UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEPTEMBER 1991
V7
EPA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE UPPER PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
201 FACILITIES PLAN
IN MORRIS, SOMERSET AND UNION
COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
SEP 201991
To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and
Citizens:
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Upper Passaic River Basin
201 Facilities Plan in Morris. Somerset, and Union Counties. New
Jersey. This final environmental impact statement (EIS) was
prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with
assistance from Gannett Fleming Environmental Engineers, and
EcolSciences, Inc., in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and its implementing regulations.
In June 1981, EPA issued a draft EIS for the project that
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of upgrading and
expanding several municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
under the proposed Upper Passaic River Basin 2 01 Facilities Plan.
Unfortunately, the draft EIS did not adequately address the
project's impacts to the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
(GSNWR), which was a major issue identified in the EIS scoping
process. With this in mind, following issuance of the draft EIS,
EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) performed the Great Swamp Water Quality Study (GSWQS),
which was designed to address point and non-point source water
quality impacts to the GSNWR.
The EIS was initiated as a decision-making tool prepared to
evaluate the environmental impacts of upgrading and expanding
WWTPs in the Upper Passaic River Basin. However, since the
issuance of the draft EIS, procedural changes mandated by the
Water Quality Act of 1987 have shifted responsibility for
management of financial assistance programs for construction of
WWTPs from the federal government to the states. Further, many
of the preferred alternatives discussed in the draft EIS have
already been implemented. Therefore, this final EIS is prepared
as a summary document, reflecting work completed to date on the
WWTPs, funding program changes since 1981, an analysis of the
GSWQS, a re-evaluation of potential impacts, and responses to all
comments received on the draft EIS. Based on this information,
the final EIS presents several recommendations regarding storm
water management planning, point source and non-point source
discharges, WWTP capacities, package treatment plants, and the
protection of environmentally sensitive areas in the study area.
ytDSr^
(j&)
v /
*1 PRO*°
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
2
EPA will accept written comments on the final EIS for thirty
(30) days from the date that the notice of availability of this
final EIS is published in the Federal Register. Comments should
be addressed to Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch, EPA-Region
II.
If you have any questions concerning the above, or need any
additional information, please contact Robert Hargrove, Chief,
Environmental Impacts Branch, at (212) 264-1892.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
-------
Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the 201 Facilities Plan
for the Upper Passaic River Basin (UPRB)
September 1991
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region II
Abstract: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
regulations implementing NEPA, a final environmental impact
statement (EIS) has been prepared on the Upper Passaic River
Basin (UPRB) 201 Facilities Plan. The final EIS responds to
comments received on the 1981 draft EIS, which evaluated
proposals to upgrade and expand various publicly-owned wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) in the planning area. Additionally, the
document incorporates the results of the Great Swamp Water
Quality Study (GSWQS), which was undertaken to resolve certain
issues which could not be addressed in the draft EIS. It also
re-evaluates the impacts of these proposals, based upon the
GSWQS*s results and in consideration of the various WWTP
improvements and regulatory changes which have occurred since
1981. Lastly, the final EIS presents recommendations with regard
to non-point source pollution, stormwater management, protection
of environmentally sensitive areas, and limiting the use of
"package" WWTPs in the planning area.
Contact for information:
Mr. Robert W. Hargrove
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 500
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-1892
Approved by:
Constantine Sidamon-Eristofj
Regional Administrator
Date
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
UPPER PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
201 FACILITIES PLAN
IN MORRIS, SOMERSET AND UNION COUNTIES
NEW JERSEY
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM:
GANNETT FLEMING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
HARRISBURG, PA
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
ECOLSCIENCES, INC.
ROCKAWAY, NJ
SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Need
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which has been prepared as a decision-
making tool, deals with the Upper Passaic River Basin (UPRB) 201 Facilities Plan (Killam,
Dames & Moore, 1977). The plan proposed to upgrade and expand wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) located in the UPRB sections of Morris, Somerset, and Union Counties,
New Jersey. Municipalities wholly or partially within this area include Chatham Borough,
Madison Borough, Watchung Borough, Chatham Township, Morris Township, Harding
Township, Passaic Township, New Providence Borough, Berkeley Heights Township and
Bernards Township (Figure ES-1).
In the late 1970s, the WWTPs within the UPRB 201 Planning Area, with a few
exceptions, reached or were approaching design capacity. This condition resulted in the
discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to the waters of the UPRB. The situation led
to state-imposed bans on sewer extensions and new connections within some municipalities.
Two of the municipalities, Berkeley Heights and Morris Townships, were under an
Enforcement Compliance Schedule letter which was issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Several communities initiated and completed the design of additional wastewater
treatment facilities. Since these communities were within a designated 201 planning area,
they could not receive federal grant assistance until a Facilities Plan was approved by EPA
and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). In response to this
requirement, representatives of the ten municipalities formed the Upper Passaic Wastewater
Management Study Committee (UPWMSC) to administer this 201 facilities planning effort.
The UPWMSC prepared a draft Facilities Plan that was issued in March 1977. The
document was submitted to EPA and the NJDEP, but was not approved.
ES-1
-------
EPA identified major issues associated with the draft Facilities Plan and, on January
28, 1978, issued a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS on the UPRB 201 Facilities
Plan. Among the issues identified at that time were:
secondary impacts associated with expansion and upgrading of WWTPs;
impacts of the Chatham Township and Morris-Woodland WWTPs on the
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GSNWR);
expansion and construction of WWTPs within the flood hazard area;
chlorine and ammonia toxicity associated with wastewater discharges in the
Black Brook, Dead River, Loantaka Brook, and Passaic River; and
public controversy.
On June 26, 1981, EPA issued a draft EIS on the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan, which
evaluated various proposals to upgrade and expand several municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. A public hearing was held at the Morris Township Municipal Building, in Convent
Station, New Jersey, on August 20, 1981, in order to allow interested individuals,
government agencies, and other organizations the opportunity to publicly comment on the
draft EIS. During the initial and extended public comment period, which ran through
September 4, 1981, written comments were accepted on the draft EIS.
A major area of concern identified in the NOI and the draft EIS, and reaffirmed
during the draft EIS comment period, was that wastewater effluent from the Morris-
Woodland and Chatham Township WWTPs might supply excessive discharges of nitrogen
and/or phosphorus to the GSNWR. In order to adequately address this issue, quantities of
these nutrients reaching the GSNWR from non-point sources (i.e., from existing and future
ES-2
-------
GENERAL LOCATION
FIGURE ES-I
— a hoy Mtk BoiMDMrr
OMINJtiK KAON MUNDAMY
MUNICIPAL •OUWBltl
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT LOCATION
-------
development) also had to be considered. To evaluate the effects of point and non-point
sources of nutrients to the GSNWR, EPA and NJDEP jointly conducted a water quality
monitoring study (i.e. the Great Swamp Water Quality Study [GSWQS]). Subsequently,
EPA and NJDEP issued a data report (Maguire Group, 1988), along with a computer
modelling analysis report (Di Lorenzo, el al, 1988) on the GSWQS. Issuance of the final
EIS was delayed pending completion of this study.
Since the draft EIS was issued, various changes have been made to the Clean Water
Act regarding eligibility for federal funding. These changes shifted responsibility for
management of programs that provide financial assistance for the construction of WWTPs
from the federal government to state governments. EPA's Construction Grants Program was
delegated to the State of New Jersey in phases between 1981 and 1983. Moreover, New
Jersey established a revolving loan program in 1987 that was initially capitalized with "state-
only" money derived from bond sales for the purpose of providing financial assistance for
the construction of WWTPs. This program was subsequently augmented with federal
funding in the form of capitalization grants, beginning in 1988. New Jersey includes this
State Revolving Fund (SRF) with other "state only" funding programs in its Municipal
Wastewater Assistance Program. EPA oversees New Jersey's administration of the SRF
program, but is not involved with the specific details of individual projects.
This final EIS has been issued as a project summary document and, as such,
augments the draft EIS. To this end, it reflects:
changes in the mechanisms for funding of the WWTP construction;
upgrades of wastewater treatment facilities since 1981;
the analysis of the GSWQS reports and its implications on wastewater
treatment;
ES-3
-------
a re-evaluation of impacts associated with increased wastewater treatment
capacity;
an update of the environmental and socioeconomic inventories, where
appropriate; and
responses to all comments and their incorporation into the EIS process.
The overall format of the final EIS is shown on Table ES-1. The remaining portions
of the executive summary highlight the key issues related to the projects discussed in the
EIS.
WWTPs Preferred Alternatives
The WWTPs in the UPRB were evaluated in the draft EIS to determine the
preferred method of wastewater management. At that time, the preferred alternatives
included the expansion and upgrading of some plants and the discarding of others in favor
of subregional wastewater treatment plants. Package treatment plants and on-lot systems
were examined during the study, but package treatment plants were not recommended
because of environmental concerns and operational and management considerations. On-lot
systems were considered acceptable only in areas with low population densities, and
acceptable soil and related environmental characteristics.
Since the issuance of the draft EIS, several factors have influenced a change in the
preferred alternatives for some of the WWTPs, including:
the decisions of some municipalities to proceed with wastewater facility
improvements independent of EPA's Construction Grants Program;
ES-4
-------
TABLE ES-1
Final EIS Format
Executive Summary
Chapters 1-4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Appendices A-J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Replaces draft EIS Executive Summary
Same as draft EIS Chapters 1-4 (not reprinted in
final EIS)
Revisions to draft EIS
Conclusions and Recommendations
Responsiveness Summary
Same as draft EIS Appendices A-J (not reprinted
in the final EIS)
Review of Great Swamp Water Quality Study
Stormwater Management for the Mitigation of
Water Quality Degradation
Bernards Township Facilities Responsiveness
Summary
Letters Received Concerning the draft EIS
ES-5
-------
additional environmental data from the GSWQS; and
public input as part of the EIS process.
Table ES-2 highlights the draft EIS and final EIS preferred and recommended alternatives,
respectively, and the implementation status for each of the treatment plants evaluated in the
study. Overall, changes in preferred alternatives between the draft EIS and final EIS have
been minor. The most significant difference occurs in the Passaic and Warren Township
facilities. Specifically, the draft EIS proposed that these facilities be merged into a single
subregional facility. These townships proceeded independent of federal financial assistance
and chose to upgrade their existing facilities rather than constructing a subregional facility.
Existing Environment in the Planning Area and Environmental Constraints
to Development
The full description of the affected environment and a comprehensive constraints
analysis are presented in the draft EIS for the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan. Chapter 5 of the
final EIS provides descriptions of significant changes in features of the affected environment,
as well as an update of environmental constraints to development in the UPRB since the
issuance of the draft EIS.
Affected Environment in the Planning Area
Recent significant events that affect potential land use and protect natural resources
in the UPRB are summarized under three major categories. These are water resources,
critical areas, and land use.
From 1980 to 1990, major regulatory actions were implemented that provide more
protection to water resources than was afforded previously, including EPA designation of
the Buried Valley Aquifer Systems of the Central Passaic River Basin and the
Unconsolidated Quaternary Aquifer of the Rockaway River Basin as Sole Source Aquifers
ES-6
-------
TABLE ES-2
Final EIS Preferred Alternative!
WWTP
Draft EIS Preferred Alternative
Final EIS Preferred Alternative
Implementation
Statua
Final EIS Recommended
Flow Rates (mgs)1
Chatham Towndnp
Upgrading exiating AdGtiea with the ability to add
nuliiem removal facilitie* in the future
Upgrade lo Level 4 treatment, with nutrient
removal
In Progreaa
0.75
Moma-Woodlaad
Upgrading exiiting facilities with die ability to add
nutrient removal iacilitie* in die future
Upgrade to Level 4 treatment, with nutrient
removal
In Progreat
2.0
New Jeraey Department of Tranapoitation -
Harding Real Stop
Continue exiating operation
Make operational or deogn improvements to
handle operational and vandaliam problem!
Not Scheduled
0.025
infaley Height*
Upgrading and expansion of exiating faciHtiei to
Level 4 iwauin aridi dechlorination
Expand and upgrade to Level 4 treatment with
dechlorination
Complete1
3.5
Upgtadiug and expamiou of waiting ftcffitiea to
Level 4 treatment with dechlorination
Expand tnd upgrade to Level 4 treatment with
dechlorination
Complete1
2.5
Joial Meeting
Upgrediag to Lave! 4 treatment with
drrhloriilinn. Hie upgrade would reduce the
treatmn* capacity 0.8 mgd
Upgrade to Level 4 treatment with dechlorination
Complete'
3 J*
Hew hwidtut Bmuugh
Upgrading to Level 3 Muwt
Upgrade to achieve conaiatent compliance with
current Level 3 permit Emit!
Not Scheduled
1J
Paaaaic Tovnrfrip
Replacement with a wbregioaal WWTP that would
treat the Warren Tumnliiji and han': Tuwualiip
flows. The aubregional WWTP woold provide
Level 4 UeatmeK with dechlorination
Expand and upgrade to Level 4 treatment with
dechlorination
In Ihogieaa
0.9
Stage J-n°WB-"P
pl:nfr*ti—*"f ""If1 in favor of a
¦ihrrgioaal WWTP ia Paaaaif Townahip
Expand and upgrade to Level 4 treatment with
dechlorination
la Progress
0.47
Warns Teanadup
Stage IV
nilinatinn of fa three WWTP» in favor of a
aubcegiooal WWTP ia Paaaaic Towmhip
Expand and upgrade to Level 4 treatment with
dechlorination
In riogieae
0.8*
WVIH lOVMMp
Stage V
Elimination of die dwee WWTP* in favor of a
aubi«-giotaU WWTP in Piaaeic Towndiip
Conatnicta Level 4 WWTP with dechlorination
Complete1
ost
MCMd
Efiminatioa of fae package WWTP with
cmaeyanre of fluwi to fee QMdMmToanMhip
WWTP
Upgrade to Level 4 tieatiueat
Sb Apofiees
0.03
VA Medical Cealcr
Upgrade exiating facilities
Upgrade and provide dechlorination or allanalc
disinfection procea*
Upgrade ia complete,
dechlorination not yet
acheduled
0.4
Ai of December 1990
Flour niM ickckd baaed m information developed during the EIS pneen and bated oa current NXDEP permitting action*.
Maximum monthly avenge flow « 5.0 mgd.
Currently at 0.45 mgd, expanding to 0.S mgd.
-------
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). With respect to surface water quality, even
though the Passaic River and most tributaries are classified as suitable for public potable
water supply after required treatment, water quality is fair near Millington and Chatham,
and declines to poor at Two Bridges.
In the 1980s, regulations at the state and local levels were implemented to provide
stricter controls over activities in "critical areas." Such areas may be special habitats (e.g.,
wetlands, wildlife areas, or stands of native vegetation) or environmental features that
require special planning and permitting. Major areas of regulation adopted over the past
decade are as follows:
The New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Act requires that a permit be obtained
from NJDEP for most activities that alter or disturb land or water in or
around freshwater wetland areas, and for the discharge of dredged material
into State Open Waters. Exemptions from applicability include activities
permitted under the Act's "grandfather" clauses.
The New Jersey Planning Act stipulates the preparation of the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan to generate an organized assessment
of the numerous growth changes affecting New Jersey.
Local stormwater management, critical features, and environmental
assessment ordinances and requirements, adopted by many New Jersey
municipalities, restrict and regulate development.
The Master Plan for the GSNWR emphasizes the preservation and protection
of important freshwater wetland and upland habitats for resident and
migratory wildlife species.
ES-8
-------
With respect to land use, existing and projected populations were re-examined. At
least to 1988, the most current year for which data is available, no municipality has shown
a trend in population that would invalidate the population projections presented in the draft
EIS. The UPRB region continues to experience a very slight increase in population, with
the greatest increase in Bernards Township. However, between 1980 and 1988, the
populations of Morris Township, Morristown, and Madison Borough have stabilized, and
both Bernardsville Borough and Chatham Borough have experienced a decline in
population. Average household sizes continue to decline in the region. In fact, the
documented decline is greater than projected in the draft EIS.
Environmental Constraints to Development
Potential environmental constraints have been identified and summarized as follows:
Land Capacity: As of 1981, 36,260 acres of the UPRB were undeveloped, of
which 21,247 acres were zoned for development. Of the developable acreage,
8,430 acres were excluded from development due to natural and imposed
constraints, as described below.
Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Areas: About 11,180 acres were
set aside and 1,310 acres were planned for parkland and open space
resources. These areas are likely to remain undeveloped since: (1) a
common objective of each municipal master plan is the preservation
of all existing parkland; (2) such areas are designated for recreational
uses by local zoning ordinances; and (3) almost half of the land is
owned by the federal government as part of the national park and
wildlife refuge systems.
ES-9
-------
Steep Slopes: Approximately 1,920 acres of all residential, commercial
and industrial zoned land were classified as steep slopes (15 percent
slope or greater). Developers are less likely to build on parcels having
excessive slopes due to construction and erosion problems which these
sites pose; hence steep slopes are excluded from developable lands.
Flood Prone Areas: Of the residential and industrial zoned
undeveloped land in the basin, approximately 5,200 acres are located
in flood prone areas. Federal and state laws direct the avoidance of
floodplain development wherever a practicable alternative exists;
moreover, developers tend to avoid floodplains due to economic risk.
Therefore, flood prone areas are eliminated from developable lands.
Wetlands: Wetlands are found throughout the UPRB, with a
predominance in the GSNWR and the Black Brook addition to the
GSNWR; these areas coincide with flood prone areas and parklands.
Consequently, elimination of potential development acreages of
wetland areas has already been taken into consideration. Futhermore,
regulation of wetlands by federal and state agencies strongly
discourages their development.
Water Supply. Water supply is not a constraint to projected population
growth and resultant future development. A combination of the minor
expansion of water systems near water surplus areas and the development of
private wells in areas of low density zoning should allow for adequate water
supply to the UPRB without the need for developing further intrabasin
transfers or reservoirs.
ES-10
-------
• Air Quality: Air quality is not an issue in terms of constraints to growth in
that: (1) the UPRB is located in an attainment area with regard to total
suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide; and (2) further
development of the UPRB for residential users is not considered a significant
problem, except with regard to area-wide ozone levels. The latter is being
addressed as a regional issue.
Soils: Soils are predominantly unsuitable or only marginally suitable for septic
systems, with the exception of Harding Township, Berkeley Heights, and New
Providence, due to high water tables, proximity to bedrock, and low soil
permeability. This factor may serve as a constraint to development if an area
is not served by municipal or private sewage systems, or WWTP capacity is
unavailable.
Environmental and zoning constraints have reduced the amount of net residential
land available for new development by 41 percent. From 1980 to 1988, all the UPRB
municipalities realized somewhat stabilized populations and residential development, except
for Bernards Township which experienced an estimated 46 percent population increase. As
of 1988, Bernards, along with Berkeley Heights, Chatham, Morris, Passaic, and Warren
Townships, and Chatham, Madison, and New Providence Boroughs still had developable
residential land for limited growth, but were nearing saturation. Harding Township had the
most leeway for residential development; it only reached an estimated population of 3,633
or 52 percent of its constrained saturation.
Analysis and Interpretation of the GSWOS
The GSWQS was conducted jointly by EPA and NJDEP to evaluate present and
future impacts of point and non-point source loadings in the Great Swamp watershed. The
study determined that, under base flow conditions, the discharges of treated wastewater from
ES-11
-------
the Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township WWTPs generated significantly elevated
nutrient concentrations (orthophosphate, total phosphorus, and total soluble inorganic
nitrogen) in their receiving waters, Loantaka Brook and Black Brook, respectively. The
principal exception to these findings occurred on Loantaka Brook, where the difference in
nitrate concentrations in the brook upstream and downstream of the Morris-Woodland
WWTP discharge were negligible.
Comparison of loading estimates at the several Loantaka and Black Brook sampling
locations indicated that some reaches of these brooks were apparently receiving substantial
nutrient loadings from non-point sources. The upper reaches of Loantaka Brook appeared
in particular to be affected by non-point source loadings in stormwater runoff flows. These
non-point source influences, however, are not always evident in the concentration data
alone. For example, storm flow concentrations of total phosphorus, orthophosphate, and
total suspended solids at sampling locations in developed watersheds did not differ
significantly from concentrations at sampling locations in undeveloped watersheds.
Impacts of Proposed Actions
There are two types of impacts that can result from the construction of the proposed
WWTP improvements - primary impacts and secondary impacts. Primary impacts are
directly related to construction activities or the operation of the wastewater treatment plants.
Secondary impacts are related to development that is facilitated by the availability of
wastewater treatment.
The upgrading of the WWTPs to Level 4 with nutrient removal will reduce nutrient
loadings to the Passaic River, Passaic River tributaries, and the GSNWR. These reduced
nutrient loadings will be of significant benefit to the surface waters of the UPRB.
ES-12
-------
The construction of the proposed facilities will not have significant adverse impacts
on sensitive environmental areas. Where construction encroaches on wetlands or
floodplains, such activities are reviewed and regulated by the NJDEP. Moreover, no sewer
service will be provided to serve future development within wetlands or the 100-year
floodplain in the service area, unless specifically approved by NJDEP.
Improvements in treatment level and/or reductions in infiltration/inflow (I/I) in the
sewers may permit sewer service to be extended to additional users. However, new service
will have to be approved by NJDEP. At this time no sewer extensions are planned;
therefore, the proposed improvements to the existing facilities will not generate significant
secondary impacts on land use patterns in the study area.
Increased non-point source pollution would be generated by additional development
in the area. The impacts of the increased stormwater runoff would have to be mitigated by
the implementation of local stormwater management plans.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The recommendations listed below are based on the extensive efforts conducted
throughout the EIS process. It is the responsibility of the State of New Jersey, a county soil
conservation district (SCD), or a municipality to implement these recommendations, as
appropriate, to the extent of the state's, SCD's, or municipality's authority to do so.
• The data gathered in the GSWQS were sufficient to show the impact of the
point source discharges from the Chatham Township and Morris-Woodland
WWTPs on the GSNWR. Moreover, those data indicated that substantial
non-point source loadings are entering certain reaches of brooks tributary to
the GSNWR. Continued study on a scaled-down basis, such as that presented
in the USFWS Master Plan for the GSNWR and in the Non-point Source
ES-13
-------
Pollution Project for the Great Swamp Watershed proposed through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, is recommended. Such continuing study can
refine the identification and characterization of such non-point source
influences, and evaluate various remedial alternatives.
As WWTPs in the UPRB are upgraded, the point source loadings from these
facilities will diminish, and non-point sources will exert greater influences on
the overall loadings to the surface waters of the basin. Analysis of the
GSWQS data has identified some stream reaches flowing into the GSNWR
that appear to have substantial non-point source loadings. Stormwater
management plans should be developed by each municipality in the UPRB,
especially those within the Great Swamp sub-basin, to control non-point
source pollution. Those plans should consider both water quantity and water
quality issues. Guidance on the content of such stormwater management
plans can be obtained from the NJDEP. Moreover, municipalities should
consider establishing overall stormwater management goals for their most
sensitive watersheds and stream corridors (see Appendix L.)
Increased development in the UPRB will increase the hydraulic load of the
streams tributary to the GSNWR. This increased hydraulic load may affect
the water level of the swamp, which may in turn have secondary impacts on
the area (e.g., flooding of basements). Insufficient data currently exists to
determine the specific relationship between increased development, water
levels, and secondary impacts. As the area comes under increased
development pressure, it will become important to study this problem in more
detail.
Much of the UPRB is underlain by the Buried Valley Aquifer Systems, an
important source of potable ground water in northern New Jersey. Recharge
ES-14
-------
to these aquifer systems is relatively rapid and direct, making such ground
water resources susceptible to contamination from the surface. Where prime
ground water recharge areas can be reasonably delineated, municipalities
should consider such areas in local zoning decisions to specify the types of
development that would be compatible with these environmentally sensitive
areas. The NJDEP and New Jersey Geological Survey can offer guidance and
assistance to municipalities in their planning efforts.
With the exception of Harding Township, Berkeley Heights Township, and
New Providence Borough, the UPRB soils are predominantly unsuitable, or
only marginally suitable, for septic systems, due to high-water tables, proximity
to bedrock, and low soil permeability. In areas where conditions are
unsuitable or septic systems are failing, an alternative wastewater disposal
method must be employed. Most likely, these areas would be connected to
an existing WWTP, but any action taken should be consistent with the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan which is intended to assess and
establish goals and strategies to address the numerous growth changes
affecting the state.
The draft EIS recommended using an environmental constraints analysis to
determine appropriate capacities for the WWTPs for new development
outside of environmentally constrained areas and by estimating reductions in
the I/I component of the flow. The recommended capacities were revised in
this final EIS to reflect current NJDEP permitting actions and updated
information. The revised WWTP capacity recommendations are contained on
Table ES-2.
Some of the WWTPs operating within the UPRB experience substantial I/I.
Where practical and cost-effective, these problems should be corrected.
ES-15
-------
Regulation of wetlands and floodplains by NJDEP Division of Coastal
Resources strongly discourages development of such environmentally sensitive
areas. Therefore, sewer service should not be extended into wetlands and
floodplains.
Package treatment plants may encourage random development within the
UPRB, Also, the treatment facilities within the basin are required to achieve
high levels of treatment, including nutrient removal in some cases, which are
often difficult to maintain with package plants. It would be more difficult for
a municipality to operate many small package plants, or to oversee the
operation of such plants if privately-owned or operated. Given these
considerations, the use of package plants is not recommended in the UPRB.
Development may lead to increased non-point source pollution and adverse
impacts to, and losses of, environmentally sensitive areas. Development in the
UPRB cannot be controlled by EPA; EPA recommends that development be
controlled on a local level through zoning and comprehensive planning.
Development should be consistent with the State Development and
Redevelopment Plan.
ES-16
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary ES-1
Table of Contents i
Appendices ii
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of Acronyms v
List of Unit Abbreviations vii
CHAPTER 5
5.0 Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5-1
Purpose and Need : 5-1
Alternatives and Summary of Existing Facilities 5-2
Existing Environment in the Planning Area and
Environmental Constraints to Development 5-35
Environmental Impacts of Feasible Alternatives 5-59
List of Preparers 5-68
CHAPTER 6
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations 6-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Eage
CHAPTER 7
7.0 Responsiveness Summary 7-1
7.1 Introduction 7-1
7.2 Responses to Comments Regarding Bernards Township 1-2
7.3 Responses to Comments from the Public Hearing 7-4
7.4 Responses to Written Comments Received 7-18
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDICES
K Review of the Great Swamp Water Quality Study
L Stormwater Management for the Mitigation of Water Quality Degradation
M Bernards Township Facilities Responsiveness Summary
N Letters Received Concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Ease
ES-l Final EIS Format ES-5
ES-2 Final EIS Recommended Alternatives ES-7
2-1 Treatment Level Criteria 5-3
2-2 Proposed Alternatives Presented in the 1981 Draft EIS 5-10
2-3 Federal and State Project Funding 5-33
2-4 Summary of Final EIS Recommended Alternatives 5-34
2-5 Water Quality Index Profile 5-36
2-6 Rare Species and Natural Communities in the
Great Swamp Sub-basin 5-44
2-7 Matrix of Municipal Ordinances or Provisions
Promoting Sound Environmental Management Practices 5-51
2-8 Flood Acreages for Great Swamp Sub-basin 5-53
2-9 Wetland Acres in Great Swamp Sub-basin 5-54
2-10 Hydric Soils 5-55
2-11 Matrix of Population Counts, Estimates,
and Projections for UPRB Municipalities 5-59
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Ease
ES-l EIS Area following ES-1
2-1 Township of Chatham Location Map 5-12
2-2 Township of Chatham Existing Facilities 5-13
2-3 Township of Chatham Proposed Facilities 5-15
2-4 Township of Morris Location Map 5-18
2-5 Township of Morris Existing Facilities 5-19
2-6 Township of Morris Proposed Facilities 5-22
2-7 NJDOT Harding-Rest Stop Existing Facilities 5-26
iv
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
BMP
Best Management Practices
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CWA
Clean Water Act
CWC
Commonwealth Water Company
DLI
United States Department of Labor and Industry
EA
Environmental Assessment
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
FNSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
FWPA
New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act
GSNWR
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
GSWQS
Great Swamp Water Quality Study
I/I
Infiltration and Inflow
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NJDEP
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJDOT
New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJPDES
New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NOI
Notice of Intent
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS
Non-point Source
N.J.S.A.
New Jersey State Assembly
-------
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
ROD
Record of Decision
SCD
County Soil Conservation District
SCS
Soil Conservation Service
SPC
New Jersey State Planning Commission
SRF
State Revolving Fund
TBSA
Two Bridges Sewer Authority
UPRB
Upper Passaic River Basin
UPWMSC
Upper Passaic Wastewater Management Study Committee
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
uv
Ultraviolet
VA
Veterans Administration
WQI
Water Quality Index
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
vi
-------
LIST OF UNIT ABBREVIATIONS
a
Acre
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBOD
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
ha
Hectare
hu
Housing Unit
mgd
Million Gallons per Day
mg/1
Milligrams per Liter
NBOD
Nitrogenous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
nh3-n
Ammonia Nitrogen
ss
Suspended Solids
vii
-------
CHAPTER 5
Revisions to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
-------
5.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS
This chapter identifies additions or revisions to the information presented in the draft
EIS. These items were the result of comments raised during the review of the draft EIS,
studies completed since the issuance of the draft EIS, particularly the GSWQS,
environmental changes over the past ten years, and new or revised federal and state laws,
regulations, and policies. Modifications are designated with bold print.
Purpose and Need
Page 1-2: Purpose and Need
The following paragraphs should be added at the bottom of the page:
In the early 1980s, various changes were made to the Clean Water Act regarding
eligibility for federal funding. These changes shifted responsibility for management of
programs that provide financial assistance for the construction of WWTPs from the federal
government to state governments. EPA's Construction Grants Program was delegated to
the State of New Jersey in phases between 1981 and 1983. Moreover, New Jersey
established a revolving loan program in 1987, that was initially capitalized with "state-only"
money derived from bond sales, for the purpose of providing financial assistance for the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities. This program was subsequently capitalized
with federal funding in the form of capitalization grants, beginning in 1988. New Jersey
includes this State Revolving Fund (SRF) with other "state only" Rinding programs in its
Municipal Wastewater Assistance Program. EPA oversees New Jersey's administration of
the SRF program, but is not involved with the specific details of individual projects.
5-1
-------
Alternatives and Summary of Existing Facilities
The following section should be substituted for all of Chapter 2:
2.1 Introduction
The draft EIS included a review of wastewater treatment alternatives for the
communities in the UPRB, which covers all or portions of Morris, Somerset and Union
Counties in New Jersey. The draft EIS recommended a preferred alternative for each of
the communities included.
In this chapter, the alternatives presented in the draft EIS will be reviewed to
determine whether the selection criteria are still valid and to assess the appropriateness of
the preferred alternatives.
2.2 Advanced Treatment Level Criteria
The WWTPs in the UPRB were designed to provide secondary treatment. This level
removes Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) to an effluent
concentration of 30 milligrams per liter (mg/1) or less but does relatively little to reduce
the influent nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations. To address the removal of
additional BOD and SS and to include nutrient removal, NJDEP established treatment
level criteria corresponding to different classes of treatment. These treatment classes range
from Class 1, which is slightly more stringent than secondary, to Class 5. NJDEP's criteria
for each of these treatment classes is contained on Table 2-1.
5-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
Treatment Level Criteria1
BOD,
CBOD.
NBOD„
nh3-n
SS
DO
Class of
Treatment
30-day
Ave.
7-day
Ave.
30-day
Ave
7-day
Ave.
30-day
Ave.
7-day
Ave.
30-day
Ave.
7-day
Ave.
30-day
Ave.
7-day
Ave.
7-day
Ave.
Secondaiy
30
45
-
-
•
-
-
-
30
45
-
1
24
36
36
54
130
195
26
39
24
36
4
2
16
24
24
36
50
75
10
15
16
24
6
3
16
24
24
36
20
30
4
6
16
24
6
4
8
12
12
18
10
15
2
3
8
12
6
5
4
6
6
9
5
7.5
1
1.5
4
6
6
1 All criteria in mg/1
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
-------
2.3
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
The draft EIS examined several overall conceptual alternatives for the management
and treatment of the existing and future wastewater flows generated in the UPRB. These
alternatives included:
(1) No-Action - The existing facilities would continue to operate in their current
status with no expansion or upgrading of the facilities.
(2) Upgrading and Expansion - All facilities would be upgraded to meet state
and federal discharge standards and would be expanded to handle existing
and future wastewater flows.
(3) Regional Facility - All wastewater would be collected and conveyed to a single
treatment facility to be located near the existing Madison-Chatham WWTP.
All existing treatment facilities would be abandoned.
(4) Subregional Facilities • Subregional facilities would be used to replace nearby
treatment facilities.
(5) Package WWTPs - Package WWTPs would be used to handle flows generated
from residential subdivisions or apartment complexes.
(6) On-Site Disposal - Wastewater generated from new or existing development
would be handled by septic tanks with leaching fields or the Clivus Multrum
system.
(7) GSNWR Alternatives - These are discussed in Section 2.3,1.
5-4
-------
The no-action alternative was rejected because the existing WWTP discharges would
not meet state and federal compliance standards and because new development in the area
would put demands on the respective sewer systems. Also some communities had bans on
sewer extensions and new connections which would continue to be enforced, regardless of
whether expansion took place.
Upgrading and expanding the existing WWTPs is an acceptable alternative. It would
enable the WWTPs to meet State and Federal discharge requirements and would allow the
municipalities to effectively handle the wastewater generated from future growth.
The regional facility alternative was rejected because it would not be feasible or cost-
effective to dismantle all the existing facilities and build a new one. Also, the
environmental impacts of installing the conveyance system to transport the wastewater to
the regional facility could be severe.
Subregional facilities would be an acceptable alternative, provided that the WWTPs
that would be abandoned in favor of one centrally located WWTP are in close proximity
and have similar discharge requirements. Although the construction of conveyance lines
to the subregional facility may cause some negative environmental impacts as described
above with the regional facility, the impacts are expected to be less severe because the
replaced WWTPs would all be in close proximity to the subregional facility.
The package WWTPs alternative was rejected based on several considerations. First,
the treatment facilities in the UPRB are required to achieve high levels of treatment,
including nutrient removal, which are often difficult to maintain with package WWTPs.
Also, it would be difficult for the municipalities to operate and maintain many small
WWTPs or oversee the operation if the WWTPs were owned and operated by private
entities. Package WWTPs would not be cost-effective when compared to the efficiencies and
economies of a large municipal facility, especially given the fact that most communities
5-5
-------
within the basin already have collection systems in place. Finally, the use of package
VVWTPs may encourage random development.
The acceptability of the final alternative, on-site disposal, varies with the soil
characteristics in the area. The majority of the soils on the developable lands within the
UPRB are considered to have severe limitations for conventional leaching fields. For these
areas, this alternative should be considered infeasible. In areas with low density, scattered
development, and adequate soil conditions, on-lot systems would be preferred on the basis
of cost and implementability.
Based on the results of the review of conceptual alternatives, the draft EIS presented
specific options for wastewater treatment in the UPRB.
Each of the existing WWTPs would be upgraded to a minimum of
Level 4 except New Providence, which would provide Level 3 treatment.
Same as Plan K1 except the Passaic Township and Warren Township
Stages MI, IV and V would be abandoned for a central WWTP located
at the site of the Passaic Township WWTP.
Same as K2 except the outfall location for the Bernards Township
WWTP would be relocated.
A preferred alternative was selected for each WWTP based on cost, environmental,
and implementation considerations. The preferred alternatives chosen in the 1981 draft
EIS are presented in Section 232.
Plan K1 -
Plan K2 -
Plan K3 -
5-6
-------
23.1
GSNWR Alternatives
Only three of the WWTPs included in the 201 Facilities Plan impact the GSNWR.
They are the Chatham, Morris-Woodland, and New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT)-Harding Rest Stop WWTPs. However, the NJDOT WWTP only discharges to
surface waters during the winter months. The following alternatives, developed for dealing
with the Chatham and Morris-Woodland WWTP's effluent, were presented in Chapter 2 of
the draft EIS page 2-21.
• Channelization of stream beds in those portions of Loantaka and Black
Brooks within the GSNWR to allow flow to pass freely through the refuge
cariying entrained nutrients.
Development of an extensive sewer network to convey the WWTP effluents
around the GSNWR for discharge directly to the Upper Passaic.
Diversion of part or all of the Morris-Woodland and Chatham WWTPs
effluent outside the GSNWR basin to the Passaic River as proposed in the
201 Facilities Plan.
Seasonal treatment of nutrients at the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPs.
Year-round treatment of nutrients at the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPs.
Design of the Morris-Woodland and Chatham WWTPs so that nitrogen
and/or phosphorous removal may be added later, if a subsequent study
concludes that reduction of nutrients from the WWTPs is necessaiy to
alleviate eutrophication.
5-7
-------
The first alternative, channelization of Loantaka and Black Brook, was deemed
infeasible because of the Congressional mandate which established the GSNWR specifically
prohibits outside interference or man-made activities in the wilderness area portion of the
GSNWR.
The cost of building a sewer network to convey effluent around the GSNWR was
determined to be extremely expensive and not cost-effective when compared to the other
alternatives being considered. In addition, such construction could cause significant
environmental impacts to the region encompassing the GSNWR.
Diversion of the flows for direct discharges either to the Passaic River or Whippany
River was found to be incompatible with the GSNWR waterfowl management programs.
The United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) expressed concern regarding diversion
of the effluents because waterfowl management programs are dependent on a relatively
constant supply of water, particularly during critical nesting periods. Also, a discharge to
the Whippany River would result in a transfer of nutrients from one drainage basin to
another. Local opposition to a discharge in the Whippany River could be strong.
A seasonal treatment of nutrients would result in the removal of nutrients in the
warmer months during the growing season. However, the GSNWR would Just act as a sink
for nutrients during the winter months and vegetation would use these stored nutrients for
growth in the summer. From both an environmental and cost-effective viewpoint, installing
complex treatment technologies for seasonal nutrient removal was determined to be
undesirable.
Year-round reduction of nitrogen and/or phosphorous was unjustified for the
WWTPs at the time the draft EIS was prepared because there was insufficient evidence to
warrant removal. Accordingly, the recommended alternative was to design the Chatham
and Morris-Woodland WWTPs for enhanced BOD and SS removal with the ability to
5*S
-------
include nutrient removal processes, if desired, either at the time of construction or at some
later date. The selection of this alternative was conditioned upon the undertaking of a
study of the nutrient dynamics of the GSNWR.
In 1983, in accordance with the recommendations of the preferred alternative, EPA
and NJDEP commissioned the GSWQS. This study encompassed many aspects of the water
quality discharges into the GSNWR including the impacts of discharged nutrients from the
WWTPs. A detailed analysis and interpretation of the GSWQS can be found in Appendix
K.
The GSWQS determined that the WWTP discharges caused nutrient enrichment in
the waters of the GSNWR, but this fact alone would not guarantee that increased algae
growth would result. However, algal bioassays performed by Dr. F.B. Trama, in conjunction
with the water quality study, demonstrated that the nutrient enrichment led to a higher
standing crop of algal cells in in vitro tests of water from below the WWTPs.
These water quality study results indicated that an alteration of the preferred
alternative is warranted. The recommended alternative in this final EIS now includes
nutrient removal for the Morris-Woodland and Chatham WWTPs.
2.3.2 Draft EIS Preferred Alternatives
Table 2-2 describes the preferred alternatives presented in the 1981 draft EIS for
each of the WWTPs in the UPRB. Given the changes that have occurred since the issuance
of the draft EIS in 1981, namely the elimination of the EPA Construction Grants program,
New Jersey's establishment of the SRF, and improvements to WWTPs already completed
or under way, some of these preferred alternatives are no longer viable. The following
sections describe the current status of the treatment facilities and the current recommended
alternatives.
5-9
-------
TABLE 2-2
Preferred Alternatives Presented in the 1981 Draft E1S
WWTP
Preferred
Alternative
Chatham Township
Upgrading existing facilities with the ability to
add nutrient removal facilities in the future
Morris-Woodland
Upgrading existing facilities with the ability to
add nutrient removal facilities in the future
New Jersey DOT - Harding Rest
Stop
Continue existing operation
Berkeley Heights
Upgrading and expansion of existing facilities to
Level 4 treatment with dechlorination
Bernards Township
Upgrading and expansion of existing facilities to
Level 4 treatment with dechlorination
Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting
Upgrading to Level 4 treatment with
dechlorination. The upgrade would reduce the
treatment capacity by 0.8 mgd
New Providence Borough
Upgrading to Level 3 treatment
Passaic Township
Replacement with a subregional WWTP that
would treat the Warren Township and Passaic
Township flows. The subregional WWTP would
provide Level 4 treatment with dechlorination
Warren Township, Stage I & II,
Stage IV and Stage V
Elimination of the three WWTPs in favor of a
subregional WWTP in Passaic Township
Park Central
Elimination of the package WWTP with
conveyance of flows to the Chatham Township
WWTP
VA Medical Center
Upgrade existing facilities
5-10
-------
Because of the concerns related to the potential impacts of the WWTP discharges
to the GSNWR, the Morris-Woodland, Chatham, and New Jersey Department of
Transportation Harding Rest Stop WWTPs are covered in greater detail. (See Section 2.4
below.)
2.4 Status of Wastewater Treatment Facilities
2.4.1 Chatham Township
2.4.1.1 Existing Facilities
The Chatham Township sewer system and WWTP were constructed in 1966
and 1967 to serve all of Chatham Township and the WWTP is located on Tanglewood Road
off of Fairmont Avenue (location maps shown in Figure 2-1). This WWTP was designed for
an average daily flow of 0.75 million gallons per day (mgd) (existing facilities shown in
Figure 2-2). The raw sewage flows into a concrete wet well that houses a comminutor and
manually-cleaned bar screen bypass. After passing through comminution or screening, the
wastewater is pumped to the primary clarifler. Prior to entering the clarifier, the
wastewater passes through a cyclone degritter. Following primary clarification the
wastewater flows through a high-rate trickling Alter and biological solids produced here are
removed in the secondary (or final) clarifier. The effluent from the final clarifier is
disinfected in the two chlorine contact tanks and the effluent from these tanks flows to the
stabilization basins. The final effluent from these basins is discharged to a Mosquito
Commission Drainage Channel that flows to Black Brook, a tributaiy of the Upper Passaic
River via the GSNWR.
Secondaiy sludge is recycled to the primaiy clarifier. Waste sludge is drawn from
the primaiy clarifier and taken to the anaerobic digester. Digested sludge is transported
to the Two Bridges Sewer Authority (TBSA) for incineration.
5-11
-------
~ 000
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 2-1
-------
140914
-------
The WWTP was designed to achieve secondary treatment standards (i.e., 30 mg/1 of
BODs and 30 mg/1 SS in the effluent). For the most part, the WWTP achieved these limits,
but some NJDEP inspection visits revealed violations of effluent criteria such as BODs, SS,
BODs percent removal, and SS percent removal.
2.4.1.2 Upgraded Facilities
Because of the potential for the nutrients in the wastewater effluent to cause algal
blooms in the GSNWR, NJDEP issued an administrative consent order on July 28,1988 to
upgrade the WWTP to class 4 treatment levels, including nutrient removal. To meet this
mandate, Chatham Township decided to convert the treatment process to oxidation ditches,
followed by secondary clarifiers, a continuous backwash filter, post aeration basins and
ultraviolet disinfection. The waste sludge would flow to a gravity thickener and an
anaerobic digester and, following digestion, would be transported to another facility for
incineration. Figure 2-3 contains a schematic of the upgraded facility.
This conversion and upgrade would allow the treatment facility to achieve Class 4
treatment levels. In addition, It would also include mechanisms to achieve phosphorous
reduction, and the use of ultraviolet disinfection would eliminate chlorine residuals, which
were formally produced from chlorine disinfection and discharged into the receiving stream.
Part of the upgrade to Class 4 treatment was expansion of the existing capacity from
0.75 mgd to 1.0 mgd. Hie treatment units were designed to handle the increased flow.
However, the NJPDES and construction permits, issued by NJDEP, do not currently allow
this higher flow rate, and there is no guarantee that the higher flow rate will be permitted
after the WWTP is constructed. If Chatham Township petitions NJDEP to obtain a permit
for the higher flow and NJDEP agrees to consider a permit modification to allow increased
flows, NJDEP has the authority to re-examine all of the permit parameters and make
requirements for any parameter more stringent or add additional requirements to the
permit.
5-14
-------
140014
INFLUENT
PUMPING
ALUM
OXIDATION
DITCHES
/ SECONDARY
H CLARIFIER
3!
0
c
;o
m
ro
1
01
¦POLYMER
TO SLUDGE
DIVERSION
CHAt^R
CONTINUOUS
BACKWA:
FILTER
ULTRAVIOLET
DISINFECTION
OUTFA
TOWNSHIP OF CHATHAM
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
PLANT #1
PROPOSED FACILITIES
-------
The question of whether or not Chatham Township will obtain a permit for additional flow
involves the potential impacts from increased hydraulic loading to the GSNWR. Also, the
related issues of increased development in the area induced by the presence of additional
sewer capacity and increased non-point source pollution which could enter the GSNWR
need to be considered in permit review.
2.4.1.3 Schedule of Completion
As part of the consent order issued to Chatham Township, a schedule for design,
construction and operation was developed. The original schedule is outlined below:
Pgadline
Submit Application for Stage II Treatment
Works Approval (TWA)
9/15/89
Advertise for Bids and Award Contract
4/15/90
Begin Construction
5/15/90
End Construction
10/15/91
Comply with final NJPDES Permit Limits
12/15/91
The original design would have required some units to be placed within the wetland
areas around the \VWTP property. These wetlands were classified as exceptional value and
no construction can take place within a wetland of this category. The Chatham Township
petition to have the wetlands reclassified was denied. Because the exceptional value
classification remained, the WWTP upgrade had to be redesigned to relocate units so that
a 75 foot buffer zone could be maintained around the wetlands. Because of the time
Involved in petitioning for wetland reclassification and the redesign necessitated by the
decision not to reclassify, the project could not be completed according to the original
schedule. NJDEP then modified the deadlines as follows:
5-16
-------
Peadijne
Advertise for Bids and Award Contract
End Construction
Submit Application for Stage II TWA
Begin Construction
Comply with final NJPDES Permit Limits
7/15/90
2/15/91
3/15/91
8/15/92
10/15/92
The upgrade of the Chatham Township WWTP is now under construction and is
scheduled to be completed prior to the compliance deadline.
2,42 Morris Township
Morris Township operates two WWTPs. The Morris-Woodland WWTP lies within
the Passaic River drainage basin and the Morris-Butterworth WWTP lies within the
Whippany River drainage basin. Because this final EIS deals with facilities In the UPRB
only, the remainder of this section deals exclusively with the Morris-Woodland WWTP. The
Morris-Woodland WWTP is located at the end of Florence Avenue off Woodland Avenue
in Morristown (location map shown in Figure 2-4).
The original collection system and WWTP were constructed in I960 to handle a
design flow of 0.5 mgd. Morris Township expanded the WWTP in 1967 to a design average
flow of 1.6 mgd, and maximum 30-day average flow of 2.0 mgd (existing facilities shown in
Figure 2-5). The raw sewage enters a small pumping station which houses a comminutor,
bar screen and three raw sewage pumps. The sewage is then pumped to the operation
tanks, where it receives activated sludge treatment. The effluent from these tanks flows to
the final clarifler. The overflow from the clarifier flows to a chlorine contact tank
positioned around the base of the clarifler. Chlorine is added followed by sulfur dioxide
to remove the chlorine residual. Following chlorination/dechlorinatlon, the effluent flows
down a cascade aeration system for reaeration prior to direct discharge to Loantaka
2.4.2.1 Existing Facilities
5-17
-------
TOWNSHIP OF MORRIS
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
WOODLAND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
LOCATION MAP
2000
4000
SCALE
FIGURE 2-4
-------
140814
a
c
zo
m
ro
I
01
TOWNSHIP OF MORRIS
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
WOODLAND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING FACILITIES
-------
Brook. Loantaka Brook then flows through Loantaka Pond prior to entering the Passaic
River, via the GSNWR.
Sludge from the secondary clarifier is airlifted to the reaeration tank (formerly the
contact stabilization basin). Some of this sludge is returned to the aeration tanks to
maintain the solids, while the remainder is wasted to the "Purifax" unit, housed in the
sludge handling and chlorination building. This unit doses the sludge with large amounts
of chlorine to stabilize and disinfect the sludge. The chlorinated sludge is stored in the
series of sludge storage tanks outside the building. The sludge thickens over time in these
tanks and is pH adjusted before hauling to the TBSA for incineration. The liquid is
decanted off the top of the sludge and recirculated back to the aeration basins.
The \VWTP was designed to meet secondary treatment standards and, for the most
part, achieves these effluent limits. However, some of the compliance inspections revealed
effluent violations of various parameters, such as BOD percent removal and visible foam
being discharged into Loantaka Brook. The most serious violations occurred in August of
1988 and July of 1990, when there were major fishkllls in Loantaka Pond. In 1988,
maintenance was being performed on the aeration basins and approximately 60 percent of
the WWTP was out of service during this repair. Because of the bypass of some of the
units, partially treated sewage (i.e., effluent with high BOD and suspended solids
concentrations) was discharged to Loantaka Brook and subsequently entered Loantaka
Pond. The high BOD wastewater removed oxygen from the pond, leaving insufficient oxygen
for the fish. Consequently, 500 to 600 sunfish and some carp were killed.
In 1990, a power outage at the WWTP caused problems with the aeration system
which, in turn, resulted in inadequately treated sewage entering Loantaka Brook and
ultimately, Loantaka Pond. This discharge led to a fish kill of approximately 150 to 200
sunfish.
5-20
-------
2.422 Upgraded Facilities
In 1988, NJDEP issued an administrative consent order to Morris Township to
upgrade its Woodland WWTP to Class 4 treatment, including nutrient removal. This
requirement was substantiated by the results of the GSWQS, which indicated that nutrients
in the wastewater effluent had the potential to cause increased algal growth in the GSNWR.
This administrative consent order also included a sewer ban which will be in effect until
1993, when the WWTP must meet final NJPDES effluent limits. The ban prohibits the
extension of sewer service into non-sewered areas and the connection of dry sewer lines
installed in newly developed and developing areas.
To meet the requirements of the consent order, Morris Township plans to convert
the plant operation to a patented activated sludge process, identified as "A20\ The existing
raw sewage pumping station will be modified and incorporated into the new WWTP. The
mqjor treatment units of the WWTP will consist of two new parallel trains of A20 process
reactors, followed by final clarification, gravity sand filtration, ultraviolet disinfection and
post aeration, all provided by new facilities. A new chemical control building will be added
to house process instrumentation and controls, blowers, recycle pumps, and alum and
caustic chemical storage and feed equipment. A new outfall will be constructed slightly
upstream of the existing outfall on Loantaka Brook. Figure 2-6 shows a schematic of the
upgraded facilities.
