DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Change and GSWA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Change and GSWA GRADING NEW JERSEY’S GREAT SWAMP Laura Kelm Director of Water Quality Programs September 19, 2015 Stream Monitoring Programs • Chemical • Visual • Macroinvertebrates • E. coli • Temperature Chemical Monitoring • 4 times per year, using handheld meters and lab analysis • Collecting baseline data on Primrose and Black Brooks by monitoring multiple sites • Re-visiting 1 site on each of the other 3 streams and Watershed outlet (already have baseline data here) Parameters • Nitrogen – Nitrate – Nitrite – Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen • Water Clarity – Ammonia – Turbidity – Total Suspended Solids • Phosphorus – Total Phosphorus • Road Salt – Soluble Reactive Phosphate – Total Dissolved Solids • pH – Sodium • Temperature – Chloride • Dissolved Oxygen – Conductivity • Flow Visual Stream Assessments • NJDEP protocol; training led by NJDEP Watershed Ambassadors • 22 sites assessed by 30 volunteers biannually (fall, spring) • Best to have consistent volunteers to spot problems High Gradient Monitoring Sheet Habitat Condition Category Parameter Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor Greater than 70% of substrate favorable 40-70% mix of stable habitat; well-suited 20-40% mix of stable habitat; habitat Less than 20% stable habitat; lack of habitat 1. Epifaunal Substrate/Available Cover for epifaunal colonization and fish cover; for full colonization potential; adequate availability less than desirable; substrate is obvious; substrate unstable or lacking. mix of snags, submerged logs, undercut habitat for maintenance of populations; frequently disturbed or removed. banks, cobble or other stable habitat and at presence of additional substrate in the stage to allow full colonization potential form of new fall, but not yet prepared for (i.e., logs/snags that are not new fall and colonization (may rate at high end of not transient). scale). SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Gravel, cobble and boulder particles are Gravel, cobble and boulder particles are Gravel, cobble and boulder particles are 50- Gravel, cobble and boulder particles are 2. Embeddedness 0-25% surrounded by fine sediment. 25-50% surrounded by fine sediment. 75% surrounded by fine sediment. more than 75% surrounded by fine sediment. Layering of cobble provides diversity of niche space. SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 All 4 velocity/depth regimes present Only 3 of the 4 regimes present (if fast- Only 2 of the 4 habitat regimes present (if Dominated by 1 velocity / depth regime 3. Velocity/Depth (slow-deep, slow-shallow, fast-deep, fast- shallow is missing, score lower than if fast-shallow or slow-shallow are missing, (usually slow-deep). Combinations shallow). missing other regimes). score low). (Slow is <0.3 m/s, deep is >0.5 m/s) SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Little or no enlargement of islands or Some new increase in bar formation, Moderate deposition of new gravel, sand or Heavy deposits of fine material, increased 4. Sediment Deposition point bars and less than 5% of the bottom mostly from gravel, sand or fine sediment; fine sediment on old and new bars; 30-50% bar development; more than 50% of the affected by sediment deposition. 5-30% of the bottom affected; slight of the bottom affected; sediment deposits at bottom changing frequently; pools almost deposition in pools. obstructions, constrictions and bends; absent due to substantial sediment moderate deposition of pools prevalent. deposition. SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Water reaches base of both lower banks, Water fills >75% of the available channel; Water fills 25-75% of the available channel, Very little water in channel and mostly 5. Channel Flow Status and minimal amount of channel substrate or <25% of channel substrate is exposed. and/or riffle substrates are mostly exposed. present as standing pools. is exposed. SCORE 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 TOTAL HABITAT SCORE FOR THIS PAGE Macroinvertebrate Assessments • Annual survey, since 2000 • Macros collected early June • Meter data informs results E. Coli Bacteria • Indicates fecal pollution • Implications for health • Monitor sites watershed-wide in summer • Sites are located where people or pets are likely in contact with water Credit: G. Finlay 6/24/2014 Communicating Monitoring Results • Pre-2013, monitoring reports limited in scope • 1 subwatershed or few parameters • Need big picture view • Technical audience 2013 State of the Streams • MIV, chemical, climate, precip, flow • General recommendations • 4 public presentations • Challenges: • Long, technical report • Analysis took 1 year Water Quality Report Card • Goals: • Answer “How’s