ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
FOR THE LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN AND
FOR THE SOUTH SHORE OF RARITAN BAY
FINAL
JUNE 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
FOR THE LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN AND
FOR THE SOUTH SHORE OF RARITAN BAY
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
PREFACE
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) deals with two wastewater
treatment projects in the east-central part of New Jersey:
1. C-34-342-Middlesex County Sewerage Authority (MCSA) - expansion
and upgrading of an existing sewage treatment plant;
2. C-34-312-Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority (BRSA) - construction
of a regional wastewater treatment plant and concomitant interceptors, pumping
stations and force mains.
An EIS was deemed necessary for two reasons: the controversy surrounding
each of these projects and the potential for significant environmental effects
from the MCSA project.
The controversial aspect of the MCSA project is its service area. At
present, the MCSA system serves most of the municipalities within the lower
Raritan River basin. In connection with the proposed project, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed that the MCSA's service
area be enlarged to include a number of municipalities which now have inde-
pendent sewerage systems. Three of these municipalities, Perth Amboy,
Woodbridge and Carteret, objected to being included in the MCSA system. All
three eventually accepted the NJDEP's directive, but none has yet executed a
service agreement with the MCSA.
The MCSA project's major potential environmental impact is the effect of
operation of the expanded plant on the water quality of Raritan Bay. The MCSA
outfall extends 3.32 miles from the existing primary treatment plant to the
dispersion basin in Raritan Bay. The plant effluent now contravenes water
quality standards in effect for Raritan Bay. Moreover, even after secondary
treatment is instituted, the effluent will contravene standards if the present
discharge site is retained.
-------
The controversial aspect of the BRSA project is its service area.
There are now thirty-two wastewater treatment plants in the Bayshore area.
The proposed project will regionalize sewage treatment in the Bayshore area,
phasing out the smaller local treatment plants.
Keyport, Matawan Borough and Matawan Township are among the municipalities
that have been or will be ordered by the NJDEP to join the BRSA. The munici-
palities oppose their inclusion in the BRSA. They would prefer to build their
own secondary and then tertiary treatment facilities with effluent discharge to
Raritan Bay and ground-water recharge. They argue that it is unreasonable of
/
the NJDEP to force them to join the BRSA system, which will have ocean disposal
of effluent, while allowing the MCSA to discharge treated effluent into Raritan
Bay. Keyport and Matawan Borough have signed letters of intent to join the
BRSA system. However, Matawan Township has yet to execute such an agreement.
A somewhat unusual situation exists with regard to funding of the MCSA
project. In order to take advantage of fiscal '72 funds, the grant offer
had to be made by December 31, 1972: that is, prior to the completion of the
EIS process. Therefore, to insure that the project's potential environmental
effects were given full consideration, the actual disbursement of funds was
made contingent upon the outcome of the EIS process, as stipulated in the
terms of the grant agreement:
"Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act - This grant is
subject to completion of a review required by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The Middlesex
County Sewerage Authority (MCSA) hereby agrees to furnish information
and otherwise cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regional office staff in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
evaluation and further agrees that no 'construction and project
improvement costs' or obligations relating to such costs will be
incurred unless and until the Regional Administrator notifies the
n
-------
MCSA and the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
(NJSDEP) in writing that the NEPA review has been satisfactorily com-
pleted. The Regional Administrator may annul this grant if he deter-
mines as a result of the NEPA review that the project for which this
grant has been awarded is environmentally unsound." (U.S. EPA, 1972).
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
I SUMMARY 1
II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS 8
III BACKGROUND 10
Detailed description of the existing facilities of the . .
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority (MCSA) 11
Collection system 11
Treatment system 12
Outfall 18
Detailed description of the facilities of the
Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority (BRSA) 18
Collection system 19
Treatment system 19
Outfall 20
IV SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS 23
Lower Raritan River basin 23
Bayshore study area 24
V DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 27
PLANS
Lower Raritan River basin study area - alternative 1 ... 27
Service area additions 27
Collection system 28
Treatment system 30
Outfall 36
Implementation 38
Lower Raritan River basin study area - alternative 2 ... 39
Collection system 40
Treatment system 40
Outfall 40
Lower Raritan River basin study area - alternative 3 ... 40
Sewerage systems 41
Implementation plans 42
Lower Raritan River basin study area - alternative 4 ... 43
Collection system 43
Treatment system 43
Bayshore study area - alternative 1 44
Bayshore study area - alternative 2 44
Bayshore study area - alternative 3 45
Monmouth County Bayshore Ocean Outfall Authority (MCBOOA). 47
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Title Page
VI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS 48
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority Project 48
Environmental impact of construction 48
Environmental impact of operation 49
Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority project 57
Environmental impact of construction 57
Environmental impact of operation 57
Secondary environmental impacts 57
VII ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD 59
THE PROPOSED PROJECTS BE IMPLEMENTED
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority project 59
Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority project 60
VIII RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S 61
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority project 61
Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority project 61
IX IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH 62
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECTS SHOULD THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED
X . DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ALL REVIEWERS 63-1
XI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64
XII ABBREVIATIONS USED 66
XIII BIBLIOGRAPHY 67
XIV APPENDICES 71
Appendix A - background 71
Appendix B - classification of the surface waters of the
Raritan River basin including Ran tan Bay 148
Appendix C - recommendations of the Raritan Bay and
adjacent waters enforcement conferences 173
Appendix D - Raritan Bay model study 176
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Comparison of alternative water quality management plans 3
for the lower Raritan River basin.
2 Comparison of alternative water quality management plans 5
for the Bayshore area.
3 MCSA, flows and loadings, 1971. 13
4 MCSA, summary of operating results, 1971. 15
5 MCSA, summary of alternative sewerage plans, average flows 25
and loadings.
6 MCSA, possible sewerage plans, peak flows for major facilities. 26
7 MCSA, primary and secondary treatment facilities, design 32
criteria.
A-l Average monthly and annual precipitation in inches at 77
New Brunswick.
A-2 Lower Raritan River basin study area, land use, 1967. 80
A-3 Bayshore study area, land use, 1966. 84
A-4 Lower Raritan River basin study area, population changes, 87
1940-1970.
A-5 Lower Raritan River basin study area, present and estimated 89
future population by drainage areas.
A-6 Bayshore study area, estimated population. 91
A-7 Flow data for surface waters in the lower Raritan River basin 93
and the Bayshore study areas.
A-8 Water quality data for the South River. 95
A-9 Water quality data for the freshwater portion of the lower 97
Raritan River.
A-10 Water quality data for the tidal portion of the Raritan River. TOO
A-ll Fish species present at three sites on the Raritan River,1971. 101
A-12a Benthic macroinvertebrate population, Raritan River - above 103
Calco dam, 1971.
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Number Title Page
A-12b Benthic macroinvertebrate population, Ran'tan River - below 104
Calco dam, 1971.
A-12c Benthic macroinvertebrate population, Raritan River - above 105
Fieldville dam, 1971.
A-13 Sessile organisms, Raritan River, May - June 1972. 106
A-14 Water quality data for Raritan Bay, 1969-1972. 112
A-15 Percentage of benthos at representative stations in Raritan Bay, 116
1964.
A-16 Phytoplankton distribution and abundance in the Arthur Kill, 121
1972.
A-17 Zooplankton species found in the Arthur Kill, 1970. 122
A-18 Arthur Kill benthos survey, October 1963. 125
A-19 Biological survival study, Arthur Kill, 1964. 127
A-20 Strati graphic table for Middlesex County. 128
A-21 Water use (mgd) in the study areas, 1965 - 1971. 134
A-22 Water supply and demand (mgd) in the study areas, 1970 - 2000. 136
A-23 Soil associations in the lower Raritan River basin and the 137
south shore of Raritan Bay.
A-24 Required abatement actions, municipalities. 141
A-25 Required abatement actions, industries. 142
A-26a Major wastewater discharges, Raritan River and its tributaries. 143
A-26b Major wastewater discharges, Arthur Kill. 145
A-26c Major wastewater discharges, Raritan Bay. 146
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Number Title Page
1 Location map of study areas. 10
2 General location map, Middlesex County Sewerage Authority. 11
3 Schematic flow diagram of existing NCSA treatment facilities. 14
4 Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority service area. 18
5 Sewage treatment plants in the Bayshore study area, industrial 19
and municipal.
6 MCSA system alternative 1. 23
7 MCSA system alternative 2. 23
8 MCSA system alternative 3. 23
9 MCSA system alternative 4. 43
10 Bayshore outfall system under alternative 2. 45
11 Bayshore outfall system under alternative 3. 45
12 Classification of shellfish areas in Raritan Bay. 54
13 Waste disposal sites, New York Bight. 56
A-l Location map of study areas. 71
A-2 Lower Raritan River drainage basins. 77
A-3 Zoning in Middlesex County, 1967. 81
A-4 Water quality classification of the surface waters in the 93
study areas.
A-5 Raritan Bay. 107
A-6 Sampling points in Raritan Bay. H2
A-7 Benthic populations in Raritan Bay. 115
A-8 Distribution of soft clams in Raritan Bay, 1963. H6
A-9 Distribution of hard clams in Raritan Bay, 1963. I16
A-10 Sampling locations in the Arthur Kill, 1972. 121
vm
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Following
Number Title Page
A-ll Sampling locations in the Arthur Kill, 1963. 125
A-12 Generalized geologic section of Middlesex County. 128
A-13 Soil associations in the study areas. 136
D-l Ran tan Bay project system segmentation. 177
D-2 Dispersion coefficients. 178
D-3 Chloride verification, 10-year average values (August-September). 180
D-4 Dissolved oxygen verification, July 12-22, 1971. 184
D-5 Dissolved oxygen deficit due to MCSA discharge, July 1971. 185
D-6 Dissolved oxygen deficit due to boundary effects, July 1971. 185
D-7 Calculated dissolved oxygen distribution for MCSA discharge at 186
present outfall site, year 2020.
D-8 Calculated dissolved oxygen distribution for MCSA discharge off 186
Keyport Harbor, year 2020.
D-9 Calculated dissolved oxygen distribution for MCSA discharge in 187
central bay area, year 2020.
IX
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR
THE LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN AND FOR THE SOUTH SHORE OF RARITAN BAY
SUMMARY
DATE: June 1973.
TYPE OF STATEMENT:
Final
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II.
TYPE OF ACTION:
Administrative.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION INDICATING STATES AND COUNTIES AFFECTED:
Funds have been requested from the Environmental Protection
Agency by representatives of the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
(MCSA) and the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority (BRSA) of Monmouth
County in the State of New Jersey. Under consideration are projects
which involve: 1) additions and alterations to the MCSA's existing
sewage treatment plant, and 2) construction of sewers and a sewage
treatment plant for the BRSA. Plans for construction of new outfalls
or expansion of existing outfalls to serve the facilities are not in-
cluded in these projects.
The waters of Raritan Bay will be affected; these waters are con-
tiguous to the State of New York. The Atlantic Ocean will be affected
in the areas east of Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
-------
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:
The impact of these projects will be: 1) to improve the quality
of receiving waters by providing secondary treatment of wastewater
prior to discharge, 2) to allow cessation of wastewater discharge into
inland streams that have low assimilative capacities, and 3) to provide
the Bayshore communities of Monmouth County with centralized sewage
treatment. The highly treated effluent will be introduced into the
marine environment. There will also be a waste sludge produced at the
treatment plants. This sludge must be disposed of in a manner that will
not significantly disrupt the environment.
The discharge of effluents at the present MCSA disposal site will
contravene water quality standards in Raritan Bay even after secondary
treatment is instituted. Therefore, a more suitable disposal site must
be selected by the MCSA in the near future.
Should the proposals be implemented, some adverse effects might be
expected. They are: further lowering of ground-water levels, increased
saltwater encroachment, and possible contamination of the marine environ-
ment at the sites of effluent and sludge disposal.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
MCSA:
1. no action,
2. various degrees of expansion in service area.
Table 1 compares the alternative water quality management plans for
the lower Raritan River basin.
BRSA:
1. no action,
- 2 -
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
FOR THE LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN
Project
Description
Alternative 1 (proposed)
Partial expansion of MCSA
system;South River drainage
area in Monmouth County
excluded
Alternative 2
Maximum expansion of MCSA
system to include the
majority of municipal
wastewater discharges in
Middlesex County and part
of Monmouth County.
Alternative 3
Minimum expansion of MCSA
system; areas excluded are:
Carteret.Woodb ridge,
Monmouth County area,
Manalapan Brook drainage
area in Middlesex County
upstream of existing MCSA
sewered area, all of South
Brunswick.
Alternative 4
No action
Costs (In Millions of Dollars, As of 1985) I/
Total
Capita)
Cost £/
345. 7i/
344.5
373.1
-
Average Annual Estimated Cost for 1985
Debt
Service 2J
24.4
24.3
26.4
-
Operating
Cost !/
8.01
7.32
8.04
-
Total Annual
Cost §/
32.4
31.6
34.4
-
Environmental Effects
Specific
Will allow for recharge to
the headwaters of the South
River •
Will divert all wastewaters
in the service area to
Raritan Bay with no option
for recharge-
Will allow for recharge in
South River Basin;
Will contribute treated
sewage to Arthur Kill;
Will allow for several
smaller less cost-effec-
tive plants.
-
General
Alternatives 1,2 and 3 should immediately
reduce the BOD loadings on the bay thus"
improving the bay environment. However,
as the 240 MGD maximum effluent flow is
reached, the BOD, toxic materials,
chloride, coliforms and suspended solids
concentrations will increase, adversely
affecting the bay ecosystem.
In order to attain a marked improvement
in the water quality of the bay, the bay
outfall must be relocated.
The addition of increasing amounts of
nutrients as sewage effluent will in-
crease the rate of eutrophi cation of
the bay.
Ground-water depletion will continue to
be a problem in the Say re vi lie-South
Amboy area until recharge equals with-
drawal .
Continued ocean disposal of sludge will
have a detrimental effect on the dump-
ing area.
Severe degradation of the bay will re-
sult. Water quality standards for the
bay wi 1 1 be contravened
I/Cost estimates from Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
2/Total cost of interceptors, pumping stations,force mains and treatment plants planned for installation between the present and 2000.
I/Average annual cost for 40 year serial bonds at 6-1/2 percent.
4/Includes administrative costs,labor.materials,chemicals,electric power,fuel and maintenance for the sewerage system.
5/Total of average annual debt service and operating costs.
6/The estimated capital cost for the upgrading and expansion of the treatment plant is $93,000,000 as of June 1972.
-------
2. regional sewerage system with bay outfall ,
3. regional sewerage system with ocean outfall.
Table 2 compares the alternative water quality management plans
for the Bayshore area.
FEDERAL. STATE. AND LOCAL AGENCIES FROM WHICH
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED:
Federal Agencies:
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Stabilization and Research Service
Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers (New York District)
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of the Interior
National Park Service
United States Senate
Honorable Clifford P. Case
Honorable Harrison A. Williams
United States House of Representatives
Honorable Edward J. Patten
Honorable James J. Howard
- 4 -
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE HATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
FOR THE BAYSHORE AREA
Project
Description
Construction Costs
(Millions Of Dollars)
Bayshore
Treatment Plant I/
Outfall
Line £/
Environmental Effects
Alternative 1
Continuation of present practice
of discharging treated effluents
into tributary streams or just
off-shore into the bay.
There will be continued degradation of
the south shore of Raritan Bay and trib-
utary streams. Water quality standards
for the bay area and for tributary
streams will be contravened.
CJl
Alternative 2
Regional treatment plant with
outfall extending into the bay
to a point where the water depth
is at least 20 feet.
18.2
9.75
Several small primary treatment plants
that cause degradation of the bay waters
along the south shore of Raritan Bay will
be eliminated. The contribution of waste
effluent to the bay is insignificant when
compared with sources of pollution in the
bay.
Alternative 3 (under construction)
Regional treatment plant with
outfall parallel to the bay's
shoreline and with final dis-
charge into the ocean.
18.2
10.2
The elimination of all bayshore area
wastes from Raritan Bay may improve water
quality along the south shore of Raritan
Bay.
J_/Cost estimates from Kupper, 1972.
2/Cost estimates from Kill am Associates, 1968.
-------
State Agencies:
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Local Agencies:
Executive Officers
Bound Brook Borough
Cranbury Township
East Brunswick Township
Edison Township
Franklin Township
Highland Park Borough
Madison Township
Metuchen Borough
Middlesex Borough
Monroe Township
New Brunswick City
North Brunswick Township
Piscataway Township
Dunellen Borough
Fanwood Borough
Green Brook Township
North Plainfield Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Sayreville Borough
South Bound Brook Borough
South Plainfield Borough
South River Borough
- 6 -
-------
Spotswood Borough
South Amboy City
South Brunswick Township
Carteret Borough
Perth Amboy City
Woodbridge Township
Helmetta Borough
Jamesburg Borough
Marlboro Township
Holmdel Township
Keansburg Borough
Keyport Borough
Matawan Borough
Matawan Township
Middletown Township
Hazlet Township
Union Beach Borough.
- 7 -
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
C-34-342-Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Status - Final Design Completed
The MCSA was established in 1950. It was assigned the task of
constructing and operating a sewerage system to serve the lower
Raritan River drainage basin and adjacent areas. The 1970 population
of the service area was about 727,000 persons. The population projec-
tion for the year 2000 is 1,550,000 persons.
The present sewerage system includes a 78 million gallons per day
(mgd) primary treatment plant providing removals of 22 percent BOD
(5-day) and 78 percent suspended solids (1971 annual averages). The
proposed project calls for expanding the plant to a capacity of 120 mgd
and upgrading it to provide secondary treatment. The upgraded plant has
been designed for 90 percent removal of both BOD (5-day) and suspended
solids. Plans to increase the capacities of the interceptors, pumping
stations, force mains and the outfall are currently in the final design
stage. However, these related facilities are not part of the proposed
project.
The plant will employ the high-purity oxygen modification of the
activated sludge process. The effluent will be chlorinated before it
is discharged into Raritan Bay. Sludge will be processed by thickening,
aerobic digestion and storage before being barged to sea for disposal.
Ocean disposal of the sludge will be allowed as an interim procedure.
C-34-312-Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority
Status - Under Construction
This project involves the construction of a regional wastewater
treatment plant and concomitant interceptors, pumping stations and
- 8 -
-------
force mains. The treatment plant is a 6.0 mgd secondary system designed
to utilize the step-aeration or completely-mixed activated sludge process,
Four trunk interceptors will feed a regional interceptor at Union Beach
leading to the plant. The treated effluent will be discharged through
the Monmouth County Bayshore Ocean Outfall Authority's (MCBOOA) ocean
outfall. Sludge will be concentrated and then incinerated at the plant
site.
The addition of the Keyport-Matawan area to the BRSA system will
necessitate an increase in plant capacity. Present plans call for an
increase to 8.0 mgd by the end of 1974. Strict schedules for the con-
nection of these additional areas to the BRSA system will prevent over-
loading of the treatment facilities.
- 9 -
-------
BACKGROUND
This Environmental Impact Statement is concerned with two
separate geographical locales and, therefore, two separate study
areas. The lower Ran'tan River basin includes all of the areas in
Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties that drain into the Raritan
River between the northern boundary of the Borough of Bound Brook
and the point at which the river discharges into Raritan Bay at the
City of Perth Amboy. Collectively these areas comprise the lower
Raritan River basin study area. The portion of the south shore of
Raritan Bay (Bayshore area)]/ that extends from the City of South
Amboy to Comptons Creek in Middletown Township, Monmouth County is
referred to as the Bayshore study area.
The lower Raritan River basin drains an area of approximately
350 square miles, while the Bayshore area drains approximately 60
square miles. The limits of the basin and the bay study areas,in-
cluding municipal and county boundary lines, are shown in Figure 1.
This section of New Jersey is heavily populated and highly de-
veloped, with an emphasis on residential land use. The topography
of the area is relatively flat or gently sloping. The climate is
temperate. In the most general terms, water supply is adequate and
V For the purposes of this report, South Amboy and Madison Township
have been included in the lower Raritan River basin.
- 10 -
-------
ID
C
LIMITS OF STUDY AREA
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY AREAS
-------
water quality, while not good, is acceptable. In short, there are
no natural impediments to further development of the area. Continued
development is expected. The projects under consideration here will
neither accelerate nor retard this growth.
A more detailed description of the area can be found in Appendix
A. The appendix deals with such subjects as: geography, physical geog-
raphy, land use patterns, population, water resources and water quality.
It offers the reader the background information he needs to make an in-
dependent appraisal of the environmental effects of the proposed projects,
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES OF
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY (MCSA)
The MCSA provides sewage treatment for most of the area within
the lower Raritan River basin. This sewerage system is comprised of
two major interceptors, three pumping stations, the central treatment
plant at Sayreville and an outfall into Raritan Bay. The system serves
both municipalities and industries. In 1968, the MCSA estimated that
the influent to its treatment plant was composed of equal amounts of
municipal and industrial wastes.
Collection System
The trunk sewers, pumping stations and force mains operated by
the MCSA receive sewage flows from municipal collection systems and
convey them to the central treatment plant. Lateral collection facil-
ities are not included in the MCSA's sewerage system, but connection
trunks (consisting of syphons and other lines) by which participating
municipalities are connected with the MCSA system are provided. The
general layout of the sewerage system is indicated in Figure 2 (Metcalf &
- 11 -
-------
CD
e
CENTRAL
TREATMENT PLAN!
EDISON PUMPING STATION
ARSENAL FORCE MAIN
SAYREVILLE FORCE MAIN
PLAIN FIELD
JOINT MEETING
SAYREVILLE PUMPING STATION
SAYREVILLE
SUNSHINE^
"MADISON
RUNYON
NORTH
MAIN TRUNK SEWER
SOUTH RIVER
SOUTH RIVER INTERCEPTOR
EAST BRUNSWICK
OLD BRIDGE
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
SCHWEITZER
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
MIDDLESEX COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Source: Metcall S Eddy, October 1972
-------
Eddy, October 1972).
The main trunk sewer is a gravity interceptor which parallels the
Raritan River. It is approximately 11.5 miles in length and ranges
in size from a 60-inch diameter pipe at Bound Brook to an 84-inch
diameter pipe at the Sayreville pumping station. The Bound Brook pump-
ing station, which has two pumps (500 gallons per minute (gpm) and 750 gpm
capacities), provides a capacity of approximately 2 mgd.
The South River interceptor parallels the South River from Old
Bridge to the Sayreville pumping station. The interceptor's total length
is about 4.9 miles. The interceptor ranges in diameter from 45 inches at
Old Bridge to 48 inches at the Sayreville pumping station. Flow in this
sewer is controlled by gravity.
Wastewater is conveyed from the Sayreville pumping station to the
central treatment plant via the 72-inch diameter Sayreville force main.
The force main is 3.7 miles long. Four 35 mgd pumps provide the Sayreville
pumping station with a capacity of approximately 140 mgd.
The Edison pumping station is fed by the 60-to 66-inch diameter
Heyden gravity sewer. The station pumps wastewater under the Raritan
River via the 60-inch diameter Edison force main (also called the Arsenal
force main) to the Sayreville force main. The capacity of the Edison
pumping station is approximately 68 mgd.
Total contributions to the MCSA sewerage system for the year 1971
are listed in Table 3.
Treatment System
The MCSA central treatment plant provides primary treatment for
wastewater. Basically, raw sewage is treated by screening, grit removal,
- 12 -
-------
TABLE 3
NCSA
FLOWS AND LOADINGS
1971
Municipalities
Borough of Bound Brook
East Brunswick Sewerage Authority
Township of Edison
Franklin Township Sewerage Authority
Borough of Highland Park
Madison Township Sewerage Authority
Borough of Metuchen
Borough of Middlesex
Monroe Township Municipal Utilities Authority
City of New Brunswick (includes Milltown)
Township of North Brunswick
Township of Piscataway
Plainfield Joint Meeting
Borough of Sayreville
Borough of South Bound Brook
Borough of South Plainfield
Borough of South River
Borough of Spotswood
Industries
Anheuser Busch, Inc.
Ashland Chemical Company
W.R. Grace and Company-Hatco Chemical Div.
Hercules, Incorporated
National Lead Company
Peter J. Schweitzer Div.-Kimberly Clark Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Company
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company
Totals
Flow
mgd
1.15
2.57
9.85
1.32
1.93
2.90
1.69
1.85
0.16
12.90
3.64
4.98
10.31
3.48
0.47
1.68
1.70
0.60
63.18
0.53
0.35
0.71
0.45
0.56
5.55
0.35
1.05
1.69
11.24
74.42
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
mg/1
210
255
158
106
130
292
197
238
156
338
179
231
166
393
143
504
129
226
237
5326
352
6363
1165
74
828
2781
1208
1260
1512
430
Ib/day
2,018
5,459
12,949
1,163
2,095
7,058
2,779
3,667
208
36,387
5,433
9,613
14,313
11,392
561
7,058
1,836
1,131
125,120
23,543
1,028
37,680
4,372
347
38,322
8,118
10,582
17,763
141,755
266,875
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
410
325
230
139
182
377
277
414
280
363
324
217
303
220
160
455
220
237
295
1218
339
1510
1024
4534
1611
689
80
244
T29T
446
Ib/day
3,934
6,971
18.903
1,530
2,931
9,120
3,908
6,389
374
39,000
9,827
9,014
26,027
6,380
627
6,382
3,118
1,184
155,619
5,382
991
8,941
3,844
21,177
74,553
2,011
704
3,441
121,044
276., 663
I
OJ
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
-------
flocculation/clarification and chlorination. The sludge that is collect-
ed is thickened and stored before being barged to sea. Figure 3 is a
schematic diagram of the existing treatment facilities.
Plant capacity is 78 mgd; the 1971 average flow was 73.3 mgd.
Table 4 summarizes the monthly operating results for 1971. Average BOD
(5-day) removal for 1971 was 22 percent, resulting in an average BOD
(5-day) decrease from 350 milligrams per liter (mg/1) to 271 mg/1 .
(MCSA, 1971). Therefore, the average BOD (5-day) loading imposed on
Ran tan Bay would be approximately 167,000 Ib/day.
For the purposes of the Raritan Bay model study (Appendix D), an
effluent BOD (5-day) value of 400 mg/1 was used. The use of this value
was based on all available data. With an average effluent BOD (5-day)
of 400 mg/1 and a flow rate of 72 mgd, the 5-day BOD load on Raritan Bay
is approximately 240,000 Ib/day. Suspended solids removal for 1971
averaged 74 percent. With an average effluent concentration of 79 mg/1,
suspended solids loading on Raritan Bay was approximately 48, 650 Ib/day.
Raw sewage entering the treatment plant passes through the following
treatment units:
Grit chambers - two, detritus type, each 35' x 35';
Venturi - (for flow measurement) - one, range 0 to 150 mgd,
84" x 37.9";
Distribution chamber - (for flash mixing) - one, 330 sq.ft. x
18 ft., three mixers, detention time -
1.22 minutes at 52 mdg;
- 14 -
-------
RARITAN RIVER
ID
c
HEAOWORKS
AND GRIT
SOUTH RIVER CHAMBER
INTERCEPTOR
3 1 CLARIFLOCCULATOR
EFFLUENT MANHOLE
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF EXISTING MCSA TREATMENT FACILITIES
Source: Metcalf « Eddy, May 1972
-------
TABLE 4
MCSA
SUMMARY OF OPERATING RESULTS
1971
1971
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Avg.
1970 Avg.
1969 Avg.
1968 Avg.
1967 Avg.
Avg.
Flow
mgd
71.26
76.53
80.15
73.61
69.31
69.21
63.11
77.97
82.23
73.15
73.33
76.14
73.83
68.31
65.51
62.50
62.30
Chlori nation
Residual Col i form
Chlorine Bacteria
mg/1 % of samples
Avg. less than 0.2ml
1.00 97
1.00 96
1.00 94
1.00 90
1.00 97
1.00 83
1.00 97
1.00 93
1.00 93
1.00 94
1.00 97
1.10 90
1.01 93
1.02 97
1.13 96
1.12 99
1.09 98
BOD
Influent Effluent Reduc-
ing/ 1 mg/1 tion
Avg. Avg. %
390 314 19
375 299 20
358 263 26
357 267 24
360 275 24
354 272 22
324 254 22
304 229 24
307 249 19
386 303 21
352 265 23
329 266 18
350 271 22
419 321 23
429 369 14
409 352 14
397 342 14
Suspended Solids
Influent Effluent Reduc-
mg/1 nig/1 tion
Avg . Av^. %
251 77 70
291 98 67
280 84 72
313 96 70
328 94 72
363 83 77
349 97 73
269 64 76
261 63 76
302 63 80
290 64 78
258 62 77
296 79 74
333 98 71
320 95 71
333 96 72
290 91 69
Settleable Solids
Influent Effluent Reduc-
mg/1 mg/1 tion
Avq. Avq. %
10.5 0.05 100
10.6 0.10 99
10.8 0.12 99
11.8 0.07 99
13.4 0.05 100
15.0 0.05 98
13.3 0.05 100
13.1 0.05 96
13.2 0.10 99
13.6 0.09 99
14.3 0.10 99
12.7 0.07 99
12.7 0.08 99
13.1 0.06 99
12.1 0.06 99
12.6 0.07 100
12.3 0.09 99
- 15 -
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont'd)
NCSA
SUMMARY OF OPERATING RESULTS
1971
1971
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Avg.
1970 Avg.
1969 Avg.
1968' Avg.
1967 Avg.
Sludge Handling
From Clarifiers to Thickeners
1000'Cu.Ft. Per Day % Solids
Avg. Avg.
406 0.36
391 0.38
539 0.35
529 0.44
536 0.44
557 0.57
534 0.48
529 0.43
517 0.45
518 0.50
534 0.46
526 0.40
510 0.44
481 0.45
475 0. 48
531 0.45
524 0.42
From Thickeners to Storage
1000 Cu.Ft. Per Day % Solids
Avg. Avg.
27.1 8.4
26.5 7.4
27.6 7.8
28.4 7.6
31.8 7.3
32.9 8.3
29.8 9.0
31.0 7.9
31.8 8.3
34.2 7.8
32.5 7.7
30.6 7.7
30.4 7.9
28.7 8.6
28.1 8.9
26.8 8.6
27.0 7.5
From Storage to Barqe
Wet Tons Per % Solids
Month Avg.
25502 6.0
26337 5.9
26443 5.5
28267 6.1
33644 6.1
35010 6.9
32199 7.3
28040 6.9
32279 6.8
31958 6.2
32215 6.3
26337 6.0
29853 6.3
29551 6.3
26919 6.9
26312 6.5
26070 6.]
Source: Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, 1971.
- 16 -
-------
Clariflocculator tanks - six flocculation units, 55' diameter x
10.25' average water depth, 24,400 cu. ft.
each, detention time (6 units) 2.1 hours
at 78 mgd; six sedimentation units, 130'
diameter x 12.5' average water depth,
153,000 cu. ft. each, detention time
(6 units) 2.1 hours at 78 mgd.
Sludge processing units include:
Sludge thickeners - two, 80' diameter x 16' average water depth,
80,200 cu. ft. each, detention time at design
flow 4 hours for liquid, 12 hours for sludge,
sludge depth 10.5';
Sludge storage tanks - four, 80' diameter x 19' average water
depth, 105,000 cu. ft. each, detention
time at 78 mgd without chemical treatment
2.6 days.
Chlorination units are:
Chlorinators - pre-and post-chlorination capabilities are pro-
vided, ten units, capacity 8,000 Ib/day chlorine
each, total chlorine requirement 120 parts per
million (ppm), average requirement at 78 mgd
78,000 Ib/day, maximum requirement at 117 mgd
117,000 Ib/day, detention time in existing outfall
62 minutes.
Screening, the usual treatment first given to raw sewage, takes place
at the Sayreville pumping station before the sewage is delivered to the
- 17 -
-------
central treatment plant.
Outfall
After treatment and chlorination, the effluent is discharged to
the 84-inch diameter outfall which extends 3.32 miles from the plant
to the dispersion basin in Raritan Bay (Metcalf & Eddy, May 1972).
"The existing outfall line extends 1.25 miles from shore [the shore
of the bay] and discharges through an 'H1 diffuser. Each of the four
diffuser ports has a diameter of 42 inches. The depth of diffuser to
mean low tide is 10 feet. The 1971 average daily flow through the out-
fall line was 79 MGD. The peak design flow of the line is 130 MGD."
(Pike,written communication, December 1972).
For the immediate future, the existing outfall line will be used
for effluent disposal into Raritan Bay. However, effluent disposal
at the existing discharge point will contravene water quality standards
in effect for Raritan Bay. Therefore, in its grant agreement with the
MCSA, EPA stipulated that the MCSA must select an outfall location at
which the discharge of secondary treated effluent will not contravene
/
standards (U.S. EPA, 1972).
DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES OF THE
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY (BRSA)
Figure 4 indicates the service area of the BRSA. The service area
includes the Borough of Union Beach, Hazlet Township, the Borough of
Keansburg, the Borough of Keyport, the Borough of Matawan and the north-
ern section of Holmdel Township. These communities have signed either
service agreements or letters- of intent to join the BRSA.
- 18 -
-------
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA
UNION BEACH
KEANSBURG
-------
Matawan Township and a portion of Marlboro Township will be required
to join the BRSA; however, service agreements have not yet been executed.
These areas will be required to join the BRSA system by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, as substantiated by the following
statement:
"As I indicated in my previous letter to Matawan and Keyport, a
copy of which was provided to the Monmouth County Bayshore Outfall
Authority, the only arrangement acceptable to the State for region-
al izati on of sewerage facilities in the area, including eligibility
for federal and state construction grant funds would be for services
to be provided to Matawan-Keyport Boroughs and a portion of Marlboro
and Matawan Townships by an expanded Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority system. We will not approve the construction of an addi-
tional treatment plant which would require the extension of the
Bayshore Outfall Line from Union Beach to the Matawan-Keyport area."
(Pike, written communication, June 1972).
Collection System
Four regional trunk sewers will connect at Union Beach to feed an
interceptor to the Bayshore regional wastewater treatment plant. Regional
pumping stations will be located at West Keansburg and at the Raritan
Valley Sanitation Company's sewage treatment plant. This collection
system is now under construction.
Treatment System
The existing treatment plants that will be abandoned when the BRSA
facilities are put into operation are shown in Figure 5. The schedule
for the abandonment of these plants has not yet been determined.
The regional wastewater treatment plant for the BRSA is a 6.0 mgd
secondary treatment plant which will discharge to the ocean outfall
being constructed by the MCBOOA. As designed, this treatment facility
will serve Hazlet, Holmdel, Keansburg, and Union Beach. It is expected
to reach design capacity by 1980.
- 19 -
-------
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE BAYSHORE STUDY AREA
INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL
(O
c
O
in
Source: NJDEP, 1972
-------
Keyport, Matawan Borough, Matawan Township and sections of Marlboro
Township will also be served by this plant. Their inclusion will require
an increase in plant capacity above the 6.0 mgd design flow. Present
schedules call for expansion of the plant to 8.0 mgd.
The BRSA treatment plant is now under construction. By October 1973,
it should be 50 percent operational, i.e., able to treat a wastewater flow
of 3.0 mgd. By February 1974, the original plant design flow of 6.0 mgd
should be realized as initial construction is completed. Projected com-
pletion date for the plant expansion to 8.0 mgd is October 1974.
Treatment will consist of grit removal, sedimentation, biological
treatment (activated sludge), chlorination, sludge concentration and
sludge incineration. Both suspended solids and BOD (5-day) removals
are expected to be 90 percent. The design average sewage flow rate is
100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and the peak flow is 250 gpcd.
The design BOD (5-day) and suspended solids loadings are each 250 mg/1
or 0.21 pounds per capita daily.
The step-aeration type of activated sludge system will be employed.
This system is preferred because it reduces peak oxygen demands, improves
mixing, provides more effective utilization of aeration tank capacity
and allows greater flexibility in operation. Additional flexibility
has been designed into the plant so that it can be operated under con-
ditions of the conventional activated sludge process. The plant has been
designed to permit easy incorporation of advanced wastewater treatment
processes at a later date.
- 20 -
-------
The following units are included in the plant design:
Mechanical bar screens with grinders;
Three primary settling tanks - detention time 1.44 hours;
Raw sludge grit collector;
Three aeration tanks - detention time 5.4 hours;
Three final settling tanks - detention time 2.3 hours;
Chlorination tank - detention time 45 minutes;
Two sludge concentrating tanks - maximum solids loading
8 Ib/sq.ft./day, maximum hydraulic loading 600 gal/sq.ft./day;
Sludge incineration equipment.