The sludge generated at the new facility will be thickened only, using two new gravity
belt thickeners. Polymer will be added to aid thickening. The new WWTP will include five
storage tanks for raw and thickened sludge and the existing final clarifier will be converted
and modified to serve as an emergency storage tank. As was the case with the existing
WWTP, thickened sludge will be transported to TBSA for incineration.
In compliance with the requirements of the New Jersey Wastewater Treatment
Financing Program, an environmental assessment of potential impacts was completed. On
5-21
-------
140914
if)
o
c
o
2*
gp
r 2
-I
o
to
ZL?
o>
Z~~*
nw
3T
m
LEGEND
Q C0MMINUT0R 8 RAW SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
@ fi?0 ANAEROBIC a ANOXIC TANKS
(T) /ft) OXIC TANKS
(T) CONTROL BUILDING
(T) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
(jT) GRAVITY SAND FILTER, UV DISINFECTION ANO
POST AERATION CASCADE
(7) EFFLUENT OUTFALL
(IT) SLUOGE PROCESS FACILITY
200 400
I I
SCALE IN FEET TOWNSHIP OF MORRIS
MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
WOODLAND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
PROPOSED FACILITIES
-------
July 2, 1990, NJDEP issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) indicating that the
proposed project would not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts and, in
fact, would help improve the water quality of Loantaka Brook.
The designed facilities are intended to provide a maximum 30-day average flow rate
of 2.5 mgd with a design average flow of 2.0 mgd. However, NJDEP issued its final permit
to the facility in June 1990 (with expiration in July, 1995), permitting a maximum 30-day
average flow of only 2.0 mgd. Morris Township will construct the facilities as designed and
may at a later date petition NJDEP to increase the maximum monthly flow to 2.S mgd.
NJDEP may or may not grant this increase. Also, NJDEP reserves the right to modify the
permit limits if the permit is reopened to incorporate a higher flow rate.
Increasing the Morris-Woodland WWTP's permitted flow rate involves the issues of
direct hydraulic impacts to the GSNWR and secondary impacts, such as reduced
infiltration and increased runoff, brought on by development and facilitated by increased
sewer capacity.
2.4.2.3 Schedule of Completion
The consent order issued to Morris Township on May 2,1988 contained the following
schedule for design, construction and operation:
Peadiine
Submit Application for Stage II TWA
3/1/89
Advertise for Bids and Award Contract
10/1/89
Begin Construction
12/1/89
End Construction
12/1/90
Comply with final NJPDES Permit Limits
4/1/92
5-23
-------
Morris Township felt it could not meet these deadlines and negotiated a revised
schedule with NJDEP which was issued on July 1,1988 in a revised consent order. The
updated schedule is presented below:
Peadltoe
Submit Application for Stage II TWA
3/1/90
Advertise for Bids and Award Contract
10/1/90
Begin Construction
12/1/90
End Construction
12/1/92
Comply with final NJPDES Permit Limits
3/1/93
The upgraded facilities at the Morris-Woodland WWTP are under construction.
2.43 New Jersey Department of Transportation - Harding Rest Stop
2.4.3.1 Existing Facilities
NJDOT constructed a WWTP at the Harding Township rest stop off the northbound
lanes of 1-287 (2,000 feet south of the Sand Spring Road overpass) in 1976. The WWTP
went on-line in the spring of that year. This package WWTP was sized to handle 0.025 mgd
of flow and uses the activated sludge process to achieve secondary effluent standards.
Hie raw sewage passes through a bar screen or comminutor and enters the aeration
basin. Chemicals are added to promote phosphorous removal. The wastewater then enters
a settling tank after which It flows to one of two rapid sand filters and the chlorine contact
tank. The chlorinated wastewater effluent is disposed of in one of two ways. In the winter
the effluent is discharged to a tributaiy of the Great Brook, which then passes through the
5-24
-------
GSNWR before joining the Passaic River. In the summer (April 15 - October 15), the
wastewater is collected in a holding tank and spray irrigated on the seven spray irrigation
fields located next to the WWTP site. The dual discharge system was adopted to prevent
discharges of nutrients to surface waters during the critical growing season. Figure 2-7
shows a schematic of the WWTP layout and existing facilities.
The sludge is removed from the settling tank and held in the aerated sludge holding
tank. The waste sludge is then hauled to a landfill.
The WWTP has experienced operational problems and vandalism throughout the
years. It was designed for a much higher flow than it currently realizes, so some of the
equipment, such as chlorine dosing, does not operate properly. There have been persistent
problems with cracking in the pipes of the spray fields caused by freezing conditions in the
winter. Routinely, the spray fields have not been in operating order by April 15. Many
violations of eflluent limits have been reported from 1980 to 1989 and equipment has been
stolen or vandalized.
2.4.3.2 Upgraded Facilities
Although the NJDOT package WWTP discharges to a stream that flows through a
portion of the GSNWR, it is not recommended that this WWTP be upgraded at this time.
The flow through the WWTP is very low and the WWTP is only permitted for an ultimate
flow of 0.025 mgd. In addition, the WWTP does not discharge to surface waters during the
growing season. However, the WWTP experiences some operational problems brought on
by vandalism, weather, and the fact that the WWTP was originally designed for a much
greater flow than it currently receives. It is recommended that some actions be taken to
improve the performance of the WWTP on these bases. For example, downsizing some units
or tightening security to discourage vandals may be appropriate.
5-25
-------
140814
0
c
70
m
TO
1
BAR SCREEN
RAW SEWAGE
AERATION
TANK
o
COMMINUTOR
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
SETTLING
TANK
SAND FILTERS
CHLORINE
CONTACT TANK
OUTFALL
SPRAY
FIELD
NEW JERSEY D.O.T.
HARDING REST STOP
EXISTING FACILITIES
-------
2.4.4 Perkelqy Heights TownsWp
The collection system and WWTP for the Berkeley Heights Township were
constructed in 1956 with a WWTP design capacity of 0.75 mgd. The WWTP was expanded
in 1966 to a capacity of 1.5 mgd and upgraded to secondaiy treatment by adding a trickling
filter.
The Township was issued a consent order requiring it to upgrade its sewage
treatment facilities and banning additional sewer connections. In answer to this
enforcement action, Berkeley Heights upgraded and expanded its treatment facility. The
capacity was increased to 3.5 mgd and the WWTP was upgraded to Level 4 treatment. The
upgraded WWTP went on-line in June 1990 and has met permit compliance conditions
since that time. The Township is now awaiting acceptance of permit compliance from
NJDEP. After NJDEP's approval, the sewer ban is expected to be lifted.
Sludge generated at the facility is transported as wet sludge to Parsippany-Troy Hills
for incineration. The treated wastewater effluent is discharged to the Passaic River.
2.4.5 Bernards Township
The collection system to serve Bernards Township was constructed in 1959 and
expanded through 1969. The treatment facility, the Harrison Brook Sewage WWTP, was
constructed between 1963 and 1966 with a design capacity of 0.55 mgd and partially
expanded in 1967 to a capacity of 12 mgd. During the 1967 expansion, not all units were
expanded.
Recently, the WWTP was upgraded and expanded to a capacity of 2.50 mgd at Level
4 treatment. The new WWTP employs oxidation ditches and polishing lagoons to achieve
effluent limitations. Sludge is aerobically digested, dried on sand diying beds and land
applied. The WWTP uses chlorination for disinfection purposes followed by dechlorination.
The effluent is discharged to the Dead River.
5-27
-------
The upgraded/expanded WWTP went on-line in June 1984 and has achieved
compliance since that date.
2.4.6 Maflispp-Chatharo Joint Meeting
The Boroughs of Madison and Chatham as a joint venture constructed the Madison-
Chatham Joint Meeting Water Pollution Control Facility in 1910. The 1910 WWTP used
Imhoff tanks but these were replaced in 1929 by an activated sludge secondary WWTP. In
1950, primary treatment and sludge digestion facilities were added. The WWTP was further
expanded in 1971 to a design capacity of 4.0 mgd.
The existing Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting WWTP has an average annual design
permitted flow of 3.5 mgd with a maximum monthly average flow of 5.0 mgd. The treatment
level has been upgraded to Level 4 treatment which is achieved through the process of
activated sludge and a stabilization lagoon. Sludge generated at the facility is digested and
dried with a belt press or sand drying beds. Dried sludge is hauled off-site and land
applied. The wastewater effluent is dechlorinated prior to discharge to the Passaic River.
The construction at the Joint Meeting WWTP is complete and the WWTP is meeting
permit compliance.
2.4.7 New Providence Borough
The WWTP that serves the Borough of New Providence was built in 1927 as an
infiltration/inflow (I/I) treatment facility. The sewer system in the Borough transported
wastewater to the Joint Meeting Regional WWTP at Elizabeth, via the City of Summit
sanitary sewer system. During peak flow periods, when the pump station capacity (1.5 mgd)
was exceeded, the overflow was diverted to the New Providence WWTP which originally
consisted of a primary clarifler, chlorinator and discharge to the Passaic River. The
WWTP's capacity was then 03 mgd. The WWTP was expanded and upgraded between 1968
and 1970 to secondary treatment by adding two trickling filters. The capacity with the
5-28
-------
filters in parallel is 6.S mgd and with the filters in series is 2.8 mgd. Under normal
conditions, the majority of flow is transported to the regional facility with only enough flow
diverted to the New Providence WWTP to maintain biological growth on the trickling filters.
The WWTP continues to operate as a trickling filter WWTP in the mode stated
above. The permitted capacity is 1.5 mgd at Level 3 treatment. The WWTP has difficulty
achieving its effluent limitations, particularly for nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand
(NBOD).
The treated effluent is discharged to the Passaic River. Sludge is transported along
with up to 1.5 mgd of primary clarifier effluent to the City of Summit sewer system for
transfer to the Elizabeth Joint Meeting's interceptor.
No construction is currently scheduled except to convert the chlorination system to
ultraviolet (UV) disinfection to comply with the permit limitation for chlorine residual.
2.4.8 Passaic Township
The Passaic Township-Stirling WWTP was constructed in 1930, had a design
capacity of 0.4 mgd and operated as a conventional trickling filter WWTP. Sludge digesters
were added in the 1950s and the addition of an oxidation lagoon in 1975 increased the
design capacity to 0.65 mgd.
The WWTP is currently undergoing an upgrade and expansion. The trickling filter
will be eliminated and replaced by oxidation ditches to provide Level 4 treatment and a
permitted capacity of 0.9 mgd. The construction has been delayed beyond its original
completion date and is now scheduled for completion in early Spring 1992. Sludge disposal
will be handled in the same manner, by transportation as wet sludge, to Two Bridges
WWTP for incineration. However, the new WWTP will include ultraviolet disinfection to
replace the chlorination now practiced. The disinfected effluent is discharged to the Passaic
River.
5-29
-------
2.4.9 Warren Township
The Warren Township Sewer Authority district is divided into four (4) service areas.
Areas I and II are treated by one facility while Areas III, IV and V are treated by separate
facilities. All but the Stage III WWTP are included within the UPRB.
2.4.9.1 Warren Township Stage MI WWTP
The Warren Township Stage I-II WWTP was constructed in 1968 and used the
process of contact stabilization, a modification of the activated sludge process, to achieve
effluent limitations. The design capacity was 0.3 mgd.
The Stage I-II WWTP received an administrative consent order to upgrade to Level
4 treatment. The WWTP will have an expanded permitted capacity of 0.47 mgd and will
use activated sludge with one stage nitrification and sand filters to achieve effluent limits.
The new WWTP will include dechlorination facilities. Liquid sludge will continue to be
trucked to the Somerset-Raritan WWTP for incineration.
The construction is currently about 90 percent complete and the WWTP is in
compliance with the interim effluent limits specified in the consent order. The treatment
effluent is discharged to the Passaic River.
2.4.9J! Wan~?n Township Stage IV WWTP
The Stage IV WWTP was constructed in 1965 with a design capacity of 0J mgd and
used the contact stabilization process mentioned above for the Stage I-II WWTP. The
WWTP's capacity was expanded in 1977 to 0.45 mgd with the addition of an aerated lagoon.
Hie Stage IV WWTP is being expanded and upgraded to Level 4 treatment to a
design capacity of 0.80 mgd. The new WWTP will employ oxidation channels and sand
filters to achieve Level 4 limits and use ultraviolet disinfection to comply with chlorine
5-30
-------
residual limits. Liquid sludge is transported to the Somerset-Raritan WWTP for
incineration. Treated effluent is discharged to Pound Brook, a tributary to the Dead River.
The WWTP expansion/upgrade is approximately 50 percent complete and the WWTP
is currently in compliance with interim effluent limits specified in the WWTP's
administrative consent order.
2.4.9.3 Warren Township Stage V
The Warren Township Stage V WWTP was constructed in the early 1980's and uses
oxidation ditches and sand filters to achieve Level 4 treatment limits. Liquid sludge is
transported to the Somerset-Raritan WWTP for incineration. The WWTP is in compliance
with effluent limits and discharges treated effluent to the Dead River. The WWTP uses
chlorination and a dechlorination system is proposed to be added in the near future.
2.4.10 Park Central
The Park Central WWTP was constructed as a package WWTP to serve the Cardinal
Hill apartment complex located in Chatham Township. The WWTP employed contact
stabilization to treat up to 30,000 gpd and discharged the final effluent to the Passaic
River. The draft EIS considered the elimination of the Park Central WWTP with generated
flows being conveyed to the Chatham Township WWTP. However, the WWTP has not been
abandoned.
The Park Central WWTP was issued a consent order by NJDEP to upgrade its
facilities to Level 4 treatment. The upgrade will include the addition of a sludge digester
and holding tank, sand filters, an equalization basin, UV disinfection, and new
instrumentation. The digested sludge will be disposed of in the same manner as currently
practiced - transportation to Parsippany-Troy Hills for incineration. The terms of the
consent order required construction to be completed by May 1,1991 and full compliance
to be achieved by July 1,1991. The construction of the plant is essentially complete at this
5-31
-------
time and it is fully operational. Permit compliance was expected to be achieved by the July
1,1991 deadline.
2.4.11 Veterans Administration Medical Center
The Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center operates a YWVTP in the Lyons
section of Bernards Township. This WWTP was built in the 1930s and operated as a rapid
sand filter WWTP to achieve secondary treatment.
The draft EIS preferred alternatives would have involved the elimination of this
WWTP and would have conveyed the VA wastewater to a subregional facility for treatment.
However, prior to the completion of the draft EIS, NJDEP approved an upgrade to the
WWTP and alternatives for the VA WWTP were eliminated from further consideration. The
VA WWTP accepts waste from the VA Medical Center only.
The current WWTP is an extended aeration WWTP with a permitted capacity of 0.4
mgd, average flow and 1.0 mgd, 24-hour maximum flow. The old rapid sand filter WWTP
is idle and awaiting demolition. Liquid sludge is transported off-site for incineration.
Treated effluent is disinfected with chlorine and discharged to an unnamed tributary to the
Harrison Brook, a tributary to the Dead River. The WWTP cannot meet its chlorine
residual limits, so the disinfection process may be converted to UV disinfection.
The VA WWTP has been on-line since August 1986 and has no further construction
or expansion plans.
2.5 Project Funding
WWTP construction and modification in the UPRB were funded through federal,
state, local and private Rinding sources. Federal funds were issued through EPA's
Construction Grants Program. This program was delegated to the State of New Jersey in
phases from 1981 to 1983. In 1987, New Jersey established a revolving loan program,
5-32
-------
initially capitalized with State-only money derived from bond sales, for the purpose of
providing financial assistance for the construction of WYVTPs. This program was
subsequently capitalized with federal landing in the form of capitalization grants, beginning
in 1988. New Jersey has consolidated the SRF and State-only ftinding sources into one
program entitled the Municipal Wastewater Assistance Program. Local funding may come
from bond issues, user fees, connection fees or other sources. Table 2-3 lists the WWTPs
in the UPRB and any federal and state ftinding which they received.
TABLE 2-3
Federal and State Project Funding1
Federal or State
\VWTP
Funding Program 1
Amount
Year
Chatham Township
None
Morris Township
SRF
$14,703,510
1989
Berkeley Heights
NJL
16,122,000
1987
Bernards Township
CG
13,577,213
1981
Madison-Chatham Joint
SRF
17,997,672
1988
Meeting
None
New Providence Borough
SRF
8,702,128
1989-1990
Passaic Township
None
Warren Township
Stage MI
SRF
5,640,185
1989-1990
Stage IV
None
Stage V
None
Park Central
NA
VA Medical Center
NA
1 Source = NJDEP
2 CG = Construction Grants, SRF = State Revolving Fund, NJL = New Jersey Loan
Program, NA = Not Applicable
5-33
-------
2.6
Final EIS Regftmm
-------
New Providence Borough's WWTP has not been upgraded to Level 4 and has
consistent problems meeting its Level 3 permit limits for NBOD and carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) (NJDEP, 1990). This final EIS recommends that the
WWTP be modified so that it can consistently meet its current limits or upgraded to level
4, if appropriate. This recommendation is consistent with NJDEP compliance and
enforcement goals.
The draft EIS recommended the construction of several interceptors that would have
been needed if the preferred alternatives in the draft EIS recommending sub-regional
WWTPs were implemented. These interceptors were not built and, given the current
situation, are not needed, nor are they recommended in this final EIS.
Existing Environment in the Planning Area and Environmental Constraints
to Development
Page 3-5: WATER RESOURCES - Water Quality - Upper Passaic River
The following paragraphs and table should be added at the bottom of the page, prior
to the section on Loantaka Brook:
The NJDEP monitors water quality at three locations within the UPRB, all on the
Passaic Rivers near Millington, near Chatham, and at Two Bridges (NJDEP, 1988). The
first two of these monitoring stations are within the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan study area.
Data on water quality are used by NJDEP to compute a Water Quality Index (WQI)
that ranges from 0 to 100, with lower values indicating better water quality. For example,
an index value of 20 is equivalent to the level of water quality criteria. The indices for each
water quality variable are derived from severity curves that plot the water quality variable
versus a pollution assessment value. This methodology is a modification of a water quality
index suggested by Brown, et al. (1970) and supported by the National Sanitation
5*35
-------
Foundation. The NJDEP water quality index profile (1983-1987) for the Passaic River at
Millington and Chatham locations is shown below:
TABLE 2-5
Water Quality Index Profile
Average WQI
Millington
Chatham
Temperature
2
3
Oxygen
45
28
pH
3
2
Bacteria
22
36
Nutrients
22
36
Solids
6
12
Ammonia
0
7
Metals
6
7
Overall Average
35
44
Overall Condition
Fair
Fair
Water Quality Index Description
0-10 Excellent
11-25 Good
26-60 Fair
61-80 Poor
81*100 Veiy Poor
The NJDEP narrative description of water quality within the basin indicates that
water quality is fair near Millington and Chatham, but declines to poor water quality at
Two Bridges. The criteria showing the least desirable index values are oxygen, bacteria, and
nutrients. Near Millington and Chatham, the Passaic River is nutrient-enriched, as
evidenced by total phosphorus and total inorganic nitrogen concentrations. Phosphorus
averages 0.16 and 038 mg/1 near Millington and Chatham, respectively. Water quality
5-36
-------
conditions decline near Millington in the late spring to early summer season, possibly as
a result of non-point source influences. Near Chatham, water quality conditions decline
during summer months, likely as a result of point source influences.
Page 3-12: WATER RESOURCES
The following section should be inserted after the second paragraph:
gsnwr Water Quality Study
Comments received by EPA during the public comment/hearing period of EPA's
draft EIS for the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan repeatedly raised the issue of potential impacts
to water quality in the GSNWR resulting from discharges from WWTPs to streams
traversing the GSNWR, as well as water quality impacts that might be generated by
additions of nutrients from non-point sources. The GSWQS was developed by EPA and
NJDEP in response to these areas of concern, and was designed to provide information
regarding possible degradation of surface and/or subsurface water quality, and to assess
the possibility of accelerated eutrophication of existing bodies of water within the GSNWR.
A preliminary scope for the GSWQS was developed in 1980 by a task force of
academic and governmental water quality and wetland experts. In 1982, the NJDEP refined
the scope of the study. Project implementation began in late 1983; intensive field sampling
began in March 1984 and continued through September 1985. Some sampling efforts (e.g.,
monitoring of storm events) continued until April 1987.
The data collection effort for the GSWQS included precipitation monitoring, ground
water monitoring, and surface water monitoring. Surface water monitoring included both
automatic and grab sampling of base flows and storm flows. Fifteen locations within or
proximate to the GSNWR were sampled by grab on a monthly basis for twenty months;
grab samples included base flow (no rainfall influence) and storm flow (rainfall-influenced)
samples.
5-37
-------
Detailed descriptions of the GSWQS program elements, statistical analyses of the
GSWQS data base, and discussions of specific findings derived from the GSWQS are
presented in Appendix K of this final EIS. Other GSWQS reports present particular
aspects or applications of the study data; a full listing of the GSWQS data is presented in
the Maguire Group data report (1988), a discussion of algal bioassay results using water
from GSNWR sampling locations is presented in the Trama report (1987), and a discussion
of hydrological modeling results using GSWQS data is presented in the N^jarian report
(1988).
The GSWQS generated water quality information with significant diagnostic and
prognostic utility. The overall objective of the study was to evaluate present and future
impacts of point and non-point source loadings of nutrients to the GSNWR; the data
analyses reported in Appendix K and in the three reports cited above have disclosed
interesting and useful findings that quantify existing nutrient loadings and predict changes
in such loadings in ftiture years.
The principal findings of the GSWQS are summarized as follows:
• Effects of Point Source Discharges On Base Flow Nutrient Concentrations:
Under base flow conditions, the discharges of treated wastewater from the
Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township WWTP caused statistically
significant elevations in nutrient concentrations (orthophosphate, nitrate,
total phosphorus, and total soluble inorganic nitrogen) in their receiving
waters, Loantaka Brook and Black Brook, respectively. The principal
exception to this finding was in Loantaka Brook, where nitrate concentrations
in the brook upstream of the Morris-Woodland WWTP discharge were not
statistically different from nitrate concentrations in the brook immediately
below the WWTP discharge. Algal bioassays reported by Trama (1987)
demonstrated that the increased nutrient concentrations associated with the
WWTP discharges promoted increased algal growth in laboratory cultures.
5-38
-------
Effects of Point Source Discharges On Storm Flow Nutrient Concentrations:
Under storm flow conditions, the discharges of treated wastewater from the
Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township WWTP continued to cause
statistically significant elevations in nutrient concentrations (orthophosphate,
total phosphorus, and total soluble inorganic nitrogen) in their receiving
waters. As was the case with base flow data, nitrate concentrations
downstream of the Morris-Woodland WWTP discharge were not statistically
different from nitrate concentrations immediately above the discharge.
Influence of GSNWR on Water Quality: The influence of the GSNWR on
base flow water quality in Great Brook and Black Brook is significant and
beneficial. In general, base flow concentrations of nutrients in the brooks at
the end of the GSNWR are equal to or less than concentrations of those
nutrients at the control locations upstream of the study area (i.e., upstream
of both the GSNWR and the WWTPs). The same findings hold for storm
flow grab data.
Non-Point Source Influences on Water Quality: Analyses designed to test the
influences of non-point source runoff on water quality in the Loantaka and
Black Brooks yield ambiguous results. Storm flow concentrations of total
phosphorus, orthophosphate, and total suspended solids are not different
between locations in more developed watersheds (sampling stations 100 and
200) and locations in less developed watersheds (sampling stations 170 and
270). Nitrogenous compounds, however, do show significant elevations at
sampling locations in the more developed watersheds. Moreover, the loading
estimates for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, BOD„ and suspended solids
show orders of magnitude Increases between Stations 105 and 110 on
Loantaka Brook. Such increases cannot be directly attributed to the Morris-
Woodland WWTP, but rather appear to be the result of loadings occurring
in the reach between Stations 105 and 110. Other sampling locations
5-39
-------
apparently influenced by non-point source loadings include Station 100 and
120 (Loantaka Brook), Station 170 (Primrose Brook), and Station 270
(Middle Brook).
Future Trends in Water Quality and Quantity: Projected increases in the
development of undeveloped lands will, according to hydrological modeling,
increase the non-point source (stormwater) loadings of streams tributary to
the GSNWR, while reducing base flows available to dilute loadings from the
WWTP's discharging to those streams. Offsetting in part these adverse
trends in water quality are the proposed upgrades of the Morris-Woodland
and Chatham Township WWTP's to Level 4 treatment. Hydraulic loadings
of streams tributary to the GSNWR will increase as a greater percentage of
the watershed is developed as residential or commercial properties.
Watershed planning should integrate stormwateF management measures to
reduce potential hydraulic and constituent loading to the GSNWR from non-
point sources.
Page 3-17: WATER RESOURCES - Water Quality
The following section should be inserted after the second paragraph.
Potnt Source Pollution
Upon issuance of the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan in 1977, chlorine and ammonia
toxicity were serious problems with respect to surface waters, particularly in the Great
Swamp Sub-basin. However, since then, NJDEP has required that ten of the WWTPs within
the UPRB be upgraded to Level 4 treatment, including dechlorination.
5-40
-------
Page 3-20: WATER RESOURCES - Ground water - Sole Source Aquifer
The following paragraphs should be substituted for the paragraph at the bottom of
the page:
On May 8, 1980, EPA designated the Buried Valley Aquifer Systems of southeast
Morris and western Essex Counties as a Sole Source Aquifer (Draft EIS Figure 3-6). This
designation stipulates that all federally assisted projects constructed in the Rockaway River
Basin Area are subject to review to ensure that these projects are designed and constructed
without a significant hazard to public health. Two communities within the TJPRB, Madison
and Chatham Boroughs, are wholly dependent on this aquifer system for their water supply.
In addition, the Commonwealth Water Company (CWC) derives more than one half of its
water from well fields which tap aquifer systems located outside the study area.
On January 12, 1983, EPA issued a final determination stating that the
Unconsolidated Quaternary Aquifer, in the Rockaway River Area, New Jersey, was a Sole
Source Aquifer. This determination extended the Sole Source Aquifer designation to
another major component of the ground water resources of northern New Jersey.
Page 3-23: WATER RESOURCES - Water Supply - Sole Source Aquifer
The following should be inserted after the first paragraph:
The Buried Valley Aquifer Systems are especially important to the GSNWR because
of the GSNWR's high evapotranspiration rate in the summer when both surface and ground
water storage are significantly depleted. Reducing the recharge of the aquifer by allowing
more impervious cover within the watershed overlying the aquifer threatens both the Buried
Valley Aquifer Systems and the GSNWR. New development may reduce the amount of
recharge and increase the amount of withdrawal.
5-41
-------
Page 3-25: ECOSYSTEMS - Aquatic
Immediately under Aquatic, the following section should be inserted:
Wetlands
In 1978, passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) gave the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACE) sole regulatoiy authority over freshwater wetland areas. Nine years later,
in 1987, the State of New Jersey passed the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA)
(NJ.SA. 13:9B-1 et. seq.), requiring a permit from the NJDEP for most activities which
alter or disturb land or water In or around freshwater wetland areas, and for the discharge
of dredged material into State Open Waters. Exemptions from applicability include
activities permitted under the Act's "grandfather" clauses.
The requirements of the FWPA are more restrictive than those of the CWA
administered by the ACE and overseen by EPA. Therefore, compliance with the FWPA
effectively ensures compliance with the CWA, without obviating the need for an ACE permit.
However, the ACE and NJDEP have officially agreed that wetland delineations made or
confirmed by the NJDEP are acceptable to the ACE. These determinations are used in part
to determine the applicability of the "nationwide permit" which allows the placement of fill
in wetlands less than one acre in size. The intended result is that if the NJDEP confirms
that less than one acre of wetland is to be filled, and the developer abides by the conditions
and best management practices (BMPs) included in the nationwide permit, no contact with
the ACE is required. Effective July 1,1988, individuals proposing to engage in a regulated
activity in a freshwater wetland or State Open Water must obtain one or more of the
following permits from the NJDEP Division of Coastal Resources: a Statewide General
Permit, an Individual Freshwater Wetlands Permit, an Open Water Fill Permit, or a Water
Quality Certification.
Areas up to 50 feet and 150 feet adjacent to wetlands of intermediate and exceptional
5-42
-------
resource value, respectively, are termed "transition" areas. Effective July 1, 1989,
individuals proposing to engage in regulated activities in transition areas must obtain a
transition area waiver from the NJDEP.
Page 3-25: ECOSYSTEMS - Aquatic
After the section on wetlands and prior to the sentence 'Trout are the most
sensitive ..." a sub-heading entitled Wildlife should be inserted.
Page 3-29: ECOSYSTEMS - Threatened and Endangered Species
The following paragraph should be inserted after the third paragraph:
More recently, in 1990, the NJDEP Natural Heritage Program published a list of
rare species and natural communities. The following table includes the threatened and
endangered species of the area within the Great Swamp Sub-basin,
5-43
-------
TABLE 2-6
Rare Species and Natural Communities in tbe
Great Swamp Sub-basin
Quadrangle Name
Common Name
Federal Status
State Status
Bernardsville
Blue-spotted salamander
Endangered
Henslow's sparrow
-
Endangered
Grasshopper sparrow
-
Threatened/Endangered
Great blue heron
.
Threatened
Willow-leaved aster
-
Endangered
Wood turtle
-
Threatened
Bog turtle
Rare
Endangered
Bobolink
-
Threatened
Longtail salamander
-
Threatened
Red-beaded woodpecker
-
Threatened
Downy phlox
-
Endangered
Barred owl
-
Threatened
Chatham
Blue-spotted salamander
Endangered
Great blue heron
-
Threatened
Variable sedge
May be listed in future
Endangered
Sedge wren
-
Endangered
Wood turtle
-
threatened
Bog turtle
Rare
Endangered
Longtail salamander
-
Threatened
Featherfoil
-
Endangered
Red-headed woodpecker
-
Threatened
Virginia bunchflower
-
Endangered
Long-awned smoke grass
-
Endangered
Downy phlox
-
Endangered
Southern arrow head
-
Endangered
Lace-lip ladies' tresses
-
Endangered
Purr-sheathed dropseed
-
Endangered
Barred owl
-
Threatened
Narrow-leaved tinker's-weed
-
Endangered
Canada violet
-
Endangered
Morristown
Cooper's hawk
_
Endangered
Blue-spotted salamander
-
Endangered
Grasshopper sparrow
-
Threatened/Declining
Bog rosemary
-
Endangered
Redbud
-
Endangered
Sedge wren
-
Endangered
Wood turtle
-
Threatened
Bog turtle
Rare
Endangered
Longtail salamander
-
Threatened
Virginia bunchflower
-
Endangered
Three birds orchid
•
Endangered
Mendham
American bittern
m
Threatened
Wood turtle
-
Threatened
Bog turtle
Rare
Endangered
1
Swamp pink
i ii..... #i". -¦ .. JJUu
Threatened
Endangered
5-44
-------
Page 3-43: LAND USE - Residential
The following paragraphs should be inserted in place of the first two paragraphs of
this section:
Of the total 16,860 net hectares (ha) (41,660 net acres) zoned for residential
purposes in the UPRB, approximately half have been developed (Draft EIS Table 3-15).
(A net hectare is a gross hectare less the area required for streets.) Similarly, of the total
11,150 acres zoned residential in the Great Swamp Sub-basin, about 5,615 acres or 50
percent have been developed. Basinwide, approximately 90 percent of the 29,095 existing
housing units (hu) in 1975 were one- and two-family homes and the majority of the
remaining units constituted two- and three-story garden apartments and townhouses. The
largest residential concentrations are in the UPRB's eastern sector.
Over two decades, the character of housing in terms of density and type of
construction has not changed considerably. Between 1968 and 1978, approximately 97
percent of all housing units constructed in the UPRB have been single-family homes
(NJDLI, 1976-1977); nearly all new housing units constructed since 1977 in the Great
Swamp Sub-basin have also been single-family homes. Because of the requirements for
relatively large minimum size building lots under zoning in the UPRB area, development
densities have historically equalled densities permitted under each municipality's zoning
regulations. The highest average densities, roughly 62 to 11.4 hu/ha (2.5 to 4.6 hu/a), are
found in the eastern portion of the UPRB (Table 3-16). Average densities in the remaining
sections of the area are significantly less.
Page 3-43: LAND USE - Commercial
The following sentence should be inserted after the first sentence of the first
paragraph:
5-45
-------
Within the Great Swamp Sub-basin, approximately 47 percent of the total 473 acres
of commercially zoned land was developed by 1980.
Page 3-44: LAND USE - Industrial
The following should be inserted as the second paragraph under this section:
As of 1980, industrial development in the Great Swamp Sub-basin, consisting
predominantly of industrial office and research laboratory facilities, occupied approximately
49 acres. This figure constituted about 100 percent of the area's industrially zoned land.
Page 3-44: LAND USE - Transportation and Utilities
The following should be substituted for the paragraph in this section:
The entire street network, including interstate highways 78 and 287 accounts for
about seven percent or 1,990 ha (4,940 a) of the UPRB's total land; about 43 percent of this
acreage or 856 ha (2,114 a) is in the Great Swamp Sub-basin. Land within railroad and
utility corridors amounts to an additional 230 ha (560 a).
Page 3-47: LAND USE
The following sections should be inserted at the bottom of the page:
The Preliminary State Development and Redevelopment Plan
The State Planning Act (NJ.S.A. 52:18A-16 et al.) became law January 2,1986. This
Act stipulated the preparation of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (the
Plan) by the New Jersey State Planning Commission (SPC). A preliminary three-volume
description of the guidelines, strategies and goals of the Plan was issued in 1988. The
process outlined in the Plan has not been completed and remains in the preliminary stage.
5-46
-------
The purpose of the Plan is to develop an organized assessment of the numerous
growth changes affecting the state. As New Jersey becomes more populated, social,
economic, and environmental changes have created the need for goals and strategies to be
implemented within the next five to ten years.
The Preliminary Plan is developed on a "tier system" that is based on levels of
government needed to maintain public service efficiency and environmental quality goals.
The preliminaiy New Jersey growth management system has seven tiers. The tiers were
developed based on sewerage availability, and proximity to high quality watersheds and
potable watersheds. Four of the tiers include urban and suburban areas that have basic
public services, or plans for them. Three of the tiers include suburban and rural areas
without these services, and without plans for providing them within the planning period.
At the present time, the Plan is in the final stages of the cross-acceptance program.
This cross-acceptance process is a statewide involvement in the Plan whereby municipalities
share with their respective counties their recommendations and objections to the
Preliminaiy Plan. Errors in mapping of tier boundaries are identified according to
delineation criteria set forth in the Plan. Each county is to submit a written report to the
state identifying preferred tier boundaries and designations and how such areas conform
with Plan strategies and policies. It is this cross-acceptance stage which Union, Somerset
and Morris Counties are presently completing.
In addition to the current cross-acceptance negotiations, the SPC has expressed the
possibility of changing the Tier designations to Policy Areas, and avoiding Her lines which
may be arbitrary or subjective. An interim Cross-Acceptance State Planning Report
addressing these issues will be published by the SPC in 1991.
5-47
-------
USFWS Master Plan for GSNWR
The USFWS administers the GSNWR, a wetland tract that dominates the central
portion of the UPRB. In 1987, the USFWS issued a final EIS on the Master Plan for the
GSNWR, discussing alternatives and recommended management plans for the refuge.
The USFWS final EIS addresses a comprehensive land use plan, setting forth long-
term (10 to 20 year) objectives for resource management and public use of the refuge. Four
alternatives were evaluated: (1) a no-action alternative continuing the current management
practices and levels of public use; (2) the recommended alternative emphasizing wetland
and upland habitat improvement; (3) a public use alternative expanding options for public
access and wildlife education; and (4) a wildlife management alternative restricting access
to the refuge and intensifying midlife management activities, particularly for woodcock and
waterfowl.
The recommended alternative emphasizes the preservation and protection of
important freshwater wetland and upland habitats for resident and migratory wildlife
species. Refuge management would emphasize habitat improvement and protection,
environmental education and interpretation, and a range of wildlife-oriented recreational
activities. Among the specific management plans identified under the recommended
alternative were studies to farther the understanding of the hydrology of the GSNWR and
to design a water management program that would maximize wetland habitat diversity
while minimizing flooding of non-refuge lands.
Three large pools are maintained within the GSNWR by water control structures.
The recommended alternative would add to this the installation of ditch plugs in the Black
Brook Acquisition Area, thus permitting the restoration of natural wetland habitat in
depressions that had been previously drained. Restored water levels would not exceed those
of historical natural water levels and would not cause flooding of non-refuge lands. Water
quality monitoring would be continued to expand understanding of the determinants of
water quality changes in the GSNWR watershed.
5-48
-------
Local Stormwater Management. Critical Features, and EIS Ordinances and Requirements
In the 1980s, many New Jersey municipalities developed and implemented ordinances
that restrict development in critical areas. Property developers are required to identify
wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, hydric soils and other constraining features on site
plans; in some cases, the density of development is determined on prorated net acreage
remaining after subtraction of critical area acreages. Stormwater management
requirements are often strictly regulated at the municipal level; the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection has promoted the development of sound municipal stormwater
management ordinances by establishing a grant program to sponsor the development of
such ordinances, and by providing a generic ordinance to guide municipalities in the
development of such guidelines. Finally, many New Jersey municipalities have adopted
ordinances regulating the preparation and contents of EISs that must accompany
applications for site development. The following table presents a matrix indicating the
types of local ordinances or requirements currently observed by municipalities in the UPRB
201 Facilities Plan study area.
Page 3-50: POPULATION - Population Ceilings - (1) Average Household Size
The following paragraph should be added to the end of the first paragraph at the top
of the page:
Since the late 1970s, average household sizes continued to decline in the region. The
documented decline is greater than projected in draft EIS Table 3-18. For example, the
mean household size in 1980 and 1987 for Bernards Township was 3.14 and 2.97,
respectively, whereas the draft ElS-projected figures for 1975 and 1990 were 3.50 and 3.43,
respectively. Similarly, the median household size in 1980 for Berkeley Heights was 3.20,
representing a decline of 0.13 more than the 1990 projection in the draft EIS.
5-49
-------
Page 3-53: ECONOMICS - Employment and Income
The following sentence should be added to the end of the third paragraph:
By 1980, median household incomes for Chatham, Harding and Morris Townships
had risen io $40,594, $39,121, and $40,000, respectively-an average 100 percent increase
since 1970.
Page 3-54: ECONOMICS - Public Sendees
The following should be substituted for the third paragraph:
Several municipalities have experienced declining school enrollment and have
reduced facilities. Consequently, increases in enrollment could be absorbed with little or
no additional expenditures.
The only municipalities planning for school expansion are Chatham Township, as
well as Bernards and Passaic townships. In 1987, the schools of Chatham Township
regionalized and merged with the schools of Chatham Borough. As a result of this merger,
the schools of Chatham Township currently (December 1990) are at capacity. The school
district is presently building additions to accommodate the students acquired during the
merger, even though they sold one school building after the merger. The current census
figures are projected to show a decline within the next five years. Therefore, the school
district believes the new additions will be more than adequate for the foreseeable future.
5-50
-------
TABLE 2-7
Matrix of Municipal Ordinances or Provisions
Promoting Sound Environmental Management Practices
Location
Stormwater
Critical Areas
EIS
Berkeley Heights
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bernards Township
Yes
Yes
No
Bernardsville Borough
No
No
No
Chatham Borough
(a)
Yes
No
Chatham Township
Yes
Yes
Yes
Harding Township
Yes
Yes
Yes
Madison Borough
Yes
No
Yes
Mendham Borough
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mendham Township
(b)
Yes
Yes
Morris Township
Yes
Yes
Yes
Morristown
(b)
Yes
Yes
New Providence
Yes
No
No
Passaic Township
No
Yes
No
Summit
Yes
No
Yes
Warren Township
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note: Information in matrix was obtained by telephone calls to municipal officials
(a) Ordinance in adoption process
(b) Morris County Stormwater Management Technical Guide In process of completion
Page 3-55: LAND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS - Effects on the Supply of Land -
Flood Prone Areas
The following paragraphs should be substituted for this section:
Approximately 1,900 ha (4,700 a) of undeveloped residentially zoned land in the
UPRB are situated in flood prone areas. Additionally 200 ha (500 a) of industrially zoned
undeveloped land also He in designated floodplains.
5-51
-------
Within the Great Swamp Sub-basin, approximately 4,700 acres, or 22 percent, of
Harding and Morris Townships are considered flood prone. Nearly 33 percent falls within
the 100 year flood boundaiy while an additional three percent falls within the 500 year
flood boundaiy. The GSNWR comprises most of this flood prone area. The following table
shows both the 100 year and the 500 year flood prone areas for these townships. Acreages
and percentages were based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). (FIRM maps were
not available for Chatham Township.)
A May 1977 Federal Executive Order (11988) directed the avoidance of floodplain
development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Further, because of the serious
flood hazard associated with these areas, as well as the additional floodproofing costs
related to structural and grading modifications, mortgage lending institutions and builders
are more likely to favor investment in and development of sites outside the floodplains.
Therefore, the flood prone areas have been excluded from the developable lands of the
UPRB (Draft EIS Table 3-20).
Page 3-58: LAND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS - Effects on the Supply of Land -
Wetlands
The following should be substituted for this section:
The ACE and EPA jointly define wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas." Wetlands are excluded from development in this analysis because of
their environmental sensitivity. In the UPRB, wetlands are predominantly found within the
GSNWR and the along the Black Brook addition to the GSNWR. These areas coincide
with flood prone and parkland areas (Draft EIS Figures 3-1, 3-9). Consequently,
elimination of potential development acreages within these areas has already been included
5-52
-------
in the analysis.
TABLE 2-8
Flood Acreages for Great Swamp Sub-basin1
Township
Stream
100 Year Flood
500 Year Flood
Total
Percent
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
Morris2
Great Brook
12
<1
26
<1
<1
Morris
Whippany River/
Watnong Brook
12
<1
3
<1
<1
Morris
Whippany River
124
4
7
<1
4
Morris
Loantaka Brook
14
<1
1
<1
<1
Harding
Loantaka Brook
37
<1
0
<1
<1
Harding
Great Swamp
3352
30
6
<1
30
Harding
Primrose Brook
2
<1
20
<1
<1
Harding
Silver Brook
78
<1
24
<1
<1
Harding
Primrose Brook/
Passaic River
237
2
89
<1
3
Harding
Silver Brook/
Great Brook
202
2
29
<1
2
TOTAL ACRES AND
PERCENT OF
FLOODPLAINS
5332
33
412
3
40
Total Acreage of Morris and Harding Townships -15,960
Percent of Morris and Harding Townships that is floodplain - 36%
Source: Flood Insurance Rate Map, Morris Township, 1981.
Flood Insurance Rate Map, Harding Township, 1982.
1 Flood Insurance Rate Map for Chatham Township unavailable.
1 Only includes Morris County served by Morris-Woodland WWTP.
5-53
-------
Wetlands within the Great Swamp Sub-basin have been divided into five separate
categories. These categories are forested, emergent, scrub shrub, open water, and riparian
(stream banks). Wetlands in these five categories comprise approximately 7,300 acres or
33 percent of the Great Swamp Sub-basin as indicated in the table below.
TABLE 2-9
Wetland Acres in Great Swamp Sub-basin
Quadrangle
Forested
Emergent
Scrub Shrub
Open
Water
Riparian
Mendham and Morristown
745
26
49
67
4
Bernardsville
958
208
60
33
0
Chatham
4,119
365
622
64
2
Total
5,822
599
731
164
6
Percent of Great Swamp Sub-
basin
26
3
3
<1
<1
Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI Map, Morristown, 1976.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI Map, Mendham, 1976.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI Map, Bernardsville, 1976.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NWI Map, Chatham, 1976.
Page 3-58: LAND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS - Effects on the Supply of Land
The following section should be inserted immediately after the section on Wetlands:
Hydric Soils
Hydric soils in New Jersey are divided into three groups, each group with slightly
different criteria. The following table lists the three groups and their definitions:
5-54
-------
TABLE 2-10
Hydric Soils
Group
Definition
1
Soils that nearly always display
consistent hydric conditions.
2
Soils displaying consistent hydric
conditions in most places, but
additional verification is needed.
3
Soils displaying hydric conditions
in few places and additional
verification is needed.
Source: NJDEP, New Jersey Hydric Soils, 1987.
Hydric soils within the UPRB are primarily located within the GSNWR or along
stream banks. Hydric soils as a separate entity usually are not a constraining factor,
however, if hydric soils are found in conjunction with hydrophytic vegetation or wetlands
hydrology, then the area may be determined to be a wetland. Field verification is needed
to accurately determine whether hydric soils are found in the wetland. The presence of
hydric soils by itself on a site does not necessarily identify and delineate an area as a
wetland or preclude development. Therefore, hydric soils are not considered a constraining
factor in this report.
Page 3-61: LAND USE PLAN CONSTRAINTS - Effects on Supply of Land
The following should be added onto the first sentence of the third paragraph in this
section:
.. .for public use, such as the federally-owned 4,600 acre GSNWR.
5-55
-------
Page 3-66: LAND USE PLAN CONSTRAINTS - Current Litigation
The following should be inserted in place of the second paragraph of this section:
Since the court ruling, the New Jersey Fair Share Housing Act of 1985 (NJ.SA.
52:27D-301) was adopted. It requires each municipality to submit a housing plan to the
state which provides for the municipality's fair share of regional low and moderate income
housing needs.
Status of the litigation, with respect to the UPRB municipalities, is as follows:
Hie Chatham Township suit was settled in 1983, but the township was sued
again by a developer in 1985 for exclusionary zoning. Settlement was
achieved in 1986 through submission of a housing plan to the state and
adoption of inclusionaiy zoning.
The Harding Township and Madison Borough suits were dropped in 1983,
since they were not considered priority areas for expansion of low and
moderate income housing. Since then, both municipalities submitted housing
plans to the state.
The Morris Township suit was settled in 1984 through adoption of
inclusionary zoning and development of 535 low and moderate income
housing units.
• The Passaic Township suit was dropped since a housing plan was submitted
to the state; the plan was approved in 1988 and subsequently implemented.
5-56
-------
It is recognized that each community is responsible for guiding its growth and
development by means of a local zoning ordinance and master plan. As part of this
process, consideration should be given to possible additional water and sewer demands
created by low and moderate income housing developments. The EPA policy to protect
environmentally critical areas is intended to encourage a restriction on development in
those areas. It is not, however, a policy judgment or, or support for, the present zoning in
non-critical areas.
Page 3-71: WATER SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS - Safe Yield/Ground Water
Recharpe
The following phrase should be inserted in the last sentence of this section:
By controlling the development of large expanses of impervious surfaces, the recharge
capabilities of the residual soils overlying the Brunswick Formation will be preserved, and
it is expected that the aquifers, including the Buried Valley Aquifer Systems, will be
sufficient to meet self-supply water needs (Draft EIS Table 3-26).
Page 3-75: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH - 5. Soils
The second sentence should be revised as follows:
The UPRB soils are predominantly unsuitable or only marginally suitable for septic systems,
with the exception of Harding Township, Berkeley Heights and New Providence, due to high
water tables, proximity to bedrock, and low soil permeability.
Page 3-80: PHASING FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH - Population
Projections
The following paragraphs should be added after the last sentence:
5-57
-------
Since 1981, additional population data have been generated for the municipalities
in the UPRB and are included for comparison to examine the accuracy of the EIS Year
2000 Constrained Population (Draft EIS Table 3-29).
The region continued to experience a veiy slight increase in population, with the
greatest increase in Bernards Township. However, between 1980 and 1988, the populations
of Morris Township, Morristown, and Madison have stabilized, and both Bernardsville and
Chatham Borough have experienced a decline in population.
In 1986, the Passaic River Coalition report on the Buried Vaiiey Aquifer Systems
provided population estimates for these municipalities for the year 2000. The most recent
demographic data are 1988 provisional population estimates provided by the New Jersey
Department of Labor and Industry. The 1980 Census population counts, the 1988
provisional estimates, the EIS Year 2000 population projections (where available), and the
Passaic River Coalition Year 2000 population projections are shown in the following table.
At least to the year 1988, no municipality has shown a trend in population change that
would invalidate the population projections presented and used in the UPRB 201 Facilities
Plan and presented in Table 3-29 of the draft EIS.
5-58
-------
TABLE 2-11
Matrix of Population Counts, Estimates,
and Projections for UPRB Municipalities
Location
1980 Census (a)
1988 Estimate (b)
2000 Projected (c)
2000 Projected (d)
Berkeley Heights
Township
12,549
12,644
13,216
13,100
Bernards Township
12,920
18,830
17320
21,000
Bernardsville Borough
6,715
6,466
NA
7,900
Chatham Borough
8,537
8,101
9,150
9^80
Chatham Township
8,883
9,323
10^0
11,960
Harding Township
3,236
3,633
NA
4,680
Madison Borough
15,357
15,353
15390
16,054
Mendham Borough
4,899
5,163
NA
7,332
Mendham Township
4,488
4,566
NA
7,280
Morris Township *
18,486
19,629
21,138
24352
Morristown
16,614
16,517
NA
17,160
New Providence Borough
12,426
12,065
12,960
12,100
Passaic Township
7,275
7,706
9^40
9360
Summit
21,071
20,643
NA
23300
Warren Township
9305
10,552
9379
14300
TOTAL
163,261
171,191
NA
184,920
(a) 1980 census Information (New Jersey Department of Labor, 1989)
(b) 1988 provisional estimates (New Jersey Department of Labor, 1989)
(c) Projected Year 2000 populations used for wastewater flow analysis (includes persons in group quarters) (EPA,
1981)
(d) Projected Year 2000 populations in Burted Valley Aquifer Systems (Passaic River Coalition, 1986)
NA Projection not included
* Morris Township EPA estimate extrapolated from 40 to 100% of municipality
5-59
-------
Environmental Impacts of Feasible Alternatives
Page 4-5: SHORT TERM IMPACTS - Surface Water Quality
The following should be substituted for the third paragraph of this section:
Erosion may be minimized or avoided by strict adherence to a soil erosion and
sedimentation control plan which is typically enforced by the municipality and the County
Soil Conservation District (SCD). Control measures may include installing water diversion
structures, diversion ditches, hay bales and sedimentation basins, netting, mulching, seeding
or sodding to provide temporary protection, particularly on soil stockpiles, preserving
existing vegetation, and promptly restoring disturbed areas.
Page 4-6: SHORT TERM IMPACTS - Surface Water Quality
The following should be added after the last paragraph of this section:
During construction, all of the existing treatment facilities will remain operational.
No inadequately treated wastewater will be discharged to the surface waters of the basin.
Page 4-6: SHORT TERM IMPACTS - Short Term Impacts
The following should be inserted prior to the section on Terrestrial and Aquatic
Ecosystems:
Grownd Water Quality and Supply
Construction of the facilities to upgrade water treatment may require dewatering of
excavated areas. This will cause a localized and temporary depression of ground water,
potentially affecting the stability of structures adjacent to the construction area. If
dewatering is deemed necessary, the stability of adjacent structures will be determined and
monitored. Control structures (e.g., settling basins) will be used to remove sediment from
pumped ground water prior to the water being discharged. This will minimize adverse
5-60
-------
impacts resulting from siltation of nearby surface waters and/or wetlands. Ground water
levels will return to normal following completion of construction activities.
