female Immature Empty 16-Mar-0 1 8 256 157.3 Male Immature Inverts 19-Mar-01 8 365 448.9 Female Immature Empty 19-Mar-01 8 245 129.3 Male Immature Empty 20-Mar-0 1 9 303 264.2 Male Immature Inverts 22-Mar-01 8 274' 187.9 Female / Immature Empty 22-Mar-01 9 274 182.6 Female Immature Empty 22-Mar-01 9 310 268.2 Male Resting Inverts 22-Mar-01 305 312.2 Female Immature Empty 22-Mar-01 7 331 391.6 Female Immature Empty 26-Mar-0 1 9 167 39.5 Male Immature Empty 26-Mar-0 1 8 239 124.9 Femnale Immature Inverts 26-Mar-01 8 230 113.0 Femnale -Immature Empty 29-Mar-01 9 158 35.2 Female Immature Empty 29-Mar-011 9 164 36.8 Male Immature Empty 2-Apr-01 8 192 5 7:0 Female Immature Empty 5-Apr-01 9 294 255.9 Male Resting Inverts 6-Apr-01 9 170 43.3 Male Immature Empty 6-Apr-01 9 339 402.0 Female Immature Empty 11I-Apr-0 1 9 260 171.9 Female Immature Inverts 17-Apr-01 5 270 188.1 Male Immature Inverts & Verts 17-Apr-0 1 5 305 287.9 Female Immature Inverts & Verts 17-Apr-01, 5 310 252.1 Male Immature Inverts 17-Apr-01 5 255 170.9 Male Resting Inverts & Verts 19-Apr-0 1 5 290 243.8 Female Immature Empty 19-Apr-0 1 5 339 336.2 Male Immature Inverts 20-Apr-01 7 310 290.0 Femnale Immature Empty Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12121/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/tt6Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-4. Sexual Condition of Hudson River Striped Bass Examined from Samples of Fish that Died During the 1985-1986 Through 2000-2001 Programs.Number of Striped Bass in Month Sex Stage Program Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total Males Immature 1985-86 0- 16 13 8 11 12 0 60 1986-87 0 2 7 9 10 14 0 42 1987-88 1 2 5 17 8 0 0 33 1988-89 1 7 10 6 5 2 0 31 1989-90 4 2 5 1 2 2 0 16 1990-91 6 12 16 11 7 3 0 55 1991-92 6 13 57 24 3 27 0 130 1992-93 8 18 9 9 36 48 0 128 1993-94 1 9 34 2 83 69 0 198 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995-96 3 7 8 7 10 4 0 39 1996-97 0 10 13 14 5 0 0 42 1997-98 1 9 12 6 6 0 0 34 1998-99 0 4 31 6 3 0 0 44 1999-00 1 3 13 1 12 2 0 32 2000-01 1 7 6 5 7 4 0 30 Total 33 121 239 126 208 187 0 914_____Percent 53.2 61.7 71.6 64.9 72.2 57.9 0 65.2 Males Resting 1985-86 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 1986-87 0 0 1 1 8 45 0 55 1987-88 1 4 9 0 0 0 0 14 1988-89 1 5 1 0 , 0 0 0 7 1989-90 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1990-91 1 6 .2 9 3 2 0 23 1991-92 4 7 14 9 6 10 0 50 1992-93 5 12 14 12 2 4 0 49 1993-94 4 10 8 1 13 4 0 40 1994-95 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1995-96 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1996-97 1 2 6 1 0 0 0 10 1997-98 ~ 2 6 6 5 4 0 0 23 1998-99 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1999-00 1 0 2 01 0 0 0 3 2000-01 2 3 0 1 1 2 0 9 Total 25 58 64 39 39 67 5 297____________
Percent 40.3 29.6 19.2 20.1 13.5 20.7 100.0 21.2 (continued)
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doe 12121/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-4. Continued Number of Striped Bass in Month Sex Stage Program Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total Males Developing 1985-86 1 11 9 10 7 50 0 88 1986-87 0 1 6 1 12 2 0 22 1987-88 1 1 11 7 2 3 0 15 1988-89 0 0.0 3 3 0 0 6 1989-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990-91 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1991-92 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1992-93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993-94 0 0 3 0 6 10 0 19 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995-96 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1996-97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997-98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998-99 1 3 6 8 7 0 0 25 1999-00 1 1 4 0 2 1 0 9 2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 17 31 29 41 69 0 191______Percent 6.5 8.7 9.3 114.9 14.2 121.4 0.0 13.6 Females Immature 1985-86 1 28 17 9 16 24 I 96 1986-87 0 1 3 10 16 9 0 39 1987-88 4. 4 11 18 '8 0 0 45 1988-89 1 9 9 7 9 3 0 38 1989-90 4 3 6 3 3 1 .0 20 1990-91 1 10 8 14 13 8 0. 54 1991-92 4 13 55 29 6 8 0 115 1992-93 11 20 32 25 46 57 0 191 1993-94 5 17 19 3 82 69 0 195 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995-96 1 9 18 6 8 6 0 48 1996-97 0 14 38 54 24 0 0 .130 1997-98 2 11 16 8 17 1 0 55 1998-99 2 7 19 13 3 0 0 44 1999-00 1 4 II 4 9 4 0 33 2000-01 6 7 5 6 12 6 0 42 Total 43 157 267 209 272 196 1 1145______ _________
Percent 197.7 95.2 194.3 198.1 97.1 194.7 150.0 1 95.9 1 (continued)
Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoe 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-4. Continued___________Number of striped bass in month Sex Stage Program Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total Females Resting 1985-86 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1986-87 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1987-88 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1988-89 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 1989-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990-91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1991-92 1 2 8 0 2 8 0 21 1992-93 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 5 1993-94 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 8 1994-95 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1995-96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996-97 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1997-98 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1998-99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000-01 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total 1 8 15 2 8 11 1 46 Percent 2.3 4.8 5.3 0.9 12.9 5.3 150.0 3.9 Females Dev'eloping 1985-86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1986-87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1987-88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1988-89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1989-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1990-91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 991-92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992-93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993-94 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995-96 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1996-97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997-98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998-99 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 1999-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Total 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3______ _________
Percent 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Striped'Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass 000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-5. Percentage of Hudson River Striped Bass with Invertebrate, Vertebrate, Vertebrate and Invertebrate Remains, or Empty Stomachs, Cross-Classified by Length Group for Fish that Died During the 2000-2001 Program.Percentage (Number) of Striped Bass with Stomach Contents Length Group Invertebrate Vertebrate Vertebrate and (mm TI) Remains Remains Invertebrate Empty Total<200 17.4 (4) 4.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 78.3 (18) 100.0 1(23)201-300 45.7 (16) 0.0 (0) 8.6 (3) 45.7 (16) 100.0 (35)301-400 42.9 (9) 4.8 (1) 4.8 (1) 47.6 (10) 100.0 (21)401-500 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 100 (1) 100.0 (1)>501 100 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.0 () 0.0 () 100.0 (2)Total 37.8 (31) 2.4 (2) 4.9 (4) 54.9 (45) 100.0 1(82)Striped Bass 2000-2001 .doc 12121/2006 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-6.Food Habits of Hudson River Striped Bass Cross Classified by Length Group for Fish that Died During the 1985-1986 Through 2000-2001 Programs.Striped Bass Total Length m)nx Food Category Program <201 201-300 301-400 401-500 >500 Total Invertebrates 1985-86 5 88 18 3 1 115 1986-87 8 25 16 2 0 51 1987-88 3 39 12 2 1 57 1988-89 2 19 2 0 0 13 1989-90 16 3 1 0 0 20 1990-91 3 29 7 0 0 39 1991-92 52 85 18 1 0 156 1992-93 74 40 12 2 0 128 1993-94 35 81 10 0 0 126 1994-95 2 2 1 0 0 5 1995-96 .14 26 2 2 1 45 1996-97 21 26 6 1 0 54 1997-98 7 8 5 1 0 21 1998-99 16 15 4 1 0 36 1999-00 2 20 5 1 0 28 2000-01 4 16 9 0 2 31 Total 264 512 128 16 5 925 Percent 35.6 40.2 24.2 14.4 15.6 34.4 Vertebrates 1985-86 1 4 5 3 1 14 1986-87 0 0 1 0 0 1 1987-88K 0 0 3 1 0 4 1988-89 1 6 8 0 0 15 1989-90 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990-91 0 8 8 0 0 16 1991-92 2 13 9 2 1 27 1992-93 3 4 3 2 2 14 1993-94 0 2 6 1 0 9 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995-96 1 2 0 0 0 3 1996-97 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997-98 0 .5 4 0 0 9 1998-99 0 0 2 2 1 5 1999-00 0 0 3 0. 0 3 2000-01 1 0 1 0 0 2 Total 9 44 53 11 5 122 Percent 1.2 3.5 10.0 9.9 15.6 4.5 Invertebrates and 1985-86 1 4 8 1 0 14 Vertebrates 1986-87 .0 3 6 3 1 13 1987-88 0 4 3. 1 0 8*1988-89 1 2 7 2 0 12 1989-90 0 0 .2 I 0 3 1990-91 0 8 4 1 0 13 1991-92 2 25 21 1 0 49 1992-93 8 1I1 11 3 1 34 1993-94 0 6 5 0 0 11 1994-95 0 0. 0 0 0 0 1995-96 0 2 1 0 -0 3 1996-97 2 8 0 0 1 11 1997-98 2 3 3 2 0 10 1998-99 3 0 5 3 0 11 1999-00 1 4 0 0 1 6 S 2000-01 0 3 1 0 0 4 S Total 120 83 77 118 4 202 S Percent 12.7 16.5 14.6 116.2 112.5 7.5 (continued)
Striped Bass 2000-2001.doc 12/21/2006 Stried ass200-200.do 12211Q06Normandeau Associates, Inc.
2000-2001 Striped Bass Report Appendix Table E-6. Continued___________Striped Bass Total Length (mm)Food Category Program <201 201-300 301-400 401-500 >500 Total Empty 1985-86 2 43 41 12 11 109 1986-87 20 18 8 3 0 49 1987-88 1 15 12 7 3 38 1988-89 13 26 13 2 0 54 1989-90 11 9 1 0 0 21 1990-91 7 35 23 3 0 68 1991-92 38 43 18 2 1 102 1992-93 88 77 39 11 1 216 1993-94 95 209 36 10 0 350 1994-95 0 0 0 0 0 0 r995-96 28 12 1 1 0 42 1996-97 57 50 10 2 ~ 1 120 1997-98 24 45 35 8 1 113 1998-99 30 19 16 2 0 67 1999-00 17 18 7 2 0 44 2000-01 18 16 10 1 0 45 Total 449 635 270 66 18 1,438___________
Percent 60.5 -49.8 51.1 59.5 56.3 53.5 Striped Bass 2000-200 Ldoc 12/21/2006 Stried ass 000200 .dc 1221/006Normandeau Associates, Inc.
ENCLOSURE 2 TO NL-08-006 Atlantic Tomcod Spawningl Stock Survey (Table with mark and recapture-data)
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286 ABUNDANCE AND STOCK CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ATLANTIC TomcOD SPAWNING POPULATION IN THE HUDSON RIVER WINTER 2004-2005.
November 2007 ABUNDANCE AND STOCK CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ATLANTIC TOMCOD SPAWNING POPULATION IN THE HUDSON RIVER WINTER 2004-2005 Prepared for ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, New York 10601-5029 Prepared on behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Dynegy Roseton LLC Mirant Bowline LLC Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.25 Nashua Road Bedford, New Hampshire 03110-5500 R-20270.000 November 2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE 

==SUMMARY==
 ............................................
I.......................................
X 

==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
....................................................................................
1 2.0 METHODS............................................................................................
3 2.1 FIELD PROCEDURES...............................................................................
3 2.1.1 Box Trap Programn .....................................................................
3 2.1.2 Trawl Program .........................................................................
4 2.1.3 Biocharacteristics Samples............................................................
4 2.1.4 Water Quality Measurements 
.........................................................
4 2.2 LABORATORY PROCEDURES................................................... 
................
5 2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS........................................................................
5 2.3.1 Estimates of Box Trap and Trawl Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE)..............
5 2.3.2 Age Distributions and Sex Ratios ....................................................
6 2.3.3 Atlantic Tomcod Condition 
...........................................................
7 2.3.3.1 Regression...................................................................
7 2.3.3.2 Pre- and, Postspawning Condition 
.........................................
7 2.3.4 Petersen Estimate of Population Size ................................................
8 k 2.3.4.1 Handling Mortality Adjustment 
...........................................
9 2.3.5 Distance and Rate of Movement for Tagged Atlantic Tomcod....................
9 2.3.6 Fecundity 
..................................................
7...........................
10 2.3.7 Annual Trawl Index of Abundance..................................................
10 2.3.8 Salinity ................................................................................
10 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................
11 3.1 SEASONAL ABUNDANCE PATTERNS ..........................
I..........I.......................
11 3.2 STOCK CHARACTERISTICS.....................................................................11.I 3.2.1 Age and Sex Composition...........................................................
11 3.2.2 Maturity .............................................................................. 
*12 3.2.3 Atlantic Tomcod Condition..........................................................
13 3.2.3.1 Length-Weight Relationships 
..............................................
13 3.2.3.2 Pre- and Postspawning Condition........................................
13 3.2.4 Fecundity..............................................................................
14 3.2.5 Parasites 
............... 
...............................................................
14 3.3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS..............................................
14 3.4 PETERSEN POPULATION ESTIMATE .......................................................... 
*.15 3.5 ANNUAL TRENDS 1974-1975 TO PRESENT....................................................
17 3.5.1 Stock Characteristics 
.................................................................
17 3.5.1.1 Age and Sex Composition................................................
17 3.5.1.2 Length-Weight 
.............................................................
18 3.5.1.3 Fecundity...................................................................
18 3.5.2 Population Distribution During the Spawning Run ................................
19 3.5.3 Population Size .........................................................................
20 3.5.4 Trawl Catch Per Unit of Effort as an Index of Atlantic Tomcod Abundance............................................................................
21 4.0 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................
22 2004-05 Atlantic Thmncod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 ii 2004-2005 Tomcod Report FIGURES TABLES APPENDIX A: Gear Characteristics APPENDIX B: Water Quality APPENDIX C: Atlantic Tomcod Catch Characteristics APPENDIX D: Atlantic Tomcod Biocharacteristics APPENDIX E: Atlantic Tom cod Distribution and Movements APPENDIX F: Atlantic Tomcod Tagging.Program 2004-05 Atlantic Torncod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 H 2004-2005 Tomcod Report LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1. Box trap and trawl sampling sites and Hudson River regions used during the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod spawning survey.................................................
26 Figure 3-1. Weekly changes in Atlantic tomcod catch per unit of effort for box trap and 9 mn N trawl samples in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.......................................
27 Figure 3-2. Box trap catch per hour of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 ...............................................................................................
28 Figure 3-3. Weekly change in mean catch per unit of effort for male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by box traps or a 9 m trawl in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 ...............................................................................................
29 Fligure 3-4. Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in box trap biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 (ages I and 2 combined) 
........................................................................
30 Figure 3-5. Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in 9 mn trawl biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 (ages 1 and 2 combined) 
........................................................................
31 Figure 3-6. Changes in predicted weight for pre-and postspawning male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by 9 mn trawls and box traps in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 ...... .............................
3 Figure 3-7. Predictive relationship between mean 9 m trawl CPLJE during the recapture period and Atlantic tomcod population estimates for' the 1982-1983 through 2004-2005 winter spawning surveys (1985-1986 excluded from analysis) 
................
33 2004-OS Atlantic Tomceod Report.doc 11/2/2007 i iv 2004-2005 Tomcod Report LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2-1. Standard Hudson River box trap sites for weekly collection of Atlantic tomcod used in biocharacteristics analysis.......................................................
I....... 35 Table 2-2. Atlantic tomncod sexual condition criteria ............... 
..............
I.........................
35 Table 2-3. Atlantic tomcod length groups..................................................................
35 Table 3-1. Estimated age and sex composition of Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning period, winter 2004-2005...................................... 
:... 36 Table 3-2. Predicted weight for male and female Atlantic torncod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005 
.......................................
37 Table 3-3. Comparison of condition between pre- and postspawning male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by 9 mn trawls or box traps in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 
........................................................................................
37 Table 3-4. Predicted fecundity for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005...............................................
38.Table 3-5. Mean fecundity presented by 25-mm length group for age I and age 2 Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005 ...............................................................................................
38 Table 3-6. External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2002-2003 
........................................................................
39 Table 3-7. External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2003-2004 
............................................... 
.........................
40 Table 3-8. External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.................... 
..............
4 Table 3-9. Movement of Atlantic tomcod marked and released from box traps and recaptured by trawls in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005...............................
42.Table 3-10. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture region in.the Hudson River estuary, winter 2004-2005 
.................................................
43 Table 3-11. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps north of Yonkers and recaptured in a 9 mn trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 
.........................................
4 Table 3-12. Mark-recapture statistics and spawning population estimate.
for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005........................................................
46 Table 3-13. Estimated age and sex composition of Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River,.winters of 1983-1984 through 2004-2005 
.............................................
47 2004-05 Atlantic Tomacod Report~doc 11/2/2007 v 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-14. Estimated population size and proportions for male and female Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River based on sex-specific Petersen estimates, winters of 1983-1984 through 2004-2005 
........................................................................
52 Table 3-15. Predicted weight for male and female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winters of 1980-1981 through 2004-2005 
............
53 Table 3-16. Predicted fecundity for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winters of 1980-198 1 through 2004-2005 
...................
55 Table 3-17. Estimated population egg deposition for age 1 and age 2 Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winters of 1983-1984 through 2004-2005....................................
57 Table 3-18. Maximum weekly mean Atlantic tomcod catch per hour (C/H) and salinity observed during the weeks of peak spawning activity in the North and South Hudson River box trap regions, 1982-1983 through 2004-2005 
............................
58 Table 3-19. Number of Atlantic tomeod caught (C), marked and released (M), and recaptured (R) in the box trap survey, Indian Point impingement, and other sampling efforts for estimates of adult population size, winters of 1974-1975 through 2004-2005.........
60, Table 3-20. Petersen estimates of the Hudson River Atlantic tomcod spawning population, winters of 1974-1975 through 2004-2005.....................................................
63 2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 v vi 2004-2005 Tomcod Report LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES Appendix Figure D- 1.Appendix Figure D-2.Appendix Figure D-3.Length-weight regression for male Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Length-weight regression for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Relationship between fecundity and length for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007vi vii 2004-2005 Tomicod Report LUST OF APPENDIX TABLES Appendix Table A-i.Appendix Table A-2.Appendix Table B-i.Appendix Table B-2.Appendix Table B-3.Appendix Table C-i.Appendix Table C-2.Appendix Table C-3.Appendix Table C-4.Appendix Table C-5.Appendix Table D-1.Appendix Table D-2.Appendix Table D-3.Appendix Table D-4.Appendix Table D-5.Specifications of the box traps used in the Atlantic tomcod survey.Specifications of the 9 mn trawl.Weekly and regional average water temperature and conductivity during box trap sampling for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, 2004-2005.
Weekly and regional average water temperature and conductivity during trawl sampling for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, 2004-2005.Weekly mean bottom water salinity for box trap stations during the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod survey.Number of samples, Atlantic tomcod caught, and Atlantic tomcod marked in the Hudson River cross-classified by use code and region for the 9 mn trawl and box traps, winter 2004-2005..
Box trap catch per hour of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Average catch per ten-minute tow for Atlantic tomcod caught in the 9 mn trawl in the Hudson River south of the George Washington Bridge, winter 2004-2005.
Weekly report of Atlantic tomcod caught in the Hudson River in a 9 mn trawl and in box traps during the spawning period, winter 2004-2005.
Length frequencies of Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Sex ratio and proportion of males in weekly samples of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River estuary, winter 2004-2005.
Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in box trap biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Sexual condition by station of male and female Atlantic tomcod in box trap biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in trawl biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005..
Analysis of variance results from least squares regression on 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod data.t 200.4-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 vi viii 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table D-6.Appendix Table E-1.Appendix Table E-2.Appendix Table E-3.Appendix Table E-4.Appendix Table B-5.Appendix Table E-6.Appendix Table E-7.Appendix Table E-8.Appendix Table F-I.Appendix Table F-2.Predicted weight for pre- and postspawnmig male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by 9 mn trawls or box traps in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Atlantic tomcod marked with visual implant tags in box traps between Yonkers and Poughkeepsie and recaptured in a 9 mn trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured in a 9 mn trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps in the Yonkers-Indian Point region and recaptured in a 9 mn trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked, released, and recaptured in box traps in the Yonkers-Indian Point region of the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked, released, and recaptured in box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured in box traps in the Yonkers-Indian Point region of the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Atlantic tomcod marked and released during winter 2003 -2004 and recaptured during winter 2004-2005 in the Hudson River.Mean 9 mn trawl catch per ten minute tow during the trawl recapture period as an index of the Petersen estimate of Atlantic tomcod population size in the Hudson River, winters of 1982-1983 through 2004-2005.
Release and recapture statistics for Atlantic tomcod marked with visual implant tags in box traps between Yonkers and Poughkeepsie or in trawls south of the George Washington Bridge and recaptured in box traps or a 9 mn trawl in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Summary by box trap station of the mark/recapture statistics, days at large, and distance moved for Atlantic tomcod tagged with visual implant tags and released into the Hudson River, 6 December 2004-27 February 2005.2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Report~doc 11/2/2007 i ix 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Abundance and Stock Characteristics of the Atlantic Tomcod Spawning Population in the Hudson River, Winter 2004-2005 EXECUTIVE 

==SUMMARY==
" The population estimate of Atlantic tomcod spawning in the Hudson River during the winter of 2004-2005 was 1.7 million fish, with 95% confidence limits of 0.96 and 3.3 million fish.This Petersen estimate used Atlantic tomcod that were caught and marked between river miles 25 and 76 in box traps between 20 December 2004 and 30 January 2005 and recaptured by trawls in the Battery region during 31 January through 17 April 2005." The estimated 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River was tied for the ninth lowest observed among 21 recent years of Petersen estimates.
Previous estimates, in millions of fish, were 12.5 in 1982-1983, 6.7 in 1983-1984, 2.1 in 1985-1986, 3.5 in 1987-1988, 5.9 in 1988-1989, 6.8 in 1989-1990, 3.2 in 1990-1991, 0.4 in 1991-1992, 2.6 in 1992-1993, 0.7 in 1993-1994, 2.4 in 1994-1995, 0.09 in 1995-1996, 3.3 in 1996-1997, 1.3 in 1997-1998, 0.6 in 1998-1999, 0.2 in 1999-2000, 2.5 in 2000-2001, 0.04 in 2001-2002, 0.1 in 2002-2003, and 1.7 in 2003-2004." Approximately 87% of the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod winter population were Age I fish.This was near average compared to the previous 19 winter surveys, when Age 1 fish were 63-98% of the population." The sex composition, determined from Petersen estimates of the male and female population size, was approximately 39% males and 61% females. This was within the range observed in the 19 previous winter surveys, when males were 22-65% of the population." Fecundity of Age I and Age 2 females in 2004-2005 was average compared to previous winter surveys. An above average proportion of age 2 fish was offset by a lower than average population, and total egg deposition for 2004-2005 was 27 billion eggs, which was about average compared with 28 billion eggs in 2003-2004, 1 billion eggs in 2002-2003, 1 billion eggs in 2001-2002, 28 billion eggs in 2000-2001, 3 billion eggs'in 1999-2000, 10 billion eggs in 1998-1999, 23 billion eggs in 1997-1998, 47 billion eggs in 1996-1997, 2 billion eggs in 1995-96, 31 billion eggs in 1994-1995, 7 billion eggs in 1993-1994, 30 billion eggs in 1992-1993, 7 billion eggs in 1991-1992, 52 billion eggs in 1990-1991, 87 billion eggs in 1989-1990, 41 billion eggs in 1988-1989, 43 billion eggs in 1987-1988, 25 billion eggs in 1985-1986, and 75 billion eggs in 1983-1984." Atlantic tomcod peak spawning activity occurred during the two-week period from 27 December 2004 through 9 January 2005, which included the peak catch per hour of females in box trap samples, mainly from the West Point region." Trawl catch of Atlantic tomcod per ten-minute tow in the Battery region declined from early November through early January, then peaked sharply in the week beginning 31 January." Condition factors (weight at a given length) for both male and female Atlantic tomcod were generally comparable in .2004-2005 to condition factors observed in previous winter surveys." All Atlantic tomcod marked and released during this 2004-2005 survey were marked with visual implant tags. Finclips, which were the principal method of marking in 1997-1998 and the only method of marking for several years prior to that, were not used in 2004-2005.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007x x
2004-2005 Tomcod Report 

==1.0 INTRODUCTION==

This report presents the findings of the 2004-2005 winter survey of the Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) spa~wning population in the lower Hudson River. Data obtained by this survey were used to estimate (1) the size of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River by the Petersen mark-recapture method (Ricker 1975); (2) population age and sex composition; (3) sexual maturity and the timing of peak spawning activity; (4) length, weight and condition of male and female fish; (5)individual, age-specific and population fecundity; (6) prespawning and postspawning population movements; (7) the validity of the population estimate; and (8) an annual index of Atlantic tomcod abundance based on trawl catch per unit of effort.Surveys conducted during 1974-1975 through 1979-1980 (TI 198 1) and during 1980-1981 and 1981-1982 (BA 1983) used Carlin tags or combinations of tags and finclips to mark Atlantic tomcod caught in box traps throughout the survey area. Box traps, impingement collections at Indian Point, Bowline, and Lovett generating stations, sport and commercial fishing returns, and incidental trawl catches provided recapture sampling efforts for those surveys (TI 198 1). Examination of the movements of tagged fish (TI 198 1) suggested that the Atlantic tomcod spawning population moved, south into the lower Hudson and upper New York Harbor areas following peak spawning activity, which occurred during late December through early January in the West Point region. The present survey, as well as previous surveys, used this downriver population movement to provide random mixing of marked and unmarked fish for the Petersen mark-recapture statistic.
In 1982-1983 (NAI 1984a), the survey was modified to include (1) marking of Atlantic tomcod only in box traps set north of the (Bear Mountain Bridge using finclip codes specific for one-week periods, and (2)trawl sampling, primarily south of the George Washington Bridge, to maximize the recapture of marked Atlantic tomcod in downriver regions. Marked fish were absent from the first peak of emigrating Atlantic tomcod caught in trawls south of the George Washington Bridge. The absence of marked fish implied that the first peak consisted largely of unmarked -fish that had spawned south of the Bear Mountain Bridge. To evaluate this hypothesis,, Atlantic tomcod were marked and released from box *traps during the 1983-1984 survey both north and south of the Bear Mountain Bridge (NAI 1984b), extending the total marking area to Croton Point. Atlantic tomcod were finclipped using combinations of dorsal, anal and pelvic fins to designate four marking periods and four release zones. Recaptured fish were obtained from box traps, both north and south of the Bear Mountain Bridge, and from trawls sampling south of Croton Point.Results from the 1983-1984 survey confirmed the hypothesis that Atlantic tomcod spawned south of the Bear Mountain Bridge. Atlantic tomcod marked and released between Croton Point and the Bear Mountain Bridge moved offshore and downriver where they were recaptured by trawling.
Atlantic tomcod marked and released south of the Bear Mountain Bridge were generally recaptured before fish marked and released north of the b ridge. Observations of the change in sex ratios across sampling weeks and recapture rates for marked fish among the release/recapture regions and time periods demonstrated that the best Petersen population estimate was obtained using all Atlantic tomcod marked in box traps north of Croton Point and recaptured by trawling south of the George Washington Bridge (NAI 1984b).A spawning stock survey for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River was not conducted during the winter of 1984-1985.
The survey was reinstated during the winter of 1985-1986 concurrent with a~winter-spring striped bass mark-recapture program (NAI 1986, 1987). The 1985-1986 Atlantic tomcod spawning stock 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 I 2004-2005 Tomcod Report survey was similar to the 1983-1984 survey and was expanded to provide two population estimates: 
(1) a prespawning population estimate based on fish marked in trawls south of the George Washington Bridge and recaptured in box traps north of Yonkers, and (2) a spawning population estimate based on fish marked in box traps at or north of Yonkers and recaptured in trawls south of the George Washington Bridge. Prespawning and spawning population estimates were not significantly different.
The population estimate decreased from 12.5 million fish in 1982-1983 to 6.7 million fish in 1983-1984, and was lower still in 1985-1986 (2.1 million fish).A mark-recapture survey for Atlantic tomcod was not conducted during the winter of 1986-1987.
The Atlantic tomcod spawning stock mark-recapture survey was conducted concurrently with a striped bass hatchery evaluation program during the winter of 1987-1988 (NAI 1988). This Atlantic tomcod survey was similar to the 1985-1986 survey except weekly and biweekly marking periods were used instead of monthly periods to provide a more precise description of the temporal pattern of Atlantic tomcod movements during the spawning period. Prespawning and spawning population estimates were not significantly different.
The spawning population estimate of 3.5 million fish represented an increase in abundance since 1985-1986.
An Atlantic tomcod survey was conducted during the winters of 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 with no changes in methods. The resulting spawning population estimates were 5.9 million fish in 1988-1989 (NAI 1990) and 6.8 million fish in 1989-1990 (NAI 1991).The 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, and 1997-1998 surveys (NAI 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1998; LMS 1999a, 1999b, 1999c) were identical in design to the 1987-1988 through 1989-1990 surveys with the exception that Atlantic tomcod were not finclipped in the trawl program. The trawl effort was used primarily to recover fish in the Battery and Upper Harbor regions that had been marked and released from box traps fished north of Yonkers. The spawning population estimate was 3.2 million fish in 1990-1991, 0.4 million fish in 1991-1992, 2.6 million fish in 1992-1993, 0.7 million fish in 1993-1994, 2.4 million fish in 1994-1995, 0.09 million fish in 1995-1996, 3.3 million fish in 1996-1997, and 1.3 million fish in 1997-1998.
A new aspect of the Atlantic tomcod program in 1997-1998 was visual implant (VI) tagging of approximately 24% of the fish that were caught in box traps and released with finclips.
The purpose of these tags was to provide specific information on the distribution, movement rates, and growth of individual fish. Tag retention and legibility were 100% after 2.5 months for tags inserted under the skin of the right operculum, which was superior to the results of the other two tagging sites (below the right eye and on the right pectoral fin). Based on the success of the VI tags in 1997-1998, VI tags were used for all (or nearly all) marking of Atlantic tomcod beginning with the 1998-1999 program, replacing the finclip method used in previous programs (with finclips used only as a backup procedure).
Individually numbered tags make it possible to determine the exact release date and station of each recaptured fish, compared to the previous finclip method in which large batches of released fish were marked identically over a period of at least a week in one of two regions (north or south) each containing several stations.The spawning population estimate was 0.6 million fish in 1998-1999, 0.2 million fish in 1999-2000, 2.5 million fish in 2000-2001, 4 1,000 fish in 2001-2002, 110,000 fish in 2002-2003, and 1.7 million fish in 2003-2004.
Similar to previous surveys, the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod spawning stock mark-recapture-survey was conducted concurrently with a striped bass stock assessment.
For the 2004-20,05 program, VI tags were used for all of the marking. While most of the tagging was of fish captured in box traps, approximately 1,000 fish captured in trawls were also tagged in 2004-2005.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/20072 2
f 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 2.0 METHODS 2.1 FIELD PROCEDURES Gear deployment and sample handling procedures are described in detail in a standard operating procedures manual (NAI 2004), and are summarized below.2.1.1 Box Trap Program From the week of 6 December 2004 through the week of 28 February 2005, box traps (Appendix Table A-I) were set in I to 12 mn of water at 18 sites along the east and west banks of the Hudson River (Figure 2- 1). The traps were lowered into the water by wire cable and firmly attached to a solid shore structure (e.g. dock, pier, bulkhead).
The traps were generally checked and reset daily, Monday through Friday.Sites sampled in 2004-2005 included ones at or near all but four of the original 17 box trap sampling sites used consistently in all annual surveys from 1974-1975 through 1997-1998 (there were some minor shifts in position of a few of the sites). Two of the exceptions were sites with historically low catch rates in River Miles (RM) 18 and 19 in the Yonkers region, which were discontinued after 1997-1998.
Another exceptioif was the, Tarrytown trap site in kM 27 in the Tappan Zee region, which was abandoned after.1999-2000.
The fourth exception was the Milton trap site in RM 71 in the Poughkeepsie region, which was abandoned after 2002-2003.
