MAINTENANCE DREDGING REPORT FOR CALUMET ......MAINTENANCE DREDGING REPORT FOR CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015 Prepared By: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

MAINTENANCE DREDGING REPORT FOR CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015

Prepared By:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District 231 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60604-1437

January 2016

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Chicago District, maintains and operates Federal navigation projects in the Chicago area and periodically performs maintenance dredging to authorized depths. The purpose of the current report is to describe the dredging and associated water quality monitoring performed during Water Year 2015 (01 Oct. 2014 through 30 Sep. 2015). During this Water Year, mechanical dredging was performed along portions of the Calumet Harbor and River Federal navigation channel, and the dredged material was placed within the Chicago Area confined disposal facility (CDF). The Chicago District constructed the CDF near the entrance to the Calumet River in Lake Michigan in the early 1980s to contain dredged material unsuitable for open water placement. Discharge from the CDF is regulated under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification requirements and an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Pollution Control Permit (No. 2011-EA-1347). In accordance with the Illinois EPA permit, water and sediment samples were collected, and the water samples were analyzed to help assess whether dredging and/or CDF operations may be causing adverse impacts to Calumet Harbor and River water quality. Special Condition Two (2) of the Illinois EPA permit specifies that water quality monitoring is to be conducted in accordance with the Chicago District report entitled “Proposed Water Quality Monitoring at the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility, Calumet Harbor, Illinois January 2011.” This report describes the details of the water quality monitoring program and explains that the schedule for routine monitoring is one (1) sampling event per year; only during non-dredging years. Special Condition three (3) of the Illinois EPA permit requests that reports of all analytical results be submitted on an annual basis for mechanical dredging operations. Since mechanical dredging operations were performed during Water Year 2015, routine monitoring was not conducted. This maintenance dredging report is being submitted to provide the analytical results of water quality monitoring performed during the dredging events conducted in Water Year 2015. Water quality monitoring samples were collected from locations in and around the CDF, including water samples of influent to and effluent from the filter cell (treated CDF discharge), water samples from locations around the dredging and rehandling areas to monitor total suspended solids (TSS), or turbidity, and sediment samples collected from the barge prior to the placement of the dredged material into the CDF. An examination of the results did not reveal evidence that the dredging and CDF operations were causing negative impacts on the long-term water quality in Calumet Harbor and/or the Calumet River.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Sampling Program .............................................................................................................................. 5 5. Discussion of Analytical Results..................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Filter Cell Effluent ..................................................................................................................... 11 5.2 Sediment Quality ....................................................................................................................... 14 5.3 Total Suspended Solids Monitoring During Dredging and Rehandling .............................. 23 5.3.1 Dredging Area TSS Monitoring ................................................................................................ 25 5.3.2 Rehandling Area TSS Monitoring ............................................................................................ 32 5.4 Calumet River Sampling ........................................................................................................... 36 5.4.1 Calumet River Sampling During Dredging ............................................................................. 37 5.4.2 Calumet River Sampling Before, During, and After Dredging .............................................. 38 5.5 Filter Cell Performance as Measured by Solids Removal ..................................................... 40 5.6 Background Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 40

6. Report Summary ............................................................................................................................... 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Historical Dredging and Placement Events for Chicago Area CDF ....................................... 4 Table 2: Parameters for Chemical Analysis of Sediment Samples ...................................................... 7 Table 3: Parameters for Chemical Analysis of Water Samples ............................................................. 7 Table 4: Sample Collection Analysis and Frequency Specifications ................................................... 8 Table 5: Sampling Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6: Filter Cell Effluent – Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015) ................................ 12 Table 7: Filter Cell Effluent – Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) ........................................... 13 Table 8: Sediment Quality – Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015) ................................. 16 Table 9: Sediment Quality – Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) ............................................ 17 Table 10: Metals in Sediment Characteristics for Past and Recent Dredging Events ...................... 19 Table 11: Wet Chemistry Sediment Characteristics for Past and Recent Dredging Events ............ 21 Table 12: Dredging Event #17 – TSS Results around Dredging Area and Background ................... 26 Table 13: Dredging Event #18 – TSS Results around Dredging Area and Background ................... 26 Table 14: Dredging Event #17 – Background TSS Pre-Dredge, During, and Post-Dredge .............. 32 Table 15: Dredging Event #18 – Background TSS Pre-Dredge, During, and Post-Dredge .............. 32 Table 16: Dredging Event #17 – TSS Results around Rehandling Area and Background ................ 33 Table 17: Dredging Event #18 – TSS Results around Rehandling Area and Background ................ 33 Table 18: Dredging Event #17 – Calumet River Samples Collected During Dredging ...................... 37 Table 19: Dredging Event #18 – Calumet River Samples Collected During Dredging ...................... 38 Table 20: Dredging Event #17 – Average of Calumet River Samples Collected Before, During, and After Dredging ........................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 21: Dredging Event #18 – Average of Calumet River Samples Collected Before, During, and After Dredging ........................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 22: Dredging Event #17 – TSS Concentrations and Filter Cell Efficiency ............................... 40 Table 23: Dredging Event #18 – TSS Concentrations and Filter Cell Efficiency ............................... 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sampling Locations ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Turbidity Monitoring Around Dredging Operation ............................................................... 23 Figure 3: Turbidity Monitoring Around Rehandling Operation ........................................................... 24 Figure 4: Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity Data Correlation Plot .............................................. 25 Figure 5: Dredging Event #17 –TSS Concentrations at Dredge Area and Background Locations . 27

iii

Figure 6: Dredging Event #18 –TSS Concentrations at Dredge Area and Background Locations . 28 Figure 7: Dredging Event #17 – Average Suspended Solids Concentration at Rehandling Area and Background ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 8: Dredging Event #18 – Average Suspended Solids Concentration at Rehandling Area and Background ............................................................................................................................................... 35

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Dredging Locations for Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015 ....................................... 46 Appendix B: Water Quality Summary Data ........................................................................................... 47 Appendix C: Data Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................ 71 Appendix D: Statistical Analysis (ProUCL) Summary Tables ............................................................. 82 Appendix E: Laboratory Analytical Data ............................................................................................... 92

1

1. Purpose The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Chicago District, from hereafter referred to as the Chicago District, is responsible for the maintenance and operations of the Federal navigation projects in the Chicago Area and periodically performs dredging to maintain authorized depths for safe navigation. Past sampling and analysis has indicated the dredged material from the Calumet Harbor and River Federal navigation channel would be unsuitable for open water placement, so this dredged material has been placed into the Chicago Area confined disposal facility (CDF). The effluent from the CDF is presently regulated under Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Pollution Control Permit Number 2011-EA-1347, issued 29 December 2011, and Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification requirements. In Special Condition Two (2) of the Illinois EPA permit, it specifies that the water quality monitoring is to be conducted in accordance with the Chicago District report entitled “Proposed Water Quality Monitoring at the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility, Calumet Harbor, Illinois January 2011,” and that report contains the details of the water quality monitoring requirements. The Chicago District follows three (3) different water quality monitoring programs: The first program is routine monitoring of the water quality in and around the CDF. Routine monitoring is conducted on an annual basis, but only during years in which no dredging occurs. The second program is for typical dredging events; where dredging and placement operations utilize mechanical equipment and more than 2,000 cubic yards (CY) of dredged material are placed into the facility. This program involves weekly monitoring of the water quality in and around the CDF as well as total suspended solids (TSS), or turbidity monitoring, around the dredging and placement operations. During typical dredging events, water from the CDF is pumped through a filter cell, and the monitoring includes the measurement of TSS levels in the filter cell influent and effluent. The third and last water quality monitoring program is only conducted for minor dredging events of 2,000 CY or less of mechanically dredged material. For minor dredging events, the program only includes one sampling event prior to the start of dredging operations and one sampling event during dredging operations. In addition, for minor dredging events, water from the CDF is not pumped to a filter cell, so there is no monitoring of filter cell influent or effluent, and water quality samples are not collected from within the south settling basin of the CDF. Historically, the dredging operations for the Calumet Harbor and River have been performed using mechanical dredging equipment, and, for all the different water quality monitoring programs, the report containing the analytical results has typically been submitted on an annual basis. Dredging was performed during Water Year 2015, and, since routine monitoring is only performed during non-dredging years, no routine monitoring event was conducted. The purpose of this dredging report is to fulfill Illinois EPA permit requirement to submit all the analytical results for mechanical dredging operations on an annual basis.

2

In particular, this report describes the maintenance dredging operations and provides the analytical results of the water quality monitoring conducted within the Calumet Harbor and River during Water Year 2015 (01 Oct. 2014 through 30 Sep. 2015). Two (2) separate dredging events were conducted in Water Year 2015 over different time intervals, and the dredging operations and monitoring for both dredging events were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the current Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Permit. 2. Background The Chicago Area CDF, from hereafter referred to as the CDF, was constructed by the Chicago District between 1982 and 1984 for the placement and confinement of dredged material from deep-draft Federal navigation projects in Chicago, Illinois. An aerial photograph of the facility showing most of the sampling locations for the water samples is shown in Figure 1. The facility was constructed and is operated and maintained by the Chicago District under authority of PL91-611, Section 123. The CDF is located south of the Calumet River entrance channel and east of the Illinois International Port District (IIPD)-owned Iroquois Landing property. It has a triangular shape with three (3) linear sides, and rubble mound dikes form the northern and eastern sides of the facility. The rubble mound dike on the northern side is adjacent to the Calumet River entrance channel and the rubble mound dike on the eastern side is adjacent to Calumet Harbor (Lake Michigan). The land bordering the IIPD-owned Iroquois Landing property is on the western side of the CDF. The facility covers an area of approximately 43 acres, and it was originally estimated to have a total storage capacity of around 1.6 million CY. The construction of the cap and closure of the facility is anticipated to require about 0.3 million CY of that volume, so this reduces the volume available for sediment placement to roughly 1.3 million CY. Table 1 provides a summary of the past eighteen (18) dredging events, from Oct. 1984 to May 2015, when dredged material was placed into the CDF. The total cumulative volume of dredged material in this table is roughly 1.5 million CY. The difference between the volume shown in Table 1 and the estimated storage capacity mentioned above is primarily attributed to the consolidation and settlement of the dredged material in the CDF, as well as to the settlement of the subsurface beneath the dredged material. In addition, the initial volume for the CDF was a rough estimate based on an average depth that was approximated from a bathymetric survey performed prior to the initial construction of the facility.

3

Figure 1: Sampling Locations

Chicago Area CDF

Iroquois Landing

Filter Cells

RIV-003

RIV-002

BACK-001

RIV-001

BACK-002

ND-COMP-002

ND-COMP-001

BACK-003

ND-COMP-003

CDF-002

CDF-003

CH-19-81

CH-18-81

CDF-001

4

Table 1: Historical Dredging and Placement Events for Chicago Area CDF

Event No.

Year of Placement Operation

Volume of Dredged Material

Location of Dredging Location of Re-handling

1 Oct. – Dec. 1984 100,000 yd3 Calumet River NW corner of CDF 2 July – Sept. 1985 108,000 yd3 Calumet River NE corner of CDF

3 May – June 1986 62,000 yd3 *Chicago Harbor & Calumet River N dike of CDF

4 April – June 1989 70,100 yd3 Calumet River NE of cross-dike in CDF 5 May 1991 3,100 yd3 Calumet River CDF 6 December 1994 62,000 yd3 Calumet River NE corner of CDF 7 Aug. 2000 – Apr. 2001 205,500 yd3 Calumet River N dike of CDF

8 Sept. – Dec. 2001 291,000 yd3 Calumet Harbor & Calumet River Entrance Channel

E dike wall

9 Sept. – Dec. 2003 135,000 yd3 Calumet River E dike wall 10 Sept. – Dec. 2007 131,020 yd3 Calumet Harbor E dike wall 11 April 2008 186 yd3 Calumet River CDF 12 June 2009 600 yd3 Calumet River CDF 13 Oct. – Dec. 2009 167,404 yd3 Calumet Harbor E dike wall 14 Jun. – Jul. 2011 1,370 yd3 Calumet Harbor E dike wall 15 Sep. – Oct. 2011 56,086 yd3 Calumet River E dike wall

16 Nov. 2012 – Jul. 2013 57,160 yd3 Calumet Harbor & Calumet River E dike wall

17 Oct. 2014 – Jan. 2015 26,440 yd3 Calumet Harbor N dike wall for Harbor 46,883 yd3 Calumet River E dike wall for River

18 Apr. 2015 – May 2015 25,260 yd3 Calumet Harbor E dike wall Total Dredged 1,549,109 yd3

*All Calumet except the 1986 dredging event included Chicago Harbor. 3. Introduction Table 1 includes the two (2) maintenance dredging events performed in the Calumet Harbor and River during Water Year 2015 (01 Oct. 2014 through 30 Sep. 2015). These events are shown in the table as Dredging Events #17 and #18: During Dredging Event #17, areas within Calumet Harbor and the Calumet River were dredged between 27 Oct. 2014 and 5 Jan. 2015 (approx. 26,440 CY from Calumet Harbor and 46,883 CY from the Calumet River); and, during Dredging Event #18, areas within Calumet Harbor were dredged between 6 Apr. and 7 May 2015 (approx. 25,260 CY). As indicated by the duration and volume, Dredging Event #18 was a much shorter and smaller event than Dredging Event #17. Dredging Event #18 also included the performance of a pilot scale study to evaluate the mechanical removal of an outcrop of bedrock from the authorized dredge depth (28 feet below Low Water Datum (LWD)) and allowed over-depth within Calumet Harbor. Between 29 Apr. and 5 May 2015, approximately 60 CY of bedrock was removed from a small, 50 ft. by 50 ft. square area in Calumet Harbor using a hydraulic hammer and excavator. The bedrock that was removed was placed in a scow, transported to the CDF, and then placed in an upland area on the CDF property, just to the south of the southern settling basin. The locations from which the sediment was dredged and bedrock was removed are shown in the plans for the dredging contract in Appendix A. All the sediment was

5

dredged mechanically and an environmental (enclosed) bucket was utilized to dredge the sediment from the Calumet River. The dredged material was transported to the Chicago Area CDF in scows and placed into the facility mechanically using a crane and a hopper attached to the top of a sluice. 4. Sampling Program Water quality monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Permit. Most of the sampling locations are shown in Figure 1, but this figure does include the locations of the samples collected from the influent and effluent to the filter cells (CH-00-02 and CH-00-03, respectfully), the location of the sediment sample collected from the scow (CH-00-SED), or the sample locations for the turbidity and TSS monitoring, which are later shown in Figures 2 and 3. The results from the water quality monitoring are utilized to assess the dredging and rehandling operations and evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding water quality. The following specific tasks were performed:

a. The water quality of the treated effluent from the CDF (sample CH-00-03) was compared to applicable water quality standards.

b. The chemical characteristics of the dredged material placed in the CDF (Sediment sample CH-00-SED) were documented.

c. The localized effects of the dredging and rehandling operations on the water quality were documented and reviewed (Turbidity and TSS monitoring around the dredge and rehandling operations (sample locations CH-00-09 to CH-00-14).

d. Upstream background samples were compared to downstream samples to determine if there was an effect from the discharge of the effluent from the filter cells (sample locations RIV-001 through RIV-003).

e. The performance of the filter cells was checked by comparing the influent and effluent and evaluating the retention of solids (sample locations CH-00-02 and CH-00-03, respectfully).

f. The effect of the dredging events on the surrounding water quality in Calumet Harbor and the entrance to the Calumet River was assessed.

g. The short-term adverse environmental impacts of the Chicago Area CDF operations on the surrounding Calumet Harbor and River water quality were assessed.

For each of the two (2) dredging events, Dredging Events #17 and #18 in Table 1, samples were collected before, during, and after the dredging operations. Before (pre-dredge) samples were collected twice-per-week for one week prior to the commencement of dredging operations, during dredging samples were collected on a once-per-week schedule, and after dredging (post-dredge) samples were collected twice-per-week for one week after dredging operations were completed. Table 2 lists the parameters for the analysis of the sediment, Table 3 lists the parameters for the analysis of the water quality, Table 4 outlines the sampling analysis and frequency, and Table 5 shows an abbreviated calendar with the sampling dates. All

6

parameters and reporting limits were generally in accordance with the Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Permit, but the analytical laboratory, TriMatrix Laboratories in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was unable to achieve the required reporting limits for a few parameters, as noted below Tables 2 and 3. Furthermore, sample dilution was performed as necessary during the chemical analyses, and the dilution of samples occasionally resulted in the elevation of the reporting limits for several parameters.

7

Table 2: Parameters for Chemical Analysis of Sediment Samples Parameter Method Lab Reporting Limit (mg/kg) Metals Arsenic 6020A 1.0 Barium 6020A 1.0 Cadmium 6020A 1.0 Chromium 6020A 1.0 Copper 6020A 1.0 Lead 6020A 1.0 Manganese 6020A 1.0 Mercury 7471A 0.02 Nickel 6020A 1.0 Zinc 6020A 1.0 Physical Total Volatile Solids SM 2540G 1.0% Total Solids SM 2540G 1.0% Organics Chemical Oxygen Demand SM 5220 D 100 Oil & Grease 9071B 501 Total PCBs 8082 0.05 Nutrients & Others Ammonia-Nitrogen 4500-NH3 G 0.5 Total Organic Carbon MSA 29-3.5.2 0.1 Total Phosphorus SM 4500P. F 1.0 Total Cyanide 9010/9014 0.1

Note: 1 Laboratory unable to achieve the permit required RL of 10 mg/kg, because it is reflective of the old and currently banned Freon-113 extraction procedure 413.1 Table 3: Parameters for Chemical Analysis of Water Samples

Parameter Proposed Method Lab Reporting Limit (mg/L) Chromium (Total) 6020A 0.0010 Manganese (Total) 6020A 0.0010 Zinc (Total) 6020A 0.0010 Ammonia, Nitrogen SM 4500-NH3 G 0.01 Phosphorus, Total SM 4500-P F 0.005 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 0.2 pH SM 4500-H B +/- 0.01 pH Units Total Suspended Solids (TSS) SM 2540 D 1.0 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SM 2540 C 3.31 Temperature SM 2550 B +/- 0.1 oC Turbidity 180.1 1.0 NTV

Note: 1 Laboratory unable to achieve permit required RL of 1.0 mg/L, but all the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) results were substantially above the reporting limit.

8

Table 4: Sample Collection Analysis and Frequency Specifications Sample ID Number

Sample Type Sample Point Description Sampling

Method Pre/Post Dredging

During Dredging

CDF

CDF-001, 002, 003 Grab Inside CDF; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes

Filter Cell

CH-00-02 Grab Filter Cell Influent Water Grab No Yes

CH-00-03 Composite Discharge Sample Well Composite No Yes River/Harbor

RIV-001 Grab 200' Upstream of Filter Cell; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes

RIV-002 Grab At Filter Cell Effluent; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes

RIV-003 Grab 200' Downstream of Filter Cell; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes

ND-COMP-001 Composite Comp. of ND-001, 002, 003; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes



BACK-001 Grab 1000' from N. Dike Wall; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes

BACK-002 Grab 1000' from E. Dike Wall; 1/3 of Water Column Kemmerer Yes Yes

BACK-003 Grab 1000' S. of CDF & 50' E. of

Dike Wall; 1/3 of Water Column

Kemmerer Yes Yes

Landing Wells CH-18-81, CH-19-81 Grab Monitoring Wells on CDF

Landing Bailers, Pump Yes Yes

Turbidity CDF-, RIV-, ND-COMP-, BACK-001, 002, 003

Grab / Composite

Background, River, and Near Dike Composite, CDF; 1/3 of Water Column

Kemmerer Yes Yes

CH-00-09 TOP, CH-00-09 MID Grab 100' Upstream from Dredging;

Top, Mid Depth Kemmerer No Yes

CH-00-10 TOP, CH-00-10 MID Grab 100' Downstream from

Dredging; Top, Mid Depth Kemmerer No Yes

CH-00-11 TOP, CH-00-11 MID Grab 500' Downstream from

Dredging; Top, Mid Depth Kemmerer No Yes

CH-00-12 TOP, CH-00-12 MID Grab 100' S. of Rehandling

Operation; Top, Mid Depth Kemmerer No Yes

CH-00-13 TOP, CH-00-13 MID Grab 100' E. of Rehandling


CH-00-14 TOP, CH-00-14 MID Grab 100' N. of Rehandling


Dredged Sediment

CH-00-SED Grab Dredging Barge Grab No Yes

9

Table 5: Sampling Schedule

Table 5a – Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015) Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.

Oct. 2014 26 27 Pre-dredge 28 29

Pre-dredge 30 31

Nov. 2014

1

2 3 During 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 During 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 During 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 During 25 26 27 28 29

30

Dec. 2014

1 2 3 During 4 5 6

7 8 During 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 During 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 During 30

Jan. 2015 1 2

Post-dredge 3 4

5 Post-dredge 6 7 8 9 10 11

10

Table 5b – Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.

