\
UJ
C3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
DRAFT
MAY 1979
/FREEHOLD
BOROUGH
FREEHOLD
TOWNSHIP
FARMINGDALE
- BOROUGH
WALL
NSHIP
HOWELL
TOWNSHIP
9
\
V
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1OOO7
-------
'"*<
\
a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*
^ r REGION II
°nolt 26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1OOO7
MAY 7 1979
To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
Enclosed is the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Manasquan
River Regional Sewerage Authority Wastewater Facilities Plan, Monmouth
County, New Jersey.This environmental impact statement (EIS) discusses
wastewater treatment facilities proposed to serve the Manasquan River
basin, New Jersey. The EIS was prepared jointly by the Manasquan River
Regional Sewerage Authority and EPA-Region II. The authority's environ-
mental consultant is EcolSciences, Inc., and its engineering consultant is
E.T. Killam Associates, Inc.
The EIS is an issue-oriented document that addresses four major questions:
whether projected population growth will cause adverse secondary impacts;
whether the discharge of treated sewage to the Manasquan River will
adversely affect its water quality, its ability to sustain aquatic life,
and its potential as a source of potable water; whether the environmental
impacts associated with a regional treatment plant are significantly
greater than those associated with several smaller plants; and whether
previous public controversy concerning multi-plant alternatives has been
adequately considered in the planning of the facility. These issues are
discussed in terms of environmental impact, engineering feasibility, cost-
effectiveness, and implementation.
The EIS is a decision making document. It is meant to bring together all
pertinent information on the issues at hand. Public participation,
especially at the local level, is an essential component of the decision
making process.
Nine public meetings were held during the preparation of the EIS to assure
input from local, county, and state representatives. A public hearing has
also been scheduled:
7:30 PM: June 28, 1979
Howell Township High School
Squankum-Yellow Brook Road
Howell, New Jersey
Your participation at this hearing is encouraged. In addition, you may
submit written comments directly to EPA. Your comments should be addressed
to Chief, EIS Preparation Branch, EPA-Region II. Comments must be received
on or before July 13. 1979.
-------
-2-
If you need additional information please contact Mr. Richard Coleates, New
Jersey-Puerto Rico Section, EIS Preparation Branch, EPA-Region II, at
(212)xZ64-1375.
ftkardt C. Beck
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE
MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
May 1979
Prepared Jointly by:
Manasquan River Regional
Sewerage Authority
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II
New York, New York 10007
Abstract. This EIS addresses four major issues: secondary
impacts associated with projected population growth; impacts
of the discharge of treated sewage to the Manasquan River,
including impacts on water quality, aquatic life, and use of
the river as a source of potable water supply; environmental
impacts of a regional treatment plant versus those associated
with several smaller plants; and public controversy surround-
ing multi-plant alternatives. The EIS concludes that the
construction of a regional advanced wastewater treatment
plant and associated wastewater conveyance facilities is the
most environmentally sound, cost-effective, and implementable
alternative. Treated effluent will be discharged to the Man-
asquan River, downstream of a planned reservoir system. The
projected population can be accommodated without the develop-
ment of environmentally sensitive areas and without over-
stressing areawide resources. Air quality standards will not
be violated, and sufficient water supplies will be available.
A re-examination of land use controls by local officials is
recommended to insure protection of environmentally sensitive
areas. Public participation during the preparation of the
EIS indicated the general support of local citizens for the
recommended plan.
Public Hearing:
7:30 PM: June 28, 1979
Howell Township High S-tfliq.cS'i
Squankum - Yellow B^ook-
Howell, New Jerse/' 07^27 //
Approved by:
Contact for Information:
Mr. Richard Coleates
EPA - Region II
26 ^^ ^r
^"" ""''York 10007
Eckardt C. Beck
Regional Administrator
EPA - Region II
y/ao/7?
Date
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Title Pag
1 SUMMARY 1
Description of the Proposed
Action and Recommended Plan 1
Background and Issues 4
Alternatives Considered 6
Environmental Impacts of
Feasible Alternatives 9
Environmental Impacts and
Mitigating Measures Associated
with the Proposed Action 9
Individuals and Organizations
from Whom Comments Have Been
Requested 10
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 19
Natural Resources 19
Climate 19
Geology and Topography 19
Soils 21
Surface Water Resources 21
Groundwater Resources 40
Terrestrial Ecosystems 43
Air Resources 44
Environmentally Sensitive Areas 45
Social Factors 50
Existing Land Use, Planning
and Zoning 50
Population 58
Transportation 66
Wastewater Flow Characteristics 66
Existing Collection Systems
and Wastewater Flows 67
Existing Treatment Facilities 67
Onsite Disposal Facilities 67
Nonpoint Sources 67
-------
Chapter Title Pagi
3 POPULATION GROWTH 75
Local Zoning 75
Resource Contraints Associated with
Environmentally Sensitive Areas*. 75
Floodplains 75
Wetlands 76
Public Lands and Archaeologic
or Historic Sites 76
Prime Agricultural Lands 76
Groundwater Recharge Areas 77
Other Sensitive Areas 77
Areawide Resource Constraints 77
Water Supply 77
Nonpoint Source Pollution 78
Energy Resources 78
Air Quality 80
Land Holding Capacities 81
Population Forecast 86
4 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 94
Introduction 94
Description of Service Areas 95
Centralized Sewerage Service Areas 95
Decentralized Service Areas 96
Projected Wastewater Flows 97
Development and Screening of
Conceptual Alternatives 102
No Action Alternative 102
Expand s Upgrade Existing Facilities 103
Subregional Alternative 104
Regional Atlernative 104
Creation of Septic District
Authorities 105
Provision of Service to the North
Branch Metedeconk Basin 106
Selection of Feasible Conceptual
Alternatives 106
Screening of Alternative Components
of Wastewater Management Systems 107
Wastewater Treatment Processes 107
Effluent Disposal 108
Sludge Disposal 112
Treatment Plant Sites 114
Interceptor Routes 117
Selection of Feasible System
Alternatives 131
-------
Chapter Title Page
5 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVES 135
Introduction 135
Primary Impacts 135
Soils 135
Terrestrial Ecosystems 137
Surface Water Resources and
Aquatic Ecosystems 143
Groundwater 149
Environmentally Sensitive Areas 150
Air Quality 152
Noise 152
Traffic 152
Energy Use 153
Secondary Impacts 153
Changes in Population Growth 153
Changes in Land Use 154
Surface Water Quality 155
Flooding 155
Groundwater 155
Air Quality 156
Terrestrial Impacts 156
Water Supply 156
Government Services 157
Tax Rates 157
Environmentally Sensitive Areas 157
Sludge Management Impacts 158
Impacts to Terrestrial Biota 158
Impacts on Groundwater and
Surface Water 158
Impacts on Transportation 158
Preliminary Cost Effectiveness Analysis 160
Summary 160
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING
MEASURES TO REDUCE THESE IMPACTS 169
Introduction 169
Unavoidable Impacts Associated with
Alternatives SR-1 and SR-2 169
Unavoidable Impacts Associated with
Regional Alternatives 170
Mitigating Measures 170
111
-------
Chapter Title Page
7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM
USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 172
Introduction 172
Short Term Impacts 172
Long Term Impacts 172
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES 174
Land Used for Facilities 174
Materials Needed for Construction 174
Energy Needed to Build and
Operate Facilities. 175
Resources Needed for Operation 175
9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 177
Introduction 177
Meetings 178
Summary 185
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 186
Conclusions 186
Water Quality 186
Population and Land Use 186
Wastewater Management Systems 187
Costs to Individual Users 191
Recommendations 192
REFERENCES 194
ABBREVIATIONS USED 205
METRIC EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH UNITS.. 207
GLOSSARY 209
IV
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title
A Soils Within the Study Area
B Average Flows at Squankum and Allenwood
C Water Quality Classification
D New Jersey Water Quality Criteria for
FW-2 and FW-3 Waters
E Total Phosphorus, Inorganic Nitrogen, and
Suspended Solids for the Manasquan River
F Trace Elements in the Manasquan River
G New Jersey Water Quality Criteria for
TW-1 and CW-1 Waters
H Flow Data for the Lower Manasquan River
I Groundwater Quality of the MRRSA Region
J Wildlife Habitat Preference
K Allaire State Park Bird List
L Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Which May Occur in the Study Area
M Land Use Plans
N Monmouth County Dot Map
0 Legal and Infrastructure Constraints Which
May Affect the Implementation of Any
Alternative
P Summary of Public Water Supply Standards
Q Letter From the EPA to MRRSA (April 25, 1978)
R Industrial and Commercial Wastewater Flow
Allowances
S Letter From the NJDEP to MRRSA
(April 4, 1978)
-------
APPENDICES (Cont'd.)
Appendix Title
T Land Application of Effluent for the
Manasquan River Basin
U Land Application of Secondary Effluent
for the MRRSA
V Treatment Plant Sites
W Evaluation of Treatment Plant Sites
X Letter From EcolSciences to NJDEP - Division
of Parks and Forestry
Y Evaluation of Major Interceptor Routes
Z Impact of Alternatives on the Oak Glen
Reservoir
AA Secondary Impacts
BB Detailed Cost-Effective Analysis
CC Proposed Regional Wastewater Management Plan
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Soil Characteristics for Specified Uses 24
2 Flow Data for the Manasquan and North Branch
Metedeconk Rivers 26
3 Selected Water Quality Parameters for the
Manasquan River 29
4 USGS Average Values for Water Quality Data
Taken During 1969-1974 Water Years at
Squankum 30
5 Fish Taken in the Manasquan River and Its
Tributaries 32
6 Selected Water Quality Parameters for Three
Tributaries of the Manasquan River 33
7 Selected Water Quality Parameters for the
North Branch Metedeconk River and Hay Stack
Brook 35
8 Summary of NJDEP STORET and USGS Data for
the Manasquan River Estuary 35
9 Fish Taken from the Manasquan Inlet and
River 39
10 Characteristics of Aquifers in the Study
Area 41
11 Groundwater Usage 42
12 Air Quality Standards and Data 46
13 Archaeological and Historic Sites 5^
14 Open Space 52
15 Freehold Township Zoning Ordinance 56
16 Zoning Classifications in Howell and Wall
Townships 57
17 Population Growth in Monmouth and Selected
Counties 59
Vll
-------
TABLES (Cont'd)
Number Title Page
18 Municipal Population Growth 50
19 NJDLI Monmouth County Projections 51
20 1985 Municipal Populations Projections 53
21 Population Projections gc
22 MRRSA Projections 55
23 MRRSA Service Area Projections gg
24 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
and Flows 53
25 Existing Treatment Facilities and Sludge
Disposal 70
26 Estimated Discharge of BOD and Nutrients 71
27 Relationship Between Land Use and Stream
Export of Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus in the Manasquan River Basin 74
28 Present and Estimated Future Land Use and
Their Relationship to Stream Export of Total
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus 79
29 Present and Projected Air Pollutant
Emissions in the Study Area 80
30 Predicted Air Quality in the Study Area 32
31 Total Vacant Land in the Manasquan Study
Area 83
32 Methods I - V Assumptions 84
33 Land Holding Capacities 35
34 Projections of Year 2000 Population Based
on Long- and Short-Term Trends of Growth
and Monmouth County Planning Board
Projections 89
35 Distribution of Population Forecast 91
VI 11
-------
TABLES (Cont'd.)
Number Title Title
36 Initial Wastewater Flows 93
37 Flow Estimates - 1995 99
38. Flow Estimates - 2020 100
39 Projected Wastewater Flows - 1995 101
40 Effluent Limitations 108
41 Comparison of Irrigation and Infiltration- no
Percolation of Municipal Wastewater
42 Interceptor Routings 127
43 Site Specific Interceptor Routes 130
44 Soil Loss Associated with Major
Interceptors 136
45 Soil Loss Associated with Feasible
Alternatives . . . . 138
46 Linear and Areal Coverage of Interceptors 141
47 Floodplain Habitat Disruption 151
48 Wetland Habitat Disruption 151
49 Characteristics of Sludge 159
50 Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 161
51 Summary Environmental Analysis 162
52 Land Used for Facilities 174
53 Construction'Material Requirements 175
54 Construction and Operation Energy
Requirements 176
55 Chemical Resource Commitment Estimates 176
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
1 Location Map 2
2 Study Area 20
3 Geologic Map of the Manasquan Region 22
4 Soil Suitability for Development 23
5 Surface Water Resources 25
6 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 47
7 Existing Land Use 53
8 Composite Zoning 55
9 Monmouth County Population Projections 62
10 Municipal Population Projections 54
11 Existing Treatment Plants and Service Areas.. 69
12 Linear Projection of 1940-1970 Population
Growth 87
13 Linear Extrapolation of Population Growth
Based on Certificates of Occupancy 88
14 Proposed Service Areas 95
15 Alternative Treatment Plant Sites 116
16 Alternative Interceptor Alignments
for the Lower Manasquan Interceptor 118
17 Debois Creek Interceptor 119
18 Upper Manasquan Interceptor 121
19 Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor 124
20 . Lower Manasquan Interceptor 126
21 Land Application Sites 132
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL
SEWERAGE AUTHORITY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
MONMO'UTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
DATE: May 1979,
TYPE OF STATEMENT: Draft.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY: U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region II.
TYPE OF ACTION: Administrative.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND RECOMMENDED PLAN
The proposed action involves federal financial assistance
from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the
Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority (MRRSA) for the
design and construction of wastewater treatment facilities
for the Manasquan River basin, New Jersey. The communities
that will be served by the treatment facilities are Freehold
Township, Freehold Borough, Howell Township, Farmingdale Bor-
ough, and Wall Township (see Figure 1 - Location Map).
The proposed facilities are needed to improve poor water
quality in the Manasquan River and its tributaries, caused in
part by poor performance at existing wastewater treatment
plants, and to accommodate orderly growth in the study area.
The facilities will be designed to meet the projected waste-
water treatment requirements of the study area through 1995.
-------
/ FREEHOLD
BOROUGH
MRRSA
STUDY~AREA
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
-------
The recommended plan provides for the construction in
Wall Township, New Jersey, of a regional wastewater treatment
plant (WTP) with a capacity of 31,000 cubic meters per day
(cu m/d) or 8.1 million gallons per day (mgd). The treatment
process would comprise secondary treatment, seasonal nitrifi-
cation and denitrification (May through October), tertiary
filtration, chlorination, dechlorination, and post aeration.
The WTP would discharge its effluent to the Manasquan River
downstream of the proposed Allaire Reservoir, and would be
designed to meet the effluent limitations established by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to
protect the Manasquan Estuary. Sludge from the treatment
process would be digested, dewatered, composted, and applied
to land as a soil conditioner.
The recommended plan also provides for the construction
of interceptors, pump stations, and force mains to convey
wastewater to the regional WTP. The conveyance system would
comprise the following components: Debois Creek Interceptor,
Upper Manasquan Interceptor, Lower Manasquan Interceptor,
Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor, Mingamahone Pump Station/Force
Main, Havens Bridge Road Pump Station, and Route 524/527 Pump
Station/Force Main. An outfall would also be constructed to
discharge treated wastewater to the Manasquan River.
Under the recommended plan, all existing WTP's in the
Manasquan River basin would be abandoned and their flows con-
veyed to the regional WTP either by di.r.ect connection of the
existing plants to regional interceptors or by extension of
local collection systems.
Those portions of the study area that are not sewered would
continue to use the present method of wastewater management (on-
site septic tank systems) until such time as a definite need for
sewers is established. Public education programs on the proper
operation and maintenance of septic tank systems should be in-
stituted for those areas that rely on septic systems. Future
facilities planning by municipalities should also investigate
the possibility of establishing a Septic Management District
for the inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of septic sys-
tems. The District could be managed by a regional authority
such as the MRRSA or by municipal authorities. The MRRSA's
regional WTP would include facilities to receive and treat the
wastes pumped from septic systems (septage).
The North Branch Metedeconk River basin is within the
study area, but is currently served by the Ocean County
Sewerage Authority (OCSA). The recommended plan indicates that
it is more cost-effective to continue OCSA service to the North
Branch Metedeconk River basin than to transfer wastewater flows
from this area to the MRRSA facilities.
-------
In order to meet the effluent limitations set by the NJDEP
to protect the Manasquan Estuary, a regional treatment plant
would have to provide advanced wastewater treatment (nitrifica-
tion, denitrification, and tertiary filtration). Based on an
analysis of existing data, EPA believes that there is sufficient
justification for the construction of nitrification facilities,
but insufficient data to either support or refute the need for
denitrification and tertiary filtration facilities. The EPA
has made a tentative decision to share the costs of nitrifica-
tion facilities, subject to final approval of the EPA Adminis-
trator. The EPA cannot at the present time share the costs of
denitrification and tertiary filtration facilities. The NJDEP
has indicated that it will still require these facilities at the
regional plant in order to protect the Manasquan Estuary. There-
fore, EPA's decision is not likely to significantly change the
proposed project, but it will affect local costs and estimated
monthly charges to individual users. If future studies of the
Manasquan Estuary conclude that construction of additional
facilities is justified, the EPA may reconsider its decision
not to provide construction grant funds for denitrification
and tertiary filtration facilities.
The estimated federal, state, and local shares of the
project costs would be:
Federal $30,669,000
State 3,743,000
Local 16,366,000
Total $50,778,000
Estimated monthly user charges would be $9.66.
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
Federal financial assistance to the MRRSA is being provided
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
and 1977 (P.L. 92-500 and P.L. 95-217), which are commonly re-
ferred to as the Clean Water Act. Section 201 (g) (1) of the
Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to administer grants for the
construction of treatment works. The EPA Administrator may
provide financial assistance to any municipality, intermunicipal
agency, state, or interstate agency for the construction of pub-
licly owned water pollution control facilities. To secure fed-
eral assistance, the grant applicant must prepare a facilities
plan, the cost of which is partially borne by EPA. The goal of
the construction grants program, and of the other provisions of
the Clean Water Act, is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United
States.
-------
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact
statements (EIS) on all major federal actions that signifi-
cantly affect the quality of the human environment. For the
construction grants program, EPA must evaluate each proposed
facilities plan and determine if an EIS is necessary. If so,
EPA policy (Program Requirement Memorandum 75-31) allows for
the joint preparation of the EIS by EPA and the sewerage
authority applying for the construction grant. Joint prepar-
ation of EIS's was instituted to reduce the total time required
to resolve environmental issues and satisfy all statutory re-
quirements .
Several studies dealing with wastewater management in the
Manasquan River basin were prepared prior to this EIS. In 1966
a master sewerage plan (Killam, 1966) recommended that a single
regional WTP be constructed to serve the Manasquan River basin,
leaving service for the North Branch Metedeconk basin unresolved.
In 1971, a feasibility study (Birdsall, 1971) recommended a
regional WTP with ocean disposal of effluent, along with further
investigation of groundwater recharge and wastewater recycling
through land application of effluent. A report prepared for
OCSA in 1973 (Environmental Assessment Council, 1973) recommended
that those portions of Freehold, Howell, and Wall Townships with-
in the North Branch Metedeconk River basin be served by OCSA.
Another 1973 study disputed this recommendation, and called for
the construction of a regional WTP to serve both the Manasquan
and the North Branch Metedeconk basins (Dames & Moore, 1973).
Finally, a 1974 study (Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974), evaluating
all available alternatives for wastewater management, made the
following recommendations:
construct a regional WTP in Wall Township, New Jersey,
with advanced wastewater treatment (AWT), a capacity of
45,000 cu m/d (12 mgd), and effluent discharge to the
Manasquan River;
construct a system of interceptors in the upper portion
of the Manasquan River basin; and
construct an interim WTP to polish the effluent from
existing WTP's in the upper basin pending completion
of the regional WTP (at which time, the interim plant
would be replaced by a pump station/force main).
Closely related to the provision of adequate wastewater
treatment in the MRRSA study area is a long-standing proposal
by the State of New Jersey to develop the Manasquan River as
a source of surface water supply for the region. In 1978, a
detailed study of a proposed reservoir system on the Manasquan
River was completed (Rutgers, 1978). That study recommended
-------
the construction of two reservoirs in the Manasquan River basin.
The Allaire Reservoir would be located directly on the Manasquan
River, just west of the Garden State Parkway. The Oak Glen
Reservoir would be located on a tributary to the Manasquan River
approximately 5.0 km (3.2 mi) upstream of the Allaire Reservoir.
A two-way raw-water force main would be used to pump high flows
from the Allaire Reservoir to the Oak Glen Reservoir for storage
and to convey stored water from the Oak Glen Reservoir to the
Allaire Reservoir, as needed.
An Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208) is being
prepared by NJDEP for Monmouth County. Recommendations of that
plan concerning population, land use, nonpoint source pollution
control, and wastewater management may also affect proposed
actions in the MRRSA study area. Any construction grants made
by EPA would have to be consistent with the recommendations of
the 208 plan.
The effect of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities
on the potential use of the Manasquan River as a source of water
supply was one of the issues cited by EPA in its Notice of Intent
to prepare an EIS. The notice, which was published on July 28,
1976, gave several reasons for EPA's decision to prepare an EIS:
significant secondary impacts could be associated with
large projected population growth;
discharging sewage effluent to the Manasquan River
could affect its water quality, its ability to sustain
aquatic life, and its potential as a source of potable
water;
environmental impacts associated with the regional
treatment plant could be greater than those associated
with several smaller plants; and
the substantial public controversy about the two-plant
subregional alternatives should be addressed.
In accordance with federal policy, a Memorandum of Understanding
to jointly prepare an EIS was signed by the EPA and the MRRSA in
September 1976. Preparation of the EIS began in March 1977.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Many conceptual plans and system components were evaluated
in this EIS. Alternatives were assessed on the basis of environ-
mental, socio-economic, and cost-effectiveness information con-
tained in the facilities plan or gathered for the EIS.
-------
Conceptual alternatives were evaluated as follows:
No Action Alternative. This alternative is not con-
sidered feasible because it would neither alleviate
the existing water quality problems in the Manasquan
River and its tributaries nor meet the intent of the
Clean Water Act.
Expand and Upgrade Alternative. This alternative is
not considered feasible because of the high cost and
inefficiency of operating many small treatment plants.
In addition, space limitations at existing plant sites
and the lack of municipal WTP's in the downstream por-
tion of the study area would make it impossible for
this alternative to accommodate projected growth in
the study area.
Subregional Alternative. This alternative is considered
feasible because two smaller treatment plants would be
constructed with sufficient combined capacity to treat
both present and future wastewater flows.
Regional Alternative. This alternative is considered
feasible because a regional treatment plant would be
constructed with sufficient capacity to treat both
present and future wastewater flows.
Creation of Septic District Authorities. This alterna-
tive is considered feasible because it would provide
reliable service to those portions of the study area
that do not require centralized sewerage service.
Service of the North Branch Metedeconk River Basin by
MRRSA Alternative. This alternative is not considered
feasible because it would not be cost-effective for
MRRSA to provide sewerage service to the North Branch
Metedeconk River basin when such service is already
being economically provided by OCSA.
Following the analysis of conceptual alternatives, there
was an analysis of the components that make up a wastewater man-
agement system, including treatment processes, effluent and
sludge disposal methods, treatment plant sites, and interceptor
routes .
The conceptual and component analyses yielded three feasible
system alternatives:
Subregional 1 (SR-1): This alternative consists of two
treatment facilities, one located in the upper and the
other in the lower portion of the Manasquan River basin.
-------
The upstream plant would discharge 21,000 cu m/d (5.5
mgd) to the Manasquan River, downstream of its conflu-
ence with Debois Creek; the downstream plant would
discharge 10,000 cu m/d (2.6 mgd) to the Manasquan
River downstream of the proposed Allaire Reservoir.
The treatment process at the upstream plant would com-
prise secondary treatment, seasonal nitrif.ication (May
through October), phosphorus removal, chlorination, and
dechlorination. The treatment process at the downstream
plant would comprise secondary treatment, seasonal nitri-
fication and denitrification (May through October),
teritiary filtration, chlorination, dechlorination, and
post aeration. The upstream plant would be located at
one of seven feasible sites, and the downstream plant
at one of three feasible sites. Under the SR-1 Alter-
native, three major interceptor systems would be needed
for wastewater collection: Debois Creek Interceptor,
Upper Manasquan Interceptor, and Marsh Bog Brook Inter-
ceptor. The Mingamahone Pump Station/Force Main and the
pump stations in the vicinity of Havens Bridge Road and
County Roads 524 and 527 would also be needed. Sludge
would be composted and applied to land as a soil condi-
tioner .
Subregional 2 (SR-2): This alternative is identical
to the SR-1 Alternative except that the downstream WTP
would use secondary treatment and land application for
effluent disposal rather than discharge to the Manasquan
River.
Regional: This alternative consists of a single treat-
ment plant located at one of three feasible sites in
the lower portion of the Manasquan River basin. The
regional plant would discharge 31,000 cu m/d (8.1 mgd)
to the Manasquan River downstream of the proposed
Allaire Reservoir. The treatment process would com-
prise secondary treatment, seasonal nitrification and
denitrification (May through October), tertiary fil-
tration, chlorination, dechlorination, and post aera-
tion. Under the Regional Alternative, four major
interceptor systems would be needed for wastewater
collection: Debois Creek Interceptor, Upper Manasquan
Interceptor, Lower Manasquan Interceptor, and Marsh Bog
Brook Interceptor. The Mingamahone Pump Station/Force
Main and the pump stations in the vicinity of Havens
Bridge Road and County Roads 524 and 527 would also
be needed. Sludge would be composted and applied to
land as a soil conditioner.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
The issues identified in the Notice of Intent were ad-
dressed by analysis of the alternatives. A special study
indicated that there would be only slight differences among
the three feasible alternatives in terms of their secondary
environmental impacts. A study of the potential effects upon
the proposed reservoir system concluded that implementation
of the SR-1 or SR-2 Alternative would significantly increase
point source nitrogen loading to the Manasquan River and might
accelerate eutrophication of the proposed Oak Glen Reservoir.
The study further indicated that implementation of the SR-1
or SR-2 Alternative would involve the potential for release
of pathogenic organisms to the proposed reservoir system.
A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the three
feasible alternatives indicated that there were only slight
differences among them. The difference in costs between the
most expensive alternative (SR-1) and the least expensive
alternative (Regional) was less than 4 percent.
With respect to the issue of public controversy, there
is a major difference between the Regional Alternative and
the two subregional alternatives. The concept of building
two WTP's in the service area faces intense local opposition.
The prevailing local preference for the single-plant Regional
Alternative, and the determination that none of the environ-
mental impacts associated with this alternative are unaccep-
table, has resulted in the selection of the Regional Alterna-
tive as the recommended plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION
Implementation of the Regional Alternative would have
several beneficial effects. It would improve the quality of
the Manasquan River. It would allow orderly growth in the
area by providing large segments of the MRRSA service area
with centralized sewage treatment. In addition, it would
permit full utilization of proposed surface water supplies
(Allaire and Oak Glen Reservoirs) without the risk of con-
tamination by pathogenic organisms and without the potential
for accelerated eutrophication.
Implementation of the Regional Alternative would have
some adverse impacts as well. Erosion of soils and siltation
in surface water bodies would be caused by interceptor and
-------
WTP construction. Both of these impacts could be minimized
by following state approved erosion control practices during
construction. Several areas of woodland habitat, including
floodplains and wetlands, would be affected by interceptor
construction. Prompt restoration with native vegetation could
minimize the duration and extent of these impacts. Some traf-
fic disruption and noise generation would be inevitable during
construction. These impacts could be minimized by scheduling
construction for off-peak traffic hours and by using noise
muffling equipment. Conveyance of effluent and discharge
downstream of the reservoir system would reduce flows in the
upper Manasquan River basin. The downstream discharge would,
however, augment freshwater flows to the estuary. Increased
nutrient concentrations could contribute to nuisance algal
blooms in the estuary. The proposed site for the regional
WTP is a former gravel pit with sparse natural vegetation.
There are no existing residences near the site. No incon-
veniences to residents due to odors and noise resulting from
the WTP operation are anticipated.
The proposed project may concentrate development pressures
along the Freehold-Farmingdale corridor. Pressures for devel-
opment of prime agricultural land might increase initially.
Re-examination of local land use controls by the individual
municipalities would lead to more effective controls to pro-
tect environmentally sensitive areas from unwise development
and thus mitigate these pressures. The Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan (208) being prepared by NJDEP is also expected
to include specific recommendations for measures to help pro-
tect environmentally sensitive areas.
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS FROM WHOM
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED
Information used in this EIS was solicited from federal,
state, and local agencies, from the public, and from local
organizations. A list of those who will receive the draft
EIS follows this summary.
The information gathering process included eight public
meetings and numerous interagency (EPA and NJDEP) technical
briefings. A citizens' committee was formed to insure that
the concerns of the public and of municipalities were addressed
in the EIS. The series of public meetings demonstrated the
general support of the public and of the municipalities in-
volved for the Regional Alternative.
10
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D. C.
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D. C.
Soil Conservation Service
Freehold, N. J.
Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Gloucester, Mass.
Department of Defense
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York, N. Y.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Food and Drug Administration
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Newark, N. J.
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Boston, Mass.
State College, Pa.
Absecon, N. J.
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Philadelphia, Pa.
U. S. Geological Survey
Trenton, N. J.
Department of Transportation
Washington, D. C.
U. S. Coast Guard
New York, N. Y.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
11
-------
UNITED STATES SENATE
Honorable William Bradley
Honorable Harrison A. Williams
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Honorable James J. Howard
NEW JERSEY STATE SENATE
Honorable S. Thomas Gagliano
Honorable Brian T. Kennedy
NEW JERSEY STATE ASSEMBLY
Honorable William F. Dowd
Honorable Anthony M. Villane
Honorable Walter J. Kozloski
Honorable Marie A. Muhler
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Mayor, Borough of Belmar
Belmar, N. J.
Mayor, Borough of Farmingdale
Farmingdale, N. J.
Mayor, Borough of Freehold
Freehold, N. J.
Mayor, Township of Freehold
Freehold, N. J.
Mayor, Township of Howell
Howell, N. J.
Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority
Freehold, N. J.
12
-------
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES (Cont'd.)
Mayor, Borough of Manasquan
Manasquan, N. J.
Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Freehold, N. J.
Monmouth County Environmental Commission
Freehold, N. J.
Monmouth County Health Department
Freehold, N. J.
Monmouth County Parks and Recreation Commission
Freehold, N. J.
Monmouth County Planning Board
Freehold, N. J.
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
Trenton, N. J.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, N. J.
New Jersey State Historic Preservation Officer
Trenton, N. J.
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
Toms River, N. J.
Mayor, Borough of South Belmar
South Belmar, N. J.
Mayor, Borough of Spring Lake
Spring Lake, N. J.
Mayor, Township of Wall
Wall, N. J.
INTERSTATE AGENCIES
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, N. Y.
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
New York, N. Y.
13
-------
CITIZENS' GROUPS
Candlewood Home Owners' Association
Howell, N. J.
Citizens' Input Council
Howell, N. J.
Freehold Borough Citizens' Advisory Committee
Freehold, N. J.
Home Owners of Aldrich Estates
Howell, N. J.
League of Women Voters
Locust, N. J.
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D. C.
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York, N. Y.
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
Morristown, N. J.
Silvermead Adult Community
Freehold, N. J.
United Citizens of Howell
Howell, N. J.
The Villages
Adelphia, N. J.
LIBRARIES
Freehold Public Library
Freehold, N. J.
Howell Public Library
Farmingdale, N. J.
Manasquan Public Library
Manasquan, N. J.
Wall Township Public Library
Sea Girt, N. J.
14
-------
NEWS MEDIA
Asbury Park Press
Asbury Park, N. J,
The Booster
Howell, N. J.
Colonial News
Freehold, N. J.
Daily Register
Shrewsbury, N. J.
OTHERS
Abramoco, Ann
Freehold, N. J.
Addison, Lynda
Howell, N. J.
Allen, George
Allenwood, N. J.
Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center
Allaire, N. J.
Bader, Virginia
Freehold, N. J.
Bonn, Parker
Freehold, N. J.
Colossi, Maureen
Freehold, N. J.
Concannon, Dr. Thomas
New Brunswick, N. J.
Crystal, Melvin
Freehold, N. J.
Denham, Clarence
East Brunswick, N. J.
Di Gregario, A.
Farmingdale, N. J.
15
-------
OTHERS (Cont'd.)
Dreilelbis, Linda
Freehold, N. J.
E. T. Killam Associates
Millburn, N. J.
Edelstein, Eileen
Freehold, N. J.
Fallen, Loe
Howell, N. J.
Farmingdale Garden Apartments
Farmingdale, N. J.
Finkelstein, Mrs.
Freehold, N. J.
Freehold Sewer Company
Freehold, N. J.
Gibson, Rev. Albert
Freehold, N. J.
Gikas, Mr. and Mrs. Ernest
Farmingdale, N. J.
Goldberg, Allan
Freehold, N. J. .
Goldspiel, Steven
Freehold, N. J.
Hamma, Leslie
Farmingdale, N. J.
Hammer, Jerome
Freehold, N. J.
Hinton, Donna
Freehold, N. J.
Howell Township Board of Education
Farmingdale, N. J.
Huff, Ida
Freehold, N. J.
Kaminsky, Paul S.
Freehold, N. J.
16
-------
OTHERS (Cont'd.)
Kavett, Phyllis
Howell, N. J.
Knowles, Edmund
Howell, N. J.
Konegan, Kurt
Freehold, N. J.
Kozo, John
Freehold, N. J.
Maxim Sewerage Corporation
Howell, N. J.
McGowan, James
Farmingdale, N. J.
Morgan, Rev. James
Farmingdale, N. J.
Newman, Donald
Belmar, N. J.
Passantino, Adele
Freehold, N. J.
Reuter, Herman
Freehold, N. J.
Rosen, Barbara
Freehold, N. J.
Rucert, Carl
Freehold, N. J.
Sauer, Alfred
Howell, N. J.
Saltzman, Alvin
Bradley, N. J.
Segal, David
Freehold, N. J.
Shapiro, Dr. and Mrs.
Freehold, N. J.
Shrum, Dr. Edgar
Freehold, N. J.
17
-------
OTHERS (Cont'd.)
Silvermeade Trailer Park
Freehold, N. J.
Smith, Aaron
Howell, N. J.
Smith, Roger
Freehold, N. J.
Stromwasser, Richard
Freehold, N. J.
Sulkes, Martin
Freehold, N. J.
Tlusty, Helen
Freehold, N. J.
Williams, Archie
Adelphia, N. J.
Williams, Mark
Freehold, N. J.
Winding Brook Mobile Home Park
Howell, N. J.
Wynnewood Sewerage Utility Company
Freehold, N. J.
18
-------
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
NATURAL RESOURCES
The MRRSA study area is located in Monmouth County, New
Jersey (Figure 1). It includes five municipalities: Free-
hold Borough, Howell Township, Farmingdale Borough, Freehold
Township, and a part of Wall Township (Figure 2). The north-
ern and central portions of the study area are located within
the Manasquan River basin, and the southern portion forms part
of the Metedeconk River basin. The study area encompasses
269 square kilometers (sq km) or 104 square miles (sq mi).
CLIMATE
Climate in the study area is controlled by continental
air masses modified by sea breezes. The average summer tem-
perature is 30°C (mid 80's F); winter temperature averages
4°C (high 30's F). Extremes measured at Freehold were -28°C
(-20°F) in February, 1934; and 41°C (106°F) in July, 1936
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972). The growing season
averages 178 days, lasting from late April to mid-October
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972; Monmouth County Envir-
onmental Council, 1975).
Precipitation averages 114 to 117 centimeters (cm) or
45 to 46 inches (in) annually, and is distributed throughout
the year. The average monthly rainfall is 10.2 cm (4 in).
Thunderstorms, totalling 15 to 20 events from May through
August, are the major storms affecting the area. Hurricanes
average slightly more than one per year, while tornados are
infrequent. The predominant wind direction is westerly,
averaging 13.0 kilometers per hour (km/hr) or 8.1 miles per
hour (mph) (Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974).
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The study area is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
physiographic province, which is characterized by broad low-
lands. Elevations range from a few meters above mean sea
level (msl) to 109 meters (m) or 360 feet (ft) above msl
(USGS, 1970). Streams exhibit a dentritic drainage pattern.
19
-------
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
-------
The geologic formations in the study area are generally
unconsolidated marine sediments deposited during Cretaceous
and Tertiary Periods (Figure 3). Pleistocene terrace mater-
ials of sand, clay, and gravel overlie the marine sediments.
SOILS
A detailed description of the soils in the MRRSA study
area, presented in the Wastewater Management Study of the
Manasquan basin and the Metedeconk basin in Monmouth County
(Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974), is reproduced in Appendix A.
In order to.study environmental constraints to growth and
change in the study area, its soils can be grouped into
categories reflecting suitability for development (Figure 4,
Table 1). Table 1 shows four soil groups characterized as:
having few limitations for development; prime agricultural
lands; suitable for houses without basements; and s.everely limi-
ted for development. The last two groups are mapped together
as environmentally sensitive.
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
Surface water resources within the study area include
the Manasquan River and its tributaries and a portion of the
Manasquan River Estuary, most of the North Branch Metedeconk
River, and a small headwater section of the South Branch
Metedeconk River (Figure 5). A reservoir system on the
Manasquan River has also been proposed by NJDEP. The hydro-
logy, water quality, and aquatic biota of each water system
which could be affected by the project is described below.
Manasquan River
Hydrology and Water Quality; The Manasquan River orig-
inates in a cranberry bog in southwestern Freehold Township,
and flows east to the Atlantic Ocean. It traverses flat and
gently rolling land, much of which is in agricultural use.
Its total length is 33.8 kilometers (km) or 2.10 miles (mi);
and its total drainage area is 208.5 sq km or 80.5 sq mi.
About 92 percent (191 sq km, or 74 sq mi) of the total drain-
age area is within the study area. The limit of saltwater
encroachment is about 1.8 km (1.1 mi) downstream of the
Garden State Parkway.
Flow data for the Manasquan River are summarized in
Table 2. Peak flow generally occurs during winter and early
spring and is lowest during August (Laskowski, 1970). Com-
plete data are provided in Appendix B for mean and minimum
21
-------
TOWNSHIP ivi-f / /
HDWElsT TOWNSHIP
SEA GIRT
BOROUGH
_^^_
'"9
COUNTY BOUNDARY
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY
SUFFICE AREA BOUNDARY
BOROUGH
SEDIIWARY UNITS
Qbi
T5r
T-q
Tvt
Tht
jHJftTERMARV.
BEACH SAND .
COHAflSEV S/.flD
KIRKUODD SAND
SHARK RIVE". KAR
MAflASCUA'J MARL
flED BAf.'K AND TINTON SANDS
TINTON SA'JO
'jHRC'.'SEUPY «t".BE°. OF RED
K.rv MOUNT LAUREL A'.D '.T.'.CNA*
SANDS
K-t «1ARS"ALLTO'JN FORMATION
Kct EKGL iSHTO'js S.'-ND
Kv.b WOODBUPY CLAY
K-v MEPCHANTVHLE FORMATION
Krr MACOTHv A^JQ RAR I TAN
FORMATIONS (UVP-IFfER-
E'JIIATED)
FIGURE 3
GEOLOGIC MAP
OF THE
MANASQUAN REGION
-------
v .~SA \
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
SOIL SUITABIUTY
for
DEVELOPMENT
[Source: Soil Coruervotion Service]
-------
Use
Slope
Percent
TABLE 1
Soil Characteristics for Specified Uses
Depth to Ground-
water m (f t)
Depth to Bedrock
m (ft)
Flooding
Potential Other Limiting Factors
Few Limitations
for Development
0-10
greater than 1.5
(greater than 5)
greater than 1.2
(greater than 4)
None
None
Prime Agricul-
tural Lands
0-10
.15 - greater than 5 greater than 1.2
(.5 - greater than 16) (greater than 4)
None
SCS Agricultural
Soil Classification
I, II and III
Suitable for
Houses without
Basements
Severely Limited
for Development
0-10
greater than
10
.46 - greater than 5 greater than 3
(1.5 - greater than 16) (greater than 10)
At surface to
greater than 1.5
(greater than 5)
0 - greater than 3
(0 - greater than 10)
Possible groundwater
No pollution from septic
systems
Daily High potential for
to home frost damage; perched
water table
Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1948; 1972-1975.
-------
FW - SURFACE WHIR
CLASSIFICATION
#) TAKACS STATIONS/#\ RECORD STATIONS
# I USGS STATIONS
MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
HGURE 5
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
-------
TABLE 2
NJ
CTN
Parameter
Period of Record
Drainage Basin
Minimum Discharge
Average Discharge
Maximum Discharge
MA7CD103
Flow Data for the Manasquan and North Branch Metedeconk Rivers
Location of Record Station
Manasquan Manasquan
River-Squankum (#1) River-Allenwood (#2)
1931 - Present
112.4 sq km
(43.4 sq mi )
31,100 cu m/d
(8.2 mgd)1
180,000 cu m/d
(47 mgd)2
3,080,000 cu m/d
(815 mgd)
43,000 cu m/d
(11 mgd)
1969 - 1971
299,000 cu m/d
(79 mgd)
52,000 cu m/d
(14 mgd)
North Branch
Metedeconk
River-Lakewood (#3)
1959 - 1963
Once in 1966
50.2 sq km
(19.4 sq mi)
North Branch
Metedeconk River
Route 549 (#4)
1972 - Present
90.4 sq km
(34.9 sq mi)
43,000 cu m/d
(11 mgd)1
216,000 cu m/d
(57 mgd)1
1,011,000 cu m/d
(270 mgd)1
17,300 cu m/d
(5 mgd)
Based on records from October 1972-September 1973
Based on records from 1933-1975
MA7CD10 - mean consecutive seven day, once in ten year low flow
Sources: USGS, 1975; Sharpe, 1977; Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974.
-------
daily flows in the Manasquan River at Squankum and Allenwood
during the 1969 through 1975 water years, and for flows dur-
ing the 1965 to 1966 drought.. The Manasquan River and its
tributaries are classified as water quality segments by the
NJDEP (Appendix C). A water quality segment is a stretch of
water that will not meet applicable water quality standards
even if all point sources receive secondary treatment. In
such an area, point sources must receive additional treatment
beyond the secondary stage, and nonpoint sources may have to
be treated or eliminated in order to attain acceptable water
quality.
The Manasquan River is currently used for canoeing, sport
fishing, limited irrigation supply and nature walks along its
banks (Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974). Streams and lakes within
the Manasquan basin are designated FW-1, FW-2, and FW-3 (NJDEP,
1974) (Figure 5). The water quality standards associated with*
FW-1, FW-2, and FW-3 waters are included in Appendix D.
Point source discharges (sewage, industrial, etc.) in the
Manasquan River are substantial. These discharges have caused
low oxygen concentrations and occasional .fish kills of substan-
tial magnitude (Zich, 1973). The basin also receives nonpoint
source pollution from septic tank effluent seepage, agricultur-
al runoff, and urban runoff.
The headwaters of the Manasquan River are highly acidic (pH
ranges from 2.8 to 4.2). This condition is attributed to
underlying acid sand formations (Kirkwood and Cohansey Forma-
tions) that were exposed during a channelization project con-
ducted in the 1940"s. The Manasquan River gradually becomes
alkaline downstream because of extensive liming of cultivated
land in the immediate watershed area (Tectonic, 1976).
Water quality sampling in 1971 (Takacs, 1971) in the head-
waters area indicated excessive concentrations of the following
chemicals: ammonia-nitrogen (NH^-N); total nitrogen (TN);
organic nitrogen; total solids (TS); total phosphates; and
iron. These high concentrations were attributed to runoff
from the Lone Pine (Burke1s) Landfill. The result was exces-
sive biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,.), on the order of 34 mil-
ligrams per liter (mg/1), and a decrease in dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations (1.0 mg/1). A high fecal coliform to
fecal streptococci ratio indicated that there was also pollu-
tion from septic tank wastes. Masses of reddish slime
(Sphaerotilus sp.) were growing on the stream substrate,
which was reported to consist of soft black sludge in some
areas. Aquatic plants were absent in the river from Burke
Road to Station 2 (Figure 5). Upstream, at Station 4, water
quality was good, reflecting natural conditions for the area.
27
-------
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sampled the Manasquan
River during several periods (1967-1974; Table 3). The data
indicated high nutrient (total phosphorus [TP] and NH3-N),
fecal coliform and iron levels.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were low and phosphorus
content high at the Elton Station, reflecting point source
pollution in the headwaters. This was also the case at the
Wyckoff Mills Station (USGS Station 36), reflecting the poor
water quality of Debois Creek. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
generally met state standards elsewhere along the river. A
similar dissolved oxygen pattern was noted in data taken for
an assimilative-capacity modeling study during July and Octo-
ber, 1973 (NJDEP, 1976).
The USGS Squankum Station is located on the Manasquan
River about 3.6 km (2.3 mi) upstream from the proposed Allaire
Reservoir site. Data for the lower river were most complete
at the Squankum Station, and are summarized in Table 4. Con-
centrations of nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus, and suspended
solids appear to be high. In spring samples, total inorganic
nitrogen concentrations averaged 1.94 mg/1, and total phos-
phorus concentration averaged 0.24 mg/1, for a nitrogen:
phosphorus ratio of about 8.1:1. This ratio, according to
Vollenweider (1968), Dillon and Riegler (1974) and others
indicates that nitrogen could be the primary limiting nutrient
to algal productivity in the proposed reservoirs. Complete
water quality data for inorganic nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and suspended solids at the Squankum Station are included in
Appendix E.
Trace components were also measured at the Squankum Sta-
tion (Appendix F). With the exception of high concentrations
of iron and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), water quality
appeared acceptable for potable supply.
Aquatic Ecosystem; The Manasquan River and its tributar-
ies are classified by the NJDEP as trout maintenance waters
from the Route 9 bridge downstream to Allenwood Lagoon, and
as non-trout waters upstream from the Route 9 bridge (Ruggero,
1977). During 1977, brook and brown trout were stocked in a
put-and-take program in the Manasquan River within the trout
maintenance section, and in Mingamahone Brook from Hurley
Pond Road (Farmingdale) to the Manasquan River. Trout are
not native to the Manasquan River, but have been stocked
there since 1924 (NJDEP, 1976). Anadromous fish used the
river in the past as spawning habitat, and still do to some
extent (Zich, 1977). Before 1920, shad, blueback herring,
white perch, and alewives were abundant; soft-shelled crabs
and shellfish, particularly oysters, were fished commercially
(Underhill, 1957). By 1957, only the crab fishery and limited
28
-------
TABLE 3
Selected Water Quality Parameters for the Manasquan River: Summer 1973
to
10
uses
Station (ft)
Manasquan River
Elton (37)
Manasquan River
Georgia Road (43)
Manasquan River
Wyckoff Mills (36)
Manasquan River
Fairfield (32)
Manasquan River
Farmingdale (23)
Manasquan River
Squankum (16)
Range
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Temp
(Deg. C)
6.8
11.5
16.9
6.4
12.2
18.7
13.5
17.0
20.4
10.5
14.0
19.3
9.8
13.5
19.6
2.5
13.8
20.6
DO
(mg/1)
0.0
2.7
6.6
7.1
8.0
9.6
2.3
5.4
6.4
3.4
5.3
6.8
5.8
6.8
7.9
2.0
7.5
11.7
BOD 5
(mg/1)
2.7
5.9
11.4
3.8
5.1
10.0
3.2
5.6
8.8
1.1
2.3
5.0
'l.6
4.9
'8.3
2.1
4.1
6.2
PH
(Units)
3.8
5.6
6.6
5.4
6.0
6.6
6.1
6.3
6.9
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.9
7.3
NH3-N
(mg/1)
0.05
0.23
0.70
0.08
0.31
0.71
0.10
1.90
2.90
0.06
0.98
2.10
0.10
0.88
1.70
0.02
0.64
1.50
NO3-N
(mg/1)
0.00
0.10
0.19
0.90
1.10
1.20
0.64
1.50
3.70
0.56
1.15
3.50
0.49
1.37
2.70
0.76
1.40
2.00
TP
(mg/1)
0.33
0.71
1.10
0.25
0.33
0.41
0.51
0.64
1.10
0.37
0.41
0.49
0.19
0.26
0.32
0.15
0.24
0.46
Source: Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974; USGS, 1974.
-------
TABLE 4
USGS Average Values for Water Quality Data Taken During the
1969-1975 Water Years at Squankum
(Station #16)
Fecal
NH3 + Suspended Coliforms
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TP
(mg/1)
-
0.26
0.36
0.19
0.28
0.24
0.20
-
-
0.16
0.25
0.24
TN N03 + N02
(mg/1) (mg/1)
-
2.2 1.87
3.5 3.02
1.6 1.05
3.1 2.17
2.2 1.78
2.03
-
-
2.2 1.87
2.98
_ _
Solids
(mg/1)
230
65
172
113
76
54
47
10
128
300
150
63
(Colonies/
100 ml)
231
66
245
405
296
2485
9173
1909
-
534
670
1145
Source: USGS, 1970-1976.
30
-------
alewife-menhaden fisheries were still functioning commercially
(Underbill, 1957). Fish surveys of the Manasquan River, Marsh
Bog Brook, Deep Brook, Mill Brook, an unnamed tributary, and
Squankum Brook in 1971-1972 and 1974 showed the species listed
in Table 5. Sea lamprey, redear sunfish, mud sunfish, and
chain pickerel are also reported to occur in the Manasquan
River basin (Tectonic, 1976). The shortnose sturgeon, a
species of fish which appears on both the federal and state
endangered species lists, is reported as possibly occurring
in the study area (50 CFR, Part 17; NJDEP, 1975).
The headwater area of the Manasquan River was reported to
be devoid of fish life, due to the poor water quality and to
dredging and channelization projects which rendered the bottom
unstable and nearly sterile (NJDEP, 1953). The Manasquan River
was also described as being nearly devoid of the habitat re-
quired by invertebrate fauna (NJDEP, 1953). Increasing reports
of fish kills attributed to sewage and other point source dis-
charges have occurred since the 1950's and early 1960's (Zich,
1973) .
Tributaries of the Manasquan River
Water quality data are available for several main tribu-
taries of the Manasquan River. The USGS monitored Debois Creek,
Marsh Bog Brook, Squankum Brook, Bear Swamp Brook, Burkes Creek,
Applegates Creek, Mingamahone Brook, and various unnamed tribu-
taries during several periods (1967-1974; Table 6). The data
indicated poor water quality in Debois Creek with high bacterial
counts, high nutrient levels, and BOD concentrations which would
indicate domestic and industrial discharges (NJDEP, 1976).
Marsh Bog Brook and Mingamahone Brook appeared to have good
water quality, with the exception of high ammonia concentrations
and high fecal coliform levels near Farmingdale. Data for the
other tributaries' samples generally indicated good water qual-
ity.
North Branch Metedeconk River
Hydrology and Water Quality: The North Branch Metedeconk
River originates in southern Freehold Township. The Metedeconk
River is tidal upstream to Laurelton. The North. Branch's total
length is 28.2 km (17.5 mi), and its total drainage area is
100.2 sq km (38.7 sq mi); 64.6 sq km (25.0 sq mi) of the drain-
age area are within the study area. The North Branch Metedeconk
River and its tributaries are classified .as FW-3 waters, and as
water quality segments (NJDEP, 1977).
The North Branch is currently used for sport fishing,
though it is swampy and seasonally infested with mosquitoes
(NJDEP, 1977; Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974). The USGS has
31
-------
TABLE 5
Fish Taken in the Manasquan River (Trout Maintenance Section);
and Mingamahone, Squankum, Unnamed Tributary (Elton-Adelphia),
Marsh Bog, Bear Swamp, Deep, Manasa, Bog and Mill Run Brooks *
Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Grass pickerel (Esox vermaculatus)
Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus)
White (common) sucker (Catostomas commersoni)
Creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus)
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)
Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum)
Brook lamprey (Lampetra alpyptera)
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
Mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea)
Redfin pickerel (Esox americanus)
Mud sunfish (Acantharchus pomotis)
White catfish (Ictalurus catus)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
Carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus)
Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus)
* Dates: one or more dates during August-September 1971,
August 1972 (Deep Brook only) and May 1974 (Minga-
mahone, Mill Run and Bog Brooks)
Source: NJDEP, 1972, and 1974.
32
-------
TABLE 6
Selected Water Quality Parameters for Three Tributaries
of the Manasquan River: Summer 1973
u>
Station (#)
Debois Creek
Near Freehold (60)
Debois Creek
at Wyckoff
Mills (39)
Marsh Bog Brook
at Farmingdale
(29)
Marsh Bog Brook
at Squankum (18)
Mingamahone Brook
near Earle (44)
Mingamahone Brook
Birdsall Avenue
Farmingdale (25)
Mingamahone Brook
at Squankum (17)
Range
Min.
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Temp
15.8
20 .4
22. 4
13.8
18. 0
21.3
13.8
14. 1
20. 5
7 .8
13.3
19.3
13 . I
15.3
18. 0
10. 5
15.6
19.5
7.5
12. 5
19. 6
DO
(mg/1)
0.
1.
4.
0.
2.
5.
5.
7.
8.
7 .
8.
10.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
10.
7.
9.
12.
4
7
2
6
9
1
9
7
8
0
4
2
0
7
6
0
3
8
0
8
0
BOD5
(mg/1)
3
9
25
3
5
15
0
1
3
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
. 4
. 1
.8
.6
.6
.3
.9
.7
. 9
.8
. 0
.7
.4
.3
. 2
.8
. 5
. 4
.6
. 1
. 2
PH
(Units)
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
5
5
5
6
7
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
7
. 2
.5
.8
;i
.3
.8
.5
. 3
.8
. 9
.7
.0
. 1
. 5
.7
. 5
. 0
. 2
. 1
.3
. 0
(mg/
0 .
3.
4.
0.
1.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0 .
0.
0.
o.
0 .
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
1)
13
20
20
10
10
00
38
57
94
11
31
51
18
39
80
04
30
70
16
28
44
NQ3-N
(mg/1)
0 .10
1.60
4.90
0. 00
1.10
4.10
0.10
0.07
0. 20
0.35
0 .50
0.79
0 . 00
0 . 14
0. 24
0 .01
0 .14
0. 20
0 . 00
0.17
0. 28
TP
(mg/1)
1
1
2
. 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.10
. 40
.20
.49
.81
.20
. 09
.11
.13
.10
. 12
.15
. 04
. 07
.08
. 10
. 11
.14
. 09
. 10
. 13
Source: USGS, 1974.
-------
monitored the North Branch for flow near Lakewood and at the
Route 549 Bridge (Figure 5; Table 2). From available data,
(USGS, 1969-1975), discharge patterns appear to be similar
to those of the Manasquan River.
Water quality data for the North Branch were taken near
Lakewood and concentrations of NI^-N and total phosphorus
were high, pH acidic, and dissolved oxygen concentrations
below the state's acceptable lower limit. On Hay Stock Brook,
a main tributary of the North Branch Metedeconk River (Table 7) ,
average dissolved oxygen concentrations contravened state
standards also.
Aquatic Biota; The North Branch Metedeconk River is
classified by the NJDEP as non-trout from the headwaters down-
stream to Lanes Mills, and as trout maintenance below this
point (Ruggero, 1977). In 1977 the North Branch was stocked
with brook and brown trout on a put-and-take basis from the
Aldrich Road Bridge to Ridge Avenue.
The North Branch was described as an important trout
stream in 1953, although it was nearly devoid of invertebrate
(food source) habitat (NJDEP, 1953). Zich (1977) reported
spawning runs of alewife in the stream near Route 88 from
1972-1976.
Manasquan River Estuary
Hydrology and Surface Water Quality: The Manasquan River
Estuary, characterized by extensive salt marsh vegetation,
begins just east of the Garden State Parkway on the eastern
edge of the study area. This point, 2.4 km (1.5 mi) below
the proposed Allaire Reservoir, marks the limit of saltwater
encroachment (Pyle, 1975). The estuary is directly influenced
by both the freshwater Manasquan River and the Atlantic Ocean.
The inlet is a broad, shallow area of approximately 550 hec-
tares (ha) or 1,360 acres (a), subject to tidal variations of
approximately 0.9 m (2.9 ft) (Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974;
Underhill, 1957).
The Manasquan River Estuary is classified as a TW-1 water
quality segment (NJDEP, 1974) (Appendix G). At the present
time, the inlet is mainly used for sport fishing, and boating
(Zich, 1977). NJDEP and USGS data available for the Manasquan
River Estuary at Squankum-Allenwood Road, Riviera Beach, and
the estuary's confluence with the Atlantic Ocean, indicated
that dissolved oxygen concentration was high, the pH slightly
alkaline, and fecal coliform levels in excess of state stand-
ards (Table 8).
34
-------
TABLE 7
Selected Water Quality Parameters for the North Branch Metedeconk River and Hay Stack Brook*
Parameter
Temp (C°)
Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
BOD
pH
u>
01 NH3-N (mg/1)
N03-N (mg/1)
TP (mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(MPN/100 ml)
Substrate PCB's (U9/D
Substrate DDT (yg/1)
Substrate Chlordane
(yg/D
Dissolved iron (mg/1)
North Branch Metedeconk
near Lakewood. USGS
Station #1. (November
1973 - September 1976)
12.2 (1.0 - 19.0)
8.6 (8.2 - 9.0)
3.0 (2.0 - 4.0)
6.2 (5.8 - 6.5)
1.26 (0.01 - 2.50)
0.08 (0.02 - 0.14)
0.37 (0.32 - 0.42
as total soluble P)
1265 (130-2400)
10.5 (10.0 - 11.0)
3.5 ( 2.4 - 3.8)
24.0 (20.0 - 28.0)
0.2 (one date)
Hay Stack Brook at Lanes
Pond Road. USGS Station
#9. (July 1974 -
September 1974)
16.6 (12.0 - 20.0)
148.0 (one date)
3.4 ( 2.3 - 5.6)
6.9 ( 6.8 - 8-7.1)
8.3 ( 7.70 - 9.50)
0.31 ( 0.26 - 0.35)
2.60 ( 2.00 - 3.20)
Hay Stack Brook at Route
547 near Lakewood. USGS
Station #6 (July 1974 -
September 1976)
17.5 (13.5 - 22.0)
5.4 ( 3.0 - 9.0)
6.6 ( 6.4 - 6.9)
2.2 ( 1.80 - 2.90)
1.60 (one date)
0.98 ( 0.81 - 1.30)
* Averages, followed by concentration ranges in parentheses.
Sources: USGS, 1974; NJDEP, 1977.
-------
TABLE 8
Summary of NJDEP STORET and USGS Data for the Manasquan River Estuary
Manasquan River
at Squankum-Allenwood Rd., Manasquan River Manasquan River
Allenwood (USGS Station 7) Riviera Beach (USGS Station 2) M.P.O.O. (STORET Station 1)
Parameters
Temp (°C)
DO (mg/1)
BOD5 (mg/1)
PH
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
Total NO3-N (mg/1)
Total Phosphorus
(mg/1)
Dissolved Iron (mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(MFM/100 ml)*
Oct. 1970 - Nov. 1976
10.8 (0.0-21.5)
9.6 (6.2-12.8)
2.5 (1.1-4.4)
7.1 (6.4-8.2)
0.00
1.0 (1 date sampled)
0.43 (1 date sampled)
0.4 (1 date sampled)
242 (128-356) **
Oct. 1970 - Sept. 1972
14.8 (3.4-25.3)
9.8 (5.4-12.4)
3.7 (1.2-6.8)
7.8 (6.9-8.6)
0.67 as PO4-P
(0.34-0.99)
0.2 (0.17-0.21)
62 (4-100)
July 1972 - Sept. 1967
23.9 (22.0-25.8)
7.8 (7.4-8.5)
2.7 (1 date sampled)
7.6 (7.4-7.8)
0.9 (0.06-0.12)
0.29
(0.15-0.42)
123 (16-230)
Note: Approximate dates given include dates from which sampling of one or more parameters
was initiated. Average concentrations are given, with ranges following.
* Generally, STORET fecal coliforms counts as MFM/100 m\ roughly as
great as those measured as MPN/100 ml.
** Fecal coliforms as MPN/100 were 460 (130-790).
Source: NJDEP, (1977) STORET Data.
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem; Historically, the Manasquan River
Estuary supported an active finfishery and shellfishery
(Underbill, 1957). At present, "finfish" are not taken
commercially from the Manasquan Estuary (Loverdi, 1977).
The inlet sport fishery is reported to consist primarily of
winter flounder, blue snapper, American eel, striped bass,
tautog, cunner, and black sea bass (Himcheck, 1977). A sum-
mary of a recent fish survey is shown in Table 9 (NJDEP,
1971). The Estuary has been closed for shellfishing since
the early 1960's, due to high bacterial counts in the water
attributed to sewage pollution (Osborn, 1977). A shellfish
survey in 1974 yielded softshell (steamer) clam, blue mussel,
moon snail, flat slipper shell, common slipper limpet, false
angel wing, ribbed mussel, and surf clam (McCloy, 1977).
Many softshell clam siphon holes and beds of blue mussel were
observed, indicating great abundance of these species (McCloy,
1977) .
Atlantic Ocean
The Atlantic Ocean is included in this section on water
resources because project alternatives could affect ocean
water quality. It is reported that surface currents near
the Manasquan inlet appear to be roughly parallel to the
beach, though persistent and sometimes strong onshore and
offshore components exist (Fellows, Read & Weber, 1966).
The average' surface current velocity during August 19-30,
1967 was 3.67 km/hour (1.98 knots) (Killam/Dames & Moore,
1974) .
The Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the Manasquan River
Estuary is classified as CW-1 water within 460 m (1,500 ft) of
the shoreline at mean low tide, or to a bottom depth of 4.5 m
(15 ft), whichever is more distant (NJDEP, 1974). Applicable
water quality standards are provided in Appendix G.
The EPA sampled the coastal waters near the Manasquan
River in 1972, and reported that water quality was good.
However, fecal coliform levels, which has a geometric mean of
50 MPN/100 ml, exceeded the proposed standard of 14 MPN/100
ml (Vernan, 1977).
Proposed Manasquan River Reservoir System
The State of New Jersey has acquired land for two reser-
voir sites in the Manasquan River basin. The purpose of these
reservoirs will be to provide supplemental water supply to
Monmouth County, particularly to the coastal area. An exten-
sive planning study and environmental evaluation has been pre-
pared by Rutgers University. Preliminary design characteristics
of the reservoirs are as follows (Rutgers, 1977):
37
-------
TABLE 9
Fish taken during June-August 1969 and April-May 1970
from the Manasquan River Inlet and the Manasquan
River at Osborn Island (4.67 km above the Inlet) and
9.32 km above the Inlet
Alewife herring
Alosa pseudoharengus
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic needlefish
Strongylura marina
Atlantic sea herring
Clupea harengus
'Bonded killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
Bay
Northern pipefish
Syngnathus fuscus
Northern puffer
Sphaeroides maculatus
Oyster toadfish
Opsanus tau
Permit
Trachinotus falcatus
Oceanpout
Macrozoarces
Red
americanus
hake
Urophyc.is chuss
anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
Sand lance
Ammodytes
americanus
herring
aestivalis
Blueback
Alosa
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluegill sunfish
Lepomis macrochirus
Chub mackerel
Scomber colias
Common filefish
Monacanthus hispidus
Coronet fish
Fistularia tabacaria
Crevalle
Caranx hippos
striatus
Black sea bass
Centropristes
Sea robin
Prionotus sp.
