Newark Bay Study - Passaic River Public Digital Library

Newark Bay Study 

Final 

Modeling Work Plan 

Addendum 

PREPARED BY: 

HydroQual, Inc. 

1200 MacArthur Blvd. 

Mahwah, NJ 07430 

UNDER CONTRACT TO: 

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 

104 Corporate Park Drive 

White Plains, NY 10602 

FOR: 

US Environmental Protection 

Agency 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Contract No. 

DACW41-02-D-0003 

September 2006

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES RELATED TO NEWARK BAY.............................................. 1-1 

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NEWARK BAY MODELING STUDY.... 1-4 

1.3 GENERAL BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE...................................... 1-6 

1.4 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL PROCESSES IN NEWARK BAY................... 1-7 

1.4.1 Hydrodynamic Transport in Newark Bay.................................................................... 1-7 

1.4.2 Sediment Transport in Newark Bay............................................................................ 1-11 

1.4.2.1 A Macro-Scale Solids Balance for Newark Bay .......................................... 1-13 

1.4.2.2 Detailed Sedimentation Rate Data for Newark Bay................................... 1-16 

1.4.3 Chemical Fate and Transport in Newark Bay ........................................................... 1-18 

1.4.3.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)................................................... 1-18 

1.4.3.2 Data Evaluation: Sediments........................................................................... 1-21 

1.4.3.3 Chemical Fate and Transport Model Considerations ................................ 1-47 

1.4.4 Organic Carbon Production Model............................................................................ 1-49 

1.4.5 Bioaccumulation Model................................................................................................ 1-50 

1.5 MODEL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. 1-50 

1.6 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (CSM) ................................................................................ 1-51 

2 MODELING COMPONENTS........................................................................................................ 2-1 

2.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 HYDRODYNAMICS ................................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT....................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT- ORGANIC CARBON PRODUCTION ............................ 2-2 

2.5 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT.................................................................... 2-2 

2.6 BIOACCUMULATION............................................................................................................. 2-3 

3 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

i

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

Figure 1-1. Newark Bay Study Area..................................................................................................... 1-2 

Figure 1-2. Prototype of Proposed Newark Bay Model Grid........................................................1-12 

Figure 1-3. TSS Balance for Newark Bay (Adapted from Suszkowski, 1978).............................1-15 

Figure 1-4. Bathymetry and Sedimentation Rates in Newark Bay.................................................1-17 

Figure 1-5. Sampling locations within the TSI database.................................................................1-19 

Figure 1-6. Sampling locations used in this analysis. .......................................................................1-22 

Figure 1-7. Longitudinal and vertical profiles of PCBs along the axis of Newark Bay/Kill 

van Kull. Red line and opposing arrows indicate separation point between 

the two water bodies and flow direction. ....................................................................1-25 

Figure 1-8. Vertical profiles of individual cores collected close at the mouth of Passaic 

River (100A-NB), farther south in upper-Newark Bay (98A-NWB and 99- 

NWB) and mid-Newark Bay (72A-NWB; 68A-NWB and 69A-NWB). PCBs 

are sum of coplanar congeners.......................................................................................1-26 

Figure 1-9. Lateral Variation. Spatial and lateral distribution of total PCB congeners in 

Newark Bay; west and east sides of the mid-channel..................................................1-27 

Figure 1-10. Longitudinal and vertical profile of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in the Newark Bay/Kill 

van Kull Domain ..............................................................................................................1-29 

Figure 1-11. Depth profiles of TCDD in selected locations in Newark Bay.................................1-30 

Figure 1-12. Lateral distribution of TCDD East and West of Newark Bay mid-channel. .........1-31 

Figure 1-13. Spatial distribution of the ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD/total TCDD in the surface 

sediment of Newark Bay/Kill van Kull system. ..........................................................1-31 

Figure 1-14. Longitudinal and vertical profile of OCDD in the sediments of the Newark 

Bay/Kill van Kull system.. ..............................................................................................1-32 

Figure 1-15. Vertical Profile of OCDD at selected locations within Newark Bay........................1-34 

Figure 1-16. Lateral distribution of OCDD East and West of Newark Bay mid-channel..........1-34 

Figure 1-17. Spatial and vertical distribution of tPAHs in Newark Bay/Kill Van Kull.. .............1-35 

Figure 1-18. Spatial and vertical distribution of DDT in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull. .................1-36 

Figure 1-19. Sediment vertical profiles for DDT in selected cores across Newark Bay. .............1-39 

Figure 1-20. Spatial and vertical distribution of mercury in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

sediments.. .........................................................................................................................1-40 

Figure 1-21. Spatial and vertical distribution of chromium in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

sediments.. .........................................................................................................................1-41 

Figure 1-22. Spatial and vertical distribution of lead in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

sediments.. .........................................................................................................................1-42 

Figure 1-23. Spatial and vertical distribution of nickel in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

sediments.. .........................................................................................................................1-44 

Figure 1-24. Spatial and vertical distribution of arsenic in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

sediments.. .........................................................................................................................1-45 

Figure 1-25. Spatial and vertical distribution of cadmium in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

sediments.. .........................................................................................................................1-46 

ii

TABLES 

Table Page 

Table 1-1. Lists of main surveys available in the TSI database. .......................................................1-20 

Table 1-2. Extent of historical data in Newark Bay for selected chemicals. ..................................1-21 

Table 1-3. Commonly analyzed dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans congeners. ....................................1-27 

Table 1-4. NJDEP Sediment Screening Guidelines. .........................................................................1-37 

iii

SECTION 1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES RELATED TO NEWARK BAY 

Newark Bay is a major commercial harbor facility that is bounded by the cities of Newark and 

Elizabeth, NJ, along its western shoreline, Jersey City and the city of Bayonne to the east, and Staten 

Island to the South (Figure 1-1). The Bay is a tidal system, with salt water moving in and out at its 

southern end, via the Kill van Kull and the Arthur Kill. Fresh water also enters the Bay from the 

North, mainly via the Passaic River and to a much lesser extent, the Hackensack River. These 

freshwater inputs result in a net transport of material in a southerly direction, through the Bay and 

on to New York – New Jersey (NYNJ) Harbor. The connection of the Bay with NYNJ Harbor 

takes place via the Kill van Kull and Arthur Kill water bodies that are connected to Newark Bay at 

its southernmost point. The interaction between these water bodies occurs as a result of net 

freshwater flow that passes through the system as well as tidal action. 

The Newark Bay region has become very industrialized over the previous century as a result 

of its proximity to a number of major metropolitan areas, including Newark, NJ and New York City, 

and also because it has natural features that made it an ideal location to serve as a harbor facility. 

This industrial development has in turn led to its being impacted by a variety of contaminants that 

have generally degraded water quality and sediment quality in the system, including both Newark 

Bay and nearby contiguous waters. In addition, this development has also been associated with 

physical changes to the system (e.g., buildings and port facilities), and these changes have also had an 

influence on the use of Newark Bay as a habitat for aquatic and terrestrial life in the region. 

Studies conducted by Federal, State and other agencies have established that the levels of 

contaminants in Newark Bay sediments exceed applicable sediment standards (NOAA, 1998). The 

contaminants that are likely contributors to the exceedances include dioxin/furans 

(PCDDs/PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

pesticides and herbicides residues, and metals. Although the list of contaminants of potential 

concern (COPCs) and contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) is not finalized, it is 

likely to include a sub-set or all of the above listed chemicals. 

As a result of these studies, the Newark Bay Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 

(RI/FS) is being conducted under a February 2004 CERCLA Administrative Order on Consent 

(AOC) between USEPA and Occidental Chemical to assess the potential threat of harm to human 

health or welfare or the environment that may result from the release or threatened release of 

hazardous substances from the Newark Bay study area. Under the terms of the AOC, the 

potentially responsible party (PRP) is responsible for conducting the RI/FS, while the USEPA will 

be responsible for conducting the Human and Ecological Risk Assessments. In addition, the 

1-1

Figure 1-1. Newark Bay Study Area. 

1-2

! " # $ %! & & 

$ '( ) 

$ '* # $ %! & & 

& & & * & $ 

)+ 

& & , $ '* 

' - & # $ %! &'(. & $ ) 

, $ '* ' - # $ %! &'(. "& / 

& * %) + - * % 

* & & & 

# $ % 

! &0 , $ '* & ) + $ $ $ 

' - 1 ' 2$ %) ( $ 

* * 1 2 

* $ ) ' * 

$ 3 3 $ '* .# $ %! & 

* ' 

$ * $ '* # $ % ! & 

) 

' 

) ( $ * 

$ 3 $ '* 

# $ %! & - ) ( ' $ 

'* # $ %! & 3 '(. 

$ '* # $ %! & $ $ * 

& ' )+ * 

, $ '* ' - 4 5 % 1"& / 67782)+ # $ % 

! & * $ $ # $ %! & &3 

# $ %! & ) + $ & * 

* $ * * * 

$ * 9 * ) 4 

9 * * * $ 

%) ( 3 # $ %! & 

& '* & 

- )

!" # $%%&'() * 

+ * * + + , - " ** ( 

*. , - " " 

* , - " * * ** 

( * . $+ * 

" " + + + * 

' ( 

) */* 0 1 "* * 

2 # "3 2#3 '* # ") 

#) ' +$%%4 '(. 2#3 * , - " " 

* 5 + - " + * 

2#3 ( 0 " 

, - ". ") ( * 0 + + 

6 

( 7* 8 + 

93 9 93 :9 ; 

$( * " 0 

-9 + * * 

* 5 '* ; 

; 

* ** " * + 

" " + + + * 

' * 0 

0 (9 "+ " + 

* + * * 93 9 93 :9 ** 

+ + + + ('( ? " 

" 8 8 

* ( * "+ 6

• Establish the magnitudes and relative importance of specific contaminant transfers within 

the Newark Bay study area, including: 

− Import and export of COPCs and COPECs between Newark Bay and the Passaic 

and Hackensack rivers, to the North, 

− Loads from tributaries and other point and nonpoint sources adjacent to the Bay, 

− Re-mobilization of deposited contaminants or removal from the water column by 

settling of particle-bound COPCs and COPECs within the Bay itself, 

− Import and export of COPCs and COPECs between Newark Bay and other 

hydraulically connected waterways at the Southern end of Newark Bay (i.e., the 

Arthur Kill and Kill van Kull). 

• Provide management guidance for the adverse ecological and human health effects of the 

transport and ultimate fate of COPCs and COPECs within the system. 

• Assess the effectiveness of alternative remedial actions that may be implemented in Newark 

Bay proper, in the 17-mile tidal reach of the Passaic River and elsewhere in the model 

domain, during both the remediation and post-remediation periods. 

• Assess sediment quality and contaminant levels that will result from a reduction or 

elimination of sources of COPCs and COPECs to the system, as well as the time frame for 

improvement under various remedial action alternatives. 

