Habitat Survey Work Planpassaic.sharepointspace.com/Public Documents/Lower 8.3mi...2018-04-06Habitat Survey Work Plan (Appendix J to PDI WP) Remedial Design - Lower 8.3 Miles of the

Habitat Survey Work Plan (Appendix J to PDI WP) Remedial Design - Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey

January 2018 Revision 3

LPROU2-17-2.7.11_06-003

Habitat Survey Work Plan (Appendix J to PDI WP) Remedial Design - Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey January 2018 Revision 3 LPROU2-17-2.7.11_06-003

PREPARED ON BEHALF OF PREPARED BY

Settling Party Supervising Contractor Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. A Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110 Houston, TX77046

Tetra Tech Inc. 6 Century Drive, 3rd Floor Parsippany, NJ 07054

P +1-973-630-8000 F +1-973-630-8165 tetratech.com

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Habitat Survey Work Plan OU 2 of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Revision 3, January 2018

LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

REVISION RECORD

Revisions to this Habitat Survey Work Plan will be reviewed and approved by someone qualified to have prepared the original document. All revisions must be authorized by the Tetra Tech Project Manager and the Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Project Coordinator, or their designee(s) and documented below.

Revision Date Portions Affected Reason Authorized By Agency Submittal

1 10/13/2017 All Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 0

J. Somoano (GSH); S. McGee (Tetra Tech)

Yes (EPA,

NJDEP)

2 12/08/2017 All Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 1


Yes (EPA,

NJDEP)

3 01/19/2018 Sections 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.1.5,

5, and 7

Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 2


Yes (EPA,

NJDEP)


i LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 SELECTED REMEDY ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 PROJECT SETTING ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 1-3

2 HABITAT SURVEY SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 SURVEY GOALS .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 PREVIOUS HABITAT STUDIES AND DATA GAPS .............................................................. 2-3

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 COMPILATION OF DATA ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 DESKTOP EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 3-1

Shoreline and In-River Habitat ................................................................................ 3-2 Wildlife Use, Diversity and Abundance ................................................................... 3-5

3.3 FIELD STUDIES ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 Shoreline and In-River Habitats .............................................................................. 3-6 Wildlife Use, Diversity, and Abundance .................................................................. 3-9 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................. 3-13

4 QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 5 DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................................................. 5-1 6 SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 7-1


ii LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Characteristics of Previously Documented Wetlands ......................................................... 2-2 Table 5-1. Habitat Survey Deliverables ............................................................................................... 5-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. OU 2 Location and Vicinity Map Figure 2-1. Previously Documented Mudflats Figure 2-2. Previously Documented Vegetation Sampling Points and Wetlands Figure 2-3. Wetland & Deepwater Habitat Classification Hierarchy Figure 3-1. Previously Documented Substrate Types Figure 3-2. Proposed Benthic Sampling Scheme for Kearny Point Mudflat Figure 3-3. Proposed Avian Survey Locations


iii LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition

COC Contaminant of Concern

cy Cubic Yards

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DQO Data Quality Objective

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPW Evaluation for Planned Wetlands

FCI Functional Capacity Index

FCU Functional Capacity Unit

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

GSH Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.

HASP Health and Safety Plan

HSWP Habitat Survey Work Plan

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

LBG The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

MHW mean high water

MLLW mean lower low water

MLW mean low water

mm millimeter

NAD83 North American Datum 1983

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWI National Wetland Inventory

OU 2 Operable Unit 2 (the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River); the Project

PDI Pre-Design Investigation

PDI WP Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan

Project Lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, located in and about Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey

QA quality assurance


iv LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition

QC quality control

RAO Remedial Action Objective

RD Remedial Design

RM river mile

ROD Record of Decision

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

Settlement Agreement Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design

Site Diamond Alkali Superfund Site

SOP standard operating procedure

SOW Statement of Work

TOB Top of Bank

UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy–Quality Assurance Project Plan

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WAA Wetland Assessment Area


1-1 LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

1 INTRODUCTION

This Habitat Survey Work Plan (HSWP) has been prepared as part of the Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan (PDI WP) pursuant to the requirements of the Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design (Settlement Agreement) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Settling Party, effective September 30, 2016, for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (Operable Unit Two [OU 2]) of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (the Site), located in and about Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey (the Project); refer to Figure 1-1.

The Settling Party, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, is Occidental Chemical Corporation. Communications associated with, and execution of, the Settlement Agreement are being led by Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) on behalf of Occidental Chemical Corporation.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Settling Party shall undertake a Remedial Design (RD), including various procedures and technical analyses, to produce a detailed set of plans and specifications for implementation of the Remedial Action selected in the EPA's March 3, 2016 Record of Decision (ROD; EPA, 2016a). RD activities include the completion of all pre-design and design activities and deliverables associated with implementation of the RD for the remedy selected in the ROD. The selected remedy was chosen by the EPA in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 United States Code §§9601-9675, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.

As stated in the EPA Statement of Work (SOW), pre-design investigation (PDI) activities are to be conducted to gather additional site-specific information that is required to develop the RD. These PDI activities include habitat surveys in areas of OU 2 that will be affected by the selected remedy. The habitat surveys are to assess and document the condition and extent of existing habitats and will be used to support subsequent substantive compliance with regulatory requirements and habitat restoration design. The following HSWP describes the tasks and associated methodology to be employed to complete the habitat surveys of the shoreline and in-river habitats. Habitat surveys of proposed land-based sediment processing facilities and any associated access roads are not included in this HSWP and will be included in a subsequent addendum.

This HSWP is organized as follows:

Section 1—Introduction: Presents a brief description of the Project and data quality objectives.

Section 2—Habitat Survey Scope: Presents the survey approach for characterizing shoreline and in-river habitats including intertidal mudflats and shallow-water subtidal areas, previous habitat surveys, and data gaps.

Section 3—Methodology: Presents the field methodology for identifying and delineating shoreline and in-river habitats including intertidal mudflats and shallow-water subtidal areas, and characterizing use, diversity and abundance of benthic and avian communities associated with these habitats.

Section 4—Quality Control: Describes GSH’s approach for quality during the habitat surveys.

Section 5—Deliverables: Presents a description of shoreline and in-river habitats deliverables resulting for these surveys.

Section 6—Schedule: Provides the schedule for field work, testing, and reporting.

Section 7—References: Cites references used in compiling this planning document.



1.1 SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy for OU 2 sequesters contaminated sediments under an engineered cap over the entire river bottom, throughout the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River. This remedy, as described in the ROD (EPA, 2016a), includes the following:

• Dredging – Bank-to-bank dredging of approximately 3.5 million cubic yards (cy) of contaminated sediments prior to cap installation. The average depth of dredging is estimated to be 2.5 feet, except in the lower 1.7 miles of the federally authorized navigation channel, which will be dredged to varying depths. The remedy, after dredging and capping, must not increase flooding potential, and must accommodate commercial use of the navigation channel and anticipated future recreational use of the area upstream of river mile (RM) 1.7.

• Sediment Dewatering and Disposal – Dredged sediment is to be dewatered and transported to a permitted treatment facility and/or landfill for disposal.

• Capping – A bank-to-bank engineered cap over the sediment, except in areas where backfill may be placed after all contaminated sediments have been removed. Capping of dredged mudflats will include a habitat reconstruction layer.

• Institutional Controls – These controls will be used to protect the engineered caps and maintain prohibitions on fish and crab consumption until the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), in consultation with EPA, determines they can be lifted or adjusted based on data from long-term monitoring. Additional community outreach will be conducted by the EPA and NJDEP to encourage greater awareness of the fish and crab consumption prohibitions.

• Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance – Long-term monitoring and maintenance of the engineered cap, and long-term monitoring of sediment, fish, crab, and water to determine when interim remediation milestones, remediation goals, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) are achieved.

1.2 PROJECT SETTING

OU 2 consists of approximately 650 acres located in northeastern New Jersey and extends from the confluence of the Lower Passaic River with Newark Bay at RM 0 to RM 8.3, which is near the City of Newark and Belleville Township border. It is located in a highly developed urban area with a population of approximately 1.4 million, with Essex County to the west and Hudson County to the east. The land uses around Newark Bay (RM 0), at the mouth of the river, are primarily commercial and industrial. At RM 4, residential and recreational uses are present as well, resulting in mixed usage. Near RM 7, park land, suburban neighborhoods, marinas and boat launches are present. Approximately 95 percent of the OU 2 shoreline area is comprised of bulkheads or riprap man-made hardened shorelines, while the remaining 5 percent consists of aquatic vegetation. Mudflats comprise approximately 100 acres of OU 2, and provide potential habitat for fish, aquatic organisms, blue crab, and waterfowl.

The Site includes a federally authorized navigation channel, constructed in the 1880s, that originally extended from RM 0 to RM 8.1. It was subsequently expanded to RM 15.4, with depths of 30 feet below mean low water (MLW) from RM 0 to RM 2.6, 20 feet below MLW from RM 2.6 to RM 4.6, 16 feet below MLW from RM 4.6 to RM 8.1, and 10 feet below MLW from RM 8.1 to RM 15.4. The channel was maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) through the 1950s, and RM 9.0 to RM 10.2 was maintained until 1976. The channel below RM 1.9 was maintained until 1983.



As this maintenance declined and later stopped, the channel filled with sediments. Industrial and municipal discharges during this period included chemical loading coincident with the sediment accumulation.

