DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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.
1
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Contents
Introduction …..9
Terminology…..11
Overview of Methods…..13
Sampling…..13
Calculation of chemical concentrations…..15
Calculation of discharge and sediment load mass-balance…..17
Background Conditions …..18
Salinity and Turbidity…..18
Chemistry…..27
Pre- and Post-Dredge Sediment Chemistry…..31
Pre-dredge Sediment Load and Mass Balance…..43
Evaluation of Suspended Sediment and Chemistry during Dredging…..54
December 5 - AM …..55
Suspended Sediment…..55
Turbidity…..55
Sediment Chemistry…..56
December 5 – PM …..57
Suspended Sediment …..58
Water Salinity …..58
Comparison with Turbidity in Next Tidal Cycle…..58
Sediment Load and Mass Balance…..59
Sediment Chemistry…..60
December 6 – AM…..67
Suspended Sediment…..67
Turbidity …..68
Water Salinity …..68
Sediment Chemistry…..69
December 6 – PM…..71
Suspended Sediment…..71
Turbidity…..71
Water Salinity…..72
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle…..73
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance…..74
Sediment Chemistry…..75
2
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Contents - Continued
December 7-AM …..82
Suspended Sediment…..82
Turbidity…..83
Water Salinity…..83
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle…..84
Sediment Loads and Mass-Balance…..84
Sediment Chemistry…..86
December 7 – PM …..87
Suspended Sediment …..87
Turbidity…..87
Salinity…..88
Sediment Loads and Mass-Balance …..88
Sediment Chemistry…..88
December 8…..94
Suspended Sediment…..94
Turbidity…..94
Water Salinity…..95
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle…..95
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance…..97
Sediment Chemistry…..98
December 10 …..105
December 10 - AM …..105
Suspended Sediment…..105
Turbidity…..105
Water Salinity …..106
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle…..106
Sediment Load and Mass Balance…..107
Sediment Chemistry…..108
December 10 – PM …..109
Suspended Sediment…..109
Turbidity…..110
Water Salinity…..111
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle…..111
Sediment Loads and Mass-Balance …..112
Sediment Chemistry…..112
Discussion and Summary…..121
Appendix 1 – Data Tables …..131
3
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figures
Figure 1. Schematic of mooring locations and water flow in dredge area…..12
2. Cross sectional profile and ADCP bin areas for line M12 and line M56…..22
3. Location of the 2004 bottom sediment cores and the dredging activity during
the Pilot Program…..23
4. Water Elevation at mooring 2 and periods of dredge activity in the Lower
Passaic River, December 4-10……24
5. Hydrograph showing freshwater discharge of the Passaic River measured at
Little Falls, New Jersey, November 30 through December 13, 2005……25
6A. Salinity and water elevation, mooring 2, December 2. Arrows show times
when elevated turbidity was detected in surface (solid) and bottom (dotted)
water……44
6B. Bottom velocity at mooring 2, December 2. Arrows show times when
elevated turbidity was detected in surface (solid) and bottom (dotted)
water……45
6C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts)
measured at mooring 2, December 2……46
6D. Suspended sediment concentrations estimated from ADCP reflectance at
mooring M1 and M2, December 2……47
7A. Concentrations of PCBs measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the
range of concentrations in bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and the NJ
CARP program……………..
7B. Concentrations of total PCDD plus PCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge
program and the range of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the
2004 cores and the NJ CARP program……………………..
7C. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and
the NJ CARP program…………………
4
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figures – continued
7D. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and
the NJ CARP program……………
7E. Concentrations of total 4,4’-DDTs measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and
the NJ CARP program………………
7F. Concentrations of mercury measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the
range of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and the
NJ CARP program………………
7G. Concentrations of lead measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the range
of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and the NJ
CARP program…………..
8. Percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl homolog by weight for pilot dredge
background samples, bottom sediment samples from 2004 cores A and D,
and CARP samples of suspended sediment from the Passaic River……48
9. Water and sediment imbalance calculated for December 2…….52
10A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional composite samples
collected December 5. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical sampling
was undertaken……62
10B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
mooring M12, December 5……63
10C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
mooring M56, December 5……63
10D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, December 5……64
10E. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2, December 5……64
10F and 10G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) the bottom water at mooring 6 during the low tide at 17:45 on
Dec. 5 and the low tide at 5:40, December 6……65
10H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5 during the low tide
at 17:45 on Dec. 5 and the low tide at 5:40, December 6……66
5
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figures – continued
11A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples collected
December 6. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical sampling was
undertaken……77
11B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, December 6……78
11C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, December 6. …..78
11D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 2, December 6…..79
11E. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, December 6……79
11F. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2 for December 6……80
11G and 11H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in the bottom water at mooring 6 during the low tide at 19:10 on
Dec. 6 and the low tide at 6:50 on December 7……81
12A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples collected
December 7. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical sampling was
undertaken…..89
12B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, December 7……90
12C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, December 7……90
12D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, December 7……91
12E. East-west velocity at mooring 2, December 7……91
12F and 12G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2 during the high tide at 12:15 on
Dec. 7 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8……92
12H and 12I. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 1 during the high tide at 12:15 on
Dec. 7 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8……93
6
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figures – continued
13A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples collected
December 8. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical sampling was
undertaken……99
13B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M1, December 8……100
13C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, December 8……101
13D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, December 8……102
13E. East –west velocity measured at mooring 2, December 8……103
13F and 13G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2 during the high tide at 12:15 on
Dec. 7 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8……104
14A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples collected
December 10……113
14B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M12, December 10. ….114
14C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) at
line M56, December 10……115
14D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, December 10……116
14E. East –west velocity measured at mooring 2, December 10…..116
14F and 14G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter
(in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 6 during the low tide at 10:30 on Dec.
10 and the high tide at 22:40 on December 10…..117
14H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5 during the low tide
at 10:30 on Dec. 10 and 22:40 on Dec. 10. ….118
7
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figures – continued
14I and 14J. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and bottom water OBS
backscatter (in millivolts) at mooring 2 during the high tide at 15:45 on Dec.
10 and the high tide at 4:45 on December 11…..119
14K. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 1 during the high
tide at 15:45 on Dec. 10 and the high tide at 4:45 on December 11…..120
8
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Tables
Table 1. Volumes of water processed and sediment captured in samples
collected in this work…..28
2. Sample specific detection limits in samples collected during the Pilot Dredge
Program…..29
3. Equations used to estimate suspended sediment concentrations from mooring
ADCP reflectance……30
4. Selected chemical concentrations in sediment from the Pilot Dredge
monitoring……35
5. Selected chemical values for bottom sediment cores, from the 2004 coring
program, and for suspended sediment from the New Jersey CARP
Program….39
6. Selected dissolved chemical concentrations from the Pilot Dredge monitoring.
7. Concentrations and concentration ratios of selected PCB congeners in
samples collected during the pilot dredge and in bottom sediment from the
dredge area…..40
8. Water discharge and sediment loads and mass-balance for December 2,
2005. ….49
9. Net downriver flux of sediment calculated to pass mooring line 1-2 during
background days. ….53
10. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 5, 2005…..60
11. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 6, 2005…..75
12. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 7, 2005…..85
13. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 8, 2005…..97
14. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 10, 2005…..108
15. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured during the
Lower Passaic Environmental Dredge Pilot Program……125
9
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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
This report evaluates the cross-channel monitoring data collected during the Lower
Passaic River Environmental Dredging Pilot Program, December 1-12, 2005. The
monitoring collected samples of river water and suspended sediment (SS) from crosschannel sections located up- and downriver of the dredge operations, respectively. Thes
samples were analyzed for concentrations of SS and selected organic and inorganic
chemicals. The results were combined with in-situ flow and turbidity measurements made
by instruments at four moorings located surrounding the dredge area. Sampling and
analytical methods were 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 NJDOT Task Order #OMR-03-3.
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
at “far-field” boundaries located 300 meters up- and downriver of the dredging
operations. By detailed examination of the daily monitoring and chemical data, evidence
for a release of sediment was sought by answering the following specific questions:
10
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
1. How did the suspended sediment (SS) in river, determined by the cross-channel
sampling, vary during the time dredging occurred?
2. Are variations in suspended material content captured by the cross-channel
sampling confirmed by the turbidity measured at the moorings?
3. Can any observed increase in suspended material be related to dredging activity?
In order for an increase in SS content to be attributed to dredging, it must have
occurred in the proper spatial and time relation– that is; increased SS must be
observed down-flow of the dredge area during times when dredging was ongoing
to be attributable to the dredge operations.
4. Can observed variations in suspended sediment/turbidity of the river be explained
by natural processes in the river, such as the movement of the salt-water interface
and its associated turbidity zone?
5. How did the concentrations of selected chemical indicators (total PCBs, 2,3,7,8TCDD, total DDT’s) differ between samples collected up- and down-flow of the
dredging? How does the chemistry of the suspended sediment captured during
dredging compare with the bottom sediment, with samples collected pre-dredge,
and with other “background” samples collected from the Passaic River?
In addressing these questions, the SS concentrations in the cross-channel monitoring
samples were compared with times of dredging and to physical-chemical characteristics
of the river. Additionally, the difference in sediment loads between the up- and downflow monitoring lines were compared. Finally, the concentrations of selected indicator
chemicals were compared between the two monitoring locations, and were also compared
with the chemistry of bottom sediment and to historic suspended-sediment collected from
the lower Passaic River.
11
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Terminology
To help describe the location and direction in the river, the following term are used.
Line M12 is used to describe the cross section of the river going from the south shore,
through mooring 2 and mooring 1, to the north shore. This is the UPRIVER sampling
and monitoring locations.
Line M56 is used to describe the cross section of the river from the south shore, through
moorings 5 and 6 to the north shore. This is the DOWNRIVER sampling and monitoring
locations.
Because of the bi-directional flow that occurs during tide cycles, up-flow and down-flow
directions are used to describe locations in relation to direction of water flow.
UP-FLOW is used to describe the monitoring line where water is entering the study area.
DOWN-FLOW location is used to describe the monitoring line where water leaves the
study area.
The study area, moorings, and cross-section sampling lines are shown on figure 1.
12
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Average up river velocity = 20
cm/sec
M2
~25 minutes to
reach M12
M6
Dredge
~13 minutes to
reach M56
Up river
M1
M5
300 meters
Dredge to M56
300 meters
M12 to dredge
Average down river velocity = 40 cm/sec
Figure 1. Schematic of mooring locations and water flow in dredge area.
13
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Overview of Methods
Complete details of the methods used for the chemical and sediment sampling can be
found 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 were modeled after
methods developed the States of New Jersey and New York working under the Harbor
Estuary Plan (HEP) and the Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Program (CARP),
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, Trenton, NJ, March
1996). Only a brief synopsis of the sampling methods used in the Pilot Dredge Program is
provided here.
Sampling
During the pilot dredge work, background samples were collected on December 1, 2005,
from the upriver line M12 and from the downriver line M56, and again on December 12
from line M12 (fig. 1)1. Sampling from these locations was also conducted during the
dredge operations on Dec. 1, 7, 8 (once per day) and Dec. 5, 6, 10 (twice per day).
Sampling for SS content and for chemical analysis was conducted continuously during
daylight hours except for brief interruptions at lunch or for equipment breakdown.
Beginning each half-hour, sampling 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 POC) or through the TOPS samplers (for trace organic chemicals).
The sample collected Dec. 12, 2000, was labeled as a downstream sample (TD) – however, it was
collected from line M12. A sample was not collected from line M56 on that date.
1
14
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
The inlet lines were attached to a weighted fish which kept the intakes at approximately 1
meter below the water surface during the outbound (S to 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 10-12
minutes.
The chemical samples, collected by identical TOPS samplers and pumping equipment in
both boats, represent width-integrated composites samples that provide average
concentration of sediment across the channel for the entire duration of sampling. Water
was pumped up through a dedicated Teflon lines and then through pre-cleaned (baked)
canister glass-fiber filter that collected SS. The outlet from the canister filter was then
split and a small portion pulled through a glass-fiber flat filter and then through two
columns containing XAD-2 exchange resin, which is a poly-styrene resin designed to
sequester dissolved organic chemicals. The outlet water from the filters and XAD
columns was collected in separate carboys, and the volume of the processed water was
measured using a graduated cylinder at the conclusion of the sampling. The sedimentladen filters and the XAD columns were sent for analysis of PCBs, dioxin-furans and
organochlorine pesticides. Because of 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 were also collected for suspended
sediment and particulate organic carbon content; one discrete sample was collected from
the surface (from 1 meter below the water surface) on the outbound leg (S-N) and a
second discrete sample of deep water (from 1 meter above the river bottom) on each
inbound leg (N-S). These samples were collected by pumping water from an intake line
into individual poly bottles held in an ISCO automatic sampler. The samples provide 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 was also used to
15
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
collect composite samples for metal analysis, and 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 chemical 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 levels of detection levels are obtained in
the 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 work (Table 1) were similar among
each pair of samples, and were very 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. Note that detection levels are sample and compound
specific – that is, each sample and each compound (including each PCB congener) has a
unique level of detection that is based on the analytic methods, the measuring instrument,
and the mass/volume in the sediment. The similar volumes and masses also show that
very consistent sampling methods were employed at both monitoring lines.
Calculation of Chemical Concentrations
Analytical results provided by the laboratory (for both dissolved and sediment-bound
chemicals) were in units of mass per sample, and required converting to concentration
before for use2. For the dissolved phase, the mass of each chemical recovered was
2
At the time of report preparation, the PCB and pesticide data had not been checked by the EPA QA/QC
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 may change.
16
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
divided by the volume processed through the XAD columns (table 1). The sedimentbound concentrations first required the mass of sediment trapped on the filters to be
calculated using the SS concentrations from the discrete cross-section traverse composite
samples.
To calculate the trapped mass of sediment, the total volume of water filtered was divided
by the number of traverse “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 CARP 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
this monitoring work were identical to those used in the CARP program, therefore, a
filter efficiency of 0.9 was used in calculating the concentrations in this work.
Before normalizing, the raw data were compared to the analyses of one 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 filters and 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
17
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
samplers. The blanks were resealed, handled, and analyzed in the same manner as were
the field samples. The raw data from the field blanks is assumed to represent the field
contamination expected on all days of sampling, along with any laboratory induced
contamination. The raw sample data were compared with the analyses of the filter and
column blanks to determine if 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 USEPA dioxin analysis methods (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1994), any compound (PCB, dioxin/furans, or pesticides) in a sample that was present at
less than 3 times its value in the field blank was to be removed from the data. There were
no compounds in any of the suspended-sediment 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 for the dissolved pesticides, a value of
5 times was used.
One important result from the NJ CARP program was the determination of the analytical
uncertainty associated with the laboratory methods. During the CARP program, the
analytical lab made repeated analyses of the standard reference materials (SRM), which
were dried bottom sediment from the lower NY Harbor. The NIST/NOAA SRM (SRM #
1944) contained a full suite of chemicals common in the Passaic River, including PCBs,
dioxin/furans, organochlorine pesticides, and metals. Analytic accuracy and precision
were calculated for individual compounds by repeated measurement of the sediment.
Although the laboratories used in the CARP study were not the one used in the Pilot
Dredge study, both studies employed the same analytic methods for PCBs and
dioxin/difurans analyses. The CARP program showed 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 CARP work determined OCPs by a highresolution mass-spectrometer method, whereas OCPs in this present work were measured
using gas chromatography with electron capture detection. Thus, the uncertainty for the
18
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
OCPs in the pilot dredge monitoring may differ significantly from 15 percent. Note that
the 15 percent uncertainty is not associated with error introduced in the sampling
procedures, because it has not yet been possible to collect TOPS samples in (at least)
triplicate from a well-mixed “standardized” water.
Calculation of Discharge and Sediment Load Mass-Balance
The sediment loads required for the sediment mass-balance were calculated for the river
between lines M12 and M56, using the automatic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) data
recorded at the four moorings surrounding the dredging (M1, 2, 5, and 6), along with
instrument calibration data supplied by Rutgers (presented in the Final Report of the Pilot
Dredge project). The loads were used to establish if the mass of sediment moving across
each mooring line increased during dredging. Sediment load is a function of the
volumetric water discharge and the suspended sediment concentration in the river. The
ADCPs provided high frequency measurement and averaging of water velocity and
acoustic reflectance at each moored site. Acoustic reflectance is a surrogate measure of
the suspended material in the water column, and with proper calibration, can be used to
estimate suspended sediment concentration as a function of position in the water column.
ADCP’s 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. This data can be recorded instantaneously or averaged
over a number of set “pings”. The setup, operation, and calibration of the ADCPs is
described elsewhere in the Final Project Report.
Sediment load was calculated by first establishing the volumetric discharge that passed
each sampling line. The discharge is calculated using the EW velocity (cm/second)
recorded in each bin sampled by the ADCPs. Velocity was converted to discharge using
Qn= (Vn * An)
Where
19
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Qn = discharge in bin n, in cubic meters per second
Vn = velocity in bin n, in centimeters per second
An = cross sectional area of bin n, in square meters
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 (Rogers Survey, P.L.L.C., 2005). Figure 2 shows the
river cross section at each mooring line and a few representative ADCP “bins”
established for these calculations. Because the ADCP head is elevated above the river
bottom by almost 1 meter, two additional bins were added to the ADCP velocity data set;
bin 0.5 with a center at one-half the distance, and bin 0.25 at a center height of onequarter the distance of the ADCP head to the bottom. EW velocities were assigned to
these bins as 50 and 25 percent of the velocity in bin 1, respectively, which approximate
an exponential decay in velocity as the river bottom is approached. Using the velocities,
the discharge was calculated and assigned to each bin, then all bins were summed from
the bottom to the water surface, and then the total discharge from each adjoining mooring
was summed to get total cross-section volumetric discharge for a 30 minute period3. The
change in discharge between line M12 and line M56, in percent, was then calculated
using:
Percent change = (QM12 – QM56)*100/(QM12)
Where QM12 = discharge measure at line M12, in liters per 30 minutes
QM56 =discharge measured at line M56, in liters per 30 minutes
Positive values indicate more water flowing past line M12 than M56, and negative values
indicate more water is calculated to flow past line M56. Uncertainty in the water balance
comes from (1) assuming the uppermost ADCP bin is filled with water, when in reality
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 discharge before adding to the discharge at their respective adjoining moorings.
20
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
the water level may have only partially filled the “bin”, (2) error in the bin width and
cross sectional 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 EW velocity, and
(5) assuming the ADCPs were located where they sampled approximately the same
percentage of cross-sectional flow. For this work, water imbalances less than 15% were