Sennet
Sphyraena borealis
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysura
Gunner
Tautogolabrus
Grubby sculpin
Myoxocephalus
adspersus
aeneus
Hickory shad
Alosa mediocris
Northern kingfish
Menticirrhus saxatilis
Longhorn sculpin
Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus
Lookdown
Selene vomer
Mullet
Mugil sp.
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
Silversides
Menidia sp.
Striped anchovy
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped bass
Morone saxatilis
Striped killifish
Fundulus ma-jolis
Summer flounder
Paralichthys dentatus
Tautog
Tautoga o n i t i s
Warsaw grouper
Epinephelus nigritus
Weakfish
Cynoscion regalis
White perch
Morone americanus
Windowpane flounder
Scophthalmus aquosus
Winter flounder
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Naked goby
Gobiosoma
bosc i
Source: NJDEP, 1971
38
-------
Reservoir Design Characteristics
Oak Glen Area: 311.6 ha (770 a)
(Upper Capacity: 18.9 x 10& cu m or 5.0 x 109gallons(g)
Reservoir) Max. Yield: 94,625 cu m/d (25 mgd)
Allaire Intake Area: 28.3 ha (70 acres)
(Lower Capacity: 378,500 cu m (100 x 106 g
Reservoir) Max. Yield: 27,850 cu m/d (10 mgd)
The lower reservoir (Allaire Intake) will be located directly
on the Manasquan River. The upper (Oak Glen) reservoir will
be located on a tributary of the Manasquan, about 5.0 km (3.2
mi) upstream from the Allaire Intake. A two-way, raw-water
force main will be used to either pump high flows (up to
378,500 cu m/d or 100 mgd) from the lower to the upper reser-
voir for storage, or release stored flows from the upper to
the lower reservoir, as needed. A water treatment plant and
facilities for storage and distribution of treated water will
be constructed at the Allaire Reservoir (Killam, 1970; Kroeck,
1977). Final decisions on the design and capacity of the
reservoir system are still pending (Rutgers, 1977).
The total maximum yield figure of 130,000 cu m/d (35 mgd)
from the reservoir system was calculated assuming a minimum
guaranteed letdown of 30,000 cu m/d (8 mgd) to the Manasquan
River from the lower reservoir (Kroeck, 1977). The flows for
supply and guaranteed letdown cited by Kroeck (1977) were
tested for feasibility by NJDEP (1974), using 1930 to 1972
flow records fr.om the USGS Squankum gauging station (Appendix H)
A controversy has developed among three divisions of NJDEP over
the maximum yield and proposed letdown, as shown below:
Proposed Proposed
Max. Yield Letdown
NJDEP Division cu m/d (mgd) cu m/d (mgd)
Water Supply Planning &
Management (Kroeck, 1977) 123,000 (35) 30,000 (8)
Water Supply Planning &
Management (Basi, 1974) 94,600 (25)
Fish & Game (Pyle, Zich,
1977)
a) May 15 to Sep. 15 - 146,000 (39)
b) Remainder of Year - 193,000 (51)
39
-------
The values for yield and letdown presented by Kroeck (1977)
were used by Rutgers in its EIS on the reservoir system.
These values are also used in this EIS for analysis of the
potential impacts of wastewater management alternatives on
the reservoir system, river, and estuary.
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
Hydrology and Water Quality
Aquifers and aquifer recharge areas in the study area
are mapped and described in detail in Table 10 (Jablonski,
1968). The aquifers are recharged by precipitation on their
outcrop areas, and in some cases by vertical leakage from
adjacent areas (Jablonski, 1968). Outcrop areas for all
artesian wells are located outside the study area.
Groundwater is a significant source of stream flow in
the Manasquan River basin. Jablonski (1968) reported that
at least 55 percent of the Manasquan River flow is derived
from baseflow discharged from water-table aquifers. Using
the relationships of outcrop area and discharge per square
mile estimated by Jablonski, the Red Bank Sand Aquifer dis-
charges approximately 19,000 cu m/d (5 mgd), the Vincentown
approximately 85,000 cu m/d (22.5 mgd), and the Kirkwood
approximately 18,000 cu m/d (4.7 mgd) to streams in the basin.
The water quality of aquifers in the study area has been
analyzed by the USGS (1972) (Appendix I). The data indicate
that water quality is generally good, except for high concen-
trations of iron or manganese or low pH in some aquifers.
Jablonski (1968) also analyzed groundwater quality in Monmouth
County and found similar conditions. In addition, Jablonski
(1968) reported that chloride concentrations showed no indica-
tion of saltwater intrusion except in the eastern portion of
the Raritan-Magothy Formation which underlies the Atlantic
Ocean.
Water Supply
At present, groundwater is the source of all public water
supply in the study area (Table 11). Most of the water is
derived from the Englishtown and Raritan-Magothy aquifers,
and some from the Mount Laurel-Wenonah formations. The Mount
Laurel-Wenonah and Englishtown aquifers are heavily stressed
by pumping.
To alleviate current aquifer stress, it has been suggested
that future water needs be met by developing high-capacity wells
in the Tertiary water table aquifers (Dames & Moore, 1973) and
40
-------
TABLE 10
Characteristics of Aquifers in the Manasquan MRRSA Study Area
Aquifer
Cohansey Sand
and Quaternary
Deposits
Kirkwood
Vincentown
Red Bank Sand
Wenonah
Englishtown
Raritan and
Mogothy
Sources: Dames
1974;
Thickness (m [ft] )
Generally thin and
discontinuous
0-24(0-80)
3-30.5(10-100)
0-21(0-70)
9-15(30-50)
9-15(30-50)
12-18(40-60)
Recharge
Direct from precipitation,
transmits water down to
underlying aquifers
Direct from precipitation,
leakage through Cohansey
Sand and associated deposits
Direct from precipitation,
vertical leakage from
Kirkwood and Pleistocene
where they are present
Direct from precipitation
at outcrop near Freehold,
some leakage to underlying
aquifers
Recharge at outcrop in Mon-
mouth and Middlesex Counties
Recharge at outcrop in Mon-
mouth and Middlesex Counties;
some vertical leakage from
adjacent aquifersesp.
WenonahMount Laurel
Aquifer Pumpage (cu m/d [mad])
Small yield to domestic wells
5,680 (1.5)
domestic wells
small yield to domestic wells
2,500
15,000
(.65)
(4.0)
Recharge at outcrop in
Middlesex County, some ver-
tical leakage from Englishtown
& Moore, 1973; Killam, 1970; Killara/Dames & Moore,
Jablonski, 1968
46,600 (12.3)
-------
to
Misc. Private
Domestic Wells
Other Industry
Farm
TABLE 11
Groundwater Usage
Withdrawal
User
Freehold Borough
Freehold Twp.
Howe 11 Township
Farmingdale
Borough
Wall Township
Brockway Glass
Co.
Nestle Co.
Water Company
Municipal
Southern Gulf
Water Co.
Municipal
Adelphia Water Co.
Aldrich Water Co.
Parkway Water Co.
Municipal
Municipal
Private
Industrial
Private
Industrial
Aquifer
Raritan
-
Raritan
Englishtown
Raritan
Englishtown
Mt. Laurel-Wenonah
Englishtown
Englishtown
-
Englishtown
Englishtown
Population
Served 1970
10,000
-
6,750
132
8,700
1,200
1,130
-
-
-
1970 Usage
cu m/d (mgd)
4,350 (1.151)
-
2,690 (0.710)
30 (0.008)
2,320 (0.613)
390 (0.103)
340 (0.090)
3,790 (1.000)
1,580 (0.400)
3,280 (0.900)
Rights
cu m/d (mgd)
5,680 41.500)
1,510 (0.400)
7,570 (2.000)
380 (0.100)
3,790 (1.000)
570 (0.150)
2,840 (0.750)
7,570 (2.000)
1,580 (0.418)
3,280 (0.867)
18,000
6)800 (1.800)
2,650 (0.700)
1,140 (0.300)
Sources: Dames & Moore (1973);Killam (1970)
Total = 35,000 (9.10)
-------
surface water resources in the Manasquan River basin (Killam,
1970; Dames & Moore, 1973).
The proposed reservoir system on the Manasquan River
could be a potential source of water supply for most of the
study area after 1990. However, the development of high cap-
acity wells in the Tertiary deposits could significantly reduce
base flow in the Manasquan River, thereby reducing its useful-
ness as a source of water supply. The management of water
resources for future needs will require evaluation of the
interrelationship of these two proposed solutions.
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
Flora
Vegetation found in the study area is typical of the
Atlantic Coastal Plain of New Jersey and is dominated by oak
and pine. Several distinct vegetational communities exist,
including upland forests, freshwater and saltwater marshes,
bogs, swamps, and floodplains (Robichaud and Buell, 1973).
Marshes are areas covered by standing water for most of
the year, or subject to flooding year round. The vegetation
in freshwater marshes is herbaceous, dominated by cattails,
reed grass, or wild rice; other typical plants include bull-
rush, swamp loosestrife, sedges, and spike rush. Freshwater
marshes are important wildlife habitats and also act as ground-
water recharge and flood abatement areas. Saltwater marshes
are limited to the Manasquan Estuary. The vegetation typically
shows a zonation due to the differing salt tolerances of salt-
marsh cordgrass, salt meadow grass, black marsh grass, marsh
fleabane, salt marsh aster, and marsh elder (Robichaud and
Buell, 1973). Saltwater marshes provide valuable habitat for
many species of fish and their young, and for shellfish, mi-
gratory waterfowl, and terrestrial wildlife.
Bogs of southern New Jersey are found in areas where the
water table is high and where groundwater may rise to the sur-
face. Southern white cedar, red maple, black gum, sweet bay,
leatherleaf, laurel, cranberry, and blueberry are characteris-
tic woody plants found in bogs. Spahagnum moss,, pitcher plant,
sundews, and ferns are characteristic herbaceous bog plants
(Robichaud & Buell, 1973).
Swamps are less acid and more fertile than bogs and support
a somewhat different plant community. Sweetbay, three-lobed
red maple, and black gum are the dominant tree species with
southern white cedar found in lesser numbers. Typical shrubs
include sweet pepperbush, blueberry, and swamp azalea. Chain
43
-------
fern and various mosses and sedges are typical herbs. Flood-
plains are well defined, broad, flat valley surfaces that are
covered with water when streams overflow their banks. The
vegetation is much the same as that described for swamps in
the area, but also includes willows, sycamore, box elder, and
river birch (Robichaud & Buell, 1973).
The study area is located along the northern fringe of
the Pine Barrens. The pine-oak communities occur in areas of
excessive drainage. Pitch pine dominates in areas that have
had fires pass through, while oaks predominate in areas that
are wetter or untouched by fire. Black, scarlet, white,
chestnut, and post oaks represent the major species. In the
shrub layer, sassafras, huckleberry, blueberry, and cherry
are common (Robichaud & Buell, 1973).
Vegetative cover types outside the Pine Barrens area
include uplands or coastal mixed and broad-leafed varieties,
such as maple, black locust, black cherry, mulberry, and
various species of oak and birch (Monmouth County Environ-
mental Council, 1975).
Fauna
Fauna of the study area are varied. The proximity of the
ocean, the fact that the area is on the Atlantic flyway, and
the variety of available habitats provide for a diverse sea-
sonal and year-round bird community. Mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians are also well represented. A species list with
habitat preferences and the Allaire State Park Bird List are
included in Appendices J and K.
The study area includes habitats for species that have
been identified as threatened or endangered. One threatened
species, the Pine Barrens tree frog, and one endangered species,
the bog turtle, have been located within the study area by the
NJDEP Endangered Species and Non-game Project. Both the tree
frog and the bog turtle are included on the state list; the
former was located within Allaire State Park and Framingdale
and the latter in Allaire State Park. Appendix L presents a
complete list of threatened and endangered species that may
inhabit the study area.
AIR RESOURCES
Monmouth County is within the New Jersey-New York Inter-
state Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA). Present air quality
and projected growth have identified the area as one in danger
of exceeding National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
44
-------
for particulates, photochemical oxidants, and sulfur dioxide
during the ten-year period between 1975 and 1985. The State
of New Jersey is developing a plan for attaining and maintain-
ing air quality standards within the AQMA.
New Jersey has adopted the NAAQS established by EPA
(Table 12). In addition, the state has adopted secondary
standards for sulfur dioxide (0.02 ppm annual arithmetic mean,
0.10 ppm-24-hour concentration) and a standard for smoke shade
(3.0 COHS-24 hour which is a coefficient of haze per 1,000
lineal feet) as the alert criterion.
The eight-hour standard for carbon monoxide (CO) was
exceeded at both the Asbury Park and Freehold monitoring sites
in 1975 (Table 12). The high CO concentrations can be attri-
buted to high traffic density and resultant automobile exhaust
(Cress, 1977). The standard for photochemical oxidants was
also exceeded at the Freehold and Asbury Park sites. The
smoke shade standard was not exceeded at either of these sites,
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Environmentally sensitive areas are areas that contain
valuable natural and cultural resources. During planning and
subsequent development of an area, preservation of these
resources is an important consideration. Development or dis-
turbance of certain environmentally sensitive areas may result
in significant environmental, social and/or economic costs.
Loss of environmentally sensitive areas to development often
represents an irretrievable loss of limited, non-renewable re-
sources. Many environmentally sensitive areas are also impor-
tant recreational resources.
The EPA (1974) has identified criteria for areas to be
considered environmentally sensitive. These areas are mapped
in Figure 6 and described below. Chapter 3 will discuss
the limitations that each environmentally sensitive area pre-
sents to development, the environmental and economic costs of
such development, and the growth management tools available .
to guide decisions.
Surface Waters
The Manasquan River is an important recreational resource,
In addition, the Manasquan and its tributaries are classified
by NJDEP as trout maintenance waters from the Route 9 bridge
downstream to the Allenwood Lagoon. Since it is also antici-
pated that surface waters will be the source of additional
major water supplies in the near future, any direct action or
secondary effect of an action which might alter either water
quality or quantity would constitute a potentially significant
impact upon the water resources of the study area.
45
-------
TABLE 12
Air Quality Standards and Data
National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Maximum Values Recorded (1975)
Sulfur Oxides
annual arithmetic mean
24 hour concentration
3 hour concentration
Suspended Particulate Matter
annual geometric mean 75
24 hour concentration 260*
Carbon Monoxide
8 hour concentration
1 hour concentration
Photochemical Oxidants
1 hour concentration 160*
Hydrocarbons
(corrected for methane)
3 hour concentration
(6-9 am) 160*
Nitrogen Oxides
annual arithmetic mean 100
Primary
yg/cu m
80
365
ppm
0.03
0.14*
Secondary
yg/cu m ppm
1300* 0.5*
Asbury
Park
0.010 ppm
0.075 ppm
0.154 ppm
Freehold
ppm
0.012
0.070
0.143
Millstone
Township
yg/cu m
-
Red
Bank
yg/cu
-
Brielle
m yg/cu m
-
Jackson
Township
yg/cu m
-
60 - 50.3 yg/cu m
150* - 124 yg/cu m
9.0* same as primary 10.6 ppm
32.7
91
38.7
95
33.8
91
25.4
69
35.0*
0.08* same as primary
30.0 ppm
.203 ppm
**
12.6
19.1 .
**
0.310
0.24* same a primary
0.05 same as primary
* Not to be exceeded more than one a year
Sources: 1) 40 CFR 50
2) NJDEP, 1975
** Primary and Secondary Standard Exceeded
-------
PROPOSED RESERVOIR
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
FIGWE 6
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
-------
Wetlands
Wetlands (including marshes, swamps, bogs, and other low-
lying areas) are unique biological habitats of high aesthetic
and recreational value. They also moderate extremes in water-
flow, aid in the natural purification of water, and are often
areas of significant groundwater recharge.
Wetlands, as defined by EPA (EPA Policy Statement on
Protection of Nation's Wetlands 38 FR 84, May 2, 1973),
include marshes, swamps, bogs, and other low-lying areas
which during some period of the year will be covered in part
by natural nonflood waters. These wetlands occur throughout
much of the study area, with the majority located along rivers
and streams. Wetlands, as defined by the New Jersey Wetlands
Act of 1970 are located along the Manasquan River below the
Parkway Bridge (approximately 32 acres). The EPA policy on
wetlands is not to grant federal funds for wastewater treatment
facilities if construction may interfere with the wetland eco-
system, unless no other feasible alternative of lesser environ-
mental harm exists.
Swamps are distributed throughout the southern section
of the region, along the Manasquan River, North Branch Metede-
conk River, Hay Stack Brook, and sections of the Mingamahone
Brook. Bogs and cranberry bogs are found in the northern sec-
tion of Howell Township. An analysis of vegetation shows salt
marshes along the Manasquan River east of the Garden State
Parkway, indicating that this area is estuarine in nature.
Floodplains
Floodplains are defined as lowlands and relatively flat
areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including areas
subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any
given year (Executive Order 11988). Development of floodplains
often results in damage to structures built in the floodplain
and may increase the extent of flooding because it reduces the
area available to convey flood flows.
Floodplains have not been delineated by the State of New
Jersey (Chebra, 1977), but have generally been included in
Monmouth County's proposed stream corridor plan..
The USGS flood-prone area map (1970) has been used by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to prepare
flood hazard maps for each community within the study area.
Each of the five communities has joined the National Flood
Insurance Program. Wall Township, however, is the only commun-
ity that has developed a Flood Insurance Rate Map. All commun-
ities within the study area are expected to have special rate
maps prepared by 1980.
48
-------
Groundwater Recharge Areas
The study area is underlain by surficial unconfined aqui-
fers which are not used to a great extent, and artesian aqui-
fers which are the main source of water supply. Recharge areas
for the unconfined aquifers cover a major portion of the study
area but recharge areas for the artesian aquifers do not occur
in the study area. Surficial aquifers are recharged through
precipitation. They also contribute to base flow in streams.
Therefore, the amount of recharge area available will affect
potential yield from these aquifers and will affect base flow
in streams.
Steeply Sloping Land
Only small portions of the study area contain steeply
sloping lands. Areas of steep slopes may present limitations
to certain types of development. Special design considerations
are usually required for building homes on slopes greater than
15 percent and additional costs, both financial and environ-
mental, are involved. Excessive erosion and slumping can occur
if slopes are disturbed. Onsite sewage disposal and land dis-
posal of sewage sludge of effluent are often precluded on slopes
in excess of 15 percent.
Prime Agricultural Land
Prime agricultural lands are defined as Agricultural Soil
Classes I, II, and III and are generally found north of the
Manasquan River (N.J. Department of Agriculture, 1973). Dis-
tribution of these lands within the study area is as follows:
Freehold Township 2,463 ha (6,085 a)
Howell Township 1,000 ha (2,700 a)
Wall Township 678 ha (1,675 a)
Forests and Woodlands
One-half of Freehold Township, substantial portions of
Howell and Wall Townships, and a small part of Farmingdale
Borough are forested. Protected forested areas include
Allaire State Park and Turkey Swamp (state hunting and fishing
lands and county park land).
Rare and Endangered Species
The bog turtle, identified by NJDEP (1975) as endangered,
has been found within Allaire State Park. The Pine Barrens
tree frog, identified as threatened by NJDEP, has also been
found in Allaire State Park and in the vicinity of Farmingdale.
49
-------
Archeological and Historic Sites
The study area has archeological.and historic sites of
local, state, and national significance (Table 13 and Figure 6).
An archeological survey will be performed after a plan and
interceptor alignment have been selected, and modifications
will be made if sites on or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places are found.
Public Outdoor Recreation Areas
Parks, conservation areas, and other open space areas for
public use are scattered throughout the study area. The largest
public recreation areas in the study area are Allaire State Park
in Howell and Wall Townships, and Turkey Swamp Public Hunting
and Fishing Grounds in Freehold Township. The total area of
open space in the study area is 4,223 ha (10,431 a) (Table 14).
Many of the previously described environmentally sensitive
areas also represent important resources for passive recreation.
SOCIAL FACTORS
Social factors are of prime importance in water resource
management because the demand for water resources in an area
is a function of its existing and future development. Future
development, in turn, is partially determined by planning and
zoning, the influx of population, economic activity, and the
available transportation networks.
EXISTING LAND USE, PLANNING AND ZONING
Monmouth County has experienced extensive development in
its coastal areas, which are north and east of the study area.
In general, the rest of the county including the study area is
undeveloped in woodland, or in agricultural use. Strip devel-
opment and small subdivisions account for most of the develop-
ment that has taken place. The exception is the Route 9 access
corridor which cuts through Marlboro, .Manalapan, Freehold, and
Howell Townships. Major development has occurred along this
corridor throughout the county (Figure 7).
Land use planning for the MRRSA region is enforced at the
municipal level. However, state, regional, and county planning
agencies all have developed guidelines for the area. These
agencies have looked at the MRRSA region from different view-
points, resulting in slightly differing conclusions (Appendix M)
50
-------
TABLE 13
Archaeological and Historic Sites
Site
1
1 Boxwood Hall
2 General Clinton's Headquarters
3 Joel Parker House
4 Monmouth Battle Monument
5 Monmouth County Hall of Records
6 Monmouth County Historical Assn.
7 Old Baptist Cemetery
8 St. Peter's Episcopal Church
9 Buck Farm
10 Conover Farm
11 Elizabeth Oakley House
12 Indian Bridges
13 Marl Pits
14 Moore's Inn
15 Morgans Mills
16 One Room Schoolhouse
17 Rosewell
18 Smithburg Inn
19 West Freehold Schoolhouse
20 Aldelphia Cemetery
21 Aldelphia Methodist Church
22 Clayton & Ayres Burial Grounds
Site
23 Evergreen Cemetery^
24 First Baptist Church
25 First Methodist Meeting House
1
26 Our House Tavern
27 Pine Robbers Hideout
28 Squankum Cemetery
29 Wyckoff Mills
30 Good Enough House^
31 Wainwright House-*
32 Allenwood General Store
33 Deserted Village at Allaire
34 Deserted Village at Allaire
Historic District
35 Josia Allen House
36 Old Post Office
A-l Upper Experimental Farm Site
A-2 Lower Experimental Farm Site
A-3 Pasaquanaqua Site
A-4 Ardmore Site
A-5 Strickland Farm Site
A-6 Upper Manasquan Site
A-7 Ardmore Historic Dump
Note: From local historical society except:
State Inventory
State & Federal Register of Historic Sites
A-From Kardas & Larabee
51
-------
TABLE 14
Open Space
NAME OF FACILITY AREA
Hectares (Acres)
Existing Public and Quasi-Public Land
U. S. Naval Reservation 1,619 (4,000)
(Earle Ammunition Depot)
Brisbane Child Care Center 23 ( 57)
Conservation and Recreation Areas
Allaire State Park 1,060 (2,620)
Bayshore Conservation Area (County) 14 ( 35)
Camp Nomoco Girl Scout Camp 97 ( 240)
Camp Sacajamebi Girl Scout Camp 53 ( 130)
Camp Zehnder YMCA Camp 53 ( 130)
Duran Conservation Area (County) 36 ( 90)
Howell Park & Golf Course (County) 123 ( 303)
Rutgers Experimental Farm 81 ( 200)
Turkey Swamp Public Hunting & Fishing 749 (1,850)
Grounds (State)
Turkey Swamp Park (County) 202 ( 498)
Municipally Owned Open Space 113 ( 278)
Total 4,223 (10,431)
Source: Monmouth County Park System (1976)
52
-------
KEY
LAND UK
KVBOKD LAND
CEMETERY
KJBUC t OUASI-FUKIC UNO
COUNTY HUB. CCMKVM1ON
EXBTMG SMH LANDS
VMCAKT LAND 4 OMN SMd
}
4000
FIGURE 7
EXISTING LAND USE
(Sow*:*
I Study, Montnquon tain. 1974]
-------
All agencies show plans for intensive development of the
Route 9 corridor. They show a difference, however, in the
intensity of use in the Freehold Borough/Farmingdale corridor.
The state has planned for agricultural uses in western Free-
hold Township and low density residential uses for the Free-
hold/Farmingdale corridor, while the other agencies have
planned for medium density development in both of these areas.
Each of the communities in the study area has an adopted
zoning ordinance (Figure 8). In highly developed areas, zon-
ing reflects existing land use. In undeveloped areas, zoning
indicates the location of anticipated future development. A
summary of land use and zoning within each of the five munici-
palities is presented below.
Freehold Borough
The borough is almost totally developed. Existing zoning
comprises seven classes of residential areas, including apart-
ment and townhouse zones. Minimum lot sizes for single-family
dwellings range from 0.07 ha (0.17 a) to 0.12 ha (0.29 a).
Major commercial zones are located in the center of the bor-
ough at the intersection of Main and Trockmorton Streets. With
the exception of a small commercial manufacturing zone which is
surrounded by residential development along Manalapan Avenue,
all manufacturing zones are located on the periphery of the
borough, adjacent to residential zones.
Freehold Township
The township's major subdivision activity has taken place
just south of Freehold Borough within the triangle formed by
Routes 9, 537, and 524. Most of the residential development
has taken place on 0.27 ha (0.67 a) lots in the R-25 zones.
Most of the southern portion of the township is undeveloped
and designated rural residential (RR) or R-40 (0.9 dwelling
units per acre) (Table 15). There is some strip residential
development along collectors and minor arterial roads, and
there are four variable lot size districts, three of which are
presently undeveloped. Commercial zoning generally parallels
Route 9 with a large block southwest of the borough along the
proposed Route 33 bypass. The only manufacturing zone includes
a large continuous zone east of Freehold Borough lying along
the railroad right-of-way.
Howell Township
Howell Township is largely undeveloped, and zoned primarily
for agricultural and large lot (0.405 ha [1.0 a] residential
development (Table 16). The zoning ordinance (January, 1978)
54
-------
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
FIGURES
COMPOSITE ZONING
-------
Table 15
Freehold Township Zoning Ordinance
Maximum Gross
Density for Major
- Subdivisions Minimum
(Dwelling Units per Lot Size
Zone -Hectare (Acre) Sq m (Sq ft)
Residential
R-R
R-40 0.364 ( .9)
R-25 0.567 (1.4)
R-20 0.688 (1.7)
R-15 0.93 (2.3)
R-9 1.579 (3.9)
Business
B-l 0.567 (1.4)
B-2 1.579 (3.9)
B-3
B-4
B-5
Hospital
H-l
Industrial
M-l
M-2
P-l
Recreation
3,704
3,704
2,315
1,852
1,389
833
2,315
1,389
12,000
1,852
8,100
12,000
20,200
8,100
20,200
(40,000)
(40,000)
(25,000)
(20,000)
(15,000)
( 9,000)
(25,000)
(15,000)
(131,000)
(20,000)
(87,100)
(131,000)
(219,000)
(87,100)
(219,000)
Approximate
Area Vacant
Hectare (Acre)
1,968 (4,860)
2,018 (4,985)
300 ( 740)
81 ( 200)
24 ( 60)
51 ( 125)
RC
20,200 (219,000)
Source: Freehold Township Zoning Ordinance, 1969.
56
-------
TABLE 16
Zoning Classifications in Howell and Wall Township
Howell Township
Zone
Agriculture
A
Residential
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
Neighborhood Business
NB
Highway Business (HB)
Industrial (I)
Wall Township
Zone
Residential
R-R
R-60
R-30
R-20
R-10
Business
B-l
B-2
B-3
Industrial
M-l
M-2
Minimum
Sq m
4,034
1,852
1,389
925
463
1,389
4,034
12,101
Minimum
Sq m
8,067
5,556
2,778
1,852
926
1,852
1,852
3,704
8,067
8,067
Lot Size
( Sq ft)
(43,560)
(20,000)
(15,000)
(10,000)
( 5,000)
(15,000)
(43,560)
(130,680)
Lot Size
( Sq ft)
(87,120)
(60,000)
(30,000)
(20,000)
(10,000)
(20,000)
(20,000)
(40,000)
(87,120)
(87,120)
Approximate Area Vacant
Hectare (Acre)
7,010
(17,315)
93 ( 230)
314 ( 775)
22 ( 55)
0 (marginal)
Approximate Area Vacant
Hectare (Acre)
(Portion of Township in Study Area)
419
350
43
12
( 1,036)
( 865)
105)
29)
Source: Municipal Zoning Ordinances,
57
-------
includes small lot residential zones, mostly in the Metedeconk
drainage basin, and a cluster provision for R-2, R-3, and R-4
zones. Most of the areas zoned for less than one acre are
located in expected high growth areas (Route 9 corridor) or
adjacent to existing concentrations (Farmingdale Borough).
The township has two large tracts of state-owned land
(Allaire State Park and the Oak Glen Reservoir site) and the
Earle Naval Ammunition Dump is located within the township.
Commercial corridors are located along Routes 9 and 33.
Extensive strip development characterizes the Farmingdale-
Freehold corridor along Route 524. Industrial corridors are
located along both sides of the Pennsylvania and Jersey Cen-
tral Railroad rights-of-way.
Farmingdale Borough
The borough is an industrial center clustered around the
intersection of two rail lines (Penn Central and Jersey Central)
Very little land is available for further, development. Business
zones are located along West Main Street and along Main Street
(mostly north of the Jersey Central Railroad). Residential
uses are permitted in the business zones but neither commercial
nor residential uses are permitted in industrial zones. Resi-
dential minimum lot sizes range from 0.07 to 0.11 ha (0.17 to
0.28 a).
Wall Township
The major development within Wall Township has taken place
in its eastern coastal areas, and the portion of the township
within the study area contains little residential development.
Most of the area is Allaire State Park or owned by the State of
New Jersey. A portion is zoned rural residential with a mini-
mum lot size of 0.8 ha (2 a). State Highway 34 is zoned for
strip commercial development in the south and light industry
in the northern section of the Township. The remaining portion,
except for two residential areas, is generally undeveloped and
zoned for light industry and residential development with a
minimum lot size of 0.56 ha (1.38 a) (Table 16).
POPULATION
Monmouth County and neighboring Middlesex and Ocean Count-
ies have consistently registered higher than average growth
rates for the state. Ocean County, which is directly south of
the study area, shows the highest growth rate of all the Metro-
politan New Jersey counties (Table 17). Early development in
Monmouth County took place in areas adjacent to the ocean and
58
-------
TABLE 17
Population Growth in Monmouth and
Selected Counties, 1940-1970
July 1, 1976
Core
Hudson
Inner
Bergen
Essex
Union
Intermediate
Outer
Hunterdon
Sussex
Ocean
Persons Persons
Percent
Change
1940-1950
652,040 647,437 - 0.7
409,646 539,139 + 31.6
837,340 905,949 + 8.1
328,344 398,138 + 21.3
Middlesex
MONMOUTH
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
217,077
161,238
125,732
309,353
74,390
264,872 H
225,327 H
164,371 H
337,093 i
99,052 H
h 22
I- 48.8
h 30.7
h 8.9
I- 33.2
36,766
29,632
37,700
42,736 + 16.2
34,423 + 16.2
56,600 + 50.1
Persons
Percent
Change
1950-1960
STATE of New Jersey 4,160,200 4,835,300 + 16.2
Source: U. S. Census of Population, 1970
610,734 - 5.7
780,255 + 44.7
923,545 + 2.9
504,255 + 26.7
433,856 + 63.8
334,401 + 48.4
261,620 + 59.2
406,618 + 20.6
143,913 +45.3
54,107 + 26.6
49,225 + 43.1
108,200 + 91.2
6,066,800 + 25.5
Persons
609,266
898,012
929,986
543,116
583,813
459,379
383,454
460,782
198,372
69,718
77,528
208,500
7,168,400
Percent
Provisioi
nal
' Change Percent Change
1960-1970 1970-1976
- 0.2
+ 51.1
+ 0.7
+ 7.7
+ 34.6
+ 37.4
+ 46.6
+ 13.3
+ 37.8
+ 28.9
+ 57.4
+ 92.7
+ 18.2
606,190 -
910,865 +
924,830 -
550,515 +
612,370 +
482,190 +
406,665 +
471,175 +
207,315 +
74,525 +
87,390 +
261,750 +
7,431,750 +
0.5
1.4
0.6
1.4
4.9
5.0
6.1
2.3
4.5
6.9
12.7
25.5
3.7
-------
bays and in the older rural centers such as Freehold, Farming-
dale, Englishtown, and Allentown. A review of historical
growth trends indicates strong growth pressure in the study
area and surrounding municipalities (Table 19).
Residential development in the study area has generally
clustered in and around the Boroughs of Freehold and Farming-
dale and in an 5 sq km (2 sq mi) area in the southwestern
section of Howell Township. A review of available population
and housing data shows (MCPB, 1975):
Both boroughs have a large number of rental units :
approximately 30 percent of all dwellings in Farm-
ingdale and 40 percent in Freehold (1970).
Howell and Wall Townships have a large number of
seasonally vacant units.
Population Projections
Population projections for Monmouth County and the MRRSA
region are available from the State of New Jersey Department
of Labor and Industry (NJDLI), the Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission (TSRPC), Monmouth County Planning Board (MCPB), and
from previously conducted wastewater management studies (Dames
& Moore, 1973; Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974).
County Projections; The population projections for
Monmouth County have been consistently revised downward since
1968 (Figure 9). In 1969, the MCPB projected that county
population would be 1,025,000 in the year 2000, and in 1973
projected a population of 890,000 for the year 2000 (Clark,
1977). NJDLI (1975) projections are presented in four series
(I-IV) (Table 18).
TABLE 18
NJDLI Monmouth County Projections
Series 1980 1990 2000 2020
I
II
III
IV
478,505
503, 345
509,555
544, 000
504, 385
542 ,415
559,730
640 ,320
525,050
581,485
609,905
738,290
566, 380
659,625
710,625
979,880
60
-------
TABLE 19
Municipal Population Growth
Study Area
Farmingdale
Freehold Borough
Freehold Township
Howe11
Wall
1940 1950
609 775
6,952 7,550
2,459 3,442
4,039 6,696
4,383 7,386
1960
1970
July Percent Change
1976 1970-76
959
9,140
4,779
11,153
11,929
1,148
10,545
13,185
21,756
16,498
1,390
11,040
17,390
24,055
17,190
+21.1
+ 4.7
+ 31.9
+10.6
+ 4.2
Surrounding Communities
Coltsneck
Manalapan
Marlboro
Millstone
Upper Freehold
Neptune
New Shrewbury
(Tinton Falls Borough)
5,819
14,049
12,273
2,535
2,551
27,863
8,395
6,340
15,830
13,500
2,720
2,730
28,420
8,575
+ 9.0
+12.7
+10.0
+ 7.3
+ 7.0
+ 2.0
+ 2.1
Monmouth County
459,379 482,190
+ 5.0
Sources: U. S. Census of Population 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970
NJDLI Office of Business Economics July 1, 1976
Estimates of Population.
61
-------
110
100
90
80
70
SERIES IV
NJOll
2000
2010
2020
YEAR
FIGURE 9
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR MONMOUTH COUNTY
-------
Series I projections were developed using assumptions of zero
net migration and low fertility rates. This projection reflects
slow growth. Series II extrapolated the current growth rate
(1970-74) and assumed constant net migration equal to 1970-74
levels and reflects short term trends. Series III is an extra-
polation of long term trends (1900-1970) assuming continuance
of the long term average fertility, mortality, and migration
rates. Series IV presents adjusted projections to reflect the
county's growth potential (NJDLI, 1975).
The official TSRPC population projection for Monmouth
County in the year 2000 is 680,000 (1977). This projection
was developed utilizing several population models.
Municipal Projections: Population projections for muni-
cipalities are available from five sources. These projections
are presented in Figure 10.
NJDLI constructed a series of municipal projections. Using
their county-wide control totals (Series I-IV), population was
allocated to municipalities by various methods. For each muni-
cipality, projections were prepared through 1985 (Table 21).
MCPB used a ratio method that considers zoning capacities
and growth trends for their municipal projections (Clark, 1977)
(Table 22). Using this method, MCPB prepared a "population
dot map" showing expected location of their projected population
(Appendix N). Dames & Moore (1973) also projected population
in the study area through the year 2000 (Table 20). These pro-
jections for the municipalities utilized ratios developed from
state and county projections and applied them to adjusted fed-
eral projections. For those municipalities which are only
partially within the study area, the percentage of population
residing within the study area was assumed to remain constant.
TABLE 20
MRRSA Projections
Municipality 1970 1980 1990 2000
Farmingdale 1,148 1,689 2,221 2,605
Freehold Borough 10,545 10,101 9,876 9,688
Freehold Township (Part) 11,603 18,502 28,832 42,633
Howell 21,756 33,311 48,742 67,080
Wall (Part) 900 1,231 1,628 2, 031
Totals 45,952 64,834 91,299 124,037
INCLUDING PORTIONS OF WALL
& FREEHOLD TWSPS. OUTSIDE
OF STUDY AREA 63,132 88,709 123,480 165,089
Source: Dames & Moore, 1974.
63
-------
120-
110-
100-
1970
1976 1980
EST. POP.
YEAR
1990
2000
FIGURE 10
MUNICIPAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR MRRSA
(EXCLUDING WALL TOWNSHIP)
-------
TABLE 21
1985 Municipal Population Projections
Existing
Farmingdale
Freehold Borough
Freehold Township
Howell
Wall
Totals
Methodologies
Revised
Census .
Estimate
1970
1,148
10,185
13,185
21,756
16,498
Series
I
1,386
11,100
16,069
25,159
12,520
Series
II
1,689
11,544
19,000
28,035
18,456
Series
III
1,403
11,267
15,665
26,151
19,788
Series
IV
1,751
12,058
17,100
28,600
21,028
63,132
71,234
78,724
74,274
80,537
Series I - Community as a percent of the county population
(1970-1974) projected constantly over time from
NJDLI county estimates.
Series II - Projection of 1970-1974 trends.
Series III - Projection of long-term (1930-1970) trends of growth.
Series IV - Utilizes expected development patterns in public
and private sector based o n economic indications.
Source: NJDLI, 1975
TABLE 22
Municipal
Population Projections
Farmingdale
Freehold Borough
Freehold Township
Howell
Wall
TOTALS
Source: MCPB, 1973
1970
63,132
1976
1985
75,700
112,600
2000
1,148
10,545
13,185
21,756
16,498
1,310
10,960
18,830
26,060
18,540
1,700
11,500 .
30,600
37,400
31,400
2,500
12,500
48,000
57,000
47,500
167,500
65
-------
The Wastewater Management Study (Killam/Dames & Moore,
1974) projected population for the MRRSA region. Using the
NJDLI data and 1973 MCPB dot map for population distribution,
the report projected that the MRRSA region population would
be 96,906 by the year 2000 (Table 23).
TABLE 23
MRRSA Service Area Projections
Source: Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974.
In summary, NJDLI projections are significantly lower
than the other projections given for the period 1970 to 1985,
the only period for which all projections can be compared.
If the NJDLI projections were extrapolated linearly from
1985 to 2000, the total would be less than 100,000 persons,
which is close to the projections for the MRRSA region pre-
sented by Killam/Dames & Moore (1974) for that period.
TRANSPORTATION
The study area presently has good north-south access via
Routes 9 and 18 and the Garden State Parkway. Additional plans
call for the completion of 1-195 between Trenton and the Garden
State Parkway in Wall Township and construction of the Route 33
bypass from Route 33 to Route 9 around the Borough of Freehold.
Both of these projects will help the residential population to
reach employment locations more easily. In effect, this brings
jobs closer to the MRRSA region.
WASTEWATER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Within the study area, present wastewater management prac-
tices include both centralized collection and treatment and
individual (septic) systems. Centralized systems are both
municipally and privately owned.
66
-------
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
Table 24 shows design capacities and flows by source to
existing collection and treatment systems (Killam, 1974; NJDEP,
1977); Figure 11 shows plant locations and approximate discharge
points for these systems (Killam, 1978). Flows shown originate
from domestic and industrial sources and from infiltration.
Component flows shown in the tables may not add to total flows
because of different source documents. Infiltration and inflow
were analyzed by Killam Associates (1974, 1975, 1976). It was
found that in the collection systems of the Wynnewood Sewer
Company and Freehold Sewer Company, it would be cost-effective
to remove infiltration and inflow. The infiltration volume
found in the Freehold Borough collection system was not suf-
ficient to justify rehabilitation for removal. Per capita
wastewater flows from domestic and minor commercial sources
ranged from 265 to 492 liters per capita per day (Ipcd) to 70
to 130 gallons per capita per day (gcpd) prior to removal of
infiltration.
EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
Table 25 shows the characteristics of existing facilities
as surveyed by Killam Associates (1974). Table 26, showing
average daily mass discharge of biochemical oxygen demand and
nutrients, is presented for comparison with data on existing
stream quality. These daily average loads are based on data
collected by Killam Associates (1975), and by the NJDEP (1977),
Discharge points for these existing loads are shown in Figure
11.
ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Soil suitability for future septic systems is shown in
Figure 4. Generally, areas north of the Manasquan River are
suitable for septic system use with low density development,
while areas between the Manasquan and the Metedeconk Rivers
are less suitable for septic tank use.
In low density areas (Howell Township), individual septic
systems appear to be acceptable, but in higher density areas,
such as Farmingdale Borough, such systems are inadequate.
NONPOINT SOURCES
Nonpoint source pollution is introduced to water courses
by diffuse runoff and percolation. The following sources may
contribute to nonpoint pollution in varying degrees.
67
-------
TABLE 24
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Flows
CTl
oo
Plant
Freehold Borough
Wynnewood Sewer Co.
Freehold Sewer Co.
Levitt Co.
Silvermeade Trailer Pk.
Adelphia Sewer Co.
Howell High School
Farmingdale Gardens
Brisbane Treatment Center
Design Flow
cu m/day (mgd)
3030 (0.80) 1
1136 (0. 30) -1
3030 (0.80) 1
189 (0.05) -1
114 (0.03) -1
625 (0.165)1
242 (0.064)1
114 (0. 030)1
57 (0 . 015)1
Actual Flow at Plant in cu m/day (mgd)
Domestic
Industrial
Infiltration
795 ( .21) 3
2233 ( .59) 3
132 (.035)3
76 (.02) 2
166 (.044)
49 ( .013)3
23 (.006)3
57 ( .015)1
1779 ( .47)
Total
3634 (.96) 2 1514 (0.40) 3 454 (.12)2 5602 (1.48)
643 (.17)2 606 (0.16)
4012 (1.06)
132 (0.035)3
76 (0.02)4
166 (0.044)4
49 ( 0 . 0 1 3 )3
23 ( 0 . 0 0 6 )3
57 ( 0 . 0 15 J1
,, EAC Schoellkopf, N JDEP, Personal Communication, May 1977.
3 E. T. Killam, Infiltration/Inflow Analysis, June 1975 (modified to 1976 conditions).
4 E. T. Killam Infiltration/Inflow Analysis, May 1974.
E. T. Killam Supplemental Engineering Report, May 1975.
Sources: Killam, 1974, 1975; NJDEP, 1977.
-------
f S- /"
,T . . . N I t W
FREEHOLD BOROUGH
WYKKEMOD SEWER CO.
FREEHOLD SEWER CO.
FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP
SILVERMEADE TRAILED PARK
ADELPHI* SEWER CO.
HOWELL HIGH SCHOOL
FARMINGDALE GARDENS
BRISBANE TREATMENT CTR.
THOMPSON MEDICAL HOME
MAXIM SEWERAGE CORP.
MARC VILLAGE
WINDING BROOK MOBILE HOME
CRICKETT RESTAURANT
CHARMS CO.
MONMOUTH COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES *
FREEHOLD HOTEL
ROKEACH t SONS
FOSTER CANNING CO.
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
FIGURE 11
EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
HOLDING TANK - WASTES HAULED OFF-SITE FOR TREATMENT
-------
TABLE 25
Existing Treatment Facilities and Sludge Disposal
Plant
Freehold Borough
Wynnewood Sewer Co.
Freehold Sewer Co.
Levitt Co.
Silvermeade Trailer Pk
Adelphia Sewer Co.
Howell High School
Farmingdale Gardens
Brisbane Treatment Ctr
Thompson Medical Home
Maxim Sewerage Co.
Marc Village
Winding Brook
Crickett Restaurant
Howell Village
Farmingdale Assoc.
Treatment Method
Trickling filter
Secondary treatment
Modified activated sludge
Advanced physical-chemical
Activated sludge
Secondary treatment
Modified activated sludge
ND
Secondary with sand filters
Secondary with sand filters
Modified activated sludge
Secondary with sand filters
Secondary with sand filters
Modified activated sludge
ND
Evapotranspiration ,
percolation
Performance
85% BOD removal
Subject to upset
Adequate
High degree of
treatment
Meets standards
Adequate
Adequate
ND
ND
Subsurface
discharge
ND
ND
85% BOD removal
Inadequate
ND
ND
Sludge
Disposal
On-site
Landfill
Landfill/Ocean dump
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
ND
ND
ND - no data
Source: Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974
-------
TABLE 26
Estimated Discharge of BOD and Nutrients
All Values in kg/day (Ib/day)
Plant
Freehold Borough
Wynnewood Sewer Co.
Freehold Sewer Co.
Levitt Co.
Silvermeade Trailer Ct
Adelphia Sewer Co.
Howell High School
Farmingdale Gardens
Brisbane Treatment Ctr
Thompson Medical Home
BODs NH^-N
DEP
ETK
DEP
ETK
DEP
ETK
ETK
ETK
ETK
ETK
ET,K
ETK
327.
495.
52.
42.
152.
88.
3.
2 .
6.
0 .
0 .
0.
0
0
4
5
.0
3
0
0
9
4
4
5
( 721
(1092
( 115
( 93
( 336
( 195
( 6
( 4
( 15
( o
( o
( 1
.0)
.0)
.5)
.8)
.0)
.0)
.6)
.4)
. 3)
.9)
.9)
.1)
88
108
10
13
51
43
2
1
4
0
0
0
. 0
. 2
.0
. 8
. 0
. 5
.7
2
. 0
.2
. 2
.4
( 195
( 239
( 22
( 30
( 112
( 95
( 6
( 2
( 8
( o
( o
( o
.0)
.0)
.0)
.4)
.0)
.8)
.0)
.5)
.8)
.5)
.4)
.8)
1
28
0
2
2
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
NO^-N
. 3
. 9
. 2
.0
. 0
.1
. 1
.2
.03
. 1
( 3
(63
( o
( 4
( 4
(15
( o
( o
( 4
( o
( o
( o
.0)
.7)
)
.8)
.0)
.4)
)
.3)
.6)
.4)
.07)
.2)
23
47
3
5
6
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total P
. 0
.8
. 0
.9
. 0
. 4
. 03
. 4
.2
. 1
. 01
. 6
( 50
(105
( 6
( 13
( 13
( 47
( o
( o
( 4
( o
( o
( 1
.0)
.4)
.5)
.0)
.0)
.1)
. 08)
.8)
.8)
. 3)
.03)
.3)
Subsurface Discharge
-------
Table 26 (Cont'd.)
All Values in kg/day (Ib/day)
Plant
Maxim Sewerage Corp.
Marc Village
Winding Brook
Crickett Restaurant
Howell Village
Farmingdale Associates
Charms Co.
BOD5
NH3-N
NO3-N
Total P
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15.6 (34.7)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.4 (7.5)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.1 ( .3)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2 (0.4)
ND - No data
Sources: Killam, 1974; NJDEP, 1977,
-------
Precipitation - may include nitrate, ammonia, phos-
phorus, and contaminants from the air
Runoff from forests, meadows, and other undeveloped
land - may include nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus,
suspended solids, pesticides, herbicides, and
organic constituents
Runoff from agricultural land - may include the same
chemicals as forest runoff plus heavy metals and
bacteria
Runoff from urban areas - may include the same chem-
icals as agricultural land runoff plus trace elements
(e.g. PCB's), oils and grease, and phenols.
As indicated from the nonpoint sources listed above, the
land use of an area is a major factor in determining the quan-
tity of various pollutants introduced to streams and aquifers.
Estimates of areal loadings, based on several types of land
use, are shown in Table 27.
73
-------
TABLE 27
Relationship Between Land Use and Stream
Export of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
in the Manasquan River Basin
Land Use Type
Urban
2
Agricultural
Forest
4
Vacant
Totals
Area
ha (a)
2,200
4,500
8,400
1,800
16,900
( 5,400)
(11,000)
(21,000)
( 4,400)
(41,800)
Export of TN
kg/ha (lb/ a)
7.3 (6.
9.5 (8.
3.5 (3.
2.0 (1.
5)
5)
1)
8)
Total TN Export
kg/yr (Ib/yr)
16,000
43,000
29,000
3,600
91,600(
(35,000)
(95,000)
(64,000)
( 7,900)
201,900)
Export of TP
kg/ha (Ib/a)
0.35
0.27
0.09
0.07
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
31)
24)
08)
06)
Total TP Export
kg/yr. (ib/yr)
770
1,200
760
130
2,860
(1,700)
(2,600)
(1,700)
( 290)
(6,290)
> 40 percent urban; in Manasquan basin, 53 percent of this land is estimated as
high density residential or commercial/industrial.
> 90 percent agricultural land, < 3 percent urban land.
> 90 percent forest, < 2 percent agriculture, < 1 percent urban land.
> 75 percent unproductive cleared land.
Source: Omernik, 1977
-------
CHAPTER 3
POPULATION GROWTH
Employment, economic conditions, and social considerations
can stimulate population growth and development within an area.
Uncontrolled development in areas that are considered either
environmentally sensitive or where development would contribute
to the loss or degradation of valuable natural resources is
undesirable. Environmentally sensitive areas were identified
in Chapter 2. Constraints to growth, either natural or imposed,
can protect these areas and are in the best interest of the
public.
The following discussion summarizes these constraints to
growth and presents a population forecast for the MRRSA study
area .
LOCAL ZONING
The most important factors influencing population growth
and development in an area are local zoning ordinances. These
local restrictions are far more effective than county, region-
al, state, and federal constraints in terms of determining
where future populations will locate. They place a great deal
of responsibility on local officials to assure that growth
will occur in a sound manner and that the land holding capacity
of the area is not exceeded. Individual zoning ordinances in
the MRRSA study area are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
FLOODPLAINS
Development on floodplains increases the potential for
loss of life and property due to flooding. Under Executive
Order 11988, agencies of the federal government are directed
to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incom-
patible development in the floodplains. These agencies must
avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development.
Therefore, programs which provide federal funds for infra-
structure investments (such as sewerage facilities) are ef-
fectively prohibited from supporting growth in the floodplain
75
-------
A National Flood Insurance Program is administered by
HUD (see Appendix O). Each of the five communities within
the study area has joined the National Flood Insurance Program.
Wall Township is in the regular phase of the program and the
remaining communities are in the emergency phase. Maximum
annual insurance costs to residents in the emergency and regu-
lar phase communities are $137.50 and $365.00 (structural
damage insurance only), respectively.
WETLANDS
Wetlands are a unique, valuable, and irreplaceable national
resource. They provide habitat for wildlife, moderate extremes
in waterflow, aid in the natural purification of water, and
maintain and recharge groundwater resources. Executive Order
11990 directs federal agencies to avoid construction or develop-
ment on wetlands.
The COE, under its 404 Permit Program, requires an environ-
mental review and permit for proposed filling operations in any
wetlands. During the environmental review, the COE coordinates
its review with EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PUBLIC LANDS AND ARCHAEOLOGIC OR HISTORIC SITES
Development on public lands is restricted to uses approved
by and for the benefit of the general public. It is assumed
that public lands in the MRRSA region will not be sold to
private owners.
Archaeologic and historic sites that have been placed
on the National Register of Historic Places or on the State
of New Jersey Register are significant to the general public
and their destruction is not considered feasible for the pur-
poses of this study.
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
These lands are especially suited to highly productive
agricultural use. Several agencies have called for a concerted
effort to aid in the preservation of prime agricultural land.
These opinions are contained in a report by the Blueprint
Commission on the Future of New Jersey Agriculture (NJBC, 1973).
This report recommends the preservation of prime agricultural
land (soils of SCS suitability Classes I, II & III) in the State
of New Jersey. Though it recognized the need in certain cases
to purchase the land or the development rights in order to aid
preservation, and presented recommendations for a solution,
76
-------
a state-wide policy has not been implemented. A limited trial
program has been instituted in Burlington County where five
million dollars in State Green Acre Funds is being used to
preserve prime agricultural land through the purchase of
development rights. The state is not contemplating any further
commitment of money (Hall, 1977).
Development on prime agricultural lands, though considered
generally undesirable, has no present institutional limitations,
Municipalities can effectively preserve land through enactment
of a clustering provision within their zoning ordinances al-
lowing the transfer of development rights. This concept
(Lloyd, 1961) is not currently being applied to preservation
of prime agricultural land in the MRRSA region.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AREAS
Development on groundwater recharge areas could adversely
affect groundwater quality and quantity. Development on areas
where prime aquifers are recharged is not constrainted by
legal or institutional convenants. Preservation of these
areas can be accomplished at the local level through enact-
ment of a transfer of development rights provision within
the local zoning ordinances. Within the MRRSA region these
recharge areas are very limited and at present unprotected.
OTHER SENSITIVE AREAS
Other sensitive areas within the study area which impose
severe environmental constraints on development include steep
slopes and soils with severe constraints to construction (see
Figure 4). These areas are also currently unprotected.
AREAWIDE RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
Areawide resource constraints impose restrictions over
a general area rather than within specific locations. There
are four areawide constraints significant to the study area:
water supply, nonpoint source pollution, energy resources,
and air quality. The relationship of these constraints to
population growth is discussed below.
WATER SUPPLY
Water supply in the study area is derived entirely from
groundwater. Present pumpage is approximately 26,000 cu m/d
77
-------
(7 mgd) (Killam, 1970; Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974). Several
of the deep aquifers are severely stressed and it is unlikely
that they will be further developed. Installation of high
capacity wells to tap shallow aquifers seems unlikely since,
as previously described, surface water flow in the Manasquan
and consequently the proposed reservoirs, could be reduced.
The State of New Jersey has acquired land to develop a
reservoir system in the Manasquan basin to meet future water
supply needs. The preliminary estimated yield to the study
area for the year 2000 is approximately 38,000 cu m/d (10 gpd).
The estimated total available supply for the study area in the
year 2000 is approximately 72,000 cu m/d (19 mgd) which is
capable of supporting a population of 128,400. Using the per
capita consumption rate of 560 Ipcd (148 gpcd) (including
commercial/industrial consumption, estimated by Killam/Dames
& Moore, 1974), the reservoir system plus existing groundwater
withdrawal rights from unstressed aquifers could also support
the population projected for 2020.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Land use projections indicate that nearly all agricultural
land and smaller amounts of forest and vacant land could be
transformed into other types of development. A large increase
in the amount of urban land is projected. Since urban land
use is a large nonpoint source of pollutants, future land use
could contribute even greater nonpoint source loadings than
those associated with present conditions (Table 28). The in-
creases would be caused by the loss of forest and vacant land
which tend to contribute smaller loadings than urbanized land.
As part of the on-going 208 Areawide Water Quality Management
studies being conducted by the NJDEP, nonpoint sources will
be investigated and controls implemented, where necessary and
practical (see Appendix 0).
ENERGY RESOURCES
Continued increases in price or reductions in supply of
petroleum products could affect population growth. The major
form of transportation in the area is automobile. Historically,
the easy access of Monmouth County to other areas of metropoli-
tan New York and New Jersey by automobile has made the area
extremely attractive for residential location. A fuel crisis
could alter this attractiveness.
The study area, however, is close the New York City and
existing commuter lines could support increased usage if de-
mand exists. Unless an extremely severe energy crisis occurs,
energy resource constraints will not be a significant factor
determining population growth.
78
-------
TABLE 28
Land Use
Type
Urban
Agricultural
For est
Vacant
Present and Estimated Future Land Use
and their Relationship to Stream Export of
Total Nitrogen & Phosphorus
Present Area
ha (a)
2,200 (5,400)
4,500 (11,000)
8,400 (21,000)
1,800 (4,400)
Present Export
TN kg/yr
TP (Ib/yr)
16,000 (35,000)
770 (1,700)
43,000 (95,000)
1,200 (2,600)
29,000 (64,000)
760 (1,700)
3 ,600
130
(7,900)
(290)
Estimated
Future Area
ha (a)
11,000 (26,000)
53 (132)
5,700 (14,000)
690 (1,700)
Future Export
TN kg/yr
TP (Ib/yr)
80,000
3 , 900
500
14
20,000
500
1 ,400
48
(180,000)
(8,600)
(1,100)
(31)
(44,000)
(1,100)
(3,000)
(100)
Totals
91,600 (201,900)
2,860 (6,290)
101,900 (228,100)
4,462 (9,831)
1 E. T. Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974
-------
AIR QUALITY
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have
been established by EPA, as mandated by the Clean Air Act of
1970. Primary ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health. Secondary ambient air quality
standards are designed to protect the public welfare and to
avoid adverse effects on human comfort and enjoyment, wildlife,
vegetation, property, and visibility. Primary and secondary
NAAQS are shown on Table 29. Areas meeting NAAQS are also
subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. These pro-
visions limit the allowable incremental increase in air
pollutant concentrations even if the total level is below
RAAQS. Federal agencies are required to insure that their
actions do not contribute to a significant deterioration of
air quality or a violation of NAAQS.
The TSRPC inventoried air pollutant emissions in the study
area in 1974 and made projections of emissions expected in the
year 2000 (Table 29). The 1974 emissions are based upon the
existing population (which are considered areawide or nonpoint
sources) and an inventory of existing point sources, including
major manufacturing plants. Projected emissions likewise
included point and nonpoint sources; the nonpoint emissions
used in this analysis were based on the TSRPC population pro-
jection of 680,000 for Monmouth County in the year 2000.
TABLE 29
Present and Projected Air Pollutant Emissions
In Manasquan Study Area
Pollutant
Sulfur dioxide (SO '
Point
Nonpoint
Total
Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP)
Point
Nonpoint
Total
Source: Winslow, 1977
1974 1974
MT /Yr (tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
1
. 266
.585
.851
.715
.702
.417
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(1
.293)
.644)
.937 )
.788)
.773)
.561)
2000
MT / Yr
0 . 284
0 .950
1. 234
0.292
1. 285
1. 578
2000
[tons/yr;
(0.313)
(1.046)
(1.359)
(0 .322)
(1.416)
(1 .738)
Using this population, sulfur dioxide (SO.,) emissions are pro-
jected to increase by 45 percent and suspended particulates
emissions to increase by 11 percent.
80
-------
Air quality models commonly in use (Turner, 1970; Hanna,
1971; Gifford and Hanna, 1973; Busse and Zimmerman, 1973; and
Holzworth, 1972) all assume that pollutant concentrations in
the atmosphere are directly proportional to the rate of emis-
sion of that pollutant. If the emission rate of a pollutant
is doubled, then the ambient concentration of that pollutant
will double. Therefore, ambient air quality in the study
area for the year 2000 was projected based upon the change in
the emissions. Other factors, such as meteorology and re-
lease height, were assumed to remain constant. As indicated
in Table 30, primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
will not be exceeded.
Air quality analyses must also consider PSD regulations.
These regulations limit the incremental increase in air pollutants
even if the total level is below a NAAQS. The PSD analysis for
the study area indicates that the allowable increments of
S0_ and TSP will not be exceeded in the year 2000, as shown
below.
Allowable Projected
Increase Increase
u m) (u9/cu m)
SO - Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 14.4
24 hour maximum 91 82.4
TSP - Annual Geometric Mean 19 5.8
24 hour maximum 37 13.6
LAND HOLDING CAPACITIES
When evaluating population projections and secondary im-
pacts, one must determine whether the area can support further
growth in an environmentally sound manner. This requires formu-
lation of land holding capacity. This capacity is related
to the legal and resource constraints previously discussed.
The land holding analysis requires the delineation of vacant
land and vacant developable land (VDL). Development can occur
on VDL without exceeding the area's land holding capacity.
81
-------
TABLE 30
Predicted Air Quality in the Manasquan Study Area
00
NJ
Pollutant
and Location
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Freehold
Ave raging
Time
Annual arith-
metic average
National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
(Mg/cu m)
Primary Secondary
80
1975
Existing
Air
Quality
(Mg/cu m)
32
Percent
Change in
Emissions
+ 45%
2000
Pro j ec ted
Air
Quality
(yg/cu m)
46.4
24 hour max.
365
183
+ 45%
265.4
Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP)
Asbury Park
Annual geo-
metric average
75
60
50. 3
+ 11%
55 .8
24 hour max.
260
150
124
+ 11%
137 . 6
-------
Vacant land within the study area is determined by re-
moving areas of existing development, all public lands, and
all surface waters from the total available land pool. The
VDL is then determined by simply removing environmentally
sensitive areas from the vacant land pool.
The areas of Farmingdale and Freehold Boroughs were not
included in this analysis because of their small size and
lack of vacant land. Estimates of vacant land and VDL are
given in Table 31.
TABLE 31
Total Vacant Land in the Manasquan Study Area
Total Vacant -Land
Municipality Hectares (Acres)
Vacant Developable Land
Total = Prime Ag. + Other
Freehold Twp. 6,500 (16,000) 4,000 (9,700) 2,500 (6,000) .1,500 (3,600)
Howell Twp. 12,000 (28,600) 4,600 (11,000) 1,000 (2,700) 3,500 (8,500)
Wall Twp. 1,400 (3,400) 1,200 (2,900) 600 (1,700) 500 (1,200)
Totals 19,900 (48,000) 9.800 (23,600) 4.100 (10,400) 5,500 (13,300)
Land Holding capacity estimates were determined by five
different methods, each using its own set of assumptions. The
assumptions used for each method are shown in Table 32. In
each method, holding capacity on vacant land is added to the
present population, resulting in a total land holding capacity
estimate.
Land holding capacity estimates calculated according to
each method are shown in Table 33. Method I results in an es-
timated capacity of 140,550 people. Method II deletes environ-
mentally sensitive land, but results in the same capacity as
Method I because zoning provisions allow for clustering of
development. Method III represents the TSRPC's official esti-
mate (240,575) of ultimate capacity in the study area. It
does not recognize local planning or environmental constraints,
but reflects adopted policy goals of TSRPC. Method IV which
removes prime agricultural land from development and assumes
residential development of the remaining vacant land results
in an estimated capacity of 199,310 people. Method V incorpor-
ates full development of prime agricultural land and results
in an estimated capacity of 309,810 people.