A sludge incineration system will be used at this facility to
dispose of the organic solids removed in the treatment process. The
incineration unit will be of the fluid-bed reaction type and will be
designed to meet current air pollution emission standards. The system
will be composed of a sludge disintegrator, four sludge centrifuges with
chemical feed equipment, two reactor feed pumps, a reactor with preheat
burner and fluidizing air blower, a scrubber, an ash pump and an ash
dewatering unit. The entire system will be instrumented and automatically
controlled to insure efficient operation at all times. The dewatered ash
end product will be disposed of at the plant site through a fill operation.
Outfal1
The effluent will be discharged to the Atlantic Ocean through the
MCBOOA ocean outfall, which is under construction. The outfall will be
connected to the BRSA wastewater treatment plant late in 1973 when the
plant becomes 50 percent operational. No interim effluent disposal to
local receiving waters is planned.
- 21 -
-------
A 54-inch diameter emergency bypass line to a tributary of Ran'tan
Bay will be constructed as part of the treatment facility project. It
will normally be sealed and will be used only when an emergency prevents
use of the ocean outfall.
- 22 -
-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
As previously indicated (Figure 1), the geographic area of concern
in this Environmental Impact Statement has been divided into two study
areas: the lower Raritan River basin and the Bayshore. The two areas
are considered separately because they lie in different drainage basins
and, consequently, in different planning areas. Each planning area has
independently developed alternatives for a regional sewerage system.
Summaries of the alternative water quality management plans for each
study area follow.
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN
Three action alternatives are offered, each of which entails the
expansion and upgrading of the existing MCSA sewerage system. Alterna-
tive 1 involves a partial expansion of the MCSA system in conjunction
with construction or expansion of treatment plants in selected outlying
areas. Alternative 2 calls for maximum expansion of the system to in-
clude the majority of municipal wastewater discharges in Middlesex County
and a small section of Monmouth County. Alternative 3 requires a min-
imum expansion of the MCSA system along with construction or expansion
of treatment facilities in outlying areas. The service areas associated
with alternatives 1,2 and 3 are shown in Figures 6,7 and 8, respectively.
A fourth alternative, that of no action, is also considered. Common to
all plans are: 1) the exclusion of the Rahway Regional System from the
MCSA service area, and 2) the continued inclusion of a section of
Woodbridge in the Rahway Valley Sewage Authority's service area.
- 23 -
-------
MCSA SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 1
EWAREN STP
TO BE ABANDONED
CARTERET STP
TO BE ABANDONED
LAURENCE HARBOR STP
TO BE ABANDONED
NEW STP TO SERVE
DEEP RUN BROOK AREA
PRESENT MCSA SERVICE AREA
EXPANDED MCSA SERVICE AREA
PRESENT MCSA INTERCEPTOR
FORCE MAIN
PUMPING STATION
NEW PUMPING STATION
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
NOTES: (I) EXPANDED MCSA SYSTEM INTERCEPTORS OR
FORCE MAINS NOT SHOWN
(2) MUNICIPAL CONNECTION SYSTEMS NOT SHOWN
Source: Metcoll S Eddy, October 1972
PINE BROOK STP TO BE
EXPANDED AND UPGRADED
Figure 6
-------
MCSA SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 2
EWAREN STP
BE ABANDONED
PERTH AMBOY STP
TO BE ABANDONED
MCSA CENTRAL
TREATMENT
TO BE EXPANDED
AND UPGRADED
CARTERET STP
TO BE ABANDONED
LAURENCE HARBOR STP
TO BE ABANDONED
&
/v
PRESENT MCSA SERVICE AREA
EXPANDED MCSA SERVICE AREA
PRESENT MCSA INTERCEPTOR
FORCE MAIN
PUMPING STATION
NEW PUMPING STATION
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
NOTES: (I) EXPANDED MCSA SYSTEM INTERCEPTORS OR
FORCE MAINS NOT SHOWN
(2) MUNICIPAL CONNECTION SYSTEMS NOT SHOWN
Soimt: M«leoll * Eddy, October 1972
.*
s>
P jP
.*"**
Figur* 7
-------
MCSA SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 3
EWAREN SIP
TO BE EXPANDED
AND UPGRADED
MCSA CENTRAL _
TREATMENT PLANT \ \P,
O£«—CARTERET STP
, TO BE ABANDONED
MORGAN STP
TO BE ABANDONED
LAURENCE HARBOR STP
TO BE ABANDONED
NFW STP TO SERVE
DEEP RUN BROOK AREA
PRESENT MCSA SERVICE AREA
EXPANDED MCSA SERVICE AREA
PRESENT MCSA INTERCEPTOR
FORCE MAIN
PUMPING STATION
NEW PUMPING STATION
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
NOTES: (1) EXPANDED MCSA SYSTEM INTERCEPTORS OR
FORCE MAINS NOT SHOWN
(2| MUNICIPAL CONNECTION SYSTEMS NOT SHOWN
Source: Melcoll « Eddy, October 1972
PINE BROOK STP TO BE
EXPANDED AND UPGRADED
Figure 8
-------
A summary of the average flows and loadings for alternatives 1, 2
and 3 is given in Table 5. Table 6 presents the estimated peak flows
to each major facility and the planned future capacity of each facility.
BAYSHORE STUDY AREA
Water quality management plan alternatives within this area involve
a series of regional treatment plants along the southern shore of
Raritan Bay, with effluent disposal in either Ran tan Bay or the
Atlantic Ocean. Because of the low assimilative capacities of inland
streams, treated wastewaters must be discharged to either the bay or
the ocean.
There are three alternative plans for the Bayshore area. Alterna-
tive 1 allows continuation of present practices, i.e., discharging treated
effluents into tributary streams or just off-shore into the bay. This
practice would be permitted only as a temporary expedient until an accept-
able alternative could be found. Alternative 2 calls for an outfall from
each of the regional treatment plants extending into the bay to a point
where the water depth is at least 20 feet. The third alternative requires
construction of an outfall line parallel to the bay's shore line. The
outfall line would collect the effluents from all regional sewerage systems
and would discharge them into the Atlantic Ocean.
Both the BRSA and the Atlantic Highlands-Highlands Sewerage Authority
have regional treatment plants under construction. The Township of
Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) has a regional treatment plant in
operation, with temporary discharge of effluent into Comptons Creek.
In addition, an ocean outfall is being constructed by the MCBOOA.
- 24 -
-------
TABLE 5
MCSA
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE SEWERAGE PLANS
AVERAGE FLOWS AND LOADINGS
Treatment Plants 11
Alternative 1 (Recommended) I/
1. MCSA STP
Design Project - Stage 1
Future Additions 4/
2. Monmouth County STP
(Plants 0 Deep Run &
Pine Brook)
Alternative 2 -1
1 . MCSA STP
Design Project - Stage 1
Future Additions 4/
Northeastern
Eastern
South River
Middlesex County
Monmouth County
Franklin Six Mile
Sub-Total
Total
Alternative 3 I/
1. MCSA STP
Design Project - Stage 1
Future Additions 4/
Sub-Total
2. Sewaren STP
3. Monmouth County STP's 7/
4. Jamesburg
Total
V.
Avg.
flow,
mgd
114.5
28.6
142.1
7.7
149.8
114.5
20.9
2.3
3.1
7.7
1.3
35.3
149.8
114.5
11.8
126.3
12.7
7.7
3.1
149.8
185
Effluent
BOD 2/
Ib/day
42,900
6,100
49,000
1.600
50,600
42,900
4,700
500
600
1,600
300
7,700
50,600
42,900
2,600
45,500
2,900
1,600
600
50,600
Avg.
flow,
mgd
162.8
41.9
204.7
17.1
22TT8
162.8
27.2
3.5
6.1
17.1
5.1
59.0
221.8
162.8
18.5
181.3
17.3
17.1
6.1
221.8
2000
Effluent
BOD 2/
Ib/day
61,100
9,500
70,600
3.800
74,400
61,100
6,200
800
1,300
3,800
1,200
13,300
74,400
61,100
4,200
65,300
4,000
3,800
1,300
74,400
Discharge
Location
Raritan Bay
South River
Raritan Bay
Raritan Bay
Arthur Kill
South River
South River
I/Does not include treatment plants which will be required in Millstone River area.
2/Estimated effluent BOD (5-day) following secondary treatment.
3/Under alternative 1, the existing treatment plants at Carteret, Keasbey, Sewaren,
Perth Amboy, Melrose, South Amboy, Morgan, Laurence Harbor, Jamesburg and
Helmetta would be abandoned by 1985.
4/MCSA will provide additional treatment capacity as required for any new future
participants who enter into a service contract with the Authority. These may
include Woodbridge, Carteret, Perth Amboy in the northeastern county area, and
Helmetta and Jamesburg in the upper South River area.
jj/Under alternative 2, the existing treatment plant at Pine Brook would be aban-
doned by 1985 in addition to those to be abandoned under alternative 1.
6/Under alternative 3, the existing treatment plants at Carteret, Keasbey, Perth
Amboy, Melrose, South Amboy, Morgan, Laurence Harbor and Helmetta would be
abandoned by 1985.
7/Flows from Master Sewerage Plan for Monmouth County (Killam Associates, 1966).
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
- 25 -
-------
TABLE 6
NCSA
POSSIBLE SEWERAGE PLANS
PEAK FLOWS FOR MAJOR FACILITIES
Major Facility
Main Trunk Sewer
South River
Interceptor
Sayreville Pumping
Station
Sayreville Force
Main
Outfall
Edison Pumping
Station
Year 2010
Planned
Capaci ty
(mgd)
303
130
465
465
600
109
Year 2000
Peak Flow (mgd) For Alternative
1
254
124
378
462
504
73
2
254
169
423
506
551
73
3
238
108
346
374
430
31
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
- 26 -
-------
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE
HATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The alternative courses of action summarized in the preceding
section are described in detail below. Comparisons of the alternative
water quality management plans for the lower Ran'tan River basin area
and for the Bayshore area were presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
ALTERNATIVE I
Alternative 1, the proposed action, recommends expansion of the
MCSA central treatment plant system's service area as shown in Figure 6.
This alternative requires the construction of separate treatment facil-
ities to serve the South River drainage area. The South River facilities
will provide high degrees of treatment. After treatment, the effluent
will be either discharged into tributary streams to maintain stream flow
or used to replenish the ground water.
Service Area Additions
Under this plan, the MCSA central treatment plant system will be
expanded in stages to include the following:
1. Present design service area for MCSA design project (120 mgd);
2. Additional area in northern Franklin Township (Six Mile Run);
3. South River area, including Jamesburg, Helmetta and part of
Monroe Township (requires service contracts for Jamesburg and
Helmetta);
4. Eastern county area of Madison Township (tributary to Laurence
Harbor treatment plant);
5. Northeastern county area, including Perth Amboy, parts of
Woodbridge and Carteret, and excluding the area served by
- 27 -
-------
the Rahway Sewage Authority (requires service contracts with
Woodbridge, Carteret and Perth Amboy).
Collection System
The capacities of the South River interceptor and the main trunk
sewer, as well as the pump station and force main at Sayreville, will
be expanded to handle peak flows expected in the year 2000.
Enlargement of the service area will require the construction of
facilities to connect the newly incorporated areas with the MCSA system.
Where possible, gravity interceptors will be used. However, flows
from some areas will require pump stations and force mains. The major
facilities to be provided in these areas are listed below.
1. Franklin Six Mile Area: No major facilities are required in
the added area of northern Franklin Township. However, as this area
develops, there will be a corresponding expansion of the existing collec-
tion system.
2. South Brunswick Area: The Lawrence Brook area of South Brunswick
will be connected with the MCSA system via an interceptor in North
Brunswick. This interceptor is now under construction.
Service contracts provide for a flow from South Brunswick to North
Brunswick of up to 0.6 mgd. In addition, a recent service contract
between Cranbury and South Brunswick provides for an interim discharge
from Cranbury to South Brunswick of up to 0.3 mgd. This discharge could
be conveyed to the MCSA treatment plant via North Brunswick.
3. South River Area of Middlesex County: The proposed improvements
include facilities that will connect this area with the MCSA South River
- 28 -
-------
interceptor. The plan requires a pumping station and a force main
connecting Jamesburg and Helmetta to the MCSA South River interceptor
at Old Bridge. Service contracts among MCSA, Helmetta and Jamesburg
will be required prior to implementation of the plan. The existing
sewage treatment plants at Jamesburg and Helmetta will be replaced
by new pumping stations.
4. Eastern County Area: Interceptors, pump stations and force
mains will connect the three existing plants in Morgan, Mel rose and
South Amboy to the MCSA regional treatment facility as part of the
South Bay system. New force mains and gravity interceptors will connect
Morgan and South Amboy to the MCSA plant, and Mel rose to either the South
Amboy line or directly to the MCSA plant. The three treatment plants are
scheduled to be abandoned and replaced by new pumping stations.
The area in eastern Madison Township that is tributary to the exist-
ing Laurence Harbor treatment plant will be added to the MCSA system in
the future. The Laurence Harbor plant will be replaced by a new pumping
station. One plan proposes that the area be connected to the MCSA South
River interceptor through the existing system in Madison. This plan would
require a pump station at the treatment plant and a force main to the
existing system near Cheesequake Creek. The area could also be connected
to the MCSA facilities via the South Bay collection system through South
Amboy. A final decision on the routing has not yet been made.
5. Northeastern County Area: The plan requires that Perth Amboy
be connected to the regional MCSA facility. Perth Amboy's existing treat-
ment facility will be abandoned and replaced by a pumping station. Sewage
- 29 -
-------
flows will reach the MCSA central treatment plant via either South
Amboy or Keasbey.
The plan also requires that Woodbridge's treatment plants at
Keasbey and Sewaren be abandoned. Likewise, Carteret's treatment plant
will be abandoned. A new pumping station will be constructed at
Carteret and the existing pump station at Sewaren will be expanded.
Force mains and gravity interceptors will connect Carteret, Sewaren
and Keasbey to the Edison pump station.
In November 1971, the municipalities of Moodbridge, Carteret and
Perth Amboy were ordered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection to join the MCSA system. As of November 1972, service con-
tracts with the MCSA had not been executed.
6. Rahway Valley Sewage Authority System: The Rahway Valley
Sewage Authority will continue to serve the portion of Woodbridge
Township that is already connected to the Rahway system. However, no
additional flows will be accepted. Improvements that will provide sec-
ondary treatment are currently under construction at the Rahway system's
treatment plant.
Treatment System
The MCSA regional treatment plant, which currently provides pri-
mary treatment, will be upgraded to provide secondary treatment. The
high-purity oxygen modification of the activated sludge process will be
used. The completely mixed activated sludge process, trickling filters
and physical-chemical treatment were eliminated from consideration
because of their relatively high cost and unreliability.
- 30 -
-------
Table 7 outlines the design flows and loadings for the treatment
plant. Facilities are designed to remove an average of 90 percent BOD
and suspended solids. Disinfection will be provided through chlorina-
tion of the final effluent.
The proposed treatment facilities will be located adjacent to
the existing plant on land acquired by the MCSA. The plant design
includes:
Three aerated grit chambers - 11.0 minutes detention time J_/;
Six primary sedimentation tanks - 2.8 hours detention time;
Four oxygenation tanks with four stages per tank - 3.6 hours
detention time without recirculation and 2.7 hours with recir-
culation;
Two aerobic digestors - 8.4 days detention time;
Twelve final settling tanks - 4.5 hours detention time, with six
existing tanks being converted to final settling tanks to provide
additional capacity;
Eight sludge thickening tanks - in addition to the two existing
tanks;
Two sludge storage tanks -in addition to the four existing tanks to
provide 10 days storage at 4.5 percent solids;
Six chlorination units-capable of administering 48,000 Ib/day of
chlorine.
J/A11 detention times are based upon a 120 mgd flow.
- 31 -
-------
TABLE 7
MCSA
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES
DESIGN CRITERIA
Flow - mgd
Average annual
Maximum day
Peak (maximum hour)
Minimum hour
Suspended Solids
Primary influent, mg/1
Loading, 1,000 Ib/day
Annual average
Maximum day
Maximum, 3- day average
Maximum, 17-day average
Maximum month, average
Initial
78
172
195
45
310
202
424
333
236
232
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
Primary influent, mg/1
Loading, 1,000 Ib/day
Annual average
Maximum day
Maximum, Ssday average
Average, 3-midweek days
450
293
470
419
322
Design
120
264
300
55
310
310
650
510
363
356
450
450
720
643
495
Future
240
528
600
-
310
620
1,300
1,020
726
712
450
900
1,440
1,286
990
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
- 32 -
-------
In addition, an oxygen generation facility, operations building,
process water building, vehicles and equipment maintenance building,
trunk system maintenance building and several pumping stations will be
constructed. The existing electric substation will be greatly expanded.
Plant layout allows for expansion at the site to an ultimate capa-
city of 240 mgd. Modular construction will be used to facilitate future
plant expansion. Additional plant units will be provided as required.
The design capacity of the upgraded treatment plant is 120 mgd.
The service area for this facility will generate an estimated 1985 flow
of 114.5 mgd. The service area includes:
Present Participant Est. Avq. 1970 Flow(mgd) Est. Avg. 1985' Flow(mgd)
Industrial 10.26 17.32
Bound Brook 0.95 1.23
East Brunswick 2.31 6.83
Edison 8.29 14.89
Franklin (part) 1.10 4.13
Highland Park 1.93 1.86
Madison (part) 2.67 6.89
Metuchen 1.65 2.23
Middlesex 1.69 2.12
Monroe (part) 0.14 0.54
New Brunswick 12.71 11.98
(including Mi 11 town)
North Brunswick 3.52 6.55
Piscataway 4.25 7.44
Plainfield Joint Meeting 9.83 11.22
Sayreville (part) 2.72 5.44
South Bound Brook 0.36 0.46
South Plainfield 1.62 4.23
South River 1.62 2.40
Spotswood 0.31 1.10
New Areas
Sayreville (part)
Melrose 1.13 0.52
Morgan 0.38 1.16
South Amboy 0.80 1.31
South Brunswick
Lawrence Brook _0 2.66
TOTAL 69.24 114.51
- 33 -
-------
During 19/4 (proposed completion date for the MCSA facility) and
1975, the following areas will join the MCSA system:
Participant Est. Avg. 1970 Flow(mgd) Est. Avg. 1985 Flow(mgd)
Carteret 2.99 4.29
Perth Amboy 6.00 8.25
Woodbridge
Keasbey 1.20 1.89
Sewaren 4.20 6.47
Madison (part) 0.55 2.28
Helmetta 0.03 0.18
Jamesburg 0.30 0.51
Monroe (part)' 0 2.37
Franklin
Six Mile Run _0 1.26
TOTAL 15.27 27.50
When the projected flows from these municipalities are added to the
projected flows from municipalities already within the MCSA system,the
average daily flow for 1985 becomes about 140 mgd. This is approximately
20 mgd more than the plant's design capacity. In all probability, the
design capacity of the upgraded MCSA treatment plant will be reached
sometime before 1985.
There are basically two ways of providing for these increased flows.
1. Increase plant capacity: The oxygenation system has been
designed on the conservative basis of an average BOD loading of 160 Ib.
per 1000 cubic feet of oxygenation tank volume. It is believed that the
system can operate satisfactorily at average loadings of 215 Ib. per 1000
cu. ft. Hydraulic capacity and dissolution equipment of the oxygenation
tanks have been designed to permit this optimization. Should the system
prove incapable of handling these higher loadings, the aerobic digesters
can be easily converted for use as secondary oxygenation tanks.
- 34 -
-------
Additional facilities, such as sedimentation tanks, will be required
when sewage flows exceed 120 mgd. These facilities will be provided in
the second stage of plant expansion (see "Implementation", p.38).
Approval of the Interim Basin Plan for the lower Raritan River
drainage basin, IBP-NJ-33-40, is subject to the following condition:
"When the proposed Perth Amboy, Carteret, Woodbridge, and other
second stage municipal tie-ins are carried out prior to the second
stage expansion (to 160 MGD) provisions are to be made to insure
that the system will have adequate capacity to carry and treat
these flows and that the connection of these municipalities will
not cause a contravention of Water Quality Standards." (Hansler,
written communication, 1973).
Therefore, flows beyond the original design expectations will
receive satisfactory treatment.
2. Decrease loadings: The passage of the pretreatment bill
in New Jersey and of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (FWPCAA) will result in the regulation of industrial discharges
to municipal sewerage systems. Section 307 (b) of the FWPCAA 1972 will
require removals of those pollutants which are either: 1) not susceptible
to treatment by the municipal system or 2) capable of interfering with
the operation of municipal treatment works. Regulations establishing
these pretreatment standards are scheduled to be published by the EPA
administrator by April 16, 1973. Compliance with the standards must be
accomplished within three years of the date of promulgation. As a special
condition of its grant to the MCSA, EPA required that the MCSA:
"... adopt the necessary pretreatment requirements for wastes
entering into its sewerage facilities as set forth in the rules
and regulations to be promulgated and pretreatment guidelines to
be issued by EPA in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972." (U.S. EPA, 1972).
- 35 -
-------
Decreased flow rates can be expected in the future as infiltration
and storm water inflows are eliminated. Some of the special conditions
enumerated in EPA's grant to MCSA are:
"Special Grant Conditions - The Grantee agrees to perform the
following:
a. The Grantee shall assert all reasonable efforts to assure that
each participating municipality will:
(1) Adopt a resolution setting forth its agreement to study
the infiltration and storm water problems associated with its sanitary
sewerage system, which study is to be completed within 18 months from
execution of this grant agreement. The study report, outlining the
problems and setting forth implementation schedules for eliminating all
sources of extraneous flows, is to be submitted to the MCSA and NJSDEP;
(2) proceed with any necessary corrective work in accordance
with the approved implementation schedules resulting from the infiltra-
tion and storm water problem study;
b. The Grantee shall assert all reasonable efforts to assure that
the City of New Brunswick will adopt a resolution setting forth its
agreement to study the combined sewer system within the City, to identify
alternative corrective programs, to select the most cost effective solu-
tion in compliance with the requirements of the NJSDEP and the EPA, and
to establish an acceptable schedule for implementing the most desirable
alternative. The report of such study, outlining a corrective program
and implementation schedule, is to be submitted to the MCSA and the NJSDEP
within 18 months from execution of this grant agreement." (U.S. EPA,1972).
Outfall
In a letter, dated December 20, 1972, to EPA's Water Programs Branch,
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection made the following
comments in response to the question: "What is the status of the MCSA
outfall line?"
"At this time the decision as to the ultimate method of effluent
disposal for MCSA has not been made. Detailed environmental, economic,
scientific and technical studies will be conducted considering a number
of alternatives before a decision is made. These studies should con-
sider a range and combination of alternatives including, but not limit-
ed to:
- 36 -
-------
1. Construction of a new outfall line to provide for a 25 year
design flow of 240 MGD and a 25 year peak flow of 600 MGD.
Alternative locations for the outfall:
a. A relief outfall to the present discharge location. The
estimated cost of this alternative is $23,000,000. The
line will extend 1.25 miles into Raritan Bay. However,
it is quite unlikely that this location will produce the
required dilution of 50:1 seawater to sewage, and the site
has a depth to mean low tide of only 10 feet.
b. Relocation of discharge to a more suitable location in
Raritan Bay. This line would extend approximately 6.75
miles from the shoreline and lie more than 20 feet below
mean low tide. This site would probably provide a dilu-
tion of 50:1 seawater to sewage. A preliminary cost
estimate of this alternative is $115,000,000.
c. Relocation of discharge to the Atlantic Ocean beyond
Sandy Hook. This line will require a 15 mile extension.
Its location will provide the required dilution (50:1).
A preliminary cost estimate of this alternative is
$328,000,000.
d. Discharge to the Raritan River. This alternative would
require an advanced wastewater treatment plant to be con-
structed at the site of the MCSA facility if water quality
is to be maintained in the Raritan River. A preliminary
cost estimate of the outfall alone is $10,000,000.
\
2. Develop new approaches for reducing the quantity of wastewater
for Raritan Bay disposal. This may be achieved by exploring potential
wastewater reuse schemes. Ground water recharge, industrial recycling
and industrial use of treated effluent should be considered." (Pike,
written communication, December 1972).
The effects of discharging treated effluent through the present
outfall were evaluated (Appendix D;. On the basis of that evaluation,
the following special grant conditions were imposed upon the MCSA:
"d. Since the Interim Basin Plan for the MCSA service area
indicates that the existing point of discharge will con-
travene Water Quality Standards and preliminary analysis
by the EPA indicates that there are other areas in Raritan
Bay which are suitable for the outfall location and will
not contravene Water Quality Standards, an appropriate
outfall location will be selected by the Grantee.
"g. In addition to the right of EPA to withhold up to ten
percent (10%) of the EPA grant funds pending proper
completion of the approved project work, said retainage
may be withheld until the Grantee:
- 37 -
-------
(2) initiates construction of the extended outfall
at a proper location in Raritan Bay . . . ."
(U.S. EPA, 1972).
Implementation
Construction of the required NCSA facilities will be accomplished
through three separately funded projects: 1) the treatment plant, 2) the
interceptor system, and 3) the outfall. A detailed engineering design
for the MCSA wastewater treatment plant has been completed. Preliminary
designs for expansion of the MCSA trunk system, including the major trunk
sewer, South River interceptor, Sayreville pump station and Sayreville
force main, have been completed as have the preliminary designs for the
outfall. Final design of these facilities has been authorized by the
MCSA (Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972).
Expansion of the treatment plant will be accomplished in three stages.
Stage 1: Plant units constructed during this stage will allow treat-
ment of an average flow of up to 120 mgd. The plans and specifications
for this project are complete.
Stage 2: The addition of two primary and four secondary settling
tanks, along with some equipment modifications in the oxygenation system,
will increase the treatment capacity to an average annual flow of 160 mgd.
This 160 mgd capacity will allow for a 10 year design life from the date
that expansion is completed.
Stage 3: The construction of four more primary settling tanks, two
oxygenation tanks and eight final settling tanks will increase the treat-
ment capacity to the future design flow of 240 mgd. Additional components
will be identical in design to the original structures. (Metcalf & Eddy,
October 1972).
- 38 -
-------
In addition to increasing the treatment plant's capacity, Stage 2
construction will expand the collection system. During Stage 2, inter-
ceptors, force mains, pumping stations and concomitant facilities will be
constructed to convey sewage to the MCSA plant. Stage 2 construction will
occur between 1975 and 1985.
Additional outfall capacity is to be provided during Stage 1 con-
struction. Final design of the outfall facilities has been authorized
by the MCSA. Design will be based on an estimated peak future flow of
600 mgd, or 250 percent of the average future flow of 240 mgd.
Two separate treatment facilities will serve the South River drainage
area of Monmouth County.
1. The Pine Brook treatment plant will be expanded to 6.0 mgd.
The plant will also be upgraded to provide advanced waste treatment with
disposal of effluent to local streams or land. In addition to wastewaters
generated within its own drainage basin, the Pine Brook plant will treat
wastewaters originating in the Manalapan Brook area. This area will be
served by a force main and a pumping station with a 0.5 mgd capacity.
2. A new treatment facility may be built in the Deep Run Brook
area to serve Marlboro Township. This facility would provide advanced
waste treatment. The effluent would be either discharged to streams
or used in a land disposal operation. Construction of this project
would begin sometime after 1980. Flows to the plant would be on the
order of 1.5 mgd in 1985 and 2.5 mgd in 2000. An alternate to this plan
would be the provision of facilities to pump the sewage from Marlboro
Township to the Pine Brook treatment plant.
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
ALTERNATIVE 2
As shown in Figure 7, alternative plan 2 maximizes the MCSA central
- 39 -
-------
treatment, plant service area to include all of the lower Ran tan River
basin study area plus that natural drainage to the South River originating
in Monmouth County. Under this plan, eleven existing treatment plants
will close by 1985.
Collection System
The capacity of the existing MCSA collection system will be enlarged
to allow: 1) increased flows from the existing service area resulting
from increases in population and water use, and 2) flows from new municipal
members of the MCSA. The capacity will be designed to handle flows for
the year 2000.
Treatment System
Secondary treatment must be provided to meet water quality standards
in Raritan Bay. The treatment system will be the same as that described
for alternative 1. Of necessity, the average design capacity for alter-
native 2 will be 7.7 mgd greater in 1985 than that for alternative 1 and
17.1 mgd greater in 2000. This additional capacity will allow treatment
of the flows from the Matchaponix, Deep Run and Manalapan Brook areas in
Monmouth County.
Outfall
The design capacity of the outfall for this alternative is the same
as that for alternative 1.
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
ALTERNATIVE 3
According to alternative 3, the existing MCSA central treatment plant
service area will undergo minimal expansion; adjacent areas will be re-
quired to provide their own treatment. Figure 8 indicates the area to be
served by the MCSA system and the facilities in outlying areas which will
- 40 -
-------
have to be upgraded, expanded or replaced. Areas excluded from the MCSA
central treatment plant service area under alternative 3 are:
1) Carteret
2) Keasbey and Sewaren
3) All areas of Monmouth County
4) Manalapan Brook drainage area within Middlesex County upstream
of the existing MCSA sewered area
5) All of South Brunswick, including the Lawrence Brook watershed.
Other areas to be included in the MCSA system under this alternative are:
the Six Mile Run area of Franklin Township, Perth Amboy, South Amboy,
Morgan, Mel rose and Laurence Harbor. Existing treatment plants serving
these areas will be abandoned. The portion of Monroe Township that is
tributary to MCSA will remain so.
Sewerage Systems
This alternative calls for six separate sewerage systems to collect
and treat all wastewaters within the lower Raritan River basin study area.
Middlesex County Central Treatment Plant System
The areas contributing to this system are shown in Figure 8. The
flows and loadings to the central treatment plant are given in Table 5.
Expansion of trunk sewer lines and pumping stations will be required to
handle flow increases. The treatment plant will be expanded and upgraded
as in alternative 1, except that its future capacity will be less than
that required by alternative 1.
Sewaren Sewerage System
An inter-municipal treatment facility will be built at Sewaren to
handle the combined flows from the Keasbey and Sewaren Plants in Woodbridge,
and from the Carteret wastewater treatment plant. The effluent will be
- 41 -
-------
discharged into the Arthur Kill. The concept of a treatment plant at
this location includes: 1) tertiary treatment facilities to provide an
effluent suitable for industrial water reuse and 2) sludge incineration.
Sewerage Systems for The South River Drainage Basin
Three separate facilities will be provided. Sewage generated within
the South River drainage basin (including the Manalapan Brook natural
drainage area), but outside of the existing MCSA service area will be
treated at a tertiary treatment facility in the Jamesburg area. Sewage
flows from this area are projected to be 3.1 mgd in 1985 and 6.1 mgd in
2000. The existing Helmetta plant will be abandoned.
The portion of the South River drainage area which is in Monmouth
County will be served by two tertiary treatment plants located at the
Middlesex-Monmouth County line (as described under alternative 1). These
plants will discharge their effluents into the Deep Run and Matchaponix
Brooks, both of which are tributary to the South River. Together, the
plants will have a total flow of 11.2 mgd in 1985 and 23.8 mgd in 2000.
Sewerage System for The South Brunswick Area
The South Brunswick area in the Lawrence Brook drainage basin will
be served by a regional facility near Plainsboro. The effluent will be
discharged into the Millstone River. A higher degree of treatment will
be required at this plant in order to maintain in-stream water quality.
Implementation Plans
The recommended implementation plan for this alternative is the
same as that described for alternative 1. Major collection systems will
be constructed or expanded during Stage 1 or Stage 2. All major struc-
tures will be designed for the peak flow after the year 2000. Where
feasible, structures will be designed so that equipment can be added
as required to maintain flows.
- 42 -
-------
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
ALTERNATIVE 4
Unaer this alternative, no changes will be effected in the existing
system. The sewerage facilities will remain essentially as shown in
Figure 2. Many of these facilities have either reached design capacity
or will do so in the near future.
Collection System
The existing sewer systems and drainage basin delineations are
shown in Figure 9 . Many of these systems are overloaded and cannot
handle peak flows. Conditions will deteriorate rapidly due to increased
development within the basin.
Treatment System
The MCSA central treatment plant, with its average design flow of
78 mgd, was overloaded by the average daily flow of 78.4 mgd for a nine
month period of 1972. Continued growth in the MCSA service area will
result in frequent sewage bypassing at the present facilities.
Furthermore, the existing treatment facilities are inadequate.
None of the treatment plants within the lower Raritan River drainage
basin produce effluents which meet current regulatory effluent standards.
Reduction of pollution loads entering Raritan Bay is required to
meet the orders of the state of New Jersey. This reduction cannot be
achieved without upgrading and expanding the existing treatment plants.
Therefore, a no-action plan is unacceptable.
- 43 -
-------
MCSA SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 4
CARTERET STP
//
II
°
LAURENCE HARBOR STP
PRESENT MCSA SERVICE AREA
PRESENT MCSA INTERCEPTOR
FORCE MAIN
PUMPING STATION
BOUNDARIES OF MUNICIPAL
SEWERED AREAS "-^— • ^^—
NOTES: (I) MUNICIPAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS NOT SHOWN
(2) MUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO MCSA SYSTEM NOT SHOWN
(3) ARROWS ( | \ ) INDICATE GENERAL DIRECTION OF
WASTEWATER FLOWS
Source: Metcall & Eddy, October 1972
Figure 9
-------
BAYSHORE STUDY AREA ]_/
ALTERNATIVE 1
The numerous treatment plants in the Bayshore area will be expanded
and upgraded as necessary. The effluents from these plants will be dis-
charged into inland streams or just off-shore into Raritan Bay. As
indicated in Figure 5, there are now thirty-two wastewater treatment
facilities within the study area. Several of these plants are currently
discharging to the TOMSA's regional system. Others will join the BRSA's
system in the future.
The alternative of employing many separate treatment plants is not
considered desirable. It is contrary to the concept of regionalization
as promulgated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and by the federal government. The multiple plant option will be per-
mitted only until an acceptable alternative plan can be implemented
(NJDEP, 1971).
BAYSHORE STUDY AREA
ALTERNATIVE 2
This alternative adheres to the concept of regionalized treatment
of domestic wastewaters. Several large treatment plants will be provided
along the southern shore of Raritan Bay. Two regional facilities will be
required for the Bayshore study area: one in Union Beach and another in
VAs previously indicated, alternative 3 has already been adopted. Con-
struction is proceeding on both the sewage treatment plant and the out-
fall. Therefore, this discussion of alternatives is for information
purposes only. It recounts the available options and presents the ra-
tionale for choosing alternative 3.
- 44 -
-------
Middletown near Belford. The Union Beach facility, which is currently
under construction, is owned by the BRSA; the Middletown treatment plant
is owned and operated by the TOMSA.
Under alternative 2, each of the regional plants will have its own
outfall in Raritan Bay (see Figure 10). These outfalls will extend far
enough into the bay to allow the discharge of treated effluent into 20
feet of water depth. This water depth is required to provide maximum
dilution of the treated effluent. Providing separate bay outfalls for
Middletown and Union Beach appears to be the most advantageous and eco-
nomical means of effluent disposal under this alternative. (NJDEP, 1971).
BAYSHORE STUDY AREA
ALTERNATIVE 3
With respect to the collection and treatment of wastewaters from
the study area, alternative 3 is identical to alternative 2. Two re-
gional systems will serve the entire area. With respect to effluent
disposal, however, the alternatives differ. Alternative 3, unlike
alternative 2, calls for an ocean outfall (See Figure ll). This alter-
native is favored by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
for the following reasons:
"1. The Bayshore outfall feasibility study showed the cost-effec-
tiveness of four Raritan Bay discharges into 20 feet of water,
as opposed to building one outfall line to the ocean to serve
all northern Monmouth County discharges. V
J/The study showed the bay outfalls to be more cost-effective than the
ocean outfall by $200,000. However, environmental factors were not
taken into account.
