Stage IA Underwater Archaeological Investigationpassaic.sharepointspace.com/Public Documents/Lower 8.3mi Stage1… · Stage IA Underwater Archaeological Investigation Remedial Design

Stage IA Underwater Archaeological Investigation 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

June 2018

Revision 1

LPROU2-18-5.7-03_001

LPROU2-Stage1A Underwater_Rev1_2018-06

Stage IA Underwater Archaeological Investigation 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

June 2018

Revision 1

LPROU2-18-5.7-03_001

Submitted by:

J. Lee Cox, Jr., MA, RPA

Principal Investigator

Dolan Research, Inc.

30 Paper Mill Road

Newtown Square, PA 19073

Submitted to:

Tetra Tech Inc.

6 Century Drive, 3rd Floor

Parsippany, NJ 07054

On behalf of

Settling Party

Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.

A Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum

5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110

Houston, TX 77046

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Stage 1A Underwater Archaeological Investigation OU 2 of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Revision 1, June 2018


REVISION RECORD

Revisions to this Stage IA Underwater Archaeological Investigation report 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

01 06/04/2018 All Comments received from EPA dated 05/24/2018

J. Somoano (GSH);

S. McGee (Tetra Tech)

Yes

(EPA,

NJDEP)



ABSTRACT

In conjunction with the Remedial Design of the 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, Stage 1A Underwater Archaeological Investigations were performed in the Lower Passaic River,

Area of Potential Effect (APE). Project tasks performed included: limited background and documentary

research, historic map review, and assessment of acoustic (side scan sonar) and magnetic remote sensing

data sets (Tetra Tech 2017a) that were collected during a comprehensive geophysical survey of the APE

during July and August 2017. Follow-up target analysis, examination of assembled research and field data,

and preparation of interim draft findings and a technical report, were also produced.

Analysis of geophysical data confirms the presence of 229 side scan sonar targets within the submerged

portion of the APE. However, the vast majority of those targets are attributed to linear and rounded debris

that were considered non-cultural resources. Typically, very large clusters of debris were identified adjacent

to shoreline structures and also around and under the various bridge piers that span the river. The source

of many of the sonar targets is likely associated with former docks, piers, bulkheads, and bridge fendering

systems. Nineteen (19) of the sonar targets appear to be associated with submerged cars, some of which

are partially buried in bottom sediments. These suspect car sites are not considered to be potentially

significant submerged cultural resources.

Thirteen (13) remote sensing targets from the overall data set are considered potentially significant and

suggestive of submerged cultural resources. Twelve of the 13 potential significant targets were side scan

sonar targets and one was a multibeam target. Four of the potentially significant sonar targets are likely boat

wreck sites and considered to be potentially significant (sonar targets 167, 194, 200A and 200B). Eight (8)

additional sonar targets generated remote sensing signatures indicating the presence of bottom features

with configurations, structure, or mass that is suggestive of submerged cultural material. These have also

been classified as potentially significant debris-related sonar targets (targets 50, 59, 69, 109, 170, 182, 206

and 213). The 13th potentially significant target was identified from multibeam data. This multibeam target

(MBE 52) appears to be a dock/former barge and a derelict motor vessel that were identified as a single

target adjacent to the shoreline and were partially submerged.

Avoidance or additional Stage IB-level underwater archaeological investigations are recommended for the

13 locations. If avoidance is not a feasible option, additional underwater archaeological investigations at

these 13 locations would be designed to identify the nature and condition of each target. Furthermore, the

Stage IB investigations would delineate the exact boundaries and limits of each target site. Data from the

Stage IB investigations would be used to make a preliminary assessment of the significance of each target

according to National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria.


v LPROU2-Stage1A Underwater_Rev1_2018-06

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Description of Stage 1A Investigation ........................................................................................ 2

2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 5

3 PASSAIC RIVER MARITIME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................ 6

4 SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIAL ..................................................................... 14

4.1 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Process ....................................................... 14

4.2 Potential Underwater Site Integrity – Ship and Boat Wrecks ................................................... 14

4.3 Potential Submerged Cultural Resource Types in Project Area .............................................. 15

5 REVIEW OF REMOTE SENSING DATA SETS ................................................................................... 17

5.1 Fieldwork Methods ................................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Evaluation of Remote Sensing Targets ................................................................................... 18

5.3 Findings – Data Review ........................................................................................................... 19

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 48

7 REFERENCES CONSULTED .............................................................................................................. 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of NOAA ENC Wrecks – Coast Survey Wrecks and Obstructions Database .............. 16 Table 2. List of Submerged Vessels – NOAA Charts ........................................................................ 16 Table 3. Suspect Submerged Car Sonar Targets (19) –these are not considered to be

potentially significant............................................................................................................ 20 Table 4. Potentially Significant Sonar Targets – Suspect Boat Wrecks (4) ...................................... 26 Table 5. Other Potentially Significant Sonar Targets – Debris Related (8) ....................................... 30 Table 6. Summary of 13 Potentially Significant Targets within Project APE ..................................... 49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location Map ............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Thomas Gordon’s 1836 Map of Bergen Meadows. The Passaic River is on the Left.

Newark, Belleville and Acquackanonck, are marked in red from south to north along the River. (Image Courtesy of Collection of Stephen Marshall, Olsen 2008:113) ............... 11

Figure 3. Newark, in 1845. (Map Courtesy of the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, Hassler and Bache 1845) .................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4. An Example of a Flier for a Passenger Steamship Line. Service was offered between Newark, New Jersey and New York. (Image Courtesy of Olsen 2008:63) ......................... 12

Figure 5. The Newark Yacht Club on the Passaic River, 1907. (Image Courtesy of Olsen 2008:128) ............................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 6. Tomkins Terminal, Located on the East and Eventually West Bank of the Passaic River. (Image Courtesy of Passaic County Historical Society, Olsen 2008:104) ................ 13

Figure 7. Side Scan Mosaic and Selected Targets (1 of 5) ................................................................ 33 Figure 8. Side Scan Mosaic and Selected Targets (2 of 5) ................................................................ 35 Figure 9. Side Scan Mosaic and Selected Targets (3 of 5) ................................................................ 37 Figure 10. Side Scan Mosaic and Selected Targets (4 of 5) ................................................................ 39


vi LPROU2-Stage1A Underwater_Rev1_2018-06

Figure 11. Side Scan Mosaic and Selected Targets (5 of 5) ................................................................ 41 Figure 12. Aerial Image of Abandoned Conrail Railroad Bridge at Fourth Ave. (RM 6.32) .................. 43 Figure 13. Aerial Image (ca. 2010) of Shoreline Adjacent to Targets 200A&B. (RM 7.445)

(Source: GoogleEarth) ......................................................................................................... 44 Figure 14. Aerial Photograph (ca. 2014) of Shoreline Adjacent to Targets 200A&B. (RM 7.445)

(Source: GoogleEarth) ......................................................................................................... 44 Figure 15. Multibeam Imagery of Target 200A&B. RM 7.445 ............................................................... 45 Figure 16. Multibeam Imagery of Target 200A&B – View Offshore. RM 7.445 ................................... 45 Figure 17. Aerial Photograph (ca. 2014) of Shoreline Adjacent to Target MBE 52. ............................. 46 Figure 18. Multibeam Imagery of Target MBE 52. RM 2.913 .............................................................. 47 Figure 19. Multibeam Imagery of Target MBE 52 – View Downstream. RM 2.913 ............................. 47

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Resume of Key Investigator


1 LPROU2-Stage1A Underwater_Rev1_2018-06

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Cultural resources background studies and reconnaissance-level field reviews, concerned respectively with

terrestrial archaeological resources, historic architectural resources (Tetra Tech 2018a), and underwater

archaeological resources (Dolan Research 2018) (this report), were performed as part of the pre-design

investigation (PDI), pursuant to the requirements set forth in 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) (Figure 1; figures are placed at the

end of each section in which they are referenced).

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 (RA) selected in 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 (USC) §§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) (EPA 2016b), PDI activities are to be conducted to gather

additional site-specific information that is required to develop the RD, as outlined in the Remedial Design

Work Plan (RDWP) (Tetra Tech 2017a). With respect to cultural resources, these PDI activities include

terrestrial archaeology survey, historic architectural survey, and underwater archaeological survey. Cultural

resource studies have been undertaken in accordance with the Cultural Resources Survey Work Plan

(CRSWP) (Tetra Tech 2017b) that was approved by the EPA on September 29, 2017. The CRSWP was

transmitted to the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) for comment, and at a meeting on

November 28, 2017, with the EPA, GSH, Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) (PDI Supervising Contractor), and

Dolan Research, Inc. (Dolan Research), NJHPO staff raised no substantive concerns about the plan’s

approach and methods, but did express a preference for separate reports for each type of cultural resource.

The CRSWP focuses on the identification and initial assessment of several types of cultural resources

including terrestrial archaeological sites, shipwrecks and other underwater archaeological elements, and

historic buildings, structures, objects, and districts that comprise architectural and engineering resources

located primarily aboveground. A separate report is being prepared for each resource type:

• Stage I terrestrial archaeology background review and field reconnaissance;

• Stage IA underwater archaeology background and remote sensing data review; and

• Aboveground historic architectural (cultural) survey.



1.2 DESCRIPTION OF STAGE 1A INVESTIGATION

In conjunction with the RD, Dolan Research, Inc. (Dolan) performed Stage IA Underwater Archaeological

Investigations in the Passaic River (Figure 1).

Comprehensive remote sensing survey work was performed as part of the pre-design investigation pursuant

to the requirements set forth in the Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial

Design between the EPA and Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC). Communications associated with,

and execution of, the Settlement Agreement are being led by Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., on behalf of

OCC.