The modeling portion of the Newark Bay study area will overlap with that used for the 

Lower Passaic River Restoration Project and will consider the Passaic River, as well as the 

Hackensack River, Newark Bay and other tributaries. This Passaic River - Newark Bay model will 

also consider the interaction of this system with the contiguous waters of the Kill van Kull, the 

Arthur Kill, the Hudson River and greater NYNJ Harbor system. It is necessary to do so to ensure 

that the far-field boundary conditions do not artificially influence the transport and distribution of 

COPCs and COPECs within the Newark Bay model domain. Additionally, material that is 

transported out of the Newark Bay, should a major storm event occur in the future, could 

potentially have an adverse impact on more distant regions, and it will therefore be necessary to have 

the capability to quantify the potential significance of such impacts should a major storm event 

occur at various points in time. 

Although the preceding macro-scale transport processes will be explicitly considered in the 

context of the Passaic River – Newark Bay model investigations, there remain additional areas within 

Newark Bay where it may be desirable to represent the system with a still higher level of detail. 

Hence, it is envisioned that the model grid representing Newark Bay will incorporate a finer level of 

resolution in some localized areas, beyond what would have been required for a model of the overall 

system that focused on the lower Passaic River alone. Currently the plan for the Newark Bay Study 

Area is to develop a single integrated model for both water bodies. This approach is preferable with 

respect to ease of use and performing management remediation scenarios. 

1-5

" " 

() * !++ , 

! 

" " " 

# $ $ % & ' $ 

- . 

/ 0 " " $ 

" 1 "1 1 ) 

$ ( 

2 345 6 ( !, " 758 . 58 / , 

) ( 2 4 ! 

9 : , & 

" "!++ ( ,(- 0" 

!++;," $ " : : - " 

" $ 

: : - < 

• (33 ," 

• - ( ! ," 

• (7 = 3 ;, 

> "& : "> ? "# @ ? $ ? " 

# $ ) " 

A " " 

(? 9 , ( ' 9 , " 

" " 0 & " . 

B C $ 

) - 

0 & 

) 

D 

9 E - 9 : 

+ !+ " ++

! " 

! " 

# 

$ 

% & ! " ' 

" ( 

) ! " * 

+ 

, ( 

- " 

# . 

! " 

- ' ! " 

, ! " # 

! " 

- 

/ ' 

' * 0 - ' % 1 2334& 

! "# $ %& ' 

! " ' " 

5 5 6 5 " 

+ " 

7 " ! 

" # 

, 

( %) 7 8 9& . 

( ! 

"

Newark Bay is relatively wide in comparison to the Passaic River, the Hackensack River and 

the Kills. Its shallow water depth has been substantially modified by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to ensure that the navigational channels are maintained in a condition that is suitable for 

shipping transit in the vicinity of the harbor facilities of the Port Elizabeth and Port Newark 

Channels. As a result of these channel modifications, the bathymetric features of the Bay are quite 

complex and undergoing continual changes. A high-resolution model grid will be required to 

accurately represent these bathymetric features and the related processes that control sediment 

accumulation in the system (i.e., settling, resuspension, and dredging). Suskowski (1978) completed a 

relatively detailed analysis of pre-1978 bathymetric data, including a relatively detailed analysis of 

dredging records. More recent bathymetric data for the Bay proper have been obtained in 

association with maintenance dredging operations. This information will need to be analyzed in 

detail in association with ongoing model development efforts. Bathymetric survey data obtained 

during the USACE Harbor Deepening Project from 1999 through 2004 will be used to characterize 

model bathymetry for recent conditions. 

Numerous data collection and hydrodynamic modeling studies have been conducted to gain 

an improved understanding of the factors controlling fluid and mass transport in the Newark Bay 

region, including the Hudson, Harlem and East Rivers; NY Harbor; Long Island Sound; Raritan 

Bay; and the NY Bight. These studies have generally shown that hydrodynamic transport in Newark 

Bay is influenced by its bathymetry and by a number of other external forces, including the rate of 

freshwater inflow, the tides, and meteorological conditions, particularly winds. These many factors 

interact in complex ways such that it is advantageous to make use of numerical models to (i) 

facilitate interpretation of the data, (ii) integrate the effects of the important controlling processes, 

and (iii) evaluate the net effect of these controlling processes on hydrodynamic transport in the 

overall system. 

Prior to developing a conceptual site model (CSM) for Newark Bay it is appropriate to first 

review the results of previous efforts to investigate the factors that influence hydrodynamic 

transport within the Newark Bay study area. To begin, Oey et al. (1985a, 1985b) developed a 3-D 

model of the Hudson Raritan Estuary (including the Upper and Lower New York Harbor, Raritan 

Bay, the Arthru Kill, Kill Van Kull, and Newark Bay). The model was validated using data for water 

surface elevation, current speed and salinity. Oey et al. (1985c) also used a 2-D depth-integrated 

model to characterize tidal currents in the system. Blumberg et al. (1999) also developed a calibrated 

hydrodynamic model of the overall system. Simulations with this 3-D model showed that inflows 

from the northern tributaries, combined with residual inflow from the Kill van Kull, flowed out of 

Newark Bay via the Arthur Kill. The results also showed that, for the relatively high flow simulation 

conditions considered, Newark Bay and the Arthur Kill were vertically well mixed, while the Kill van 

Kull exhibited relatively weak stratification. This result differs from the characteristically stratified 

1-8

condition reported by Suszkowski, which was based on data obtained from a relatively dry year, 

when stratification would likely be enhanced. 

Several other studies have focused more directly on Newark Bay and directly contiguous 

waterways. For example, Thomas (1993) used the 2-D vertically integrated model of Oey et al. 

(1985c) to force a high-resolution model of the Arthur Kill. The somewhat limited vertical 

stratification at the northern end of the Arthur Kill was attributed to the sinuosity of the channel, 

with stratification of the Arthur Kill becoming more pronounced toward the south, in the direction 

of Raritan Bay. Chant used acoustic Doppler current profiles to characterize conditions in the Kill 

van Kull (Chant, 2002, as described by Pence, 2004). It was shown that vertical shear was directly 

related to the strength of the 2-layer flow pattern, the degree of salinity stratification and the 

freshwater flow rate from the Passaic River during neap tide conditions. Kaluarachchi (2003), using 

the model of Blumberg et al. (1999), found that salt transport through both the Arthur Kill and Kill 

van Kull, particularly the former, was controlled by the water surface elevation gradient between the 

Kill van Kull and Perth Amboy (at the southern end of the Arthur Kill) and that density effects were 

of limited importance. Pence also described results of an earlier Newark Bay dye study that 

indicated there was a net flow of water from Newark Bay to NY Harbor via both the Kill van Kull 

and the Arthur Kill, with the outflow via the Kill van Kull being much greater than the outflow via 

the Arthur Kill. This conclusion seems to conflict with the findings of Blumberg et al., (1999), 

Chant (2002) and others. Whether or not the inconsistency in these results can be accounted for by 

consideration of survey-specific conditions at the time of the dye study, or a weakness in the existing 

models, will need to be explored in detail during upcoming project-related investigations. 

Consideration for simulating the dye release study in a similar fashion to Pence’s earlier analysis will 

also be explored. 

Suszkowski (1978) conducted a detailed solids balance analysis of the Bay (discussed in the 

next section) in one of the earliest studies that attempted to understand the overall exchange of 

materials between Newark Bay and adjoining waters. As part of this study he summarized salinity 

and current speed information at each of the four main locations where Newark Bay interfaces with 

adjacent waterways. He showed that the Passaic River, at the point where it enters the northwest 

portion of Newark Bay, is strongly stratified throughout most of the year. It was also found that a 

similar though less pronounced condition persists at the mouth of the Hackensack River, which 

enters Newark Bay from the northeast. The difference in degree of stratification probably reflects, 

at least in part, the relatively low freshwater flow from the Hackensack River and the much greater 

tidal flow in the Hackensack, a condition that induces greater turbulence and enhanced mixing. 

Maximum salinity was observed at the NY Harbor entrance to the Kill van Kull, consistent with the 

high current speeds that are typical of conditions within this interconnecting waterway. While some 

stratification was also evident both at this location and at the Newark Bay entrance to the Arthur 

Kill, it was relatively slight and similar to other locations within the Bay. It is worth noting that 

1-9

! "# $ 

% & ' ( ) * 

+ ,- 

$ ( ., , /01# *(2'3 

+4 5 6 , ( - / 78- 

/ 08( /00# + ,- 

$ 

$ 

) 

( 9 ( ., , 

+4 5 5 

2:' # ) * 

( % $ '2) 

, ( ., , % 

# ( ., , /01# 

! "# ;: 

) + ,- % 

+ ,- 

- < < < 

! "# 3 # 

# < < ( 2 $ 

# + ,- < < 2 < 

+ ,- ! "# 

+ ,- 

% 

= + , - ( + , - 

< < * +4 5 ) 

- 

$ > ) ) 9 & ? , 

5 @ ! #

( 

! " # $ % & ' 

% ) * 

+ 

% ) 

, % ) ) % - . * % "/ 0 112' 

% ) 

% ) ( 

%& + 3 % / 

"%4&' + "54&' ( 

+ 

6 

% ) 

+ 

$ 

+ / ( 

" ' 

" 3 ' 7 + 

(

Figure 1-2. Prototype of Proposed Newark Bay Model Grid. 

1-12

1.4.2.1 A Macro-Scale Solids Balance for Newark Bay 

1-13 

It is informative to discuss sediment transport in Newark Bay in the context of several earlier 

investigations of this water body. Perhaps the most important study in this regard was the work of 

Suszkowski (1978). This study, which focused on sediment transport dynamics in the Bay, included 

detailed analyses of both fluid and sediment transport. Specifically, Suszkowski implemented a 

monitoring program that was approximately one year in duration (April 1976 – April 1977), during 

which time he made approximately monthly measurements of conductivity (converted to salinity), 

temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and total suspended solids (TSS). Stations were located 

slightly to the north of Newark Bay in both the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, at the mouth of 

each of these rivers at Newark Bay, at 3 locations along the central axis of Newark Bay, at the 

approach to and near the entrance of each of the Kills, and at the point where the Kill van Kull 

enters NY Harbor. Each station was sampled at 3 depths, surface, mid-depth and near the bottom. 

He also analyzed surface samples for TSS in both the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers on a daily 

basis, though the dataset for the Hackensack River was not complete. Numerous surface sediment 

samples were also collected. While somewhat dated, their consistency with more recently available 

information (e.g., Pence, 2004) indicate that these data and related analyses provide a useful 

characterization of more contemporary conditions in Newark Bay, over both time and space. As 

such, they are judged to be of use for current planning purposes. 