- 45 -
-------
BAYSHORE OUTFALL SYSTEM UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2
UMON COUNTY
I
O
o
•
•j
STATEN ISLAND
O
«
or
T
c
RARITAN BAY
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
O
a
r i
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY
MIDOLETOWN REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
LEGEND
EXISTING MUNICIPAL AND
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS - HIGHLANDS
REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
1/2 MILE+ RADIUS
CLOSED FOR CLAMMING
OUTFALL •
Source: Killam Associatei, 1968
Figure 10
-------
BAYSHORE OUTFALL SYSTEM UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3
UNION COUNTY
\
O
STATEN ISLAND
-------
"2. Diversion of wastewaters to the Atlantic Ocean from Monmouth
County will bring about maximum improvement in Ran tan Bay
water quality, and will conform to the State's overall plan
for wastewater management in northern Monmouth County.
Northeast Monmouth County Sewerage Authority has been re-
quired to divert its discharge from the Shrewsbury River to
the Atlantic Ocean, thus improving water quality in the
Navesink-Shrewsbury estuary and reducing the pollutional load
on Sandy Hook Bay. Participation in the Bayshore Outfall by
Atlantic Highlands-Highlands Regional Sewerage Authority,
Middletown Township Sewerage Authority and Bayshore Regional
Sewerage Authority compliments this strategy at a cost com-
parable to the Raritan Bay alternative.
"3. The Bayshore Outfall may serve in the future as a homogeneous
source of treated wastewater which may be reused for lower
water use applications with or without additional treatment,
as the individual situation dictates. It is important to note
that wastewater may be drawn off at any point along the align-
ment of the outfall, and at a rate determined by the need.
The long-range flexibility offered by this option is a signif-
icant factor favoring the ocean outfall concept and is in con-
formance with the spirit of the new federal water pollution
law.
"4. Advanced wastewater treatment with effluent wastewater dis-
posal in the near shore Raritan Bay waters is not considered
to be a suitable alternate at the present time for Bayshore
communities. This alternative has the following disadvan-
tages :
a. It would encourage the creation of small wastewater manage-
ment service areas which would operate independent of one
another.
b. Areawide coordination and management of the wastewater re-
sources from several agencies would be difficult to accom-
plish because of jurisdictional independence and the small
quantities of wastewater available at each site.
c. A series of Raritan Bay outfalls lacks the flexibility of
the Bayshore Outfall. Advanced wastewater treatment facil-
ities would have to be built at each location in order to
accomplish reuse in the future. Since reuse requirements
have not been established for the wastewater, the treatment
processes required for reuse cannot be specified at this
time. In addition, advanced wastewater treatment technology
will improve in the future. For these reasons, it is desir-
able to delay construction of Advanced wastewater treatment
systems if suitable and cost-effective alternatives exist
for meeting water quality standards.
- 46 -
-------
"5. The Bayshore Outfall Authority has the advantage of bringing
the management of the wastewater resource under the control
of a County Authority which is responsive to the needs of all
of the residents of Monmouth County. It also creates an
areawide institution which could sponsor subsequent wastewater
reuse projects." (Pike, written communication, December 1972).
MONMOUTH COUNTY BAYSHORE OCEAN OUTFALL
AUTHORITY (MCBOOA)
The MCBOOA was formed to construct and operate an ocean outfall to
serve the Bayshore area of Monmouth County.
The outfall line,which is under construct!'on,will provide an outlet
for each of the proposed regional treatment plants or the existing plants.
It will function as a force main. The line will be about 80,000 feet
long and, generally following the alignment of the New Jersey Central
Railroad, will traverse the Bayshore communities. It will begin in the
vicinity of Union Beach, extend to Highlands, and cross under the
Shrewsbury River to Sandy Hook. The outfall portion of the line will
extend approximately 3,300 feet into the ocean where the water depth is
about 25 to 30 feet.
- 47 -
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
The proposed projects have both environmental and socio-economic
implications. Environmental considerations include the effects on
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems caused by 1) construction, and
2) operation of the facilities. Socio-economic impacts are generally
of a secondary nature: for example, changes in population, land use
patterns, water supply, energy sources, transportation and solid wastes.
The primary and secondary environmental impacts of the proposed projects
are discussed below.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROJECT
Environmental Impact Of Construction
Proper design and construction of the MCSA project will lessen the
potential for detrimental environmental effects. Nevertheless, steps
must be taken to insure against environmental destruction. One of these
steps will be the strict enforcement of the Contract Specifications,
especially those sections dealing with specific procedures for minimizing
detrimental effects and for restoring any areas damaged during construction.
The Stage 1 construction consists of upgrading the existing treat-
ment plant to provide secondary treatment and expanding it to a capacity
of 120 mgd. During construction, the impact on the aquatic environment
should be limited to the effect of silt loads being carried by surface
water runoff. Detention ponds at the site will be used to collect runoff.
This will allow sedimentation of the silt load to occur prior to discharge
of the runoff water into the Raritan River. In addition, contractors will
be required to institute effective temporary erosion control measures.
- 48 -
-------
Federal guidelines (FWQA, 1970) require continuation of the same
degree of treatment by the existing plant during the alteration period.
If this is not feasible, a minimum of primary treatment and disinfection
shall be provided at all times. The bypassing of raw sewage during the
construction of additions shall not be allowed. The construction sched-
ule for this project allows continuation of primary treatment while the
plant is being expanded and upgraded.
Both during and after construction, the MCSA treatment plant pro-
ject should have a minimal effect on the terrestrial environment. Some
dust may be expected to result from construction activities; however,
this will not be a significant problem. The main access road at the
treatment plant site is paved; this will reduce dust generation caused
by ingress and egress of traffic at the plant. The contractors are re-
quired to provide and maintain temporary roads and to take adequate
measures to control dust during construction periods.
Environmental Impact Of Operation
Treated municipal waste di-scharges commonly contain four consti-
tuents which, when present in sufficient quantities, can impair estuarine
water quality. These constituents are: 1) organic matter, 2) pathogenic
organisms, 3) dissolved solids, and 4) suspended solids.
In general terms, the organic matter remaining in the effluent after
treatment can undergo decomposition in the estuary, exerting a demand on
the dissolved oxygen of the receiving water. This demand can result in
depletion of the dissolved oxygen in the discharge area. At times of
inadequate chlorination, human pathogens may prevent the use of the re-
ceiving water for recreation and shellfishing.
- 49 -
-------
Dissolved solids may be present in concentrations sufficient to
affect the salinity of the receiving water. However, unless the amount
of industrial waste is excessive, the dissolved solids entering the
estuary are not likely to be significant. Of greater significance is
the presence of nitrates and phosphates. High concentrations of these
nutrients will encourage nuisance growths of algae and marine plants.
Toxic materials may also be present in the dissolved solids portion of
the effluent.
Sufficiently high quantities of suspended solids can reduce the
depth of light penetration. Furthermore, suspended solids can clog
the gills or similar transfer membranes of aquatic organisms.
Each of these four constituents will be present to some degree
in the effluent from the MCSA treatment plant. Among other things, the
following describes the anticipated effect of these constituents on the
waters of Ran'tan Bay.
Organic Matter
At a flow of 72 mgd and an average effluent BOD (5-day) of 400 mg/1,
the MCSA plant is currently discharging 240,000 Ib BOD (5-day)/day into
the western end of Ran'tan Bay. This discharge is the major source of
pollution in the area (FWPCA, 1967).
The proposed project should reduce the effluent BOD (5-day) to 50 mg/1
with an associated bay loading of 32,600 Ib/day in 1975. However, as
the plant approaches its capacity (120 mgd), the BOD (5-day) loadings will
rise to 50,000 Ib/day. Metcalf & Eddy (1969) report that the bay can
assimilate 100,000 Ib BOD (5-day, 20°C)/day and still maintain a 50 percent
saturated dissolved oxygen content or 3.5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen. This
- 50 -
-------
would allow retention of the present outfall location.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. 90 percent BOD removals will be effected at all times;
2. water quality standards will require 3.5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen
or 50 percent saturated dissolved oxygen content.
The second assumption is no longer valid. If the water quality standards
are revised, as recommended by the FWPCAA 1972, the minimum acceptable
dissolved oxygen level in Raritan Bay will be 5.0 mg/1.
In order to determine the degree of contravention of water quality
standards that would be brought about by the discharge from the MCSA
treatment plant, a model study of Raritan Bay was conducted by Region II,
EPA. This study is included as Appendix D.
A general description of the Raritan Bay system, as it relates to
this study, is included in Appendix A. The present waste sources affecting
the systems are also enumerated. It is important to note that the MCSA
discharge represents by far the largest point source discharge within
the Raritan Bay system. The estimated 240,000 Ib/day BOD (5-day) and
405,000 Ib/day ultimate oxygen demand (UOD) account for approximately
90.4 percent and 89.4 percent of the total load of each respective con-
stituent discharged into the bay from all known point sources. The actual
MCSA discharge site is located approximately 1,000 feet south of Great Beds
Light. It is unique in that a dredged dispersion basin has been provided
to a depth of 35 feet in an otherwise shallow region, averaging about
9.0 ft. mean sea level (MSL) depth. The MCSA discharge in conjunction
with the second major point source, the discharge from the City of
- 51 -
-------
Perth AmLioy, represents over 96 percent of the total BOD (5-day) loading
to the Raritan Bay system from all identified municipal and industrial
sources.
The conclusions drawn from the model study of Raritan Bay are:
1. The discharge from the existing MCSA treatment plant is ,the
most significant wastewater point source in the bay system. This dis-
charge is largely responsible for the DO contraventions exhibited in
the vicinity of the discharge site.
2. The mathematical model developed in this analysis adequately
represents the kinetics and distribution of in-stream DO concentrations
resulting from wastewater discharges to the bay system from all known
point sources.
3. Based on the estimated ultimate oxygen demand loading of
350,000 Ib/day for the year 2020, the discharge of secondary effluent
from the MCSA high-purity oxygen treatment facility at the present
outfall site will result in contravention of both the New Jersey and
the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) water quality standards.
4. The analysis demonstrates that as the MCSA discharge point
is moved out into the bay, there is more effective dilution of the
discharge. There is also more adequate utilization of the natural
assimilative capacity of the bay and less severe water quality degra-
dation in the critical inner bay region.
5. Relocation of the discharge site to a point near the mouth
of Keyport Harbor (segment 46)1_/ results in marginal DO conditions in
the inner bay region.
I/Figure D-l, Appendix D, shows the segmentation of Raritan Bay.
- 52 -
-------
6. Relocation of the discharge site to a point near the center
of the bay system (segment 16) results in acceptable DO conditions in
the central bay and marginal conditions in the boundary areas.
7. Based on the estimated loading for the year 2020 and a mini-
mum allowable DO level of 5.0 mg/1, it appears that a suitable NCSA
outfall site must be located in the deeper waters of the central bay.
Dissolved Solids
The water quality data presented in Table A-14 (Appendix A) show
that both phosphorus and nitrogen compounds are present in concentrations
sufficient to support algal blooms. The FWPCA (1967) found that on only
one sampling date between June 1963 and July 1964 were the number of cells
per mi Hi liter (ml) of bay water less than 10,000. The FWPCA (1967)
also found that during the summer, the number of cells/ml was seldom
less than 100,000.
Additional nutrient input from the MCSA plant could well aggravate
the present productivity situation by increasing the intensity and fre-
quency of blooms. Furthermore, if the industrial wastes are pretreated
or are not discharged into the MCSA system, present biological levels of
productivity could be enhanced due to the absence of toxic elements. The
absence of toxic materials coupled with the presence of additional nu-
trients in the discharge may have a synergistic effect on the productivity
of the bay.
Pathogenic Organisms
The MCSA project is not expected to effect a significant reduction
in the total coliform numbers in the bay. There may be some improvement
- 53 -
-------
in the area of the MCSA outfall and conditions along the south shore
of Raritan Bay should measurably improve.
However, the project will affect only a small portion of the coliform
sources currently contributing to the system. Coliform data presented
in Table A-14 (Appendix A) show high total coliform counts in the
northeastern part of the bay and in the Arthur Kill. Since vast quantities
of coliforms enter the bay from the Narrows and from the Arthur Kill, an
overall reduction in the numbers of coliform organisms in the bay cannot
be expected.
The large numbers of coliforms that enter Raritan Bay from the Narrows
may prohibit the opening of certain areas in the bay to commercial shell -
fishing. In fact, the remaining open areas in Sandy Hook Bay (Figure 12),
which is part of the Raritan Bay system, may have to be closed. (Meyer,
oral communication, 1972).
Sludge Disposal
Sludge disposal poses a complex problem regardless of the alter-
native being considered. Every wastewater treatment facility, whether
it is primary, secondary or tertiary, removes solids from influent
wastewater flows. Disposing of these solids in an environmentally accept-
able manner is a continuing problem.
The New York metropolitan area faces special sludge disposal problems.
Since it is a major urban area, land is at a premium. Economic and
aesthetic considerations severely limit the number of suitable landfill
sites. The problem is compounded by the exceptionally large volumes of
sewage sludge that are generated by the area's many treatment plants.
Moreover, because of the potential air pollution effects, sludge incineration
- 54 -
-------
UPPER BAY
CLASSIFICATION OF SHELLFISH AREAS
IN RARITAN BAY
STATEN ISLAND
LOWER BAY
RARITAN BAY
NEW JERSEY
Souro: FWPCA. 1967
-------
is not considered an acceptable alternative at this time.
Conventional methods of sludge disposal must be further studied,
and the most effective means for ultimate disposal of sludge in this
area must be instituted. Recognizing these needs, the EPA has established
the following policy for all wastewater treatment projects in Nassau
County, Westchester County and New York City in New York State, and
for those New Jersey waste treatment systems bordering on waters of
New York Harbor, including the Kill Van Kull, Arthur Kill and Raritan Bay.
All applicants for grants for the construction of wastewater
treatment works in the New York metropolitan area will provide the
following:
"1. An agreement to adopt and enforce an effective industrial
waste ordinance. This will result in the necessary re-
moval of heavy metals and other toxic materials from
wastes entering the municipal systems.
"2. The applicant must agree to develop a program for sludge
management which would result in the abandonment of ocean
disposal of sludge. This program development, and deter-
mination of the most acceptable ultimate disposal method
for sludge, must be completed by June 30, 1976. The
method chosen must be in operation by June 30, 1977. The
time period until June 30, 1976 will be used to implement
the regional strategy for a thorough evaluation and demon-
stration of alternatives and management of the solids
problem on a regional basis.
"3. The projects as proposed must provide for adequate sludge
treatment prior to ocean disposal. Acceptable treatment
would include anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion with
maintenance of optimum temperatures or equivalent treatment.
"4. On the basis of the agreement as outlined above, the
following grant conditions would be applied to all such
projects:
'Approval of this Federal grant is based upon ocean
disposal of adequately treated sludge as an interim
measure. This approval is contingent upon the following:
- 55 -
-------
a. The adoption and enforcement of an effective industrial
waste ordinance to minimize the amounts of heavy metals and other toxic
substances discharged to the municipal system. Materials and allowable
amounts included in the industrial waste ordinance will be established
by the State and the E.P.A.
b. The development of an acceptable sludge management pro-
gram to result in the abandonment of ocean disposal. This program,
to be submitted to and approved by the State and the E.P.A., must be
fully developed by June 30, 1976. Implementation of the program must
be initiated by June 30, 1977.
c. As part of the development of an acceptable sludge
management program, the authority agrees to cooperate with the U.S.E.P.A.
in exploring cooperative and joint solutions with other operating sewerage
agencies.' "(Johnson, written communication, 1972).
Upon agreement with the above grant conditions, the requirement for
cessation of ocean disposal of digested sludge will be temporarily waived.
Ocean disposal of sludge at the present MCSA disposal site, 4.5 nautical
miles southeast of Ambrose Light (see Figure 13), will be continued on
an interim basis.
Air and Noise Pollution
The air pollution effects of the proposed project are expected to
be minimal. Since the oxygenation process utilizes covered tanks rather
than open aeration tanks, odors due to treatment will be minimized. In
addition, the aerobic digesters used in treating the sludge will be
covered. Gases from the sludge storage tanks will be deodorized before
discharge to the atmosphere.
The primary source of noise in the treatment plant will be the
blowers which supply air to the channel aeration systems throughout the
plant. These blowers will be located in an insulated room of the com-
bined blower-and-operations building; this will reduce the noise to an
unobjectionable level. The main air compressors for the oxygen generation
facility will likewise be housed in an insulated building to minimize
- 56 -
-------
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES NEW YORK BIGHT
MUD & ONE-MAN
STONE
Figure 13
-------
the possibility of noise pollution. Circulation compressors for
the oxygenation system will be located in the blower galleries
between each pair of oxygenation tanks.
It is anticipated that the impact of noise from the treatment
plant operation will be minimal within the plant complex and will be
negligible beyond the boundaries of the plant.
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROJECT
Environmental Impact of Construction
The BRSA's treatment plant is now under construction on a twenty-
five acre wetland site. The treatment plant proper will occupy about
six of these acres. The remainder will serve as a buffer zone and as
the site of future plant expansion. Since wetlands are extremely sen-
sitive to any kind of activity, construction will have an inherently
adverse effect on the area.
During construction, some air and noise pollution will be generated.
However, the contractor's adherence to the Contract Specifications will
minimize these effects.
Environmental Impact of Operation
The sludge incineration system that will be used at this facility
is of the fluid-bed reaction type. It will be designed to meet current
air pollution emission standards. The entire system will be instrumented
and automatically controlled to insure effective operation. The dewatered
ash end product will be disposed of on-site in a landfill operation.
SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Both the lower Raritan River basin and the Bayshore area are cen-
trally located between New York City and Philadelphia. The areas are
- 57 -
-------
served by an elaborate highway network running along north-south and
east-west orientations. Rail and bus commuter service is available to
New York City. Development of the northern and central portions of the
lower Raritan River basin and the northern section of the Bayshore area
has been extensive. Development will continue in these areas as allowed
by the land use plans of the municipalities.
The geographical conditions, i.e., location, topography, soil types
and water resources, tend to foster unlimited growth. Without the pro-
posed projects, the water quality of the receiving water bodies would
become further degraded. The proposed projects are not likely to have
any effect on either the rate or extent of development. Rather, they
are a means of mitigating the adverse effects of what appears to be in-
evitable growth.
- 58 -
-------
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSED PROJECTS BE IMPLEMENTED
In the preceding section, the environmental effects of the proposed
projects were enumerated. Most of the adverse impacts can be avoided
entirely or can be reduced to a point at which they are no longer sig-
nificantly adverse. Those adverse impacts which cannot be avoided are
described below.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY SEMERAGE AUTHORITY PROJECT
During construction at the MCSA treatment plant site}there will be
a loss of existing wildlife habitat. The habitat is neither extensive
nor of good quality. After construction and landscaping are completed,
habitat for birds and small game should be improved. As a result of
construction, the wildlife habitat along roads into the plant site will
be less suitable. However, the disruption associated with construction
will be temporary and of little long-term significance.
Operation of the upgraded and expanded plant will be accompanied by
several unavoidable adverse effects. These effects are primarily water-
oriented. As indicated in Appendix A, ground-water resources in the
area of South River and Sayreville have been overdeveloped. This over-
development has led to saltwater intrusion. Continued withdrawal of water
from these aquifers in excess of the amount of water recharged to the
aquifers will intensify the saltwater intrusion. However, proper water
resource management techniques, possibly including ground-water recharge,
could reverse this trend.
As indicated in the section entitled "Environmental Impact of the
Proposed Projects", the ultimate disposal of sludge will present a problem
- 59 -
-------
regardless of the method employed. Partial digestion of the sludge
followed by barging of the sludge to a designated ocean disposal site
could cause severe deterioration of the dumping area, decreasing the
area's desirability as a marine habitat. The primary cause of such
deterioration would be the covering over of benthic areas with solids.
There will also be a depletion of the dissolved oxygen in the dis-
posal area. If the sludge represents a large industrial waste input,
the concentration of toxic materials, such as heavy metals, in the sludge
will tend to be high. Pretreatment or exclusion of industrial wastes
could significantly reduce the adverse effect.
The discharge of treated effluent into Raritan Bay will adversely
affect the bay as follows: 1) the amount of organic matter, both resid-
ual and unstable, will increase; 2) the amount of chlorine introduced
into the system will significantly increase as the volume of treated
effluent increases; 3) the amount of biostimulants entering the system
will significantly increase as the volume of treated effluent increases.
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROJECT
Construction of the BRSA treatment plant in the wetlands is certain
to adversely affect the area. Moreover, since the wetlands are highly
sensitive, the adverse effects will extend beyond the six acres used
for initial construction. As previously indicated, construction has
already begun and the area cannot be restored to the desired natural state.
- 60 -
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
MIDDLESEX COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROJECT
The upgrading and expansion of the existing treatment plant will
enable the MCSA to achieve the water quality goals stipulated in orders
issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. However,
operation of the plant and discharge of the treated effluent may still
affect the productivity of the estuary. The amounts of residual carbon
compounds and nitrogenous and phosphorous compounds will increase as the
amount of sewage treated at the plant increases.
Operation of the existing sewage treatment plant involves the disposal
in one basin of ground water withdrawn from the aquifers in another basin.
Plant expansion will result in increased water diversion; this, in turn, will
promote greater localized saltwater intrusion and further decline of the
ground-water levels.
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROJECT
The construction and operation of the BRSA treatment plant will
enable the region to achieve the water quality goals stipulated in orders
issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The
project will also allow the anticipated population growth within the region
to occur without further degradation of the inland waters and the waters
along the south shore of Raritan Bay.
As with MCSA, operation of the BRSA sewage treatment plant will in-
volve the disposal in one basin of ground water withdrawn from the aquifers
in another basin. The results of this practice will be similar to those
noted for the MCSA project.
- 61 -
-------
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN
THE PROPOSED PROJECTS SHOULD THEY
BE IMPLEMENTED
In addition to the local short-term inconveniences and insults
to the environment that are associated with the projects, there will
be some local long-term effects. These are:
1. Operation of the expanded MCSA treatment plant will contribute
to the further decline of the water table in the area of South River and
i
Sayreville. Associated with a lowering of the water table are: 1) an
increase in well depths required for public water supply, 2) an increase
in the rate of saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifers, and
3) the possibility of land subsidence.
2. Wetland habitat is rapidly disappearing along the entire eastern
seaboard. The siting of wastewater treatment plants, such as the BRSA
project, in wetlands further reduces this acreage.
3. Both projects will entail some destruction of wildlife habitat.
Sewer construction will necessitate the loss of some shade trees. Plant
construction will remove open land areas from use as wildlife habitat.
4. Unless the utmost care is taken, short-term insults to the
environment could become long-term ones. If wetland areas are not backfilled
to the proper grades, they could be converted to less productive "upland-
type" habitats. Spoils must be confined and ultimately removed.
5. Although the sludge disposal procedure is an interim action,
the MCSA project will produce a net increase in the amount of digested '
sludge being dumped at sea. The effects of this practice on the receiving
body have not been precisely determined, but they are generally
- 62 -
-------
considered undesirable. Large quantities of "strange" or foreign
substances, such as pesticides, residual carbon compounds and heavy metals,
are being dumped into the ocean with little knowledge of the consequences.
However, in the New York metropolitan area, sludge dumping will probably
cause less harm to the environment than incineration. Sufficient land
is not available for land disposal.
6. Materials dumped at sea will not be available for conservative
uses.
- 63 -
-------
DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS
RAISED BY ALL REVIEWERS
INTRODUCTION
According to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as stated in the Environmental Protection Agency's "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements: Interim Regulation" (January 17, 1973):
"Final statements. . . shall summarize the comments and
suggestions made by reviewing organizations and shall
describe the disposition of issues surfaced (e.g.,
revisions to the proposed action to mitigate anticipated
impacts or objections). In particular, they shall address
in detail the major issues raised when the Agency position
is at variance with recommendations and objections (e.g.,
reasons why specific comments and suggestions could not
be accepted, and factors of overriding importance prohibiting
the incorporation of suggestions). Reviewer's statements
should be set forth in a Comment and discussed in a Response.
In addition, the source of all comments should be clearly
identified."
Immediately following this Introduction is a list of the reviewers of
the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This is followed by a section
entitled "Comments and Responses." Only significant criticisms have been
included in this section. Compliments have been disregarded. All comments
dealing with a particular subject have been synthesized into a representative
statement, incorporating the major points made by each reviewer. Each comment
is followed by the EPA's response.
63 - 1
-------
LIST OF REVIEWERS OF THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority
915 Union Avenue
Union Beach, New Jersey 07735
Fred Varlese, Chairman
May 30, 1973*
Interstate Sanitation Commission
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr., Director and Chief Engineer
May 23, 1973*
League of Women Voters of Monmouth County, New Jersey
c/o Mrs. Thomas R. Crane
312 Euclid Avenue
Loch Arbour, New Jersey 07711
May 15, 1973*
Matawan Township Municipal Utilities Authority
Matawan Township, New Jersey
Frederick A. Almerino, Chairman
May 25, 1973*
Middlesex County Planning Board
County Administration Building
Kennedy Square
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
Douglas S. Powell, Director
May 11, 1973*
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Sayreville, New Jersey 08872
A. J. Popowski, Executive Director
May 22, 1973*
Monmouth County Environmental Council
Monmouth County Planning Board
One Lafayette PI.
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Robert W. Clark, Senior Planner
May 21, 1973*
Monroe Township Municipal Utilities Authority
Middlesex County, New Jersey
c/o George Hartman 3rd, Chairman
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
May 22, 1973*
*Letter dated 63 - 2
-------
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources
John Fitch Plaza
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
John W. Gaston, Supervising Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Management and Planning Section
June 5, 1973*
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
1370 Hamilton Street
P.O. Box 219
Somerset, New Jersey 08873
W.J. Parker, State Conservationist
May 21, 1973*
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Sidney R. Galler, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Affairs
May 29, 1973*
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Frederick H. Sillman, M.D., Assistant Regional Director for
Health and Regional Environmental Officer
May 30, 1973*
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Newark Area Office
Gateway 1 Building, Raymond Plaza
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Roy A. Cuneo, Environmental Clearance Officer
May 22, 1973*
U.S. Department of the Army
New York District, Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
F.R. Pagano, Chief, Engineering Division
May 22, 1973*
U.S. Department of the Navy
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22332
B.E. Stultz, Commander, CEC, U.S.N., Assistant
Chief of Staff for Environmental Quality
May 22, 1973*
63 - 3
*Letter dated
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality and Non-Point Source Control Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
Albert J. Erickson, Director
May 15, 1973*
*Letter dated
63 - 4
-------
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Capacity and Infiltration
Comments:
1. The flow and population projections of the Middlesex County Planning
Board (MCPB) for the future beyond 1980 tend to be higher than those
shown in Tables 6 and A-5 in the draft EIS.
2. Perth Amboy, which has some combined sewers, may find itself with
an infiltration problem.
Reviewer:
Middlesex County Planning Board
Responses:
1. The flow and population data given in the tables were obtained from
the consulting firm of Metcalf & Eddy in October 1972 for this EIS.
The data used in the EIS are lower than those published by the MCPB
in 1971, but they were the only projections available when design
of the treatment plant was begun. Estimates of population served
differ by about 160,800: an increase of about 10 percent for the
year 2000.
The present treatment facility is designed for the year 1985 at
120 mgd. Future expansion will involve modular construction of
additional treatment units to a planned ultimate capacity of 240
mgd. At the higher MCPB population projection, the year 2000 flow
would be 248 mgd. The ultimate capacity of this modular treatment
plant can be increased if future population increases make it nec-
essary.
63-5
-------
2. Perth Amboy is similar to New Brunswick in that it has an old
sewerage system and probably has an infiltration problem. The New
Brunswick problems are discussed in the EIS.
Construction Restraints
Comments:
1. Permits from the Department of the Army are required for those outfalls
and pipelines crossing navigable waters of the United States.
2. The following information should be included in the EIS:
a. Expansion of the MCSA regional plant should be made on land above
10.9 feet Mean Sea Level, which is the elevation of the 100 year
tide.
b. Expansion of the Pine Brook plant should be on land above the 58.5
foot Mean Sea Level contour, the elevation of the 100 year flood.
c. Plant site selection for the Deep Run plant should be coordinated
with the New York District Corps of Engineers to insure that the
plant site will be above the 100 year flood level.
Reviewer:
U.S. Department of the Army, N. Y. District Corps of Engineers
3. "Consideration should be given to including a statement indicating
that construction plans will include the use of one or more measures
for the control of erosion and drainage from sediment based on guide-
lines set forth in the -Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
in New Jersey1," adopted 6/14/72 by the New Jersey State Soil Conser-
vation Committee.
Reviewer:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
63 - 6
-------
4. In order to achieve maximum public health protection and resources
utilization in the event that shellfish areas are opened in the
future, the Shellfish Sanitation Program recommends that duplicate
chlorine contact tanks designed to provide a minimum contact time
of 30 minutes at peak hourly flow either be constructed as part of
the project or be built at some later date when receiving water quality
has sufficiently improved.
5. Automatic alarms are recommended for chlorine utilization monitoring
devices and chlorination units in the MCSA plant.
Reviewer:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Responses:
1. It is stated in the draft EIS that plans for the construction of new
outfalls or the expansion of existing outfalls to serve the facilities
are not part of the proposed projects and,therefore, have not been
included in the EIS*
2. and 3. The statements have been included.
4. The detention time in the plant outfall pipe will be 60 minutes at
average flow (120 mgd) and 27.5 minutes at peak flow (300 mgd). This
time will be available for chlorination, and is a suitable substitute
for a chlorine contact tank system. When the outfall is extended to
deeper bay waters, the chlorine contact time will be increased.
5. The chlorination equipment that will be provided at the MCSA treatment
plant will provide for control of the effluent cMorfne residual
and for the safety of plant personnel. There are no alarms provided to
indicate the bypassing of raw sludge.
63 - 7
-------
Gateway National Recreation Area
Comment:
No consideration was given in the draft EIS to the effects of the projects
on the proposed Gateway National Recreation Area.
Reviewer:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Response:
On a long-term basis, the effect of the projects would probably be to
improve the water quality of the area, thus benefiting the region planned
for recreational use.
Geology
Comment:
It is requested that the following information be added to the aquifer
description:
1. Magothy-Raritan formation
a. thickness: 600-2000 ft
2
b. natural recharge: 1 mgd/mi
c. porosity: 46% (average)
d. specific capacity: 20 gpm/ft
e. specific yield: 41%
2
f. coefficient of permeability: 296 gpd/ft (average)
2. Brunswick Shale
a. thickness: 600-9000 ft
b. semi-artesian to water table condition
2
c. natural recharge: 0.5 mgd/mi (limited storage in fracture zones)
d. specific capacity: 1.8 gpm/ft (average)
63 - 8
-------
3. English formation
a. thickness: 0-75 ft
b. natural recharge: 0.5 mgd/mi^
c. porosity: 44% (average)
d. specific capacity: 3 gpm/ft (average)
e. coefficient of permeability: 300 gpd/ft2
f. coefficient of storage: 27,000
Reviewer:
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
Incineration of Sludge
Comment:
While incineration of sludge at the MCSA plant is not considered an
acceptable alternative because of the potential air pollution problems,
it is proposed for the BRSA project. There is no discussion of the
reasons why incineration is acceptable for the BRSA plant but unacceptable
for the MCSA plant.
Reviewer:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality and Non-Point Source
Control Division
Response:
The EPA regional strategy for the elimination of ocean disposal of sludge
does not consider sludge incineration an acceptable alternative in the
New York metropolitan area at the present time. The metropolitan area
consists of Nassau and Westchester Counties and New York City in New York
State and those parts of New Jersey that border on waters of New York
Harbor, including the Kill Van Kull, the Arthur Kill and Raritan Bay,
63 - 9
-------
This includes both the MCSA and the BRSA sites.
The MCSA plant is in the section of the metropolitan area that already
violates primary air pollution standards for particulates. This section
is in immediate danger of violating the secondary standards as well.
BRSA, on the other hand, is in a relatively "clean" area having only
minor particulate problems. The effluent from the plant's stacks would
not contravene primary or secondary standards.
Landfill of Wetlands
Comments:
1. The EIS does not contain a discussion of the use of incinerated ash
from the BRSA plant as landfill with regard to its impact on the
surface or ground water as a result of leaching or runoff.
Reviewer:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality and Non-Point Source
Control Division
2. At the BRSA facility, the landfill of incinerated sludge must be
strictly limited to the area essential to the expansion and operation
of the plant. This should be carefully checked periodically by state
and federal officials.
Reviewer:
League of Women Voters, Monmouth County, N.J.
Responses:
1. As stated in the draft EIS, the sludge from the BRSA plant will be
incinerated before disposal. The ash will be removed to an onsite
landfill operation. The residue is expected to be inert and,therefore,
will not present a health hazard. At a properly operated landfill,
63 - 10
-------
the potential for pollution of the surface or ground water through
leaching or runoff is essentially nonexistent.
2. The EPA agrees that care should be taken in the landfill area to
preserve the integrity of the surrounding marshlands. Periodic
checks will be made to insure satisfactory operation of the landfill.
Outfall
Comments:
1. Has the impact of placing the MCSA outfall in Station 16 been evaluated
for the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers? Improvement in the upper
sections of the bay should not be achieved at the expense of losing
areas in Sandy Hook Bay and the river that until recently have been
clean enough for clamming.
Reviewer:
League of Women Voters, Monmouth County, N.J.
2. Concerning the outfall location for the Middlesex County sewage, the
alternatives for discharge in the center of Raritan Bay will probably
cause the "restricted" areas to be reclassified as "prohibited".
This would reduce the likelihood of any portions of Raritan Bay being
reopened to the harvesting of shellfish in the immediate future.
Reviewer:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Responses:
1. The description of the different outfall locations in the draft EIS
were included for academic discussion only. The actual outfall site
has not yet been chosen. The site selection will be made after due
consideration of the impact on the bay.
63-11
-------
2. The draft EIS was not intended to determine the outfall location
for the MCSA plant. The site selection can only be made after
appropriate environmental studies have been completed.
With respect to closing of the bay to shell fishing, the MCSA outfall
location is not of paramount importance. There are other sources
contributing to pollution of the bay that by themselves would mandate
the prohibition of commercial shellfishing. (See p. 53-54).
Plankton Blooms
Comment:
Studies should be initiated to answer questions about causes, cures,
remedial and control measures associated with marine plankton blooms.
The interstate source of the Ran'tan Bay and the occurrence of these
blooms along substantial portions of the coastal states puts this problem
beyond the efforts of individual states. In our opinion, the EPA should
take the lead in studying this phenomenon to insure its proper investi-
gation so that the complex question of algae blooms may be resolved in an
objective, scientific manner.
Reviewer:
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
Response:
The value of such a project is obvious. A request for financial support
of such a study should be addressed to the Grants Administration Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The request will be reviewed and
evaluated by specialists in the Office of Research and Monitoring.
Service Area
Comments:
1. The Deep Run area of Marlboro Township should be included in the MCSA
system. 63-12
-------
Reviewer:
Middlesex County Planning Board
2. While it is so stated on page 141, Table A-24, the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) order of 2/18/66 did not specify
connection of Matawan Township to the Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority's system.
3. In the preface on page ii, it was stated that "Keyport, Matawan Borough
and Matawan Township were among the municipalities ordered by the NJDEP
to join the BRSA. The muncipalities protested the directive proposing
instead to build their own secondary...facilities " Matawan Township
at the present time operates a secondary facility which complies with
NJDEP standards. The Matawan Township Municipal Utilities Authority was
not ordered by NJDEP to join the BRSA system but did take part in a study
to evaluate a proposal by Matawan and Keyport Boroughs for a regional
facility. To our knowledge, the BRSA never proposed a contract with the
Matawan Township Municipal Utilities Authority to provide treatment of
the Township's wastewaters.
Reviewer:
Matawan Township Municipal Utilities Authority
Responses:
1. The interim basin plan submitted by the NJDEP and approved by the EPA
recommends that "better water management can be attained by limiting the
extent of regionalization and by providing separate plants in headwaters
areas (Manalapan and Marlboro Townships) with advanced treatment and/or
land disposal."
This would minimize adverse effects on basin hydrology from exportation
of wastewaters from the headwaters of South River, which includes the
Deep Run area. In its comments on the interim basin plan, the EPA rec-
ommended that Marlboro Township supply the Deep Run drainage area with
its own treatment plant to provide advanced treatment and/or land
63-13
-------
disposal, as needed.
