Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Results of Cross-Channel Monitoring During the Lower
Passaic River Environmental Dredging Pilot Program on the
Lower Passaic River, December 1 to 12, 2005
Report to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Timothy P. Wilson, Ph.D.
U.S. Geological Survey
West Trenton, N.J.
Fig 6C – EW velocity at M6
Discussion of velocity profiles at M2 and M6
New fig 8. 2/23/2007
Discussion on PCB homologs,
PCB homologs Dec. 6
Dissolved loads on Dec. 6
1
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………....12
Terminology……………………………………………………………………………14
Overview of Methods……………………………………………………………….....16
Sampling………………………………………………………………………..16
Calculation of chemical concentrations……………………………………..21
Calculation of flow and sediment load mass balance……………………...23
Background Conditions ……………………………………………………………....27
Salinity and Turbidity…………………………………………………………..29
Background Chemistry………………………………………………………..39
Pre- and Post-Dredging Sediment Chemistry………………….…..42
Pre-dredging Sediment Load and Mass Balance……………..…...69
Net Sediment Load to Newark Bay …………………………..……..74
Evaluation of Concentrations and Chemistry of Suspended Sediment during
Dredging…………………………………………………………………………….76
December 5 - a.m. …………………………………………………………....77
Suspended Sediment…………………………………………….…...78
Turbidity…………………………………………………………….…..78
Sediment Chemistry…………………………………………………..79
December 5 – p.m. …………………………………………………………...80
Suspended Sediment ………………………………………………...80
Turbidity………………………………………………………………...80
Water Salinity and Velocity…………………………………………...81
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles…….…..82
Sediment Load and Mass Balance……………………………….....83
Sediment Chemistry……………………………………………….….84
December 6 – A.M.…………………………………………………………...92
Suspended Sediment………………………………………………...92
Turbidity …………………………………………………………….....93
Water Salinity and Velocity…………………………………………..94
Sediment Chemistry…………………………………………………..94
December 6 – p.m.…………………………………………………………....95
Suspended Sediment………………………………………………....96
Turbidity………………………………………………………………...96
Water Salinity and Velocity…………………………………………...97
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles………...97
2
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Contents - Continued
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance……………………………....98
Sediment Chemistry……………………………………………….100
Water Chemistry and Mass Balance …………………………....101
December 7-A.M. ………………………………………………………….111
Suspended Sediment………………………………………………111
Turbidity…..…………………………………………………………112
Water Salinity and Velocity………………………………………..112
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles……..113
Sediment Loads and Mass-Balance……………………………...113
Sediment Chemistry………………………………………………..115
December 7 – p.m. ………………………………………………………...116
Turbidity……………………………………………………………...116
Water Salinity and Velocity………………………………………...117
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance ……………………………..117
Sediment Chemistry………………………………………………..118
December 8…………………………………………………………………124
Suspended Sediment……………………………………………...124
Turbidity……………………………………………………………..124
Water Salinity and Velocity………………………………………..125
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles…….126
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance……………………………..127
Sediment Chemistry……………………………………………….128
December 10 ………………………………………………………………136
Suspended Sediment……………………………………….……..136
Turbidity……………………………………………………….…….137
Water Salinity and Velocity………………………………….…….137
Comparison of Turbidity during Successive Tide
Cycles……………………………………………………………….138
Sediment Load and Mass Balance………………………………138
Sediment Chemistry……………………………………………….139
December 10 – p.m. ……………………………………………...141
Suspended Sediment……………………………………….……..141
Turbidity……………………………………………………….…….142
Water Salinity………………………………………………….……142
Comparison of Turbidity during Successive Tide
Cycles…………………………..………………………..............…143
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance ……………………………..143
Sediment Chemistry……………………………………….144
Discussion and Summary…………………………………………………………154
References …………………………………………………………………………165
3
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figures
Figure 1. Schematic diagra.m. of mooring locations and water flow in the dredge
area, Harrison Reach of the Lower Passaic River, Newark New Jersey
…………………………………………………………………………………………...15
2. Cross-sectional profiles showing ADCP bin areas for (a) line M12 and (b) line
M56; Harrison Reach, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New Jersey,
2005……………………………………………………………………………..26
3. Location of the bed sediment cores and the dredging activity during the Pilot
Program, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New Jersey, 2005……………..28
4. Water elevation at mooring 2 and periods of dredge activity in the Lower
Passaic River, December 4-10, 2005……………………………………….31
5. Hydrograph of freshwater flow of the Passaic River measured at Little Falls,
New Jersey, November 30 through December 13, 2005………………….32
6A. Salinity and water elevation, mooring 2, December 2, 2005. Arrows show
times when elevated turbidity was detected in surface (solid) and bottom
(dotted) water…………………………………………………………………..33
6B. Bottom velocity at mooring 2, December 2, 2005. Arrows show times when
elevated turbidity was detected in surface (solid) and bottom (dotted)
water…………………………………………………………………………….34
6C. Bottom velocity at mooring 6, December 2, 2005. Arrows show times when
elevated turbidity was detected in surface (solid) and bottom (dotted) water…35
6D. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts)
measured at mooring 2, December 2, 2005………………………………..36
6E. Suspended sediment concentrations estimated from ADCP reflectance at
mooring M1 and M2, December 2, 2005……………………………………37
7A. Concentrations of PCBs measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the
range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the New
Jersey NJCARP program……………………………………………………..44
7B. Concentrations of total PCDD plus PCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge
program and the range of concentrations in the bed sediment from the
2004 cores an the New Jersey NJCARP program…………………………45
4
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figures – continued
7C. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the
New Jersey NJCARP program……………………………………………….46
7D. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in the bed sediment from the 2004 cores an
the New Jersey NJCARP program…………………………………………..47
7E. Concentrations measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the corresponding
range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and from the
New Jersey NJCARP sampling conducted from 2000 to 2002…………..48
7F. Concentrations of mercury measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the
range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the New
Jersey NJCARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002………………….49
7G. Concentrations of lead measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range
of concentrations in the bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the New
Jersey NJCARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002………………….50
8. Percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) homologs by weight for pilot
dredge background samples, bed sediment samples from 2004 core C,
and New Jersey NJCARP samples of suspended sediment from the
Passaic River collected from 2000 to 2002…………………………………52
9. Flow and sediment imbalance calculated for the Lower Passaic River, mooring
line M12 to M56, New Jersey, December 2, 2005…………………………75
10A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional composite
samples collected from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December
5, 2000. Vertical lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were
collected………………………………………………………………………...86
10B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
mooring M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 5, 2005…..87
5
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figures – continued
10C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
mooring M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 5, 2005…..88
10D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 5, 2005……………………………………………………89
10E. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 5, 2005……………………………………………………89
10F and 10G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and optical
backscatter (in millivolts) the bottom water at mooring 6, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the low tide at 17:45 on December 5, 2005, and
the low tide at 5:40, December 6, 2006……………………………………..90
10H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the low tide at 17:45 on December 5, 2005, and
the low tide at 5:40, December 6, 2005……………………………………..91
11A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional samples collected
from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6, 2005. Vertical
lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were collected……….103
11B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6, 2005……….104
11C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6, 2005………105
11D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 6, 2005………………………………………………….106
11E. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 6, 2005………………………………………………….107
11F. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2 and mooring 6, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, on December 6, 2005…………………………………108
6
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figures – continued
11G and 11H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and optical
backscatter (in millivolts) in the bottom water at mooring 6, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the low tide at 19:10 on December 6, 2005, and
the low tide at 6:50 on December 7, 2005………………………………..109
Figure 11I. Percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) homologs by weight for
pilot dredge background samples collected December 6, 2005, and bed
sediment samples from 2004 core C (0 to 1 ft.) from the Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey……………………………………………………………110
12A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional samples collected
from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 7, 2005. Vertical
lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were collected……….119
12B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 7, 2005………120
12C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 7, 2005……….120
12D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 7, 2005………………………………………………….121
12E. East-west velocity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 7, 2005……………………………………………………………121
12F and 12G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the high tide at 12:15 on December 7, 2005, and the high
tide at 1:40 on December 8, 2005………………………………………….122
12H and 12I. Comparison of turbidity OBS backscatter (in millivolts) in bottom
water at mooring 1, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the high tide
at 12:15 on December 7, 2005 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8,
2005……………………………………………………………………………123
7
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figures – continued
13A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional samples collected
from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 8, 2005. Vertical
lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were collected……….130
13B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M1, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 8, 2005………..131
13C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 8, 2005………132
13D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 8, 2005…………………………………………………..133
13E. East–west velocity measured at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 8, 2005………………………………………………….134
13F and 13G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the high tide at 12:15 on December 7, 2005, and the high
tide at 1:40 on December 8, 2005………………………………………….135
14A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional samples collected
from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 10, 2005. Vertical
lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were collected……..145
14B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 10, 2005…….146
14C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 10, 2005……..147
14D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 10, 2005………………………………………………..148
8
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figures – continued
14E. East –west velocity measured at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 10, 2005………………………………………………..149
14F and 14G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the low tide at 10:30 on December 10, 2005 and the high
tide at 22:40 on December 10, 2005………………………………………150
14H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the low tide at 10:30 on December 10, 2005,
and 22:40 on December 10, 2005………………………………………….151
14I and 14J. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and bottom water OBS
backscatter (in millivolts) at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
during the high tide at 15:45 on December 10, 2005, and the high tide at
4:45 on December 11, 2005………………………………………………..152
14K. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 1, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the high tide at 15:45 on December 10, 2005,
and the high tide at 4:45 on December 11, 2005…………………………153
9
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Tables
Table 1. Volumes of water processed and sediment captured in samples
collected during the Pilot Dredge Program, Lower Passaic River, Newark
New Jersey, December 1 to 12, 2005……………………………………….19
2. Sample-specific detection limits for selected compounds in samples collected
during the Pilot Dredge program, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New
Jersey, December 1 to 12, 2005……………………………………………..20
3. Equations used to estimate suspended sediment concentrations from moored
acoustic Doppler current profiler reflectance data, Lower Passaic River,
Newark, New Jersey, December 1 to 12, 2005…………………………….41
4. Concentrations of selected constituents in samples of suspended sediment,
collected during the Pilot Dredge study, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December, 2005……………………………………………………………….57
5. Concentrations of selected constituents in bed sediment cores, collected
during the 2004 coring program in the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
and in samples from the New Jersey NJCARP Program, 2000-02………61
6. Concentrations of selected constituents in water samples collected during the
Pilot Dredge operations, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, 2005……....64
7. Concentrations and concentration ratios of selected PCB congeners in
sediment samples collected during the Pilot Dredge operations and in
samples of bed sediment from the dredge area, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, 2005……………………………………………………………………67
8. Summary of sediment mass and loads and change in flow, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, December 2, 2005……………………………………...70
9. Net downriver load of sediment calculated to pass mooring line M12 during
background days, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 2-11,
2005……………………………………………………………………………74
10. Summary of sediment mass and doads and change in flow, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, December 5, 2005……………………………………..84
11. Summary of discharge and sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River,
New Jersey, December 6, 2005……………………………………………………99
12. Summary of sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 7 2005………………………………………………………………….114
10
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Tables – continued
13. Summary of sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 8, 2005……………………………………………………………………127
14. Summary of sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 10, 2005………………………………………………………………….139
15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured on the
Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the Environmental Dredge Pilot
Program, December 5-10, 2005……………………………………………….160
11
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Results of Cross-Channel Monitoring During the Lower
Passaic River Environmental Dredging Pilot Program on the
Lower Passaic River, December 1 to 12, 2005
Timothy P. Wilson, Ph.D.
U.S. Geological Survey
West Trenton, N.J.
Introduction
To monitor the Lower Passaic River for contamination released by dredging sediment,
samples of river water were collected from cross-channel sections located upriver and
downriver from the pilot-dredge operations. These samples were analyzed for
concentrations of suspended sediment (SS) and selected organic and inorganic
compounds. The results were evaluated in combination with in-situ flow and turbidity
measurements made by instruments at four moorings surrounding the dredge area.
Sampling and analytical methods are detailed in the Final Project Plans for
Environmental Dredging Pilot Study, November 21, 2005, prepared for the Lower
Passaic River Investigation and Feasibility Study under New Jersey Department of
Transportation (NJDOT) Task Order #OMR-03-3. In this report, the cross-channel
monitoring data collected during the Lower Passaic River Environmental Dredging Pilot
Program, December 1-12, 2005, are evaluated.
A principal question addressed by the monitoring program design was “Did the pilot
dredging, under the specific river conditions at the time, release contaminated dredged
sediments to the river?” The monitoring described in this report addressed this question
by setting “far-field” boundaries located 300 meters upriver and downriver from the
dredging operations. Daily monitoring and constituent data were subjected to detailed
examination, to answer the following specific questions:
12
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
1. How did the suspended sediment in the river, determined by the cross-channel
sampling, vary during the time dredging occurred?
2. Are the variations in the content of SS captured by the cross-channel sampling
confirmed by the turbidity measured at the moorings?
3. Can any observed increase in SS be related to dredging activity? In order for an
increase in SS to be attributed to dredging, it must have occurred in the proper
spatial and time relation– that is, increased SS must have occurred downflow
from the dredge area during times when dredging was ongoing to be attributable
to the dredge operations.
4. Can observed variations in SS and turbidity of the river be explained by natural
processes in the river, such as the movement of the saltwater interface and its
associated turbidity zone?
5. How did the concentrations of selected water-quality indicators (total
polychlorinated biphenyls (total PCBs), 2,3,7,8-TCDD, sum of DDT isomers
(total DDT’s)) differ between samples collected upflow and downflow from the
dredging? How does the chemistry of the SS captured during dredging compare
with that of the bed sediment, with samples collected before dredging, and with
other background samples collected from the Lower Passaic River?
To address these questions, the SS concentrations in the cross-channel monitoring
samples were compared to the times of dredging and to the physical and chemical
characteristics of the river. Additionally, sediment loads from upstream were compared
with those from the downflow monitoring lines. Finally, the concentrations of selected
water-quality indicator chemicals were compared for the two monitoring locations with
the chemistry of bed sediment and to historic values of indicator chemicals in suspended
sediment collected from the Lower Passaic River.
13
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Terminology
The following terms are used to describe the location and direction of the river flow.
Line M12 identifies the cross section of the river starting at the south shore, through
mooring 1 and mooring 2, to the north shore. Moorings 1and 2 are the UPRIVER
sampling and monitoring locations.
Line M56 identifies the cross section of the river starting from the south shore, through
moorings 5 and 6 to the north shore. Moorings 5 and 6 are the DOWNRIVER sampling
and monitoring locations.
Because bi-directional flow occurs during tide cycles, upflow and downflow directions
are used to describe locations in relation to the direction of the water flow.
UPFLOW describes the monitoring line where water enters the study area.
DOWNFLOW describes the monitoring line where water leaves the study area.
The study area, moorings, and cross-section sampling lines are shown on figure 1.
14
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Average up river velocity = 20 cm/s
M2
M6
~25 minutes to
reach M12 from
dredge
Dredge
~13 minutes to reach
M56 from dredge
Up river
M1
M5
300 meters from
dredge to M56
300 meters from
M12 to dredge
Average downriver velocity = 40 cm/s
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of mooring locations and water flow in the dredge area,
Harrison Reach of the Lower Passaic River, Newark New Jersey.
15
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Overview of Methods
Complete details of the methods used for the chemical and sediment sampling are
presented in the Final Project Plans for Environmental Dredging Pilot Study, November
21, 2005, prepared for the Lower Passaic River Investigation and Feasibility Study under
NJDOT Task Order #OMR-03-3. Many of the sampling methods used in this study were
modeled after methods developed by the States of New Jersey and New York working
under the Harbor Estuary Plan (HEP) and the New Jersey Contaminant Assessment and
Reduction Program (NJCARP), which is a comprehensive program to evaluate the
condition of the tributaries, estuaries, and harbors of Newark and Raritan Bays and the
adjoining Hudson River (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001;
New York/ New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, 1996). Only a brief synopsis of the sampling methods used in the Pilot
Dredge Program is provided here.
Sampling
During the pilot dredge work on the Harrison Reach of the Passaic River, background
samples of SS and water were collected on December 1, 2005, from the upriver line M12
and from the downriver line M56; background samples were collected again on
December 12 from line M12 (fig. 1)1. Sampling at these locations also was conducted
during the dredge operations on Dec. 1, 7, and 8 (once per day) and Dec. 5, 6, and 10
(twice per day). Sampling for SS concentrations and for analysis for indicator chemicals
was conducted continuously during daylight hours except for brief interruptions at lunch
or for equipment breakdown. Beginning each half-hour during sample collection, boats
moved slowly from the south shore (starting at the 6-ft water depth) toward the north
shore, and then returned to the south shore. During these traverses, water was pumped
through two lines into individual sample bottles for SS and particulate organic carbon,
(POC) or through the Trace Organic Platform Sampler (TOPS) samplers for trace organic
1
The sample collected Dec. 12, 2005, was labeled as a downstream sample (labeled TD); however, it was
collected from line M12. A sample was not collected from line M56 on that date.
16
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
compounds. The inlet lines were attached to a weight which kept the intakes at
approximately 1 meter below the water surface during the outbound [south (S) to north
(N)] leg. On the return leg (N to S), with the help of a depth finder, the intake was kept
approximately 1 meter above the bottom. The duration of each round-trip traverse was
kept as constant as possible at 10 to 12 minutes.
The water and SS samples, collected by identical TOPS samplers and pumping
equipment in both boats, represent width-integrated composite samples that provide
average concentrations of SS across the channel for the entire duration of sampling.
Water was pumped up through a dedicated Teflon line and then through a pre-cleaned
(baked) canister glass-fiber filter (1 micron nominal pore size) that collected SS. The
outlet from the canister filter was then split and a small portion pulled through a glassfiber flat filter (0.7 micron pore size) and then through two columns containing XAD-2
exchange resin, which is a poly-styrene resin designed to sequester dissolved organic
compounds. The outlet water from the filters and XAD columns was collected in separate
carboys, and the volume of the processed water in each carboy was measured using a
graduated cylinder at the conclusion of the sampling. The sediment-laden filters and the
XAD columns were sent for analysis for PCBs, dioxin-furans, and organochlorine
pesticides. Because the emphasis of this work was on suspended sediment, only a few
columns from selected days were analyzed.
During each cross-river traverse discrete grab samples also were collected for SS and
POC content; one discrete sample was collected from the surface (from 1 meter below the
water surface) on the outbound leg (S to N) and a second discrete sample of deeper water
was collected (from 1 meter above the river bottom) on each inbound leg (N to S). These
samples were collected by pumping water from an intake line into individual
polypropylene bottles held in an automatic sampler. The samples provided the average
cross-sectional SS and POC content in the surface and bottom water. Because they were
collected concurrently with the TOPS composite sample, they also provided the mass of
sediment captured on the TOPS filters -- a required input for converting the results of the
laboratory analyses into concentrations. This inlet line also was used to collect composite
17
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
samples for analysis for trace elements; samples were prepared by collecting
approximately equal volume aliquots of river water on each leg of the traverse into two
sample bottles. By splitting the pump outflow of this line, both unfiltered and filtered
composite samples were collected.
An important consideration in this type of sampling, where results from different
locations and times are to be compared, is that similar masses and volumes are processed
in each sample so that similar lower detection levels are obtained from analytical
methods. In this type of sampling, the mass of sediment collected on the filters is not
known until well after sampling has ended, so volumes and pumping rates were chosen to
increase the likelihood that sufficient masses of sediment were collected to allow the
lowest possible detection level to be obtained in each sample. The masses and volumes
that were ultimately processed in this study (table 1) were similar between all pairs of
samples and were adequate to allow low-level resolution of the compounds of interest in
all samples. A summary of the minimum, maximum, and average sample- specific
detection limits for the general classes of compounds measured in this study is presented
in table 2. Detection levels are sample and compound specific; that is, each sample and
each compound (including each polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener) has a unique
level of detection that is based on the analytical methods, the measuring instrument, and
the mass/volume in the sediment. The similar volumes and masses also show that
consistent sampling methods were employed at both monitoring lines.
18
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 1. Volumes of water processed and sediment captured in samples collected
during the Pilot Dredge Program, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New Jersey,
December 1 to 12, 2005.
Sample identifier
Date and time
Volume
Mass of
Volume of water
of water
sediment
passed through
filtered,
calculated to
XAD columns, in
in liters
have been
liters
collected on
filters, in grams
TD-GFF-051201-1130
Dec, 1, a.m.
261.3
18.8
19.2
TU-GFF-051201-1130
Dec 1, a.m.
225.5
16.8
16.9
TD-GFF-051205-0730
Dec. 5, a.m.
154.9
3.83
10.5
TU-GFF-051205-0730
Dec 5, a.m.
231.8
5.19
22.8
TD-GFF-051205-1430
Dec 5, p.m.
143.2
7.92
10.2
TU-GFF-051205-1430
Dec. 5, p.m.
148.3
6.07
19.0
TD-GFF-051206-0830
Dec 6, a.m.
346.6
6.11
22.7
TU-GFF-051206-0830
Dec. 6, a.m.
305.4
7.54
26.9
TD-GFF-051206-1330
Dec 6, p.m.
235.5
8.95
19.5
TU-GFF-051206-1330
Dec. 6, p.m.
251.3
9.03
16.9
TD-GFF-051207-0930
Dec 7, a.m.
408.3
6.33
26.8
TU-GFF-051207-0930
Dec 7, a.m.
195.2
3.44
18.7
TD-GFF-051208-1030
Dec, 8, a.m.
295.3
8.46
25.3
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Dec. 8, a.m.
221.7
9.07
25.9
TD-GFF-051210-0730
Dec. 10, a.m.
323.8
10.1
20.0
TU-GFF-051210-0730
Dec. 10, a.m.
209.1
9.29
19.3
TD-GFF-051210-1230
Dec. 10, p.m.
158.0
5.48
10.5
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Dec. 10, p.m.
109.3
9.92
14.0
TD-GFF-051212-0900
Dec. 12, a.m.
309.1
8.62
33.2
19
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 2. Sample-specific detection limits for selected compounds in samples collected
during the Pilot Dredge program, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New Jersey, December
1 to 12, 2005.
[ pg/L, picograms per liter; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram; ug/kg, micrograms per
kilogram]
Constituent and
phase
PCBs, dissolved
PCBs, sediment
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Units
0.01
0.01
1.00
132
0.11
4.19
pg/L
ng/kg
Dioxin, dissolved
Dioxin, sediment
0.06
18.2
1.76
ng/kg
0.0001
0.82
0.086
μg/kg
0.026
0.77
0.17
μg/kg
38
197
116
μg/kg
1
Pesticide,
sediment
Total 4,4’-DDT,
sediment
Total Toxaphene,
sediment
except toxaphene.
20
1
Total of all
pesticides
analyzed
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Calculation of Chemical Concentrations
Analytical results provided by the laboratory (for both dissolved and sediment-bound
compounds) were in units of mass per sample, and required conversion to concentration
before use2. For the dissolved phase, the mass of each compound recovered was divided
by the volume processed through the XAD columns (table 1). To determine the sedimentbound concentrations, the mass of sediment trapped on the filters was calculated using
the SS concentrations from the discrete cross-section traverse composite samples. This
mass was used to normalize the mass of recovered compounds to provide concentration
values.
To calculate the trapped mass of sediment, the total volume of water filtered was divided
by the number of traverses (legs) resulting in the volume assumed filtered on each
outgoing (S-N) and incoming (N-S) leg. Because pump rates and the cross-channel boat
velocity were kept as constant as possible, this results in an approximate mean-volume
per leg value. The volume per leg was then multiplied by the SS (or POC) concentration
measured in each SS grab sample from the respective individual leg to obtain mass per
traverse leg. These masses were then summed (for the legs when the TOPS was operated)
to get the final mass in the processed water. Then, the concentration in mass per gram of
sediment was calculated using:
Concentration (pg or ng per gram of sediment) = (mass of chemical recovered in
filter, in ng or pg) * filter efficency / (mass of sediment calculated to have been in the
filtered water, in grams)
During the NJCARP program, field tests determined the filter efficiency to be 90 percent
(confirming the manufacture’s specifications), which accounts for the potential loss (10
percent) of sediment by breakthrough of the filters. The canister and flat filters used in
2
At the time of report preparation, the PCB and pesticide data had not been checked by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency quality-assurance officer. Several problems with the data were being
investigated, and as result, the concentrations reported and conclusions reached in this report are considered
preliminary, and are subject to change.
21
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
this monitoring work were identical to those used in the NJCARP program; therefore, a
filter efficiency of 0.9 was used in calculating the concentrations in this study.
