Superfund Proposed Plan - Supplemental Figurespassaic.sharepointspace.com/Public Documents/2014 RI-FFS-Appendi… · Superfund Proposed Plan ... Island & Arthur Kill 2005&2007 Port

Superfund Proposed Plan

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River Part of the Diamond

Alkali Superfund Site

Supplemental Figures

Remedial Investigation Report for the Focused Feasibility Study of the Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

2014

2014Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

Figure 4-22,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (0-6 inches) vs. River Mile

Legend

Note: 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations generated during the 2008 CPG coring program were biased low and have been correctedby applying a factor of 1.89. The factor was provided by CSC and Interface, Inc., 2010.

2008 CPG2009 CPG

2008 EPA2005&2007 NewarkBay

2005&2007 Kill VanKull

2008 CPG TributaryBelow HoT

2005&2007 ShootersIsland & Arthur Kill

2005&2007 Port Elizabeth & Newark

2010 CPG

1995 TSI

2012 CPG

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

-10-8-6-4-202468101214161820

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(ng/

kg)

River Mile

Newark BayLower Passaic RiverUpper Passic River

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River 2014

Figure 4-7a2,3,7,8-TCDD (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoalat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

RM0 to RM2

Log

(2,3

,7,8

-TC

DD

C

once

ntra

tion)

(pg/

g)Lo

g (2

,3,7

,8-T

CD

D

Con

cent

ratio

n) (p

g/g)

RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,

equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG and 2010 and 2012CPG.3) 2008 CPG data was corrected by applying a factor of 1.89 (CSC and Interface,Inc., 2010)

95th Percentile

5th Percentile

50th Percentile25th Percentile

75th PercentileData Points

Legend


Figure 4-7bTOC Normalized 2,3,7,8-TCDD (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoal at RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

RM0 to RM2

Log

(2,3

,7,8

-TC

DD

/TO

C)

(pg/

g-O

C)

RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,

equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG and 2010 and 2012 CPG.3) 2008 CPG data was corrected by applying a factor of 1.89 (CSC and Interface, Inc., 2010)

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Log

(2,3

,7,8

-TC

DD

/TO

C)

(pg/

g-O

C)


0

1

2

3

4

5

-1

0

1

2

3

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) 2008 CPG data was corrected by applying a factor of 1.89 (CSC and Interface, Inc., 2010)

Figure 4-82,3,7,8-TCDD (0-6 inches) by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

RM0 to RM2

Sampling Program

RM2 TO RM8

Log

(2,3

,7,8

-TC

DD

C

once

ntra

tion)

(pg/

g)

Sampling Program

Log

(2,3

,7,8

-TC

DD

C

once

ntra

tion)

(pg/

g)

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

EPA

2008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012


Figure 4-11Total PCBs Concentration (0-6 inches) vs. River Mile

Legend

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

-10-8-6-4-202468101214161820

Tota

l PC

Bs

Con

cent

ratio

ns (µ

g/kg

)

River Mile


2008 CPG2009 CPG






2010 CPG

1995 TSI

2012 CPG


Figure 4-14aTotal PCBs (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoalat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.3) A factor 1.25 was applied to the1995 TPCB concentrations based on matched pairsof congener and Aroclor analysis (see Data Evaluation No. 4 for further discussion).

(ug/

kg)

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs(u

g/kg

))

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs –

Adj

uste

d to

Hig

h R

es.

(ug/

kg))

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs(u

g/kg

))


Log

Tota

l PC

B C

onge

ners

- 19

95ad

just

ed to

hig

h re

s. (u

g/kg

-OC

)Lo

g To

tal P

CB

Con

gene

rs -

1995

adju

sted

to h

igh

res.

(ug/

kg-O

C)

Figure 4-14bTOC Normalized Total PCBs (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoal at RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points, equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.3) A factor 1.25 was applied to the1995 TPCB concentrations based on matched pairsof congener and Aroclor analysis (see Data Evaluation No. 4 for further discussion).