Apr. 2015

5 6 Pre-dredge 7 8

Pre-dredge 9 10 11

12 13 14 Pre-dredge 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 During 22 23 24*

During 25

26 27 28 During 29 30

May 2015 1 2

3 4 5 Post-dredge 6 7

Post-dredge 8 9

*Note: No dredging was conducted for the event during dredging on 21 Apr. 2015 due to severe weather conditions, so a subsequent sampling event was performed on 24 Apr. 2015. However, the only samples collected for this subsequent event were samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples around the dredge and rehandling areas, and a sediment sample. The locations from which the samples were collected for each sampling event are shown in Figure 1. CDF-001, -002, and -003 are the three (3) locations in the southern settling basin of the CDF, and these samples are collected at one third of the depth at each location. CH-18-81 and -19-81 are the two (2) groundwater well locations along the western perimeter of the CDF. RIV-001, -002, and -003 are the three (3) locations in the Calumet River near the filter cell effluent discharge point, and they are collected at one third of the depth at each location. ND-COMP-001, -002, and -003 are the three (3) near-dike composite samples that are collected adjacent to the CDF dike in Calumet Harbor and north of the CDF along the entrance to the Calumet River. Each near-dike sample is a composite of samples from three (3) locations, collected at one third of the depth at each location. BACK-001, -002, and -003 are the three (3) samples collected from Calumet Harbor, collected at one third of the depth at each location, and these samples are indicative of the background water quality. CH-00-02 and -03 are the samples collected from the filter cell influent and effluent, respectively, and these samples were collected only during dredging operations, when water from the southern settling basin of the CDF was being pumped to a filter cell. Effluent from the filter cell is discharged to the Calumet River. In addition to the samples above, a sample of the dredged sediment was collected from the scow during dredging operations, prior to the placement of the dredged material into the CDF. Turbidity was also monitored during dredging and rehandling operations. Turbidity was measured and/or TSS samples were collected from the water at the top (near the surface) and mid-depth at three (3) locations around the dredge (CH-00-09, CH-00-10, CH-00-11) and at the top and mid-depth at three (3) locations around the rehandling area (CH-00-12, CH-00-13, CH-00-14). Turbidity measurements and laboratory TSS results were correlated by acquiring concurrent turbidity measurements and laboratory TSS samples during the pre-dredge sampling events and first sampling event during dredging. The turbidity and TSS measurements were correlated for the

11

Calumet River (RIV-001, -002, -003), near CDF dike (ND-COMP-001, -002, -003), and background (BACK-001, -002, -003) sample locations. Field and laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures were implemented for the monitoring events. Field QA/QC measures consisted of chain-of-custody records, the collection of a duplicate water sample, and the preparation and review of field and receiving logs. The laboratory QA/QC measures consisted of calibration verification samples, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, method blanks, surrogate spikes, and laboratory control samples. Appendix E includes a compilation of the data submitted by the laboratory. 5. Discussion of Analytical Results 5.1 Filter Cell Effluent Whenever dredged material is placed into the CDF, water is pumped from the southern settling basin to the filter cells. This activity is described in Special Condition One (1) of the Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Permit, where it specifies that a pump is to be used during mechanical dredging operations to carry wastewater to the filter cells in order to reduce the volume of liquids in the CDF in direct proportion to the incoming sediment and wastewater volume during dredging and placement events. Two (2) filter cells were originally constructed at the site to allow the water to be pumped to an alternate filter cell if the filter media in the active filter cell becomes clogged and/or needs to be replaced. The upper media, which consists of gravel and anthracite, was replaced in both filter cells during Dredging Event #17 in Nov. 2014. After filtration, the treated effluent is discharged to the Calumet River on the western side of Iroquois Landing, at a point approximately 3,000 feet downstream from the CDF. The location of the filter cells and the proximity of the filter cells to the CDF and Calumet River are shown in Figure 1. A weekly effluent sample (CH-00-03) was collected whenever dredged material was placed into the CDF and water was pumped from the southern settling basin to the filter cells. The collection of effluent samples was primarily accomplished using a sampling device known as an Isco automatic composite water sampler (battery-operated and automatically-timed). The Isco automatic sampler includes a backflow cycle to purge the tubing between the collection of subsamples, and ice is maintained in the device for sample preservation. Subsamples of the effluent were collected periodically over the course of each week during dredging; roughly 400 mL every four hours, and these subsamples were composited in a five (5)-gallon jar as they were collected. The device did not collect a sample unless the filter cell pump was running and water was present in the discharge pipe. Prior to setup, or if there were any problems using the composite sampler device, the filter cell pump was turned on for approximately an hour and grab samples of the effluent were then collected. Field testing for pH and temperature of the effluent was completed before the samples were transferred to smaller containers for shipment to the laboratory. Filter cell effluent samples were collected for eight (8) weeks during Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015) and for two (2) weeks during Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015).

12

The average parameter concentrations in the filter cell effluent samples are presented in Tables 6 and 7 for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectively. These tables also present the general use water quality criteria and average parameter concentrations for the CDF pond samples (CDF-001, -002, and -003) during dredging. The treated effluent is compared to the Illinois general use water quality standards solely for reference, and the CDF pond samples are shown to compare the water quality of the untreated, influent water from the CDF pond to the treated effluent. Dredging has a short-term impact on water quality, so it was presumed that acute standards would be more applicable than chronic standards. As a consequence, the tables in this report that cite water quality standards list the acute standards solely for reference, as exhibited in Tables 6 and 7 below. Table 6: Filter Cell Effluent – Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015)

Parameter Units

Average CDF Pond

Average Filter Cell Effluent

Illinois Water Quality General Use Standard2

Chromium mg/L < 0.0011 < 0.0010 0.714 (3, 4)

Manganese mg/L 0.0604 0.0062 1.0 Zinc mg/L < 0.0095 < 0.0074 0.157 (3)

Ammonia mg/L < 0.64 < 0.53 15.0 (5)

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 1.1 0.84 -- Phosphorus mg/L 0.0209 0.0243 0.05

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 332 307 1000 (6)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 10.6 < 1.6 15 (7)

pH, S.U. Std. Units. 7.79 7.37 6.5 – 9.0 Temperature Degrees C 6.1 4.5 see notes (8)

Notes: 1 The average concentration was calculated using the detection limit if no concentration was detected. Inclusion of the “<” symbol indicates at least one non-detect result was included in the calculation of the average concentration. Average CDF pond value includes samples collected during pre- and post-dredge sampling events. 2 IL Pollution Control Board, Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill. Adm. Code), Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Water Quality Standards, Subpart B: General Use Water Quality Standards. In 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Section 302.208 of Subpart B includes acute and chronic standards for chromium and zinc, but only one standard is listed for manganese. Section 302.212 of Subpart B establishes both acute and chronic standards for total ammonia nitrogen. 3 Acute standard based on approximate hardness of water in Calumet River (H) = 138 mg/L as CaCO3. 4 Standard for trivalent, dissolved chromium. 5 Acute standard (AS) based on 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Section 302.212 (a) (approximate average pH of Calumet River = 7.6, so AS = 17 mg/L). Total ammonia nitrogen must in no case exceed 15 mg/L. 6 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Subpart E: Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality Standards 7 Standard from Chicago Area CDF 1982 Environmental Impact Statement and 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 304 (Effluent Standards), Section 304.124(a). 8 Details on temperature are provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Subpart B: Section 302.211, Temperature. Paragraph (d) specifies that the maximum temperature rise above natural temperatures shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C.

13

Table 7: Filter Cell Effluent – Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015)

Parameter Units

Average CDF Pond

Average Filter Cell Effluent

Illinois Water Quality General Use Standard2

Chromium mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.714 (3, 4)

Manganese mg/L 0.0750 0.0175 1.0 Zinc mg/L < 0.0087 < 0.005 0.157 (3)

Ammonia mg/L 0.48 0.057 14.4 (5)

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 1.1 0.54 -- Phosphorus mg/L 0.033 0.0278 0.05

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 336 358 1000 (6)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 18.1 3.8 15 (7)

pH, S.U. Std.Units. 8.0 7.6 6.5 – 9.0 Temperature Degrees C 12.5 10.7 see notes (8)

Notes: 1 The average concentration was calculated using the detection limit if no concentration was detected. Inclusion of the “<” symbol indicates at least one non-detect result was included in the calculation of the average concentration. Average CDF pond value includes samples collected during pre- and post-dredge sampling events. 2 IL Pollution Control Board, Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill. Adm. Code), Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Water Quality Standards, Subpart B: General Use Water Quality Standards. In 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Section 302.208 of Subpart B includes acute and chronic standards for chromium and zinc, but only one standard is listed for manganese. Section 302.212 of Subpart B establishes both acute and chronic standards for total ammonia nitrogen. 3 Acute standard based on approximate hardness of water in Calumet River (H) = 138 mg/L as CaCO3. 4 Standard for trivalent, dissolved chromium. 5 Acute standard (AS) based on 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Section 302.212 (a) (approximate average pH of Calumet River = 7.7, so AS = 14.4 mg/L). Total ammonia nitrogen must in no case exceed 15 mg/L. 6 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Subpart E: Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality Standards 7 Standard from Chicago Area CDF 1982 Environmental Impact Statement and 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 304 (Effluent Standards), Section 304.124(a). 8 Details on temperature are provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Subpart B: Section 302.211, Temperature. Paragraph (d) specifies that the maximum temperature rise above natural temperatures shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C. By comparing the average analytical results of the filter cell effluent and CDF pond samples in Tables 6 and 7, it can be observed that the filter cell was generally effective because the average concentrations for most parameters in the filter cell effluent samples were lower than the corresponding average concentrations in the CDF pond samples. There were minor exceptions for a few parameters, such as for phosphorus and total dissolved solids (TDS), but, for reference, it can be observed that the average concentrations of these parameters were less than the corresponding Illinois general use water quality standards. The main purpose for the filter cell is to remove TSS, and Tables 6 and 7 both show that the average TSS level was considerably lower for the effluent samples than for the CDF pond samples, which indicates the filter cell was effective for lowering TSS levels. The results for other parameters, such as chromium and zinc, reveal that these parameters were initially present at a low concentrations near the reporting limit in the untreated, influent CDF pond water. Although the analytical results indicate there may have been a slight reduction in the concentrations of these parameters, there are small variations in analytical results that fall within the precision and accuracy of the test methods. Due to the low concentrations of these

14

parameters in both the influent and effluent, the effectiveness of the filter cell is difficult determine. The filter media was replaced during Dredging Event #17 in early November 2014, after the first sampling event when a sample of effluent was collected. It is important to emphasize that the primary objective of the filter cell is to remove TSS. Solely for reference, Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill. Adm. Code), Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Section 302.205, Phosphorus, of Subpart B, General Use Water Quality Standards, requires phosphorus as P to not exceed 0.05 mg/L in any reservoir or lake with a surface area of 20 acres or more, or in any stream at the point where it enters any such reservoir or lake. The maximum level of phosphorus in the filter cell effluent (0.0477 mg/L) did not exceed the general use water quality standard, and, as shown in Tables 6 and 7, the average phosphorus concentrations of the effluent samples for Dredging Events #17 and #18 were significantly below the general use water quality standard. The analytical results shown in Tables 6 and 7 reveal minor differences between the average pH and temperature values in the filter cell effluent and CDF pond samples. Both of these tables show that the average pH value of the filter cell effluent samples was slightly lower than the average pH value of the CDF pond samples. The lower average pH values in the filter cell effluent were most likely a result of changes to the water chemistry as the water passed through the filter cell media. For example, Tables 6 and 7 both show that the average concentrations of ammonia and TKN were lower in the filter cell effluent samples than in the CDF pond samples. Lower pH values would be expected for solutions with lower ammonia concentrations because strong ammonia solutions are moderately basic (alkaline) and have elevated pH levels. In regards to temperature, both Tables 6 and 7 show that the average temperature of the filter cell effluent was around two (2) degrees cooler than the average temperature of the CDF pond samples. Since the water from the CDF is pumped approximately a mile to the filter cells through a 12-inch diameter underground force main, the water may have cooled within the subsurface. 5.2 Sediment Quality The analytical results from the sediment samples collected during Dredging Events #17 and #18 are presented in Tables 8 and 9 below, respectively. Seven (7) sediment samples were collected from the scow for Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015), and two (2) sediment samples were collected from the scow for Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – May 2015). Dredging Event #17 included the dredging of shoaled areas within both the Calumet River and Calumet Harbor. Due to severe weather conditions, such as strong currents, high winds, and large waves, that occurred around the time when dredging operations commenced, shoaled areas within the Calumet River were dredged first. The approximate location for the dredging operations were reported on the individual field logs. In comparison to sediment in the Calumet River, including sediment near the entrance to the Calumet River, the parameter concentrations in the Calumet Harbor

15

sediment are often significantly lower, particularly for many of the metals, oil and grease, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This noticeable difference in sediment quality can be generally be observed from the analytical results of the sediment samples in Table 8. As seen in this table, the sediment concentrations for most of the metals, oil and grease, and PCBs were elevated for first three (3) sampling events; 03, 10, and 24 November 2014, indicating sediment from the Calumet River, in comparison to the last four (4) sampling events; 03, 08, 15, and 29 December 2014, where the sediment was evidently from Calumet Harbor. The field log for 24 November 2014 indicates the dredging operations had transitioned to Calumet Harbor, but sediment samples are collected from the rehandling operations, where sediment that was previously dredged is placed from the scow into the CDF. Since the analytical results from this date are similar to the results from sediment samples collected from the Calumet River, it is likely that this sample was sediment previously dredged from the Calumet River that was still being placed from the scow into the CDF at that time. Dredging Event #18 only included the dredging of shoaled areas in Calumet Harbor, so the analytical results shown in Table 9 are similar to the last four (4) sampling events of Dredging Event #17.

16

Table 8: Sediment Quality – Dredging Event #17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015)

Units(1) 03-Nov.

2014 10 Nov.

2014 24 Nov.

2014 03 Dec.

2014 08 Dec.

2014 15 Dec.

2014 29 Dec.

2014 Metals: Arsenic (Total) mg/kg 16 29 19 7.1 5.8 9.9 5.9 Barium (Total) mg/kg 59 78 53 24 21 27 20 Cadmium (Total) mg/kg 2 2.4 1.5 0.57 0.56 1.0 0.56 Chromium (Total) mg/kg 54 64 57 20 22 41 21 Copper (Total) mg/kg 73 120 55 22 21 36 22 Lead (Total) mg/kg 200 270 120 42 40 74 37 Manganese (Total) mg/kg 1600 1600 770 480 500 580 560 Mercury (Total) mg/kg 0.19 0.38 0.27 0.043 0.056 0.11 0.06 Nickel (Total) mg/kg 40 43 31 18 15 22 17 Zinc (Total) mg/kg 820 1000 400 120 140 270 130 Physical: Volatile Solids % 4.9 8 6.6 3.1 2.8 4.1 2.5 Percent Solids % 51 47 48 76 61 53 65 Organics: Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/kg 140000 160000 190000 73000 <170000 120000 65000 HEM: Oil & Grease mg/kg 1920 4410 384 85.3 <82.4 245 91.8 Nutrients & Others: Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/kg 110 182 282 69.7 73.6 130 41.1 Carbon, Total Organic % 2.8 3.3 0.95 1.4 0.63 1.1 0.89 Phosphorus, Total mg/kg 490 760 650 300 330 510 380 Cyanide, Total mg/kg 1.1 0.48 0.64 <0.13 <0.16 0.44 <0.15 PCBs: PCB-1016 mg/kg <0.2 <0.14 <0.069 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 PCB-1221 mg/kg <0.2 <0.14 <0.069 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 PCB-1232 mg/kg <0.2 <0.14 <0.069 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 PCB-1242 mg/kg 1.4 0.98 0.069 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 PCB-1248 mg/kg <0.2 <0.14 <0.069 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 PCB-1254 mg/kg 0.3 0.21 0.09 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 PCB-1260 mg/kg <0.2 <0.14 <0.069 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077 Total PCBs (2) mg/kg 1.7 1.2 0.16 <0.066 <0.082 <0.094 <0.077

Notes: 1 All concentrations are mg/kg, dry. 2 Concentrations of non-detected PCB aroclors were not included in the total PCB concentration. 3 Less than symbol (<) indicates the concentration was less than the laboratory’s reporting limit.

17

Table 9: Sediment Quality – Dredging Event #18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015)

Units(1) 24-Apr. 28 Apr.

2015 2015 Metals: Arsenic (Total) mg/kg 6.1 6.7 Barium (Total) mg/kg 22 26 Cadmium (Total) mg/kg 0.53 0.57 Chromium (Total) mg/kg 20 23 Copper (Total) mg/kg 21 27 Lead (Total) mg/kg 34 37 Manganese (Total) mg/kg 540 610 Mercury (Total) mg/kg 0.097 0.061 Nickel (Total) mg/kg 18 22 Zinc (Total) mg/kg 120 120 Physical: Volatile Solids % 2.7 3.6 Percent Solids % 61 56 Organics: Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/kg 73000 85000 HEM: Oil & Grease mg/kg 136 335 Nutrients & Others: Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/kg 34.3 46.6 Carbon, Total Organic % 1.4 1.3 Phosphorus, Total mg/kg 400 410 Cyanide, Total mg/kg <0.16 <0.18 PCBs: PCB-1016 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 PCB-1221 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 PCB-1232 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 PCB-1242 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 PCB-1248 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 PCB-1254 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 PCB-1260 mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 Total PCBs (2) mg/kg <0.082 <0.089 Notes: 1 All concentrations are mg/kg, dry. 2 Concentrations of non-detected PCB aroclors were not included in the total PCB concentration. 3 Less than symbol (<) indicates the concentration was less than the laboratory’s reporting limit.

18

Tables 10 and 11 provide a summary of the bulk sediment chemistry results from past and recent dredging events. The analytical results of metal parameters are listed in Table 10 and wet chemistry parameters are listed in Table 11. The data in these tables characterize the sediment placed into the Chicago Area CDF during the last seventeen (17) dredging operations, with the exception of the 3,100 CY dredging event in May 1991 (Event #5 in Table 1) performed for KCBX. The results have been separated into historical data from 1984 to 2010 and recent data from 2011 to 2015. The last column of the table displays an overall maximum, mean, and minimum from all the combined dredging events. The overall mean value was calculated from the means of each individual sampling event. The number of sediment samples collected for each dredging event varied from 1 to 18 as shown in the bottom row of each table. The number of samples was dependent on the length of the dredging operations, because sediment samples are collected on a weekly basis. Maintenance dredging of the Calumet Harbor and River is performed in areas where shoaling is present, so the sediment data shown in Tables 10 and 11 are representative of various locations along the length of the Federal navigation channel. Parameter concentrations in the sediment range from the low levels found in Calumet Harbor to the comparatively elevated levels found in the Calumet River, and the quality of the sediment near the entrance channel to the Calumet River typically falls in between these areas. Since samples are collected from the scow prior to the placement of the dredged material into the CDF, and scows can hold a large volume of roughly 1,000 CY of dredged material, there can be some uncertainty regarding the actual, precise dredging location from which the sediment in the sample was originally dredged. In other words, although Calumet Harbor may be listed as the dredging location in Tables 10 and 11, if the sediment in the sample was actually dredged from a location within the entrance channel to the Calumet River, the sample might have elevated parameter concentrations that are more representative of Calumet River sediment quality. It can been observed from Tables 10 and 11 that there is considerable variation in the sediment parameter concentrations, even after differentiating the Calumet River and Calumet Harbor areas. As indicated above, there may be some variation due to the uncertainty of the actual dredging location, but the variations are mainly attributed to changes in the anthropogenic or natural sources of the contaminants in the sediment, as well as to the fate and transport mechanisms for the different parameters. Potential sources for the contaminants include urban runoff, combined storm water overflows, wastewater treatment plant effluent, land erosion, etc. Additional variation in the data is also introduced by the use of multiple laboratories, modifications in field collection techniques and/or equipment, and changes to analytical methods and instrumentation.