As a Superfund Project, OU 2 triggers the need for the EPA to demonstrate substantive compliance with the

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) including Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). The NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account

the effects that may result from their undertakings on cultural resources that may be listed in, nominated to,

or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). NHPA’s implementing regulations at 36 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 also direct federal agencies to consult with the appropriate State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) and interested Native American Tribes that may have ties to project locations.

In order to assist EPA in compliance with NHPA, a number of studies and consultations are required to

determine if the Project will result in effects to NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural resources. One of the required

studies is an underwater archaeological investigation that is designed to identify, assess and evaluate the

impact on submerged cultural resources within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for

underwater archaeology for this Project extends from River Mile (RM) 0 (at the mouth of the Passaic River

at Newark Bay) upriver to approximately RM 8.3, from shoreline to shoreline which is the site boundary of

the OU 2.

In conjunction with the Project and potential impacts associated with dredging activities, the Stage IA

Underwater Archaeological Study was conducted to assess the presence or absence of potential submerged

cultural resources within the APE. This underwater archaeological project was completed for Tetra Tech,

Inc., (Tetra Tech) under a subcontract agreement between Tetra Tech, Inc., Parsippany, NJ and Dolan,

Newtown Square, PA.

The investigation included background documentary research and review of the magnetic, acoustic and sub-

bottom remote sensing data sets that were collected in OU 2 in July-August 2017, by Tetra Tech as part of

the pre design investigation. The data review was designed to determine the presence or absence of remote

sensing targets within the APE considered suggestive of submerged cultural resources. These

investigations were conducted in accordance with the instructions and intents of various applicable Federal

and State legislation and guidelines governing the evaluation of project impacts on environmental and

archaeological resources, notably: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; the guidelines

developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation published November 26, 1980; the amended

Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties as set forth in 36 CFR Part 800 (October 1,

1986); and Section 101(b)(4) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The report also satisfies the

requirements for cultural resources investigations of the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office.

Analysis of Tetra Tech’s geophysical data sets within the entire boundary of the OU 2 indicates the presence

of thirteen (13) sonar targets within the Passaic River APE that are considered suggestive of potentially

significant submerged cultural resources. While 229 total sonar targets were identified during the

geophysical survey of the river, the vast majority of these features discovered were isolated, linear features

suggestive of debris. Many of the targets were associated with shoreline dock structures or fendering



systems from the 13 bridges that spanned the river within the APE. Another target type that comprised a

large subset were 19 suspect submerged cars that were found on the river bottom.

Of the 13 targets identified as potentially significant, five appear to be boat wrecks. The other eight targets

generated remote sensing signatures indicating the presence of bottom features with configurations,

structure or mass that may be associated with submerged cultural material.

Additional Stage IB-level underwater archaeological investigations at these 13 locations, or avoidance, is

recommended. If avoidance is not a feasible option at these target locations, Stage IB investigations

involving site-specific high resolution sonar imaging and divers to ground-truth designated targets is

recommended. The goal of obtaining data from the Stage IB investigations would be to make a preliminary

assessment of the significance of each target according to NRHP eligibility criteria. At targets where

potentially significant cultural material is identified, Stage II-level investigations will typically be

recommended. Stage II underwater work would typically include physically documenting ship hull remains,

coupled with site-specific historical research of that vessel or that vessel type. The goal of the Stage II

investigations would be to gather sufficient information to evaluate the NRHP eligibility of each target and

offer mitigation options.

This report presents the results of the Stage IA underwater archaeology study. This report was prepared

by Lee Cox, MA, RPA, of Dolan Research, Inc.



Figure 1. Project Location Map

Source: Tetra Tech 2017



2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Project APE for underwater archaeology encompasses the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River,

from shoreline to shoreline. From its headwaters west of Morristown, in Mendham, New Jersey, the Passaic

River stretches over 80 miles and has a drainage area encompassing approximately 1,134 square miles

(Hoppe and Watson 2012). The major tributaries of the Passaic include: Whippany, Rockaway, Pequannock,

Wanaque and Ramapo Rivers. The lower portions of the Passaic River are tidal and comprise important

components of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary. At present, over 1.4 million people live within

the four counties comprising the lower river area (EPA 2016a). Below Newark, the Passaic River joins the

Hackensack River before emptying into the north end of Newark Bay, a back bay for New York Harbor.

Throughout the length of OU 2, the Lower Passaic River is tidal and subjected to tidal variations that average

5.5 feet. Generally, across OU 2 the river has an average width of 450 feet, ranging from 340 feet to over

670 feet near its confluence with the Hackensack River. A federal channel was formerly maintained until

1983 in the river with descending minimum depths that ranged from 30 feet near the mouth of the river down

to a 10-foot depth above RM 8.1. Generally, the river is shallow along either of the shorelines, outside of the

channel. Across the APE, 13 bridges or former bridges, six railroad crossings, the New Jersey Turnpike,

Interstate 280, and five other bridges that carry vehicular traffic span the river.



3 PASSAIC RIVER MARITIME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Passaic River has a recorded history of use dating to the seventeenth century. However, the maritime

history of the Lower Passaic River has always been closely tied to industry. Proximity to the New York City

metropolitan area allowed for business expansion into the region. The banks of the river were steadily

developed throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, effectively becoming an extension of the Port

of New York. Production facilities for petrochemicals, packaged food products, and sand, gravel, crushed

stone, and other construction materials, were built along the river. Railroads and eventually, interstates,

traversed over and along the Lower Passaic River, linking numerous transportation lines.

Cities such as Newark, Passaic, Patterson and Belleville, were settled and thrived because of the Passaic

River (Figure 2). Shipbuilding and recreational waterway activities, such as competitive rowing, serve as

additional examples of the river’s use. Prior to modern development of the river and its banks, cargoes and

people were transported along the Passaic on a variety of watercraft. The river proved navigable for three-

and four-masted schooners as far inland as Newark. Smaller craft, such as two-masted schooners and towed

cargoes traversed as far north as Paterson (Olsen 2008:61).

The Passaic River is and has traditionally been an important component to the growth and prosperity of the

surrounding region. Initial occupation by Algonquin/Lenape Native Americans sparked a continuous cycle of

river use still evidenced today. Efforts such as dredge maintenance, water quality improvement initiatives

and cultural resource studies, indicate the overall importance and continued reliance upon this waterway.

One city that depended upon and prospered from the river was Newark. Newark was founded in 1666, by

Puritans from Connecticut. Downriver from Passaic, Newark would serve as the port for the Lower Passaic

River. Located at the southern end of the river, Newark grew in size and population. Ferry services offering

trips across the river as well as into New York, became a necessity. By 1669, three years after settlement,

vessels run by John Rockwell and Azariah Bush transported residents and travelers across the Lower

Passaic to New York, regularly (Olsen 2008:14).

Acquackanonck Landing, present day Passaic, was the main port for the Upper Passaic River. Serving as

the head of navigation, a title the port would retain until 1860, Acquackanonck Landing was a point of

distribution for what would be become the industrial cities of Paterson and Passaic. Docks, a trading post,

landing, and store, were constructed at Acquackanonck Landing, followed by regular boat service to and

from New York (Olsen 2008:77-78).

The development of Newark and Passaic spurred additional settlements. Early businesses along the river

consisted of agriculture, fishing and lumber. Goods, building materials and supplies, were moved along the

river by various barges and merchants. W.S. Anderson and Company is an example of a merchant vessel

operator (Olsen 2008:78-80).

Typical watercraft plying the Passaic River during the mid-nineteenth century period included periaugers,

sloops and schooners. Schooners were characteristic working vessels. Ninety percent were most likely sloop

rigged with a single mast. This figure declines to fifty percent, after 1720. A typical local vessel from 1776

was: 45 feet in length, 14 feet in beam, drawing fourteen and a half feet of water (Olsen 2008: 22-25).

The Revolutionary War brought an array of vessels and waterway activity to the Passaic River during the

last quarter of the eighteenth century. When the British invaded New Jersey in November 1776, General

Washington and his troops used a wooden bridge at Acquackanonck Landing to cross the Passaic River as

the Continental forces evaded the British army. After crossing the bridge, Washington had the bridge burned

to prevent the enemy from easy access across the river. Throughout the Revolutionary War, troops and



supplies were transported along the river. Guards were placed on ferries as part of the American defensive.

Small British row galleys and whaleboats served as raiding vessels. One whaleboat was described as being

pointed on both ends. It was reported to be fast and capable of being sailed or rowed (Olsen 2008: 41, 43-

44, 47, 49).

The conclusion of the Revolutionary War spurred further development along the Passaic River. New

businesses opened. Services for demands dictated by the conflict as well as shipbuilding and repair facilities

were erected along the river’s shore. Soho Works, a copper smelting and rolling mill, was an example of a

business that burgeoned following the Revolutionary War (Olsen 2008:83).

In 1798, Soho Works launched their first experimental steamboat, Polacca. Located in Belleville, Soho

became a regional center for steamboat construction. Soho’s services stimulated an increase in river

commerce and boat traffic. The company retained relevance, eventually supplying copper sheathing for the

construction of United States Naval vessels (Olsen 2008:83).

Other vessels operating on the Passaic River during this period were involved in coastal trade. Leather goods

and apple brandy, Jersey Lightning, are examples of exports. The growing business environment and influx

of vessels foreign to the area provided a need for local piloting services. Mostly required for guiding ships in

and out of Newark, pilots also served to aid traffic and materials destined to and away from Paterson (Olsen

2008: 91).

Paterson was America’s first planned industrial city. Located on the Great Falls of the Passaic River, the city

was developed in 1791. Designed to harness water power from the river for the purposes of industry,

Paterson helped foster domestic manufacturing. Cotton fabrics, railroad locomotives, textile machinery, and

jute and silk production, were some of the goods produced in Paterson. Although Paterson is approximately

10 miles north of the APE, the presence of the city and its relationship with the Passaic River greatly

contributes to the encompassing maritime history (National Park Service 2017).

