Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 

Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and Town of Hempstead

Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected 

in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

Data Series 905

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Photographs showing U.S. Geological Survey personnel collecting sediment samples off the coast of New Jersey and New York. 

Photographs by Irene Fisher (left) and Vicki Blazer (right), U.S. Geological Survey. Background: Natural-color image of Hurricane Sandy 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 13 captured at 1:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 28, 2012. (Courtesy of National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration)
Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data 

Collected in New Jersey and New York 

after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

By Jeffrey M. Fischer, Patrick J. Phillips, Timothy J. Reilly, Michael J. Focazio, 

Keith A. Loftin, William M. Benzel, Daniel K. Jones, Kelly L. Smalling, Shawn C. 

Fisher, Irene J. Fisher, Luke R. Iwanowicz, Kristin M. Romanok, Darkus Jenkins, 

Luke Bowers, Adam Boehlke, William T. Foreman, Anna C. Deetz, Lisa G. Carper, 

Thomas E. Imbrigiotta, and Justin Birdwell

Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City 

Department of Environmental Protection, Suffolk County Department of Health 

Services, and Town of Hempstead

Data Series 905

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Fischer, J.M., Phillips, P.J., Reilly, T.J., Focazio, M.J., Loftin, K.A., Benzel, W.M., Jones, D.K., Smalling, K.L., Fisher, 

S.C., Fisher, I.J., Iwanowicz, L.R., Romanok, K.M., Jenkins, D., Bowers, L., Boehlke, A., Foreman, W.T., Deetz, A.C., 

Carper, L.G., Imbrigiotta, T.E., and Birdwell, J., 2015, Estuarine bed-sediment-quality data collected in New Jersey 

and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 905, 42 p., plus CD-ROM, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds905.

ISSN 2327-638X (online)

ISSN 2327-0271 (print)

ISBN 978-1-4113-3879-1
iii

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided sampling and analytical support. 

In particular, we thank John Kushwara, Branch Chief, EPA–Region 2 Monitoring Assessment 

Branch, Program Manager; Randy Braun, Section Chief, EPA–Region 2 Monitoring Assessment 

Branch, Field Logistics Coordinator; Carol Lynes, Air and Water Quality Assurance Team Leader, 

EPA–Region 2 Monitoring Assessment Branch, Quality Assurance Officer; Darvene Adams, 

Regional Monitoring Coordinator, EPA–Region 2 Monitoring Operations Section, Project 

Officer and Technical Lead; and Stephen Hale, EPA–Region 2 Monitoring Assessment Branch, 

Vessel Captain.

We thank the many agencies and researchers we consulted on study design, and those who 

provided information that will assist in interpreting collected data—in particular: Lorraine 

Holdridge, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Gary Buchanan, Steve 

Anderson, Sherry Driber, Angela Witcher, and Michael DiGiore, New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection; Jim Browne and Ron Masters,Town of Hempstead, New York; 

Michael Jensen, Mark Long, Shawn Droskoski, and Alison Branco, Suffolk County Department of 

Health Services, New York; Bruce Brownawell and Park Ng, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, 

New York; and Caitlyn Nichols, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. 

Marc B. Cox, from the University of Texas at El Paso, kindly provided the yeast strains used for 

the chemiluminescent assays.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the many USGS employees who dedicated 

time and resources to this project. We thank Anthony D. Cerruti, Kaitlyn Colella, 

Jonathan Cohl, Heather A. Heckathorn, and Molly L. Schreiner for the collection of sediment 

samples. Special thanks are due to Eric W. Best, Patrick W. Bowen, Karl M. Braun, Heidi L. 

Hoppe, Michal J. Niemoczynski, Jason C. Shvanda, Daniel D. Skulski, and John J. Trainor 

for providing field support and assistance with sampling. We also thank Alex R. Fiore and 

Christopher L. Leach for assisting with the literature search. We are grateful for the timely and 

thorough reviews of this report by Ronald J. Baker, Kathy Lee, and Kara Ng. We also thank 

Nathan Wood for providing the inundated businesses dataset, and Dale L. Simmons, Ruth M. 

Larkins, and Denis K. Sun for their assistance with editing, illustrations, layout, and publishing.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Study Objectives and Purpose and Scope of Report......................................................................3

Study Area..............................................................................................................................................3

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................3

Literature Search.........................................................................................................................4

Data Retrieval ..............................................................................................................................4

Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................6

Site Selection.........................................................................................................................................6

Site Characterization from Geographic Information.......................................................................6

Data Sources used for Site Characterization .......................................................................14

National Land Cover Dataset .........................................................................................14

Inundated Businesses ....................................................................................................14

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Spill Database .......14

Bulk Storage Facilities .....................................................................................................14

Combined and Storm-Sewer Outfalls and Sewage-Treatment Plants ....................15

Sample Collection...............................................................................................................................15

Analytical Methods.............................................................................................................................16

Particle-Size Analysis ...............................................................................................................16

Total Organic Carbon.................................................................................................................17

Metals and Trace Elements......................................................................................................17

Semivolatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................................17

Wastewater Compounds ..........................................................................................................17

Steroid Hormones......................................................................................................................17

Sediment Toxicity.......................................................................................................................18

Screening Methods...................................................................................................................18

Field-Portable Spectroscopy ..........................................................................................19

X-Ray Fluorescence ................................................................................................19

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy ...........................................................19

X-Ray Diffraction......................................................................................................20

Bioassays...........................................................................................................................20

Bioassay Sample Preparation ..............................................................................21

Bioassay Analytical Methods................................................................................21

Site Characteristics, Quality-Assurance Results, and Bed-Sediment-Quality Data ..............23

Sampling-Site and Study-Region Characteristics................................................................23

Particle Size................................................................................................................................23

Total Organic Carbon.................................................................................................................23

Metals and Trace Elements......................................................................................................24

Laboratory Blanks and Spike Samples .........................................................................24

Standard Reference Materials.......................................................................................24

Replicate Samples............................................................................................................24
v

Semivolatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................................24

Laboratory Blanks and Spike Samples .........................................................................24

Standard Reference Materials.......................................................................................25

Matrix Spike Samples ......................................................................................................25

Replicate Samples............................................................................................................25

Wastewater Compounds ..........................................................................................................25

Set Blank Samples............................................................................................................25

Spike Samples...................................................................................................................25

Replicate Samples............................................................................................................25

Steroid Hormones and Other Compounds.............................................................................27

Set Blank Samples............................................................................................................27

Spike Samples...................................................................................................................27

Replicate Samples............................................................................................................29

Sediment Toxicity.......................................................................................................................29

X-Ray Fluorescence ..................................................................................................................29

Attenuated Total Reflectance–Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy ......................30

X-Ray Diffraction........................................................................................................................30

Estrogenicity, Androgenicity, Glucocorticoids, and Protein Phosphatase 2A 

Inhibition ........................................................................................................................31

Inhibition of Yeast Bioreporter Assays..........................................................................31

Nuclear Receptor Reporter Quality Control .................................................................31

Nuclear Receptor Activation ..........................................................................................31

Inhibition of Protein Phosphatase 2A............................................................................31

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................33

Figures

1. Map showing extent of study area, areas inundated by Hurricane Sandy, 

study regions, and locations of maps for sampling locations in the southern 

New Jersey coast (A), the Lower Harbor/Raritan Bay (B), and Long Island, 

New York (C) ..................................................................................................................................2

2. Maps showing sampling locations and types of analytical data collected 

for A, the southern New Jersey coast, B, the Lower Harbor / Raritan Bay, 

and C, Long Island ........................................................................................................................7

3. Maps showing sampling locations and types of screening data collected 

for A, the southern New Jersey coast, B, the Lower Harbor / Raritan Bay, 

and C, Long Island ......................................................................................................................10

4. Map showing how land use, landscape attributes, and potential contaminant 

sources within and outside the Hurricane Sandy inundation zone were 

attributed within a 2-kilometer-radius buffer area of each sampling location 

in the Hurricane Sandy study area ..........................................................................................13

5. Box plot showing set spike and matrix spike recoveries for estuarine 

bed-sediment samples analyzed for wastewater compounds during 

the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.....................................26
vi

6. Box plot showing relative percent difference for field replicates of estuarine 

bed-sediment samples analyzed for wastewater compounds during the 

Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013............................................27

7. Box plot showing set spike and matrix spike recoveries for estuarine 

bed-sediment samples analyzed for steroid hormones during the Hurricane 

Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013...............................................................28

8. Box plot showing relative percent difference for field and laboratory replicates 

of estuarine bed-sediment samples analyzed for steroid hormones 

during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013 ........................29

9. Kinetics of A, the strain BLYES (estrogen receptor activation); B, the strain DST-1555 

(androgen receptor activation); and C, the strain MCY-098 (glucocorticoid receptor 

activation) in the presence of 1:80 dilutions of different matrices .....................................32

Tables

1. Terms used in the sediment contamination literature search conducted 

in May and June 2014 ..................................................................................................................4

2. Results of sediment contamination literature searches conducted from 

May 15 to June 6, 2014, for listed contaminants in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, 

Newark Bay-New York Harbor-Raritan Bay-Passaic River Estuary, Jamaica Bay, 

Great South Bay, South Oyster Bay, and Peconic Bay, New Jersey and New York.........5

3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors 

and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, June–October 2013...........................................................................37

4. Summary of container types, sample processing, amount of sediment needed, 

and preservation required for methods used during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, June–October 2013...........................................................................16

5. Land cover for each of the 13 study regions and portions of those regions 

that were inundated by flood waters resulting from Hurricane Sandy, 

October 2012.............................................................................................................. on CD-ROM

6. Anderson Level I and II land cover for each of the 13 study regions and 

portions of those regions that were inundated by flood waters resulting 

from Hurricane Sandy, October 2012..................................................................... on CD-ROM

7. Summary of counts, by economic sector, of New Jersey and New York 

businesses inundated by flood waters resulting from Hurricane Sandy, 

October 2012.............................................................................................................. on CD-ROM

8. Summary of counts of New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation spill data for the regions in the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study.............................................................................................. on CD-ROM

9. Summary of counts of flooded and non-flooded bulk storage facilities 

in New Jersey and New York for the regions in the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study.............................................................................................. on CD-ROM

10. Summary of counts of flooded and non-flooded combined sewer outfalls 

and sewage-treatment plants in New Jersey and New York for the regions 

in the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study ................................................... on CD-ROM
vii

11. Results of particle-size analysis for environmental and replicate 

bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays in New Jersey 

and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013................................................................................................... on CD-ROM

12. Concentrations of total organic carbon in environmental and replicate 

bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays in New Jersey 

and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013. ................................................................................................. on CD-ROM

13. Concentrations of metals and trace elements in environmental and replicate 

bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays in New Jersey 

and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013................................................................................................... on CD-ROM

14. Concentrations of selected metals and trace elements in Standard Reference 

Material 1944 (New York/New Jersey waterway sediment), which was run 

for quality-control purposes. ................................................................................. on CD-ROM

15. Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in environmental 

and replicate bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays 

in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013 ....................................................................................... on CD-ROM

16. Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyl congener compounds in environmental 

and replicate bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays 

in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013 ....................................................................................... on CD-ROM

17. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticide compounds in environmental 

and replicate bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays 

in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013 ....................................................................................... on CD-ROM

18. Concentrations of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated 

biphenyl congeners, and organochlorine pesticides in Standard Reference 

Material 1944 (New York/New Jersey waterway sediment), which was 

run for quality-control purposes ............................................................................ on CD-ROM

19. Concentrations of wastewater compounds, grouped by predominant use, 

in environmental and replicate bed-sediment samples collected from the 

harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, June–October 2013......................................................... on CD-ROM

20. Percentage of laboratory set blanks with a detection, and range in detected 

concentrations, for set blanks corresponding to samples analyzed 

for wastewater compounds during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013. ..................................................................................... on CD-ROM

21. Average recoveries and relative standard deviations for laboratory reagent 

sand set spike samples analyzed for wastewater compounds during the 

Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.......................... on CD-ROM

22. Concentrations of hormones and other compounds in environmental 

and replicate bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays 

in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013................................................................................................... on CD-ROM

23. Concentrations of hormone compounds detected in 1 of 16 set blanks 

corresponding to samples collected during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, June–October 2013......................................................... on CD-ROM
viii

24.Average recoveries and relative standard deviations for laboratory 

reagent sand set spike and matrix spike samples analyzed for hormone 

compounds during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013................................................................................................... on CD-ROM

25. Statistical summary for the 28-day bed-sediment chronic toxicology study 

(batch 1) of the control and environmental samples collected from the harbors 

and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, July–August 2013, and analyzed for the estuarine 

amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus by survival rate, biomass, individual 

dry weight, and reproductive effects .................................................................... on CD-ROM

26. Statistical summary for the 28-day bed-sediment chronic toxicology study 

(batch 2) of the control and environmental samples collected from the harbors 

and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, July–August 2013, and analyzed for the estuarine 

amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus by survival rate, biomass, individual 

dry weight, and reproductive effects .................................................................... on CD-ROM

27. Statistical summary for the 28-day bed-sediment chronic toxicology study 

(batch 3) of the control and environmental samples collected from the harbors 

and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, July–August 2013, and analyzed for the estuarine 

amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus by survival rate, biomass, individual 

dry weight, and reproductive effects .................................................................... on CD-ROM

28. Endpoint data for the 28-day bed-sediment chronic toxicology study (batch 1) 

of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in samples collected from 

the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, July–August 2013 ............................................................ on CD-ROM

29. Endpoint data for the 28-day bed-sediment chronic toxicology study (batch 2) 

of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in samples collected from 

the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, July–August 2013 ............................................................ on CD-ROM

30. Endpoint data for the 28-day bed-sediment chronic toxicology study (batch 3) 

of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in samples collected from 

the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, July–August 2013 ............................................................ on CD-ROM

31. Results of portable x-ray fluorescence analyses for major elements and 

instrument two-sigma error for environmental and replicate bed-sediment 

samples collected from the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York 

during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013 ...... on CD-ROM

32. Results of portable x-ray fluorescence analyses for trace elements and 

instrument two-sigma error for environmental and replicate bed-sediment 

samples collected from harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during 

the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013................... on CD-ROM

33. Results of portable x-ray fluorescence analyses for major elements and 

instrument two-sigma error for National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Standard Reference Material 2710, Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013 ....................................................................................... on CD-ROM

34. Results of portable x-ray fluorescence analyses for trace elements and 

instrument two-sigma error for National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Standard Reference Material 2710, Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013 ....................................................................................... on CD-ROM
ix

35. Attenuated total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 

absorption bands for selected organic and inorganic functional groups 

commonly observed in sediment spectra, Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance 

study, June–October 2013 ....................................................................................... on CD-ROM

36. Result of x-ray diffraction analyses of selected bed-sediment samples 

collected from the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during 

the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013................... on CD-ROM

37. Effective concentration values (50 percent) (EC50) for the steroid hormones 

in different matrices as determined by the yeast reporter bioassays, Hurricane 

Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013............................................. on CD-ROM

38. Results of bioassay analyses, including the presence or absence of protein 

phosphatase 2A inhibition, percent and relative standard deviation of bioreporter 

inhibitors, and presence or absence of estrogenicity, androgenicity, 

and glucocorticoid receptor activity for environmental and replicate 

bed-sediment samples collected from the harbors and bays in New Jersey 

and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013................................................................................................... on CD-ROM

Data tables referenced in this report are available in Microsoft® Excel format (.xlsx) 

and may be downloaded from http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds905. Selected tables are 

also available for download in PDF.
x

Conversion Factors 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square kilometer (km2

) 247.1 acre

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2

) 

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

cubic meter (m3

) 6.290 barrel (petroleum, 1 barrel = 42 gal)

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 2.113 pint (pt)

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

cubic meter (m3

) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

cubic decimeter (dm3

) 0.2642 gallon (gal) 

cubic meter (m3

) 0.0002642 million gallons (Mgal) 

cubic centimeter (cm3

) 0.06102 cubic inch (in3) 

cubic decimeter (dm3

) 61.02 cubic inch (in3) 

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3

) 

cubic decimeter (dm3

) 0.03531 cubic foot (ft3) 

cubic meter (m3

) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 70.07 acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 22.83 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb)

Pressure

kilopascal (kPa) 0.009869 atmosphere, standard (atm)

megapascal (mPa) 9.869233 atmosphere, standard (atm)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in either milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in sediment are given in either milligrams per kilogram 

(mg/kg) or micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg).
xi

Abbreviations

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

μg/L micrograms per liter

μg micrograms

μL microliters

μ microns

1SD one standard deviation

AR androgen receptor

ASE accelerated solvent extraction

ATR–FTIR attenuated total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 

BLYES bioluminescent yeast estrogen screen

BLYR bioluminescent yeast reporter

BSF bulk storage facility

CBS chemical bulk storage 

CSO combined sewer outfall

DI deionized

EC50 effective concentration that produces a response in biota halfway between a 

baseline and the maximum effect 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER estrogen receptor

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 

G gravitational force

g grams

GR glucocorticoid receptor 

HLB hydrophilic lipophilic balance

HUC hydrologic unit code

km kilometers

kPa kilopascals
xii

LOD limit of detection

LRB laboratory reagent blank 

LRS laboratory reagent spike 

mg milligrams

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 

mL milliliters

mm millimeters

MOSF major oil storage facility

MOTF modeling task force

mPa megapascals

MRL minimum reporting level

NAICS North American Industry Classification System codes 

NCCA National Coastal Conditions Assessment 

ng/L nanograms per liter

ng nanograms

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset

nM nanomolar

nm nanometers

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NR nuclear receptor

NS&T National Status and Trends

NWIS National Water Information System 

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

NYC New York City

NY/NJ New York/New Jersey

NYS RISE New York State Resiliency Institute for Storms and Emergencies 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 
xiii

OCP organochlorine pesticide

OD optical density. Subscript refers to wavelength of measurement.

OGRL U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PBS petroleum bulk storage 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

pM picomolar

PP2A protein phosphatase 2A

ppm parts per million

pXRF portable hand-held X-ray fluorescence 

QAPP quality assurance performance plan

QA/QC quality assurance / quality control

REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

RL reporting limit

RPD relative percent difference

RSD relative standard deviation

SPE solid-phase extraction

SRM standard reference material

SSO storm-sewer outfall

STORET storage and retrieval data warehouse

STP sewage-treatment plant 

USACE ERDC U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center

USDA NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

v/v volume to volume

WBD watershed boundary dataset

WQDP Water-Quality Data Portal 

XRD X-ray diffraction

XRF X-ray fluorescence
xiv
Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected 

in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

By Jeffrey M. Fischer, Patrick J. Phillips, Timothy J. Reilly, Michael J. Focazio, Keith A. Loftin, 

William M. Benzel, Daniel K. Jones, Kelly L. Smalling, Shawn C. Fisher, Irene J. Fisher, Luke R. Iwanowicz, 

Kristin M. Romanok, Darkus Jenkins, Luke Bowers, Adam Boehlke, William T. Foreman, Anna C. Deetz, 

Lisa G. Carper, Thomas E. Imbrigiotta, and Justin Birdwell

Abstract

This report describes a reconnaissance study of estuarine 

bed-sediment quality conducted June–October 2013 in New 

Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 

to assess the extent of contamination and the potential longterm human and ecological impacts of the storm. The study, 

funded through the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 

(PL 113-2), was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in 

cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition to presenting the bed-sediment-quality data, 

the report describes the study design, documents the methods 

of sample collection and analysis, and discusses the steps 

taken to assure the quality of the data.

Bed-sediment samples were collected from June to 

October 2013 from 167 estuarine sites extending from Cape 

May, New Jersey, to the New York Harbor and the eastern 

end of Long Island. Each sampling location and study region 

was characterized by using geographic information to identify 

potential contaminant sources. Characterizations included 

land cover, locations and types of businesses (industrial, 

financial, and others), spills (sewage, chemical, and others), 

bulk storage facilities, effluent discharges within 2 kilometers 

of the sampling point, and discharges within inundated and 

non-inundated regions near the sampling location. Samples 

were analyzed for particle size, total organic carbon, metals 

and trace elements, semivolatile organic compounds, wastewater compounds, hormones, and sediment toxicity. Samples 

were also screened using x-ray fluorescence, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and x-ray diffraction. In addition, 

bioassays for endocrine disruptors and protein phosphatase 2A 

inhibition were conducted. The study was designed to provide the data needed to understand the extent and sources of 

contamination resulting from Hurricane Sandy, to compare the 

chemistry and toxicity of estuarine bed sediments before and 

after the storm, and to evaluate the usefulness of rapid screening and bioassay approaches in disaster settings.

Introduction

Low-elevation coastal areas throughout New Jersey and 

New York were inundated by tidal surge when Hurricane 

Sandy struck the northeastern United States in late October 

2012. Remote imagery and inundation mapping indicate that 

most, if not all, bays and estuaries along the New Jersey shore, 

New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor, and the southern 

shore of Long Island were impacted by tidal surge and (or) 

river flood waters (fig. 1). Many elements of the built and 

natural environment, including residential structures, industrial 

manufacturing and storage facilities, wastewater-treatment 

facilities, and known contaminated sediment sites, were compromised. Storm-related damage to buildings and infrastructure had the potential to release a variety of contaminants that 

could subsequently be transported to local rivers and bays. 