(ug/

kg)

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs/T

OC

(ug/

kg-O

C))

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs /T

OC

(ug/

kg-C

O))


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Figure 4-15Total PCBs (0-6 inches) by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points, equivalent to the untransformed median concentration. See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) A factor 1.25 was applied to the1995 TPCB concentrations based on matched pairsof congener and Aroclor analysis (see Data Evaluation No. 4 for further discussion).

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Sampling Program

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs

(ug/

kg))

Log

(Tot

al P

CB

Con

gene

rs

(ug/

kg))

Sampling Program

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

EPA

2008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

1995

RI

Pro

gram


Figure 4-17a4,4’-DDE Concentration (0-6 inches) vs. River Mile

Legend

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

-10-8-6-4-202468101214161820

4,4'

-DD

E (u

g/kg

)

River Mile


2008 CPG2009 CPG






2010 CPG

1995 TSI

2012 CPG


Figure 4-23aTotal DDx (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoalat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration. See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

(ug/

kg)

Log

(Tot

al D

Dx

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(ug/

kg)

Log

(Tot

al D

Dx

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(ug/

kg)


Log

Tota

l DD

T -

1995

Adj

uste

d to

HR

MS

(ug/

kg-O

C)

Log

Tota

l DD

T -

1995

Adj

uste

d to

HR

MS

(ug/

kg-O

C)

Figure 4-23bTOC Normalized Total DDx (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoal at RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points, equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

(ug/

kg)

Log

(Tot

al D

Dx/

TOC

) (u

g/kg

-OC

)Lo

g (T

otal

DD

x/TO

C)

(ug/

kg-O

C)


-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Figure 4-264,4’-DDE (0-6 inches) by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Note: Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.

(ug/

kg)

RM0 to RM2

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Log

(4,4

’-D

DE

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(ug/

kg)

RM2 to RM8

Sampling Program

Sampling Program

Log

(4,4

’-D

DE

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(ug/

kg)

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

EPA

2008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012


Figure 4-32aTotal PAHs Concentrations (0-6 inches) vs. River Mile

Legend

2008 CPG2009 CPG






2010 CPG

1995 TSI

2012 CPG

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

-10-8-6-4-202468101214161820

Tota

l PA

Hs

(ug/

kg)

River Mile


2008 CPG at RM11.23,6.2 ug/kg


Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration. See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.

Figure 4-38aTotal PAHs (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoalat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

(ug/

kg)

(ug/

kg)

Log

(Tot

al P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n) (u

g/kg

)Lo

g (T

otal

PAH

Con

cent

ratio

n) (u

g/kg

)


Log

Tota

l PA

H(u

g/kg

-OC

)Lo

g To

tal P

AH

(ug/

kg-O

C)

Figure 4-38bTOC Normalized Total PAHs (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoal at RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

(ug/

kg)

Notes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration. See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.

Log

(Tot

al P

AH/T

OC

C

once

ntra

tion)

(ug/

kg-O

C)

Log

(Tot

al P

AH/T

OC

C

once

ntra

tion)

(ug/

kg-O

C)


2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Figure 4-41Total PAHs (0-6 inches) by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Note: Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Log

(Tot

al P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(ug/

kg)

Sampling Program

Sampling Program

Log

(Tot

al P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(ug/

kg)

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

EPA

2008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012


Figure 4-47aMercury Concentration (0-6 inches) vs. River Mile

Legend

2008 CPG2009 CPG






2010 CPG

1995 TSI

2012 CPG

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

-10-8-6-4-202468101214161820

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

)

River Mile



Figure 4-57aMercury (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoalat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Log

(Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(mg/

kg)

RM0 to RM2Lo

g (M

ercu

ryC

once

ntra

tion)

(m

g/kg

)

RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



LegendNotes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.


