RECEIVED PUBLIC SERVCF. COMMISSION v OSEC-FILES-ALBANY 2001 JUL 20 AM 11:148 ^tate of $tfa Jleraeg
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF LAW RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET DONALD T. DIFRANCESCO PO BOX 093 JOHN J. FARMER, JR. Acting Governor TRENTON, NJ 08625-0093 Attorney General E-Mail: [email protected] (609)984-6811 JEFFREY J. MILLER Assistant Attorney General July 18, 2001 Dirpetor VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Office of the Secretary Janet H. Deixler, Secretary to the Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350
Re: IMO the Application of Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law Case No. 98-F-1968
Dear Ms. Deixler:
Enclosed for filing please find an original and five copies of the Prefiled Direct Testimony and Exhibits of the following witnesses for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection;
(1) Anthony S. Navoy, (2) Joseph Miri, (3) Robert Canace, (4) Asghar Hasan, (5) Paul Schorr, (6) Steven Lubow and (7) Shing- Fu Hsueh.
A copy of the Testimony and Exhibits have been provided to all parties on the enclosed Exhibit Exchange Service List.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN J. FARMER, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
/re By: i. -feWo-e. c: John Covino, SDAG Roge/tf S. Haase Enc. Deputy Attorney General
yaps New Jersey Is Art Equal Opportunity Employer ' Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable EXHIBIT LIST - Case 98-F-1968
• Application of Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership
ANTHONY NAVOY
NJDEP-1 Ramapo River Basin Showing Municipal Boundaries and Gaging Stations, New York-New Jersey; NJDEP-2 Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Sloatsburg, NY; NJDEP-3 Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Ramapo, NY; NJDEP-4 Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Suffern, NY; NJDEP-5 Hydrograph of Ramapo River near Mahwah, NJ; NJDEP-6 Hydrograph of Ramapo River downstream of Pond Bk at Oakland, NJ; NJDEP-7 Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, NJ; NJDEP-8 Hydrograph of Mahwah River near Suffern, NY; NJDEP-9 Hydrograph of Mahwah River at Suffern, NY; NJDEP-10 Low Flow Statistics for Key Gaging Stations; NJDEP-11 Analyses of Trends in Low Flow Records for Key Gaging Station; NJDEP-12 Hydrograph of Lowest 7 Consecutive Day Streamflow for Each Climatic Year, Ramapo River at Mahwah, NJ; NJDEP-13 Analyses of Trends in Low Flow Records for Ringwood • Creek -- an Indication of Background Conditions; NJDEP-14 Hydrograph of Lowest 7 Consecutive Day Streamflow for Each Climatic Year, Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, NJ; NJDEP-15 Average Ground Water Withdrawals by Well (1999); NJDEP-16 Seepage Run Sites and Withdrawals on October 20, 1998; NJDEP-17 Water Levels in the Ramapo River and Valley-Fill Aquifer, South Mahwah, New Jersey; NJDEP-18 Reconstruction of Streamflow Records in the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York, Water Years 1993-96; NJDEP-19 Hydrographs of Upstream Wastewater Input and Streamflow (1999) NJDEP-20 Hydrographs of Upstream Wastewater Input and Streamflow (1999) NJDEP-21 Hydrographs of Upstream Point Source Inputs and Streamflow (1999 NJDEP-22 Components of Reconstructed Streamflow and Difference Between Observed and Reconstructed Streamflow at Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, New Jersey; NJDEP-23 Curriculum Vitae of Anthony S. Navoy. • JOE MIRI
NJDEP-24 Passaic River Basin Map; NJDEP-25 Portions from Ramapo Energy's Application to the New York Board on Electrical Generating Siting and the Environment, Addendum No. 2, Revised April 2001; NJDEP-26 Year 2000 UWNY Water Supply Master Plan; NJDEP-27 Year 2000 UWNY Consumptive Water Uses From Ramapo and Hackensack Watersheds in Southern New York; NJDEP-28 Year 2020 UWNY Consumptive Water Uses From Ramapo and Hackensack Watersheds in Southern New York; NJDEP-29 Curriculum Vitae of Joe Miri.
• ROBERT CANACE • NJDEP-30 Revised Article X, Ramapo Energy Application, received with June 21, 2001 letter to Janet Deixler from Christopher Reiss, ESS; NJDEP-31 Appendix H-2, UWNY Response to NY State Dept. of Public Service Water Supply Stipulations; NJDEP-32 Schematic representation of a water budget within a river basin; NJDEP-33 References used in Canace testimony; NJDEP-34 E-mail Printouts from Frederick Spitz, United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, to Canace, NJGS; NJDEP-35 Page 4-4 of United Water New York Master Plan; NJDEP-36 Page 4-5 of United Water New York Master Plan; NJDEP-37 Stipulation between State of NJ and Spring Valley Water Co. establishing 8 mgd passing flow at Suffern, NY; NJDEP-38 Location of measurement stations near Ramapo Valley well field for USGS 1998 stream-flow study of Ramapo River in New York State; NJDEP-39 Daily average stream flow at USGS stream gage at Suffern, New York, 1990-1999; • NJDEP-40 Stream flow at USGS gage at Suffern, New York, 1999, in relation to 8 mgd passing flow; NJDEP-41 Stream flow in Ramapo River at Suffern, New York, 1998, in relation to 8 mgd passing flow requirement; NJDEP-42 Letter dated June 9, 1999 from Carla Hjelm, UWNY to Joseph Marcogliese, NYDEC, regarding Water Supply Application No. 6507; NJDEP-43 Orders of December 8, 1990 by NYDEC for Temporary Modification of Water Supply Applications 6507 and 2189; NJDEP-44 Letter dated August 19, 1985 from Ralph Manna, Jr., NYDEC, to Carl H, Grossman, Spring Valley Water Company regarding Modifying Decision; NJDEP-45 Letter dated September 11, 1995 from Harry Russo, UWNY, to Commissioner Michael D. Zagata, NYDEC, regarding Application for Reinstatement of Temporary Modifications; NJDEP-46 Discovery Response of Donald Distante to NJDEP-8, dated May 9, 2001; NJDEP-47 Water release agreement between Spring Valley Water Company and Ramapo Land Company, Inc., dated November 2, 1990; ROBERT CANACE con'd.
NJDEP-48 Report on Operational Guidelines for Use of the Pothat Lakes for Ramapo River Flow Augmentation, Spring Valley Water Co., November 1993; NJDEP-49 Ramapo Energy discovery response to CR-28, dated May 11, 2001; NJDEP-50 Section 4.2 of United Water New York Master Plan; NJDEP-51 Rockland County Regulations, Article V, Mandatory Water Conservation Measures; NJDEP-52 Response by Donald Distante, United Water New York to Rockland County Information Request, dated March 9, 2001; NJDEP-53 United Water New York Master Plan, Section 4.1, Surface Water; NJDEP-54 Flow in Ramapo River at USGS stream gage near Mahwah for 7 lowest consecutive days each year over period of record; NJDEP-55 Well fields drawing from glacial valley-fill aquifer along Ramapo River in NJ; NJDEP-56 1999 Pumpage for Public Supply Wells Drawing from Valley Fill Aquifer in NJ in Close Proximity to the Ramapo River; NJDEP-57 Figure 14 from Hill 1992 Report, Ford Well Field Seepage Run; NJDEP-58 Figure 15 from Hill 1992 Report, Oakland Borough Well Field Seepage Run; NJDEP-59 Stream flow at USGS gage near Mahwah, NJ, 1999; NJDEP-60 Stream flow at USGS stream gage at Oakland, NJ, 1999; NJDEP-61 Ramsey Borough Water Allocation Permit No. 5076, issued by NJDEP April 24, 1995; NJDEP-62 Curriculum Vitae of Robert Canace; NJDEP-104 Appendix H-2, Revised Application, UWNY Response to NY State Dept. of Public Service Water Supply Stipulations; NJDEP-105 Revised Direct Testimony of Guy Marchmont (Revised July 30, 2001); NJDEP-106 Revised Direct Testimony of Jeffrey Hershberger (Revised July 31, 2001); NJDEP-107 Revised Direct Testimony of Donald Distante (Revised August 1, 2001); NJDEP-108 Revised Direct Testimony of Janet Bernardo (Revised July 31, 2001); NJDEP-109 Discovery Response by Ramapo Energy to NJDEP-6, dated August 20, 2001, page 5; NJDEP-110 Discovery Response by UWNY to NJDEP-7;
• NJDEP-111 NYDEC Decision on Water Supply Application No. 6507, page 25; NJDEP-133 Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership's responses to discovery requests PRC-1 through PRC-14, dated September 4, 2001; NJDEP-134 Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership's responses to discovery requests PIPC/Ramapo-62 through -67, dated September 28, 2001.
• ASGHAR HASAN
NJDEP-63 Map of Passaic Basin Water Supply Infrastructure; NJDEP-64 Ramapo Basin Study - Monthly Average Flows in Ramapo River and Ground and Surface Diversions and Point Source Discharges in Ramapo River Basin; NJDEP-65 Monthly Average Groundwater Diversion Charts Done By UWNY (13 Charts); NJDEP-66 Passaic River Basin - Daily Natural Flow Data Development (1919 - 1979), prepared by Montgomery Watson; NJDEP-67 Flow Pumpage Charts; NJDEP-68 Accumulative Loss in Ramapo Pumping; NJDEP-69 Table of Comparison of Pumpages from Ramapo; NJDEP-70 Table of Daily Flow Data at Ramapo Basin from May 1, 1995 to October 31, 1995; NJDEP-71 Table of Comparison of Pumpages from Ramapo, Consumptive Use With and Without NY Impact; NJDEP-72 Daily Model Simulation of Loss of Pumping from Ramapo to Wanague Reservoir Due to NY Consumptive Use Impact; NJDEP-73 Chart of Daily Model Simulation of Pumping From Ramapo River to Wanaque Reservoir; NJDEP-74 Curriculum Vitae of Asghar Hasan.
• PAUL SCHORR
• NJDEP-75 Letter to Asghar Hasan, NJDEP, from G. Gordon Behn, NYDEC, dated April 22, 1997, regarding UWNJ Modification to Water Allocation Permit No. 5111 and UWNY Operation of DeForest Lake Reservoir under Water Supply Application No. 2189 - 6th Modification; NJDEP-76 Passaic River Basin Daily Natural Flow Data Development (1919-1979), prepared by Montgomery Watson; NJDEP-77 Water Resources of the New Jersey Part of the Ramapo River Basin, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, 1974, pages 58 through 61 and 68 through 72; NJDEP-78 Franchise Areas of 3 New Jersey Water Supply Purveyors; NJDEP-79 Modifying Decision, Water Supply Application No. 6507, I/M/O Application of Spring Valley Water Company, Inc.; NJDEP-80 Sixth Modifying Decision, Water Supply Application No. 2189, I/M/O Application of Spring Valley Water Works and Supply Company; NJDEP-81 Curriculum Vitae of Paul Schorr; NJDEP-112 Letter from Edward V. Ehlers, Spring Valley Water Co., to Louis M. Concra, NYDEC, dated September 24, 1980; NJDEP-113 Order, I/M/O Spring Valley Water Co., Inc., Temporary Modification of Water Supply Applications #6507 and 2189, dated December 8, 1980; NJDEP-114 Letter from Carl E. Grossman, Esq. To Ralph Manna, NYDEC, re: Water Supply Application No. 6507, dated July 25, 1985; NJDEP-115 Letter from Ralph Manna, NYDEC, to Carl H. Grossman, Srping Valley Water Co., re: Ramapo Valley Well Field, WSA No. 6507, dated August 19, 1985; NJDEP-116 Letter from Harry A. Russo, UWNY, to Commissioner Michael D. Zagata, NYDEC, re: Water Supply Applications No. 2189 and 6507, dated September 11, 1995; NJDEP-117 Letter from William R. Adriance, NYDEC, to Carla E. Hjelm, Esq., UWNY, re: Emergency Authorization, Water Supply Applications 2189 and 6507, dated September 26, 1995; NJDEP-118 Letter from George A. Danskin, NYDEC, to Carla E. Hjelm, Esq., UWNY, re: Emergency Authorization Extension, Water Supply Appliations 2189 and 6507, dated October 23, 1995; NJDEP-119 Letter from Steven Nieswand, NJDEP, to John J. Ferguson, NYDEC, re: Emergency relief granted to UWNY, dated October 27, 1995; NJDEP-120 Letter from James D. Kelly, P.E., Boswell McClave, to John J. Ferguson, NYDEC, re: Request to Modify Ramapo Valley Well Field Permit, Water Supply Application No. 6507, dated October 26, 1995; NJDEP-121 Letter from Carla E. Hjelm, UWNY, to Joseph Marcogliese, NYDEC, re: Water Supply Application No. 6507, Application for Temporary Emergency Modification, dated June 9, 1999; NJDEP-122 Letters from Alexander F. Ciesluk, Jr., NYDEC, to Carla Hjelm, Esq., UWNY, re: Ramapo Valley Well Field, Water Supply No. 6507 Emergency Authorizations, dated July 23, June 11 and July 28, 1999; NJDEP-123 Letters from Carla E. Hjelm, Esq., UWNY, to Alexander F. Ciesluk, Jr., Margaret Duke and Joseph Marcogliese, NYDEC, re: Emergency Modifications, dated August 20, August 18 and July 28, 1999; NJDEP-124 U.S.G..S. Water-Data Report, Water Resources Data, New Jersey, Water Year 1995; NJDEP-125 Decision, Eighth Application, I/M/O Spring Valley Water Works and Supply Company, Water Supply Application No. 2189, July 23, 1952; NJDEP-129 Water Allocation Permit #5341 for Mahwah Township; NJDEP-130 Water Allocation Permit #5199 for Oakland Borough; NJDEP-131 (Removed) NJDEP-132 Documents related to Water Allocation Permits #5111 (Oradell Reservoir) and #5094 (Two Bridges). STEVEN LUBOW
• NJDEP-82 Westlaw Printout, PUD NO. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 114 S.Ct. 1900 (1994); NJDEP-83 Curriculum Vitae of Steven P. Lubow. SHING-FU HSUEH
NJDEP-84 Ramapo Energy's Application to the New York Board on Electrical Generating Siting and the Environment, Addendum No. 2, Page 7-4; NJDEP- •85 Year 2000 UWNY Water Supply Master Plan Page 3-6; NJDEP- •86 March 15, 2001 Amendment to United Water/Ramapo Energy Agreement; NJDEP -87 March 15, 2001 Amendment to United Water/Ramapo Energy Agreement; NJDEP March 15, 2001 Amendment to United Water/Ramapo Energy Agreement; NJDEP -89 Ramapo Energy's Application to the New York Board on Electrical Generating Siting and the Environment, Addendum No. 2, Page-7-4; NJDEP-90 Year 2000 UWNY Water Consumptive Water Uses from Ramapo and Hackensack Watersheds in Southern NY; NJDEP- •91 United Water NY Master Plan, Pgs. 1-1, 2-1 and 2-2; NJDEP- -92 United Water NY Master Plan, Pg. 1-4; NJDEP- •93 United Water NY Master Plan, Pg. 1-2; NJDEP- •94 Typical hydrograph of Ramapo River; NJDEP- •95 Typical hydrograph of Ramapo River; NJDEP- •96 USGS Water Data Report - Water Resources Data - New Jersey Water Year 1995, Volume 1, Surface Water Data; • NJDEP- •97 Hydrograph of lowest 7 consecutive day streamflow of each climatic year, Ramapo River at Mahwah, NJ; NJDEP- •98 UWNY Water Supply Master Plan - Table 3.1, Maximum Day to Average Day Ratios; NJDEP- •99 1996 NJ Statewide Water Supply Plan, Pages 69-70; NJDEP- •100 1998 Identification and Setting of Priorities for Section 303(d) Water Quality Limited Waters in New Jersey; NJDEP- •101 Water Resources Data, New Jersey, Water Year 1995, Vol. 1, Surface Water Data Pages ill and 123; NJDEP- •102 Year 2020 UWNY Consumptive Water Uses for Ramapo and Hackensack Watersheds in Southern New York; NJDEP- •103 Curriculum Vitae of Shing-Fu Hsueh, Ph.D., P.E., P.P; NJDEP- •126 Assessment of Pump Submergence Limitations at Spring Valley Water Company Wells, Rockland County, New York, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., June 1994; NJDEP-127 Water Quality Assessment of the Upper Passaic River Watershed and the Wanaque Reservoir, Najarian Associates, September 2000; NJDEP- •128 The Vital Resource, 1996 New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan; NJDEP- •135 UWNY responses to PIPC/Ramapo-68 and -69, dated September 27, 2001. Cross-Referenced Exhibits
Testimony of Asghar Hasan:
Pg. 76, Line 6 - Refers to Navoy exhibit, NJDEP-18, pg. v., last paragraph, regarding data on CD;
Testimony of Shing-Fu Hsueh:
Pg. 171, line 3 - Should refer to Navoy exhibit, NJDEP-12; Pg. 176, line 14 - Should refer to Navoy exhibit, NJDEP-12; Pg. 201, line 12 - Should refer to Navoy exhibit, NJDEP-12; Pg. 238, lines 19 and 20 - Reference to Miri exhibit, NJDEP-26; Pg. 1, line 11 and pg. 5, line 8 - Reference to Canace exhibit, NJDEP-133.
•
Revised 10/15/01 ^ Case 98-F-1968 - Ramapo Energy Project
PREFILED
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF
ROBERT CANACE Case: 98-F-1968 1 Robert Canace
1 Q: Mr. Canace, you have previously provided testimony in
2 this hearing on behalf of the State of New Jersey in
3 response to Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership's ("RELP")
4 Article X application, is that true?
5 A: Yes.
6 Q: What is the purpose of your current testimony?
7 A: To provide rebuttal testimony to testimony and responses
8 to interrogatories previously submitted by RELP and
9 United Water New York ("UWNY") since September 7, 2001 to
10 questions posed regarding water use at the project and
11 the impact of the project on downstream users.
12 Q: One of the concerns you raised in your testimony was the
13 ability of RELP to operate independently of UWNY using
14 on-site storage (Canace revised testimony, p. 28). Has
15 recent information submitted by RELP addressed this
16 concern?
17 A: Conflicting information has been submitted on how rapidly
18 storage from the proposed on-site tanks would be used up
19 at peak use rates. In RELP's response to the Passaic
20 River Coalition's ("PRC") discovery request, dated
21 September 4, 2001, on the availability of alternative Case: 98-F-1968
Robert Canace • 1 sources of water when storage is depleted, Guy Marchmont
2 stated that water in the storage tanks would last 190
3 days, assuming 60 hours of peak operation during that
4 time (Exhibit NJDEP-133). In their Article X
5 application, RELP states that storage would last 60 days
6 independent of UWNY (Exhibit NJDEP-104, p. 3). Donald
7 Distante of UWNY claims that with 60 to 70 hours of steam
8 augmentation the proposed plant can operate for 90 days
9 (Exhibit NJDEP-107, p. 4). Therefore, it is not clear
10 precisely how quickly the on-site storage tanks could be
^^11 depleted.
12 Q: What is the significance of this inconsistency?
13 A: Because the storage tanks would be the sole source of
14 water during a drought emergency declared by Rockland
15 County, it is still not clear that the proposed project
16 could sustain itself during a lengthy drought
17 declaration. (See Direct Testimony of Jason C. Kappel,
18 dated September 7, 2001, page 29, lines 1-6.) One
19 assumes that the proposed plant would not use any steam
20 augmentation once the tanks are empty. RELP has failed
21 to address this contingency. Case: 98-F-1968
Robert Canace • 1 Q: Has any new information been presented relative to how
2 quickly on-site storage for the proposed project would be
3 exhausted in the event of a Stage II drought declaration
4 by Rockland County?
5 A: In his testimony on August 1, 2001 Donald Distante of
6 UWNY indicates that tank filling will be limited to
7 60,000 gallons per day (gpd) during June, July and August
8 (Exhibit NJDEP-107, p. 4). In response to Palisades
9 Interstate Park Commission's interrogatory (Exhibit
10 NJDEP-134) concerning refilling of the storage tanks,
11 RELP provides the following information: (1) RELP plans
12 on filling the tanks during the fall, winter and spring;
13 (2) the estimated annual water use of 24 mgy not using
1'4 the Zero Liquid Discharge System ("ZLD") includes the
15 volume needed for annual tank refilling; (3) RELP expects
16 to fill the tanks within a 3-month period at an average
17 rate of 112,000 gpd.
18 Q: Do RELP's and UWNY's representations concerning filling
19 of storage tanks for the proposed project present
20 problems? Case: 98-F-1968
Robert Canace
1 A: First of all, in their Article X application RELP asserts
2 that their maximum daily use will be 78,000 gpd (Exhibit
3 NJDEP-30, p. 7-8). RELP's proposed rate of tank filling
4 (112,00 gpd) exceeds this rate, so that it has
5 inaccurately represented their anticipated maximum use in
6 RELP's application. Secondly, RELP and UWNY have only
7 committed to refilling the tanks in months other than
8 June, July and August at rates exceeding 60,000 gpd.
9 Because natural stream flow is typically lowest in the
10 early fall, their maximum rate of water use could
^^11 frequently correspond with times of lowest flow in the
12 Ramapo River. RELP has not discussed whether it will
13 consider stream flow rates when they decide to refill its
14 storage tanks.
15 Q: In your direct testimony you assert that RELP has made no
16 assessment of the direct or indirect impact of the
17 proposed project on the water resources of New Jersey
18 (Canace revised testimony, p. 40). Has RELP submitted
19 any new information that addresses this concern?
20 A: No. In fact, when asked by PRC to provide an estimate of
21 the loss in available potable water supplies in Case: 98-F-1968
Robert Canace • 1 northeastern New Jersey if the facility is built, Guy
2 Marchmont deferred to UWNY for a response (Exhibit NJDEP-
3 133) .
4 Q: Has UWNY or RELP adequately responded to this issue of
5 impacts to the water resources of the Ramapo River Basin
6 in New Jersey?
7 A: No. In all of the material submitted with RELP's
8 application and its subsequent submittals in response to
9 discovery, there are no specific references to the
10 potential impact of proposed water use of the proposed
^^11 project on downstream users of the resource or the
12 resource in general. It should be emphasized that by its
13 failure to address this matter, RELP has failed to comply
14 with Judge Garlin's Order of April 30, 2001 that this
15 important issue to New Jersey be assessed.
16 Q: Does this complete your testimony at this time?
17 A: Yes. Case 98-F-1968 - Ramapo Energy Project
• j
PREFILED
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF
SHING-FU HSUEH Case: 98-F-1968 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 Q: Mr. Hsueh, you have previously provided direct testimony
2 in this matter, is that correct?
3 A: Yes.
4 Q What is the purpose of your testimony at this time?
5 A To provide rebuttal testimony to testimony and responses
6 to interrogatories previously submitted by Ramapo Energy
7 Limited Partnership's ("RELP") and United Water New York
8 ("UWNY") since September 7, 2001 to questions posed
9 regarding water use at the proposed project and its
10 impacts on downstream users. r Q Have you had an opportunity to review the material 12 submitted on water supply issues,' including RELP's
13 responses to discovery submitted to Passaic River
14 Coalition ("PRC") (Exhibit NJDEP-133) and UWNY's
15 responses to Palisades Interstate Park Commission
16 ("PIPC") (Exhibit NJDEP-135)?
17 A: Yes.
18 Q: To what subjects in their testimony does your rebuttal
19 testimony respond? Case: 98-F-1968 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 A: My rebuttal testimony addresses whether increasing peak
2 capacity to serve the proposed RELP plant will have
3 adverse impacts to downstream users of the Ramapo River.
4 Q: Has RELP, as of this date, addressed Judge Garlin's Order
5 of April 30, 2001 or the requirements of Stipulation
6 Number 12 of Appendix H-2, which was attached to Mr.
7 Distante's revised testimony of August 1, 2001,
8 specifying the water resource issues that were to be
9 addressed in this matter?
10 A: No.
|11 Q: Based on your experience, is this a major shortcoming?
12 A: Very much so. As I have indicated throughout my direct
13 testimony, the proposed RELP project will divert water
14 from the Ramapo River in southern New York as it flows
15 into northern New Jersey. The applicant of any proposed
16 project that will divert water from a downstream state
17 has the responsibility to assess the water supply,
18 wastewater and aquatic resources impacts to that state
19 that are associated with that project. When coupled with
20 the facts that: 1) the Ramapo River is already over-
21 stressed with regard to diversions and is negatively Case: 98-F-196.8 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 affecting water resources in New Jersey, and 2) the
2 proposed project will contribute funding to UWNY water
3 supply "improvements" that would further stress the river
4 and other water bodies flowing into New Jersey, I
5 conclude that this is a serious shortcoming in RELP's
6 testimony and application.
7 Q: Is this shortcoming - the absence of an assessment of the
8 water supply, wastewater and aquatic resource impacts in
9 New Jersey as a result of the project and the water
10 supply "improvements" that will be partially funded by k11 RE-LP - detrimental to New Jersey?
12 A: Yes, substantially. As I have stated throughout my
13 direct testimony, water supply diversions, primarily by
14 UWNY in southern New York, are already resulting in a
15 loss of water supply availability of about 5 mgd to the
16 Wanaque Reservoir, and RELP's proposed project will
17 result in an additional loss of water supply in New
18 Jersey. Further, the water supply "improvements" that
19 RELP intends to fund in order to compensate for its
20 proposed project's consumptive water use will result in
21 an additional loss in water supply availability in New Case: 98-F-1968 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 Jersey. These collective losses in Ramapo River flow
2 could cause New Jersey to declare droughts earlier than
3 it otherwise would, the droughts of the future may be
4 more severe, and they may last longer. To remediate
5 these collective impacts, northern New Jersey water
6 customers could be forced to fund new water supply
7 improvements prior to when previously planned.
8 Therefore, the so-called "improvements" to be funded by
9 RELP in order to compensate for its consumptive use of
10 water, while helping UWNY's water supply situation in the k11 short term, actually hurt downstream users of the water
12 supply.
13 Q: In his response to PIPC/Ramapo-69 (Exhibit NJDEP-135),
14 Mr. Distante states that projects UWNY is currently
15 working on, including the Viola Well project, are
16 intended to meet peak water demands due in part to the
17 proposed RELP plant. Will these projects provide
18 sufficient supply while protecting downstream uses?
19 A: No. The Viola Well 106 is in the Mahwah River watershed.
20 UWNY wells in this watershed are not regulated by a
21 minimum passing flow. Essentially, wells can be pumped Case: 98-F-1968 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 in this watershed without limits on the amount of
2 streamflow depletion that they cause, and the consequent
3 intolerable effects to downstream uses and users. This
4 is a major concern to New Jersey. UWNY wells in this
5 watershed are not subject to passing flow requirements to
6 protect New Jersey's water resources. The absence of
7 these limits are causing, and will continue to cause,
8 intolerable effects to the water resources of northern
9 New Jersey.
10 Q: Are there other potential impacts that should have been
^11 addressed?
12 A: Yes. The current loss of Ramapo River flow due to
13 existing UWNY customers has likely resulted in negative
14 water quality and aquatic resource impacts to the Ramapo
15 and Pompton rivers. When RELP ties into the UWNY system
16 and contributes to the funding of the UWNY water supply
17 "improvements," Ramapo River flow will be further reduced
18 into northern New Jersey, and the water quality will be
19 further degraded. As in the case of water supply. New
20 Jersey could be forced to remediate these impacts. Case: 98-F-1968 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 Q: How should the absence of the assessment of the
2 downstream impacts to New Jersey be addressed?
3 A: RELP should be required to perform this assessment and
4 submit an amendment to the application as part of this
5 proceeding. Other parties should then have the
6 opportunity to review this amendment and submit testimony
7 pertaining to the amendment before the record of this
8 proceeding is closed.
9 Q: Should the assessment include an evaluation of UWNY's
10 proposed additional withdrawal from Potake Pond? k11 A: -Yes; RELP has agreed-to fund the UWNY project to use'
12 additional withdrawal from Potake Pond to augment stream
13 flow that will allow continued use from the Ramapo Valley
14 Well Field ("RVWF"). It should be noted that UWNY is
15 proposing to take water from Potake Pond, which lies
16 partially in the state of New Jersey.
17 Q: In RELP's response to PRC's discovery request (Exhibit
18 NJDEP-133), RELP has indicated that it is not necessary
19 to acquire alternative sources of water because it will
20 install three 3-million-gallon water storage tanks and a Case: 98-F-1968 Shing-Fu Hsueh
1 Zero Liquid Discharge ("ZLD") system. Will these be
2 adequate protection of New Jersey's water resources?
3 A: No. The storage tanks will result in a net loss of
4 stream flow to New Jersey and the ZLD system does not
5 eliminate the evaporative losses from the power
6 generation. These losses are consumptive and will
7 negatively affect downstream flow to New Jersey.
8 .Q: Does this conclude your testimony at this time?
9 A: Yes. SEP.-iroKTUE) 0,9:10 TEL:609 984 9315 P.0(
LAW OFFICES BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. • I5TM FLOOR 47 7 MADISON AVENUE New YORK. NY 10022-5802
(212) 702-5400 STEPHEN t. GORDON (212) 702-5410 TELECOPIER (2(31 702-S4S0 [email protected]
September^ 2001
Via E-MaU and FedEx
EIlaF.fillippone.Ph.D. Passaic River Coalition 246 Madisonville Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Re: Case: 98-F-1968 Ramapo Enerpv Limited Partnership
Dear Dr. Filippone:
Enclosed please find Ramapo Biergy Limited Partnership's responses to PRC-1 through PRC-14.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me af this office.
Sincerely,
Stephen L/Gordon
Enclosure
cc: Exhibit Exchange List (w/enc.)
NM 9\(?4\50lO\LTR\nnnm iwponie to PRO 1 .14.WIKI RECEIVED
SEP - 7 2001 DIVISION OF LAW STATE OF NEW JERSEY EX. NJDEP-133
WASMINOTOW. DC BACTIHOSE. MD NEW YOB*, NY FORT LEE. NJ SACRAMCNTO. CA SAW FHAMCIECO. CA StP.-ll'OKTUE) 09:10 TEL:609 984 9315 P.0(
• Case #98-F-1968 Ramapo Energy Project
PASSAIC RIVER COALITION INTERROGATORY/DOCUMENT REQUEST
Request No. PRC-1 through PRC-14 Requested By: Passaic River Coalition Requested Of: Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership Date of Request: 22 August 2001 Reply Date: Ten days after receipt Subject: Water Resources
PRC-1. Please provide all studies, analyses, work papers, or other documentation relied upon to support the following statement: "The operation of the Energy Facility will have only minimal and localized impacts on the groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Project." (Rebuttal Testimony of Hersbberger/Faldetta/Rudenko, page 18, lines 11-12.)
Response: The statement is supported by the information presented in Section 3.0 - Proposed • Blasting Plan and Exhibit 4 (Blasting Plan) of Addendum No. 2 regarding potential impacts to bedrock and the discussion regarding potential groundwater dewatering in the Rebuttal Testimony of Hershberger/Faldctta/Rudenko, page 17, line 12 through page 18, line 12.
Respondent: Jeff Hershberger, Sarah Faldetta, Doug Rudenko
PRC-2. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which compare the annual rate of recharge of precipitation to ground water from the site under existing conditions with those that would occur if the site weie to be developed as proposed.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response; The annual rate of groundwater recharge on the Energy Facility Site will be decreased by the percentage of the property that will be developed by buildings and impervious surfaces. Appendix 1-2 of the Article X Application presents the Tome Brook Hydrologic Evaluation that takes into consideration the proposed development of the property. Attachment E in Appendix 1-2 of the Article X Application includes the soil classification curve numbers, the times of concentration, and the watershed divides for existing and proposed conditions of the Ramapo Energy Facility. This data was utilized in evaluating the stonpwater runoff and groundwater infiltration for the proposed facility. SEP.-U'OKTUE) 0,9:10 TEL:609 984 9315 P. 00^
Case#98-F.I968 Ramapo Energy Project
The NYS DEC Stonnwater Management Guidelines for New Development were utilised in designing the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control and mitigate the impacts to water quality from runoff associated with land clearing, grading and construction activities. The extended detention basins were selected as the preferred method for controlling runoff. High groundwater elevations, shallow bedrock, and steep slopes prevent the use of infiltration facilities at the site. A further concern with the use of infiltration, as the primary method to manage stormwater, was the potential introduction of pollutants through spills to the groundwater without providing pretreatment. The proposed method of extended detention allows for pretreatment of potential groundwater contaminants.
Respondent: Janet Bernardo, Jeff Hershberger
PRC-3. Please provide analyses of pertinent data, which compare the annual rate of discharge of precipitation as surface water from the site under existing conditions with those that would occur if the site were to be developed as proposed.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: The Tome Brook Hydrologic Evaluation for existing and proposed conditions for various storm events is included in Appendix 1-2 of the Article X Application. Table 1 within Appendix 1-2, clearly compares the discharge rates for existing, developed, and proposed conditions with mitigation. In accordance witli the NYSDEC requirements for stormwater discharge, the2-year710-year, and 100-year storm events have been included in tlie analysis. The results of the hydrologic analysis indicate that the Ramapo Energy Facility as designed will not result in an appreciable increase in discharge.
Respondent: Janet Bernardo
PRC-4. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the time of travel of ground water from the proposed storm water detention basin(s) on site to the closest well in the Ramapo Valley Well Field (RVWF), assuming that an average of 10 million gallons per day (mgd) is being pumped from the RVWF, and assuming that there is no flow augmentation in the Ramapo River from surface water sources and that pumping from the RVWF ceases when flows over the Suffem gauging station in the river are below 8 mgd.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: This statement does not present a realistic scenario for the migration of shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed stormwater detention basins to the Ramapo Valley Well Field (RVWF). It is anticipated that shallow groundwater in this area will discharge to either Candle SEP.-U'OKTUE) 0,9:10 TEL:609 984 9315 P. 00!
Case#98-F-1968 Ramapo Energy Project
• Brook or Torne Brook (or their tributaries) and migrate to the RVWF as surface water.
Respondent: JeffHershberger
PRC-5. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the time of travel of ground water from the proposed storm water detention basin(s) on site to the closest well in the Ramapo Valley Well field (RVWF), assuming that an average of 10 million gallons per day (mgd) is being pumped from the RVWF, and assuming that there is flow augmentation in the Ramapo River from surface water sources so that pumping from the RVWF continues when flows over the Suffenj gauging station would otherwise be below 8 mgd.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: See response to PRC-4.