83
-------
TABLE 32
Methods I-V Assumptions
METHOD I
reflects saturation zoning
complete development of vacant residentially zoned
land
80 percent development efficiency
average housing density will be equivalent to minimum
lot size
average population density of 3.2 people/dwelling unit
METHOD II
reflects saturation zoning
complete development of vacant land zoned residential
and suitable for development
80 percent development efficiency
average housing density equivalent to minimum lot
size unless zoning ordinance allows transfer of
density from unsuitable land to an alternative site
average population density of 3.2 people/dwelling unit
METHOD III
policy goals of Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
METHOD IV
total residential development of vacant developable
land
prime agricultural land not included within vacant
developable land pool
80 percent development efficiency
50 percent of land will develop at a density of 2
units per acre; 50 percent will develop at a density
of 8 units per acre
population density of 3.2 persons per dwelling unit
at a 2-unit/acre density and 2.5 persons per dwelling
unit a.t an 8-unit/acre density
vacant unsuitable land will develop at an average
density of 6 acres per unit with an average population
density of 3.2 persons per unit
84
-------
TABLE 32 (CONTINUED)
Methods I-V Assumptions
METHOD IV
prime agricultural land is not developed
METHOD V
total residential development of vacant developable
land
prime agricultural land included within vacant
developable land pool
80 percent development efficiency
50 percent of land will develop at a density of 2
units per acre; 50 percent will develop at a density
of 8 units per acre
population density of 3.2 persons per dwelling unit
at a 2-unit/acre density and 2.5 persons per dwelling
unit at an 8-unit/acre density
vacant unsuitable land is developed at an average
density of 6 acres per unit with an average population
density of 3.2 persons per unit
85
-------
In summary, the most restrictive capacity is determined
by iMethods I and II (Table 33).
TABLE 33
Land Holding Capacities
Method Method Method Method Method
Municipality I II III IV y
Freehold Twp. 53,320 53,320 74,893 59,550 123,800
Howell Twp. 82,020 82,020 151,748 125,460 154,010
Wall Twp. 5,210 5, 210 13,934 14,300 32,000
Totals 140,550 140,550 240,575 199,310 309,810
POPULATION FORECAST
Recent projections for the year 2000 for Monmouth County
range from 680,000 to 890,000 people (see Chapter 2). This
wide range in estimates coupled with differing projections
in the MRRSA wastewater management studies (Dames & Moore,
1973 and Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974) mandated a re-analysis
for this EIS.
The population forecast is based on economic trends and
expected shifts in population location, using two projection
methods: a linear extrapolation of short-term trends and a
linear extrapolation of long-term trends (Figures 12 and 13).
A comparison of these projections with the Monmouth County
Planning Board projections (MCPB, 1974) indicates that the
MCPB figures exceed the others (Table 34).
The long-and short-term trends show strong growth rates
in Freehold, Howell, and Wall townships since 1960. Based
on this and on the increased access to the MRRSA region
which 1-195 and the Route 33 bypass will provide, growth in
the future is expected to reflect the trend over the past
fifteen years.
86
-------
,HOWEU TWSP.
40-
30-
-20-
$8800
TWSP.
..FREEHOLD TWSP.
V
..--'I2440
j FREEHOLD BORO
j 14100
FARMINGDALE
BORO.
1940
1950
2000
2010
FIGURE 12
LINEAR PROJECTION OF 1940-1970 POPULATION GROWTH
-------
50-
40-
30-
«-i
X
20-
10.
1970
485001 ^*"
^'f
44500Jxx''
,HOWELL TWSP.
FREEHOLD TWSP.
X
,'''
26500J -
WALL TWSR
12500
FREEHOLD BORO.
14721
FARMINGDALE
BORO.
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
FIGURE 13
LINEAR EXTRAPOLATION OF POPULATION GROWTH
BASED ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
-------
TABLE 34
Projections of Year 2000 Population Based on
Long-and Short-Term Trends of Growth,
and Monmouth County Planning Board Projections
Long-Term Short-Term Monmouth County
Planning Board
Municipality 1940-1970 1970-1976 Proj actions
Farmingdale (B) 1,500 1,472 2,500
Freehold (B) 14,100 12,500 12,500
Freehold (Twp.) 24,000* 44,500* 48,000*
Howell (Twp.) 39,800 48,500 57,000
Wall (Twp.) 28,800* 26,500* 47,500*
*Includes areas outside of study area
The following assumptions were used to modify extra-
polation of trend data in order to develop a forecast of
population for the MRRSA study area:
development pressure will continue throughout the
planning period
the cumulative effects of the various factors in-
fluencing growth will cause a maintenance of trends
(1960-1975) through 1990
between 1990 and 2000, the growth rate will decrease
from previously high levels paralleling the estimated
county average
from the year 2000 through the year 2020, continued
suburbanization is expected to occur at a rate slower
than the rate between 1990 and 2000
the Boroughs of Freehold and Farmingdale are expected
to reach a fully developed residential population by
1990. In addition, the Borough of Freehold will
undergo major housing redevelopment after 1990
allowing an expected added capacity of approximately
2,000 persons
the portion of Freehold Township (88 percent) within
the study area is expected to receive the vast majority
of the future growth (an estimated 80-90 percent)
89
-------
the portion of Wall Township within the study area
is expected to reach its zoned capacity by the end
of the planning period
Based on these assumptions, growth within the MRRSA study
area will be lower than projected by the Monmouth County
Planning Board (1974) and Dames & Moore (1973). The forecast
is approximately the same as that presented in the Wastewater
Management Study (Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974).
The forecast for the year 2020 is below the figures deter-
mined by Methods I and II of the land holding capacity
analysis for Howell Township and those portions of Freehold
and Wall Township within the MRRSA study area. Table 35 shows
distribution of the projected year 2020 population by drainage
basin and general location within each municipality.
90
-------
TABLE 35
Municipality
Farmingdale (B)
Freehold (B)
Freehold Twp. (Part)
Howe11 Twp.
Wall Twp. (Part)
Subtotals
Distribution of Population Forecast
1970
Metedeconk
700
14,000
14.700
Manasquan
North of
Route 9
South of
Route 9
1,148
10,545
6,900 4,700
7,600
800
17,445
4,700
31,693
1985
Manasquan
Metedeconk
North of
Route 9
South of
Route 9
1,100
21,000
150
22,250
1,400
11,200
10,100 15,500
13,850
1,700
21,300
15,500
53,750
TOTALS
46,393
76,000
-------
Municipality
TABLE 35
(Continued)
1995
Metedeconk
Manasguan
North of
Route 9
South of
Route 9
2000
Metedeconk
Manasguan
North of
Route 9
South of
Route 9
Farraingdale
Freehold (B)
Freehold Twp. (Part)
Howe11 Twp.
Wall Twp. (Part
Subtotals
1,920
25,220
360
27,500
1,440
12,260
13,000 17,800
20,000
3,000
25,260 17,800
67,500
3,000
26,000
700
29,700
1,450
12,500
14,000 19,500
21,500
3,300
26,500 19,500
72,250
TOTALS
95,000
101,950
-------
TABLE 35
ID
OJ
Municipality
Farmingdale (B)
Freehold (B)
Freehold Twp. (Part)
Howe11 Twp.
Wall Twp. (Part)
Subtotals
TOTALS
(Continued)
2020
Metedeconk
3,750
31,750
1,300
36,800
Manasguan
North of
Route 9
South of
Route 9
1,400
13,500
18,125 22,125
26,250
3,900
31,625 22,125
85,300
122,100
-------
CHAPTER 4
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes and evaluates the preliminary
wastewater management options available for the MRRSA study
area. A description of future needs for wastewater manage-
ment is presented, management options are examined, and those
conceptual alternatives that are not capable of meeting the
needs of the study area and the goals of the Clean Water Act
and other federal and state requirements (Appendix 0) are
eliminated. The conceptual alternatives are then combined
with a group of selected component waste management options
to form a list of feasible system alternatives. The chapter
ends with an evaluation and comparison of the system alter-
natives that appear most environmentally sound, cost-effective,
and implementable.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREAS
The study area can be divided into service areas based
on present method of wastewater management, present and future
population density, environmental sensitivity, and soil
suitability for private septic systems. Figure 14 divides
the study area into twenty-three sub-basins and identifies
areas which may require centralized and decentralized service.
In addition, the study area is divided into three general
areas: upper service area, lower service area, and North
Branch Metedeconk basin.
CENTRALIZED SEWERAGE SERVICE AREAS
Freehold Borough
The borough, which has sewerage, will continue to require
centralized service.
Freehold Township
Areas presently receiving centralized service and areas
committed to industrial and commercial development will require
94
-------
UPPER MANASQUAN RIVER
BASIN SERVICE AREA
LOWER MANASQUAN RIVER
BASIN SERVICE AREA
X
METEDECONK RIVER
BASIN SERVICE AREA
SCALE
10000(1
3000m
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF POSSIBLE
I DECENTRALIZED SERVICE AREAS
FIGURE 14
POSSIBLE DECENTRALIZED
SERVICE AREAS
-------
centralized service. Residential areas zoned for more than
0.4 dwelling unit per hectare (1 unit per acre) will also
require centralized service.
Farmingdale Borough
Because of existing septic system failures at present
density, the Borough of Farmingdale has received a facility
planning grant to determine if a sewage collection system is
required. A septic tank survey will be undertaken and the
facility plan will be coordinated with the final EIS.
Howell Township
Areas committed to industrial development, commercial
development, and moderate-density residential development
will require centralized service.
Wall Township
Residential areas zoned for more than 1 unit per hectare
(3 units per acre) will require centralized services.
DECENTRALIZED SERVICE AREAS
Most areas designated decentralized in Figure 14 will
be served by private septic systems. Plans for some of
these areas could be modified by zoning changes, unsuitable
soil conditions, and cluster development provisions.
Freehold Township
The areas within Sub-basins XIV and XV are located too
far from existing and proposed development to require cen-
tralized sewerage services. They are zoned for large lot
(acre) development, and although a cluster provision exists,
it is doubtful that high density growth will occur in this
area.
Howell Township
One area, located in northwestern Howell (sub-basins
III, XIV and XIX), is designated for decentralized service
because of its large-lot zoning and its isolation from exist-
ing development. Another area in central Howell Township
(Sub-basins III, V, VI, and VII) is designated for decentral-
iz.ed service because it is prime agricultural land and develop-
ment of this area is considered to be undesirable. Two
96
-------
additional areas of Howell Township, presently zoned for
large-lot development, are isolated from existing development
patterns and will not require centralized service.'
Wall Township
A small section of Wall Township is designated for decen-
tralized service because of its isolation from existing devel-
opment and its present zoning.
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS
Flow projections for various portions of the MRRSA service
area were developed using population projections prepared for
the years 1995 and 2020 (Table 35), present zoning requirements,
and the population distribution studies prepared by the Monmouth
County Planning Board.
Wastewater flows from presently sewered areas are shown
on Table 36. Design year (1995) flows and ultimate capacity
(2020) were established for sub-basins of the Manasquan and
Metedeconk basins within the study area (Tables 37 and 38).
Year 1995 flows are utilized to project various design flows
for subregional and regional WTP alternatives (Figure 14) and
ultimate flows (2020) are used to size interceptor and force
main facilities.
A review of previous wastewater reports including infil-
tration/inflow analyses and discussions with NJDEP and EPA
yielded per capita residential flow factors for the study
area (Appendix Q):
Borouth of Freehold - 340 Ipcd ( 90 gpcd)
Freehold Township - 380 Ipcd (100 gpcd)
Remainder of study area - 300 Ipcd ( 80 gpcd)
An allowance of 9,400 Ipd/ha (1,000 gpd/a) and 1,900 Ipd/ha
(200 gpd/a) for existing and proposed industrial and commer-
cial development, respectively, has been applied to environ-
mentally sound industrial and commercial zoned land in the
study area (Appendix R).
A summary of anticipated wastewater flows at key loca-
tions corresponding to subregional and regional service
configurations for the design year 1995 is contained in
Table 39).
97
-------
TABLE 36
Existing Wastewater Flows Based on
Treatment Plant Records
I. SUBREGIONAL (Upper Section)
Average Daily Flow (1972-73)
Treatment Plant cu m/d (mgd)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Freehold Borough
Wynnewood Sewer Company
Freehold Sewer Company
Freehold Township
Silvermeade Trailer Park
Adelphia Sewer Company
Charms Company
Monmouth County Social Service Bldg.
Freehold Hotel (Sheraton)
Ardmore Development
SUBTOTAL
5,393 (1.440)
1,030 (0.275)
2,770 (0.740)
112 (0.030)
71 (0.019)
165 (0.044)
225 (0.060)
19 (0.005)
75 (0.020)
187 (0.050)
10,050 (2.683)
II. SUBREGIONAL (Lower Section)
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Howell Twp. High School
Farmingdale Garden Apartments
Brisbane Treatment Center
Thompson Medical Home
Rokeach - Foster Canning
Farmingdale Borough
SUBTOTAL
49 (0.013)
22 (0.006)
56 (0.015)
67 (0.018)
326 (0.087)
491 (0.131)
1,011 (0.27 )
III. REGIONAL (Upper and Lower Section)
TOTAL
11,060 (2.953)
IV. METEDECONK BASIN (O.C.S.A. Northern Service Area)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Maxim Sewerage Co.
Marc Village
Winding Brook Park
Crickett Restaurant
Aldrich-Lake Development
1,528 (0.408)
187 (0.05 )
26 (0.007)
15 (0.004)
.749 (0.200)
TOTAL 2,505 (0.669)
Source: Kill am, 1978.
98
-------
TABLE 37.
Flow Estimates - 1995
Manasquan
Estimated
River Basin 1995
Section
I
II
III
IVA
rvB
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
Population
467
1,147
1,657
2,436
170
1,951
806
680
-
170
510
1;869
5,807
2,591
5,692
11,257
6,669
5,437
1,190
4,927
12,067
1995
Service
Population
93
174
873
2,436
170
1,887
316
354
-
43
510
1,869
4,564
891
4,384
10,603
6,669
5,339
1,190
4,469
12,067
Industrial
Acres1
ha
_
51
160
101
65
-
5
-
-
-
30
-
Ill
51
50
-
-
227
21
-
-
(ac)
_
(126)
(395)
(251)
(161)
-
(12)
-
-
-
(75)
-
(275)
(126)
(123)
-
-
(561)
(53)
-
-
Commercial
Acres^
ha
6
7
12
15
-
_
-
13
-
-
-
3
44
-
48
36
93
32
15
-
-
(ac)
(15)
(18)
(30)
(36)
-
-
-
(33)
_
_
-
(8)
(108)
-
(118)
(88)
(230)
(78)
(37)
-
-
Residential Flow
6 0.38 cu m pcpd @ 0.34 cu m pcpd
(100 gpcpd)
cu
.
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
4,013
2,524
2,021
450
1,692
-
m (gal)
.
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
(1,060,300)
(666,900)
(533,900)
(119,000)
(446,900)
-
(90 gpcpd)
cu m (gal)
.
. -
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
-.
-
-
-
Sub-Total 67,500
Metedeco-ik
River
Basin
XXI
XXII
XXIII
Sub-Total
Total
2,970
23,843
687
27,500
95,000
58,901
1,371
21,462
687
23,520
82,421
873 (2,157) 324 (801)
10,700 (2,827,000) 4,111 (1,086,030)
7 (17) - -
41 (101) 89 (220) - -
41 (101) 96 (237) ' - -
914 (2,258) 420(1,038) 10,700 (2,827,000) 4,111 (1,086,030)
'Nestle Company
-1- 35% of total for sub-basins; II, III, IVA, IVB, XIV, XVII, XVIII, 20 for all others
-2- 30% of total for all sub-basins
Industrial Flow
@ 0.30
(80
cu m
28
53
264
738
52
571
96
107
13
154
566
1,382
270
1,327
_
._
_
_
_
5,621
415
6,499
208
7,21:
12,743
cu m pcpd
gpcpd)
(gal)
(7,440)
(13,920)
(69,840)
(194,880)
(13,600)
(150,960)
(25,280)
(28,320)
(3,440)
(40,800)
(149,520)
(365,120)
(71,280)
(350,720)
_
_
_
_
(1,485,120)
(109,680)
(1,716,960)
(54,960)
(1,881,600)
(3,366,720)
@ 9.35 cu m pd/ha
(1000
cu m pd
477
1,494
949
608
-
44
-
_
284
-
1,043
478
467
.
_
2,122
200
-
1,514
9,679
381
381
10,060
gpd/ac)
(gpd.)
(125,990)
(394,670)
(250,690)
(160,700)
-
(11,750)
-
_
' (74,930)
-
(275,480)
(126,350)
(123,410)
-
-
(560,510)
(52,710)
-
(400,000)*
(2,557,190)
(100,640)
(100,640)
(2,657,830)
Commercial Flow
8 1.87 cu m pd/ha
(200
cu m pd
12
13
23
28
-
-
-
25
_
-
6
82
-
90
67
174
59
28
-
-
606
13
167
179
786
gpd/ac)
(gpd)
(3,086)
(3,526)
(5,950)
(7,272)
-
-
-
(6,612)
-
-
(1,608)
(21,664)
-
(23,692)
(17,632)
(46,060)
(15,606)
(7,492)
'
-
(160,200)
(3,306)
(44,076)
(47,382)
(207,582)
Total Flow
cu m
40
543
1,781
1,712
660
571
140
132
13
438
572
2,507
748
1,884
4,080
2,699
4,201
678
1,692
5,625
30,717
428
7,046
208
7,682
38,399
pd (gpd)
(10,526)
(143,436)
(470,460)
(452,342)
(174,300)
(150,960)
(37,030)
(34,932)
(3,440)
(115,730)
(151,128)
(662,264)
(197,630)
(497,822)
(1,077,932)
(712,960)
(1,110,016)
(179,202)
(446,900)
(1,486,030)
(8,115,540)
(112,986)
(1,861,676)
(54,960)
(2,029,622)
(10,145,162)
-------
TABLE 38
Flow Estimates - 2020
Section
Manasquan
River
Basin
I
II
III
IVA
IVB
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
Sub-Total
Estimated
2020
Population
575
1,410
2,035
2,636
207
2,192
992
835
-
207
627
2,296
8,978
3,184
7,153
14 , 960
8,863
7,199
1,524
5,927
13,500
85,300
2020
Service
Population
93
714
981
2,636
207
2,106
375
337
-
43
510
2,296
6,404
2,042
4,803
11,802
8,863
6,965
1,524
5,505
13,500
71,706
Industrial
ha
,
146
338
290
186
-
24
-
-
-
152
-
557
256
143
-
-
648
61
- .
-
2,800
Acres
(ac)
_
(360)
(835)
(716)
(459)
-
(59)
-
-
-
(375)
'
(1,377)
(632)
(353)
-
-
(1,602)
(151)
-
-
(6,919)
Industrial
Acres Served
ha
_
146
179
110
79
-
6
-
-
-
30
-
157
117
55
-
-
296
28
-
-
1,202
(ac)
_
(360)
(443)
(271)
(196)
-
(14)
-
-
-
(75)
-
(387)
(290)
(135)
-
-
(731)
(68)
-
-
(2,970)
Commercial
Acres
ha
21
24
40
49
-
-
-
45
-
-
-
11
146
-
156
119
311
105
51
-
-
1,081
(ac)
(51)
(59)
(99)
(121)
-
-
-
(110)
-
-
-
(27)
(361)
-
(385)
(294)
(768)
(260)
(125)
-
-
(2,670)
Commercial
Acres Served
ha
6
22
13
16
-
-
-
13
-
-
-
4
62
-
53
40
122
41
19
-
-
413
(ac)
(15)
(55)
(33)
(39)
-
-
-
(33)
-
-
-
(10)
(152)
-
(130)
(98)
(302)
(102)
(48)
-
-
(1,021)
e 0.38
Residential Flow
cu m pcpd @ 0.34 cu m pcpd
(100 gpcpd) (90 gpcpd)
cu m
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,467
3,355
2,636
577
.2,084
-
13,118
(gal) cu m (gal)
" - - -
_
_
_
-
_
_
-
- - -
_
-
_
-
-
-
(1,180,200)
(886,300)
(696,500)
(152,400)
(550,500)
4,599 (1,215,000
(3,465,900) 4,599 (1,215,000)
a 0.30 cu m pcpd
(80 gpcpd)
cu m
28
216
297
798
63
638
114
102
-
13
154
695
1,939
618
1,454
-
-
-
-
-
.
7,130
(gal)
(7,400)
(57,100)
(78,500)
(210,900)
(16,600)
(168,500)
(30,000)
(27,000)
_
(3,400)
(40,800)
(183,700)
(512,300)
(163,400)
(384,200)
-
-
-
_
_
-
(1,883,800)
Industrial Flow
@ 9.35 cu m pd/ha
(1000 gpd/ac)
cu m
_
1,363
1,677
1,026
742
-
53
-
_
-
284
-
1,465
1,098
511
-
-
2,767
257
-
1,514
12,756
Pd (gpd)
_
(360,000)
(443,000)
(271,000)
(196,000)
-
(14,000)
-
-
-
(75,000)
-
(387,000)
(290,000)
(135,000)
-
-
(731,000)
(68,000)
-
(400,000)*
(3,370,000)
Commercial Flow
@ 1.87 cu pd/ha
(200 gpd/ac)
cu m
11
42
25
30
-
-
-
25
-
-
-
76
115
-
98
74
232
77
36
-
-
776
pd (gpd)
(3,000)
(11,000)
(6,600)
(7,800)
-
-
-
(6,600)
-
-
-
(2,000)
(30,400)
-
(26,000)
(19,600)
(61,200)
(20,400)
(9,600)
-
-
(204,200)
Total Flow
cu m pd
39
1,620
1,999
1,854
805
638
167
123
-
13
438
703
3,519
1,716
2,067
4,541
3,586
5,480
871
2,084
6,113
38,376
(gpd)
(10,400)
(428,100)
(528,100)
(489,700)
(212,600)
(168,500)
(44,000)
(32,600)
-
(3,400)
(115,800)
(185,700)
(929,700)
(453,400)
(546,200)
(1,199,800)
(947,500)
(1,447,900)
(230,000)
(550,500)
(1,615,000)
(10,138,900)
Metedeconk
River
Basin
XXI
XXII
XXIII
Sub-Total
Total
3,750
31,750
1,300
. 38,300
122,100
1,732
28,607
1,300
31,639
103,345
204
204
3,004
(503)
(503)
(7,422)
204
204
1,406
(503)
(503)
(3,473)
22
297
320
1,401
(55)
(735)
(790)
(3,460)
22
297
320
733
(55)
(735)
(790)
(1,811) 13,188
.
-
(3,465,900) 4,599 (1,215,000)
525 (138,600)
8,662 (2,288,600)
394 (104,000)
9,581 (2,531,200)
16,711 (4,415,000)
1,904
(503,000)
42 (11,000)
556 (147,000)
1,904 (503,000) 598 (158,000)
14,659 (3,873,000) 1,371 (362,200)
566 (149,600)
11,123 (2,938,700)
394 (104.000)
12,083 (3,192,300)
50,459 (13,331,200)
Existing Nestles Flow
-------
TABLE 39
Projected Wastewater Flows - 1995
Location Flow cu m/d (mgd)
Havens Bridge Road 20,600 (5.5)
and Manasquan River
(Upstream - Subregional)
Above Allenwood (Regional) 30,340 (8.1)*
North Branch Metedeconk 7,500 (2.0)
*For subregional alternative, flow will be
9,740 cu m/d (2.6 mgd).
101
-------
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF
CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
Several methods of wastewater management are available
for the MRRSA study area. Alternatives screened and eval-
uated in this section include: no action, expansion and
upgrading of existing facilities, subregional, regional,
creation of septic district authorities, and provision of
service to the North Branch Metedeconk basin by MRRSA.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The "No Action" Alternative assumes that the EPA will
not provide federal funding to support the MRRSA's proposed
project and that any new construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities will be supported entirely by financing
from state and local agencies. Under these conditions, the
MRRSA has two possible options:
use available state and local revenue sources to
finance construction of proposed facilities
adopt a "no build" option, using no public monies,
either from state or local governments, and satis-
fying future wastewater demands partially by private
construction of individual septic systems and pack-
age treatment plants
Alternate Public Finance Option
Loss of federal participation in financing the con-
struction of the proposed MRRSA facilities would increase
the financial burden upon the local communities (present
and future residents). The potential effects of this
alternative range from no construction of new treatment
facilities to a reduction of the geographic limits of
the service area and possible break-up of the MRRSA.
102
-------
"No Build" Option
Under the "No Build" conditions, any future growth and
development in the area will depend upon a combination of
individual on-site disposal systems (usually septic tanks and
leach fields) and package treatment plants. Effects of the
"No Build" option include continuation of sewer connection
bans in Freehold Borough and Township, disruption of local
construction industry, and further surface water quality
degradation in those waters currently receiving inadequately
treated wastewater.
EXPAND AND UPGRADE EXISTING FACILITIES
There are many wastewater treatment facilities within
the study area (Table 24). None of these plants was designed
as a regional facility or as part of a regional program, but
it is possible to use them for regional wastewater treatment
by expanding them to accommodate projected flows and upgrading
treatment processes and operation to meet established stand-
ards. Problems associated with this alternative are capacity
for expansion, limitations of service area, and implementability
Four existing treatment plants, Freehold Borough, Wynne-
wood Sewer Company, Freehold Sewer Company, and Adelphia
Sewer Company, would be expanded and upgraded. These four
plants now have a combined total design capacity of 7,800
cu m/d (2.1 mgd). Projected wastewater flows in the study
area are approximately 30,700 cu m/d (8.1 mgd). Outfall lines
would be required to convey the effluent to below the con-
fluence of Debois Creek and the Manasquan River in order to
comply with EPA and NJDEP stipulations.
Each of the four plants is located in the upstream ser-
vice area. In those areas without existing facilities but
requiring centralized service, shown on Figure 14, an exten-
sive interceptor and force main network will be necessary to
provide service.
Finally, this alternative would involve the consolidation
and operation of numerous public and private wastewater
treatment facilities within the Manasquan River basin (and
four within the North Branch Metedeconk basin) by the MRRSA.
Efficient operation of many small plants would be both
difficult and costly considering the high levels of treatment
that would be necessary for discharge to low flow streams.
It is also unlikely that the small facilities could be ex-
panded effectively to accommodate increased flows in the
future.
103
-------
SUBREGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
This alternative involves the construction of two waste-
water treatment facilities within the Manasquan River basin.
Flows originating in the North Branch Metedeconk basin would
be accommodated at one of the subregional facilities or by
the Ocean County Sewerage Authority (OCSA).
Figure 14 shows the study area broadly divided into an
upper (western) portion and lower (eastern) portion. The
area requiring centralized sewerage service can be served
efficiently by a two plant configuration. A WTP in the
upper portion would accommodate sewage flows from Freehold
Borough, Freehold Township and a portion of Howell Township,
and a WTP in the lower portion of the basin would accommodate
flows from Farmingdale Borough, the surrounding area of Howell
Township and Wall Township, and perhaps the North Branch
Metedeconk basin.
The subregional alternative would provide adequate ser-
vice to the portions of the study area that require immediate
service (Freehold Borough, Freehold Township, and Farmingdale
Borough) and would be capable of providing service to develop-
ing areas. This alternative would not inhibit growth in the
study area because as demand increases for wastewater service,
collection and treatment facilities could be constructed.
Water quality problems associated with effluent discharges
in the upper Manasquan basin would be alleviated by the con-
struction of new facilities.
The subregional alternative would not be difficult to
carry out, but Freehold and Howell Townships have opposed
construction of treatment facilities in their townships.
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
This alternative involves the construction of a single
wastewater treatment plant located in the lower (eastern)
portion of the study area. This facility could serve the
entire study area within the Manasquan basin and perhaps
include service for the North Branch Metedeconk basin.
Interceptor sewers and several force mains would convey waste-
water from the upper portion of the study area to the regional
plant site.
Water quality problems associated with existing facili-
ties would be eliminated. However, this alternative would
involve the continuous removal of significant amounts of
water from the upper basin. The Division of Fish, Game,
and Shellfisheries of NJDEP has expressed concern over the
104
-------
removal of this wastewater effluent. The river in the upper
Manasquan basin is highly acidic in nature; it has been
contended that wastewater effluent acts to buffer the acidic
river water.
Growth throughout the study area would not be hindered
and may in fact be stimulated along the interceptor right of
way in presently undeveloped portions of Howell Township.
The NJDEP and EPA are concerned that this growth might
destroy farm areas, a secondary impact of the project which
might be undesirable.
CREATION OF SEPTIC DISTRICT AUTHORITIES
In order to encourage less costly wastewater facilities
the EPA has issued several memoranda proposing the investi-
gation of alternatives to conventional sewage collection
systems (Train, 1976; Rhett, 1974; Rhett, 1977). In response
to amendments contained in the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217),
the EPA has recently made grant provisions for individual
treatment systems. Such systems, which include septic tank
soil absorption fields with community maintenance programs
and other small treatment systems for clusters of two or more
homes, are encouraged in areas where large scale collection
and treatment systems are unnecessary.
A large portion of the study area now has no sewerage
service including the Borough of Farmingdale (as previously
mentioned, it can be anticipated that the borough will re-
quire a sewage collection system with ultimate treatment
provided for by the MRRSA). Portions of the study area marked
for continued decentralized service have no reported diffi-
culties in private maintenance of on-site systems. The septic
and small treatment systems can be used in these decentralized
service areas in both subregional and regional plans. The
estimated quantities and characteristics of septage generated
in decentralized parts of the MRRSA study area are:
1995 Decentralized Population 13,500
Avg. Daily Septage Volume (1995) 3,500 gpd (13,250 Ipd)
Peak Daily Volume (1995) 14,000 gpd (53,000 Ipd)
Septage Chemical Characteristics
5 Day BOD 5,000 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids 15,000 mg/1
TKN 600 mg/1
NH3-N 150 mg/1
Any facility designed for the study area will be capable of
accepting and treating the generated septage.
105
-------
PROVISION OF SERVICE TO THE NORTH BRANCH METEDECONK BASIN
The southern portion of the study area, primarily in the
North Branch Metedeconk basin of Howell Township, is now
served by several small facilities.
In 1974 the NJDEP and the MRRSA agreed to a consent
judgment which directed the OCSA to construct regional inter-
ceptors to provide wastewater service to that portion of the
North Branch Metedeconk basin within the MRRSA study area.
The judgment directed that the MRRSA could propose diversion
of the wastewater from that area to an MRRSA treatment facility
if such a system was approved by the NJDEP. In December, 1976,
the MRRSA, OCSA, and Howell Township agreed to follow the
directives of the consent judgment.
The NJDEP's regulations, standards, and policies require
that a plan for diversion of flows to the Manasquan basin be
environmentally sound and cost-effective.
SELECTION OF FEASIBLE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the preliminary screening is to outline
the conceptual alternatives available for wastewater manage-
ment in the study area and determine which alternatives are
feasible and deserve further investigation. Feasible alter-
natives are selected on the basis of: fulfillment of the
goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act; practicable
operation by the MRRSA; basic environmental acceptability and
engineering feasibility; and the capability to meet the area's
existing and future wastewater management needs.
The "No Action" and Expand and Upgrade Alternatives
would neither meet the existing needs of the study area nor
allow for expected reasonable growth. The continuation and
possible increase in effluent discharges in the upper Manas-
quan basin, uncontrolled by these two alternatives, will tend
to aggravate existing water quality problems in the low-flow
streams that receive effluent discharges. In addition, imple-
mentation of the Expand and Upgrade Alternative would require
the MRRSA to take over, consolidate, and operate many small
and inadequate facilities. Therefore, the "No Action" and
Expand and Upgrade Alternatives are not considered feasible.
The Subregional and Regional Alternatives are considered
feasible to meet the existing and proposed sewerage needs of
the study area. The creation of Septic District Authorities
is also considered feasible for those portions of the study
area that do not require centralized sewerage service. Pro-
106
-------
vision of service to the North Branch Metedeconk basin is
also feasible assuming it proves to be cost-effective and
environmentally sound.
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Component alternatives discussed in this section include
wastewater treatment processes, methods of effluent disposal,
methods of sludge management, alternative sites for construc-
tion of treatment facilities, and alternative interceptor
alignments.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Wastewater treatment facilities constructed within the
study area must meet wastewater quality criteria and waste-
load allocations for maintenance of water quality standards
in the Manasquan River. In accordance with Section 301 of
the Clean Water Act, the State of New Jersey, through the
NJDEP, has established effluent limitations for upstream and
downstream plant discharge locations (Table 40).
In order to meet the established requirements, the pro-
posed wastewater treatment facilities would have to provide
a level of treatment beyond secondary.
A wide variety of treatment processes, including pro-
cesses for land application, were evaluated for both the
Regional and Subregional Alternatives. Summaries of the
preliminary evaluations are reproduced in Appendices U and z.
The detailed final evaluations are given in the facilities
plan (Killam, 1979). For a downstream WTP, the most cost-
effective treatment process capable of meeting NJDEP's
effluent limitations is:
primary settling
extended aeration (oxidation ditches)
denitrification (anoxic reactors)
filtration
chlorination-dechlorination
post aeration (cascade outfall)
The most cost-effective process for an upstream WTP is:
lime flocculation/clarification
biological nitrification
filtration
activated carbon absorption
chlorination-dechlorination
107
-------
TABLE 40
Effluent Limitations
Upstream Discharge
(Just Below Debois Creek)
(All Discharge Levels)
Downstream Discharge
(Below Proposed Dam Site)
(All Discharge Levels)
NH3-N
Total Phosphorus
Chlorine
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
pH
NO3-N
95% removal 95% removal
2 mg/1 (May 1-October 31) 2 mg/1 (May 1-October 31)
0.5 mg/1
(None detectable by EPA approved methods of analyses)
6.0 mg/1 (May 1-October 31) 6.0 mg/1 (May 1-October 31)
5.5 - 7.5
5.5 - 7.5
7 mg/1
* No heat may be added which would cause temperatures to exceed 2°F (1.1°C)
over ambient at any time or which would cause temperatures in excess
of 68°F (20°C). The rate of temperature change in designated heat
dissipation areas shall not cause mortality of fish. 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 shall not cause mortality of fish.
For all other water quality parameters, New Jersey Surface Water Quality
Standards for FW-2 trout maintenance streams will be met.
Source: NJDEP letter to MRRSA dated April 4, 1978 (Appendix S).
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
Several methods of effluent disposal are available which
could provide adequate disposal for wastewater effluent from
either subregional or regional facilities. These alternatives
include surface water discharge, ocean/estuarine discharge,
land application, and wastewater reuse.
108
-------
Surface Water Discharge
Effluent from either subregional or regional facilties
can be discharged at two potential locations as stipulated
by the NJDEP and EPA (Appendices Q and S) in the Manasquan
River downstream of its confluence with Debois Creek and in
the Manasquan River downstream of the proposed Allaire Reser-
voir .
Under the Regional Alternative, conveyance of effluent
and discharge downstream of the reservoir will contribute to
a reduction of flows and may upset the chemical balance in
the upper Manasquan River. In addition, such an option
reduces available flows to the proposed reservoir system.
On the other hand, discharge below the reservoir will lessen
the potential for eutrophication and health problems associated
with water-borne pathogens in the reservoir system which might
occur with upstream discharge. This alternative would also
contribute to the augmentation of flow downstream of the
reservoir, a positive impact during periods of low flow, when
guaranteed letdown from the reservoir system may be as low
as 30,000 cu m/d (8 mgd) for extended periods (Kroeck, 1977).
Ocean/Estuarine Discharge
Effluent can be discharged from either subregional or
regional facilities to the Manasquan River Estuary or to the
Atlantic Ocean. The advantage of ocean disposal of effluent
is the potential for lower costs because effluent dilution
in larger receiving waters requires lower levels of treatment.
The disadvantages of ocean disposal are the loss of freshwater
flow to the Manasquan basin, loss of flow augmentation to
future water supplies, and the high costs of outfall construc-
tion. Ocean discharge has also caused concern in the State
of New Jersey because of potentially adverse impacts upon
water quality, especially in the vicinity of the beaches.
A disadvantage of estuarine disposal is the potential con-
tribution of pollutants and pathogens to an area of potentially
high productivity and commercial value (shellfisheries) . Dis-
charge to the Manasquan River Estuary could have the positive
effect of partially compensating for the loss of freshwater
flow anticipated as a result of the construction of the
Allaire Reservoir.
Because of the adverse impacts and high costs, estuarine
and ocean disposal of effluent will not be considered to be
viable alternatives unless there are no other feasible alter-
natives of lesser environmental harm.
109
-------
Land Disposal
Where proper conditions exist, land application can
replace or be used in combination with conventional in-plant
treatment processes to produce a high quality effluent.
Current land application systems for effluent disposal are
compared on Table 41.
TABLE 41
Comparison of Irrigation and Infiltration-
Percolation of Municipal Wastewater
Type of Approach
Infiltration- Overland
Objective Irrigation Percolation Flow
Use as a treament process 0-70% Up to 97% 50-80%
with a recovery of renovated recovery recovery recovery
wastewater
Use for treatment beyond
secondary:
(1) For BODs and suspended 98+% 85-99% 92+%
solids removal
(2) For nitrogen removal 85+% 0-50% 70-90%
(3) For phosphorus removal 80-99% 60-95% 40-80%
Use to grow crops for sale Excellent Poor Fair
Use as direct recycle to Complete Complete Partial
the groundwater
Source: EPA, 1975
Overland Flow is the controlled discharge, by spraying
or other means, of effluent onto the land with a large por-
tion of the wastewater appearing as runoff. Overland flow
can be accomplished over relatively impermeable soils and
gently sloping terrain and has the advantages of avoiding
groundwater degradation, providing economic return through
the growth and sale of a crop, and providing a high quality
effluent suitable for industrial or agricultural reuse
application.
110
-------
Infiltration-Percolation, often referred to as ground-
water recharge, allows partial renovation of wastewater as
it travels through the soil matrix. A degree of pretreat-
ment is required to avoid groundwater contamination. The
State of New Jersey requires secondary treatment, denitrifi-
cation and chlorination of wastewater prior to use in an
infiltration-percolation program. The most important factors
in site selection are soil drainage and the movement, level
and quality of groundwater. Soils with infiltration rates
of 10-31 cm/d (4-12 in/d) or more are necessary (sandy loams,
and loam sands and gravels). The State of New Jersey has
determined that a depth of 3 m (10 ft) from the surface to
groundwater is adequate (Kasabach, 1977). Analysis of the
soils in the study area indicates that all soils exhibit
groundwater depths of less than 3 m (10 ft) at seasonal
high groundwater, thereby making the concept of infiltration-
percolation infeasible.
Irrigation is the controlled discharge of effluent by
spraying or surface spreading onto land to support plant
growth. Adequately treated effluent (secondary treatment
with chlorination is required by the State of New Jersey) may
be used to irrigate forestland, agricultural lands (nonfood
crops), parks, golf courses, and other landscaped .areas.
Site selection factors include a soil depth of 1.5 m
(5 ft) or more, a minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft) to groundwater,
soils that are well drained, and slopes less than 15 percent.
Application rates vary with site characteristics and the crop
grown (Kidder, 1976).
A preliminary analysis of the three available land
application mechanisms indicates that irrigation is the most
f.easible system for the study area because its soil meets
the criteria necessary for spray irrigation described above.
Results of technical studies (Appendix T) indicate that
approximately 65 ha/3,785 cu m/d (160 a/mgd) plus buffer
would be required for land application. For an upstream
treatment plant (subregional alternative), approximately
788 ha (1,948 a) will be required and for a regional system,
approximately 1,064 ha (2,630 a) will be required.
Available farmland in the study area occurs in noncon-
tiguous, small (less than 81 ha or 200 a) parcels separated
by residential and commercial strip development. In Howell
Township, there are several sod farms which are relatively
close to each other and together comprise slightly over 200
ha (500 a). Aerial photographs show, however, that the farms
are bounded by two large developments and a school. Therefore
111
-------
all potential land application sites are close to residen-
tial areas. Projected development within the study area
indicates that the amount of active farmland will be reduced
significantly, specifically within the Route 9 corridor.
In order to ensure the long-term viability of a spray irri-
gation program on farmland, the MRRSA would have to acquire
development rights to the amount specified above.
The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that an up-
stream land application system would cost $4,752,000 more
than an advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) system (Appen-
dix U) .
Because of the unavailability of large parcels of con-
tiguous land and the cost-effectiveness analysis, land
application is eliminated as a feasible effluent disposal
alternative for an upstream subregional WTP and for a regional
WTP. Land application is feasible for a downstream sub-
regional WTP.
Wastewater Reuse
Wastewater reuse is a waste management technique that
has been widely practiced by large industrial water users
in recent years. However, the lack of major industrial water
users in the study area makes implementation of a major indus-
trial reuse program impractical.
The reuse of treated wastewater effluent from publicly
owned wastewater treatment works is a less common practice.
Reuse systems which have been employed or have been inves-
tigated in recent years include redistribution to industry
for reuse, groundwater recharge, development of agricultural
land and forested areas by land application, and augmentation
of potable water supplies.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Methods available for sludge treatment and disposal are
limited by federal and state regulation and policy. The
EPA plans to phase out all ocean disposal of sewage sludge
by 1981, and land application of raw sludge and landfill of
raw or digested liquid or dewatered sludge are strongly
discouraged in the State of New Jersey, unless alternatives
are available (Sadat, 1977). The remaining alternative methods
for sludge treatment and disposal include:
Dewatering-Incineration-Landfill.
Digestion-Land Application.
Digestion-Composting
112
-------
Dewatering-Incineration-Landfill
Incineration and pyrolysis are seldom energy saving or
economical processes for plants of less than 70,700 cu m/d
(20 mgd) (Olexsey, 1975). Assuming eventual flows of approxi-
mately 30,000 to 38,000 cu m/d (8 to 10 mgd) in the study area,
incineration is a costly method, of treatment of sludge. In
addition, an Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) study
on sludge management in the New York Metropolitan Area (ISC,
1975; 1976; 1977) stated that because of high energy costs
and possible damage to the environment, incineration of
sludge was not recommended for the Monmouth County area.
Incineration, therefore, is not considered a feasible alter-
native .
Digestion-Land Application
Land application of sewage sludge is normally accomplished
with liquid sludge (3 to 5 percent solids), dewatered cake
(20-35 percent solids) or with a composted product (60-80 per-
cent solids). Annual application rates are determined by
soil type, land use, soil nitrogen balance, and the metals
content of the sludge. For agricultural lands, rates of
application of domestic sludges range from 22 to 67 metric
tons/ha/yr (10 to 30 tons/a/yr) of dry solids. The total
amount that may be applied is generally determined by the
cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil and the concentra-
tions of zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, and nickel in the sludge
(Walker, 1975).
For a land application program to be successful, long-
term commitments of farmland and adequate capacity to store
winter sludge production are necessary. Assuming an applica-
tion rate of 22 metric tons/ha/yr (10 tons/a/yr) and a total
application period of 20 years (based on moderate soil CEC
and "average" domestic sludge), approximately 80 ha (200 a)
would be necessary for a land application program to accommo-
date sludge from wastewater flows of 30,000 cu m/d (8 mgd).
Buffer zones of an additional 25 percent of this amount would
make a total of 100 ha (245 a) necessary.
Site specific investigations would have to be conducted
to determine the capability of the soils for long-term appli-
cation, the permeability of the soils, and depth to ground-
water and bedrock. Because of concerns over pathogen transfer
through aerosols (from liquid application) or through food
crops and the accumulation of nutrients and heavy metals
(liquid and dewatered sludge), strict monitoring of land
application programs is necessary. This is best accomplished
through acquisition and operation of the farmland or strict
113
-------
agreements with private farmers. One of the most difficult
problems with implementation of a land application program
is the long-term availability of farmland in rapidly develop-
ing areas, which is the major reason why acquisition of
farmland or long-term contracts with local farm operations
are most feasible. Such lands should also be relatively
close to the treatment facility if liquid sludge is used.
Digestion-Composting
Disposal of composted sludge is slightly different from
disposal of liquid, dewatered sludge. The process of com-
posting effectively sterilizes the sludge, eliminating much
of the concern with pathogens. Woodchips or pelletized
refuse used in compost production tend to lower the net con-
centration of heavy metals in the final product. (Pelletized
refuse is less desirable though, because of the greater bulk
for disposal.) Compost is almost totally dry, facilitating
storage and transport. The NJDEP supports composting and
has publicized and encouraged its use throughout the state.
This publicity will aid in public acceptance of a composting
program, which includes farmland application and giveaway
programs to private homeowners.
The static pile method (Beltsville method) of composting
is preferred over mechanical composting for several reasons
including greater flexibility and accommodation of peak loads,
and proven technology and readily obtainable and serviceable
equipment. With use of the static pile method, dewatering is
necessary and anaerobic digestion of sludge will permit energy
recovery and total volume reduction for composting and disposal
Land application of sludge, either as liquid, dewatered
cake, or as compost, appears feasible for the study area. For
liquid or dewatered sludge, further investigation will be
needed to determine site-specific characteristics for safe
implementation of a program. Composting appears most feasible
because of its flexibility for disposal, its acceptance and
encouragement by NJDEP and its relative safety and handling
ease as a finished product. Sludge landfilling is eliminated
as an alternative because other methods exist.
TREATMENT PLANT SITES
During the past five years, many investigations have
dealt with the selection of acceptable treatment plant sites
for either a regional or subregional alternative. Engineer-
ing and environmental consultants, the public, the MRRSA, and
state and federal review agencies have contributed to pre-
114
-------
vious proposals and analyses of alternative sites. More than
twenty potential sites have been investigated (Figure 15);
because of the significance of site location to the overall
MRRSA project, a detailed historical summary outlining the
events involving site selection is presented in Appendix V.
Subregional Treatment Plant Sites
Seventeen upper basin subregional treatment plant sites
were previously proposed. Engineering and environmental
studies have been performed, public input generated and fed-
eral and state comments solicited for the majority of these
sites.
A complete review of all site studies was conducted during
the preparation of the EIS, including a field survey of each
site for verification of previous work. Each of the proposed
sites was re-evaluated in terms of environmental suitability,
engineering feasibility, compatibility with conceptual alter-
natives and existing and proposed land use, cost effective-
ness, availability of buffer, and effects upon surrounding
residents. The investigation yielded seven feasible and ten
unfeasible sites (Appendix V).
Sites 6, 11, 12 and 16 are acceptable, as they were in
previous studies. Sites 1 and 2 are acceptable because they
are similar to site 16 in terms of engineering feasibility
and costs and would cause minimal environmental impact. Site
4 is also acceptable because the environmental impacts are not
considered as severe as originally stated.
Each of the feasible sites is compatible with the concep-
tual alternatives and satisfies NJDEP's site guidelines which
recommend that treatment units be situated not closer than
152 m (500 ft) of the plant property line, and dwellings
located within 152 m (500 ft) of the property line be adequate-
ly screened by landscaping and evergreen vegetation. Major
conflicts with land use are not anticipated for any of the
feasible sites.
Regional and Lower Basin Subregional Treatment Plant Sites
The site selected in earlier studies for the regional
treatment plant, referred to as the Parkway Site (site D) ,
is in Wall Township. More than 40 ha (100 a), it consists of
cleared land surrounded by a substantial buffer of trees.
This site has been acquired by Allaire State Park and has
been removed from further consideration after discussions
with the Division of Parks and Forestry (Appendix X).
115
-------
\ v""'-.} ; x
y*t j itnami r/Jf*. tgfor \ tt»lt /
t '/1 \ I
L-^ 7^-
-------
There are three remaining feasible regional and lower
basin subregional sites. Two sites are in Howell Township
and one site is in Wall Township. These sites are evaluated
in detail in Appendix W.
INTERCEPTOR ROUTES
Interceptor routes (gravity sewers) and force main seg-
ments are necessary components of municipal wastewater collec-
tion and treatment systems. To provide service to those
portions of the study area requiring centralized service,
various interceptor/force main routes were proposed. Major
areas requiring centralized service include Freehold Borough,
Freehold Township, Howell Township, and Farmingdale Borough.
Specific alignments for the study area were proposed as early
as 1974 (Killam/Dames & Moore). In addition to these early
studies, alternative alignments have been investigated.
The following discussion presents alternative alignments
for interceptor/force main routings associated with each of
the feasible alternatives (Figure 16). The alternative align-
ments range from complete in-road configurations to relocating
interceptor segments in order to avoid designated wetland
areas .
Subregional Alternative
Three main interceptor segments are required to provide
collection of wastewater flows consistent with the Subregional
Alternative. The Debois Creek Interceptor and Upper Manasguan
Interceptor will provide service to the upper basin (the
Borough of Freehold, Freehold Township, and the western por-
tion of Howell Township). The Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor
and Mingamahone Interceptor will provide service to the lower
basin (the eastern portion of Howell Township, the Borough
of Farmingdale, and Wall Township) (Figure 16).
Debois Creek Interceptor: The Debois Creek Interceptor
will be entirely gravity flowing and follow the general topo-
graphy of Debois Creek. An in-road alignment was investigated
wherein the alignment could follow Halls Mill Road and Center
Street in lieu of the Debois Creek corridor from the Freehold
Borough WTP to the confluence of Applegates Creek with Debois
Creek (Figure 17). There are, however, several disadvantages
to this change:
In order to relocate the interceptor into the roadway,
a pumping station-force main system will be required
from the Freehold Borough WTP to Halls Mill Road. To
117
-------
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORfTY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
RE6IOIIAL INTERCEPTOR SEWER
-- RE6IONAL FORCE MAIM
D RESIDUAL PUMPIM STATION
INTERCEPTOR SEGMENT
FIGURE 16
ALTERNATIVE INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENTS
FOR THE LOWER MANASQUAN INTERCEPTOR
-------
V- -../' . . -*-)>
M PUMP STATION ,
lS/7 k
:""~ ' ._~ ' "V ""
^ E&' ' % I
.. ..__^' 3<. 4
\/3'.'- -
UK K!f "I.D /\-
/-:-Xi-
'.*-.- " ' *
V 'WYNNEWOOD /
CONNECTION /
FIGURE 17
DEBOIS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
IN ROAD ALIGNMENT
ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
-------
attain gravity flow utilizing this alignment, por-
tions of the interceptor would be installed at depths
exceeding 6 m (20 ft). Construction at such depths
in public roadways is complicated by the fact that
major utility services are located in this roadway.
The in-road alignment would require the continued use
of four existing pumping stations. A major objective
of locating the interceptor in the Debois Creek corri-
dor is to use the natural topography in the drainage
basin, thereby eliminating the need for these pump-
ing stations.
The additional present-worth cost for the in-road
alignment is $815,600 ($3,062,700 vs. $2,247,000).
This present worth estimate does not include addi-
tional costs for difficult conditions that might be
encountered in roadway construction.
Upper Manasquan Interceptor; The Upper Manasquan River
Interceptor has three branches (see Figure 16):
The downstream branch, which consists of a 122 'cm
(48 in) diameter gravity sewer, generally parallels
the Manasquan River and extends from the Debois
Creek Interceptor to the Havens Bridge Road Pumping
Station.
The northern branch, which consists of 61 cm (24 in).
and 76 cm (30 in) diameter gravity sewers, begins at
the Freehold Sewer Company treatment plant and ex-
tends along Route 524 and an unnamed stream to the
connection with the Debois Creek Interceptor and the
downstream branch.
The southern branch, which consists of a 61 cm (24 in)
diameter gravity sewer, begins at the Freehold Town-
ship Sewage Treatment Plant (Levitt) and extends west-
ward, generally paralleling the Manasquan River,
until it joins with and discharges to the northern
branch.
Several alternative alignments following the roadway pattern
in the area were evaluated for the Upper Manasquan River
Interceptor (Figure 18). A description and assessment of the
least costly of the in-road alignment alternatives follows.
This alternative to the Upper Manasquan River Interceptor
would discharge to the Lower Manasquan River Interceptor (R-2
alignment) in Route 524 at Havens Bridge Road.
120
-------
FREEHOLD SEWER CO. WTP
*;-/ ***
WTP "**»»***e^
FREEHOLD TWP
AND PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
\ ' -
LEGEND
IN ROAD ALIGNMENT
ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
FIGURE 18
UPPER MANASQUAN INTERCEPTOR
-------
Construction of this in-road alignment alternative would
eliminate approximately 1,500 m (4,900 ft) of the Debois Creek
Interceptor, as well as the Havens Bridge Road Pumping Station
and Force Main. The deeper excavation'in Route 524 required
for this alternative, however, would offset these benefits
and cause the following problems:
Construction of the Upper Manasquan River in-road
alignment west of Debois Creek in Route 524 would
require excavation exceeding 6 m (20 ft) in depth,
and in some instances exceeding 8 m (25 ft). Because
this is a heavily traveled highway with several
existing utilities, tight sheeting would be required
to maintain permissible trench widths.
Because of the characteristics of subsurface soil
and groundwater conditions in the area, the depth of
trench excavation would require extensive and costly
trench dewatering operations (i. e. wellpoint system)
during interceptor construction.
Because of its location and elevation, the in-road
alignment would not provide a gravity outlet for areas
of Freehold Township and Howell Township located south
of the Manasquan River. Numerous local pumping sta-
tions would have to be constructed to service developed
areas, the existing treatment facility at Silvermeade,
and the Villages.
Construction of this in-road alignment alternative would
increase the project costs for the total regional system by
approximately $4,000,000 or 11 percent.
Collection of wastewater flows in the lower basin can
be accommodated by alternate configurations .of the Marsh Bog
Brook and Mingamahone Interceptors.
Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor; The Marsh Bog Brook Inter-
ceptor, originating at the northwestern corner of the Borough
of Farmingdale, will provide an outlet for the areas of
Howell Township to the north and west of the borough. This
interceptor will permit abandonment of the Farmingdale Gardens
WTP located north of Main Street (Route 524) in Farmindale;
the interceptor will convey wastewater from this existing WTP
and will also convey flows from the Lower Manasquan and Minga-
mahone Brook Interceptors which join the line along its down-
stream route. The alignment of the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor
generally follows the path of the brook, but it does not run
122
-------
closer than 15 m (50 ft) to it. The interceptor continues
along the brook in a generally southeasterly direction to
Squankum-Yellow Brook Road and then along the roadway to
the proposed 524/547 pump station.
Detailed investigations of an alternate in-road align-
ment utilizing Route 524, local streets in Farmingdale, and
Route 524/547 (Figure 19) revealed the following problems:
The in-road alignment would require installation
of the proposed interceptor at depths exceeding
8 m (25 ft) for approximately one-half of its
length. Because the interceptor would be located
in heavily traveled county highways and narrow,
local thoroughfares with existing utilities, tight
sheeting would have to be installed in these areas
to maintain permissible trench widths.
Because of the characteristics of subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions in the vicinity of Farmingdale,
the depth of trench excavation would probably re-
quire extensive and costly trench dewatering operations
(i. e. wellpoint system) during the interceptor con-
struction .
The in-road alignment would be located 761 m (2,500
ft) north of Marsh Bog Brook. The Lower Manasquan
Interceptor would have to be extended this distance
in order to maintain system continuity.
The in-road Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor alignment
would also create a need for added pumping stations,
or deeper trunk sewers discharging to the regional
interceptor, increasing the cost of local collection
systems.
Construction of this in-road alignment would increase
the project costs by approximately $4,145,000 or 11 percent.
Mingamahone Interceptor: The Mingamahone Interceptor
would originate near the Howell-Farmingdale border and follow
the stream south to a pump station. An alternate configuration
to this interceptor, the Mingamahone Pump Station/Force Main,
was also investigated. Wastewater flows from the eastern
portion of Farmingdale and those areas north and east of Farm-
ingdale requiring centralized service would be collected and
pumped via force main to connect with the Marsh Bog Brook
Interceptor.
123
-------
-
'. TO SQUANKUM
VROAD PUMP STATION
LEGEND
IN ROAD ALIGNMENT
ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
FIGURE 19
MARSH BOG BROOK INTERCEPTOR
-------
Regional Alternative
The interceptor alignments (and alternate configurations)
described for the subregional system will be a component of
the Regional Alternative. In addition to these previously
described segments, a connection of the upper and lower basin
systems will be required. The Lower Manasquan River Inter-
ceptor originates at the Havens Bridge Road Pumping Station
and conveys flow from both the Debois Creek and the Upper
Manasquan River Interceptors. Four alternative interceptor
alignments have been considered for the Lower Manasquan River
Interceptor (Figures 16 and 20). Table 42 presents specific
information for each route.
Lower Manasquan Interceptor (R-l) follows the Manasquan
River to the intersection with the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor.
Preliminary engineering studies reveal that the R-l alternate:
is the shortest practical alignment
is the least costly alignment
is the least costly alternate to operate and
maintain due primarily to the regional pumping
station costs
will provide direct gravity service for a portion
of Ardmore Estates (in lieu of a local collector
sewer)
will minimize the number of pump stations in the
local collector systems, thereby increasing the
reliability of sewerage service upstream of the
proposed potable water supply reservoir
will provide for the elimination of Howell High
School WTP by direct gravity connection.
Route 524 Force Main/Gravity System (R-2) parallels
Route 524 as a force main and effectively removes an inter-
ceptor route from that portion of the study area consisting
of sod farm operations. Preliminary engineering studies reveal
that the R-2 alternate:
is the most costly alignment
the longer force main and location of the gravity
interceptor will require construction of additional
pump stations for service to the regional conveyance
system
125
-------
LEGEND
IN ROAD ALIGNMENT
ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
FIGURE 20
LOWER MANASQUAN INTERCEPTOR
-------
TABLE 42
Interceptor Routings
Alignment
Debois Creek
Upper Manasquan
Marsh Bog Brook
Mingamahone Brook
Manasquan River
(R-l)
Route 524 (R-2)
Railroad ROW
(R-3)
R-2 Modification
Total Length m(ft)
7
6
5
5
7
5
1
4
Gravity
,670 (25
,065
,880
,430
,380
, 330
,740
, 900
(19
(19
(17
(24
(17
( 5
(16
Percent in
Existing Roadways
Force Gravity
,157)
,893)
,286)
,810)
,206)
,482)
,707)
, 000)
0
0
0
0
0
2 ,300
5,730
1,200
10
14
16
2
20
( 7,544) 29
(18,794) 0
( 4, 000) 100
No. Stream
Crossing
Force Gravity
0
0
0
0
0
100
74
100
8
6
1
3
5
3
1
0
Force
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
Percent in
Floodplains
Gravity Force
1
26
0
42
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
will disrupt Route 524 during construction and because
the county highway is heavily traveled and has over-
head utilities along both shoulder areas, some con-
struction might have to take place outside the public
ROW on private land
will provide for elimination of Howell High School
WTP by direct gravity connection
will require a difficult crossing of Yellow Brook in
the vicinity of Route 524 (as a result of a deep
stream channel, inadequate clearances between build-
ing and Yellow Brook, and unsafe conditions at roadway
intersection).
Northern Force Main/Gravity System (R-3) uses a force
main system to convey wastewater to the Pennsylvania Railroad
right of way (ROW) from where a gravity sewer completes the
connection with the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor. Preliminary
engineering studies reveal that the R-3 alternate:
is the longest interceptor alignment
is the most costly alternate to operate and maintain
needs the most power for operation of the regional
pumping station
requires construction of an interceptor in the rail-
way ROW, which is impractical for reasons of costs
because the ROW between Farmingdale and Freehold is
not abandoned and has recently been purchased by the
NJDOT; difficult clearing and access conditions
would be encountered outside of railroad ROW.
R-2 Modification is an in-road alignment that continues
the Lower Manasquan Interceptor along Route 524 from Yellow
Brook to the Conrail (Freehold-Jamesburg Division) ROW just
west of Farmingdale. The alternate alignment would then
parallel this railroad ROW through Farmingdale to Route 524/
547 pumping station. Both the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor
and the Mingamahone Interceptor would connect into this
regional interceptor at the appropriate locations and, there-
fore, this in-road alignment alternate would be a modifica-
tion to both the Lower Manasquan and Marsh Bog Brook Inter-
ceptors. Detailed engineering investigations have found that
this modified R-2 alternate:
128
-------
will require a major regional pumping station and
0.76 m (30 in) force main to convey sewage flow from
the vicinity of Yellow Brook, approximately 1,370 m
(4,500 ft) along Route 524 to a point 305 m (1,000 ft)
west of Yellow Brook Road
will require an additional pumping station because
the existing wastewater treatment facilities for
the Howell Township Regional High School cannot be
connected to the regional interceptor by gravity
will require several local pumping stations to pro-
vide service in the portion of Howell Township,
south of the Manasquan River in the tributary area
of the Lower Manasquan and Marsh Bog Brook Inter-
ceptors, that will not have a gravity outlet to
these regional facilities
will require excavation to a depth of approximately
6 m (20 ft) in some areas in Route 524/547 and be-
cause this is a heavily traveled county highway,
tight sheeting would have to be installed to main-
tain permissible trench widths
will require that extensive and costly trench dewater-
ing operations (i. e. wellpoint system) be employed
during construction because of the depth of trench
excavation and the characteristics of subsurface
soil and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of
Farmingdale
would increase the project costs for the total
regional system by approximately $2,433,000 or
6.7 percent.
Based on this analysis it is concluded that the in-road align-
ment alternate for the Lower Manasquan Interceptor is not
cost-effective.
Site-Specific Interceptor Routes
WTP site specific interceptor and force main alignments
as well as outfall locations are shown in Table 43 and dis-
cussed in Appendix W.
Land Application Sites
One proposed method of wastewater discharge for the Sub-
regional Alternative uses a land application system. Potential
129
-------
TABLE 43
Site Specific Interceptor Routes
Percent in Existing
Total length m (ft) Roadways
Force main Outfall Force main Outfall
Stream Crossing
Force main Outfall
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
1
2
4
6
11
12
16
A
B
C
1,830
2,133
366
2,528
0
1,525
3,747
4,755
1,980
3,650
(6,
(7,
(1,
(8,
(5,
(12
(15
(6,
(12
039)
039)
208)
342)
033)
,365)
,692)
534)
,045)
1,830
2,133
0
0
0
152
1,220
823
3,800
7,740
(6,
(7,
039)
039)
(501)
(4,
(2,
(12
(25
026)
716)
,540)
,542)
100
100
0
0
0
100
0
66
100
95
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
96
89
None
None
None
2
None
None
2
1
2
1
None
None
None
None
. None
None
None
None
None
4
130
-------
sites were investigated and three systems in the downstream
portion of the study area are proposed (Figure 21). Each
site consists of two or more parcels of land with a total
acreage of at least 231 ha (570 a). Each system also in-
cludes lengths of force main to convey treated effluent from
the WTP to the land application site. Descriptions of each
site appear in Appendix W.
SELECTION OF FEASIBLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
An evaluation of conceptual alternatives and component
subsystems resulted in the selection of three feasible system
alternatives. Each of the feasible alternatives is capable
of meeting wasteload allocations, providing centralized
sewerage service to those areas requiring such service, and
meeting present and future wastewater treatment needs for
the study area.
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
The SR-1 Alternative consists of two treatment facili-
ties, one in the upper portion of the study area and another
in the lower portion of the study area. Both WTP's will
discharge treated wastewater to the Manasquan River. The
upstream WTP, located at one of the seven feasible plant sites
(1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 12 or 16) , will discharge 20,800 cu m/d
(5.5 mgd) to the Manasquan River downstream of its confluence
with Debois Creek. The downstream WTP, located at one of
three feasible plant sites (A, B or C), will discharge 9,800
cu m/d (2.6 mgd) to the Manasquan River downstream of the
proposed Allaire Reservoir. This alternative requires three
major interceptor systems to provide collection of waste-
water flows: Debois Creek Interceptor, Upper Manasquan
Interceptor, and Marsh Bog Brook/Mingamahone Interceptor.