19

Table 10: Metals in Sediment Characteristics for Past and Recent Dredging Events Dredging Location (Year(s) of Operation)

Sediment Parameters (Units)

River (1984)

River (1985)

Chicago Harbor / River1 (1986)

River (1989)

River (1994)

River (2000-01)

Harbor / River

Entrance (2001)

River (2003)

Harbor (2007)

River (2008)

River (2009)

Harbor (2009)

Historical Summary

(1984-2009)

Max 12 74 4.3 124 27 57.9 12.7 124 11 -- -- 10 124 Arsenic (mg/kg) Mean 5.2 19.1 2.2 54.4 20 17.4 8.8 46.9 7.4 8.8 44 8.8 20.3 Min 0.4 <0.3 0.66 6.84 11 6.7 4.4 <10 4.6 -- -- 7.1 <0.3 Max 110 52 190 124 75 86 77 74 47 -- -- 37 190 Barium (mg/kg) Mean 46.3 27.8 66 71 65 <57 38 48.2 29.5 52 110 32 <53.6 Min 23 8.4 28 30 57 32 13 30 19 -- -- 27 8.4 Max 5 2 5.1 15.8 4.8 6.2 15.5 2.7 1.3 -- -- 1.3 15.8 Cadmium (mg/kg) Mean 2.9 1.3 2.7 8.23 3.5 2.5 2.4 1.7 <1.03 <1.0 9.2 <1.05 <3.1 Min 0.88 0.82 0.82 <0.50 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.88 <1.0 -- -- <0.9 0.2 Max 60 27 62 86.9 101 347 49 162 55 -- -- 46 347 Chromium (mg/kg) Mean 34.7 19.2 24 62.3 61 68 25 52.4 25.6 20 110 35 44.8 Min 23 12 3.0 20.9 31 19 1.6 24 14 -- -- 30 1.6 Max 100 44 82 87.4 131 118 68 502 49 -- -- 39 502 Copper (mg/kg) Mean 57.6 29.9 42 67.4 86 64 40 103.8 27.5 24 140 33 59.6 Min 34 24 4.4 26.4 47 14 15 43 16 -- -- 27 4.4 Max 54,000 30,000 12,000 151,000 120,000 82,800 127,000 96,300 No Data No Data 151,000 Iron (mg/kg) Mean 40,323 18,909 8,100 54,043 76,475 38,388 38,044 49,582 No Data No Data No Data No Data 40,483 Min 22,350 13,000 5,400 16,100 37,400 14,800 12,700 27,900 No Data No Data 5,400 Max 520 130 250 276 639 367 161 393 140 -- -- 93 1200 Lead (mg/kg) Mean 297.3 88 140 179.4 350 179.7 77 178 59.2 56 1,200 71 240 Min 50 50 18 35 119 8.8 33 84 29 -- -- 56 8.8 Max 2,100 700 160 2,910 2,080 3,980 1,820 5,050 890 -- -- 710 5050 Manganese Mean 1,069 451.8 140 1,691 1,440 1,257 780 1,515 625 760 2,900 619 1104 (mg/kg) Min 600 390 130 344 881 394 476 717 360 -- -- 500 130 Max 0.66 0.12 0.9 0.169 0.57 0.62 0.2 0.19 0.13 -- -- 0.14 0.9 Mercury (mg/kg) Mean 0.157 0.07 0.57 0.09 0.39 <0.19 <0.12 0.15 0.097 0.027 0.32 0.10 <0.19 Min <0.01 0.04 0.11 0.022 0.23 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 0.051 -- -- 0.077 <0.01 Max 50 32 19 73.7 63 61 35 100 31 -- -- 24 100 Nickel (mg/kg) Mean 27 24.3 14 56.8 41 43.4 23 40.5 19.7 46 68 22 35.5 Min 15 19 8.6 33.6 23 28.4 12 25 13 -- -- 18 8.6 Max 2,300 440 280 849 1,920 1,060 481 4,690 400 -- -- 290 4,690 Zinc (mg/kg) Mean 1,108 270.5 170 423.5 1,051 511.9 221 942 172 180 4,000 203 771 Min 280 180 61 80 282 54.3 82 283 95 -- -- 150 54.3 # of Samples Collected 11 11 7 7 4 18 9 11 13 1 1 7 100

1 Notes: The mean concentration was calculated using the detection limit when no concentrations were detected. Inclusion of the “<” symbol indicates at least one non-detect result was included in the calculation of the mean. All samples from Calumet Harbor and River except the 1986 dredging event included Chicago Harbor. Table 1 includes year of placement, volume of dredged material, and location of dredging and rehandling operations.

20

Table 10: Metals in Sediment Characteristics for Past and Recent Dredging Events (continued) Dredging Location (Year(s) of Operation) Sediment Parameters (Units)

Harbor (2011)

River (2011)

Harbor / River

(2012-13)

Harbor / River

(2014–15) Harbor (2015)

Recent Summary 2011-2015

Overall Summary 1984-2015

Max -- 23 12 29 6.7 29 124 Arsenic (mg/kg) Mean 3.8 17 8.7 13.2 6.4 9.8 17.2 Min -- 13 6.7 5.8 6.1 3.8 <0.3 Max -- 81 70 78 26 81 190 Barium (mg/kg) Mean 9.9 64 37.5 40.3 24 35.1 <48 Min -- 47 20 20 22 9.9 8.4 Max -- 2.3 1.2 2.4 0.57 2.4 15.8 Cadmium (mg/kg) Mean <1.0 <1.95 0.7 1.2 0.55 1.1 <2.5 Min -- <1.0 0.37 0.56 0.53 0.37 0.2 Max -- 210 34 64 23 210 347 Chromium (mg/kg) Mean 4.4 80 23.7 39.9 21.5 33.9 42 Min -- 28 19 20 20 4.4 1.6 Max -- 530 37 120 27 530 530 Copper (mg/kg) Mean 3.0 180 29.7 50 24 57.3 59 Min -- 53 21 21 21 3.0 3.0 Max No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 151,000 Iron (mg/kg) Mean No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 40,483 Min No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5,400 Max -- 310 140 270 37 310 1200 Lead (mg/kg) Mean 8.7 210 74.7 112 36 88.2 195 Min -- 79 28 37 34 8.7 8.7 Max -- 5500 1100 1,600 610 5500 5500 Manganese Mean 270 2133 710 870 575 911.6 1047 (mg/kg) Min -- 1300 400 480 540 270 130 Max -- 0.41 0.21 0.38 0.097 0.41 0.9 Mercury (mg/kg) Mean 0.012 0.23 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.12 <0.17 Min -- 0.11 <0.05 0.043 0.061 0.012 <0.01 Max -- 130 22 43 22 130 130 Nickel (mg/kg) Mean 5.2 55 18.8 27 20 25.1 32 Min -- 35 13 15 18 5.2 5.2 Max -- 3500 370 1,000 120 3500 4,690 Zinc (mg/kg) Mean 60 1182 191 411 120 392.8 660 Min -- 260 93 120 120 60 54.3 # of Samples Collected 1 6 6 7 2 22 122

1 Notes: The mean concentration was calculated using the detection limit when no concentrations were detected. Inclusion of the “<” symbol indicates at least one non-detect result was included in the calculation of the mean. *All samples from Calumet Harbor and River except the 1986 dredging event included Chicago Harbor. Table 1 includes year of placement, volume of dredged material, and location of dredging and rehandling operations.

21

Table 11: Wet Chemistry Sediment Characteristics for Past and Recent Dredging Events Dredging Location (Year(s) of Operation)

Sediment Parameters (Units) River

(1984) River

(1985)

Chicago Harbor / River1 (1986)

River (1989)

River (1994)

River (2000-01)

Harbor / River

Entrance (2001)

River (2003)

Harbor (2007)

River (2008)

River (2009)

Harbor (2009)

Historical Summary 1984-2009

Max 63.2 73 74 66.8 65 86 62 No Data 66 -- -- 76 86 Total Solids (%) Mean 52 54.6 54 54.1 57 63.7 52 No Data 57.1 72 57 61 58 Min 45.5 43 37 39.9 50.7 40 41 No Data 47 -- -- 52 37 Max 17 8.3 19 10.9 8.3 15.4 4.9 No Data 5.6 -- -- 4.1 19 Total Volatile Solids (%) Mean 11.1 7.2 9.3 6.34 7.2 5.4 3.6 No Data 3.85 13 7.1 3.4 7.0 Min 5.1 2.7 2.4 3.8 6.2 2.8 2.4 No Data 2.6 -- -- 2.6 2.4 Max 5.1 0.56 0.54 2.8 1.4 2.1 <1 5.8 2.3 -- -- 0.54 5.8 Cyanide (mg/kg) Mean <1.2 0.2 <0.23 <1.24 1.3 <0.79 <0.64 <1.9 <0.47 <0.23 <0.36 0.29 0.74 Min <0.14 0.08 <0.01 <0.15 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.20 <0.22 -- -- 0.17 0.01 Max 290,000 73,000 52,000 962,000 200,000 134,000 107,000 282,000 240,000 -- -- 110,000 962,000 Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/kg) Mean 135,309 55,046 39,000 172,500 136,000 81,170 76,689 176,936 112,000 180,000 100,000 83,286 112,328 Min 65,000 27,000 21,000 11,500 94,000 6,130 39,500 99,300 53,000 -- -- 62,000 6,130 Max 240 110 240 141 293 255 244 253 470 -- -- 220 470 Ammonia (as N) (mg/kg) Mean 137.45 72.9 80 59.97 216 134 166 210 152 32 140 170 131 Min 80 2.4 15 26.8 142 20 81 138 67 -- -- 130 2.4 Max 4,900 890 1500 1,220 9,850 2,970 1,310 1,430 No Data -- -- No Data 9,850 TKN (mg/kg) Mean 1,624 721.9 910 514.3 7,328 1,224 932 1,212 No Data No Data No Data No Data 1808 Min 670 81 360 156 4,200 541 627 713 No Data -- -- No Data 81 Max 15,000 4,400 6,500 99,500 1,640 5,780 3,350 6,580 790 -- -- 800 99,500 Oil & Grease (mg/kg) Mean 7,445 1,888 3,360 19,059 1,423 <1,394 1405 2714 338 2,200 13,000 486 4559 Min 1,000 970 650 326 1,080 <20 258 1120 100 -- -- 320 100 Max 1,000 500 540 11.3 3,300 492 465 778 430 -- -- 9.9 3,300 Phosphorus (total) (mg/kg) Mean 513.6 307 360 15.8 1,118 252 295 511 290 160 730 <6.9 380 Min 300 300 180 <0.10 227 8.9 208 350 190 -- -- 3.4 0.1 Max 19 1.2 12 39 7.3 4.1 <0.33 13 0.39 -- -- 0.15 39 PCBs (mg/kg) Mean 4.4 0.7 5.4 5.04 3.8 <0.79 <0.33 2 <0.155 0.179 4.8 <0.041 2.3 Min 0.69 0.3 0.41 <0.25 0.8 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.075 -- -- <0.022 0.022 Max No Data No Data 9.7 19.8 No Data No Data No Data No Data 2.1 -- -- 1.8 19.8 Total Organic Carbon (%) Mean No Data No Data 5.8 9.8 No Data No Data No Data No Data 1.2 1.7 7.1 1.6 4.5 Min No Data No Data 0.9 2.4 No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.8 -- -- 1.4 0.80 # Samples Collected 11 11 7 7 4 18 9 11 13 1 1 7 100


22

Table 11: Wet Chemistry Sediment Characteristics for Past and Recent Dredging Events (continued) Dredging Location (Year(s) of Operation)

Sediment Parameters (Units) Harbor (2011)

River (2011)

Harbor / River

(2012-13)

Harbor / River

(2014-15) Harbor (2015)

Recent Summary 2011-2015

Overall Summary 1984-2015

Max 60 81 76 61 85 86 Total Solids (%) Mean 85 54 58.5 57 59 63 59 Min 48 46 47 56 46 37 Max 13 5 8 3.6 13 19 Total Volatile Solids (%) Mean 1.0 9.9 4 4.6 3.2 4.5 6.3 Min 5.8 3.1 2.5 2.7 1.0 1.0 Max 2 1.2 1.1 <0.18 2 5.8 Cyanide (mg/kg) Mean 0.12 1.42 <0.39 <0.44 <0.17 0.51 0.67 Min 0.92 <0.16 <0.13 <0.16 0.12 0.01 Max 320,000 110,000 190,000 85,000 320,000 962,000 Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/kg) Mean 110,000 233,333 67,667 131,143 79,000 124,229 115,828 Min 130,000 44,000 65,000 73,000 44,000 6,130 Max 297 224 282 46.6 297 470 Ammonia (as N) (mg/kg) Mean 22.6 202 89 127 40.5 96 121 Min 114 18.4 41.1 34.3 18.4 2.4 Max No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9,850 TKN (mg/kg) Mean No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 1808 Min No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 81 Max 22,700 993 4,410 335 22,700 99,500 Oil & Grease (mg/kg) Mean 43.1 5466 471 1,031 236 1449 3645 Min 653 231 82.4 136 43 43 Max 740 380 760 410 760 3,300 Phosphorus (total) (mg/kg) Mean 6.5 515 216 489 405 326 364 Min 320 <8.1 300 400 6.5 0.1 Max 2.2 0.49 1.7 <0.089 2.2 39 PCBs (mg/kg) Mean 0.02 <0.33 <0.25 <0.48 <0.0855 0.2 1.7 Min <0.028 0.084 <0.066 <0.082 0.02 0.02 Max 4.5 1.6 3.3 1.4 4.5 19.8 Total Organic Carbon (%) Mean 0.12 3.4 1.1 1.6 1.35 1.5 3.2 Min 2.4 0.45 0.63 1.3 0.12 0.12 # Samples Collected 1 6 6 7 2 22 122


23

5.3 Total Suspended Solids Monitoring During Dredging and Rehandling TSS concentrations and turbidity were measured during the dredging and rehandling operations near the surface (approximately a foot below the water surface) and at mid-depth at three (3) locations around the dredge (CH-00-09, -10, -11) and at three (3) locations around the rehandling area (CH-00-12, -13, -14). These sample locations for the dredging and rehandling areas are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectfully. The three (3) sampling locations around the dredging operation were positioned 100 feet upstream, 100 feet downstream, and 500 feet downstream of the centerline of the dredge, as shown in Figure 2. The upstream samples were collected to establish background suspended solids concentrations. As the dredge relocated to different stations, the sample locations remained the same in relation to the dredge. Generally, all three (3) samples were collected in succession, one after the other. Since a portion of the dredging was actually performed in Calumet Harbor, the turbidity sampling location distances were determined with respect to the observed direction of flow in the vicinity of the dredge. Figure 2: Turbidity Monitoring Around Dredging Operation

The three (3) sampling locations around the rehandling operations were within approximately 100 feet of the scow being unloaded, as shown in Figure 3.

24

Figure 3: Turbidity Monitoring Around Rehandling Operation

In order to provide a correlation between nephelometric turbidity measurements performed in the field and the results of TSS analyses conducted by the laboratory using Standard Method 2540D, concurrent field turbidity measurements and laboratory TSS results were analyzed for the two (2) pre-dredge sampling events and the first sampling event performed during dredging and rehandling operations. The correlation plot is shown in Figure 4. The sample locations for correlation measurements included the Calumet River (RIV-001, -002, and -003), near CDF dike (ND-COMP-001, -002, -003), and background (BACK-001, -002, and -003) locations, as shown in Figure 1, for the pre-dredge sampling events, and these same sample locations plus the turbidity field sample locations, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, were included for the first sampling event performed during dredging and rehandling operations.

25

Figure 4: Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity Data Correlation Plot

Only two (2) of the sampling events; the events performed on 12/15/2014 and 12/29/2014, used the equation in the correlation plot to calculate TSS values for the sample locations around the dredge and/or rehandling operations. All the other events used the TSS values determined by the analytical laboratory through the performance of Standard Method 2540D on the samples. 5.3.1 Dredging Area TSS Monitoring The TSS results from the turbidity sample locations upstream and downstream of the dredge area (shown in Figure 2) during dredging operations are summarized in Tables 12 and 13 for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectfully. These tables include the results from the background sample locations (BACK-001, -002, and -003) (shown in Figure 1) for comparison, and another reference for comparison is the Illinois effluent standard of 15 mg/L that was shown earlier in Tables 6 and 7. The average surface and mid-depth TSS concentrations were calculated for the three (3) sample locations in the vicinity of the dredge, and Figures 5 and 6 show the box and whisker plots (minimum, 1st quartile, median, 3rd quartile, and maximum) for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectively. Furthermore, these figures show the average TSS concentrations for the turbidity sample locations in comparison to the background sample locations.

y = 0.7704x + 0.1628R² = 0.9414

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

TSS

[mg/

L]

Turbidity [NTU]

TSS vs Turbidity

26

Table 12: Dredging Event #17 – TSS Results around Dredging Area and Background

Location Depth

Dates During Dredging 3-Nov. 2014

(mg/L)

10 Nov. 2014

(mg/L)

3 Dec. 2014

(mg/L)

8 Dec. 2014

(mg/L)

*15 Dec. 2014

(mg/L) Average CH-00-09: 100’ upstream

Surface 16.2 15.3 11.5 11.9 11.7 13.3 Mid 16.9 17.1 11.7 15.6 13.0 14.9

CH-00-10: 100’ downstream

Surface 20.0 27.0 13.3 26.1 11.4 19.6 Mid 20.4 27.9 13.1 17.6 11.0 18.0


Surface 21.3 33.7 11.0 12.4 11.2 17.9 Mid 21.6 35.5 10.8 12.9 11.1 18.4

BACK-001 1/3 water column

33.5 18.6 12.7 14.4 14.8 18.8 BACK-002 33.7 21.1 12.1 15.4 13.5 19.2 BACK-003 34.9 18.5 11.3 12.1 5.7 16.5 Note: For Dredging Event #17, *15 Dec. 2014 was the only date during dredging when the TSS results for all the turbidity sample locations (not including BACK-001, -002, and -003) were computed using the correlation equation between the field turbidity and laboratory TSS measurements (the linear correlation equation y = 0.7704x – 0.1628 is shown in Figure 4). The TSS results for all the background locations (i.e. BACK-001, -002, and -003) and all the other dates during dredging are the analytical laboratory results from TSS measurements performed by Standard Method 2540D. No dredging or rehandling was conducted during the sampling event on 11/17/2014, so there was no turbidity monitoring and no sediment sample was collected. No dredging was conducted on 11/24/2014 and 12/29/2014, so no turbidity monitoring was performed around the dredging location on those dates, but turbidity monitoring was performed around the rehandling location and a sediment sample was collected. The TSS and turbidity correlation equation y = 0.7704 (x) + 0.1628 was used to calculate TSS for 15 Dec. 2014 for all the turbidity sample locations (dredging and rehandling areas) and the equation was used to calculate TSS for 29 Dec 2014 for the turbidity sample locations around the rehandling area (where x = turbidity (NTU) and y = TSS (mg/L)). Table 13: Dredging Event #18 – TSS Results around Dredging Area and Background

Location Depth

Dates During Dredging 21-Apr.

2015 (mg/L)

24-Apr. 2015

(mg/L)

28 Apr. 2015

(mg/L) Average CH-00-09: 100’ upstream

Surface 6.1 2.4 4.3 Mid 4.2 2.2 3.2


Surface 2.4 2.4 2.4 Mid 3.4 4.4 3.9


Surface 2.9 7.8 5.4 Mid 2.7 2.1 2.4


7.9 3.0 5.5 BACK-002 4.3 2.6 3.5 BACK-003 3.3 1.8 2.6 Note: For Dredging Event #18 there were only two (2) sampling events performed during the dredging operations, and all the TSS measurements were performed by Standard Method 2540D in addition to the concurrent turbidity (nephelometer) measurements. Since TSS was measured by the analytical laboratory for all the sample and turbidity locations, no equation was necessary to correlate the field turbidity and laboratory TSS measurements. In addition, as explained in the field logs, the first sampling event during dredging was 21 Apr. 2015. Most of the samples were collected on 21 Apr. 2015, but dredging was postponed on this date due to high wind and wave conditions, so there was no collection of samples from the influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, or a sediment sample for that sampling event. Since these samples were not collected on 21 Apr. 2015, a subsequent sampling event was conducted later that same week, on 24 Apr. 2015, after dredging operations had commenced. However, for this subsequent sampling event on 24 Apr. 2015, the only samples that were collected were the ones missed on 21 Apr. 2015, namely, samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, and a sediment sample. For this reason, the TSS measurements from the turbidity sample locations on 24 Apr. 2015 were compared to the TSS measurements of the background samples collected on 21 Apr. 2015.

27

Figure 5: Dredging Event #17 –TSS Concentrations at Dredge Area and Background Locations

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

100’ upstream of dredge at

surface

100’ upstream of dredge at mid-depth

100’ downstream of dredge at

surface

100’ downstream of dredge at mid-depth


surface


BACK-001(1/3 depth)

BACK-002(1/3 depth)

BACK-003(1/3 depth)

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (T

SS) [

mg/

L]

Average

28

Figure 6: Dredging Event #18 –TSS Concentrations at Dredge Area and Background Locations

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

100’ upstream of dredge at

surface

100’ upstream of dredge at mid-depth


surface



surface


BACK-001(1/3 depth)

BACK-002(1/3 depth)

BACK-003(1/3 depth)

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (T

SS) [

mg/

L]

Average

29

The analysis of the TSS concentrations is helpful for quantifying and identifying the vertical and spatial extent of the sediment resuspension that occurred during the dredging and rehandling operations. The TSS concentrations and extent of resuspension depends upon a number of different factors, including the sediment properties (bulk density, particle size distribution, and mineralogy), site conditions (water depth, current, wind, and waves), amount of debris, and operational considerations for the dredge or rehandling area (namely the production rate, equipment type, method of operations, and skill of the operator)1. For Dredging Event #17, it can be observed from Table 12 and Figure 5 that the average TSS concentrations at the water surface and mid-depth levels were similar for each of the locations in the vicinity of the dredge. Although the average TSS values at the different depths were generally similar, it is important to recognize that a small, incidental amount of dredged material is typically released back to the water column during the dredge cycle. Precautions are taken to minimize the release of material, such as the use of an enclosed bucket in the Calumet River and careful operation of the equipment, but it is anticipated that regardless of these precautions, a minor amount of dredged material will be released due to the inherent characteristics of dredging operations. Minor resuspension of sediment commonly occurs as the dredge lifts the full bucket of sediment through water column, as the dredged material is transferred to the scow, and/or as the empty bucket is placed back into the water with residual dredged material. Evidence of potential sediment resuspension near the surface due to the dredging operations is indicated by Table 12 for the 8 December 2014 sampling event, because the TSS concentration of the sample collected near the surface 100 feet downstream of the dredge was 8.5 mg/L higher than the corresponding mid-depth sample. It can also be observed from the same table that the surface sample collected 500 feet downstream of the dredge during the same sampling event was comparatively low and less than the corresponding mid-depth sample. Past results and studies indicate that the resuspension of material from dredging is a localized, short-term impact that decreases as the distance from the dredging operation increases. Other operational considerations include the impact of the bucket with the bottom of the waterway, or the resuspension of sediment as the bucket initially lifts and removes material from the bottom. These actions tend to increase the TSS concentrations in the lower depths of the water column, and Table 12 shows there were several sampling events where the TSS concentrations of the mid-depth samples collected downstream of the dredge exceeded the TSS concentrations of the corresponding surface samples. However, when the mid-depth samples possessed higher TSS concentrations, the differences between the surface and mid-depth samples were subtle and typically less than a few mg/L. Since the monitoring results show that the average TSS concentrations of the surface and mid-depth samples downstream of the dredge were generally within the same range as the TSS concentrations of the background samples, the results do not reveal evidence of adverse impacts to the water quality.