Before normalizing, the raw data were compared to the analyses of one glass-fiber (GFF)
filter and XAD blanks to evaluate for potential bias caused by field and laboratory
contamination. The field equipment blanks were produced by opening the foil packaging
holding a GFF filter and opening the end-caps of two unused XAD columns, which were
left opened during the time when the sample filters and columns were installed in the
TOPS samplers. The blanks were resealed, handled, and analyzed in the same manner as
were the field samples. The raw data from the field blank are assumed to represent the
field contamination expected on all days of sampling, along with any laboratory induced
contamination. The raw data from the sample analyses were compared with the data from
the analysis of the filter and column blanks to determine whether the results for any
compound was (potentially) biased by field or laboratory contamination. Following the
procedures developed by the New Jersey Contaminant and Sediment Reduction Program
(CARP) that were modeled after guidance in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) dioxin analysis methods (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994), if any
compound (PCB, dioxin/furan, or pesticide) was present in a sample at a value less than 3
times the value in the field blank, that compound was to be removed from the data. There
were no compounds in any of the SS phase samples affected by the blank elimination
procedure. For the dissolved PCB and dioxin/furan concentrations, a value of 3 times was
used for PCBs and dioxin/furans, and a value of 5 times was used for the dissolved
pesticides.
One important result from the NJCARP program was the determination of the analytical
uncertainty associated with the laboratory methods. During the NJCARP program, the
analytical laboratory made repeated analyses of the standard reference materials (SRM),
which were dried bed sediment from the lower NY Harbor. The National Institute of
Standards SRM (# 1944) contained a full suite of compounds commonly found in the
Passaic River, including PCBs, dioxin/furans, organochlorine pesticides, and trace
elements. Analytic accuracy and precision were calculated for individual compounds by
22
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
repeated measurement of the sediment. Although the analytical laboratories used in the
NJCARP study were not those used in the Pilot Dredge study, both studies employed the
same analytic methods for analysis of PCBs and dioxin/difurans. For the NJCARP
program, an uncertainty of 10 to 15 percent was associated with the laboratory methods.
On this basis, the uncertainty in the analyses of this study was assumed to be 15 percent;
values that differed by less than 15 percent were considered indistinguishable. The
NJCARP study, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were determined by a high-resolution
mass-spectrometer method, whereas in this present study, OCPs were measured using gas
chromatography with electron capture detection. Thus, the uncertainty for the OCPs in
the Pilot Dredge study can differ substantially from 15 percent. The 15 percent
uncertainty is not associated with error introduced in the sampling procedures because it
has not yet been possible to collect samples in (at least) triplicate from a well-mixed
“standardized” water using TOPs.
Calculation of Flow and Sediment Load Mass Balance
The sediment loads required for the sediment mass-balance determination were
calculated for the river between lines M12 and M56, using data obtained by the automatic
Doppler current profiler (ADCP) that were recorded at the four moorings surrounding the
dredging (M1, 2, 5, and 6), along with instrument calibration data supplied by Rutgers,
the State University of New Jersey (presented in the Final Report of the Pilot Dredge
project). The loads were used to establish whether the mass of sediment moving across
each mooring line increased during dredging. Sediment load is a function of the
volumetric water flow and the SS concentration in the river. The ADCPs provided high
frequency measurements and averaging of water velocity and acoustic reflectance at each
moored site. Acoustic reflectance is a surrogate measure of the suspended sediment in the
water column and, with proper calibration, can be used to estimate SS concentration as a
function of position in the water column. ADCPs work by sending a ping of acoustic
energy up through the water column, and recording the reflectance and other acoustic
parameters in a series of “bins” of set thickness in the water column. These data can be
23
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
recorded instantaneously or averaged over a set number of pings. The setup, operation,
and calibration of the ADCPs are described elsewhere in the Final Project Report.
Sediment load was calculated by first establishing the volumetric flow that passed each
sampling line. The flow was calculated using the east to west (EW) velocity (cm/sec)
recorded in each bin sampled by the ADCPs. Velocity was converted to flow using
Qn= (Vn * An) ,
where
Qn = flow in bin n, in cubic meters per second;
Vn = velocity in bin n, in centimeters per second; and
An = cross sectional area of bin n, in square meters.
The cross sectional area for each ADCP bin was determined from the equipment setup
(distance from ADCP head to center of bin) and the cross-sectional topography taken
from the bottom topography survey made by Rogers Survey, P.L.L.C. in 2005. Cross
sections of the river at each mooring line with a few representative ADCP bins
established for these calculations are shown in figure 2. Because the ADCP head is
elevated by almost 1 meter above the river bottom, two additional bins were added to the
ADCP velocity data set; bin 0.5 with a center at one-half the distance of the ADCP head
to the bottom, and bin 0.25 at a center height of one-quarter the distance of the ADCP
head to the bottom. E-W velocities were assigned to these bins at 50 (bin 0.5) and 25
percent (bin 0.25) of the velocity in bin 1, which approximate an exponential decay in
velocity as the river bottom is approached. Using the velocities, the flow was calculated
and assigned to each bin, all bins were summed from the bottom to the water surface, and
the total flow from each adjoining mooring was summed to get total cross-section
volumetric flow for a 30-minute period3. The change in flow between line M12 and line
M56, in percent, was then calculated using
3
ADCPs at moorings 1 and 5 recorded the velocity and reflectance each half hour. ADCPs at M2 and M6
recorded values each minute. Therefore, the data from M2 and M6 were summed again to get 30-minute
total flow. This total was then added to the flow at the respective adjoining moorings.
24
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Percent change = (QM12 – QM56)*100/(QM12) ,
where
QM12 = flow measure at line M12, in liters per 30 minutes; and
QM56 =flow measured at line M56, in liters per 30 minutes.
Positive values indicate more water flowed past line M12 than M56, and negative values
indicate more water flowed past line M56 than M12. Uncertainty in the water balance
comes from (1) assuming the uppermost ADCP bin is filled with water, when in reality
the water level may have only partially filled the bin; (2) error in the bin width and crosssectional area assigned to the upper-most bins, (3) assuming the velocity measured at the
ADCP holds over the entire width of the river, (4) using only the E-W velocity, and (5)
assuming the ADCPs were at a location where they sampled approximately the same
percentage of cross-sectional flow. For this study, water imbalances less than 15 percent
were assumed acceptable, and no attempt was made to “zero” the imbalances by
changing bin areas and other parameters.
The sediment loads then were calculated using the flow and sediment concentrations
inferred from ADCP reflectance using calibration equations (table 3). These equations
were developed from concentrations of SS in samples that were collected concurrently
with ADCP measurements made from other boats (L and M boats), and by using a boatmounted ADCP in the vicinity of the four moorings. The concentrations of SS in the
lowest bin (bin 1) was assigned to the two bins added for flow calculation
25
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
1.5
M2
M1
A
1
Bin
0.5
Bin areas for M2 data
were calculated from
point C (south shore) to B
0
Bin
Elevation, in meters
-0.5
Bin
B
Bins areas for M1 were
calculated from point A
(north shore) to point B
-1
A
-1.5
-2
Bin
-2.5
-3
Two additional bins (0.5 and
0.25) were added below ADCP
head
-3.5
-4
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
95
100
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
5
10
0
-4.5
Meters from south shore
1.5
B
1
M5
M6
C
0.5
Bin areas for M5 data
were calculated from
point C (south shore) to B
0
Elevation, in meters
-0.5
Bins areas for M6 data
were calculated from
point A (north shore) to
point B
B
-1
-1.5
A
-2
-2.5
-3
Two additional bins
(0.5 and 0.25) were
added below ADCP
head
-3.5
-4
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-4.5
Distance from south shore in meters
Figure 2. Cross-sectional profiles showing ADCP bin areas for (a) line M12 and (b) line M56; Harrison
Reach, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New Jersey, 2005.
26
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
(bins 0.5 and 0.25). The estimated SS concentration for each bin then was multiplied by
the volumetric flow for the bin. The bin masses from the bottom to the surface of the
water column were summed and those totals then were summed with the values for the
associated moorings to get the sediment load in kilograms per 30-minute interval3. The
percent change was calculated in the manner used for the flow calculations. Uncertainty
in the sediment balance, as indicated by large percent imbalances, comes from the
uncertainty in the flow values plus uncertainty in the values from the calibration curves.
For this study, sediment loads with imbalances of less than 25 percent were assumed to
be equal. This is an arbitrary level of uncertainty and is not based on measurements or
other testing of the procedure.
Background Conditions
Background conditions in the river provide a baseline for comparing and contrasting the
conditions measured during the dredging. Background data were obtained from (1)
moored instrument data (turbidity and ADCP) collected on December 2, 3, 4 and 11,
2005, days when barge traffic was minimal and dredging did not occur, (2) analysis of
samples of suspended sediment collected on December 1 and 12, 2005, as part of this
study, (3) analyses of bottom-sediment cores collected during June 2004, as part of the
Lower Passaic River Investigation and Feasibility Study, and (4) analyses of suspendedsediment samples collected for the New Jersey NJCARP program during 2000-02. Data
collected by the moored instruments were available for only a part of December 1, 2005,
and were not considered in this evaluation of background conditions. The compositional
data for the bed sediment were obtained from cores collected in 2004 from five locations
in the dredge area (fig. 3) (TAMS, May 2005). The sediment from these cores was
collected and composited by 1-foot intervals from depths of 0-1ft, 1-2 ft., and 2-3ft. for
each of the 5 transects (A to E). The NJCARP data used here were collected during 200002 by Stevens Institute of Technology and the U.S. Geological Survey (Stevens Institute
of Technology, 2005).
27
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Dredge Locations
695600
New Jersey State Plane X-coordinate, in feet
695550
10-Dec
8-Dec
7-Dec
6-Dec
5-Dec
Cell row 1
Cell row 2
Cell row 3
Sediment from
cores were
composited for
each transect, at
3 depths (0-, 1-2,
and 2-3 ft.)
695500
E1
A1
C1
B1
D1
695450
E2
695400
B2
C2
D2
A2
695350
Core and cell
identifier
E3
D3
B3
A3
695300
594150
594200
594250
594300
C3
594350
594400
594450
594500
594550
New Jersey State Plane Y-coordinate, in feet
Figure 3. Location of the bed sediment cores and the dredging activity during the Pilot Program, Lower Passaic River, Newark, New
Jersey, 2005.
28
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Salinity and Turbidity
With the exception of December 9, the program was undertaken during a period of
normal tidal flow (fig. 4). During this period, freshwater flow was elevated but was
receding after a precipitation event that occurred the previous week (fig. 5). By
December 11, the freshwater flow entering the estuary had decreased to near mean annual
flow of 1,128 ft3/sec (cubic feet per second). The weather was clear, calm, and cold.
However, on Dec. 9, a snow and wind storm moved through the area and disrupted the
tidal flow. Because of this, data from Dec. 9 were not considered for background
evaluation. Inspection of the data revealed similar patterns in turbidity, salinity, and flow
during December 2-4 and December 11; therefore, data from December 2, collected at
moorings 1 and 2, were chosen to illustrate the relations between water elevation, surface
and bottom water salinity, and the turbidity in the river.
Mean daily flow for Dec. 2 was 3,475 ft3/sec, approximately 3 times the mean average
value; flow decreased steadily throughout the day (fig. 5). During each tidal cycle the
water-surface level changed by about 1.5 to 1.75 meters, and was accompanied by large,
rapid changes in bottom water salinity (fig. 6a). The salinity of the surface water changed
during each tide cycle but only by about one-half the change observed in the bottom
water. In the bottom water, the salinity change was sharp, followed by a steady plateau,
before declining with the ebb-tide freshening. The maximum flow velocity ranged from
30 to 40 cm/s (centimeters per second) during upriver flow, and was 60 to 80 cm/s during
downriver flow (fig. 6b). During times when flow velocities were increasing, the
difference between the velocity of the bottom water and surface water typically was
large; however, at other times velocities were similar throughout the water column. It is
of interest that the velocity profile at the down-river mooring M6 differed from that at
M2 (fig. 6c). At M6 the surface water velocity reached about 100 cm/s, while the bottom
water veleocity remained low, less than 20 cm/s. This difference is due to channel
morphology and the presence of the turnpike bridge immediately dowriver of M6. These
differences in velocity profiles have important implications in attempting to calculate
short-term (several hours or less) water balances and loads of dissolved constituents. The
29
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
flow direction in the Harrison Reach was dominantly east to west with an average ratio of
E-W to N-S velocity for the study period (Dec. 1 to 12) of 18.4 (at mooring 1). However,
approaching low tide, the N-S flow component would increase (especially at M2 and M5)
as water apparently drained from the south shore into the deeper channel.
30
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
1
HT
@9:25
HT
@10:24
HT
@ 11:55
HT @
22:45
HT @
15:47
HT @
13:26
HT @
23:10
0.5
HT @
0:35
HT @
12:15
HT @
2:23
HT @
1:42
0
-0.5
-1
6:32
0:32
18:00
6:00
0:00
18:32
12/10
12/9
18:00
12:00
6:00
0:00
Dredging
7:45-10:38
12:39-15:18
LT @
21:49
12:32
Dredging
9:20 - 13:27
12/8
18:00
12:00
6:00
0:00
18:00
12:00
12/7
6:00
12/6
LT @
10:32
12:00
LT @
19:48
12/5
6:00
0:00
18:00
12:00
6:00
LT @
6:49
Dredging
7:44-15:38
12/4
LT @
20:43
LT @
8:10
Dredging
9:17-12:23
13:01 -16:19
17:37 - 18:48
-2
0:00
LT @
19:12
Dredging
10:24 - 12:35
13:02- 19:03
0:00
LT @
16:50
LT @
4:05
LT
@
5:40
LT
@17:45
18:00
-1.5
LT @
5:03
12:00
ELEVATION, IN METERS ABOVE MEAN LOW WATER..
HT @ 2:23
LOCAL TIME
Figure 4. Water elevation at mooring 2 and periods of dredge activity in the Lower Passaic River, December 4-10, 2005.
[Pink lines show elevation at time of dredging activity].
31
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
4,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
Mean Annual Discharge = 1,128 cubic feet per second
1,000
500
2E
+0
Dec. 14
7
2E
+0
7
Dec. 13
2E
+0
7
Dec .12
2E
+0
7
Dec.11
2E
+0
7
Dec. 10
Dec. 9
2E
+0
7
2E
+0
7
Dec .8
Dec. 7
2E
+0
7
Dec. 6
2E
+0
7
2E
+0
7
Dec. 5
2E
+0
7
Dec. 4
2E
+0
7
Dec. 3
Dec. 2
2E
+0
7
Dec. 1
2E
+0
7
Nov. 30
2E
+0
7
0
DATE
Figure 5. Hydrograph of freshwater flow of the Passaic River measured at Little Falls, New Jersey, November 30 through
December 13, 2005.
32
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 2 - Mooring 2 Salinity and Water Elevation
14
Flow up
river
13
Surface
Bottom
Water Elevation
12
Flow up
river
Salinity, in PSU and water elevation, in meters
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
0:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
H
LT
HT
23:00
LT
-3
16:00
-2
Figure 6A. Salinity and water elevation, mooring 2, December 2, 2005. Arrows show times when elevated turbidity was
detected in surface (solid) and bottom (dotted) water.
33
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 2 AM Mooring 2 Velocity at Bottom and Surface 1meter
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
80
Flow up-river
to M12
Flow up-river
to M12
EWvelocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
-20
Bottom Bin
-= West flow upriver
Surface 1m
-40
-60
0:00:00
23:00:00
22:00:00
21:00:00
20:00:00
19:00:00
18:00:00
17:00:00
16:00:00
15:00:00
14:00:00
13:00:00
12:00:00
11:00:00
10:00:00
9:00:00
8:00:00
HT
7:00:00
6:00:00
5:00:00
4:00:00
3:00:00
2:00:00
1:00:00
0:00:00
LT
-80
Local Time
Figure 6B. Bottom velocity at mooring 2, December 2, 2005. Arrows show times when elevated turbidity was detected in
surface (solid) and bottom (dotted) water.
34
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 6 Mooring 6, East-West Velocity
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
80
East-west velocity, in centimeters per second
60
40
20
0
Mooring 5-6 DOWN FLOW
of Dredge Area
-20
Bottom ADCP bin
Average ADCP bins < 1 meter below surface
-40
-60
-= West flow upriver
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
-80
Local time
Figure 6C. Bottom velocity at mooring 6, December 2, 2005. Arrows show times when elevated turbidity was detected in
surface (solid) and bottom (dotted) water.
35
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 2 Moorings 1-2
300
Surface Turbidity M2
Bottom OBS M2
Surface Turbidity M1
250
Flow up river
towards M12
200
150
100
50
LT
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
HT
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
HT
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
LT
0
8:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS backscatter in millivolts .
Flow up
river toward
M12
Local Time
Figure 6D. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) measured at mooring 2,
December 2, 2005.
36
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 2 - M12- ADCP - SS Concentrations
Mooring 1 - bottom
Estimated concentration of suspended sediment, in mg/L
350
Mooring 1 - average top 1 meter
Flow
Up-river
toward
moorings 1-2
300
Flow
Up-river
toward
moorings
1-2
Mooring 2 - bottom
Mooring 2 - average top 1 meter
250
200
150
100
50
Local Time
Figure 6E. Suspended sediment concentrations estimated from ADCP reflectance at mooring M1 and M2,
December 2, 2005.
37
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
0
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Inspection of data on surface turbidity and bottom optical back scatter (OBS)4, a measure
of turbidity, (fig. 6d) from mooring M1 showed repeating periods when elevated turbidity
“spikes” occurred during each day representing periods when the content of suspended
sediment in the water column had increased sharply. Turbidity in the deeper water
(mooring 1) experienced the same increases in turbidity as the shallower sections of the
channel (mooring 2).
Overlaying the times when turbidity was high or when it peaked onto the plot of salinity
and water elevation (fig. 6a) (Note: the solid arrows on fig. 6A and 6B represent the times
of increased turbidity at the surface, and dotted arrows indicate increases in the bottom
water), and the plot of water velocity (fig. 6b) shows that an evident relation exists
between the times of elevated turbidity, salinity change, and high water velocity. As
described earlier, ADCP reflectance can be used to estimate the SS concentration in the
vertical water column. The plot of SS calculated from ADCP reflectance in the bottom
and surface water (fig. 6e) shows the repeating periods of increased suspended sediment,
with concentrations estimated to be as high as 300 to 400 mg/L.
These plots show that a zone of high turbidity, associated with the saltwater interface,
moved through the monitored area during each tide cycle. This natural turbid zone, which
has been reported in the literature (see references in Schubel, 1968; Geyer, 1993;
Buchard and Baumert, 1998, Chant and Stoner, 2201), results from the change in water
salinity, which causes silt-clay sized particles to flocculate in the water column. The
migration of the saltwater interface also is associated with times of high water velocity,
times when surficial bed sediment can erode and become suspended. The change in
salinity also affects the settling velocity of particles moving between the surficial fresh
water and the deeper seawater, which helps the “cloud” of flocculated and resuspended
sediments remain in the water column. Inspection of the data from all background days
showed the correlation between turbidity and salinity was strongest for the bottom water;
4
OBS, optical backscatter, is measured in volts and is related linearly to turbidity, in NTU units, and
therefore, suspended-sediment concentration. The OBS values were not calibrated to provide standard NTU
turbidity units. Turbidimeters recorded directly in NTU units.
38
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
the correlation is weaker for the surface water because turbulence from winds, passing
water craft, and other sources act to keep sediment in suspension. The lateral distance the
saltwater interface migrates upstream in the river is affected by the flow of freshwater
into the estuary, the tidal range, and other factors. The steady tidal conditions and
declining input of freshwater (except on Dec. 9) allowed the saltwater interface to
migrate completely through the dredge area on each tide cycle during the days of
dredging.
The recognition of the natural variation in suspended sediment content associated with
the migrating saltwater interface is important when evaluating the impacts of release by
dredging. Increases in SS that, at first, may seem related to dredging can simply be the
result of natural estuarine processes and tidal flow. Also, the presence of high, natural
turbidity makes it difficult to detect sediment released from dredging– any released
sediment may quickly become assimilated and lost when the natural background turbidity
is elevated.
Background Chemistry
The background chemistry of the sediment in the dredge area was determined from
samples collected pre- and post-dredging, and was compared to the data from cores
collected in 2004 in the dredge area, and with samples collected by Steven Institute of
Technology during the New Jersey NJCARP program conducted by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection in 2000-02. The bed sediment cores, collected
from the dredging cells5 (fig. 3), are described in the Final Data Summary and Evaluation
Report (TAMS, 2005). The locations of the cores and the location of the dredging bites5
for each day of the pilot program are shown on figure 3. As mentioned previously
(footnote 2), at the time of the preparation of this report, the USEPA quality assurance
review of the data set was not yet complete, and several concerns had been identified
5
Dredging cells are the square areas into which the dredge area was divided. A dredging bite is an
individual drop of the dredge.
39
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
with the analytic work. Thus, the results and conclusions reached in this report are
considered preliminary and may be subject to change in the future.
The NJCARP study used equipment and analytical procedures nearly identical to those
used in this study, including the use of Trace Organic Platform Samplers (TOPS) and
isotope dilution, high-resolution mass spectrometry for low-level quantification of PCBs
and dioxin/furans. The 2000-02 NJCARP sampling in the Lower Passaic River was
conducted by personnel from Stevens Institute of Technology, who collected samples of
river water from the site PAS-1, located at the abandoned barge on the south shore of the
Passaic River, almost directly at the southern terminus of line M56. Samples were
collected over a 6-hour period using tubing placed into the river and buoyed to remain at
1 meter below the surface. Sampling also was performed at the north end of Newark Bay
at two depths, 1 meter below the water surface (NB-1S) and 1 meter above the bottom
(NB-1D). The details of the NJCARP sampling, methods, and results can be found in the
report by Stevens Institute of Technology (2005). Only the suspended sediment phase
chemistry of the NJCARP data is evaluated in the report.
40
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 3. Equations used to estimate suspended sediment concentrations
from moored acoustic Doppler current profiler reflectance data, Lower
Passaic River, Newark, New Jersey, December 1 to 12, 2005.
[ SS, suspended sediment concentration; ABS, reflectance value].
Mooring
Equation1
M1
SS = 10^(0.0387*((ABS-3.781)/0.998) - 2.083)
M2
SS=10^(0.0387*((ABS-0.649)/1.031) - 2.083)
M5
SS= 10^(0.0387*((ABS-9.471)/0.904) - 2.083)
M6
SS = 10^(0.0387*((ABS-16.927)/0.927) - 2.083)
1
SS is in milligrams per liter, ABS is reflectance value in decibel.
41
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Pre- and Post-Dredging Sediment Chemistry
A summary of the concentrations of total PCBs, total dioxin/difuran (PCDD/PCDF),
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and total 4,4’-DDT in samples of SS and water
collected during this study is provided as table 4. A summary of the concentrations of
organic and inorganic chemical compounds the bed sediment cores collected during
2004, and in samples from the Lower Passaic River collected during the NJCARP is
provided as table 5. These data are presented graphically in figures 7A-G.
The constituents selected for evaluation are a small subset of all compounds measured in
the Pilot Dredge study. The compounds analyzed for this study were selected on the basis
of the known presence of high concentrations in the bed sediment and on their
significance in risk-based assessment schemes. Because most of the PCBs and all of the
PCDD/PCDF compounds are strongly hydrophobic and are not likely to exchange from
the sediment to the water phase if released in the water column, these compounds are
good indicators for the presence of bed sediment resuspended in the water column . Total
PCDD and total PCDF values (the sum of the congeners) are less useful indicators
because two congeners, OCDD and OCDF, are typically high in the river bed and
suspended sediment, and the concentrations of these congeners greatly outweigh all other
congers concentrations combined. Thus, a small percent change in the concentrations of
either of these two congeners can substantially affect the total PCDD/PCDF values.
Small changes in the percentage of OCDD or OCDF values can be the result of natural
variability or analytical uncertainty. Therefore, two individual congeners, 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, are likely better indicator species than total PCDD+PCDF. Likewise,
total concentration of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) is not considered to be a reliable
indicator because of the wide range of properties (such as hydrophobicity or solubility)
exhibited by the numerous compounds that were included in the analyses. Therefore, the
total 4,4’-DDT value (the sum of 4,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDD and 4,4’-DDE) was selected as
the indicator for the presence this group of compounds. The 4,4’-DDT values were
affected by problems in the analytical scheme used in this study, however. The
organochlorine-pesticides were analyzed using gas chromatography with electron capture
42
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
detection (GC-ECD), which is not a specific detection procedure, especially in complex
mixtures of chlorinated compounds such as exists in these sediments. Also, a number of
interferences and other analytical problems were noted by the laboratory for these
compounds. Therefore, the results and conclusions based on the OCP compounds are
considered tenuous.