A force main/pump station system is considered a feasible
alternative to the Mingamahone Interceptor. The SR-1 Alter-
native requires two major pump stations, one in the vicinity
of Havens Bridge Road and one in the vicinity of county roads
524 and 527.
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
The SR-2 Alternative is identical to the SR-1 Alternative
within the upstream portion of the study area. The downstream
portion of the study area would be served by a WTP at one
of three feasible sites (A, B or C), with the discharge of
9,800 cu m/d (2.6 mgd) of effluent accomplished by a land
application system. Three feasible land application systems
have been identified (Figure 21).
131
-------
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
SITE 2 ,AND
LAND APPLICATION SITES
STORAGE POND
GRAVITY SEWER
tm.1 FORCE MAIN
LAND APPLICATION
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORS
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
FIGURE 21
LAND APPLICATION SITES
AND TRANSMISSION LINES
-------
Regional
The Regional Alternative consists of one WTP in the lower
portion of the study area at one of three feasible sites
(A, B or C). The regional WTP will discharge 30,700 cu m/d
(8.1 mgd) to the Manasquan River downstream of the proposed
Allaire Reservoir. Four major interceptor segments would
be required to provide collection of wastewater flows:
Debois Creek Interceptor, Upper Manasquan Interceptor, Lower
Manasquan Interceptor, and Marsh Bog Brook/Mingamahone Inter-
ceptor. Three components of the Lower Manasquan Interceptor
are considered feasible (R-l, R-2 and R-3) and an alternative
force main/pump station system is considered a feasible
alternative to the Mingamahone Interceptor. The Regional
Alternative requires two major pump stations, one in the
vicinity of Havens Bridge Road and one in the vicinity of
county roads 524 and 527.
Sludge Management
The two alternatives for sludge management are based on
a centralized sludge management facility for either regional
or subregional wastewater management facilities. The feasible
process alternatives for sludge management are:
Digestion, dewatering, storage, and land application
Digestion, dewatering, composting, and land application
The marketing program for land application of sludge or
compost is dependent on the quality of the finished product,
but the marketing priority should be:
application to publicly owned lands
controlled application to privately owned lands
with nonfood crops (i. e. sod farms)
uncontrolled application to privately owned lands
(as in a giveaway program).
The sludge quantity, depending on processes used, will
range from 4.5 to 8.6 metric tons (5 to 9.5 tons) per day from
30,600 cu m/d (8.1 mgd) of wastewater. Based upon current
industrial/commercial wastewater discharges in the study area,
sludge quality will not exceed NJDEP and EPA criteria for
land application (i. e. heavy metals) (Killam,.. 1978) . The
NJDEP requires continuous monitoring of sludge quality,
soils, crops, and groundwater to insure that safe land.
application rates are maintained.' EPA requirements for
industrial pretreatment will guarantee that future indus-
133
-------
trial discharges will not result in violations of these stand-
ards. Should pretreatment not make sludge acceptable for
land application, the default alternative will be to trans-
port sludge to a regional facility for processing. In that
event, the dewatering facilities would be the only common
element of the sludge management plan.
134
-------
CHAPTER 5
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The following section contains a description of the
primary and secondary impacts the three feasible alternative
systems will have on the current and future environment of
the MRRSA study area. Those environmental issues cited in
the Notice of Intent, including secondary impacts and effect
on water quality of the Manasquan River are evaluated in de-
tail; other impacts which may occur by implementation of the
feasible alternatives are also included. In addition, a
preliminary economic evaluation for each of the feasible
alternatives is presented. Since selection of treatment
plant sites is dependent on the recommendation of an alter-
native system, final presentation of such sites (all of which
have been evaluated and ranked in Chapter 4 and Appendix V)
appears in Chapter 10 (Conclusions and Recommendations).
PRIMARY IMPACTS
Primary environmental impacts include adverse and bene-
ficial effects of constructing collection and treatment sys-
tems. Such impacts can be of short or long term duration.
SOILS
During construction, soil loss can occur within inter-
ceptor, force main, and outfall corridors. The amount of
soil loss depends on soil types, soil erodability, slope,
and cover index factor (which reflects use of various cover
types), and can be estimated using the universal soil loss
equation (NJSSCC, 1974). Table 44 shows the amount of
potential soil loss related to the lengths of the major
interceptors, using a worst-case situation of no artificial
or natural cover, and a best-case situation of an immediate
sod cover. Adverse impacts of soil loss include sedimenta-
tion and decreased productivity of the soil community and
ground cover vegetation.
135
-------
TABLE 44
SOIL LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH MAJOR INTERCEPTORS
Soil Loss
(.o
CTi
Interceptor
Alignment
Debois Creek
Upper Manasquan
Marsh Bog Brook
Mingamahone Brook
Force Main Alternate
Lower Manasquan (R-l)
Lower Manasquan (R-2)
Lower Manasquan (R-3)
Length
Total
7,700
6,100
5,900
5,400
980
7,400
5,330
1,740
(25,
(20,
(19,
(18,
( 3,
(24,
(17,
( 5,
000)
000)
000)
000)
200)
000)
600)
700)
m (ft)
Area Out
Out of Roads
6,900
5,200
4,900
5,300
0
5,900
3,100
3,800
(23
(17
(16
(17
(19
(10
(12
,000)
,000)
,000)
,000)
0
,000)
,000)
,000)
ha
8.4
6.4
6
6.5
0
7
3.8
4.6
of Roads Metric tons/yr (tons/yr)
(ac)
(20)
(16)
(15)
(16)
0
(18)
( 9)
(ID
Worst Case
107
81
76
82
0
91
48
59
(118)
(89)
(84)
(91)
0
(100)
(53)
(65)
Best
1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0
0.9
0.5
0.6
Case
1
(0.9)
(0.8)
(0.9)
0
( 1 )
(0.5)
(0.7)
1
Alternate to the Mingamahone Brook Interceptor.
-------
SR-1
Table 45 shows the potential soil loss from construction
of the SR-1 Alternative, including interceptor and treatment
plants. Immediate sod cover after construction reduces soil
loss by 99 percent. If a pump station/force main alternate
is used to replace the Mingamahone Interceptor, the soil loss
can be reduced by 86 metric tons/yr (95.0 tons/yr) without
cover, and 8.6 metric tons/yr (9.5 tons/yr) with immediate
cover.
SR-2
Soil loss associated with construction of the SR-2 Alter-
native will be similar to that of the SR-1 Alternative. While
proposed land application sites in the downstream portion of
the study area should not cause an appreciable amount of soil
loss, construction of ancillary facilities associated with the
land application sites (storage, operations buildings) can be
expected to involve the same area as a downstream plant.
Regional
Areas of potential soil loss of the Regional Alternative
include the same corridors traversed by the interceptors and
force mains described for the SR Alternatives, plus the Lower
Manasquan Interceptor corridor, and the regional WTP site. A
range of values is shown in Table 45, reflecting the variation
in alignments of the Lower Manasquan Interceptor.
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
Primary impacts to terrestrial ecosystems are directly
related to the type(s) of habitat which exist along proposed
interceptor alignments and on proposed treatment plant sites.
A general description of these habitats follows.
Woodlands
Two generalized forest cover types are found along the
interceptor alignments: one occurs in the low-lying poorly
drained areas and the other on the drier uplands-. Where the
two types are adjacent to one another, a transitional area
exists, including species common to each.
Floodplain vegetation occurs in low-lying, poorly drained
areas. Dominant trees include three-lobed red maple, sweet
gum, black locust, black tupelo, and willows. Other trees
commonly found include river birch, black cherry, pin oak,
137
-------
TABLE 45
Total Potential Soil Loss
Associated with Feasible Alternatives
SR-1 SR-2 Regional
MT (ST) MT (ST) MT (ST)
Treatment Plants
Upstream 411 ( 374) 411 ( 374)
Downstream 314 ( 285) 314 ( 285) 671 ( 610)
Interceptors 420 ( 380) 420 ( 380)
R-l - - 530 ( 435)
R-2 - - - - 479 ( 435)
R-3 - - - - 492 ( 447)
Total
Worst Case 1,145 (1,039) 1,145 (1,039) 1,150 (1,045)
to
1,201 (1,092)
Best Case 11 (10) 11 (10) 11(10) to 12(11)
138
-------
tulip tree, silver maple, swamp white oak, sumacs, mulberry,
sassafras, sweetbay, and box elder. The more extensive stands
of floodplain forest often have a very dense layer of shrubs
and understory height trees. Riparian vegetation is found at
the stream edge and along the banks of the rivers, brooks, and
ponds. Most of the vegetation is of understory height forming
dense thickets along the banks.
The drier areas support woodlands less densely vegetated
than the floodplain with a greater frequency of large trees
(30 cm [12 in] dbh). The Oak-Pine Association is dominant, with
white oak, bear oak, black oak, chestnut, post and scarlet oaks
the most prevalent. Where sandy soils occur, the oaks are found
in association with pitch pine. Also present are shagbark and
mockernut hickory, black cherry, and tulip tree.
Old Field
Herbaceous plants such as goldenrod, ragweed, wild carrot,
yarrow, cinquefoil, common strawberry, brambles, and various
grasses are common components of the old field succession, the
reversion of an abandoned field or disturbed area to a forest
habitat. The first trees to establish include red cedar, aspen,
and grey birch. In time, the forest type most suited to site
conditions and common to the area will become the dominant form
of vegetation.
Right of Way (ROW)
The vegetation on abandoned railroad lines (average width
15 m [50 ft]) is generally grasses with few low growing herba-
ceous plants. The larger utility right of way (average width
61 m [200 ft]) supports an old field type of vegetation, por-
tions of which are in the latter stages of succession, charac-
terized by trees such as red cedar, grey birch, and aspen.
Trees of over 30 cm (12 in) dbh are virtually absent.
Cultivated Field: This category includes sod farms, crop
farms, and lawns. The majority of cultivated land along the
interceptor alignments is sod farm.
Roadway: This category includes all roads and paved sur-
faces such as parking lots.
The extent and period of time over which impacts will
occur due to interceptor construction depends on the type of
habitat, the necessary width of the construction corridor, and
the degree of restoration possible. Impacts to the old fields,
139
-------
cultivated fields, and rights of way are short term, since
vegetation can quickly be reestablished naturally or by design.
Conversely, impacts to woodlands are relatively permanent be-
cause necessary operation and maintenance activities after
construction require that new growth of trees of any signifi-
cant size be prevented. Impacts of treatment plant construction
to any of the habitat types are permanent because the area in-
volved is, in most cases, totally altered (an exception is land
application on an existing farm).
A detailed description and analysis of each segment of
each major interceptor shown on Figure 16 is presented in
Appendix Y. Descriptions and analyses of potential treatment
plant sites are presented in Appendix W. The following discus-
sion summarizes the impacts for the three feasible alternative
systems, and Table 46 shows the linear and areal coverage of
encroachment on each habitat type for each segment of the major
interceptors and any alternative routings.
SR-1
Interceptor construction necessary for this alternative
includes Debois Creek, Upper Manasquan, Marsh Bog Brook, and
Mingamahone Brook. A force main/pump station is an alternative
to the Mingamahone Brook alignment. A total of 8.9 ha (22 a)
of woodland vegetation will be removed for interceptor construc-
tion (the force main/pump station alignment decreases this by
1.2 ha [2.9 a]). Of the total area, approximately 6.5 ha
(16 a) is characterized as mature forest (the force main/pump
station alignment decreases this by 0.9 ha ([2.2 a]). Approx-
imately 14 ha (34 a) of old field, cultivated field, and right
of way will be disturbed during construction. Natural vegeta-
tion will reestablish itself quickly in these habitats, if
proper post construction cover procedures are used. Of the
seven feasible upstream treatment plant sites, five are primarily
cultivated field or old field habitats, and two are primarily
forest. Approximately 6.1 ha (15 a) are necessary for the
actual facilities and will be permanently altered. Of the three
feasible downstream sites, two are primarily cultivated or old
field habitat and the third is an abandoned gravel pit. Approx-
imately 4.9 ha (12 a) will be permanently altered for facility
construction.
SR-2
Interceptor construction will be the same as for SR-1 and
impacts are therefore identical. The same is true for an up-
stream treatment plant site. In the downstream area, the land
application program will involve approximately 231 ha (570 a).
Two of the feasible sites are primarily cultivated field or old
140
-------
TABLE 46
Linear and Areal Coverage of Interceptors
Woodlands
Alignment
Debois Creek:
Segment A
Segment B
Segment C
Segment D
Upper Manasquan:
Segment A
Segment B
Lower Manasquan:
R-l Alternative
Segment A
Segment B
R-2 Alternative
R-3 Alternative
Marsh Bog Brook:
Segment A
Segment B
Mingamahone Brook:
Segment A
Segment B
Mingamahone Force
Main/Pump Station
1
1
2
m
223
335
498
27
, 104
,539
421
777
960
533
, 073
732
229
(ft)
(
(1,
(1,
(
(3,
(5,
(1,
(2,
(3,
(1,
(6,
(2,
(
730)
100)
635)
90)
620)
050)
380)
550)
150)
750)
800)
400)
750)
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
ha
. 27
.41
.61
. 03
. 35
. 88
. 51
.95
.17
. 65
. 53
.89
.28
(0
(1
(1
(0
(3
(4
(1
(2
(2
(1
(6
(2
(0
(a)
. 67)
. 01)
. 50)
. 08)
. 32)
.64)
. 27)
. 34)
.89)
.61)
. 24)
.20)
.69)
Old Field
1
1
1
1
m
765
597
198
,143
183
,189
,835
,835
305
131
610
683
488
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
2
1
3
3
6
(6
. (
(
(
(
(
1
2
2
1
(ft)
,510)
,960)
650)
,750)
600)
,900)
,020)
,020)
, 000)
430)
, 000)
,240)
,600)
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
ha
. 93
.73
. 24
. 39
. 22
.45
. 24
. 24
. 37
.16
. 74
.83
. 59
(a)
(2.
(1.
(0.
(3 .
(0.
(3.
(5.
(5.
(0.
(0.
(1.
(2.
(1.
30
80
60
44
55
58
53
53
92
39
84
06
47
-------
TABLE 46 (Cont'd.) Linear and Areal Coverage of Interceptors
Cultivated Field
Alignment
Deboi s Creek :
Segment A
Segment B
Segment C
Segment D
Upper
Manasguan :
Segment A
Segment B
Lower
Manasquan :
R-l Alter.
Segment A
Segment B
R-2 Alter.
R-3 Alter.
Marsh Bog
Brook :
Segment A
Segment B
Mingamahone
Brook :
Segment A
Segment B
m
238
1,463
689
808
1,143
329
808
808
-
1,210
290
-
(ft)
(
(4,
(2,
(2,
(3,
(1,
(2,
(2,
(3,
(
780)
800)
260)
650)
750)
080)
650)
650)
-
970)
950)
ha
0. 29
1. 78
0.84
0. 98
1. 39
0.40
0. 98
0.98
-
1.48
0. 35
-
1
(0
(4
(2
(2
(3
(0
(2
(2
(3
(0
[a)
.72)
.41)
. 08)
.43)
. 44)
.99)
.43)
.43)
-
.65)
.87)
-
Right-of -Way
m (ft) ha (a ) m
- 76
21 ( 70) 0.03 (0.06) 40
____, Q
- - - - 9
- - - - 2,475
- - - - 814
- - - - 189
- 4, 212
2,926 (9,600) 3.57 (8.82) 488
21 ( 70) 0.03 (0.06) 18
12 ( 40) 0.01 (0. 04) 1,183
21 ( 70) 0.03 (0.06) 30
2,667 (8,750) 3.25 (8.03) 18
Roadway
(ft)
(
(
(
(
( 8
( 2
(
(13
( 1
(
( 3
(
(
250)
130)
30)
30)
,120)
,670)
620)
,820)
,600)
60)
,880)
100)
60)
ha
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
. 09
. 05
.01
.01
.02
.99
.23
.14
.59
. 02
.44
. 04
. 02
1
(0
(0
(0
(0
(7
(2
(0
(12
(1
(0
(3
(0
(0
;a)
.23)
. 12)
. 03)
.03)
.46)
. 45)
. 57)
. 69)
.47)
. 06)
. 56)
. 10)
.05)
Mingamahone Force
Main Pump Station
1,372 (4,500) 1.67 (4.13)
-------
field and the third is approximately 65 percent wooded. Only
this site would sustain severe impacts, as the woods would be
cleared and replaced by cultivated field.
Regional
This alternative includes all the interceptor alignments
necessary for SR-1 and SR-2, as well as the Lower Manasquan
Interceptor. Three alternative alignments have been proposed
for this interceptor. The R-l alignment would involve construc-
tion through a 1.5 ha (3.6a) of woodland (most of which is
mature forest) in addition to that required for the SR-1 and
SR-2 alternatives. It also includes approximately 5 ha (12.5 a)
of cultivated or old field habitat in addition to that required
for the SR-1 and SR-2 alternatives. The R-2 alignment would
involve construction through approximately 1.2 ha (2.9 a) of
woodland (half of which is mature forest) in addition to that
required for the SR-1 and SR-2 alternatives. It also includes
approximately 3.8 ha (8.0 a) of cultivated or old field habitat
in addition to that required for the SR-1 and SR-2 alternatives.
The R-3 alignment is located primarily in roadways and utility
right-of-ways. No construction in woodlands is required beyond
that necessary for the SR-1 and SR-2 alternatives. Approximate-
ly 3.9 ha (9.7 a) of old field or right-of-way habitat, in
addition to that required for the SR-1 and SR-2 alternatives,
would be temporarily disturbed. The feasible treatment plant
sites are the same as those under consideration for a downstream
SR-1 site. However, construction of facilities will require the
permanent alteration of approximately 9 ha (22 a).
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
The potential impact to water quality is one of the major
issues cited in the Notice of Intent, and because of this, short
term and long term impacts are discussed separately. The discus-
tion of short term impacts is primarily associated with effects
to aquatic ecosystems, while the discussion of long term impacts
has been further divided into separate analyses of water quality
impacts to both the Manasquan River and Estuary, impacts to
biota, and impacts on future uses of surface water resources.
Short Term Impacts
SR-1; Affected areas include Debois Creek, the Upper Man-
asquan River, Marsh Bog Brook, and, depending on the selected
alignment, the Mingamahone Brook. The lengths of the intercep-
tors and the number of stream crossings have been presented in
Table 43.
143
-------
Soil loss due to interceptor construction along stream
banks, which results in silt reaching streams, can smother
benthic organisms, clog fish gills, reduce available food
supply for fish, increase suspended material in the water
column, and reduce primary productivity. With the use of
proper post-construction techniques of soil conservation
(immediate application of sod), the amount of silt carried
to the streams is expected to be less than 10 metric tons/yr
(10.4 tons/yr) for all construction associated with the SR-1
alternative. Considering that this would occur over total
stream lengths of approximately 25,000 m (82,000 ft), the
impact of siltation will be minor.
Construction of interceptors across streams will result
in short term disturbances of habitat, and siltation and tur-
bidity downstream. These areas will reestablish themselves
if the stream bed is replaced after construction. Fish samp-
ling in streams being traversed by interceptors showed that,
except for a section of Mingamahone Brook in the Farmingdale
area where 124 individuals of nine species were found, the
aquatic communities did not exhibit high numbers of diversity
of fish species.
SR-2: The basic configuration of interceptors and plant
sites for the SR-2 Alternative is the same as for SR-1, and
short term construction impacts will be similar.
Regional: The Regional Alternative requires the addition
of the Lower Manasquan Interceptor, which traverses approximate-
ly 7,400 m (24,000 ft) with five proposed stream crossings.
Soil loss from construction is estimated to be approximately
0.9 metric tons/yr (1 ton/yr). A portion of this loss will
result in siltation in the Manasquan River in the reach between
Havens Bridge Road and Yellow Brook Road in Howell Township.
In the past, construction activities along the Manasquan
River have exposed acid soils resulting in high levels of acid-
ity appearing in the upper portion of the river. The presence
of these acid soils in the study area is highly variable (Munch,
1977). During actual construction, if these soils are encoun-
tered, runoff from the construction easement will likely be
highly acidic. Problems associated with these soils can be
quickly eliminated by the immediate reestablishment of the cover
material after construction.
Long Term Impacts
Water Quality (Manasquan River):
SR-1: Wastewater discharge (s) will increase
nutrient loading (phosphorus and/or nitrogen) in the Manasquan
River and in the proposed reservoir system. Present point source
144
-------
loading of total nitrogen is estimated at approximately 115,000
kg/yr (256,000 Ib/yr). Proposed year 1995 design flows for the
upstream plant are expected to increase this contribution to
approximately 182,000 kg/yr (401,000 Ib/yr). While the effect
on the reservoir cannot be quantitatively expressed because of
its unique characteristics (Appendix Z), the proposed discharge
of effluent at the upstream plant may contribute to accelerated
rates of eutrophication in the reservoir.
SR-2; Effects of the SR-2 Alternative will be
similar to the SR-1 Alternative, except that wastewater origi-
nating in the lower portion of the basin will be treated and
land-applied rather than discharged to surface waters. The
total loading of inorganic nitrogen will be limited to 137,000
kg/yr (301,000 Ib/yr) contributed by the upstream plant assum-
ing that there are no increases in loadings from runoff or
groundwater recharge resulting from land application. The
upstream plant will augment flow in the river by approximately
9,400 cu m/d (2.5 mgd).
Regional: Wastewater discharged from the Regional
Alternative will bypass the reservoir system and discharge to
the Manasquan River below the Allaire Reservoir. This will
cause a long term beneficial effect by lowering present point
source contributions of nitrogen to the reservoir system by
75,000 kg/yr (164,000 Ib/yr). Observed flow in the river
above the Allaire Reservoir will be decreased by the amount
of presently discharged wastewater. This flow diversion
(11,000 cu m/d [3 mgd]) should not decrease natural baseflow,
since the wastewater originates from areas dependent on ground-
water supplies from extremely deep aquifers.
The diversion of flows downstream will decrease any
buffering action that the existing effluents may provide; how-
ever, the level of treatment required at the proposed upstream
plant (for alternatives SR-1 and SR-2) during the period of
May-October (with regard to NH3 levels), will eliminate any
buffering capacity that existing wastewater provides. In the
nitrification process, alkalinity will be reduced significantly,
since the carbonate (source of buffering capacity) is used as
the carbon source by the nitrifying bacteria.
Water Quality (Manasquan Estuary); The Manasquan River
Estuary is a small (61 ha [150 a]) shallow estuary which emp-
ties into the Atlantic Ocean through the Manasquan Inlet.
There are conflicting data on the flushing characteristics of
the estuary. Recent studies on temperature and salinity indi-
cate that the estuary is a rapidly flushing system because of
its shallow nature, tidal range, and extensive vertical mixing
(Manasquan Reservoir System Project, 1978); however, the obser-
cation of significant algal blooms (characterized as "red tides"
indicates that the system flushes slowly.
145
-------
SR-1; The expected point source contribution
of nitrogen will increase from approximately 115,000 kg/yr
(256,000 Ib/yr) to over 214,000 kg/yr (473,000 Ib/yr). This
contribution includes upstream and downstream discharges and
does not consider losses to reservoir systems or natural bio-
logical processes. The withdrawal of freshwater fro.m the
Manasquan River for the proposed reservoir system will raise
the salinity in the estuary and thus change its characteris-
tics (Manasquan Reservoir System Project, 1978). Wastewater
discharge in the Manasquan River from upstream and downstream
WTPs will augment fresh water flow to the system and moderate
the effects of fresh water withdrawal. Approximately 31,000
cu m/d (8.1 mgd) will be added to river flow via wastewater
discharge, an increase of approximately 20,000 cu m/d (5.1 mgd).
SR-2; Nitrogen loading to the estuary will be
limited to the contribution of the upstream plant (182,000
kg/yr [401,000 Ib/yr]) to the river, assuming that there are
no increases in loadings from runoff or groundwater recharge
resulting from land application. Flow augmentation to the
river, a portion of which will reach the estuary, will total
9,400 cu m/d (2.5 mgd).
Regional; The nitrogen limitation for the reg-
ional facility (9 mg/1) and the design flow (31,000 cu m/d
[8.1 mgd]) result in a contribution of 101,000 kg/yr (221,000
Ib/yr)nitrogen to the river and estuary. This is approximate-
ly 25,000 kg/yr (55,000 Ib/yr) more than present point source
contributions. Flow to the estuary will be increased approx-
imately 20,000 cu m/d (5.1 mgd).
Summary: Based on estimated low flow in the
Manasquan River of 17,600 cu m/d (46.5 mgd) at Hospital Road
and present average concentrations of nutrients (TN = 1.7 mg/1;
TP = 0.17 mg/1), the effects of the alternatives were estimated
for waters reaching the estuary during summer months (assuming
30,000 cu m/d [8 mgd]) letdown over the Allaire Dam and future
background concentrations one-half of present concentrations)
as follows:
Nutrient Concentrations
Below Dam
Alternative
SR-11
SR-22
R3
Effluent concentrations are:
Upper Basin: TN = 24 mg/1; TP = 0.5 mg/1
Lower Basin: TN = 9 mg/1; TP = 3.5 mg/1
2
Effluent concentrations are: TN = 24 mg/1; TP = 0.5 mg/1
Effluent concentrations are: TN = 9 mg/1; TP = 3.5 mg/1
146
TN (mg/1)
5.39
4 . 22
5. 37
TP (mg/1)
0.96
0. 13
1.80
-------
Biota:
SR-1: The higher treatment levels mandated by
the wasteload allocations for the upstream treatment plant
and the diversion of flows from small tributaries to the main
stem of the Manasquan River below the confluence of Debois
Creek will have beneficial impacts on aquatic biota. Improved
BOD5 removal in this area of trout maintenance waters will con-
tribute to maintenance of high dissolved oxygen levels neces-
sary for such sensitive species. The 9,500 cu m/d (2.5 mgd)
will be beneficial during low-flow periods.
Overall effects on the Manasquan River estuarine
biota are difficult to assess. The proposed reservoir system
will complicate existing conditions significantly. The estuary
and its processes have not been extensively studied. Large
increases in nitrogen loading in river estuaries have contri-
buted to periodic nuisance blooms in certain estuaries (es-
pecially in the upper, low salinity portions) and increased
phytoplankton productivity (Weiss & Wilkes, 1971). The latter
can have both beneficial and adverse effects on secondary
productivity (the productivity of organisms higher in the
food chain) depending on which phytoplankton species are
stimulated. Recent observations of nuisance algal blooms
in the Manasquan River Estuary indicate that large increases
in nitrogen loadings may have adverse effects. The point at
which this would occur cannot be determined without detailed
study of the hydraulic regime and nutrient flux.
The effect of flow augmentation due to wastewater
effluent discharge immediately upstream of the estuary will
be beneficial in terms of maintaining present salinity char-
acteristics of the estuary during low flow periods. The
degree of impact will depend upon the changes that the reser-
voir withdrawals exert on the system.
SR-2: Impacts within the upper portion of the
Manasquan River will be similar to those described for the
SR-1 Alternative because the level of treatment, discharge
volume, and location are the same. Flows and nutrient loading
to the estuary will be less than that of the SR-1 Alternative
because 9,800 cu m/d (2.6 mgd) less wastewater effluent will
be discharged to the system. However, the major portion of
nitrogen loadings (88 percent) are from the upstream plant.
The effect of nitrogen loading on aquatic biota in the estuary
will be similar to that described for SR-1.
Regional: The diversion of wastewater effluent
from the upper portion of the Manasquan River basin will elim-
inate approximately 11,000 cu m/d (3 mgd) of flow from the
trout maintenance portion of the river downstream of Debois
147
-------
Creek. A seven-consecutive-day low-flow for the years 1968-
1975, of 24,000 cu m/d (6.3 mgd) was calculated for the River
immediately below the confluence of Debois Creek. Diversion
of existing effluent flow would cause a 46 percent reduction
in flow and a 27 percent reduction in cross-sectional area in
the river during such a low-flow period. This loss of avail-
able habitat could adversely affect aquatic bioa. However,
long term (1932-1966) low-flow data exhibit MA7CD10 flows
slightly above those imposed upon the river as calculated
from the 1968-1975 low flows and these long term data do not
necessarily include present effluent flows. If it is assumed
that the natural low flow (MA7CD10) controls the nature of
the aquatic community, then the diversion of wastewater flows
cannot be considered to impart significant impacts.
Discharge of 31,000 cu m/d (8.1 mgd) of treated
wastewater effluent will augment fresh water flow to the es-
tuary by approximately 19,000 cu m/d (5.1 mgd). In light of
the proposed withdrawals of fresh water by the reservoir
system and the resultant effects on the salinity regime of
the estuary, the augmentation will aid in the maintenance
of the community structure in the estuary. The extent of
this benefit depends on the volume of water withdrawn by the
reservoir system during low-flow periods. Future nitrogen
loadings will be approximately the same as existing point
source loadings. However, due to the withdrawal of fresh
water by the proposed reservoir system, concentrations of
total nitrogen will nearly double. Primary productivity
within the estuary should not be affected.
Future Uses of Surface Waters
SR-1 : The increased level of treatment and di-
version of wastewater flows from small tributaries in the
Manasquan River basin will improve the quality of these
streams and enhance their appearance. The estuary, although
classified as TW-1, is now closed for shellfish harvesting
due to high bacterial levels. While adequate disinfection
of wastewater effluent will lower point source bacterial
loadings to the river, the effect on estuarine bacterial
levels cannot be determined because other sources of bacterial
loadings are unknown.
Concern about the public health danger of discharge
of treated effluent upstream of the proposed reservoir system
is related to possible system failure. The wasteload alloca-
tions require chlorination-dechlorination with no chlorine
residual present in the receiving stream. Chlorine has a
long and proven record as an effective and reliable disinfec-
tion agent; however, it is now suspected or reacting with
residual organic material to form chlorinated hydrocarbons,
148
-------
compounds having possible carcinogenic properties. Since
wastewater effluent from the upstream plant will form a
portion of the flow to the reservoir system, the use of the
chlorination-dechlorination disinfection process is regarded
as an adverse impact. The requirement for chlorination-
dechlorination has been waived by the NJDEP, although an
alternative method of disinfection is required.
The most likely alternative disinfection technique is
ozonation. Ozone is commonly used in Europe to disinfect
water supplies. It appears to exert a stronger viral dis-
infection efficiency than chlorine but studies on disinfec-
tion of wastewater in the United States have shown that the
disinfection efficiency is reduced in the presence of high
concentrations of suspended solids (Venosa, 1977). This
problem is not considered insurmountable and ozonation is
considered a better alternative than the previously mandated
chlorination-dechlorination process.
SR-2; The impacts of the SR-2 Alternative on
future water uses are similar to those described for SR-1.
Wastewater flows from the lower basin would be land-applied,
eliminating contribution to the estuary of 9,800 cu m/d
(2.6 mgd).
Regional: The diversion of wastewater flows
below the Allaire Reservoir precludes any concern related to
the use of the Manasquan River as a potable water supply.
Disinfection of wastewater will lower the bacterial loading
to the estuary and improve conditions for shellfish harvest-
ing .
GROUNDWATER
Each of the feasible alternatives will have beneficial
long term primary effects upon the quality of usable ground-
water in the study area. The reduction of the volume of
septic tank effluent will reduce recharge to shallow
aquifers, but at the same time improve shallow groundwater
quality.
The SR-2 Alternative would have an additional beneficial
effect: approximately 3.6 million cu m (950 million gallons)
will be land-applied annually. A portion of this water (minus
losses to evapotranspiration) will infiltrate through the
soil, and since the potential sites (I, II and III) for land
application overlie the Kirkwood Formation, the SR-2 Alterna-
tive would recharge this aquifer.
149
-------
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Interceptor construction for all three of the feasible
alternatives involves encroachment on both floodplain and
wetlands. Detailed analyses of each segment of the major
interceptors, including minor routing alternatives which
were utilized to minimize encroachment on these sensitive
areas, are presented in Appendix Y. The following discus-
sion summarizes the impacts of the feasible alternatives,
and Tables 47 and 48 show the linear and areal coverage of
encroachment on floodplains and wetlands, due to interceptor
construction. None of the feasible treatment plant sites
would necessitate construction in floodplain or wetland.
SR-1
Interceptor construction will involve disturbance of
approximately 6 ha (15 a) of floodplain vegetation. Where
this habitat is natural forest, the impacts will be long
term, as the forest will not be allowed to reestablish it-
self. However, the construction will not change the grade
(elevation will be the same as prior to construction) and
the affected area will be capable of serving its flood con-
trol role after the interceptors are built. Approximately
0.38 ha (0.94 a) of wetland will be affected by construction
activities. This area will return to its natural state after
several years. If the Mingamahone pump station/force main
alternative is used, wetland habitat disruption will be re-
duced by 0.08 ha (0.2 a).
SR-2
Disturbance of floodplain and wetland will be the same
as for the SR-1 Alternative.
Regional
In addition to the impacts of interceptor construction
associated with SR-1 and SR-2, the Regional Alternative in-
cludes the Lower Manasquan Interceptor which encroaches upon
additional floodplain and wetland areas. The additional
amount varies with the Lower Manasquan alternative alignments.
The R-l alignment encroaches upon an additional 2.3 ha (5.6 a)
of floodplain and 0.07 ha (0.16 a) of wetland. The R-2 align-
ment has only 0.1 ha (0.2 a) of floodplain encroachment, and
0.02 ha (0.06 a) of wetland encroachment more than the SR-1
and SR-2 alternatives, and the R-3 alignment adds no floodplain
encroachment and 0.01 ha (.03 a) of wetland encroachment.
150
-------
TABLE 47
Floodplain Habitat Disruption
Interceptor Segment
Debois Creek
Upper Manasquan
Mingamahone
Lower Manasquan (R-l)
Lower Manasquan (R-2)
Maximum Area to be
Disturbed ha (a)
0.
2.
3.
2.
0.
12
4
5
3
1
(0
(6
(8
(5
(0
.3)
.0)
.6)
.6)
.2)
TABLE 48
Wetland Habitat Disruption
Maximum Habitat Disturbance
Interceptor Segment
Debois Creek Interceptor:
Segment A
Segment B
Segment C
Segment D
Upper Manasquan Interceptor;
Segment A
Segment B
Lower Manasquan Interceptor:
R-l Alternative:
Segment A
Segment B
R-2 Alternative
R-3 Alternative!
Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor:
Segment A
Segment B
Mingamahone Brook:
Segment A
Segment B
Linear
Distance
m
51
30
0
15
41
47
53
0
18
10.7
43
18
11
58
(ft)
( 167)
( 100)
0
( 50)
( 135)
( 155)
( 175)
0
( 60)
(3.50)
( 140)
( 60)
( 35)
( 190)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Area
ha
. 06
. 04
0
. 02
. 05
. 06
. 07
0
. 02
. 01
. 05
. 02
. 01
. 07
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(a)
.15)
.89)
0
.05)
.12)
.14)
.16)
0
. 06)
.03)
.13)
. 06)
. 03)
.17)
1
R-3 Alternative may necessitate the disturbance of a wooded
area adjacent to a railroad right-of-way.
151
-------
AIR QUALITY
Construction activities will cause local degradation of
air quality, with effects greatest in residential areas near
construction sites. Automobile emissions may be increased
due to traffic disruption and the influx of construction
vehicles. Dust released by construction will increase the
suspended particulates in the area. All alternatives will
have similar short term effects on air quality.
The SR-2 Alternative which uses land application of
effluent (spray irrigation) has the potential for long term
impact. Aerosols, formed during spray irrigation may carry
micro-organisms, some of which may be pathogenic. Disinfec-
tion prior to spraying reduces the potential health hazard,
and required buffer zones also reduces the potential for
problems. However, the threat of infection to workers at
the spray irrigation site and to the surrounding community
is not totally known (Burge and Marsh, 1978).
NOISE
Local noise levels will increase due to construction-
related activities. The effects will be most noticeable in
residential areas. All alternatives will be similar in
impact.
Operation of pump stations and wastewater treatment
plant(s) will slightly increase noise levels in their immed-
iate vicinity. Treatment plant operations (SR-1 and SR-2 or
Regional Alternative) are not expected to significantly in-
crease ambient noise levels.
Two pump stations common to all of the feasible alterna-
tives are located in the vicinity of Havens Bridge Road and
County Road 524. Pumps of approximately 150 HP (horsepower)
will be used in each pump station, generating a noise level
of 105 dB (decibels). The walls of the pump station will
reduce the noise level to approximately 62 dB outside the
station. The average day-night noise level in a quiet
suburban residential neighborhood is 50 dB (60 dB for an
urban residential area [EPA, 1974]). Operation of either
pump station is not anticipated to cause long term adverse
impacts to surrounding areas.
TRAFFIC
Traffic disruption will occur where interceptors and
force mains are constructed in roadways. This disruption will
present an inconvenience to local and transient motorists. All
alternatives are similar in the degree of impacts.
152
-------
ENERGY USE
Long-term requirements for energy for each of the feasi-
ble alternatives have been calculated (Killam, 1978) and are
presented below:
Energy Use SR-1 SR-2 Regional
WTP 793 HP 833 HP 364 HP
Conveyance System1 92-149 HP 112-129 HP 150-297 HP
Dependent upon final selection of WTP sites.
These data indicate that energy use is greater for the sub-
regional alternatives than for the regional.
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Secondary impacts are indirect or induced changes in
population growth, economic growth, or land use, and the
environmental effects resulting from these changes. Potential
secondary impacts were cited in the Notice of Intent as a major
issue to be discussed in this EIS, and the following discussion
presents a detailed analysis of the secondary impacts of each
of the feasible alternatives.
CHANGES IN POPULATION GROWTH
A special study done as part of this EIS analyzed the
effects of the feasible alternatives on population growth and
economic development, and concluded that ultimate population
growth and distribution was independent of the alternative
system chosen (Appendix AA). However, initial development
patterns can be expected to be influenced by the alternative
chosen, basically because of the interceptor network related
to the individual alternatives.
SR-1
Initial new development is expected to occur in the
Borough of Farmingdale, Freehold Township, and the portion of
Howell Township in the Metedeconk basin because of ready ac-
cess to service from proposed interceptor alignments.
SR-2
Growth patterns will be the same as for SR-1 because of
identical interceptor alignments.
153
-------
Regional
Any difference in the growth pattern from the subregional
alternatives would be due to the interceptor alignment in the
lower basin (Lower Manasquan Interceptor). The R-l alignment
of th.Is interceptor provides access to service in the Freehold-
Farmingdale. corridor to a greater degjree than the subregional
alternatives or th.e R-2 and R-3 alignments. Therefore, a more
even distribution of population throughout the Manasquan River
basin may occur with, the -R-l alignment.
CHANGES IN LAND USE
SR-1
Areas of northern Howell Township, especially the Free-
hold-Farmingdale corridor, will develop more slowly, because
of lack of centralized facilities. Development will be
directed away from the agricultural lands (sod and truck
farms) in the Freehold-Farmingdale corridor and to areas
closer than one mile to subregional interceptors (Appendix AA) .
The SR-1 Alternative is generally consistent with the New
Jersey State Development Guide Plan, TSRPC Regional Development
Guide, and local zoning and master plans which all designate
the Freehold-Farmingdale corridor as an area of relatively
low density. The SR-1 Alternative does not conform to the
Monmouth County Planning Board's goals in terms of potential
service areas (Appendix M).
SR-2
Effects on land use will be the same as for SR-1. In
addition, 230 ha (570 a) in Howell or Wall Township will be
used for a land application system. Although this land will
be maintained as farmland, areas used for land application
are considered unattractive, and such use will probably de-
crease residential development in the immediate area.
Regional
Access to service in the Freehold-Farmingdale corridor
may cause initial pressure for development on land now in
agricultural use. While ultimate development patterns will
not be different, construction of the R-l alignment in the
Lower Manasquan basin will allow higher densities in the
corridor than are projected by state, regional, and municipal
plans. On the other hand, such development is consistent with
plans proposed by the Monmouth County Planning Board.
154
-------
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Changes in runoff characteristics, caused by increased
urbanization, affect surface water quality. Areas which are
now farmland are expected to undergo the greatest changes in
population growth and urbanization (Tables 27 and 28). The
expected changes in runoff quality within the Manasquan River
basin, measured in terms of nutrient loadings (nitrogen and
phosphorus), indicate a slight increase in nitrogen loadings
and an approximate 50 percent increase in phosphorus loadings
All three feasible alternatives will have similar effects on
surface water quality.
FLOODING
Increases in runoff due to urbanization can contribute
to increases in the magnitude and frequency of flood flows in
the streams of a drainage basin. Leopold (1968) related
urbanization to the number of times that a stream would over-
flow its banks during a year. Using this relationship,
present urbanization patterns would cause streams to overflow
their banks 1.7 times more often than if no urbanization exis-
ted. Under expected year 2020 conditions, streams would over-
flow their banks 2.2 times more often than if no urbanization
existed. Relating urbanization to increase in flood flow
(Stankowski, 1974), calculations indicate that, for a recur-
rence interval of 100 years (instantaneous peak discharge
over a 100-year period), the year 2000 population of the
basin would increase flood flows 6 percent. The year 2020
population would increase flood flows 7 percent. All three
alternatives would have similar effects.
GROUNDWATER
Secondary impacts of the alternatives include reduction
of water available for groundwater recharge and improvement
to groundwater quality.
SR-1
Increase in impervious surface due to development will
decrease recharge availability for surficial aquifers. Spec-
ifically, the Red Bank aquifer which outcrops in northern
Freehold Tonwship and the Kirkwood Formation which is exposed
over a large area in the eastern portion of the study area
would be most affected. These aquifers are not major sources
of water supply in the study area and do not recharge deeper
aquifers because of intervening aquicludes.
155
-------
The initial development pressures in Freehold Township,
the Farmingdale area, and Freehold Borough expected under
this alternative may aggravate the water supply problems in
already overstressed aquifers (Englishtown, Raritan-Magothy).
This condition also depends on the extent of future use in
areas outside the study area.
SR-2
The impact of development on groundwater will be similar
to the SR-1 Alternative.
Regional
If the R-l alignment is chosen, a more homogeneous
development pattern is likely to occur initially. Under such
conditions, development of onsite wells in the presently
underutilized Kirkwood aquifer .may retard overuse of the
groundwater sources in the Freehold and Farmingdale areas.
If the R-2 or R-3 alignments are chosen, impacts will be
similar to the subregional alternatives.
AIR QUALITY
The population growth projected for the study area will
not cause deterioration of air quality. Air quality models
which were used to project air quality in the year 2000, indi-
cate that primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards will
not be exceeded (Table 30). All three feasible alternatives
will have similar growth-related effects on air quality.
TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS
The most obvious change in the terrestrial ecosystems
within the study area will be the loss of large areas of
wooded land. Estimation of future land use patterns indicates
that approximately 2,700 ha (7,000 a) of forest will ultimately
be converted to other land uses. Based upon initial growth
patterns predicted in the Freehold and Farmingdale areas, most
of this loss will occur after the year 2000. All of the alter-
natives will have similar secondary effects upon terrestrial
ecosystems.
WATER SUPPLY
The larger population projected for the study area will
require more water than that supplied by existing groundwater
resources. The addition of the proposed reservoir system will
156
-------
provide enough water to accommodate a population greater than
that forecast for the year 2020. Each of the alternatives
will equally affect the area's water supply.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
The population increases projected in the study area will
require an increase in the extent of government services, in-
cluding police, fire departments, and schools. The populations
forecast in this EIS are at or below those of local and county
planning agencies, and the tax revenues associated with resi-
dential, commercial and industrial growth will increase avail-
able local revenues. Therefore, adverse impacts are not
expected. All three alternatives will equally affect the
area's need for government services in the future.
TAX RATES
The projected increase in commercial and industrial
land use will increase the tax base of the communities,
and should improve on the tax structure in the study area.
All three alternatives will equally affect the tax rate of
the study area.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Development resulting from implementation of the Regional
Alternative will convert some existing active agricultural land
to residential uses faster than the subregional alternatives.
The Regional Alternative will increase the total land capable
of receiving service, and thus subject more environmentally
sensitive areas (wetlands, floodplains, prime agricultural
land) to increased developmental pressure. This danger has
been reduced by designating large areas of environmentally
sensitive areas, as nonservice areas. Capacity of both inter-
ceptors and treatment system was calculated without any poten-
tial flow from these nondesignated areas. Though development
of the agricultural lands located in the nonservice areas may
some day occur, the elimination of central sewage service may
prolong present use.
157
-------
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT IMPACTS
In a preliminary engineering analysis, the method of
sludge management chosen was the land application of sludge
or compost, applicable to any of the three feasible alterna-
tives (Killam, 1979). Table 49 shows the expected quantities
of dewatered sludge or compost and the nutrient loadings
associated with such quantities.
IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL BIOTA
Application of sludge or compost to land at 22.4 metric
tons per hectare per year will require from 75 to 120 ha (180
to 290 a). This is less than the amount of land devoted to
sod farming in Howell Township. Although use of public lands
is usually preferred, application to privately owned sod farms
meets all other criteria and may be the easiest method in this
area. Because use of sod farms is a nonfood use, and because
seed or grass consumption by terrestrial fauna is minimal,
negligible impact on terrestrial biota can be anticipated.
IMPACTS ON GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
Application rates will be based on total nitrogen uptake
of the crop. In order to attain the greatest nutrient uptake
and growth, excess nutrients must be present. Because some
leaching of nitrogen to groundwater will occur with applica-
tion of excess nutrients, monitoring wells must be maintained
to ensure that excess nutrients do not leach to groundwater.
Runoff from sod farming operations typically contains
considerable amounts of sediment. The phosphorus and metal
cations are strongly bound in soil, and losses of soil may
transport significant amounts of phosphorus and metals to
surface waters. The inclusion of buffer strips to remove
solids by overland flow and terracing of sod farms should
minimize runoff.
IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION
Specific transportation requirements depend on sites of
facilities, but the daily (five days per week) requirement
will be four to seven vehicle loads per day, or eight to
fourteen trips. This is based on a density of 960 kg/cu m
(60 Ib/cu ft) for dewatered digested sludge and 640 kg/cu m
(40 Ib/cu ft) for compost, and a vehicle capacity of 5.35 cu m
or 7 cubic yards (cu y). This added traffic will have little
effect on highway capacity, noise, or aesthetics. Land appli-
cation of sludge will generate about twice as much daily traf-
fic as compost use, but will also have little effect on the
area.
158
-------
TABLE 49
Characteristics of Sludge
A. Daily Sludge Quantities:
1. Daily Sludge from Treatment
a. Dewatered sludge after digestion or
composting (50% reduction of volatile
solids)
b. Total mass of digested sludge at 25%
solids (sludge)
c. Total mass of undigested sludge at
40% solids (compost)
Quantity
kg/day (Ib/day)
4,500-7,300 (10,000-16,000)
2,950-4,700 ( 6,500-10,400)
11,800-18,900 (26,000-41,600)
11,300-18,100 (25,000-40,000)
B. Daily and Annual Nutrient Loading
1. Nitrogen
a. Dewatered digested sludge (2% N)
b. Compost (1%)
2. Phosphorus
a. Dewatered sludge (1% P)
b. Compost (1% P)
Nutrient Loading kg (Ib)
Daily
54-94
45-72
(120-207)
( 99-159)
29.5-47.2 ( 65-104)
45-74 ( 99-159)
Annual
21,500-34,400 (47,400-75,800)
16,500-26,500 (36,400-58,400)
10,700-17,200 (23,600-37,900)
16,500-26,500 (36,400-58,400)
-------
PRELIMINARY COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Using the most recent wasteload allocations and waste-
water flow projections for the Manasquan River basin, studies
have been completed for alternative wastewater management
schemes which employ regional and subregional concepts and
utilize both instream discharge and land application of the
treated effluent.
Preliminary cost analyses have been prepared for each
of the alternatives, including the costs for associated
interceptor sewers, and the range of additional costs which
might be anticipated for transmission of the wastewater to
a selected plant site and subsequent discharge to the receiv-
ing body of water or land application site.
The details of these various cost effectiveness studies
are included in Appendix BB. Table 50 summarizes the results
of the studies on the three feasible alternatives.
SUMMARY
Table 51 represents a summary of the beneficial and
adverse environmental impacts for each of the feasible
alternatives as well as a comparison of costs.
160
-------
TABLE 50
Preliminary Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Estimated
Cost
Estimated
Operation &
Maintenance
Total
Present
Worth
SR-1 ALTERNATIVE
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Upstream Plant
Downstream Plant
Interceptor Sewers & Pump Stations
Total
Range of Additional Present Worth
Costs for Treatment Plant Alternatives
$15,783,000
5,923,000
13,800,000
$4,102,000
2,245,000
660,000
$19,885,000
8,168,000
14,460,000
$35,506,000 $7,007,000 $42,513,000
$633,000 to $5,651,000
SR-2 ALTERNATIVE
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Upstream Plant
Downstream Plant
Interceptor Sewers & Pump Stations
Total
Range of Additional Present Worth
Costs for Treatment Plant Alternatives
$15,783,000
8,506,000
13,800,000
$38,089,000
$4,102,000
1,594,000
660,000
$6,356,000
$19,885,000
10,100,000
14,460,000
$44,445,000
$52,000 to $3,267,000
3. REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Regional Interceptor Sewers &
Pump Stations
Total
Range of Additional Present Worth
Costs for Treatment Plant Alternatives
Range of Additional Present Worth
Costs for Interceptor Route Alternatives
$14,695,000 $5,525,000 $20,220,000
19,100,000 700,000 19,800,000
$33,795,000 $6,225,000 $40,020,000
$2,650,000 to $3,300,000
$ 345,000 to $1,600,000
Preliminary costs are based upon CEWTS (Appendix BB) ; actual costs cited on
page 4 are based upon bidding experience and recently published engineering
cost data.
161
-------
TABLE 51
Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Short-term Impacts;
Soils
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Adverse: Loss during construction of
treatment facilities and interceptors;
contributes to erosion and subsequent
siltation to surface waters.
Regional
Terrestrial
Ecosystems
Adverse: Loss of vegetation along in-
terceptor alignments; extent of impact
is highly dependent on exact alignment.
Adverse: Disruption of wildlife com-
munity during construction.
Aquatic
Ecosystems
Adverse: Siltation from construction
may disturb aquatic species and possi-
bly smother benthic organisms.
Adverse: Stream crossings will con-
tribute to siltation and disturb local
habitats.
Adverse: Potential exposure of acid
soils may contribute to lowering pH of
streams affecting biota.
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont'd) - Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Short-term Impacts;
(Continued)
Air Quality
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Adverse: Localized degradation during
construction due to dust and traffic "
congestion.
Regional
Noise
Adverse: Localized increased levels
of noise in construction areas.
en
U)
Traffic
Adverse: Traffic disruption along
construction rights-of-way when
aligned with or crossing roads.
Long-term Primary
Impacts:
Terrestrial
Ecosystems
Adverse: Modification of 6 ha
(15 ac) of floodplain vegetation.
Adverse: Loss of between 0 and
150 ha (370 ac) of forest for land
application site.
»(R-2 and R-3 only)
Adverse: R-l: Potential
for modification of addi-
tional 2.3 ha (5.6 ac) of
floodplain vegetation.
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont'd) - Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Long-term Primary
Impacts (Cont'd):
Aquatic Ecosystems
Water Quality
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Regional
Beneficial: Improvement in overall
water quality by the removal of in-
adequately treated wastewater.
Adverse: Increased nutrient
loading to proposed reservoir
system which may contribute
to accelerated eutrophication.
Adverse: Increased nutrient
loading to estuary.
Aquatic Biota
Beneficial: Flow augmen-
tation to trout mainten-
ance segment of Manasquan
River.
Beneficial: Flow augmen-
tation to reservoir system
and/or estuary will aid in
lessening salinity incursion
to fresh water portion of
river.
Adverse: Flow removal from
trout maintenance segment of
Manasquan River.
Beneficial: Flow augmentation
of 19,000 cu m/d (5 mgd) of
fresh water to estuary, will
lessen salinity incursion to
fresh water portions of river.
Adverse: Loss of purported
buffering capacity supplied by
existing WWTP effluents which
could affect sensitive species.
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont'd) - Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Long-term Primary
Impacts (Cont'd):
Future Uses of
Surface Waters
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
Ul
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Beneficial: Increased levels
of treatment and diversion of
effluent from small tributar-
ies will improve aesthetics
of streams.
Beneficial: Adequate disinfec-
tion of effluents will lessen
present bacterial loadings to
estuary and aid in the reopen-
ing of shellfish areas.
Regional
Adverse: Potential for dis-
infection system failure and
release of inadequately dis-
infected effluent to potable
water supply.
Adverse: Potential acceler-
ation of reservoir system
eutrophication may increase
costs for potable water
treatment.
Beneficial: Completely by-
passes potable water supply
intakes.
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont'd) - Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Long-term Primary
Impacts (Cont'd):
Groundwater
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
en
Long-term Secondary
Impacts:
Changes in Popu-
lation Growth
Changes in Land Use
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Beneficial: Reduction of the volume
of inadequately treated septic tank
effluent reaching shallow aquifers.
Adverse: Loss of recharge from
septic tanks.
Beneficial: Recharge of shallow
aquifers from infiltration of land
applied effluent.
Beneficial: Removal of sewer connection
bans in Freehold Borough and Township.
Concentration of initial growth in """
Farmingdale Borough, Freehold Township
and Metedeconk basin of Howell.
Beneficial: Initial preservation of
farmland in Freehold-Farmingdale
corridor.
Regional
R-2 and R-3.
R-l: Even distribution of
initial growth throughout
the study area.
R-2 and R-3.
Adverse R-l: Increased in-
tial pressure for develop-
ment of farmland in Freehold
Farmingdale corridor.
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont'd) - Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Long-term Secondary
Impacts (Cont'd):
Surface Water Quality
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Adverse: Increase in urban runoff
will increase non-point loadings
to Manasquan River.
Regional
Flooding
Adverse: Increase in runoff will
increase 100-year flood flows at
Squankum by 6-7 percent.
Groundwater
Adverse: Urbanization will reduce
aquifer recharge.
Adverse: Concentration of popula-
tion growth in Freehold and Farming-
dale areas may stress presently
over-utilized municipal systems.
R-2 and R-3.
Beneficial R-l: Homogeneous
distribution may retard the
over-utilization of existing
municipal systems and direct
usage towards Kirkwood forma-
tion.
-------
TABLE 51 (Cont'd) - Summary Environmental Analysis
Area of
Impact
Long-term Secondary
Impacts (Cont'd);
Terrestrial
Impacts
Subregional 1 (SR-1)
Subregional 2 (SR-2)
Adverse: Eventual loss of approx-
imately 2700 ha (7000 ac) of forest
to residential development.
Regional
o
CO
Tax Rates
Beneficial: The ability to accom-
modate increased industrial and
commercial growth will increase
the tax base.
PRELIMINARY COST
EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
$43,146,000 - $48,164,000
$44,997,000 - $47,712,000
$43,150,000 - $44,920,000
-------
CHAPTER 6
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING
MEASURES TO REDUCE THESE IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
Each of the feasible alternatives represents a solution
to wastewater management problems with minimal harmful
effects. There remain, however, adverse impacts which are
unavoidable; many of these will result from all of the
feasible alternatives. Construction activities for proposed
treatment plant (s), interceptors and outfalls will result in
some soil erosion, and siltation of portions of the Manasquan
River, Debois Creek and Marsh Bog Brook. Construction with-
in certain areas of the Manasquan River basin may also ex-
pose acid soils and cause a decrease in pH of the river.
Construction of interceptor sewers will affect a maximum of
6 ha (15 a) of floodplain habitat and vegetation along cor-
ridors, and will also cause inconvenience, safety hazards,
and some damage to public property.
The forecast population growth will cause increases in
urban runoff resulting in increases in nonpoint source load-
ing to the Manasquan River basin. Increases in runoff will
increase the 100-year flood flows (at Squankum) by 6-7
percent. Urbanization within the Manasquan River basin
will reduce recharge to aquifers and may stress several
presently overloaded municipal water systems. Future growth
within the study area will likely cause the loss of 2,700 ha
(7,000 a) of forest land.
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ALTERNATIVES SR-1 AND SR-2
The SR-1 and SR-2 Alternatives will significantly increase
nutrient loadings to the1proposed reservoir system which may
contribute to accelerated eutrophication. Nutrient loading
to the Manasquan Estuary will also increase. Under the SR-1 and
SR-2 Alternatives, a possible disinfection system failure could
release inadequately disinfected effluent to a proposed potable
water system. In addition, implementation of the SR-2 Alterna-
tive will require destruction of 0 to 150 ha (0-370 a) of forest
for use as a land application site.
169
-------
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
The regional alternative will remove approximately 11,000
cu m/d (3 mgd) of flow from the trout maintenance portion of
the Manasquan River. In addition, construction of the R-l
alternate (Lower Manasquan Interceptor) may affect an addi-
tional 2.3 ha (5.6 a) of floodplain habitat.
MITIGATING MEASURES
The magnitude of several of the adverse impacts described
above can be reduced by use of appropriate environmental
protection measures.
Strict adherence to the state erosion and sedimentation
control law ("Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control")
will minimize the effects of construction on the Manasquan
River and its tributaries. Excavations should be filled as
soon as possible to reduce damage from runoff and erosion,
as well as reduce safety hazards. Dust should be controlled
in areas where it will be a nuisance or a hazard. Indigenous
flora should be planted as soon as possible in stream cor-
ridors and along floodplains disturbed by construction. If
acid soils are found within construction corridors, measures
should be taken to prevent runoff from reaching adjacent sur-
face waters.
A continuous maintenance program should be implemented
to prevent system failure that could create significant en-
vironmental impacts. Continuous analytical testing in the
plant laboratory and on-line analytical monitors would pro-
vide the data necessary to maintain the plant's effluent
at the quality required by state and federal regulations.
The mitigation of secondary impacts caused by the
feasible alternatives requires planning and legislation.
The intensive development that will be made possible by
the feasible alternatives is recognized as a significant
danger. Without enforcement of local land use plans and
zoning ordinances, revised where necessary, water quality
may deteriorate.
170
-------
In order to protect the natural and human environment,
construction and restoration techniques will be specified
in contract documents and will include mandated procedures
for:
controlling sediment and erosion
controlling dust by wetting down construction sites
controlling noise by requiring use of machinery with
mufflers and by prohibiting operation of excess
machinery
avoiding traffic hazards by installing adequate
signs and lights
protecting streams at crossings by construction of
rip-rap
avoiding unnecessary disturbance of roadside vegetation
171
-------
CHAPTER 7
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
INTRODUCTION
The construction and operation of wastewater facilities
within the Manasquan River basin will reduce current environ-
mental degradation and enhance long-term growth and produc-
tivity in the study area. This section describes the extent
to which the feasible alternatives involve tradeoffs between
short-term gains at the expense of long-term gains, and vice
versa. Special attention is given to effects which narrow
the range of future uses of land and water resources or pose
long-term risks to health or sfaety.
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
Short-term impacts resulting from construction of any
of the feasible alternatives will affect local air quality,
water quality, traffic patterns, and the aesthetic environ-
ment. Each of these effects has been described within the
EIS and is not considered significant enough to alter the
feasibility of any of the alternatives.
LONG-TERM IMPACTS
The proposed service area is suburban-rural and is ex-
periencing substantial pressure for future development.
Local land use plans provide for adequate sewage treatment
capacity; therefore, implementation of the feasible alterna-
tives will provide local officials with a mechanism to promote
development of the study area consistent with local planning.
Without adequate provision of centralized treatment, develop-
ment would occur in many areas which could not support septic
tanks.
An increase in the public water supply has been projected
for the study area. The SR-1 and SR-2 Alternatives would
172
-------
discharge treated wastewater upstream of the proposed
reservoir system, imposing long-term risks to health and
safety.
Conditions for aquatic biota would generally be enhanced
by the alternatives. Local fish populations, the benthic
community, and the aquatic eco.systems of the river will
benefit with implementation of any of the alternatives.
Implementation of the regional alternative, however, would
reduce flow to a trout maintenance portion of the river.
It is estimated that over 4,200 ha (10,500 a) of prime
agricultural land will be affected by urban development in
Freehold, Howell and Wall Townships. Using the conclusion
of Appendix AA (Secondary Impacts), the loss of prime farm-
land seems inevitable. Since sewerage facilities provide
an opportunity for use of the planning tools necessary to
successfully maintain open space, public investment in
sewerage facilities can be considered necessary to any
serious decision to maintain prime agricultural lands in
active agricultural uses. Infrastructure alone, however,
is not an adequate strategy; institutional methods must
also be used. Without a concerted effort by all levels of
government the urbanization of prime agricultural land in
the MRRSA study area will be unavoidable, with or without
the sewerage infrastructure.
173
-------
CHAPTER 8
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Resources involved in the construction and operation of
wastewater management systems include land, materials (steel
and concrete), energy, and chemicals.
LAND USED FOR FACILITIES
The amount of land necessary for treatment plants and
pump stations is shown in Table 52, for the three feasible
alternatives. Since post construction restoration will
allow other use of interceptor and force main alignments,
the land used for these conveyance systems is not considered
irretrievably lost. Similarly, the land necessary for land
application (Alternative SR-2) is also not irretrievably
lost.
TABLE 52
Land Used for Facilities
ha (a)
Component Regional SR-1 SR-2
Treatment Plant 8.9 (22.0) 10.9 (27.0) 10.9 (27.0)
Pump Stations 0.2 ( 0.6) 0.2 ( 0.5) 0.2 ( 0.5)
Total . 9.1 (22.6) 11.1 (27.5) 11.1 (27.5)
MATERIALS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION
The amount of steel and concrete necessary for construc-
tion of treatment plants and conveyance systems is estimated
from standard specifications for the facilities used as a
basis for the EPA Cost Index (U. S. Department of Interior,
1964). The estimates of these material requirements are
shown in Table 53.
174
-------
TABLE 53
Construction Material Requirements
Component
Regional :
Steel
Concrete
Treatment Plant
MT
12,700
27,400
(ST)
(14,000)
(32,400)
Conveyance System
MT (ST)
1,025 ( 1,130)
30,000 (33,100)
SR-1:
Steel
Concrete
SR-2:
Steel
Concrete
12,700
29,400
12,700
29,400
(14,000)
(32,400)
(14,000)
(32,400)
300 ( 330)
11,600 (12,700)
280 ( 310)
10,600 (11,700)
ENERGY NEEDED TO BUILD AND OPERATE FACILITIES
The energy needed for construction of facilities is the
indirect energy commitment required for production of steel
and concrete. Energy needed for operation is composed of
electrical energy needed at treatment plants and pump sta-
tions. Energy requirements are based on the following
relationships:
Production of Steel:
Production of Concrete
Electrical Energy:
27.1 million kJ/metric ton
(23.3 million BTU/short ton)
2.36 million kJ/metric ton
(1.71 million BTU/short ton)
11,000 kJ/kwh (10,500 BTU/kwh
(32.5% efficiency)
Based on these relationships, the indirect construction
energy and annual operating energy necessary for the three
alternatives are shown on Table 54.