The cross-sectional area of OU 2 decreases from RM 0 to RM 8.3, with a constriction at RM 8.3. Below this constriction, the sediment is predominantly fine-grained silts, with pockets of sand and gravel. The estimated inventory of contaminated sediments is approximately 9.7 million cy. Contaminants of concern (COCs) include dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, copper, lead, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its primary breakdown products, dieldrin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

1.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

This investigation will be performed per the Uniform Federal Policy–Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP; Tetra Tech, 2017c), which is the basis for the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) elements of the entire Project. The UFP-QAPP serves as a “project-specific quality plan” for the Project and encompasses elements of a Field Sampling Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan. The plan integrates technical and quality aspects for OU 2 to ensure scientifically sound data of known and documented quality are collected to meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) for the Project. Development of DQOs for this habitat survey task followed the seven-step process outlined in Worksheet #11 of the UFP-QAPP. The DQOs include:

• Steps 1 and 2 – Problem statement and goals of the study are presented in Section 1. The main objective of the habitat surveys is to assess and document the condition and extent of existing shoreline and in-river habitats along OU 2, for the purpose of designing habitat replacement measures, as needed, on the mudflats and any other sensitive habitat areas affected by implementation of the selected remedy.

• Step 3 – Information inputs (i.e., existing habitat data) are summarized in Section 2, along with an identification of data gaps.

• Steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 – The habitat characterization and sampling program and any specific QC requirements for this proposed investigation were developed based on the data gaps identified in Step 3, the RD objectives, and additional data needs (Sections 3, 4, and 5).



2 HABITAT SURVEY SCOPE

As stated in the SOW (EPA, 2016b), PDI activities are to be conducted to gather the additional site-specific information that is required to develop the RD. Habitat surveys will be performed as part of the PDI activities to characterize existing shoreline and in-river habitats along the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2). Habitat surveys will be conducted for the purpose of designing habitat replacement measures, as needed, on the mudflats and any other sensitive habitat areas affected by implementation of the selected remedy, including subtidal areas, and to support any permitting or regulatory requirements. The habitat data collection field work will be coordinated with other PDI activities, including geophysical, bathymetric shoreline, and debris surveys; utility survey; sediment core collection and analysis; and bulkhead and shoreline evaluation to reduce redundancies and allow for greater efficiency of data collection.

The ROD (EPA, 2016a) identifies intertidal mudflats and the associated shallow-water subtidal areas as important habitats for estuarine organisms, potentially providing valuable foraging habitat for fish, blue crab, and waterbirds. However, based on changes in shorelines, bathymetry, and substrates, additional study is required to determine the viability of previously identified habitats. Therefore, proposed habitat surveys will include the following:

• Identification and delineation of shoreline and in-river habitats within OU 2 including: o Characterization of sediment types (e.g., hard bottom vs. soft bottom) o Characterization of hydrology cycles o Characterization of riparian vegetation o Characterization of aquatic vegetation o Assessment of functions and values of identified habitats

• Assessment of diversity and abundance of benthic communities in mudflats and subtidal areas

• Characterization of OU 2 as habitat for water-dependent wildlife

2.1 SURVEY GOALS

According to the ROD, mudflats dredged during implementation of the selected remedy would be reconstructed to their original grade. The engineered cap over the mudflats would consist of approximately 1 foot of sand and 1 foot of mudflat reconstruction substrate that would provide a suitable habitat to support current and expected future ecological uses. Final habitat restoration includes placement of habitat recovery material and aquatic vegetation.

The goals of the habitat surveys are to assess and document the characteristics and extent of existing river habitats including mudflats that will be affected by the selected remedy, in support of the habitat replacement and reconstruction design, as well as subsequent permitting and regulatory requirements. The design will detail how the remedy would address soft edges and littoral zones. The habitat surveys will provide information on their presence and identify locations where the Remedial Action could result in disturbance to wetlands and aquatic habitat; the RD will include measures to reconstruct or replace affected resources. Shoreline surveys will also be conducted to determine the extent of natural shorelines and other protective measures required for shoreline habitats during remedy implementation. Other PDI elements, including geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline, and debris surveys; utility survey; bulkhead and shoreline evaluation; and sediment core collection and analysis will also support the engineered cap design. The habitat data collection field work will be coordinated with these studies/other field work, where feasible, to reduce redundancies and allow for greater efficiency of data collection; field work however, will generally



be conducted after certain critical surveys (e.g., bathymetry, sediment coring) to allow for use of most recent data documenting physical conditions during the desktop evaluation.

2.2 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION

Approximately 100 acres of the 650-acre lower 8.3-mile reach constitute mudflats (Figure 2-1). Intertidal mudflats are considered special aquatic sites. Mudflats along with the associated shallow-water subtidal areas, while unvegetated, can be important habitats for estuarine organisms, providing valuable foraging habitat for fish, blue crab, and waterbirds. In addition to mudflats, wetlands have been previously identified at five locations in OU 2, as presented on Figure 2-2.

Cover classes for mudflats and wetlands identified during the habitat survey will be based on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classification hierarchy described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC], 2013), which has been adapted from Cowardin et al. (1979) (Figure 2-3). Based on FGDC (2013), mudflats are unvegetated wetlands generally classified either as intertidal stream bed or unconsolidated shore. Section 404 b.(1) guidelines (40 Code of Federal Regulations 230) identifies mudflats as one of six categories of special aquatic sites.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2016) maps the Lower Passaic River from its confluence with the Hackensack River north to the Bergen-Hudson County boundary (i.e., the entire 8.3 miles) as subtidal estuarine with an unconsolidated bottom (E1UBL). Regularly flooded intertidal (estuarine and marine) unconsolidated shore (E2USN) fringe wetlands are also identified along this segment. The Vegetation Sampling, Wetland Delineation, and Bio-Benchmark Report for the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project (USACE, EPA, and New Jersey Department of Transportation [NJDOT], 2008), identifies both brackish and transitional waters within OU 2. Brackish waters are identified from RM 0.0 through 6.0, and transitional waters extend from RM 6.0 to 10.0. Five potential wetland areas were identified associated with the 8.3-mile reach. These wetlands are summarized in Table 2-1. Two of these wetlands were delineated as part of supporting investigations for the Vegetation Sampling, Wetland Delineation, and Bio-Benchmark Report and included the Harrison Wetland site (located from approximately RM 3.9 to 4.4) and the shoreline adjacent to Kearny Riverbank Park (located approximately from RM 7.4 to 7.7). Wetlands at both locations were identified as estuarine intertidal (Figure 2-2).

Table 2-1. Characteristics of Previously Documented Wetlands River Mile River Bank Section Name Municipality County Cover Type1

Delineated Feature

3.9 to 4.4 East Brackish Port Authority Harrison Hudson PSS/PEM Yes 4.3 West Brackish Minish Park Newark Essex PEM No 7.1 East Transitional Kearny Boat Ramp Kearny Hudson PFO/PSS No

7.7 East Transitional Kearny Riverbank Park

Kearny Hudson PFO/PSS Yes

7.7 West Transitional Newark Newark Essex PEM No 1 Cover type abbreviations are: PFO = Palustrine Forested PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub PEM = Palustrine Emergent



2.3 PREVIOUS HABITAT STUDIES AND DATA GAPS

GSH has reviewed existing habitat data and developed the habitat characterization program based on the data needs. Existing data will further be evaluated in detail during habitat survey data compilation and desktop evaluation tasks. Preliminary observations and data gaps are summarized as follows:

• A habitat identification survey was conducted along all 17 miles of the Lower Passaic River in September 2010 to qualitatively evaluate the shoreline by documenting shoreline features including bulkheads, riprap, as well as the types of vegetation present, including aquatic, scrub-shrub, or forested vegetation (Windward, 2014a).

• The Lower Passaic River Restoration Project conducted baseline vegetation sampling from October 18 to November 2, 2007 and May 13 to June 27, 2008 at 27 sites along 17 miles of the Lower Passaic River; and conducted wetlands delineation on May 13-14, 2008 at several locations along the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River (USACE, EPA, and NJDOT, 2008).

• Ongoing development and hardening of the Passaic River shoreline in OU 2 requires survey of the shoreline to determine existing conditions, because there may be additional locations where new development has replaced natural shoreline, since previous 2007/2008 shoreline assessments. For example, the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area Project, a USACE civil works project to reduce erosion, and provide for shoreline stabilization benefits on the west bank of the Passaic River from Bridge to Brill Streets, Newark, New Jersey, has built 2,922 linear feet of bulkhead with remaining work to include 2,858 linear feet of additional bulkhead and 2,658 linear feet of new stream bank stabilization (USACE and NJDEP, 2015).

• Benthic invertebrate samples were collected during surveys of the Lower Passaic River conducted in June and July 2005 at 28 locations evenly distributed throughout the lower 17 miles of the river (approximately 0.5 mile apart along the river axis). To support the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Ecological Risk Assessment (LBG, 2014), additional benthic samples were collected from 2009 (Windward, 2014b) to 2010 (Windward, 2014c) to characterize the condition of the benthic invertebrate community in the lower 17 miles of the river.

• Four avian surveys were conducted from summer 2010 through spring 2011 throughout the lower 17 miles of the river to support the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study Ecological Risk Assessment (Windward, 2011).

The length of time since the last habitat characterization was conducted (over 5 years ago) combined with recent development along the shoreline, and changes in habitat constitute data gaps that require additional study for implementation of the RD. In addition, disruptions to previously documented habitat such as major storm events, may have resulted in changes in shorelines, bathymetry, and substrates that also require additional study to understand the current conditions within OU 2.



3 METHODOLOGY

Habitat surveys will be achieved through the completion of the following three activities, which will be conducted sequentially:

1. Compilation of habitat data from previously completed studies

2. Completion of a desktop evaluation of mapped cover types and physical features

3. Completion of field studies to delineate and characterize current conditions of existing habitats

Habitat survey activities are detailed below.