Total PCBs in the three background samples collected on Dec. 1 and Dec. 12 ranged
from 877 to 1,000 μg/kg. Total PCB concentrations in the two samples from Dec. 1,
collected during a period of downriver flow, differed by 123 μg/kg, which is equivalent
to a 12 percent decrease from the upflow sample concentration, within the assumed
uncertainty of the analysis6. The concentrations in the background samples fall within the
range of the total PCB concentrations in the NJCARP data from PAS-1 and the two
Newark Bay samples, which ranged from 466 to 1,345 μg/kg. These values show that
there is a large range in total PCB concentrations for the Lower Passaic River. The range
for PCB concentrations in the surface (0-1 ft depth) layer of the bed sediment in cores
collected during 2004 is 1,450 to 2,000 μg/kg; the average is 1,660 μg/kg. These values
for the bed sediment (the sediment most likely to be mobilized by river tidal flow and by
dredging) are much greater than the total PCB concentrations in the background samples
from the 2005 Pilot-Dredge study and are similar to the lowest values in the NJCARP
data from PAS-1 and Newark Bay samples (fig. 7a). The samples of sediment collected
in 2004 and buried deeper than 1 ft in the riverbed contained total PCB concentrations as
great as 7,830 μg/kg.
6
Differences in concentrations are calculated as difference = upflow – downflow concentrations. Percent
change is calculated as percent change = (difference/upflow concentration) *100. Negative values
indicate a loss between upflow and downflow sampling lines.
43
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
9,000
Total polychlorinated biphenyls, in micrograms per kilogram
A
Pilot dredge suspended sediment, December 1 to 12, 2005
0 to 1 feet below river bottom
8,000
1 to 2 feet below river bottom
2 to 3 feet below river bottom
7,000
NJ CARP Passaic River suspended sediment
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
Pilot dredge
1
data
2
3
4
2004 Passaic River bottom sediments
5
NJ CARP
data
6
7A. Concentrations of PCBs measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the New
Jersey CARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002.
44
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Concentration of total PCDDs plus PCDFs, in nanograms per kilogram
100
B
Pilot dredge data, December 1 to 12, 2005
0 to 1 foot below river bottom
90
1 to 2 feet below river bottom
2 to 3 feet below river bottom
80
NJ CARP Passaic River suspended sediment
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
Pilot dredge
data
2
2004 Passaic River
3 bottom sediment
4
NJ CARP
5 data
6
7B. Concentrations of total PCDD plus PCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in the bed sediment from the 2004
cores an the New Jersey CARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002.
45
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
3,000
C
Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, in nanograms per kilogram
2,750
Pilot dredge suspended sediment data, December 1 to 12, 2005
0 to 1 foot below river bottom
2,500
1 to 2 feet below river bottom
2,250
2 to 3 feet below river bottom
NJ CARP Passaic River suspended sediment
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
0
1
Pilot dredge data
2
3 bottom sediment 4
2004 Passaic River
5 data
NJ CARP
6
7C. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and
the New Jersey CARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002.
46
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
1,000
Pilot dredge suspended sediment data, December 1 to 12, 2005
D
0 to 1 foot below river bed
Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF, in nanograms per kilogram
900
1 to 2 feet below river bed
2 to 3 feet below river bed
800
NJ CARP Passaic River suspended sediment
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
1
Pilot dredge
data
2
2004 Passaic River
3 bottom sediment 4
NJ CARP
5 data
6
7D. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in the bed sediment from the 2004
cores an the New Jersey CARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002.
47
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
450
E
Pilot dredge study, December 1 to 12, 2005
Concentration of total 4,4'-DDTs, in micrograms per kilogram
400
0 to 1 foot below river bed
1 to 2 feet below river bed
350
2 to 3 feet below river bed
300
NJ CARP Passaic River suspended sediment
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0
1.0data
Pilot dredge
2.0
3.0 bottom sediments4.0
2004 Passaic River
NJ CARP
data
5.0
6.0
Figure 7E. Concentrations of total 4,4’-DDTs measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the corresponding range of concentrations in
bed sediment from the 2004 cores and from the New Jersey CARP sampling conducted from 2000 to 2002.
48
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
14
F
Pilot dredge data, December 1 to 12, 2005
0 to 1 foot below river bed
1 to 2 feet below river bed
12
Concentration of mercury, in milligrams per kilogram
2 to 3 feet below river bed
NJ CARP suspended sediment data
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
Pilot dredge
1 data
2
2004 Passaic
3 River bottom sediment
4
5
NJ CARP data
6
7F. Concentrations of mercury measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the
New Jersey CARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002.
49
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
1,200
Pilot dredge data, December 1 to 12, 2005
G
0 to 1 foot below river bed
1 to 2 feet below river bed
2 to 3 feet below river bed
Concentration of lead, in milligrams per kilogram
1,000
NJ CARP suspended sediment data
800
600
400
200
0
0
1 data
Pilot dredge
2
2004 Passaic3 River bottom sediment
4
5
NJ CARP data
6
7G. Concentrations of lead measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in the bed sediment from the 2004 cores and the
New Jersey CARP program conducted from 2000 to 2002.
50
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
A plot of the percentage of each PCB homolog (fig. 8) shows that the homolog
distribution in the samples from the Pilot Dredge program differs only slightly from the
congener distribution of the bed sediment (Core transect C in figure 3, 0-1, 1-2, and 2-3
foot depth) and both distributions are very similar to that in the PAS-1 suspended
sediment samples. As expected, the homolog distribution in the background suspended
sediment samples is most similar to the distribution in the 0-1 ft. depth sediment cores.
Sediment from deeper in the botton-sediment has a slightly higher percentages of pentaand tetra- (especially in the 2-3 ft depth), and slightly lower percentages of hexa- and
hepta- congeners. However, the differences among homolog percentages in the various
samples is very small and may be the result of differences in analytical methods, or more
likely, because a slightly different congener suite was measured in the NJCARP study (a
different number of individual congeners were sought in the NJCARP study). What ever
the cause, the slight differences in homolog distribution among sample (fig. 8) indicates
that it is unlikely that changes in homolog distribution in the suspended sediment can be
used to indicate that dredged bottom-sediment were released to the water column.
The three background samples from the Pilot Dredge program have very similar
individual congener concentrations, as well as the presence/absence of congeners that are
in the surfacial (0-1ft) samples from the five bed sediment cores. In fact, all congeners
present in the surface bed sediment also were present in the SS, thereby precluding the
presence of a unique “tracer” PCB in the bed sediment. Upon inspection of the individual
concentrations available, nine congeners found to be present at nearly 5 times or greater
(by weight) in the bed sediment than in background SS samples (collected December 1
and 12) (table 7). These congeners are PCB 16, 17, 21, 25, 34, 96, 107, 137, and 150.
Three other congeners are of special interest --PCB 11, which was identified in the
NJCARP work as a tracer of pigments, and PCBs 77 and 126, congeners that have the
highest co-planar PCB toxic equivalency factors. The ratios of the concentrations of this
suite of 12 congeners in the bed sediment to the concentrations in the background SS
samples were much greater than 5 (some well over 15) for the 1-2 ft and 2-3 ft depths of
51
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Percent of totalpolychlorinated biphenyl, in weight percent
35
Core C 0 to 1 ft
Core C 1 to 2 ft
Core C 2 to 3 ft
PAS -1 Average
TU Dec. 5
TD Dec. 5
30
TD Dec. 12
25
Core C
20
15
PAS-1 and Pilot
Dredge samples
10
5
0
Mono
Di
Tri
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Nona
Deca
Homolog group
Figure 8. Percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) homologs by
weight for pilot dredge background samples, bed sediment samples from
2004 cores C, and New Jersey CARP samples of suspended sediment from
the Passaic River collected from 2000 to 2002.
[PAS-1, Passic River CARP sample site; C, core transect C in figure 3; TU,
upriver sample site; TD, downriver sample site].
52
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
the cores (table 7). Thus, the presence of high concentrations of these congeners in the SS
collected during dredging, relative to the three background samples, could indicate that
deep (1-3 ft) bed sediment was released into the water column. Inspection of the PCB
data for all samples collected during dredging showed that the ratios of the bed-sediment
congener concentrations to the concentrations in background samples generally were near
1 (table 7), which is also the ratio of the total PCBs concentrations in the bed-sediment
samples relative to background samples. If ratios greater than or equal to 1.5 are
arbitrarily considered “elevated”, than ratios for samples *TU-051205-1430, TD-0512061330, *TD-051207-930, *TD-051208-1030, and TD-051210-7:30 could indicate a rise in
concentrations occurred that could relate to bed sediment having been introduced into the
water column (* indicates samples collected upflow from the dredging operations). Of
these samples, the sample TD-GFF-051206-1330 shows the most consistently elevated
ratios for all the selected congeners. However, the following were considered in the
evaluation: (1) elevated congener ratios are not consistent across all 12 congeners, and (2)
the ratios for the SS samples do not approach the high ratios for the bed sediment
samples. Thus, there was no clear evidence that, during dredging, any of the
concentrations of these 12 congeners became elevated in the suspended sediment above
the concentrations in background samples. The author emphasizes that the concentrations
of this suite of congeners in the samples collected during background sampling and
during dredging fall within the range of their respective concentrations in the NJCARP
samples.
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are known to be elevated in the bed sediment of the
Passaic River, and together with 2,3,7,8-TCDF, may serve as a tracer of bed sediment
released to the river during dredging. Concentrations of total PCDD plus PCDF also were
evaluated, but these values are less reliable than others because they are controlled by the
very high concentrations of OCDD and OCDF congeners. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentrations in the sample collected downriver on Dec 17 and the sample collected
during post-dredging on Dec. 12 were similar, 258 and 267 ng/kg, respectively, and the
concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF were 13 and 18 ng/kg, respectively. These 2,3,7,8-TCDD
7
Results for the upriver sample TU-051201-1130 were not provided by the laboratory.
53
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
concentrations are nearly the same as the average for the PAS-1 samples (279 ng/kg);
however, the range of values in the PAS-1 samples is large (25-437 ng/kg) (figs. 7b to
7d). Average concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the surface and middle layers of the bed
sediment (0-1 and 1-2 ft depths; 336 and 374 ng/kg) were higher than the concentrations
in background samples. The ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the concentration of total TCDD
compounds could be a useful indicator of contaminated Passaic River sediment. The
ratios in the surface bed sediments (0-1 ft) from the 2004 core ranged from 0.66 to 0.89;
similar ratios were determined for the 0-1, 1-2, and 2-3 ft. depths (table 5). The ratios of
total TCDDs for background samples of SS collected Dec. 1 and Dec. 12 are 0.75 and
0.63, respectively, which are less than to within the range of ratios for the bed sediments.
The average 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentration was higher for the PAS-1 samples (244 ng/kg)
than for the background monitoring samples, but again, the background samples are
within but near the lower end of the large range of concentrations in the NJCARP
samples (6.3-870 ng/kg). The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the Pilot Dredge
background samples (13 and 18 ng/kg) were lower than average values for the bed
sediment (table 5; figs. 7b to 7d).
Concentrations of total OCPs in the three background monitoring SS samples ranged
from 411 to 709 μg/kg 8; however, concentrations of total OCPs are not reliable values
for comparisons because different suites of compounds and different analytical methods
were used in the various studies. The dominant OCP compound in the suspended
sediment samples were 4,4-DDT and its degradation products (4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE).
The concentrations of total 4,4-DDT (the sum of DDT, DDE, and DDD) ranged from 178
to 421 μg/kg, most of which (40 to 86 percent) was 4,4’-DDD, followed by 4,4’-DDE
and 4,4’-DDT. The concentrations of total 4,4’-DDT in the PAS-1 samples ranged from
58 to 153 μg/kg (120 μg/kg average), and concentrations in samples from Newark Bay
were 50 to 120 μg/kg. Values from both depths were lower than the background
concentrations measured in this study (figure 7e). The average concentration of total 4,4’DDTs was 195 μg/kg for the 0 to 1 ft section of the bottom cores, 105 μg/kg for the 1to
8
Total OCP content was not compared throughout this report because different methods were used for
analysis and different compounds were reported for some of the samples.
54
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
2 ft and 165 μg/kg for the 2 to 3ft sections. Thus, it appears that the highest
concentrations of 4,4’-DDT in these various data sets were present in the SS samples
collected during the pilot dredge operations. As a result, bed sediment released during
dredging would cause concentrations of total 4,4’-DDT in the SS load in the river to
decline.
Total DDT’s in the PAS-1 samples were composed of approximately 50 percent 4,4’DDD and 25 percent each of 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDT, nearly identical to the composition
of samples collected during dredging. In SS from Newark Bay, the average composition
of total 4,4’-DDT was 45 to 48 percent 4,4’-DDE, 37 to 40 percent 4,4’DDD, and 11to
17 percent 4,4’-DDT. On average, the total DDT in the bed sediment consisted of
approximately 50 percent 4,4’-DDT, 40 percent 4,4’-DDD and 10 percent 4,4’-DDE,
which is similar to the values in the background samples. Deeper in the bed sediment (2-3
ft), 4,4’-DDE becomes the dominant (up to 64 percent on average) compound.
Mercury (Hg) and lead (Pb) were measured only in selected samples that were collected
during the Pilot Dredge operations. Concentrations in the SS were determined by the
difference between the total (whole water) and the dissolved fraction concentrations,
multiplied by the average SS concentration calculated for the composite water sample.
Concentrations of Hg and Pb in the two background samples of SS collected on Dec. 1
were 0.190 mg/kg and 0.285 mg/kg, respectively. These values are within or slightly
greater than the range of Hg and Pb in SS reported by NJCARP for PAS-1 and Newark
Bay samples (0.427 to 3.37 mg/kg for Hg; 112 to 322 mg/kg for Pb).
Concentrations of dissolved organic species were measured in water samples collected on
selected dates, with pairs of samples collected Dec.1 and Dec 6. (pm) (table 5). In the
background samples collected Dec. 1 and 12, the concentrations of total dissolved PCBs
ranged from 3,610 to 4,800 pg/L (picograms per liter). These values are within the range
reported for the NJCARP samples from the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay.
Dissolved PCDD/PCDF species were not measured in the NJ CARP program, so no
comparison can be made for these compounds. Values for dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
55
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
2,3,7,8-TCDF were reported as estimated maximum possible concentrations because
values were at or below the method detection level for the analysis. These concentrations
were all less than 0.20 pg/L. Total 4,4’-DDT concentrations in the background samples
ranged from 0.441 ng/L to 0.630 ng/L (nanograms per liter), which are within the range
reported by NJCARP for PAS-1 and Newark Bay samples (0.34 to 1.69 ng/L of total
DDT, including the 2,2’-isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD).
56
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 4. Concentrations of selected constituents in samples of suspended sediment,
collected during the Pilot Dredge study, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December,
2005.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and difurans; Hg, mercury; Pb, lead; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram;
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
Dec. 6, 1330
Dec. 6, 1330
Upriver
Downriver
TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
Dec. 7, 930
Dec. 7, 930
Downriver
Upriver
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Dec. 8, 1030
Dec. 8, 1030
Downriver
Upriver
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
Dec. 10, 730
Dec. 10, 730
Upriver
Downriver
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Dec. 10, 1230
Dec. 10, 1230
Downriver
Upriver
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
Dec. 12, 900
Dec. 12, 730
Upriver
2,3,7,8-TCDD Difference2 ,
in ng/kg and percent
Upriver
Downriver
2,3,7,8-TCDD, in
ng/kg
Dec. 6, 830
Dec. 6, 830
Difference2 , in μg/kg and
percent
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TD-GFF-051206-0830
Total PCDD + PCDF2, in μg/kg
Upriver
Downriver
Difference2, in μg/kg and
percent
Dec. 5, 1430
Dec. 5, 1430
-258
---
973
523
-450
-46%
13.3
4.15
-9.15
-69
306
159
-148
-48%
1,590
142
-1,450
-91%
17.3
11.8
-5.50
-32
1,080
550
-532
-49%
1,100
1,090
-10
-.9%
12.8
11.0
-1.8
-14
372
260
-112
-43%
967
1,540
+572
+59%
15.3
12.3
-3.0
-20
309
412
+103
+33%
1,050
1,230
+182
+17%
14.6
12.2
-2.40
-16
1,080
342
-734
-68%
1,380
791
-588
-43%
14.3
10.6
-3.7
-26
510
2,680
+2,170
425%
1,220
1,190
-33
-2.5%
13.8
12.5
-1.3
-9
1,590
428
-1,160
-73%
Î
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
---
Î
Upriver
Downriver
-6.99
Î
Dec. 5, 730
Dec. 5, 730
-123
-12%
Î
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
1,000
877
Î
Upriver
Downriver
Dominant
flow
direction
Î
Dec. 1, 1130
Dec. 1, 1130
Sample identifier
Î
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
1
Î
Location
of
sample
site in
relation
to
dredge
Î
Date and
time
Total PCBs
μg/kg
μg/g, micrograms per gram; ng/g, nanograms per gram; %, percent; shaded values are percent]
1,210
1,290
+80
+6.6%
11.9
13.8
+1.9
+16
381
390
+8.4
+2.2%
---
934
--
---
10.2
--
---
267
--
---
57
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 4. Concentrations of selected constituents in samples of suspended sediment,
collected during the Pilot Dredge study, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December,
2005. -- Continued
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and difurans; Hg, mercury; Pb, lead; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram;
-0.75
411
478
+67
+16%
178
250
+72
+40%
Î
23
12
-11
-48%
.73
.73
280
153
-127
-45%
127
64.2
-63
-50%
Î
30
43
+13
+43%
.82
.28
717
258
-459
-64%
398
121
-277
-70%
Î
22
25
+3.0
+14%
.67
.76
396
430
+34
+7.9%
213
248
+35
+14%
Î
19
18
-1.0
-5%
.67
.69
220
509
+289
+131%
-278
-+275%
Î
30
26
-4.0
-13
.77
.91
412
328
-84
-20%
214
168
-46
-22%
Î
27
18
-9.0
-33%
.70
.98
418
193
-225
-54%
218
89
-129
-59%
+2.0
+9%
.89
.67
504
560
+56
+11%
158
167
+9.0
5.7%
+5.0
+23%
.65
.65
221
493
+272
+123%
76
224
+148
+195%
---
.63
--
709
--
---
421
--
---
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TD-GFF-051206-0830
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Î
23
25
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Î
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
22
27
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
---
18
--
5
Table 4. Concentrations of selected constituents in samples of suspended sediment,
collected during the Pilot Dredge study, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December,
2005. -- Continued
58
and
percent
Total OCPs3 , in
,μg/kg
---
Difference2, in μg/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD/total tetraTCDD’s
-13
Total 4,4’-DDTs4 , in
μg/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Difference2, , in ng/kg
and percent
---
and
percent
2,3,7,8-TCDF, in
ng/kg
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
1
Difference2, in μg/kg
Sample identifier
Dominant
flow direction
μg/g, micrograms per gram; ng/g, nanograms per gram; %, percent; shaded values are percent]
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and difurans; Hg, mercury; Pb, lead; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram;
Difference in Hg, in ng/g
and percent
Sediment-bound Pb, in
ug/g
Difference in Pb, in ug/g
and percent
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051212-0900
----
-190
--
----
285
---
----
Î
---
---
---
---
Î
---
---
321
---
715
374
-341
-48%
384
--
---
Î
569
--
---
377
910
+533
+141%
Î
-696
---
230
303
+73
+32%
Î
-361
---
232
358
+126
+54%
---
-384
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051206-0830
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Î
-724
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Î
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
--
Sediment-bound Hg, in
ng/g
Sample identifier
Dominant
flow direction
μg/g, micrograms per gram; ng/g, nanograms per gram; %, percent; shaded values are percent]
---
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
---
---
59
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
1. Samples beginning with TU were collected from upriver line M12. Samples beginning with TD
were collected from the downriver line M56.
2.Negative differences indicate loss from upflow to downflow sample, + values indicate increase.
Percent difference calculated as (delta concentration/upflow concentration) *100
3.Total OCP value does not include toxaphene.
4. Total 4,4’-DDTs value is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations.
5. Concentration of 4,4’-DDT not reported for this sample: total could not be calculated.
60
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 5. Concentrations of selected constituents in bed sediment cores, collected during
the 2004 coring program in the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, and in samples from the
New Jersey CARP Program, 2000-02.1
[PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and difurans; Hg,
mercury; Pb, lead; μg/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram; mg/kg, milligrams per
Total 4,4’-DDTs2, in
μg/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD/total TCDD
(unitless)
2,3,7,8-TCDF, in
ng/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD, in
ng/kg
Total PCBs, in
μg/kg
Sample site
Total PCDD + PCDF, in
μg/kg
kilogram; nd, not determined]
Bed sediment – 2004 cores
0-1 ft depth
Average
Range
1,660
1,450-2,000
9.3
5.9-14
336
200-560
64
35-140
.72
.66-.89
195
84-260
1-2 ft depth
Average
Range
3,350
3,140-3,940
14.2
5.6-28
374
220-520
71
36-92
.71
.63-.79
105
70-143
2-3 ft depth
Average
Range
6,600
5,510-7,830
18.6
5.0-23
1,020
300-1,600
83
20-120
.80
.77-.84
165
116-241
NJCARP Suspended Sediment
CARP DATA2
Station PAS-1
Average
Range
879
610-1,345
8.98
1.3-12.4
279
25-437
244
6.3-870
nd
154
92-238
Station NB-1S Shallow
Average
Range
861
590-1,275
7.76
2.4-11.7
98
23-202
58
11-155
nd
99
66-120
Station NB-1D Deep
Average
Range
714
466-966
6.89
0.9-12.9
83
5.8-210
41
4-59
nd
64
50-79
1. New Jersey CARP (Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Program) data provided by Joel Pechiolli, N. J.
Department of Environmental Protection, 2006.
2. Total 4,4’-DDTs is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations.
61
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 5. Concentrations of selected constituents in bed sediment cores, collected during
the 2004 coring program in the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, and in samples from the
New Jersey CARP Program, 2000-02.1 - - Continued.
[PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and difurans; Hg,
mercury; Pb, lead; μg/kg, nanograms per gram; ng/kg, picograms per gram; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram;
Sediment-bound Pb, mg/kg
Sample
Sediment-bound Hg, mg/kg
nd, not determined]
Bed sediment – 2004 cores
0-1 ft depth
Average
Range
2.3
2.2-2.4
281
260-307
1-2 ft depth
Average
Range
4.1
3.7-4.6
451
437-477
2-3 ft depth
Average
Range
5.1
3.9-7.5
647
570-760
NJ CARP Suspended Sediment
CARP DATA2
Station PAS-1
Average
Range
2.1
1.6-2.4
200
144-234
Station NB-1S Shallow
Average
Range
2.1
0.43-3.3
227
154-322
Station NB-1D Deep
Average
Range
2.3
1.2-3.1
188
112-255
62
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 5. Concentrations of selected constituents in bed sediment cores, collected during
the 2004 coring program in the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, and in samples from the
New Jersey CARP Program, 2000-02.1 - - Continued.
[PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; Hg, mercury; Pb, lead; μg/kg, nanograms per gram; ng/kg,
Dissolved Pb, ng/L
Total 4,4’-DDTs2
ng/L
Sample
Dissolved Hg, ng/L
picograms per gram; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram]
NJ CARP Dissolved concentrations
CARP DATA2
Station PAS-1
Average
Range
0.86
.41-1.69
0.81
.47-1.09
310
241-395
Station NB-1S Shallow
Average
Range
.67
.34-1.31
0.54
.50- .57
236
183-312
Station NB-1D Deep
Average
Range
.67
.20-1.35
0.45
.34- .55
268
194-413
Average Passaic River freshwater
3. New Jersey CARP data provided by J. Pecchioli
4.
total 4,4’-DDTs is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations
63
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 6. Concentrations of selected constituents in water samples collected during the
Pilot Dredge operations, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, 2005.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzop-dioxin and difurans; pg/L, picogram per liter; ng/L; nanogram per liter; %, percent; shaded values are
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
Dec. 6, 1330
Dec. 6, 1330
Up
Down
TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
Dec. 7, 930
Dec. 7, 930
Down
Up
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Dec. 8, 1030
Dec. 8, 1030
Down
Up
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
Dec. 10, 730
Dec. 10, 730
Up
Down
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Dec. 10, 1230
Dec. 10, 1230
Down
Up
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
Dec. 12, 900
Dec. 12, 730
Up
2,3,7,8-TCDD Difference2 ,
in pg/L and percent
Up
Down
2,3,7,8-TCDD, in
pg/L
Dec. 6, 830
Dec. 6, 830
Difference2 , in pg/L and
percent
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TD-GFF-051206-0830
Total PCDD + PCDF2 , in pg/L
Up
Down
0.02
11
na
na
---
na
na
---
na
na
---
na
3,710
---
na
4.94
---
na
0.20*
---
na
na
---
na
na
---
na
na
---
3,010
3,670
660
22
2.54
1.98
-0.56
-22
0.16
0.14*
-0.02
-13
na
4,060
---
na
2.52
---
na
0.16*
---
na
3,350
---
na
1.68
---
na
0.12*
---
na
3,880
---
na
3.14
---
na
0.16
---
na
na
na
na
---
na
na
---
---
3,310
--
1.13
--
---
0.11*
--
---
Dominant
flow
direction
Total PCBs, in pg/L
Dec. 5, 1430
Dec. 5, 1430
0.19*
0.21*
Î
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
-0.22
-7.5
Î
Up
Down
2.93
2.71
Î
Dec. 5, 730
Dec. 5, 730
1,190
33
Î
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
3,610
4,800
Î
Up
Down
Î
Dec. 1, 1130
Dec. 1, 1130
Sample identifier
Î
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
1
Î
Location
of
sample
site in
relation
to
dredge
Î
Date and
time
Difference2 , in pg/L and
percent
percent; na, not analyzed; --, not applicable; * values are estimated maximum possible concentration]
-----
64
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 6. Concentrations of selected constituents in samples collected during the Pilot
Dredge operations, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey – Continued.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PCDD + PCDF, polychlorinated dibenzop-dioxin and difurans; pg/L, picogram per liter; ng/L; nanogram per liter; %, percent; shaded values are
0.56
0.56
3.628
4.497
0.869
24
0.538
0.630
0.092
17
Î
na
na
---
na
na
na
na
---
na
na
---
Î
na
0.17
---
na
0.66
na
2.849
---
na
0.505
---
Î
na
na
---
na
na
na
na
---
na
na
---
Î
0.14
0.15
0.01
7.0
0.50
0.49
3.192
2.074
-1.118
-35
0.624
0.442
-0.182
-29
Î
na
0.14
---
na
0.46
na
3.192
---
na
0.624
---
Î
na
0.11
---
na
0.49
na
2.673
---
na
1.090
---
---
na
0.51
na
4.474
---
na
0.510
---
---
na
na
na
na
---
na
na
---
---
0.50
--
3.041
--
---
0.441
--
---
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TD-GFF-051206-0830
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Î
na
0.14
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Î
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
na
na
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
---
0.10
--
1. Samples beginning with TU were collected from upriver line M12. Samples beginning with TD
were collected from the downriver line M56.
65
and
percent
Total OCPs3, in
ng/L
0.04
29
Difference2 , in ng/L
2,3,7,8-TCDD/total tetraTCDD’s (unitless)
0.14
0.18
Total 4,4’-DDTs4 , in
ng/L
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Difference2, in pg/L and
percent
---
and
percent
2,3,7,8-TCDF, in
pg/L
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
Difference2, in ng/L
Sample
Dominant
flow direction
percent; na, not analyzed; --, not applicable; * values are estimated maximum possible concentration]
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
2.Negative difference indicate loss from up flow to down flow sample, + values indicate increase.
Percent difference calculated as (delta concentration/up flow concentration) *100.
3.Total OCP value does not include toxaphene.
4. Total 4,4’-DDTs value is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations.
66
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 7. Concentrations and concentration ratios of selected PCB congeners in sediment samples collected during the Pilot Dredge operations and in
samples of bed sediment from the dredge area, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, 2005.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; concentrations are in nanograms per kilogram except total PCB, which is in micrograms per kilogram; μg/kg, micrograms per
PCB-96
PCB-107
PCB-126
PCB-137
PCB-150
6,090
435
1,120
138
1,590
159
9,940
11,880
15,800
17,000
5,240
300
5,620
1,330
3,320
215
6,700
470
1,660
34,400
42,800
56,000
49,200
21,200
892
10,000
2,780
6,440
296
12,000
16,60
3,350
57,200
96,200
127,000
110,400
31,800
3,360
22,000
34,980
11,560
605
59,400
23,000
6,600
PCB-77
128
PCB-34
2,940
PCB-25
6,570
PCB-21
5,360
PCB-17
3,630
PCB-16
6,220
PCB-11
Sample identifier
Total PCB
(μg/kg)
kilogram; ft., feet; BG, background value; ave, average]
Concentrations
Average BG
Average 0-1 ft
Average 1-2 ft
Average 2-3 ft
937
Ratios of concentrations
Ave 0-1ft / ave BG
1.6
3.3
2.9
2.6
1.8
2.3
0.9
3.1
3.0
1.6
4.2
3.0
1.8
5.5
11.8
10.4
7.5
7.2
7.0
1.6
6.4
5.7
2.1
7.5
10.5
3.6
9.2
26.5
23.7
16.8
10.8
26.3
3.6
80.5
Sample/ average BG
10.3
4.4
37.3
144.9
7.0
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
1
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.8
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.1
0.5
1.0
.60
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
1.5
0.2
1.6
0.2
1.5
0.2
1.7
0.2
1.5
0.2
1.5
0.2
1.3
0.1
1.6
0.2
1.6
0.2
1.7
0.4
1.5
0.1
1.7
0.2
1.7
0.2
TD-GFF-051206-0830
TU-GFF-051206-0830
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
Ave 1-2 ft / ave BG
Ave 2-3 ft/ ave BG
67
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 7. Concentrations and concentration ratios of selected PCB congeners in sediment samples collected during the Pilot Dredge operations and in
samples of bed sediment from the dredge area, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, 2005. -- Continued.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; concentrations are in nanograms per kilogram except total PCB, which is in micrograms per kilogram; μg/kg, micrograms per
PCB-137
PCB-150
1.1
1.1
1.5
2.9
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.7
1.4
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.8
1.6
1.0
1.5
0.8
1.4
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
0.7
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.1
2.5
1.1
2.5
1.1
2.5
1.1
2.6
1.1
2.4
TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.8
1.3
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.0
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030
1.6
1.0
2.0
0.9
2.1
0.8
2.3
0.9
2.0
1.1
2.1
1.0
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.6
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.5
1.9
1.6
Ratios of concentrations
1.1
1.0
1.0
2.6
1.3
1.5
Total PCB
PCB-126
1.1
1.1
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
PCB-96
1.3
1.1
PCB-77
1.2
1.1
PCB-34
1.0
1.6
PCB-25
1.0
1.9
PCB-21
1.0
1.2
PCB-17
1.2
1.0
PCB-16
1.0
1.4
Sample
PCB-11
PCB-107
kilogram; ft., feet; BG, background value]
1. For TU and TD samples, ratios are concentrations in the samples divided by the average concentration in the background samples.
68
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Pre-dredging Sediment Load and Mass Balance
For the 9-day period beginning 00:00 on December 2 and ending on 00:00 on December
12, 2005,the overall difference (imbalance) in load between line M12 and line M56 was
found to be -3.4 percent for water discharge, and -12.6 percent for SS; both are well
within the assumed level of uncertainty.
The sediment loads and change in flow over 30-minute intervals and the 24-hour period
of December 2 are shown in table 8. The calculated values were separated into periods of
upriver and downriver flow. The 24-hour sediment imbalance (-4.2 percent) between
lines M12 and M56 could be interpreted to represent the net bed sediment erosion
(26,400 kilograms or 1,100 kg/hr) from the area between lines M12 and M56. For the
background days of December 2, 3, 4, and 11, the difference was slightly greater (1,781
kg/hr). It is entirely possible that these differences are the result of erosion of materials
from the river bed, especially the channel edge. For example, erosion likely occurs from
the south shore where depositional areas were obvious. This represents the natural
transport, deposition, and erosion of sediment being carried by the river. The calculated
differences are within the assumed uncertainty (25 percent), however, and the
calculations were made for a 24-hour periods that includes partial tide cycles. If the
calculations are made for less than a full tide cycle, then the difference between two
monitoring lines will not include the SS mass returned during the next tide reversal.
The 24-hour period of December 2, the sediment imbalance of -4.2 percent represents a
difference of 26,400 kilograms of sediment (table 8). The corresponding difference in
water flow is -2.1 percent, so both the sediment load and water flow were in good
balance. As the values in table 8 indicate, the 30-minute sediment and water flow
imbalances differ dramatically over the successive time intervals, and can be quite large
in some instances. When plotted (fig. 9), large imbalances occurred at three times during
the day; this is typical of the other days of monitoring as well. Large positive differences
in sediment loads are related to large
69
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 8. Summary of sediment loads and change in flow, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, for December 2, 2005.
[kg, kilograms; M12, line M1 to M2; M56, line M5 to M6; totals are rounded]
Time, line
Sediment load
Time,
Sediment
Difference,
Change in
Change in flow2, in
M12
at line
line M56
load at line
in Kg/30
sediment
percent
M12, in
M56, in
Kg/30 minutes
kg/30
minutes
1
load , in
percent
minutes
0-30
49,000
30-100
30-100
48,100
100-130
100-130
29,100
130-200
130-200
20,800
200-230
200-230
18,900
230-300
230-300
18,500
300-300
300-330
13,800
330-400
330-400
5,790
400-430
400-430
437
-2,680
430-500
201,900
--
430-500
Total for 300
minutes
500-530
Flow downriver
12,500
36,400
26
17
26,300
21,700
45
30
24,100
5,080
17
17
27,500
-6,650
-32
0.6
24,600
-5,620
-30
24
14,000
4,500
24
40
4,120
9,680
70
67
-1,350
7,140
123
138
-5,030
5,470
1,250
1,290
-15,400
12,700
-475
-162
135,300
66,600
33
50
Flow upriver
500-530
530-600
600-630
630-700
700-730
730-8:00
8:00-830
830-9:00
9:00-930
Total for 270
minutes
-8,720
-21,300
-26,600
-17,300
-6,380
-128
3,170
4,890
3,200
400-430
430-500
500-530
530-600
600-630
630-700
700-730
730-8:00
8:00-830
-1,350
-5,030
-15,400
-19,000
-16,700
-12,600
-3,310
4,010
5,140
-7,370
-16,300
-11,200
1,800
10,300
12,400
6,480
872
-1,940
85
76
42
-10
-161
-9,720
205
18
-61
81
50
33
-7.8
-100
-3,880
177
51
-79
-69,200
--
-64,200
-4,970
7.2
-32
70
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 8. Summary of sediment loads and change in flow, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, for December 2, 2005 – continued.
[kg, kilograms; M12, line M1 to M2; M56, line M5 to M6; totals are rounded]
Time, line
Sediment load at
Time,
Sediment
Difference
Change in
Change in
M12
line
line M56
load at line
kg/30
sediment
flow2, in
M12, in
M56, in
minutes
load1, in
percent
kg/30 minutes
kg/30
percent
minutes
9:00-930
930-1000
1000-1030
1030-1100
1100-1130
1130-1200
1200-1230
1230-1300
1300-1330
1330-1400
1400-1430
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-1600
1600-1630
1630-1700
1700-1730
1730-1800
Total for
570
minutes
3,200
2,920
3,780
5,770
15,900
36,200
56,800
69,600
55,600
51,900
42,400
37,800
27,500
24,100
17,200
7,790
725
-2,770
456,000
Flow downriver
930-1000
6,110
1000-1030
7,920
1030-1100
10,400
1100-1130
25,900
1130-1200
45,600
1200-1230
67,300
1230-1300
54,900
1300-1330
53,200
1330-1400
54,600
1400-1430
39,500
1430-1500
37,500
1500-1530
30,600
1530-1600
26,600
1600-1630
17,000
1630-1700
5,370
1700-1730
-2,790
1730-1800
-7,620
1800-1830
-10,300
--
461,600
-2,910
-5,000
-6,600
-20,200
-29,700
-31,100
1,890
16,500
1,000
12,400
4,860
7,190
923
7,110
11,800
10,600
8,300
7,560
-91
-172
-175
-350
-186
-86
3.3
24
1.9
24
12
19
3.4
30
69
136
1,150
-273
-4.0
-73
-174
-127
-47
-12
8.7
11
13
25
18
27
23
39
75
140
724
-89
-5,240
-1.1
6.6
Flow upriver
1800-1830
1830-1900
1900-1930
1930-2000
2000-2030
2030-2100
Total for
210
minutes
-5,600
-7,760
-9,640
-7,210
-1,710
1,550
1700-1730
1730-1800
1800-1830
1830-1900
1900-1930
1930-2000
-2,790
-7,620
-10,300
-11,500
-10,200
-5,240
-2,810
-145
692
4,250
8,450
6,790
50
1.9
-7.2
-59
-495
438
67
33
17
-24
-160
417
-31,900
--
-47,600
15,700
-49
-24
71
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 8. Summary of sediment loads and change in flow, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, for December 2, 2005 – continued.
[kg, kilograms; M12, line M1 to M2; M56, line M5 to M6; totals are rounded]
Time, line
Sediment load at
Time,
Sediment
Difference,
Change in
Change in
M12
line
line M56
load at line
kg/30
sediment
flow2, in
M12
M56
minutes
load1, in
percent
kg/30 minutes
kg/30
percent
minutes
2100-2130
2130-2200
2200-2230
2230-2300
2300-2330
2330-000
Total for
180
minutes
Total for 24
hours
5,500
9,500
12,800
13,100
14,000
17,400
Flow downriver
2130-2200
7,220
2200-2230
10,200
2230-2300
12,100
2300-2330
14,100
2330-000
22,500
0-30
30,900
-1,700
-665
692
-973
-8,500
-13,600
-31
-7.0
5.4
-7.4
-61
-78
-62
-21
-21
-14
-21
5.2
72,200
97,000
-24,800
-34
-19
628,000
654,000
-26,400
-4.2
-2.1
1 Percent change in sediment mass is calculated as sediment mass at (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative
values indicate more mass calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
2 Percent change in flow is calculated as Qm12-Qm56 * 100 / Qm12, where Q is flow crossing mooring M12
or M56.
72
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
negative differences in water flow across the two monitoring lines. The cause of these
large imbalances in water is unclear at present; they are not always related to the times of
highest and lowest tide but are more likely related to the times when the north-south flow
velocity increased.
If sediment loads are to be compared over the short periods (1 tide cycle or less), then the
travel time between mooring lines must be considered in the calculations. In the pilot
dredge area, the average downriver flow velocity is approximately 40 cm/s over a tidal
cycle, which corresponds to an average of 25 to 30 minute travel time for the 600 meters
between line M12 to M56. During high tide, the average upriver velocity is about 20
cm/s, corresponding to an average travel time of 50 to 60 minutes from line M56 to line
M12. Therefore, when sediment mass balances are calculated for short periods of times
(partial tide cycles, such as during dredging), the loads must be offset 30 minutes for
downriver flow and 60 minutes for upriver flow. Only when one-half, or a full, tide cycle
is evaluated do these offsets strictly apply – different offsets should be used for
calculating mass balances for less than one tide cycle.
The sediment-load data (table 8) were separated into the successive downflow and
upflow periods of the tide cycle, as determined by the velocity measurement at M2, and
the 30- or 60-minute offset was applied. The first downflow period has a large sediment
imbalance (+33 percent), but this is the result of not using the entire period of downriver
flow, which began shortly before 20:00 on December 1. Likewise, the imbalance for the
last downflow period (2100 to 2330) is -34 percent, but again these calculations did not
use the entire downriver flow which lasted until 4:45 on December 3. The one complete
upflow period (500-930) and the complete downriver flow period (9:00 to 18:00) had
very small imbalances for both sediment (7.2 and -1.1 percent, respectively) and water (32 and 6.6 percent, respectively). It was found that the SS calculated to cross one line,
say line M12, during the complete upriver flow cycle (-69,200 kg per 270 minutes, or 256
kg per minute) does not equal the load carried downstream in the next successive
downflow cycle (456,000 kg per 570 minutes, or 800 kg per minute). This inequality is
73
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
due to the longer time periods of flow and to the differences in maximum velocity that
was reached during the two tide cycles.
Net Sediment Load to Newark Bay
The net flux of SS that crossed either monitoring line is a measure of the amount of
sediment delivered to the harbor from upstream sources minus the load brought back
upriver by tidal action over a given time period. The net load (for a 24-hour period)
across line M12 was quite large for the initial days, but decreased steadily until Dec. 4
when it decreased until Dec. 11 (table 9). The decrease was likely related to the decline in
freshwater flow into the Lower Passaic River. The magnitude of these daily fluxes
provides a base to compare with the mass of sediment dredged from the river bottom
during this project.
Table 9. Net downriver load of sediment calculated to pass mooring line
M12 during background days, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December
2-11, 2005.
[kg, kilograms; hr, hours; m3/hr, cubic meters per hour; yd3/hr, cubic yards per
hour; kg/m3, kilograms per cubic meter; values are rounded]
Date
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
kg/24 hours
kg/hr
m3/hr
yd3/hr
(dry weight1)
(dry weight)
Dec. 2
628,000
26,200
20.1
26.3
Dec. 3
388,000
16,200
12.5
16.4
Dec. 4
305,000
12,700
9.8
12.8
Dec. 11
61,000
2,540
2.0
2.55
1 Calculated using a bulk density of 1,300 kg/m3 , which is the average bulk density in
2004 bed core samples.
74
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
500
LT = low tide
HT = high tide
400
Percent difference
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
Discharge
LT
Sediment
H
LT
HT
23
00
22
00
21
00
20
00
19
00
18
00
17
00
16
00
15
00
14
00
13
00
12
00
11
00
90
0
10
00
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
0
10
0
-300
Local Time
Figure 9. flow and sediment imbalance calculated for the Lower Passaic
River, mooring line M12 to M56, New Jersey, December 2, 2005.
75
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Evaluation of Concentrations and Chemistry of Suspended
Sediment during Dredging
The SS concentrations, flow, data from moored instruments, and concentrations in
suspended sediment were evaluated for each day of dredging to seek evidence of
sediment release as a result of dredging. For each day, the following evaluations were
undertaken.
1. Concentrations of SS in the cross-channel monitoring samples were plotted to
determine changes in SS during the periods of dredging.
2. Turbidity (and OBS) measured by the moored instruments was plotted to confirm
the change in SS observed in the cross-channel samples.
3.
The relations between the SS changes and the river characteristics (water level,
salinity, and bottom currents) were established graphically to determine whether
changes in SS were associated with the migration of the saltwater interface, and
therefore, if they were related to the natural zone of maximum turbidity.
4. For some days, the turbidity measured during dredging was compared with the
turbidity measured during the next successive tidal cycle. This allowed a
graphical comparison to be made to determine whether turbidity was elevated
during dredging above a comparable level in the next (non-dredging) tide cycle.
5. The SS loads were calculated (using data collected by the moored ADCPs) to
determine whether SS load increased during downriver flow and periods of
dredging.
6. The differences in the chemical composition of SS collected upflow and
downflow of the dredging were calculated for selected chemical species. The
chemical data also were compared with chemical data for the bed sediment and
with the range of values for the background data and for the NJCARP data from
the Lower Passaic.
76
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
As discussed earlier, the chemical indicator species are a small subset of the entire set of
chemical compounds that were measured in the samples and may not represent the
changes measured for other specific chemical compounds. Also, review of the analytical
results by the USEPA quality assurance/control was not yet completed at the time this
report was prepared. Thus, values and conclusions are considered preliminary and are
subject to change.
December 5
Dredging on December 5, 2005, was conducted between 10:24 and 12:35 (AM
sampling), and 13:02 and 19:03 (p.m. sampling) (fig. 10A). A total of 25 unique dredge
bites9 were taken from between the NJSPC XY coordinates 561254-695381 and 594272695422 (corresponding dredge cell A2 fig. 3)9. During the morning dredging (10:4012:35) flow was downriver; however, sampling was conducted when flow was both
upriver and downriver. For the morning, therefore, the line M56 was considered
downflow. Cross-sectional sampling for SS was conducted from 8:00 to 12:30 (AM
sampling). TOPS sampling was conducted from 8:30 to 12:00 at line M12, and 9:00 to
12:00 at line M56. During the morning, sampling was hampered by the freezing of the
TOPS equipment.
December 5-a.m.
Suspended Sediment
9
The number of bites represents unique bucket locations within a cell. Multiple bites may have been
collected at a single location. Coordinates are given as X Y and are in the NJSPC coordinate system.
77
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
The reversal in flow during the morning makes interpretation of the SS and chemical data
difficult. SS in the consecutive samples from the downriver (downflow) line M56
decreased steadily through the morning as dredging began (fig. 10A), whereas at the
upriver (upflow) line M12 the concentrations increased steadily. At the upflow line M12,
peak concentrations were reached between 11:30 and 12:30, but then decreased
throughout the remainder of the day. Before 9:30, the flow of the river was upriver.
Because dredging started when flow was downriver (at 1024), the increase of SS in the
upriver samples (line M12) cannot be attributed to dredging – flow is in the wrong
direction to have affected samples from M12. The downflow samples from line M56
collected after 10:00 showed no increase in SS concentration that could be related to
dredging.
Turbidity
No increase in water turbidity was observed in the surface water at M1 or the bottom at
M2 (fig. 10B) during the morning sampling; however, the turbidity in the surface at M2
increased starting at about 9:30. After peaking at 11:00, the turbidity decreased the
remainder of the afternoon until about 16:00 after which the turbidity again increased.
Thus, suspended sediment in the surface water near M2 apparently caused the increase in
the SS of the cross-channel SS samples. After 8:30, turbidity in the surface water at M1
was elevated, but was declining from the high values measured at 8:30. By the time
dredging began, however, flow was downriver toward line M56, and the SS samples and
turbidity showed no indication of a rise in SS until well after the dredging had ended (fig.
10C). Turbidity in the bottom water at M6 was slightly elevated but steady throughout
the morning. A sharp but short-lived spike in the turbidity was measured in the surface
water at downflow mooring M5 (after 12:00), however, the turbidity in the surface water
at the downflow line M56 remained low and constant throughout the morning, consistent
with the SS measured in the cross-channel samples. Apparently during this time, the
dredge bucket seals were reported to be leaking, but repairs were made by 12:30. The
spike in turbidity at M5 could be related to this malfunction.
78
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Chemistry
The concentration of total PCBs decreased from 973 μg/kg in the upflow sample (line
M12) to 523 μg/kg in the downflow sample (line M56), a decrease of -46 percent.
Similarly, decreases were found in the concentrations of total PCDD+PCDF (-69%),
2,3,7,8-TCDD (-48%), 2,3,7,8-TCDF (-48%), total OCPs (-45%), and total 4,4’-DDTs (50%) (table 5). The rather constant decreases for all indicator components provide an
indication that the SS was “diluted” by sediments having lower concentrations of these
constituents (“cleaner” sediment). The concentrations of total PCB, PCDD+PCDF, and
4,4’-DDT in the monitoring samples were lower than those in the surficial (0-1 ft) bed
sediment. The ratios of the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total TCDD were identical
in the two samples 0.73, whithin the range reported for the surficial bed sediments (tables
5 and 6).
Concentrations of total PCB, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and the total 4,4’-DDT
are within the range of those in the NJCARP samples from PAS-1 and Newark Bay. Only
the concentrations of total PCDD+PCDF in the upflow samples were higher than those
reported by NJCARP for the SS. Concentrations of dissolved constituents were not
determined for the samples collected in the morning.
December 5 – p.m.
The afternoon dredging began at 12:35 and ended at 18:00; during this time the flow
direction was downriver until low tide was reached at 18:15. A total of 133 unique dredge
bites were taken in the afternoon between the NJSPC XY coordinates 594278-695481
79
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
and 594345-695465 (dredge cells B2 through E2, fig. 3). Cross-sectional monitoring for
SS was conducted from 14:00 to 17:00 (p.m. sampling) along lines M12 and M56.
During the afternoon, TOPS sampling was conducted on the upriver line M12 from 14:00
until 17:00, and on the downriver line M56 from 14:30 to 17:00.
Suspended Sediment
In the afternoon of December 5, the direction of water flow was from upriver (line M12)
to the downriver (M56) moorings, making the interpretations of the data more
straightforward than was the case for the morning data. The concentration of SS at the
downriver line M56 increased during the afternoon, whereas the concentration of SS
continued to decrease at the upflow line M12 (fig. 10A). The concentration of SS at the
downriver line M56 began to rise at 13:30, approximately one-half hour after dredging
began, and peaked in the surface and bottom samples collected between 15:30 and 16:00.