2. The date listed in Table A-24, page 141, is the date of the initial
action requiring abatement. The abatement measure specified in the
last column of the table is the current abatement action directed at
the municipal discharger, as indicated in the text.
3. The Matawan Township Municipal Utilities Authority currently operates
secondary treatment plants at Cliffwood Beach, Strathmore, and River
Gardens. These plants have capacities of 0.75 mgd, 0.80 mgd, and 0.10 mgd,
respectively. They are now operating satisfactorily and will continue
to meet State standards as long as they produce an effluent with 80% of
the BOD removed.
A goal of regionalization in the Bayshore area is to eliminate the inland
STP discharges because of the low assimilative capacity of the inland
streams. In keeping with this concept, the Matawan Township Municipal
Utilities Authority would be required to join a regional sewerage system
and discharge treated wastewaters away from these inland waterways.
In a letter to the EPA dated December 6, 1972, the BRSA indicated that
meetings with representatives of Matawan Township had been held on May 6,
1970 and on July 1, 1971. The purpose of the meetings was to obtain
commitments for sewerage service. The BRSA has not actively pursued
service agreements with Matawan Township because the township is satis-
factorily operating its secondary treatment facilities.
In a letter to EPA dated November 6, 1972, the NJDEP indicated that a
proposed regional sewerage system to serve Matawan Township, Matawan
Borough, Keyport Borough, and a portion of Marlboro Township, with dis-
charge to the Monmouth County Bayshore Ocean Outfall Authority's (MCBOOA)
system, was less cost effective than connection of these communities to
63 - 14
-------
the BRSA system. In addition, the MCBOOA outfall is located near the
BRSA plant. The MCBOOA opposes any plan that does not require the
Matawan-Keyport area to tie into the BRSA system. Pursuant to NJSA 40:36A,
the MCBOOA has the statutory authority to prevent the construction of any
competing system within the MCBOOA's area.
Therefore, although Matawan Township has not been ordered to join the BRSA
system, current wastewater management planning by the NJDEP aims for the
township's inclusion in the BRSA system sometime in the future. Based
upon this planning, the EPA has approved expansion of the BRSA interceptor
*•
system which is currently under construction.
Mater Budget of the Area
Comments:
1. Upgraded treatment and maximum reuse of both sludge and effluent in the
relatively near future would be desirable.
Reviewer:
League of Women Voters, Monmouth County, N.J.
2. Policy and guidelines should be developed to provide for adequate water
recharge to offset the massive withdrawals and transfer of water from
one part of the area to another by such a large regional system.
Reviewer:
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
3. Water quality and analysis models should be applied to the entire basin,
not just to Raritan Bay.
Reviewer:
Middlesex County Planning Board
63 - 15
-------
Responses:
1. EPA agrees that both upgraded treatment and maximum reuse would be
advantageous.
2. At the outset of upgraded plant operation, the need for ground-water
recharge will be insignificant. At present, tertiary treatment with
ground-water recharge or sale of renovated water to industry is not
feasible. In the future, when wastewater reuse becomes important and
when technology is more advanced, the system could be modified as
needed.
3. A study is currently being done on a large part of the Raritan basin.
The EPA is funding the study which is being carried out by a consultant.
Water Quality Standards
Comments:
1. Contravention of the water quality standards is unacceptable. There
should be a coordinated effort by all agencies concerned to develop a
policy and guidelines prior to plan implementation.
Reviewer:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
2. Mention of the New York State Water Quality Standards should be made,
especially since one of the discharge points being considered is located
in the waters of that state.
Reviewer:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality and Non-Point Source
Control Division
63 - 16
-------
Responses:
1. The present means of effluent disposal will cause difficulties at
times, with respect to the water quality standards. However, delaying
the project until the outfall is completed is not justified. Operation
of the system to provide secondary treatment will immediately reduce
the BOD loadings on the bay, improving the bay environment. The outfall
should be constructed and connected to the plant before the flows from
the plant become great enough to produce excessively high BOD loadings.
2. Since the final site for the proposed MCSA outfall may be in the waters
of New York State, the effluent would be required to meet the NYS water
quality standards. Along with the New Jersey standards, those of New
York are undergoing revision under federal regulations (See p. 139 and
Appendix B). The waters of the bay which would be affected by the
outfall are designated Classes SA and SB for tidal saltwaters and Special
Class I for the Raritan Bay, N.Y. The water quality standards presented
for these waters are exerpted from "Classifications and Standards
Governing the Quality and Purity of Waters of New York State" (Parts
700-703, Title 6, Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations,
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). The
standards are as follows:
701.4 Classes and Standards for tidal salt waters.
Class SA
Best usage of waters. Shell fishing for market purposes and any other
usages.
63 - 17
-------
Quality Standards for Class SA Waters
Items
1. Floating solids; setteable
solids; oil; sludge deposits
2. Garbage,cinders,ashes,oils,
sludge or other refuse
3. Sewage or waste effluents
4. Dissolved oxygen
5. Toxic wastes, deleterious sub-
stances, colored or other wastes
or heated liquids
6. Organisms of coliform group
Specifications
None attributable to sewage,indus-
trial wastes or other wastes.
None in any waters of the marine
district as defined by State Con-
servation Law.
None which are not effectively dis-
infected.
Not less than 5.0 parts per million.
None alone or in combination with
other substances or wastes in suf-
ficient amounts or at such tempera-
tures as to be injurious to edible
fish or shellfish or the culture
or propagation thereof, or which in
any manner shall adversely affect
the flavor, color, odor or sanitary
condition thereof or impair the
waters for any other best usage as
determined for the specific waters
which are assigned to this class.
The median MPN value in any series
of samples representative of waters
in the shellfish growing area shall
not be in excess of 70 per 100 mi Hi-
1i ters.
63 - 18
-------
Responses:
1. The present means of effluent disposal will cause difficulties at
times, with respect to the water quality standards. However, delaying
the project until the outfall is completed is not justified. Operation
of the system to provide secondary treatment will immediately reduce
the BOD loadings on the bay, improving the bay environment. The outfall
should be constructed and connected to the plant before the flows from
the plant become great enough to produce excessively high BOD loadings.
2. Since the final site for the proposed MCSA outfall may be in the waters
of New York State, the effluent would be required to meet the NYS water
quality standards. Along with the New Jersey standards, those of New
York are undergoing revision under federal regulations (See p. 139 and
Appendix B). The waters of the bay which would be affected by the
outfall are designated Classes SA and SB for tidal saltwaters and Special
Class I for the Raritan Bay, N.Y. The water quality standards presented
for these waters are exerpted from "Classifications and Standards
Governing the Quality and Purity of Waters of New York State" (Parts
700-703, Title 6, Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations,
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). The
standards are as follows:
701.4 Classes and Standards for tidal salt waters.
Class SA
Best usage of waters. Shellfishing for market purposes and any other
usages.
63 - 17
-------
Quality Standards for Class SA Waters
Items
1. Floating solids; setteable
solids; oil; sludge deposits
2. Garbage,cinders,ashes,oils,
sludge or other refuse
3. Sewage or waste effluents
4. Dissolved oxygen
5. Toxic wastes, deleterious sub-
stances, colored or other wastes
or heated liquids
6. Organisms of coliform group
Specifications
None attributable to sewage,indus-
trial wastes or other wastes.
None in any waters of the marine
district as defined by State Con-
servation Law.
None which are not effectively dis-
infected.
Not less than 5.0 parts per million.
None alone or in combination with
other substances or wastes in suf-
ficient amounts or at such tempera-
tures as to be injurious to edible
fish or shellfish or the culture
or propagation thereof, or which in
any manner shall adversely affect
the flavor, color, odor or sanitary
condition thereof or impair the
waters for any other best usage as
determined for the specific waters
which are assigned to this class.
The median MPN value in any series
of samples representative of waters
in the shellfish growing area shall
not be in excess of 70 per 100 mi Hi-
1i ters.
63 - 18
-------
Class SB
Best usage of waters. Bathing and any other usages except shell fishing
for market purposes.
Quality Standards for Class SB Waters
Items
1. Floating solids; settleable
solids; oil; sludge deposits
2. Garbage,cinders,ashes,oils,
sludge or other refuse
3. Sewage or waste effluents
4. Dissolved oxygen
5. Toxic wastes, deleterious sub-
stances,colored or other wastes
or heated liquids
Specifications
None attributable to sewage, indus-
trial wastes or other wastes.
None in any waters of the marine
district as defined by State Con-
servation Law.
None which are not effectively dis-
infected.
Not less than 5.0 parts per million.
None alone or in combination with
other substances or wastes in suf-
ficient amounts or at such tempera-
tures as to be injurious to edible
fish or shellfish or the culture or
propagation thereof, or which in any
manner shall adversely affect the
flavor,color,odor or sanitary con-
dition thereof; and otherwise none
in sufficient amounts to make the
waters unsafe or unsuitable for
bathing or impair the waters for any
other best usage as determined for
the specific waters which are assigned
to this class.
63 - 19
-------
702.3 Special Class I for Raritan Bay
Best usage of waters. Fishing and any other usages except bathing or
shell fishing for market purposes.
Quality Standards for Class I Maters
1.
Items
Floating solids; settleable
solids; sludge deposits
2.
Garbage ,ci nders, ashes'.oi 1 s,
sludge, or other refuse
3. Sewage or waste effluents
4. Dissolved oxygen
5. Toxic wastes,oil,deleterious
substances colored or other
wastes, or heated liquids
Specifications
None which are readily visible and
attributable to sewage, industrial
wastes,or other wastes or which
deleteriously increase the amounts
of these constituents in receiving
waters after opportunity for rea-
sonable dilution and mixture with
the wastes discharged thereto.
None in any waters of the marine
district as defined by State Con-
servation Law.
Effective disinfection if required
by Interstate Sanitation Commission.
An average of not less than 50 per
cent saturation during any week of
the year, but not less than 3.0 parts
per million at any time.
None alone or in combination with
other substances or wastes in suffi-
cient amounts to be injurious to
edible fish and shellfish, or the
culture or propagation thereof, or
which shall in any manner affect the
flavor,color,odor, or sanitary con-
dition of such fish or shellfish so
as to injuriously affect the sale
thereof, or which shall cause any
injury to the public and private
shellfisheries of this State; and
otherwise none in sufficient amounts
to impair the waters for any other
best usage as determined for the
specific waters which are assigned
to this class.
63 - 20
-------
X
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
1. The water quality management plans for the lower Raritan River -
Ran tan Bay area must be implemented to insure optimum use of available
land and water resources.
2. In order to meet current water quality standards for the lower Raritan
River - Raritan Bay, the MCSA must enlarge and upgrade its existing sewage
treatment plant.
3. After appropriate studies, as required by Part IV, d of the grant agree-
ment, the MCSA must select an effluent disposal method and site which will
not cause contravention of the water quality standards set for the receiving
water.
4. Socio-economic and environmental considerations dictate that Matawan
Township and portions of Marlboro join the BRSA.
5. Several existing sewage treatment plants are located on "reclaimed"
wetlands and at least one sewage treatment facility is being constructed
in the wetlands.
6. The MCSA now practices ocean disposal of sewage sludge. On an interim
basis, the MCSA will practice ocean disposal of the digested sludge from its
expanded treatment facility. Upon completion of the regional program for
sludge disposal in the New York metropolitan area, the program will mandate
and the MCSA must adopt the least environmentally damaging disposal method.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Both the MCSA and the BRSA should continue to comply with the imple-
mentation schedules specified in the orders issued by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. This includes the establishment of
service agreements with each of the municipalities that has been directed
- 64 -
-------
by the Department of Environmental Protection to join the MCSA or the BRSA.
2. The MCSA should immediately begin enlarging and upgrading its existing
treatment facility, as described in the proposed plan (alternative 1).
Final design of interceptors should be completed as expeditiously as
possible.
3. After appropriate studies, as required by Part IV, d of the grant agree-
ment, the MCSA should select the location and design of the plant outfall
such that the discharge will not contravene the water quality standards
set for the receiving water.
4. Matawan Township and portions of Marlboro should sign service agreements
with the BRSA.
5. Federal funds shall not be granted "... for the construction of
municipal waste water treatment facilities or other waste-treatment-associ-
ated appurtenances which may interfere with the existing wetland ecosystem
except where no other alternative of lesser environmental damage is found
to be feasible." V
6. As part of the development of an acceptable sludge management program,
the MCSA has agreed to cooperate with the EPA in exploring possible solutions
to the sludge disposal problem in the New York metropolitan area.
I/William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
February 21, 1973, Administrator's decision statement no. 4: EPA policy
to protect the nation's wetlands, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
- 65 -
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED
BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand
cfs - Cubic feet per second
COD - Chemical oxygen demand
DO - Dissolved oxygen
fps - Feet per second
g/1 - Grams per liter
gpcd - Gallons per capita per day
gpd - Gallons per day
gpm - Gallons per minute
1 - Li ter
m - Square meters
m^ - Cubic meters
mgd - Million gallons per day
mg/1 - Milligrams per liter
ml - Milliliter
MSL - Mean sea level
NH3 - Ammonia
NOD - Nitrogenous oxidation demand
ppb - Parts per billion
ppm - Parts per million
ppt - Parts per thousand
STP - Sewage treatment plant
UOD - Ultimate oxygen demand
- 66 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayers, J., B. Ketchum, and A. Redfield. 1949. Report to Middlesex
County Planning Board on hydrographic considerations relative to
the location of sewer in Raritan Bay. Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst.
Ref. 49-13. 49p.
Barksdale et al. 1943. Special report 8: the ground-water supplies
of Middlesex County, New Jersey. N.J. State Water Policy Commission,
Trenton, N.J. 160p.
Barksdale, H.C. and G.D. Debuchananne. 1946. Artificial recharge of
productive ground-water aquifers in New Jersey. Economic Geology.
41 (7): 726-37.
Conover, S. 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952-1954. IV.
Phytoplankton. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 15:62-112.
Dean, D. and H. H. Haskins. 1964. Benthic repopulation of the Raritan
River estuary following pollution abatement. Limnol. and Oceanog.
9:551-63.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1967. Proceedings of
the conference on the pollution of Raritan Bay and adjacent interstate
waters. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 3v.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1969. Pollution control
in the Raritan Bay area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 34p.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal guidelines: design,
operation and maintenance of waste water treatment facilities. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior. 44p.
Hamilton, Thomas, (oral communication). February 2, 1973. Conversation
between Mr. Thomas Hamilton, New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection, Trenton, N.J. and Dr. Barbara M. Metzger, Acting Chief,
Environmental Evaluation Section, Water Programs Branch, EPA, Region II,
New York, N.Y.
Hansler, Gerald, (written communication). February 2, 1973. Letter from
Gerald Hansler, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y.
to Richard J. Sullivan, Commissioner, New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, N.J.
Hydroscience. 1968. The influence of waste discharges on water quality
in Raritan Bay. Hydroscience, Inc., Westwood, N.J. 40p.
Hydroscience. 1970. Interim report, development of water quality model
Boston Harbor: prepared for Mass. Water Resources Commission.
Hydroscience, Inc., Westwood, N.J. 173p.
- 67 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1971. Report of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission on the water pollution control activities
and the interstate air pollution control program. ISC, New York, N.Y.
77 + p.
Jablonski, L. A. 1968. Special report no. 23: ground-water resources
of Monmouth County, New Jersey. State of N.J. Dept. of Conservation
and Economic Development, Trenton, N.J. 117p.
Jeffries, H. P. 1959. The plankton biology of Raritan Bay. Ph.D. Thesis.
Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, N.J. 180p.
Jeffries, H. P. 1962. Environmental characteristics of Raritan Bay, a
polluted estuary. Limnol. and Oceanog. 7:21-31.
Johnson, Kenneth L. (written communication). September 8, 1972. Letter
from Kenneth L. Johnson, (then )Director, Division of Air and Water
Programs, EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y. to Eugene T. Jensen, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water Programs Operations, EPA, Washington,
D.C.
Ketchum, B. 1950. Hydrographic factors involved in the dispersion of
pollutants introduced into tidal waters. Boston Soc. of Civil Eng.
p. 296-313.
Ketchutn, B. 1951. The exchanges of fresh and salt waters in tidal
estuaries. Journal of Marine Research 10(1): 18-35.
Killam Associates. 1966. A, master plan for Monmouth County, New Jersey:
report upon regiona1 sewerage facilities. Elson T. Killam Associates,
Millburn, N.J. n.p.
Killam Associates. 1968* Report upon alternate methods of disposal of
treated effluent from the Baystiore communities of Monmouth County.
Elson T. Killam Associates, Millburn, N.J. n.p.
Kummel, H. B. 1940. The geology of New Jersey. New Jersey Department
of Construction and Development, Trenton, N.J. Geological Series Bull.
no. 50. n.p.
Kupper, C.J. Nov. 1970 (rev. Aug. 25, 1972). Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority, Engineer's report and cost estimate for trunk and interceptor
sewers, pumping stations and wastewater treatment plant. Charles J.
Kupper, Inc., Consulting Engineers, n.p.
Metcalf & Eddy. 1968. Comprehensive sewerage plan phase one for
Middlesex County, New Jersey: master plan document 6. Middlesex
County Planning Board, New Brunswick, N.J. 62p.
- 68 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Metcalf & Eddy. 1970. Comprehensive sewerage plan phase two and three
for Middlesex County, New Jersey: master plan document 18. Middlesex
County Planning Board, New Brunswick, N.J. 82p.
Metcalf & Eddy. 1971. Comprehensive water and sewerage plan phase four
for Middlesex County, New Jersey: master plan document 23. Middlesex
County Planning Board, New Brunswick, N.J. 82p.
Metcalf & Eddy. May 1972. Project report on secondary treatment and
additional facilities (final draft). Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./ Engineers,
New York, N.Y. n.p.
Metcalf & Eddy. October 1972. Material submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (unpublished). Metcalf & Eddy, Inc./ Engineers,
New York, N.Y. n.p.
Meyer, George, (oral communication). December 15, 1972. Conversation
between Mr. George Meyer, Shellfish Consultant, Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, HEW, Brooklyn, N.Y. and Dr. Roland B. Hemmett, Aquatic
Biologist, Environmental Evaluation Section, Water Programs Branch,
EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y.
Middlesex County Planning Board. 1970. Comprehensive master plan 9,
land use inventory and analysis; terminal facilities: a locational
analysis; forecasts 1985, 2000: people, jobs and land. Middlesex
County Planning Board, New Brunswick, N.J. n.p.
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority. 1971. Fourteenth annual report:
1971. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, Sayreville, N.J. n.p.
Monmouth County Planning Board. 1967. Report no. 1: land use and
physical characteristics. Monmouth County Planning Board, Freehold,
N.J. n.p.
Monmouth County Planning Board. 1969. Report no. 5: general development
plan 1969-1985. Monmouth County Planning Board, Freehold, N.J. 105p.
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection. 1971. Interim
plan: southern Raritan Bay drainage basin. NJDEP, Trenton, N.J. n.p.
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection. 1972. Interim
plan for water quality management: lower Raritan River region with
emphasis on the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority service district.
NJDEP, Trenton, N.J. n.p.
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection. October 1972.
Material submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(unpublished). NJDEP, Trenton, N.J. n.p.
New Jersey State Department of Health. 1970-72. Monthly operating reports
of sewage treatment plants: Raritan Bay and connections (adjacent waters)
N.J. Dept. of Health, Trenton, N.J. n.p.
- 69 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
New Jersey State Department of Health. Bureau of Examination and
Licensing. February 1972. Raritan River basin: plant and man list
by area. N.J. Dept. of Health, Trenton, N.J. n.p.
Patten, B.C. 1961. Plankton energetics of Raritan Bay. Limnol. and
Oceanog. 6:369-87.
Patten, B. C. 1962. Species diversity in net phytoplankton of Raritan
Bay. Journal of Marine Research. 20:57-75.
Pike, Charles M. (written communication). June 14, 1972. Letter from
Charles M. Pike, Director, Division of Water Resources, New Jersey
State Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, N.J. to Peter
F. Bail, Chairman, Bayshore Outfall Authority (MCBOOA), Asbury Park, N.J.
Pike, Charles M. (written communication). December 20, 1972. Letter
from Charles M. Pike, Director, Division of Water Resources, New Jersey
State Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, N.J. to Charles
N. Durfor, Chief, Water Programs Branch, EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y.
Raytheon Company. 1972. An ecological survey of the Arthur Kill. Raytheon
Co., Environmental System Center, Environmental Research Laboratory, n.p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Soils
data. SCS, Somerset, N.J. n.p.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1956. Tidal current chart: New York Harbor
(7th ed.).
U.S. Geological Survey. 1964. Compilation of records of surface waters
of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960: part 1-B. North
Atlantic slope basins, New York to York River. USGS Water-Supply Paper
1722. 578p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. STORET: water quality control
information system.
U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency. 1971-72. Refuse Act Permit Program
files. EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Grant agreement between EPA
and the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority: Grant no. C-34-342. EPA,
Region II, New York, N.Y.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1963. Transcript of conference in the matter
of pollution of the interstate waters of Raritan Bay and adjacent inter-
state waters: second session, May 9, 1963.USPHS, New York, N.Y. 58 + p.
- 70 -
-------
APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
Political Boundaries
This Environmental Impact Statement is concerned with two separate
geographical locales and, hence, two separate study areas. The lower
Ran tan River basin includes all of the areas in Middlesex, Somerset
and Union Counties that drain into the Raritan River between the
northern boundary of the Borough of Bound Brook and the point at which
the river discharges into Raritan Bay at the City of Perth Amboy.
Collectively these areas comprise the lower Raritan River basin study
area. The portion of the south shore of Raritan Bay (Bayshore area)!/
that extends from the City of South Amboy to Comptons Creek in
Middletown Township, Monmouth County is referred to as the Bayshore
study area.
The lower Raritan River basin drains an area of approximately
350 square miles, while the Bayshore area drains approximately 60
square miles. The limits of the basin and the bay study areas, in-
cluding municipal and county boundary lines, are shown in Figure A-l.
J/For the purposes of this report, South Amboy and Madison Township
have been included in the lower Raritan River basin.
- 71 -
-------
CO
c
LIMITS OF STUDY AREA
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY AREAS
-------
Proximity to Population Centers
The lower Raritan River basin and the Bayshore area are both
located in close proximity to the major metropolitan population
centers of New York and Philadelphia. The New Brunswick-Perth Amboy
area is approximately 35 miles from New York City and 60 miles from
Philadelphia.
Proximity to Transportation Systems
The study areas are situated in the northeast corridor between
New York and Philadelphia. The New Jersey Turnpike, with several key
interchanges in Middlesex County, transverses the central part of the
study areas. The Garden State Parkway, which is located in the eastern
part of the study areas, conveys traffic from northern New Jersey and
New York City to the New Jersey shore. Interstate Highway 287 runs
east-west through the study areas. Traveling west from Perth Amboy,
1-287 connects with Interstate 78 to Pennsylvania. Traveling east, it
connects with the Outerbridge Crossing to Staten Island and New York.
Other major highways in the study areas include: U.S. Routes 1 and 9
and State Routes 18, 34, 35 and 36. Interstate 95 is routed through
the study areas, but construction has not yet begun.
All of the major airports serving the New York metropolitan area
(Newark, Kennedy and LaGuardia) are easily accessible from the study
areas. There are also several smaller airports located either within
the study areas or in close proximity to them.
- 72 -
-------
The Penn Central Railroad's main line service from New York to
Philadelphia and Washington passes through New Brunswick. The Jersey
Central main line runs through Perth Amboy, South Amboy, Matawan and
Hazlet and then turns south. Several other railroad lines, including
the New York and Long Branch, the Lehigh Valley, the Raritan River
and the Reading, provide freight service to and from the area. Rail-
road passenger service is available at several points within the study
areas for commuters to Newark, New York, Trenton and Philadelphia.
Bus service is provided on all major highways in the study areas.
Express bus service is available—for commuters to Newark and New York
City.
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE STUDY AREAS
Topography
The topography of the lower Raritan River basin is relatively flat.
Elevations range from zero to about 500 feet above mean sea level; the
higher elevations are in the vicinity of the Watchung Mountains at the
northwestern limits of the basin. The lower Raritan drainage basin
lies in two distinct physiographic provinces. The northwestern portion
of the basin lies in the Piedmont province and the southeastern part of
the basin lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plain province. Kummel (1940)
describes the surface of the Piedmont as ". . . chiefly a lowland of
gently rounded hills separated by wide valleys, with some ridges and
isolated hills rising conspicuously above the general surface". The
Atlantic Coastal Plain, which extends eastward from the Piedmont province,
is characterized by a gently sloping surface.
- 73 -
-------
The Bayshore area is entirely within the Atlantic Coastal Plain
province. A prominent ridge stretches southwest from Ran tan Bay to
Clarksburg and then trends south. This ridge forms a divide between
the streams draining into the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the streams
draining into the Raritan and Delaware Rivers on the north and west.
(Jablonski, 1968).
Geology
More than 600 million years ago, during the late Precambrian
period, the oldest known rocks underlying the study areas were deposited
as sands and muds. The accumulation of a great thickness of overlying
sediment created sufficient heat and pressure to form sandstones, shales
and arkoses. These consolidated rocks were later intruded by igneous
rocks and altered to form gneisses and schists.
Deposits of Continental sediments were subsequently laid down
during the Triassic period by streams originating in the highlands to
the west. The Triassic deposits were later tilted, faulted and eroded
over a time span of approximately 100 million years.
In early Upper Cretaceous times, the land surface sloped gently to
the southeast at about 60 feet to the mile. The land was submerged by
the sea and Upper Cretaceous sands and clays were deposited in alternating
layers dipping to the southeast.
An interval of erosion ensued and the landward edges of the
Cretaceous deposits were removed. The next advance of the sea occurred
60 million years ago during the Tertiary period. Sands, clays and gravels
were deposited on the older Cretaceous materials. Most of the Tertiary
sediments were removed by erosion along with many of the older Cretaceous
deposits.
- 74 -
-------
During the Quaternary period, there were four advances of great
ice sheets. There is evidence of only the Wisconsin drift remaining.
This drift blankets the northern third of Middlesex County. In addition,
sand and gravel were deposited along the coastal areas by melt waters
from the glaciers.
Rocks of Precambrian and Paleozoic age form a basement complex
upon which rest rocks of Triassic and Cretaceous age. The Piedmont pro-
vince is almost completely underlain by the Triassic rocks. The rocks
consist mainly of shale and sandstone with interbeds of lava and sills
of diabase or basalt.
Unconsolidated clay, sand and gravel deposits of Cretaceous and
Tertiary age underlie the Atlantic Coastal Plain southeast of the
Piedmont province. Throughout both of the study areas, Quaternary deposits
form a thin and discontinuous mantle of unconsolidated sediments over
older rocks. (Barksdale et al., 1943).
Climatology
The climate of the study areas, as exemplified by that of the City
of New Brunswick, is temperate. The average annual temperature is between
50 and 55°F. January and February, the coldest months, have a mean tem-
perature of 32°F and July, the warmest month, has a mean of 75°F.
Temperatures have ranged from below -5°F in February to about 105°F in
July. Water temperatures follow a similar distribution pattern, ranging
from 32 to 79°F.
The average annual precipitation in the study areas is 45 inches.
February has tha lowest monthly average, while August has the highest.
The period from May to September has the highest average rainfall.
- 75 -
-------
Annual snowfall averages between 20 and 30 inches. Precipitation data for
New Brunswick are presented in Table A-l.
Prevailing winds in the study areas are northwesterly during the colder
months of the year and south to southwest during the warmer months. At
Sandy Hook, almost 20 percent of the total wind duration is from the northwest;
winds from the north and northeast each occur slightly more than 15 percent
of the time.
Major Drainage Basins
The major drainage basins within the lower Raritan River basin and the
south shore of Raritan Bay are: South River, Lawrence Brook, Green Brook,
Raritan River and the Bayshore. The drainage basins are shown in Figure A-2.
South River Basin
The South River drainage basin is located in the southeastern part of
the lower Raritan River basin region. For the most part, the area is level.
The South River is the second largest waterway in Middlesex County.
It flows in a northerly direction and extends for a distance of about 8.5
miles south of the Raritan River. The South River is tidal to Old Bridge.
The total tributary area of this basin is 132 square miles. The upper
portion of the basin is relatively undeveloped, while the lower portion is
experiencing extensive residential development. The average flow from this
basin is about 131 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Lawrence Brook Basin
The Lawrence Brook drainage basin has a tributary area of about 47
square miles and lies to the northwest of the South River basin.
- 76 -
-------
TABLE A-l
AVERAGE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL .PRECIPITATION
IN INCHES AT NEW BRUNSWICK
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Average
No. of Years of
Record through
1963
New Brunswick
3.34
2.77
3.75
3.48
3.75
3.63
4.53
4.70
4.06
3.16
3.64
3.17
43.98
109
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
- 77 -
-------
CO
c
3
LIMITS OF STUDY AREA
LOWER RARITAN RIVER DRAINAGE BASINS
-------
In general, the topography of this basin is level. The soil is generally
pervious on the east side of the brook and impervious on the west side.
Lawrence Brook is tidal up to Westons Mills Pond. The average flow from
the basin to the Raritan River is about 37 cfs. The upper portion of
the drainage basin is still relatively undeveloped, while the lower por-
tion is undergoing intensive development.
Green Brook Basin
The tributary area of the Green Brook drainage basin is about 66
square miles. The Watchung Mountains form the northern boundary of
this basin. With the exception of areas adjacent to the Watchungs, the
land in this drainage basin is relatively flat.
Land use within the basin is primarily residential, although there
is some commercial and industrial development. The average flow from
the basin into the Raritan River is about 12 cfs.
Lower Raritan River Basin
This drainage basin includes all areas that drain directly into
the Raritan River. The basin tributary area is approximately 50 square
miles. The topography along the river is relatively flat, although there
are some steep inclines. The Raritan is the largest river in Middlesex
County. Near the mouth of the Raritan, there has been considerable in-
dustrial development along the banks. Other areas of high industrial
development are scattered along the river. The average flow of the
Raritan at the point of its discharge into Raritan Bay is 1,400 cfs.
Bayshore Drainage Area
The tributary area of the Bayshore drainage basin is approximately
70 square miles. The topography is generally flat or gently sloping.
- 78 -
-------
Areas of a somewhat higher elevation can be found in the western
section of the basin around Keyport and Holmdel. There has been con-
siderable residential, commercial and industrial development near the
shore areas. The interior regions are just now being converted from
rural agricultural areas to residential areas. The average flow from
the drainage basin into Raritan Bay is approximately 100 cfs.
LAND USE PATTERNS
This section deals with the land use patterns predominating in
the study areas. As indicated in Figure A-l, the lower Raritan River
basin encompasses most of Middlesex County and substantially smaller
segments of Somerset and Union Counties. The Bayshore area includes
all or part of nine Monmouth County communities. Data on this subject
were taken from three principal sources. The Middlesex County Planning
Board's Comprehensive Master Plan No. 9 (1970) provided most of the land
use information on the lower Raritan River basin. Two publications of
the Monmouth County Planning Board, a detailed study on land use patterns
(1967) and a general development plan for the county (1969), supplied
most of the data used in the discussion of the Bayshore area.
Lower Raritan River Basin
Within the lower Raritan River basin, 38,600 acres are devoted to
residential use, making this the dominant type of land use (see Table A-2),
Individually, none of the commercial use categories contains more than
10,000 acres. In combination, however, manufacturing, wholesaling, re-
tailing, services, transportation, construction and mining activities
account for the second highest amount of land occupied (26,500 acres).
- 79 -
-------
TABLE A-2
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
LAND USE
1967
DEVELOPED
Residential
Non-Residential
Manufacturing
Wholesale
Transportation, Communications,
Public Utilities; Construction
Mining
Retai 1
Services; Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
Government
Public Open Space
Roads, Streets, Highways
UNDEVELOPED
Vacant including Agriculture
Agriculture
Water and Swamp
TOTAL: DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED
Acres
90,051
38,612
51,439
5,685
1,355
6,959
824
1,872
9,804
3,871
6,568
14,495
142,069
125,856
23,958
16,213
232,120
Percent of Total
16.5
22.2
(2.5)
(0.6)
(3.0)
(0.3)
(0.8)
(4.3)
(1.7)
(2.8)
(6.2)
54.2
(10.3)
7.1
38.7
61.2
100.0
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
- 80 -
-------
Roads, streets and highways rank third on the land use scale (14,500
acres) followed by government, public educational activities and publicly
owned and maintained recreation and open space lands (10,439 acres).
In the non-structural land use sector, agricultural activities utilize
a considerable amount of land. However, the number of acres used for
agricultural purposes cannot be accurately estimated because farmlands
have been included in the pool of vacant lands potentially available
for development. Water and swamp lands also account for a significant
portion of the total area. While water and streams have no development
potential, marshes and swamps often give way to development in areas
experiencing the pressures of urbanization.
The trend toward development, particularly residential development,
in the study area is evident. Figure A-3 shows the 1967 zoning distri-
bution in Middlesex County. The eastern and central regions of Middlesex
County ]_/ are the most highly developed residential areas. Together
they comprise 71 percent of the total land in the study area, yet they
account for 95 percent of all housing units and 90 percent of all res-
idential acres.
The eastern, central and southern regions of the county also differ
according to residential density. The eastern region, which is the one
most heavily influenced by the spread of urbanization outward from New
York City, supports about 5.7 dwelling units per net acre. The density
VIn 1967, the Middlesex County Planning Board divided the county into
three regions: east, central and south.
- 81 -
-------
ZONING IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY
1967
I 1 RESIDENTIAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
Source: Metcall & Eddy, October 1972
Figure A-3
-------
declines with distance from New York: the central region having 3.9
and the southern region having 2.0 dwelling units per acre.
These density differences are partially attributable to the positions
taken by the respective communities within the area on the desirability
of apartment construction. Apartment houses comprise approximately the
same percentage of the total housing in both the eastern and central
regions, 24 percent in the eastern region and 27 percent in the central
region. Multiple unit dwellings abound in the older core cities, such
as Perth Amboy and New Brunswick. Furthermore, recent waves of apartment
construction are extending these multiple unit dwellings into the surround-
ing, primarily single-family, communities.
Zoning is the single most important element in the formation of a
community's character. However, zoning cannot be viewed as a permanently
fixed force in shaping residential density or locational patterns. The
tendency in zoning is toward acceptance and incorporation of new factors.
As urbanization widens its sphere of influence, as land prices rise,
and as public utilities spread outward, zoning is modified to accommodate
these new pressures.
True to this pattern, the study area has experienced: 1) the reduc-
tion of single-family dwelling lot size requirements as public utilities
have penetrated outlying areas, 2) the proliferation of apartment zoning
in areas initially restricted to single-family residential use, and 3)
the attempt to satisfy ever-increasing demands for housing through apart-
ments by rezoning vacant commercially or even industrially zoned lands
when residentially zoned areas have reached saturation.
- 82 -
-------
As of 1967, 5,685 acres in Middlesex County were used for manufac-
turing purposes. This figure represents 2.4 percent of all developed
land in the county. Most of these industrially developed lands are
located in the eastern and central regions of the county. Industrial
land use is expected to double by the year 2000, bringing the number
of industrially developed acres to approximately 10,000.
Commercial interests are also concentrated in the eastern and
central sections of the county. At present, 20,815 acres are engaged
by commercial interests, representing 7 percent of the county's total
land area. Land use studies have projected that the amount of commer-
cially developed land will increase to 26,990 acres by 1985 and 33,759
acres by 2000.
In 1967, 10,439 acres in the county were classified as public or
quasi-public lands. By 1980, this type of public land use is expected
to increase 25 percent. As mentioned above, wetlands account for a
significant portion of the county's total land area. In 1967, the
Middlesex County Planning Board designated 16,213 acres as water and
swamp areas. About 2,000 of these acres are expected to be officially
classified as wetlands by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection under the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et seq.).
Bayshore Area
Table A-3 summarizes land use in the Bayshore area in 1966. As
indicated in Table A-3, the major types of land use in descending order
are: residential development (9,600 acres), public and quasi-public
lands (7,700 acres), roads and streets (3,400 acres) and industrial and
commercial development (2,800 acres). Agriculturally developed land,
- 83 -
-------
TABLE A-3
BAYSHORE STUDY AREA
LAND USE
1966
Type Of Use
Residential
One Family
Lot Size Less Than 10,000 Sq.Ft.
Lot Size 10-30,000 Sq.Ft.