Extra traps have been used at various tirmes since the 1997-1998 program to augment low catches, either at existing sampling sites or at new sites. In 1998-1999 an extra trap was added in RM 51 of the West Point region and an extra one in RM 56 of the Cornwall region: Four new trap sites were sampled in the West Point region during 1999-2000, one in RM 52 and the others in previously unsampled RM 54, 50, and 49. Traps in three locations were relocated slightly to a nearby site in the same RM. Two in RM 51 were relocated in December 1998 because access was denied by a new property owner and one in kM 41 where the site had become too shallow due to siltation was relocated in December 1999. In 2000-200 1, additional changes were made to some of the trap locations.
The extra trap in RM 51 and the recently established trap sites in RM 54, 50 , and 49 were eliminated because they had been unproductive in 1999-2000. Extra traps were added in 200 1-2002 at the Garrison site (RM 5 1, two more traps) and the Irvington site (RM 25, three more traps). Changes during the 2002-2003 program were the addition of an extra trap in RMv 76 of the Poughkeepsie region, the elimination of two of the four traps in kM 51 at the Garrison site, and the elimination of two of the five traps in kM 25 at the Irvington site. Changes during the 2003-2004 program were the abandonment of the original Highland trap site in RMv 76 of the Poughkeepsie region (retaining a newer site nearby in the same RIV), the abandonment of the Milton site previously mentioned, and the addition of a second trap at the Marlboro site in kM 68 of the Poughkeepsie region. No changes were made to trap locations during the 2004-2005 program.The Hudson River from Tappan Zee north to Poughkeepsie was used as the box trap release/recapture zone in this survey. All Atlantic tomcod that were marked and released in this zone were tagged with Northwest Marine Technology soft Vialpha fish tags. This tag is a small (I mm x 3 mm), brightly-colored tag preprinted with a "tag number," a unique three-character identification code consisting of a letter followed by two digits or letters. The tag was inserted with a tag injector into the right cheek muscle of the fish. The length of each fish tagged was recorded and the degree of external parasite infestation was noted before the fish was released.
Fish recaptured with tags were released again as quickly as possible, approximately 25 to 50 meters away from the capture site, after recording the length, 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 
.&#xfd; 3 2004-,2005 Tomcod Report condition of the tag insertion site (healed or infected), tag number, and condition of the fish (e.g., blind, fungus, finrot, stress). Recaptured fish with illegible tags, with tag wounds but no tags, o r with other unusual features of the tag or tag wound were taken back to the laboratory for mark verification.
Tags applied during this 2004-2005 survey were yellow (with numbers between 095 and YZZ). No fish were finclipoed in 2004-2005.

====2.1.2 Trawl====
Program The Hudson River south of the George Washington Bridge and a po ,rtion of upper New York Harbor between Battery Park and Liberty Island were sampled by trawls (Figure 2- 1). This region is collectively referred to as the Battery in this report.A 9 m high-rise trawl (Appendix Table A-2) was deployed each weekday (weather permitting) in the Battery from Monday, 1 November 2004, through Friday, 15 April 2005. The 9 mn trawl was the same trawl used in all Atlantic tomcod surveys since 1982-1983.
An average of 15 tows were scheduled to be made each day. Each tow was scheduled to last ten minutes, and the trawl was towed against the current at a boat speed (through water) of between 1.2 and 1.7 mn per second. The towing wire was set with a length-to-depth ratio of between 2: 1 and 4: 1.All Atlantic tomcod collected in trawls were examined for the presence of VI tags and for clipped fins, individually measured, examined for external parasites, and released.
Suspected Atlantic tomcod recaptures from the current box trap program (Section 2. 1. 1 above) or from previous years were taken to the laboratory fresh or frozen for tag or finclip verification.
All previously unmarked Atlantic tomcod collected in trawls and released between 1 November 2004 and 21 Januai~y 2005 were tagged with VI tags.2.1.3 Biocharacteristics Samples Once a week between 6 December 2004 and 4 March 2005, an entire day's Atlantic tomcod catch from each of five standard box trap sites (Table 2- 1) was taken in fresh condition to the laboratory and examined for biocharacteristics, which included enumeration of all Atlantic tomcod and determination of the age, length, weight, sex, and reproductive condition.
These standard box trap sites were used in previous years' surveys and were selected to provide comparable biocharacteristics data for the Atlantic tomcod spawning stock. Additional samples from non-standard stations were used to supplement the biocharacteristics samples when catches at standard stations were low.On one randomly assigned day during each week between 1 November 2004 and 15 April 2005, the entire catch from at least three 9-rn trawl samples was taken in fresh condition to the laboratory for biocharacteristics analysis.
Fish were taken to the laboratory from more than one day during weeks with low abundance of Atlantic tomcod in the trawl catch in an attempt to obtain a weekly sample of about 100 fish. The same data were recorded as for box trap biocharacteristics analysis.2.1.4 Water Quality Measurements Conductivity and'water temperature were measured in situ, with measurements corresponding to each box trap or trawl sample collection.
Readings were made at the water surface and at sampling depth at box trap sites, and at the surface and sampling depth immediately after the completion of each 9 mn trawl tow.Water quality data are summarized in Appendix Table B- I for box trap samples and in Appendix Table B-2 for trawl samples. Bottom water salinity is summarized for box trap stations in Appendix Table B-3.2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Reportdoc 11 /2/20074 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 2.2 LABORATORY PROCEDURES The Atlantic tomcod in each biocharacteristics sample (box trap or trawl) were received in fresh condition in the laboratory.
Date and place of recapture were recorded for any tagged 'or finclipped Atlantic tomcod included with the laboratory samples. Tag number or finclip type, age, length, and sex were also recorded for each verified, recapture.I Total length (mm), weight (nearest 0. 1 g), sex, reproductive condition, age, and presence of external parasites were recorded for all Atlantic tomcod in the weekly biocharacteristics samples. Atlantic tomcod were not subsampled by length group for biocharacteristics analysis.
Reproductive condition categories included immature, developing, ripe, ripe and running, partially spent, spent, and resting (Table 2-2). Age was determined from one spawning season to the next. Atlantic tomcod over 150 mm were aged by counting the annuli of the otoliths (number of dark annual growth rings using reflected light), aided by a dissection microscope.
Individuals 150 mm and under were considered to be Age I fish (TI 1980). The degree of external parasite infestation was categorized as none, light (1-5 parasites), moderate (6-20 parasites), or heavy (>20 parasites).
Assignment to length group (Table 2-3) was done by computer based on the individual measurements.
Ovaries were collected from up to 15 Atlantic tomcod females per length group (Table 2-3) for fecundity analysis from box trap biocharacteristics samples. Ovaries were removed only from female Atlantic tomcod determined to be in or approaching ripe condition.
Excised ovaries were preserved in 10%formalin.
After at least one month of preservation, the egg mass was separated from the rest of the ovarian tissue, and weighed to the nearest hundredth of a gram. A randomly selected subsample of approximately 2 g was weighed (nearest 0.01 g) and the eggs in it were counted..2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS All box trap and trawl samples were assigned a Use Code (1, 2, or 5) that defined their use in analytical tasks. Use Code 1 samples were samples for which valid data were collec~ted and no sampling problems were encountered.
These data were used for all analytic tasks. Use Code 2 samples were samples in which Atlantic tomcod were captured, but sampling problems were encountered.
Sampling problems were generally related to gear deployment that would affect computation of catch per unit of effort, such as noticing a tear in the net after a tow, or stopping a tow before the required 10-minute duration.
Use Code 2 samples were included with Use Code I samples for mark-recapture or biocharacteristics analyses ,only. Use Code 5 samples were samples where sampling problems were encountered but no Atlantic tomcod were caught. Use Code 5 samples were excluded from all analyses.
The number of samples assigned to each Use Code is presented for box traps and trawls in Appendix Table C-I1.Most data analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software (SAS 1989). No rounding of data was done prior to the final stefi in each analysis.
This prevented introduction of rounding error in the final result, and may present the appearance in a table that a column of data does not sum exactly to the total shown in the last row.2.3.1 Estimates of Box Trap and Trawl Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE)All box trap catch statistics were expressed as catch per hour using the following formnula: CPUETrap = (Ci/D 1) x 60 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/20075 5
2004-2005 Tomcod Report where C, = number of Atlantic tomcod caught in box trap i, and Di= duration in minutes over which trap i was fished.Box trap sample durations approximated a 24-h period for the Tuesday through Friday samples (weekdays) and a 72-h period for the Monday samples (weekend), with occasional longer durations due to weather (ice) conditions.
All trawl catch statistics were expressed as catch per ten-minute tow using the following formula: ,CPUETrawI 
= (C 1/Di) x 10 where C, = number of Atlantic tomcod caught in trawl sample i, and Di=duration of tow i in minutes. All Use Code 1 trawl tows were ten minutes in duration.2.3.2 Age Distributions and Sex Ratios Atlantic tomcod age distributions and sex ratios were obtained from laboratory biocharacteristics samples collected during each week of field sampling (Sections 2.1.3 and 2.2). The proportion of each age and sex was determined from the totals for all biocharacteristics samples and extrapolated to the total catch of Atlantic tomcod using the following equations:
Ni,= PijN where P, 1 = proportion of Atlantic tomcod in biocharacteristics samples that were age i and sex j ni.= number of Atlantic tomcod in biocharacteristics samples that were age i and sex j, n = total number of Atlantic tomcod of known age and sex in biocharacteristics samples, Nj= estimated number of Atlantic tomcod in the total catch that were age i and sex j, and N = total number of Atlantic tomcod caught.For calculation' of sex ratios used in population estimates, the number and proportion of each sex for Atlantic tomcod was first determined within weekly intervals from the biocharacteristics data and then weighted by the weekly catch of Atlantic tomcod using the following equations:
Pmj mj/nj P fj = jn Mj= Pm, Nj F~. = PE N.where Pmj or Pfj= proportion of male or female Atlantic tomcod in week j in biocharacteristics samples, mj or f = number of Atlantic tomcod males or females in week J' in biocharacteristics samples, nj = number of Atlantic tomcod in week j in biocharacteristics samples, 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Report.doc 11/2/20076 6
2004-2005 Tomcod Report, Mjor Fj estimated total number of male or female Atlantic tomcod caught in week j, and'N. = total number of Atlantic tomcod caught in week j.Weekly estimates of the number of each sex in the catch were then summed to provide an estimate for the entire sampling season.2.3.3 Atlantic Tomcod Condition 2.3.3.1* Regression Regression analyses were used to characterize the relationship between fish length and weight for male and for female Atlantic tomcod, and between length and fecundity for ripe female Atlantic tomcod. All regression analyses were performed using the PROC GLM procedures of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 1989). Logarithmic transformations (log to the base ten) were used to normnalize length (total length in millimeters), weight (nearest 0. 1 gram), and fecundity (number of eggs per female) variables.
The following loglo-linear regression models were calculated:
Log 1 o weight = bo + b 1 (Log 1 o length)Loglo fecundity 
= bo + bi (Loglo length)where b,= regression slope coefficient, and bo =y-axis intercept for the calculated regression line.Confidence limits for values of weight or fecundity predicted for a given length from regression equations were calculated by the following equation (Neter and Wasserman 1974): X 2 C 9 5  +/- ~t(.05,n2) vMSE 11 X 1 X where C 9 5  = 95% confidence limits for 1 h= predicted value for dependent variable Y (e.g. loglo weight or logl 0 fecundity) corresponding to a logl 0 length of X 1 1 , n = number of observations in the regression data set, MSE = regression mean square error, X = mean logl 0 length within the regression data set, and-(i X )2 = sum of squared deviations for the independent variable (logio length).2.3.3.2 Pre- and Postspawning Condition The well-being or condition of Atlantic tomcod can be compared among groups of fish using condition factor indices or regression analysis and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
Each approach has 7 2004-05 Atlantic Toincod Report.doc 11 /2/20077 2004-2005 Tomcod Report advantages and disadvantages that are best judged by the question being asked of the data. Condition factor indices represent a relative measure of "fatness" of fish at a given length (the greater the weight is at a given length, the higher the condition factor). Condition factors are particularly useful when tracking seasonal changes in subpopulations (Gabethouse 199 1) or comparing populations among regions (Gutreuter and Childress 1990, Springer et al. 1990). All condition factor indices require an assumption of isometric or allometric growth, and their formulation is dependent on the form of the age-length-weight relationship for individual fish (Ricker 1975, Anderson and Gutreuter 1983, Gutreuter 1987, Cone 1989).The assumption may be less critical if comparisons are made within the same age cohort and river system. If the form of the length-weight relationship is not known for the "standard" population, ANCOVA is recommended as a better approach than assuming a certain length-weight relationship (Ricker 1975, Anderson and Gutreuter 1983, Springer et al. 1990). The ANCOVA approach statistically compares regression lines for the length-weight relationships among several groups of fish, and tests for differences based on both the slope (form) and intercept coefficients.
Regression lines can be significantly different due to differences in slope, intercept or both, while condition factor indices evaluate differences in slope and assume the intercepts are not significantly different.
ANCOVA would be cumbersome, however, for tracking seasonal (weekly) trends or other contrasts with a large number of groups.We used ANCOVA (SAS 1989) to compare differences in condition of prespawning and postspawning males and females. Weekly biocharacteristics data for Atlantic tomcod were subset based on reproductive condition (Table 2-2). Ripe fish were selected to represent the prespawning condition and spent fish were selected to represent the postspawning condition.
Fish classified as immature, developing, or ripe and running were not used to characterize prespawning Atlantic tomcod because they are transitory stages and may have a wide range of gonadal weights that could increase the variability of the length-weight relationship.
Similarly, fish classified as partially spent or resting were not used to describe the postspawning condition.
The data were examined using scatter diagrams of logto weight vs. 1oglo length to insure an adequate sample (10 or more fish) and a representative range of sizes (points not clustered).
ANCOVA was then used to compare loglo length vs. loglo weight regressions of the pre- and postspawning male and female Atlantic tomcod from the trawl and box trap biocharacteristics samples.Predicted weight at a common length of 125 mm or 175 mm was back-transformed from the logl 0 models and used to compare regression lines. The analysis was conducted within each of the past 17 surveys (1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005) to evaluate differences in Atlantic tomcod condition.

====2.3.4 Petersen====
Estimate of Population Size An adjusted Petersen estimator (Ricker 1975) was the single census method used to calculate the size of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River. For the Petersen estimates of the spawning population that have been calculated since 1982-1983, a known number of Atlantic tomcod were caught in box traps, marked, and released between Tappan Zee and Poughkeepsie during the spawning period. The fraction of Atlantic tomcod marked in box traps and recaptured by trawls in the Battery was used to estimate the spawning population size. The formula for the adjusted Petersen estimator (Ricker 1975) is N = [(M+ 1)(C +1)] /(R +1)2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/20078 8
2004-2005 Tomcod Report where N = estimated population size, M = number of marked fish, adjusted for handling mortality, C = number of fish examined for marks, and R = number of marked fish recaptured.
Confidence intervals around the Petersen estimate were calculated by considering the number of recaptures as a Poisson variable (Ricker 1975): NL u (M+ 1)(C +1)] /(RuL+1)wherer N u and N L= upper and lower limits for the estimated population size, and Ru and RL upper and lower 95% limits for a Poisson variable (R).2.3.4.1 Handling Mortality Adjustment The number of Atlantic tomcod marked and released (M) from box trap samples was adjusted for short-term handling mortality in two time periods using the following formula: M i-1m)m)where M =number of Atlantic tomcod marked, adjusted for handling mortality, NI=number of marked fish released into the river, and M,&#xfd;short-term handling mortality for time interval t, expressed as a decimal percentage:
0.10 in December and 0.025 in January and February.The values and time periods used for these short-term, handling mortality adjustments for box traps were the same as used in previous surveys (TI 1981), in which finclipped (or Carlin tagged) and control fish were obtained weekly from box trap samples and held for 14 days in 190-liter aquaria supplied with spring-fed quarry water at the Verplank hatchery.
Periods of time with similar handling mortality.of finclipped Atlantic tomcod had been identi fied, and the actual percent mortality had been determined in each period.2.3.5 Distance and Rate of Movement for Tagged Atlantic Tomcod Visual implant tags used to mark all of the Atlantic tomcod in 2004-2005 allowed more precise calculations of distance and rate of movement, compared to the finclipping method used in programs prior to 1998-1999.
Distance moved was represented by the linear distance traveled by VI-tagged Atlantic tomcod between the release and recapture river miles.2004-05 Atlantic Toincod Report.doc 11/2/20079 9
2004-2005 Tomcold Report 2.3.6 Fecundity The number of eggs in the gonads of randomly selected ripe or ripe and running female Atlantic tomcod was estimated using a subsample-weight extrapolation.
The following formula was used to estimate the number of eggs in the entire ovary of each fish: Fecundi~ty 
= Number of eggs x Gonad weight (g)Subsample weight (g)2.3.7 Annual Trawl Index of Abundance An annual trawl index of abundance was calculated as an additional measure of annual changes in Atlantic tomcod population size. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) in the 9 m trawl was previously used to develop an index of Atlantic tomcod abundance for the 1982-1983 through 1998-1999 surveys (NAI 1995, NAI 2000). The 9 m trawl was selected because it was designed specifically to catch Atlantic tomcod, and has remained unchanged in mesh size and dimensions (Appendix Table A-2) since it was first used during the 1982-1983 survey. It has been fished with the same deployment procedures in the same region of the Hudson River across all sampling surveys. The CPUE index for the 9 mn trawl in the B~attery region was calculated for 2004-2005 using all river miles for the weeks of the Petersen estimate trawl recapture period, and was compared to the Atlantic tomcod population estimates derived from the Petersen estimator.

====2.3.8 Salinity====
Movement of the salt front in the Hudson River during the spawning period may influence Atlantic tomcod distribution, egg survival, and fertilization success, since Atlantic tomcod eggs resemble those of freshwater fishes in regard to salt tolerance and require salinities less than 15 ppt for successful fertilization (Peterson et al. 1980). Year to year differences in adult distribution and survival of eggs may be related to salt front intrusion in the lower Hudson River. Eggs spawned in the lower Hudson River,, particularly between Yonkers and Indian Point, may be exposed to relatively high salinity water in some winters with low freshwater flows. Therefore, the movement of saline water during the winter spawning period may be an important covariate that helps explain annual variation in adult distribution and possibly the relationship between the Petersen population estimate and a trawl index of abundance.
Weekly mean salinity levels in parts per thousand (ppt) were calculated from observed conductivity levels at the box trap sampling depth to determine the relationship between salt front position and annual variation in Atlantic tomcod distribution during the spawning period in the Tappan Zee, Croton-Haverstraw and'Indian Point regions. Salinity was calculated following the method of TI (1976): S = -100 In 0 -C 2-5/178,500)where S = Salinity in ppt, and C?5= Conductivity in &#xfd;imho/cmr at 25'C.2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 to 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

===3.1 SEASONAL===
ABUNDANCE PATTERNS Atlantic tomcod abundance in box trap samples from piers and bulkheads between Tappan Zee and Poughkeepsie increased to a peak in the week beginning 27 December 2004. The West Point and Tappan Zee regions contributed most to this peak (Figure 3-2), with C/H averages of 3.95 and 0.79 for that week.Seasonally, box trap C/H was highest during the six-w eek period from 20 December 2004 through the week of 24 January 2005 (0.40-3.23 fish per hour). The weekly C/H in the West Point region during the week of 27 December 2004 was the largest for a single region in any week (Figure 3-2).Trawl catch of Atlantic tomcod per ten-minute tow (CPUE) in the Battery region declined from early November through early January, then rose to a sharp peak in late January (Figure 3-1; Appendix Table C-3). The highest CPUE during November-December was 11. 1 fish per tow in the week beginning I November 2004. Catches during late December 2004 through late January 2005 were consistently low (<2 fish p er tow). Trawling was not conducted in the last full week in January. When sampling was resumed, the CPUE peaked at the season's high of 25.2 fish per tow in the week beginning 31 January 2005. In the remaining 10 weeks of trawling, the trawl CPUE varied between 0.6 and 7.5 fish per tow during February through mid-April.
The timing of the peaks in CPUE in the box traps and the trawls during the winter of 2004-2005 (Figure 341) is consistent with the Atlantic tomcod spawning migration described in previous winter population studies (NAT 1984a, 1984b, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2006e; LMS 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). The November through early December trawl CPUE between 6 and 11I fish per tow probably corresponds with the movement of prespawning Atlantic tomcod into and through the Battery region of the lower Hudson River estuary. The box trap peak C/H in early to mid-January during a period of low trawl CPUE represents movement of spawning Atlantic tomcod into and through nearshore areas farther upriver, especially in the Tappan Zee and West Point regions. The increase in trawl CPUE and decline in box trap C/H in late January corresponds with movement of Atlantic tomcod back down river into the Battery region following spawning.3.2 STOCK CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 Age and Sex Composition The majority of the 2004-2005 winter spawning population of Atlantic tomcod were Age 1 fish, accounting for an estimated 89% of the fish collected in box trap's and 82% of the fish captured in 9 mn trawls (Table 3-1). Most, if not all, of the remaining fish were Age 2, as no fish observed in box trap and trawl samples were Age 3.The weekly catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of male and female Atlantic tomcod in the 9 mn trawl and box traps is a measure of the weekly sex ratio. In the 9 mn trawl, the CPUE of female Atlantic tomcod was higher than the CPUE of males in most weeks (Figure 3-3). Conversely, male CPUE in box traps was usually higher than female CPUE.The difference in sex ratios between box traps and trawls is clarified by comparison of weekly trends.Male CPUE in trawls gradually diminished during November through early December and was very low 2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 I I 2004-2005 Tomcod Report from mid-December through late January. CPUE for males was modest but variable from early February through mid-April.
The period of lowest CPUE for males in trawls corresponded to the period when catch rates for males in box traps was the highest (mid-December through late January).
The pattern of weekly change in male CPUE in the 9 mn trawls and box traps indicated a movement of males upriver throughout December.
More than a month after their upriver migration, males had moved downriver, as evidenced by increased numbers in trawls in early February.
CPUE for males in box traps decreased during January but significant numbers were still present in the week beginning 24 January, indicating that some males delayed their migration downriver until after that time. CPUE of female Atlantic tomcod in trawls also declined during the fall, lagging somewhat behind the decrease in male CPUE. The period of lowest CPUE of females in trawls, late December through mid-January, corresponded to the period of highest CPUE of females in box traps (Figure 3-3). Female Atlantic tomcod CPUE in box traps was minimal beginning in the week 17 January 2 '005. These patterns of change in female CPUE in the 9 mn trawl and box trap samples indicated a movement of females upriver in late December.
After a brief period upriver, the females migrated downriver again. The sex ratio in trawls in the peak CPUfE week of 31 January 2005 is unknown because no fish were returned to the laboratory in that week. The fairly high value of trawl CPUE in the week beginning 7 February (Figure 3 -1) was composed primarily of females (Figure 3-3), indicating that female migration downriver occurred earlier than for males. Thus male and female Atlantic tomcod tended to be spatially segregated during prespawning and postspawning periods with males upriver and females downriver at these times.The sex composition of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population can be estimated from the proportion of males and females derived from separate Petersen estimates of population size for males and females in the spawning population.
This spawning estimate uses Atlantic tomcod caught, marked and released from box traps and recaptured by trawls. This procediire ensures that comparable numbers of'both male and female fish are recaptured.
Six marked Atlantic tomcod males from the box traps were recaptured in the trawls, providing a Petersen spawning population estimate of 480,000 males with 95% confidence limits of 240,000 and 1, 100,000. Four marked female Atlantic tomcod from the box traps were recap tured in the trawls, resulting in a Petersen estimate of 770,-000 females with 95% confidence limits of 340,000 and 1,900,000.
These estimates imply a proportion of males of 0.39, which was considerably lower than the proportion observed in the box traps during the late December to early January period of peak spawning (Appendix Table D- 1), although it was higher than the proportion observed throughout most of the trawling program (Appendix Table D-1).3.2.2 Maturity Ripe and running male Atlantic tomcod were first collected in box traps during the week of 20 December 2004 (Figure 3-4, Appendix Table D-2). By the week of 3 January 2005 most of the males appearing in box traps were either partially spent or they were spent. During their period of peak abundance, ripe and running males were most abundant in box traps located in the West Point and Tappan Zee regions (Appendix Table D-3). Ripe females and ripe and running females were collected in box traps in greatest abundance during the three-week period from the week of 20 December 2004 through the week of 3 January 2005. Partially spent female Atlantic tomcod were first collected in box traps during the week of 20 December 2004 and had increased to a substantial proportion of the catch by the week of 27 December.
By the week of 10 January 2005 more than half of the females were in spent condition and the proportion of ripe and ripe and running females was substantially reduced. These data indicate that peak spawning occurred during the two-week period of 27 December 2004&#xfd; through the week of 3 January 2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report~doc 11/2/2007 1 12 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 2005, when substantial numbers of both prespawning (ripe or ripe and running) and partially spent females were present (Figure 3-4).Most of the fish captured in the Battery region by the trawl were in developing condition in November and early December and were spent or resting by the middle of January 2005 (Figure 3-5, Appendix Table D-4). These data collectively suggest an upriver prespawning migration with peak spawning beginning during the week of 27 December 2004 through the week of 3 January 2005, followed by a downriver postspawning migration.

====3.2.3 Atlantic====
Tomcod Condition 3.2.3.1 Length-Weight Relationships Regression equations developed from biocharacteristics samples for the relationship between logl 0 weight in grams and loglo total length in millimeters for male Atlantic tomcod (n=986; Appendix Figure D-1) and for females (n=1,394; Appendix Figure D-2) were highly significant (Appendix Table D-5). Predicted weights for females tended to be heavier for a given length than for males (Table 3-2).3.2.3.2 Pre- and Postspawning Condition Male andfemnale Atlantic tomcod captured by box traps and trawls were significantly heavier for a given length when in prespawning condition than when in postspawning condition in 2004-2005 (Table 3-3 and Appendix Table D-6). This was not surprising since total body weight included the weight of the gonad, which would be' greatest when fish were in ripe condition and least when fish were in spent condition.
Somatic weight was not used in this study because gonad weight was not determined for males, and gonads were only weighed for fecundity analysis from a small sample of females from the box traps.Condition of Atlantic tomcod was compared not only between prespawning and postspawning fish, but also between fish caught upriver in box traps and fish caught downriver in trawls (Figure 3-6). Females captured in postspawning condition upriver in traps weighed approximately 25-30% less than when they were captured upriver in traps in prespawning condition two weeks earlier. Four weeks later when captured downriver 
'in trawls, the females had regained about a third of the lost weight. The postspawning increase in weight was similar for 125-mm females and 175-mm females.Male Atlantic tomcod captured downriver in trawls in prespawning condition were heavier for their length than males captured upriver in box traps one week later while still in prespawning condition.
Males captured upriver in traps in postspawning condition weighed about 10-15% less than when they were captured upriver in box traps in prespawning condition about five weeks earlier. When males in postspawning condition were captured downriver in trawls three weeks later, they had regained some of their lost weight (Figure 3-6).In most previous surveys, males and females both exhibited weight loss during the upstream migration while in prespawning condition.
This held true for males in 2004-2005, but females did not show any appreciable change in weight with only one week separating downriver trawl samples and upriver box trap samples. Females typically lose a higher proportion of their body weight while upstream during the peak spawning weeks, reflecting differences in weight of discharged gametes and this held true in 2004-2005. Females also regained a slightly larger proportion of the weight lost during spawning by the time they were recaptured downriver several weeks after peak spawning.
Differences between males and females in the timing of their downriver movement after spawning could affect the rates of regaining lost 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 13 2004-2005 Tomcod Report weight if food availability or feeding rates changed as the fish entered the warmer, higher salinity waters of the Battery region (Appendix Table B-3).3.2.4 Fecundity Loglo fecundity was a linear function of loglo length for female Atlantic tomcod (Appendix Figure D-3;Appendix Table D-5). The regression model accounted for 90% of the observed variation in fecundity (r 2= 0.90; Appendix Table D-5). Predicted fecundities for female Atlantic tomcod ranged from 4,900 to 30,600 eggs per fish for fish between 125 and 225 mmn total length (Table 3-4).Age-specific fecundity of Atlantic tomcod was estimated at approximately 16,800 eggs for Age 1 females and 50,700 eggs for Age 2 females during the 2004-2005 winter spawning survey (Table 3-5). Since fecundity is related to length, the greater mean fecundity for Age 2 fish was primarily due to their larger size compared to Age 1 fish. When the total 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod population estimate (1.7 million spawning fish, Section 3.4) was multiplied by the percentage of females (6 1%, Section 3.2. 1), the weighted mean fecundity (Table 3-5), and the percent composition of females in each age group (7 1.8%Age 1, 28.2% Age 2, Table 3-1), Age 1 females deposited an estimated 13 billion eggs and Age 2 females deposited approximately 15 billion eggs.3.2.5 Parasites External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod beginning in the 2002-2003 season are shown in Tables 3-6 through 3-8. In the winter of 2002-2003, the incidence of parasites was 2.4% for Atlantic tomcod captured in box traps and 9.8% for those captured in trawls (Table 3-6). On all but one of the 37 fish found with parasites, the infestation was categorized as "light" (1-5 external parasites).
One of the trawl-caught fish was observed with "heavy" parasite infestation 
(>20 external parasites).
In 2003-2004, 8.9%of Atlantic tomcod caught in box traps and 38.3% of fish caught in trawls were observed with external parasites (Table 3-7). Among the fish observed with parasites in 2003-2004, 93.8% were lightly infested, 5.7% moderately infested (6-20 external parasites), and 0.5% were heavily infested.
During the 2004-2005 sampling season, 16. 1% of fish caught in box traps and 44.5% of the fish caught in trawls had external parasites (Table 3-8). Among the fish observed with parasites in 2004-2005, 86.3% were lightly infested, 12.8% were moderately infested, and 0.9% were heavily infested.3.3 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS Recapture of tagged Atlantic tomcod provided direct evidence of the duration, distance, and rate of movement of fish (Table 3-9, Appendix Tables E-2 through E-6). The 10 Atlantic tomcod marked and released in box traps set between Tappan Zee and Poughkeepsie that were recaptured by trawls in the Battery region required 26 to 112 days to migrate downriver an average minimum distance of 40 river miles (64 kin). Eight of those fish were tagged and released in the North region and two in the South region. Four males tagged and released in the North region migrated downriver an average of 44 miles in 49-112 days after they were released.
Four females tagged and released in the North region migrated downriver an average of 48 miles in, 26-84 days after they were released.
Two males tagged and released in the South region migrated downriver an average of 18 miles in 39-50 days after they were released.
No females tagged and released in the South region were recaptured downriver in trawls.Most (266/291 or 9 1%) of the recaptured Atlantic tomcod were caught, marked, released, and recaptured in the same Hudson River region (Table 3-10). Movement within the North region accounted for 62% of 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 14 2004-2005 Tomcod Report the within-region movement of the recaptured Atlantic tomcod (165 of 266' fish), with 3 5 fish being released and recaptured within the South region and 66 fish being released and recaptured in the Battery region. The North region exhibited the highest recapture rate (RIM4) and the highest recapture proportion (R/C). Ten fish marked and released in the North box trap region were recaptured in the South box trap region, but no fish marked and released in the South box trap region were recaptured in the North box trap region.There were 13,446 Atlantic tomcod tagged and releAsed from the box traps between 6 December 2004 and 27 February 2005 and 2,010 Atlantic tomcod that were captured in the trawls and examined for tags between 6 December 2004 and 17 April 2005 (Table 3-1 1). All 10 tagged Atlantic tomcod that were released in box traps and recaptured in the trawls were tagged and released in the five-week period 20 December 2004 ,23 January 2005, which included the two-week period of peak spawning.
The trawl recaptures occurred over an 11I-week period beginning in the week of 3 1 January 2005. The highest recapture proportion (RIG row in Table 3-8) was in the week of 21 February 2005.Peak Atlantic tomcod spawning occurred between 27 December 2004 and 9 January 2005 (Figure 3-4).The timing of this event is evident in the recapture patterns.
All 10 of the trap-to-trawl recaptures were caught after the period of peak spawning, after being at large from four to 16 weeks. The 35 fish that were tagged in the South region and recaptured in box traps in the South region during 13 December 2004-13 February 2005 had been at large for an average of about 1.5 weeks (Appendix Table E-4). The 165 fish that were tagged in the North region and recaptured in box traps in the North region during 13 December 2004-20 February 2005 had been at large for an average of about 1.3 weeks (Appendix Table E-5). The 10 fish that were tagged in the North region and recaptured in box traps in the South region during 17 January-20 February 2005 had been at large for an average of about 2.5 weeks (Appendix Table E-6). All 10 of those fish were recaptured after the two peak spawning weeks, suggesting that they had begun their migration dowuriver.