Respondent: JeffHershberger •
PRC-6. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the static water levels and their trends in the ten wells in the Ramapo Valley Well Field (RVWF), during the period from 1975 to 2000, and estimate those trends to the year 2025, assuming that the Ramapo Energy facility is built and operated as proposed.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: Ramapo" Energy does not have information responsive to this request beyond that already provided in the Application materials. This request should be addressed to yWNY. .
^ PRC-7. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the loss in available potable water supplies that will be experienced by the Village of Suffem and communities in northeastern New Jersey, assuming that the Ramapo Energy facility is built and operated as proposed.
* Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: Ramapo Energy does not have infoimation responsive to this request beyond that already provided in the Application materials. This request should be addressed to UWN Y.
PRC-8. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the efficiency, that is the ratio of the energy transmitted into the grid to the energy inherent in the natural gas SEP.-M'OKTUE) 09:11 TEL:609 984 9315 P. 00(
Case #98-F-1968 Ramapo Energy Projeci
• consumed, of the proposed power plant operating at full capacity, i.c., 1,100 megawatts, when the ambient air temperature is 25 degrees centigrade, and the ambient air humidity is 75%, under the following alternative conditions:
> Usage of potable water, provided by United Water New York (UWNY), is limited to 40,000 gallons per day; or > Usage of potable water is limited to 60,000 gallons per day; or > Usage of potable water is limited to 176,000 gallons per day (usage based on Mirant Bowline Unit 3 estimates).
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: The amount of water available from UWNY does not impact the efficiency of the project under normal operating conditions. The only restriction it imposes is on the number of hours the plant can operate under peak conditions.
Respondent: Guy Marchmont
PRC-9, Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the emissions, in mass per unit time, from the proposed plant, operating under the three alternative conditions • listed in PRC-8, of the following air pollutants: > Nitrogen oxides; > Ammpnia; > Carbon dioxide.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: The emission rates for ammonia and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the proposed Energy Facility are presented in Table 4.2 of the application for the realm of operating conditions (i.c. loads and ambient temperatures) that can be reasonably anticipated. The temperatures of ^O'F, SOT and 100'F represent the minimum, annual average and maximum ambient temperatures that are anticipated. The emission rates determined at these temperatures were used in the air quality impact analysis for the facility. The water consumption restrictions specified in PRC-8 will not impact the emission rates from the Energy Facility unless they prevent operation of the turbine systems under steam augmentation (identified as operating modes 9 and 10 in Table 4.2). As discussed in Section 4.5 of the application, the average anticipated emission rate of carbon dioxide from the Energy Facility is about 842,500 pounds per hour.
Respondent: Dammon Frecker SEP.-H'OKTUE) 09:i: TEL:509 984 9315 p.oo;
Case #98-F-1968 Ramapo Energy Project
• PRC-10. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which describe the existing ambient concentrations in Candle Brook and Tome Brook found in the period from June through November of the following parameters: > Kjcldal nitrogen; > Nitrate nitrogen
Response: Please refer to Section 62.52 of the Application. Data sheets concerning the tests described in this Section will be forwarded under separate cover from ESS.
Respondent: JeffHershberger, SaradaSangameswaran
PRC-11. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the increases in concentrations in Candle Brook and Tome Brook, caused by the operation of the proposed plant, operating under the three alternative conditions listed in PRC-8, of the following parameters: > Kjeldal nitrogen; Nitrate nitrogen.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop • information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: Ramapo Energy does not have information responsive to this request beyond thai already provided in the Application materials. Ramapo Energy will not be discharging wastewater to either stream. Flows of stonnwater to either Candle Brook ox Tome Brook will also not cause an increase in Kjeldahl or Nitrate nitrogen. The storage of ammonia will be inside a containment area, inside a building. The ammonia containment area is unconnected to the stonnwater management system so that, even in the unlikely event of a spill, nitrogen bearing liquids will not enter runoff to Candle Brook or Tome Brook. Increases in concentrations of Kjeldahl or nitrate nitrogen will not result from any operating scenario.
Respondent: Janet Bernardo
PRC'12. Please provide analyses of pertinent data which estimate the increases in water temperatures in Candle Brook and Tome Brook that would be caused by the operation of the proposed facility.
Response: This request is objectionable to the extent that it requests Ramapo Energy to develop information or prepare a study for another party. Without waiving that objection, Ramapo Energy provides the following response: The criteria governing thermal discharges are outlined in 6 NYCRR, Chapter X, Part 704. The special criteria listed for Nontrout waters, states that the water temperature shall not be raised to more than SEP.-Il'OKTUE) 0,9:11 TEL:609 984 ^31$ P. 001
Case #98-F.l 968 Ramapo Energy Project
90 degrees Fahrenheit, or shall not be raised or lowered by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit over at least 50% of the cross sectional area. The special criteria for Trout waters states, (i) No discharge at a temperature over 70 degrees Fahrenheit shall be permitted at any time to streams classified for trout, (ii) From June through September no discharge shall be permitted that will raise the temperature of the stream more than two Fahrenheit degrees over that which existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin. Tome Brook is currently classified as Nontrout water, however it is the applicant's intention to conform to the criteria for Trout waters.
In the report prepared by J. Galli, 1991, entitled, 'Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices", Galli reported that stream temperatures throughout the summer are increased in urban watersheds, and the degree of wanning appears to be directly related to the imperviousness of the contributing watershed, Galli included a figure in his report titled, "The Effect of Impervious Cover on Stream Temperature'^, The figure illustrates a direct correlation between the stream temperatures in Fahrenheit with the percent of impervious cover within a watershed.
A thermal discharge analysis was performed at Tome Brook directly west of the location at which the grass swale discharging from the Detention Basin #1 outfall reaches Tome Brook. The watershed area to this point of analysis was delineated as • 95,2 acres. The amount of proposed impervious area within this watershed has been delineated as 10.3 acres or approximately 11% of the entire watershed. Utilizing the figure prepared by Galli an 11% increase in impervious area may produce a temperature increase slightly below two degrees Fahrenheit. This increase does not account for any mitigation between the impervious area and the existing stream. A habitat study preformed on 8/25/93 and 6/9/97 indicates the temperature for Tome Brook was 16.4 degrees Celsius (61,5 degrees Fahrenheit).
As slated previously the extended detention basins designed for the Energy Facility includes a forebay to collect the "first flush" of stormwater. During the summer months the first flush will be the wannest water entering the stormwater system. The detention basin will also include wetland plants which will function to reduce pollutants entering the drainage system as well as provide shade to lower the temperature of the stormwater within the basins. The grass swale designed as a recommended BMP to reduce the velocity of the stormwater as well as reduce additional pollutants will also be shaded to reduce the outflow temperature. A wooded buffer will remain along Tome Brook. The Energy Facility as designed will stay within the criteria for Trout waters.
Respondent: Jeff Hershberger, Sarada Sangameswaran, Janet Bernardo
PRC-13. Please provide a detailed description of the methods to be used to demineralize the potable water provided by UWNY that would be used for makeup water, the volume SEP,-ll'OKTUE) 09:12 TEL:609 984 9315 P. 00?
^ Case #98-F-l 968 Ramapo Energy Project
• of water to be so treated, the locations of these treatment processes, and the disposal of the waste water and other wastes from these processes.
Response: A trailer mounted demineralizer system will be used to treat the water received from UWNY. The design of the trailer-mounted system will be finalized during the detailed design phase of the plant However, as a minimum each trailer will contain anion and cation ion exchange units. The trailers will be located near the water storage tanks as noted on drawing C-2 Site Plan. There will be four trailers on site each with the capacity to handle approximately 25 gallons per minute. Thus with all four trains in operation a maximum of approximately 100 gallons per minute can be treated. As explained in our response to DPS-18, the regeneration of the ion exchange beds will take place off site. Attached to our response to DPS-18 is a letter from Ecolochem agreeing to supply the trailers and service them in its facility in East Hartford, Connecticut
Respondent: GuyMarchmont
PRC-14. Please provide a detailed description of the alternative source(s) of water to be used in the event that UWNY could not supply the water required for makeup water, so that the proposed plant could continue to operate after the water stored on site had been consumed.
Response: As noted in the Application there will be three 3-mi]lion gallon water storage tanks on * site. Of this amount 750,000 gallons will be dedicated to fire protection. Thus, 8,250,000 gallons will be available to support project operations. As noted in our response to NJDEP-6, with the Zero Liquid Discharge system (ZLD) in operation, this amount will allow the project to operate under normal base-load conditions for more than a year. If we assume 60 hours of peak operation, then this amount would last for 190 days. With this capability on site, we do not believe that it is necessary to acquire alternate sources of supply. Tlius, we have not searched for an alternate supply. It should be noted that under normal base load conditions no more than three tanker trucks a day would be required to support operations..
Respondent: Guy Marchmont RE-183. Anne L Kniger, 22 August 2001 UOl. "U, i Ui [i'lWI 10 • 00 ibL;bUy y84 9315
LAW OFFICES BEVERIDGE& DIAMOND, P.Q • '5TH FLOOR 477 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK. NY 10022-5802
STEPHEN L,1. GORDON (2121 70S-5400 (212) 702.5-110 59ordanigoaiaw.com TE1XCOPIER 12121 702-5*50
September 28,2001
Via FedRY
AndrpwJ. Dalton,E5q. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna One (Commerce Plaza Albaijiy, New York 12260
| Re: Ramapo Knerev Prnfprf• CaseMn Qg-P-lQ/tff
Dear Mr. Dalton:
int.rrL^10^ PleaSe ^ Ramap0 ^^ Li,nited Partnership's responses to interrigatones/document requests PIPC/Ramapo 62 through 67.
' If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Exhibit Exchange List (w/Enc.)
N:\l!A64\5piO\LTR\mmm n!irmx u, ,irc „^7 ^ RECEIVED
OCT 1 - 2001 DMSONOFLAW EX. NJDEP-134 STATE OF NEW JERSEY
W.SH..CTON. pc B^T-.O^ „D Ncw yo-K> Nr ^^ Ltfr ^ _ U01. "Ui Ul |.l>lUt^ 10^00 TbL:bUy y84 9315 P. 0(
• ""'""^S^^SSS""— Request No.: PlPCyRaniapo-62 Date of Request; Reply Date: September 12,2001 SC, mber28 2001(todl l Witness: " ' " «'-—•»nf.r,i..3ll.arillgdates) Siibject: Water Supply
Atepowerplant.corapaableinsizlte^/r ^m60MGto23MG- The 1080MW
189.000 GPD or 65,7 MGY. I„ ad^oj^^S" W,Ih a ^ ""^S system will be ff^ld>em Energy Center^S^^^^g of the Albany Steam S^io,,
82,080 GPD or 30 MGY if a 4 cootoetatem LT^i ^ a """^ "^ °«8e of •• J)Puraianttol6NYCRRsSS?f ?mip,emaittd- 6 sMiea. research. dau or o^S dL^i ^^ 5". pleMeprovae a __ .. *ater naage of 23 MG. tha, pr0V,des ^ b^ f" RH-P'a proposed S ^oa^ra^^^^f^^.p.eaaee^ factlmea with dty coolbg tachn^8 ^ S0 ^ beiow ^^ k^ at comparable Ifanyauchinfmraata^ee^^.^^ pleaaecont^t ,, PJPC/Ramapo so a confidentialitv am^JT P u mct <:0,msel *»• -ess to such infenn^SS ^ aira,,ged to ^
Response: 0 The Applicant has no studies or research H^ «-. consumption rates for the ^ZZ^^T ^J****** ^ water by Aistom based on its exS^ZL ^n•** rates Were suPPlied ln tions oritsaffiliates. Since th^^^ ^ ^t owned by LLP
tttafe^^^^^^^ oT and operates project ,S a 550MW combied cyc^l^t J^ ^ ^^^etts. This trams each comprised of a g^S S^? * ^inciividual P0Wcr Heat Recover Steam OnL^^*^•*'**** turbine and
M " * ""^r.To r^«.„c.eilCMr^M| rtPOCMl -1- OCT.-Ul' UUMONJ 16:36 TEL:609 984 9515 P.0(
• incorporate a 2LD, but like the Ramapo Energy Project, does receive makeun wat^frornarnumcipalsupply, ^.althoughthek IcstoneXu^Tne M^-r ^ tbe.Ramap0 ^ ***** *** ^ not incoipome a zS sytem, ,t is othenvisc very similar and can be used as a compSson.
Altboueh the Blackstone plant has entered commercial operation its initiaJ shakedown has not been completed. As a result, blowdo'wn of Sle S KSiS 0CCUIT,Dg a^0St eVery ^ ^^ onCQ Shakedown" is completed it^ould occur once or t^ce a week. However, during recent periods oSSe S ^ ^dem0nStrared ^ averaBe -ter consumption 4 of around u nnn ^ ^ COnsumPtl0,1 rate is exPe«ed to improve to approximately 14.000 gpd as Ae project becomes more mature and the steamqL bTomL even cleaner. Based on ^sdemonstmtedconsun^tionra^^^ SSf'TT^ 0f ^ ^^ ^ USaee ^ Bl^ne with Ui« projected for the Ramapo project during nonnal base load opemtion. ^e flows m the table are in gpd units. p^uon. lile
Parameter Blackstone Blackstone Blackstone Unit #1 Unit #2 Total Sanitary Losses (est.) -1,500 -1.500 -3.000 -5,300 Vent Losses -5.800 -7.700 -13.500 ^16,400 Blowdown/Drains -8,600 -11.000 -19.600 -17.300 Total Losses -15.900 -20,200 -36.100 -39,000 Recovered Slowdown +7 inn +9.500 Recovered by ZLD +16.600 Net Water Usape -8.800 -10.700 -igjnn Wol^^/T ^ 3'000 ^ ^ ^ not recov^ from the &TeSt"dtSS^
Two addiUonaJ points should be made with resoeCttnt^(.om • L the Blackstone and Ramapo Energy oro^ Ff^ 1 ^'^^^ between evtimzr-A-F*. .u n ^ia*'" ^"acrgy projects, rirst, the total sanitary losses
Blackstone. Thus, the estimate for sanitary losses at the Ramapo Energy
MMVI nEsK)Nsr.To PIW: MWJTCOOCMNSIAMAKM^ -2. OCT.-l)rUl(MON) 16:55 TEL;609 984 9515 P. 0(
•
project suggests that the vent losses estimaedloSl• F•7"- ^^ ^aJive^thattela^^p^^tT^ZL ^tead^ Tto sugeesls te ^ process ^ rewSSL, the 2LD system than estimated, which would result in , fi«V . U8h make-up water supply fiom UWY. " ne'rcdUctio,1 in
Comparing RELP's waler consumption with other plants is femaht With en• Because there are so many variables that dictate / pianfs SZ-e , ^f'.^«^ve1ogenemtiontecImology,nonvopl^Se saine Such varjables mclude makeup water quality, water tream^X emploM equipment design, opemring performance. opemrineTeZen For
whereas Rsmapo Energy's supply is potable water ftom UWNY Thu, mH„ some nver conditions Athens1 water will require more^ent •2 8 a h.gherwastewater stream. Similarlywuuiuiy, iheAtooasZL^UK Amens project does not ^?include 2LD.,f
clnd^ ^f ^ ^ Alhens P^J^t ^s required to use air-cooled
•
The most significant difiference between Athens 3nHi?PTD- •u J • Hea, Recover Steam GenemtorS^rSsSh^''6"600^6, design, mcotpomting horizontal high aS lowWu^^lf C•,T0Ml the AISTOM Power G-R4 hi•i i pressure steam scparalois/drums. low vrcssSnnZ OT24 comm'nl'"ai cycle system utilizes an HRSG with a low pressure (LP) drum and a once-throueh boiler din rf•mi ,v ,L ^ T pressure (HP) section. Since the HPonc^tf•!^ C" ^ in the togh ,M drU,, ,hereis nopossibffityforcontinnoa"Sw^o^^t . !; 0 isIngh achieved water qualiVrequire^^J^I^SSr^;^through the following features: ^s high water quahty"
n)oPc^rCr/Steam ^ """^ SeleC,im ^ k• ^^ ^ b) High danineralized water quaKty for boiler feedwater Wm^Z*". "^^ 'imueh I* •** •*** volahle ttannent bUpwi^t^srusrSon^rKtintheLp Consequendy. there is only a iK^ofof^SS IP
•
^^'"S'ONSKTOPl^i^C.llOCP.fauMAPOl .OCT.-OrOllMON) 16:56 TEL:609 984 9515 P. 0(
•
"cleaning" or "refreshine cvcle"TfT ! I ' ^ ThjS ,s the S0-caIled
wastewater However th^ PT n water =onsumPtion and generation of
is recovered. wastewater stream
Request No.: PIPC/Rainapo>63 Date |of Request: September 12,2001 S^ SeP^er 28.2001 (includes the extension for the 3 hearmgdates) Subjqct: Water Supply
storage tanks. 8 1,1,s ^^^^POsedtobestoredinthreeSMG 1 1) P^, ,0,5 NYCRR .53(a). ptee ^ain how „,<< ^ te ^ ^ be fiUed.
! hOWOften will tifS ^ MG^i *- ""^ •" * deptoed „<, how long ,
PiPcSo^JS^^•^ „ co^^. plraSe eon.., c^ for ordocfimemaio,,. VgreCDKnIca,lbeamm8
MX*, ncsiW TO MPC «-.7C.D,.«IPC^M*I. ^ is 2) The 23 ras- includes the amual replenishment of the water BnW explained in the response to NJDEP fiT. I ^ pea,£ load- Ho wver. as • nomtal base load conditions formore ito a• fZZT 7^?" Pr0JeCt *•*« included, then the on-site storase can smL/ . , " 0f P4* loadoporatioii is option of the ^^ZTZfZTZt? ^ ^ ^ restncUons on the daily take &m OTOT i•!• f SePtailber). there are ^ : ^^^-^^oSr^^^r^?^ Request No.: PIPC/Rainapo-64 Date| of Request: September 12,2001 Reply Date: Witniess: September 28.2001 (includes the exte^ion for the 3 bearine dates) Subject: Wastewater forlS hours a day, 6 days a week." PradUC'd,557'200«al/day when the plant operates • or other evidence that^vidtftSor^t^:^^0^^^'^ already been provided to PIPC/RanC odyfndta^L If ^^ ""^^ l«ve Mrfoni,ation can be found. y Wllcl1 P28^m ,hose documents such : 2)Pursuantto J^NYrp©'< •3/-,.\ i , operafon was chosen as £Z cSI^^Z^ ""^ *** "^ 3) Pursuant to 16 NYCRR 't v^ i .. "hscharge system, calcuiatious are no, based onSpto o^SS"1 ^^mom wastewater to shut down in ^ event tlm. te t^^^S',^ ***?* *** ^ be forced consecutive days. "^mwo wasrewater limit is reached on more than 6 i 5) Pursuant to 16'NJVrpp'< 1/\ i , I,e,her,hepl d opore^.willoperate24ho^SS ^: -'. ^^<'•aI PD.C/Ram~a^f^bwlSr ^^^ "•— comtse. fur or documentation. V ^^"^ ^ be """"ee" to allow access to such informion Response: '^-dtfSrS^^^^^^y m- The APPJicant has no studies or research OCT..-0r01(M0N) 16;56 TEL:609 984 9315 P.0( • data per se, regarding the water consumption rates for the Ranrapo Energy Pmieot Z^Tn^CbSS X affiliates.^T Since^ theseT '"* other IT^ installations ^ "Sns are privately owned by other ennt.es pcrfonnance data are not ayailable for public acc^ 8 Tablc 8 2J resent operatingo^r"^ regimen TT*."**for the plant. Of'" these six - scenarios, P the «^ daily stop/Sri of th^st o^rarion likely has the greatest peak blowdo«n rate. This number is found on TaUe sTwS L Water Balance withontZLD. submihedwith Errata 5 (because Tabk li nS' ZLD, waste water flows noted thereon as Slowdown to Sewer are zio ' ^t;1tX0V^0^6S^0**e^imU^'I-kb,-^ 4) As explained in Attachment B2 to2o0 Supplement No 2 to AddPnH„m M« o c • Mnne catailatedSs^ by takmg "-^^ the maximum- daily'^ flow ^-^~ for daily stop/start onerauwT flow'r•, gpd), adding a 10% contingency and adding I.OOOgpd SSoC^ulS maximum flow of d4,000gp4 Thm. for si^ continuous da^mde^C^8 3 condiuons. a total of 384.000 gallons of wastewater would £ genSS^ ZI n an isolated storage area ^27^000 ^S^L^Tf ^STS »""^ aewmmodate this deficit As such, •his storage wffl^tow^X^^.J • under stop/start conditions for eight consecutite weeks ^ ^ Request No.: PIPC/Ramapo-65 Date pf Request: September 12,2001 Reply Date: Witness: September 28,2001 (includes the extension for the 3 hearing dates) Subject: Wastewater canpioct^^^ 64,00p GPD. ^e HOOO^S * ^ operatiS storagb tanks ... [wiila^W^^^lf ^ this mode for about two mmS^ ' ^^ "^ ^Mow Ae ^^ or other evidence that .vides ^^J^^^t^^f ^^ ^^ ^ been provided to PIPORamapo only indicate ^s .^ ^quested documents have already can be: found; ^ y ""^ Wblch paees m ^^ documents such information M.MM KWrON.sr.TO PIPCdl.«CDOf:p,peiuMApa • 2) Pursuant to IfiMVPPi? '< ?/ \ i referenced is pan of the ^LmG^Z^'1 'T? *' 272-000 ^'o" aoragc wiiere such Mc wiil be locati; ^^ "^ P"^ to be for su^lus Mter, and if ^t, 3) Pursuant to 16 NYPRP'<; ^/'o^ • 14|000 GPD of .urpius J^^t^^^f2'000 ^. « can accop. P ^caied «the testimony quoted above- ad (W^imately 60 days) as or documentation. ^ greement Cm be anan8ed ^ aUow access to such infonnation Response: 1) Repc^subm^^^The information supporting this testimonyis contained in Th^p • 2) The 272,000-galIon storage area will be a nn^,^ -.u- 3) reqUired SeerePonset0PIPORaniapo^4>iteni4 - 4) Hie mdusjon of the 2LD svstem ic in fw , Teatoe U^ process ^vasteSX ^S "r^• a?Pr0aCh ,0 •ste«ater is of reasonably hicbTuaKtv *;! Jf * ^ ^"^ Sk« 'be deminerali^as Ueam,entyS« ^S f6 "T! «'""^ ^ -ounteddenn-ne^^^^-X'bStS^ Reqiiest No.: PIPC/Ramapo^6 Date |of Request: September 12,2001 Reply Date: Witness: Septen.beras.ZOO, f"«l«ies*ee^o,.&r^3hearillg^ Subject; Wastewater 1 • Pursuant to 16 NYn? i?'< o/\ i require e^ nature of the chemicals that will beS, n^t? 7^ ^ ^^ ** please explain the I If any such infotmation is d^H P ^ hlofo^S of the 2LD system P PIPC/Ramapo so a con^S^S^ ^^ P^ conlt counsel for or documentation. ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^ged to allow access to such inSmation Respojnse: >IMM RCSrb.N • the case for ihe Ramapo Energy project. SyStem- ^^is not Reqjiest No.: PIPC/Ramapo-67 Date of Request- September 12,2001 Reply Date: Witness: September 28.2001 (includes the extension for the 3 hearing dates) Subject: Wastewater hazardous waste Z*aSX^?f? * T"^ *^^^ or 'i^^tiadly or documentation. agreement can be arranged lo allow access to such infonnation i Response: • ^4ouS o:c^MsZt^lZ'^tSiST^ -no.co^crada Envirpnmental Conservation Law. ^CLA, RCRA or the New York Stale Respondents: Guy Marchmont, BUls Heins MM>. «C^WSK.ro r|fC<„7CjJOCT1K^MAr(MW7 .) United Water Now York UnitedWater A 360 Wost Nyack noad West Nyack, NY 10994 telephonQ914G23 1500 (acsimile9U 620 3311 mail ropllos to; 200 Old Hook Road * September 27,2001 Harrington Park NJ 07640.1799 Via Federal Express . Andrew J. "Rusty" Dalton, Esq. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna One Commerce Pla2^ Albany, New York 12260 Re: Case 98-F-1968 Ramapo Energy Project Interrogatories PIPC/Ramapo 68 and 69 Dear Mr. Dalton: Pursuant to 16 NYCRR § 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 and § 1000.1, enclosed please find United Water New York's responses to interrogatories for PIPC/Ramapo-68 and PIPC/Ramapo-69 propounded by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission and the Town of Ramapo. The applicable attachment has not been provided to the active service list. Any party wishing to receive the attachment should request it by fax at 201-767-7018 or by e-mail to carla.hjelm@unitedwater,com. Thank you. Very truly yours,. Carla E. Hjclm / Corporate Attorney End. cc: Active Service List (Via Regular- Mail on September 28,2001 w/o attach) Roger S. Haase, Esq. (NJDEP Via Federal Express) Peter J. O'Connor, Esq. (Via Federal Express) RECEIVED SEP 2 8 ?001 OMSIONOFIAW STATE OF NEW JOSCY EX. NJDEP-135 Z0' 6 S00'ON ZS:ST TO.ST 130 t700T2£9609:ai S 9 f N Responses to Palisades Interstate Park Commission and Town of Ramapo Interrogatory / Document Requests Request of September 12,2001 PIPC/Rainapo-68 and PlPC/Ramapo-69 Case No. 98-P-1968 Ramapo Energy Project Request No: PIPC/Ramapo-fi8 Type: Information Request According to UWNY's response to NYSDPS water supply stipulations Quly 18, 2001), UWNY states that a 23 MGY facility uses the same amount of water as 250 single-family residential homes. UWNY also states that it added on average 875 homes each year from 1996-2000. (Page 1). 1) Pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1000.1 and 16 NYCRR §5.3 please explain whether UWNY expects to add an additional 875 such homes in each upcoming year for the next 5 years; and 2) Pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1000.1 and 16 NYCRR §5.3 please explain what impact UWNY foresees on the amount of future residential and/or commercial growth (and associated increases in water demand) as a result of the construction of the proposed RELP facility. Response: UWNY's projected growth in water demand is shown in Figure 2 of the July 18 document "United Water Now York Response to New York State Department of Public Service Water Supply Stipulations". The figure shows anticipated growth in average and maximum day demand. The average demand projections show a range of growth scenarios from 0.18 mgd/yr to 0.25 mgd/yr. These are equivalent 720 to 1000 single family residential homes per year. If recent historical trends continue then growth is anticipated to be within this range. There are numerous factors that will affect the growth in residential and commercial construction. Examples include the "health" of the regional economy/ construction of new transportation projects, general £0-d SOQ-OM ZS:ST TO.ST 130 t700T££9609: dl S 9 f N population trends and conslraction of new businesses. We are aware at a minimum, according to RliLfs Article X application, the Ramapo Energy Project would employ approximately 32 people. Such growth is within UWNY's anticipated growth in water demand, as discussed in response to item PtPC/Ramapo-68 (1). The total effect of the plant on residential and commercial construction would require a study that is outside the scope of United Water's testimony. We have no information that would lead us to believe that the plant would significantly increase water demand beyond the amounts supplied to the plant. Response Prepared by: Donald Distante Date: September 27,2001 t70-d SOO'ON 8S:SI 10.SI 130 t700I££9609: QI S 9 f N • Responses to Palisades Interstate Park Commission and Town of Ramapo Interrogatory / Document Requests Request of September 12,2001 PIPC/Ramapo-68 and PIPC/Ramapo-69 Case No. 98-^-1968 Ramapo Energy Project Request No: PIPC/Ramapo-69 Type: Information Request According to UVVNY's response to NYSDPS water supply stipulations, UWNY states that peak water demand currently is 45 MGD and peak water supply is 42 MGD. (Page 2), 1) Pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1000.1 and 16 NYCRR §5.3 please explain what measures UWNY undertakes to meet current peak demand; 2) Pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1000.1 and 16 NYCRR §5.3 please also explain how the addition of a 23 MGY power plant will affect UWNY's ability to meet peak water demand; and 3) Pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1000.1 and 16 NYCRR §5.3 please explain how projected growth in residential use of water due to population growth will impact UWNY's ability to meet peak water demand, when adding in the water usage from the proposed 23 MGY RELP facility. Response: UWNY stores 26 million gallons of potable water in 14 storage tanks located throughout Rockland County. During periods of peak demand, water is withdrawn from these tanks to make up the difference between production and demand. As indicated in Figure 2 of the July 18 document "United Water New York Response to New York State Department of Public Service Water Supply Stipulations", UWNY has numerous water supply projects planned to increase production capacity. lO'd SOQ-ON 8S:ST 10,51 iDO 17001229609:01 S 9 f N « f • The anticipated water demand of the RELP project has been evaluated by United Water as shown in Figure 2, as referenced in response to item 1 above. The figure indicates the various water supply projects that UWNY is pursuing to increase peak supply capacity. UWNY is currently working on the design, planning, permitting, construction and/or negotiations for the four projects after the Viola Well project, which was recently completed and put into service. The above-referenced Figure 2 shows how UWNY intends to meet peak water demands due to both population growth and the proposed RELP plant. Response Prepared by: Donald Distante Date: September 27,2001 90"d SOCTON 6S:SI 10,51 iDO 17001229609:01 S 9 f N Nfcw »ork State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Enforcement Central Field Unit, Room 627 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-5500 Phone:(518)402-9510 • FAX: (518) 402-9019 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Erin M- Crotty Commissioner August 28, 2001 (. ' ' '--... Secretary Janet Hand Deixler New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza „.- - '"..'' Albany, N.Y. 12223-1350 n' I •' ~ ' Re: Case 98-F-1968 - Ramapo Energy Project Year 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnake Dear Secretary Debder, Please find enclosed for filing in the record for this proceeding five (5) copies of the above-referenced study which is referenced in the direct testimony of DEC witness William Brown. Most of the parties to this proceeding involved with the rattlesnake issues have already received this document after executing a confidentiality agreement last March. Those parties that have not executed the agreement will receive the study without Drawing 1, which contains confidential information regarding the location of rattlesnake dens in Torne Valley. If vou have any questions with regard to these submissions, please feel free to contact me at 402-9525. Respectfully Submitted, Andiony B. Quartararo iVssistant Counsel cc: July 6, 2001 Exhibit Exchange List (w/enc.) NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT In the Matter of an Application filed by Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Public Need Pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law PSC Case No. 98-F-1968 -and- for Department of Environmental Conservation DEC Case NO. 3-3926-00377/0001 Air Permit STATE OF NEW YORK: S.S. COUNTY OF ALBANY I hereby swear under penalty of perjury that on August 28, 2001,1 served copies of the Year 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnake to the Exhibit Exchange Parties by sending a true and correct copy thereby by placing same in a US Postal Service depository located at 625 Broadway, Albany, New York. VIA US POSTAL SERVICE WITH EXHIBITS The Honorable Robert R. Garlin Steven Blow, Esq. Administrative Law Judge New York State Public Service Commission NYS Depart, of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350 Albany, NY 12223-1350 Fred Ulrich Steven Barshov, Esq. Office of Electricity and Environment Stadmauer Bailkin LLP NYS Dept. of Public Service 850 Third Avenue ,h Three Empire State Plaza 19 Floor Albany, NY 12223-1350 New York, NY 10022 Paul Agresta Stephen L. Gordon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Michael Murphy, Esq. NYS Dept. of Public Service Beveridge & Diamond Three Empire State Plaza 477 Madison Avenue-15th Floor Albany, NY 12223-1350 New York, NY 10022-5802 John F. Klucsik, Esq. Christopher G. Rein Devorsetz, Stinziano, Gilberti, Heintz Environmental Science Services, Inc. & Smith, PC 272 West Exchange Street 555 East Genesee Street Suite 101 Syracuse, NY 13202-2159 Providence, Rl 02903 Andrew J. Dalton, Esq. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12260 VIA US POSTAL SERVICE WITHOUT EXHIBITS Secretary Janet Hand Deixler (5 copies) New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350 David W. Quist Charles A. Gargano, Commissioner Division of Legal Affairs Empire State Development NYS Department of Health 30 South Pearl Street th Coming Tower, Rm. 2417 7 Floor Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12245 Albany, NY 12237-0001 Anthony J. Grey Jeff Gerber Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment Project Manager, Energy Analysis NYS Dept. of Health NYS Energy Research & Development Flanigan Square, Rm. 330 Authority 547 River Street 286 Washington Avenue Extension Troy, NY 12180-2216 Albany, NY 12203-6300 Petra Kreshik Robert S. Haase NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & State of New Jersey Dept. of Law Historic Preservation Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex One Empire State Plaza 25 Market Street Albany, NY 12238 PO Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 Thomas A. Gilbert Stephen J. Powers Appalachian Mountain Club Department of Law Central Appalachian Conservation Director County of Rockland 495A Washington Crossing-Pennington Rd Allison-Parris County Office Bldg. Titusville, NJ 08560 11 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956 Arthur W. Her Michael Klein, Deputy Town Attorney PJM Interconnection, LLC Townof Ramapo Valley Forge Corporate Center 237 Route 59 955 Jefferson Avenue Suffem, NY 10901 Norristown, PA 19403-2497 David T. Metcalfe Terry Rice, Village Attorney Cullen and Dykman Village of Suffern 177 Montague Street 61 Washington Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11201 Suffem, NY 10901 Raymond J. Kane, Director Joseph A. Shea Tome Valley Preservation Association PEG Services Corporation 80 Park Plaza PO Box 765 Hillbum, NY 10931 T5A Newark, NJ 07102 James M. Melius Betty Hedges, President NYS Laborers' Employers Cooperative Rockland County Conservation Assoc. Educational Trust Fund PO Box 213 18 Corporate Woods Blvd. Pomona, NY 10970 Albany, NY 12211 Suffem Free Library Anne L. Kruger, Ph.D. 66 Maple Avenue Passaic River Coalition Suffem, NY 10901 246 Madisonville Road Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Finklestein Memorial Library 24 Chestnut Street Spring Valley, NY 10977 VIA HAND DELIVERY WITH EXHIBITS Honorable Susan J. DuBois, ALJ Office of Hearings and Mediation Service NYS Department of Environmetnal Conservation 625 Broadway - l5' Floor Albany, NY 12233-1550 y /yi K^ l^. Vema Luck Sworn .to before me this _2£^ay of August, 2001. NotaryXTLJ. n,,ui: Public NOTARYANTHONY PUBLIC, R 0UARTARAR0jtate of New VW,,,, _ Qualified in-Bntehess County^/T/W^V"^ Commission Expires Oct 2, jir_ 2000 Field Report For Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Studies Ramapo Mountain Land Company Site Town of Ramapo Rocldand County, New York Prepared for Stone Industries Haledon, New Jersey Januarys, 2001 Prepared by The Chazen Companies 263 Route 17K Newburgh, NY 12550 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnake {Crotalns horridus) Studies on the Ramapo Mountain Land Company Site Ramapo, New York The material and data in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned. The Chazen Companies David B. Tompkins Senior Biologist/Director TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0. METHODS 2 2.1 Mark/Recapture Techniques 2 2.2 Surgical Implantation Transmitters in Snakes 3 2.3 Radio Telemetry 4 3.0 RESULTS 5 3.1 Den Surveys 5 3.2 Basking Area Surveys 5 3.3 Radio Telemetry 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 5.0 REFERENCES 13 Tables and Illustrations Table 1 - 2000 Timber Rattlesnake Observation and Capture Results Ramapo Mountain Land Company Table 2 - 2000 Basking Area Survey Summary Table 3 - Basking Area Surveys Results - 3 Year Study Period Table 4 - 2000 Implanted Timber Rattlesnake Radiotelemetry Log Figures 1-Site Location Map 2-Proposed Developments 3-Potential Basking Areas Drawings l-Radio Telemetry Map 2000 Appendix Appendix A - Correspondences R.unnpo Mountain l^andCompany 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 1998, Ramapo Mountain Land Company (RMLC) applied for a mining permit with the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) to develop a quarry m the Torne Valley section of Town of Ramapo, New York (Figure 1). During the preparation of the mining permit application, it was determined by consultation with the NYSDEC that the area surrounding the proposed project site contained several den populations of timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus), a New York State threatened species. To determine what preliminary impacts the proposed site development could have on the area rattlesnake populations, a field study was initiated in April 1998. This study included the surveying of both known and potential dens and basking areas for snakes, and a habitat analysis of the entire study area. The results of the 1998 work were reported to the NYSDEC in EMCON's 1998 Ecological Studies of the Timber Rattlesnake on the Ramapo Mountain Land Company site. Based on this report, a second year of field work was required by the NYSDEC in 1999. The results of the 1999 study, which included the radio telemetry of two snakes, were reported by EMCON/IT to the NYSDEC in the 1999 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes Studies on the Ramapo Mountain Land Company site (January 2000). In response to the 1998 and 1999 reports, and considering the potential impacts from other nearby projects (Figure 2), the NYSDEC indicated in an April 20, 2000 correspondence (Appendix A) that additional field studies would be required for the 2000 field season. The required work included a request to survey specific den sites a minimum of two times during general emergence, surveys of basking areas 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and implantation of 4 additional snakes with transmitters. Following discussions regarding the April 20th correspondence, a final scope of work was agreed to with the NYSDEC. This scope was outlined in a June 6, 2000 correspondence from IT Corporation to the NYSDEC (Appendix A). Similar capture and marking techniques were used by field teams in 2000 as had previously been used and approved by the NYSDEC. o:\stone ind ramapo'snakes 2000\00ficldrpl 122000 with toc.doc Rev. 01 08.2001 Ramnpo Mountain Land Company 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes 2.0. METHODS All field methods used in 2000 were similar to those utilized during the 1999 and 1998 investigation. Working in pairs, biologists would survey den sites and basking areas, as well as, searching other areas of the site and adjacent property. Potential basking areas are presented on Figure 3. Den areas are not represented on a figure, as the NYSDEC has requested that this information remain confidential. A copy of the April 20, 2000 letter from the NYSDEC, instructing RMLC to conduct a 3rd year of field work is included in Appendix A. Also included is a modified scope that resulted from a scope discussion with the NYSDEC (IT Corp. June 6, 2000, Appendix A). 