Lot Size 30,000 Sq.Ft. (2. 5 Acres)
Lot Size 2.5-10 Acres
Multiple Dwelling
Hotel , Motel .Rooming Houses
Business
Industry
Light Industry & Public Utility
Heavy Industry
Public and Quasi -Public
Parks
Public Schools & Buildings
Quasi -Public Buildings & Open Uses
Churches
Cemeteries
Federal Government
Garden State Parkway
Beach Ownership
Private
Public
Quasi -Public
Roads and Streets
Total Developed Area
Agriculture, Woodland & Vacant
Total Area
Number of Acres
9,677.3
9,430.3
159.7
87.3
785.2
2,000.4
7,689.3
32.0
3,440.7
23,624.9
26,841.7
50,466.6
2,892.8
5,848.2
689.3
0
1,792.3
208.1
1,050.7
1,589.3
1,036.9
92.8
86.8
2,477.7
1,355.1
19.3
12.2
0.5
% Of Total Area
19.92
19.40
0.33
0.18
1.62
4.11
11.97
0.06
7.08
46.81
53.19
100.00%
5.96
12.03
1.42
0
3.68
0.43
1.05
3.28
2.14
0.19
0.18
2.35
2.78
0.03
0.02
0.01
% Of Developed Area
40.96
39.92
0.68
0.37
3.32
8.47
32.55
0.14
14.56
100.00%
12.24
24.75
2.92
0
7.59
0.88
4.45
6.73
4.39
0.39
0.37
10.49
5.74
0.08
0.05
0.02
Source: Monmouth County Planning Board, 1967.
-------
woodland and vacant land account for 26,841 acres.
As in Middlesex County, housing is the primary type of land develop-
ment in the Bayshore area. Currently, more than one half of Monmouth
County's industrial development is based in the Bayshore area. Tradi-
tionally, industry has chosen to locate near the shore areas. However,
this trend is now changing with more and more industrial concerns opting
for inland locations. Consequently, while the Bayshore area's industrial
involvement should continue to grow, the rate of increase will be far
lower than in other areas of the county.
Commercial property in the Bayshore area amounts to 785 acres.
Most of the early commercial development was confined to the downtown
areas of the older towns. More recent commercial development has occurred
principally along Routes 35 and 36 in a pattern commonly referred to
as strip development.
The Bayshore area has 7,689 acres in the public or quasi-public
sector. The general development plan for the county recommends that
public and quasi-public holdings be increased by 25 percent in the future.
As per the Wetlands Act of 1970, the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection has decided that 5,000 acres in Monmouth County will be
classified as wetlands. Between Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, approx-
imately 7,000 acres of wetlands are eligible for official classification
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. To date,
3,022.44 acres in the lower Raritan River basin and the Bayshore areas
between Route 9 - Garden State Parkway and Atlantic Highlands have been
mapped and classified by the Department. (Hammton, oral communication,
1973).
- 85 -
-------
POPULATION
Lower Ran tan River Basin
The population changes that occurred between 1940 and 1970 in
each of the municipalities included either in whole or part in the
study area are listed in Table A-4. The largest population increases
took place in the townships of East Brunswick, Edison, Madison, Piscataway
and Woodbridge over the twenty year period from 1950 to 1970. Over
that same time span, the city of New Brunswick experienced only a slight
population increase and Perth Amboy's population actually decreased.
The total population of the basin study area is expected to grow
from the 1970 figure of 757,000 to 1,239,000 by 1985 and to 1,689,000
by 2000. Over the next thirty years, the eastern and central regions
will more than double in population. Table A-5 presents population
estimates for 1985 and 2000 according to drainage area. A residential
density of 23.1 persons per acre is predicted for the eastern region
by the year 2000. In comparison, the residential density of the central
region is expected to be 16 persons per acre.
North of the Raritan River, development will continue to fill in
the remaining vacant areas. This is the established pattern of develop-
ment in both the eastern and central regions. South of the Raritan River,
there will be a continued diffusion of population and industry along
three major highway corridors. In the southern part of the eastern
region, particularly in Madison Township, the opportunities for location
along Routes 9 and 34 will be utilized, resulting in major development.
In the southern part of the central region, particularly in East Brunswick,
undeveloped pockets of land along Route 18 will be filled in, as will
- 86 -
-------
TABLE A-4
LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
POPULATION CHANGES
1940-1970
Middlesex County
Carte ret
Cranbury
Dunellen
East Brunswick
Edison
Highland Park
Jamesburg
Madison
Metuchen
Middlesex
Mi 1 1 town
Monroe
New Brunswick
North Brunswick
Perth Amboy
Piscataway
Plainsboro
Sayreville
South Amboy
South Brunswick
South Plain-field
South River
Spotswood
Woodbridge
T o
t a 1 P o
p u 1 a t
i o n
1940
1950
1960
1970
11,976
1,342
5,360
3,706
11,470
9,002
2,128
3,803
6,557
3,763
3,515
3,034
33,180
4,562
41,242
7,243
925
8,186
7,802
3,129
5,379
10,714
1,868
27,191
217,077
13,030
1,797
6,291
5,699
16,348
9,721
2,307
7,366
9,879
5,943
3,786
4,082
38,811
6,450
41,330
10,180
1,112
10,338
8,422
4,001
8,008
11,308
2,905
35,758
264,872
20,502
2,001
6,840
19,965
44,799
11,049
2,853
22,772
14,041
10,520
5,435
5,831
40,139
10,099
38,007
19,890
1,171
22,553
8,422
10,278
17,879
13,397
6,567
78,846
433,856
23,137
2,253
7,072
34,166
67,120
14,385
4,584
48,715
16,031
15,038
6,470
9,138
41,885
16,691
38,798
36,418
1,648
32,508
9,338
14,058
21,142
15,428
8,846
98,944
583,813
P
e r c e n t
0 f C h
a n g e
1940-50
1950-60
1960-70
1950-70
8.8
33.9
17.4
53.8
42.5
8.0
8.4
93.7
50.7
57.9
7.7
34.5
17.0
41.4
0.2
40.5
20.2
26.3
7.9
27.9
48.9
5.5
55.5
31.5
22.0
57.3
11.4
8.7
250.3
174.0
13.7
23.7
209.2
42.1
77.0
43.6
42.8
3.4
56.6
8.0
95.4
5.3
118.2
Q.O
156.9
123.3
18.5
126.1
120.5
63.8
12.9
12.6
3.4
71.1
49.8
30.2
60.7
113.9
14.2
42.9
19.0
56.7
4.3
65.3
2.1
83.1
40.7
44.1
10.9
36.8
18.3
15.2
34.7
25.5
34.6
77.6
25.4
12.4
499.5
310.6
48.0
98.7
561.3
62.3
133.0
70.9
123.9
7.9
158.6
6.1
257.7
48.2
214.5
10.9
251.4
164.0
36.4
204.5
176.7
120.4
-------
TABLE A-4 (Cont'd)
LOWER. RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
POPULATION CHANGES
1940-1970
Somerset County
Bound Brook
Franklin
Green Brook
North Plainfield
South Bound Brook
Watchung
Union County
Fanwood
Scotch Plains
Plainfield
Total
T o
t a 1 P o
p u 1 a t
i o n
1940
1950
1960
1970
-
7,616
5,912
763
10,586
1,928
1,158
27,963
2,310
4,993
37,469
44,772
289,812
8,374
9,601
1,155
12,766
2,905
1,818
36,619
3,228
9,069
42,366
54,663
356,154
10,263
19,858
3,622
16,993
3,626
3,312
57,674
7,693
18,491
45,330
71,514
563,044
10,450
30,389
4,302
21,796
4,525
4,750
76,212
8,920
22,279
46,862
78,061
738,086
P e
r c e n t
0 f C h a
n g e
1940-50
1950-60
1960-70
1950-70
9.9
62.4
51.4
20.6
50.7
57.0
3T70
39.7
81.6
13.1
22.1
22.9
22.6
106.8
213.6
33.1
24.8
82.2
57.5
138.3
103.9
7.0
30.8
58.1
1.8
53.0
18.8
28.3
24.8
43.4
327T
15.9
20.5
3.4
9.2
31.1
24.8
216.5
463.8
105.9
134.7
310.2
172.5
286.1
436.3
25.1
~74~4
107.2
00
00
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, October 1972.
-------
TABLE A-5
LONER RARITAN RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
PRESENT AND ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATION
BY DRAINAGE AREAS
Municipalities
Middlesex County
Sewerage Authority Area
Present Participants
Bound Brook 3/
East Brunswick
Edison
Franklin(Part) 3/
Highland Park
Madison(Part)
Metuchen
Middlesex
Monroe(Part)
New Brunswick
Mi 11 town
North Brunswick
Piscataway
Plainfield Joint
Meeting 4/
Say reville( Part)
South Bound Brook
South Plainfield
South River
Spotswood
Sayreville(Part)
Mel rose
Morgan
South Amboy
South Brunswick
Lawrence Brook
Total
Northeastern County^ Area
Carteret
Perth Amboy
Woodbridge
Keasbey
Sewaren
Rahway
Total
Eastern County Area
Madison(Part)
South River Area Within
Middlesex County
Helmetta
Jamesburg
Monroe(Part)
Total
Other Areas
Franklin
Six Mile Run
Grand Total, All Areas
Total
Area,
Acres
1,024
14,344
19,254
13,080
1,215
19,634
1,779
2,171
2,215
3,467
960
7,628
12,296
15,576
8,323
512
5,349
1,902
1,708
690
2,854
1,702
11,596
149,279
3,177
3,862
2,640
7,344
5,780
22,803
5,487
557
557
12,102
13,216
8,187
198,972
Year 1970
Total
Popula-
tion jy
10,450
34,166
67,120
30,389
14,385
48,715
16,031
15,038
9,138
41 ,885
6,470
16,691
36,418
112,731
24,996
4,525
21,142
15,428
8,846
1,831
5,681
9,338
14,058
565,472
23,137
38,798
Year 1970
Estimated
Population
Served £/
12,200
20,100
55,700
24,500
16,900
37,100
18,000
14,700
3,100
50,700
6,900
14,500
26,800
100,400
22,100
4,600
14,500
17,300
7,800
1,600
5,000
10,500
0
485,000
23,200
38,000
12,000
30,000
55,000
158,200
5,800
300
3,500
0
3,800
0
652,800
Year 1985
Estimated
Population
Served
14,500
61,500
105,400
42,900
17,300
72,000
20,000
18,100
5,600
58,600
7,400
31 ,800
62,000
132,000
34,800
5,400
34,500
21,100
11,100
5,000
12,500
12,000
14,500
800,000 5_/
30,772
52,464
15,349
53,312
69,013
220,910
24,308
1,425
5,314
25,219
31,958
14,356
1,263,314
Year 2000
Estimated
Population
Served
15,500
81 ,600
126,500
49,400
18,300
127,400
18,700
22,400
19,600
68,600
8,600
43,400
79,900
147,300
50,400
6,200
44,100
23,700
16,400
5,500
14,500
15,300
34,700
1,038,000
38,170
61,525
18,238
65,631
84,676
266,240
28,732
2,275
5,366
47,197
54,832
49,690
1,437,494
I/From 1970 U.S. Census.
I/From 1968 Projections of Middlesex County Planning Board.
3/Outside Middlesex County.
4/Includes Dunellen in Middlesex County and Fanwood,Green Brook,North Plainfield,
Scotch Plains, and Watchung outside of Middlesex County.
^/Population used for design.
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,October 1972. - 89 -
-------
vacant areas in the southwestern section between Route 18 and the New
Jersey Turnpike. A third channel of growth will emerge along Route 27
in the central and southern regions. Development will be most pronounced
in Franklin Township and in North and South Brunswick Townships.
Bayshore Area
The past, present and projected populations for each of the munici-
palities in the Bayshore area are listed in Table A-6. The townships of
Hazlet, Matawan and Middletown have the highest population counts. The
total population of the municipalities within the Bayshore area is ex-
pected to grow from the 1970 figure of 133,200 to 188,500 in 1985 and
to 227,500 in 2000. This will amount to a 50 percent increase in popula-
tion during the first fifteen year period and a 20 percent increase
during the second fifteen year period. The most dramatic increases will
occur in Holmdel, Matawan and Middletown Townships. Most of the other
Bayshore municipalities will experience more moderate increases in popu-
lation.
Since the Bayshore area is already highly developed, future develop-
ment will be mainly a filling in of isolated vacant areas. Only in sec-
tions of Holmdel, Matawan and Middletown Townships will any kind of in-
tensive development be possible. As in the lower Raritan River basin
area, highway locations will determine the most likely sites for develop-
ment in the Bayshore area.
- 90 -
-------
TABLE A-6
BAYSHORE STUDY AREA
ESTIMATED POPULATION
Municipalities
Holmdel
Keansburg
Key port
Matawan Bor.
Matawan Twp.
Middletown
Hazlet
Union Beach
1968
Population
5,430
7,400
7,720
8,220
17,430
51,430
20,200
6,430
1972
Population
6,750
9,730
7,630
9,210
18,140
56,930
22,530
6,530
1985
Population
16,000
9,500
12,000
12,000
29,000
75,000
26,000
9,000
2000
Population
25,500
12,000
14,000
13,000
32,000
90,000
29,000
12,000
% Increase
1968-85
194.7
28.3
55.4
46.0
66.4
45.8
28.7
40.0
1985-2000
59.4
26.3
16.7
8.3
10.3
20.0
11.5
33.0
Source: Monmouth County Planning Board, 1969.
-------
NATURAL RESOURCES
Surface Haters
Flow data for the surface waters in the study areas are presented
in Table A-7.
Streams
The major streams in the study areas are: Manalapan Brook,
Matchaponix Brook, Ambrose Brook, Green Brook and Bound Brook. Some
of the minor streams are: Ireland Brook, Cedar Brook and Barclay Brook.
The water quality classifications assigned to these streams by the
state of New Jersey are shown in Figure A-4. Definitions of these
classifications are presented in Appendix B.
The streams in the study areas are fed by either surface water
runoff or ground-water discharge. In periods of drought, most of
the smaller streams flow at less than 1 cfs. During these times of
reduced stream flow, the assimilative capacity of a stream is at its
lowest. Consequently, the stream is subject to significant deteriora-
tion from the waste materials being pumped into it.
South River
The South River is one of the major tributaries to the Raritan
River system. The Middlesex County portion of the South River drainage
basin amounts to 72.6 square miles.
The South River is tidal up to the dam that is located just below
the confluence of the river with Tennent Brook. The tidal portion of
the South River is classified as TW-1 by the state of New Jersey. Above
the dam, the river is classified as FW-2. (See Appendix B).
- 92 -
-------
TABLE A-7
FLOW DATA FOR SURFACE MATERS
IN THE LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN
AND THE BAYSHORE STUDY AREAS
Gaging Station
Location
Manalapan Brook
at Spotswood
Green Brook at
Plainfield
Lawrence Brook at
Farrington Dam
Matchaponix Brook
at Spotswood
South River at
Old Bridge
Ran' tan River at
Bound Brook
Drainage
Area
sq. miles
40.7
9.75
34.4
43.9
94.6
785
Avg. or Mean
Discharge
cfs
61.3 avg.
11 .7 avg.
37.2 avg.
62.5 avg.
131 avg.
122 I/ mec
135 2_/ mee
1,162 avg.
950 I/ me
1,028 2/ me
Maximum
Discharge
cfs
1,650
2,890
2,980
2,050
4,880
in 670 I/
in 1 ,250 2/
46,100
>an 14,000 I/
;an 23,700 2/
Minimum
Discharge
cfs
0
0
0
0
23 I/
12 2/
123 I/
102 2/
J/Discharge values for 1969.
2/Discharge values for 1970.
Source: FWPCA, 1967.
- 93 -
-------
^r^v^'^^jo, \ / \
/'SL * nscAT^TX^7' METUCHIN)
LIMITS OF STUDY AREA
WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION OF THE SURFACE WATERS IN THE STUDY AREAS
-------
There are two sampling stations on the river: an upstream station
in the Town of Old Bridge and a downstream station in the Town of South
River. Water quality data for the South River are contained in Table A-8.
These data reveal that between the Old Bridge station and the South River
station there is a marked increase in the BOD (5-day), ammonia-nitrogen,
nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, total phosphate-phosphorus, total
coliform and fecal coliform values. These values indicate that the river
is severely degraded as it moves downstream from Old Bridge to South River.
Raritan River
For part of its length, the Raritan River is classified as FW-3
waters. This classification is applied to the river from the point at
which the Millstone River joins the Raritan to the Fieldville dam down-
stream. From the Fieldville dam to the mouth of the Raritan, the river
is classified as TW-1 waters. (See Appendix B).
The Raritan River is a natural stream with a low gradient. In general,
the stream is shallow, averaging in depth from 3 to 4 feet at normal flows.
At low flow, the stream below the American Cyanamid dispersion dam (also
known as the Calco dam) is reduced to a depth of less than 1 foot.
Major tributaries to the Raritan River are:
1. Millstone River - 35 miles long, drainage area of 300 square
miles;
2. Green Brook - enters Raritan River below Bound Brook, drainage
area of 49 square miles;
3. Lawrence Brook - enters Raritan River below New Brunswick,
drainage area of 45 square miles;
- 94 -
-------
TABLE A-8
HATER .QUALITY DATA FOR THE SOUTH RIVER
1965-1972
Parameter I/
DO mg/1
BOD (7-day) mg/1
pH
Total ALK. mg/1 as CaCO.,
ORG.-N mg/1
NH3-N mg/1
N02-N mg/1
N03-N mg/1
Total P04 mg/1
Total COLI per 100 ml
FECAL COLI per 100 ml
Old Bridge 2/
Station
8.37
3.40
5.61
10.54
1.035
0.53
0.05
2.50
0.53
5131
538
South River 3_/
Station
6.58
4.39
6.46
37.09
1.43
1.74
0.343
5.40
0.617
16997
2871
1_/A11 numbers reported are mean values of samples collected from 1965 to 1972.
2/From bridge at South Amboy Road, Old Bridge, N.J.
3/From Causeway Bridge at Route 535, South River, N.J.
Source: U.S. EPA, n.d., STORET.
- 95 -
-------
4. South River - enters Raritan River below town of South River,
drainage area of over 100 square miles.
The Raritan River is non-tidal down to the Fieldville dam. Flow
in the river is maintained at a minimum of 139 cfs at the Calco dam.
This flow is obtained by regulation of flows from the Spruce Run Reservoir
in compliance with the statute setting a minimum flow in the river. It
has also been reported that on August 28, 1971, during the height of
Hurricane Doria, the discharge of the river at the Calco dam was 46,100
cfs, the highest flow ever recorded at this station.
Table A-9 shows the water quality of the freshwater portion of the
lower Raritan River. This portion extends from the confluence of the
Millstone and Raritan Rivers to the Fieldville dam. As one proceeds
downstream, the rapid deterioration of the water quality becomes apparent.
At station RF-13, which is above the Calco dam, water quality, while not
good (high BOD, N03-N, total P04 and total coliform), is far superior
to that at station RF-11, which is just above the Fieldville dam.
According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(October 1972), the water quality above the Calco dam is generally suitable
for those uses prescribed for FW-3 waters, with the exception of primary
contact recreation. Below the Calco dam, the only designated use of
these waters that is still possible is industrial and agricultural water
supply. However, many industrial and agricultural consumers cannot use
this water because of the color, odor and chemicals that are present.
The following information on the water quality of the Raritan River
just below the Calco dam was submitted by the New Jersey Department of
- 96 -
-------
TABLE A-9
MATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE FRESHWATER PORTION OF THE
LOWER RARITAN RIVER
1968-1972
Parameter 1'
DO mg/1
BOD (7-day) mg/1
PH
Total ALK. mg/1 as CaC03
ORG. N mg/1
NH3-N mg/1
N02-N mg/1
NOs-N mg/1
Total P04 mg/1
Total COLI per 100 ml
FECAL COLI per 100 ml
Station I/
RF-13
10.51
5.54
7.43
51.76
1.35
0.148
0.020
1.05
0.69
13772
1440
RF-12
8.75
7.08
7.07
41.57
8.69
3.57
0.0528
1.228
1.29
40490
2403
RF-11
7.93
7.72
6.96
43.62
2.97
4.02
0.0516
1.16
1.40
157834
8335
I/All numbers reported are mean values of samples collected from 1968 to 1972,
2/Station Location: RF-11 - Upstream of Fieldville Dam
RF-12 - Main Street Bridge - South Bound Brook
RF-13 - Upstream of American Cyanamid Outfall.
Source: U.S. EPA, n.d., STORET.
- 97 -
-------
Environmental Protection (October 1972):
NHg - Generally elevated by 2ppm after addition of the American Cyanamid
Company's effluent.
Phenols - Not present in measurable quantities in the stream. However,
chlorophenols, which are formed during chlorination, are not
detected by the standard test for phenols. Thus, normal moni-
toring allows a series of toxic materials to enter the river
undetected.
DO - In the past, dissolved oxygen levels frequently fell below the
present stream standard of 4.0 mg/1. Recently completed additions
to the American Cyanamid treatment plant (additional aeration) have
relieved a significant amount of oxygen demand. Oxygen levels are
now usually well above the 4.0 mg/1 standard. During periods of
low flow, the dissolved oxygen levels (especially in the area of
the Fieldville dam) are expected to occasionally drop below the
standard.
Dissolved Solids - The American Cyanamid Company's discharge normally
elevates the dissolved solids level of the Raritan River. Depending
on plant production schedules, this can be an insignificant (i.e.,
2ppm during summer plant shutdown) or a significant (i.e., over
500ppm added to the normal stream level of ISOppm during periods
of peak production) increase.
Color - The American Cyanamid discharge changes the color of the river
water from its normal green to gold-brown. This color change,
while not measurable using standard testing procedures, is readily
apparent upon visual observation of the river.
- 98 -
-------
Odor - A strong chemical odor is imparted to the Ran tan River by the
American Cyanamid discharge.
The water quality of the tidal portion of the river is shown in
Table A-10. The data indicate a general improvement in water quality
from station RT-10 to RT-1. The BOD (7-day), organic-nitrogen, ammonia-
nitrogen, total coliform and fecal coliform values all point to a marked
improvement in water quality at the downstream station.
Tables A-9 and A-10 show that the heaviest pollution occurs around
stations RT-1 and RF-11. The coliform data also indicate the presence
of significant sources of pollution around stations RT-9, RT-7, RT-6 and
RT-5, all of which are in the vicinity of New Brunswick. Although water
quality greatly improves between station RT-10 and station RT-1, the
overall water quality of the lower Raritan River remains severely degraded.
The results of studies done by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (1967) show that water quality around the Landing Lane
Bridge is directly related to river flow and to wastewater discharges
entering upstream of the Fieldville dam. The lower portion of the river,
around stations RT-1 and RT-2, is degraded at low tide by waters from
Raritan Bay.
The Raritan River between its confluence with the Millstone River
and the Calco dam supports a diverse, balanced population representative
of a fairly clean waterway. Table A-11 shows the fish population at
three sites on the river: above the Calco dam, below the Calco dam, and
above the Fieldville dam. The stations below the Calco dam exhibit a
significant decrease in fish species diversity.
- 99 -
-------
TABLE A-10
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE TIDAL PORTION OF THE RARITAN RIVER
1969-1972
Parameter I/
DO mg/1
BOD (7-day)mg/l
pH
Total ALK.mg/las CaC03
ORG.-N mg/1
NhU-N mg/1
NOj?-N mg/1
NOo-N mg/1
Total P0d mg/1
Total COLI per 100 ml
FECAL COLI per 100 ml
Station U
RT-1
5.68
4.09
7.21
82.45
1.414
1.500
0.0978
1.07
1.006
7897
785
RT-2
5.95
4.37
7.10
70.15
1.437
1.774
0.1104
1.684
1.069
13167
1302
RT-3
6.06
4.67
6.93
60.27
1.68
2.08
0.1174
2.206
1.1163
28368
2139
RT-4
6.53
5.09
6.99
51.57
2.01
2.43
0.1218
2.30
1.117
60417
4939
RT-5
6.79
5.64
7.05
49.24
2.53
2.81
0.0958
1.76
1.02
102871
8141
RT-6
7.02
5.67
6.99
47.91
2.82
3.86
0.0896
1.55
1.104
90939
6454
RT-7
7.27
8.44
7.04
43.86
3.06
3.44
0.0954
1.278
1.204
53845
3505
RT-8
7.95
8.81
7.02
46.07
3.10
4.33
0.0756
1.202
1.225
96535
8558
RT-9
8.01
8.C6
S.99
51.41
3.16
4.62
0.078
1.109
1.268
85032
9441
RT-10
8.14
8.79
6.90
45.85
3.24
4.39
0.0536
1.189
1.568
187337
9222
o
o
I/All values reported are mean values of samples collected from 1969 to 1972.
2/Station location:
Station No. Station Description
Raritan River
RT-1
RT-2
RT-3
RT-4
RT-5
RT-6
RT-7
RT-8
RT-9
RT-10
Victory Bridge
Opposite Arsenal Dock
Opposite Central Jersey P &
Conf. South R. & Raritan R.
Turnpike Bridge
Route #1 Bridge
Albany Street Bridge
Landing Lane Bridge
Off Marconi Road
Downstream Fieldville Dam
Source: U.S. EPA, n.d., STORET.
-------
TABLE A-11
FISH SPECIES PRESENT AT THREE SITES ON THE RARITAN RIVER
1971
Fish Species
American Eel
Black Crappie
Bluespotted Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Redbreasted Sunfish
Largemouth Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Rock Bass
Carp
Eastern Silvery Minr
Golden Shiner
Spottail Minnow
Banded KilTifish
Redfin Pickerel
Channel Catfish
Northern Brown Bui If
Tadpole Madtom
Johnny Darter
Upstream of
Calco Dam
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ow x
X
X
X
ead
X
X
Downstream of
Calco Dam
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Upstream of
Fieldville Dam
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X indicates presence.
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 101 -
-------
Benthic macroinvertebrate data show dramatic differences among
the stations. Above the Calco dam, there are 32 different species
represented. Below the dam, the number declines by 75 percent. An
examination of the species present indicates that only the most pollu-
tant-tolerant benthic species can survive below the Calco dam. Tables
A-12a, b and c contain data for these sites.
From May to June 1972, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection carried out a survey of sessile organisms in the Raritan
River. Table A-13 shows the results of this study. Above the Calco
dam, 17 algal species were isolated in addition to 6 Tendipedidae larvae.
One hundred yards below the dam, no algae were collected,but large
numbers of Tendipedidae larvae were isolated. At the Queens Bridge in
South Bound Brook, 6 algal species, 1 amoeba and many Tendipedidae larvae
were isolated. The vast differences in species diversity and total or-
ganism counts between the above-dam and the below-darn sites support the
chemical data which indicate a highly polluted condition downstream of
the Calco dam.
Dean and Haskins (1964) reported that prior to 1959, under heavily
polluted conditions, no freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate species
were found below the Fieldville dam. They further reported that of the
17 marine species that were identified, only the barnacle Balanus improvisus
extended 5.3 miles above the mouth of the river. The other species ex-
tended only 2.85 miles above the mouth.
. In.1958, the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority constructed a trunk
sewer and, thereby, eliminated much of the waste discharge into the Raritan
River. A rapid repopulation of the waters below the Fieldville dam occurred.
- 102 -
-------
TABLE A-12a
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE POPULATION
RARITAN RIVER-ABOVE CALCQ DAM
197]
Order
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Tricoptera
Plecoptera
Coleoptera
Megaloptera
Odonata
Amphipoda
Decapoda
Opisthopora
Plesiopora
Rhynchobdellida
Pulmonata
Pelecypoda
Family or Subfamily
Tendipedidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Pelopiinae
Culicidae
Ephemeridae
Baetidae
Hydropsychidae
Peltoperlidae
Perlidae
Haliplidae
Dryopidae
Psephenidae
Sialidae
Corydalidae
Coenagrionidae
Talitridae
Gammaridae
Astacidae
Haplotaxidae
Lumbricidae
Tubificidae
Hirudidae
Lymnaeidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Margaritanidae
Genera
Tendipes
Helius
Limonia
Ephoron
Potamanthus
Ephemeral la
Baetis
Tricorythodes
Hydropsyche
Peltoperla
Neoperla
Psephenus
Sialis
Corydalus
Hyalella
Gammarus
Cambarus
Haplotaxis
Tub if ex
Helobdella
Lymnaea
Physa
Margaritifera
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 103 -
-------
TABLE A-12b
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE POPULATION
RARITAN RIVER-BELOH CALCO DAM
1971
Order
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Tricoptera
Coleoptera
Plesiopora
Amphipoda
Pulmonata
Family or Subfamily
Tendipedidae
Pelopiinae
Ephemeridae
Hydropsychidae
Elmidae
Tubificidae
Gammaridae
Physidae
Genera
Tendipes
Metriocnemus
Pentaneura
Ephoron
Hydropsyche
Tub if ex
Gammarus
Physa
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 104 -
-------
TABLE A-12c
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE POPULATION
RARITAN RIVER-ABOVE FIELDVILLE DAM
1971
Order
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Tricoptera
Megaloptera
Odonata
Plesiopora
Arhynchobdellida
Pulmonata
Family or Subfamily
Tendipedidae
Pelopiinae
Simuliidae
Ephemeridae
Hydropsychidae
Sialidae
Coenagrionidae
Tubificidae
Lymnaeidae
Planorbidae
Genera
Tendipes
Pentaneura
Ephoron
Hydropsyche
Sialis
Tubifex
Lymnaea
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 105 -
-------
ft
z
/*-•
//
X79 «/
s o/ $ o/ ' £
-------
TABLE A-13
SESSILE ORGANISMS
RARITAN RIVER
MAY-JUNE 1972
Ran'tan River above Calco Dam
Cocconeis
Ankjstrodesmus
Meridion
Scenedesmus
Nitzschia
Cladophora
Gomphosphaeria
Trachelomonas
Mallomonas
Rhodomonas
Spirulina
Melosira
Staurastrum
Euglena
Eudorina
Pediastrum
Navicula
Tendipedidae Larvae
Ran'tan River - 100 Yards below Calco Dam
Tendipedidae Larvae
Ran'tan River - At Queen's Bridge
As ten'one! la
Scenedesmus
Ankistrodesmus
Navicula
Amoeba
Mallomonas
Staurastrum
Tendipedidae Larvae
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 106 -
-------
In 1958, there were 6 freshwater and 21 marine species present; in
1959, the number had increased to 8 freshwater and 28 marine species.
At the end of their study, Dean and Haskins observed that biotic recovery
had progressed to the point where the quantitative distribution of species
conformed to that of nonpolluted estuaries.
Raritan Bay
Classification
All of the waters within the Raritan Bay system have been classified
as TW-1 waters by the state of New Jersey (See Appendix B).
Physical Description
The Raritan Bay system is divided into three hydrologic areas:
1) Raritan Bay, which is located in the western portion of the system;
2) the Lower Bay, which stretches from Point Comfort eastward to Sandy
Hook, and 3) Sandy Hook Bay, which is generally southeast of the Point
Comfort - Sandy Hook transverse (Figure A-5).
The entire system is a shallow estuary, having a mean depth of
less than 15 feet and a surface area of 1670x10° square feet. The floor
of the bay slopes fairly uniformly and gently toward the central axis
where the depths are approximately 22 feet in Raritan Bay and 28 feet
in Lower Bay. Maximum depths in the bay are on the order of 30 feet,
excluding the major shipping channels which have depths of up to 40 feet.
The system is characterized by a number of peripheral shoals located
along the Staten Island and the south shore beaches: a factor which
bears significantly on the hydrodynamic patterns exhibited in the bay.
- 107 -
-------
STATEN ISLAND
NEW JERSEY
-------
Hydrology
The waters that are primarily responsible for the general flow
patterns within the system enter the basin from opposite ends: from
the Raritan River on the west and through the Verrazano Narrows and
Lower Bay V on the east. The general tendency within the system is
the creation of a discernible large-scale counterclockwise gyre of
slowly circulating water masses (Jeffries, 1962).
The bay is the recipient of small natural freshwater inputs
from the Arthur Kill, Matawan Creek and the Navesink River. The only
one of significance, the Arthur Kill, is not a substantial source of
freshwater. Rather it is a large surge basin contributing to the com-
plex mixing processes existing at the head of the bay. The significance
of this tributary is that it represents a large source of both biode-
gradable and potentially toxic substances. These substances are dis-
persed throughout the Kill and eventually enter the western portion of
the Raritan Bay system.
The generally counterclockwise flow patterns exhibited within the
bay have been substantiated by surveys of salinity, iron and suspended
solids profiles. These surveys have indicated that flushing in Raritan
Bay is accomplished by a net tidal drift which is westward along the
north shore and eastward along the south shore (Ayers et al., 1949).
VThe source water across this boundary is actually a mixture of Hudson
River water and sea water having an average salinity of 27 parts per
thousand (ppt).
- 108 -
-------
The southwesterly thrust of higher salinity waters flooding in from
the Verrazano-Lower Bay area along the Staten Island shore is impeded
and eventually diverted along a southerly course in the vicinity of
Great Kills Harbor due to the influence of Old Orchard Shoal (Ayers et al.,
1949). The resultant diversion of this inland (Hudson) thrust appears
to exert an action which accelerates the seaward movement of fresh water
(Raritan) along the south shore of Raritan Bay while, at the same time,
damming back the waters accumulated in the head of the bay (Jeffries, 1962),
The effect of the Raritan River influent on bay circulation patterns
is limited largely to the south shore area of the bay. The seaward drift
due to this Raritan influence is on the order of 0.5 miles per day west
of Conaskonk Point with a range of 0.25 to 0.5 miles per day. The net
detention time within the head of the bay is on the order of 6 tidal cycles
or approximately 3 days under average flow conditions (Ketchum, 1950).
This is comparable to both the 7 day travel time from the Raritan River
confluence to Conaskonk Point (Ayers et al., 1949) and the reported
overall flushing time of 32 to 42 tidal cycles or 16 to 21 days for the
entire bay (Jeffries, 1962).
The hydrodynamics of Sandy Hook Bay have not yet been adequately
defined. Along the traverse extending from Sandy Hook to Norton Point,
it has been noted that ebb tides are generally stronger and flow somewhat
longer than the flood. Tidal velocities and the resultant dispersion
characteristics are greater along this interface than in any other area
of the bay, with the exception of the Verrazano Narrows. Average and
peak tidal velocities along this interface are on the order of 1.7 and
4.2 feet per second (fps), respectively (USGS, Current Charts, 1956),
- 109 -
-------
as compared with an average tidal velocity throughout Raritan Bay of
0.8 fps (Hydroscience, 1968). With the exception of this turbulent
outer boundary area, the tidal velocities and tidal range generally
increase as the bay narrows toward its head. The maximum velocity
readings are 1.0 fps off Point Comfort, 1.5 fps at Great Beds Channel,
and 2.5 fps in the lower Raritan River (Ayers et al., 1949). Conversely,
tidal velocities generally decrease along nearshore areas due to extensive
shoaling; tides are frequently so weak (less than 1/6 knot) that the
direction of tidal flow becomes more variable. This phenomenon is par-
ticularly evident in the head of the bay where intertidal reverses and
the resultant eddies often retard the exchange of water over the shoals
along the south shore.
In summary, the bay is a predominantly dispersive system containing
a number of inlet or confined areas that are highly susceptible to de-
gradation. The only places in which the non-tidal drifts would clearly
remove pollution from the area are around the northern tip of Sandy Hook
and in the main New York channel (Ketchum, 1950). Even though it is a
predominantly dispersive system, the bay exhibits both large-and small-
scale circular water movements. At times, these circular movements tend
either to prevent the intrusion of pollutants into certain areas of the
bay or to entrap pollutants within those areas.
Water Quality
The U.S. Public Health Service conducted Enforcement Conferences on
Raritan Bay in 1961, 1963 and 1967 because the discharge of domestic and
industrial wastes into the bay was causing pollution of interstate waters.
The water quality data listed below have been extracted from the proceedings
of the 1967 conference (FWPCA, 1967).
- 110 -
-------
Water temperature - mean values were uniform throughout the bay
averaging 15 to 16°C. A calculated range of thermal values was -1.3 to
26.1°C.
Chloride - mean chloride concentrations averaging from 11,000 to
12,000 mg/1 were uniform throughout the bay.