the water?” • Understandable for non- technical audience • Short length • Recommend actions • Include ALL 2014 WQ data • To become an annual report How the Grades Were Created • Grades based on water quality standards set by NJDEP or U.S. EPA • Where no standards exist, grades based on ecological impact Excellent • 2 highest grades pass standard Good Poor • 2 lower grades fail standard Very Poor No Data • Lots of math! • Detailed info on grading scales and methods available at www.GreatSwamp.org 2014 Results • Some things stand out: what is good and where are there issues Macro- Visual Stream Dissolved Water Water Stream invertebrates Assessment Bacteria Oxygen Temperature pH Road Salt Clarity Nitrogen Phosphorus Black Brook Poor Poor Very Poor Poor Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Very Poor Poor Great Brook (main stem) Poor Good Very Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Good Bayne Brook Poor Excellent Excellent Silver Brook Poor Very Poor Excellent Loantaka Brook Poor Good Very Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Poor Excellent Very Poor Poor Passaic River (main stem) Good Excellent Good Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Indian Grave Brook Excellent Good Good Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Branta Pond Excellent Excellent Primrose Brook (main stem) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Mount Kemble Lake Tributary Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Poor Excellent Great Swamp Watershed Outlet Very Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good 2014 Results Macro- Visual Stream Dissolved Water Water Stream invertebrates Assessment Bacteria Oxygen Temperature pH Road Salt Clarity Nitrogen Phosphorus Black Brook Poor Poor Very Poor Poor Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Very Poor Poor Great Brook (main stem) Poor Good Very Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Good Bayne Brook Poor Excellent Excellent Silver Brook Poor Very Poor Excellent Loantaka Brook Poor Good Very Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Poor Excellent Very Poor Poor Passaic River (main stem) Good Excellent Good Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Indian Grave Brook Excellent Good Good Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Branta Pond Excellent Excellent Primrose Brook (main stem) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Mount Kemble Lake Tributary Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Poor Excellent Great Swamp Watershed Outlet Very Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Primrose Brook • Healthiest stream in watershed • Large forested areas • Best macroinvertebrates Stonefly from PB2 Primrose Brook at PB2 looking downstream 6/2014 Primrose Brook Mount Kemble Category (main stem) Lake tributary Macro- invertebrates Excellent Primrose Brook Visual Stream Assessment Good Bacteria Excellent Dissolved Oxygen Excellent Good Water Temperature Excellent Excellent • Spring snowmelt increased pH Excellent Excellent Road Salt Excellent Excellent nitrogen levels in Primrose Water Clarity Excellent Excellent Nitrogen Good Poor and Mount Kemble Lake trib Phosphorus Excellent Excellent • Natural condition, not a concern • Also seen in Passaic River • Visual assessments note excess sediment, poor streambank vegetation Storm pipe downstream from Lees Hill Rd. Note pavement-colored sediment pile. 8/2014 Typical Primrose Brook? • Rocky bottom • Lots of riffles • Healthy streamside vegetation shading the stream, reducing erosion potential along streambanks Primrose Brook downstream from Tempe Wick Rd. 6/2015 The Lesser-Known Primrose Brook Bank erosion Incomplete buffer Sediment bars (few shrubs) Primrose Brook between Lees Hill Rd. and Baileys Mill Rd. Credit: M. Duffy, 7/10/2014 Great Brook • Developed headwaters, then suburban/rural with areas of protected lands • Water quality in the middle of main Watershed streams Foote’s Pond 5/2013 Great Brook Bayne Silver Category (main stem) Brook Brook Macro- Great Brook invertebrates Poor Visual Stream Assessment Good Poor Poor Bacteria Very Poor Excellent Very Poor • Higher road salt upstream Dissolved Oxygen Excellent Water • Stormwater impacts: Temperature Excellent Excellent Excellent pH Excellent • Decreased water clarity Road Salt Good Water Clarity Excellent • Higher phosphorus Nitrogen Excellent Phosphorus Good • High bacteria in Foote’s Pond and Bayne Pond • Foote’s Pond, Silver Lake raise water temperatures • Bayne Brook, Silver Brook: • Poor in-stream habitat, sedimentation • High E. coli in Silver Brook under Great Brook downstream from Silver Lake 6/6/2014 investigation by GSWA Loantaka Brook • Several potential land uses in developed headwaters contribute to impairment: • Condo/apartment complexes • Major roads • Mown fields • Woodland Water Pollution Control Utility
