DOCSLIB.ORG

Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report December 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report December 2004 Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report Hurricane Floyd Flooding, September 17, 1999 Griggstown Causeway Looking Toward the Millstone River with Muletenders’ Barracks on right USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Assisting Hunterdon County Mercer County Middlesex County Monmouth County Somerset County and Respective Soil Conservation Districts December 2004 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 220 Davidson Ave. 4th Floor, Somerset NJ 08873 (732) 537-6040 http://www.nj.nrcs.usda.gov/ Mission Statement The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people to conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. 2 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Photos.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 WATERSHED SETTING................................................................................................................................................................. 9 HISTORY OF FLOODING............................................................................................................................................................. 25 PREVIOUS STUDIES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 HISTORY OF THIS STUDY.......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Public Participation.................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Methodology of Study ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 PHASE 1 – WATERSHED – WIDE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 33 Municipal Interviews................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Claims .................................................................. 53 Flood Damage Priority Study Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 58 Agricultural Issues .................................................................................................................................................................... 58 PHASE 2 – MILLSTONE MAINSTEM ANALYSIS................................................................................................................. 63 Study Area.................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Methodology for Flood Damage Evaluation......................................................................................................................... 63 Hydrology and Hydraulics .................................................................................................................................................. 63 Structure Elevation Survey.................................................................................................................................................. 64 Economic ................................................................................................................................................................................ 65 Minimum Standards to be Met for Flood Protection....................................................................................................... 69 PHASE 3 – MILLSTONE BOROUGH ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................... 81 Structural Measure .................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Floodwall ................................................................................................................................................................................ 81 Nonstructural Measures ........................................................................................................................................................... 85 Elevation................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Flood Proofing....................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Relocation............................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Buyout .................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Enhancement and Expansion of Existing Flood Warning System................................................................................. 86 No Action Alternative.......................................................................................................................................................... 89 HARRYS BROOK........................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................................... 92 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................ 92 Recommendations...................................................................................................................................................................... 93 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................................. 97 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................................................ 101 APPENDIX A - Millstone River Watershed (PL 566) Public Participation Plan............................................................. 103 APPENDIX B - Summary of Millstone River Watershed Public Meeting December 6, 2000....................................... 107 APPENDIX C - Notes from March 22, 200l Public Meeting in Montgomery Township............................................... 