The TSS profiles also provide a useful characterization of the suspended solids distribution 

in the system. For example, the TSS concentration typically averaged between 1 and 3 mg/L across 

all stations, and it was as high as about 5 mg/L during the spring high flow months. Further, the 

average bottom sample TSS concentrations (averaged across all stations) were consistently higher 

than the surface samples over time, and they had a slightly lower volatile solids content as well. This 

was attributed to a combination of factors, including increased productivity in the surface waters, 

decomposition of organic content during settling from the water column, and differential settling 

rates for organically rich versus inorganic particles. 

The data reported by Suszkowski (1978) showed that the suspended solids levels in Newark 

Bay exhibited a spring maximum, possibly a result of elevated spring runoff from upland areas. 

Elevated TSS levels were also observed in association with a turbidity maximum in the vicinity of 

mid-Newark Bay, and in the vicinity of localized dredging activities. Evidence of a significant but 

short-lived turbidity maximum was also reported for one of the surveys where sampling was 

conducted near the time of “ebb strength”. This latter increase in TSS levels was attributed to 

resuspension of bottom sediments by tidal currents, since low upstream flow conditions prevailed at 

the time of sampling. This phenomenon will require the use of an intra-tidal model if it is to be 

explicitly represented.

1-14 

Bottom sediments were also characterized in detail as part of this early sampling program 

(~100 surface sediment samples). The results indicated that the surface sediments of the northern 

region of Newark Bay are primarily composed of particulate material having a grain size that is 

representative of silt. The lower Hackensack River sediments have a somewhat coarser texture than 

the lower Passaic River and northern Newark Bay sediments. The sediment composition becomes 

coarser in texture in the direction of South Newark Bay, a trend that likely reflects the more intense 

long-term dredging activity and relatively high current speeds in that area, particularly in the Kill van 

Kull. Surficial bottom sediment concentrations were also measured, with a focus on levels of total 

organic carbon (TOC) and 8 metals: Hg, Cd, Pb, As, Cu, Zn, Cr and Ni. The concentrations of 

these constituents will be discussed in a later section of this report. 

Suszkowski used the 1976 monthly monitoring data, supplemented by additional sources of 

information on velocity profiles at the 4 Newark Bay boundaries, to develop a detailed inorganic 

solids balance for the system. The approach was to evaluate the surface and bottom layer flows at 

each of the four points of entry to the Bay (discussed above), and to then assign the observed 

average TSS concentration to each of these. (It is of interest to note that the boundary at the Passaic 

River had a distinctly different TSS profile than the other locations, with the surface layer TSS being 

consistently higher than the bottom layer TSS concentration.) The product of the flow and TSS 

concentration in the surface and bottom layers yields an estimate of the mass flux rate, and the 

difference between the surface and bottom layer fluxes represents an estimate of the net flux across 

each Newark Bay boundary. Additional internal sources of solids, including TSS inputs from 

wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff and phytoplankton production were also quantified. 

Finally, a net solids balance for the entire Bay was obtained by evaluating the sum of all of these 

inputs. 

The results of Suszkowski’s solids balance analysis are summarized on Figure 1-3. It is 

evident from these results that the Passaic River, Kill van Kull and Arthur Kill were all net sources 

of TSS to Newark Bay, while the Hackensack River was a net sink of solids at the time of this 

investigation. This latter finding was recently confirmed by simulations performed with the Newark 

Bay model by Pence (2004). The simulations involved the initialization of a particle concentration 

of 1 mg/L in the Passaic River, on a monthly basis, and then tracking the movement over these 

particles over the course of an annual cycle. The particles tended to move from the Passaic River, 

into Newark Bay, and then left Newark Bay by transport into the Hackensack River, or by transport 

out of the system in the surface layers of the Arthur Kill and Kill van Kull. The difference in 

transport regimes for the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers is partly explained by the relatively low 

freshwater flow in the Hackensack River, as this facilitates the upstream transport of solids from the 

Bay. Additionally, during high flow events there is relatively little upstream storage in the Passaic 

River, so peak flow rates propagate through the system with relatively little attenuation. This differs 

from the situation in the Hackensack River, where upstream reservoir storage will absorb many of

the peaks in flow, thereby limiting the potential for flushing of solids from the Hackensack River to 

the Bay. 

Mass Flux (10 6 kg/year) 

600 

400 

200 

0 

-200 

-400 

42 

Passaic River 

Upstream Internal Downstream 

210 

-23 

18 

99 

Hackensack R 

-28 

-127 

Wastewater 

6 6 9 9 9 9 

0 

Urban Runoff 

0 

Input 

Output 

Net 

Phytoplankton 

0 

81 

Arthur Kill 

-49 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

32 

Kill Van Kull 

-144 

66 

455 

Total 

-343 

Figure 1-3. TSS Balance for Newark Bay (Adapted from Suszkowski, 1978). 

112 

1-15 

Another significant finding by Suszkowski was that the Kill van Kull was the major 

contributor of suspended sediment to the Bay, contributing 46% of the total input of solids to the 

Bay. This may be compared to the contribution from the major freshwater tributary to Newark Bay, 

the Passaic River, which only contributes 9% of the total input of solids. This demonstrates a need 

to incorporate within the overall modeling framework (as well as a properly designed field program) 

that includes the Arthur Kill and the Kill van Kull and their connection to New York/New Jersey 

Harbor in order to develop a proper sediment transport model of Newark Bay and the lower Passaic 

River. 

Overall, estimates of these solids fluxes lead to a Newark Bay average inorganic sediment 

accumulation rate of 116.7 x 10 3 MT/year. Suszkowski used long-term dredging records and 

isopach (lines showing equal changes in depth) calculations to confirm that this was a reasonable 

solids flux estimate. Assuming a typical bed solids concentration of 400 g/L and a surface area of 

the Bay of 14.2x10 6 m 2 (Suszkowski, 1978) this volumetric accumulation rate for inorganic solids is 

equivalent to a net sedimentation rate of 1.97 cm/year as a Bay-wide average (exclusive of dredging). 

Use of this Bay-wide average sedimentation rate in conjunction with an estimate in the range of nil 

to 0.35 cm/yr (Suszkowski, 1978; NOAA, 1984) for non-navigation channel areas of Newark Bay 

(associated with ~74% of Newark Bay), results in an estimate for the net sedimentation rate in the 

navigation channels in the range of 6.6 – 7.6 cm/yr. Overall, the sedimentation rates predicted on

1-16 

the basis of the solids analysis were somewhat low but comparable in magnitude to estimates that 

have been made on the basis of dredging records (see TSI, 2004, for a recent summary of estimates 

of sedimentation rates made by USACE, 1986, NOAA, 1984 and Suszkowski, 1978). This indicates 

that Suszkowski’s analysis is appropriate for use as a preliminary indicator of the gross 

hydrodynamic and sediment transport patterns within the Bay. As such, they are also considered of 

use in the development of an initial conceptual model for the system. At the same time, it must be 

kept in mind that these results are preliminary and that they require confirmatory testing in the 

context of updated analyses that make use of more recent data. For example, Suszkowski’s analysis 

did not consider fluxes of organic material in detail, so it is difficult to assess how important this 

factor might be on the deposition rates of solids that he has estimated. The computational model 

that is to be applied to the system will also be used to quantify mass fluxes for the alternative 

transport regimes that have been observed and to test the sensitivity to the model over a range of 

alternative conditions, including variation in upstream flow conditions, wind patterns and 

downstream boundary conditions (e.g., elevation and salinity). 

1.4.2.2 Detailed Sedimentation Rate Data for Newark Bay 

Additional information related to the sedimentation rates in Newark Bay has been compiled 

as part of an RI work plan for Newark Bay (TSI, 2004). These sedimentation rates are summarized 

on Figure 1-4, which shows a plan view of the bathymetry of Newark Bay on the left, and 

approximately east-west bathymetric cross-sections, representative of the northern, central and 

southern regions of the Bay, on the right. Both views clearly illustrate the relatively narrow and deep 

area corresponding to the navigation channels. It is clear from the bar graphs of sedimentation rates 

that are superimposed on the graphs on the right that the sedimentation rates are lowest on the subtidal 

flats, and increase markedly in the direction of the transition slopes and the navigation 

channels. The precise manner in which this occurs remains to be determined. One possibility is 

that it is a result of direct deposition of sediment in the navigation channel. A second is that it 

results from deposition of sediment onto the much broader and shallower sub-tidal flats, where 

current speeds are lower than in the navigation channel, but where wind-wave resuspension reduces 

long-term accumulation of settled materials. Which of these two possibilities controls long-term 

accumulation rates, or the possibility that both processes are important with respect to long-term 

accumulation in the navigation channels, will need to be determined in the context of future 

modeling analyses. 

Analyses of historical dredging records have also identified several other localized areas that 

experience comparable and even higher sedimentation rates than those in the channel areas shown 

on Figure 1-4. These areas include the lower Passaic River (~15 cm/yr), Port Newark (~20 cm/yr) 

and the channel area north of Shooters Island (>25 cm/yr) (Suszkowski, 1978; USACE, 1986 as 

reported by TSI, 2004). Suszkowski used these dredging-based estimates of sedimentation rates in 

Newark Bay to demonstrate the validity of his solids balance analysis of the Bay. The high

Figure 1-4. Bathymetry and Sedimentation Rates in Newark Bay. 

1-17

" # 

$ # $ ! %& ' # 

())*+ $ , - .$ . - 

/ 0 - %())1+!& # 2 $ 34-3 34-53 

$ $ 

!6 $ 

# $ 

! 

! 

! 

! " 

6 $ 

$ 2 

% 4""# 77 +! 8 "35#8 5-"# 4"" 

2 #-3 #-"& # !" , - 

.$ . - # 9 $ # 

: 

• ; 2 # 

-3 # 2 < # #-"& # 

6 # ! = 2 #6 6 # !%6 + 

> )#>() # ?@#*(> 

%= >+! 5 

$ !6 

$ 77) ()) !" $ 6 ! 

& $ # #

Figure 1-5. Sampling locations within the TSI database. 

1-19

Table 1-1. Lists of main surveys available in the TSI database. 