The relative timing of peaks in trawl CPUE and box trap C/H (Figure 3-1), the relative recapture locations (Table 3-10), and the dates and timing'of the recapture of box-trap released Atlantic tomcod within and among Hudson River regions (Table 3-11, Appendix Tables E-2 through E-6) collectively support the assertion that the spawning population of Atlantic tomcod migrated from the Battery to shoal sites above Tappan Zee and then back to the Battery between December 2004 and April 2005.3.4 PETERSEN POPULATION ESTIMATE Six assumptions must be satisfied to estimate the Atlantic tomcod populationi size in the Hudson River using the Petersen method or related methods (Cormack 1968, Ricker 1975, Seber 1982): 1. tagged Atlantic tomcod suffer the same mortality as untagged fish, 2. tagging does not affect Atlantic tomcod catchability, 3. tagged Atlantic tomcod do not lose their tags, 4. all tags are recognized and reported, 5. immigration and/or emigration is negligible in the study area i.e., the population is closed, and 6. tagged Atlantic tomcod are randomly distributed among untagged Atlantic tomcod or the distribution of recapture fishing effort is proportional to the abundance of fish in various river regions.N004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 1 15 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Handling mortality studies for box traps (TI 198 1) addressed the first assumption (above) by providing percent mortality data which were used to adjust the number of marked Atlantic tomcod (M) in the population during each marking period. Mortality adjustments were 10% or less (Section 2.3.4. 1) and were intended to compensate for differential mortality of marked and unmarked fish. Handling mortality for VI-tagged fish was tested in the 1997-1998 program and found to be comparable to the earlier handling mortality estimates for finclipped fish (NAI 1998). Assumption 2 (above) generally is applied to tagged fish that are recaptured by entanglement gear (e.g., gill nets or trammel nets; Ricker 1975), and it is unlikely that tagged Atlantic tomncod are more or less vulnerable to capture by box traps or trawls than untagged fish because the tag is not external.
Additionally, tagged Atlantic tomcod recaptured by trawls in the 1997-1998 survey (NAI 1998) migrated an average of 40 river miles (64 kin) or more, suggesting that swimming ability was not appreciably impaired by the tags and that they migrate along with untagged fish.Assumptions affecting the recognition, reporting and loss of tags from marked Atlantic tomcod (Assumptions 3 and 4 above) were addressed by testing during the 1997-1998 program in which VI-tagged fish were held and observed over periods ranging from 10 to 19 weeks to observe tag loss and legibility problems (NAI 1998). Tag retention rates and proportion of legible tags were very high, particularly for tags inserted in the right operculum (the location used for the 2004-2005 program).
In 42 test fish observed over a 10-week period, both tag retention and tag legibility were 100% for tags inserted in the right operculum site.No finclips were encountered during the 2004-2005 program. VI tags were the only means used to mark all fish during the 2004-2005 program. Finclips had not been used since the 1997-1998 program except for two samples with very large catches during the 2000-2001 program and one sample with a very large catch during the 2003-2004 program.Marked Atlantic tomcod apparently do not violate Assumption 5 (above) by migrating out of the Hudson River during the survey period. Relatively few fish (and no marked fish) were caught in 16 tows taken outside the Battery region during the 1985-1986 study period (NAI 1987). Incidental observations by the field crew during a striped bass trawling effort which conducted more than 89 tows in areas adjacent to the Battery region after the 1985-1986 Atlantic tomcod survey ended (21 March -16 May 1986; NAT 1987) also suggested little emigration of Atlantic tomcod had occurred since only eight Atlantic tomcod were caught and no marked fish were observed.In the annual Atlantic tomcod spawning stock surveys, box trap-released and trawl-recaptured Atlantic tomcod are used to satisfy Assumption 
: 6. Separation of the mark and release effort from the recapture effort in both distance and time was used to satisfy the assumption of random mixing (Schaefer 195 1, Cormack 1968, Ricker 1975). The use of one sampling gear to mark the fish and a second gear to recapture them reduces the likelihood of a consistent bias in the probability of capture (Cormack 1968, Ricker 1975).For the Atlantic tomncod surveys up through the 1993-1994 program, the sampling weeks used to represent the marking period and the recapture period for estimating population size were chosen on the basis of stable R/M and RIG ratios in order to satisfy Assumption 6 (NAI 1990). This approach has not been feasible for defining the marking and recapture periods in several of the more recent years because the number of recaptures was too low to allow a meaningful comparison of R/M and R/G ratios among sampling weeks (those ratios were zero in some weeks). Examination of eight previous surveys of M and R/M data (the 1987-1988 through 1993-1994 and 1997-1998 surveys) showed that the weeks of stable 2004-05 Atlantic Tomecod Report~doc 11/2/2007 1 16 2004-2005 Tomcold Report RIM ratios included about 9 1-98% (mean of 95%) of the total M for the year, excluding a few weeks early and late in the box trapping season when catche's (and consequently the values of M) were low. Based on this pattern, the marking period for the 2004-2005 estimate was selected as the six-week period in which 93% of the tagged fish were released, from the week beginning 20 December 2004 through the week beginning 24 January 2005.For determining the 2004-2005 recapture period, the historical pattern of C and RIC over the same eight previous surveys (1987-1988 through 1993-1994 and 1997-1998) was more variable, with the stable R/G period including from 57% to 100% (mean of 92%) of all trawl recaptures starting with the first week in January. The stable R/G weeks typically began with a week in which trawl catch rates began to rise after an extended period of low catches when the fish were mostly upriver. Based 'on this pattern, an 11 -week trawl recapture period was identified for the 2004-2005 estimate, from the week beginning 31 January through the week be 'ginning 11I April 2005. This recapture period included 9.3% of the trawl catch after 2 January. This trawl recapture period began six weeks after the beginning of the box trap marking period, which would allow enough time for fish to migrate downriver based on previously observed movement rates on the order of 35-40 days. The resulting population estimate was very insensitive to different choices of marking and recapture periods, as changing the periods by a week or two on either end would change the estimate by less than 5%.The spawning estimate of the Atlantic tomcod population size in the Hudson River used fish marked in box traps north of Yonkers during the period of 20 December 2004 through 30 January 2005 and recaptured by trawls in the Battery during the period of 31 January through 17 April 2005 (Table 3-12).The 2004.-2005 population estimate for the Atlantic tomcod spawning stock in the Hudson River was 1.7 million fish with lower and upper 95% confidence limits (Poisson) of 960,000 fish and 3.3 million fish.3.5 ANNUAL TRENDS 1974-1975 TO PRESENT The condition and fecundity of the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod winter spawning population were fairly typical among recent (1982-1983 and later) surveys..
The proportion of males in 2004-2005 was higher than average based on laboratory biocharacteristics samples, but about average based on separate male and female Petersen population estimates.
The proportion of Age 2 fish was the tenth highest observed among the 20 most recent years of data. Weighted mean fecundity was about average for both Age 1 females and Age 2 females. The timing of peak spawning during the last week of December and the first week of January was comparable to the timing in most previous years. Atlantic tomcod CPUE in the 9 mn trawl and the Petersen population estimate were both lower than average. The population estimate was tied for tenth lowest among the 27 annual surveys compared.3.5.1 Stock Characteristics 3.5.1.1 Age and Sex Composition The estimated proportion of Age 2 fish in the'2004-2005 spawning stock (12.6%; Table 3-.13) was the tenth highest proportion of Age 2 fish observed among the 20 surveys since 1983-1984.
Males were found in greater proportion and abundance than females in 2004-2005, a pattern also observed in 1983-1984, 1990-1991, 1993-1994, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 2000-2001, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004.
Females predominated in 1985-1986, 1987-1988, 1994-1995, and 2001-2002.
Males were found in approximately equal numbers as females in 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1991-1.992, 1992-1993, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, and 1999-2000.
During the years with high male:female ratios, trawl catches were typically low, increasing 2004-05 Atlantic Tomecod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 17 2004-2005 Tomcod Report the Irelative importance of box trap data. The 2004-2005 trawl catches were not low, but they were substantially lower than the box trap catches. Atlantic tomicod surveys before 1983-1984, which relied on'sex ratios derived from box trap biocharacteristics samples pooled for the entire season (NAI 1984a), also generally captured a high proportion of males, ranging from 61 to 79% of the total population.
Although a trawling program was conducted during the winter of 1982-1983, no sex ratio data were obtained.Based on the evaluation of four different methods for calculating the population sex ratio (NAI 1987), the proportion of males calculated prior to 1983-1984 was probably biased by (1) the timing and movements of males and females into and out of the box trap sampling area and (2) pooling of data across the entire season to obtain a population sex ratio. The predominance of males in data from previous years can be explained as an artifact of sampling during the times when males preceded the females onto the spawning grounds and when the males lingered there after most of the females had moved into the channel and downriver.,Among the estimators previously examined (NAI 1987), the Petersen method may be th e least biased by sexual segregation.
in the Atlantic tomcod population, since each sex is treated as a separate subpopulation.
The 1988-1989 through 1997-1998 surveys adopted a re *commend ation from the 1985-1986 survey to use weekly or biweekly finclip codes throughout most of the sampling season to provide more specific temporal data to evaluate the exposure of each sex to the spatially separated box trap and trawl sampling efforts. Similar total population estimates among the 1983-1984 through 1997-1998 surveys derived from either the sum of separate estimates of the male and female populations (Table 3-14)or the total population (Section 3.5.3), suggest the accuracy of sex ratio estimates derived from Petersen estimateswas, not affected by relatively long (monthly) marking periods used in 1982-1983 and 1983-1984. During 1983-1984 through 2003-2004, the proportion of males for sex-based Petersen estimates varied between 22% and 65% and the proportion of females varied from 35% to 78%. The 2004-2005 proportion of males based oh the Petersen estimates was 39%, which was close to the average observed in previous years (Table 3-14).3.5.1.2 Length-Weight Length-weight relationships for male and female Atlantic tomcod from the 2004-2 005 survey were similar to r esults from previous years, with predicted weights being about average (Table 3-15). Females were, on average, heavier at a given length than were males. This was' true in every year at all three lengths compared (125, 175, and 225 mm).3.5.1.3 Fecundity.
The fecundity-length relation determined for the 2004-2005 spawning population was similar to that of previous surveys (EA 1983; NAI 1984a, 1984b,' 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1.995, 1998, 2000, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2006e; LMS 1 999a, 1 999b, 1 999c). The predicted fecundity for female Atlantic tomcod between 125 mmn and 225 mm Was well within the confidence intervals for most of the previous predictions (Table 3-16).The mean Age 1 fecundity of 16,800 eggs per female for the. 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod population, (Table 3-5) was about average compared to previous years (EA 1983; NAI 1984a, 1984b, 1987, 1988,*1990, 1991, 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2006a, 2006b', 2006c, 2006d, 2006e; LMS 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). Age specific mean fecundity for Age 2 females of 50,700 eggs per female (Table 3-5)was also about average among the years compared.*20-5Atlantic Tomncod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 18 2004-2005 Tomcod Report The estimated Atlantic tomcod egg deposition of 27 billion eggs during the 2004-2005 program was about average compared to the 19 previous surveys (Table 3-17). The average egg deposition estimate in 2004-2005 despite a sb-mewhat lower than average population size reflects a higher than average proportion of age 2 fish, with higher fecundity than age 1 fish. Egg deposition was not compared with surveys prior to 1983-1984 because these earlier estimates were based on sex ratios derived exclusively from box trap samples which may underestimate egg deposition due to an under-representation of female Atlantic tomcod in the box trap catch (Section 3.5. 1. 1).3.5.2 Population Distribution During the Spawning Run In previous surveys, relative abundance (C/H) of Atlantic tomcod in box traps has peaked in the late-December through mid-January period. In 2004-2005, C/H peaked during the week of 27 December 2004 in the West Point region. The West Point region has generally had the highest relative abundance of Atlantic tomcod during the spawning run and may be the center of spawning activity in the Hudson River (TI 1981; EA 1983; NAI 1984a, 1984b, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2006e; LMS 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). Relatively high C/H for Atlantic tomcod indicates that spawning activity may also be centered in the Tappan Zee and Croton-Haverstraw regions in certain years. Substantial catch and spawning activity were observed in both North and South box trap regions in the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 and 1985-1986 surveys, but then C/H was low in the South box trap region from 1987-1988 through 1997-1998.
The contribution of the Tappan Zee region to the total box trap catch increased in 1998-1999 (NAI 2000), but it returned to low levels in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 (NAI 2006a, 2006b). Catches in the Croton-Haverstraw and/or Tappan Zee regions were high in 2001-2002 (NAI 2006c), 2002-2003 (NAI 2006d), and 2003-2004 (NAI 2006e). In 2004-2005 the West Point region contributed the highest box trap catches, but there was still a moderate contribution from the Tappan Zee region (Figure 3-2).Atlantic tomcod spawning activity occurs in low salinity water (< 15 ppt, Peterson et al. 1980). The observed inter-annual variation in the distribution of Atlantic tomcod as indicated by peaks in box trap C/H in both the South and North regions in some years, while only one C/H peak in the North region is observed in other years, was hypothesized to be related to salinity intrusion (NAI 1988). This hypothesis was evaluated by comparing predicted salinity isopleths for the river channel with weekly mean Atlantic tomcod C/H during periods of peak spawning abundance (NAI 1988). )Results from this comparison for the 1974-1975 through 1987-1988 surveys were inconclusive, and it was hypothesized that the predicted, mid-channel salinity isopleths may not accurately reflect the bottom salinity experienced by Atlantic tomcod in the near-shore areas where the box traps are' set. Furthermore, surface salinity measurements obtained in the box trap survey may be lower than the actual salinity experienced by Atlantic tomcod near the river bottom due to vertical stratification of saline and fresh water. Therefore, the box trap survey field methods were modified in 1988-1989 to obtain both surface and bottom conductivity (salinity) measurements, so that the original, hypothesis could be reexamined.
Mean bottom salinities observed in the weeks of peak spawning activity never exceeded 15 ppt, and observed bottom salinities were generally less than 3 ppt higher than surface salinities during 1988-1989 through 2004-2005 (Table 3-18). Bottom water salinities also never exceeded 15 ppt when the average ratio of weekly mean surface to bottom water salinities for 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 were used to estimate bottom salinities for 1982-1983 through 1987-1988.
A change occurred after 1985-1986 in the ratio of weekly mean Atlantic tomcod catch per hour (C/H) for the period of peak abundance in the North and South box trap regions (Table 3-18). North/South C/H ratios for the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 1 19 2004-2005 Tomcod Report and 1985-1986 surveys were near one, indicating similar peak densities of Atlantic tomcod during peak spawning in both the North and South regions. Both C/H and (estimated) bottom water salinity were relatively high in the South region during 1985-1986, suggesting that salinity intrusion does not influence Atlantic tomcod abundance during the period of peak spawning in the South region. The ratios for surveys conducted from 1987-1988 through 2000-2001 were usually much greater than one, reflecting higher weekly mean C/H in the North region than in the South region. Ratios of 0.6 in 200 1-2002, 0.1 in 2002-2003, and 0.8 in 2003-2004 indicate a recent downstream shift in the location of spawning fish, but in 2004-2005 the North to South catch ratio increased to 5.0 (Table 3-18).3.5.3 Population Size Prior to 1982-1983, estimates of Atlantic tomcod spawning population size relied on fish finclipped or Carlin-tagged and released from box traps above the Bear Mountain Bridge (North) and recaptured in Yonkers through Indian Point (South) by box traps, impingement and a limited trawling effort (TI 198 1, EA 1983). In the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 winter surveys, trawling was conducted in the Battery region of the Hudson River (NAI 1984b). The winter trawling effort was initially implemented because of declining impingement catches and recapture rates of Atlantic tomcod at Indian Point Station (Table 3-19). Indian Point Station impingement collections of Atlantic tomcod during the winter spawning season increased to a peak during the 1978-1979 survey, and declined each year following the peak until a low point was reached in 1983-1984 (Table 3-19). Not enough Atlantic tomcod were collected in impingement at Indian Point Station after the 1982-1983 survey to provide an adequate recapture effort compared to box traps, while in years prior to 1979-1980, impingement annually contributed between 57% and 100% of the recaptured fish (Table 3-19). Trawl sampling has replaced impingement as the most important source of recaptures of marked Atlantic tomcod.Trawl sampling in the Battery region also increased the likelihood that random mixing of marked and unmarked Atlantic tomcod has occurred prior to recapture.
Random mixing of recaptured fish in the box trap catch is not likely to occur because the box traps sample the near-shore areas. Fish caught and marked in the box traps have moved upriver and inshore to spawn. Recapture proportions (R/C) from trawl sampling demonstrate that most of the Atlantic tomcod marked in box traps move downriver in the channel after spawning.
Therefore, the box traps would recapture a lower proportion of marked fish by under-sampling the postspawning population.
A consequence of under-sampling the postspawning Atlantic tomcod is that mark-recapture estimates of the population size based on box-trap recaptures in the South region would be biased high. Petersen population estimates based on fish finclipped and released from box traps set in the North region and.recaptured in the South region using box traps were an average of 4.7 times higher compared to the corresponding estimates based on trawl recaptures of postspawning fish in the Battery (NAI 1988, 1992).The potential bias in population estimates prior to 1978-1979 may not be this high because most (57%-100%) of the Atlantic tomcod recaptured in the South region came from impingement at Indian Point Station (Table 3-19), and the withdrawal zone of the Indian Point intake includes a portion of the river channel. Atlantic tomcod population estimates reported for 1974-1975 through 1979-1980 (TI 198 1)were an average of 1.6 times higher than Petersen population estimates based on fish marked and released in the North region and recaptured exclusively by Indian Point impingement (NAI 1992). In 1979-1980 and subsequent years, impingement has contributed less than 19% of the Atlantic tomcod recaptured in the South region.2004-05 Atlantic Torncod Report~doc 11/2/2007 2 20 2004-2005 Tomcod Report The Atlantic tomcod population estimates report ed prior to 1982-1983 were adjusted downward in each survey using the corresponding impingement bias adjustment (NAI 1992). Based on these adjusted population estimates, the Hudson River Atlantic tomcod population has ranged in size from 0.04 to 12:'7 million fish between 1974-1975 and 2004-2005 (Table 3-20). The population was highest in 1976-1977 and 1982-1983, and lowest in 2001-2002.

====3.5.4 Trawl====
Catch Per Unit of Effort as an Index of Atlantic Tomcod Abundance Trawl catch per unit of effort (CPUE) has been considered as a potential annual index of Atlantic tomcod abundance in the lower Hudson River. Trawl CPUE is a measure of C (catch) in the Petersen mark-recapture 
'estimator that is standardized for variation in fishing effort. If C varies in constant proportion with total'population size, then CPUE can be used as a reliable index of population abundance.
The CPUE index of Atlantic tomcod population abundance during the 9 mn trawl recapture period exhibited a similar among-year pattern to that of the population estimates calculated by the Petersen estimator, except for 1985-1986 (Figure 3-7; Appendix Table E-8). The 1985-1986 datum was considered an outlier because the trawl CPUE index was biased high due to a more southerly distribution of the Atlantic tomcod population (NAI 199.2):' Linear regression of the relationship between the Atlantic tomcod population estimates and the corresponding 9 m trawl CPUE in 'dex during the recapture period for 20 of the 21 surveys from 1982-1983 to present (1985-1986 excluded) had a correlation coefficient (r 2) of 0.890 (Figure 3-7).Although the regression of trawl CPUE indices and Atlantic tomcod population estimates (with 1985-1986 excluded) explained 89% of the variation about the predicted line, predictions of population size based on the trawl CPUE index should be made with caution. The slope of the equation presented in Figure 3-7 is strongly influenced by one point, the high value for 1982-1983.
There is a considerable gap between the 1982-198i datum and the nearest cluster of data along the line (1989-1990, 1983-1984, and 1988-1989).
The confidence i 'nterval width (precision) of the regression equation is not very different with the 1982-1983 datum (r 2=0.890) as without it (r 2=0 .790). The 2004-2005 datum generally fit the pattern established by the earlier years. The Y-intercept for the regression using data through 1990-1991 was 2.239 million fish, and was significantly (p<0.05) greater than zero (NAI 1992). With 14 additional years of data, the intercept was 0.608 million fish (Figure 3-7) and was not significantly different from zero (p<0.05).
Therefore, the 95% confidence bands about the regression equation now include the realistic possibility that the predicted population size is zero when the trawl CPUE index is zero. Years like 1985-1986, with an unusually high CPUE index and a southerly distribution of the Atlantic tomcod population, fall outside of the regression relationship and can only be recognized with a box trap program and a mark-recapture estimate.
Thus, caution is recommended in r Ielying on trawl CPUE to predict Atlantic tomcod population size until more empirical observations supplement the regression equation at intermediate population sizes and outliers like 1985-1986 can be reliably predicted.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2 21 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 4.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, R.O., and S.J. Gutreuter.
1983. Length, weight and associated structural indices. Chapter 1.5, pp. 283-3.00 in: Fisheries Techniques.
L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson, eds. Amer. Fish. Soc.468 p.Cone, R.S.. 1989. The need to reconsider the use of condition indices in fishery science..
Trans. Amer.Fish Soc. 188: 5 10-514.Cormack, R.M. 1968. The statistics of capture-recapture methods. Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.6:455-506.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. (EA). 1983. Stock characteristics of the Hudson River Atlantic tomcod population during the 1980-198 1 and 198 1-1982 spawning seasons. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.Gabelhouse, D.W. 1991. Seasonal changes in body condition of white crappies in relation to length and growth in Melvemn Reservoir, Kansas. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 11:50-56.Gutreuter, S.J. 1987. Considerations for estimation and interpretation of annual growth rates. pp. 115-126 in: Age and Growth of Fish. R.C. Summerfelt and G.E. Hall eds., Iowa State University Press, 544 p.________and W.M. Childress.
1990. Evaluation of condition indice's for estimation of growth of largemouth bass and while crappie. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 10: 434-44 1.Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. (LMS). 1999a. Abundance and stoc ik characteristics of the Atlantic tomeod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1994-1995.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
________1999b.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson.River, winter 1995-1996.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
________1999c.
Abundance and, stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in*the Hudson River, winter 1996-1997.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Normandeau.
Associates, Inc. (NAI). 1984a. Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod (Micro gadus tomcod) spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1982-83. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc._________1 984b. Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod (Micro gadus tomncod)spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1983-84. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc._________1986.
1985-86 Striped Bass Gear Evaluation Study. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________1987.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod (Micro gadus tomcod)spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1985-86. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________1988.
Abundance, and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcqd (Micro gadus tomcod)spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1987-88. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2 22 2004-2005 Tomcod Report_________*1990.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod)spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1988-89. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________*1991.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod (Micro gadus tomcod)spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1989-90. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________*1992.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1990-9 1. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________1 994a. Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1991-1992.
Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________1 994b. Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 199271993.
Prepared for New York Power 'Authority.
_________1995.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1993-1994. (Draft). Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________1998.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1997-1998. (Draft). Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________2000.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1998-1999. (Draft). Prepared for New York Power Authority.
_________2004.
2004-2005 Hudson River striped bass and Atlantic tomcod programs standard operating procedures.
Revison 11. Prepared for Ente'rgy Nuclear Operations, Inc._________2006a.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1999-2000.
Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc._________2006b.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, Winter 2000-200 1. Prepared for~ Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.__________2006c.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 200 1-2002. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc._________2006d.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 2002-2003.
Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc._________2006e.
Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 2003-2004.
Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Neter, J., and W. Wasserman.
1974. Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irw in, Inc.Homewood, IL. 842 p.Peterson, R.H., P.H. Johansen, and J.L. Metcalfe.
1980. Observations on early life stages of Atlantic tomcod, Micro gadus tomcod. Fishery Bull. 78: 147-158.Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations.
Bull.Fish. Res. Board Can. 191: 382 p.SAS Institute, Inc.,(SAS).
1989. SAS/STAT user's gui~de. Version 6, 4 1h Edition. SAS Institute, Inc.Cary, NC 943 p.2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2 23 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The estimation.
of animal abundance, 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.Schaefer, M. B. 195 1. Estimation of the size of animal populations by marking experiments.
U.S. Fish WildI. Serv. Fish Bull. 52:189-203.
Springer, T.A., B.R. Murphy, S. Gutreuter, R.O. Anderson, L.E. Miranda; D.C. Jackson, and R.S. Cone.1990. Properties of relative weight and other condition indices. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc.119:1048-1058.
Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI). 1976. A synthesis of available data pertaining to major phisio'chemicall variables within the Hudson River estuary. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New.York, Inc.__________1980.
1980 draft standard operating instructions.
Volume 11: laboratory operations standard operating procedures, sections LOX and LOXII., Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.______1981.
1979 year class report for the *multiplanit impact study of the Hudson River estuary.Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doc 1 1/2/2007 2 24 2004-2005 Tomcod Report FIGURES 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2 25 2004-2005 Tomicod Report POWER PLANTS A A A A DANSKAMMER (RM 66, km 106)ROSETON (RM 65, km 105)INDIAN POINT (RM 42, km 68)LOVETT (RM 41, km 66)BOWLINE (RM 37, km 60)Note: AMU Hudson River mile north or south of Battery Park at the southern lip of Manhattan In New York City,NV.RIVER REGIONS------- ------------------- 
--- -----------
%-------------------------------------------~---------------
A L Higl221n k(RM"O 76, Dll)if(RW 76,37M 122)Miltot (RUEk 711.4)Madbomo (R)4 46,kin 1019)f POUGIXEEPSIE rW 62-76, .I22 PK.NORTH Ikj..Wf ------------------------------------------- 
--- ------------
TRAP SITES Commall-at-Hudson (RM 56, km 90&#xfd; ---- --(RM 51-52. km 2-34)BtAR'mr. aDams (CRM5 1. km 92)(WM 46. k. 74)DREACN BRPflD1 k- "9) ICVV CO2RNWALL (RU S64Lb.90-9t)
-------------------------------------------------
VP WWstOINr (RM 47-SS I.b75-t9)------------
---------------------------------------- 
---------, ~ PorAksfl(RM 
: 43. km 69) 1 P Indian Pain CRM41, km66)INDIAN PI'nr GG143646.kam,2.74)
-4XC----H-d- (Rid 36, km 58 RrN-AETA SOUTH TZ&#xfd;'TEarrytow, (Rdz77, km 43)11rvingtom CRM 25. la 40)TMYPAN2BE*- t if DATrELY 1 TRAWL BATTERY 0O1=_8 SITES UPPER HARBOR 1/ VUl HARBOR WM70-2. F.0-3)-------- ------------
: -A --- ----v-Iw MIdi Figure 2-1. Box trap and trawl sampling sites and Hudson River regions used during the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod spawning survey.2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report~doc 11/2/2007 2 26 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 4-A--- Box Trap CPUE---e--- 9 mTravW CPUE cc 0 co 3-2-28 24 20 a-12 E 0 1 N N~ an SAMPUNG WEEK 0 Figure 3-1. Weekly changes in Atlantic tomcod catch per unit of effort for box trap and 9 mn trawl samples in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005. 
.2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2 27 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Poughkeepsie
<0.011 0.16 0.39 0.98 0.72 0.15 0.03 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 (56-61) U UU U U U 00 0.21.26 1 02 1<102 -(001 (0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.301 0.09 395 10 1.05 1.57 0.71 .4 02 .4 <.1 00 (347-5) D 9 U U U U U 7 D 00 0.05 0.307 0.29 0.05 01. 04 0.5 0.01'5/ (0.01 <0.1 <0.0 1 00 0.0 0 l.05 0.8 0.7 0.5 05/.2 063 01 .5 00 0.0 <0.01 .0 0 00 .0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0 .0.0 0 .0 -L O0 0.0 0 0.0 00 0.0 0 0.01 <0.0 40.0 0.0 0&#xfd;L L- 001 0.0 -" <. 0 -Figure 3-2. Box trap catch per hour of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
2004-05 Aflantic Tomcod Reportldoc 11/2/2007 28 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Box Traps---e--- Catch, Males z Catch, Females~ Catch, Unknown Sex 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2-2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 0 I 0~0.8 0.6 0.4 C\I CWJ 9 m Trawi Catch, Males-*---~- Catch, Females~ Catch, Unknown Sex 30 28 0 z P-i LI 0L 26 24 -22 20 18-16-14-12 10-8-6 4.2 0 z z Z Z Z O D-~C~ CM j ~~Figure 3-3. Weekly change in mean catch per unit of effort for male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by-box traps or a 9 m trawl in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2 29 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Box Traps, Males 160-liRipe ffRipe and Running U Partially Spent OSpent U Developing LL 0 z't LO CV) 0 rl CO UU-M c'.i cCm Box Traps, Females 40-u.. 30-0 ul~20 z 10-0-%I* I&#xfd;T ~ LO U') LO LO a La La L N CDJ C) CD C C ) D C Figure 3-4. Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in box trap biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 (ages 1 and 2 combined).
2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 3 30 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 9 m Trawl, Males.70- El Ripe-KA Spent 60-50-u.. 40-0 1030-20-10-1 0 -M l RNipe and Running E Partially.
Spent N Resting LN Developing LT LT d! 2-IT & iQ I` ;t & R~Cml -9 m Trawl, Females U-0 M wJ CO z 0--~ ~ C -eC %J- cj I Figure 3-5. Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in 9 mn trawl biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005 (ages I and 2 combined).
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 3 31 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 110-~100-0 zDo LL 0-0~CL 70-TRAWLS TRAPS Prespamfthi Males A A Feetspanbg Males A, A Fepeesileg Females 0 0 Postpamftk Female 0 0 175 nim--125rnm~~-0 A>60-I I I I &#xfd; I T N R N MEDLAN CAPTURE WEEK Figure 3-6. Changes in predicted weight for pre-and postspawning male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by 9 m trawls and box traps in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doc 1]1/2/2007 3 32 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 14-13 ,-- -91982-83 12- ,-jia-UPPER 95%9- CONFIDENCE INTERVAL 7- 19W-90-19831-84 .i R 6--, 1988-89 5-- LOWER 95%9 -CONFIDENCE' INTERVAL 01996'-97 61 -88 3 -' 1990-91 -0 *1992-93 i, 1985-86 2-20 -01 1294-95 o 204-0500 0-04 98 1 01993-94 --.1991-92 -9 1999 -00 2001-09 0 10 20 0405607 RMEAN SIM TRAWL CATCHI PER TEN MINUTE TOW DURING THE RECAPTURE PERIOD Figure 3-7. Predictive relationship between mean 9 mn trawl CPUE during the recapture period and Atlantic tomcod population estimates for the 1982-1983 through 2004-2005 winter spawning surveys (1985-1986 excluded from analysis).
2004-05 Atlantic Tomecod Report.doc 11/2/2007 3 33 2004-2005 Tomcod Report TABLES 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 3 34 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 2-1. Standard Hudson River box trap sites for weekly collection of Atlantic tomcod used in biocharacteristics analysis.River Mile Kilometer Site Location 27 43 East Tarrytown 36 58 East Croton Yacht Club 41 66 East Indian Point Hatchery 51 82 East Garrison 5 1-52 82-84 West West Point 56 90 West Cornwall Yacht Club Table 2-2. Atlantic tomcod sexual condition criteria.Condition Description Immature A specimen which is either male or female, but too young to spawn (sub-adult).
Transparent or pinkish gonads, not developed.
Developing Applicable to sub-ripe fish heading into spawning season. Testes are opaque and reddish to (Intermediate) reddish white. Ovaries may appear orange and eggs visible to the naked eye, granular, and whitish to orange-reddish.
May or may not spawn.Ripe Adult in spawning condition; gonads well developed but no milt or eggs extruded upon application of pressure to gonadal area. Will spawn in current season.Ripe and Running Adult prepared to spawn immediately; expulsion of eggs or milt from body with little provocation.
Partially Spent Sexual products partially discharged; gonads somewhat flaccid as opposed to the firmness of a______________developing gonad. Genital aperture usually inflamed, some hemorrhaging present.Spent Applied to adult specimens at completion of spawning activity.
The sexual products have been discharged; genital aperture usually inflamed and hemorrhaging present. The gonads have the appearance of deflated sacs, the ovaries usually containing a few leftover eggs in a state of reabsorption and the testes have some residual sperm. Ovarian walls will become_________________leathery.
Resting Aplies to adult fish with underdeveloped gonads.Table 2-3. Atlantic tomcod length groups.Millimeter Range Length Group (Total Length)1 125 2 126-150 3 151-175 4 176-200 5 201-225 6 226-250 7 251-275 8 276 2004.05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doe 11/2/2007 3 35 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-1. Estimated age and sex composition of Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning period, winter 2004-2005.