As flood waters flowed and receded, contaminants from 

compromised facilities and disturbed sediments were mobilized. Weeks after the storm, billions of gallons of untreated 

or partially treated wastewater continued to be released from 

wastewater-treatment facilities that failed as a result of disruptions in electrical service and flooding of treatment works. 

Treatment plants, pumping stations, and pipelines that were 

overwhelmed by the storm surge released billions of gallons 

of raw and partially treated sewage into the rivers, bays, and 

estuaries of New Jersey and New York. According to Kenward 

and others (2013), approximately 93 percent of the sewage 

overflows along the East Coast resulting from Hurricane 

Sandy occurred in New York (47 percent) and New Jersey 

(46 percent). Public-health agencies responded to address 

acute effects (such as damaged homes and spills) of Hurricane Sandy, but the potential long-term human and ecological 

effects caused by the introduction of contaminants from compromised infrastructure, weathering debris, and redistribution 

of previously contaminated sediments are unknown. 

Immediately following Hurricane Sandy, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed a science plan (Buxton 

and others, 2013) to coordinate USGS activities with those of 
2 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

Great 

Bay

Atlantic

City

Barnegat

Bay

Great South Bay

Newark

Bay

Upper

Harbor

Cape

May

Northeast

New Jersey

Lower Harbor/ Shore

Raritan Bay

Jamaica

Bay

Western

Bays

Shinnecock

Bay

Peconic Bay

75° 74° 73°

41°

40°

39°

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 MILES

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Long Island Sound

Atlantic 

City

Newark New York 

City

Raritan Bay

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter 

Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundary

EXPLANATION

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

CONNECTICUT

A

B

C

Figure 1. Extent of study area, areas inundated by Hurricane Sandy, study regions, and locations of maps for sampling locations 

in the southern New Jersey coast (A), the Lower Harbor/Raritan Bay (B), and Long Island, New York (C).
Introduction 3

other Federal agencies and to guide continued data collection 

and analysis to ensure support for recovery and restoration 

efforts. Activities outlined in the plan were organized into five 

themes based on impact types and information needs. These 

themes are (1) coastal topography and bathymetry; (2) impacts 

to coastal beaches and barriers; (3) impacts of storm surge and 

estuarine and bay hydrology; (4) impacts on environmental 

quality and persisting contaminant exposures; and (5) impacts 

to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife. 

The data described in this report were compiled to 

address selected objectives of theme 4. In particular, regional 

reconnaissance sampling of estuarine bed sediments was 

conducted to assess potential long-term human and ecological impacts of contaminant mobilization caused by Hurricane 

Sandy. This study was funded through the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act of 2013 (PL 113-2).

Study Objectives and Purpose and Scope of 

Report

The objective of the regional reconnaissance sampling of 

bed sediments was to assess the extent of sediment contamination in the estuary resulting from Hurricane Sandy and its 

associated human and ecological impacts. The data presented 

in this report will be used in interpretive studies conducted to 

define the extent and sources of contamination, and to compare the chemistry and toxicity of estuarine bed sediments 

before and after the storm. The specific objectives of this 

theme 4 reconnaissance study were to—

1. determine changes in concentrations of selected organic 

compounds, trace elements, and metals in bed sediments 

collected before and after Hurricane Sandy;

2. determine chronic (28-day) sediment toxicity to invertebrates exposed to sediments collected after Hurricane 

Sandy;

3. quantify concentrations of wastewater indicator compounds and selected steroid hormones in sediments 

collected after Hurricane Sandy to determine the extent of 

raw-sewage contamination; and

4. evaluate screening approaches for determining inorganic compound concentrations, the presence of organic 

functional groups, and the potential for sediment to inhibit 

biological activity.

This report describes the study design, documents the 

methods of sediment collection and analysis, presents the 

quality-assurance data and analyses, and provides the chemical and toxicological data for the reconnaissance study of the 

impacts of Hurricane Sandy on human and ecological exposure to sediment-bound contaminants.

Study Area

The study area (fig. 1) consists of bays and near-shore 

areas adjacent to lands in New Jersey and New York that were 

inundated by Hurricane Sandy. Centered on the harbor and 

bay area between New Jersey and New York, it extends about 

150 miles (mi) (241 kilometers [km]) south from New York 

City (NYC) along the New Jersey shore to Cape May, and 

about 100 mi (161 km) east of NYC along the southern shore 

of Long Island to Peconic Bay. The study area was divided 

into 13 study regions (fig. 1) on the basis of hydrologic divides 

and similar patterns of land use and contaminant exposure to 

facilitate data comparison and interpretation in order to evaluate differential impacts associated with Hurricane Sandy. 

Previous Studies

Information about previous sediment contamination in 

the NY/NJ coastal area was reviewed and compiled to examine the sediment contamination effects of Hurricane Sandy 

in historical context. Federal, State, local, and institutional 

sources of data were consulted, an extensive literature search 

was conducted, and data were retrieved. These data together 

with previously published interpretations can be used to evaluate changes in contaminant levels over time and may also 

provide a basis for evaluating the presence of contaminants 

that have not been measured in sediment until recently (for 

example, steroid hormones or pharmaceuticals). 

The most temporally and spatially extensive and readily available regional estuarine sediment monitoring in the 

study area is conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (REMAP; http://www.epa.gov/emap2/

remap/) and National Coastal Conditions Assessment (NCCA; 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/ncca.cfm). The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Mussel Watch Program (http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/

coast/nsandt/musselwatch.aspx) also conducts studies in the 

area. Sediment monitoring conducted as part of these programs focuses primarily on metals and chlorinated organic 

contaminants. These programs have been assessing the occurrence of sediment-borne contaminants since the 1990s. Data 

are readily available at the indicated Web sites, and periodic 

reports describe the extent of contamination and trends over 

time (for example, see Adams and others, 2003). 

 A few interstate, State, local, and institutional programs 

also have collected sediment-quality data related to a wide 

range of chemical contamination in the urbanized/industrialized bays and harbors of the study area. For example, the Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP; http://

www.carpweb.org/main.html), a consortium of industries and 

regulatory agencies, studied metals and organic contaminants 
4 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

entering the NY/NJ Harbor and Raritan Bay. Other, localized 

studies of particular bays (for example, Bonnevie and others, 

1994; Bopp and others, 1993), some of which focused on a 

limited number of contaminants, also have been conducted.

Literature Search

Peer-reviewed scientific articles containing chemical and 

biological data collected prior to Hurricane Sandy (October 

2012) were identified by using the Google Scholar Internet 

search engine. Each search included three classes of search 

terms: (1) location, (2) medium, and (3) class of contaminant 

(table 1). Locations included many of the major bays along the 

Atlantic Shore in New Jersey and New York. The medium was 

sediment. Contaminants of concern included several classes 

of organic compounds, inorganic compounds, trace elements, 

metals, and several emerging contaminants. 

Each search used a unique set of search terms to identify 

references. The search date and number of references retrieved 

were recorded. The results of each retrieval were reviewed and 

articles pertinent to this study were downloaded for inclusion 

in the literature database. The number, location, and types of 

articles retrieved are shown in table 2.

Data Retrieval 

In an effort to better understand the effects of Hurricane 

Sandy on contaminants in bed sediments, sediment-quality 

data from throughout the area were retrieved. These data are 

stored in a Microsoft® Access database. The data that were 

retrieved were quality assured and will be used to evaluate 

changes in contaminant concentrations by comparing them to 

results of reconnaissance sampling conducted after the storm. 

Sediment contaminant data were retrieved from many 

sources, including EPA’s REMAP and NCCA programs, and 

the NOAA Mussel Watch Program. In addition, the National 

Water Quality Monitoring Council Water-Quality Data Portal 

(WQDP) at http://www.waterqualitydata.us/portal.jsp was 

used in conjunction with the EPA Storage and Retrieval 

(STORET) Data Warehouse at http://www.epa.gov/storet/

dbtop.html and the NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and 

Assessment National Status and Trends (NS&T) Data Portal at 

http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/download.aspx

to determine the number and type of bed-sediment-quality 

samples collected prior to the post-Hurricane Sandy sampling 

effort in the NY/NJ Harbor and surrounding bay areas. The 

WQDP can be queried for USGS National Water Information 

System (NWIS) and STORET (post-1999) data. Additional 

historical data (excluding USGS data) can be obtained through 

the STORET Legacy Data Center, which contains data provided to the EPA prior to 1999. The NS&T Data Portal provides access to NOAA data from the Mussel Watch Program 

as well as other NS&T biological studies (Benthic Surveillance and Bioeffects). The query parameters for each database 

and the results returned are provided in this report. All of the 

data were organized and archived in a Microsoft® Access database at the USGS office in Lawrenceville, New Jersey.

The WQDP was queried for subsurface, estuarine, and 

ocean samples collected in Atlantic, Bergen, Cape May, 

Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean Passaic, and 

Union, Counties in New Jersey, and Bronx, Kings, Nassau, 

New York, Richmond, Suffolk, and Queens Counties in New 

York. The sampling parameter selected for the query was 

“sediment.”

The WQDP retrieval was conducted on July 8, 2014, and 

a total of 613 stations were returned. Of those stations, 339 in 

New Jersey and 267 in New York were designated as estuary 

stations, and 7 (all in New York) were designated as ocean 

stations. A total of 68,932 organic-compound, trace-element, 

metals, nutrient, and (or) field parameters measured in sediment samples were returned for the time period 1970–2012. 

Samples were collected by the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), USGS, 

and EPA. 

The STORET Legacy water-quality database was also 

used to obtain data (excluding USGS data) collected prior to 

1999. The STORET Legacy database was queried individually 

by state and county to include all the counties in the WQDP 

Table 1. Terms used in the sediment contamination literature search conducted in May and June 2014.

Term Definition

Locations Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, Raritan Bay, Newark Bay, New York Harbor, Passiac River Estuary, Jamaica Bay, 

South Oyster Bay, Great South Bay, and Peconic Bay

Media Sediments

Contaminants and 

contaminant 

indicators

Trace metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and flame 

retardants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sediment toxicity, hormones, fragrances, detergents, 

antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, personal-care products, and wastewater indicators
Introduction 5

Table 2. Results of sediment contamination literature searches conducted from May 15 to June 6, 2014, for listed contaminants in 

Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, Newark Bay-New York Harbor-Raritan Bay-Passaic River Estuary, Jamaica Bay, Great South Bay, 

South Oyster Bay, and Peconic Bay, New Jersey and New York.

[Refer to table 1 for terms used in literature searches. PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers; PCBs, polychlorinated 

biphenyls]

Contaminants 

and contaminant 

indicators

 Barnegat Bay–Little 

Egg Harbor

Newark Bay–New 

York Harbor–Raritan 

Bay–Passaic River 

Estuary 

 Jamaica Bay Great South Bay South Oyster Bay Peconic Bay

Search 

results

Relevant 

articles

Search 

results

Relevant 

articles

Search 

results

Relevant 

articles

Search 

results

Relevant 

articles

Search 

results

Relevant 

articles

Search 

results

Relevant 

articles

Antibiotics 31 0 32 2 149 17 39 1 0 0 61 0

Detergents 53 1 105 1 149 21 85 0 2 0 18 0

Fragrances 6 0 13 0 40 0 18 0 0 0 11 0

Hormones 58 0 153 7 134 19 57 0 2 0 17 0

PAHs 60 6 478 19 155 17 31 0 0 0 15 0

PBDEs/flame retardants 14 1 66 3 18 1 3 0 1 0 0 0

PCBs 171 8 826 42 273 26 94 0 6 0 44 0

Personal-care products 112 1 127 2 65 13 88 0 0 0 45 0

Pesticides 213 4 580 69 308 26 214 0 9 0 74 0

Pharmaceuticals 42 1 120 0 60 7 67 0 3 0 39 0

Sediment toxicity 449 5 900 34 559 25 438 3 23 1 164 0

Trace metals 329 6 610 34 412 21 365 8 29 1 128 3

Wastewater compounds 266 1 385 18 2 0 295 0 16 0 105 0

retrieval. Retrieved data were loaded into Microsoft® Access 

to identify sediment samples collected in estuary or ocean 

settings. The station type code and the units of measurement 

commonly used for sediment (milligrams per kilogram, micrograms per kilogram, and dry weight) were used to differentiate 

sediment samples from water samples.

Of the total of 105 stations returned with associated 

bed-sediment data, 55 were in New Jersey and 50 in New 

York. Of those, 28 were designated as estuary bed-sediment 

stations (19 in New Jersey and 9 in New York), and 77 were 

designated as ocean bed-sediment stations (36 in New Jersey 

and 41 in New York). All New Jersey estuary bed-sediment 

stations were located in Bergen (4), Hudson (8), Middlesex 

(5), and Union (2) Counties, whereas the ocean bed-sediment 

stations were located in Middlesex (1), Monmouth (34), and 

Ocean (1) Counties. All New York estuary bed-sediment 

stations were located in Nassau (5) and Richmond (4) Counties, whereas the ocean bed-sediment stations were located in 

Bronx (4), Nassau (19), Queens (7), and Richmond (11) Counties. A total of 129 estuary bed-sediment results (1966–82) 

and 579 ocean bed-sediment results (1972–88), including 

organic compounds and (or) metals and trace-element parameters, were retrieved for New York. A total of 453 estuary 

bed-sediment results (1981–89) and 413 ocean bed-sediment 

results (1973–88), including organic compounds and (or) 

metals and trace-element parameters, were retrieved for New 

Jersey. All data retrieved from STORET were originally collected by the NYSDEC, NJDEP, and EPA.

The NS&T Data Portal was used to obtain sedimentquality data by state. This data portal allows the user to specify 

a dataset—in this case, “chemical” and “physical.” In each 

dataset, the user is then asked to choose from a list of parameters—in this case, all parameters under “chemical” were 

chosen, and grain size was chosen under “physical.” Once the 

selections are made, the program “Fetches” and “Downloads” 

the data into text files, which can then be uploaded into Microsoft® Access for additional querying. 

 A total of 190 stations with associated sediment-quality 

chemical analyses were returned—57 in New Jersey and 133 

in New York, with a total of 7,030 associated organic-compound, metals, or carbon results for New Jersey and 14,825 for 

New York. Samples were collected in many bays and harbors 

surrounding New York City and Long Island as part of the 

Benthic Surveillance (909), Hudson/Raritan Estuary (2,041), 

Long Island Sound (2,656), Mussel Watch (6,452), Newark 

Bay (1,120), and World Trade Center Special Studies (1,647) 
6 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

programs in New York from 1984 to 2009. In New Jersey, 

many samples were collected along the East Coast and within 

and north of the Delaware Bay as part of the Benthic Surveillance (921), Delaware Bay (3,186), Hudson/Raritan Estuary 

(820), Mussel Watch (1,980), and World Trade Center Special 

Studies (123) programs from 1984 to 2007. 

A total of 165 stations with associated grain-size analyses 

were returned—55 in New Jersey and 110 in New York—with 

a total of 1,002 grain-size analyses results—284 for New Jersey and 718 for New York. Many samples were collected from 

the bays and harbors surrounding New York City and Long 

Island as part of the Benthic Surveillance (5), Hudson/Raritan 

Estuary (135), Long Island Sound (270), Mussel Watch (273), 

and World Trade Center Special Studies (35) programs. Samples from New Jersey were collected along the East Coast and 

within and north of the Delaware Bay as part of the Benthic 

Surveillance (9), Hudson/Raritan Estuary (55), Mussel Watch 

(95), Delaware Bay (120), and World Trade Center Special 

Studies (5) programs. 

Methods 

A total of 167 sites were identified for inclusion in the 

reconnaissance study (figs. 2 and 3). These sites are distributed throughout the 13 regions in New Jersey and New York 

delineated for this study. Estuarine sediments collected at each 

site were analyzed and screened for more than 150 organic and 

inorganic chemical constituents, as well as sediment toxicity 

to selected invertebrates. Site-selection, sample-collection, and 

analytical methods are described below.

Site Selection

The USGS consulted with other Federal agencies (EPA 

and NOAA), State agencies (NJDEP and NYSDEC), and 

municipal agencies (New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Suffolk County Department of Health 

Services, and Town of Hempstead) to evaluate potential 

sampling locations and obtain information on spills and 

land cover that would assist in site selection. Many potential 

sampling sites in the bays and estuaries were identified on the 

basis of the presence of pertinent historical sediment-quality 

information in order to facilitate comparison of pre- and 

post-Hurricane Sandy sediment-quality data. Other potential sampling sites were identified on the basis of the need to 

characterize regional differences in contaminant patterns (for 

example, sewage spills). From this list of potential sites, 167 

were selected for sampling (figs. 2 and 3). Sites were selected 

to reflect a broad range of affected land-cover types and their 

associated contaminant sources, and most had been sampled 

previously (table 3, at end of report). They provide a representative distribution for assessment of regional storm impacts. 

About 25 percent of the sampling sites are located in the 

relatively open estuarine waters of the NY/NJ Harbor, with the 

remainder located in back bays along the coast of New Jersey 

and Long Island. Samples were collected before the storm at 

89 percent of the sites. Archived sediment samples collected 

before the storm were available for some of the selected sites. 

Some of these archived samples were submitted for analysis 

for constituents with limited historical data (for example, 

waste-indicator compounds and hormones) that were not 

previously measured. Sediment-sampling locations and the 

availability of historical data are listed in table 3 by region. 

Site Characterization from Geographic 

Information

A variety of State databases were queried to identify the 

locations and types of contaminant sources that may have 

impacted sites that were sampled during this study. Queried 

databases include the 2011 National Land Cover Dataset 

(NLCD), the NYSDEC Spill database, New Jersey and New 

York businesses flooded during Hurricane Sandy, New Jersey 

and New York combined sewer outfall (CSO) locations, and 

New Jersey and New York bulk storage facility (BSF) locations. Each dataset was overlain with FEMA Modeling Task 

Force (MOTF) 3-meter (m) Hurricane Sandy Final Storm 

Surge Extent polygons (Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 2013—hereafter called the “surge-extent boundary”) 

to distinguish between flooded and non-flooded infrastructure 

(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2013). These data 

were then attributed to sediment-sampling locations and study 

regions (figs. 2 and 3). 

Study regions were defined on the basis of the hydrology 

and geography of the bays and similar patterns of land use 

and potential contaminant exposure. Study-region boundaries 

were defined from 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-12) 

boundaries, which were obtained from the publicly available 

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) compiled by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation 

Service (USDA NRCS), the USGS, and the EPA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

2014). HUC-12 subwatershed areas were used to account for 

any upland areas that may have contributed contaminants to 

each bay or estuary. 

Each sampling location was represented by a buffer 

area with a 2-km radius (fig. 4). This buffer area was used to 

characterize potential contaminant sources near the sampling 

location.

Tabular summaries of contaminant sources were compiled for each sampling location and region for comparison to 

sediment–quality data. Summaries specified the numbers and 

types of spills, damaged businesses, BSFs, and wastewater 

discharges. Geospatial analyses were conducted in a geographic information system (ArcMapTM 10.1; Esri®, Redlands, 
Methods 7

BUCKS

MIDDLESEX

MONMOUTH

MERCER

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

PHILADELPHIA

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

ATLANTIC

CUMBERLAND

CAPE

MAY

Lower Harbor/

Raritan Bay

Great 

Bay

Atlantic

City

Barnegat

Bay

Cape

May

Northeast

New Jersey Shore

1

5

3 4

2

6

8

11

7 13

9

15

12

22

25

10

30 23

24

19

20

21

28

17 29

18

26

27

16

33

31

35

34

36

32

37

14

EXPLANATION

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter 

Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundary

Sampling location and identifier (see table 3)

Types of data collected

Particle size

Total organic carbon*, metals, and trace elements

Semivolatile organic compounds and sediment toxicity

Wastewater compounds and hormones

5

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

*Total organic carbon was not measured at sites 16 and 23.