113 APPENDIX D - September 18, 2001 Public Meeting in Franklin Township .................................................................... 119 APPENDIX E – Figure 8 - Municipal Interview-Reported Flood Damages .................................................................... 125 APPENDIX F – Summary of Hydraulics Analysis .............................................................................................................. 129 APPENDIX G - Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes September 26, 2001 ............................................................... 131 3 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report December 2004 List of Tables Table 1 - Present Land Use........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 2 – Past, Present and Projected Population*
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Township of Plainsboro Hazard Mitigation Plan
    Appendix 18: Township of Plainsboro Preliminary Draft - November 2015 Appendix 18: Township of Plainsboro The Township of Plainsboro participated in the 2015 Middlesex County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update. This appendix includes the locally-specific information about the Township. The following sections detail the planning process and participants; the current population, building stock, and land development trends; hazards that are specific to the Township and corresponding risk assessments; the Township’s mitigation strategy, and a local capability assessment. 1. Plan Development On March 11, 2015, the Mayor signed an “Intent to Participate” letter and the Township Committee passed a resolution. The Mayor assigned the OEM Coordinator to work with other municipal employees, consultants, volunteers, and other stakeholders through the formation of a Local Planning Committee, as listed below. The local planning committee filled out the municipal worksheets included in Appendix E and worked to gather the necessary information to support the plan update. Members of the LPC attended the Coordinator’s Meetings in April and June, the project kick-off meeting in April, and met with the planning consultant on June 25th. The LPC reviewed all drafts of this appendix prior to adoption. Table 18-1: Township of Plainsboro Local Planning Committee Members Name Title Organization Kevin Schroeck Patrol/OEM Plainsboro PD Eamon Blanchard Sergeant Plainsboro PD Brian Wagner Fire Chief Plainsboro VFD Brian Gould EMS Chief Plainsboro EMS Neil Blitz Director Plainsboro DPW Brian Miller Director Plainsboro Building Les Varga Director Plainsboro Planning/Zoning Anthony Cancro Township Administrator Plainsboro Township Middlesex County, New Jersey: 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 18-1 Appendix 18: Township of Plainsboro Preliminary Draft - November 2015 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Raritan TMDL – Solving In-Stream Nutrient Impairments,” Presented at the NJWEA, Central Section by TRC Omni
    Amendment to the Lower Raritan/Middlesex, Mercer County, Monmouth County, Northeast, Upper Delaware and Upper Raritan Water Quality Management Plans Total Maximum Daily Load Report For the Non-Tidal Raritan River Basin Addressing Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen, pH and Total Suspended Solids Impairments Watershed Management Areas 8, 9 and 10 Proposed: June 16, 2014 Established: June 2, 2015 Re-submittal: January 19, 2016 Approved: May 9, 2016 Adopted: May 24, 2016 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Monitoring and Standards Bureau of Environmental Analysis, Restoration and Standards PO Box 420, Mail Code: 401-04I Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary……………………………………………………..……………. 4 2.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…... 8 3.0 Pollutant of Concern and Area of Interest…………………………………….…… 9 4.0 Source Assessment………………………………………………………………..….. 24 5.0 Analytical Approach and TMDL Calculation …………………………………..… 28 6.0 Follow-up Monitoring…………………………………………………………..…… 45 7.0 Implementation Plan……………………………………………………………..….. 45 8.0 Reasonable Assurance…………………………………………………………….…. 58 9.0 Public Participation………………………………………………………………….. 58 Appendix A: Cited References………………………………………………………..... 79 Appendix B: Municipalities Located in the Raritan River Basin, NJPDES Permit Number and their MS4 Designation ……………………….…. 81 Appendix C: Additional Impairments within TMDL Area …………………………. 84 Appendix D: TMDLs completed in the Raritan River Basin ……………………...…. 89 Appendix E: New Jersey Water Supply Authority - Nonpoint Source Implementation Activities ……………………...….……………………...….………………. 91 Tables Table 1. Assessment units addressed by the TMDL report……………………………… 6 Table 2. HUC 14 watersheds assessed by this TMDL study………………………..…… 17 Table 3. 2007 Land Use in the Raritan River Basin Covered by this TMDL………..….. 23 Table 4. Permitted Point Sources within the Non-Tidal Raritan River TMDL Study Area ……………………………………………………………….….
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Watershed Inventories Reserve Increasing Population and Steady Con- Version of Forests, Fields, and Wetlands to 6