Mer

cury

(mg/

kg ir

on)

Mer

cury

(mg/

kg ir

on)

Figure 4-57bIron Normalized Mercury (0-6 inches) by Channel and Shoal at RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Log

(Mer

cury

/Iron

)(m

g/kg

-Fe)

RM0 to RM2Lo

g (M

ercu

ry/Ir

on)

(mg/

kg-F

e)

RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



LegendNotes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) Data included 1995, 2008 EPA, 2008 CPG, 2009 CPG, 2010 CPG and 2012 CPG.


Figure 4-62Mercury (0-6 inches) by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile



Legend

Log

(Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n)

(mg/

kg)

Sampling Program

Log

(Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n)(m

g/kg

)

Sampling Program

RM0 to RM2

RM2 to RM8

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

EPA

2008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

Note: Horizontal line represents the mean log concentration across all data points,equivalent to the untransformed median concentration.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles..

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River2014

Figure 4-75aSediment Contamination vs Year for 2005 High Resolution Cores

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on2,3,7,8 - TCDD (ug/kg)

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6

Non-contiguous core segment

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on

2,3,7,8-TCDD to Total TCDD Ratio

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005100 1,000 10,000 100,000

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on

Total PCBs (ug/kg)


Figure 4-75b

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6


1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

BZ52 Concentration (ug/kg)D

epth

(Rep

rese

nted

by

Yea

r)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

BZ61+70+74+76 Concentration (ug/kg)

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Y

ear)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 0.1 1 10 100 1,000

BZ110+115 Concentration (ug/kg)

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Y

ear)

Sediment Contamination vs Year for 2005 High Resolution Cores


Figure 4-75c

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6


1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000

BZ180+193 Concentration (ug/kg)D

epth

(Rep

rese

nted

by

Yea

r)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005100 1,000 10,000 100,000

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on

Total PAH Concentration (ug/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000

HMW PAH Concentration (ug/kg)

App

roxi

mat

e Y

ear o

f Dep

ositi

on



Figure 4-75d

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6


1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

200510 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

LMW PAH Concentration (ug/kg)A

ppro

xim

ate

Yea

r of D

epos

ition

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20051 10 100 1,000 10,000

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Phenanthrene (ug/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20051 10 100 1,000 10,000

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Benzo[a]pyrene Concentration (ug/kg)



Figure 4-75e

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6


1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

200510 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Fluoranthene (ug/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20051 10 100 1000

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on

4-4' - DDE (ug/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050.1 1 10 100 1000

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on

Dieldrin (ug/kg)



Figure 4-75f

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6


1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050.1 1 10 100 1000

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Gamma-(Trans)-Chlordane (ug/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Cadmium Concentration (mg/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050 400 800 1200 1600

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Chromium Concentration (mg/kg)



Figure 4-75g

RM 1.4

RM 2.2

RM 7.8

RM 11

RM 12.6


1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050 200 400 600 800 1000

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Copper Concentration (mg/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050 400 800 1200

Dep

th (R

epre

sent

ed b

y Ye

ar)

Lead Concentration (mg/kg)

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

20050 5 10 15 20

App

roxi

mat

e Ye

ar o

f Dep

ositi

on

Mercury Concentration (mg/kg)


Focused Feasibility Study Reportfor the Lower Eight Miles of the

Lower Passaic River

2014

0

7

6

5

3

1

2

4

HUDSON COUNTY

ESSEX COUNTY

BERGEN COUNTY

³

2014Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic RiverSediment Texture Type – RM0 to RM8

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Path:

S:\Pr

ojects

\pass

aic\M

apDo

cume

nts\Fi

nal_F

FS_F

igures

_201

4\Figu

re 1-6

Sed

imen

tTextu

re - b

ase m

ap.m

xd

Legend

Project CenterlineShoreline as Defined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection County Boundaries