175
-------
TABLE 54
Construction and Operation
Energy Requirements
kJ x 106 (BTU x 106)
Regional
SR-1
SR-2
Construction
Treatment 400,000 (381,600) 400,000 (381,600) 400,000 (381,600)
Intercep-
tors 86,800 ( 82,900) 30,800 ( 29,400) 28,500 ( 27,200)
Total
486,800 (464,500) 430,800 (411,000) 428 , 500 (408 ,800)
Operation
67,200 ( 64,200) 85,800 ( 81,900) 32,200 ( 30,700)
RESOURCES NEEDED FOR OPERATION
The major resources associated with operation are the chemicals
needed for treatment. Table 55 shows the estimated chemical needs
for the three alternatives.
TABLE 55
Chemical Resource Commitment Estimates
MT/yr (ST/yr)
Resource Parameter
Chemical Use:
1. Chlorine
2. Sulfur Dioxide
3. Lime
4. Methanol
5. Ferric Chloride
6. Activated Carbon
7. Carbon Dioxide
Regional
Subregional with
Surface Water
Discharge
68 ( 62)
13. 2 ( 12)
106 ( 96)
1,770 (1,610)
57 ( 52)
1,223 (1,110)
4. 4 ( 4)
4,830 (4,380)
18.7 ( 17)
16.5 ( 15)
3,250 (2,950)
Subregional with
Land Application
22 ( 20)
4.4 ( 4)
3,730 (3,380)
18.7 ( 17)
16.5 ( 15)
3,250 (2,950)
176
-------
CHAPTER 9
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a summary of the public participa-
tion program developed for the MRRSA EIS program. During
the years prior to the EIS, a series of public meetings were
conducted as part of the wastewater management study (1974)
to discuss alternative solutions to the water pollution
problems of the Manasquan River basin. These early meetings
were held on February 27, 1974, March 19, 1974, October 9,
1975, November 13, 1975, January 22, 1976, and February 5,
1976. Due to the controversial nature of the project alter-
natives, attendance at the early meetings at times numbered
in the hundreds. Major issues and concerns which were dis-
cussed by the public included:
subregional versus regional treatment plant
cost to the homeowner
treatment plant site location(s)
odor problems
routing of interceptor sewers
designation of service areas
urgency because of malfunctioning septic tanks
within Farmingdale
During the course of these early meetings, specific treat-
ment plant sites were investigated and shown to the municipali-
ties and public. In addition, the subregional and regional
concepts of treatment were being'investigated for their
feasibility. Objections were raised by those most affected
by various treatment plant sites. The majority of residents
and municipal officials present at the meetings preferred
selection of one regional facility. The public became polar-
ized after a proposal was developed to provide an interim
treatment plant located in Howell or Freehold Township. While
this proposal initially met with some degree of public accept-
ance, it became an explosive issue when the NJDEP confirmed
its previously stated position and mandated that, "The site
(interim) must also be compatible as a permanent site" (Ricci,
1975). In addition, the NJDEP stated:
177
-------
"This division has completed its review of all docu-
ments submitted by the Manasguan River Regional
Sewerage Authority. Sufficient analysis has been
provided to clearly demonstrate that the key ele-
ment in the single plant concept, the interceptor
line through the unpopulated areas in Howell Town-
ship, is environmentally unacceptable. The Authority
is now directed to eliminate the single plant concept
from all future investigations and consider sub-
regional wastewater management alternatives. The
work effort necessary to complete the facility plan
should be redirected in this vein."
In anticipation of the state's adoption of this position,
Howell Township adopted a resolution (October, 1975) object-
ing to the location of interim or permanent sewage treatment
facilities anywhere within the boundaries of the township
and authorized its attorney to take all steps necessary to
support and defend this position. The controversy which was
created during this period brought interjection of the EPA
which filed a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.
MEETINGS
After announcing its intent to prepare an EIS, the EPA
encouraged the MRRSA to establish a Citizens Input Committee
(CIC) to be composed of appointed representatives from each
of the participating municipalities and representatives of
public interest groups. The EPA held two meetings shortly
after the Notice of Intent was issued. On August 26, 1976
a public workshop was held to discuss the EIS process. On
October 5, 1976, a CIC meeting was held in order to get CIC
comments on the EPA's draft outline for the Manasquan EIS.
An important part of the EIS process included a series
of meetings with the CIC and general public. Three separate
CIC and public meetings (totaling six) were incorporated
into the decision-making schedule of the EIS process. In
addition to the six regularly scheduled meetings, a special
meeting on population forecasts and a seventh CIC/public
workshop were conducted. Each of the meetings was adver-
tised in local media. In addition, an agenda and summary
of pertinent information was supplied to the public and
municipal officials in advance of the meetings. Representa-
tives of NJDEP, the EPA, and the consulting firms were
invited to all of the CIC and public workshops. A summary
of each of the meetings is provided below:
178
-------
CIC Meeting #1 (March 30, 1977)
The agenda included an explanation of the piggyback EIS
process, the role of the CIC, dates for future public work-
shops and CIC meetings, and an open discussion to obtain
the views of the CIC representatives. Members of the CIC
reviewed the history of the project and the years and monies
which had been expended without arriving at a conclusion.
Concerns were expressed regarding project delays and the con-
tinued pollution of the Manasquan River during the new studies
The decision-making process and the respective roles and
weighing of the decision by the public, MRRSA, NJDEP, EPA, and
the consultants were discussed. An explanation of the
decision-making process was presented which indicated that
an independent evaluation of the issues by each of the in-
volved groups (CIC, public, MRRSA, NJDEP and EPA) would
result in one alternative which was cost-effective, environ-
mentally sound and implementable.
Several citizens expressed concern over the location of
a proposed water supply reservoir (s) downstream of a pro-
posed sewage treatment plant and the resulting public health
hazards. They were told that the public health aspects of
a sewage discharge would be addressed within the EIS and
also a special reservoir study in progress by the State of
New Jersey. In addition, the possible effects of nutrient
(phosphorus and nitrate) discharges upon the eutrophication
of the impoundment would also be assessed in the EIS.
Concern was also expressed that a regional treatment
plant site which had been proposed in previous years had
been sold to the New Jersey Department of Parks and Forestry
(through Green Acres funds) and was now a part of the Allaire
State Park with a deed containing restrictive language pro-
hibiting its use as a treatment plant site. The CIC ques-
tioned the state's reason for this purchase and indicated
that the state might possibly preclude a regional plant
system in this manner. The matter was temporarily resolved
by assurance that meetings with the state to investigate
the issue more fully would be held.
In summary, the first CIC meeting presented the serious
concerns of the citizens and resulted in a tone of cooperative
skepticism.
Public Workshop #1 (April 14, 1977)
The agenda included an explanation of the piggyback EIS
process, schedule for completion of the EIS, and a descrip-
tion of the issues to be investigated. After a brief presen-
tation, the workshop was opened to questions or statements
from the public.
179
-------
In response to a question concerning subregional treat-
ment plant sites which had been evaluated in earlier studies,
it was indicated that these sites and new sites would be re-
evaluated as a part of the EIS. It was stressed that the EIS
was being prepared without any preconceived ideas of the
eventual outcome of the project.
Discussions centered on specific treatment plant sites
from earlier reports and the advantages and disadvantages of
each. The public recommended additional sites for investi-
gation (in Freehold Township next to a dump). The desire to
further investigate the circumstances surrounding the sale
of the previously proposed regional treatment plant site
to the state was also expressed.
A discussion of environmental constraints mapping, in-
cluding definitions of key terms such as prime agricultural
lands, followed. The methodology, for determining the environ-
mental constraints and developable land was presented. Inter-
views with sod farm owners, conducted to determine the economic
viability of maintaining land in agricultural use, revealed
that the sod farmers felt economic pressures to sell their
land; they would need public relief in order to retain their
farms.
Finally, the role of the CIC and public workshops within
the decision-making framework was explained. The tone of the
first public workshop was similar to that of the first CIC
meeting, one of cooperative skepticism (most of the CIC
members were present at the workshop and again expressed
their concerns).
CIC Meeting #2 (May 11, 1977)
Prior to the second meeting, information was mailed to
all CIC members telling them results of a regulatory meeting
held on April 11, 1977. This information contained status
of EIS, methodology to be utilized in environmental con-
straints and secondary impact analyses, population forecasts
(methodology), alternatives (preliminary discussion), and
public participation. In addition, CIC members received
the preliminary population forecast and a comparison with
earlier forecasts.
The agenda for the second CIC meeting included a dis-
cussion of environmental constraints analysis, presentation
of the population forecast, and a discussion of conceptual
alternatives. Initial discussion concerned soil types in the
study area and amount of land suitable for septic tanks. The
population forecasts were presented, emphasizing that these
180
-------
projections formed the basis for service area designation
and sizing of any treatment facility. The forecast was
neither accepted nor rejected by the CIC members. The final
presentation concerned a discussion of conceptual alternatives
It included a presentation of the differences in secondary'
impacts associated with a regional treatment plant, including
intercepting sewers traversing undeveloped land, and a sub-
regional treatment plant(s) providing service to areas of
immediate need.
CIC representatives from Howell Township expressed their
views that reasonable growth in Howell Township be allowed.
They also indicated that the township could control this
growth through the use of local land use controls (zoning).
They were concerned that much of the land in Howell Township
was already removed from the tax maps (military bases, state
parks, etc.) and that by limiting or excluding sewer service
to certain areas they would not be able to attract ratables,
thereby increasing taxes on an already heavily taxed popula-
tion .
The balance of discussions focused on the details of the
information presented; there was no disagreement with the
methodologies and results presented.
Special Meeting - Population Forecasts (May 19, 1977)
A special meeting on population forecasts was held at
the request of the EPA because of the lack of response con-
cerning the preliminary population forecasts. Special
notices were mailed to those professional personnel most
familiar with forecasting techniques including:
NJDEP
EPA
planning departments of- each of the five municipalities
and their consultants
Monmouth County Regional Planning Commission
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (TSRPC)
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
appropriate areawide wastewater management (208)
agencies
In addition, more than twenty other letters announcing the
meeting and enclosing the preliminary forecasts were mailed
to interested parties requesting their review, comment and
attendance at the meeting.
181
-------
Several (three) written responses were received. The
attendance at the meeting was poor; only representatives of
the EPA, NJDEP, TSRPC and several CIC members were present.
There was no disagreement with the forecasts presented at
the meeting. Subsequent correspondence with the municipali-
ties and other interested agencies, however, did result in
changes to the preliminary forecasts.
Public Workshop #2 (May 26, 1977)
The agenda included presentations on the environmental
constraints analysis, population forecasts, and conceptual
alternatives. After brief presentations on each of the
agenda topics, the public responded with questions and com-
ments. Many of the questions related to the population fore-
casts. It was explained that the population forecasts were
prepared initially for each municipality because it was then
possible to compare population forecasts with those prepared
by other agencies.
The methodology of comparing conceptual alternatives
rather than presenting many combinations for specific sites
for the subregional and regional systems was discussed.
The conceptual approach would result in an understanding of
the differences in both primary and secondary environmental
impacts.
The second public workshop was more relaxed and the pubic
expressed less skepticism. The public appeared to have
gained an appreciation for the logical analysis of the EIS
process and expressed the sincere desire to keep informed
and make an honest contribution to the decision-making
process.
CIC Meeting #3 (July 14, 1977)
Prior to the third CIC meeting, three preliminary draft
chapters of the EIS were distributed: 3 - Environmental
Setting, 4 - Environmental Constraints to Growth, and
5 - Legal and Infrastructure Constraints. The CIC was also
notified of the delays encountered in obtaining wasteload
allocations from the NJDEP. The agenda included a dis-
cussion of the three draft chapters and alternative sites.
The meeting proceeded with questions and statements
directed at specific pages within the draft chapters. Rep-
resentative questions/comments included:
Question of whether pollutants (leachate) from a
landfill affect the project
182
-------
Recommendation that an addition to Chapter 4 discuss
Freehold Township's proposal on transfer of develop-
ment rights
Request that a CIC member accompany the environmental
consultant on field surveys
Question of whether the MRRSA would be subject to
fines if PCB's found in the Manasquan River were dis-
charged to the MRRSA plant
Suggestion that site 4 be rejected as acceptable for
a treatment plant since it contained a rare stand
of trees
Question about the state's mathematical model's
incorporation of nonpoint sources in calculating
waste load allocations.
Public Workshop #3 (July 21, 1977)
Since the draft chapters had not been made available to
the public at large, a brief review of the chapters was
presented. In addition, the delays caused by the lack of
wasteload allocations were described in detail. Questions
asked were similar to those discussed at the CIC meeting #3.
It was again stated that site #4, which had been eliminated
in previous studies, should be re-evaluated. The public ex-
pressed concern that the project delays would delay the
original completion date of September 12, 1977 for the
completion of the draft EIS. The public again expressed the
desire for a single regional treatment plant as it had at
every prior CIC and public workshop meeting.
Combined CIC/Public Workshop #4 (June 8, 1978)
The agenda for the final CIC/public meeting included:
EIS schedule and method of decision making
review of project delays
review of problem areas and their resolutions
description of regional and subregional systems
cost-effectiveness summary
summary environmental impact analysis
More than 150 members of the public, CIC, MRRSA, munici-
palities and regulatory agencies attended the final meeting.
183
-------
Causes of the EIS delay of approximately ten months were
discussed with the public. Brief presentations concerning
each of the other topics on the agenda were also made. Sev-
eral letters submitted to the MRRSA were entered into the
record of the meeting prior to the open discussion.
The mayor of Freehold Township, representing his con-
stituency, indicated support for a single regional treatment
plant. The mayor of Farmingdale, speaking for his con-
stituency, requested the expeditious completion of the project
since his borough had continuing problems with malfunctioning
septic systems which could not be solved without construction
of an MRRSA treatment facility. The mayor also expressed the
Borough of Farmingdale' s support for a o.ne-plant regional
system.
A member of the Howell Township Committee, speaking on
behalf of the Township Committee and the constituents they
represent, expressed support of a one-plant regional system.
The Howell Township representative further suggested that a
vote be taken to determine how many favored the one-plant
system and how many favored the subregional system. It was
stated that the vote of the public at a public meeting had
no legal status and would indicate, for the record only,
the sentiments of those in attendance. The citizens
unanimously supported a one-plant regional system. Not one
vote was cast in favor of a subregional system.
A representative of Nestle's Company read a statement
indicating that due to the overloaded conditions at the
existing Freehold Borough treatment plant, there were times
when Nestle's could not discharge into the existing system
and had to seek other means of disposing of its wastes. This
condition had prevented the company from expanding its
present facility. It was stated by Nestle's that the most
expeditious solution to the sewage treatment needs of the
area could best be served by the construction of a single
regional system.
Several other representatives of citizen groups ex-
pressed their support of a one-plant system. Sample ques-
tions which were asked by the public follow:
Were the costs presented for the alternative treat-
ment systems in present dollars or was inflation
taken into account?
How does a land application system of sewage
effluent work?
What happens to existing privately owned treatment
plants after construction of an MRRSA facility(s)?
184
-------
What were the chances of obtaining NJDEP approval
of a one-plant regional system, since historically
they had been on record opposing a single plant
system?
How much land would be required for the regional
treatment plant?
How could we prevent construction within the floodplain?
How much communication had taken place between the
MRRSA's consultants and the Rutgers University group
preparing the reservoir study?
Each of the questions and comments were addressed without
objection. The MRRSA's consultants were asked what their
recommendations would be. The consultants indicated that
based upon the data evaluated which included environmental,
engineering and implementation aspects of the feasible al-
ternatives as well as public input, they would recommend the
regional treatment plant concept.
SUMMARY
The result of eight public meetings, which were conducted
during the preparation of the draft EIS, clearly indicates
that the public desires a regional treatment plant for the
Manasquan River basin. This conclusion is based upon verbal
and written statements received during the progress of the
EIS.
185
-------
CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
WATER QUALITY
(1) The upper portion of the Manasquan River and its tribu-
taries experience poor water quality evidenced by de-
pressed dissolved oxygen concentrations and occasional
fish kills. This poor water quality is caused in part
by numerous point source discharges. Elimination of
these point source discharges will result in a signifi-
cant improvement in water quality.
(2) Nutrient levels affect algal growth and eutrophication
in surface waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are
the prime areas of concern. In general, nitrogen is
usually the limiting nutrient for algal growth in
estuaries, and phosphorus is usually the limiting
nutrient in lakes and impoundments.
(3) Nonpoint sources currently account for slightly less than
half of the nutrient loading to the Manasquan River.
Based on future land use .plans, nonpoint source nutrient
loadings are expected to increase by 10 percent for total
nitrogen and by 35 percent for total phosphorus. However,
the elimination of point source discharges will reduce
total future nutrient loadings to a point below present
levels.
(4) The 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for Monmouth
County, currently near completion, is expected to address
provisions which would reduce future nonpoint source
nutrient loadings. Existing nonpoint source nutrient
loadings appear to be sufficient to cause eutrophication
of the proposed Oak Glen Reservoir. Because of high
phosphorus concentrations in the Manasquan River, nitrogen
could be the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in the
Oak Glen Reservoir.
POPULATION AND LAND USE
(5) The population of the study area is forecasted to increase
from approximately 46,400 (1970) to 102,000 in the year
186
-------
2000 and to 122,000 in the year 2020, based upon trend
analyses, employment characteristics, and regional
growth patterns. This population can be accommodated
under existing zoning without development of wetlands,
floodplains, steep slopes, and publicly-owned lands.
(6) Existing local land use controls do not prohibit develop-
ment of environmentally sensitive areas, but existing
clustering provisions allow for concentrating population
growth on environmentally sound lands.
(7) Prime agricultural lands are considered to be valuable
environmentally sensitive areas. Development on these
lands should be discouraged.
(8) Existing groundwater and anticipated surface water sup-
plies (Manasquan River Reservoir System) are adequate
for the forecasted 2020 population. Water supplies
would not be adequate if the reservoir system were not
built. Energy resources are adequate, and no violations
of National Ambient Air Quality Standards are anticipated
to result from the forecasted population increase.
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
(9) The study area can be divided into areas that require
centralized wastewater collection (sewers) and those that
do not. Areas which are now sewered will continue to be
served. Certain unsewered areas within Freehold, Howell,
and Wall townships and in the Borough of Parmingdale will
require centralized wastewater collection because of
existing or projected high density development. The
remaining portions of the study area would continue to
use the present method of wastewater management (on-
site septic tank systems). Public education programs on
the proper operation and maintenance of these septic
systems and a program for the inspection, maintenance,
and monitoring of septic systems are necessary.
(10) By 1995 wastewater flows from sewered areas are projected
to be 30,000 cu m/d (8.1 mgd) for the Manasquan River
basin and 7,500 cu m/d (2.0 mgd) for the North Branch
Metedeconk River basin. These flow projections are based
upon a commercial flow of 1,900 Ipd/ha (200 gpd/a), an
industrial flow of 9,4000 Ipd/ha (1,000 gpd/a), and
residential flows of 340 Ipcd (90 gpcd) for the Borough
of Freehold, 400 Ipcd (100 gpcd) for Freehold Township,
and 300 Ipcd (80 gpcd) for the remainder of the study
area.
187
-------
(11) The No Action Alternative would allow existing water
quality problems in the Manasquan River and its tribu-
taries to continue, and would not meet the intent of
the Clean Water Act. The No Action Alternative is not
considered feasible because it does not allow for the
achievement of water quality standards and would not
meet the wastewater management needs of the study area.
(12) The Expand and Upgrade Alternative is not considered
feasible because of the high cost and inherent inef-
ficiency of operating many small treatment plants. In
addition, space limitations at existing plant sites and
the lack of municipal WTP's in the downstream portion of
the study area would make it difficult for this alterna-
tive to accommodate projected growth in the study area.
(13) Three alternative systems are feasible for the collec-
tion, treatment, and disposal of wastewater in the
Manasquan River basin:
The Subregional 1 (SR-1) Alternative consists of two
AWT facilities, one located in the upper portion of
the Manasquan River basin and the other located in
the lower portion of the basin. The upstream plant
would discharge 21,000 cu m/d (5.5 mgd) to the
Manasquan River downstream of its confluence with
Debois Creek; the downstream plant would discharge
10,000 cu m/d (2.6 mgd) to the Manasquan River down-
stream of the proposed Allaire Reservoir. The treat-
ment process at the upstream plant would comprise
secondary treatment, seasonal nitrification (May
through October), phosphorus removal, chlorination,
and dechlorination. The treatment process at the
downstream plant would comprise secondary treat-
ment, seasonal nitrification and denitrification
(May through October), tertiary filtration, chlori-
nation, dechlorination, and post aeration. Three
major interceptor systems would be needed for waste-
water collection: Debois Creek Interceptor, Upper
Manasquan Interceptor, and Marsh Bog Brook Inter-
ceptor. The Mingamahone Pump Station/Force Main
and the pump stations in the vicinity of Havens
Bridge Road and County Roads 524 and 527 would also
be needed. Sludge would be composted and applied
to land as a soil conditioner.
The Subregional 2 (SR-2) Alternative is similar to
the SR-1 Alternative except that the downstream WTP
would use secondary treatment with land application
for effluent disposal rather than direct discharge
to the Manasquan River.
188
-------
The Regional Alternative consists of a single AWT
plant located in the lower portion of th.e Manasquan
River basin. The regional plant would discharge
31,000 cu m/d (8.1 mgd) to the Manasquan River
downstream of the proposed Allaire Reservoir. The
treatment process would comprise secondary treatment,
seasonal nitrification and denitrification (May
through October), tertiary filtration, chlorination,
dechlorination, and post aeration. Under the Regional
Alternative, four major interceptor systems would be
needed for wastewater collection: Debois Creek
Interceptor, Upper Manasquan Interceptor, Lower
Manasquan Interceptor, and Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor.
The Mingamahone Pump Station/Force Main and the pump
stations in the vicinity of Havens Bridge Road and
County Roads 524 and 527 would also be needed. Sludge
would be composted and applied to land as a soil con-
ditioner .
(14) It would not be cost-effective for MRRSA to provide
sewerage service to the North Branch Metedeconk River
basin because such service is already being economically
provided by OCSA.
(15) Surface water discharge is a feasible method of effluent
disposal for the regional and subregional alternatives.
The lack of any major industrial water user in the study
area makes industrial reuse infeasible. Sufficient suit-
able land is available for the land application of pro-
jected flows originating in the lower portion of the
basin (10,000 cu m/d or 2.6 mgd). However, the opposite
is true for the upper portion of the basin.
(16) For each interceptor, alternatives were evaluated. A
partial in-roadway alternative is a feasible, environ-
mentally sound alignment for the Lower Manasquan Inter-
ceptor. Alternative in-roadway alignments for the re-
maining interceptors are not cost effective. It is
feasible and cost effective to eliminate the Mingamahone
Interceptor and convey its flows via the Mingamahone
Pump Station/Force Main to the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor.
(17) Of the three alternative sites for the regional WTP, only
Site A does not involve adverse terrestrial, aquatic, or
socioeconomic impacts.
(18) Implementation of a regional alternative would allow
regional interceptor sewers to provide a direct gravity
connection for the following local treatment plants:
Adelphia Sewer Company, Freehold Sewer Company, Freehold
Borough, Wynnewood Sewer Company, Silvermeade Trailer Park,
Farmingdale Gardens, Freehold (Levitt) , and the Howell
Township High School. Eight smaller treatment plants
would be abandoned, and local collection systems would
189
-------
be extended to convey flows to the regional WTP. Until
final planning and design of these systems are completed,
the nature of sewage collection service (i.e., gravity vs.
pressure) cannot be determined.
(19) Projected 1995 wastewater flows would increase wastewater
contributions to the Manasquan River/Estuary system
approximately threefold. However, water quality of the
Manasquan River would be improved by the implementation
of any one of the three feasible alternatives because of
the improved treatment level for all point sources. Im-
proved water quality would enhance the Manasquan River's
usefulness for water supply and recreation as well as
its ability to sustain aquatic life.
(20) Implementation of either the SR-1 or SR-2 Alternative
would significantly increase point source nitrogen
loading to the Manasquan River and might accelerate
eutrophication in the proposed Oak Glen Reservoir. Im-
plementation of the Regional Alternative would eliminate
point source nutrient loadings to the proposed reservoir
system.
(21) Under the SR-1 or the SR-2 Alternative, total phosphorus
concentrations in the Manasquan River Estuary would in-
crease from 0.2 mg/1 to 1.0 mg/1. Under the Regional
Alternative, total phosphorus concentrations would in-
crease to 1.8 mg/1. These estimates are based on
summer flows and a letdown of 30,000 cu m/d (8 mgd) from
the proposed reservoir system. Algal growth in estuaries
is generally not limited by total phosphorus levels.
(22) During the summ.er months, concentrations of total nitrogen
downstream of the proposed reservoir system would in-
crease under any of the alternatives. Under either the
SR-1 or the Regional Alternative, the total nitrogen
concentration would increase from 3 mg/1 to more than 5 mg/1,
Under "the SR-2 Alternative, the total nitrogen concentration
would increase to approximately 4.2 mg/1. These mass bal-
ance estimates are based on a letdown of 30,0-00 cu m/d
(.8 mgd) from the proposed reservoir system. In gene.ral ,
total nitrogen is usually the limiting nutrient for algal
growth in an estuary. However, the significance of the
increases in total nitrogen concentrations given above
is not known, due to the lack of complete data on the
Manasquan Estuary.
(23) The SR-1 and SR-2 Alternatives would augment river flows
in the upper Manasquan River during low flow periods.
This would have a positive effect on aquatic habitat.
The SR-2 Alternative would also provide recharge to
shallow aquifers through land application of waste-
water. The Regional Alternative would decrease river
flow in the upper Manasquan River by diverting all
190
-------
wastewater downstream. This would decrease available
aquatic habitat during low flow periods. With both the
SR-l-and SR-2 Alternatives, the potential exists for
the release of pathogenic organisms into the proposed
reservoir system resulting from system failures.
(24) A preliminary comparison of the cost-effectiveness of
the three feasible system alternatives shows that there
are only slight differences among them. The difference
in cost between the least expensive alternative (Regional
Alternative) and the most expensive alternative (SR-1
Alternative) is less than 4 percent.
(25) There would be only slight differences among the three
feasible alternatives in terms of their secondary im-
pacts. The Regional Alternative would result in greater
initial development pressure along the Freehold-Farming-
dale corridor. Implementation of either the SR-1 or SR-2
Alternatives would tend to favor initial concentrations
of growth in Freehold Township, the Borough of Farmingdale,
and the North Branch Metedeconk River basin.
(26) Opinions expressed during the EIS public participation
program indicate that the public strongly favors imple-
mentation of the Regional Alternative and opposes
implementation of either the SR-1 or SR-2 Alternative.
COSTS TO INDIVIDUAL USERS
(27) In order to meet the effluent limitations set by the NJDEP
to protect the Manasquan Estuary, a regional treatment
plant would have to provide advanced wastewater treatment
(nitrification, denitrification , and tertiary filtration) .
Based on its analysis of existing data, EPA believes that
there is sufficient justification for the construction
of nitrification facilities, but insufficient data to
either support or refute the need for denitrification and
tertiary filtration facilities. The EPA has made a
tentative decision to share the costs of nitrification
facilities, subject to final approval of the EPA Adminis-
trator. The EPA cannot at the present time share the
costs of denitrification and tertiary filtration facilities
The NJDEP has indicated that it will still require these
facilities at the regional plant in order to protect the
Manasquan Estuary. Therefore, EPA's decision is not
likely to significantly change the proposed project, but
it will affect local costs and estimated monthly charges
to individual users. If future studies of the Manasquan
Estuary conclude that construction of additional facili-
ties is justified, the EPA may reconsider its decision
not to provide construction grant funds for denitrifica-
tion and tertiary filtration facilities.
191
-------
The estimated federal, state, and local shares of the
project costs would be:
Federal $30,669,000
State 3,743,000
Local 16,366,OOP
Total $50,778,000
Estimated monthly user charges would be $9.66.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) Implementation of the Regional Alternative is recommended
The regional WTP should be designed and constructed
to accommodate projected year 1995 flows of 31,000 cu
m/d (8.1 mgd) with discharge downstream of the proposed
Allaire Reservoir. Site A is the recommended location
for the regional WTP (Appendix CO..
(2) In order to meet NJDEP's effluent limitations for the
lower Manasquan River the regional WTP should include
the following processes.:
primary settling
extended aeration (oxidation ditches)
denitrification (anaxic reactors)
tertiary filtration
chlorination - dechlorination
post aeration (cascade outfall)
(3) Sludge should be digested, dewatered, composted, and
applied to land as a soil conditioner.
(4) The wastewater conveyance systems should include the
following major components:
Debois Creek Interceptor
Upper Manasquan Interceptor
Havens Bridge Road Pump Station
Lower Manasquan Interceptor (R-2 Alignment)
Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor
Mingamahone Pump Station/Force Main
Route 524/527 Pump Station and Force Main to Site A
Each of these components should be sized to accommodate
projected wastewater flows for the year 2020.
(5) Service to the North Branch Metedeconk River basin
should continue to be provided by OCSA-=-
192
-------
(6) Those portions of the study area that are not sewered
should continue to use the present method of wastewater
management (on-site septic systems) until such time as
a definite need for sewers is established. Public educa-
tion programs on the proper operation and maintenance of
septic tank systems should be instituted for those areas
that rely on septic systems. Future facilities planning
by municipalities should also investigate the possibility
of establishing a Septic Management District for the
inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of septic systems.
The District could be managed by a regional authority
such as the MRRSA or by the municipal authorities. The
MRRSA's regional WTP should include facilities to receive
and treat the wastes pumped from septic systems (septage).
(7) During construction, the state adopted "Standards for
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control" should be followed.
In order to minimize the impacts from vegetation removal,
the size of all working rights-af-way should be kept to
a minimum, and all disturbed areas should be restored as
quickly as possible.
(8) Soil borings should be taken prior to construction of
interceptors in areas near surface waters to determine
if acid soils are present in the construction area. If
acid soils are found within the proposed alignments,
special precautions should be taken to prevent runoff
from these areas from reaching adjacent surface waters.
(9) Municipalities should investigate implementation of
clustering provisions in their respective zoning ordinances
and other land use controls to protect environmentally
sensitive areas, including wetlands, floodplains,
prime agricultural land, and steep slopes.
(10) The population forecast and wastewater management plan
recommended in this EIS should be incorporated into the
Monmouth County Areawide Water Quality Management (208)
Plan.
193
-------
REFERENCES
Bachman, R.W. and J.R. Jones, 1976. Is Nutrient Removal
Worthwhile? Water and Wastes Engineering 13(2):14-16.
Bascom, S., K. Cooper, M. Howell, A. Makrides and F. Rabe,
1975. Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater
Investments: Research Results. USEPA Socio-economic
Environmental Studies Series 600/5-75-002.
Basi, 1974. Manasquan Estuary Flow Reduction Study.
Division of Water Resources, NJDEP. April.
Birdsall, T
Control
,W., 1971. Manasquan River Region Water Pollution
Feasibility Study and Report.
Blair, W., A. Blair, P. Brodkord, F. Cagle and G. Moore,
1957. Vertebrates of the United States, 2nd Edition.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., N.Y., N.Y. 616 pp.
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., 1976. Methodologies for the
Analysis of Secondary Air Quality Impacts of Wastewater
Treatment Projects Located in Air Quality Maintenance
Areas.
Burge, W.D. and P.B. Marsh, 1978. Infectious Disease Hazards
of Landspreading Sewage Wastes, Journal of Environmental
Quality. 7:1 January-March 1978.
Busse and Zimmerman, 1973. Users Guide to the Climatological
Dispersion Model. USEPA. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
131 pp.
Canale, R.P., 1976. Modeling Biochemical Processes in Aqua-
tic Ecosystems. Ann Arbor Sciences. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
389 pp.
Carter, James, 1977. Executive Order 11988. Floodplain
Management. May 24.
Chebra, Gene, 1977. NJDEP Bureau of Flood Plains Management.
Personal Communication.
Clark, 1977. Personal Communication. Interview between Ecol-
Sciences and Robert Clark, Monmouth County Planning Board,
Code of Federal
(40CFR 50).
Regulations, 1977. Title 40, Part 50.
Conant, R., 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians
of Eastern and Central North America. 2nd Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass. 529 pp.
194
-------
Cress, James, 1977. Personal Communication. Senior Environ-
mental Planner. Bureau of Air Pollution Control.
Crosetti, A.H., and Jean Moehring, 1954. Population Trends
and Projections, Seattle Standard Metropolitan Area by
Major Divisions: 1920-1970, Current Planning Research,
No. 14, City Planning Commission, Seattle, Washington, 1954
Dames & Moore, 1973. Phase I - Environmental Assessments of
Concept for a Proposed Regional Wastewater Management
System for the Manasquan Basin and Metedeconk Basin in
Monmouth County.
Dames & Moore, 1975. Report for the MRRSA. Environmental
Evaluations, Alternative Interim Plant Sites, Phase I
Construction, Manasquan Basin. February 26, 1974.
Dames & Moore, 1975. Report for the MRRSA. Preliminary
Environmental Evaluations, Ardmore Site, Phase I Con-
struction. May 22, 1975.
Dames & Moore, 1975. Memorandum to the MRRSA & Elson T.
Killam Assoc. Preliminary Environmental Evaluations of
Potential Locations for an Interim Facility in the
Upper Manasquan River Basin. May 28, 1975.
Dames & Moore, 1975. Report to the MRRSA. Preliminary
Environmental Evaluations, Alternative Sites, Interim
Wastewater Treatment Facility, Howell Township, N.J.
September 25, 1975.
Dames S Moore, 1976. Report to the MRRSA. Environmental
Evaluation of Interim Wastewater Treatment Sites in
Freehold, N.J. January 22, 1976.
Dillon, P.J., F.H. Riegler, 1974. A Simple Method for Pre-
dicting the Capacity of a Lake for Development Based on
Lake Trophic Status. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32.
1519-1531.
EcolSciences, inc., 1977. Handbook for Evaluating Secondary
Impacts. (Unpublished Draft) USEPA.
Ellis, B., 1976. Analyses and Their Interpretation for Waste-
water Application Land. In: Knezek and Miller, 1976.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1966. A Master Sewerage Plan
for Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1970. A Master Water Plan
for Monmouth County, New Jersey. Prepared for the Board
of Chosen Freeholders, Monmouth -County, N.J.
195
-------
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc. and Dames & Moore, 1974. Waste-
water Management Study of the Manasquan Basin and the
Metedeconk Basin in Monmouth County.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1974. Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis. May, 1974.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1975. Memorandum by Peter
Homack, May 29, 1975. MRRSA Alternative Plant Sites -
Phase I Project.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc.,1975. Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis. June, 1975.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc.,1975. Report to the MRRSA, Alter-
native Sites - Phase I Project. September 24, 1975.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1975. Supplemental Engineering
Report.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1976. Report to the MRRSA.
Alternative Interim Plant Sites - Phase I Project
(Freehold Township). January 22, 1976.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1977. Personal Communication
re: Cost of Construction Materials.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1978. Personal Communication
re: Treatment Plant Sites.
Elson T. Killam Assoc., Inc., 1979. Draft Facilities Plan for
the Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority Regional
Facilities. March.
Environmental Assessment Council, 1973. Water Management for
Those Portions of Freehold, Howell, and Wall Townships
Within the Metedeconk Basin. June 8.
Federal Register, 1975. Volume 40, p. 2802. January 16.
Fellows, Read & Weber, 1966. Report on the Ocean Current
Testing Program Along the Northern Atlantic Coastal Region
of New Jersey During the Summers of 1967 and 1968. For the
New Jersey State Department of Health.
Freehold Township, 1969. Zoning Ordinance.
Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc., 1977. Indus-
trial Park Feasibility Study. Howell Township, N. J.
April, 1977.
Gifford, F. A. and S. R. Hanna, 1973. Modeling Urban Air
Pollution. Atmos. Environ. Vol. 7, 131-136 pp.
196
-------
Hanna, S.R., 1971. A Simple Method for Calculating Dispersion
from Urban Area Sources. Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Assoc., Vol. 21. 774-777 pp.
Hall, Thomas, 1977. Personal Communication. NJDEP Director
of Transfer Development Rights Program.
Himcheck, P., 1977. (Telephone Communication). Conversation
between P. Himcheck, Fisheries Specialist, Nacote Creek
Fisheries Lab, NJDEP and J. Burkholder, EcolSciences, inc.
Holzworth, G.C., 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speed, and Poten-
tial for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous
United States. USEPA Report No. PB-207103. Research
Triangle Park, N.C., 117 pp.
Howell Township, 1978. Zoning Ordinance.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1975a. Phase I Report of
Technical Alternatives to Ocean Disposal of Sludge in the
New York City - New Jersey Metropolitan Area.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1975b. Sludge Management
Alternatives for the New York - New Jersey Metropolitan
Area.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1976. Phase 2 Report of
Technical Investigation of Alternatives for New York -
New Jersey Metropolitan Area Sewage Sludge Disposal
Management Program by Camp, Dresser & McKee and Alex-
ander Potter Associates.
Jablonski, L., 1968. Groundwater Resources of Monmouth
County, State of New Jersey Department of Conservation
and Economic Development Special Report #23.
Kardas, Susan & Edward McM. Larrabee, 1975. Archaeological
Survey for the Manasquan Regional Sewerage Authority.
Kasabach, H., 1977. (Telephone Communication) May 14, 1977.
Conversation between H. Kasaback, NJDEP and L. Katz,
EcolSciences, inc.
Kavett, P., 1977. Letter to Senator C.P. Case. March 31.
Kidder, E.H., 1976. Selection of the System for Wastewater
Application on Agricultural Land. In: Knezek & Miller,
1976.
197
-------
Kroeck, D., 1977. (.Telephone Communication) . Conversation
between D. Kroeck, NJDEP,and J. Burkholder, EcolSciences,
inc. April 14, 1977.
Laskowski, S. L., 1970. Statistical Summaries of New Jersey
Stream Flow Records. Trenton, NJDEP, Division of Water
Resources. Water Resources Circular #23.
Leopold, L., 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning. In
McKenzie, G. D. and Utgard, R. 0. (eds.) 1972. Man and
His Physical Environment. Burgess Publishing Company,
Minneapolis.
Li, C. Y., 1973. "Sewerage Plan Involves Open Space Preserva-
tion," Civil Engineering, Vol. 43, pp. 85-86, January 1973.
Lloyd, Gerald D., 1961. Transferable Density in Connection
With Density Zoning, Urban Land Institute Technical Bul-
letin No. 40, 1961.
Loverdi, E., 1977. (Telephone Conversation). March 30, 1977.
Conversation between E. Loverdi, Fisheries Reporting Special-
ist, Bureau of National Marine Fisheries, and J. Burkholder,
EcolSciences, inc.
Manasquan Reservoir System Project, 1978. Draft Report on
Existing Conditions in Manasquan River Estuary.
McCloy T., 1977. (Written Communication). Letter from T. Mc-
Cloy, Shellfish Biologist, NJDEP, to M. Machuzak, Manasquan
Reservoir System Project. April 4, 1977.
Monmouth County Environmental Council, 1975. Natural Features
Study for Monmouth County. 66 pp.
Monmouth County Park Service. Undated. Reptiles, Amphibians
and Mammals of Monmouth County.
Monmouth County Park System, 1976. Municipal Parks and Open
Space Inventory, Monmouth. County, N. J. March, 1976.
Monmouth County Planning Board, 1963. County Population Pro-
jections Through 2000.
Monmouth County Planning Board, 1969. General Development
Plan, 1969-1985.
Monmouth County Planning Board, 1973/1974. Countywide Municipal
Population Projections.
Monmouth County Planning Board, 1975. Economic Base Study for
Monmouth County.
198
-------
Munch, N., 1977. (Telephone Communication). Conversation
between N. Munch, Soil Conservationist, U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service and L. Katz, EcolSciences, inc".
Nagle, George R., 1972. Characteristics of the New Jersey
Farm Real Estate Market 1966-1970. Unpublished Masters
Thesis. Rutgers University.
New Jersey Department of Agriculture, 1973. Report of the
Blueprint Commission on the Future of New Jersey Agri-
culture, Trenton, N. J.
New Jersey Blueprint Commission, 1973. The Future of New
Jersey Agriculture, Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA), 1975.
Secondary Impact - Case Studies. Unpublished.
NJDCA, 1977. New Jersey State Development Guide Plan.
NJDCA. Division of State and Regional Planning, Bureau
of Statewide Planning.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP),
1953. Manasquan River Drainage. Internal Report.
NJDEP, 1970. State of New Jersey Potable Water Standards.
NJDEP, 1971. Unpublished Data.
NJDEP, 1972. Unpublished Fisheries Data.
NJDEP, 1974. Unpublished Fisheries Data.
NJDEP, 1974. Surface Water Quality Standards. Docket
No. DEP 012-74-11.
NJDEP, 1975. Air Quality in New Jersey Compared with Air
Quality Standards, 1975. A Compilation of Air Quality
Monitoring Data in New Jersey for 1975. NJDEP Bureau
of Air Pollution Control.
NJDEP, 1975. Endangered, Threatened, Peripheral and Undeter-
mined Wildlife Species in New Jersey. NJDEP Endangered
Species and Non-Game Project.
NJDEP, 1976. Manasquan River Water Quality Analysis. Draft
303e Plan.
NJDEP, 1976. List of Waters Stocked by NJDEP, Division of
Fish, Game and Shell Fisheries for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1976. NJDEP Division of Fish, Game and Shell
Fisheries.
199
-------
NJDEP, 1977. STORET data.
NJDEP, 1977. Unpublished NPDES permit data.
NJDEP, 1973. Letter to Manasquan River Regional Sewerage
Authority re: .Effluent Limitations. April 4.
New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry (NJDLI), 1975.
Working Paper Number 2. Provisional Municipality Popu-
lation Projections, 1985.
NJDLI, 1975. Official State Projections. New Jersey Popu-
lation Projections 1980-2020. Office of Business
Economics.
NJDLI, 1976. Official State Estimates: Population Estimates
for New Jersey. July 1.
New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee, 1974. Standards
for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey. Pre-
pared by the New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee.
Olexsey, R. A., 1975. (Personal Communication). Conversation
between R. A. Olexsey, USEPA, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, and J. Shirk,
EcolSciences, inc.
Omernik, J. J., 1977. The Influence of Land Use on Stream
Nutrient Levels. EPA-600/3-76-014, 105 pp.
Osborn, J., 1977. (Telephone Communication). Conversation
between J. Osborn, Principal Environmental Specialist,
NJDEP, Divison of Shellfish Control, and J. Burkholder,
EcolSciences, Inc. March 29, 1977.
Oser, Alan S., 1977. Home Building Boom in Monmouth County.
New York Times. September 23.
Porcella, D. B., K. L. Schmalz, and W. A. Luce, 1972b. Sediment
Water Nutrient Interchange in Eutrophic Lakes. Seminar
on Eutrophication and Biostimulation, California Depart-
ment of Water Resources, Sacramento, California, pp. 83-
109.
Pyle B., 1975. Memorandum to S. Corwin. January 14, 1975.
Pyle, B., 1977. (Telephone Communication). Conversation
between B. Pyle, NJDEP, and J. Burkholder, EcolSciences,
inc. April 15, 1977.
200
-------
Rhett, John. 1976. Eligibility of Septic Tanks, and Other Small
Treatment Systems. U.S. EPA Draft PRM #76 - To Regional
Administrators.
Rhett, John. 1977. Funding of Sewage Collection System
Projects. U.S. EPA Draft Memorandum to Regional Admin-
istrators (Revised May 10, 1977)
Ricci, R. 1975. Letter to Mr. Fred Kneisler, Project Coordinator
Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authroity. December 1.
Rippera. 1976. Letter from the League of Women Voters of
Monmouth County, New Jersey to Gerald Hansler - Administrator
USEPA Region II. September 11.
Rivken, Carson, Inc. 1971. Population Growth in Relation to
Water Resources Policy. Washington, D.C.
Robichaud and Buell. 1973. Vegetation of New Jersey. Rutgers
University Press New Brunswick, New Jersey 340 pp.
Ruggero, A. 1977. (Telephone Communication) Conversation
between A. Ruggero, NJDEP and J. Burkholder, EcolSciences,
inc. March 23, 1977.
Rutgers - The State University. 1977. Manasquan Reservoir
System Project Environmental Impact Analysis.
Rutgers - The State University. 1978. The Environmental Impact
Analysis for the Proposed Manasquan Reservoir System Project.
Sadat, M. 1977. (Telephone Communication) July 22, 1977,
Conversation between M. Sadat, Director NJDEP Office of
Sludge Management and Industrial Pretreatment and J. Shirk,
EcolSciences , inc.
Sary. 1978. Personal Communication with the Monmouth County
Planning Board.
Sawyer, C. N. 1974. Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural
and Urban Drainage. New England Water Works Association.
J. 61 (2): 109-127.
Shannon, E. E. and P. L. Brezonik. 1971. Relationships between
Lake Trophic State and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading Rates.
Env. Sci. Technol.
Sharpe, R. 1977. (Telephone Communication) Conversation between
R. Sharpe, Hydrologist, USGS and J. Burkholder, EcolSciences,
inc. April 1, 1977.
201
-------
Stankowski, S.J. 1974. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
New Jersey with Effects of Urbanization. Special Reports
38. U.S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with NJDEP.
Tabors, et al 1976. Land Use and the Pipe. R. D. Tabors, M.
H. Shapiro, P. P. Rogers. Lexington Books.
Takacs, F. 1971. Inspection Report - Lone Pine (Burke's)
Landfill. NJDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution Control,
Trenton, N.J.
Tectonic. 1976. Howell Township Natural Resource Inventory
Sommerville, New Jersey. 101 pp.
Train, Russel. 1976. Encouraging Less Costly Wastewater
Facilities for Small Communities. U.S. EPA Memorandum to
Regional Administrators. December 30.
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. 1977. Regional develop-
ment guide 1977-2000.
Turner, D.B. 1970. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates
U. S. Department of Housing Education and Welfare. Report
No.. PB-191482. Cincinnati, Ohio. 84 pp.
Underhill, A. 1957 (Written Communication) Letter from A. Under-
hill, Director, N.J. Division of Fish and Game to G. Golden-
berg, Secretary Monmouth County Federation of Sportsman
Clubs. October 5, 1957
Upper Mississippi River, Board of State Sanitary Engineers,
1971. Recommended Standards for Sewage Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USSCS;
1948. Soils of Monmouth County.
USSCS. "1972-1975. Soil Properties and Soil Survey Interpreta-
tions. USDA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census
of Population.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 1965, 1966, 1968-1975. Climatological
Data: New Jersey Annual Summaries.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). . 1964. Sewer & Sewage
Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index: Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Division of Construction
Grants.
202
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1973.
Policy Statement on Protection of Nation's Wetlands. 38 FR 84
May 22.
USEPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004.
USEPA. 1974. Manual for Preparation of EIS ' s for Wastewater
Treatment Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Plans. Office of Federal Activities,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA.. 1975. Evaluation of Land Application Systems Technical
Bulletin 125 EPA -430/9-75-001 March.
USEPA. 1975. Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. Federal
Register 40 (51): 59566-59588.
USEPA. 1977. Design Seminar Handout: Sludge Treatment and
Disposal. Environmental Research Information Center,
Technology Transfer 273 p.
United States Geological Survey, (USGS). 1966, 1969, 1970, 1971,
1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976. Water Resources Data for
New Jersey - Annual Report.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Public Health Services
Drinking Water Standards. U.S. Public Health Service Pub.
956, 61 p.
Uttormark, P.O., J.D. Chapin, and K.M. Green. 1974. Estimating
Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-Point Sources. Covallis,
U.S. EPA. Publication EPA-660/3-74-020. 112 p.
Venosa, A. 1977. (Telephone Communication) October, 1977.
Conversation between A. Venosa, Director Wastewater
Disinfection Program, MERL, USEPA and L. Katz, EcolSciences.
Vernan, J. 1977. (Telephone Communication) Conversation between
T. Vernan, Shellfish Biologist, NJDEP and J. Burkholder,
EcolSciences. March 23, 1977.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. Scientific Fundamentals of the
Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particular
Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophi-
cation. Pub. No. DAS/CSI/68.27, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Directorate for Scientific
Affairs, Paris, France.
203
-------
Walker, John M., 1975. Trench Incorporation of Sewage Sludge
in Municipal Sludge Management, Proceedings of National
Conference on Sludge Management. June, 1974. Pittsburgh.
Wall Township. Zoning Ordinance.
Weiss, C. and F. Wilkes, 1971. Estuarine Ecosystems That
Receive Sewage Wastes. In: Coastal Ecological Systems
of the United States. Oclum, H., Copeland B. and E. McMahan
(eds.). The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D. C.
Winslow, H., 1977. (Telephone Communication). Conversation
between H. Winslow, Coordinator, Environmental Studies,
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, and P. Swinick,
EcolSciences, inc. July, 1977.
Zich, H., 1973. Memorandum to A. Pyle/W. Marawski: Fisheries
Evaluation of the Proposed Lower Manasquan River Reservoir,
Wall Township, Monmouth County. November 30, 1973.
Zich, H. E., 1977. N. J. Anadromous Fish Inventory. Miscel-
laneous Report #41. NJDEP Division of Fish, Games and
Shellfisheries. Lebanon, New Jersey.
Zimmerman, 1974. Manual for Estimating Selected Socio-Economic
Impacts and Secondary Environmental Impacts of Sewage Treat-
ment Plant Construction and Operation. USEPA, Region II.
204
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED
a acre(s)
AQMA Air Quality Maintenance Area
AWT advanced waste treatment
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAFRA Coastal Area Facilities Review Act
cm centimeter (s)
COD chemical oxygen demand
COE Corps of Engineers
CEC cation exchange capacity
cu m cubic meter (s)
dB decibels
dbh diameter at breast height
DO dissolved oxygen
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
g gram(s) or gallon(s)
gpcd gallons per capita daily
ha hectare
I/I infiltration/inflow
kJ kilojoules
km kilometer(s)
kwh kilowatt hour
1 liter(s)
Ipcd liters per capita daily
m meter(s)
mg milligram(s)
mg/1 milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
mi mile
msl mean sea level
205
-------
MCPB
MRRSA
MT
N
NAAQS
NEPA
NFIP
NH3
NJDCA
NJDEP
NJDLI
NO
NO
NPDES
OCSA
P
ppm
SCS
so2
sq km
sq m
TN
TP
TSP
TSRPC
yg/i
Ug/cu m
USGS
WTP
Monmouth County Planning Board
Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority
metric ton
nitrogen
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act
National Flood Insurance Program
ammonia nitrogen
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry
nitrite nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
phosphorus
parts per million
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
sulfur dioxide
square kilometer(s)
square mile
total nitrogen
total phosphorus
total suspended particulates
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
millionth grams per liter
millionth grams per cubic meter
U. S. Geological Survey
wastewater treatment plant
206
-------
METRIC EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH UNITS
Metric
English
Centigrade (°C)
centimeter (cm)
centimeters/second (cm/sec)
cubic meters/day (cu m/day)
cubic meters/day/square
kilometer (cu m/day/sq km)
cubic meters/day/square meter
(cu m/day/sq m)
cubic meters/hectare/week
(cu m/ha/week)
cubic meters/minute (cu m/min]
hectare (ha)
kilogram (kg)
kilograms/day (kg/day)
kilograms/hectare (kg/ha)
kilograms/year/square
kilometer (kg/year/sq km)
kilometer (km)
kilojoules (kJ)
liter (1)
liters/second (I/sec)
meter (m)
metric ton (MT)
milligrams/liter (mg/1)
Farenheit (°F)
inch (in)
inches/second (in/sec)
million gallons/day (mgd)
gallons/day/square mile
(gpd/sq mile)
gallons/day/square foot
(gpd/sq ft)
gallons/acre/week (g/acre/week)
cubic feet/second (cfs)
acre (a)
pound (Ib), ton (ton)
pounds/day (Ib/day), tons/day
(tons/day)
pounds/acre (Ib/a)
tons/year/square mile (tons/
year/sq mile)
foot (ft) mile (mile)
British thermal units (BTU)
gallon (g)
gallons/minute (gpm)
foot (ft)
ton (ST)
parts per million (ppm)
(thJLs is an approximate equivalent)
207
-------
Metric English
square meter (sq m) square foot (sq ft)
square kilometer (sq km) square mile (sq mi)
208
-------
GLOSSARY
Algal Productivity: The rate at which radiant energy is
stored by the photosynthetic and chemosynthetic
activity of algae in the form of organic substances
which can be used as food materials.
Alkaline: Having the qualities of a base.
Anadromous Fish: Fish which ascend rivers from the ocean
at certain seasons for breeding.
Aquifer: A layer of earth capable of transmitting water
through its pores at a rate sufficient for water supply
purposes.
Artesian Wells: Wells that normally give a continuous flow
because of hydrostatic pressure, created when the outlet
of the well is below the level of the water source.
Assimilative Capacity: Refers to the ability of a stream
or other body of water to accept input of various
chemicals., nutrients and solids without a subsequent
significant change in the quality of the receiving
waters.
Autothermic: Self-heating.
Biota; The plant and animal life of a region or period
of time.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The bacterial consumption
of oxygen in a stated time under stated conditions.
Care inogenic: The term applied to a compound capable of
causing cancer.
Catadramous Fish: Fish which descend rivers to the ocean
at certain seasons for breeding.
Ecosystem: The system formed by the interaction of a group
of organisms and their environment.
Effluent: The outflow of water (i.e. from a sewage treat-
ment plant).
Eutrophication: The slow aging process of a lake, which
may be accelerated by human activities which add
nutr ients.
209
-------
Fauna: The animal life of a region.
Fecal Coliforms: A group of bacteria which are normally
present in the large intestine and feces of mammals,
a count of which is often used as indicators of the
fecal pollution of water.
Fecal Streptococci: A group of bacteria which are normally
present in the intestine and feces of mammals, a count
of which is often used as indicators of the fecal
pollution of water.
Flushing Rate: The rate at which the contents of a water
body are exchanged.
Force Main: A pipe or conduit used to convey a liquid,
under pressure, against the force of gravity.
Groundwater Recharge: Inflow of water to a groundwater
reservoir or acquifer.
Habitat: The natural environment of a plant or animal.
Interceptor; A pipe or conduit in which sewage is conveyed
by the force of gravity.
Intermittent Streams: Streams in which flow is present for
a portion or portions of the year.
Invertebrate Fauna; A group of animals which lack backbones
(i.e. crustaceans, insects).
Leachate: Materials that pollute water as it seeps through
solid waste.
Limiting Nutrient: This refers to the Law of the Minimum,
which states that productivity (i.e. algal productivity)
is limited by the nutrient present in the least amount
at any given time.
MA7CD10: In a stream, the minimum flow for seven con-
secutive days which has a probability for occurring
once in ten years.
Nonpoint Source: With reference to water or air pollution,
an areawide or diffuse source of pollution.
Perched Water Table: The top of a zone of saturation that
bottoms on an impermeable horizon above the level of
the general water table in the area. It is generally
near the surface and frequently supplies a hillside
spring.
210
-------
Point Source: With reference to water or air pollution,
a source of pollution from a well defined location
(i.e. incinerator, sewage outfall).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCS) : A group of chlorinated
hydrocarbons which have been proven to cause birth
defects, chloracne (a skin ailment) and other maladies
and to lower the reproductive success of certain forms
of wildlife.
Pyrolysis: Incomplete oxidation at high temperature and
pressure.
Saltwater Intrusion: The entrance of saltwater into a
body of freshwater. In groundwater deposits, this is
often caused by overutilization of the aquifer.
Sedimentation: The process of subsidence and deposition
of suspended matter carried by a liquid.
Smoke Shade: An optical measurement of the concentration
of suspended particulates in air.
Stratified Drift: Glacial deposits that have been
compressed into an identifiable layer or bed of the
earth's surface.
Surficial Deposits: Uppermost geologic deposits.
Tidal Variations: Variations in the water level between
high tide and low tide.
Unconfined Aquifer: A water table aquifer in which the
water is not confined under artesian pressure between
strata of low permeability.
Wasteload Allocation: Allocation of the total allowable
amount of wastewater constituents discharged to a
receiving body of water.
211
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
Soils Within the Study Area
3.3.3.5 Kirkwood Formation
The Kirkwood Formation unconformably overlies the Manasquan
formation, and locally, the Vincentown Formation and Hornerstown Sand. The
Kirkwood attains a maximum thickness of 100 feet in the county and dips to the
southeast at about 20 feet per mile. It consists of two units: a basal unit com-
posed of pebbly quartz sand or brown lignitic quartz silt to very fine grained
quartz sand, and an upper unit of very fine grained quartz sand containing
quartz granules and small pebbles (Jablonski, 1968) . Trace amounts of pyrite
and considerable reworked glauconite occur near the base of the formation
(Minard, 1964).
3.3.3.6 Cohansey Sand
The Cohansey Sand in the area generally caps low hills which are
erosional remnants. It is composed of medium to very coarse grained, ilmenitic
quartz sand with thin beds of light red to very light gray clay. Pebbles are pre-
sent throughout the formation and it characteristically exhibits well defined
stratification, especially cross-stratification.
3.3.3.7 Post-Cohansey Deposits
The youngest deposits exposed in the Manasquan region consist of
Pleistocene gravels, sands, and clays of the Bridgeton, Pennsauken, and Cape
Map Formations and Quaternary alluvium in valley bottoms and in flood plains.
These units are generally thin, laterally discontinuous and are minor aquifers.
3.3.4 Soil Characteristics
The soils of the Manasquan region are both of the transported and
residual type. The transported soils have been moved primarily by water and
Reprinted from: Killam/Dames & Moore, 1974.
-------
are found mostly in flood plains or stream tort-aces. The residual soils have been
formed in place from the geologic parent materials outcropping at each location --
Pleistocene deposits, Cohansey Sand, Kirkwood Formation, Vincentown Forma-
tion, Hornerstown Formation, and the Red Bank Sand.
Soil characteristics in the region are dependent primarily upon top-
ographic position (hilltop, hill slope, or valley bottom) , native vegetation, par-
ent material, and degree of development of the soil profile. Other factors affect-
ing soil properties are the ground-water table relative to the land surface, and
the extent of soil erosion. Topographic position is perhaps the most important
factor in judging the probable soil characteristics in the regon.
/
The soils in the relatively flat valley bottoms tend to be heavier
(finer-grained) with a greater organic matter content than soils on more sloping
land. Such lowland soils in many places in the region are found under hih
water-table conditions and are represented by soils series such as Shrewsberry,
Fallsington, Pocomoke and St. Johns (Cox, 1948) . Soils that are well-drained
and are located on slightly higher land than the wet soils are represented by soil
series such as Monmouth, Collington, Freehold and Sassafras. These well-
drained soils have surface textures of loam or sandy loam and subsoils that are
heavy or moderately heavy and are useful for production of most field and truck
crops. Light-textured upland soils are represented by the Lakewood and Eves-
boro soil series. These soils have excellent drainage characteristics as these
are coarse-textured and generally are encountered above (5 feet or more) the
water table.
-------
According to Cox (1948) , nearly half of the soils of Monmouth
County exhibit moderate to severe sheet erosion. In 1948, about 16 percent of the
land surface showed no signs of sheet erosion and about 37 percent had slight
erosion (1 to 25 percent of the topsoil removed) . On the remaining land area more
than 25 percent topsoil had been, removed. Since the 1948 soils survey report,
there has been little apparent additional soil removal by accelerated erosion in the
region (Munch, 1973).
The reaction of the surface soils of the region ranges from acidic
(pH = 5.0-6.5) to highly acidic (pH 5.0) (Cox, 1948) . Highly acidic soils have a
pH ranging from 4.0 to 5.0 and averaging about 4.5 (Munch. 1973) . In general the
more highly acidic soils tend to be located in the eastern part of the region where
they hz.ve developed from the Cohansey Sand and the Kirkwood Formation.
The most common surface soils anticipated along the Manasquan
River and Debris Creek are sandy loams, loamy sand and sands. The vertical
permeability of the topsoil along these routes is usually greater than 2.0 inches
per hour. Most of these soils have experienced erosion ranging from no apparent
erosion to 25 percent of the topsoil removed by sheet erosion. The slop of soil
surfaces in these areas commonly ranges from 0 to 6 percent. The soils are
generally well drained, but occasionally have high regional or perched water
tables. Examples of soils commonly under high water table conditions along the
Manasquan River and Dubois Creek are Johnson, St. Johns and Leon Series.
T'lese soils are very acid, with a pll between 4.0 and 5.0. Between Freehold
-------
and Lower Squankum, the soils are less acidic with pH's ranging up to 6.5.
This is due to the presence of moderately acid soils such as Freehold, Collingt.
and Monmouth Series in the central and northwest portion of the region.
The soils in the area of the proposed Oak Glen Dam & Reservoir
(the proposed upper Manasquan reservoir) are generally loamy sand or silt
loam in texture. Although having high permeabilities ( 2.0 inches/hour)
the soils are very poorly drained due to the presence of a high water table.
These soils are uniformly highly acidic (pH of 4.0 to 5.0) .
-------
APPENDIX B
Average and Average Minimum Daily
Flow measurements at Squankum
Extrapolated at Allenwood
Month
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average Daily Flow
at Squankum
1969-1975 Water
Years
m3
264
303
286
320
222
188
141
129
176
161
220
320
/d
,155
,289
, 168
,410
,575
,333
,861
,632
,103
,428
,129
,410
cf s
108
124
117
131
91
7V
58
53
72
66
90
131
Extrapolated
Flow at
Allenwood
m3
464
550
489
562
366
293
220
200
283
256
366
562
/d
,717
,323
,176
,553
,882
,506
, 129
,562
,722
,817
,882
,552
cfs
190
225
200
230
150
120
90
82
116
105
150
230
Average Minimum
Daily Flow at
Squankum, 1969-
1975 Water Years
m3/d
156 ,
163 ,
168,
168 ,
129 ,
97,
78,
63,
78,
73,
97,
136,
536
874
766
766
632
835
268
593
268
376
376
969
cfs
64
67
69
69
53
40
32
26
32
30
40
56
Extrapolated
Flow at
Allenwood
m3/d
276,
288,
295,
298,
229,
171,
136,
112,
136,
129,
173,
242,
384
614
952
397
913
212
969
511
969
632
658
142
cfs
113
118
121
122
94
70
56
46
56
53
71
99
Source for Squankum data: USGS, 1969-1975
-------
APPENDIX B
Averayu daily flow per month during 1965-1966
drought years for Squankum and Al.lenwood
Month
January
I-' e b r u a r y
March
April
May
June
July
A u cj u a t
Sep t umber
Oc tober
November
December
1965:
Sguankuut
m^/d cfs
156
249
234
190
110
73
110
61
56
53
53
63
,536
,480
,005
.779
,065
,376
, 065
,147
, 255
,009
,009
,593
64
102
96
78
45
30
45
25
23
22
22
26
1965:
extrapolated
to Allenwood
m3/d
244 ,588
415,800
391,341
293,506
163,074
102 ,727
163,074
03,160
73,376
70,931
70,931
00 ,052
cfs
100
170
160
120
67
42
67
34
30
29
29
36
1966:
Squankum
w3/d
85,606
225
141
102
151
70
48
46
156
193
139
163
,021
,061
,727
,645
,931
,910
,472
,536
.225
.415
,074
cfs
35
92
58
42
62
29
20
19
64
79
57
67
ex
to
«d
122
366
220
146
232
95
60
66
256
293
210
264
1966:
trapola ted
Alltiuuaad
/d
,294
,882
, 129
,753
,359
, 389
,485
,039
,017
.506
,346
,155
cfa
50
150
90
60
95
39
2ti
2'i
105
120
06
100
Source for Squankum data: USGS, 1977
-------
APPENDIX C
SEGMENT PRIORITIES
(3asin Segment Ranking Methodology)
An initial step in developing a project priority list is the delineation
and ranking of geographic segments, which are defined in Federal regulations
as "...a portion of a basin the surface waters of which have common
hydrologic characteristics (or flow regulation patterns), common natural
physical, chemical, and biologica.l processes, and which have common
reactions to external stresses, i.e. discharge of pollutants." This
definition was found useful for segmenting for purposes, of water quality
modelling and waste load allocations. However, considering the nature
of New Jersey's watanvays and the heavy concentrations of development in
major portions of the state, the following criteria were used tc identify
segments:
- Each segment should contain generally
similar physical characteristics.