The nineteenth century saw an increase in shipbuilding and industry along the Passaic River. David F. Brown

opened a shipyard in Newark. Part of the same family of shipbuilders operating facilities along the East River,

in Manhattan, the Browns built Naval vessels for the War of 1812 as well as privateering ships. In Newark,

the Browns built cargo ships, schooner yachts and tug boats. An example of one of their tug boats was the

Newark. Built for the Stephens and Condit Transportation Company, the Newark was 84 feet in length, 18

feet in beam, drawing 8 feet of water. Other vessel operations included ship construction for the Lister

Brothers Agricultural Chemical Company and various repairs. Olsen notes at least 76 vessels were repaired

at the Brown yards. It is documented their berths could accommodate vessels up to 90 feet in length and 26

feet in beam (Olsen 2008:92-93).

The 1820s marked the beginning of the industrial boom along the Passaic River. Coal, lumber, flour, pork,

mackerel, cider, gin, lime, bricks, chocolate, rum, molasses, cognac, brandy and shingles were transported

along the river. By 1831, construction of the Morris Canal to Newark, was completed (Figure 3). In 1834, a

commercial whaling operation based itself in Newark. Small- and large-scale fishing operations utilized the

region. An increase in tourism occurred during this period too. Excursion boating became popular. Services

frequently transported patrons between the cities of Newark and Passaic (Olsen 2008:57, 107, 130).

Excursion and recreational boating expanded within the region and by the 1840’s, the Passaic River was

linked to New York City, Coney Island, Rockaway Beach, and other points east of Newark (Figure 4). Prior

to the start of the Civil War, excursion vessels were transporting upwards of 3,500 individuals annually. The

Stephens and Condit Transportation Company was one of several businesses providing travel opportunities.

Purpose-built vessels were used for ferry services. Some of the names of these vessels were: Thomas P.

Way, Chicopee, Jamaica, Maryland, Jonas C. Hurst, Maria, and Magenta. It is noted the Thomas P. Way



was capable of carrying up to 1,500 passengers. By 1849, a steam passenger freight service was established

in Newark. Service to New York was offered with the trip lasting approximately 2.5 hours each way (Olsen

2008: 63, 130).

The Dundee Dam, located approximately nine miles above the APE (at RM 17.4), was built in the early

1830s. The dam stretched 450 feet across the river, 40 feet wide at the base, narrowing to 6 feet wide at the

top. Power generated by the dam was used by local Passaic textile manufacturing companies to operate

production lines. The later constructed Dundee Canal and Lake, increased boat traffic and the movement of

goods along the river. Construction of the canal was completed in 1861. It would remain an important

resource until the decline of manufacturing in Passaic, post 1930s (Olsen 2008).

The middle of the nineteenth century saw a shift to steam powered ship propulsion; this change was reflected

along the Passaic River. Belleville, just north of the APE, became a center for steamboat construction. These

shipyards would go on to construct boats for the Civil War. Shipbuilding facilities in Acquackanonck Landing

were also prospering. An example of an Acquackanonck Landing built ship is the David S. Berry. The Berry

was 108 feet long and 205 tons (Olsen 2008:63-64).

Other steam-powered vessels on the Passaic River were freighters and commuter vessels. Making daily

trips between Newark and Passaic and Newark and New York, steamers Cora Mandell, Alfred Speer,

Proprietor, and Lodi served the Lower Passaic River. With a continued increase in boat traffic, Congress

eventually appropriated money for managing the navigability of the river. The River and Harbor Acts of 1852,

1922, 1943, 1954, 1964, and 1975 all included provisions for the Passaic River and Newark Bay (Olsen

2008:79-80, 93).

A marked rise in recreational boating occurred along the Passaic River during the last third of the nineteenth

century. Rowing craft racing clubs sprung up in Passaic, Belleville and other riverside communities (Figure

5). Some of these clubs were Eureka (1873), Passaic River Amateur Rowing Association (1875), Essex Boat

Club (1876), Institute Boat Club (1878), Atlantics Boat Club (1890), Riverside Athletic Club (1890), and the

Newark Rowing Club (1894). Regattas, annual races, holiday races and day-to-day leisurely boating,

became a popular pastime. Rowing clubs persist at present, however the sport lost momentum with the rise

of industry along the waterway. Toxic pollutants and the inclusion of combined sewer outfalls (CSOs)

resulting in sewage and storm water drainage in the river, all contributed to a decline in popularity of the

sport of rowing along the Passaic River (Olsen 2008: 122-124).

Industrial expansion during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century included the construction

of Tomkins Terminal. Eventually located on both sides of the river in the Kearny/Newark area along the river,

the terminal offered transshipment services between local industries and the Pennsylvania Railroad,

beginning in 1912 (Figure 6). River dredging was augmented to compensate for increased traffic and vessel

size. The channel was extended to 20 feet in depth. A stone bulkhead, running approximately 600 feet along

the east bank, provided anchorage and wharf space (Olsen 2008:103-104).

The Port of Newark was built in 1913. Within two years, bulkheads lined the entirety of the river banks

surrounding the port and two miles of adjoining railroad tracks linked the maritime port with rail capabilities.

Municipal fireboat services were put in place to protect the shoreline industries as well as offer search and

rescue efforts. Dredge maintenance enabled the continuation of shipping and maritime navigation.

Navigational aids were upgraded in 1914 and installed at the mouth of the Passaic River (Olsen 2008:92-

93, 154).

Channel maintenance within the Passaic River, at least from Newark to the mouth, was underway since the

1830s-1840s. Kevin Olsen (2008:151) offers dredge statistics in his book pertaining to early operations.

Construction of the aforementioned ports of Newark and Tomkins Terminal, plus a twenty-five percent



increase in shipping in and out of the Port of New York between 1898 and 1913, meant regular channel

maintenance was needed (Olsen 2008:151). This responsibility was assumed by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. The Cultural Resources Survey Work Plan (Tetra Tech 2017b) offered initial history on Passaic

River channel maintenance.

The APE 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 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 (Tetra Tech 2017:1-3).

Local and regional port expansions as well as regular channel maintenance continued to foster industry. The

Submarine Boat Company, located at the Port of Newark, won a contract in 1917 for the construction of 50

freighters. Within two years, 52 had been built along with a reputation for quality ships. The Submarine Boat

Company transitioned into the Federal Yard at the Port of Newark. Ship construction continued. Destroyer

and destroyer escorts were the main ship types produced (Olsen 2008:155, 218).

Following World War II, industry along the Passaic River changed. New ventures such as the Diamond

Alkali/Shamrock site, housed facilities that produced Agent Orange for the Vietnam War. An increase in

petrochemical companies, construction material suppliers and overall development persisted. Land

reclamation and the installation of stone riprap and concrete channeling were added to the banks of the

Passaic River to prevent flooding and control erosion (Olsen 2008:133).

Various industries flourished alongside the Passaic River. Examples of goods traversing the river as late as

the 1970s include: coal, fuel, oil, asphalt, crushed stone, concrete, gypsum, fabrics, plastics, wool, steel,

turpentine, and rosin. Committed wharf space housed storage and exchange facilities for: construction

materials and equipment, fuel oil, kerosene, Naphtha, bunker oil, liquid sulphur, packaged food products,

petrochemicals, sludge, tallow, tar, cement, and sulfuric acid. Each of these industries contributed to large

amounts of pollutants being leached into the environment (Olsen 2008:138, 168-169).

Despite environmental degradation and the transformation of the region for industrial use, the Passaic River

still draws fishermen to its waters. Yellow and white perch, striped bass, rainbow smelt, American shad,

sturgeon, bullhead, sunfish, and black bass, are present fish species. Blue crabs, oysters, clams, eels and

shrimp, are also present (EPA 2016a). Nearly all of the surrounding wetlands and tidal creek habitats within

the Passaic River have been destroyed by land reclamation. Large portions of the Lower Passaic River were

once an intertidal salt marsh. Between 1873 and 1890, the marsh was filled with eight to 10 feet of mixed fill

from coal gasification facilities (Iannuzzi and Ludwig 2004).

Additional disruptions to the natural river bed and surrounding maritime landscape are numerous. Dredging,

shoreline construction and stabilization, dock, pier, and wharf installations, numerous pilings, and bridge

construction, are many examples of changes to the natural landscape. To elaborate on bridges, there are

13 in OU 2 and over 90 along the entirety of the river. All of the bridges within OU 2 are considered historic

in that they are over 50 years in age.

Environmental surveys designed to characterize the Lower Passaic River shorelines occurred during 1999

and 2000. The lower six miles were reportedly classified as bulkhead, riprap, mixed vegetation and aquatic

vegetation. Bulkheads consisted of horizontal or vertical wood timbers, metal sheet pile, or large stone blocks

constructed to form a vertical face perpendicular to the water’s surface. Riprap was described as cobble to

boulder sized stones and/or concrete rubble placed along the shoreline, on the sloped bank. Both riprap and

bulkheads are intended to stabilize the shoreline (Iannuzzi and Ludwig 2004).



The maritime history of the Passaic River, at least the lower portion, can be generalized as industrial. Drastic

alterations to the river banks exemplify two centuries of development in regard to industrial usage. Evaluation

of Historic Aerials from 1931 through present, show complete development or alteration of the landscape

down both banks of the river, throughout the entirety of OU 2. Various sections have been rebuilt and/or

leveled.