Turbidity
The turbidity in the bottom water downflow, measured by the OBS at moorings M5 and
M6, increased during the first hour of the afternoon dredging (fig. 10C). However,
turbidity also increased in the bottom water during upflow at M1 and M2 (fig, 10B) and
in the surface water at M1 during downflow, concurrent with the increase measured
during downflow at M5 and M6.
One explanation for the increase in SS at downflow line M56, that the SS that moved
upriver earlier in the day and was measured at line M12 moved downriver in the
afternoon> Also, the increase in SS could be the result of downriver movement of the
turbidity associated with the saltwater interface. High concentrations of SS were
measured in samples of surface and bottom water at M12 as late as 13:00. Assuming an
average downriver current velocity of 40 cm/s (beginning at 12:00), it would take
approximately 25 minutes for water and sediment to move from the line M12 to M56; so
the bulk of the sediment that had passed by line M12 should have passed M56 by mid80
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
afternoon. This demonstrates the dynamic nature of the saltwater interface and its
associated turbidity zone. The bottom water velocity during this period was slow,
indicating that the saltwater interface remained in the dredge area during the afternoon.
As it slowly moved downriver, the SS and turbidity decreased at the upriver line (M12)
and slowly increaseed at line M56. The author considers it important to note that as
dredging proceeded during the afternoon, the concentration of SS decreased (after 15:00)
at downflow line M56 in a manner similar to that observed at the upflow line M12. A
decrease in concentration of SS in the downflow direction would not be expected if
dredging was actively releasing bed sediment. The most likely explanation for the
decrease in SS at line M56 during the afternoon was the return of the sediment cloud that
had been located upriver earlier in the day.
Water Salinity and Velocity
The increase in suspended sediment and turbidity that was recorded at downflow mooring
M5, and (to a lesser extent) at the surface at M6 (fig. 10C) occurred between 14:00 and
16:00, the initial 2 hours of dredging. During this time, the salinity at mooring M6 was
decreasing to freshwater values (fig. 10D). Thus, the increase in concentrations of SS and
turbidity coincided with the movement of the saltwater interface downflow and the
freshening of the river. At the same time, the flow velocity of the bottom water reached a
maximum (50 cm/s) (fig. 10E).
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles
Because the concentrations of SS increased downflow of the dredging during the
afternoon, the turbidity values measured during the afternoon were compared with those
measured during the next low tide cycle that occurred when dredging was not underway,
in this case, during the low tide cycle in the early morning hours of Dec. 6. During the
afternoon of Dec. 5, low tide was reached at 17:45 at M6, and on Dec. 6, low tide was
reached at 5:40. To make the comparison meaningful, the data were shifted in time to
81
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
line up with corresponding phases in each tide cycle. This was done by aligning the
turbidity data with the time maximum low tide was first reached (fig. 10F, 10G, and
10H). The data were plotted for a period of 4 hours before until 4 hours after low tide.
Inspection of the turbidity in the surface water (fig. 10F) shows that two periods existed
during the dredging when turbidity was elevated over the comparable time in the nondredging tidal cycle. The first was from 14:45 to 15:45, and the second began at about
16:30 and lasted until about 30 minutes before low tide. Except for these two periods, the
patterns followed by the turbidity around the low tides are remarkably similar. The
optical backscatter (OBS) values of the bottom water at M6 show that a period of
elevated turbidity occurred about 4 hours before low tide and lasted for 2 hours (fig.
10G). Turbidity was also elevated in the surface water at M5, beginning more than 4
hours before and lasting until about 2 hours before the afternoon low tide was reached,
compared with the turbidity during the next low tide cycle on the Dec. 6 (fig. 10H).
When presented in this manner, it is evident that periods of elevated SS, measured as
turbidity, occurred downriver from the dredging.
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
The sediment load calculated using ADCP data from M12 and M56 were used to
determine whether an increase in sediment load occurred during the afternoon dredging
activities. The mass of sediment, in kilograms per each 30-minute interval, estimated for
the two mooring locations are listed in table 10. The mass loads between M12 and M56
were offset for these calculations by 30 minutes to account for the travel time between
moorings.
82
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Inspection of the results for the 30-minute periods showed imbalances ranged from
-50 to +5 percent (Table 10). However, the difference for the period of downriver flow is
-23 percent, nearly identical to the 24-hour mass balance for Dec. 5. This difference is
within the assumed uncertainty for this analysis.
83
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 10. Summary of sediment mass and load, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, for December 5, 2005.
[kg, kilograms; tables are rounded]
Mass of
Change in
sediment
sediment
passing M12,
1
load ,
in
Time at
Mass of sediment
Difference in
in
Time at
kg/30
M56
passing M56, in
mass, in
percent
M12 (upflow)
minutes
(downflow)
kg/30 minutes
kg/30 minutes
1030 -1100
1100-1130
1130-1200
1200-1230
1230-1300
1300-1330
1330-1400
1400-1430
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-1600
1600-1630
1630-1700
1700-1730
1730-1800
1800-1830
1,270
1,410
2,020
2,620
5,030
6,460
14,600
21,900
25,100
30,800
23,300
17,800
13,300
11,100
8,700
5,370
1100 -1130
1130-1200
1200-1230
1230-1300
1300-1330
1330-1400
1400-1430
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-16:00
1600-1630
1630-1700
1700-1730
1730-1800
1800-1830
1830-1900
3,260
3,910
4,670
5,830
9,200
19,100
22,600
30,400
40,300
29,000
21,500
16,100
13,100
8,930
4,840
-1,990
-2,500
-2,650
-3,210
-4,210
-12,500
-8,670
-8,490
-15,200
1,790
1,830
1,700
291
2,140
3,900
-157
-178
-131
-123
-84
-192
-62
-39
-60
5.8
7.8
9.5
2.2
19
45
4,800
90
Total
191,000
191,000
564
233,000
235,000
-42,900
-23
-44,700
-24
Total 24 hours
1. Percent change in sediment load is calculated as sediment mass at (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative
values indicate more mass was calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
Sediment and Water Chemistry
The concentration of total PCBs (table 3) was 1,450 μg/kg lower (91 percent decrease) in
the downflow sample than the concentration measured in upflow sample (table 4). The
concentration of total dioxin/furans decreased by 5.5 μg/kg, a decrease of 32 percent. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the upflow samples was 49 percent lower than that in
the downflow sample, however, the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in downflow samples
was 43 percent greater. The concentrations of total 4-4’-DDT (sum of 4,4-DDD, DDE
84
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
and DDT) in the upflow sample was 398 and was 121 μg/kg in the downflow, a decrease
of 70 percent.
In the upflow sample (line M12), the concentrations of total PCBs, and 2,3,7,8-TCDF
were within the range of the concentrations in the surface layer of bed sediment (0-1 ft)
(table 5). The upflow sample was the only sediment sample with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentration similar to the concentrations in the deeper bed sediment. To some extent
the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF followed the same pattern (concentrations of up to
1,600 ng/kg were measured in the sediment collected from 2-3 ft in the river bottom).
However, this sample was collected upflow from the dredging, so its high concentration
cannot be related to a release of dredged sediment. Rather, this demonstrates the large
range of concentrations for this compound in the SS of the river. The ratio of the
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-TCDD in the upflow sample was 0.82,
similar to the concentrations in the bed sediment. In the downflow sample, the
concentrations of total PCBs and the other indicator compounds were lower than
concentrations in the bed sediments, as was the ratio of the concentration of 2,3,7,8TCDD to total tetra TCDDs.
The upflow sample had concentrations of total PCB, total PCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and
4,4’-DDT that were higher than those reported for the river sediments by NJCARP for
PAS-1 and Newark Bay samples. The very high concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
mentioned earlier in the upflow sample indicates the range of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentrations in suspended sediment is greater than that for the NJCARP samples. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF was within the range reported by NJCARP, but the total
PCBs concentration was lower than that for the NJCARP samples. All of the other
indicator compounds were within the ranges reported by NJCARP.
85
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
120
Downriver line M56 shallow
Downriver line M56 deep
Concentration of suspended Sediment, in mg/L
Flow upriver
to M12
Upriver line M12 shallow
100
Upriver line M12 deep
Flow upriver
to M12
80
60
40
20
Dredging
Dredging
2000
1930
1900
1830
1800
1730
1700
1630
1600
1530
1500
1430
1400
1330
1300
1230
1200
1130
1100
1030
930
1000
900
830
800
730
700
630
600
0
Local Time
Fig 10A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional
composite samples collected from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 5, 2000. Vertical lines delineate intervals when chemical samples
were collected.
86
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
150
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
140
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
130
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
Turbidity, mooring M2, surface
Backscatter, mooring M2, bottom
120
110
Turbidity, mooring M1, surface
100
Backscater * 1000, mooring M1,
bottom
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
0
Local Time
Figure 10B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
mooring M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 5, 2005.
December 5 Mooring 5 and 6
150
Flow upriver
toward line
M12
140
130
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
Flow up river
toward line
M12
Turbidity, mooring M6,
surface
Backscatter, mooring
M6, bottom
120
Turbidity, mooring M5,
surface
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
LT
Dredging
18:00
HT
13:00
LT
0
Local time
Figure 10C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
mooring M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 5, 2005.
87
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 5- Mooring 6 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
Water elevation, mooring 6
Salinity, mooring 6, bottom
Salinity, mooring 6, surface
Water elevation, in meters, and salintiy, in PSU
10
8
6
4
2
0
Dredging
Dredging
20:00
19:30
19:00
18:30
18:00
17:30
17:00
16:30
16:00
15:30
15:00
14:30
14:00
13:30
13:00
12:30
12:00
11:30
11:00
10:30
9:30
10:00
9:00
8:30
8:00
7:30
7:00
6:30
6:00
-2
Local time
Figure 10D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 5, 2005.
December 5 Mooring 2 E-W Velocity
100
Flow upriver to line
M12
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow upriver to line
M12
80
East-west velocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
Bottom ADCP bin
-20
Average, ADCP bins
<1m from surface
-40
-60
Dredging
-= West flow upriver
Dredging
HT
LT
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
-80
Local time
Figure 10E. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 5, 2005.
88
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 5 Low Tide Mooring 6 Surface Turbidity
50
F
Low tide at 17:45 on Dec. 5
Flow upriver toward line M12
Low tide at 5:54 on Dec. 6
45
40
Turbidity, in NTU
35
30
Low Tide @ 5:40 12/6
25
20
15
Low Tide @ 17:45
12/5
10
Dredging 10:24 through 19:03 12/5
5
4:00
3:45
3:30
21:45
3:15
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
3:00
20:45
19:45
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
18:45
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
16:45 Local time 12/5
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
15:45
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
3:00
14:45
13:45
0
Time before or after low tide
Mooring 6 December 5 Low Tide Bottom OBS Reflectance
100
Low tide at 17:45
Dec. 5
G
90
Flow upriver
toward line M12
Low tide at 5:40,
Dec. 6
Optical backscatter, in millivolts
80
70
60
50
Low tide at 17:45, Dec. 5
40
Low tide at 5:40 Dec. 6
30
20
10
Dredging 10:24 through 19:03 12/5
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
0
Time before or after low tide
Figure 10F and 10G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and optical backscatter
(in millivolts) the bottom water at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the
low tide at 17:45 on December 5, 2005, and the low tide at 5:40, December 6, 2006.
89
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 5 Mooring 5 Low Tide Surface Turbidity
1000
Flow upriver toward line M12
H
Low tide at 5:40, Dec. 6
Turbidity, in NTU
100
10
Low tide at 17:45, Dec. 5
Low tide at 17:45 on Dec. 5
Low tide at 5:40 on Dec. 6
Dredging through 19:03, Dec. 5
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
1
Time before or after low tide
10H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5, Lower
Passaic River, New Jersey, during the low tide at 17:45 on December 5,
2005, and the low tide at 5:40, December 6, 2005.
90
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 6 – a.m.
Dredging on December 6 was conducted from 9:17 to 12:23 (AM sampling), from 13:01
to 16:19 (PM sampling), and for a short time from 17:37 to 18:48, which was not
sampled. A total of 35 unique dredge bites were taken during the morning between the
XY coordinates 594244-695394 and 594281-695358 (corresponding to dredge cell A3)
(fig. 3). During most of the morning, flow was upriver toward line M12; however, the
flow reversed (at 10:15) and was downriver for nearly half the time the dredging took
place. Cross-sectional sampling for SS was conducted from 7:30 to 11:30 (AM sampling)
along both lines. Sampling was conducted during both upriver and downriver flow.
TOPS sampling was conducted from 8:30 to 11:30 (PM sampling) along both lines;
during most of this time flow was upriver. During the early morning, cold weather
caused the equipment to freeze up, which may have affected the dissolved fraction
samples.
Suspended Sediment
Flow during the morning of Dec. 6 was in both the upriver and downriver directions (fig.
11A), making interpretations of the SS and other constituent concentrations difficult.
Because most of samples were collected during upriver flow, the upriver line M12 is
considered downflow for this evaluation (of the 10 transect samples collected, five were
collected during the time dredging was underway). The concentrations of SS measured in
the bottom water at the downflow line M12 peaked at 9:00, after which time the values
steadily decreased. Concentrations of SS in the surface water at line M12 did not peak but
rather decreased steadily throughout the morning- clearly the concentration of SS did not
increase during dredging. A similar trend of decrease in concentration, was observed at
the downriver line M56.
The highest concentration of SS in bottom-water samples during downriver flow (line
M12) was in the sample collected at 9:00, which was more than 15 minutes before the
91
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
initiation of dredging. This peak was followed by a decline during the remainder of the
morning. Thus, the spike observed in the bottom water at 9:00 cannot be attributed to a
release from the dredging. Between 9:00 and 10:15, flow was upriver but was slowing as
the tide began to reverse. At an average upriver velocity of -10 cm/s, sediment released
from the dredge would take approximately 50-60 minutes to reach line M12. Thus, any
sediment released early in the dredging activity could have reached line M12, and would
be expected to be present in the samples. Any sediment released after the flow had
reversed (after 10:15) would not have reached line M12 but could have reached line M56
before the end of sampling at 11:30. Clearly, there was no indication of an increase in
concentration of SS during the dredging at either line M12 or M56.
Turbidity
The the OBS optical backscatter (turbidity surrogate) measured in the downflow bottom
water at M1 (fig. 11B) increased during the morning, beginning around 8:00 and peaked
at about 9:00 but then decreased during the remainder of the morning. A small increase in
turbidity was detected in the bottom water at M2, and in the surface water at M2,
beginning shortly after 9:00. The OBS values confirm the increase in SS measured in the
bottom-water samples collected during the cross-channel monitoring at line M12. The
increased turbidity in the surface water was not reflected in the concentrations of SS in
the surface-water samples collected during the cross-sectional monitoring-- the increase
in suspended sediment in the surface water may have been too small or localized to be
detected in the cross-channel samples for SS. A large increase in turbidity was measured
at moorings 5 and 6 beginning around 7:00, but turbidity had returned to low levels by
9:00, before dredging had started (fig. 11C); values remained low and constant in the
surface and bottom water at M56 after 10:00. The turbidity measured at line M56 also
confirms the concentrations of SS in the transect samples collected at this line.
92
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Water Salinity and Velocity
The plot of salinity and water elevation at mooring M2 in figure 11D shows that the
salinity of the bottom and surface water increased substantially beginning shortly after
8:00, reached a maximum at 10:00, and remained elevated throughout the afternoon. This
confirms that the saltwater interface passed through the line M12 during the morning
sampling. The dredging, however, occurred as the (upriver) flow velocity was decreasing
(fig. 11F), then through the period of stagnant flow at low tide, and continued as the flow
downriver began to increase. The vertical velocity profile downriver is somewhat
distorted – the velocity in the surface water remained low and steady from 10:00 until
13:00, then reversed. In the bottom water, the velocity peaked, then decreased and
reversed until 14:00, after which time began to increase in the downriver direction.
Sediment Chemistry
The chemical concentrations in the suspended sediment collected the morning of
December 6 are difficult to interpret because sediment was collected during a flow
reversal – there is no clear “upflow” to “downflow” relation between the sampling lines.
However, because most of the dredging occurred during the time of downriver flow, the
samples from the downriver line M56 were chosen to represent downflow for this
comparison.
The concentrations of total PCBs in the SS collected during the morning of December 6,
decreased by just 7 μg/kg, a 0.6 percent decrease between the sample collected upflow at
line M12 and those collected downflow at line M56 (table 4). The concentration of total
dioxin/furans in these samples decreased 1.8 μg/kg, or 14 percent. The concentration of
2,3,7,8-TCDD decreased between the two monitoring lines (differing by -112 ug/kg or
43 percent), but the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF increased slightly (14 percent). The
concentration of total 4,4’-DDT increased by 35 μg/kg (14 percent) between the two
93
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
sampling lines. If the upriver line M12 had been chosen to represent the downflow
sample, then all of these concentrations would have increased during the morning
dredging.
Compared to the concentrations in the bed sediment from the 2004 cores, both afternoon
samples contained lower concentrations of total PCBs and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, but both
samples had concentrations of total PCDD+PCDF, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 4,4’-DDTs that
were within the ranges of concentrations for the bed sediment. Both samples had
concentration ratios of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-TCDD (0.67 and 0.76) that were
within the range of ratios for bed sediment. Both samples had concentrations of total
PCBs, total PCDD+PCDF, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and 2,3,7,8-TCDF that were within the range
of concentrations for the NJCARP samples from PAS-1 and Newark Bay, but had a
concentration of total 4,4’-DDT content that was higher than the concentrations range for
the NJCARP samples. Concentrations of dissolved constituents were measured only in
the down river (downflow) samples, so the change in chemistry could not be evaluated.
December 6 p.m.
Dredging in the afternoon of December 6 was conducted from 1301 to 1619 (PM
sampling) and for a short time from 17:37 to 18:48, which was not sampled. During the
afternoon dredging (13:01 to 16:19) 82 unique dredge bites were taken between the
NJSPC XY coordinates 594285-695362 and 594436-695390 (dredge cells B3 through
D3) (fig. 3). Flow was downriver toward line M56 during the entire afternoon. Crosssectional monitoring for SS was conducted from 13:30 to 16:00 along both lines. TOPS
sampling was conducted from 13:30 to 16:00 along line M56 and from 13:30 to 16:30
along the upriver line M12.
94
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Suspended Sediment
During the afternoon of December 6, the flow of the river was in one direction from line
M12 toward line M56. Concentrations of SS in samples from the upflow line M12 and
the downflow line M56 increased steadily as dredging proceeded (fig. 11A), reaching
very high values in both the bottom and surface water. The large concentrations of SS in
the samples from M12 cannot be attributed to dredging; line M12 were upflow from the
dredging area for the entire afternoon, and the flow had been downriver for nearly 2.5
hours after the morning dredge activities had ended.
Turbidity
Turbidity in the surface and bottom water downflow at mooring M56 (fig. 11B) had
already started to increase before dredging commenced at 13:00. Although the turbidity
data are extremely “noisy”, and temporal trends are difficult to discern, an extremely
large spike in turbidity occurred in the surface water at mooring M6 after the start of
dredging at 13:00 and lasting until 14:00 (fig. 11C). A second spike in turbidity at M6
was detected from 19:00 to 20:00, well after the evening dredging had ended. Turbidity
(and OBS backscatter) at M5 and M6 reached maximum values between 15:00 and 16:00
hours, after which it decreased. The decrease in turbidity continued well after the
dredging had ended at 1619. At the upflow moorings M1 and M2, the turbidity in the
bottom water (M2) and in the surface water (M1) also began to increase starting at about
15:00 (fig. 11B). The SS data from downflow mooring 5 and 6, as well as from upflow
moorings 1 and 2, confirm the increase in turbidity observed at both cross-channel
sediment sampling lines (fig. 11A).
The increase in concentrations of SS in samples collected along downflow line M56 can
be explained by the downstream transport of sediment in the water measured
concurrently at line M12 (fig. 11A). At an average downriver flow velocity of 40 cm/s,
sediment passing line M12 would reach line M56 in about 25 to 30 minutes. Although the
95
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
downriver transport of sediment contributed the high concentrations of SS at line M56,
the concentrations in samples from line M56 were higher than those measured in samples
collected at line M12 (at least until the 16:00 sample), indicating that additional sediment
was added to the water between lines M12 and M56.
Water Salinity and Velocity
The salinity data (figs. 11D and 11E) shows that the water at both sampling lines M12
and M56 was very saline during the first half of the afternoon dredging period but
freshened to nearly freshwater values by the time dredging ceased shortly after 16:00.
During this time, the velocity of the bottom and surface water increased rapidly and
reached a maximum downriver flow rate of more than 60 cm/s by 15:00 (fig. 11F). Thus,
the afternoon rise in concentration of SS occurred during the passing of the saltwater
interface and during the times when maximum flow velocity was reached in the dredge
area.
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles
Because the SS increased downflow during the afternoon dredging on Dec. 6, the
turbidity values were compared with the turbidity values during the next low tide cycle
that occurred during the early morning hours of Dec.7 (when dredging was not
underway). To make the comparison meaningful, the data were shifted in time to line up
corresponding phases in the tide cycles. During the afternoon of Dec. 6, low tide was
reached at 19:10 at M6, and on Dec. 7 at 6:50 (fig. 11H and 11I). To do this, data
measured at line M56 were aligned on the time when maximum low tide was first
reached (0 on the plot) and were plotted for a period of four hours before, until four hours
after, low tide.
96
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
With two exceptions, the turbidity in the surface water at M56 was very similar during
these two tide cycles (figs. 11G and 11H). The first difference occurred near the end of
dredging at 16:10 on December 6, when the turbidity in the surface water increased to
nearly 5 times the turbidity measured during the same relative point in the Dec. 7 low tide
cycle (fig. 11G). The period of high turbidity lasted until approximately 30-45 minutes
after the end of dredging. A rise in turbidity (OBS backscatter) also occurred about the
same time in the bottom water at mooring 6 (fig. 11H). Thus, when compared with the
conditions during the next low tide, the turbidity values at downflow line M56 indicated
the suspended sediments in the water column had increased from earlier values.
A second very large increase in turbidity occurred in the surface water just as maximum
low tide was reached at 19:10 on Dec 6 and lasted for more than 30 minutes (fig. 11G).
The increase occurred well after maximum low tide was reached and may have been
associated with the dredging that occurred in the evening on Dec. 6 and ended at 18:48,
some 25 minute before maximum low tide. Because the cross-channel monitoring had
ended, this increase in turbidity was not captured by the SS or chemical sampling data.
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
The sediment load and mass data for the afternoon of December 6 are presented in table
11. The overall sediment mass balance beginning at 13:00 changed by -61 percent
between the upflow and downflow lines, much higher than the level assumed to be
significant. The difference between mass balances supports that sediment was released
during the afternoon dredging.
97
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 11. Summary of discharge and sediment mass and load, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6,
2005.
[kg, kilograms]
Volume of
Volume of
Change in
1
water
Mass of
water
passing
sediment
passing
M12, in
passing
M56, in
Mass of
mass
Time at
cubic
M12, in
Time at
cubic
sediment
(M12-M56), in
M12
meters/30
kg/30
M56 for
meters/30
passing M56, in
kg/30
(upflow)
minutes
minutes
(downflow)
minutes
kg/30 minutes
minutes
958
1330-1400
7,800
-7,100
4,600
1400-1430
16,700
-12,300
8,920
1430-1500
23,100
-14,200
18,600
1500-1530
26,300
-7,700
19,500
1530-1600
26,700
-7,180
20,900
1600-1630
34,700
-13,800
26,900
1630-1700
26,300
634
162,000
271,000
1300-1330
1330-1400
1400-1430
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-1600
1600-1630
Total
99,300
282,000
449,000
506,000
480,000
481,000
426,000
2,730,000
4,700,000
100,000
381,000
515,000
583,000
531,000
504,000
423,000
363,000
3,310,000
5,320,000
Difference in
Change in
discharge , in
sediment load1,
percent
in
percent
-280
-710
-83
-278
-30
-159
-5.0
-42
-5.0
-37
12
-66
15
-21
2.4
-61,300
-80,400
-13
-61
-42
1. Percent change in discharge and sediment load are calculated as volume or sediment mass at (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values indicate more
Total 24 hours
190,000
mass was calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
98
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Chemistry
The concentration of total PCBs in SS increased from 967 μg/kg in the upflow sample
collected at line M12 to 1,540 μg/kg in the downflow sample collected downriver at line
M56, representing a 59 percent increase in the concentration (table 4). As shown in
figure 11I, the homolog profile of the two samples are very similar, differing mainly in
the slightly higher percentage of tri-homolog congeners in the downstream sample. The
two samples are very similar to the surface layer of the bottom-sediment (0-1 ft.), and
there is no indication in the suspended sediment profiles of the elevated penta-homolog
proportion observed in the bottom-sediment. Any difference in the homolog
compositions between upstream and down-stream samples, and any difference between
homolog composition in the suspended sediment and bottom sediment, is likely within
the range of scatter in the analysis.