75° 74°

40°

39°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

A. Southern New Jersey coast

NEW JERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Atlantic

City

Delaware 

Bay

Figure 2. Sampling locations and types of analytical data collected for A, the southern New 

Jersey coast, B, the Lower Harbor / Raritan Bay, and C, Long Island. 
8 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

WESTCHESTER

PASSAIC BERGEN

MORRIS

BRONX

ESSEX

HUDSON

QUEENS

KINGS UNION

RICHMOND

MIDDLESEX

MONMOUTH

Northeast

New Jersey Shore

Lower Harbor/

Raritan Bay

Newark 

Bay Upper 

Harbor

Jamaica 

Bay

NEW JERSEY

ATLANTIC OCEAN

New

York

City

Newark

NEW YORK

Raritan Bay

74°20' 74°10' 74° 73°50'

40°50'

40°40'

40°30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter 

Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundary

Sampling location and identifier (see table 3)

Types of data collected

Particle size

Total organic carbon, metals, and trace elements

Semivolatile organic compounds and sediment toxicity

Wastewater compounds and hormones

51 0 5 10 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 MILES

41

45 55

57

60

65 48 42

51

63

53 39 46

100

50

58

44

49

43

64 59

56 52

47

54 40

62

89

84

80

77

72 75 93

69

83

66

78

92

82

87

90

76

71

74

68

70

91

94

97

113

114

95

98

105 102

81

79

67

88

86

101

108

106

99

96

109

104

115

107

103

85

38 61

144

118 135

141

110

138

128

130

129

134

120

122

133

139

125

123

124

132

136

119

140

117 143 121

137

116

127

131

126

145

73 142

111

112

B. Lower Harbor/Raritan Bay

Figure 2. Sampling locations and types of analytical data collected for A, the southern New Jersey coast, B, the Lower 

Harbor / Raritan Bay, and C, Long Island.—Continued
Methods 

9

FAIRFIELD

SUFFOLK

WESTCHESTER

NASSAU

CONNECTICUT

Great South Bay

Peconic Bay

Jamaica Bay

NEW YORK

Shinnecock Bay

Western 

Bays

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Long Island Sound

72°30' 72°40' 72°50' 73° 73°10' 73°20' 73°30' 73°40'

41°

40°50'

40°40'

157

148 163 147

146

149 151

158

150

156

152

154

162

161

155

159

153

160

166

165 164

167

EXPLANATION

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundarySampling location and identifier (see table 3)Types of data collected

Particle sizeTotal organic carbon, metals, and trace elementsSemivolatile organic compounds and sediment toxicityWastewater compounds and hormones

152

0 105 KILOMETERS0 10 5 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18NNorth American Datum of 1983

C. Long Island, New York

Figure 2. Sampling locations and types of analytical data collected for A, the southern New Jersey coast, B, the Lower Harbor / Raritan Bay, and C, Long Island.—Continued
10 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

BUCKS

MIDDLESEX

MONMOUTH

MERCER

BURLINGTON

OCEAN

PHILADELPHIA

CAMDEN

GLOUCESTER

ATLANTIC

CUMBERLAND

CAPE

MAY

Lower Harbor/

Raritan Bay

Great 

Bay

Atlantic

City

Barnegat

Bay

Cape

May

Northeast

New Jersey Shore

1

5

3 4

2

6

8

11

7 13

9

15

12

22

25

10

30 23

24

19

20

21

28

17 29

18

26

27

16

33

31

35

34

36

32

37

14

EXPLANATION

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter 

Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundary

Sampling location and identifier (see table 3)

Types of data collected

X-ray fluorescence

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

Protein phosphatase 2A

Endocrine disruptors

5

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

75° 74°

40°

39°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

A. Southern New Jersey coast

NEW JERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Atlantic

City

Delaware 

Bay

Figure 3. Sampling locations and types of screening data collected for A, the southern New 

Jersey coast, B, the Lower Harbor / Raritan Bay, and C, Long Island.
Methods 11

WESTCHESTER

PASSAIC BERGEN

MORRIS

BRONX

ESSEX

HUDSON

QUEENS

KINGS UNION

RICHMOND

MIDDLESEX

MONMOUTH

Northeast

New Jersey Shore

Lower Harbor/

Raritan Bay

Newark 

Bay Upper 

Harbor

Jamaica 

Bay

NEW JERSEY

ATLANTIC OCEAN

New

York

City

Newark

NEW YORK

Raritan Bay

74°20' 74°10' 74° 73°50'

40°50'

40°40'

40°30'

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter 

Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundary

Sampling location and identifier (see table 3)

Types of data collected

X-ray fluorescence

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

Protein phosphatase 2A

Endocrine disruptors

51 0 5 10 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 MILES

41

45 55

57

60

65 48 42

51

63

53 39 46

100

50

58

44

49

43

64 59

56 52

47

54 40

62

89

84

80

77

72 75 93

69

83

66

78

92

82

87

90

76

71

74

68

70

91

94

97

113

114

95

98

105 102

81

79

67

88

86

101

108

106

99

96

109

104

115

107

103

85

38 61

144

118 135

141

110

138

128

130

129

134

120

122

133

139

125

123

124

132

136

119

140

117 143 121

137

116

127

131

126

145

73 142

111

112

B. Lower Harbor/Raritan Bay

Figure 3. Sampling locations and types of screening data collected for A, the southern New Jersey coast, B, the Lower 

Harbor / Raritan Bay, and C, Long Island.—Continued
12 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013 FAIRFIELD SUFFOLK WESTCHESTERNASSAU CONNECTICUT Great South Bay Peconic Bay

Jamaica Bay

NEW YORK

Shinnecock Bay

Western 

Bays

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Long Island Sound

72°30' 72°40' 72°50' 73° 73°10' 73°20' 73°30' 73°40'

41°

40°50'

40°40'

157

148 163 147

146

149 151

158

150

156

152

154

162

161

155

159

153

160

166

165 164

167

EXPLANATION

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Study-region boundarySampling location and identifier (see table 3)Types of data collected

X-ray fluorescenceFourier transform infrared spectroscopyProtein phosphatase 2AEndocrine disruptors

152

0 105 KILOMETERS0 10 5 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18NNorth American Datum of 1983

C. Long Island, New York

Figure 3. Sampling locations and types of screening data collected for 

A, the southern New Jersey coast, 

B, the Lower Harbor / Raritan Bay, and 

C, Long Island.—Continued
Methods 13

GSB03

73°9' 73°8' 73°7' 73°6' 73°5' 73°4' 73°3'

40°45'

40°44'

40°43'

40°42'

40°41'

Great South 

Bay

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

National Land Cover Dataset, 2013

EXPLANATION

Land-use category

Water

Developed

Barren

Forest

Shrubland

Herbaceous

Planted/cultivated

Wetlands

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Modeling Task Force 3-meter 

Hurricane Sandy final surge extent

Extent of 2-kilometer-radius buffer area

Bed-sediment sampling site and site code

Petroleum or chemical spill site (New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 2013)

Bulk storage facility

Inundated business

GSB03

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Long Island Sound

Raritan Bay

NJ

PA

NY CT

Area of

detail

Figure 4. How land use, landscape attributes, and potential contaminant sources within and outside the Hurricane Sandy 

inundation zone were attributed within a 2-kilometer-radius buffer area of each sampling location in the Hurricane Sandy 

study area.
14 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

California). Contaminant source data were matched with 

regional and sampling areas using the ArcMapTM intersect tool 

to attribute potential contaminant sources to those locations. 

Regional summaries were generated by assigning regional 

identifiers to all potential contaminant data that fell within 

each region, with a distinction between flooded and nonflooded areas that were distinguished using the surge-extent 

boundaries (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2013). 

Sampling location summaries represent data on potential 

contaminants that were within the 2-km-radius buffer area of 

each sampling location. Regions and sampling locations were 

excluded from summary tables if no potential contaminant 

sources were located within the region boundaries or within 

the 2-km-radius buffer area. 

Data Sources used for Site Characterization

Multiple datasets were downloaded and cataloged to 

identify potential contaminant sources for each sediment 

sampling location and region. Where appropriate, datasets 

were merged with the surge-extent boundary to identify 

areas that were inundated during the storm surge (Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 2013). The spatial join tool 

in ArcMapTM was used to assign region identifiers to each 

contaminant characterization dataset. Similarly, a spatial join 

was performed for all contaminant characterization data for 

locations within a 2-km-radius buffer area of each sampling 

location. All zonal and proximity analyses were performed in 

ArcMapTM. Joined datasets were exported from ArcMapTM 

as tables and summarized using the R statistical software 

(R Development Core Team, 2010).

National Land Cover Dataset 

The 2011 NLCD for New Jersey and New York was 

obtained from the USDA NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway 

(http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/), and mosaicked to provide 

continuous coverage of the regions. The 2011 dataset is the 

most recent national land-cover product, and utilizes the 

16-class Anderson classification system to distinguish between 

land-cover types (Anderson and others, 1976; Jin and others, 

2013). Level II land-cover classes were summarized for each 

region in units of square kilometers and as percentages of each 

region’s total area. Land-cover classes in the inundated portion 

of each region as defined by the surge-extent boundary were 

summarized separately to highlight land uses inundated during 

Hurricane Sandy. To simplify later data interpretation, summaries were also aggregated to Level I Anderson classes. 

Inundated Businesses 

A dataset of New Jersey and New York business locations 

that were inundated during Hurricane Sandy was obtained 

from Nathan Wood (U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2013). This dataset was compiled from New Jersey 

and New York State Government listings that existed 3 to 

4 months before Hurricane Sandy. Summarized business 

attributes include address match codes (for example, 0 = location is verified at business, x = unknown accuracy), North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and 

employee counts for each business location. Business data 

were first filtered to only those with an address match code of 

0 to exclude addresses listed as U.S. Post Office boxes. Spatial joins were then performed between the filtered business 

dataset, region polygons, and 2-km-radius sampling-location 

buffer areas. Resulting business data were aggregated to 

economic sectors on the basis of two-digit NAICS codes (see 

https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/) and then summarized 

by region and sampling location. Counts of businesses within 

each economic sector were tabulated for each region and 

sampling location. Regions and sampling locations with no 

inundated businesses were excluded from summary tables.

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation Spill Database 

The NYSDEC maintains and updates a petroleum and 

chemical spill database to comply with Federal and State laws 

that require notification and remediation of unauthorized spills 

and discharges. More than 4,800 spills were reported during 

Hurricane Sandy, and others may have occurred that were 

not reported (New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 2013). Reported contaminant spill data for New 

York were obtained from the NYSDEC and information on 

spills associated with Hurricane Sandy was extracted. As part 

of the New York State Resiliency Institute for Storms and 

Emergencies consortium (NYS RISE), addresses of spill locations were georeferenced and mapped as points for geospatial 

analyses by Park Ng and Bruce Bronawell at Stony Brook 

University (written commun., 2014). Spill data were summarized by region and sampling location, and sites inside and 

outside the surge-extent boundary were differentiated. Tabular 

summaries of the spill data were generated and grouped by 

the source (for example, commercial vehicle, private dwelling, transformer) and cause (for example, equipment failure, 

human error, storm) of each reported spill. The number of each 

spill source and cause combination was tabulated for each 

sampling location and region. 

Bulk Storage Facilities

BSF locations for New York, generated as part of its Bulk 

Storage Program, were obtained from the NYSDEC. Locations 

of New Jersey BSFs were obtained from the NJDEP. Facilities 

included in the New York database are petroleum bulk storage 

(PBS), major oil storage facilities (MOSF), and chemical bulk 
Methods 15

storage (CBS) facilities (see http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/2650.html). The PBS designation applies to any facility 

with an underground storage tank larger than 110 gallons 

(416 liters), or a cumulative storage capacity (above and below 

ground) of more than 1,100 gallons (4,160 liters) but less than 

400,000 gallons (1,514 cubic meters). The MOSF designation 

applies to all facilities with a cumulative storage capacity of 

400,000 gallons (1,514 cubic meters) or more. Finally, the CBS 

designation applies to any storage of hazardous substances in 

above-ground tanks with a capacity of 185 gallons (700 liters) 

or more, any underground storage tanks regardless of capacity, 

and non-stationary tanks used to store 2,200 pounds (998 kilograms) or more for at least 90 consecutive days. New Jersey 

records were not classified according to PBS, MOSF, or CBS 

designations; therefore, all New Jersey facilities were labeled 

“unclassified bulk storage” in summary tables. Counts of BSF 

locations in New Jersey and New York were tabulated for each 

region and sampling location, and facilities inside and outside 

the surge-extent boundary were differentiated. 

Combined and Storm-Sewer Outfalls and SewageTreatment Plants 

Combined sewer-outfall (CSO) and sewage-treatmentplant (STP) locations for New Jersey and New York were 

obtained from the NJDEP and the NYSDEC, respectively. 

Counts of CSO and STP locations were tabulated for each 

sampling location and region, and sites inside and outside the 

surge-extent boundary were differentiated.

Sample Collection

Bed-sediment samples were collected by USGS or EPA 

staff at 167 sites using standard methods outlined by the 

USGS (Hladik and others, 2009; Radtke, 2005) and EPA (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2001a). Bed-sediment 

samples were collected from boats using grab samplers during 

June-October 2013. The location of each sampling site was 

determined using a global positioning system. Field conditions, 

such as air and water temperature, specific conductance, 

pH, salinity, and weather conditions, were recorded. USGS 

personnel collected bed sediment using either an Ekman or 

Petite Ponar sampler depending on sampling conditions (for 

example, sediment texture, or presence of shells or vegetation) 

using standard methods (Radtke, 2005; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2001a; Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1993). EPA 

personnel collected bed sediment using a modified Van Veen 

type sampler using standard methods (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2001a). Regardless of the sampling 

device used, only the upper 2 centimeters (cm) of sediment 

was retained for analysis to standardize sample collection 

among sites in an attempt to obtain samples representative of 

sediment-quality conditions after the hurricane. 

All bed-sediment samples were processed in a similar 

manner. Sediment particles in overlying water on the grab 

sample were allowed to settle, and then water was gently 

drawn off with a suction pump and tubing. A clean, methanolrinsed stainless steel or Teflon® spoon was used to remove 

the upper 2 cm of sediment (or the entire sample if 2 cm or 

less was collected) from the sampler. Sediment was placed in 

a clean, methanol-rinsed glass or stainless steel mixing bowl 

until at least 1 gallon (3.8 liters) of sediment was obtained. 

If 1 gallon of sediment could not be collected from a single 

grab, or if an excessive amount of large debris (greater than 

2 cm) or particles was present, a second grab sample was 

collected and processed. In all cases, the amount of sample 

collected was estimated by measuring the thickness of sediment removed and multiplying by the cross-sectional area of 

the sampler. Before the unused sample was discarded at each 

site, one unsieved subsample was collected from the bottom of 

the grab sampler for diatom analysis to determine whether the 

top and bottom of the sample were different. Between sampling sites, the grab samplers were rinsed with seawater, and 

sampling spoons, bowls, and other equipment were washed 

with deionized water and rinsed with methanol. All equipment 

was field rinsed with site water before it was used at each 

sampling location.

The total sample collected from one or more grabs was 

homogenized prior to filling individual sampling containers 

for analysis. Subsamples were analyzed for a suite of physical, 

chemical, biological, and toxicological constituents and properties (table 4) to determine the type, concentration, potential 

sources, and biological activity or inhibition of contaminants 

present. The analyses conducted are described in detail in the 

“Analytical Methods” section below. 

Samples were processed either on the boat or in a laboratory. Whereas most subsamples were unsieved, subsamples to 

be analyzed for hormones and wastewater indicator compounds were sieved (2-millimeter (mm) screen) to remove 

plant debris and gravel before they were transferred to a separate container. Subsamples were collected using clean stainless 

steel or Teflon® spoons and placed in appropriate containers 

(table 4). All samples were stored in an ice-filled cooler while 

on the boat and during transport back to the office. Samples 

were stored and preserved as specified in table 4 prior to processing and shipment to laboratories for analysis. Chilled or 

frozen samples were packed with ice and shipped overnight to 

the appropriate laboratory.
16 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

Table 4. Summary of container types, sample processing, amount of sediment needed, and preservation required for methods used 

during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.

[PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; cm, centimeters; HDPE, high density polyethylene; mL, milliliters; g, grams; 

L, liters]

Type of analysis Type of container Processing Amount Preservation

Trace metals 125-mL, HDPE, jar Unsieved 50 g Freeze at -20 degrees Celsius

PAHs, PCBs, and legacy pesticides 250-mL, baked, amber glass jar Unsieved 3⁄4 full jar Freeze at -20 degrees Celsius

Total organic carbon 250-mL, baked, amber glass jar Unsieved 50 g Freeze at -20 degrees Celsius

Screening methods 30-mL, sealed plastic bag Unsieved 20 g Room temperature

Particle-size analysis 30-mL, sealed plastic bag Unsieved 10 g Room temperature

Diatoms (upper 2 cm) 30-mL, sealed plastic bag Unsieved 10 g Room temperature

Diatoms (base of sample) 30-mL, sealed plastic bag Unsieved 10 g Room temperature

Bioassays 125-mL, amber glass jar Unsieved 20 g Chill

Sediment toxicity 4-L, screw-top, poly bucket Unsieved 2.5 L Chill

Wastewater compounds and hormones 500-mL, baked, amber glass jar Sieved 120 g Freeze

Archive sample 500-mL, baked, amber glass jar Sieved 3⁄4 full jar Freeze

Analytical Methods

The broad range of organic and inorganic contaminants 

that were introduced into the study area as a result of current 

and historical industrial and agricultural activities were likely 

mobilized and redistributed by Hurricane Sandy. Many of 

these contaminants are regulated and have been monitored 

at various locations as part of a remedial activity (such as 

a Superfund cleanup), or regionally as part of monitoring 

programs (such as EPA REMAP). For this reason, all bedsediment samples were analyzed for a suite of EPA priority 

pollutants to match those that were previously analyzed for, 

including selected metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and legacy 

(no longer sold or applied) pesticides. Analyses for priority 

pollutants in bed sediment were conducted by EPA and U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) contract laboratories in 

accordance with standard methodologies and an EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan. The results of USACE analyses 

were provided to the USGS for this study; the results of EPA 

analyses of sediment from locations that are not part of their 

routine monitoring sites are also provided. Results generated 

by EPA and its contractors for routine monitoring sites will 

be made available to the public on the EPA REMAP Web 

site (http://www.epa.gov/emap2/remap/html/data.html), and 

through STORET. Other physical and chemical characterizations conducted on sampled bed sediments included particlesize analysis and determination of the amount of organic 

carbon present. In addition, the USGS conducted two portable 

screening tests, x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Fourier 

transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), as well as x-ray diffraction (XRD) and bioassays on almost all of the samples. 

These techniques are described in the “Screening Methods” 

section below.

Particle-Size Analysis

Particle-size distributions in the bed-sediment samples 

were characterized by optical diffraction (Gee and Or, 2002) 

using a Coulter LS-230 Particle Size Analyzer. The range of 

measurement is 0.04 to 2,000 microns (μ) divided into 116 

equal bins. Prior to analysis, particles larger than 2,000 μ were 

sieved out and weighed. These data were integrated into the 

size-distribution results after optical analyses were completed. 

The fraction composed of particles smaller than 2,000 μ was 

carefully disaggregated when necessary using a mortar and 

rubber-tipped pestle, and then sonicated before analysis. Samples were split with a riffle splitter to obtain appropriate random subsamples for analysis. The particle analyzer suspends 

the sediment subsample in filtered water within a fluid module 

attached to a device containing a light source and detectors. A 

pump within the fluid module circulates the suspended sample 

through a cell in the optical bench. A laser beam then passes 

through the cell and light is deflected off particles of various sizes. The pattern of scattered light intensity was used to 

deduce the distribution of particle sizes using a mathematical 

model based on Fraunhoffer diffraction theory. Samples were 

run through the device for 90 seconds, and each sample was 

analyzed twice. Results were determined by averaging the 

results of the two sample runs.
Methods 17

Total Organic Carbon

Total organic carbon in estuarine bed-sediment samples 

was measured at the EPA–Region 2 laboratory in Edison, New 

Jersey, using EPA Method 415.1 modified for sediment by 

using a boat sampling module (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1983). The reporting limit (RL) for total organic carbon was 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) dry weight.

Metals and Trace Elements

Twenty-two metals and trace elements were measured 

in estuarine bed-sediment samples under EPA contract at the 

Institute for Integrated Research in Materials, Environments, 

and Society (IIRMES) facility in Long Beach, California, by 

inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry using EPA 

Method 6020A (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2007). Total mercury was also measured under EPA contract 

at IIRMES by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry 

using EPA Method 245.7 (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2005). RLs for aluminum and lead and for mercury 

were 5 mg/kg and 0.02 mg/kg dry weight, respectively. All 

other metals had a RL of 0.1 mg/kg dry weight. 

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

Semivolatile organic compounds were measured in estuarine bed-sediment samples under EPA contract at the IIRMES 

facility by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry using 

EPA Method 8270C (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1998). The method included analysis for 25 priority and alkylated PAHs, 53 PCB congeners, and 29 legacy organochlorine 

pesticides (OCPs). RLs for PAHs, PCBs, and OCPs were 

5 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) dry weight. 

Wastewater Compounds

The wastewater method (Burkhardt and others, 2006) 

focuses on the determination of 61 compounds indicative of 

wastewater, which were chosen on the basis of potential toxicity or endocrine disruption potential. Wastewater compounds 

include surfactants, fragrances, antioxidants, disinfectants, 

food additives, plastic components, industrial solvents, PAHs, 

fecal and plant sterols, phosphate flame retardants, and highuse domestic pesticides.