3.1 COMPILATION OF DATA

GSH will assemble readily available historical habitat data from previously completed studies for the 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River regarding shoreline and river habitats, sediment types, hydrological cycles, riparian and aquatic vegetation, wetland functions and values, and wildlife use, diversity and abundance. The compiled data will be reviewed to identify usable data for the specific investigation elements and design purposes. Data gaps will be identified, and the data collection approaches to address those data needs will be refined. Historical data will be used to identify changed conditions present in OU 2 from such events as Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 or more recent development along the river banks such as the USACE Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area Project.

3.2 DESKTOP EVALUATION

For this activity, GSH will conduct a desktop evaluation of OU 2. GSH will employ computer mapping – geographic information systems (GIS), 2017 aerial imagery, historical habitat data (as described above), and data for sediments/soils, topography/ bathymetry, and water resources to compile base habitat delineation maps that document the distribution (areal extent) and type (classification) of habitats. Base maps generated during the desktop evaluation will be used as a foundation for identifying habitat types and later as field maps to support the field studies. Data forms to be used in the field for data collection during field studies will also be refined during this effort. Data that will be reviewed as part of the desktop evaluation, in addition to the historical habitat data, include the following:

• Aerial Photographs/Imagery (both historical and July 2017 light detection and ranging/aerial orthophotography from the PDI 2017 survey)

• Federal Emergency Management Agency 100-year Floodplain Maps

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Nautical Charts

• NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – Essential Fish Habitat

• NJDEP – Wetland Maps

• NJDEP – Landscape Project

• NJDEP – Natural Heritage Program

• NJDEP New Jersey Geological Survey – New Jersey Tidal Benchmark Network

• United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey

• USFWS – NWI Maps



• USFWS – IPaC Program

• United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps

• USGS – National Water Information System

In addition, more recent data collected as part of the 2017 PDI survey efforts will be incorporated into the desktop evaluation. Data from the following specific studies or surveys will be incorporated:

• Geophysical, Bathymetric, Shoreline, and Debris Surveys

• Sediment Core Collection and Chemical Analysis

• Pore-Water Sampling and Characterization

• Bulkhead and Shoreline Evaluation

• Fisheries Studies

Desktop evaluations will be completed for the shoreline and in-river habitat assessment of diversity and abundance of benthic communities; and documentation of wildlife use of the affected area as described in the following sections.

Shoreline and In-River Habitat As identified in the EPA SOW (2016b), shoreline and in-river habitat surveys will be conducted for the purpose of designing potential habitat replacement measures on mudflats and other habitats affected by the selected remedy. For the purpose of characterizing in-river habitats, the shoreline will be defined as the mean high water (MHW) line. Most shorelines along the Lower Passaic River have been engineered/altered to protect against erosion and flooding; however, limited extents of natural shorelines also exist. Engineered shorelines include bulkheads (vertical structures made of steel, concrete or wood); revetment (sloping structures made of rock, rip-rap, solid concrete or interlocking blocks) or timber cribbing (interlocking logs or timbers filled with broken rock). These features will be evaluated as part of the other PDI activities, including the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation and the geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline, and debris surveys, and results from those surveys will be incorporated into the habitat characterization of shoreline for this habitat survey.

As identified in Section 2.2, data provided in the USFWS wetlands inventory database V2 (USFWS, 2016) classifies the entire 8.3-mile Project as subtidal estuarine. Estuarine systems include subtidal (the substrate is continuously submerged) and intertidal (the substrate is exposed and flooded by tides) systems. Subtidal habitats will be defined as areas inundated at low tide (i.e., located below MLW). Intertidal habitat will be defined as those areas exposed between low tide (MLW) and high tide (MHW).

According to the New Jersey Tidal Benchmark Network (NJDEP and NJGS, 2006), there are two benchmarks along the Passaic River either within or proximal to OU 2. The Belleville benchmark (853-0591) is located to the north of OU 2 near the Hudson-Bergen County border and the Point No Point benchmark (853-0743) is located at the southern end of OU 2 near the confluence with the Hackensack River. MHW and MLW elevations are slightly higher at the Belleville benchmark than the Point No Point benchmark, with MHW ranging from 5.49 feet to 5.75 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), and MLW ranging from 0.23 feet to 0.24 feet above MLLW.

Subtidal systems are anticipated to include unconsolidated (non-vegetated) river bottoms that include both hard (cobble-gravel and bedrock) and soft (sand, mud and organic) sedimentary substrates, and possibly aquatic beds (i.e., river bottoms vegetated with submerged aquatic vegetation [SAV]). Intertidal systems include fringe wetlands unconsolidated shores (i.e., natural shorelines), mudflats, and aquatic beds. The



desktop evaluation will focus on identifying the location and extent of fringe wetlands, natural shorelines, mudflats, and aquatic beds in the intertidal zone, and the aquatic beds and unconsolidated (non-vegetated) river bottoms in the subtidal zone.

FGDC defines flats as level landforms composed of unconsolidated sediments, usually mud or sand. Flats may be irregularly shaped or elongate and are continuous with the shore. To be consistent with previous studies, mudflats for the habitat survey will be defined as areas where the river bottom slope is less than or equal to 10.5 percent (6 degrees) and the depth is less than or equal to 4.5 feet MLLW (i.e., half the mean MLW to MHW tidal range plus 2 feet). In addition, mudflats will be further defined as areas with fine sediment substrates (i.e., silt or sand).

In addition to in-river habitats, habitats on the banks of OU 2 from MHW to top of bank (TOB) will be characterized as well as land use and existing vegetative cover within 150 feet of TOB (refer to Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] 33 in Appendix L of the PDI WP). This will allow for identification of beneficial (e.g., avian perching habitat) or limiting (e.g., presence of invasive species) conditions that are relevant to the remedial design and restoration of in-river habitats. For the purposes of the habitat survey the TOB will be defined as the upper limit of the bank as characterized by an observable change or break in the slope of the land.

These habitats will be initially identified using historical data, including bio-benchmarks, and elevation contour data. Bio-benchmarks include precise vertical elevation data combined with wetland vegetation, soil, and hydrological characteristic data. Historical data and topographic and bathymetric elevations will be used to identify preliminary boundaries of the various habitats. This information will be combined with historical and recent (2017) aerial photography to provide habitat base maps that will be used during the field studies effort to verify habitat boundaries and facilitate the characterization of the habitats. The location and extent of engineered shorelines will also be identified. This information will be presented on base maps that will be verified in the field and used to corroborate habitat boundaries.

3.2.1.1 Sediment Types Based on historical geophysical survey data (Aqua Survey, 2006), sediment types of the unconsolidated (non-vegetated) river bottom include both hard (rock and coarse gravel) and soft (gravel and sand, sand, silt and sand, silt) substrates (Figure 3-1). Initial substrate type characterization will be based on this data. Historically documented debris will also be identified and mapped to identify areas. This historical data will be used to determine the extent of these subtidal sediment types within OU 2 during the desktop evaluation. Identification of sediment types along with identification of hydrology as described below, will be used to identify the current locations of potential mudflats.

3.2.1.2 Hydrology Preliminary review of the hydrology cycles within OU 2 with regard to tidal fluctuations and extent will be based on historical data and available on-line information, i.e., NOAA tide cycle and benchmark data, as well as relevant information collected by the water column pre-remedial design investigations. Documentation of hydrology combined with characterization of sediment types as described above will be used to identify the current locations of potential mudflats.

3.2.1.3 Riparian, Emergent, and Aquatic Vegetation Riparian areas consist of those areas between the MHW line and the TOB elevation. Emergent vegetation can occur both within and above the intertidal zone, while aquatic beds occur in both intertidal and shallow-water subtidal zones. The extent and type of riparian, emergent and aquatic vegetation cover will be initially



determined through a review of historical data for all cover types and current aerial photography for non-aquatic vegetation. Riparian vegetation assessments will be limited to those where natural shorelines remain or where fringe wetlands are present. Wetland cover types associated with natural shoreline and fringe wetland habitats typically include emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands. Upland vegetation associated with the banks consists of various mixes of native and non-native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous cover depending on location. The extent of vegetation within these areas will be depicted on aerial photography and verified during the field survey efforts. Riparian assessments will not be conducted in areas occupied by engineered shorelines. As identified in the Final Habitat Identification Survey Data Report for the Lower Passaic River Study Area – Fall 2010 Field Effort (Windward, 2014a), little to no historical data regarding aquatic communities, inclusive of SAV beds, are available for the Lower Passaic River. Measurable beds may be present within OU 2; however, studies did not document any or only limited descriptions of aquatic vegetation as emergent vegetation (e.g., smooth cordgrass [Spartina alterniflora], common reed [Phragmites australis]) (Earth Tech, 2004; USACE, EPA, and NJDOT, 2008; Windward, 2014a). Desktop evaluations associated with characterizing and delineating riparian, emergent, and aquatic vegetation will be conducted concurrently with the evaluation of the shoreline and in-river habitats, as described in Section 3.2.1.

3.2.1.4 Functions and Values A wetland functions and values assessment will be conducted for wetland habitats identified within OU 2 using two methods, one for functions and one for values. The existing functions of the wetlands in OU 2 will be assessed using the Evaluation for Planned Wetlands (EPW) procedure (Bartoldus et al., 1994) as a baseline for developing the RD and future wetland restoration. The EPW procedure provides a technique for evaluating six major wetland functions (shoreline bank erosion control, sediment stabilization, water quality, wildlife, fish, and uniqueness/heritage) to assess and compare functional capacity of existing and planned wetlands.

Methods described in The New England Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement, Wetland Functions and Values, A Descriptive Approach (USACE, 1999), will be used to determine wetland values. Wetlands will be assessed for suitability and principal functioning in five categories of wetland values (recreation, educational/scientific value, uniqueness, aesthetics, and endangered species habitat) using field and geospatial data. The desktop analysis will identify individual wetlands for assessment, compile local and watershed information on the function and value categories, and prepare maps to facilitate completion of data forms.