Page 4-8: SHORT TERM IMPACTS - Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems
The following should be inserted prior to the last paragraph of this section:
The proposed construction at the Morris-Woodland WWTP will be located
principally on upland areas within the existing WWTP site. Approximately 0.25 acres of
wetland will be filled to provide space sufficient to accommodate the proposed construction.
Due to the limited amount of available space, it is not possible to construct the proposed
facilities without encroaching on a portion of the wetland areas on the site. The wetlands
peripheral to the 0.25 acres to be filled will be protected from construction-related impacts
by soil erosion and sedimentation control measures. The NJDEP Division of Coastal
Resources has determined that a permit for this activity is not required.
The Morris-Woodland WWTP site and surrounding area has been identified as
potential habitat for the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta). a species listed as threatened in
New Jersey. To prevent individual turtles from being damaged by construction activities,
a silt fence will be used to enclose the entire construction area. Further, the entire
construction zone will be surveyed weekly between March 15 and November 15 for the
presence of turtles. NJDEP will be notified of any turtle(s) found in the construction area
and direct the appropriate actions to relocate them.
The wetlands surrounding the Chatham Township WWTP site may provide habitat
for the blue-spotted salamander (Ambvstoma lateraie). The salamander will not be
impacted because no structures will be placed in the wetlands. There will also be a 75 foot
buffer zone around the wetland, and construction areas will be clearly delineated and
fenced to keep construction activity out of the wetlands.
5-61
-------
Page 4-8: SHORT TERM IMPACTS
The following should be inserted prior to the section on Cultural Resources:
FlQQflplaiws
Several structures and outfalls will be placed in the 100-year floodplain. The NJDEP
Division of Coastal Resources has issued stream encroachment permits for this activity.
Included in the permit are requirements for facility design to protect property and provide
for public safety in the event of flooding.
Page 4-14: LONG TERM PRIMARY IMPACTS - Surface Water Quality
The following should replace the first paragraph:
The use of alternative disinfection processes, such as UV disinfection, or
dechlorination facilities at the WWTPs within the UPRB will greatly reduce adverse impacts
caused by the discharge of chlorine residual into receiving streams. These facilities are
currently on-line at the Berkeley Heights, Bernards Township, Madison-Chatham Joint
Meeting, and Warren Township Stage I-II and IV WWTPs. These facilities are scheduled
to be included at the Chatham Township, Morris-Woodland, New Providence Borough,
Passaic Township, Warren Township Stage V, Park Central, and VA Medical Center
WWTPs in the future.
Page 4-14: LONG TERM PRIMARY IMPACTS - Surface Water Quality
The third paragraph should be replaced with the following:
The water quality in Loantaka Pond will be enhanced by the removal of phosphorous
and oxygen-demanding materials when the upgraded facilities at the Morris-Woodland
5-62
/
-------
WWTP come on-line.
Page 4-14: LONG TERM PRIMARY IMPACTS - Surface Water Quality
Thf following should be inserted after the third paragraph:
Adherence to the effluent limitations will have a beneficial impact on water quality
in Loantaka Brook, Black Brook and the Passaic River. The bases for these projected
improvements are the data from the GSWQS, through which the influences of the Morris-
Woodland and Chatham Township WWTPs on surface water quality in their receiving
waters were quantified.
Page 4-14: LONG TERM PRIMARY IMPACTS
The following should be inserted prior to the section on Flooding:
Ground Water Quality
With the exception of the NJDOT-Harding Rest Stop WWTP, the operation of the
WWTPs as planned or upgraded will have no significant long-term impacts to the ground
water resources of the area. The continued operation of the NJDOT WWTP will impact
ground water resources in the summer months (April 15 • October 15) when the spray
irrigation fields are in operation. However, the quantity of effluent treated is very low and
it is treated to secondary standards with some nutrient removal, so the impacts of this
operation are expected to be minimal.
4-21: LONG TERM SECONDARY IMPACTS - Surface Water Resources
The following should be substituted for this section:
5-63
-------
Population growth and associated land development can cause an increase in the
amount of stormwater runoff and thus affect water quality in two ways:
Increased stormwater runoff may lead to more flooding by causing rapid and
higher t"tal rises in receiving surface water levels than would normally be
experienced with similar storms under pre-development conditions. The
expected change in flood flows for several critical locations in the UPRB are
shown in draft EIS Table 4-6.
Greater stormwater runoff can also cause an increase in non-point source
(NPS) pollution loading of suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus, as
well as pesticides, fertilizers, toxic metals, oil and grease and other pollutants
from developed areas to surface water resources. The expected increase in
suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus to the GSNWR and the Upper
Passaic River is shown in draft EIS Table 4-7. This analysis is based on the
projected increase in impervious surface area.
The decrease in stormwater infiltration resulting from increased stormwater runoff also
prevents stormwater from recharging the ground water resources and soils, and reduces the
vegetative cover effectiveness from "naturally treating" the runoff. This natural treatment
includes uptake of nutrients by WWTPs and removal of pollutants in the ground by
mechanisms such as absorption and interception by the soils.
In the Northeast New Jersey Water Quality Management Plan (NJDEP, 1976), the
major documented sources of NPS pollution were the residential sector for suspended
solids, and organic soils and swamps for oxygen demanding materials (BOD). Phosphorus
and nitrogen for the total Upper Passaic basin (an area larger than the UPRB) originated
principally from point sources, with 90 percent of the phosphorus and 87 percent of the
nitrogen loads coming from point sources.
5-64
-------
The implementation of stormwater management techniques can prevent NPS
pollution to varying degrees. Of particular importance are techniques to prevent
degradation of the study area's water quality that are also referred to as BMPs. A BMP
is defined as a practice, or combination of practices, that is determined to be the most
effective practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by
non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.
Historically, the regulation and implementation of stormwater management,
including the use of BMPs, has been the responsibility of state and local governments.
Section I of Appendix L summarizes the regulations promulgated by the State of New Jersey
to address stormwater management. The Morris County SCD should be consulted
regarding proper control of erosion and soil loss. The SCD should also be consulted when
control measures are planned.
Because of the concern over the declining water quality in the GSNWR, much
attention has been given to the stormwater-related NPS pollution in the Great Swamp Sub-
basin including the potential impact of increased development in the upstream watershed
areas. In order to evaluate these effects, a study of the nutrient dynamics of the GSNWR
was proposed to examine the need for nutrient removal at the Morris-Woodland and
Chatham Township WWTPs and the feasibility of controls on NPS nutrients coming into
the GSNWR (see Appendix E).
Though studies to date have not been conclusive, in general, the UPRB has been
considered a non-point source of pollution that contributes to the degraded water quality
in downstream receiving waters. Of particular concern are nutrients and fecal coliform
bacteria being transported by stormwater runoff. The most recent water quality project to
be proposed for the Great Swamp Sub-basin is an improvement project to be authorized
for funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Inducted in the objectives of this
proposed project is the determination of the sources, amounts, and rates of NPS pollution
5-65
-------
and the development of a watershed management plan to reduce, prevent, and remedy the
problems through a cost-sharing program.
Section II of Appendix L includes a summary of stormwater management practices
recommended for mitigating the potential impacts of increased stormwater runoff resulting
from increased development in a watershed. These practices should be considered for
implementation in the UPRB as part of management plans and municipal ordinances as
per state regulations. If the proposed improvement project concerning NPS pollution is
fiinded, its findings should be incorporated into both existing and new local stormwater
management plans and ordinances.
Page 4-24: LONG TERM SECONDARY IMPACTS - Aquatic Ecosystems
The following should be added on the end of the paragraph:
More specifically, wetlands of the GSNWR will benefit from the operation of the upgraded
treatment facilities due to the removal of nutrients that could otherwise lead to excessive
algal growth in the GSNWR.
Page 4-25: LONG TERM SECONDARY IMPACTS - Land Use
The first paragraph of this section should be re-structured as follows:
The provision of wastewater treatment facilities is not anticipated to result in long-
term areawide growth patterns which differ significantly from those likely to occur without
the facilities. However, if these facilities are expanded and permitted beyond their currently
permitted capacities, as could occur with Chatham Township and Morris-Woodland
WWTPs, some land use conversion may take place. To control development, the affected
municipalities should use local zoning to specify the type of development desired in a given
area.
5-66
-------
Page 4-25: LONG TERM SECONDARY IMPACTS - Land Use
The following should be inserted at the bottom of the page:
These long-term, secondary impacts relate to growth impacts such as increased
development, increased impervious area, and increased real estate values. With the
elimination of interceptor construction from the preferred alternative, the secondary
impacts are reduced.
Page 4-26: LONG TERM SECONDARY IMPACTS - Protection of Sensitive Areas
The following should be substituted for this section:
Environmentally sensitive areas (e,g., floodplains, wetlands) In the UPRB were
identified in Chapter 3 of the draft EIS. It is EPA's policy that these areas be protected
to the maximum extent possible. This protection can be afforded by restricting the types
and magnitudes of actions that will be permitted in these areas; by stipulating the types of
management measures that are required to control potential environmental impacts in and
around these areas; or by subjecting these areas to more rigorous analysis and review of
all major proposed actions. Additional methods include:
Zoning and community master plans: Zoning and land use planning is
controlled at the local level. Communities can rezone environmentally
sensitive areas to preclude or restrict development. To accommodate future
population growth, communities can implement transfer of development
rights to allow for higher density development in non-sensitive areas.
• Sizing and location of facilities: The facilities proposed have been located so
as to minimize the impact to any sensitive areas. In addition, in order to
5-61
-------
improve water quality in the UPRB and to help protect the GSNWR, sewer
service should not be extended into areas designated as environmentally
constrained (Draft EIS Figure 3-9).
Further, no sewer service will be provided to serve future development within wetlands or
the 100-year floodplain in the UPRB, unless specifically approved by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.
Recent regulations have greatly increased the protection of sensitive areas in the
UPRB. As a result, the proposed upgrades of the WWTPs can be implemented without
significant secondary impacts on wetlands, floodplains, or other environmentally sensitive
areas.
List of Preparers
The following names should be added to the list of preparers:
William Lawler, P.E. Chief, Environmental Analysis Section
Environmental Impacts Branch
EPA Region II
C. Maeve Arthars Environmental Scientist
Environmental Impacts Branch
EPA Region II
Thomas Rachford, Ph.D., P.E. Project Administrator
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
5-68
-------
Michael Friedman
Project Administrator
EcolSciences, Inc.
Andrew Paszkowski, AJ.C.P.
David Bell, Ph.D.
Heather Himmelberger, P.E.
Philip Klotz
Project Manager
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Project Manager
EcolSciences, Inc.
Environmental Engineer
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Environmental Planner/Scientist
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
5-69
-------
CHAPTER 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
-------
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introdiiction
Prior to delegation of the Construction Grants Program to the State of New Jersey,
EPA applied special conditions as appropriate to the grants issued under the program. The
recommendations made in this EIS will be reviewed by the NJDEP and incorporated into
the State Water Management Plan currently being developed. In addition, the
recommendations will be considered when issuing NJPDES permits, and awarding state
grants and loans. This chapter outlines the recommendations that EPA believes are most
important for the protection of the environment of the UPRB.
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
The recommendations listed below are based on the extensive efforts conducted
throughout the EIS process. It is the responsibility of the State of New Jersey, a county soil
conservation district (SCD), or a municipality to implement these recommendations, as
appropriate, to the extent of the state's, SCD's, or municipality's authority to do so.
The data gathered in the GSWQS were sufficient to show the impact of the
point source discharges from the Chatham Township and Morris-Woodland
WWTPs on the GSNWR. The status of the WWTPs operating within the
UPRB has been reviewed as part of this final EIS. The recommendations
with regard to the WWTPs can be found on Table ES-2. Moreover, those
data indicated that substantial non-point source loadings are entering certain
reaches of brooks tributary to the GSNWR. Continued study on a scaled-
down basis, such as that presented in the USFWS Master Plan for the
GSNWR and in the Non-point Source Pollution Project for the Great Swamp
Watershed proposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is
6-1
-------
recommended; such continuing study can refine the identification and
characterization of such non-point source influences, and evaluate various
remedial alternatives.
As WWTPs in the UPRB are upgraded, the point source loadings from these
facilities will diminish, and non-point sources will exert greater influences on
the overall loadings to the surface waters of the basin. Analysis of the
GSWQS data ha$ identified some stream reaches flowing into the GSNWR
that appear to have substantial non-point source loadings. Stormwater
management plans should be developed by each municipality in the UPRB,
especially those within the Great Swamp sub-basin, to control non-point
source pollution. Those plans should consider both water quantity and water
quality issues. Guidance on the content of such stormwater management
plans can be obtained from the NJDEP. Moreover, municipalities should
consider establishing overall stormwater management goals for their most
sensitive watersheds and stream corridors (see Appendix L.)
Increased development in the UPRB will increase the hydraulic load of the
streams tributary to the GSNWR. This increased hydraulic load may affect
the water level of the swamp, which may in turn have secondary impacts on
the area (e.g., flooding of basements). Insufficient data currently exists to
determine the specific relationship between increased development, water
levels, and secondary impacts. As the area comes under increased
development pressure, it will become important to study this problem in more
detail.
Much of the UPRB is underlain by the Buried Valley Aquifer Systems, an
important source of potable ground water in northern New Jersey. Recharge
to these aquifer systems is relatively rapid and direct, making such ground
water resources susceptible to contamination from the surface. Where prime
6-2
-------
ground water recharge areas can be reasonably delineated, municipalities
should consider such areas in local zoning decisions to specify the types of
development that would be compatible with these environmentally sensitive
areas. The NJDEP and New Jersey Geological Survey can offer guidance and
assistance to municipalities in their planning efforts.
With the exception of Harding Township, Berkeley Heights Township, and
New Providence Borough, the UPRB soils are predominantly unsuitable, or
only marginally suitable, for septic systems, due to high water tables, proximity
to bedrock, and low soil permeability. In areas where conditions are
unsuitable or septic systems are failing, an alternative wastewater disposal
method must be employed. Most likely, these areas would be connected to
an existing WWTP, but any action taken should be consistent with the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan which is intended to assess and
establish goals and strategies to address the numerous growth changes
affecting the state.
The draft EIS recommended using constraints analysis to determine
appropriate capacities for the WWTPs by accounting for development outside
of environmentally constrained areas and by estimating reductions in the I/I
component of the flow. The recommended capacities were revised in this
final EIS to reflect current NJDEP permitting actions and updated
information. The revised WWTP capacity recommendations are contained on
Table ES-2.
Some of the WWTPs operating within the UPRB experience substantial I/I.
Where practical and cost-effective, these problems should be corrected.
Regulation of wetlands and floodplains by NJDEP Division of Coastal
Resources strongly discourages development of such environmental^ sensitive
6-3
-------
areas. Therefore, sewer service should not be extended into wetlands and
fioodplains.
Package treatment plants may encourage random development within the
UPRB. Also, the treatment facilities within the basin are required to achieve
high levels of treatment, including nutrient removal in some cases, which are
often difficult to maintain with package plants. It would be more difficult for
a municipality to operate many small package plants or oversee the operation
of such plants if privately-owned or operated. Given these considerations, the
use of package plants is not recommended in the UPRB.
Development may lead to increased non-point source pollution and adverse
impacts to and losses of environmentally sensitive areas. Development in the
UPRB cannot be controlled by EPA; EPA recommends that development be
controlled on a local level through zoning and comprehensive planning.
Development should be consistent with the State Development and
Redevelopment Plan.
6-4
/
-------
CHAPTER 7
Responsiveness Summary
-------
7.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
7.1 Introduction
The draft EIS on the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan was issued in 1981. The notification
of the issuance was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1981. The draft EIS
presented an in-depth description of wastewater treatment alternatives, the affected
environment and the environmental impacts associated with the proposed alternatives.
A public hearing was held at the Morris Township Municipal Building, in Convent
Station, New Jersey on August 20, 1981 in order to allow interested individuals,
governmental agencies, and other organizations the opportunity to comment on the draft
EIS. In addition, written comments were accepted during the comment period that followed
issuance of the draft EIS; the formal comment period closed on September 4, 1981.
This final EIS was prepared to address the comments received on the draft EIS and
to incorporate them into the EIS process. This responsiveness summary is organized into
three sections: (1) Responses to Comments Regarding Bernards Township, (2) Response
to Comments from the Public Hearing, and (3) Responses to Written Comments Received.
The responsiveness summaiy addresses comments requiring a direct response and comments
requiring significant text modification. Comments identifying typographical errors or factual
mistakes are reflected in the text; no specific response is presented in the responsiveness
summaiy in those cases. If necessaiy, comments were edited to make them more concise
and understandable, but the intent of the comment was maintained.
7.2 Responses to Comments Regarding Bernards Township
The Bernards Township sewage facilities were included within the scope of the draft
EIS. However, Bernards Township requested that its project be segmented out of the EIS,
7-1
-------
so that the project could proceed independent of the EIS process. Bernards Township made
this request because: (1) the Township was under a court order to provide sewage
treatment for high density housing, (2) the Township felt that construction grants for the
project would not be available beyond September 30, 1981, and (3) the Township agreed
with the population and flow projections and the level of treatment proposed in the draft
EIS. With this in mind, the draft EIS stated that Bernards Township would be permitted
to proceed to construction of its wastewater treatment facilities independent of the EIS
process, provided that there was no significant public controversy.
Numerous comments regarding the Bernards Township project were raised during
the public comment period of the draft EIS. They included:
• need for sewers;
further analysis of alternatives;
• impacts to environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., wetlands, floodplains, prime
agricultural lands, cultural resources, and sole source aquifers);
impacts to the water table;
• excessive costs;
public participation;
EPA subsidizing development; and
easement acquisition procedures.
Based on its review of the comments, EPA determined that the issues had been
satisfactorily addressed in the draft EIS. However, on November 3, 1981, EPA issued a
responsiveness summary (see Appendix M) that addressed the specific comments received
on the Bernards Township portion of the project. EPA issued a grant for the Bernards
Township project and allowed it to proceed to construction, following the close of the draft
EIS comment period. For a discussion of the Bernards Township wastewater treatment
facilities, see Chapter 5, Section 2.4.5.
7-2
-------
73
Responses to Comments from the Public Hearing
A public hearing on the draft EIS was held on August 20, 1981 at the Morris
Township Municipal Building, in Convent Station, New Jersey. Representatives from the
EPA opened the meeting by discussing the background of the project and presenting the
format of the hearing. Substantive comments raised at the hearing and EPA's responses are
presented in this section. (Comments #2 and #4 were made at the public hearing but were
not reflected in any written submittals.) The individual making the comment is identified.
Mr. Robert H. Fox, F.E,
Harding Township
Comment #1; Harding Township's only significant objection to the recommendations
of the report is that another study to determine the need for nitrogen
and phosphorus removal at the Woodland Avenue treatment plant in
Morris Township would result in unnecessary delay. The damage to
private property and generally to the environment of the area far
outweighs the cost of nutrient removal.
Response: Although the Northeastern New Jersey 208 Plan established that the
Morris-Woodland WWTP should have Level 4 treatment with
phosphorous removal, the draft EIS determined that there was
insufficient information to determine that the treatment plant effluent
itself was the cause of excessive algae growth in the Loantaka Brook
and GSNWR. There are other causes of eutrophication and a clear
link between algal growth and treatment plant effluent needed to be
established before recommending a costly upgrade to include nutrient
removal. In order to address this issue, EPA and the NJDEP jointly
completed the GSWQS.
7-3
-------
The results of the GSWQS show that nutrients in the effluents of the
Chatham and Morris-Woodland WWTPs can lead to algal growth in
the GSNWR. Accordingly, the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPs have been issued new NJPDES permits that require Level 4
treatment, including nutrient removal. The Morris-Woodland WWTP
was issued a permit to construct an upgraded facility. Construction
began December 1990; full permit compliance will be achieved by
March 1993. The Chatham Township WWTP was also issued a permit
to construct and construction has begun on this plant. Full permit
compliance is expected to be achieved by October 1992.
Comment #2: The water quality study should not be limited to just the impacts on
the GSNWR. It should be expanded to include the effects on the
streams. The streams flow through private properties bordering the
GSNWR and there has been significant serious damage to the
properties as a result of the excessive aquatic vegetation that has been
facilitated by nutrient loadings in the stream.
Response: The spatial arrangement of sampling locations used in the GSWQS
included locations on Great Brook, Loantaka Brook, Black Brook,
Primrose Brook, and the discharge channel from the Chatham
Township WWTP. These stations are upstream of the GSNWR
proper, and have been used to characterize point source and non-point
source effects on water quality in the streams flowing through private
landholdings bordering the GSNWR.
7-4
/
-------
Mrs. B.W. (Sally) Dudley, Jr.
Harding Township Planning Board and Environmental Commission
Comment #3: Another study is not needed to determine impacts of wastewater
effluent or water quality. Nutrient removal should be part of the
upgrading of the Morris Township plant from the veiy start.
Response: See Response to Comment #1.
Comment #4; Would a privately funded package plant be governed by these
proposals that prohibit development in wetlands or in floodplains?
Does EPA have any control over that? If developers wanted a package
plant in a wetlands area, would they eventually have to contact EPA?
Is EPA willing to spell out in the final Environmental Impact
Statement that there will be no package treatment plants approved for
wetlands, floodplains, or for residential treatment; this is not clear in
the present text.
Response: On page 2-16 and 2-17 of the draft EIS, package treatment plants were
eliminated as a feasible alternative for wastewater management in the
UPRB. The constraints analysis in the draft EIS indicated that the
existing treatment facilities could accommodate the wastewater
generated currently and by future development in areas that are not
environmentally constrained. Therefore, EPA recommended that no
package plants be constructed to treat wastewater flows. No new
information developed as part of this final EIS alters this
recommendation. While EPA exercises no regulatory authority over
privately-funded plants, the provisions in the draft EIS would be
considered by NJDEP in permitting such a plant. Both privately- and
7-5
-------
publicly-funded plants would come under the same provisions. EPA
has also included a recommendation that no package plants should be
located in floodplains or wetlands and that no additional package
plants be used for residential or industrial wastewater treatment.
If a developer were to propose construction of a package treatment
plant in a wetland or floodplain, he/she would be required to contact
a variety of state and federal agencies and get appropriate permits.
Mrs. Ella Filippone
Passaic River Coalition
Comment #5: The Passaic River Coalition, as well as the Passaic Valley Ground
Water Protection Committee request that prime aquifer recharge areas
be included as critical areas in the Upper Passaic Facilities Plan.
Primary recharge areas do exist in the Upper Passaic River Basin
which contains part of the terminal moraine.
Response: Prime aquifer recharge areas were not specifically included as
environmentally sensitive lands because the areas are not adequately
delineated, moreover, many of these areas were already considered
environmentally sensitive as floodplains and wetlands for the purposes
of the draft EIS. Accordingly, EPA does not believe that a separate
environmental constraints category for prime aquifer recharge areas is
warranted at this time.
Comment #6: EPA should develop guidelines for each facility so that the impact on
environmentally sensitive lands is kept to an absolute minimum. In
addition, the EPA must provide the municipalities in the Upper
Passaic River Basin with a clear working definition of wetlands, prime
recharge areas, and floodways.
7-6
-------
Response
Municipalities may find "working definitions" of wetlands in the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdiction^
Wetland^ (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation,
1989) and of fioodplains in Technical Manual for Stream
Encroachment (NJDEP, 1988). Guidance on prime aquifer areas can
be obtained from the New Jersey Geological Survey and from NJDEP
Division of Water Resources. Because appropriate federal and state
definitions of these resources already exist, there is no need to redefine
these resources in this final EIS.
Comment #7;
EPA should provide guidance with regard to non-point source
pollution from new developments so that improvements gained
through the upgrading of sewage treatment plants remain a positive
benefit.
Response:
Local municipalities have the responsibility of developing and
implementing adequate stormwater management plans to address non-
point source pollution. However, in Appendix L of this document,
EPA has provided preliminary guidance for developing stormwater
management plans in the UPRB.
Comment #8: The Passaic River Coalition supports the upgrading and improvement
of the treatment facilities, but strongly recommends that precise
checks and balances be added to ensure that the activities
recommended do not initiate extensive new development and new
degradation.
Response:
The upgrading of existing WWTPs is directed at reducing nutrient
loads to the receiving waters of the UPRB; the upgrading does not
explicitly propose new capacity at such upgraded facilities. The
-------
activities recommended will not, therefore, serve independently to
promote new development within the basin. Moreover, EPA's
constraints analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the draft EIS, calculated
the necessary treatment plant capacities based on restrictions on
development in environmentally sensitive areas. EPA believes that this
constraints analysis, as modified by this final EIS, is still valid for the
UPRB. Accordingly, although EPA cannot control development by
restricting treatment plant flows, EPA recommends that NJDEP and
the local municipalities adhere to the constraints analysis in the draft
EIS when planning future WWTPs in the UPRB.
Mr. Edward A. Taratko, Jr. (presented by Mr. Allan C. Herbert)
Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater Management Committee
Comment #9: In the instances where the EIS projections are less than the existing
treatment plant capacity, the plant capacity should be maintained at
the present level so that the existing treatment facilities can be utilized
to their maximum potential. This situation occurs specifically in the
Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting plant where a reduction in capacity
from 4.0 mgd to 3.2 mgd is recommended, as well as in the Morris
Township-Woodland Plant where a reduction in capacity from 2.0 mgd
to 1.8 mgd is recommended.
Response: The draft EIS recommended a flow of 1.8 mgd for the Morris-
Woodland WWTP and a flow of 3.2 mgd for the Madison-Chatham
Joint Meeting WWTP, assuming a significant reduction in the
infiltration/inflow (I/I) component of the flows. A reduction in the I/I
of the magnitude EPA was anticipating was not realized; therefore,
NJDEP issued a permit to the Morris-Woodland WWTP for 2.0 mgd
7-8
-------
and to the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting for an average flow of 3.5
mgd and a maximum monthly flow of 5.0 mgd.
Comment #10: The recommendations of the EIS Anther indicate that the Chatham
Township and Morris Township plants should be upgraded to Level
4 treatment with provision for possible nutrient removal in the future
following the recommended studies. It is not apparent how the cost*
effectiveness analysis in the £IS could be completed without the
established levels of treatment for these treatment plants.
Response: Although the actual scenarios for wastewater treatment were not
known at the time of issuance of the EIS, the costs for all alternatives
were developed using the most acceptable information available. The
costs were presented in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS.
Following the issuance of the draft EIS, the GSWQS was completed.
This study showed that nutrients from the two plants were impacting
the GSNWR. The higher costs of nutrient removal can be justified to
prevent adverse environmental impacts. Consequently, the
recommended alternative in this final EIS is to upgrade to Level 4
treatment with nutrient removal and dechlorination. This concept is
currently being implemented for the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
Township WWTPs.
Comment #11: It is apparent that the original issue of water quality and quantity and
the subsequent impact of the GSNWR has been inadequately
addressed in the EIS and does not satisfy the original project scope.
The imposition of additional studies upon the upstream municipalities
or the Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater Management Committee
would result in additional local costs to address issues which were to
7-9
-------
be addressed and concluded within the framework of the EIS.
Response: The reports detailing the results of the GSWQS were issued in late
1987 and early 1988. These studies were conducted and funded jointly
by the EPA and NJDEP. No local funding was required for these
projects. See Response to comment #1.
Comment #12; The Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater Management Committee
questions the imposition of Level 4 treatment for all of the treatment
facilities within the Upper Passaic Basin. The Environmental Impact
Statement does not provide an independent analysis of this
requirement but instead refers to the 303e basin plan and waste load
allocations.
Further, the seven treatment areas should be segmented. The design
and construction of advanced secondary treatment facilities should be
permitted immediately on an individual project basis, while the
justification of Level 4 treatment, dechlorination, or nutrient removal
is determined.
'Response: In December of 1981, the EPA Advanced Treatment Task Force
issued a Summary of Findings on the Advanced Treatment Facilities
proposed for the UPRB. Its report concluded that nitrification during
warm weather months was needed for the Madison-Chatham, Berkeley
Heights; Passaic Township, Morris Township, and Bernards Township
wastewater treatment plants to significantly improve the dissolved
oxygen concentration of the Upper Passaic River, Loantaka Brook, and
the Dead River. The report also recommended dechlorination for all
treatment plants in the UPRB. The Task Force concluded that the
New Providence treatment plant did not need to be upgraded to Level
7-10
-------
4 because the existing level of treatment was adequate at this plant.
With regard to Chatham Township, the Task Force recommended that
the upgrading of the Chatham Township plant be delayed until
completion of the GSWQS.
The GSWQS was completed and the results of the study indicated that
both the Chatham Township and Morris Township plants contributed
nutrients to the GSNWR that could promote excess algal growth.
Based on these results, NJDEP required the Chatham and Morris
Township plants to be upgraded to Level 4 treatment with nutrient
removal.
Regarding the segmenting of the plants, the draft EIS recommended
that some plants be consolidated in a single subregional facility;
however, given the lack of federal funding for such a project, no plants
were abandoned and no subregional facilities were constructed.
Instead, all of the facilities were treated separately by the permitting
agency and all but the New Providence and the VA Medical Center
facilities were upgraded to Level 4. Accordingly, segmentation of the
project occurred and some facilities were allowed to proceed
independent of the EIS process.
Mrs. Abigail Fair
Great Swamp Watershed Association
Comment #13: The following recommendations are especially vital: (I) that funded
sewage projects will not serve development In sensitive areas and will
not overstress area resources; (2) that a study of quality and
magnitude of stream flows in the GSNWR Basin be implemented; (3)
that industrial package plants should not be approved until a water
-------
quality study is completed; and (4) that zoning regulations for the
Upper Passaic Basin and the surrounding municipalities be modified
to protect the environmentally sensitive lands from indiscriminate
development.
Response:
EPA acknowledges this comment and has moved forward with the
implementation of some of these recommendations. A list of
recommendations is included in this final EIS in Chapter 6. The
GSWQS has been completed and an analysis of the results is included
as Appendix K of this document.
Comment #14;
The Association finds the draft EIS sets forth very conservative critical
area delineations. For instance, since accurate wetland mapping was
not a part of this EIS process, many existing wetlands are not
delineated. This means that the constrained population figures
arrived at are veiy generous and should be considered as absolute
maximums.
Response:
The draft EIS used the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps to delineate wetland boundaries.
Given the nature of this study, EPA believes that this is an appropriate
approach to identifying wetlands. Nevertheless, as development occurs,
wetland delineations will have to be prepared by the developer in
accordance with federal and state regulations to determine exact
wetland boundaries.
Comment #15: The Watershed Association urges that the water quality and stream
flow study for the GSNWR Basin be implemented immediately under
the aegis of EPA.
7-12
-------
Response: Detailed descriptions of the GSWQS program elements, statistical
analyses of the GSWQS data base, and discussions of specific findings
deriving from the GSWQS are presented in Appendix K of this final
EIS. Other GSWQS reports present particular aspects or applications
of the study data; a full listing of the GSWQS data is presented in the
Maguire Group data report (1988), a discussion of algal bioassay
results using water from GSNWR sampling locations is presented in
the Trama report (1987), and a discussion of hydrological modeling
results using GSWQS data is presented in the Najarian report (1988).
Comment #16; The Association recommends that approval of residential package
treatment plants, as well as industrial package plants, be delayed until
the water quality study is complete. The increasing volume of water
coming into the GSNWR Basin combined with serious non-point
source pollution will be compounded by residential and commercial
development made possible by package plants.
Response: See Response to Comment #4.
Comment #17; Page 2-4 - Township of Chatham. The draft EIS states that package
plants were eliminated and sewage rerouted to the Township plant.
Park Central (see page 2-7) is a package plant that processes sewage
from Cardinal Hill Apartments on River Road in Chatham Township.
It has not been connected to Township sewers. This plant's 30,000
gallons of effluent a day (Tables 2-1 and 2-2) would bring the
Township's total daily gallonage to 0.83 million gallons per day and
should be taken into consideration if expansion of the Township plant
is undertaken.
7-13
-------
Response: As indicated in the draft EIS, the Park Central package plant has
never been considered in the evaluation of Chatham Township and
neither the plant flows nor the population served have been considered
in the constraints analysis. The Park Central package treatment plant
remains in operation and is privately owned and operated. There are
no plans for abandonment of the Park Central facility with flows being
directed to the Chatham plant. In fact, the plant is currently
undergoing an upgrade to Level 4 treatment that will be completed in
1991. (See Chapter 5, Section 2.4.10). Because this plant's flows will
not be diverted to the Chatham plant, no consideration of these flows
is necessary with regard to expanding the Chatham plant's capacity.
Comment ff!8i The following corrections should be made before the EIS is made
final:
1. page 3-2 - Acres of floodplains and wetlands delineated in Figures
3-1 and discussed on page 3-58 are not accurate. Wetlands in the
GSNWR Basin are much more extensive according to the National
Wetlands Inventory and the Morris County Soil Conservation District
maps. Also see page 3-23.
2. page 3-37 • Hie draft EIS discussion of growth trends in the UPRB
neglects to mention the veiy significant amount of commercial
development occurring in Morris Township and in Madison. This
development will create serious impacts, particularly in non-point run-
off, because of the unusual amount of traffic being generated and the
subsequent need to expand secondaiy roads as well as access to Route
287. The estimates for changes in impervious surface area found on
page 4-20, Table 4-5, do not appear to take proposed road widening
and extensive parking areas into consideration.
7-14
-------
Rgsppnss:
1. See Response to Comment #14.
2. As stated on page 3-44 of the draft EIS, the impervious surface
area estimates included the entire street network, including Routes 287
and 78. The estimates indicated that seven percent of the land was
impervious. This estimation method is appropriate for a study of this
nature. The presence of additional impervious surfaces in the form of
increased development, additional parking, and road widening will
have an impact on non-point source pollution on a local level.
However, through the development and implementation of stormwater
management plans (such as presented in Appendix L), local
municipalities can achieve some control over the quantity and quality
of stormwater runoff.
Mrs. Elizabeth Corsetto (Presented by Mrs. Helen Fenske)
Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions/
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
Comment #19: It Is absolutely necessary that the final plan retain the following
recommendations:
1. That a water quality study be undertaken to determine the
effects of point and non-point nutrient loadings on the
GSNWR. EPA has the money set aside for this study, and it
should commence immediately.
2. That nitrogen and phosphorous removal be implemented at the
Morris and Chatham Township plants, if the above study
indicates a need for such removal to protect the GSNWR.
3. That no industrial package treatment plants be approved until
the water quality study is completed.
7-15
-------
4. That if non-point sources are found to be a significant
contributor to the pollution of the GSNWR, that the GSNWR
Basin will be designated a General Permit Program Area.
5. That zoning regulations in municipalities in the Upper Passaic
Basin be modified to protect environmentally sensitive lands.
6. That sewer service under this plan will not be extended into
environmentally sensitive areas, such as floodplains, wetlands,
steep slopes and prime agricultural lands.
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment and has taken steps as appropriate
to incorporate these recommendations into the EIS. Chapter 6
includes a list of recommendations.
Mrs. Helen Fenske
Great Swamp Watershed Association & New Jersey Conservation Foundation
Comment #20; Will the GSNWR Water Quality Study be conducted according to EPA
guidelines? Will the EPA be monitoring the study?
Response: Yes. See Response to Comment #15.
Diane Nelson
Boonton
Comment #21: If a municipality obtains Step 2 Construction Grant funding that
contains a grant condition prohibiting sewer connections in
environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., floodplains, wetlands) and no
7-16
-------
Step 3 grant is obtained, are the grant conditions specified in the Step
2 grant still valid or can the municipality ignore those conditions
because they did not receive money for actual construction?
Response: EPA considers the signing of a grant award document to be a contract
between EPA and the grantee and, therefore, all conditions in the
grant award apply. Accordingly, if a municipality accepts a Step 2
design grant, they accept all of the grant conditions that were
contained therein. The conditions apply for a period of 50 years and
are not contingent upon receiving Step 3 construction monies.
7.4 Responses to Written Comments Received
The following section highlights and responds to comments received in writing during
the comment period following the issuance of the draft EIS. The comments have been
included here as direct quotes, wherever possible, and in other cases the comments were
paraphrased, while retaining the nature and tone of the comments. To review the exact
context and phrasing of the comments, copies of the complete comments are included in
Appendix N. The comment numbers listed in this section have also been placed next to the
specific comment in the letters to aid in the identification of the comments from each letter.
United States Department of the Interior
William Patterson
Regional Environmental Officer
September 8, 1981
Comment #22: The draft statement does not address mineral resources and it is
difficult to evaluate potential minerals involvement related to siting of
the proposed alternatives.
7-17
-------
Response: The final EIS presents the alternative of upgrading existing facilities to
Level 4 treatment with nutrient removal as the recommended
alternative. Under this alternative, existing sites will undergo some
facility expansion, but no new sites will be developed. Thus, potential
mineral involvement is negligible.
Comment #23: In the section entitled Controlling Development in Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (Page xi), the fourth paragraph states "In order to
protect environmentally sensitive areas from development sewer service
should not be extended into areas designated as environmentally
constrained In Figure 3-9. In addition US EPA Step 2 and Step 3
grants to the municipalities should contain conditions to prohibit
ftiture development in floodplains and wetlands from connecting to
any system receiving grants" (our emphasis). It is our view that to
control development in these environmentally sensitive areas, the word
should must be replaced with must. As written, this paragraph is
merely a recommendation, not an absolute prohibition against sewer
hookups in wetlands and floodplains.
Response: Given EPA's current role in funding and permitting wastewater
treatment facilities, EPA can only make recommendations regarding
these matters. However, for those municipalities that received EPA
Construction Grants in the UPRB (e.g., Bernards Township), the
grants contain prohibitions against sewer hook-ups in environmentally
sensitive areas.
Comment #24: There was no mention in the draft statement about the possible need
for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct fill
activities in project implementation. Such permits may be required
7-18
<
-------
for interceptors crossing streams and wetlands (page 4-6 through 4-8).
The Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S. C. 661 et seq.), may provide additional and
separate evaluation if project implementation requires a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of P.L. 52-500,
unless the method of authorization is general or nationwide permits.
It would appear that the Fish and Wildlife Service, as a minimum, will
probably recommend that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, when
issuing a permit, require features to reduce turbidity and
sedimentation during project construction. Technical assistance
concerning measures to avoid, reduce, or offset anticipated project-
caused losses of flsh and wildlife may be obtained by contacting the
Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 315
South Allen, Suite 322, State College, Pennsylvania 16801 (FTS 727-
4601).
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment. Local municipalities are responsible
for obtaining all permits and approvals required for
construction/operation of the WWTPs' expansions and upgrades from
the appropriate state and federal agencies.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Plater T. Campbell
State Conservationist
July 31,1981
Comment #25: l. Page 3-2 • The statement that the areas shown on Figure 3-1
represent locations where the probability of flooding during any
particular year is approximately 1.0 percent is incorrect. The
7-19
-------
outer fringe of this area has a 1.0 percent probability of
flooding, while the inner portions have progressively higher
probabilities.
2. Page 3-4 • We would suggest that the first two sentences of the
second paragraph be rewritten as follows - "The United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA-
SCS) has determined that, based on general characteristics,
some of the land in Morris and Somerset Counties is prime
farmland. This determination is based on an assessment of the
suitability of the soils for agriculture based on the degree of
slope, available water capacity, pH, and seasonal high water
table as well as the existing land use."
3. Page 3-^3 - The section on land use does not mention
agricultural land although other parts of the statement allude
to its existence in the project area. It is disturbing to see
agricultural land classified as vacant land zoned for
residential, commercial or industrial use.
Response: EPA acknowledges these comments.
New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate
Michael Bryce, Assistant Deputy
August 28, 1981
Comment #26: On page 2-73 under the subheading "Environmental Constraints," the
following sentences have been added to the earlier draft • "The
potential for eutrophication is high and elevated algae growth levels
have been recorded in localized areas (NJDEP, 1974). In addition
7-20
-------
there may be accelerated growth of rooted aquatic plants under low
flow conditions in the GSNWR."
Is there is any documentation for the inclusion of these sentences? Or
if, (especially the point about rooted aquatic plants) this is just
conjecture?
Response: The sentences referred to were in an earlier draft copy of the
document. The document was modified as appropriate for the draft
EIS that was ultimately issued by EPA.
With regard to the statements identified, EPA was referring to an
NJDEP Study. With respect to rooted aquatics, the statement is
conjecture, but field observations confirm the statement.
Comment #27: Under the title "Engineering Criteria" the principal engineering
criteria has been changed from "Process Efficiency" to "Compliance
with effluent quality constraints." What does this change mean and
is there any policy brieflng EPA might have explaining the reasons for
this change?
Response: The terminology has similar meaning; no difference in meaning was
intended or implied.
Comment #28: There are areas that could use package treatment plants that are not
necessarily adjacent to sewerage collection networks. Also, it is stated
that: "In unsewered areas such as Harding Township, zoning densities
are too low for this method of wastewater treatment to be used
effectively." Zoning densities should not be considered an
environmental reason not to use package plants.
7-21
-------
Response: EPA is not restricted to discussions of environmental impacts only. A
detailed EIS on a 201 Facilities Plan includes additional concerns such
as engineering considerations, implementability, reliability, cost, and
management concerns. See Response to Comment #4.
Comment #29 EPA has not taken into consideration its own position that 201
Construction Grants will only service existing populations.
Response: The construction grants program was revised such that EPA would
fund facilities to serve only existing development, not growth.
However, local municipalities were not prevented from constructing
facilities to handle future growth providing they could obtain a permit
for the discharge of the additional flow and provided this additional
capacity was paid for by local funding sources. Since the issuance of
the draft EIS, EPA delegated its construction grants program to
NNDEP. Moreover, New Jersey established a revolving loan program
in 1987 to provide financial assistance for the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities which was initially capitalized with
state-only money derived from bond sales. EPA then issued a series
of capitalization grants, starting in 1988, to capitalize this program.
New Jersey includes this SRF with other "state only" funding programs
in its Municipal Wastewater Assistance Program. To receive funding,
projects go through a process similar to the former construction grants
program. Through this program, NJDEP must decide how much
capacity to fund at the plants.
Comment #30: EPA has suggested a ban on "industrial package plants" only until
after the GSNWR report is completed. Yet for residential package
plants EPA suggests that they should not be used in the UPRB at all.
The EIS section on package plants, therefore, should be deleted until:
7-22
-------
A) they are studied farther by EPA; B) the GSNWR study is
completed; and C) EPA changes its position that 201 monies will only
cover construction for existing populations.
Response: See Response to Comment #4.
Comment #31: What documentation does EPA have that these "package plants" are
not cost-effective? Assuming package plants develop in areas that will
not be served by sewer lines, comparing their cost-effectiveness to that
of municipal plants is like comparing apples and oranges.
Response: The cost-effectiveness of package treatment plants was discussed on
page 2-17 of the draft EIS. The statement in the draft EIS was not
intended to imply that package treatment plants cannot be used as
cost-effective alternatives for wastewater treatment in some situations.
However, in the majority of the UPRB, the municipalities are served
by wastewater treatment plants and have extensive collection networks
already in place. Given these circumstances, it is more cost-effective
and environmentally acceptable for new development to link into the
existing service system than to construct package treatment plants. In
addition, see Response to Comment #4.
Comment #32: On page 3-32 under title "Air Quality", why was table E-2 removed?
Why was the statement that Northern New Jersey is a Class II (PSD)
area removed? Also, why was the paragraph on PSD increments
removed on page 3-35 (formerly 3-46) just before the "Energy" section?
Response: This information was included in an earlier draft version of the
document. It was removed prior to publication of the final version of
the document because the information was not germane to the project.
7-23
-------
Comment #33:
The last line on page 3-36 should be deleted or further documentation
be supplied for its inclusion.
Response: An appropriate reference (the Morris County Planning Board, 1978)
is supplied on page 3-36 of the draft EIS. No further documentation
is required.
Comment #34; On page 3-37, at the bottom, two sentences were deleted from the
earlier draft: "The maximum density in this area is 2 housing
units/ha (5 unit/a). An additional 56 townhouses are under
construction on a 4.5 ha (11a) plot adjacent to Rt. 202 just south of
Bernards Twp. (Horensky, SCPB, December 17, 1978)." Why were
they deleted?
Response: These figures were reflected in the overall constraints analysis. The
sentences were not needed in the draft EIS that was ultimately issued
by EPA.
Comment #3g: On page 3-47 in the second paragraph there are two sentences: "Other
communities in the UPRB are substantially developed. Due to the
established character and the lack of vacant developable land, the
potential new growth is severely restricted in these areas." Please
supply the documentation for these sentences. In addition, the next
sentence should be deleted. The question of surrounding uses goes to
"zoning" not to the "environment."
Response: As indicated by the discussions on pages 3-46 and 3-47 of the draft
EIS, this information came from the master plans developed for the
communities in the UPRB. These are suitable references for this
information. This information was included to ensure completeness of
7-24
-------
the document and because it is germane to the project.
Comment #36: On page 3-61 under "Effects on Supply of Land" there Is a
recommendation that does not logically follow. Because 1310 acres are
proposed for recreational land in 3 communities and a portion (How
much?) of those reserved areas coincides with environmentally
constrained" lands, then all of this land should be subtracted from
total vacant land area (i.e. presumably because some land is
constrained, all of it should be deducted from available land)? This
is not in fact a logical conclusion. Again EPA is determining what
lands should be subtracted from the present available supply without
having an "environmental constraint" reason for suggesting so. This
new section on page 3-61 should be rewritten to coincide with the
logical scope of the EIS.
Response: The analysis referenced on page 3-61 of the draft EIS recognizes and
incorporates the proposed land use plans of the three municipalities
cited into the land supply estimates shown in Tables 3-22 and 3-23; this
is appropriate in projecting realistic land availability in future years.
Moreover, the analysis uses the conservative assumption that
environmentally constrained areas will not be those areas reserved for
public use. The analysis is not subtracting the lands proposed for
reservation from the total developable land because some portion of
those lands is constrained by specific environmental considerations
(e.g., steep slopes, flooding), but rather because those lands are
proposed to be removed by municipal action from the total
developable land and reserved for specific and limited uses. Such
refinements to the constraints analysis are realistic adjustments for
probable future actions.
7-25
-------
Comment #37;
Page 3-75 under "Soils" should contain the same 3 towns listed under
"Soil Constraints" on page 3-74.
Response:
Comment
The document has been revised to reflect this change.
The first paragraph on page 3-79 should be deleted unless EPA is
going to use the "construction permits measurement of growth" for all
the other towns in the UPRB. This is an unrealistic and totally
unwarranted departure from the methods used in the rest of the EIS.
Response:
The use of the construction permits measurement of growth was
appropriate; its use was explained in the context of the document.
Township of Harding
Robert H. Fox, P.E.
Harding Township Engineer
May 19, 1977
Comment #39; Of greatest concern to Harding Township is the fact that the plan does
not include a definite provision for phosphate removal at Morris
Township's Woodland Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant. A design
process which results in effluent concentrations of 0.5 mg/1 of
phosphorous may or may not be sufficient to eliminate the problem of
eutrophlcation.
Response: The receiving waters of the upper reaches of the GSNWR act
efficiently to reduce phosphorus available in the water column below
input concentrations. Analysis of the GSWQS data by Najarian (1988)
indicated that even if all phosphorus were removed from the
wastewater effluents upstream of the GSNWR, there would still be
7-26
/
-------
significant input levels of phosphorus available to support plant growth,
as well as phosphorus available from in situ releases of previously
stored phosphorus. Nutrient loading estimates reported in this final
EIS (Appendix K) tentatively identified significant non-point source
phosphorus loadings in the Loantaka Brook watershed. Because of
these other phosphorus inputs, removal of phosphorus below the 1.0
mg/1 level is not warranted at this time. Should non-point source
controls (e.g., stormwater management measures) become significantly
more effective in future years, reduction of nutrient concentrations in
point source discharges may be deemed desirable and cost-effective.
The Morris-Woodland WWTP was issued a consent order to upgrade
to Level 4 treatment including nutrient removal. The NJPDES permit
that was issued to the Morris-Woodland WWTP contains a final
effluent limit of 1.0 mg/L for phosphorous. (See Chapter 5, Section
2.4.2.2 for a description of the upgraded facilities.)
Comment #40: The construction of an outfall which would discharge all or a portion
of the plant effluent downstream from Loantaka Pond Is unacceptable
to Harding Township. From this point the nutrients would flow
downstream through the slow-moving reaches of the brook bordering
the GSNWR. It is in these reaches where the high nutrient loading
causes the growth of dense aquatic vegetation and clogging of the
brook which results in sediment deposition and flooding of adjacent
properties. Such condition cannot be permitted to continue.
Response: As stated on page 249 of the draft EIS, redirecting the Morris-
Woodland plant outfall was never considered a viable option by EPA.
7-27
-------
Borough of New Providence, NJ
William W. Fitter
Engineering Administrator
September 2, 1981
Comment #41: There Is a lack of information concerning the effect on Passaic River
water quality of the requirement of Level 3 treatment for New
Providence. There is no indication that independent sampling of the
river was performed to provide justification that if the Borough were
to expand its facility a significant improvement in water quality would
be achieved. Further, there is no record that Wapora Inc. made use
of any or all of the available local data in their study. Until there is
more definitive information than that contained in the draft report, it
is difficult to justify the expenditure of ftinds to construct, operate and
maintain an expanded facility which would also necessitate the loss of
municipal park and recreational lands.
Response: The operation of the New Providence Borough treatment plant is
unique in the UPRB because this plant serves as an infiltration/inflow
(I/I) treatment facility. During periods of heavy rain, the collection
system receives significantly higher flows because of I/I inputs to the
system. When flows exceed the capacity of the pump station that
transports flows from the Borough to the Joint Meeting Regional
Treatment Plant at Elizabethville via the City of Summit Sewer
System, the excess flows are diverted to the New Providence treatment
facility. During times of normal flow, wastewater from the Borough is
treated at the Elizabethville facility with only a small diversion of flow
to the New Providence facility. This diversion is used to maintain
biological growth on the trickling filters.
7-28
-------
Based on available information and the operation of the New
Providence plant as described above, Level 3 treatment was considered
appropriate for the plant However, the New Providence plant has a
history of violations of the Level 3 nitrogenous biochemical oxygen
demand (NBOD) and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD) permit limits. Accordingly, the final EIS recommends that
the plant be modified, either through its operation or through the
construction of alternate or additional units, to consistently meet its
Level 3 permit limits. This recommendation is consistent with
enforcement actions currently being taken by NJDEP.
Comment #42; In the consideration of the water quality of the Passaic River, no
mention is made in the report of the effect of cleaning and clearing of
the river to improve its flow characteristics and to reduce areas of
natural pollution, which have a direct effect on the water quality of the
New Providence site.
Response: Regardless of whether any dredging operations occur in the reaches of
the Passaic River near the New Providence plant, the discharge of the
effluent from the New Providence plant will have an impact on Passaic
River water quality. EPA and NJDEP agreed that Level 3 treatment
is appropriate for this plant. This recommendation must necessarily
be independent from considerations of any dredging actions which may
or may not occur on the Passaic River because EPA does not have
direct control over these operations.