The compounds of interest in bed-sediment samples were 

extracted from interfering matrix components with isopropyl 

alcohol in a pressurized solvent extraction system. Compounds 

were then isolated using disposable solid-phase extraction 

(SPE) cartridges containing chemically modified polystyrene–

divinylbenzene resin. The cartridges were dried with nitrogen 

gas, and then the sorbed compounds were eluted with a methylene chloride–diethyl ether mixture (80:20 volume/volume 

(v/v)) through a Florisil®/sodium sulfate SPE cartridge. The 

compounds of interest were determined by capillary-column 

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

Recoveries in reagent sand samples fortified at 4 to 72 μg 

(micrograms) averaged 76 percent ±13 percent relative standard deviation and RLs ranged from 50 to 500 μg/kg for all 

wastewater compounds (Burkhardt and others, 2006). However, RLs for this method are scaled on the basis of the mass 

used for analysis, and therefore vary substantially among samples analyzed during this study. Concentrations of some compounds were reported as estimated with an “E” remark code 

for one of three reasons: (1) recovery was biased unacceptably 

low (less than 60 percent) or was highly variable (greater than 

25 percent relative standard deviation), (2) the reference standards used were prepared from technical mixtures, or (3) the 

blank samples potentially could be contaminated. 

Steroid Hormones

The steroid hormone analytical method (Foreman and 

others, 2012) focuses on the determination of steroid hormone 

compounds, sterols (cholesterol, 3-beta coprostanol), and a 

plastic component (bisphenol A). Steroid hormones measured 

include estrogens, androgens, and progestins. These compounds have natural and manmade sources and result from 

industrial, pharmaceutical, human-waste, and agricultural 

applications. They are also excreted by animals and plants in 

the aquatic environment. Hormones affect most major physiological functions in mammals and other vertebrates (CasalsCasas and Desvergne, 2011). They control gene transcription 

and therefore substantially modulate physiology. Environmental exposure to steroid hormones may impair reproductive and 

immunological functions; modulate the timing of reproductive cycles; and (or) affect growth, development, and general 

metabolism in vertebrates. 

Extraction of bed-sediment samples for hormone analysis 

was similar to that described by Burkhardt and others (2006). 

The extraction typically used up to 10 grams (g) of material 

(dry weight), with lesser amounts used for matrices anticipated 

to have high organic-matter or analyte concentrations. Samples 

were stored frozen (≤ –15 degrees Celsius [°C]) if they were 

not extracted after 4 days following receipt; otherwise, they 

were refrigerated. Thawed samples were homogenized prior to 

subsampling for extraction or for separate dry-weight determination. Dry weight was obtained by weighing a sample aliquot 

contained in a tared aluminum pan before and after heating 

at 130 °C for at least 16 hours. Sample aliquots for extraction 

were placed in a tared Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE200; Thermo Scientific, Sunnyvale, CA) cell and reweighed 

to determine the wet weight of the extracted sample aliquot. 

Reagent sand was added to the cell as needed as determined 

from cell and sample size. The sample was fortified with 100 

nanograms (ng) (1,000 ng for cholesterol-d7

) of deuterium or 

carbon-13-labeled isotopic dilution standards (IDSs) . Other 

IDSs fortified in these samples were fortified at the same concentrations used for the hormones in water method (Foreman 
18 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

and others, 2012). The sample was extracted by pressuresolvent extraction using the ASE instrument with a water–isopropyl alcohol mixture (50:50 v/v) at 165 °C using three static 

cycles (10 minutes per cycle) at 13.8 megapascals (mPa). The 

resultant ASE extract portions were fortified with 50 milligrams (mg) of sodium chloride (NaCl) and diluted with 50 

milliliters (mL) of phosphate buffer solution and sequentially 

passed through an Oasis® hydrophilic lipophilic balance (HLB, 

Waters Corporation, Milford, Massachusetts) SPE column to 

isolate the steroid hormone compounds on the column using 

a procedure similar to that given in Burkhardt and others 

(2006), except that the sample reservoir was Teflon® instead 

of polypropylene, the HLB column was precleaned with a 

dichloromethane–methanol elution solvent mixture (90:10 

v/v), and only one (165 °C ) instead of two (120 and 180 °C) 

ASE extracts was passed through the column. The column 

was dried with nitrogen gas at a flow rate of about 2 liters per 

minute (L/min) for 15 minutes. Steroid hormone compounds 

were eluted from the Oasis® HLB column and passed through 

a 2-g Florisil® cleanup column (containing about 2.5 g sodium 

sulfate above the Florisil ®) by using 25 mL of a dichloromethane–methanol mixture (90:10 v/v). The resultant extract was 

concentrated to 1 to 2 mL by using nitrogen gas evaporation, 

then transferred to a silanized 5-mL reaction vial by using a 

1.5-mL rinse with the dichloromethane–methanol mixture 

(90:10 v/v). The extract was evaporated until dry using nitrogen gas. The steroid hormone compounds were derivatized 

using 500 microliters (μL) of activated MSTFA (N-MethylN-trimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide) derivatization reagent and 

analyzed by gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry as 

described for the “hormones-in-water” method (Foreman and 

others, 2012). Steroid hormone analytes were quantified by 

using an isotope dilution quantification procedure that includes 

using multilevel calibration curves.

Laboratory quality assurance and quality control (QA/

QC) was monitored in part by evaluating IDS and surrogate 

compound recoveries in each sample matrix, which represent 

absolute recoveries for the steroid hormone method. QA/QC 

sample types include one laboratory reagent blank (LRB) 

sample and one laboratory reagent spike (LRS) sample that 

are included with each sample preparation set and processed 

along with the associated environmental samples. The LRB 

and LRS samples were prepared using baked (450 °C for 

2 hours) reagent sand. The LRB sample was used to monitor for interferences and the possible introduction of steroid 

hormone analytes during sample preparation. The LRS sample 

was used to assess recovery performance for steroid hormone 

analytes. Additional laboratory-optional QA/QC sample types 

sometimes included (1) a randomly selected duplicate field 

sample to assess reproducibility of determined concentrations in a specific matrix, and (or) (2) a randomly selected 

laboratory matrix spike (LMS) sample used to assess analyte 

recoveries in a specific matrix. Additional field-based QA/QC 

sample types included blanks, replicate samples, and laboratory matrix spike samples, which were processed and analyzed 

along with the environmental samples.

Sediment Toxicity

A 28-day toxicity evaluation was conducted at the U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers Engineer Research and Development 

Center (USACE–ERDC) on estuarine bed-sediment samples. 

Samples were analyzed for survival, growth (weight and 

total biomass), and reproductive effects (ratio of neonates to 

survivors) as the determining endpoints. The amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus was used to evaluate the estuarine bed 

sediments using EPA Method 600/R-01/020 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001b). Statistical methods were 

used to identify significant differences between field samples 

and laboratory control samples. The Kolmogorov-D test was 

used to determine whether the data distribution was normal or 

non-normal, and the Bartlett’s test was used to test the variance. If the variance of the data was determined to be unequal, 

a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to determine whether sediment samples from the field and laboratory control samples 

differed significantly. If the variance of the data was determined to be equal, a Bonferroni t-test was used to identify 

significant differences.

Screening Methods

A screening approach including spectroscopy and laboratory-based biomarker assays (bioassays) was used to evaluate estuarine bed sediments for contaminant occurrence and 

potential adverse biological effects. Such methods have been 

used increasingly in complex matrices, including estuarine 

sediments, to investigate potentially hazardous conditions for 

humans and aquatic and terrestrial biota because they provide 

a rapid screening approach that has a higher throughput than 

more traditional contaminant- or effect-specific analytical 

techniques (Karuppiah and Gupta, 1998; Escher and others, 

2014). Screening approaches can be used to guide the more 

traditional contaminant- and effect-specific work by identifying the presence and concentrations of contaminants in the 

environment as well as provide a rapid assessment of potential 

undesired human-health or ecological effects.

Screening tools used in this study include field-portable 

spectroscopic techniques that provide qualitative and semiquantitative measurements of mineralogy and contaminants, 

as well as biological assays that assess potential biological 

effects of contaminants. Specific screening analyses conducted 

include field-portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF), attenuated 

total reflectance–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 
Methods 19

(ATR–FTIR), x-ray diffraction (XRD), and multiple bioassays to measure environmentally relevant activities such as 

estrogenicity, androgenicity, genotoxicity, and protein phosphatase 2A inhibition. An overview of each technique and the 

associated sample-preparation methods used in this study are 

described below.

Field-Portable Spectroscopy

Spectroscopic analyses conducted during this study 

include handheld XRF and ATR–FTIR. XRF provides a rapid 

assay of elements in a sample, and ATR-FTIR provides a rapid 

assessment of various organic and inorganic functional groups 

in a sample.

X-Ray Fluorescence

XRF measures the emission characteristics of secondary 

x-rays, or fluorescence, from a material that has been bombarded with high-energy x-rays. It is widely used for elemental 

analysis of solids and liquids. A field-portable XRF analytical 

instrument (pXRF) was used in the current study. It can rapidly identify and quantify elements heavier than magnesium, 

and commonly provides limits of detection (LODs) in the 

10- to 50-mg/kg range for a given element. This nondestructive method allows for real-time elemental analysis, which is 

ideal for environmental screening for metals and other inorganic contaminants in geologic and manufactured materials. 

All samples for pXRF analysis were analyzed in the 

laboratory at the USGS Central Energy Resources Science 

Center in Denver, Colorado. Samples were dried in the collection container at 30 °C prior to analysis. This low-temperature 

drying was chosen to preserve any volatile metal species, 

such as mercury, in the sample. The samples were then placed 

in XRF cups and covered with 7-μ-thick Mylar® film. All 

samples were analyzed on a Niton XL3t GOLDD+ XRF Analyzer (Thermo Scientific, 2010, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) for 

120 seconds in the “Test All Geo” mode. 

The pXRF Analyzer was calibrated by the manufacturer 

for 40 elements on the basis of National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) traceable standards (NIST 2709, 

2710, and 2711) that span a range of concentrations from 100 

to 60,000 parts per million (ppm) for a sediment-type matrix. 

The instrument reports concentrations for a suite of elements 

and calculates a “balance” value based on Compton scattering, 

which represents a concentration for elements not measured by 

the instrument (Hall and others, 2012). Test All Geo mode was 

used for all analyses. NIST standard 2710 was run at the start 

and at the end of each batch of samples analyzed for quality 

control and to monitor any drift of the instrument. This standard was used because it has certified and nominal elemental 

values for many more elements than NIST 1944. 

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Mid-range (400–3,600 cm-1) FTIR is a nondestructive 

analysis for identifying dominant and minor organic and inorganic functional groups (for example, C–C and C–H bonds 

present in aliphatic and aromatic organic moieties; Si–O and 

C–O bonds present in silicates and carbonates; –OH bonds 

representative of hydroxyl groups associated with clays) on 

the surface of sediment particles. It also provides complementary information for chemical structural identification. 

Attenuated total reflectance (ATR) is a technique used with 

FTIR that facilitates analysis with minimal sample preparation, and therefore allows for a more rapid analysis. Functional groups are identified on the basis of unique vibration 

frequencies, which are related to stretching or deformation 

of chemical bonds. Identification of individual compounds is 

relatively straightforward, but sediments are complex mixtures 

and contain multiple mineral phases and organic matter. For 

screening purposes, qualitative assessment of the spectra is the 

first step and involves identification of major mineral phases 

(for example, clays, carbonates, and silica) and organic content (for example, compounds containing aliphatic, aromatic 

and carbonyl groups). Mineral identifications are confirmed 

by comparing the sample spectra to mineral standards, much 

as minerals are identified in x-ray diffraction. The contribution of each phase to the sample can be estimated on the 

basis of major peak intensities. Whereas the frequencies of 

many functional group peaks are stable, others are affected by 

sample chemistry, preparation techniques, and nearby functional groups (Oudghiri and others, 2014). For example, peaks 

like the carbon-hydrogen stretches of methyl and methylene 

groups are very stable in terms of their positions, whereas the 

distribution of peaks for silicon-oxide stretches varies substantially between quartz (silicate) and aluminosilicates such as 

illite or kaolinite, and the position of the minor carbonate peak 

at about 700 cm-1 is different for different carbonate minerals—for example, calcite (713 cm-1) and dolomite (730 cm-1). 

With respect to sediment characterization and environmental 

health, FTIR can identify specific mineral phases, such as 

clay types and how they are modified (for example, hydrated, 

ammoniated), and organic matter alteration (for example, 

deamination) (Pironon and others, 2003). FTIR can also provide insight into biological activity (for example, protein I and 

II amide bands, or polysaccharides), petroleum products (for 

example, aromatic hydrocarbons), and contamination from 

agricultural, industrial, and domestic sources if contamination is sufficiently great (Sivakumar and others, 2012; AbdelGawad and others, 2012). 

All samples to be analyzed by FTIR were dried in the 

collection container at 30 °C prior to analysis. Aliquots 

(about 100 mg) of dried material were disaggregated, using 

either an agate mortar and pestle or a steel-plated jaw crusher 
20 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

(ASC Model JC-300), to achieve a particle size of less than 

1 mm. Measurements were made using a Bruker ALPHA spectrometer (model A250/D, Bruker Optics, Inc., Billerica, MA) 

equipped with an ATR sampling module (model A220/D-01) 

and a diamond internal-reflection element. Measurements 

were made and processed to remove background effects and 

for baseline correction using the OPUS 7 software package 

(Bruker Optics, Inc., Billerica, MA). Spectra were acquired 

and converted to absorbance mode from 16 scans between 

4,000 and 400 cm-1 at a resolution of 4 cm-1. Replicate spectra 

were measured on every 10th sample to confirm consistent 

peak positions and absorbance intensities. Commercially 

available standard sediments (NIST Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) 1944, 2710, and 2711) were analyzed under the 

same conditions as the environmental samples for consistency 

with the analytical protocols used in this study. 

X-Ray Diffraction

Quantitative whole-rock XRD mineralogic analysis was 

conducted following the methods described by Eberl (2003). 

The particle size of the sample was reduced to less than 5 μ 

and an internal standard was added. XRD data were collected 

on randomly oriented, homogenized, powdered bed-sediment 

samples. The instrument setup parameters were as follows: 

Copper Kα x-ray line radiation source with a scan range from 

5 to 65 degrees two-theta using a step size of 0.02 degrees 

two-theta and a 2-second count time per step. Mineral phases 

were identified using Jade 9 XRD Pattern Processing, Identification, and Quantification Software (Materials Data, Inc. 

(MDI), Livermore, CA) referencing the International Centre 

for Diffraction Data’s 2012 PDF-4 and NIST Inorganic Crystal 

Structure Database. Semi-quantitative mineral concentrations 

were calculated using MDI Whole Pattern Fit software, which 

simultaneously calculates a whole pattern fit and a Rietveld 

refinement (Young, 1995) of the minerals. Reference minerals are selected from the database containing a full crystallographic description of the mineral. A calculated model of the 

observed pattern is produced by nonlinear least-squares optimization. The calculations, performed by the software, involve 

the application of various parameters to improve the fit of 

the model to the observed data. Modeling parameters include 

background reduction, profile fitting, and lattice constants. The 

software iterates and minimizes a residual error between the 

calculated x-ray diffraction patterns from the selected references and the measured scan of the sample. All data were normalized to 100 percent on the basis of the identified minerals 

within a 1-percent error. 

Bioassays

Enzyme inhibition and whole-cell-based bioassays add 

relevance to chemical data by providing a context for toxicity 

and other possible contaminant effects. Bioassays used in this 

study were selected on the basis of a need to assess perturbations in important mammalian and vertebrate biological 

pathways and (or) as indicators of chemical accumulation 

from natural and manmade sources. Bioassays selected for this 

study include those to measure perturbations in steroid hormones (estrogens and androgens), glucocorticoid hormones, 

and protein phosphatases because they govern major physiological functions in mammals and other vertebrates (Melmed 

and others, 2011). 

Normal endocrine system function includes binding of 

endogenous steroid hormones to nuclear receptors (NRs) that 

control gene transcription and therefore modulate physiological processes (Melmed and others, 2011). Synthetic chemicals produced for industrial, pharmaceutical, and agricultural 

applications also have the potential to bind to NRs and lead to 

unintended (not instructed by the physiology of the organism) 

activation or deactivation of processes such as reproduction, 

growth, and metabolism (endocrine disruption) (Casals-Casas 

and Desvergne, 2011).

Endocrine disruptors that bind to the estrogen receptor 

are the most studied, but it is clear that other endocrine-disrupting compounds that disrupt other NR pathways are present 

in the environment (Stavreva and others, 2012; Zhang and 

others, 2014). Endocrine-disrupting compounds may impair 

reproductive and immunological health; modulate the timing 

of reproductive cycles; and (or) affect growth, development, 

and general metabolism (Casals-Casas and Desvergne, 2011; 

Melmed and others, 2011). These effects can occur following exposure to nanogram-per-liter or lower concentrations, 

which have been measured in wastewater effluent, treated 

waste, soils, manures, biosolids, surface and groundwater, 

and, in some cases, even finished drinking water (Westerhoff and others, 2005; Schenck and others, 2012; Kolpin and 

others, 2002).

Estrogenicity is a measure of estrogen receptor (ER) 

activation. Endogenous estrogens bind and activate estrogen 

receptors, a class of NR. They are typically associated with the 

maintenance and promotion of the female phenotype, but they 

are also present in males. They are critical to regulation of the 

reproductive cycle, maintenance of bone growth, modulation 

of immune function, and control of blood-vessel dilation and 

general metabolism (Melmed and others, 2011). Estrogens 

also affect behavior, fluid balance, and adipocyte function and 

modulate immune function (Casals-Casas and Desvergne, 

2011). They are also associated with a number of ER-positive 

cancers including, but not limited to, breast, uterine, and cervical cancers (Birnbaum and Fenton, 2003). 

Androgenicity is a measure of androgen receptor (AR) 

activation (agonism). Endogenous androgens are anabolic 

steroids that affect the development and maintenance of the 

male phenotype as well as other physiological functions. 

They are not unique to males, however, as both males and 

females utilize testosterone as a substrate for estrogen synthesis (Melmed and others, 2011). In addition to their biological 

regulatory role in normal male physiology, they affect skeletal muscle anabolism and adipocyte function and behavior 

(O’Connor and others, 2004; Singh and others, 2006). They 
Methods 21

are associated with the induction of pathologies such as ARassociated cancers (prostate), adult acne, immune dysfunction, 

and hair loss (alopecia) (Price, 2003; Gilver, 2010; Karantanos 

and others, 2013). 

Glucocorticoids are steroid hormones that are 

endogenous agonists of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). 

They are commonly referred to as stress hormones. They are 

potent modulators of immune function and are best recognized 

for down-regulating inflammation (Franchimont, 2004). They 

are also critical regulators of fetal lung development, glucose 

metabolism, water balance, behavior, and memory (Munk and 

others, 1984).

Protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) is one of many protein 

serine/threonine phosphatases present in eukaryotic cells that 

are known to have an important role in cellular processes. 

PP2A proteins in combination with protein phosphatase 1 

make up more than 90 percent of mammalian serine/threonine phosphatase activity, according to Oliver and Shenolikar 

(1998), who report that more than 50 known environmental toxins are capable of inhibiting protein serine/threonine 

phosphatases. The list has since grown to include more than 

80 microcystin variants (Graham and others, 2010), nodularins, okadaic acid, and dinophysistoxins (Valdiglesias and 

others, 2013) produced from freshwater and marine phytoplankton, calyculin A purified from marine sponges, fostriecin 

produced by Streptomyces pulveraceus, tautomycin produced 

by several Streptomyces species, and cantharidin produced by 

blister beetles. Most of these are being researched not only 

regarding their toxicity, but also as therapeutic pharmaceutical leads (Swingle and Honkanen, 2007). Acute exposures to 

PP2A inhibitors such as known algal toxins like microcystins, 

nodularins, and okadaic acids can lead to jaundice, internal 

bleeding (liver), liver failure, tumors, and even death (Chen 

and others, 2006; Oliver and Shenolikar, 1998). 

Bioassay Sample Preparation 

Wet bed-sediment split samples of at least 5 g dry weight 

were received by the USGS Organic Geochemistry Research 

Laboratory (OGRL) in Lawrence, Kansas, for bioassay 

analyses. The entire wet sample was centrifuged (ThermoForma 1LP bench top centrifuge, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) for 

20 minutes at 5,000 G (5,000 times the acceleration of gravity) 

and 4 °C to remove bulk seawater from the sample. Bulk seawater isolated by centrifuge from a subset of sediment samples 

was retained for further analysis. Pelletized wet sediment 

samples were oven dried at 30 °C for 1 to 3 weeks (sandy sediments dry faster than finer sediments). A temperature of 30 °C 

was selected to minimize degradation of organic chemicals 

where possible. Dried sediment samples were sieved through 

a #10 sieve (nominal mesh size 2 μ) to remove intact seashells 

and other debris. Sieved samples were ground in a porcelain 

mortar, resieved, and weighed to determine dry weight. 