The scope of the evaluation using the EPW procedure is to establish a baseline that identifies what functions and values are being provided by wetland habitats within OU 2 prior to designing the selected remedy. This baseline data may further be used to identify restoration priorities for the preplacement of particular functions or to develop future success criteria for determining the extent of restoration after the remedial design has been implemented. This procedure will identify the project area limits as the OU 2 boundaries and identify and delineate wetland assessment areas (WAA) within OU 2. Maps of all identified WAAs will also be generated as part of this task. A Functional Capacity Index (FCI) and Functional Capacity Units (FCUs) will also be calculated for all WAAs.

3.2.1.5 Bio-Benchmarking Historic bio-benchmark studies were conducted during 2005 (Shisler et al. 2008) and most recently in May 2008 at the following locations: RM 7.7, RM 10.9, and Toney’s Brook (USACE, EPA, and NJDOT, 2008). Bio-benchmark studies were also previously conducted during October 2002 at the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park Wetland Restoration Site and Harrison Wetland. Previous data on location,



elevation, dominant vegetation, soil type, and hydrological characteristics will be compiled and summarized in tabular and GIS format.

Wildlife Use, Diversity and Abundance Data collected during the desktop effort will be employed to generate a list of wildlife species that are likely to occur within OU 2. Habitats for these species will be reviewed and locations within OU 2 where they are most likely to occur will be identified. Surveys to be conducted as part of this habitat survey include assessments of benthic invertebrate, avian, and threatened and endangered species resources within OU 2.

3.2.2.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Surveys To characterize wildlife habitat, desktop evaluations associated with benthic invertebrate community surveys will comprise a spatial analysis of historical location and diversity data compiled as described in Section 3.1 to accurately identify potential intertidal and shallow-water subtidal habitats within OU 2. In addition, results of benthic surveys conducted from 2009 (Windward, 2014b) to 2010 (Windward, 2014c) will be evaluated and any recommendations for future benthic surveys will be considered and incorporated as appropriate. This preliminary desktop evaluation of benthic communities will be conducted to locate, organize, and randomize sampling transects, sample grids, and sample replicate locations within the appropriate delineated intertidal and shallow-water subtidal habitat classification, as described in Section 3.3.2.1.

3.2.2.2 Avian Community Surveys Avian species are anticipated to include shorebirds (sandpipers and sanderlings), wading birds (egrets and herons), waterfowl (ducks and geese), gulls, terns, and raptors. Previous avian studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 between RM 1 and RM 7 (BBL, 2002) and in 2010 and 2011 between RM 0 and RM 17.4 (Windward, 2011). During 1999/2000, surveys were conducted during four seasons: winter (one day), spring (four days), summer (four days), and fall (four days). During 2010, surveys were conducted during summer (August 16–20, 2010) and fall (October 11–14, 2010). Similar habitat use and species diversity were observed, but abundance varied between surveys, which may be attributable to seasonal variations based on timing of surveys or sample size. The avian surveys were conducted prior to Hurricane Sandy. In addition, development resulting in hardening of the river bank has taken place since 2010, which may result in different habitats associated with the river bank.

In addition, data collected through volunteer bird counts such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Passaic Route Number 59017), the Audubon Christmas Bird Count (Lower Hudson), and other local counts will be evaluated for data that overlap the OU 2 area. Historic count data will be compiled to identify bird use (diversity and abundance) of the area. To address data gaps, the prior 12 avian survey locations established within OU 2 will be identified on the base field maps to be used during the field studies..

3.2.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation will be initiated with the USFWS, NMFS, and NJDEP Natural Heritage Program, regarding the most recent known or potential occurrences of threatened and endangered species (terrestrial and aquatic) as well as critical and sensitive habitats within OU 2. Any recorded presence of these species or associated habitats will be identified and mapped. This information will be used to evaluate threatened and endangered habitats within OU 2 with regard to remediation activities and subsequent restoration success. If an



occurrence of a threatened or endangered species is identified, the field survey of OU 2 will also focus on determining if suitable habitat for the identified specific species is present.

An initial screening using the USFWS’s IPaC online system (USFWS, 2017) and NJDEP’s Landscape Project Version 3.3 interactive mapping site (NJDEP, 2017) indicates that no species listed under the Endangered Species Act are present within OU 2; however, NJDEP’s Landscape Project indicates that one federally protected species and five state listed species are present within OU 2:

• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, State Endangered

• Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) – State Threatened

• Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) – State Special Concern

• Snowy egret (Egretta thula) – State Special Concern

• Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) – State Special Concern

3.3 FIELD STUDIES

Information generated during the compilation of data and desktop evaluation tasks will be used to identify any data gaps or areas that require ground verification. Field studies will be conducted either from the river within boats or land-side. Data collected during other PDI activities, including the geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline, and debris surveys; utility survey; sediment core collection and analysis; and fish studies will be used to supplement the habitat survey. Field studies associated with the habitat survey will include an assessment of:

• Shoreline and In-River Habitats o Sediment Types o Hydrology Cycles o Riparian and Aquatic Vegetation o Functions and Values

• Animal Use, Diversity and Abundance

Delineated boundaries and data collection sample station locations will all be recorded with sub-meter accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) units. Details regarding the above listed field activities are provided in the following sections. SOPs and field data forms for each type of field survey are provided in Appendix L of the PDI WP.

Shoreline and In-River Habitats Vegetative shoreline, including cover within 150 feet of TOB and intertidal and subtidal habitats identified during the Habitat Survey, will be categorized according to descriptions identified in FGDC (2013). Riparian zone habitat above TOB will be categorized according to USGS Gap Analysis Program Land Cover data (USGS, 2011). Intertidal habitat will be defined as those areas exposed between low tide (MLW) and high tide (MHW). As identified in Section 3.2.1, subtidal habitats will be defined as areas inundated at low tide (i.e., areas located below MLW). Shallow-water subtidal habitats will be defined as those subtidal areas less than 6 feet in depth below MLLW. Field delineation and characterization of these habitats will be conducted during the growing season (April through October). Habitat characterization will occur from both water-side vessel and land-side (where access is available/granted) as required, i.e., those upland areas



with native or other vegetation cover. The characteristics and extent of the subtidal (i.e., aquatic beds and unconsolidated (non-vegetated) river bottoms) and intertidal (i.e., aquatic bed, mud flats, natural shorelines and fringe wetlands) systems within OU 2 identified during the desktop evaluation, will be field verified during the field studies effort. The nature and extent of natural shoreline types will be recorded on field data forms (refer to Appendix L of the PDI WP) either manually or electronically on mobile computer tablets as the surveys are performed, and the features will be photo documented. The boundaries between natural and engineered shorelines will be surveyed with sub-meter accuracy handheld GPS units. Delineation and characterization of the engineered shorelines will be completed as part of other PDI activities, specifically the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation.

The locations and characteristics of the remaining subtidal and intertidal habitats will also be field verified and their boundaries surveyed with GPS. Characteristics and extents of mudflats and aquatic beds will be recorded either manually or electronically on mobile computer tablets as the surveys are performed, and the features will be photo documented. Data regarding the presence, size, vegetation species present, and estimated relative abundance of each species will be recorded on field data forms (refer to Appendix L of the PDI WP).

Fringe wetland boundaries will be delineated in the field using guidance and procedures presented in Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (1989) and USACE (2012). These methods incorporate a three-parameter approach using vegetation, soils, and hydrology to identify the presence of a wetland. The presence of a wetland will be field verified by analyzing dominant vegetation, soil, and hydrology at a minimum of one wetland and one upland sample station within each fringe wetland following SOPs provided in Appendix L of the PDI WP. Site photographs will be recorded concurrent with sample station data. Sample station data forms (refer to Appendix L of the PDI WP) and wetland photographs will be recorded either manually or electronically on mobile computer tablets during the field efforts.

Surveying of the intertidal habitats and the aquatic beds will be conducted at low tide when the full extent of these features can be realized. Digital waypoints will be collected along observed boundaries using a sub-meter accuracy GPS unit to verify mapped boundaries or surveyed by a New Jersey Licensed Land Surveyor. Each habitat segment will be assigned a “habitat name” that will consist of an alphanumeric coding, which identifies OU 2, type of habitat, and individual feature.

Incidental observational data regarding the extent of hard and soft sediment types within the unconsolidated (non-vegetated) river bottom will be collected during the habitat survey; however, the delineation of these in-river sediment types will be performed using data collected from other PDI activities, including the geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline, and debris survey, and verified by the sediment core collection data.

3.3.1.1 Sediment Types As identified above, the initial sediment type delineation as generated during the desktop evaluation will be based on historical data. Sediment types of the unconsolidated (non-vegetated) river bottom are anticipated to include both hard (cobble-gravel and bedrock) and soft (sand, mud and organic) substrates. This information will be later supplemented with data collected from other PDI activities, including geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline, and debris survey; utility survey; and sediment core collection and analysis. It is assumed that data, collected during the other referenced PDI activities, will be sufficient to characterize and delineate the sediment types (i.e., hard bottom versus soft bottom) within OU 2. The collection of sediment samples and subsequent grain size analysis are not included in this habitat survey. Observations will be limited to visual and texture assessment and verified by substrate mapping generated during core sediment sampling. The results of these other PDI investigation(s) will be incorporated into the habitat survey findings.



3.3.1.2 Hydrology Cycles It is anticipated that sufficient information will be readily available regarding the range and extent of the tidal cycle within the portion of the Lower Passaic River that lies within OU 2. If data gaps are identified during the initial desktop evaluation associated with this and other PDI activities, then it is assumed that the installation of tidal gauges and associated monitoring would be performed as part of other PDI tasks.