City BoundariesSediment Type

Rock and Coarse Gravel

Gravel and Sand

Sand

Silt and Sand

Silt

Figure 1-6a

Second River

Third River

8

9

12

1011

13ESSEX COUNTY

BERGEN COUNTY

PASSAIC COUNTY

HUDSON COUNTY

³

2014Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic RiverSediment Texture Type – RM8 to RM13

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Path:

S:\Pr

ojects

\pass

aic\M

apDo

cume

nts\Fi

nal_F

FS_F

igures

_201

4\Figu

re 1-6

Sed

imen

tTextu

re - b

ase m

ap.m

xd

Legend




Gravel and Sand

Sand

Silt and Sand

Silt

Figure 1-6b

Saddle River16

13

1417

15

BERGEN COUNTY

PASSAIC COUNTY

³

2014

Sediment Texture Type – RM13 to RM17 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

0 0.3 0.60.15Miles

Path:

S:\Pr

ojects

\pass

aic\M

apDo

cume

nts\Fi

nal_F

FS_F

igures

_201

4\Figu

re 1-6

Sed

imen

tTextu

re - b

ase m

ap.m

xd

Legend




Gravel and Sand

Sand

Silt and Sand

Silt

Figure 1-6c

Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed,GeoEye

CAD Cell:Area = 38 acresDimensions = 1500 x 1100 feet

Entrance Channel:Depth = 25 feet MLWWidth = 150 feet





Figure 4-1

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

³

Proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells in Newark Bay

LegendCAD Cell Entrance Channel

CAD Cell

Federally Authorized Navigation Channel

Channel Top of Slope (Approximate)

2014s:\pa

ssaic

\map

docu

ments

\Fina

l_FFS

_Figu

res_2

013\F

igure4

-2 Pr

opos

ed C

onfin

ed Aq

uatic

Disp

osal

Cells

in Ne

wark

Bay.m

xd

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Alternative 2 Alternative 3³



³ Alternative 4

Legend


Figure 4-3a Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1 (Proposed Remediation Goal)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1

56 Fish Meals per year:

34 Crab Meals per year:

Human Health PRGs

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


Figure 4-3b Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4


Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Average Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds

Figure 4-3c

Time (Years)

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

kg) Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Alternative 1 and Alternative 3


Alternative 1 Uncertainty Bounds


Alternative 1 Best Estimate




Alternative 3 Uncertainty Bounds Alternative 4 Uncertainty Bounds

Proposed Remediation Goal

Legend


Figure 4-3d Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4


Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


Figure 4-3e Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4


Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Average Concentration of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds

Figure 4-3f

Tota

l PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

kg)












Time (Years)

Legend


Figure 4-3g Average Concentrations of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear and Log Scale)

Note: Human Health PRGs were not calculated for Total DDX because it does not contribute significantly to human health risk.

(Proposed Remediation Goal)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l DDx

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l DDx

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Time (Years)

Legend


0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Average Concentration of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds

Figure 4-3h

Time (Years)

Tota

l DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

kg)












Legend


Figure 4-3i Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediments in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)

HQ = 1

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

Note: 34 Crab Meals per year PRG at the HQ = 1 threshold is not shown in the figure because the concentration is 45000 µg/kg.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


10

100

1000

10000

100000

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

Figure 4-3j Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediments in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)

HQ = 1

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs


Time (Years)

10

100

1000

10000

100000

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Legend


10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Average Concentration of Mercury in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds

Figure 4-3k

Time (Years)

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Alternative 1 and Alternative 2











Final Feasibility Study Appendix A - Data Evaluation Reports

2014


Figure 2-1a Blue Crab 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend Tissue Sampling Year

1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle

Muscle/Hepatopancreas

Carcass

Tissue Type

Notes 1. Fit Lines are weighted curves for illustration purpose only.

These curves are based on all available data for given tissue types.