    VOL. 56, NO. 4 Winter 2009–10 A publication of the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, central New Jersey’s first environmental group. HOLIDAY Your water. Your environment. Your voice. OPEN HOUSE see back cover Inside 3... Testing for Bacteria 4... Ted Stiles Intern State of the Watershed Inventories Reserve Increasing population and steady con- version of forests, fields, and wetlands to 6... asphalt and concrete have had a direct, Celebrating 60 negative effect on the health and quality at FEST of our water and environment. This is the conclusion of the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association’s first ever “State of the Watershed” report, scheduled to be released at the end of 2009. A comprehensive look at where central New Jersey stands in terms of land use, water quality and environmental policy, our report aims to give local government leaders, businesses and concerned residents a clear snap-shot of the conditions we face today and the challenges ahead. “For the first time in our 60-year history, the Watershed Association has taken on the challenge of examining and synthesizing the available information on the condition of our watershed as a whole,” said Jim Waltman, Watershed Association Executive Director. “We are confident that this report will help shed new light on the problems facing our watershed and help identify solutions for the future.” Using data collected from our own programs and initiatives, as well as state sources, the “State of the Watershed” report illustrates the Is our watershed healthy? Our “State of the Watershed” report shows which areas are - and aren’t.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluated from Two Perspectives: the Appearance of the Project from the Surrounding Areas, and the Appearance of the Surrounding Areas from the Project (FHWA, 1988)
    Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Chapter 4 4.12 Aesthetics The Federal Highway Administration guidelines specify that impacts to visual resources be evaluated from two perspectives: the appearance of the project from the surrounding areas, and the appearance of the surrounding areas from the project (FHWA, 1988). Viewers from the surrounding areas include residents of the Penns Neck and Lower Harrison Street neighborhoods, customers and employees of the businesses in the area. Other viewers might be users of the Princeton recreation fields and pedestrians along Washington Road or users of the D&R Canal Park. Viewers of the surrounding area from the project include drivers along Route 1, Washington Road, Harrison Street and new roadways contemplated under the Action Alternatives. These drivers would be comprised of local users, including residents of area neighborhoods and customers of area businesses and regional users, including commuters along Route that work in or outside of the study area. Potential visual impacts could include encroachment of new roadways on existing viewsheds, visual compatibility of a new roadway design with the surroundings, and views created by construction of a new roadway, both from the roadway and of the roadway. 4.12.1 No-Action Alternative, Aesthetics The No-Action Alternative would preserve existing roadways and travel patterns, and would involve no new construction. The only potential visual impact would be increased traffic on existing roadways. The No-Action Alternative is expected to increase peak period congestion and queues on Washington Road, Harrison Street, and Alexander Road which would have an added visual impact on the D&R Canal Park and elm allee compared to existing conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Resource Inventory Cranbury Township Middlesex County, New Jersey
    Environmental Resource Inventory Cranbury Township Middlesex County, New Jersey March 2016 This document was updated with a Sustainable Jersey Small Grant funded by the PSEG Foundation*. *The initial Cranbury Township Environmental Resource Inventory was prepared by Amy S. Greene Environmental Consultants in June 2006. In 2015 / 2016, using the Sustainable Jersey Small Grant the maps and data were updated by Johnny Quispe. Members of the Environmental Commission revised the original text to reflect the updated maps and revised data. 1 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 6 1.1.1 Figure 1 Cranbury Location Map – Middlesex County / New Jersey 7 1.1.2 Figure 2 Cranbury Parcels, Roads, and Rivers 8 1.1.3 Figure 3 – Cranbury Orthoimagery 9 2. History 10 2.1. History 10 2.2. Historic Preservation 12 3. Climatology / Climate Change 3.1. Climatology 13 3.2. Climate Change 16 4. Geology 4.1. Physiography 16 4.2. Stratigraphy and Surficial Formations 17 4.2.1. Figure 4 - Geologic Formations 18 4.3. Aquifers and Recharge Area 19 4.3.1 Figure 5 - Groundwater Recharge Areas 20 4.3.2 Figure 6 – Cranbury Groundwater Recharge Zones 21 4.4. Water Table – Maximum and Annual 22 4.4.1. Figure 7 – Water Table Depth – April – June Minimum 22 4.4.2. Figure 8 – Water Table Depth – Annual Minimum 23 4.5. Potable Water Supply 24 4.6. Contamination 24 4.7. Wellhead Protection 26 4.8. Known Contaminated Sites 27 4.8.1. Table 1 – Cranbury Township Known Contaminated Sites 27 4.8.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 21: Township of South Brunswick Preliminary Draft - November 2015