3.3.1.3 Riparian, Emergent, and Aquatic Vegetation Field efforts associated with verifying desktop-mapped areas of riparian, emergent, and aquatic vegetation will be conducted concurrently with the efforts associated with characterizing and delineating shoreline and in-river habitats. Riparian, emergent, and aquatic vegetation surveys will be conducted at low tides during the growing season. Representative sample station plots will be established within each identified natural riparian habitats (natural shoreline and fringe wetland) and within each identified aquatic bed. Based on previous studies, emergent fringe wetlands are anticipated to be dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), common reed (Phragmites australis), and swamp smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides). Vegetation from within each delineated natural shoreline or fringe wetland will be recorded using USACE wetland delineation methodology. For riparian areas, dominant vegetation in each strata (tree, shrub, vine and herb) will be recorded. From the established sample station, dominant trees and shrubs will be recorded within a 30-foot radius, shrubs will be recorded within a 15-foot radius, and herbs will be recorded within a 5-foot radius.

Aquatic bed habitats include wetlands and deepwater habitats dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing season. For the aquatic beds, representative one meter square plot(s) will be established in each of the areas where SAV is identified. For smaller beds (i.e., 100 square feet in size and smaller), one plot will be established; and for larger beds (i.e., greater than 100 square feet in size), data from two plots will be recorded. Data collected from each of the plots will include characteristics such as percent cover, plant species diversity, stem densities, and individual shoot condition (i.e., length and thickness).

3.3.1.4 Functions and Values A wetland functions and values assessment will be conducted for each of the subtidal and intertidal wetland habitats identified within OU 2 using the methods described in USACE (1999) and Bartoldus et al. (1994) as a baseline for developing the RD and future wetland restoration. Associated forms will be completed for each delineated wetland habitat assessing the feature for both functional capacity of existing wetlands and suitability. This effort will be completed concurrently with the shoreline and in-river habitats characterization and delineation effort. Data sheets will be completed to assess values and for functions to identify the individual model elements, list conditions of model elements, score each element, and calculate the capacity of each wetland to perform a particular function. Separate datasheets will be recorded to assess values.

Primary fringe wetland functions are expected to include shoreline bank erosion control, sediment stabilization, water quality, and wildlife and fish (tidal) habitat. Aquatic bed functions include ability to provide macrophytes production and benthic macroinvertebrate and fish habitat. Mudflat functions will be based primarily on presence and diversity of benthic organisms. Primary wetland values are expected to include recreation, educational/scientific value, uniqueness, aesthetics, and endangered species habitat.



3.3.1.5 Bio-benchmarking Bio-benchmark data will be collected for each delineated wetland to assist in designing grades and elevations for any required wetland mitigation following SOPs provided in Appendix L of the PDI WP. Vertical elevations within delineated wetlands will be collected along with dominant vegetation, soil type, and hydrological characteristics. The bio-benchmark data will include the lowest and highest elevations of desirable native species and invasive species growing within delineated wetlands along the river banks. Bio-benchmarks will reference U.S. State Plane, North American Datum 1983 (NAD83; 2011 adjustment); Zone: New Jersey (FIPS 2900); Units: U.S. Survey Feet for horizontal data, and North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88) in U.S. Survey Feet for vertical data as collected under the geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline, and debris survey.

Wildlife Use, Diversity, and Abundance Field surveys will be conducted to determine use, diversity and abundance of wildlife using the various habitats within OU 2. Surveys will be conducted of the intertidal areas including aquatic bed, mud flats, natural shorelines and fringe wetland habitats.

Personnel conducting the surveys will record in logbook(s) the presence and abundance or signs of the species observed in each habitat type. Animal use will also be photo documented. Methodology used during previous wildlife surveys of the area will be employed to facilitate accurate comparisons of current conditions to those previously recorded. Animal surveys conducted as part of this habitat survey and other PDI activities will include assessments of benthic invertebrate, crab, reptile and amphibian, avian, and mammal communities within OU 2. Descriptions of the field survey methodology follows by type.

Based on the highly industrialized and urbanized land use associated with the Lower Passaic River, no specific surveys are proposed to identify reptile, amphibian, and mammal communities within OU 2. Species from these groups are likely to be living in close association with humans, e.g., common snakes, squirrels, chipmunks, groundhogs, and rats. Presence or occurrence of reptiles, amphibians, or mammals in OU 2 will be determined by direct (i.e., visual and audio identification) and indirect (i.e., tracks, trails, scat, feathers, burrows, stored foods and food remains, and olfactory markings or scents) incidental observations. Observations recorded will include date, species, location, and habitat type.

3.3.2.1 Benthic Invertebrate Community Surveys Benthic invertebrate surveys will focus on identifying baseline community richness and diversity of the mudflats and other habitat areas affected by the implementation of the selected remedy detailed in the ROD. The benthic invertebrate assemblages occurring within the Lower Passaic River are expected to be relatively less diverse and comprising relatively higher opportunistic and environmental tolerant species typical of a large river community. The community composition and species distribution within large rivers is greatly influenced by flow regime and substrate stability, as a result, the location of benthic sampling within the intertidal and subtidal areas can greatly influence survey results (e.g., high-velocity main channel vs low-velocity shoreline areas; fine sediments vs vegetation or larger mineral substrates) (Flotemersch, Stribling, and Paul, 2006). Therefore, the sampling effort will be stratified to characterize the invertebrate communities within the intertidal area (mudflats and natural shores with unconsolidated substrates) and subtidal area of OU 2 as detailed below. The sampling design presented below may be modified, if necessary, following results of the desktop evaluation described in Section 3.2.

Benthic community metrics to be used in the evaluation will include:

1. Taxa Richness (defined as the total number of taxa collected at each station)



2. Shannon-Wiener Diversity defined by the equation:

𝐻𝐻′ = −�𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 ln (𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖

𝑠𝑠

𝑖𝑖=1

)

where: H′ = the Shannon Wiener diversity value -∑ = The negative sum of the expression pi*ln(pi) pi= Number of individuals of species i = total number of samples S = Number of taxa or taxa richness

3. Total Numerical Density (Total number of individuals from all taxa normalized to a unit area of 1 square meter)

4. Taxonomic Abundance and Distribution (percent representation of taxa at the order level of taxonomy)

All sampling activities will be contingent upon safe survey conditions and all appropriate steps will be taken to identify and mitigate potential hazards as identified in the Health and Safety Plan (HASP) (Tetra Tech, 2017d). The SOP for benthic sampling is provided in Appendix L of the PDI WP.

Sampling of Intertidal Zone As a result of extensive bank development and bulkheading, OU 2 currently supports a relatively limited amount of rocky intertidal or mudflat habitat compared to its historical composition. Previous habitat characterization surveys have determined that mudflats exist primarily along the river banks with the exception of the mudflat at Kearny Point, which is, at low tide, an approximately 94-acre area near RM 0 at the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers. Smaller mudflat areas were found to occur in similar proportions of linear feet along each bank (i.e., 14 percent of the left bank and 21 percent of the right bank); however, the aerial extent of mudflats along the right bank was greater because of the inclusion of the Kearny Point mudflat (Windward, 2014a).

To determine the current aerial extent of intertidal habitats within OU 2, previous Lower Passaic River habitat characterization surveys will be reviewed and compared with data received from the proposed bathymetric effort. Identified intertidal habitats for this sampling effort will be assigned in one mile intervals. Benthic invertebrate samples will be collected from the surface of mudflats with a hand-held coring tube, petite Ponar dredge, or other device depending on the suitability of each device relative to the substrate of a given mudflat and the water level at time of sampling. Samples will be normalized for calculating benthic indices based on surface area of the sampling device. Specific methodology for proposed sampling devices is detailed below in the Proposed Benthic Sediment Sampling Devices section. Each sample collected will be placed into a 1.0 millimeter (mm) sieve bucket in the case of estuarine samples, and washed using deionized water to remove fine particulate matter. Remaining sieved material will be transferred to a sample storage container with internal and external labels and the preservative solution and dye (10 percent buffered formalin and Rose Bengal solution) will be added. The date, time, location (using GPS accurate to one meter), weather/oceanographic conditions, water depth, and sediment characteristics will be recorded on field data forms (refer to Appendix L of the PDI WP) either manually or electronically on mobile computer tablets for each sample. Samples will be secured on site until being sent to a taxonomic laboratory for sorting, identification, and enumeration. A chain of custody will be prepared for samples collected.

Identified mudflat habitats will be analyzed using GIS to be overlaid with a pattern of regularly-spaced grid squares. With the exception of the Kearny Point mudflat, grid squares will be placed at a minimum of 0.5



acre and will be randomly selected, and a series of a minimum of four replicate benthic samples will be collected from each selected 0.5-acre grid square depending upon aerial coverage of the sampling device used. Sample locations will be selected prior to the field activities using the ArcGIS “create random points” tool with the resulting values being the center sample location. Coordinates will be identified and used to navigate to the locations with a GPS unit. Using previous estimates of mudflat area (Windward, 2014a), this equates to total area of approximately 23 acres of bank-located mudflats in OU 2 and with a minimum of 46 grid square locations. Sampling four replicates per grid square would equal a minimum of 184 benthic samples for bank-located mudflats. For consistency, survey areas will be assigned in 1-mile intervals and mudflat areas that cross river miles will be truncated, with each mudflat area to be assessed according to the river mile in which it is located. Discrete mudflat areas smaller than 0.5 acre will be summed within each 1-mile interval, and the summed area will receive a randomly selected single series of four replicate samples (additional replicate samples may be required if the summed area exceeds 0.5 acre). Due to the extent and unique nature of the mudflat at Kearny Point, this area will be subdivided into four equally-sized quadrants with each quadrant measuring approximately 23.5 acres (based on delineated area reported by Windward, 2014a). Each quadrant will then be further subdivided into four sampling zones measuring approximately 5.9 acres. Figure 3-2 provides an example of the anticipated quadrants. One sampling zone will be randomly selected from each quadrant to receive a series of four replicate samples for a total of 16 benthic samples to be collected from the Kearny Point mudflat.