2. Muscle/Hepatopancreas tissue type includes muscle/hepatopancreas, all edible tissue and whole body – soft tissue.

3. Muscle tissue includes muscle, edible muscle and muscle tissue.

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

Carcass

Muscle


Hepatopancreas

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed 2

,3,7

,8-T

CD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

River Mile

CarcassHepatopancreas


Muscle


Figure 2-1b Blue Crab Total PCB Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Hepatopancreas


CarcassMuscle

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Hepatopancreas

Muscle

Carcass



Figure 2-1c Blue Crab Dieldrin Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





0.1

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Die

ldri

n C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Hepatopancreas

Muscle Carcass


10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed D

ield

rin

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile



Muscle


Figure 2-1d Blue Crab Total Chlordane Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





0.1

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg) Hepatopancreas


Carcass

Muscle

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Hepatopancreas


Carcass

Muscle


Figure 2-1e Blue Crab Total DDx Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





1

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Hepatopancreas

Muscle

Carcass


10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

HepatopancreasCarcass

Muscle/HepatopancreasMuscle


Figure 2-1f Blue Crab LMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Low

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Hepatopancreas


MuscleCarcass

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed L

ow M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Hepatopancreas


Muscle

Carcass


Figure 2-1g Blue Crab HMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hig

h M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)Hepatopancreas

Muscle/HepatopancreasMuscle

Carcass

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed H

igh

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Hepatopancreas


Muscle

Carcass


Figure 2-1h Blue Crab Total PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

Tissue Type





1

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Hepatopancreas


Muscle

Carcass

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Hepatopancreas


Muscle

Carcass


Figure 2-1i Blue Crab Copper Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type

Tissue Sampling Year

1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Carcass

Hepatopancreas

MuscleMuscle/Hepatopancreas

Cop

per C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

River MileNotes:1) Mucle/Hepatopancreas tissue type includes muscle/hepatopancreas, all edible tissue and whole body - soft tissue.2) Muscle tissue type includes edible muscle, muscle and muscle tissue.


Figure 2-1j Blue Crab Lead Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

0.01

0.1

1

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Muscle


Lead

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

)



Figure 2-1k Blue Crab Mercury Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


1995

1999

2000

2009

Hepatopancreas

Muscle


Carcass

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Muscle


Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)



Figure 2-2a Mummichog 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note Fit Lines are weighted curves for illustration purpose only.

1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed 2

,3,7

,8-T

CD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

River Mile


Figure 2-2b Mummichog Total PCB Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type


1995199920002010

Whole Body

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile


Figure 2-2c Mummichog Dieldrin Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Notes 1. Fit Lines are weighted curves for illustration purpose only. 2. 1999 and 2000 data was excluded from the fit line because the large

number of nondetects presented in the data.

1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Die

ldri

n C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed D

ield

rin

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile


Figure 2-2d Mummichog Total Chlordane Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Notes 1. Fit Lines are weighted curves for illustration purpose only. 2. 1999 and 2000 data was excluded from the fit line because the large

number of nondetects presented in the data.

1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile


Figure 2-2e Mummichog Total DDx Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type


1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile


Figure 2-2f Mummichog LMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type


1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Low

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed L

ow M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile


Figure 2-2g Mummichog HMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type


1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hig

h M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed H

igh

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile


Figure 2-2h Mummichog Total PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type


1995199920002010

Whole Body

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Li

pid

Nor

mal

ized

Tot

al P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile


Figure 2-2i Mummichog Copper Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


Whole Body

1995199920002010

1

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cop

per C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

River Mile


Figure 2-2j Mummichog Lead Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


Whole Body

1995199920002010

0.1

1

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lead

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

)

River Mile

Note: 1999 non detects were excluded from the fit line.


Figure 2-2k Mummichog Mercury Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


Whole Body

1995199920002010

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile


Figure 2-3a White Perch 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note

Whole Body -Head&Viscera

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010

Fit Lines are weighted curves for illustration purpose only. These curves are based on all available data for given tissue types.