Providing resources and opportunity from colonization through present, the Passaic River has been a part

of New Jersey’s economic infrastructure for over three hundred years. An extension of the Port of New York

via the Port of Newark and smaller port cities like Belleville, Passaic and Paterson, the Passaic River was

generally exploited for industrial use. Agriculture, lumber and fishing industries, were overtaken by

petrochemical and larger, industrial operations. Recreational boating gave way to barges, tug boats and

tankers. The river remains an important resource. Adjacent historic districts, bridges and wharf remains serve

as reminders of earlier days along the river.



Figure 2. Thomas Gordon’s 1836 Map of Bergen Meadows. The Passaic River is on the Left. Newark, Belleville and Acquackanonck, are marked in red from south to north along the River. (Image Courtesy of Collection of Stephen Marshall, Olsen 2008:113)



Figure 3. Newark, in 1845. (Map Courtesy of the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection,

Hassler and Bache 1845)

Figure 4. An Example of a Flier for a Passenger Steamship Line. Service was offered between

Newark, New Jersey and New York. (Image Courtesy of Olsen 2008:63)



Figure 5. The Newark Yacht Club on the Passaic River, 1907. (Image Courtesy of Olsen 2008:128)

Figure 6. Tomkins Terminal, Located on the East and Eventually West Bank of the Passaic

River, 1912. (Image Courtesy of Passaic County Historical Society, Olsen 2008:104)



4 SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIAL

This chapter addresses in broad terms the potential for submerged cultural resources within the Project APE

for underwater archaeology.

4.1 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION

PROCESS

Potential shipwreck sites may be considered potentially significant properties that are eligible for inclusion to

the NRHP. To qualify for the NRHP, a site "must be significant in American history, architecture,

archaeology, engineering, or culture, and possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, and association." To be considered significant the site must meet one or more of four

National Register criteria. These criteria include:

A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

or

B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant

and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. Sites that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

National Register Bulletin 20 clarifies the National Register process for shipwrecks and other submerged

cultural resources. Shipwrecks must meet at least one of the criteria listed above and retain integrity of

location, design, settings, materials, workmanship, feelings and association. Determining the significance

of a historic vessel depends on establishing whether the vessel is:

1. the sole, best, or a good representative of a specific vessel type; or

2. is associated with a significant designer or builder; or

3. was involved in important maritime trade, naval recreational, government, or commercial activities.

Properties, which qualify for the National Register, must have significance in one or more "Areas of

Significance" that are listed in National Register Bulletin 16. Although 29 specific categories are listed, only

some are relevant to the submerged cultural resources in the Lower Passaic River region. Architecture,

commerce, engineering, industry, invention, maritime history, and transportation are potentially applicable

data categories for the type of submerged cultural resources which may be expected in the APE.

4.2 POTENTIAL UNDERWATER SITE INTEGRITY – SHIP AND BOAT

WRECKS

The effect of geomorphology and environment on shipwreck material can be quite varied. In most cases,

the remains of shipwrecks are not subjected to the processes of inundation. Shipwreck material deposited

in even the shallowest environment can settle rapidly into the bottom with its associated archaeological

record intact. The wreck of the DeBraak (1798), discovered at the mouth of Delaware Bay provides a classic

example. A good portion of the lower hull survived intact, along with an extensive associated artifact

assemblage. A second local example of site integrity comes from a wreck site discovered near Roosevelt

Inlet, Delaware (ca. 1783). Located in 2005 at the mouth of Delaware Bay near Roosevelt Inlet, this site had

very little surviving hull structure but contained a large volume of well-preserved cultural material from the



vessel’s cargo. These two examples at the mouth of Delaware Bay confirm that even in extremely high-

energy environments, archaeological evidence of historic wreck sites almost inevitably survives. Numerous

other archaeological investigations off the coasts of the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

Virginia, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas, and the countries of England, Greece,

Italy, Israel and Turkey, offer examples that ship remains survived to preserve valuable archaeological data.

At many of the shipwreck sites soft mud and sand similar to the bottom sediments in portions of the study

area provided an excellent environment for preservation. Given the level of maritime activity in Lower

Passaic River, the extent of vessel losses in the vicinity of the study area, and the level of preservation at

shipwreck sites in other similar environments, it is probable that well-preserved shipwreck sites may exist in

the lower portion of the Passaic River.

4.3 POTENTIAL SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCE TYPES IN

PROJECT AREA

With an active maritime history stretching back more than 350 years, shipwreck types from each phase of

the region’s historic development may be expected under the Passaic River. Historic research indicates that

numerous wrecked vessels and obstructions may lie submerged in the lower portions of the Passaic River

and surrounding waters.

Potential submerged cultural resource types in the Project APE may include a variety of material dating from

the second half of the seventeenth century through the second half of the twentieth century. To discuss the

types of vessels potentially present in the Lower Passaic River, it is necessary to include vessels from all

phases of the commercial, naval, and recreational activity in the vicinity. Wood-hulled ships, ranging from

small fishing sloops, periaugers, tug boats, recreational sailing and motor craft, rowed galleys, canal boats,

deck barges, coastal schooners and ferries, have all been active on the Passaic River in the vicinity of the

APE over the last two centuries. A limiting factor is the navigational depth project limits for the Lower Passaic

River – 30 feet, which would limit the size of wrecks in the river. The potential does exist for the survey area

to contain National Register eligible submerged cultural resources.

The United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

The Coast Survey NOAA maintains the Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS)

which contains information on over 10,000 submerged wrecks and obstructions in the coastal waters of the

United States. This list was accessed in two ways to find entries within the Project APE and is contained in

Tables 1 and 2 (NOAA 2017). The lists are not considered comprehensive or exact as many of the sites

listed have been removed or were only included due to reported but unverified information from mariners.

While these tables are not considered accurate indicators of actual sites, they provide an indication into

maritime losses and activities within a waterway.

The following wrecks and obstructions are listed in the NOAA database as being in the APE:



Table 1. List of NOAA ENC Wrecks – Coast Survey Wrecks and Obstructions Database

Name of Wreck or Obstruction Type of Feature Chart ID Latitude Longitude

kml_4671 Wrecks - Submerged, dangerous

US,graph,Chart 12337 40.779135 -74.1488825

kml_4684 Wrecks - Visible US,graph,Chart 12337 40.7723683 -74.1536904


kml_4677 Wrecks - Visible US,reprt,1stCGD,LNM 52/80 40.7415402 -74.1293045


kml_4672 Wrecks - Submerged, dangerous

US,graph,Chart 12337 40.7086885 -74.1195328

(Source: NOAA 2017)

The following wrecks and obstructions are listed in the NOAA database as being in the APE:

Table 2. List of Submerged Vessels – NOAA Charts

Field ID Label Type of Feature Latitude Longitude

331 Passaic 004 Wreck 40°46'19.78"N 74° 9'17.03"W

330 Passaic 003 Wreck 40°46'17.32"N 74° 9'18.85"W

332 Passaic 005 Obstruction 40°46'16.07"N 74° 9'21.29"W

329 Passaic 003 Wreck 40°44'28.33"N 74° 7'48.43"W

328 Passaic 002 Wreck 40°44'19.97"N 74° 7'1.98"W

327 Passaic 001 Obstruction 40°43'21.74"N 74° 7'16.96"W

326 Newark Bay 012 Wreck 40°43'8.23"N 74° 7'14.95"W

324 Newark Bay 010 Wreck 40°42'31.11"N 74° 7'12.71"W

323 Newark Bay 009 Obstruction 40°42'16.64"N 74° 6'58.18"W

321 Newark Bay 007 Obstruction 40°42'14.14"N 74° 6'53.53"W

(Source: NOAA 2017)



5 REVIEW OF REMOTE SENSING DATA SETS

The purpose of the underwater archaeological data review was to locate and identify potentially significant

submerged cultural resource targets that might be impacted by the remedial action within OU 2. Magnetic

and acoustic remote sensing data sets from the comprehensive geophysical survey of OU 2 that was

conducted by Tetra Tech generated more than sufficient information to identify river bottom anomalies

suggestive of potential submerged cultural resources. Additionally, multi-beam bathymetric data were

reviewed to provide remote sensing information along shallow water areas near shorelines where side scan

sonar data coverage was restricted. Aerial imagery was also accessed to inspect for possible partially-

submerged cultural resources along the banks of the Lower Passaic River. The archaeological analysis of

the remote sensing data aimed to isolate targets of potential historical significance that might require further

investigation or avoidance. No diving was undertaken during this survey.

5.1 FIELDWORK METHODS

Comprehensive geophysical, bathymetric, shoreline and debris surveys were performed by Tetra Tech

across the entire 8.3-mile Project. Single-beam and multi-beam bathymetry, vessel-mounted light detection

and ranging (LiDAR), and aerial LiDAR were collected by Tetra Tech in addition to the geophysical field

investigations across the APE which included sub-bottom profiler shallow substrate data, side scan sonar

imagery and magnetometer data. The latter two data sets were reviewed by the underwater archaeologist

to assess the presence of remote sensing targets suggestive of submerged cultural resources.

Side scan sonar data were collected with an EdgeTech dual-frequency (100/600 kHz) 2000 DSS sonar

system. Side scan sonar imagery was acquired using EdgeTech’s Discover acquisition software and then

imported into Chesapeake Technology, Inc.’s SonarWiz software package for post-processing. The

SonarWiz processing package was used to bottom track and apply advanced signal processing and gains

to prepare the sonar imagery for final report. The sidescan sonar imagery data were exported from SonarWiz

as a 1-foot resolution GeoTiff mosaic, which is provided in Figures 7-11. Targets detected in the sonar data

included possible submerged cultural objects, debris items, or other potential hazards or features of interest.

A side scan sonar target report was provided to the underwater archaeologist that included the dimensions,

descriptive text and high resolution images of each target (Tetra Tech 2017a).