Intertidal areas within OU 2 not designated as mudflats including aquatic beds, fringe wetlands, and natural unconsolidated shorelines consisting of coarse-grained substrates will also be included in the benthic invertebrate sampling and baseline characterization. These habitats will be identified and delineated during the proposed bathymetry effort and habitat characterization efforts described in Section 3.3.1. These areas will be sampled using the same strategy described above for mudflat habitats.

Sampling of Subtidal Zone Subtidal habitat will be sampled using paired 0.5-acre grid squares, one on either side of the navigation channel, randomly placed within each 0.5-mile river section. The deeper navigation channel areas will not be sampled because these areas will be subject to future maintenance dredging for the navigation channel. At each sampling location, a series of a minimum of four replicate benthic samples will be collected within appropriate substrates. Sample locations will be selected prior to the field activities using the ArcGIS “create random points” tool, with the resulting values being the center sample location. Bottom substrates as determined from current sediment core collection and chemical analysis will be taken into consideration when selecting random locations. Coordinates will be identified and used to navigate to the locations with a GPS unit. This equates to a minimum of 34 grid square locations. Sampling four replicates per grid square would equal a minimum of 136 benthic samples collected from subtidal habitats.

Proposed Benthic Sediment Sampling Devices Petite Ponar Dredge The petite Ponar dredge will likely be the preferred sampling device deployed by boat in accessible shallow subtidal areas and inundated intertidal areas of OU 2. The screen over the sample compartment permits water to pass through the sampler as it descends thus reducing turbulence around the dredge. The petite Ponar dredge is easily operated by one person and is an effective sampler for general use on most types of substrates. This dredge is useful when collecting softer, finer-grained substrates comprised of silts and clays but can also be used to collect sediments comprised of sands and gravel.

The petite Ponar dredge has side plates and a screen on the top of the sample compartment and samples a 0.023 square meter surface area. Samples will be normalized for calculating benthic indices based on surface area of the sampling device (number of organisms per meter squared of surface area). The Ponar



dredge is deployed in its open configuration. It is lowered gently from the sampling platform to the substrate below to the surface of the sediments targeted for sample collection. After the dredge lands on the substrate, a spring activated pin release unlocks the dredge and the recovery rope is slowly retrieved allowing for closure of the dredge bucket and capturing the sample. The dredge is then hauled to the surface, where it is opened over a tub or sieve bucket to consolidate and reduce the volume of sample via sieving with a 1.0 mm sieve in the field. The sediment grab is deposited into a holding tray or sieve bucket and washed with distilled water to concentrate organisms and reduce sample volume. The concentrate, consisting of organisms and coarse organic matter, is placed in plastic jars and preserved with a mixture of 10 percent buffered formalin and Rose Bengal prior to transport to the benthic taxonomy laboratory for sample processing (EPA, 2014c).

Alternatively, use of a stainless steel pneumatic power grab sampler will be evaluated during the field effort if use of the ponar sampler proves overly problematic.

Coring Tubes In intertidal areas that are not inundated and support vegetation, a coring tube may be used to collect benthic invertebrate samples. Coring tubes are manually deployed into the substrate to a depth that ensures adequate sample size. This is typically defined as the “biologically active zone” and in freshwater or estuarine systems is typically 0 to 6 inches. Samples will be normalized for calculating benthic indices based on surface area of the sampling device (number of organisms per meter squared of surface area). The use of coring tubes of appropriate length and thickness of coring tube samplers will be determined based of substrate characteristics on OU 2. Coring tubes equipped with check valves may be required to keep unconsolidated or loose substrates from falling out of the tube. Corers should have a smooth internal surface to facilitate sediment penetration and core removal. Caution should be exercised not to disturb the bottom sediments when the sample is obtained by wading in shallow water (EPA, 2014c).

Laboratory Processing of Benthic Invertebrate Samples Benthic invertebrate samples sent for laboratory analysis will be drained of formalin preservative at the time of sample processing and the laboratory has the option of replacing with ethanol. Organisms will be identified to the lowest practical taxon (genus/species where possible). Each sample will be fully processed unless more than 300 organisms are encountered, in which case a quantitative subsampling of the total will be performed. Total number will be sorted from the remaining taxa in the sample and split sampled using a folsom sample splitter. Splitting will occur up to twice, reducing processing of samples to one quarter of the total count present of the taxa being enumerated. If the sample contains less than 300 organisms, the sample will be processed in its entirety. Sorted debris will be quality checked to ensure at least a 90 percent retrieval efficiency on every sample. Ten percent of all samples will be reanalyzed by a second taxonomist, and the results will be compared to ensure a minimum of 90 percent taxonomic similarity and enumeration. If a greater than 10 percent difference is detected in any samples, the verification process will continue until a sample meeting the less than 10 percent difference is encountered. All processed samples will be held in long-term storage.

A synoptic reference collection for the project will be created, consisting of at least one specimen, and preferably 3 to 5 specimens, of each taxon encountered as part of the project. A second taxonomist will confirm the taxonomic identifications of all taxa in the reference collection for accuracy. A goal of 90 percent accuracy is selected as the minimum re-enumeration verification (≤10%) goal and 90 percent re-identification is the QC process goal for benthic sample identification and enumeration. Individuals retained for the reference collection will be noted on the laboratory bench sheets of the samples from which they were removed. Differences in taxonomic classification between the original and secondary identifier will be



documented and final resolution documented and laboratory bench sheets amended as per the final taxonomic resolution.

3.3.2.2 Avian Community Surveys Over the past 7 years, changes to the river bank and bed, as well as associated mudflats, have resulted from area development and major storm events. These changes have likely affected avian use within OU 2. Intertidal mudflats and the associated shallow-water subtidal areas are typically habitats for the avian community. Avian species common to the Lower Passaic River include shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, and gulls/terns as well as one federally-protected species and several state-protected species. To characterize potential restoration areas and support the RD, recent inventory data is necessary. Avifauna will be identified by visual and audible observations in the field, and on-site activity will be noted. Avian community surveys will be conducted within each of the identified intertidal habitats, using typical point count methodology either from an anchored boat or the river bank. Four seasonal avian community surveys will be conducted: spring, summer, fall, and winter. Multiple timed observations will be made from 12 avian sample stations in OU 2, as established during the 2010-2011 avian surveys (Windward, 2011). Figure 3-3 provides locations of the proposed sample stations. Each sample station will include a 100-meter radius. In addition, observations will be recorded along linear transects between sample stations. Transects will start at RM 0 and end at RM 8.3 and observations will be limited to the river area between the banks.

During each of the seasonal surveys, observations will be performed for a minimum of 4 days at each of the 12 established avian sample stations and conducted as described in the SOP for Avian Surveys (refer to Appendix L of the PDI WP). Each observation will be 10 minutes in duration. Observations will be rotated to capture bird usage of each sample station during various tidal cycles. These surveys will be performed near sunrise, at midday, and near sunset for a total of 12 sample events for each of the 12 sample stations and connecting transects. Sampling will not be conducted during adverse weather conditions such as low cloud, high winds, rainfall, or extreme temperatures.

During the observation events, avifauna species will be identified and the number of individuals estimated. On-site activity, i.e., passively utilizing a particular site (i.e., flying over at a high altitude) or actively utilizing the site (i.e., nesting, floating, swimming, breeding or courtship displays, or feeding) will also be recorded. Data will be recorded on a standard data form (refer to Appendix L of the PDI WP) either manually or electronically on mobile computer tablets and include a list of bird species anticipated to occur within OU 2. The results of the seasonal bird surveys will be compiled and analyzed for various patterns of diversity, abundance, and habitat use.

Threatened and Endangered Species An initial screening indicates that bald eagle, black-crowned night heron, glossy ibis, snowy egret, and little blue heron are known to occur in OU 2 (USFWS, 2017; NJDEP, 2017). The locations of these or any other known or potential occurrences of threatened and endangered species (terrestrial and aquatic) as well as critical and sensitive habitats, identified within OU 2 during the compilation of data or desktop evaluation efforts, will be field surveyed to identify the extent of suitable habitat that exists, if any. All pertinent field observations will be recorded either manually or electronically on mobile computer tablets as the surveys are performed and photo documented in support of determining the presence or absence of suitable listed species habitat within OU 2.



4 QUALITY CONTROL

This section describes the basic QC procedures and activities to be implemented during the habitat survey. The purpose of establishing QC procedures is to ensure that the data collected will be of the type, quantity, and quality required to meet the project objectives. In this case, data are being collected to determine the extent and character of the various subtidal and intertidal habitats within OU 2. To ensure efficiency and coordination with Project objectives, reliability of data collected, safety, and uniform recording and reporting formats, in addition to this HSWP, investigation activities will be conducted using EPA-approved, Project-specific plans, including the Project Management Plan (Tetra Tech, 2017a), RDWP (Tetra Tech, 2017a), UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c), and HASP (Tetra Tech, 2017d).

QC is integral to the reliability of the results of this habitat survey. Measures that will be taken to ensure reliable data will include the following:

Personnel Qualifications – All personnel will be trained and experienced in performing the tasks associated with this effort. GIS technicians under the supervision of senior biologists/ecologists will be employed in the completion of the desktop evaluation efforts. All field personnel will be seasoned biologists/ecologists experienced in wetland delineations, habitat assessments, and wildlife surveys.