Historical Newark Bay Surveys Authors 

1990 Surface Sediment Investigation 

TSI 

1991 Core Sediment Investigation 

TSI 

1991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA 

1991 NOAA Phase I NST Sediment Investigation 

NOAA 

1992 Core Sediment Investigation 

TSI 

1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March) 

TSI 

1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July) 

TSI 

1993 NOAA Phase II NST Sediment Investigation 

NOAA 

1993 USEPA Surface Sediment Investigation 

USEPA 

1993/1994 REMAP Sediment Investigation 

USEPA 

1993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation 

USEPA 

1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 

TSI 

1994 Surface Sediment Investigation 

TSI 

1994 USACE Minish Park Investigation 

USACE 

1995 Biological Sampling Program 

TSI 

1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 

TSI 

1995 RI Sampling Program 

TSI 

1995 Surface Sediment Sampling Program 

TSI 

1995 USACE Minish Park Investigation 

USACE 

1996 Newark Bay Reach A Sediment Sampling Program 

TSI 

1997 CSO Sampling Program 

TSI 

1997 Newark Bay Reach B,C,D Sampling Program 

TSI 

1998 Newark Bay Elizabeth Channel Sampling Program 

TSI 

1998 USEPA REMAP Sediment Investigation 

USEPA 

1999 Late Summer/Early Fall RI-ESP Sampling Program 

TSI 

1999 Newark Bay Reach A Monitoring Program 

TSI 

1999 Newark Bay Reach ABCD Baseline Sampling Program TSI 

1999 Preliminary Toxicity Identification Evaluation Study 

TSI 

1999 Sediment Sampling Program 

TSI 

1999 USACE Drift Removal Monitoring Program 

USACE 

1999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program 

TSI 

2000 Spring RI-ESP Sampling Program 

TSI 

2000 Toxicity Identification Evaluation Study 

TSI 

2001 Supplemental RI-ESP Biota Sampling Program 

TSI 

1-20

Table 1-2. Extent of historical data in Newark Bay for selected chemicals. 

TCDD DDT PAHs PCBs Hg Pb 

L S L S L S L S L S L S 

Surface water 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 9 28 9 28 

Sediment 93 123 93 149 93 118 93 103 93 152 93 152 

L: number of locations; S: number of samples 

1-21 

in water column data, as illustrated in Table 1-2. For all the measurements carried out by the 

different agencies/organizations/firms in Newark Bay between 1990 and 2001, there are only a 

handful of water column measurements for tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), PCBs, PAHs, DDT, 

Hg and Pb. The paucity of data is even more pronounced for biological tissue: there are fewer 

locations and a small number of samples per organism collected over the years. Although more 

measurements are available on sediment quality, as discussed below, there is not enough information 

to provide a clear picture of the spatial and temporal trends as necessary to support modeling or risk 

assessment purposes. It is important to add that while CARP information was recently forwarded to 

EPA, this information was not publicly available at the time that the TSI database was developed. It 

is planned that the CARP information will be incorporated into future model development and 

model calibration work. 

An intrinsic part of data evaluation is understanding the physical characteristics of the 

sediments, the spatial and temporal distribution of the chemicals in the sediments, the spatial and 

temporal patterns in water column concentrations and in biota, as well as the hydrodynamic 

behavior likely to affect the stability of the sediments in terms of deposition and resuspension. The 

bulk of the data analysis is centered on establishing the horizontal and vertical distribution of the 

contaminants in the surface and bottom sediments, as well as in the water column and biota. The 

analysis is aimed at i) constructing a conceptual site model that guides the design of the 

hydrodynamic, sediment transport, fate and transport and bioaccumulation modeling framework, 

and ii) helping to design a sampling program that supports data modeling needs as well as 

geochemical, risk assessment and engineering analyses. 

1.4.3.2 Data Evaluation: Sediments 

For the sediments, HydroQual has focused its historical data evaluation of Newark Bay on analyzing 

a subset of TSI’s database that covers field programs conducted between 1991 and 2001. This 

database is available on the www.ourPassaic.org project website. To better view and analyze the 

data, map-based spatial representations of some of the chemical concentrations were developed, in 

addition to two-dimensional plotting templates for rendering the data in the longitudinal direction 

from the mouth of the Passaic River along a north-south axis that extends to the lower end of 

Newark Bay, and easterly into Kill van Kull (Figure 1-6). The purpose of this analysis is to gain a 

better understanding of the spatial distribution of contaminants in the water column and sediment, 

two important environmental compartments in Newark Bay. It is also important to recognize that

Figure 1-6. Sampling locations used in this analysis. 

1-22

1-23 

an exhaustive data analysis has not as yet been performed. Readily available data have been obtained 

and undergone a preliminary analysis, in part to better understand the issues and water quality 

problems within Newark Bay and in part to better identify areas where additional data are required. 

Efforts will be expended during the project to identify, obtain and utilize additional historical data 

sets as well as to utilize data sets being collected as part of the Newark Bay study. As further data 

are collected and analyzed and as our understanding of Newark Bay and its interactions with 

adjacent waterbodies improves, it may be necessary to modify elements of the work plan in order to 

develop the most technologically sound and defensible model of the Newark Bay system. This 

analysis is therefore not exhaustive as further data analyses will be conducted as part of the fate and 

transport modeling exercise. For example, other transects, such as a longitudinal transect of the 

chemical concentrations in the northern portion of Newark Bay and into the Hackensack River 

might provide further insight on the distribution of chemicals in the Bay. For this analysis, results 

from sediment cores were therefore plotted on multi-panel graphs, each representing the depth 

interval at which measurements were taken. The depths for which measurements are available vary 

among surveys, and in general do not exceed 14 ft. The lateral distances between stations also vary 

considerably along the same river mile. Unless otherwise indicated no distinction was made 

between samples obtained within or outside the navigation channel. It is important to note that a 

unified river mile (RM) system for both the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project and the 

Newark Bay Study will be put in place by the project team. In this analysis, however, the first river 

mile system depicted on the spatial plots, based on TSI’s boundaries of the Newark Bay Study Area, 

overlaps with the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project river mile system. 

In order to conduct a comparative evaluation of the data spatially and on a matrix basis (i.e., 

water column, pore water, sediment and fish tissue), multi-panel plots, each representing an 

environmental matrix, were generated for each chemical whenever concurrent measurements were 

available. Note that such concurrent measurements were rare. For example in the case of arsenic, 

there are only two water column and five surface sediment measurements in the Port Newark 

Channel between 1993 and 1999, whereas in the Elizabeth Channel, no water column or fish tissue 

measurements are reported. When available, the Effects Range - Low (ER-L) and Effects Range - 

Median (ER-M) concentrations for sediments (Long et al., 1995) are provided for comparison 

purposes. These concentrations are intended to define concentration ranges within which adverse 

effects are rarely (ER-M). It is also important to note that a more complete analysis of the data 

should consider normalizing concentrations of COPCs and COPECs to organic carbon, since this 

might help explain some of the spatial and temporal variations of chemicals in the sediments. This 

analysis will be conducted as part of the data analysis task of the fate and transport modeling. 

The potential COPCs and COPECs that are presented are PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, DDT and 

metals, all in dry weight units. As indicated below, there are large gaps in the type (i.e., only few

1-24 

chemicals and biological tissues monitored), spatial (i.e., only few locations covered), and temporal 

(i.e., not often enough) distribution of information in the Bay. It is the intention of the Field 

Sampling Program performed by TSI as part of its Remedial Investigation Work Plan (TSI, 2004) to 

begin to address the data gaps in the study domain. 

The most pertinent plots are presented and discussed as part of this modeling plan and the 

main observations about the spatial and temporal relationships that exist within the domain for the 

selected chemicals are presented below. The discussions are not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather a summary of the most important data features and availability. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Figure 1-7 shows total PCBs as the sum of congeners (closed 

circles ●), sum of homologs (open circles ○), and the sum of coplanar congeners (open triangles ª) in 

surface sediments and with depth in the Newark Bay-Kill van Kull domain. The data reveals that at 

every river mile within the Bay and at a few locations in the Kill van Kull, both the 23 ng/g ER-L 

and the 180 ng/g ER-M values are exceeded. Since they are a specific subset of the PCB congeners, 

the concentrations of coplanar congeners are systematically lower than the total PCBs. There is no 

noticeable spatial trend in the surface sediments within Newark Bay. Lower detections were 

encountered in the Kill van Kull, but very few samples were available for review, some of which did 

exceed the guidelines. The average total PCB level in Newark Bay surface sediment is 332 ng/g in 

the top 12 cm, whereas the highest concentration was 1990 ng/g at approximately RM3.8 into the 

Bay. In general, levels of PCBs decrease slightly with depth, except at the mouth of the Passaic 

River where deeper sediments (3 to 6 ft and 7 to 13 ft) have concentrations of coplanar PCBs similar 

to or even exceeding what is observed in surface sediments. Yet, it is not uncommon to find high 

levels of PCBs in deeper layers of sediments into Newark Bay, as is the case at RM6.9 where 

concentrations of coplanar PCBs are higher in deeper sediments (3 to 6 ft) than at 0.5 to 3 ft. Note 

that total PCB measurements are available only for the layer between 0 and 4.5 ft, and are spatially 

limited to either the mouth of the Passaic River or to a section between RM4 and RM5.2. 

Vertical concentration profiles on selected cores show different patterns (Figure 1-8). Data 

from three cores collected close to each other show consistently high surface and subsurface 

coplanar PCB concentrations in one core 100A-NWB, and decreasing levels with increasing depth in 

the other cores (99A-NWB and 98A-NWB, northern Newark Bay). In the mid-section of the Bay, 

decreasing PCB levels with depth were also noted, although in many cases there were no 

measurements performed on sediments deeper than 4.5 ft. Note that the plotted sediment core 

concentrations are those reported at the top of the depth intervals, although, like in core number 

98A-NWB (mouth of the Passaic River), the sampled intervals are very small: top 0.17 ft, between 

2.8 and 2.9 ft, exactly at 4.6 ft, and at 6 ft. The profile of that core, however, suggests that most of 

the PCBs reside in the upper layer, since it is located in a low depositional area. However, the 

interpretation of the depth profiles to reconstitute the history of deposition is limited in the absence

PCBs (ng/g) 

PCBs (ng/g) 

PCBs (ng/g) 

PCBs (ng/g) 

PCBs (ng/g) 

10 0 0 0 

10 0 0 0 

10 0 0 

10 0 0 

10 0 

10 

0.1 

10 0 

1 

10 0 0 0 

10 0 0 

10 0 

10 

1 

0.1 

10 0 0 0 

10 0 0 

10 0 

10 

1 

0.1 

10 0 0 0 

10 0 0 

10 0 

10 

1 

0.1 

10 

1 

0.1 

Top 0.02 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

River Mile (mi) 

0.5 - 3 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

0.5 - 4.5 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


3 - 6 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


7 - 13 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 1-7. Longitudinal and vertical profiles of PCBs along the axis of Newark Bay/Kill van Kull. Red line 

and opposing arrows indicate separation point between the two water bodies and flow direction. Closed 

circles (●) represent sum of all congeners, open circles (○) represent sum of homolog groups, and open 

triangles (ª) represent sum of coplanar PCBs. The first mile overlaps with the Lower Passaic River 

Restoration Project Study Area. 