1 Bridges, T.S., Ells, S., Hayes, D., Mount, D., Nadeau, S.C., Palermo, M.R., Patmont, C., Schroeder, P., “The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual, and Risk,” U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), ERDC/EL TR-08-4, February 2008.

30

In addition to the minor differences observed vertically between the TSS concentrations of the surface and mid-depth samples, Table 12 and Figure 5 show there were also spatial differences between the TSS concentrations measured upstream and downstream of the dredge. For example, the TSS levels 100 feet upstream of the dredge were slightly lower and there was less variability in comparison to the corresponding TSS levels 100 and 500 feet downstream of the dredge. Table 12 also shows that for the 10 November 2014 sampling event, the TSS concentrations at the upstream or background locations were noticeably lower than the TSS concentrations at the downstream locations. It was anticipated that TSS levels at the upstream locations would be lower than TSS levels at the downstream locations, because, as mentioned earlier, a small, incidental amount of dredged material is released during dredging operations. Furthermore, the results from the other sampling events in Table 12 suggest that the 10 November 2014 results likely reflect minor and localized, short-term impacts. The overall results show that the TSS concentrations at the background or upstream locations were generally comparable to the average TSS concentrations at the downstream locations. In addition, the data show that the maximum TSS concentrations at the locations downstream of the dredge were approximately within the same range as the maximum TSS levels measured at the background locations. Based on these results, the dredging operations for Dredging Event #17 did not cause long-term adverse impacts to the water quality. Incidentally, as noted before in the discussion of sediment quality, due to the severe weather conditions, such as strong currents, high winds, and large waves that occurred around the time when the dredging operations commenced for Dredging Event #17, the shoaled areas in the Calumet River were dredged first. It can be observed from Table 12 that for the first sampling event conducted during dredging operations; 3 November 2014, the TSS levels at the background locations, which are located in Calumet Harbor (Figure 1), were elevated in comparison to the TSS levels at the sampling locations around the dredging operations, which were being performed in the Calumet River at the time. These results suggest that the elevated TSS levels measured at the background locations for this sampling event were likely a result of sediment resuspended by the severe weather conditions. By comparing Tables 12 and 13 and Figures 5 and 6, it can be observed that for Dredging Event #18, the TSS concentrations for all the sample locations were often considerably lower than the TSS concentrations measured during Dredging Event #17. The average TSS values at the background locations ranged from 16.5 to 19.2 mg/L during Dredging Event #17 but only ranged from 2.6 to 5.5 mg/L during Dredging Event #18. Since these results represent background levels that should not be impacted by the dredging operations, it is evident that the elevated TSS concentrations observed during Dredging Event #17 were a result of sediment resuspended by the severe weather conditions. During Dredging Event #18, there were only two (2) sampling events where turbidity samples were collected from locations around the dredging operations. As a

31

consequence, it was challenging to distinguish trends in the turbidity samples due to the limited quantity of data. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the TSS concentrations were generally low in comparison to the previous dredging event, and all the TSS concentrations were well below the Illinois effluent standard of 15 mg/L shown earlier in Tables 6 and 7. Although the data were limited and the concentrations were generally low, it can be observed from Table 13 that the maximum TSS level of the samples collected from around the dredge was 7.8 mg/L, and this concentration was nearly identical to the maximum TSS concentration measured from the background locations, which was 7.9 mg/L. Table 13 also shows that the maximum TSS concentration measured in the vicinity of the dredge was from a surface sample collected from the location 500 feet downstream of the dredge on 28 April 2015, and this concentration was elevated in comparison to the other samples collected during this same event 100 feet upstream and downstream of the dredge and from the background locations. However, as explained earlier in the discussion of the results from 10 November 2014 during Dredging Event #17, these results likely reflect minor and localized, short-term impacts, because the overall average TSS concentrations at the background and upstream locations were generally in the same range as the average TSS concentrations at the downstream locations. Similar to Dredging Event #17, the overall average TSS results from the upstream and background locations during Dredging Event #18 were generally comparable to the average TSS concentrations at the downstream locations. In addition, the overall maximum TSS concentrations downstream or in the vicinity of the dredge were approximately equal to the overall maximum TSS levels measured at the background locations. Hence, these results do not reveal evidence of long-term adverse impacts to the water quality in association with the dredging operations for Dredging Event #18. Another factor to take into consideration when reviewing the turbidity results from Calumet Harbor is that in comparison to the Calumet River, it can be more challenging to determine the flow direction in Calumet Harbor. Although the turbidity results are beneficial for evaluating sediment resuspension in the vicinity of the dredge, the current in Calumet Harbor may be extremely sluggish or variable, so it can be difficult to distinguish the flow direction and establish upstream and downstream locations. As shown in Table 13, one of the surface samples collected from the location 100 feet upstream of the dredge on 24 Apr. 2015 was slightly elevated in comparison to the samples collected from the downstream locations, but, as explained earlier, elevated TSS concentrations would normally be anticipated to occur downstream of the dredge. However, regardless of the flow direction, the TSS levels measured in the vicinity of the dredge do not reveal evidence of long-term adverse impacts to the water quality. Tables 14 and 15 show the background TSS concentrations measured prior to the start of dredging (pre-dredge), during dredging, and after dredging operations were completed (post-dredge) for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectively. As noted above, in comparison to Dredging Event #17, the average TSS values at the background locations during dredging were noticeably lower for Dredging Event #18. Since the results from the background locations (shown in Figure 1) should not be

32

impacted by the dredging operations, the elevated TSS concentrations observed during Dredging Event #17 were likely from sediment resuspended by the severe weather conditions. Table 14: Dredging Event #17 – Background TSS Pre-Dredge, During, and Post-Dredge

Dates Pre-Dredge During Post-Dredge

Location

27-Oct. 2014

(mg/L)

29 Oct. 2014

(mg/L) Average (mg/L)

2 Jan. 2015

(mg/L)

5 Jan. 2015

(mg/L) BACK-001 2.8 2.1 15.6 6.4 NA1

BACK-002 2.5 2.4 15.6 4.2 NA BACK-003 2.6 1.8 15.1 3.5 NA

1 Not available due to freezing temperatures. Table 15: Dredging Event #18 – Background TSS Pre-Dredge, During, and Post-Dredge

Dates Pre-Dredge During1 Post-Dredge

Location

4-Apr. 2015

(mg/L)

8-Apr. 2015

(mg/L)

14-Apr. 2015

(mg/L) Average (mg/L)

5 May 2015

(mg/L)

7 May 2015

(mg/L) BACK-001 4.8 5.1 3.6 5.5 2.4 2.5 BACK-002 3.2 7.0 2.3 3.5 2.2 1.6 BACK-003 3.8 5.8 1.8 2.6 3.0 1.4

1 The first sampling event during dredging was considered to be 21 Apr. 2015. Most of the samples were collected on 21 Apr. 2015, but dredging was postponed on this date due to high wind and wave conditions, so there was no collection of samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, or a sediment sample for that sampling event. Since these samples were not collected on 21 Apr. 2015, a subsequent sampling event was conducted later that same week, on 24 Apr. 2015, after dredging operations had commenced. However, for this subsequent sampling event on 24 Apr. 2015, the only samples that were collected were the ones missed on 21 Apr. 2015, namely, the samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, and a sediment sample. Thus, the average for the background samples only includes the samples collected on 21 and 28 Apr. 2015. It can be observed from Table 14 that the average TSS concentrations of the background samples collected during dredging operations for Dredging Event #17 were higher than the TSS concentrations of the pre- or post-dredge samples. Table 15 shows that the average TSS concentrations of the background samples collected during dredging operations for Dredging Event #18 were comparable to the pre-dredge samples but slightly higher than the post-dredge samples. Since the samples collected from the background locations should not be impacted by the dredging operations, the variations observed in the background TSS concentrations are largely an indication of the sediment resuspended by the weather conditions, i.e., strong currents, high winds, large waves. 5.3.2 Rehandling Area TSS Monitoring The TSS results from the turbidity sample locations surrounding the rehandling area (CH-00-12, -13, -14) shown in Figure 3 and the background locations (BACK-001, -002, -003) shown in Figure 1 are summarized in Tables 16 and 17 for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectfully. The average surface and mid-depth TSS concentrations were calculated for the three (3) sample locations in the vicinity of the rehandling area, and Figures 7 and 8 show the box and whisker plots (minimum, 1st quartile, median, 3rd quartile, and maximum) for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectively. These figures

33

also show the average TSS concentrations for the turbidity sample locations in comparison to the background sample locations. Table 16: Dredging Event #17 – TSS Results around Rehandling Area and Background

Location Depth

Rehandling Dates 03-Nov.

2014 (mg/L)

10 Nov. 2014

(mg/L)

24 Nov. 2014

(mg/L)

03 Dec. 2014

(mg/L)

08 Dec. 2014

(mg/L)

*15 Dec. 2014

(mg/L)

29 Dec. 2014

(mg/L) Average CH-00-12: 100’ South

Surface 29.9 38.7 9.6 12.0 15.2 14.3 7.7 18.2 Mid 32.0 38.7 10.0 12.5 15.0 16.0 5.7 18.6

CH-00-13: 100’ East

Surface 32.9 42.7 9.7 12.9 13.5 15.8 5.1 18.9 Mid 42.5 43.8 9.4 13.1 14.6 15.3 5.5 20.6

CH-00-14: 100’ North

Surface 57.5 45.7 10.7 12.7 12.7 14.6 4.9 22.7 Mid 51.3 50.6 10.0 13.5 28.8 14.8 5.1 24.9


33.5 18.6 12.9 12.7 14.4 14.8 4.6 15.9 BACK-002 33.7 21.1 6.9 12.1 15.4 13.5 11.3 16.3 BACK-003 34.9 18.5 12.7 11.3 12.1 5.7 13.6 15.5

Note: For Dredging Event #17, *15 Dec. 2014 was the only date during dredging when the TSS results for all the turbidity sample locations (not including BACK-001, -002, and -003) were computed using the correlation equation between the field turbidity and laboratory TSS measurements (the linear correlation equation y = 0.7704x – 0.1628 is shown in Figure 4). The TSS results for all the background locations (i.e. BACK-001, -002, and -003) and all the other dates during dredging are the analytical laboratory results from TSS measurements performed by Standard Method 2540D. No dredging or rehandling was conducted during the sampling event on 11/17/2014, so there was no turbidity monitoring and no sediment sample was collected. No dredging was conducted on 11/24/2014 and 12/29/2014, so no turbidity monitoring was performed around the dredging location on those dates, but turbidity monitoring was performed around the rehandling location and a sediment sample was collected. The TSS and turbidity correlation equation y = 0.7704 (x) + 0.1628 was used to calculate TSS for 15 Dec. 2014 for all the turbidity sample locations (dredging and rehandling areas) and the equation was used to calculate TSS for 29 Dec 2014 for the turbidity sample locations around the rehandling area (where x = turbidity (NTU) and y = TSS (mg/L)). Table 17: Dredging Event #18 – TSS Results around Rehandling Area and Background

Location Depth

Rehandling Dates 21 Apr.

2015 (mg/L)

24 Apr. 2015

(mg/L)

28 Apr. 2015

(mg/L) Average CH-00-12: 100’ South

Surface 6.2 2.6 4.4 Mid 6.0 3.7 4.9

CH-00-13: 100’ East

Surface 4.0 2.3 3.2 Mid 4.2 2.7 3.5

CH-00-14: 100’ North

Surface 11.8 2.6 7.2 Mid 10.0 2.5 6.3


7.9 3.0 5.5 BACK-002 4.3 2.6 3.5 BACK-003 3.3 1.8 2.6

Note: For Dredging Event #18 there were only two (2) sampling events performed during the dredging/rehandling operations, and all the TSS measurements were performed by Standard Method 2540D in addition to the concurrent turbidity (nephelometer) measurements. Since TSS was measured by the analytical laboratory for all the sample and turbidity locations, no equation was necessary to correlate the field turbidity and laboratory TSS measurements. In addition, as explained in the field logs, the first sampling event during dredging was 21 Apr. 2015. Most of the samples were collected on 21 Apr. 2015, but dredging was postponed on this date due to high wind and wave conditions, so there was no collection of samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, or a sediment sample for that sampling event. Since these samples were not collected on 21 Apr. 2015, a subsequent sampling event was conducted later that same week, on 24 Apr. 2015, after dredging operations had commenced. However, for this subsequent sampling event on 24 Apr. 2015, the only samples that were collected were the ones missed on 21 Apr. 2015, namely, the samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, the turbidity samples, and a sediment sample. For this reason, the TSS measurements from the turbidity sample locations on 24 Apr. 2015 were compared to the TSS measurements of the background samples collected on 21 Apr. 2015.

34

Figure 7: Dredging Event #17 – Average Suspended Solids Concentration at Rehandling Area and Background

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

100’ South of rehandling

scow at surface


scow at mid-depth

100’ East of rehandling

scow at surface


scow at mid-depth

100’ North of rehandling

scow at surface


scow at mid-depth

BACK-001(1/3 depth)

BACK-002(1/3 depth)

BACK-003(1/3 depth)

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (T

SS) [

mg/

L] Average

35

Figure 8: Dredging Event #18 – Average Suspended Solids Concentration at Rehandling Area and Background

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0


scow at surface


scow at mid-depth


scow at surface


scow at mid-depth


scow at surface


scow at mid-depth

BACK-001 (1/3depth)

BACK-002 (1/3depth)

BACK-003 (1/3depth)

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (T

SS) [

mg/

L]

Average

36

It can be observed from Table 16 that the TSS values at all the sample locations during the first two (2) sampling events, on 3 and 10 November 2014, were elevated in comparison to the subsequent sampling events. Since the TSS concentrations were elevated at the background locations as well as at the locations around the rehandling area, the resuspension of sediment from the severe weather conditions evidently caused an overall increase of the TSS concentrations for these events. Although the weather conditions can substantially impact the TSS concentrations, Figure 7 shows that during Dredging Event #17 the average and maximum TSS concentrations measured in the vicinity of the rehandling area were generally higher than they were at the background locations. The difference between these results suggests that the rehandling operations likely contributed to the increased turbidity. A minor amount of spillage typically occurs during rehandling as the dredged material is removed from the scow and placed into the hopper located upon the dike, so it was anticipated that the TSS concentrations at the locations around the rehandling area would be elevated in comparison to the background locations. Crane operators are instructed to minimize spillage when transporting the dredged material from the scow to the hopper, and the operation is monitored by quality assurance personnel to help keep spills to a minimum, but, regardless of these precautions, occasionally a minor amount of material will be released due to the characteristic nature of rehandling operations. Similar to the incidental resuspension of material from dredging operations, the minor releases of dredged material from the rehandling area cause localized, short-term impacts that decrease as the distance from the rehandling operations increases. Another potential reason the TSS concentrations near the rehandling area may be elevated is because this area is located adjacent to the CDF dike, and the water near the shoreline is comparatively shallow and occasionally may be more turbid than the deeper water at the background locations away from the shoreline. Turbidity is often elevated near the shoreline because of the waves and currents that impact the shoreline and the resulting erosion of rocks and resuspension of sediment. The impact of large waves and/or strong currents against the equipment in the rehandling area, such as the scow and crane barge, may also contribute to turbulence and increased levels of turbidity. 5.4 Calumet River Sampling The Calumet River was sampled at three (3) sampling locations in the vicinity of the filter cell effluent discharge point to evaluate whether the discharge had an impact on the water quality. RIV-001 was collected 200 feet upstream of the discharge point, RIV-002 was collected at the discharge point, and RIV-003 was collected 200 feet downstream of the discharge point (as shown in Figure 1).

37

5.4.1 Calumet River Sampling During Dredging Effluent from the filter cells is only discharged into the Calumet River during rehandling operations, when dredged material is removed from the scow and placed into the CDF and water from the settling pond is pumped to the filter cell. During Dredging Event #17, there were eight (8) sampling events performed during dredging operations (03 Nov. 2014 – 29 Dec. 2014), and during Dredging Event #18, there were two (2) sampling events performed during dredging operations (21 Apr. 2015 – 28 Apr. 2015). The first sampling event during dredging operations for Dredging Event #18 occurred on 21 April 2015, and the samples surrounding the CDF, as shown in Figure 1, were collected on this date. However, the dredging was actually postponed on this particular date due to high wind and wave conditions, so there was no collection of samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, or a sediment sample for this sampling event. Since these samples were not collected on 21 Apr. 2015, a subsequent, partial sampling event was conducted later that same week, on 24 Apr. 2015, after dredging operations had commenced. For this subsequent, partial sampling event, the only samples collected were the ones missed on 21 Apr. 2015, namely, the samples of influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, and a sediment sample. Hence, the sampling event conducted on 21 Apr. 2015 was considered to be a sampling event during dredging operations, even though dredging was actually postponed on this date due to high wind and wave conditions. Tables 18 and 19 show the average parameter concentrations calculated for each of the three (3) Calumet River sample locations for sampling events that occurred during dredging for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectfully. The general use water quality standards and average concentrations of the filter cell effluent have been included for reference. Table 18: Dredging Event #17 – Calumet River Samples Collected During Dredging (03 Nov. 2014 – 29 Dec. 2014)

Parameters

During Dredging Average Filter Cell Effluent (mg/L)

General Use Water Quality Standard

(mg/L) (2)

Average RIV-001 (mg/L)



Chromium <0.0010 (1) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.714 (3, 4) Manganese 0.0153 0.0150 0.0147 0.0062 1.0 Zinc <0.0069 <0.0076 <0.0074 <0.0074 0.157 (3) Ammonia (as N) <0.031 <0.027 <0.027 <0.53 14.4 (5) TKN <0.25 <0.29 <0.28 0.84 -- Phosphorus <0.0064 <0.0068 <0.0073 0.0243 0.05 TDS 172 178 181 307 1000 (6)

TSS 11.8 11.2 11.1 < 1.6 15 (7) pH, S.U. 7.40 7.40 7.57 7.37 6.5 – 9.0

Notes: Same as the notes for Table 19 below

38

Table 19: Dredging Event #18 – Calumet River Samples Collected During Dredging (21 Apr. 2015 – 28 Apr. 2015)

Parameters

During Dredging Average Filter Cell Effluent (mg/L)

General Use Water Quality Standard

(mg/L) (2)




Chromium <0.0010 (1) <0.0011 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.714 (3, 4) Manganese 0.0123 0.0129 0.0125 0.0175 1.0 Zinc <0.0090 <0.0053 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.157 (3) Ammonia (as N) 0.019 0.023 0.017 0.057 14.4 (5) TKN <0.26 0.25 0.27 0.54 -- Phosphorus 0.0084 0.0071 <0.0063 0.0278 0.05 TDS 179 191 197 358 1000 (6)

TSS 6.6 6.7 6.6 3.8 15 (7) pH, S.U. 7.83 7.82 7.68 7.57 6.5 – 9.0

Notes: 1 The average concentration was calculated using the detection limit if no concentration was detected. Inclusion of the “<” symbol indicates at least one non-detect result was included in the calculation of the average concentration. 2 IL Pollution Control Board, Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 Ill. Adm. Code), Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Water Quality Standards, Subpart B: General Use Water Quality Standards. In 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 302, Section 302.208 of Subpart B includes acute and chronic standards for chromium and zinc, but only one standard is listed for manganese. Section 302.212 of Subpart B establishes both acute and chronic standards for total ammonia nitrogen. 3 Acute standard based on approximate hardness of water in Calumet River (H) = 138 mg/L as CaCO3 4 Standard for trivalent, dissolved chromium 5 Acute standard (AS) based on 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Section 302.212 (a) (approximate average pH of Calumet River = 7.7, so AS = 14.4 mg/L). Total ammonia nitrogen must in no case exceed 15 mg/L. 6 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Subpart E: Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality Standards 7 Standard from Chicago Area CDF 1982 Environmental Impact Statement and 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, Part 304 (Effluent Standards), Section 304.124(a). 5.4.2 Calumet River Sampling Before, During, and After Dredging Tables 20 and 21 show the average results for each of the three (3) Calumet River monitoring locations (RIV-001, -002, and -003) before, during, and after dredging operations for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectively.