Polar extractions were conducted prior to evaluation 

by bioassay for androgenicity, estrogenicity, glucocorticoid 

activity, and protein phosphatase 2A inhibition with minimal 

sample clean-up steps to facilitate rapid, cost-effective screening and to prevent loss of potentially biologically active 

compounds. One gram of each dried and sieved sediment 

sample was combined by porcelain mortar and pestle with 1 g 

of diatomaceous earth (Hydromatrix, Varian, Inc., Palo Alto, 

CA) to improve extraction efficiency. Sediment/Hydromatrix 

samples were loaded into 40-mL amber volumetric glass vials 

for extraction. Samples were extracted with a 10-mL aliquot 

of acidified acetonitrile (0.1-percent formic acid), rotated for 

24 hours at 30 °C, and centrifuged at 3,000 G for 10 minutes, 

and solvent was decanted. Samples were re-extracted with 

an additional 10-mL aliquot of acidified acetonitrile (0.1-percent formic acid) for 2 hours, then centrifuged, and solvent 

was decanted for a total of 20 mL of extraction solvent. Fine 

particulates were removed by filtration with 0.7-μ glass-fiber 

syringe filtration prior to analysis. Sample extracts were 

evaporated to near dryness at 30 °C under a nitrogen blanket 

(103-172 kilopascals (kPa); Turbovap, Zymark Corp., Hopkinton, Massachusetts) and solvent was exchanged with 4 mL of 

methanol/deionized (DI) water (50:50 v/v). Two milliliters of 

50:50 methanol/DI water extracts were shipped overnight to 

the USGS Leetown Science Center (Kearneysville, West Virginia) for analysis for estrogen, androgen, and glucocorticoid 

activity using yeast bioreporter assays.

The remaining 2-mL extracts were split in half. The 1-mL 

aliquots of the 50:50 methanol/DI water extracts were evaporated to remove methanol and replaced with DI water at a final 

volume of 1 mL for use with the PP2A inhibition assay. All 

samples were filtered at their final stage by 0.45-μ glass-fiber 

syringe filtration to remove particulates that formed during 

solvent exchanges and storage prior to analysis. Samples for 

the estrogenicity, androgenicity, and glucocorticoid activity assays were further clarified by centrifugation at 8,000 G 

for 5 minutes in an Eppendorf 5415D centrifuge (Eppendorf, 

Hauppauge, New York). 

Bioassay Analytical Methods

Extraction effectiveness for each bioassay was evaluated 

through extracted, unamended and amended Ottawa Sand and 

bed-sediment samples, replicate analyses of amended samples, 

and replicate extractions of sediment subsamples. Ottawa 

Sand and bed-sediment samples were amended at the middle 

to upper range of inhibition or concentration by either an 

individual standard matched to the given assay or a standard 

mixture of 17-beta-estradiol (for estrogen), dihydrotestosterone (for androgen), desoxycorticosterone (for glucocorticoid), 

and microcystin lysine-arginine (LR) amino acid side chain 

substitutions (for PP2A). 

Inhibition of the bioreporter by extracts was determined 

using bioluminescent yeast reporter (BLYR; Sanseverino 

and others, 2009). Strain BLYR was grown to an optical 

sample density measured at 600 nanometer (nm) (OD600) of 

0.5 absorption units. Doubling dilution series of extracts of 

0 to 50 percent were prepared for 20 percent of all extracts. 

All samples were run in duplicate wells. This prescreening 
22 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

indicated that a 1:80 dilution of extract was necessary to 

achieve approximately 50-percent inhibition or less of the 

reporter. All samples were screened for toxicity at a dilution of 

2.5 percent. Strain BLYR was added to samples and incubated 

for 4 hours at 30 oC. Toxicity was expressed as the percent 

reduction in bioluminescence of samples relative to yeast cultured in growth media containing 2.5 percent methanol (negative control) alone. Positive controls for inhibition included 

yeast incubated in 10 percent sodium azide and 2.5 percent 

methanol. Luminescence was read using a SpectraMax® M4 

(Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA) in luminescence mode. 

Duplicate plates were run on separate days to demonstrate 

reproducibility for all endocrine assays. 

Total estrogenicity was determined using the bioluminescent yeast estrogen screen (BLYES) as described by Ciparis 

and others (2012), with slight modification. Strain BLYES was 

purchased from 490 Biotech (Knoxville, Tennessee). Estrogen 

equivalents were determined by interpolation to a standard 

curve of 17-beta-estradiol. Yeast were grown to an OD600 of 

0.5 absorption units. Methanol in all wells was at a final concentration of 2.5 percent as determined from the inhibition and 

toxicity tests. Strain BLYES was added to samples and incubated for 4 hours at 30 oC. All samples and standards were run 

in duplicate wells. Luminescence was read using a SpectraMax® M4 in luminescence mode. ER activity was determined 

by interpolation to the standard curve using a four-parameter 

regression model generated in SoftMax® Pro 6.2.2. Given the 

observed toxicity in greater than 90 percent of bed-sediment 

extracts, data are reported only as detected or not detected. 

Estrogenic activity was reported as a detection when assay 

response was 1 standard deviation (1SD) or greater above the 

negative control. Results greater than or equal to 1SD above 

the result obtained for the negative control were reported as 

positive (+) and values less than 1SD below the result for 

the negative control were reported as negative (-). All plates 

included negative controls (growth media containing 2.5 percent methanol). An additional control including 200 picomolar 

(pM) of 17-beta-estradiol was included on all plates to assess 

interassay plate variation. If the relative standard deviation 

(RSD) of 17-beta-estradiol between plates exceeded 20 percent, the results were rejected and the assay was repeated.

Androgenicity was determined using yeast strain DSY1555. Yeast were grown in synthetic complete media without 

leucine, uracil, or tryptophan (SC-LUW) growth media to an 

OD600 of 0.5 absorption units. A standard curve was generated 

using dihydrotestosterone. All sample extracts were diluted 

with SC-LUW media to a final methanol concentration of 

2.5 percent, resulting in a 1:80 dilution of the extract. Strain 

DSY-1555 was added to samples and incubated for 4 hours 

at 30 oC, according to the method of Balsiger and others 

(2010). All samples and standards were run in duplicate wells. 

Beta-galactosidase (β-gal) was developed using the Tropix 

Gal Screen Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) with 

buffer B, according to manufacturer protocols. Luminescence 

was read using a SpectraMax® M4 in luminescence mode. AR 

activity was determined by interpolation to the standard curve 

using a four-parameter regression model generated in SoftMax® Pro 6.2.2. Given the observed toxicity in greater than 

90 percent of bed-sediment extracts, data are reported only as 

detected or not detected. Interpolated values greater than 1SD 

above the lowest standard value were considered a detection. 

Androgen activity was reported as a detection when assay 

response was 1SD or greater above the results obtained for the 

negative control. Results greater than or equal to 1SD above 

background were reported as positive (+) and values less than 

1SD were reported as negative (-). Standard curves were run 

on all plates. All plates included negative controls (growth 

media containing 2.5 percent methanol). An additional control 

including 20 nanomolar (nM) of dihydrotestosterone was 

included on all plates to assess interassay plate variation. If the 

RSD exceeded 20 percent, the results were rejected and the 

assay was repeated.

Activation of the human glucocorticoid receptor (GR) 

was determined using yeast strain MCY-098. Culture conditions were identical to those used for strain DSY-1555. The 

growth medium was SC-LUW. Yeast were grown to an OD600

of 0.5 absorption units. A standard curve was generated 

using deoxycortisone. All sample extracts were diluted with 

SC-LUW growth media to a final methanol concentration of 

2.5 percent, resulting in a 1:80 dilution of the extract. Strain 

MCY-098 was added to samples and incubated for 4 hours at 

30 oC, according to Balsiger and others (2010). All samples 

and standards were run in duplicate wells. β-gal was developed using the Tropix Gal Screen Kit (Applied Biosystems, 

Foster City, CA) with buffer B according to manufacturer 

protocols. Luminescence was read using a SpectraMax® M4 in 

luminescence mode. GR activity was determined by interpolation to the standard curve using a four-parameter regression 

model generated in SoftMax® Pro 6.2.2. Given the observed 

toxicity in greater than 90 percent of bed-sediment extracts, 

data are reported as detected or not detected. Interpolated 

values greater than 1SD above the lowest standard were considered a detection. Glucocorticoid activity was reported as a 

detection when assay response was 1SD or greater above the 

negative control. Results greater than or equal to 1SD above 

background were reported as positive (+) and values less than 

1SD above background were reported as negative (-). Standard 

curves were run on all plates. All plates included negative 

controls (growth media containing 2.5 percent methanol). An 

additional control including 20 nM of deoxycortisone was 

included on all plates to assess interassay plate variation. If the 

RSD exceeded 20 percent, the results were rejected and the 

assay was repeated. 

Protein phosphatase 2A inhibition in undiluted aqueous 

bed-sediment extracts was measured using the quantitative, 

colorimetric assay distributed by Abraxis, LLC (Warminster, PA, PN: 520032) (An and Carmichael, 1994; Bouaicha 

and others, 2002). Filtered, reconstituted sediment extracts 

(100 percent DI water) were analyzed by the dissolved-phase 

procedure as described in the assay instructions (Abraxis, 
Methods 23

2014). Semilogarithmic expressions were used to generate 

calibration curves for each assay run. Plates were analyzed 

at 405 nm on a MeterTech® AccuReader 96 well plate reader 

using M965 Mate software (v. 1.0.27, MeterTech, Inc., NanGang, Taipei, Taiwan). Positive PP2A inhibition was noted 

when assay response was 0.25 micrograms per liter (μg/L) 

as microcystin-LR equivalents or greater. Responses greater 

than 2.5 μg/L as microcystin-LR equivalents were diluted 

back into calibration range, with the final reported concentration corrected for dilution. Positive (microcystin-LR) controls 

provided by the manufacturer were used to evaluate intraassay performance with the requirement that positive controls 

be within 28.3 percent RSD of 1.0 μg/L as microcystin-LR 

equivalents. Unspiked 100-percent DI water utilized as the 

extract reconstitution solution was used as a negative control, 

and both the DI water and Ottawa Sand blank responses were 

required to be less than 0.25 μg/L as microcystin-LR. 

In an attempt to determine the effect of sample matrix 

on bioreporter response kinetics, standards curves for all 

hormones were generated in instant ocean®, an Ottawa Sand 

blank, sample UH401 (81-percent inhibitory), or sample 

NB459 (5-percent inhibitory). Samples were spiked to a 1:80 

dilution and all samples contained 2.5 percent methanol. The 

growth medium containing 2.5 percent methanol was used as a 

control. The concentration of a compound at which 50 percent 

of its maximal effect is observed (EC50) was determined for 

each sample using SigmaPlot® for Windows v.11.0 (Systat 

Software, Inc., San Jose, CA).

Site Characteristics, Quality-Assurance Results, 

and Bed-Sediment-Quality Data 

This section of the report presents results of the site 

characterizations, quality-assurance data, and estuarine bedsediment-quality data. Data and quality-assurance results are 

presented for analytical and screening methods for determining chemical and biological characteristics of bed sediment. 

Sampling-Site and Study-Region Characteristics

Sampling sites and study regions were characterized 

to determine land-cover characteristics that might be useful 

in interpreting bed-sediment data. Two regional summaries 

were produced for each region—one for the entire region and 

one for the inundated portion of each region (as defined by 

the FEMA MOTF surge-extent boundary). The 2011 NLCD 

Anderson Level II land-cover classes (in square kilometers) 

were summarized for each region and for inundated parts of 

the region (table 5, on CD-ROM). Anderson Level I and II 

land-cover classes also were summarized as percentages for 

each region and for inundated parts of the region (table 6, on 

CD-ROM). Counts of businesses in New Jersey and New York 

within each economic sector were tabulated for each sampling 

location and region (table 7, on CD-ROM). The number of 

each spill source and cause combination in New York was 

tabulated for each sampling location and region (table 8, on 

CD-ROM). Counts of BSF locations in New Jersey and New 

York were tabulated for each sampling location and region and 

identified as being inundated, or not, based on the surge-extent 

boundary (table 9, on CD-ROM). Counts of combined seweroutfall and sewage-treatment-plant locations in New Jersey 

and New York were tabulated for each sampling location and 

region and identified as being within the surge zone, or not, 

based on the surge-extent boundary (table 10, on CD-ROM). 

Counts of flooded businesses and infrastructure in tables 

7–10 should be used with caution. The method only accounts 

for flooding of surface infrastructure, and cannot discern 

flooding of subsurface structures. For instance, the method 

indicates that only one sewage-treatment plant was flooded; 

however, it is known that many more failed as a result of loss 

of power, flooding below the surface, and other Hurricane 

Sandy-related damage. 

Particle Size

Particle-size analyses of 114 estuarine bed-sediment 

samples and 5 field replicate samples are reported in table 11

(on CD-ROM). The samples were composed predominantly of 

sand and silt. Sixty-five percent of the samples were more than 

50 percent sand, and 22 percent of the samples were more than 

50 percent silt. Thirty-two percent of the samples contained 

10 to 30 percent clay particles, and less than 10 percent of the 

samples had any measurable coarse grains. The five replicate 

samples differed from each other in average particle size by 1 

to 8 percent.

Total Organic Carbon

Concentrations of total organic carbon were measured 

in samples from 58 estuarine bed-sediment sites (table 12, on 

CD-ROM). Measured concentrations ranged from 1,100 to 

110,000 mg/kg, with a median of 7,100 mg/kg. The 10th- and 

90th-percentile concentrations were 1,700 and 30,000 mg/kg, 

respectively. The table also includes results for four field replicate samples, which were analyzed to assess the variability 

of the field sample-collection method, and two laboratory split 

samples, which were analyzed to assess analytical variability. 

The relative percent difference (RPD) for the field replicates 

ranged from 27 to 70 percent and the RPD for the laboratory 

split samples ranged from 0 to 18 percent. The higher variability in the field replicate samples was likely caused by the 

heterogeneity of the bed sediment in the field. The analytical 

results for the replicate and split samples were of acceptable 

quality according to the established EPA Quality Assurance 

Performance Plan (QAPP) except for samples from NOAA2, 

where the total organic carbon concentration was less than 

the RL (1,000 mg/kg) in the environmental sample and 

1,700 mg/kg in the corresponding replicate sample.
24 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

Metals and Trace Elements

Concentrations of metals and trace elements in samples 

from 60 estuarine bed-sediment sites, 6 field replicate samples, and 5 laboratory split samples are reported in table 13

(on CD-ROM). The field replicate samples were analyzed to 

assess the variability of the field sample-collection method and 

the laboratory split samples were analyzed to assess analytical 

variability. Other QA/QC data available include the analyses 

of laboratory blanks, laboratory spikes, laboratory spiked 

duplicates, field replicates, and SRM 1944 (New Jersey/New 

York waterway sediment), which were analyzed along with 

each batch of environmental samples. 

Laboratory Blanks and Spike Samples

No metals or trace elements were detected in any of the 

four laboratory blanks analyzed along with their corresponding environmental samples. Percent recoveries for laboratory 

trace-element spikes ranged from 80 to 125 percent, with a 

median of 95 percent; percent recoveries for laboratory mercury spikes ranged from 84 to 100 percent, with a median of 

93 percent. RPDs for laboratory trace-element spike duplicates 

ranged from 0 to 34 percent, with a median of 1 percent; RPDs 

for laboratory mercury spike duplicates ranged from 1 to 

4 percent, with a median of 2 percent. 

Standard Reference Materials

Concentrations of metals and trace elements in 

SRM 1944 are reported in table 14 (on CD-ROM). The percent recoveries based on the NIST-certified values for metals and trace elements ranged from 57 to 133 percent with a 

median of 99 percent. All reported concentrations were within 

the 95-percent confidence intervals compared to the NISTcertified value (table 14). 

Replicate Samples

Laboratory split and field replicate samples were analyzed as part of the metals and trace-elements bed-sediment 

analysis. Six field replicates were analyzed to assess the variability of the field sample-collection and laboratory analyses. 

Laboratory replicates were used to assess variability within 

the lab as well as possible sample heterogeneity. Subsamples 

of the bed-sediment sample were removed in the laboratory 

and subjected to separate extraction and analysis. The analysis of the six field replicates yielded 23 paired concentration 

comparisons (detections in both samples) and 3 unpaired 

comparisons (detections in one of the two samples), and 

all results were considered to be acceptable. For those metals and trace elements that were detected in only one of the 

two samples, measured concentrations were censored and 

assigned a “nondetect” value. The median RPD for the six 

field replicates was 12 percent, with more than 90 percent of 

the replicates having RPDs less than 50 percent. Analysis of 

three laboratory replicates yielded 23 paired comparisons and 

no unpaired comparisons, and all results were considered to be 

acceptable. The median RPD for the laboratory replicates was 

11 percent, with all but one of the replicates having differences 

less than 33 percent. A set of four homogenized and unhomogenized replicate samples was analyzed to evaluate potential 

variability introduced during field processing. The paired 

samples were compared by using a nonparametric t-test, and 

no significant difference between concentrations was observed 

(p-value less than 0.05). 

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

Concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds 

including selected PAHs, PCBs, and legacy pesticides in 

estuarine bed sediment from 52 sampling sites are reported 

in tables 15, 16, and 17, respectively (on CD-ROM). Five 

field replicate samples also were analyzed to assess the variability of the field sample-collection method. QA/QC data 

include analysis results for laboratory surrogates, laboratory 

blanks, laboratory spikes, laboratory matrix spikes, laboratory 

matrix spike duplicates, field and laboratory replicates, and 

SRM 1944 (New Jersey/New York waterway sediment) with 

each batch of environmental samples. Recovery surrogates 

were added to each sample to measure method performance. 

For PAHs, mean percent recoveries and standard deviations of the surrogates acenapthene-d10, phenanthrene-d10, 

chrysene-d12, perylene-d12, and naphthalene-d8 were 81 ± 15 

percent, 92 ± 12 percent, 102 ± 12 percent, 83 ± 14 percent, 

and 59 ± 18 percent, respectively. For PCBs and OCPs, mean 

percent recoveries and standard deviations of the surrogates 

PCB30, PCB112, PCB198, and 2,4,5,6-tetrachloro-m-xylene 

(TCMX) were 90 ± 12 percent, 99 ± 7 percent, 100 ± 6 percent, and 90 ± 12 percent, respectively. 

Laboratory Blanks and Spike Samples

No compounds were detected in any of the laboratory 

blanks analyzed along with their corresponding environmental 

samples. QA/QC results for laboratory spikes consisting of all 

compounds spiked into DI water were of acceptable quality. 

Percent recoveries for laboratory spike samples for the PAHs 

ranged from 67 to 117 percent, with a median of 98 percent. 

RPDs for spike duplicates ranged from 0 to 51 percent, with a 

median of 3 percent. Percent recoveries for the PCB congeners 

ranged from 78 to 116 percent, with a median of 101 percent. 

RPDs for spike duplicates ranged from 0 to 12 percent, with a 

median of 2 percent. Percent recoveries for the OCPs ranged 

from 14 to 130 percent, with a median of 97 percent. RPDs for 

spike duplicates ranged from 0 to 63 percent, with a median 

of 2 percent. Recoveries for endrin aldehyde were lowest and 

most variable, but were considered acceptable on the basis 

of the EPA QA/QC reporting standards (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2008) and the established EPA QAPP.
Methods 25

Standard Reference Materials

Concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds 

in SRM 1944 are reported in table 18 (on CD-ROM). The 

percent recoveries based on NIST-certified values for PAHs, 

PCBs, and OCPs ranged from 53 to 128 percent with a median 

of 97 percent, from 70 to 128 percent with a median of 87 percent, and from 72 to 130 percent with a median of 109 percent, 

respectively. All reported concentrations fell into the acceptable concentration range based on the 95-percent confidence 

intervals of the NIST-certified value (table 18). 

Matrix Spike Samples

A total of six matrix spike samples were also analyzed 

for PAHs, PCBs and OCPs. The percent recoveries of PAHs, 

PCBs, and OCPs ranged from 71 to 168 percent (median of 

106 percent), from 73 to 130 percent (median of 103 percent), and from 8 to 128 percent (median of 99 percent), 

respectively. Again, recoveries for endrin aldehyde were 

lowest but were considered acceptable on the basis of EPA 

QA/QC reporting standards (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2008) and the established EPA QAPP. Recoveries 

for the several PAHs were high as a result of the presence of 

high concentrations of fluoranthene and pyrene in the environmental sample. All matrix spikes were also analyzed as 

matrix spike duplicates in the laboratory to monitor variability 

between the spiked samples as part of the established EPA 

QAPP. The RPDs of the matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate 

pairs for PAHs, PCBs, and OCPs ranged from 0 to 31 percent with a median of 2 percent, from 0 to 17 percent with a 

median of 3 percent, and from 0.1 to 28 percent with a median 

of 3 percent, respectively. 

Replicate Samples

Laboratory and field replicates were analyzed as part 

of the determination of semivolatile organic compounds in 

bed sediment. Four field replicates were analyzed to assess 

the variability of the field sample collection and laboratory 

analysis. Laboratory replicates were used to assess variability within the lab as well as possible sample heterogeneity. 

Subsamples were removed from the bed-sediment sample in 

the laboratory and were subjected to separate extraction and 

analysis. Analysis of the four field replicates yielded 25 paired 

concentration comparisons (detections in both samples) and 6 

unpaired comparisons (detections in one of the two samples). 