assumed acceptable, and no attempt was made to “zero” the imbalances by changing bin
areas and other parameters.
The sediment loads were then calculated using the discharge and sediment concentrations
inferred from ADCP reflectance using calibration equations (table 3). These equations
were developed from SS samples that were collected concurrently with ADCP readings
made from the L and M boats, and by using a boat-mounted ADCP in the vicinity of the
four moorings (see section _ of the Final Project Report). The SS content in the lowestmost bin (bin 1) was assigned to the two bins added for discharge calculation (bins 0.5
and 0.25). The estimated SS concentration for each bin was then multiplied by the
volumetric discharge for the bin, the bin masses summed from the bottom to the surface
of the water column, and then summed with the values for the associated moorings to get
the sediment load in kilograms per 30 minute interval2. The percent change was
calculated in the manner used for the discharge calculations. Uncertainty in the sediment
balance, as indicated by large percent imbalances, comes from the uncertainty in the
discharge plus uncertainty in the calibration curves. For this work, sediment loads having
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 base-line for comparing and contrasting the
conditions measured during the dredging. Background data was from (1) moored
instrument data collected on December 2, 3, 4 and 11th , days when barge traffic was
21
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
minimal and dredging did not occur, (2) chemistry of suspended sediment samples
collected on December 1 and 12, 2005, as part of this work, (3) chemistry data from the
bottom sediment cores collected from the study during June 2004, as part of the Lower
Passaic River Investigation and Feasibility Study, (4) chemistry of suspended sediment
collected by the New Jersey CARP program during 2000 to 2002. Moored instrument
data was only available for a portion of December 1, and was not considered in this
evaluation of background. The compositional data for the bottom sediment was from
cores collected in 2004 from five locations in the dredge area (fig. 3) (Final Data
Summary and Evaluation Report, May 2005). The sediment from these cores was
collected and composited from 1 foot intervals from depths of 0 and 3 feet. The CARP
data used here were collected between 2000 and 2002 by Stevens Institute of Technology
and the U.S. Geological Survey (NJDEP reference).
Salinity and Turbidity
With the exception of December 9, the program was undertaken during a period of
normal tidal range (fig. 4). During this period, freshwater discharge was elevated but was
receding after a precipitation event that occurred the previous week (fig. 5). By
December 11, the freshwater discharge entering the estuary was back to near mean
average values. The weather was clear, calm, and cold. However, on December 9 a snow
and wind storm moved through the area and disrupted the tidal flow. Because of this, data
from Dec. 9th were not considered for background evaluation. Inspection of the data from
showed similar patterns in turbidity, salinity, and flow during December 2-4 and
December 11, therefore, data from December 2nd , collected at moorings 1 and 2, was
chosen to illustrate the relations between water elevation, surface and bottom water
salinity, and the turbidity in the river.
Mean daily discharge for the 2nd was 3475 cubic feet per second (ft3/sec), approximately
3 times the mean average value, and declined 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
22
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
accompanied by large, rapid change in bottom water salinity (fig. 6A). The salinity of the
surface water changed during each tide cycle, but only by roughly 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 between 30 and 40 cm per second (cm/s) for upriver
flow, and was 60 to 80 cm/sec during downriver flow (fig. 6B). During times when flow
velocities were increasing, the difference between the velocity of the bottom and surfacewater was typically large; however, during the other times similar velocities were present
through the water column. The flow direction in the Harrison Reach was dominantly east
to west with an average ratio of EW to NS velocity for the study period (Dec. 1 to 12) of
18.4 (at mooring 1). However, approaching low tide, the NS flow component would
increase (especially at M2 and M5) as water apparently drained from the south shore into
the deeper channel.
Inspection of the surface turbidity and bottom optical back scatter (OBS)4, a measure of
turbidity, (fig. 6C) from mooring M1 showed repeating periods when elevated turbidity
“spikes” occurred during each day- representing periods when the content of suspended
material 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).
OBS “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. Turbidometers recorded directly in NTU units.
4
23
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Line M12 Cross-sectional Profile
M2
1.5
1
M1
Bin
0.5
Bin areas for M2 data
calculated from point
C (south shore) to B
0
Bin
Elevation in meters
-0.5
Bin
B
Bins areas for M1 data
calculated from point A
(N shore) to point B
-1
A'
-1.5
-2
Bin
-2.5
-3
Two additional bins (0.5 and
0.25) 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
Line M56 Cross-sectional Profile
1.5
M5
1
M6
C
0.5
Bin areas for M5 data
calculated from point
C (south shore) to B
0
Elevation in meters
-0.5
Bins areas for M6 data
calculated from point A
(N shore) to point B
B
-1
-1.5
A
-2
-2.5
-3
Two additional bins
(0.5 and 0.25) added
below ADCP head
-3.5
-4
Distance from south shore in meters
Figure 2. Cross sectional profile and ADCP bin areas for line M12 and line
M56.
24
175
170
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
10
5
0
-4.5
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
2004 Core Samples and Dredging Locations
695600
NJSPC X-coordinate, in feet
695550
10-Dec
8-Dec
7-Dec
6-Dec
5-Dec
Cell row 1
Cell row 2
Cell row 3
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
NJSPC Y-coordinate, in feet
Figure 3. Location of the 2004 bottom sediment cores and the dredging activity during the Pilot Program.
25
594550
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
1
HT
@9:25
HT
@10:24
HT
@ 11:55
HT @
13:26
HT @
23:10
0.5
HT @
22:45
HT @
0:35
HT @
12:15
HT @
15:47
HT @
2:23
HT @
1:42
0
-0.5
-1
18:32
6:32
0:32
6:00
0:00
12:32
12/10
12/9
18:00
12:00
6:00
0:00
18:00
Dredging
7:45-10:38
12:39-15:18
LT @
21:49
12/8
Local Time
26
Dredging
9:20 - 13:27
18:00
12/7
LT @
10:32
12:00
12/6
12:00
Dredging
7:44-15:38
6:00
0:00
18:00
12:00
6:00
0:00
18:00
12:00
6:00
LT @
19:48
Dredging
9:17-12:23
13:01 -16:19
17:37 - 18:48
12/5
12/4
-2
LT @
20:43
LT @
8:10
LT @
6:49
0:00
Dredging
10:24 - 12:35
13:02- 19:03
LT @
19:12
18:00
LT
@17:45
6:00
-1.5
LT @
5:03
LT
@
5:40
12:00
LT @
16:50
LT @
4:05
0:00
Elevation in meters above MLW
HT @ 2:23
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 4. Water elevation at mooring 2 and periods of dredge activity in the Lower Passaic River, December 4-10.
27
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Passic River discharge at Little Falls, NJ
4000
Discharge in cubic feet per second
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
Mean Annual Discharge = 1128 ft3/sec
1000
500
2E
+0
Dec 14
7
2E
+0
7
Dec 13
2E
+0
7
Dec 12
2E
+
Dec 011
7
2E
+0
Dec 10
7
+0
Dec 97
2E
2E
+0
7
Dec 8
2E
+0
7
Dec 7
+0
7
Dec 6
2E
+0
Dec 75
2E
2E
+0
7
Dec 4
+0
7
Dec 3
2E
+0
7
Dec 2
2E
2E
+0
7
Nov. 11
2E
+0
7
Dec 1
0
Date
Figure 5. Hydrograph of freshwater discharge of the Passaic River measured at
Little Falls, New Jersey, November 30 through December 13, 2005.
28
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Overlaying the times when turbidity was high or when it peaked onto the plot of salinity
and water elevation (fig. 6A) (solid lines represents the times of increased turbidity at the
surface, and dotted lines indicate increases in the bottom water), and 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 content in the vertical water column. Plotting the SS determined from
ADCP reflectance in the bottom and surface water (fig. 6D) shows the repeating periods
of increased suspended material, with concentrations estimated to be as high as 400
mg/L.
These plots show that a zone of high turbidity, associated with the salt-water interface,
moved through the monitored area during each tide cycle. This turbid zone results from
the change in water salinity, which causes silt-clay sized particles to flocculate in the
water column. The migration of the salt-water interface is also associated with times of
high water velocity- times when surficial bottom 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 materials 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 – the correlation is weaker in the surface water because of
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 discharge 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 material content associated with the
migrating salt-water 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
29
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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 determine 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 CARP program conducted by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection in 2000-2002. The bottom sediment cores,
collected from the “cells” where the dredging occurred (fig. 5), are described in the Final
Data Summary and Evaluation Report (May 2005). The location of the cores and the
location of the dredging “bites” 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
EPA QA/QC review of the data set was not yet complete, and several concerns had been
identified 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 CARP study used equipment and analytical procedures nearly identical to those used
in this present 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 2000-2002 CARP 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 was also performed at the north end of Newark Bay
30
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
from two depths - 1 meter below surface (NB-1S) and 1 meter above the bottom (NB1D). The details of the CARP sampling, methods, and results can be found in (Steven
Institute of Technology, 2005). Only the suspended sediment phase chemistry of the
CARP data was evaluated in this report.
31
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 1. Volumes of water processed and sediment captured in samples
collected in this work
Sample ID
Date
Volume of
Mass of
Volume of water
water
sediment
passed through
filtered, in
calculated to
XAD columns, in
liters
have been
liters
collected on
filters, in grams
TD-GFF-051201-1130
Dec, 1, am
261.3
18.8
19.2
TU-GFF-051201-1130
Dec 1, am
225.5
16.8
16.9
TD-GFF-051205-0730
Dec. 5, am
154.9
3.83
10.5
TU-GFF-051205-0730
Dec 5, am
231.8
5.19
22.8
TD-GFF-051205-1430
Dec 5, pm
143.2
7.92
10.2
TU-GFF-051205-1430
Dec. 5, pm
148.3
6.07
19.0
TD-GFF-051206-0830
Dec 6, am
346.6
6.11
22.7
TU-GFF-051206-0830
Dec. 6, am
305.4
7.54
26.9
TD-GFF-051206-1330
Dec 6, pm
235.5
8.95
19.5
TU-GFF-051206-1330
Dec. 6, pm
251.3
9.03
16.9
TD-GFF-051207-0930
Dec 7, am
408.3
6.33
26.8
TU-GFF-051207-0930
Dec 7, am
195.2
3.44
18.7
TD-GFF-051208-1030
Dec, 8, am
295.3
8.46
25.3
TU-GFF-051208-1030
Dec. 8, am
221.7
9.07
25.9
TD-GFF-051210-0730
Dec. 10, am
323.8
10.1
20.0
TU-GFF-051210-0730
Dec. 10, am
209.1
9.29
19.3
TD-GFF-051210-1230
Dec. 10, pm
158.0
5.48
10.5
TU-GFF-051210-1230
Dec. 10, pm
109.3
9.92
14.0
TD-GFF-051212-0900
Dec. 12, am
309.1
8.62
33.2
32
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 2. Sample specific detection limits in samples collected during the
PCB Dissolved
PCB Sediment
Minimum
0.01
0.01
Maximum
1.00
132
Dioxin
Pilot Dredge Program
1. total of all pesticides analyzed except toxaphene.
33
Average
0.11
4.19
Units
pg/L
ng/kg
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Dioxin Sediment
0.06
18.2
1.76
ng/kg
1Pesticide
sediment
Total 4,4’-DDT
0.0001
0.026
0.82
0.77
0.086
0.17
g/kg
g/kg
Total Toxaphene
38
197
116
g/kg
34
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 3. Equations used to estimate suspended sediment concentrations
from mooring ADCP reflectance.
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 in mg/L, ABS is ADCP reflectance value in dB
35
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Pre- and Post-Dredge Sediment Chemistry
A summary table of the concentrations of total PCB, total dioxin/difuran (PCDD/PCDF),
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and total 4,4’-DDT in samples collected during this
work is provided as table 4. Concentrations of the individual PCB and PCDD/PCDF
homologs and OCP species are listed in appendix of the final report. A summary of the
concentrations in the bottom sediment cores collected during 2004 and from the lower
Passaic samples collected during the NJ-CARP program is provided as table 5. These
data are presented graphically in figure 7.
The chemical indicators selected to evaluate are only a small subset of the total
compounds measured in the Pilot Dredge samples. The compounds were selected on the
basis of the known presence of high(er) concentrations in the bottom sediment, and 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 of bottom sediment. Total PCDD and total PCDF values are less useful
indicators because two congeners, OCDD and OCDF, are typically very high in these
river sediment – the concentrations of these congeners greatly outweigh all other congers
combined. Thus, a small percent change in the concentrations of either of these two
congeners can significantly affect the total PCDD/PCDF values. Small changes in the
percent 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
OCPs is not considered to be as reliable an 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 this group. However,
the 4,4’-DDT value suffers from problems encountered in the analytic scheme used for
this work. The organochlorine-pesticides were analyzed using GC-ECD, which is not a
36
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
highly 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 should be considered tenuous.
Total PCBs in the three background samples collected on Dec. 1 and Dec. 12, ranged
from 790 to 900 g/kg. Total PCB concentrations in the two samples from Dec 1,
collected during a period of downriver flow, differed by 112 g/kg, which is equivalent
to a -12% decrease from the up-flow (upriver) sample concentration, within the assumed
uncertainty of the analysis5. Importantly, the concentrations in the background samples
fall nearly within the range of the average total PCB concentrations in the CARP data
from PAS-1 and the two Newark Bay samples (714 to 880 g/kg). While this supports
that a rather narrow range of total PCB content in the suspended sediment of this river,
the individual concentrations of total PCB in the CARP samples ranged from 466 to
1,345 g/kg, showing that a much larger range in total PCB concentration exists in the
lower Passaic River than is represented by the average values. The range in average
concentration in surface (0-1 ft depth) layer of the bottom sediment in cores collected
during 2004 ranged from 1,435 to 1,846 g/kg, averaging 1,656 g/kg. These values
from the bottom sediment (the sediment most likely to be mobilized by river tidal flow
and by dredging) are well above the total PCB content in the pilot-dredge background
samples, and are similar to the lower-most values in the CARP data from PAS-1 and
Newark Bay samples (figure 7a). In 2004 cores, the sediment buried deeper than 1 ft. in
the river bottom had total PCB concentrations that ranged to 7,800 g/kg.
Plotting the percentage of each PCB homolog (fig. 7) shows the homolog distribution in
the pilot dredge samples differs just slightly from the distribution in the shallow bottom
sediment (0-1 foot depth), and the PAS-1 suspended sediment samples. The background
Differences in concentrations are calculated as difference = up flow – down flow concentrations. Percent
change calculated as percent change = (difference/up flow concentration) *100. Negative values indicate
loss between up-flow and down-flow sampling lines.
5
37
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
samples have a slightly lower percentage (about 8 percent) of hexa- and a higher
percentage of octachlorinated congeners then were present in the bottom sediment cores,
the CARP samples had a higher percentage of tetra- and lower penta-chlorinated
homologs. The homolog distribution in the background samples is most similar to the
distribution in the 0-1 ft. depth sediment. These differences in homolog distribution
among the various samples are curious, and may be the result of a slightly different
congener suite measured in the CARP study2.
The three background samples have very similar individual congener concentrations, as
well as the presence/absence of congeners that are in the surface (0-1ft.) samples from the
five bottom sediment cores. In fact, all congeners present in the surface bottom sediment
were also present in the suspended sediments, thereby precluding the presence of a
unique “tracer” PCB in the bottom sediment. However, upon inspection of the individual
concentrations, 9 congeners found to be present at nearly 5-times or more (by weight) in
the bottom sediment compared with the background SS samples (collected December 1
and 12) (Table 5). 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
CARP work as a tracer of dyes, and PCBs # 77 and 126, congeners that have the highest
co-planar PCB toxic equivalency factors. The ratio of the concentrations of this suite of
13 congeners in the bottom sediment to their concentration in the background SS samples
were much greater than 5 (some well over 15) in the 1-2ft. and 2-3 ft. depths of the cores
(table 6). Thus, the presence of high concentrations of these congeners in the suspended
sediment collected during dredging, relative to the three background samples, may be
indicative that deeper bottom sediment was released into the water column. Inspection of
the PCB data for all samples collected during dredging showed that the ratio of the
congener concentrations to their concentration in background samples generally were
near 1 (table 5), which is also the ratio of the total-PCBs concentrations in the samples
relative to background. If ratios greater than or equal to 1.5 are arbitrarily considered
“elevated”, than ratios in samples *TU-051205-1430, TD-051206-1330, *TD-051207930, *TD-051208-1030, and TD-051210-730 may indicate a rise in concentrations
38
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
occurred that could relate to bottom sediment having been introduced into the water
column (note: * samples were collected from up-flow of the dredging operations). Of
these samples, the sample TD-GFF-051206-1330 shows the most consistently elevated
ratios for all the selected congeners. However, it is important to note that (1) elevated
congener ratios are not consistent across all 12 congeners, and (2) the ratios in the
suspended sediment samples do not approach the high ratios in the bottom sediment.
Thus, there was no clear evidence that any of the concentrations of these 12 congeners
became elevated in the suspended sediment over the concentrations in background
samples during dredging. It should also be emphasized that the concentrations of this
suite of congeners in the samples collected during background and during dredging fell
within the range of their concentration in the CARP samples.
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are known to be elevated in the bottom sediment of the
Passaic River, and together with 2,3,7,8-TCDF, may serve as a tracer of bottom sediment
released to the river during dredging. Total PCDD plus PCDF was also evaluated, but this
value is less-reliable because it is controlled by the very high concentrations of OCDD
and OCDF congeners. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in the downriver sample from
Dec 16 and the post-dredge sample collected on Dec. 12 were very similar, 258 and 267
ng/kg, respectively, and the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDF were 84 and 138 ng/kg,
respectively. These 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are nearly the same as the average in
the PAS-1 samples (279 ng/kg), however, the range of values in the PAS-1 samples is
very large (25 to 437 ng/kg) (figure 7B to 7D). The average 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentration
for the PAS-1 samples was higher (244 ng/kg) then in the background monitoring
samples, but again, the background samples are within the large range of the CARP
samples (6.3 to 870 ng/kg). Average concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the surface and
middle layers of the bottom sediment (0-1 and 1-2 ft. depth) (336 and 374 ng/kg) were
higher than the background sample concentrations, but the average for 2,3,7,8-TCDF (64
and 83 ng/kg) was slightly lower than the values measured in the background samples
(figures 7B to 7D).
6
Results for the upriver sample TU-051201-1130 were not provided by the laboratory.
39
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Total OCPs in the three monitoring samples ranged from 411 to 709 g/kg 7, however,
total OCP is not a reliable value for comparing with background because of the different
suite of compounds and analytic methods that were used in the studies. The dominant
OCP compound in the suspended sediment was 4,4-DDT and its degradation products
(4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE). The total 4,4-DDT (the sum of DDT, DDE, and DDD) ranged
from 178 to 421 g/kg, of which the majority (40 to 86%) is 4,4’-DDD, followed by 4,4’DDE and 4,4’-DDT. The concentration of total 4,4’-DDT in the PAS-1 samples ranged
from 58 to 153 g/kg (120 g/kg average), and values in Newark Bay was 50 to 120
g/kg - lower than the background concentrations measured in this work (figure 7E).
Average values for total 4,4’-DDTs in the 0-1 ft section of the bottom cores was 78
g/kg, and was 123 and 180 g/kg in the 1-2 and 2-3ft sections, respectively. Thus, it
appears that the highest concentrations in these various data sets were found in the
suspended sediment collected during the pilot dredge monitoring. As a result, sediment
released during dredging would lower concentrations of total 4,4’-DDT in the suspended
sediment.
The relative makeup of the total DDT’s in the PAS-1 samples was roughly 50 percent
4,4’-DDD, and 25 percent each of 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDT, nearly identical to the
samples collected during dredging. Sediment from Newark Bay had an average makeup
of total 4,4’-DDT that was 45-48 percent 4,4’-DDE, 37-40 percent 4,4’DDD, and 11-17
percent 4,4’-DDT. On average, the total DDT in the surface sediment consists of
approximately 53 percent 4,4’-DDT, followed by 4,4’-DDD (44 percent) and 4,4’-DDE
(34 percent), which is similar to the values in the background samples. Deeper in the
sediment (2-3 ft.), 4,4’-DDE becomes the dominant (up to 64 percent on average)
compound.
7
Total OCP content was not compared throughout this report due to different methods and reported
compounds in the various samples.
40
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Hg and Pb were measured in only selected samples that were collected during the Pilot
Dredge monitoring. Concentrations in the sediment were determined by the difference
between the total (whole water) and the dissolved fraction concentrations, multiplied by
the suspended average sediment concentration calculated for the composite sample. The
results from the two samples collected during the December 1 background sampling
showed the suspended sediment concentrations were 190 ng/g and 285 g/g for total Hg
and Pb, respectively. These values are within or slightly greater than the range for
sediment reported by NJ CARP for PAS-1 and Newark Bay suspended sediment ( 0.427
to 3.37 g/g for Hg; 112 to 233 g/g for Pb
Concentrations of dissolved organic species were measured in samples from selected
dates, with pairs of samples analyzed from Dec.1 and Dec 6. (pm) (table 5). In the
background samples collected Dec 1 and 12, the concentrations of total dissolved PCB
ranged from 3,610 to 4,800 pg/L. These values are within the range reported for the NJ
CARP samples from the lower Passaic and Newark Day. Dissolved PCDD/PCDF species
were not measured in the CARP program, so no comparison can be made for these
compounds. Values for dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 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 values in the background samples ranged from 0.441 ng/L up to 0.630 ng/L,
which are within the range reported by CARP for PAS-1 and Newark Bay (0.34 to 1.69
ng/L total DDT – which included the 2,2’-isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD).
41
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 4. Selected chemical concentrations in suspended sediment from the Pilot Dredge
monitoring.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; g/kg, micrograms per
kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram; g/g, micrograms per gram; ng/g, nanograms
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TD-GFF-051206-0830
Dec. 6, 830
Dec. 6, 830
Up
Down
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
---
-258
---
875
470
-405
-46%
5.39
2.18
-3.21
-60%
306
159
-148
-48%
1,430
1,270
-157
-11%
8.86
15.5
+6.9
78%
1,080
550
-532
-49%
990
758
-231
-31%
5.97
4.67
-1.30
-28%
372
260
-112
-43%
870
1,390
+515
+59%
6.75
6.60
-0.15
-2.1%
309
412
+103
+33%
1,110
945
-165
-15%
7.36
5.51
-1.8
-2.5%
1,080
342
-734
-68%
1,241
712
-529
-43%
7.21
8.74
+1.53
+21%
510
6.16
-504
-99%
1,100
1,070
-29.7
-2.7%
7.41
6.38
-1.03
-14%
1,590
428
-1164
-73%
1,090
1,160
+70
+6.4%
5.52
6.87
+1.35
+24%
381
390
+8.4
+2.2%
---
840
--
---
4.99
--
---
267
--
---
Dominant
flow
direction
42
2,3,7,8-TCDD
ng/kg
Difference1 in g/kg and
percent
Up
Down
Total PCDD + PCDF1 g/kg
Dec. 5, 1430
Dec. 5, 1430
Difference1 in g/kg and
percent
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
Total PCBs
g/kg
Up
Down
-3.43