39

Table 20: Dredging Event #17 – Average of Calumet River Samples Collected Before, During, and After Dredging

Parameters Pre-Dredge (Before) During Dredging Post-Dredge (After)

RIV-001 (mg/L)

RIV-002 (mg/L)

RIV-003 (mg/L)

RIV-001 (mg/L)

RIV-002 (mg/L)

RIV-003 (mg/L)

RIV-001 (mg/L)

RIV-002 (mg/L)

RIV-003 (mg/L)

Chromium <0.0010 (1) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0011 Manganese 0.0067 0.0053 0.0053 0.0153 0.0150 0.0147 0.0089 0.0087 0.0096 Zinc <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0069 <0.0076 <0.0074 <0.0062 <0.0054 <0.0085 Ammonia (as N) <0.018 <0.016 <0.017 <0.031 <0.027 <0.027 0.020 <0.016 0.028 TKN <0.25 <0.21 0.25 <0.25 <0.29 <0.28 0.29 0.30 0.27 Phosphorus 0.0061 <0.0066 0.0069 <0.0064 <0.0068 <0.0073 0.0066 <0.0059 <0.0050 TDS 165 163 172 172 178 181 188 199 217 TSS 3.6 3.4 3.0 11.8 11.2 11.1 6.3 5.5 6.7 pH, S.U. 7.75 7.81 7.64 7.40 7.40 7.57 7.77 7.75 8.08

Notes: The “<” symbol indicates one or more values were less than the detection limit. When a value was less than the detection limit, the detection limit was used to compute the average concentration. Table 21: Dredging Event #18 – Average of Calumet River Samples Collected Before, During, and After Dredging

Parameters Pre-Dredge (Before) During Dredging Post-Dredge (After)

RIV-001 (mg/L)

RIV-002 (mg/L)

RIV-003 (mg/L)

RIV-001 (mg/L)

RIV-002 (mg/L)

RIV-003 (mg/L)

RIV-001 (mg/L)

RIV-002 (mg/L)

RIV-003 (mg/L)

Chromium <0.0010 (1) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0011 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Manganese 0.0099 0.0080 0.0083 0.0123 0.0129 0.0125 0.0089 0.0098 0.0109 Zinc <0.0146 <0.0107 <0.0051 <0.0090 <0.0053 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Ammonia (as N) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.019 0.023 0.017 0.028 0.031 0.039 TKN <0.26 <0.22 <0.32 <0.26 0.25 0.27 <0.24 0.28 0.28 Phosphorus 0.0076 <0.0069 0.0144 0.0084 0.0071 <0.0063 0.0111 0.0123 0.0142 TDS 181 197 195 179 191 197 187 186 192 TSS 4.2 4.0 4.2 6.6 6.7 6.6 4.4 4.9 5.2 pH, S.U. 7.64 7.58 7.32 7.83 7.82 7.68 7.81 7.76 7.73

Notes: The “<” symbol indicates one or more values were less than the detection limit. When a value was less than the detection limit, the detection limit was used to compute the average concentration. In general, these tables show that the average concentrations of the parameters in the samples collected during dredging were similar to the parameter concentrations in the samples collected before and after dredging, but there were a few minor exceptions. For instance, it can be observed in both Table 20 and 21 that the average TSS concentrations were elevated during dredging operations in comparison to the concentrations before and after dredging. However, these elevated TSS concentrations were evidently caused by severe weather conditions rather than dredging operations. As mentioned earlier in the discussion of TSS monitoring, the weather conditions evidently caused an overall increase of the TSS concentrations for the first few sampling events during dredging operations for Dredging Event #17, and TSS concentrations were also elevated for the 21 April 2015 sampling event during Dredging Event #18 due to high wind and wave conditions, which postponed the dredging operations for this date. Manganese was another parameter with slightly elevated concentrations during dredging in comparison to the concentrations before and after dredging

40

in both Tables 20 and 21. Similar to TSS, these results do not appear to be associated with the dredging operations. It can be observed from Table 18 that for Dredging Event #17, the average filter cell effluent manganese concentration (0.0062 mg/L) was considerably lower than the average concentrations of the locations in the Calumet River, which ranged from 0.0147 to 0.0153 mg/L. For Dredging Event #18, the average filter cell effluent manganese concentration (0.0175 mg/L) was slightly higher than the average concentrations of the locations in the Calumet River, which ranged from 0.0123 to 0.0129 mg/L. However, for Dredging Event #18, only two (2) sampling events were performed during dredging operations, and the manganese concentrations in the Calumet River were higher for first event on 21 April 2015, when the dredging operations were postponed due to the weather conditions. As a consequence, like the elevated TSS concentrations, it is evident that the elevated manganese concentrations during dredging operations were due to the high wind and wave conditions. 5.5 Filter Cell Performance as Measured by Solids Removal As mentioned earlier in the filter cell effluent discussion, composite samples of the filter cell effluent were typically collected using an Isco automatic water sampler, but a grab sample was collected prior to the setup or if there were any problems with the automatic sampler. Tables 22 and 23 show the TSS results of the influent and effluent samples that were collected during dredging operations for Dredging Events #17 and #18, respectively. For both dredging events, the tables show that filter cell efficiency ranged from 56 to 89%, and the maximum TSS concentration measured in the effluent (3.8 mg/L) was well below the Illinois general effluent standard (15 mg/L). Table 22: Dredging Event #17 – TSS Concentrations and Filter Cell Efficiency

Sampling Date CH-00-02 Filter Cell Influent (mg/L)

CH-00-03 Filter Cell Effluent (mg/L)

Efficiency = (Influent-Effluent)/Influent (%)

03 Nov. 2014 17.0 2.6 85 10 Nov. 2014 7.9 3.5 56 17 Nov. 2014 3.6 1.0 72 24 Nov. 2014 6.3 1.4 78 03 Dec. 2014 3.7 1.0 73 08 Dec. 2014 3.0 1.0 67 15 Dec. 2014 5.9 1.1 81 29 Dec. 2014 9.1 1.0 89

Table 23: Dredging Event #18 – TSS Concentrations and Filter Cell Efficiency

Sampling Date CH-00-02 Filter Cell Influent (mg/L)

CH-00-03 Filter Cell Effluent (mg/L)

Efficiency = (Influent-Effluent)/Influent (%)

24 Apr. 2015 9.4 3.8 60 28 Apr. 2015 13.6 3.8 72

5.6 Background Water Quality In order to evaluate potential impacts of the Chicago Area CDF upon Calumet Harbor water quality, the water samples collected from the near-dike locations (ND-COMP-001, -002, -003) were compared to the samples collected from the

41

background locations (BACK-001, -002, -003) (sample locations are shown in Figure 1). The results were compared for the pre-dredge, during dredging, and post-dredge monitoring periods for Dredging Events #17 and #18. A statistical analysis software program named ProUCL (Version 5.0.00) was utilized to compare the background and near-dike water quality data. ProUCL was developed under the direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) Technical Support Center (TSC). More information about ProUCL software is available at the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software. For the ProUCL statistical analysis, the near-dike and background sample results were compared using the nonparametric, two-sample Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) comparison test (confidence coefficient = 95%). If the sample data contained parameter concentrations below the reporting limit (non-detected data), the WMW analysis was performed using the reporting limits as the non-detect values. The results from samples collected from the near dike locations were input as Sample 1, and the results from samples collected from the background locations were input as Sample 2. The null hypothesis form was Sample 1 (near dike samples) <= Sample 2 (background) (Form 1), which is the default form for the null hypothesis for ProUCL 5.0. A discussion of the assumptions, advantages, and disadvantages of the WMA test is provided with the technical resources available on the ProUCL software web site listed above. WMW tests were evaluated to determine whether the computed approximate p values were less than 0.05. If the p values were less than 0.05, the conclusion was to reject the null hypothesis based upon the collected data set. Rejection of the null hypothesis is indicative of data groups that may be significantly different. Since there were a few occasions where a limited amount of distinctive data and/or numerous non-detect values for some of the parameters were present, it needs to be emphasized that the results in these circumstances can be unreliable. Furthermore, when the values for one or both of the data groups are all non-detect values, ProUCL does not perform the WMW test, so the results in such cases were listed as not applicable (N/A). When more data are present, it improves the reliability of the WMW test and the probability of reaching a correct conclusion. In some situations, particularly with limited data, it may be advantageous to use an alternative statistical method and/or graphical displays to supplement the WMW test results. The WMW statistical test results from the samples collected from the near-dike and background locations before, during, and after dredging for Dredging Events #17 and #18 are shown in the Statistical Analysis (ProUCL) Summary Tables in Appendix D. These tables show the results for the following parameters: chromium, manganese, zinc, ammonia nitrogen, phosphorus,

http://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software

42

TKN, TSS, and TDS. It should be noted that most of the samples collected from the near-dike and background locations did not detect any chromium above its reporting limit (0.001 mg/L). The WMW comparison for chromium during dredging for Dredging Event #17 was the only test where sufficient data were present above the reporting limit to generate test results. Otherwise, due to the large amount of non-detect data, no WMW tests were performed for chromium. Sample results for ammonia nitrogen, phosphorous, and zinc were also frequently below their reporting limits. For Dredging Event #17, the WMW test results reveal two (2) instances where the parameter concentrations at the near-dike locations were determined to be statistically greater than the concentrations at the background locations. These parameters included manganese before (pre-) dredging and TDS after (post-) dredging. Since both instances occurred either prior to the start of dredging operations or after dredging operations were completed, these WMW tests were performed using a limited amount of data. The amount of post-dredge data for Dredging Event #17 was particularly small, and the second post-dredge sampling event only included one near-dike sample due to the severe winter weather conditions that existed. The WMW test comparisons of the data collected during dredging operations for Dredging Event #17 included the results from eight (8) sampling events conducted over a two (2) month time period in Nov. and Dec. 2014, and none of these test results indicated any statistically greater parameter concentrations were measured at the near-dike locations in comparison to the background locations. As mentioned earlier, when more data are present, it generally improves the reliability of the WMW test results, and the larger amount of data collected during dredging operations did not reveal evidence of long-term negative impacts. It should also be recognized that the maximum manganese concentration (0.0076 mg/L) of the near-dike samples measured prior to dredging was comparatively low and within the range of results from samples collected later at the background and Calumet River sample locations during dredging operations. In addition, the maximum TDS concentration (180 mg/L) was measured after the completion of dredging operations from the near-dike sample closest to the Calumet River, and this value was less than the TDS concentrations measured in samples collected from the Calumet River during the same sampling event. Incidentally, the Calumet River generally flows inland, away from Lake Michigan, but the flow is controlled downstream at the O’Brien Lock and Dam. Under certain low-flow conditions, water in the Calumet River could potentially impact the nearby waters of Calumet Harbor, particularly near the entrance to the Calumet River. Samples collected from the Calumet River commonly possess lower water quality than the background locations, and this is mainly attributed to the industrialization and legacy of contamination in the area, as well as to the persistence of certain pollutants in the environment, wastewater treatment plant and other point source discharges, and storm water runoff and non-point source discharges. As a

43

consequence, although the WMW tests for the manganese and TDS parameters suggest the data were statistically greater for the near-dike locations in comparison to the background locations, there is not consistent evidence or a trend showing negative impacts from the dredging or CDF operations on the long-term water quality. For Dredging Event #18, the WMW test results revealed one (1) instance where the null hypothesis was rejected because the manganese concentrations at the near-dike locations during dredging were determined to be statistically greater than the concentrations at the background locations. Dredging Event #18 was considerably shorter than Dredging Event #17. Only two (2) sampling events were conducted during the dredging operations, so the amount of data was relatively limited. The maximum manganese concentration of the near-dike samples during Dredging Event #18 was 0.019 mg/L. Although this value was comparatively elevated for Dredging Event #18, several background samples collected during dredging for Dredging Event #17 had similar manganese concentrations of around 0.02 mg/L. In addition, the manganese concentrations measured in the Calumet River samples during dredging for Dredging Event #18 ranged from 0.0123 to 0.129 mg/L. The other manganese concentrations measured at the near-dike locations during dredging operations for Dredging Event #18 ranged from 0.0038 to 0.013 mg/L, whereas manganese concentrations at the background locations ranged from 0.0023 to 0.0084 mg/L. When all the manganese data; i.e., pre-dredge, during dredging, and post-dredge data, were combined and analyzed together using the WMW test, the test did not reject the null hypothesis. Furthermore, the results of the WMW tests performed on the other parameters during dredging did not reject the null hypothesis. Based on the manganese results, it is possible that there may have been a minor, short term adverse impact, but there was no consistent evidence or trend showing negative impacts from the dredging or CDF operations on the long-term water quality. 6. Report Summary This report summarizes the results from monitoring activities for maintenance dredging of the Calumet Harbor and River Federal navigation project during Water Year 2015 as part of compliance with the CWA Section 401 water quality certification requirements and Illinois EPA water pollution control permit. Maintenance dredging operations for Water Year 2015 included two (2) dredging events; Dredging Events #17 and #18. Dredging Event #18 was a much shorter and smaller event, but it included a pilot scale study to evaluate the mechanical removal of an outcrop of bedrock from Calumet Harbor. For all the maintenance dredging operations, the dredge material was placed into the Chicago Area CDF. The main conclusions reached upon review of the results from the water quality monitoring program included the following:

44

1) The Chicago Area CDF filter cell was general effective because the average effluent concentrations for most parameters were lower than the corresponding average concentrations of the CDF pond samples. In addition, the effluent was lower than the Illinois water quality general use standards, but it is important to note that these standards were solely used for reference. The TSS levels of the effluent were considerably lower than the TSS levels measured in the CDF pond samples.

2) The report provides a historical summary of the sediment collected

during past dredging events. For Water Year 2015, seven (7) sediment samples were collected during Dredging Event #17 and two (2) sediment samples were collected during Dredging Event #18. In comparison to the sediment within the Calumet River and/or near the entrance to the Calumet River, the sediment in Calumet Harbor typically has lower concentrations of parameters such as metals, oil and grease, and PCBs. Based upon the results, it appears the sediment quality of the samples collected from the scow during the first three (3) sampling events for Dredging Event #17 had elevated concentrations that were typical of sediment in the Calumet River. Conversely, the sediment quality of the other samples exhibited lower parameter concentrations that were more representative of the sediment in Calumet Harbor.

3) TSS monitoring at the dredging and rehandling areas indicated typical

minor, localized, short-term adverse impacts, but there was no evidence of long-term, negative impacts to the water quality. Elevated TSS values were observed overall, including background sampling locations, for the first two (2) sampling events for Dredging Event #17, and these results suggest the higher than normal turbidity was likely caused by factors besides the dredging and rehandling operations, particularly the meteorological site conditions; i.e., strong currents, high winds, and large waves.

4) There were a few minor exceptions, but a comparison of the average

parameter concentrations in the Calumet River before, during, and after dredging generally showed that the concentrations of the samples collected during dredging were similar to the concentrations of samples collected before and after dredging.

5) For Dredging Events #17 and #18, the performance of the filter cell was

satisfactory. Filter cell efficiency ranged from 56 to 89%, and the maximum TSS concentration measured in the effluent (3.8 mg/L) was well below the Illinois general effluent standard (15 mg/L).

6) A statistical analysis of the water quality data was performed to

evaluate whether the concentrations of parameters in the samples

45

collected from locations near the Chicago Area CDF dike were significantly different from the samples collected from background locations in Calumet Harbor. The results from this analysis revealed two (2) instances during Dredging Event #17 and one (1) instance during Dredging Event #18 where the near-dike concentrations were determined to be statistically greater than the background concentrations. In all the instances, there was a limited amount of data, and the reliability of statistical testing generally improves when more data are present. Supplemental analysis revealed that there may have been some minor, short-term adverse impacts, but there was no consistent evidence or trend showing negative impacts from the dredging or CDF operations on the long-term water quality.

7) Overall, the maintenance dredging operations for Dredging Events #17

and #18 were in compliance with CWA Section 401 water quality certification requirements and the requirements of the Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Permit, and the analytical laboratory data and statistical analyses did not reveal evidence that the dredging operations and rehandling and placement operations at the Chicago Area CDF were having an adverse impact on the long term water quality within Calumet Harbor or the Calumet River.

46

Appendix A: Dredging Locations for Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015

47

Appendix B: Water Quality Summary Data

Dredging Event 17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015)

Sample name Parameter Unit

Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

CH-00-02 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.069 0.051 0.21 0.76 1.6 1.1 0.62 0.89

CH-00-02 Residue, Suspended mg/L < 1.0 17.0 7.9 3.6 6.3 3.7 3.0 5.9 9.1

CH-00-09 TOP

Turbidity (Field) NTU 18.8 21.8 13.4 17.1 15.0

CH-00-09 TOP

Residue, Suspended mg/L 16.2 15.3 11.5 11.9 11.7

CH-00-09 MID


CH-00-09 MID


CH-00-10 TOP


CH-00-10 TOP


CH-00-10 MID


CH-00-10 MID


CH-00-11 TOP


CH-00-11 TOP


CH-00-11 MID


CH-00-11 MID


CH-00-12 TOP

Turbidity (Field) NTU 42.8 49.6 14.1 15.8 18.1 18.3 9.78

CH-00-12 TOP

Residue, Suspended mg/L 29.9 38.7 9.6 12.0 15.2 14.3 7.7

CH-00-12 MID


CH-00-12 MID


CH-00-13 TOP


CH-00-13 TOP


CH-00-13 MID


CH-00-13 MID


CH-00-14 TOP


CH-00-14 TOP


49

Dredging Event 17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015) (continued)


Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5 CH-00-14 MID


CH-00-14 MID


Back-001 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0018 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA

Back-001 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0032 0.0023 0.0200 0.0100 0.0130 0.0210 0.0081 0.0080 0.0090 0.0042 0.0050 NA

Back-001 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.013 0.030 0.047 0.012 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.012 0.027 0.022 0.010 NA

Back-001 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L < 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.35 < 0.20 0.24 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.26 0.21 0.37 NA

Back-001 pH (field) pH Units 7.97 7.62 7.73 7.91 7.48 7.62 6.79 7.55 7.56 6.93 7.69 NA

Back-001 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0073 0.0066 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0062 0.0104 0.0068 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

Back-001

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 164 174 158 156 148 166 112 154 162 150 154 NA

Back-001 Residue, Suspended mg/L 2.8 2.1 33.5 18.6 12.9 12.9 12.7 14.4 14.8 4.6 6.4 NA

Back-001 Temperature °C (Field) °C 13.9 12.5 10.2 9.0 4.8 2.8 2.1 1.8 3.2 2.4 0.7 NA

Back-001 Turbidity (Field) NTU 3.63 2.75 49.1 28.5 17.8 15.9 14.8 18.7 17.7 6.53 7.92 NA

Back-001 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0061 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0089 0.0100 0.0110 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0052 < 0.0050 0.0058 NA

Back-002 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0019 0.0013 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA


Back-002 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.017 0.032 0.017 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.011 0.035 0.025 < 0.010 NA

Back-002 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.22 < 0.20 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.27 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.24 < 0.20 NA


Back-002 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0206 0.0072 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0065 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0112 0.0052 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

Back-002




50



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5


Back-002 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0053 0.0082 0.0110 0.0100 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0063 < 0.0050 NA

Back-003 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0021 0.0012 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0045 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA


Back-003 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.015 0.044 0.014 0.013 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.019 0.028 0.021 < 0.010 NA

Back-003 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L < 0.20 < 0.20 0.40 0.31 0.25 0.34 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.24 NA


Back-003 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0069 0.0081 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0083 < 0.0050 0.0128 0.0051 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

Back-003





Back-003 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 0.0100 < 0.0050 0.0099 0.0110 0.0100 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0090 < 0.0050 NA

CDF-001 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0027 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA NA

CDF-001 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0420 0.0560 0.0450 0.0480 0.0710 0.1500 0.0830 0.0500 0.0560 0.0440 NA NA

CDF-001 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.015 0.067 0.067 0.059 0.270 2.3 1.7 1.1 0.65 0.84 NA NA

CDF-001 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.52 0.62 0.63 0.52 0.79 2.7 2.3 1.4 0.96 1.2 NA NA

CDF-001 pH (field) pH Units 7.96 7.81 8.04 7.90 7.62 7.94 7.57 7.75 7.67 7.71 NA NA

CDF-001 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0244 0.0289 0.0200 0.0203 0.0170 0.0136 0.0204 0.0298 0.0167 0.0178 NA NA

CDF-001

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 474 484 412 360 306 288 314 268 218 242 NA NA

CDF-001 Residue, Suspended mg/L 11.7 15.3 15.4 13.2 4.9 34.7 3.6 3.2 11.9 8.2 NA NA

CDF-001 Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.8 11.7 8.8 8.9 1.6 2.9 1.4 2.2 5.5 2.7 NA NA

51



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

CDF-001 Turbidity (Field) NTU 11.5 16.3 16.5 14.0 5.87 19.1 5.74 3.92 13.2 9.9 NA NA

CDF-001 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 0.0058 0.0096 0.0110 0.0088 0.0330 0.0067 < 0.0050 0.0063 0.0100 NA NA

CDF-002 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0012 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA NA


CDF-002 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.30 0.068 0.051 0.26 1.4 1.6 1.1 0.64 0.84 NA NA




CDF-002





CDF-002 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0052 0.0089 0.0079 0.0089 0.0140 0.0190 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0150 NA NA

CDF-003 Chromium, Total mg/L 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA NA