Concentrations of total dioxin/furans were lower in the upflow than in the downflow
samples, a decrease of 20 percent. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD increased by 103
ng/kg (33 percent) and the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF decreased by 1 ng/kg, or a
decrease of -5 percent. Changes in concentration of total 4,4’-DDTs could not be
evaluated because a value was not reported by the laboratory for the upflow sample.
The concentration of total PCB in the upflow sample was lower than the concentrations
reported for the surface bed sediment, but the concentration in the downflow sample was
within the range for the bed sediment in this study. Likewise, concentrations of total
PCDD+PCDF, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and total 4,4’-DDT in upflow and downflow samples
were within the range of concentrations for the bed sediment, but the concentrations of
2,3,7,8-TCDF in both afternoon samples was lower than the range for bed sediment. The
ratios of concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total-tetra TCDDs for both samples were
nearly identical (0.67 and 0.69) and within the range reported for bed sediment. The
concentration of total PCBs in the upflow sample was within the range reported for the
NJCARP SS samples, but for the downflow sample the concentration was greater than
99
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
the range reported by NJCARP. The concentration of total PCDD+PCDF in the upflow
sample was greater than the range, but the concentration in the downflow sample was
within the range reported by NJCARP. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8TCDF, and total 4,4’-DDT concentrations in both samples were within the ranges
reported by NJCARP for PAS-1 and Newark Bay SS samples.
Water Chemistry and Mass Balance
Concentrations of dissolved constituents were measured in the upflow and downflow
samples collected on the afternoon of Dec. 6. This was the only dredging day for which
concentrations of dissolved constituents were obtained for both the upflow and downflow
samples. The concentration of dissolved total PCBs increased 660 pg/L (picograms per
liter)(18 percent), whereas the concentration of total PCDD+PCDF decreased 5.6 pg/L
(22 percent) from the upflow sample to the downflow sample. The concentration of
2,3,7,8-TCDD increased slightly in the upflow sample, although in the downflow sample
this congener was below the detection level. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF was
nearly the same in upflow and downflow samples, increasing only 7 percent. The
concentration of dissolved total 4,4-DDT decreased 29 percent from the upflow to
downflow sample. Values of all these indicator species are within the range reported for
the NJCARP samples. Concentrations of all dissolved phase constituents were similar to
the respective concentrations obtained during the background sampling on December 5.
The volumetric discharges for each 30 minute time period during the afternoon (table 11)
show that during the afternoon roughly 580,000 cubic meters more water passed line
M56 than M12 (21 percent change). Although curious, this difference is due to the flow
reversal that occurred from 12:30 to 13:00 – figure 11F shows the velocity of the water
in the surface layer at M2 was increasing (down-river) while the water at the bottom of
the channel was either still moving upstream, or was stagnant (no velocity). After about
13:30, a large difference (about 40 cm/sec) existed in water velocity of the surface and
the bottom layers at M2. At the same time the profile at M6 shows that the velocity of the
surface water was very similar to that at M2, but the bottom water velocity at M6 was
much lower than at M2. These differences in velocity result in more water calculated to
100
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
have passed M12 than M56. Removing the 30 minute time offset in the data used in table
11 results in a difference of 390,000 cubic meters of water, a change of 14 percent, which
is still greater than the assumed error in this method (+/- 10 percent). Balances for shorter
time periods (1 to 2 hours) are less than 5 percent. Multiplying the discharge that
crossed each line for the entire afternoon period (table 11) by the respective
concentrations of dissolved PCB (table 6; 3,010 pg/L and 3,670 pg/L, respectively)
showed that approximately 8 grams of PCB passed line M12 and 12 g of PCB passed line
M56 during this time. This difference (50%) is a product of the differences in water
volumes and differences in concentrations. Any balance developed for dissolved
chemicals can be no more accurate than the balance developed for water plus the
uncertainty in the analytic concentrations. The large difference in estimated discharge
crossing the two lines makes evaluating the cause of the difference in PCB (or other
chemical) load tenuous.
101
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
130
Downriver line M56 shallow
120
Flow upriver to M12
Downriver line M56 deep
Upriver line M12 shallow
Concentration of suspended sediment, in mg/L
110
Upriver line M12 deep
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Dredging
10
Dredging
0
700
730
800
830
900
930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700
Local time
Fig 11A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional
samples collected from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6,
2005. Vertical lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were
collected.
102
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
150
2 points
off scale
140
Turbidity mooring
mooring M2 surface
130
Backscater mooring M2
bottom
120
110
Turbidity mooring M1
surface
100
Backscater * 1000
mooring M1 bottom
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
15:00
Dredging
0
Local time
Figure 11B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6, 2005.
December 6 Mooring 5-6 Surface Turbidity and Bottom OBS Reflectance
100
10
Flow upriver
toward line M12
Flow upriver
toward line
M12
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
LT
14:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
1
13:00
HT
LT
12:00
Turbidity, mooring M6,
surface
Backscatter, mooring
M6, bottom
Turbidity, mooring M5,
surface
Backscatter, mooring
M5, bottom
0:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
1000
Local time
103
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Figure 11C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 6, 2005.
104
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 6 Mooring 2 Salinity and Water Elevation
12
12
11
11
Water elevation
9
Salinity, mooring 2,
bottom
8
Salinity, mooring 2,
surface
10
9
8
7
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
Salinity, in PSU
Water elevation, in meters
10
4
2
3
1
2
0
Dredging
Dredging
1
-1
Dredging
0
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
-2
Local time
Figure 11D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 6, 2005.
105
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 5- Mooring 6 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
Water elevation, mooring 6
Salinity, mooring 6, bottom
Salinity, mooring 6, surface
Water elevation, in meters, and salintiy, in PSU
10
8
6
4
2
0
Dredging
Dredging
20:00
19:30
19:00
18:30
18:00
17:30
17:00
16:30
16:00
15:30
15:00
14:30
14:00
13:30
13:00
12:30
12:00
11:30
11:00
10:30
9:30
10:00
9:00
8:30
8:00
7:30
7:00
6:30
6:00
-2
Local time
Figure 11E. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 6, 2005.
106
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 6 Mooring 2 E-W Velocity
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow upriver
to line M12
80
Flow upriver
to line M12
East-west velocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
-20
Bottom ADCP bin
Average ADCP bins <1 meter from surface
-40
-60
Dredging
Dredging
-= West flow upriver
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
-80
Local time
December 6 Mooring 6, East-West Velocity
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
East-west velocity, in centimeters per second
80
60
40
20
0
Mooring 5-6 DOWN FLOW
of Dredge Area
-20
Bottom ADCP bin
Average ADCP bins < 1 meter below surface
-40
Dredging
-60
Dredging
-= West flow upriver
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
-80
Local time
Figure 11F. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2 and mooring 6,
Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, on December 6, 2005.
107
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 6 Low Tide Mooring 6 Surface Turbidity
10,000
G
Flow is upriver toward line M12
Low Tide at 19:10, Dec. 6
1,000
Turbidity, in NTU
Low tide at 19:10, Dec. 6
Low tide at 6:50, Dec. 7
100
10
Low tide at 6:50, Dec. 7
23:10
3:30
3:45
4:00
3:45
4:00
3:15
3:30
3:00
2:45
2:30
22:10
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
21:10
1:15
20:10
18:10 local 12/6
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
17:10
2:45
3:00
3:15
16:10
3:30
3:45
4:00
15:10
1
Dredging 17:37
through 18:48
1:00
Dredging 13:01
through 16:19
Time before or after low tide
December 6 Low Tide Mooring 6 Bottom OBS Reflectance
1000
H
Low tide at 19:10, Dec. 6
Flow is upriver toward line M12
Optical backscatter, in millivolts .
Low tide at 6:50, Dec. 7
100
Low tide at 19:10, Dec. 6
10
Low tide at 6:50, Dec. 7
Dredging 13:01
through 16:19 12/6
Dredging 17:37
through 18:48 12/6
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
1
Time before or after low tide
Figure 11G and 11H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and optical backscatter
(in millivolts) in the bottom water at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during
the low tide at 19:10 on December 6, 2005, and the low tide at 6:50 on December 7, 2005.
108
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
PCB Homologs Dec 6 PM
40
TD Dec 6 PM
35
TU Dec 6 PM
TU Dec 1 (background)
TD Dec. 1 (background)
30
TD Dec. 12 (Background)
Percent of total PCB mass
Core C 0 to 1 ft.
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mono
Di
Tri
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Nona
Deca
Figure 11I. Percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) homologs by
weight for pilot dredge background samples collected December 6, 2005,
and bed sediment samples from 2004 core C (0 to 1 ft.) from the Lower
Passaic River, New Jersey.
[C, core transect C in figure 3; TU, upriver sample site; TD, downriver
sample site].
109
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 7 - a.m.
Dredging on December 7 was conducted for only one period – from 7:44 until 15:38; a
total of 143 unique dredge bites were taken between the NJSPC XY coordinates 594185695487 and 594345-695465 (corresponding to dredge cells A1 through B1) (fig. 3). From
8:00 to 11:45, the flow direction was upriver, and from 1245 to the end of dredging; the
flow was downriver. Cross-sectional monitoring for SS was conducted along both lines
from 8:00 to 12:30 and again from 14:30 to 16:30. Sampling for chemical constituents
was conducted from 930 to 12:30 along both lines during the time flow was upriver;
TOPS sampling was not conducted during the afternoon. Samples collected Dec. 7 were
evaluated as a morning samples (sampled for chemical and SS analysis); during the
afternoon period samples were collected for SS. No substantial problems were associated
with the sediment or chemical sampling.
Suspended Sediment
The concentrations of SS at lines M12 and M56 in the surface and bottom water samples
followed a similar pattern during the dredging (fig. 12A). For the surface and bottom
water samples collected at the downflow line M12, concentrations of SS began increasing
at 8:00 in both the surface and bottom water. After initially rising, the concentrations in
the surface water remained at about 15 to 25 mg/L until 11:30, after which time they
decreased. Because the flow was upriver from line M56 to line M12, the increased SS in
successive samples from the upflow line M56 cannot be attributed to dredging. The
concentrations of SS for line M56 followed nearly the same pattern as for line M12; first
increasing, peaking at 10:30, and then decreasing. The concentrations of SS in surface
water from line M56 were very high in the first two samples, but then decreased until
9:00 after which time the concentrations increased steadily throughout the remainder of
the morning.
110
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Turbidity
The turbidity data from downflow mooring 2 shows that turbidity increased steadily in
bottom and surface water beginning at about 10:00 (fig. 12B). Turbidity also increased in
the bottom water at mooring M1, where it peaked at 11:00 before declining as the
reversal in flow direction approached. During this time, the turbidity in the bottom water
at the upflow mooring M6 increased sharply beginning at 9:30, peaking at 1:00,
thereafter declining to moderate levels over the remainder of the afternoon (note that after
12:00 the M56 line was downflow) (fig. 12C). Turbidity in the surface water at M5 was
also high during the time flow direction was upriver. However, turbidity was not elevated
in the surface water at M6. These data confirm the increase in concentrations of SS in the
cross-channel samples from lines M12 and M5.
Water Salinity and Velocity
Dredging began on December 7 at the end of low tide, continued through high tide, and
ended almost at the time of maximum low tide in the afternoon (fig. 12D). Beginning at
about 10:00, the bottom water salinity increased sharply, as the saltwater interface moved
upriver through the area, and peaked at about 11:30. In the surface water, the salinity
increase was more gradual and ultimately reached a level of about one-fourth the salinity
of the bottom water. As dredging concluded and the salinity was declining as the tide
lowered (fig. 12D). The dredging was conducted through the entire upriver velocity
cycle, through the time of no flow at high tide, then continued until maximum downriver
velocity was attained (fig. 12E). Thus, the increase in concentration of SS in the crosschannel monitoring samples and the increase in turbidity correlate almost exactly with the
passing of the saltwater interface (first upriver and later downriver) and with the time of
maximum flow velocities in both directions.
111
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles
Additional evidence for the movement of the maximum turbidity through line M12 was
found by comparing the turbidity measurements made at mooring 2 during the high tide
at 12:15 on December 7 with the next high tide that occurred at 1:40 a.m. on Dec. 8 (fig.
12F-I). The turbidity data were aligned at the time of maximum high tide for the two
cycles, and the data were plotted from 4 hours before until 4 hours after high tide was
reached. Almost identical OBS readings were recorded for the two cycles in the bottom
water at mooring M2, showing that the elevated turbidity in the bottom water that
occurred during the dredging was not anomalous (fig. 12F). In the surface water at
mooring M2 (downflow, fig. 12G), the turbidity was lower during the time dredging than
occurred at the 1:40 tide on Dec. 8 cycle. However, after the high tide at 12:15 onDec. 7,
the turbidity was substantially higher than during the tide cycle on Dec. 8– but this
increased turbidity occurred when the flow direction was downriver and so cannot be
attributed to dredging. The surface-water turbidity measured at mooring M1 on Dec. 7
was similar to the turbidity measured for the Dec 8 high tide, although a few short peaks
in turbidity occurred during Dec. 7 (fig. 12H). The OBS measurements in the bottom
water at mooring M1 were collected on a coarse (30 minute) time scale and so do not
contain the detail observed in the OBS readings at the other moorings; however, the
turbidity data plot in nearly identical patterns through both tide cycles reaching high
levels after high tide was reached and during the last hour of dredging.
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
The sediment load mass balance were calculated for December 7 for two time periods,
8:00 to 12:30 when flow was upriver and 12:30 to 16:30 when flow was downriver (table
12). For the morning upriver flow period, the imbalance in sediment load was calculated
to be +3.2 percent, showing there was no difference between sediment loads at the two
mooring lines.
112
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 12. Summary of sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 7, 2005. [kg, kilograms; totals are rounded]
Mass of
Change in
sediment
Time at
M12
passing
M12,
in
Time at
M56
Difference in
sediment
Mass of sediment
mass
1
load ,
passing M56, in
(M12-M56),
in
Kg/30 minutes
in
percent
kg/30
kg/30 minutes
minutes
Upriver flow – morning
8:00-830
-238
700
4,330
-4,570
830-9:00
-2,050
730
1,370
-3,420
9:00-930
-2,900
800
-1,390
-1,510
930-1000
-3,710
830
-1,380
-2,340
1000-1030
-5,460
9:00
-5,100
-357
1030-1100
-5,000
930
-7,000
2,000
1100-1130
-7,040
1000
-7,200
158
1130-1200
-3,420
1030
-6,960
3,540
1200-1230
-1,280
1100
-4,390
3,110
1230-1300
492
1130
-1,920
2,410
Total
-30,600
-29,600
971
490
+3.2
-3,080
-627
-589
-23
-2,560
-113
-6,230
-223
-10,700
-253
-5,940
-150
2,650
10
-14,500
-142
-78
1,920
167
52
63
6.5
-40
-2.2
-104
-242
Downriver flow- afternoon
1230-1300
492
1300-1330
3,580
1300-1330
2,560
1330-1400
3,150
1330-1400
2,270
1400-1430
4,820
1400-1430
2,790
1430-1500
9,020
1430-1500
4,220
1500-1530
14,900
1500-1530
3,950
1530-1600
9,890
1530-1600
26,200
1600-1630
23,500
1600-1630
10,200
1630-1700
24,680
Total
52,600
93,500
-40,900
Total 1230 to 2030
130,300
217,600
-87,300
-67
Total 24 hours
191,000
318,000
-12,7000
-66
1. Percent change in sediment load is calculated as sediment mass at (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative
values indicate more mass was calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
113
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Chemistry
With the exception the last cross-channel aliquot, all of the samples analyzed were
collected during upriver flow. The concentration of total PCBs in the upflow sample
collected at line M56 (downriver of the dredge) during Dec. 7 was 1,050 μg/kg, whereas
in the downflow sample (upriver from the dredge at line M12), the concentration of total
PCB was 1,230 μg/kg, an increase of 182 μg/kg, or 17 percent (table 4). Concentrations
of total dioxin/furans in these samples decreased from 14.6 ng/kg to 12.2 ng/kg, a
decrease of 16 percent. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD decreased from 1,080 ng/kg
at line M56 to 342 ng/kg at M12 (a decrease of 68 percent) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF decreased
from 30 ng/kg to 26 ng/kg, a decrease of 13 percent. Likewise, the concentration of total
4,4’-DDTs decreased from 214 μg/kg at M56 to 169 μg/kg at M12, a decrease of 22
percent.
A comparison of the concentrations of indicator compounds in the SS with those in the
bed sediment showed that the SS samples had concentrations of total PCBs, total
PCDD+PCDF and 2,3,7,8-TCDD that were within the range for the bed sediment. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD for the upflow sample was elevated to a level similar to
those in the deeper river-bed sediment (2 to 3 ft.). The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF
and total 4,4’-DDT in upflow and downflow samples were within the range for the bed
sediments. The ratios of concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-TCDD also were
within the range of those for the bed sediment; however, the ratio in the downflow
sample (0.91) was at the high end of the range for bed sediment, because of the high
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in this sample.
Concentrations of total PCBs in the upflow and downflow samples were within the range
reported by NJCARP for SS in the PAS-1 and Newark Bay samples. The concentration
of total PCDD+PCDF in the upflow sample was greater than the range reported by
NJCARP, but concentrations in the downflow sample was within the range. As noted
previously, the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the upflow sample was very high and
exceeded the range reported by NJCARP. This supports the findings in this study that the
natural range of concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is larger than the range reported by
114
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
NJCARP. The concentration in the downflow sample was within the NJCARP range, as
was the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in both the upflow and downflow samples. The
concentrations of total 4,4’-DDT in both samples was higher than the range reported by
NJCARP.
Concentrations of dissolved compounds were measured only in the upriver (downflow)
samples. The concentrations of dissolved PCBs were within the range for the NJCARP
samples.
December 7 – p.m.
Samples collected during the afternoon of Dec. 7 were analyzed only for SS
concentrations. With the exception of the last sample of bottom water collected from
downflow line M56, concentrations of SS in samples collected from 14:30 to 16:30 were
less than 15 mg/L and increased only slightly throughout the afternoon. The
concentrations of SS in the surface water collected downflow at M56 decreased through
the afternoon but, as mentioned, increased in the very last sample collected.
Concentrations of SS in samples from the upflow line M12 were also less than 15 mg/L
and relatively steady during the afternoon.
Turbidity
The turbidity at upflow line M12 increased steadily throughout the afternoon, peaking
between 13:00 and 14:00 (fig. 12A). Because the flow was downriver after 12:00, the
peaks in turbidity at line M12 that occurred in the afternoon cannot be attributed to
dredging. Instead, the rise in turbidity likely resulted from the downriver transport of SS
that previously had been transported upriver by tidal flow. The turbidity measured in the
bottom and surface water downflow at M5 and M6 was generally steady throughout the
afternoon, although an increase was detected in the bottom water at M6 at 14:00, after
which it decreased sharply. Turbidity in the bottom water at M6 and the surface water at
M5 began to increase at about 16:00 and remained elevated for about four hours through
20:00. A sharp increase occurred in the surface water turbidity of M6 beginning shortly
115
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
before 19:00; however, all of the increases in turbidity occurred after 15:38 when the
dredging operations had finished for the day. During this time, the downriver flow
velocity was more than 40 cm/s, so only a release at the very end of the dredging could
possibly have caused the increase in turbidity that was measured in the downflow
samples after 16:00. There was no clear indication that turbidity increased downflow
from the ongoing dredging. The turbidity data confirm the increase in SS concentrations
measured in the last transect sample collected from the cross-channel monitoring at line
M56 at 16:00, and also show that high levels of SS remained in the water column for
about 4 hours throughout the evening low tide cycle (ending at 21:00), well after
dredging had ended.
Salinity and Velocity
During the afternoon of December 7, the salinity of the bottom water was elevated until
approximately 14:00, when it began to decrease sharply. In the surface water, however,
the salinity decrease was gradual and did not reach freshwater values until 17:30. During
this period, the velocity of both the bottom water and surface water increased steadily,
and there was a marked difference between the velocity at the bottom and surface; the
velocity in the surface water was about 40 cm/s greater than in the bottom water. Thus,
the afternoon dredging and sampling occurred at the saltwater interface, and likely its
associated zone of high turbidity passed through the dredging area.
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance
For the afternoon period when flow was downriver, the sediment loads mass balance was
calculated to be -78 percent, which is greater than the assumed level of significance (table
12). If the length of time over which the sediment load was integrated was increased to
include the entire period of downriver flow, the imbalance decreased slightly to -67
percent. The mass-balance values support the finding that that more sediment passed the
downflow line M56 than passed line M12 during this period.
116
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Chemistry
The chemical sampling was conducted only during the morning period (until 12:30) when
the flow was upriver. No sampling or other tests were performed to determine the
chemistry of the sediment during the afternoon downriver flow.
117
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
35
Flow upriver to
M12
Downriver line M56 shallow
Downriver line M56 deep
Upriver line M12 shallow
Upriver line M12 deep
Concentration of suspended sediment, in mg/L
30
25
20
15
10
5
Dredging
0
700
730
800
830
900
930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700
Local Time
Figure 12A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional
samples collected from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 7,
2005. Vertical lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were
collected.
118
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
100
Turbidity mooring M2
surface
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
90
1 point
Backscatter mooring M2
bottom
80
Turbidity mooring M1
surface
70
Backscatter mooring M1
bottom
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
60
50
40
30
20
10
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
0
Local time
Figure 12B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 7, 2005.
December 7 Mooring 5-6
100
Flow upriver
toward line
M12
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
90
Turbidity, mooring M6, surface
Flow up river
toward line
M12
Backscatter, mooring M6, bottom
80
Turbidity, mooring M5, surface
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
LT
15:00
14:00
Dredging
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
HT
7:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
6:00
LT
0
Local time
Figure 12C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 7, 2005.
119
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 7 Mooring 2 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
12
Water elevation
11
11
10
Salinity, mooring 2,
bottom
9
Salinity, mooring 2,
surface
10
9
8
7
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
Salinity, in PSU
Water elevation, in meters
8
4
2
3
1
2
0
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
0
2:00
-2
1:00
1
0:00
-1
Local Time
Figure 12D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 7, 2005.
December 7 Mooring 2 E-W Velocity
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow upriver to
line M12
Flow upriver to
line M12
80
East-west velocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
Bottom ADCP bin
-20
Average ADCP bins < 1m
from surface
-40
-= West flow upriver
Dredging
-60
LT
LT
HT
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
-80
Local time
Figure 12E. East-west velocity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 7, 2005.
120
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 7 High Tide Mooring 2 Bottom OBS Reflectance
50
F
45
High tide at 12:15, Dec.
7
40
Optical backscatter, in millivolts
Flow is upriver
toward line M12
Hight tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
35
30
High tide at 12:15, Dec. 7
25
20
High tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
15
10
5
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
0
Time before or after high tide
December 7 High Tide Mooring 2 Surface Turbidity
50
G
45
High tide at 12:15, Dec. 7
High tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
40
Flow is upriver toward line M12
High tide at 12:15, Dec. 7
Turbidity, in NTU
35
30
25
20
15
10
4:00
3:45
16:15
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
15:15
2:30
2:15
1:45
1:30
14:15
1:15
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:00
13:15
11:15 local 12/7
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
10:15
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
3:00
9:15
8:15
4:00
0
High tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
2:00
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38
5
Time before or after high tide
Figure 12F and 12G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the high
tide at 12:15 on December 7, 2005, and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8, 2005.
121
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 7 High Tide Mooring 1 Surface Turbidity
14
H
High tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
Flow is downriver toward line M56
12
Turbidity, in NTU
10
8
High tide at 12:15, Dec. 7
6
4
Flow is upriver toward line M12
High tide at12:15, Dec. 7
High tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
2
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38 Dec. 7
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
0
Time before or after high tide
December 7 High Tide Mooring 1 Bottom OBS Reflectance
50
I
Hight tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
45
High tide at 12:15, Dec. 7
Optical backscatter, in millivolts * 1000
40
Flow is downriver toward line M56
Flow is upriver toward line M12
35
High tide at 1:40, Dec. 8
30
25
20
15
10
High tide at 12:15, Dec. 7
5
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
0
Time beforeor after high tide
Figure 12H and 12I. Comparison of turbidity in surface water, and optical backscatter (in
millivolts * 1000) in bottom water at mooring 1, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during
the high tide at 12:15 on December 7, 2005 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8, 2005.