7-29
-------
Pluymers, Williamson and Barbieri Associates
William Pluymers, P.E.
August 14, 1981
Comment #43: While, theoretically, Alternative PT-2 has many advantages, in reality
it has some disadvantages for Passaic Township. Therefore, it is
suggested that Alternative PT-1 be considered the prime alternative
rather than PT-2. If this is unacceptable, both alternatives should be
both considered viable and at least have equal status.
Response: Alternative PT-2, a subregional facility for Passaic and Warren
Townships, was a viable alternative at the time the draft EIS was
prepared. However, because construction grants were not used for this
project, the Townships chose to continue the independent operation of
their treatment plants. Both Townships have upgraded their facilities.
The recommended alternative in the final EIS has been modified to
reflect the realities of the current situation in the UPRB. The
recommended alternative for Passaic Township in this final EIS is PT-
1, expanding and upgrading to Level 4 treatment with dechlorination.
This recommendation is contained in Table 2-4 of this final EIS.
Comment #44: In the description of the existing facility, the Passaic Township plant
is presented as having a capacity of 0.6 mgd. This should be corrected
to 0.65 mgd. Further, the average flow per capita of 120 gpcd is
rather high; we feel it should be 100 gpcd.
Response: The flow rate was incorrectly identified as 0.6 mgd; it has been
corrected in the final EIS in Chapter 5.
As stated on page A-l of the draft EIS, the information sources of the
201 plan, the 208 plan, I/I data from the communities, and discussions
7-30
i
-------
with NJDEP and EPA were used to determine the flow rates. Based
on these sources, a per capita flow rate of 120 gpcd was used.
Township of Warren
Ronald H. Willans
Warren Township Authority Chairman
September 3, 1981
The Warren Township Sewerage Authority has stated its intention to
concur with the regionalization of its treatment facilities with Passaic
Township as proposed in the 201 Facilities Plan and the EIS study of
that plan. However, there is a reluctance by Passaic Township to join
Warren Township in a regional facility. Also, the location should not
be set by the study.
See Response to comment #43.
The Stage V treatment plant in Warren, which is a Level 4 treatment
facility, was erroneously stated as being in the floodplain. This facility
is located entirely outside of the floodplain.
The document has been revised to reflect this comment.
Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.
Kenneth L. Zippier
August 12, 1981
Comment #47; Killam Associates and the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting feel that
the EIS has underestimated the flows which will be generated in the
Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting tributaiy area in upcoming years.
7-31
Comment #45:
Response:
Comment #46;
Response:
-------
A reduction in plant capacity of 32 mgd could pose significant
problems to the Joint Meeting in accepting flows from already
approved developments as well as future developments.
Response: The draft EIS anticipated a greater I/I flow reduction than actually
occurred and, therefore, the draft EIS flows estimates were lower than
the NJPDES permitted values. Based on this, the Madison-Chatham
Joint Meeting plant has been issued an NJPDES permit to discharge
an annual average flow of 3.5 mgd with a monthly maximum average
flow of 5.0 mgd.
William Kramer
August 22, 1981
Comment #48: In reference to Recommendation 9 (p. ix), it is stated that industrial
package treatment plants should not be approved until completion of
the non-point source water quality study. What is your definition of
"industrial" package plants? Does an "industrial" package plant differ
from a package plant that treats only domestic waste (e.g. a package
plant for an office building or research lab)? It appears to me that
package plants represent a way of bypassing the 201 Facilities plans.
Any type of package plant would tend to encourage development in
areas that are not currently served by a sewage treatment system, and
could result in negative environmental impacts on area wetlands.
Response; An industrial package plant would treat process wastewater, not strictly
domestic wastewater or mostly domestic wastewater, such as a
residential package plant. See response to Comment #4 regarding
EPA's position on package WWTPs in the UPRB.
7-32
/
-------
Harding Township Environmental Commission
Sally Dudley
August 20, 1981
Comment #49: The prohibition of package treatment plants for development in the
wetlands and floodplains of the UPRB should be clearly stated in the
final EIS as it is only implied in the current draft. Such a
prohibition, along with the prohibition against sewer connections to
developments in floodplains and wetlands should help protect the
integrity of the GSNWR.
Response: See Response to Comment #4.
Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Dodge Estate
Paul Hammann
August 28,1981
Comment #50: The Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting plant is completely overloaded
following even a 1" rainfall due to severe extraneous inflow problems.
Normal rainfall produces more than a 9 mgd output and over 13 mgd
has been recorded during heavy rainfall when special instrumentation
was installed. During these rainfall periods raw sewage flows from
manholes onto the streets.
Response: The Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting Plant is only permitted for a
maximum monthly flow average of 5.0 mgd. Through issuance of the
NJPDES permit, NJDEP has indicated that this reflects an appropriate
level of I/I for this facility.
7-33
-------
Comment #51: Chatham Township was on the verge of granting Schering-Plough an
amendment to their zoning law based on waste disposal that had as
one option a septic system either forcing sewage into the ground or by
gravity after dispersal over an area of about an acre. The imminent
danger to the Buried Valley Aquifer is frightening and some means
must be quickly found to prevent such things from happening.
Response: The Buried Valley Aquifer has been designated a Sole Source Aquifer.
Accordingly, as required by Section 1424(e) of the SDWA, no federal
funds can be used to fund projects that could cause harm to the water
quality of the sole source aquifer. The project presented in the EIS
complies with Section 1424(e) of the SDWA.
EPA believes that the protection of the Buried Valley Aquifer is
critical, and recommends that NJDEP and local municipalities take the
necessary steps, to the extent of their authority to do so, to protect
water quality when considering privately funded projects that may
impact the aquifer.
Comment #52: Clear directives should be given for the GSNWR area that will specify
what treatment plants can and cannot do. Capacity values must be
set. A maximum peak value for the Joint Meeting is urgent. These
specifications must then be enforced.
Response: The actions that treatment plants can and cannot take are specified in
the NJPDES permits issued to each plant, in grant conditions (in cases
where the treatment plants received construction grants), and
applicable state and federal regulations. Recommendations for
capacities and treatment levels for the WWTPs are presented in this
final EIS. NJDEP has used all appropriate information in determining
7-34
/
-------
treatment plant capacities and included these values in the NJPDES
permits.
Apgar Associates
Robert H. Fox, PJE.
Harding Township Engineer
September 3,1981
Comment #53: The draft should be amended to include the following:
1. Require Level 5 treatment at the Morris Township-Woodland
plant without further delay.
2. Require sand filtration at the Woodland Avenue plant to
protect the stream during plant upsets. This would also help
to assure good plant operation which would be necessary to
prevent filter clogging.
3. Require phosphate and nitrate removal processes at the
Woodland Avenue plant without further delay.
4. Amend the scope of the water quality (nutrient) study in the
GSNWR watershed to include the impact of nutrients on the
streams and private properties in the vicinity of the GSNWR.
5. Clearly prohibit the construction of small (package type)
treatment plants that would discharge into the streams that
flow into the GSNWR.
7-35
-------
Response: 1. The results of the GSWQS justified the upgrading of the
Morris-Woodland plant to Level 4 treatment with nutrient
removal and dechlorination (or alternative disinfection process).
This plant is currently under construction for the upgraded
facilities. (See Chapter 5, Section 2.4.2.2). Because of the
input of other pollutant sources to the GSNWR, namely non-
point source pollution, the imposition of Level 5 treatment on
the Morris-Woodland WWTP is not justified. The additional
increment of benefit to go from Level 4 to Level 5 does not
outweigh the extra costs at this time. However, as conditions
change in the future and as nonpoint source pollution is
controlled, Level 5 treatment may be warranted. This judgment
would be made by NJDEP.
2. The upgraded facilities at the Morris-Woodland plant will
include gravity sand filtration.
3. The upgraded facility will include nutrient removal.
4. See Response to Comment #2.
5. See Response to Comment #4.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Scott C. Gordon
Manager, Corporate Environmental Engineering
September 3, 1981
Comment #S4: The recommendation for downgrading the existing design capacity of
the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting should be reconsidered since
7-36
(
-------
some of the methodology and assumptions used may not be valid. The
method used for this projection was a land-use model which was
developed using available vacant land as a dependent variable. Since
both Madison and Chatham Boroughs have very little vacant land,
this type of model seems inappropriate.
Response: This EIS employed basic constraints analysis techniques that involved
overlaying existing zoning with environmentally sensitive lands and
eliminating treatment capacity for constrained aras. This methodology
is appropriate for a study of this type.
Comment #55; Several important factors should be carefully investigated before
concluding that an additional study is necessary. There is a
considerable amount of monitoring data and other environmental
studies already available on the GSNWR. It appears that some of
these studies may not have been adequately considered in the draft
EIS.
The field sampling program conducted by EPA in 1978 and reported
in the draft EIS should be more fully discussed and compared with
other studies.
The supportive monitoring data cited in Appendix C of the draft EIS
on Tables C-4 through C-12 omits useftil information such as the type
and frequency of sample, the time of year, and in some cases, the unit
of measurement. There also appears to be missing data.
There is an important oversight thai is easily forgotten when
comparing and interpreting monitoring data. This oversight is
variable stream flown.
7-37
-------
Response: The studies preceding the GSNWR were fully evaluated during the
preparation of the draft EIS. Those data, though useful in
characterizing existing conditions in some of the Basin's surface waters,
were not designed with specific issues such as point source and non-
point source loading quantification, wasteload allocation, or
hydrological modeling guiding the study design and data collection.
The GSWQS was designed specifically with such issues central to the
data collection; moreover, the GSWQS data base provides full
documentation of sample type, frequency, date, measurement unit; the
GSWQS data base also provides flow rate measurements at all
sampling locations.
Comment #56; One important area that was neglected in the draft EIS was the
establishment of a clear benchmark from which to judge and compare
available data. The draft EIS appears to accept the NJDEP's Water
Quality Criteria classification for fresh water streams as the criteria
for evaluation of the GSNWR. No foundation was laid to demonstrate
that these are appropriate criteria.
Response: The analysis of the GSWQS emphasized comparison of data among
and between monitoring locations rather than comparison of data with
absolute standards. These relative comparisons point out significant
differences and potential impacts without reliance on absolute
standards for obtaining these conclusions.
Comment #57; Recommendations regarding the proposed nutrient study and related
waste treatment issues are as follows:
1. Regardless of the proposed nutrient' study, the Morris
Township and Chatham Township WWTPs should be upgraded
7-38
/'
-------
to Level 4 with full nutrient and chlorine removal. Alternate
disinfection methods should be evaluated and adequate sludge
handling and disposal facilities should be provided.
2. Regardless of the proposed nutrient study, privately owned
waste treatment plants capable of achieving Level 4 plus
nutrient removal should be permitted in developable areas that
are not served by a municipal system provided they are not
located in wetlands or floodplains.
3. The nutrient study, if still justified, should be conducted in
three phases; design, testing and evaluation. The design phase
is the most critical and important. This should involve a clear
understanding of all the identifiable objectives and the tasks
required to complete each objective.
Response: 1. See Response to Comment #1. Also, the upgraded Chatham
and Morris-Woodland WWTPs will be using ultraviolet
disinfection, not chlorination. Both plants will continue to
transport sludge to Two Bridges Sewer Authority for
incineration.
2. See Response to Comment #4.
3. This study was conducted in these phases. A preliminary scope
for the GSWQS was developed in 1980 by a task force of
academic and governmental water quality and wetland experts.
In 1982, EPA and NJDEP (again in consultation with water
quality and wetlands experts) refined the scope of the study.
Project implementation began in late 1983; intensive field
7-39
-------
sampling began in March 1984 and continued through
September 1985. Some sampling efforts (e.g., monitoring of
storm events) continued until April 1987. The data evaluation
phase of the study was conducted as part of this final EIS. (See
Appendix K).
Comment #58; A pumping station should be investigated to handle not only the waste
treatment plant discharge but possibly a portion of Loantaka Brook
during high water conditions.
Response: The idea of a pumping station was investigated in the draft EIS and
rejected because it was not considered a cost-effective option.
Comment #59: As stated in the draft EIS, the Congressional mandate for designated
Wilderness Areas specifically prohibits outside interferences or man-
made activities. Presumably, the discharges from the Chatham
Township and Morris Township treatment plants would be considered
a man-made influence since they flow into the GSNWR?
Response: The Congressional mandate for designated wilderness areas would
apply to direct discharges to the GSNWR. However, EPA does not
believe that the operation of the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPs, located outside of the GSNWR, which discharge treated
effluent to streams that ultimately enter the GSNWR, constitutes an
act prohibited by the Wilderness Act.
Comment #60: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed a great concern
regarding the diversion of the waste treatment plant effluents from the
GSNWR because waterfowl management programs are dependent on
a relatively constant supply of water particularly during critical
7-40
-------
nesting periods. II is not only desirable to have these areas managed
but it is essential to control both man-made and natural forces in
order to preserve the uniqueness of the GSNWR.
Response: Where man-made facilities (e.g., WWTTs, stormwater collection
systems) intercept natural drainage patterns and/or affect stream flows,
the most desirable solution would be to restore "normal" flow volumes
with clean water (e.g., clean discharges). The recommended
alternative, the upgrading of existing treatment facilities to provide
cleaner discharges, is consistent with this type of solution.
Comment #61: One man-made activity discussed in the draft EIS that may adversely
afTed receiving waters such as the GSNWR or the Passaic River, is the
use of chlorine for disinfection of waste treatment plant effluents.
Alternative means of disinfection are available and contrary to the
draft EIS, the costs are competitive with chlorine. One of the best
methods for disinfection is ozonation. The use of ozone is now cost-
effective with chlorine because of recent advances in solid state
electronics and improvements In electrode design.
Response: At the time the draft EIS was prepared, chlorination was NJDEP's
preferred method of disinfection. Since that time, advances in
alternative disinfection processes and new information regarding the
impacts of chlorine on receiving streams has made alternative
disinfection processes desirable in the UPRB. NJDEP has applied
chlorine residual limits to the treatment plants in the UPRB and many
have either installed dechlorination equipment or replaced chlorination
with an alternative disinfection process, such as ultraviolet disinfection.
The plants without such processes either in use already or under
construction appear to be heading toward implementation of this
7-41
-------
technology in the near future. At this time, ozonation is considered a
viable treatment option; however, none of the treatment plants have
chosen to employ this technology.
7-42
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
Brown, R.M., N.I. McClelland, R.A. Deininger, and R.G. Tozer. 1970. A Water Quality
Index - Do We Dare? Water Sewage Works (Oct. 1970): 339-343.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1988. Best Management Practices for Stormwater Control,
Harrisburg, PA.
DiLorenzo, J.L., H.S. Litwack, T.O. Najarian, and O.O. Marino. 1988. Adaptation of a
Hydrologic and Water Quality Model to the Great Swamp Watershed: Generation of a
Management Tool. Najarian & Associates, Inc. Eatontown, New Jersey.
Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc, and Dames and Moore. 1977. Final Draft 201 Facilities Plan.
Prepared for the Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater Management Committee.
Hammer, D.A.(ed.). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Kadlec, R.H., and F.B. Bevis. 1990. Wetlands and Wastewater: Kinross, Michigan.
Wetlands 10(1): 77-92.
Maguire Group, Inc. 1988. Great Swamp Water Quality Monitoring Study: Data Report.
McElroy, A.D., S.Y. Chiu, J.W. Nebgen, A. Aleti, and F.W. Bennett. 1976. Loading
Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO. EPA-600/2-76-151.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs.
1987. A Framework for Evaluating Compliance with the 10% Rule in the Critical Area.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs.
1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMP's.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Water Resources. 1979.
Controlling Stormwater Runoff in Developing Areas. Selected Best Management Practices.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1988a. Environmental Review:
Upgrade and Expansion of the Passaic Township Stirling Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Division of Water Resources, Trenton, NJ,
R-l
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1988b. Environmental Review:
Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting Molitor Water Pollution Control Facility Upgrade. Division
of Water Resources, Trenton, NJ.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1988c. New Jersey 1988 State
Water Quality Inventory Report. Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Water Quality
Planning, Trenton, NJ.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1988d. Surface Water Quality
Standards - Rule Proposals.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1990. Environmental Review:
Township of Morris: Upgrade of the Woodland Sewage Treatment Plant. Division of Water
Resources, Trenton, NJ.
New Jersey Department of Labor. 1989. Population Estimates for New Jersey - July 1, 1988.
State of New Jersey Department of Labor, Division of Labor Market and Demographic
Research, Trenton, NJ.
New Jersey State Planning Commission. 1988. The Preliminary State Development and
Redevelopment Plan for the State of New Jersey. Vol. II - Strategies and Policies.
Passaic River Coalition. 1986. The Buried Valley Aquifer Systems: Resources and
Contamination. Passaic River Coalition, Basking Ridge, NJ.
Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Smith. 1987. Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource
Recovery. Magnolia Publishing, Orlando, FL.
Steel, R.G.D., and J.H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics With Special
Reference to the Biological Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY.
481 pp.
Trama, F.B. 1987. Great Swamp Water Quality Study: Algal Bioassays. Department of
Biological Sciences and Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1981. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement of the Upper Passaic River Basin 201 Facilities Plan, Somerset, Morris, and Union
Counties, New Jersey. USEPA Region n, New York, NY.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Great Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge: Hydrology Study of Watershed Effects on the Refuge. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.
R-2
-------
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Great Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge Master Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Great Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge Master Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best Management Practices Handbook - Urban.
Planning Bulletin 321.
Wanielista, M.P. 1978. Stormwater Management: Quantity and Quality. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 383 pp.
R-3
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX K
Review of Great Swamp Water Quality Study
H
-------
APPENDIX K:
REVIEW OF GREAT SWAMP WATER QUALITY STUDY
Prepared by:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
With Assistance From:
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Harrisburg, PA
In Association With:
EcolSciences, Inc.
Rockaway, NJ
September 1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION K-6
A. General Background K-6
B. Scope of Great Swamp Water Quality Study K-8
C. Status of Great Swamp Water Quality Study K-8
D. Scope of This Review K-15
II. ANALYTIC APPROACH TO REVIEW OF GREAT SWAMP
WATER QUALITY STUDY K-16
A. Issues Resolved in Earlier GSWQS Reports K-16
B. Quantitative Methods Used in Review K-17
III. STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF GRAB SAMPLE DATA K-19
A. Influence of WWTPs on Water Quality Under
Base Flow Conditions K-19
1. Loantaka Brook/Great Brook Subsystem
Comparisons K-19
2. Black Brook Subsystem Comparisons K-21
3. Between Subsystem Comparisons K-25
4. Discussion K-25
B. Influence of Great Swamp on Base Flow
Water Quality K-29
1. Loantaka Brook/Great Brook Subsystem
Comparisons K-29
2. Black Brook Subsystem Comparisons K-29
3. Between Subsystem Comparisons K-29
4. Discussion K-36
C. Influence of WWTPs on Water Quality Under
Storm Flow Conditions K-39
1. Loantaka Brook/Great Brook Subsystem
Comparisons K-39
2. Black Brook Subsystem Comparisons K-39
3. Between Subsystem Comparisons K-45
4. Discussion K-45
D. Influences of Great Swamp Discharges on
Passaic River Water Quality K-50
E. Influence of General Land Use Patterns and
Non-Point Source Loadings on Great Swamp
Water Quality K-55
1. Base Flow Conditions K-56
2. Storm Flow Conditions K-59
3. Discussion K-59
F. Estimation of Point and Non-Point Source
Loadings in the GSWQS Sampling Area K-62
1. Estimated Loadings from Morris-Woodland
and Chatham WWTPs K-62
2. Estimated Loading Influences of
Non-Point Sources K-65
3. Discussion K—66
K-2
/
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF AUTOMATED SAMPLING DATA . K-68
A. Flow-Weighted Nutrient Loadings During Storm Flows... K-68
B. Temporal Patterns in Nutrient Loadings K-68
V. INTERPRETATION OF GSWQS ANALYTICAL FINDINGS K-75
A. Influence of WWTPs on Water Quality and Plant
Growth Under Base Flow Conditions K-75
B. Influence of General Land Use Patterns and
Non-point Source Loadings on Great Swamp
Water Quality K-75
C. Influence of Great Swamp Discharges on
Passaic River Water Quality K-76
D. Future conditions and Water Quality/Quantity Trends.. X-77
VI. SUMMARY K-78
REFERENCES
K-3
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
Table 1. Locations of GSWQS Surface Water Sampling Stations. K-9
Table 2. Summary of GSWQS Sampling Efforts K-ll
Table 3. Summary of Existing GSWQS Reports K-12
Table 4. Multiple Range Comparison of Base Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook
(Series 100) Subsystem Stations K-20
Table 5. Null Hypothesis #1 K-22
Table 6. Null Hypothesis #2 K-23
Table 7. Multiple Range Comparison of Base Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Black Brook (Series 2 00)
Subsystem Stations K-24
Table 8. Null Hypothesis #3 K-26
Table 9. Null Hypothesis #4 K-27
Table 10. Null Hypothesis #5 K-28
Table 11. Null Hypothesis #6 K-30
Table 12. Null Hypothesis #7 K-31
Table 13. Null Hypothesis #8 K-32
Table 14. Null Hypothesis #9 K-33
Table 15. Null Hypothesis #10 K-34
Table 16. Null Hypothesis #11 K-35
Table 17. Multiple Range Comparison of Storm Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook
(Series 100) Subsystem Stations K-40
Table 18. Null Hypothesis #12 K-41
Table 19. Null Hypothesis #13 K-42
Table 20. Multiple Range Comparison of Storm Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Black Brook (Series 200)
Subsystem Stations K-43
Table 21. Null Hypothesis #14 . K-46
Table 22. Null Hypothesis #15 K-47
Table 23. Null Hypothesis #16a K-48
Table 24. Null Hypothesis #16b K-49
Table 25. Null Hypothesis #17 K-51
Table 26. Null Hypothesis #18 K-52
Table 27. Null Hypothesis #19 . K-53
Table 28. Null Hypothesis #20 K-54
Table 29. Multiple Range Comparisons of Base Flow Sample
Means at STP-Independent Stations K-57
Table 30. Multiple Range Comparisons of Storm Flow Sample
Means at STP-Independent Stations K-60
Table 31. Great Swamp Loading Estimates (mg/sec) -
Base Flow Conditions K-63
Table 32. Great Swamp Loading Estimates (mg./sec) -
Storm Flow Conditions K-64
Table 33. Geometric Mean Percentage Increases in Common Non-
Point Source Constituents with Storm Flows ... K-67
Table 34. Summary of GSWQS Intensive Storm Sampling Effort... K-69
Table 35. Flow-Weighted Nutrient Concentrations During
Storm Events...................................... K-* 7 0
/
K-4
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Fj-gwe NPr Title Ease
Figure 1. Municipalities Included in UPRB 201
Facilities Plan» K—7
Figure 2. Locations of GSWQS Sampling Stations K-10
Figure 3. Mean Base Flow Nitrogen Concentrations by
Sampling station K-37
Figure 4. Mean Base Flow Phosphorus Concentrations by
Sampling Station K-37
Figure 5. Mean Storm Flow Nitrogen Concentrations by
Sampling Station K-44
Figure 6. Mean Storm Flow Phosphorus Concentrations by
Sampling station K-44
Figure 7. Nitrate Concentrations in Storm Flows at
Stations 100 and 110 K-72
Figure 8. Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Storm Flows
at Stations 100 and 110 K-72
Figure 9. Nitrate Concentrations in Two Consecutive Storms
at Stations 100 and 110 K-73
Figure 10. Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Two Consecutive
Storms at Stations 100 and 110 K-73
K-5
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General Background
In 1977, the Upper Passaic Wastewater Management Study Committee
issued a Draft 201 Facilities Plan setting forth a proposal to
upgrade and expand wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located in
the Upper Passaic River Basin (UPRB) sections of Morris, Somerset,
and Union Counties, New Jersey. A 201 Facilities Plan is a long-
range planning document that sets forth guidance for the
construction and/or modification of wastewater treatment facilities
in a specific region, usually a large watershed area.
Municipalities wholly or partially included within the planning
area addressed in the 1977 Draft 201 Facilities Plan for the Upper
Passaic River Basin are Chatham Borough, Madison Borough, New
Providence Borough, Watchung Borough, Berkeley Heights Township,
Bernards Township, Chatham Township, Harding Township, Morris
Township, and Passaic Township (Figure 1).
In 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified major
environmental issues associated with the draft Facilities Plan and
issued a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) on the Plan. Among the major issues identified at
that time were (EPA, 1981):
o secondary impacts associated with expansion and
upgrading of WWTPs;
o impacts of the Chatham Township and Morris-Woodland
WWTPs on the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
(GSNWR)
o expansion and construction of WWTPs within the
flood hazard area;
o chlorine and ammonia toxicity associated with the
wastewater discharges in the Black Brook, Dead
River, Loantaka Brook, and Passaic River; and
o public controversy.
The draft EIS on the UPRB 201 Facilities Plan was issued by EPA in
June, 1981. A public hearing was held on August 20, 1981 to
discuss the 201 Plan and its draft EIS; additionally, written
comments on the draft EIS were solicited according to NEPA
guidelines.
Comments received during the public hearing and comments received
in writing repeatedly raised the issue of potential impacts to
water quality in the GSNWR resulting from discharges from
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to streams traversing that
swamp, as well as water quality impacts that might be generated by
additions of nutrients from non-point sources.
K-6
/
-------
FIGURE 1
Municipalities Included in UPRB 201 Facilities Plan
K-7
-------
The Great Swamp Water Quality Study (GSWQS) was developed in
response to these areas of concern, and was designed to provide
information regarding possible degradation of surface and/or
subsurface water quality, and to assess the possibility of
accelerated eutrophication of existing bodies of water within the
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.
B* Scope of GSWQS
A preliminary scope for the GSWQS was developed in 1980 by a task
force of academic and governmental water quality and wetland
experts. In 1982, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) refined the scope of the study. Project
implementation began in late 1983 with the establishment and
surveying of sampling locations; intensive field sampling began in
March 1984 and continued through September 1985. Some additional
sampling efforts (e.g., monitoring of storm events) continued until
April 1987.
The data collection effort for the GSWQS included precipitation
monitoring, ground water monitoring, and surface water monitoring.
Surface water monitoring included both automatic and grab sampling
of base flows and storm flows. Table l lists the sampling locations
from which the water quality and flow data were generated during
the GSWQS. Figure 2 provides a map of the Great Swamp area
indicating the locations of the sampling stations.
The water quality data (and water samples) obtained from the field
effort were used to guide an Algal Bioassay Program headed by Dr.
Francesco B. Trama of the Center for Coastal and Marine Studies,
Rutgers, University. In addition, the water quality data were used
to calibrate a hydrological model prepared by Najarian Associates,
Inc. Table 2 summarizes the scope of the study efforts
constituting the GSWQS.
C. Status of GSWQS
The results of the study have been reported in three technical
reports, each focusing on specific subsets of the principal issues
cited above. The three GSWQS reports issued were:
Trama, F.B. 1987. Great Swamp Water Quality Study:
Algal Bioassay.
Maguire Group, Inc. 1988. Great Swamp Water Quality
Monitoring Study: Data Report.
Najarian & Associates, Inc. 1988. Adaptation of a
Hydrologic and Water Quality Model to the Great Swamp
Watershed: Generation of a Management Tool.
Table 3 summarizes the objectives and findings of these three
reports.
K-8
-------
Locations
TABLE 1
of GSWQS Surface Water Sampling Stations
Station No.
Location
100
Loantaka Brook above Morris-Woodland WWTP
105
Loantaka Brook, 100' below Morris-Woodland WWTP
110
Loantaka Brook at Green Village Road
120
Great Brook at Woodland Road
160
Great Brook on Dike Road (GSNWR)
170
Primrose Brook near Katz1 weir
180
Loantaka/Great Brook at Pleasant Plains Road
200
Black Brook at Southern Boulevard Bridge
215
Drainage ditch below outfall of Chatham WWTP
220
Drainage ditch at GSNWR boundary
240
Black Brook at New Vernon Road Bridge
270
Middle Brook at Pleasant Plains Road
280
Black Brook at Pleasant Plains Road
340
Passaic River at Osborne Pond spillway
320
Passaic River at USGS Millington Gage
K-9
-------
FIGURE 2
Locations of GSWQS Sampling Stations
MEW VtflNON
C\
»W|
rw»
..-r1
160,
\ /'iMMfiaM
BIS KMC .
i"toet
t
p
4
a
<]
Afll
Vi
mTvavj
¦**
r
.fc
iuT
A
\ r—
, Yr-^-Q1
CHATHAM
0 1/4 1/2
SCM( 1« Mlltl
1 MANAGEMENT AftEA &
I WILDERNESS AREA
~SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING SITE
• GROUNO WATER
SAMPLING SITE
GREAT SWAMP
WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDY
NEW JERSEY
K-10
-------
TABLE 2
Summary of GSWQS Sampling Efforts
Base
Storm
Intensive
Site Fpr
Grab
Grab
Storm
BioassaY
Flow
100
X
X
X
X
X
105
X
X
X
X
110
X
X
X
X
120
X
X
X
X
X
160
X
X
X
X
170
X
X
X
X
X
180
X
X
X
X
X
200
X
X
X
215
X
X
X
X
220
X
X
X
240
X
X
X
270
X
X
X
280
X
X
X
X
320
X
X
X
X
X
340
X
X
X
X
X
K-ll
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Existing GSWQS Reports
(page 1 of 3)
REPORT: Great Swamp Water Quality Monitoring Study: Data Report.
DATE: January, 1988
AUTHOR: Maguire Group, Inc.
Objectives of Study:
1) to evaluate the effects of nutrient loading on the Great Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge (GSNWR) from point sources (the Morris-
Woodland and Chatham WWTPs);
2) to evaluate the effects of nutrient loadings from non-point
sources;
3) to provide data to the NJDEP for their modeling analyses? and
4) to provide data for use in establishing wastewater treatment
facility wasteload allocations.
Findings: Report details scope and methodology, lists all water
quality data, and graphs flow data. No other data evaluation is
presented in the report. These data, however, provided the basis
for the algal bioassays and hydrological modeling studies cited
below.
K-12
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Existing GSWQS Reports
(page 2 of 3)
REPORT: Great Swamp Water Quality Study: Algal Bioassays
DATE: December 1987
AUTHOR: F.B. Trama, Department of Biological Sciences and Center
for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Objectives of Study: use of algal bioassays on a seasonal and flow
basis to determine the limiting nutrients and eutrophication
potential for GSNWR surface waters. Specifically, to:
1) identify the growth-limiting constituents (e.g., N, P, or trace
elements);
2) determine availability of the growth-limiting nutrients; and
3) quantify a biological response to changes in nutrient levels.
Findings:
1) water from Stations 100, 120, 170, and 340 are phosphorus-
limited with respect to algal growth potential. These streams have
a moderate amount of available phosphorus and an adequate supply of
inorganic nitrogen to support plant growth.
2) the Passaic River below Osborne Pond (Station 340) is low in
available phosphorus and nitrogen, but Station 100 has consistently
high concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen.
3) Great Brook (Station 180) and Black Brook (Station 280) are both
regarded as nitrogen-limited as they travel through the wetlands of
the GSNWR. This is more evident for Black Brook than it is for
Great Brook. They both carry a high concentration of phosphorus
that presumably arises via the sewage treatment plant effluents.
The Black Brook system (Station 280) shows a significantly higher
concentration of phosphorus than does Black Brook (Station 180).
3) sewage effluent (Stations 105 and 215) is a rich source for
phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen, These effluents as sampled,
however, are always nitrogen-limited.
4) the net effect of stream waters entering the Passaic River in
the vicinity of GSNWR (Station 320) is an increase in the
concentration of phosphorus? little, if any, change in nitrate-
nitrogen occurs. The Passaic River at Station 320 varies from
nitrogen- to phosphorus-limited depending on quality and quantity
of inflows from the upstream region.
RggpromendaUgng*
1) the source of the high nitrate concentrations at station 100
should be identified, if possible.
K-13
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Existing GSWQS Reports
(page 3 of 3)
REPORT: Adaptation of a Hydrologic and Water Quality Model to the
Great Swamp Watershed: Generation of a Management Tool.
DATE: January 1988
AUTHORS: J.L. DiLorenzo, H.S. Litwack, T.O. Najarian, and G.O.
Marino. Najarian & Associates, Inc. Eatontown, New Jersey.
Objectives of Study:
1) determination of the long-term nutrient budget of the Great
Swamp Watershed;
2) development of a technically defensible management tool that is
capable of predicting long-term impacts of changes in land use
within the Great Swamp Watershed; and
3) assessment of the impacts of the sewage treatment plants within
the watershed on the water quality conditions in the Great Swamp.
Findings:
1) under present (1984-85) conditions, the GSNWR acts as an
important sink for nutrients originating in the Great Swamp
Watershed;
2) the deposition of such nutrients and pollutants within the GSNWR
is likely to increase appreciably as a result of realistic
projections for the increase in developed acreages within the
watershed by the year 2000; the loss of pervious surface
accompanying such development will reduce base flows and increase
quantities of surface runoff.
3) the model developed provides the means for assessing the extent
and duration of water quality impacts from WWTPs on the dissolved
oxygen (DO) regime and nutrient fluxes in the streams of the refuge
area.
K-14
-------
d. sqqps of This Review
Background information gathering for this review of the GSWQS
included a detailed examination of the three reports cited in Table
3, as well as a review of the 201 Facilities Plan and the
subsequent draft EIS. Other information sources used included the
annual water quality data published by USGS for New Jersey rivers
and streams, technical papers detailing the potential impacts of
wastewater discharge into wetland ecosystems, watershed and aquifer
studies for the UPRB, draft and final EISs issued by the USFWS for
the GSNWR, and Findings of No Significant Impact (FNSIs) issued by
the NJDEP for three regional WWTP upgrades.
The quantitative analyses detailed in this appendix have been
designed to provide statistically valid statements concerning the
temporal and spatial changes in water quality across the study area
- the Upper Passaic River Basin. The types of questions "asked" of
the GSWQS data base in this report pertain to particular concerns
that have been raised by agencies, organizations, and individuals
about the present and future state of the Great Swamp. The set of
analyses does not exhaust the information that can eventually be
gleaned from the water quality study; the data collection effort
was extensive, and some aspects of the data base have not been
evaluated in detail in this review. This review focuses on
nutrient loadings (forms of nitrogen and phosphorus) being added to
the Great Swamp and Passaic River by point and non-point loadings
from the Upper Passaic River Basin.
K-15
-------
IX. ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO REVIEW OF GSWQS
A. Issues Resolved in Earlier GSWQS Reports
The summaries of the GSWQS reports on hydrological modeling
(Najarian, 1987) and algal bioassays (Trama, 1988) offered in Table
3 include references to specific findings, conclusions, and
recommendations set forth in those reports. EPA has reviewed those
findings, and concurs with them as stated by the original
investigators. However, the GSWQS Data Report (Maguire Group,
1988) contains only raw data and ancillary information (e.g.,
sampling and quality assurance protocols) and has no interpretation
section. Thus, several of the significant questions raised by
commentors on the draft EIS need to be evaluated in terms of the
data collected by the GSWQS.
The principal applications of the data collected by the Maguire
Group were:
1) to evaluate the effects of nutrient loading on the
GSNWR from point sources (the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPs);
2) to evaluate the effects of nutrient loadings from non-
point sources;
3) to provide data to the NJDEP for their modeling
analyses; and
4) provide data for use in establishing WWTP wasteload
allocations.
Objective 1 above was evaluated in part in the Trama report on
algal bioassays; as noted in Table 1, the Trama report concluded
that "sewage effluent (Stations 105 and 215) is a rich source for
phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen, These effluents as sampled,
however, "are always nitrogen-limited"(Trama, 1987).
Objective 2 - the non-point source issue - was partially evaluated
by algal bioassays; the Trama report presents algal bioassay
results from water obtained during both base-flow and storm-flow
sampling intervals. This review presents additional analyses
evaluating the magnitudes and general locations of significant non-
point source loadings.
Objective 3 above was satisfactorily met; the data provided to
NJDEP and its contractor permitted the development of an analytic
model that "provides the means for assessing the extent and
duration of water quality impacts from WWTPs on the dissolved
oxygen (DO) regime and nutrient fluxes in the streams of the refuge
area" (Najarian & Associates, 1988).
K-16
-------
Objective 4 - the evaluation of wasteload allocations - has been
resolved in part by the modeling results described in the Najarian
report. The hydrological/water quality modeling demonstrated that
reduction in waste loadings from the WWTPs discharging to the Great
Swamp could achieve lowered levels of nutrients, although the
reductions achieved by Level 4 treatment were not likely to
generate water quality that would meet NJDEP standards for all
parameters.
B. Quantitative Methods Used in Review
The changes in water quality over the study area can be
quantitatively assessed by comparing grab samples from various
combinations of upstream and downstream station sets. The sampling
dates for these data sets are the same; all grab samples were taken
within the space of one or two hours. The principal difference,f
then, between any two data sets is the sampling location and the
influences on water quality introduced at or upstream of that
sampling location. Thus, the differences in water quality
variables between two stations can be statistically examined with
a paired t-test.
A t-test of paired values begins with the statement of a testable
(or "falsifiableM) hypothesis termed the null hypothesis. The null
hypothesis - the hypothesis accepted or rejected based on the
outcome of the statistical test *- is generally ' framed as assuming
that the mean difference between the paired values is Zero,
implying that the means compared' aire hot significantly different
and that the values obtained in eamplihg 'tV6 ligations coine from
the same large distribution of possible veltiesJ The t-statistio
derived in the test is either greater or less than the statistical
probability established before the test is performed; commonly, a
probability of 5 percent is used. From this t-statistic, the
probability that the magnitude of the mean difference could happen
by chance can be computed. If the probability of occurrence of the
mean difference is greater than or equal to 5 percent (in decimal
proportions, 0.05), then the mean difference is not significant and
the null hypothesis is not discarded. If the probability of
occurrence of the mean difference is less than 5 percent, then the
mean difference is significant and the null hypothesis is discarded
(Steele and Torrie, 1960).
Where statistical comparison of water quality data from several
sampling locations is desired, the differences between the means of
several data sets can be evaluated using a multiple range teat. In
this review, the Newman-Keuls multiple range test is used to
identify groups of sampling locations whose mean values for a
particular water quality parameter are statistically different or
not different. The form of the analysis is similar to the paired
t-test; in the multiple range test, the number of comparisons is
greatly expanded (Steel and Torrie, 1960).
**1%
-------
The water quality values of primary concern are biogenic nutrients
- nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients can occur in aquatic
systems as inorganic ions (e.g., orthophosphate, nitrate, and
ammonium), as particulate inorganic forms (e.g., phosphate
complexes), and as elements or compounds incorporated into organic
molecules. Nitrate and orthophosphate are immediately available as
plant nutrients; the particulate inorganic and/or organic forms of
these nutrients can become available after certain chemical
reactions (e.g., hydrolysis of complexes, oxidation of organics,
oxidation of ammonium to nitrate).
The GSWQS analyzed samples for two forms of phosphorus:
orthophosphate (P04) and total phosphorus (TP). Nitrogen was
analyzed as four forms: nitrate (N03)» ammonia (NH4), total
filterable Kjeldahl nitrogen (FTKN) and total unfilterable Kjeldahl
nitrogen (UTKN). The statistical analyses of the GSWQS data
reported here focus on analysis of orthophosphate, total
phosphorus, nitrate, and total soluble inorganic nitrogen (the sum
of ammonia and nitrate concentrations) - this latter value was used
by Trama as a predictor of plant growth responses in the algal
bioassay studies.
The chapter that follows examines over 20 different hypotheses
about the relationships between and among sampling stations. The
very large size of the GSWQS data base allows hundreds of potential
hypotheses to be tested; the key to extracting information of
biological significance is to relate a testable hypothesis to the
form of the database and to the general water quality under
assessment. The hypotheses discussed in Chapter 5 are directly
relevant to the objectives of the GSWQS as summarized in the
Chapter I of this review.
K-18
-------
III. STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF GRAB SAMPLE DATA
a. ipfinencQ Qf WWTPs pn Water Quality vnfler Bag? Plow cpnaitiong
A principal issue raised in comments about the UPRB 201 Facilities
Plan was the magnitude of the impact of WWTP discharges on water
quality in Loantaka Brook, Great Brook, and Black Brook. These
Passaic River tributaries originate outside of the Great Swamp,
receive discharges of treated wastewater from municipal WWTPs, and
convey these additional loadings through the Great Swamp.
The array of sampling stations in the GSWQS was arranged so that
the influence of discharges from the Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPs could be quantitatively assessed. Specifically, Stations 100
and 105 are located on Loantaka Brook above and below the Morris-
Woodland WWTP, respectively. These two stations bracket the
discharge from that plant, and can be compared to isolate the
effects of that WWTP on water quality in Loantaka Brook. The
locations of stations on Black Brook are not so conveniently
situated; although Station 200 provides a sampling location
upstream of the Chatham WWTP, there is no direct correlate of
Station 110 on Black Brook. Station 210 is a location that
directly samples the discharge of the Chatham WWTP from a ditch
that connects to Black Brook; there is no station that samples the
brook after mixing of the WWTP discharge with ambient flows.
Keeping in mind the difference in station patterns between the
Loantaka Brook/Great Brook and the Black Brook subsystems, the
influences of the two WWTPs can be assessed by comparing grab
samples from the upstream and downstream sets of stations. The
sampling dates for these data sets are the same; all grab samples
were taken within the space of one or two hours. Thus, the
differences between mean water quality variables between two
stations can be statistically examined with t-test statistics. As
discussed above, pairs of stations can be compared using the paired
t-test; more than two stations can be compared using multiple range
comparisons.
1. Loantaka Brook/Great Brook Subsystem Comparisons
Table 4 presents a graphic illustration of the similarities and
differences among mean phosphate, nitrate, total phosphorus, and
total soluble inorganic nitrogen concentrations in base flow grab
samples at the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook stations. Mean nutrient
•concentrations at stations underlined by the same line are not
statistically different from each other; mean nutrient
concentrations at stations underlined by different lines are
statistically different. For phosphate and total phosphorus,
stations 100, 120, 160, 170, 180, and 340 (the Passaic River at the
Great Brook confluence) have similar base flow mean concentrations.
Station 105 has mean concentrations for these nutrients higher than
all other stations, while Station 110 has intermediate
K-19
-------
Table 4
Multiple Range Comparison of Base Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook
(Series 100) Subsystem Stations*
A. Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate at Series 100 Stations
Station Number
120 170 100 180 160 340 110 105
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
B. Comparison of Mean Nitrate at Series
Station Number
180 160 170 340 120
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
C. Comparison of Mean Total Phosphorus at Series 100 Stations
Station Number
120 170 340 100 180 160 110 105
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
D. Comparison of Mean Total Inorganic Nitrogen at Series 100
Stations
Station Number
180 160 170 340 120 100 110 105
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
Population 4
100 Stations
100 105 110
* This is a graphical representation of the Newman-Keuls multiple
comparisons test. At the 0.05 level of significance! the means of
any two stations underscored by the same line are not significantly
different. Means increase from left to right.
K-20
/
-------
concentrations significantly different from both station 105 and
from the downstream set. Mean total soluble inorganic nitrogen
concentrations at stations 100, 105, and 110 were statistically
different from each other and from the downstream stations; mean
concentrations at this group of stations were significantly higher
than mean total soluble inorganic nitrogen concentrations at the
downstream stations. Nitrate concentrations were similar at
stations 105 and 110; both these stations and Station 100 had
nitrate concentrations significantly higher than downstream
stations. This particular finding will be discussed further in
sections below.
While multiple range testing permits simultaneous comparison of a
relatively large group of sampling locations, paired t-testing
offers the opportunity to test specific null hypotheses and discern
finer differences in sample means, should such differences exist.
Table 5 compares the paired base flow grab sample data for nitrate
(N03) and phosphate (P04) ions at stations 100 and 110. As the
table indicates, base flow grab sample nitrate concentrations at
Station 110 are not statistically different from those at Station
100. There is, however, a statistically significant difference in
base flow phosphate ion concentrations at Station 100 and Station
110; the phosphate ion concentrations are higher at Station 110
than they are at Station 100.
Table 6 compares paired base flow grab sample data for total
soluble inorganic nitrogen (TSIN) and total phosphorus (TP) at
stations 100 and 110. In both cases, the data sets are
significantly different, and in both cases, the mean for Station
110 is higher than is the mean at Station 100.
The results of the preceding multiple range tests and paired t-
tests indicate that the Morris-Woodland WWTP discharge
significantly elevated concentrations of phosphate, total soluble
inorganic nitrogen, and total phosphorus into Loantaka Brook.
These are, in fact, the results generally anticipated; a treatment
plant discharge without tertiary nutrient removal is likely to
elevate nutrient levels in receiving waters. The counter-intuitive
finding in these data was that the mean nitrate levels in Loantaka
Brook were statistically the same above and below the Morris-
Woodland WWTP. The implication here is that the non-point source
loadings to Loantaka Brook might be sufficiently elevated to mask
any affect of the Morris-Woodland WWTP on nitrate concentrations.
2. BlacK Brp
-------
TABLE 5
Null Hypothesis #1; The mean differences in nitrate and
orthophosphate ion concentrations in base flow grab samples from
Loantaka Brook sampling stations above (Sta. 100) and below (Sta.
105) the Morris-Woodland WWTP are equal to zero (sample values are
drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: N03 and P04 grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test; Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station
100
Station
105
Collection
Date
NO 3
P04
NO 3
P04
02-Mar-84
1.86
0.038
4.46
2.410
20-Mar-84
1.37
0.050
4.50
2.000
23-Apr-84
1.50
0.050
3.86
2.600
18-May-84
1.49
0.050
1.45
3.000
12-Jun-84
2.13
0.050
0.44
2.040
16-JU1-84
0.82
0.084
1.24
1.430
16-Aug-84
2.82
0.120
1.98
2.500
19-Sep-84
2.94
0.324
2.40
3.260
17-0ct-84
2.30
0.012
2.96
3.700
16-NOV-84
2.26
0.015
0.87
3.340
18-Dec-84
1.39
0.010
2.20
2.980
14-Jan-85
1.38
0.010
8.00
2.650
21-Feb-85
1.30
0.010
5.90
2.170
21-Mar-85
0.85
0.010
2.33
2.600
09-Apr-85
2.10
0.010
0.64
3.050
16-May-85
2.99
0.067
1.55
2.880
24-Jun-85
1,48
0.045
0.57
2.900
08-Jul-85
1.85
0.025
4.19
3.680
13-Aug-85
2.11
0.035
3.52
3.300
17-Sep-85
2.06
0.047
1.52 2.880
MEAN
1.85
0.053
2.73 2.769
STD.DEV.
0.63
0.070
1.97
0.576
Statistical Results (N03): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.0927, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Results fPQ4)t The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is o.oooo, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-22
-------
TABLE 6
Null Hypothesis #2: The, mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrogen (TSIN) and Total Phosphate (TP) concentrations
in base flow grab samples from Loantaka Brook sampling stations
above (Sta. 100) and below (Sta. 105) the Morris-Woodland WWTP are
equal to zero (sample values are drawn from the same distribution) .
Data For Hypothesis Testing: TSIN and TP grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station
100
Station 105
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
02-Mar-84
2.36
0.040
12.26
2.920
20-Mar-84
1.91
0.050
10.80
2.070
23-Apr-84
1.85
0.050
9.27
2.580
18-May-84
1.81
0.186
7.05
3.460
12-Jun-84
2.36
0.050
8.44
2.150
16-Jul-84
1.09
0.140
3.94
1.640
16-Aug-84
3.03
0.176
7.48
2.900
19-Sep-84
2.99
0.348
13.20
3.520
17-Oct-84
2.35
0.032
11.76
4.160
16-NOV-84
2.78
0.038
11.87
3.520
18-D6C-84
1.75
0.022
8.20
3.080
14-Jan-85
1.91
0.022
13.80
3.100
21-Feb-85
1.69
0.028
12.10
2.710
21-Mar-85
1.32
0.015
8.83
3.050
09-Apr-85
2.37
0.015
12.84
3.300
16-May-85
3.23
0.082
9.15
3.050
24-Jun-85
1.81
0.142
8.16
3.220
08-Jul-85
2.04
0.070
6.89
4.160
13-Aug-85
2.18
0.054
7.70
3.390
17-Sep-85
2.21 0.035
3.71
2.930
MEAN
2.15 0.080
9.37
3.046
STD.DEV.
0.56
0.082
2.90
0.625
Statistical Results fTSIN): The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE
statistically different.
Statistical Results fTP1: The probability that the nean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.0000, a value less than 0.05.
Thus, the TP data columns above ARE statistically different.
K-23
-------
TABLE 7
Multiple Range Comparison of Base Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Black Brook
(Series 200) Subsystem Stations*
A. Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate at Series 200 Stations
Station Number
200 270 320 280 240 220 215
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
Population 4
B. Comparison of Mean Nitrate at Series 200 Stations
Station Number
270 320 280 240 200 220 215
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
C. Comparison of Mean Total Phosphorus at Series 200 Stations
Station Number
200 320 270 280 240 220 215
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
Population 4 —
D. Comparison of Mean Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen at Series
200 Stations
Station Number
270 320 200 280 240 220 215
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
* This is a graphical representation of the NewmanHKeuls multiple
comparisons test. At the 0.05 level of significance, the means of
any two stations underscored by the same line are not significantly
different. Means increase from left to right.
K-24
-------
GSNWR, show intermediate levels of orthophosphate and total
phosphorus that are statistically different from other stations
and/or sets of stations.
Tables 8 and 9 summarize the results of paired t-tests on base flow
grab sample values for N03, P04, TSIN, and TP at Stations 200 and
215. As noted above, Station 200, located upstream of the GSNWR
and the Chatham WWTP, is the control station for Black Brook; i.e.,
water quality at Station 200 is independent of discharges from the
Chatham WWTP (although dependent on other sources in the upper
watershed of Black Brook). Station 215 is located on the drainage
ditch that conveys the Chatham WWTP discharge to Black Brook
(Station 215 does not sample the discharge after mixing with Black
Brook waters). The paired t-tests shown in the tables demonstrate
that the mean concentrations of N03, P04, TSIN, and TP are all
significantly higher at Station 215 than at Station 200. Thus, the
Chatham WWTP discharge is adding biogenic nutrients at
concentrations significantly higher than background concentrations
in Black Brook.
3. Between Subsystems Comparisons
Table 10 compares base flow grab sample data for N03 and P04 at
stations 100 and 200. As demonstrated earlier (Table 5), mean base
flow N03 concentrations did not differ significantly at stations
100 and 110, implying that the N03 contributions from the watershed
were relatively high. This last paired t-test demonstrates that
the N03 concentrations at the Loantaka Brook control station
(Station 100) were significantly higher than those of the Black
Brook control station (Station 200). phosphate concentrations were
similar at these two locations. The water quality at both of these
stations reflects point and non-point influences in the watershed,
and the difference in mean N03 concentrations between the stations
indicates that watershed loadings of N03 are substantial in the
Loantaka Brook drainage area upstream of the Morris-Woodland WWTP.
4. Pig
-------
TABLE 8
Null Hypothesis #3; The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate Ion Concentrations in base flow grab samples from
the Black Brook sampling stations above (Sta. 200) and in the
effluent of the Chatham WWTP are equal to zero (samples are drawn
from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: N03 and P04 grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station 200 Station 215
Collection
Date
N03
P04
N03
P04
02-Mar-84
1.20
0.043
2.40
2.260
20-Mar-84
1.26
0.050
2.30
2.330
23-Apr-84
1.11
0.062
2.49
2.080
18-May-84
0.89
0.066
3.65
2.920
12-Jun-84
0.56
0.091
3.40
3.260
16-Jul—84
0.25
0.104
2.55
1.640
16-Aug-84
0.64
0.024
3.02
3.200
19-Sep-84
0.89
0.010
3.14
4.540
17-Oct-84
0.52
0.010
1.46
4.740
16-NOV-84
1.27
0.042
2.32
3.660
18-Dec-84
0.95
0.025
1.52
3.680
14-Jan-85
2.66
0.015
1.28
3.840
21-Feb-85
1.20
0.025
0.63
3.270
21-Mar-85
1.33
0.022
0.50
3.520
09-Apr-85
0.70
0.010
0.45
4.200
16-May-85
0.18
0.015
0.83
4.180
24-Jun-85
0.26
0.101
1.38
4.620
08-Jul-85
0.28
0.015
3.26
3.860
13-Aug-85
0.47
0.038
2.88
4.600
17-Sep-85
0.45
0.015
4.24
4.420
MEAN
0.85
0.039
2.19
3.541
STD.DEV.
0.57
0.031
1.12
0.920
Statistical Results (NQ3>: The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.0004, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
Statistical Results tP04): The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-26
I
-------
TABLE 9
Null Hypothesis #4: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus concentrations in base flow
grab samples from the Black Brook sampling stations above (Sta.
200) and in the effluent of the Chatham WWTP (Sta. 215) are equal
to zero (samples are drawn from the same distribution)
Data For Hypothesis Testing; TSIN and TP grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test; Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station 200 station 215
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
02-Mar-84
1.70
0.050
14.00
2.700
20-Mar-84
1.31
0.050
12.30
2.220
23-Apr-84
1.16
0.054
14.49
2.700
18-May-84
0.94
0.108
14.85
3.560
12-Jun-84
0.61
0.098
18.60
4.260
16-JU1-84
0.30
0.106
10.25
2.000
16-Aug-84
0.69
0.088
15.02
4.020
19-Sep-84
0.94
0.086
22.14
4.840
17—Oct-84
0.57
0.046
18.06
4.840
16-NOV-84
1.85
0.064
18.92
3.780
18-Dec-84
1.29
0.045
11.72
3.930
14-Jan-85
2.84
0.033
18.88
4.180
21-Feb-85
1.69
0.045
14.63
3.760
21-Mar-85
1.50
0.030
20.60
4.180
09-Apr-85
0.73
0.062
20.45
4.670
16-May-85
0.29
0.062
20.43
4.330
24-Jun-85
0.55
0.165
17.18
4.690
08-JU1-85
0.31
0.089
18.26
4.520
13-Aug-85
0.83
0.076
12.88
4.670
17-Sep-85
0.49
0.109
14.23
4.640
MEAN
1.03
0.073
16.39
3.925
STD.DEV.
0.65
0.033
3.39
0.872
statistical Results fTSiN): The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE
statistically different.
statistical Results /TP!: The probability that the mean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.0000, a value less than 0.05.
Thus, the TP data columns above ARE statistically different.
K-27
-------
TABLE 10
Null Hypothesis #5: The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in base flow grab samples from
the Loantaka Brook sampling station above the Morris-Woodland WWTP
(Sta. 100) and those from Black Brook above the Chatham Township
WWTP (Sta. 200) are equal to zero (samples are drawn from the same
distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: N03 and P04 grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station 100 Station 200
Collection
Date
N03
P04
N03
P04
02-Mar-84
1.86
0.038
1.20
0.043
20-Mar-84
1.37
0.050
1.26
0.050
23-Apr-84
1.50
0.050
1.11
0.062
18-May-84
1.49
0.050
0.89
0.066
12-Jun-84
2.13
0.050
0.56
0. 091
16-Jul—84
0. 82
0. 084
0.25
0.104
16-Aug-84
2.82
3 ,120
0.64
0.024
19-Sep-84
2.94
0.324
0.89
0.010
17~Oct-84
2. 30
0.012
0.52
0.010
16-NOV-84
2.26
0.015
1.27
0.042
18-Dec-84
1. 39
0.010
0.95
0.025
14-Jan-85
1.38
0.010
2.66
0.015
21-Feb-85
1.30
0.010
1.20
0.025
21-Mar-85
0.85
0.010
1.33
0.022
09-Apr-85
2.10
0.010
0.70
0.010
16-May-85
2.99
0.067
0.18
0.015
24-Jun-85
1.48
0.045
0.26
0.101
08-JU1-85
1.85
0.025
0.28
0.015
13-Aug-85
2.11
0.035
0.47
0.038
17-Sep-85
2.06
0.047
0.45
0.015
MEAN
1.85
0.053
0.85
0.039
STD.DEV.
0.63
0.070
0.57
0.031
Statistical Results (N03): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.0002, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
Statistical ftesvtlts (P04): The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.2160, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
K-28
/
-------
B. Influence of Great Swamp on Base Flow Water Quality
The sampling conducted during the GSWQS was designed to provide
data from the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook system and Black Brook at
both ends of their respective drainages through the GSNWR. On
Loantaka Brook, Station 110 provides data from water quality in
Loantaka Brook before the brook enters the GSNWR; Station 180
provides equivalent data at the point where Great Brook exits the
GSNWR (Loantaka is tributary to Great Brook southwest of the
Morris-Woodland WWTP). Similarly, Station 240 provides data for
Black Brook at the point where this brook exits the wilderness area
and enters the management area (at this point, it has received the
discharge from the Chatham WWTP), while Station 280 provides data
for Black Brook at the point where the brook exists the GSNWR.
These paired sampling stations permit a comparison of nutrient
levels before and after these streams traverse substantial tracts
of wetlands. The technical literature on wetlands (e.g., Reddy and
Smith, 1987, Hammer, 1989, Kadlec and Bevis, 1990) indicates
generally that wetlands serve as a overall sink for nutrients
(e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus); the GSWQS provides data to test
this hypothesis in the specific context of the Great Swamp.
1- Loantaka/Great Brook Subsystem Comparisons
Tables 11 and 12 present paired t-test analyses for base flow grab
sample nutrient concentrations at Loantaka Brook /Great Brook
stations 110 and 180. Mean concentrations of N03, P04, TSIN, and
TP are all significantly lower at station 180 than at Station 110,
indicating that, under base flow conditions, the swamp is generally
serving as a sink for biogenic nutrients entering the swamp in
Loantaka Brook.
2. Black Brook Subsystem Comparisons
Tables 13 and 14 present similar paired t-tests for Black Brook
stations 240 and 280. Here, the base flow mean concentrations of
N03, P04, and TSIN are not significantly different; mean
concentrations of these biogenic nutrients remain the same between
those two stations. Only TP concentrations show a significant
difference, with mean TP concentrations at Station 240 being
significantly higher than those at Station 280. This would
indicate that a limited amount of nutrient removal is occurring in
the Great Swamp system between stations 240 and 280. Note here
that the spatial separation between stations 240 and 280 is
substantially less than the separation between stations 110 and 180
in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook comparisons made earlier; thus,
there is less opportunity for cycling and or removal of nutrients.
3. Between Subsystems Comparisons
Tables 15 and 16 compare base flow nutrient concentrations between
the two streams at their respective exits from the GSNWR. Mean
N03, P04, TSIN and TP concentrations are all significantly higher
at Station 280 than at station 180; Black Brook subsystem is
apparently exporting higher base flow concentrations of nutrients
to the Passaic River than is the Great Brook subsystem.
K-29
-------
TABLE 11
Null Hypothesis #6: The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in base flow grab samples from
the Loantaka Brook sampling station below the Morris-Woodland WWTP
(Sta. 110) and those from Great Brook just before its Passaic River
confluence (Sta. 180) are equal to zero (samples are drawn from the
same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: NO3 and P04 grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station
110
Station
180
Collection
Date
N03 P04
NO 3 P04
02-Mar-84
1.80 0.543
0.29 0.038
20-Mar-84
1.88
0.494
0.08
0.050
23-Apr-84
2.60
0. 519
0.05
0.050
18-May-84
3.45
0.660
0.05
0.050
12-Jun-84
3.20
0.504
0.05
0.272
16-Jul—84
2.37
0. 670
0.05
0.296
16-Aug-84
1.61
1.200
1.32
0.124
19-Sep-84
3.65
1.960
0.05
0.048
17-0ct-84
1.78
2.450
0.05
0.048
16-Nov-84
1.44
1.670
0.07
0.025
18-Dec-84
5.80
1.200
0.05
0.020
14-Jan-85
5.50
1.240
0.50
0.020
21-Feb-85
2.30
0.678
0.16
0.030
21-Mar-85
4.10
1.290
0.38
0.020
09-Apr-85
1. 67
1.490
0.12
0.025
16-May-85
2.77
2.140
0.45
0.124
24-Jun-85
2.98
1.060
0.46
0.109
08-JU1-85
2.88
1.810
0.32
0.101
13-Aug-85
2.68
1.900
0.75
0.100
17-Sep-85
2.82
1.510
0.27
0.045
MEAN
2.86
1.249
0.28
0.080
STD.DEV.
1.20
0.607
0.32
0.078
Statistical Results (NQ31: The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE
statistically different.
(PQ4) i The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-30
-------
TABLE 12
Null Hypothesis #7; The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrate and Phosphorus concentrations in base flow grab
samples from the Loantaka Brook sampling station below the
Morris-Woodland WWTP (Sta. 110) and those from Great Brook just
before its Passaic River confluence (Sta. 180) are equal to zero
(samples are drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; TSIN and TP grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p « 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station 110 Station 180
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
02-Mar-84
3.60
0.760
0.34
0.048
20-Mar-84
3.13
0.478
0.13
0.050
23-Apr-84
3.48
0.588
0.10
0.050
18-May-84
4.70
0.900
0.10
0.050
12-Jun-84
3.25
0.608
0.10
0.298
16-JU1-84
2.42
1.540
0.10
0.278
16-Aug-84
1.93
1.430
1.37
0.410
19-Sep-84
9.40
2.300
0.10
0.078
17-Oct-84
9.28
2.700
0.08
0.076
16-NOV-84
7.04
1.880
0.11
0.047
18—Dec-84
8.45
1.440
0.08
0.035
14-Jan-85
9.60
1.490
0.56
0.033
21-Feb-85
4.90
0.904
0.20
0.050
21-Mar-85
7.90
1.600
0.42
0.030
09-Apr-85
5.85
1.720
0.15
0.052
16-May-85
6.97
2.260
0.48
0.228
24-Jun-85
3.63
1.200
0.49
0.144
08-JU1-85
3.55
2.060
0.35
0.218
13-Aug-85
2.99
1.980
0.78
0.196
17-Sep-85
4.61
1.570
0.36
0.040
MEAN
5.33
1.470
0.32
0.121
STD.DEV.
2.52
0.625
0.32
0.111
statistical Results fTSlNi: The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE
statistically different.
Statistical Results fP041t The probability that the mean
difference between paired TP values is zero is 0.0000, a value less
than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-31
-------
TABLE 13
Null Hypothesis #8; The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in base flow grab samples from
the Black Brook sampling station upstream of the GSNWR management
area (Sta. 240) and Black Brook just before its Passaic River
confluence (Sta. 280) are equal to zero (samples are drawn from the
same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: N03 and P04 grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station
240
Station
280
Collection
Date
NO 3
P04
NO 3
P04
02-Mar-84
0.49
0.136
0.47
0.126
20-Mar-84
0.32
0.146
0.30
0.124
23-Apr-84
0.41
0.212
0.39
0.222
18-May-84
0.18
0.288
0.30
0.254
12-Jun-84
0.05
0.828
0.05
1.200
16-Jul-84
0.05
0.476
0. 05
0.544
16-Aug-84
1.72
0.432
1.58
0.434
19-Sep-84
0.45
0.664
0.48
0.462
17-Oct-84
0.88
1.550
0.12
1.000
16-Nov-84
0. 62
0.154
0. 56
0.149
18-Dec-84
0.36
0.177
0.45
0.154
14-Jan-85
1.30
0.399
0. 18
0.318
21-Feb-85
0.13
0.045
0.34
0.139
21-Mar-85
0.90
0.315
0.95
0.268
09-Apr-85
0.95
0.624
0.95
0.636
16-May-85
1.02
0.990
1.25
1.490
24-Jun-85
1.05
0.852
1.05
0.616
08-JU1-85
0.74
0.905
0.99
0.885
13-Aug-85
1.43
1.340
1.57
1.130
17-Sep-85
0.35 0.579
0.55
0.509
MEAN
0.67 0.556
0.63
0.533
STD.DEV.
0.48
0.417
0.47
0.408
Statistical Results (N03): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.585, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
gWlgtlcgq Results f?041: The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.638, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
K-32
/
-------
TABLE 14
Null Hypothesis #9: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrate and Total Phosphorus concentrations in base flow
grab samples from the Black Brook sampling station upstream of the
GSNWR management area (Sta. 240) and Black Brook just before its
Passaic River confluence (Sta. 280) are equal to zero (samples are
drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: TSIN and TP grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test; Paired t-Test; p - 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station
240
Station
280
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
02-Mar-84
0.54
0.164
0.52
0.154
20-Mar-84
0.37
0.158
0.35
0.136
23-Apr-84
0.46
0.270
0.44
0.230
18-May-84
0.23
0.318
0.35
0.288
12-Jun-84
0.56
1.790
0.48
1.420
16-JU1-84
0.25
0.620
0.23
0.672
16-Aug-84
2.61
0.604
2 .20
0.584
19-Sep-84
1.53
0.756
0.70
0.540
17-Oct-84
1.01
1.730
0.69
1.090
16-NOV-84
0.67
0.200
0.62
0.186
18-Dec-84
0.48
0.218
0.49
0.184
14-Jan-85
4.30
0.446
2.49
0.342
21-Feb-85
0.65
0.162
1.29
0.181
21-Mar-85
1.16
0.374
1.02
0.300
09-Apr-85
0.98
0.732
0.98
0.704
16-May-85
4.12
1.230
4.45
1.600
24-Jun-85
1.80
1.240
1.46
0.710
08-JU1-85
3.14
1.330
2.59
1.150
13-Aug-85
3.51
1.440
2.75
1.190
17-Sep-85
1.00
0.582
0.81
0.499
MEAN
1.47
0.718
1.25
0.608
STD.DEV.
1.33
0.545
1.10
0.455
statistical Results rTSlN): The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.063, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Results (TP); The probability that the mean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.035, a value less than 0.05.
Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically different.
K-33
-------
TABLE 15
Null Hypothesis #10: The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in base flow grab samples from
the Great Brook sampling station just above its confluence with the
Passaic River (Sta. 180) and Black Brook just before its Passaic
River confluence (Sta. 280) are equal to zero (samples are drawn
from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; N03 and P04 grab sample data From 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station
180
Station
280
Collection
Date
NO 3
P04
NO 3
P04
02-Mar-84
0.29
0.038
0.47
0.126
20-Mar~84
0.08
0.050
0.30
0.124
23—Apr—84
0.05
0.050
0.39
0.222
18-May-84
0.05
0.050
0.30
0.254
12 —Jun—8 4
0.05
0.272
0.05
1.200
16-Jul-84
0.05
0.296
0.05
0.544
16-Aug-84
1.32
0.124
1.58
0.434
19-Sep-84
0.05
0.048
0.48
0.462
17-Oct-84
0.05
0.048
0.12
1.000
16-Nov-84
0.07
0.025
0.56
0.149
18-Dec-84
0.05
0.020
0.45
0.154
14-Jan-85
0.50
0.020
0.18
0.318
21-Feb-85
0.16
0.030
0.34
0.139
21-Mar-85
0.38
0.020
0.95
0.268
09-Apr-85
0.12
0.025
0.95
0.636
16-May-85
0.45
0.124
1.25
1.490
24-Jun-85
0.46
0.109
1.05
0.616
08-JU1-85
0.32
0.101
0.99
0.885
13-Aug-85
0.75
0.100
1.57
1.130
17-Sep-85
0.27
0.045
0.55
0.509
— —.
_,
..........
MEAN
0.28
0.080
0.63
0.533
STD.DEV.
0.32
0.078
0.47
0.408
Statistical Results (N03): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.0001, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
Statistical Results (P041: The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-34
-------
TABLE 16
Null Hypothesis #11; The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrate and Total Phosphorus concentrations in base flow
grab samples from the Great Brook sampling station just above its
confluence with the Passaic River (Sta. 180) and Black Brook just
before its Passaic River confluence (Sta. 280) are equal to zero
(samples are drawn from the same distribution).
Data F
-------
4. Discussion
The analyses of base flow data described in the preceding sections
confirm and expand upon the findings presented in the GSWQS reports
issued earlier. There are significant differences in mean nutrient
concentrations between and among sampling locations? these
significant differences reflect the non-point source loadings from
the watersheds, the point source loadings of the Morris-Woodland
and Chatham WWTPs, and the nutrient fluxes affected by processes
within the Great Swamp. Conversely, there are extensive
similarities in water quality data from certain sets of sampling
locations; these similarities are of equal importance in evaluating
nutrient dynamics in the Great Swamp ecosystem.
The point source loadings of the WWTPs are clearly discernible in
the base flow grab sample data bases. Figures 3 and 4 make this
point in a graphical summation of the mean concentrations of
nutrients in base flow grab sample data. In almost all comparisons
between stations, nutrient concentrations increase downstream of
the WWTP discharges, indicative of point source nutrient loading
from these WWTPs. The mean nutrient concentrations, however,
decline relatively quickly at sampling locations further downstream
of the WWTP discharges; this finding indicates that nutrients are
being removed by some combination of physical, chemical, or
biological mechanisms operating in the Great Swamp ecosystem.
The notable exception to the generalization stated above is the
high level of nitrate in Loantaka Brook above the Morris-Woodland
WWTP. The mean base flow grab sample nitrate concentration at
Station 100 was 1.85 mg/1, a mean not significantly different (in
a paired t-test) from the mean nitrate concentration of 2.73 mg/1
at Station 105. However, the nitrate concentrations at Station 110
were not significantly correlated with either the Station 100
nitrate concentrations or the station 105 nitrate concentrations,
nor were they significantly related to a multiple regression on
Station 100 and 105 nitrate values. Thus, the mean nitrate
concentration of 2.86 mg/1 at Station 110 does not appear to be
determined by any simple factor, but rather by a complex of
watershed influences.
The recovery of Loantaka Brook (i.e., the lowering of nutrient
levels downstream of the Morris-Woodland WWTP) is markedly
apparent, as is the similarity in nutrient concentrations at
sampling locations below Station 100 in the Loantaka/Great Brook
subsystem. In the multiple range test, the set of stations
including stations 120, 160, 170, 180, and 340 had means not
significantly different for P04, TP, N03, and TSIN. This finding
confirms the role of the Great Swamp as a nutrient sink, and also
indicates that there are no significant differences in nutrient
concentrations among these latter five sampling locations (as
measured in the Newman-Keuls multiple range test).
K-36
-------
i
?
S
t
S
17
16
1S
14
13
12
11
10
B
8
7
6
S
4
3
a
1
a
7\
/-S
n
s
V
s
\
s
s
s
V
V
/s
/\
ss
N
s
V
s
/s
/s
/s
r-p] [yp »-p
^II
£3
rp
zp_Z|5
100 IDS 110 120 180 110 190 200 21S 830 240 870 280 3C0 140
Snnpifna Station
1771 C NO 33 E33 [TSIN]
Figure 3. Mean Base Flow Nitrogen Concentrations
by Sampling Station
?
i
o.s -
s
T ^
/s
/s
~ s
/s
/s
/\
/\
/ s
/s
/s
/s
/s
/s
~ \
/ s
~ s
V
ps
/ V
/ V
/V
/\
/s
/V
~ s
I—pi F*pi ryi rp r-pi
n
s
s
/s
/V
/s
l/S
~ s
/s
/s
/s
/s
~ V
/ V
/V
/s
/V
/V
/V
/\
/s
/V
y s
s
V
irV
/s
/ s
/s
/ V
/ V
/ V
/ s
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
pa
/s
/ s
rfl
/ \
y s
rfj.
100 105 110 120 1«0 170 1(0 COO I1> MO 840 170 280 3BO MO
Sue I Ins Station
221 [**3 KS tTP]
Figure 4. Mean Base Flow Phosphorus Concentrations
by Sampling Station
K-37
-------
Declines in nutrient levels in the Black Brook subsystem are also
apparent, although the declines show a somewhat more complex
pattern than do concentrations in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook
subsystem. In the Black Brook subsystem, stations 215 and 220,
points along the ditch receiving the Chatham WWTP discharge,
consistently had higher nutrient concentrations (for all nutrient
forms evaluated) than the control station (Station 200) and the
downstream locations. Stations 240 and 280 generally had
intermediate nutrient concentrations, while stations 200, 270, and
320 had similar low concentrations for all nutrient forms
evaluated.
Nitrate concentrations again yielded a complex picture; Station 215
had significantly higher nitrate concentrations than any other-
location in the Great Brook subsystem, but nitrate concentrations
at stations 200 and 220 were statistically similar to
concentrations in downstream locations. The similarity of nitrate
concentrations at Station 200 to concentrations at locations
downstream of the Chatham WWTP discharge (e.g., Station 240) could
be indicative of elevated non-point source loadings upstream of
Station 200 in the Black Brook watershed. However, in this context
it should be pointed out that the mean nitrate concentration at
Station 200 ( 0.85 mg/1) is significantly lower than the mean
nitrate concentration at Station 100 (1.85 mg/1). Whatever non-
point influences are affecting nitrate concentrations at these two
control locations are more pronounced at Loantaka Brook than at
Black Brook.
Based on these statistical analyses, it is clear that the influence
of the Great Swamp on base flow water quality in Great Brook and
Black Brook is significant and beneficial. In general, base flow
concentrations of nutrients in the brooks at the end of the swamp
are equal to or less than concentrations of those nutrients at the
control locations upstream of the study areas (i.e., upstream of
both the swamp and the wastewater treatment plants). The lower
reaches of the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook system produce a greater
degree of reduction in nutrient concentrations than do the lower
reaches of the Black Brook system.
K-38
/
-------
c: Influence of WWTPs on Water Quality Under Storm Flow Conditions
Within the design of the GSWQS, grab sampling at 15 stream
locations was conducted during storm events as well as during base
flow periods. The storm flow grab sample data were taken at
several locations on each brook within the GSNWR, permitting
comparison of water quality both within and between drainage
subsystems. The analytical and statistical approaches for the
tests described in this section are the same as for the base flow
assessments; only the data bases differ. In general, 13 sets of
samples are complete across all stations and provide the basis for
the multiple range statistical comparisons. For some tests, there
may be 14 or 15 data points for comparison in paired t-tests; for
this reason, the means compared in the paired t-tests and multiple
range tests for storm flow data may be slightly different.
1. Loantaka Brook/Great Brook Subsystem Comparisons
Table 17 presents a graphical illustration of the similarities and
differences discerned by a multiple range test among mean nutrient
concentrations in 13 grab samples from storm flows taken at
stations in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook subsystem (plus Station
340, the Passaic River station just upstream of the Great Brook
confluence). The basic relationship among stations is that of
similarity among the sampling stations downstream of Station 110
and of dissimilarity between stations 105 and 100 and from the
downriver set of six stations. Only in mean nitrate concentration
does the pattern differ; here, station 100 is grouped as similar to
stations 105 and 110, while the downriver set of five stations form
two overlapping sets with statistically similar concentrations.
Tables 18 and 19 summarize paired t-tests for storm flow grab
sample data (N03, P04, TSIN, TP) from Stations 100 and 105. Recall
that Station 100 is on Loantaka Brook above the Morris-Woodland
WWTP discharge, while Station 110 is below the discharge. Mean
P04, tsin, and TP concentrations were significantly higher in storm
flow grab samples at Station 105 than at Station 100; mean N03
concentrations were not significantly different at these locations.
2. ElacK BcppK SMbayetem Comparisons
Table 20 presents a graphical illustration of the similarities and
differences discerned by a multiple range test among mean nutrient
concentrations in 13 grab samples from storm flows taken at
stations in the Black Brook subsystem (plus Station 320, the
Passaic River station just downstream of the Black Brook
confluence). The basic relationship for phosphorus levels among
stations is that of similarity among the downriver set of five
stations, with station 215 and Station 210 different from this
downriver set and from each other. In terms of nitrate
concentrations, station 220 is similar to the downriver set rather
than being in its own 'population." Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the
changes in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in storm flows at
all sampling locations.
K-39
-------
Table 17
Multiple Range Comparison of Storm Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Loantaka Brook/Great Brook
(Series 100) Subsystem Stations*
A. Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate at Series 100 Stations
Station Number
100 120 340 160 170 180 110 105
Population 2
Population 3
B. Comparison of Mean Nitrate at Series 100 stations
Station Number
340 180 160 170 120 100 105 110
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
C. Comparison of Mean Total Phosphorus at Series 100 Stations
Station Number
120 340 100 170 160 180 110 105
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
D. Comparison of Mean Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen at Series
100 Stations
Station Number
160 170 340 120 180 100 110 105
Population l —:
Population 2
Population 3
* This is a graphical representation of the Nevraan-Keuls multiple
comparisons test. At the 0.05 level of significance, the means of
any two stations underscored by the same line are not significantly
different. Means increase from left to right.
K-40
-------
TABLE 18
Null Hypothesis #12; The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in storm flow grab samples from
the Loantaka Brook sampling station above (Sta. 100) and below
(Sta. 105) the Morris-Woodland WWTP are equal to zero (samples are
drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; N03 and P04 grab sample data from 14
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 100 Station 105
Collection
Date N03 P04 N03 P04
14-Mar-84
0.47
0.050
1.25
0.556
06-Apr-84
1.34
0.050
1.73
0.540
l7-Apr-84
1.24
0.050
2.27
1.540
23-Aug-84
1.97
0.076
0.66
2.680
05-Sep-84
1.98
0.032
0.34
2.100
02-Oct-84
1.49
0.020
0.64
2.460
30-Oct-84
1.42
0.010
0.84
2.340
30-NOV-84
1.37
0.020
0.42
2.870
28-Dec-84
1.80
0. 010
5.00
2.200
12-Mar-85
0.95
0.015
1.80
1.130
03-May-85
1.25
0.042
1.25
0.010
26-JU1-85
1.17
0.194
0.86
2.380
26-Aug-85
1.57
0.096
3.20
2.280
03-Oct-85
0.70
0.060
0.47
1.300
MEAN 1.34 0.052 1.48 1.742
STD.DEV. 0.44 0.048 1.30 0.900
Statistical Results (N03): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.744, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Results rPQ4l: The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.0000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-41
-------
TABLE 19
Null Hypothesis #13: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrate and Total Phosphorus concentrations in storm flow
grab samples from the Loantaka Brook sampling station above (Sta.
100) and below (Sta. 105) the Morris-Woodland WWTP are equal to
zero (samples are drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; TSIN and TP grab sample data from 14
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 100 Station 105
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
14-Mar-84
0. 60
0.166
2.88
0.880
06-Apr-84
1.91
0.035
3,68
0.730
17-Apr-84
1.92
0.050
10.07
1.800
23-Aug-84
2.18
0.110
9.36
2.800
05-Sep-84
2.23
0.080
7.44
2 .210
02—Oct-84
1.62
0. 064
9.94
2.860
30—Oct—84
1.69
0.062
12.84
2 .680
30-NOV-84
1.67
G.030
15.02
3.270
28-Dec-84
2.44
0.042
9.50
2.680
12-Mar-85
1.20
0.062
7.00
1.260
03-May-85
1.38
0.198
2.85
0.600
26-JU1-85
1.26
0.218
6.86
2.580
26-Aug-85
1.96
0.220
7.08
2.800
03—Oct-85
1.05
0.170
5.47
2.510
MEAN
1.65
0.108
7.86
2.119
STD.DEV.
0.51
0.071
3.57
0.895
Statistical Results (TSIN); The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE
statistically different.
Statistical Results (TP): The probability that the mean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.000, a value less than 0.05.
Thus, the TP data columns above ARE statistically different.
K-42
-------
TABLE 20
Multiple Range Comparison of Storm Flow Nutrient
Concentrations in the Black Brook
(Series 200) Subsystem Stations*
A. Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate at Series 200 Stations
Station Number
320 200 270 280 240 220 215
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
B. Comparison of Mean Nitrate at Series 200 Stations
Station Number
270 320 240 280 220 200 215
Population 2
C. Comparison of Mean Total Phosphorus at Series 200 Stations
Station Number
200 320 270 280 240 220 215
Population 1 —
Population 2
Population 3
D. Comparison of Mean Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen at Series
200 Stations
Station Number
270 320 200 280 240 220 215
Population 1
Population 2
Population 3
* This is a graphical representation of the Newman-Keuls multiple
comparisons test. At the 0.05 level of significance, the means of
any two stations underscored by the same line are not significantly
different. Means increase from left to right.
K—43
-------
2
\J
C
o
t
e
«
3
12
11
10
9
a
7
E
5
•1
3
2
1
a
/\
/\
\
\
s
\
k
\
\
s
\
\
\
\
\
/\
R
\
\
\
kN
/\
/\
/ \
/\
gp cfj pfi gp Ep cy
100 105 110 120 -160 170 190 200 215 220 240 270 200 320 940
S&flpIfno Station
IZZ t»3i K3 ctsiki
Pigure 5. Mean Storm Flow Nitrogen Concentrations
by Sampling Station
2.8
2>8 -
2.4 -
2.3 -
2
1.8 -
1.8 -
1.4 -
i.a -
i
0.8 -
0.8
0.4 -
0.2
Q
s
s
s
F ^
/ s
~ s
/s
/s
/s
/s
/\
/s
/\
/\
/\
/s
/ \
/\
/\
K
l/k
/s
/s
/S
rH PR PR R3 Ffl
rs
s
s
\
N
rS
/s
/s
/S
/s
/s
/s
ks
/V
/\
y v
/s
/s
/V
/\
/V
/V
/\
/V
¦*;
V
V
/s
/\
/\
/\
/\
/N
/\
/s
/S
/s
/s
$
Vs-
/\
s\
K^FfS
100 105 110 120 1B0 170 1*0 2D0 819 820 240 270 260 320 940
feflPltno Station
EZ) ckmi KSl ctpi
Pigure 6. Mean Storm Flow
Concentrations by Sampling Station
Phosphorus
K-44
/
-------
Tables 21 and 22 summarize paired t-tests for storm flow grab data
from Stations 200 and 215. Recall that Station 200 is on Black
Brook before that brook enters the GSNWR, while Station 215 is on
the drainage ditch receiving the discharge from the Chatham WWTP.
Mean N03, P04, TSIN, and TP concentrations are all significantly
higher at Station 215 than at Station 200.
3. Between Subsystem Comparisons
Table 23 summarizes the paired t-test comparing N03 and P04
concentrations in storm flow grab samples at Stations 100 and 200.
Mean P04 concentrations are not significantly different. Mean N03
concentrations, however, are significantly higher at Station 100
than at Station 200. This difference mirrors the finding described
earlier with respect to base flow N03 concentrations at these two
stations, that the N03 concentrations in Loantaka Brook at Station
100 appear to be elevated prior to the brook receiving the
discharge of the Morris-Woodland WWTP. Table 24 compares storm
flow grab sample concentrations of TSIN and TP at stations 100 and
200; here, only the mean concentrations of TSIN are statistically
different between these stations.
4. pjggussipn
Neither the Morris-Woodland nor the Chatham Township WWTP receives
and discharges stormwater by design; thus, the quality of the
discharges from these facilities should be relatively independent
of rainfall events. Conversely, non-point source runoff from
watershed areas should transiently elevate concentrations of
nutrients and contaminants in surface waters receiving such surface
runoff. The statistical tests described above indicate that both
the Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township WWTP discharges elevate
nutrient concentrations in their respective receiving streams under
storm flow conditions as well as under base flow conditions. This
effect was graphically illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.
K-45
-------
TABLE 21
Null Hypothesis #14; The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate Ion Concentrations in storm flow grab samples from
the Black Brook sampling stations above (Sta. 200) and in the
effluent of the Chatham WWTP (Sta. 215) are equal to zero (samples
are drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; N03 and P04 grab sample data from 15
sampling dates
Statistical Test; Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station
200
Station
215
Collection
Date
NO 3
P04
NO 3
P04
14-Mar-84
0.56
0.050
1.48
0.950
06-Apr-84
0.77
0.050
2.41
0.530
17-Apr-84
0.88
0.076
1.04
0.435
31-May-84
0.40
0.050
1.82
0.494
23-Aug-84
0.54
0.010
1.63
3 .300
05-Sep-84
1.06
0.032
7.00
4 .480
02-Oct-84
0.97
0.012
2.30
4.040
30-Oct-84
0.63
0.036
1.72
3.780
30-NOV-84
1.07
0.033
1.30
2.600
26-Dec-84
2.02
0.015
1.02
2.820
12-Mar-85
1.30
0.020
0.75
1.090
03-May-85
0.80
0.018
1.38
0.768
26-Jul-85
0.96
0.515
2.69
2.400
26-Aug-85
1.37
0.100
3.68
0.595
03-OCt-85
0.93
0.073
1.10
1.000
MEAN 0.95 0.074 2.16 2.024
STD.DEV. 0.42 0.130 1.59 1.482
Statistical Results (H03): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 6.000, a value less
than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ABE statistically
different.
Statistical Results fP04^; The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.000, a value less
than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-46
-------
TABLE 22
Null Hypothesis #15: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus concentrations in storm
flow grab samples from the Black Brook sampling stations above
(Sta. 200) and in the effluent of the Chatham WWTP (Sta. 215) are
equal to zero (samples are drawn from the same distribution)
Data For Hypothesis Testing: TSXN and TP grab sample data from 15
sampling dates.
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 200 Station 215
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
14-Mar-84
0.61
0.050
5.58
1.040
06-Apr-84
0.82
0.047
5.33
0.630
17-Apr-84
1.00
0.070
9.64
0.460
31-May-84
0.45
0.062
3.54
0.648
23-Aug-84
0.59
0.070
17.63
3.460
05-Sep-84
1.53
0.104
15.20
4.780
02-Oct-84
1.11
0.080
19.90
4.980
30-Oct-84
1.15
0.132
20.52
4.400
30-NOV-84
1.37
0.072
13.90
2.850
28—Dec-84
2.50
0.040
13.82
3.250
12-Mar-85
1.88
0.028
8.05
1.100
03-May-85
0.88
0.100
5.58
0.980
26-Jul-85
1.03
0.520
8.59
2.730
26-Aug-85
1.64
0.300
10.61
2.860
03-Oct-85
1.23
0.110
3.20
2.760
MEAN
1.18
0.124
11.28
2.563
STD.DEV.
0.56
0.132
5.61
1.572
statistical Results fTSim: The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.000, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE
statistically different.
Statistical Results fTPl: The probability that the mean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.000, a value less than 0.05.
Thus, the TP data columns above ARE statistically different.
K-47
-------
TABLE 23
Null Hypothesis #16a: The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in storm flow grab samples from
the Loantaka Brook sampling station above the Morris-Woodland WWTP
(Sta. 100) and those from Black Brook above the Chatham Township
WWTP (Sta. 200) are equal to zero (samples are drawn from the same
distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; N03 and P04 grab sample data from 14
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 100 Station 200
Collection
Date
N03
P04
NO 3
P04
14-Mar~84
0.47
0.050
0.56
0. 050
06-Apr-84
1.34
0.050
0.77
0.050
17-Apr-84
1.24
0.050
0.88
0.076
23—Aug-84
1.97
0.076
0.54
0.010
05-Sep-84
1.98
0.032
1.06
0.032
02-0ct-84
1.49
0 020
0.97
0.012
30—Oct-84
1.42
0.010
0.63
0.036
30-NOV-84
1.37
0.020
1.07
0.033
28-Dec-84
1.80
0.010
2.02
0.015
12-Mar~85
0.95
0.015
1.30
0.020
03-May-85
1.25
0.042
0.80
0.018
26-Jul-85
1.17
0.194
0.96
0.515
26—Aug-85
1.57
0.096
1.37
0.100
03-Oct-85
0.70
0.060
0.93
0.073
MEAN
1.34
0.052
0.99
0.076
STD.DEV.
0.44
0.048
0.40
0.134
Statistical Results (N03); The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.0206, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
Statistical Results (PQ4); The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.3608, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
K-48
/
-------
TABLE 24
Null Hypothesis #l6b: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus concentrations in storm
flow grab samples from the Loantaka Brook sampling station above
the Morris-Woodland WWTP (Sta. 100) and those from Black Brook
above the Chatham Township WWTP (Sta. 200) are equal to zero
(samples are drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; TSIN and TP grab sample data from 14
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p - 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 100 Station 200
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
14-Mar-84
0.60
0.166
0.61
0.050
06-Apr-84
1.91
0.035
0.82
0.047
17-Apr-84
1.92
0.050
1.00
0.070
23-Aug-84
2.18
0.110
0.59
0.070
05-Sep-84
2.23
0.080
1.53
0.104
02-Oct-84
1.62
0.064
1.11
0.080
30-Oct-84
1.69
0.062
1.15
0.132
30-NOV-84
1.67
0.030
1.37
0.072
28-Dec-84
2.44
0.042
2.50
0.040
12-Mar-85
1.20
0.062
1.88
0.028
03-May-85
1.38
0.198
0.88
0.100
26-JU1-85
1.26
0.218
1.03
0.520
26-Aug-85
1.96
0.220
1.64
0.300
03-Oct-85
1.05
0.170
1.23
0.110
MEAN
1.65
0.108
1.24
0.123
STD.DEV.
0.51
0.071
0.52
0.159
Statistical Results fN03); The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.044, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE
statistically different.
Statistical Results (VOA): The probability that the mean
difference between paired TP values is zero is 0.704, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the TP data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
K-49
-------
D. Influences of Great Swamp Discharges on Passaic River Water
Quality
The GSWQS included two stations on the Passaic River that bracketed
the stream discharges from the Great Swamp into the river. Station
340 was located upstream of the GSNWR near the Osborne Pond Dam
Spillway. Station 320 was located downstream of the GSNWR at the
USGS Hillington gauge house just south of the South Maple Avenue
Bridge. (Note that the spatial pattern of these two stations is
the reverse of their numerical order) . Grab samples (both base and
storm flows) and intensive storm samples were collected at these
two Passaic River stations on the same days that grab samples were
collected on the Great Brook and Black Brook station sets.
Tables 25 and 26 compare base flow grab sample concentrations of
biogenic nutrients in the Passaic River at Stations 340 and 320.
Tables 27 and 28 provide the same comparison for storm flow data.
The base flow comparisons demonstrate that mean nitrate and mean
total soluble inorganic nitrogen concentrations are statistically
similar at these two Passaic River stations; the Great Swamp
tributaries do not elevate nitrogen levels significantly in the
Passaic River. However, both the mean orthophosphate and total
phosphorus concentrations below the Great Swamp discharges are
statistically higher than concentrations above the Great Swamp
discharges; the discharges from the Great Swamp are apparently
elevating phosphorus levels in the Passaic River.
The storm flow comparisons discern no statistical difference in
mean concentrations of any biogenic nutrient in the Passaic River
above and below the Great Swamp discharges to the river. Although
the storm concentrations in the Great Swamp discharges are
themselves elevated over base flow conditions, Passaic River
concentrations of nutrients appear to be sufficiently elevated from
other influences to mask any effect of the Great Swamp discharges.
K-50
-------
TABLE 25
Null Hypothesis *17; The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in base flow grab samples from
the Passaic River sampling station above the Great Swamp stream
discharges (Sta. 340) and those from the Passaic River below the
Great Swamp discharges (Sta. 320) are equal to zero (samples are
drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; N03 and P04 grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test; Paired t-Test? p = 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station 340 Station 320
Collection
Date
N03
P04
N03
P04
02-Mar-84
0.93
0.016
0.46
0.038
20-Mar-84
0.95
0.050
0.25
0.050
23-Apr-84
0.65
0.050
0.19
0.070
18-May-84
0.44
0.050
0.18
0.075
12-Jun-84
0.40
0.050
0.29
0.278
16-JU1-84
0.50
0.056
0.08
0.300
16-Aug-84
0.65
0.012
1.30
0.130
19-Sep-84
0.30
0.024
0.27
0.050
17-Oct-84
0.05
0.020
0.05
0.050
16-NOV-84
0.61
0.025
0.31
0.060
18-Dec-84
0.55
0.012
0.05
0.035
14-Jan-85
1.19
0.010
0.66
0.038
21-Feb-85
1.00
0.012
0.50
0.050
21-Mar-85
0.65
0.015
0.38
0.045
09-Apr-85
0.50
0.010
0.36
0.032
16-May-85
0.41
0.010
0.76
0.196
24-Jun-85
0.66
0.033
0.72
0.157
08-Jul-85
0.52
0.022
0.54
0.119
13-Aug-85
0.52
0.028
0.67
0.154
17-Sep-85
0.20
0.010
0.73
0.082
MEAN
0.58
0.026
0.44
0.100
STD.DEV.
0.27
0.016
0.31
0.080
Statistical Results (NQ3): The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is asero is 0.0906, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Results (P04)» The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.0002, a value
less than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE statistically
different.
K-51
-------
TABLE 26
Null Hypothesis #18: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrate and Total Phosphorus concentrations in base flow
grab samples from the Passaic River sampling station above the
Great Swamp stream discharges (Sta. 340) and those from the Passaic
River below the Great Swamp discharges (Sta. 320) are equal to zero
(samples are drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: TSIN and TP grab sample data from 20
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p « 0.05
Base Flow Grab Samples
Station 340 Station 32 0
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
02-Mar-84
0. 98
0.027
0.51
0.078
20-Mar-84
1.00
0.050
0.30
0.050
23-Apr-84
0.70
0.050
0.24
0.080
18-May-84
0.49
0.050
0.23
0.090
12-Jun-84
0.45
0.050
0.34
0.318
16-JU1-84
0.55
0.158
0.13
0.382
16-Aug-84
0.70
0.046
1.41
0.264
19-Sep-84
0.35
0.038
0.32
0.112
17-Oct-84
0.09
0.062
0.08
0.086
16-NOV-84
0.69
0.030
0.35
0.079
18-Dec-84
0.59
0.028
0.09
0.057
14-Jan-85
1.23
0.018
0.83
0.054
21-Feb-85
1.07
0.020
0.66
0.064
21-Mar-85
0.68
0.018
0.43
0.060
09-Apr-85
0.53
0.012
0.39
0.100
16-May-85
0.45
0.033
0.94
0.347
24-Jun-85
0.80
0.057
0.79
0.240
08-Jul-85
0. 64
0.076
0.64
0.218
13-Aug-85
0.59
0.060
0.77
0.216
17-Sep-85
0.25
0.012
0.82
0.084
MEAN
0.64
0.045
0.51
0.149
STD.DEV,
0.28
0.032
0.34
0.109
Statistical Results TTSINli The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0,1474, a value
greater than 0,05, Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Results fTPl: The probability that the mean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.0001, a value less than 0.05.
Thus, the TP data coluxans above ARE statistically different.
K-52
/
-------
TABLE 27
Null Hypothesis #19: The mean differences in Nitrate and
Orthophosphate ion concentrations in storm flow grab samples from
the Passaic River sampling station above the Great Swamp stream
discharges (Sta. 340) and those from the Passaic River below the
Great Swamp discharges (Sta. 320) are equal to zero (samples are
drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing; N03 and P04 grab sample data from 15
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p « o.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 340 Station 320
Collection
Date
N03
P04
N03
P04
14-Mar-84
1.00
0.050
0.60
0.050
06-Apr-84
0.89
0.050
0.26
0.050
17-Apr-84
0.81
0.050
0.45
0.068
31-May-84
0.54
0.050
0.19
0.082
23—Aug-84
0.60
0.018
1.12
0.079
05-Sep-84
0.41
0.014
0.20
0.050
02-Oct-84
0.27
0.020
0.13
0.042
30-0Ct-84
0.22
0.028
0.13
0.118
30-Nov-84
0.68
0.020
0.45
0.052
28-Dec-84
0.95
0.010
0.52
0.035
12-Mar-85
0.18
0.020
0.75
0.035
03-May-85
0.95
0.010
1.35
0.042
26-JU1-85
0.74
0.620
0.08
0.074
26-Aug-85
0.58
0.028
1.13
0.060
03-Oct-85
0.45
0.030
1.20
0.160
MEAN
0.62
0.068
0.57
0.066
STD.DEV.
0.27
0.153
0.44
0.034
Statistical Results fN031; The probability that the mean
difference between paired N03 values is zero is 0.7045, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the N03 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Results (P04); The probability that the mean
difference between paired P04 values is zero is 0.9725, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the P04 data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
K-53
-------
TABLE 28
Null Hypothesis #20: The mean differences in Total Soluble
Inorganic Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus concentrations in storm
flow grab samples from the Passaic River sampling station above the
Great swamp stream discharges (Sta. 340) and those from the Passaic
River below the Great Swamp discharges (Sta. 320) are equal to zero
(samples are drawn from the same distribution).
Data For Hypothesis Testing: TSIN and TP grab sample data from 15
sampling dates
Statistical Test: Paired t-Test; p = 0.05
Storm Flow Grab Samples
Station 340 Station 320
Collection
Date
TSIN
TP
TSIN
TP
l4-Mar-84
1.05
0.078
0.65
0.066
06-Apr-84
0.94
0.052
0.31
0.045
17-Apr-84
0.86
0.050
0.50
0.098
31-May-84
0.59
0.050
0.24
0.134
23~Aug-84
0.65
0.046
1.17
0.130
05—Sep-84
0.46
0.050
0.25
0.107
02-Oct-84
0.30
0.034
0.16
0.086
30-Oct-84
0.36
0.068
0.16
0.180
30-NOV-84
0.80
0.038
0.49
0.067
28-Dec-84
0.99
0.022
0.56
0.066
12-Mar-85
0.21
0.030
0.81
0.038
03-May-85
1.00
0.047
1.45
0.169
26-JU1-85
0.83
0.740
0.16
0.132
26-Aug-85
0.64
0.120
1.22
0.220
03-Oct-85
0.70
0.060
1.45
0.880
MEAN
0.69
0.099
0.64
0.161
STD.DEV.
0.27
0.179
0.47
0.206
Statistical fteffMltg (TSIN) t The probability that the mean
difference between paired TSIN values is zero is 0.6784, a value
greater than 0.05. Thus, the TSIN data columns above ARE NOT
statistically different.
Statistical Beavtitfl (TP) • The probability that the mean difference
between paired TP values is zero is 0.3932, a value greater than
0.05. Thus, the TP data columns above ARE NOT statistically
different.
K-54
/
-------
E. Influence of General Land Use Patterns on Great Swamp Water
Quality
The pattern of land use within the Great Swamp watershed can exert
a significant influence on water quality of the streams traversing
the swamp system. Many studies have demonstrated that development
of land within a watershed impacts both the quality and quantity of
surface water runoff. Erosion and transport of surface
contaminants increase loading of sediments, nutrients, and
contaminants in stormwater runoff. Without stormwater management,
storm hydrographs show higher peaks, aggravating localized
flooding. Compounding these problems are the reduced baseflows
that result from the decrease in pervious surfaces that promote the
infiltration of rainfall into the soil.
The statistical analyses summarized in previous sections represent
comparisons of data (as concentrations) from sampling stations that
bracket major point sources of water-borne contaminants (i.e., the
WWTPs). Some inferences can also be drawn about the relative
influence of non-point sources (e.g., stormwater runoff); the
strongly elevated nitrate concentrations at Station 100 (base flow
data) and the moderately elevated phosphorus concentrations at
stations 240 and 280 (base flow data) were identified in those
spatial comparisons. The data from the Great Swamp Water Quality
Study do provide opportunity for some additional hypothesis testing
pertinent to non-point source water quality effects (again, using
concentration data) in the Upper Passaic River Basin; these tests
are described below.
In the design of the GSWQS, stations 100 and 200 were established
as reference or control stations to provide water quality
information before the discharges of the Morris-Woodland and
Chatham WWTP, respectively, affected water quality. Two other
sampling locations were established to monitor tributaries to Great
Brook and Black Brook, respectively. Station 170 is on Primrose
Brook, which drains a relatively undeveloped area, while station
270 is on Middle Brook, which originates within the Great Swamp
(Najarian, 1988). Both base flow and storm flow grab sample data
are available for these locations.
Based on the spatial arrangement of these four locations, one could
postulate that Station 100 would be most significantly influenced
by non-point source runoff from developed areas, while Station 270
on Middle Brook would be least affected by such anthropogenic
processes, station 170 on Primrose Brook might be expected to be
less influenced by watershed development, as would Station 200 on
Black Brook. The null hypothesis for all statistical testing will
be that the mean difference between paired data is equal to zero;
where the null hypothesis is rejected, significant differences are
identified. These significant differences can be evaluated for
correspondence with the relative degree of anthropogenic influence
in each stream's watershed.
K-55
-------
i. pasg fiqw CQrvHtigng
The base flow grab sample data matrix for stations 100,170, 200,
and 270 is complete for ten water quality variables: specific
conductance, ammonia, nitrate, total filterable Kjeldahl nitrogen,
total unfilterable Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus,
orthophosphate, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended
solids, and total dissolved solids. An eleventh variable, total
soluble inorganic nitrogen, can be derived from the sum of ammonia
and nitrate concentrations (Trama, 1987). These data cover 20
sampling dates (March 1984 through September 1985) by roughly one-
month intervals. Multiple range Newraan-Keuls comparisons were
calculated for each of these eleven variables? the graphical
summaries of the multiple range tests are shown in Table 29.
For the base flow grab sample comparisons, only one variable -
orthophosphate - showed no significant differences among the four
locations; the null hypothesis was not rejected. The other ten
variables showed one or more significant differences in the four-
station comparisons. The most common pattern of significant
differences was a split of the stations into three dissimilar
groups, with stations 170 and 270 in one group and stations 100 and
200 set off as different from this group and each other. This
pattern was shown for five variables: specific conductance,
ammonia, nitrate, total soluble inorganic nitrogen, and total
dissolved solids. For BOD and total suspended solids, stations
100, 170 and 270 grouped as similar, with Station 200 dissimilar to
(and higher than) this group. For total phosphorus, stations 100,
170, and 200 grouped as similar, with Station 270 dissimilar and
higher than the three-station group. For total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(both filterable and unfilterable), stations 100, 200 and 270
grouped as similar, with Station 170 dissimilar and lower than the
three-station group.
These base flow grab sample comparisons indicate a trend toward
nitrogen levels higher in Loantaka and Black Brooks than in
Primrose and Middle Brooks. The increase in dissolved solids and
specific conductance (related variables that measure the dissolved
ionic or colligative properties of the water sample) may be due in
part to the increase in forms of dissolved nitrogen. However,
other variables whose concentrations are considered related to
watershed development ~ TSS, BOD, and TP - show patterns different
from that for forms of nitrogen. For these variables, stations 170
and 270, taken from tributaries less subject to anthropogenic
influences, show mean base flow concentrations equal to or higher
than mean concentrations at locations in the streams draining
developed watersheds. This finding is not consistent with strong
non-point residential/commercial influences at Loantaka and Black
Brooks, at least not in a manner typically described in the
technical literature.
K-56
i
-------
TABLE 29
Multiple Range Comparisons of Base Flow Grab Sample Means
at WWTP-Independent Stations*
Specific Conductance
Sta.170 Sta.270 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop.2
Pop. 3
Ammonia (NH4)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.,100
Pop. 1 —
Pop.2
Pop. 3
Nitrate (N03)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop. 2
Pop.3
Pop. 1
Pop. 2
Pop. 3
Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen (TSIN)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100
Filterable Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (FTKN)
Sta.170 Sta.270 Sta.100 Sta.200
Pop. 2
Unfilterable Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (UTKN)
sta.170 sta.ioo sta.270 sta.200
Pop. 2
K-57
-------
TABLE 29 (cont.)
Multiple Range Comparisons of Base Flow Grab Sample Means
at WWTP-Independent Stations*
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100 Sta.270
Pop.2
Orthophosphate (P04)
Sta.170 sta.200 Sta.100 sta.270
Pop. l
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Sta.170 Sta.100 Sta.270 Sta.200
Pop. 1
pop. 2
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Sta.270 Sta.100 Sta.170 Sta.200
Pop. 1
Pop.2
Pop. 1
Pop. 2
Pop. 3
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100
* This is a graphical representation of the Newman-Keuls multiple
comparisons test. At the 0.05 level of significance, the means of
any two stations underscored by the same line are not significantly
different. Means increase from left to right.
K-58
/'
-------
2. Storm Flow Conditions
The storm flow grab sample data base for the GSWQS is complete for
the same variables as was the base flow data base; however, only 13
dates can be used to compile a data matrix that has no missing
values. The multiple range comparisons discussed in this
subsection thus compare eleven water quality variables taken on
thirteen sampling dates. Table 30 presents the graphical results
of the Newman-Keuls multiple range comparisons of the storm flow
grab data.
These comparisons show no significant differences among the four
sampling locations for three variables: total phosphorus,
orthophosphate, and total suspended solids. The most common
grouping pattern is the station 100-200/station 170-270 split (also
the most common pattern for the base flow analyses previously
described); this patterns of grouping was shown for ammonia, total
soluble inorganic nitrogen, and total dissolved solids. Two other
patterns were repeated; for conductance and nitrate, a station 170-
270/station 200/station 100 three-way split was seen, while for
unfilterable total Kjeldahl nitrogen and BOD, a station 270-170-
100/station 200 split was seen.
3. Discussion
Storm flow samples should reflect non-point source inputs to the
streams from their respective watersheds. The results of EPA's
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) demonstrated that
concentrations of various nutrients and contaminants were generally
higher in stormwater from developed areas than in stormwater from
undeveloped areas (EPA, 1983). The lack of significant differences
in storm flow TSS, TP and P04 concentrations among the: GSWQS
stations compared statistically does not support a conclusion that
the developed areas of the Loantaka Brook and Black Brook
watersheds influence these water quality parameters to a greater
extent than do the undeveloped areas of these watersheds. The
concentration differences in forms of nitrogen, with Loantaka and
Black Brooks showing significantly higher concentrations than
Primrose and Middle Brooks, is a pattern seen throughout the water
quality data base. Thus, these concentration data do not show
compelling evidence of significant non-point source influence from
the upper watersheds of Loantaka and Black brooks, particularly for
non-nitrogen-based stormwater constituents.
It should be noted that the NURP study cited above found no
correlation between concentrations of nutrients/contaminants in
stormwater and stormwater runoff volumes. The volume of stormwater
runoff is an important influence in determining how much material
is carried in runoff; if runoff volumes from several areas are
substantially different, concentration data alone may not provide
an adequate basis for comparison of the influences of the various
areas on downstream water bodies. This aspect of stormwater runoff
evaluation * the comparison of loadings rather than concentrations
- is discussed in Section F below.
K-59
-------
TABLE 30
Multiple Range Comparisons of Storm Plow Grab Sample Means*
Specific Conductance
Sta.170 Sta.270 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop. 1
Pop. 2
Pop.3
Ammonia (NH4)
Sta.170 Sta.270 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop.2
Nitrate (N03)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop. 1
Pop.2
Pop.3
Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen (TSIN)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop. 1
Pop. 2
Filterable Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (FTKN)
Sta.170 Sta.100 Sta.270 Sta.200
Pop. i
Pop. 2
Pop. 3
Unfilterable Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (UTKN)
Sta.170 sta.100 Sta.270 sta.200
Pop. l
Pop.2
K-60
-------
TABLE 30 (cont.)
Multiple Range Comparisons of Storm Flow Grab Sample Means*
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Sta.100 sta.200 Sta.170 Sta.270
Orthophosphate (P04)
sta.100 sta.200 sta.170 Sta.270
Pop. 1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOO)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.100 Sta.200
Pop. 2 —
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Sta.270 Sta.100 Sta.170 Sta.200
Pop. 1
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Sta.270 Sta.170 Sta.200 Sta.100
Pop. 2
* This is a graphical representation of the Newman-Keuls multiple
comparisons test. At the 0.05 level of significance, the means of
any two stations underscored by the same line *re not significantly ¦
different. Means increase from left to right.
K-61
-------
F. Estimation of Point and Non-Point Source Loadings in GSWQS
Sampling ftrea
The analyses detailed in the sections above compared
concentrations of nutrients in the waters of streams at various
points in the Great Swamp watershed. Concentrations are important
in representing the transient availability of nutrients to aquatic
organisms, and in representing the changes in the quality of water
from point to point in the watershed. However, when comparing the
total amounts of material being transported by or through a stream
system at various points, loadings must be estimated. The loading
of a particular water-borne constituent is estimated by multiplying
concentration by flow rate, yielding a mass of material being
transported in a stream per unit time.
Loadings of total nitrogen (all forms of nitrogen measured),
total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and B0D5 were computed
using the flow rates (in cubic feet per second) and concentration
data reported in the GSWQS data report (Maguire Group, Inc.; 1988) .
These specific constituents were selected because they are commonly
used in evaluating stormwater runoff effects on receiving waters
(Wanielista, 1978; Hordon, 1989). The computations were
transformed to the unit of milligrams per second (mg/sec),
representing the flux of material past a point in the stream.
These results can be readily transformed to other units to
extrapolate to longer time periods. Table 31 lists the loading
estimates for base flow conditions at all locations regularly
sampled; Table 32 presents similar information for storm flow
conditions.
1. Estimated Loadings From Morris-Woodland and Chatham
WWTPS
Under base flow conditions, the average total nitrogen load
(all forms of nitrogen measured) in Loantaka Brook at Station 100
was estimated at 101 milligrams per second (mg/sec). The average
total nitrogen load in Loantaka Brook at Station 105, below the
Morris-Woodland WWTP, was estimated at 1058 mg/sec, a one order of
magnitude increase principally attributable to the WWTP discharge.
Total phosphorus loadings in Loantaka Brook increased by 1.6 orders
of magnitude below the WWTP discharge (3 mg/sec to 126 mg/sec),
again attributable to the WWTP discharge.
Using storm flow grab sample data, the total nitrogen load in
Loantaka Brook increased by approximately 0.8 orders of magnitude
(195 mg/sec to 1319 mg/sec) below the Morris-Woodland WWTP
discharge, while the total phosphorus load increased by about 1.1
orders of magnitude (10 mg/sec to 123 mg/sec). Loadings from point
source discharges should not be affected by stormwater runoff to
the same degree as are non-point source discharges, and this
generalization is seen in the comparative loading increases
estimated here.
K-62
/
-------
TABLE 31
Great swamp Loading Estimates (mg/sec)*
Base Flow Conditions
Station
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
B0D5
Suspended
Solids
100
101
3
62
167
105
1058
126
165
331
110
2364
246
1016
1802
120
279
10
379
925
160
560
45
867
1842
170
448
20
717
1846
180
953
99
1711
3098
200
515
11
664
1564
215
5986
460
3103
2867
220
6330
575
1776
2482
240
742
107
788
1238
270
61
6
91
160
280
2075
289
1498
2227
340
2475
96
3644
5238
320
2683
252
3737
14310
* Estimated by averaging products of flow rate x concentration
for each sampling location and date
K-63
-------
TABLE 32
Great Swamp Loading Estimates (nig/sec) *
stojrw Flow Conditions
station
Total
Nitrogen
Total
Phosphorus
BOD5
Suspended
Solids
100
195
10
290
57 64
105
1319
123
320
1618
110
17016
1541
25551
357914
120
551
31
1124
7973
160
1266
79
1840
6613
170
846
119
1750
16418
180
2604
141
3502
8656
200
93 Q
14
914
3452
215
7572
508
3441
6390
220
5668
592
4446
19062
240
1295
144
776
996
270
245
20
341
484
280
2798
401
2070
3721
340
3556
283
6390
18309
320
5222
591
8864
77521
* Estimated by averaging products of flow rate x concentration
for each sampling location and date
64
i
-------
In the Black Brook subsystem under base flow conditions, the
total nitrogen loading at station 215 (below the Chatham Township
WWTP discharge) is approximately 1.1 orders of magnitude greater
than total nitrogen loading at Station 200 (515 vs 5986 mg/sec),
above the WWTP discharge. The total phosphorus loading below the
WWTP discharge is 1.6 orders of magnitude greater than that
estimated for Station 200 (11 vs 460 mg/sec). Under storm flow
conditions, these relationships are estimated to be 0.9 and 1.6
orders of magnitude difference for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus, respectively. Again, the overall influence of the WWTP
discharge is slightly diminished under storm flow conditions.
These loading rate comparisons corroborate the findings
reported from comparisons of nutrient concentrations; during the
period of study, the Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township WWTP
discharges were contributing significantly to the nutrient loadings
in the streams entering the Great Swamp.
2. Estimated Loading Influences of Non-Point Sources
Tables 31 and 32, discussed in the preceding section with
respect to point source loading estimates, also provide some
insight into the reaches of Loantaka and Black Brooks substantially
affected by non-point source loadings. To examine the tables for
such insights, two trends must be assumed to be at work. First, if
a point source discharge dominates loadings to a stream, then the
loading estimates should peak at the sampling location just below
the point source discharge, and diminish at sampling locations
further downstream from the discharge. Second, if the point source
discharge is from a WWTP that does not directly receive stormwater
flows (except incidently through infiltration), then the point
source loadings should not change substantially between base and
storm flow samplings.
Examination of Table 31 with these generalized trends in mind
discloses deviations from these expected trends. Most
conspicuously, base flow loading estimates in Loantaka Brook
increase between Stations 105 and 110, even though Station 105 is
the station specifically sited to quantify the influence of the
Morris-Woodland WWTP. Table 32, presenting storm flow estimated
loadings, indicates even more substantial increases in loadings of
total nitrogen, total phosphorus, BODS, and suspended solids
between Stations 105 and 110.
The estimates from Black Brook sampling locations show the
more paradigmatic trend, with loading increases evident at Station
215, below the Chatham Township WWTP, and approximately the same
loadings at Station 220, farther downstream on the discharge
channel.
The data in Tables 31 and 32 can be transformed into
percentage increases between base and storm flow loading estimates.
Where stormwater runoff (non-point) influences are most extreme,
K-65
-------
these increases should be greatest; where the increase is
negligible, non-point sources are not influential. These
percentage increases are shown in Table 33 for each constituent
evaluated; the last column lists the geometric mean of the
increases in each constituent (the geometric mean is used here
because of the extremely wide variation in the percentage increase
values). The geometric mean increase in storm flow loadings over
base flow loadings is most pronounced for Station 110 (1986%),
principally due to the increase in suspended solids during storm
flows. Other locations showing substantial increases include
Stations 100 (430%), Station 170 (265%), Station 270 (244%), and
Station 120 (239%). These are predominantly sampling sites in the
Loantaka Brook subsystem. The Great Swamp sampling locations with
the lowest geometric mean loading increases in storm flow loadings
over base flow loadings include Station 215 (25%), Station 280
(43%), Station 200 (56%), Station 180 (109%), and Station 105
(116%). This latter group includes the sampling locations below
the Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township WWTPs and the sampling
locations at the end of both Loantaka and Black Brooks. These
comparisons confirm that the WWTP discharge loadings are relatively
independent of precipitation events (the anticipated finding) ; they
also indicate that the discharges from the Great Swamp to the
Passaic River are only moderately influenced by precipitation
events.
3. Discussion
The loading estimates introduced above clearly demonstrate the
significant effect of the Morris-Woodland and Chatham Township
point discharges on the total amounts of suspended solids,
biodegradable organics, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus
carried by surface waters receiving those point source discharges.
Upgrading of those facilities to Level 4 treatment with nutrient
removal will certainly reduce those point source loadings
substantially.
The loading estimates also indicated that surface waters draining
to the Great Swamp, particularly those waters in the Loantaka Brook
subsystem, are influenced by non-point source loadings. Water
samples from the location at Green Village Road (Station 110)
showed the most conspicuously elevated loadings of common
stormwater constituents; however, a similar increase, though not so
pronounced, is seen on Primrose and Middle Brooks. The latter
locations drain less-developed watersheds than does Loantaka Brook
proper. The Black Brook subsystem shows generally less influence
of non-point source loading than does the Loantaka Brook subsystem.
Loading estimates for the GSWQS sampling locations closest to the
Passaic River do not show substantial increases in storm flow
loadings over base flow loadings. These comparisons appear to
indicate that the transport of water-borne materials from the Great
Swamp to the Passaic River is somehow ndampedM from extreme storm
influences.
K-66
/
-------
Table 33
Geometric Mean Percentage Increase in Common Non-Point
Source Constituents With Storm Flows
Geom. Mean
Station
Increase*
110
1986%
100
430%
170
265%
270
244%
120
239%
240
179%
320
167%
220
131%
160
129%
105
116%
340
112%
180
109%
200
56%
280
43%
215
25%
* Geometric mean increase in common stormwater
constituents (values in Table 32 divided by
values in Table 31), expressed as percentage
increase
K-67
-------
IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF AUTOMATED SAMPLING DATA
The GSWQS scope of sampling included the sampling of storm events
at certain stream locations using automated equipment. This type
of monitoring/sampling equipment was installed at six locations:
Stations 100, 120, 160, 170, 340, and 320. Sampling was
automatically triggered when a certain pre-set volume of water had
passed the sampling device. The water quality data generated by
this automated sampling program provides a data base with a much
finer degree of resolution than does the grab sampling data base.
During the course of the GSWQS, three storm events were sampled at
Stations 120, 160, 170, and 320; two storms were sampled at
Stations 100, 110, and 340. In some cases, two or three stations
were sampled during the same storm; in other cases, only a single
location was sampled in any particular storm. Table 31 lists the
storm events and stations sampled by the automated water samplers.
A. Flow-Weighted Nutrient Loadings During Storm Flows
Flow-weighting describes the mathematical procedure used to
generate a meaningful average value for nutrient concentrations in
a highly variable flow regime. The computation involves
multiplying the flow value times the concentration value for each
sampling time, summing these products, and dividing by the sum of
the flow values. This yields a weighted average that adjusts the
mean for higher or lower flow intervals in the data set.
Geometrically, the weighted mean represents the centroid of the
data set - the theoretical center of an array of data points
graphed with flow on the X-axis and concentration on the Y-axis.
Table 32 lists flow-weighted concentrations of biogenic nutrients
in storm flow data sets collected by automated water samplers
(where the flow data was not reported or was incomplete, the simple
mean of the nutrient concentrations is reported and the row marked
with an asterisk).
B. Temporal Trends in Stormwater Nutrient Loadings
Stormwater runoff from the watershed of a stream or river typically
transports suspended solids, biodegradable organic compounds,
nutrients, soluble ions, and a variety of contaminants to the
receiving water. These stormwater runoff constituents are those
that accumulate at the land surface or in soil layers easily
leached by surface runoff. Because precipitation essentially
rinses the land surface of the watershed, concentrations of runoff-•
borne constituents are typically most concentrated in the first
phases of runoff from a significant storm. This is the "first
flush" effect characterized by Wanielista (1978) and many other
investigators of runoff quality. In a watershed of relatively
simple hydraulics, the expectation would be that concentrations of
nutrients and other stormwater constituents would peak in the early
phases of the runoff hydrograph and, for this reason, Wanielista
suggests the use of a "pollutograph" or "loadograph" to model this
variation in concentrations of stormwater constituents.
K-68
-------
TABLE 34
Summary of 6SWQS Intensive Storm Sampling Effort
Sampling
Site No. Date Interval Samples
320
05/02/85
0.75 hr
23
340
06/05/85
1 hr
12
320
09/24/85
2 hrs
18
320
09/27/85
2 hrs
23
120
04/15/86
2 hrs
12
120
04/17/86
1.5 hrs
6
120
05/20/86
4 hrs
14
160
05/20/86
4 hrs
17
170
05/20/86
4 hrs
17
120
06/11/86
3.25 hrs
12
160
06/11/86
3.25 hrs
12
170
06/11/86
3.25
8
170
07/01/86
3 hrs
12
340
07/01/86
3 hrs
12
100
03/30/87
1.5 hrs
21
110
03/30/87
1.5 hrs
21
100
04/03/87
1.5 hrs
19
110
04/03/87
1.5 hrs
19
K-69
-------
TABLE 3 5
Flow-weighted Nutrient Concentrations
During Storm Events
Start Mean
Station Date Flow N03 P04 TSIN TP
(cfs) (mg/1) (mg/1) (rag/1) (mg/1)
Sta.
120
04/15/86
9.0*
0.45*
0.046*
0.64*
0.082*
Sta.
120
04/17/86
NA*
0.07*
0.042*
0.25*
0.061*
Sta.
120
05/20/86
7.6
0.52
0.010
0.55
0.093
Sta.
120
06/11/86
8.8
0.66
0.061
0.72
0.150
Sta.
160
05/20/86
7.1*
0.07*
0.044*
0.10*
0.341*
Sta.
160
06/11/86
12.4*
0. 06*
0.035*
0.07*
0.141*
Sta.
170
05/20/86
19.2
0.38
0.010
0.53
0.054
Sta.
170
06/11/86
27.9
0.46
0.056
0.56
0.141
Sta.
170
07/11/86
21.8
0.41
0.10
0.47
0.115
Sta.
340
06/05/85
56.3
0.82
0.013
1.75
0.048
Sta.
340
07/01.86
44.4
0.62
0.016
0.73
0.126
Sta.
320
05/02/85
34.4
0.60
0.086
0.71
0.148
Sta.
320
09/24/85
13.0
1.37
0.176
1.53
0.171
Sta.
320
09/27/85
349.7
0.85
0.055
1.00
0.013
* Flow data incomplete or missing - concentrations are unweighted
means
K-70
i
-------
The automated sampling programs conducted in the GSWQS provide
water quality data that can be used to track the time course of
loadings at various points monitored during the study (see Table
31) . The sampling intervals during these storm monitoring studies
varied between 0.75 and 4.0 hours; the intervals were consistent
within any single storm event. Figures 5 and 6 represent temporal
patterns in nitrate and orthophosphate concentrations at stations
100 and 110 during a rainfall event; the horizontal axis lists data
by time interval, while the vertical axis indicates concentration
of the nutrient ion.
In the initial phases of the rainfall, nitrate is elevated at both
stations, and shows a gradual decline during the course of the
storm. This would be anticipated as the first flush passes through
the section of stream being monitored and subsequent runoff flows
carry more dilute concentrations of the ions. Note, however, that
the nitrate concentrations at Station 100 begin to rise near the
end of the sampling period; there is no accompanying rise in the
nitrate concentrations measured at Station 110.
Orthophosphate ion concentrations show a more paradigmatic pattern;
concentrations are elevated at the onset of runoff, and decline
over the course of the storm. Concentrations of orthophosphate are
generally higher at Station 110 than at Station 100.
The storm sampled on March 30, 1987 was followed by another storm
commencing April 3, 1987. Automated water quality was carried out
at stations 100 and 110 during this second storm. Because the two
monitored storms were separated by a relatively short period of
time - the last sample of the initial storm and the first sample of
the second storm were separated by about 62 hours - the expectation
would be that the first flush effects of the second storm would be
reduced. Stormwater loading models generally take into account the
length of the period antecedent to a rainfall, assuming that the
accumulation of chemicals susceptible to stormwater transport is a
function of the length of the dry interval preceding a rainfall
(e.g., McElroy et al., 1976).
Figures 7 and 8 portray nitrate and orthophosphate concentrations
at stations 100 and 110 through the time course of the two storm
events. The separation of data along the horizontal axis reflects
the interval between sampling of the two storms. The most striking
aspect of the nutrient concentrations, both nitrate and
orthophosphate, is the magnitude of the concentrations of these
nutrients in the initial phases of the second storm nutrient
concentrations are as great or greater than those in the first
flush of the first storm. The time interval has not permitted
significant amounts of these nutrients to be deposited or re-
dispersed in the watershed; thus, the elevated nutrient levels do
not directly reflect loadings from residential, commercial, or
agricultural operations. The two most evident explanations are 1)
nutrients accumulated by the first storm in or near waterbodies
K*»71
-------
Tlnw From Start Chrs)
Q CN03] «t SU. 100 ~ CN03] *t BU. 110
Figure 7. Nitrate Concentrations in Storm Flows at
Stations 100 and 110.
Tim Pram Start ttnj
0 C""®3 »t *t«. 100 + [TP] *t *U. 110
Figure 8, Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Storm
Flows at Stations 100 and 110.
K-72
-------
Figure 9. Nitrate Concentrations in Two
Consecutive Storms at Stations 100 and 110.
»
c
1
3
2 -
3 -
e
6 -
4 -
a
2 -
a
e -
4
•kJfc,
«o
a CTP3 «t 0t«. 100
—r—
M
T"
•0
Tim lUrt (hnj
~ (TP3 *t fU, 110
Figure 10. Total phosphorus Concentrations in Two
Consecutive Storms at Stations 100 and 110.
K-73
-------
upstream of the sampling stations,or 2) significant loadings from
groundwater (e.g., water percolating through the soil and being
added to the stream by lateral flow. The data are insufficient to
provide an answer to the anomalies in the concentrations patterns;
however; the data are consistent with the findings reported earlier
concerning high levels of nitrate in base flows in Loantaka Brook
above the Morris-Woodland WWTP.
K-74
-------
V. INTERPRETATION OF GSWQS ANALYTICAL FINDINGS
The 1986-1987 water quality data obtained in the Great Swamp Water
Quality Study document the statistically significant elevations in
biogenic nutrients generated by discharges from the Morris-Woodland
and Chatham WWTPs. The data also document the operation of the
Great Swamp as a sink for these added nutrients.
A. Influence of WWTPs on Water Quality and Plant Growth Under Base
Flow Conditions
The enrichment of the waters of the Great Swamp with nutrients from
WWTPs, as demonstrated in this review, does not by itself guarantee
that such water quality changes will be translated into algal
growth. However, the algal bioassays conducted in conjunction with
the water quality determinations (Trama, 1987) demonstrated that
the nutrient enrichment does lead to a higher standing crop of
algal cells in in vitro tests of water from below the treatment
plants. Thus, the concern over the potential for eutrophication
due to the wastewater loads has been demonstrated to have a firm
basis in experimental results.
At this point, it is pertinent to update the status of the WWTPs
discharging into the surface waters of the Great Swamp area
(Passaic River and tributaries). The Chatham Township and Morris-
Woodland facilities have proposed to upgrade their wastewater
treatment capabilities to Level 4. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FNSI) for the Morris-Woodland plant (NJDEP,
1990). Thus, there are concrete actions proposed for wastewater
facilities that will individually and collectively reduce nutrient
loading to the waters of the Great Swamp and the Passaic River.
It is also worthy of note here that the hydrological model derived
by Najarian and Associates (Najarian, 1988) predicted that, even if
the model were modified to simulate 100 percent removal of
constituents from the Morris-Woodland and Chatham plant discharges,
the phosphorus concentrations at Station 180 would remain above the
State standard of 0.1 mg/1 total phosphorus. The reason for this
is apparently the ability of the swamp ecosystem to export
phosphorus accumulated in the biomass of the system. Thus,
according to the modeling studies of nutrient budgets in the Great
Swamp watershed, the proposed upgrades of the WWTPs mentioned above
will certainly reduce loadings to the Great Swamp ecosystem, but
will not restore loadings to "pristine" conditions. The
development of the Great Swamp's watershed areas, Loantaka Brook
watershed in particular, has apparently had, and will continue to
have, a significant effect on water quality of the Great Swamp*
B- Influence of Land Use Patterns and Non-Point Source Loadings
on Great Swamp Water Quality
The pattern of land use within the Great Swamp watershed can exert
a significant influence on water quality of the streams traversing
K-75
-------
the swamp system. Many studies have demonstrated that development
of land within a watershed causes increased loading of sediments,
nutrients, and contaminants in stormwater runoff. Compounding this
problem are the reduced baseflows that result from the decrease in
pervious surfaces that promote the infiltration of rainfall into
the soil (Wanielista, 1978; Najarian, 1988).
The statistical comparisons of base and storm flow concentrations
of common stormwater-borne constituents discussed in a previous
section do not fully confirm this generalization for tributaries of
the Great Swamp. Water samples from Loantaka Brook (Station 100)
and Black Brook (Station 200), both of which drain areas with
moderate to high development, do not show the expected elevations
in concentrations of phosphorus and suspended solids when compared
with water samples from streams draining watersheds with little or
no development differences (Station 170 on Primrose Brook and
Station 27 0 on Middle Brook). Concentrations of various forms of
nitrogen do show significantly higher concentrations in the streams
draining "developed" watersheds than in those draining
"undeveloped" watersheds, but these differences alone do not
constitute a demonstration of significant non-point source
influences.
The loading estimates (concentrations x flows) indicated that
surface waiters draining to the Great Swamp, particularly those
waters in the Loantaka Brook subsystem, are influenced by non-point
source loadings. Water samples from the location at Green Village
Road (Station 110) showed the most conspicuously elevated loadings
of common stormwater constituents during storm events; however, a
similar increase, though not so pronounced, is seen on Primrose and
Middle Brooks. The latter locations drain less-developed
watersheds than does Loantaka Brook proper. The Black Brook
subsystem shows generally less influence of non-point source
loading than does the Loantaka Brook subsystem.
C. Influence of Great Swamp Discharges on Passaic River Water
cmanty
The discharges from the Great Swamp tend to increase the
concentration of phosphorus in the Passaic River. That finding was
reported by Trama (1987) from the algal bioassay data, and is
confirmed in the statistical analyses reported in earlier chapters
of this review. Trama noted that the Passaic River in the vicinity
of station 320 (near the Millington gage) varies from a nitrogen-
limited condition to a phosphorus condition depending on the
quality and quantity of flows from the upstream regions. Thus, the
effect of these additions of phosphorus from the Great Swamp may or
may not promote additional growth of aquatic plants, depending on
the transient nutrient limitation condition prevailing in the
waters of the Passaic River.
Loading estimates for the GSWQS sampling locations closest to the
Passaic River do not show substantial increases in storm flow
K-76
-------
loadings over base flow loadings. These comparisons appear to
indicate that the transport of water-borne materials from the Great
Swamp to the Passaic River is somehow "damped'* from extreme storm
influences.
D. Future Conditions and Water Quantitv/Qualitv Trends
The hydrological model derived by Najarian and Associates predicted
that, for the watersheds that would most likely be developed by the
year 2000 (e.g., Loantaka Brook subbasin), storm flow volumes would
increase by factors of 2-2.5, while base flows would diminish by
factors of 0.6-0.8. Water quality under base flow conditions would
be affected more by WWTP effluents because there would be less base
flow to dilute such loadings; also, the higher stormwater flows
would reduce detention times for water in the wetlands, thus
lowering the efficiency of nutrient removals. Clearly, the
conversion of undeveloped land to developed land will adversely
affect water quality under all types of flow regimes.
The increase in the impervious coverage of the watersheds draining
to the Great Swamp is likely to increase the "flashiness" of
flooding in that system. As noted above, the storm flow volumes in
the Loantaka Brook subbasin are predicted to increase by a factor
of 2-2.5, leading to increased flooding of areas historically on
the margins of flood hazard areas. Local municipalities now
mandate stormwater management measures for all significant
developments; however, the interaction of these site-specific
stormwater management systems (e.g., detention basins) can
aggravate downstream flooding impacts if the site-specific systems
are not integrated (at least by design, if not by actual
management) into a regional system.
K-77
-------
VI. SUMMARY
The Great Swamp Water Quality Study (GSWQS) conducted by EPA and
its consultants has generated water quality information with
significant diagnostic and prognostic utility; that is, the data
have provided a sound basis for quantifying point and non-point
source influences and impacts that existed during the time of the
study, and have also provided information necessary for modeling
potential impacts of land use changes on the Great Swamp in future
years.
The overall objective of the study was to evaluate present and
future impacts of point and non-point source loadings of nutrients
to the Great Swamp; the data analyses reported in this review and
the three reports preceding this review have disclosed numerous
interesting and useful findings that quantify nutrient
concentrations and loadings, identify specific stream reaches
significantly affected by point and/or non-point source influences,
and predict specific changes in such loadings in future years.
The GSWQS data have showed that, under base flow (dry) conditions,
the discharges of treated wastewater from the Morris-Woodland and
Chatham WWTPs generated statistically significant elevations in
nutrient concentrations (orthophosphate, nitrate, total phosphorus,
and total soluble inorganic nitrogen) in their receiving waters,
Loantaka Brook and Black Brook, respectively. The principal
exception to this finding was in Loantaka Brook, where nitrate
concentrations in the brook upstream of the Morris-Woodland WWTP
discharge were not statistically different from nitrate
concentrations in the brook immediately below the discharge.
Algal bioassays using water from various surface water reaches of
the study area have demonstrated that most of the stream reaches of
the Great Swamp watershed are phosphorus-limited; nitrogen
limitations occurs in stream reaches receiving discharges from
WWTPs. The increased concentrations of nutrients, particularly
phosphorus, resulting from the WWTP discharges promote increased
algal growth in laboratory cultures.
The influence of the Great Swamp on base flow water quality in
Great Brook and Black Brook is clearly beneficial. In general,
base flow concentrations of nutrients in the brooks at the end of
the swamp are equal to or less than concentrations of those
nutrients at the control locations upstream of the study areas
(i.e., upstream of both the swamp and the wastewater treatment
plants); the swamp ecosystem is apparently serving as a nutrient
sink. Moreover, the nutrient loads in waters leaving the swamp and
entering the Passaic River are not elevated during storm events;
again, the swamp ecosystem appears to be buffering what might
otherwise be significant storm-related discharges to the Passaic
River.
K-78
-------
The influences of non-point source runoff on water quality in the
Loantaka and Black brooks not always clearly discernible in the
GSWQS data base; analyses comparing concentration data sometimes
show different results than do analyses comparing loading
estimates. storm flow concentrations of total phosphorus,
orthophosphate, and total suspended solids are not different
between locations in more developed watersheds (sampling stations
100 and 200) and locations in less developed watersheds (sampling
stations 170 and 270). Forms of nitrogen, however, do show
significant elevations at sampling locations in the more developed
watersheds. Estimated loadings (concentrations x flows) do show
substantial increases in storm flow loadings of common runoff
constituents (e.g., suspended solids, biodegradable organics,
nitrogen, and phosphorus) in Loantaka Brook, Primrose Brook, and
Middle Brook.
Projected increases in the development of presently undeveloped
lands in the Great Swamp watershed will increase the non-point
source (stormwater) loadings of streams tributary to the Great
Swamp, while reducing base flows available to dilute loadings from
the WWTPs discharging to those streams. Offsetting in part these
predicted adverse trends in water quality are the proposed upgrades
of the Morris-Woodland and Township WWTPs to Level 4 treatment with
nutrient removal. Hydraulic loading of streams flowing into the
Great Swamp will increase as a greater percentage of the watershed
is developed as residential or commercial properties. Watershed
planning should integrate stormwater management measures to reduce
potential hydraulic and nutrient loading to the Great Swamp from
non-point sources.
K-79
-------
REFERENCES
Elson T. Kill am Associates, Inc, and Dames and Moore. 1977. Final
Draft 201 Facilities Plan. Prepared for the Upper Passaic River
Basin Wastewater Management Committee.
Hammer, D.A.{ed.). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Hordon, U.K. Best Management Practices in Watershed Management.
[In]: Watershed Management Strategies for New Jersey (6.H.
Nieswand, ed.) , Cook College Department of Environmental Resources,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Kadlec, R.H., and F.B. Bevis. 1990. Wetlands and Wastewater:
Kinross, Michigan. Wetlands 10(1): 77-92.
McElroy, A.D., S.Y. Chiu, J.W. Nebgen, A. Aleti, and F.W. Bennett.
1976. Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from
Nonpoint Sources. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO.
EPA-600/2-76-151.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1988a.
Environmental Review: Upgrade and Expansion of the Passaic
Township Stirling Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Division of
Water Resources, Trenton, NJ.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1988b.
Environmental Review: Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting Molitor Water
Pollution Control Facility Upgrade. Division of Water Resources,
Trenton, NJ.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1990.
Environmental Review: Township of Morris: Upgrade of the Woodland
Sewage Treatment Plant. Division of Water Resources, Trenton, NJ.
Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Smith. 1987. Aquatic Plants for Water
Treatment and Resource Recovery. Magnolia Publishing, Orlando, FL.
Steel, R.G.D., and J.H. Torrie. I960. Principles and Procedures
of Statistics With Special Reference to the Biological Sciences.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, NY. 481 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U8EPA). 1981.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Upper Passaic River
Basin 201 Facilities Plan, Somerset, Morris, and Union Counties,
New Jersey. USEPA Region II, New York, NY.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Results of
the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Volume I - Final Report.
Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
K-80
-------
United states Fish and Wildlife service (USFWS). 1985. Great
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge: Hydrology Study of Watershed
Effects on the Refuge. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.
United states Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Great
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan: Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.
United states Fish and wildlife service (USFWS). 1987. Great
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan: Final Environmental
Impact Statement. USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.
Wanielista, M.P. 1978. Stormwater Management: Quantity and
Quality. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. 383 pp.
K-81
-------
APPENDIX L
Stormwater Management for the Mitigation
of Water Quality Degradation
-------
APPENDIX L
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR THE MITIGATION OF
WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
I. New Jersey State Regulations
In New Jersey, stormwater management regulations, as prepared by the Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Division of Water Resources, implement the
provisions of the New Jersey Storm Water Management Act, P.L. 1981, c32, which amends
and supplements the Municipal Land Use Law, NJ.S.A. 40:55D-1, fit seq. Stormwater
management is also addressed in the rules of the New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Act, N J.S.A. 4:24-34 fit seq.
In general, the NJDEFs stormwater management regulations dictate the procedures
for the preparation and content of a management plan and the implementing municipal
ordinance. A management plan is to comprise two phases: a Phase I targeted at preventive
measures to be applied to the site plan and subdivision review process; and a Phase H which
provides for the long term comprehensive planning of alternative preventive stormwater
management measures in conjunction with remedial stormwater management measures.
Part of Phase II is the development of a system of nonstructural and/or structural
stormwater management programs to mitigate flooding and non-point source pollution. The
need for expanded protection of environmentally critical areas, including floodplains and
wetlands, is also to be reviewed.
The stormwater control standards specified in the regulations are for general use as
minimums to be applied to predefined major developments. Major development, as used
in the regulations, refers to development as defined in the Municipal Land Use Law. In
*
addition, the development activity must either be (1) a site or §ubdivi*ion plan that will
*
ultimately cover one or more acres of land with additional impervious surfaces or (2) any
construction used for feeding and holding areas for specified numbers of animal units;
b-1
-------
pipelines, storage, or distribution systems for petroleum products or chemicals; storage,
distribution or treatment facilities for liquid waste (other than individual on-site sewage
disposal systems); solid waste storage, disposition, incineration or landfill; quarries, mines
or borrow pits; land application of sludge or effluents; and storage, distribution or treatment
facilities for radioactive waste.
The specified stormwater control standards include the following:
Stormwater runoff volumes and rates are to be controlled so that post-
development peak runoff values do not exceed pre-development rates for a
2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm event.
Detention basins to be used for water quality control, in addition to flood
control, should be designed to increase the detention time by using lower
release rates so as to encourage sedimentation (removal of suspended solids
and attached pollutants).
New development, including construction of detention basins (excluding on-
stream basins), should be avoided in floodplains.
• Alternatives to retention basins for runoff quantity and quality control are to
be allowed. These measures include infiltration techniques, land use
management, and consideration of waiving or amending local municipal
requirements for impervious cover for specified property uses.
n. Recommended Stormwater Management Practices
Stormwater management control techniques can generally be classified by the runoff
attribute controlled and/or the philosophical approach of control. The four categories
associated with controlling various runoff attributes are described below. These are:
L>2
-------
Runoff Volume Control - Control techniques designed to prevent a certain
amount of the total rainfall from becoming surface runoff by providing an
opportunity for the rainfall to infiltrate into the ground. Rainfall infiltration
into the ground can be encouraged by increasing the soils' infiltration rates,
increasing surface retention or detention storage (allows more time for
infiltration), and increasing the interception of rainfall by growing plants.
Runoff Peak Rate Control - Control techniques designed to regulate the peak
flow rate of runoff by increasing the hydraulic resistance of the surface,
decreasing the land slope, increasing the length of flow path, or providing
temporary storage and outlet control of runoff that would otherwise leave the
site at an unacceptably high flow rate.
Erosion Control - Control techniques designed to minimize accelerated soil
erosion and corresponding downstream sedimentation. Accelerated erosion
is defined as that erosion caused by land disturbance, such as construction
development and agricultural activities. This is erosion other than that
resulting from natural geological processes such as wind, rain, temperature
fluctuations, frost action, etc. The excessive sediment produced covers aquatic
plants and fish spawning areas. It also carries pollutants such as nutrients,
pesticides, and other oxygen demanding material that are attached to
sediment particles. Examples of typical erosion control techniques include
bank stabilization, critical area planting, contour farming, terracing, and strip
cropping.
Pollution Source Controls - Control techniques, particularly Best Management
Practices (BMPs), designed to minimize the accumulation of pollutants on the
land surface, in the soils, and in the atmosphere prior to rainstorms. In
controlling pollution at the "source", these techniques control potential
L-3
-------
pollution of downstream receiving waters during and following the rainstorm
events. Pollution source controls are generally supplementary to the other
control techniques because by themselves they usually do not provide
sufficient stormwater control to meet regulatory requirements for control of
flow volumes and peaks. Examples of typical pollution source controls include
filter strip, sediment basin, street cleaning, wetland preservation, and
agricultural waste storage structure.
The four means of control commonly used are presented below:
* Structural - Control techniques consisting of physical facilities designed,
constructed, and installed for the exclusive function of storm runoff
abatement, including erosion and sediment runoff control.
Nonstructural - Control techniques consisting of land use management
techniques geared towards minimizing storm runoff impacts through control
of the type and extent of new development and of land disturbance activities
in general.
On-Site - Techniques designed to control runoff at its source (i.e., the
development or land disturbance site).
Off-Site - Control techniques located downstream of the development or land
disturbance site that are designed to intercept runoff or divert it to another
control facility.
Hie following paragraphs describe stormwater management facilities and practices
that can be used to control downstream flooding and water quality degradation. These
descriptions are for guidance only and do not replace the need for a detailed management
plan and an implementing ordinance for the municipalities of the Upper Passaic River
L-4
-------
Basin. Table L-l is a list of performance estimates for the practices described. This table
was prepared to provide insight into the potential control performance for selected practices.
The actual performance of any stormwater management practice is dependent on the
specific design, operation, and maintenance of the facility, as well as the characteristics of
the storm runoff to be controlled. The selection of a particular practice for application
should be based on physical suitability (size of runoff area, soil type, slope of terrain, etc.),
type of control and pollutant removal desired, and its implementation and operation features
(simplicity and cost of installation, maintenance needs, flexibility of use in both existing and
new development, etc.).
Impoundments
Conventional stormwater management practices often involve the use of
impoundment facilities. Impoundment facilities are structural devices that detain
stormwater runoff and release it at a controlled rate. There are two types of impoundments.
Detention basins are "dry" impoundments that temporarily store runoff and release it to
downstream surface water channels. Retention basins are "wet", impoundments that provide
"permanent" storage and release runoff water through infiltration and evaporation.
Impoundments can be designed for individual site control or to control runoff from multiple
development sites or watershed areas. In areas where the anticipated non-point source
pollutant load is expected to be particularly heavy, multiple ponds designed to perform in
tandem, may be more effective in controlling water quality. Under these circumstances, an
upper pond may serve as a settling basin that releases higher quality water into a lower
pond.
Infiltration Fits and Trenches
Infiltration pits and trenches collect stormwater runoff from impervious areas for
temporary storage and subsequent infiltration into the soil. Permeable soils are necessary
to ensure a reasonable rate of infiltration. Also, the water table should be sufficiently lower
L-5
-------
than the depth of the facility so that the facility will always be above the groundwater.
Application is usually limited to relatively small sources of runoff, such as roof drains and
small paved areas.
Land Surface Controls and Zoning
Land surface controls and zoning can be used to naturally encourage precipitation
to infiltrate the soil and reduce the runoff volume. In addition, runoff can be controlled to
inhibit local flooding and pollution of downstream channels. Specific techniques include
grading slopes to less than two percent, restricting the amount of impervious surface
coverage at an industrial, commercial, institutional, or high density residential development
sites, and using special vegetative cover. Zoning can be used to control the number of
dwelling units or building square footage for a given site to discourage over-development.
This practice could also include encouragement of cluster land use development and open
space acquisition.
Porous and Grid/Modular Pavement
This management practice includes the use of either porous asphalt pavement or
concrete grid and modular pavement. The most suitable application for these pavement
materials are low-volume traffic areas such as:
• parking lots, especially fringe or overflow parking areas;
emergency stopping and parking lanes;
on-street parking aprons in residential neighborhoods;
recreational vehicle camping area parking pads;
private road, easement service roads and fire lanes;
• industrial storage yards and loading zones;
• driveways for residential and light commercial use; and
bike paths, walkways, patios and swimming pool aprons.
L-6
/
-------
Seepage Areas
Grassed areas can be used for managing storm runoff by employing their natural
capacity for reducing runoff velocities, infiltrating runoff flows, and filtering runoff
contaminants. This practice is applicable to new development of low to moderate density,
where the percentage of impervious cover is relatively small. Seepage areas are small, grass-
covered areas that infiltrate the water and allow particulate contaminants to settle out of
the runoff water. The grass also tends to absorb some of the soluble pollutants. Seepage
areas maybe created by excavating shallow depressions in the land surface or by constructing
a system of dikes or berms to pond water over permeable soils.
Channel Modification
Channel modification includes any action which affects the physical prevention or
reduction of local flooding. Channelization is the process of converting sinuous channels
to linear ditches and enlarging and reshaping the stream bed into a nearly trapezoidal cross-
sectional area. To facilitate land drainage, stream bed material may be removed to increase
the gradient of the channel.
Cistern Storage
This management practice involves the collection and storage of storm runoff in a
storage tank or chamber to control peak runoff rates. Sedimentation occurring in the tank
and water reuse can also provide some source pollution and runoff volume control.
A cistern can serve solely as a stormwater detention device with a continuous
controlled flow release; as a holding tank that disposes of runoff via facilities such as
infiltration pits/trenches and seepage areas; or as holding tank that collects water for later
uses such as lawn watering, fire protection, and irrigation.
L-7
-------
Floodplain Management
This management practice incorporates land use planning to control flood corridor
development and stream channel modification. Controlling development in flood corridors
protects against backwater effects that result when the flood-carrying capacities of
watercourses are exceeded due to clogging and encroachment of development.
Environmentally sensitive wetlands and woodlands tend to be found adjacent to water
courses. Wetlands, which are poorly drained soils, absorb, store, and improve the quality
of runoff. Wetland preservation is presented as a separate practice to control source
pollution. Woodlands often form greenways ideally suited to provide flood damage control.
Parking Lot Storage
Impervious parking areas can be designed to act as temporary impoundments during
rainstorms to control the rate of runoff, parking lot drainage systems can be designed to
temporarily detain stormwater in specifically designated areas, generally at the perimeter
of parking areas, and release it at a controlled rate using specially designed or modified
storm drain inlet structures.
Rooftop Detention
Rooftop detention involves the temporary ponding and gradual release of stormwater
falling directly onto flat roof surfaces by incorporating controlled-flow roof drains into
building designs. This is achieved through the use of small perforated weirs or collars
placed around the inlets of roof downdrain pipes. The purpose of rooftop detention is to
reduce the rooftop discharge rate to reduce the impact on receiving stormwater facilities.
L-8
-------
Bank Stabilization
Bank stabilization techniques involve grade stabilization structures to control erosion
on banks or slopes of streams, creeks, and road swales that can be sediment-producing,
highly erodible or severely eroded with little or no established vegetation. Grade
stabilization structures are used to strengthen the floor and side slopes of natural or artificial
channels.
Conservation Tillage
Conservation tillage applies to crop tillage methods used to control or reduce the
amount of erosion from crop fields resulting from storm runoff by retaining water, increasing
infiltration, or slowing the runoff velocity.
The most common conservation tillage practice for the northeastern United States
is termed no-tillage or zero tillage. It involves soil preparation and planting that are done
in one operation with specialized farm equipment. This results in limited soil disturbance
and leaves most crop residues on the soil surface.
Other conservation tillage practices, e.g. ridge planting, strip tillage, plow planting,
etc., are less common than no-tillage. Typically they required specialized soil and cropping
conditions to be practical. Some of the conservation tillage methods may also decrease
runoff volume by allowing significant amounts of runoff to infiltrate into the soil. This
ability is dependent on the amount of soil compaction in the undisturbed areas of the field
and the amount of crop residues exposed. High soil compaction inhibits infiltration, whereas
exposed crop residues absorb the water and retain it on site until it evaporates or is
transpired by plants.
L»9
-------
Contour Farming
Contour fanning is the practice of farming sloping cultivated land in such a way that
plowing, preparing land, planting, and cultivating are done on the contour. The primary
purpose of this practice is to control erosion. Because erosion control reduces
sedimentation, the secondary purpose of this practice is control of source pollution.
Informal contour farming, such as cropping across rather than up and down a hill slope, can
be easily applied.
Cover Cropping
Cover cropping involves planting and growing of cover and green manure crops.
Cover and green manure crops are crops of close-growing grasses, legumes (clover), or small
grain planted in a fallow field and plowed into the ground before the next row of crop is
planted, this technique is used to control erosion during periods when the major crops do
not furnish cover.
The cover crop can be seeded after harvesting the major crop by light plowing, or it
can be seeded prior to cultivation of the major crop without additional seedbed preparation.
Cover crops are most beneficial to farm practices that leave bare soil following harvesting,
e.g. corn silage production.
Critical Area Planting
Critical area planting involves planting vegetation on critical areas to stabilize the soil
and promote stormwater infiltration, thereby reducing damage from sediment erosion and
excessive runoff to downstream areas. Critical areas can be sediment-producing, highly
erodible or severely eroded areas where vegetation is difficult to establish with usual seeding
or planting methods.
1^10
-------
Diversion
A diversion is any channel designed and constructed to intercept excessive and/or
concentrated runoff from cropland, pastureland, or farmsteads (including feedlots and
eroding gullies), or conservation practices such as terraces or strip cropping fields. The
intercepted flow is then conveyed (diverted) to a disposal site and/or facility such as an
infiltration pit, impoundment, or wetland. Intercepted runoff could also be made available
for use on nearby sites. The primaiy purpose of a diversion is to reduce erosion and
subsequent soil loss potential. A secondary purpose could be to prevent unpolluted surface
runoff from entering, and thereby diluting, contaminated areas such as waste storage ponds.
Farmland Management
Farmland management incorporates several practices, all of which discourage
accelerated erosion at the farm site. These practices include using proper planting and
management techniques for pasture and hayland to control erosion from the areas. Another
farmland management practice is the development and protection of springs used as water
supply sources on farms to distribute grazing to several locations rather than concentrating
it in one area.
Fencing
Fencing controls streambank erosion by preventing both the physical destruction of
the bank and the denuding of streambank vegetation from grazing animals.
Storm Sewers
Storm sewer systems include curbs and gutters, conveyance facilities, pipelines,
storage facilities and flow regulators. Conveyance consists of collecting the stormwater and
transporting it, via underground pipes, to a storage facility, to an overflow/bypass device or
Lrll
-------
directly into a receiving stream. The primary control purpose of storm sewers is to protect
the land from erosion by replacing overloaded and inadequate roadside swales. A second
purpose is to eliminate local flooding.
Strip cropping
In general, strip cropping is the seeding and growing of crops in a systematic
arrangement of strips or banks across the "general" slope of the terrain or on the contour.
The crops are arranged so that a strip of grass or close-growing crop is alternated with a
clean-tilled production crop or a fallow row. The primary purpose of this technique is to
control erosion caused by storm runoff flowing down the slope. The function of this crop
arrangement is similar to that of the filter strip which is used for more urbanized areas
(refer to discussion of filter strips provided later in this section). Grassed
waterways/diversions or outlets should be established on the slopes at points where storm
runoff accumulates to provide safe disposal of the excess water.
Terracing
A terrace is an earth embankment, ridge or channel constructed across a slope at a
suitable location to intercept runoff water and control erosioa Generally terraces are
considered supporting practices to use in conjunction with contouring, strip cropping and
reduced tillage methods (particularly on long slopes and slopes where these practices may
not be effective enough alone). Terracing has been amply shown to be highly effective in
trapping sediment and reducing erosioa The effectiveness of terracing is not as effective
for reducing the loss of nutrients from the soil from surface runoff, however, and subsurface
nitrogen losses may increase.
Agricultural Waste Storage Structure
Agricultural waste storage structures can be either an above-ground fabricated
H2
-------
structure or an excavated pond. These facilities are designed to temporarily store nontoxic
agricultural wastes including animal waste to reduce contamination of natural watercourses
by source pollution control of liquid and solid wastes. This involves providing temporary
storage for the agricultural wastes and not allowing them to remain on the land surface
where they can infiltrate and/or wash away to surface watercourses. Wastes can be disposed
of by controlled application to cropland. Animal wastes supply soils with nutrients, improve
soil tilth, reduce runoff rates, and increase soil infiltration rates. A Nutrient Management
Plan can be developed to maximize the use of nutrients produced on the farm.
Filter Strips
This practice uses vegetated areas for intercepting storm runoff to reduce the runoff
velocities and filter out the runoff contaminants. Although filter strips are similar to grass
waterways used in strip cropping, they are used primarily for urban developments.
Successful application of filter strips to urban developments requires consideration of natural
drainage patterns, steepness of slopes, soil conditions, selection of proper grass cover, and
proper maintenance. The filter strips should be established at the perimeter of disturbed
or impervious areas to intercept sheet flows of surface runoff. These grass buffer strips will
slow runoff flow to settle particulate contaminants and encourage infiltration.
Sediment Basin
A sediment basin, sometimes referred to as a debris basin, is an earth embankment
or ridge generally constructed across the slope or across minor watercourses and have
subsurface outlets. The basin does not control erosion but rather traps sediment near the
land disturbance and prevents it from entering downstream watercourses.
Street Clganing
Street cleaning involves sweeping, vacuuming, flushing, or otherwise cleaning of
L-13
-------
streets (including curbs and gutters), parking lots, and other paved vehicular traffic areas.
The primary purpose is to control source pollution by removing dry-weather accumulations
of pollutants including oil and grease, general litter, sediment including gravel and silt/sand,
and fallen leaves.
Wetland Preservation
Hie potential of using natural or artificially created wetland areas as a source
pollution control technique is a relatively new idea. Performance capabilities and design
principles and parameters have not yet been identified and quantified. However, it has
been found that implementation of this technique should include the need for maintenance
harvesting to prevent constituent recycling.
In general, wetland vegetation provides sediment trapping, prevention of sediment
resuspension and removal of soluble and sediment-associated nutrients. Additionally,
wetlands slow the velocity of runoff, which reduces the likelihood of downstream erosion of
the streambank.
Artificial wetlands are normally created as part of a detention pond. An inlet-
controlled slotted standpipe can be used as a control device for creating a shallow wetland
in the lower stage of an extended detention pond. This device regulates water levels within
the lower stage and maintains target detention times even when partially clogged.
The preservation and protection of natural wetlands for a control technique is
desirable because it retains or enhances existing drainage patterns so that the natural
hydrologic characteristics of an area are maintained as much as possible. Also, most
wetlands serve as an aquatic and wildlife habitat.
L-14
-------
TABLE L-l
Stormwater Management Practices
Performance Estimates
T^pe of Control'1^
Runoff
Peak
Runoff
Control Practice
Rate
Volume
Erosion
Sediment
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
VOLUME CONTROLS
Infiltration Pit* and Trenches
90%
90%
3040%
30-60%
40%
60%
Land Surface Control and Zoning
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Porous Pavement (Asphalt)
100%
>60%
UK
UK
40%
60%
Porous Pavement (Concrete)
75%
30-60%
UK
UK
30-60%
30-60%
Seepage Areas
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
PEAK RATE CONTROLS
Channel Modification
30-60%
N
V
N
N
N
Cistern Storage
>60%
V
<30%
25-70%
30-60%
30%
Floodplain Management
UK
UK
UK
N
N
N
Impoundment (Diy Detention)
>60%
N
<30%
<30%
10%
20%
Impoundment (Wet Detention)
>60%
>60%
<30%
60%
30%
30-65%
Parking Lot Storage
>60%
N
<30%
30-60%
30-60%
<30%
Rooftop Detention
>60%
V
<30%
N
N
N
EROSION CONTROLS
Bank Stabilization
<30%
<30%
>60%
>60%
>60%
<30%
Conservation Tillage,
General
30-60%
30-60%
60-90%
>60%
30-60%
3040%
No-Till
30-60%
30-60%
80-98%
>60%
>60%
3040%
Contour Plowing
30-60%
30-60%
50%
15-55%
3040%
3040%
Cover Cropping,
Alone
<30%
<30%
30-60%
50-60%
30-60%
<30%
With Conservation Tillage
30-60%
30-60%
>60%
«s%
>60%
3040%
Critical Area Planting
3040%
3040%
>60%
>60%
>60%
30-60%
Diversion
<30%
<30%
3040%
30-60%
30-60%
<30%
Farmland Management
30-60%
30-60%
>60%
>60%
>60%
30-60%
Fencing
N
N
>60%
>60%
60-80%
3040%
L-15
-------
TABLE L-l (Cont'd.)
Stonnwater Management Practices
Performance Estimates
T^pe of Control")
Control Practice
Runoff
Peak
Rate
Runoff
Volume
Erosion
Sediment
Pbosphoru*
Nitrqgen
EROSION CONTROLS
(Cont'd.)
Storm Sewers (Without Treatment)
Stripcroppiog - Contour
Terracing
>60%
30-60%
30-60%
N
30-60%
30-60%
N
75%
50-98%
Avg. 80%
N
>60%
>60%
N
>60%
>60%
N
30-60%
30-60%
SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROLS
Agricultural Waste
Storage Structure
Filter Strip*
Sediment Basin
Street Cleaning
Mechanical Sweepers
Vacuum Sweeper*
Wetland Preservation
>60%
30-«060%
<30%
<30%
N
N
30-60%
N
30-60%
30-60%
N
N
<30%
>60%
85%
>60%
50%
95%
75%
>60%
>60%
>60%
3040%
30-60%
50%
>60%
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%
25-85%
IN - not applicable or negligible preventive effect or reduction capability.
V - variable preventive effect or reduction capability when performance it exclusively dependent on application.
UK • unknown preventive effect or reduction capability
L-16
-------
References
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1988. Best Management Practices for Stormwater Control,
Harrisburg, PA
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs.
1987. A Framework for Evaluating Compliance with the 10% Rule in the Critical Area.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs.
1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMP's.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Water Resources. 1979.
Controlling Stormwater Runoff in Developing Areas. Selected Best Management Practices.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best Management Practices Handbook - Urban.
Planning Bulletin 321.
L-17
-------
APPENDIX M
Bernards Township Facilities
Responsiveness Summary
-------
^nosr,,
* m i
use
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
«wlingy Ph.D.
Acting Regional Administrator
i #
Enclosure
M-l
-------
Responsiveness Summary
project Name: Bernards Township Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrading and
Expansion and Interceptor System, Somerset County, New
Jersey
Project Number; C-34-382~01
Applicant: Bernards Township Sewerage Authority
The Bernards Township project is included in the scope -of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
preparing on the Upper Passaic River Basin 201 Facilities Plan. In July
1980 and again in April 1981/ the applicant requested that EPA segment its
project out of the EIS so it could proceed independent of the EIS process.
This request was made for three reasons: (1) the township was under a
court order to provide sewage treatment for high density housing; (2) the
applicant felt that because of the position of this project on the New
Jersey Priority List, construction grants for the project would not be
available beyond September 30, 1981; and (3) the applicant agreed with the
population and flow projections and the level of treatment being proposed
in the EIS. To both requests, EPA indicated that it would consider the
segmentation after issuing a draft EIS and holding a public hearing on the
draft providing there was no significant public controversy associated with
the segmentation.
^he draft EIS was issued on June 8, 1981. The EIS indicated that EPA
intended to segment the project out of the EIS if there was no significant
public controversy. At the public hearing held August 20, 1981 at the
Morris Township Municipal Building, Convent Station, Hew Jersey, several
comments were received opposing the proposed interceptor system. In
addition, approximately 75 letters were received following the public
hearing, objecting to the interceptor system. EPA believes that many of
the issues raised in these comments have been addressed in the draft EIS.
The remainder have been evaluated since the public hearing by EPA and the
applicant. Furthermore, delay of the grant would have caused the township
to lose approximately $700,000 in additional grant funds due to the
expiration of funding authorization for innovative and alternative tech-
nology projects. Therefore, EPA decided to award a grant for the construc-
tion of this project on September 30, 1981.
15ae comments received fell into a number of well defined categories. To
avoid repetition EPA has grouped the comments and responded accordingly.
M-2
-------
-2-
Issues raised during the comment period:
- Lack of need for sewers
- Inadequate analysis of alternatives
- -impacts to environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., wetlands, floodplains,
prime agricultural lands, cultural resources and sole source aquifers)
- Impacts to the water table
- Excessive costs
- Public participation
- EPA subsidizing development
- Easement acquisition procedures
Lack of need for sewers
Many commenters have indicated that they feel there is no need for sewers in
the area. The soils in the area are rated by the Soil Conservation Service
as having severe limitations for the use of on-site systems. In addition,
the Bernards Township Health Officer has indicated that the septic systems
in the area are malfunctioning and that sewers are needed. Given this
information and the lack of substantial evidence to the contrary, EPA
concluded that sewers are needed in this area.
Inadequate analysis of alternatives
Several comments were received indicating that alternatives to sewering were
not analyzed. In addition, several commenters felt that a septic management
program would work in this area. Following the public hearing, the township
health officer and the applicant's consultant evaluated alternatives to
sewering for this area. The conclusion of these studies was that sewers
were the most cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative for
treating the wastewater generated in the study area.
Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas
Many commenters expressed concern over the potential impact the interceptor
would have on environmentally sensitive areas. Environmentally sensitive
areas potentially affected and possible mitigation measures are discussed
below.
Wetlands and Floodplains - The interceptor and treatment plant, were
sized to exclude capacity for these areas and EPA intends to affix
special conditions to the grant for the project prohibiting new sewer
hookups from undeveloped wetlands and floodplains. In addition, the
main portion of off-road easement was inspected by SPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) on September 14, 1981) no wetlands were encountered.
The interceptor will be aligned through portions of floodplain. Bow-
ever, adverse impacts to these areas will be minimized by strict
adherence to environmental specifications included in the construction
plans and specifications.
M-3
-------
-3-
Prime Agricultural Lands - Impacts of sewer construction on prime
agricultural lands will be mitigated through proper construction
techniques (i.e., soil erosion and sediment controls and limiting
easement widths). Major portions of candidate prime agricultural
lands (defined by soil type, importance, and extent of active farming)
in the Upper Passaic study area are developed or are protected by
other environmental constraint designations. In addition, there are
currently minimal local controls to limit development of agricultural
lands in the study area. Prime agricultural lands were not included
as an environment constraint in the EIS. However, EPA will support
any local controls to protect prime agricultural lands.
Cultural Resources - As was stated at the public hearing and in the
draft EIS, additional cultural resource work had to be done for the
project. The cultural resource survey was completed and it indicates
that no cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic places were encountered in the impact corridor
of the project.
Sole Source Aquifer - Approximately one-half of the recharge zone of
the Buried Valley Sole Source Aquifer underlies the Upper Passaic
study area. Designation Of an area as a sole source aquifer recharge
zone gives the EPA Regional Administrator the authority to review all
federally funded projects within the designated area to determine
potential impacts to groundwater quality. The potential impacts of
the project have been reviewed and have been determined to be beneficial
to the aquifer* This is because the proposed sewer programs will
improve surface water quality and, therefore, the quality of recharging
waters will improve. In addition, the quality of local pockets of
groundwater should improve because of the elimination of improperly
treated leachate from malfunctioning septic systems.
Impacts to the water table
One commenter expressed concern over the project's impacts to the water
table in Bernards Township. In areas that require dewatering for construc-
tion, the water table will be temporarily lowered. However, water levels
will quickly return to normal after dewatering ceases. A potential
indirect impact of the project may be a reduction in the amount of ground-
water recharge because water that is presently discharged into the ground
from septic systems will eventually be transported to the Bernards Township
treatment plant for ultimate discharge to the Dead River. However, there
are adequate existing water resources in the study area to meet the demands
of the design population of the project. In addition, as stated above, the
overall impact to the groundwater is expected to be beneficial because of
the improvement in its quality. The improvement in quality is expected to
far outweigh any adverse impacts associated with groundwater reduction.
M-4
-------
-4-
Excesslve costs
Many commenters were concerned that, the user costs and hookup costs
associated with the project may be excessive. The user costs associated
with the regional project are expected to be approximately $120/year. In
addition, there will be an incremental increase in this cost due to the '
proposed collection system which was not covered by the current grant.
However, the sum of these costs is not expected to exceed the 1.75% of
median income. Oh is is the guideline recommended by EPA for assessing
the economic burden of sewer facilities on the public. In addition, if
the grant for the treatment plant would have been delayed, the township
would have lost approximately $700,000 in grant funds because of the
expiration of funding authorization for innovative and alternative tech-
nology projects. It is likely that this would have resulted in an
additional increase in the user costs associated with the project.
Costs associated with connecting to the sewer system will be borne by the
individual homeowner. These costs are a one-time cost and axe expected
to be in the range of $10 to $15 per linear foot. There are some options
(e.g., joint connections by whole blocks) to reduce these costs. These
costs will be analyzed further and explained during the planning of the
proposed collection system. However, they are not expected to cause
undue economic hardship on the individual user.
Public participation
The apparent lack of public participation during the planning of the inter-
ceptor system was cited as a concern by several commenters. The inter-
ceptor system was proposed in the draft facilities plan for the Upper
Passaic study area on which the EIS was prepared. The preparation of the
EIS began with the issuance of a Notice of Intent on January 26, 1978.
A citizens advisory committee (CAC) was developed in the beginning of the
EIS process. During the preparation of the EIS, three public meetings
and six CAC meetings were held to solicit public comment on the wastewater
treatment plan proposed for the Upper Passaic River Basin. A review of
the minutes of these meetings (Appendix I in the draft EIS) indicates that
few, if any, comments were received during this time objecting to the
Bernards Interceptor System. At the public hearing and during the sub-
sequent comment period, objections were raised by approximately 75 parties.
This responsiveness summary is intended to answer the concerns raised by
those parties.
In addition, if Bernards Township intends to apply for federal funding for
the proposed collection system that will contribute flow to the interceptor
system, an additional public hearing will be held to obtain public input
on that aspect of its facilities plan.
M-5
-------
-5-
EPA subsidizing development
A few commenters objected to the project because they believed it was
contrary to an EPA policy requiring no growth. Current EPA regulations
call for designing facilities for a 20-year life. This requires the
planning and construction of facilities to correct existing wastewater
treatment problems plus a nominal additional capacity to treat wastewater
generated by reasonable growth providing environmentally senstive' areas
are protected. In most cases the design population is the approved 208
population. In the case of Bernards Township, the project population was
reduced based on existing zoning to eliminate further encroachment on
environmentally critical areas (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, and steep
slopes)« This resulted in a reduction of the 208 population projection
by approximately 600 persons. Therefore, EPA believes that this project
will not subsidize unacceptable population growth in Bernards Township.
Easement acquisition proceedings
Some commenters expressed concern over the proceedings intiated by
Bernards Township to acquire the easements required for construction
of the interceptor. EPA requires that all easements necessary for the
construction of a project be acquired prior to the award of a Step 3
grant for construction. While It is unfortunate that more time could not
be allocated by the township to allow for the acquisition of the easements
EPA finds that the requirements for real property acquisition were met in
this case.
M-6
-------
appendix n
Letters Received Concerning the DEIS
-------
%
APGAR ASSOCIATES
CH6INECRS • LAND SURVEYORS . PLANNERS
Mf» M. ran M.
THAOOCUt r. MOMMM. t*.
m. 0. MR Hft
ecMKNcuet
rrnm Mtui. nc« jcncv oTtai «m mm «um«
lOMI4«4it "****? mmrn mtmm TTtmm
ft. WKWMCT. »¦«. M ioBi Mmmw«
ir.wu.u. August 20• 1,81 .......
•««*«*¦* IWIIIIUIIII * MUM
Mr. Edward A. Taratfco, ftrtnw
Opper Pouit liver Sasin
Watwur llmfnt Couaittee
rose Office In JO
SO Woodland Mtw
Camu Station, M Jatney 07961
Mr: tot1 tym.mt.» hart Stififnt. Draft. Jt 1W1
Sear Mr. Taratho:
As larding Township's wp—titfw to the Wastewater Maoageaest Csaaittee, I
as mU Ilk* to express our sappntt of the graft Bnlraantal Iapsct Stateaent.
I It appears that after asay yaara of study we kn« finally tucM the polar where
H wM facilities for nulum treataeat c«a b« designed and coastructed.
Although the individual interests and 4wiie> of each Mba i iiuaniiilty any not be
fully Kt by the recaaasadatloas of the report, «¦ believe the Upper Passaic liver
Basis will greedy heaeflt If asat of Its r»i laanlitlua are adopted.
Oar oaly significant objection to the recaMadatloas of the report Is the delay
that would result fna aanrhsr study to detmlac the need for nitrogen and phoa-
phoroas reaoval « the Woodland tmac Treataeat flat la Morris Township. It
is well established that efflaeac from that plant has had unusually high nutrient
levels for any years. lefetaace Is uade to a report entitled "Surface Water
fesources of the Crest Sva^ Watershed" by Gulilander. et al (University of
Veaasylwaala}, 1975 as well ss recent stress water sampling reporta of the I). S.
riah and Midlife Service.
The high nutrient level of the effluent has significantly contributed to the acceler-
ated growth of rooted aquatic vegetation is Loaataka Brook. The vegetation clogs
the brook, Mmm the flow, aad causes sedlaent buildup reducing the depth of the
channel. During the past ten years the thanart depth haa been reduced by about
SOZ la the low-lying area of Harding Township bordering the Croat Swaap. Resi-
dential Lands that were once used for lauas can no longer be aoued because of the
high water tsble. What was ooce an attractive portion of residential loo Is sow
a soggy utss of weeds. Flood levels that were once reached every ten or fifteen
years are now reached several tlaes a year. Trees that for aany years lined the
banks of the brook are now dead.
Therefore, Harding Township strongly objects to further delays in the construction
of nutrient reaoval facilities at the Woodland Avenue plant la Harris Township.
Uhlle further study aay be required to determine the effects of the nutrients on
1MB
DCSIGMInG
su
Mr. Edward A. Taratko
-2-
August 20, 1981
the National Wildlife Refuge, the effects of nutrients on the grwth of vegeta-
tion that clogs Loantaka Brook as it flows through private property In Harding
can be readily observed. The dsaage to private property and generally to the
envlronnent of the area far outweighs the cost of nutrient reaoval.
With this one aodlflcatlon to the reconaendatioas of the study, Harding Tomshlp
endorses and approves the draft Environmental Iapsct Ststeaent.
Very truly yours.
Robert H. Fox, F.E.
Harding Township Engineer
RHF/nh
cc: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
N. J. Department of Environaentsl Protection
Harding Township Coaalttee
Harding Township Environmental Emission
Mayor U. Thoaas Margetts
-------
Harding Zownskip SmiromttcMtal Commission
r O BO* J00 . MEW VERNON, HEW JERSEY 07976
August 20, 1981
Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
36 Federal Flaza
Hew York, Wl 10Z?8
Dear Sir:
The Harding To an ship Environmental Coaaission supports
the general provisions and recoaaendations of the Environmental Iapact
Statement for the 201 Facilities Plan of the Upper Passaic River Basin,
the EIS reflects a recognition of the need to protect the area's
precious and unique natural resource, the Great Swamp National Wldlife
Refuge.
Par exaaple, the population projections are sound
because they recognise the liaite of development that can be supported
by the envlronemen tally sensitive areas in the basin.
The recoaaendatlon to prohibit the extension of sewer
service to floodplains and wetlands is an excellent way to preserve
the vital functions perforaec by these areas. Construction grants
should be conditioned to preclude any sever hookups to residences,
businesses, or Industries proposed for wetlands or floodplains.
v/e are, ho never, concerned that yet another study
is proposed before certain improvements in the Horris and Chathaa
Township plants will be funded. I an referring to the proposed nutrient
i-.ynamics stuuy ohich eould determine the aagnitude and sources of stream
flows ami nutrient loacs to the Great Svaap and their effects on the
Suaan. At least for the Morris Township plant and Loantaka Brook,
we know today that there is a heavy nutrient load. Studies done for
this ZlS shon high levels of pollutants in Loantaka Brook anc Loantaka
Pond below the Horris Township plant. Studies by the Harding Township
Sngineer over the last ten years or so have also shows high levels
of nutrients in Loantaka Brook.
These pollutants are affecting the Great Soaap and
neiGhborinG private property owners. Thg pollutants encourage
algae growth. The algae traps sedi^aent. The seciaent reduces
the size of the streaa channel. Result: rising eater levels in and
around tho Scaup. The 3aanp is losing irreplaciable animal habitats,
.-toaeocners are losing irreplaceable backyards..
Let's not sraste any aore tiae or money. Se don't need
another study, nutrient removal should be part of the upgrading of
the Morris Tocnshii- plant from the very start. Je knon it's needed.
3o '-on* t nee.; another stu.'j- to tell us so.
RE: STATEMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE UPPER PASSAIC RIVER BASIN 201
FACILITIES PLAN. HORRIS TOWNSHIP, AUGUST 20, 1981
PRESENTED BY: Ella F. Filipppne, Executive Administrator, Passaic River Coalition
The Passaic River Coalition is a watershed association concerned with water
resources management in the Passaic River Basin. Our headquarters are located at 246
Madisonville Road, Basking Ridge, New Jersey in the high headwaters of the Passaic
River and within a brief distance from the Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge. The Passaic
River Coalition has been in existence since 1W9 and has participated in deliberations
of the Upper Passaic 201 Facilities plan since its inception in 1974-75. We have
attended every Meeting on this progcaai except those to which we were not invited.
On many occasions we have presented our concerns to the New Jersey M5P,
the U. S. CPA, the consultants and Municipal officials. After considerable input,
we welcooed the receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upper
Passaic River Basin, as we anticipated the document which would finally move forward
the improvement of sewage treatment plants much needed in the region.
We anticipated coming to this hearing to praise WAPGRAf instead we find
ourselves in a position to be extremely critical, rf grave disappointment after all
the efforts put into this program. The Environmental Impact Statement justifies the
proposals of 1977 which were questioned by toe public, although the statement
attempts to make various recommendations regarding critical lands and land use. As-
sumptions and omissions negate some of these forward moving efforts. There has never
been any question that the sewage treatment plants in the Upper Passaic River Basin
oust be up-graded, and in some cases expanded; however, the clear definition of the
secondary impacts of these activities has not been brought forward. The EIS leans
heavily on decisions made in the master plans of the municipalities. Certain decisions
regarding 2oning have been extremely controversial in the Upper Passaic, and the CIS
-------
does not demonstrate public opposition to changes in toning such as mass opposition
of the citizens of Bernards Township to the PRM zone.
Because of this lack of tnow.ndat.ion, the teccmended Bernards Township
interceptor line will stimulate growth in the Dead River Basin, which is contrary t«
all the principles being advocated by the EM and others in the federal government
regarding wetlands.
The CIS has made substantial progress with regard to its concerns for the
Great Swimp Wildlife Refuge. The itcoMsndation to undertake a study of water quality
impacts from receiving streams follows through on a recommendation we presented four
years sqo. Me are extremely pleased to note, that although not as extensively as we
had recoesended, the EIS strongly recommends a research project to determine water
quality impacts on the Great Swamp. This recommendation should be pursued immediately.
The Bernards Township alignments alternatives should all be rejected. The
recommended route is highly controversial and lacks public support, and more than
that, will iapact the wetlands of the Dead River# initiating extensive new develop-
went which will toally destroy within a period of time the ecological integrity of
the Dead River.
There has bem no public discussion within Bernards Township regarding
tie touting of this interceptor; there has been no consideration of placing the
interceptor along aoct environmentally sound routes. The need for the interceptor
is being questioned by contrary citisens in the township' He, at the Passaic Rivet
Coalition, have been inundated with telephone calls regarding this interceptor because
of the crisis being developed within, the co—unity to have the interceptor developed.
Placing the interceptor through the wetlands of the Dead River will clearly enable
Commonwealth of Basking Ridge to build 1220 housing units on land in the confluence
of the Pas#aic and Dead Rivers which, in our opinion, is a wetland. The court de-
cision on this property clearly stated "that the Department of Environmental Pro-
tection and the Environmental Protection Agency can and will appropriately and ade-
quately protect the water quality of the river and the zoning is not needed for that
purpose."
We strongly recommend that the decision to approve the Bernards Township
interceptor be set aside so that the public has an opportunity to evaluate and com-
ment on the project. As the interceptor is now recommended, we object and respectfully
request that the Departnent of the Interior, Pish and Wildlife Division, evaluate the
wetlands status of the route to verify our findings.
The EIS# contrary to requests presented at Citizens Advisory Committee
aeetings, also provides a brush stroke over the Buried Valley Aquifer in all of the
municipalities in this facilities plan or in the designated sole source aquifer area.
The PRC as well as the Passaic Valley Ground Mater Protection Committee re-
quested that peine aquifer recharge areas be included as critical areas in the upper
Passaic facilities Plan. This kind of evaluation had been done for the ffcockaway
River, thus establishing the precedent. According to our technical person, the
primary recharge areas do exist in the Upper Passaic River Basin which contains part
of the terminal moraine. The EIS does not in any cleat cut manner address the impact
of the growth, initiated by the treatment plant improvements on ground water, stated
in its water supply element - it hazily discusses the importation of water from other
sources. The water supply element further continues to lean on Osborne pond as a
source of drinking water. Plans for the abandonment began in the mid-?0's and were
completed by 1979 > Me find it irresponsible that the consultant did not obtain the
tinetable from Commonwealth Water Company so that accurate water supply figures could
be included in the report. From the inception of the deliberations on this planning
effort, the PRC has forecast a water supply deficit. Numerically* for the region,
there is a surplus, but that surplus is not in the service area where the greatest
growth is being experienced. The water purveyors that have a surplus do not serve
the growth centers; thus, water supply must be considered a constraint to growth in
this facilities plan.
The Passaic River Coalition supports improvements to water quality in the
[*Passaic River Basin as a primary goal under the Clean Hater Act. We would recommend
{ that EPA development guidelines for each facility so that the impact on environmental!)
-------
sensitive lands is kept at an absolute alniauB. EPA aust provide the Municipalities
in the Upper Passaic with a clear definition of wetlands, priae recharge areas and flood
Mrs. EPA should guide these aunlclpalities through their planning boards in assur-
ing that water quality improvement and -anti degradation policy- be pursued in all
their deliberations. EM Mould provide guidance with regard to non-point source
pollution factors from wv daaalnpaentaa ao that Improvements gained through the up-
grading of sewage treatasat plants remains a positive benefit. Em should establish
a prograa for the Upper Paaaalc which seek* to Juatlfy for EPA-Washing ton the need
for a level IT treatment.
Finally, we strongly ruci—l[id that since questions by the public exist un
the Bernards Township Facilities Plan that It be reaoved froa the Upper Passaic group
aad he permitted to function as an Independent facility with Its own public partici-
pation prograa so that the cltlcaas of Bernards Township, and especially those who
are presently agrieved. have an opportunity for input and evaluation. The Upper Pauaic
is one of the aost iaportaat ecological parts of the systea which suffers froa de-
gradation. the guardianship of the Great Swaap and the aany wetlands in these upper
aust be flraly established as a responsibility, not only of the concerned
citizens, but of the municipalities and county gowernaents dealing with land use.
Ua support the upgrading and iavroveaent of the treataent facilities, but
strongly recaeaead that precise checks and balances be added to insure that the
activities recoaaended do not initiate extensive new developaent.
TOWNSHIP OF MORRIS
Chief. Environmental Impacts Branch
0. S. EPA
Realon II
Re: Environmental bpict Statement
on the Upper Passaic River Basin
201 Facilities Plan
Gentlemen:
The Upper Passaic River Basin Mastewater Management Coatfttee completed the
final draft 201 Facilities Plan on the Upper Passaic River Basin in Nsrch.
1977. A public hearing on this plan was Held on Hay 20, 1977, at which
time contents were received from the public and various concerned agencies
within the study area. -This plan, which was approved by the Upper Passaic
River Basin Wastewater Management Constttee, has therefore been utilized as
a basis for comparison with the Environmental Impact Statement.
A comparison of recomendations Included under the draft Facility Plan and
the draft Environmental Impact Statement have been shown on the enclosed
Table A. As can be seen on this tabulation, the total projected wastewater
flow considered in the draft Facility Plan amounted to 20.3 MG0 (million
gallons per day) while under the draft Environmental Impact Statement the
total wastewater flow which would be conveyed to centralized treatment
facilities has been reduced to 17.6 MGB. Thus, the Environmental Impact
Statement provides approximately 131 less capacity for wastewater flows
V.
J
-------
generated within the watershed in an apparent response to the concerns ex-
pressed over population projections in the Facility Plan and potential second-
ary impacts of the recsmnended alternative, litis reduction of approximately
2.7 NED in total basin treatment capacity has been concentrated in the com-
munities of Harris Township, Chatham Township. Bernards Township and the
Nadiswt/thatfcaa Joint Meeting. Moreover, in the Madison/Chatham Joint Meeting
and the Morris Tomship treatment facilities the CIS recoawnds a reduction in
the present plant capacity which Mould be accomplished by reducing the capacity
of the advanced wastewater treatment facilities, thereby 11*1 ting the entire
design capacity of the plant.
Me recognize that the proposed plant capacities under either study are based
on estimates of population growth, per capita wastewater contributions and
allowances for c—mrial and industrial development. Although it is somewhat
difficult to Justify the differences in estimating procedures which result in
the reduced'wastewater projections in the CIS, it is ludicrous to reduce exist-
ing plant capacity which has been financed through the taxpayer dollars by the
imposition of subsequent fn-plant bottlenecks, which could seriously affect
treattwit efficiency and reliability. It should be noted that the existing
plant canities had been previously approved by the regulatory agencies prior
to their construction and has ad upon tills, commitment of flans In excess of
the proposed CIS reduced plant capacities, have been granted in some instances.
We would, therefore, suggest that in the instances where the CIS projections
are less than the existing- treatment plant capacity that the plant capacity
be maintained at the present level and thereby utilize the existing treatment
facilities to their maxtnw potential. This situation occurs specifically
in the Madison/Chatham Joint Meeting where a reduction in capacity
fron 4.0 NGO to 3.2 MBS is iunnmuiiliil as well as the Morris Township
Woodland Treatment Plant where a reduction in capacity from 2.0 MGD to 1.8
MGD is recomaended.
The Notice of Intent to prepare an Cnvironuental Impact Statement on the 201
Facility Plan for the Upper Passaic River Basin included the issue of impacts
on the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge due to the quantity and quality
of wastewater effluent from the Chatham Township Treatment Plant and the
Morris Township Woodland Treatment Plant. The Notice of Intent indicated
that further evaluation of the impacts would be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Statement. The conclusions of the draft CIS are quite similar to the
statement in the Notice of Intent in that additional studies are still being
required for the upstream areas draining to the Great Swamp. Since the origi-
nal issue is apparently still not resolved within the EIS, it would appear
'that the original scope of work has not been satisfied. However, the recom-
mendations of the EIS further Indicate that the Chatham Township and Morris
Township plants should be upgraded to Level 4 treatment with provision for
possible nutrient removal 1n the future following the recomnended studies. It
Is not apparent how the cost effective analysis in the CIS could be completed
without the levels of treatment established for these treatment plants.
However, it 1s apparent that the original issue of water quality and quantity
and the subsequent impact on the Great Swamp has been inadequately addressed
in the Environmental Impact Statement and does not satisfy the original project
scope. The imposition of additional studies upon the upstream municipalities
or the Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater Management Coanrittee would result
in additional local costs to address issues which were to be addressed and
concluded within the framework of the EIS.
-------
He. furthermore, question the Imposition of Level 4 treatment (Level 3 treat-
¦ent for Mm Providence) for ill of the treatment facilities wi thin the Upper
Passaic Basin. The EIS does not provide an independent analysis of this re-
quirement but instead refers to the 303e basin plan and waste load allocations.
It 1s our understanding that during the development of the scope of work for
the EIS, the regulatory agencies agreed to conduct further sampling, analyses
and evaluations of the need for nitrification within the Upper Passaic Basin.
There Is no evidence within the EIS that this work was completed to justify
the requirement for nitrification facilities at each of the Individual plants
and this Increased level of treatment will impose a serious financial burden
upon all of the municipalities served by these treatment facilities. Follow-
ing the initiation of the EIS fay EM, the KJOEP was advised fay letter dated
March 21, 1978, that "one of the factors which is vital to the timely completion
of such an EIS is the availability of waste load allocations fro* the IUDEP.
These allocations are necessary for the EIS consultants evaluation of the af-
fects of proposed wastewater treatment works on the study area.* The prepara-
tion of these waste load allocations is not referenced in the EIS and the waste
load allocations have been based on the prior 303e basin study.
Due to the substantial financial Investments that will be required by the im-
plementation of Step 4 treatment levels, it would appear imperative to have a
detailed evaluation and compilation of the allowable waste load allocations.
SUWWir
Although the original projection for the completion of the EIS was based on a
12 month study period, almost 4 years have elapsed since the date of the origi-
nal Notice of Intent by EM dated January 27, 1978. The water quality of the
- 5 -
Passaic River has not Improved during this period, some municipalities are
still under the building bans imposed many years ago, and the cost of con-
struction Has escalated substantially. Furthermore, potential revisions to
the funding of wastewater treatment projects could increase the cost to the
municipalities by a substantial amount. Although the Upper Passaic Committee
concurs with the treatment facility configuration within the study area since
this is compatible with the 201 Facility Plan, we strongly urge a re-evaluation
of the need for Level 4 treatment as well as the need for additional studies
and possible nutrient ranoval facilities in the extreme, headwaters of the
Basin, upstream of the Great Swamp. It is our understanding that the need
for Level 4 treatment would be addressed independently in the EIS as well as
the ccmnletion of any necessary studies to determine the level of treatment
in the extreme headwater area.
In order to expedite the necessary projects within the study area, we would
further recommend that the 7 treatment areas be segmented. The design and
construction of advanced secondary treatment facilities should be permitted
1 mediately on an individual project basis, while the justification of Level
4 treatment, dechlorination or nutrient removal is determined.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward A. Taratko, Jr., Chairman
Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater
Management Camtfttee
cc: Members - UPRBMM Committee
Enc.
-------
TABLE A
COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDATIONS
UNDER THE DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEHT
PLANT LOCATION
Berkeley Heights
FACILITY PLAN
Expand to 3.t MGO with Level 4 treatment.
Bernards Township Expand to 3.0 NGO with Level 4 treatment
(possible Stage II expansion to 4.9 MGD
to serve contiguous coaaunities).
Chatham Township Expand to 1.9 MGD with Level 4 treatment.
Madison-Chatham
Joint Meeting
Maintain capacity at 4.0 NGO. Upgrade
treatment to Level 4.
Harris Township
Expand to 2.5 MGD with Level 4 treatment.
Men Providence
Passaic Township
(incl. Barren T«p.)
Maintain capacity at 2.8 160. Upgrade
treatment to Level 3.
Expand to 3.0 MGO with Level 4 treatment.
ENVIROWCNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
imn
Expand to 3.2 MGD with Level 4 treatment
and dechlorination.
Expand to 2.5 MGD with Level 4 treatment
and dechlorination.
Expand to 1.0 MGO with Level 4 treatment
(possible nutrient removal following
additional studies).
Upgrade to Level 4 treatment with dechlor-
ination. Reduce total plant capacity from
4.0 NGO to 3.2 MGD.
Upgrade to Level 4 treatment (possible
nutrient removal following additional
studies), deduce total plant capacity
from 2.0 MGO to 1.8 MGO.
Upgrade to Level 3 treatment.
Expand to 3.1 MGD with Level 4 treatment
and dechlorination. Eliminate 3 Warren
Twp. plants and convey wastewater to
Passaic Twp. for treatment.
-------
> WJ<-»GREATSWAMP WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
• 1'' '¦ •' • **»"«•« '»W • rtitwbif-li&t
- ••jCjiKs'.' .»<>•«•• *•»*»«» aim y.v'S.'-- '•'•¦¦*"»';'J
fcismbe
JS^'ISb
pind^aagnita^^
-.^feXwiwatiad^p*'^
?(^k«j^j>lant8^shmS4?not J
dty]tefcady,»ii&owpleted.i,
__., IT .CTWf—— mm m
.-/funded raewage projects 'will not serve development^
• Boning regulations .for,,the.Ut'itB *miicipaiities iahould|
Jjimodified toprotect^enviranmentally^aenjBitive' iaadegfromJ _
^indiscriminate 'Awrtuwrt. '¦ t-'
¦V '••*tB» Association finds tie draft ECB 'sets' forth 'Very'
conservative critical area delineations, '.for instance, since •
accurate wetland mapping waa not a part of this 3E3S process, !^
¦any existing wetlands are not delineated. "fJSis weans that ^
tie constrained population figures arrived at are very" gen- " "j
rrtma and should be considered as absolatemaximuas. - •; !
V&V-. She Watershed Associationurges thaVthe Water Quality f
and Stream flow study for the Great Swamp Basin be implemented
immediately Tmderthe egia of EPA.^nnda have been set aside -i
for this project, so it should now have top priority in .order {
to move water management in. the Basin from a planning stage I
to implementation. '•" -Uy
Association recommends that approval of residential"/;
ekage treatment plants, ae well as industrial package plants
delayed until the water quality study is complete. Bie
increasing volume of water coming into the Great Swamp Basin
combined with serious non-point source pollution will be com-
pounded by residential and commercial development made pos^—*
Itole by package plants. » so
2 -
ment afor !the^rey6^wf|t^e^^aft^£lSttie aring _
s^^al^OTSffiS^^So^^^helr^Smaendationa.
17
i^rocesses
JU'in Chatham Township
It has not 'been connected '/to'' Townsiup j
18
age to .83 million 'gallons ;per..;day>
JC consideration if expansion of the Township plant is undertaken..1
-V page 5-2 - Areas of floodplains and wetlands delineated in f
8 Figure 3-1 and SndMisouseed on page .3-58 are not accurate. , j
f . Wetlands in the Great Swamp Basin are nuch aoreextensive >'<¦ !.
|. according to the .National Wetlands Inventory ami the Horrid
County Soil Conservation District maps. See also page'3-23.' •¦'
.-• ••«•.«> ' - " • ' l ¦ ^"y ' i -y : •
f page 3-37 -'The DEIS discussion of growth trends m the
1 OTRB neglects to mention the very significant amount of'com-
• mercial development occurring ^in .Horris Township and in 4^ ;
, Kadi son. This development will create serious .^impacts','4 v? J
- particularly in non-point run-bff," because of the unusual' j
amount of traffic being generated and the subsequent need to I
expand secondary roads as well as access to Houte 287.'.,The J
estimates for changes in impervious surface area found on
page 4-20, Table 4-5, do not appear to take proposed road
widening and extensive parking areas into consideration.
"• .If ; Sim^rdMJurs,:'.^ ' ,
Abi^iil I*air\ Chairman :
Mr. Arnold Schiffman, DEP
Sr. narwan Sadat, DEP
Hr. Richard Salkie, DEP
cc: Dr. Biahard Dewling, EPA
tlr. Robert Hargrove, EPA
Mr. Williaa J. Muszynski, EPA
Hr. Paul Arbesoan, DEP
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Ewnicweiital Project Review
IS State Street
ER-81/1296 Boston, Massachusetts 02109
September 8, 1981
9
—
a
Xu
mac
OCT
•~r.:
zo
rr"
o
c.
z
jy
3T
v -<¦*»
x »
r-i
3m
o
1—
o
Or. Richard T. Dew Hit?
Acting Region*) Mriajstntar
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New Tort. Mew York 10278
Dear Or. Oewling:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Jane 1981 draft environmental
stateaent on the Upper Passaic River Basin 201 Facilities Plan. Somerset,
m Morris and Union Counties, Hew Jersey, the following coaaents are offered
I for your consideration in preparation of the final stateaent.
SOCIAL COHOT5
In general, the draft stateaent adequately describes the proposed project's
iapacts on fish and wildlife resources. If carried out as proposed,
water quality entering the Great Swaap National Midlife Refuge should
be significantly iaproved.
The draft stateaent does not address mineral resources and it is difficult 1
to evaluate potential ninerals involvement related to siting of the I 22
proposed alternatives. J
For clarity, it would he appropriate in our view to illustrate and label
the positions of all the discussed alternatives on appropriate figures.
DETAILED COWEKTS
Pages 2-48 and 2-49
The description of alternative B-3 states that the segaent between the
Maple Avenue pop station and Haas Road will ran south along Pond Hill
Road to the top of the ridge, and that the Lower Passaic Interceptor and
Parkland Interceptor are additional and future phases of this alternative.
Interceptor alternative B-3 as depicted on figure 2-2 (between pages
2-46 and 2-47), however, is about t.OOQ feet west of Pond Hill Road.
The Lower Passaic and the Parkland Interceptors are not depicted on
figure 2-2. and the streets along which they would run are not labeled.
Figure 2-2 shows that interceptor alternative B-3 is In close proxiaity
to a quarry site. The final stateaent should note the present status of
the quarry shown in Figure 2-2 and should indicate idiat effect, if any,
project rights-of-way will have on the quarry.
Page 2-54:
The draft stateaent is unclear as to which portions of the iaplementation
plan are to be constructed within presently held rights-of-way. and
which portions of the plan shall require right-of-way acquisition. This
is particularly significant with regard to alternatives UP-3 and B-3 of
the iapleaentation plan.
SUMWRT COMBOS
In the section entitled Controlling Development In Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (page xi), the fourth paragraph states 'In order to protect
environmentally sensitive areas from development sewer service should
not be extended into areas designated as environmentally constrained in
Figure 3-9. In addition US EPA Step 2 and Step 3 grants to the
aunicipalities should contain conditions to prohibit future developaent
in floodplains and wetlands from connecting to any system receiving
grants" (our emphasis). It is our view that to control developaent in
these environacntally sensitive areas, we recomend the word should be
replaced with must. As written, this paragraph is merely a recoaaendation,
not an absolute prohibition against sewer hookups in wetlands and
floo$>lains.
The draft statement adequately describes the existing fish and wildlife
resources and evaluates general project construction iapacts. However,
our review detected no mention in the draft stateaent about the possible
need for a permit froa the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct fill
activities In project Implementation. Such permits aay be required for
interceptors crossing streams and wetlands (page 4-6 through 4-8).
Accordingly, unless the method of authorization is by general or nationwide
permits, the coaaents on the stateaent do not in any way preclude
additional and separate evaluation and cements by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.), if project implementation requires a perait froa the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aider Section 404 of P.L. 52-500.
In review of the application(s) for such a perait(s), unless the activities
fall under general or nationwide permits, the Fish and Uildlife Service
aay concur, with or without stipulations, or object to the proposed work
-------
depending em prujact effects on flsfc and wildlife resources «Wdi nay be
Identified and evident at Out ttae. tt mM appear Out the Fish and
Midlife Service, as * alitlM*, wttt probably una— ml that the U.S. Ar%
Corp* of Engineers, t*en Issuing a foirit, require features to reduce
turbidity ant sedtawtotian during project construction.
Tedwrica! assistance Measures to amid, reduce, or offset
MtfcifMet project-caused losses of ftsll and wildlife «7 be obtained
by contacting the Field Sapenrlsor, Ecological Services, Fisli and midlife
Service, 315 South Allen, Suite 322, State College, taKflHuH 16801
(FIS 72?-4»l>.
Sincerely,
WUiaM Patterson
Regional En»lrw»ntal Officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOII. CONSEHVATIOM SERVICE
*370 Haailtco Street, P. 0. Box 219, Soaemet, Mew Jersey 088T3
July 31, 1981
Chief, Enviroonaotal la pacts Branch
0.3. Environnental Protection *g«ocy, Region H
26 Fadei-al Plata
New Tork, lew lot* 10278
DaarStr:
We bare mlna4 the Oraft Etdnuatal Iapact Stataaaot ftr the Ifftr
PaMaic Mver Basis 201 FaeUSHan Plan and have tba following com aanta to nalce:
1. Pa» 3-2 - Tba atataaaat that the araaa shown on Tiger* VI ropreaont
locations where the probability or flooding dialog any particular year is
apfroataaialy 141 percent Is Incorrect. Tba outer IMngn of tWa ana has a
1.0 pereeot probability or npodlng, xMle tba Inner portions have
prugiaualvaiy Mgber probaMHttna.
2.. Page 3-< - We would aiggnt that the arat two snutancas of the wood
paragraph be rewritten aa follows - "Tba Bolted stataa Depart a ent of
Agriculture, San Conservation Service (aSDA-SCS) baa deteraiaad that,
based on general characteristic*, aoaa or the bad in Morris and Soaaraat
Counties la prlne faraland. TMs detarainatloa is baaed on an aaaaaaaant of
the suitability of the sails for agriculture based oo the degree of aiope,
avaQaUs water capacity, pH, and WMnftll high water tabte aa wdl as the
existing land use."
J. Page 3-tJ - Tba section oo land use does not mention agricultural land
although other porta of the state a en t allude to Its oxbtaaca in the project
area. It ia disturbing to sen tWattmi land nlnndflad aa »noant land toned
for residential, con aercial or industrial use.
He appreciate the opportunity to review and con sent on this project.
Sincerely,
PLATER T. CAMPBELL
State Conservationist
-------
Btatr of Nrm imry
department of the pubuc advocate
SWtErC-IMtfSS CM— CMIS.RSfiUCT
naucmoout iWitttwUMinfliui omcrm
TEL MMU.1M1
August 28, 1981
Nr. Robert Hargrove
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, m 1027*
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
? He are writing to aake the following consents on the
p latest Upper Passaic Environmental Impact Statement:
1) On page 2-73 trader the subheading "Environmental Constraints,"
the following sentences have been added to the earlier draft -
"The potential for eutrophication is high ud elevated algae growth
levels have been recorded in localized areas (BJDEP 1974). in addition
there may be accelerated growth of rooted aquatic plants under low
flow conditions in the GSMfR."
Our question is whether there is any documentation for
the inclusion of these sentences? Or if, {especially the point about
rooted plants) this is just conjecture?
2) Wider the title "Engineering Criteria" the principal engineering
criteria has been changed from "Process Efficiency" to "Compliance
with effluent quality constraints." Me would like to know what this
change mirnns and would like to see any policy briefing your office miqht
have explaining the seasons for this change.
3} Under "Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives - No Action" on page
2-14, 2-15 - Me believe the last sentence in the first paragraph on
page 2-15 ("This could lead. . ."1 should be more properly placed after
the last sentence in the last paragraph on page 2-14.
4) On page 2-16 and 2-17 we note the new section on"Package Treatment
Plants." This section should be deleted in its present form. First of
*11.the section does not address package treatment plants in an
nvironmental sense. Mostly it talks about "agency management problem,"
V,-« Jersri /> 1ft Equal OpponuHitv F.mptmrr
Mr. Robert Hargrove
age Two
August 28, 1981
"cost-effectiveness" and collaterally "secondary growth." If the
scope of the EIS is "environmental constraints" then EPA may have
stepped beyond that scope in this section by discussing cost-effectiveness,
serious management problems, and vague unexplained secondary impacts.
In addition there is outright misinformation in this section.
Areas that could employ package treatment plants are not necessarily
adjacent to sewerage collection networks. Also, on page 2-17 it
says: "In unsewered areas such as Harding Township, zoning densities
are too low for this method of wastewater treatment to be used
effectively." That sentence should be deleted completely because
first of all it in no way discusses the "environmental problem"
of package plants. Zoning densities throughout the Upper Passaic region
Lare frequently just as low as Harding Township, and yet that is not an
environmental reason to suggest the nonuse of such plants.
In addition, EPA has not taken into consideration their
own (newly proposed) position that 201 construction will only service
existing populations. Under the EPA proposal the 201 constraints would
~ot be able to service any population growth in the Upper Passaic
.•gion (which EPA acknowledges will occur on page 3-81). Under those
circumstances EPA must review alternative systems to meet this
__growth or else it is creating an EIS that is not dealing with reality.
_ It's also interesting to note that EPA has suggested a
ban on "industrial package plants* only until after the GSNWR report
is completed, yet for residential package plants SPA suggests that
they should not be used in the UPRB at all. The recent trichloroethylene
contamination of acquifers in New Jersey should illustrate the
incongruity of CPA's position. The EIS section on package plants,
therefore, should be deleted until: A) they are studied further by
EPA; B) the GSNWR study is completed; and C) EPA changes its position
that 201 monies will only cover construction for existing populations.
Unless EPA does this they arc in fact making a non-environmental
judgment on the use of non-critical lands that is contrary to the
EIS statement on page 3-66.
What documentation does EPA have that these "package plants" are not
cost effective? DEP has information showing that there are cost-effective
package plants already operating in Morris County. Without some sort of
documentation, this cost-effectiveness statement is nothing more than
speculation. Assuming package plants develop in areas that will not be
">rved by sewer lines, comparing their cost-effectiveness to that of
nicipal plants is like comparing apples and oranges.
-------
4c. Robert Hargrove
Page Three
August 28, 1981
5) On page 3-8 under the title "Loantaka Brook" - the third
paragraph is rambling and misleading. The DO standard was Bet for
1978. That should be stated first and then EPA can discuss any
minimal problems it encountered in the study. The way it" a presently
worded suggests that "really the standard wasn't met in 1978."
6) On page 3-32 under title "Air Quality? why was table E-2 removed?
Why was the statement that Northern Mew Jersey is a Class II (PSD) area
removed? Also, why was the paragraph on PSD increments removed on
page 3-35 (formerly 3-46) I just before the "Energy" section?
71 In line with oar earlier cusn.iit8.we believe the last line on
page 3-36 should be deleted or further documentation be supplied
for its inclusion.
8) On page 3-37, at the bottom, two sentences were deleted from the
earlier draft: "The maximum density in this area is 2 housing units/
ha (5 unit/a). An additional 56 townhouses are under construction
m a 4.5 ha (Hal plot adjacent to Rt. 202 just souh of Bernards
wp. (Horensky. SCPB, December 17, 1978)." Why were they deleted?
9) On page 3-47 in the second paragraph there are two sentences: "Other
communities In the tIPRB are substantially developed. Due to the
established character and the lack of vacant developable land .the
potential new growth is severly restricted in these areas." Please
supply the documentation for these sentences. In addition the next
sentence should be deleted. The question of surrounding uses goes
to "soning'not to the "environment."
10) On page 3-61 under "Effects on Supply of Land" there is a
recommendation that does not logically follow. Because 1310 acres
are proposed for recreational land in 3 communities and a portion
(How much?) of those reserved areas coincide with environmentaIly
constrained" lands, then all of this land should be subtracted from
total vacant land area (i.e. presumably because some land is constrained,
all of it should be deducted from available landI? This is not in
fact a logical conclusion. Again EPA is determining what lands should
be subtracted from the present available supply without having an
"environmental constraint" reason for suggesting so. He would
recommend that this new section on page 3-61 be rewritten to coincide
with the logical scope of the EIS.
11) Page 3-75 under "Soils" should contain the same 3 towns listed
under "Soil Constraints" on page 3-74.
.1r. Robert Hargrove
Page Four
August 28, 1981
12) The first paragraph on page 3-79 should be deleted unless
EPA is going to use the "construction permits measurement of
growth" for all the other towns in the DPRS. This is an unrealistic
and totally unwarranted departure from the methods used in the
rest of the EIS.
l would like to set up a time when we can discuss
the above cooments.
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate
MB/cst
-------
TOWNSHIP OF HARDING
mmu county, nx
poeo*Z3.maoison n j «nn May 19, 1977
Mr. Edward A. Taratko. Jr., Chairman
Upper Passaic Unr Mastewater Management Coamittee
Post. Office Box 90
SO Woodland Avenue
Convent station. Haw Jersey 07961
Dear Mr. Taratko:
Me have reviewed the Pinal Draft, 201-Facilities Plan of the Upper
Passaic River Basin dated Harch 1977 prepared by Elson T, Kiliam
Associates and Danes t Moore. Of greatest concern to Harding ~|
Township is the fact that the plan does not include a definite J-
21 provision for phosphate removal at Morris Township' a Moodland Ave- J
^ nue Sewage Treatment Plant.
u Ms understand that Morris Township is conducting, or is about to
conduct, an independent stream sampling and monitoring program to
determine phosphorous levels in Coantaka Brook upstream from the
plant outfall. It these levels are already sufficient to cause a
eutrophication problem in loantaka Pood, then facilities for phos-
phorous removal would not be included in the proposed plant modi-
fications. Me da not believe this is consistent with good planning
to improve the water quality in this stream.
Me acknowledge that nutrient levels in the stream above the outfall
are rather high. Tests on water samples that we have obtained, indi-
cate phosphorous concentrations between 0.13 and 0.57 milligrams
per liter. Although it has been suggested that the source of the
phosphorous is upstream farms, particularly horse farms, this is not
supported by the result* of our stream monitoring work. On two
occasions during the su—rr of 1976 we sampled the stream and found
above—normal phosphorous levels. On both occasions the stream was
not significantly influenced by storawater runoff. The stream flow
resulted primarily from groundwater sources. In soil, phosphates
precipitate rapidly to insoluable forms. Thus, phosphates do not
travel through soil: they are entirely removed from percolating
water. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the high phosphorous
levels in the stream can be attributed to upstream farms. Most of
the phosphorous is probably resulting from septic system overflows
and other small point sources. As these sources could be located
and then either eliminated or controlled, the phosphorous level in
the stream could be reduced to normal levels.
Mr. Edward A. Taratko, Jr.
-2-
Hay 19, 1977
Phosphorous loadings from the plant effluent appear to vary from
about 10 to 18 milligrams per liter. Considering an average daily
flow of about 0.5 MGD and the fact that the stream flow is very
low during the suraer months, the discharge from the plant must be
considered as a major point source of phosphate pollution. Because
of this, and because other point nutrient sources can be either
eliminated or controlled, we are strongly opposed to the adoption
of a plan which does not include definite provisions for phosphate
removal.
Alternates (a) or (b) as shorn on page 10-21 of the Final Draft
fere totally unacceptable to Harding Township. These provide for
the construction of an outfall which would discharge all or a por-
tion of the plant effluent downstream from Loantaka Pond. From this
point the nutrients would flow downstream through the slow-moving
reaches of the brook bordering the Great Swamp. It is in these
reaches where the high nutrient loading causes the growth of dense
aquatic vegetation and clogging of the brook which results in sedi-
ment deposition and flooding of adjacent properties. Such conditions
cannot be permitted to continue.
A design process which results in effluent concentrations of 0.5 mg/1
of phosphorous may or may not be sufficient to eliminate the problem
of eutrophication. If it is necessary to provide for a more sophis-
ticated process than conventional chemical coagulation, then such
provision should be made. Equipment is readily available which has
the capability to remove phosphate levels to less than 0.5 mg/1.
Such equipment may also provide the additional benefit of nitrogen
removal.
In conclusion, we urge that the Plan should not be adopted by the
Committee or approved by the Hew Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection or the United States Environmental Protection Agency
without an amendment containing definite provisions for sufficient
phosphorous removal at the Moodland Avenue Plant to eliminate the
problems of eutrofication. The effects of excessive nutrient levels
must not only be considered in Loantaka Pond, but in the low velocity
reaches of the Brook downstream as it flows through Harding Township.
Very truly yours,
Harding Township Engineer
Member, Upper Passaic River Basin
Wastewater Management Committee
RHF/nh
cc: H.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.
Dames and Moore
-------
fiorougfj of Meto fyoijibeme, JL 3.
Chief, fertnMdl lapacts »<¦—i li
MXIO. - NM II
2S Mnt Haw
IM *a*k, ta Tack MM
S*J«ct: Iwliu—»1 hfatt Iff «at am Dppar paeeaic llw Basts
201 Facilities rlaa
Gantleaaa:
K km r««l«wad the Mc espy of tha above aMf aad find that the
study la lt« fWMtt Can doee aot adefoataly aosver a aoribcr of queatloaa con-
cerning upfradlag of tba •oroafh's HUt< Hater Treatment Plant.
not and format ti tba lack of lnforaatlon cooceralng tba effect on
water quality of tba Faaaalc tiver by tha rtyilra—r of Laval 3 treatment far
In Providence. lhare la no indication Oat ladapandcut saapliag of tha river
wl perfomad to prevtde Justification that If tha Sorongh ware to rwpaud its
facility a elfnlficant UyOTMUt in water quality would be achieved. further,
there 1* ao racord that tispora lac. aada aaa of any or all of tha avainble
local data la chair study.
la tha eowUmttaa of tba aacar quality of tba Passaic ftiver, ao
¦aatloa la «ada la tha »apart of tba affacc of cleaning and clearing of tha
river to throve lta flow characteristic# aad to reduce arena of aacaral pol-
lutloa, which have a direct effect on tha watar quality of the Me* Providence site
Until m* caa receive aore definitive Inforaation than that contained
la the draft report, it la difficult to Justify the expenditure of foods to con-
- struct, operate aad aalatala aa expended facility which would alao aacesaltata
the loaa of aaaiclpal park aad recreational laada. We would ask that thia letter
be node a part of the official racord to aphailie our concerns aad that these
coacerns be addressed la the final report.
roar* truly, y
Hllliaa II. Fitter
engineering Administrator
UWF:ds
A DDK ESS: PARK PLACE. NEW PROVIDENCE. NEW JERSEY
TOWNSHIP OF PASSAIC
COUNTY OF MORRIS
¦auMfOK. tnauao. aucm. ¦aumaiil. naam«(i
peter h rci tssmH
AQMSaSTnATOn/CLEWC
we> ums hbx aoao
mumotoh. mm ternty
-------
PLUYMERS. WILLIAMSON«BABBIERI ASSOCIATES
CNcmccat • UMontiMut • land suhveyoks
r
MUMMflWHim 9. -iVJp »
U M y* v ' August 14, 1981
%>
*r. Peter Miciiw */.
admini Strator/cl erk '//, 'tv
Tin- m .t. 8 a 'v*/
Township of Passaic
1S02 umg Kill Head
Killington. a. J. 47M*
net nmic Toms hip S.T.P.
One Project no. 1040
Mir Hr. Pelissier:
As ntaoMi m km revimmd the draft of the EnWromital fpact
% SUtainl OR ttt iftnf Passaic Bwr ImIii »1 facilities Plan. Hie State- .
I Mnt ftil studied the Mfious mimnt facilities in the Basin and arrived
H ac M» alternates for Masaic ttamship. These alternates are similar to
U! tinea prwanted in the earlier ioi Facilities Plan, however, there is a
ctianjtf in eepHesi*. Alternative PT-1 i* the expansion and upgrading to
Zme1 4 with dechlorination. Alternative fr-J is the expansion to treat
Passaic Township and Himn ItMnHip flows to tore! 4 with dechlorination.
The earlier sturfy mfHaj /ml Mtnwtin »-/ as tt> narw—ndurf plan and
the new study again recommend* Pt-t as having tike least environmental Ja-
pact and being cost effective and feasible.
•Ml*. UMntJaiJf, Alternative PT-2 baa mamg advantages, in reality
it has «¦>' disadvantages. The prinery ditaAntaga is the relationship
between Passaic township and Ktrren. It is not the type of relationship,
hut the fact that the Municipalities have no formal relationship. Zn view
of the history of this relationship, the present economic ateosphere and
the direction each municipality is taking in regards to sanitary facilities
Alternative PT-i places a hardship on Passaic Township. This results pri-
marily from the fact thae the location of the treatment facility would be
in Passaic Township. Any expansion of the Passaic Township Stirling Plant
nust consider future Warren participation. Further, Warren is experienc-
ing growth and with this growth new sanitary facilities. Tt nay not be
realistic to aspect most of these to be abandoned for treatment at the
Stirling Plant site. This becomes even aore unrealistic considering the
Federal givetnaent's attitude on aid.
On Table <-4 is a cost summary which shams a inch greater cost for
Passaic township lor Alternative PT-2. In view of the present situation on
federal aid PT-3 seems unrealistic. A copy of Table 4-4 is attached for your
reference and, as gou can see, the cost is about four times greater for PT-2
versos PT-1. A future breakdown of costs is given in attached Table 8-7.
Based on these Tables, the cost for PT-2 is greater. Our review did not
reveal any explanation of the selection of PT-2 on a cost basis. The Town-
HWC5T MAIM STREET. HCNOHAM N J D794S P.O. nox 1U 30I-S43-7IT4
Pum MUUI ATifl BAMS ASSOCIATES
Passaic Township S.T.P.
August 14, 1961
Page 2
ship should request an explanation of justification for the greater cost
td the "Township under PT-2.
Therefore, it is suggested that Alternative PT-1 be considered the
prime alternative rather Chan PT-2. If this is unacceptable, both alter*
natives should be both considered viable and at least have equal status.
Environmentally, the PT-2 woo 14 have a greater i*pact. The routes of
the interceptor sewers would affect a large area which could be left undis-
turbed. As noted on page 4-1, these would impact the flood plain in Uarren.
It is noted that the Passaic Plant is in the flood plain. A larger plant,
as required under PT-2, wwld have # greater impact, the present plant can
be expanded with minit:-*! impact on the flood plain.
In addition to the above, m found some /actual errors. The study lists
us as consultants to New Providence, and by separate letter we advised them
of the mistake. In the description of the existing facility, the plant is
presented as having a capacity of 0.6 mgd. This should be corrected to 0.65
mgd. further, the average flow per capita of 120 gped is rather highi we
feel it should be lOO gped.
Due to a prior commitment, I can not attend the August 20, 1981 hearing
on this matter. Also, you should be aware that September 4, 1991 is the
deadline for filing written comment.
very truly yours,
William Pluymers, P.JK
Pot the Firm
VPtblp
Bncl.
-------
township of Warren
SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
46 Mountain Boulevard
Wamsi. New Jsrsay 07060
(201) 753 8000
Sqi«*m, 3. 1961
tUtd IHlliuM* »1 ftiMwillm
, IX
iteA. Matlock HSJB
¦Sis:
OthmtaiUf Smmttgt Authority has the following i inr n with
w to the Pliulin—fl l^wct Taf imitt on tha Upper Faaaalc
J* U«r Baain 201 Bellltiw Flan:
1. 9k Una TbwiaMp g»nir«giw iHtadiy b and has pgrrlcusly
stared la the paat its Intatrtm to eaneor vltb the regiml- » r
1»f <—» of its • i n«rw iit fsrllrl If with hMlc Xmnhlp «
^Jiupoaeri in tte 201 ftriliriw Flan and the SS itufy of
that plan.
2. The lapleeeotstiai of tte pwuiaad regional nraliaint plant
¦9 not be kWchUi since Chase aplasia to be a pufclicly
stated ralncfaniT by Pirnlr HiwwWp to Join Hann Towshtp
In a nglml facility.
3. The juaunaaJ mioal facility nay haw to includs at m
iangnl pact, not only an intmaptar, bat also a ptaping
station te tht mrswKTlrn of existing aaac lines to the
; facility.
4. Tint lnfarlnn of the DMant pint ibagU out be fixed by
this study mi would be ilrtwliad by a coat - benefit
analysts Including the ltaas illustrated above in 3.
5. Since the Ifcuai lbHaUp Jti«tra^« Ajthority is singularly
being aakad to J<—Inn its rrwwmr farfHrifa Cor the
W 2
46
envixocaental benefit of Che total of the Upper Passaic
Basin, that portion of the treatment capacity of the
regional facility attributable to the existing capacity of
the Ifaira Township txeaCamt plants should be released
at 1001 of elliglble east.
The Stage Five treatnmt plant in (hens, vhlcb is a level
four (4) txeatnent facility, was erroneously stated as being
in the flood plain. This facility is ojtirely locatani outside
of die flood plain.
Very truly yours.
Ronald H.*U
Authority Chairman
RHW:es
cc: R. Hargrove, USffA
Tcwiship Gnanrittee
Upper Passaic Basin Manager, HJOEP
S. Kaltnecker, Killas
-------
Baon T Kliam Associates, Inc.
DwlwwiU> and Hyitauic Ciyiiaara
D
August 12, 1981
Chief, Ewfraantal Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regit* It
26 Federal Pla»
Ncm York, IteM York 10278
fie: Draft E.vlronaental Impact
Statement on the (Upper Passaic
River Basin 201 Facilities Plan
Gent lean:
The purpose of this letter Is to convey the concerns of this office and
!S the (Mison-Owtkaa Joint fleeting regarding the portions of the Drift
I EwlnnMta) Mpact Statement on the Upper Passaic River Basin 201
•"* Facilities Plan (June. 1981) which pertain to the Madison-Chatham Joint
^ Meeting sewage treatment facilities.
As you lawn, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 111 n—i ml
that the Madison-Chathaai Joint Meeting treatment plant be upgraded to
Level 4 treatment (nitrification with dechlorination) and reduce the
facility's design capacity fin its present 4.0 nil lion gallons per
day (MGO) to 3.1 HBO. The EIS states that several factors will allow
Che Mvttwn-CfeathaB Joint Meeting to accept this decrease in design
capacity without aiqr adverse effects on its members, the Boroughs of
Madison and Chatham. These factors are: 1) declining populations and
flws between new and the year 2000 (see Table 2-6 and Appendix page
M of the EIS), and 2) a reduction of wet weather infiltration from
present average levels of 0.755 HBO to 0.42 WD (see EIS. Appendix A).
Ike first concern raised by the 3.2 MGD figure put forward by the EIS
Is what it Mould actually mean supposing that the Madisoa-Chathaa Joint
Meeting facilities were upgraded to Level 4 treatment. Mould 3.2 NED
represent the annual average flow which could he accepted by the treat-
ment facilities or woald It represent a naxiau 6-month or maxim* Monthly
average flow? Clearly, liariting the aaxiaua Monthly flow at the Nadison-
Chatham Joint Meeting treatment plant to 3.2 M6D would result in a yearly
average flow weil below 3.2 MGD. On the other hand, allowing a yearly
average flow of 3.2 NGD would result in soae average Monthly flows
being well above the 3.2 MED rate. It would be difficult to assess
the full iapact of the 3.2 HBO design capacity put forward by the EIS
until it is clear just how the figure would be incorporated into the
national Pollution Discharge El initiation System (NPOES) Permit for the
treatment plant.
Chief, Environmental
Impacts Branch
-2-
August 12, 1981
This office and the Joint Meeting are also concerned about the viability
of the 3.2 HGD design capacity Itself, even if used as aR annual
average flow rate. For instance, both Table 2-6 and Appendix A presurn
a reduction In wet weather infiltration of 0.355 MGD. Even if a prograai
to reduce infiltration in the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting systea were
funded, it is not certain that such a large reduction (45*) would be
realized. In fact, along with approving a grant to cover the cost of
a Phase 1! -A Sewer System Evaluation Survey for the Madison-Chathaa
Joint Meeting Service area, the Environmental Protection Agency recently
rejected an application which requested funding to undertake a study
to initiate an infiltration reduction prograa, thus casting doubt as
to whether or not such a study would ever be undertaken in the future.
An analysis of recent flows at the Madison-Chathaa Joint Meeting Sewage
Treatment Plant casts further suspicion on the 3.2 MSB design flow pre-
sented in the EIS. The following table presents the flows at the
treatment plant tabulated monthly for the years 1972 through 1977:
MAPI SOU-CHATHAM SEHA6E TREATMENT PIAHT
(Average sehAce floh m mgpT
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
January
2.47
3.13
3.04
3.07
3.30
2.60
February
2.75
3.21
2.63
3.10
3.09
2.94
March
3.49
3.07
2.82
2.92
3.02
3.63
April
2.63
3.83
3.28
2.66
3.04
3.10
May
3.12
2.65
2.42
3.03
2.78
2.52
June
3.24
2.48
2.28
2.96
2.56
2.64
July
2.53
2.49
2.06
3.58
2.48
2.39
August
2.14
2.44
2.14
2.37
2.43
2.40
September
2.24
2.32
2.70
3.42
2.49
2.64
October
2.44
2.S3
2.45
3.00
2.85
2.77
November
2.42
2.34
2.19
2.98
2.63
3.33
December
3.39
3.32
2.70
2.77
2.64
3.75
Yearly Avg.
2.73
2.81
2.55
2.98
2.77
2.89
Met Weather
Average
(Dec.-Hay)
2.98
3.20
2.82
2.93
2.98
3.09
-------
Chief. 6wli Kintal
I exacts Breach
-3»
August 12, 1981
ExaaHnation of the table Jumonstrates that the monthly average flam In
Much, June and December of 1972. February, Apr HI and December of 1973,
April of 1974, July and September of 1975, January of 1976, and March.
November and Oecaaber of 1977 all exceeded the 3-2 MGO plant capacity
designated by the EIS. The E1S dees point oat that the 3.2 MGO is
based upon a wet weather Infiltration flow of 0.42 KB, which repre-
sents a reduction of 0.355 MGO fraa the present estimated wet weather
Infiltration flow rate of 0.755 MGO. It 1s by no means certain that
further infiltration and inflow wort would in fact reduce infiltration
by nearly SO patent as asswed by the EIS. However, even assuring that
infiltration could he reduced to such an extent, the 3.2 NG9 capacity
proposed by the EIS would have been exceeded during April of 1973.
July of 1975, and Nwch and December of 1977.
Of further concern to the Madlson-Chathw Joint Meeting are the projected
future flows contained in the EIS. Using the flows presented in the
preceding table one finds that for the six years for which data is
presented, yearly flew at the Joint Meeting Treatment Plant averaged
2.8 MGO. Met weather flows over the same period averaged 3.0 MGO. Using
the annual average flow as a base, it is apparent that the EIS design
capacity of i.i KD allows for a growth of only 400.000 gallons in future
flows. Both Had 1 son Borough and Chatham Borough presently have approved
residential and r.u—.uial developments which will contribute an addi-
tional 0.33 MGO of flow to the Joint fleeting treatment plant. With the
addition of these flows to the present flows, only 70.000 gallons per day
remains for future growth fraa this date on, as swing no reduction in
present infiltration rates. The allowance aade by the EIS for a reduction
1n infiltration of 0.3S5 MGO would offset the increase in flow due to
the confirmed development which is occurring In Madison and Chathaa
Boroughs. However, there is no guarantee as to whether or not such a
reduction can be obtained and, in fact, the Joint Meeting has been
rejected for a Federal Grant to further investigate and atteapt to
reduce the infiltration in the system. This would prelude any further
development in either Hadlson or Chathaa Boroughs.
Further along these lines, the EIS has forecasted an actual drop in popu-
lation for the Madison-Chathaa Joint Meeting tributary area between now
and the year 2000 {see Appendix A). Hbile this forecast was coapliaented
by the results of the 1980 census, which recorded significant declines in
population for both Madison and Chathaa Boroughs, it should be realized
that neither the Census nor the EIS figures took into account residential
development which has already been approved by both Boroughs which is
expected to add over 1000 people to the Madlson-Chathaa Joint Meeting
tributary area. In addition, the EIS forecast of declining populations
in the Madison-Chathaa Joint Meeting tributary area is directly opposite
to estimates by the Borough of Madison and the Borough of Chathaa. The
Elxw T. KWw A—octet— tne.
Chief, Environaental
Impacts Branch -4- August 12, 1981
EIS projects the population for the Madison ..Chathaa Joint Meeting
tributary area to be nearly 25,000 by the year 2000. However, combined
estimates by the Boroughs of Madison and Chathaa place the year 2000
population at approximately 30,000 people.
Finally, the allowance aade by the EIS for comercial and industrial
flows within the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting tributary area of
200,000 gallons per day (see EIS, Table 2-6) has already been exceeded
by existing development plus flows which the Joint Meeting has already
agreed to accept from future developments—most notably the 300-acre
Giralda Farms property being developed by the PIC Realty Corporation.
Therefore, if the treataent plant's design capacity were reduced to
3.2 MGO, neither the Borough of Madison nor the Borough of Chatham
would be able to accept any additional conaercial or Industrial flows
without jeopardizing existing flow agreeaents.
Further compounding this problem is the fact that the Schering-Plough
Corporation has asked the Madison-Chathaa Joint Meeting to accept flows
from its proposed research laboratories which will be built on the
Chatham Township portion of the Giralda Farms property. Flows from the
research laboratory are projected to reach nearly 200,000 gallons per
day by the year 2000 and, if accepted by the Joint Meeting, would double
the camercial and industrial flow allotment for the Madison-Chathaa
Joint Meeting.
tn conclusion, it is the feeling of this office and the Madison-Chatham
Joint Meeting that the EIS has underestimated the flows which will be
generated in the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting tributary area in
47 upcoming years. It is felt that the following table contains a more
realistic projection of flows between now and the year 2000 and that
a reduction in plant capacity of 3.2 HSQ could pose significant problems
to the Joint Meeting in accepting flows from already approved developments
as well as future developments:
Present Estimated Average Yearty Flow (1977) 2.89 MGO
Confirmed Development - Madison Borough^' 0.23
Confirmed Development - Chatham Borough^' 0.10
Allowance for Ultimate Development'2'
Madison - 3255 people G 120 g/c
0.39
-------
Chief, twrirwmai
(¦pacts Branch -5- fagost 12, 1981
Allowance for Ultimate Development'2'
Chatham - 1718 people * 120 g/c 0.21 USD
TOTAL 3.82 MOD
Scfcering Plough fcwiicli Laboratories
(Chatham Township) 0.19 MSP
TOTAL 4.01 NED
(1) Developments already approved by aaicipal planning
(2) Based upon a total WisH-CtattM Joint Meeting
trttiWy population of 29,900 people fey the year
2000.
Clearly, ao matter how tftqr an resolved, the attm dlscassed above
are of great significant to the Msm-Ckatta Joist fleeting. The
reduction la capacity of Me Joint Meeting treatment plant proposed
bjf the E1S 1s so large that tke Jolt* Meeting Is In the position of
having to delay decisions on requests by developers for the Joint
Meeting to accept additional flows. As the Joint Meeting currently
Ins several sock requests pawling before it. nest notably a request by
the Schering-Plongh Corporation for the Joint Meeting to accept flows
from their proposed research laboratories. It mold be most desirable
to hive a definite aamer on what capacity will he assigned to the
MttHson-Chathem Joint: Meeting treatment plant and how that capacity
«ilf appear m the ueatmeut plant's MB perartt—i.e., average monthly,
annual average, etc.
If yaw should have-any questions concerning the above or if we may pro-
vide a
-------
Harding Zownship Environmental Commission
P.O. BOX 300 • NEW VERNON, NEW |ERSEY 07976
August 26, 1981
Robert Hargrove
EnitaaMnttl Protection Agency
Region II .
26 Federal Plan
Hew Tork, R. r. 10278
Dear Bob:
I was delighted to hear you say last week at
the public hearing an the EIS foe the Upper Passaic
River Basin 201 Facilities Plan that EPA will not
allow package treataent plants to serve any develop-
ment (residential, commercial or industrial) in the
wetlands and floodplains of the Upper Passaic.
I hope this prohibition will be clearly stated
in the final EIS as it is only laplied in the current
draft. Such a prohibition, along with the prohibition
against sever connections to developments in flood-
plains and wetlands should help protect the integrity
of the Great Swamp.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
SDind
cc: Richard Dewling
Dr. Marwan Sadat
Citizens Concerned
bout XVxc 4CdtiM?C' o£
14-hr Lo^nTkK* wMir, /•VfcCWiKW, N. J- or9t«
August 28, 1981
PRESfOENT
Pwntl W«mww»
VICE PRESIDENT
sccftETAftv
Mr*.
mcAStmsx
Mr*. Di»iiii
TRUSTEES
Kwth Pmthi
Mr*. N*mI R*dM
Owe* II ye*
inta V«fk
/tovrsoitr
council
iurm Nigkl—dS C-
r«f»M w<|MMdS.c
Gut fryna*
r«« K«M
»/»/?«*#
Lyamltjiig*
Or Robert ZmcJi
50
Kr. Robert Hargrove
New Jersey/Puerto Rico Section
Environmental Impacts Branch, Region II
26 Federal Plata
New Tork, N. t. 10278
Dear Kr. Hargrove1
This will supplement my verbal comments at the EPA
EIS public hearing at Korrls Township hall on August 20,
1981. Citizens Concerned—Dodge Estate is an incorpo-
rated association that has been in existence over 5 years
monitoring the development of the Dodge Estate. We
address all impacts on the environment Including water,
sewage, runoff of storm water; density and traffic. We
expect to continue this activity as building site plan
applications come In for the Madison portion. We have
followed closely the Schering-Plough application in
Chatham Township which has just been withdrawn. We will
also follow closely future developments in Chatham
Township on the Estate.
Focusing on the EIS, our main concerns have beem
1. niater quality of the storm water runoff. While not a
treatment plant output it does affect Loantaka Brook
and its tributary and the Great Swamp. PIC Realty of
Prudential has constantly violated local and state
requirements placed on them. While remedial action was
taken after shut down by officials, pollution continues
which a recent survey and photographic documentation
clearly shows.
2. 1^0,000 gallons/day of additional sewage from the
r'adison portion of the tract alone will enter the Kadi son
sewage system and then to the Kadison-Chatham Joint
r'eeting plant. This plant is in complete overload
following even a 1" rainfall due to severe extraneous
inflow problems. This has been the case for many years
but no solution has been found so far. Testing is about
to get under way in another attempt to locate the inflow.
Schering-Plough was to add an additional 192,000 gallons/
day and a study was made by the Joint Meeting to see how
this could be accomodated. There has to be a limit placed
on the absolute peak output of this plant. Normal rainfall
produces more than a 9 KGD output. Over 13 KCD has been
recorded during heavy rainfall when special instrumentation
was installed. During these rainfall periods raw sewage
-------
flow* fro* aanholcs onto the streets, fcany manhole cavers
are sealed and bolted. The Joint Meeting plant has a 4 KGD
output rating.
3. Chathaa Township was on the verge of granting to Schering-
Plough an aaendaent to their coning law baaed on waste disposal
that had u one option a septic systea either forcing sewage
Into the ground or by gravity after dispersal over an area of
about an acre. The iadnant danger to the Buried Valley
Acquirer is frightening and soae ae«ns aust be quickly found
to prevent such thing* fro* happening. Only tiaely action by
concerned residents kept the aaendaent froa being passed. It
is itowtota rewritten and resubmitted in order to attract other
developers.
Co—entarr
Action la required now to develop guidelines that Munic-
ipalities earn use and would be forced to use. Even whan clear
specifications are written developers violate then with ease.
A good example is the atom aster runoff quality. A good
monitoring systea is sot up, but the violations go on and on.
A limit mart be set for the Joint Meeting slant. We wish
to bring three items to attention. (See below) The report(ref.
clearly shows the complete overloading due to extraneous inflow.
The "gobbledegook* of average daily flow. Monthly average flow
and yearly flow(see ref. 3) has to be clarified, in absolute
peak value has to be established so that raw sewge Is not
distributed over the flood plain after every rainfall. A firn
Joint Meeting plant output value aust be established so that
Kadison and Chathaa can treat new development requests properly.
In many eases developments Bight have to be rejected because of
capacity Units. The urgency for these clarified liaits is
great.
The Schering-Plough proposals and the action by Chathaa
Township officials is frightening. Even though the ordinance
aaendaent is now withdrawn it shows what potential dangers exist
under existing regulations. Reference 2 has as one plan a
*00,000 gallon holding tank to be discharged alternately with
the 100,000 holding tank on the Madison portion of the estate.
Hew ridiculous can we get. All this because the Joint Meeting
is severely overloaded to begin with during rainfall.
Rec owe ndat ions
we urge that clear directives be given for the Great Swaap
area that will specify what treataent plants can and can not
do. Capacity values aust be sat. A aaxiaua peak value for the
Joint Keeting is urgent. These specifications aust then be
enforced.
We affira your decision not to allow additional package
treataent plants.
* References are listed on the last page.
51
We cannot comment on other parts of the EIS that we are
not familiar with such as the Dead River area.
Copies toi
Mr. Arnold Shiffaan
Dir. Dlv.
Resources
of Water
DEP
Mr. Paul Arbesaan
Assist. Com. DEP
Or. Marwan Sadat
Div. Water Resc. DEP
Mr. George Caparole
Dlv. Water Resc. DEP
Sincerely,
(IdL*-*-
Paul Hn—inn
REFERENCES
1. 'Infiltration/inflow Analysis, Phase I", Elson T.
Killam Associates, Inc. August 1979. Milburn, N. J.
2. "Report Upon lapact of Sewage Generated By Proposed
Schering-Plough Research Facilities on Madison
Borough and Kadison-Chathaa Joint Meeting Systeas-
Elson Killiaa Associates, Inc. July 1981. Milburn,
N, J. 0?0»U
3. Letter to Chief, Environmental Iapacts Branch, 0. S.
Environaental Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal
Plaza, Hew fork, H. ¥., August 12, 1981. Re> Draft
Environaental lapact Statement on the Upper Passaic
River Basin 201 Facilities Plan, froa Elson T. Killam
Associates, Inc., Milburn, N. J. 070
-------
APGAR ASSOCIATES
CNCINCERS • LANO SURVEYORS . PLANNERS
wowi m. rent. p.*.
TMASOCU* V. MOUMN. tl.
tffMttT C. MtCMMC*. M.
WATNC r. MOiMAN. L.S.
•». o. mix a«>
OtMUM MASS
f*N NtU«, NCW JCRMV 0T99I
September 3» 1981
Mr. Stephen Arella
Chief. EnvirmRBUl Impacta Branch
Environmental Protection Agency - Region II
26 Federal ?laza, Room 400
New York, to York 10278
Be: Bnvliim—nf T Inpact Suit imwnt
gpatr Passaic River »Mia 201 Facilities Plan
Dear Mr. Arella:
I serve as Herding Tonahip's rcymmtativc oa Che Upper Passaic Waste-
water Management Study Cu—lttee. I would like to express oar general
support of the draft Environmental Impact Statwot and the alternatives
re mwnrtirl Be do request, however, that a higher level of trettment
be required at Morris Township's Woodland Avenue treatment plant. During
the summer and fall smamomm. the plant effluent represents most, if not
all. of the flow in Loantaka Brook. The brook has a very small drainage
area, a flat gradient, and Its hot to* is covered with fine sediment frou
upstream development. These conditions are obviously not conducive
to generating or supporting high dissolved oxygen levels, lie therefore
request that Level 5 treatment with nutrient removal be required at the
Morris Township plant. It la essential that sand filtration be required
to produce a higher quality effluent aa well as to protect the brook frou
pollution during plant up~sets which occur from time to time.
There is anple evidence that nutrients from the Morris Township plant have
had a serious detrimental impact on Loantaka Brook. Tests on water samples
which we have taken downstream of the plant indicate total phosphorous
concentrations of 18.7 mg/1 and total nitrogen levels of 3.9 ag/1. Similar
concentrations have been measured by the I). S* Fish sad Wildlife Service.
The high nutrient level has significantly contributed to the accelerated
growth of rooted aquatic vegetation in Loantaka Brook. The vegetation clogs
the brook, reduces the flow, and causes sediment buildup, reducing the depth
of the channel. During the past tee years the channel depth has been reduced
by about 50Z in the low-lying area of Harding Township bordering the Great
Swamp. Residential lands that were once used for lawns Can oo longer be
mowed because of the high water table. Areas that were once an attractive
portion of residentisl lots are now a soggy mess of weeds. Flood levels
that were once reached esery ten or fifteen years are now reached several
times a year. Trees that for many years lined the banks of the brook are
now dead.
Hr. Stephen Arella
Re: Environmental Inpact Statement
Page 2
September 3. 1981
This condition is becoming worse every year. Further delay of the construction
of nutrient removal facilities for another study to be completed is totally
unnecessary. In 1977 Morris Township advised the Upper Paaaalc Wastewater
Management Coamlttee that it was conducting, or about to conduct, an inde-
pendent stream sampling and nonitorlng program to determine phosphorous
levels in Loantaka Brook. To the best of my knowledge the results of this
study have never been released. A copy of my May 19, 1977 letter to Committee
Chairman Taratko concerning the effects of the high nutrient loed on the
stream is attached. Prior to the construction of the treatment plant,
Loantaka Brook flowed freely - unclogged by thick aquatic vegetation. There
has been testimony aubstantlatiag this on several occasions. What better
evidence can be obtained to prove that the treatment plant Is the nutrient
source that is primarily responsible for the damage to the stream? Although
it has been suggested that the source of phosphorous is upstreaa fsrms, this
is not supported by the results of our stream monitoring or that of the Fish
and Wildlife Service. This subject is further discussed in the third para-
graph of my May 19, 1977 letter to Mr. Taratko. It Is also significant to
note that there are only a few farms remaining in the watershed, and that
this potential source of nutrients most likely will not exist in a few years.
Although a statement was made at the public hearing that the construction of
small (package) treatment plants would not be permitted in the Crest Swamp
basin, this is not clearly set forth In the EIS. As discharge of effluent
from saall treatment planta would aerloualy impact these waters, a strong
statement prohibiting them should appear on page xi. Controlling Developaent
In Environmentally Sensitive Areas. A section discussing this should also be
included toward the end of Chapter 3 where discussions of other constraints
appear.
In suamary, we ask that the draft be amended to Include the following:
1. Require Level 5 treatment at the Morris Township Woodland Avenue
plant without further delay.
2. Require sand filtration at the Woodland Avenue plant to protect
the stream during plant upsets. This would also help to assure
good plant operation which would be necessary to prevent filter
clogging.
3. Require phosphate and nitrate removal processes at the Woodland
Avenue plant without further delay.
A. Amend the scope of the water quality (nutrient) study in the
Great Swamp watershed to include the impact of nutrients
on the streaas and private properties in the vicinity of the
Great Swamp.
S. Clearly prohibit the construction of small (package type) treatment
plants that would discharge into the streams that flow into the
Creat Swamp.
-------
Mr. Stephen Arella
Ic: Eavlroeaeatal bftct Sfcal
Page 1
September 3, 1981
He appreciate Che upportitty Co nam on the taft EaWre—enfl Iapact
I nd aak that the ftaal report he
-------
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page 2
Schering is planning to construct new facilities that are within the
area covered by the draft EIS. The specific area of concern is what
is know as Giralda Fans (formerly the old Dodge estate) that is
located in a portion of Madison and Chatham Township. The location
is stow on the Mf> provided in Attachaent A.
After reviewing the draft EIS, w» would like to direct our coaaents to
the following three aajor areas:
1. Proposal to downgrade the capacity of the Madi son-Chathaa Joint
Meeting Haste Treatment Plant froa 4.0 MGD to 3-2 MGD.
2. Proposal to do an additional nutrient study on the Great &aap.
3. Options for upgrading the Chatham Township Waste Treatment Plant.
1. Proposal to doxnerade the capacity of the Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting
Waste Treataent Plant froa 4.0 MGD to 3.2 MGD.
He believe that the reo—nr»lntion for downgrading the existing design
capacity of the Joint Meeting should be reconsidered since suae of the
Methodology and assumptions used, in our opinion, nay not be valid.
Based on the land-use nodel and new population estimates described
in the draft EIS, the Joint Meeting flow for the year 2000 was pro-
jected to be only 3.2 USD. This projected flow seems unrealistically
low since the present average flow is 2.9 MGD and "confirmed developaent"
already approved by the Madison and Chathaa Borough Planning Boards
will add an additional 0.334 MGD. The flow of 3.2 MGD recoaaended in
the draft EIS for the year 2000 will consequently already be exceeded
within the next few years.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page 3
The method used for this projection was a land-use aodel which was developed
using available vacant land as a dependent variable. Since both Madison
and Chathaa Boroughs have very little vacant land, this type of aodel seeas
inappropriate.
There is also an error noted in Figure 3-9 of the draft EIS entitled
"Developable Land". The entire Madison portion of Giralda Fans (the
old Dodge estate) is incorrectly shown as already developed. This 200
acre track is currently being developed as an executive office park but
there has beet no construction ether than site iaprovoaents to date. This
track lies in Madison Mediately south of Route 24 (Madison Avenue)
between Treadwell Avenue and Loantaka Hay - see aap in Attadaent A.
In reviewing past 201, 303(e) and 208 basin planning studies, a number of
comprehensive population estiaates and flow projections have already been
made. Ironically, the populations that should have been the easiest to
project in the draft EIS (Chathaa and Madison Boroughs) because of their
higher degree of conpleted development, were actually the conounities in
the study area that showed the greatest divergence with previous studies.
The draft EIS study, for exan>le, showed a projected population for the
Madison-Chathan area to be 251 less than the 208 study.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page 4
A comparison of past studies and what we believe to be a more realistic
projection of papulation and flows for Madison and Chathaa is presented
in Attadaoit B. This Attachmt is a recent study completed by
El son t. Killaa Associates entitled "Report Upon Impact of Sewerage
Generated by Proposed Sdiering-Plough lltmi Ji Facilities on ffadison
Borough and Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting Sewage Systems". The population
projected to the year 2000 in this report is 29,980 compared to 25,040
in the draft EIS. The opacity of the Joint Meeting is also projected
by Killaa to be 1.82 MB by the year 2000 compared to 1.2 MO) in the draft
EIS.
SS
I
Scherijig requests that the papulation and flow projections presented in
the draft EIS be miaaJ to reflect the projections made in the Killaa
report. Allowing for a enatlnf nry factor of at least lOt, it is our
ifiiannln inn that the projected flow for the Joint tfeeting be set at
a level no lower than its desip capacity which is n ivengt awuil
flow of 4.0 MGD. The projected flow would be as follows:
• Present estimated awiagc yearly flow 2.89 M3>
• Confiimed development - Haliinii Borough 0.23
• Confirmed developaent - Oiathan Borough 0.10
• Ultimate deneluparnt - Malison 0.39
(32SS people « 120 g/c)
• Ultimate developaent - Chathaa 0.21
(1718 people t 120 g/c)
• Contingency 0.38
• Allowance for future inflow reduction (0.20)
Total 4.00 MGD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page S
There also appears to be an inadequate accotsiting for the type of
commercial and institutional developaent found in both Madison and
Chatham which are unique from other i.maaiiities in the surrounding
study area. Both Madison and Chathaa, for exaaple, have well developed
Bain downtown business districts with a laTge variety of shopping, light
Manufacturing, office and other business and service concerns. There are
also nany facilities that are used by the surrounding coanunities such as
Drew and Fairleigh Dickinson Uiiversities, libraries, railroad stations,
restaurants, racket clubs and the areawide Madison YMCA. The two Univer-
sities, for example, have a coabined enrollaent of over 5,000 students of
which aore than half (2700) are full tiae resident students.
There is one final point that should be clarified in the draft EIS con-
cerning flows. There are nany different and soaetiaes confusing ways to
calculate flows e.g., daily average, aonthly average, 30-day average,
daily etc. What is i^nrtant is that a consistent aethod
be used. Table 2-1 in the draft EIS, for exaaple, uses "average daily"
and "design capacity" in MGD but Table 2-7 refers to the saae values as
"peak aonthly average flws".
A good discussion related to this issue is included in Attachaent B in
a letter dated May 21, 1981 prepared by Elsotv T. Killaa Associates for
the Joint Meeting and submitted to the New Jersey Department of Envir-
onmental Protection. This letter specifically re
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Septeaber 3, 1981
Page 6
Proposal to da an additional nutrient study on the Great Stamp.
Based or the infiHMKisn presented in the draft EIS, die need for the
proposed nutrient study is not clearly Jmmistrated. It is concluded,
without much factual support, that nutrients entering laantiiz Pond
be adversely affect ii* the Great Su^> and that there may be
accelerated growth of rooted aquatic plants under low flow conditions,
there is a general lack of evidence cited indicating what has been the
adverse iapacts on the Great Stamp.
Several important factors that should be carefully investigated before
concluding that an additional study is needed. First of all, there is
a considerable ant of monitoring data and other eiwUwgital studies
already available an the Great Sump. It appears that seme of these studies
¦ay mt have been adequately considered in the draft EIS. Several of these
studies contain a considerable aaount of water quality data, in particular; _J
1. U.S. Fish and midlife Service, Bwimi—ntal Assessment - Proposed
Black Brook Addition to the Great *>1111 national Wildlife Refuge.
Northeast Region Office, Newton, Massachusetts, July 1977.
2. Guillaudeu, D.A.. Noye, E.M., and Syz, S.B., Surface Water Be sources
of The Great Swa» Watershed - an Environmental Basis for Planting
Growth, Masters Thesis for Regional Planning, Department of Landscape
Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania,
January 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page 7
3. Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Water Quality Study. 1980.
The aost recent Great Swaa^i Water Quality Study cited above, for example,
contains a wealth of useful current monitoring data. A copy of this
study is provided in Attadment C. This study swarized the results
from 16 monitoring stations saapled twice per month, 4 stations saapled
-once per month and 6 stations sailed quarterly. There were 10 paraaeters
analyzed including dissolved oxygen and nutrients. The results for each
parameter are plotted and cofiared to the MJDEP Surface Water Quality Stand-
ards (These Standards, incidently, were revised in March 1981).
The field sailing program conducted by the EPA in 1978 and reported in
the draft EIS, should be more fully discussed and coapared with other
studies. During the late suaaer and fall, when most of the field study
was made, nutrient concentrations and BOD are generally expected to be
naturally higher and the dissolved oxygen lower. During this time of
the year, much of the plant life in freshwater wetlands dies. Nutrient
levels increase as plants decompose because the nutrients which were once
taken-up by the plants are no longer assimilated. Conditions of lower flow
further increase the exposure of dead natter to the atmosphere, accelerating
the decoeposition process.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sep toiler 3, 1981
Page 8
the abortive monitoring data cited in Appendix C of the draft EIS
on Tables C-4 through C-12 outs useful information such as the type
and frequency of sample, the time of year and in sue cases the wit
of measuiiweat. There also appears to be missing data. Dissolved
oxygen levels, for exaaple, at the Hilling ton Station for July and
August are sectioned cn page 3-5 of the draft EIS text and referred
to Tables C-4, C-S and C-6 of Appendix C. These Tables, however, do
not contain this data.
There is an Uyoruwt oversite that is easily forgotten when cellaring
53 and interpreting Monitoring data. This wersite is variable streaa flows,
to In nost cases the flms through the Great SMOf) are M|hl; variable.
Both Loantaka Brook and Black Brook, for example, can vary by several
orders of nagnitude. During low flows, in fact, both Brooks would be
dry beds if it were not for the Chatham Township and Morris Township
waste treatnent plant discharges. These discharges are stated to be
0.8 MOD and 1.0 MED respectively. During wet weather, the flows of
Loantaka Brook aid Blade Brook are stated to be as high as 580 K9 and
100 MGD respectively. There can quite obviously be very little valid
oo^aarison and correlation of monitoring data unless flow data is also
known.
One important area- that was neglected in the draft EIS was the establish-
ment of a clear bencimarfc froa which to judge and aaqare available data.
The draft EIS appears to accept the KJDEP's Hater Quality Criteria classi-
fication for fresh water streams as the criteria for evaluating the Great
U.S. Environaental Protection Agency September 3, 1981
Page 9
ISwaap. No foundation was laid to demonstrate that this is an appropriate
criteria. There was no attempt made, for exa^ile, to define what dissolved
oxygen and nutrient levels would be desirable in the Great Sway. Nutrients
are essential for plant growth and the growth of microscopic organisms that
originate the basic food chain progression. In the atiua case, if there
were no nutrients, there would be no plait and animal life and hence, no
swaqp.
To further illustrate this important point, the draft EIS states that ex-
cessive nutrients nay be causing adverse growth patterns in the Great Swaap.
What are considered 'normal' growth patterns? What are 'normal' nutrient
levels found in other swa^is? Mhat are 'normal' dissolved oxygen levels
and what is considered to be 'normal' seasonal variations in water quality
for a swaqp siqjporting a desirable diversity of plant and animal life?
The draft EIS states that the potential for eutrophication in the Great
Stomp is high. Mhat degree of eutrophication is considered 'normal' or
acceptable for the Great Swj^i? It is knewn, for mmqile, that there is
a naturally occurring ecological progressior. for a water body as follows*:
Open water (lake, pond) - Marsh - Suatf - Dry land (forest, bog)
This transitory process occurs through the natural geological and bio-
logical process of eutrophication. If the Great Swaay is to be preserved
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page 10
as a sumf, should these natural processes be controlled as well as
aan-aade influences?
• lirsin, Michael J., Life in and Armad Fresh Water Wetlands. Unas
r. Crowell Co., New York, 1975.
Our rii-r—inihtioos regarding the proposed nutrient study and related
waste treatment issues are as follows:
• Regardless of the proposed nutrient study, the Morris Township and
Chatha Township taste treatment plants should be ungraded to level
4 with full nutrient and chlorine Teaoval. Alternate disinfection
methods should be evaluated and adequate sludge handling and disposal
facilities should be provided.
• Regardless of the proposed nutrient study, privately owned waste
treatment plants capable of achieving level 4 plus nutrient removal
should be permitted in developable areas that are not served by a
municipal systea provided they are not located in wetlands or flood
plains.
• The nutrient study, if still justified, should be conducted in three
phases; design, testing and evaluation. The design phase is the most
critical and important. This should involve a clear understanding of
all the identifiable objectives and the tasks required to coaplete
each objective.
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency
September 3, 1981
Page 11
3. Options for the Chatham Township Water Treatment Plant
There is one alternate briefly discussed in the draft EIS for upgrading
the Oiatham Waste Treatment Plant that we believe should be re-evaluated
in greater detail. This alternate is to divert the flow frca the waste
treatment plant directly into the Passaic River rather than allotting it
to go into the Great S*tamp via Black Brook.
This alternate was briefly evaluated but unfortunately was dropped frna
further consideration because of costs. In our opinion, this alternate
mkes the most sense because it solves the aost problems. Besides ainiaiz-
ing the need to upgrade the treatnent plant, this alternate would reduce
nutrient and oxygen deaand loadings on the Swaap, reduce flooding and
provide the Swaap Manageaent with a Means of controlling extreaely variable
water levels that can affect wildlife aanageaent prograas.
He recoaraend that a pmping station be investigated to handle not only the
waste treatnent plant discharge but possibly a portion of Loantaka Brook
during high water conditions. An overflow channel could possibly be provided
to allow a portion of loantaka Brook to go into the proposed puaping station
or into Black Brook. The puaping station would be controlled by the Great
Swamp Management and would permit thai to aaintain adequate water levels
during dry weather and to reduce flooding during wet weather.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
September 3, 19S1
Page 12
There is one issue that should be clarified concerning the ¦¦mgriwrir
of the Great fii^i in general but specifically the large easternly
portions that have been designated as Wilderness Areas. As stated '
in the draft EIS, the Congressional Mandate for designated Wilderness
Areas specifically prohibits outside interferences or aai naJi activities.
Presumably, the discharge* froa the Chathna Township aid Mnris Township
treataent plants Mould be considered a nan aartr influence since they flow
into the Sweep?
As intintrt in the draft EIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Much
Manages the Great Smb^>, has expressed a great concern regarding the
diversion of the waste treataent plant effluents froa the Swf because
waterfowl aanagianit. piugians are ilnwmlriit on a relatively constant
st^ply of water particularly during critical nesting periods. If the
Congressional nariK* is tilrwi in the strictest sense, the very law
that ms created to protect wetlands and wilderness areas could also
be their deaise. If taken to the mlicnt, there could actually be very
few, if any. Swop aaaageaent progians allowed. Virtually everything
would constitute a nan-aade activity and thus be prohibited? As pre-
viously discussed, it Jj^gnlf desirable to have these areas Hanged
but it is essential to control both nan-nade and natural forces in order
to preserve the uniqueness of the 9unap.
U.S. Envircmnental Protection Agency
Septoter 3, 1981
Page 13
One aan-aade activity discussed in the draft EIS that any adversely affect
receiving waters such as the Creat Stamp or the Passaic River, is the use
of chlorine for disinfection of waste treataent plant effluents. It is
unfortunate that chlorination is still alaost exclusively used. Alternative
aeans of disinfection are available and contrary to the draft EIS, the costs
are caq>etitive with chlorine. The use of ultraviolet light or ozone, for
example, aay not be as effective on poorly treated effluents but is very
effective when used on aore highly treated effluents. Since any wste
treataent plants are now being mgraded to provide better treataent, these
alternate aeans of disinfection should be considered.
A aajor problea associated with using chlorine is that in order to insure
an effective bacteria kill, the required dosage level also kills the bene-
ficial types of higwr life organises such as protozoans iduch are natural
predators. Since chlorine does not break-down readily in fresh water, the
residual chlorine continues to kill or inhibit these bwffirial organises
lav after leaving the waste treataent plants. This subject is discussed
in aany literature references such as the one cited below.*
* Berk, S.G., and Botts,.J.A., Effect of Oilorinated Coliforas on Protozoan
Population Growth. J. Mater Pollution Control Federation, Voliae S3,
Nunber 3. March 1981.
-------
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency
September J, 1981
Page 14
(toe of the best mthods for disinfection i* ozonation. The use of ozone
is bom cost effective with chlorine because of recent advances in solid
state electronics and iapromaents in electrode design. Ozone generators,
for ample, can aw produce ozone concentrations of 2% using air whereas
previously this concentration mbs only possible with my gen. (hone is the
¦ost powerful oxidant and leaves no harmful residual. Any excess ozone
ifaMjww to oxygen in a short period of tine which even further enhances
Hater quality.
It is incorrectly stated in the draft EIS, that a natation is a developing
technology. An extensive 20 aonch study piogian, for enfte, MB recently
cagdeted at Marlborough, Mtssachnsctts under the spunsmship of the EPA.*
This study successfully demonstrated the reliability of using ozone for
disinfecting Municipal wastewater in tens of disinfection performance,
process control, iastruKntation and equipment reliability.
* Stover, E.L., Jarais, R.N., and long, J.P., Hith-levtl Ozone Disinfection
of Haiicipal Wastewater Effluents. EPA-600/2-81-W0, OTIS, PB81-172272,
March, 1981.
It is also incorrectly stated in the draft EIS that the energy constaytion
is significantly greater for ozone compared to chlorine. The comparison
nde is not done on the sane basis. Since chlorine is stable and easily
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Septenber 3, 1981
Page 15
liquified, it can be produced in large plants and conveniently packaged
and shipped to end users in various size cylinders. Ozone, on the other
hand, is not stable and consequently nust be generated on-site at the
point of use. Both chlorine and ozone are produced electrolytically.
In the case of chlorine however, the energy consuKd in production are
reflected in the purchase price. In the case of ozone, on-site energy
costs are higher because it aust be manufactured at the point of use.
A fair comparison of total energy conswption aid casts, therefore, aust
be done on a i—nn basis to reflect the total energy ctmsiard in each
case.
Me appreciate the opportiaiity to participate in this fearing and trust
that you will give serious ccnsifcration to jui u—inti.
Sincerely,
SCHERING-PUmt CORPORATION
> ^i wfm\ ^.1 ¦
Scott C. Gordon, Manager
Corporate Environmental Engineering
SCG/ld
Attachments
cc: Mr. Arnold Schiffioan, Division Director 6
Mr. Richard Salkie, 201 Facilities Planning Director
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
------- |