2.1 Mark/Recapture Techniques All snakes observed in the study area were caught, if possible. During capture, the rattle count, sex, size/length (visual estimate), color morph, and location were recorded for each snake. Each snake was marked with a permanent marker on the rattle (if possible) for identification at subsequent recaptures. Numbering sequences used to identify individual snakes from specific dens were as follows: Letter Den R R-1 S R-2 X(X-l.X-2) R-3 O R-4 R R-15 R-16 T(T-l,T-2) R-14 U Unknown * R-17 Note: *no alpha character was used at this location o:\stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fieldrpt 122000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 Rnmnpo Mountnin L.-uui Company 2000 Field Report for Timber Kaltlesn.'ikes 2.2 Surgical Implantation Transmitters in Snakes The following description covers the surgical procedures that are used to implant transmitters into snakes. Following capture, the snake is assessed to assure that the physical condition is acceptable for an invasive procedure. The snake is then placed in a modified 5-gaIlon aquarium with a rim installed 2 inches from the bottom to create a smaller space. A tight-fitting, Plexiglas cover is placed over the rim and the snake monitored for approximately 10 minutes. Anesthesia (isoflurane) is introduced to the chamber on cotton balls. A minimal amount of anesthesia is used, usually VA cc to I'/z cc. When the snake is immobile, it is placed in a clear tube with dental dam over one end. A slit in the dental dam allows the snake, which is wrapped in gauze and taped to a flat wooden ruler, to fit snugly so an additional V-* cc of isoflurane introduced to the tube can maintain the snake through the 20 minute procedure. Anesthesia is administered according to individual response so that the potential for overdose is minimized. No complications from either surgery or anesthesia were experienced for any snakes. Following anesthesia, the snake is prepped on a large sterile trauma dressing with betadine, and draped with sterile wrap with an opening in the area of the surgery. Following published procedures of Reinert and Cundall (1982), the site for implantation is selected approximately % of the way posterior, snout to vent length. This avoids any possible contact with vital organs. An incision of 1.5 to 3 cm in length is made with a No. 15 scalpel between the 1st and 2nd dorsal lateral scale rows up from the ventral scales. The thin muscle layer is also cut. A sterile probe is used to work the muscle back to expose the peritoneum. A snip is made through the peritoneum, which stretches when the transmitter is introduced. The transmitter, which was coated with a 50/50 mixture of beeswax/paraffin, is soaked in ethyl alcohol, and then flushed with sterile saline before introduction. The peritoneum closes over immediately, leaving the antenna wire protruding from the incision. An 18-inch stainless steel catheter, cleaned with betadine and flushed with saline, is inserted subcutaneously from the incision site anteriorly a distance of approximately an inch more than the antenna length. The antenna wire is inserted into the catheter, which is removed by making a small incision in the skin and pulling it through. The incision site is closed with 3 sutures of absorbable 4-0 coated vicryl. The skin is then sutured between scales. Nuskin is applied sparingly to allow for any possible drainage, which has not been observed. Prior to suturing, the snake is removed from anesthesia to minimize the recovery time. Usually within o;\st.one ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fioldrpt 122000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 Rnmapo Mountain Land Company 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes 10 minutes of completion of the procedure the snake is awakening. The snake is monitored during recovery to assure that it does not stop breathing. This eliminates the possibihty of an "anesthesia relapse," since snakes can retain anesthesia in their air sacs. The snake is kept in captivity a few days before being released. 2.3 Radio Telemetry Implanted snakes were monitored (i.e., radio-tracked) 3 times a week, generally on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, using a TRX 1000S receiver, manufactured by Wildlife Materials, Inc. of Carbondale, Illinois. Each location was marked in the field using survey tape. All points were later surveyed and recorded using a Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. For snakes implanted during 2000, radio tracking was initiated for each snake on the day it was released, and continued up to October 2, 2000, when all snakes were found to be in their hibernating sites. Snakes implanted in 1999 (#946 and #741) were monitored continuously from emergence on April 24, 2000, up to July 5 and August 2, 2000, respectively, when the transmitters were removed from each snake. o:\stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fieldrpt 122000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 Ramnpo Mountain Land Company 200C Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Den Surveys Spring den surveys were conducted on April 24, May 3, May 4, and May 6, 2000. During these surveys, 19 snakes were capturedVobserved either in the dens or the immediate vicinity of the dens (Table 1). Specifically, on April 24, 2000 two snakes were observed in the R-16 den crevice. These two snakes included #741 (implanted during 1999) and a 39-mch yellow female (unmarked). In Den R-l, #946 was located via telemetry in the subsurface talus. The den survey on May 3 resulted in the capture of two new snakes at R-14 (T-3, a 46 inch yellow male and T-4, a 48 inch yellow male). On May 4, 10 snakes were observed in the vicinity of R-l and R-16. These included six new captures, 2 implanted snakes from 1999, and 2 recaptures from 1999. (Table 1). On May 6, one 36 inch yellow female was recaptured at R-l. Although the snake was marked, the field team was unable to determine the alphanumeric marking on this snake. Three additional snakes were observed/ captured at R-14 on May 6. These included a 36-inch yellow female (T-5), an 18-inch yellow female (marked but not numbered), and an 18-inch yellow phase that was not captured. In general, the results of the den surveys were not as successful as the past two years in yielding a large number of snakes. This low capture rate is most likely the result of sporadic emergence due to fluctuating weather conditions during April 2000. However, the observance of 5 new snakes (3 adults/2 juveniles) at R-14 (indicating a reproducing population in this den) is significant. 3.2 Basking Area Surveys At the request of NYSDEC, 10 basking areas (BA) were surveyed during 2000 (Table 2). Surveys began on May 31, 2000 and continued at least once per week up to August 30th (Table 1, Figure 3). Basking areas surveyed included BA 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and the ESS Mitigation Area (BA 13A) located Northeast of BA 13 (not shown on Figure 3). In addition, one new basking area was added to the survey route in 2000. This basking area (BA 14) is identified on Figure 3. Occasional surveys were also conducted in Basking Areas 3 and 9. Rattlesnakes were captured in 9 of the 13 areas. These o:\stoiie ind ramapoXsnakes 200O\00fieldrpl 122000 with toe.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 Rnmnpo Mountain Land Company 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes included BA 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 9, 12, and 14. The total number of surveys conducted for each Basking Area is presented in Table 2. Presented in Table 3 is a comparison on a yearly basis (for the 3 year period) of the number of captures/ observances of snakes at each basking area. Based on this comparison, BA 3, BA 4, and BA 9 were the most heavily used areas. These areas are located offsite on the northern and east sides of the RMLC proposed quarry site. Areas (surveyed all three years) used the least include BA 5, BA 6, BA 7, BA 8, BA 10, BA 11 and BA 12. BA 5, BA 6 and BA 12 are located in the central section of the proposed quarry project, while the other areas are located offsite to the south. Specific results of the basking area surveys are presented below. BA3 One snake was captured at BA 3 on May 31. This snake, a 44-inch yellow male, was marked number U-17. BA4 Snakes captured at BA 4 included a 28 inch yellow female (U-28) in pre-shed condition that was caught on June 28. This snake was evaluated for implantation of a transmitter but was determined to be too small to safely implant. Other snakes caught at BA 4 included U-20, a 46-inch black male caught on July 24 and U-21, a 36-inch yellow female found on August 2. BA5 Surveys of BA 5 resulted in the observance of a shed on June 26, and the capture of a 48-inch yellow male (U-22) caught on August 16. U-22 was not implanted because the field team was currently monitoring the movements of 4 snakes, the maximum number of implanted snakes requested by the NYSDEC. BA6 During 1998 and 1999, no snakes had been observed at BA 6. However, one capture was made on June 7, 2000 of a 46-inch yellow male. This snake (#887) was implanted and monitored a total of 38 times throughout the summer and fall. A further discussion of snake 887 is presented in Section 3.3. o\stone ind ramapoXsnakes 2000\00fieldrpl 122000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/03/2001 Rnmnpo Mountain Land Compiiny 2000 Field Report for Timber Raulesnakos BA7 No snakes were captured at BA 7 in 2000. However, BA 7 was used by implanted snakes 015 and 865, at various times throughout the year. BA8 Surveys of BA 8 resulted in the capture of a 48 inch yellow male on June 14 (number U-19), and a 45-inch yellow male (#865) caught on the south end of BA 8 on June 21. Snake #865 was implanted with a transmitter and monitored a total of 28 times during the summer. Snake #U-19 was marked and released. BA10 No snakes were observed in this basking area in 2000. BAH No snakes were observed in this basking area in 2000, although snake #015 frequented the southeast slope about 250 feet east of BA 11. BA12 One capture was made at BA 12 in 2000. This was the first observance of a snake at this location in three years. The recaptured snake was a 49-inch yellow male caught on July 24. This snake had previously been caught at BA 9 on August 16, 1999. This snake was implanted with a transmitter (#054) and monitored 19 times during the summer and fall. BA13 Although 5 snake observances/captures were made at BA 13 in 1999, the surveys in 2000 failed to detect the presence of any snakes in this area. Implanted snakes #741 and #946 did use the forested areas north and east of BA 13, prior to removal of the transmitters (see Drawing 1). o\stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fieldrptl 22000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/OS/2001 Rnmapo Mountain Land Company 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes BA 13A (ESS Mitigation Area) No snakes were observed in this area in 2000. BA14 On June 28, snake #T-1 (previously caught in the fall of 1999 at R-14) was discovered on the RMLC site in an area not formally identified as a basking area. The location was on the eastern central portion of the site, east of the proposed quarry footprint. T-l was in a pre-shed condition when captured. Noteworthy, was the discovery of a shed skin in close proximity to T-l, indicating a second snake had been present. This area was therefore added to the basking area surveys and was searched on a regular basis. This area is identified as BA 14 on enclosed maps and tables. Fourteen additional surveys of this area failed to identify any further use of this area by rattlesnakes. 3.3 Radio Telemetry The movements of six snakes were monitored via radio telemetry during the 2000 field program. Snake #946, initially implanted in July 1999, was monitored 22 times from April 24 to July 3, 2000 when the implanted transmitter began to malfunction. This snake was picked up on July 3 and the transmitter removed. After a short recuperation period, the snake was released. Snake #741 was monitored 30 times from April 24 to August 2, 2000, at which time he was picked up for transmitter removal. After recuperation this snake was also released. Movements of both snakes are shown on Drawing 1 along with the plotted movements from 1999. In general, the movements during 2000 occurred in the same general area as 1999. Movements for 2000 are shown as solid lines, while movements for 1999 are dashed lines. Based on the one complete year of telemetry data, these two snakes show a preference for the northern section of the RMLC parcel. Both snakes did appear to exhibit a general avoidance for BA13, the point of capture in 1999. Suggested causes for this behavior could be attributed to a negative association of this area with their capture or habitat alteration resulting from ongoing investigation in the area. Both snakes did extensively use the area surrounding BA13. o:\stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00rieldrpt 122000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 R.imnpo Mountain Lnnd Company 2000 Fiold Report for Timber Rattlesnakes Snake #946 moved 11,353 linear feet (LF) or 2.2 miles during the April 24 to August 2 period. Snake # 741 moved 12,400 LF or 2.3 miles during the summer monitoring period. Overall, from August 1999 to August 2000, #741 moved a total of 25,599 LF or 4.8 miles, while #946 moved a total of 17,668 LF or3.3 miles. Habitat used by both snakes was primarily the forested habitat type typical of the onsite mixed oak woodlands. The only exception to the forested habitat was the use of the dense herbaceous/shrub areas used during the 1999 migration back to the dens. This habitat was located adjacent to the Con Ed substation. Four snakes were implanted with transmitters during the 2000 Field Program. These included snakes #015, 054, 865 and 887. The distance traveled by each snake is presented below. These distances represent approximately H of the annual movement of each snake. Snake # Alpha Cross Distance Traveled Reference LF Miles 015 T-l 10,500 2.0 054 Yc 9,345 1.8 865 Yb 8,263 1.6 887 Ya 15,391 2.9 Average = 2.1 miles Noteworthy, is the movement of #054 west to an area adjacent to the Town of Ramapo landfill (see Drawing 1). This area is a dense herbaceous/shrub area (increased ground cover), likely dominated by a higher density of prey species. After capture on the central portion of the RMLC proposed site, #887 extensively used the Park property east of RMLC site for the bulk of the summer. The predominant habitat used by #887 was the mixed oak forest type. One exception was telemetry point #20, which was located on the Algonquin gas line. Also noteworthy was the return of these two snakes (865 and 887) to a new denning location (R-17) not previously detected and the capture/observation o:\stone ind ramapoXsnakes 20OO\00Deldrpt 122000 with toe.doc The Chazen Cornpanies Reu. 01/08/2001 Ramapo Mountain Land Company '" 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes of 7 additional snakes in this area on October 2. This data suggest that the new den (R-17) is a highly viable den with a substantial population of snakes. This den is likely the source of snakes encountered during the past three years at BA 4 and BA 9 and marked as "U" snakes (unknown origin). Although captured on RMLC property, snake #015 did not use any of the footprints of the proposed quarry. This snake rapidly moved off site and used the Park area to the southwest of the RMLC site. This snake returned to den R-14. Snake #865, although caught offsite at BA 8 did enter into the proposed footprint in late summer for two brief periods. The dominant habitat types used by this snake include electrical right of way and the adjacent mixed oak forest. The majority of locations at which this snake was captured were south of the RMLC property. Both of these snakes denned in the R-14 den area. o:\stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fieldrpt 122000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/OS/2001 Rnmnpo Mountain Land Company '' 2000 Field Report for Timber Ratl'esnakes 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the 2000 field program, the following information was obtained: • Snakes #741 and #946, which were captured and implanted in 1999 at BA13, continued to vise the northern section of the RMLC site. • Four new snakes were captured on the RMLC property, implanted with radio transmitters, and released. These snakes were monitored a total of 107 times throughout the summer providing detailed information on the movements of snakes on and near the property. • Forested habitat was the dominant vegetation type used by all snakes during the summer months. • Telemetry of snakes #887 and #054 resulted in the discovery of one new denning area located at a distance of over 1 mile from the most eastern edge of the proposed quarry site. • Detailed movements were obtained of snakes using the central portion of the proposed quarry site. These data indicate that the proposed quarry site is used, at least intermittently, by snakes from the surrounding dens. • Telemetry of snakes #865 and #015 documented the movement of snakes from the southern end of the RMLC site southward toward den R-14. • Extensive surveys of basking habitats indicate that the basking areas located offsite (BA 3, 4 and 9) are used more heavily used that those onsite (specifically BA 5, BA 6, and 12). BA13 was a new basking area added to the survey route in 1999. Surveys of this Basking Area in 2000 resulted in no new captures or observances of snakes. In fact, snakes #741 and #946 may have actually avoided the area in 2000 due to increased human presence or changes in conditions caused by activities at the site. Similar avoidance behavior is discussed by several researchers in Brown 1993. Based on the results of three years of field surveys, The Chazen Companies believes that the implementation of the quarry can be completed in a manner that will not negatively impact local rattlesnake populations. Data collected during the three years indicates that the majority of snake activity is occurring north, east, and south of the proposed quarry site. The few o:\stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00Qeldrptl2200O with too.doc The Chazen Companies Reu. 01/08/2001 Rnmapo Mountain Land Company '- 2000 Field Report for Timber Rattlesnakes incidents of a snake using the central section of the proposed quarry site (BA 5. BA 6, and BA 12) wiU represent a minimal loss of foraging and basking habitat, which can easily be offset by the surrounding undisturbed woodlands. Project initiation will require mitigation measures such as providing buffer areas, constructing snake-proof fencing, and providing education classes for on-site workers. These mitigation measures should be incorporated into construction and operational details to minimize human/snake interactions. Based on the three years of onsite data collected on behalf of Stone Industries, The Chazen Companies believes that the RMLC site can be utilized as a quarry operation without impacting nearby rattlesnake dens/populations, especially since the current redesigned plan calls for a smaller quarry and a reduction in the overall area to be disturbed. stone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fieldrptl22000 with toc.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 Rnmapo Mountain Land Company 13 2000 Fiold Report for Timber Rattlesnakes 5.0 REFERENCES Brown, W.S.. 1993. Biology, Status and Management of the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus): A guide for the Conservation. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, No. 22. Reinert, H.K and D. Cundall. 1982. An Improved Surgical Implantation Method for Radio Tracking Snakes. Copeia (3)702-705. oAstone ind ramapo\snakes 2000\00fieldrpt 122000 with toe.doc The Chazen Companies Rev. 01/08/2001 TABLES Table 1 2000 Timber Rattlesnake Observation and Capture Results Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Length Weight Rattle Field Recapture Reference Data Date Sex Color Capture Location Comments (in) (q) Count No. Date Sheet No. 49 M Y - 0.741 In R-16 den crevice (hidden) 1 24-Apr 39 .- - Y 6 In R-16 den crevice 1 45 M B -- 0.946 In R-l den (hidden) 1 46 M Y 9 T3 Top of basking ridge N of boulder DB1-1 3-May 48 M Y 15 T4 Top of basking ridge N of boulder DBT-1 24 F Y 3»b In R-1 den Marked but not numbered 2 45 M B .. 0.946 100m below den 2 39 - GF Y 5 In den Recapture from 4/26/99 2 42 M B 9 31 S edge of den 2 38 PPF Y basal - S edge of den Marked but not numbered 4-May 2 27 F Y 6*b .32 S edge of den • 2 36 - F Y 12 25 S edge of den Recapture Irorn 5/10/99 2 48 - M Y 3 33 Transient boulders 2 12 F B b Transient boulders Marked but not numbered 2 49.5 M Y 0.741 Hidden in talus 22m from den R-16 2 36 - F Y 4? R1-Blue paint DBT-2 18 Y R-14 transient talus 6-May 3 18 F Y 2*b - R-14den 3 36 F Y 10*b T-5 R-14 den 3 45 M B 10-May -- 0.946 84 |ust off OSR access road intersection approx. 50 ft. E of road JD5/10 49 M Y . 0.741 Y4 100 yds. NE of wells 5S and 5D near edge of property markers JO 5/tO 45 M B 12-May 0.946 B5 adiacenl to B4 just off access road JD5/12 49 M Y 0.741 Y5 50 ft NE of Y4 - 150 yds NE of wells 5S & 5D near edge of prop markers JO 5/12 49 M Y 0.741 15-May Y6= Y5 near edge of property line approx. 150 yds. NE of wells 5S and 5D JO 5/15 45 -- M B 0.946 B6 same as/adjacent to 85 and 84 just off access road JD5/15 45 M B 0.946 B4. 5. 6 4 17-May Marked dayglo blue 49 M Y 0.741 Y7. NofBA3 Marked green 4 49 M Y 0.741 Y10 SE of road approx. 250 yds. approx. 75 ft. NE of Y5 and Y6 JO 5/24 24-May 45 M B 0.946 B10 in pile of tree limbs on newly formed access road N of easement JO 5/24 49 M Y 0.741 26-May Y11 approxJ25 yds. W of Y10 approx. 150-200 yds SE of access road JD 5/26 45 M B • 0.946 Bl 1 near, log ca. 150 yds. SE of BA13 JD 5/26 49 - M Y 0.741 Y12 same as Y11 aprox 150-200 yards SE of access road 29-May JD 5/29 45 M B 0.946 B12 ca. 50yds. E of B11 in sapling cluster JD 5/29 49 M Y 0.741 By locations #11, #12 (location #13) 5 31-May 44 - M Y 8 U-17 Top of BA3 5 45 M B -- 0 946 Location #13 ca. 300m E of BA13 Coiled in ambush posture 5 49 M Y 2-.lun 0 741 Y14 ca 100 ft. N of pole 94 near OSR easement by BA3 .10 6/2 45 M 8 0 946 Bt4 near log SEof BA13 JD 6/2 49 M 5-Jun Y 0 741 Y15 approx. 100 ft. NW of pole #94 nol visible under leaves and bush JD6/5 45 M B 0.946 B15 approx 0 25 mi? SW of BA13 JD6/5 49 M Y 0.741 By location #15 (now #16) 6 7.Jun 45 M 8 0 946 By location #15 (now #16) 6 46 1100 M Y 14 0.887 BA6 6 49 M Y 0.741 Y17 - 100 yds E of mam rd. - 100 yds SW of access rd to BA3 near stump 9-Jun .10 6/9 45 M B 0 946 B17 approx. 100 ft. NE o(B16 and 815 JDfJ/9 49 M Y 0741 Location #18 approx. 280mNWof8A13 / U-Jun 45 M B 0 946 Location #18 approx 280mSEofBA13 With bolus 7 48 1560 M Y 10 U-19 BA8 Pre-shed 7 49 -- M Y 0.741 Location #19 by location #18 (NW of BA13) 8 16-Jun 45 M B - 0.946 Location #19 by location #18 (SE of 8A13) 8 46 1100 M Y 14 0.887 Location #1.2 at BA6 8 Page 1 ol 5 Table 1 2000 Timber Rattlesnake Observation and Capture Results Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Rattle Field Recapture Reference Data Length Weight Sex Color Capture Location Comments Date Sheet No. (in) (q) Count No. Date 49 M ' Y 0 741 Location «20 at BA3 9 45 M B 0.946 Location #20, hillside ca. 275m S o( location #19 9 21-Jun 46 M Y 0 887 Location #3, E side of BA6 9 45 1160 M Y 10 0.865 Location #1 S end o( BA8 9 10 49 M Y 0.741 Location #21 ca. Xf from location #20 1 45 M B 0.946 Location #21 ca. SO W of location #20 10 23-Jun 46 M Y 0.887 Location #4 ca. 30m E of location #3 10 44 M Y 0.865 Location #2 at BA8 10 49 M Y - 0741 ca. 200m SW of location #21 had bolus but still in ambush posture 11 45 M B 0.946 Location #22 ca. 120m NE of location #21 11 26-Jun 48 M Y Shed at BA5 11 46 M Y - 0.887 Location #5 ca. 200m N of BA11 11 44 M Y 0.865 Location #3 at BA7 11 49 M Y 0.741 Location #23 ca. 70m E of BA 13a 12 45 M B 0.946 Location #23 ca 250mSEofBA13 In ambush posture 12 28 F Y 5»b U-18 BA4 Pre-shed 12 28-Jun 48 1650 M Y 6 T-1 2e0m S of BA5 Held for implant/recapture from 9/27/9E 12 46 M Y 0.887 Location #6 ca 20m SE of location #5 Crawling 12 44 M Y 0 865 Location #4 at BA7 12 51 M Y Shed found 280m S of BA5 12 49 M Y 0.741 Location #24 ca. 200m E of BA13 13 45 .. M B 0 946 Location #24 ca. 75m N of location #23 13 30-Jun 46 M Y 0.887 Location #7 ca. 60m E of SBM trail 13 48 _. M Y U-19 BA7 Release from 6/14 capture 13 44 M Y 0.865 BA7- location #5 13 49 M Y 0.741 40m West of previous location, east of BA 13A DBT-3 45 M B 0.946 Could not locate DBr-3 3-Jul 46 M Y 0.887 ca. 20m SE of last location DBT-3 44 M Y 0.865 Same location as previous ' DBT-3 49 M Y -- 0.741 Location #26 15m SE of location #25 14 45 1020 M B 0.946 Location #25 by location #15.16 Missed on 7/3 14 5-Jul 46 M Y 0.887 Location #8 by location #7 14 44 M Y •- 0.865 Location #7 at BA7 14 49 M Y 0.741 Location #27 by location #26 15 7-Jul 45 M Y 0887 Location #10 by location #9 15 44 M Y 0.865 Location #8 at BA7 15 49 M Y 0.741 Location #28 by location #27 16 11-Jul 45 M Y 0 887 Location #11 by location #10 15 DDT-4 49 .. M Y 0 741 10m from location on 7/11. east of BA 13 D0T.4 13-Jul 46 ., M Y 0 887 #12- 20m south of last location, east of SBM DBT-4 44 M Y 0.865 50m NW of previous location, west of road in rock outcrop 44 M Y 0 865 By road below BA8 (location #10) Now post shed 17 17-Jul 46 M Y 0887 Location #13 by location #12 17 49 M . Y 0.741 Location #30 ap'prox. 10m N of location 29 17 47 M Y 0.015 Released at location #1.2 18 19-Jul 46 M Y 0.887 Location #14 by locations #12.13 18 44 M Y 0.865 Location #11 below S end of BA8 18 49 M Y 0741 Y-31 Near previous location on SW knoll, near downed tree DBT-5 46 M Y 0887 #15- Same as previous location DBT-5 21-Jul 48 ; M Y 6 0.015 #2 ca. 200m south of BA10 DBT-5 44 M Y -- 0.865 Behind homes on Hillburn Circle Moving south DBT-5 Page 2 of 5 Table 1 2000 Timber Rattlesnake Observation and Capture Results Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Recapture Reference Data Date Length Weight Sex Color Rattle Field Capture Location Comments (in) (d) Count No. Date Sheet No. AO Y 0 74) Samii location as previous, SE of BA13 1 ilil '. •111 \iy.i M Y V Wfcapluie Jl liA12 Arnbush pot.tuiu*. tielil lor impkinl IJUT-O ' 415 M B 13»B U20 West edge ol BA4 New capture, ambush posture DBr-6 24-Jul 46 M Y 0.887 YA-16. same location as last, east ot SBM "Post shed" DBT.6 48 .. M Y 0.015 Valley between BA11-10 #4 "On the move" DBT-5 44 M Y 0 865 "Over the hill"- no signal DBT-6 49 - M Y 0.054 #2- BA-12 DBT-7 46 M Y 0.887 #17- Near previous location east of SBM Trail DBT-7 30-Jul 44 M Y 0.865 No signal - cannot locate 48 M Y 0.015 South facing ridge near ROW heading west from BA8 DBT-7 49 1530 M Y 0.741 Location «35 ca. 70m E of gate 19 49 M Y 0 054 Location «3 by rd. (W side) at BA12 19 36 597 F Y 8-b U-21 BA4 19 2-Aug 46 - M Y 0.887 Location #18 by location #17 19 47 - M Y 0.015 Location #6, approx. 10m S of location #5 19 -39 — . .. Location #6 19 44 M Y 0.865 Below and S of BA8 (location #13) 19 49 M Y 0054 S edge of T-line; Location #4 2 clear seg.i mkd. on 8/16/99 (U-14) 20 36 F Y 8-b U-21 Released a! BA4 8/2 capture site 20 4-Aug 46 - M Y 0.887 Location #19 approx. 15m NE of Location #18 20 44 .- a Y 0.865 Location #14 under T-line 20 ... . 47 M Y 0.015 Location #7 approx. 15m NW of Location #6 20 4S M Y 0,054 #6^ North of BA6 DBT-8 46 M Y 0.887 #20? On gas line row DBT-8 8-Aug 48 .. M Y 0.015 Southeast corner of BA7 DBT-8 44 M Y 0.865 No signal- cannot locate DBT-B 45 M Y 0.887 Location #21 ca. 70m S of gaslme 21 47 M Y 0.015 Location #9 approx 90m E of Location #8 21 10-Aug 49 M Y 0.054 Signal from above landfill 21 44 M Y 0.865 Signal from above and E of BA7 21 11-Aug 44 M Y 0.865 W side of T-line NE of BA8, Location #15 22 47 M Y 0.015 Approx. 100m SE of BA11 at Location #10 23 14-Aug 44 M Y 0.865 Location #16 by Location #15 23 46 -- M Y 0 887 Location #22 approx 28Qm S of gas line 23 47 - M Y 0.015 Location #11 by Location #10 at BA11 24 44 M Y 0.865 Location #17 approx. 20m N of Location #16 24 16-Aug 46 - M Y 0.887 Location #23 by Location #22 24 48 .. M Y U-22 BA5 24 47 - M Y 0.015 Loc. #12 approx. 16m NE of Loc. #11 25 44 M Y 0.865 Loc. #18 in broom at BA7 25 18-Aug 46 - M Y 0.887 Loc. #24 by Loc.#23, S of gas line 25 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #6 near SE 'side of landfill 25 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #7 at SE corner of landfill 26 47 M Y 0.015 Loc. #13by#12atBA11 26 21-Aug 44 M Y 0 865 Loc. #19 by #18 at BA7 26 46 M Y 0 887 Loc. #25 approx. 25m SW of loc. #24 26 49 M Y 0 054 Loc #8 by Loc. #7 27 25-Aug 47 W Y 0 015 Loc #14 approx. 30m downslope from #13 27 44 M Y 0.865 Loc.#20 approx, 70,m E of T-line 27 46 M Y 0 887 Loc. #26 approx. 270 m N of BA 11 27 Page 3 of 5 Table 1 2000 Timber Rattlesnake Observation and Capture Results Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Length Weight Rattle Field Recapture Reference Data Date Sex Color Capture Location Comments (in) (q) Count No. Date Sheet No. 46 M Y 0.887 adjacent to SBM tiail DBT-S 48 M Y 0.015 #15 approx. 2000 ft south ot RMLC property see USGS map for location DBT-9 28-Aug 44 M Y 0.865 No signal DBT-9 49 M Y 0.054 No signal DBT.9 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #29 approx. 250 m NE of Loc. #28 28 47 M Y 0.015 Loc. # 17 approx. 100m W of SBM trail 28 1-Sep 45 M Y 0.865 Loc. #21 by "pilot rk." on T-Line 28 37 F Y 13 U-23 by pilot rk. vitellogenic 28 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #9 at BA12 capture site 28 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #10 at BA 12 29 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #30 approx 70m S of gas line 29 4-Sep 47 M Y 0.015 Loc. #18 at Loc. #17 29 44 M Y 0.865 Loc.#22 on N side of Nord Kop Mt. 29 49 M Y 0 054 Loc. #11 atBA12 30 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #31 by Loc. #30 30 6-Sep 37 720 F Y 12 U-24 by .887 Loc.#30,31 30 47 M Y 0.015 Loc.#19 by previous location 30 44 M Y 0.865 Loc. #23 by previous location 30 49 M Y 0054 Loc. #12atBA 12 31 46 M Y 0867 Loc. #32 by previous location 31 8-Sep 47 M Y 0015 Loc. #20 approx. lOOm N of gas line 31 44 M Y 0 865 Loc. #24 by Loc. #23 31 10-Sep 49 M Y 0.054 side of slope east of BA4 DBT-10 49 M Y 0.054 approx. 100m N of BA9 at Loc. #14 32 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #33 on S edge of gas line 32 11-Sep 47 M Y 0.015 Loc. #21 on NW top of Nordkop Mt. 32 44 M Y 0.855 Loc. #25 in R-14 main den crevice 32 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #15 approx. 300m NE of BA9 33 46 M Y 0 887 Loc.#34 approx. 420m NE of gasline 33 13-Sep 47 M Y 0015 Loc. #22 approx 100m S of previous loc. 33 44 M . Y 0.865 Loc. #26 exposed at den crevice 33 42 Y shed on top of w edge of gasline 33 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #35 by Loc. #34 34 18-Sep 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #16 325m S of T-line 34 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #36 by loc. #35 35 49 Y 0.054 Loc. #17 by loc. #16 35 21-Sep a 44 M Y 0865 Loc. #27 in den 35 47 M Y 0015 Loc. #23 on top of ravine to den 35 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #37 approx. 250m NE of Loc. #36 36 25-Sep 49 M Y 0.054 Loc. #18 by Loc. #17 36 46 M Y 0.837 Loc. # 38 approx. 15m N of Loc. #37 37 49 M Y 0.054 Loo. #19 by Loc #18 37 28-Sep 47 M • Y 0.015 Loc. #24 in den 37 44 M Y 0.865 Loc. #28 in den 37 Page 4 of 5 Table 1 2000 Timber Rattlesnake Observation and Capture Results Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Length Weight Rattle Field Recapture Reference Data Date Sex Color Capture Location Comments (in) (q) Count No. Date Sheet No. 46 M Y 0.887 Loc. #39 on lower SW side of hollow 38 39 F Y 4 lnR-17den 38 41 M Y 9 lnR-17 den 38 45 M Y 5 lnR-17 den 38 2-Ocl 31 .. .. Y lnR-17 den 38 39 .. Y .. lnR-17 den 38 45 F Y 8 lnR-17den 38 49 F Y 0.054 Loc. #20 in R-17 den 38 36 PPF Y 8 -- lnR-17den post pardim 38 Page 5 of 5 Table 2 2000 Basking Area Survey Summary Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Basking Number Dates 10-Aug 11 -Aug Area of Visits 31-May 7-Jun 14-Jun 16-Jun 21-Jun 23-Jun 26-Jun 28-Jun 3-Jul 5-Jul 7-Jul 17-Jul 19-Jul 21-Jul 24-Jul 2-Aug 4-Aug 1 0 2 0 X 3 5 x x X X X X X X X 4 24 X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 26 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6 22 X X x X X X X X X X X X X 7 23 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 19 X X X X X X X X X 9 4 X X X 10 17 X X X X X X X X X X 11 19 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 26 X X X X x X X X X X X 13 19 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13A 19 X X X X X X X X X X X x 14 17 X X X X X X X X X X X 15 2 Table 2 2000 Basking Area Survey Summary Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Basking Number Area of Visits 14-Aug 16-Aug 18-Aug 21-Aug 25-Aug 4-Sep 10-Sep 11-Sep 13-Sep 8-Sep 18-Sep 21-Sep 25-Sep 1 0 2 0 3 5 4 24 X X X X X X X X X X X 5 26 X X X X X X X X X X X X 6 22 X X X X X X X 7 23 X X X X X X X X X 8 19 X X X X X X X X 9 4 X X X 10 17 X X X X X X X X 11 19 X X X X X X X X X X 12 26 X X X X X X X X X X X 13 19 X X X X X X 13A 19 X X X X X X 14 17 X X X X X 15 2 X X Table 3 Basking Area Survey Results - 3 Year Study Period Ramapo Mountain Land Company, Ramapo, NY YEAR Basking Area 2000 1999 1998 Total 1 ns ns 0 0 2 ns 0 1 1 3 1 5 o 6 4 3 2 1 6 5 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 1 8 3 0 0 3 9 0 8 1 9 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 1 13 0 5 ns 5 13A 0 0 ns 0 14 1 ns ns 1 Total # Snakes 12 21 3 36 Notes: ns = Not Surveyed Total # Snakes = observations/captures/telemetry points Table 4 2000 Implanted Timber Rattlesnake Radiotelemetry Log Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York Date 741 946 i i*?7ii 865 015111 054 24-Apr 1 1 3-May 4-May 2 2 6-May 10-May 3 3 12-May 4 4 15-May 5 5 17-May 6 6 24-May 7 7 26-May 8 8 29-May 9 9 31-May 10 10 2-Jun 11 11 5-Jun 12 12 7-Jun 13 13 i 9-Jun 14 14 14-Jun 15 15 t6-Jun 16 16 2 21-Jun 17 17 3 1 23-Jun 18 18 4 2 26-Jun 19 19 5 3 28-Jun 20 20 6 4 30-Jun 21 21 7 5 3-Jul 22 8 6 5-Jul 23 22 9 7 7-Jui 24 10 8 11-Jul 25 ir 13-Jul 26 12 9 17-Jul 27 13 10 19-Jul 14 11 1 21-Jul 28 15 12 2 24-Jul 29 16 3 30-Jul 17 4 1 2-Aug 30 18 13 5' 2 4-Aug 19 14 6 3 8-Aug 20 7 4 10-Aug 21 8 11-Aug 15 14-Aug 22 16 9 16-Aug 23 17 10 18-Aug 24 18 11 5 21-Aug 25 19 12 6 25-Aug 26 20 13 7 28-Aug 27 14 Table 4 2000 Implanted Timber Rattlesnake Radiotelemetry Log Ramapo Mountain Land Company Ramapo, New York : : Date l:5741. :::;•. :: •• 946:-?