    Appendix 21: Township of South Brunswick Preliminary Draft - November 2015 Appendix 21: Township of South Brunswick The Township of South Brunswick participated in the 2015 Middlesex County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update. This appendix includes the locally-specific information about the Township. The following sections detail the planning process and participants; the current population, building stock, and land development trends; hazards that specific to the Township and corresponding risk assessments; the Township’s mitigation strategy, and a local capability assessment. 1. Plan Development On August 28th, 2014, the Mayor signed an “Intent to Participate” letter and assigned the OEM Coordinator as the Point of Contact for the HMP update. The Chief worked with other municipal employees, consultants, volunteers, and other stakeholders through the formation of a Local Planning Committee, as listed below. The local planning committee filled out the municipal worksheets included in Appendix E and worked to gather the necessary information to support the plan update. In addition to these worksheets, the Township’s codified ordinances were reviewed and used to supplement this appendix. Table 21-1: Township of South Brunswick Local Planning Committee Members Name Title Organization Chief Hayducka OEM Coordinator South Brunswick PD Deputy Chief Stoddard Deputy Coordinator South Brunswick PD Bernie Hvozdovic Dep Co and Twp MGR South Brunswick Township Ray Olsen Public Works Director South Brunswick DPW Jim Dowgin Construction Official South Brunswick Township Brian Bidlack Building Codes South Brunswick Township Mike Rakes DPW Supervisor South Brunswick DPW Joe Monzo CFO South Brunswick Township Middlesex County, New Jersey: 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 21-1 Appendix 21: Township of South Brunswick Preliminary Draft - November 2015 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix EE.05 – Hydrologic/Water Resources
    Appendix EE.05 – Hydrologic/Water Resources Tier 1 Final EIS Volume 1 Appendix EE.05 – Hydrologic/Water Resources Data Matrices Tier 1 Final EIS Volume 1 NEC FUTURE Appendix EE.05 - Hydrologic/Water Resources: Data Freshwater Wetlands Existing Preferred Alternative Existing Preferred Alternative Existing Preferred Alternative Geography Affected Environment (Acres) Environmental Consequences (Acres) Context Area (Acres) Existing NEC including Existing NEC including Existing NEC including State County Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Hartford/SpringfieldLine Hartford/SpringfieldLine Hartford/SpringfieldLine DC District of Columbia 60 60 1 1 1,387 1,387 MD Prince George's County 153 153 3 3 1,785 1,785 MD Anne Arundel County 440 440 14 14 3,456 3,456 MD Howard County 1 1 0 0 136 136 MD Baltimore County 82 266 4 27 865 1,144 MD Baltimore City 3 11 0 1 243 243 MD Harford County 194 335 7 44 3,030 3,149 MD Cecil County 282 358 8 30 3,157 3,376 DE New Castle County 349 481 7 50 3,544 3,592 PA Delaware County 15 113 0 7 2,759 4,065 PA Philadelphia County 185 310 1 7 3,426 4,335 PA Bucks County 492 492 5 5 7,380 7,380 NJ Burlington County 0 0 0 0 3,752 3,752 NJ Mercer County 735 735 20 20 7,083 7,083 NJ Middlesex County 1,006 1,027 17 24 11,126 11,194 NJ Somerset County 0 0 0 0 468 470 NJ Union County 24 25 1 2 681 684 NJ Essex County 16 17 0 0 180 180 NJ Hudson County 22 35 1 1 203 204 NJ Bergen County 0 0 0 0 3 3 NY New York County 0 0 0 0 133 133 NY Kings County 0 0 0 0 0 0 NY Queens County 0 0 0 0 3 3 NY Bronx
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study Middlesex County, NJ
    VOLUME 1 OF 3 MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Middlesex County This Preliminary FIS report only includes revised Floodway Data Tables and revised Flood Profiles. The unrevised components will appear in the final FIS report. COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER CARTERET, BOROUGH OF 340257 NORTH BRUNSWICK, TOWNSHIP OF 340271 CRANBURY, TOWNSHIP OF 340258 OLD BRIDGE, TOWNSHIP OF 340265 DUNELLEN, BOROUGH OF 340259 PERTH AMBOY, CITY OF 340272 EAST BRUNSWICK, TOWNSHIP OF 340260 PISCATAWAY, TOWNSHIP OF 340274 EDISON, TOWNSHIP OF 340261 PLAINSBORO, TOWNSHIP OF 340275 HELMETTA, BOROUGH OF 340262 SAYREVILLE, BOROUGH OF 340276 HIGHLAND PARK, BOROUGH OF 340263 SOUTH AMBOY, CITY OF 340277 JAMESBURG, BOROUGH OF 340264 SOUTH BRUNSWICK, TOWNSHIP OF 340278 METUCHEN, BOROUGH OF 340266 SOUTH PLAINFIELD, BOROUGH OF 340279 MIDDLESEX, BOROUGH OF 345305 SOUTH RIVER, BOROUGH OF 340280 MILLTOWN, BOROUGH OF 340268 SPOTSWOOD, BOROUGH OF 340282 MONROE, TOWNSHIP OF 340269 WOODBRIDGE, TOWNSHIP OF 345331 NEW BRUNSWICK, CITY OF 340270 EFFECTIVE: PRELIMINARY JANUARY 31, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 34023CV001B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Report
    Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report Hurricane Floyd Flooding, September 17, 1999 Griggstown Causeway Looking Toward the Millstone River with Muletenders’ Barracks on right USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Assisting Hunterdon County Mercer County Middlesex County Monmouth County Somerset County and Respective Soil Conservation Districts December 2004 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 220 Davidson Ave. 4th Floor, Somerset NJ 08873 (732) 537-6040 http://www.nj.nrcs.usda.gov/ Mission Statement The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people to conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. 2 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Millstone River Watershed Flood Damage and Mitigation Analysis Report December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Photos...................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Bridge Report