Dec. 7, 730
Dec. 5, 730
-112
-12%

TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
901
789

Up
Down

Dec. 5, 1130
Dec. 5, 1130

TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130

Sample identifier

4

Location
of
sample
in
relation
to
dredge

Date and
Time
2,3,7,8-TCDD Difference1 in
ng/kg and percent
per gram; %, percent; shaded values are percent]
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 4. Selected chemical concentrations in suspended sediment from the Pilot Dredge
monitoring. -- Continued
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; g/kg, micrograms per
kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram; g/g, micrograms per gram; ng/g, nanograms
411
478
134
70
-64
-48%
.730
.725
280
153
-127
-45%
127
64.2
-63
-50%
236
199
-37
-16%
.821
.280
717
258
-459
-64%
398
121
-277
-70%

164
120
-44
-37%
.665
.761
396
430
+34
+7.9%
213
248
+35
+14%

149
225
+76
+51%
.668
.687
220
509
+289
+131%
74.2
278
+204
+275%

183
153
-30
-16%
.774
.907
412
328
-84
-20%
214
168
-46
-22%

192
107
-169
-88%
.977
.703
418
193
-225
-54%
218
88.7
-129
-59%
+4.9
+2.6%
.893
.668
504
560
+56
+11%
158
167
+9.0
5.7%
+28
+17%
.654
.646
221
493
+272
+123%
75.8
224
+148
+195%
---
.631
--
709
--
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

183
188
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230

TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
166
194
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
---
138
--
43
percent
-0.749

Difference1in g/kg and
---
Total 4,4’-DDTs3
g/kg
Total OCPs2
g/kg
-83.5
and
percent
2,3,7,8-TCDD/total tetraTCDD’s
---
Difference1, in g/kg
Dominant
flow direction
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
2,3,7,8-TCDF
ng/kg
Sample

2,3,7,8-TCDF Difference1
in ng/kg and percent
per gram; %, percent; shaded values are percent]
178
250
421
--
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
1.Negative difference indicate loss from up flow to down flow sample, + values indicate increase .
Percent difference calculated as (delta concentration/up flow concentration) *100
2.Total OCP value does not include toxaphene.
3. Total 4,4’-DDTs value is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations
4. Samples beginning with TU were collected from upriver line M12. Samples beginning with TD
were collected from the downriver line M56.
44
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 4. Selected chemical concentrations in suspended sediment from the Pilot Dredge
monitoring. -- Continued
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; g/kg, micrograms per
kilogram; ng/kg, nanograms per kilogram; g/g, micrograms per gram; ng/g, nanograms
Difference in Pb, in ug/g
and percent
Sediment boud Pb ug/g
-190
---
285
--
---
---
---
---
---
321
---
---
TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
---
TD-GFF-051206-0830
TU-GFF-051206-0830
--
715
374
-341
-48%
384
--
---

----

TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051212-0900

Sample identifier
Dominant
flow direction
Difference in Hg, in ng/g
and percent
Sediment bound Hg ng/g
per gram; %, percent; shaded values are percent]
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
569
--
---
377
910
+533
+141%
---
230
303
+73
+32%
---
232
358
+126
+54%
724
--
384
--
---
---
---
----
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330

-696
TD-GFF-051208-1030
TU-GFF-051208-1030

-361
TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730

TD-GFF-051207-0930
TU-GFF-051207-0930
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230

---
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
---
---
45
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 5. Selected chemical values for bottom sediment cores, from the 2004 coring
program, and for samples from the New Jersey CARP Program.1
[PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; Hg, mercury; Pb, lead; g/kg, nanograms per gram; ng/kg,
Sediment-bound Pb, mg/kg
Sediment-bound Hg, mg/kg
Total 4,4’-DDTs2
g/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDF
ng/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD
ng/kg
Total PCDD + PCDF
g/kg
Sample
Total PCBs
g/kg
picograms per gram; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram; nd, not determined]
Bottom 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
195
84-260
2.3
2.2-2.4
281
260-307
1-2 ft depth
Average
Range
3,350
3,140-3,940
14.2
5.6-28
374
220-520
71
36-92
105
70-143
4.1
3.7-4.6
451
437-477
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
165
116-241
5.1
3.9-7.5
647
570-760
NJ CARP Suspended Sediment
CARP DATA2
Station PAS-1
Average
Range
879
610-1345
8.98
1.3-12.4
279
25-437
244
6.3-870
102
58-153
2.1
1.6-2.4
200
144-234
Station NB-1S Shallow
Average
861
7.76
98
58
99
227
Range
590-1275
2.4-11.7
23-202
11-155
66-120
2.1
0.433.3
Station NB-1D Deep
Average
Range
714
466-966
6.89
0.9-12.9
83
5.8-210
41
4-59
74
50-116
2.3
1.2-3.1
188
191-255
Average Passaic River freshwater
44
11.5
<3
12
45
649
118
1. New Jersey CARP data provided by J. Pechiolli
2.
total 4,4’-DDTs is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations
46
154-322
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 5. Selected chemical values for bottom sediment cores, from the 2004 coring
program, and for samples from the New Jersey CARP Program.1 -- Continued
[PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; Hg, mercury; Pb, lead; g/kg, nanograms per gram; ng/kg,
Dissolved Pb, ng/L
Dissolved Hg, ng/L
Total 4,4’-DDTs2
ng/L
2,3,7,8-TCDF
pg/L
2,3,7,8-TCDD
pg/L
Total PCDD + PCDF
pg/L
Sample
Total PCBs
pg/L
picograms per gram; mg/kg, milligrams per kilogram]
NJ CARP Dissolved concentrations
CARP DATA2
Station PAS-1
Average
Range
4464
3292-7009
nd
nd
nd
0.86
.41-1.69
0.81
0.47-1.09
310
241-395
Station NB-1S Shallow
Average
Range
4727
2842-9772
nd
nd
nd
.67
.34-1.31
0.54
0.50-0.57
236
183-312
Station NB-1D Deep
Average
Range
4282
1769-8649
nd
nd
nd
.67
.20-1.35
0.45
0.34-0.55
268
194-413
Average Passaic River freshwater
3. New Jersey CARP data provided by J. Pechiolli
4.
total 4,4’-DDTs is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations
Z
47
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 6. Selected dissolved chemical concentrations from the Pilot Dredge monitoring.
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; pg/L, picogram per
liter; ng/L; nanogram per liter; %, percent; shaded values are percent; na, not analyzed; --,
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
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
18
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*
--
---
48
-----
2,3,7,8-TCDD
pg/L
Up
Down
0.02
11
Difference1 in pg/Land
percent
Dec. 6, 830
Dec. 6, 830
Total PCDD + PCDF1 pg/L
TU-GFF-051206-0830
TD-GFF-051206-0830
Difference1 in pg/L and
percent
Up
Down
Total PCBs pg/L
Dec. 5, 1430
Dec. 5, 1430
0.19*
0.21*

TU-GFF-051205-1430
TD-GFF-051205-1430
-0.22
-7.5

Up
Down
2.93
2.71

Dec. 7, 730
Dec. 5, 730
1,190
33

TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
3,610
4,800

Up
Down
Dominant
flow
direction

Dec. 5, 1130
Dec. 5, 1130
Sample identifier

TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
4

Location
of
sample
in
relation
to
dredge

Date and
Time
2,3,7,8-TCDD Difference1 in
pg/Land percent
not applicable; * values are estimated maximum possible concentration]
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 6. Selected dissolved chemical concentrations from the Pilot Dredge monitoring.
--Continued
[PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; pg/L, picogram per
liter; ng/L, nanogram per liter; %, percent; shaded values are percent; na, not analyzed; --,
0.56
0.56
3.628
4.497
0.869
24
0.538
0.630
0.092
17