Magnetometer data were collected with a Marine Magnetics Explorer magnetometer along parallel lines that

were spaced approximately 65-feet apart. The sensor for the magnetometer was towed with a fixed layback

behind the survey vessel of 50 feet. The relative position of the sensor was determined using a layback

calculation that was applied during data processing efforts. Magnetometer data were processed using a

combination of Oasis Montaj and Tetra Tech software. Total magnetic field data are measurements of the

absolute value of the Earth’s magnetic field. Total field readings are highly influenced by ferrous

infrastructure, geologic features and diurnal variations in the earth’s magnetic field. Contact records include

time position, and strength (in nano-Teslas [nT]) of magnetic readings (Tetra Tech 2017a).

The multibeam sonar survey system consisted of several independent sensors that were integrated

electronically and physically mounted and referenced to each other in a vessel-referenced coordinate frame

on the survey vessel. The goal of the multibeam survey was to produce a bank-to-bank variable-density

digital terrain model (DTM) of the earth surface including the river bottom, intertidal zone, and upland river

banks, with minimal data gaps (Tetra Tech 2017a).



5.2 EVALUATION OF REMOTE SENSING TARGETS

Remote sensing target signatures were evaluated using the NRHP criteria as a basis for the assessment.

For example, although an historic object might produce a remote sensing target signature, it is unlikely that

a single object (such as a historic anchor or cannon ball) has the potential to meet the criteria for nomination

to the NRHP.

Target assessment was based primarily on the nature and characteristics of the acoustic and magnetic

signatures. Shipwrecks – large or small – often have distinctive acoustic signatures, which are characterized

by geometrical features typically found only in a floating craft. Most geometrical features identified on the

bottom (in open water) are manmade objects. Often an acoustic signature will have an associated magnetic

signature. Generally, if the acoustic signature demonstrates geometric forms or intersecting lines with some

relief above the bottom surface and has a magnetic signature of any sort; it can be categorized as a

potentially significant target. Often, modern debris near docks, bridges, or an anchorage is easily identified

solely based on the characteristics of its acoustic signature. However, it is more common to find material

partially exposed. Frequently, these objects produce a record that obviously indicates a man-made object,

but the object is impossible to identify or date. Also in making an archaeological assessment of any sonar

target, the history and modern use of the waterway must be taken into consideration. Naturally, historically

active areas tend to have greater potential for submerged cultural resources. The assessment process

prioritizes targets for further underwater archaeological investigations.

Magnetic target signatures alone are more difficult to assess. Without any supporting acoustic records, the

type of the bottom sediments and the water currents become more important to the assessment process. A

small, single-source magnetic signature has the least potential to be a significant cultural resource. Although

it might represent a single historic object, this type of signature has limited potential to meet NRHP criteria.

A more complex magnetic anomaly, represented by a broad monopolar or dipolar type signature, has a

greater potential to be a significant cultural resource, depending on bottom type. A magnetic anomaly that

is identified in a hard bottom area and has no associated acoustic signature frequently can be discounted

as being a historic shipwreck. Most likely, such an anomaly is modern debris, such as wire rope, chain, or

other ferrous material.

Soft migrating sand or mud can bury even large wrecks, leaving little or no indication of their presence on

the bottom surface (via sonar data). The types of magnetic signatures that a boat or ship might produce are

infinite, because of the large number of variables including location, position, chemical environment, other

metals, vessel type, cargo, sea state, etc. These variables are what determine the characteristics of every

magnetic target signature. Since shipwrecks occur in a dynamic environment, many of the variables are

subject to constant change. Thus, in making an assessment of a magnetic anomalies potential to represent

a significant cultural resource, investigators must be circumspect in their predictions.

Broad, multi-component signatures (again, depending on bottom characteristics and other factors) often

have the greatest potential to represent a shipwreck. On the other hand, high-intensity, multi-component,

magnetic signatures (without an accompanying acoustic signature) in areas of relatively high velocity

currents can be discounted as a historic resource. Eddies created by the high-velocity currents almost

always keep some portion of a wreck exposed. Generally, wire rope or some other low-profile ferrous debris

produces this type of signature in these circumstances. Many types of magnetic anomalies display

characteristics that are not easily interpreted. The only definitive method of determining the nature of the

object creating these anomalies is by physical examination.



Due to the presence of relatively firm river bottom conditions across the Project APE, most potentially

significant submerged cultural resources sites are expected to be evident on the side scan sonar records.

Typically, target locations with suspect cultural resource images on the sonar records coupled with

associated and appropriate magnetic signatures were considered to be high probability targets. Magnetic

data in the Lower Passaic River environment was a less reliable indicator due to the high level of background

noise associated with the high concentration of ferrous infrastructure along most of the Project APE.

5.3 FINDINGS – DATA REVIEW

While both the side scan sonar and magnetometer data sets were analyzed, an emphasis was placed on

the side scan sonar imagery due to the unreliability of magnetic data attributable to the very high levels of

background disturbances in the earth’s magnetic field. These disturbances were generated by the proximity

of ferrous materials along the entire course of the river in OU 2. All side scan sonar targets were analyzed

according to their spatial extent, configuration, location, and environmental context. The goal of the data

review was to determine the number, locations, cultural affiliations, components, spatial distribution, data

potential, and other salient characteristics of all potential significant submerged cultural resources within the

APE.

A total of 229 side scan sonar targets were identified from Tetra Tech’s geophysical remote sensing survey.

A vast majority of these targets are attributed to linear and rounded debris; typically signifying a non-cultural

resource. Very large clusters of debris were identified adjacent to many of the shoreline structures and also

around and under the various bridge piers that span the river (Figure 12). The source of many of these

sonar targets is likely associated with former docks, piers, bulkheads, and bridge fendering systems. Several

of the targets were partially buried rectangular or linear features that were not identifiable from this data set.

There were also abundant targets that were isolated linear features – suspect tree limbs and wood planks

or piles that were washed into the river.

Of the 229 overall sonar targets identified in the Tetra Tech side scan sonar data set, 31 targets generated

signatures that were suggestive of man-made features and comprised dimensions that could be attributed

to potential submerged cultural resource sites. However, 19 of these 31 features appear to be associated

with submerged cars, some of which are partially buried in bottom sediments. These suspect car sites are

not considered to be potentially significant submerged cultural resources. A complete listing of the suspect

car sites is contained in Table 3.

Four (4) of the 31 targets are likely boat wrecks and are considered to be potentially significant submerged

cultural resources. These likely boat wreck sites are sonar target numbers 167, 194, 200A and 200B. These

targets were not on the shipwreck lists contained in Tables 1 and 2. Two of the boat sites appear to be

associated with smaller vessels - each less than 30 feet in length. Two of the vessels (200A & 200B) are

larger hulls that combined cover an area measured to be 70 feet by 52 feet in size (Figures 13-16). Three

of the vessels appear to be square-ended and the fourth wreck seems to have a rounded stern. All of these

sites are partially buried. Additional underwater archaeological investigations are recommended at these

four suspect boat wreck sites. A complete description of these four suspect boat wreck targets is contained

in Table 4.

In addition to the four (4) suspect boat wreck sites, eight (8) other side scan sonar targets generated remote

sensing signatures indicating the presence of bottom features with configurations, structure, or mass that

are suggestive of submerged cultural material. These have been classified as potentially significant debris-

related sonar targets: they include targets 50, 59, 69, 109, 170, 182, 206 and 213. Descriptions of these

eight target sites are contained in Table 5.



Inspection of aerial imagery confirms the presence of one partially-submerged potential cultural resource

site at RM 2.913 along the river shoreline (on the ascending left side of river) (Figure 17). This site was also

detected on multibeam data and designated MBE Target 052 (Figures 18-19). The site is comprised of a

barge-like vessel that extends out from the shoreline perpendicular to the flow of the river and appears to

have been retrofitted and used as a dock. Attached to this barge/dock is a derelict motor vessel that is also

located in the intertidal zone where the site(s) are alternately inundated and exposed during the tidal cycles.

The barge and derelict motor vessel are considered as a single target site. The barge/dock measures 105

feet long and 34 feet wide. The partially submerged derelict motor vessel is 72 feet long and 18 feet wide.

This site is the 13th potentially significant target identified in the Project APE.

Additional Stage IB underwater archaeological investigations are recommended at these 13 potentially

significant remote sensing target locations. Stage IB underwater investigations would be designed to gather

sufficient information and detail on the 13 remote sensing target locations to enable an accurate assessment

of their potential historical significance, or lack thereof, for each target location. Stage IB investigations would

involve gathering additional site-specific, high resolution acoustic data at these 13 sites to better define the

boundaries and characteristics of the sites prior to ground truthing each location, i.e. inspecting them directly

in the water. The primary work task of the Stage IB investigations would be to have divers identify the type,

nature, and condition of each target source. After assembling all this additional information from the Stage

IB investigations, the targets may either be dismissed from further archaeological actions (if target source is

modern debris or otherwise determined to be not significant); or designated as potentially significant

archaeological sites that warrant Stage II Underwater Archaeological Investigation to determine if they may

be eligible to the NRHP.

Table 3. Suspect Submerged Car Sonar Targets (19) –these are not considered to be

potentially significant.