Verification of Methods – All field efforts will be performed in accordance with SOPs generated specifically for activities associated with this habitat survey. SOPs and standard field data forms are provided in Appendix L of the PDI WP. Field personnel will work in teams to ensure compliance with prescribed methodology and minimize observer bias. A field audit will be performed by a qualified individual during the habitat survey as outlined in Worksheets #31, #32, and #33 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c).

Data Collection and Management – Habitat and wildlife observations will be clearly and concisely recorded, manually on data sheets or within logbook(s), or electronically on mobile computer tablets as the surveys are performed. Original field data sheets will be scanned and hard and electronic copies of all data will be retained in the Project files. The appropriate Task Lead will be responsible for ensuring that all data forms and related materials pertaining to the Project are properly logged, recorded and entered into the Project files following the requirements of Worksheet #29, Project Documents and Records, in the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c).

Sample station and boundary locations will be surveyed with sub-meter accuracy GPS to ensure repeatability and consistence of data collection.

Characterization of the invertebrate communities will be performed following the benthic subcontractor laboratory’s benthic macroinvertebrate indicator standard procedure as outlined in Worksheet #23 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c). Laboratory sample handling, custody, and disposal procedures are included in Worksheets #26 and #27 and the Benthic Invertebrate Surveys SOP (SOP No. 23 in Appendix L of the PDI WP). A second taxonomist will confirm the taxonomic identifications of all taxa in the reference collection for accuracy; a minimum of 10 percent of the sorted samples will be confirmed. A goal of 90 percent accuracy is selected as the minimum re-enumeration verification (≤10%) goal and 90 percent re-identification is the QC process goal for benthic sample identification and enumeration.

As outlined in Worksheets #26 and #27 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c), to improve data access/usability and data ownership/transferability, GSH has contracted with GHD to serve as the Data Management and Laboratory Program Contractor for the Project. GHD will perform the following:



• Oversee contracted benthic laboratory services.

• Resolve any laboratory quality issues, with input from GSH and Tetra Tech.

• Perform data verification/validation of laboratory data packages (Worksheet #35).

• Perform data quality review/reporting.

• Consolidate Project data into a centralized database, including field and laboratory data.

• Provide options for the Project team to access data, including tables, figures, graphs, electronic deliverables, and e:DATTM (an integrated GIS data access tool/query engine).

Field Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance – All equipment will be used and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and the requirements of Worksheet #22 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c). GPS units will have real-time sub-meter accuracy. All connections and switches will be in good condition to ensure acceptable performance and will be inspected each day by the Field Survey crew(s). Malfunctioning and worn parts will be replaced immediately.

Field Supplies – Supplies/consumables necessary for the habitat survey work will be obtained through appropriate commercial markets and will meet supply-specific requirements outlined in this plan and corresponding SOPs. All supplies/consumables will be inspected for usability and suitability by field personnel prior to use. Any supplies/consumables that do not meet requirements will be discarded or returned to the supplier. Any certifications/documentation provided by the suppliers will be retained in the project files. Supplies/consumables will be stored so as to be protected from adverse conditions (e.g., weather, heat, etc.) to protect them from possible contamination, breakage, etc.

Data Review, Validation and Verification – All data for the Project will be compiled and summarized with an independent verification at each step in the process to prevent transcription/typographical errors. Survey data, including habitat boundary and sample station locations, will be checked for accuracy after downloading from the GPS using GIS and aerial photography. Observational data collected manually on data sheets and/or in logbook(s) and electronically on mobile computer tablets will be reviewed by senior biologists/ecologists for accuracy and completeness, and then forwarded to GHD for entry into the Project database. Inputs to data review, verification and validation are outlined in Worksheet #34 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c). Data verification procedures are provided in Worksheet #35, and Worksheet #36 contains the data validation procedures. The overall quality of data obtained during the habitat survey will be evaluated, and checked for accuracy, consistency and interpretation of the data following Worksheet #37 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c).



5 DELIVERABLES

The findings of the habitat survey will be provided as part of the PDI Evaluation Report. Results of the habitat survey will include an interpretation of desktop, field, and analytical data. An interim report will be provided to present the results of step 1 (data compilation) and step 2 (desktop evaluation) prior to the start of field investigations. Boundaries of the habitats delineated from historical data review, desktop evaluation, and field studies will be compiled. These results, along with maps and surveys, will be included in the report. Reports will be submitted to the EPA. Table 5-1 provides a summary of deliverables for the Habitat Surveys.

Table 5-1. Habitat Survey Deliverables Data Type Deliverable Format

Shoreline and In-River Habitats

Riparian

Boundaries of riparian habitat in Esri shapefile format Data summary file Photographs Field data forms

ArcGIS v10.3 shapefile .xls .jpg .pdf

Intertidal

Boundaries of intertidal habitat in Esri shapefile format Data summary file Photographs Field data forms


Subtidal

Boundaries of subtidal habitat in Esri shapefile format Data summary file Photographs Field data forms


Functions and Values Data summary file Field data forms Photographs

.xls

.pdf

.jpg

Bio-benchmarking

X,Y,Z Coordinates in Esri shapefile format Data summary file Photographs Field data forms


Wildlife Use, Diversity, and Abundance

Benthic Invertebrate Community Surveys

X,Y Coordinates in Esri shapefile format Data summary file Photographs Field data forms


Avian Community Surveys

X,Y Coordinates in Esri shapefile format Data summary file Photographs Field data forms




6 SCHEDULE

The compilation of data and desktop evaluation efforts will commence upon approval of this HSWP by the EPA. Tasks associated with the field studies will be completed during spring, summer, fall, and winter of 2018. Habitat characterization and delineation efforts associated with the shoreline and in-river habitats and the riparian and aquatic vegetation evaluations are required to be completed during the growing season (April through October), and, because they are dependent on results of the 2017 bathymetry and sediment studies, will be conducted in summer 2018. Benthic invertebrate sampling will also be conducted in the summer of 2018 because it too is dependent on results of the 2017 bathymetry and sediments studies. Avian surveys will be conducted during spring, summer, fall and winter of 2018.



7 REFERENCES

Aqua Survey, Inc., 2006. Technical Report, Geophysical Survey, Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Final. June 2006. Prepared for Office of Maritime Resources, NJDOT and USACE-NY District.

Bartoldus, C.C., E.W. Garbisch, and M. L. Kraus. 1994. Evaluation for Planned Wetlands: A Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functions and a Guide to Functional Design. Environmental Concern Inc.

BBL. 2002. Passaic River Study Area Avian Survey (1999-2000). Draft. Prepared for Tierra Solutions, Inc. [online]. Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., Syracuse, NY.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C.

Earth Tech. 2004. Draft Final Biological Literature Review Report; Lower Passaic River Investigation and Feasibility Study. Prepared for Office of Maritime Resources, New Jersey Department of Transportation and USACE-NY District. December 2004.

EPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA-540-R-05-012, December 2005.

EPA. 2014a. Remedial Investigation Report for the Focused Feasibility Study. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group in conjunction with Battelle HDR|HydroQual. 2014.

EPA. 2014b. Focused Feasibility Study Report for the Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. in conjunction with Battelle HDR|HydroQual. 2014.

EPA. 2014c. Sediment Sampling: Operating Procedure. SESDPROC-200-R3. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/Sediment-Sampling.pdf. Accessed April 2014.

EPA. 2016a. Record of Decision for Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. EPA Region 2. March 3, 2016.

EPA. 2016b. Statement of Work for Pre-Remedial Design and Remedial Design Lower 8.3 Miles of Lower Passaic River Part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. Essex and Hudson Counties, State of New Jersey. EPA Region 2. September 26, 2016.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication.

FGDC. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.



Flotemersch, J.E., J.B. Stribling, and M.J. Paul. 2006. Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessment of Non-wadeable Streams and Rivers. EPA 600-R-06-127. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Iannuzzi, T.J., and F.L. Ludwig. 2004. Historical and Current Ecology of the Lower Passaic River. Urban Habitats, Volume 2, Number 1, ISSN 1541-7115.

Louis Berger Group, Inc. (LBG). 2014. Remedial Investigation Report for the Focused Feasibility Study of the Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River. Prepared by LBG for the USACE New York District.

NJDEP. 2017. NJDEP’s Landscape Project Version 3.3 Online Mapping Application. Data obtained online on May 9, 2017 at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/landscape.

NJDEP and NJGS. 2006. Tidal Benchmark Network. Data obtained online on March 22, 2017 at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgsdown/njtidalbm.pdf

NOAA. 2016. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper V3.0. Data obtained online on March 22, 2017 at http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html

Shisler, J.K., T.J. Iannuzzi, D.F. Ludwig, and P.J. Bluestein. 2008. Ecological Benchmarking in an Urbanized Estuarine River System. Ecological Restoration 26:235-245.

Tetra Tech. 2017a. Project Management Plan. Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 1, February 2017.

Tetra Tech. 2017b. Remedial Design Work Plan. Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 2, March 2017.

Tetra Tech. 2017c. Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) [Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)]. Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 0, April 2017.

Tetra Tech. 2017d. Health and Safety Plan, Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 0, April 2017.

USACE. 1999. The New England Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement, Wetland Functions and Values, A Descriptive Approach, NAEEP-360-30a. September.

USACE. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble, and J.F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgsdown/njtidalbm.pdf

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html



USACE, EPA, and NJDOT. 2008. Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Vegetation Sampling, Wetland Delineation, and Bio-Benchmark Report. December 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, New York; New Jersey Department of Transportation.

USACE, EPA, and NJDOT. 2006. Draft Field Sampling Plan, Volume 2, for the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. June 2006. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, New York; New Jersey Department of Transportation.

USACE and NJDEP. 2015. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area Phase I Draft Hurricane Sandy Limited Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment. Main Report. New Jersey/New York.

USFWS. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper V2. Data obtained online on March 22, 2017 at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.