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Landscapes Inventory, Jockey Hollow, Morristown National
    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 1999 Jockey Hollow Morristown National Historical Park Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Concurrence Status Geographic Information and Location Map Management Information National Register Information Chronology & Physical History Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity Condition Treatment Bibliography & Supplemental Information Jockey Hollow Morristown National Historical Park Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Inventory Summary The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Overview: CLI General Information: Purpose and Goals of the CLI The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), a comprehensive inventory of all cultural landscapes in the national park system, is one of the most ambitious initiatives of the National Park Service (NPS) Park Cultural Landscapes Program. The CLI is an evaluated inventory of all landscapes having historical significance that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or are otherwise managed as cultural resources through a public planning process and in which the NPS has or plans to acquire any legal interest. The CLI identifies and documents each landscape’s location, size, physical development, condition, landscape characteristics, character-defining features, as well as other valuable information useful to park management. Cultural landscapes become approved CLIs when concurrence with the findings is obtained from the park superintendent and all required data fields are entered into a national database. In addition,
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification and Mapping of Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Northeast Region Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Vegetation Classification and Mapping of Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2008/116 ON THE COVER Southern New England Red Maple Seepage Swamp in Morristown National Historical Park. Photograph by: Stephanie Perles. Vegetation Classification and Mapping of Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2008/116 Lesley Sneddon1, Robert E. Zaremba2, Ery Largay1, Greg Podniesinski3, Stephanie Perles3, and John Thompson4 1NatureServe 11 Avenue de Lafayette Boston, MA 02111 2Box 607 1409 Main Street Chatham, MA 02633 3Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 209 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 4Aerial Photograph Interpretation 558 Main Street St. Remy, NY 12401 April 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia, PA The Northeast Region of the National Park Service (NPS) comprises national parks and related areas in 13 New England and Mid-Atlantic states. The diversity of parks and their resources are reflected in their designations as national parks, seashores, historic sites, recreation areas, military parks, memorials, and rivers and trails. Biological, physical, and social science research results, natural resource inventory and monitoring data, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences related to these park units are disseminated through the NPS/NER Technical Report (NRTR) and Natural Resources Report (NRR) series. The reports are a continuation of series with previous acronyms of NPS/PHSO, NPS/MAR, NPS/BSO-RNR, and NPS/NERBOST. Individual parks may also disseminate information through their own report series. Natural Resources Reports are the designated medium for information on technologies and resource management methods; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; and natural resource program descriptions and resource action plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Morristown National Historical Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Morristown National Historical Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/NERO/NRR—2014/869 ON THE COVER Autumn on the Passiac River, Morristown National Historical Park (MORR). Photograph by: Ed Sharron, National Park Service Morristown National Historical Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/NETN/NRR—2014/869 Rebecca Wagner, Charles Andrew Cole, Larry Gorenflo, Brian Orland and Ken Tamminga The Pennsylvania State University The Department of Landscape Architecture University Park, PA 16802 Margaret C. Brittingham, C. Paola Ferreri and Margot Kaye The Pennsylvania State University The Department of Ecosystem Science and Management University Park, PA 16802 October 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Standards