For those compounds that were detected in only one of the two 

samples, measured concentrations were near the RL and some 

were reported as estimates. The median RPD for the field 

replicates was 42 percent, with more than 90 percent of the 

replicates having differences less than 100 percent. Analysis 

of three laboratory replicates yielded 26 paired comparisons 

with no unpaired comparisons, and all data were considered 

to be of acceptable quality on the basis of the established EPA 

QAPP. The median RPD for the laboratory replicates was 

9 percent, with more than 99 percent of the replicates having 

differences less than 100 percent. 

Wastewater Compounds

Concentrations of wastewater compounds in estuarine 

bed-sediment samples from 87 sampling sites are reported 

in table 19 (on CD-ROM). Six field replicate samples also 

were analyzed to assess the variability of the field samplecollection method. QA/QC data available for the wastewater 

method include analysis results for blank, spike, and field 

replicate samples.

Set Blank Samples

On the basis of detections in laboratory set blank 

samples (clean sediment), samples were censored by using 

the approach outlined in the USGS Office of Water Quality 

Technical Memorandum 2012.01 (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2011). The approach used to censor data relies on a comparison between the detection in the set blank within the sample 

preparation set and the environmental data associated with 

that sample preparation set (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, 

approach 1). Concentrations in set blanks generally were 

low—typically 30 μg/kg or less (table 20, on CD-ROM). 

Spike Samples

Set spikes were included with each set of bed-sediment 

samples to determine percent recoveries for target analytes 

in reagent-grade water spikes that were analyzed by the 

laboratory for each set. The percent-recovery data available 

for the 13 set spikes that correspond to the bed-sediment 

samples analyzed in this study are summarized in figure 5 

and table 21 (on CD-ROM). Mean percent recoveries for the 

set spikes for these compounds ranged from 0 to 104 percent, 

with RSDs ranging from 8 to 97 percent. More than half (31 

compounds) of the compounds in the wastewater method had 

low bias (mean recoveries between 60 and 110 percent) and 

low variability (RSDs less than 30 percent) (fig. 5, table 21). 

Most of the compounds in the combustion, petroleum, or 

gasoline compounds group; the other compounds group; and 

the personal-care or domestic-use compounds group had low 

bias and low variability. In contrast, few compounds (less than 

20 percent) in the plant and animal biochemical compounds 

group and the plasticizer compounds group had low bias and 

low variability for the set spike samples. 

Replicate Samples

Field replicate samples for the wastewater method 

included two independent samples collected at the same 

location in the field but analyzed separately. These replicate 
26 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

1-Methylnaphthalene

2-Methylnaphthalene

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene

Anthracene

Fluoranthene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Isopropylbenzene

Phenanthrene

Naphthalene

Pyrene

0

80604020

160140120100

Recovery, in percent

Combustion, petroleum, gasoline compounds

0

80604020

160140120100

Recovery, in percent

Other compounds

Anthraquinone

3-tert-butyl-4-hyroxyanisole

Atrazine

Carbazole

Bromacil

Chlorpyrifos

Isophorone

Diazinon

para-Cresol

Metolachlor

Prometon

Tetrabromodiphenyl ether

0

80604020

160140120100

Recovery, in percent

Personal-care, domestic-use compounds

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

4-Cumylphenol

4-n-Octylphenol

4-tert-Octylphenol

Benzophenone

Acetophenone

Bisphenol A

d-Limonene

Camphor

Galaxolide (HHCB)

Isoborneol

Isoquinoline

N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET)

Menthol

NP1EO

para-Nonylphenol

NP2EO

Phenol

Triclosan

Tonalide (AHTN)

OP2EO

OP1EO

0

80604020

160140120100

Recovery, in percent

Plant and animal biochemicals

3-beta-Coprostanol

3-methyl-1h-Indole

beta-Sitosterol

beta-Stigmastanol

Indole

Cholesterol

0

80604020

160140120100

Recovery, in percent

Plasticizers and (or) flame retardants

Diethylphthalate

Diethylhexyl phthalate

 Tributyl Phosphate (TBP)

Tris (2-butoxy-ethyl) phosphate (TBEP)

Tris (dichloro-isopropyl) phosphate (TDCP)

Tris (2-chloro-ethyl) phosphate (TCEP)

Triphenyl Phosphate (TPP)

90th percentile75th percentile50th percentile25th percentile10th percentileCompound with low bias 

and low variability

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Set spike and matrix spike recoveries for estuarine bed-sediment samples analyzed for wastewater compounds during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.
Methods 27

samples were used to assess the combined variability of the 

field sample collection and laboratory analysis. 

Six field replicate samples were analyzed using the 

wastewater method during the study. This analysis yielded 

77 paired concentration comparisons (with detections in both 

samples), and 22 unpaired comparisons (with a detection in 

only one of the two samples). The median replicate RPD for 

these replicates was 27 percent, with most (90 percent) of the 

replicates having RPDs of 100 percent or less (fig. 6).

Steroid Hormones and Other Compounds

Concentrations of steroid hormones and other compounds 

for samples from 87 estuarine bed-sediment sampling sites are 

reported in table 22 (on CD-ROM). Six field replicate samples 

also were analyzed to assess the variability of the field samplecollection method. QA/QC data available for the steroid 

hormone method included results for laboratory set blank and 

spike samples prepared using reagent sand, and laboratory and 

field replicate samples. 

Set Blank Samples

Five compounds were detected in one of the 16 laboratory set blanks associated with the samples analyzed for 

steroid hormones (table 23, on CD-ROM). With the exception of trans-diethylstilbestrol, these blank detections were 

low (less than 0.07 μg/kg). Concentrations of compounds that 

EXPLANATION

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

77 Number of samples

Percent difference

Field replicate

77

0

40

80

120

160

Figure 6. Relative percent difference for field replicates 

of estuarine bed-sediment samples analyzed for 

wastewater compounds during the Hurricane Sandy 

reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.

were apparent detections in the environmental samples were 

compared with concentrations measured in the corresponding 

laboratory blank for the sample preparation set using approach 

number 1 outlined in USGS Office of Water Quality Technical Memorandum 2012.01 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011). 

With this approach, three detections for 17-beta-estradiol, 

two detections for 17-alpha-estradiol, and two detections for 

4-androstene-3,17-dione were censored. The censored concentrations ranged from less than 0.1 to less than 0.4 μg/kg. 

Spike Samples

Each set of environmental samples has an associated 

laboratory set spike sample that was prepared by fortifying 

the method analytes onto reagent-grade sand. Analyte recovery data from 16 set spikes corresponding to the environmental samples are summarized in figure 7 and table 24 (on 

CD-ROM). Mean analyte recoveries for the set spikes ranged 

from 90 to 110 percent. RSDs for these recoveries ranged from 

4.0 to 8.3 percent except for bisphenol A, which had an RSD 

of 23 percent. 

Eleven matrix spike samples were prepared using splits 

of bed-sediment samples from the study. Recovery results 

were similar to those for laboratory set spikes, although recoveries for some of the compounds were lower or more variable. 

Average matrix spike recoveries ranged from 65 to 126 percent, with the exception of equilenin, which had an average 

recovery of 20 percent. RSDs for the matrix spikes were generally less than or equal to 25 percent for all of the compounds 

except dihydrotestosterone (37 percent), testosterone (34 percent), and equilenin (65 percent). Only two matrix spike 

results were available for cholesterol because concentrations 

of this compound in the environmental (unspiked) sample 

were elevated. Hence, it was not possible to compute statistics 

for method performance for this compound, as such matrix 

performance for this compound was not well characterized. 

Recoveries for several compounds (17-alpha-ethynylestradiol, 

17-beta-estradiol, 3-beta-coprostanol, 4-androstene-3,17-dione, bisphenol-A, epitestosterone, equilenin, estriol, estrone, 

mestranol, progesterone, and trans-diethylstilbesterol) were 

similar to those for the set spikes; however, recoveries for 

many of the compounds were lower for the matrix spikes than 

for the set spikes. In addition, method performance was more 

variable for the matrix spikes than for the set spikes, as RSDs 

for only three compounds (17-alpha-estradiol, estriol, and 

estrone) were less than 10 percent. The poorer method performance for the matrix spikes may reflect the greater complexity of the matrix associated with the estuarine bed-sediment 

samples than of the simple reagent-sand matrix used for the 

set spikes; alternatively, it could result from the comparatively 

high concentrations of target analytes in the corresponding 

environmental (unspiked) samples. 
28 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

Recovery, in percent

11-Keto-Testosterone

cis-Androsterone

4-Androstene-3,17-dione

dihydro-Testosterone

Testosterone

epi-Testosterone

11-Keto-Testosterone

cis-Androsterone

4-Androstene-3,17-dione

dihydro-Testosterone

Testosterone

epi-Testosterone

Set spike recovery Matrix spike recovery

0

50

200150100

Androgens

Recovery, in percent

Set spikerecovery

0

50

200150100

Other compounds

Recovery, in percent

Set spike recovery

0

50

200150100

Estrogens

17-alpha-Estradiol

17-beta-Estradiol

17-alpha-Ethynylestradiol

Equilenin

Estriol

Equilin

Estrone

trans-Diethylstilbestrol

Mestranol

17-alpha-Estradiol

17-beta-Estradiol

17-alpha-Ethynylestradiol

Equilenin

Estriol

Equilin

Estrone

trans-Diethylstilbestrol

Mestranol

Matrix spike recovery

3-beta-Coprostanol

Cholesterol

Bisphenol A

Recovery, in percent

Set spikerecovery

Matrix spikerecovery

0

50

200150100

Progesterones

Matrix spikerecovery

3-beta-Coprostanol

Cholesterol

Bisphenol A

EXPLANATION

90th percentile75th percentile50th percentile25th percentile10th percentile

Individual concentration for

compounds with less than 12 observations

Median concentration for 

compounds with less than 12 observations

Norethindrone

Progesterone

Norethindrone

Progesterone

Figure 7. Set spike and matrix spike recoveries for estuarine bed-sediment samples analyzed for steroid hormones during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.
Methods 29

Replicate Samples

Laboratory and field replicates were analyzed as part of 

the determination of steroid hormones in bed sediment. Six 

field replicates, each consisting of a second sample collected 

independently at the same location as an environmental 

sample, were analyzed to assess the combined variability of 

the field sample-collection methods and laboratory techniques. 

Laboratory replicates, which consist of splits of the same 

sample that were extracted separately, were analyzed to assess 

variability of laboratory techniques as well heterogeneity in 

the sample.

Analysis of the six field replicates yielded 23 paired 

concentration comparisons (with detections in both samples) 

and seven unpaired comparisons (with a detection in only 

one of the two samples). The median RPD for these analyses 

was 31 percent, with most (90 percent) of the differences 

being 80 percent or less (fig. 8). Analysis of the 11 laboratory 

replicates yielded 51 paired concentration comparisons and 

16 unpaired comparisons. The median RPD for the laboratory duplicates was 30 percent, with most (90 percent) of the 

differences being less than 130 percent. A nonparametric comparison of the median differences for the field and laboratory 

replicates showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level 

(fig. 8). Overall, these data indicate that the variability in analytical results due to differences in field collection of samples 

at the sites where replicates were collected was indistinguishable from the laboratory replicate variability.

EXPLANATION

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

Number of samples

Categories with different letters 

have significantly different 

medians (p-value greater 

than 0.05)

51

A

Field

Percent difference

Laboratory

Replicate type

23 51

A

0

40

80

120

160

A

Figure 8. Relative percent difference for field and laboratory 

replicates of estuarine bed-sediment samples analyzed for steroid 

hormones during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, 

June–October 2013.

Sediment Toxicity

Sediment toxicity for samples from 52 estuarine bed-sediment sites was determined at the USACE–ERDC laboratory 

(tables 25–30, on CD-ROM). Five field replicate samples also 

were analyzed to assess the variability of the field samplecollection method. The estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus 

plumulosus was used to determine percent survival, difference 

in biomass, individual dry weight following a 28-day exposure 

to bed-sediment samples, and reproductive effects. Reproductive effects were determined by calculating the amphipod 

survivor:neonate ratio. A laboratory control sample was 

analyzed with each sample batch. Three sample batches were 

analyzed along with three control samples. Summary results 

are reported in tables 25, 26, and 27, and endpoint and initial 

weight results for all three batches are reported in tables 28, 

29, and 30.

Results of the bed-sediment toxicity analyses on amphipods for the 28-day exposure to sediment samples in batch 

1 indicate a significant difference in the means for survival 

between the laboratory control sample and sample BB01 

(table 25). Mean biomass weight, individual dry weight, and 

reproductive effects were also significantly different between 

BB01 and the corresponding laboratory control sample. 

Results of the bed-sediment toxicity analyses on amphipods for the 28-day exposure to sediment samples in batch 2 

indicate a significant difference in the means for survival 

between the laboratory control sample and sample NOAA2, 

but this result was not duplicated in the replicate sample 

(table 26). Lack of duplication in replicate samples is most 

likely related to the method of replicate sample collection 

and (or) sediment heterogeneity (Daniel Farrar, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, written commun., 2014). Additionally, 

significant differences in mean biomass weight, individual 

dry weight, and reproductive effects were observed between 

NOAA2 and the corresponding laboratory control sample for 

this site.

Results of the bed-sediment toxicity analyses on amphipods for the 28-day exposure to sediment samples in batch 

3 indicate a significant difference in the means for survival 

between the laboratory control sample and samples BHB01 

and HHB01. These results were not duplicated in the replicate 

sample, likely as a result of the sampling method and (or) 

sediment heterogeneity (table 27). Significant differences were 

determined in mean biomass weight between the laboratory 

control sample and GSB06, HHB01, and BHB01 (result not 

duplicated in replicate sample, likely as a result of the sampling method). Additionally, GSB06 and the laboratory control 

sample were significantly different with respect to the means 

for individual dry weight and reproductive effects.

X-Ray Fluorescence

XRF results for major and trace elements in samples 

from 166 estuarine bed-sediment sampling sites are reported 

in tables 31 and 32 (on CD-ROM), respectively. Eleven field 
30 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

replicate samples also were analyzed to assess the variability 

of the field sample-collection method. XRF results for major 

and trace elements with an atomic number greater than 12 

(magnesium) are shown. These data represent heterogeneous 

material and may be biased as a result of the presence of large 

shells or pebbles, which can increase the concentration of 

calcium and silica, respectively. 

The errors in XRF measurements are reported in tables 31 

and 32 as twice the standard deviation (two sigma). Measurement errors are limited to the error associated with instrument 

performance and do not reflect the variability of the sample 

resulting from its heterogeneity. The LOD for any particular 

element is equivalent to three sigma, is matrix dependent, and 

therefore is calculated for each element in each sample. 

Almost all the “balance” values reported in tables 31 and 

32 exceed 600,000 ppm (equivalent to greater than 60 percent 

by weight). These high balance values show that the combined 

concentrations of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, and sodium are large in all the samples. Most likely the 

sodium concentration is substantial in all the samples given 

that any seawater present was evaporated and the resultant 

brine solidified. This hypothesis is supported by the high chloride values observed throughout the dataset.

Bed sediment analyzed in this screening effort was dominated by silica, aluminum, and, in some cases, iron. The following correlations were noted in the data: (1) Silica and aluminum concentrations have a strong inverse correlation, which 

indicates that samples high in aluminum are clay-rich whereas 

samples high in silica are dominated by quartz; (2) potassium 

and aluminum concentrations are strongly correlated, indicating that most of the potassium is occupying sites in clay 

and feldspar minerals; (3) iron has a positive correlation with 

aluminum, chromium, arsenic, sulfur, and zinc; (4) aluminum 

correlates positively with potassium, chromium, vanadium, 

titanium, and thallium; and (5) titanium and vanadium display 

a strong positive correlation with each other. In addition to the 

correlations noted above, manganese and iron concentrations 

are elevated in some samples, and elevated concentrations of 

calcium are likely derived from the abundant shell material in 

the samples. 

Standard performance was monitored with NIST 

SRM 2710 of highly elevated trace-element concentrations 

in Montana soil. This standard was chosen because it was 

deemed most similar to sediments in the study area. Performance for major and trace elements was variable (tables 33

and 34, respectively; on CD-ROM). Concentrations of most 

major elements had percent differences (offsets) of 5 to 10 percent from the standard. The differences for aluminum and 

titanium were more than 20 percent, and those for phosphorus 

and sulfur exceeded 100 percent. For trace-element concentrations, the percent differences from the standard for half the 

elements were in the range of 5 to 25 percent. Differences for 

copper, lead, and zinc were all less than 5 percent. Errors for 

other elements, such as chromium and nickel, ranged from 50 

to more than 400 percent (table 34). 

Attenuated Total Reflectance–Fourier Transform 

Infrared Spectroscopy

Baseline-corrected ATR–FTIR spectra for samples collected from 167 estuarine bed-sediment sampling sites are 

reported in table 35 (on CD-ROM). Twenty-one field replicate 

samples also were analyzed to assess the variability of the 

field sample-collection method. The mineral content of all 

samples was dominated by large silicon-oxygen bands indicative of quartz and aluminosilicates, and some carbonates; these 

observations corroborate the mineralogy determined by XRF 

and XRD analysis. Organic functional group identification was 

largely masked by large absorbances caused by an abundance 

of inorganic compounds and a smaller representation of 

organic functional groups. The lack of evidence supporting 

the presence of organic amines, proteins, and aromatic and 

unsaturated hydrocarbons may result from a combination of 

compound volatility, sample drying at 30 °C, the unextracted 

nature of the samples, or the absence of compounds bearing 

these functional groups. However, two separate weak aliphatic 

carbon-hydrogen stretching bands were frequently observed 

between 2,800 and 3,000 cm-1. It is not clear whether lowconcentration unsaturated and (or) aromatic functionality 

existed given (1) the weak absorptions that occur at wavenumbers greater than 3,000 to 3,100 cm-1 and (2) the interference 

of carbonate and silica bands in the fingerprint and aromatic 

regions (for example, 400–1,600 cm-1), which would overlap 

where stronger unsaturated/aromatic bands typically occur. 

Additional sample treatment is needed to fully resolve 

identification of bands at approximately 1,430 and 1,640 cm-1 

and to determine whether they represent organic, inorganic, 

or mixed functional groups. Absorptions at about 1,640 cm-1, 

when they occurred, were weak and broad, and did not 

strongly support the presence of carbonyl groups such as protein I and II amide bands (Abdel-Gawad and others, 2012), but 

this peak has been identified as a metal carboxylate (Oudghiri 

and others, 2014). However, the presence of weak-to-moderate 

absorption bands in the 1,430 and 1,640 cm-1 range in combination with silicon-oxygen bands and SiO–H stretching 

(approximately 3,600 cm-1) is also consistent with hydrated 

interlayer ammoniated aluminosilicate clays such as illites and 

smectites (Pironon and others, 2003). The presence of absorption bands at 712, 874, and 1,430 cm-1 has also been described 

as indicative of calcite (Moros and others, 2010).

X-Ray Diffraction

The quantitative mineralogy for 13 bed-sediment samples 

is given in table 36 (on CD-ROM). All the samples contain 

abundant quartz, feldspar, and calcite with minor amounts 

of pyrite, halite, aragonite (formed by biological and physical processes in marine and freshwater environments), and 

clay minerals (chlorite, illite, illite-smectite, and kaolinite). 

The sample mineralogy ranges from silica-rich (high quartz 
Methods 31

content—for example, 89 percent for the sample collected 

at site JB701) to clay-rich (for example, 32 percent for the 

sample collected at site NOAA1).

Estrogenicity, Androgenicity, Glucocorticoids, 

and Protein Phosphatase 2A Inhibition

Bioassays conducted for this study measure perturbations 

in steroid hormones (estrogens and androgens), glucocorticoid hormones, and protein phosphatase 2A. These hormones 

govern major physiological functions in mammals and other 

vertebrates. Bioassay data can be used along with chemical 

data for evaluating toxicity and other contaminant effects. 

Inhibition of Yeast Bioreporter Assays

Inhibition of the bioreporter by the bed-sediment extracts 

was evaluated by screening 1:80 dilutions of extract with 

strain BLYR. This strain constitutively expresses the bioluminescent reporter. Although a reduction in bioluminescence 

may indicate overt toxicity, it may also indicate alterations 

in the bioreporter cellular biochemistry. In either case, such 

a reduction indicates the presence of analytes in an extract 

that will affect the relation of the bioreporter to control 

samples. Here, inhibition of the bioreporter was observed 

in all samples. The range of inhibition was 5 to 89 percent. 

Average inhibition of the sediment samples screened at this 

dilution was 61 percent. Average inhibition by the Ottawa 

Sand blank and the spiked Ottawa Sand blanks was 25 and 

33 percent, respectively. 

Nuclear Receptor Reporter Quality Control

Hormone standards were spiked into 1:80 dilutions of 

Ottawa Sand blank, Instant Ocean®, and samples collected at 

sites UH401 (81 percent inhibitory) and NB459 (5 percent 

inhibitory) to evaluate the effects of these matrices of EC50

and general kinetics of the bioreporter (table 37, on CD-ROM; 

fig. 9). Variability was observed in the LOD, EC50, and kinetics of the bioreporter response to standards. This relation 

differed among the assays as well. Inhibition of the bioreporter 

was observed in samples spiked with all bioactive compound 

standards. A dose response was observed and is likely associated with the presence of diazinon in the standard. 