CDF-003 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.067 0.067 0.087 0.190 1.30 1.6 1.1 0.64 0.87 NA NA




CDF-003




52



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5


CDF-003 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0065 0.0074 0.0076 0.0083 0.0092 0.0190 0.0092 < 0.0050 0.0090 0.0077 NA NA

CH-00-03 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA NA

CH-00-03 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0077 0.0064 0.0067 0.0068 0.0069 0.0061 0.0061 0.0032 NA NA

CH-00-03 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.034 0.013 < 0.010 0.27 1.5 1.2 0.79 0.40 NA NA

CH-00-03 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.63 NA NA

CH-00-03 pH (field) pH Units 7.70 7.80 6.86 6.30 7.63 7.67 7.60 7.41 NA NA

CH-00-03 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0477 0.0258 0.0212 0.0225 0.0240 0.0235 0.0181 0.0113 NA NA

CH-00-03

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 400 418 372 188 288 310 260 222 NA NA

CH-00-03 Residue, Suspended mg/L < 1.0 2.6 3.5 1.0 1.4 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.1 < 1.0 NA NA

CH-00-03 Temperature °C (Field) °C 9.8 9.4 < 0.10 3.5 2.5 3.9 6.9 < 0.10 NA NA

CH-00-03 Turbidity (Field) NTU 4.74 2.33 2.39 1.85 1.25 2.24 2.04 1.55 NA NA

CH-00-03 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 0.0063 0.0110 0.0086 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0130 < 0.0050 NA NA

CH-00-SED Arsenic, Total mg/kg dry 16 29 19 7.1 5.8 9.9 5.9 NA NA

CH-00-SED Barium, Total mg/kg dry 59 78 53 24 21 27 20 NA NA

CH-00-SED Cadmium, Total

mg/kg dry 2 2.4 1.5 0.57 0.56 1.0 0.56 NA NA

CH-00-SED Carbon, Total Organic % 2.8 3.3 0.95 1.4 0.63 1.1 0.89 NA NA

CH-00-SED

Chemical Oxygen Demand

mg/kg dry

140000

160000 190000 73000 < 170000 120000 65000 NA NA

CH-00-SED Chromium, Total

mg/kg dry 54 64 57 20 22 41 21 NA NA

CH-00-SED Copper, Total mg/kg dry 73 120 55 22 21 36 22 NA NA

CH-00-SED Cyanide, Total

mg/kg dry 1.1 0.48 0.64 < 0.13 < 0.16 0.44 < 0.15 NA NA

CH-00-SED HEM: Oil & Grease

mg/kg dry 1920 4410 384 85.3 < 82.4 245 91.8 NA NA

53



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

CH-00-SED Lead, Total mg/kg dry 200 270 120 42 40 74 37 NA NA

CH-00-SED Manganese, Total

mg/kg dry 1600 1600 770 480 500 580 560 NA NA

CH-00-SED Mercury, Total mg/kg dry 0.19 0.38 0.27 0.043 0.056 0.11 0.060 NA NA

CH-00-SED Nickel, Total mg/kg dry 40 43 31 18 15 22 17 NA NA

CH-00-SED Nitrogen, Ammonia

mg/kg dry 110 182 282 69.7 73.6 130 41.1 NA NA

CH-00-SED PCB-1016 mg/kg dry < 0.2 < 0.14 < 0.069 < 0.066 < 0.082 < 0.094 < 0.077 NA NA



CH-00-SED PCB-1242 mg/kg dry 1.4 0.98 0.069 < 0.066 < 0.082 < 0.094 < 0.077 NA NA


CH-00-SED PCB-1254 mg/kg dry 0.3 0.21 0.090 < 0.066 < 0.082 < 0.094 < 0.077 NA NA


CH-00-SED Total PCBs mg/kg dry 1.7 1.2 0.16 < 0.066 < 0.082 < 0.094 < 0.077 NA NA

CH-00-SED Percent Solids % 51 47 48 76 61 53 65 NA NA

CH-00-SED Phosphorus, Total

mg/kg dry 490 760 650 300 330 510 380 NA NA

CH-00-SED Volatile Solids % 4.9 8.0 6.6 3.1 2.8 4.1 2.5 NA NA

CH-00-SED Zinc, Total mg/kg dry 820 1000 400 120 140 270 130 NA NA

CH-18-81 Chromium, Total mg/L 0.0031 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.0019 < 0.0050 0.0019 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0014 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0010

CH-18-81 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.7900 0.1300 0.2400 0.3200 1.200 0.3100 0.5200 0.2000 0.2000 0.0110 0.1800 0.0800

CH-18-81 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8

CH-18-81 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4

CH-18-81 pH (field) pH Units 10.4 10.8 10.8 10.9 11.3 11.4 10.9 10.8 10.9 10.4 11.0 11.1

54



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

CH-18-81 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0208 0.019 0.0185 0.0174 0.0148 0.0183 0.0092 0.0206 0.0149 0.0141 0.0116 0.0101

CH-18-81

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 2860 3020 2500 2590 2620 2790 2940 3210 2950 2800 3140 3390

CH-18-81 Residue, Suspended mg/L 14.7 9.6 12.1 12.2 25.9 9.9 30.2 10.0 9.6 4.2 11.1 3.3

CH-18-81 Temperature °C (Field) °C 18.5 15.2 16.5 16.2 9.6 11.5 12.4 12.8 12.9 5.2 11.6 9.4

CH-18-81 Turbidity (Field) NTU 11.1 4.27 4.51 4.52 8.99 7.53 11.3 3.92 11.0 3.85 3.17 2.70

CH-18-81 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0230 0.0071 < 0.0250 0.0230 0.0320 0.0160 < 0.0250 < 0.0250 0.0097 < 0.0250 < 0.0250 0.0066

CH-19-81 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010

CH-19-81 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0022 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0011 0.0023 0.0019 < 0.0010 0.0031 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0017 < 0.0010

CH-19-81 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.5 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.7

CH-19-81 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.4

CH-19-81 pH (field) pH Units 11.3 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.6 11.8 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.3 11.4 11.6

CH-19-81 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0169 0.0151 0.0154 0.0103 0.0113 0.0155 0.0127 0.0159 0.0158 0.0138 0.0138 0.0173

CH-19-81

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 494 534.0 532 544 558 538 462 534 558 540 522 478

CH-19-81 Residue, Suspended mg/L < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

CH-19-81 Temperature °C (Field) °C 15.5 12.7 14.0 14.0 11.1 11.1 12.5 12.8 12.9 12.1 13.0 11.4

CH-19-81 Turbidity (Field) NTU < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 2.61 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00

CH-19-81 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0075 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0053 0.0096 0.01 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050

Duplicate Sample Name

ND-Comp-001

Back-001

ND-Comp-001

ND-Comp-003

Back-003 Back-002 Riv-002 Riv-003 Riv-001

ND-Comp-003

ND-Comp-001 NA

Duplicate Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0018 0.0014 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0014 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA

Duplicate Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0042 0.0023 0.0180 0.0220 0.0085 0.0054 0.0180 0.0140 0.0330 0.0120 0.0038 NA

Duplicate Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.019 0.030 0.016 < 0.010 0.013 0.018 0.033 0.044 0.018 < 0.010 NA

Duplicate Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.28 < 0.20 0.27 0.24 < 0.20 0.47 0.23 0.27 NA

55



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

Duplicate Sample Name

ND-Comp-001

Back-001

ND-Comp-001

ND-Comp-003

Back-003 Back-002 Riv-002 Riv-003 Riv-001

ND-Comp-003

ND-Comp-001 NA

Duplicate pH (field) pH Units 7.93 7.62 7.78 7.87 7.44 7.73 6.32 7.63 7.57 7.41 7.68 NA

Duplicate Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0096 0.0075 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0116 0.0072 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

Duplicate


Duplicate Residue, Suspended mg/L 3.1 2.0 28.2 20.1 11.2 7.6 10.5 10.6 22.8 14.9 4.6 NA

Duplicate Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.1 12.5 10.8 9.2 4.7 2.9 2.5 2.6 3.5 2.2 0.6 NA

Duplicate Turbidity (Field) NTU 5.32 2.75 41.2 26.2 17.2 12.1 12.3 11.9 23.0 21.0 6.13 NA

Duplicate Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0110 0.0220 0.0120 0.0085 < 0.0050 0.0076 0.0058 < 0.0050 NA ND-COMP-001

Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0016 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010

ND-COMP-001

Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0076 0.0051 0.0170 0.0072 0.0230 0.0230 0.0100 0.0110 0.0140 0.0059 0.0043 0.0160

ND-COMP-001

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.020 0.034 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.014 0.029 0.024 < 0.010 < 0.010

ND-COMP-001

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L < 0.20 0.32 0.30 0.23 0.22 0.35 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.23 0.23 < 0.20 0.33

ND-COMP-001 pH (field)

pH Units 7.93 7.51 7.78 7.93 7.40 7.64 6.47 7.56 7.65 6.76 7.68 7.84

ND-COMP-001

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0107 0.0071 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0051 0.0052 0.0110 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0065

ND-COMP-001

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 156 172 138 160 146 156 < 50.0 152 160 150 168 180

ND-COMP-001

Residue, Suspended mg/L 6.1 2.6 27.4 13.9 13.4 14.7 12.1 14.5 17.4 5.6 4.3 12.6

ND-COMP-001

Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.1 12.1 10.8 9.6 4.5 2.6 2.0 1.9 3.4 2.3 0.6 < 0.1

ND-COMP-001

Turbidity (Field) NTU 5.32 2.75 41.2 17.8 17.7 19.3 16.2 18.9 20.1 9.14 6.13 15.9

ND-COMP-001 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0061 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0091 0.0150 0.0120 0.0055 < 0.0050 0.0060 0.0078 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 ND-COMP-002

Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0024 0.0021 < 0.0010 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA

ND-COMP-002

Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0045 0.0032 0.0210 0.0410 0.0120 0.013 0.0081 0.0084 0.0081 0.0092 0.0033 NA

56



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5 ND-COMP-002

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.018 0.030 0.018 0.019 0.011 < 0.010 0.028 0.027 0.026 < 0.010 NA

ND-COMP-002

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.20 < 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.26 0.28 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.27 0.21 NA


pH Units 7.92 7.73 7.76 7.93 7.43 7.82 7.15 7.52 7.63 7.21 7.76 NA

ND-COMP-002

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0069 0.0070 < 0.0050 0.0056 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0102 0.0063 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

ND-COMP-002

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 166 164 148 192 148 146 82.0 164 168 144 168 NA

ND-COMP-002

Residue, Suspended mg/L 3.3 2.0 29.4 29.8 11.2 10.6 10.6 11.0 11.6 12.0 4.0 NA

ND-COMP-002

Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.6 12.3 10.2 9.2 4.9 2.8 2.2 1.8 3.3 2.2 0.6 NA

ND-COMP-002

Turbidity (Field) NTU 4.17 2.48 44.1 38.6 17.3 17.8 14.8 15.0 14.9 12.1 5.53 NA

ND-COMP-002 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0200 0.0077 0.0120 0.0077 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0057 < 0.0050 NA ND-COMP-003

Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0016 0.0014 0.0012 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0010 < 0.0010 NA

ND-COMP-003

Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0039 0.0026 0.0160 0.0220 0.0087 0.0110 0.0059 0.0079 0.0041 0.0120 0.0033 NA

ND-COMP-003

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.016 0.038 0.012 < 0.010 0.011 0.014 0.016 0.026 0.043 < 0.010 NA

ND-COMP-003

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L < 0.20 < 0.20 0.20 0.37 < 0.20 0.23 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.25 NA


pH Units 8.00 7.85 7.82 7.87 7.45 7.68 7.62 7.55 7.62 7.41 7.74 NA

ND-COMP-003

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0075 0.0082 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0100 0.0059 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

ND-COMP-003

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 158 180 146 176 148 150 96.0 162 160 150 162 NA

ND-COMP-003

Residue, Suspended mg/L 3.5 1.8 28 18.7 10.1 11.4 8.4 10.0 6.9 15.1 4.0 NA

ND-COMP-003

Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.1 12.5 10.6 9.2 4.4 2.9 2.2 1.8 3.5 2.2 0.6 NA

ND-COMP-003

Turbidity (Field) NTU 2.66 4.21 40.7 26.2 15.4 17.1 11.4 14.8 10.4 21.0 4.88 NA

ND-COMP-003 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0140 0.0076 0.0230 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 NA

RIV-001 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0012 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010

57



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

RIV-001 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0070 0.0064 0.0140 0.0081 0.0130 0.0150 0.0180 0.0150 0.0330 0.0064 0.0100 0.0077

RIV-001 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.026 0.034 0.011 < 0.010 0.039 0.022 0.048 0.042 0.038 0.018 0.022

RIV-001 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L < 0.20 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.27 0.28 < 0.20 0.31 0.24 0.25 0.33

RIV-001 pH (field) pH Units 7.95 7.54 7.77 7.89 7.30 7.75 5.99 7.54 7.57 7.36 7.61 7.92

RIV-001 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0052 0.0069 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0050 0.0058 < 0.0050 0.0128 0.0061 0.0061 0.0056 0.0075

RIV-001


RIV-001 Residue, Suspended mg/L 3.8 3.4 17.4 8.0 10.0 9.8 10.3 10.7 22.6 5.5 7.8 4.8

RIV-001 Temperature °C (Field) °C 13.9 12.0 10.8 9.6 5.6 3.6 2.4 2.5 3.5 2.5 1.1 < 0.1

RIV-001 Turbidity (Field) NTU 4.00 3.2 23.6 12.2 12.0 11.0 10.9 12.0 23.0 7.67 8.67 6.32

RIV-001 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0057 0.0110 0.0130 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0051 0.0052 0.0073 < 0.0050

RIV-002 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010


RIV-002 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.022 0.033 < 0.010 0.015 0.012 0.025 0.045 0.043 0.034 0.022 < 0.010

RIV-002 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L < 0.20 0.22 0.30 < 0.20 0.30 0.35 0.34 < 0.20 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.35


RIV-002 Phosphorus, Total mg/L < 0.0050 0.0081 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0079 0.0054 0.0073 0.0120 0.0065 0.0054 < 0.0050 0.0068

RIV-002


RIV-002 Residue, Suspended mg/L 4.3 2.4 17.4 8.3 10.7 9.1 10.3 9.9 18.5 5.5 7.0 4

RIV-002 Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.0 12.4 10.9 9.7 5.6 3.9 2.5 2.5 3.4 2.6 1.2 < 0.1


RIV-002 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0081 0.0130 0.0110 < 0.0050 0.0071 0.0052 0.0063 0.0057 < 0.0050

58



Date

10/27 10/29 11/3 11/10 11/17 a 11/24 b 12/3 12/8 12/15 c 12/29 b & c 1/2 1/5

RIV-003 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 0.0012 < 0.0010 0.0012 < 0.0010


RIV-003 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.023 0.034 < 0.010 0.016 < 0.010 0.022 0.041 0.043 0.037 0.029 0.027

RIV-003 Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.25 < 0.20 0.34 0.43 < 0.20 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27


RIV-003 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0075 0.0063 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0052 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0212 0.0071 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050

RIV-003


RIV-003 Residue, Suspended mg/L 3.5 2.4 15.1 7.4 10.4 8.2 10.5 10.8 20.7 5.8 7.9 5.4

RIV-003 Temperature °C (Field) °C 14.1 12.2 11.5 9.5 5.7 3.8 2.6 2.6 3.7 2.5 1.4 0.1


RIV-003 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0068 0.0140 0.0110 0.0051 < 0.0050 0.0072 < 0.0050 0.0120 < 0.0050

Notes for Data Summary Table Dredging Event 17 (27 Oct. 2014 – 5 Jan. 2015): The "<" symbol indicates concentrations less than the reporting limit. a No dredging on 11/17/2014, so no turbidity monitoring and no sediment sample was collected. b No dredging on 11/24/2014 and 12/29/2014, so no turbidity monitoring was performed at dredging location. c TSS and turbidity correlation equation y = 0.7704 (x) + 0.1628 used to calculate TSS for 12/15/2014 and 12/29/2014 (where x = turbidity (NTU) and y = TSS (mg/L)). All water sample results for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by USEPA-8082A were less than (<) the reporting limit (0.10 µg/L) except for the following: CDF-001 had a concentration of 0.11 µg/L for PCB-1242 (and Total PCB Aroclors) on 11/24/14; RIV-001 had a concentration of 0.25 µg/L for PCB-1260 (and Total PCB Aroclors) on 12/08/14; and CDF-003 had a concentration of 0.13 µg/L for PCB-1260 (and Total PCB Aroclors) on 12/15/14. a Calculated TSS value from correlation equation with turbidity (TSS = (0.7917*turbidity)-2.2651) NA = Not Applicable or Not Available

59

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) Date Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15 CH-00-02

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.24 0.14

CH-00-02

Residue, Suspended mg/L 9.4 13.6

CH-00-09 TOP

Turbidity (Field) NTU 3.80 3.09

CH-00-09 TOP


CH-00-09 MID


CH-00-09 MID


CH-00-10 TOP


CH-00-10 TOP


CH-00-10 MID


CH-00-10 MID


CH-00-11 TOP


CH-00-11 TOP


CH-00-11 MID


CH-00-11 MID


CH-00-12 TOP


CH-00-12 TOP


CH-00-12 MID


CH-00-12 MID


CH-00-13 TOP


CH-00-13 TOP


CH-00-13 MID


CH-00-13 MID


CH-00-14 TOP


60

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued) Date Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15 CH-00-14 TOP


CH-00-14 MID


CH-00-14 MID


Back-001 Chromium, Total mg/L 0.0014 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Back-001 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0033 0.0036 0.0049 0.0084 0.0034 0.004 0.0045

Back-001 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 0.019 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.015 < 0.010

Back-001

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.41 0.32 < 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.25

Back-001 pH (field) pH Units 7.70 7.69 7.93 7.96 7.69 7.84 7.96

Back-001 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0061 0.0071 < 0.0050 0.0057 < 0.0050 0.0102 0.0081

Back-001

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L 160 176 180 160 178 160 170

Back-001 Residue, Suspended mg/L 4.8 5.1 3.6 7.9 3.0 2.4 2.5

Back-001 Temperature °C (Field) °C 7.0 6.5 10.8 9.0 9.2 10.5 13.1

Back-001 Turbidity (Field) NTU 6.14 7.14 3.85 7.91 3.28 3.44 3.10

Back-001 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0053 < 0.005 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

Back-002 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 0.0016 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001


Back-002 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.014 < 0.010

Back-002



Back-002 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0067 0.0120 < 0.0050 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0083 0.0065

Back-002


61

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued) Date

Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15




Back-002 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0067 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

Back-003 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001


Back-003 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.054 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010

Back-003



Back-003 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0080 0.0107 0.0060 0.0062 < 0.0050 0.0087 0.0067

Back-003





Back-003 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006

CDF-001 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 0.0012 < 0.001 0.0014 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

CDF-001 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.099 0.085 0.087 0.099 0.059 0.056 0.045

CDF-001 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 1.0 1.0 0.76 0.39 0.16 0.021 0.064

CDF-001

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 3.7 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.82 0.53 0.62

CDF-001 pH (field) pH Units 7.90 7.81 8.12 7.99 7.98 7.98 8.04

CDF-001 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0247 0.0398 0.0414 0.0108 0.0443 0.0925 0.0210

62

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued) Date Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15

CDF-001


CDF-001 Residue, Suspended mg/L 20.8 24.8 18.8 29.9 17.8 13.1 9.2

CDF-001 Temperature °C (Field) °C 10.6 8.6 13.6 10.6 10.9 13.9 17.4

CDF-001 Turbidity (Field) NTU 24.6 27.1 20.3 31.3 18.7 13.6 9.52

CDF-001 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.015 0.0094 0.0092 0.011 0.0079 0.014 < 0.005

CDF-002 Chromium, Total mg/L 0.001 0.0012 < 0.001 0.0011 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001



CDF-002




CDF-002





CDF-002 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.013 0.0087 0.0097 0.011 0.0052 < 0.005 < 0.005

CDF-003 Chromium, Total mg/L 0.0011 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001



CDF-003



63

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued)

Date

Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15


CDF-003





CDF-003 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.009 0.011 0.0085 0.0073 < 0.005 0.0074 < 0.005

CH-00-03 Chromium, Total mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A < 0.001 < 0.001 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Manganese, Total mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.021 0.014 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.098 0.016 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.53 0.55 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 pH (field) pH Units #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7.42 7.72 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Phosphorus, Total mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0310 0.0246 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03

Residue, Dissolved @ 180° C mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 350 366 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Residue, Suspended mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 3.8 3.8 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Temperature °C (Field) °C #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 10.9 10.4 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Turbidity (Field) NTU #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4.05 5.50 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-03 Zinc, Total mg/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A < 0.005 < 0.005 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Arsenic, Total

mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 6.1 6.7 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Barium, Total

mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 22 26 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Cadmium, Total


64


CH-00-SED

Carbon, Total Organic % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1.4 1.3 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED

Chemical Oxygen Demand


CH-00-SED Chromium, Total


CH-00-SED Copper, Total


CH-00-SED Cyanide, Total

mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A < 0.16 < 0.18 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED HEM: Oil & Grease


CH-00-SED Lead, Total mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 34 37 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Manganese, Total