Sexes Male Female Combined Box Traps Age 1 Number 1,1,693 1,651 13,344 Percent 77.6 11.0 88.6 Age 2 Number 780 940 1,720 Percent 5.2 6.2 11.4 Age 3 Number 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Number 12,473 2,591 /15,064 Percent 82.8 17.2 100.0 9 m Trawl Age 1 Number 739 2,124 2,863 Percent 21.3 61.2 82.5 Age 2 Number 65 544 609 Percent 1.9 15.7 17.5 Age 3 Number 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Number 804 2,668 3,472 Percent 23.2 76.8 100.0 Box Traps and 9 m Trawl Age 1 Number 12,432 3,775 16,207-Combined Percent 67.1 20.4 87.4 Age 2 Number 845 1,484 2,329 Percent 4.6 8.0 12.6 Age 3 Number 0 0 0.Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Number 13,277 5,259 18,536________________________Percent 71 .6 28.4 100.0 2004-OS Atlantic Tomncod Report.doc 11/2/2007 3 36 2004-2005 Tomcod-Report Table 3-2. Predicted weight for male and female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Predicted Weight in Grams'(95% Confidence Limits)Total Length (mm) Males Females 125 15.9 (12.4-20.4) 17.3 (13.5-22.0) 175 45.3 (35.4-57.9) 49.7 (38.9-63.4) 225 989(77.2-126.6) 109.5 (85.8-1 39.8)a Predicted using the following regression equation (Appendix Table D-3): logl 0 weight = bo + b, (logl 0 length).Table 3-3. Comparison of condition between pre- and postspawning male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by 9 m, trawls or box traps in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
ANCOVA Model Reproductive Stage Sex Gear df F Value Pr>F r 2  F Value Pr>F Male Box trap 293 3,234 <0.000 1 0.97 178 <0.0001 Male 9 m trawl 33 305 <0.000 1 0.95 24 <0.000 1 Female Box trap 93 1,913 <0.0001 0.98 197 <0.0001 Female 9 m trawl 226 12,876 1<0.0001 1 .0.96 194 <0.0001I 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doc 11/2/2007 3 37 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-4. Predicted fecundity for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Predicted Mean Number of Eggs per Fish'Total Length (mm) (95% Confidence Limits)125 4,900 (3,000-8,100) 175 14,000 (8,700-22,600) 225 30,600 (19,000-49,400) a'Predicted using the following regression equation (Appendix Table D-5): logl 0 fecundity 
= bo + b, (logl 0 length).Table 3-5. Mean fecundity presented by 25-mm length group for age 1 and age 2 Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Age I Age 2 Number of Number of Mean Females Percent Mean Females Percent Length Group (mm) Fecundity Examined Composition' Fecundity Examined Composition" 125 480b0 0.1 126-150 7,600 9 8.0 151-175 12,200 12 26.9 1.76-200 18,300 13 45.9 1 7 , 5 0 0 b 0 0.4 201-225 23,400 9 18.8 15,800 1 4.2 226-250 3 6 , 5 0 0' 0 0.3 -42,100 4 21.5 251-275 51,000 10 55.5 276 68,600 5 18.5 Weighted Mean 16,800 50,700 Fecundity
____________________
_____ _____________
aPercent composition for Age I or Age 2 females was derived from the combined box trap and trawl biocharacteristics samples and used to weight the fecundity in each length group to calculate the mnean fecundity.
b Estimated fecundities for Atlantic tomncod with lengths of 124 mum, 188 mmi, and 238 mm were calculated from the fecundity-length regression (Appendix Table D-5) and were used in calculating weighted mean fecundity for unsampled length groups.Those are the midpoint of the 176-200 rm and 226-250 mm length groups and the mean length for females in the 125 length group.2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 3 38 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-6.External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2002-2003.
Light, Week No 1 to 5 Heavy, Not Number of beginning Parasites External >20 External Examined for Fish Gear Monday Observed Parasites Parasites Parasites Caught Small Trawl 14 Apr 2003 1 1_______ Total 0 0 0 1 1 Box Traps 9 Dec 2002 1 1 16 Dec 2002 '6 6 23 Dec 2002 262 8 21 291 30 Dec 2002 242 3 6 251 6 Jan 2003 153 11 1 165 13 Jan 2003 299 3 .10 312 20 Jan 2003 107 3 27 137-27 Jan 2003 -31 1 32 3 Feb 2003 12 12 10OFeb 2003 14 .2 16 17 Feb 2003 5 5 Total 1,132 28 0 68 1,228 9 mTrawl IlINov 2002 1 1 18 Nov 2002 1 1 2 25 Nov 2003 1 1 2 Dec 2002 2 1 4 7 9 Dec 2002 2 1.3 16 Dec 2002 2 11 4 23 Dec 2002 2 2 3 Feb 2003 3 3 10 Feb 2003 3 3 24 Feb 2003 24 3 1 28 3'Mar 2003 2 2 10 Mar 2003 1 1 17 Mar 2003 2 2 24 Mar 2003 .34 3 25 62 31 Mar 2003 8 ______ 4 12*14 Apr 2003 .1 1_______ Total 83 81 42 134 All Gears Total 1,215 36 1 111 1,363 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 1 1/2/2007 3 39 2004-2005 Tomcod Report -1 Table 3-7..External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2003-2004.
11 Light, Moderate, Heavy, .Not Week No 1 to 5 6-20 >20 Examined Number of beginning Parasites External External External for Fish.Gear Monday Observed Parasites Parasites Parasites Parasites Caught Box Traps 1 Dec 2003-> .2 2 8 Dec 2003 15 2 1 18 15 Dec 2003 243 18 2 263 22 Dec 2003 1,630 77 7 1 1,,715 29 Dec 2003 2,643 260 12 (1 3 2,919 5 Jan 2004 3,703 400 27 5 4,135 12 Jan 2004 1,419 139 9 4 1,571 19 Jan 2004 490 28 _ ___ .518 26 Jan 2004 151 5 2 .158 2 Feb 2004 13 114 9 Feb 2004 11 4 15 16 Feb 2004 17 2 19 23 Feb 2004 10 10 Total 10,345 936* 57 118 11,357 9mrnTrawl 3 Nov2&#xfd;003 42 63 6 185 296 10ONov 2003 33 .74 5 331 443 17 Nov 2003 59 219 9 224 511 24 Nov 2003 .92 135 4 3 234 IlDec 2003 96 170 21 4 291 8 Dec 2003 .102, 230 17 349 15 Dec 2003 8 106 11 202 22 Dec 2003 51 59 5 1116 29 Dec 2003 15 14 1 30 5 Jan 2004 8 1 4 .13 12 Jan 2004 .80 14 1 95 191Jan 2004 209 .- 44 1 13 267 2 Feb 2004 '148 16 1 165 9 Feb 2004 354 30 2 386 16 Feb 2004 153 32 2 187 23 Feb 2004 288 44 1 333 IlMar 2004 118 31 2 151 8 Mar 2004 90 11 1 102 15 Mar 2004 44 34 1 79 22 Mar 2004 .123 45 1 169 29 Mar 2004 163 45 208 5 Apr 2004 140 56 1 197 12 Apr 2004 98 38 3 139 Total 2,591 1,511 1 93 1 1 767 14,963 All Gears Total 12,936 2,447 1 150 1 12 775 116,320 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 4 40 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-8. External parasites observed on Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Light, Moderate, Heavy, Not Week No 1 to 5 6-20 >20 Examined Number beginning Parasites External External External for of Fish Gear `\Monday Observed Parasites Parasites Parasites Parasites Caught Box Traps 5 Dec 2004 14 5 19 12 Dec 2004 270 38 2 1 311 19 Dec 2004 951 102 10 1 60 1,124 26 Dec 2004 1,692 445 91 95 2,323 2 Jan 2005 3,644 663 139 8 17 4,471 9 Jan 2005 2,319 445 102 9 28 2,903 16 Jan 2005 2,191 193 20 2 2,406 23 Jan 2005 682 55 4 1 742 30OJan 2005 370 25 2 397 6 Feb 2005 272 32 2 2 308 13 Feb 2005 49 1 50 20 Feb 2005 6 1 17 27 Feb 2005 1 1 2 Total 12,461 2,006 372 21 203 15,063 9 mTrawl 310Oct 2004 186 197 23 3 2 411 7 Nov 2004 162 288 25 5 3 483 14 Nov 2004 50 137 6 2 195 21 Nov 2004 23 93 3 119 28 Nov 2004 70 158 23 2 2 255 5 Dec 2004 33 107 15 1 156 12 Dec 2004 59 109 15 2 185 19 Dec 2004 12 26 5 2 45 26 Dec 2004 8 1 1 10 2 Jan 2005 16 16 9 Jan 2005 35 21 4 1 1 62 16 Jan 2005 6 27 6 39 30OJan 2005 113 13 126-6Feb 2005 231 52 1 1 285 13 Feb 2005 174 60 5 1 240 20 Feb 2005 42 8 50 27 Feb 2005 80 18 _ __ 98 6 Mar 2005 128 9 _ __ 137 13 Mar 2005 163 15 178 20 Mar 2005 23 5 28 27 Mar 2005 103 22 _ __ 125 3 Apr 2005 30 12 _ __ 42 10OApr 2005 175 13 1188 S Total 1,922 1,391 132 16 12 3,473 All Gears Total 114,383 13,397 504 37 215 118,536 2004-05 Atlantic Tomceod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 4 41 rQ 6 0--i 0 3 0 0 CD'D 0&#xfd;I CL 0 0 LQ C)Table 3-9. Movement of Atlantic tomcod marked and released from 2004-2005.
box traps and recaptured by trawls in the Hudson River, winter GerR gionb Minimum Distance Movedc Days at Larg e Sex Na Release Recapture Release Recapture Min Max Mean +/-S.E. Min' Max Mean +/-S.E.'Combined 10 Box Trap Trawl YK-PK Battery 10 51 40 4 26 112 58 9 8 Box Trap Trawl North Battery 43 51 46 1 26 112 61 11 1 2 Box Trap Trawl South Battery 17 18 18 1 39 50 45 6 Male 6 Box Trap Trawl YK-PK Battery 17 45 35 5 39 112 66 11 4 Box Trap Trawl North Battery 43 45 44 1 49 112 77 14 2 Box Trap Trawl South Battery 17 18 18 1 39 50 45 6 Female 4 Box Trap Trawl YK-PK Battery 43 51 48 2 26 84 45 13 4 Box Trap Trawl North. Battery 43 51 48 2 26 84 45 13 0______ 0 Box Trap Trawl South Battery ______I__
I -----0 a 0 0 0 114 a N = number of Atlantic tomcod recaptured.
PL bRegion (Miles): Battery = RM 2-11 (km 3-18)N) YK-PK =Yonkers-Poughkeepsie, R.M 18-76 (km 29-122)North = RM 51-76 (kmn 82-122)South =RM 18-43 (kmn 2 9-69)Distance Moved: difference in river miles between the release location and the trawl recapture river mile.d Days at Large: Number of days between the mark date and the recapture date.0-0 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-10. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture region in the Hudson River estuary, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Region Number Examined for Marks North South Battery Total Recapture Region (C Statistic M=10,415 M=3.031 M=1,655 M=15,101 North 11,562 R 165 0 4 169 (kmn 75-122; RM 47-76) R/M 0.01584 0.00000 0.00242 0.01119 R'C 0.01427 0.00000 0.00035 0.01462 South 3,501 R 10 35 1 46 (kmn 19-74; RM 12-46) RIM 0.00096 0.01155 0.00060 0.00305 jb RIG 0.00286 0.01000 0.00029 0.01314 Battery 2,01 R 8 2 66 76 (kmn 0- 18; RM 1- 11)' RIM 0.00077 0.00066 0.03988 0.00503 RIG 0.00398 0.00 100 0.0 1900 0.0378 1 Total 17,073 R 183. 37 71 291 R/M 0.01757 0.01221 0.04290 0.01927________ RIC 0.01072 0.00217 0.00416 0.01 704 R=M=C=number of marked Atlantic tomcod recaptured from the 2004-2005 program.number of fish marked and released, adjusted for handling mortality as follows: box traps, 10.0% prior to 1 January and 2.5% on and after 1 January.number of fish examined for marks. Box traps were used in North and South regions. In the Battery, trawl sampling was used to capture fish.RIM = recapture rate.R/G = recapture proportion." Battery region in this table includes trawls in the Upper Harbor, up to 4 miles south of Battery Park.bExcludes catch in weeks before tagging began in box traps, except for the Battery Release Region column (C=3,473 for that column only).2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Repontdoc 11/2/2007 4 43 0 C)cn 0--I 0 3 0 0 CL X CD'0 0.-I CL 0 0 C&#xfd;_4 Table 3-11. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps north of Yonkers and recaptured in a 9 mn trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.RecapturedAtlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) beginning 6 Dec- 14 Feb-Number 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec-. 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb Total Recapture Examined MM= MM M= M= M= M= M= M= M=Period for Tags (C) Statistic 268 891 1,856 4,246 2,701 2,205&#xfd; 593 360 277 49 13,446 6-13 Dec 341 R 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 20ODec 45 R 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R'C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 27 Dec 10 R 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.000000000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3 Jani 16 R 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/G 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 _____ 0.00000 10OJan 62 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 17 Jan 39 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 24 Jan 0 R 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG ____31 Jan 126 R 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00054 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00008 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00794 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00794 7 Feb 285 R 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00047 0.00037 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00022 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00702 0.00351 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01053 (continued) 0 a 0-:1 0 0.CD a'a'0 0 CD'5" p r')C)C)0-i 0 B 0 0 CIL X (D_0 0 FI CL 0 0 CD Table 3-11. (Continued)
Recaptured Atlantic Tonicod from Release Week(s) beginning 6 Dec- 14 Feb-N umber 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb Total Recapture Examined M= M= M= M= M= M= M= M=1 M= M= M=-Period for Tags (C) Statistic 268 891 1,856 4,246 2,701 2,205 593 360 277 49 13,446 14 Feb 240 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 '0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 21 Feb 50 R 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00024 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000' 0.00000 0.00000 0.00007______RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.02000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.02000 28 Feb 98 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 7 Mar 137 R 0 0 0 ' 0 0 1 0 0 0 01 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00045 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0007 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00730 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00730 14 Mar 178 R 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0:00000 0.00000 0.00037 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00007 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00562 0.00000 0.00000 0.06000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00562 21 Mar 28 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.600000 RJC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000 0.00000 28 Mar 125 R 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00024 0.00000 0.00000 0 .00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00007 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800 4 Apr 42 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IlIApr 188 R 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 RIM 0.00000 0.00112 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00045 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000 15 RIC 0.00000 0.00532 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00532 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01064 Total 2,010 R 0 1. 1 4 2 2 0 0 0. 0 10 R/M 0.00000 0.00112 0.00054 0.00094 0.00074 0.00091 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000, 0.00074___________ 
/C 0.00000 0.00050 0.00050 0.00199 0.00100 0.00100 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00498 Q 0 a 0 0 (D 0 0 Q.CD In In 0*0-I.CD-In M = number of fish tagged and released from box traps north of Yonkers, adjusted for handling mortality of 10.0% prior to 1 January, and 2.5% on and after 1 January.C = number of fish caught and examined for tags fromn a 9 m trawl in the Battery-region.R = number of Atlantic tomecod tagged and released from box traps north of Yonkers and recaptured from a 9 m trawl in the Battery region.R/M =recapture rate.RIG recapture proportion.
2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-12. Mark-riecapture statistics and spawning population estimate for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Spaw~ning Estimate Statistics' Sampling Gear Dates (Trap-Trawl)
Number Marked ()Box Traps 20 Dec -30 Jan 12,492 Number Examined (C) Trawls 31 Jan -17 Apr 1,497 Number Recaptured (R) Trawls 31 Jan -17 Apr 10 Recapture Rate (RIM) 0.00080 Recapture Proportion (RIC) 0.00668 Petersen Population Estimate 1,700,000 Upper 95% Confidence Limit 3,300,000 Lower 95% Confidence Limit __________960,000 a Statistics:
R =number of marked Atlantic tomecod recaptured.
M number of fish marked and released, adjusted for handling mortality.
C number of fish caught and examined for marks.t, 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Repontdoc 11/2/2007 4 46 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-13. Estimated age and sex composition of Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River, winters of 1983-1984 through 2004-2005.
1 9 8 3-1 9 8 4 b 1985-1986c Sexes Sexes_______Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Number' 19,909 10,761 30,670 7,785 7,573 15,358 Percent 56.6 30.6 87.2 47.6 46.2 93.8 Age 2 Number' 3,020 1,477 4,497 513 496 1,009 Percent 8.6 4.2 12.8 3.1 3.1 6.2 Total Number' 22,929 12,238 35178,298 8,069 16,367 Percent 65.2 34.8 100.0 50.7 49.3 100.0 9 mn Trawl Age 1 Number' 1,575 3,790 5,365 5,918 22,211 28,129 Percent 26.5 63.9 90.4 20.2 76.0 96.2 Age 2 Number' 193 375 568 259 852 1,111 Percent 3.3 1 6.3 9.6 0.9 2.9 1 3.8 Total Number' 1,768 4,165 5,933 6,177 23,063 29,240______Percent 29.8 70.2 100.0 .21.1 78.9 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number a 21,484 14,551 36,035 13,703 29,784 43,487 and Percent 52.3 35.4 87.7 30.0 65.3 95.3 Trawl Age 2 Number' 3,213 1,852 5,065 772 1,348 2,120 Combined Percent 7.8 4.5 12.3 1.7 3.0 4.7 Total Number' 24,697 16,403 41,100 14,475 31,132 45,607__________Percent 60.1 39 .9 100 .0 31 .7 68.3 100.0 1987-1988 d 1 988-1989e Sexes Sexes_____ Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age 1 Number' 7,883 5,745 13,628 33,119 15,547 48,666 Percent 51.7 37.7 89.4 60.7 28.5 89.2 Age 2 Number' 340 1,288 1,628 3,564 2,343 5,907 Percent 2.2 8.4 10.6 6.5 4.3 10.8 Total Number a 8,223 7,033 15,256 36,683 17,890 54,573 Percent 53.9 1 46.1 100.0 67.2 32.8 100.0 9 rn Trawl Age I Number' 3,499 8,008 11,507 3,071 22,806 25,877 Percent 26.7 61.1 87.8 11.0 81.6 92.6 Age 2 Number' 220 1,383 1,603 142 1,932 2,074 Percent 1.7 10.5 12.2 0.5 6.9 7.4 Total Number' 3,719 9,391 13,110 3,213 24,738 27,951____Percent 28.4 71.6 100.0 11.5 88.5 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number' 11,382 13,753 25,135 36,190 38,353 74,543 and Percent 40.0 48.6 88.6 43.9 46.5 90.3 Trawl Age 2 Number' 560 2,671 3,231 3,706 4,275 7,981 Combined ____Percent 2.0 9.4 11.4 4.5 5.2 9.7 Total Number' 11,942 16,424 28,366 39,896 42,628 82,524 I_____ Percent 42.0 58.0 100.0 1 48.3 51.7 1 100.0 (continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Reportidoc 11 /2/2007 4 47 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-13. (Continued) 1989-1990'190191 Sexes Sexes______Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Number' 17,985 9,480 27,465 16,354 6,046 22,400 Percent .50.2 26.5 76.7 63.4 23.4 86.8 Age 2 Number' 4,046 4,317 8,363 1,676 1,739 3,415 Percent 11.3 12.0 123.3 6.5 6.7 13.2 Total Number' 22,031 13,797 35,828 18,030 7,785 .25,815 Percent 61.5 38.5 1 100.0 69.8 30.2 100.0 9 m Trawl Age 1 Number' 5,349 13,646 18,995 1,184 5,122 6,306 Percent 21.6 55.0 76.6 16.3 70.3 86.6 Age 2 Number a 898 4,920 5,818 98 880 .978 Percent 3.6 19.8 23.4 1.3 12.1 13.4 Total Number' 6,247 18,566 24,813 1,282 6,002 7,284______Percent 25.2 74.8 100.0 17.6 82.4 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number' 23,334 23,126 46,460 17,538 11,168 28,706 and _____Percent 38.5 38.1 76.6 53.0 3 3.7 86.7 Trawl Age 2 Number' 4,944 9,237 14,181 1,774 2,619 4,393 Combined Percent 8.2 15.2 23.4 5.4 7.9 13.3 Total Number' 28,278 32,363 60,641 19,312 13,787 33,099 I_____ _____Percent 1 46.6 53.4 1 100.0 1 58.3 1 41.7 1 100.0 1991-1992 h19-19'Sexes Sexes_____ Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Number a 2,995 1,276 4,271 17,479 7,669 25,148 Percent 54.3 23.1 77.4 64.7 28.4 93.1 Age 2 Number a 570 676 1,246 490 1,367 1,857 Percent 10.3 12.2 22.6 1.8 5.1 6.9 Total Number" 3,565 1,952 5,517 17,969 9,036 27,005 Percent 64.6 35.4 1 100.0 66.5 33.5 100.0 9 rn Trawl Age I Number a 413 1,383 1,796 2,524 7,480 10,004 Percent 18.7 62.6 81.3 22.2 65.8 88.0 Age 2 Number' 29 385 414 41 1,318 1,359 Percent 1.3 17.4 18.7 0.4 11.6 12.0 Total Number' 442 1,768 2,210 2,565 8,798 11,363 Percent 20.0 80.0 100.0 22.6 77.4 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number' 3,408 2,659 6,067 20,003 15,149 35,152 and Percent 44.1 34.4 78.5 52.1 39.5 91.6 Trawl Age 2 Number' 599 1,061 1,660 531 2,685 3,216 Combined Percent 7.8 13.7 21.5 1.4 7.0 8.4 Total Numbera 4,007. 3,720 7,727 20,534. 17,834 38,368 1_____ Percent 51.8 48.1 100.0 53.5 46.5 100.0.(continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Toincod Report~doc 11/2/2007 4 48 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-13. (Continued)
Sexes Sexes_______ ____ _____ Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Number' .7,138 1,985 9,123 5,482 3,633 9,115 Percent 66.7 18.5 85.2 55.5 36.8 92.3 Age 2 Number' 667 920 1,587 431 326 1,757 Percent 6.2 8.6 14.8 4.4 33.0 76.7 Total Number' 7,805 2,905 10,710 5,913 3,959 9,872______Percent 72.9 27.1 100.0 59.9 40.1 100.0 9 in Trawl Age I Numnbera 440 1,150 1,590 910 4,173 5,083 Percent 1 18.8 49.1 67.9 16.3 74.8 91.1 Age 2 Number' 68 684 752 20 479 499 Percent 2.9 29.2 32.1 0.4 8.6 8.9 Total Number' 508 1,834 2,342 930 4,652 5,582 Percent 21.7 78.3 100.0 16.7 83.3. 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number' 7,578 3,135 10,713 6,392 7,806 14,198 and Percent 58.1 24.0 82.1 41.4 50.5 91.9 Trawl Age 2 Number' 735 1,604 2,339 451 805 1,256 Combined Percent 5.6 12.3 17.9 2.9 5.2 8.1 Total Numbera 8,313 4,739 13,052 6,843 8,611 15,454______Percent 63 .7 36 .3 100 .0 44.3 55.7 100.0 1995-1996' 1996-1997m Sexes Sexes_______Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Numbera 971 501 1,472 6,256 2,094 8,350*Percent 41.6 21.5 63.1 70.5 23.6 94.0 Age 2 Number' 300 562 862 270 257 527 Percent 12.9 24.1 36.9 3.0 2.9 6.0 Total Number' 1,271 1,063 2,334 6,526 2,351 8,877 Percent 54.5 45.5 1 100.0 73.5 26.5 100.0 9 in Trawl Age I Number' 43 73 116 525 2,962 3,487 Percent 23.4 39.6 63.0 10.9 61.7 72.7 Age 2 Number' 15 53 68 305 1,005 1,310 Percent 8.2 28.8 37.0 6.3 21.0 27.3 Total Number' 58 126 184 830 3,967 4,797 Percent 31.5 68.5 1 100.0 17.3 82.7 100. 0 Box Traps Age I Number' 1,014 574 1,588 6,781 5,056 11,837 and Percent 40.3 22.8 63.1 49.6 37.0 86.6 Trawl Age 2 Number' 315 615 930 575 1,262 1,837 Comrbined Percent 12.5 24.4 36.9 4.2 9.2 13.4 Total Numbera 1,329 1,189 2,518 7,356 6,318 13,674__________
lPercent 1 52.8 1 47.2 1 100.0 1 53.8 1 46.2 1 100.0 (continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Reportdoc 11/2/2007 4 49 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-13. (Continued) 1997-1998" 1998-19990 Sexes Sexes_____ Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age 1 Number' 8,535 2,684 11,219 2,987 751 3,738 Percent 56.2 17.7 73.9 65.4 16.4 81.8 Age 2 Number' 1,217 2,746 3,963 288 543 831 Percent 8.0 18.1 26.1 6.3 11.9- 18.2 Total Numbera 9,752 5,430 15,182 3,275 1,294 4,569__________Percent 64.2 35.8 100.0 71.7 28.3 100.0 9 m Trawl Age 1 Numbera 534 1,443 1,977 168 708 876 Percent 18.7 50.4 69.1 15.6 65.9 81.6 Age 2 Number' 48 838 886 3 195 198 Percent 1.7 29330.9 0.3 18.2 18.4 Total Number' 582 2,281 2,863 171 903 1,074 Percent 20.3 79.7 1 100.0 15.9 84.1 100.0 Box Traps Age 1 Numbera 9,069 4,127 13,196 3,155 1,459 4,614 and Percent 50.3 22.9 73.1 55.9 25.9 81.8 Trawl Age 2 Number' 1,265 3,584 4,849 291 738 1,029 Combined Percent 7.0 19.9 26.9 5.2 13.1 18.2 Total Numbera 10,334 7,711 18,045 3,446 2,197 5,643___________Percent 1 57.3 1 42.7 1 100.0 1 61.1 1 38.9 1 100.0 1999-2000P 
~ 2 0 0 0-2 0 0 1 q Sexes Sexes_____ Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Number' 1,054 367 1,421 9,061 2,529 11,590 Percent 61.4 21.4 82.8 76.3 21.3 97.6 Age 2 Numbera 80 215 295 81 203 284 Percent 4.7 12.5 17.2 0.7 1.7 2.4 Total Number' 1,134 582 1,716 9,142 2,732 11,874____Percent 66.1 33.9 100.0 77.0 23.0 100.0 9 mTrawl Age 1 Number' 311 737 1,048 1,146 3,114 4,260 Percent 28.1 66.6 94.8 25769.8, 95.5 Age 2 Number' 5 53 58 10 190 200 Percent 0.5 4.8 5.2 0.2 4.3 4.5 Total Number' 316 790 1,106 1,156 3,304 4,460______Percent 28.6 71.4 100.0 25.9 74.1 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number' 1,365 1,104 2,469 10,207 5,643 15,850 and Percent 48.4, 39.1 87.5 62.5 34.5 97.0 Trawl Age 2 Number' 85 268 353 91 393 484 Combined' Percent 3.0 9.5 12.5 0.6 2.4 3.0 Total Numnbera 1,450 1,372 2,822 10,298 6,036 16,334_______Percent 1 51 .4 48.6 100.0 63 .0 37 .0 1 100.0 (continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 5 50 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-13. (Continued) 2001-2002r 2002-2003'
______Sexes Sexes___________Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps AgelI Number' 164 205 369 971 233 1,204 Percent 40.0 50.0 90.0 79.1 19.0 98.0 Age 2 Number' 16 25 41 8 16 24 Percent 3.9 6.1 10.0 0.7 1.3 2.0 Total Number' 180 230 410 979 249 1,228______Percent 43.9 56.1 1 100.0 79.7 20.3 ,100.0 9 mn Trawl Age 1 Number' 32 72 104 45 87 132 Percent 23.0 51V.8 74.8 33.8 65.4 99.2 Age 2 Number' 2 33 35 0 1 1 Percent 1.4 23.7 25.2 0.0 0.8 0.8 Total Numbera 34 105 139 4.5 88 133_______Percent 1 24.5 75.5 100.0 33.8 66.2 100.0 Box Traps Age I Number' 196 277 473 1,016 320 1,336 and _____Percent 35.7 50.5 86.2 74.7 23.5 98.2 Trawl Age 2 Numbera 18 58 76 8 17 25 Combined Percent 3.3 10.6 13.8 '0.6 1.2 1.8 Total Numnber' 214 335 549 1,024 337, 1,361__________Percent 1 39.0 61.0 1 100.0 1 75.2 24.8 1 100.0 2003-2004' 2004-2005 Sexes Sexes______Male Female Combined Male Female Combined Box Traps Age I Number' 7,768 3,228 10,996 11,693 1,651 13,344____Percent 68.4 28.4 96.8 77.6 11.0 8 8.6'Age 2 Numbera 98 262 360 780 940 1,720_____Percent 0.9 2.3 3.2 5.2 6.2 11.4 Total Number' 7,866 3,490 11,356 12,473 2,591 15,064__________Percent 69.3 30.7 100.0 82.8 1 17.2 100.0 9 mn Trawl Age 1 Numnber' 1,137 3,726 4,863 739 2,124 2,863 Percent 22.9 75.1 98.0 21 .3 61.2 82.5 Age 2 Numbera 8 92 100 65 544 609 Percent 0.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 15.7 17.5 Total Numnber' 1,145 3,818 4,963 804 2,668 3,472______Percent 23.1 76.9 100.0 23.2 76.8 100.0 Box Traps Age I Numnber' 8,905 6,954 15,859 12,432 3,775 16,207 and Percent 54.6 42.6 97.2 67.1 20.4 87.4 Trawl Age 2 Nuinbera 106 354 460 845 1,484 2,329 Combined Percent 0.6 2.2 2.8 468.0 12.6 Total Nulnbera-9,011 7,308 16,319 13,277 5,259 18,536 Perc ent 55.2 .44.8 100.0 1 71.6 28.4 100.0*Numbcr = cstimated number caught, cxcluding Agc 3 fish.'NA1 1984b CNAI 1987 dNAI 1988 CNAI 1990'NAI 1991 aNAl 1992k'NA! 1994a'NA! 1994b ANAl 1995'LMS 1999a'LMS 1999b ,n LMS 1999c'NAI 1998a 0 NA1 2000 P NAI 2006a" NA! 2006b rNA1 2006c NA! 2006d NAI 2006c 2004.05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doc 11/2/2007 5 51 N)CD 0 0n 01--0 3 Cl 0 CL*0 0L CI-.4 Table 3-14. Estimated population size and proportions for male and female Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River based on sex-specific Petersen estimates, winters of 1983-1984 through 2004-2005.
Atlantic Tomcod Population Size with 95% Confidence Limits in Millions Spawning ______ Males Females -Total' Proportion of Proportion of Survey Lower Estimate Upper Lower Estimate Upper Lower b Estimate Upperb Males Females 1983-1984 1.32 2.16 3.72 2.10 3.70 7.13 3.42 5.86 10.85 0.37 0.63 1985-1986 0.48 0.61 0.79 1.08 1.33 1.64 1.56 1.94 2.43 0.31 0.69 1987-1988 0.79 1.29 2.22 1.31 1.95 3.03 2.10 3.24 5.25 0.40 0.60 1988-1989 1.53 2.12 3.01 1.65 2.03 2.50 3.18 4.15 5.51 0.51 0.49 1989-1990 1.54 2.38 3.87 2.44 4.31 8.32 3.98 6.69 12.19 0.36 0.64 1990-1991 0.44 0.77 1.49 0.98 1.58 2.70 1.42 2.35 4.19 0.33 0.67 1991-1992 0.06 0.11 0.23 0.10 0.17 0.31 0.16 0.28 0.54 0.41 0.59 1992-1993 0.67 0.93 1.33 -0.92 1.31 1.95 1.59 2.24 3.28 0.41 0.59 1993-1994 0.17 0.36 0.83 0.11 0.19 0.36 0.28 0.55 1.19 0.65 0.35 1994-1995 0.26 0.54 1.25 0.65 1.31 2.84 1.07 1.85 3.47 0.29 0.71 1995-1996 0.0l C 0.04c 0.07c 0.01 C 0.05c 0.09, 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.45c 0.55c 1996-1997 0.22 0.71 1.29 0.28 0.92 1.67 0.50 1.63 2.96 0.44 0.56 1997-1998 0.22 0.46 1.05 0.34 0.59 1.10 0.56 1.05 2.15 0.44 0.56 1998-1999 0.04 0.14 0.25 0.06 0.16 0.39 0.10 0.29 ~ 0.64 0.47 2 0.53 1999-2000 0.02, 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.05 0.12 0.30 0.46 0.54 2000-2001 0.46 0.81 1.56 0.46 1.04 2.59 0.92 1.84 4.15 0.44 0.56'2001-2002 
<0.01 <0.01 __d <0.0 1 0.02 d<0.01 0.02 _d0.22 0.78 2002-2003 0.01 0.03 _d <0.01 0.02 __d 0.01 0.05 __&#xfd;d 0.60 0.40 2003-2004 0.20 0.37 0.76 0.46 0.96 2.22 0.65 1.34 2.98 0.28 0.72 2004-2005 0.24 0.48 1.06 0.34 0.77 1.92 0.58 1.25 2.98 0.39 0.61 aTotal population estimates were based on the-sum of independent male and female Petersen population estimates.'
b The upper and lower 95% confidence limits about the total are based on the sum of independent male and female Petersen population estimates, and should be~slightly wider than presented.