Target Image Sonar Target Dimensions and Attributes

SC-0048 ● RM 4.750

● Sonar Time at Target: 7/27/2017 5:22:29 PM

● Click Position

40° 44.01679'' N 074° 09.48507'' W (WGS84)

(X) 586874.71 (Y) 692335.03 (Projected

Coordinates)

● Map Projection: NJ83F

● Acoustic Source File: \\Tts118fs2\mmgfs2

\Projects\2017_6100_Passaic_River\2000-

DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170727\20170727_1712.jsf

● Range to target: 71.34 US ft

● Heading: 100.700 Degrees

● Target Width: 5.21 US ft

● Target Height: 4.69 US ft

● Target Length: 19.85 US ft

● Target Shadow: 17.09 US ft

● Classification1: car

● Description: Rectangular object, possible

car, scattered debris including circular

objects

SC-0051 ● RM 4.778


● Click Position

40° 44.02288'' N 074° 09.51883'' W (WGS84)

(X) 586718.60 (Y) 692371.45 (Projected

Coordinates)




DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170727\20170727_1712.jsf








● Description: possible car




SC-0053 ● RM 4.174


● Click Position

40° 44.02774'' N 074° 08.81046'' W (WGS84)

(X) 589990.16 (Y) 692413.85 (Projected

Coordinates)




DSS\SSS-jsf\20170728

\20170728_004_1550.000.jsf







● Classification1: debris

● Description: rectangular, possible car

SC-0058 ● RM4.129


● Click Position

40° 44.05053'' N 074° 08.75873'' W (WGS84)

(X) 590228.52 (Y) 692553.24 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170801_003_1812.002.jsf









SC-0065 ● RM 4.922


● Click Position

40° 44.10010'' N 074° 09.67322'' W (WGS84)

(X) 586003.74 (Y) 692837.50 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170801_003_1812.002.jsf









SC-0068 ● RM 4.963


● Click Position

40° 44.11050'' N 074° 09.68234'' W (WGS84)

(X) 585961.37 (Y) 692900.51 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170728_004_1550.000.jsf








● Description: Possible car




SC-0074 ● RM 3.989


● Click Position

40° 44.15000'' N 074° 08.64893'' W (WGS84)

(X) 590733.20 (Y) 693159.18 (Projected

Coordinates)




DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170727\20170727_1830.002.jsf








● Description: Rectangular, possible car

amidst debris area

SC-0095 ● RM 5.350


● Click Position

40° 44.45411'' N 074° 09.80408'' W (WGS84)

(X) 585391.11 (Y) 694984.63 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170801_009_1605.000.jsf








● Description: Possible car

SC-0155 ● 6.027


● Click Position

40° 45.02319'' N 074° 09.94702'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584717.88 (Y) 698437.33 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf









SC-0162 ● RM 6.131


● Click Position

40° 45.11229'' N 074° 09.93100'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584789.80 (Y) 698978.60 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_2303.000.jsf












SC-0163 ● RM 6.153


● Click Position

40° 45.13270'' N 074° 09.92703'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584807.62 (Y) 699102.58 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf









SC-0164 ● RM 6.165


● Click Position

40° 45.14142'' N 074° 09.92122'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584834.27 (Y) 699155.65 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf









SC-0174 ● RM 6.297


● Click Position

40° 45.25662'' N 074° 09.90920'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584887.09 (Y) 699855.30 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf








● Description: rectangular object, possible

car

SC-0175 ● RM 6.307


● Click Position

40° 45.26506'' N 074° 09.90642'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584899.73 (Y) 699906.62 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf












SC-0183 ● RM 6.403


● Click Position

40° 45.34863'' N 074° 09.89629'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584944.59 (Y) 700414.18 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf








● Description: Amidst scattered debris,

possible car

SC-0184 ● RM 6.409


● Click Position

40° 45.35324'' N 074° 09.89846'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584934.44 (Y) 700442.13 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf








● Description: amidst abundant scattered

debris, possible car

SC-0188 ● RM 6.765


● Click Position

40° 45.65178'' N 074° 09.77159'' W (WGS84)

(X) 585513.23 (Y) 702257.00 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_005_1850.001.jsf









SC-0191 ● RM 7.042


● Click Position

40° 45.83254'' N 074° 09.55501'' W (WGS84)

(X) 586508.87 (Y) 703358.36 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_008_1612.000.jsf












SC-0192 ● RM7.129


● Click Position

40° 45.89407'' N 074° 09.49617'' W (WGS84)

(X) 586779.04 (Y) 703733.04 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_009_1958.000.jsf











Table 4. Potentially Significant Sonar Targets – Suspect Boat Wrecks (4)

1) Sonar Target 167

167 ● RM 6.258 ● Sonar Time at Target: 7/31/2017

4:21:45 PM ● Click Position

40° 45.21741'' N 074° 09.85593'' W (WGS84)

(X) 585133.95 (Y) 699618.16 (Projected Coordinates)

● Map Projection: NJ83F ● Located at RM 6.258 ● Acoustic Source File:

\\Tts118fs2\mmgfs2

\Projects\2017_6100_Passaic_Ri

ver\2000- DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170731 \20170731_008_1612.000.jsf

Dimensions and attributes ● Target Width: 15.77 US ft ● Target Height: 1.17 US ft ● Target Length: 25.20 US ft ● Target Shadow: 6.08 US ft ● Classification1: wreck

● Description: Small upright, square-

ended vessel with associated debris

field

Sonar image of Target 167 is suggestive of small square ended boat hull



2) Sonar Target 194

194 ● RM 7.256 ● Sonar Time at Target: 7/31/2017


40° 45.99403'' N 074° 09.42684'' W (WGS84) (X) 587096.71 (Y) 704341.21 (Projected Coordinates)

● Map Projection: NJ83F ● Located at RM 7.256 ● Acoustic Source File:

\\Tts118fs2\mmgfs2


ver\2000- DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170731 \20170731_009_1958.000.jsf

Dimensions and attributes ● Target Width: 8.72 US ft ● Target Height: 2.90 US ft ● Target Length: 16.07 US ft ● Target Shadow: 13.99 US ft ● Classification1: debris

● Description: Small, upright, round-

ended vessel with associated debris

field. Exposed portion of boat is

approximately 16 feet x nine (9) feet.

This hull has several feet of profile

above the surrounding bottom

surface.

Sonar image of Target 194 is suggestive of small round-ended boat hull.



3) Sonar Target 200A

200A ● RM 7.445 ● Sonar Time at Target: 7/31/2017


40° 46.15653'' N 074° 09.42250'' W (WGS84) (X) 587112.91 (Y) 705327.89 (Projected

Coordinates) ● Map Projection: NJ83F ● Acoustic Source File:

\\Tts118fs2\mmgfs2


ver\2000- DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170731 \20170731_006_1525.000.jsf

Dimensions and attributes ● Target Width: 51.94 US ft ● Target Height: 4.51 US ft ● Target Length: 70.46 US ft ● Target Shadow: 14.40 US ft ● Classification1: wreck ●

● Description: Two, upright, square-

ended vessels with interior framing

exposed were identified at this

location. Vessels are laying close to

bulkhead and limited debris is in

vicinity of the two hulls. Both sites are

partially buried at bow.

Sonar image of Target 200A&B is suggestive of two boat hulls lying next to bulkhead.



4) Sonar Target 200B

200B ● RM 7.446 ● Sonar Time at Target: 7/31/2017


40° 46.15653'' N 074° 09.42250'' W (WGS84) (X) 587112.91 (Y) 705327.89 (Projected

Coordinates) ● Map Projection: NJ83F ● Acoustic Source File:

\\Tts118fs2\mmgfs2


ver\2000- DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170731 \20170731_006_1525.000.jsf

Dimensions and attributes ● Target Width: 51.94 US ft ● Target Height: 4.51 US ft ● Target Length: 70.46 US ft ● Target Shadow: 14.40 US ft ● Classification1: wreck ●

● Description: Two, upright, square-

ended vessels with interior framing

exposed were identified at this

location. Vessels are laying close to

bulkhead and limited debris is in

vicinity of the two hulls. While both

sites are partially buried at bow, this

wreck appears to have a rounded

(bluff) bow.

Sonar image of Target 200A&B is suggestive of two boat hulls lying next to bulkhead.



Table 5. Other Potentially Significant Sonar Targets – Debris Related (8)


SC-0050 ● RM 4.733


● Click Position

40° 44.02064'' N 074° 09.46423'' W (WGS84)

(X) 586970.83 (Y) 692358.79 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170728_004_1550.000.jsf







● Classification1: debris area

● Description: Dimensions approximate

for displayed area. Debris items

extend beyond defined area. A

combination of linear and rectangular

features with an associated bottom

scour. Additional u/w archaeological

investigations are recommended.

SC-0059 ● RM 4.241


● Click Position

40° 44.05539'' N 074° 08.90065'' W (WGS84)

(X) 589572.94 (Y) 692580.11 (Projected

Coordinates)




DSS\SSS-

jsf\20170727\20170727_2015.jsf








● Description: Rectangular debris that is

partially buried. Could potentially be part

of a boat hull. Additional u/w

archaeological investigations are

recommended.

SC-0069 ● RM 4.021


● Click Position

40° 44.12917'' N 074° 08.67802'' W (WGS84)

(X) 590599.37 (Y) 693032.20 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170728_004_1550.000.jsf








● Description: Scatter of linear debris that

forms a rectangular feature that is partially

buried. Additional u/w archaeological


SC-0109 ● RM 2.701


● Click Position

40° 44.50849'' N 074° 07.41189'' W (WGS84)

(X) 596437.04 (Y) 695359.67 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170728_004_1550.001.jsf








● Description: two debris features near

dock; target location between two objects.

Dimensions for debris area. Additional u/w

archaeological investigations are

recommended.




SC-0170 ● RM 6.284


● Click Position

40° 45.23948'' N 074° 09.85589'' W (WGS84)

(X) 585133.63 (Y) 699752.17 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_008_1612.000.jsf








● Description: Unusual man-made feature.

Additional u/w archaeological


SC-0182 ● RM 6.379


● Click Position

40° 45.32612'' N 074° 09.89786'' W (WGS84)

(X) 584937.85 (Y) 700277.51 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_006_1525.001.jsf








● Description: Large rectangular object.

Possible platform or decking or raft.