CH-00-SED Mercury, Total


CH-00-SED Nickel, Total mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 18 22 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Nitrogen, Ammonia


CH-00-SED PCB-1016 mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A < 0.082 < 0.089 #N/A #N/A







CH-00-SED Total PCBs mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A < 0.082 < 0.089 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Percent Solids % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 61 56 #N/A #N/A

CH-00-SED Phosphorus, Total


CH-00-SED Volatile Solids % #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2.7 3.6 #N/A #N/A

65


CH-00-SED Zinc, Total mg/kg dry #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 120 120 #N/A #N/A

CH-18-81 Chromium, Total mg/L 0.0016 0.0012 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.0014 < 0.001

CH-18-81 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.2 0.05 0.075 0.13 0.017 0.029 0.031

CH-18-81 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.6

CH-18-81


CH-18-81 pH (field) pH Units 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.2 10.2

CH-18-81 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0063 0.0091 0.0071 0.0164 0.0122 0.0169 0.0166

CH-18-81


CH-18-81 Residue, Suspended mg/L 8.6 4.8 6.6 6.2 3.8 3.4 2.4

CH-18-81 Temperature °C (Field) °C 8.6 8.1 9.5 9.2 9.2 9.4 13.5

CH-18-81 Turbidity (Field) NTU 3.97 2.68 4.90 6.33 5.36 1.52 2.39

CH-18-81 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0088 < 0.005 0.0074 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0068

CH-19-81 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

CH-19-81 Manganese, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

CH-19-81 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 3.7 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4

CH-19-81


CH-19-81 pH (field) pH Units 11.4 11.4 11.6 11.5 11.6 11.4 11.5

CH-19-81 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0209 0.0179 0.0154 0.0156 0.0145 0.0157 0.0171

CH-19-81


CH-19-81 Residue, Suspended mg/L < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

66

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued) Date Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15 CH-19-81

Temperature °C (Field) °C 12.3 11.7 12.9 12.4 12.1 12 14.1

CH-19-81

Turbidity (Field) NTU < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00

CH-19-81 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0081 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Duplicate Sample Name

ND-COMP-001

ND-COMP-002

ND-COMP-003

BACK-001 NA

BACK-002

BACK-003

RIV-001

Duplicate Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 0.0011 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Duplicate Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0038 0.0037 0.0018 0.009 0.0033 0.0039 0.0078

Duplicate Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.010 < 0.010 0.024

Duplicate


Duplicate pH (field) pH Units 7.62 7.22 7.95 7.96 7.79 7.91 7.86

Duplicate Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0084 0.0082 < 0.0050 0.0072 < 0.0050 0.0076 0.0109

Duplicate


Duplicate Residue, Suspended mg/L 4.5 5.2 1.4 7.5 2.6 2.7 3.5

Duplicate Temperature °C (Field) °C 7.3 6.7 10.3 9.0 9.7 11.0 12.9

Duplicate Turbidity (Field) NTU 6.09 6.65 2.61 7.91 3.11 3.40 3.78

Duplicate Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0074 < 0.005 ND-COMP-001

Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

ND-COMP-001

Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0043 0.0043 0.0037 0.019 0.0067 0.0076 0.0042

ND-COMP-001

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 < 0.010 0.011 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.023 < 0.010

ND-COMP-001

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.33 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.24

67

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued) Date Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15 ND-COMP-001 pH (field)

pH Units 7.62 7.58 7.95 7.93 7.66 7.80 7.92

ND-COMP-001

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0078 0.0080 < 0.0050 0.0068 0.0097 0.0126 0.0078

ND-COMP-001


ND-COMP-001


ND-COMP-001

Temperature °C (Field) °C 7.3 6.5 10.9 9.6 9.3 10.7 12.0

ND-COMP-001


ND-COMP-001 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.0071 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 ND-COMP-002


ND-COMP-002


ND-COMP-002

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010

ND-COMP-002



pH Units 7.69 7.22 7.86 7.95 7.76 7.85 7.97

ND-COMP-002

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0072 0.0124 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0070 0.0076

ND-COMP-002


ND-COMP-002


68

Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015) (continued) Date Sample name Parameter Unit 4/6/15 4/8/15 4/14/15 4/21/15 4/24/15 4/28/15 5/5/15 5/7/15 ND-COMP-002


ND-COMP-002


ND-COMP-002 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 ND-COMP-003


ND-COMP-003


ND-COMP-003

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.018 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010

ND-COMP-003



pH Units 7.68 7.75 7.95 7.95 7.83 7.89 8.03

ND-COMP-003

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0066 0.0151 < 0.0050 0.0050 < 0.0050 0.0098 0.0064

ND-COMP-003


ND-COMP-003

Residue, Suspended mg/L 1.8 4.0 1.4 3.4 1.6 1.7 < 1.0

ND-COMP-003


ND-COMP-003


ND-COMP-003 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

RIV-001 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

RIV-001 Manganese, Total mg/L 0.0045 0.0073 0.018 0.017 0.0076 0.0092 0.0086

69


RIV-001 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.010 0.011 < 0.010 0.023 0.015 0.030 0.026

RIV-001

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.35 0.23 < 0.20 0.31 < 0.20 0.28 < 0.20

RIV-001 pH (field) pH Units 7.54 7.44 7.93 7.98 7.68 7.75 7.86

RIV-001 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0075 0.0089 0.0063 0.0103 0.0064 0.0106 0.0115

RIV-001


RIV-001 Residue, Suspended mg/L 2.0 4.5 7.4 9.4 3.8 5.2 3.6

RIV-001 Temperature °C (Field) °C 7.7 6.7 10.0 9.7 9.7 11.3 12.9

RIV-001 Turbidity (Field) NTU 3.21 5.76 6.00 10.8 4.40 6.04 3.78

RIV-001 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.031 < 0.005 0.0078 < 0.005 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005

RIV-002 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.0012 < 0.001 < 0.001


RIV-002 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.016 0.029 0.028 0.033

RIV-002



RIV-002 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0070 0.0088 < 0.0050 0.0090 0.0052 0.0110 0.0135

RIV-002





RIV-002 Zinc, Total mg/L 0.006 < 0.005 0.021 0.0056 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005

RIV-003 Chromium, Total mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

70



RIV-003 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.011 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.014 0.019 0.031 0.046

RIV-003



RIV-003 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.0103 0.0246 0.0083 0.0075 < 0.0050 0.0111 0.0172

RIV-003





RIV-003 Zinc, Total mg/L < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0053 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Notes for data summary table Dredging Event 18 (6 Apr. – 7 May 2015): The "<" symbol indicates concentrations less than the reporting limit.

All water sample results for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by USEPA-8082A were less than (<) the reporting limit (0.10 µg/L).

NA = Not Applicable or Not Available Dredging on 21 Apr. 2015 was postponed due to severe weather conditions, so a subsequent weekly sampling event was performed on 24 Apr. 2015. The only samples collected from this subsequent event were from the influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity monitoring samples around the dredge and rehandling areas, and a sediment sample.

Appendix C: Data Quality Analysis

72

CELRC-TS-D-HE 12 January 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Data Quality Assessment for the Maintenance Dredging Report for Calumet Harbor and River for Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015. 1. Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015 (01 Oct. 2014 through 30 Sep. 2015)

included two (2) maintenance dredging events for the Calumet Harbor and River navigation project; Dredging Events #17 and #18. Dredging Event #17 included the maintenance of areas in Calumet Harbor and the Calumet River between 27 Oct. 2014 and 5 Jan. 2015 (approx. 26,440 CY from Calumet Harbor and 46,883 CY from the Calumet River). Twelve (12) sampling events were conducted during Dredging Event #17, and seven (7) sediment samples were collected. Dredging Event #18 only included areas within Calumet Harbor between 6 Apr. and 7 May 2015 (approx. 25,260 CY). During Dredging Event #18, there were essentially seven (7) sampling events and two (2) sediment samples were collected. The commencement of dredging operations for Dredging Event #18 was postponed on 21 Apr. 2015 as a result of severe weather conditions. As a consequence, the samples associated with the dredging operations were not collected on 21 Apr. 2015, and a partial sampling event was subsequently performed on 24 Apr. 2015 to collect the samples missed on the previous sampling event. Hence, the samples for this first weekly sampling event during dredging operations were collected on two (2) different days, but it was essentially one sampling event.

2. The maintenance dredging report provides the results and details of Dredging

Events #17 and #18, and the enclosed data quality assessment (DQA) provides the procedures that were utilized to review the laboratory’s data package and quality control results and the subsequent findings. A number of minor issues were identified, and qualified data should be used with caution. Nevertheless, in general, the data were determined to be adequate and sufficient to support the objectives of the water quality monitoring program.

Encl RICHARD E. SAICHEK Environmental Engineering Section

Data Quality Assessment for the Maintenance Dredging Report for Calumet Harbor and River for Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015. 1. This Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is for the water quality monitoring

program associated with the Calumet Harbor and River navigation project. The analytical laboratory results produced during Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015 (01 Oct. 2014 through 30 Sep. 2015) were reviewed to help assure that the data were adequate and sufficient to support the objectives of the water quality monitoring program.

2. The main purpose of the water quality monitoring program is to evaluate

the dredging and placement activities and determine whether the results reveal evidence of adverse effects to the surrounding water quality or indications of contaminant migration from Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). Water and sediment samples are collected and analyzed in compliance with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Pollution Control Permit, number 2011-EA-1347, issued 29 Dec. 2011. This permit is not set to expire until 30 Nov. 2016. As explained in Special Condition 2 of the permit, the monitoring is to be conducted in accordance with the report titled “Proposed Water Quality Monitoring at the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility, Calumet Harbor, Illinois, January 2011.” This report and the Illinois EPA permit were included with the project specifications for the dredging contract; Contract Number W912P6-14-C-0017, Calumet Harbor Maintenance Dredging FY14, Chicago, Illinois, 27 Aug. 2014.

3. Two (2) maintenance dredging events were performed during Water

Quality Monitoring Year 2015: The first event, Dredging Event #17, included areas in Calumet Harbor and the Calumet River between 27 Oct. 2014 and 5 Jan. 2015 (approx. 26,440 CY from Calumet Harbor and 46,883 CY from the Calumet River). The second event, Dredging Event #18, only included areas within Calumet Harbor between 6 Apr. and 7 May 2015 (approx. 25,260 CY).

4. Both Dredging Events #17 and #18 were performed by the Roen Salvage

Company (Roen) of Sturgeon Bay, WI, under the previously mentioned dredging contract with the Chicago District. Roen subcontracted TriMatrix Laboratories Inc. (TriMatrix) of Grand Rapids, MI to collect and analyze the environmental (sediment and water) samples in compliance with Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Permit.

5. Water quality samples were collected before, during, and after each of the

dredging events. Water samples are collected on a twice-per-week schedule during the week before dredging starts (pre-dredge) and on a twice-per-week schedule during the week after dredging is finished (post-

74

dredge). However, an additional pre-dredge sampling event may need to be completed if the commencement of dredging operations is delayed. While dredging operations are in progress, sediment and water samples are collected on a once-per-week schedule. For Dredging Event #17, there were two (2) pre-dredge and two (2) post-dredge sampling events and eight (8) sampling events during dredging operations, for a total of twelve (12) sampling events. For Dredging Event #18, there were three (3) pre-dredge and two (2) post-dredge sampling events and essentially two (2) sampling events during dredging, for a total of seven (7) sampling events. As detailed in the maintenance dredging report, during Dredging Event #18, samples of the influent and effluent to the filter cell, turbidity samples, and a sediment sample were not collected on 21 Apr. 2015 because the start of dredging operations was postponed as a result of severe weather conditions. An additional, partial sampling event was subsequently performed on 24 Apr. 2015 in order to collect the samples that were missed on 21 Apr. 2015. Hence, the samples for this weekly sampling event during dredging were collected on two (2) different days.

6. The report referenced by Special Condition 2 of the Illinois EPA permit

provides the details of the water quality monitoring program. As explained in this report, fourteen (14) water samples are collected from spatially different locations within the vicinity of the Chicago Area CDF during each sampling event. In particular, samples are collected from three (3) locations within the CDF (CDF-001, -002, -003), two (2) groundwater well locations (CH-18-81 and CH-19-81), three (3) locations in the Calumet River (RIV-001, -002, -003), three (3) locations near the CDF dike (ND-COMP-001, -002, -003), and three (3) background locations (BACK-001, -002, -003). It is important to recognize that each of the near-dike locations is actually a composite (COMP) water sample collected from three (3) spatially different (subset) locations. Furthermore, a duplicate sample is typically collected for quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) purposes.

7. The sampling events conducted during dredging operations include the water samples discussed above, as well as additional samples that are collected from the influent and effluent to the filter cell, a sediment sample collected from the scow, and turbidity monitoring conducted at three (3) locations around the dredging area and three (3) locations around the rehandling area at the surface and mid-depth levels of the water column. Turbidity is measured by the laboratory analysis of water samples for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and/or by the use of a field nephelometer. The field nephelometer results are correlated to laboratory TSS measurements by performing concurrent field nephelometer and laboratory TSS measurements for the pre-dredge sampling events and first sampling event during dredging.

75

8. Case narratives in the reports from the analytical laboratory, TriMatrix, explain the internal laboratory review and approval process for the data. All data were peer-reviewed by a second analyst and then by appropriate data management staff against laboratory QC requirements and project specifications. QA issues and/or QC data qualifications and narrations related to the analysis of each group of samples are presented in the laboratory’s “Statement of Data Qualifications” section.

9. The DQA described in this document is a separate and independent review of the laboratory’s data package and QC results, and it was performed by the Chicago District. Initially, a cursory evaluation was conducted for all twelve (12) sampling events during Dredging Event #17 and seven (7) sampling events during Dredging Event #18. The objective of this evaluation was to ensure the data packages were complete and they provided the requested results and QC information.

10. The laboratory provided the data in two (2) different electronic formats; pdf and Microsoft Excel files. One paper (hard) copy of the pdf files was also submitted by the laboratory. The sample results from the Excel spreadsheets were summarized in Appendix B of the maintenance dredging report. From these results, it can generally be observed that throughout the dredging operations, the correct number of water, sediment, and field duplicate samples were collected, and the results were properly documented. However, there were a few exceptions due to the cold and icy weather conditions and associated safety concerns that existed towards the end of Dredging Event #17. The three (3) CDF samples could not be collected during the first post-dredge sampling event on 2 Jan. 2015, and only six (6) of the fourteen (14) samples could be collected during the second post-dredge sampling event on 5 Jan. 2015.

11. In addition to the laboratory results, the pdf files included chain-of-custody (CoC), sample receiving, sample preservation, groundwater sampling field data, and field instrument calibration forms, as well as field data sheets and a 24-hour composite field sampling form for events when effluent was collected from the filter cell. These forms and data sheets were reviewed for all the sampling events to ensure they were properly completed and problems or issues were appropriately identified. Particular attention was placed towards incidents identified on the sampling receiving and preservation forms and/or non-conformances. There were several instances where minor problems, discrepancies, and/or non-conformances with the forms and documentation were identified, such as use of incorrect dates on the sample labels in comparison to the CoC form or an incorrect number of sample containers. In general, the completion of the forms was satisfactory, and the minor problems that were identified did not impact the quality or validity of the sample results. For example, the sampling event on 17 Nov. 2014 identified a broken sample bottle for

76

sample CH-00-03 for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), but two (2) containers were collected and it did not prevent the laboratory from performing the analysis. As mentioned earlier, cold and icy weather conditions existed for the post-dredge sampling event on 5 Jan. 2015, and a few containers for the analysis of PCBs were broken upon receipt at the laboratory because the water in the containers froze. As a result, the project technical narrative for this sampling event notes that due to sample volumes, batch matrix QC for the PCBs was not performed and method blank and laboratory control sample comprise the batch QC.

12. Prior to the construction of the CDF, a site investigation identified the presence of a variety of industrial waste materials within the subsurface, particularly slag from the iron and steel manufacturing plant that existed on the adjacent property. As a consequence of these waste materials, the samples collected from the groundwater wells have historically possessed high pH values that range between 10.0 and 12.0. The high pH values of the groundwater samples were identified on the sample preservation forms, but it is important to recognize that these results are not related to the operations of the CDF or the dredging and placement activities.

13. This DQA included an in-depth review of five (5) sampling events conducted during dredging operations. These sampling events were conducted on the following dates: 10 Nov. 2014, 3 Dec. 2014, 29 Dec. 2014, which were conducted during Dredging Event #17, and 21-24 Apr. 2015 and 28 Apr. 2015, which were conducted during Dredging Event #18. All these sampling events were performed during dredging operations, so they included a greater number of samples than the pre-dredge or post-dredge events. The in-depth review included compliance with holding times and reporting limits, verification that the laboratory performed required QC analyses; such as method blank (MB), laboratory control sample (LCS) and sample duplicates, matrix spike (MS), and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples, and evaluation of percent recovery and relative percent difference (RPD) requirements in comparison to laboratory acceptance criteria. The in-depth review of these data quality issues are discussed in the following paragraphs:

14. All the samples were properly preserved, and nearly all the actual holding times that were reviewed met the required holding times. One exception was the volatile solids parameter for the sediment sample collected during the 10 Nov. 2014 sampling event. The required holding time for volatile solids is seven (7) days and the actual holding time was nine (9) days, so the required holding time was exceeded by two (2) days. As a consequence, the result of 8 percent is considered to be low, because the result may have been slightly higher if the sample was properly analyzed within the required holding time.

77

15. The analytical laboratory’s reporting limits were greater than the required reporting limits for several parameters. During Dredging Event #17, nearly all the laboratory’s reporting limits for the TSS analyses were above the required reporting limit of 1.0 mg/L. However, since the laboratory’s reporting limits were below the corresponding TSS results, the TSS concentrations were adequately quantified and laboratory performance was satisfactory. In addition, the laboratory listed the required reporting limit for TSS as the reporting limit for the TSS method blanks. The TSS test method utilized by the laboratory, SM 2540 D-2011, is a gravimetric method that is primarily reliant upon the sensitivity of the analytical balance and the sample volume. Hence, if the laboratory reduces the sample volume, the reporting limit will increase, but the use of a smaller sample volume may have been more convenient for the laboratory for samples where the TSS results were expected to be above the laboratory’s reporting limit. Since the sample concentrations were detected and adequately quantified above the reporting limit, these elevated laboratory reporting limits for TSS did not negatively impact the sample results.

16. Besides TSS, there were several other parameters, such as ammonia

nitrogen for the water samples and a number of different parameters for the sediment samples, with laboratory reporting limits higher than the corresponding required reporting limits. Depending on the analytical methodology, there may be a number of different reasons for laboratory reporting limits to be elevated, particularly when sample concentrations are elevated, but this situation is often due to the dilution of the sample by the laboratory or complications caused by the extraction method and/or by matrix interference. As noted earlier, if the sample results are detected and quantified above the laboratory’s reporting limits, the inability of the laboratory to achieve the required reporting limits does not negatively impact the sample results. Conversely, when a sample result is below the laboratory’s reporting limit and this limit is above the required reporting limit, it is a problem because the parameter could be present at a concentration between the laboratory’s reporting limit and required reporting limit. It is incumbent for the laboratory to quantify the parameters when they are present at concentrations above the required reporting limit.

17. The only case where the analytical results were found to be below the

laboratory’s reporting limit and above the required reporting limit was for the PCB Aroclors in the sediment samples. The required reporting limit for PCBs in the sediment was 0.05 mg/kg, and laboratory reporting limits ranged from 0.066 to 0.14 mg/kg. The sediment sample collected on 10 Nov. 2014 was the only sediment sample where low levels of PCB-1242 and PCB-1254 Aroclors were detected, otherwise the sediment sample results were all below the laboratory’s reporting limits, i.e., not detected.

78

As a consequence, PCB Aroclors may have been present at a concentration between the required reporting limit and the laboratory’s reporting limits. MB and LCS results met the required reporting limit, so the laboratory was capable of meeting the requirement, but, apparently due to the extraction method and/or matrix interference, the required reporting limit was not met for the sediment sample results or for the MS and MSD samples. Although many of the laboratory’s reporting limits for this parameter were not as low as the required reporting limit, the analysis of PCBs in sediment samples is commonly difficult due to matrix interference.

18. A blind field duplicate water sample was collected for each sampling

event, and the duplicate and initial sample results were found to be comparable for nearly all the parameters. However, there was one notable exception, which was the substantial difference between the results for the total Kjeldahl nitrogen from the BACK-001 sample (0.23 mg/L) and corresponding duplicate sample (3.5 mg/L) collected on 21 Apr. 2015. Since this was the only instance where a substantial difference between the initial and duplicate sample results was identified, it appears to be an isolated error or unusual result and not evidence of consistent or extensive laboratory problems.

19. The method blanks (MBs) that were reviewed for the sampling events were generally run at an acceptable frequency of one MB for each parameter. The only exception was the volatile solids parameter. The laboratory did not report any MB or LCS results for volatile solids, but a duplicate sample for volatile solids was performed for QC. Satisfactory MBs were run for the percent solids analyses, and volatile solids and percent solids were both performed by the same method, standard method (SM) 2540G. Nevertheless, the absence of MB and LCS results for the volatile solids parameter indicates there is uncertainty in regards to the volatile solids results.