USFWS. 2017. IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation. Data obtained online on May 9, 2017 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. Gap Analysis Program (GAP). August 2011. National Land Cover, Version 2. Data obtained online on January 17, 2018 at https://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx.

Windward. 2011. Avian Community Survey Data Report for the Lower Passaic River Study Area Summer and Fall 2010. Final. Prepared for Cooperating Parties Group, Newark, New Jersey. Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Lower Passaic River Study Area RI/FS. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. August 8 2011.

Windward. 2014a. Habitat Identification Survey Data Report for the Lower Passaic River Study Area – Fall 2010 Field Report. Final. Prepared for Cooperating Parties Group, Newark, New Jersey. Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Lower Passaic River Study Area RI/FS. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. January 6, 2014.

Windward. 2014b. Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Lower Passaic River Study Area RI/FS. Benthic invertebrate community survey and benthic field data collection report for the Lower Passaic River Study Area fall 2009 field effort. Final. Prepared for Cooperating Parties Group, Newark, NJ. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. January 6, 2014

Windward (Windward Environmental). 2014c. Spring and Summer 2010 Benthic Invertebrate Community Survey Data for the Lower Passaic River Study Area. Final. Prepared for Cooperating Parties Group, Newark, New Jersey. Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Lower Passaic River Study Area RI/FS. Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. January 14, 2014.


LPROU2-PDI_App J_HSWP_Rev3_2018-01-26

FIGURES

EASTNEWARK

JERSEY

HARRISON

TWP

NEWARK

KEARNY

KEARNY

NEWARK

RR

RR

CentralAvenue

RR

I-280

BridgeStreet

RR

JacksonStreet

RRNew Jersey

Turnpike

US 1

US 1Truck

RM 2

RM 4

RM 1

RM 8

RM 6

RM 0

RM

3

RM 7

RM 5

OU 2 NORTHBOUNDARY

OU 2 SOUTHBOUNDARY

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

ESSEX

BERGEN

UNION

PASSAIC

HUDS

ON

/

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER_5

837\

LOC

ATIO

N_M

AP_

2017

0828

.mxd

D

ate:

8/2

8/20

17

OU 2 Location and Vicinity MapLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 1-10 0.50.25

Miles

/NAVIGATION CHANNELRIVER MILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINE

! ! OU 2 BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTIONBOUNDARY

MUNICIPALITY

RM 3

EASTNEWARK

JERSEY

HARRISON

TWP

NEWARK

KEARNY

KEARNY

NEWARK

RR

RR

CentralAvenue

RR

I-280

BridgeStreet

RR

JacksonStreet

RRNew Jersey

Turnpike

US 1

US 1Truck

RM 2

RM 4

RM 1

RM 8

RM 6

RM 0

RM

3

RM 7

RM 5


NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

ESSEX

BERGEN

UNION

PASSAIC

HU

DSO

N

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

HA

BIT

AT_S

UR

VE

Y_W

P_P

RE

V_D

OC

_MU

DFL

ATS

_201

7051

8.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017

Previously Documented MudflatsLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 2-10 0.50.25

Miles

NAVIGATION CHANNELRIVER MILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINE

OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNEL


MUNICIPALITY

MUDFLAT

RM 3

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

HA

BIT

AT_S

UR

VE

Y_W

P_V

EG

ETA

TIO

N_S

AM

PLI

NG

_PO

INTS

_201

7051

8.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017

Previously Documented VegetationSampling Points and Wetlands

River Mile 7.6 - 9.0Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU2)

Figure 2-2 Page 1 of 3

Source: USACE, EPA, and NJDOT.Lower Passaic River Restoration Project Vegetation Sampling,Wetland Delineation, and Bio-Benchmark Report. December 2008.

Legend1 Federally Authorized (USACE)

Navigation Channel Cetnerline and River MilePrevious Vegetation Sampling PlotPrevious Reference Site Vegetation Sampling PlotPrevious BiobenchmarkPrevious Wetland Limit (Delineated)Municipality BoundaryCounty Boundary

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

HA

BIT

AT_S

UR

VE

Y_W

P_V

EG

ETA

TIO

N_S

AM

PLI

NG

_PO

INTS

_201

7051

8.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017







R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

HA

BIT

AT_S

UR

VE

Y_W

P_V

EG

ETA

TIO

N_S

AM

PLI

NG

_PO

INTS

_201

7051

8.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017







Source: USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory Wetland & Deepwater Habitat Classification Hierarchy

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) Figure 2-3

Page 1 of 2

Source: USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory Wetland & Deepwater Habitat Classification Hierarchy

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) Figure 2-3

Page 2 of 2

RM

1.1

RM

0.5

RM 0

.1

RM 0

.3 RM 0

.2

RM

1.7

RM

0.8

RM 1

.6

RM

0.7

RM 1

.5

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.2

RM

0.9

RM

0.4

RM

0.6

RM 0

RM

1

Town ofKearny

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\H

ABI

TAT_

SUR

VEY_

WP

_PR

EV_D

OC

_SU

BSTR

ATES

_201

7051

2.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017

Previously DocumentedSubstrate Types

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)Figure 3-10 1,000500

Feet Page 1 of 5


ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL

GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT

NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVERMILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINEOU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNELPHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTIONBOUNDARYMUNICIPALITY

RM 3

RM

1.1

RM

2.1

RM 2.5

RM

1.8

RM

1.7

RM 2.9

RM 1

.6

RM 2.6

RM

2.2

RM 2

.3

RM 1

.5

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.2

RM 2.8

RM 2

.4

RM

1.9

RM 2.7

RM

2

New Jersey Turnpike

RR

US

1

US 1

Tru

ck

Town ofKearny

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\H

ABI

TAT_

SUR

VEY_

WP

_PR

EV_D

OC

_SU

BSTR

ATES

_201

7051

2.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017



Feet Page 2 of 5



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


RAILROAD (RR)


RM 3

RM

3.3

RM

4.7

RM

3.1

RM

3.2

RM

2.9

RM 4

.8

RM 3.4

RM

4.2

RM

4.6

RM 4.9

RM 3.5

RM 3.9

RM 3.8

RM

4.5

RM 3.7

RM

4.4

RM

4.3

RM 4.1

RM 3.6

RM 4

RM

3

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\H

ABI

TAT_

SUR

VEY_

WP

_PR

EV_D

OC

_SU

BSTR

ATES

_201

7051

2.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017



Feet Page 3 of 5



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


RAILROAD (RR)


RM 3

RM 4.7

RM

6.1

RM 5

.1

RM 6

.6

RM 4.8

RM

6.3

RM

6.2

RM

5.7

RM

6.4

RM

5.9

RM

5.8

RM 5

.5RM

6.5

RM 4.6

RM 4.9

RM 5

.6

RM 5

.4 RM 5

.3 RM 5

.2

RM 4.5

RM

6

RM 5

RR

Central Avenue

I-280

RR

Bridge Street

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison

Boroughof EastNewark

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\H

ABI

TAT_

SUR

VEY_

WP

_PR

EV_D

OC

_SU

BSTR

ATES

_201

7051

2.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017



Feet Page 4 of 5



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


RAILROAD (RR)


RM 3

RM

7.9

RM

6.9RM

7.4 RM

7.3

RM

6.8

RM

6.6

RM

7.6

RM 7

.5

RM 8

.3

RM

7.1

RM

6.7

RM

7.8

RM

7.7

RM

8.1

RM

8.2

RM

7.2

RM

7

RM

8

RR

Town ofKearny

Township ofBelleville City of

Newark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\H

ABI

TAT_

SUR

VEY_

WP

_PR

EV_D

OC

_SU

BSTR

ATES

_201

7051

2.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/18/

2017



Feet Page 5 of 5



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


RAILROAD (RR)


RM 3

RM 1.1

RM 0.5

RM 0.1

RM 0.3

RM 0.2

RM 0.8

RM 0.7

RM 1.4

RM 1.3

RM 1.2

RM 0.9

RM 0.4

RM 0.6

RM 0

RM 1


NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

ESSEX

BERGEN

UNION

PASSAIC

HU

DSO

N

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

HA

BIT

AT_S

UR

VE

Y_W

P_K

EA

RN

Y_P

OIN

T_M

UD

FLAT

S_2

0170

510.

mxd

D

ate:

5/1

2/20

17

Proposed Benthic Sampling Schemefor Kearny Point Mudflat

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)Figure 3-2

0 800400

Feet

NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE

NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE

OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

PRIMARY QUADRAT

SECONDARY QUADRAT

MUDFLAT

RM 3

LPRA01

LPRA02

LPRA03LPRA04

LPRA05

LPRA06

LPRA07

LPRA08

LPRA09

LPRA10

LPRA11

LPRA12

RM 4

RM 7

RM 0

RM 8

RM 6

RM 5

RM

3

RM 1

RM 2

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

ESSEX

BERGEN

UNION

PASSAIC

HUDS

ON

/

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER_5

837\

AVIA

N_S

UR

VEY_

LOC

ATIO

NS_

2017

0824

_v2.

mxd

D

ate:

8/2

4/20

17

Proposed Avian Survey LocationsLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 3-30 0.50.25

Miles

/NAVIGATION CHANNELRIVER MILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINE

! ! OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNEL


MUNICIPALITY

AVIAN SURVEY LOCATION

RM 3

NOTE:THE SURVEY LOCATION COORDINATES COME FROM THE 2009 FINAL LOWER PASSAIC RIVERRESTORATION PROJECT. LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA RI/FS. QUALITY ASSURANCEPROJECT PLAN: FISH AND DECAPOD CRUSTACEAN TISSUE COLLECTION FORCHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND FISH COMMUNITY SURVEY PREPARED BY WINDWARD.