Estimated directly from proportion of male and female Atlantic tomcod collected in combined trawl and box trap samples. Sex-specific Petersen estimates not calculated.
dA meaningful upper confidence limit could not be calculated because there were fewer than two recaptures.
0 0 (A~~1 0 0 Q.b 0 z 0 0 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-15. Predicted weight for male and female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winters of 1980-1981 through 2004-2005.
Predicted Weight In Grams Total (95% Confidence LiMitS)b Year' Length (mm) Males Females 1980-1981 125 14.8 16.5 175 44.4 49.4 225 101.0 112.0 1981-1982 125 14.4 16.6 175 42.3 49.7____________225 94.5 112.7 1982-1983 125 13.4 16.5 175 38.4 48.0 225 84.3 .106.5 1983-1984 125 14.3 (11.2- 18.1) 16.2 (11.7- 22.5)175 41.2 (32.4- 52.3) 46.8 (33.8- 64.9)225 90.8 (71.5-115.4) 103.3 (74.5-143.2) 1985-1986 125 15.0 (9.2- 24.3) 16.6 (10.1- 27.6)175 43.4 (26.2- 72.0) 49.2 (29.2- 82.8)225 96.2 (57.0-162.1) 110.6 (64.9-188.5) 1987-1988 
.125 14.4 (10.9- 19.1) 15.1 (11.1- 20.7)175 41.5 (31.3- 55.1) 47.0 (34.3- 64.2)225 91.5 (69.0-12 1.4) 109.4 (79.9-149.6) 1988-1989 125 14.4 (11.3- 18.3) 15.6 (11.9- 20.3)175 40.8 (31.9- 52.4) 45.3 (34.3- 59.7)225 89.0 (69.1-115.0) 100.7 (75.8-133.6) 1989-1990 
.125 15.6 (12.0- 20.1) 16.4 (12.2- 21.9)175 43.5 (33.7- 56.3) 47.2 (35.3- 63.2)225 93.8 (72.6-121.3) 104.3 (77.9-139.6) 1990-1991 125 14.6 (11.3- 18.8) 16.8 (12.4- 22.7)175 43.7 (33.8- 56.5) 49.9 (37.0- 67.4)225 99.4 (76.9-128.4) 112.7 (83.5-152.0) 1991-1992 125 14.5 (11.1- 18.9) 16.4 (12.6- 21.5)175 43.2 (33.2- 56.2) 49.9 (38.2- 65.1)225 97.6 (75.0-127.0) 114.3 (87.6-149.2) 1992-1993 125 14.6 (11.3- 18.8) 16.6 (12.4- 22.3)175 41.3 (32.1- 53.1) 47.0 (35.1- 62.9)225 89.7 (69.7-115.4) 102.0 (76.1-136.6) 1993-1994 125 14.8 (11.6- 18.9) 16.3 (12.0- 22.3)175 42.4 (33.3- 54.0) 48.0 (35.2- 65.4)225 93.0 (73.0-118.5) 107.4 (78.8-146.4) 1994-1995 125 13.7 (11.4-18.2) 15.4 (10.9-21.8) 175 40.5 (28.7-45.6) 45.9 (32.5-64.8) 225 .91.0 (72.1-114.7) 103.7 (72.4-144.4) 1995-1996 125 .15.9 (15.1-16.8) 19.0 (17.6-20.5) 175 45.1 (44.3-45.9) 54.1 (52.1-56.1) 225 98.2 (95.4-101.0) 118.1 (115.6-120.6) 1996-1997 125 15.7 (15.4-16.0) 18.0 (17.7-18.2) 175 42.6 (42.1-43.2) 50.6 (50.3-50.9) 225 90.1 (87.8-92.4) 109.6 (108.7-110.5) 1997-1998 125 15.5 (11.3-21.4) 16.4 (12.1-22.1) 175 42.6 (30.9-58.6) 48.0 (35.5-64.9)
____________
1_ 225 90.3 (65.5-124.4) 
.107.2 (79.3-144.8)(continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.dloc 11/2/2007 5 53 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-15. (Continued)
Predicted Weight In Grams Total (95% Confidence Lim its)b Year' Length (mm) Males Females 1998-1999 125 14.3 (10.0-20.5) 17.2 (12.6-23.4) 175. 41.1 (2 8. 8 (5 8.5) 50.0 (36.8-67.8) 225 90.1 (63.1-128.7) 110.9 (81.7-150.5) 1999-2000 125 16.7 (12.5-22.4) 19.7 (14.3-27.3) 175 44.7 (33.7-59.4) 54.0 (39.3-74.1) 225 93.1 (70.0-123.9) 114.4 (83.4-157.0) 2000-2001 125 14.6 (11.4-18.6) 16.5 (12.3-22.2) 175 42.5 (33.2-54.3) 48.4 (36.0-65.0) 225 94.5 (73.9-120.8) 107.8 (80.1-145.0) 2001-2002 125 16.1 (12.1-21.6) 18.2 (13.7-24.2) 175 46.9 (36.4-60.4) 54.4 (41.4-71.4) 225 103.9 (80.4-134.3) 123.3 (94.2-161.3) 2002-2003 
.125 12.9 (10.2-16.4) 18.5 (12.7-27.0) 175 39.9 (3 1.7-50.0) 50.7 (35.9-71.7) 225 92.5 (73.2-116.7) 107.8 (76.5-152.1) 2004-2005 125 16.7 (12.8-21.8) 17.4 (13.4-22.7) 175 43.7 (33.5-57.1) 49.7 (38.3-64.5)
_______________225 89.9 (68.8-117.4) 108.5 (83.6-140.9) 2004-2005 125 15.9 (12.4-20.4) 17.3 (13.5-22.0) 175 45.3 (35.4-57.9) 49.7 (38.9-63.4)
___________
1_ 225 98.9 (77.2-126.6) 109.5 (85.8-139.8) a Surveys were not conducted in 1984-1985 or 1986-1987 b Data sources (confidence limits not reported for earlier years): 1980-1981:
EA (1983)1981-1982:
EA (1983)1982-1983:
NAI (I984a)1983-1984:
NAI (I984b)1985-1986:
NAI (1987)1987-1988:
NAI (1988)1988-1989:
NAI (1990)1989-1990:
NAT (1991)1990- 1991: NAI (1992)1991-1992:
NAI (I994a)1992-1993:
NAT (1994b)1993-1994:
NAI (1995)1994-1995:
1995-1996:
1996-1 997: 1997-1998:
1998-1999:
1999-2000:
2000-200 1: 200 1-2002: 2002-2003:
2003-2004:
LMS (1999a)LMS (1999b)LMS (1999c)NAT (1998a)NAT (2000)NAT (2006a)NAT (2006b)NAT (2006c)NAI (2006d)NAT (2006e)2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.dpc 1 1/2/2007 5 54 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-16. Predicted fecundity for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson R iver during the spawning season, winters of 1980-1981 through 2004-2005.
Total Predicted Mean Number of Eggs per Fish Year' Length (mm) (95% Confidence LiMitS)b 1980-1981 125 6,200-175 7,000 225 36,200 1981-1982 125 4,000 175 11,500 225 25,100 1982-1983 125 4,100 175 12,100 225 27,400 1983-1984 125 5,200 (3,600-7,600) 175 14,900 (10,200-21,700) 225 32,600 (22,300-47,000) 1985-1986 125 4,900 (1,200-24,200) 175 -<14,400 (3,300-74,300) 225 32,000 (7,100-171,800) 1987-1988' 125 4,800( 3,100-7,500) 175 15,400 (9,900-23,900) 225 36,900 (24,100-58,100) 1988-1989 125 4,100( 400-40,600) 175 12,000 ( 1,100-127,900) 225 27,000 ( 2,400-30 1,400)1989-1990 125 5,100 ( 2,300-11,200) 175 13,400 ( 6,200-29,000) 225 27,500 (12,700-59,400) 1990-199 1 125 5,200 ( 2,800-9,500) 175 14,800 ( 8,200-27,000) 225 32,600 (17,900-59,400) 199 1-1992 125 4,300 ( 2,300-8,000) 175 13,400 ( 8,000-23,800) 225 31,200 (17,700-54,800) 1992-1993 125, 4,800 ( 3,000-7,600) 175 13,600 ( 8,600-2 1,600)225 29,800 (18,800-47,300) 1993-1994 125 4,500 (2,900-7,200) 175 14,200 (9,100-22,400) 225 33,500 (2 1,300-52,700) 1994-1995 125 4,400 ( 2,600-7,400) 175 12,800 ( 7,700-21,100)
________________225 28,200 (16,800-46,000) 1995-1996 125 4,900 ( 3,900-6,400) 175 15,000 (13,300-17,100) 225 34,600 (32,300-37,200) 1996-1997 125 4,900 ( 4,200-5,700) 175 14,2100 (13,200-15,300)
________________225 31,400 (29,000-34,000)(continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doc 11/2/2007 5 55 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-16. (Continued)
Total Predicted Mean Number of Eggs per Fish Year' Length (mm) (95% Confidence LiMitS)b 1997-1998 125 5,700 ( 3,800-8,500) 175 15,000 (10,100-22,400) 225 31,000 (20,800-46,200) 1998-1999 125 4,500 (2,500-8,100) 175 14,000 (8,000-24,300) 225 32,700 (18,900-56,600) 1999-2000 125 2,400 (1,000-5,600) 175 9,500 (4,500-20,200) 225 27,100 (13,200-55,500) 2000-2001 125 4,300 (1,800-10,300) 175 13,500 (5,800-31,600) 225 31,600 (13,400-74,200) 200 1-2002 125 4,900 (2,900-8,200) 175 14,400 (9,100-22,600) 225 32,200 (20,700-50,100) 2002-2003 125 4,100 (2,100-8,300) 175 14,100 (8,300-23,900) 225 35,400 (20,700-60,400) 2003-2004 125 4,800 (3,100-7,600) 175 J~ 14,300 (9,300-22,100) 225 32,400 (2 1,000-49,800) 2004-2005 125 4,900 (3,000-8,100) 175 14,000 (8,700-22,600) 225 30,600 (19,000-49,400)
' Surveys were not conducted in 1984-1985 or 1986-1987 b Data sources (confidence limits not reported for earlier years): 1980-1981:
EA (1983)1981-1982:
EA (1983)1982-1983:
NAI (1984a)1983-1984:
NAI (I1984b)1985-1986:
NAT (1987)1987-1988:
NAI (1988)1988-1989:
NATI (1990)1989-1990:
NAI (199 1)1990-1991:
NAI (1992)1991-1992:
NAI (I994a)1992-1993:
NAI (I994b)1993-1994:
NAT (1995)1994-1995:
LMS (1999a)1995-1996:
LMIS (1999b)1996-1997:
LMS (1999c)1997-1998:
NAI (1998a)1998-1999:
NAI (2000)1999-2000:
NAT (2006a)2000-2001:
NAI (2006b)200 1-2002: NAT (2006c)2002-2003:
NAI (2006d)2003-2004:
NAI (2006e)2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 5 56 tM 0 CD, 0)0--0 3 0~0)CL 0 0.0O 0 0 0 C,)Table 3-17. Estimated population egg deposition for age 1 and age 2 Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winters of 1983-1984 through 2004-2005.
_______ AgelI Age 2 Atlantic Tomcod Weighted Egg Weighted Egg Population Egg Spawning Population Size Proportion Proportion Mean Deposition Proportion Mean Deposition Deposition Survey (Millions)'
FemnaleSb Age I' Fecundityd (Billions)'
Age 2' Fecundityd (Billions)' (Billions)f 1983-1984 6.7 0.63 0.887 14,100 53 0.113 46,100 22 75 1985-1986 2.1 0.69 0.957 16,700 23 0.043 37,900 2 25 1987-1988 3.5 0.60 0.837 16,200 28 0.163 44,600 15 43 1988-1989 5.9 0.49 0.900 12,400 32 0.100 32,500 9 41 1989-1990 6.8 0.64 0.715 14,700 46 0.285 33,400 41 87 1990-1991 3.2 0.67 0.810 18,600 32 0.190 48,100 20 52 1991-1992 0.4 0.59 0.715 22,500 4 0.285 53,100 3 7 1992-1993 2.6 0.59 0.849 14,200 18 0.151 52,700 12 30 1993-19&sect;4 0.7 0.35 0.662 15,800 3 .0.338 50,500 4 7 1994-1995 2.4 0.71 0.907 16,200 25 0.093 38,000 6 31 1995-1996 0.09 0590.483 24,000 0.6 0.517 62,600 1.6 2 1996-1997 3.3 0.56 0.800 19,600 30 0.200 45,400 17 47 1997-1998 1.3 0.56 0.535 16,400 6 0.465 51,100 17 23 1998-1999 0.6 0.53 0.664 18,900 4 0.336 60,600 6 10 1999-2000 0.2 0.54 0.805 21,700 2 0.195 74,800 1 3 2000-2001 2.5 0.56 0.935 15,800 21 0.065 80,900 7 28 2001-2002 0.041 0.78 0.827 26,000 0.7 0.173 76,600 0.4 1 2002-2003 0.11 0.40 0.950 25,100 1 0.050 82,800 0.2 1 2003-2004 1.7 0.72 0.952 21,200 24 0.048 69,000 4 1 28 2004-2005 1.7 0.61 0.718 16,800 13 0.282 50,700 15 27 aPetersen estimate of the spawning population from fish marked and released in box traps and recaptured in trawls.b From the proportion of separate Petersen estimates of male and female subpopulations using the same release and recapture periods and gear as was used for Footnotea'From laboratory bioc haracteri stics data for females, pooled across all weeks in the sampling season and across box traps and trawls, excluding Age 3 fish.d Mean fecundity by 2 5 mm length group within each age weighted by the total number of fish caught in each 25 mm length group, box traps and trawls combined.Egg Deposition 
= population size x proportion females x proportion Age 1 or 2 x weighted mean fecundity.
fPopulation Egg Deposition 
=Age I egg deposition 
+Age 2egg deposition.
g Estimated directly from proportion of male and female Atlantic tomcod collected in trawl and box trap samples combined.0 0D 0 0 Q.CD)HD 0 0 C)00 0 Table 3-18.Maximum weekly mean Atlantic tomcod catch per hour (C/H) and salinity observed during the weeks of peak spawning activity in the North and South Hudson River box trap regions, 1982-1983 through 2004-2005.
Maximum Weekly Mean Salinity (ppt) in Region .Maximum Weekly Mean C/H in Region Survey Weeks of Peak Spawning Depth North South North South Ratio North/South 1982-1983 3 Jan-24 Jan Surface 1.2 6.4 4.3 4.0 1.1 Bottom'l 1.5 8.1 1983-1984 19 Dec-9 Jan Surface 0.1 3.6 6.2 4.8 1.3 BottOifla 0.1 4.6 1985-1986 23 Dec-1 3 Jan Surface .1111.1 4.2 4.5 0.9 Bottom'l 1.4 14.0 1987-1988 21 Dec-4 Jan .Surface 0.4 9.5 3.3 0.8 4.1 Bottom' 0.5 12.0 1988-1989 19 Dec-9 Jan Surface 2.3 9.4 14.7 2.6 5.7-Bottom 3.3 12.9 1989-1990 18 Dec-8 Jan- Surface 4.9 10.5 13.0 1.5 8.7 Bottom 5.8 13.1 1990-1991 31 Dec-14 Jan Surface 1.6 8.4 5.0 1.4 3.6 Bottom 2.0 9.2 1991-1992 23 Dec-30 Dec Surface 0.4 8.5 .1.7 0.5 3.4 Bottomn 0.4 9.1 1992-1993 28 Dec-4 Jan Surface 0.1 7.2 6.2 0.6 10.3 Bottom 0.1 7.3 1993-1994 27 Dec-3 Jan Surface 0.1 5.2 6.2 3.0 2.0________________
Bottom 0.2 6.0 1994-1995 2Jan-9 Jan Surface 0.1 2.3 3.8 0.9 4.2_______________
Bottom 0.1 2.4 __________
1995-1996 25 Dec-8 Jan Surface 0.4 4.3 2.8 0.1 25.4 Bottom 0.4 4.4___________
1996-1997 6 Jan-13 Jan Surface 0.1 3.4 1.8 0.2 9.0 Bottom 0.1 3.5 1997-1998 22 Dec-S Jan Surface 1.3 13.3 5.0 0.1 53.9 Bottom 1.5 13.5 1998-1999 28 Dec-11I Jan Surface 1.1 7.2 0.7 0.4 1.7 Bottom 1.2 8.7 1999-2000 27 Dec-3 Jan Surface 0.2 4.6 0.5 0.1 8.1 Bottom 0.3 6.2 2000-2001 25 Dec-8 Jan Surface 0.4 12.0 3.9 2.4 1.6 Bottom 0.4 12.9 ____ __________
2001-2002 7 Jan-14 Jan Surface 1.9 9.0 0.1 0.2 0.6-Bottom 2.5 10.0 ____ ______________(continued) 0 0 0 U'0 0 CD b 0 0 0):3 0)0 CL 0 (0~0 CD-4 Table 3-18. (Continued)
Maximum Weekly Mean Salinity (ppt) in Region Maximum Weekly Mean C/H in Region Survey Weeks of Peak Spawning Depth North South North South Ratio North/South 2002-2003 6 Jan- 13 Jan Surface 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 Bottom 0.4 3.4 2003-2004 29 Dec- 12 Jan Surface 0.2 3.0 2.0 2.3 0.8 Bottom 0.1 3.5 20-005 27 Dec-3 Jan Surface 0.1 2.2 4.0 0.8 5.0______ ______________
Bottom 0.1 2.4 ___ __________
a Bottom water salinities were not measured during 1982-1983, 1983-1984, 1985-1986 or 1987-1988 and were estimated from the ratio of weekly mean bottom to surface water salinities observed during 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 using the following equation:
Estimated bottom salinity (ppt) = observed surface salinity x 1.264.0 0;0 0 a 0 CD 0 0 0 Table 3-19. Number of Atlantic tomcod caught (C); marked and released (M), and recaptured (R) in the box trap survey, Indian Point impingement, and other sampling efforts for estimates of adult population size, w-inters of 1974-1975 through 2004-2005.
Atlantic Tomceod Winter Spawning Stock Survey 1974- 1975- 1976- 1977- 1978- 1979- 1980- 1981- 1982- 1983- 1985- 1987-Sampling Effort 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .1986 1988 North Box Traps (RM 47, krn75)Number Marked (M)b 14,786 38,202 55,881 6,501 8,174 15,378 2,264 9,314 17,552 23,786 8,495 10,905 South Box Traps (RM<47; ki-75)Catch (C) 2,108 4,909 8,571 5,922 17,103 11,626 511 3,971 16,391 8,356 6,618 2,570 Recaptures (R) 4 21 11 0 4 19 0 1 2 5 1 0 R/C 0.0019 0.0043 0.0013 0.0 0.0002 0.0016 0.0 0.0 0.00012 0.00060 -0.00015 0.00000 Percent of Total Catch 29 54 53 59 60 .70 24 74 52 55 18 13 Indian Point Impingernentc Catch (C) 4,385 3,700 6,140 4,409 10,497 4,784 1,483 1,240 998 257 312 Recaptures (R) 23 71 26 26 31 5 0 0 0 1 0 R/C '0.0052 0.0192 0.0042 0.0059 0.0030 0.0010 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.00389 0.0 Percent of Total Catch 61 41 .38 44 36 29 71 23 3 2 1 Other'Catch (C) 696 465 1,445 223 825 209 101 170 14,053 6,655 29,507 16,936 Recaptures (R) 1 1 9 0 4 3 0 0 18 19 80 34 R/C 0.0014 0.0022 0.0062 0.0 0.0048 0.0144 0.0 0.0 0.00128 0.00285 0.00271 0.00201 Percent of Total Catch 10 5 -9 2 3 2 5 3 45 43 811 87 Total Catch (C) 7,189 9,054 16,156 10,108 28,841 16,619 2,095 5,381 31,442 15,268 36,437 19,506 Recaptures (R) 28 93 46 26 39 27 0 1 20 25 81 34 RIC 0.0039 .0.0103, 0.0028, 0.0026 0.0014, 0.0016 0, 0.00019, 0.00064, 0.00196 0.00222 0.00 1 74 0 0.CD (continued)(n'I)0 C,~5n Pj CD 0-4 0 3 0 0 CL X CD'0 0 0 C)-4 Table 3-19. (Continued)
Atlantic Tomcod Winter Spawning Stock Survey2 1988- 1989- 1990- 1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999-Sampling Effort 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 -1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 North Box Traps (RM 47,km75)Number Marked (M)b 39,315 24,339 19,235 3,802 21,291 6,934 6,240 1,703 5,944 12,593 3,254 1,461 South Box Traps (RM<47;km-75)
Catch (C) 5,980 4,117 2,312 693 2,611 1,575 2,494 203 1,851 455 784 152 Recaptures (R) 5 4 9 1. 16 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 R/C 0.00084 0.00097 0.00389 0.00144 0.00613 0.00000 0.00040 0.00000 0.00000 0.00220 0.00255 0.00000 Percent of Total Catch 18 14 24 25 19 47 31 53 34 16 47 13 Indian Point lmpingementC Catch (C)Recaptures (R)RIC Percent of Total Catch Other d Catch (C) 27,962 24,833 7,295 2,107 11,398 1,759 5,433 180 3,609 2,416 890 1,029 Recaptures (R) 99 29 24 17 50 12 6 1 0 15 4 6 R/C 0.00354 0.00117 0.00329 0.00807 0.00439 0.00682 0.00110 0.00556 0.00000 0.00621 0.00449 0.00583 Percent of Total Catch 82 86. 76 75 81, 53 69 47, 66 84 53, 87 Total Catch (C) 33,942 28,950 9,607 2,800 14,009 3,334 7,927 383 5,460 2,871 1,674 1,181 Recaptures (R) 104 33 33 18 66 12 7 1 0 16 6 6 R/C 0.00306 0.001 14 0.00343 0.00643 0.00471 0.00360 0.00088 0.00261 0.00000 0.00557 0.00358 0.00508 0 0 0 01 0 (I'0 CD n (continued) 1')0 0 0 0~C:,-4 Table 3-19. (Continued)
Atlantic Tomcod Winter Spawning Stock Survey2 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004-Sampling Effort 2001 2002 2003 2004 -2005 North Box Traps (P.M 47;km75)Number Marked (M)b 6,758 139 373 5,034 10,415 South Box Traps (RM<47;kr-n75)
Catch (C) 4,289 265 762 5,600 3,501 Recaptures (R) '6 1 1 2 10 R!C 0.00140 0.00377 0.00131 0.00036 0.00286-Percent of Total Catch 50 67 86 62 64 Indian Point Irnpingementc 
-Catch (C)Recaptures (R)-RJC Percent of Total Catch Other'Catch (C) 4,236 130 122 3,479 2,010 Recaptures (R) 9 0 0 6 8 R/C 0.00212 0.00000 0.00000 0.00172 0.00398 Percent of Total Catch 50 33 14 38 36 Total Catch (C) 8,525 395 884 9,079 5,511 Recaptures (R) 15 11 1 8 18 RIC 0.00176, 0.00253, 0.00113, 0.00088, 0.00327 0 0 0 0 U'-I 0 0 b 0 M 0'Survey was not conducted during the 1984-1985 and 1986-1987 spawning seasons.b Number marked and released was adjusted for handling mortality of 10% prior to 1 January and 2.5% on and after 1 January of each year.cImpingement collections were not examined for marked Atlantic tomcod from 1987-1988 to present.d Ineludes Bowline and Lovett impingement collections (1976-1977 through 1981-1982);
bottom trawls, beach seines, and try trawl below RM 47 (kmn 75) (1974-1975 through 1980-1981);
high-rise trawl and LMS trawl data (1982-1983 and 1983-1984);
9 m and 12 m trawl-data (1985-1986 and 1987-1988), and 9 m trawl data (1988-1989 to present).
Number of trawl recaptures includes only fish marked and released in North box traps for consistency among years.
2004-2005 Tomcod Report Table 3-20.Petersen estimates of the Hudson River Atlantic tomcod spawning population, winters of 1974-1975 through 2004-2005.
Atlantic Tomcod Petersen Population Estimate (Millions of Fish)Spawning Survey Reported Estimate a Adjusted Estimate d Trawl Estimatef 1974-1975 3.8 2.7 1975-1976 3.7 '2.0 1976-1977 1.'12.7 1977-1978 2.5 1.1 1978-1979 6.0 2.7 1979-1980 9.1 5.4e 1980-1981 
--C 1981-1982-C 1982-1983 12.5 1983-1984 6.7 1984-1985 Nsg 1986-1987 Nsg 1987-1988 3.5 1988-1989 5.9 1989-1990
___________6.8 1990-1991
___________3.2 1991-1992 0.4 1992-1993 
-2.6 1993-1994 0.7 1994-1995 2.4 1995-1996
___________0.09 1996-1997 3.3 1997-1998 1.3 1998-1999 0.6 1999-2000 0.2 2000-2001 2.5 2001-2002 0.04 2002-2003 0.1 2003-2004
__________
1.7 2004-2005 1.7 a TI (1981)b Adjusted Schaefer estimate Insufficient number of recaptured fish (<2)d Adjusted estimate = impingement recapture estimate from Table 3 -22 in NAI (1992)CAdjusted estimate = reported estimate/I 1.7''Trawl estimate from Appendix Table' E-8 Nosurvey 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 6 63 2004-2005 Tomcod Report APPENDIX A Gear Characteristics 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 1 1/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table A-i. Specifications of the box traps used in the Atlantic tomcod survey.Frame 3x3x6ft(0.9x0.9x 1.8m)Number of wings None Number of leads None Number of fyikes 2 Fyke opening 4 x 4 in. (10 x 10 cm)Body mesh 3/8 in. (1 cm)Appendix Table A-2. Specifications of the 9 m trawl.Head rope length 6.9 m Foot rope length (Sweep) 9.0 m Legs 6.0 m Net body length 5.2 m Cod end section 2.3 m Doors (steel V-doors) 1.0 m Mesh -body 7.6 cmT (stretch) mesh, knotless polypropylene
-cod end 3.8 cm (stretch) mesh, knotless polypropylene Roller Gear 25.4 cm rollers spaced with 5 cm cookie disks 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Repo'rt APPENDIX B Water Quality 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report~doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table B-i. Weekly and regional average water temperature and conductivity during box trap sampling for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, 2004-2005.
Week Surface Water Surface Water Bottom Water Bottom Water Hudson River (Beginning Temperature Conductivity Temperature Conductivity Region Monday) (OC( S/cm) (OC( S/cm)Tappan Zee 6 Dec 2004 7.8 8474 7.8 8996 13 Dec 2004 4.0 859 4.2 862 20 Dec 2004 2.8 4150 2.8 4454 27 Dec 2004 2.0 3945 2.5 3934 3 Jan 2005 3.7 3806 3.6 3856 10OJan 2005 3.0 6533 2.9 6683 17 Jan 2005 0.1 1408 0.3 2219 24 Jan 2005 0.2 8717 0.2 9274 31 Jan 2005 0.1 8856 0.1 9012 7 Feb 2005 1.5 9142 1.6 9802 14 Feb 2005 2.1 3585 2.2 3636 21 Feb 2005 2.0 6582.0. 6653 28 Feb 2005 1.9 9111 2.3 10382 Croton- 6 Dec 2004 7.0 3415 7.0 3412 Haverstraw 13 Dec 2004 3.5 333 3.7 334 20 Dec 2004 1.8 474 1.8 613 3 Jan 2005 3.9 504 3.9 536 10 Jan 2005 2.3 3088 2.3 3149 17 Jan 2005 0.1 1743 0.1 1765 24 Jan 2005 0.5 4807 0.6 4827 31 Jan 2005 0.4 3710 0.6 5122 7 Feb 2005 1.1 5956 1.1 6181 14 Feb 2005 2.1 1791 2.0 1843 21 Feb 2005 1.9 4555 1.8 4588 28 Feb 2005 1.8 6121 1.9 6271 Indian Point 6 Dec 2004 7.0 3406 7.0 3376 13 Dec 2004 3.8 243 3.8 245 20 Dec 2004 2.6 405 2.7 404 3 Jan 2005 3.1 698 3.0 744 10OJan 2005 1.9 1353 1.9 1453 17 Jan 2005 0.2 261 0.2 262 24 Jan 2005 0.5 3683 0.5 3719 31 Jan 2005 0.9 2451 0.9 2553 7 Feb 2005 1.1 2468 1.2 2569 14 Feb 2005 1.7 750 1.8 757 21 Feb 2005 1.9 3644 2.0 45 28 Feb 2005 2.3 3 143 2.4 3496 (continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doe 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table B-i. (Continued)
Week Surface Water Surface Water Bottom Water Bottom Water Hudson River (Beginning Temperature Conductivity Temperature Conductivity-Region Monday) (OC) (S/cm) (OC( S/cm)West Point 6 Dec 2004 .6.0 234 6.0 234 13 Dec 2004 4.0 202 4.0 202 20 Dec 2004 .2.4 216 2.4 216 27 Dec 2004 1.1 228 1.0 229 31Jan 2005 1.1 221 1.2 .221 10OJan 2005 0.8 .245 0.7 '251*17 Jan 2005 0.4 247 0.4 .250 241Jan 2005 0.2 1147 0.2 1248 31 Jan 2005 0.2 602 0.2 620.7 Feb 2005 0.4 726 0.4 740 14 Feb 2005 0.6 259 0.6 262 21lFeb 2005 0.6 610 0.6 .697 28 Feb 2005 0.5 409 ji 0.9 432 Cornwall 13 Dec 2004 3.7 220 3.7 220 20 Dec 2004 2.5 236 2.5 238 3J an 2005 1.9 249 1.825 10OJan 2005 1.5 256 1.5 258 17 Jan 2005 0.2 257 0.4 257 24 Jan 2005 0.0 297 0.1 294 31 Jan 2005 0.2 262 0.3 265 7 Feb 2005 0.4 297 0.3 300 14 Feb 2005 1.0. 277 1.1 .279 21 Feb 2005 0.5 .263 0.4 263 28 Feb 2005 0.6 269 1.6 262 Poughkeepsie 13 Dec 2004 3.6 211 3.6 211 20 Dec 2004 2.3 225 2.3 225 3 Jan 2005 .0.6 226 0.7 227 10OJan 2005 1.4 219 1.3
* 218 17 Jan 2005 0.8 237 0..8
* 237 24 Jan 2005 0.0
* 288
* 0.3 285 31 -Jan 2005 0.2 232 0.323 7 Feb 2005 0.4 234 0.4 233 14 Feb 2005 0.6 *246 0.6 245 21 Feb 2005 0.4 251 0.3 251 28 Feb 2005 0.3 263 0.9 *267 (continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table B-i. (Continued)
Week Surface Water Surface Water Bottom Water Bottom Water Hudson River (Beginning Temperature Conductivity Temperature Conductivity Region Monday) (00) S/cm) (00 S/cm)All 6 Dec 2004 6.8 3775 6.8 3946 13 Dec 2004 3.9 356 3.9 357 20 Dec 2004 2.4 1171 2.5 1260 27 Dec 2004 .1.2 692 1.2 693 31Jan 2005 2.4 1315 2.4 1338 10 Jan 2005 1.6 1758 1.6 1804 17 Jan 2005 0.3 606 0.4 792 24 Jan 2005 0.2 2594 0.2 2733 31 Jan 2005 0.3 2967 0.3 3169 7 Feb 2005 '0.8 3161 0.8 3343 14 Feb 2005 1.3 1077 1.3 1094 21 Feb 2005 1.2 2487 1.1 2623 28 Feb 2005 1.4 4041 1.7 '4447 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table B-2. Weekly and regional average water temperature and conductivity during trawl sampling for Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, 2004-2005.Sampling Week Surface Water Surface Water Bottom Water Bottom Water (beginning Temperature Conductivity Temperature Conductivity Region Monday) j~( S/cm) (OC( S/cm)Upper Harbor 20 Dec 2004 5.0 22679 6.2 32533 27 Dec 2004 3.8 22118 5.0 32127 3 Jan 2005 4.5 17085 5.4 28249 10 Jan 2005 5.1 27727 5.6 34063 17 Jan 2005 1.0 14033 3.8 35841 7 Feb 2005 2.5 33224 2.4 36638 14 Feb 2005 2.7 22473 2.7 30892 28 Feb 2005 1.9 25396 2.4 32987 14 Mar 2005 2.9 17456 3.6 40096 21 Mar 2005 4.0 31504 4.0 39136 28 Mar 2005 4.8 9145 5.0&#xfd; 27212 Battery I1Nov 2004 13.5 17465 14.0 32116 8 Nov 2004 11.8 20866 12.7 29701 15 Nov 2004 10.0 20265 10.3 30161 22 Nov 2004 10.2 22496 10.5 32272 29 Nov 2004 9.3 12252 10.2 30794 6 Dec 2004- 7.5 11589 9.1 29685 13 Dec 2004 6.5 9726 7.9 25866 20 Dec 2004 4.5 12318 5.9 24943 27 Dec 2004 3.8 16003 5.0 33176 3 Jan 2005 3.9 9745 5.2 28719 10 Jan 2005 4.4 19027 5.1 28994 17 Jan 2005. 0.7 9453 4.3 33156 31 Jan 2005 0.9 16233 1.4 29629 7 Feb 2005 2.3 24958 2.4 31555 14 Feb 2005 2.4 11354 2.6 24476 21 Feb 2005 2.2 18162 2.9 32997 28 Feb 2005 2.0 19441 2.3 29087 7 Mar 2005 2.7 25164 2.5 30057 14 Mar 2005 2.9 12227 2.9 29306 21 Mar 2005 4.3 15659 4.0 33866 28 Mar 2005 4.8 10497 4.5 18827 4 Apr 2005 6.5 3 150 6.0 18284________ 11 Apr 2005 1 8.8 1 4650 1 7.9 20022 2004-OS Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 Appendix-Table B-3. Weekly mean bottom water salinity for box trap stations during the 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod survey.Croton-Tappan Zee Haverstraw Indian Point West Point Cornwall Poughkeepsie 15a 29 36 41 43, 51 52 56 68 -76 Week East' West East East East West East West West West West 6 Dece2004 6.14 2.33 1.93 1.91 -0.13 0.13 0.13 ---13 Dec 2004 0.43 0.64 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 20 Dec 2004 3.42 0.77 0.34 0.33 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 27 Dec 2004 2.23 ---0.13 -0.13 ---3 Jan 2005 2.41 1.18 0.30 0.70 -0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 lOJan200S, 3.92 3.01 1.78 1.38 0.26 .0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.14 17 Jan 2005 1.57 0.46 0.99 0.15 0.15 0.15, 0.13 0.14 0.N14 0.13 0.13 241Jan 2005 6.30 3.91 2.74 2.11 2.10 0.60 1.09 0.50 0.16 0.17 0.14 31 Jan 2005 5.74 3.70 2.91 1.62 1.27 0.46 0.36 0.24 0.15 '..0.13 -7 Feb 2005 5.9 4.67 3.52. 1.67 1.23 0.36 0.55 0.27 0.17 0.13-14 Feb 2005 2.14 1.81 1.04. 0.55 0.26 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.14-21 Feb 2005 .4.12 2.84 2.61 3.03 1.92 -0.46 0.50 0.25 0.15 0.14 28 Feb 2005 6.48 4.55 3.58 2.33 1.63 0.28 0.27 0.19 0.15 0.15-All 1 3.82 2.48 1.85 1.37 0.86 0.25 0.31- 0.20 0.1 0.13 0.13 0 0-o 0 U'~~1 0 0 0 CD b 0 a Stations labeled by river mile and site (east or west shore) within region; may include more than one trap.