na
na
---
na
na
na
na
---
na
na
---

na
0.17
---
na
0.66
na
2.849
---
na
0.505
---

na
na
---
na
na
na
na
---
na
na
---

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

na
0.14
---
na
0.46
na
3.192
---
na
0.624
---

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

na
0.14
TD-GFF-051210-1230
TU-GFF-051210-1230

TU-GFF-051210-0730
TD-GFF-051210-0730
na
na
TD-GFF-051212-0900
TD-GFF-051212-0730
---
0.10
--
49
percent
Total OCPs2
ng/L
0.04
29
Difference1in ng/L and
2,3,7,8-TCDD/total tetraTCDD’s
0.14
0.18
Total 4,4’-DDTs3
ng/L
2,3,7,8-TCDF Difference1
in pg/Land percent
---
and
percent
2,3,7,8-TCDF
pg/L
TU-GFF-051201-1130
TD-GFF-051201-1130
Difference1, in ng/L
Sample
Dominant
flow direction
not applicable; * values are estimated maximum possible concentration]
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
1.Negative difference indicate loss from up flow to down flow sample, + values indicate increase .
Percent difference calculated as (delta concentration/up flow concentration) *100
2.Total OCP value does not include toxaphene.
3. Total 4,4’-DDTs value is the sum of 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations
4. Samples beginning with TU were collected from upriver line M12. Samples beginning with TD
were collected from the downriver line M56.
50
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 7. Concentrations and concentration ratios of selected PCB congeners in samples collected during the pilot dredge and
in bottom sediment from the dredge area.
Average BG ng/kg
Average 0-1 ft.
Average 1-2 ft.
Average 2-3 ft.
Total PCB
(g/kg)
PCB-150
PCB-137
PCB-126
PCB-107
PCB-96
PCB-77
PCB-34
PCB-25
PCB-21
PCB-17
PCB-16
Sample
PCB-11
[concentrations in nanograms per kilogram except total PCB, which is in micrograms per kilogram; g/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ft., feet; BG, background]
844
6,220
3,630
5,360
6,570
2,940
128
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
2,700
34,400
42,800
56,000
49,200
21,200
892
10,000
2,780
6,440
296
12,000
16,60
5,510
57,200
96,200
127,000
110,400
31,800
3,360
22,000
34,980
11,560
605
59,400
23,000
10,700
Ratio of concentration
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
3.2
5.5
11.8
10.4
7.5
7.2
7.0
1.6
6.4
5.7
2.1
7.5
10.5
6.5
9.2
26.5
23.7
16.8
10.8
26.3
3.6
80.5
10.3
4.4
37.3
144.9
12.7
TU-GFF-051205-0730
TD-GFF-051205-0730
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
0.6
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
1.5
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
Sample/ ave. BG
51
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 7. Concentrations and concentration ratios of selected PCB congeners in samples collected during the pilot dredge and
in bottom sediment from the dredge area. -- Continued
PCB-126
PCB-137
PCB-150
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.5
2.9
1.3
1.1
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
52
Total PCB
PCB-107
1.2
1.1
PCB-77
1.0
1.6
TU-GFF-051206-1330
TD-GFF-051206-1330
Sample
PCB-34
1.0
1.9
PCB-25
1.0
1.2
PCB-21
1.2
1.0
PCB-17
1.0
1.4
PCB-16
Ratio of concentration
1.1
1.0
1.0
2.6
1.3
1.5
PCB-11
PCB-96
[concentrations in nanograms per kilogram except total PCB, which is in micrograms per kilogram; g/kg, micrograms per kilogram; ft., feet; BG, background]
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Pre-dredge Sediment Load and Mass Balance
For the nine day period between 0:00 on December 2 and 0:00 on December 12, the
overall difference (imbalance) between line M12 and line M56 was found to be -3.4
percent for water, and -12.6% for sediment - both are well within the assumed level
of uncertainty.
Table 7 shows the water and sediment mass-balances for the 30 minute intervals and the
24-hour period of December 2. 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 represents the net sediment erosion (26,400
kilograms, or 1,100 kg/hr) from between the area enclosed by lines M12 and M56. For
the background days of December 2, 3, 4, and 11th, 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 bottom, 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.
However, the calculated differences are within the assumed uncertainty (25 percent), and
the calculations were made for a 24-hour periods that includes partial tidal cycles. If the
calculations are made for less-than a full tide cycle, then the difference between two
monitoring lines will not include the sediment mass returned during the next tide reversal.
For 24-hour period of December 2nd, the sediment imbalance was calculated to be -4.2
percent, representing a difference of 26,400 kilograms of sediment (table 7). The
corresponding difference in water discharge is -2.1 percent, so both the sediment load and
water discharge were in very good balance. As the values in table 7 indicate, the 30
minute sediment and water imbalances vary dramatically over the successive time
intervals, and can be quite large in some instances. When plotted (fig. 8), 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
53
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
negative differences in water discharge 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 NS
velocity component become important.
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, average downriver flow velocities are is approximately 40 cm/sec over a
tidal cycle, which corresponds to a 25 to 30 minute average travel time for the 600
meters between line M12 to M56. During flood tide, the average velocity upriver velocity
is about 20 cm/sec, corresponding to an average travel time of 50 to 60 minute from
line M56 to line M12. Therefore, when sediment mass-balances are calculated for short
periods of times (partial tidal 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, tidal 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 7) were separated into the successive downriver and
upriver periods of the tide cycle, as determined by the velocity measurement at M2, and
the 30 or 60 minute offset applied. The first down-flow period has a large sediment
imbalance (+19.7 percent), but this is the result of not using the entire period of down
river flow, which began shortly before 20:00 on December 1. Likewise, the imbalance for
the last down-flow period (2100 to 2330) was -14.6 percent, but again these calculations
did not use the entire downriver flow which lasted until 4:45 on December 3. The one
complete upriver time period (500-930) and the complete downriver flow period (9001800) had very small imbalances for both sediment (3.7 and -0.6 percent, respectively)
and water (-13.7 and 3.4 percent, respectively). It is also interesting to note that the
sediment calculated to cross one line, say line M12, during the complete upriver flow
cycle (-69,189 kg per 270 minutes, or 256 kg per minute) does not equal the load carried
down stream in the next successive downriver cycle (456,355 kg per 570 minutes, or 800
54
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
kg per minute). This is 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 Flux to Newark Bay
The net flux of sediment that crossed either monitoring line is a measure of 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 from the initial
days of monitoring, and decreased significantly between Dec.4 and Dec. 11 (table 7). The
decrease was likely related to the decline in freshwater flow into the lower Passaic River.
The magnitude of these daily flux provides a scale for comparing the mass of sediment
dredged from the river bottom during this project.
Table 8. Net downriver flux of sediment calculated to pass mooring line 1-2
during background days.
[kg, kilograms; hr, hours; m3/hr, cubic meters per hour; yd3/hr, cubic yards per
hour]
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 1300 kg/m3 , which is the average bulk density in
2204 bottom core samples
55
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
56
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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. Arrows show times when elevated turbidity was detected in
surface (solid) and bottom (dotted) water.
57
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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
40
20
0
-20
Bottom Bin
-= West flow upriver
Surface 1m
-40
-60
LT
HT
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
7:00:00
6:00:00
5:00:00
4:00:00
3:00:00
2:00:00
1:00:00
-80
0:00:00
EW velocity, in cm/sec
60
Local Time
58
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 6B. Bottom velocity at mooring 2, December 2. Arrows show times when elevated turbidity was detected in surface
(solid) and bottom (dotted) water.
59
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
HT
17:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
LT
HT
16:00
LT
0
8:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS backscatter in millivolts .
Flow up
river toward
M12
Local Time
Figure 6C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in millivolts) measured at mooring 2,
December 2.
60
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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
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 6D. Suspended sediment concentrations estimated from ADCP reflectance at mooring M1 and M2,
December 2.
61
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Total PCB
Total PCDD + PCD
9000
Total PCBs in sediment, in ug/kg
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
20
15
10
5
1000
0
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
NJ CARP SS data
25
Total PCDD + PCDF in sediment, in ug/kg
8000
30
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
NJ CARP SS data
Pilot dredge
0.9
1.1
data
2004 bottom core
1.3
1.5
sediment data
1.7 PAS-1 and
1.9 NB
NJ CARP
data
Sample
7A. Concentrations of PCBs measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in bottom sediment from the 2004
cores and the NJ CARP program.
2.1
2.3
0
2.5
Pilot dredge
0.9
1.1
data
2.7
2.9
2004 bottom core
1.3
1.5
sediment data
1.7 PAS-1 and
1.9NB
NJ CARP
data
Sample
7B. Concentrations of total PCDD plus PCDF measured in the
Pilot Dredge program and the range of concentrations in the
bottom sediment from the 2004 cores an the CARP program
62
2.
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1800
1600
250
1400
Total 2,3,7,8-TCDF in sediment, in ng/kg
Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediment, in ng/kg
300
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
NJ CARP SS data
1200
1000
800
600
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
NJ CARP SS data
200
150
100
400
50
200
0
0
Pilot dredge
0.9
1.1
data
2004 bottom core
1.3
1.5
sediment data
1.7 PAS-1 and
1.9 NB
NJ CARP
data
Sample
2.1
Pilot dredge
0.9
1.1
data
2.3
2.5
2004 bottom core
1.3
1.5
sediment
2.7 data
2.9
1.7 PAS-1 1.9
NJ CARP
and NB data
Sample
63
2.1
2
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
7C. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD measured in the Pilot Dredge
program and the range of concentrations in bottom sediment from
the 2004 cores and the NJ CARP program.
7D. Concentrations of 2,3,,8-TCDF measured in the Pilot Dredge
program and the range of concentrations in the bottom sediment
from the 2004 cores an the CARP program.
64
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Total DDTs
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
300
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
NJ CARP SS data
Total DDT's in sediment, in ng/kg
250
200
150
100
50
0
Pilot dredge
0.9
1.1
data
2004 bottom core
1.3
1.5
sediment data
1.7 PAS-1
NJ CARP
and NB data
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
Sample
65
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 7E. Concentrations measured in the Pilot Dredge program and the corresponding range of concentrations in
bottom sediment from the 2004 cores and from the NJ CARP sampling conducted from 2000 to 2002.
66
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Sediment Pb
Sediment Hg
8
1000
7
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
950
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
900
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
850
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
Bottom sediment 0 to 1 ft
Bottom sediment 1 to 2 ft
Bottom Sediment 2 to 3 ft.
800
NJ CARP SS data
6
Dec 1 to 12, 2005
NJ CARP SS data
750
Hg in sediment, in mg/kg
Hg in sediment, in mg/kg
700
5
4
3
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
2
200
150
1
100
50
0
0
Pilot dredge
1.1
0.9
data
2004 bottom core
1.5
1.3
sediment data
1.7 PAS-1
NJ CARP
and NB data
1.9
2.1
Sample
7F. Concentrations of mercury measured in the Pilot Dredge program
and the range of concentrations in bottom sediment from the 2004
cores and the NJ CARP program.
2.3
2.5
2004 bottom core
Pilot dredge
2.9
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9 2.7
sediment data
data
1.7 PAS-1 1.9
NJ CARP
and NB data
Sample
7G. Concentrations of lead measured in the Pilot Dredge program and
the range of concentrations in the bottom sediment from the 2004
cores an the CARP program.
67
2.1
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
PCB Congener Profile
40
PAS-1 June 2000
A 01C
D01C
PAS1 Dec 2000
A12C
D12C
PAS 1 March 2001
TU- Dec 5
TD- Dec 5
TU Dec 12
Core A and D
0-1 Ft.
35
CARP PAS-1
Samples
Percent of total PCB by weight
30
25
Pilot Dredge
Background Samples
20
15
10
5
0
Mono+di
Tri
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Nona
Dec
Homolog Group
Figure 8. Percentage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) homologs by weight for
pilot dredge background samples, bottom sediment samples from 2004 cores A
and D, and CARP samples of suspended sediment from the Passaic River
68
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 8. Water discharge and sediment loads and mass-balance for
December 2, 2005.
[kg, kilograms; M12, line M1 to M2; M56, line M5 to M6]
Time, line
Sediment load
Time,
Sediment
Difference,
Change in
Change in
M12
at line
line M56
load at line
Kg/30
sediment
discharge2, in
M12
M56
minutes
load1, in
percent
Kg/30 minutes
kg/30
percent
minutes
Flow downriver
0-30
30-100
100-130
130-200
200-230
230-300
300-300
330-400
400-430
430-500
49,000
48,100
29,100
20,800
18,900
18,500
13,800
5,790
437
-2,680
30-100
100-130
130-200
200-230
230-300
300-300
330-400
400-430
430-500
500-530
41,800
12,500
26
17
36,440
21,700
45
30
26,300
5,080
17
17
24,100
-6,650
-32
0.6
27,500
-5,620
-30
24
24,600
4,500
24
40
14,000
9,680
70
67
4,120
7,140
123
138
-1,350
5,470
1,250
1,290
-5,030
12,700
-475
-162
135,300
66,600
33
50
85
76
42
-10
-161
-9,720
205
18
-61
81
50
33
-7.8
-100
-3,880
177
51
-79
7.2
-32
Total 300
minutes
201,900
Flow upriver
500-530
530-600
600-630
630-700
700-730
730-800
800-830
830-900
900-930
Total 270
minutes
-8,720
-21,300
-26,600
-17,300
-6,380
-128
3,170
4,890
3,200
-69,200
400-430
430-500
500-530
530-600
600-630
630-700
700-730
730-800
800-830
-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
-64,200
-4,970
69
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 8. Water discharge and sediment loads and mass-balance for
December 2, 2005. – Continued
[kg, kilograms; M12, line M1 to M2; M56, line M5 to M6]
Time, line
Sediment load at
Time,
Sediment
Difference
Change in
Change in
M12
line
line M56
load at line
kg/30
sediment
discharge2,
M12
M56
minutes
load1, in
in percent
kg/30 minutes
kg/30
percent
minutes
900-930
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 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
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
-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
456,000
461,600
-5,240
-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
-1.1
6.6
50
1.9
-7.2
-59
-495
438
67
33
17
-24
-160
417
-49
-24
Flow upriver
1800-1830
1830-1900
1900-1930
1930-2000
2000-2030
2030-2100
Total 210
minutes
-5,600
-7,760
-9,640
-7,210
-1,710
1,550
-31,900
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
-47,600
15,700
70
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 8. Water discharge and sediment loads and mass-balance for
December 2, 2005. – Continued
[kg, kilograms; M12, line M1 to M2; M56, line M5 to M6]
Time, line
Sediment load at
Time,
Sediment
Difference,
Change in
Change in
M12
line
line M56
load at line
kg/30
sediment
discharge2,
M12
M56
minutes
load1, in
in percent
kg/30 minutes
kg/30
percent
minutes
2100-2130
2130-2200
2200-2230
2230-2300
2300-2330
2330-000
Total 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
72,200
97,000
-24,800
628,000
654,000
-26,400
-31
-7.0
5.4
-7.4
-61
-78
-62
-21
-21
-14
-21
5.2
-34
-19
-4.2
-2.1
1.Percent change in sediment mass is calculated as (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values indicate more
mass calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
2. Percent change in discharge is calculated as Qm12-Qm56 * 100 / Qm12, where Q is discharge crossing
mooring M12 or M56.
71
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 2, Sediment and Water Imbalance
500
400
Percent difference
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
Water
23
00
22
00
21
00
20
00
19
00
18
00
HT
17
00
16
00
15
00
LT
14
00
13
00
11
00
90
0
10
00
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
0
-300
10
0
Sediment
H
T
12
00
LT
Local Time
Figure 9. Water and sediment imbalance calculated for December 2, 2005.
72
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Evaluation of Suspended Sediment and Chemistry during
Dredging
The suspended-sediment concentrations, moored instrument data, and sediment chemistry
data were evaluated for each day of dredging to seek evidence of sediment release from
the dredging. For each day the following evaluations were made:
1. Suspended sediment in the cross-channel monitoring samples were plotted to
determine variations in SS during the periods of dredging.
2. Turbidity (and OBS response) from the moored instruments were plotted to
confirm the variation in SS observed in the cross-channel samples.
3.
The relation between the SS variations and the river characteristics (water level,
salinity, and bottom currents) was established graphically to determine if
variations in SS were associated with the migration of the salt-water interface, and
therefore, if they were related to the natural zone of turbidity maximum.
4. For some days, the turbidity data collected during dredging were compared with
the turbidity measured during the next successive tidal cycle. This allowed a
graphical comparison to be made to determine if turbidity was elevated during
dredging over a comparable position in the next (non-dredging) tide cycle.
5. The sediment loads were calculated (using the moored ADCP data) to determine
if sediment load increased down-flow during periods of dredging.
6. The differences in the chemical composition of suspended sediment collected upflow and down-flow of the dredging were calculated for selected chemical
species. The chemical data were also compared with bottom sediment data and
with the range of values in the background and from the CARP data from the
lower Passaic.
73
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
As discussed earlier, the chemical indicator species are a small subset of the entire set of
compounds that were measured in the samples, and may not represent the changes
measured for other specific compounds. Also, review of the analytical results by the EPA
quality assurance/control was not yet completed at the time this report was prepared.
Thus, values and conclusions are considered preliniary 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 (PM sampling) (fig. 9A). A total of 25 unique dredge
bites were taken from between the NJSPC XY coordinates 561254-695381 and 594272695422 (corresponding dredge cell A2 fig. 3). 8 During the morning dredging (10401235) flow in the river was down river, however, sampling was conducted when flow
was both up- and downriver. For the morning, therefore, the line M56 was considered
down-flow. Cross-sectional monitoring for SS was conducted from 800 to 1230 (AM
sampling). TOPS sampling was conducted from 830 to 1200 at line M12, and 900 to
1200 at line M56. During the morning, sampling was hampered by freezing of the TOPS
equipment.
December 5-AM
Suspended Sediment
The reversal in flow during the morning makes interpreting the SS and chemical data
difficult. SS in the samples from the downriver (down-flow) line M56 declined steadily
through the morning as dredging began (fig. 10A), while at the upriver (up-flow) line
M12 the concentrations increased steadily. At the up-flow line M12, peak concentrations
8
The number of bites represents unique bucket locations. Multiple bites may have been collected at a
single location. Coordinates are given as X Y and are in the NJSPC coordinate system.
74
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
were reached between 1130 and 1230, but then declined throughout the remainder of the
day. Before 930, the flow of the river was upstream. Because dredging started when flow
was downriver (at 1024), the increase in SS in the upriver samples (line M12) cannot be
attributed to dredging – flow is in the wrong direction to have affected M12. The downflow samples from line M56 collected after 1000 showed no increase in SS concentration
that could be related to dredging.
Turbidity
There was no increase in turbidity at mooring the surface of M1 and the bottom of M2
(fig. 10B) during the morning sampling, however, the turbidity in the surface at M2
increased starting at about 930, and after peaking at 1100, declined the remainder of the
afternoon until about 1600 after which the turbidity again increased. Thus, suspended
material in the surface water near M2 apparently caused the increase in the SS of the
cross-channel SS samples. Turbidity in the surface water at M1 was elevated, but was
declining from the high values measured at 830. By the time dredging began, however,
flow was downriver toward line M56, and the SS samples and turbidity show no
indication of a rise in suspended sediment until well after the dredging had ended.
Turbidity in the bottom water at M6 was slightly elevated but steady throughout the
morning. A sharp but short-lived spike in the turbidity measured in the surface water at
down-flow mooring M5 (after 1200), however, the turbidity in the surface water at the
down-flow line M56 remained low and constant 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 as leaking, but were repaired by 1230. The
spike in turbidity at M5 may be related to this malfunction.
Sediment Chemistry
75
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
The concentration of total PCBs decreased from 875g/kg in the up-flow sample (line
M12) to 470 g/kg in the down-flow sample (line M56), a decrease of -46 percent4.
Similarly, the total PCDD+PCDF (-78%), the 2,3,7,8-TCDD (-49%), the 2,3,7,8-TCDF (16%), total OCPs (-45%) and total 4,4’-DDTs (-50%) concentrations also decreased
(table 5). These consistent percent decreases for all indicator components provide an
indication that the suspended sediment was “diluted” by cleaner sediments. The total
PCB, PCDD+PCDF, and 4,4’-DDT concentrations in the monitoring samples are lower