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1035 PARKWAY AVENUE P.O. BOX 601 TRENTON, N.J. 08625-0601 JON S. CORZINE 609-530-3535 GOVERNOR KRIS KOLLURI. ESQ. COMMISSIONER August 9,2007 The Honorable Jon S. Corzine Governor State House P.O. Box 001 Trenton, NJ 08625-0001 Dear Governor Corzine: Pursuant to your directive issued August 2, 2007, attached please find the interim report on bridges. The accompanying documents detail the number of bridges located in the state, their jurisdiction of control, structural condition, the date of last inspection and the anticipated date of the next inspection .. Of the 6,434 bridges in New Jersey, including those owned and operated by the State, New Jersey Transit, independent and bi-State authorities, counties and municipalities, there are 736 (11%) that are considered "structurally deficient", These are bridges whose deck, superstructure and/or substructure are deteriorated; however, this does not mean that these bridges are unsafe to travel on. I want to assure you that the safety ofthe motoring public is my highest priority. In fact, under federal regulation, the New Jersey Department of Transportation rigorously inspects the bridges under its jurisdiction a minimum of every two (2) years, or more if necessary. Further, the NJDOT Office of the Inspector General is conducting unscheduled audits and investigations of all movable bridge operational procedures to test for compliance with all aspects of the Movable Bridge Protocol Program. I have asked the Inspector General to conduct similar audits of non-movable bridges as well. In addition, inspections of the seven (7) New Jersey bridges with similar deck truss structures as the bridge in Minneapolis have been ordered for immediate inspection based upon the Federal Highway Administration directive.
    [Show full text]
  • NJDEP-N.J.A.C. 7:9B-Surface Water Quality Standards
    THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE. ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT'S RULES ARE COMPILED IN TITLE 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. N. J. A. C. 7:9B Surface Water Quality Standards Statutory Authority: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., 58:11A-1 et seq., and 13:1D-1 et seq. Re-adopted: October 17, 2016 Last Amended - April 6, 2020 (52 N.J.R.711(a )) For regulatory history and effective dates, see the New Jersey Administrative Code Table of Contents 7:9B-1.1 Scope of subchapter 7:9B-1.2 Construction 7:9B-1.3 Severability 7:9B-1.4 Definitions 7:9B-1.5 Statements of policy 7:9B-1.6 Establishment of water quality-based effluent limitations 7:9B-1.7 Waterway loadings in areawide water quality management plans 7:9B-1.8 Procedures for modifying water quality-based effluent limitations for individual dischargers to Category One waters 7:9B-1.9 Procedures for modifying water quality-based effluent limitations for individual dischargers to Category Two waters 7:9B-1.10 Procedures for reclassifying specific segments for less restrictive uses 7:9B-1.11 Procedures for reclassifying specific segments for more restrictive uses 7:9B-1.12 Designated uses of FW1, PL, FW2, SE1, SE2, SE3, and SC waters 7:9B-1.13 Designated uses of mainstem Delaware River and Delaware Bay 7:9B-1.14 Surface water quality criteria 7:9B-1.15 Surface water classifications for the waters of the State of New Jersey THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE.
    [Show full text]
  • Raritan River Basin Nutrient Tmdl Study Watershed Model and Tmdl Calculations
    PHASE II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RARITAN RIVER BASIN NUTRIENT TMDL STUDY WATERSHED MODEL AND TMDL CALCULATIONS PREPARED FOR : RUTGERS UNIVERSITY NEW JERSEY ECO COMPLEX AND NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATER MONITORING AND STANDARDS MAY 2013 Kleinfelder / Omni , Research Park, 321 Wall Street, Princeton, NJ 08540 p | 609.924.8821 f | 609.924.8831 Phase II Raritan River Basin Nutrient TMDL May 2013 – Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was undertaken to provide the scientific foundation to understand the cause- and-effect relationships between pollutant loads and observed water quality responses for a select set of related water quality impairments in the Raritan River Basin. Defining these relationships provides the Department with the defensible technical basis to address total phosphorus (TP), pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and total suspended solids (TSS) impairments in streams and lakes within the study area. This will include regulatory actions, implemented through NJPDES permits, and non-regulatory actions involving regional and local partners, targeted funding, and stewardship building. Phosphorus can cause designated use impairment by stimulating excessive growth of algae and aquatic plants, which can cause oxygen supersaturation during the day and oxygen depletion at night. Large diurnal variations of DO are often associated with large diurnal variations of pH, both of which can be induced by excessive growth in the system. As a result, phosphorus is related, through primary productivity, to both DO
    [Show full text]