Nuclear Receptor Activation

A total of 145 bed-sediment samples were screened 

for estrogen, androgen, or glucocorticoid activity (table 38, 

on CD-ROM). Table 38 also shows results for 13 field 

replicate samples, which were analyzed to assess the variability of the field sample-collection method. On the basis of 

unknown interferences with bioreporter kinetics and indicated 

by the quality-control measures, nuclear receptor activation is reported here as detected or not detected. The LOD 

varied with the individual sample matrix, but determination 

of the LOD on a per sample basis was beyond the scope of 

this screening. Of the 158 samples screened, 9.5, 17.1, and 

4.4 percent were positive for estrogenic, androgenic, and glucocorticoid activity, respectively. By design, false positives are 

exceptionally rare in these yeast reporter assays. The positives 

identified here are highly unlikely to be artifacts; rather, it is 

more likely that this dataset included a number of false negatives. These samples were diluted 1:80 to reduce the effect 

of bioreporter inhibition. The EC50 values for the estrogen, 

androgen, and glucocorticoid assays were 233 pM, 15 nM, 

and 29 nM, respectively—that is, the sensitivity of the estrogen assay was greater than that of the androgen or glucocorticoid assay. Although these data are useful for guiding further 

investigation, additional optimization of sample preparation 

is needed for these bioassays to be reliable screening tools in 

which estimated equivalency concentrations can be assigned.

Inhibition of Protein Phosphatase 2A

The PP2A assay used in this study is available as a 

quantitative assay for PP2A inhibitors such as microcystins, 

nodularins, and okadaic acids in surface water; however, to 

our knowledge this is the first use of this assay in extracts 

of estuarine bed sediments. Unamended Ottawa Sand was 

extracted in each set of samples where no inhibition was measured above the minimum reporting level (MRL) of the assay 

(MRL 0.25 μg/L as microcystin-LR). Unamended extracts 

of NIST 1944 sediment were used as a pre-Hurricane Sandy 

NY/NJ Harbor certified reference material in each extraction 

run; all results were positive for PP2A inhibition, with a mean 

concentration of 1.52 μg/L as microcystin-LR (RPD 3.5 percent, n=10). Unamended blank water with up to 10 percent 

methanol and 36 grams per liter (g/L) of Instant Ocean®

were examined to ensure that residual solvent from exchange 

and extracted salinity would not cause false positives in the 

PP2A assay. Microcystin-LR positive controls (1 μg/L) were 

analyzed with each run to evaluate assay performance and 

had a mean microcystin-LR concentration of 1.03 μg/L (RPD 

4.9 percent, n=52). Microcystin-LR-amended Ottawa Sand 

extracts tested positive for PP2A inhibition. No false positives 

were observed as a result of the addition of up to 10 percent 

methanol or the increase in salinity resulting from the addition 

of up to 36 g/L of Instant Ocean®. 

Samples from 164 bed-sediment sampling sites were 

analyzed for PP2A inhibition (table 38). Fifteen field replicate samples also were analyzed to assess the variability of 

the field sample-collection method. Binary PP2A inhibition 

results were positive (+) for 96 percent (n=180) of samples 

(MRL 0.25 μg/L as microcystin-LR). After serial dilution of 

up to 1:40 of a subset of positive extracts, some samples still 

showed positive PP2A inhibition, indicating that the initial 

detections were not false positives. Additional work is needed 

to confirm the detections, however, and to understand how 

matrix effects and the extraction process might influence the 

future presentation of quantitative sample extract results. 

Microcystin-LR recovery/quantitation appeared to be sample 

dependent as a result of matrix effects. 
32 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

800

600

400

200

0

Value, in normalized relative light units Value, in normalized relative light units Value, in normalized relative light units

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0 0.5

Log concentration of dihydrotestosterone, in nanomoles per liter

Log concentration of 17β-estradiol, in nanomoles per liter

Log concentration of deoxycorticosterone, in nanomoles per liter

Growth medium control

5-percent Instant Ocean®

Ottawa Sand

Sample UH401

Sample NB459

EXPLANATION

Growth medium control

5-percent Instant Ocean®

Ottawa Sand

Sample UH401

Sample NB459

EXPLANATION

Growth medium control

5-percent Instant Ocean®

Ottawa Sand

Sample UH401

Sample NB459

EXPLANATION

A

B

C

Figure 9. Kinetics of A, the strain BLYES (estrogen receptor activation); B, the strain DST-1555 

(androgen receptor activation); and C, the strain MCY-098 (glucocorticoid receptor activation) in the 

presence of 1:80 dilutions of different matrices.
References Cited 33

References Cited 

Abdel-Gawad, F.K., Ibrahim, H.S., Ammar, N.S., and Ibrahim, 

M., 2012, Spectroscopic analysis of pollutants in water, 

sediment and fish. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular 

and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, v. 97, p. 771–777.

Abraxis, LLC, Microcystins/Nodularins PP2A, Microtiter 

Plate, test for the detection of microcystins and nodularins 

in water, accessed May 26, 2014, at http://www.abraxiskits.

com/uploads/products/docfiles/371_APP2A%20PL%20

Users%20Guide.pdf.

Adams, D.A., and Benyi, Sandra, 2003, Sediment quality of 

the NY/NJ Harbor system: A 5-year revisit—An investigation under the Regional Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment Program (REMAP): Edison, N.J., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency—Region 2, EPA/902-

R-03-002.

An, J., and Carmichael, W.W., 1994, Use of a colorimetric 

protein phosphatase inhibition assay and enzyme linked 

immunosorbent assay for the study of microcystins and 

nodularins: Toxicon, v. 32, p. 1495–1507.

Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T., and Witmer, R.E., 

1976, A land use and land cover classification system for 

use with remote sensor data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, 28 p., http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/

anderson.pdf. 

Balsiger, H.A., de la Torre, R., Lee, W.-Y., and Cox, M.B., 

2010, A four-hour yeast bioassay for the direct measure of 

estrogenic activity in wastewater without sample extraction, 

concentration, or sterilization: Science of the Total Environment, v. 408, no. 6, p. 1422–1429.

Birnbaum, L.S., and Fenton, S.E., 2003, Cancer and developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors: Environmental 

Health Perspectives, v. 111, no. 4, p. 389–394. 

Bonnevie, N.L., Huntley, S.L., Found, B.W., and Wenning, 

R.J., 1994, Trace metal contamination in surficial sediments from Newark Bay, New Jersey: Science of The Total 

Environment, v. 144, iss. 1–3, p. 1–16, DOI: 10.1016/0048-

9697(94)90423-5.

Bopp, R.F., Simpson, H.J., Chillrud, S.N., and Robinson, 

D.W., 1993, Sediment-derived chronologies of persistent 

contaminants in Jamaica Bay, New York: Estuaries, v. 16, 

iss. 3, p. 608–616.

Bouaïcha, N., Maatouk, I., Vincent, G., and Levi, Y., 2002, 

A colorimetric and fluorometric microplate assay for the 

detection of microcystin-LR in drinking water without 

preconcentration: Food and Chemical Toxicology, v. 40, 

p. 1677–1683.

Burkhardt, M.R., Zaugg, S.D., Smith, S.G., and ReVello, R.C., 

2006, Determination of wastewater compounds in sediment and soil by pressurized solvent extraction, solid-phase 

extraction, and capillary-column gas chromatography/

mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

and Methods, book 5, chap. B2, 40 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/

tm/2006/tm5b2/.

Buxton, H.T., Andersen, M.E., Focazio, M.J., Haines, J.W., 

Hainly, R.A., Hippe, D.J., and Sugarbaker, L.J., 2013, Meeting the science needs of the Nation in the wake of Hurricane 

Sandy—A U.S. Geological Survey science plan for support 

of restoration and recovery: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1390, 26 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1390/.

Casals-Casas, Cristina, and Desvergne, Béatrice, 2011, Endocrine disruptors: from endocrine to metabolic disruption: 

Annual Review of Physiology, v. 73, p. 135–162, DOI: 

10.1146/annurev-physiol-012110-142200.

Chen, Y.-M., Lee, T.-H., Lee, S.-J., Huang, H.-B., Huang, R., 

and Chou, H.-N., 2006, Comparison of protein phosphatase 

inhibition activities and mouse toxicities of microcystins: 

Toxicon, v. 47, p. 742–746.

Ciparis, S., Iwanowicz, L.R., and Voshell, J.R., 2012, Effects 

of watershed densities of animal feeding operations on 

nutrient concentrations and estrogenic activity in agricultural streams: Science of Total Environment, v. 414, 

p. 268–276.

Eberl, D.D., 2003, User’s guide to RockJock—a program for 

determining quantitative mineralogy from powder X-ray 

diffraction data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2003–78, 47 p.

Escher, B.I., Allinson, M., Altenburger, R., Bain, P.A., 

Balaguer, P., Busch, W., Crago, J., Denslow, N.D., Dopp, 

E., Hilscherova, K., Humpage, A.R., Kumar, A., Grimaldi, 

M., Jayasinghe, B.S., Jarosova, B., Jia, A., Makarov, S., 

Maruya, K.A., Medvedev, A., Mehinto, A.C., Mendez, 

J.E., Poulsen, A., Prochazka, E., Richard, J., Schifferlie, A., 

Schlenk, D., Scholz, S., Shiraishi, F., Snyder, S., Su, G., 

Tang, J.T.M., van der Burg, B., van der Linden, S.C., Werner, I., Westerheide, S.D., Wong, C.K.C., Yang, M., Yeung, 

B.H.Y., Zhang, X., and Leusch, F.D.L., 2014, Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water 

and drinking water in vitro bioassays: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 48, p. 1940–1956.

Federal Emergency Management Agency—Modeling Task 

Force, 2013, Final high resolution–field-verified Hurricane 

Sandy storm surge data for New York and New Jersey, 

accessed December 2, 2013, at http://184.72.33.183/

GISData/MOTF/Hurricane%20Sandy/.
34 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

Foreman, W.T., Gray, J.L., ReVello, R.C., Lindley, C.E., Losche, S.A., and Barber, L.B., 2012, Determination of steroid 

hormones and related compounds in filtered and unfiltered 

water by solid-phase extraction, derivatization, and gas 

chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, sec. B, 

chap. 9, 118 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/5b9/.

Franchimont, D., 2004, Overview of the actions of glucocorticoids on the immune response: a good model to characterize 

new pathways of immunosuppression for new treatment 

strategies: Annual, N.Y. Academy of Sciences, v. 1024, 

p. 124–137.

Gee, G.W., and Or, D., 2002, Particle-size analysis, in Dane, 

J.H., and Topp, G.C., eds., Methods of soil analysis, 

Part 4—physical methods: Madison, Wisc., Soil Science 

Society of America, Soil Science Society of America Book 

Series no. 5, p. 255–293.

Gilver, S.C., 2010, Sex steroids as inflammatory regulators: The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, v. 120, no. 2–3, p. 105–115. doi: 10.1016/j.

jsbmb.2009.12.015.

Graham, J.L., Loftin, K.A., Meyer, M.T., and Ziegler, A.C., 

2010, Cyanotoxin mixtures and taste-and-odor compounds 

in cyanobacterial blooms from the midwestern United 

States: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 44, 

p. 7361–7368.

Hall, G., Buchar, A., and Bonham-Carter, G., 2012, Quality 

Control Assessment of Portable XRF Analyzers: development of standard operating procedures, performance 

on variable media and recommended uses: Sudbury, 

Canada, Canadian Mining Industry Research Organization 

(CAMIRO) Exploration Division, CAMIRO Project 10E01 

Phase 1. 

Hladik, M.L., Orlando J.L., and Kuivila, K.M., 2009, Collection of pyrethroids in water and sediment matrices: development and validation of a standard operating procedure: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2009–5012, 22 p., accessed September 3, 2013, at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5012/.

Jin, S., Yang, L., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Fry, J., and Xian, 

G., 2013, A comprehensive change detection method for 

updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011: 

Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 132, p. 159–175.

Karantanos, T., Corn, P.G., and Thompson, T.C., 2013, Prostate cancer progression after androgen deprivation therapy: 

mechanisms of castrate resistance and novel therapeutic 

approaches: Oncogene, v. 32, p. 5501–5511.

Karuppiah, M., and Gupta, G., 1998, Chronological changes 

in toxicity of and heavy metals in sediments of two Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Journal of Hazardous Materials., 

v. 59, p. 159–166.

Kenward, A., Yawitz, D., and Raja, U., 2013, Sewage overflows from Hurricane Sandy: Princeton, N.J., Climate 

Central, accessed December 2, 2013, at http://www.

climatecentral.org/pdfs/Sewage.pdf.

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., 

Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., and Buxton, H.T., 2002, Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, no. 6, 

p. 1202–1211. DOI: 10.1021/es011055j.

Lauenstein, G.G., and Cantillo, A.Y.,1993, Sampling and analytical methods of the National Status and Trends Program 

National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch projects, 

1984–1992 (v. 71): U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean 

Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and 

Assessment, Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment 

Division, 157 p.

Melmed, S., Polonsky, K.S., Reed Larsen, P., and Kronenberg, 

H.M., 2011, Williams textbook of endocrinology (12th ed.): 

Cambridge, Mass., Elsevier Health Sciences, 1904 p. 

Moros, J., Cassella, R.J., Barciela-Alonso, M.C., MoredaPińeiro, A., Herbello-Hermelo, P., Bermejo-Barrera, P., Garrigues, S., and de la Guardia, M., 2010, Estuarine sediment 

quality assessment by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy: Vibrational Spectroscopy, v. 53, p. 204–213.

Munk, A., Guvre, P.M., and Holbrook, N.J., 1984, Physiological functions of glucocorticoids in stress and their relation 

to pharmacological actions: Endocrine Reviews. v. 5, no. 1, 

p. 25–44.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 

2013, Division of Environmental Remediation 2012/2013 

annual report, accessed December 2, 2013, at http://www.

dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/derannualreport.

pdf. 

O’Connor, D.B. , Archer, John, and Wu, F.C.W., 2004, Effects 

of testosterone on mood, aggression, and sexual behavior 

in young men: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, v. 89, no. 6, p. 2837–2845.

Oliver, C.J., and Shenolikar, S., 1998, Physiologic importance 

of protein phosphatase inhibitors: Frontiers in Biosciences, 

v. 3, p. 961–972.
References Cited 35

Oudghiri, F., García-Morales, J.L., Rodríguez-Barroso, M.R., 

2014, Rapid screening of estuarine sediments properties using thermogravimetric analysis and attenuated total 

reflectance (ATR) by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) 

spectrometry: Water Air Soil Pollution, v. 225, no. 1853, 

p. 1–10.

Pironon, J., Pelletier, M., de Donato, P., and Mosser-Ruck, 

R., 2003, Characterization of smectite and illite by FTIR 

spectroscopy of interlayer NH4+ cations: Clay Minerals, v. 

38, p. 201–211.

Price, V.H., 2003, Androgenic alopecia in women: Journal of 

Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings, v. 8, 

p. 24–27, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12168.x.

R Development Core Team, 2010, R—A language and environment for statistical computing:Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, accessed December 2, 

2013, at http://www.R-project.org.

Radtke, D.B., revised June 2005, Bottom-material samples: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A8, accessed September 3, 

2013, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

Romanok, K.M., Reilly, T.J., Lopez, A.R., Trainor, J.J., 

Hladik, M.L., Stanley, J.K., and Farrar, Daniel, 2014, 

Characterization of selected bed-sediment-bound organic 

and inorganic contaminants and toxicity, Barnegat Bay and 

major tributaries, New Jersey, 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 867, 51 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds867.

Sanseverino, J., Eldridge, M.L., Layton, A.C., Easter, J.P., 

Yarbrough, J., Schultz, T.W., Sayler, G.S., 2009, Screening 

potentially hormonally active chemicals using bioluminescent yeast bioreporters: Toxicological Sciences, v. 107, 

no. 1, p. 122–134. 

Schenck, K., Rosenblum, L., Wiese, T.E., Wymer, L., Dugan, 

N., Williams, D., Mash, H., Merriman, B., Speth, T., 2012, 

Removal of estrogens and estrogenicity through drinking water treatment: Journal of Water and Health, v. 10, 

p. 43–55.

Singh, Rajan, Artaza, J.N., Taylor, W.E., Braga, Melissa, 

Yuan, Xin, Gonzalez-Cadavid, N.F., and Bhasin, Shalender, 2006, Testosterone inhibits adipogenic differentiation 

in 3T3-L1 cells: nuclear translocation of androgen receptor complex with β-catenin and T-cell factor 4 may bypass 

canonical Wnt signaling to down-regulate adipogenic transcription factors: Endocrinology, v. 147, no. 1, p. 141–154.

Sivakumar, S., Ravisankar, R., Raghu, Y., Chandrasekaran, 

A., and Chandramohan, J., 2012, FTIR spectroscopic studies on coastal sediment samples from Cuddalore district, 

Tamilnadu, India: Indian Journal of Advances in Chemical 

Science, v. 1, p. 40–46.

Stavreva, D.A., George, A.A., Klausmeyer, P., Varticovski, L., 

Sack, D., Voss, T.C., Schiltz, R.L., Blazer, V.S., Iwanowicz, 

L.R., and Hager, G.L., 2012, Prevalent glucocorticoid and 

androgen activity in U.S. water sources: Scientific Reports, 

v. 2, no. 937, p. 1–8.

Swingle, M., Ni, L., and Honkanen, R.E., 2007, Small molecule inhibitors of Ser/thr protein phosphatases: specificity, 

use and common forms of abuse: Methods of Molecular 

Biology, v. 365, p. 23–28.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014, Watershed Boundary Dataset for New 

Jersey and New York, accessed January 23, 2014, at http://

datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a, North American Industrial Classification System, accessed July 7, 2014, at http://www.

census.gov/eos/www/naics. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b, Standard Industrial Classification 

System, accessed July 7, 2014, at http://www.census.gov/

epcd/www/sic.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Office of Super 

Fund Remediation and Technology Innovation, USEPA 

Contract Laboratory Program, National functional guidelines for Superfund organic methods data review: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 540-R08-01.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Method 

6020A, Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

accessed June 12, 2014, at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/

testmethods/sw846/pdfs/6020a.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Method 245.7, 

Mercury in water by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency accessed June 12, 2014, at http://water.epa.gov/

scitech/methods/cwa/bioindicators/upload/2007_07_10_

methods_method_245_7.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001a, Methods 

for collection, storage and manipulation of sediments for 

chemical and toxicological analyses: Technical manual: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, EPA 823-B-01-002, accessed June 13, 

2014, at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/sediments/cs/upload/

collectionmanual.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001b, Methods for 

assessing the chronic toxicity of marine and estuarine sediment-associated contaminants with the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-01/020, accessed September 

13, 2013, at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/sediments/cs/

upload/guidancemanual.pdf.
36 Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Method 8270C, 

Semi-volatile organic compounds by gas chromatograph/

mass spectrometry (GS/MS): Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed June 13, 2014, at 

http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/8270c.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983, Methods for 

chemical analysis of water and wastes: Cincinnati, Ohio, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Monitoring and Support Laboratory EPA-600/4-79-020, 

accessed June 13, 2014, at http://www.epa.gov/nscep/index.

html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, U.S. Geological Survey Office 

of Water Quality Technical Memorandum 2012.01, accessed 

October 28, 2014, at http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/

QW/qw12.01.pdf.

Valdiglesias, V., Prego-Faraldo, M.V., Pásaro, E., Méndez, J., 

and Laffon, B., 2013, Review: okadaic acid: more than a 

diarrheic toxin: Marine Drugs, v. 11, p. 4328–4349.

Westerhoff, P., Yoon, Y., Snyder, S., and Wert, E., 2005, Fate 

of endocrine-disruptor, pharmaceutical, and personal care 

product chemicals during simulated drinking water treatment processes: Environmental Science & Technology, 

v. 39, p. 6649–6663.

Young, R.A., ed., 1995, The Rietveld Method: International 

Union of Crystallography Monographs #5: New York, 

Oxford University Press, 298 p.