BOD (5-day) - observed values ranged from an average of 3 to 4 mg/1
in the western end of the bay to less than 2 mg/1 at the ocean extremity.
The highest observed values were in the range of 11 to 12 mg/1.
Dissolved oxygen - average dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged
from 6 mg/1 at the mouth of the Arthur Kill to 9 mg/1 in the center of
the bay along a band reaching from Prince's Bay, Staten Island to Sandy
Hook Bay. East and north of this band, average dissolved oxygen levels
decreased to 6 mg/1. The highest average dissolved oxygen level, 10 mg/1,
was found in Sandy Hook Bay. Minimum dissolved oxygen values recorded
were approximately 2 mg/1 at all stations, except at the mouth of the
Arthur Kill where levels as low as 1.4 mg/1 were observed.
Bacteriological density - high densities of total and fecal coliform
were found at the Narrows and at the junction of the Arthur Kill with the
Raritan River. Coliforms appeared to radiate into the bay from these
two foci. A straight band, running from lower Staten Island to Sandy Hook
Bay, was characterized by the lowest mean counts of coliforms. It is
believed that this band represents the edge of the two radiating sources.
Data obtained during federal surveillance operations from 1969 to
1972 (Table A-14 and Figure A-6) show that the waters at the western end
of the bay and around Staten Island are in a degraded state. This obser-
vation is supported by the higher nitrate-nitrogen values and lower
dissolved oxygen values recorded in these areas.
- Ill -
-------
TABLE A-14
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR RARITAN BAY I/
1969-1972
Parameter 2/
DO mg/1
PH
N03-N mg/1
Kjeldahl-N mg/1
Total P04 mg/1
TOC mg/1
Total Coli per 100 ml
Fecal Coli per 100 ml
Salinity g/1
Station
34
6.20
7.73
.392
1.60
.258
7.43
11435
1123
21.8
463
7.11
8.0
.960
1.343
.180
7.34
3568
322
17.90
64
7.90
8.0
.600
1.33
.220
6.20
6724
549
18.75
33
7.20
7.70
.413
1.62
.280
6.81
4665
524
21.08
32
8.26
8.40
.423
1.58
.210
5.24
1630
87.7
21.14
58
7.39
7.80
.443
1.73
.250
6.32
2793
292
20.49
59
8.17
7.90
.413
1.24
.23
8.96
959.6
128.6
20.59
30
9.63
8.20
.320
1.097
.186
7.25
275.6
53.9
22.62
45
8.66
8.30
.400
1.36
.197
6.93
342.9
57.3
20.85
27
9.35
-
.337
.957
.143
5.92
1700
252.7
22.04
24
9.55
-
.28
.697
.157
4.59
1541
111
22.13
22
8.78
-
.29
.913
.120
4.12
2824
530
22.8
5
8.84
-
.25
.997
.133
6.11
5853
945
22.74
102
6.69
7.40
.27
.765
.210
4.85
63596
10765
22.52
70
7.53
7.60
.33
.795
.175
4.90
19538
3409
21.72
7
7.87
7.40
.255
.810
.155
3.80
10521
2624
23.24
11
8.03
-
.227
.520
.170
3.87
3446
1391
23.36
13
9.66
-
.223
.550
.110
3.86
333
57.4
23.7
15
10.71
-
.210
.710
.177
4.83
2108
24.7
22.43
J/The sampling sites are shown in Figure A-6.
2/A11 values reported are mean values of samples collected from 1969 to 1972.
Source: U.S. EPA, n.d., STORET.
-------
SAMPLING POINTS IN RARITAN BAY
STATEN ISLAND
NEW JERSEY
-------
Flora and Fauna
Phytoplankton
During extensive studies of the bay, Patten (1962) made the follow-
ing observations.
1. The two most significant phytoplankton species in Raritan Bay
were the diatom Skeletonema costatum and the chlorophyte Nannochloris
atomus.
2. Species diversity in the lower bay area was greater and more
stable than that at the river mouth.
3. The spring bloom began in the lower bay. The dominant species
were Skeletonema costatum, Nitzschia seriata and Rhizosolenia setigera.
The population density of S. costatum was 2 to 15 times higher in the
lower bay region than at the mouth of the river. In the summer, N. atomus
became dominant with the bloom starting at the river mouth and spreading
to the lower bay.
Chlorophyll a^ values ranged from zero to 162.8 mg/1. Gross produc-
tivity was found to be 10 times that recorded by Conover (1956) for Long
Island Sound. Oxygen productivity figures ranged from 0.11 ml/l/day
to 6.70 ml/l/day.
In studies carried out between 1962 and 1964 (FWPCA, 1967), the
dominant nannoplankton species was Nannochloris atomus, a green algae
which comprised 50 to 99.9 percent of the total population. It imparted
a turf grass green color to the water. The dominant netplankton species
was Skeletonema costatum, a diatom which comprised from less than 1.0 to
more than 99 percent of the netplankton. A dinoflagellate, Peri dim'urn
trichoidum, dominated the netplankton in August and September of 1962
and again in 1964.
- 113 -
-------
On September 20, 1962, a red tide occurred off Point Comfort. The
organism was Goniaulax, a known toxic dinoflagellate. Patten (1961)
observed red tides in the bay caused by Massartia rotundata, a flagellate.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton studies by Jeffries (1959) showed that the zooplankton
population consisted principally of copepods, which are dominated by
two genera, Acartia and Eurytemora. There were brief periods during the
spring and summer when various meroplanktonic larval forms dominated,
but these periods were short-lived. Jeffries also found that Acartia
clausii dominated Raritan Bay during the winter and was gradually re-
placed by Acartia tonsa during the warmer months. Acartia tonsa appeared
first at the head of the bay; its numbers increased in the lower bay as
Acartia clausii decreased in numbers. During the spring, when low salin-
ities occurred and Acartia was at an ebb,two species of Eurytemora were
at their peak. (Jeffries, 1959).
Studies carried out by the Federal Mater Pollution Control Adminis-
tration (1967) showed that large numbers of zooplankton were present
from November 1963 to August 1964. Zooplankton density generally decreased
from the outer bay towards the mouth of the Raritan River. Copepods com-
prised 72 percent of the total zooplankton; the predominant genus was
Acartia. Rotifers and larval benthic forms were other major components
of the zooplankton. In late May and early June 1964, juvenile copepods
of the genus Acartia appeared in densities approximating 100,000 individ-
ual s/m, causing a red appearance on the surface of inner Raritan Bay.
Benthos
The U.S. Public Health Service (1963) determined that the benthic
- 114 -
-------
conditions of the bay were characterized by fine sand particles along
with some silts and clays. Sampling indicated that a different benthic
community existed at each of the six sampling stations (Figure A-7).
The populations at each station were characterized by low species diversity.
Polychaete worms were common at all stations and were dominant at Stations
II and VI. Amphipods were found at all Stations except VI and were domi-
nant at Station III. The dominant species at Station IV was the soft-
shelled clam N[ya arenaria. The greatest numbers of organisms were found
at Stations III and IV and the lowest numbers at Station VI.
Another study,which was conducted by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration (1967) in the area of the present MCSA outfall,
revealed that species diversity increased proportionally with distance
from the pollution source. The types of benthic organisms and their
relative numbers found during a 1964 survey are presented in Table A-15.
There are two economically important shellfish species in Raritan
Bay: Mya arenaria, the soft-shelled clam, and Mercenaria jnercenaria, the
northern quahog or hard clam. As of 1960, 90 percent of the existing
shellfish areas were closed due to pollution by sewage. An epidemic of
infectious hepatitis was traced to consumption by the stricken individuals
of raw clams harvested in Raritan Bay. Figures A-8 and A-9 show the dis-
tribution and density of shellfish in Raritan Bay (FWPCA, 1967).
Recreation
In 1963, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1967)
conducted a survey of the recreational uses of Raritan Bay. The proximity
of the bay to large population centers made the determination of the
existing and the potential use patterns desirable.
- 115 -
-------
BENTHIC POPULATIONS IN RARITAN BAY
to
c
3
PERCENT OF TOTAL BENTHIC POPULATIONS
STATION
I II III IV
POLYCHAETA
MYA ARENARIA
AMPHIPODA
fffffffl ISOPODA
[ | GASTROPODA
^H OTHERS
V\
8 87 20 4 27 73
92 42 23
30 4 76 3 28
36 2 <1 <1 I 2
18 5 <1 <1 2 2
8 2 2 - - -
1 0
Source: USPHS, 1963
-------
TABLE A-15
PERCENTAGE OF BENTHOS AT REPRESENTATIVE
STATIONS IN RARITAN BAY
1964
Month
Feb.
May
Aug.
Station 62
PW AC SC 0
0000
100 000
0 0 100 0
Station B
PW AC SC 0
76 6 0 18
65 15 0 20
35 28 10 27
Station 29
PW AC SC 0
67 17 0 16
33 66 0 1
74 19 7 0
Station H
PW AC SC 0
8 92 0 0
15 85 0 0
55 38 0 7
PW = Polychaete Worms
AC = Amphipod Crustaceans
SC = Soft Shell Clams
0 = Others: All types of organisms that comprised separately less than
5% of the total .
Source: FWPCA, 1967.
- 116 -
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF SOFT CLAMS
IN RARITAN BAY 1963
LEGEND
G LEGAL |>2")
. SUB-LEGAL (<2")
+ BOTH SIZES
Source: FWPCA, 1967
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF HARD CLAMS
IN RARITAN BAY 1963
Source: FWPCA, 1967
-------
According to the survey, there were 59 bathing beaches in. active
use on Raritan Bay and the Arthur Kill, serving an estimated 1 million
users. This heavy use occurred in spite of the fact that a bacteriolo-
gical analysis showed water quality to be impaired by the presence of
domestic sewage. Operators opined that if water quality could be im-
proved, at least 16 million users could be accommodated at a potential
income of $8 million annually.
Recreati.onal boating records indicated that 5,480 vessels berthed
in or adjacent to the bay. The Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S.
Department of the Interior estimated that the recreational fin and
shellfishing, crabbing, and waterfowl industries have a combined annual
worth of $468,000. Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated
that this combined value could reach $1.5 million annually. (FWPCA, 1967)
Arthur Kill
Classification
The waters of the Arthur Kill are classified as TW-2 from Raritan
Bay to the Woodbridge River. From the Woodbridge River to Newark Bay,
the Arthur Kill is classified as TW-3. (See Appendix B).
Physical Description
The Arthur Kill forms a boundary between Middlesex County in New
Jersey and Richmond County in New York. The Kill is 13 miles long with
an average width of one-half mile. The center channel is maintained
at a depth of 35 feet by periodic dredging. It is relatively free of
sediment; however, areas outside the main channel are extremely prone
to accumulations of polluted sediments.
- 117 -
-------
Hydrology
The tide enters this estuary at the northern terminus from the
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay and at the southern terminus from Raritan
Bay. A slight increase in salinity occurs at the Raritan Bay terminus.
On October 19, 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
conducted a dye study to determine current and dispersion in the Arthur
Kill area (see Appendix D). A dye release was made just below the
Outerbridge Crossing at low water slack. The dye first traveled upstream
with the incoming current and then reversed its travel direction at the
turn of the tide. After four days, the dye was uniformly dispersed
throughout the western end of Raritan Bay. The net seaward movement
of the dye mass was about 9 miles over a period of 8 tidal cycles.
Water Quality
Data collected from August 1962 to September 1964 (FWPCA, 1967)
show that the Kill is severely degraded. BOD (5-day) values averaging
about 6ppm at Carteret and low dissolved oxygen levels support this
general observation.
At the 1967 Enforcement Conference for Raritan Bay, the following
data were presented.
Water temperature - average water temperatures ranged from 14.5
to 15.4°C at Perth Amboy. The highest water temperatures were recorded
in the southern end of the Kill.
Chloride - average chloride values at the southern end of the Kill
were approximately 13,500 ppm. Chloride values decreased to an average
of 11,500 ppm in Newark Bay. Slight increases were observed in the
vicinity of Carteret.
- 118 -
-------
BOD (5-day) - the average BOD (5-day) was 3 ppm at Outer-bridge
Crossing arid 6 ppm at Carteret. Values as high as 12 ppm were observed
near Carteret. Sliding scale BOD determinations indicated that toxic
materials were present in the Kill water.
COD - the average COD values throughout the Kill ranged from 110 to 135ppm.
The highest average, 135 ppm, was recorded at Sewaren.
Dissolved oxygen - dissolved oxygen values averaged 6 ppm near Perth
Amboy and 2.5 ppm at Carteret. Zero values were recorded north of Carteret.
Dissolved oxygen values were also depressed in areas of active dredging.
Phenol - phenol values of 800 parts per billion (ppb) were recorded
near the Rahway River; high concentrations were also observed at Carteret.
The range of values was 0.06 to 800 ppb.
Oil - oil was frequently observed on the Kill surface. Quantitative
studies of mud samples indicated heavy deposits of oil in the bottom
muds of the Kill. Highest concentrations were found in Woodbridge Creek
where 50 grams of dry mud produced 32 grams of oil. At the Outerbridge
Crossing, a value of 0.08 grams of oil per 50 grams of dry mud was re-
corded. (FWPCA, 1967).
Flora and Fauna
An ecological survey of the Arthur Kill by the Raytheon Company
showed that:
"l. Plankton numbers and diversity in the Kill appeared to be
below average [in comparison with Ran tan Bay];
"2. The principal problem in the Kill appears to be low dissolved
oxygen concentration." (reported in NJDEP, October 1972).
- 119 -
-------
Phytoplankton cell numbers were unevenly distributed along the
length of the study area with peak numbers occurring at sewage treatment
plant effluent sites near Fresh Kill and Raritan Bay. Table A-16 lists
the species that were found and the stations at which they were found.
Figure A-10 shows the sampling site locations on the Kill.
Benthic organisms were collected primarily at channel stations.
Most of the organisms were either highly motile, allowing them to move
with water quality changes, or characteristic of silty, muddy en-
vironments. The non-edible shrimp, Crangon septemspinosus, was wide-
spread and numerous. Other bottom invertebrates that were collected,
all in small numbers, included: several kinds of crabs (lady crab,
Ovalipes ocellatus; blue crab, Callinectes sapidus; mud crab, Neopanope
texana); snails (especially the common mud snail, Nassarius obsoletus);
soft-shelled or "steamer" clams (Mya arenaria); and barnacles.
As distance north of Raritan Bay increased, there was a progressive
decrease in the numbers of fish observed at stations on the Kill. Species
diversity also declined as one proceeded from stations on Raritan Bay
to stations on the Kill. The only species found in significant numbers
in the Arthur Kill was the pollutant-tolerant killiffsft:' Species that
are commonly found in relatively clear waters containing an adequate
supply of dissolved oxygen (e.g., the bay anchovy) were collected primarily
near the entrance of the Kill to Raritan Bay. A list of the organisms
collected in the Arthur Kill is presented in Table A-17.
Studies conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion showed that the average total phytoplankton density in the Arthur
Kill from October 1963 through September 1964 was 125,000 cells/ml at
- 120 -
-------
TABLE A-16
PHYTOPLANKTON DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE IN THE ARTHUR KILL
Species
Asterionella
Cos ci nodi scus
Coscinosira
Diatoma
Leptocylyndricus
Licomorpha
Melosira
Navicula
Nitzschia
Pinnularia
Rhizosolenia
Thalassionema
Thalassiosira
Mesodinium
Peri dim' urn
Ankistrodesmus
Cl os ten urn
Cryptomonas
Kirchneriella
Rhodomonas
Unknown
Types
D
D
D
D(FW)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
F
F
G(FW)
G(FW)
G
G(FW)
G
G
Number of Types
1972
Stations I/
Fresh
Kill
5
C
C
R
R
C
R
A
C
R
9
3
C
R
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
A
R
C
12
Intake
11
A
C
R
C
R
C
C
C
C
A
R
11
Effluent
10
A
C
C
A
C
C
C
A
C
C
C
11
1
R
C
C
C
R
C
A
R
8
Raritan
Bay
6
A
R
R
A
R
C
C
R
A
C
10
D = Diatom A = Abundant
F = Flagellate C = Common
G = Green R = Rare
FW = Fresh Water Species
J/The sampling sites are shown in Figure A-10.
Source: Raytheon Company data in NJDEP, October 1972.
- 121 -
-------
SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN THE ARTHUR KILL 1972
RARITAN BAY
Source: Ruythton Company Dolo
in NJDEP, October 1972
Figure A-10
-------
TABLE A-17
ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES FOUND .IN THE ARTHUR KILL
1972
Scientific Name
Common Name
Anguilla rostrata
Syngnathus fuscus
Limanda ferruginea
Sarsia mirabilis
Nemopsis bachei
Leptoplana ellipsoides
Polydora ciliata
Nereis arenoceodonta
Gammarus annulatus
Unidentified cirripedia
Podon leuckarti
Temora longicornis
Acartia tonsa
Tortanus discaudatus
Centropages hamatus
Pseudocalanus minutus
Calanus finmarchicus
Eurytemora hirundoides
Randal us montagui
Crangon septemspinosus
American eel
Pipefish
Yellowtail flounder
Jellyfish
Jellyfish
Flatworm
Segmented worm
Segmented worm
Amphipod
Barnacle larvae
Cladoceran
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Copepod
Shrimp
Snapping shrimp
- 122 -
-------
TABLE A-17 (Cont'd)
ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES FOUND IN THE ARTHUR KILL
1972
Scientific Name
Common Name
Carcinus maenas
Edotea montosa
Nerocila munda
Edotea triloba
Neomysis americana
Unidentified gastropod
Nassan'us trivitatus
Sagitta elegans
Autolytus cornutus
Myriochele heeri
Melita dentata
Polinices triseriata
Green crab
Isopod
Isopod
Isopod
Ghost shrimp
Snail
Snai 1
Arrow worm
Segmented worm
Segmented worm
Amphipod
Moon snail
Source: Raytheon Company data reported in NJDEP, October 1972.
- 123 -
-------
Perth Amboy and 200,000 cells/ml at Carteret. Average net phytoplankton
for the same period was approximately 6,000 cells/ml at Perth Amboy and
5,000 cells/ml at Carteret. Nannoplankton comprised 95 percent of the
total phytoplankton. Densities of netplankton were highest during the
spring bloom of Skeletonema costatum, which was the principal netplankton
species. During late spring, summer and fall, diatoms of the genus
Thalassiosira were dominant. (FWPCA, 1967).
q
Densities of zooplankton were approximately 11,500/rrr at the mouth
of the Arthur Kill (Perth Amboy) and at Port Reading, and approximately
7,000/m^ at Carteret. Most zooplankton were types adaptable to wide
ranges of salinity. Zooplankton increased markedly during the spring
and summer. Local distribution of zooplankton appeared to be dependent
upon dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Table A-18 presents the results of benthic organism studies con-
ducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1967).
Figure A-ll pinpoints the location of each of the sampling stations on
the Arthur Kill. Three sampling runs were made on the Kill (October 1,
1963, November 14, 1963 and June 15, 1964). Eleven miles of bottom,
from Station 501 to Station 509, were devoid of benthic organisms.
Samples taken at the other stations on the Kill showed that there was
little seasonal variation with regard to density of organisms or species
diversity. Benthic organisms were never found in excess of 800 per square
meter nor were there more than seven different species present at any
station.
Dominant organisms were tube dwelling segmented worms, principally
Polydora lignii. These are considered pollutant-tolerant organisms.
- 124 -
-------
TABLE A-18
ARTHUR KILL BENTHOS SURVEY
OCTOBER 1963
Sta.l/
34
500
501
502
503
504
505
520
506
507
508
509
510
Avg. No. of
Organisms per
Square Meter
95
175
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
582
594
Avg. No. of
Species per
Square Meter
1.5
5.3
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
4.0
8.7
Dominants
Polychaetes
Polychaetes
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Polychaetes
Polychaetes
Polychaetes
Odor
Slight
Oil
Slight
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil»H2S
Oil,H2S
Oil,H2S
Observations
Small shells
(l/4"-l/2"),wood
No. shells, plant
material
Few Mya she!1s(l/4").
plant material
No shells, plant
material
No shells, little
plant material
No shells, little
plant material
Little plant
material
Nothing else
Little plant
material
Nothing else
Nothing else
2 Myj. shells (l")s
little plant
material
Plant material
J/The sampling sites are shown in Figure A-ll
Source: FWPCA, 1967.
- 125 -
-------
CO
c
SAMPLING LOCATIONS IN THE ARTHUR KILL 1963
Sourte: FWPCA, 1967
-------
From June 24 to July 1, 1964, a field bioassay study was conducted
(FWPCA, 1967). Three types of test organisms, killifish, mud crab and
shrimp, were placed in cages and immersed at four stations in the Kill
and at a station in Prince's Bay, Staten Island, which served as a con-
trol for the test. In addition to live caged animals, traps were placed
at the same locations to permit observation of growth of attached organisms,
The results of this study (Table A-19) showed that stations 504 and 520
were highly polluted with no organisms surviving more than two days.
Other tests indicated that the observed toxicity to aquatic life
in the Kill is largely attributible to the low levels of dissolved oxygen
(FWPCA, 1967).
Hydrogeology
Geological Formations
The geologic formations of the study areas are listed in Table A-20.
The formations which are sufficiently thick and permeable to yield at
least 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) per well are underlined in Table A-20.
In order of their importance as aquifers in the study areas, they are:
1. Magothy and Raritan formations
2. Brunswick shale (including Stockton formation)
3. Wisconsin stratified drift
4. Englishtown formation
5. Pennsauken formation
6. Mount Laurel sand and Wenonah formation.
Only the Magothy and Raritan formations and the Brunswick shale can
be considered major aquifers in the areas under discussion. Figure A-12
- 126 -
-------
TABLE A-19
BIOLOGICAL SURVIVAL STUDY
ARTHUR KILL
1964
Station
Control
(Prince's
Bay)
500
504
520
507
Organisms In
Time
Est. Date
1130 6-24
Fish 3
Crabs 7
Shrimp 10
1200 6-24
Fish 3
Crabs 6
Shrimp 1
1315 6-24
Fish 3
Crabs 6
Shrimp 6
1400 6-24
Fish 0
Crabs 7
Shrimp 10
1340 6-24
Fish 3
Crabs 6
Organisms Out
Number
Survived
1400 7-1
3
5
3
(7 escaped)
1430 7-1
1
5
3
(3 escaped)
1135 6-26
0
0
0
1155 6-26
0
0
1235 6-26
0
2
%
Surviva-1
84.6
75.0
0
0
13.3
Time
Diff.
Hrs.
170.5
170.5
46.7
46.0
47.0
Temp °C
In & Out
20.5
21.6
23.4
23.4
22.5
Salinity
PPt
24.70
23.96
21.41
20.71
21.04
DO
mq/1
10.15
5.30
0.4
0.3
1.3
Observations
Plant and animal growth
on pilings where trap
attached. After 1 week
heavy plant and animal
growth on trap.
Plant and animal growth
where attached. Heavy
plant and animal growth
on trap after 1 week.
Pilings and trap free of
growth .
Pilings and trap free of
growth .
Algal growth on pilings.
Trap free of growth.
I
ro
Source: FWPCA, 1967.
-------
TABLE A-20
STRATIGRAPHIC TABLE FOR MIDDLESEX COUNTY I/
Cenozoic sequence
Quaternary system
Recent series
Alluvium
Eolian deposits
Pleistocene series
Wisconsin drift
Caoe May formation
'PensauKen -formation
UNCONFORMITY
Mesozoic sequence
Cretaceous system
Upper Cretaceous series
Mount Laurel and Wenonah sands
Marshall town formation
Englishtown sand
Woodbury clay
Merchantville clay
Magothy formation
Raritan formation
Amboy stoneware clay
Old Bridge sand member
South Amboy fire-clay
Sayreville sand member
Woodbridge clay
Farrington sand member
Raritan fire-clay
UNCONFORMITY
Triassic system
Upper Triassic series (Newark group)
Brunswick shale
Lockatong formation
Stockton formation
UNCONFORMITY
Proterozoic sequence (?)
Pre-Cambrian (?)
Wissahickon formation
I/Underscoring indicates that formation will yield at least 100,000 gpd per
"well.
Source: NJDEP, October, 1972. .._
- I C.O -
-------
SEA LEVEL -
-600
QUATERNARY
CAPE MAY fm.
PENSAUKEN fm.
CRETACEOUS
^^^J
.•::;.] SAND
E^l CLAY
TRIASSIC
^'^ j| DIABASE SILL
SCALE IN MILES
Ket ENGLISHTOWN SAND
Kwb WOODBURY CLAY
Kmv MERCHANTVILLE CLAY
Km MAGOTHY fm.
Kas AMBOY STONEWARE CLAY
Kob OLD BRIDGE SAND
Kio SOUTH AMBOY FIRE CLAY
Ks SAYREVILLE SAND
Kw( WOODBRIDGE CLAY
Kl FARRINGTON SAND
Krl RARITAN FIRE CLAY
NEWARK GROUP
PRE-CAMBRIAN ?
WISSAHICKON fm.
Source: Barkidale el al., 1943
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC SECTION OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY
-------
Is a geologic cross section of the area from Stelton through Runyon
which illustrates the configuration of the geologic formations.
Deposits of Quaternary age overlie most of the area. The deposits
consist mainly of permeable sand and gravel, except for relatively im-
permeable alluvium along some stream channels. These deposits are hy-
dro! ogically important primarily because they absorb and transmit water
to underlying aquifers.
Magothy and Ran'tan Formations
Although the Magothy and Raritan formations are distinct geologic
units, they are frequently in direct hydraulic contact and are considered
part of the same aquifer system. Northeast of Jamesburg, the Raritan
formation has been divided into 7 members, 3 of which are water-bearing
(Table A-20). Southwest of Jamesburg, the Raritan formation is undiffer-
entiated. Of the 3 recognizable aquifers in the formation north of
Jamesburg, only the Old Bridge and Farrington sands are important.
Prior to the onset of ground-water withdrawal, the natural discharge
from the aquifers to streams, Raritan Bay and the ocean equaled the natural
recharge. Recharge occurred in the higher outcrop areas and most was
discharged within the outcrop to areas at a lower elevation. A substan-
tial amount of water also traveled beneath some of the confining clays
to discharge at more distant points. This constant discharge and higher
head kept brackish water from moving inland into the aquifers. Ground
water was under water-table conditions in the outcrop areas and under
artesian conditions downdip.
The withdrawal of ever-increasing quantities of water from this
aquifer system has locally altered the flow pattern in several areas.
- 129 -
-------
Consequently, former discharge areas are now recharge areas and the
amount of water being discharged to streams has diminished greatly. The
Spotswood-South Amboy area has been the site of the most extensive water
development. In this area, a total of 42.6 mgd was removed from the
Raritan aquifer system through wells in 1971.
Due to this intense rate of pumpage, the amount of water withdrawn
from this aquifer in the Sayreville area probably exceeds the amount
recharged through precipitation. Consequently, Duhernal, Perth Amboy
and Sayreville have constructed artificial recharge facilities to supple-
ment natural recharge.
The Duhernal Water Company, the P.O. Schweitzer Company and the
Anheuser Busch Company all pump from wells adjacent to Duhernal Lake,
which was constructed on the South River in order to recharge the Old
Bridge sand. These three companies withdrew an average of 20 mgd of
water in 1971. Although the amount of water that is recharged varies,
a study done in 1969 (NJDEP, October 1972) estimated that an average of
12 mgd of Duhernal Lake water was artificially recharged to the wells.
Perth Amboy recharges the Old Bridge sand through a canal system
fed by Tennent Pond and Deep Run. Studies conducted by Barksdale in
1941 indicated that about 5 mgd, or virtually the entire low flow of
Tennent Brook, were being used to recharge the aquifer (reported in
NJDEP, October 1972). A recharge pond on Deep Run is now in the planning
stage. This pond will increase the yield of the well field by 4 mgd.
In 1972, Sayreville Borough completed recharge ponds having a total
surface area of 66 acres. These ponds were designed to recharge the
Old Bridge sand. It is expected that this facility will increase the yield
from the Bordentown well field by about 4 mgd.
- 130 -
-------
Pumpage from the Farrington sand of the Ran tan formation in the
area between South Amboy and Spotswood was 13.26 mgd in 1971. Because
of saltwater intrusion into this aquifer, the center of pumpage has
shifted inland from Sayreville. The salt water was induced into the
aquifer as a result of heavy pumpage by the DuPont and Hercules Companies.
(Barksdale and Debuchananne, 1946). The salt water has moved about one
mile inland from the vicinity of the Washington Canal. A smaller, but
indefinite amount of saltwater intrusion has also occurred north of South
Amboy, where brackish water has moved toward the National Lead Company.
Saltwater intrusion into the Farrington sand prompted a proposal
in the early 1930's to construct a tidal dam on the South River. The
dam was intended to prevent a similar fate from befalling the Old Bridge
sand. However, a 1969 study by the New Jersey Bureau of Water Resources
Planning and Management showed that saltwater intrusion could be prevented
more economically by: 1) sound well field management, and 2) recharge to
maintain heads above sea level in the vicinity of brackish water. The
study also showed that nearly the entire benefit of the tidal dam would
be to the Perth Amboy and Duhernal well fields. (NJDEP, October 1972).
Under natural conditions, the quality of water from the Raritan-
Magothy aquifer system is good, except for the fact that the water fre-
quently contains high concentrations of iron. The outcrop area of sand
units of the Raritan-Magothy formation are highly susceptible to surface
pollution. Contamination of some of Sayrevilie's wells has been attributed
to poor waste disposal practices on the outcrop of the Old Bridge sand.
Similar practices have caused contamination of some of Perth Amboy's wells.
With the exception of saltwater intrusion, contamination of the Raritan-
Magothy aquifer in this area has been of a local nature.
- 131 -
-------
Brunswick Shale
Except for a small area between Mi 11 town and Kingston, nearly all
of the bedrock in the lower Raritan River basin study area north of a
line between Carteret and Plainsboro consists of the Brunswick shale.
The Brunswick shale is the most extensive outcrop in New Jersey. It is
a dull red shale interbedded with siltstone and sandstone layers. The
Brunswick shale is composed of fine grained, relatively impermeable sed-
iments and therefore, has a very low permeability.
Ground water from the Brunswick shale is usually hard to very hard.
Both sulfate and carbonate-bicarbonate hardness is common. As a rule,
very deep wells have a higher total dissolved solids content than do
shallower wells.
Several cases of ground-water contamination in the area have been
reported. There are many cases of septic tanks polluting domestic wells
because once contaminated water reaches the fracture systems, it moves
rapidly with a minimum of renovation. If hydraulic gradients are toward
pumping wells, sanitary sewers may leak their contents into the fractures
causing similar results.
Englishtown Formation
The Englishtown formation crops out in a band extending southwest
from Keansburg through Englishtown. The Englishtown formation is sepa-
rated from the aquifer of the Raritan-Magothy formation by the Merchantville
formation and the Woodbury clay, which together function as the lower con-
fining layer.
The study areas take in only the outcrop area of the Englishtown
formation where water is primarily under water-table conditions. Only low
capacity wells are found in this area.
- 132 -
-------
Management of Ground-Water Resources
Under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 58:4A-1 and 2, the Water Policy
and Supply Council of the Division of Water Resources of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection may delineate "protected" areas.
In these areas, no person, corporation or agency of the public may divert
or obtain water from subsurface sources in excess of 100,000 gpd without
first obtaining a permit from the Division of Water Resources. When a
permit is granted, the diversion must be reported.
The first area to be delineated was a portion of Middlesex County
in 1947. Other parts of the study areas were subsequently delineated;
the last of these achieved "protected" status in 1968. Those private
well owners who had equipped their wells with 70 gpm (100,000 gpd) or
larger pumps prior to the designation of an area as "protected" were
only required to file an affidavit stating the pump's capacity. A
permit was a prerequisite for all subsequent diversions.
Water Resources
Use of Ground Water
Table A-21 shows the ground-water use from 1965 to 1971 in both
Middlesex County and the Bayshore area of Monmouth County. It is apparent
that the Raritan formation supplies most of the ground water (approximately
60 percent) used in Middlesex County and all of the ground water used in
Monmouth County. Table A-21 also shows that the total ground-water usage
increased from 1965 to 1969, but has decreased in the last two years. In
Monmouth County, ground-water usage has increased each year, while in
Middlesex County, the use of ground water from the Brunswick shale has de-
creased steadily from 1965 to the present.
- 133 -
-------
TABLE A-21
HATER USE (mgd) IN THE STUDY AREAS
1965-1971
SOURCE
Ground Water
Brunswick Shale
Ran tan Formation
Old Bridge Sands
Farrington Sands
Un-differentiated
Ran' tan Formation
Within Middlesex Co.
Within Monmouth Co.
Total Ground Water Used
Surface Water
New Brunswick Water Dept.
No. Brunswick Water Dept.
Middlesex Water Co.
Bound Brook Water Dept.
Total Surface Water Used
Total Ground and Surface
Water Used
YEAR
1965
27.85
28.41
10.23
0.48
6.19
73.16
12.63
1.55
4.20
0.82
19.20
92.36
1966
26.89
29.59
11.38
0.61
7.30
75.77
12.39
1.86
4.22
1.05
19.52
95.29
1967
26.81
30.47
10.48
0.63
7.23
75.62
12.88
1.93
4.47
1.27
20.55
96.17
1968
27.83
29.54
12.36
0.60
8.56
78.89
12.98
1.77
4.17
1.17
20.09
98.98
1969
29.38
30.32
14.04
0.62
8.96
83.32
13.80
2.05
4.37
1.17
21.39
104.71
1970
27.27
30.17
14.83
0.64
9.48
82.39
14.07
2.04
14-. 69
1.07
31.87
114.26
1971
24.05
29.72
14.37
0.69
9.87
78.70
14.10
2.01
19.66
0.79
36.56
115.26
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 134 -
-------
Use of Surface Water
The amount of surface water used from 1965 to 1971 is shown in
Table A-21. As indicated, the surface water demand nearly doubled
during that seven year span. The largest increase occurred in the
Middlesex Water Company system where the rate of consumption rose from
4.20 mgd to 9.66 mgd.
Total Water Use
Total water use for the study areas is also shown in Table A-21.
The present and projected water demand for the study areas is shown in
Table A-22. The table indicates that there will be a 100 percent in-
crease in the water demand by the year 2000.
Table A-22 shows the available water supplies, the projected water
deficiencies, the improvement of supplies and the sources of supplies
within the study areas. Water to meet future needs will probably come
mainly from the development of the Raritan River and the proposed Six
Mile Run Reservoir.
Soils
The soil associations of the study areas are mapped in Figure A-13.
Significant characteristics of these associations are presented in Table
A-23. Examination of these characteristics reveals that the soils and
topography offer little impediment to urban development. For the most
part, topography and drainage are suited to development.
- 135 -
-------
TABLE A-22
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND (mgd) IN THE STUDY AREAS
1970-2000
Sub-Area
Elizabethtown Water Co.
Middlesex Water Co.