ER-M 

ER-L 

ER-M 

ER-L 

ER-M 

ER-L 

ER-M 

ER-L 

ER-M 

ER-L 

1-25

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

100A- 

NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 

Sum of Coplanar PCBs (ng/g) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

72A 

-NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 


Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

98A- 

NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 


0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

68A 

-NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 


Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

99A- 

NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 


0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

69A 

-NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 

Sum of Coplanar P CBs (ng/g) 

Figure 1-8. Vertical profiles of individual cores collected close at the mouth of Passaic River (100A-NWB), 

farther south in upper-Newark Bay (98A-NWB and 99-NWB) and mid-Newark Bay (72A-NWB; 68A-NWB 

and 69A-NWB). PCBs are sum of coplanar congeners. 

1-26 

of radionuclide data. Consideration should be given to measuring radionuclides in areas such as this 

as future sampling programs are developed for Newark Bay. This information will be of use in 

confirming that the depositional rate is low in a region such as this, if in fact that is the case. 

The sediment PCB data from the 1991 – 2001 time frame also show that PCB 

concentrations vary laterally, across the width of the channel. For example, a comparison of 

coplanar PCB congener levels in surface sediment collected east and west of mid-channel (Figure 1- 

9) reveals significant (e.g., from less than 200 ng/g east of the mid-channel to close to 1000 ng/g 

west of the mid-channel differences) in PCB concentrations (open vs. closed circles); it also shows 

that significant differences occur within a cluster of samples collected from the same reach and river 

mile (e.g., open circles at RM2-3). In addition, there is no clear pattern to the lateral distribution of 

PCB levels – concentrations vary independently of the proximity to the shore. Further data analysis, 

such as normalization of bulk chemical concentrations to organic carbon might help better explain 

the lateral spatial distribution. Given that some regions in Newark Bay are likely to be depositional 

areas, it is noteworthy that newly deposited solids have most probably altered the concentrations 

that were previously measured in surficial sediments during the 1990s. In order to better 

characterize the history of deposition until the present day, the low resolution program proposed for 

the Passaic River, as described in the Field Sampling Plan Vol. 1 (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005b), should be 

duplicated in Newark Bay. Such a program will be instrumental in tracking not only the

depositional/erosional patterns in Newark Bay, but also the fate of the contaminants as they are 

buried and/or resuspended and re-deposited. 

PCBs (ng/g) 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

East of mid-channel 

West of mid-channel 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

River M ile (mi) 

Figure 1-9. Lateral Variation. Spatial and lateral distribution of total PCB congeners in Newark Bay; west and 

east sides of the mid-channel. 

1-27 

Dioxins. Although PCDDs/PCDFs (dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans) consist of more than 

200 compounds, only a number of congeners are commonly analyzed (Table 1-3). Those include 

OCDD (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), and 2,3,7,8-TCDD (2,3,7,8tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), 

both often considered as posing the highest risk (Birnbaum et al., 

1987); however, there are no NJDEP guidelines available for dioxin-related ecological risk 

assessment. 

Table 1-3. Commonly analyzed dibenzo-p-dioxin and furan congeners for the Lower Passaic River. 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

Dioxin (tagged), 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD 

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 

1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 

1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 

1,2,3,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 



2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 

2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDD)

1-28 

Longitudinal, vertical and lateral profiles for TCDD and OCDD in Newark Bay sediments 

are presented in Figures 1-10, 1-11 and 1-12. The concentrations of TCDD in surface sediments are 

about 0.4 ng/g near the mouth of the Passaic River, then decrease within the Bay to an average 

concentration of 0.01 ng/g (Figure 1-10). In the Kill van Kull, TCDD levels drop by one order of 

magnitude relative to Newark Bay. Peak levels in the surface sediments occur within one mile of 

Newark Bay. Unlike the Passaic River where the peak concentrations occur at depth, vertical 

profiles generally show a consistent trend of decreasing TCDD levels in deeper sediments (Figure 1- 

11). It is noteworthy that most cores were analyzed for TCDD to a depth of 6 ft below the surface; 

the analysis for layers between 6 ft and 14 ft was only performed on a limited number of cores. 

The data also show some spatial variation in TCDD concentration in the lateral direction. 

For example, a comparison of TCDD levels in surface sediment collected east and west of the midchannel 

(refer to Figure 1-12) reveals some differences in concentrations (open vs. closed circles); 

those differences are however less pronounced than what is observed for total PCBs (tPCBs). The 

data also show significant differences within a cluster of samples collected from the same reach and 

river mile (open circles). In addition, there is no clear pattern to the lateral distribution of TCDD 

levels – concentrations appear to vary independently of proximity to the shoreline. 

One interesting aspect of the TCDD distribution in Newark Bay is the decrease in the ratio 

of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total TCDD in surface sediments south of the lower Passaic River (Figure 1- 

13). The ratio varies from about 0.64 in Newark Bay, to about 0.36 in Kill van Kull, with average 

values of about 0.58 and 0.48, respectively. Although slightly lower, the ratio in northern Newark 

Bay is comparable to 0.71 as calculated by Chaky (2003). The dominance of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD in 

the lower Passaic River and Newark Bay suggests that the ratio may be used as a tracer to fingerprint 

dioxin contamination in the study area. The use of the ratio should however be subject to further 

scrutiny by, for example, testing it on other dioxin congeners, before it becomes a reliable 

fingerprinting tool. 

OCDD is also widely distributed throughout Newark Bay (Figure 1-14). The highest levels 

in the surface sediment are also found near the mouth of the Passaic River, where peak 

concentrations reach 7.3 ng/g (compared to 22.6 ng/g in the lower Passaic River proper). Figure 1- 

14 also shows a decrease in OCDD concentrations from the mouth of the lower Passaic River 

through the first couple of miles to the south in Newark Bay. It is, however, interesting to note that 

OCDD levels in surface sediments increase again between RM2.5 and RM5.5 in the Bay suggesting 

the presence of other potential sources of OCDD in Newark Bay proper. Unlike TCDD, the 

concentration in deep sediments has a tendency to increase in particular between RM2.5 and RM5.5. 

For example, between 2 and 4 ft below the surface sediment, OCDD levels remain comparable to 

those found in the surface sediments and in some cases even exceed them. In addition, levels of 

OCDD reach a maximum concentration of 6.2 ng/g in sediment buried between 2 and 4 ft, 

compared to only 2 ng/g in the surface sediment at the same location. Depth profiles at selected

TCDD (ng/g) 

TCDD (ng/g) 

TCDD (ng/g) 

TCDD (ng/g) 

TCDD (ng/g) 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

0.0001 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

Surface Sediment 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

0.0001 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 


0.5 - 2 ft 

0.0001 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

0.0001 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

0.0001 


2 - 4 ft 

4 - 8 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 


Figure 1-10. Longitudinal and vertical profile of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in the Newark Bay/Kill van Kull Domain. The 

first mile overlaps with the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Study Area. 

12 ft 

10 

10 

1-29

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

100A- 

22 

44 

66 

88 

10 10 

12 12 

14 14 

NWB 

0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01 

TCDD TCDD (ng/g) (ng/g) 

0.1 1 

0 

68A- 

22 

44 

66 

88 

10 10 

12 12 

14 14 

NWB 

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 

TCDD (ng/g) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

88A- 

NWB 

8 

10 

12 

14 

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 

TCDD (ng/g) 

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

37A- 

22 

44 

66 

88 

10 10 

12 12 

14 14 

NWB 

0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 

TCDD (ng/g) 

0.1 1 

0 

72A- 

22 

44 

66 

88 

10 10 

12 12 

14 14 

NWB 

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 

TCDD (ng/g) 

Figure 1-11. Depth profiles of TCDD in selected locations in Newark Bay. 

1-30

TCDD (ng/g) 

0.2 

0.16 

0.12 

0.08 

0.04 

0 



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 1-12. Lateral distribution of TCDD East and West of Newark Bay mid-channel. 

2, 

3, 

7, 

8- 

T 

C 

D 

D 

/ 

t- 

T 

C 

D 

D 

1.0 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

Newark Bay: 0.64 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

River miles 

Kill van Kull: 0.36 

Figure 1-13. Spatial distribution of the ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD/total TCDD in the surface sediment of Newark 

Bay/Kill van Kull system. 

1-31

OCDD (ng/g) 

OCDD (ng/g) 

OCDD (ng/g) 

OCDD (ng/g) 

OCDD (ng/g) 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

Surface sediment 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 


0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0.5 ft 

2 - 4 ft 

4 - 6 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 


7 - 13 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 


Figure 1-14. Longitudinal and vertical profile of OCDD in the sediments of the Newark Bay/Kill van Kull 

system. The first mile overlaps with the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Study Area. 

9 

10 

10 

1-32

1-33 

locations indicate that OCDD is still prevalent in the sub-surface sediments (Figure 1-15). It is 

important to use caution in the interpretation of the vertical profiles given the gaps in the data in 

deeper layers, in particular in the upper section of the Bay between RM1 and RM3. 

As with TCDD, there is no clear pattern to the lateral distribution of OCDD levels; 

concentrations vary independently of the proximity to the shore (Figure 1-16). 

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Most of the PAHs reported in TSI’s database have 

no risk guidelines, as is the case with some PCB congeners. The spatial distribution of total PAHs 

(tPAHs) in surface and subsurface sediments are shown in Figure 1-17. In general, the data reveals 

that many of the tPAH concentrations are between the ER-L (4000 ng/g) and ER-M (45,000 ng/g) 

(as evaluated by Long et al., 1995), and in some cases, there are peaks that are orders of magnitude 

higher than the ER-M. Total PAH concentrations decrease from a peak concentration close to 

100,000 ng/g near the mouth of the Passaic River, to an average of 20,000 ng/g in the first two 

miles of Newark Bay, to about 10,000 ng/g in the main channel towards the Kills. There are also 

two significant peaks in the longitudinal distribution of PAHs, at RM1.2 and RM2.1. At the mouth 

of the Passaic River and one mile south, tPAH levels remain high in the sub-surface sediments (e.g., 

13 ft below surface), at levels comparable to those measured at the surface. Between RM0.5 and 

RM1, tPAHs levels seem to increase with depth at levels that exceed both the ER-L and ER-M 

guidelines. In the rest of the Bay, unlike the Passaic River where tPAH concentrations increase in 

depth after an initial drop in shallower layers, tPAH levels generally decrease with depth [with the 

exception of a location in the middle section of the Bay (~RM5.4) where surface and 4-ft deep 

sediments have similar tPAH levels]. It is important to use the same note of caution expressed for 

dioxins – there are significant data gaps in the vertical profiles for deeper layers, in particular in the 

upper section of the Bay between RM1 and RM4. As is the case for PCBs and dioxins, tPAHs are 

likely candidates to be considered as COPCs/COPECs. 