than in the surficial (0-1 ft) bottom sediment, however, the 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8TCDD concentrations are higher in the upriver sample (and lower in the downriver
sample) than in the bottom sediment (table 5). The concentrations of these species are
also lower in the down river sample than in the bottom sediment (table 5). Dissolved
concentrations were not determined for the morning samples.
December 5 – PM
The afternoon dredging was from 1235 until 1800, during which time the flow was
downriver until low-tide (1815). A total of 133 unique dredge bites were taken in the
afternoon from between the NJSPC XY coordinates 594278-695481 and 594345-695465
(dredge cells B2 through E2, fig. 3). Cross-sectional monitoring for SS was conducted
from 1400 to 1700 (PM sampling) along both lines M12 and M56. During the afternoon,
TOPS sampling was conducted on the upriver line from 1400 until 1700, and on the
down-river line from 1430 to 1700.
Suspended Sediment
On 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 then was the case for the morning. SS concentration in the down-flow
line M56 increased during the afternoon, while SS continued to decrease in the up-flow
76
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
line M12 samples (fig. 10A). The SS at the down-flow line M56 began to rise at 1330,
approximately ½ hour after dredging began, and peaked in both the surface and bottom
samples collected at 1530-1600.
Turbidity
The turbidity in the down-flow bottom water, measured by the OBS at mooring M5 and
M6, increased during the first hour of the afternoon dredging (fig. 10C). However,
turbidity also increased in the bottom water up-flow at M1 and M2, and the surface water
of M1, concurrent with the increase measured at down-flow M5 and M6.
One explanation for the increase in SS at down-flow line M56, is the passing of the
sediment that moved upriver earlier in the day and was measured at line M12. Very high
SS concentrations were found at M12 in both the surface and bottom samples as late as
1300 hours. Assuming an average downriver current velocity of 40 cm/sec (beginning at
1200), 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 moved by M12 should have passed
M56 by mid-afternoon. It is also important to note that as dredging proceeded during the
afternoon, the SS decreased (after 1500) at down-flow line M56 in a manner similar to
that observed at the up-flow line M12. A decrease in SS down-flow is not expected if
dredging had been actively releasing sediment. The most likely explanation for the
increased SS in line M56 during the afternoon was the return of sediment that had moved
upriver earlier in the day.
Water Salinity
77
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
The increase in suspended sediment and turbidity recorded at down-flow mooring M5,
and (to a lesser extent) at the surface at M6 (fig. 10C) occurred between 1400 and 1600,
the initial 2 hours of dredging. During this time period, the salinity at mooring 6 was
decreasing to freshwater values (fig. 10D). Thus, the increase in SS concentrations and
turbidity coincide with the movement of the salt-water interface downriver and the
freshening of the river. At the same time, maximum downriver flow velocities (50
cm/sec) were reached in the bottom water (fig. 10E).
Comparison with Turbidity in Next Tidal Cycle
Because the suspended materials increased down-flow of the dredging during the
afternoon, the turbidity values measured during the afternoon were compared with the
turbidity measured during the next low-tide cycle that occurred when dredging was not
underway, in this case, during the low-tide cycle on the early morning hours of Dec. 6.
During the afternoon of Dec. 5, low-tide was reached at 1745 at M6, and on Dec. 6, lowtide was reached at 540. To make the comparison meaningful, the data were shifted in
time to line up corresponding phases in each tide cycle. This was done by aligning the
turbidity data on the time maximum low-tide was first reached (fig. 9F, 9G, and 9H). The
data were plotted for a period of four hours before until four hours after low-tide.
Inspection of the turbidity in the surface water (fig. 9F) 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 1445 to 1545, and the second began at about
1630 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 OBS
measurements in the bottom water at M6 showed a period of elevated turbidity occurred
beginning about 4 hours before low-tide and lasted for 2 hours (fig. 9G). Elevated
turbidity was also measured in the surface water at M5 beginning more than 4 hours
78
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
before, and lasting until about 2 hours before the afternoon low-tide was reached,
compared with the next low-tide cycle on the Dec. 6 (fig. 8H). When presented in this
manner, it is evident that periods of elevated suspended material, measured as turbidity,
occurred downriver of the dredging.
Sediment Load and Mass Balance
The sediment load calculated using ADCP data from M12 and M56 were used to
determine if 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.
Inspection of the results for the 30 minute periods showed imbalances ranged from
-50 to +5 percent. 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.
Table 10. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 5, 2005.
[kg, kilograms]
Mass of
Change in
sediment
sediment
passing
load1,
M1M2, in
Time for
Mass of sediment
Difference in
in
Time for
kg/30
M56
passing M56, in
mass , in
percent
M12 (up-flow)
minutes
(down-flow)
kg/30 minutes
kg/30 minutes
1030 -1100
1100-1130
1130-1200
1200-1230
1230-1300
1300-1330
1330-1400
1,270
1,410
2,020
2,620
5,030
6,460
14,600
1100 -1130
1130-1200
1200-1230
1230-1300
1300-1330
1330-1400
1400-1430
3,260
3,910
4,670
5,830
9,200
19,100
22,600
-1,990
-2,500
-2,650
-3,210
-4,210
-12,500
-8,670
-157
-178
-131
-123
-84
-192
-62
79
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
1400-1430
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-1600
1600-1630
1630-1700
1700-1730
1730-1800
1800-1830
21,900
25,100
30,800
23,300
17,800
13,300
11,100
8,700
5,370
Total
191,000
233,000
191,000
235,000
Total for 24
hours
1.
1430-1500
1500-1530
1530-1600
1600-1630
1630-1700
1700-1730
1730-1800
1800-1830
1830-1900
30,400
40,300
29,000
21,500
16,100
13,100
8,930
4,840
-8,490
-15,200
1,790
1,830
1,700
291
2,140
3,900
-39
-60
5.8
7.8
9.5
2.2
19
45
564
4,800
90
-23
(-3.4)
-42,900
-24
(11.5)
-44,700
Percent change is calculated as (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values indicate more mass
calculated to have passed M56 than M12.
Sediment and Water Chemistry
The concentration of total PCBs (table 3) was 157 g/kg (-11 percent) lower in the downflow sample from the concentration measured in up-flow sample (table 4). Total
dioxin/furans increased by 6.9 g/kg, an increase of 78%, but the 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the
2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations both decreased from the up-flow to down-flow sample, by 49 and -16 percent, respectively. The total 4-4’-DDT content (sum of 4,4-DDD, DDE
and DDT) as the upstream sample also decreased, from 398 to 121 g/kg (-70 percent).
In the up-flow sample (line M12), the concentration of total PCB and total PCDD+PCDF
were within the range of the surface layer of bottom sediment (0-1 ft) (table 5). The other
indicator compounds were higher than the range found in the bottom sediment. In the
down-flow sample, the total PCBS were lower, but the total PCDD+PCDFs and 2,3,7,8TCDF were higher than the range, but the 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 4,4’-DDT’s were within the
range of concentrations in the surface bottom sediment. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD (and to some
extent the 2,3,7,8-TCDF) concentration in the up-flow sample is interesting – the only
sediment having such high 2,3,7,8-TCDD are deep in the bottom sediment (up to 1,600
ng/kg was measured in the 2-3 ft deep sediment). However, this sample from up-flow of
80
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
the dredging so its high concentration cannot be related to a release of dredged sediment.
Rather, this reflects the large range of concentrations that exists for this compound in the
river.
The down-flow sample had concentrations of total PCBs, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and total 4,4’DDTs that were within the range reported for the CARP samples from PAS-1 and
Newark Bay (table 5). The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in both of the samples collected
in the afternoon were greater than the maximum concentration in the CARP samples. The
very high concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the up-flow sample suggests the range in
2,3,7,8-TCDD in suspended sediment may be greater than the range in the CARP
samples.
81
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 5 Suspended Sediment
120
Down-river M56 shallow
Down-river M56 deep
Flow up-river
to M12
Up-river M12 shallow
Suspended Sediment in mg/L
100
Up-river 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
Time
Fig 10A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional composite
samples collected December 5. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical
sampling was undertaken.
82
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 5 Mooring 2 Turbidity and OBS Backscatter
150
Flow up river
towards M1-2
140
130
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS backscatter, in milliolts
Flow up river
towards M1-2
Surface Turbidity M2
Bottom OBS M2
Surface Turbidity M1
Bottom OBS M1 * 1000
120
110
100
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 10B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at mooring M12, December 5.
December 5 Mooring 5 and 6
150
Flow up river
toward
moorings 1-2
140
Bottom OBS M6
130
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
Flow up river
toward
moorings 1-2
Surface Turbidity M6
Surface Turbidity M5
120
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
13:00
12:00
18:00
LT
Dredging
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
HT
6:00
LT
0
Local Time
Figure 10C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at mooring M56, December 5.
83
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 5- Mooring 6 Water Elevation and Salinity
10
Water Elevation
Bottom Salinity
Surface Salinity
Water Elevation in meters, Salintiy in PSU
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, December 5.
December 5 Mooring 2 E-W Velocity
100
Flow up-river to
M12
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow up-river to
M12
80
60
EW Velocity in cm/sec
40
20
0
-20
Bottom Bin
Surface 1m
-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, December 5.
84
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
85
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 5 Low Tide Mooring 6 Surface Turbidity
50
LT 17:45 Dec 5
Flow up river towards moorings 1-2
LT 5:54 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/after Low Tide
Mooring 6 December 5 Low Tide Bottom OBS Reflectance
100
Flow up river
towards
moorings 1-2
LT 17:45 Dec 5
90
LT 5:40 Dec 6
70
60
50
Low Tide @ 17:45 12/5
40
Low Tide @ 5:40 12/6
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
0
4:00
OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
80
Time before/after Low Tide
86
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 10F and 10G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) the bottom water at mooring 6 during the low tide at 17:45 on Dec. 5 and the low
tide at 5:40, December 6.
December 5 Mooring 5 Low Tide Surface Turbidity
1000
LT at 1745 on Dec. 5
Flow up-river to moorings 1-2
LT at 540 on Dec. 6
Low Tide @ 5:40 12/6
Turbidity, in NTU
100
10
Low Tide @ 17:45 12/5
Dredging 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
1
Time before / after low tide
10H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5 during the
low tide at 17:45 on Dec. 5 and the low tide at 5:40, December 6.
87
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 6 – AM
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 collected during the morning from
between the XY coordinates 594244-695394 and 594281-695358 (corresponding to
dredge cell A3) (fig. 3). During most of the morning, flow in the river was upriver toward
line M12, however, the flow had reversed (at 1015) and was downriver for nearly half of
the time the dredging occurred. Cross-sectional sampling for SS was conducted from 730
to 1130 (am sampling) along both lines. Note that sampling was conducted during both
up- and downriver flow. TOPS sampling was conducted from 830 to 1130 (pm) along
both lines, the majority of time flow was up-river. 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 direction (fig.
11A), making interpretations of the SS and chemical data difficult. Because the majority
of samples were collected during upriver flow, the up-river line M12 is considered downflow for this evaluation (of the total 10 samples collected, five were collected during the
dredging). The suspended sediment concentrations measured in the bottom water at the
down-flow line M12 peaked at 900, after which time the values steadily declined.
Concentrations in the surface water at line M12 did not peak but rather decreased steadily
throughout the morning. SS did not increase during dredging. A similar decreasing trend
in concentration was observed at the downriver line M56 during the morning.
The highest concentration in the down-flow bottom-water samples (line M12) was
collected at 900, which was more than 15 minutes before the initiation of dredging, and
88
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
was followed by a decline during the remainder of the morning dredging. Thus, the spike
observed in the bottom water at 900 can not be attributed to a release by the dredging.
Between 900 and 1015, flow was upriver but was slowing as the tide began to reverse. At
an average upriver velocity of -10 cm/sec, sediment released from the dredge would take
approximately 50-60 minutes to reach line M12. Thus, any sediment released from early
in the dredging activity could have reached line M12, and it would be expected to have
been observed in the samples. Any sediment released after the flow reversed (after 1015)
would not have reached line M12, but could have reached line M56 before the end of
sampling at 1130. There is no indication of an increase in SS during the dredging at either
line M12 or M56.
Turbidity
The turbidity (OBS) measured in the down-flow bottom water at M1 (fig. 11B) increased
during the morning, beginning around 800 and peaking at about 900, but then declined
during the remainder of the morning. A small increase in turbidity was detected in the
bottom water at M2, and in the surface water of M2, beginning shortly after 900. These
OBS values confirm the increase in SS measured in the bottom water-samples collected
in the cross-channel samples at line M12. The increased turbidity in the surface water
was not reflected in the concentrations of SS in the surface water samples collected by
the cross-sectional monitoring- the increase in suspended material in the surface water
may have been too small or localized to affect the cross-channel SS samples. A very large
increase in turbidity was measured at moorings 5 and 6 beginning around 700, but
turbidity had had returned to low levels by 900, before dredging had started (fig. 11C),
values were low and constant in the surface and bottom water at M56 after 1000. The
turbidity measured at line M56 also confirm the SS in the samples that were collected
from this line.
Water Salinity
89
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Inspection of the plot of salinity and water elevation at mooring M2 ( figure 11D) shows
that the salinity of the bottom and surface water increased significantly beginning shortly
after 800 and had reached a maximum at 1000, and remained elevated throughout the
afternoon. This shows that the salt-water 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 low-tide (no-flow), and continued as the
flow downriver began to increase. The downriver velocity profile is somewhat distorted –
the velocity in the surface water remained low and steady until 1300, before reversing. In
the bottom water, the velocity peaked, then decreased and reversed until 1400, after
which time it began to rise in the downriver direction.
Sediment Chemistry
The 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 not
a clear “up-flow” to “down-flow” 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 was chosen to be down-flow for this comparison.
The total PCB concentrations in the TOPS samples collected during the morning of
December 6, decreased by 231 g/kg, (a -31% decrease) between the sample collected
up-flow at line M12 and down-flow at line M56 (table 4). Total dioxin/furans in these
samples decreased by -1.3 g/kg, or -28%, as did both 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF
decreased between two monitoring lines (-112 and -44 ng/kg, or -43 and -37 percent,
respectively). The total 4,4’-DDT concentration increased by +35 g/kg (+14 percent).
Note that if the upriver line M12 was chosen to be the down-flow of the dredging, then
all of these concentrations would have all increased during the morning dredging.
90
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
The total PCBs in the suspended sediment at line M12 and M56 were lower than the
range of concentrations measured in the surface layer of the bottom sediment (table 5).
The 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations in the suspended sediment were
within the range for the surface layer of the bottom sediment as was the content of total4,4’-DDT concentrations were also in the range for the surface bottom sediment. The
concentrations of total PCB, total PCDD/PCDF, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and 2,3,7,8-TCDF
compounds in the suspended sediment were within the range of the CARP PAS-1 and
Newark Bay samples, but the total 4,4’-DDT concentrations exceeded the range in the
CARP samples (table 5). Dissolved concentrations were measured only in the downriver (down-flow) samples, so an evaluation of the change in chemistry cannot be made.
December 6 PM
Dredging on the afternoon of December 6 was conducted from 1301 to 1619 (PM
sampling), and for a short time from 1737 to 1848, which was not sampled. During the
afternoon (1301 to 1619) a total of 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. Cross-sectional
monitoring for SS was conducted from 1330 to 1600 along both lines. TOPS sampling
was conducted from 1330 to 1600 along line M56 and 1330 to 1630 along the upriver
line M12.
Suspended Sediment
During the afternoon of December 6, the flow of the river was in one direction from line
M12 toward line M56. SS concentrations at the up-flow line M12 and the down-flow
line M56 increased steadily as dredging preceded (fig. 11A) reaching very high
concentrations in both the bottom and surface water. The increase in SS in line M12
91
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
samples cannot be attributed to dredging; these moorings were up flow of the dredging
area for the entire afternoon, and the flow had been downriver for nearly 2 ½ hours after
the morning dredge activities had ended.
Turbidity
Turbidity in the surface and bottom water down-flow at mooring M56 (fig. 11B) had
already started to increase before dredging commenced at 1300. Although the turbidity
data are extremely “noisy”, and temporal trends are difficult to see, an extremely large
spike in turbidity occurred in the surface water at mooring 6 between the start of dredging
at 1300 and lasting until 1400. A second spike in turbidity detected from 1900 to 2000,
well after the evening dredging had ended. Turbidity (and OBS backscatter)at M5 and
M6 reached maximum values between 1500 and 1600 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 of the bottom water (M2) and in the surface
water (M1) also began to increase starting at about 1500. The data from down-flow
mooring 5 and 6, as well as from the up-flow moorings 1 and 2, confirm the increase in
SS observed at both cross channel sediment sampling lines (fig. 11A).
The increase in SS along down-flow line M56 can most easily 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/sec, sediment passing line M12
would reach line M56 in about 25 to 30 minutes. However, while the downriver transport
of sediment from line M12 may explain the 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 1600 sample) suggesting that additional sediment was added to the water
between line M12 and M56.
92
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Water Salinity
Inspection of the salinity (fig. 11D and 11E) shows the water at both lines M12 and M56
was very saline during the first-half of the afternoon dredging period, but then had
freshened to nearly freshwater values by the time dredging ceased shortly after 1600.
During this time the velocity of the bottom and (surface water) increased rapidly and
reached a maximum downriver flow rate of over 60 cm/sec by 1500 (fig. 11F). Thus, the
afternoon rise in SS occurred during the passing of the salt-water interface and during the
times when maximum flow velocity was reached in the dredge area.
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle
Because the suspended materials increased down-flow during the afternoon dredging on
Dec. 6, the turbidity values were compared with the turbidity during the next low-tide
cycle that occurred during the early morning hours of December 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 at 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.
93
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
With two exceptions, the turbidity in the surface water was very similar during these two
tidal cycles (figs. 11G and 11H). The first difference occurred near the end of dredging at
1610, 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 down-flow line M56 showed higher levels of
suspended materials in the water-column.
A second very large increase in turbidity of the surface water occurred just as maximum
low-tide was reached at 1910 on Dec 6, and lasted for over 30 minutes (fig. 11G). The
increase continued well after maximum low tide was reached, and may have been
associated with the dredging that occurred in the evening on the 6th and that ended at
1848, some 25 minute before maximum low tide. Because the cross-channel monitoring
had ended, this increase in turbidity was not captured in the SS or chemical sampling.
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance
The sediment loads mass-balance data for the afternoon of December 6 is presented in
table 11. The overall sediment mass balance for the time period beginning at 1300
changed by -61 percent between the up-flow and down-flow lines, much higher than the
level assumed to be significant. The mass-balance indicates that sediment was released
during the afternoon dredging.
94
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 11. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 6, 2005.
[kg, kilograms]