SC-0206 ● RM 7.534


● Click Position

40° 46.23386'' N 074° 09.38758'' W (WGS84)

(X) 587272.26 (Y) 705798.08 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_007_2232.000.jsf








● Description: Large oblong feature that is

resting partially buried in soft bottom.



SC-0213 ● RM 7.746


● Click Position

40° 46.40467'' N 074° 09.28254'' W (WGS84)

(X) 587753.06 (Y) 706837.09 (Projected

Coordinates)





\20170731_005_1850.000.jsf







● Description: Cluster of debris and

submerged pilings in area ~60-ft x 25-ft.





This page intentionally left blank.



Figure 7. Side Scan Mosaic and Selected Targets (1 of 5)

Note: There are no selected targets in this portion of the Project APE

Source: Tetra Tech 2017, Appendix E, Figure E-1








Potentially Significant Debris Target

109








69


Suspect Car Target

74

53

58

59

50

11

48

Suspect Boat Wreck Target

MBE 52









Suspect Car Target

51

48

50

68 65

95

162

155

163

167

164


170

175

174

183

182

184








191

188


Suspect Car Target


192

194

200B

200A

213

206






Figure 12. Aerial Image of Abandoned Conrail Railroad Bridge at Fourth Ave. (RM 6.32)

Note: Seven targets (representing 3 types of targets) are clustered around either side of this former railroad bridge

Yellow = suspect car targets | Blue = potentially significant debris targets | Red = suspect boat wreck targets

167

170

174 & 175

183 & 184

182

N



Figure 13. Aerial Image (ca. 2010) of Shoreline Adjacent to Targets 200A&B. (RM 7.445) (Source: GoogleEarth)

Note: Various type of recreational boats are visible at small boatyard and along shoreline of property.

Figure 14. Aerial Photograph (ca. 2014) of Shoreline Adjacent to Targets 200A&B. (RM 7.445) (Source: GoogleEarth)

Note: Fewer recreational boats are visible at small boatyard and along shoreline of property.

N

N



Figure 15. Multibeam Imagery of Target 200A&B. RM 7.445

(Source: Tetra Tech 2017a)

Figure 16. Multibeam Imagery of Target 200A&B – View Offshore. RM 7.445

(Source: Tetra Tech 2017a)



Figure 17. Aerial Photograph (ca. 2014) of Shoreline Adjacent to Target MBE 52.

Source: GoogleEarth

Note: Suspect converted barge/dock (red arrow) and partially submerged motor vessel (blue arrow) comprise this Target site at RM 2.913.

N



Figure 18. Multibeam Imagery of Target MBE 52. RM 2.913


Figure 19. Multibeam Imagery of Target MBE 52 – View Downstream. RM 2.913




6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The maritime history of the Passaic River provided within this report indicates sustained and varied use of

these waters since the middle of the seventeenth century. Commercial and industrial activities were

conducted along the shores of the Passaic River from the time the Puritans from Connecticut settled in the

vicinity in 1666. The maritime history of the Lower Passaic River has always been closely tied to industry.

The Lower Passaic River was a vital transportation artery for the region’s economic development. The banks

of the river were steadily developed throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, effectively becoming

an extension of the Port of New York. Production facilities for petrochemicals, packaged food products, and

sand, gravel, crushed stone, and other construction materials, were built along the Passaic River. Railroads

and eventually, interstates, traversed over and along the Lower Passaic River, linking numerous

transportation lines. Background research has documented transportation activities on the river as well as

alterations of the waterfront for industrial use. The Project APE is certainly affected by all of the above.

In conjunction with the environmental dredging of the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River, Stage IA

level underwater archaeological investigations were conducted to identify remote sensing target that were

suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources. Investigations included background

maritime historical research and a review and analysis of remote sensing data sets that were collected during

a comprehensive geophysical survey of the APE conducted in July-August, 2017. The comprehensive

remote sensing survey utilized magnetometry, side scan sonar, multibeam bathymetry and sub bottom

profiling in addition to other remote sensing devices over a six-week period during the summer of 2017.

Analysis of their data sets resulted in the identification of 13 remote sensing targets that are considered to

be suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources. See Table 6 for a complete listing of

the 13 potentially significant targets.

Avoidance of these 13 target locations would normally be recommended. At a minimum, buffer zones of

200 feet from the perimeters of all 13 sites is required to successfully avoid effects to these targets. If

potential impact at any of the 13 locations is unavoidable due to the implementation of the remedial action,

then Stage IB-level underwater archaeological investigations are recommended to identify and evaluate

each of the targets according to NRHP eligibility criteria.

Typically, Stage IB underwater investigations would involve ground-truthing the target locations by divers

qualified in underwater archaeology to determine the nature and characteristics of the material that

generated the remote sensing signatures. The potential activities would be designed to gather sufficient

information and detail about the 13 targets to enable an accurate assessment of the potential historical

significance, or lack thereof, for each target location. After assembling this additional information from the

Stage IB investigations, the targets may either be dismissed from further archaeological actions (if target

source is modern debris or otherwise determined to be not significant); or designated as potentially significant

archaeological sites that warrant Stage II Underwater Archaeological Investigation to determine if they may

be eligible to the NRHP.



Table 6. Summary of 13 Potentially Significant Targets within Project APE

Target Easting Northing Target Type - Findings/Comments

50 586970 692358 Debris associated target. A combination of linear and rectangular features with an associated bottom scour that extends across an area 73’ x 92’. Located at RM 4.733.

59 589572 692580 Debris associated target. Rectangular debris across an area 15’ x 28’ that becomes partially buried. Could potentially be part of a boat hull. Located at RM 4.241.

69 590599 693032 Debris associated target. A scatter of linear debris that collectively forms a rectangular feature, 49’ x 67’, which is partially buried. Located at RM 4.021.

109 596437 695359 Debris associated target. Two debris features located near NJ Turnpike bridge piers. Located at RM 2.701.

167 585133 699618 Suspect boat wreck target. Small (25’ long) upright, square-ended vessel with associated debris field. Located at RM 6.258.

170 585133 699752 Debris associated target. Hard, unusual, feature, 12’ x 10’, which is partially buried in river bottom sediments. Located at RM 6.284.

182 584937 700277 Debris associated target. Large rectangular feature, comprised of parallel linear components that overall measure 31’ x 82’. Located at RM 6.379.

194 587096 704341 Suspect boat wreck target. Small (16’ long) upright, round-ended vessel with associated debris field. The boat hull extends several feet above the surrounding bottom surface. Located at RM 7.256.

200A 587112 705327 Suspect boat wreck target. Two, upright, square-ended vessels (along with Target 200B) with interior framing exposed were identified at this location. Vessels are laying close to bulkhead and limited debris is in vicinity of the two hulls. Both sites are partially buried at bow. Located at RM 7.445.

200B 587112 705337 Suspect boat wreck target. Two, upright, square-ended vessels (along with Target 200A) with interior framing exposed were identified at this location. Vessels are laying close to bulkhead and limited debris is in vicinity of the two hulls. Both sites are partially buried at bow. Located at RM 7.445.

206 584937 700277 Debris associated target. Large oblong feature, measuring 16’ x 33’, which appears to be more than partially buried. Located at RM 7.534.

213 584937 700277 Debris associated target. Large cluster of debris associated with network of cut-off pilings that appears to have supported a former dock structure. Located at RM 7.746.

MBE 52 595371 695302 Barge-like vessel extends from ascending left shoreline out perpendicular into river. Vessel appears to have been modified and used as a dock. Part of the site includes a partially submerged derelict vessel that is attached to the barge/dock. The barge/dock measures 105’ x 34’ and the motor vessel is 72’ x 18’. Located at RM 2.913.

Note: Easting and Northing coordinates are expressed in New Jersey State Plane Coordinates, NAD83, feet.



7 REFERENCES CONSULTED

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016a. Record of Decision for the 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, New Jersey.

EPA Region 2. September 26, 206.

Hassler, F.R. and A.D. Bache. 1845. Map of New-York Bay and Harbor and the environs. From a

trigonometrical survey under the direction of F.R. Hassler, Superintendent of the Survey of the

Coast of the United States. Triangulation by James Ferguson and Edmund Blunt, assistants. The

hydrography under the direction of Thomas R. Gedney, Lieutenant, U.S. Navy. The topography by

C. Renard, T.A. Jenkins & B.F. Sands, assists. Published in 1845. A.D. Bache, Superintendent.

Topography engraved by S. Siebert & A. Rolle, views engraved by O.A. Lawson. Engraving

supervised & views of the coast drawn by J. Farley. Hydrography engraved by F. Dankworth,

lettering by F. Dankworth & J. Knight. Electrotype copy no. 5 by G. Mathiot, U.S.C.S. (with logo)

U.S. Coast Survey Depot. David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com

/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~33352~1170772:New-York-Bay,-Harbor-?sort=pub_list_no

_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no&qvq=q:newark%2C%2Bnew%2Bjersey;

sort:pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=7&

trs=18. Accessed 6 November 2017.

Hoppe, H. and K. Watson. 2012. USGS Involvement in the Passaic River Basin. United States Department

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/USGS_Flood_Inundation_Mapping.pdf. Accessed 4 November 2017.

Iannuzzi, T.J. and D.F. Ludwig. 2004. Historical and Current Ecology of the Lower Passaic River. Urban

Habitats. December. http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v02n01/passaicriver_full.html. Accessed 5

November 2017.

Jones, T.W. and S.S. Moore. 1802. Road from Philadelphia to New York. Maps 14 and 15. David Rumsey

Historical Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2096~

130129:Road-from-Philadelphia-to-New-York-?sort=pub_list_no_initialsort%2Cpub_

date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no&qvq=q:newark%2C%2Bnew%2Bjersey;sort:pub_list_no_

%2Cpub_date%2Cpub_list_no%2Cseries_no;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=8&trs=18. Accessed 6

November 2017.