122
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 8
Dredging on December 8 was conducted from 9:20 to 13:27. A total of 85 unique dredge
bites were taken between the NJSPC XY coordinates 594318-695472 and 594414695476 (corresponding to dredge cell C1) (fig. 3). During all but the last 30 minutes of
dredging, flow was upriver from line M56 to line M12. Cross-sectional monitoring for SS
was conducted from 8:30 to 16:00 (samples were not collected at 10:00, 14:00, and 14:30
along line M56), and from 7:30 to 15:30 (samples were not collected at 8:30 and 13:00)
along line M12 (fig. 13A). Samples for chemical analysis were collected during upflow
from 10:30 to 13:30 along both lines. No substantial problems occurred with the sediment
or chemical sampling.
Suspended Sediment
The concentrations of SS in samples collected at both lines followed similar trends (fig.
13A). Concentrations were low until 9:30 when they began to increase, and peaked at
11:00, after the concentrations fell steadily until 16:00. This rise and fall in
concentrations of SS occurred nearly simultaneously at both monitoring lines. Although
the concentrations in the bottom water at both lines followed the same trend, the
maximum concentration reached at the downflow (upriver line M12) line was almost 30
mg/L greater than at the upflow line. Because flow was upriver during most of the
dredging, the increase in concentrations of SS at line M56 cannot be attributed to
dredging.
Turbidity
Turbidity and OBS (fig. 13B and 13C) at downflow line M12 confirm the increase in SS
in the cross-channel samples. As was the case for SS, OBS turbidity increased in the
bottom water at M1 and M2 beginning about 10:00 and reached maximum values at
11:00 (M2) and 12:00 (M1), after which values decreased at both moorings. The turbidity
in the surface water at M2 was low and steady until 11:30 when a very sharp but shortlived spike in turbidity occurred (fig. 13B). The difference between the turbidity
123
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
measured in the surface water at M1 and at M2 is striking – the well defined spike of
turbidity that occurred at M2 is suggestive of the passing of a small “slug” of SS, perhaps
related to stirring by boat traffic or debris. Similar spikes are evident in the bottom water
of M1 at 3:00 and again at 18:00. Whatever the cause, the turbidity in the surface water at
M2 was low and was not greatly affected by the spikes, nor did it change as the dredging
progressed. This differs from the turbidity of the surface water measured during dredging
at the upflow mooring M5, which gradually increased. Unlike the turbidity spike
measured at the surface of M2, the rise and fall in turbidity at M1 in both the surface and
bottom water were substantial and well defined. The turbidity in the bottom and surface
water at the downflow moorings M5 and M6 (fig. 13C) also increased, peaked, and then
decreased concurrently with turbidity at M12. These data confirm the increase in
concentrations of SS measured in the cross-sectional monitoring in the bed sediment and
show that nearly simultaneous increases in SS occurred at both lines.
Water Salinity and Velocity
The dredging occurred during a sharp increase in salinity in both the bottom and surface
water at mooring M2 (fig. 13D). The increase in salinity began shortly after 10:00 while
the dredge operations were underway and occurred simultaneously with the increase in
turbidity shown in figure 13C. The salinity of the surface-water rose to high levels (8
PSU) on the Dec. 8, close to the value for the bottom water (10.5 PSU). In contrast, on
Dec. 7 (fig. 12D), the salinity of the surface-water reached only 2 PSU. Dredging was
conducted throughout the entire upflow velocity cycle (fig. 13E).
124
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles
The turbidity measured on Dec. 8 at the downflow mooring line M12 was compared to
the turbidity measured over the next high tide cycle, which was reached at 2:20 on Dec 9.
Aligning the turbidity data on the time of maximum high tide (fig. 13F and 13G), showed
that the surface turbidity at mooring M2 on Dec. 8 was low and constant, and was similar
to the turbidity during the high tide later that night. Between 2 and 4 hours before each
high tide, the turbidity in the surface water was low and steady and nearly identical in the
two cycles – low and steady. The turbidity on Dec 9, however, began to rise about 2
hours before maximum high tide was reached. This likely was due to the storm that
passed through the area during that time. However, during Dec. 8, the turbidity increased
only slightly, beginning at 13:00 as the flow direction reversed. Over the next 6 hours,
turbidity remained low and nearly constant and clearly did not increase during the
dredging. Therefore, no indication was observed that dredging affected the surface-water
turbidity does not exist. A similar conclusion can be made for the turbidity in the bottom
water (fig. 13G). Almost identical turbidity was present in the bottom water for the two
successive high tides – rising steeply before declining towards the end of the upriver
flow.
125
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
The sediment loads and mass balance calculated for December 8, for the period 9:00 to
13:30 (table 13), had an imbalance of -23 percent. This indicates that sediment was lost
between the upflow mooring line M56 and the downflow line M12; however, this
difference is within the assumed level of significance, so the loads are essentially equal
between the two monitoring lines.
Table 13. Summary of sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 8, 2005.
[kg, kilograms; totals are rounded]
Mass of
Change in
Mass of
sediment
Difference in
sediment
sediment
passing M56,
mass
1
load ,
Time at
passing M12, in
in
(M12-M56), in
in
M12
kg/30 minutes
Time at M56
kg/30 minutes
kg/30 minutes
percent
9:00
727
8:00
3,530
-2,810
930
-1,450
830
1,960
-3,420
1000
-5,520
9:00
532
-6,050
1030
-9,000
930
-3,360
-5,640
1100
-15,200
1000
-8,640
-6,570
1130
-18,900
1030
-20,800
1,860
1200
-12,200
1100
-23,700
11,500
1230
-5,560
1130
-16,500
11,000
1300
-1,410
1200
-12,000
11,000
1330
1,420
1230
-3,840
5,250
Total
-67,100
-82,800
15,700
370
-23
Total 24 hours
30,400
50,500
-20,100
-66
-386
235
110
63
43
-9.9
-94
-197
-755
1. Percent change in sediment load is calculated as sediment mass at (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative
values indicate more mass was calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
126
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Chemistry
Samples for analysis of organic compounds were collected n Dec. 8 from 10:30 to 13:45,
when flow was upriver towards line M12. The concentration of total PCBs in samples
collected on Dec. 8 was 1,380 μg/kg in the upflow (downriver) sample and 791 μg/kg in
the downflow sample, showing that total PCBs decreased by 588 μg/kg or 43 percent
(table 4). Concentrations of total dioxin+furans also decreased (-26 percent); however,
the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD increased from 510 ng/kg to 2,680 ng/kg (+425
percent). A large increase was not observed in the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF, which
decreased from 27 ng/kg to 18 ng/kg (-33 percent). The concentration of total 4,4-DDT’s
also decreased from 218 μg/kg to 89 μg/kg in the downflow sample, a decrease of 59
percent.
The concentrations of total PCB in the upflow sample were within the range of
concentrations reported for the bed sediment; however, the concentration of total PCBs in
the downflow sample was lower than the range. The concentrations of total
PCDD+PCDF in both samples also were within the range for bed sediment. The 2,3,7,8TCDD concentration in the upflow sample was within the range for bed sediments, but
the downflow sample had a concentration much greater than was reported for the 2004
cores. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the upflow and downflow samples were
lower than the range reported for bed sediment. The ratios of the concentrations of
2,3,7,8-TCDD to tetra-TCDDs in the upflow and downflow samples were within the
range for in the 2004 cores, although the ratio for the downflow sample was quite high
(0.98), the highest of any sample collected in this study. The concentration of total 4,4’DDT in the upflow sample also was much greater than the range of concentrations in the
bed sediment, whereas the concentration in the downflow sample was within the range.
The concentrations of total PCBs in both samples were within the range reported by
NJCARP for the PAS-1 and Newark Bay samples. The concentration of total
PCDD+PCDF in the upflow sample was higher than the range, but the concentration in
the downflow sample was within the range reported by NJCARP for this constituent.
127
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Both samples had concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD that were higher than the range
reported by NJCARP. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF were within the range, but the
concentration of 4,4’-DDT in the upflow sample was greather than the range reported by
NJCARP for suspended sediment. Concentrations of dissolved constituents were
measured only in the upriver (downflow) samples that were collected on Dec. 8 from line
M12. The concentration of dissolved PCB was within the range of concentrations
reported by the NJCARP.
128
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
100
Moorings 1-2 Downflow of dredge area
90
Downriver line M56 shallow
Downriver line M56 deep
Concentration of suspended sediment, in mg/L
Upriver line M12 shallow
Upriver line M12 deep
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Dredging
0
700
730
800
830
900
930 1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700
Local Time
Figure 13A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional
samples collected from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 8,
2005. Vertical lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were
collected.
129
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
150
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
Backscatter, mooring M2, bottom
130
1 point
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
Turbidity, mooring M2, surface
140
Flow upriver
towards line
M12
Turbidity, mooring M1, surface
120
Backscatter, mooring M, bottom
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
0
Local time
Figure 13B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter
(in millivolts) at line M1, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 8, 2005.
130
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 8 Mooring 5-6 Surface and Bottom Turbidity
150
Flow upriver
toward line
M12
Turbidity, mooring M6, surface
130
Flow upriver
toward line
M12
Backscatter, mooring M6, bottom
120
Turbidity, mooring M5, surface
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
LT
HT
20:00
LT
0
13:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
140
Local time
Figure 13C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter
(in millivolts) at line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 8, 2005.
131
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 8 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
12
Water elevation
11
11
Salinity, mooring 2, bottom
10
10
Salinity, mooring 2, surface
9
9
8
7
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
Salinity, in PSU
Water elevation, in meters
8
4
2
3
1
2
0
Dredging
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
0
2:00
-2
1:00
1
0:00
-1
Local time
Figure 13D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River,
New Jersey, December 8, 2005.
132
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 8 Mooring 2 AM
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow upriver
to line M12
80
East-west velocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
-20
Bottom ADCP bin
-40
Average ADCP bins
<1meter from surface
-= West flow upriver
Dredging
-60
LT
HT
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
9:00
10:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
-80
Local time
Figure 13E. East–west velocity measured at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River,
New Jersey, December 8, 2005.
133
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 8 High Tide Mooring 2 Surface Turbidity
50
Maximum 82.5 NTU at
2:20 (11:25 local time)
F
45
High tide at 13:26, Dec 8
High tide at 2:20, Dec. 9
40
Flow is downstream towards line M56
Flow is upstream
toward line M12
Turbidity, in NTU
35
30
High tide at 2:20, Dec. 9
25
20
15
10
High tide at 13:45, Dec. 8
5
Dredging from 9:20 to 13:27
17:45
3:30
3:45
4:00
3:45
4:00
3:15
3:30
3:00
2:45
2:30
16:45
2:15
2:00
1:45
15:45
1:30
1:15
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:00
14:45
12:45 local 12/8
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
11:45
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
3:00
10:45
9:45
0
Time before or after high tide
December 8 High Tide Mooring 2 Bottom OBS Reflectance
50
G
Flow is downriver
toward line M56
Flow is upriver toward line M12
45
Optical backscatter, in millivolts
40
High tide at 13:45, Dec. 8
35
High tide at 2:20, Dec. 9
30
25
High Tide @ 2:20 12/9
20
15
10
Dredging from 9:20 to 13:27
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
16:45
2:15
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
2:00
15:45
14:45
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:15
High Tide @ 13:45 12/8
12:45
11:45
2:30
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
3:00
10:45
9:45
4:00
0
2:00
5
Time before or after high tide
Figure 13F and 13G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the high
tide at 12:15 on December 7, 2005, and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8, 2005.
134
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10
Dredging was conducted twice on December 10, from 7:45 to 10:38 (am sampling) and
from 12:39 to 15:18 (pm sampling). During the morning dredging (7:45 to 10:38) 88
unique dredge bites were taken between the NJSPC XY coordinates 594402-695515 and
594383-695543 (corresponding to dredge cell D1) (fig. 3). The flow was downriver
(toward line M56) during the entire morning of dredging.
During the afternoon, 58 unique dredge bites were taken between the XY coordinates
594459-695483 and 594485-695457 (corresponding to dredge cell E1). Flow during the
afternoon dredging was upriver toward line M12. Cross-sectional sampling for SS was
conducted from 7:30 to 16:00 (samples were not collected at 11:00 and at 11:30 from
line M56) and 7:00 to 16:00 along line M12 (samples were not collected at 11:00 and
11:30). Sampling for chemical analysis was conducted from 7:30 to 10:30 (am sampling)
on both lines, from 12:30 to 15:00 (p.m. sampling) along line M56, and from 12:30 to
14:00 along line M12. Sampling along line M12 was stopped early, after the 14:00
sample, because of equipment malfunction.
December 10 - a.m.
Suspended Sediment
Concentrations of SS in the morning samples from lines M12 and M56 were nearly
identical (fig. 14A). Concentrations increased slowly from about 25 mg/L to slightly
more than 50 mg/L in final samples collected at 10:30. Close inspection of the values
shows that SS in samples from the upflow line M12, in the bottom and surface water,
were slightly greater than in corresponding samples from the downflow line M56.
Because flow at this time was downriver, the increase in SS content in the line M12
samples cannot be the result of dredging.
135
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Turbidity
The turbidity in the bottom water at the downflow mooring M6 and in the bottom and
surface water at M5 increased greatly during the morning as dredging began, and peaked
at about 10:15, after which it decreased at all locations (fig. 14B). However, turbidity in
the surface water at M6 did not change during this time. Only in the bottom water at
mooring M2 (up-flow, fig. 14C) was a marked increase in turbidity detected. Turbidity in
the surface and bottom water at M1 increased slowly but steadily through the latter half
of the morning. Turbidity in the surface water at M2 was steady until just after 10:00
when the flow direction reversed. These data confirm the gradual increase in SS
concentrations measured in samples from the downflow and upflow cross-channel
monitoring lines.
Water Salinity and Velocity
The morning dredging was conducted during the ebbing tide as the water level decreased
and the water freshened (fig. 14D). The salinity decreased only slightly throughout the
morning. During this time, the east-west water velocity was constant throughout the
water column at about 30 cm/s, until about 10:00 when the velocity decreased rapidly as
the flow direction reversed (fig. 14E). Thus, the increased turbidity observed at the
downflow line M56 occurred after the saltwater interface had passed and during a period
of high and constant downriver velocity. Shortly after the dredging and sampling ended,
the water flow rapidly changed direction and the upfloow velocity increased, during a
short high tide. Compared with the velocities on other monitored days, the “stepped”
velocity profile during the morning of December 10 is unique and may have affected the
pattern of turbidity.
136
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles
The surface water turbidity and bottom water OBS measurements made at the downflow
mooring line M56 during the morning low tide cycle of December 10 were compared
with the turbidity and OBS measured during the next lowtide cycle, which occurred at
22:40 on December 10 (figs. 14 F-H). In the surface water at mooring M6 (fig. 14F), the
turbidity measured during the lead up to low tide was almost identical in both cycles; the
turbidity was low and showed little fluctuation throughout the tide cycles. For the most
part, this was also observed in the bottom water at mooring M6 (fig. 14G); however,
close inspection showed that turbidity (OBS) in the bottom water began to increase at
about 8:45 in the morning of Dec. 10 (note the log scale used in this plot, which reduces
the apparent difference in values). The turbidity measured in the shallow portion of the
river channel at the downflow mooring M5 (fig. 14H) during the morning of Dec. 10 was
much greater than the turbidity recorded during the evening tide cycle.
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
The sediment loads and mass balances for December 10 were calculated and are
presented in table 14. The loads were offset by 30 minutes to account for the downriver
travel time between mooring lines. The sediment loads for the period 7:30 to 11:30 had
an imbalance of -33 percent, which is outside the 25 percent uncertainty; therefore, no
significant difference was apparent in the loads crossing the two mooring lines.
137
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 14. Summary of sediment mass and loads, Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, December 10, 2005.
[kg, kilograms; totals are rounded]
Mass of
Change in
sediment
Mass of sediment
passing M12,
passing M56, in
in
Time at
kg/30
Time at
M12
minutes
M56
730-800
800-830
830-900
900-930
930-1000
1000-1030
1030-1100
6,470
9,590
7,600
7,760
8,640
8,970
9,510
Total
58,500
1200-1230
1230-1300
1300-1330
1330-1400
1400-1430
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-1600
1600-1630
Total
-4,790
-8,990
-16,600
-25,100
-22,900
-12,300
-6,970
-2,970
1,400
kg/30 minutes
Downriver flow – morning
800-830
12,200
830-9:00
10,300
900-930
11,000
930-1000
12,600
1000-1030
17,600
1030-1100
9,440
1100-1130
4,820
77,900
Upriver flow – afternoon
1100-1130
4,820
1130-1200
-2,210
1200-1230
-7,580
1230-1300
-21,200
1300-1330
-26,600
1330-1400
-21,300
1400-1430
-15,700
1430-1500
-8,030
1500-1530
-3,360
-101,000
sediment
Difference in
1
load ,
mass
in
(M12-M56), in
percent
kg/30 minutes
-5,730
-699
-3,390
-4,890
-8,930
-463
4,690
-89
-7.3
-45
-63
-103
-5.2
49
-19,400
-33
-9,600
-6,790
-9,010
-3,950
3,610
9,010
8,690
5,070
4,760
200
76
54
16
-16
-73
-125
-170
340
-99,300
1,782
-1.8
-109,000
-58,300
-50,950
47
1. Percent change in sediment load is calculated as sediment mass at (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative
Total 24 hours
values indicate more mass was calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
Sediment Chemistry
The concentrations of total PCBs in the samples collected during the morning of
December 10 were almost identical at the two monitoring lines, 1,220 μg/kg in the
upriver (and upflow) sample at line M12 and 1,190 μg/kg in the downriver (downflow)
sample from line M56, representing a difference of -2.7 percent (table 4). Concentrations
138
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
of total dioxins/furans in the samples decreased slightly from 13.8 μg/kg in the upflow
sample to 12.5 μg/kg in the downflow sample, representing a decrease of 9 percent. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD decreased substantially from 1,590 to 428 ng/kg for the
downriver sample (a decrease of 1,160 ng/kg, or -73 percent), whereas the concentration
of 2,3,7,8-TCDF increased slightly (9 percent). The concentration of total 4,4’-DDT
increased slightly from 158 to 167 ug/kg from the upriver sample, an increase of +5.7
percent.
Concentrations of total PCBs in both samples of SS were lower than the range for the bed
sediment, whereas the concentrations of total PCDD+PCDF were within the range of bed
sediment values. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was within the range for bed
sediment, being most similar to the concentrations in the 2-3 ft. depth of the cores
collected during 2004. The ratios of the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total TCDD in
the two samples were 0.89 and 0.67, which are within the range for the bed sediments.
The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF and total 4,4’-DDT in both samples were within the
ranges measured in the 2004 bottom cores.
The concentrations of total PCBs in both of the samples collected on December 10 (a.m.)
were within the range of the NJCARP samples. The concentration of total PCDD+PCDF
in the upflow sample was higher than the range, but the concentration in the downflow
sample was within the range of concentrations reported by the NJCARP work. The
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the upflow sample was high and exceeded the range of
concentrations reported by NJCARP, indicating that the range of concentrations in the
river exceeded that reported by NJCARP. The sample collected downflow from the
dredging had a concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD that was within the NJCARP range, as
were the two 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations. The concentrations of total 4,4’-DDTs in
both of the SS samples were greater than the range reported by NJCARP for PAS-1 and
Newark Bay samples.
139
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
During the morning of Dec. 10, only the sample from the downflow (down-river) line
M56 was analyzed for dissolved constituents (table 6). The concentrations of dissolved
PCBs in these samples were within the range of the NJ-CARP samples (table 5).
December 10 – p.m.
Suspended Sediment
During the afternoon of December 10, flow was upriver from line M56 to line M12. The
concentration of SS in samples from the two lines followed similar trends -- first
increasing with the onset of dredging, then decreasing throughout the afternoon.
Initial concentrations of SS were low, and with the exception of the upriver bottom water
sample from line M12, were similar to those in samples collected during the morning
(fig. 14A). However, concentrations increased after 12:30 and reached a maximum in the
13:00 and 13:30 samples, after which time the SS concentrations decreased to values
similar to those at the onset of dredging. The pattern exhibited by the SS in the bottom
water of the downflow line M12 is similar to that at upflow line M56 except that (1) the
initial sample at M12 contained a very high SS content, more than 150 mg/L, whereas at
M56 the initial SS concentration was less than 50 mg/L, and (2) the general pattern of the
concentrations (first increasing then decreasing) measured at line M12 (down-flow) is
offset in time compared to M56; the maximum concentration at line M56 (about 80
mg/L) was reached at 13:00 while at line M12 (20 mg/L) is was reached at 12:30. The
concentrations of SS in the bottom water at the downflow line M12 exceeded those
measured at the upflow line M56, which was nearly 200 mg/L.
The high concentration of SS at line M12 at 13:30 were, at first, suspicious, perhaps
having been generated by the sampling line hitting the bottom. However, this value is
now considered real because concentrations remained elevated over the next 1.5 hour
period, and the same general concentration pattern (first increasing, peaking, and then
decreasing) was observed for both sampling lines.
140
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Turbidity
Turbidity in the bottom water at the downflow mooring M1 and M2 (fig. 14C), and the
surface water at mooring M2, increased during the afternoon. The turbidity in the bottom
water at moorings M1 and M2 and at the surface water at M2 increased to high values
(>150 NTU) before returning to near their initial low levels, following the same pattern
as observed in the cross-sectional SS samples (fig. 14A). Turbidity at the surface of
mooring M2 remained elevated until much later in the day, when at about 17:00, a very
sharp decline occurred as values returned to pre-dredging levels. This pattern of a sharp
increase followed by a sharp decrease (at M2) may be real; however, the jump in
turbidity may also indicate instrument related problems such as the clogging of the
sensor. Also, turbidity in the surface water at M1 remained low and steady during this
period even though turbidity was high in the bottom water at this mooring. Over the same
time period the turbidity in the bottom water at the upflow mooring M6 and in the surface
water at M5 rose to high levels before declining as the end of the upriver flow was
approached. The turbidity in the surface water at M5 remained low and steady, similar to
that measured at M1. The turbidity measured at the two sampling lines confirmed the
pattern shown in the concentrations of SS that were measured in the bottom water, and
showed that the SS increased, peaked, then decreased during the dredging.
Water Salinity
The dredging during the afternoon of the Dec. 10, occurred as the salinity of the bottom
and surface water increased with the rising tide (fig. 14D). The salinity in the bottom and
the surface water rose to high levels, about 12 PSU in the bottom water and 9 PSU in the
surface water. Thus, the increase in turbidity and SS concentrations during the afternoon
coincided with the upriver movement of the saltwater interface and, likely, the associated
zone of high turbidity. The high turbidity that was measured in the surface water at
mooring 2 (fig. 14B) could be related to the high salinity that was measured on this day.
141
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Comparison of Turbidity during Consecutive Tide Cycles
The turbidity and optical backscatter data for the afternoon tidal cycle on December 10
(high tide at 15:45 on Dec. 10; fig. 14I) at the downflow line M12 were compared with
the values measured during the next high tide cycle which occurred at 4:45 on Dec. 11
(fig. 14K). The turbidity in the surface water at mooring M2 (fig. 14I) was similar during
the two tide cycles until approximately 2 hours before the afternoon high tide was
reached on Dec. 10, when the turbidity doubled from about 50 NTU up to 100 NTU. The
turbidity remained at near this value until about 1 hour after high tide was reached. This
“step” in turbidity is odd, and may indicate an instrument problem such as the clogging of
the sensor or other malfunction; however, if it is real, then a significant increase in
turbidity occurred at mooring M2 during afternoon of Dec. 10. There was no indication
of a similar jump during the tidal cycle on December 11. The OBS backscatter in the
bottom water followed the same pattern during the two cycles, but reached higher levels
during the high tide cycle on Dec. 10 (fig. 14I, note log scale). The backscatter in the
surface water at M1 was similar during the two cycles but was elevated from the turbidity
measured during Dec 11.
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
To calculate the afternoon sediment load and mass balance, the loads were offset by 60
minutes to account for the travel time between moorings at an average upriver flow
velocity of -20 cm/s. The calculated sediment load for the afternoon (table 14) crossing
the upflow line M56 almost exactly equals the load across the downflow line M12; the
difference is -1.8 percent. Thus, no difference was observed between the sediment loads
at the two monitoring lines.