2004-2005 Tomcod Report APPENDIX C Atlantic Tomcod Catch Characteristics 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table C-i. Number of samples, Atlantic tomcod caught, and Atlantic tomcod marked in the Hudson River cross-classified by use code and region for the 9 m trawl and box traps, winter 2004-2005.
Number of Number of Use Number of Atlantic Tomcod Atlantic Tomcod Region Gear Code Samples Caught Marked Upper Harbor 9 mn trawl 1 69 119 1 5 2 0 0 Battery 9 m trawl 1 762 3,351 1,022 2 7 3 0 5 5 0 0 Tappan Zee Box trap 1 104 2,187 1,862 2 6 1,028 1,023 5 1 0 0 Croton-Haverstraw Box trap 1 57 284 262 5 1 0 0 Indian Point Box trap 1 60 2 2 West Point Box trap 1 182 8,714 .8,176 5 2 0 0 Cornwall Box trap 1 60 1,683 1,570 Poughkeepsie Box trap 1 44 1,129 1,117 2 3 36 35_ _ _ _ _5 3 0 0 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table C-2. Box trap catch per hour of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Sampling Hudson River Regions Week (beginning All Regions Monday) TZ CH IP WP CW PK Combined 6 Dec 2004 C/H 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.05 --0.03 Duration 315.5 93.0 44.8 102.8 --556.0 13 Dec 2004 C/H 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.30 0.01 <0.01 0.12________Duration 682.8 341.4 340.9 845.6 191.2 240. 1 2,642.1 20 Dec 2004 C/H 0.83 10.07 0.00 0.89 0.02 0.16 0.47________Duration 555.7 .284.7 288.6 648.1 242.0 364.5 2,383.5 27 Dec 2004 C/H 0.79 -- 3.95 --3.23 Duration 165.2 -- 554.9 --720.1 3 Jan 2005 C/H 0.35 0.29 0.00 1.55 1.26 0.39 0.80________Duration 440.6 624.4 620.2 1,217.0 771.6 674.4 4,348.1 10 Jan 2005 C/H 0.57 0.08 0.01 1.85 1.02 0.98 0.92________Duration 723.5 339.1 388.9 889.2 331.2 457.6 3,129.4 17 Jan 2005 C/H 0.92 0.04 0.00 1.57 1.01 0.72 0.90________Duration 586.4 283.3 282.0 796.9 290.9 436.9 2,676.3 24 Jan 2005 C/H 0.63 0.05 0.00 0.72 0.24 -0.40________Duration 287.1 288.2 292.6 618.1 311.6 -1,797.6 31 Jan 2005 C/H 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.34 <0.01 0.15 0.14________Duration 692.8 476.3 --475.7 664.7 409.0 215.9 2,934.3 7 Feb 2005 C/H 0.15 <0.01 0.00 0.21 <0.01 0.03 0.11________Duration 687.0 338.9 336.5 955.8 327.6 234.5 2,880.3 14 Feb 2005 C/H 0.03 <0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02________Duration 664.4 335.8 338.0 625.2 239.3 240.1 2,442.7 21 Feb 2005 C/H 0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.0 1 0.00 0.00 <0.01________Duration 564.1 281.8 337.2 1,088.1 436.2 386.7 3,094.0 28 Feb 2005 C/H <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01________Duration 572.6 293.0 238.3 830.8 140.2 70.0 2,144.8 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Reportxloc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomncod Report Appendix Table C-3. Average catch per ten-minute tow for Atlantic tomcod caught in the 9 m trawl in the Hudson River south of the George Washington Bridge, winter 2004-2005., Sampling Week UpperHarbor Battery (beginning Monday) Tows CPUE S.E. Tows CPUE S.E.1 Nov 2004 0 37 11.11 1.88'8Nov 2004 0 46 10.50 1.57 15 Nov 2004 0 .30 .6.50 1.12 22 Nov 2004 0 18 6.61 1.31 29 Nov 2004 0 42 6.07 0.88 6 Dec 2004 0 43 3.63 0.47 13 Dec 2004 0 46 4.02 0.46 20 Dec 2004 10 0.00 0.00 14 3.21 0.90 27 Dec 2004 14 0.07 0.07 6 1.50 0.85 3 Jan 2004 7 0.14 0.14 33 0.45 0.12 10OJan 2005 8 0.25 0.16 38 1.58 0.25:17 Jan 2005 3 0.00- 0.00 20 1.50.78 24 Jan 2005 0 0 31 Jan 2005 0 5 25.20 11.88 7 Feb 2005 11 5.45 4.31 30 7.50 1.43 14 Feb 2005 9. 0.56 0.38 40 5.88 1.22 121 Feb 2005 0 30 1.67 0.33 128 Feb 2005 2 0.00 0.00 43 2.28 0.43 7 Mar 2005 0 33 4.15 1.22 14 Mar 2005 1 0.00 37 4.7.3 0.62 21-Mar2005 1 0.00 44 0.64 0.16 28 Mar 2005 3 16.67 2.73 50 1.50 0.33 4 Apr 2005 0 38 1.11 0.16 11lApr 2005 0 39 4.82 0.84 Total CPUE 69 1.72 0.81 762 4.40 0.24 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Reportdcoc 11/2/2007 H Appendix Table C-4. Weekly report of Atlantic tomcod caught in the Hudson River in a 9 m trawl and in box traps during the spawning period, winter 2004-2005.
Water N Tows Number of Atlantic Tomcod Caught by Size Group (mm TL) Number of Fish ____ Mortality Fish Old S .ampling 126- 151- 176- 201- 226- 251- per 7Re- Rec ap Recap-Week Gear Temp Cond. Valid Void <126 150 175 200 225 250 275 .276+ Total To lesd trd Lab ture N %I Nov 2004 9m 14.0 -32116 37 0 7 48 .183 113 12 22 21 3 411' 11.1 289 0 121 1 0 0.0 8 Nov 2004 9m 12.7 29701 46 1 2 28 223 172 16 16 21 5 483 10.5 357 16 109 1 0 0.0 15 Nov 2004 9m 10.3 30161 30 0 2 18 80 75 9 4 4 3 195 6.5 70 17 107 1 0 0.0 22 Nov 2004 9m 10.5 32272 18 0 0 4 29 61 7 8 9 0 119 6.6 16 2 101 0 0 0.0 29 Nov 2004 9m 10.2 30794 42 0 0 .13 76 100 26 11 19 9 .255 6.1 144 10 100 1 0 0.0 6 Dcc2004 9m 9.1 29685 43 0 0- 7 35 77 18 5 '11 3 156 3.6 45 7 104 0 0 0.0 13 Dec 2004 9m 7.9 25866 46 0 0 21 34 81 .20 8 15 6 185 4.0 74 4 105 2 0 0.0 20 Dec2004 9m 6.0 28105 24 0 1 2 9 18 9 1 4 1 45 1.9 3 0 42 0 0 0.0 27 Dec2004 9m 5.0 32441 20 1. 0 1 ~ 3 3 2 0 1 0 10 0.5 6 0 4 0 0 0.0 3 Jan 2005 9m 5.2 28635 40- 0 0 3 5 6 0 1 0 1 16 0.4 5 0 11 0 0 0.0 10OJan 2005 9m 5.2 29875 46 0 0 5 9 21 15 4 6 2 62 1.3 11 0 .50 I 0 0.0 l7 Jan 2005 gm 4.2 33465 26 0 0 0 2 8 9 4 9 7 39 1.5 3 0 36 .0 0 0.0 31lJan 2005 9m 1.4 219629 5 0 1 21 37 39 13 2 4 9 126 25.2 124 2 0 0 0 0.0 7 Feb2005 9m 2.4 32918 41 0 3 39 92 90- 35 5 13 8, 285 7.0 180 4 101 0 0 0.0 14 Feb2005 9m 2.6 25654 49 0 0 27 58 60 44 12 28 11 240 4.9 125 0 114 1 0 -0.0 2lFeb 2005 9m 2.9 32997 30 1 0 1 10 14 6 4 14 1. 50 1.7 11 2 37 0 0 '0.0 28 Feb2005 9m 2.3 29260 45 0 2 12 -.14 29 11 3 18 9 98 2.2 17 1 79 11 0 0.0 7 Mar 2005 9m 2.5 30057 33 1 0 34 51 26 15 3 7 1 137. 4.2 114 2 20 1 2 1.5 14 Mar 2005 9m 3.0 29705 40 3 0 34. 55 44 16 6 18 5 178 4.5 71 2 -105 0 0 0.0 21IMar 2005 9m 4.0 33983 45 0 -0 1 4. 7 10 1 .5 0 28 0.6 3 0 25 0 0 0.0 28 Mar 2005 9m 4.6 19197 -53 0 0 10 17 40 -28 12 14 4 125 2.4 14 1 109 11 0 0.0.4Apr 20051 9. 6. 18395 14Q 0 1 .7 1 9 1- 6 111 3 42 1.1 12 1. 0 29 0 0- 0.0 IlIApr 20051 9m 7.9 20022.39 0 0 32 54 53 29 1 7 8 5 188 4.8 83 5 100 0 0 0.0 Trawl Totals 6.1 28910 838 7 18 363 20--71084T 1144 359 1145 26 6 13473 4.1 1777 76 11609 11 2 0.1 Q 0 0 Appendix Table C-4. (Continued)
Water Number of Atlantic Tomcod Caught by Size Group (mm TL) Number of Fish Mortality Sampling Gea 126- 151- 176- 226- 251- Re- Recap- Old Re-CWeek r Region Temp. Cond. <126 150 175 200 201- 225 250 275 276+ Total leased tured Lab capture N %6 6Dec 2004 Bx N 6.0 234 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0.0 Bx S 7.4 6598 0 3 2 3 4 1 14 14 0 0 0 0 0.0 I3 3 Dec2004 Bx N 3.9 206 6 116 87 26 8 9 4 1 257 231 4 21 1 0 0.0 Bx S 4.0 576 2 17 11 10 4 9 1 0 54 48 3 2 1 0 0.0 20 Dcc2004 Bx N 2.4 222 25 226 192 94 41 43 1 5 7 643 525 0 116 2 0 0.0 oBx S 2.5 2200 19 144 167 81 31 16 14 9 481 465 2 12 2 0 0.0 27 Dc 2004 Bx N 1.0 229 82 602 582 384 189 149 151 49 2192 2062 9 66 5 0 0.0 Bx S 2.5 3934 8 39 46 18 7 7 6 0 131 0 0 131 0 0 0.0 3 Jan 2005 Bx N 1.3 232 292 .1007 716 429 265 199 160 78 3146 3053 33 52 8 0 0.0 Bx S 3.5 2502 69 428 397 247 97 30 34- 23 1325 1302 7 14 2 0 0.0 10OJan 2005 Bx N 1.0 246 148 829 629 413 185 145 65 18 2432 2328 40 55 9 0 0.0 Bx S -2.4 4179 11 121 173 97 26 18 15 9 471 442 6 22 1 0 0.0 17 Jan 2005 Bx N 0.4 249 183 714 495 243 93 101 23 4 1856 1753 43 56 4 0 0.0 Bx S 0.2 1781 42 208 175 74 20 23 4 4 550 509 15 26 0 0 0.0 24 Jan 2005 Bx N 0.2 883 50 218 133 66 32 30 5 2 536 479 24 30 3 0 0.0 Bx S 0.4 7051 14 94 53 28 8. 5 4 0 206 129 5 70 2 0 0.0 31lJan 2005 Bx N 0.2 463 40 108 68 22 9 12 1 0 260 241 6 12 I 0 0.0 Bx S .36 13 -64 41 8 5 3 3 0 137 128 5 4 0 0 0.0 7 Feb2005 bx N 0.4 533 30 84 46 19 15 6 5 2 207 196 8 3 0 0 0.0 Bx S 1.4 7089 10 46 33 7 1 3 0 1 101 88 2 11 0 0 0.0 14 Feb2005 Bx N 0.7 262 5 11 6 2 2 1 0 0 27 25 2 0 0 0 0.0 Bx S 2.0 2164 3 9. 6 2 2 1 0 0 23 20 1 2 0 0 0.0 21lFeb2005 Bx N 0.5 508 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0____ Bx S 1.9 5470 0 4 I 0 0 I 0 0 6 4 0 2 0 0 0.0 28 Feb2005 Bx N 1.0 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_____ Bx S 2.2 7083 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0.0 Totals BX N 1.5 358 861 3916 2956 1701 839 695 429 161 11562 10899 169 411 33 0 0.0 BX 5 2.4 4384 191 1178 1105 575 206 117 82 46 3501 3149 46 298 8 0 0.0______ Bx Al 19 2371 1052 5094 4061 2276 1045 812 511 207 15063 14048 .215 709 41 0 0.0 (continued)
CZ 0 0 C C a a C a.C C Appendix Table C-4. (Continued)
SAMPLING WEEK Date of Monday beginning each week GEAR = 9 mn trawl (9m) or box traps (Bx)REGION = North box trap region (N) or south box trap region (S)WATER: TEMP. =Mean river bottom water temperature in 'C COND. = Mean river bottom conductivity in microSiernens/cm at 250 N TOWS: VALID = Total number of valid tows (USE -CODEs I and 2 combined) by the specified gear in the specified week VOID = Total number of void tows (USE CODE = 5) by the specified gear in the specified week;0 0 CD FISH PER TOW Number of fish caught per valid tow (trawl)NUMBER OF FISH: RELEASED = Number of Atlantic tomcod marked and released RECAPTURED 
=Number of Atlantic tomcod recaptured from the current program LAB =Number of fish taken to the laboratory for biocharac-teristics and/or fecundity analyses OLD RECAPTURE 
=Number of Atlantic tomcod recaptured from previous years' programns MORTALITY:
N= Number of dead fish in samples= Perce-nt of dead fish in samples C H a 0 C Appendix Table C-5. Length frequencies of Atlantic tomcod by gear and week in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005..Length Length Length Length Length Length Length Length Sampling Week Number of Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Gear (Beginning Mon) Samples 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 Box traps 6 Dec 2004 12 4 4 5 4 1 1 13 Dec 2004 59 8 133 98 36 12 18 5 1 20 Dec 2004 40 44 370 359 175 72 59 29 16 27 Dec 2004 8 90 641 628 402 196 156 157 49 3 Jan 2005 39 361 1,435 1,113 676 362 229 194 101 10OJan 2005 54 159 950 802 510 211 163 80 27 17 Jan 2005 31 225 922 670 317 113 124 27 8 24 Jan 2005 31 64 312 186 94 40 35 9 .2 31lJan 2005 49 53 172 109 30 .14 15 4 7 Feb 2005 58 40 130 79 26 16 9 5 3 14 Feb 2005 48 8 20 12 4 4 2 21 Feb 2005 61 4 1 1 1 28 Feb 2005 33 1 1 Total 523 1,052 5,094 4,061 2,276 1,045 812 511 207 Trawls IlNov 2004 37 7 48 183 113 12 22 21 3 8 Nov 2004 47 2 28 223 172 16. 16 21 5 15 Nov 2004 30 2 18 80 75 9 4 4 3 22 Nov 2004 18 _ ___ 4 29 61 7 8 9 9 Nov 2004 42 _____ 13 76 100, 26 11 19 9 6 Dec 2004 43 7 35 77 18 5 11 3 13 Dec 2004 46 21 34 81 20 8 15 6 20 Dec 2004 24 1 2 9 18 9 1 4 1 27 Dec 2004 21 1 3 3 2 1 3 Jan 2005 40 3 5 6 1 1 10 Jan 2005 46 5 .9 21 15 .4 6 2 17 Jan 2005 26 2 8 9 4' 9 7 24 Jan 2005 0 31IJan 2005 5 1 21 37 39 13 2 4 9 7________
7Feb 2005 41 3 39 92 1 90 1 35 5 13 1 8 (continued) 0 0 0 0~~1 0 C, 0 CD b 0 H C-Appendix Table C-5. (Continued)
Length Length Length Length Length Length Length Length Sampling Week Number of Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Gear (Beginning Mon) Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Trawls 14 Feb 2005 49 27 58 60 44 12 28 11 (cont'd) 21 Feb 2005 31 1 10 14 6 4 14 1 28 Feb 2005 45 K 2 12 14 29 11 3 18 9 7 Mar 2005 34 34 51 26 15 3 7 1 14 Mar 2005 43 34 55 44 16 6 18 5 21 Mar 2005 45 1 4 7 10 1 5 28 Mar 2005 51 10 17 40 28 12 14 4 4 Apr 2005 42 2 4 7 9 6 11 3 11lApr 2005 39 32 54 53 29 7 8 5 Total 845 18 363 1,084 1,144 359 145 260 96 1 All Gears __________
1,368 1,070 5,457 5,145 13,420 11,404 1 957 71303 Q'0 0 0:
2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix D Atlantic Tomcod Biocharacteristics 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Repori.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 2.4-2.2 -2.0 -3a 1.8 -0 1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 N =986 LogioWeight 
= 3.108 (LogioLength) 
-5.317 R2=0.95* *2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Logio Total Length (mm)Appendix Figure D-1.Length-weight regression for male Atlantic tomeod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -~92.0 -1.4-1.2 1.0.N = 1,394 Logi oWeight R 2= 0.95 3.143 (LogioLength) 
-5.353%-&#xfd;' ^ W*2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Log io Total Length (mm)Appendix Figure D-2. Length-weight regression for female Atlantic tomcod collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report 5.0-4.8 -4.6 -S4.4 -4.0 -3.8 -3.6., N=63 Log ioFecundity 
=3.104 (Log ioLength) 
-2.815 R 2=0.90.2.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Log io Total Length (mm)Appendix Figure D-3. Relationship between fecundity, and length for female Atlantic tomcod.collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.2004-05 Atlantic Tomecod Report.doc 11/2/2007 0 0 H a C.C 0 0 Appendix Table D-1. Sex ratio and proportion of males in weekly samples of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River estuary, winter 2004-2005.
Sampling Week Laboratory Samples Total Catch (Beginning Ratio (Males! Proportion Proportion Gear Monday) Males Females Total Females) Males Females Males Females Total Box Traps 6 Dec 2004 0 0 0 -----19 13 Dec 2004 18 5 23 3.600 0.783 0.217 243.4 67.6 311 20 Dec 2004 110 18 128 6.111 0.859 0.141 965.9 158.1 1,124 27 Dec 2004 152 45 197 3.378 0.772 0.228 1,792.4 530.6 2,323 3 Jan 2005 22 18 40 1.222 0.550 0.450 2,459.1 2,012.0 4,471 10 Jan 2005 34 13 47 2.615 0.723 0.277 2,100.0 803.0 2,903 17 Jan 2005 76 6 82 12.667 0.927 0.073 2,230.0 176.0 2,406 24 Jan 2005 97 6 103 16.167 0.942 0.058 698.8 43.2 742 31 Jan 2005 17 0 17 -1.000 0.000 397.0 0.0 397 7 Feb 2005 12 2 14 6.000 0.857 0.143 264.0 44.0 308 14 Feb 2005 2 0 2 -1.000 0.000 50.0 0.0 50 21 Feb 2005 2 0 2 -1.000 0.000 7.0 0.0 7 28 Feb 2005 2 0 2 -1.000 0.000 2.0 0.0 2 Total 544 113 657 11,209.5 3,834.5 15,063 Trawls 1 Nov 2004 39 82 121 0.476 0.322 0.678 132.5 278.5 411 8 Nov 2004 8 45 53 0.178 0.151 0.849 72.9 410.1 483 15 Nov 2004 20 37 57 0.541 0.351 0.649 68.4 126.6 195 22 Nov 2004 15 65 80 0.231 0.188 0.813 22.3 96.7 119 29 Nov 2004 18 57 75 0.316 0.240 0.760 61.2 193.8 255 6 Dec 2004 20 71 91 0.282 0.220 0.780 34.3 121.7 156 13 Dec 2004 20 77 97 .0.260 0.206 0.794 38.1 146.9 185 20 Dec 2004 4 38 42 0.105 .0.095 0.905 4.3 40.7 4 27 Dec 2004 0 4 4 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.0 10.0 10 3 Jan 2005 0 10 10 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.0 16.0 16 10OJan 2005 0 51 51 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.0 62.0 62 17 Jan 2005 0 36 36 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.0 39.0 39 24 Jan 2005 0 0 0 ---0.0 0.0 -31_____ 3Jan 2005 0 0 0 1 126 (continued)
CD a Appendix Table D-1. (Continued)
Sampling Week Laboratory Samples Total Catch _____(Beginning Ratio (Males! Proportion Proportion Gear Monday) Males Females Total Females) Males Females Males Females Total Trawls 7 Feb 2005 14 89 103 0.157 0.136 0.864 38.7 246.3 285 (cont'd) 14 Feb 2005 19 95-. 114 0.200 0.167 0.833 40.0 200.0 240 21 Feb 2005 6 28 34 0.214 0.176 0.824 8.8 41.2 50 28 Feb 2005 17 -63 80 0.270 0.2 13 0.788 20.8 77.2 98 7 Mar 2005 6 16 22 0.375 0.273 0.727 37.4 99.6 137 14 Mar 2005 30 76 106 0.395 0.283 0.717 50.4 127.6 178 21 Mar 2005 4 21 25 0.190 0.160 0.840 4.5 23.5 28 28 Mar 2005 26 83 109 0 .313 0.239 0.761 29.8 95.2 125 4Apr 2005 5 26 31 0.192 0110896.8 35.2 42 11 Apr 2005' 63 38 101 1.658 0.624 0.376 117.3 70.7 188 Total 334 1108 1442 ____________
788.5 2,558.5 3,473 All Gears Total 878 1221 2099 _____ __________
11,998.0 6,393.0 18,536 0 0 (.11-~1 0 0 0 (D b 0 K Appendix Table D-2. Sexual condi 'tion of male and female Atlantic tomcod in box trap biocharacteri sties samples collected in the-Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Male Female Sampling Week Ripe and Partiall Develop- Ripe and Partially Develop-(Beginning Monday) Rie Rnig Spent Spent Resting ing Total Ripe Running Spent Spent Resting ing Total Age 1 1.3Deec2004 12 4 16 5 5 20Dec 2004 73 28 2 1 104 10 2 12 27 Dec2004 30 72 41 2 .145 13 4 8 2 27 3 Jan 2005 7 7 5 19 8 1 1 10 10OJan 2005 2 12 12 7 33 2 1 2 6 11 17 Jan 2005 30 41 71 1 2 3 24 Jan 2005 15 74 89 1 2 3 31 Jan 2005 1 15 16 0 7 Feb2005 .1 5 6 12 11 14 Fcb2005 1 1 2 0 21 Feb 2005 1 0 28 Feb 2005 1 1 2 0 Total 117 120 115 153 0 5 510 39 6 14 13 0 0 72 Age 2 13 Dec 2004 2 2 0 20 Dec 2004 4 2 6 4 2 6 27 Dcc2004 1 6 7 11 2 3 2 18 3 Jan 2005 1 1 1 3 4 1 3, 8 10 Jan 2005 1 1 1 1 2 17 Jan 2005 2 3 5 2 1 3 24 Jan 2005 1 7 8 1 1 1 3 31 Jan 2005 1 1 0 7 Feb 2005 0 11 21 Feb 2005 1 1 0 Total 1 6 4 12 .12 0 0 34 19 5 9 8 0 0 41~0 0 0 0 Oi-~1 a 0 CD 0 N C a C C C Appendix Table D-3. Sexual condition by station of male and female Atlantic tomcod in box trap biocharacteristies samples collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
Sampling Male Female Week (beginning Ripe and Partially Ripe and Partially Station Age Monday) Ripe Running Spent Spent Developing Total Ripe Running Spent Spent Developing Total Marlboro Age 1 20 Dec 2004 1 1 0 Total 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total, 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornwall Age 1 20 Dec 2004 2 2 1 1 10OJan 2005 1 1 1 1 3 5 17 Jan 2005 11 14 25 0 24 Jan 2005 1 2 3 0 31 Jan 2005 1 1 0 Total 2 1 12 17 0 32 2 0 1 3 0 6 Age 2 20Dec 2004 1 1 0 17 Jan 2005 2 2 2 1 3 3 1Jan 2005 -1 1 0 Total 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 2 1 0 3 Total 3 1 13 19 0 '36 2 0 3 4 0 9 West Point Age 1 13 Dec 2004 11 4 15 4 4 20 Dec 2004 66 22 2 90 8 2 10 27 Dec 2004 3 8 31 .2 44 7 1 3 1 12 3 Jan 2005 4 3 4 11 4 1 1 6 10OJan 2005 2 11 12 7 32 1 1 1 3 6 17 Jan 2005 6 6 12 0 24 Jan 2005 1 15. 16 1 1 31 Jan 2005 1 8 9 0 7 Feb 2005 1 1 2 0 Total 82 45 57 43 4 231 25. 3 7 4 0 39 Age 2 13 Dec 2004 -2 .2 0 20 Dec 2004 3 2 5 2 2 .4 27 Dec 2004 1 1 4 1 3 1 9 3 Jan 2005 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 6 10OJan 2005 1 1 1 -1 2 17 Jan 2005 1 1 .2 0__ Total 5 3 .4 .2 0 14 8 2 6 5 0 21__ _Total _ __ 87 48 61 45 4 245 33 5 13 .9 0' 60 (continued) 0 0 0 0 U'-~1 0 0 0 0.CD b 0 Appendix Table D-3. (Continued)
Sampling Male Female Week (beginning Ripe and Partially Ripe and Partially Station Age Monday) Ripe Running Spent Spent Developing Total Ripe Running Spent Spent Developing Total Garrison Age 1 20 Dec 2004 1 1 0 3 Jan 2005 1 2 1 4 2 2 17 Jan 2005 5 6 11 1 1 2 24 Jan 2005 3 4 7 0 31 Jan 2005 2 2 0 7 Feb 2005 1 1 0 Total 0 1 10 14 1 26 2 0 1 1 0 4 Age 2 20Dec 2004 0 11 3 Jan 2005 0 2 2 17 Jan 2005 1 1 0 24 Jan 2005 1 1 1 1 Total 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 4 Total 0 1 11 15 1 28 5 1 1 1 0 8 Croton Age 1 20 Dec 2004 1 1 0 3 Jan 2005 2 2 4 2 2 17 Jan 2005 5 6 11 0 14 Feb 2005 1 1 0 Total 1 2 8 6 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 2 Age 2 21 Feb 2005 1 1 0 Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0_____Total 1 2 8 7 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 2 Nyack Age 1 20 Dec 2004 1 1 0 Total 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0_____Total
______ 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued) 0 0 (D 0 a C Appendix Table D-3. (Continued)
Sampling Male Female Week (beginning Ripe and Partially 
-Ripe and Partially Station Age Mo'nday) Ripe Running Spent Spent Developing Total Ripe Running Spent Spent Developing Total Irvington Age 1 13 Dec 2004 1 1 1 1 20 Dec 2004 3 5 8 1 1 27 Dec 2004 27 64 10 101 6 3 5 1 15 17 Jan 2005 3 9 12 1 1 24 Jan 2005 10 53 63 2 2 31 Jan 2005 4 4 0 7 Feb 2005 1 4 4 9 1 1 14 Feb 2005 1 1 0 21 Feb 2005 1 1 0 28 Feb 2005 1 1 2 0 Total 3] 70 28 73 0 202 8 3 5 5 0 21 Age 2 20 Dec 2004 0 1 1 27 Dece2004 1 5 6 7 1 1 9" 17 Jan 2005 1 1 2 0 24 Jan 2005 5 5 112 7 Feb 2005 0 11 Total .0 1 6 6 0 13 8 2 1 2 0 13_____Total
______ 31 71 34 79 0 215 16 5 6 7 0 34 0 0 0 0 U'0 0 b 0 2 C, 0 Appendix Table D-4.Sexual condition of male and female Atlantic tomcod in trawl biocharacteristics samples collected in the Hudson River during the spawning season, winter 2004-2005.