Mass of
Change in
sediment
sediment
Difference in
load1,
Mass of sediment
mass
in
(down-
passing M56, in
(M12-M56), in
percent
minutes
flow)
kg/30 minutes
kg/30 minutes
1300-1330
958
1330-1400
7,760
-6,810
1330-1400
4,420
1400-1430
16,700
-12,300
1400-1430
8,920
1430-1500
23,100
-14,200
1430-1500
18,600
1500-1530
26,300
-7,700
1500-1530
19,500
1530-1600
26,700
-7,180
1530-1600
20,900
1600-1630
34,700
-13,800
1600-1630
26,900
1630-1700
26,300
634
Total
100,000
162,000
-61,300
190,000
271,000
-80,400
passing
Time M56
Time for
M1M2, in
for
M12
kg/30
(up-flow)
Total for 24hours
-710
-278
-159
-42
-37
-66
2.4
-61
-42
1.Percent change is calculated as (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values imply more mass passed
M56 than M12.
Sediment Chemistry
The concentration of total PCBs increased from 870 g/kg in the up-flow sample (line
M12) to 1,390 g/kg in the down-flow sample collected downriver at line M56,
representing a 59% increase in the concentration (table 4). While total dioxin/furans were
nearly identical in the up-flow and down-flow samples, differing by only 2.5%, the
2,3,7,8-TCDD increased by 103 ng/kg, a rise of +33% and 2,3,7,8-TCDF increased by 76
ng/kg, or +51%. Total 4,4’-DDTs decreased by 277 g/kg, representing a loss of 40% .
95
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
The concentration of total PCB in the down-flow sample from line M56 (1,390 g/kg)
was high, but was within the range measured in the surficial sediment from the 2004
cores, as were the concentrations of total PCDD/PCDF, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and 2,3,7,8TCDF (table 5, fig. 7). Total 4,4’-DDT in the up-flow sample was lower than, while the
down-flow sample was greater than the range of concentrations in the bottom layer (0-1
ft. depth).
The total PCB, total PCDD/PCDF, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and 2,3,7,8-TCDF,
concentrations in the suspended sediment are all within the range found in the CARP
sampling (table 5). The 4,4’-DDT in the up-flow sample was within the range, but the
down-flow sample was greater than the range found in the CARP samples from PAS-1
and Newark Bay.
Dissolved concentrations were measured in the both up-flow and down-flow samples
collected on the afternoon of Dec. 6. Dissolved total PCBs increased 660 pg/L (18
percent) while total PCDD+PCDF concentrations decreased (-22 percent). The 2,3,7,8TCDD increased slightly, although in the down-flow sample this congener was below the
detection level. 2,3,7,8-TCDF remained approximately the same from up-flow to down
flow samples (+7 percent). Dissolved total 4,4-DDT decreased by 29 percent. Values of
all these indicator components are within the range reported for the CARP samples.
96
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 6 Suspended Sediment
130
Down-river M56 shallow
120
Flow up-river to M12
Down-river M56 deep
Up-river M12 shallow
110
Up-river M12 deep
Suspended Sediment in mg/L
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
Time
Fig 11A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples
collected December 6. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical
sampling was undertaken.
97
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 6 Mooring 1-2 Surface and Bottom Turbidity and OBS Reflectance
150
130
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS backscatter, in millivolts
2 points
off scale
Surface Turbidity M2
Bottom OBS M2
Surface Turbidity M1
Bottom OBS M1 * 1000
140
Flow up river
towards M1-2
Flow up river
towards M1-2
120
110
100
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 OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M12, December 6.
December 6 Mooring 5-6 Surface Turbidity and Bottom OBS Reflectance
100
10
Flow up-river
toward
moorings 1-2
Surface Turbidity M6
Bottom OBS M6
Flow up- river
toward
moorings 1-2
Dredging
Surface Turbidity M5
Bottom OBS M5
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
LT
13:00
11:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
12:00
HT
LT
1
0:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
1000
Local Time
98
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 11C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M56, December 6.
99
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 6 Mooring 2 Salinity and Water Elevation
12
12
11
11
Elevation
10
Bottom Salinity
10
Surface Salinity
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
Dredging
Dredging
20:00
19:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
11:00
9:00
10:00
0
8:00
-2
7:00
1
6:00
-1
Figure 11D. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 2, December 6.
December 5- Mooring 6 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
Water Elevation
Bottom Salinity
Surface Salinity
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
10:00
9:30
9:00
8:30
8:00
7:30
7:00
6:30
-2
6:00
Water elevation in meters and salintiy in PSU
10
Local Time
100
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 11E. Salinity and water elevation at mooring 6, December 6.
101
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 6 Mooring 2 E-W Velocity
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow up-river
to M12
80
Flow up-river
to M12
60
EW Velocity in cm/sec
40
20
0
-20
-40
Bottom Bin
Surface 1m
-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
Figure 11F. East-west velocity measured at mooring 2 on December 6.
102
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 6 Low Tide Mooring 6 Surface Turbidity
10000
LT 1910 Dec. 6
Flow is up river towards moorings 1-2
LT 650 Dec 7
Low Tide at 19:10 12/6
Turbidity, in NTU
1000
100
10
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
21:10
1:15
0:45
0:30
0:15
0:00
0:15
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
20:10
18:10 local 12/6
1:00
17:10
1
0:30
16:10
Low Tide at 6:50 12/7
0:45
15:10
Dredging 17:37
through 18:48
1:00
Dredging 13:01
through 16:19
Time before/after Low Tide
December 6 Low Tide Mooring 6 Bottom OBS Reflectance
1000
LT 1910 Dec. 6
Flow is up river towards moorings 1-2
100
Low Tide at 19:10 12/6
10
Low Tide at 6:50 12/7
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
1
4:00
OBS backscatter, in millivolts .
LT 650 Dec. 7
Time before/after Low Tide
103
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 11G and 11H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) in the bottom water at mooring 6 during the low tide at 19:10 on Dec. 6 and the
low tide at 6:50 on December 7.
104
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 7 - AM
Dredging on December 7 was conducted for only one period – from 744 until 1538, with
a total of 143 unique dredge bites being taken between the NJSPC XY coordinates
594185-695487 and 594345-695465 (corresponding to dredge cells A1 through B1) (fig.
3). Between 800 and 1145 the flow direction was up river, and from 1245 to the end of
dredging the flow was down river. Cross-sectional monitoring for SS was conducted
along both lines from 800 to 1230 and again from 1430 to 1630. Chemical sampling was
conducted from 930 to 1230 along both lines during the time flow was upriver– TOPS
sampling was not conducted during the afternoon. Dec. 7 data was evaluated as a
morning sample (which included chemical and sediment sampling) and an afternoon
period that was sampled only for suspended sediment. There were no significant
problems associated with the sediment or chemical sampling.
Suspended Sediment
The concentrations of suspended sediment at both lines M12 and M56, in the surface and
bottom water, followed a very similar pattern during the dredging (fig. 12A). In the
samples collected at down-flow line M12, SS concentrations began to increase beginning
at 800 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 1130, after which time they
decreased. Because the flow was upriver from line M56 to line M12, the increased SS in
the samples from the up-flow line M56 cannot be attributed to dredging. The
concentration of SS at line M56 followed nearly the same pattern as line M12; first
increasing, peaking (at 1030), and then declining. The concentration of SS in the surface
water at line M56 was very high in the first two samples, but was declining until 900.
After 900, the concentrations increased steadily throughout the remainder of the morning.
105
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Turbidity
Inspection of the turbidity data from down-flow mooring 2 showed that turbidity
increased steadily in bottom and surface water beginning at about 1000 (fig. 12B).
Turbidity also increased in the bottom water at mooring 1, where it peaked at 1100 before
declining as the reversal in flow direction approached. During this same time, the
turbidity in the bottom water at the up-flow mooring 6 increased sharply beginning at
930, peaking at 100, thereafter declining to moderate levels over the remainder of the
afternoon (note that after 1200 the M56 line was down-flow) (fig. 12C). Turbidity in the
surface water at M5 was also very high during the time flow was upriver. However,
turbidity was not elevated in the surface water at M6. These data confirm the increase in
SS concentrations in the cross-channel samples from both lines M12 and M5.
Water Salinity
Dredging began on December 7 at the end of low-tide, continued through flood tide, and
ended almost at the time of maximum low tide in the afternoon (fig. 12D). Beginning at
about 1000, the bottom water salinity increased sharply as the salt-water interface moved
upriver through the area, and peaked at about 1130. In the surface water, the salinity
increase was more gradual, and reached a level of about one-fourth the salinity of the
bottom water. The dredging concluded as the salinity declined with the afternoon outgoing tide (fig. 12D). The dredging was conducted through the entire upriver velocity
cycle, through the time of no-flow at high-tide, and then continued until maximum
downriver velocity was attained (fig. 12E). Thus, the increase in SS content recorded by
the cross-channel monitoring and the increased turbidity correlate almost exactly with the
passing of the salt-water interface (first upriver and later downriver) and during the time
of maximum flow velocities in both directions.
106
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle
Additional evidence for the movement of the turbidity maximum through line M12 was
found by comparing the turbidity measurements made at mooring 2 during the flood tide
on December 7 with the next flood tide that occurred at 140 am 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 measured for the two cycles in the bottom water at
mooring 2, showing that the elevated turbidity in the bottom water that occurred during
the dredging was not anomalous (fig. 11F). In the surface water at (down-flow) mooring
M2 (fig. 10G), the turbidity was lower during the time dredging occurred compared with
the 140 Dec. 8th cycle. However, after reaching high tide at 1215 on Dec. 7, the turbidity
was significantly higher than was measured during the next tide cycle – but this increase
came when the flow direction was downriver and cannot be attributed to dredging. The
surface-water turbidity measured at mooring 1 on Dec. 7 was very similar to the turbidity
measured during the 140 Dec 8 flood tide, although a few short “peaks” in turbidity were
detected in Dec. 7 (fig. 12H). The OBS measurements in the bottom water at mooring 1
were collected on a coarse (30 minute) time scale, and do not contain the detail observed
in the turbidity (OBS) at the other moorings. However, the data from plotted in nearly
identical patterns through both tide cycles- reaching high levels after high tide was
reached and during the last hour of dredging.
Sediment Loads and Mass-Balance
The sediment load and mass-balance was calculated for December 7, for two time
periods, 800 to 1230 when flow was up river, and 1230 to 1630 when flow was
downriver (table 12). For the morning upriver period the imbalance was calculated to be
107
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
+3.2 percent, showing there was no difference between sediment loads at the two
mooring lines.
108
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 12. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 7, 2005
Mass of
Change in
sediment
Time
M12
passing
M1M2,
in
Time
M56
Difference in
sediment
Mass of sediment
mass
load1,
passing M56, in
(M12-M56),
in
Kg/30 minutes
in
percent
kg/30
kg/30 minutes
minutes
Upriver flow – morning
800-830
-238
700
4,330
-4,570
830-900
-2,050
730
1,370
-3,420
900-930
-2,900
800
-1,390
-1,510
930-1000
-3,710
830
-1,380
-2,340
1000-1030
-5,460
900
-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
(14.4)
-3,080
-627
-589
-23
-2,560
-113
-6,230
-223
-10,700
-253
-5,940
-150
2,650
10
-14,500
-142
-78
(-47)
-67
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
Total - 24 hours
191,000
318,000
-12,7000
-66
(-16)
109
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
1. Percent change is calculated as (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values imply more mass passed
M56 than M12.
Sediment Chemistry
With the exception the last cross-channel aliquot, all of the chemistry samples were
collected during the time flow was upriver. Total PCB content in the up-flow sample
from line M56 (downriver of the dredge) collected during Dec. 7 was 1,110 g/kg, while
in the down-flow sample (upriver of the dredge at line M12) the total PCB value was 945
g/kg, a loss of -165 g/kg, or a decrease of -15 percent from the up-flow concentration
(table 4). Total dioxin/furans concentrations in these samples were 7,360 ng/kg
(downriver) and 5,510 ng/kg (upriver), a decrease of -2.5 percent. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations also declined, from 1,080 ng/kg at line M56 to 342 ng/kg
at M12 (a -68 percent decrease) and 183 ng/kg to 153 ng/kg (a -15 percent decrease).
Likewise a reduction in total 4,4’-DDTs was observed, from 214 g/kg at M56 to 169
g/kg at M12, a reduction of 22 percent.
Comparing the concentrations of indicator compounds in the bottom sediment, showed
the down-flow samples (from line M12) contained total PCBs lower than the range, but
total dioxin/furans, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, total 4,4’-DDT that were within the
range of concentrations in the surface layer (0-1 ft depth) of the bottom sediment (table 5,
figure 7). The values of all the PCBs and other compounds except 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the
up-flow (down-stream) sample and the total 4,4’-DDT (in all samples) are within the
ranges found in the CARP samples from PAS-1 and Newark Bay. The 4,4’-DDT
concentrations were higher than in the CARP samples (table 5). The elevated 2,3,7,8TCDD concentration in the up-flow sample was nearly identical to the concentration
measured in the up-flow sample collected during the afternoon of Dec.5. In both cases,
the samples were collected up-flow of the dredging and cannot be attributed to dredging.
The monitoring data further support that the range in concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
suspended sediment may be greater than that reported by the CARP samples.
110
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Dissolved compounds were measured only in the up-river (down-flow) samples. The
concentrations of dissolved PCBS was within the range measured in the CARP samples.
December 7 – PM
Samples collected during the afternoon of Dec. 7 were analyzed only for suspended
sediment concentrations. With the exception of the last sample of bottom water collected
from down-flow line M56, SS in the afternoon samples (collected 1430 to 1630) were
low (less than 15 mg/L), and increased only slightly throughout the afternoon. The SS in
the surface water down-flow at M56 decreased through the afternoon but, as mentioned,
increased in the very last sample collected. SS in the bottom water at M56 remained
approximately constant throughout the afternoon, but like the surface water, SS was
elevated in the last sample of surface and bottom water from line M56 (collected
approximately 30 minutes after dredging ended). SS concentrations at the up-flow line
M12 were low (less than 15 mg/L) and relatively steady during the afternoon.
Turbidity
The turbidity at up-flow line M12 continued to increase steadily throughout the
afternoon, peaking between 1300 and 1400 (fig. 12A). Because the flow was downriver
after 1200, the afternoon peaks in turbidity at line M12 cannot be attributed to dredging.
Instead, the rise in turbidity resulted, in part, from the downriver transport of sediment
that had been previously been transported upriver by tidal flow. The turbidity measured
in the bottom and surface water down-flow at M5 and M6 was generally steady
throughout the afternoon, although an increase in turbidity was detected in the bottom
water at M6 at 1400, after which it declined sharply. Turbidity in the bottom water at M6
and the surface water at M5 began to increase at about 1600 and remained elevated for
111
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
about four hours through 2000. A very sharp increase occurred in the surface water
turbidity of M6 beginning shortly before 1900. However, all of the increases in turbidity
occurred after 1538 when the dredging operations had finished for the day. During this
time, the downriver flow velocity was over 40 cm/sec, so only a release at the very end of
the dredging could possibly have caused the increase in turbidity that was measured
down-flow after 1600. There was no clear indication that turbidity increased downstream
of the dredging when it was ongoing. The turbidity data confirm the increase in SS
measured in the last sample collected from the cross-channel monitoring at M56 at 1600,
and also show that high levels of suspended material remained in the water column for
about 4 hours throughout the evening low-tide cycle (ending at 2100), well after dredging
had ended.
Salinity
During the afternoon of December 7, the salinity of the bottom water was elevated until
approximately 1400, when it began to decrease sharply. In the surface water, however,
the salinity decrease was gradual and reached freshwater values at 1730. During this
same 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 was about 40 cm/sec faster in the surface water than the bottom water. Thus, the
afternoon dredging and sampling occurred at the salt-water 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 mass balance was
calculated to be -28 percent, which is above the assumed level of significance (table 12).
Increasing the length of time that the sediment load was integrated to include the entire
period of downriver flow, decreased the imbalance only slightly, to -25 percent. The
112
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
mass-balance supports that more sediment passed the down-flow line M56 than passed
line M12 during this time period.
Sediment Chemistry
The chemical sampling was conducted only during the morning period (until 1230) when
the flow was upriver. No sampling or other tests were performed to determine the
chemistry of the sediment during the afternoon downriver flow.
113
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 7 Suspended Sediment
35
Flow up-river to
M12
Down-river M56 shallow
Down-river M56 deep
Up-river M12 shallow
30
Up-river M12 deep
Suspended Sediment in mg/L
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
Fig 12A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples
collected December 7. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical
sampling was undertaken.
114
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 7 Mooring 1-2 Surface and Bottom Water Turbidity
100
Surface Turbidity M2
Bottom OBS M2
90
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
1 points
144 OBS
Flow up river
towards M1-2
Surface Turbidity M1
80
Flow up river
towards M1-2
Bottom OBS M1
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 12B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M12, December 7.
December 7 Mooring 5-6
100
Flow up river
toward
moorings 1-2
Surface Turbidity M6
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
90
Bottom OBS M6
Surface Turbidity M5
Flow up river
toward
moorings 12
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
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
LT
HT Dredging
LT
0
Local Time
Figure 12C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M56, December 7.
115
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 7 Mooring 2 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
12
Elevation
11
11
Bottom Salinity
Surface Salinity
10
10
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 12D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, December 7.
December 7 Mooring 2 E-W Velocity
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow up-river to
M12
Flow up-river to
M12
80
60
20
0
Bottom Bin
Surface 1m
-20
-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
-80
0:00
EW Velocity, in cm/sec
40
Local Time
116
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 12E. East-west velocity at mooring 2, December 7.
117
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 7 High Tide Mooring 2 Bottom OBS Reflectance
50
Flow is up river
towards moorings 1-2
45
40
OBS backscatter, in millivolts
HT Dec. 7, 12:15
HT Dec. 8, 1:40
35
30
High Tide @ 12:15 12/7
25
20
High Tide @ 1:40 12/8
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/after High Tide
December 7 High Tide Mooring 2 Surface Turbidity
50
Flow is up river towards
moorings 1-2
45
40
High Tide @ 12:15 12/7
30
HT Dec. 7 12:15
HT Dec. 8 1:40
25
20
15
10
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38
High Tide @ 1:40 12/8
5
4:00
3:45
16:15
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
15:15
2:30
2:15
2:00
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
3:00
9:15
8:15
3:45
0
4:00
Turbidity, in NTU
35
Time before/after High Tide
118
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 12F and 12G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS
backscatter (in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2 during the high tide
at 12:15 on Dec. 7 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8.
119
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 7 Mooring 1 Surface Turbidity
14
Flow Up River to M12
HT at 140 Dec 8
12
Turbidity in NTU
10
8
HT at 1215 Dec 7
6
HT at 1215 Dec 7
HT at 140 Dec 8
4
2
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38 on 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/after high tide
December 7 High Tide Mooring 1 Bottom OBS Reflectance
40
HT at 12:15 Dec 7
HT at 1:40 Dec 8
35
OBS Reflectance * 1000
30
25
20
High tide @ 12:15 Dec 7
15
10
High tide @ 1:40 Dec. 8
5
Dredging from 7:44 to 15:38 on Dec. 7
400
330
300
230
200
130
100
30
0
30
100
130
200
230
300
345
400
0
Time before/after High Tide
Figure 12H and 12I. Comparison of turbidity OBS backscatter (in millivolts) in bottom
water at mooring 1 during the high tide at 12:15 on Dec. 7 and the high tide at 1:40 on
120
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8.
121
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8