- Similar technical approaches should be
applicable for managing water quality
within a segment.
- Common needs for the preservation of
high quality water should exist within
a segment.
Using these criteria, the State's nine Section 302e planning areas were
subdivided into 26 segments, as shown on Figure 1, Page A-4 which include
the waterways and the surrounding land areas.
The segments were then ranked in a priority list, taking into account
the population affected, the need for preservation of high quality
waters, and the severity of the pollution problems within a segment. A
point system was developed which reflected importance of each category
and which was consistent with the State's assessment of its water quality
problems.
Populations were assigned to segments based upon last U.S. Census (1970)
data. In addition, estimated seasonal populations were added for those
areas where they would have significant impacts on wastswater flows.
These included the following segments: Raritan Say Tributaries, (New
Jersey Coast North, New Jersey Coast South, and Delaware River 3asin,
Zone 1. Points were assigned at a ratio at 1 for every 10,000 population,
up to a maximum of 100 points.
Source: New Jersey Water Resources Program for Fiscal Year 1377-1973
-------
Under the category "need for the preservation of high quality waters,"
seven uses were identified which generally reflect the adopted water
quality standards. These uses and the point values assigned to each
are as follows:
Uses Point Value
(1) Major Freshwater Water Supply 120
(2) Shellfish Industry 100
(3) Primary Contact Recreation 30
(4) Mater Supply, other than 70
(1 ) above
(5) Propagation of Fish 60
(6) Secondary Contact Recreation 50
(7) Maintenance of Fish 40
A segment received points for each of the above uses which exist in
significant proportions in part of or the entire segment, except that
every segment was credited with either (3) Primary contact recreation or
(5) Secondary contact recreation, and either (5) Propagation of fish, or
(7) Maintenance of fish. The higher use existing in significant propor-
tions within a segment was assigned to the segment.
A distinction was made between the freshwater areas which provide the
major portion of the State's present and future water supply needs and
other water supply areas. In the former category were the following
segments:
Freshwater Passaic River, above Little Falls; Raritan River, upstream of
Calco Dam; Delaware River, Zone 1, mainstanr, and Delaware River, Zone 1,
tributaries.
The third category used for ranking segments was "severity of pollution
problems" within each segment. Segments where water quality limited
technology is required due to limitations in water body assimilative
capacity received 100 points, while segments for whicn effluent limited
technology is sufficient received 50 points. In addition, 30 points
were assigned where sludge management is a pressing problem, and 20
points to those areas where combined sev/ers create pollution problems,
during periods of heavy rainfall.
The points assigned to each segment under these three categories were
totaled and the segments ranked to produce the segment priority list,
shown on page A-5.
-------
iiTATii oi1 NI::W .JUUSUY - DIVISION oi;i WAT tin
LIW of
FI.M:I;I;:G n?A i sir:iF,'.T CLASS, IOHM.ATIOK via. NEKI> ixin
1.1
I. If-'PilOIYUJVAU ADt'l,
Ivojhwatcr I'uco.'tio
Urban Tucaalc, llackcnaack
Hudson U. Upper MY Lay
Arthur Kill
Arthur Kill Tributaries
WQ
R. VQ
LL
EL
VQ
A )i
U05.600 Ol 120
2,01,0.300 too
266,1.00 21
1/7,200 id
51.6.000 55
£
00
00
60
*
IIICi: QUALITY
|)
10
70
t: y c
(M
60
60 50
50 l*o
60
M.VfHIS
eta.
260
210
110
90
210
SEV!tillTY
A P
100
5O
50
50
50
A*
{T~~n fisT
too
30 20 too
30 20 100
30 20 100
30 20 100
1GTAL
Mil
1(10
237
200
3<>5
HA|;I
1 (Me)
d
21
2J
0
{uiirfu PASIII
JL
1L
IH
II
1)1
m;
!il
Upatreaa fiarltan Qlvor
Lower Rarlt&n River
Marl tan Bay
lljirltau my Tributaries
J. CO AST; tjOtJTil
Cuaatftl Ualera
Inland Uatcm
C'J-2 Wat oca
j. COAST; SOUTH
Coastal Uatora
Inland t'atora
C'.*-2 Uatera
i.ii/Aiit limit, ZONK} 5//j 6
Zone 5, llalnulcu.
Zono 5, Tribulation
Zoito 6, Halnctcu
Zoiiu 6, Trlbutartou
:i AWAIIC uiyni, zfliira 3 & l|
ILiI n^lco
Tributaries
TAUAIII; uiv.u, zoiin 2
HilnulcM
Trlhutarlea
i.v.'.tas Mivrn, /org ]
lltln^tca.
Tributaries
lit HI. U A Sill
All'l/JtcrJ *"
vq/ei
IX
LQ
I/Q
l.'Q
LL
VQ
IX
UQ
IX
VQ
VA)
t"^
WQ
VQ
tL
l/Q
I/Q
236,200 2l| 120
675,000 67
0
201,, 90O 20 100
013,000 Oi too
65,000 6
--- 0
607,300 61 100
00,200 9
o
33,700 J
13,000 it
a too
11,6,100 1$
31,2,700 3lj
2^9, flo J 26
262,300 26
206,200 21
56,900 6 120
192,500 19 120
20,000 3
80
60
00
00
60
60
'60
60
60
60
60
60
00
00
00
00
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
60
60
60 50
£0
60
60 50
60 50
60
60
60
50 l.o
60 50
60
60
60
60
60
coda-Heed far Illtf* Quality Vutera.
A
U
C
1)
.7
1*
a
Major freshwater Water Supply
Shell fUlt Industry
IVIumy Contact lie-creation
Viitur Supply (oilier than A)
IVopo^ation of I'lch
Secondary Contact llcqrcation
lljlulu'iuncu of ('inh
260
210
tl.o
21.0
310
210
no
3io
210
110
110
210
21,0
210
160
100
210
210
260
260
210
A* Codo-
100
50
50
So
So
too
50
5o
100
50
too
too
too
100
too
100
too
100
50
100
too
too
3O 20 100
50
50
50
100
50
50
too
50
too
too
100
too
30 20 150
too
too
too
50
too
too
30li
377
190
310
M.I
316
160
1.21
319
lt>0
213
ill.
31.0
3^5
31.1.
306
336
331
316
379
313
5
7
2(4
19
It to )
tie)
110)
3
114
25 (tic)
22
17
10
13
9
20
11
12
15 (tlo)
6
10
Severity of Pollution
A I/at or Quality Limited
11 Kf fluent
Teclinol £/
Required
Limited Technology floquireJ
C Sludge Management
D Combined
iicuera
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
Watar quality Criteria for ?W-2
in New Jersey
and ?W-3 Waters
Parameter
Floating, suspended
colloidal and
settleable solids;
oil, grease, color
turbidity
Toxic or
deleterious
substances
Taste and odor
producing
substances
oH
FW-2 Waters
None noticeable;
and none which
would preclude
designated uses.
Maximum 30-day
average of 20
JTU*, and a
maximum of 110
JTU except
under natural
conditions.
None which would
adversely affect
humans or aquatic
biota.
None offensive, or
which would preclude
designated uses.
6.5 to 3.5
FW-3 Waters
Same as for FW-2
waters.
Same
Same
5.5 to 3.5
Dissolved
oxygen (mg/11
Coliforms
100 ml
_> 7.0 in trout production waters; 24 hour
average > 5.0, and never < 5.0 in trout
waters; 24 hour average >_ 5.0,
4.0 j_n trout waters. For
4. 0 in or
maintenance
and never <
stratified eutrophic lakes,
above the thermocline where water
temperature is < 22.2 C (72 F) where
temperature is <; 22.2 C, 24 hour average
> 6.0, and never < 5.0.
Geometric average
not to exceed
200 as fecal
Same as for ?w-2 waters
Source: NJDEP, Division of Watar Resources, 197;
-------
Appendix D (Continued)
Parameter
Totals Dissolved
Solids (mg/1)
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
Temperature
FW-3 Waters
Not to exceed 133%
of background
Same as for FW-2
waters.
FW-2 Waters
Not to exceed
500, or 133% of
background
Not to exceed
0.05 at inlet to
lotic waters,
unless phosphorus
is shown not be a
limiting factor
to productivity
Treated effluent discharge cannot increase
stream temperature more than 0.6°C (1°F)
above ambient in trout production waters,
nor more than 1.1°C (2°F) in trout
maintenance waters.
In trout maintenance waters, temperature
can be reduced where trout will benefit
without detriment to other'designated uses;
and temperature cannot be increased to more
than 20°C (68°F).
In trout maintenance lakes, no alterations
except where designated uses will be benefited.
In non-trout waters, temperatures as measured
outside the heat dissipation areas (not more
than % of the cross-sectional area and/or
volume of stream flow and leaving at least
1/3 of the surface area) cannot be altered
by more than 2.8°C (5°F). Also,temperature
cannot exceed 27.8°C for smallmouth bass or
yellow perch, nor 30°C (86°F) for other waters.
No thermal alterations of more than 1.7 C
(3 F) in the epilimnion of (non-trout) lakes
and other lentic waters. No discharge of
thermal effluent to (non-trout) lake hypolimnia
unless designated water uses will be benefited.
In all waters, rate of temperature change
cannot cause fish mortality.
*JTU = Jackson Turbidity Units
Note: Proposed standards for TW-1 and CW-1 waters are that fecal
coliforms cannot exceed 15 MPN/100 ml, and that not more than 10?,
of the samples can exceed 49 MPN/100 ml (Vernan , 1977).
-------
APPENDIX E
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS FOR THE MANASQUAN RIVER
AT SQUANKUM, 1969-1975 WATER YEARS
Date (by Month)
February
February
13,
14,
1973
1974
March 14, 1975
April 17, 1975
May 31,
May 29,
May 12,
1973
1974
1975
June 4, 1975
July 16,
July 17,
July 18,
July 19,
July 20,
July 21,
July 23,
July 24,
July 25,
July 10,
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1973
1975
October 9, 1973
October 10, 1973
October 11, 1973
November 19, 1974
December 19, 1972
Flow (cfs)
106
92
93
84
106
49
87
54
64
57
54
51
50
53
51
49
46
45
33
33
33
45
106
Concentration
(mg/1)
0. 33
0.19
0. 36
0 .19
0.46
0 .18
0 .20
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.19
0 . 19
0.19
0.18
0.25
0.15
0.16
0. 19
0.23
0.13
0.16
0 .25
0.24
Concentration
(Ib/day)
188 .2
94.1
180. 0
85 .9
262.4
47.5
93.6
69. 7
82 .7
73.6
55.2
52 . 1
51.1
51.3
68.6
39.6
39.6
46. 0
40 .8
23.1
28.4
60 .5
136.9
Source: USGS, 1970-1976
-------
APPENDIX E
INORGANIC NITROGEN (AS NH-jN, N03~N, and N02~N) FOR
THE MANASQUAN RIVER AT SQUANKUM, 1969-1975 WATER YEARS
Concentration Concentration
Date (by Month) Flow (cfs) (mg/1) (Ib/day)
February 14, 1974 92 1.87 925.7
March 14, 1975 93 3.02 1511.2
April 17, 1975 84 1.05 474.5
May 31, 1973 106 2.03 1157.8
May 29, 1974 49 2.67 704.0
May 12, 1975 87 1.80 842.6
June 4, 1975 54 1.78 517.1
July 16, 1973 64 1.75 602.7
July 17, 1973 57 2.03 622.6
July 18, 1973 54 2.10 610.2
July 19, 1973 51 2.11 578.9
July 20, 1973 50 2.18 586.5
July 21, 1973 53 2.29 653.0
July 23, 1973 51 2.20 603.7
July 24, 1973 49 1.72 453.6
July 25, 1973 46 1.91 472.8
October 9, 1973 30 1.09 18.9
October 10, 1973 30. 1.89 324.5
October 11, 1973 30 2.31 398.7
November 19, 1974 45 2.98 721.5
Source: USGS, 1970-1976
-------
APPENDIX E
SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR THE MANASQUAN RIVER
AT SQUANKUM, 1969-1975 WATER YEARS
Concentration
(mg/1)
Concentration
(Ib/day)
690
748
788
808
802
229
204
225
104
165
168
157
400
441
441
133
133
98
111
227
306
230
357
510
153
150
245
117
115
110
148
44
92
127
135
292
245
296
227
187
177
136
356
46
83
31
49
43
31
799
515
365
31
32
23
27
129
165
42
180
286
27
29
171
44
48
39
48
31
44
49
60
70
75
1,098,811
913,502
792,775
769,426
586,807
438,599
50 ,486
100,472
17,345
43,497
38,865
26,184
1,719,448
1,221,879
865,992
22 ,182
22 ,897
12 ,127
16,124
157,543
271,636
51,970
345 ,719
784,727
22 ,225
23,403
225,395
27,696
29,698
23 ,080
38,220
7,338
21 ,778
33,480
43,578
109,967
98,858
-------
Appendix E (Cont'd)
Date (by Month)
July 30, 1971
July 13, 1972
July 30, 1974
August 7, 1974
II
August 22, 1974
September 4, 1974
September 27, 1974
October 30, 1973
November 30, 1971
November 8, 1972
November 14, 1972
November 20, 1972
December 10, 1970
December 7, 1971
it
December 4, 1972
December 22, 1972
Flow (cfs)
25
129
34
35
36
33
33
368
44
765
700
339
225
340
404
431
514
562
788
37
1115
1430
117
413
447
Concentration
(mg/1)
Concentration
(Ib/day)
7
125
9
12
8
10
9
244
11 .
86
1
2
1
1
1
483
2
942
,752
,646
,260
,549
,775
,597
, 081
,603
300
108
150
58
129
171
177
195
209
152
14
20
24
10
156
152
1,234,710
406,777
273,573
70,209
235,967
371,672
410 ,424
539,237
631,924
644,395
2, 787
119,974
184,642
6,295
346,623
365,539
-------
APPENDIX F
Manasquan River Water Quality
Squankum Station
Summary of data for trace elements in the
Manasquan River at Squankum*
Parameter
Dissolved arsenic (mg/1)
Dissolved cadmium (mg/1)
Dissolved chromium (mg/1)
Total iron (mg/1)
Dissolved lead (mg/1)
Dissolved manganese (mg/1)
Dissolved aluminum (mg/1)
Chlordane (mud) (mg/kg)
DDT (mud) (mg/kg)
Dieldrin (mud) (mg/kg)
PCB's (mud) (mg/kg)
Dissolved mercury (mg/1)
Dissolved Zinc (mg/1)
Date
Oct. 1969 - Aug. 1974
Nov. 1962
Oct. 1969
June 1972
Aug. 1974
Sept. 1974
Oct. 1976
Aug. 27, 1974
Oct. 1969 - Aug. 1974
Mean
5. 00
16.86
2.67
3086
2. 56
68 .93
44
107
4.57
4.18
22. 5
0. 50
54.3
Range
0:00 - 10.00
1.00 - 30.00
2.00 - 3.00
175 - 8800
4.00 - 0.90
0.00 - 21.00
23 - 75
5 - 350
1.20 - 13.00
0.60 - 11.00
0.00 - 40.00
0.0 -190.0
*Combines USGS and other sources.
Source: NJDEP, STORET, 1977
-------
APPENDIX G
Water Quality Criteria for TW-1 and CW-1 Waters
in New Jersey
Parameter
TW-1 Waters
CW-1 Waters
Floating, suspended
colloidal and
settleable solids;
oil,'grease, color
turbidity
None noticeable;
and none which
would preclude
designated uses.
Maximum 30-day
averaged of 25 JTU*
and a maximum of
13U JTU except
under natural
conditions.
None noticeable in water;
or deposited along shore
or substrate in quantities
detriment to aquatic biota,
None which would preclude
designated uses.
Toxic or
deleterious
substances
Same
Same
Taste and odor
producing
substances
PH
Dissolved .
oxygen (mg/1)
Same
6.5 to 8.5
24 hour average
>_ 6.0, and never
< 5.0 in trout
maintenance waters
24 hour average
>5_. 0 , and never
<4.0 in non-trout
waters.
Same
Natural pH conditions only
Not less than 5.0 mg/1
from other than natural
conditions.
Coliforms
(MPN/100 ml)
In approved shell-
fish harvesting
waters not to ex-
ceed 70 as total
coliforms; and not
more than 10% of
the samples can
exceed 330. In
all other waters,
not to exceed a
geometric average
of 200.
Same as for TW-1 waters.
Source: NJDEP, Division of Water Resources, 1974
-------
Appendix G (Continued)
Paramter
Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/1)
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
Temperature
TW-1 Waters
Not to exceed 500
for waters approved
as sources of
public water supply;
and not to exceed
133% of background.
Same as FW-2 and FW-3
maintenance1 streams.
In non-trout waters,
temperatures cannot
be increased above
ambient by more than
22°C (4°F) from
September through May,
nor by more than 0.8°C
(1.5°F) from June
through August.
Temperatures cannot
exceed 27.8°C (82°F)
in yellow perch waters
or 29.4°C (85°F) in
other non-trout waters
CW-1 Waters
Same as for TW-1 waters
No heat may be added
directly. From heat added
elsewhere, temperature
cannot be raised above
ambient by more than
2.2°C (4°F) from
September through May,
nor more than 0.8°C
(1.5°F) from June
through August; and
temperatures cannot exceed
2.67° C (80°F) .
In all waters, rate of
temperature change
cannot cause fish or
shellfish mortality.
*JTU = Turbidity Units
Note: Proposed standards for TW-1 and CW-1 waters are that fecal
coliforms cannot exceed 15 MPN/100 ml, and than not more than 10%
of the samples can exceed 49 MPN/100 ml (Vernan, 1977).
-------
APPENDIX H
Flow Data For the Lower Manasquan River
Total flow to the Manasquan River Estuatry from
March through June under present conditions;
proposed diversion for water supply, using 35
mgd; and proposed storage using an 8 mgd
guranteed letdown and a maximum pumpage
of 100 mgd*
[Source: NJDEP, Division of Water Resources, 1974]
KARCH ' APRn
1 43 years of .
*CC&$
1930
3)
J2
33
34
35
35
37
33
39 .
1940
41
' 42
43
44
4!>
46
47 '
48
49
1950
' 51
52
53
54
5b
56
57
5B
59
19CO
61
. 62
63
64
65
66 .
67
68
69
1970
71
72
TOTAL1
.FLQ'J
MG
2701
1943
2378
3542
3559
2313
4637
2355
an
4fa;o
2496
3087
3552
2778
3746
2690
2499
2519
3351
3931
2472
3564
4566
501'8
2157
0! VERSION
TO 1 TO
CONSUMER] STORAGE
KS 1 KG
r 1C? 5
1085
10<:5
10S5
1085
1035
1025
1035
lOib
1C25
1025
1085
1034
1035
1085
1C35
1035
1035
1025
1055
1025
1035
10&5
10?5
1035
?3?.8 | 1085
3407
3335
T651
2895
2650
5248
4628
3818
2533
2974
1793
4201
4599
3G25
3550
3115'
4464
10S5
1035
10^5
10S3
10?r;
10? 5
1035
0
603
S47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1135
0
1
o
0
0
0
0
0 __
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0 '
0
10S5 0
10E5 0
1035 0
1035
1C?5
1035
10S5
1085
1C35
1035 '
353
1491
0
0
0
n
0
KET
FLOW TO
ESTUARY
I-T,
1616
250
835
2457
247<:
1723
3552
1770
nsa
3755
1:75
2002
2477
1G93
2561
1605
1414
l'-3<
? 2f.fi
25.96
13?7
2479
3431
?.«?
1072
1029
.2122
2?50
4365
1810
icec
41''"!
3543
?773
149s?
1RS9
" Zc
Hi 2 5
514
£75
"0
3375
TOTAL
FLO'..'
KR
1550
1849
2694
3210
2713
2393
2647
3320
19 BO
4329
^ll
1927
2385
2041
3928
1743
1759
??21
12s'
3003
i£ia
2392
3309
_4190
I960
1K12
l~f>
3403
45?4
2211'
?c-ro
'VI
3053
1-.3R
34/n
2375
12S?
.Z55£
10,17
2752
<;??!
'r.f.o
2833
OIVEF
TO
CO!ISU"ei
I''
1047
1030
1043
10r.O
IC'50
10EO
1050
1050
10:0
ICJO
1 f~i-. T
If.-'O
in-o
10:0
10:0
1030
1030
1C SO
10-0
10-0
K'-'O
1030 '
10:0
K.-a
10-^
ir.30
K..-O
1C 30
1C 30
1030
1 r. - .->
io;n
1033 '
in?
inro
ir=n
c -: .:
ifn
lfi-0
ir.=o
T-.rn
1050
SIGN
TO
STORAGE
IT,
0
552
1025
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
Q
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
n
2
0
0
0
0.
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
175 '
0
n
0-
n
n
0
NET
FLO'.'J TO
ESTUARY
y-r,
(=03
247
525
?1PO
1358
1843
1597
2270
930
3279
5 = SO
R77.
Tn<;
991'
2373
693 '
70"
1171
??1?
ic<;i
' F, ?R
lfi-12
2759
Pio
752
2358
3474 |
1161
1 01 0
2003
i=<;
?l?r>
T37R
2.40
1 C0n
1719
»171
1 ono
1833
To the Estuary
Source: NJDEP, Division of Water Resources, 1974
-------
Appendix H (Cont'd)
JL".E
Note 1:
Note 2:
YEAR
1930
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 '
- 39
- 1940
41
42
-43
44
45
46
47
43
49
1950
51
52
53
54
55 -
56
' 57
58
59
laou
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
1970
71
72
TOTAL
FLOW*
KG
986
1698
1521
2302
2520
1740
.2158
2112
1704
1934
3070
1315
1456
1791
2228
2895
2540
3226-
4699
2360
1755
2102
4158
3556
2113
1202
1967
1439
4951
1523
2153
3141
1C87
1405
1S82
1337
1926
2993
2979
2T53""
2105
4306
DIVERS
TO
CONSUMEF
,VG
727
10,= 5
10-3
10S5
1055
1021
1029
1035
1057
1035
1C35
992
931
10S1
10S5
10S5
i035
1055
1035
1035
1C35
10S5
1SS5
10S5
1035
-835
10S2
102-3
1C35
1129
ir.pq
1C33
1054
993
1035
9:3
10S5
1035
1035
1075
1035
IU-.O
1035
I Off
TO
STORAGE
MG
11
355
2"0
0
;;ET
FLO:: TC
EST'jARY
m
?H9
?&?
?(.>
1217
o I 1*7;
0
0
0
2S
n
n
29
67
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
719
1125
1027
619
R£o
lap:
295
45-3
953
1143
1S1G
1455
2141
3614
1275
670
1017
0 i 3073
0
0
7
2
15
0
30
0
0
4
153
C
0
533
0
8
0
0
0
0
2471
1023
359
833
395
,->tre;
3Gi
T071
2055
619
24li
946
429
lS~
iE-36
1077
1100
«'j03
3221
i
TOTAL
FLO1.:
,""
.n?
2V-9
127?,
12" 5
1210
992
1558
_3322
7t;nn
13?7 '
957
1244
IS-M
1231
3424
1547
375?,
102 5
iOll
DIVE.0
TO
CONSUME'
i-T,
729
5«s
If.?
334
354
791
744
953
965
op-)
.,1050
709
832
969
920
1049
991
1(150
775
739
:?33 1 930 _
r:i94. | 1050
I'll
9:^3
10?0
J3,51___
.-737.
!«>«
i?n
153'
I3'.q
inn
moo
711
744
R 59
557
IfH) .
761
mv.
.jnifi
915
843
7 GO
910 I 670
P;0
1327
3 7?, 7
P-JL55
1859-
TlOJ .
3595 .
617
958
1050
161
1049
s:c:;
TO
I-'"-
]"-T
113
, 21 ,.
7
1?3
1G4
5
70
S3
r.n
n
P3
8
129
50
£5
1
5
0
0
0
2<1
0
Q
17
36
n
-n
81
FLO'.-/ TO
ESTUA.1Y
f.r.
?n
"510
t:\l
25*
315
240
" 630
2?fi3
>v^
-LSiO
2^0
2S4 '
295~~
2374
551
L_22D.3_
1 ?-~o
272 .
2P.4
IP. .4 4
~?£r
240
?f.n
7P6
555
t~> c Kl~.
1^
194
93
n
n
?
t;n
0
- S9
1
- 814 | 6
IflSn
0
' i!0fl
2/i(J
240
?.-tn
740
?f.n
31<3
2737
J.SO?
819
2o3
2545
Average
Flow to
Estuary
.March: 110
mgd (total
3418 MG)
April:
(total
MG)
93.3
2800
May: 74.6
mgd (total
2312 MG)
June: 55.4
mgd (total
1662 MG)
These data were taken at the Squankum gauge, and represent flow
in the river at that point.
The following assumptions were made:
Any water in excess of 43 mgd (represent 35 mgd supply and 8 mgd
letdown) would become either additional flow to the estuary or
storage water in the Oak Glen Reservoir (up to 100 mgd) if it was
not already filled to capacity.
Note 3: Evaporation was assumed to equal rainfall during the 1930's and
1960's drought periods.
-------
APPENDIX I
Summary - Groundwater Quality of the MRRSA Region
Total
Solids Alkalinity pH Hardness Iron Manganese Sodium
Chloride Nitrate Sulfate
(mg/1)
Raritan-Magothy
Minimum 30
Maximum 69
Mean 48
Englishtown
Minimum. 113
Maximum 118
Mean 115
Vincentown
Minimum 156
Maximum 156
Mean 156
Water Table
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
(mg/1)
6
34
18
74
112
93
91
93
92
30
90
48
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1). (mg/1)
5.5
7.5
6.4
7.8
8.9
8.2
7.6
7.8
7.7
5.0
7.3
6.1
3
52
21
62
114
92
124
178
151
28
48
35.6
0.28
6.20
3.60
0.06
1.50
0.72
0.10
2.60
1.30
0
0.12
0.06
0
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.10
0.07
1.9
2.8
2.2
2.7
5.0
3.9
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
7
4
3.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
18.0
30.0
27.0
0
2.0
0.5
3.8
15.0
9.2
0 2
1 8
0.3 5.4
0 3
0.1 3
0.05 3
10
51
22
Source: NJDEP, (1973); USGS (1972)
-------
APPENDIX J
WILDLIFE HABITAT PREFERENCE
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
Amphibians
Red spotted newt
Blue spotted salamander
Spotted salamander
Marbled salamander
E. tiger salamander
Dusky salamander
Redback salamander
Four toed salamander
W. red salamander
E. mud salamander.
Two lined salamander
E. spadefoot toad
Fowlers toad
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Stream
Bank
Swamp,
Bog or
Marsh
Wet
Meadow
Field
Forest
Sources: Monmouth County Park System, Undated; Blair & Blair et.al., 1957; Conant, 1975
-------
Appendix j (Cont'd.)
WILDLIFE
Amphibians (Cont'd)
American toad
Spring peeper
Gray tree frog
Pine barr s tree frog
New Jersey chorus' frog
Cricket frog
N. Leopard frog
Carpenter frog
Green frog
Wood frog
Bull frog
Pickerel frog
HABITAT
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Swamp,
Stream Bog or Wet
Bank Marsh Meadow
Field
Forest
-------
Appendix j (Cont'd.)
WILDLIFE
Reptiles
N. fence lizard
Five lined skink
Common snapping turtle
Bog turtle
Wood turtle
Spotted turtle
Stinkpot
E. mud turtle
Diamond backed terrapin
E. painted turtle
Red earred turtle
E. smooth earth snake
Red bellied snake
N. brown snake
N. water snake
HABITAT
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Stream
Bank
Swamp,
Bog or
Marsh
Wet
Meadow
Field
Forest
-------
Appendix j (Cont'd.)
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
Reptiles (Cont'd)
E. garter snake
E. ribbon snake
E. hognose
E. worm snake
N. ringneck snake
N. black racer
Rough green snake
N. pine snake
Black rat snake
Corn snake
Scarlet snake
E. milk snake
Timber rattler
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Stream
Bank
Swamp,
Bog or
Marsh
Wet
Meadow
Field
Forest
-------
Appendix J (Cont'd.)
WILDLIFE
Mammals
Opossum
Smokey shrew
Lesser shrew
Short-tail shrew
Starnose mole
E. mole
Keen's myotis
Little brown myotis
Silver-haired bat
E. pipistrel (bat)
Red bat
Big brown bat
Hoary bat
Raccoon
Longtail.Weasel
HABITAT
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Stream
Bank
Swamp,
Bog or
Marsh
Wet
Meadow
Field
Forest
-------
Appendix j (Cont'd.)
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
Mammals (Cont'd)
Mink
Striped skunk
Red fox
Gray fox
Woodchuck
Chipmunk
Gray squirrel
Red squirrel
Flying squirrel
Beaver
Deer mouse
House mouse
Meadow jumping mouse
Norway rat
S. bog lemming
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Stream
Bank
Swamp,
Bog or
Marsh
Wet
Meadow
Field
Forest
-------
Appendix j (Cont'd.)
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
Mammels (Cont'd)
Boreal redback vole
Meadow vole
Muskrat
E. cottontail rabbit
New England cottontail
European hare
Whitetailed deer
Tidemarsh
Lake
or
Stream
Swamp ,
Stream Bog or Wet
Bank Marsh Meadow Field
Forest
-------
APPENDIX K
ALLAIRE STATE PARK BIRD LIST
bittern, american
blackbird, redwing
blackbird, eastern
bob white (quail)
bunting, indigo
cardinal
catbird
chicadee, black-capped
chicadee, Carolina
cowbird, eastern
crown, eastern
dove, morning
duck, black
duck, mallard
duck, wood
flicker, yellow-shafted
flycatcher, crested
flycatcher, olive-sided
goldfinch, common
grackle, boat-tailed
grackle, purple
grosbeak, evening
grosbeak, rose-breasted
gull, blackbacked
gull, herring
gull, laughing
grouse, ruffed
hawk, red-shouldered
hawk, red-tailed
hawk, sparrow
heron, eastern green
heron, great blue
hummingbird, ruby-throated
jay, blue
junco, slate-colored
killdeer
kingbird, eastern
kingfisher, eastern-belted
mockingbird
nuthatch, white-breasted
oriole, baltimore
osprey
oven bird
owl, barred
owl, great-horned
pheasant, eastern ring-necked
phoebe
redstart, american
robin
sandpiper, spotted
sapsucker
snowy, egret
sparrow, english
sparrow, song
starling
swallow, barn
swallow, cliff
swallow, tree
swift, chimney
tanager, scarlet
thrasher, brown
thrush, wood
titmouse, tufted
towhee
vireo, red-eyed
vireo, yellow-throated
vulture, turkey
warbler, black and white
warbler, black-throated blue
warbler, blue-winged
warbler, yellow-throated
waxwing, cedar
woodcock
woodpecker, downey
woodpecker, hairy
woodpecker, red-bellied
wood pewee
wren, Carolina
wren, house
-------
APPENDIX L
RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Shortnose Sturgeon
Atlantic Tomcod
Pine Barrews Tree Frog*
Blue-Spotted Salamander
Eastern Tiger Salamander
Bog Turtle*
Timber Rattlesnake
Eastern Earth Snake
Indiana Bat
Keen's Myotis
Small-footed Myotis
Southern Bog Lemming
Penegrine Falcon
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Cooper ' s Hawk
Yellow-Crowned Night Heron
Least Bittern
Short-Eared Owl
Barred Owl
Red-Shouldered Hawk
Marsh Hawk
Sharp-Shinned Hawk
Merlin (Pigeon Hawk)
King Rail
Black Rail
Roseate Tern
Piping Plover
Upland Sandpiper (Plover)
Short-Billed Marsh Wren
Henslow's Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Bobolink
Ipswich Sparrow
Red-Headed Woodpecker
Spreading Globe Flower
Unnamed Panicgrass
Small Wheated Pogonia
Unnamed Beaked Rush
E = Endangered
R = Rare
T = Threatened
1 = FR 41 #208 (Oct. 27, 1976)
2 = FR 41 #117 (June 16, 1976)
3 = NJDEP Official List (1975)
Acipenser bre virostrum
Microgadus tomcod
Hyla^ andersoni
Ambystoma laterale
Ambvstoma tigrinum
Clemmys muhlenbergi
Crotalus horr idus
Virginia valer iae
Mvotis sodalis
Mvotis keenii
Mvotis subulatus
Synaptomys cooperi
Falco peregrinus
Haliae etus leucocephalus
Pandion haliae tus
Accipiter cooper ii
Nyctanassa violacea
Ixobrychus exilis
Asio f lammeus
Strix varia
Buteo lineatus
Circus cyaneus
Accipiter str iatus
Falco columbar ius
Rallus elegans
Laterallus jamaicensis
Sterna dougallii
Charadrius melodus
Bartramia americana
Cistothorus platensis
Passerherbulus henslowii
Ammodramus savannarum
Poaecetes gramineus
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Passerculus sandwichensis
princeps
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Trollius laxus
Panicum hirstii
Isotria meleoloides
Rhynchospora knieskernii
T.
E;
1,3
-------
APPENDIX M
LAND-USE PLANS
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
The Bureau of Statewide Planning in the Division of
State and Regional Planning (Department of Community Affairs)
has published a New Jersey State Development Guide Plan.
(NJDCA, 1977). The development guide delineates four (4)
classifications of future use for the State: growth areas;
limited growth areas; agricultural areas; and open space
(Concept Map). The Bureau has incorporated into the guide,
the suggestions of the Blueprint Commission and has recom-
mended the preservation of approximately one million acres
(405,000 Hectares) for agricultural uses. The development
guide has drawn general boundaries and delineated uses which
best reflect the potential of a given area while striving to
achieve the following goals:
maintaining the quality of the environment;
preserving the open space necessary for an
expanding population;
providing space and services to support continued
economic expansion;
enhancing the quality of life in urban areas.
The MRRSA area falls within three of the designated
classifications presented on the enclosed map (Figure M-l). of
interest are two areas:
(1) The Freehold Borough - Farmingdale Borough
corridor falls within both a growth area and a
limited growth area. No major agricultural open
space uses are planned
-------
CONCEPT MAP
CZ5H' GROWTH AREAS
C&323 AGRICULTURAL AREAS
IT' "f'-J'-H OPEN SPACE
LIMITED GROWTH AREAS
-------
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
KW JERSEY SINE KVEUFMENT GUK PUN
BASE. MAP DEVELOPED BY THOMAS W. BIRDSALL,
CONSULTING ENGINEER, FROM MANASOUAN RIVER
REGION-WATER POLLUTION CONTROL - FEASIBILITY
STUDY AND REPORT.
-------
(2) The southwestern portion of the Study Area
falls within three planning categories;
agricultural in the northwest corners, limited
growth in the south, and growth in the Route 9
corridor.
The definitions of the classifications which pertain to
the MRRSA Region are:
Growth .Area an area where development has occurred
to some extent and where basic services
for more intensive development are
generally available. Such an area is
considered appropriate for further
development and should receive pre-
ference in the allocation of financial
assistance or public investment for
growth-supporting facilities.
Limited Growth Area -- an area where development
currently is generally scattered and
of relatively low density. Such an
area lacks extensive development-
supporting facilities and services.
Public investment in such areas should
be limited to correcting existing
problems rather than to encouraging
major new growth.
Agricultural Preservation Area -- an area where natural
features and existing uses support the
continuation of agriculture. Public
facilities and services are generally
lacking. Growth-supporting investment
in such areas should not be encouraged
except as needed to correct existing
-------
deficiencies. Such areas should
receive high priority for invest-
ments or other puglic actions de-
signed to sustain agricultural
activities.
TRI-STATE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
The TSRPC is responsible for regional planning in twenty-
two (22) counties within New Jersey and New York and six (6)
planning regions in southwest Connecticut. The Commission
has published a regional development guide which allocates
uses to its region based upon various environmental quality
and policy goals. These goals are generally reflected in a
development capacity allocated to each square mile in the
TSRPC region.
Capacity estimates of population for the MRRSA region
show concentrations in northern Freehold Township, and in
Southwestern Howell Township (Route 9 corridor) as well as in
the Freehold Borough - Farmingdale Borough corridor (Figure M-2).
Employment concentrations are found along the Route 9 corridor
and near Farmingdale Borough (Figure M-3).
The TSRPC is presently revising guidelines on areas to be
sewered (unavailable). The previous guidelines were published
in 1973 and generally call for sewerage in cells with intensive
residential use or with high employment concentrations.
MONMOUTH COUNTY
The Monmouth County Planning Board has developed a county-
wide General Development Plan (MCPB, 1969) (Figure M-4). In the
MRRSA region, the plan calls for medium low density residential
development (1.2-4 DU/Acre) as well as a commercial concentrations
in the Route 9 corridor.
-------
496,
/
3/L9
^
3357i>
I
1
316 j
/
/
142(
1
708'
3826*
/
832
/
/230
59
^^
^
4236
/
/
X384
3581
3894
3233
3808
268
537
658
773
18^,
^
201
923
4629
6419
3481
3826
111
100
230
53
^
841
561
4390
3254
7107
4042
437
431
584
416^
^
\434
-X
\
33^
V
44691
276]]
4192
334E
338\
\
622
460
^
419^-
575
767
3218
6378
3696
\98
\
94x^
-^22
369
631
3416
2682
3894
3720
"20^4
\
\
0
333
702
3398
2531
395
3310
5927
-2.572
-\
FIGURE M-2
^.2<
625
378
985
3174
2404
118
5021
2870
6965
\
1083
V
V.
*\198\
\
277 \
327
3419
2841
3773
145
3454
3941
5204
1431
/
\.
\
\
1^3
\
3487 \
5407
1655
159
345
3298
3027
8^4
^
71
^
\
\
3643
\
310
575
378
230
1985
0.**
779
3425
\97
\
6\
\
460
566
1687^
1841
77
89
118
\
\
510 \
/
-i68,'
v,/
1776
1J,4Z
1
TSRPC POPULATION CAPACITY
-------
54/
*v
1
435J
1
1
36 |
'"I
89.'
502*
i
/26
6
/^"
571
"43
504
895
4814
497
29
63
76
90
>
29
104
791
3232
4182
478
32
12
27
6
^
95
65
574
4607
971
525
50
50
68
49^-
\36
\
34\
1
583 |
j
1
4262J
1
54S
459
1
1
39$
^
\
95
53
x-^"
FIGURE
^
56
70
407
817
493
V
\
"39
50
64
425
329
467
442
\
\
M-3
0
40
70
500
336
25
362
742
-J2.
^
74
28
98
384
324
7
630
5197
1000
\
\
"\49 \
\
\
88 \
31
420
4112
531
20
430
494
692
152
i.
\
* *,
\
\
\
500 >
746
205
14
31
407
358
,/
^2394
\
\
458
\
26
61
36
21
226
2016
487
\326
\
I\
\
47
61
206^,
246
43
207
\76
\
\
\
i
^lo
307
207
/
i
TSRPC EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY
-------
KEY
]
Medium Density Resid.
::::::::i| Medium Low Density Resid.
Low Density Resid.
Rural
Regional Recreation & Watershed
Other Public & Quasi-Public
Industrial
*
Commerial
Figure M-4
PROPOSED LAND USE
-------
Rural residential densities (less than .5 DU/Acre) are
planned for the southern portions of Freehold Township and
the eastern and southeastern portions of Howell Township.
Industrial (manufacturing) concentrations are planned in the
Freehold Borough - Farmingdale Borough corridor. An integral
part of the Plan is the development of improved access and
provision of municipal sewerage and water facilities.
OTHER
The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Coastal Zone Management has published
a set of interim land-use and density guidelines for areas
within the coastal plan. The southern section of Wall Township
located between the Garden State Parkway and Route 34 has been
designated as a coastal zone.
-------
MONMOUTH COUNTY
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND
1970 Federal Census
1970-1985 Estimated Increase
1985 - 2000 Estimated Increase
NOTE: One dot represents one hundred people.
PREPARED BY MONMOUTH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JULY, 1973
\ALLENHURST
'LOCH ARBOUR
'ASBURY PARK
BRADLEY BEACH
AVOM
SOUTH
BELMAR
I'SPRING LAKC
HANASOUAM
APPENDU N
-------
APPENDIX 0
LEGAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS WHICH
MAY AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Although municipalites have the greatest control of
their physical environment through direct regulation of land
use, the federal government also has the power to enforce
regulations designed to protect the integrity of the environ-
ment. Federal enforcement of these regulations may signifi-
cantly affect local land use plans and regulations. A
listing of federal regulations affecting construction grants
may be found in this appendix. Indirect control over local
land use may be exercised by EPA through provisions of the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
The basis for federal regulations regarding air quality
lies in the Clean Air Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-604) and the
1977 amendments. This act makes the EPA responsible for
achieving and maintaining healthful air quality. This is to
be accomplished by the establishment of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) whose goals are the protection of
human health and protection of public welfare. The mechanism
for accomplishing these goals is the State Implementation
Plan. Included in the State Implementation Plans are Air
Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) Plans for regions where con-
tinued urban growth threatens to violate the NAAQS. These
plans include control strategies and/or other measures to
ensure that emissions associated with projected growth and
development will be compatible with maintenance of the NAAQS.
The EPA has published allowable deterioration increments
for sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulates which are
designed to prevent significant degradation of air quality
in areas where the air quality is better than the national
standards. While the NAAQS apply to net pollutant concentra-
tions, the significant deterioration criteria apply only to
incremental concentrations of air pollutants (Booz, Allen,
Hamilton, Inc., 1976). There are three different sets of
criteria applicable to three different classes of areas in
the country. The State of New Jersey is a Class II area in
which deterioration normally accompanying moderate growth
would be considered insignificant.
-------
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AREA DESIGNATIONS
Allowable Deteriorations
Pollutant
Particulate Matter (TSP)
Annual Geometric Mean
24-Hour Dioxide (SO )
Class I
(yg/cum)
5
10
Class II
(Ug/cu m)
10
30
Sulfur Dioxide (S0_)
Annual Arithmetic Mean
24-Hour Maximum
3-Hour Maximum
2
5
25
15
100
700
Source: Volume 40, Federal Register, p. 2802, January 16, 1975
The size of proposed wastewater collection and treatment
facilities is based upon growth projections for an area. If
the projected growth of an area would result in the future
violation of the NAAQS, it is the policy of the EPA to limit
federal funding of such facilities to a capacity consistent
with these standards (Booz, Allen, Hamilton, Inc., 1976).
THE CLEAN WATER ACT (P. L. 95-217)
The Clean Water Act authorizes construction grants for
wastewater treatment projects. Grant eligibility is subject
to federal and state reviews and regulations to ensure that
federal funds will produce a project which will have the
greatest beneficial effect on the environment and minimal
adverse effects.
The Clean Water Act requires the issuance of permits
for discharge into navigable waters (the waters of the United
States including the territorial seas) and the ocean, as well
as permits for dredged or fill material.
Discharging pollutants into navigable waters requires a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,
-------
issued by EPA and subject to NJDEP review. The discharge is
subject to effluent limitations which can reasonably be ex-
pected to contribute to the attainment and maintenance of
water quality which will protect public water supplies,
water for agricultural and industrial uses, propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and
allow recreational activities in and on the water. Ocean
discharge permits are also issued by EPA, with the considera-
tion of the NJDEP. Guidelines for the issuance of ocean dis-
charge permits include concerns for public health and welfare
and for the ecology of the area.
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act provides for the pre-
paration of Areawide Water Quality Management Plans. The
objective of areawide planning is to set forth a comprehensive
management program for the collection and treatment of wastes
and for the control of pollution from all point and nonpoint
sources. Control measures may use a combination of traditional
structural measures together with land use or land management
practices and regulatory programs. After a 208 plan has been
certified by the Governor and approved by EPA, all construc-
tion grants made by EPA must be consistent with the 208 plan.
The 208 plan for Monmouth County is being prepared by
NJDEP. The plan has not yet been submitted to EPA for review.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT OF 1974 AND 1977 AMENDMENTS (P. L.93-523)
This act amends the Public Health Service Act by adding
provisions to ensure the safety of public water systems and
to protect underground sources of drinking water. The act
encourages the states to accept primary responsibility for
enforcement of standards and supervision of public water
supply systems and sources of drinking water. States must
enforce standards at least as stringent as the National Pri-
mary Drinking Water standards, adopt procedures for monitoring
and inspecting water supply systems, and plan for provision
of safe drinking water should an emergency arise.
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations proposed by
EPA in March 1975, pursuant to the act, specify maximum levels
of drinking water contaminants and monitoring requirements
for public water supply systems (Appendix P). The interim
regulations became law for every community public water supply
system in June 1977 and will become law for all noncommunity
public water supply systems in June 1979.
-------
THE FLOOD DISASTER PROTECTION ACT OF 1973 (P. L. 93-234)
This act reinforced the National Flood Insurance Pro-
gram (NFIP) which is administered by HUD. As part of the
program, flood insurance is made available to individuals at
affordable rates. However, state and local governments are
required to adopt certain minimum land use regulations to
reduce or avoid future flood damage within their flood-prone
areas. In December 1975, Congress passed the Flood Disaster
Protection Act, greatly expanding the limits of flood insur-
ance coverage and imposing two new requirements on property
owners and communities:
(1) Property owners in communities where flood insurance
is being sold must purchase flood insurance to be
eligible for any new or federally-related financial
assistance for any building located in areas iden-
tified by HUD as having special flood hazards.
(2) All identified flood-prone communities must enter
the program. If the property owners fail to pur-
chase the required insurance, federal and federally-
related financial assistance for building in the
floodplain will be unavailable to any community or
property owners within that community. The act and
accompanying regulations include all forms of federal
loans and grants including EPA wastewater treat-
ment facilities above ground level in the floodplain.
Communities are eligible for the Emergency Program
by application only. As soon as a Flood Hazard
Boundary Map is prepared for the community by HUD,
revised building codes, subdivision regulations, and
required ordinances and health codes must be adopted.
These steps must be completed within one year after
the Emergency Program application dates. The
regular program becomes effective after all these
requirements have been satisfied.
Freehold, Howell and Wall Townships currently participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by HUD.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (P. L. 93-205)
This act requires federal agencies tc ensure that actions
authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize
the continued existence of endangered or threatened species
or result in the destruction of habitat critical to the continued
existence of such species. This act could affect the cost of
the project, the location of any treatment plant, interceptor,
or discharge point, or call for mitigating measures to reduce
adverse effects.
-------
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 (P. L. 89-665)
This act established the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation to advise the President and the Congress on mat-
ters pertaining to historic preservation. Also, the act
charged the states with the responsibility for surveying
historic sites within their boundaries to determine the
suitability of sites for placement on the National Register
of Historic Places. Section 106 of the act requires the head
of any federal agency, assisting or licensing any action in a
state, to account for the effect of any project on areas or
sites included on the National Register or eligible for inclu-
sion. A project shall be considered to have an effect upon
a National Register property when any condition of the project
creates a change in the quality of the historical, architec-
tural, archaeological, or cultural character of the property.
Adverse effects include, but are not limited to:
destruction or alteration of all or part of the
property,
isolation from or alteration of its surrounding
environment,
introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric
elements that are out of character with the property
and its setting.
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1974
(P. L. 93-291)
This act provides for the preservation of historical and
archaeological data that might otherwise be lost or destroyed
as a result of "any alteration of the terrain caused as a
result of any federal construction project or federally
licensed activity or program." When a federal agency finds,
or is notified, that its activities in connection with a
construction project or financial assistance program may
cause irreparable loss of historical or archaeological data,
the Secretary of the Interior is to be notified so that a
survey of the affected site may be made and the recovery,
protection, and preservation of such data may take place.
The law places the responsibility for preservation of his-
torical and archaeological resources on federal agencies.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988 and 11990
These executive orders require that federally funded or
assisted projects have minimal effects on floodplains and
wetlands. Construction in these areas shall be avoided un-
less there is no feasible alternative and that all practicable
-------
measures to avoid harm will be used. Floodplains, defined
as lowlands and areas that are relatively flat, adjoin in-
land and coastal waters and are subject to a one percent or
greater chance of flooding in any given year. Wetlands are
described as areas that support vegetative or aquatic life
that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY REGULATIONS
In New Jersey the administration of policies and regu-
lations regarding the environment is performed by the many
branches of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (NJDEP). Under the Department of Environmental
Protection Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:ID-1 et seq.), NJDEP was
established as the principal government agency responsible
for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the
quality of life in New Jersey. State regulations that can
affect implementation of wastewater alternatives are those
dealing specifically with water quality.
NEW JERSEY POTABLE WATER STANDARDS
These standards, adopted in 1970, define the allowable
concentrations of various toxic substances in Jew Jersey
public drinking water supplies (Appendix P). The standards
include parameters for water quality, as well as allowable
concentrations of certain chemicals.
NEW JERSEY SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The New Jersey Water Quality Standards are consistent
with the purpose and.intent of the Clean Water Act and federal
guidelines and regulations (Appendix P). They represent
objectives of cleanliness to be achieved in New Jersey. They
may be used to assist in determining the influence of man's
activities on water quality and to serve as the basis for
the development of water quality management plans (NJDEP,
1974) .
These standards will be used as the basis for establish-
ing equitable load allocations for approval of wastewater
discharges. In particular, the standards require that the
maximum level of treatment be such that discharges shall meet
effluent limits as established under Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
and shall not violate the surface water quality criteria.
-------
The standards also require effective year-round disinfection
for all treated wastewater discharges containing pathogenic
organisms, and establish maximum surface water concentrations
of various toxic substances and chemicals.
These water quality standards, administered by the NJDEP
Division of Water Resources, will influence the type of treat-
ment and location of discharge, and therefore influence the
cost of wastewater treatment for MRRSA Service Area.
COASTAL AREA FACILITY REVIEW ACT OF 1973
This act (CAFRA) directs the NJDEP to regulate current
major development in the coastal area and to prepare a plan
for the area's future. As CAFRA states, the coastal area
should be dedicated to land uses that promote public health,
safety and welfare, protect public and private property, and
are reasonably compatible with the natural laws governing the
physical, chemical and biological environment of the coastal
area.
This act authorizes NJDEP to administer a permit pro-
gram to regulate the construction of certain facilities,
including residential projects of twenty-five units or more,
and public and industrial facilities. Since a permit must be
obtained for wastewater treatment plant and discharge sites,
CAFRA may affect the cost of any MRRSA alternative.
NEW JERSEY WETLANDS ACT OF 1970
This act regulates the protection of natural resources
within coastal wetlands. "Coastal wetlands" as defined in
the act means any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat or other
lowland subject to tidal action in New Jersey that shows
salt marsh vegetation (salt marsh cord grass, salt meadow
grass, etc.).
The regulations prohibit activities such as dredging,
excavation, erection of structures, and the discharge of
liquid wastes in coastal wetlands without a permit. Any
alternative in the MRRSA project that includes sewer line
construction, treatment plant construction, or effluent dis-
charge within coastal wetlands will require a permit from
NJDEP. Ultimately, the routing of the outfall pipe, the
site of the treatment plant, the level of treatment, the
location of the discharge, and the cost of the project will
be influenced by this act.
-------
FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS WHICH AFFECT THE
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROCESS AS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
1. LAWS AND ORDERS OF MAJOR DIRECT SIGNIFICANCE
A. Environmental Impact
1. The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
of 1974 (16. U.S.C. 469a-l et seq.)
2. The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857b-l et seq.)
3. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1451 et seq.)
4. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.)
5. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
6. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
(16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
7. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (12 U.S.C.
24.1709-1, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.)
8. The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)
9. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq.)
10. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Executive Order 11593 ("Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment." May 13, 1971) ; and
36 CFR Part 800 ("Procedures for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Property, January 25, 1974)
11. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401
et seq.) particularly 403 requiring Corps of Engineers permit
for dredge and fill activity)
12. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1424e)
13. The Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 3259)
-------
14. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965
(U.S.C. 1962d), all as amended
15. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C.
1274 et seq.)
16. Executive Order 11296 ("Evaluation of Flood Hazard
in Locating Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads and
Other Facilities, and in Disposing of Federal Lands and
Properties," August 10, 1966)
17. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.)
18. The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et
seq., 49 U.S.C. 1431)
19. Administrator Decision Statement #4, "EPA Policy
to Protect the Nation's Wetlands," February 21, 1973
B. 'Other Impact
1. The Civil Right Act of 1964 (particularly Title VI
and excluding enforcement and compliance) (42 U.S.C. 2000e seq.)
and Executive Orders issued thereunder
2. The Davis-Bacon Act (excluding enforcement and
compliance) (40 U.S.C. 276a)
3. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968
(U.S.C. 531 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 4201 et. seq.)
4. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1415, 2473, 3307,
4601 et seq., 49 U.S.C. 1606)
5. Executive Order 11246, with regard to equal employ-
ment opportunities
6. The Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.)
7. The Copeland (Anti-Kickback Act) 40 U.S.C. 276b, 41
U.S.C. 51 et seq.)
8. The Hatch Act (5U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
9. Executive Order 11738, prohibiting utilization of
facilities on EPA List of Violating Facilities
-------
II. ACTS WHICH PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
1. Appalachian Regional Development Act (Allows matching
of EPA grants with ARC funds)
2. Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Makes
grants and loans available from the Farmers Home Administration
for small towns to raise funds for their matching share of EPA
assisted projects)
3. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development
Act and Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
3311, 3374)
4. Housing and Urban Development Act of 1974 (Community
development block grants may be used to match EPA's 75% grant>
but only for collector and interceptor sewers)
5. Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended (Allows Economic Development Administration to match EPA
grants)
-------
APPENDIX P
Summary of Public Water Supply Standards'
Parameter
Public
Health Service
drinking water
standards1962
Safe Drinking
Water Act
Interim Primary
Standards, 1975
New Jersey Potable Water Standards, 1970
Recommended
Maximum Recommended Maximum Minimum
Inorganic chemicals
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (CD
Chromium (Cr+6)
Copper (Cu)
Cyanide (CN)
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nitrates &
nitrites (N)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Sulfate (SO4)
Total dissolved
solids
Zinc (Zn)
Hardness (AsCaCO.)
Organic chemicals
Phenols
MBAS
50
1,000
10
b 250 mg/1
50
b 1,000
200
c 1.7 mg/1
b 300
50
b 50
e 10 mg/1
10
50
b 250 mg/1
b 500 mg/1
b 5
1
f 500
(Shall not exceed, in ug/1,
50
1,000 1
10
50
200
d 2.4 mg/1
50
2
e 10 mg/1
10
50
___
except
50
,000
10
50
200
2 mg/1
50
10
50
as noted)
__
250 mg/1
1,000
1.5 mg/1 1.0 mg/1
300
50
g 30 mg/1
50 mg/1
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
5
150 mg/1
1
f 500
-------
Parameter
Insecticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor eppxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Organic phosphates &
carbonates
Public
Health Service
dr.ihkihg water
standards1962
Safe Drinking
Water Act
Interim Primary
Standards, 1975
New Jersey Potable Water Standards, 1970
Recommended
Maximum Recommended Maximum Minimum
.2
.1
.1
4
100
5
Herbicides
2,4-D
2,4,5-T + Silvex
100
10
a - Refs. for cols. 1-5: U.S. Public Health Service 1962; and U.S. Environmental Protection Acency, 1975.
N. J. Department of Environmental Protection, 1970.
b - Should not exceed value if other more suitable supplies can be made available.
c - Standard ranges from 0.6 to 1.7 mg/1, depending on annual average of maximum.daily air temperature.
d - Standard ranges from 1.4 to 2.4 mg/1, depending on annual average of maximum daily air temperature.
e - Only nitrate as N.
f - Standard is for alkyl benzene sulfonate presently (1975) measured as MBAS.
g - Only nitrate as NO3.
-------
APPENDIX Q
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RI-. GION fi
,,»>
26 rtDERAL PLAZA .
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1OOO7
RECEIVED
APR 2 5 1978 APR 2 7 1978
Mr. Knud Scholer, Project Coordinator MANASQUAN RIVER REG'r
Mansaquan River Regional Sewerage Authority SEWERAGE AUTHORI1
P.O. Box 509
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Dear Mr. Scholer:
At our meeting of March 14,1978, it was agreed that the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) would submitt modified recommended flow
projections to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has
reviewed the material submitted by NJDEP and the materials submitted by the
Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority's (MRRSA) consultants. As a result
of its review, the EPA has determined that the flows shown on the attached Table I
shall be used for the completion of the MRRSA environmental impact statement
(EIS). Based on information submitted by E.T. Killam Associates, Inc. regarding
existing flows and discussions with NJDEP, a per capita residential flow factor of
90 gpcd was utilized for the Borough of Freehold, and 100 gpcd was utilized for
Freehold Township. A factor of 80 gpcd was utilized for the remainder of the study
area.
Comments and resolution of other points raised in NJDEP's letter of March 17, 1978
are discussed below:
1. The enlargement of decentralized areas as depicted by NJDEP is acceptable
to the EPA. Maps depicting decentralized areas should be modified to
include the additional areas shown on the map which accompanied NJDEP's
letter of March 17,1978.
2. NJDEP eliminated input from 950 persons in the upper section of sub-basin
17 on the grounds that these persons would be too far away from a plant site
to be served. Yet full service is planned for sub-basin 19, which is even
farther away. Therefore, because the area in question is not a decentralized
area and apparently does not meet the criteria for a decentralized area, the
950 persons should not be eliminated from sub-basin 17.
3. A mathematical error was detected in the calculation of flows under Method
I for sub-basin 20. Flow should be 724,020 gpd instead of 756,420 gpd.
7- 7if- CC- f. ((,-.
-------
4. NJDEP calculated decentralized area residential flow by the following
formula: Flow = (1995 flow - 1970 flow) .25. This formula was applied by
NJDEP to new decentralized areas as well as those decentralized areas
previously identified by the consultants. It is our understanding that this
formula was previously applied by the consultants to decentralized areas
which they identified. By also applying the formula to previously designated
decentralized areas, NJDEP has artifically reduced flows for these areas.
Previous service populations generated by the consultants should be utilized
for sub-basin 6.
5. NJDEP had eliminated all capacity for future service to sub-basins 3 and 13.
Each of these sub-basins contains substantial amounts of industrially zoned
land. The consultant's projections for these sub-basins assume that 35 per
cent of the industrially zoned land would be developed by 1995. Finding this
to be a reasonable assumption for this particular study area, capacity has
been included to serve sub-basins 3 and 13.
With regard to the further analysis of feasible alternative in the EIS, the EPA is of
the opinion that previous analyses have eliminated land application as a feasible
effluent disposal alternative, for an upstream subregional treatment plant and for a
regional treatment plant. For the sake of completeness, the EIS should evaluate
land application as an effluent disposal alternative for a downstream subregional
plant, located in the vicinity of Farmingdale. This evaluation would use the same
parameters which were utilized in the evaluation of land application for the
upstream plant.
The EPA considers the remaining feasible conceptual alternatives to be evaluated
in the EIS to include:
a. Regional Alternative ... .-
- Surface water discharge to the Manasquan River downstream of the
proposed Allaire Reservoir
b. Subregional Alternative
1. Upstream plant
- Surface water discharge to the Manasquan River downstream
of its confluence with DeBois Creek
2. Downstream plant
- Surface water discharge to the Manasquan River downstream
of the proposed Allaire Resevoir
Land application of effluent
The evaluation of those alternatives involving surface water discharge should
include treatment facilities which are capable of meeting the effluent limitations
specified in NJDEP's letter of April 4,
-------
I trust that with the resolution of the flow projections and the effluent limitations,
we will be able to move quickly towards completion of a Draft EIS. If you have any
questions regarding the items discussed in this letter, please feel free to contact
Richard Coleates, of my staff, at (212) 264-1375.
Sincerely yours,
Edward Marra, Chief
N.J. & P.R. Section
Environmental Impacts Branch
Attachment
-------
TABLE I
Sub-basin
1
2
3
4A
4B
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TOTAL
Population
467
1,147
1,657
2,436
170
1,951
806
680
170
510
1,869
5,807
2,591
5,692
11,257
6,669
5,437
1,190
4,927
12,067
1995
Service
Population
93
174
873
2,436
170
1,887
316
354
.
43
510
1,869
4,564
891
4,384
10,603
6,669
5,339
1,190
4,469
12,067
1995 Wastewater Flows (gpd)
gpcd
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
90
Res.
7,440
13,920
69,840
194,880
13,600
150,960
25,280
28,320
3,440
40,800
149,520
365,120
71,280
350,720
1,060,300
666,900
533,900
119,000
446,900
1,086,030
5,398,150
Cdl 111.
3,086
3,526
5,950
7,272
6,612
1,608
21,664
23,692
17,632
46,060
15,606
7,492
.__
160,200
Ind.
125,990
394,670
250,690
160,700
11,750
74,930
275,480
126,350
123,410
560,510
52,710
400,000
2,557,190
TOTAL - 7,991,710 gpd or approximately 8.1 mgd.
-------
RECEIVED J'JN 11978
ElsonT. Killam Associates Inc.
APPENDIX R
MEMORANDUM
D
To Michael Friedman, Ecol Sciences Date May 30, 1 Q78
From Franklin 0. Williamson, K1 son T. g-illam Aggnp-iafpg Tno
Subject TnHiigf'rlal anH rnmrno-rrlal T.Tqc*-OT.Tgf ay 'Pl'-'T.T AllOTTailCaS
Job No. 543-13
In the projection of total wastewater flows for the service area of the MRRSA,
allowances have been included for existing and projected flows from the industrial
and commercial areas of each municipality, as well as contributory flows from
the remaining residential areas. These latter flows have been based on the varying
per capita allowances permitted by the regulatory agencies (EPA letter dated
April 25, 1978).
In order to compute the flows from the industrial and commerical areas, the total
area available for development within each sub-basin was calculated by use of a
planimeter and an average allowance utilized per acre in accordance with the
applicable zoning and accepted design criteria. These allowances were cal-
culated based on the minimum zoning requirements, allowable size of industrial
and commercial establishments in each zone and the recognized wastewater contri-
bution on a square foot basis. These base calculations were prepared for
Howell and Freehold Townships, the largest land areas in the service area,
and the results interpreted to a conservative base prior to utilization on
area wide basis.