20. There were a few occasions where certain parameters were detected in the MBs for either the water or sediment samples at levels above the laboratory’s reporting limit. For instance, zinc was detected in the MB for the water samples for the sampling events conducted 10 Nov. 2014 and 21 Apr. 2015, and samples with results less than five (5) times the MB value were qualified with the “B” qualifier. Since zinc was detected in the MB and many results were qualified, these water sample results will tend to have a high bias for zinc and should be used with caution. In addition, ammonia nitrogen was detected in the MB for the sediment sample collected during the 3 Dec. 2014 sampling event, and zinc and nickel were both detected in their respective MBs for the sediment sample collected during the 28 Apr. 2015 sampling event. The sediment sample results for these parameters were greater than five (5) times the MB value, so the

79

results did not require a qualifier. Since the concentrations of these parameters in the sediment sample MBs were comparatively low, these concentrations are not expected to have a significant effect on the results.

21. The QC included the analysis of LCS samples at an acceptable frequency of one LCS for every water and sediment parameter, with the exception of percent solids and volatile solids. All the LCS percent recovery results were within the laboratory’s acceptance limits. The laboratory did not run any laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) tests.

22. Duplicate samples were run for the percent and volatile solids tests. No problems were found with the duplicates for the percent solids tests, but the relative percent difference (RPD) values did not meet the laboratory’s acceptance criteria (control limit) for the duplicate volatile solids tests run for the 3 Dec. 2014 and 29 Dec. 2014 sampling events. In addition to the absence of MB and LCS results for the volatile solids parameter discussed earlier, the failure to meet the laboratory’s RPD acceptance criteria suggests that caution should be used for the volatile solids results, particularly for the samples identified in these events.

23. In addition to the percent and volatile solids tests, duplicate samples were run for TSS and TDS analyses. The RPD for the TSS duplicate samples did not meet the laboratory’s acceptance criteria for the 10 Nov. 2014 and 21 Apr. 2015 sampling events. Furthermore, the RPD for the TDS duplicate samples did not meet the laboratory’s acceptance criteria for the 3 Dec. 2014 sampling event. Since the duplicate samples for the TSS or TDS parameters did not meet the laboratory’s RPD acceptance criteria, the results for these particular samples were qualified by the laboratory.

24. MS/MSD tests were run for all the water quality parameters except for TSS and TDS. As discussed above, duplicate samples were run for the TSS and TDS parameters. The largest number of problems occurred for the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) parameter. For TKN, the MS and MSD percent recoveries were outside the laboratory’s acceptance limits for the 10 Nov. 2014 sampling event, the MS percent recovery was outside the acceptance limit for the 3 Dec. 2014 sampling event, and the MS and MSD percent recoveries and RPD of the MS and MSD were all outside the acceptance limits for the 21 Apr. 2015 sampling event. If the MS or MSD percent recovery, but not both, are outside the acceptance limit, and the RPD of the MS and MSD is within the acceptance limit, the sample does not need to be qualified. As a consequence, the TKN sample (BACK-001 #7) was not qualified for the 3 Dec. 2014 sampling event. In addition, the MS and MSD percent recoveries for phosphorus were both outside the acceptance limits for the 3 Dec. 2014 sampling event.

80

25. In regards to the sediment sample QC, the frequency of the MS/MSD and duplicate tests varied for the parameters for the different sampling events (as shown in the table below). MS/MSD samples were run for PCBs for all the sampling events except the 28 Apr. 2015 sampling event, and they were run for arsenic, cadmium, and mercury for all the sampling events. For other parameters, such as manganese and zinc, no MS/MSD or duplicate results were reported for the sediment samples.

Sediment Sample Parameter Frequency for MS/MSD or Duplicate (DUP) Samples Parameters Date

10 Nov. 2014

3 Dec. 2014

29 Dec. 2014

24 Apr. 2015

28 Apr. 2015

Metals Arsenic MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD Barium None None None MS/MSD MS/MSD Cadmium MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD Chromium None None None None MS/MSD Copper None None None MS/MSD None Lead None None None MS/MSD MS/MSD Manganese None None None None None Mercury MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD Nickel MS/MSD None None MS/MSD MS/MSD Zinc None None None None None Physical Total Volatile Solids DUP DUP DUP DUP DUP Total Solids DUP DUP DUP DUP DUP Organics Chemical Oxygen Demand None MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD None Oil & Grease None None DUP DUP None Total PCBs MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD None Nutrients & Others Ammonia Nitrogen MS/MSD None None MS/MSD None Total Organic Carbon None DUP DUP None DUP Total Phosphorus None None None MS/MSD None Total Cyanide MS/MSD MS/MSD MS/MSD No MS/MSD

26. The project technical narratives indicate that matrix QC results for certain

parameters for the sediment samples were unavailable due to sample dilution. This included copper, lead, manganese, and zinc for the 10 Nov. 2014 sampling event and manganese and zinc for the other events that were reviewed. Matrix QC results were not available due to matrix interference for PCB-2016 for the 10 Nov. 2014 sampling event.

27. The project technical narratives also indicate that QC results were not available for certain sediment parameters because of the following: “The MS and/or MSD recovery was outside the control limit. The non-spiked sample concentration for the same analyte was greater than or equal to

81

four (4) times the spiked amount...” The sediment parameters subject to this narrative included barium and chromium for the 10 Nov. 2014 sampling event; barium, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel for the 3 Dec. 2014 and 29 Dec. 2014 sampling events; chromium for the 24 Apr. 2015 sampling event; and copper for the 28 Apr. 2015 sampling event.

28. Matrix QC samples results that were available for the sediment samples

reported the following problems: MS and MSD percent recoveries for ammonia nitrogen were outside the laboratory’s acceptance limits for the 10 Nov. 2014 and 24 Apr. 2015 sampling events; MS and MSD percent recoveries for phosphorus were outside the laboratory’s acceptance limits for the 24 Apr. 2015 sampling event; the RPD for cyanide was outside the laboratory’s acceptance limits for the 29 Dec. 2014 sampling event; and the MSD percent recovery was outside the laboratory control limit for arsenic for the 28 Apr. 2015 sampling event.

29. As indicated earlier, more specific details regarding the QA/QC data

qualifications and narrations related to the analysis of each group of samples are presented in the laboratory’s “Statement of Data Qualifications” section. Several QC problems were identified and qualified data need to be used with caution. Nevertheless, in general, the data were determined to be sufficient for monitoring the performance of the dredging operations and Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and for evaluating potential adverse effects to the surrounding water quality.

82

Appendix D: Statistical Analysis (ProUCL) Summary Tables

83

Table D1a: Dredging Event #17 - Before Dredging (27 and 29 Oct. 2014)

Notes: The “<” symbol indicates concentration was not detected and the listed concentration is the reporting limit. N/A = not applicable because many values were less than or equal to the reporting limit, so the statistical analysis was not performed for this parameter Do Not Reject = Do not reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) <= Sample 2 (background) Reject = Reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) > Sample 2 (background)

ND-COMP- BACK-

ProUCL WMW

001 002 003 001 002 003 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Chromium (10/27) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 N/A Chromium (10/29) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Manganese (10/27) 0.0076 0.0045 0.0039 0.0032 0.0032 0.0031 Reject Manganese (10/29) 0.0051 0.0032 0.0026 0.0023 0.0027 0.0023 Zinc (10/27) 0.0061 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0061 <0.0050 <0.0050 Do Not

Reject Zinc (10/29) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0100 Ammonia (10/27) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Do Not

Reject Ammonia (10/29) 0.020 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.017 0.015 TKN (10/27) <0.20 0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.22 <0.20 Do Not

Reject TKN (10/29) 0.32 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Phosphorus (10/27) 0.0107 0.0069 0.0075 0.0073 0.0206 0.0069 Do Not

Reject Phosphorus (10/29) 0.0071 0.0070 0.0082 0.0066 0.0072 0.0081 TSS (10/27) 6.1 3.3 3.5 2.8 2.5 2.6 Do Not

Reject TSS (10/29) 2.6 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.8 TDS (10/27) 156 166 158 164 160 170 Do Not

Reject TDS (10/29) 172 164 180 174 164 174

84

Table D1b: Dredging Event #17 – During Dredging (3, 10, 17, and 24 Nov. 2014 and 3, 8, 15, and 29 Dec. 2014)

ND-COMP- BACK- ProUCL WMW

001 002 003 001 002 003

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Chromium (11/03) 0.0016 0.0024 0.0016 0.0018 0.0019 0.0021

Do Not Reject

Chromium (11/10) <0.0010 0.0021 0.0014 0.0011 0.0013 0.0012 Chromium (11/17) <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0012 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Chromium (11/24) <0.0010 0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Chromium (12/03) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Chromium (12/08) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0045 Chromium (12/15) 0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Chromium (12/29) <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Manganese (11/03) 0.0170 0.0210 0.0160 0.0200 0.0190 0.0210

Do Not Reject

Manganese (11/10) 0.0072 0.0410 0.0220 0.0100 0.0120 0.0140 Manganese (11/17) 0.0230 0.0120 0.0087 0.0130 0.0066 0.0082 Manganese (11/24) 0.0230 0.0130 0.0110 0.0210 0.0058 0.0110 Manganese (12/03) 0.0100 0.0081 0.0059 0.0081 0.0080 0.0070 Manganese (12/08) 0.0110 0.0084 0.0079 0.0080 0.0099 0.0087 Manganese (12/15) 0.0140 0.0081 0.0041 0.0090 0.0081 0.0035 Manganese (12/29) 0.0059 0.0092 0.0120 0.0042 0.0086 0.0110 Zinc (11/03) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0053 <0.0050

Do Not Reject

Zinc (11/10) 0.0091 0.0200 0.0140 0.0089 0.0082 0.0099 Zinc (11/17) 0.0150 0.0077 0.0076 0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 Zinc (11/24) 0.0120 0.0120 0.0230 0.0110 0.0100 0.0100 Zinc (12/03) 0.0055 0.0077 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Zinc (12/08) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Zinc (12/15) 0.0060 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0052 <0.0050 <0.0050 Zinc (12/29) 0.0078 0.0057 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0063 0.0090

85

Table D1b: Dredging Event #17 – During Dredging (3, 10, 17, and 24 Nov. 2014 and 3, 8, 15, and 29 Dec. 2014) (continued)


001 002 003 001 002 003

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Ammonia (11/03) 0.0340 0.0300 0.0380 0.0300 0.0320 0.0440

Do Not Reject

Ammonia (11/10) 0.0100 0.0180 0.0120 0.0470 0.0170 0.0140 Ammonia (11/17) <0.0100 0.0190 <0.0100 0.0120 <0.0100 0.0130 Ammonia (11/24) <0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 Ammonia (12/03) <0.0100 <0.0100 0.0140 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 Ammonia (12/08) 0.0140 0.0280 0.0160 0.0120 0.0110 0.0190 Ammonia (12/15) 0.0290 0.0270 0.0260 0.0270 0.0350 0.0280 Ammonia (12/29) 0.0240 0.0260 0.0430 0.0220 0.0250 0.0210 TKN (11/03) 0.3000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2900 0.2800 0.4000

Do Not Reject

TKN (11/10) 0.2300 0.3200 0.3700 0.3500 0.2400 0.3100 TKN (11/17) 0.2200 0.2600 <0.2000 <0.2000 0.2200 0.2500 TKN (11/24) 0.3500 0.2800 0.2300 0.2400 0.2700 0.3400 TKN (12/03) <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 TKN (12/08) <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 TKN (12/15) 0.2300 <0.2000 <0.2000 0.2600 <0.2000 0.2200 TKN (12/29) 0.2300 0.2700 <0.2000 0.2100 0.2400 0.2000 Phosphorus (11/03) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

Do Not Reject

Phosphorus (11/10) <0.0050 0.0056 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Phosphorus (11/17) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 0.0065 <0.0050 Phosphorus (11/24) 0.0051 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0083 Phosphorus (12/03) 0.0052 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0062 <0.0050 <0.0050 Phosphorus (12/08) 0.0110 0.0102 0.0100 0.0104 0.0112 0.0128 Phosphorus (12/15) 0.0050 0.0063 0.0059 0.0068 0.0052 0.0051 Phosphorus (12/29) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

86

Table D1b: Dredging Event #17 – During Dredging (3, 10, 17, and 24 Nov. 2014 and 3, 8, 15, and 29 Dec. 2014) (continued)


001 002 003 001 002 003

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) TSS (11/03) 27.4 29.4 28.0 33.5 33.7 34.9

Do Not Reject

TSS (11/10) 13.9 29.8 18.7 18.6 21.1 18.5 TSS (11/17) 13.4 11.2 10.1 12.9 10.9 11.6 TSS (11/24) 14.7 10.6 11.4 12.9 6.9 12.7 TSS (12/03) 12.1 10.6 8.4 12.7 12.1 11.3 TSS (12/08) 14.5 11.0 10.0 14.4 15.4 12.1 TSS (12/15) 17.4 11.6 6.9 14.8 13.5 5.7 TSS (12/29) 5.6 12.0 15.1 4.6 11.3 13.6 TDS (11/03) 138 148 146 158 156 162

Do Not Reject

TDS (11/10) 160 192 176 156 162 154 TDS (11/17) 146 148 148 148 138 150 TDS (11/24) 156 146 150 166 162 158 TDS (12/03) 50 82 96 112 128 134 TDS (12/08) 152 164 162 154 164 164 TDS (12/15) 160 168 160 162 162 158 TDS (12/29) 150 144 150 150 154 160 Notes: Although dredging operations were not actively in progress on several of the sampling dates (17 and 24 Nov. 2014 or 29 Dec. 2014), these sampling events were the weekly events that occurred during dredging operations. As a consequence, the results from these dates were included with statistical analysis of the results of samples collected during dredging operations. The “<” symbol indicates concentration was not detected and the listed concentration is the reporting limit. N/A = not applicable because many values were less than or equal to the reporting limit, so the statistical analysis was not performed for this parameter Do Not Reject = Do not reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) <= Sample 2 (background) Reject = Reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) > Sample 2 (background)

87

Table D1c: Dredging Event #17 - After (Post) Dredging (2 and 5 Jan. 2015)

ND-COMP- BACK-

ProUCL WMW 001 002 003 001 002 003

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Chromium (1/2) 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 N/A Chromium (1/5) 0.0010 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese (1/2) 0.0043 0.0033 0.0033 0.0050 0.0032 0.0035 Do Not

Reject Manganese (1/5) 0.0160 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc (1/2) 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0058 0.0050 0.0050 N/A Zinc (1/5) 0.0050 NA NA NA NA NA Ammonia (1/2) 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 N/A Ammonia (1/5) 0.0100 NA NA NA NA NA TKN (1/2) 0.2000 0.2100 0.2500 0.3700 0.2000 0.2400 Do Not

Reject TKN (1/5) 0.3300 NA NA NA NA NA Phosphorus (1/2) 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 N/A Phosphorus (1/5) 0.0065 NA NA NA NA NA TSS (1/2) 4.3 4.0 4.0 6.4 4.2 3.5 Do Not

Reject TSS (1/5) 12.6 NA NA NA NA NA TDS (1/2) 168 168 162 154 160 160 Reject TDS (1/5) 180 NA NA NA NA NA Notes: The “<” symbol indicates concentration was not detected and the listed concentration is the reporting limit. N/A = not applicable because many values were less than or equal to the reporting limit, so the statistical analysis was not performed for this parameter NA = results were not available because samples were not collected due to severe weather conditions Do Not Reject = Do not reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) <= Sample 2 (background) Reject = Reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) > Sample 2 (background)

88

Table D2a: Dredging Event #18 - Before (Pre)-Dredge (6, 8, and 14 Apr. 2015)

ND-COMP- BACK-

ProUCL WMW 001 002 003 001 002 003

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Chromium (4/6) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0014 <0.0010 <0.0010

N/A Chromium (4/8) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0016 <0.0010 Chromium (4/14) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Manganese (4/6) 0.0043 0.0034 0.0020 0.0033 0.0027 0.0028

Do Not Reject Manganese (4/8) 0.0043 0.0036 0.0027 0.0036 0.0054 0.0034

Manganese (4/14) 0.0037 0.0025 0.0018 0.0049 0.0021 0.0021 Zinc (4/6) 0.0071 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0053 <0.0050 <0.0050

Do Not Reject Zinc (4/8) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

Zinc (4/14) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0180 0.0067 <0.0050 Ammonia (4/6) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 0.0540

Do Not Reject Ammonia (4/8) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 0.0190 <0.0100 <0.0100

Ammonia (4/14) 0.0110 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 TKN (4/6) 0.3300 0.3300 0.3200 0.4100 0.3100 0.4500

Do Not Reject TKN (4/8) <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 0.3200 0.2400 0.2100

TKN (4/14) <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 <0.2000 Phosphorus (4/6) 0.0078 0.0072 0.0066 0.0061 0.0067 0.0080

Do Not Reject Phosphorus (4/8) 0.0080 0.0124 0.0151 0.0071 0.0120 0.0107

Phosphorus (4/14) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0060 TSS (4/6) 5.0 3.4 1.8 4.8 3.2 3.8

Do Not Reject TSS (4/8) 4.6 5.4 4.0 5.1 7.0 5.8

TSS (4/14) 2.4 2.2 1.4 3.6 2.3 1.8 TDS (4/6) 162 168 160 160 158 168

Do Not Reject TDS (4/8) 176 172 178 176 168 180

TDS (4/14) 186 168 188 180 194 186

89

Notes: The “<” symbol indicates concentration was not detected and the listed concentration is the reporting limit. N/A = not applicable because many values were less than or equal to the reporting limit, so the statistical analysis was not performed for this parameter Do Not Reject = Do not reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) <= Sample 2 (background) Reject = Reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) > Sample 2 (background)

90

Table D2b: Dredging Event #18 - During Dredging (21 and 28 Apr. 2015)

ND-COMP- BACK-

ProUCL WMW 001 002 003 001 002 003 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Chromium (4/21) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 N/A Chromium (4/28) <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 Manganese (4/21) 0.0190 0.0068 0.0087 0.0084 0.0055 0.0043 Reject Manganese (4/28) 0.0067 0.0130 0.0038 0.0034 0.0035 0.0023 Zinc (4/21) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 N/A Zinc (4/128) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Ammonia (4/21) <0.0100 <0.0100 0.0180 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 N/A Ammonia (4/28) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 TKN (4/21) 0.2600 0.2400 0.3100 0.2300 0.2500 0.2500 Do Not Reject TKN (4/28) 0.2600 0.2200 0.2100 0.2300 0.2200 0.2100 Phosphorus (4/21) 0.0068 <0.0050 0.0050 0.0057 0.0050 0.0062 Do Not Reject Phosphorus (4/28) 0.0097 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 TSS (4/21) 6.0 3.5 3.4 7.9 4.3 3.3 Do Not Reject TSS (4/28) 3.0 2.9 1.6 3.0 2.6 1.8 TDS (4/21) 180 168 162 160 160 170 Do Not Reject TDS (4/28) 162 188 168 178 172 172 Notes: The “<” symbol indicates concentration was not detected and the listed concentration is the reporting limit. N/A = not applicable because many values were less than or equal to the reporting limit, so the statistical analysis was not performed for this parameter Do Not Reject = Do not reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) <= Sample 2 (background) Reject = Reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) > Sample 2 (background)

91

Table D2c: Dredging Event #18 - After (Post) Dredging (5 and 7 May 2015)

ND-COMP- BACK-

ProUCL WMW 001 002 003 001 002 003 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Chromium (5/5) 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 N/A Chromium (5/7) 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 Manganese (5/5) 0.0076 0.0039 0.0026 0.0040 0.0033 0.0035 Do Not Reject Manganese (5/7) 0.0042 0.0027 0.0017 0.0045 0.0025 0.0022 Zinc (5/5) 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 N/A Zinc (5/7) 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0060 Ammonia (5/5) 0.0230 0.0100 0.0100 0.0150 0.0140 0.0100 Do Not Reject Ammonia (5/7) 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 TKN (5/5) 0.2300 0.2000 0.2400 0.2200 0.2200 0.2700 Do Not Reject TKN (5/7) 0.2400 0.2200 0.2300 0.2500 0.3400 0.2300 Phosphorus (5/5) 0.0126 0.0070 0.0098 0.0102 0.0083 0.0087 Do Not Reject Phosphorus (5/7) 0.0078 0.0076 0.0064 0.0081 0.0065 0.0067 TSS (5/5) 2.4 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.2 3.0 Do Not Reject TSS (5/7) 1.9 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.6 1.4 TDS (5/5) 126 144 160 160 162 156 Do Not Reject TDS (5/7) 160 154 154 170 154 158 Notes: The “<” symbol indicates concentration was not detected and the listed concentration is the reporting limit. N/A = not applicable because many values were less than or equal to the reporting limit, so the statistical analysis was not performed for this parameter Do Not Reject = Do not reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) <= Sample 2 (background) Reject = Reject the null hypothesis (H0), conclude Sample 1 (near dike) > Sample 2 (background)

92

Appendix E: Laboratory Analytical Data

(See enclosed Compact Disk (CD))

Documents

MAINTENANCE DREDGING REPORT FOR CALUMET ......MAINTENANCE DREDGING REPORT FOR CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER Water Quality Monitoring Year 2015 Prepared By: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,