    Water Quality Standards for the Great Swamp Watershed June 2002 Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Management Committee Water Quality Standards For the Great Swamp Watershed June 2002 Prepared For: Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Management Committee 2 Ridgedale Avenue Cedar Knolls, New Jersey www.tentowns.org Prepared by: Amy S. Leib Frank X. Browne, Ph.D., P.E. F. X. Browne, Inc. P.O. Box 401 Lansdale, Pennsylvania 215-362-3878 www.fxbrowne.com [email protected] FXB File No. NJ1356-01 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 New Jersey Water Quality Standards 1 3.0 United States Environmental Protection Agency Reference Nutrient Criteria 2 4.0 United States Geological Survey Background Nutrient Concentrations 3 5.0 Great Swamp Watershed Water Quality Standards 4 5.1 Total Phosphorus Standards 5 5.2 Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus Standards 5 5.3 Nitrates Standards 6 5.4 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Standards 6 5.5 Total Nitrogen Standards 7 5.6 Total Suspended Solids Standards 7 6.0 Existing Water Quality in the Great Swamp 8 Literature Cited 10 Tables Table 1 - EPA Reference Nutrient Concentrations for Aggregate Ecoregion IX- Level III Ecoregion 64 3 Table 2 - USGS Background Nutrient Concentrations in Streams and Shallow Groundwater 4 Table 3 - Great Swamp Total Phosphorus Standards 5 Table 4 - Great Swamp Dissoved Reactive Phosphorus Standards 5 Table 5 - Great Swamp Nitrate Standards 6 Table 6 - Great Swamp Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Standards 7 Table 7 - Great Swamp Total Nitrogen Standards 7 Table 8 - Total Suspended Solids Standards 8 Table 9 - Comparison of Measured Stream Water Quality to Water Quality Standards 9 Appendices Appendix A - Glossary of Technical Terms Appendix B - Baseflow Water Quality Data Appendix C - Stormflow Water Quality Data 1.0 Introduction According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “nutrient enrichment frequently ranks as one of the top causes of water resource impairment” (EPA, 2000b).
    [Show full text]
  • Morristown National Historical Park
    ______________________MORRISTOWN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK WATER RESOURCES SCOPING REPORT Water Resources Division, Coastal Research Center and Morristown National Historical Park Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-93/17 Water Resources Division National Park Service – Department of the Interior Fort Collins – Denver – Washinton United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, applied research, training, and operational support to units of the National Park Service. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (303) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Technical Information Center (303) 969-2130 Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 ii MORRISTOWN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK WATER RESOURCES SCOPING REPORT Water Resources Division National Park Service Coastal Research Center University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882 in cooperation with: Morristown National Historical Park Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-93/17 October 1993 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Moths in the Great Swamp Watershed, Part I
    The Great Swamp Watershed Association ACROSS THE WATERSHED Spring-Summer 2013 Protecting our Waters and our Land for more than 30 Years Moths in the Great Swamp Watershed, Part I By Blaine Rothauser, Naturalist, Photographer, and GSWA Member and Volunteer h the moths! Curio life forms that panopoda, showy emerald, and luna, how surround our daily lives unnoticed, can anyone with naturalistic tendencies unseen, and sadly disregarded, not be intrigued. But names alone are Onocturnal and hidden, winged-dryads that mere gossamer films to what really gets surround us in profusion, their existence my Thoreau on when talking LEP (short barely acknowledged. for Lepidoptera—the order to which With names like flame-shouldered butterflies and moths hail, or my personal dart, rosy hooktip, beautiful wood acronym for Light, Ephemeral, Pleasures). nymph, delicate cynia, rainbow lichen, Moths have become my new nature- lemon plagodis, dirty notocelia, green drug (as if I wasn’t O-D-ing enough); I marvel, goldenrod stowaway, red-lined logged in over a hundred nights of moth- watching last year. Each night brought me new friends to play with and a greater understanding that the biosphere we’re swimming in is a bottomless wellspring of mind-boggling delights. GSWA Headquarters was one of my favorite hangouts for “mothing” (my term for attracting moths amid a bright light and an old white bed sheet—the repository of my pleasure). The Great Swamp Watershed with its Luna moth (Actias luna) on lichen tree. ©2012 Blaine Rothauser (continued on page 14) From the Desk of the Executive Director A Thousand Small Acts of Consideration by Sally Rubin urricane Sandy was ferocious.