The calculations utilized for industrial flow projections are summarized below.
Industrial Flows;
a) Freehold Township
M-l Zone - 5 Acre Min. Lot Size
40% Max. Bldg. Coverage
Max. Bldg. Size = 87,120 FT /Lot
Allowable Flow* = 1 story bldg. 2180 GPD/Acre
M-2 Zone - 2 Acre Min. Lot Size
50% Max. Bldg. Coverage
Max. Bldg. Size = 43,560 FT2/Lot
Allowable Flow* = 1 story bldg. 2722 GPD/Acre
-------
b) Howell Township
- 3 Acre Min. Lot Size
50% Max. Bldg. Coverage
Max. Bldg. Size = 39,204 FT2/Lot
Allowable Flow* = 1 story bldg. 1634 GPD/Acre
* @ 0.125 GPD/FT2 (N.J. DEP Suggested Criteria)
The allowances indicated above assume that industrial development will occur
to the maximum limits permitted under the current zoning regulations and in order
to reflect the possible variations in actual building sizes and the possible
utilization of less than the total available land, an allowance of 1000 GPD
per acre has been utilized in the projections for the E.I.S.
The allowances for commercial flow projections were prepared in a similar manner
as shown below:
Commercial Flows:
a) Freehold Township
B-5 Zone - 2 Acre Min. Lot Size
25% Max. Bldg. Coverage
Max. Bldg. Size = 21,780 FT2/Lot
Allowable Flow* = 1360 GPD/Acre
b) Howell Township
HB Zone - 1 Acre Min. Lot Size
20% Max. Bldg. Coverage
Max. Bldg. Size = 8712 FT2/Lot
Allowable Flow* » 1089 GPD/Acre
* @ 0.125 GPD/FT2 (N.J. DEP Suggested Criteria)
As in the case of the industrial wastewater flow projections, the analysis
above assumes the development of all commercial land to the maximum limits and does
not provide any allowance for unsuitable land or adjustment in gross areas to
reflect the development of streets and preservation of open land. The allowances
used in the EIS have, therefore, been reduced to 200 GPD/Acre to account for
these related limitations to development and thereby reflect a more meaningful
projection.
In summary, the allowance of 1000 GPD and 200 GPD for existing and proposed
industrial and commercial development have been selected to be applied against
"gross" available land and due to the conservative nature of these allowances,
the overall projections will reflect the unknown pattern and timetable of
development as well as the more probable utilization of "net" developable land.
-------
APPENDIX S '
'1V" A? RECEIVED
"** APR ?1978
0tati> «f i'-Inu 3Jiu-sru MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL
APARTMENT C-'<~ l"r:V!^ON»-ir-r-.'TAL PROTECTION SR'. "r;; "C /\(|T;jr
April 4, 1973
Mr. Knud Scholer, Project Coordinator
Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority
P.O. Box 509
64 West Main Street
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Dear Mr. Scholer:
We have reviewed and modified the previously established effluent
limitations for both the upstream and downstream plant discharge
locations for the proposed Manasquan Sewage Project. The new
limitations, which supercede those specified in the letter of
19 January, are:
Upstream Discharge Downstream Discharge
(Just Below Debois Creek) (BeTbw Proposed Dam Site)
(All Discharge Levels) (All Discharge Levels)
BOD5 95% removal 95% removal
i!H3-M 2 mg/1 (May 1-October 31) 2 nig/1 (May 1-October 31)
Total Phosphorus .5 mg/1
Chlorine . (None Detectable by EPA Approved Methods of Analyses)
Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/1 (May 1-October 31) 6.0 mg/1 (May 1-October 31)
Temperature * *
pH . 5.5 - 7.5 5.5 - 7.5
N03--N - 7 mg/1
* No heat may be added which would cause temperatures to exceed 2° F
(1,1° C) over ambient at any time or which would cause temperatures in
excess of 68° F (20° C). The rate of temperature change in designated
heat dissipation areas shall not cause mortality of fish. Reductions
/-. ti'll .'.//I', t *>;.:;
» ' f ' ( ': tl ,'i ft.'
-------
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 shall not cause mortality
of fish.
For all other water quality parameters, Mew Jersey Surface Water
Quality Standards for FW-2 trout maintenance streams will be met.
These limitations were, established in consultation with Federal EPA
personnel in the Hater Programs Branch, the Environmental Impacts
Branch and the New Jersey Construction Grants Branch. The
limitations above were agreed to by these federal EPA personnel
and represent the best combined judgement of both EPA and DEP based
upon the available information. I have reviewed your March 27, 1978
letter concerning the nitrate limitation for the downstream
facility before establishing the above limits. The Division will
consider modifying the waste load allocation if the impact analysis
clearly demonstrates that' high levels. of nitrate will not .create
jui y"adverse/conditi on s. in. the. estuary.
I am sorry for any problems which you may have experienced while
this important issue has been under study.
Very truly yours,
Jetf Zelikson, P.E.
Acting Director
cc: Mr. E. Beck, EPA
Mr. K. Stoller, EPA
Dr. B. Metzger, EPA
Mr. E. Marra, EPA
Mr. D. Luoma, EPA
Mr. J. Rooney, EPA
Assemblyman Walter Kozloski
Assemblywoman Marie Muhler
Senator S. Thomas Gagliano
-------
APPENDIX T
EcolSciences, inc.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Re: Land Application of Effluent for the Manasquan River
Basin.
Date: January 31, 1978
Analysis of available land application systems (spray irri-
gation, infiltration-percolation and overland flow), their
renovation efficiencies, and the physical characteristics
of the study area indicate that spray irrigation is most
feasible for the Manasquan River Basin. Based on this,
soil characteristics necessary for land application are
(U.S. EPA, 1977) :
well-drained soils of six feet or greater depth
depth to seasonally high groundwater of greater
than three feet
loamy soils preferred
slope less than twenty percent
Using these restrictions, soils that are suitable for land
application were identified and mapped on the USGS Soil
Conservation Service survey maps (Figure T-l, Tables T-l and
T-2). From this map, areas.that were unsuitable for applica-
tion for other reasons were removed. These categories are:
other river basins
surface waters
reservoir sites
existing and planned public land
Earle Ammunition Depot
Allaire State Park
existing developed areas
areas zoned medium to high density
buffer around major roads and surface waters
(200 feet)-
small sites (less than 100 acres)
-------
^/*- % v~~ ^i
'"^Xj **v*i ***umri*,*^ otror \ e \*Lt
T 0 H « ' '
'
MANASOUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Figure H
POTENTIAL LAND APPLICATION SITES
-------
TABLE T-l
POTENTIAL LAND APPLICATION SITES
Site Number1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27A
27B
28A
28B
28C
29A
29B
30A
30B
31A
31B
32
33
34
35
Approximate
Acreage
110
110
140
250
120
120
145
200
155
355
105
105
105
315
240
165
110
660
105
145
120
105
295
110
240
130
105
70
60
65
80
50
70
55
75
75
75
140
300
260
100
Major
Soil Types
L
F
c,
F
F
C
L
E
E,
c,
C,
c,
c,
E,
E,
F,
F,
E,
E,
E,
E
E,
E,
L
E,
E,
E
E,
E
E
E,
L,
E,
L
L
E,
E,
F
E,
E,
L
M
L
E, F,S
F, M
F, M
M, S
L, S
S
S
S
F, S
S
L
S
F, L
L
L
S
S
S
S
L
S
F, L, S
L
Other Soil Types
Lakehurst
Holmdel
Donlonton, Holmdel
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Woodstown
Holmdel
Klej, Woodstown
Woodstown, Fallington, Lakehurst
Woodstown, Fallsington
Fallingston
Klei, Woodstown
Woodstown
Klej , Lakehurst
Klej, Lakehurst, Woodstown
Klej , Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Fallsington
Woodstown
Klej
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
Klej
Klej
Klej
Holmdel, Woodstown
Lakehurst
Lakehurst
-------
Table T-l (Cont'd)
Approximate Major
Site Number Acreage Soil Types Other Soil Types
Lakehurst
Woodstown, Lakehurst
Woodstown
36A
36B
37
38
39
85
70
180
165
165
L
L,
S
S
-
S
Corresponds to Basin map (Figure T-l).
-------
TABLE T-2
Soil Type
Collington (C)
Evesboro (E)
Freehold (F)
Lakewood (L)
Monmouth (M)
Sassafras (S)
SOILS SUITABLE FOR LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT
[Source: SCS, 1974]
Depth to
Texture Bedrock (ft)
F. Sandy 3+ (10+)
Loam
Loam
Fine Sand,
Sand 3+(10+)
Fine Sandy
Loam
Loamy Sand 3+(10+)
Fine Sand
Sand 3+(10+)
Sandy Loam,
Loam 3+(10+)
Sandy Loam
Loamy Sand 3+(10+)
Sandy Loam
Depth to Permeability CEC
High Water (ft) (in/hr) (meg/100 g)
1.5+ (5+)
1.5+ (5+)
.9-1.5(3-5)
1.5-12(0.6.>6) 8-20
12+(6+)
2-5
0.5->12(0.2->6) 6-12
12+(6+) 0-3
0.5-5(0.2-2) 10-25
1.5-12(0.6-6) 4-12
£H
Capability
Class
<4.5-5.0 IV, VI, VII
3.5-5.0 VII
<4.5-5.0 IV, VI
3.5-5.0 VII
<4.5-5.0 IV,
4.0-5.0 IV, VI
-------
The resulting sites were planimetered and rechecked against
the soils to ensure suitability as shown in the attached map.
The areas shown may require field verification because the
developed area used was based on 1970 data.
The Manasquan River Basin is located on a geologic formation
that has surfacing of aquifer layers throughout the study
area. Also, surficial sand deposits are tapped by local
wells. Consequently, although land application may be used
to recharge water supplies, design of the system must ensure
that contaminants such as nitrogen and phosphorus are not
introduced with the effluent. The bedrock and surficial de-
posits also provide base flow to the surface waters in the
study area. If contaminants are introduced to the groundwater
they will eventually enter the surface waters, possibly with
little reduction in concentration. To prevent this from oc-
curring, modelling is required for water, nitrogen and phos-
phorus balances.
Water Balance
The water balance may be calculated using NJDEP (1977)
unpublished guidelines or the U.S. EPA (1977) model. The
NJDEP guidelines recommend application at a rate of two
inches of effluent per week. Assuming that due to climatic
conditions application is not feasible for ten weeks per
year, the acreage necessary for 1 mgd is calculated by:
(365 mg/yr.) X 3.06 ac.ft./mg = 1116.9 acre-feet effluent,
= 13402.8 acre-inches/yr.
(2" application/wk.) X (42 weeks/yr.) = 84"/yr.
(13403 acre-inches/yr.) r 84"/yr. = 160 acres/mgd
Using the U.S. EPA design nomograph (Figure T-2)
and the same application rate and storage time, approximately
150 acres/mgd would be required.
Nitrogen Model
Two models, may be used for nitrogen: Ellis (1976) and U.S.
EPA, 1977.
A. Ellis based the nitrogen balance on:
nitrogen application not exceeding 1.5 times the
crop removal
assumption of 20 mg/1 nitrogen concentration in
the effluent
-------
1 I
FIGURE T-2
TOTAL LAND REQUIREMENT (INCLUDES LAND FOR APPLICATION, ROADS, STORAGE, AND BUILDINGS)
(SOURCE. U.S. EPA, 1977)
20000 f 20000
I in./ 1 wk = 2.54 cm/ wk
I Hgal/ d = 43.8 L/S
1 ACRE = 0.405 ha
5 '
10
-------
crop removal of grass at 200 Ibs/acre
Calculations utilizing the Ellis method follow:
(1) 300 Ibs./acre of nitrogen allowed _ 66 acre-inches
4.53 Ibs. N/acre-inch effluent maximum
,0, ,,.. . . 5.5 acre-feet effluent -ft_
(2) 365 mg/yr. - -r^ = 203 acres
3 .06 ~~
B. U. S. EPA (1977) uses the formula:
Ln=U+D+2.7 WpCp
where:
Ln = effluent loading (Ib./acre/yr.)
U = crop uptake of nitrogen (200 Ibs./A/yr.)
D = denitrification of effluent (.2 Ln)
Wp = percolating water (Lw + 1.25 ft./yr.)
Lw = wastewater loading (.019 Ln)
Cp = allowed nitrogen concentration of
leachate (8 mg/1)
Calculations utilizing this formula yield:
Ln = 200 -1- .2 Ln + 2.7 (.019 Ln + 1.25) 8
Ln = 227 + .61 Ln
..39 Ln = 227
Ln = 582 Ibs. N/A/yr.
Lw =11.1 ft./yr./acre effluent = 133.2"
Percolate =266.8 Ibs. N/acre
The acreage required is:
-,,.,- , . 11.1 ft./yr. effluent 1ri1 , ,
365 mg/yr T * = 101 acres/mgd
j . Oo
The crop removal rate is an average number for several
grass types and will vary according to the grass and
cropping system used. The low allowable percolate
nitrogen concentration utilized is to prevent health
hazards from nitrates in potable waters.
Phosphorus Balance
Phosphorus is an element that has a complex reaction with the
soil. In order to model the allowable application rate of the
phosphorus, detailed information is needed on (U.S. EPA, 1977);
-------
concentration of phosphorus in effluent
calcium, iron and aluminum concentrations in effluent
and soil
removal rate of phosphorus by plants
travel distance and time of transit of phosphorus in
percolating water
transit time of percolate relative to kinetics of
phosphorus sorption
capacity of soil to sorb phosphorus from land surface
to point of discharge into ground or surface waters
This information is highly site-specific and dependent on ef-
fluent quality. Therefore, a detailed model is not possible
at this time.
In order to obtain a general guideline on the amount of land
needed to prevent contamination of waters with phosphorus,
data developed by Ellis (1976) for Michigan soils can be used,
Ellis modelled the application rate allowable for different
soil types based on:
7 mg/1 phosphorus in effluent
crop removal of 25 Ibs./a/yr.
50-year expected life of system.
The resultant application rates are:
sand - 40 acre-inches/yr.
loamy sand - 45 acre-inches/yr.
sandy loam - 40 acre-inches/yr.
loam - 53 acre-inches/yr.
Therefore, for a 1 mgd plant the acreage required is:
loam - 253 acres
sandy loam - 335 acres
loamy sand - 298 acres
It should be noted that these area requirements are liberal,
because movement of phosphorus in soil is similar to column
chromatography in which rate of movement is a function of
elutriate flux (water). Based on rainfall, the percolate
flux should be higher in New Jersey (45" annual rainfall)
than in Michigan (30" annual rainfall).
-------
The models presented identify only the amount of land necessary
for application. Additional land is required for buffer,
buildings, storage and roads.
In summary, the acreage required, based on the different
models, would be:
water model 150-160 acres/mgd
nitrogen model 1.01 acres
phosphorus model 253-335 acres/mgd
-------
Elson T. Killam Associates Inc.
D
APPENDIX U February 1, 1978
(Rev.) March 7, 1978
SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY
LAND APPLICATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
FOR THE
MANASQUAN RIVER REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
I. INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with the recently released wasteload allocations
by the NJDEP,'^- a detailed evaluation considering the environmental and
engineering implications for land application of Manasquan River Regional
Sewerage Authority wastewater has been undertaken as part of the ongoing
Environmental Impact Statement, and 201 Facilities Planning effort pre-
sently being undertaken for wastewater management for the Manasquan River
Regional Sewerage Authority. The purpose of this study is to develop an
objective cost-effective analysis utilizing land application for advanced
wastewater treatment purposes. Since the draft EIS considered advanced
wastewater treatment Level 5 (considering conventional techniques
and process designs) this supplemental review will attempt to document
to a greater degree the land application alternative including: potential
site identifications; design criteria; nutrient and hydraulic loading
limitations; total area requirements; wastewater transport, treatment,
storage, and spray irrigation; site system development; surface runoff
control, subsurface drainage and estimated costs. The review will then
make a cost comparison of land application vs. advanced wastewater
treatment including denitrification and phosphorous removal and
also consider the positive and negative aspects of implementation.
1.
1) Information contained in MJDEP letter dated Jan. 19, 1978 and received
by MRRSA on Jan. 27, 1978.
-------
ElsonT. Klllam Associates Inc.
II. LAND APPLICATION
An initial assessment of potential sites was undertaken by
EcolSciences for areas which could be considered amenable to land app-
lication considering hydrogeologic and soil characteristics, topographical
characteristics and land-use planning considerations. Plate A defines
the land area limits for areas which may be and may not be considered
compatible with land application. Models were used by Ecol-Sciences
considering hydraulic loading limitations, nitrogen limitations and
phosphorous limitations. It was determined when comparing the respective
models, that phosphorous became the limiting nutrient to land application
of the wastewater. In order to dispose of the effluent in an environmentally
sound manner, considering both surface and ground waters, it became
apparent that phosphorous was the nutrient which required the greatest
land area.
However, in accordance with a determination made by EPA and NJDEP,
the cost-effective analysis has been revised and presented herein based
on the water model. It has been calculated that approximately 160 acres
per MGD would be required for disposal of wastewater based on the water
model. The models considered: a 10 week storage period (as climate is not
feasible for application year round), effluent characteristics typical
of conventional secondary treatment, nutrient crop requirements,
characteristics of the receiving soils, and various other considerations.
Design criteria for a spray irrigation system was established
taking into account that 160 acres per MGD would be required for land
application. As the projected flow for the wastewater treatment facili-
ties at an upstream sub-regional site would be 6 MGD, when considering
a storage period of 10 weeks, the actual "effective flow" becomes 7.43 MCD.
This results in an area requirement of 1,189 acres for spray irrigation
-------
ElsonT. Killam Associates Inc.
As indicated on Plate A, the receiving system would have to be split
into numerous plots, as there is no one large land area available for
an operation of this magnitude. Consequently, it was determined that
more than 15 separate plots would be required in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed plant. This resulted in a 200 foot buffer area require-
ment of 566 acres. It was also calculated that approximately 153 acres
would be required for a storage reservoir and 40 acres required for a
sewage treatment plant site. This results in a total acreage of 1,948
acres or 3 square miles. The 15 separate plots shown on Plate A, however,
comprise only 1750 acres for actual spraying or approximately 198 acres
less than the required 1,948 acres for spray irrigation and related
facilities. On this basis it is estimated that a considerable number
of additional plots would have to be defined requiring a greater buffer
acreage and a total land area requirement of a considerably larger
magnitude. Consequently, the evaluation of available land on Plate
A was not carried beyond the 15 plots shown.
The design considers conventional secondary wastewater treat-
ment facilities with a 153 acre storage pond to receive wastewater during
the cold weather months as well as during extreme wet weather months
during the spring, summer, and fall. As this 153 acre reservoir would be
composed of a chlorinated sewage or a combined runoff and sewage mixture,
it is assumed that aeration might be required for odor preventative
purposes as well as for dechlorination and algal inhibiting measures.
Aeration costs were not however, included in the cost evaluation.
-------
ElsonT.KIIIam Associates Inc.
D
During application months, the raw sewage would be transported
through a 24" diameter force main to a centralized secondary treatment
plant and effluent pumping station where three individual 18" diameter
force mains would convey the treated wastewater to three different
locations for intermittent wastewater application. From the 18" diameter
force mains would eminate smaller solid set application systems. An
application rate of approximately 2" per week would be utilized due
to the lesser land area requirement of the water model. All of the
prospective plots for land application would require water recovery
or drainage.systems to contain surface water runoff. All residual
wastewater or storm water flow would be conveyed back to the storage
reservoir. A 10% return flow has been considered in the analysis and
the additional capacity accounted for accordingly in the storage reservoir
III. COST-EFFECTIVE EVALUATION
Tables I and II indicate the costs for land application and
advanced wastewater treatment, respectively. It is important to note
however, that the AWT processes examined are incapable of achieving the
levels of phosporous removal dictated by the wasteload allocations and
are included for comparative purposes only.
The advanced wastewater treatment system indicated on Table 2
for the subregional plant is based on producing an effluent of the
following characteristics:
-------
Elson T. Killam Associates Inc.
BOD 5 mg/1
S.S. 5 mg/1
Total N - 10 mg/1
Phosphorus - 0.5 mg/1
The characteristics of effluent quality indicated have been extracted
from Table 2 of the EPA Technical Report on "Cost Effective Comparisons
of Land Application and Advanced Wastewater Treatment" (November 1973).
It is possible with a tertiary, two stage lime system followed by
filtration that an effluent phosphorus (Total P) quality of 0.1 mg/1
to 0.2 mg/1 could be achieved.
The tables include capital costs, operation and maintenance
costs and total costs. When comparing these tables it is apparent that
the costs for land application far exceed the costs for advanced
wastewater treatment considering conventional processes.
The total present worth of the land application alternative
amounts to $37,144,000 (Table 1). However, considering a salvage value
for the land after 20 years, the total present worth of the spray irrigation
alternative is $33,749,000. The total present worth of the advanced
wastewater treatment alternative including; capital costs, present worth
O&M costs, land acquisition and transmission mains amounts to $29,136,000
(Table 2). Also considering a salvage value for the land, the total present
worth of advanced wastewater treatment is $28,997,000.
Consequently, land application is approximately $4,752,000 more
costly than the advanced wastewater treatment analyzed. However, it must
be recognized that the phosphorous wasteload allocation of 0.05 mg.l will
-------
Elson T. Klilam Associates Inc.
not be achieved with any AWT alternative and these costs are presented
for comparison purposes only. Moreover, it should be noted that public
acceptance, implementation and the loss of valuable residential and
industrial land within the region must also be considered to obtain a
more realistic cost-effective analysis. Also the engineering and
environmental problems associated with land application of treated
effluent on numerous, isolated parcels of land further negates the
implementation of land application.
-------
TABLE U-l
COSTS1 FOR LAND APPLICATIOH
Facilities
Secondary
Treatment
Facilities
Transmission
(Force Mains)
Transmission
(Pump Station)
Storage*
Application*
System
Water Recovery
(Drainage System)
SUB-TOTAL
Land2
1948 Acrea
GRAND TOTAL
Capital
Cost ($)
$ 2,340,000
5 750,000
$ 512,000
S 1,341,000
$ 3,471,000
$ 664,000
S 9,078,000
$ 20,766,000
Amortized Cap.
Cap. Cost c/1000 gal
9.6c
2.5c
2. 1C
5.5C
11. 5c
2.2C
33.40C
30. 4c
63. 8c
0 & M
Coat (c/1000 gal)
12. 4c
0.06C
2.0C
0.25C
7.2c
0.75C
22.66C
22.66C
Adjusted
Capital Cost $
$ 7.137.0008
S 1.372.0007
$ 937, OOO7
$ 2. 454, OOO7
S 6, 352, OOO7
S 1,215. OOO7
$ 19,467,000
S 11,688,000
* 31,155,000
0 5, M
Present Worth
863/81
$ 3,027.000
$ 15,000
$ 487,000
$ 61,000
5 2,173,000
$ 226,000
$ 5,989,000
$ 5,989,000
Total Cost
Present Worth
$ 10,164.000
$ 1,387,000
S 1,424,000
$ 2.515.000
S 8,525.000
$ 1.441,000
$ 25,456,000
$ 11,688,000
* 37,144,000
All systems are sized considering an effective flow of 7.43 MCD excluding storage, transmission, and secondary treatment.
^Includes: 1189 acres (spray Irrigation) 153 acres for storage pond ,. /^v^., *
566 acc*a (buffer) _40 acres for STP site ' 19*8 acre" (TOTAL)
1755 sub-total Acres for land application of 7.43 MGD (effective flow) of secondary effluent. This figure is
based upon a water limiting model considering 160 acres/HGD and Including a 200' buffer zone on an assumed
15 separate plots.
3Aseumes - 3 force aalna - 1.0 mile of 24"» and 4.0 miles of 18"» g Sl50,000/mi.
^Considers lined pond and 10 week storage period as well as 6.6 MGD volume considering 10Z return flow.
5Solld set application system: considers 2"/wk. application rate (2"/wk. appllc. rate due to land area requlrenent
of water model).
^Considers application rate of 2"/ueek.
' Adjustment factor for Sewer Const. Cost Index. Base oust-Feb. 1973 - 194.22, Dec. 1977 - 296.
Adj. Factor 296 - 1.52 x 1.2 (Regional Factor) - 1.83
194.2
"Adjustment Factor for Treatment Plant 1.20 (Regional Factor) x 1.2 (site work) x 1.54 (STP Index ad1.)x 1.75 (Bid Factor)
1.27 (SIF Factor)
, - 3.05
All amortized coses on a interest rate of 6 3/8Z.
(Revised March 1, 1978)
-------
TABLE U-2
SHB REGIONAL ADVANCED IftSTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
6 MOD AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION
1) Secondary Treatment
(AA) (AD (Cl) (R) (01) (Adm)
2) AWT 3 & AWT 4
Lime Addition (F2)
Filtration (D)
Sludge Drying (07)
Recalclnatlon Q3
Incineration P-5
Ion Exchange I
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL (Secondary. AWT-3 & 4)
CAPITAL COST
C/1000 gal.
7.85
2.6
3.5
1.8
8.0
2.6
2.4
20.9
28.75
0 & M COST
C/1000 gal.
9.55
1.8
3.0
3.2
5.3
1.3
4.6
19.2
28.75
TOTAL COST
C/1000 gal.
17.4
4.4
6.5
5.0
13.3
3.9
7.0
40.1
57.5
Capital Cose - Aiwrtired Capital Cost (c/1000) x 40,624.5 x Q (MGD)1
- 28.75 x 40,624.5 x 6 MCD
- 7.007.726
Adjusted Capital Cost - 7,007,726 x 3.052
- 21.373,564
say $21.374,000 (Without Land)
274,000 Adjusted Capital Cost
1 ml-24"0 Force Main
480.000 80 acres @ S6000/acre
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $22,128,000
0 4 M Cost/yr. - OiM Cost (c/1000 gal) x 3650 x Q (MOD)1
- 28.75 x 3650 x 6 MCD
- ,$629,625/yr.
Present Worth OiM Costs - OiM Cost/yr. x 11. 131
- $629.625/yr. x 11.13
- 7.007.726
say $ 7,008,000
22.128.000
1Based on C.E.W.T.S. EPA-430/9-79-002
Interest 6 3/81
2Cost Adjustment Factor -
1.2(Regional Factor) xl.2(Site Work) xl.54(STP index adj) xl.75 (Bid Factor)
1.27 (SIF Factor)
- 3.05
(Revised March 1, 1978)
Total Present Worth
AWT Coot -
S29.136.000
-------
TABLE .0-3
SUB REGIONAL SECONDARY WASTEVIATER TREATMENT PLANT
6 MGD AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Preliminary Treatment (AA)
Primary Treatment (Al)
Activated Sludge (CD
Disinfection (R)
Sludge Digestion (LI)
Sludge Drying (01)
Sludge Disposal
Administration
APPROXIMATE TOTALS
CAPITAL COST
C/1000 gal.
0.5
1.2
. 4.5 .
0.4
0.96
1.25
0.75
9.6
0 i M COST
C/1000 gal.
0.5
1.0
4.0
1.1
.34
1.75
2.5
1.2
12.4
TOTAL COST
C/1000 gal.
. 1.0
2.2
8.5
1.5
1.30
3.0
3.25
1.2
22
Capital Cost - Amortized Capital Cost (C/1000) x 40,624.5 xQ(MCD)1 1) Baaed on C.E.U.T.S. EPA-430/9-79-002
- 9.6 i 40,624.5 x 6 - S2. 339,971 Interest 6 3/81
Adjusted Capital Cost - 2.339,971 x 3.052 2) Cost Adjustment Factor-
- $7,136,912 1.2(Reglonal Factor) x 1.2(Site Factor)* 1.54(STP Index ADJ) x 1.75(Bld Factor)
Say $7.137,000 (Without Land) 1.27 (SIF Factor)
- 3.05
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 1
Location; North of route 524; west of Long Brook; east of Rutgers Agricultural
Station, Howell township.
Previous Discussion: D&M^ May 28, 1975; ETK^ May 29, 1975.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 92 ac; slight relief; elevation 100 ft - 110 ft;
abandoned farm in grasses and old field succession.
Adverse Impacts: Distance from river and elevation necessitates pump
station force main and long outfall - ETK, May 29, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts: Size, topography, land use, ecology, development
suitability - D&M, May 28, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Primary preference - D&M, May 28, 1975; not
cost-effective - ETK, May 29, 1975.
Feasible site - EIS review.
Dames s Moore
Elson T. Killam Associates
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 2
Location; North of Rutgers Agricultural Station; west of Howell Road,
Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 115 ac; slight relief; elevation 115 ft; farm in
grasses and old field succession; portion under
cultivation
Adverse Impacts: Distance from river and elevation necessitates pump
station force main and long outfall - ETK, May 29, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts; Size, aesthetics, topography, land use, ecology -
D&M, May 28, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Primary preference - D&M, May 28, 1975; not
cost-effective - ETK, May 29, 1975.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 3
Location: South of Perm. R.R.; east of Vendeveer Road; east of Long Brook,
Howell Township.
Previous Discussion; D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 75 ac; slight relief; elevation 120 ft; farmland
under cultivation.
Adverse Impacts: Size, aesthetics - D&M, May 28, 1975; distance from river
and elevation necessitates pump station, force main and
long outfall - ETK, May 29, 1975; little or no buffer
present - ETK, May 29, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts: Topography, land use, ecology, development suitability
May 28, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Secondary preference - D&M, May 28, 1975; not
cost-effective - ETK, May, 29, 1975.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 4
Location: North and south of Casino Drive; between route 9 and Havens
Bridge Road; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975; ETK, Sept.24,
1975; D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site #2 of Sept. 1975 reports.
Site Characteristics: 165 ac; gently-sloping; elevation 70 ft - 90 ft;
heavily wooded, zoned agricultural.
Adverse Impacts: Topography and effects on ecology - D&M, May 28, 1975;
severe effects on ecology, moderate effects on soils - D&M,
Sept. 25, 1975; 30 ac. of forest would be removed leaving
potentially inadequate E-W buffer - D&M, Sept 29, 1975;
Home presently on site - EcolSciences, May 27, 1977.
Beneficial.Impacts; Size, aesthetics, development suitability - D&M, May 28,
1975; substantial buffer of trees available with selective
construction procedures - ETK, May 29, 1975; short
outfall necessary - ETK, May 29, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions; Secondary preference - D&M, May 28, 1975;
adaptable to long range program - ETK, May 29,
1975; rejected due to environmental impacts -
ETK, Sept. 24, 1975; site is secondary preference
D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site; 5
Location; South of Strickland Road; west of Route 9; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion; D&M, Feb. 26, 1974; D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975.
Other Nomenclature; Site #3 of Feb. 26, 1974 report.
Site Characteristics: 108 ac; slight relief; elevation 82 ft - 84 ft;
mostly farmland.
Adverse Impacts: Shopping center proposed adjacent to site - D&M, Feb. 26, 1974;
aesthetics and topography - D&M, May 28, 1975;
insufficient screening - EcolSciences, May 27, 1977.
Beneficial Impacts; Size, land use, ecology - D&M, May 28, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Secondary preference - D&M, Feb. 26, 1974;
secondary preference - D&M, May 28, 1975;
not cost-effective - ETK, May 29, 1975.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 6
Location: North of Bergerville Road; east of Jackson Mills Road;
Freehold Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975; D&M, Jan. 22, 1976;
ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 71 ac; 0-5% slopes; elevation 80 ft - 100 ft;
heavily wooded (65 ac); portions in floodplain.
Adverse Impacts: Aesthetics, topography, soils, effects on ecology - D&M,
May 28, 1975; distance upstream from portions of service
area necessitates pump station and force main - ETK,
May 29, 1975; slight to moderate impacts to ecology
and land use - D&M, Jan. 22, 1976.
Beneficial Impacts: Land use - D&M, May 28, 1975; buffer and screening
present - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Recommendations/Conclusions; Unacceptable - D&M, May 28, 1975; infeasible
due to site limitations and noncost-effectiveness,
ETK, May 29, 1975; suitable - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976;
. NJDEP approval - Feb. 3, 1976.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 7
Location; North of Stone Hill Road; west of Jackson Mills Road;
Freehold Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975; D&M, Jan. 22, 1976;
ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics; 81 ac; 0-10% slopes; elevation 85 ft - 120 ft;
forest (47 ac); old field (16 ac); agriculture or
residence (8 ac); portions in floodplain.
Adverse Impacts: Aesthetics, topography, soils, effects on ecology - D&M,
May 28, 1975; distance upstream from portions of service
area necessitates pump station and force main-ETK,
May 29, 1975; site is close to homes and extensive
screening is necessary - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Beneficial Impacts: Size and land use - D&M, May 28, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions; Unacceptable - D&M, May 28, 1975;
not cost-effective - ETK, May 29, 1975;
least acceptable - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976;
unacceptable - D&M, Jan. 22, 1976.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 8
Location: North of Strickland Road; east of Jackson Mills Road;
Freehold Township.
Previous Discussion: DSM, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975; D&M, Jan. 22, 1976;
ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 75 ac; 0-5% slopes; elevation 85 ft - 100 ft;
agriculture or residence (63 ac); forest (4 ac);
portions in floodplain.
Adverse Impacts; Size, aesthetics and land use - D&M, May 28, 1975; distance
upstream from portions of service area necessitates pump
station and force main - ETK, May 29, 1975; moderate impacts
due to visual aesthetics, odor and noise potential; slight
to moderate impacts to land use - DSM, Jan. 22, 1976;
houses in close proximity and little or no screening
present - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Beneficial Impacts: Topography and development suitability - DSM, May 28, 1975,
Recommendations/Conclusions: Unacceptable - DSM, May 28, 1975; not cost-
effective and land use conflict - not feasible -
ETK, May 29, 1975; least acceptable - ETK,
Jan. 22, 1976; unacceptable - DSM, Jan. 22, 1976;
unavailable - land in use by Silvermeade Trailer
Park.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 9
Location: West of Jackson Mills Road; north of Manasquan River;
Freehold Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975; D&M, Jan. 22, 1976;
ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 107 ac; 0-5% slopes; elevation 90 ft - 100 ft;
agriculture (86 ac); old field (10 ac); forest (2 ac) ;
portions in floodplain.
Adverse Impacts: Distance upstream from portions of service area necessitates
pump station and force main - ETK, May 29, 1975;. slight
to moderate effects due to land use and visual impact -
D&M, Jan. 22, 1976.
Beneficial Impacts: Size, aesthetics, ecology, development suitability -
D&M, May 28, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Primary preference - D&M, May 28, 1975;
not cost-effective - ETK, May 29, 1975;
extensive screening needed - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976;
secondary preference - D&M, Jan. 22, 1976.
NJDEP rejection - Feb. 3, 1976 (insufficient
buffer).
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 10
Location: East of "The Villages;" east of Route 9; north of Manasquan
River; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: .D&M, Feb. 26, 1974; D&M, May 28, 1975; ETK, May 29, 1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site #1 of Feb. 26, 1974 report.
Site Characteristics: 45 ac; elevation 60 ft - 96 ft; open field; portions
in floodplain.
Adverse Impacts; Insufficient buffer, 550 ft to development, possible noise
and odor problems - D&M, Feb. 26, 1974; size and land use -
D&M, May 28, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts; Aesthetics and topography - D&M, May 28, 1975;
low construction costs due to topographic features
ETK, May 29, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Tertiary preference - D&M, Feb. 26, 1974;
unacceptable - D&M, May 28, 1975;
not feasible due to environmental impacts
ETK, May 29, 1975.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 11
Location: East of Havens Bridge Road; north of Manasquan River;
Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, Feb. 26, 1974; DSM, May 22, 1975; D&M, May 28, 1975;
ETK, May 29, 1975; ETK, Sept. 24, 1975; DSM, Sept. 25,
1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site #2 of Feb. 26, 1974 report; site #1 of Sept. 1975
reports; referred to as "Ardmore Site."
Site Characteristics: 79 ac; gently sloping draining south; elevation 70 ft -
100 ft; agriculture zoning; farm use with forest near
river; agriculture (65 ac); forest (15 ac); portions
in flood prone area.
Adverse Impacts: Moderate odor potential - DSM, Sept. 25, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts: Size, aesthetics, land use, ecology, topography,
development suitability - DSM, May 28, 1975;
visual buffer - DSM, Sept. 25, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Primary preference - DSM, Feb. 26, 1974;
environmentally acceptable - DSM, May 22, 1975;
primary preference - DSM, May 28, 1975;
endorsed by DEP - ETK, May 29, 1975; most
acceptable - ETK, May 29, 1975; most acceptable
ETK, Sept. 25, 1975.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 12
Location; South of Casino Drive; east of Havens Bridge Road; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: ETK, Sept. 24, 1975; D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site #3 of Sept. 1975 reports; referred to as "Casino
Drive #2."
Site Characteristics: 120 ac; rolling; elevation 70 ft - 120 ft; zoned
agricultural; abandoned chicken farm; interior - old
field; east, west and south borders forest.
Adverse Impacts: Moderate impacts due to topography and visual aesthetics
:D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts: Good visual screening - EcolSciences, May 27, 1977.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Primary preference - D&M, Sept. 25, 1975;
NJDEP approval Oct. 8, 1975.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 13
Location: Oak Glen Reservoir site,- Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: ETK, Sept. 24, 1975; DSM, Sept. 25, 1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site #4 of Sept. 1975 reports.
Site Characteristics: 2,000 ac; elevation 75 ft - 100 ft; wooded;
proposed reservoir site.
Adverse Impacts: Land owned by state for Oak Glen Reservoir;
unavailable as WWTP site.
Beneficial Impacts:
Recommendations/Conclusions: NJDEP rejection - Sept. 17, 1975
(too far downstream)
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site; 14
Location: South of Casino Drive; north of Manasquan River; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: ETK, Sept. 24, 1975; D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site #5 of Sept. 1975 reports.
Site Characteristics: 100 ac; slight relief; elevation 75 ft - 85 ft;
sod farm.
Adverse Impacts; Insufficient screening - EcolSciences, May 27, 1977.
Beneficial Impacts:
Recommendations/Conclusions: NJDEP rejection - Sept. 27, 1975
(too far downstream).
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 15
Location: Southwest corner of Casino Drive/Lemon Road intersection;
Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: ETK, Sept. 24, 1975; D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
Other Nomenclature: Site 16 of Sept. 1975 reports.
Site Characteristics: 80 ac; moderate to severe slopes; elevation 80 ft
120 ft; agriculture zoning; forest (70 ac) ;
farmland (10 ac).
Adverse Impacts: Close proximity to homes; insufficient buffer - D&M,
Sept. 25, 1975; severe impacts on visual aesthetics;
moderate to severe impacts due to topography; moderate
odor potential - D&M, Sept. 25, 1975; high cost due to
elevation and steep slopes - ETK, Sept. 24, 1975.
Beneficial Impacts:
Recommendations/Conclusions: Secondary preference - D&M, Sept. 25, 1975.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 16
Location; Between Georgia Road and Jackson Mills Road; south of Cattail
Ditch; Freehold Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, Jan. 22, 1976; ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 124 ac; 0-5% slopes; elevation 100 ft - 120 ft;
forest (93 ac); agriculture (31 ac); portions are
marshland.
Adverse Impacts: Distance upstream from portions of service area necessitates
pump station and force main - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Beneficial Impacts: Good visual buffer - D&M, Jan. 22, 1975.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Suitable - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976;
primary preference - D&M, Jan. 22, 1976.
NJDEP approval - Feb. 3, 1976.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: 17
Location: West of Burke Road; south of Route 524; north of Manasquan River;
Freehold Township.
Previous Discussion: D&M, Jan. 22, 1976; ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Other Nomenclature: Referred to as "Lone Pine Landfill Site."
Site Characteristics: 96 ac; 0-5% slopes; elevation 100 ft - 130 ft;
old field (53 ac); agriculture (33 ac); forest
(10 ac); portions in floodplain.
Adverse Impacts: Extreme distance upstream necessitates pump station,
force main and 30,000 ft outfall - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976.
Beneficial Impacts:
Recommendations/Conclusions: Noncost-effective - ETK, Jan. 22, 1976;
Primary preference - D&M, Jan. 22, 1976.
NJDEP approval - Feb. 3, 1976.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: A
Location: East of the Garden State Parkway; bounded by Herbertsville Road
on the south, Allenwood Road on the north and the Monmouth Ocean
County line on the east ; Wall Township.
Previous Discussion: Draft EIS
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 71 ac; little relief; cleared land-gravel pits;
elevation between 90 ft - 100 ft; sparse vegetation
within the site; clumps of trees on site borders.
Adverse Impacts; Pumping station and force main necessary; requirement for
a CAFRA review - EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Beneficial Impacts: Good buffers; isolated location; no disruption to
forest habitat; a short outfall is required - EcolSciences,
May 18, 1978.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Primary engineering and environmental preference,
EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: B
Location: East of Route 547; north of Easy Street; west of Herbertsville-
Allenwood Roads; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: Final EIS.
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 201 ac; Squankum Brook traverses site; slight relief;
a portion is farmland, however, the greater part is
heavily wooded.
Adverse Impacts: No screening on the western side; proximity of residences;
pumping station and force main are necessary; potential
destruction of forest habitat; requirement of a long
outfall; potential loss of farmland; potential adverse
impacts to Squankum Brook - EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Beneficial Impacts: Good buffer on three sides - EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Recommendations/Conclusions; Secondary engineering preference; tertiary
environmental preference - EcolSciences,
May 18, 1978.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
Appendix V
Treatment Plant Sites
Site: C
Location: Southeast of the Borough of Farmingdale,; north of Birdsall
Road; south of Belmar Road; Howell Township.
Previous Discussion: Final EIS
Other Nomenclature:
Site Characteristics: 120 ac; little relief; majority of interior is open
field, portions in a powerline right-of-way; portions
of the site borders are wooded; three streams traverse
the site.
Adverse Impacts: Pumping station and force main are necessary; existence
of on-site and nearby residences; a long outfall is
required; potential adverse impacts to on-site streams;
proximity to Farmingdale Borough (high residential area) -
EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Beneficial Impacts: Partial screening exists; little disruption of forest
habitat is expected - EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Recommendations/Conclusions: Tertiary engineering and environmental
preference - EcolSciences, May 18, 1978.
Feasible site - EIS review.
-------
APPENDIX W
EVALUATION OF TREATMENT PLANT SITES
AND SITE SPECIFIC OUTFALL ROUTES
SUBREGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT SITES
Employing general environmental and engineering principles,
each site was assigned a preference ranking. A description
of the feasible sites is presented below:
Site 1 adjoins Rutgers Agricultural Experiment Station
in Howell Township. It is, for the most part, an open, aban-
doned farm with slight relief (range in elevation between 30-
34 m (100-110 ft). Vegetation is of the old field type or in
grasses, with portions of forest land providing a. screen along
the site borders.
Advantages of Site 1:
possible multi-use sludge disposal at Rutgers
Agricultural Experiment Station
little disruption to forest habitat
little public opposition
accessability to Route 524
Disadvantages of Site 1:
need for a long outfall because of the distance to the
discharge point
high energy requirements
Ranking:
2° environmental preference
3° engineering preference
Site 2 adjoins the northeast boundary of Site 1. The
site is larger than Site 1 and has an elevation of 35 m (115 ft)
Vegetation consists of farmland in grasses and old field succes-
sion; a portion being cultivated.
-------
Advantages of Site 2:
possible multi-use land application of sludge at
Rutgers Agricultural Experiment Station
little disruption to forest habitat
little public opposition
accessibility to Howell Road
Disadvantages of Site 2;
need for a long outfall because of the distance to
the discharge point
high energy requirements
Ranking:
2° environmental preference
3° engineering preference
Site 4 is in Howell Township north and south of Casino
Drive between Havens Bridge Road and Route 9. This site has
a well-developed forest, and elevation ranges from about 24m
(80 ft) at the Manasquan River to about 37m (120 ft) at the
rear of the property. Excellent screening and buffer exist
in the -section south of Casino Drive, and the section north
of the road would permit construction of an outfall on the
property.
Advantages of Site 4:
accessibility to Route 9
little public opposition
existence of an excellent buffer
need for only a short outfall
Disadvantages of Site 4:
removal of approximately 16 ha (40 a) of forest
location of one house on the property
Ranking;
2° environmental preference
1° engineering preference
-------
Site 6 is in Freehold Township immediately south of
Manasquan River, bounded on the west by Jackson Mill Road
and on the south by Bergerville Road. Site 6 has fairly
heavily wooded areas and elevation ranges from approximately
23m (75 ft) at the Manasquan River to 30m (100 ft) in the
vicinity of Bergerville Road. Previous field investigations
of this site indicated that the central portion could be
used for the development of interim treatment facilities,
the remaining woodland providing an excellent screen and
buffer.
Advantages of Site 6:
accessibility to Route 23
little public opposition
Disadvantages of Site 6:
need for a long outfall
« high energy requirements
existence of several dwellings in the immediate
vicinity
removal of forest habitat
Ranking:
3° environmental preference
3° engineering preference
Site 11 (Ardmore Site) is south of Adelphia-Parmingdale
Road (County Route 425) and east of Havens Bridge Road in
Howell Township. Site 11 has gently rolling terrain: eleva-
tions range from between 21m (70 ft) along the river to 30m
(100 ft) along Route 524. The southern part of the site is
in a flood-prone area. Cultivated fields occupy the majority
of the site (26 ha [65 a] and forest occupies the remaining
6 ha (15 a).
-------
Advantages of Site 11:
accessibility to Route 524
need for a short outfall
low energy requirements
little disruption of forest habitat
Disadvantages of Site 11;
great public opposition
Ranking:
1° environmental preference (assuming facili-
ties can be located outside of floodplain)
1° engineering preference
Site 12 is on the south side of Casino Drive, east of
Lemon Road and west of Georgia Tavern Road. Most of the site
(28 ha [70 a]) is open land: the northern portion is an aban-
doned poultry farm and the interior consists of cleared farm
land. The site is bordered on the east, west, and south by
mature forest and elevation ranges from 21m (70 ft) to 30m
(100 ft) .
Advantages of Site 12:
accessibility to Casino Drive
need for only a short outfall
low energy requirements
little disruption of forest habitat
Disadvantages of Site 12:
great public opposition
.- Ranking;
1° environmental preference
1° engineering preference
-------
Site 16, located west of Jackson Mill Road and south of
Stonehill Road in Freehold Township, includes approximately
51 ha (125 a) and is bounded on the west by Georgia Road.
Its terrain is fairly uniform and elevation ranges from
approximately 30m (100 ft) along Jackson Mill Road to 37m
(120 ft) along Georgia Road. Most of the site (38 ha [93 a])
is forested although 13 ha (31 a) are in agricultural use.
Portions of the site are in marshland.
Advantages of Site 16:
accessibility to Route 23
existence of a good buffer
Disadvantages of Site 16:
need for a long outfall
high energy requirements
existence of several dwellings in the immediate
vicinity of the site
removal of forest habitat
Ranking:
3° environmental preference
3° engineering preference
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT SITES
Site A, east of the Garden State Parkway and north of
the Monmouth County border line, consists of approximately
29 ha (71 a) of vacant land (gravel pits). Numerous small
mounds dot the area. Elevation ranges from 27m to 30m (90
to 100 ft). Vegetation is extremely sparse except for clumps
of trees on the site borders, which afford a partial screening.
The New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone Management has
determined that the site lies within the CAFRA zone; therefore,
construction of a treatment plant at this site will be subject
to a CAFRA review.
-------
Advantages of Site A;
existence of a good buffer
isolated location
no disruption of forest habitat
need for only a short outfall
accessibility to Herbertsville and Allentown roads
Disadvantages of Site A;
need for a pumping station and force main
Ranking:
1° environmental preference
1° engineering preference
Site B, located east of Route 547 and north of Easy
Street, consists of approximately 81 ha (201 a). The terrain
is generally level, with little relief. Squankum Brook trav-
erses the central portion of the site. The western portion is
open farmland planted in row crops, and the remaining portion
is generally wooded. A buffer of trees exists on three sides
of the site, but little or no screening exists on the western
side.
Advantages of Site B:
existence of a good buffer on three sides
accessibility to Route 547
Disadvantages of Site B:
no screening on the western side
proximity of residences
need for a pumping station and force main
potential destruction of a portion of forest habitat
need for a long outfall
loss of farmland
potential damage to Squankum Brook
-------
Ranking;
3° environmental preference
2° engineering preference
Site C is southeast of the Borough of Farmingdale, north
of Birdsall Road, and south of Belmar Road. Its area is
approximately 48 ha (120 a) in size and its terrain generally
level. Much of the interior area is open field, portions of
which include a power line right-of-way. The site has partial
border of trees. Residences are located on and near the site.
Advantages of Site C:
accessibility to Birdsall Road
existence of partial screening
little disruption of forest habitat
Disadvantages of Site C:
need for a pumping station and force main
existence of onsite and nearby residences
. need for a long outfall
potential damage to onsite streams
proximity to high residential area, Farmingdale Borough
Ranking:
3° environmental preference
3° engineering preference
LAND APPLICATION SITES
Site I, WTP Site A. One parcel of land required is north
of the WTP, east of the Garden State Parkway, and south of
Route 524, and the other north of Route 524 between the Howell
boundary. Major soil types found on the parcels include Lake-
wood and Sassafras. Use of Site I would require approximately
1,220m (4,000 ft) of interceptor and 3,658m (12,000 ft) of
force main.
-------
Site II would be used with WTP Site B. Three parcels
of land required are all west of Site B. One parcel is be-
tween the New Jersey Central Railroad, Glen Road, Old Tavern
Road and Southland Road, and the other two are along Old
Tavern Road. Major soil types found on these parcels include
Evesboro, Freehold, and Lakewood. Use of Site II would re-
quire approximately 4,572m (15,000 ft) of force main.
Site III would be used with Site C. One parcel of land
required is northeast of Farmingdale along the western side
of Route 547 to Route 33, and the other is east of the New
Jersey Central Railroad south of Megill Road. Major soil types
found on these parcels include Evesboro, Freehold, Lakewood,
and Sassafras. Use of Site III would require approximately
2743m (9,000 ft) of force main.
SITE SPECIFIC OUTFALL ROUTES
Site 1: The force main and outfall would follow a route
from the intersection of Havens Bridge Road and the Manasquan
River, 762m (2,500 ft) north along Havens Bridge Road and
1,067m (3,500 ft) west along Route 524. The pipelines would
then enter the site and travel along an existing road to the
interior of the site. A total of approximately 1,830m (6,000
ft) of construction easement would be required along the road-
ways .
Site 2: The interceptor and outfall route would follow a
route along Havens Bridge Road similar to that for Site 1,
then follow Route 524 west for 457m (1,500 ft) and turn north
on Howell Road for 914m (3,000 ft). The pipelines would then
travel along an existing road between fields to the interior
of the property. A total of 2,133m (7,000 ft) of construction
easement along the roads would be necessary.
Site 4: A force main from Havens Bridge Road would follow
the Manasquan River for approximately 366m (1,200 ft) along a
-------
mature wooded area. Prom this point, the force main and out-
fall would enter the site and follow a route through heavy
woods, across Casino Drive and to the interior of the site.
Site 6: A force main from Havens Bridge Road would
follow the Manasquan River, approximately 1,460m (4,800 ft),
to Route 9. From Route 9, the forcemain would travel approx-
imately 1,067m (3,500 ft) through a partially wooded area and
cross a small tributary of the Manasquan River to a pump sta-
tion just east of Debois Creek. The force main would then
cross Debois Creek and enter the site. Both the force main
and outfall would travel to the interior of the site through
a wooded section. A total of 2,528m (3,800 ft) of pipeline
construction easement would be necessary.
Site 11: A force main would run 305m (1000 ft) through
an existing farm, where it would enter the site and cross a
field now cultivated. The outfall would travel through the
site to the river.
Site 12: A force main would follow Havens Bridge Road
approximately 610m (2000 ft) and then travel along Casino Drive
approximately 914m (3,000 ft) to the entrance to the site. The
pipeline would then follow an existing road through an old
field. The outfall would use the same route and travel 152m
(499 ft) across a partially wooded area to the river.
Site 16: The force main would use the same route as that
for Site 6. From the pump station, it would cross the Manas-
quan River and travel through a wooded area along a small
tributary approximately 1,220m (4,000 ft) to the site. The
outfall would follow the same route back to the river.
Site A: From the central pump station located in the
vicinity of Routes 524 and 547, a force main would follow the
existing powerline right-of-way south to Hospital Road, and then
to the site. The outfall would follow Allenwood Road (823 m
(2,700 ft) to the Manasquan River.
-------
Site B; From the central pump station, a force main would
travel south along Squankum Park Road to the plant site. The
outfall would pass through a wooded area between the treatment
plant site and Route 529. It would then follow Route 549
south to Hospital Road and continue to Allenwood Road to its
discharge point in the Manasquan River.
Site C; Use of this site may facilitate a modification
of the interceptor alignment. Placement of a pump station
close to the plant site would eliminate the lower portions
of the Marsh Bog Brook and Mingamahone Interceptors. Should
this modification prove infeasible, the pump station used for
Sites A and B would also be used, requiring a force main along
Route 547, east on Birdsall Road, and then north along the
powerline right-of-way to the plant site. The outfall would
proceed south along the powerline right-of-way to the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad right-of-way. The outfall would leave the
right-of-way at Allenwood Road, proceeding south to a dis-
charge point in the Manasquan River.
-------
APPENDIX X
EcolSciences, inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES
Eastern Region 20 Union Street Rockaway, New Jersey 07866
(201)627-5726
June 21, 1977
Alfred T. Guido, Director
Division of Parks and Forestry
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1420
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Dear Mr. Guido:
I would like to thank you and the members of your staff
for discussing the interaction of the Manasquan EIS with
site selection within Allaire State Park. A confirmation
and summary of the key items covered in our meeting follow:
(1) The potential regional or subregional plant site
located west of the Garden State Parkway and south
of the Manasquan River is confirmed to be within
Allaire State Park;
(2) The location of a treatment plant within Allaire
State Park would be considered a major encroachment
by the Division of Parks and Forestry. Therefore,
it is the Divisions' feeling that at the present
time the consideration of a treatment plant site is
not viable;
(3) The Division of Parks and Forestry is opposed to the
consideration of spray irrigation within Allaire State
Park. This method of disposal- was stated as not being
compatible with existing park uses such as camping and
hiking.
(4) The recreational lake proposed in the early stages of
project planning would be the least objectionable
portion of the project. The Division stated that if
the treatment plant were to be located on a contiguous
piece of property outside of the park, it would
Cnroota'p Officp- Vienna. Virginia Midwest Region- South Bend. Indiana
Mid-Atlantic Region: Vienna. Virginia
-------
Alfred T. Guido
Page 2
June 21, 1977
consider the lake being located. within its property,
Thank you again for your frank expression of the Divisions
policies and concerns.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Friedman
Vice President
MSFrrs
cc: Dick Coleates
Knud Scholer
Frank Williamson
-------
APPENDIX Y
EVALUATION OF MAJOR INTERCEPTOR ROUTES
DEBOIS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
The banks of the Debois Creek form a corridor of
vegetation of varying width, often less than 7.6 m (25 ft)
on each stream bank. In general, neighboring land use
has disturbed the natural vegetation up to the floodplain
limits of the creek. These areas consist of a narrow
swath of stream bank vegetation bordered by old field
vegetation. If left undisturbed, as the width of the
corridor increases, the vegetation generally progresses
from stream bank and floodplain vegetation through the
upland forest. Stream bank/floodplain vegetation along
Debois Creek generally contains few tall overstory trees.
Understory vegetation and lower growing trees are prevalent.
In narrow corridor segments, few trees with a dbh of
greater than 50 cm (20 in) exist with most trees less than
30 cm (12 in) dbh. As the width of the corridor increases,
larger mature trees become more common.
The final alignment of the Debois Creek Interceptor
has been divided into four segments (Figure 16). An
in-road alternative was investigated during the prepara-
tion of this EIS,. but because of the engineering considera-
tions and minimal impact to environmentally sensitive areas
of the original alignment (see below), the proposed alignment
is recommended.
-------
Segment A begins at the Freehold Borough WWTP,
crosses Debois Creek and proceeds south on the east side of
the creek, paralleling the creek to Route 33. At Center
Street, a woodland containing a mixture of upland and wet-
site species will be affected. The canopy is sparse, the
understory is well developed and there are several large trees
present (white oak, black tupelo, ash and black cherry), some
of which will be removed. On the banks of Debois Creek, a
sparsely vegetated riparian area is found.
Approximately 0.12 ha (0.3 ac) of this area would be
cleared, 15-21 m (50-70 ft) away from the creek. The corridor
should not change the character of the area significantly and
negligible adverse impacts are anticipated. Similarly, the
loss of sparse riparian vegetation should not create adverse
impacts.
A woodland, just north of Route 33, will be traversed.
This is a sparsely vegetated area supporting floodplain species
with several large trees. The creek is nearby at this point
(18 m [60 ft]) and a small amount of riparian vegetation will
likely be disrupted causing minimal adverse impacts.
The alignment along Segment A traverses four wetland
areas. Each of these areas is at the crossing of a stream,
drainage ditch or swale and is unavoidable. No wetland area
will be traversed for a length greater than 15 m (50 ft). The
total linear distance through the combined wetland areas is
approximately 51 m (167 ft) and a total of approximately 0.06
ha (0.15 ac) of wetland habitat will be affected.
Segment B begins at Route 33 and proceeds south on
the east side of Debois Creek to Elton Adelphia Road. At the
confluence of the Debois and Applegates Creeks, a mature forest
is present. Most of the species present are indicative of
wet-site conditions, and tri-lobed red maple, beech and white
oak are the larger trees in the stand. The canopy is generally
sparse. A stream crossing takes place at Applegates Creek
and ripar ian vegetation will be removed.
-------
Approximately 0.11 ha (0.28 ac) of this woodland and
0.04 ha (0.09 ac) of stream edge habitat will be removed. The
quality of this wildlife habitat will be reduced as this wooded
stand is not extensive and the corridor will remove a rela-
tively large percentage of these woods. North of this area,
scattered woodlands are encountered. The alignment will
encroach upon these woodlands and decrease their extent, rather
than creating a corridor resulting in the removal of a total
of 0.26 ha (0.64 ac). The average distance to the stream is
greater than 30 m (100 ft).
The alignment along Segment B traverses two wetland
areas, each involving a stream crossing. No wetland area
will be traversed for a length greater than 17 m (.55 ft). .
The total linear distance through the combined wetland areas
is approximately 30 m (100 ft) and a total of approximately
0.04 ha (.0.09 a) of wetland habitat will be affected.
Segment C begins at Elton Adelphia Road, west of
Halls Mill Road, and proceeds south paralleling Debois Creek
which is west of the alignment, to Strickland Road. Woodland
disturbance in this segment will occur along the scattered
woodlands which parallel the stream. No riparian vegetation
is expected to be removed. The alignment will decrease the
width of the woods rather than creating a corridor. Approxi-
mately 0.28 ha (0.70 ac) of such scattered woodlands will be
removed with minimal environmental impacts anticipated. No
impacts to wetland areas are anticipated in Segment C.
Segment D, the connection of the Wynnewood Sewer
Company to the Debois Creek Interceptor, proceeds southeasterly
from a point midway between Koenig Lane and Hibernia Way to
Three Brooks Road. The interceptor then proceeds east, along
the south side of the road in a cultivated field to the Debois
Interceptor. Two stream crossings are proposed in this sec-
tion. One crossing will remove approximately 0.03 ha (0.08 ac)
of sparse riparian vegetation. At this point, the stream is
-------
bordered by two housing developments and significant impacts
are not anticipated.
The alignment along Segment D traverses two small
wetland areas at stream crossings. No wetland area will be
traversed for a distance greater than 8 m (25 ft) and the
total linear distance through wetland areas is approximately
15 m (50 ft) with approximately 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) of wetland
habitat to be affected.
UPPER MANASQUAN INTERCEPTOR
The transition of vegetational types along the Manas-
quan River is similar' to that along Deb.ois Cr. Rather than gen-
erally forming a narrow vegetated corridor through, nonfor.ested
areas, much of th.e Manasquan River traverses forested are.as. In
other areas, the vegetated corridor along the Manasquan River is
generally wider and often includes more dry-site plant species.
Vegetation along the Manasquan River is generally
dense and contains more extensive stands of mature trees than
along Debois Creek. The Oak-Pine Association, indicative of
dry-site conditions, is often encountered. Pitch pine and
black, scarlet, chestnut and post oaks are the dominant
components of this vegetational cover type. Species similar
to those described for Debois Creek exist and are prevalent
near the river. The Upper Manasquan Interceptor has been
divided into two segments (Figure 16).
Segment A begins at Elton Adelphia Road, approxi-
mately 61 m (200 ft) west of Old Post Road, and proceeds
generally south to the Manasquan River near Jackson Mill Road.
The interceptor proceeds east in Strickland Road to Debois
Creek. At this point, the interceptor leaves the road, travels
south-southeast to the confluence of Long Brook and the Manas-
quan River and crosses Long Brook east to Route 9. Two wooded
areas are encountered along this segment. The first lies to
the northwest of Jackson Mill Road and is generally second
growth upland woods. The canopy is sparse and few large trees
are encountered. The interceptor corridor will remove approxi-
-------
mately 0.22 ha (0.55 ac) of this wooded area, a small por-
tion of which will be riparian vegetation where the alignment
nears a tributary at one point. The character of this area
will not be altered and the impacts to the terrestrial eco-
system should be minimal and short term.
From Strickland Road southeast to a point 488 m
(1,600 ft) north of Route 9, an extensive segment of forest
will be traversed. Generally, this is a mature upland forest
containing large oaks and black cherry. A portion of the
forest near the confluence of the Manasquan River and Long
Brook contains floodplain species. The canopy is moderately
dense and the removal of several large trees is anticipated.
At the two stream crossings (Debois Creek and Long Brook)
riparian vegetation will be removed. Approxima/tely 0.73 ha
(1.8 ac) of mature forest habitat and 0.09 ha (0.22 ac) of
second growth woodlands will be removed along a corridor
631 m (2,070 ft) in length. Approximately 0.04 ha (0.09 ac)
of stream edge habitat will be removed. This is an extensive
stand of similar forest habitat and is expected to increase
in diversity and habitat interspersion created by the corridor
which will offset the loss in the carrying capacity of forest
habitat. The loss of stream edge habitat is not extensive,
however, similar habitat is not as available as is forested
area. The loss of the stream bank habitat will create short-
term adverse impacts to associated wildlife species, however,
these impacts should cease upon vegetational replacement.
The original alignment of Segment A would traverse
four wetland areas. Three of these areas represent stream
crossings. The fourth area would traverse a distance of
approximately 34 m (110 ft). As an alternative to the lengthy
inroad alternatives to avoid construction in wetland areas,
the original alignment was rerouted around the wetland area.
The rerouted alignment (complete Segment A) will traverse a
total linear distance through the combined wetland areas of
-------
approximately 41 m (135 ft) and affect approximately 0.05 ha
(0.12 ac) of wetland habitat compared to 75 m (245 ft) and
0.09 ha (0.23 a ), respectively. No wetland area will be
traversed for a distance greater than 26 m (85 ft). The
revision reduces the extent of wetland disturbance by
45 percent and adds $3,700 to the present worth cost of the
alignment..