-;; 887 IMS 015 054 1-Sep 28 21 15 8 4-Sep 29 22 16 9 6-Sep 30 23 17 10 8-Sep 31 24 18 11 10-Sep 12 11-Sep 32 25 19 13 13-Sep 33 26 20 14 18-Sep 34 15 21-Sep 35 27 21 16 25-Sep 36 17 28-Sep 37 28 22 18 2-Oct 38 19 FIGURES 77ie Chnzen Companies INSERT DATE OF LAST REVISION 2000 2000 BASE MAP TAKEN FROM U.S.G.S., 7.5 MIN. QUADS: SLOATSBURG. N.J. / N.Y. DATED 1995 AND SCALE IN FEET RAMSEY. N.J. / N.Y. DATED 1955. RAMAPO MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY sheet no. Dutchass Courtly Offict: IMPLANTED RATTLESNAKE RAOIOTELEMETREY LOG THE Monchester Rd PO Box 3479 Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Chazen Phone: (845) 454-3980 FIGURE 1 Oranga Cmmiy Offict: 263 Route 17K COMPANIES Newburgh, New York 12550 APPROXIMATE dote Phone: (845) 567-1133 Engineers/Surveyors PROPERTY LOCATION MAP 8/16/00 Plonners Capital District Offict: project no. Environmentol Scientists 1407 Route 9. Bldg. 2 Clifton Pork, NY 12065 Phone; (518) 371-0929 TOVW OF RAMAPO, NEW YORK 40020 ..'/o0 ;—•'" .c ^2--'-> I :-R--^"\A? Mv.(' A.v^^r • '0- r; LEGEND: RAMAPO MT, LAND CO. QUARRY SITHE ENERGY RAMAPO ENERGY NOTE: 2000 2000 ALL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE BASE MAP TAKEN FROM U.S.G.S.. 7.5 MIN. QUADS: SLOATSBURG, N.J. / N.Y. DATED 1995 AND SCALE IN FEET RAMSEY. N.J, / N.Y. DATED 1955. r sheet no. THE Out chess County Office: RAMAPO MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY Monchesler Rd PO Bo« .3479 IMPLANTED RATTLESNAKE RACHOTELEUETREY LOG Poughkeepsie, NY 12503 Chasm Phone: (845) 454-3980 FIGURE 2 Orang* Coxmiy Offict: 263 Route 17K COMPANIES" Newburgh, New York 12550 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MAP date Phone: (845) 567-1133 Engineers/Surveyors 8/16/00 Planners Capital District Office: Environmental Scientists 1407 Route 9. Bldq. 2 project no. Clifton Pork. NY' 12065 Phone:. (518) 371-0929 TOWN Of RAMAPO, NEW YORK 40020 vi • Xr-U SA'-v ^--^i -•AT kr • - A: i/^^Hp--- ••••.- -A- - —^-^ •••• • y .• •—- :•• <• .•• . •/ /• .- . \J-'^-y. ::••'•• r- :•• / .-•••. • / • • • "-'••. <<^--/ •.\V' '- •.--••' ^ •••••• 5 • "%>-. :^<:i^-'• .'•'•. ••••/ ••' .J '•!••.! r-v^-^ \ '•!•... , - • i- ••..•••SS:-- '' • •• •••Sjf'-'-c-a/ '•'• ^ -•i-;. ~'" • - •%•« p>:;>oy-..-J .V..' • 'l •' '•'• ' ./^aiiittpo..• ' /";• ,w rr:- ..ifjM.ai-tj- ^ - ,r-,.r\ v.-t.&K:; K ^ ,'• • • r^"/.-'r,l,lL' 'i' •-'it* •i.< ••.'.; •' • - . - 111 -^i •' *•••' • ' y • _"^ ,".'•• -"v*.)"'-.-- •-. •:;^^ LEGEND: ' ''. POTENTIAL BASKING AREA 2000 BASE WAP TAKEN FROM U.S.O.S.. 7.5 MIM. QUADS: SLOATScURG. M.J. / N.Y. DATED 1955 AMD $CAL£ IN FEET RAMSEY, -JJ. / N.Y. DATED 1955. THE OutcAajs OrunXy Offxt: RAMAPO MOUNTAIN IAND COMPANY Wcn=r«(»r R:d PO Bex 3i79 WPUNTED RATTLESNAKE RAO(01cL£J4ETT?tY LOG Pou^nkonp.^, NY !:6 04/21/00 11:08 PAX 201 512 5788 .LMCON MAHWAH oi/^u/uu inu 14:04 r.iA »xi too ou^i rtra UCK. ©003/004 fAalC,. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 3 - 21 South Putt Corners Road, NewPaltz, NEW York 125B1-169S Phone: (914) 256-3000 • FAX: (914) 255-3042 Website: www.dec.5tate.riy.us John P. CaMill Comtniajiontr ApriJ 20, 2000 SCOTT BRAEN - • RAMAPO MOUNTAIN LAND CO PC BOX. 388 SUFFERN NY 10901 I- RE; Proposed Quarry Town of Ramapo DEC No. 3-3926-00353/000Q1 Dear Mr. Braen: I am writing to advise you that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has completed its review of the "1999 Field Report For Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Studies On The Ramapo Mountain Land Company Site', dated January 2000 and prepared by EMCON/Th^ IT Group. Based upon the data and results presented in this report and DEC'S assessment of the information available regarding timber rattlesnakes In the Tome Valley, the Department as Lead Agency, believes further field studies are necessary this year in order to develop a complete analysis of the potential Impacts of your proposed quarry on this species. Study methods must be consistent with the previous studies conducted by your consultants. The studies DEC requires for this year a re summarized below: Den Surveys: . Should be done during general emergence with proper wBHtheroondiUons. DensRI R2 R15 R16 should be surveyed at least two times. Den R14 should be sun/eyed at least four times.' Basking Area Surveys: Potential basking areas 4,5.6,7,8,10,11.12 and 13 should be surveyed two times per week from June 1 through August 31. Radio Telemetry: The two snakes already implanted with radios should be followed through the season Also any rattlesnakes found at potential basking areas. 4, 5. 6. 7,6,10. 11. or 12 (i.e. all those surveyed as per above except 13) before August 7 should be implanted with radios and followed. In addition any rattlesnakes found during the den surveys or elsewhere before August 7 (e.g. at BA13) and were previously found at potential basking areas 4 or 5, should be implanted with radios and followed. Please note: as done during previous studies, it is DEC's intention to evaluate the data as it is collected and modify the scope of these studies should data indicate changes are warra nted. The recommendations of your consultants are welcomed and will receive full consideration. With regard to telemetry studies, a decision will be made as to Cw^T^Sl whether sufficient date has been colleted and the radio transmitters removed prior to winter hibernation. fhursday, January 04, 2001 3:38 PM RICHARD GRIBBIN 973-790-5835 p.04 04/21/00 11:08 FAI 201 512 5788 EHCON M.\HWAfl H/i-U/VV mo it.SO FAA »14 ioa OUli 0004/00^ Scott Braen page 2 April 20, 2000 'f you have any questions regarding the scope of these studies nrw/lchfniT,Mf* ^ ^ matter, please do not hesitate to rail me <9?4-25&Si4) ^ diSCUSS this Sincerely, AlexanderF. Ciesluk, Jr. Deputy Regional Permft Administrator Region 3 AFC/il cc H. Duda T. Kerpez D. Tompkins 12/21/00 THU 11:52 FAX 914 235 3042 NYS DEC ©002 Crossroads Corporate Center One International Boulevard Suite 700 Mxbwvh, NJ 07495-0086 Tel. 201.512.5700 fax. 201.512.5786 June 6, 2000 . Project 796078 Alexander F. Ciesluk, Jr. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Comers Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1696 i » .J-JM-8 2CO0 iDl Re: Ramapo Mountain Land Company (RMLC) .._. i Revised Scope for Year 2000 Rattlesnake Study L. Dear Mr. Ciesluk: As a follow-up to your April 20, 2000 letter and our meeting on April 26,2000, enclosed please find a modified scope for the RMLC project site in Ramapo, New York Den Surveys Den surveys were requested by the NYSDEC for Dens Rl, R15, R16, R2. and R14. Based on discussions with the NYSDEC on April 26. the need to survey R2 was determined to be unnecessary. IT Corporation, on behalf of RMLC, conducted surveys of Rl, R15, and R16 on May 4 and May 6. Eight snakes were captured on May 4, two of which were recaptured from .1999. R14 was surveyed on May 3 and May 6, with 5 snakes being captured and marked. Due to extremely hot weather during the first week of May which resulted in the rapid movement of snakes out of the den areas and the monitoring of the movements of the 2 implanted snakes, no further den survey activities were warranted. Telemetry Several tasks will be conducted as part of the telemetry effort: 1. The 2 implanted snakes are being followed from the denning areas (beginning on May 4) to document their summer travel routes. These snakes will be monitored 3 timss per week up until the end of July. At the end of July, the snakes will be recaptured to have the transmitters removed. Following the removal of the transmitters, the snakes will be monitored for a 1- to 2-day period and returned to the site of capture. Data generated on snake movements as part of this task will be located by GPS and plotted on an appropriate site map. Currently, 1 implanted snake is north of BA3 on Palisades Park property, while the other is west of BA13.. 2. As requested by the NYSDEC, snakes previously captured at BA4 and B A5 were to be implanted if captured at a denning site. This includes snakes U2, U3, Ull, U12, and U13. None of these snakes were captured at the denning sites. -n.Apr oj\nmjpo\79G078Vx-uluU.jDc-?5\iii: t 12/21/00 THl 11:52 F.\I 914 233 0042 NYS DEC 121003 TT Corporaiion A Msmher o! The IT Crouu Alexander F. Ceisluk, Jr. Project 796078 June 5,2000 • Page 2 If these snakes are found at a basking area, these snakes will be evaluated for implantation of transmitters. 3. During the course of the summer, select Basking Areas will be surveyed. This includes Basking Areas 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11. 12, and 13. If previously uncaptured snakes are found at these Basking Areas (except 13), up to 4 additional snakes will be implanted with transmitters and followed back to their respective den area 4. The termination date for consideration of any transmitter implantation will be on or about August 7. Basking Areas Potential Basking Areas 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,11, 12, and 13 will be surveyed from June 5 through August 31 (-13 weeks). We are anticipating 2 surveys per week (total 26 surveys). If no snakes are captured at these Basking Areas by the end of July, IT Corporation will request to terminate basking area surveys. If unmarked shakes are found at these Basking Areas prior to the end of July, the snakes will be evaluated for the implantation of transmitters. We anticipate that a maximum of 4 snakes would potentially be implanted and followed back to the den areas. As a side note, during an informal survey of BA3 on May 31, one adult rattlesnake was captured and marked (Ul 7) at the east end of BA3. As noted in your letter, we anticipate keeping an open dialogue with the NYSDEC regarding the proposed and ongoing work at the RMLC site. Please feel free to call me at (201) 512- 5731 should you have any questions. Sincerely, IT CORPORAIION David B. Tompkins Senior Project Manager cc: Ted Kerpez, NYSDEC Scott Braen, Stone Industries Joel Sachs, Keane & Beane -n:\proi\ramjD RAMAPO RIVER AT SLOATSBURG NY- TORNE BROOK AT RAMAPO NY STONY BK AT SLOATSBURG NY MAHWAH RIVER NEAR SUFFERN NY NAKOMA BR AT SLOATSBURG NY RAMAPO RIVER AT RAMAPO NY RAMAPO RIVER AT SUFFERN NY MAHWAH RIVER AT SUFFERN NY RAMAPO RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF POND BKAT OAKLAND NJ RAMAPO RIVER NEAR MAHWAH NJ Jersey RAMAPO RIVER AT POMPTON LAKES N, Ramapo River Basin showing Municipal Boundaries and Gaging Stations, New York-New Jersey EX.NJDEP-1 : • ! 1 !!!!!! ! All 1 ..i J. ! ;...u.i..-.. - J.. '• J.J.,,.,. i.^..i..i.. ...j. i. 1 i ; ^ • i • : ! • i i i • : ••'.'.<' ! ! i i i i E li ! i ' ' i Ml ; Ml, : ; • 1 1 1 - - - u - 4.4.. >.'-; i i M Mi- • t i ! ! j : : • : i mi iii i | cm — _ 1 Ml r-r -rr -rr I - - - - I - ••••1 : , , • - i •., : ..... 4 , ^ ,...... ,. -rr-r-3-- _! —i ".nx- - • .;;;-.,.• .r; .: : •.:••"• i. • ...... • " -. • .1 ..'.XT.. .1. - ••f- •••i-H~ •-••• i ,4...., .....i..i_i.+.. | ITU: 1 i 1 i! i i i ! 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i M i i i ' i i i i i i raiL...... J..L.Ltl.i..MJ.i.ijTriJ_T_ i > : i ! i ! j ! i j j i 1 i j 1 j i ! ! i i ... •• ... ..].. .i. 1 - 4- - _,H,..(...;..-!.. l.t4.+..U-li-.w4.4..!-.^iU .....J4..... i i i ! i 1 ! i - i ! i - . ! 1 ! i i ! i i ! i ! ill! I l i i i , 1 ; i 1! i | i <-- , i, • i , M : • '• MM : , : i ID -—i-. : : i j: , , r-;---•:••.J ••*-i-v-j-r- - •• - - ... . ;•; i - -f-t.rx?-t:t i' :+r : •.;_: .: t • .;.;:: ( • ..-,.«. . ,, -••r- -•-•- -•- r H- - - - r-i-t •- i I f \ : i :• - * r-* t -i"-! i 1 ' ... : a . : : ! :;;. i • : -!••-!• ; : ! ; . : : ...L; L i i ! i i i : i 1 - ! \' : • • ! j , ; M ! • ^ • • : i i ! J : , i : . • ; .,:,:!': i ; i 1 ! M M i 1 MM i i i i i Mi i i i i i i i i i M ! ! I 10 i- • r- -T—^ - •.!...'..'...... n- ...— — — - -— ... -ri- — i-r • 1 i 1 i i' r -•i•,r •r - '- r — :--•• :--; - • -r-r-r . ? 1 . M ..r.r. - r r i:.-:::" • - ? r ! i i i ..i..Li.J..i..Li.J.Fi ! ...!..i u.i ...I.. i_i.X..Ll.J.-L.i-.l- 1 ! ! ! .:•. .• • \ •,.'/..• •_;!. ••. ! ! • i • ; • ; • i : 1 • 1 i 1 ill! ! 1 - : M . i i ill 1 M Mi MM MM M ! M M j 1 j laa laii iaE 13EB 135) LSS ISM ibffi laa 1310 19G 19M ling IIH] liD 192 inn 19X ISB IS] ism 1*1 ixc LIB 17a 177 1SE IffB lEBl 1E2 ) 136 ISffl 1931 IE! Iffll 1^ 1 0138725D RFlMRPO RIVER flr SLORTSBURG NY MEHN DH1LJ DISCHRRGC ICFS) Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Sloatsburg, NY. EX. NJDEP-2 ffii 1 ' LLL.J L!-1 .....UJ.^.. : ! !11J 11.. :L ii.i.L rr^ | ! 1 : •: •: i : I i i iJ.-i .1...... _.; • : - i. i i 1 Mil! i ! : ; : • i • : i _i.i...L..i.a..j... . • \\-- Jiiii ill r i \ i ! i i \ l i = : : ; i i ! j ' i i i • : 1 i : 1 . : • '• • IJEO j | ; h; i M ^ ~ - - - -r-r .11' - -, . ),.M..|. i .4. f K •: 1- - - - -,••- • L : - Z 1 • 1 •• *" "t" i 1 r •till ; : 1 li ill i if 1 -f.i-. , i uJ..*.. 4.4-. f 4 i- . • - i ; i i : ! ! j i i iiliJ i j j 1 j: 1 i i | r 1 : f ' ; • i ! ': ! j E i : i 1 \ i 1 ! j i 1 i j ! i ! 1 1 1 r j j 1 ! i ! ! i i 1 i I ! i 1 1 ! : i ! .. *..,...;...}. ;..;.,4.. -i-i..+..i-f- ,:.. -^••r-r-i-f-i- •• ^T- .• . ..'.••• rJzr ^- 1 1 1iflfll 1 'I ": 11 1Il:mT 1 II 1 i' • : ! ; , . i : 1 | i i : p i • t—• -f't - - - - :- ! i i i 1 | 1 j i | : i ' ! ! i i i i ; i i 10 lil! 11 ! .,>,..,•iil ,. ,, , ,,,,..,,., ., .... . J. .3....; .:-.">. .r_5 • •• fc ' -.tl'.t: ..: :;. -!-;!- -i-i-W-i + • :.: 7 .'•:: • .::,r.:,,. ,1 i: :,:.:...!.: M./" : : - Tf! . • '• 1 1 :7 - Tl' "rrrri r i ; ..';'- - 1.1 i.J.. ,_!... ..l-_. ....uu i J.I.-. . t i ! i ~ ' '- x t. A ' • * i i i ! ! i i j i i I 1 i ! ! ! ! • '• - ••- i i i ! :; M ; ; ; ; h : | i j i j i j M M | M M Mi M| i i j 1 \ 13s ien isa 133a •so igiz I9n isw 19B tseo is: 1351 ifflB 1E0B 15m 1 1?Z 174 JEFB IITB Iffll 1^ ISM 15ffi 1968 199 013B71D0 RRMRPQ RIVER HI RRMHPO N.Y. MEAN DfllLY DlSCnflRGE (Cr5l Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Ramapo, NY. EX. NJDEP-3 13Z2 13H ISS 193 IXD 1332 lOM I BO 1912 1SK l»fi I3S 19) I5S 1351 193 1599 IS9P 1S2 1961 1SE5 1999 199 WZ 13M 190) 1592 1^1 1995 ISEB 1^9 15S2 1EB1 1E99 19EB 0138712D RflmPO RIVER RT SUFFERN N.Y. MEAN DHILf QISCHflRBE ICFSI Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Suffern, NY. EX. NJDEP-a 1X2 IE* I1B 13X 122 ISQ ISM ISffi lEDS 1MI 1912 19« 1M IMS IfflO ISE 1E1 1S5 ISB ISH3 ISE 1E1 1SB ISS 1EPD IHra in IS« ISPB lam ISB la* ISffi 1SS ISO ITE 013B7SQO RHMRPD RIVER HEAR HFIHWflH NJ HERN DHILI DISCHARGE ICFSl Hydrograph of Ramapo River near Mahwah, NJ. EX. NJDEP-5 • ! : !!!!!!!!!! = j i ( 1 ! ! ! ! ! i i i i i i i i i i i 1 ; ! i ; i 1 i i j M 11! _a-i_ U-J-J i ^_ i i • ' 1 ! i i : ! ! i j . i . . 1 : 1 'i I , , • •_- ...... ; ^. :: •'• '•'•' --- ;:•• -•P li, :,,• !: 1: :*:±±-yzi-;. - - :: i"~" Z.- • =!: ± ::• - :;t- t • StM- "> r,:,,,...... •• r- , r- . . i 1 1 ..|.J...t..L.(4-i..i-i-i--i. 4... 1 .,L.. . 1 L.; i^J. :... ^.•.. ~i.-. -.4_. ._,'... i i i i ; ; nL: i iJ.i 1 i. L.i : : t ; ; ; • . : i • i . ' i i . : • i fi ! ! ! i ! 1 i i j - . : ;; ' ' i i ; | 1 ! | • i i i j M ' ; Ml w B - ,: ::. .:: -: :. : . - * :::!•:::: :. :::. :::.::. '• -j •/'. ^4'~n4. - .,_..' __..- tz'X"i t. .-•.: - ' '•- -f DC - • • -•-. • - i- • •• .. . , ...... _.. - ...... ' J-V" . : • „, ...i.„ "' V 1 • • . ^.r-' i rl j. i i - " - i i i • : . : ; : 1 : i .J. .-:+.. i 1 • a i.L .. i .^.i J- : I | i i i : - ' ! i i 1 ! i i 1 ! 1 — -i-i- 1 ..;...... ;.. •i.:. . •• - . . - - . ...;. -T.XTzr~ " rj. .. ..v..:: .. 7. .-' r: Z i . - 1 : ! ' • .„;..,, . t-ff !" ! ! j ^ i : ! ? ] • : | | | ! : • ! ! j j Vfi ! i ! : ! i i f 1 • 1 T i 1 1 T ! ! ill TT-l" f i j...... 1 ! j 1 j i ! 1 ! i j i i M i i M n 1 i i i i j I 1 ; I . ; . . ; : i j i : r ' 1 "i^: ;;r:r::::i.:r ..:3 .••..•-vr:;.- " :: : :::r ;..v.r-.;p •,.:.;;,.. ••;i-.; ' - .;•;;:. • • .... ,..>.;. ... i-t-t- -t- •••• ••*-• i » < • t i t * i- •"- f": • , • - _ ! i j i 1 -;- 1 i : - - J J.,- . • - ..' L, ' .--.-.-••-. r • ^ . 1 i i J. 1J J L J 1 .J _.._] i . J • • M > '• v • ; ^ ; ! ! i i M ; ; i : ! 1 j I 1 1 !!!!!! i I 1 i ! 1 : ; I ; 1 I I 1 11 1 1 i " rf-t-*- IT ! • ! -- -I-I" i-hf-rtt-t-t • ; ; ; ; i : j : M i • ! ' • ' ' j j ! ! ! j 1 ; ' 1=K 133} 193 ISD ISOS 19H ISffi 13B ISO 131Z 19H I9C J&B IS} l!i^ 1£1 iSEB 132 1951 192 1£E4 19EE 1SB ICT LT2 igpi l*K 1 IQED I9B2 ieB4 ISBE 1998 ISffi 1392 1994 1996 1SS 013878SD RHMRPO RIVER D0HN5TREW1 Or PDNO BK HI ORKLRND NJ riEflN DH[LY DISCHRRQE ICFS] , FROM BDR REOORQ Hydrograph of Ramapo River downstream of Pond Bk at Oakland, NJ. EX. NJDEP-6 IliiiMliJSilMSiJ^iSi'iHiaaSIM^ : 13» 133 LSB ism ISE ISM ISE i^ isu ise igu igis \sa isa) iss isn i^ i^ ISED ES ISO 1ST WH 1S^ 137B : 01388000 RflMflPO RIVER HT POMPTON LAKES NJ MERN DfllLY DISCHflRK: [CF5), FROfl PDR Hydrograph of Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, NJ. EX. NJDEP-7 lai; ISM 13JB 1339 01387450 HRHWRH RIVER NERR SUFTERN NY PIERN DHILf DISCHfKEE (CF5J Hydrograph of Mahwah River near Suffern, NY. EX. NJDEP-8 1- 1 ,=» ______- p ^ ! 1 ' ' ^" — -^ -r- "^^ —'^ — • -'-' '-' - —i :: : :: : • ; •• :: :. • • '•• ••• ;:.;;; : • ..;: • i F i; - •• - ••••• ;: : : •• : .. .•...;.: ...... •.: • • ... ;:. ' - - •" - { ' :.: .:. " ..t.. ..:: .:. - ...... „ .. .. ! ! i j - • • •• •' " i • j i : :::: ::-.:: :::: :. ::- ::. .: ^ :. : V. -'•' '•• .•• i" •;; •;; '•• •* - :. •• ... ••. ••4- •• • :.:;. •• I-- 4- •• •••• f -' i !•" ...... j- - 4- •• •• • • • i I T I.. • i i ! •• ••!•• •I- ! - - I 1 ! _ _ - _ _ ^ _ 1 i •• ••, ;: .:: .•.,• ;±. •'• .v. v;; v:: ••.•'.•; I-- :: , •••• .. -•; y '• . V v: • .... •• • • ..t...... ;...... •I : - •• •t ;;; - • ! .... i •• - •• • •• •• 1 t" •• - •• i :: • - :: ;• ; : :: - .V. ;•. • • v,v. :• r;.' .'.v;. • . ;;: .•.• '.'. '.I .v. ; iv. l .•••• ... i ••• ...... ,,.. • •• • •• ...... •• •• " •• •• •••• - • 1 MM 1 i 1 | i I : 1 1 i | j j T I ' i D.l M! i 1311 1334 137 ls«] iso WS 1913 la/u igTS 137B 13^ 1982 01337480 MHHWHH RIVER AT SUFFEIRN KIY MEHN DAILY DISCHF1RGE ICFS1 Hydrograph of Mahwah River at Suffern, NY. EX. NJDEP-9 Low Flow Statistics for Key Gaging Stations Mean Mean 7-Day 7-Day Minimum Latest Year USGS Drainage Period Annual Annual 10-Year 10-Year Daily Records Station Area of Record Flow Flow Low Flow Low Flow Flow Accuracy Number Station Name Sq. Mi. Water Years (cfs) (cfs/mi2) (cfs) (cfs/mi2) (cfs) Rating "7Q10" 01387250 Ramapo River at Sloatsburg, NY 60.9 1959-63,1999-2000 108 1.77 2.7 0.044 4.2 (note 2) Fair 01387400 Ramapo River at Ramapo, NY 86.9 1979-2000 167 1.92 8.8 0.101 7.9 Fair 01387420 Ramapo River at Suffern, NY 93.0 1979-2000 173 1.86 3.4 0.037 2.3 Good/Poor 01387450 Mahwah River near Suffern, NY 12.3 1959-95 24.2 1.97 0.6 0.049 0.12 Good/Poor 01387500 Ramapo River near Mahwah, NJ , 120 1903-07,1922-2000 229 1.91 13(note1) 0.108 1.2 Good 01388000 Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, NJ 160 1922-2000 287 1.79 15 0.094 0 Good Note 1; For Ramapo River near Mahwah, the 7-Day 10-Year low flow figure is based on data before 1980, due to a trend in the recent data. Note 2: For Ramapo River at Sloatsburg, the short length of record explains why the minimum daily flow is higher than the predicted 7Q10 flow. cfs= Cubic feet per second cfs/mi2= Cubic feet per second per square mile USGS Record Accuracy Standards Excellent 95% of mean daily flows are with 5% of true value Good 95% of mean daily flows are with 10% of true value Fair 95% of mean daily flows are with 15% of true value Poor Less than fair rating EX. NJDEP-10 Analyses of Trends in Low Flow Records for Key Gaging Stations USGS Station Station Name Years of N-Day Low Kendall's Probability Median Number Record Flow (cfs) Tau Level Slope 01387400 Ramapo River at Ramapo, NY 19 1 day 0.105 0.549 0.071 19 7 day 0.099 0.575 0.065 19 30 day 0.099 0.576 0.138 01387420 Ramapo River at Suffern, NY 19 1 day -0.094 0.598 -0.084 19 7 day -0.129 0.462 -0.096 19 30 day 0.006 1.000 0.019 01387450 Mahwah River near Suffern, NY 37 1 day -0.125 0.283 -0.011 37 7 day -0.128 0.272 -0.016 37 30 day -0.069 0.556 -0.016 01387500 Ramapo River near Mahwah, NJ 80 1 day -0.109 0.155 -0.058 Data through 2000 80 7 day •0.174 0.022 -0.104 Data through 2000 59 7 day -0.032 0.729 -0.023 Data before 1980 80 30 day -0.128 0.093 -0.114 Data through 2000 01388000 Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, NJ 78 1 day 0.131 0.090 0.158 78 7 day -0.078 0.315 -0.083 78 30 day -0.075 0.332 -0.107 A negative Kendall's tau indicates a decreasing trend. The larger tau is the greater the trend. A positive Kendall's tau indicates a increasing trend. The larger tau is the greater the trend. A probability of less than 0.05 indicates a 95% certainty that a trend exists. A probability of less than 0.10 indicates a 90% certainty that a trend exists. EX. NJDEP-11 Hydrograph of Lowest 7 Consecutive Day Streamflow for Each Climatic Year, Ramapo River at Mahwah, N J 01387500 RAMAPO RIVER AT MAHWAH, NJ 1930 1940 1960 1970 1980 2000 2010 CLIMATIC YEAR EX. NJDEP-12 Analyses of Trends in Low Flow Records for Ringwood Creek - an Indication of Background Conditions USGS N-Day Station Years of Low Flow Kendall's Probability Median Number Station Name Record CFS Tau Level Slope 01384500 Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, NJ 57 1 day -0.065 0.478 -0.005 57 7 day -0.059 0.522 -0.006 57 30 day -0.054 0.558 -0.007 A negative Kendall's tau indicates a decreasing trend. The larger tau is the greater the trend. A positive Kendall's tau indicates a increasing trend. The larger tau is the greater the trend. A probability of less than 0.05 indicates a 95% certainty that a trend exists. A probability of less than 0.10 indicates a 90% certainty that a trend exists. EX. NJDEP-13 Hydrograph of Lowest 7 Consecutive Day Streamflow for Each Climatic Year, Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, NJ 01384500 RINGWOOD CREEK NEAR WANAQUE, NJ 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 CLIMATIC YEAR EX. NJDEP-14 Average Ground-Water Withdrawals by Well (1999) \/ Ml y y \ i / •V, ft5?BaFlDpo Valley •/ ] puffs ATj Maflwah 19 Oal .w / .- r\> AllendBle WD Oakloncl/Bujs Vaiiay-fiii extent • Wlley-1111 well -o t H'•' V v, UWNJ FfanWi(ijJtes • Sad rock wsli 0 1 2 SMILES h'l 'l I1 ' EX. NJDEP-15 74 /.W ) 5 \ 0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS Seepage Run Sites and Withdrawals on October 20,1998 >> C ^ \ r~ Il4' •^c rFZ/Tf, or \ \ i ' \ r' A •{•• 7V J \ #7; *• #- f% Vi /I '.' ."NJ- )': ^ A u pttream gage Of MbutBry •* Gaining reech Qbove gagd A LflEing reach abavw ^age • VUley-flll well • Badraek well V 1 2 3 MILES EX. NJDEP-16 ^ - T -L^—r rJ I Water Levels in the Ramapo River and Valley-Fill Aquifer, South Wlahwah, New Jersey 240 T— 400' Irom River 0' from River 31' from River Ramapo River 0/27/99 11/16/99 I2/6/99 12/26/99 1/15/00 2/4/00 2/24/00 3/15/00 4/4/00 4/24/00 EX. NJDEP-17 RECONSTRUCTION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN THE PASSAIC AND HACKENSACK RIVER BASINS, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK, WATER YEARS 1993-96 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4078 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION USGS EX. NJDEP-18 science for a changing world RECONSTRUCTION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN THE PASSAIC AND HACKENSACK RIVER BASINS, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK, WATER YEARS 1993-96 By Donald A. Storck and John P. Nawyn U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4078 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION West Trenton, New Jersey 2001 USGS science for a changing world U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Mountain View Office Park Branch of Information Services 810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206 Box 25286 West Trenton, NJ 08628 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS • Page Abstract - Introduction Purpose and scope Description of the study area ^ Hydrogeology Climate ^ Major water-supply features ^ Previous investigations "" Acknowledgments Sources, estimation, and description of data used to reconstruct streamflow records 13 Streamflow Measured values Estimation of data •. ^ Reliability of data ^ Withdrawals of ground water and surface water 18 Data sources and compilation 1° Methods used to estimate water withdrawals 19 Estimation of response of streamflow to ground-water withdrawals 20 Reliability of data zL Point-source discharges z1 Data sources and compilation 2° Methods used to estimate wastewater discharges 2° • Estimation of infiltration and inflow 2° Reliability of data ^ Changes in reservoir storage Records of reservoir storage 30 Estimation of missing data 30 Reliability of data 31 Reconstruction of streamflow records 3 Description of methods Reconstructed-streamflow records 33 Evaluation of reconstructed-streamflow records 43 Methods used to evaluate reconstructed-streamflow records 43 Mass balance • 5 Summary and conclusions References cited Appendix I. Hydrographs showing monthly mean observed and reconstructed streamflow from October 1992 through September 1996 by subwatershed for 34 streamflow-gaging stations in the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York 60 2. Hydrographs showing daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow from May 1,1995, through October 31,1995, by subwatershed for 34 streamflow-gaging stations in the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York 75 in ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plate 1. Locations of streamflow-gaging stations, surface-water-withdrawal and point-source-discharge sites, and reservoirs in the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York ; in pocket 2. Locations of streamflow-gaging stations, wells, and reservoirs in the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York in pocket Figure 1. Map showing locations of the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, major reservoirs, and 34 streamflow-gaging stations in New Jersey and New York 4 2. Graph showing total monthly precipitation in the Northern climatological division of New Jersey, October 1992 - September 1996, and departure from average (1961-90) monthly precipitation ;•••••• " 3. Graph showing average monthly temperature in the Northern climatological division of New Jersey, October 1992 - September 1996, and departure from average (1961-90) monthly temperamre ' 4-8. Schematic diagrams showing: 4. Relation of high-volume surface-water-withdrawal sites in subwatersheds to streamflow-gaging stations and water-supply reservoirs, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York 8 5. Relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites in subwatersheds to streamflow-gaging stations and water-supply reservoirs, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York 10 6. Subwatersheds from which average ground-water withdrawals exceed 1 cubic foot per second, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York : ^ 7. The hydrologic cycle 21 8. Sources of water to wells: (a) area contributing recharge to a shallow well; (b) area contributing recharge to a shallow well where pumping induces infiltration of surface water; (c) areas contributing recharge to a deep well and potential upland source areas of runoff 22 9. Graphs showing difference between reconstructed streamflow with no delay and reconstructed streamflow with ground-water withdrawals delayed 3 months for streamflow-gaging stations in the Ramapo River Basin, New Jersey and New York ....24 10. Graphs showing difference between reconstructed streamflow with no delay and reconstructed streamflow with ground-water withdrawals delayed 6 months for streamflow-gaging stations in the Ramapo River Basin, New Jersey and New York ....25 11-13. Hydrographs showing: 11. Monthly reconstructed streamflow for station 01388000, Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J., with ground-water withdrawals delayed by 0, 3, and 6 months, and with no ground-water withdrawals 26 12. Components of reconstructed streamflow and difference between observed and reconstructed streamflow at Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, New Jersey 34 13. Observed and reconstructed streamflow with components used to calculate reconstructed streamflow at Pompton River at Pompton Plains, New Jersey... 35 14-17. Schematic diagrams showing: 14. Relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations and reservoirs in the Pequannock, Wanaque, and Ramapo River Basins, New Jersey and New York 39 iv ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figures 14-17. Schematic diagrams showing:—Continued 15. Relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations and reservoirs in the Hackensack River Basin, New Jersey and New York 40 16. Relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations in the Pompton, Lower Passaic, and Saddle River Basins, New Jersey 41 17. Relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations and reservoirs in the Rockaway, Whippany, and Upper Passaic River Basins, New Jersey 42 18-21. Hydrographs showing: 18. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August-September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic River, New Jersey 49 19. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow normalized by drainage area for August-September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic River, New Jersey 50 20. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August-September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, and Lower Passaic Rivers, New Jersey and New York 51 21. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow normalized by drainage area for August-September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, and Lower Passaic Rivers, New Jersey and New York 52 TABLES Table 1. Streamflow-gaging stations used in the study and associated information 14 2. Equations used to estimate observed streamflow at stations with missing or incomplete records, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York 17 3. Reservoirs for which change-in-storage values were calculated and associated information 31 4. Equations used to calculate reconstructed streamflow at gaging stations in the study area 36 5. Summary of surface-water-withdrawal, ground-water-withdrawal, and point-source-discharge sites and reservoirs used to reconstruct streamflow records, mean withdrawals and discharges, and additional statistics, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York 44 6. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August through September and March through April during 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic River, New Jersey 53 7. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August through September and March through April during 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, and Lower Passaic Rivers, New Jersey and New York 53 An electronic data diskette containing data used to reconstruct monthly and daily streamflow records and other information is available upon request from the U.S. Geological Survey, New Jersey District, office in West Trenton, N.J. (609-771 -3900). CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVIATIONS • Multiply By To obtain Length inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter foot (ft) 0.3048 meter mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer Area square foot (ft2) 0.09294 square meter square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer Volume gallon (gal) 3.785 liter gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meters Flow cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06308 liter per second gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meters per second million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 1.547214 cubic feet per second (ft3/ Temperature Degree Fahrenheit (0F) 0C = 5/9x(0F-32) degree Celsius (0C) Hydraulic conductivity foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day Transmissiyity square foot per day (fAd) 0.09290 square meter per day Sea level: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929— a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929. Abbreviations used in the report ADAPS Automated Data Processing System BSDW Bureau of Safe Drinking Water BWA Bureau of Water Allocations NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection • NWIS National Water Information System USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey VI RECONSTRUCTION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN THE PASSAIC AND HACKENSACK RIVER BASINS, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK, WATER YEARS 1993-96 By Donald A. Storck and John P. Nawyn ABSTRACT surface-water-withdrawal sites; about 840 wells; 265 point-source discharge facilities and 368 facil- To effectively manage the water resources of ity outfall pipes; and 15 reservoirs. Methods used the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins during to reconstruct streamflow records also are periods of drought, information about the historical described. values of natural streamflow and the effects of human activities on streamflow is needed. This Average reconstructed-streamflow values report describes the results of an investigation con- during the 4-year study period at the three most ducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in coopera- downstream stations in the study area were tion with the New Jersey Department of 199 ft3/s (cubic feet per second) at Hackensack Environmental Protection, to (1) reconstruct River at New Milford, N.J.; 105 ft3/s at Saddle monthly streamflow records for 34 stations in the River at Lodi, N.J.; and 1,550 ft3/s at Passaic River Passaic and Hackensack River Basins in New at Route 46 at Elmwood Park, N.J. The differences Jersey and New York for water years 1993-96, and between average reconstructed and average (2) reconstruct daily streamflow records for these observed streamflow at these stations were 149, 5, 34 stations for the drought period from May 1, and 483 ft3/s, respectively. The largest withdrawals 1995, through October 31,1995. Reconstructed- of surface water account for most of this differ- streamflow records were calculated from observed- ence. At the Wanaque River at Wanaque, N.J., streamflow records and account for surface- and streamflow-gaging station, surface-water with- ground-water withdrawals, discharges to surface- drawals from the sub watershed averaged 129 water bodies, changes in storage in reservoirs, Mgal/d (million gallons per day) (200 ft3/s). At the water transfers, and other factors related to human Hackensack River at New Milford, N.J., stream- activities in the drainage basins studied. Recon- flow-gaging station, surface-water withdrawals structed-streamflow records can be used by water- from the subwatershed averaged 101 Mgal/d (156 resource managers and planners as input to water- ft3/s). Reconstructed streamflow was less than supply management models. Results of model sim- observed streamflow in only a few instances, all of ulations can be used to determine whether drought which were in subwatersheds where point-source warnings and emergencies are warranted and to discharges from municipal treatment facilities that evaluate alternative water-supply options during receive water from sources outside the subwater- periods of severe drought. shed are high and ground- and surface-water with- drawals within the subwatershed are minimal. Sources of monthly and daily hydrologic Differences between average reconstructed- data used to reconstruct streamflow records and streamflow values and average natural-streamflow methods used to estimate missing values are values estimated by using a simplified water-bal- described. Data were collected from government ance equation were less than 10 percent. agencies as well as directly from public and private water suppliers, wastewater-treatment facilities, and other sources, and include information from 87 INTRODUCTION Reconstructed-streamflow records are needed for use by water-resource managers and • In the first comprehensive report on water planners as input to water-supply management supply in New Jersey, Vermeule (1894) described models. Results of model simulations can be used the Passaic River as "our most valuable stream to determine whether drought warnings and emer- from every point of view. By a fortunate coinci- gencies are warranted and to evaluate alternative dence, its headwaters afford our best gathering water-supply options during periods of severe grounds for public water supply, and at the same drought. In order to provide the data that are time are the most accessible to the points of great- needed for effective water-supply management in est demand." The drought conditions in northern northern New Jersey, the U.S. Geological Survey New Jersey during 1980-95 and the imposition of (USGS), in cooperation with the New Jersey drought warnings and water-use restrictions have Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), shown the vulnerability of the water resources and conducted an investigation to (1) reconstruct the problems of water management. Below-aver- monthly streamflow records for 34 USGS stream- age annual precipitation was reported in 1980-82, flow-gaging stations for water years 1993-96, and 1985,1988,1991-93, and 1995 (National Climatic (2) reconstruct daily streamflow records for these Data Center, 1993-97). To effectively manage the 34 stations for the drought period from May 1, water resources of the Passaic and Hackensack 1995, through October 31, 1995. River Basins during periods of drought, informa- tion about the historical values of natural stream- Purpose and Scope flow and the effects of human activities on streamflow is needed. This report describes the sources of observed monthly and daily streamflow and other hydrologic Observed streamflow, the quantity of water data used to reconstruct streamflow records at 34 that passes a given point in a stream channel within streamflow-gaging stations in the Passaic and a given time period, is the result of the interaction Hackensack River Basins in New Jersey and New between natural conditions and human activities. York, and the methods used to estimate missing Natural streamflow is the quantity of water that values. Monthly and daily data from 87 surface- would have flowed past the specified point without water-withdrawal sites; about 840 wells; 265 point- the influence of human activities. Reconstructed source discharge facilities and 368 facility outfall streamflow is an estimate of what streamflow pipes; and 15 reservoirs were included in the calcu- would have been without major influences due to lation of reconstructed streamflow. human activities. Reconstructed streamflow is the quantity of water that is determined by means of a The report also describes the method used to mass-balance calculation, based on observed reconstruct streamflow records at each streamflow- streamflow, that takes into consideration known gaging station. Monthly reconstructed-streamflow surface- and ground-water withdrawals; discharges records for each gaging station for water years to surface-water bodies; changes in storage in 1993 through 1996 and daily reconstructed-stream- water-supply reservoirs; transfers of water into, out flow records for the drought period from May 1 of, or within river basins; and other factors, and is through October 31,1995, are documented. Also not equivalent to natural streamflow. The recon- included are hydrographs showing observed- and struction method does not attempt to include all reconstructed-streamflow values for each water- factors that may affect streamflow—for example, shed. A compact disk, available on request from changes in land use, some gains and losses associ- the USGS office in West Trenton, N.J., contains the ated with the operation of reservoirs, and the data used to reconstruct streamflow records, hydro- effects of residential wells and septic systems. graphs for all 34 gaging stations, and maps show- Many of these factors are not easily quantified, and ing the locations of the sites for which data were many other factors may be unknown. included in the calculation. Description of the Study Area character of the western part of the study area in New Jersey. Small villages surrounded by forests, • The Passaic and Hackensack River Basins lie farmland, and pastures dominate the landscape of in the northeastern part of New Jersey and the the study area in New York State (U.S. Environ- southeastern part of New York State, in the Pied- mental Protection Agency, unpub. data accessed mont and New England (Highlands) Physiographic May 3,2000, on the World Wide Web at URL Provinces (fig. 1). The Passaic and Hackensack http://www.epa.gov/surf3/). The study area River Basins (1,120 mi2) include all or part of Ber- includes undeveloped land that includes parts of gen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, the watersheds of water-supply reservoirs in New Sussex, and Union Counties in New Jersey (920 Jersey and New York State. Extensive public lands mi2) and part of Orange and Rockland Counties in lie within the study area, including Harriman State New York State (200 mi2). The study area includes Park in New York State and Abram S. Hewitt State all of the surface drainage area of the Passaic and Forest, Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Hackensack Rivers upstream from the most down- Norvin Green State Forest, Ramapo Mountain For- stream streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic, est, Ringwood Manor State Park, Wanaque Wild- Saddle, and Hackensack Rivers. The study area life Management Area, and Wawayanda State Park does not extend to Newark Bay, and is unaffected in New Jersey. by tides. Seaber and others (1987) designated the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins as one of 13 In 1995, the total population in the Hacken- major hydrologic units called hydrologic catalog- sack-Passaic HUC was estimated to be 2.54 mil- ing units (HUC's) that lie either partly or entirely lion. About 94 percent (2.38 million) of the total within the borders of New Jersey. A HUC is a geo- population was served by public suppliers; the bal- graphic area that represents a surface-water drain- ance of the population supplied their own water age basin, such as the Passaic River Basin, or a from wells. About 1.6 million people received pub- distinct hydrologic feature, such as the Delaware licly supplied water from water-supply reservoirs Bay. The 8-digit HUC code and name associated or river intakes, and about 800,000 received pub- with each cataloging unit are part of a National sys- licly supplied water from wells. Most of the popu- tem for locating, storing, retrieving, and exchang- lation in the study area (91 percent) resides in New ing hydrologic data. The Hackensack-Passaic HUC Jersey; the remainder (9 percent) resides in New code is 02030103 (Seaber and others, 1987). For York State (Solley and others, 1998). this study, the Hackensack-Passaic HUC was divided into 34 small hydrologic units called sub- Hydrogeology watersheds. A subwatershed is defined as the geo- graphic area that drains to a given stream reach The study area lies in two physiographic between selected streamflow-gaging stations. provinces, the Piedmont in the southeast and the New England (Highlands) in the northwest. The The Hackensack-Passaic HUC is an area of most productive aquifers in both physiographic contrasting land use. New York City borders the provinces are the Wisconsin and pre-Wisconsin southeastern part of the study area. The counties glacial-deposit aquifers. In the Piedmont Physio- adjacent to New York City are part of one of the graphic Province, aquifers of the Brunswick Group most urbanized and densely populated areas (2,125 (Passaic Formation) are the most heavily used. persons per square mile) in the United States. Beginning in the 1970's, urbanization spread rap- Low-yielding wells tap the Precambrian idly to the rural-suburban areas adjacent to the crystalline-rock aquifers, which consist of complex older cities and the rural character of the area dis- igneous and metamorphic rock throughout the appeared (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978). Highlands Physiographic Province (Lyttle and Despite urbanization, less than half (37 percent) of Epstein, 1987). the Hackensack-Passaic HUC is characterized as urban land. Forested areas predominate in the Hackensack-Passaic HUC and help define the rural There are 1,287 total river miles in the Hack- The average annual temperature in the ensack-Passaic HUC (U.S. Environmental Protec- Northern division during 1961-90 was 51 0F. The tion Agency, unpub. data accessed May 3,2000, on average temperature was 51 "F in 1993, 52 0F in the World Wide Web at URL http://www.epa.gov/ 1995, and 50 0F in 1994 and 1996 (fig. 3). The surf3/). The major tributaries to the Passaic and average temperature was 1 0F above the 30-year Hackensack Rivers are the Mahwah, Pequannock, mean in 1995 and 1 0F below the 30-year mean in Pompton, Ramapo, Rockaway, Saddle, Wanaque, 1994 and 1996. The average temperature in 1993 and Whippany Rivers; Green Pond, Ho-Ho-;Kus, was equal to the average annual temperature in the and Pascack Brooks; and Ringwood Creek. Northern division during 1961-90. Climate Major Water-Supply Features The climate of the study area varies from Most of the water-supply reservoirs in New southeast to northwest because of differences in Jersey lie within the study area. They include the topography and the presence or absence of water Newark system in the Pequannock River Basin bodies. Temperature in the Highlands area aver- (Canistear, Charlotteburg, Clinton, Echo Lake, and ages several degrees lower than in the Piedmont Oak Ridge Reservoirs); the North Jersey District area in both summer and winter as a result of gen- Water Supply Commission system in the Wanaque erally higher altitudes in the Highlands area. Pre- River Basin (Monksville and Wanaque Reser- cipitation is nearly uniform throughout the year voirs); the Jersey City system in the Rockaway and throughout the study area. The Highlands area River Basin (Boonton and Splitrock Reservoirs); receives more snowfall than the Piedmont area and the United Water system in the Hackensack (Carswell and Rooney, 1976). The National Cli- River Basin (De Forest Lake, Lake Tappan, Orad- matic Data Center (1993-97) reports New Jersey ell, and Woodcliff Lake Reservoirs). climatological data by three major divisions- Northern, Southern, and Coastal. The Northern The effects of a small number of large (high- division includes most of the study area (fig. 1). volume) withdrawals and discharges in the study The average annual precipitation in the Northern area on the observed streamflow are greater than division during 1961-90 was 48 in. (National Cli- those of a large number of small (low-volume) matic Data Center, 1993-97). withdrawals and discharges, with few exceptions. A site was considered to be "high- volume" if the Data on precipitation and temperature are average (1993-96) withdrawal or discharge was reported by calendar year (National Climatic Data greater than about 0.6 Mgal/d (1 ft3/s). Average Center, 1993-97); however, climatological data in withdrawals exceed 0.6 Mgal/d at about 19 sur- this report were compiled by water year (October face-water sites in the study area (fig. 4). These 1-September 30). Therefore, references in this include both withdrawals for public supply and report to yearly values represent the water year. transfers to other locations within the Passaic and Precipitation in the Northern division during 1993 Hackensack River Basins. The largest average sur- and 1995 was below the average annual (1961-90) face-water withdrawals are from the Wanaque Res- precipitation of 48 in. by 3 in. in 1993 and by 13 in. ervoir (129 Mgal/d (200 ft3/s)), Oradell Reservoir in 1995, for annual precipitation values of 45 in. (101 Mgal/d (156 ft3/s)), Boonton Reservoir (45.8 and 35 in., respectively (fig. 2). Precipitation dur- Mgal/d (70.8 ft3/s)), and Charlotteburg Reservoir ing 1994 and 1996 was above the average annual (43.9 Mgal/d (67.9 ft3/s)). At the Two Bridges precipitation by 5 in. in 1994 and 12 in. in 1996, Pumping Station, water is transferred by the North for annual precipitation values of 53 in. and 60 in., Jersey District Water Supply Commission, United respectively. Water New Jersey, and Passaic Valley Water 'A water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Therefore, water year 1993 extends from October 1,1992, through September 30,1993. PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES co ro -»• o -* ro u ^ Cfl O) -vj 00 CD O i i i • i i r i • i i i i i I i i i i i t p i i l i' i i i i i i i Oct. 1992 epartu o. -nigure Dec. 1992 ^ 2 K> 9 ® • (D n 9 H Feb. 1993 -rZ3 s a 3. j' 3 S »< Apr. 1993 m T3 $ 3 ^ CD o o C> 3 3- o June 1993 3 T3 (D ^ <0) 0) -"5 CD O Aug. 1993 S 3 SS (Q •90) -^•o'itati CD 3 Oct. 1993 o 3^ 3 3 T s . Dec. 1993 >< 3 5 TJ «5- (D m So Feb. 1994 o hem 8ipital 3 » Apr. 1994 o o a 3 June 1994 11 o>CO 8.0 Aug. 1994 CO ical ied o n 3" Q- Z Oct. 1994 § 5" = 0)' X fa|i Dec. 1994 Feb. 1995 »?— Q> O^limat Jers Apr. 1995 o.? D 0) >.o June 1995 » S (D A Aug.1995 3 " 5 5 CD Oct. 1995 -* tS (O , VS? Dec. 1995 ^SH "^ (0 Feb. 1996 CT -^ Apr. 1996 (O CO en 03 June 1996 3 Q. Aug. 1996 1 TEMPERATURE. IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT oi o> ^i ao co c o o o 8 8 S o o o o o c 1 Oct. 1992 » Tl • • Departui o. • Average C Q. Dec. 1992 (D 3 ? w Feb. 1993 i ^ (D a 5 O «Q Apr. 1993 CD ^ 3 (D 3 S H <0) o June 1993 (D 3 0) 3 (O >< CD Aug. 1993 ^^^^^^^ m 3 (D ^^^"" ^ o 3 monthly tempera ature as Oct. 1993 (O 0J o c Dec. 1993 CD - 3 • o 3 3 3- Feb. 1994 3- (D >< z 1 o Apr. 1994 a. c 3 T ^mmimm S •a CO Aug.1996 ill O) ,. tzr— Commission to either the Wanaque or Oradell Res- 01381800 (Whippany River at Morristown, N.J.) ervoir or to treatment facilities for public supply. and 01381500 (Whippany River near Pine Brook, 3 N.J.), where withdrawals averaged 17 Mgal/d (27 An average of 14.5 Mgal/d (22.4 ft /s) is trans- 3 ferred from the Ramapo Pumping Station on the ft /s); and the Ramapo River Basin between station Ramapo River to the Wanaque Reservoir. About 01387500 (Ramapo River near Mahwah, N.J.) and two upstream stations, 01387400 (Ramapo River at 2.3 Mgal/d (3.5 ft3/s) is transferred from the Saddle Ramapo, N.Y.) and 01387450 (Mahwah River near River to the Oradell Reservoir by United Water Suffera, N.Y.), where withdrawals averaged 15 New Jersey. New Jersey American Water Com- Mgal/d (23 ft3/s). Average ground-water withdraw- pany transfers an average of 8.5 Mgal/d (13.1 fr/s) als were 9 Mgal/d (14 fr/s) both from the Rock- from the Passaic River and Canoe Brook to the away River Basin between station 01380500 Canoe Brook Reservoirs. (Although this with- (Rockaway River above reservoir at Boonton, N.J.) drawal is shown in figure 4, the Canoe Brook Res- and two upstream stations, 01379700 (Rockaway ervoirs are not shown because they were not River at Berkshire Valley, N.J.) and 01379773 included in the change-in-storage calculation (far- (Green Pond Brook at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.), and ther on)). from the Lower Passaic River Basin between sta- tions 01389500 (Passaic River at Little Falls, N.J.) Surface water from outside the study area is and 01389880 (Passaic River at Route 46 at Elm- transferred into the Hackensack River Basin from wood Park, N.J.). Average withdrawals from all several sites, including Hirschfield Brook, a tribu- wells in 20 of the 34 subwatersheds in the study tary to the Hackensack River located just down- area exceeded 0.6 Mgal/d (1 ft3/s) during 1993-96 stream from Oradell Reservoir, and the Sparkill (fig. 6). River in the Hudson River Basin. These transfers 3 are small, averaging 0.4 Mgal/d (0.6 ft /s) and 0.06 Previous Investigations Mgal/d (0.1 ft3/s), respectively, during water years 1993-96. Most of the surface water that is with- This study is a continuation of previous work drawn within the study area is returned to surface done to develop reconstructed-streamflow records water-to Newark and New York Bays or the for streamflow-gaging stations in the Passaic River Lower Passaic River-through treatment facilities Basin. Clinton Bogert Associates (unpublished outside the study area. consultant's report, 1982) reconstructed stream- flow records for the 60-year period from October Most of the high-volume point-source dis- 1,1919, through September 30,1979. Daily recon- charges in the study area are from municipal treat- structed-streamflow values for 11 USGS stream- ment facilities and are located in the Passaic, flow-gaging stations and two control points were Rockaway, Saddle, and Whippany River Basins. calculated by adjusting observed streamflow on the Average discharges exceed 0.6 Mgal/d (1 ft /s) at basis of surface-water withdrawals and reservoir- about 33 point-source discharge sites in the study storage changes. These values were then used in a area (fig. 5). Most of the ground water that is with- computer simulation to apply the effects of dis- drawn within the study area is returned to surface charges from municipal wastewater-treatment water through treatment facilities within the study facilities throughout the basin, as well as the effect area. of industrial discharges in the lower reaches of the basin, to reconstruct flows. Lawler, Matusky, and Streamflow in several subwatersheds in the Skelly Engineers (unpublished consultant's report, Passaic River Basin is affected by a high density of 1997) extended this simulation from October 1, large-volume public-supply wells. These subwater- 1978, through September 30,1993. This later effort sheds include the Upper Passaic River Basin added point-source discharge data for treatment between stations 01379580 (Passaic River near facilities within the watershed to the reconstructed- Hanover Neck, N.J.) and 01379500 (Passaic River streamflow data set, as well as adding several new- near Chatham, N.J.), where ground-water with- streamflow stations and control points to the 3 drawals averaged 22 Mgal/d (34 ft /s) during 1993- model. These models were used in the develop- 96; the Whippany River Basin between stations ment of operation schemes and storage-manage- thickness of glacial sediments in New Jersey (Stan- ment plans for the Wanaque South project, a ford and others, 1990). regional water-supply project that provided an additional 79 Mgal/d (122 ft3/s) to the water supply Zripko and Hasan (1994) present an inven- for northern New Jersey. tory of depletive water use for 23 regional water- resource planning areas of New Jersey. This report Several ground-water-flow models have identifies water and wastewater transfers among been developed to describe ground-water-flow planning areas and lists the average annual ground- conditions in northern New Jersey. Gordon (1993) and surface-water withdrawals and wastewater dis- used a ground-water-flow model to simulate and charges during 1986-88. Carswell and Rooney quantify the effects of current and predicted with- (1976) describe the ground-water resources and drawals on the ground-water-flow system under geology of Passaic County. Vecchioli and Miller steady-state conditions. J.L. Hoffman (New Jersey (1973) describe the hydrology of the New Jersey Geological Survey, written commun., 1997) used a part of the Ramapo River Basin and evaluate the numerical model to simulate ground-water-flow feasibiUty of developing large ground-water sup- paths in the central Passaic River Basin under his- plies from the stratified drift in the Ramapo River torical and projected pumpage conditions. Nichol- valley by inducing recharge to the aquifer from the son and others (1996) used a finite-difference river. Schopp and Bauersfeld (1986) summarize model to simulate ground-water flow in three aqui- the surface-water resources of New Jersey. Nawyn fers and two intervening confining units in a car- (1998) compiles monthly withdrawal data for bonate-rock and valley-fill aquifer system in the ground-water and surface-water sites in New Jer- New Jersey Highlands. Voronin and Rice (1996) sey capable of providing 100,000 gallons per day used a three-dimensional finite-difference model to or more. simulate ground-water flow under steady-state pumping conditions in glacial and bedrock aquifers Hickman (1997) used statistical tests to ana- at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. Hill and others lyze water-quality measurements in the Passaic and (1992) used a three-dimensional numerical model Pompton Rivers to identify differences between to quantify hydrogeologic characteristics of the water quality on days of diversion at the Two ground-water system and to evaluate the hydro- Bridges pumping station and water quality on days logic relation between ground-water withdrawals of no diversion. Price and Schaefer (1995) used and streamflow in valley-fill deposits in the contemporaneous-streamflow estimates to calcu- Ramapo River Valley. Dunne and Tasker (1996) late instream loads from selected constituent con- developed a continuity-accounting computer centrations in water-quality samples for stations in model of the Raritan River Basin water-supply sys- the Rockaway and Whippany Basins. Loads from tem, which can be used to evaluate the effects of permitted point sources upstream from each station alternative patterns of operation of the water-sup- were estimated. Czamik and Kozinski (1994) char- ply system during extended periods of below-aver- acterize the regional ground-water quality of the age precipitation. central Passaic River Basin. Samples from wells open to three principal aquifer systems—glacial Reports that document the geology underly- sediments, sedimentary bedrock, and igneous bed- ing the study area include a map of the Newark rock-were analyzed. Buxton and others (1998) 1° x 2° Quadrangle, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and present relations of water quality to streamflow New York (Lyttle and Epstein, 1987); a map of the determined for 18 constituents at stations in the Green Pond Mountain region from Dover to Passaic and Hackensack River Basins. Surface- Greenwood Lake, New Jersey (Herman and Mitch- water quality and streamflow data were evaluated ell, 1991); a bedrock geologic map of northern for trends in constituent concentrations during high New Jersey (Drake and others, 1996); and a and low flow. Hickman (1999) conducted trend description of the hydrogeologic character and tests on values of 24 water-quality characteristics measured at 83 surface-water-quality stations on streams in New Jersey during water years 1986-95. 12 Acknowledgments 15 reservoirs, surface-water withdrawals at 87 intakes, discharges from 265 public and private The authors extend their appreciation to Paul treatment facilities that include 368 outfall pipes Schorr of the NJDEP Bureau of Safe Drinking (pi. 1), and ground-water withdrawals from about Water, Asghar Hasan of the NJDEP Bureau of 840 wells (pi. 2). After they were compiled, the Water Allocation, and Robert Schopp of the USGS data were formatted, converted to units of cubic for their guidance in the planning and implementa- feet per second, and read into an Excel spread- tion of this investigation. Thanks also are due to sheet. Observed-streamflow records were used as members of the NJDEP Technical Advisory Com- the starting point from which to calculate recon- mittee, including Pen Tao of United Water New structed streamflow. Jersey, Jeffrey Hoffman of the New Jersey Geolog- ical Survey, and Keith Pytlik of North Jersey Dis- Streamflow trict Water Supply Commission. The contributions of the many individuals from water-supply and Observed-streamflow data were compiled sewage authorities who provided data for this for 34 streamflow-gaging stations in the Passaic study, including Philip Roosa of the Passaic Valley and Hackensack River Basins in New Jersey and Water Commission, Donald Distante of United New York (table 1). These gaging stations include Water New York, Roger Vann of the U.S. Environ- most of the continuous-record streamflow-gaging mental Protection Agency (USEPA), and Edward stations in the study area that are operated by the Simms of Orange County Health Department, also USGS, as well as selected low-flow partial-record, are appreciated. miscellaneous, and discontinued streamflow-gag- ing stations. Stations were selected to provide an SOURCES. ESTIMATION, AND even distribution of stations throughout the study DESCRIPTION OF DATA USED TO area, and to ensure the inclusion of stations in areas RECONSTRUCT STREAMFLOW with major water-supply features, such as large res- RECORDS ervoirs and high-volume surface-water withdraw- als or point-source discharges. Continuous records Streamflow and other hydrologic data were for the entire study period of October 1,1992, compiled from the computerized data bases of the through September 30,1996, were available for 24 USGS, NJDEP, and USEPA, as well as from paper of the 34 stations used in this study. Partial records files and published reports of the USGS and were available for one continuous-record station NJDEP. In addition, some monthly and daily data and one discontinued station. Missing streamflow were collected directly from public and private records for these stations and the remaining eight water suppliers and wastewater-treatment facilities. partial-record and discontinued stations were esti- The daily data set was developed as a test to deter- mated by using one or a combination of the meth- mine the feasibility of reconstructing daily stream- ods described below. Active USGS continuous- flow records on the basis of available data. Missing record gaging stations in the study area were not data were estimated by using methods developed used if they were located near other active continu- for this and other studies. Site-specific data were ous-record stations or if the reliability of their stored in a geographic information system (GIS) as records was questionable. Stations not used are sta- an ARC/INFO point coverage and in related point tions 01379780 (Green Pond Brook below Pica- attribute tables. tinny Lake, at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.), 01379790 (Green Pond Brook at Wharton, N.J.), 01381400 Data compiled as part of this study include (Whippany River near Morristown, N.J.), and observed streamflow at 34 USGS streamflow-gag- 01387520 (Ramapo River at Suffem, N.Y). ing stations, reservoir level or reservoir storage in 2The use of brand or trade names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. 13 Table 1. Streamflow-gaging stations used in the study and associated information [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; CR, continuous-record streamflow-gaging station; DIS, discontinued streamflow-gaging sta- tion, LFPR, low-flow partial-record station; MISC, miscellaneous station; QW, water-quality station; MOVE1, maintenance-of- variance extension type 1; DAR, drainage-area ratio; -, no estimation required] USGS Period for streamflow- Drainage Method used which gaging- area, in to estimate streamflow station square •type of observed was number Station name miles station streamflow estimated 01376800 Hackensack River at West Nyack, N.Y. 30.7 01377000 Hackensack River at Rivervale, N.J. 58 CR,QW 01377500 Pascack Brook at Westwood, N.J. 29.6 CR 01378500 Hackensack River at New MUford, N.J. 113 CR 01378690 Passaic River near Bernardsville, N.J. 8.83 DIS ESTWAT 1993-96 01379000 Passaic River near Millington, N.J. 55.4 CR,QW 01379500 Passaic River near Chatham. N.J. 100 CR,QW 01379580 Passaic River near Hanover Neck, N.J. 132 MISC MOVEI.DAR 1993-96 01379700 Rockaway River at Berkshire Valley, N.J. 24.4 DIS ESTWAT 7/96-9/96 01379773 Green Pond Brook at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 7.65 CR 01380500 Rockaway River above reservoir at Boonton, N.J. 116 CR,QW 01381000 Rockaway River below reservoir at Boonton, N.J. 119 01381200 Rockaway River at Pine Brook, N.J. 136 LFPR, QW DAR 1993-96 01381500 Whippany River at Morristown, N.J. 29.4 CR.QW 01381800 Whippany River near Pine Brook, N.J. 68.5 LFPR, QW DAR 1993-96 01381900 Passaic River at Pine Brook, N.J. 349 01382000 Passaic River at Two Bridges, N.J. 361 LFPR, QW DAR 1993-96 01382500 Pequannock River at Macopin Intake Dam, N.J. 63.7 CR,QW 01382800 Pequannock River at Riverdale, N.J. 83.9 CR ESTWAT 1993 01383500 Wanaque River at Awosting, N.J. 27.1 CR 01384500 Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, N.J. 19.1 CR 01387000 Wanaque River at Wanaque, N.J. 90.4 CR 01387400 Ramapo River at Ramapo, NY. 86.9 CR 01387450 Mahwah River near Suffera, N.Y. 12.3 CR 01387500 Ramapo River near Mahwah, N.J. 120 CR,QW 01388000 Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J. 160 CR,QW 01388500 Pompton River at Pompton Plains, N.J. 355 CR 01388910 Pompton River at Mountain View, N.J. 371 MISC MOVELDAR 1993-96 01389005 Passaic River below Pompton River at Two Bridges, N.J. 734 MISC, QW ESTWAT 1993-96 01389500 Passaic River at Little FaUsNJ. 762 CR,QW 01389880 Passaic River at Rt 46 at Elmwood Park, N.J. 803 MISC, QW MOVEI.DAR 1993-96 01390500 Saddle River at Ridgewood, N.J. 21.6 CR,QW 0139IOOO Hohokus Brook at Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J. 16.4 CR 01391500 Saddle River at Lodi, N.J. 54.6 CR.QW 14 Measured Values records at nearby continuous-record stations by using multiple-regression techniques. The continu- Monthly mean observed streamflow values ous-record stations used in these estimates were for October 1992 through September 1996 and selected on the basis of similarities in basin charac- daily mean observed streamflow for May 1,1995, teristics, the reliability of the record, and proximity through October 31,1995, for 24 continuous- to the discontinued station. ESTWAT was used to record streamflow-gaging stations were retrieved estimate streamflow at discontinued stations and at from the USGS National Water Information Sys- one continuous-record station for which records for tem (NWIS) Automated Data Processing System the 1993-96 period were incomplete. ESTWAT can (ADAPS) data base. These data were then entered use data from multiple stations to estimate stream- into a spreadsheet and used as a starting point from flow at discontinued stations. Values (slope of the which to calculate monthly and daily reconstructed line and y-intercept) are set to minimize squared streamflow. Observed monthly and daily values for errors. Streamflow at the continuous-record sta- these stations are published annually by the USGS tions also can be "time-lagged" to improve the esti- in water-resources data reports (Bauersfeld and mates of streamflow at discontinued stations. others, 1994,1995; Reed and others, 1996,1997). In the MOVE1 method, instantaneous low- Estimation of Data flow streamflow measurements at the partial- record and miscellaneous stations are correlated Streamflow records at partial-record, miscel- with concurrent mean daily discharge at a nearby laneous, and discontinued stations and missing continuous-record gaging station to estimate records at continuous-record stations were esti- streamflow at the partial-record or miscellaneous mated with standard USGS techniques by using station. This method is a modification of linear values from nearby gages. Daily streamflow least-squares regression in which values are set to records were estimated by using one of the follow- maintain the sample mean and variance rather than ing techniques: (1) ESTWAT, a USGS computer to minimize squared errors (Hirsch, 1982). The program; (2) Maintenance of Variance Extension, best-fit line is drawn through data points that repre- Type 1 (MOVE!) (Hirsch, 1982); and (3) drainage- sent the relation between discharge at a partial- area ratio. Streamflow records calculated by using record station and mean daily discharge at a contin- these techniques are called "observed streamflow uous-record station. The equation of this line is records" in this report. For several stations, a com- then used to estimate discharge at the partial-record bination of these methods was used to estimate station on the basis of the discharge measured at streamflow records. For example, records for sta- the continuous-record station. tion 01382800, Pequannock River at Riverdale, N.J., were retrieved from the AD APS data base for In the drainage-area ratio method, stream- water years 1994-96 and ESTWAT was used to flow at partial-record streamflow stations is esti- estimate those for 1993. Records for station mated from observed streamflow at an adjacent 01381200, Rockaway River at Pine Brook, N.J., continuous-record station with similar basin char- were estimated by using a drainage-area ratio to acteristics and reliable records. Values at continu- estimate local inflow between stations 01381200 ous-record stations were adjusted to account for and 01381000 (Rockaway River below reservoir at differences in the drainage areas of the two sta- Boonton, N.J.), then adding the discharge at tions. Each value at the continuous-record station 01381000 and the discharge from the Rockaway was multiplied by a coefficient that represents the Valley Regional Sewerage Authority. Daily stream- ratio of the size of the drainage basin of the partial- flow values were then used to calculate monthly record station to the size of the drainage basin of mean streamflow records. the continuous-record station to estimate stream- flow at the partial-record station. In the ESTWAT method, streamflow is esti- mated by correlating log-transformed streamflow After the daily values were determined for values at discontinued stations to streamflow each partial-record and discontinued station, the 15 monthly mean was calculated from the daily observations typically is within 0.02 ft (Rantz, records. These values were then entered into 1982). Several factors can affect the accuracy of monthly and daily spreadsheets to calculate recon- the stage record. The accuracy of float-operated structed streamflow. The equations used to esti- recorders may be affected by float lag, which var- mate streamflow records at all stations with ies directly with the force required to move the missing or incomplete records are shown in table 2. mechanism of the recorder and inversely with the square of the float diameter. Line shift may affect Reliability of Data the accuracy of stage records. As the stage changes, the weight of the float tape changes the The accuracy of streamflow records depends depth of flotation of the float. The magnitude of the on the stability of the stage-discharge relation, the change depends on the magnitude of the change in frequency of streamflow measurements, the accu- the stage. Submergence of the counterweight also racy of the measurements of stage and discharge, can affect accuracy. When a counterweight and and the interpretation of records (Reed and others, part of the float tape become submerged as the 1997). Streamflow records from continuous-record stage rises, the pull on the float is reduced and its stations generally are highly reliable because they depth of flotation increases. The accuracy of bub- are based on periodic measurements made to verify ble gages may be affected by variations in gas fric- the stage-discharge relation. tion, variations in required bubble-feed rate with rate of increase in stage, and variations in the Many factors can affect the accuracy of weight of the gas column with stage, sediment streamflow measurements at continuous-record deposits on bubble orifices, and leaks in the system streamflow-gaging stations. Accurate measurement (Rantz, 1982). requires that equipment is properly assembled and maintained in good condition. The characteristics The accuracy of continuous records gener- of the measurement section also affect measure- ally is within 15 percent of the true value 95 per- ment accuracy. The section should be deep enough cent of the time (Bauersfeld and others, 1994, to permit use of the 2-point method of measuring 1995; Reed and others, 1996, 1997), but there are velocity. Inaccuracies in sounding can occur in sec- some exceptions. Records from the Passaic River tions that are very deep or where water is flowing at Pine Brook generally were within 15 percent of very fast. The presence of bridge piers in or near the true value when streamflow was less than 1,000 the section affects the distribution of velocities ft3/s and not within 15 percent when streamflow across the channel. Twenty-five to 30 vertical sec- equaled or exceeded 1,000 ft3/s. Records from Sad- tions typically are required and ideally are spaced dle River at Ridgewood were within 15 percent of so that each section contains approximately the the true value except during 1995, when they were same amount of discharge. If the stage is changing different from the true value by more than 15 per- rapidly during the measurement, the correct gage cent. height to apply to the streamflow value is uncer- tain. Other factors that may affect the accuracy of Streamflow records estimated by using measurements include the presence of ice in the MOVE1, ESTWAT, and drainage-area ratio meth- measuring section; wind, which may obscure the ods are less accurate than recorded streamflow angle of the current by creating waves that make it data. The accuracy of estimates of streamflow at difficult to sense the water surface prior to sound- these stations depends in part on the accuracy and ing and by changing the velocity of the water at quantity of the streamflow data available for the shallow depths; datum changes; faulty intake oper- stations used in the estimate, and similarities in ation; float leakage; and float-tape slippage (Rantz, basin characteristics. Estimates of mean daily 1982). streamflow made by using ESTWAT generally are more accurate than estimates made by using other Continuous records of streamflow are com- methods because ESTWAT uses actual records puted from the record of stage and the stage-dis- from other time periods to establish the relation charge relation. The accuracy of individual gage used to make the estimate; errors generally are 16 Table 2. Equations used to estimate observed streamflow at stations with missing or incomplete records, Passaic and Hacken- sack River Basins, New Jersey and New York [Number in parentheses after station number represents the number of days of lag applied to daily streamflow values used to calculate estimated streamflow values. A positive number represents the number of days before the date of the estimated value; a negative number represents the number of days after the date of the estimated value; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; Qm, observed streamflow; QpS, point-source discharge; RVRSA, Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority] USGS streamflow- gaging- station number Equation 01378690 00392 00176 00523 0.026700267 n 0.0499 n 0.431 n -n978nnU i:/8Uy o o O ^11101378690 - - m01379000(-l) Vn, 01379000(5) Vmoi381500(-5) ^m101381500(-3) 01381500(-3) ^m 0138150O(-l) ^01381500 _ 0.04565 n„ -0.0209 _. -0.043 _. 0.5S8 n -0.155 n 0.0338 ^m 01381500(3)500(3) ^m 01380500(-5) Vm 01380500(3) Vm 01398500 ^01398500(1) ^01398500(5) 01379580 = l Qm01379580 -^(1 ^ Qm Qim5O0 ) 01379700 -0.0598 - -0.139 _. 0.292 n -0.0599 _. 0.102 n 0.0851 Qm 01379700 " 0-3873 Qm 0101379773(-5)379773(.5) QVmoi3:01379773(-3) ^01379773 ^m 01379773(4) * 01381200 + Qm01381200 - 01466 Q,,, 013g0500 + Qm 01381000 Qps RVRSA 01381800 Qm 01381800 " Smal'er of Qm 01381800 0r 2-330 Qm 01381500 01382000 = QmO1382O00 ^^^ Qm01381900 01382800 0l25 O0851 0467 om 00495 0386 n - :,s 74Ri481 n n • n o • o " o ^01382800 - •'' Vm 01383500 ^01383500(4) ^n, 01384500 ^01384500(2) Vm 01384500(5) ^01382500 „ 0.0285 _. 0.06 Vm 01382500(3) Vm 01382500(5) 01388910 Qm 01388910 = 0.9973(1.070 Qm Soo ) 01389005 0125 0214 00317 0529 n -^fiQisoi0 I ) o o o Vm 01389005 " • ' - Vm 01388500 Vm 01381900 ^01381900(2) Vm 01389500 01389880 Qm 0.389880 = 0.9963(1.245 Q,.,^^) 17 between 15 and 30 percent. The correlation coeffi- lic supply totaled 518 Mgal/d (801 ft3/s). cients, which are statistical measurements of accu- Deliveries of public supplies for domestic, com- racy, for streamflow records estimated by using mercial, industrial, and thermoelectric-power use MOVE1 at five stations in the study area ranged were estimated to be 199 Mgal/d (308 ft3/s), 65 from 0.96 to 0.99. MOVE1 estimates are based on Mgal/d (101 ft3/s), 44 Mgal/d (68 ft3/s), and 1 base-flow correlations made by using only about Mgal/d (1.5 ft3/s), respectively. Public use (munici- 10 to 15 discharge measurements. MOVE1 esti- pal services and fire protection) and losses (back- mates generally are accurate for base-flow condi- washing filters and pumping equipment, water- tions, but can be in error by as much as 50 to 100 conveyance leaks, inaccurate domestic meters, percent during runoff conditions. Error associated unauthorized use of fire hydrants, and illegal water with drainage-area ratio estimates may exceed 25 connections) were estimated to be 110 Mgal/d (170 percent. The drainage-area ratio method was found ft3/s) (Solley and others, 1998). to be more accurate than MOVE1 for estimating flow under medium- and high-flow conditions Data Sources and Compilation (R.D. Schopp, U.S. Geological Survey, oral com- mun., 1999). In New Jersey, water users report data on monthly withdrawals to NJDEP on either an annual Withdrawals of Ground Water and or a quarterly basis. These data are entered in the Surface Water NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation (BWA) data base and transferred electronically to the USGS. Withdrawal data are collected differently in Data on monthly withdrawals in New York State New Jersey than in New York. Withdrawal data for were collected from various sources, including the New Jersey include metered withdrawals for all USGS, New York District, office in Troy, N.Y.; categories of use (public supply, commercial, USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Inventory System industrial, irrigation, mining, and thermoelectric (SDWIS); Orange County Health Department; Suf- power), reported to NJDEP as monthly values. fem Village Water Department; and United Water Withdrawal data for New York were obtained from New York. Monthly withdrawals of surface water various sources and include only public-supply for the Village of Nyack were obtained from withdrawals. Daily and monthly withdrawal data Bauersfeld and others (1994,1995) and Reed and were obtained directly from the high-volume pub- others (1996,1997). Data on daily withdrawals in lic suppliers in New York State. Although data are both states were obtained directly from high-vol- reported as monthly values, the metering methods ume public suppliers and additional daily values used to measure withdrawals in New York are for New Jersey withdrawals were obtained from unknown. the NJDEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water (BSDW) data base. Total withdrawals of freshwater in the Pas- saic and Hackensack Basins in 1995 were esti- The collection of withdrawal data in New mated to be 572 Mgal/d (885 ft3/s)-124 Mgal/d Jersey is authorized by the 1981 Water Supply (192 ft3/s) of ground water and 448 Mgal/d (693 Management Act, and NJDEP monitors withdraw- ft3/s) of surface water. Estimated withdrawals of als of ground water and surface water in the State saline surface water totaled 440 Mgal/d (681 ft3/s), (Saarela, 1992, p. 6). Water users with pumping although these withdrawals were from sources equipment capable of producing 70 gal/min (0.16 below the most downstream gages used in this ft /s) must obtain permission from NJDEP in the study. Instream use for hydroelectric power totaled form of a permit, registration, or certification (Prin- 300 Mgal/d (464 ft3/s). Withdrawals for self-sup- cipi, 1991). During a 24-hour period, the amount of plied industrial, domestic, mining, commercial, water withdrawn by pumping equipment producing and irrigation uses totaled 25 Mgal/d (39 ft3/s), 14 70 gal/min is about 100,000 gal. Water-allocation Mgal/d (22 ft3/s), 8 Mgal/d (12 ft3/s), 4 Mgal/d (6 permits are issued for high-volume (100,000 gal/d ft3/s), and 3 Mgal/d (5 ft3/s), respectively. With- (about 0.15 ft3/s) or greater) water withdrawals. drawals of ground water and surface water for pub- Permit holders must submit monthly withdrawal 18 data and must recalibrate in-line flowmeters during gaging station (for example, station 01380500, their permitting period. Well registrants, or low- Rockaway River above reservoir at Boonton, N.J.). volume (less than 100,000 gal/d) water users, must Site data were matched with the New Jersey water- submit reports of monthly metered withdrawals. allocation number and New Jersey well-permit or Agricultural/horticultural certification water users surface-water identifier. Matched data were must submit monthly withdrawal data. Because reviewed for consistency, corrected, and entered in agricultural/horticultural withdrawals are rarely the spreadsheet. Withdrawal values that were metered, withdrawals commonly are estimated by reported as "combined" or aggregated by well multiplying the number of hours of use by the fields were disaggregated if the values included pump capacity (Nawyn, 1998). both ground-water and surface-water withdrawals or if the sites included in the aggregated value were NJDEP staff entered site-specific monthly in different subwatersheds. Site-specific and disag- withdrawal data for New Jersey into a computer- gregated withdrawal values were stored in ized data base. The NJDEP provided these data as SWUDS for future retrieval. computer files to the USGS as part of the Coopera- tive Water-Use Program. USGS staff compared and Methods Used to Estimate Water verified site and withdrawal data in the USGS and Withdrawals NJDEP data bases before the data were entered into the USGS Site Specific Water-Use Data Sys- Values reported as combined withdrawals for tem (SWUDS) data base. Unmatched or missing multiple wells or for wells and surface-water with- site and withdrawal data were compared with drawals in New Jersey were disaggregated on the NJDEP paper files; corrected information was basis of the most recent site-specific reported data. entered into the SWUDS data base. If data for a single water-allocation permit were reported only as aggregated values, the monthly Water use in New York State is monitored values were divided by the number of wells. Wells less closely than it is in New Jersey. The New York or surface-water sites that were identified as State Department of Environmental Conservation "standby" or "emergency" were not included in the (NYSDEC) is the primary State agency responsible distribution of the aggregated withdrawal value. for water-resources management. NYSDEC administers the Water-Supply Permit Program, Monthly and daily withdrawal data were col- which requires a permit for public-supply with- lected for all public supplies in New York State drawals. The collection of data on public-supply except 16 low-volume-withdrawal sites identified withdrawals is the responsibility of the New York in USEPA's SDWIS data base. The daily withdraw- State Department of Health through county offices als of the Village of Nyack, N. Y, were estimated or county health departments. Because water sup- on the basis of monthly withdrawals reported in pliers in New York are not required to report with- Reed and others (1996). To estimate monthly and drawal information, some withdrawals may have daily withdrawals at the remaining 15 sites, the been omitted from the calculation of reconstructed value reported for the population served in the streamflow in the State. Self-supplied withdrawals USEPA's SDWIS data base was multiplied by a (other than for public supply) in Orange and Rock- daily per capita coefficient. One of two coefficients land Counties in New York State are not monitored was used: 116 gal/d per person for public suppliers by any State agency (Suavely and others, 1990) that deliver to both domestic and non-domestic and were not included in this study. customers (commercial, industrial, public use) or 85 gal/d per person for public suppliers that serve The latitude and longitude of each with- only domestic customers (residential subdivisions, drawal site was plotted by using a GIS to identify mobile home parks) (Nawyn, 1997). The coeffi- the locations of these sites within the study area. cient of 116 gal/d was estimated on the basis of the Data on withdrawal sites initially were grouped by monthly withdrawal data (October 1992-Septem- watershed (for example, Rockaway River Basin) ber 1996) reported to the Orange County Health and then by subwatershed above the nearest USGS Department by seven public suppliers that deliver 19 water to residential and other customers in the Streams can interact with ground water in County. The value for monthly withdrawals several ways. Streams gain water from inflow of reported by each public supplier was divided by the ground water through the streambed, lose water to reported retail population in USEPA's SDWIS data ground water by outflow through the streambed, or base. The result of this calculation was the per cap- gain water in some reaches and lose water in oth- ita use for each public supplier. The per capita use ers. For ground water to discharge into the stream of the seven water suppliers was then averaged. channel, the altitude of the water table near the stream must be higher than the altitude of the Estimation of Response of Streamflow stream surface. Conversely, for surface water to to Ground-Water Withdrawals recharge the ground-water system, the altitude of the water table must be lower than the altitude of The hydrologic cycle describes the move- the stream surface. Withdrawals from shallow ment of water above, on, and below the Earth's sur- aquifers that are directly connected to surface- face (fig. 7). Precipitation is the source of nearly all water bodies can have a substantial effect on the freshwater in the hydrologic cycle, but its distribu- movement of water between the two water bodies. tion is highly variable. Precipitation is delivered to The effects of withdrawals from a single well or surface-water bodies directly, by overland flow, or group of wells on the hydrologic system are local through subsurface flow routes. Evaporation and in scale. The effects of many wells withdrawing transpiration, which return water to the atmo- water from an aquifer over large areas, however, sphere, can vary considerably depending on envi- may be regional in scale (Winter and others, 1998). ronmental conditions. The movement of water in the atmosphere and on land surface is easier to Ground-water withdrawals can affect visualize than the movement of ground water. Sur- streams by reducing base flow (the ground-water face water typically is hydraulically connected to contribution to streamflow) or by direct depletion ground water; however, the interactions are diffi- of streamflow. Hill and others (1992) showed that cult to measure or observe. Many natural processes pumping can reduce streamflow and increase and human activities affect the interactions of recharge to a valley-fill aquifer by inducing water ground water and surface water (Winter and others, to flow from the stream to the aquifer. Streamflow 1998). losses measured during several seepage runs along the Ramapo River in Oakland Borough at the The source of water to the water table is Soons well field were found to exceed local with- infiltration of precipitation through the unsaturated drawals. The effects of withdrawals from a well on zone. The configuration of the water table varies streamflow are unique, can vary greatly, and seasonally and from year to year because ground- depend on many factors, including well-construc- water recharge is related to wide variations in the tion characteristics, the presence and thickness of quantity, distribution, and timing of precipitation. confining units in the aquifer, the location of the Ground water in the saturated zone moves along well within the flow system, the hydrologic and flow paths of varying lengths from areas of geologic characteristics of the surrounding aquifer recharge to areas of discharge. Flow paths start at material, and the characteristics of the streambed. the water table, continue through the ground-water Detailed simulations of ground-water flow in the system, and end at streams or pumped wells (fig. study area would be needed to quantify these 8). Flow paths in the uppermost part of an uncon- effects for the wells used in this study. fined aquifer can be tens to hundreds of feet in length and have travel times of days to a few years. In the study area, ground water typically dis- The longest and deepest flow paths, such as those charges to the streams and lakes that are hydrauli- in the lowermost part of an unconfined aquifer or cally connected to the aquifers. In the upper in a confined aquifer, may be hundreds of feet to reaches of the Passaic River Basin, the high-yield- miles in length and have travel times that are ing wells are screened in the glacial-deposit aqui- greater than a decade (Winter and others, 1998). fers near the streams in the valleys. The low- yielding wells are open to less permeable fractured 20 • Clouds forming Figure 7. Diagram of the hydrologic cycle. (Modified from Heath, 1983) bedrock aquifers (Precambrian crystalline rock) in drawals comes from wells open to aquifers com- the hills or mountain ridges adjacent to the valleys. posed of stratified drift. About 11 percent of withdrawals within this subwatershed comes from Most of the water withdrawn from wells in wells open to bedrock aquifers, predominantly the study area comes from Wisconsin and pre-Wis- units of the Passaic Formation of the Brunswick consin glacial-deposit aquifers. In the Rockaway Group and Triassic basalt. In the lower reaches of River Basin, for example, about 97 percent of the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins in the ground-water withdrawals comes from glacial Piedmont Physiographic Province, most ground- aquifers that are composed of stratified drift, termi- water withdrawals are from wells open to aquifers nal moraine, or undifferentiated glacial sediments. of the Brunswick Group, primarily the Passaic For- In contrast, only about 3 percent of ground-water mation. withdrawals comes from wells open to bedrock aquifers, including units composed of Precambrian Topography can prevent ground-water flow granite or gneiss and undifferentiated units, or from between basins. Hoffman and Quinlan (1994) note limestone and dolomite aquifers of the Kittatinny that ground water under prepumping conditions Supergroup. In the Ramapo River Basin, between exited the central Passaic River Basin in one of stations 01388000 (Ramapo River at Pompton three ways: upward flow to the surface followed by Lakes, N.J.) and 01387500 (Ramapo River near evapotranspiration, discharge to the Passaic River, Mahwah, N.J.), 89 percent of ground-water with- or underground flow through the Short Hills Gap. 21 Valley-fill aquifers Crystalline bedrock Area contributing recharge to well Carbonate-rock ' Generalized direction aquifer of flow Valley-fill aquifers Crystalline bedrock Area contributing recharge to well Carbonate-rock Generalized direction aquifer of flow Valley-fill aquifers Crystalline Area contributing bedrock recharge to well Potential upland source area Carbonate-rock Generalized direction aquifer of flow Figure 8. Sources of water to wells: (a) area contributing recharge to a shallow well; (b) area contributing recharge to a shallow well where pumping induces infiltration of surface water; (c) areas contributing recharge to a deep well and potential upland source areas of runoff. (From Nicholson and Watt, 1998) 22 Flow through the Short Hills Gap is small, how- a 6-month delay, July 1995 withdrawals were ever, because the hydraulic conductivity of the added to the January 1996 streamflow value. unconsolidated sediment is low. Differences and percent differences between The response of base flow to ground-water reconstructed-streamflow values with no delay in withdrawals from wells within subwatersheds was ground-water withdrawals and reconstructed- applied to observed streamflow in a 1:1 ratio-that streamflow values with a 3-month delay in ground- is, the entire volume of ground water withdrawn water withdrawals were greatest during the sum- was added to the observed-streamflow value. Add- mer and fall months of 1993 and 1995, when ing the entire withdrawal to the observed stream- observed streamflow was lowest (fig. 9). During flow-that is, making the largest possible these periods, reconstructed-streamflow values correction-is the most conservative approach to with 3-month delays were greater than recon- calculating the reconstructed streamflow. structed-streamflow values with no delay. Maxi- mum positive differences during October 1992 3 Over time, the volume of stream depletion through September 1996 were 12.9 ft /s (20.4 per- caused by withdrawals from a well approaches the cent) for September 1993 at station 01388000 volume withdrawn from that well (Jenkins, 1968). (Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J.) and 32.9 3 The depletion of a stream continues after pumping percent (8.7 ft /s) for September 1995 at station stops and the effects of intermittent pumping are 01387500 (Ramapo River near Mahwah, N.J.). In approximately the same as those of steady, continu- general, reconstructed-streamflow values with 3- ous pumping of the same volume (Jenkins, 1968). month delays were less than reconstructed-stream- flow values with no delay during winter and spring Ground-water withdrawals are largest during months. Maximum negative differences during summer months and smallest during winter October 1992 through September 1996 were - 3 months. If a 6-month delay is assumed to be the 14.1 ft /s (-2.8 percent) for January 1993 at station longest lag time for changes in the rate of with- 01388000 (Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J.) 3 drawals to affect base flow, then the effects of the and -21.3 percent (0.8 ft /s) for August 1995 at sta- largest withdrawals (during summer) are observed tion 01387450 (Mahwah River near Suffem, N.Y.). when any reduction in base flow is least critical— Similar differences were found when ground-water during winter, when streamflow is greatest. Con- withdrawals were delayed by 6 months (fig. 10). versely, the effects of withdrawals during winter months would be observed during summer low- Differences between reconstructed-stream- flow periods. flow values with and without delays in ground- water withdrawals at the two most upstream sta- Reconstructed-streamflow records for four tions in the Ramapo River Basin, 01387400 streamflow-gaging stations in the Ramapo River (Ramapo River at Ramapo, N.Y.) and 01387450 Basin were calculated by using different assump- (Mahwah River near Suffem, N.Y.), were minimal, tions regarding the effect of ground-water with- primarily because there are few wells and the vol- drawals on base flow. Records from these four ume of ground-water withdrawals is small. Differ- stations were adjusted for ground-water withdraw- ences at the two most downstream stations were als by (1) applying withdrawals in a 1:1 ratio with greater, but still small in comparison to the effect no time delay, (2) applying withdrawals with a of removing ground water altogether. By removing delay of 3 months, (3) applying withdrawals with a the effect of ground-water withdrawals on base delay of 6 months, and (4) assuming no effect from flow entirely, differences were apparent during the ground-water withdrawals. For example, to apply a summer months, when streamflow was lowest (fig. 3-month delay for ground-water withdrawals to 11). This alternative is unrealistic because ground- reconstructed-streamflow records, ground-water water withdrawals do affect streamflow, and is pre- withdrawals in July 1995 were added to the Octo- sented here only to show the maximum effect of ber 1995 observed-streamflow value. To calculate withdrawals on streamflow. At station 01388000 (Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J.), the maxi- 23 PERCENT DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CO o « 3-"S o Oct. 1992 " 3 * (D^C ^ «>• Dec. 1992 « Q.O Feb. 1993 ? 5 ® l|| Apr. 1993 (1) < (D 3 =r CT June 1993 ^3 ? Aug. 1993 Oct. 1993 3. Q. ffl ?r^ls PI _, Aug. 1995 fs3 o Oct. 1995 =• w Dec. 1995 Feb. 1996 33^ IS Apr. 1996 "D Q} June 1996 0 3 3J — Aug. 1996 DIFFERENCE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PERCENT DIFFERENCE CD € Tl § § P ? » S1 ® 5 S ^ < => » s. g o i ? S g S II i I ^ • DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND o a -n o c o I I I I I I I I I I"! I 1 I 1 I I I I I 't I I I I I Oct. 1992 (D n o--. O" -ii •< • Dec. 1992 p s Feb. 1993 o> Z 3 v< a - Og Apr. 1993 lonstr mont June 1993 3- c w o » 1 Aug.1993 a. (/> It X with reai 33 33 33 33 Oct. 1993 (D (D 8 8 8 8 D 5. 3 3 3 3 O o 01 S 2. co Dec. 1993 (Q 5 5 C c o o o C ? (D o S" CO a a a. a. Feb. 1994 Q.3 ^21 « « m a -i —i sr withdrawals. ^ =a =! 01388000, Rami a o o o $ € « € m S X June 1994 5 § S1 •o 2 o c 3 O 3 3 O 5 IQ c Q. ^ Aug. 1994 O 3 CD X a. Q. 0) c >< Q. o 1 5' Oct. 1994 k CD OJ 0) -^ 1^ ^ O "D ® |. s O -1 5 3 Dec. 1994 3 Q. Q. 5 U i a. S CD Feb. 1995 w1 w 2. 1 a. a. w" CD 31 ? Q. Apr. 1995 3 s. 8. 1 CO 0) 3 June 1995 o - 3 3 I 5 1 Aug.1995 1(D z Oct. 1995 j^ s Dec. 1995 ^» 3- 5 Feb. 1996 c 3 Q. Apr. 1996 St June 1996 Q. Aug.1996 I • • ' ' • • ' I I I I . I I 1 mum difference between reconstructed streamflow Reliability of Data with ground-water withdrawals applied (59.5 ft3/s) and reconstructed streamflow with ground-water Withdrawal data collected by the NJDEP are withdrawals removed (15.0 ft3/s) was -76 percent highly reliable because the withdrawals are in August 1995. The average difference during the metered and many of the in-line flowmeters are 4-year study period was 35 ft3/s, or 23 percent. recalibrated periodically. In addition, annual with- drawal data were reviewed by the USGS for con- Previous investigations of ground-water/sur- sistency with previously reported information. face-water interactions in New Jersey have indi- Withdrawal data were aggregated by aquifer, cated that a 1:1 ratio of ground-water withdrawals county, HUC, and category of use; inconsistencies to base-flow reduction is a reasonable estimate for in aggregated values were resolved by contacting most subwatersheds in the study area. Lewis- the NJDEP or the water user. Brown and Jacobsen (1995) used average-annual withdrawals and average-annual base flow to esti- Withdrawal data for sites in New York State mate prepumping base flow in a ground-water- include estimated data and therefore are the least flow model of the west-central region of New Jer- reliable withdrawal data in this report. Although sey. By using a flow model of the upper Rockaway data on high-volume public suppliers were River Basin, Gordon (1993) demonstrated that obtained directly from the water user and are con- water in the deeper, confined aquifers discharges sidered reliable, data on low-volume public suppli- through wells or eventually flows upward and dis- ers were estimated on the basis of reported values charges into the Rockaway River and that only a for similar-sized public suppliers in the area. With- small amount of water can enter or exit the aquifer drawals may have been applied incorrectly in the through the underlying bedrock. She noted that calculation of reconstructed streamflow if the per- because the confining units are discontinuous and mits did not clearly state use or disposition of a leaky in many places, differences in water levels withdrawal or discharge. For example, if a well between confined and unconfined aquifers is small. discharged directly to a stream, but this was not Gordon also assumed that the sum of measured indicated in the permit, the withdrawal would have base flow and ground-water withdrawals (total been added to reconstructed streamflow when it ground-water discharge) equaled the calculated should have been subtracted. Data on public sup- ground-water recharge. pliers who serve only residential customers were estimated on the basis of analysis of domestic An object-oriented streamflow model that deliveries.of water-supply systems in New Jersey can be used to test assumptions about the effects of (Nawyn, 1997). ground-water withdrawals on base flow or direct streamflow depletion is being developed by Point-Source Discharges NJDEP. The model allows the user to adjust the Point-source discharges consist of water dis- effects of ground-water withdrawals on base flow charged as effluent (waste) from homes, busi- in two ways: first, by using a coefficient to allow nesses, and industries after the water has been the user to vary the effects of ground-water with- processed to remove solids or other undesirable drawals on streamflow from 0 to 1, and second, by constituents. Wastewater-treatment facilities using a time-delay factor incorporated into the model to delay the effects of ground-water with- include municipal systems, privately owned resi- dential systems serving smaller communities (resi- • drawals between 0 and 6 months. Effects of with- dential subdivisions and mobile-home parks), and drawals can then be assessed by comparing the commercial and industrial facilities. The effluent results of model simulations that incorporate alter- generated from commercial businesses and indus- native assumptions about the relation between trial plants may be treated at a municipal system or ground-water withdrawals and streamflow. onsite at a privately owned wastewater-treatment facility. About 75 percent of the population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994) in the study area is 27 served by a municipal or privately owned wastewa- reporting time. Daily values for low-volume point- ter-treatment facility; about 25 percent of the popu- source discharge facilities were estimated on the lation uses cesspools or septic tanks for wastewater basis of monthly values. treatment. Missing monthly values for several munici- Data Sources and Compilation pal treatment facilities were estimated by using a least-squares regression between the facility's Facilities that discharge water to a surface- reported monthly discharges and streamflow at a water body (lake, stream, or ocean) must apply for nearby streamflow station. The correlation was a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System used to develop a best-fit line for periods when dis- (NPDES) permit. This Federal program is adminis- charge records were available. Missing values were tered in New Jersey by NJDEP and in New York then estimated by using the equation of the line. State by NYSDEC. Each State agency collects data Sites and periods for which this method was used on the quantity and quality of wastewater dis- are Livingston Township Sewage Treatment Plant charges and transfers this information to USEPA's (NJ0024511), February, April, May, and June Permit Compliance System (PCS) data base. For 1994; Butterworth Sewage Treatment Plant New Jersey discharge sites, point-source discharge (NJ0024911), December 1992; and Hanover Sew- data on file at the NJDEP were obtained as a check erage Authority (NJ0024902), September 1993 on data retrieved from the PCS. In theory, the two through April 1995 and November 1995 through data bases should be identical with respect to loca- September 1996. tion and discharge data because the data in one are obtained from the other. In fact, however, some Estimation of Infiltration and Inflow discrepancies were found. These discrepancies were identified and resolved to create a list of sites The age and integrity of the wastewater-col- with NPDES permits in the study area. Wastewa- lection and -discharge systems in the study area ter-treatment facility outfall pipes in the subwater- vary widely, but all municipal wastewater-treat- sheds of the study area were plotted by latitude and ment systems receive some infiltration and inflow. longitude. If the location of an outfall pipe was Infiltration is ground water that enters a sewer sys- unknown, the location of the wastewater-treatment tem through broken pipes, pipe joints, and illegal facility was plotted. NPDES discharge locations connections of foundation drains. Inflow is surface were matched with data on monthly wastewater runoff that enters a sewer system through manhole discharges. Unmatched or missing monthly dis- covers, exposed broken pipes and pipe joints, charge data were identified and corrected informa- cross-connections between storm sewers and sani- tion was obtained from USEPA. Data on daily tary sewers, and illegal connections of roof leaders, wastewater discharges from most high-volume cellar drains, yard drains, and catch basins (U.S. facilities (greater than 0.25 Mgal/d (0.4 ft3/s)) were Environmental Protection Agency, 1985). obtained from the treatment facility. Infiltration and inflow can substantially Methods Used to Estimate Wastewater increase the volume of point-source discharges, Discharges such as effluent from sewage-treatment facilities, released into streams. Water can enter sewer pipes Wastewater-discharge data were reported during storms and cause short-term increases in the monthly for most sites in the study area. For some volume discharged by treatment facilities. The alti- sites, however, only quarterly, semi-annual, or tude of the water table relative to the altitude of the annual values were reported. These values were collection system is an important factor in deter- reported as an average monthly discharge during mining whether a wastewater-treatment system the reporting period. Monthly data were estimated receives a large volume of infiltration. In areas for 29 outflow pipes for which reports were made. where the water table fluctuates greatly, or in low- The average monthly discharge was entered in the lying areas where the unsaturated zone is thin or spreadsheet for each monthly period preceding the absent, collection systems can be submerged for 28 extended periods. If broken pipes or leaky joints and totaled by subwatershed. Values of infiltration are present, large volumes of ground water can and inflow were distributed over the service area as enter the treatment system. a percentage of the area that falls within each sub- watershed. For example, if a treatment facility Results of previous investigations have indi- served areas in two subwatersheds, the percentage cated that point-source discharges from municipal of the infiltration and inflow associated with each treatment facilities are highly correlated with subwatershed was calculated on the basis of the streamflow (T. H. Barringer, U.S. Geological Sur- area of that subwatershed served by the treatment vey, written comun., 1998). Discharge data from facility and was applied to the reconstructed flow 17 high-volume sewage-treatment facilities in the at the station for that subwatershed. If the entire study area were analyzed to verify this correlation. service area of a treatment facility fell within one Discharge was found to be correlated with stream- subwatershed, all of the infiltration and inflow was flow at gaging stations above and below the point applied to the reconstructed streamflow at the sta- of discharge. Most of the discharges from treat- tion in that subwatershed. ment facilities were strongly correlated with streamflow. Daily reconstructed-streamflow values were not corrected for infiltration and inflow because To adjust for these effects, infiltration and precipitation during the 8 months preceding the inflow were treated as a nonpermitted or unac- period for which daily values were reconstructed counted-for ground- and surface-water withdrawal (September 1,1994 through April 31,1995) was in the reconstructed-streamflow equation. Monthly below average. During this 8-month period, precip- point-source discharges from municipal treatment itation was 8 in. less than the average (1961-90) facilities with average monthly discharges greater precipitation. From May 1,1995, to September 31, than 2 Mgal/d (3 ft3/s) were plotted as a function of 1995, precipitation was about 5 in. below average time to determine discharge patterns and to esti- (National Climatic Data Center, 1993-97). mate the volume of infiltration and inflow. These Although about 5 in. of precipitation was reported plots were used to determine "a base effluent for October 1995, the effect of this precipitation on value""the lowest monthly discharge observed infiltration was assumed to be minimal because of during the 4-year study period, during an extended the antecedent drought conditions. Plots of daily dry period in which infiltration and inflow were discharge as a function of time and analysis by considered to be minimal. For all other months, least-squares regression showed little correlation any discharge greater than this base value was con- between point-source discharge and streamflow. sidered to be the result of infiltration and inflow. Therefore, infiltration and inflow are considered to have been minimal during this time period. Service areas for treatment facilities were determined by using information from two sources: Exfiltration is effluent that leaks from waste- maps that were developed in the 1960's and 1970's water-collection systems through broken pipes and that show actual areas served by the facilities (New pipe joints. In some systems, exfiltration may Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, reduce the volume of wastewater that is treated at 1974), and tables that list current treatment facili- treatment facilities. Information that documents the ties by municipality served (Zripko and Hasan, occurrence and quantity of exfiltration from collec- 1994). Mean daily discharge values from the two tion systems is limited, and no reliable methods to periods were compared to determine the percent- estimate the quantity of exfiltration are available. age of expansion of the treatment systems, if any, During extended dry periods, when the altitude of that occurred over time. The percentage of the area the water table is low and the pipes of collection served within each municipality was then esti- systems are above the water table, exfiltration may mated. A GIS was used to determine the area of occur. Exfiltration from most collection systems, each municipality served by a treatment facility however, is believed to be minimal. Because exfil- and each subwatershed in the study area. The ser- tration from collection systems would increase the vice area was then calculated for each municipality altitude of water table in the vicinity of the leakage. 29 the ground-water contribution to streams would recorded by the USGS and stored in the AD APS likely show a corresponding increase. Because the data base. Month-end elevations were converted to effect of exfiltration on streamflow probably is reservoir-storage values by using tables developed small in comparison to the effects of other factors, on the basis of reservoir geometry. Change-in-stor- reconstructed-streamflow values were not adjusted age values were calculated by subtracting the pre- for exfiltration. vious month-end storage value from the current month-end storage value. Change-in-storage values Reliability of Data for months when reservoir storage declined are negative and were subtracted from observed Site and discharge data from two data streamflow. For these months, reconstructed sources-USEPA and NJDEP data bases-were streamflow is less than observed streamflow compared. Reported values were checked for con- because part of the observed streamflow is derived sistency and corrected as necessary. Missing data from the release of water from the reservoir rather were estimated on the basis of previously reported than being the result of natural conditions. Change- data and least-squares regression analysis with in-storage values for months when reservoir stor- streamflow. Point-source discharge patterns were age increased are positive. Because water was held checked for consistency over time. Estimates of back to increase storage, observed streamflow was infiltration and inflow may be inaccurate, but val- less than it would have been without regulation, ues are small compared to streamflow and, there- and reconstructed streamflow is greater than fore, do not introduce large errors in reconstructed- observed streamflow. Daily change-in-storage val- streamflow records. For all subwatersheds that ues were calculated from daily elevation data by include service areas for wastewater-treatment using the same method used to calculate monthly facilities, infiltration and inflow averaged about 0.6 values. Change-in-storage values were then entered percent of reconstructed streamflow. In the Rock- into the spreadsheet and applied to the observed away River Basin, for example, infiltration and streamflow. inflow averaged about 0.5 percent of reconstructed streamflow. The maximum value was about 2.5 Records of Reservoir Storage percent (1.0 ft3/s of the 39.9-ft3/s reconstructed- streamflow value) at station 01380500 (Rockaway Month-end reservoir change-in-storage data River above reservoir at Boonton, N.J.) during the for October 1992 through September 1996 for all low-flow period of August 1995. 15 reservoirs are published annually by the USGS in water-resources data reports (Bauersfeld and Changes in Reservoir Storage others, 1994,1995; Reed and others, 1996,1997). These data were entered into the spreadsheet and Change-in-storage data were compiled for 15 used to calculate monthly reconstructed stream- large reservoirs in the Passaic and Hackensack flow. River Basins (table 3). These reservoirs include all major water-supply reservoirs in the Newark, Daily reservoir-storage or reservoir-elevation North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, data for May 1,1995, through October 31,1995, Jersey City, and United Water reservoir systems, as for the 15 reservoirs were collected from the opera- well as Point View Reservoir and Greenwood tors of the reservoirs. These values were then con- Lake. Several other small water-supply and (or) verted to change-in-storage values (by the same flood-control reservoirs are present in the study method described above) in cubic feet per second, area, but they generally exhibit only minor changes entered into the daily spreadsheet, and used to cal- in storage that have little effect on streamflow. culate daily reconstructed streamflow. Withdrawals from all of these reservoirs are included in the calculation of reconstructed stream- Estimation of Missing Data flow. Reservoir operators record elevations of water levels daily at most reservoirs. Elevations at The monthly and daily data sets were com- Greenwood Lake and Wanaque Reservoir are plete for all reservoirs for the entire study period 30 Table 3. Reservoirs for which change-in-storage values were calculated and associated information [USGS. U.S. Geological Survey; JC, Jersey City; NJDWSC, North Jersey District Water Supply Commission; PVWC, Passaic Valley Water Commission; UWNJ, United Water New Jersey; UWNY, United Water New York] Spillway USGS Reservoir Total capacity, Drainage elevation, in station operator in million area, in feet above Date number ervoir or owner gallons square miles sea level completed 01376700 De Forest Lake UWNY 5,670 27.5 85.00 1956 01376950 LakeTappan UWNJ 3,853 49.0 55.00 1966 01377450 WoodcliffLake UWNJ 871 19.4 95.00 1905 01378480 Oradell Reservoir UWNJ 3,507 113 23.16 1922 01379990 Splitrock Reservoir UWNJ/JC 3,306 5.50 835 1948 01380900 Boonton Reservoir UWNJ/JC '7,620 119 305.25 1904 01382100 Canistear Reservoir Newark 2,407 5.60 1,086.0 1896 01382200 Oak Ridge Reservoir Newark 3,895 27.3 846.0 1880 01382300 Clinton Reservoir Newark 3,518 10.5 992.0 1889 01382380 Charlotteburg Reservoir Newark 2,964 56.2 743.00 1961 01382400 EchoUke Newark 1,630.5 4.35 893.50 1925 01383000 Greenwood Lake State of N.J. 7,140 27.1 618.86 1837 01384002 Monksville Reservoir NJDWSC 7,000 40.4 400.0 1988 013 86990 Wanaque Reservoir NJDWSC 29,630 90.4 302.4 1927 01387860 Point View Reservoir PVWC 2,800 1.89 386.0 1964 1 Total capacity with bascule gates (counter-balanced gates on top of the dam) open. Total capacity with bascule gates closed is 7.989 million gallons, with spillway elevation of 307.25 feet above sea level. except Greenwood Lake. Change in storage for 3 structed-streamflow value would be in error by months (January-March 1994) when the lake was about 13 percent. Additionally, water may be drawn down for dam maintenance was estimated released from lakes or reservoirs to meet minimum from periodic measurements made during this passing streamflow requirements. If change-in- period and observed streamflow at gaging station storage values are not calculated for the reservoir, 01383500, Wanaque River at Awosting, N.J., calculations of reconstructed streamflow may be located just downstream from Greenwood Lake. incorrect. The magnitude and frequency of these types of errors are unknown. Reliability of Data RECONSTRUCTION OF STREAMFLOW Reservoir-storage data generally are accu- RECORDS rate; however, inaccuracies may result from certain situations. For example, the conversion of water Observed streamflow is the quantity of water level to reservoir storage may be inaccurate as a that passed a given point in a stream channel within result of changes in reservoir capacity due to the a given time period and is the result of the interac- deposition of sediment over time without a corre- tion between natural conditions and human activi- sponding change in the water-level-storage relation ties. Natural streamflow is the quantity of water tables. Water levels measured too close to the res- that would have passed the same point without the ervoir outflow or near water-supply intakes may be influence of human activities. Reconstructed inaccurate. Wind also may cause inaccurate mea- streamflow is the quantity of water calculated surements of water levels. If, for example, the through use of a mass-balance equation, based on water-level measurement of the Wanaque Reser- observed streamflow, that takes into consideration voir was in error by 0.1 ft when the reservoir was certain known human activities, including surface- full, the reservoir-storage value would be in error and ground-water withdrawals; discharges to sur- by 80 Mgal. Inclusion of this error in the calcula- face-water bodies; changes in storage in water-sup- tion of change in storage for July 1995 would result ply reservoirs; transfers of water into, out of, or in a difference of 4 fr/s, and the resulting recon- within river basins; and other factors. Because 31 it does not account for all human activities, how- voirs. By making these assumptions, the only cor- ever, reconstructed streamflow is not equivalent to rection needed would be that for the difference natural streamflow. The reconstruction method between evaporation losses from a full natural lake does not attempt to include all factors that may and losses from a reservoir that is full only part of affect streamflow~for example, changes in land the time. In summer months, when reservoir levels use, some gains and losses associated with the decline, evaporation losses would be less than operation of reservoirs, and the effect of residential those from a natural lake because the surface area wells and septic systems. Many of these factors are is smaller. This difference was considered to be not easily quantified and many others may be small in comparison to other variables in the equa- unknown. Data sets of monthly mean observed- tion. If the reservoirs were removed from the streamflow values for each of the 34 streamflow reconstructed-flow system, however, a correction stations for water years 1993 through 1996 and factor would be needed because evaporation losses daily mean observed-streamflow values for May from a reservoir or lake can be substantial during through October 1995 were developed and then summer months. adjusted to remove the effects of the known human influences listed above to produce reconstructed- Changes in bank storage due to conversion streamflow records. of reservoirs to natural lakes were assumed to be negligible, direct rainfall on natural lakes was Description of Methods assumed to equal direct rainfall on reservoirs, and water use from domestic wells was assumed to The equation used to reconstruct streamflow equal discharge to septic systems and to have little values was derived from a general form of a water- or no effect on base flow. Consumptive losses, esti- balance equation: mated to be about 8 percent of total use for domes- tic systems, may affect base flow but, because most Q = P-(E + ASs + ASg) , of the population in the study area receives their water from public suppliers, the use of private where Q is runoff, P is precipitation, E is evapo- wells and septic systems likely has little effect on transpiration, ASS is change in storage of the sur- base flow. Changes in runoff and recharge due to face-water reservoir, and ASg is change in storage changes in land use from the natural system to the of the ground-water reservoir. In this equation, it is current system were not considered, but can have a assumed that surface-water and ground-water substantial effect on streamflow. Ground-water divides coincide, and that no ground water flows withdrawals were assumed to reduce base flow in a into or out of the study area across divides (Freeze 1:1 ratio-that is, 1 gal of water withdrawn from a and Cherry, 1979). This equation was modified to well reduces base flow by an equal volume. This permit the use of readily available data for the cal- assumption will be tested in NJDEP's object-ori- culation. To make this modification, several addi- ented model to evaluate the effect of withdrawals tional assumptions were necessary, and the on base flow. operating conditions of the reconstructed-stream- flow system were defined. Monthly and daily reconstructed streamflow for stream segments was calculated by using the The primary conditions of the reconstructed- following equations: streamflow system were that surface-water and ground-water withdrawals are 0, point-source dis- Qr = Qr.l +AQr , and charges are 0, and reservoirs act as unregulated nat- ural lakes. A correction for evaporation losses was AQr = AQm + Wsw-Tsw + Wgw-Tgw + AS- not included in the equation because reservoirs were assumed to be natural lakes. It was assumed Qpsd-fP) • that evaporation from natural lakes is nearly equal to evaporation from reservoirs, and that leakage where Qr is monthly reconstructed streamflow; from natural lakes is equal to leakage from reser- Qr.2 is monthly reconstructed streamflow at an 32 adjacent upstream station; AQr is change in exported from or imported into the watershed. monthly reconstructed streamflow between sta- Example hydrographs showing observed and tions; AQm is change in monthly observed or esti- reconstructed streamflow and the components of mated streamflow between streamflow stations; reconstructed streamflow for the Ramapo River at Wsw is monthly surface-water withdrawals from Pompton Lakes, N.J., and the Pompton River at within the subwatershed; Tsw is surface-water Pompton Plains, N.J., are shown in figures 12 and transfers into the subwatershed from another sub- 13, respectively. watershed; WgW is monthly ground-water with- drawals from within the subwatershed; Tg^ is At the three most downstream stations in the ground-water transfers into the subwatershed from study area-Hackensack River at New Milford, another subwatershed or transfers within the sub- Passaic River at Route 46 at Elmwood Park, and watershed; AS is change in storage in reservoirs Saddle River at Lodi~the differences between within the subwatershed; QpS is monthly surface- reconstructed and observed streamflow averaged water point-source discharge within the subwater- over the 4-year study period were 149,483, and 5 3 shed; and fp is the fraction of point-source dis- ft /s, respectively. Hydrographs showing observed- charge due to infiltration and inflow. Daily and reconstructed-streamflow records for each of reconstructed flow was calculated by using the the 34 streamflow stations for both monthly and same model. daily time steps are presented in appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Equations that specify how recon- Monthly and daily reconstructed streamflow structed-streamflow records were calculated for for each gaging station was calculated in the each streamflow station are presented in table 4. spreadsheet by using the following equation: This table includes only the high-volume with- drawal and discharge sites that were used in the calculation for each streamflow station. Qr = Qm + wsw-Tsw + wgw-Tgw + AS"QPs + n + (Qr-i-Qm-i) • . The largest withdrawals of surface water account for much of the difference between recon- where Qm is observed streamflow; II is infiltration structed and observed streamflow. At the station and inflow; and (Qr.i- Qm.i) is the difference Wanaque River at Wanaque, N.J., surface-water between reconstructed and observed streamflow at withdrawals from within the subwatershed aver- adjacent upstream gaging stations. aged 129 Mgal/d (200 ft3/s) (fig. 14). At Hacken- sack River at New Milford, NJ., surface-water Reconstructed-Streamflow Records withdrawals averaged 101 Mgal/d (156 ft3/s) (fig. 15). Other subwatersheds with high-volume sur- In general, water in both the Passaic and face-water withdrawals include Passaic River Hackensack River Basins is transported, for use for below Pompton River at Two Bridges, N.J., with public supply, from the upper reaches of the basins withdrawals of 52.5 Mgal/d (81.2 ft3/s) (fig. 16); to urban centers in the eastern and southeastern Rockaway River below reservoir at Boonton, N.J., part of the study area near New York City. A net with a withdrawal of 45.8 Mgal/d (70.8 ft3/s) (fig. loss of water from these basins is primarily the 17); and Pequannock River at Macopin Intake result of withdrawals from within the study area Dam, N.J., with a withdrawal of 43.9 Mgal/d (67.9 that are returned to surface-water bodies as point- ft3/s) (fig. 14). source discharges outside the study area, including the lower reaches of the Passaic and Hackensack Reconstructed streamflow was less than Rivers below the most downstream gaging stations observed streamflow in only a few instances, all of in the study area, Newark Bay, and New York Bay. which were in subwatersheds with high-volume Reconstructed streamflow therefore is greater than point-source discharges from municipal treatment the observed streamflow at most stations. The dif- facilities that receive water from sources outside ference between reconstructed and observed the subwatershed and little or no ground- or sur- streamflow is an indication of the amount of water face-water withdrawals within the subwatershed. 33 K DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 333 u> (O c^ Ti (D O •^ J3 to Oct. 1992 < CO J? r—m Dec. 1992 5" 3 3 (D Feb. 1993 B sr o 2, 3 Apr. 1993 m 1CO June 1993 (D 5 CD Aug.1993 c_ O. (D OT 0) 3 f) Oct. 1994 5 Dec. 1994 Feb. 1995 Apr. 1995 3 aE June 1995 Aug. 1995 pa Oct. 1995 i Dec. 1995 Feb. 1996 Apr. 1996 June 1996 Aug.1996 J i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ee WITHDRAWAL OR DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND "0 -n -•• -* rv) ro 03 8 8 8 8 it o i o o o o * ?," » O 5' o" <-» I| aE I i o o 3 T3 O (D D W OTC (D D. O O 9i o (D (D O O s3 aC a CO S o S & -o o 3 •g. o 3 < & Table 4. Equations used to calculate reconstructed streamflow at gaging stations in the study area [Only sites with discharges or withdrawals greater than 1 cubic foot per second are shown; JC, Jersey City; MUA, Municipal Utihty Authority; NJDWSC, North Jersey District Water Supply Commission; PVWC, Passaic Valley Water Commission; RVRSA, Rockaway Valley Regional Sewage Authority; STP, sewage-treatment plant; Twp, town- ship; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; UWNJ, United Water New Jersey; UWNY, United Water New York] USGS streamflow-gaging-station number and name Equation used to calculate reconstructed streamflow Station 01376800 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in De Forest Lake Hackensack River at West Nyack, N.Y. + UWNY withdrawal De Forest Lake Station 01377000 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Lake Tappan + Hackensack River at Rivervale, N.J. Nyack Village withdrawal - Lederle Labs1 discharge + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01376800 Station 01377500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Woodcliff Lake Pascack Brook at Westwood, N.J. + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed - ground-water transfers to surface water (UWNJ) Station 01378500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Oradell Reser- Hackensack River at New Milford, N J. voir + UWNJ withdrawal Oradell Reservoir - Sparkill Creek, Saddle River, Hirschfeld Brook, and Wanaque Reservoir transfers (UWNJ) - UWNJ discharge + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed - ground-water transfers to surface water (UWNJ) + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01377000 and 01377500 Station 01378690 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow Passaic River near Beraardsville. N.J. Station 01379000 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow - Chatham Twp Main and Woodland Passaic River near Millington, N J. STPs discharges + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01378690 Station 01379500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow - Harrison Brook, Long Hill Twp, Passaic River near Chatham, N.J. Berkeley Heights, and New Providence STPs and Reheis Chemical discharges + ground- water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01379000 Station 01379580 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow + New Jersey American withdrawals Passaic River near Hanover Neck, N.J. - Molitor, Florham Park, and Livingston Twp STPs and Novartis Pharmaceutical dis- charges + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between recon- structed and observed streamflow at station 01379500 Station 01379700 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow Rockaway River at Berkshire Valley, N.J. Station 01379773 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow Green Pond Brook at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 'The use of company names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. 36 Table 4. Equations used to calculate reconstructed streamflow at gaging stations in the study area- Continued USGS streamflow-gaging-station number and name Equation used to calculate reconstructed streamflow Station 01380500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Splitrock Res- Rockaway River above reservoir at ervoir + U.S. Army withdrawal - U.S. Army discbarge + ground-water withdrawals Boonton, N.J. within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01379700 and 01379773 Station 01381000 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Boonton Reser- Rockaway River below reservoir at voir + UWNJ/JC withdrawal Boonton Reservoir + difference between reconstructed and Boonton, N.J. observed streamflow at station 01380500 Station 01381200 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow - RVRSA discbarge + difference Rockaway River at Pine Brook, N.J. between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01381000 Station 01381500 Reconstructed streamflow s observed streamflow + Southeast Morris County MUA Whippany River at Monistown, N.J. withdrawal - Butterworth STP discharge Station 01381800 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow - Monistown and Hanover STPs dis- Whippany River near Pine Brook, N.J. charges + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between recon- structed and observed streamflow at station 01381500 Station 01381900 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow - Parsippany-Troy Hills and Caldwell Passaic River at Pine Brook, NJ. STPs discharges + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01379580,01381200, and 01381800 Station 01382000 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow + difference between reconstructed Passaic River at TWo Bridges, N.J. and observed streamflow at station 01381900 Station 01382500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Canistear, Oak Pequannock River at Macopin Intake Ridge, Clinton, and Charlotteburg Reservoirs, and Echo Lake + Newark City Dam, N.J. withdrawals Station 01382800 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow + Butler Boro withdrawals + differ- Pequannock River at Riverdale, NJ ence between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01382500 Station 01383500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Greenwood Wanaque River at Awosting, NJ. Lake + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed Station 01384500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, N.J. Station 01387000 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Wanaque and Wanaque River at Wanaque, N.J. Monksville Reservoirs + NJDWSC, PVWC, and UWNJ withdrawals from Wanaque Reservoir - Two Bridges and Ramapo Pumping Stations transfers (NJDWSC and UWNJ) + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01383500 and 01384500 Station 01387400 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + Village of Monroe withdrawals - Ramapo River at Ramapo, N.Y Orange County STP discharge + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed Station 01387450 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + ground-water withdrawals within Mahwah River near Suffern, N.Y. subwatershed 37 Table 4. Equations used to calculate reconstructed streamflow at gaging stations in the study area- Continued USGS streamflow-gaging-station number and name Equation used to calculate reconstructed streamflow Station 01387500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow - Suffern STP and Ramapo Valley Ramapo River near Mahwah, N.J. Well Field discbarges + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01387400 and 01387450 Station 01388000 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + change in storage in Point View Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J. Reservoir + Ramapo Pumping Station withdrawals (NJDWSC and UWNJ) - DuPont Chemicals discharge + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01387500 Station 01388500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + Jackson Avenue Pumping Station Pompton River at Pompton Plains, N.J. withdrawals - Wanaque Valley Regional and Pompton Lakes Boro STPs discharges + ground-water withdrawals within subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01382800,01387000, and 01388000 Station 01388910 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow + ground-water withdrawals within Pompton River at Mountain View, N.J. subwatershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01388500 Station 01389005 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow + Two Bridges Pumping Station Passaic River below Pompton River at withdrawals (NJDWSC, PVWC, and UWNJ) - Two Bridges STP discharge + difference Two Bridges, N.J. between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01382000 and 01388910 Stotion 01389500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + PVWC withdrawal - Mountain Passaic River at Little Falls N.J. View STP discharge + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01389005 Station 01389880 Reconstructed streamflow = estimated streamflow + Marcel withdrawal - Verona and Passaic River at Rt 46 At Elmwood Park, Cedar Grove STPs and PVWC discharges + ground-water withdrawals within subwater- N.J. shed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at station 01389500 Station 01390500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + ground-water withdrawals within Saddle River at Ridge wood, N.J. subwatershed Station 01391000 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow - Northwest Bergen County STP Hohokus Brook at Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J. discharge + ground-water'withdrawals within subwatershed Station 01391500 Reconstructed streamflow = observed streamflow + UWNJ and Stepan Chemical with- Saddle River at Lodi, N.J. drawals - Ridgewood Village STP discharge + ground-water withdrawals within subwa- tershed + difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow at stations 01390500 and 01391000 38 01384500,I 01387450 Greenwood I Lake Aoi383500 01387500 Monksville Wanaque Clinton North Jersey District Water Supply Commission (200) Canistear Echo Lake Wanaque Valley Regional Sewerage Authority (1.4) Oak Ridge Pompton 0 Lakes Borough DuPont Speciality (1.3) Chemicals 01382500 \ 01388000 (0.9) Pequannock w-fr Butler -£r Chariotteburg Borough / Newark (1.1) Ramapo City Pumping (67.9) Station (22.4) Point View EXPLANATION I J Reservoir Ground-water withdrawal-Number ^n is 1993-96 average monthly River or stream withdrawal from wells in subwatershed, 10 A in cubic feet per second ZA Streamflow-gaging station and number • Surface-water-withdrawal site and name- Pompton Point-source-discharge site and name- Borough Number is 1993-96 average monthly Borough Number is 1993-96 average monthly I1-") withdrawal, in cubic feet per second (1.3) discharge from all outfall pipes, in cubic feet per second Figure 14. Schematic diagram showing relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations and reservoirs in the Pequannock, Wanaque, and Ramapo River Basins, New Jersey and New York. 39 De Forest Uke | United Water New York (9.8) 01376800/ Nyack Village | ^Ledorlo (2.6) Laboratories (3.2) Woodcliff Uke Uke Tappan 01377000/ United Water I New Jersey (1.6) 01377500 Oradell -^^- United Water | New Jersey (156) V01378500 S.1 PassaicRimr Nmmik Bey EXPLANATION J Reservoir Ground-water withdrawal-Number ^^ is 1993-96 average monthly River or stream withdrawal from wells in subwatershed, In cubic feet per second /\ Streamflow-gaging station and number Nyack Village | Surface-water-withdrawal site and name- Point-source-discharge site and name- (2.6) Uderie ~ Number is 1993-96 average monthly Uboratories Number is 1993-96 average monthly withdrawal, in cubic feet per second (3.2) discharge from all outfall pipes, in cubic feet per second Figure 15. Schematic diagram showing relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations and reservoirs in the Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York. 40 Jackson Avenue | Pumping Station (0) 01388500/ w 0 ^^ Northwest Bergen 01390500 County (13.2) 01391000 United Water New Jersey ^ •-TL(3.5) Ridgewood Village STP (5.1) Passaic Valley Passaic Valley Water Commission Two Bridges SA ( Water (0.6) (7.7) Commission Verona WTP (3.5) Marcal Two Bridges Pumping Stepan Station (81.2) ^^^ ComapnComapny (6.4) Chemical A Company Passaic River 01389005 \ 01389500 / Haledon Borough \ 01380880 4 r01391500 C ) Cedar Mountain Grove STP View STP (2.2) (10.9) Passaic River Newark Bey EXPLANATION Ground-water withdrawal-Number is Reservoir D 1993-96 average monthly withdrawal o from wells in subwatershed, in cubic River or stream feet per second oi3B85oo/\ Streamtlow-gaging station and number Two Bridges Pumping Surface-water-withdrawal site and name- Station (81.2) Number is 1993-96 average monthly Point-source-discharge site and name- withdrawal, in cubic feet per second Ridgewood Number is 1993-96 average monthly Village STP (5.1) discharge from all outfall pipes, In cubic feet per second Figure 16. Schematic diagram showing relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations in the Pompton, Lower Passaic, and Saddle River Basins, New Jersey. (SA, sewerage authority; STP, sewage- treatment plant; WTP, water-treatment plant) 41 Split rock A01379773 U.S. Army (1,6) 9 u.s. Amny (1.0) United Water 01379700 A New Jersey (70.8) Rockaway Valley Regional SA (14.5) Boonton -Ar- »-A^/ ^ 01380500 01381000 Parsippany Troy Hills Southeast Morris 01381200 County MUA Morristown STP (19.0) A (1.0) (3.1) Whippany ^ • -A-V 01381900 01382000 ^ River 01381500 Hanover SA 01381800 -A— -7^ / (3.4) Butlerworth STP (2.6) .CaldwellWWTP '(5.9) v01379580 Livingston TWP t STP (5.3) I Florham Park STP (1.4) )MolitorWPC(5.1) Norvartis Pharmaceutical (0.8) Chathan TWP Main STP - New Jersey (1-1) V American Water Long Hill TWP Company (13.1) 01378690 \ STP (1.1) -wa—A—• •—ifiV Passaic River ^^01379000 \ ^^ New Providence WWTP Reheis (0.7) I Chemical Company Woodland STP Harrison (1.1) (2.0) Brook STP (2.9) EXPLANATION Ground-water withdrawal-Number is Reservoir A 1993-96 average monthly withdrawal from wells in subwatershed, in cubic River or stream feet per second '0/\ Streamflow-gaging station and number u.s. ! Surface-water-withdrawal site and name- (1.6) Number is 1993-96 average monthly Point-source-discharge site and name- Livingston TWP | withdrawal, in cubic feet per second STP (5.3) Number is 1993-96 average monthly discharge from all outfall pipes, in cubic feet per second Figure 17. Schematic diagram showing relation of high-volume point-source-discharge sites and surface-water- and ground-water-withdrawal sites to streamflow-gaging stations and reservoirs in the Rockaway, Whippany, and Upper Passaic River Basins, New Jersey. (MUA, municipal utilities authority; SA, sewerage authority; STR sewage-treatment plant; TWP, township; WPC, water- pollution control; WPCR water-pollution-control plant; WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant) 42 The average difference between reconstructed and though rainfall is fairly constant throughout the observed streamflow at the station HoHoKus year. Streamflow typically recovers in autumn, and Brook at Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J., was - 9.8 ft3/s (fig. 16); increases during the winter months. By normaliz- the average difference at Passaic River near ing streamflow to drainage area (cubic feet per sec- Chatham, N.J., was - 7.5 ft3/s (fig. 17). ond per square mile), streamflow values can be compared for consistency among stations. Analysis Reconstructed streamflow was nearly equal of monthly, rather than daily, reconstructed-stream- to observed streamflow in several upstream flow values also tends to normalize variations in reaches of the basins-Passaic River near Bemards- rainfall. Therefore, monthly streamflow values at ville, N.J.; Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, N.J.; selected stations were compared to those at stations Rockaway River at Berkshire Valley, N.Y.; Mah- in other subwatersheds in the study area. wah River near Suffera, N.Y.; and Passaic River near Millington, N.J. This result is reasonable Reconstructed-streamflow values were ana- because few human influences were present in lyzed to ensure that they were reasonable estimates these subwatersheds. These reaches are subject to of what streamflow would have been without few permitted withdrawals or discharges, and con- major influences due to human activities. One tain no reservoirs. For the most part, the only fac- method used to assess reconstructed streamflow tors likely to affect streamflow are domestic was to compare values at adjacent stations. In gen- withdrawals and septic-system discharges, which eral, streamflow increases downstream. This is not were not considered in this study. The number of always true, however, because a stream may lose surface-water-withdrawal, ground-water-with- water to recharge areas and wetlands in some drawal, and point-source-discharge sites and reser- reaches by natural means. Wetlands tend to reduce voirs used to reconstruct streamflow records, mean the magnitude of streamflow peaks during storms withdrawals and discharges, and additional statis- by allowing water to go into storage. Then, during tics for each of the 34 streamflow-gaging stations dry periods, water is released from storage and are summarized in table 5. streamflow is greater than would be expected if wetlands were not present. In some areas, ground- Evaluation of Recbnstructed-Stream- water withdrawals may induce surface water to flow Records flow into the aquifer as recharge. Reconstructed-streamflow records for each In several subwatersheds, reconstructed station were compared to those for the other sta- streamflow decreased downstream for brief peri- tions to determine whether the results are consis- ods. Although this situation can occur naturally in tent and whether they are reasonable estimates of recharge areas and wetlands, the reason for this natural streamflow. The sum of ground-water and occurrence was unknown in some cases. Stage-dis- surface-water withdrawals was compared to the charge relations may be inaccurate at peak stages at sum of point-source discharges to determine several stations where peak streamflow is rarely whether data compilation was complete and accu- measured. Stations at which reconstructed stream- rate. Water balances were calculated for the three flow was greater upstream than downstream are most downstream stations as an additional check Hackensack River at Riverdale, N.J.; Rockaway on the reconstructed-streamflow records. River below reservoir at Boonton, N.J.; Passaic River at Pine Brook," N.J.; Pequannock River at Methods Used to Evaluate Recon- Macopin Intake Dam, N.J.; Pequannock River at structed-streamflow Records Riverdale, N.J.; Passaic River below Pompton River at Two Bridges, N.J.; and Passaic River at Streamflow depends on rainfall, evaporation, Little Falls, N.J. transpiration, and the other factors that determine runoff. Generally, streamflow is greatest during Another method used to evaluate recon- spring, and declines during summer when evapo- structed streamflow was to compare the discharges transpiration and water use are greater, even at individual stations by season. Values were 43 Table 5. Summary of surface-water-withdrawal, ground-water-withdrawal, and point-source-discharge sites and reservoirs used to reconstruct streamflow records, mean withdrawals and discharges, and additional statistics, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ~, not available; -, not applicable; <, less than] Number of sites in subwatershed uses streamflow- Surface- Number of gaging- water- Point- upstream station with- source- Reser- gaging number Station name drawal Wells discharge voirs stations 01376800 Hackensack River at West Nyack, N.Y. 5 2 01377000 Hackensack River at Rivervale, N.J. 14 3 01377500 Pascack Brook at Westwood, N.J. 28 2 01378500 Hackensack River at New Milford, N.J. 25 9 01378690 Passaic River near Bemardsville, N.J. 5 0 01379000 Passaic River near Millington, N.J. 2 20 9 01379500 Passaic River near Chatham, N.J. 0 9 17 01379580 Passaic River near Hanover Neck, N.J. 8 81 30 01379700 Rockaway River at Berkshire Valley, NJ. 1 14 3 01379773 Green Pond Brook at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 1 0 0 01380500 Rockaway River above reservoir at Boonton, N.J. 11 69 37 01381000 Rockaway River below reservoir at Boonton, N.J. 1 0 0 01381200 Rockaway River at Pine Brook, N.J. 4 1 4 01381500 Whippany River at Morristown, N.J. 1 15 16 01381800 Whippany River near Pine Brook, N.J. 2 74 35 01381900 Passaic River at Pine Brook, N.J. 0 18 13 11 01382000 Passaic River at Two Bridges, N.J. 0 6 1 12 01382500 Pequannock River at Macopin Intake Dam, N.J. 1 8 3 0 01382800 Pequannock River at Riverdale, N.J. 1 1 10 1 01383500 Wanaque River at Awosting, N.J. 0 41 9 0 01384500 Ringwood Creek near Wanaque. N.J. 2 1 1 0 01387000 Wanaque River at Wanaque, N.J. 1 8 2 2 01387400 Ramapo River at Ramapo, N.Y. 6 30 14 0 01387450 Mahwah River near Suffern, N.Y. 0 3 0 0 01387500 Ramapo River near Mahwah, N.J. I 40 16 2 01388000 Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J. 4 46 10 3 01388500 Pompton River at Pompton Plains, N.J. 5 16 17 9 01388910 Pompton River at Mountain View, N.J. 4 18 4 10 01389005 Passaic River below Pompton R. at Two Bridges, NJ. 3 0 2 24 01389500 Passaic River at Little Falls, N.J. 5 17 28 25 01389880 Passaic River at Rt. 46 at Elmwood Park. N.J. 6 125 55 26 01390500 Saddle River at Ridgewood. N.J. 1 21 2 0 01391000 Hohokus Brook at Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ. 