Dredging on December 8th was conducted from 920 to 1327. 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 830 to 1600 (samples were not collected at 1000, 1400, and 1430
along line M56), from 730 to 1530 (samples were not collected at 830 and 1300) along
line M12. Chemical sampling was conducted during upriver flow from 1030 to 1330
along both lines. There were no significant problems with the sediment and chemical
sampling.
Suspended Sediment
The concentrations of SS in both sample lines followed very similar trends (fig. 13A).
Concentrations were low until 930 when they began to increase, peaking at 1100, after
which time the concentrations fell steadily until 1600. The rise and fall in SS occurred
nearly simultaneously at both monitoring lines. Although the concentrations in the
bottom water of both lines followed the same trend, the maximum concentration reached
in the down-flow (up-river) line was almost 30 mg/L greater than at the up-flow line.
Because flow was upriver during most of the dredging, the increase in SS at line M56
cannot be attributed to dredging.
Turbidity
Turbidity and OBS (fig.s 13B and 13C) at down-flow line M12 confirm the increase in
suspended material content observed in the cross-channel samples. As was the case for
SS, turbidity increased in the bottom water at M1 and M2 beginning about 1000, and
reached maximum values at 1100 (M2) and 1200 (M1), after which they declined. The
turbidity in the surface water at M2 was very low and steady until 1130, when a very
122
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
sharp but short lived spike in turbidity occurred. The difference between the turbidity
measured in the surface water at M1 and M2 is interesting – 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 300 and again at 1800. Whatever the cause, the turbidity in the surface at M2
generally was low and was not greatly affected by the spike, nor did it change as the
dredging progressed. This differs from the turbidity of the surface water at the up-flow
mooring 5, where a gradual increase was measured during the dredging. Unlike the 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 bottom and surface water at the
down-flow mooring M5 and M6 (fig. 13C) also increased, peaked, and declined
concurrently with turbidity at M12. These data confirm that the increased SS measured in
the cross-sectional monitoring in the bottom sediment, and show that nearly simultaneous
increases in suspended materials occurred at both lines.
Water Salinity
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 1000 while
the dredge operations were underway and occurred simultaneously with the increase in
turbidity shown in figure 13C. Interestingly, the surface water salinity rose to high levels
(8 PSU) on the 8th, close to the value in the bottom water (10.5 PSU). In contrast, on the
7th (fig. 12D), the surface water salinity only reached about 2 PSU. Dredging was
conducted over the entire upriver flow velocity cycle (fig. 13E).
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle
The turbidity measured on Dec. 8 at the down-flow mooring line was compared to the
turbidity measured over the next high tide cycle, which was reached at 2:20 on Dec 9th.
Aligning the turbidity data on the time of maximum high tide (fig. 13F, and 13G),
123
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
showed the surface turbidity at mooring 2 on Dec. 8 was very low and constant, and was
very similar to the turbidity during the high tide later that night. Between 2 and 4 hours
before the high tide, the turbidity in the surface water was nearly identical in the two
cycles- low and steady. The turbidity on Dec 9th , however, began to rise about 2 hours
before maximum high tide was reached. This was likely due to the storm that passed
through the area during that time. However, during the 8th, the turbidity increased only
slightly, beginning at 1300 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 exists that dredging affected the surface water turbidity. A
similar conclusion can be made from comparing the turbidity in the bottom water (fig.
13G). Almost identical turbidity existed in the bottom water for the two successive high
tides – rising steeply before declining towards the end of the upriver flow.
124
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Sediment Loads and Mass Balance
The sediment loads and mass-balance calculated for December 8, for the period 900 to
1330 (table 13), had am imbalance of -23 percent. This indicates that sediment was lost
between the up-flow mooring line M56 and the down-flow 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. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 8, 2005
Mass of
Change in
Mass of
sediment
Difference in
sediment
sediment
passing M56,
mass
load1,
Time
passing M12, in
in
(M12-M56), in
in
M12
kg/30 minutes
Time M56
kg/30 minutes
kg/30 minutes
percent
900
727
800
3,530
-2,810
930
-1,450
830
1,960
-3,420
1000
-5,520
900
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
30,400
50,500
-20,100
-66
Total for 24hours
-386
235
110
63
43
-9.9
-94
-197
-755
1: Percent change is calculated as (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values imply more mass passed
M56 than M12.
125
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Sediment Chemistry
Samples for organic chemical analysis were collected between 1030 to 1345, when flow
was upriver towards line M12. Total PCB content in suspended sediment collected on
Dec. 8 was 1,240 g/kg in the up-flow (downriver) sample and 712 g/kg in the downflow sample, showing a loss of -530 g/kg or -43 percent (table 4). Total dioxin+furans
increased (+21 percent), but a large decrease in concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD occurred,
from 510 ng/kg to 6.2 ng/kg. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentration also
decrease significantly (-169 ng/kg). Total 4,4-DDT’s concentrations decreased from 217
g/kg to 89 g/kg in the down-flow sample, a decrease of -59 percent.
Compared to the range of concentrations in the surficial (0-1ft) layer of the bottom
sediment, the total PCBS and the 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the down-flow sample were lower
than the range measured in the CARP samples (table 5, figure 7). All of the other
compounds in the monitoring samples from Dec. 8 were within the ranges in the CARP
samples. Dissolved concentrations were measured only in the up-river (down-flow)
samples that were collected on Dec 8th –from line M12. The dissolved PCB concentration
was within the range reported by the NJ-CARP.
126
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8 Suspended Sediment
100
Moorings 1-2 Down Flow of dredge area
90
Down-river M56 shallow
Down-river M56 deep
Up-river M12 shallow
Up-river M12 deep
Suspended Sedimen,t in mg/L
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
Fig 13A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples
collected December 8. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical
sampling was undertaken.
127
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8 Mooring 1-2 Surface and Bottom Turbidity
150
Surface Turbidity M2
Bottom OBS M2
Surface Turbidity M1
Bootom OBS M1
140
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
130
1 point
159 OBS
Flow up river
towards M1-2
Flow up river
towards M1-2
120
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 OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M1, December 8.
128
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8 Mooring 5-6 Surface and Bottom Turbidity
150
140
Bottom OBS M6
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
130
Flow up
river toward
moorings 12
Flow up river
toward
moorings 1-2
Surface Turbidity M6
Surface Turbidity M5
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
18:00
17:00
16:00
15:00
14:00
LT
13:00
12:00
10:00
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
11:00
Dredging
HT
LT
0
19:00
10
Local Time
Figure 13C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M56, December 8.
129
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
12
Elevation
11
11
Bottom Salinity
Surface Salinity
10
10
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, December 8.
130
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8 Mooring 2 AM
100
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Flow up-river
to M12
80
E-W Velocity, in cm/sec
60
40
20
0
-20
Bottom Bin
Surface 1m
-40
-= 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, December 8.
131
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 8 High Tide Mooring 2 Surface Turbidity
50
Flow is upstream
towards moorings
1-2
45
HT at 13:26 Dec 8
Maximum 82.5 NTU at
2:20 (11:25 local), 1 point
HT at 2:20 Dec 9
40
Flow is downstream towards moorings 5-6
Turbidity, in NTU
35
30
High Tide @ 2:20 12/9
25
20
15
10
High Tide @ 13:45 12/8
5
Dredging from 9:20 to 13:27
3:45
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
4:00
17:45
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/after High Tide
December 8 High Tide Mooring 2 Bottom OBS Reflectance
50
Flow is down river
towards moorings 5-6
Flow is up river towards moorings 1-2
45
HT at 13:45 Dec. 8
HT at 2:20 Dec. 9
35
30
25
High Tide @ 2:20 12/9
20
15
10
15:45
4:00
3:45
3:30
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
14:45
0:30
0:45
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
1:00
12:45
11:45
2:30
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
3:00
10:45
9:45
0
High Tide @ 13:45 12/8
2:00
Dredging from 9:20 to 13:27
5
4:00
OBS backscatter, in millivolts
40
Time before/after High Tide
132
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 13F and 13G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS
backscatter (in millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 2 during the high tide
at 12:15 on Dec. 7 and the high tide at 1:40 on December 8.
December 10
Dredging was conducted twice on December 10, from 745 to 1038 (am sampling) and
from 1239 to 1518 (pm sampling). During the morning dredging (745 to 1038) a total of
88 unique dredge bites were taken between the NJSPC XY coordinates 594402-695515
and 594383-695543 (corresponding to dredge cells D1) (fig. 3). During the entire
morning of dredging, flow was downriver towards M56.
During the afternoon, a total of 58 unique dredge bites were taken between the XY
coordinates 594459-695483 and 594485-695457 (corresponding to dredge cell E1). Flow
during the afternoon was upriver toward line M12 during the afternoon dredging. Crosssectional sampling for suspended sediment was conducted from 730 to 1600 (samples
were missed at 1100, 1130 from line M56), and 700 to 1600 along line M12 (samples
were missed at 1100 and 1130). Chemical sampling was conducted from 730 to 1030 (am
sampling) on both lines, and 1230 to 1500 (pm sampling) along line M56, and 1230 to
1400 along line M12. Sampling along line M12 was stopped early after the 1400 sample
because of equipment malfunction.
December 10 - AM
Suspended Sediment
Suspended sediment concentrations in the morning samples were nearly identical at both
lines (fig. 14A) - concentrations increased slowly from about 25 mg/L to slightly over 50
mg/L in final samples at 1030. Close inspection of the values shows that concentrations
in samples from the up-flow line M12, both in the bottom and surface water, were
133
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
slightly greater than in corresponding samples from the down-flow line M56. Because
flow at this time was down river, the increase in SS content in the line M12 samples
cannot be the result of dredging.
Turbidity
The turbidity in the bottom water at the down-flow mooring M6 and in the bottom and
surface water at M5 increased greatly during the morning as dredging began, and peaked
at about 1015, after which it declined at all locations (fig. 14B). However, turbidity in the
surface water at M6 did not change during this time. Only in the bottom water from the
up-flow mooring M2 (fig. 14C) was a marked increase in turbidity detected. Turbidity in
the surface- and bottom-water at M1 increased slowly but steadily through the later half
of the morning. Turbidity in the surface water at M2 was steady until just after 1000
when the flow direction reversed. These data confirm the gradual increase in SS
concentrations measured in both the down- and up-flow cross-channel monitoring lines.
Water Salinity
The morning dredging was conducted during the ebbing tide as the water level declined
and 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/sec, until about 1000 when the velocity decreased very rapidly as the flow
direction reversed (fig. 14E). Thus, the increased turbidity observed in the down-flow
mooring M56 occurred after the salt-water interface had passed and during a period of
high and constant downriver velocity. Shortly after the dredging and sampling ended, the
flow rapidly changed direction and the up-river flow velocity increased and a short flood
tide occurred. Compared to the other monitored days, the “stepped” velocity profile
during the morning of December 10 is unique, and may have affected the pattern of
turbidity.
134
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Comparison with Turbidity in the Next Tidal Cycle
The surface and bottom water turbidity measurements made at the down-flow mooring
line M56 during the morning low-tide cycle of December 10 were compared with the
turbidity measured during the next low tide cycle, which occurred at 22:40 on December
10 (fig.s 14 F-H). In the surface water at mooring 6 (fig. 14G), the turbidity measured
during the lead up to low-tide were almost identical in both cycles- the turbidity was
very low and showed very little fluctuation throughout the tidal cycles. For the most part,
this was also observed in the bottom water at mooring 6 (fig. 14H), however, close
inspection showed that turbidity (OBS reflectance) in the bottom water began to increase
at about 845 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 down-flow mooring 5 (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 730 to 1130 had an
imbalance of -14 percent, within the 25 percent uncertainty, indicating no significant
difference was apparent in the loads crossing the two mooring lines.
135
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 14. Sediment loads and mass-balance for December 10, 2005
Mass of
Change in
sediment
Mass of sediment
passing M12,
passing M56, in
in
Time
kg/30
M12
minutes
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
Total for 24- hours
-99,300
-109,000
kg/30 minutes
Time M56
sediment
Difference in
load1,
mass
in
(M12-M56), in
percent
kg/30 minutes
Downriver flow – morning
800-830
12,200
830-900
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
-58,300
-5,730
-699
-3,390
-4,890
-8,930
-463
4,690
-89
-7.3
-45
-63
-103
-5.2
49
-19,400
-33
(15.6)
-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
1,782
-50,950
-1.8
47
1: Percent change is calculated as (M12-M56)*100/M12. Negative values imply more mass passed
M56 than M12.
Sediment Chemistry
The concentration of total PCBs during the morning of December 10 was almost identical
at the two monitoring line, 1,100 g/kg in the upriver (and up-flow) sample at line M12
and 1,070 g/kg in the downriver (down-flow) sample from line M56, representing a
difference of -2.7 percent (table 4). Total dioxins/furans in the samples decreased slightly
136
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
from 7.41 g/kg to 6.38 g/kg, representing a decline of -7.5 percent. However, 2,3,7,8TCDD declined significantly (-1164 ng/kg, or -73 percent) while 2,3,7,8-TCDF increased
slightly (2.6 percent). The total 4,4’-DDTs declined by 63 g/kg, or -50 percent.
The total PCBs and total dioxin/furans in both samples collected during the morning
were lower than the range, while the concentrations of all of the other indicator species
were within the range of concentrations in the surface layer (0-1 ft. depth) of the bottom
sediment (table 5, figure 7). Compared with the values in the PAS-1 and Newark Bay
CARP samples, the concentrations of all the indicator species except 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
the up-flow sample and total 4,4’-DDT in the down flow sample were within the range of
concentrations reported for the CARP samples (table 5). The elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
the up-flow sample cannot be attributed to a release of sediment from the dredging. The
similar high concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in (up-flow) samples from Dec.5, Dec. 7,
and Dec. 10th indicates that a greater range of concentration of this congener exists in the
Passaic River than was captured in the CARP samples. During the morning of the 10th,
only the sample from the down-flow (down-river) line M56 was analyzed for dissolved
constituents (table 6). Dissolved PCBs were within the range of the NJ-CAR samples
(table 5).
December 10 – PM
Suspended Sediment
During the afternoon of December 10, flow was upriver from line M56 to line M12. The
SS concentrations from the two sampling lines followed similar trends - first increasing
with the onset of dredging but then decreasing throughout the afternoon.
Initial concentrations of SS were low and, with the exception of the upriver deep water
from line M12, were similar to those measured during the morning sampling (fig. 14A).
137
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
However, concentrations increased after 1230 and reached a maximum in the 1300 and
1330 samples, after which time the SS declined to values similar to those at the onset of
dredging. The pattern exhibited by the SS concentrations in the bottom water of the
down-flow line M12 is similar to that at up-flow line M56 except that (1) the initial
sample at M12 contained a very high SS content, near 150 mg/L, while 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 is offset in time compared to
M56; the maximum concentration was reached in the bottom water of line M12 at 1330,
while at line M56, the maximum was reached at 1300.
The high SS concentrations at 1330 was, at first, suspicious, – perhaps having been
generated by the sampling line hitting the bottom. However, it is considered to be real
because concentrations remained elevated over the 1-1/2 hour period and the general
pattern in concentration (first increasing, peaking, and then decreasing) was observed at
both sampling lines. The concentration of SS in the down-flow samples in the bottom
water from the down-flow line M12 greatly exceed those measured in the bottom water
of the up-flow line M56, reaching nearly 200 mg/L.
Turbidity
Turbidity in the bottom water at the down-flow mooring M1 and M2 (fig. 14B), and the
surface water at mooring M2 increased significantly during the afternoon. The turbidity
in the bottom water at mooring 1 and at the surface of M2 increased to very high values
before returning to near their initial low levels – following the same pattern as observed
in the SS samples (fig. 14A). Turbidity at the surface of mooring M2 remained elevated
until much later in the day, when at about 1700, a very sharp decline occurred as values
returned back to pre-dredge levels. This pattern of a sharp increase and sharp decrease
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 high turbidity existed in the
138
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
bottom water at this mooring. Over the same time period the turbidity in the bottom water
at the up-flow mooring 6 and in the surface water at M5 rose to high levels before they
declined as the end of the upriver flow cycle 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 confirm the pattern of SS concentrations that were
measured in the bottom water, and showed that the suspended material content increased,
peaked, and then decreased during the dredging.
Water Salinity
The dredging during afternoon of the 10th, occurred as the salinity of the bottom and
surface water increased accompanying the incoming tide (fig. 14D). The salinity in the
bottom and the surface water rose to very high levels, about 12 PSU in the bottom and 9
PSU in the surface water, respectively. Thus, the increase in turbidity and SS
concentrations observed during the afternoon sampling coincided with the upriver
movement of the salt-water interface, and likely, the associated zone of high turbidity.
The high turbidity that was measured in the surface water at mooring 2 (fig. 14B) may be
related to the high salinity that was measured on this day.
Comparison with Turbidity during Next Tidal Cycle
The turbidity and OBS data for the afternoon tidal cycle (high tide at 15:45 on Dec. 10) at
the down-flow line M12 were compared with the values measured during the next high
tide cycle which occurred at 4:45 on Dec. 11 (fig. 14I to K). The turbidity in the surface
water at mooring 2 (fig. 14I) was very similar in the two tide cycles until approximately 2
hours before high tide was reached on Dec. 10, when the turbidity jumped significantly
from around 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 curious, and may have
indicated 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 2 during
139
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
afternoon of Dec. 10. There was no indication of a similar jump in the tide cycle on Dec
11. The OBS backscatter in the bottom water followed the same pattern during the two
cycles, but turbidity was elevated during the Dec. 10 high tide cycle (fig. 14J) (note log
scale). The turbidity in the surface water at M1 was similar during the two cycles, but
was elevated over the turbidity measured during Dec 11.
Sediment Loads and Mass-Balance
To calculate the afternoon sediment 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/sec. The calculated sediment load for the afternoon (table 14) for the up-flow line
M56 almost exactly equals the load across the down-flow line M12; with a difference of 0.9 percent. Thus, there is no significant difference between the sediment loads at the two
monitoring lines.
Sediment Chemistry
Nearly identical concentrations of total PCB were measured in the sediment samples
collected during the afternoon of December 10th; with only a small difference (6 percent)
between the up-flow (1,090 g/kg in the downriver sample at line M56) and the downflow (1,160 g/kg in the upriver sample at line M12) samples (table 4). Total
dioxin/furans increased by 24 percent, from 5.52 g/kg in the downriver sample to 6.87
g/kg in the upriver samples, but the 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF did not differ
significantly between the two sampling lines, increasing by 2.2 percent and 17 percent,
respectfully. The total 4,4’-DDT content did, however, increase significantly, nearly
tripling from 76 g/kg to 224 g/kg.
The concentrations of most of the indicator species (except 2,3,7,8-TCDF in the downflow sample and 4,4’-DDT in the up-flow sample) were within the range for the bottom
140
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
sediment (0-1ft) surface layer (table 5, figure 7). All of the concentrations, except total
4,4’-DDT in the down-flow sample, were within the range of concentrations in the CARP