Segment B proceeds east from Route 9 crossing the
Manasquan River, and then proceeds east on the south side of
the river to Havens Bridge Road. Here it crosses the river
to reach its terminus 122 m (400 ft) east of the road on the
north side of the river.
The first-woodland encountered contains floodplain
forest trees and has a sparse to moderate canopy. Large trees
are commonly tri-lobed red maple, old white oaks and sweet
gum with few large trees anticipated to be removed. Approxi-
mately 0.15 ha (0.36 ac) of mature woods and 0.19 ha (0.46 ac)
of sparse second growth woodlands will be removed over a
corridor length of 274 m (900 ft). Approximately 0.04 ha
(0.11 ac) of this area is riparian vegetation. The removal of
this habitat (woodland and riparian) and subsequent reduction
of the carrying capacity will not likely be offset by the
beneficial aspects of the corridor.
An extensive mature forest is encountered just east
of the previously described area, continuing east to Havens-
Bridge Road. The dominant forest species are of the Oak-Pine
Association with white oak, black oak, black cherry and maple.
The removal of several large trees is anticipated. Woodlands
will separate this section of the corridor from the Manasquan
River by a distance generally over 46 m (150 ft). Approximately
1.5 ha (3.7 ac) of mature forest habitat will be removed in
this section, 0.89 ha (2.2 ac) of which is heavily wooded and
contains several large trees. The increase in diversity and
habitat interspersion cr-eated by the corridor will likely
-------
offset the reduction in the carrying capacity of the mature
forest. This woodland is large and extends 244 m (800 ft)
from the Manasquan. At the Manasquan River crossing, approxi-
mately 0.02 ha (0.05 a) of riparian vegetation will be lost.
This will result in a short-term impact to associated wildlife.
This alignment along Segment B will traverse three
wetland areas at stream crossings. No wetland area will be
traversed for a distance greater than 24 m (80 ft). The
total linear distance through the combined wetland areas is
approximately 47 m (155 ft) and a total of approximately 0.06 ha
(0.14 a) of wetland habitat will be affected.
MARSH BOG BROOK INTERCEPTOR
The vegetation paralleling Marsh Bog and Mingamahone
Brooks shows the same transitional characteristics as in the
Debois Creek and Manasquan River areas. Dominant species vary
depending upon site conditions and follow a transition from
wet to dry site species as distance from the stream increases.
Portions of old field, open field or otherwise disturbed vege-
tation occur near farms and residential areas. The Marsh Bog
Brook Interceptor is described in two segments ( Figure 16).
Segment A begins at the Farmingdale Gardens WTP approxi-
mately 137 m (450 ft) north of West Main Street on the east
side of Marsh Bog Brook and proceeds generally south parallel-
ing the brook to Preventorium Road.
The majority of land traversed by the interceptor is
cultivated field, however, a dense floodplain forest occurs
adjacent to Marsh Bog Brook between West Main. Street and the
Penn Central Railroad Right of Way for approximately 230 m
(750 ft). The canopy is scattered and much of the vegetation
is in dense thickets of understory height trees and shrubs.
Common large trees include three-lobed red maple, white oak,
wet-site oaks such as pin oak and swamp white oak, sweet gum,
black tupelo and black locust.
Within the forest, one minor tributary crossing will
occur at a point approximately 18 m (60 ft) distant from the
-------
brook. A subsequent loss of riparian vegetation (0.02 ha
[0.04 ac]) will occur. Two drainage ditches will also be
traversed in cultivated fields. At both locations, stream
bank vegetation is limited and a minimal loss of riparian
vegetation is anticipated.
Approximately 0.65 ha (1.6 a ) of floodplain forest
habitat will be removed over a corridor distance of 533 m
(1,750 ft). The alignment will be relatively close to the
brook, often within 15 m (50 ft). The existing woodland
vegetation will form a narrow buffer between the stream and
the alignment. The loss of this forest habitat should not
significantly affect the area's wildlife, however, the proximity
of this alignment to the brook creates the potential for the
disturbance or removal of riparian vegetation and stream edge
habitat.
The original alignment of Segment A would traverse
four wetland areas. Three of these areas represent drainage
ditch crossings. A fourth wetland area along the brook
would be traversed for a distance of approximately 274 m
(900 ft). The original alignment was rerouted to avoid this
wetland area resulting in a revised alignment which will
traverse a total linear distance through wetland areas
(including drainage ditch crossings) of approximately 43 m
(140 ft)and affect approximately 0.05 ha (0.13 a ) of wetland
habitat. No wetland area will be traversed for a distance
greater than 15 m (50 ft). The rerouted alignment reduces
the extent of wetland disturbance by 87 percent (274 m [900]).
Segment B begins at Preventorium Road and proceeds
southeast in the roadway to Marsh Bog Brook. At this point,
it crosses the brook and proceeds east and then south parallel-
ing Marsh Bog Brook to Squankum Yellow Brook Road where it
proceeds in the roadway to a point 76 m (250 ft) north of the
Manasquan River in Lakewood-Farmingdale Road.
-------
The majority of this segment, from Preventorium
Road to Squankum-Yellow Brook Road, traverses a forested area.
The area is characterized as a floodplain forest with very
dense undergrowth and ground cover. The canopy is fairly
continuous with common large trees including tri-lobed red
maple, sweet gum, black cherry and willow. Most of the area
is poorly drained and sections of the alignment are covered by
standing water. The riparian vegetation encountered at the
stream crossing should not be significantly disturbed because
this is the location where Preventorium Road also crosses the
stream.
The alignment will form a corridor through this mature
floodplain forest for 2,073 m (6,800 ft) and will remove 2.5 ha
(6.2 a ) of habitat. Approximately 50 percent of this wood-
land alignment averages 46 m (150 ft) from the brook and
50 percent averages 76 m (250 ft) from the brook. A small
portion of this alignment (near Preventorium Road) is within
30 m (100 ft) of the brook. Floodplain forest forms a buffer
between the alignment and the brook.
A significant amount of mature floodplain forest
habitat (2.5 ha [6.2 a ]) will be removed along Segment B,
causing a reduction in the carrying capacity for wildlife
suited to this habitat type. The forest in this area extends
a considerable distance away from the brook and is extensive.
Consequently, the amount of woodlands removed by the alignment
will comprise a small percentage of this habitat type in this
area. The loss of carrying capacity for certain wildlife will
be offset by increasing the diversity of habitat types avail-
able and providing habitat by additional forms of wildlife.
The alignment along Segment B would traverse five
wetland areas. Three areas are associated with stream or
drainage ditch crossings. Two areas would be traversed for
substantial distances; approximately 137 m (450 ft) and 91 m
(300 ft). The original alignment was rerouted to avoid these
two latter areas resulting in a revised alignment which will
-------
traverse a total linear distance through wetland areas (includ-
ing stream and ditch crossings) of approximately 18 m (60 ft)
and affect approximately 0.02 ha (0.06 a ) of wetland habitat.
No wetland area will be traversed for a distance greater than
6 m (20 ft). The rerouted alignment reduces the extent of wet-
land disturbance by 93 percent (229 m [750 ft]).
The added present worth costs for rerouting lines
around these environmentally sensative areas in Segments A
and B of the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor is $23,140.
MINGAMAHONE BROOK INTERCEPTOR
Segment A begins at the Farmihgdale/Howell border
west of Mingamahone Brook and proceeds south past Belmar Blvd.
'to the Jersey 'Central Power & Light Company ROW. The majority of
Segment A to the Central Railroad of N. J. ROW traverses a wood-
land which supports upland and dry site species, most of which
are in mature stands. The oak-pine association, indicative of dry
site characteristics is frequently encountered. Black oak,
scarlet oak, chestnut oak and bear oak are common; pitch pine
and black cherry are present to a lesser degree. Several
large trees, specifically oaks, are present in this area.
Three stream crossings are anticipated in Segment A, two of
which are in the wooded areas and will cause a loss of stream
edge vegetation and habitat.
Woodland will border the resultant corridor on both
sides for a distance greater than 61 m (200 ft). At two loca-
tions the interceptor will be within 30 m (100 ft) of the
brook. Approximately 0.89 ha (2.2 a ) of generally mature
forest habitat will be removed along this alignment. The
carrying capacity for upland species will be reduced; however,
habitat for other species will be created and the intersper-
sion of habitat types should be beneficial once corridor
construction is completed. A temporary loss of stream edge
habitat will occur at two stream crossings. The amount of
such habitat disturbed is approximately 0.04 ha (0.09 a ).
-------
The alignment along Segment A traverses two wetland
areas, both of which are at stream crossings. No wetland
area will be traversed for a distance greater than 6 m (20 ft).
The total linear distance through the combined wetland
areas is approximately 11 m (35 ft) and a total of approximately
0.01 ha (0.03 a ) of wetland habitat will be affected.
Segment B begins in the Jersey Central Power &
Light Company ROW approximately 305 m (1000 ft) north of
Birdsall Avenue and continues south in the ROW to its ter-
minus 396 m (1300 ft) south of Allaire Road and 152 m (500
ft) north of the Manasquan River. At two locations, for a
total distance of 716 m (2350 ft), the segment is out of the
ROW. One section of woodland on the west side of the Minga-
mahone, approximately 244 m (800 ft) north of Allaire Road,
will be affected by this alignment. The oak-pine association
is prevalent, with a small portion in second growth.
The corridor will necessitate removal of 0.30 ha
(0.73 a ) of upland woodlands. The brook is generally over
30 m (100 ft) away from the interceptor corridor separated
by woodlands. The increase in diversity and interspersion
of habitat types created by the corridor should not benefit
the area. These woodlands are not extensive and are bordered
by old field habitat, resembling that of the corridor upon
revegetation. The corridor will decrease the carrying capa-
city for woodland species while not appreciably benefitting
other wildlife species, resulting in a net adverse impact
to the area.
Free Swamp Brook is crossed within the ROW, neces-
sitating removal of 0.02 ha (0.05 a ) of stream edge habitat,
near the confluence with Mingamahone Brook. Stream bank
habitat is relatively abundant at this crossing, and the
impacts of the temporary loss of this habitat should be minor.
-------
Segment B traverses three wetland areas. The
maximum distance traversed within an area will be approxi-
mately 27 m (90 ft). The total linear distance through the
combined wetland area is approximately 58 m (190 ft) and
a total of approximately 0.07 ha (0.17 a) of wetland habitat
will be affected.
MINGAMAHONE PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN
Beginning at the pump station on the northeast
border of the Borough of Farmingdale, the force main pro-
ceeds south-southwest in the New Jersey Central Railroad
ROW to connect with the Marsh Bog Brook Interceptor. The
total length of the force main is 1,372 m (4,500 ft), all
of which is in the existing ROW. Significant adverse impacts
to terrestrial ecosystems are not anticipated.
Regional: The regional alternative includes all inter-
ceptor alignments and their resultant short-term terrestrial
impacts identified for the SR-1 alternative, as well as those
impacts related to the Lower Manasquan Interceptor. Three
alternate alignments exist for the Lower Manasquan Interceptor
R-l: The R-l alternate parallels the Manasquan
River and travels in an easterly direction from its initiation
at the Havens Bridge Road pump station force main. Figure 16
presents the R-l alternate as two segments.
Segment A begins approximately 488 m (1600 ft) to
the west of Ardmore Estates at the Adelphia Sewer Company WWTP
and proceeds generally east and southeast to Yellow Brook to
the north of the Manasquan River. Three areas of woodlands
are traversed by Segment A. The first woodland encountered
consists of a moderately dense, mature forest. Most of this
area is typical of the upland forest with the oak-pine asso-
ciation prevalent. Wet site species of the floodpl^in become
dominant in the interior of this woodland at the stream cross-
ing. Several large 30+ cm dbh (12+ in) oaks, black cherry
-------
and three-lobed red maple are present. The interceptor will
create a 265 m (870 ft) corridor through these woods, approx-
imately 12 m (40 ft) in width. The distance of the Manasquan
River from this corridor averages 122 m (400 ft) all of which
is wooded. Approximately 0.32 ha (0.79 a ) of mature woodland
habitat will be removed, including 0.06 ha (0.16 a ) riparian
vegetation and stream bank habitat.
The second woodland lies directly to the west of
Ketcham Road. The existing understory and shrub layer is
dense, particularly in the area of young, second growth.
Large black cherry and black locust are prevalent in the
surrounding area. The canopy is sparse and few large trees
are expected to be removed. A corridor approximately 70 m
(260 ft) long and 12 m (40 ft) wide will be created, half of
which will be through an area of sparse second growth and
the remaining half through mature woodland. The existing
mixture of woodlands and neighboring fields provides for an
interspersion of habitat types in a small area. Interceptor .
construction should not benefit this existing interspersion
and will likely lower the habitat quality of this area. Ap-
proximately 76 m (25 ft) of woodlands lie between this area
and the Manasquan River.
The third woodland (directly east of Howell High School)
is a moderately dense, mature woodland with a mixture of wet
species and upland species. Black cherry, tri-lobed maple
and silver maple are common large trees. Black locust, red
cedar and osage orange are less numerous and generally smaller
in size. Understory trees and shrubs and brambles are very
dense. The interceptor corridor in this area will be 76 m
(250 ft) long and remove 0.09 ha (0.23 a ) of wooded habitat.
The interspersion created by the corridor will not be of
benefit as this small, narrow woodland is bordered by old
field habitat. Woodlands are found between this area and
the Manasquan River, a distance of approximately 107 m (350
ft) .
-------
Segment A traverses four wetland areas at stream
crossings and at one small depression. The maximum distance
traversed within an area is 21 m (70 ft). The total linear
distance through the combined wetland areas is approximately
53 m (175 ft) and approximately 0.07 ha (0.16 a ) of wetland
habitat will be affected.
Segment B begins at Yellow Brook and proceeds
generally east and southeast on the north side of the Manas-
quan River for a distance of approximately 3609 m (11,840 ft)
to Preventorium Road. One woodland is encountered in Segment
B which extends from a point 427 m (1400 ft) west of West
Farms Road westward to the vicinity of Yellow Brook. It is
a heavily wooded, mature forest with most of the land to be
traversed in the oak-pine association. A small segment near
Yellow Brook contains floodplain species and riparian vegeta-
tion. The corridor through this woodland is 777 m (2550 ft)
long and will remove 0.93 ha (2.3 a ) of mature forest habi-
tat and 0.008 ha (0.02 ac) of stream edge habitat. The
average distance to the Manasquan is 107 m (350 ft) through
similar forest. At the closest point, the corridor is 52 m
(170 ft) from the Manasquan River. Impacts to wetland areas
are not anticipated in this alignment.
R-2: The R-2 alternate combines a force main and
gravity system to traverse the corridor between the Havens
Bridge Road pump station and Farmingdale Borough. The R-2
alignment (Segment A) begins on New Haven Road at the Manas-
quan River and proceeds in the roadway north to Route 524,
then east on Route 524 crossing Yellow Brook. The alignment
proceeds south and joins Segment B of the Lower Manasquan
River R-l alternate.
Along Yellow Brook, an area of floodplain vegetation
is encountered with approximately 0.22 ha (0.55 a ) of these
woods to be removed. Riparian vegetation should not be affec-
ted. This is a relatively small percentage of this woodland
and minimal to moderate environmental impacts are anticipated.
Near the Manasquan River, the interceptor turns east and
follows the same alignment as Segment B of the R-l alternate.
-------
R-3: The R-3 alternate presents a route which
primarily follows roadways and existing rights-of-way. This
alignment begins on New Haven Road at the Manasquan River
and proceeds in the roadway north to Route 524, then west on
Route 524 to Fairfield Road. It then proceeds north to
Merrick Road and continues due east to the Pennsylvania
Railroad ROW until its intersection with the Marsh Bog
Brook Interceptor. The areas out of roadway in this segment
include an old field east of Merrick Road and the railroad
ROW. No long-term adverse impacts are anticipated along the
old field. However, potential adverse impacts exist along
the railroad ROW. The ROW is bordered by woodlands for most
of its length. Should construction within the ROW not prove
possible because of acquisition of required approvals as
previously discussed, significant disruption to the neighbor-
ing woodlands would occur.
-------
APPENDIX Z
IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVES ON THE OAK GLEN
RESERVOIR
INTRODUCTION
Development of surface water resources as a source of
potable water has been under consideration in Monmouth
County since 1956. It has been determined that the Manasquan
River offers a feasible source for water supply for the region.
In 1976, the passage of the Water Facilities Bond Referendum
made possible actual design and construction of the first
phase of a reservoir system in the Manasquan Basin. Because
waste management plans for MRRSA may affect both quality and
quantity of water in the Manasquan River, the impact of each
feasible alternative must be addressed. The following dis-
cussion presents a description and evaluation of the potential
impacts of waste management alternatives on the proposed
reservoir system.
As presently envisioned, the reservoir system would be
comprised of two reservoirs connected by a force main for
pumping and release of water. The first reservoir, to be built
during Phase One of the project (within 2 to 3 years) would
consist of a small intake impoundment on the Manasquan River at
Hospital Road west of Garden State Parkway, in Wall Township.
This reservoir, referred to as the Allaire Intake Reservoir,
would consist of a pond with storage capacity of 378,500 cu m (100
millions gallons) and would be capable of yielding 37,850 cu m/d
(10 mgd) directly from streamflow.
The second, storage reservoir, referred to as the Oak Glen
Reservoir would be located approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) south-
west of Farmingdale near Pinewood Road and Lemon Road, in
Howell Township. This reservoir, off the river itself, would
store water from peak flows in the Manasquan River. Storage
capacity would be 18.9 million cu m (Sbillion gallons) with a
surface area of 312 ha (770 acres). After completion, the safe
yield of the total system would be 132,475cu m/d (35 mgd).
-------
A large, two-way force main would connect the two reservoirs,
allowing pumping from the Allaire Reservoir to the Oak Glen
during periods of high flow, and release of water to the
Allaire Reservoir for treatment and distribution (the
Manasquan Reservoir System Project, 1977) .
In order to analyze the potential impact of alternative
waste management systems on the hydraulics and trophic status
of the reservoirs, certain assumptions were made and conditions
imposed:
During the filling of the Oak Glen Reservoir, water
supply will be maintained at 37,850 cu m/d (10 mgd)
A minimum of 30,280 cu m/d (8mgd) will be allowed to
flow downstream (letdown) of the Allaire Reservoir during the
filling process
Once full, 132,475 cu m/d (35 mgd) will be supplied for
potable water. The Oak Glen Reservoir would only be de-
watered when river flows are below 162,755 cu m/d (43 mgd)
[132,475 cu m/d for water supply and 30,280 cu m/d letdown]
Whenever possible, water would be pumped to the Oak
Glen Reservoir to replenish any water lost (while maintaining
supply and minimum letdown)
NUTRIENT MODEL
A simplified model of nutrient loading was constructed to
determine the effect of alternative waste management systems
on the proposed reservoirs. Three cases: "No-Action";
subregional discharge above the reservoirs; and regional dis-
charge below the reservoir were examined for their effects on
the reservoir system. These cases were evaluated for two
conditions: (1) during filling of the Oak Glen Reservoir
starting January 1 of an average year (based on long term flow
data; year 1968 was chosen) and (2) beginning with the Oak Glen
Reservoir in its full condition.
-------
Runs were also made for conditions during a severe
drought (using flow data from 1964-65). Inputs to the Oak
Glen Reservoir during a drought year are so minor as to add
negligibly to nutrient loadings. Therefore it was deter-
mined that this condition need not be discussed in the context
of the impacts of wastewater management "alternatives.
The hydraulic loading to the Oak Glen Reservoir was
calculated from an extrapolation of daily flow data taken at
the Squankum gauge in 1968. Since flows entering the Allaire
Reservoir would be greater (because of the larger drainage area),
flows at Squankum were correlated with partial record flows
at Allenwood, a point nearer the area that would be used for
pumped withdrawal.
Nutrient loadings (inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus)
were based on 1969-1975 USGS water quality data for the
Squankum station. These data were compared with data taken at
Hospital Road and using a paired t-test showed no significant
difference. The concentrations used are those of the USGS
taken at Squankum because they are most complete.
Concentrations of inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus
in the river were plotted against flow and a regression analysis
revealed significant correlation. From this correlation and
the flow data, nutrient loadings could be determined. Phosphorus
is retained in lake sediments to some extent and adjustment was
necessary to allow for the portion of the phosphorus that would
be unavailable. Porcella et al (1972) found almost 90 percent
of the phosphorus was retained in a newly formed reservoir.
More recent evidence (Canale, 1976 ) indicates that one half of
this amount (45 percent of the influent phosphorus) returns to
the water column. Inorganic nitrogen was not assumed to be
retained by sediment.
For the No-Action Alternative the instream loadings of
nutrients as calculated from the USGS data and daily flow records,
were used.
-------
For the Sub-Regional Alternative, existing daily point
source loadings (as reported to NJDEP) upstream of the Allaire
reservoir were subtracted from calculated daily instream
loadings. To this remainder was added the expected point
source loadings from a subregional plant discharge 18925 c.u m/d
(5 mgd) to the Manasquan River upstream of the Allaire
Reservoir. This was done for two types of effluent, one
including nitrification denitrification and phosphorus removal
and one excluding these processes. The concentrations of
nutrients expected in the two types of effluent was based on
90 percent removal of phosphorus and 75 percent removal of nitrogen.
For the Regional alternative, existing point sources were
subtracted from the instream loading as under this alternative
treatment and discharge of these flows would be accomplished
downstream of the Allaire Reservoir.
Results of Hydraulic Modeling
Calculation of daily flows, withdrawals and pumpage for
filling the Oak Glen Reservoir for the year 1968 shows no
detectable difference between alternatives. By April the Oak
Glen Reservoir would be full and only minor depletion would
occur in late May and late September which are quickly made up
when flow increases (Table z-1 ) .
Results of Nutrient Modeling
Total annual loadings of inorganic nitrogen and total
phosphorus, and concentrations of these nutrients, for the
alternatives, are shown on Table z-2. Only the Sub-Regional
alternative without nutrient removal processes exhibits loadings
and concentrations different from the others, under the case
of filling the reservoir. Beginning with a full reservoir, the
final concentrations of nutrients are the same as for the filling
case under each alternative.
'Final flow projections indicate a flow of 21,000 cu m/d (5.5 mgd)
The increase would slightly increase the calculated loadings.
-------
TABLE Z-l
FILLING CHARACTERISTICS OF OAK GLEN
RESERVOIR
(1978 Flows)
Date Full Extent of Dewatering
No Action 3/22 37850 m (10 mg)
Sub-Regional 3/22 9463 m (2.5 mg)
Regional 3/29 90840 m (24 mg)
-------
Alternative
No Action
Sub-Regional
without Nutrient
Removal
Sub-Regional
with Nutrient
Removal
Regional
Downstream
TABLE Z- 2
NUTRIENT LOADING TO OAK GLEN RESERVOIR
(Year 1968 Conditions)
Initial
Volume
0
0
Volume,.
(m x 10 )
Total Total
Loading Loading
N P
Kg Kg
18.9 30,845 4,129
18.9 27,670 3,006
Final N
Concentration
(mg/1)
Final P
Concentration N:P
(mg/1) Ratio
18.9 36,532 4,038 1.93
18.9 58,598 7,534 3.1
1.63
1.46
0.21
0.4
0.22
0.16
9:1
7:1
7:5:1
9:1
-------
Annual loadings have been related to eutrophic con-
ditions by several authors (Shannon & Brezonik 1971);
Vollenweider, 1968) . These are based on either volumetric
or areal relationships. In each of the alternative cases,
the calculated concentrations of nutrients at all times
during the year are above those considered threshold levels
to constitute eutrophication in a lake (Sawyer 1974). On
either basis, nutrient loadings to the Oak Glen reservoir
indicated eutrophic conditions. Table Z-3 shows annual loadings
for the alternatives, and literature values that have been
correlate,d with trophic status.
The results must be evaluated with caution, since the
characteristics of the Oak Glen Reservoir are unique. Inflow-
outflow is limited to the initial filling process and periodic
partial dewatering. Since residence time and flushing rate are
considered important factors in the rate of eutrophic processes
the reservoir presents a different picture than the majority
of lakes that have been studied.
Another problem in applying previously determined "critical"
levels of nutrients to this system is the fact that the head-
waters of the Manasquan River discharge acidic waters (in the
form of 1*2304) due to previous disturbances of the river banks.
Presently, it is assumed that wastewater effluent discharged
to the river serves as a buffer to these waters. Alternatives
modifying such wastewater flows (all except the No-Action)
will have the effect of removing this buffering action. This
could result in more acidic waters reaching the Oak Glen
Reservoir. Acid water lakes respond differently than alkaline
lakes. A study which compared strip-mine lakes in Missouri,
indicated that species diversity in the acidic lake was lower
than the others. While gross photosynthetic rates were similar,
the authors concluded that the less diverse communities in the
acidic lake might make it subject to large erratic phyto-
plankton blooms (Lind & Campbell, 19-70) .
-------
TABLE 2-3
CRITICAL LOADING RATES FOR NITROGEN
AND PHOSPHORUS
Reference
Loading Rate
Units
Permissible Loading Dangerous Loadings
(up to) (in excess of)
N P N P
Shannon &
Brezonik (1971) Volumetric
(g/m3/yr.)
0.86
0.12
1.51
0.22
Calculated for
Oak Glen
SR without
Nutrient Removal 3 . 1
Volumetric
SR with Nutrient (g/m3/yr) 1.63
Removal
Regional 1 . 46
Shannon &
Brezonik Areal (g/m2/yr) 2.0 0.28
Vollenweider (1968) Areal (g/m2/yr) 1.0 0.07
Calculated for
Oak Glen N
SR without Nutrient
Removal 18.8
SR with Nutrient Areal (g/m2/yr) 9.9
Removal
Regional . 8.9
P
0.4
0.22
0.16
3.4 0.49
2.0 0.13
P
2.4
1.32
0.96
-------
If it is assumed that the reservoir will, in fact,
respond as lakes that have been studied nationally
(Shannon & Brezonik, 1971; Vollenweider, 1968; U.S. EPA
1974), the calculated loadings and concentrations of
inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus are at or above those
considered excessive. In addition, the ratio of nitrogen to
phosphorus indicates that nitrogen would be the controlling
nutrient (less than 15 to 1). The high levels of nutrients
more likely indicate that algal productivity would be limited
by some other factor (e.g. light, trace elements).
CONCLUSIONS
The subregional alternative without nutrient removal
contributes almost twice the nutrient loading compared to the
other alternative. Another conclusion which can be drawn is
that the removal-of point source loading (Regional Alternative)
does not significantly affect the nutrient loadings in the
river. During an average year effluent volumes comprise
approximately 5 percent of daily flow. Apparently, non-point sources
are extremely important. This is not to mean that removal of
these loadings (either via a subregional alternative with
nutrient removal or a Regional Alternative) would not be
necessary.
Non point sources can change drastically with time, and
this is possible for the Manasquan River Basin.
Landfill leachate, a source of both phosphorus and nitrogen
(U.S. EPA, 1974) is finite depending on the life of the land-
fill and the final conditions. It is possible that the several
landfills in the basin will either be closed or have imposed
on them operating conditions which reduce or eliminate leachate
generation. Farms in the basin (especially the sod farms
lying near the river) can also serve as a major source of non
point loading through runoff from fertilized fields. Farming
in the basin appears to have limited long-term viability on
-------
the scale now practiced, due to increasing developmental
pressures. The changes in land use to low or moderate
density development will change present runoff characteristics
and potentially decrease areal nutrient loadings to the river
(especially in those areas intensively farmed for sod). This,
combined with decreased nutrient loadings from point sources
can result in improved water quality for the length of the river.
Those alternatives which reduce loadings to the river
above the reservoir intakes contribute to the possible
improvement of the quality in the river, and may prevent the
Oak Glen Reservoir from undergoing accelerated eutrophication.
The Allaire Reservoir
The small size and operating conditions which will be
imposed on the .Allaire Reservoir indicate that flushing time
will be on the order of several days. Both total volume and
the artificial manipulation (withdrawal) will tend to lessen
the importance of nutrient loadings in determining algal
productivity in the impoundment. In such circumstances,
physical factors such as flow and turbidity would assume pri-
mary importance in controlling the size of the algal standing
crop (Bachman, 1975). Waste management alternatives would have
little effect on the Allaire Reservoir in terms of trophic
status.
-------
Appendix AA
SECONDARY IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
Secondary impact, as an entity, was recognized by Congress
in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969).
One definition of secondary impacts was provided by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1973) and by the
Environmental Protection Agency in Program Guidance Memo
#50 (USEPA, 1975). According to PGM #50, "secondary effects
of a project are (1) indirect or induced changes in population
and economic growth and land use, and (2) other environmental
effects resulting from these changes in land use, population
and economic growth."
The . significance of these impacts, and the necessity to
fully address their environmental effects have been recognized
by numerous agencies and studies (CEQ, 1973; Zimmerman, 1974;
Bascom, et al, 1975; NJDCA, 1975; and Urban Systems Research
& Engineering, 1976). As was recognized by CEQ and NJDCA,
secondary effects may often be more substantial than the pri-
mary effects of the original action. Induced changes are
not restricted to any one category. They can involve a range
of changes from aesthetics to economics to water quality.
Without consideration of these secondary impacts when planning
infrastructural investments such as provision of sewerage
facilities, unplanned development may be more damaging to
the environment than the original problems which were intended
to be solved.
Potential secondary impacts from construction of a regional
wastewater treatment facility and associated interceptors have
been identified as a major issue in the Manasquan River Regional
-------
Sewerage Authority (MRRSA) proposal (EPA, 1976). In 1974,
NJDEP stated that there would be secondary impacts from the
construction of a regional system (Bernard, 1974). In 1975,
NJDEP again stated that the interceptor through the unpopulated
area of Howell Township would be "environmentally unacceptable"
(Ricci, 1975) . The League of Women Voters fully supported
NJDEP's position (Rippera, 1976). An EPA internal memo which
recommended the preparation of an EIS stated that the interceptor
across large amounts of prime agricultural land (undeveloped
land), would result in "especially severe secondary impacts"
(Simon, 1976). This statement resulted in citizen input to
Senator Case disagreeing with the concept of degradation assoc-
iated with the regional concept (Kavett, 1977). Correspondence
from the EPA Region II recognized the possibility for secondary
impacts to prime agricultural land and provided assurances
that secondary impacts would be a major component of this EIS.
The discussion and analysis presented within this Appendix and
Section VII will accomplish the following:
discuss the relationship between provision of sewerage
service, secondary impacts and growth inducement;
discuss growth inducement generally associated with
provision of centralized sewerage services;
discuss the variation in service provided by each
feasible alternative.
PROVISION OF CENTRALIZED SEWERAGE SERVICE, SECONDARY IMPACTS
AND GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Secondary impacts-of a proposed action'are indirect or
induced changes in growth and their resultant environmental
effects. The indirect or induced changes in growth (growth
inducement) refer to either an increase or de-crease in the
rate of residential, commerical and industrial growth or a
variation in the locational preference of expected residential,
commerical and industrial development. The effects of the in-
duced development are usually the greatest concern of a second-
ary impact analysis.
-------
SECONDARY IMPACTS OF CENTRALIZED SERVICES
Transmission lines in a regional wastewater treatment
system often traverse areas of undeveloped land. Where
these lines are gravity interceptors, municipal treatment
is often provided to these vacant areas. Many studies have
attempted to assess the effects of such an action with mostly
qualitative results (Li, C.Y., 1973).
A statistical analysis on water resources development
suggested no discernable impact upon the regional growth rate
(Rivken, Carson, Inc. , 1971) . However, within a region,
provision of wastewater treatment facilities has been shown to
add to the attractiveness of an area for residential development
(EcolSciences, inc., 1977). This increase in attractiveness
does not necessarily coincide with an increase in growth because
regional residential development depends upon many other factors.
Given a strong growth situation, the location of local resident-
ial development will probably be biased towards the area with
sewerage service. Few statistical studies are available to
support this statement. Nagle (1972), in a study of farmland
transfer within three New Jersey Townships, showed a preference
for land in proximity to a central sewage line. NJDCA,
(1975), in a study of the impacts of sewerage facilities on
land development in Hamilton Township, New Jersey showed
a direct relationship between demand for land and the avail-
ability of sewerage facilities through the expected increase
in land prices.
Industrial location depends primarily on access to labor,
raw materials and external markets. The relative influence
of sewer availability will be to shift the location of industry
possibly within the region or locality. Commerical location
has the greatest sensitivity to population distribution and
access to households. Inasmuch as provision of sewerage
facilities affects population distribution, it will also affect
commerical location (Bascorn et al, 1975).
-------
The increased attractiveness of sewered areas encourages
land speculation and increases real estate value. Studies have
shown that when sewers are provided in areas experiencing strong
growth, land values may double (NJDCA, 1975) . Real estate agents
and developers believe central sewer availability is a pre-
ferred factor by potential buyers. Thus, it appears that the
provision of'an interceptor within the MRRSA study area will
affect residential location,-land prices and capital gains to
existing land, owners .
DESIGNATION OF "AFFECTED AREA"
Provision of centralized sewage collection systems through
undeveloped land allows for development in specific geographic
areas. The limits of these areas may vary and are dependent
upon the type and size of the expected development.
Industrial, commerical and residential developments will
be affected differently and the location preference for each
will vary. In order to aid in understanding the variation
in residential location, a quantitative relationship was
developed to determine an 'affected area1. The affected area
can be defined as the area circumscribed by the linear distance
to the trunk sewer connection point. The distance over which
a privately financed collection sewer can be constructed econom-
ically, is proportional to the number of units built by a
developer. The relationship between the number of units and
its possible location can be expressed by the following re-v.
lationship:
Where -.
A = linear distance in km (mi) from point of
connection;
P = average price of one unit in the development;
N = average number of units in the development;
V = maximum variation in P which will not affect
demand; (The value of V is based upon the price
variation which market demand can sustain for a
-------
homogeneous product. The actual value (measured
by percent) is assumed to be derived from: vari-
ations in perceived aesthetics; ability to con-
vince the buyer; and incomplete knowledge on
on the part of the buyer. The existance of V
is recognized by both real estate agents and
developers. Though no theoritical or imperical
studies on the value of V are known to exist,
the accepted maximum range is 3-4 percent); and
C = cost of construction and material for 1.6 km
(1 mi) of gravity or force main transmission
facilities.
The application of this relationship can be considered to be
a simple model which reflects the maximum distance a development
could locate from connection to a municipal trunk sewer. In
order to delineate the affected area, a series of assumptions
can be applied to obtain values for the model variables. Actual
values established for each variable include: C equals $250,000
(Killam Assoc., 1977); V equals 3 percent; and P equals $55,000
(N.Y. Times, 1977). N is considered to be variable. For example,
when N = 100, the linear distance A equals 1 km (0.66 mi) and
for N = 250, A equals 2.7 km (1.65 mi).
Inherent difficulties exist in establishing the appropriate
relationship between variables. The model is presented to aid
in the delineation of the maximum limit of locational choice.
Values of variables are selected to simulate the expected values
in the MRRSA study area. An estimation of the maximum limits
of the "affected area" requires several assumptions:
after completion of the regional or sub-regional
sewerage system, the MRRSA would not require a developer
to construct facilities which provided greater capacity
than necessary for projected future flows
a developer will not undertake projects over an extended
time frame. The developer will maximize profits by
constructing a transmission line no larger than necessary
-------
In a proposed gravity system, the minimum pipe size
allowed in New Jersey is an 20 cm (8 in) pipe (NJDEP, 1970).
With the installation of an 20 cm (8 in) pipe at the slope of
1.33 percent (typical of the study ares), the maximum flow
would be 3,400 cu m/d (0.9.mgd). Using a peak per capita flow
of 1,500 Ipd (400 gpd) for laterial sewers (GLUMR, BSSE, 1971),
and a population density of 3.2 persons per household, an
20 cm '(8 in) pipe can carry wastes from 703 dwellings. Thus,
with N = 703, the maximum affected area will have a radius
A of approximately 7.4 km (4.6 mi). The possibility of a
force main system including flow equalization enables the
affected area to be larger than 7.4 km (4.6 mi).
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC AND/OR RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY INDUCEMENT
PROM THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
The study area is presently receiving significant growth
pressures. Major new transportation access is being provided
and land prices have inflated to levels which exclude farming
as a long term activity without major governmental supporting
policy actions which do not appear to be forthcoming. The
urban areas of New York, Newark, Trenton and Philadelphia are
expanding and slowly merging. Given these conditions,, significant
levels of development for the study area can be anticipated.
The following analysis will assess the variation in impact
between alternative methods of wastewater management. Using
the relationship previously developed, an "affected area"
will be designated for each alternative! (Figures AA-1, AA-2,
and AA-3). The associated regional residential, commercial and
industrial growth and/or locational perference will be analyzed.
DETERMINATION OF THE AFFECTED AREAS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
Based upon the expected growth rate in the study area,
provision of sewerage service will add to the attractiveness of
the area served for residential development. Residential
development, even in small subdivisions, can eventually locate
up to 7.4 km (4.6 mi) from an interceptor. The earliest and
-------
r\
Figure ' AA-1
Affected Area of R-l Alternative
Limit of area within 1 km
(.65 mi) of the interceptor
Border of area within 2 km (1.3 mi)
Proposed force main
Proposed gravity main
-------
\
y
^\
H O W E L L
Figure A A-2
Affected Area of R-2 Alternative
Limit of area within 1 km
(.65 mi) of the interceptor
Border of area within 2 km (1.3 mi)
Proposed force main
Proposed gravity main
-------
Figure h.A-3
Affected Area of R-3 Alternative
Limit of area within 1 km
(.65 mi) of the interceptor
Border of area within 2 km (1.3 mi)
Proposed force main
Proposed gravity main
-------
most thorough saturation by development can be expected to
occur near an interceptor. The term "near" is difficult to
define. Implied from a study of land transfer activity in
Hamilton Township (Miry Run) is that the most immediate effects
occured at distances of less than 1.6 km (1 mi)(NJDCA, 1975).
For comparison, the following - analysis utilizes an affected area
of a 200 unit development (2.1 km '§1.3 mi] radius).-and one with
half -that area (1 km .[..65 mi] radius. Another study inferred that
within similar distances, the majority of developmental pressures
Can be expected (Tabors et al , 1976) . A 200 unit development was
also selected because it . represents a typical subdivision in the
sewered portions (Metedeconk) of Howell Township (Sary, 1978).
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The affected area for each alternative was developed using
1 km (.65) and 2 km . (1.3 mi) as a radius. These are the areas
where the majority of sewer induced development is expected.
Larger subdivisions and industrial facilities may locate at
greater distances.
Analysis of alternatives requires a comparison of "affected
areas". Since they all include facilities comparable to the
sub-regional system, only the increase in affected area resulting
from regional system alignments is analized. This approach
allows for a comparison of the variation between sub-regional
and regional alternative.
Secondary impact analysis of alternatives requires an
understanding of the character of the land affected by provision
of sewerage facilities. The existing land use within the 1 km
(.65 mi) and 2 km (1.3 mi) affected areas is compared (Table AA-1).
EFFECTS ON RESIDENTIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Residential
A regional system is not expected to induce a significant
level of residential activity compared, to the subregional system.
Most of the communities which border the MRRSA region have
municipal sewerage facilities, are served by a municipal facility
-------
TABLE AA-1
LAND USE IN AFFECTED AREAS
Land Use
Alternative
Rl
.65 mi
SOD Farm 300 ac.
Other Ag. uses 450 ac.
Vacant
Residential
Industrial
Public/Semi-
Public
100 ac
1.3 mi
300 ac
600 ac
1050 ac. 1600 ac
200 ac. 100 ac
50 ac
600 ac
R2
.65 mi
30
50
110
20
0 ac .
0 ac .
0 ac .
0 ac .
1.3
mi
300
60
165
10
0
0
0
50
10
0 ac .
60
0
ac .
ac .
ac .
ac .
ac .
ac .
R3
.65 mi
5
_
0 ac .
250 ac.
30 ac .
15
15
0 ac .
0 ac .
1.3
5
15
mi
0
0
700
100
2
25
5
0
ac .
ac .
ac .
ac .
ac .
ac .
TOTAL
2100 ac. 2650 ac
2200 ac. 2700 ac. 630 ac. 1275 ac.
-------
or are planning for facilities. Therefore, a competitive
advantage associated with implementation of either system
cannot be expected. The mazimum variation in total vacant
land served by the alternative systems is approximately 2,700
acres, assuming an affected radius of 2 km (1.3 mi). This
area, approximately 11.7sq km (4.5 sq miles) is not a significant
addition to the supply of vacant sewered land. A total of 130
sq km (50 sq mi) _of vacant sewered .land will be available in the
study area.- The distribution of residential activity in the -study
area will however be affected by the selected alternative.
Residential locational preference within the study area
will be affected by provision of sewerage service. Several
factors will influence the location of the development toward
the affected areas previously defined. The location will
probably be close to existing transmission lines to minimize
costs. .Supporting this contention is the requirement that
subdivisions within Howell Township with 50 or more units,
provide central sewerage facilities. There is also a preference
to purchase a dwelling already connected to a municipal system
to avoid potential septic system problems (NJDCA, 1975; Tabors
et al, 1976). Recognizing these preferences, it can be conclud-
ed that growth in the study area will not differ significantly
under either the regional or subregional concepts, but the
pattern of growth may be different. The development pattern
is expected to radiate out from the interceptor, with the
greatest effect within a 1 km (.65 mi) distance from the
interceptor.
Economic Activity
Implementation of the regional system is not expected to
induce a level of economic activity significantly different
from implementation of a subregional system. The affected
area associated with a regional system includes a portion of
the industrially zoned land in Howell Township not included
within the affected area of a subregional system. However,
-------
in a feasibility study of industrial development within
Howell Township, this area was rated less desirable than many
alternative sites near the Freehold Township border and near
the Borough of Farmindale (Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and
Carpenter, 1977). The latter areas are all located within the
affected area of the sub-regional alternative. In addition, the
remainder of the industrially zoned land in Howell Township
(within the Metedeconk basin) will be served. Economic activity
should not be precluded by implementation of either alternative.
Commerical activity should only be slightly affected. An
alternative (regional) which promotes growth within the Freehold-
Farmingdale corridor may stimulate greater commerical develop-
ment in or near Farmingdale than an alternative which promotes
clustered growth around Freehold and Farmingdale (sub-regional).
-------
Elton T. Klllam AMOclatea Inc.
Appendix BB
June 8, 1978
COST - EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
General
The wastewater treatment system analyses which are summarized herein, consist
of a cost-effectiveness evaluation of:
1. regional versus subregional wastewater management
systems; and
2. liquid handling and solids handling process systems; and
3. surface water discharge and land application of advanced
wastewater treatment.
The cost-effectiveness estimates of all alternative treatment processes have
been developed using 1995 design year population and wastewater flow esti-
mates reviewed and approved by U.S.E.P.A. The alternative interceptor sewer
schemes have similarly been analyzed using the population and flow estimates
for the year 2020. The effluent limitations for surface water discharges-
in the Manasquan River Basin have been established by N.J.D.E.P. and U.S.E.P.A.
and are summarized in Table 1.
The regional wastewater management alternative consists of one (1) waste-
water treatment plant with an initial capacity of 8.1 MGD (1995). For the
regional alternative, land application AWT has not been considered since
it has been previously demonstrated (5/25/78)to be an unfeasible alternative
to implement.
The sub-regional wastewater management alternative consists of two (2) waste-
water treatment plants. The upper basin plant has been sized for initial:..
capacity of 5.5 MGD (1995) and provides service to Freehold Borough, Freehold
Township, and a small portion of Howell Township. The lower basin plant will
have an initial capacity of 2.6 MGD (1995) and provides service to the re-
maining areas of Howell Township within the Manasquan River Basin, Farmingdale,
and a small area of Wall Township. Like the regional alternative, it is
not feasible to implement land application AWT at the upper basin treatment
plant. However, land application is evaluated in conjunction with the lower
basin, subregional WWTP.
Process Alternative
The process alternative analysis have been prepared in conformance with
procedures and designations outlined in "A Guide to the Selection of Cost
Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems", July 1975, EPA-430/9-75-002
(CEWTS). The land application AWT alternatives have been prepared in
conformance with the detailed design proceedure outlined in "Costs of
Wastewater Treatment by Land Application", June 1975, EPA-430/9-75-003.
All capital costs and operations and maintenance costs have been updated
to a January, 1978 base using appropriate cost index factors and/or standard
engineering estimating proceedures.
-------
Elson T. Klllam Associates Inc.
D
The results of the process alternative analysis are summarized in Tables
2, 3, and 4. Each of these Tables presents the present-worth cost of
alternatives in an array format. Liquid handling process alternatives and
compatible solid handling processes are combined to form a large number of
total treatment process alternatives. For instance, four (4) liquid handling
processes each with four (4) compatible solids handling processes combine
to form sixteen (4x4= 16) total treatment process alternatives. Present-
ing the data in an array format summarizes the cost-effectiveness analysis
in a clear and simple manner.
All liquid handling process alternatives selected are capable of achieving
treatment efficiencies required by the mode of effluent discharge. Each
of the alternatives includes allowances for preliminary treatment, chlori-
nation/dechlorination, post-aeration, and administrative costs. The solids
handling process alternatives do not include any allowance for the ultimate
disposal of the plant residue. It has been assumed that these latter
disposal costs would be similar and, although affecting the total present
worth cost estimates, will not affect the comparison of alternatives.
Present-worth costs for the proposed 8.1 MGD (1995) regional treatment
plant alternatives are presented in Table 2. The liquid handling processes
for this wastewater treatment plant have been selected to achieve performance
efficiencies required for surface water discharge downstream of the proposed
Allaire reservoir. Using process selection procedures outlined in CEWTS,
four (4) liquid handling processes and three (3) common, compatible solids
handling processes have been evaluated. The most cost-effective total
treatment alternative for the regional alternative is a biological liquid
handling process employing high rate trickling filtration, biological
nitrification/denitrification and filtration combined with a solids handling
process of anaerobic sludge digestion and vacuum filtration.
The present-worth costs for the proposed upper basin and lower basin sub-
regional alternatives are presented in Tables 3, and 4 respectively. The
upper basin, subregional liquid handling process alternatives have been
selected for discharge upstream of the proposed Allaire reservoir. Nitri-
fication and phosphorous removal are required for this subregional plant.
Six (6) liquid handling process and six (6) compatible solids handling
processes have been evaluated with the most cost-effective total treatment
system being a hydrid p-c/biological treatment process. The liquid handling
process consists of lime flocculation/clarification, biological nitrification,
filtration and activated carbon absorption. The sludge treatment process
includes only dewatering since lime sludges do not require stabilization.
Comparing the single stage and two stage lime flocculation/clarification
processes it does seem possible, in this instance due to the closeness of
the present-worth costs, that differential sludge disposal costs may result
in the single stage.process being the most cost-effective. The two stage
process is slightly/ lower in terms of present-worth but it produces
approximately 80% more sludge than the single stage process.
-------
Elson T. Klllam Associates Inc.
The present-worth cost for the proposed lower basin, sub-regional alter-
natives are summarized in Table 4. Four (4) surface water discharge
and three (3) solids handling processes have been evaluated. The
three (3) land application alternatives differ primarily with regard
to preapplication site and land application site selection. The most
cost-effective surface water discharge alternative for the lower basin,
subregional treatment system is a liquid treatment process of high rate
trickling filtration for secondary treatment followed by breakpoint
chlorination and filtration. The solids handling process is comprised
of anaerobic digestion and sludge dewatering utilizing open sludge drying
beds. If winter operating difficulties, greater land and man power
commitments, and potential for periodic odor problems are considered,
sludge drying beds should be replaced in favor of vacuum filtration with
a 20 year present worth cost of an additional $100,000.
Among the land application systems evaluated, the site 3 system was the
most cost-effective alternative. Alternative preapplication treatment
and land application sites are shown on Figure 15. The most cost-effective
solids handling process is anaerobic digestion followed by dewatering
on open sludge beds. However, here to, vacuum filtration may be a more
favorable sludge dewatering unit process.
Although the cost-effective analysis has resulted in the selection of
treatment processes for comparative purposes, it is important to note the
closeness of the present worth costs for many of the alternatives examined.
Therefore, although these costs may be utilized in determining the most
feasible alternative, final process selection for the recommmended plan
will be dependent upon additional studies and an examination of the
selected plant site as related to topographic limitations and availability
of land for the selected sludge management scheme.
-------
ElsonT. Klllam Associates Inc.
TABLE 1
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
TO THE
MANASQUAN RIVER
PARAMETER UPPER BASIN
DISCHARGE
LOWER BASIN
DISCHARGE
BODc 95% Removal
NHv-N 2 mg/1 (Seasonal)
P 0.5 mg/1
Cl 0 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/1
Temperature **
pH 5.5 to 7.5
NOo-N No Limit
95% Removal
2 mg/1
No Limit
0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
**
5.5 to 7.5
7 mg/1
* Below proposed reservoir
** No heat may be added which would cause temperature to exceed 20°F
(1.1°C) over ambient at any time or which would cause temperature in
excess of 68°F (20°C). The rate of temperature change in designated
heat dissipation areas shall not cause mortality of fish. 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 shall not cause mortality of fish.
-------
EtsonT. Killam Associates Inc.
TABLE 2
PRESENT WORTH COST ARRAY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM **
(w/u Metedeconk River Basin Flows)
(Cost in Million Dollars)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
Anaerobic
Digestion +
Air Drying
SR-1
Anaerobic
Digestion &
Vacuum
Filtration
SR-2
Heat Treatment
Vacuum
Filtration
SR-3
High Rate
activated Sludge +
Biological
Nitrification &
Denitrification
WR-1
$20.6
(5)
$20.4
(2)
&
$21.6
(9)
Activated
Sludge &
Breakpoint
Chlorination
WR-2
$21.6
(9)
$21.4
(7)
$22.6
(12)
High RatP
Trickling. Filter +
Biological
Nitrification &
Denitrification
WR-3
$20.4
(2)
$20.2
(1)
$21.4
(7)
High Rate***
Trickling . Filter
& Breakpoint
Chiorination
WK-4
$20.7
(6)
$20.4
(2)
$ 21.6
(9)
* All wastewater treatment processes include cost allowances
for: preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, filtration,
chlorination, dechloririation, post aeration, and administrative
expenses.
*** There is some question whether dissolved BOD passing through
the secondary process will result in effluents exceeding
limitations for BOD^. Large chlorine doses required during
breakpoint chlorination will oxidize most of such dissolved BOD,-.
** Surface water discharge only.
-------
TABLE 3
TRESEKT UORTH COST ARRAY
SBBtECIOHAL UASTEHATBR TREATMENT SYSTEM
UPSTREAM UWTT
(Coat ID Million Dollar*)
WASTEUATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
PROCESSES
.
Anaerobic Digestion
+ Air Drying
SU-1
Anaerobic Digestion
+ Vacuun Filtration
SU-2
Vacuum Filtration
SU-3
Vacuum Filtration
SU-4
Vacuum Filtration
SU-5
WU-1
High Late
Activated Sludge
+ Alum
$25.5
(1&)
$24.9
(14)
$24.4
(11)
_
_ '
WU-2
High Rate- UU-3
Activated Sludge Two Stage
+ FeCl Lime Addition
3
$25.4
(15)
$24.8
(13)
$24.4
(11)
-
$19.9
(1)
WU-5
WU-4 1 Primary
Single Stagt Sedimentation
Line Addition + Alum
$22.4
(7)
$21.8
(*)
$21.4
(3)
$20.0
(2)
-
WU-6
Primary
Sedimentation
+ FeCl,
J~"" ~ " '" ' »
$22.7
(B)
$22.1
(5)
$21.7
<5)
-
_
Heat Treatment
+ Vacuum Filtration S26.2
SU-6 (18)
$26.1
(17)
$23.1
(9)
$23.4
(10)
All vaatevater treattnenc proceaaea Include cost allowances
for: prellnlnary treatment, biological nitrification, filtration.
carbon abaorplon, orooacion, poat aeration, and administrative
expenaea.
Surface water discharge only
-------
TABLE 4
PRESENT WORTH COST ARRAY
SUBRECION'AL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
DOWNSTREAM UWTP
(w/o Metedecook Blver Basin Flows)
(Coot to Million Dollars)
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
LAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES
SUIDCE
TREATMENT
RPOCESSES
Anaerobic Digestion
+ Air Drying
SL-1
WL-1
High Rate
Activated Sludge *
Biological Nitrification
& Denltrlf Icatlon
$9.5
(B)
WL-2
Conventional
Activated Sludge
+ Breakpoint
Chlorinatlon
S8.7
(3)
WL-3
high Rate Trick,
Filter + Biological
Nitrification &
Denltrlf Icatlon
$9.1
(5)
WL-4 +
High Rate
Trickling Filter
Breakpoint
Chlorinatlon
S8.2
(1)
VL5
High Rate
+ Trickling
Filter +
Land App.
Site 1
$10.4
(6)
UL-6
High Rate
Trickling
Filter +
Land App.
Site 2-t-f
$9.8
(3)
Ul-7
High Rate
Trickling
Filter +
Land App.
:Slte 3++
$9.4
(1)
Anaerobic Digestion
+ Vacuum Filtration $9.6
SL-2 (9)
58.9
(4)
$9.2
(7)
$8.3
(2)
S10.5
(7)
$10.0
(4)
$9.5
(2)
Heat Treatment
+ Vacuum Filtration $10.4
SL-3 (12)
$9.7
(10)
$10.0
(11)
$9.1
(5)
$11.3
(9)
$10.8
(8)
$10.3
(5)
* All wastewater treatment processes Include
cost allowances Of preliminary treatment
primary sedimentation, chlorination, and
administrative expenses. All processes except
WL-5,6,47 also include cost allowances for
filtration, dechlorinatlon and post aeration
+ There Is some question whether dissolved BOD
passing through the secondary process will
result *n effluent exceeding limitations
for BODc. Large chlorine doses required
during breakpoint Chlorinatlon will oxidize
most of such BOD
H- Net allowances for revenues amounting to S13,800/year
from crop cultivation are included in the present worth
for these alternatives. Woodland application with no
cash crop revenue are assumed for Site 1 alternative.
-------
Elson T. Klllam A»soclates Inc.
D
Interceptor Alternatives
Alternative interceptor alignments have been evaluated for two
areas within the district. The Manasquan River interceptor conveys flow
from the Havens Bridge Road pump station to the Squankum Road pump station
and provides service for the central portion of Howell Township. This
interceptor sewer has only been examined under the regional wastewater
management alternative. The second interceptor alternative evaluated
involves the Marsh Bog Brook-Mingmahone Brook interceptors. The alter-
native to these two parallel interceptors serving Farmingdale Borough
and the upstream area of Howell Township involves deleting the lower
portion of the Mingmahone Brook interceptor through the construction of
a pumping station and force main to the Marsh Bog Brook interceptor.
More detailed descriptions of the alternative interceptor
alignments are presented below. These alternatives are shown on Figure
17 found in the text of the EIS report.
In the cost-effective analysis of interceptor alternatives,
flows have been conveyed to terminal node points. Conveyance facility
alignments from these node points to the WWTP sites will be determined
after final selection of the WWTP sites has been completed.
A. Manasquan River Interceptor: The original alignment of
this interceptor follows the path of the Manasquan River.
Alternatives to this alignment have been evaluated which
would remove a portion of the alignment out of the flood
plain and away from the stream corridor. The alternative
alignments have been designated as R-l, R-2, and R-3.
Original Alignment R-l
This original alignment extends in an easterly direction
from the proposed Havens Bridge Road pump station to the
proposed Marsh Bog Brook interceptor and then flows south,
crossing the Central New Jersey Railroad tracks, to the
-------
ElsonT.KIIIam Associates Inc.
D
Squankum Road pump station. For the most part, this align-
ment is comprised of 48 inch, 54 inch, and 60 inch diameter
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with the upper 1,000 feet
of the line consisting of a 24 inch diameter force main.
Alternate R-2
Under this alternate, the alignment would extend north
from the Havens Bridge Road pump station to New Jersey
State Highway 524. The line would continue easterly along
Route 524 to the intersection with Squankum Yellow Brook
Road at which point the line would extend south, through
easements, to the original alignment for the Manasquan
River interceptor. The remainder of the line would follow
the original alignment of the Manasquan River Interceptor
(R-l) as previously described.
The length of this alternate from the Havens Bridge Road
pump station to the point where it joins the original
alignment of the Manasquan River interceptor is 11,500 feet.
This portion of the line consists of 8,500 feet of 30 inch
diameter force main with the remainder being 54" 0 RCP
(gravity line). The total length of this alignment from
the Havens Bridge Road pump station to the Squankum Road
pump station is approximately 39,100 feet.
Alternate R-3
Under this alternate, the alignment would follow that of
alternate R-2 for its first 8,500 feet. That is, it would
run north from the Havens Bridge Road pump station to New
Jersey State Highway 524. It would then turn east and
follow the alignment of Route 524 to the intersection with
Fairfield Road at which point the proposed alignment would
extend due north along the road. The line continues east
on Merrick Road and thence along the Pennsylvania Railroad
R.O.W. until it crosses Route 524 and joins with the Marsh
Bog Brook interceptor. The alignment then follows the
Marsh Bog Brook interceptor to its point of connection
with the original R-l alignment. The total length of this
alignment from the Havens Bridge Road pump station to the
Squankum Road pump station is approximately 42,500 feet.
This length is comprised of 19,000 feet of 30" 0 force main,
with the remaining portion of the line consisting of 54
inch and 60 inch diameter RCP.
The comparative capital costs, present-worth costs, and
energy commitment estimates for the three alternative
alignments are presented in the tabulation below. Present-
worth O&M costs and energy commitments have been computed
-------
ElsonT. Klllam Associates Inc.
D
based on average flow estimates during this initial
design period to 19.95.
B. Marsh Bog Brook-Mingmahone Brook Interceptor: The
original interceptor alignment in the vicinity of Farmingdale
Borough calls for construction of an interceptor in both
the Marsh Bog Brook and Mingmahone Brook drainage basins.
As an alternative to these two parallel gravity interceptors,
an alternative is proposed which would involve construction
of a pumping station in the Mingmahone Brook basin which
would pump flows to the Marsh Bog Brook interceptor sewer.
Though this would require operation of a pumping station,
a major portion of the Mingmahone interceptor could be deleted.
A more detailed description of the two (2) alternative
alignments follows.
Alternate 1
Under alternate 1, the alignment for the Mingmahone Brook
Interceptor would begin on the west bank of the brook at
the Farmingdale Boro boundary. The line runs south along
the brook, crosses the Central New Jersey Railroad tracks
and flows to the Squankum Road pump station. The lengtn of
this alignment from the Boro boundary to the Squankum Road
pump station is 18,200 feet. This alternative would consist
of 36 inch, 30 inch, and 24 inch diameter reinforced concrete
pipe.
Alternate 2 ^
Under alternate 2, only the first 3,200 feet of the Mingmahone
Brook Interceptor would be constructed as previously described.
A pump station located along the C.N.J. Railroad tracks will
pump the wastewater from the terminus of the Mingmahone
Interceptor through a 2,400 foot force main, under the
Pennsylvania Railroad tracks to a gravity line approximately
2,250 feet in length. The gravity line would discharge to
the Marsh Bog Brook interceptor. This alternative would
include 16 inch diameter force main .and reinforced concrete
pipe 24 inches and 30 inches in diameter.
The comparative capital costs, present-worth costs, and
energy commitment estimates for the three alternative
alignments are presented in the tabulation below. Present-
worth O&M costs and energy commitments have been computed
based on average flow estimates during this initial design
period to 1995.
-------
ElsonT. Klllam Associates Inc.
TABLE 5
MANASQUAN RIVER INTERCEPTOR
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Parameter
Alignment
R-l
Alignment
R-2
Alignment
R-3
Capital Cost
Avg. Annual O&M
Total 20 Year
Present Worrh
Energy Commitment
$5.10 Million
$33,800/Yr.
$5.47 Million
34 HP
$6.35 Million
$53,400/Yr.
$6.94 Million
69 HP
$5.60 Million
$70,900/Yr.
$6.39 Million
133 HP
TABLE 6
MARSH BOG BROOK-MINGMAHONE BROOK INTERCEPTORS
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Parameter
Capital Cost
Avg. Annual O&M
Total 20 Year
Present Worth
Energy Commitment
Alternate 1
$1.44 Million
$4,l60/Yr.
$1.49 Million
Alternate 2
$ 0.76 Million
$ 5920/Yr.
0.83 Million
3.4 HP
-------
ElsonT. Kittam Associates Inc.
North Branch Metedeconk River Basin Service Alternatives
Providing public sewerage service to the North Branch Metedeconk .-River
basin involves analysis of two (2) alternatives:
1. Service by the Manasquan River Regional Sewer Authority
at a plant (subregional or regional) located in the lower
Manasquan River basin;
or
2. Service by the Ocean County Sewerage Authority through
conveyance facilities constructed to serve the North Branch
Metedeconk River drainage basin.
The cost-effectiveness analysis for these alternatives has been computed
in accordance with directives from N.J.DEP and U.S.EPA regarding the
treatment of capital costs incurred bv Or^an County Sewerage Author!fv
in providing service to the North Branch Metedeconk River basin. In accordance
with these directives, capital expenditures incurred by OCba have been
treated as sunk costs. As a result, the present-worth costs for OCSA
service to the North Branch Metedeconk River basin includes only O&M costs
reflective of the current OCSA user charge schedule plus costs incurred in
providing conveyance facilities within the basin.
Present-worth costs for the MRRSA alternative include allowances for both
wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities needed in providing public
sewerage service to' the North Branch Metedecont River basin. Regional MRRSA
interceptors serving areas outside the North Branch Metedeconk River basin have
likewise been considered as sunk costs.
The results of the cost-effectiveness analyses for the North Branch Metedeconk
River basin alternatives are presented on Table 7.
-------
Elson T. Klllam Associates Inc.
TABLE 7
IC7
NORTH BRANCH
METEDECONK RIVER BASIN
SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
COST-EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY
ANALYSIS
PARAMETERS
1. Capital Costs
WWTP Capital Cost
Interceptors
Total Capital Costs
11. Operation and Maintenance
Costs
WWTP Costs
Conveyance Costs
Present Worth O&M
Total 20 Year Present 'Worth
ALTERNATIVES
MRRSA* MRRSA*
REGIONAL SUBREGIONAL
$ 3,344,000 $ 3,712,000
$ 4,950,600 $ 4,950,600
$ 8,294,600 $ 8,662,600
$ 84, 600 $ 148,900
$ 17, 400 $ 17,400
$ 1,135,300 $ 1,850,900
$ 9,429,900 $10,513,500
OCSA
$ 2,592
$ 2,592
$ 237
$ 2
$ 2,673
$ 5,265
,000
,000
,300**
,900
,400
,400
* North Branch Metedeconk River portion only
** Based on OCSA user charge of $ 650/million gallons for both
regional conveyance and treatment
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |