~MERCER COUNTY Mercer 9ounty Planning Divfsion 8208 Office of the County E;(ecutive .WATER QUALITY PLANNING PROGRAM
6·40 South Broad St. ·P.O. EOX 8t~68 ·Trenton, N.J. 08650· Tel.;.phone: (609) 989-6545
STREAM SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS:
SHABAKUNK CREEK AND LITTLE BEAR BROOK WATERSHEDS
FINDINGS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
APRfL 1980 MERCER COUNTY
Bill Mathesius, County Executive
1980 MERCER COUNTY' BOARD MERCER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS Ingrid W. Reed, Chairman ·Barbara B. Sigmund I President Nelson rvfayo, Vice Chairman
James C. Hedden, Vice President Bill Mathesius 1 County Executive Albert E. Driver, Jr. Barbara B. Sigmund, Freeholder
Frederick J. Gmitter, Jr. Donald T. Harney 1 County Engineer Eugene V. Howard Francis B. Marciante Paul J. Sollami Merlin P. Smith JohnS. Watson Leo Laaksonen, Planning Director WaIter DeAngelo, County Administrator Edwin H. Johnson, Secretary
Joyce L. McDade 1 Clerk to the Board
. MERCER COUNTY WATER QUALITY PLANNING PROGRAM
Robert A. Kull, Program Manager Anne Chmielewski, Assistant Planner
Policy Advisory Committee
Peggy McNeill, Chairman
Mercer County Municipalities
Bill Mathesius/County Executive East Windsor Twp./Bruce Lundgren Barbara B.. Sigmund/Freeholder · Ewing Twp./Richard Venanzi Ingrid W. Reed/Pia nning Board Hamilton Twp./Thomas Horn Peggy McNeill/Soil Conservation Dist. Hightstown Bor. /Bruce Lundgren Hopewell Bor ./Joseph· S. Williamson Citizen Representatives Hopewell Twp./Carolyn Woodward Lawrence Twp./Mary Tanner Anthony Acquaviva/Labar Pennington Bor ./Ezra Bixby James T. G9ffney/SBMWA Princeton Bor. /Denyse Reid Robert Graham/NAACP Princeton Twp./Dr. William Cherry Ruth Linker/At Large Delegate City of Trenton/John Vogler Edward Meara/Chamber of Commerce Washington Twp./Nancy Tindall Jessamine Merrill/League of Women Voters West Windsor Twp./Frank Piccola
April 1980 This report was prepared by William Whipple, Jr., Alan W. Mcintosht and Joseph V. Hunter, a.nd by the staff of the Water Resources Research Institute at Rutgers University pased on work initiated under con tracts from Mercer County in connection with Mercer County's Water Quality Planning Program. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are those of the Water Resources Research Institute.
Funding for this publication and for the work on which this report is based was provided in part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 208 o£ the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972J EPA Grant No. P002104-0l. Report Summary
Stream surveillance and analysis efforts were initiated by Mercer County's
Water Quality Planning Program in August of 1979. Through the use of intensive surveys of physical, chemical, and biological conditions within and near area watercourses, detailed infor.mation is being obtained which, together with the results of earlier studies of water resources in the county, provides the necessary basis from which to design and put into action appropriate water quality management strategies for-each watercourse in Mercer County.
This report presents the findings and preliminary recommendations of Mercer County's stream surveillance and analysis efforts in the Shabakunk Creek and Little Bear Brook watersheds., Field and laboratory work and the actual preparation of this report were perfor.med by the Water Resources Research Insti-. tute at Rutgers University and by William Whipple, Jr. and Alan W. Mcintosh of the Institute, and Joseph V. Hunter of the Envi:ronmental Science Department under the direction of Mercer County's Water Quality Planning Program.
The Institute has found that, although ther.e are no known point sources entering the Shabakunk Creek, sections of the creek below developed areas are in poor biological condition, with only a few small fish and pollution-tolen ant groups of benthic macroinvertebrates present. Water quality analyses indicated that fecal colifor.m counts often exceed the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection standard of 200 per 100 ml for FW-2 waters. Highest heavy metal concentrations were found in scrapings from riffles below the most developed areas. The presence of sto:rmwater runoff and illegal discharges re mains a serious problem, particularly along the West Branch, and threatens the use of Colonial Lake, a small downstream recreational reservoir. S-2
Little Bear Brook, a small stream virtually devoid of fish life, was
found by the Institute to be apparently receiving sewage contamination from
nearby residential areas. In addition, hazardous organic compounds used at
several industries in the drainage basin may have entered the brook in the past.
Control of both of these sources of pollution to the system should begin immedi
ately to prevent severe problems in the future, according to the Institute.
The findings and preliminary recommendations included in this report are
being presented by Mercer County's, Water Quality Planning Program for discus
sion and dialogue with the general public, public officials, institutions,
businesses, and other interested_organizations and individuals in order to
develop appropriate water quality management goals and strategies for the
Shabakunk Creek and Little Bear Brook watersheds. The Institute and Mercer
County have already acted to correct several of the water pollution problems
observed. A report presenting water quality management strategies for these
watersheds and priorities for future stream surveillance studies in Mercer
County will be issued by Mercer County's Water Quality Planning Program in the
summer of 1980. This intensive basin-wide stream surveillance and analysis effort is the
first of its kind to take place in Mercer County, and there are few areas in
the nation that have initiated similar efforts. Based on the experiences of
Mercer County's Water Quality Planning Program and on comments received by
other agencies, organizations and individuals, Mercer County will develop a
guideline document for stream surveillance and analysis studies for use by
municipalities, counties, or other areas contemplating or designing similar
efforts. TABLE OF CONTENTS
~ I. Introduction 1
II. Shabakunk Creek 3 General Description 3 Watershed 3 Stream Channel 7 Stream Corridors 7 Soils 10 Geology 10 -~ ·- -~- Pollution Sources - 10 Biological Health 15 Historical Data 15 Current Study 19. Fish 19 Periphyton 20 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 23
Wate~ Quality 37 Historical Data 37 Current Study 38 Conclusions 47 III. Little Bear Brook so General Description so Watershed so Stream Channel 5o Stream Corridors 55 Soils 55 Geology 55 Pollution Sources 55 Biological Health 58 Historical Data 58 Current Study 58 Water Quality 58 Historical Data 58 Current Study 59 Conclusions 64
i TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. Analysis and Recommendations 65 Preventive Measures 65 Remedial Measures 66 Possible Federal Support for Stor.mwa~er Management Construction 67 Sulllllla:ry 68 Specific Local Actions 68 Acknowledgements 70 Literature cited· 71 Appendices 73
ii • LIST OF TABLES No. Title
1 Present and futu.re land uses in the Shabakun.lc Creek 8 drainage area
2 Commercial and industrial firms situated along the 16 banks of the West Branch of Shabakunk: Creek
3 Average number of benthic mac:roinverteb:ra'bes 26 collected by Surber sampler at all sites on three sampling dates (organisms/m2) 4 Metal concentrations in substrates collected from 32 each riffle on August 6, 1979 (ppm dry weight in duplicate samples) 5 Average number of benthic macroinverteb:rates collected 33 on Hester-Dendy samplers at all sites on two sampling dates ( organiams/m2) . 6 Water quality. data for Shabakunk: Creek 41 7 Total phosphate and ammonia concentrations in 44 samples collected at various sites in the Shabakunk: Creek system 8 Pollutants contained in stor.mwater runoff collected 45 at Lawrence Shopping Center on September 21, 1979 9 Toxic substances contained in stor.mwater collected 46 at the Lawrence Shopping Center on October 5, 1979
10 Offices and industries in Little Bear Brook 52 drainage area
11 Water quality data for Little Bear Brook 60 12 Variations in 20-Day BOD values in samples from 63 Little Bear Brook
-"
iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1 Drainage area of Shabakunk: Creek 4 2 Relationship of ELSA sewer lines to Shabakunk Creek '5 3 Land use patterns in Shabakunk: Creek area 6 4 Stream elevation and drainage area of the West .Branch 9 Shabakunk Cree..k
5 Photograph of stream corridor at confluence of West 11 Branch and Main Branch of Shabakunk Creek
6 Photograph of stream corridor along the West Branch 12 of Shabakunk Creek
7 Soil associations in the. Shabakunk: Creek drainage area 13 8 Geologic formations in the Shaba:h."UDk Creek drainage area 14 9 Location of commercial and industrial fi:rms along 17 the West Branch Shabakunk Creek
10 Drainage area of Shabakunk Creek 22
11 Population density of benthic macroinvertebrates 28 collected by Surber sampler on three dates at sites along Shab~~ Creek
12 Total taxa collected by Surber sampler on three 29 dates at sites along· Shabakunk Creek 13 Population density of benthic macroinvertebrates 35 collected by multiple-plate artificial substrates on two dates at sites along Shabakunk Creek 14 Total taxa collected by multiple-plate artificial substrates on two dates at sites along Shabakunk Creek
15 _Drainage area of Little Bear Brook 51 16 Land use patterns in Little Bear Brook area 53
17 Elevation and drainage area of Little Bear Brook 54 18 Soil associations in Little Bear Brook drainage area 56 19 Geologic formations in Little Bear Brook drainage area 57
iv SURVEILLANCE .AND ANALYSIS OF SHABAKONX CBEEK .AND LITTLE BEAR BROOK
I. INTRODUCTION Scope
This is a final report prepared by the Water Resources Research Institute of Rutgers University for Mercer County, New Jersey, as a part of planning under Section 208, P.L. 92-500 et segu. The work was authorized by an award initiated on August 21, 1979 (27-5123, 07-1908) and also by a separate con tract of the county with William Whipple, Jr., Joseph V. Hunter, and Alan W.
Mcintosh, as individuals.
Watersheds specified for inveatigation were those of Shabakunk Creek above
Colonial Lake and Little Bear Brook.
The purpose of this report is to evaluate conditions of water pollution and environmental degradation in the specified watersheds, to determine the prob- able causes of observed adverse conditions, and to determine whether the infer- mation is sufficient to determine specific preventative or remedial programs for adoption by the county. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are those of the Water Resources Research Institute personnel.
Detailed water quality management strategies will be developed by Mercer County for each watershed following public review and comment on this report. Further,
Mercer County will develop a guideline document for stream surveillance and analysis programs for use by municipalities, counties or other areas contem- plating similar :programs. The investigation benefitted from a prior study by this institute1 on the
West Branch of Shaba.kunk Creek and also from a stream walkers' report (PIRG
CETA) on the same watershed.
1 Supported by research funds from the Office of Water Research and Technology, U.S. Department of the Interior.
-1- General Streams in urbanizing areas are subject to a variety of stresses produced by the processes of growth; most of the resulting changes are environmentally adverse. Unfavorable conditions may be improved by various gover.nment programs, such as flood control and water pollution control. However, before remedial programs can be adopted, the problems and the processes which create them must be understood. Water quality and discharge of the larger rivers are monitored by a network of USGS/state gaging stations. However, small streams are so numerous, and conditions in them change so rapidly, that conventional moni toring networks cannot deal with them. Moreover, the condition of such streams is more accurately monitored by biological evaluations than by occasional mea surements of the usual water quality parameters. Therefore, a stream-sur veillance and analysis program has been devised to evaluate the biological health of streams, the pollution sources to which they are subject, and certain other physical conditions relevant to management. These include symptoms of stream encroachment, channel erosion or filling, and obstruction to flow, either natural or artificial.
-2- II. SH.A:B.AKITNK CREEK
A. General Description
Watershed:
Shabakunk Creek drains about 13-1/2 square miles generally north of Trenton,
New Jersey, mostly in Ewing and Lawrence Townships, with a portion in Hopewell
(Fig. 1 ) • Shabakunk Creek flows into Assunpink Creek, a flood prone and rather polluted stream which passes through the center of Trenton. Near its mouth,
Shabakunk Creek passes under the Delaware and Raritan Canal and has the capability of damaging the canal at higil stages; accordingly, the watershed falls within the jurisdiction of the D & R Canal Commission, as regards stormwater management of any new developments. The flood tendencies of the Shabakunk Creek watershed are of long standing; and its flood problems are under study by the U.S. Soil Conserva- tion Service. Most of the Shabakunk Creek watershed is served by sewers of the
Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority (Fig. 2). Since all industrial waste as well as sanitary sewerage is supposed to be conveyed by the sewers, there should be no point sources of pollution or officially recognized effluent outlets within the watershed.
Shabakunk Creek is formed by the junction of the West Branch and the Ma.in
Branch about two miles above the mouth. Within this lower reach, just downstream of Highway No. 1, is Colonial Lake (surface acreage about 36. 2), which has been used for recreation,- and has recently been excavated by Lawrence Township. Two smaller reservoirs, Sylvia Lake (surface acreage about 10. 5) and Ceva Lake (sur face acreage about 6. 0) lie on the Main Branch in Ewing Township.
The two large branches have major differences. As can be seen in the land use map in Figure 3 (Mercer. County Planning Board, 1976), the West Branch, which is somewhat smaller, is much more highly developed, with a great deal of high density housing and commercial and industrial development. The ongoing study by the Soil Conservation Service has produced a present and anticipated future
-3- 1
fI
. ~IGURE 1 DRAINAGE AREA 0~ SHABAKUNK CREEl( ~ '· ~ . ' \ ' . \. ·-·-... /( t \ ' \ \...--- . ..,...... I ~ -·-·~... \ \ \ i \ l \ .(~/· I' I ...... \ ...... j \. ! '\~ ' ' ;'I • I \ .""·,;. ·----..v ,/ '· \ J I \ >-'1 I ' ·\,...... , ,-->9 \ ~ . /. l t' J l I ·~/ . I ~. ' \.. , . t :::IJ--t I / f I ,' I "r
· RELATIONSHIP OF f.:LSA SEWER LINES TO SHABAKUNK CREEK ·FIGURE 2 LEGEND
~ RESIDENTIAL E}ill INDUSTRIAL filiffl[j COMMERCIAL • PUBLIC. ~ CUL TURALJ. ENTERTAINMENT ~ AND RECReATION ffTiTil RESOURCE PRODUCTION t.:.4L;J AND EXTRACTION D· OPEN SPACE
FIGURE 3 SCALE: 1''-200.0' LAND USE PATTERNS IN SHABAKUNK CREEK AREA. land use analysis (Table 1), which shows that virtually complete development is expected in all parts of the watershed. However, when the entire area is fully developed, the West Branch, with only a little more than 5 square miles of area
(about 38% of the total), will have about 700;6 of the industrial and commercial development.
Stream Channel:
T.he watershed, as a whole, has a flat slope, averaging about 20 feet per mile (elevation and drainage area of the West Branch are shown in Figure 4).
Downstream of the junction of the two branches, there is some evidence that the stream bed has been lowered. However, this is undoubtedly due to channel excavation rather than erosion of the bed by sto~ flows. According to the
Lawrence 2ownship Engineering Department, the lower portions of Shaba.ktmk Creek between Highway No. 1 and Princeton Pike were excavated dlU'ing 1977-79. Accord ingly, the stream is rather deep and slow moving during periods of low flow.
On both the West Branch and the Main Branch, there is little evidence of erosion and scour other than the amount of bank erosion expected to occur no~ally. On the other hand, there is no sign of any marked aggradation or accumulation of bed load in the channel, except where rock has been dumped into the stream.
Both the West Branch and Main Branch have occasional gravel bars, with riffles, with bed load of up to 1 to 3 inches in diameter. In the Main Branch there are many obstructions due to fallen trees and branches. On the West Branch there are few fallen trees, but many more obstructions due to poorly placed bank protection and the dumping of rock or debris into the channel. In one place, dumping of rock from both sides has reduced the channel to a V-shaped notch.
Stream Corridors:
The stream corridors, or buffer strips of vegetation, differ markedly between the two large branches. The Main Branch and the main stem immediately downstream -
-7- TABLE 1. Present and future land uses in the Shabakunk Creek drainage a.rea1. Land Use Types Cultivated Land, West Branch Grasslandz Wood Residential Industrial Commercial Miscellaneous Total Present Use: Acres 690 1645 406 406 133 3280 96 of Total 21 50 12.4 12.4 4.0 99 .. 8 Future Use: Acres 280 1818 686 426 70 3280 96 of Total 9 55 21 13 2 100
Main Branch P2-esent Use: Acres 2344 2131 146 263 542 5426 96 of Total. 43 39 3 5 10 100 Future Use: · Acres 734 3510 506 247 429 5426 96 of Total 14 65 9 5 8 101
1 prepared by Soil Conservation Service, 1979.
-8- 4
90
.... co -w -w LLI _, ....,.... 2 % w so a: 2 •
1
e 1 &· g 1 o· 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 s- 1 e 1 1 FEET (THOUSANDS) FROM CONFLUENCE.
FIGUR.E. 4 STREAM ELEVATION AND DRAINAGE AREA ··OF THE. WEST BRANCH SHABAKUNK CREEK.
-9- of the junction have generally excellent corridors, with wide bands of trees ad
jacent to the channel (Figure 5). The West Branch has some very good vegetated
buffer strips on one side near the confluence with the.Main Branch as shown in
Figure 5 and aJ.so in the upper reaches. However, along most of the West ~ranch,
tree growth is limited to a narrow band on the sloping bank, and, in some areas,
is altogether absent (Figure 6). An adequate stream corridor is useful in main
taining water temperatures sui table .. for a variety of aquatic ·life and in reduc
ing pollution loads entering the stream. Also, according to recent research
(Whipple, DiLouie and Pytlar, 1980), _corridors greater than 50 feet wide tend to
reduce channel scour and degradation in streams, presumably by reducing peak
flows from intense precipitation.
Soils:
According to the general soil map for Mercer County (u.s. Department of
Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, 1972), the dominant soil association in
the Shabakunk Creek drainage area is Matapeake-Mattapex-Be:rtie, with lesser
amounts of ~akertown-Chalfont-Doylestown Association, Bucks-Penn-Readington
Association and Sassafras-Dragston Association (Figure 7).
Geology:
According to a 1965 survey by the Geology Section of the New Jersey Depart
ment of Environmental Protection (DEP), four different fomations, Brunswick Shale,
Lockatong .Argillite, Stockton Sandstone and Precambrian (undifferentiated), under
lie the Shabakunk Creek drainage area (Figure 8 ).
Pollution ·sources:
Much of the Shaba.kunk Creek watershed is commercially or industrially dev
eloped; many of these concel.'ns lie along the West Branch. Contact with Mr. Higgins
of the Ewing-Lawrence Sewage Authority indica.ted that all of the establishments
are·· tied into the trunk sewer line; Mr. Al Valencia of the New Jersey DEP also • noted that no NPDES permits have been issued to these concerns. Thus the dete-
-10- PHOTOGRAPH OF STREAM CORRIDOR AT CONFLUENCE OF WEST BR·ANCH AND MAIN B.RANCH OF SHABAKUNK CREEK. .~ "·- ::.' .
l .4 1-l 1\) I
FIGURE 6 PHOTOGRAPH OF STREAM CORRIDOR ALONG THE WEST BRANCH OF SHABAKUNK CREEK \ • \
l 1-" w I
lEGEND QUAKERTOWN-CHALFONT~ 2 DOYLESTOWN ASSOCIAH~N 3 BUCKS-PENN-READINGTON ASSOCIA liON
MATAPEAKE-MATTAPEX-BERTIE 6 ASSOCIATION 1 I SASSAFRAS-DRAGSTON MILE' 1 0 ASSOCIATION
FIGURE 7 SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE SHABAKUNK CREEK DRA·INAGE AREA I I
I I' \ .r~ - ' I
LEGEND 'ib BRUNSW.CK SHALE 0 1 R 1 LOCK ATON ARGILLITE I ~; MILE 'flS ST~CKTQN SANDSTONE
PE PRECAMBRIAN (UNOIFFERENTIA TED) FIGURE 8 GEOLOGiC FORMATIONS IN THE SHABAKUNK CREEK DRAINAGE ARJ:A rioration of the streams must be attributed to nonpoint source inputs or illegal discharges. Industrial and commercial establishments aJ.ong the West Branch are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 9. Identification of these concerns does
1 not necessarily indicate the presence of problems. Other commercial-industrial areas exist within the Shabakunk Creek watershed (see Figure 3) and may contribute pollutants to the stream via overland flow or sto:rm drain discharge. However,
:runoff from parking lots or land surrounding certain establishments, such as service stations and automotive industries, adjacent to the channel may contribute
·significantly to the total pollutant load. ·
There are many storm drains and also unidentified pipes., particularly along the West Branch. Although many smaller ones function as weepholes, others are drains or outlets. Details of drain location are found in a surveillance report on Shabakunk Creek by the Clean Water Action Project (1979).
E. Biological Health Historical Data:
Relatively little biological data have been collected on Shabakunk Creek.
Fish sampling was conducted by the New Jersey Department of Fish, Game and Shell fisheries during 1971 at four sites on the system. Evaluation of the species collected indicates that various chubs, suckers and shiners comprised the majority
.of the fish sampled, although smaller numbers of gamefish, including grass pickerel and pumpkinseeds, were taken on the Main Branch.
A report by the Soil Conservation Service (1974) on the Assunpink Creek watershed indicated the presence of dace, darters, small sunfish and minnows -.. in the West Branch and Main Branch, and carp, bullheads and sunfish in Sylvia and Colonial Lakes. Stream walkers from the Clean Water Action Project, in their biological assessment of the West Branch during the faJ.l of 1978, noted the pre sence of minnows and other small fish with occasional larger fish (up to 10 inches)
-15- TABLE 2. Commercial and industrial fim.s situated aJ.ong the banks of the West Branch of Shaba.kunk Creek.
No. No.
1 Tony Lee Associates 28 .Arco Rex Andy's Automotive Supply 29 Interstate Auto Body 2 Coogan 30 Floyd's Machine 3 Sport and SIJecial ty Cars 31 Dept. of Environmental Protection 4 Bella Motors 32 Auto Spa 5 Betty's Auto P~~ 33 Olden Paint and Carpet 6 Residence 34 Duteler Retail Meat 7 Residence 35 Plaza 8 Brown' s Au to Park 1. Lighting store 9 Trenton Motor Express 2. Hair salon 10 Mercer Oxygen and Supply Co. 3. Deli 11 Chemtron 36 Fiat 12 Ca.rlisa Auto Body 37 George Piano 13 Teck Communications 38 Mike's Motors Shack (no water) 14 Frost General Contractors 39 Extension Diner 15 Karate Shop 40 Castro Convertible 16 Presto Pasta Social Security Office 17 Residences 41 Hall of Frame 18 Artie Animal Hospital 42 Hot Point Appliances 19 Artie Ice Cream 43 Max Dinettes 20 Billi Auto 44 Laundromat 21 Silo 45 N.J. National Bank 22 Olden Plaza 46 Amoco 23 Greenfield Dodge 47 Miles Speakers 24 Hager Supply 48 Shopping Center Lee Myles Transmission' Dry cleaner Mtlffler Shop 4 small shops 25 Colonial Cadillac MAB paints 26 Doolittle Fuxniture Wa Wa market 27 Quaker' Curtain 49 MeDonalds 50 Travel agency
-16- \
.... ~----···
... ""'-./
I t--J -l I Q 500 ·~~·iiiiijiiiiiiiiiiill FEET
FIGURE 9 fJQ LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FIRMS C> o tJ ALONG THE WEST BRANCH SHABAKUNK CREEK \
I 1-' (X) I
FIGURE 9 (cont.) LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL AND INDU:STRIAL, F"IRMS ALONG THE WEST BRANCH SHAQAKUNK CREEK si.ghted. The project members also reported the presence of rr .... as many as 50 catfish • • • • ranging in size from 6 to 12 inches" under the Parkside Avenue culvert. Conversation with Mr. Otto Heck of the Trenton State College Biology Department
indicated that a variety of sport fish have been collectedin Ceva and Sylvia Lakes
in the past. Little relevant data pertaining to invertebrates and algae in the Shabakunk:
exist. An environmental impact study related to the construction of Interstate 95/695 assessed macroinvertebrate populations at a station on the Main Branch
near Bull Rtm Road.. Sampling -by-artificial substrates yielded only four groups of
organisms: caddisfly larva, snails, leeches and aquatic beetles. Another study
of Rockel and Rose (1977) on the impact of the proposed ELSA sewage plant on
Assunpink Creek surveyed the biota at a site between Colonial Lake and the con
fluence of the Shabakunk: with the Assunpink. Although a variety of organisms were
collected, the information is of relatively little use in the present ~reillance,
since no comparable upstream station was established. Current Stucf.y:
Since initial observations indicated that seining the Shabakunk: would yield little ·except very small fish, no for.mal fish sampling program was developed.
Some conclusions can be drawn, however, from observations made duxing surveillance trips and from conversations with nearby residents.
A long-time resident living near Carl ton Avenue noted that large fish were
common before the airport was constructed but that fewer fish are now seen.
Several small boys living near Theresa Avenue indicated that they fish in pools at various ·culverts and that catfish (probably bullheads) and suckers are occasion ally caught.
Observations by project personnel indicated that, for the most part, while small fish (less than 3 inches long) are found throughout the Shabakunk:, larger
-19- specimens reside primarily in pools at various culverts or below large drains,
particularly in upstream reaches of the West ]ranch and in the Main :Branch. On
several occasions, minnows sighted~ the lower portions of the West :Branch had
a high incidence of infection.
Two single sightings of individual fish are worthy of mention. In a· pre
liminary tri];) during the summer of 1978, a 6-inch smallmouth bass was observed
in a tributary draining the Lawrence Shopping Center just above Colonial Lake;
other smaller sunfish were occasionally sighted in the same region. In August,
1979, an 8-inch trout was spotted in the West :Branch behind McDonald's along
Olden Avenue. The trout. had a large Ulceration near one eye and appeared to be
near death. The origin of the fish is unknown, but it may have been a survivor
of earlier stocking programs downstream.
The potential for recreational fishing in the Shabakunk is :probably limited
to the reservoirs, stretches of the Main :Branch and main stem, particularly in
downstream areas, and pools in upstream sections of the West :Branch. During low
flow conditions, the water column in many parts of the West Branch is as shallow
as 1 to 2 inches, thus inhibiting passage of any but the smallest fish. Other
researchers (Klein, 1979) have noted that increased urbanization may result in
reduced base flow in streams; it is possible that this phenomenon has occurred in
'the West :Branch with the result that much of the creek is not deep enough to
support large fish.
Fishing was banned last summer in various water bodies in Camden County
because of high levels of the insecticide chlordane. The possibility that fish
in the Shabakunk Creek system, particularly in Colonial Lake, accumulate various
toxic substances should be investigated.
Periph.yton
Periphyton, an assemblage of a wide variety of organisms that grow on under
water substrates, includes, but is not limited to, bacteria, yeasts and molds,
algae, protozoa, and detritus (non-living organic matter) (EPA, 1973). The -20- periphyton community is essential in stream ecosystems because it comprises the
base of the food chain for organisms of higher trophic levels, such as macro
invertebrates and fish.
Methods:
In Shabakunk Creek, periphyton was qualitatively sampled from natural sub-
strates on August 6, August 22 and October 23, 1979. Several rocks from each
sampling site were scraped using a plastic knife, and periphyton collected was
placed into plastic bags. A portion of the sample was preserved in 5% formalin
for identification. The remainder of each sample was frozen for subsequent heavy metal analyses. Samples for metal analyses were dried to a constant weight at
11 0°C and digested in 10 ml concentrated mro3 for 6 hours. After digests were
brought up to volume, metal concentrations were deter.mined on a Pe~in-Elmer Model 603
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer.
Results:
Microscopic analyses indicated that the periphyton community of the West Branch of Shabakunk Creek is comprised mainly of diatoms and filamentous green algae.
Upstream riffles at relatively undeveloped sites contained a diverse diatom com munity with some patches of the filamentous green algae Clado;phora. Per cent detritus was estimated to range from 50 to 85. Riffles below developed areas contained fewer algal genera and were characterized by dramatic reductions in population density. Estimated per cent detritus at urban sites ranged from 70
to 95. Riffles at urban sites contained an increased proportion of filamentous
green and blue-green algae. Most notably, the downstream Olden Avenue riffle
(see Figure 10 for location) yielded relatively high amounts of Oscillatoria,
a pollution tolerant blue-green algae. T.his ocaurrence may indicate the entrance of sewage immediately upstream.
An important factor in the periphyton population dynamics in Shabakunk Creek
appears to be scouring of the community by storm events. Extensive growths of
-21- ~------~GLEN ROCK SHOPPING CENTER \
I 1\.) 1\.) I
COLONIAL LAKE
•. ,<() ,. a,qLOGICAL ~+ •. $TOIIt,1 .. , ~ •. LOW FLOW FIGURE 10 DRAINAGE AREA OF SHABAKUNK CREEK Cladophora were observed at several urban sites along the West Branch during late
July, 1979. The Cladophora growth had disappeared by the August 6th sampling
date, foliowing a stor.m on August 3. The periphyton samples from August 6, 1979
indicated reduced periphyton populations compared to the August 22 sample.
The sampling sites along the Main Branch were characterized by diverse and
very dense periphyton populations. However, the estimated per cent detritus
changed from 50 to 60 above Sylvia Lake to 80 to 90 below the lake.
The results of the heavy metal analyses will be discussed under the following
section on benthic macroinvertebra-tes.-·
Benthic Macroinvertebrat~~
The use of benthic macroinvertebrates in stream assessment is gaining in-
creasing popularity; advantages of this . approach were briefly discussed in the preliminar.y report ~n the West Branch (Whipple, Jr. and Mcintosh, 1978).
Methods:
Quantitative biological sampling of Shabakunk Creek was conducted in August
and October, 1979. Six riffles .. al.ong the. West Branch and two along the Main Branch
>were chosen as sampling. sites (Figure 10), with selection based on surrounding
land use and similarity. of physical features. Variq:us physical and chemical
factors, including light, substrate and current velocity, influence the natural
distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates (Hynes, 1970). ·These parameters,
dete:rmined at various riffles in a preliminary study of the West Branch (Whipple, Jr.
and Mcintosh, 1978), were considered in the· selection of sampling sites for the
finaJ. study.
After site selection, the dimensions of each riffle were measured; and each
riffle was divided into a sampling grid (USGS, 1973) in order to insure maximum
sampling area within each riffle with minimal sampling overlap.
Collection of benthic macroinvertebrates was accomplished by employing two
sampling techniques: a Number 12 Su.J:'ber square-foot sampler and mu1 tiple-plate
- -23- artificial substrate samplers (EPA, 1973). The Surber sampler enclosed a 0.1 m2 area of stream substrate which was disturbed manually for thirty seconds (Hughes, 1978). All organisms dislodged by manipulation of the substrate were carried into the net by the crurrent. Three replicate Surber samples were taken in each riffle on the following dates: August 6, 1979; August 22, 1979; and October 23, 1979. The August 6 sample followed a rainfall of o. 2 inches on August 3. The organisms were sorted in the field by sieving through a, standard #35· screen (mesh size = . 0197 inches) ; any organism passing through the screen was not included.
The collected organisms were preserved in the field with 7~fo ethanol and trans- ported to the laboratory for identification.
Macroinvertebrate identificat~?n to the lowest taxa possible was accomplished using keys by Pennak (1978), Merritt'and Cummins (1978), and Usinger (1963). After identification, the three replicate samples from each riffle were pooled and the total number of 9rganisms multiplied by the factor 0.33 to express values as orgaxusms. I m2 •
In addition to the Surber samples, multiple-plate artificial substrate samplers were situated at all site·s in the Shaba.ku.nk. The artificial substrates used were modifications of the Heeter-Dendy type sampler and confoDmed to EPA specifications (EPA, 1973). The samplers were constructed of tempered hardboard cut into 7.5 em diameter plates and 2.5 em diameter spacers. The plates and spacers were placed onto an eyebolt and yielded 0.13 m2 of effective surface area. Duplicate samplers at each station were secured to the stream bottom by driving 12 inch spikes into the substrate. Two samplers were placed into the stream at each site on August 14, 1979 and were left in the stream for a six-week colonization period. Due to the anticipation of heavy rains accompanying Hurricane David, one artificial substrate sampler was removed fro~ each site on September 5, 1979; the remaining samplers were retrieved on September 25, 1979. All samplers were placed into plastic bags and returned to the laboratory where the samplers were disassembled and gently
-24- cleaned with a brush to remove the organisms. Organisms were sorted by sieving through a standard #35 screen and preserved in 70% ethanol fgr,later identification.
Results and Discussion Surber Sampling
Data presented in Table 3 and Figures 11 and 12 show a clear trend: as the
.degree of development increases in the watershed of Shabakunk Creek, the total number and species richness of benthic macroinvertebrates generally decreases.
Thus, sites in areas with the least upstream development, Carlton Avenue on the
West Branch and Bull Run and Ewingville Roads on the Main Branch (see Figure 10 for locationsh supported the most healthy populations. Ev~n at these sites, however, the number of taxa considered intolerant of poor quality water was small; thus populations at these sites should be considered healthy only in relation to downstream sites. Two exceptions to the overall trend noted above existed. T.he quality of the population at the Thurston Avenue site, which lies in a residential area and thus might be expected to be biologically similar to Carl ton Avenue, was poor. No pollution sources, other than stor.m drains, have been identified between Thurston and Carl ton Avenues; thus the cause of the findings at Thurston is unknown. Pol lutants commonly associated with residential areas, such as discarded crankcase oil or pesticides, may be implicated; high levels of the insecticide chlordane were recently found in Camden County streams.
A second exception occurred at the downstream Olden Avenue site (see Figure
10 for location), where, on the August 6 and August 22 sampling dates, increased numbers of organisms, primarily pollution-tolerant chironomid larva and aquatic oligochaetes, were collected. A likely cause for this increase is the intro duction of sewage upstream of the site.
The finding of a poor-quality benthic macroinvertebrate community at down stream stations in this stu~ agrees closely with other recent studies (Klein, 1979;
-25- TABLE 3. Average nUmber of benthic macroinvertebrates collected by Surber sampler at all sites on three sampling dates (organisms/m2)
Sites Bull Ewing- Carlton Thurston Olden Parks ide Olden Spruce Run ville Organisms Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Street· Road Road Ephemeroptera (mayflies) J3aetis sp. 20.0 4.3 3.3 1. 0 9.0 1. 0 19.0 13.3 Caenis sp.
Trichoptera (caddisflies) Cheumato:es;zche sp. 70.0 75.3 17.6 H.rdro:es;zche sp. 48.6 5.7 1 14.3 21.3 Chimarra sp. 7.7 1. 0 1. 0 Agraylea sp. - . 1. 0 1. 0 Coleoptera (beetles)
.Anacz:zon~ va.rie~tus 35.3 6.7 4.3 4-3 8.3 20.7 27.3 Psphenus herricki 24.6 16.7 J3idessus sp. 1. 0 .Amphipoda (scuds) Gammarus sp. 1. 0 Odonata (damselflies) Lestes sp. 1. 0 Ag;ion sp. 1. 0 Isopoda (sow bugs) Asellus sp. 3.3 2.0 Gastropoda (snails) Ph.ysa sp. 1. 0 Helisoma sp~ 1. 0 Oligochaeta (worms) ,Lumb:riculidae 1. 0 Lumbricidae 1. 0 1. 0 Limnod.rilus sp. 1. 0 5-7 4.7 20.0 3.3
-26- T.AJ3LE 3 (continued) Sites Bull Ewing- ~Carlton Thurston Olden Parks ide Olden Spruce Run ville Organisms Avenue Avenue· Avenue Avenue Avenue Street Road Road Hiru.d.inea. (leeches) Erpobdella punctata 1. 0 3.3 6.7 Diptera (true flies) Chironomidae 14.3 7.7 1·0. 0 7.7 36.7 7.7 18.0 21.0 Tipula. sp. 1. 0 Antocha sp. 1. 0 Simulium sp. 1. 0 1. 0 4-3 Athericidae 6.7 3.3 1. 0 4.3 6.7 4.3 1. 0 Platyheliminthes Planarida.e 3.3 31.0 Pelecypoda Sphaeriu.m sp. 2.3 1. 0 Total Taxa (per date) 7.3 4.3 3 4.3 5.3 2.3 11.0 9.3 2 Total organisms/m 230.3 29.7 25.3 24.0 88.3 13.0 197-7 159.7 (per date)
-27- LEGEND
SAMPLING SITE 300 A - Carl ton Ave. B - Thurston Ave. 410 C - Olden Ave. ~ D - Parkside Ave. "'~ E - Olden Av. a: 250 F - Spruce St. w OCT 23r AUG 22 .G - Ewingville Rd. a. H - B1lll Run Rd. Cl) Ill... tC( ~v I a: m 200 w ,..,.. • AUG 6 I ' a:... w \ \ ~UG-ii~ • >z 0- a: 150 \ \ .,I (J tC( :i o,i/ (J \\ -:... I z 100 w m \\ u.. I 0 a: \\ w m JO :i ::) z
I 1 A B C 0 E G H DOWNSTREAM WEST DOWNSTREAM MAIN BRANCH SHABAKUNK BRANCH SHABAKUNK
FIGURE 11 PO.PUL~ TION DENSITY OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY SURBER SAMPLER ON THREE DATES AT SITES ALONG $HABAKUNK CREEK -28- 12-
10
c )( 8 LEGEND c t- SAMPLING SITE IL 0 A - Carl ton Ave. a: B - Thurston Ave. w m 6 C - Olden Ave. :::E D - Parkside Ave. ::::» E - Olden Ave. z F - Spruce St. I ... G - Ewingville Rd • ('\) c \.0 1- H - Bull Run Rd. I 0 4 t-
2 FIGURE 12 TOTAL TAXA COLLECTED BY. SURBER SAMPLER ON THREE DATES AT- SITES ALONG SHABAKUNK CREEK
A B c D E f G H DOWNSTREAM WEST DOWNSTREAM MAIN BRANCH SHABAKUNK,.. BRANCH SHABAKUNK Pratt· and Coler, 1979; Lenat et. al., 1979). Lenat et al. (1979) found that both species ricJ:mess and population density of benthic macroinvertebrates were reduced at stream sampling sites below urban areas in North Carolina. Klein, in his study of the relationship between stream quality and degree of watershed urbanization in the Piedmont province of Maryland, found reduced benthic com- mtm.i ties, with only 2 to 6 taxa present, when the per cent impervious area in the watershed exceeded 40. Using present land use data from the Soil Conservation· Service study and estimates for per cent impervious surface in various land use tY];)es contained in Urban Hydrology for.· Small Watersheds (USDA-SCS, 1975), a rough approximation of 400~ impervious surface is obtained for the West Branch. Pro- jections for future land use show increases in impervious surface along both branches and perhaps further deterioration of the quality of the Shabakunk. A further indication of the deterioration of the biota at downstream sites ·along the West Branch is seen in the composition of the benthos (Table 3).
Dominant groups at Carlton Avenue, :Bull Run and Ewingville Roads included caddis- fly larva, mayfly nymphs and aquatic beetles. .lll three groups have generally been considered to be pollution intolerant (Mason et al., 1970; EPA, 1973), although the species of caddis fly, H.ydropsyche sp. and Cheumatopsyche sp. , and mayfly, Baetis sp., most common at these sites are recognized as being tolerant of a wide range o£ conditions (Godfrey, 1978).
In contrast, populations at the downstream sites along the West Branch were dominated by larval chironomids, with some aquatic oligochaetes present. These two pollution-tolerant groups are frequently found at sites-subjected to urban runoff (Lenat et al., 1979). Also of interest is the nature of the communities at Bull Run and Ewingville Roads. Although the Ewingville site during the summer was characterized by dense
? grqwths of attached algae and turbid water, due largely to the influence of Sylvia
Lake, the community at this station was similar to that at :Bull Run Road, where algae was less dense and the water was relatively clear.
-30- T.he reasons for the poor quality of th~ benthic macroinvertebrate community at downstream sites along the West Branch may include a. variety of stresses, including increased water temperatures, deleterious effects of sediment loads, increased velocity during sto~ flows and effects of taxies (Klein, 1979).
DiGia.no et al. (1976), in a study of the benthic fauna in the Green River in
Massachusetts, attributed the poor qua.li ty of the fauna at sites exposed to urban runoff, at least in part, to the accumulation of· metals in stream sediments;.
In an effort to dete~e whether a similar situation existed in the West Branch, substrates collected on August 6, 1979 from riffles at each site were analyzed for concentrations of lead, zinc, copper, chromium, cadmium and nickel (see section on periphyton for discussion of methods).
Results indicated that metal concentrations were highest at sites below the developed areas on the west Branch, with levels at Spruce Street and the downstream
Olden Avenue site generally 5 to 10 times higher than those at Bull Run Road
(Table 4). T.he exception was nickel, as concentrations at Bull Run Road were,
I for some reason, elevated. Accumulations of metals in riffle substrates have been noted in previous studies (Eyres and Pugh T.homas, 1978). However, ,comparisons of metal levels noted in the present stu~~th data frem past research are of little use, since the nature of substrates and sediments sampled varies dramatically between studies. Effects of metals on the benthic fauna may be direct, through acute or sub lethal toxicity, o~ indirect, through destruction of food organisms. Indeed,
I . qualitative analyses of peripbyton, as noted earlier, showed a reduction in the
I percentage of algae and an increase in detritus at downstream sites.
Heste~Denay Sampling As can be seen in 'l!able 5 and Figou.res 13 and 14, . data generated by use of artificial substrates varied maikedly from those developed by the Surber sampling. TABLE 4 • Metal concentrations in substrates collected from each riffle on August -6, 1979·(~pm dry weight in duplicate samples)
Site Lead Zinc Copper Chromium Cadmium Nickel West Branch: Carlton Avenue 61.0 70.6 21.5 20.9 5o3 5.0 62.0 77.4 23.6 23o 6.. 2.5 5.7
Thurston Avenue -·', ..' - Olden Avenue 230.1 157.0 35.5 22.9 1.0 9.6 256.9 217 .. 9 44.3 26 .. 4 6.5 9.2
Pa.rkside Avenue 278.9 299.1 40.5 35~7 10.5 13 .. 3 219 .. 4 Olden Avenue 494.5 848.1 213 .. 9 75 .. 4 27.7 26.6 493-3 696.5 221.5 68.4 31 .. 9 26.4 Spruce Street 436 .. 9 844.3 165.5 58.5 23 .. 4 38.5 757.5
Main Branch:
Ewingville Road 145. 2 218. { 32.9 11.6 1510 9 194.4 39.4 Bull Run Road 55. 1 137.1 32 .. 4 22.8 146.6 34-3 20.8
1 not determined
-32- TABLE ,5. Average number of benthic macroinvertebrates collected on Hester-Dendy samplers at all sites on two sampling dates (organisms/m2)
Sites :Bull Ewing- Carlton Thurston Olden Parks ide Olden Spruce Run ville Organisms Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Street Road Road Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Baetis sp. 4 41 8 4 4 39 23.5 Trichoptera (caddisflies) Cheumatol2szche sp. 4 4 4 4 4 31 H.ydropszche sp. 11.5 Coleoptera · (beetles)
I
I .Anac:vron.!!: variegatus 11 • .5 1.5 • .5 Odonata (damselflies) .Agrion sp • 42 • .5 .Amphipoda (scuds) Gamma.rus sp. 2.54 23 Isopoda (sow bugs) Asellus sp. 4 4 4 I Gastropods (snails) Helisoma sp. 39 7-.5 7• .5 1.5. 5 Hirudinea (leeches) Erpobdella punct'ata 11
Oligocbaeta (wo~s) Limnodrilus sp. 4 4 331 11.5 Diptera (true flies) Chironomidae 126 • .5 69 182 207 219 • .5 439 27 273 • .5 Tipula sp. 4 4 7 4 4
-33- T.A:BLE 5. (continued) Sites :Bull Ewing- Carlton Thurston Olden Parks ide Olden Spruce Run ville Organisms Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue Street Road Road Platyhelminthes
Plana.ridae 11.5 4 7~5 70 Megalo:ptera Sial is sp. 4
Total taxa (:per date) 5.5 6 5.5 3 3.5 2.5 7 3 Total orga.ni sms/m2 299.5 124' 224 223 562 512 460 320 (per date)
1 9/5/79 samples lost; estimate based on 9/25/79 sample only.
-34~ 700 LEGEND ,, SAMPLING SITE
A - Carl ton Ave. B - Thurston Ave. 600 C - Olden Ave. I D - Parkside Ave. E - Olden Ave. F - Spruce St. G - Ewingville Rd. I N H - :Bull Run Rd. :& 500 0: w I I a. en ....w I 400 =m ....IU ~ I IU z> 0 300 I u~ cc :& u I -~ 200 z \ rEPT 25 IU m· II. 0 a: IU 100 \ I m :& z= ~ A. B C D G H DOWNSTREAM WEST DOWNSTREAM MAIN BRANCH SHABAKUNK BRANCH SHABAKUNK
FIGURE 13 POPULATION DENSITY OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRA TES COLLECTED BY MULTIPLE-PLATE ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATES ON TWO DATES AT SITES ALONG SHABAKUNK CREEK -35- 12
LIDEND
10 ' SAMPLING SITE
A - Carl ton Ave. B - Thurston Ave. C - Olden Ave$ c a- D - Parkside Ave. )( E - Olden Ave. c F - Spruce St. .... G - Ewingville Rd. I&. H - Bull Run Rd. 0 a: w m 6 :i :) z I .... \.U c 0'\ ... I ...0 4
FIGURE 14 2 TOTAL TAXA COLLECTED B.Y. MULTIPLE -PLATE ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATES ON TWO DATES AT SITES ALONG SHABAKUNK CREEK· :~ ... A B c D E F G H DOWNSTREAM WEST DOWNSTREAM MAIN BRANCH SHABAKUNK BRANCH SHABAKUNK ...... -( Although the number of species inhabiting the Hester-Dendy samplers at each site was generally less than that collected by Surber sampling, the total number of
organisms per m2 was much higher. At most stations along the West Branch, large
numbers of chironomid larva were found on the samplers; at :Bull Run Road on the Main Branch, numerous amphipods were collected. Although the Hester-Dendy samplers provided a suitable habitat for colonization by several species, most notably chironomid larva, the data generated did not give an accurate indication of the nature of the benthic macroinvertebrate community at various sites. It is not possible to use the results of the benthic macroinvertebrate survey to locate specific pollutant sources along the West Branch for two reasons: (1) the deterioration of the benthic macroinvertebrate community was first noted at the Thurston Avenue site with little, if any, recovery occurring downstream; thus the effect of additional pollutant inputs below Thu:rston Avenue could not be
judged; and (2) as previously noted, a variety of pollutional stresses, any one of which may account for the effects noted, exist in the West Branch. In all likeli hood, a combination of the stresses has caused the biological degradation noted.
C. Water Quality Historical Data: The most extensive water quality monitoring on Shabakunk Creek has been· done by the U.S. G. s. on the main stem at the Princeton Pike bridge. Analyses,
conducted since 1975, have included all major water quality parameters; in ad dition, levels of selected heavy metals and trace organics in the water and sedi ment have, on oacasion, been determined. Of interest are the frequent violations of the state'sfecal colifor.m standard of 200 colonies/100 m1 for ~2 waters. Although trace metals were present in the sediments at relatively low levels, several trace organics, including the insecticides chlordane and DDD, were elevat ed, with 20 ug/kg chlordane and 26 ug/kg DDD present. The data from 1976 are included in Appendix A-1. The New Jersey DEP conducted routine water quality monitoring at the Route 1 bridge on the main stem from 1969 through 1973. Samples were also taken by the
DEP at a site on the West Branch in Ewingville in June, 1963 and September, 1965. Other water quality data generated include the following: (1) several water quality parameters were measured by the Soil Conservation Service from 1969 through 1972 at the Route 1 bridge; (2) seasonaJ. analyses of routine parameters plus selected metals were performed at Bull RUn Road on the Main Branch as part of the I-95/695 environmental impact assessment; and (3) ~_everal parameters were estimated by personnel of the Clean Water Action Project during their surveillance of the Shabakunk. Interestingly, the I-95/695 study listed phenol concentrations of 0.0002, 0.0003 a.nd 12.0 mg/1 for the three sampling dates at Bull Run Road.
Additional information has been ·c~mpiled by the New Jersey DEP on the reservoirs on the system. Data collected from Colonial. Lake from 1975 through 1977 indicate that fecal coliform counts exceeded state standards on three of six dates, with a maximum level of 24,000+/100 ml on July 26, 1977, while total phosphate values ranged from 0. 06 to 0. 18 mg/1. Water qua.li ty anaJ.yses from Sylvia and Ceva Lakes during 1975 and 1977 showed comparatively low fecaJ. coliform counts but slightly higher total phosphate levels of from 0. 08 to 0. 19 mg/1. The DEP report also notes that Sylvia and Ceva Lakes have "siltation and weed problems." Current Stud.y: Methods: Water samples were collected from the Shabakunk Creek system on three occasions.
Low flow samples were collected on September 18, 1979 at the following locations: Spruce Street (on the West Branch); the confluence of the two branches; the Route 1 bridge (on the main stem); and the Sylvia Lake dam (see Figure 10 for locations). Storm event sampling first occurred on August 29 and was repeated on December 6,
1979. Sites for sampling included the following: immediately below the Glen Rock Shopping Center (August 29 storm only), Thurston Avenue and Spruce Street (all on the West Branch); the confluence (Augu.st 29 sto:rm only), and the Route 1 bridge
-38~--·- on the main stem. One additional sto:rm event sample was taken on December 13 at
Spruce Street for fecal coliform determinations. The two stor.ms sampled differed considerably, with the August 29 event being a summer sto~ centered on the upper portions o:f the d.:t'ainage area and the December 6 event, a light rainfall over the entire watershed. Some additional sampling was conducted. Ceva Lake was sampled for total phosphates on October 12, 1979. Several drains flowing during low flow conditions aJ.ong the West Branch were ~ampled for phosphates on September 12 and for ammonia on December 5. A stor.mwater runoff sample was collected from the Lawrence Shopping Center on September 12; ana.lyses performed included 5-day and 20-day BOD, total suspended solids, various heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. A second stor.m event was sampled at the shopping center on October 5, and analyses o:f 125 toxic substances were perfomed by the U. S. EPA. Routine low flow and stom event samples were ana.lyzed for the following: total suspended solids, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, 5-day BOD, 20-day BOD, fecal colifoms, ammonia, total phosphates, filterable and non-filterable heavy metals and petroleum hyd.:t'oca.rbons.
Temperatu.re,was recorded in the field, while pH ~eadings· were done in the field or immediately upon return to the laboratory. Dissolved oxygen levels were measured by the azide modification of Winkler method. Fecal colifor.m colonies were enumerated by the membrane filter technique. Analyses of total phosphates were done on ru1
Orion Research Ammonia Electrode Model 701A Digital Iona.nalyzer. Water samples for metal analyses were filtered thxough a 0.45-u membrane filter. Non-filterable fractions (that materia.l remaining on the filter) were digested in mro3 and analyzed -· with a Pel!k:in Elmer 603 Flame At·omic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS), while filter- able fractions were analyzed directly on a Peikin Elmer 503 nameless AAS. Pet- roleum hydrocarbons analyses were performed on a Peikin Elmer 299B Infrared
Spectrophotometer. Techniques described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (AP.HA, 1975) were followed for analyses.
-39- Results
As can be seen in Table 6, water quality during low flow generally was satisfactory, although all fecal coliform deter.minations exceeded the state standard for ~2 waters. Storm event data showed a different picture, however. During the August 29 event, which was centered in upstream areas, the following parameters were elevated below Glen Rock Shopping Center: temperature (26. 5° C), total suspended solids ( 146 mg/1), and fecal coli forms (2. 2 x 10 6/1 00 ml). Smaller increases in temperature and fecal colifo~ counts occurred downstream at Thurston Avenue. The fact that these condi tiona existed far upstream in the West :Branch indicates that during general storm condi tiona, the whole of the West :Branch un-· doubtedly has serious water quality problems. It is interesting to note that, despite the presence of stor.mwater inputs immediately upstream at the Glen Rock Shopping Center, the benthic macroinvertebrate community at Carl ton Avenue remained in moderately good condition. Results of downstream water quality a.naJ.yses during the Augu.st 29 stor.m event reflected the fact that little rainfall had occurred at these points prior to sam pling, although suspended solids (46.5 mg/1) and the non-filterable fractions of several of the heavy metals were slightly elevated at the Route 1 bridge during the stor.m. Water quality alterations during the December 6 stor.m event were relatively small. Fecal coliform counts exceeded those detexmined for low flow samples but did not approach the highest values recorded during the Augu.st 29 storm. Several low pH values ( 6. 6 at Spruce Street and 6. 5 at Route 1) were recorded; acid rain may be implicated. High 5-Day BOD and 20-Day BOD values, 13.4 and 25.5 mg/1, respectively, were found in·the Spruce Street samples.
With the exception of the extreme fecal coliform counts found below the Glen RoCk Shopping Center and at Thurston Avenue during the August 29 stor.m event, most of the parameters measured during storm event sampling were not greatly
-4o- TABLE 6 •• Water quality data for Shabalrunk Creek --
Temper- Suspended Fecal coli- 5-Day 20-Day ature Solids fo:rms D. 0. :BOD :BOD Total 1 Site Date Event (oc) EH {m~Ll) (:eer 100 ml} (mgLll (ms:Ll) (mg/1} Phos:ehates (m.g:Lll Sylvia Lake 9/18/79 Low Flow 16.0 7.6 15.0 230 9.3 5.1 12.4 o. o62jo. 223 Dam Spruce Street " II 11.2 7.8 10.1 660 9.2- 3.5 4.1 0.0_52 2 Confluence II If 12.0 7.3 7.5 260 10.7 2.6 6.1 o.o5 /0.o93 Rt. 1 :Bridge II II 13.0 7.6 5.5 3900 10.5 - 2. 1 4 .. 8 o.o52/o.os3
Glen Rook 6 __ 4 Shopping Center 8/29/79 Sto:r.m 26.5 8.2 46.0 2.2 X 10 7.7 3.45 10.0 Thurston Avenue II II 23.5 8.2 10.5 5.5 X 105 8.3 2.05 5.6 Spruce Street II II 15.5 8.5 10.5 4400 7.5 1. 2 6.9
II II Confluence 1s.o 8-4 9·0 716 7-4 1.0 5·5 I II II f; Route 1 9.1 9.1 46.5 5500 9.4 4-45 14.3 I __ 4 Thurston Avenue 12/6/79 Storm 7.1 15.0 2000 7.3 5-9 11.3 0 .. 07 Spruce Street " " 6.6 11.0 24oo5 8.4 13.4 25.5 0.12 Route 1 " II 6.4 19.0 2150 6.8 1. 8 9.63 0.06
1 See Figure 10 for location 2 Sample taken on 9/11/77 3 Sample taken on 9/12/79 4 Not detemined 5 Sample at this site on 12/13/79 had a fecal coliform count of 6000/100 ml ~
T.A:BLE 6. {continued}.
'- Hea:!l Metals (us:Ll} Petroleums Ammonia Hydrocarbons Lead Zinc Copper Chromium Cadmium Nickel Site Event (mg/1) (mg/1) F7 NF8 F NF F NF F NF F NF F NF
Sylvia Lake Dam Low Flow 0.106 _4 Spruce Street If 0.38 3.o9 17 0 30 34 12.5 0.2 21 0.2 0.1 10 17 Confluence It o.o8 Rt. 1 :Bridge ft 0.10 Glen Rook Stonn 0.13.5 0.94 -1 94 0 8.5 0 28 0.4 23 0.1 1 9 21 Shopping Otr. _4 Thurston Avenue .. 0.01 0 16 0 20 0; 0 0.4 8 0.1 1 2 11 Spruce Street fl 0.03 o.o 0.3 4 0 10 0 0 1 2 1 1 9 3 fG Confluence " 0.06 o.o 0.3 .5 1 10 1 10 0.4 7 0 1 1 5 I Route 1 " < 0.01 0.8 2 107 20 50 2 10 1 8 1 2 10 32 Thurston Avenue Stonn 0.27 _4 1. 3 25 0 8 0 5 1 8 0.6 4 1 17 Spruce Street " 0.38 3 100 6 23 6 5 8 10 2 3 4 32 Route 1 " 0.12 0.3 100 0 22 0 5 2 9 2 4 9 29
6 Low flow ammonia detenninations were made on 12/5/79
7 Filterable: fraction passing through a 0.4.5-.11 membrane filter 8 Non-filterable: fraction retained by a 0. 45-..~t membrane filter
9 Samples taken on 8/22/79 elevated. Two factors may have been responsible. First, ·the August 29 storm was localized; thus values determined at downstream sites are not representative of
stor.m runoff conditions. Secondly, the December 6 sample was of relatively light intensity and, again, values generated may substantially underestimate the mag
ni tude of the problem in the West :Branch.
The significance of urban runoff to the system can be seen in the heavy metaJ.s
data. Although storm event samples generally contained relatively low levels of
metals in both the filterable and non-filterable fractions (Table 6), values obtained
from substrate scrapings (Table4) were elevated, indicating that the system is ex posed to substantial loadings of heavy metaJ.s.
Our data, and those of the New Jersey DEP, show elevated total phosphate levels in Ceva and Sylvia Lakes (Tables 6 and 7). The eutrophic nature of both systems is obvious; nutrients and suspended solids leaving Sylvia Lake stimulate algal pro
duction and increase turbidity downstream throughout much of the Main Branch above
the confluence. Undoubtedly, nutrients originating in Ceva. and Sylvia Lakes play
a role in the enrichment problems of Colonial Lake.
Analyses of samples from drains (Table 7) indicate that the Auto Spa Car Wash
at the Prospect Avenue site is probably a source of .Phosphorus to Shabakunk Creek; more intensive sampling and subsequent corrective actions are indicated. Results of stor.m runoff sampling at the Lawrence Shopping Center (Table 8) show that most · of the pollutants in the runoff occurred at levels at or somewhat below those re
ported in the literature (Carberry, 1979). The fact that the storm event was
characterized by a slow, steady rain may have accounted for the levels noted. Results of toxic analyses on the October 5, 1979 stor.m sample collected from the shopping center are shown in entirety in Appendix A-2. Table 9 lists those
pollutants found at detectable levels. Again, values for the various heavy metals were somewhat lower than those typically reported for stor.mwater runoff. Concentrations of copper, zinc and
-43- TABLE 7. Total phosphate and ammonia concentrations in samples collected at various sites in the Shabakunk Creek system
Total Site Date Conditions Phosphates (~Ll) Ammonia (ms:Ll) Ceva Lake 10/12/79 Low Flow 0.. 22 1 1 Carwash drain 9/12/79 " o::_i· at Parkside Avenue 12/ 5/79 " 0.. 085 Drain entering at 9/12/79 " Oo11 - 1 Spruce Street culvert Drain entering 10/17/79 _1 " 0:~~ downstream of 12/ 5/79 " 0.. 033 Parkside Avenue culvert
1 not detexmined
-44- TABLE 8. Pollutants contained in stor.mwater runoff collected at Lawrence Shopping Center on September 21, 1979
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2.8 mg/1 Total Suspended Solids 38.7 mg/1 5-Day :SOD 10.2 mg/1 20-Day :BOD 49.0 mg/1
Total Heavy Metals:
Nickel 15 u.g/1 Copper 16 ug/1 Zinc 108 u.g/1 Lead 120 u.g/1
-45- TABLE 9. Toxic substances contained in stomwater collected at the Lawrence Shopping Center on October 5, 1979
Substance SUrface Flouranthene 1.1 0.4 :Sis - (2-Ethylhe:xyl) phthaJ.ate 3.4 6.2
Di-~Eutyl phthalate 0.. 5 0.7 2 Phenanthrene 0 .. 4 Pyrena 0.. 9 0.4 Methylene Chloride 1.4 2 Phenol 2 0.4 Arsenic 15.0 3.03 Cadmium s.o3 3.03 Chromium 2o.o3 36.0 Copper 47.0 49.0 Lead ao.o3 400.0 Zinc 170.0 260 .. 0
1 collected, approximately 2-1 /4" below surface 2 not detected 3 approximate value
-46- lead, however, were somewhat higher than values listed in Table 8 for the earlier rain event; this finding may be attributed to a difference in the nature of the events on the two dates. Of interest is the presence of phthalate esters in the samples. The U.S. EPA's Quality Criteria for Water (1976) established a receiving water criterion of 3 ug/1 for phthalate esters for the protection of freshwater I aquatic life. Whether or not this criterion is exceeded in the Shabakunk below the shopping center is questionable; however, the potential for bioaccumulation of these compounds by biota within Colonial Lake must be considered.
An additional water quality concern, particularly on the West Branch, is the apparent high frequency of illegal or accidental discharges. On several occasions, oil films were noted, particularly at Thurston Avenue. Improper disposal of crank- case oil by homeowners is a likely cause for this finding. In addition, at several downstream sites, oil illegally dumped onto stream banks was noted.
The illegal discharge of concrete grindings at Spruce Street apparently is a frequent occurrence (see article in Appendix A-3); pH readings taken during an in cident on September 18, 1979 were around 11. Whether or not the discharges har.m the biota in downstream areas is unknown; however, that such discharges still occur along the West Branch should be a discouraging note -to those anticipating expanded recreational usage of Colonial Lake as illegal discharges pose a serious threat to the various uses proposed for the reservoir. The finding of a 55-gallon drum marked "solvents" in debris below Spruce Street during a surveillance trip is a grim reminder that much more vigilance is needed to protect the Shabakunk and similar systems against the threat of taxies.
D. Conclusions
1. The condition of aquatic life throughout the lower part of the West Branch of
Shabakunk Creek is poor. The effects noted have probably resulted from a
combination of stresses, including toxic substances associated with non-point
sources inputs, particularly stor.mwater runoff and illegal or accidental dis-
charges. -47- 2. Areas in the upper reaches of the West .Branch and in the Main Branch support a more balanced biota; efforts should be made to limit inputs of pollutants
into these areas.
3. Water quality during low flow conditions is generally adequate in the Shabakunk Creek system, although fecal coliform counts consistently exceeded state
standards for ~2 waters.
4. During stor.m events, conditions in the Shabakunk varied dramatically, depending on the intensity of the storm and how closely sampling coincided with peak flow of stoi.'m runoff. It is likely that the West Branch and main stem have serious water quality problems during storm events. The quality of water in the West
Branch of Shabakunk Creek during stor.ms is often grossly in violation of ~2
water quality standards. Howev~, the same is undoubtedly true in other New
Jersey streams, since at the time such standards were set, relatively little
was known of the quality of urban stor.mwate:r. It· would be desirable if more
research could be undertaken to detei.'mine the fate and effects of short term
storm-generated increases of pollution, in order that water quality standards
might take them into account more realistically. 5. Although heavy metal levels were not extreme in low flow or stor.m samples, analyses of substrates scraped from riffles indicated that substantial loads of metals are entering the downstream portions of the West Branch.
6. Sampling of stor.mwater runoff from the Lawrence Shopping Center indicated that several heavy metals and trace organics entered Shabakunk Creek immediately above Colonial Lake; implications for the recreational usage of the :reservoir
should be considered.
7. The hazards posed by illegal discharges, particu1.a:r:ly in do'WD.Strea.m sections of the West Branch, are substantial.
8 •. ~ The reservoirs on the Shabakunk, Ceva, Sylvia, and Colonial Lakes, probably offer the greatest :recreational potential within the system. Problems
-48- associated with nutrient over-enrichment exist in all three reservoirs, and
introduction of pathogenic bacteria and taxies from non-pointI sources must
be considered, particularly in Colonial Lake.
9. Physical aspects of the Shabakunk are clearly unsatisfactory in some respects.
Although the frequent flooding of the West Branch probably results from the
extensive urbanization of the watershed, a substantial number of irregular-
i ties and obstructions including illegal dump'ing further retard flow in the
channel. Although there are frequent instances of bank erosion on the West
Branch, there is no clear indication of channel erosion or general deposition
or aggradation.
-49- III. LITTLE BE.AR BROOK
A. General Description
Watershed: Little Bear Brook, a small stream approximately 2 miles long, travels in a
northeasterly direction parallel to U.S. Highway No. 1 between Princeton Junction
and Penn's Neck, New Jersey. The system drains about 2. 3 square miles in West
Windsor Township and is tributary to the Upper Millstone River near its·· junction,
with Carnegie Lake (see Figure 15). The head waters of the brook are in Little
Bear Swamp. The drainage basin as a whole is developing rapidly with housing units and a
variety of research and light industrial facilities, a listing of which has been " compiled by members of the Clean Water Action Project (Table 10). As indicated
by a land use pattern map developed by the Mercer County Planning Board in 1976,
much of the land adjacent to the brook remains open space (Figure 16).
Stream Channel:
Little Bear Brook was dredged by the local Mosquito Control Commission over
15 years ago and has since been refilled with a foot or more of loose, silty
sediment, except near the outfall of storm drains, where sand and small gravel
have settled out. T.he brook, as a whole, has little slope, dropping approximately
3-1/2 feet per mile (Figure 17). Comparison of past and present underclearances
of county culverts crossing Little Bear Brook offers no indication that channel
erosion is a problem on the brook. The average depth of the channel during low flow is about 2 to 3 feet. The system has no natural riffles. The brook has been kno'W!l to flood as far up-
stream as Alexander Road, due, at least in part, to backwater from the Millstone
River. There are, however, no signs of bank erosion.
Near the mouth of Little Bear Brook, the channel has been impeded by the
moving of excavated material onto the floodplain and across the brook. The flow
has been confined to a small channel lined with rock. The obstruction backs the
-50- I \.Jl. t-J I
LEGEND .& LOCATION OF SPIRIT FLUIDS (I SAMPLING SITES y 1 MILE FIGURE 15 DRAINAGE AREA OF LITTLE BEAR BROOK TABLE 1o. Offices and industries in Little Bear Brook drainage area Name Location Alexander Commerce Park 729 Alexander Road
1. National Library Service Co. 2. EG&G Instruments 3. United States Tennis Assoc. 4. Harrison Fraker Architect 5. Princeton Energy Group 6~ Princeton Microfilm 7. Fifth Dimension 8. Government Finance Assoc. Inc. 9. Telephone Consultants of N.J. University Plaza 176 Alexander Road 10. AMS Tools 11. National Keyboard Art Assoc. 12. Pottery Barn 13. Markem Corp. 14. JoS. Paluch Co. 15. Princeton University Press 16. Krone & Rubin, Princeton Circuit Supplies 17. Johnson Atelier 18. Employees Tire Warehouse 19. ROI Controls Corp. 20. Lester M. Entin-Associates owners 21. Film Play/Data ~eau Inc. 22. Alt's Gymnastic School 23. Rosenbland Corp.-Environmental Abatement Systems - 693 Alexander Road 24. EG&G ~econd Location) 25. Princeton Ap~lied Research 7 Rosel Road 26. Mathmatica Inc. 14 Rosel Road 27. N.J. Dept. of Law & Public Safety Rosel Road 28. Murphy, Roy & Hoffer Rosel Road 29. BMR Photoelectric 20 Wallace Road 30. Ethyl Corp.-Petroleum Chemical Division 19 Rosel Road 31. Behrens 755 .Alexander Road 32. West Windsor Twp. Landfill Alexander Road 33. Princeton Polychrome Press Box 450 Alexander Road 34. Biomedix· (Becton, DiCkinson & Co.) 760 .Alexander Road 35. The Hillier Group Alexander Road 36. Center for Health Affairs 760 Alexander Road 37. N.J. Bell Alexander Road 38. U.S. Post Office .AJ.e:x:a.nder Road 39. Certified Fence Grafters Supply Alexander Road 40. Bowers and Son Sewage Treatment Plant Off Rosel Road 41. Fusion Energy Rt. :f/!2 42. .McLean Engineering Labs 76 Washington Road 43.,,. · Princeton Industrial Prop. Ltd.
-52:.. • • I I I • • • I I I • • • I I I • • • I I I • • • I ( I • • " •.I I I • • I I I • • ~ ( I I ~ • • I· I I • • • I I I • • ~ i I I I . I \.11 i I w # " • I ~ I I • I • I • I II I LEGEND • I • I . I RESIDENTIAL ~~~ RESOURCE PRODUCTION . I . § I • I . I • • INDUSTRIAL D OPEN SPACE I . I • OIJll COMMERCIAL 1\1 RECREATION I i .' . J//] PUBLIC I i ·' • I i I·' • • I • FIGURE 16 I I • LAND USE PATTERNS I IN LITTLE BEAR BROOK AREA 8 . -E 8' • - cr 1 ...... • Ill( z w ~59 8 ca: c... w > 5 c:J ....w c w z -cC a: DRAINAGE AREA 0 -3'
WASHINGTON ROAD -----PENN. CENTRAL R.R. LEXANDER ROAQ 1
53'------~~------~------~----~o 0 2000 4000 8000 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (feet)
FIGURE 17 ELEVATION AND DRAINAGE AREA OF LITTLE BEAR BROOK
-54..;. water u:p about 1-1/2 feet at low flow and undoubtedly hampers the movement of fish upstream from the Millstone. This constriction artificially obstructs flow and serves to accentuate the deposition of sediment upstream in the channel.
Stream Corridor: For the most part the corridor along Little Bear Brook remains in a natural condition and can be classified as excellent. The lowland areas adjacent to the brook, particularly between Washington Road and the confluence with the Millstone, are densely grown and :poorly drained.
Soils: According to the general soil ma:p for Mercer County (u.s. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, 1972) the dominant soil type in the Little
Bear Brook drainage area is the Galestown-Evesboro Association, with smaller areas of Alluvial Land-Fresh Water MarSh Association and Sassafras-Dragston Association present (Figure 18). Geology:
AccordiD€ to a 19_6.5 survey by the Geology_ Sec~_io? of the_ D~pa.rtm.ent _of
Environmental Protection, three different· fo~ations, StoCkton Sandstone, Pre cambrian (undifferentiated) and Ma.gothy and Raritan~· underlie the Little Bear Brook drainage area (Figure 19).
Pollution Sources:
The Clean Water Action Project, in a :preliminary surveillance report on Little Bear Brook dated August 28, 1979, identified point and non-point :pollutant sources along the brook and its tributaries. Although a substantial number of pipes designed to car.r,r sto~water are identified by the report, direct industrial discharges are apparently confined to the following two areas: ( 1 ) two :pi:pes car.r,ring industrial discharges frmm,RCA enter immediately prior to the confluence of Little Bear Brook with the Millstone River; and (2) several pipes apparently car.r,ring discharges from Design Brick Inc., Fusion Energy Corporation and Princeton
-55- ' ~ I
LEGEND GALESTOWN EVESBORO ASSOCIATION 1 D MILE ALLUVIAL LAND-FRESH · [ill] WATER MARSH ASSOCIATION Tm=l1 SASSAFRAS DRAGSTON ttt:ttJ ASSOCIATION FIGURE. 18 j SOIL ASSOCIATIONS IN· LITTLE BEAR B P 0 ;0 "-P li.AI N.A.G E...A R FA LEGEND
Kmr MAGOTHY-RARITAN FORMATIONS
PE. PRECAMBRIAN (undlfferentlate d)
RS STOCKTON SANDSTONE y FIGURE 19 MILE GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS IN LITTLE BEAR BROOK.DRAINAGE AREA Organics enter the major tributar,y several hundred yards above Alexander Road.
In addition the report identifies the discharge of a small paCkage sewage treat ment plant into the same tributary just before it enters Little Bear Brook.
B. Biological Health
Historical data: No data were found.
Cu.:r:rent study:
Initial surveillance on August 21, 1979 indicated a laCk of substrates
suitable for colonization by benthic ,macroinvertebrates, although some pool areas
may exist in deeper downstream areas and may provide suitable habitat for some
biota. In ad.di tion, only one small· ~ish was sighted by the four-person crew
during the entire survey. Subsequent sampling trips revealed the presence of
few fish in the system. Aquatic plants we~ numerous and, at some points, clogged
the channel. Dominant taxa included Elodea sp. , Val.lisneria americana and the
floating plant, Ludwigia sp.
On a trip taken on September 12, 1979, invertebrates inhabiting the plants
were collected by hand and identified. The amphipod Gammarus sp. was common,
while single specimens of the damselfly Ishnura sp. and a crayfish were observed.
In summary, relatively few fish have been seen in Little Bear Brook.
Aquatic plants are numerous, and they support a. few invertebrate taxa. It is
unlikely that large numbers of macroinverteb:rates inhabit the sediment.
c. Water Qu.al.i ty
Historical data:
Personnel from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection collected
anq analyzed samples for a variety of water quality parameters from 1960 through
1974 at a site between Washington and Alexander Roads. Of particular interest
are the occasional high values for ammonia, total phosphorus and total and fecal
colifo~ bacteria. srufi:p~ing done in 1979 by Betz, Converse and Murdock (John Smith, personal coiDJI11.lriice3.tion) indicated that Li ttl·e Bear Brook is slightly acidic (average pH = 6. 4) and !las a low buffering capacity (average total alkalinity = 17 mg/1 as cace3).
T.hei~ results also showed unusually large variations in total pho~horus and nitrate concentrations, with total phosphorus ranging from 0.05 to 7.0 mg/1 and nitrate nitrogen, from 1. 0 to 14. 0 mg/1. Streamwalkers from the Clean Water Action Project surveyed Little Bear Brook in June, 1979, and tested several water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, ammonia, nitrates, and phosphorus, with field kits.
Current study:
Methods: Water samples were collected by hand at three stations along Little Bear Brook (see Figure 15 for locations): a tributar,r crossing Alexander Road; the main channel ·at Alexander Road and the main channel at Washington Road. Low now sampling was conducted on September 12, 1979, while stor.m event sampling was done on December 13, 1979. Total rainfall recorded at Trenton on December 13 was 0. 45 inches. Methods described in the Shabakunk Creek discussion were employed in analyzing water samples from Little Bear Brook.
Results:
The water in Little Bear Brook was clear during low flow conditions; natural acids from the swampy headwaters impart a brown color to the water. Data from the sampling program on Little Bear Brook are presented in Table 11. Analyses of low flow samples showed that fecal colifor.ms equalled or exceeded the state standard of 200/100 ml for FW-2 waters at all sites. Two supplemental dissolved oxygen determinations were made. Because the stream was choked by aquatic plants at certain locations in the brook, diUl."!lal oxygen fluctuations were considered as a factor in the absence of fish from the brook. Duplicate samples t~en at 6:00 A.M. on September 5, 1979 measured 4.9 mg/1, above the state standard of 4. 0 mg/1 for non-trout waters.
-59~ TABLE 11. Water quality data for Little Bear Brook Total Temper- Suspended Fecal Dissolved 5-Day 20-Day Phos- ature Solids Coli forms Oxygen :BOD BOD phatea .Ammonia Site1 Date Event ~oc) J2H (mgL1} (:eer 1oo ml} (ms:Ll} (m5.L1) (m5,/1} (ms:Ll} {mg/1} Tributary 10/12/79 Low flow 6.0 7.1 5.3 1,230 8.o 2.0 4.1 0.09 0.11 Tributary 12/13/79 Storm 8.0 7.4 3.0 200 8.5 1.46 27.2 0.16 0.29 Alexander 10/12/79 Low flow 6.0 6.3 2.5 200 7.4 2.8 3.4 0.04 0.06 Road Crossing Alexander 12/13/79 Storm 8.5 1.1 5.0 280 7.1 2.7 28.1 0.08 0.14 !-.. Road ?; Crossing Washington 10/12/79 Low flow 6.0 6.4 1. 2 1,450 7.5 2.0 5.6 0.05 0.10 Road Crossing
Washington 12/13/79 Storm 8.5 7.4 70.0 298,000 7.9 2.6 27.5 0.06 o. 31 Road Crossin
1seeFigure 15 for location TABLE 11. (continued)
Rea~ MetaJ.s {ug/1} Lea.d Zinc Copper Chromium Cadmium Nickel 1 Site Date Event ]12 N-F3 F N-F F N-F F N-F F N-F F N-F
Tributary 10/12/79 Low flow 0.3 30 10 8 2 20 0.6 3 0.1 2 9 20 Tributary 12/13/79 Stann 1 10 30 24 1 4 1 11 4 5 18 9 Alexander 10/12/79 Low flow 1 10 10 9 0.6 2 0.8 3 0.1 3 17 47 Road Crossing
Alexander 12/13/79 Stann 1 25 30 40 1 7 1 12 0.2 4 0.4 49 Road · Crossing
Washington 10/12/79 Low flow 2 60 30 9 0.1 22 2 3 0.2 3 5 ~ 9 ...... Road I Crossing
Washington 12/13/79 Stann 2 25 60 51 0.2 6 0.3 9 0.3 3 3 59 Road Crossing
1 See Figure 15 for location 2 Filterable: fraction passing through a 0.45-u membrane filter 3 Non-filterable: fraction retained by a 0.45-u membrane filter Storm sampling produced several interesting findings. pH readings taken during storm flow exceeded those from low flow, with values in the main channel at the Alexander and Washington Roads si tea 1. 0 unit or higher. No reason is obvious for this finding. Since the pH of rain in New Jersey generaJ.ly ranges between 3.5 and 4.5, one would expect values dete~ed during storm flow to be similar to or lower than those found during low flow.
T.he fecal coliform count (298,000/100 ml), suspended solids (70 mg/1) and ammonia concentration (0.31 mg/1) .were elevated during storm flow at Washington
Road. The increase in the fecal coliform count from .Alexander Road to Washington was dramatic. The levels found may indicate that sewage enters the brook between
Alexander and Washington Roads during storms.
Based on data obtained, we contacted Mr. Jim Gallas of the West Windsor
Township Health Department. He indicated that housing units near the brook were served by septic tanks and that overflows had occurred previously. After our call, he inspected the area on a dry day and discovered a pipe flowing into the brook from the west wall of the Washington Road cu1vert. He traced the flow back to a ditch running along Washington Road. Subsequent analyses far fecal colifo:rms indicated that the contents of the pipe contained sewage (Appendix B-1 ). .Another sample taken from a pipe draining a holding tank at the Princeton Indoor Ten- nis Center showed elevated fecal coliform counts; this pipe apparently has now been sealed off. The problem at the Washington Road culvert remains, however.
The 20-day BOD values from the storm samples were high at all three sites •
.Also, results from the dilutions made of each sample (Table 12) indicate that, in each case, the sample with the greatest dilution had the highest 20-day BOD.
Typically, a large difference ·between the 5-Day and 20-Day BOD values and in o:r;:easing BOD values with greater dilutions indicate that an inhibitor is present.
-62- I T..A:BLE 12. Variations in 20-Day BOD values in samples from Little Bear Brook
20-Day BOD (ppm) Dilution Tributary Alexander Road Washington Road 1:1 7.4 6.3 8.2 3:1 24.9 28.5 21.3 5:1 49.5 49.5 53.0
-63- D. Conclusions Several industrial sources of hazardous waste lie in the Little Bear Brook watershed. One, Spirit Fluids, has previously discharged solvents to a tributar.y of the brook (Appendix B-2); Jim Gallas of West Windsor Township Health Depart ment has indicated that another fir.m, Princeton Polychrome Press (see Appendix B-1), may be a source of hazardous compounds for the brook.
The accidentaJ. or illegal disposal of hazardous substances into Little"Bea.r
Brook could el~ate fish from the system and account for the 20-day BOD values noted during the stor.m flow. As not~d earlier, return of fish from the Millstone River has been prevented by an obstruction near the mouth of Little Bear Brook. Disposal practices at firms handling hazardous wastes must be carefully moni tared in the Little Bear Brook drainage area. In addition to effects on the brook itself, quality of water in the Millstone Ri. ver and Carnegie Lake may be im paired by the introduction of hazardous wastes. Use of the newly completed sewer line, if properly operating, should eventu ally alleviate sewage contamination noted at Washington Road, assuming that the line will be serving those areas with septic tank problems •
.,"
-64- IV. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to reporting the findings of the stream surveillance activi ties, the Water Resources Research Institute was requested to recommend spe cific control measures or other courses of action that may be used by Mercer County or other responsible institutions and organizations to restore these stream systems to a desirable level of water quality. The measures identified below may be considered by Mercer County's Water Quality Planning Program as it develops detailed water quality management strategies for the Shabakunk Creek and Little Bear Brook watersheds. The watershed of the West :Branch Shaba.kunk Creek is already highly urban ized and also environmentally impacted. The Main Branch Shabakunk and Little
Bear Brooks are less seriously polluted in the traditional sense, although Little Bear Brook may periodically have received discharges of hazardous or ganic wastes. Appropriate preventative steps of planning and stor.mwater man
~gement are desirable to prevent further deterioration due to additional de velopment. Even more important, a remedial program will be required to re strain pollution now occurring from facilities already operating. In both watersheds, the use of biological survey and analysis provided valuable insights to complement data obtained by water quality sampling. The
biological survey technique is recommended for use in general water quality surveillance and analysis such as this study.
Preventive Measures
A. Since areas in the upper reaches of both branches of Shabakunk Creek are
in relatively good condition, steps should be taken to limit the amount
of stor.mwater and accompanying pollutants entering the system. OrdL~ances
requiring dual purpose detention basins for new developments would be desirable. B. In place of large numbers of small, individually sited detention basins,
-65- it is often possible to make major economies both in construction and main
tenance by building a. smaller number of joint ("regional") basins. However,
careful planning of such systems is required to mBke them f~a.sible. The funds for construction should be obtainable from developers, the payments
from each being held in escrow until the proper time for construction of a. joint facility. Actual. construction a.nd maintenance could be done either by the county or by the township. However, funds and expertise for planning and design need to be provided. c. The municipal planning boards should be authorized by ordinance to cluster
new buildings .:in order to reserve wooded stream corridors along all streams
not already developed. Remedial Measures
In order to develop a.n adequate remedial progr~ some additional missions will have to be given local agencies, and some new institutions will have to be devised, and sources of funding found. First, a county water quality surveillance staff will be required, to peri odically walk the streams, check quality, and investigate pollution sources. This will be supplemented by cheeks of water quality supported by adequate laborator.y facilities. Without field gurveillance, no really efficient remedial program can be enforced. Second, a. difficult problem is posed by runoff pollution from existing de velopments, which contribute a. great load of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, fecal colifoXms a.nd other pollutants during every rain storm. This pollution comes
fi:om highways, shopping centers and other parking areas~ densely packed housing, and ma.ny industrial and commercial facilities. The original developers pre sumably complied with earlier ordinances and laws effective at the time of con- _-·"struction; and it would be inequitabl·e, if not illegal, to attempt to require present owners to assume the cost of complete remedial measures now. There are
laws a.nd ordinances which prohibit the disposition o£ m.any waste products in
-66- streams. Where wastes are being dumped, the responsibility for corrective action can be placed upon the owner.
Third, some county agency should have the responsibility of assuring that there are economical means available to dispose of liquid wastes, particularly autamobile crankcase and lubricating oil and commercial solvents. An ordinance requiring proper disposition of such materials should be enacted. Surveillance should check for improper dumping of used oil and the proper handling of other liquid wastes.
When the responsibility for issuing NPDES perm.i ts under PL 92-500 et segu. is assumed by the State, it would be possible for the State to require issuance of an NPDES permit in cases where action demanded by the county to make proper provision for disposition of wastes was not taken promptly. It is not con sidered to be desirable to place a general requirement for NPDES permits upon thousands of small businesses in a major watershed; and action at county or municipal level could avoid the necessity for most of this administrative burden.
Fourth, sewer overflows should be identified by surveillance, monitored by health inspectors and action taken to reduce overflows. From time to time, studies should be made to evaluate the necessity for such sewer overflows and investigate means of reducing them.
Fifth, a solid waste disposal plan will be essential to keep pollutants out of streams and groundwater. The state is moving to accomplish this; and it is apparent that major disposal sites must be planned and sited under state con trol. The clean-up of· rubbish in streams is essential;· and this presumably should be done by the municipality, as the benefits are largely local.
Posgible Federal Support for Stor.mwater Management Construction From an environmental viewpoint, it would be advantageous to provide deten tion/retention basins to reduce pollution from many existing facilities; but such a program would·require Federal funding in the billions of dollars for planning, design, construction and maintenance. Up to now, there has been no
-67- Federal funding for such facilities.2 The planning of such programs would be
complex, requiring detailed knowledge of local situations, as well as consider- able technical expertise to evaluate the most important pollutants and the expected efficiency of proposed remedial measures. Such remedial programs
would be expensive, and are unlikely to be adopted across the board in any
state. However, a source of e~pertise and funding to analyze such situations would be valuable. It was originally understood that such situations would be investigated through 208 planning; but the announced intention to terminate this Section 208 program by 1983 makes it now appear unlikely that the detailed planning required will be supported' from this source.· It does not appear like- ly that a Federal program of this nature will be undertaken. Summary Mercer County and its municipalities could undertake a valuable program to
reduce pollution of its small streams provided that the following minimum help were available from State or Federal sources:
(a) A statewide ~ogram featuring provision of solid wastes disposal sites. (b) Technical assistance and financial support for planning and selection of systems of joint detention facilities. (c) State operation of an NPDES permit system which could be used for enforcement in cases of persistent polluters. Specific Local Actions A. Litter and debris, including dead trees and branches, shopping carts,
etc. should be periodic~ly removed from the West Branch of Shabakunk Creek. B. Accidental and illegal discharges of potentially toxic wastes into both Shabakunk Creek and Little Bear Brook (and all county streams) must be
·"' controlled. Industrial and commercial violators should be identified, and regulations against these activities more strictly en£orced. 2 Although there is a limited program for Federal assistance to non-point source control in agricul turaJ. areas.
-68- c. Since Colonial Lake is used for recreation and the existence of taxies and fecal colifor.ms in Shabakunk Creek has been demonstrated, presence
of contaminants in the reservoir should be moni tared during the recrea
tional season. Obviously, control of all pollution sources along the
West Branch is not feasible; however, a priority should be given to identification and control-of sources of hazardous wastes. Under pres
ent condi tiona, swimming should not be permitted in this lake. D. The more flagrant cases of stream obstruction on the West Branch Shabakunk and the artificial constriction of the channel of Little Bear Brook near its mouth should be required to be removed by the respective
site owners. E. The discharges of sewage into Little Bear Brook should be eliminated.
-69- Our sincere appreciation goes to the following people involved in the project. Regular members o£ the field crew included Rank Garie, Joe Ja.neczek and .James DiLouie. Laboratory per sonnel included the following: Vince DiGregorio, Gloria Huo and Cathy Stevenson. Thanks also to Ursula Lubreski and Marjorie. Krespach·for preparing the manuscript.
-70- Literature Cited
APHA-AWWA-WPCF. 1975. Standard Methods for :the Examination of Water and Waste water, 14th Ed., Washington, D.C., 1193 p.
Carberry, J. 1979. Water quality degradation due to non-point pollution input from urban sources. Technical completion report for OWRT Project B-012-Del., 89 p.
Clean Water Action Project. 1979. Draft report on surveillance of West Branch of Shabakunk Creek.
DiGiano, F., R. Coler, R. Dahiya and B. Berger.· 1976. Characterization of urban runoff in Greenfield, Massachusetts. Technical completion report for OWRT Project Number C-5341, 137 p.
Eyres, J.P. and M. Pugh-Thomas. 1978. Heavy metal :pollution of the River Irwell (Lancashire, UK) demonstrated by analyses of substrate materials and macroinvertebrate tissue. Environ. Pollut. 16:129-136. Godfrey, P. 1978. Diversity as a measure of benthic macroinvertebrate community response to water pollution. Hydrobiologia 57(2):111-122. Hughes, B.D. 1978. The influence of factors other than :pollution of the value of Shannons Diversity Index for benthic ma.croinvertebrates in streams. Water Research 12:359-364. Rynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Water. Toronto Univ. Press, Toronto, 555 P• I Klein, R. 1978. Urbanization and stream qua.li ty impairment. Water Res. Bull. 15(4):948-961. Lenat, D.R. et al. 1979. Biological evaluation of non-:point source :pollutants in NorthCarolina streams and rivers. :Biologfcal Series #102. North Caro lina Department of Natural Resources and Urban Development. Mason, W., J. Anderson, R. Kreis, and W. Johnson. 1970. Artificial substrate sampling, macroinvertebrates in a polluted reach of the Klamath River, Oregon. J. Wat. Pollut. Contr. Fed. 42:R315-R328. Merritt,R.W. and K.W. Cummins eds. 1978. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publ. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1965. Geology of the ground water resources of Mercer County. Geologic Report Series #7. Pennak, R.W. 1978. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons Publ. Pratt, J. and R. Coler. 1979. Ecological effects of urban stoxmwater runoff on benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting the Green River, Massachusetts. Technical completion report of OWRT Project A-094-Mass, 75 p.
-71- Rachel, E. and D. Rose. 1978. .A. biological survey of the Ewing-Lawrence sewage treatment plant environs, summer, 1977. A re:port submitted;to the Ewing Lawrence Sewerage Authority, 93 p.
United States De:partment of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Soil survey of Mercer County, New Jersey, 108 :p. United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Assun:pink Creek watershed, Mercer and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey: final environmental impact statement. United States Department of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical release No •. 55. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biological field and lab oratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters .and effluents. EPA-670/4-73-001, ed. by C.I. Weber, Cincinnati, Ohio. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. 256 p. United States Geological Survey. 1973. Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic biological and microbiological sam:ples. In Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A4 ed. by K. U. Slack ~ al, 165 p. United States Geological Survey. 1976. Water resources data for New Jersey. Water-data report NJ-76-1. 766 p. Usinger, R.L. ed. 1963. Aquatic Insects of California. University of California Press Publ. Whipple, W., Jr. and A. Mcintosh. 1978. The West Branch Shabakunk Creek - a surveillance re:port of physical conditions and biological health. Partial technical completion report for OWRT Project A-048-NJ, 28 p. Whipple, W., Jr., J •. DiLouie, Jr. and T. Pytlar, Jr. 1980. Erosional as:pects of managing urban streams. Technical com:pletion re:port for OWRT Project E-067-NJ, 76 p.
-72- Appendix A-1 1976 U.S.G.S. water quality data from Shabakunk Creek 496___.., DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 01463810 SHABAKUNK CREEK NEAR LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ LOCATION.--Lat 40°l.S'l9", long 74°44'17", Mercer County, Hydrologic Unit 02040105, at bridge on Princeton Pike. 2.2 mi (3.5 km) southwest of Bakersville, and 2.0 mi (3.3 km) southwest of Franklin Corner. DRAINAGE AREA.•-11.7 mi: (30.3 kml). PERIOD OF RECORD.·· CHEMICAL ANALYSES! 1976 Water year. COOPERATION.--Analyses of fecal coliform and fecal streptococci by the MPN method and selected water•phase nutrients were performed by the New Jersey Department of Health, Division of Laboratories and Epidemiology.
WATER QUAt.ITY DATA• WATER YEAR OCTOBER 197S·to SEPTE•8ER 1976
SPE !:!tt'l• CIF'IC coo CHf.)4• FECAL CON• COLOR IN lCAt. COt. I DUCT• fPLAT TUR DIS BuTT OM OX"t'G€N FOAM ANCE Ptt TEMPER• lNUN BID SOt.VE11 '4A.,. 0£'4ANO 1£C c;.ICRO ATU$i£ COBALT ITY OXYGEN TERlAL S DAY ~AOTHl DATE MiiOS) fUNtfS) fOE.G C) UNITSJ f.JTUl tMG/t..t (MG/KG) fMG/U lHPN)
OCT • 27••• 1210 248 2 7 NOV oq ••• 1000 269 l5o8 1 a ... 16000 MAR zs .... 1030 300 15 .7 330 APQ ts .... 1115 301 5 110 MAY 1o ••• 1230 13000 26 ••• 1030 282 7.3 s 7 920 Ju,.· 2l••• 1200 253 7.5 2 s 7.0 1300 JUl.. 14••• 0915 283 7.2- soo AUG 12 ••• 283 3 1100
DIS- DIS- FECAL STRtP• NON• ots• SOLVED SOLVED COI..I• TOCOCCI CAA• SOLVED MAG DIS• Po F'OIU4 FECAL fCOI.. HARD· BO'tATE CAL• NE SOlVED rac; ... RICA~• CCOl.. STREP• ONIES NESS ~••m CIUM SIUM SODIUM SIU~ 60NAT£ PtA TO COCCI PER CC.A•MGl NEss (CA) fMG) tNA) flO (HCOJJ DATE 100 ML) fMPN) 100 lolL) CHG.IL) (MG./l) fMG/L) fMG./L} IMG/(.) IMG/I.t IMG/U OCT 27 ••• 8400 100 38 10 12 l.S 77 NOV 09 ••• 8150 91 33 23 s.z 10 71 MAR 25••• 94 38 24 8.3 lS 6R APR 15 ••• 190 190 39 26 8.s 15 76 MA"t' 1o ••• 26 ••• uoo 93 34 25 7.5 14 7'1 .JUN 22 ••• 85700 85 26 23 14 72 JUL 14 .... 1300 1300 1000 100 29 13 3.3 AUG 12 .... 1300 350 970 100 29 13
DIS• TOTAL ots DIS SOLVED NON Al.~A• DtS ~oLve:o SOLVED SOLIDS F'ILT-- CAR .. L!NITY CA~SON SOLVED CMt.O• FLuo (RESI RA8LE TOTAl.. TOTAL , ao~AfE AS OlOXtOE SIJLF'ATE AlOE · Rtoe: DUE .n RESIDUE NITRAT£ NITRITE' CCOl) CAC03 CC02l tS04l fCL) CFl 180 CJ fNI fNl DATE CHG/'t,.) tMG/'1..) (MG/'t.) (M(';.of!,.) fMG/'L, fMG.ILJ H4G/LJ CHG/LJ tMG/LI tMG/'LI OCT 27 ••• 0 63 45 1l 194 NOV 09 ••• 0 58 3~ 12 149 2 .ol 114AR zs ••• 0 56 2.7 43 18 165 s .ol AP~ !5._ 0 62 4.8 43 18 168 s .oz lltAY to ••• 26 ••• 0 59 s.a 38 15 ·2 186 13 leO .06 JUN Zl••• 0 59 3.6 JO 19 159 7 .56 JUL 1'-··· 39 11 183 9 AUG 12 ••• lo$ 16 176 n
-73-. Appendix A-1 (continued)
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 497
H-l63810 SHABAKU~i< CREEK ~EAR l.Al'iRE!-ICEV!LLE. NJ--Continued
wATER QUALITY OATA• wAfED YEAR OCT08f.Q 1975 TO SEPTEMBE~ 1976
TOTAL TOTAL TOrAL TOTAL.r TOTAL NIT~ITE TOTAL A~ONIA TOTAL K..JEL. K..JEL. PHOS• TOTAL PLUS AJoi"'O!II[A -.ITRO ORGANIC OAHL NITRO TOTAL TOTAL PHOI'US OATMO NIT~ATE NITRO• GEN IN NITRO NI n~o- GEN lN NITRO• P"""OS• IN AOT• PHOS IN ear. GEN 80TTOM GEN GEN ~OTTOfif GEN PI-tORUS TOM 14A PiotORUS MAT. tNl MATo tNJ fN) MATe fNJ fPJ TERIAL fPl DATE IMG/KG) llo4G/LJ IMG/KGI fM€;/LI f"'GIL) IMG/I O~GA"fiC IN• METHY .. TOTAL CARBON ORGANIC LENE PCB ARSENIC TOTAL tlf ear CARBON BLUE IN TOTAl. IN ORGAI'fiC TOM '-'A• IN aor ACTIVE BOTTOfif ALUM TOTAL BOTTOM TOTAL CAiilBON TERIAL TOM ,.. ... CYANIDE li'HE'fOLS sue· ...... INUM AfiSENIC lOlA• BORON I C) fCl TERIAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAl. TOTAL TOTAL CADMIUM CM~O· ~e:u- COBALT COPPER IRON TOTAL IN 14lUM lN vALENT IN IN IN CAD• 90TTO"' 80TT014 CHRO TOTAL BOTTOM fi)TAL BOTT014 TOTAl. BOTTOM TOTAl. !41UM ...... •HUM COBALT ...... COPPE'R ,...,_ IRON WA• LEAO ICOJ TE~IAL TERtAL fCR6} I COl TERIAL . fCU) TERUL rf'EJ TERIAL fP8) DATE IUGIL) CUGIG) IUGIGJ fUGIL) CUGILI CUG/Gl IUG/L) CUG/G) fUG/Ll lUG/G) fUG/Ll OCT 27~ •• NOY·~- 09••• IOIAR zs ••• AP~ IS ••• MA'f Jo ••• 0 s 16 4100 26 ••• 0 0 0 121:10 12 ,JtJN zz ••• .JUL 1'-··· AUG !2 ••• -74- Appendix A-1 (continued) DELAWARE RIVER BASIN i 498 i ~--,_____...... 01463810 SHABAKUNK CREEK SEAR LA,WRESCEVI LLE, NJ--Continued WATER QUAliTY OAT At •ATER YEA~ OCTOBER 1975 TO SEPTEMBER 1976 TOTAL TOTAl TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LEAD MANGA• MERCURY NICKEl 7IIIIC IN TOTAL NESE IN IN IN TOTAL IN BOTTOM MAN• BOTTOM TOTAL BOTTOM TOTAL BOTTOM SELE• TOTAL TOTAL ROTTO"' GANES£ MA- "'ERCURY "4A- l'flCl CHLOR- DI• TOX• HEPTA- HE PTA• ALORIN LINDA"lE DANE 000 ODE OOT flORIN ENORIN APHENF' CHLOR . CHLOR IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN EPOllllOE BOTTOM SOTTOtol BOTTO"! BOTTOM I:IOTTOM ROTT0114 f!OTTOM BOTTOM ROTTOW ROTTO"' IN SOT• to~ A- MA• ~A- lo4A- MA- "'A• I# A• NA- ...... TO"' "'A• TERIAL TERIAL TERIAL TERIAL TERIAL TEr;~IAL TERIAL"'"- TE~IAL TE~IAL· TERI AL TERTAl DATE WG/KGI ILJG/KGl IUG/KGJ IIJG/KG) (UI';/KGI IUCVKGI WG/I -75;:_ r . P . · J :.: c r ,_.. ~. r , ..-.. G1 ·. t 1 ' t -· -- --- "~ ...... ---- -,; ··------..... _...... - .. ---- Project No. 575 10/5/79 1:15 PM _ ' . ···: ·:, •. - iYt:·;:;··r~!---LAt.iNO ·- P :\r~Hf·-·-P-iif;\~!{ff:"ii-i-zii-1c-·---·--····-·-:-·---··-----v,~~its~;-e~iEt4~:f$'"fky:~t~v-,fi;0~;7t'··reB-~i-AfTl<, ·.;sti-· . · . R<;t} v:q_:i'· · ······- · ·------·· ···· ·· · -· 3i; 52,~··-- f. 2= ~xr:··r~' ~~-N r t-h-~i,-cf.::-i·:;·~::··-- ·---·· ··-----·-"lif..Tt ______iiTr t\r-·------·--1.-coboo.. ~ .. --- ·- · u -, ·2·r;:···::yc·u· · ...... --- 34?.''7 ~~EN.!O A PVR[N,:- lJG/L TO'ft:.L 1.00000 U ?O.oc::; -·-- ·.... ----·· · ---·-·····--·-·34-iit1--·y~ ·4.:·i·![r~iibf.I.tii]P.~t\.i.ff~i-ET~i~------·-uc; ,c---ro-r ~i.-·---·-1. ooifdo u 2o. oc G ------tt:-. 1 '• 2 4 2 1 1 , 1 2-BEN l 0 F L U0 RANT ll :~ ~-n: U G/l T 0 l A l I • 0 0 0 0 0 U 2 Q • 0 () 0 li:j -- ·-·------·------...... ·- ·------··--· ··- ..... - ..... -.. ------~----·--·------·- ··.-··------·-··-· ------·-·-···--- .. -·~------···-~ 't:l 3~320 CHftVSENC UC./l fUTAL 1.00000 · U 20~000 ~ ------· -·----- _ 3't? OQ.... -~~_fJ{AP.t!_TH.)'L[~·-···--·~·-···------~UG./_h______}"jlT Al:______l! OO_Q_Qg __ !J ___ _zQ_!. 9CO_ ~ -- . ---- .. - .... 1.42?.0 A!~Tt!f~i\C.L~tE UG/L fCT f,l 1.00000 U .20. OGG ------·- :..: 34521 1.12-BENZOPERYlfN[ UC/L TOTAL 1.00000 U 20.00~ ~ - .... ------·-- -·- -- -~- ..... ---.. -- ··---· __ .. ·----·------~------·-- I 3't:381 FLOUJtENf UG/L TUTAL 1.00000 U 2C.OUJ 1\) _____ .. ~----.. ---- .. ______·--· _3 ~ ~ !s .. L__ ~·-~ ~~U\~IJI~_R_E ~;~. -·-- ______.... _____ .. ______jJ..~ 11:-______J U'f_J\l ____Q..! ..~.90Q_Q_Q______~ Q_! oo n (;"' 34556 1,2 5,6-0IBENZANTHl{AC.fNf UG/L TOrAL 1.00000 U 2;J •. O.i1(J·-·-·--·-·-- § - 34le0] INOfit0fl,2,J-:CtDl PY1~C:Nt UG/L TOlAL . 1 .. 00000 U ?.0.000 ~ ------·-·--···------3i;i.6'f .... ~ivRr~Ht . ·------·----·------··uGiL~--fo"T·i~T----u:-9ocfrioo-·------··?·o:·oa·;j·------a ·------______3~~J~ ____ ff._9.!:~---· ---·------·---·-----.:...______!LG_LL__ TOTAl 1. 00000 U 2_Q.!...00tl_ ~ OlQO;! A"Sfl'HC UG/L TOTAL 15.0000 I 61.1CO .._, 0 1 0 1 2 t ~ r;~ R Y l L I U ~~ UG I L T 0 TAl 1 • 0 0 0 0 0 K ., 2 0 .. :J d 0 -·-· ---- ... ·---·· ---·------.oio21-- t-Ao;-nUFi .. - ... --,------·:-···----·------·--utiL ___TiTf;\c-----. ~s-:-o·oo66~~--JT-2T:-4oc --- o li 0 ·1 4 C t I R 0 H I U H . U G/L T0 T A l 2 0 • 0 0 0 0 J l t1 • ~~ C.-:; .... --.. ----- ..... _____ .... 01 n J. .j --· (()pi} L•f··· ..... --- - ... __ ------·-----·--·------~j{~-~l---·- -·i(ff!\i---47--:0-Q.Qo------·- 13. '5;~·; ------. 010'")1 LF·'•D Ul;/l TCf,.\l i!O.OQOO .J ?9 .. L('• ·-· ...... ---·--·-· ··---.. -·-·· ·otti6·i-- ·:~ i'c-K(i ... - ... ------··------····-l.Ti~-iL______fiir·r.;·L·-----'J-ii:oo~-----K--·--1-3-:(f('~)- ~ 0 L 0 77 S Jl. V t: n U GI L. T U f A L 1 • 0 0 0 0 (I K ~ 0 • C (; 0 · ··-t ...... · ..... · ·--···· oto92 ltNc ...... ·- .. ·· !~··· .. ---.. __ ..._.. _____ .. _ ··--···ui;Jt:--··--foTft.i--·---1-io·~·ooo·------·--·:-ci:tj·j-~)--· ·------...... -.. - __._(jl.fJ9_7_ ____ s.'•NTlNOiJY UG/l TOTt\L 20.0UOO K 2(l.OGO · o 1147 s [t:·r:--r.i 1t.i~f ------· -·- ·-·- ···-.--;------·----·-ui;ii_·- -·-rr)t AL______L;:-ooooc;---·---l<--2a·:o(>:_:------· 0 1 C '.) ') f H A t I_ I U f·1 lJ :; /l T !J T AL /1 • 0 (J 0 0 0 K . 2 0 • 0 L· (1 ·---~---- · ···--- · -- ...... ·1 i9oo ···-r'L".,(c.·u•fv· ------~----,---·-.. -·-:------·---·rrt~'l c--·-rfir £c·---o.·zo6'oi)J----K~-2 3:- 9-c;~~.------ ](JJ>~· t~tD,~li·J i: UG/L TClAL I.OOOOQ. U ?O.OQO ~------·- . --- ·--~----·-··-·------3 cii :fa··-·- 6-L f. CL.ifi If~----·-·-· ..· .. ----···----- ... ---·--.. -·- ·uci tL------i'i.Ji "t.l.- --·----·-- T: ..oo_o_o() ------... tJ' ·-·-- 2 o-: 00 (· .... ---··-· --- " 3'J··~~):; lHLn,~:O~'\·\Jf !•. UG/l TUTJ.\1. 1.00000 · U 2G .. OC:f:· -··· -··· --··-··- ··----·-·-jqJoo '• •"t ··-(1t::r ·---~··· -··-----~ ----·t.~t~i·L-······--· T{~-T-.~~L---····-----t~:-ooo-r,~)--·· -··-u--·-···;!o·~ 0~: . ···---- ______.. ___ ._: ______.... _.. 1~~}_29____ ~! ~- ~-~QI~_s_ __ ·------·------UG/ L lli f (:, L L. 00000 U ~0. o 0 c 3 q 3 1 0 -4 • " • - 0 () l) ·u-GIL---- T 01 A L J l • c0 c c 0 u ~~ 0 • Gc ~·, . -- . .J't36l J~ I.Pht1 F:' NDUSULf,'\N . UG/l TCJT Al 1. 00000 U ? 0 .. 0 e C ---··-·--.. ·------3-1;'35·6·----tiE·r·A·----F~r~oosifl.t ..!\N --- .. ·--·-·~------··- .. ----··uciL--Tor!.. L 1. OOOOJ u 2C. 00 1~, - ~- ---- .. ~ .. -- ____ ... --.. ------~ ~ 3 5.1_. __ t; NDOSUL F t\ r-~ SUlfATE UG I L TOT;\ L 1. oooor: lJ :? 0. tJC! :) 3 . 3933H t~(TI\-BHC . UG/l. TOTAL t.OOOOO U 20.0l_1 :· . ---·-- --.. -· ... :-··-· -·-- ··--~-. 1·,J 1Ab ----·0·A~fA--t1~·~c·--~ ------·- - ...... ____ ------·u-iJ/L·--:---·--r(TiXL···-·-··-1·~· a·oorJ·a-·-- .. --u--·-2o ·; o;:;-~ .. ______ . · 3 4 2 ~j 9 0 ( l T A- f) tiC U GI l T f) T .\ L 1 • 0 0 a 0 0 U 2 0 • 0 ,_ {J -~· --·- --·-- --· ... --. --·-· ~ -._ .. _ -··- ---·-- -- -~·- -. -·-. ·-- -·-~-- ·-' ----· ------·------·- -.. ------·-·---·------··------...... -~---nt ~· Th ... _[JHfi~b ----p'J\';t"i~o- --p I'J~A)·;:"[f(fC''rTAf·fE ------·--- . -~------·· ur:)ffs--c HEr.fls·r.~-v·-~v.ti [(jtf""& '{([j·1AI·~K------·--t·o-·cj(;.--· .... ·, .. c·------\ R S[J \1 f, L 1 C· .... -...... -----.. ... -- .. ------~3- ,...... - -·· . .. i ..... Of:PTH Lt\BNn .i)A~f::·u-- ·v~~fl.l\Pi;h:=~~~ ~fi'.. 1:~·L ··- .. -. ------... _ --·--·-ui~((s·---CI·tFit·i-·STR-V -·\ii'~(!Jt' -~--~~[;:,.ir~-K-·----SO-tL< -·- t_i( ---· --- . PSD '-//\1. t I. 34 20«f-··-;i-CEi~-.~ PH lHY l£ N( .. -·-··- -·--·--·----· ~------(ji;/(.-····· -,_-o-'fiL·---·----'i -~ {)()"ij(i(]·--_------U-·------20 :o!~;U ___ . ------·- .3 4 2 ~l C AI J UL~ ~\ C f. 11 f Ur; I L T 0 T ill 1 • C0 0 0 0 U ;" 0. 0 C1 U . ·- ..... --. -...... _-·· ... ~~- ... 3"~•' 5 i i- -· I ;t 2-·r~E Nl o'rit ·{ y[E ~-jf -- ·- ______.. _____ Lu;;-c·· --·ri5'i'Ti..' -----·-r:-o-oo·5.. if------u-- --·;-c:-:-o.:;:-~--- .. ---·-- I __ -·------· ____ ~--- ·-· _3 __ 4 3_81____ F ~ c_~_i{_f_Nf~...... __ .. ---~------.. -·-·····- ___ -~-- ~5il~------___ _r_p r _~'·1:. __ . - .. -- _1 ~ _QOO.C:!J______-----~----- _2 p_~o_u u .. _ -~-· __ .. -~' 3 4 4 61 ., 1-l EN r\ .'l Tt 1R ENE · U GI L T 0 T J\ L · L • 0 0 0 0 0 U 2 0. 0 0 0 a ______...... }.~ 556 _____ 1_~_?,~>.. 5 -~ 6-pi K.f NZ~)f!tl~.. ~~~-J~E ______t}_G!_L _____! qJ ~-i:: ______l__'! __ Q_Q _f!9_0______~---- ____? Q_• .QQQ_ ------~-- t · 3 Lt ~. 0 3 I N f..! r: i J 0 t 1 , 2 , J - C , 0 ) i') Y i~ EN t U GI L Tl) T A l 1 • 0 0 0 () ;J U 2 0 • 0 0 G · :. 344 69 P YRE;,iL UG/L fQT /,l 0. 40000~ 20 .. OOC ------.. ·-----34·6·i~---fcf.iu-· _.. ______UGJL TCJT AL t. ooooo U :?0. oo·o ~ -----·------~-- -- ·-- .... -.. :------~}~-~~--- ·--t~~~~~:l tuM------·------H~~[------t~f.~~t----}:~-ih~~~--~---~~~b-~-2----· ~-~~ 01027 C~DMtU~ UG/L TOTAL 3.00000 J 21.400 ~ ----- ·------· .. : 01'034-- . C-HRii~if(j'(f------:------UGlL fOfAL 36:oo 39 1 t) n 4 , lt • - oo T uc 1 L To r .\ L 1 • o oo o o · u 2 o • o ~: (! . -r------... ----· "-·-- ---· · · '3 ~Jj.2i1----~~ ~-,,-.-..:·t)f.;t=-··------·-----~-· -·- -···-·- ~-----·u-ci-c-·---· -·ru-r AC- ---r:oooc·u------u--;.~ o .. c~~-l~ ------3q11o ~,4 1 -00h UG/L TOTAL l.OCOOO U ?O.OOC .... ______.. ___ ------~-- ... ~ -3 4'36t .. -Ai.?i·,~· L·,~on~--uiTJ\}f -· -- ·------~·------u0/t: _____ .. YfifA_L ______-1-~-o-oO"oo-·----~-u·----2-o:(fC.~;------34156. OETA FNDOSULfA~ UG/L TOTAL 1.00000 U 2G.OGC -·-- ______.. ______------·--·- ··:f4·1·">· c-·-L:-~iti[J stiLFA!:i . sLcr:·:A'f't ··------tTGii.______rut t\t-:------·-r:-ff6oo6----u-- --:~o:·oo ~T------JqJ90 t~·ICf\l~i lJG/L TDf.\L .t.OGOOO U ?O.O!)(J ------~---·-· ·· ·--3J. 366·--({Hiifr'ft( "'ACf.i.Eliv15'E______·-uc~IL ·tu r t. L ·~ L. ooorR;----· u 2o. o~.~c.; . 3 9 4 l 0 II ~~ P T.i\ C l fJ R . Ul; I L T0 l AL 1 • 0 0 0 0 0 U 2 0 .. 0 (; 0 ---·------·-·-·3-iJ420-t-if::"r•ti\-C~tTtiR ctioxloE _____ .. ______ti.G/t:- rqr t.L t.-ooooo u · ;o;·ooci ______39337 ALPJJA-Bf!C lJG/l . TOTAL 1.00000 U 20 .. 000 . ------.----~··· --- ...... _ ... .:l·;J 3·j R-- i·~·(r ~-...: iJ·H~ -·------·------·- ··~·- ·------·-o(;/I--·---1\Yl ~\ L~--- --r~-00000 ---u-- 2 o·: oo n- -:·------3 9 3 4 U G.-'\ fJ; A- B I J C U GIL PJ r /•l 1 • 0 0 0 0 0 U · 2 0 • 0 C 0 ·----.. -~------·· ------3-,t f)ij -·-ur;l_ Ti\:..-uHc ·-·----:------·----· ----~-- --~----t.Tclc--.. ·--t;si-::H:-··- --··--i-: ooifa·6-·------o-----fo:ocr(;------. 3CJ1t'J6 PCP-L2't2 UG/L fl)J,.%,L . t.OOGOO U 20.0('~1 -··~------.. ------~---3 -.:fsc4 ---{·ct.!::: f2"54 ___ --... ·-·- .. r------. -:------uG/'i.-· ----fd1 Kc------y~·oooti(Y ______Tr·---~2o:-o0 ~.-··------3 9 4 0 H PCB- 12 2 1 · . U GIL TnT l\ L l • 0 0 G0 0 U 2 0 • 0 tHJ ------·--·------· · · -- ·--· 391, ·~'2-· :--·7·tn:--f232 ·-----·------· ------ta;/L. ------y-urAL ______i -~-(foooo------u--? a-:·or~~-;----·· --~- ] 9 5 0 0 PCP.- l 2 4 t; . U GI L T 0 r J-\ L 1 • 0 0 0 0 0 U 2 0 ., ·J .J: · -- ... ·--·- ··--·------~------···.-· ...... -·---~··-- ...... __ .. _ ...... ~- ... ··- - .. ------~-- ... --·--·-----~~-·--- . ------. P P 0 J :: C T N ~~ r1 £ L A \-~ H E. ·t C 1:: ~ t i 0 P • C. f R • P R fJ J [: C T f1 '" T L ;~ 0 I C l I \ i -···~· ~- .__ ...... _...... _ ... _...... ~-·-· ··---- .. _ ·--···· ···-·-- .... ·~··· - ... ------·--·---·-· _.... _. ______.. -...... -~--·- ... ··-----....__.. _""!'·--.----··------.. -·..--- ... -... -·.-T"·-- ·------·--- ··-. -·-DE"r•-rii·-- i/\.li-~~a .. ·- r ~\r{i~l.J".- Pirfli.i·iE·-r-~:R· ·-1\iJ\i~-E--···-··-·----:--·------·-···uNi-fs·--c-HEM Csi"il_Y __ ··vii: .. ti£---[-R-E 1--i.A"Ft~t- ·- -so- (J"p~- ··- .. e: (-·- ----~ · · · R s o v ;,_ •-. r ! i ~ -··--·-· --·····-···-· ------·-··-- -·· -··· - ··--·--·······-·· ... -·-- ·--·--···~·· -·-··- ----·------~·-··--·--·----·-· -----.. -----·---·- ·- ·------·-..,-.... ---· ·-· .. ·---·--·-- ·----.. ···· ... --·------·---·------·-·--·· --··· -··-·--·------·--- ·------~---·------ -·-· --··· ------~-·. ------··· .. -··---~ -- ·------···---···. -·-·---- - .. ------·-·- --·-··--·------·--·------·--·------· ------·---- ;·· "!"''f."':· . ~:-: :· ...... ··~· - ... •. .• . ·.· . Appendix A-3 - Article on illegal discharge of waste into Shabakur~ Creek Creek tainted; factory _blaDied BJ MATTHEW PURDY- StefiWrtter An enviromnental watchdog group has filed a complaint against a Trenton ceramic tile company, Integro Inc., for what the group says is a chronic disc~ of concrete grindings into a branch of the Shabakunk ~L , "nne latest discharge of the milky water and sand solution came yester· day, says Alfred Pfeiffer of the Clean Water Action Proje-ct, through a stonn water pipe which empties into the creek under Spruce Street M· tween Fourth Street and Arctic A\tenue. Pfeiffer said memberS of the environmental group were conducting a .. stream walk" yesterday morning to teach participants bow to spot envi· ronmental hazards in a stream when they came upon about 300 yards of tbe stream which had been turned white by the discharge from Integro at 1040 Spruce St. Pfeiffer said the discharge would raise the temperature of the stream. threaten fish in the creek and adjoining water and temporarily ruin the section of stream esthetically. The discharge, according to a field test conducted by Pfieffer, was bigb1y alkaline with a ph factor of at least 8.5. Seven is neutral. BE SAID THE MEMBERS of the group first noticed the discharge from the plant last December, and suhsequently on eight or ten spot checks this year. Since the first complaint last year, Integro, which makes terrazzo tiles, a combination of marble and concrete, has applied for a federal dis· ~ pennit under the direction of the state Department of Environ mental Protection, state and company officials said yesterday. However, Eugene Strupp, Integra's second vice-president, said yesterday that the firm was waiting for its plumber to book up the plant's discharge lines into the Ewing-Lawr~nce Sewerage Authority sy$ tem. He said the authority has agreed to accept the company's waste water. He said the discharge was "nothing to worry about" and that Lhe prob.. lem "goes back about a year." . Strupp said the waste water contains nothing harmful and contended that "you could probably drink it and it wouldn't hurt you." He attributed the discharge to recent heavy rains which he claimed· was washing out the storm water pipes and discharging the grindings · into the creeL AL VALENCIA. SUPERVISING environmental technician· with the ne. partment of Environmental Prote<:tion's water resources division, said he had been working with lntegro and confirmed that the firm was supposed to· tie in with the· Ewing-Lawrence sewerage system. He said that after yesterday's incident he would send the firm a letter threatening them with a fine il the hook-up was not completed within 30 days. Valencia said the discharge was mainly "sand and grit" and that tbe problem, while "not earth·shattering, it's something that should not happen." ' _.... - He said the problem was brought to his attention by the Clean Water Action Project, which is a federally-!unded project and part of the New Jersey Public Interest R~search Group~"-., , Trenton Times 11/29/79 -82- ~e~~er regarding sewage contamination of Little Bear Brook. West Post Office Box 38 Wittdsor Princeton ] unction, New Jersey 08550 ToWnslt,ip (609) 799-2400 Harch 25, 1980 Mr. Al Mcintosh Water Research Institution, Cook College New Bruns~lick, New Jersey 08903 Dear Al: On February 27, 1980, I located four pipes under the bridge crossing Little Bear Brook at Washington Road. T\vo of the pipes had a clear liquid flowing freely into the brook. I took samples and my results showed fecal contamination. On the east side of the bridge, t~ere was a count of 90 coliforms and the west side had a count of 240 fecal colonies/100 ml. To further my investigation I took s~ples from storm basins located on Washington Road, from Route #1 to Little Bear Brook. The samples were taken at Wilder Ave., Pierson Ave., and Walling ford Drive. The results are as follows: Wilder Ave., 450'colonies; Pierson Ave., 910 colonies; Wallingford Dri~, 87 co~onies. I also took a sample at a ·catch basin on Fieldston Drive and the results show a count of 800-900 fecal colonies/100 ml! I would like to add that this basin runs directly into Little Bear Brook . . ! At this point I called the Mercer County Engineer asking for the map that shows all the basins on Washington Road hoping that it would show possible connections from septic systems or sump p~~s to these basins. Their reply was, "we have no such maps." Further investigation turned up a pipe located behind the Prince ton Tennis Center. The test results also showed fecal contamination, however this pipe was sealed with cement a day later. As for Princeton Polychrome Press, they are emitting alcohols and solvents into a holding lagoon behind their building. Besides pollution the ground with these chemicals, there is a small stream that runs from behind this lagoon to Little Bear Brook. Presently this company is installing holding tanks to alleviate this condition. -83- Appendix B-1 (continued) Al, I hope this information will help with your report. If you have any questions feel free to call me. Sincerely, Gal los Environmental Health Specialist Enclosed: :C1.ap of West Windsor Twp. · Lab results of Indoor Tennis Center, Wilder Ave., Pierson Ave., _Hallingford Dr., Fieldston Road, East and Nest side bridge results. -84- Appendix B-2 - Letter regarding discharge of hazardous waste to tributary of Little Bear Brook tL I' I Ht. Clutrlau I.. HIJ.c\(~~' $ftnloT l:pvlrtHil.\'tDI rt'l :'p :.ltWf'T .-*' M:J. T!,3}1 ie wish~xlt·~~ Enviroru:tentnl Spe~ ial is t ·:rd i.~ea Inspectiou of Spi.rit J'lui.dtt, lnc., l'r5nt~~t"n In·!u:3trial l'TOJ>Ii!t'ti4a Induatri.al !,.ark, \..'oft \Jin1itun· 'l\1:Wlt~htp I On JanU&'t"y 12, 1!rl9 l·~r. Fra.nlr. Piccola, Health Officer fro;u 1;7~at windsor. '!ownahi}l t'-llcphoned thiJJ or !ice tn ruport t.l On January 17, 1979 the ·.. rriter 11CC0."11p.:lr~ied hy ~:.ei~tlt'S. Piccol.'l and J. CM!llos, ~Jest ;andsor H~alth il~part:!:ent, vir:i.Itt(•d Spirit Vluiris, Inc. vhicll in loct1tf'd in Princeton IndU!.ttri.~l rrnptl!t'f. i""''i I PlP I fncilJt:{!Jfi. The vtiter r:~t w-ith Hr. Antold Coldi:-.an, t1h~rJ.t-t:, uf Spirlt Flulti:t. !'-\1·. Coldr...J4n atMted th-at on .)~Hmary 11, 1?. 9 L1 tl!r .tl't;arnoon a l~a~~ d~v~lnp-cd inn hyur:.c.ulic line of a blo"r~old t:.-'lchi.n~. Hydraulic fluid 1 le~kecl throu:~h th~ floor to tl'h".>r drainn i:'! th0 hnse:.~(:nt. The ingp~ction to~~ was unabl~ to d~t~rr.1in~ whether the floor .:ra in!3 in the ~.aser~r~t di.sdl-":.r-.. ~c to t.:La .afor(.~if'..c:!!.ttioncd au.:..Jty"J pit or ciiret:tly to 'Littl11 l~enr Br~ok. ApproxirP..ately 45-u5 :;allo;u:~ of hydr~ttlic fluid ~.; The vriter rP.cor,·;;:~nds t:u;t Princeton IndHstrial F·ropt?rti~s be S(?nt a lnt:tcr con.£irilli.ng tb~ ab~')vse dir;~ctives and E?A b~ ~or.tacti!!d to rcque~t th~t :1 non filer -pnck~t bf; sent to l>rinceton l!.ldust"':"i~il Prot:0.-:tie~. Mit :G21 cc ~ 1:•-r. Rich.,.rd .:.\. .. 1;..1.kcr, Nr. Eugene 1\:oct~.~~r -85- ~IT. i::Jw-srd l?os l