142
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Sediment Chemistry
Nearly identical concentrations of total PCBs were measured in the SS samples collected
during the afternoon of December 10, only a small difference (6.4 percent) was measured
between the upflow (1,210 μg/kg at line M56) and the downflow (1,290 μg/kg in the
upriver sample at line M12) samples (table 4). The concentration of total dioxin/furans
increased by 16 percent, from 11.9 μg/kg in the downriver sample to 13.8 μg/kg in the
upriver sample. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was nearly identical in the two
samples, differing by only +2.2 percent. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF increased by
23 percent, whereas the concentration of total 4,4’-DDT increased substantially (295
percent), nearly tripling from 76 μg/kg to 224 μg/kg.
The concentrations of total PCBs in the two SS samples were lower than the range
reported for bed sediment, while total PCDD+PCDF, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and
total 4,4’-DDTs were all within the range of concentrations for bed sediment. The ratios
of the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total-TCDDS (0.65 in both samples) were low
but within the range for bed sediment.
Concentrations of total PCBs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and total 4,4’-DDTs were
all within the range of values reported by NJCARP for SS. Concentrations of total
PCDD+PCDF in the downflow sample exceeded the range of concentrations reported by
NJCARP. Dissolved components were not measured in afternoon samples collected on
Dec. 10.
143
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
250
Flow upriver to M12
Downriver line M56 shallow
Downriver line M56 deep
Concentration of suspended sediment, in mg/L
Upriver line M12 shallow
Upriver line M12 deep
200
150
100
50
Dredging
Dredging
0
700
730
800
830
900
930
1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700
Local Time
Figure 14A. Concentrations of suspended sediment in cross-sectional
samples collected from the Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December
10, 2005. Vertical lines delineate intervals when chemical samples were
collected.
144
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
300
Turbidity, mooring M2, surface
Flow upriver to
line M12
Flow upriver to
line M12
Turbidity, mooring M1, surface
Backscatter, mooring M1, bottom
200
150
100
Dredging
50
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
15:00
Dredging
0
14:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
Backscatter, mooring M2, bottom
250
Local time
Figure 14B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter
(in millivolts) at line M12, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 10,
2005.
145
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10 Mooring 5-6 Turbidity and OBS Reflectance
300
Flow is upriver
toward line M12
Turbidity, mooring M6, surface
Flow is upriver
toward line M12
Turbidity, mooring M5, surface
200
150
100
50
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
LT
HT
LT
16:00
Dredging
0
9:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and optical backscatter, in millivolts
Backscatter, mooring M6, bottom
250
Local time
Figure 14C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water optical backscatter
(in millivolts) at line M56, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, December 10,
2005.
146
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10 Mooring 2 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
12
Water elevation
11
11
10
Salinity, mooring 2, bottom
9
Salinity, mooring 2, surface
10
9
8
7
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
Salinity, in PSU
Water elevation, in meters
8
4
2
3
1
2
0
1
Dredging
-1
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0
0:00
-2
Local time
Figure 14D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 10, 2005.
December 10 EW Velocity at Mooring 2
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow upriver to
line M12
80
East-west velocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
-20
Bottom ADCP bin
-40
Average of ADCP bins
<1 meter from surface
Dredging
Dredging
LT
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
18:00
HT
-80
17:00
-= West flow upriver
16:00
-60
Local time
Figure 14E. East –west velocity measured at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey,
December 10, 2005.
147
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10 Low Tide Mooring 6 Surface Turbidity
50
F
Flow is upriver toward line M12
45
40
Low tide at 10:30, Dec. 10
Low tide at 22:40, Dec. 10
Turbidity, in NTU
35
30
Low tide at 10:30, Dec. 10
25
Low tide at 22:40, Dec. 10
20
15
10
Afternoon dredging 12:39 through 15:18
Morning dredging 7:45 through 10:38
5
4:00
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
3:45
14:30
13:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
12:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
11:30
0:30
0:45
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
1:00
9:30 local
8:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
7:30
3:45
4:00
6:30
0
Time before or after low tide
December 10 Low Tide Mooring 6 Bottom OBS Reflectance
1,000
G
Flow is upriver toward line M12
Low tide at 10:30, Dec. 10
Low tide at 22:40, Dec. 10
100
10
Low tide at 22:40, Dec. 10
Afternoon dredging
12:39 through 15:18
4:00
3:45
1430
3:30
3:15
2:45
1330
2:30
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
2:00
1230
1130
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
930
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
830
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
3:00
730
630
4:00
1
3:00
Morning dredging
7:45 through 10:38
2:15
Optical backscatter, in millivolts
Low tide at 10:30, Dec. 10
Time before or after low tide
Figure 14F and 14G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 6, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the low
tide at 10:30 on December 10, 2005 and the high tide at 22:40 on December 10, 2005.
148
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10 Mooring 5 Low Tide Surface Turbidity
100
Flow is upriver toward line M12
90
80
Low tide at 10:30, Dec. 10
Low tide at 22:40, Dec. 10
Turbidity, in NTU
70
Low tide at 10:30,
Dec. 10
60
50
40
30
20
Afternoon dredging 12:39
through 15:18
Low tide at 22:40, Dec. 10
10
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
1330
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1230
1:15
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:00
1130
930
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
830
2:45
3:00
3:15
730
3:30
3:45
4:00
0
Morning dredging 7:45 through 10:38
630
Time before or after low tide
Figure 14H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the low tide at 10:30 on December 10, 2005, and 22:40 on
December 10, 2005.
149
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10 High Tide Mooring 2 Surface Turbidity
1000
Flow is up river towards moorings 1-2
SURFACE NTU AM
SURFACE NTU PM
High Tide @ 15:45 12/10
Turbidity, in NTU
100
10
High Tide @ 4:45 12/11
Afternoon dredging from 12:39 to 15:18
4:00
3:45
3:30
19:45
3:15
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
3:00
18:45
17:45
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
16:45
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
14:45 local 12/10
1:30
1:45
2:15
13:45
2:30
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
3:00
12:45
2:00
11:45
1
Time before/after High Tide
December 10 High Tide Mooring 2 Bottom OBS Reflectance
1000
BOTTOM OBS AM
Flow is up river towards moorings 1-2
BOTTOM OBS PM
OBS backscatter, in millivolts
High Tide @ 15:45 12/10
100
10
High Tide @ 4:45 12/11
Afternoon dredging from 12:39 to 15:18
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
1
Time before/after High Tide
Figure 14I and 14J. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and bottom water OBS
backscatter (in millivolts) at mooring 2, Lower Passaic River, New Jersey, during the high
tide at 15:45 on December 10, 2005, and the high tide at 4:45 on December 11, 2005.
150
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 10 High Tide Mooring 1 Surface Turbidity
50
SURFACE NTU AM
SURFACE NTU PM
45
Flow is up river towards moorings 1-2
40
Turbidity, in NTU
35
30
Instrument stopped working
after this time
High Tide @ 15:45 12/10
25
20
15
10
High Tide @ 4:45 12/11
5
Afternoon dredging from 12:39 to 15:18 12/10
4:00
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
2:15
2:00
1:45
1:30
1:15
1:00
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
0
Time before/after High Tide
Figure 14K. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 1, Lower Passaic
River, New Jersey, during the high tide at 15:45 on December 10, 2005, and the high tide at
4:45 on December 11, 2005.
151
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Discussion and Summary
Three general observations can be made from the “far-field” monitoring of the Pilot
Dredge program presented in this report. First, the cross-channel sampling that was
designed and conducted for this program was apparently able to produce a representative
cross-sectional picture of SS in the river during dredging – at least consistent with the
turbidity and SS estimated using the reflectance data acquired using the moored
instruments. Data from the cross-channel sampling correlated with data fromthe moored
instruments regarding the suspended sediment content in the river. Only occasionally did
the moored instruments record an increase in turbidity that was not reflected in the
composite cross-channel SS samples. These periods of higher turbidity generally were
short lived pulses that likely were not captured in the composite samples. The good
agreement between the data from the moored instruments and from the composite
samples indicates that these sampling routines can be used to accurately monitor dredging
activities.
Second, using the concentrations of SS collected during the (cross-channel) monitoring to
demonstrate unequivocally that sediment was released from the dredging operation is a
difficult task because of the wide variation in natural SS content that can occur during
each tide cycle. This natural variability is associated with the presence and movement of
the saltwater/freshwater interface in the estuary. Data recorded at by the moored
instruments indicate that the saltwater interface and its associated zone of high turbidity
migrated through the dredge area with each daily tide. The SS estimated from the
reflectance data show that the SS in the river can rapidly change from near 0 mg/L to
over 400 mg/L (estimated). This change is the result of the migration of the natural
turbidity in the river. The velocity and conductivity data from the moored instruments
show that the saltwater interface migrated at various velocities, often migrating through
the Harrison Reach of the Lower Passaic River at a very slow rate. As a result, sediment
released during dredging would quickly became assimilated and “lost” in the natural zone
of high turbidity.
152
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Finally, the use of concentrations of indicator species of organic and inorganic
compounds to discern dredging releases is difficult because of the wide range of
concentrations that were present in the suspended sediment, and the similarity in
chemical concentrations of the suspended and the bed sediment. All of the “background”
samples collected during this study fall within, or near, the range of concentrations
measured in samples previously collected from the river (the NJCARP samples). The few
concentrations that were found to exceed the range of “background” concentrations most
likely indicate that a larger range of concentrations naturally exists in the river than was
previously known. All of the background concentrations obtained from the Pilot Dredge
study are within the range of concentrations in the bed sediments (0 to 1 ft. depth) of the
dredging area. The concentrations of selected indicator species in the suspended sediment
are exceeded only by the concentrations in samples of bed sediment buried deeper than 2
feet. The background samples collected in this study have concentrations of indicator
species that are within the range of concentrations found in the surficial (0 to 1 or 2 ft
depth) river bed samples. The bed sediment from 0 to 2 ft below the river bed could have
been disturbed and released by dredging or by natural erosion/resuspension that occurs in
the river.
Although it is difficult to identify the presence of sediment released by dredging, the SS
and chemical data obtained during this program still may support (or repudiate) the
contention that suspended sediment was released during dredging. To summarize the
detailed evaluation that was made of the daily monitoring data, the results of the
examination of the SS and chemical concentrations, and data from the moored
instruments are framed as questions which are presented in table 15. Ultimately, two
questions can be addressed for each day of dredging operations: (1) Did SS
concentrations increase from upflow to downflow of the dredging operations? and (2)
Did concentrations of indicator species increase downflow of the dredging activity?
December 5, morning. The information from the morning dredging period is difficult to
interpret because the monitoring was conducted during a flow reversal. Dredging began
153
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
late during the morning after the flow had reversed direction in the river; however the
majority of the composite sample was collected when flow was upriver and dredging was
not underway. During the period when flow was downriver and dredging was underway,
the concentrations of SS downflow from the dredge did not increase. Therefore, there is
no evidence that dredging released sediment. Because the chemical samples were
collected mainly during upriver flow when dredging was not underway, the chemical data
are not easily interpreted; thus, a change in concentrations occurred during dredging
could not be confirmed.
December 5, afternoon. Dredging was conducted during the afternoon when flow in the
river was in one direction, making the interpretation of the monitoring data more
straightforward. The concentrations of SS in the samples collected downflow from the
dredging increased substantially from the concentrations measured in upflow samples.
During the afternoon, the SS measured upflow decreased from the values that occurred in
the morning. Therefore, the increase in SS downflow from the dredging is most easily
explained as the passing of water and sediment that had migrated upriver with the tide
earlier in the day. Data from the moored instruments indicate this sediment was likely
associated with the saltwater interface and the zone of natural turbidity. The
concentrations of indicator chemicals did not change between upflow and downflow
samples; therefore, these data do not support the concentrations that contaminated bed
sediment was released by dredging.
December 6, morning. The dredging was conducted when a reversal in flow occurred in
the river, making to interpretation of changes in SS and chemical concentrations difficult.
The concentration of SS increased downflow from the dredge, but this increase began
well before the initiation of dredging and cannot be associated with the dredging activity.
The SS concentrations at both monitoring lines decreased as the morning dredging
proceeded, which is not consistent with an ongoing release of sediment during dredging.
Although the concentrations of indicator chemicals decreased from upflow to downflow
of the dredging, the reversal in flow makes the interpretation of these data equivocal.
154
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
December 6, afternoon. The dredging took place during a period of unidirectional
downriver flow, making interpretations for this period more straightforward than for the
morning. The SS concentrations increased in the samples collected downflow and
upflow from the dredging. However, the maximum concentration of SS measured
downflow were much greater than the peak concentration measured in the upflow
samples, indicating that SS was added to the river. The increase in SS occurred during the
time the saltwater interface was migrating downriver through the sampling area, and thus,
any sediment added by the dredging was obscured by the natural zone of turbidity. All of
the concentrations of indicator chemicals in the downflow samples were greater than
those in the morning samples, except the 4,4’-DDTs. Although obscured by the natural
variability in the turbidity of the river, the sediment and chemical data support the
contention that sediment may have been added to the river during the dredging. Further
evidence might be found in the “near-field” data collected from the L and M boat.
December 7, morning. Although the morning dredging was undertaken during a flow
reversed, flow was unidirectional (upriver) during the time when the sampling was
conducted. The SS concentrations in the samples collected from both downflow and
upflow from the dredging increased through the early morning, then decreased at both
locations as high tide approached and the upriver flow velocity diminished. The saltwater
interface moved through the dredge area twice during the morning, so it is likely that
variations in SS concentrations reflect the passing of the natural zone of turbidity through
the monitored area. The concentrations of all indicator species decreased between the
upflow and downflow samples collected during the dredging and were within the range
of concentrations considered background. Thus, there is no indication in these data that
sediment was released by the dredging.
December 7, afternoon. Monitoring was conducted only for SS during the afternoon.
The concentrations of SS in both the downflow and upflow samples increased slightly
throughout the afternoon. The last down-flow sample collected had a high concentration
of SS that might be related to the ending of the dredging operations. Further evidence for
155
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
the presence of a “near-field” sediment release may be evident in data collected by the L
and M boat monitoring.
December 8. Dredging on this day occurred during unidirectional flow (upriver). The
concentration of SS in samples collected downflow and upflow from the dredging
increased as dredging began, then peaked, and decreased at both sites as dredging
proceeded. This pattern is not consistent with an ongoing release of SS by dredging. The
saltwater interface passed through the dredging area during this time, so the pattern of SS
concentrations is consistent with the passing of the natural zone of high turbidity. The
chemical concentrations of most of the indicator species decreased from upflow to
downflow monitoring locations. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the downflow
sample (up-river) collected on this day was substantially greater than that measured in the
upflow sample. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration reported for this sample exceeded the
concentrations reported for the 2004 bed-sediment cores, and those in any other samples
collected in this study. Only the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener increased in the downflow
sample compared with the upflow sample; all of the other indicators decreased. The high
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is odd, and although analytic problems cannot be ruled
out, the high concentration may be indicative of the release of deep bed sediment.
December 10, morning. During the morning dredging, flow was downriver and did not
reverse. The SS concentrations measured in samples upflow and downflow of the
dredging increased steadily through the morning, showing the same pattern in both
locations. The saltwater interface passed through the area early in the morning, so the
increase in SS was likely related to the passing of the natural turbidity zone. The
concentrations of all indicator species decreased between the two monitoring locations,
so there was no indication that sediment was released by the dredging operations during
this period.
December 10 afernoon. Flow during the afternoon was upriver and did not reverse
during the monitoring period. The concentrations of SS measured in the upflow and
downflow samples were greater in subsequent samples collected during the onset of
156
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
dredging, then peaked and decreased in samples collected throughout the afternoon. This
pattern is not consistent with a release by dredging; however, the concentrations of SS in
samples collected downflow from the dredging were higher than those measured in the
upflow samples. The saltwater interface passed through the area during the afternoon
dredging, so the increase in SS could be related to the passing of the natural zone of high
turbidity. The chemical data are equivocal; although the concentrations of the indicator
species were higher in samples collected downflow from the dredging, the difference is
within the assumed uncertainty of the analyses. The concentrations in the SS samples
were within the range measured in the bed sediments, and within the range of the
background samples. Therefore, there is no clear evidence that sediment was released by
the dredging.
157
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured on the Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the Environmental Dredging Pilot Program, December 5-10, 2005.
[ SS, suspended sediement; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD+PCDF, polychlorinated dioxins and difurans; --, not sampled or
analyzed; NJCARP, New Jersey Contaminant Reduction Program]
Date and time of
Location of
Did SS increase in downflow samples
sampling
downflow sample
during dredging?
Did turbidity increase downflow
Was turbidity greater
Did sediment load increase
during dredging?
than levels in next tide
downflow?
line
cycle?
Dec. 5 a.m.
M56
No
No
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec. 5 p.m.
M56
Yes
Yes, at both lines, increased then
Yes
No
decreased
1
Dec. 6 a.m.
M56
Yes, but then decreased
Yes, at both lines
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 6 p.m.
M56
Yes, at both lines
Yes, at both lines, increased then
Yes, at very end of
Not clear
decreased
dredging
Yes, at both lines
No
Dec. 7 a.m.
M12
Yes, at both lines
No for morning chemical
sampling; yes for afternoon
sediment sampling
Dec. 7 p.m.
M56
Yes, at both lines
No
Not evaluated
Yes
Dec 8.
M12
Yes, increased then decreased
Yes, increased then decreased
No
No
Dec. 10 a.m.
M56
Yes
Yes, increased then decreased
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 p.m.
M12
Yes, increased then decreased
Yes, increased then decreased
Yes
No
1. During the morning dredging on December 6, the flow direction in the river reversed, and both M12 and M56 sampling lines were upflow and downflow from
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the downflow sampling site because it was downflow for the longer period of time.
158
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured on the Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the Environmental Dredging Pilot Program, December 5-10, 2005. -- Continued
[ SS, suspended sediement; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD+PCDF, polychlorinated dioxins and difurans; --, not sampled or
analyzed; NJCARP, New Jersey Contaminant Reduction Program]
Date and time
Location of
Did salinity
Did saltwater
Did bottom-water
Was dredging
Was it likely that zone of
of sampling
downflow sample
change during
interface pass
velocity increase
conducted during period of
maximum turbidity passed
line
dredging?
through area during
during dredging?
maximum flow velocity?
through area during
dredging?
dredging?
Dec. 5 a.m.
M56
Yes, surface only
No
Yes
No
Unclear
Dec. 5 p.m.
M56
Yes- deep only
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
Dec. 6 a.m.
M56
Yes, surface only
No
Yes, flow reversal
No
Yes
Dec. 6 p.m.
M56
Yes, decreased
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 7 a.m.
M12
Yes, increased then
Yes-twice
Yes, flow reversal
Yes, upriver
Yes, twice
decreased
Dec. 7 p.m.
M56
Yes, decreased
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Dec 8.
M12
Yes, increased
Yes
Yes, increased then
Yes
Yes
decreased
Dec. 10 a.m.
M56
Yes, decreased
No
No
Yes
Unclear
Yes
No, decreased
Yes
Yes
slightly
Dec. 10 p.m.
M12
Yes, increased
1. During the morning dredging on December 6 the flow direction in the river reversed, and both M12 and M56 sampling lines were upflow and downflow from
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the downflow sampling site because it was downflow for the longer period of time
159
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured on the Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the Environmental Dredging Pilot Program, December 5-10, 2005. -- Continued
[ SS, suspended sediement; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD+PCDF, polychlorinated dioxins and difurans; --, not sampled or
analyzed; NJCARP, New Jersey Contaminant Reduction Progam]
How did concentration change between upflow and downflow sample?
Date and time of
Location of
Change in total PCB
Change in total
Change in 2,3,7,8-
Change in
Change in total
sampling
upflow/downflow
concentration
PCDD+PCDF
TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
4,4’-DDT
sample line
Dec. 5 a.m.
M12/M56
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Dec. 5 p.m.
M12/M56
Decreased, but within
Increased
Decreased
Decreased, but within
Decreased
uncertainty
uncertainty
1
Dec. 6 a.m.
M12/M56
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Increased
Dec. 6 p.m.
M12/M56
Increased
No
Increased
Increased
Decreased
Dec. 7 a.m.
M56/M12
Decreased, but within
Decreased, but within
Decreased
Decreased, but within
Decreased
uncertainty
uncertainty
uncertainty
Dec. 7 p.m.
M12/M56
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 8.
M56/M12
Decreased
Increased
Increased
Decreased
Decreased
Dec. 10 a.m.
M12/M56
Decreased, but within
Decreased, but within
Decreased
Increased, but within
Decreased
uncertainty
uncertainty
Increased, but within
Increased
Dec. 10 p.m.
M56/M12
uncertainty
uncertainty
Increased, but within
Increased, but within
uncertainty
uncertainty
Increased
1. During the morning dredging on December 6 the flow direction in the river reversed, and both M12 and M56 sampling lines were upflow and downflow from
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the downflow sampling site because it was downflow for the longer period of time.
160
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured on the Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the Environmental Dredging Pilot Program, December 5-10, 2005. -- Continued
[ SS, suspended sediement; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD+PCDF, polychlorinated dioxins and difurans; --, not sampled or
analyzed; NJCARP, New Jersey Contaminant Reduction Progam]
Was concentration of downflow sample within range of surficial bed sediment ?
Date and time of
Location of upflow
sampling
/downflow sample
Total PCB
Total PCDD+PCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total 4,4’-DDT
line
Dec. 5 a.m.
M12/M56
--
--
--
--
--
Dec. 5 p.m.
M12/M56
No, lower
Yes
Yes, 1-2ft layer
Yes, 1-2ft layer
Yes
1
Dec. 6 a.m.
M12/M56
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 6 p.m.
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec. 7 a.m.
M56/M12
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 7 p.m.
--
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 8.
M56/M12
No, lower
Yes
Above
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 a.m.
M12/M56
No, lower
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 p.m.
M56/M12
Yes
Yes
No, lower
Yes
Yes
1. During the morning dredging on December 6 the flow direction in the river reversed, and both M12 and M56 sampling lines were upflow and downflow from
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the downflow sampling site because it was downflow for the longer period of time.
161
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
Table 15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured on the Lower Passaic River, New
Jersey, during the Environmental Dredging Pilot Program, December 5-10, 2005. -- Continued
[ SS, suspended sediement; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; PCDD+PCDF, polychlorinated dioxins and difurans; --, not sampled or
analyzed; NJCARP, New Jersey Contaminant Reduction Progam]
Was the constituent concentration in the downflow sample within the range for NJCARP samples?
Date and time of
Location of upflow
sampling
/downflow sample
Total PCB
Total PCDD+PCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total 4,4’-DDT
line
Dec. 5 a.m.
M12/M56
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec. 5 p.m.
M12/M56
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
Dec. 6 a.m.
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec 6. p.m.
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec. 7 a.m.
M56/M12
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 7 p.m.
M12/M56
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 8.
M56/M12
Yes
Yes
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 a.m.
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec. 10 p.m.
M56/M12
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
1. During the morning dredging on December 6 the flow direction in the river reversed, and both M12 and M56 sampling lines were upflow and downflow from
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the downflow sampling site because it was downflow for the longer period of time.
162
Not USGS Approved (Revised September 2006)
References
Burchard, H., and Baumert, H., 1998, The formation of estuarine turbidity maxima due to
density effects in the salt wedge. A hydrodynamic process study: Journal of
Physical Oceanography, v. 28, p. 309-321.
Chant, R.J., and Stoner, A.W., 2001, Particle trapping in a stratified flood-dominated
estuary: Journal of Marine Research, v. 59, no. 1., p. 29-51.
Geyer, W.R., 1993, The importance of suppression of turbulence by stratification on the
estuarine turbidity maximum: Estuaries, v. 16, no. 1, p. 113-125.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001, New Jersey Toxics
Reduction Workplan (NJTRWP) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
NJTRWP-01, Rev. 1.0, March 2, 2001: New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, 112 p.
New York/ New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Final Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, 1996: Trenton, N.J., New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, 25 p.
Schubel, J.R., 1968, Turbidity maximum of the Northern Chesapeake Bay: Science, v. 6,
p. 1012-1015.
Stevens Institute of Technology, 2005, The New Jersey Toxics Reduction Workplan for
NY-NJ Harbor ambient monitoring of water quality within major tributaries & the
estuary, Studies I-D and I-E, 2nd draft, 150p.
TAMS, 2005, Final data summary and evaluation report for the Lower Passaic restoration
project, May 2005, prepared by TAMS for the New Jersey Department of
Transportation Office of Maritime Resources under Contract No. 2001-NJMR02,
310 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994, USEPA Method 1613: Tetra- through
octa- chlorinated dioxins and furans by isotope dilution HRGC/HRMS: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA Report Number
EPA/821/B-94/005, 86 p.
Wilson, T.P., and Bonin, J.L., 2006, Concentrations and loads of organic compounds and
trace elements in tributaries to Newark and Raritan Bays, New Jersey, U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigative Report XX-XX. 520p
163