Pesticides. The analysis shown in Figure 1-18 focuses on DDT to illustrate the spatial 

distribution of a well-studied pesticide in Newark Bay sediments. It should not be inferred from this 

spatial distribution, however, that other DDT species or other pesticides will necessarily follow the 

same pattern as DDT. In any case, the data reveal that surficial sediment DDT concentrations 

exhibit a pattern of decreasing concentration from the mouth of the Passaic River to a location 1.5 

miles south of the mouth, in Newark Bay (upper panel of Figure 1-18); however, between RM3.8

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

100A- 

NWB 

14 

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 

OCDD (ng/g) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

81A- 

NWB 

14 

0 .1 1 10 10 0 

OCDD (ng/g) 

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

96A- 

NWB 

14 

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 

OCDD (ng/g) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

87A- 

NWB 

14 

0.1 1 10 100 

OCDD (ng/g) 

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

68A- 

NWB 

1-34 

14 

0 .1 1 10 10 0 

OCDD (ng/g) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

69A- 

NWB 

14 

0 .1 1 10 10 0 

OCDD (ng/g) 

Figure 1-15. Vertical Profile of OCDD at selected locations within Newark Bay. 

OCDD (ng/g) 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 1-16. Lateral distribution of OCDD East and West of Newark Bay mid-channel.

tPAHs (ng/g) 

tPAHs (ng/g) 

tPAHs (ng/g) 

tPAHs (ng/g) 

tPAHs (ng/g) 

tPAHs (ng/g) 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000 

100 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000 

100 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000 

100 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000 

100 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000 

100 

ER-M 

Figure 1-17. Spatial and vertical distribution of tPAHs in Newark Bay/Kill Van Kull. The first mile overlaps 

with the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Study Area. 

ER-M 

0.5 ft 

0.6 - 2 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


ER-M 

2 - 4 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


ER-M 

4 - 6 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


ER-M 

ER-M 

Surface sediment 

7 - 13 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


1-35

DDT (ng/g) 

DDT (ng/g) 

DDT (ng/g) 

DDT (ng/g) 

DDT (ng/g) 

10 0 

10 

DDT (ng/g) 10 0 0 

1 

10 0 0 

10 0 

10 

10 0 0 

10 0 

LEL 

Surface Sedim ent 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


LEL 

1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 

10 0 0 

10 0 

LEL 


0.5 ft 

1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 

10 0 0 

10 0 

LEL 


0.5 - 2 ft 

1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 

10 0 0 

10 0 

LEL 


2 - 4 ft 

1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

10 

LEL 


4 - 6 ft 

1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


6 - 12 ft 

Figure 1-18. Spatial and vertical distribution of DDT in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull. The first mile overlaps 

with the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Study Area 

1-36

1-37 

and RM6, there seems to be an increase in DDT concentration as peak levels reach 730 ng/g at 

about RM5.2. These results also suggest the presence of other potential sources of DDT in Newark 

Bay proper. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has adopted sediment 

screening guidelines for agricultural chemicals that have been detected in Newark Bay sediments 

(Table 1-4). These guidelines, referred to as Lowest Effect Level (LEL) and Severe Effects Level 

(SEL), have been expressed on the basis of both dry weight normalized and organic carbon 

normalized chemical concentrations. It is noteworthy that most of the DDT levels encountered in 

the surficial sediments as well as in deeper sediments exceed the 7 ng/g NJDEP LEL for DDT. 

Pesticides 

Table 1-4. NJDEP Sediment Screening Guidelines. 

Lowest Effects Level (LEL) 

(mg/kg, dry weight) 

Severe Effects Level (SEL) (mg/kg 

organic carbon, dry weight) 

Aldrin 0.002 8 

Benzohexachloride (BHC) 0.003 12 

a-BHC 0.006 10 

b-BHC 0.005 21 

y-BHC (Lindane) 0.003 1 

Chlordane 0.007 6 

DDT (Total) 0.007 12 

Op+pp-DDT 0.008 71 

pp-DDD 0.008 6 

pp-DDE 0.005 19 

Dieldrin 0.002 91 

Endrin 0.003 130 

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 0.020 24 

Heptachlor epoxide 0.005 5 

Mirex 0.007 130

1-38 

Individual sediment core vertical profiles for DDT (Figure 1-19) also reveal that 

measurements in sediment cores were in most cases limited to shallow layers (0 to 6 ft), except near 

the mouth of the Passaic River, where DDT levels in deeper sediments (14 ft) could be four times 

higher than in the surface layer (e.g., stations 96A-NWB and 81A-NWB). Notwithstanding that 

DDT levels in deep sediments (4 ft) of south Newark Bay may also be elevated (e.g., station 70A- 

NWB), the high concentrations at the surface suggest the existence of possible on-going sources. 

Metals. Of the metals that are available in the database, the spatial distribution of mercury, 

chromium, lead, nickel, arsenic, and cadmium in surface and sub-surface sediments of Newark Bay 

and the Kill van Kull are shown in Figures 1-20 through 1-25. Unlike in the lower Passaic River 

where metal levels often exceed the ER-M guidelines, only levels of mercury and to a lesser extent 

chromium and nickel are in excess of the ER-M in Newark Bay. 

Mercury concentrations in surface as well as in deeper sediments exceed both the ER-L (150 

ng/g) and ER-M (710 ng/g) throughout Newark Bay into the Kill van Kull (Figure 1-20); the 

detected concentrations are between 5 to 20 times higher than the medium and low range of 

ecological effects. As is the case with other contaminants, there are large gaps in mercury 

measurements in the sub-surface sediments, in particular, between RM1.5 and RM4. A preliminary 

inspection of the 1976 surface grab sample data of Suszkowski (1978) indicates that mercury levels 

at that time were similar in magnitude to the results shown on Figure 1-20, generally on the order of 

1000 – 10,000 ng/g. Inspection of results from a limited number of borings failed to reveal a 

consistent pattern, though a more detailed review of these data is warranted. It should be noted that 

an assessment effort is currently being conducted to better evaluate Berry’s Creek as a potential 

source of mercury into Newark Bay. The result of the evaluation will ultimately be integrated into 

the modeling effort. 

Throughout Newark Bay, chromium concentrations in the surface sediment are between the 

ER-M (370,000 ng/g) and ER-L (81,000 ng/g) values (Figure 1-21). The ER-M is exceeded only 

once in the Kill van Kull area. In deeper sediments, levels of chromium are somewhat lower than in 

the surface sediment, except at locations closer to the mouth of the Passaic River, where deep 

sediments (12 ft) show elevated chromium concentrations in excess of the ER-M value. 

Suszkowski’s (1978) surface grab sample results from 1976 were comparable in magnitude, though 

some results were higher than the concentrations of Figure 1-21, with a number of samples having 

chromium levels in excess of the ER-M. 

Except in the proximity of the mouth of the Passaic River, the levels of lead in Newark Bay 

surface sediment generally remain between the ER-M (218,000 ng/g) and ER-L (46,700 ng/g) values 

(Figure 1-22). Also, in spite of the apparent decrease in lead concentrations in the lower section of 

Newark Bay, between RM5.5 and RM6.5, there is an apparent surge in lead concentration in the

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Depth (ft) 

10 10 0 10 0 0 

tDDT (ng/g) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

100A- 

NWB 

81A- 

NWB 

10 100 

tDDT (ng/g) 

1000 

72A- 

NWB 

10 10 0 10 0 0 

tDDT (ng/g) 

44B- 

NWB 

10 10 0 10 0 0 

tDDT (ng/g) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

Depth (ft) 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

70A- 

NWB 

10 10 0 10 0 0 

tDDT (ng/g) 

96A- 

NWB 

RA-03- 

NWB 

BCD2- 

NWB 

1-39 

10 100 1000 

tDDT (ng/g) 

10 100 1000 

tDDT (ng/g) 

10 100 1000 

tDDT (ng/g) 

Figure 1-19. Sediment vertical profiles for DDT in selected cores across Newark Bay.

Mercury (ng/g) 





10000 

1000 

100 

10 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

10000 

1000 

100 

10000 


ER-M 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


0.5- 2 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


2- 4 ft 

10 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

1000 

100 

10000 

4 - 6 ft 

10 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

1000 

100 

7 - 13 ft 

10 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

Figure 1-20. Spatial and vertical distribution of mercury in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull sediments. The first 

mile overlaps with the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Study Area. 

1-40

Chromium (ng/g) 





1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1,000,000 

100,000 


ER-M 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


0.5 - 2 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


2 - 4 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


4 - 8 ft 

10,000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Figure 1-21. Spatial and vertical distribution of chromium in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull sediments. The 


12 ft 

1-41

Pb (ng/g) 

Pb (ng/g) 

Pb (ng/g) 

Pb (ng/g) 

Pb (ng/g) 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 

10,000,000 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 


ER-M 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


0.5 -2 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


2 -4 ft 

1000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

4-6 ft 

1000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

7-13 ft 

1000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

Figure 1-22. Spatial and vertical distribution of lead in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull sediments. The first 


1-42

1-43 

westerly section of the Kill van Kull, where concentrations significantly exceed the ER-M value. 

This is also true in the deeper sediments (between 0.5 and 4 ft) of the Kill van Kull, which also 

suggests the presence of other potential sources of lead in the vicinity of the Kill van Kull. In 

Newark Bay proper, deeper sediments have generally lower levels of lead, with the exception of 

locations closer to the mouth of the Passaic River, where deeper sediments have significantly higher 

levels that are well in excess of the ER-M. Data reported by Suszkowski (1978) suggest that surficial 

sediment lead concentrations were somewhat higher at that time, with a number of surface sediment 

concentrations exceeding the ER-M. Whether the surface lead data of Figure 1-22 should be 

considered as being indicative of conditions having improved since 1976, or simply an artifact of use 

of different sampling or analytical methods, requires further review. (This same point applies to the 

comparisons to be made with other 1976 sediment metal results as well.) 

In general, the levels of nickel in surface sediments are between the ER-M (51,600 ng/g) and 

the ER-L (20,900 ng/g) values (Figure 1-23). There are, however, exceptions – the ER-M is 

exceeded in surface sediments at locations close to the mouth of the Passaic River, but also 

downstream between RM4 and RM6, as well as occasionally in the Kill van Kull. These results also 

suggest the presence of other potential sources of nickel in the vicinity of Kills. In deeper 

sediments, nickel levels tend to increase relative to surface levels where measured throughout the 

domain. This is particularly noticeable in the first two miles and in the lower section of Newark Bay, 

in the 2 to 4 ft sediment layer. The surficial sediment nickel concentrations reported by Suszkowski 

were comparable to the results of Figure 1-23, with most values in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 

ng/g and a number of sample results exceeding the ER-M for nickel. 

Arsenic levels in surface sediments are well below the ER-M value (70,000 ng/g), and hover 

above the ER-L guideline of 8200 ng/g (Figure 1-24). It is however noteworthy, that despite the 

limited number of measurements, arsenic concentrations seem to increase with depth, particularly at 

locations close to the mouth of the Passaic River, where the 7 to 13 ft layer shows one instance 

where the arsenic level is close to the ER-M guideline value. The 1976 surface sediment arsenic 

levels seem to have been comparable to the more recent data of Figure 1-24. 