    [Show full text]
  • Across the Watershed Is a Quarterly Publication of the Great Swamp Watershed Association
    Write us at: ACROSS THE 2001Visit us- 2002at: P.O. Box 300 Annual36 Main Report Street New Vernon, NJ 07976 WATERSHED Madison,Inside NJ 07940 Fall 2002 The Great Swamp Watershed Association Vol. 22 No.4 What’s in the Water? A Toast To the Swamp by Karen Patterson As the accompanying article Water Quality Standards Set for Great Swamp, reports (see page 2), the first-ever standards for nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment levels in the five tributaries of the Great Swamp have been established. This is good news indeed, as it gives us all something to measure future water quality data against, and something to work for: the protection and maintenance of water quality in the Passaic River and Primrose Brook; and the restoration of Great, Loantaka and Black Brooks so that they meet the individual standards set for those streams. But just what is the problem with nutrients in our streams? They aren’t the typical “pollutants” we generally think of as threatening human health, such as lead, mercury, Volatile Organic Compounds, coliform bacteria and others. In fact, Save the Date… phosphorous and nitrogen are naturally occurring elements found in some quantity The Watershed Association is having in all surface waters (streams, ponds, a Cocktail Party! swamps, etc). Furthermore, phosphorous Friday, November 15, 2002 and nitrogen are essential to plant growth; without them we might not have the 6:30 - 8:30 pm abundance of over 500 species that are (The Annual Meeting will be held currently found in the Great Swamp before the party at 6 pm.) National Wildlife Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Loantaka Brook Watershed Report EPA Grant Number: X-97267701
    The Loantaka Brook Watershed Report EPA Grant Number: X-97267701 Algal blooms on Kitchell Pond, Courtesy of Google Earth website, 2005 aerial Submitted by: Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Committee 2 Ridgedale Avenue Suite 200 Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927 (973) 984-2000 [email protected] DUNS # 141565049 501(3)© - DLN:17053097012018 Fed Tax ID Number 22-3575281 Prepared by: Princeton Hydro, LLC Suite 1, 1108 Old York Rd. P.O. Box 720, Ringoes, NJ 08551 (908) 237-5660 [email protected] Loantaka Brook Watershed Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Management Committee July 2009 Table of Contents Executive Summary –......................................................................................................... 7 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Project Location................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Project Strategies.............................................................................................. 14 2.0 Pollutant Loading and Hydrologic Analyses (Task 1.1)....................................... 16 2.1 Modeling Methodology.................................................................................... 16 2.2 Subwatershed Determination and Land Use / Land Cover Classification........ 18 2.3 Subwatershed Hydrologic and Pollutant Loading ............................................ 19 2.3.1 Hydrologic Loading.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space & Recreation Plan Element
    OPEN SPACE & RECREATION PLAN ELEMENT Township of Harding Morris County New Jersey January 2021 Adopted by the Planning Board on January 25, 2021 Prepared by Heyer, Gruel & Associates 236 Broad Street Red Bank, NJ 07701 January 2021 Dedicated to David W. Dietz Devoted member of the Harding Township Planning Board from 1997-2020 Harding Township Master Plan Open Space & Recreation Plan Element 4-2 January 2021 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Public Participation.................................................................................................................................... 3 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 3 Additional Public Outreach Mechanisms .................................................................................... 4 Open Space Plan Goals .............................................................................................................................. 5 Significant Events in Open Space Preservation ......................................................................................... 5 Support for Open Space Preservation .......................................................................................... 9 Open Space Inventory ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Report Card