Franklin Township
Perth Amboy
New Brunswick, East Brunswick,
Mi 11 town and Personal Product
Sayreville and South River
North Brunswick
South Brunswick
Madison Township, Monroe,
Jamesburg, Helmetta,
Spotswood and Cranbury
South Amboy
Duhernal , Anheuser Busch,
and Kimberly Clark
Bound Brook and South Bound
Brook
Monmouth County Study Area
Additional capacity required
Ground Water
Surface Water
Total
1970
Present
Supply
32
35
5
11
22
10
8
3
5
1
21
2
16
Demand
32
26
5
11
17
4
2
1
5
1
21
2
16
1980
Demand
50
35
7
13
20
6
3
2
7
2
22
2
22
Additional
Capacity
Required
18
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
6
12
20
32
1990
Demand
78
46
9
15
23
8
4
3
9
3
23
3
30
Additional
Capacity
Required
46
11
4
4
1
0
0
0
4
2
2
1
14
26
63
89
2000
Demand
116^
61
12
17
27
10
4
3
12
3
24
4
41
Additional
Capacity
Required
84
26
7
6
5
0
0
0
7
2
3
2
25
43
124
167
Source of
Additional Supplies
Raritan and Delaware River water
Six Mile Run Reservoir
Raritan and Delaware River water
Local ground water
Six Mile Run Reservoir
None needed
None needed
None needed
Local ground water
Local ground water
Local ground water
Raritan River water
Local ground water
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
-------
SOU ASSOCIATIONS IN THE STUDY AREAS
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1972
PENN, KLINESVILIE ASSOCIATION
NESHAMINY, MOUNT LUCAS, AMWELL ASSOCIATION
DUNELLEN, NIXON, BIRDSBORO, WETHERSFIELD ASSOCIATION
ROWLAND, BOWMANSVILLE, FRENEAU, ALLUVIAL LAND ASSOCIATION
MUCK - ORGANIC SOILS ASSOCIATION
PENN, REAVILLE, ROYCE, LANSDOWNE ASSOCIATION
SASSAFRAS, WOODSTOWN, LAKEWOOD, KLEJ ASSOCIATION
TIDAL MARSH ASSOCIATION
MATAWAN, KEYPORT, ELKTON ASSOCIATION
FREEHOLD, ADELPHIA, HOLMDEL ASSOCIATION
EVESBORO, GALESTOWN, LAKEHURST, KLEJ ASSOCIATION
Figure A-13
-------
TABLE A-23
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE LOWER RARITAN RIVER BASIN AND SOUTH SHORE OF RARITAN BAY
So
Soil Association Name
Penn, KlinesviTle
Neshaminy, Mount Lucas,
Anvell
Dunellen, Nixon, Birdsboro
Wethersfield
Rowland, Bowmansville, Freneau,
Alluvial land
Muck - organic soils
Penn, Reaville, Royce, Lansdowne
Sassafras, Woodstown, Lakewood
Klej
Tidal marsh
Matawan, Key port, Elkton
Freehold, Adelphia, Holmdel
Evesboro, Galestown, Lakehurst,
Klej
il Association
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Acres
1,100
4,200
51,900
18,600
11,500
27,800
3,500
11,100
19,200
8,100
11,000
Drainage
Surface
Poor to good
Poor or less
Steep land
Good exception
ajareas of high
water tables
b)flat land or
depressions
Poor due to high
water table
Poor
Well drained except
for flat areas
Highly variable
Very poor
Highly variable
Moderate to
moderately well
Highly variable
Poor in depressions
Permeability
Good
_
-
_
"
Slow to moderate
~
~
Slow to moderate;
perched water
tables common
~
-
Topography
Flat to gently rolling
Simple & steep slopes
Undulating to gently
rolling
Level with simple slopes
Depressional
Undulating; not on
steeper slopes
Undulating to rolling
Flat; at or near ocean
tide level
Flat to rolling
Level to undulating
Undulating to hilly
Present Land Use
Grassland
Urban development
Forest
Urban development
Isolated produce farms
Urban development
Idle
Unimproved pastures
Idle
Cranberry or blueberry bogs
Dairy farming
Potato and dairy farming
Parkland
Idle
Vegetable farming
Orchards
Urban development
Extensively cropped
Woodland
Pasture
Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1972.
-------
WATER AND WASTEWATER
Hater Quality
Water Quality Problems
Surface Waters
The study areas are afflicted with a number of water quality problems.
The most serious problems are the result of: 1) the additon of toxic sub-
stances to the waterways, and 2) the addition of waste materials in ex-
cess of a receiving stream's assimilative capacity.
This section of New Jersey is highly industrialized. Many industries
discharge their wastes into existing sanitary sewer systems. The munici-
pal systems are often incapable of effecting the treatment required by
these complex and exotic industrial wastes. For example, the municipal
STP may effect little or no removal of toxic substances or it may simply
concentrate the toxic materials for disposal at sea. Still other industries
discharge inadequately treated wastes directly into receiving streams.
Many small treatment plants at stream headwaters are operated with
minimal supervision. Many are operated beyond plant capacity. The result
is the release of excessive organic loads into the streams.
Ground Water
Saltwater intrusion is the most significant ground-water quality
problem. The problem will become more and more aggravated until ground-
water consumption is balanced by ground-water recharge. Unless steps are
taken to increase the amount of water recharged to the Magothy and Raritan
formations, the serious ground-water problem existing in the Sayrevilie-
South River area will continue.
- 138 -
-------
Water Quality Standards
As indicated in Figure A-4, streams within the study areas are
now classified as FW-2, FW-3, TW-1, TW-2 or TW-3. New Jersey State
standards for these classifications are given in Appendix B. In accord-
ance with Section 303 (a) of the FWPCAA 1972 (PL 92-500), these standards
have been reviewed by the EPA and appropriate changes will be promulgated.
The proposed changes are also given in Appendix B; they include revision
of the New Jersey standards to Federal Use Classifications A or B.
Among other things, the standards stipulate the degrees of treatment
required. Present New Jersey standards require that discharges into FW-2
or FW-3 waters "... shall be treated to a degree providing, as a mini-
mi urn, ninety per cent (90%) of reduction of biochemical oxygen demand at
all times. . ." and that discharges into TW-1 waters ". . .shall be treated
to a degree providing, as a minimum, eighty percent (80%) of reduction
of biochemical oxygen demand at all times. . .'i (Appendix B). Under the
FWPCAA 1972, the ". . .minimum treatment required for any wastewater must
be such that discharges shall meet effluent limits." (Appendix B).
Enforcement Conference Requirements
In 1961 the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, under
the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended
(33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), called a conference on the pollution of the inter-
state waters of Raritan Bay and adjacent waters. As a result of this con-
ference, the Public Health Service established the Raritan Bay Project to
undertake a study of these waters to provide scientific data on which
further pollution control programs could be established. (FWPCA, 1967).
- 139 -
-------
Conferences were held in 1963 and 1967 to present the data that
had been collected. The recommendations made at the 1967 conference
are presented in Appendix C.
Abatement Actions
Current abatement actions directed at municipal dischargers are
listed in Table A-24. Table A-25 lists the current abatement actions
for industrial dischargers.
Wastewater Discharges
The major discharges, those greater than 100,000 gpd, entering
the waterways of the study areas are listed in Tables A-26a, b and c.
The waterways that receive these discharges are: 1) the Raritan River
and its tributaries, 2) the Arthur Kill, and 3) the southwestern portion
of Raritan Bay.
1. The Raritan River and its tributaries: The section of the river
under consideration here extends from the confluence of the Raritan with
the Millstone River at Manville to Raritan Bay. Discharges into this
section of the Raritan are listed in Table A-26a.
2. The Arthur Kill: The portion of the Arthur Kill that lies south
of the Rahway River is of concern here. Only those discharges originating
along the New Jersey shore are included in Table A-26b.
3. The southwestern portion of Raritan Bay: Wastewater discharges
originating along the southwestern shore of Raritan Bay (from the point
at which the Raritan River enters the bay to the Middletown regional
wastewater treatment plant) are included in Table A-26c.
An examination of the minor discharges, which are not enumerated in
this report, indicates that the minor discharges have a significant
- 140 -
-------
TABLE A-24
REQUIRED ABATEMENT ACTIONS
MUNICIPALITIES
Municipalities
Carteret
Madison Township
Middlesex County
Sewerage Authority
Perth Amboy
Sayrevi lie-Mel rose
Say revi lie-Morgan
South Amboy
Woodbridge-Keasbey
Key port
Matawan Borough
Matawan Township
(2 plants)
Type of Action
Outstanding court order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Date of
Action
No pending
action
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
2/18/66
Specified
Abatement
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Expand & upgrade
plant
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Connect to MCSA
Abandon plant
Bayshore Reg'l
Sewerage Authority
Bayshore Reg'l
Sewerage Authority
Bayshore Reg'l
Sewerage Authority
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 141 -
-------
TABLE A-25
REQUIRED ABATEMENT ACTIONS
INDUSTRIES
Industry & Location
Type of Action
Date of
Action
Specified
Abatement
Hess Oil & Chemical
Corp.
Woodbridge
U.S. Metals Refining
Co.
Carteret
Philip Carey Manu-
facturing Co.
Perth Amboy
National Lead Co.
Sayrevilie
American Cyanamid
Woodbridge
Hatco Chemical Co.
Woodbridge
American Cyanamid
Bridgewater Township
Administrative order
3/20/72
EPA-RAPP
Court order
Administrative order
Administrative order
Court order
Initial meeting
2/1/72
11/8/71
5/3/72
11/17/67
Court order
5/17/72
Cease & desist dis-
charging industrial
wastewater or pollu-
ting material from
sewer or drain into
the Arthur Kill
Negotiated agreement
underway
Tie in all discharges
to sanitary sewers
Industrial wastewater
treatment plant
Upgrade existing
facilities
Connect to MCSA
(Connection made,
however,di scharges
still present)
Negotiated agreement
Source: NJDEP, October 1972.
- 142 -
-------
TABLE A-26a
MAJOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES *
RARITAN RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
Municipality or Industry
Air Products & Chemicais
Inc. , Chemicals Group
Middlesex
American Cyanamid
Bound Brook
Anaconda Co.
Perth Amboy
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
East Brunswick
Philip Carey Co.
Perth Amboy
Ford Motor Co.
Metuchen
Essex Chem. Corp.
Sayreville
Central Jersey Sewer
Co., Marlboro
Cheseb rough-Ponds, Inc.
Perth Amboy
E.I. DuPont deNemours
& Co. , Photo Products
Dept., Parlin
E.I. DuPont deNemours
& Co., Fabric &
Finishes Dept.
Parlin
Jamesburg Home for Boys
Jamesburg Municipal
Jersey Central Power &
Light, Werner Gen. Sta.
South Amboy
Sayreville Gen. Sta.
Manville Borough
Receiving Water
Ambrose Brook
Cuckles Brook
Raritan River
South River
Raritan River
Mill Brook
Burt Creek
Barclay Brook
Raritan River
Selover Creek
Selover Creek
Flow Rates -mgd
Design
25. 03/
3701/
Matchaponix Brook
Manalapan Brook
Raritan River
Raritan River
Raritan River
.2567
1
Actual
..,,«
23. 8^/
2.251/
0.783/
0.12^
0.33Q3/
0.5Q3/
.37ll/
.1483-/
2.241/
0.503!
.15§/
.476/
97. B!/
309. S3-/
2.0*/
,„
Effluent
Characteristic
Cooling water
BOD5=4170#/day
NH3-N=6350#/day
Kjeldahl-N=
9730#/day
Cooling water
BOD5=100#/day
NH3-N=30#/day
As,Cu,Se,Zn
and Te
Cooling water
BOD5=2.7#/day
Cooling water
BOD5=35#/day
KjeIdahl-N=
8#/day
Cooling water
Cooling water
Oil and Grease
BOD5=130#/day
Oil, Grease,
Phenols and Ag
BOD5=125mg/l
Cooling water
Cooling water
s Treatment
Neutralization,
settling, activated
sludge with 5 mgd
primary effluent
from Somerset-
Ran' tan Valley
plant for seed
No treatment
Secondary treat-
ment
Lagooning
Primary with
chlori nation
Settling pond
Secondary with
chlori nation
* See Table A-26c for sources.
- 143 -
-------
TABLE A-26a (Cont'd)
MAJOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES*
RARITAN RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
Municipality or Industry
Public Service Elec.
& Gas Co., Central
Gas Plant
Keasbey
Pine Brook Sewer Co.
Manalapan Township
Mideast Anodizing Corp.
South Brunswick
Keasbey
Rahway Valley
Perth Amboy
Titanium Pigment Div.
Sayreville
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Plastics Division
Nixon
Whittier Oaks
Marlboro
University Heights,
Rutgers University
Piscataway
American Cyanamid Co.
Keasbey
Sinclair-Koppers Co.,
Inc.
Koppers Company, Inc.
Receiving Water
Raritan River
Pine Brook
Pigeon Swamp
Kinsey Creek
Rahway River
Raritan River
Raritan River
Raritan River
Barclay Brook
Raritan River
Flow Rates-mgd
Design
0.26i/
1.35§/
10. Q§/
0.5Q§/
Actual
0.74/
Summjr.
Winter
o.gi/
LOOS/
7.21/
38. 13-/
0. 392^7
"•6|5/
Effluent
Characteristics
Cooling water
BOD5=177 mg/1
Cooling water
Cooling Water
BOD5=4 mg/1
Treatment
Secondary
Primary with
chlorination
Primary with
chlorination
Primary with
chlorination
Trickling
filter
*See Table A-26c for sources.
- 144 -
-------
TABLE A-26b
MAJOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES*
ARTHUR KILL
Municipality or Industry
Hess Oil & Chemical Co.
Woodbridge
American Smelting &
Refining Co.
Perth Amboy
Bird & Son, Inc.
Perth Amboy
Carteret
Chevron Oil Co.,
Eastern Division
Perth Amboy
Sewaren
Public Service Elec.& Gas
Sewaren Gen. Sta.
Shell Oil Co.
Sewaren
U.S. Metals Refining Co.
Carteret
FMC Inorganic Chem. Div.
Carteret
Copper Pigment &
Chemical Co.
American Agricultural
Chem. Co., Carteret
Reichold Chemicals, Inc.
Carteret
Armour Agric. Chem. Co.
Carteret
General American Trans-
portation Co. Carteret
Sinclair-Koppers Co.
Port Reading
Koppers Co., Forest
Products Division
Port Reading
Receiving Water
Arthur Kill
Arthur Kill
Spa Spring Creek
Arthur Kill
Woodbridge Creek
Arthur Kill
Arthur Kill
Woodbridge Creek
Arthur Kill
Arthur Kill
Woodbridge River
Flow Rates-mgd
Design
3.oi/
e.oi/
Actual
0.361/
7.3i/
0.331/
2.7i/
63.63/
9.06/
835l/
o.sei/
31.851/
e.oi/
0.5l/
Effluent
Characteristics
BODr=500#/day
KjeTdahl-N=
290#/day
As and Cu
BODc=60#/day
Cooling water
BOD5=500 mg/1
Storm water
flows 40 mgd
BOD5=2500#/day
NH3=N=950#/day
Kjeldahl-N=330#/
BOD5=159 mg/1
Cooling water
Cooling water
Boiler water
NH3-N=10,000#/da.
N03-N=100#/day
Kjeldahl-N=
10,000#/day
Zn,Pb,Cu,Ag and
P04-P=500#/day
COD=27-283 mg/1
Cyanide=l-141mg/
Cu=0. 1-275 mg/1
Treatment
Oil separation,
holding pond
Screens and
settling basins
Primary and
chlorination
Oil separation
and lagooning
day
Primary and
chlorination
Oil separation
t No treatment
:d
No treatment
No treatment
1
No treatment
No treatment
Oil separators
*See Table A-26c for sources.
- 145 -
-------
TABLE A-26c
MAJOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES*
RARITAN BAY
Municipality or Industry
Matawan Borough
Matawan Township Muni-
cipal Utilities Auth.
Cliffwood Beach
River Gardens
Strathmore
Keyport
Jersey Central Power
& Lighting; Union Beach
Lanvin-Charles of the
Ritz; Holmdel
Keansburg
Lily Tulip Cup Corp;
Holmdel
MCSA
South Amboy
Say revi lie-Morgan
Mel rose
Madison Township-
Lawrence Harbor
South Amboy Power
& Light
Mideast Anodizing
South Amboy
Bayshore Regional
Receiving Water
Matawan Creek
Whale Creek
Matawan Creek
Mohingson Creek
Bay
Draining Ditch
to Bay
Raritan Bay
East Creek
Raritan Bay
Mahores Brook
Raritan Bay
Unnamed stream
Raritan Bay
Raritan Bay
Raritan Bay
Raritan Bay
Raritan Bay
Atlantic Ocean
Flow Rates-mqd
Design
0.800^
0.750^
o.sl/
0.817
i.oi/
0.1682/
2.07-/
0.501/
78
l.OOJ/
0.300§/
O.l*/
i.soS/
6.0
Actual
'•«"
0.52417
0.72/
0.8517
0.942/
o.igo^/
37237
0.16117
2.427
0.151/
73.8
o.sol/
0.15§/
0.36/
o.aS/
looS/
0.26i/
Effluent
lharacteri sties
BOD5=1000#/day
NH3-N=173#/day
BODK=321#/day
NH3-N=102#/day
BOD5=58#7day
NH3-N=7#/day
BOD,:=212#/day
NH3-N=57#/day
BODs=811#/day
NH3-N=108#/day
BOD5=8800#/day
NH3-N=86#/day
Cooling
BOD,.=1350#/day
NH32N=150#/day
BOD5=13#/day
NH3-N=3#/day
Treatment
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Flotation, equaliz-
ation, neutraliza-
tion .chemical pre-
cipitation
Proposed facility
Secondary
Primary
Lagoons
BOD5=167,000#/day Primary;See text
BOD5=1200#/day
BOD5=225#/day
BOD5=195 mg/1
Cooling water
Low pH, heavy
metals, Al.Zn
BOD5=1250#/day
Primary and
chlori nation
Primary and
chlori nation
Primary and
chlori nation
Primary and
chlori nation
NeutraT and
lagoons
Secondary-under con-
struction; See text
*Sources:
1/NJDEP, 1971.
2/N.J. Dept. of Health, 1972.
3/U.S. EPA, 1971-72.
5/N.J. Dept. of Health, 1970-72.
|/Metcalf & Eddy, 1968.
jj/NJDEP, October 1972.
- 146 -
-------
cumulative effect on the quality of the receiving waters. The discussion
of present water quality reflects these effects.
- 147 -
-------
APPENDIX B
CLASSIFICATION OF THE SURFACE WATERS OF THE
RARITAN RIVER BASIN INCLUDING RARITAN BAY
Pursuant to authority vested in it under the provisions of
Chapter 12, Title 58 of the Revised Statutes, the State Department
of Health hereby promulgates the following classifications of the
surface waters of the Raritan River Basin, including the Raritan Bay.
Standards of Quality to be maintained in these waters as established
by the State Department of Health are attached hereto.
I. A. Class FW-2- The Raritan and Millstone Rivers and tributaries
upstream of the confluence of the Raritan and Millstone Rivers,
B. Class FW-2- The Middle Brook upstream of the intake of the
Bound Brook Water Company.
C. Class FW-2- The South River and tributaries upstream of the
proposed tidal dam site and the Lawrence Brook area upstream
of Weston Mills Dam.
D. Class FW-2- The Swimming River upstream of the intake of the
Monmouth Consolidated Water Company.
II. A. Class FW-3- The main stem of the Raritan River from its con-
fluence with the Millstone River to the Fieldsville Dam.
B. Class FW-3- The Middle Brook below the intake of the Bound
Brook Water Company.
C. Class FW-3- The Green Brook and its tributaries.
D. Class FW-3- All other tributaries to the Raritan River between
the Millstone River and the Fieldsville Dam.
- 148 -
-------
E. Class FW-3- The nontidal reaches of all other tributaries to
the Raritan River and Raritan Bay downstream from Fieldsville Dam.
III. Class TW-1- The main stem of the Raritan River and the tidal
reaches of tributaries thereto from Fieldsville Dam to and in-
cluding the Raritan Bay and the tidal reaches of its tributaries,
exclusive of the Arthur Kill. These waters are not a source of
public potable water supply and, therefore, standards of quality
and criteria referring exclusively to water supplies are not
applicable. The standards of quality and bacterial criteria
for shellfish growing areas are applicable only in areas where
shellfish harvesting is permitted by the Department.
These waters shall be maintained in a condition suitable
for all recreational purposes.
Filed with Secretary of State: March 22, 1965
Effective Date: April 15, 1965
- 149 -
-------
REGULATIONS CONCERNING TREATMENT OF WASTEWATERS, DOMESTIC AND
INDUSTRIAL, SEPARATELY OR IN COMBINATION, DISCHARGED INTO THE
WATERS OF THE RARITAN RIVER BASIN INCLUDING THE RARITAN BAY
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health is charged with the responsibility
for the Stream Pollution Control Program, including the approval of
the designs of wastewater treatment facilities, in the State of
New Jersey, and
WHEREAS, the citizens of this State, particularly the citizens in the
Raritan Valley, have been obliged in recent years to suffer repeatedly
the consequences of serious oxygen depletion and other exemplifications
of stream pollution in fresh water sections of the Raritan River as
well as in the tidal estuary thereof, said exemplifications of stream
pollution constituting threats to the public health, comfort or pro-
perty of citizens of this State, and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health did promulgate rules and regulations
entitled "Regulations Establishing Certain Classifications to be
Assigned to the Waters of this State and Standards of Quality to be
Maintained in Waters so Classified," effective September 1, 1964 and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health has concluded after extensive inves-
tigations and analyses of factual data assembled thereby that more
intensive treatment of wastewaters must be provided throughout the
Raritan River Basin in order to attain water quality specified by
the aforesaid regulations of the Department, and
- 150 -
-------
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health is of the opinion that the
attainment and maintenance of water quality in the Raritan River
Basin as specified by the aforesaid regulations of the Department
is necessary in order to abate a present threat to the public health,
comfort or property of citizens of this State,
NOW,THEREFORE, the State Department of Health promulgates the following
regulations entitled "Regulations Concerning Treatment of Wastewaters,
Domestic and Industrial, Separately or in Combination, Discharged into
the Waters of the Raritan River Basin including the Raritan Bay."
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Roscoe P. Kandle, M.D.
State Commissioner of Health
REGULATIONS CONCERNING TREATMENT OF WASTEWATERS, DOMESTIC AND
INDUSTRIAL, SEPARATELY OR IN COMBINATION, DISCHARGED INTO THE
WATERS OF THE RARITAN RIVER BASIN INCLUDING THE RARITAN BAY
Pursuant to authority vested in it under the provisions of Chapter 12,
Title 58 of the Revised Statutes, the State Department of Health hereby
promulgates the following regulations concerning treatment of wastewaters,
domestic and industrial, separately or in combination, discharged into the
waters of the Raritan River Basin.
- 151 -
-------
I. Henceforth, domestic wastes, separately or in combination with
industrial wastes, prior to discharge into waters of the Ran tan
River Basin classified as FW-2 or FW-3, shall be treated to a
degree providing, as a minimum, ninety percent (90%) of reduction
of biochemical oxygen demand at all times, including any four-hour
period of a day when the strength of the wastes to be treated might
«
be expected to exceed average conditions.
II. Henceforth, industrial wastes, prior to discharge into waters of
the Raritan River Basin, classified as FW-2 or FW-3, shall be
treated to a degree providing as a minimum, ninety percent (90%)
of reduction of biochemical oxygen demand at all times and such
further reduction in biochemical oxygen demand as may be necessary
to maintain water in the River after dispersion of treated industrial
waste effluents as specified in the rules and regulations entitled
"Classification of the Surface Waters of the Raritan River Basin
including Raritan Bay," effective April 15, 1965.
III. Henceforth, domestic wastes, separately or in combination with indus-
trial wastes, prior to discharge into waters of the Raritan River
Basin classified as TW-1, shall be treated to a degree providing, as
a minimum, eighty percent (80%) of reduction of biochemical oxygen
demand'at all times, including any four-hour period of a day when
the strength of the wastes to be treated might be expected to exceed
average conditions.
- 152 -
-------
IV. Henceforth, industrial wastes prior to discharge into waters of the
Raritan River Basin, classified as TW-1, shall be treated to a degree
providing, as a minimum, eighty percent (80%) of reduction of bio-
chemical oxygen demand at all times and such further reduction of bio-
chemical oxygen demand as may be necessary in order to maintain the
waters of the River of a quality as specified by the rules and regu-
lations entitled "Classification of the Surface Waters of the Raritan
River Basin Including Raritan Bay," effective April 15, 1965.
V. It is recognized, especially in connection with some industrial wastes,
that the pollution load imposed upon the waters of the Basin cannot
be evaluated fully exclusively by the biochemical oxygen demand test;
therefore, each industrial waste problem shall be considered indivi-
dually and treatment shall be required as needed to effect compliance
with the Water Quality Criteria established for the various classifi-
cations of waters in the Basin.
VI. Treatment standards set by these regulations are the minimum accept-
able for the Raritan River Basin. Treatment more intensive than that
specified hereinabove shall be provided whenever it is determined
by the State Department of Health in a particular situation that such
treatment is necessary.
Filed with Secretary of State: December 23, 1965
Effective Date: February 1, 1966
- 153 -
-------
FW-2
SECTION 3.2 - SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FW-2 WATERS
CLASS FW-2 - Fresh surface waters approved as
sources of public water supply. These waters
shall be suitable for public potable water
supply after such treatment as shall be
required by the Department.
These waters shall also be suitable for the
maintenance, migration and propagation of
the natural and established biota; and for
primary contact recreation; industrial and
agricultural water supply and any other
reasonable uses.
3.2.1 FLOATING SOLIDS, SETTLEABLE SOLIDS, OIL, GREASE. COLOR AND TURBIDITY
None noticeable in the water or deposited along the shore or on the
aquatic substrata in quantities detrimental to the natural biota.
None which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.2.2 TOXIC OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MINERAL
ACIDS, CAUSTIC ALKALI. CYANIDES. HEAVY METALS, CARBON DIOXIDE. AMMONIA
OR AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS. CHLORINE. PHENOLS. PESTICIDES. ETC.
None, either alone or in combination with other substances, in such
concentrations as to affect humans or be detrimental to the natural
aquatic biota or which would render the waters unsuitable for the
designated uses. None which would cause the Potable Water Standards
of the Department for drinking water to be exceeded after appropriate
treatment.
3.2.3 TASTE AND ODOR PRODUCING SUBSTANCES
None offensive to humans or which would produce offensive tastes
and/or odors in water supplies and fauna used for human consumption.
None which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.2.4 £H
Between 6.5 and 8.5.
3.2.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(a) Trout Production Waters - Not less than 7.0 mg/1 at any time.
- 154 -
-------
SECTION 3.2 FW-2
(b) Trout Maintenance Streams - Daily average not less than 6.0 mg/1.
Tfot less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
(c) Trout Maintenance Lakes - Daily average not less than 6.0 mg/1.
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
In eutrophic lakes when stratification is present, not less
than 4.0 mg/1 in or above the thermocline where water tem-
peratures are below 72°F. At depths where the water is 72°F.
or above, daily average not less than 6.0 mg/1 and not less
than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
(d) Nontrout Waters - Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/1. Not
less than 4.0 mg/1 at any time.
3.2.6 TEMPERATURE
(a) Trout Production Haters - Natural temperatures shall prevail
except where properly treated wastewater effluents may be
discharged. Where such discharges occur, stream temperatures
shall not be raised more than IF.
(b) Trout Maintenance Streams - No heat may be added which would
cause temperatures to exceed 2°F. over the natural temperatures
at any time or which would cause temperatures in excess of 68°F.
Reductions in temperatures may be permitted where it can be
shown that trout will benefit without detriment tc other des-
ignated water uses. The rate of temperature change in des-
ignated mixing zones shall not cause mortality of the biota.
(c) Trout Maintenance Lakes - No thermal alterations except where it
can be shown to benefit the designated uses.
(d) Nontrout Waters - No thermal alterations, except in designated
mixing zones, which would cause temperatures to deviate more
than 5°F. at any time from natural stream temperatures or more
than 3°F. in the epilimnion of lakes and other standing waters.
No heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones, which
would cause temperatures to exceed 82°F. for small mouth bass
or yellow perch waters or 860F. for other nontrout waters.
The rate of temperature change in designated mixing zones shall
not cause mortality of the biota. ~>
- 155 -
-------
3.2.7 RADIOACTIVITY
Current U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards shall
apply.
3.2.8 BACTERIAL QUALITY
Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml
Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies and at locations
and during periods which will permit valid interpretation of lab-
oratory analyses.
Appropriate sanitary surveys shall also be carried out as a supple-
ment to such sampling and laboratory analyses.
FW-3
SECTION 3.3 - SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FW-3 WATERS
CLASS FW-3 - Fresh surface waters suitable for
the maintenance, migration and propagation of
the natural and established biota; and for pri-
mary contact recreation; industrial and agricul-
tural water supply and any other reasonable uses.
3.3.1 FLOATING SOLIDS, SETTLEABLE SOLIDS. OIL, GREASE, COLOR AND TURBIDITY
None noticeable in the water or deposited along the shore or on the
aquatic substrata in quantities detrimental to the natural biota.
None which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.3.2 TOXIC OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MINERAL
ACIDS. CAUSTIC ALKALI. CYANIDES. HEAVY METALS. CARBON DIOXIDE. AMMONIA
OR AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS, CHLORINE, PHENOLS. PESTICIDES. ETC.
None, either alone or in combination with other substances, in such
concentrations as to affect humans or be detrimental to the natural
aquatic biota or which would render the waters unsuitable for the
designated uses.
3.3.3 TASTE AND ODOR PRODUCING SUBSTANCES
None offensive to humans or which would produce offensive tastes
and/or odors in fauna used for human consumption. None which would
render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
- 156 -
-------
3.3.4 £H
Between 6.5 and 8.5.
3.3.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(a) Trout Production Haters - Not less than 7.0 mg/1 at any time.
(b) Trout Maintenance Streams - Daily average not less than
6.0 mg/1. Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
(c) Trout Maintenance Lakes - Daily average not less than 6.0 mg/1.
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
In eutrophic lakes when stratification is present, not less
than 4.0 mg/1 in or above the thermocline where water tem-
peratures are below 72 F. At depths where the water is 72 F.
or above, daily average not less than 6.0 mg/1 and not less
than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
(d) Nontrout Maters - Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/1. Not
less than 4.0 mg/1 at any time.
3.3.6 TEMPERATURE
(a) Trout Production Haters - Natural temperatures shall prevail
except where properly treated wastewater effluents may be
discharged. Where such discharges occur, stream temperatures
shall not be raised more than 1 F.
(b) Trout Maintenance Streams - No heat may be added which would
cause temperatures to exceed 2°F. over the natural temperatures
at any time or which would cause temperatures in excess of 68°F.
Reductions in temperatures may be permitted where it can be
shown that trout will benefit without detriment to other des-
ignated water uses. The rate of temperature change in designated
mixing zones shall not cause mortality of the biota.
(c) Trout Maintenance Lakes - No thermal alterations except where
it can be shown to benefit the designated uses.
(d) Nontrout Haters - No thermal alterations, except in designated
mixing zones which would cause temperatures to deviate more than
5°F. at any time from-natural stream temperatures or more than
3 F. in the epilimnion of lakes and other standing waters.
No heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones, which
would cause temperatures to exceed 82°F. for small mouth bass
or yellow perch waters or 86 F. for other nontrout waters.
- 157 -
-------
The rate of temperature change in designated mixing zones
shall not cause mortality of the biota.
3.3.7 RADIOACTIVITY
Current U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards shall
apply.
3.3.8 BACTERIAL QUALITY
Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml
Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies and at locations
and during periods which will permit valid interpretation of lab-
oratory analyses.
Appropriate sanitary surveys shall also be carried out as a supple-
ment to such sampling and laboratory analyses.
TW-1
SECTION 3.4 - SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TW-1 WATERS
CLASS TW-1 - Tidal waters approved as sources
of public potable water supply. These waters
shall be suitable for public potable water
supply after such treatment as shall be
required by the Department.
These waters shall be suitable for shellfish
harvesting where permitted.
These waters shall also be suitable for the
maintenance, migration and propagation of
the natural and established biota; and for
primary contact recreation; industrial and
agricultural water supply and any other
reasonable uses.
3.4.1 FLOATING SOLIDS. SETTLEABLE SOLIDS. OIL. GREASE, COLOR AND TURBIDITY
None noticeable in the water or deposited along the shore or on the
aquatic substrata in quantities detrimental to the natural biota.
None which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.4.2 TOXIC OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MINERAL
ACIDS. CAUSTIC ALKALI. CYANIDES, HEAVY METALS. CARBON DIOXIDE, AMMONIA
OR AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS, CHLORINE, PHENOLS. PESTICIDES, ETC.
None, either alone or in combination with other substances, in such
- 158 -
-------
concentrations as to affect humans or be detrimental to the
natural aquatic biota or which would render the waters unsuitable
for the designated uses. None which would cause the Potable Water
Standards of the Department for drinking water to be exceeded after
appropriate treatment.
3.4.3 TASTE AND ODOR PRODUCING SUBSTANCES
None offensive to humans or which would produce offensive tastes
and/or odors in water supplies and biota used for human consumption.
None which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.4.4 £H
Between 6.5 and 8.5.
3.4.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(a) Trout Maintenance Haters - Daily average not less than 6.0 mg/1.
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time.
(b) Nontrout Waters - Daily average not less than 5.0 mg/1. Not
less than 4.0 mg/1 at any time.
3.4.6 TEMPERATURE
(a) Trout Maintenance Streams - No heat may be added which would
cause temperatures to exceed 2°F. over the natural temperatures
at any time or which would cause temperatures in excess of 68°F.
Reductions in temperatures may be permitted where it can be
shown that trout will benefit without detriment to other des-
ignated water uses. The rate of temperature change in designated
mixing zones shall not cause mortality of the biota.
(b) Nontrout Maters - No heat may be added except in designated
mixing zones, which would cause temperatures to exceed 85°F.,
or 82°F. in yellow perch waters, or which will cause the
monthly mean of the maximum daily temperature at any site,
prior to the addition of any heat, to be exceeded by more than
4°F. during September through May, or more than 1.5 F. during
June through August. The rate of temperature change in des-
ignated mixing zones shall not cause mortality of the biota.
3.4.7 RADIOACTIVITY
Current U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards shall
apply.
- 159 -
-------
3.4.8 BACTERIAL QUALITY
(a) Approved Shellfish Harvesting Haters - Where harvesting of
shellfish is permitted, requirements established by the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program as set forth in its
current manual of operations shall apply.
(b) All Other Waters - Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a
geometric mean of 200/100 ml.
Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies and at
locations and during periods which will permit valid inter-
pretation of laboratory analyses.
Appropriate sanitary surveys shall be carried out as a supple-
ment to such sampling and laboratory analyses.
TW-2
SECTION 3.5 - SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TW-2 WATERS
CLASS TW-2 - Tidal waters suitable for
secondary contact recreation but not
primary contact recreation; the mainte-
nance of fish population; the migration
of anadromous fish; the maintenance of
wildlife and any other reasonable uses.
3.5.1 FLOATING SOLIDS. SETTLEABLE SOLIDS, OIL. GREASE. COLOR AND TURBIDITY
None noticeable in the water or deposited along the shore or on the
aquatic substrata in quantities detrimental to the natural biota.
None which would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.5.2 TOXIC OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MINERAL
ACIDS. CAUSTIC ALKALI. CYANIDES. HEAVY METALS. CARBON DIOXIDE, AMMONIA
OR AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS. CHLORINE. PHENOLS. PESTICIDES. ETC.
None, either alone or in combination with other substances, in such
concentrations as to be detrimental to fish or inhibit their natural
migration or which would render the waters unsuitable for the des-
ignated uses.
3.5.3 TASTE AND ODOR PRODUCING SUBSTANCES
None offensive to humans or which would produce offensive tastes
- 160 -
-------
and/or odors in biota used for human consumption. None which
would render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.5.4 £H
Between 6.5 and 8.5.
3.5.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Not less than 4.0 mg/1 at any time.
3.5.6 TEMPERATURE
No heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones, which would
cause temperatures to exceed 85°F., or which would cause the monthly
mean of the maximum daily temperature at any site, prior to the
addition of any heat, to be exceeded by more than 4°F. during
September through May, or more than 1.5°F. during June through August.
The rate of temperature change in designated mixing zones shall not
cause mortality of the biota.
3.5.7 RADIOACTIVITY
Current U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards shall
apply.
3.5.8 BACTERIAL QUALITY
Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 770/100 ml.
Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies and at locations
and during periods which will permit valid interpretation of labora-
tory analyses.
Appropriate sanitary surveys shall also be carried out as a supplement
to such sampling and laboratory analyses.
TW-3
SECTION 3.6 - SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TW-3 WATERS
CLASS TW-3 - Tidal waters used primarily for
navigation, not recreation. These waters
shall be suitable for fish survival and the
passage of anadromous fish and for any other
reasonable uses.
- 161 -
-------
3.6.1 FLOATING SOLIDS, SETTLEABLE SOLIDS. OIL, GREASE, COLOR AND TURBIDITY
None noticeable in the water or contributing to the formation of
sludge deposits.
3.6.2 TOXIC OR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MINERAL
ACIDS. CAUSTIC ALKALI. CYANIDES. HEAVY METALS, CARBON DIOXIDE, AMMONIA
OR AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS. CHLORINE. PHENOLS. PESTICIDES, ETtT
None, either alone or in combination with other substances, in such
concentrations as to cause fish mortality or inhibit their natural
migration or which would render the waters unsuitable for the
designated uses.