Cadmium concentrations in surface sediments are generally substantially lower than the ER- 

M (9600 ng/g) but still higher than the ER-L (1200 ng/g) (Figure 1-25). However, in deeper 

sediments closer to the mouth of the Passaic River, but also in certain areas of the Kill van Kull (at 

RM6.8, between 0.5 and 2 ft), cadmium levels are in excess of the ER-M. The 1976 surficial Cd 

concentrations reported by Suszkowski (1978) indicated numerous values in excess of the ER-M 

with a maximum concentration of 31,000 ng/g. Samples from a limited number of borings, which 

had concentrations in the range of 600 – 3400 ng/g, had somewhat lower levels than was indicated 

by the surface samples. 

In spite of the trends of metal contamination in Newark Bay sediments described above, the 

deposition, resuspension and redeposition features of the Bay have likely altered historic spatial

Nickel (ng/g) 

Nickel (ng/g) 

Nickel (ng/g) 

Nickel (ng/g) 

Nickel (ng/g) 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 

1,000,000 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 

100,000 

10,000 

0.5 - 2 ft 

100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

1000 

2 - 4 ft 

100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 

4 - 6 ft 

100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 


100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


7 - 13 ft 

ER-M 

100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

Figure 1-23. Spatial and vertical distribution of nickel in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull sediments. The first 


1-44

Arsenic (ng/g) 





100,000 

10,000 

1000 

100,000 

10,000 

1000 

100,000 

10,000 

ER-M 


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


ER-M 

0.5 - 2 ft 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


ER-M 

2 - 4 ft 

1000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

100,000 

10,000 

ER-M 

4 - 6 ft 

1000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

100,000 

10,000 

7 - 13 ft 

ER-M 

1000 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

Figure 1-24. Spatial and vertical distribution of arsenic in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull sediments. The first 


1-45

Cadmium (ng/g) 





20000 

16000 

12000 

8000 

4000 

0 

20000 

16000 

12000 

8000 

4000 

20000 

16000 

12000 

8000 

4000 

20000 

16000 

12000 

8000 

4000 

20000 

16000 

12000 

8000 

4000 


ER-M 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


0.1 ft 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

0.5 - 2 ft 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

2 - 4 ft 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

6 -13 ft 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


6 7 8 9 10 

Figure 1-25. Spatial and vertical distribution of cadmium in Newark Bay/Kill van Kull sediments. The 


1-46

! " #! "$ 

#% && $ ' ' ' 

()"( *()"!( 

' ' " ' + , #- .//0$ ! " 

#1!2 3 4( 5 4( 546 5 

4" 547 5$ #+81$ 

1!2 +81 9 

6 ' : 

- 

+ ; ' " , , " < 

2 = :" #> ? .//0$ 

# 

$ 

' 

: 

< ' 

@ 

' 

' 

' 

' : 

# ' 

$ ' 

' ' @ 

# A B$ 

# 

$ 

' ' 6 ' :- 

' ' ' 8 

6 ' :- ' 

< '

1-48 

flow rates, in combination with the associated suspended solids load, lead to the advection of both 

dissolved and sorbed chemicals along with the water. The effect may differ from one location to 

another. For example, the analysis performed by Suszkowski indicates that, in the case of the 

Passaic River, there is a net movement (i.e., the difference between upstream and downstream 

transport) of suspended solids in the downstream direction towards Newark Bay. (Note that it does 

not necessarily follow that the net movement of chemicals will be in the same direction as the net 

movement of solids, as the dissolved and sorbed chemical concentrations in the surface and bottom 

layers also need to be considered.) Should this finding be confirmed by future data and modeling 

analyses, it can be expected to have important implications to the evaluation of the rates of chemical 

exchange between the Passaic River and Newark Bay. In contrast to the Passaic River there is a net 

flux of solids from Newark Bay into the Hackensack River (Suszkowski, 1978; Pence, 2004). This 

finding also has important implications to the net movement of chemicals between these two 

regions and should be confirmed in subsequent analyses. 

Another important aspect of solids transport in Newark Bay that was quantified by 

Suszkowski was the high rates of sediment accumulation in a number of localized areas, including 

Port Newark and in the channel north of Shooters Island. He attributed the deposition of solids in 

these regions to factors that were largely site-specific in nature. It will be important for the model to 

properly simulate the accumulation of solids in these localized areas, in part because these are areas 

where maintenance dredging takes place. While not a natural process, maintenance dredging will 

serve as a sink of both solids and chemicals in Newark Bay, as it leads to removal of mass from the 

system. It is expected that a relatively high-resolution model grid will be required to properly 

simulate the observed high rates of deposition in these localized areas. Use of a high-resolution grid 

will improve the level of detail that can be represented by both the hydrodynamic and sediment 

transport models, and as such, should enhance their predictive abilities. This is important since the 

chemical fate model will use these results to quantify the associated chemical transfers. The 

significance of removal of dredged material as a sink of chemicals in these areas remains to be 

evaluated. 

Sediment transport also has an important bearing on chemical fate via the manner in which 

the process of burial is represented (Berner, 1980; Boudreau, 1997; Boudreau and Jorgensen, 2001). 

Sediments typically have a surficial layer where particle mixing occurs as a result of reworking by 

benthic organisms (bioturbation) and by physical mixing processes related to settling and 

resuspension. A number of approaches may be used to evaluate the depth over which mixing 

occurs, including but not necessarily limited to biological surveys of the benthic community, 

sediment profile imaging, and consideration of radionuclide data. Mixing alone results in the 

transfer of chemicals along a concentration gradient, from areas of high to low concentration. It is 

for this reason that historically contaminated sediments, even if buried by the accumulation of clean 

solids long after the chemical source has been eliminated, may continue to exhibit residual

! 

" # $% & 

' 

# 

" ( )*( 

$+& $ & 

$! ,&-+ . (! , . $" ( &(# . ) ( & 

/* ) $0(0 . + . $)& 1 ))" /*& 

# $+ . "( #. 

) 22( 0(0 . + . 22$2)& 1 ))" /*& . 2) 

3 

$ / & 4 

6 7 8 9 9 8 : , 4 38 

$! ; ")) 0 & ? 3% $"))) 

"))" 2 (7 , ? 3% ' 

5

! " 

! # $ # " 

% & ! ' # 

( ) & * ! + ,# - ." 

# $ # /# ! $ 

$ 0 ! % & # # # $ 

' # $ ! # 

#$# $ $ 1 0 

$ # ## # 1 

$ $ ' $ $ 

! #$# $ $ ! 

( ) & * ! + ,# - ." 0 

# $ ! ! 

$ 1 

# $ # 

# # 1 ## # 2 3 ! 

! 

0 # $ ## $ $ 4 

$ 0 " # $ # 

+ ! ! # $ 

# # 

$ 5 0 $ # 

! # $ # $ 

+ $ 0 

# # #$$ $ $ 

$ # $ $ 

$ # $ ! # 

# $ $ 

3 $ # 6 7 # 

! $ # + ! ! 0 

$ $ 8 

9 : !+ $ 

$# $ $ ! *

1-51 

sediment transport, there is considerable information available on the rates in Newark Bay, and it is 

clear from this information that sediment accumulation is a dynamic process. Rates range from 

tenths of a cm/year in the side Bay areas to 10 – 15 cm/year or more in the primary depositional 

zones. This range in rates has important implications for modeling purposes, especially when it is 

time to perform projections. The reason is that it is the combination of the depth of the mixed layer 

and the net sedimentation rate that will control the response time of the system to future changes in 

sediment characteristics and inputs to the system. Surface sediment concentrations can be expected 

to respond relatively rapidly in areas having high net sedimentation rates. 

Suszkowski (1978) identified three areas in the Newark Bay where enhanced sediment 

accumulation was occurring. These areas are the lower Passaic River, Port Newark, and the area 

north of Shooters Island. A variety of processes were thought to be contributing to the high rates 

of deposition in these areas. For example, the density-induced circulation pattern in the lower 

Passaic leads to the downstream transport of particles from the upstream Passaic River in the 

surface layer; settling of these particles such that they mix with lower layer sediment and are then 

transported in a net upstream direction in the bottom layer, a process which increases the residence 

time of the particles in this region, thereby promoting sedimentation. Alternatively, the enhanced 

deposition in the Port Newark area was attributed to what was described as “scouring and settling 

lag effects” in a closed-ended channel. Finally, a high influx of solids from the Kills, combined with 

low current speeds and extended slack water periods (as long as 2 hours) were thought to be the 

cause of enhanced deposition in the area north of Shooters Island (Suszkowski, 1978). 

The preceding phenomena provide a useful working model for how to represent the 

processes that control sediment transport in the Passaic River-Newark Bay system. Planned 

evaluations with a high-resolution model will further elucidate the importance of these and other 

processes that are controlling sediment deposition in these localized areas. Initial diagnostic testing 

with the model will be needed to define the level of grid resolution that is required to represent these 

fine-scale features. It may ultimately be necessary to unify these different model grids to obtain a 

finalized overall model calibration for the system. However, separation of these analyses for initial 

model development purposes will allow for more computationally efficient model runs to be 

performed during the initial stages of model development. 

1.6 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (CSM) 

The purpose for developing a CSM is to establish a clear relationship between site-specific 

conditions and the types of models that are to be applied. The CSM should describe, in as much 

detail as possible, each of the important physical, chemical and biological processes that are 

operative at the site of interest. This will help to ensure that the models to be applied will be 

suitable for their intended use, at least to the degree that the current understanding of the system 

permits. The CSM will typically include consideration of hydrodynamic processes, sediment and 

contaminant fate and transport processes, as well as biotic processes. While many of the important

! " 

# $%& ' () # 

$%& 

! 

$%& 

$%& 

# 

# 

( ' () 

* + , , + " & - (+ . / 001 , 

$%& ' () 

' () % 2( ( 

3456+ 007 # 

8 

) # 

" ) + . ( (, 

" ) ! 9 9 9 ! 

) 

+ . ( (, 

' () # 

' () 

# 

' () 

+ 007 # 

- 

) ( 

) 9 9 

! 9 + 007 : 

' () . 

' ()

1-53 

During periods when the two-layer counter-current flow pattern described above is present, , 

it will advect water and solids into the Bay from the Kills (via the lower layer) and out of the Bay and 

into each of the upstream rivers that enter the Bay to the north. The surface layer transport in 

Newark Bay will tend to be in the opposite direction. It will be necessary that the surface and 

bottom layer currents of this and other transport regimes be well represented by the model as they 

control the level of shear and the potential for resuspension and deposition of solids within the 

system, as well as the net direction of movement of solids in the system. An improved 

understanding of these processes should be achieved during the course of additional data evaluation. 