I _________
______ Male _____ ________________________Female
______________
Sampling Week ] Ripe and [Partially 1 Develop-i Ripe and Partial1 1 1 Develop-(beginning Monday) TRipe Running ISpenty &#xfd;Spent &#xfd;Resting ing Totl Ripe Running Speantl Spent Rest ing iog Total 0 0 ZL1 Age I 1 Nov 2004 I 35 36 3 64 67 8 Nov 2004 8 8 40 40 15 Nov 2004 2.0 20 34 34 22 Nov 2004 12 12 57 57 29 Nov 2004 16 16 -50 50'6 Dec 2004 20 20 1 63 64 13 Dec 2004 5 15 20 17 48 65 20 Dec 2004 3 1 4 27 4 31 27 Dec 2004 0 4 4 3 Jan 2005 0 9 9 10 Jan 2005 1 0 7 j28 4 1 40 17 Jan 2005 0. 16- 16 7 Feb 2005 1 6 6 13 .34 44 78 14 Feb 2005 7 11 18 1 15 67 83 21 Feb 2005 3 1 4 1 6 9 16 28 Feb 2005 1 3 12 16 37 37 7 Mar 2005 5 5 1 11 12 14 Mar 2005 3 25 28 53 53 21 Mar 2005 <2 2 15 15 28 Mar 2005 22 22 64 64 4 Apr 2005 1 1 12 12 11 Apr 2005 62 62 35 35 Total 8 I I 22 148 127 307 64 0 2 100 355 361 882 (continued)
C 0 0 0 H a a a a-a 0 Appendix Table D-4. (Continued)
Male~ Female Sampling Week Ripe and Partially Develop- Ripe and Partially Develop-(beginning Monday) Ripe Running Spent Spent Resting ing Total Ripe Running Spent Spent Resting ing Total Age 2 1lNov 2004 3 3 15 15 8 Nov 2004 0 5 5 15 Nov 2004 0 3 3 22 Nov 2004 3 3 11 8 8 29 Nov 2004 2 2 7 7 6 Dee2004 0 7 7 13 Dec 2004 0 3 9 12 20 Dec 2004 0 6 1 7 3 Jan 2005 0 11 10 Jan 2005 0 1 9 1 11 17 Jan 2005 0 20 20 7 Feb 2005 1 1 10 1 11 14 Feb 2005 1 1 3 9 12 21lFeb 2005 2 2 8 4 12 28 Feb 2005 1 1 3 23 26 7 Mar 2005 1 1 1 -3 4 14 Mar 2005 2 2 1 2 20 23 21 Mar 2005 2- 2 1 5 6 28 Mar 2005 1 3 4 1 20 21 4 Apr 2005 4 4 12 12 11 Apr 2005 1 1 3 3 Total 0 0 0 5 14 8 27 11 0 3 56 100 56 226 0 0 ZD t 2-Appendix Table D-5. Analysis of variance results from least squares regression on 2004-2005 Atlantic tomcod data.Estimated Regression Model Analysis of Variance Coefficients Appendix Dpnet IdedntSlope Int .ercept FigureNumber Variable Variable Source df SS MS F P >F R-Squared 
+/-S.E. +/-S.E.D-1 Logl 0 Weight Log 1 0 Length Model 1 54.96 (54.96 18,452 <0.0001 0.95 3.108 -5.317 (male) Error 984 2.93 0.003 +/--0.023 +/-0.050 Total 985 57.89 ____D-2 Loglo Weight Logl 0 Length Model 1 85.33 85.33 29,246 <0.0001 0.95 3.143 -5.353 (femnale)
Error 1392 4.06 0.003 +/-0.018 +/-0.042-Total 1393 89.39 D-3 Logl 1 0 Fecundity Logl 1 0 Length Model 1 5.63 5.63 534 <0.0001 0.90 3.104 -2.815 (female) Error 61 0.64 0.011 +/--0.134 +/-0.309_______________________________
Total 63 6.28 __________________________
Df =degrees of freedomn.SS sum of squares MS =mean square F = calculated F-ratio p>F = probability of obtaining a larger F-ratio S.E. =standard error 0 0 V.., 0 0 U'~~1 0 0 0 b 0 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table D-6. Predicted weight for pre- and postspawning male and female Atlantic tomcod caught by 9 m trawls or box traps in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Reproductive Predicted Weight (Grams) at Length'Sex Stage Gear N 125 mm 175 mm Male Prespawning 9 m trawl 8 20.3 52.3 Box trap 126 16.1 47.1 Postspawning Box trap 168 14.5 39.9____9___ 9mtrawl 26 15.3 42.1 Female Prespawning 9 m trawl 73 19.1 56.4 Box trap 69 18.8 56.0 Postspawning Box trap 25 1 14.3 1 40.0________9 m____ _ 9trawl 154 1 15.9 45.0 a Back-transformed from Loglo weight, which was predicted using the following regression equation:'
Loglo weight = bo + b, (Loglo length).2004-05 Atlantic Torntod R~eport.doc 11/2/2007 I 2004-2005 Tomcod Report APPENDIX E Atlantic Tomcod Distribution and Movements 2004-05 Atlantic Tomncod Report~doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table E-1. Atlantic tomcod marked with visual implant tags in box traps between Yonkers and Poughkeepsie and recaptured in a 9 m trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Release Recapture Distance Moved Tag River River Days at Total Length Number Date Mile Date Mile Large Miles Km Sex (mm) Age BLI 22 Dec 2004 52 13 Apr 2005 9 112 43 69 M 1571 EKA 30 Dec 2004 52 4 Feb 2005 9 36 43 69 F 260 2 MDP 3 Jan 2005 25 11lFeb 2005 8 39 17 27 M 168 1 MEG 3 Jan 2005 25 22 Feb 2005 7 50 18 29 M 1891 MZK 4 Jan 2005 56 8 Feb 2005 5 35 51 82 F 158 1 0HZ 4 Jan 2005 56 29 Mar 2005 8 84 48 77 F 250 2 UZD 12 Jan 2005 51 7 Feb 2005 -3 26 53 85 F 195 VKM 18 Jan 2005 52 8 Mar 2005 7 49 45 72 M 200 1 WHP 12 Jan 2005 52 16 Mar 2005 9 63 43 69 M 1381 YAE 18 Jan 2005 52 13 Apr 2005 9 85 43 69 1M 248 2 UZD was recaptured in the Upper Harbor between 2 and 3 miles south of the Battery.2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Repontdoc 11/2/2007 a 0 0 0 H C a 0 C-C 0 0 Appendix Table E-2.Recaptured Atlantic'tomcod cross-classified by release and recap 'ture period for fish marked and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured in a 9 m trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Number Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Examined 6 Dec- 14 Feb- Total Recapture for Tags 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb M =Period (C) Statistic Mv = 212 M = 473 M = 1,856 MI 2,977 M =2,270 M =1,709 M =467 M =235 M =191 M =25 10,415 6-13 Dec 341 R 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 20ODec 45 R 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R'C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 27 Dec 10 R 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .0.00000 3 Jan 16 R 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10OJan 62 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000-RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 17 Jan 39 R 0 0 0 0 00 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 f0.00000 0.00000 0.00000.24 Jan 0 .R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000______ _______ RIC ____31 Jan 126 R 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00054 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .0.00010 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00794 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00794 7 Feb 285 R 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00034 0.00044 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00019 WC____ 1____ I 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.00351 0.003511 0.000001 0.00000 0.000001 0.00000 1____ 10.00702 (continued)
Q 0 0 0 ZL 0 0 C C-C C.0 0 Appendix Table E-2. (Continued)
N umber Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Examined 6 Dec- 14 Feb- Total Recapture for Tags 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan '17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb M =Period (C) Statistic M = 212 M =473 M = 1,856 M = 2,977 M = 2,270 M = 1,709 M =467 M = 235 M = 191 M =25 10,415-14 Feb 240 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 21lFeb 50 R 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00060 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 28 Feb 98 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 7 Mar 137 R 0 0 0.&#xfd; 0 0 1 0 0001 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00059 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000 10 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00730 0.00000 0:00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00730 14 Mar -178 R 0 0 -0 0 .1 0 0 0001 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00044 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00562 0.00000 0.00000 0.00,000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00562 21lMar 28 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 28 Mar 125 R 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00034 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000 10_____ RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800 4 Apr 42 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000Q 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000_____RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 11lApr 188 R 0 1 ~ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 RIM 0.00000 0.00212 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00059 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00019_____ IG 0.00000 0.00532 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0. 00532 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01064 Total 2,010 R 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 8 RIM 0.00000 0.00212 0.00054 0.00067 0.00088 0.00117 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00077__________
RIC 0.00000 0.00050 0.00050 0.00100 0.00100 0.00100 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00398 M = number of fish tagged and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge, adjusted for handling mortality of 10.0% prior to 1 January, and 2.5% on and after I January.C = number of fish caught and examined for tags from a 9 m trawl in the Battery region.I R = number of Atlantic tomcod tagged and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured from a 9 m trawl in the Battery region.RIM =recapture rate.RIG recapture proportion.
0 0&#xfd;L1-x H a 0 0 Appendix Table E-3. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps in the Yonkers-Indian Point region and recaptured in a 9 mn trawl south of the George Washington Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Numbr 6 ec-Recaptured Atlantic Tomeod from Release Week(s) Beginning Numbr 6 cc-14 Feb-Recapture Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb Total-Period for Tags (C) Statistic M=56 M =419 M=0 M 1,269 M=431 M 496 M=126 M=125 M=86 M=23 M =3,031 6-13 Dec 341 R 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 ____ 0.00000 20ODec 45 R 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 ____ 0.00000 27 Dec 10 R 0 0 00 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3 Jan 16 R 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10.00000 10OJan 62 R 0 0 0 0 .0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 17 Jan 39 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000_____ _____ RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 24 Jan 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIG 31 Jan 126 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/G 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .0.00000 7 Feb 285 R 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 RIM' 0.00000 0.00000 0.00079 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00033 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00351 0.00000 0.00000 10.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0035 1 14 Feb 240 R 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000________ RI 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 (continued) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD b 0 0 0 a C C C.C 0 0 Appendix Table E-3. (Continued)
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Number 6 Dee- 14 Feb-Recapture Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb Total Period for Tags (C) Statistic M =56 M =419 M=0 M =1,269 M =431 M =496 M =126 M =125 M =86 M=23 M =3,031 21lFeb 50 R 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00079 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00033_____RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.02000 0.00000' 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.02000 28 Feb 98 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 7 Mar 137 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000_____ /C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 14 Mar 178 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 21lMar 28 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0!00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 28 Mar 125 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 4 Apr 42 R 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IlIApr 188 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 k/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total 2,010 R 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00158 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00066___________
RIC 10.00000 0.00000 10.00000 10.001 00 0.00000 10.00000 10.00000 10.00000 10.00000 10.00000 10.00100 M number of fish tagged and released from box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge, adjusted for handling mortality of 10.0% prior to 1 January, and 2.5% on and after 1 January.C =number of fish caught and examined for tags from a 9 m trawl in the Battery region.R = number of Atlantic tomncod tagged and released from box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured from a 9 in trawl in the Battery region.RIM =recapture rate.k/C =recapture proportion.
K)0 C C a a a.a a.a C Appendix Table E-4. Recaptured Atlantic tomecod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked, released, and recaptured in box traps in the Yonkers-Indian Point region of the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Number 6 Dec- 14 Feb-Recaptur Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24.Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb Total e Period for Tags (C) Statistic M=56 M=419 M=O M=1,269 M=431 M=496 M=126 M 125 M=86 M=23 M =3,031 6-13 Dec 68 R 3 3 R/M 0.05376 0.05376 R/C 0.04412 _____. 0.04412 20ODec 481 R 0 1 1 R/M 0.00000 0.00239 0.00211 R/C 0.00000 0.00208 ____ 0.00208 27 Dec 131 R 0 0 0. 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RlC 0.00 000 0.00000 0.00000 ____ 0.00000 3 Jan 1,325 R 0 2 0 5 7 R/M 0.00000 0.00478 0.00394 0.00401 R/C 0.00000 0.00151 0.00000 0.00377 ____ ___ 0.00528 10OJan 471 R 0 0 0 3 3 6 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00236 0.00696 0.00276 R!C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00637 0.00637 0.01274 17 Jan 550 R 1 2 0 6 1 0 10 R/M 0.01792 0.0478 0.00473 0.00232 0.00000 0.00374_____ R/C 0.00182 0.00364 0.00000 0.01691 0'.00 182 0.00000 ____ ___ 0.01818 24 Jan 206 R 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00158 0.00232 0.00000 0.00795 0.00143 RlC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00971 0.00485 0.00000 0.00485 0.01942 31lJan 137 R 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 20.00201 0.00000 0.00801 0.00068 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00730 0.00000 0.00730 0.01460 7 Feb 101 R 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00403- 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00067 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01980 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01980 14 Feb 23 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00006 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000_____R'C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 21lFeb 6 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000______ RIC 0 .00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 (continued) 0 0 N3 0 0 ci'~1 0 0 0 0 2 Appendix Table E-4. (Continued)
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Number 6 Dec- 14 Feb-Recaptur Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb Total e Period forlTags (C) Statistic M=56 M =419 M=0 M =1,269 M =431 M =496 M =126 M =125 M=86 M=23 M =3,031 28 Feb 2 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total 3,501 R 4 5 0 16 5 3 1 1 0 0 35 RIM 0.07168 0.01195 0.01260 0.01160 0.00604 0.00795 0.00801 0.00000 0.00000 0.01155 RIC 0.00114 10.00143 0.00000 0.00457 0.00143 0.00086 0.00029 0.00029 0.00000 0.00000 0.01000 M =number of fish tagged and released from box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge, adjusted for handling mortality of 10.0% prior to 1 January, and 2.5% on and after 1 January.C =number of fish caught and examined for tags in box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge.R number of Atlantic tomcod tagged, released, and recaptured from box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge.R/M =recapture rate.R/C =recapture proportion.
CA 0 (D Appendix Table E-5. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classifie~d by release and recapture period for fish marked, released, and recaptured in box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge in the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Number 6 Dec- 14 Feb- Total Recaptur Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb M=e Period for Tags (C) Statistic M '212 M = 473 M =1,856 M =2,977 M =2,270 M =1,709 M =467 M =235 M =191 M =25 10,415 6-13 Dec 262 R 4 4 R/M 0.01883 0.01883 RIC 0.01527 0.01527 20ODec 643 R 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIC -0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 27 Dec 2,192 R 0 2 7 9 R/M 0.00000 0.00423 0.00377 0.00354 R/G 0.00000 0.00091 0.00319 _____0.00411 3 Jan 3,146 R 0 1 9 21 31 RIM 0.00000 0.00212 0.00485 0.00705 0.00562 RIG 0.00000 0.00032 0.00286 0.00668 _____0.00985 lOJan 2,432 R 0 0 10 13 15 38 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00539 0.00437 0.00661 0.00488 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00411 0.00535 0.00617 0.01563 17 Jan 1,856 R 0 0 8 15 15 5 43 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00431 0.00504 0.00661 0.00293 0.00453 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00431 0.00808 0.00808 0.00269 0.023 17 24 Jan 536 R 0 0 4 9 3 7 1 24 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00216 0.00302 0.00132 0.00410 0.00214 0.00241 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00746 0.01679 0.60560 0.01306 0.00187 0.04478 31lJan 260 R 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 6-RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00034 0.00088 0.00000 0.00214 0.00851 0.00059 RIG 0.00000 10.00000 0.00000 0.00385 0.00769 0.00000 0.00385 0.00769 0.02308 7 Feb 207 R 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 2 8 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00044 0.00234 0.002 14 0.00000 0.01047 0.00077 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00483 0.0 1932 0.00483 0.00000 0.00966 0.03865 14 Feb 27 R 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00034 0.00044 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00019______ RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.03704 0.03704 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.07407 21IFeb I R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000______ RI 0.00000 10.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10.00000 10.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10.00000 0.00000 0.00000 (continued) 0 0 0 0~~1 0 0 0 0 C C H a C C.C C C C Appendix Table E-5. (Continued)
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Number 6 Dec- 14 Feb- Total Recaptur Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb M =e Period for Tags (C) Statistic M = 212 M = 473 M =1,856 M = 2,977 M = 2,270 M = 1,709 M =467 M =235 M =191 M = 25 10,415 28 Feb 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM' 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C ___ _Total 11,562 R 4 3 38 60 37 16 3 2 2 0 165 R/M 0.01883 0.00635 0.02048 0.02016 0.01630 0.00936 0.00642 0.00851 0.01047 0.00000 0.01584___________
RIC 0.00035 0.00026 0.00329 0.00519 0.00320 0.00138 0.00026 0.00017 0.00017 0.00000 0.01427 M =number of fish tagged and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge, adjusted for handling mortality of 10.0% prior to I January, and 2.5% on and after 1 January.C =number of fish caught and examined for tags in box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge.R =number of Atlantic tomcod tagged, released, and recaptured from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge.R/M =recapture rate.R/C recapture proportion.
0 0 CD 0L 0 0 0 C C C.C C.C 0 0 Appendix Table E-6. Recaptured Atlantic tomcod cross-classified by release and recapture period for fish marked and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured in box traps in the Yonkers-Indian Point region of the Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.-
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning_____
Number 6 Dec- 14 Feb- Total Recaptur Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec -27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb M=e Period for Tags (C) Statistic M1 = 212 M =473 M =1,856 M =2,977 M =2,270 M =1,709 M =467 M =235 M =191 M =25 16,415 6-13 Dec 68 R 0 0- 0 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 20ODec 481 R 0 0 0 R/M 0.00000 0.000090 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 ____ 0.00000 27 Dec 13] R 0 0 0 0 R/M -0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.009000______ RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3 Jan 1,325 R 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 10OJan 471 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 17 Jan 550 R 1 0 0 2 2 0 5 R/M 0.0047 1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00067 0.00088 0.00000 0.00053 RIG 0.00182 0.60000 0.00000 0.00364 0.00364 0.00000 0.00909 24 Jan 206 .R 0 0 0 1 0 0 01 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00034 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00485 0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000 0.00485 31 Jan 137 R 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 RIM -0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00034 0.00088 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00029 RIG 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00730 0.01460 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.02190 7 Feb 101 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Ri/C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 14 Feb 23 R 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 R/M 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00523 0.00000 0.00010___________
R/C ,0.00000 ,0.00000, 0.00000 ,0.00000 0.00000 ,0.00000 ,0.00000 ,0.00000 ,0.04348 ,0.00000 0.04348 0 0 0 0 U'0 0 0 b 0 
-1 C C-Appendix Table E-6. (Continued)
Recaptured Atlantic Tomcod from Release Week(s) Beginning Number 6 Dee- 14 Feb- Total Recaptur Examined 13 Dec 20 Dec 27 Dec 3 Jan 10 Jan 17 Jan 24 Jan 31 Jan 7 Feb 21 Feb M =e Period for Tags (C) Statistic M = 212 M =473 M =1,856 M = 2,977 M = 2,270 M = 1,709 M =467 M =235 M = 191 M =25 10,415 21lFeb 6 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R'C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 28 Feb 2 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIM 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 RIC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total 3,501 R 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 10 R/M 0.00471 0.00000 0.00000 0.00134 0.001 76 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00523 0.00000 0.00096___________
R/C 0.00029 0.00000 0.00000 0.00114 0.00114 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00029 0.00000 0.00286 M =number of fish tagged and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge, adjusted for handling mortality of 10.0% prior to 1 January, and 2.5% on and after 1 January.C = number of fish caught and examined for tags in box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge.R =number of Atlantic tomcod tagged and released from box traps north of the Bear Mountain Bridge and recaptured in box traps south of the Bear Mountain Bridge.RIM =recapture rate.R/G recapture proportion.
UI3 CD 0L 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table E-7. Atlantic tomcod marked and released during winter 2003-2004 and recaptured during winter 2004-2005 in the Hudson River.Tag Recapture Release Total Length Number Date Gear Mile Km Date Gear Mile Km Sex (mm) Age AAM 3 Jan 2005 *Box trap 25 40 22 Jan 2004 Box trap 29 47 1 222 2 AFM 25 Jan 2005 Box trap 29 47 23 Jan 2004 Box trap 29 47 1 220 2 ALC 13 Jan 2005 Box trap 25 40 27 Jan 2004 Box trap 29 47 2 280 2 BRB 20 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 8 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 1 262 2 BSZ 28 Dec 2004 Box trap 51 82 8 Jan 2004 Box trap 43 69 2 268 2 CSU 23 Dec 2004 Box trap 25 40 22 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 2 264 2 CUY 14 Jan 2005 Box trap 68 109 22 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 1. 243 2 DVK I11 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 23 Dec2003 Box trap 52 84 1 247 2 IFG 12 Jan 2005 9 mn trawl 8 13 11 Nov2003 9 mn trawl 9 14 2 253 2 IHS 26 Jan 2005 Box trap 25 40 11 Nov2003 9 in trawl 7 11 2 258 2 uiS 15 Dec 2004 9 in trawl 9 14 11 Nov2003 9 in trawl 7 11 2 267 2 ISE I1I Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 14 Nov2003 9 rn trawl 8 13 1 231 2 LUM 15 Dec 2004 9 in trawl 8 13 18 Nov2003 9 in trawl 7 11 2 269 2 IWH 3 Nov 2004 9 mn trawl 8 13 18 Nov2003 9 in trawl 7 11 1 232 2 JDH 12 Jan 2005 Box trap 68 109 20 Nov2003 9 rn trawl 7 11 1 245 2 JHX 19 Nov 2004 9 mn trawl 9 14 21 Nov2003 9 in trawl 9 14 2 277 2 JUK 8 Nov 2004 9 in trawl 8 13 5 Dec2003 9 in trawl 8 13 2 266 2 KBL 7 Mar 2005 9 mn trawl 8 13 11 Dec2003 9 mn trawl 8 13 2 300 2 KHN 18 Feb 2005 9 in trawl 8 13 18 Dec2003 9 in trawl 7 11 2 275 2 KXX 22 Dec 2004 Box trap 52 84 24 Dec2003 Box trap 52 84 1 206 2 LUJ 12 Jan 2005 Box trap 68 109 29 Dec2003 Box trap 52 84 1 211 2 LZL 1 Feb 2005 Box trap 56 90 129 Dec2003 Box trap 52 84 1 229 2 MCN 5 Jan 2005 Box trap 51 82 29 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 1 235 2 MMT 30 Dec 2004 Box trap 52 84 29 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 1 231 2 MWZ 26 Jan 2005 Box trap .52 84 30 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 1 241 2 NKB 16 Dec 2004 Box trap 25 40 30 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 1 244 2 NKN 5 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 30 Dec2003 Box trap 25 40 1 260 2 NYM 29 Dec 2004 Box trap 51 82 30 Dec2003 Box trap 52 84 1 223 2 OLW 20 Dec 2004 Box trap 51 82 31 Dec2003 Box trap 68 109 1 254 2 ONUJ 4 Jan 2005 Box trap 56 90 31 Dec2003 Box trap 56 90 2 265 2 PMY 21 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 2 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 1 226 2 PNX 13 Jan 200,5 Box trap 68 109 2 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 1 232 2 RIW 4 Jan 2005 Box trap 56 90 5 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 1 222 2 RLH 20 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 5 Jan 2004 Box trap 56 90 1 205 2 RUX 4 Jan 2005 Box trap 56 90 5 Jan 2004 Box trap 56 90 2 272 2 RXH 7 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 5 Jan 2004 Box trap 56 90 2 247 2 RZW 13 Dec 2004 Box trap 51 82 5 Jan 2004 Box trap 56 90 1 224. 2 SVH 30 Dec 2004 Box trap 52 84 6 Jan 2004' Box trap ,25 40 1 245 2 (continued) 2004-05 Atlantic Tomtcod Report.doc 11/2/2007 2004-2005 Tomcod Report Appendix Table E-7. (Continued)
TgRecapture Release TtlLnt Number Date Gear Mile Km Date Gear Mile Km Sex (mm) Age SWB 26 Jan 2005 Box trap 56 90 6 Jan 2004 Box trap 25 40 1 235 2 TDO 21 Dec 2004 Box trap 25 40 6 Jan 2004 Box trap 25 40 2 271 2 TSY 30 Mar 2005 9 mn trawl 9 14 6 Jan 2004 Box trap 25 40 1 229 2 UIE 29 Dec 2004 Box trap 51 82 7 Jan 2004 Box trap 68 109 1 228 2 UKN 12 Jan 2005 Box trap 68 109 7 Jan 2004 Box trap 68 109 1 240 2 USK 26 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 7 Jan 2004 Box trap 68 109 1 231 2 VOD 3 Mar 2005 9 mn trawl 1 2 9 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 2 263 2 VGG I I Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 9 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 1 210 2 XEP 4 Jan 2005 Box trap 56 90 13 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 1 222 2 XLC 18 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 13 Jan 2004 Box trap 52 84 2 268 2.XSH 12 Jan 2005 Box trap 56 90 13 Jan 2004 Box trap 56 90 2 235 2 YH-R 30 Nov 2004 9rmntrawl 9 14 16 Jan 2004 Box trap 29 47 2 261 2 Y-7WZ 7 Jan 2005 Box trap 52 84 20 Jan 2004 Box trap 25 40 1 237 2 YZX 3 Jan 2005 1Box trap 125 140 122 Jan 2004 1Box trap 129 147 111 218 2 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Reportdoc 11/2/2007 C a 0 C--C C C C Appendix Table E-8. Mean 9 m trawl catch per ten minute tow during the trawl recapture period as an index of the Petersen estimate of Atlantic tomcod population size in the Hudson River, winters of 1982-1983 through 2004-2005.
Petersen Trap-Trawl Estimate 9 m Trawl CPUE during the Trawl Mark/Recapture Statisticsb Recapture Period Population Estimate (MillionsMenC E S SEo Box Trap Marking wih9%Cniec iisc(Geometric Mean Log Period' Trawl Recapture Period M C R R/M R/C Lower Estimate Upr No. Tows Mean) CPUE)29 Nov 1982-26 Feb 1983 2 Jan-18 Mar 1983 17,552 14,053 18 0.00103 0.00128 8.1 12.5 20.3 157 64.4 4.9 (35.6) (0.1)28 Nov 1983-6 Mar 1984 2 Jan-25 Mar 1984 25,004 6,655 24 0.00096 0.00361 4.6 6.7 10.2 242 24.2 2.0 (12.6) (0.1)2 Dec 1985-3 Jan 1986 .30 Dec 1985-21 Mar 1986 13,953 21,755 144 0.01032 0.00662 1.8 2.1 2.5 619 30.4 1.6_______(12.5) 
(0.1)14 Dec 1987-29 Jan 1988 4 Jan-22 Apr 1988 12,458 10,473 36 0.00289 0.00344 2.6 3.5 5.0 624 13.1 0.7__________
____1____ 
(7.3) (<0. 1)12 Dec 1 988-29 Jan 1989 9 Jan- 15 Apr 1989 43,589 16,776 123 0.00282 0.00733 .5.0 5.9 7.0 730 23.0 1.1________________
12.5) (<0. 1)I I Dec 1989-28 Jan 1990 26 Feb- 13 Apr 1990 26,227 7,523 28 0.00107 0.00372 4.8 6.8 10.1 334 22.1 1.7________________(10.1) 
(0.031)17 Dec 1990-27 Jan 1991 21 Jan-19 Apr 1991 20,006 4,169 25 0.00125 0.00600 2.2 3.2 4.9 587 7.0 0.3___________I_
1___1 (3.9) (0.019)23 Dec 1991-23 Feb 1992 20 Jan-26 Apr 1992 4,186 1,856 19 0.00454 0.01024 0.2 0.4 0.6 642 2.8 0.1... (1~.8).. (0.0 14)7 Dec 1992-7 Feb 1993 11 Jan- 18 Apr 1993 23,100 6,853 61 0.00264 0.00890 2.0 2.6 3.3 478 13.3 0.7__________________(6.8) 
(0.024)13 Dec 1993-30 Jan 1994 7 Feb- 17 Apr 1994 7,661 1,471 16 0.00209 0.01088 0.4 0.7 1.1 353 3.9 0.3________________
_______________
_____(2.2) 
(0.022)12 Dec 1994-12 Feb 1995 13 Feb- 19 Mar 1995 8,367 3,418 11 0.00131 0.00322 1.4 2.4 4.5 165 20.7 1.9_________________
_______ 15.1) (0.038)I II Dec 1995-19 Feb 1996 26 Feb- 15 Apr 1996 1,862 94 1 0.00054 0.01064 0.03 0.09 0.16 376 0.26 0.08_____I___I___1_ 
(0.03) (0.02)23 Dec 1996-2 Feb 1997 27 Jan-30 Mar 1997 5,743 1,711 2 0.00035 0.00117 1.0 3.3 6.1 396 4.32 0.20_______ 0.58) (0.020)22 Dee 1997-15 Feb 1998 12 Jan-19 Apr 1998 11,738 1,870 16 0.00136 0.00856 0.8 1.3 2.2 575 3.0 0.14 (2.0) (0.014)28 Dee 1998-21 Feb 1999 1 Feb-IlI Apr 1999 3,834 772 4 0.00104 0.00518 0.3 0.6 1.5 304 1 1.8 0.25 (0.83) (0.019)27 Dec 1999-30 Jan 2000 14 Fcb-9 Apr 2000 1,475 981 7 0.00475 0.00714 0.1 0.2 0.4 344 2.7 0.37 (0.94) (0.022)11 Decc2000-11 Feb 200l 15 Jan-8 Apr 2001 10,240 3,667 14 0.00137 0.00382 1.5 2.5 4.3 43 3 8.5 0.45_________________
_______ ________ _____________
______________________(5.3) 
(0.020)(continued) 0 0 0 U'0 C, 0 b 0 Table E-8. (Continued)
H___________________________
Petersen Trap-Trawl Estimate 9 mo Trawl CPUE during the Trawl Mark/ecature Statisticsb Recapture Period Population Estimate (Millions Mean CPUE SE (SE of Box Trap Marking with 95% Confidence Limits)' (Geometric Mean Log Period' Trawl Recapture Period M C R R/M R/C Lower Estimate Upper No. Tows Mean) CPUE)31 Dec 2001-17 Feb 2002 4 Feb-21 Apr 2002 326 124- 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.009 0.04 -d 374 0.33 0.042_______(0.20) 
(0.009)23 Dec 2002-23 Feb 2003 3 Feb-20 Apr 2003 951 113 0 0.00000 0.00000 0.02 0.1 -d 345 0.28 0.055 1 (.14).... 
(0.009)15 Dec 2003-1 Feb 2004 5 Jan-11I Apr 2004 9,836 2,352 13 0.00132 0.00553 1.0 1.7 2.9 481 4.5 0.34____________(2.4) 
(0.018)20 Dec 2004-30 Jan 2005 31 Jan-1 7 Apr 2005 12,492 1,497 10 -0.00080 1000668 .1.0. 1.7 3.3 389 3.5 0.31________________________
_________
0________
____ (.9) (0.0 19)t4 0 0*0 0'The winter survey was not conducted during 1984-1985 and 1986-1987.
R = number of marked Atlantic tomcod released from box traps and recaptured by trawls.M = number of fish marked and released in box traps, adjusted for handling mortality of 10% prior to I January and 2.5% on and after 1 January.C = number of fish caught and examined for marks. --cPreferred estimate.dA meaningful upper confidence limitecould not be calculated because there were fewer than two recaptures.
1~
2004-2005 Tomcod Report APPENDIX F Atlantic Tomcod Tagging Program 2004-05 Atlantic Tomcod Report.doc 11 /2/2007 C-1 a a C C C C C'Appendix Table F-i. Release and recapture statistics for Atlantic tomcod marked with visual implant tags in box traps between Yonkers and Poughkeepsie or in trawls south of the George Washington Bridge and recaptured in box traps or a 9 m trawl in the. Hudson River, winter 2004-2005.