3.6.3 TASTE AND ODOR PRODUCING SUBSTANCES
None offensive to humans or which would produce offensive tastes
and/or odors in fauna used for human consumption. None which would
render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
3.6.4 £H
Between 6.5 and 8.5.
3.6.5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Not less than 3.0 mg/1 at any time.
3.6.6 TEMPERATURE
No heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones, which would
cause temperatures to exceed 85°F., or which would cause the monthly
mean of the maximum daily temperature at any site, prior to the
addition of any heat, to be exceeded by more than 4 F. during
September through May, or more than 1.5°F. during June through August.
The rate of temperature change in designated mixing zones shall not
cause mortality of the biota.
3.6.7 RADIOACTIVITY
Current U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards shall
apply.
3.6.8 BACTERIAL QUALITY
Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric mean of 1500/100 ml.
Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies and at locations
and during periods which will permit valid interpretation of lab-
oratory analyses.
Appropriate sanitary surveys shall also be carried out as a supple-
ment to such sampling and laboratory analyses.
- 162 -
-------
DESCFdPTION OF FEDERAL USE CLASSIFICATION - A & B
Federal Class A: Primary Mater Contact Recreation and Other Uses.*
A surface water source intended for uses where the human body may
come in direct contact with the raw water to the point of complete body
submergence and for use in propagation and maintenance of desirable (in-
digenous) aquatic biota. The raw water may be ingested accidentally and
certain sensitive body organs such as eyes, ears, nose and so forth may
be exposed to the water. Although the water may be ingested accidentally
it is not intended to be used as a potable supply unless acceptable treat-
ment is applied. The water may be used for swimming, water skiing, skin
diving and other similar activities, as a raw water source for public
water supply, for growth and propagation of desirable (indigenous)popu-
lations of fish, other aquatic and semi-aquatic life and wildlife both
marine and fresh water, for agricultural/industrial water supply, and for
navigation.
Federal Class B: Fish, Wildlife and Other Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Life
and Other Uses.*
A surface water source suitable for all Class A uses except primary
contact recreation. The uses include the growth and propagation of de-
sirable (indigenous) populations of fish, other aquatic and semi-aquatic
life and wildlife both marine and freshwater. The water may be used for
trout habitat, warm water fish habitat, wildlife habitat and other simi-
lar uses and is also suitable for secondary water contact recreation
such as fishing, boating or activities where ingestion of the water is
not probable, as a raw water source for public water supply, for agricul-
tural/industrial water supply, and for navigation.
*Criteria for Classes A and B are equal to or more stringent than those
of the USPHS applicable to a raw water source for public water supply.
- 163 -
-------
Minimum Federal .Water .Quality Criteria
1. General Water Quality Criteria
All surface waters shall meet generally accepted aesthetic qualifi-
cations and shall be capable of supporting diversified aquatic life.
These waters shall be free of substances attributable to discharges or
waste as follows:
1.1 Materials that will settle to form objectionable deposits.
1.2 Floating debris, oil, scum, and other matter.
1.3 Substances producing objectionable color, odor, taste, or
turbidity.
1.4 Materials, including radionuclides, in concentrations or
combinations which are toxic or which produce undesirable
physiological responses in human, fish and other animal
life, and plants.
1.5 Substances and conditions or combinations thereof in con-
centrations which produce undesirable aquatic life.
2. Specific Hater Quality
2.1 For All Waters
2.1.1 Key Parameters
2.1.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
a) Cold Fresh Waters (Trout Spawning)
Not less than 7.0 mg/1 from other than natural conditions.
b) Cold Fresh Waters (Trout)
Not less than 6.0 mg/1 except that the DO may be between
5.0 and 6.0 for not more than 4 hours within any 24 hour
period provided the water quality is favorable in all
other respects and normal daily and seasonal fluctuations
occur. In large streams that have some stratification or
that serve principally as migratory routes DO levels may
range between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/1 for periods up to 6 hours,
but in no case shall the DO be below 4.0 mg/1.
- 164 -
-------
c) Fresh Waters (Streams, Unstratified Lakes and Epilimnion
of Stratified Lakes)
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 except that the DO may be between
4.0 and 5.0 mg/1 for not more than 4 hours within any 24
hour period provided the water quality is favorable in all
other respects, but in no case shall the DO be less than
4.0 mg/1.
d) Fresh Waters (Hypolimnion of Stratified Lakes)
Not less than 6.0 mg/1 from other than natural conditions.
e) Marine Waters (Coastal)
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 from other than natural conditions.
f) Estuarine Waters (Estuaries and Tidal Tributaries)
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 from other than natural conditions.
A DO of between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/1 will be permitted for
infrequent intervals and for limited periods of time
where salinity is reduced (near the salt line), but at
no time shall the DO be less than 4.0 mg/1.
2.1.1.2 Temperature
a) Cold Fresh Waters (Trout Spawning)
Natural temperatures shall prevail except where properly
treated wastewater effluents may be discharged. Where
such discharges occur, stream temperatures shall not be
raised more than 1°F.
b) Cold Fresh Waters (Trout)
No heat may be added which would cause temperatures to
exceed 2°F over the natural temperatures at any time or
which would cause temperatures in excess of 68°F.
Reductions in temperatures may be permitted where it can
be shown that trout will benefit without detriment to
other designated water uses. The rate of temperature
change in designated mixing zones shall not cause mortality
of the biota.
c) Trout Maintenance Lakes
No thermal alterations except where it can be shown to
benefit the designated uses.
d) Fresh Waters (Streams Unstratified Lakes, Epilimnion of
Stratified Lakes)
No thermal alterations, except in designated mixing zones
which would cause temperature to deviate more than 5°F. at
any time from natural stream temperature or more than 3°F.
in the epilimnion of lakes and other standing waters. No
heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones, which
- 165 -
-------
would cause temperatures to exceed 82 F. for small
mouth bass or yellow perch waters or 86°F. for other
non-trout waters.
The rate of temperature change in designated mixing
zones shall not cause mortality of the biota.
e) Hypolimnion of Stratified Lakes
Unless a special study shows that a discharge of a
heated effluent into the hypolimnion or pumping water
from the hypolimnion (for discharging back into the
same water body) will be desirable, such practice
shall not be permitted.
f) Estuarine Waters
No heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones,
which would cause temperatures to exceed 85°F., or which
would cause the monthly mean of the maximum daily tempera-
ture at any site, prior to the addition of any heat, to
be exceeded by more than 4°F. during September through
May, or more than 1.5°F. during June through August. The
rate of temperature change in designated mixing zones
shall not cause mortality of the biota.
g) Marine Waters
No heat may be added, except in designated mixing zones,
which would cause the temperature to exceed 80°F. or
which would cause the monthly mean of the maximum daily
temperature at any site, prior to the addition of any
heat, to be exceeded by more than 4°F. during September
through May; or more than 1.5°F. during June through
August. The rate of temperature change in designated
mixing zones shall not cause mortality of the biota.
2.1.1.3 Dissolved Solids
a) Fresh Waters
Maximum dissolved solids of 500 mg/1 or one third above
(133%) natural characteristic levels, whichever is less.
b) Marine Waters
Not applicable.
2.1.1.4 Dissolved Gas
a) Cold Waters (Fresh & Marine)
Total dissolved gas pressure not to exceed 110 percent
of existing atmospheric pressure.
- 166 -
-------
2.1.1.5 Phosphorus as total P shall not exceed 100 rng/1 in any
stream nor exceed 50 mg/1 in any reservoir, lake, or at
any point where it enters these receiving waters.
2.1.1.6 Suspended, Colloidal or Settleable Solids: None from waste
water sources which will cause deposition or be deleter-
ious for the designated uses.
2.1.1.7 Oil and Floating Substances: No residue attributable to
waste water nor visible oil film nor globules of grease.
2.1.2 Radioactivity (USPHS - Drinking Water Standards shall apply)
2.1.2.1 Gross Beta 1,000 oicocuries per liter in the absence
of Sr'O and alpha emitters.
2.1.2.2 Radium 226 3 picocuries per liter
2.1.2.3 Strontium-90 10 picocuries per liter
2.2 Class A Maters
2.2.1 Microbiological - shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200
fecal coliforms (MPN) per 100 ml.
2.2.1 a) Shellfish - National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)
microbiological standards shall apply, i.e. shall not
exceed a median of 70 total coliforms (MPN) per 100 ml.
2.2.2 pH - shall be maintained between 6.5 and 8.3
pH - Marine - Normal range of pH must not be extended at any
location by more than +_ 0.1 pH unit. At no time shall
the pH be less than 6.7 or greater than 8.3.
2.2.3 Taste and Odor Producing Substances - None in amounts that
will interfere with use for primary contact recreation, pot-
able water supply or will render any undesirable taste or
odor to edible aquatic life.
2.2.4 Color and Turbidity - a Secchi disc shall be visible at a
minimum depth of 1 meter.
2.3 Class B Waters
2.3.1 Microbiological - shall not exceed a geometric mean of 10,000
total coliforms or of 2,000 fecal coliforms (MPN) per 100 ml
(Fecal coliform counts are preferred).
- 167 -
-------
2.3.1 a) Shellfish - National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)
standards shall apply, i.e. shall not exceed a median of
70 total coliforms (MPN) per 100 ml.
2.3.2 pH - shall be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0.
pH - Marine - Normal range of pH must not be extended at any
location by more than +_ 0.1 pH unit. At no time shall
the pH be less than 6.7 or greater than 8.5.
2.3.3 Taste and Odor Producing Substances - None in amounts that
will interfere with the use for potable water supply or will
render any undesirable taste or odor to edible aquatic life.
2.3.4 Color and Turbidity
a) Cold Waters - 10 Jackson Turbidity units (JTU)
b) Warm Waters - 50 Jackson Turbidity units (JTU)
c) Marine Waters - a Secchi disc shall be visible at a
minimum depth of 1 meter.
3. Mixing Zones
The total area and/or volume of a receiving stream assigned to mixing
zones shall be limited to that which will: 1) not interfere with biolog-
ical communities or populations of important species to a degree which
is damaging to the ecosystem; 2) not diminish other beneficial uses dis-
proportionately.
4. Zones of Passage
In river systems, reservoirs, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters,
zones of passage are continuous water routes of the volume, area and
quality necessary to allow passage of free-swimming and drifting organisms
with no significant effects produced on their populations. These zones
must be provided wherever*mixing zones are allowed.
Because of varying local physical and chemical conditions and biolog-
ical phenomena, no single value can be given on the percentage of river
width necessary to allow passage of critical free-swimming and drifting
organisms so that negligible or no effects are produced on their popula-
tions. As a guideline, mixing zones should be limited to no more than
1/4 of cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow of stream or estuary,
leaving at least 3/4 free as a zone of passage.
5. Analytical Testing
All methods of sample collection, preservation, and analysis used in
applying any of ti.e rules and regulations in these standards shall be in
- 168 -
-------
accord with those prescribed in "Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Waste Water," Thirteenth Edition, or any subsequent edition
with other generally accepted procedures.
6. Stream Flow
The water quality standards shall apply at all times except during
periods when flows are less than the average minimum seven-day low flow
which occurs once in ten years.
7. Minimum Treatment Requirements
The minimum treatment required for any wastewater must be such that
discharges shall meet effluent limits as established under section 402
of the 1972 Amendments and shall not cause the Federal Criteria for in-
stream water quality contained herein to be contravened.
- 169 -
-------
Required Changes in New Jersey Mater Quality Standards.
Items*
3.1
3.2
3.2.1 Floating solids,
etc.
3.2.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.2.4 pH
3.2.5 DO
b.
c.
d.
State/Federal
Classification
Class FW-l/A
Class FW-l/A
3.3
3.3.1 Floating Solids,
etc.
3.3.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.3.4 pH
3.3.5 DO
b.
c.
d.
Class FW-3/A
Required Changes**
Satisfactory as written. Federal
Criteria contained in 1, 2.1, 2.2,
5 and 6 must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 & 2.1.2 must
apply.
Federal Criteria 2.2.2 must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.1 must
apply, specifically:
>6.0 mg/1
£6.0 mg/1; Eutrophic Lakes:
i5.0 mg/1 and £6.0 mg/1
>5.0 mg/1 (2.1.1.1c)
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5,
6 and 7 not cited above must also
apply.
Federal Criteria 1.1, 1.2 and
1.3 must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 & 2.1.2
must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.2.2 must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.1 must
apply, specifically:
>6.0 mg/1
£6.0 mg/1; Eutrophic Lakes:
£5.0 mg/1 and > 6.0 mg/1
£5.0 mg/1 (2.1.1.1c)
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5,
6 and 7 not cited above must also
apply.
*Items refer to section of "Rules and Regulations Establishing Surface
Water Quality Criteria."
**Except as otherwise noted, changes refer to sections of"Minimum Federal
Water Quality Criteria."
- 170 -
-------
Items*
3.4
3.4.1 Floating Solids,
etc.
3.4.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.4.4 pH
3.4.5 DO
a.
b.
3.4.6 Temp.
State/Federal
Classification
Class TW-l/A
3.5
Use Description
Class TH-2/B
Required Changes**
Federal Criteria 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 & 2.1.2
must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.2.2 must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.1 must
apply, specifically:
£6.0 mg/1 (2.1.1.1b)
£5.0 mg/1 (2.1.1.1c)
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.2 must apply.
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3,4,5, 6
and 7 not cited above must also
apply.
The use description must be upgrad-
ed to include as a minimum the pro-
pagation as well as maintenance of
fish and wildlife (Federal Class B)
3.5.1 Floating Solids,
etc.
3.5.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.5.5 DO
3.5.6 Temp.
3.6
Use Description
Class TW-3/B
Federal Criteria 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 and 2.1.2
must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.1 must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.2 must apply.
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1, 2.1, 2.3, 3,4, 5,6
and 7 not cited above must also
apply.
The use description must be upgrad-
ed to include as a minimum the pro-
pagation and maintenance of fish
and wildlife (Federal Class B)
3.6.1 Floating Solids,
etc.
3.6.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.6.5 DO
3.6.6 Temp.
Federal Criteria 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 and 2.1.2
must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.1 must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.2 must apply.
- 171 -
-------
Items*
State/Federal
Classification
3.7
Class CW-l/A
3.7.1 Floating Solids,
etc.
3.7.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.7.4 pH
3.7.6 Temp.
3.8
Class CH-2/B
3.8.1 Floating Solids,
etc.
3.8.2 Toxic or
Deleterious Subs.
3.8.6 Temp.
Required Changes**
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1, 2.1, 2.3, 3,4,5, 6
and 7 not cited above must also
apply.
Federal Criteria 1,1, 1.2 and 1.3
must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 and 2.1.2 must
apply.
Federal Criteria 2.2.2 must apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.2 must apply.
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1,2.1, 2.2,3,4,5, 6
and 7 not cited above must also apply.
Federal Criteria 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
must apply.
Federal Criteria 1.4 & 2.1.2 must
apply.
Federal Criteria 2.1.1.2 must apply.
Appropriate Federal Criteria con-
tained in 1, 2.1, 2.3,3,4,5, 6
and 7 not cited above must also apply.
- 172 -
-------
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RARITAN BAY AND
ADJACENT WATERS ENFORCEMENT .CONFERENCES
On the basis of Project studies the following recommendations were
o
made in order to reclaim study area waters for maximum beneficial uses
(FWPCA 1967).
1. Treatment facilities provide a minimum of 90% removal of BOD
and suspended solids, and effective year round disinfection (effluent
coliform count of no greater than one per ml in more than 10% of samples
examined) at all municipal plants discharging directly to these waters.
Program to be carried out in accordance with following time schedule:
a. Complete plant design no later than December 1, 1967;
b. Initiate construction no later than June 1, 1968;
c. Place in operation no later than June 1, 1970;
unless existing orders specify completion dates earlier than the above,
in which case the earlier dates must be met.
2. Industrial plants shall improve practices for the segregation
and treatment of wastes so as to effect maximum reduction of the following:
a. Acids and alkalis
b. Oil and tarry substances
c. Phenolic and other compounds that contribute to taste, odor
and tainting of fin and shellfish meat
d. Nutrient materials, including nitrogenous and phosphorous
compounds
e. Suspended material
f. Toxic and highly colored wastes
- 173 -
-------
g. Oxygen requiring substances
h. Heat
i. Foam producing discharges
j. Bacteria
»
k. Wastes which detract from optimum use and enjoyment of receiving
waters.
Industrial treatment facilities to accomplish such reduction must pro-
vide removals at least the equivalent of those required for municipal treat-
ment plants. Such facilities or reduction should be provided in accordance
with the following time schedule:
a. Completion of engineering studies and design by December 1, 1967;
b. Commence construction by June 1, 1968;
c. Place in operation by June 1, 1970;
unless existing orders specify compliance dates earlier than the above, in
which case the earlier dates must be met.
3. Qualified resident operators (licensed or certified) be provided at
each treatment plant.
4. Facilities and procedures be established at each treatment facility
to provide laboratory control.
5. Automatic instrumentation and recorders be required for flow and
chlorination feed or residual control to permit prompt and effective super-
vision by plant operators and water pollution control agencies.
6. Priority for construction grants be established so affected commu-
nities may obtain funds to meet the requirements outlined above.
7. Recognition be given to the problems which will arise as a result
of the continued population growth in the area, which may lead to the nece-
ssity for tertiary or other advanced wastes treatment techniques. All new
- 174 -
-------
facilities should be planned with sufficient site space to permit future
expansion for such treatment.
8. State regulations be extended to require wastes treatment facili-
ties or holding tanks on all vessels and recreational boats using the area.
If holding tanks are to be used, adequate dockside facilities be required
to ensure proper disposal of wastes.
9. Conferees meet every six months to review and initiate progress
on water quality improvements.
10. Conferees will investigate additional proposals to safeguard water
quality in the study area, to include but not be limited to:
a. Relocation of the main shipping channel through Raritan Bay to
improve circulation characteristics;
b. Selection of areas for dredging for construction materials;
c. Suitable outfall locations for waste effluents to include
possible trunk systems to divert effluents from the Arthur Kill.
- 175 -
-------
APPENDIX D
RARITAN BAY MODEL STUDY I/
Any natural water system may be viewed as a unique mathematical
system consisting of a specific combination or array of complex inter-
acting subsystems, each of which exhibits singular geometric, hydro-
dynamic and kinetic properties. The physical response of the system
to a particular pollutant discharge may be described by a set of differ-
ential equations which represent the individual properties of each sub-
system and the effect of each subsystem on adjoining segments. The
model used was developed by Hydroscience (1970). Following segmenta-
tion of the estuary, a steady-state mass balance was formulated around
each of the interconnected segments within the system. This was done
using basic differential equations which were solved simultaneously via
the Gauss-Seidel elimination technique.
The purpose of mathematically modeling a natural water system is
to reproduce observed natural phenomena through the application of math-
ematical techniques on a segment-by-segment basis.
In the finite difference approach used in the analysis of the Raritan
Bay system, the initial procedure consisted of the development of an adequate
segmentation scheme based upon known wastewater input locations, and geo-
metric, hydraulic and circulation factors. The Raritan Bay system was
I/From: Raritan Bay system analysis: two-dimensional water quality model,
an unpublished report prepared by EPA, Region II, New York, N.Y.
- 176 -
-------
divided into an arbitrary number of discrete segments in which there
were no steep pollutant concentration gradients and in which the con-
centrations were considered uniform, i.e., the segments approximated
completely mixed water volumes. Inherent in the analysis was the assump-
tion of vertical homogeneity or the absence of any vertical stratification
of the water quality constituent being modeled.
The general counterclockwise circulation patterns existing within
the Raritan Bay system formed the primary basis for the segmentation
(Figure D-l). Adjustments were made based upon the work of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute (Ayers et al., 1949), Ketchum (1951), Jeffries
(1962) and U.S. Geological Survey Current Charts (USGS, 1956).
The final grid pattern generally consists of smaller segments near
the head of the bay region where the major waste inputs are located and
where water quality conditions are usually more critical. The segmenta-
tion thus allows greater definition of specific pollutant distributions
in this area of concern and avoids the possibility of excess concentra-
tion gradients within individual sections. Segments located west of
the Raritan Bay-Lower Bay boundary line at Point Comfort are predominantly
less than 1.5 square miles in surface area, while in the Lower Bay and
Sandy Hook Bay, the segmentation consists of larger sections due to the
smaller observed pollutant gradients, the lesser definition of specific
flow paths and the absence of any significant point waste sources.
Figure D-l illustrates the segmentation system.
The pollutant transport mechanisms within the Raritan Bay system are
the freshwater excursions due to the natural and artificial water sources
and the dispersive mixing provided by the semi-diurnal tidal oscillations.
- 177 -
-------
RARITAN BAY PROJECT
SYSTEM SEGMENTATION
-------
The dispersive transports utilized in the model verification and
subsequent water quality projections are expressed as dispersion co-
efficients. A dispersion coefficient has been assigned to each of the
model interfaces; these coefficients are indicated in Figure D-2. In
many natural estuarine systems, lateral dispersion is 1/2 to 1/10 the
longitudinal dispersion. In the Raritan Bay system, these parameters
are of the same order. This is mainly due to the two-dimensional nature
of the large-scale circulation patterns and the many smaller eddy forma-
tions. Initial estimates of these coefficients were provided by tidal
current charts and the empirical Four-Thirds Law.
In addition to the dispersive transport, the freshwater (advective)
transport must be considered. The primary excursion routes for the
advective paths were assumed to be along preassigned circulatory channels
and/or other direct routes to the ocean. Wastewater effluent flows were
determined largely from Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC, 1971)and
STORET (U.S. EPA.n.d.) data. River flow data were obtained from USGS (1964)
stations in the Raritan Basin,e.g., Raritan River at Calco dam, South
River at Old Bridge, and on the Lamington River, and were extrapolated
to the mouth of the Raritan River at Perth Amboy. All data pertinent
to the individual segments within the system, e.g., MSL depths, section
volumes, interfacial areas, characteristic length, were obtained from
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Map No. 369-SC (New York Harbor, 1971).
The major test for the validation of a model relies upon the veri-
fication of calculated water quality responses through comparison with
actual observed data. Throughout the application of the model to the
Raritan system, it was assumed that the system parameters, e.g.,
- 178 -
-------
D
IO
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS*
ALL VALUES IN MILES2/DAY
-------
dispersion coefficients, flow routing and quantification, were known
a priori values. Yet, in many cases, the tools that would have allowed
more precise specification of these parameters were not available. The
order of magnitude of many of the parameters is known through either
past research, empirical correlations or, in rare cases, independent
analyses specifically designed to determine a particular unknown.
In order to verify the transport mechanisms inherent in the model,
a conservative (non-degradable) constituent was traced from a known source
location as it was advected and/or dispersed throughout the system. Quite
often, tracer dyes, such as Rhodamine B, are utilized for this purpose.
However, in the absence of such artificial sources, salinity (or chloride)
is the most common constituent traced. The basic assumption behind the
selection is that the identical transport mechanisms will operate on dis-
charged pollutants as on the tracer introduced to the system through ocean
boundaries or known point sources.
CHLORIDE VERIFICATION
Chloride sources in the bay range in magnitude from the 175,000 Ib/day
discharged by MCSA to the relatively insignificant loads contributed by
the Highlands and Atlantic Highlands facilities. Data pertinent to all
chloride point sources were obtained from STORET surveys for the months of
August and September over the 10-year range from 1962 to 1972 (U.S. EPA,n.d.)
In order to compute the chloride concentrations, the chlorinity was
specified for all boundaries within the system. Along the coastal traverse,
these values ranged from 15.20 ppt at segment 4 to 15.65 ppt at segment 3.
The chloride concentrations established for the Raritan River and the
Arthur Kill boundaries were 13.00 ppt and 13.70 ppt, respectively. All
- 179 -
-------
chloride boundary condition concentrations were based upon observed
10-year mean values, as were the advective input flows.
The calculated 10-year mean chloride profiles have been superim-
posed on the August-September chloride values observed over the same
time period (Figure D-3), "Goodness of fit" between the observed and
calculated chloride values was evaluated by the application of two
statistical analyses: 1) a Student's 't' test was performed at each
station to determine the 95 percent confidence limits around observed
values, and 2) the mean standard deviation of all observed values was
obtained from the STORE! system. The calculated chloride contours
(isoclors) fell well within the range of predictions permissible under
each of these statistical analyses.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VERIFICATION
Past water quality surveys in the Raritan Bay system have indi-
cated specific regions wherein present water quality standards, as re-
presented by the New Jersey State TW-1 classification and the Interstate
Sanitation Commission (ISC) 'A1 classification, are contravened. Most
notably, the minimum required DO levels of 4.0 mg/1 (New Jersey State)
and 5.0 mg/1 (ISC) are contravened in the head of the bay area in the
vicinity of the MCSA discharge, in the Arthur Kill and in the tidal
stretch of the Raritan River. For this reason, the DO analysis included
in this report is limited largely to that portion of the bay system which
is located west of Point Comfort, with the exception of the discussion of
boundary condition influences.
The in-stream DO levels in the bay area are an important index of
water quality conditions since certain minimum concentrations of this
- 180 -
-------
CHLORIDE VERIFICATION
10-YEAR AVERAGE VALUES
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER)
-------
constituent are necessary for the survival of many aquatic organisms.
The major sources and sinks of DO in the Raritan Bay system are car-
bonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demands, benthic uptake from organic
sediments, photosynthetic production and respiration, and atmospheric
reaeration. The general background of each of these processes and their
particular significance and quantification in the Raritan Bay system are
discussed below.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
When wastewater is discharged into a stream or estuary, the decom-
posable organic matter becomes an energy source for the organisms in the
environment. The BOD of an effluent is a measure of the oxygen consumed
when specific micro-organisms utilize this organic matter as an energy
source and break down the more complex compounds to simpler products.
There are two stages of BOD; the first stage is due to carbonaceous BOD
and the second is due to nitrogenous oxidation demand (NOD). The rate
at which oxygen is utilized during both of these processes is mainly de-
pendent upon in-stream temperatures and pH. Both decomposition kinetics,
carbonaceous BOD and NOD, are aerobic, although different individual
species are responsible for each.
The 5-day BOD concentrations for the three major discharges in the
Raritan Bay system, MCSA and Perth Amboy in New Jersey and Oakwood Beach
on Staten Island, were obtained from the STORET system for the period of
July 12-22, 1971. These values were 400 (MCSA), 290 (Perth Amboy), and
35 (Oakwood Beach) mg/1 which represent 240,000, 17,300 and 3,800 Ib/day
BOD (5-day), respectively. The corresponding NOD contributions of these
three major discharges according to the STORET data were 44,800 (MSCA),
- 181 -
-------
4,500 (Perth Amboy) and 5,350 (Oakwood Beach) Ib/day. Implicit in the
model analysis is the assumption that the NOD decay (removal) rate is
identical to the BOD rate and, thus,both deoxygenation processes occur
simultaneously. The BOD decay rate (Kr) for all segments in the bay
system was assumed to be 0.25/day at 20°C.
The temperatures utilized for the DO verification were those recorded
by the July 12-22, 1971 ISC survey. However, 10-year mean August-September
values were applied for the subsequent DO projections for the design year
2020.
Photosynthetic Sources
It was observed that during the July 1971 survey, supersaturation
of dissolved oxygen occurred periodically, especially in the Sandy Hook
Bay area where average DO values were on the order of 9.44 mg/1 and
9.16 mg/1. Specific analyses to determine the extent of this phenomenon
(FWPCA, 1969) at two stations near the head of the bay recorded net 02
production of approximately 2.0 mg/1/day in the upper 9 feet of water.
To account for this phenomenon, an average dissolved oxygen source
was added to various segments in the head of the bay area in the
Conaskonk Point-Point Comfort vicinity. Net values of 1.0 mg/l/day in
Keansburg Harbor (section 48), 0.9 mg/l/day in Keyport Harbor (sections
27 and 28) and 0.10 mg/l/day in the deeper central area (sections 18, 19,
20, 23, and 47) were incorporated into the model to allow for photosyn-
thetic effects. No photosynthetic sources were included for the extreme
western bay area due to the suppressant effects of the generally more
turbid water, the probable toxicity from Arthur Kill discharges and the
greater zooplankton respiratory rates which tend to offset any 02 production.
- 182 -
-------
Benthal Oxygen Demand
Sludge deposits are present in the head of the bay area, especially
in adjacent embayments. These deposits are largely due to the relatively
high amount of suspended matter in the primary effluents from the treat-
ment facilities. There are no estimates of the magnitude of the resul-
tant oxygen demand represented by these benthal deposits. It is possible
that a significant portion of this uptake has been suppressed by toxic
substances originating in the Arthur Kill and subsequently settling in
the more shallow and quiescient areas of this inner bay region. For the
purposes of this analysis, the benthic sinks were assumed to be zero in
all segments of the inner bay area.
Atmospheric Reaeration
Aside from photosynthetic oxygen production, the only remaining
oxygen source in the inner bay area is due to atmospheric reaeration.
The rate of reaeration is directly proportional to the DO deficit, the
in-stream temperature and the turbulence of the water; it is inversely
proportional to the depth of the water body. The value of the reaeration
coefficient (K^) for the Ran'tan Bay ranges from 0.3/day near the mouth
of the Raritan River to O.I/day at the Raritan Bay-Lower Bay boundary at
Point Comfort (Hydroscience, 1968). Accordingly, the reaeration coeffi-
cient was set at 0.20/day for all segments within the inner bay area.
Verification Procedure
The period chosen for verification of the calculated dissolved
oxygen profiles was July 12-22, 1971. The joint ISC - New Jersey State
survey undertaken at that time provided the dissolved oxygen data.
- 183 -
-------
The BOD and DO deficit boundary conditions set for the survey
period were based on 10-year August-September mean water quality con-
ditions observed at stations closest to each specific boundary. These
conditions were:
Segment BOD (mg/1) DO deficit (mg/1)
1 2.28 3.20
7 2.26 4.75
50 2.26 3.90
The BOD and DO deficit concentrations at the coastal interfaces between
Sandy Hook and Norton Point and at the Shrewsbury-Navesink interface
were assumed to be zero.
The Raritan River flow of 250 cfs that was observed over the survey
period was determined from USGS (1964) data and was extrapolated on a flow
per unit drainage area basis to the mouth of the Raritan at Perth Amboy.
The distribution of dissolved oxygen throughout the critical inner
bay area (west of Point Comfort) was calculated for the July 1971 survey
period using the outlined assumptions and the referenced parameters. For
purposes of comparison, the individual DO profiles have been plotted along
with the DO values observed during the joint survey (Figure D-4).
Application of the Students 't1 95 percent confidence limits test
and the standard error comparison test indicated that the agreement between
the calculated and observed isopleths represents excellent simulation of
the dissolved oxygen kinetics and distribution throughout the western
bay area.
EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL WASTE SOURCES
A number of additional DO analyses were performed to assess the
effect of individual waste sources on in-stream DO distributions and,
- 184 -
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VERIFICATION JULY 12-22, 1971
-4.0- = CALCULATED VALUES (MCA)
- AVERAGE VALUE IMG/L)
OBSERVED VALUES (MG/LI
-MINIMUM VALUE (MG/L]
= EXISTING MCSA DISCHARGE
-------
thereby, to facilitate evaluation of future abatement proposals. The
particular analyses undertaken were based upon the July 1971 survey
period and the individual DO deficit response under the following con-
di ti ons:
1) Middlesex County Sewerage Authority alone,
2) Boundary effects.
The DO deficits caused by each of these particular conditions during
the survey have been plotted in Figures D-5 and D-6. In both cases,
the 250 cfs Ran'tan River flow routing and background photosynthetic
effects were assumed to be constant.
EFFECT OF ALTERNATE ABATEMENT MEASURES
Based upon the hydrodynamic parameters, substantiated by the salinity
verification, and the dissolved oxygen kinetic parameters, substantiated
by the DO verification, it was possible to determine the effects of any
number of alternate abatement proposals, from outfall relocation to
higher degrees of treatment and flow augmentation. Each of the alternatives
was evaluated on the basis of year 2020 wastewater flows and the estimated
140 cfs Raritan River average daily flow, which is exceeded 95 percent of
the time. All other parameters, e.g., benthal demand and photosynthetic
production, were assumed to remain constant. However, the flow routing
was adjusted for each particular analysis.
MCSA DISCHARGE AT EXISTING OUTFALL SITE
The estimated wastewater discharge from the MCSA facility in the
2020 analysis was 240 mgd (372 cfs). This represents an ultimate oxygen
demand (UOD) equal to 350,000 Ib/day. This estimate is based upon an
average effluent BOD (5-day) of 50 mg/1 and an average ammonia (NH3) con-
centration of 20 mg/1. The Oakwood Beach facility will contribute a UOD
- 185 -
-------
0
o
K'r = 0.25 DAY'1
-1.3- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+• = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT DUE TO MCSA DISCHARGE - JULY, 1971
-------
K"r = 0.25 DAY'1
-1.0- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
ALL VALUES IN MG/l
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEFICIT DUE TO BOUNDARY CONDITION EFFECTS - JULY, 1971
-------
equal to 34,000 Ib/day based upon a design capacity of 40 mgd and effluent
BOD (5-day) and NHU concentrations of 35 and 11 mg/1, respectively. All
O
other existing point waste sources are assumed to be serviced by either
the MCSA or the MCBOOA and, as such, are not included in the analysis.
Boundary conditions for BOD (5-day) and DO deficit are identical to
those used in the DO verification analysis.
The calculated DO distribution for the inner bay area (Figure D-7)
indicates that the 4.0 mg/1 DO criteria (New Jersey State) will be con-
travened in the extreme western sector of the bay and in the lower
Raritan River and the Arthur Kill. The larger area.wherein contravention
of the 5.0 mg/1 criteria (ISC) can be expected,extends from the 4.0 mg/1
isopleth to a point approximately 1 mile east of the present discharge
site. Contravention may be even more severe if the boundary conditions
at the Raritan and Arthur Kill interfaces worsen or if benthal sinks
begin to exert a more significant deficit due to the abatement of possible
toxic suppressants from the Arthur Kill discharges.
MCSA DISCHARGE OFF KEYPORT HARBOR
The specific wastewater'discharges and system parameters used in
the analysis of the relocation of the MCSA discharge to segment 46
(at the mouth of Keyport Harbor) are identical to those employed in the
previous analysis for discharge at the present outfall site. The calcu-
lated DO profiles (Figure D-8) indicate a general abatement of the DO
contraventions within the inner bay area when compared with the previous
MCSA discharge analysis at the existing site. The results indicate a
minimum DO of 3.26 mg/1 in the Arthur Kill, as opposed to 3.01 mg/1 in
the same segment for the present site analysis. Both analyses indicate
- 186 -
-------
that contravention of the 4.Q mg/1 and 5.0 mg/1 minimum DO criteria
will occur. However, relocation of the outfall to section 46 will
allow greater dispersion of the MCSA discharge throughout the bay. This
will lessen the severity of the effluent's impact on the oxygen resources
of the more critical areas within the system.
MCSA DISCHARGE IN CENTRAL BAY AREA
The specific wastewater discharges and system parameters used in
the analysis of the relocation of the MCSA discharge to segment 16 in
the central bay area are identical to those employed in,the analysis at
the existing outfall site. The calculated DO distribution (Figure D-9)
indicates that the discharge into the central bay area will abate the
DO contraventions in that area and in the inner bay area. Discharge
into the central bay area will also promote better DO distribution at
the mouth of the Raritan River and at the southern terminus of the
Arthur Kill.
In summary, the analysis presented adequately simulates present
water quality conditions and indicates the relatively disadvantageous
nature of the he-ad of the bay area as a discharge site. Investigations
into alternate outfall sites also demonstrate that the impact of the
MCSA discharge generally decreases as the discharge site is moved further
out into the bay where it comes under the influence of the more predom-
inant circulation patterns within the Raritan Bay system proper.
- 187 -
-------
\
Kr = 0.25 DAY-'
-4.0- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+ = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MG/L
O
•O
CALCULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DISTRIBUTION FOR MCSA DISCHARGE IN CENTRAL BAY AREA - YEAR 2020
-------
-------
a
o
oo
Kr = 0.25 DAY"1
-4.0- = CALCULATED CONTOUR
+ = MCSA DISCHARGE LOCATION
ALL VALUES IN MO/L
CALCULATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DISTRIBUTION FOR MCSA DISCHARGE OFF KEYPORT HARBOR - YEAR 2020
------- |