Morse and S.C Hill. 1796. New Jersey. Thomas and Andrews, Boston, MA. Historical Maps of New Jersey

http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/us_states/newjersey/index2.htm. Accessed 3

November 2017.

National Park Service. 2017. Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park, New Jersey. U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/pagr/learn/historyculture/index.htm.

Accessed 4 November 2017.

Olsen, Kevin K. 2008. A Great Conveniency: A Maritime History of the Passaic River, Hackensack River

and Newark Bay. American History Imprints, Franklin, TN.



Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017a. Geophysical, Bathymetric, Shoreline, and Debris Survey Report. 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 and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Report submitted to Glenn

Springs Holdings, Inc., Houston, TX.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017b. Cultural Resources Survey Work Plan (Appendix I 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. Prepared for Glenn

Springs Holdings, Inc., Houston, TX by Tetra tech, Parsippany, NJ.

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coast

Survey (NOAA). 2017. Coast Survey’s Wrecks and Obstructions Map Preview.

https://wrecks.nauticalcharts.noaa. gov/viewer/. Accessed 6 November 2017.



APPENDIX A

RESUME OF KEY INVESTIGATOR

J. LEE COX, M.A., RPA

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGIST

EDUCATION:

• M.A., Maritime History/Underwater Archaeology, East Carolina University, 1985

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, Duke University, 1981

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE:

J. Lee Cox is a professional Maritime Archaeologist with 32 years of professional experience in cultural resources

management, historic preservation planning and marine survey. Mr. Cox has participated on more than 150 underwater

archaeological projects in 24 states and Puerto Rico since 1983. He has served as the Principal Investigator on more

than 125 of those projects since 1987. He has obtained a thorough knowledge of Section 110 and Section 106 and of

the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (NHPA) and applying the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) eligibility criteria to cultural resources. Mr. Cox has widely recognized in his field and has numerous

professional publications. In addition, Mr. Cox has designed and directed remote sensing projects to locate and

identify underwater debris and utilities for commercial clients in a wide variety of marine environments.

• In 1989, Mr. Cox formed Dolan Research, Inc (DR), where he currently serves as Principal Investigator and

President. DR is an underwater archaeological consulting and remote sensing surveying firm, specializing in the

identification, documentation and evaluation of submerged cultural resources. In addition, DR has the capability to

complete hydrographic and waterfront surveys. Prior to forming Dolan Research, Mr. Cox served as Maritime

Consultant to the Philadelphia Maritime Museum and to the Maritime Historical Institute. He has participated in

numerous NHPA compliance projects and has been a key member of research and planning teams. He has been a

contributing or principal author of more than 125 technical reports.

By profession, Mr. Cox is a trained underwater archaeologist certified in 1988 by the Society of Professional

Archaeologists in underwater archaeology, marine survey, and museology. Mr. Cox is also HazMat certified. Mr.

Cox has a broad knowledge of cultural resource management principals and practices, remote sensing survey,

evaluation, and data recovery methodologies on underwater archaeology projects and has presented research results

within Federal and state agency, academic, and public sector venues. His areas of specialization include:

• Phase I, II and III Underwater Archaeological Investigations

• Acoustic, Magnetic, Sub-bottom, and Bathymetric Remote Sensing

• Identification of underwater debris and utilities

• Navigation and Positioning

• Historic Watercraft and Ship Construction Techniques

• Archival Research, Maritime and Naval Research

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE:

Principal Investigator. Atlantic Ocean, Ocean County, New Jersey. Phase I and II underwater archaeological

investigation of 11 shipwreck sites and two offshore borrow areas in conjunction with the New

Jersey Beach Renourishment Project. Work conducted for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Philadelphia District.

Principal Investigator. Atlantic Ocean, Cape May County, New Jersey. Phase I and IB underwater archaeological

investigation at Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Cape May Inlet Borrow Areas in conjunction with

the New Jersey Beach Renourishment Project. Work conducted for U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Philadelphia District.

Principal Investigator. Atlantic Ocean, Cape May County, New Jersey. Phase I and IB underwater archaeological

investigation at Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Cape May Inlet Borrow Areas in conjunction with

J. Lee Cox

the New Jersey Beach Renourishment Project. Work conducted for U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Philadelphia District.

Principal Investigator. Delaware Bay, Sussex County, Delaware. Phase II underwater archaeological investigation

of 18th century shipwreck site off of Lewes Beach. Work was done in conjunction with the Delaware

Beach Beach Renourishment Project. Work conducted for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Philadelphia District.

Principal Investigator, Mark Clark Expressway Project, Stono River. Phase II underwater archaeological

investigation in conjunction with the proposed construction of additional bridge crossing over

the Stono River. Work conducted for the South Carolina DOT.

Principal Investigator, SC 802 Bridge Project over Beaufort River, Beaufort County, SC. Phase I underwater

archaeological investigation in conjunction with the SC-802 Bridge Replacement over the

Beaufort River. Work conducted for South Carolina DOT.

Principal Investigator, Hudson River Utility Project, New York. Phase I underwater archaeological evaluation of

geophysical dataset collected within the proposed path of a submerged power line under a 77

mile long stretch of the Hudson River. Work conducted for New York Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation.

Principal Investigator, St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Florida. Served as Principal Investigator for Phase II

underwater archaeological investigation in conjunction with the navigational improvements in

the St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Florida. Work conducted for USACE, Jacksonville District.

Principal Investigator. York River, Yorktown, Va. Phase I underwater archaeological investigation for the York River

Utilities Crossing Study adjacent to the Coleman Bridge, Yorktown and Gloucester Point, VA.

Work was completed in association with Waterway Surveys and Engineering for PreCon

Construction and Cox Cable.

Principal Investigator. James River, Newport News, Va. Phase I underwater archaeological investigation for the

proposed replacement of Pier 9, James River, Newport News, Va. Work was completed for the

Kinder Morgan Company.

Principal Investigator. Chickahominy River, James City County, Va. Phase I underwater archaeological investigation

for the proposed replacement of Rt. 5 Crossing of The Chickahominy River, James City County &

Charles City County, Va. Work was completed for Virginia DOT.

Principal Investigator. Weems Creek, MD.. Phase I underwater archaeological investigation for the proposed

replacement of MD 70 bridge, Anne Arundel County, MD. Work was completed for MD State

Highway Administration.

Principal Investigator. Atlantic Ocean, Cape May and Atlantic Counties, New Jersey. Phase I & II underwater

archaeological investigation in conjunction with the New Jersey Beach Jersey Beach Renourishment

Project. Work conducted for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.

Principal Investigator. Underwater Archaeological Investigation in conjunction with the replacement of the Woodrow

Wilson (I-95) Bridge. Work conducted for Maryland State Highway Administration and the

Virginia DOT.

Principal Investigator. Hampton Roads, Va. Phase I and II underwater archaeological investigation for the Hampton

Roads Third Crossing Study. Work conducted for Virginia Department of Transportation.

Principal Investigator. Choptank River, Talbot County, Md. Phase I remote sensing investigation was conducted at

two locations in the Choptank River, Cambridge, Talbot County, Maryland. The project was

J. Lee Cox

completed in association with planned development of the Eastern Shore Hospital Center Site,

Cambridge, Maryland. Work was completed for the Maryland Department of General Services.

Principal Investigator. Marshyhope Creek, Dorchester County, Md. Phase I underwater archeological investigation in

conjunction with the replacement of Route 392 Bridge, over Marshyhope Creek, Dorchester County,

Maryland. Work was completed for the Maryland State Highway Administration.

Principal Investigator. Back Creek, Solomans Island, Md. Phase I underwater archaeological investigation in

conjunction with the proposed installation of a utility crossing. Work was completed in conjunction

with Waterway Surveys and Engineering for the Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative.

Principal Investigator, Delaware Bay, Lewes, De. Phase II underwater archaeological investigation of 18 th century

shipwreck site at Roosevelt Inlet, Delaware Bay, Lewes, De. Work was completed for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.

Principal Investigator. A Phase I underwater archaeological investigation was completed in the Peachblossom and

Trippe Creeks, Talbot County, Maryland, in preparation for the replacement the Route 333 bridges.

Work was completed for the Maryland State Highway Administration.

Principal Investigator. A Phase I underwater archaeological investigation was completed in the Weems Creek, Anne

Arundel County, Maryland, in preparation for the replacement the Route 436 bridge. Work was

completed for the Maryland State Highway Administration.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS, AWARDS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

2001 Underwater Archaeological Investigations of the Crosswicks Creek Canal Boat Site, Mercer County, New

Jersey. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey. No. 56. South Orange, New Jersey.

1997 An Early 19th-Century Canal Boat Wreck in the Delaware River. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of

New Jersey. No. 52. South Orange, New Jersey.

1996 The Wreck of the Side Paddle Wheel Steamboat Excelsior. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New

Jersey. No. 51. South Orange, New Jersey.

1990 USS Shipwreck: Underwater Archaeology and U.S. Navy Divers. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings

from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference. Tuscon, Arizona.

1988 Ironclad Intruder: U.S.S. MONITOR: A collection of essays on the history, symbolism and archaeological

importance of the importance of the U.S.S. MONITOR. Co-edited with Jehle. Philadelphia Maritime

Museum, Philadelphia, PA.

1988 Shipwrecks. The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. University of Delaware Seagrant

Program, Newark, DE.

1987 Preliminary Investigation of a Revolutionary War Era Vessel in Crosswicks Creek, Bordentown, New Jersey.

Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Savannah,

GA.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

Society for Historical Archaeology

Society of Professional Archaeologists (certified in museology, marine survey, and underwater archaeology)