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

Whole Body

Fillet with skin

Fillet Skinless

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed 2

,3,7

,8-T

CD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet with Skin

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-3b White Perch Total PCB Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fillet Skinless

Fillet with Skin

Tota

l PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

1000

10000

100000

1000000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet with SkinFillet Skinless


Figure 2-3c White Perch Dieldrin Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


0.1

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Die

ldri

n C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

Fillet with skin

Fillet Skinless

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed D

ield

rin

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet with Skin

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-3d White Perch Total Chlordane Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Fillet with skin

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Li

pid

Nor

mal

ized

Tot

al C

hlor

dane

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Fillet with Skin


Figure 2-3e White Perch Total DDx Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg) Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Fillet with skin

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet with Skin

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-3f White Perch LMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Low

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Fillet with Skin

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed L

ow M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Fillet with Skin

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-3g White Perch HMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hig

h M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

Whole Body

Fillet with Skin

Fillet Skinless

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed H

igh

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet with SkinFillet Skinless


Figure 2-3h White Perch Total PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999

2000

2009

2010


10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fillet Skinless

Tota

l PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Fillet with Skin

Whole Body

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Fillet with Skin


Figure 2-3i White Perch Copper Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


1999

2000

2009

2010


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

0.1

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cop

per C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

River Mile

Fillet with Skin

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-3j White Perch Lead Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


1999

2000

2009

2010


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lead

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Fillet with Skin


Figure 2-3k White Perch Mercury Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type


1999

2000

2009

2010


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Fillet with Skin

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-4a American Eel 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin


1999200020012009

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed 2

,3,7

,8-T

CD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(pg/

g)

River Mile

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-4b American Eel Total PCB Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin


1999200020012009

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-4c American Eel Dieldrin Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1. Fit Lines are weighted curves for illustration purpose only. These curves are based on all available data for given tissue types.

2. Year 2000 whole body data was excluded from the fit line because all data was nondetects.

1999200020012009

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Die

ldri

n C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed D

ield

rin

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-4d American Eel Total Chlordane Concentration vs. River

Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin



1999200020012009

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

Chl

orda

ne C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-4e American Eel Total DDx Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin



1999200020012009

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

100

1000

10000

100000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-4f American Eel LMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin



1999200020012009

1

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Low

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Li

pid

Nor

mal

ized

Low

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-4g American Eel HMW PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin



1999200020012009

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hig

h M

olec

ular

Wei

ght P

AH

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed H

igh

Mol

ecul

ar W

eigh

t PA

H

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-4h American Eel Total PAH Concentration vs. River Mile


Tissue Type

Note


Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin



1999200020012009

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tota

l PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed T

otal

PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


Figure 2-4i American Eel Copper Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type



Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999200020012009

0.1

1

10

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Copp

er C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

River Mile

Whole Body Year 2009

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body Year 2000


Figure 2-4j American Eel Lead Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type



Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999200020012009

0.01

0.1

1

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lead

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/kg

)

River Mile

Whole Body

Fillet Skinless


Figure 2-4k American Eel Mercury Concentration vs. River Mile

Legend

Tissue Type



Whole Body

Fillet Skinless

Carcass

Fillet with Skin

1999200020012009

10

100

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

g/kg

)

River Mile

Fillet Skinless

Whole Body


0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D (p

g/g)

01/01/1999 01/01/2007

Datetime_Placed

Figure 2-12 Lipid Normalized 2,3,7,8-TCDD Tissue Concentration vs. Time

Sample Date

Blue Crab Hepatopancreas Blue Crab Muscle

Sample Date Sample Date

Blue Crab Muscle+Hepatopancreas

Mummichog Whole Body

Sample Date

0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D (p

g/g)

01/01/1994 01/01/20040

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D (p

g/g)

01/01/1994 01/01/2004

0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

Lipi

d N

orm

aliz

ed

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D (p

g/g)

01/01/1999 01/01/2007

Datetime_PlacedSample Date

White Perch Whole Body