The influx of solids that enters the Bay at the southern end passes through the relatively 

quiescent area located just north of Shooters Island, leading to a high rate of deposition in that 

region. There are several other areas where high rates of deposition occur (i.e., Newark Channel and 

the southern end of the Passaic River) and mechanisms that attempt to explain why these localized 

depositional zones occur have been proposed (Suszkowski, 1978). The fact that sedimentation rates 

within the Bay are highly variable, ranging from a low of 0.1 cm/year on the sub-tidal flats to 10 - 30 

cm/year in the navigation channels, clearly justifies the need to use a laterally segmented grid in 

order for the model to be able to resolve these differences. Dredging operations have also been 

ongoing in Newark Bay for many years and have been shown to be an important sink of sediment in 

the system (Suszkowski, 1978). As such, it will be necessary to explicitly account for the volume of 

sediment that is removed by ongoing dredging operations over the course of model simulations. 

The potential for solids deposition on the sub-tidal flats and subsequent lateral movement in the 

direction of the navigation channel will need to be evaluated in the context of these ongoing 

modeling analyses. 

Besides the effects of natural forces (inflow, tides, and winds), the presence of extensive 

traffic of large container ships may also be an important process influencing the movement of 

suspended solids in Newark Bay. Shear stresses generated by ship propellers may influence 

resuspension of suspended solids, particularly as these forces propagate onto the shallow areas 

adjacent to the shipping channels. A review of the literature will be conducted to ascertain how 

shipping and propeller wash influence movement of suspended solids and how these processes have 

been incorporated in other modeling studies. 

Several COPCs and COPECs will be modeled in the Newark Bay system. The tendency of 

these chemicals to be transported in association with particulate material will be chemical-specific, as 

the value of the partition coefficient to be assigned is chemical-specific. The partitioning of neutral 

organic chemicals is commonly represented in terms of a 3-phase partitioning formulation that is 

based upon carbon-normalized partition coefficients (i.e., for chemicals that partition between the 

freely dissolved phase in water and particulate and dissolved organic carbon). Given that this 

formulation is being used, the production and transport of carbon phases will have a bearing on the 

chemical fate calculations. The fact that carbon-based partitioning will be used will also make the

1-54 

analysis amenable to application to chemicals having markedly different sorption characteristics, as 

these differences can be readily indexed to the octanol-water partition coefficient, a readily available 

chemical characteristic. The parameters of the 3-phase partitioning model can be evaluated on the 

basis of both published sources of information, such as the recent review by Burkhard (2000), as 

well as site-specific data (e.g., dissolved chemical, particulate chemical, DOC and POC in the water 

column and sediment). While 3-phase carbon-based partitioning is not a feature of the model that is 

specific to Newark Bay, the fact that a previously developed model of organic carbon fluxes 

(HydroQual, 2001) is available for use is a distinct advantage of applying this approach to the 

Newark Bay study area. This model has previously been used on the SWEM Project (HydroQual 

Inc., 2002) and is currently in use on the nearly completed CARP project. It has undergone peer 

review by the scientists that are members of the Modeling Evaluation Groups (MEG) that have 

monitored technical progress on both of these projects. 

Application of the chemical fate and transport model to Newark Bay does not itself involve 

the need to include additional site-specific factors in the conceptual model, beyond those factors 

that were discussed previously with regard to the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. 

Thus, the application of the fate and transport model to Newark Bay will conform to a relatively 

standard approach, provided that the fluid transport regime and particulate transport rates have been 

properly represented by the respective models. If this is achieved, then the two layer flow patterns 

at the northern and southern ends of Newark Bay will be expected to promote the interaction of 

each of the contiguous waterways with Newark Bay. Also of particular interest in this system with 

regard to chemical fate, is that very high rates of sedimentation are known to occur in some areas, 

and this has the potential to transfer relatively large quantities of chemicals to the sediments. The 

fact that dredging is an actively ongoing process is also expected to have significant implications to 

the fate and transport model analysis, as it has the potential to remove these chemicals, thereby 

mitigating the potential for long term interaction. 

The importance of burial processes has also been touched upon as a generic process that is 

of importance in a fate and transport model. Although Suszkowski (1978) discussed the importance 

of bioturbation in the context of his investigations of Newark Bay, quantitative site-specific 

information that can be drawn upon is limited at present. Hence, the best that can be stated is that 

the range in mixed layer depths for marine systems has been well established, and that a 

characteristic depth of about 10 cm has been determined on the basis of considerations of carbon 

diagenesis rates (Boudreau, 1994 and 1998). While it may be possible to make use of these concepts 

in the context of the carbon production model that is to be applied to this system, the efficacy of 

this approach is difficult to ascertain at this time. The analysis of vertical profiles of chemicals in 

sediments and the USACE-NY and NOAA camera work sediment profile investigations (NOAA, 

2001) may also be useful in assessing the depth of the mixed layer and rates of sedimentation in 

Newark Bay.

SECTION 2 

2 MODELING COMPONENTS 

! 

! " # 

$ $ # % & ' # () * ++,-. / 

& & # $ . 

) 0 ! & 

! % & # $ . 

/ ! 

# $ ! & 

. / & ! 

.' & 0 & ! 

0 & 

& ! ! & 

& # $ . 

/ 

. / 

& & 

# $ .$ & ! 

! 1 & ./ 

! & 

./ ! ! ! 2 3 

! ( - 

(4 2 567-./ ! 0 

8 & & ! 

9 " : ( ! . 567-.' ! 

& 

# $ 

! ! .

* 

! " #$ % &&'() 

) + , , 

, 

" #$ % &&'() 

" - 

, 

." /! 

0 1 2 / 

# 012/ ( - 

, 

#!/3(# ),45556$ % ), && ()" 

, 

! " #$ % &&'() 

" 

) 

17 1 17 /1 , 

# ! " 8 $ % 

&&'( )2 

9 # , 

, , )( 

! " #$ % &&'()* , , 

, 

! 

)

! " #$ % &&'( 

) * "+ , "- 

. / - 

" 

! " #$ % &&'( 

0 

- - 

- 

$ - 

! " #$ % &&'(

SECTION 3 

3 REFERENCES 

Battelle, May 2005. Newark Bay Study Pathways Analysis Report, draft report. 

Berner, R.A., 1980. Early Diagenesis, A Theoretical Approach, Princeton Series in Geochemistry, 

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Blumberg, A.F. and G.L. Mellor, 1987. “A 

Description of a Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Circulation Model,” In: Three-Dimensional 

Coastal Ocean Models, N.S. Heaps, ed., Washington DC: American Geophysical Union, pp. 1- 

16. 

Birnbaum, LS; Weber, H; Harris, MW; Crawford, DD; et al. (1987) Toxic Interaction of Specific 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in Combination in C57BL/6N Mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 

91:246-255. 

Blumberg, A.F., L.A. Khan and J.P. St. John, 1999. “Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Model of 

New York Harbor Region,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 125(8): 799-816. 

Bobb, W.H. 1967. Effects of Removal of Shooters Island and Shore Modifications on Tides, Currents, and 

Shoaling in the Kill van Kull Channels: Hydraulic Model Investigations. Misc. Paper No. 2-953. U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 68pp. 

Boudreau, B.P., 1994. “Is Burial Velocity a Master Parameter for Bioturbation?”, Geochimica et 

Cosmochimica Acta, 58(4): 1243-1249. 

Boudreau, B.P., 1997. Digenetic Models and Their Implementation. Modelling Transport and Reactions in 

Aquatic Sediments. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 

Boudreau, B.P., 1998. “Mean Mixed Depth of Sediments: The Wherefore and the Why,” Limnology 

and Oceanography, 43(3): 524-526 

Boudreau, B.P., and B.B. Jorgensen, 2001. The Benthic Boundary Layer. Transport Processes and 

Biogeochemistry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Chaky, D.A., 2003. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins, and Furans in 

the New York Metropolitan Area.” Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 

Chant, R.J. 2002. “Secondary Circulation in a Region of Flow Curvature: Relationship with Tidal 

Forcing and River Discharge,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(C9): 14-1 – 14-11. 

Di Toro, D.M., et al. 1991. “Technical Basis for Establishing Sediment Quality Criteria for 

Nonionic Organic Chemicals using Equilibrium Partitioning,” Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 10: 

1541-1583. 

3-1

# $ $ % & ' ( 

) * ' ' +& % , !" & 

- + ) # .& , / 0#& , 1 # 2 + ) 2 

#& , & # 2 +) 3 4 #& , & / * ' 5 + 

/ , " 2. 6 

2 , # .& , / 

0#& , 1 * ' 7 - 2 ! / / / * ' 7 / 

, " ' 4 # ' 

3 8 ' !" ! % & + ( 

9 # $ $ : 2 8 ; , 4 

# : < $ 9 9 " 9 ( / 2 

# " - ; 

8 , ! #8 # : )==> $ " 

, ' ! , # ( 

)=0)1?@).=A 

$/ > 8 ' !" ! % $ 

% / 

$/ >2 8 ' !" ! % : # / 

4 ) / 

*B$$ )=A - - 2 8 ' & , * $ 

# $ 6 C # / * B # " 

! +" 0 C#, $ )==>1 

*B$$ )=@ $ 6 $ # 2 

.! , ( * B $ / $ * 

B # " ! +" 

*B$$ )==@ # - < C # & 

" 

*B$$ ) 2 * ' 5 +D* ' 7 2 *B$$D # D )) ;. 

.!B # ?*B$$ # " 

B 8 .5 6 8 ! )=@> $ - . # . 

! , ? / # ( 

)>?)3A3.)3= 

3-2 

!"

! "!# $ %$ # 

$ & $# ' $ () !* + $ , $ - ( 

. / 01 

3-3 

2 3 %$ # $ & $# - 

41( 40 

) 5 "!* ' 3 6 7 ** " ! $ 8 3 

22#!# $ $ &%%2$ #2 *$ ' % # & $# " ! $- 

.9) :( 141 14 

' 2 411; ! $6 2 & $# ) !* 8+ $ #$* #$ 6 

) 2$ $ $ * 2 + $ ** 2$ $ " ! $ * $- ' 

$$ # ! $$ $ $ 6 2#$ %$ "$, $$#$ % 2 3 ** 

"2 + 5 5 7 $ ') # ; ** 2$ % "!* 7 "$# ! , $3$ = >' " ! $" !* 3 

" #2 $%2$ ' 3 ! < + >7 < + 5 @ #! 4 %/ 5# 411; 

?" )& . 6 $ * $< ,3$ "$# !* , ! $ $ &8 $ 36 ) 

$# C D + > ! "$# -< , ! 

? $ "$$ ! ) * %& 3 ; ) * () $ & 3 3 

2 ) $ = $ + &8* ! $"$$ @ 2> #3 **

Newark Bay Study - Passaic River Public Digital Library

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?