Release Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Number SainDate Mile (mm) Station Date River Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)RZG Highland 6 Jan 2005 76 250 Marlboro 12 Jan 2005 68 255 8 6.0 5 XXT Highland 14 Jan 2005 76 226 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 231 24 3.8 5 KTR Highland 20 Jan 2005 76 136 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 142 24 18.7 6 KVV Highland 20 Jan 2005 76 255 Highland 24 Jan 2005 76 261 0 4.0 .6 ORX Marlboro 4 Jan 2005 68 248 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 245 .12 15.9 -3 OVS Marlboro 4 Jan 2005 68 130 Marlboro 6 Jan 2005 68 134 10 2.0 4 RXR Marlboro 6 Jan 2005 68 138 Marlboro 12 Jan 2005 68 137 0 6.0 -1 WZV Marlboro 12 Jan 2005 68 .134 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 134 16 26.8 0 XXM Marlboro 14 Jan 2005 68 145 Irvington 4 Feb 2005 25 150 43 20.9 5 KMP Marlboro 20 Jan 2005 68 208 West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 214 16 6.8 6 KOM Marlboro 20 Jan 2005 68 205 N/A a 19 Apr 2005 21 212 47 89 7 KPS Marlboro 20 Jan 2005 68 148 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 149 16 18.81 C86 Marlboro 1 Feb 2005 68 140 Marlboro 2 Feb 2005 68 141 0 1.0 1 F53 Marlboro 8 Feb 2005 68 148 Marlboro I11 Feb 2005 68 147 0 .2.9 -1 MNN Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 139 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 -56 268 0 1.0 ?MOE Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 235 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 243 0 1.0. 8 MPN Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 220 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 2321 4 3.1 12 MZB Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 250 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 251 0 1.0. 1 MZG Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 162 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56' 167 0 16.1 5 MZK Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 154 Battery 8 Feb 2005 5 158 51 35.2 4 OBD Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 .56 200 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 208 0 3.2 8 ODT Cornwall 4 Jan 2005- 56 256 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 -256 .0 0.9 0 ODW Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 271. Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 281 0 8.1 10 OFN .Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 165 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 169 0 3. 1 4 OHI Cornwall .4 Jan 2005 56 239 West Point-N. I11 Jan 2005 52 243 4 7.1 4 0HZ Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 248 Battery 29 Mar 2005 8 250 48 84.1 2 015 Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 -56 219 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 213 0 0.9 -6 OLG Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 .56 260 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 265 0 0.9 5 a Recaptured by the Long River Survey ichthyoplankton program in an epibenthic sled.b Growth unknown due to a length recording error.(continued) 0 0 0 0 0 a C C C 0 Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Number Station Date Mile (mm) Station Date River Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)OLO Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 228 West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 229 4 20.01 OLU Cornwall 4 Jan 2005 56 183 West Point-S I I Jan 2005 51 186 5 6.9 3 NNN Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 151 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 154 0 2.2 3 NNX Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 140 West Point-S 31 Jan 2005 51 139 5 26.2 -1 NOT Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 120 West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 121 4 -22.1 RDT Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 219. Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 220 0 4.91 SPH Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 138 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 144 0 12.9 6 SPL Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56, 147 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 147 4 10.8 0 SVJ Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 179 Cornwall 24 Jan 2005 56 176 0 16.9 -3 SVK Cornwall ,7 Jan 2005 56 154 West Point-N 26 Jan 2005 52 164 4 18.9 10 WJL Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 260 West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 257 4 0.9 -3 WLT Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 145 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 157 0 8.0 12 WLU Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 187 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 187 0 8.0 0 WME Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 210 Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 204 0 2.0 -6 WNX Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 181 West Point-N 14 Jan 2005 52 179 4 1.9 -2 WOI Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 174 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 180 0 8.0 6 WPF Cornwall 12 Jan 2005' 56 148 West Point-N 31 Jan 2005 52 150 4 19.1 2 WRE Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 161 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 164 0 8.0 3 WSF Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 167 Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 f67 0 -2.0 0 WTR Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 130 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 135 0 8.0 5 XHO Cornwall 13 Jan 2005 56 263 Garrison I Feb 2005 51 272 5 19.1 9 XUL Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 163 West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 166 4 10.0 3 XUS Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 150 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 153 0 6.0 3 XVB Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 145 West Point-N 26 Jan 2005 52 145 4 12.0 0 KAU Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 137 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 .154 18.9 -2 KCB Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 '56 200 Cornwall 24 Jan 2005 56 ~ '201 0 4.0 1 KDP Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 175 Cornwall 24 Jan 2005 56 175 0 4.0 0 KGA Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 148 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 148 4 1.0 0 SPH Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 144 Cornwall 24 Jan 2005 56 141 0 4.0 -3 LUW` Cornwall 24 Jan 2005 56 .154 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 156 4 14.9 2 AFY West Point-N 15 Dec 2004 52 180 West Point-N 16 Dec 2004 52 180 0 1.0 0 AGE West Point-N 15 Dec 2004 52 130 West Point-N 16 Dec 2004 52 136 0 1.0 6 AHU West Point-N 16 Dec 2004 52 228 West Point-N 17 Dec 2004 52 230 0 0.9 2 Alf West Point-N 16 Dec 2004 52 145 West Point-N 17 Dec 2004 52 146 0 0.9 1 (continued) 0 a 0 0 0 0L Appendix Table F4i. (Continued)
H a a-a 0 Release Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Nu~mber Station Date Mile (mm) Station Date River~ Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)AKY West Point-N 17 Dec 2004 52 146 Irvington 21 Jan 2005 25 145 27 35.0 -I AUO West Point-N 20 Dec 2004 52 221 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 223 0 10.0 2 AUT West Point-N 20 Dec 2004 52 131 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 133 4 18.1 2 BLI West Point-N 2 .2 Dec 2004 52 150 Battery 13 Apr 2005 9 157 43 112.2 7 CLU West Point-N 28 Dec 2004 52 254 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 .52 258 0 2.0 4 CMP West Point-N 28 Dec 2004 52 194 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 .52 191 0 23.0 -3 COE West Point-N 28 Dec 2004 52 212 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 216 0 2.0 4 CVC West Point-N 29 Dec 2004 52 141 1Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 142 4 7.01 EDZ West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 168 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 169 0 20.9 1 EEH West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 148 West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 .150 0 6.1 2 EGS West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 150 Cornwall 5 Jan 2005 56 149 4 5.9 -1 EGV ,West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 136 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 137 0 20.9 1 EKA West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 258 Battery 4 Feb 2005 9 260 43 36.1 2 EKD West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 188 Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 185 4 13.1 -3 ELP West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 151 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 150 0 20.9 -1 ELW West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 247 Cornwall 12 Jan 2005 56 242 4 13.1 -5 EMK West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 250 West Point-N 11I Jan 2005 52 250 0 12.1 0 ENE West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 194 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005, 56 196 4 8.1 2.EPZ West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 180 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 185 0 20.9 5 ESH West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 177 Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 173 4 15.0 -4 ESR West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 247 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 250 4 8.1 3 ETE West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 130 West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 129 0 28.0 -1 EVM West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 165 West Point-S 14 Jan 2005 51 163 1 14.9 -2 EWU West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 154 West Point-N 11I Jan 2005 52 155 0 11.9 1 FYL jWest Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 174 West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 181 0 6.1 7 FCC IWest Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 180 West Point-N I11 Jan 2005 52 179 0 1241 -1I FDA West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 146 West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 146 0 28.0 0 FFH West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 185 West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 185 0 6.1 0 FFZ West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 .224 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 223 4 21.1 -1 PEX West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 128 .West Point-S 6 Jan 2005 51 130 1 1.1 2 PFS West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 127 West Point-N 14 Feb 2005 52 220 0 40.0 93 PKW West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 132 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 131 4 .15.1 -1I POC West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 134 West Point-S I11 Jan 2005 51 133 1 5.9 ____1__POY West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 127 West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 133 0 19.0 6 (continued) 0 0 1%)0 0 (.h 0 0 b 0 Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release ________ Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Number station Date Mile (mm) Station ~ Date River Mile (mm) (mites) Large (mm)PSI West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 144 West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 146 0 .7.0 2 PST West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 133 West Point-N 26 Jan 2005 52 135 0 21.1 2 PUB West Point-N4 5 Jan 2005 52 240 West Point-N I11 Jan 2005 '52 244 0 5.9 4 PUK West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 133 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 134 0 1.9 1 PVC West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 135 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 132 0 1.9 -3 PVM West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 182 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 184 0 1.9 2'PZE West Point-N&#xfd; 5 Jan 2005 52 220 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 224 4 2.1 4 PZZ West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 150 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 147 .0 1.9 -3 RBR West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 168 .West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 170 0 _ 14.9 2 RCE -West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 120 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 122 0 14.9 2 RDT West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 215 Cornwall 7 Jan 2005 56 219 4 2.1 4 R1-Z West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 138 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 146 0 12.9 8 RIF West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 -52 144 NGarrison I11 Jan 2005 51 146 1 .6.1 2 RJO West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 238 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 240 0 16.0 2 RJ(C West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 210 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 .212 0 .13.0 2 RKH West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 -52 190 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 190 0 14.9 0 RNL West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 139 West-Point-N 7 Jan-2005 52 138 -0 1.9 .-1 RP13 West Point-N ~ 5 Jan 2005 52 273 West Point-N I11 Jan 2005 .52 270 0 5.9 -RRU 'West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 156 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 154 014.9 -2 RSL West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 245 West Point-N 24 Jan' 2005 52 245 0 18.9 0 RTT West Point-N. 5 Jan 2005 52 153 West Point-&#xfd;N 7 Jan 2005 52 155 0 1.9 2-_NXZ _West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 180 West Point-N 11. Jan 2005 52 177 0 4.1 -3 NYV West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 128 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 127 4 13.1 -1 NZW West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 218 Nyack 21 Jan 2005 29 218 23 .14.0 0 SBT West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 175 Nyack 19 Jan 2005 29 175 23 12.2 0 SKK West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 245 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 246 0 11.1 1 SLB West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 255 Nyack 4 Feb 2005 29 255- .23 28.0 0 SLE West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 129 Nyack 25 Jan 2005 29 130 23 18.0 1 SMU West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52- 159 West Point-S 11I Jan 2005 51 159 1 3.9 0 TPV West Point-N ;I1I Jan 2005 52 181 West Point-S 12 Jan 2005 51 181 1 1.0 0 TTB West Point-N I11 Jan 2005 52 195 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 195 0 7.1 0 TTE -West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 122 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 125 0 9.0, 3 TTM West Point-N I11 Jan 2005 52 113 West Point-N 14 Feb 2005 52 113 0 34.1 0 TWY West Point-N I I Jan 2005 52 .174 INyack 19 Jan 2005 29 176 23 8.2 2 (continued) 0 0 0 0 (11~1 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 H 0 a 0 0.0~0 Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release ________Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Number Station Date Mile (mm) Station Date River Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)TYK West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 220 West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 219 0 2.0 -1I UDN West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 156 Irvington 31 Jan 2005 25 153 27 20.0 -3 UDS IWest Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 260 West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 261 0 1 1.01 UJF West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 173 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 174 0 8.91 UKA West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 157 West Point-S 12 Jan 2005 51 158 1 0.81 UMIT West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 225 Cornwall 20 Jan 2005 56 225 4 9.0 0 UTH West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 170 Nyack 21 Jan 2005 29 166 23 9.9 -4 UVF West Point-N It Jan 2005 52 190 West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 180 0 0.9 -10 WAH West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 231 West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 230 0 1.0 -1 WEC West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 178 West Point-N 14 Jan 2005 52 176 0 2.0 -2 WEF West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 137 West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 137 0 1.0 0 WFJ West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 141 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 144 0 8.0 3 WHP IWest Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 138 B1attery 16 Mar 2005 9 138 43 63.0 0 WHW West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 185 West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 185 0 15.0 0 XFU West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 168 West Point-N 14 Jan 2005 52 168 0 -1.0 0 XGU West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 127 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 126 0 8.2 -1I WEC West Point-N 14 Jan 2005 52 176 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 178 0 4.1 2 VKG West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 175 West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 173 0 6.0 -2 VKM West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 198 Battery 8 Mar 2005 7 200 45 49.1 2 VLU West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 150 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 151 0 2.0 1 VZN West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 181 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 182 0 2.0 1 WEC West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 176 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 178 0 3.0 0 YAE West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 247 Battery 13 Apr 2005 9 248 43 85.1 1 YDN West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 128 West Point-S 27 Jan 2005 51 128 1 8.9 0 ELP West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 150 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 150 0 1.2 0 JPC West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 13 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 125 0 1.2 2 YWH West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 156 West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 157 0 1.21 LED West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 208 West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 202 0 2.9 -6 LEH West Point-N 21 Jan 2005 52 146 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 145 0 17.9 -1 LSA West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 179 West Point-S 26 Jan 2005 51 177 1 2.1 -2 IFE West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 261 West Point-N 31 Jan 2005 52 166 0 4.2 -95 C57 West Po-int-N -- 31 Jan 2005 52 143 West Point-N 1 Feb 2005 52 143 0 0.8 0 F21 West Point-N 8 Feb 2005 52 220 Irvington 18 Feb 2005 25 218 27 10.1 -2 (continued) 0 S 0 0&#xfd;U CD Zb Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Number Station Dae Mile (mm) Station Dae RvrMl m) (miles) Large (mm)G46 West Point-N 9 Feb 2005 52 197 West Point-N 10 Feb 2005 52 196 0 0.8 -1 AND West Point-S 20 Dec 2004 51 177 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 180 1 10.1 3 DHF West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 174 Cornwall 14 Jan 2005 56 171 5 1 16.0 -3 DIH West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 181 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52' 186 1 1.0 5 D K7 West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 202 West Point-N 18 Jan 2005 52 205 1 19.9 3 DM1 West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 160 West Point-N 11I Jan 2005 52 165 1 13.0 5 DOS West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 228 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 235 1 1.0 7 DPL West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 141 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 141 1 1.0 0 DTU West Point-S 29 Dee 2004 51 181 Cornwall 24 Jan 2005 56 182 5 26.0 1 DTY West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 143 West Point-N 27 Jan 2005 52 192 1 29.0 49 DWM West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51I 245 West Point-N 5 Jan 2005 52 245 1 6.9 0 DXG West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 250 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 256 1 1.0 6-DYX West Point-S 29 Dec 2004 51 162 West Point-N 30 Dec 2004 52 161 1 1.0 -1 EBP West Point-S 30 Dec 2004 51 145 West Point-N 11 Jan 2005 52 145 1 12.0 0 EDK West Point-S 30 Dec 2004 51 145 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 127 1 8.0 -18 OXH West Point-S 5 Jan 2005 51 297 West Point-S 6 Jan 2005 51 294 0. 1.1 -3 OXL, West Point-S 5 Jan 2005 51 163 West Point-N 24 Jan 2005 52 164 1 19.11 PAZ West Point-S 5 Jan 2005 51 137 West Point-N 20 Jan 2005 52 139 1 15.0 2 THI Garrison 10 Jan 2005 51 136 West Point-N 14 Jan 2005 52 137 1 3.8 1 UXN West Point-S 12 Jan 2005 5i 175 West Point-N 13 Jan 2005 52 174 1 1.0 -1 UZD ,West Point-S 12 Jan 2005 51 195 Upper Harbor 7 Feb 2005 --3 195 53 26.2 0 B20 West Point-S 31 Jan 2005 51 139 N/A a I IMay 2005 39 164 12 100 25 NCL Croton 4 Jan 2005 36 145 Croton 12 Jan 2005 36 145 0 8.1 01 NER Croton 4 Jan 2005 36 165 Croton 25 Jan 2005 36 166 0 21.0 1 NGW Croton 4 Jan 2005 36 145 N/A a 3fun 2005 39 172 3 150 27 VAB. Nyack 12 Jan 2005 29 166 Nyack 28 Jan 2005 29 168 0 15.9 2 VAM Nyack 12 Jan 2005 29 149 Nyack 19 Jan 2005 29 153 0 7.2 4 YSZ Nyack 19 Jan 2005 29 255 Nyack I Feb 2005 29 254 0 13.0 -1 YUI Nyack 19 Jan 2005 29 148 Nyack 9 Feb 2005 29 149 0 20.7 1 LXG Nyaek 25 Jan 2005 29 180 Nyack 28 Jan 2005 29 182&#xfd; 0 3.0 2 D42 Nyack 1 Feb 2005 29 1141 Nyack 4 Feb 2005 29 144 0 1 2.7 3 AAL Irvington 10 Dec 2004 25 1212 Irvington 15 Dec 2004 25 215 0 5.0 3 0 0 0.a Recaptured by the Long River Survey ichthyoplankton prograin in an epibenthic sled.(continued) 
-I a Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release Recapture Distance Tag River Length Length Moved Days at Growth Number Station Date Mile (mm) Station Date River Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)AAP Irvington 10 Dec 2004 25 255 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 257 0 40.1 2 ADL. Irvington 15 Dec 2004 .25 146 Irvington 17 Dec 2004 25 147 0 2.1 1 AGG Irvington 16 Dec 2004 25 151 Irvington 17 Dec 2004 25 153 0 1.2 2 AXR Irvington 21 Dec 2004 25 170 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 174 0 29.1 4 AYA Irvington 21 Dec 2004 25 244 Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 250 .0 12.9 6 BBG Irvington 21 Dec 2004 25 158 Irvington 23 Dcc 2004 25 158 0 1.9 0 BWC Irvington 23 Dec 2004 25 178 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 182 0 27.2 4 BYH Irvington 23 Dec 2004 25 143 N/Ac 3Aug 2005 r 15 201 10 223 58 BYT Irvington 23 Dec 2004 25 260 Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 261 0 10.9 1 FLE Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 139 Irvington 12 Jan 2005 25 138 0 9.1 -1 FLW Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 126 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 126 0 16.2 0 FSF Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 171 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 172 0 16.2 1 FUC Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 114 Irvington 12 Jan 2005 25 119 0 9.1 5 FUI Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 147 Irvington 4 Jan 2005 25 145 0 1.0 -2 FWG Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 185 Irvington 26 Jan 2005 25 184 0 23.0 -1I FYX Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 166 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 167 0 16.1 1 JCM Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 152 Irvington 4 Jan 2005 25 152 0 1.0 0 JKN Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 151 Irvington 4 Jan 2005 25 153 0 1.0 2 JKU Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 156 Irvington 4 Jan 2005 25 220 0 1.0 64 JLC Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 135 Irvington 21 Jan 2005 25 136 0 18.0 1 MBJ Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 145 Irvington 4 Jan 2005 .25 141 0 1.0 -4 MDP Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 169 Battery 11I Feb 2005 8 168 17 39.0 -1 MEG Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 188 Battery 22 Feb 2005 7 189 18 50.1 1 MEO Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 130 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 130 0 16.1 0 MGJ Irvington 3 Jan 2005 25 156 Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 159 0 16.1 3 SYT Irvington 10 Jan 2005 25 140 Irvington 12 Jan 2005 25 141 0 2.1 1 TDB Irvington 10 Jan 2005 25 167 Irvington 12 Jan 2005 25 168 0 2.0 1 VDB Irvington 12 Jan 2005 25 127 Irvington 13 Jan 2005 25 128 0 1.2 1 YMP Irvington 19 Jan 2005 25 143 Irvington 9 Feb 2005 25 144 0 20.8 1 GEH Battery 2 Nov 2004 9 167 Battery 8 Nov 2004 9 171 0 5.9 4 GFV Battery 3 Nov 2004 9 163 Battery 9 Nov 2004 8 170 1 6.1 7 GFW Battery 3 Nov 2004 9 .157 Battery 12 Apr 2005 9 192 0 160.1 315 Recaptured by the Fall Shoals Survey juvenile fish sampling program in a 3 in beam trawl.(continued) 0 0 0 0 U'~~1 0 0 0 CD b 0 Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release Recapture* 
-Distance Tag Rivr Legth Length Moved Days at Growth Number Station Date Mile (mm) Station Date River Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)GGH Battery 3 Nov 2004 9 200 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 209 0 15.0 9 GHF Battery 4 Nov 2004. 9 173 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 181 0 13.9 8 GHH Battery 4 Nov 2004 9 195 Battery 8 Dec 2004 8 208 1 34.0 13 GHU Battery 4 Nov 2004 -9 224 Battery 10 Feb 2005 8 230 1 97.9 6 01K Battery 4 Nov 2004 9 182 Battery 10ONov 2004 9 186 0 5.9 4 GIN Battery 4 Nov 2004 9 250 Battery 17 Nov'2004 9 260 0 13.0 10 GlU Battery 4 Nov 2004 9 '172 Battery 9 Nov 2004 9 176 0 5.0 4 GIZ Battery 4 Nov 2004 ~ 9 166 Battery 8 Nov 2004 9 172 0 3.8 6 GMK -Battery 9 Nov 2004 9 193 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 201 0 9.1 8 GNL Battery 9 Nov 2004 9 188 Battery 19 Nov 2004 9 195 0 10.0 7 GNM Battery 9 Nov 2004 -9 189 Battery 12 Nov 2004 9 190 0 3.11 GOT Battery 9 Nov 2004 .9 216 Battery 10 Nov 2004 9 215 0 0.9 -1 GOZ -Battery 9 Nov 2004 9 171 Battery 10ONov 2004 9 171 0 1.0 0 GOZ Battery 10 Nov 2004 9 171 Battery 15 Apr 2005 9 204 0 156.0 33 GTB Battery 10 Nov 2004 9 177 Battery 17 Mar 2005 9 206 0 127.0 29 GTD Battery 10ONov 2004 9 180 Battery 17 Nov 2004 9 186 0 7.1 6 GTG Battery 10 Nov 2004 9 165 Battery 11I Mar 2005 9 183 0 121.0 18 GTI Battery 10ONov 2004 9 174 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9, 181 0 8.1 7 GTL Battery 10 Nov 2004 -9 153 Battery 17 Dec 2004 5 -172 4 37.1 19 GTV Battery 10ONov 2004 9 179 Battery 19 Nov 2004 9 182 0 .9.0 3 GUG Battery 10ONov 2004 9 173 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 180 0 7.9 7 GUH Battery 10ONov 2004 9 166 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 169 0 7.9. 3 GXI Battery I 11 Nov 2004 9 186 West Point-N 7 Jan 2005 52 198 43 57.1 12 GYJ Battery 11I Nov 2004 9 270 West Point-N I11 Jan 2005 52 273 43 6103 GZK Battery 11I Nov 2004 9 151 Battery 19 Nov 2004 8 155 1 .7.8 4 GNM Battery 12 Nov 2004 9 190 Battery 19 Nov 2004 9 195 0 7.0 5 HAP Battery 12 Nov 2004 9 161 Battery 23.Nov 2004 9 166 0 10.9 5 HBB Battery 12 Nov 2004 9 194 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 189 0 6.0 -5 HBM Battery 12 Nov 2004 9 179 Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 187 0 5.8 8 HBS Battery 12 Nov 2004 9 164 Battery 18 Nov 2004 8 170 1 5.9 6 GGH Battery 18 Nov 2004 9 209 Battery 10 Dec 2004 9 213 0 21.9 4 HCI Battery 19 Nov 2004 9 192 Battery 19 Nov 2004 9 191 0 0.1 -1 GFV Battery 30 Nov 2004 9 183 Battery 8 Dec 2004 9 185 0 8.1 2 GEX Battery 1 Dec 2004 9 .207 Battery 10 Dec 2004 9 206 0 9.1 -1I (continued) 0 0 0 0 U'-~1 0 0 0.0 b 0 H Appendix Table F-i. (Continued)
Release Recapture Distance Tag ..River Length Length Moved Days 'at Growth-Number _ Station Date Mile (mm) Station Date' River Mile (mm) (miles) Large (mm)HHB Battery 2 Dec 2004 9 252 Battery 24 Feb 2005 8 263 1 83.9 11 HKE Battery 3 Dec 2004 9 210 Battery *28 Feb 2005 8 218 1 86.9 8 HEZ Battery 6 Dec 2004 9 195 Battery 7 Apr 2005 9 209 0 122.0 14 HML -Battery 10 Dec 2004 9 179 Battery 13 Apr 2005 9, 192 0 123.8 13 GEX Battery 3 Nov 2004 8 .Battery 1 Dec 2004 9 207 1 28.1 GFG Battery 3 Nov 2004 8 256 Battery 29 Nov 2004 9 260 1 26.0 4 GGP Battery -4 Nov- 2004 8 205 Battery 11I Nov 2004 9 210 1 7.2 5 GLH Battery 5 Nov 2004 8 185 Battery 13 Dec 2004 9 195 .1 38.0 10 GLN Battery 5 Nov 2004 8 165- Battery 9 Nov 2004 8 165 0 4.0 0 GFV Battery 9 Nov 2004' 8 170 Battery 30 Nov 2004 9 183 1 20.8 13 GPU Battery 9 Nov 2004 8 140 Battery 3 Dec 2004 9 152 1 23.8 .12 GPW Battery 9 Nov 2004 $ 179 Battery 10 Dec 2004 7 185 1 30.8 6 GRS Battery 10 Nov 2004 8 173 Battery I11 Nov 2004 8 174 0 1.1 1 GZN Battery I1I Nov 2004 8 165 Battery 2 Dec 2004 9 175 1 20.9 10 GZU Battery 11I Nov 2004 8 168 Battery 30 Nov 2004 9 179 1 18.9 _11 HBX Battery .19 Nov 2004 8 154 Battery 3 Dec 2004 9 159 1 14.1 5 H-EZ Battery 24 Nov 2004 8 193 Battery 6 6Dec 2004 9 195 1' 11.9 2 HFB Battery 24 Nov 2004 8 186 Battery 29 Nov 2004 8 194 0 5.0 8 HMH -Battery 10 Dec.2004 8 206 Marlboro 4 Jan 2005 68 215 60 25.1 9 GJA Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 230 Irvington 21 Dec 2004 25 240 18 46.0 10 GJF Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 188 Battery .19 Nov 2004 8 196 1 14.2 8 GJH. Battery. 5 Nov 2004 7 15*2 Battery 8 Nov 2004 9 165 .2 3.2 13 GJU Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 176 Battery .6 Dec 2004 9 189 2 30.9 13 GKB Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 180 Battery 22 Nov 2004 8 187 1 16.9 7 GKJ Battery 5 SNov 2004 7 170 .Battery 8 Nov 2004 7 173 0 3.0 3 GKK Battery 5 Nov 2004 .7 169 Battery 8 Nov 2004 7 170 0 3.0 1 GKO Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 154 Battery 16 Dec 2004 9 177 2 41.1 23 GKY Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 180 Battery 8 Nov 2004 7 181 0 2'.91 GLE Battery 5 Nov 2004 7 155 Battery 29 Nov 2004 8 .160 1 24.0 5 GKY Battery 8 Nov 2004 7 181 Battery 16 Dec 2004 8 198 1 38.0 17 GVC Battery 10ONov 2004 7 162 Battery 29 Nov 2004 9 174 .2 18.8 .12 GVI Battery 10ONov 2004 7 172 Battery .11 Nov 2004 9 175 2 1.0 3 HM13 Battery 10. Dec 2004 7 201 West Point-N 12 Jan 2005 52 205 45 32.9 4 HRP Battery 14 Jan 2005 7 191 Battery 4 Feb 2005 9 184 .2 20.9 -7 0 0 0 (Il~1 0 C)0 CD b 0 0 0 a C C 0 0 Appendix Table F-2. Summary by box trap station of the mark/recapture statistics, days at large, and distance moved for Atlantic tomcod tagged with visual implant tags and released into the Hudson River, 6 December 2004-27 February 2005.Mark/Recapture Distance between Release and Recapture Sites (M Release River Statistics Days at Large Same Station Movement North Movement South Week Station Name Mile" 7M C1 R Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min 6 Dec 2004 Highland 76 0 0 0 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 0 0 0 __Cornwall 56. 0 0 0 West Point North 52 1 1 0 West Point South 51 4 4, 0 __Garrison 51 0 0 0 NORTH 76-51 5 5 0 __Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 __Croton 36 5 5 0 Nyack 29 0 0 0 __Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 __Irvington 25 8 9, 2 -40, 23 5. 2 0 0 0 _____ ___ _ _SOUTH 43-25 13 14 2 40 23 512 0 0 0 13 Dec 2004 Highland 76 1 1 0 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 0 0 0 Cornwall 56 1 1 0 West Point North 52 58 68 5 35 8 1 4 0 0 0 _1 27 27 27 West Point South 51 149 187 0 Garrison 51 0 0 0 NORTH 76-51 208 257 5 35 8 1 4 0 0 0 1 27 27 27 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point. 41 0 0 0 Croton 36 17 19. 0 _ ___Nyack 29 1 1 0 Tarryto~wn 27 0 0 0 Irvington 25 25 34 2~ 2 2 .1 2 0 0 0 __ ____ _ _SOUTH ~ 43-25 43 54 2 2 2[ 1 2 0 0 0 (continued) 0 0 0.:0 CD*0 0 a 0 0~0 0 C Appendix Table F-2. (Continued)
MarklRecapture Distance between Release and Recapture Sites (RM)Release River Statistics Days at Large Same Station* Movement North Movement South Week Station Name Mile M C R Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N IMax IMean Min N Max IMean Min 20 Dec 2004 Highland 76 51 57 0 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 1 2 0 __Cornwall 56 0 4 0 __West Point North 52 269 300 3 112 47 10 1 01 0 0 1 4 4 4 1 43 43 43 West Point South 51 145 271 1 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 Garrison 51 6 9 0 NORTH 76-51 473 643 4 112 38 10 1 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 1 43 43 43 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 01 0 Croton 36 17 20 0 Nyack 29 2 3 0 __Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 Irvington 25 400 458 5 29 16 2 5 0 0 0-SOUTH 43-25 419 481 5 29 16 2 5 0 0 0_ _27 Dec 2004 Highland 76 0 0 0 __Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 0 0 0 Cornwall 56 0 0 0 West Point North 52 1155 1411 26 36 14 1 16 0 0 0 8 4 4 4 2 43 22 1 West Point South 51 700 781 13 29 10 1 13 5 2 1________Garrison 51 0, 0 0 NORTH 76-51 1855 2192 39 36 13 1 16 0 0 0 21. 5 3 1 2 43 22 1 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 Croton 36 0 0 0 Nyack 29 0 0 0 __Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 Irvington 25 0 131 0 __SOUTH 43-25 0 131 0 ___(continued) 0 0 0 0 U'-I 0 0 0 Q.CD b 0 0 Appendix Table F-2. (Continued)
MarklRecapture Distance between Release and Recapture Sites (RM)Release River Statistics Days at Large Same Station Movement North Movement South Week Station Name Mile M C R Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N Max IMean Min 3 Jan 2005 Highland 76 22 22 1 6 6 6 1 8 8 8 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 257 266 3 16 8 2 2 0 0 0 1 12 12 12 Cornwall 56 907 970 25 84 12 1 15 0 0 0 10 51 13 4 West Point North 52 1530 1585, 34 40, 11 1 22, 0 0, 0. 4 4, 4 4 8 23, 12 1__West Point South 51 203 235 3 19 12 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 Garrison 51 59 68 0 NORTH 76-51 2977 3146 66 84 11 1 40 0 0 0 6 4 3 1 20 51 12. 1 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 Croton 36 168 178 .2 21 15 82 0 0 0 Nyack 29 37 38, 0 1 11 11 Tanrytown 27 -0 01 0 1 11 11 Irvington 25 1065 1109 16 50 15 1 14 0 0 0 _ _2 18 18 17 SOUTH 43-25 1270 1325 18 50 15 1 16 0 0 0 2 18 18 17 10OJan 2005 Highland 76 80 82 1 4 4 4 _ _.1 24 24 24 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 352 368 2 27 24 21 ___2 43 30 16 Cornwall 56 314 337 14 19 8 1 8 0 0 0 __6 5 4 4 N West Point North 52 1280 1339 23 63 9 1 16 0 01 0 1 41 4 41 6 43 20 1_West Point South 51 184 236 2 26 14 1 __ __ 1 1 1 1 1 48 48 48 Garrison 51 60 70 1 4 4 4 __ 1 1 1 1 __NORTH 76-51 2270 2432 43 63 10 1 24 0 0 0 3 4 2 1 16 48 17 1 Peekskill 43 2 2 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 Croton 36 26 28 0 __ ____ ___Nyack 29 23 24 2 16 11 7 2 0 0 0 Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 __Irvington 25 379 417 3 2 2 1 3 0 0 0_ _ _SOUTH 43Z-25 431 471 5 16 6 1 5 0 0 0 /(continued) 0i 0 0.;01 0 ZL Appendix Table F-2. (Continued) a C 0 MarklRecapture Distance between Release and Recapture Sites (RM)Release River Statistics Days at Large Same Station Movement North 7 Movement South Week Station Name Mile M C R Max Mean 1Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min 17 Jan 2005 Highland 76 138 141 2 19 11]4 1 0 0 0 I 24 24 24 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 169 173 2 19 13] 7 2 16 16 16 Cornwall 56 244 293 4 19 7 1 2 .0 0 0 2 4 4 4 West Point North 52 1119 1182 10 85 18 1 7 0 0 0 3 45 30 1 West Point South 51 .29 42 0 __Garrison :51 11 25 0 __NORTH 76-51 1709 1856 18 85 14 1 10 0 0, 0 8 45 19 1 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 _ _Croton 36 0 11 0 Nyack 29 190 200 2 21 17 13 2 0 0 0 Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 Irvington 25 306 339 1 21 21 21 1 0 0 0______SOUTH 43-25 496 550 3 21 18 13 3 0 0 0 24 Jan 2005 Highland 76 4 5 01 Milton 71 0 0 0 _ _Marlboro 68 9 9 0 Cornwvall 56 64 75 1 15 15 15 1 41 4 4 West Point North 52 339 366 2 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 West Point South 51 20 40 0 __Garrison 51 31 41 0 __NORTH 76-51 467 536 3 15 7 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 -0 0 0 Croton 36 13 14 0 ___ __Nyack 29 92 98 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0_ _Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 Irvington 125 1 22 941 01 1__I_____ SOUTH 143-251 126 2061 1 31 31 31 11 0 0 0 (contnued 0 0 0 0 cJ~-SI 0 C.)0 CD b 0 2 , Appendix Table F-2. (Continued)
MarklRecapture Distance between Release and Recapture Sites (RM)Release River Statistics Days at Large Same Station Movement No~rth Movement South Week Station Name Mile M C R Max Mean 1Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min N Max Mean Min 31 Jan 2005 Highland 76 0 0 0 Milton 71 0 0 0__Marlboro 68 30 32 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Cornwall 56 0 -2 0 West Point North 52 157 164 1 1 1 1 1 0 0, 0, West Point South 51 36 47 0 Garrison 51 12 15 0 NORTH 76-51 235 260 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 Croton 36 6 6 0 Nyack 29 36 40 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0_ _ _ _ _ _Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 Irvington 25 83 91 0______SOUTH 43-25 125 137 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 __7 Feb 2005 Highland 76 0 0 0 Milton 71 0 0 0 Marlboro 68 6 7 1 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 Cornwall 56 1 1 0 West Point North 52 176 187 2 10 5 1 1 0 0 0 __________
1 27 27 27 West Point South 51 9 11 0 Garrison 51 0 1 0 NORTH 76-51 191 207 3 10 5 1 2 0 0 0 _ _ _ _ __ 1 27 27 27 Peekskill 43 0 0 0 Indian Point 41 0 0 0 Croton 36 1 1 0 Nyack 29 11 12 0 __ __Tarrytown 27 0 0 0 Irvington 25 74 88 0 -SOUTH 43-25 86 101 0 ___ __0 0 0 0-I 0 0 0 b 0}}