Zhang, Q.Q., Zhao, J.L., Ying, G.G., Liu, Y.S., and Pan, C.G., 

2014, Emission estimation and multimedia fate modeling of seven steroids at the river basin scale in China: 

accessed July 2, 2014, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pubmed/24964360.
Table 3 37

Table 3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.—Continued[Map location number refers to figures 2 and 3. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; REMAP, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; NCCA, National Coastal Condition Assessment; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NJ, New Jersey; NY, New York; NA, not applicable]

Site code

Map 

location 

number

USGS station 

number

State 

code USGS site name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Method1 Sampling agency Associated historical data

Cape May region

NCA10-1625/BBC/SJ10 1 390551074455201 NJ Great Sound near Avalon, NJ 39.0975 -74.7645 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS/EPA Region 2 2EPA NCCA 2006/2010

BBE/SJ13 2 385758074522301 NJ Jarvis Sound near Flower Mound, NJ 38.9660 -74.8730 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006BBG/SJ11 3 390235074470201 NJ Dung Thorofare near Nummy Island, NJ 39.0430 -74.7840 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006BBH/SJ12 4 390213074484701 NJ Turtle Gut near Grassy Sound, NJ 39.0370 -74.8130 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006BBM/SJ9 5 390920074421401 NJ Ludlum Thorofare near 47th Place at Sea Isle City, NJ 39.1557 -74.7040 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

Atlantic City region

NCA10-1616/BBA/SJ7 6 391750074363001 NJ Great Egg Harbor Bay near Drag Island, NJ 39.2973 -74.6084 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS/EPA Region 2 2EPA NCCA 2010NCA10-1623/BBB/SJ6 7 392302074305701 NJ Lakes Bay near Pleasantville, NJ 39.3839 -74.5159 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS/EPA Region 2 2EPA NCCA 2010BBL/SJ8 8 391637074371201 NJ Peck Bay at Beesley’s Point, NJ 39.2770 -74.6200 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006

Great Bay region

NCA10-2622/BBD/SJ2 9 393027074201101 NJ Great Bay Shooting Thorofare near Fish Island, NJ 39.5076 -74.3365 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2010BBF/SJ1 10 393210074231701 NJ Great Bay near Graveling Point, NJ 39.5360 -74.3880 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006BBI/SJ4 11 392700074233101 NJ Little Bay near Pearch Cove, NJ 39.4500 -74.3920 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006BBJ/SJ3 12 392823074231301 NJ Main Marsh Thorofare near Hammock Cove at EBFNWR, NJ 39.4730 -74.3870 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006BBK/SJ5 13 392346074254801 NJ Absecon Channel at Mankiller Bay near Atlantic City, NJ 39.3960 -74.4300 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006NOAA9 14 393215074231001 NJ Great Bay near Bogans Cove, NJ 39.5375 -74.3861 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel WatchNCA10-1615 15 393253074283001 NJ Great Bay EPA NCCA site NCA10-1615 39.5481 -74.4751 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 2EPA NCCA 2010

Barnegat Bay region

BB01 16 01408168 NJ Barnegat Bay at Mantoloking, NJ 40.0400 -74.0522 A,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB02 17 395839074055401 NJ Barnegat Bay near Lavallette, NJ 39.9776 -74.0985 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB03 18 395653074060501 NJ Barnegat Bay 700 feet north of Route 37 Bridge, NJ 39.9482 -74.1015 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB05A 19 395458074063401 NJ Barnegat Bay between Ocean Gate & South Seaside Park, NJ 39.9158 -74.1094 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB06 20 395109074060701 NJ Barnegat Bay 1.2 miles south of Cedar Creek mouth, NJ 39.8526 -74.1021 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB07A 21 394805074092601 NJ Barnegat Bay 0.5 miles south of Oyster Creek mouth, NJ 39.8013 -74.1571 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB09 22 394433074085201 NJ Barnegat Bay 2 miles south of Barnegat Inlet, NJ 39.7426 -74.1479 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB10 23 393939074122301 NJ Manakawkin Bay 800 feet south of Route 72 Bridge, NJ 39.6610 -74.2065 A,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB11 24 393731074140801 NJ Little Egg Harbor 0.8 miles north of Westecunk Creek mouth, NJ 39.6254 -74.2357 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

BB13 25 393408074192801 NJ Little Egg Harbor near mouth of Tuckerton Creek, NJ 39.5690 -74.3246 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS Romanok and others, 2014

MANA1 26 0140804850 NJ Watson Creek at mouth at Manasquan, NJ 40.1086 -74.0447 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

MANA2 27 01408049 NJ Lake Louise at Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 40.0970 -74.0398 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

NOAA3 28 01408161 NJ Metedeconk River near Island Drive near Metedeconk, NJ 40.0549 -74.1038 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch

NOAA4 29 01408718 NJ Toms River near Kilpatrick Point near Toms River, NJ 39.9490 -74.1911 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel WatchNOAA10 30 393837074144901 NJ Little Egg Harbor near Drum Point, NJ 39.6436 -74.2469 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch
38 Estuarine Bed-Sediment Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013 Table 3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.—Continued [Map location number refers to figures 2 and 3. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; REMAP, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; NCCA, National Coastal Condition Assessment; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NJ, New Jersey; NY, New York; NA, not applicable] Site code Map location number USGS station number State code USGS site name Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude (decimal degrees) Method1 Sampling agency Associated historical data Northeast New Jersey shore region NAV1 31 01407540 NJ Navesink River near Oceanic Bridge at Rumson, NJ 40.3810 -74.0110 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2006 NAV2 32 01407533 NJ Navesink River at Coopers Bridge near Red Bank, NJ 40.3572 -74.0766 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2010 NOAA1 33 01407539 NJ Navesink River below McClees Creek near Fairview, NJ 40.3737 -74.0392 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch NOAA2 34 01407605 NJ Shrewsbury River at Highlands, NJ 40.3990 -73.9811 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch SHARK1 35 01407768 NJ Musquash Brook at Neptune City, NJ 40.1944 -74.0357 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact SHREW1 36 01407598 NJ Shrewsbury River near Gunning Island at Sea Bright, NJ 40.3559 -73.9752 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2010 SHREW2 37 01407588 NJ Troutmans Creek at mouth at Branchport, NJ 40.3170 -73.9950 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2005 Lower Harbor/Raritan Bay region RB401 38 403424073563301 NY Rockaway Inlet near Manhattan Beach, NY 40.5733 -73.9425 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB402 39 403056074062001 NY Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB402 40.5155 -74.1055 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB403 40 402534074004301 NJ Sandy Hook Bay EPA REMAP site RB403 40.4260 -74.0120 A,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB404 41 402851074132001 NY Raritan Bay near Tottenville, NY 40.4808 -74.2222 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB405 42 402726074071401 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB405 40.4572 -74.1206 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB406 43 403240074015901 NY Lower NY Harbor EPA REMAP site RB406 40.5445 -74.0331 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB407 44 403516074021101 NY Lower NY Harbor EPA REMAP site RB407 40.5877 -74.0365 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB408 45 402952074104201 NY Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB408 40.4977 -74.1784 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB409 46 403059074050901 NY Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB409 40.5163 -74.0858 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB410 47 402839074032101 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB410 40.4775 -74.0559 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB411 48 402739074064701 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB411 40.4608 -74.1131 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB413 49 403508074013801 NY Lower NY Harbor EPA REMAP site RB413 40.5855 -74.0271 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB414 50 403251074061901 NY Lower New York Bay near Oakwood Beach, NY 40.5475 -74.1053 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB416 51 402841074054801 NJ Sandy Hook Bay near Keansburg, NJ 40.4780 -74.0965 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB450 52 403059074002801 NY Lower NY Harbor EPA REMAP site RB450 40.5164 -74.0078 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB451 53 403040074073301 NY Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB451 40.5111 -74.1258 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB453 54 402530074021701 NJ Sandy Hook Bay EPA REMAP site RB453 40.4250 -74.0381 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB454 55 402936074093701 NY Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB454 40.4934 -74.1603 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB455 56 402956074031701 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB455 40.4990 -74.0548 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB456 57 402755074100201 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB456 40.4653 -74.1671 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB457 58 403352074030901 NY Lower New York Bay near Swinburne Island, NY 40.5644 -74.0525 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB458 59 403140073584401 NY Lower New York Bay near Rockaway Point, NY 40.5278 -73.9789 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB460 60 402845074075101 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB460 40.4792 -74.1308 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 RB461 61 403422073544401 NY Lower NY Harbor EPA REMAP site RB461 40.5728 -73.9121 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

RB462 62 402447073592201 NJ Shrewsbury River near Highlands, NJ 40.4132 -73.9894 A,E,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013RB463 63 402922074050901 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB463 40.4894 -74.0859 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013RB464 64 403139074011301 NY Lower NY Harbor EPA REMAP site RB464 40.5276 -74.0203 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013RB465 65 402736074093201 NJ Raritan Bay EPA REMAP site RB465 40.4599 -74.1589 A,F,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013
Table 3 39

Table 3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.—Continued[Map location number refers to figures 2 and 3. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; REMAP, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; NCCA, National Coastal Condition Assessment; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NJ, New Jersey; NY, New York; NA, not applicable]

Site code

Map 

location 

number

USGS station 

number

State 

code USGS site name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Method1 Sampling agency Associated historical data

Newark Bay region

NB401 66 403954074082701 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB401 40.6650 -74.1408 A,F,G,H, EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

NB405 67 01392630 NJ Passaic River near Kearny Point, NJ 40.735900 -74.1173 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB406 68 404038074081401 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB406 40.6771 -74.1371 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB409 69 403310074144701 NJ Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB409 40.5529 -74.2464 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB410 70 403333074125801 NY Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB410 40.5592 -74.2161 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB412 71 404009074081601 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB412 40.6692 -74.1377 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB413 72 403836074095301 NY Newark Bay near Shooters Island, NY 40.6433 -74.1647 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB414 73 403451074122601 NY Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB414 40.5808 -74.2073 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB416 74 404116074080701 NJ Newark Bay at Port Newark, NJ 40.6879 -74.1354 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB418 75 403840074073001 NJ Kill van Kull at Bergen Point, NJ 40.644567 -74.1251 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

NB419 76 403331074140101 NJ Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB419 40.5587 -74.2336 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

NB423 77 403859074095401 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB423 40.6496 -74.1651 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB424 78 403621074121501 NY Arthur Kill near Pralls Island, NY 40.6058 -74.2042 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB425 79 404328074060301 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB425 40.7244 -74.1008 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB426 80 404026074075001 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB426 40.6738 -74.1305 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB427 81 404218074070201 NJ Newark Bay near Oak Island Yards, NJ 40.7050 -74.1172 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB429 82 403100074151901 NJ Arthur Kill near Perth Amboy, NJ 40.5165 -74.2553 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB430 83 403242074145601 NY Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB430 40.5450 -74.2488 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB431 84 403938074081301 NJ Newark Bay at Bayone, NJ 40.6604 -74.1370 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB450 85 01392610 NJ Passaic River near Kearny, NJ 40.7402 -74.1409 E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB452 86 404123074065301 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB452 40.6896 -74.1146 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB453 87 403119074145301 NJ Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB453 40.5220 -74.2481 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB454 88 404055074072601 NJ Newark Bay EPA REMAP site NB454 40.6819 -74.1238 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB455 89 403643074115101 NY Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB455 40.6118 -74.1974 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB457 90 403024074152901 NY Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB457 40.5066 -74.2581 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB459 91 403629074115801 NY Arthur Kill EPA REMAP site NB459 40.6081 -74.1994 A,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NB461 92 403318074142501 NJ Arthur Kill near Woodbridge, NJ 40.5549 -74.2404 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

Upper Harbor region

NB407 93 403854074065701 NJ Kill van Kull EPA REMAP site NB407 40.6483 -74.1159 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH401 94 403941074004501 NY Upper New York Bay at Gowanus Bay, NY 40.6614 -74.0125 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH402 95 403659074034101 NY The Narrows near Rosebank, NY 40.6164 -74.0614 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH404 96 405155073562101 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH404 40.8652 -73.9392 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH408 97 404031074023601 NJ Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH408 40.6752 -74.0435 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH409 98 403719074035201 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH409 40.6220 -74.0645 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH411 99 405101073570201 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH411 40.8503 -73.9505 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH412 100 404810073483601 NY East River at Whitestone, NY 40.8028 -73.8100 E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013
40 Estuarine Bed-Sediment Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013 Table 3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.—Continued [Map location number refers to figures 2 and 3. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; REMAP, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; NCCA, National Coastal Condition Assessment; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NJ, New Jersey; NY, New York; NA, not applicable] Site code Map location number USGS station number State code USGS site name Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude (decimal degrees) Method1 Sampling agency Associated historical data Upper Harbor region—Continued UH413 101 404622073595301 NY Hudson River at West 57th Street at Manhattan, NY 40.7728 -73.9981 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH415 102 403816074035001 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH415 40.6377 -74.0639 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH416 103 404240074012401 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH416 40.7111 -74.0234 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH451 104 405417073550601 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH451 40.9048 -73.9184 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH452 105 403828074031901 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH452 40.6410 -74.0553 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH455 106 405021073570601 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH455 40.8392 -73.9518 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH456 107 404445074004101 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH456 40.7460 -74.0113 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH457 108 404905073575001 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH457 40.8181 -73.9638 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH459 109 405124073565001 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH459 40.8567 -73.9473 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH461 110 405135073570401 NJ Hudson River at Englewood Cliffs, NJ 40.8598 -73.9512 E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH463 111 404942073581101 NJ Hudson River at Edgewater, NJ 40.8283 -73.9697 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013 UH465 112 405335073560401 NJ Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH465 40.8931 -73.9344

G EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

UH466 113 403945074015701 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH466 40.6624 -74.0326 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH468 114 403935074014201 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH468 40.6597 -74.0283 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013UH469 115 405229073554901 NY Upper NY Harbor EPA REMAP site UH469 40.8747 -73.9304 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

Jamaica Bay region

JB401 116 403419073524501 NY Rockaway Inlet near Neponsit, NY 40.5719 -73.8792 A,E,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB403 117 403759073482301 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB403 40.6330 -73.8064 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB404 118 403628073532501 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB404 40.6079 -73.8902 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB405 119 403523073513201 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB405 40.5898 -73.8589 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB406 120 403543073481801 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB406 40.5952 -73.8050 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB407 121 403745073453101 NY Jamaica Bay Head of Bay near John F. Kennedy Airport, NY 40.6292 -73.7586 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB409 122 403621073470901 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB409 40.6057 -73.7857 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB410 123 403738073521201 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB410 40.6273 -73.8700 F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB415 124 403653073513401 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB415 40.6148 -73.8594 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB416 125 403804073522101 NY Jamaica Bay near Canarsie, NY 40.6344 -73.8725 A,E,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB417 126 403504073510901 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB417 40.5846 -73.8526 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB419 127 403430073520901 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB419 40.5751 -73.8692 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB422 128 403608073523701 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB422 40.6022 -73.8769 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB423 129 403534073521101 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB423 40.5927 -73.8698 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB454 130 403560073522601 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB454 40.5999 -73.8739 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB458 131 403453073515801 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB458 40.5815 -73.8662 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB459 132 403649073513901 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB459 40.6136 -73.8608 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB464 133 403654073463501 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB464 40.6150 -73.7764 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB466 134 403546073485701 NY Jamaica Bay near Broad Channel, NY 40.5961 -73.8158 A,E,F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB467 135 403631073525201 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB467 40.6087 -73.8812 F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013
Table 3 41

Table 3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.—Continued[Map location number refers to figures 2 and 3. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; REMAP, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; NCCA, National Coastal Condition Assessment; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NJ, New Jersey; NY, New York; NA, not applicable]

Site code

Map 

location 

number

USGS station 

number

State 

code USGS site name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Method1 Sampling agency Associated historical data

Jamaica Bay region—Continued

JB468 136 403505073505201 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB468 40.5847 -73.8478 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013

JB471 137 403837073503801 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB471 40.6437 -73.8439 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB472 138 403611073544701 NY Jamaica Bay Mill Basin near Flatlands, NY 40.6031 -73.9131 E,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB474 139 403604073471101 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB474 40.6011 -73.7865 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB480 140 403457073504801 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB480 40.5824 -73.8467 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB481 141 403649073520901 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB481 40.6135 -73.8692 F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB486 142 403429073524801 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB486 40.5738 -73.8790 A,F,G,H EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013JB487 143 403805073480901 NY Jamaica Bay EPA REMAP site JB487 40.6348 -73.8026 F,G,H,I EPA Region 2 4EPA REMAP 2008/2013NOAA5 144 403620073540101 NY Jamaica Bay near Mill Basin, NY 40.6053 -73.9003 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel WatchNOAA6 145 403408073525901 NY Jamaica Bay near Riis Landing, NY 40.5689 -73.8830 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch

Western Bays region

BHB01 146 403645073415901 NY Brosewere Bay in Hempstead Bay, NY 40.6126 -73.6986 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

BMB01 147 403723073351801 NY Baldwin Bay near Middle Bay, NY 40.6276 -73.5922 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

HHB01 148 403729073401501 NY Hewlett Bay in Hempstead Bay, NY 40.6237 -73.6714 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

RC01 149 403541073403401 NY Reynolds Channel north of Long Beach, NY 40.5943 -73.6772 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

RC02 150 403547073353001 NY Reynolds Channel near Long Meadow Island, NY 40.5948 -73.5956 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch

RC03 151 403550073381501 NY Reynolds Channel south of Garrett Marsh, NY 40.5977 -73.6373 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

Great South Bay region

GSB01 152 404357072573701 NY Greast South Bay near Howells Creek, NY 40.7320 -72.9598 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

GSB02 153 404139073004901 NY Great South Bay north of Davis Park, NY 40.6933 -73.0074 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2010

GSB03 154 404322073073301 NY Great South Bay near Connetquot River, NY 40.7227 -73.1260 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

GSB04 155 403908073092401 NY Great South Bay at Ocean Beach, NY 40.6540 -73.1571 B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

GSB05 156 404052073141601 NY Great South Bay east of Robert Moses Causeway, NY 40.6808 -73.2377 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA 2010

GSB06 157 404031073192901 NY Great South Bay south of Carlls River, NY 40.6781 -73.3261 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

GSB07 158 403715073245701 NY Great South Bay near West Gilgo Beach, NY 40.6220 -73.4150 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

MB01 159 402710072494601 NY Moriches Bay south of Mastic Beach, NY 40.7530 -72.8303 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact

MB02 160 404637072462301 NY Moriches Bay south of Terrell River, NY 40.7785 -72.7734 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel Watch

NOAA7 161 403851073100101 NY Great South Bay near Ocean Beach, NY 40.6474 -73.1669 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel WatchNOAA8 162 403841073150401 NY Great South Bay near Captree Marina, NY 40.6448 -73.2510 A,B,C,E,F,G,H,I USGS 3NOAA, Mussel WatchSOB01 163 403860073282401 NY South Oyster Bay near Massapequa Creek, NY 40.6478 -73.4754 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact
42 Estuarine Bed-Sediment Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013 Table 3. Station identification information for bed-sediment sites sampled in the harbors and bays in New Jersey and New York during the Hurricane Sandy reconnaissance study, June–October 2013.—Continued [Map location number refers to figures 2 and 3. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; REMAP, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; NCCA, National Coastal Condition Assessment; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NJ, New Jersey; NY, New York; NA, not applicable] Site code Map location number USGS station number State code USGS site name Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude (decimal degrees) Method1 Sampling agency Associated historical data Peconic Bay region FB01 164 405022072351401 NY Flanders Bay near Goose Creek Point, NY 40.9231 -72.5878 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact FB02 165 405448072343101 NY Flanders Bay near Red Cedar Point, NY 40.9134 -72.5752 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact FB03 166 405531072360701 NY Flanders Bay southeast of Reeves Creek, NY 40.9254 -72.6021 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS None. Added to inform regional impact PB01 167 405822072270001 NY Peconic Bay east of Robins Island, NY 40.9728 -72.4501 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I USGS 2EPA NCCA, 2010

1Type of analysis performed:

A, Particle grain-size analysis by optical diffraction using Coulter LS-230 Particle Size Analyzer (Gee and Or, 2002); U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California;

B, Total organic carbon by EPA Method 415.1 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983); EPA Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey;C, Trace metals by EPA Method 6020 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007); total mercury by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 245.7 (2005); Institute for Integrated Research in Materials, Environments and Society (IIRMES) Laboratory, Long Beach, California;D, Semivolatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyl congeners, and legacy organochlorine pesticides by EPA Method 8270C (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998); IIRMES; sediment toxicity analysis by EPA Method 600/R-01/020 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001b); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research Laboratory, Long Beach, California;E, Hormone analysis by solid-phase extraction, derivatization, and gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (Foreman and others, 2012); wastewater-compound analysis by pressurized solvent extraction, solid-phase extraction, and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Burkhardt and others, 2007); U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver, Colorado;F, Portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF) by Niton XL3t GOLDD+XRF Analyzer (Hall and others, 2012); U.S. Geological Survey Central Energy Science Center, Denver, Colorado;G, Attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) screening analysis (Oudghiri and others, 2014); U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory, Lawrence, Kansas;

H, Protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) by colorometric assay (An and Carmichael, 1994); U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory, Lawrence, Kansas;

I, Bioassay endocrine disruptors by bioluminescent yeast estrogen screen (Ciparis and others, 2012); U.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center, Kearneysville, West Virginia.

2http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/ncca.cfm.3http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/musselwatch.aspx.4http://www.epa.gov/emap2/remap/.
For additional information:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

3450 Princeton Pike, Suite 110

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

http://nj.usgs.gov/

Document prepared by the West Trenton Publishing Service Center
Fischer and others—Estuarine Bed-Sediment-Quality Data Collected in New Jersey and New York after Hurricane Sandy, 2013—Data Series 905

ISSN 2327-638X (online)

ISSN 2327-0271 (print)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds905.

ISBN 978-1-4113-3879-1

9 781411 338791