samples (table 5). Dissolved components were not measured in the afternoon samples
collected on Dec. 10.
141
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 10 Suspended Sediment
250
Flow up-river to M12
Down-river M56 shallow
Down-river M56 deep
Up-river M12 shallow
Up-river M12 deep
Suspended Sediment in mg/L
200
150
100
50
Dredging
0
700
730
800
830
900
930
Dredging
1000 1030 1100 1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 1600 1630 1700
Local Time
Fig 14A. Suspended sediment concentrations in cross sectional samples
collected December 10. Vertical lines indicate times when chemical
sampling was undertaken.
142
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 10 Mooring 5-6 Turbidity and OBS Reflectance
300
Surface Turbidity M6
Flow is up river
toward
moorings 1-2
Bottom OBS M6
250
200
150
100
0:00
23:00
22:00
21:00
20:00
LT
19:00
18:00
17:00
HT
16:00
15:00
14:00
13:00
12:00
Dredging
LT
10:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
0:00
0
11:00
50
9:00
Turbidity, in NTU, and OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
Surface Turbidity M5
Flow is up river
toward
moorings 1-2
Local Time
Figure 14B. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M12, December 10.
143
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 10 Mooring 1-2 Turbidity and OBS Reflectance
300
Flow up-river to
M12
Flow is up river
towards M1-2
250
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 OBS Backscatter, in millivolts
Surface Turbidity M2
Bottom OBS M2
Surface Turbidity M1
Bottom OBS M1
Local Time
Figure 14C. Surface-water turbidity and bottom-water OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) at line M56, December 10.
144
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 10 Mooring 2 Water Elevation and Salinity
12
12
11
11
Elevation
Bottom Salinity
10
10
Surface Salinity
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
1
Dredging
-1
0
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
-2
Local Time
Figure 14D. Water elevation and salinity at mooring 2, December 10.
December 10 EW Velocity at Mooring 2
100
Bottom Bin
+ = East flow to Newark Bay
Surface 1m
Flow up-river to M12
80
60
20
0
-20
-40
-60
Dredging
-= West flow upriver
Dredging
LT
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
9:00
8:00
7:00
6:00
5:00
4:00
3:00
2:00
1:00
16:00
HT
-80
0:00
E W Velocity in cm/sec
40
Local Time
145
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 14E. East –west velocity measured at mooring 2, December 10.
146
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 10 Low Tide Mooring 6 Surface Turbidity
50
Flow is up river toward mooring 1-2
45
LT at 10:30 Dec. 10
LT at 22:40 Dec 10
40
Turbidity in NTU
35
30
Low Tide @ 10:30 12/10
25
Low Tide @ 22:40 12/10
20
15
10
Afternoon Dredging 12:39 through 15:18
12/10
4:00
3:30
3:15
3:00
2:45
2:30
3:45
14:30
13:30
2:15
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
1:00
9:30 local
8:30
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
7:30
3:45
4:00
6:30
0
2:00
Morning Dredging 7:45 through 10:38 12/10
5
Time before/after Low Tide
December 10 Low Tide Mooring 6 Bottom OBS Reflectance
1000
LT at 1030 Dec 10
Flow is up river toward moorings 1-2
LT at 2240 Dec 10
100
10
Low Tide @ 22:40 12/10
Afternoon Dredging
12:39 through 15:18
4:00
3:45
1430
3:30
3:15
2:45
2:30
1330
2:15
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
3:00
730
630
3:45
1
3:00
Morning Dredging
7:45 through 10:38 12/10
4:00
OBS backscatter, in millivolts
Low Tide @ 10:30 12/10
Time before/after Low Tide
147
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 14F and 14G. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and OBS backscatter (in
millivolts) in bottom water at mooring 6 during the low tide at 10:30 on Dec. 10 and the
high tide at 22:40 on December 10.
148
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
December 10 Mooring 5 Low Tide Surface Turbidity
100
Flow is up river toward moorings 1-2
90
LT at 1030 Dec 10
LT at 2240 Dec 10
80
Low Tide @ 10:30
12/10
Turbidity in NTU
70
60
50
40
30
20
Afternoon dredging 12:39
through 15:18 12/10
Low Tide @ 22:40 12/10
10
Morning dredging 7:45 through 10:38 12/10
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
2:15
2:30
830
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
3:00
730
0
2:00
630
Time before/after Low Tide
Figure 14H. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water at mooring 5
during the low tide at 10:30 on Dec. 10 and 22:40 on Dec. 10.
149
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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
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
1
4:00
OBS backscatter, in millivolts
High Tide @ 15:45 12/10
Time before/after High Tide
150
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Figure 14I and 14J. Comparison of turbidity in the surface water, and bottom water OBS
backscatter (in millivolts) at mooring 2 during the high tide at 15:45 on Dec. 10 and the
high tide at 4:45 on December 11.
151
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
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
during the high tide at 15:45 on Dec. 10 and the high tide at 4:45 on
December 11.
152
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Discussion and Summary
Three key observations can be made from the “far-field” monitoring program results
presented in this report. Firstly, the cross-channel sampling that was designed and
conducted for this program was apparently able to capture a representative crosssectional picture of suspended sediment concentrations in the river during dredging – at
least as confirmed by the moored instrument turbidity and ADCP reflectance data. The
cross-channel samples and moored instruments recorded similar variations in the
suspended material content in the river. Only occasionally did the moored instruments
record increased turbidity that was not reflected in the composite cross-channel SS
samples. This suggests that similar routines can be used to monitor dredging activities.
Secondly, using the concentrations of suspended sediment collected during the (crosschannel) monitoring to demonstrate unequivocally that sediment was released from the
dredging operation is made difficult by the wide variation in natural suspended material
content that can occur during each tidal cycle. This natural variability is associated with
the presence and movement of the salt-water fresh-water interface in the estuary. The
moored instrument data show the salt-water interface and an associated zone of high
turbidity, migrated through the dredge area with each daily tide. The ADCP reflectance
data showed that the SS in the river can rapidly change from near 0 mg/L to over 400
mg/L - this variation is the result of the migration of the natural turbidity in the river.
Therefore, any sediment that is released during the dredging would quickly become
“lost” if it intersected the natural zone of turbidity.
Finally, using concentrations of indicator species is made difficult because of the very
wide range of chemical concentrations that exist in the suspended sediment, and the
similarity in concentrations between the suspended sediment and the bottom sediment.
The “background” samples collected in this work fall within the range of concentrations
measured in previous sampling on the river (the CARP samples). These background
153
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
concentrations overlap the concentrations in the surficial bottom sediments of the
dredging area. At least for the selected “indicator species”, concentrations in the
suspended sediment are exceeded only by the concentrations from sediment deeper than 2
feet in the bottom. The samples collected during dredging (and background) fall within
the range of concentrations found in the surficial (0 to 1 or 2 ft depth) bottom materialsthe sediment that would be likely disturbed and released by dredging or natural
erosion/resuspension.
While these conditions make it difficult to identify the presence of any sediment released
by dredging, the sediment/chemical monitoring conducted in this program may support
(or repudiate) that suspended sediment was contributed by the dredging activity. To help
in summarizing the evidence provided in this report, the SS, chemical, and moored
instrument data were further reduced to a number of questions that are presented in table
14. To further reduce and summarize the results, two questions are answered for each day
of operations; (1) did SS concentrations increase down-flow of the dredging operations
(compared with the SS entering up-flow of the site)? and (2) did concentrations of
indicator species increase down-flow of the dredging activity?
December 5 am. The information from the morning dredging period is difficult to
interpret because the monitoring was conducted during a flow reversal. Dredging began
late during the morning after the flow had reversed direction in the river while the bulk of
the composite sample was collected when flow was upriver when dredging was not
underway. During the period when flow was downriver and dredging was underway, the
SS down-flow of the dredge did not increase- therefore, there is no evidence that
dredging released sediment. Because the timing of the chemical samples (collected
mainly during upriver flow when dredging was not occurring), the chemical data are not
adequate to demonstrate whether a change in concentrations occurred during dredging.
December 5 pm. During the afternoon dredging was conducted when flow in the river
was in one direction, making the interpretations of the monitoring data more
154
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
straightforward. The SS in the samples collected down-flow of the dredging increased
significantly. During this same time the SS measured up-flow were decreasing from rise
that occurred during the morning. However, the increase in SS down-flow of the
dredging is most easily explained as the passing of water and sediment that had migrated
upriver earlier in the day. The moored data show this sediment was likely associated with
the salt-water interface and the zone of natural turbidity. The concentrations of indicator
chemicals did not change from up-flow to down flow directions, and therefore, do not
support that sediment was released by dredging.
December 6 am. The dredging was conducted when a reversal in flow occurred in the
river, making it difficult to interpret changes in SS and chemical concentrations. The
concentration of SS increased at the down-flow of the dredge– but this increase began
well before the initiation of dredging and cannot be associated with the dredging activity.
The SS declined as dredging proceeded during the morning, which is not consistent with
an ongoing release of sediment during dredging. Although the concentrations of
indicator chemicals decreased from up-flow to down-flow of the dredging, the reversal in
flow makes their interpretation equivocal.
December 6 pm. The dredging took place during a period of unidirectional down river
flow, making interpretations more straightforward than for the morning. The SS
increased in the samples collected down-flow of the dredge, but SS also increased upflow of the dredging during this same time. However, the concentrations of SS measured
down-flow of the dredging were greater than the concentrations measured up-flow,
suggesting that SS was added to the river. The increase in SS occurred during the time
the salt-water interface was migrating downriver through the area, and thus any sediment
addition from the dredging was obscured by the natural zone of turbidity. All of the
indicator chemical concentrations increased in the down-flow sample, and were within
the range measured in the bottom sediment. However, with the exception of total 4,4’DDT, the concentrations were also within the range considered to be background.
Although obscured by the natural turbidity of the river, the sediment and chemical data
155
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
support that sediment may have been added to the river during the dredging. Further
evidence should be sought in the L and M boat data for the presence of a “near-field”
sediment plume during this time period.
December 7 am. Although dredging on this day was undertaken during a flow reversal,
flow was upriver during the morning when the chemical sampling was conducted which
helps make the interpretations more straightforward. The SS in both the samples
collected both down-flow and up-flow of the dredging increased when dredging first
began, but then decreased as high tide approached and the upriver flow velocity
diminished. The salt-water interface moved through the area twice during the morning
monitoring, so it is likely that SS increases reflect the passing of the zone of natural zone
of turbidity through the monitored area. The concentrations of all indicator species
decreased between the up-flow to down-flow samples collected during the dredging, and
were within the range of concentrations considered background. There is no indication in
these data that a sediment was released by the dredging.
December 7 pm. During the afternoon on this day, monitoring sampling was conducted
for only suspended sediment as the dredging proceeded. The concentrations of SS in the
samples down-flow of the dredging increased slightly during the afternoon, however, the
SS at the up-flow were also increasing. The last sample collected from down-flow of the
operations did contain a high concentration of SS that might be related to the late
dredging operations on this day. Further evidence for the presence of a “near-field”
sediment release should be sought from the L and M boat monitoring data.
December 8. Dredging occurred on this day mainly during the time flow was in the
upriver direction. The concentration of SS in samples from both down- and up-flow of
the dredging increased as dredging proceeded but after peaking, declined as dredging
proceeded. This pattern is not consistent with an ongoing release by dredging. The saltwater interface passed through the area during this time, so the pattern in SS is consistent
with the passing of a zone of natural high turbidity. The chemical concentrations of the
156
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
indicator species declined from up-flow to down-flow monitoring locations. Thus, there
is no indication of a release of sediment having been released by the dredging.
December 10 am. During the morning, flow was downriver and no reversal in flow
occurred. The SS concentrations measured in samples from down-flow and up-flow of
the dredging increased steadily through the morning, and data from both locations
followed a very similar pattern. The salt-water interface had passed through the area early
in the dredging, so the increase in SS was likely related to the passing of the natural
turbidity zone. The concentrations of chemical indicator species declined between the
two monitoring locations, so there was no indication that sediment was released from the
dredging operations during this period.
December 10 pm. During the afternoon, the flow was upriver and did not go through a
reversal. Concentrations of SS in samples from both up-flow and down-flow of the
dredge increased with the onset of dredging, then peaked and declined throughout the
afternoon. Although this pattern is not consistent with a release from dredging, the
concentrations of SS down-flow of the dredging remained higher than up-flow. The saltwater interface passed through the area during the afternoon dredging, so the increase in
SS may have been 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 down-flow of the dredging, the change is within the assumed uncertainty in the
analyses. The measured concentrations in the suspend sediment are within the range
measured in the bottom sediments, but they also within the range of background samples.
Therefore, there is no clear evidence that sediment was released by the dredging.
157
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 14. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured during the Lower Passaic
Environmental Dredging Pilot Program.
Date and time of
ID of down-flow
Did SS increase in down-flow
sampling
sample
samples during dredging?
Did turbidity increase down-flow
during ?
Was turbidity
Did sediment load increase
elevated over levels in
down-flow?
next tidal cycle?
Dec. 5 am
M56
No
No
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec. 5 pm
M56
Yes
Yes, both lines, increased then
Yes
No
decreased
1
Dec. 6 am
M56
Yes, but then decreased
Yes- in both lines
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 6 pm
M56
Yes, both lines
Yes-both lines, increased then
Yes, at very end of
Not clear
decreased
dredging
Yes-both lines
No
Dec. 7 am
M12
Yes, both lines
No during morning chemical
sampling, yes during afternoon
sediment sampling
Dec. 7 pm
M56
Yes, both lines
No
Not evaluated
Yes
Dec 8.
M12
Yes, increases then decreased
Yes, increased then decreased
No
No
Dec. 10 am
M56
Yes
Yes, increased then decreased
Yes
No
Dec. 10 pm
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 up-flow and down-flow of
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the down-flow sampling site because it was down-flow for the longer period of time.
158
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 14. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured during the Lower Passaic
Environmental Dredging Pilot Program. --Continued
Date and time
Down-flow sample
of sampling
Did salinity
Did salt-water
Did bottom-water
Was dredging
Was it likely that zone of
change during
interface pass
velocity increase
conducted during period of
maximum turbidity passed
dredging?
through area during
during dredging?
maximum flow velocity?
through area during
dredging?
dredging?
Dec. 5 am
M56
Yes, surface only
No
Yes
No
Unclear
Dec. 5 pm
M56
Yes- deep only
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
Dec. 6 am
M56
Yes, surface only
No
Yes, flow reversal
No
Yes
Dec. 6 pm
M56
Yes, decreased
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 7 am
M12
Yes, increased then
Yes-twice
Yes, flow reversal
Yes, up-river
Yes, twice
decreased
Dec. 7 pm
M56
Yes, decreased
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Dec 8.
M12
Yes, increased
Yes
Yes, increased then
Yes
Yes
decreased
Dec. 10 am
M56
Yes, decreased
No
No
Yes
Unclear
Yes
No, decreased
Yes
Yes
slightly
Dec. 10 pm
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 up-flow and down-flow of
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the down-flow sampling site because it was down-flow for the longer period of time
159
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 14. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured during the Lower Passaic
Environmental Dredging Pilot Program. --Continued
How did concentration change between up-flow and down-flow sample?
Date and time of
Up-flow/down-
Change in total PCB
Change in total
Change in 2,3,7,8-
Change in
Change in total
sampling
flow sample
concentration
PCDD+PCDF
TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
4,4’-DDT
Dec. 5 am
M12/M56
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Dec. 5 pm
M12/M56
Decreased, but within
Increased
Decreased
Decreased, but within
Decreased
uncertainty
uncertainty
1
Dec. 6 am
M12/M56
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Increased
Dec. 6 pm
M12/M56
Increased
No
Increased
Increased
Decreased
Dec. 7 am
M56/M12
Decreased, but within
Decreased, but within
Decreased
Decreased, but within
Decreased
uncertainty
uncertainty
uncertainty
Dec. 7 pm
M12/M56
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 8.
M56/M12
Decreased
Increased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Dec. 10 am
M12/M56
Decreased, but within
Decreased, but within
Decreased
Increased, but within
Decreased
uncertainty
uncertainty
Increased, but within
Increased
Dec. 10 pm
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 up-flow and down-flow of
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the down-flow sampling site because it was down-flow for the longer period of time.
160
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 14. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured during the Lower Passaic
Environmental Dredging Pilot Program. --Continued
Was concentration of down-flow sample within range of surficial bottom sediment ?
Date and time of
Up-flow
sampling
sample/down-flow
Total PCB
Total PCDD+PCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total 4,4’-DDT
sample
Dec. 5 am
M12/M56
Dec. 5 pm
M12/M56
No, lower
Yes
Yes, 1-2ft layer
Yes, 1-2ft layer
Yes
1
Dec. 6 am
M12/M56
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 6 pm
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec. 7 am
M56/M12
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec. 7 pm
Dec 8.
M56/M12
No, lower
Yes
No- lower
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 am
M12/M56
No, lower
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 pm
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 up-flow and down-flow of
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the down-flow sampling site because it was down-flow for the longer period of time.
161
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Table 14. Summary of sediment, river conditions, and chemistry measured during the Lower Passaic
Environmental Dredging Pilot Program. --Continued
Was concentration of down-flow sample within the range of CARP samples?
Date and time of
Up-flow
sampling
sample/down-flow
Total PCB
Total PCDD+PCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total 4,4’-DDT
sample
Dec. 5 am
M12/M56
Not evaluated
Dec. 5 pm
M12/M56
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
Dec. 6 am
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec 6. pm
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec. 7 am
M56/M12
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dec. 7 pm
M12/M56
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Dec 8.
M56/M12
Yes
Yes
No, lower
Yes
Yes
Dec. 10 am
M12/M56
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, greater
Dec. 10 pm
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 up-flow and down-flow of
the dredging activity. Line M56 was chosen to represent the down-flow sampling site because it was down-flow for the longer period of time.
162
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
References
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.
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, Trenton, NJ, March 1996.
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.
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 (in press), 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
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
Appendix 1-Data Tables?
164
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
165
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
166
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
167
DRAFT: Subject to Attorney Client, Work Product, Deliberative Process and/or
Joint Prosecution Privileges; FOIA/OPRA Exempt
Not USGS Approved
2/6/2016
168