    Great Swamp Watershed Report Card 2014 Acknowledgments Thanks to Great Swamp Watershed Association (GSWA) Stream Team volunteers who have contributed enormous amounts of time collecting water quality data, expanding and improving monitoring programs, and providing invaluable input throughout the creation of this report card. Special thanks to Roger Edwards, Guy Leland, Grant Hauck, and Ana Berthel for their work developing this report card. Many thanks to Jocelyn van den Akker for GIS assistance, and Lee Pollock for assistance with the macroinvertebrate data. GSWA would like to thank the following, whose grants supported our water quality monitoring programs in 2014: Hyde and Watson Foundation, Norcross Wildlife Foundation, Royal Bank of Canada, and The Watershed Institute. Support from GSWA members makes all of our programs possible. Thank you members! September 2015 Prepared by Laura Kelm Layout by Kelly Martin Great Swamp Watershed Association P.O. Box 300 New Vernon, NJ 07976 www.greatswamp.org - (973) 538-3500 This report and supplemental materials are available online at www.greatswamp.org or by contacting Laura Kelm, GSWA director of water quality programs, at [email protected] or 973-538-3500, ext. 16. -2- Table of Contents Acknowledgments..........................................................................2 Watershed Report Card.................................................................4 Introduction to the Great Swamp Watershed.............................6 About This Report Card................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Plan April 2021 - DRAFT
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Plan April 2021 - DRAFT Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge – Credit: Richard Pope Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Appendix A – Compatibility Determination Associated with Developing and Appendix B – Environmental Assessment Producing the EA (per ERM 10-12): $6,280 Appendix C – Intra-Service Section 7 Analysis Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Plan April 2021 - DRAFT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 32 Pleasant Plains Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Submitted By: Project Leader ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Approved: Regional Chief National Wildlife Refuge System ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. Statement of Objectives ........................................................................................................... 4 III. Description of Hunting Program .......................................................................................... 4 A. Areas to be Opened to Hunting ............................................................................................ 4 B. Species to be Taken, Hunting Periods, Hunting Access .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Passaic TMDL
    Amendment to the Northeast, Upper Raritan, Sussex County and Upper Delaware Water Quality Management Plans Total Maximum Daily Load Report For the Non-Tidal Passaic River Basin Addressing Phosphorus Impairments Watershed Management Areas 3, 4 and 6 Proposed: May 7, 2007 Adopted: April 24, 2008 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management P.O. Box 418 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0418 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary……………………………………………………..…………….. 4 2.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…... 13 3.0 Pollutant of Concern and Area of Interest…………………………………….……. 14 4.0 Source Assessment………………………………………………………………..….. 29 5.0 Analytical Approach and TMDL Calculation …………………………………..… 36 6.0 Follow-up Monitoring…………………………………………………………..……. 47 7.0 Implementation Plan……………………………………………………………..…… 48 8.0 Reasonable Assurance…………………………………………………………….….. 58 9.0 Public Participation…………………………………………………………………... 61 Appendix A: Cited References………………………………………………………..... 67 Appendix B: Municipalities and MS4 Designation in the Passaic River Basin ….… 71 Appendix C: Additional Impairments within TMDL Area ………………………….. 73 Appendix D: TMDLs completed in the Passaic River Basin ……………………...….. 75 Appendix E: Rationale for Establishing Chlorophyll-a as Watershed Criteria to Protect Designated Uses of the Wanaque Reservoir and Dundee Lake……… 78 Appendix F: Response to Comments…………………………………………………… 92 Tables Table 1. Stream segments identified on Sublists 3 and 5 of the 2004 Integrated List assessed for phosphorus impairment……………………………………… 6 Table 2. Assessment Units Analyzed from the 2006 Integrated List…………………..... 7 Table 3. Sublist 5 and Sublist 3 stream segments in spatial extent of non-tidal Passaic River basin TMDL study……………………………….. 20 Table 4. HUC 14 Assessment Units from 2006 Integrated List addressed in this and related TMDL studies………………………………………………………….. 21 Table 5. Description of Reservoirs……………………………………………………… 25 Table 6.
    [Show full text]