0 36 8 0 01391500 Saddle River at Lodi,NJ. . 6 41 6 2 44 Table 5. Summary of surface-water-withdrawal, ground-water-withdrawal, and point-source-discharge sites and reservoirs used to reconstruct streamflow records, mean withdrawals and discharges, and additional statis- • tics, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York-Continued USGS stream- flow- Observed streamflow, Reconstructed streamflow, gaging- in cubic feet per second in cubic feet per second station number Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum 01376800 12.2 40.9 139 2.5 51.4 161 01377000 15.4 83.0 235 1.8 94.9 276 01377500 20.0 49.5 109 19.6 55.8 115 01378500 .3 50.2 316 34.0 199 529 01378690 4.1 17.6 55.7 4.3 17.8 55.9 01379000 9.4 95.6 439 10.6 95.8 438 01379500 21.4 177 719 19.3 170 706 01379580 30.6 226 875 55.0 253 900 01379700 3.4 56.5 190 4.0 56.9 190 01379773 1.8 13.8 45.5 1.8 13.9 45.7 01380500 27.2 237 722 39.9 254 745 01381000 10.1 169 713 17.6 257 794 01381200 27.6 218 839 23.0 293 901 01381500 19.8 63.5 181 17.7 62.5 180 01381800 33.4 125 369 58.7 144 387 01381900 126 651 2,200 172 752 2,310 01382000 130 673 2,280 177 774 2,390 01382500 1.0 67.6 342 -4.1 140 449 01382800 5.5 101 453 4,3 174 540 01383500 3.9 55.3 218 -9.4 ' 56.3 232 01384500 .9 34.0 122 1.4 34.2 122 01387000 7.7 41.5 357 -43.1 168 630 01387400 11.3 172 594 12.5 171 591 01387450 .9 22.1 74.0 3.2 24.4 76.5 01387500 11.3 230 740 26.4 250 757 01388000 14.7 280 979 39.6 330 1,000 01388500 49.8 536 2,110 60.8 788 2,540 01388910 56.9 646 2,570 74.6 902 2,950 01389005 148 1,060 3,400 245 1,490 4,150 01389500 78.6 1,020 3,670 252 1,490 4,360 01389880 87.9 1,060 3.760 290 1,550 4,460 01390500 2.7 29.9 87.5 9.8 37.3 94.1 01391000 15.1 40.1 93.4 5.6 30.3 82.5 01391500 19.3 100 256 33.8 105 254 45 Table 5. Summary of surface-water-withdrawal, ground-water-withdrawal, and point-source-discharge sites and reservoirs used to reconstruct streamflow records, mean withdrawals and discharges, and additional statistics, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York-Continued Mean difference. j in cubic feet ] per second USGS Mean withdrawal or discharge, in cubic feet per second Mean Mean stream- infiltration reservoir Reconstructed Recon- flow- Surface- and inflow, change in minus observed structed gaging- water Surface- Ground- Ground- Point- in cubic storage, in streamflow minus station with- water water water source feet per cubic feet from upstream observed number drawals transfers withdrawals transfers discharges second per second stations streamflow 01376800 9.8 0 0.8 0.4 0.3 10.5 01377000 2.6 0 3.0 3.3 -1.0 10.5 12.0 01377500 <.l <.l 6.4 .1 <.l 0 6.3 01378500 156 25.2 2.2 .6 1.9 .2 18.2 149 01378690 <.l 0 .2 0 0 .2 01379000 .1 0 2.5 0 3.3 .8 .2 .3 01379500 <.l 0 1.0 0 10.2 1.4 .3 -7.5 01379580 13.2 0 33.7 0 13.7 1.1 -7.5 26.8 01379700 <.l 0 .5 0 .1 0 - .4 01379773 .1 0 0 0 0 0 .1 01380500 3.2 0 13.7 0 2.6 2.9 0 .5 17.6 01381000 70.8 0 0 0 0 .1 -.4 17.6 88.1 01381200 <.l 0 .1 0 14.5 .9 88.1 74.6 01381500 1.0 0 .2 0 3.3 1.2 -.9 01381800 .1 0 27.0 0 8.7 1.7 -.9 19.2 01381900 0 0 3.9 0 24.9 .9 121 101 01382000 0 0 <.l 0 <.l .2 101 101 01382500 67.9 0 .1 0 .1 0 4.0 71.9 01382800 1.1 0 .3 0 .3 0 71.9 73.0 01383500 0 0 1.2 0 .3 0 .2 1.1 01384500 .2 0 .1 0 <.l 0 .3 01387000 200 78.6 .3 0 .1 0 3.0 1.4 126 01387400 3.2 0 2.9 0 6.7 0 -.7 01387450 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 2.3 01387500 <.l 0 22.6 0 3.4 0 1.6 20.7 01388000 22.5 0 7.7 0 1.0 .6 0 20.7 50.5 01388500 <.l 0 5.0 0 3.3 0 250 251 01388910 .1 0 3.9 0 <.l 1.0 251 256 01389005 81.2 0 0 0 7.7 0 357 431 01389500 47.2 0 .2 0 11.6 1.8 431 468 01389880 7.8 0 14.3 0 8.2 .9 - 468 483 01390500 <.l 0 7.4 0 <.l <.l 7.4 01391000 0 0 3.3 0 13.3 .2 -9.8 01391500 5.7 0 6.3 0 5.3 .7 -2.4 5.1 46 Table 5. Summary of surface-water-withdrawal, ground-water-withdrawal, and point-source- discharge sites and reservoirs used to reconstruct streamflow records, mean withdrawals and discharges, and additional statistics, Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, New Jersey and New York-Continued USGS Mean withdrawal or discharge, in cubic feet per second per square mile streamflow-' Drainage gaging- Surface- Surface- Ground- Ground- Point- Infiltra- Recon- area, in station water water water water source tion and Observed structed square number withdrawals transfers withdrawals transfers discharges inflow streamflow streamflow miles 01376800 0.320 0 0.025 0 0.014 1.332 1.674 30.7 01377000 .215 0 .066 0 .063 — 1.431 1.637 58 01377500 <.001 0 .216 .003 <.001 ~ 1.673 1.886 29.6 01378500 1.49 0223 .110 .006 .049 — .444 1.761 113 01378690 <.001 0 .026 0 0 0 1.995 2.021 8.83 01379000 .001 0 .050 0 .060 .014 1.725 1.730 55.4 01379500 .001 0 .038 0 .135 .022 1.772 1.697 100 01379580 .101 0 .284 0 .206 .025 1.710 1.913 132 01379700 .001 0 .020 0 .005 0 2.317 2.333 24.4 01379773 Oil 0 0 0 0 0 1.800 1.811 7.65 01380500 .029 0 .122 0 .024 .025 2.041 2.193 116 01381000 .623 0 .119 0 .023 .025 1,420 2.160 119 01381200 .545 0 .105 0 .123 .028 1.604 2.153 136 01381500 .033 0 .007 0 .113 .041 2.159 2.127 29.4 01381800 .015 0 .397 0 .175 .043 1.829 2.109 68.5 01381900 .254 0 .237 0 .233 .032 1.866 2.154 349 01382000 .245 0 .229 0 .225 .031 1.865 2.144 361 01382500 1.07 0 .002 0 .002 0 1.062 2.191 63.7 01382800 .822 0 .006 0 .004 0 1.207 2.077 83.9 01383500 0 0 .042 0 .011 0 2.039 2.078 27.1 01384500 .009 0 .005 0 <.001 0 1.778 1.792 19.1 01387000 2.22 .870 .018 0 .005 0 .459 1.853 90.4 01387400 .037 0 .033 0 .078 0 1.981 1.973 86.9 01387450 0 0 .186 0 0 0 1.796 1.982 12.3 01387500 .027 0 .231 0 .085 0 1.913 2.086 120 01388000 .161 0 .221 0 .070 .003 1.749 2.065 160 01388500 .831 222 .120 0 .043 .002 1.511 2.219 355 01388910 .795 2\2 .125 0 .041 .004. 1.741 2.431 371 01389005 .633 .107 .176 0 .142 .017 1.438 2.025 734 01389500 .672 .103 .170 0 .152 .019 1.336 1.951 762 01389880 .647 .098 .179 0 .155 .019 1.325 1.926 803 01390500 <.001 0 .341 0 <.001 .003 1.384 1.729 21.6 01391000 0 0 .204 0 .811 .012 2.445 1.850 16.4 01391500 .105 0 .311 0 .340 .017 1.839 1.932 54.6 47 checked by calculating reconstructed streamflow flow during August through September may be the as discharge per square mile for each station. A result of the presence of wetlands between stations typical pattern existed for all stations, with stream- 01378690 and 01379580, where evapotranspiration flow during winter and spring far exceeding could be a significant factor. streamflow in summer and autumn. During years in which precipitation was above average in spring Streamflow records for August through (1993,1994, and 1996), the discharge during September and March through April also were March through April consistently ranged from 5 to compared for stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, 7 ft3/s/mi2. During a dry year (1995), average and Lower Passaic Rivers (figs. 20 and 21). Results monthly discharge for these months was 2 to for stations on this stream reach (table 7) were 4 ft3/s/mi2. During August through September in similar to results for stations on the Passaic River. all years studied, reconstructed streamflow typi- The three gaging stations on the Lower Passaic cally fell to between 0.25 and 0.5 ft3/s/mi2. River are common to both reaches. Average recon- structed-streamflow values during August through Average observed- and reconstructed- September, in cubic feet per second per square streamflow values were calculated for "low-flow" mile, ranged from 0.4 at station 01379000 to 0.8 at and "peak-flow" months, which typically occur stations 01378690, 01381900, and 01382000 and during late summer to early autumn and late winter from 3.7 at stations 01389500, 01389580, to early spring, respectively. Low-flow and peak- 01389500, and 01389880 to 5.2 at station flow values were calculated by averaging stream- 01388910 during March through April. flow values for August through September and March through April, respectively, for water years Reconstructed-flow records for each station 1993-96 (table 6). Observed- and reconstructed- also were calculated in terms of cubic feet per sec- streamflow records during these periods were com- ond per square mile for each subwatershed—that is, pared for gaging stations on the Passaic River (fig. runoff from all upstream subwatersheds was 18). Average streamflow at each station is plotted excluded. By comparing streamflow values by sub- in cubic feet per second as a function of drainage watershed, stations at which reconstructed stream- area. In general, as the drainage area increases, flow was greater upstream than downstream were streamflow increases. The difference between identified. This method also was useful for identi- observed and reconstructed streamflow for a sta- fying problems with ground-water and surface- tion is represented by the vertical distance between water withdrawal data and point-source-discharge the points. Changes in the slope of the hydrograph data used to calculate reconstructed streamflow. in downstream areas, for both observed and recon- Stations for which reconstructed-streamflow val- structed streamflow, may be the result of inaccurate ues were inconsistent with those for other stations estimates of observed streamflow at stations were identified, and the data used in the calculation 01389005 (Passaic River below Pompton River at were checked for discrepancies. Two Bridges, N.J.) and 01389880 (Passaic River at Route 46 at Elmwood Park, N.J.). Records from Reconstructed-streamflow values for several continuous-record stations such as 01389500 (Pas- subwatersheds exceeded values that were expected saic River at Little Falls, N.J.) generally are much on the basis of drainage-area-normalized calcula- more accurate than estimated records. tions. Several factors could account for these high values, but the specific causes are unknown. Possi- Average streamflow at each station on the ble causes include poor estimates of observed Passaic River as a function of drainage area, in streamflow, inaccurate or incomplete withdrawal cubic feet per second per square mile, is shown in or discharge data, and unknown factors. In several figure 19. In general, values at each station would cases, reconstructed-streamflow values were nega- be expected to be relatively constant because tive, which represents a loss of storage in the streamflow is normalized by drainage area. watershed above that station. Negative values rep- Changes in the slope of the hydrograph in upstream resent only a small percentage of the monthly areas for both observed and reconstructed stream- reconstructed-streamflow values at stations just 48 600 August-September average streamflow (1993-96) • Streamflow-gaging station 500 8 Reconstructed streamflow UJ (0 cc 400 UJ Q. UJ UJ O 300 UJ a 200 Observed streamflow z u (O 5 300 400 500 600 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA. IN SQUARE MILES 3,500 March-April average streamflow (1993-96) • Streamflow-gaging station 3.000 O 2 2,500 CO Reconstructed streamflow cc UJ 0. tu 2,000 UJu. g CD o 1,500 Observed streamflow a 1,000 X o w D 500 300 400 500 600 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA. IN SQUARE MILES Figure 18. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August-September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic River, New Jersey. 49 1.0 Ul. August-September average streamftow (1993-96) 0.9 • Streamflow-gaging station Reconstructed streamftow a: < 0.8 Q. Q Z 8 UJ 0) CE a.UJ t u.UJ g m O oUJ oI CO a 300 400 500 600 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES 5.0 March-April average streamftow (1993-96) y Reconstructed streamftow 2 4.5 • Streamftow-gaging station UJ 5 3 4,0 s Q; ol 3.5 Q z 8 3.0 UJ Observed streamftow (0 rr UJ 2.b Q. tl] e 2.0 o m 3 O 1.5 z UJ~ C3 1.0 5 i u 0.5 CO 0.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES Figure 19. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow normalized by drainage area for August- September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic River, New Jersey. 50 600 August-September average streamflow (1993-96) • Streamflow-gaging station 500 Q Z Reconstructed streamflow 8LLI (0 DC 400 a.UJ tD S 300 in a 200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES 3,500 ] March-April average streamflow (1993-96) • Streamflow-gaging station 3,000 ^^ 8 Reconstructed streamflow UJ 2,500 CO (T UJ 0. ^^^ t 2,000 u.UJ g ^^^^ CD r o 1,500 ^r I \ Observed streamflow UJ CD 500 JT^ • • n 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA. IN SQUARE MILES Figure 20. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August-September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, and Lower Passaic Rivers, New Jersey and New York. 51 1.0 Ul August-September average streamflow (1993-96) ui 0.9 • Streamflow-gaging station < Reconstructed streamflow o 0.8 (0 tr UJ a. 0.7 o z 8 0.6 HI 0) 0.5 Ul u. 0.4 g m 3 O 0.3 Observed streamflow 0.2 0.1 0.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA. IN SQUARE MILES 6.0 March-April average streamflow (1993-96) S • Streamflow-gaging station Reconstructed streamflow UJ £ 5.0 3 O « tr UJ Q. O 4.0 8 UJ 0) tr UJ 3.0 Observed streamflow Q. t u.UJ g CD 2.0 3 O ui a 1.0 x o en Q 0.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES Figure 21. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow normalized by drainage area for August- September and March-April 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, and Lower Passaic Rivers, New Jersey and New York. 52 Table 6. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August through September and March through April during 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Passaic River, New Jersey Reconstructed streamflow Observed streamflow August-September March-April August-September March-April U.S. Geological' Survey Cubic feet Cubic feet Cubic feet Cubic feet streamflow- per second per second per second per second gaging-station Cubic feet per square Cubic feet per square Cubic feet per square Cubic feet per square number per second mile per second mile per second mile per second mile 01378690 7.1 0.8 35.5 4.0 6.7 0.8 35.4 4.0 01379000 23.4 .4 215 3.9 22.6 .4 215 3.9 01379500 46.7 .5 365 3.7 52.5 .5 376 3.8 01379580 96.9 .7 491 3.7 71.3 .5 468 3.5 01381900 268 .8 1,470 4.2 192 .6 1,370 3.9 01382000 275 .8 1.510 4.2 199 .6 1.420 3.9 01389005 514 .7 2,760 3.8 321 .4 2.290 3.1 01389500 495 .6 2,850 3.7 260 .3 2,340 3.1 01389880 533 .7 2,940 3.7 282 .4 2,420 3.0 Table 7. Average observed and reconstructed streamflow for August through September and March through April during 1993-96 for streamflow-gaging stations on the Ramapo, Pompton, and Lower Passaic Rivers, New Jersey and New York Reconstructed streamflow Observed streamflow August-September March -April August-September March-April U.S. Geological Survey Cubic feet Cubic feet Cubic feet Cubic feet streamflow- per second per second per second • per second gaging-station Cubic feet per square Cubic feet per square Cubic feet per square Cubic feet per square number per second mile per second mile per second mile per second mile 01387400 39.2 0.5 354 4.1 38.6 0.4 357 4.1 01387500 65.1 .5 496 4.1 45.7 .4 475 4.0 01388000 91.8 .6 651 4.1 62.0 .4 601 3.8 01388500 193 .5 1.640 4.6 121 .3 1,290 3.6 01388910 219 .6 1.920 5.2 142 .4 1,560 4.2 01389005 514 .7 2.760 3.8 321 .4 2.290 3.1 01389500 495 .6 2.850 3.7 260 .3 2.340 3.1 01389880 533 .7 2.940 3.7 282 .4 2.420 3.0 53 downstream from some of the major water-supply ponents of the reconstructed-streamflow equation reservoirs in the study area and occurred during can be evaluated to determine the accuracy and extended periods of drought in 1993 and 1995. The completeness of the withdrawal and discharge data. negative values may be a result of inaccuratereser- voir-storage and withdrawal data or unaccounted- Streamflow in a natural system defined in for losses from the reservoirs, such as evaporation simple terms is equal to precipitation minus evapo- and leakage. transpiration minus changes in ground-water and surface-water storage (see equation on p. 32). If it At the Wanaque Reservoir, the maximum is assumed that ground-water and surface-water average monthly withdrawal during 1995 was 175 storage did not change significantly over the 4-year Mgal/d (270 ft3/s) and the maximum monthly study period, the equation can be simplified to dis- change in storage was 206 Mgal/d (318 ft3/s). An charge = precipitation - evapotranspiration. The error of 5 percent in these data could result in an average annual precipitation in northern New Jer- error of 30 ft3/s in the reconstructed-streamflow sey is 48 in. The average annual actual evapotrans- value at the gaging station downstream from the piration is about 24 in. (Thomthwaite and others, reservoir and could cause values to be negative 1958). By using these numbers, natural streamflow during low-flow months. Alternatively, if drought was calculated for the three most downstream sta- conditions are severe, evaporation losses from res- tions in the study area~200 ft3/s at Hackenisack ervoirs could be greater than inflow, resulting in a River at New Milford, N.J.; 96.5 ft3/s at Saddle loss of storage and negative reconstructed-stream- River at Lodi, N.J.; and 1,420 ft3/s at Passaic River flow values. at Route 46 at Elmwood Park, NJ. Average recon- structed-streamflow values for these stations dur- Because many large and small lakes and res- ing the 4-year study period were 199,105, and ervoirs are present throughout the study area (table 1,550 ft3/s, respectively. The differences between. 3), evaporation from open water surfaces affects average reconstructed-flow values and estimated observed streamflow at all gaging stations. The natural- flow values calculated by using the simpli- two primary factors that affect evaporation from an fied water-balance equation were all less than 10 open water surface are the supply of energy to pro- percent. vide the heat of vaporization and the ability to transport water vapor away from the evaporative In theory, the sum of all ground-water and surface (Chow and others, 1988). These factors surface-water withdrawals and interbasin transfers include energy primarily in the form of solar radia- equals the sum of the discharges and any consump- tion, wind velocity over the surface, air tempera- tive losses from the basin. If all withdrawals were ture and pressure, and the specific-humidity returned to streamflow as point-source discharges, gradient. Along with these factors, the volume of reconstructed streamflow would be about equal to evaporation from a given area, such as a river observed streamflow minus consumptive water basin, depends on the area of the open water sur- loss. In the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins, face within that basin. Evaporation from land and several high-volume treatment facilities discharge plant surfaces, as well as transpiration through veg- outside the study area-below the most downstream etation, also can be substantial depending on the stations in the study area, or to Newark or New availability of moisture at the evaporative surface. York Bays. Consequently, a water balance for the study area would be expected to show a large defi- Mass Balance cit. These treatment facilities include Passaic Val- ley Sewage Commission, with an average A detailed water balance for the Passaic and discharge of 226 Mgal/d (350 ft3/s); Essex Joint Hackensack River Basins using reconstructed Meeting Sewage-Treatment Plant, 65 Mgal/d (101 streamflow cannot be calculated because not all ft3/s); Bergen County Sewage-Treatment Plant, 62 gains and losses to the basins are accounted for. An Mgal/d (96 ft3/s); and Jersey City Sewage-Treat- approximate balance can be calculated if some ment Plants, 41 Mgal/d (63 ft3/s). Other, smaller assumptions are made, however, and several com- facilities that discharge outside the study area 54 account for about 36 Mgal/d (56 ft3/s) discharged streamflow records that takes into consideration from the basin (Zripko and Hasan, 1994). Most of known surface- and ground-water withdrawals, this water comes from the major reservoirs in the discharges to surface-water bodies, changes in stor- study area. The sum of discharges to areas outside age in water-supply reservoirs, transfers of water the study area is 430 Mgal/d (665 ft3/s). The aver- into, out of, or within the basin, and other factors, age sum of point-source discharges within the but does not attempt to include all human effects, study area during 1993-96 is 95.7 Mgal/d many of which are unknown or not easily quanti- (148 ft3/s), for a total discharge of 525 Mgal/d fied. Reconstructed-streamflow records can be (813 ft3/s). used by water managers as input to models that can be used to simulate streamflow under alternative Average ground-water and surface-water conditions. Results of these simulations can be withdrawals within the study area during 1993-96 used to assess whether drought warnings and emer- were 112 MgaUd (173 ft3/s) and 381 Mgal/d (590 gencies are warranted and to evaluate water-supply ft3/s), respectively, and interbasin transfers were options during periods of drought. The availability estimated to be about 9.7 Mgal/d (15 tf/s) (New of reconstructed-streamflow records will allow Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, evaluation of present or proposed water-supply 1992), for a total withdrawal of 503 Mgal/d (778 options under historical drought conditions with ft3/s). If consumptive loss is assumed to be about 8 present infrastructure and water use. This study percent (Solley and others, 1998), total discharge continues the work of previous investigations in would be about 463 Mgal/d (716 ft3/s), on the basis which reconstructed-streamflow records for of total withdrawals. Most of the difference streamflow stations in the Passaic River Basin between the calculated and actual discharge values were developed for the period from October 1, could be the result of infiltration and inflow, dis- 1919, through September 30,1993. charge from combined sewer systems in urban areas, and discharge from facilities that treat storm- The Passaic and Hackensack River Basins lie water runoff. These types of discharge are not in the northeastern part of New Jersey and the accounted for in the withdrawal values. southeastern part of New York State, in the Pied- mont and New England (Highlands) Physiographic SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Provinces. In 1995, the population of the Hacken- sack-Passaic HUC was estimated to be 2.54 mil- Drought conditions in northern New Jersey lion. About 94 percent of the total population was during several periods in 1980-95 and the imposi- served by public suppliers; the balance of the popu- tion of drought warnings and water-use restrictions lation supplied their own water from wells. About have shown the vulnerability of the water resources 1.6 million people received publicly supplied water and the problems of water management. The U.S. from water-supply reservoirs, and about 800,000 Geological Survey, in cooperation with the New received publicly supplied water from wells. Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, conducted an investigation to (1) reconstruct This report describes the sources of observed monthly streamflow records for 34 streamflow sta- monthly and daily streamflow and other hydrologic tions in the Passaic and Hackensack River Basins data used to reconstruct streamflow records and in New York and New Jersey for water years 1993- methods used to estimate missing values. Monthly 96, and (2) reconstruct daily streamflow records and daily data were collected from government for the same 34 streamflow stations for the drought agencies as well as directly from public and private period May 1,1995, through October 31,1995: To water suppliers and wastewater-treatment facilities effectively manage water resources during periods and other sources. Monthly and daily data from 87 of drought, knowledge of the historical values of surface-water-withdrawal sites, about 840 wells, natural streamflow and information about the 265 point-source-discharge facilities and 368 facil- effects of human activities on streamflow are nec- ity outfall pipes, and 15 reservoirs were included in essary. Reconstructed-streamflow records are an the calculation of reconstructed streamflow. The estimate of natural streamflow based on observed- report also describes the method used to recon- 55 struct streamflow records at each streamflow-gag- downstream stations in the study area, Hackensack ing station. The daily data set was developed as a River at New Milford, Passaic River at Route 46 at test to determine whether daily streamflow records Elmwood Park, and Saddle River at Lodi, the dif- could be reconstructed from currently available ferences between reconstructed and observed data. Missing data were estimated by using various streamflow averaged over the 4-year study period methods developed for this and other studies. were 149,483, and 5 ft3/s, respectively. The largest withdrawals of surface water account for most of Average annual precipitation in the Northern the differences between reconstructed and division of New Jersey during 1961-90 was 48 in. observed streamflow. At Hackensack River at New Precipitation in the Northern division during 1993 Milford, N.J., surface-water withdrawals averaged and 1995 was below the average annual (1961-90) 101 Mgal/d (156 ft3/s). At Wanaque River (a tribu- precipitation of 48 in. by 3 in. in 1993 and 13 in. in tary to the Passaic River) at Wanaque, N.J., sur- 1995, for annual precipitation values of 45 in. and face-water withdrawals from within the 35 in., respectively. Precipitation during 1994 and subwatershed averaged 129 Mgal/d (200 ft3/s). In 1996 was above the average annual precipitation the Saddle River Basin, ground-water and surface- by 5 in. in 1994 and 12 in. in 1996, for annual pre- water withdrawals are nearly equal to discharges cipitation values of 53 in. and 60 in., respectively. within the subwatershed; therefore, the difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow is Continuous streamflow records were avail- small. able for the entire study period (October 1,1992, through September 30,1996) for 24 of the 34 sta- Reconstructed streamflow was less than tions included in this study. Streamflow records for observed streamflow in only a few instances, in the remaining 10 stations were estimated by one or subwatersheds with high-volume point-source dis- a combination of the following methods: (1) par- charges from municipal treatment facilities that tial record retrieved from the AD APS data base, receive water that originates from sources outside (2) ESTWAT, a USGS computer program, (3) the subwatershed and little or no ground- or sur- Maintenance of Variance Extension, Type 1 face-water withdrawals within the subwatershed. (MOVE1), and (4) drainage-area ratio. The average difference between reconstructed and observed streamflow was -9.8 ft3/s at HoHoKus Discharge data from 17 high-volume munici- Brook at Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J., and -7.5 ft3/s at Passaic pal treatment facilities in the study area were ana- River near Chatham, N.J. lyzed to verify the correlation between point- source discharges from treatment facilities and Natural-streamflow estimates were calcu- streamflow. The monthly discharge data were cor- lated for the three most downstream stations in the related with streamflow at gaging stations above study area by using a simplified water-balance and below the point of discharge. Most of the dis- equation. These estimates were 200 ft3/s at Hack- charges from treatment facilities were strongly cor- ensack River at New Milford, N.J.; 96.5 ft3/s at related with streamflow. Daily reconstructed- Saddle River at Lodi, N.J.; and 1,420 ft3/s at Pas- streamflow values were not corrected for infiltra- saic River at Route 46 at Elmwood Park, N.J. Aver- tion and inflow because of below-average precipi- age reconstructed-streamflow values for these tation during the study period. stations during the 4-year study period were 199, 105, and 1,546 ft3/s, respectively. Differences Water from the upper reaches of both the between average reconstructed-flow values and Passaic and Hackensack River Basins is exported average estimated natural-flow values at these to urban centers in the eastern and southeastern three stations were less than 10 percent. part of the study area near New York City or out of the study area. A net loss of water from these basins is primarily the result of withdrawals froiii the basins that are returned to surface-water bodies as discharges outside the basins. At the three most 56 REFERENCES CITED Gordon, A.D., 1993, Hydrogeology of, and simu- lated ground-water flow in, the valley-fill Bauersfeld, W.R., Moshinsky, E.W., and Gumey, aquifers of the upper Rockaway River Basin, C.E., 1994, Water-resources data, New Morris County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Jersey, water year 1993, v. 1-Surface-water Survey Water-Resources Investigations data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 93-4145,74 p. Report N.J.-93-1,503 p. Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: Bauersfeld, W.R., Moshinsky, E.W., and Gumey, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper C.E., 1995, Water-resources data. New 2220,84 p. Jersey, water year 1994, v. 1—Surface-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Herman, G. C, and Mitchell, J. P., 1991, Bedrock Report N.J.-94-1,534 p. geologic map of the Green Pond Mountain region from Dover to Greenwood Lake Buxton, D.E., Hunchak-Kariouk, Kathryn, and region. New Jersey: New Jersey Geological Hickman, R.E., 1998, Relations of surface- Survey Map Series 91-2,3 pi. water quality to streamflow in the Hacken- sack, Passaic, Elizabeth, and Rahway River Hickman, R.E., 1997, Water quality on days of Basins, New Jersey, water years 1976-93: diversion and days of no diversion. Pomp- U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources ton and Passaic Rivers, New Jersey, 1987-95: Investigations Report 98-4049,102 p. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-573,94 p. Carswell, L.D., and Rooney, J.G., 1976, Summary of geology and ground-water resources of Pas- Hickman, R.E., 1999, Trends in water quality of saic County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological New Jersey streams, water years 1986-95: Survey Water-Resources Investigations U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Report 76-75,47 p. Investigations Report 98-4204,174 p. Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W, 1988, Hill, M. C, Lennon, G. P., Brown, G. A., Hebson, C. Applied hydrology: New York, McGraw- S., and Rheaume, S. J., 1992, Geohydrology Hill, Inc., 572 p. of, and simulation of ground-water flow in, the valley-fill deposits in the Ramapo River Czamik, T.S., and Kozinski, Jane, 1994, Ground- Valley, New Jersey: U. S. Geological Survey water quality in the central part of the Pas- Water-Resources Investigations Report saic River Basin, northeastern New Jersey, 90-4151,92 p. 1959-88: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 92-4083, Hirsch, R.M., 1982, A comparison of four stream- 66 p. flow record extension techniques: Water Resources Research, v. 18, no. 4, p. 1081- Drake, A.A., Jr., Volkert, R.A., Monteverde, D.H., 1088. Herman, G.C., Houghton, H.R, Parker, R.A., and Dalton, R.F., 1996, Bedrock geologic Hoffman, J.L., and Quinlan, John, 1994, Ground- map of northern New Jersey: U.S. Geologi- water withdrawals and water-level data for cal Survey Miscellaneous Investigations the Central Passaic River Basin, New Jersey, Series Map I-2540-A, scale 1:100,000. 1898-1990: New Jersey Geological Survey Report GSR 34,78 p. Dunne, Paul, and Tasker, Gary, 1996, Computer model of the Raritan River Basin water-sup- Jenkins, C.T., 1968, Computation of rate and vol- ply system in central New Jersey: U.S. Geo- ume of stream depletion by wells: U.S. Geo- logical Survey Open-File Report 96-360, logical Survey Techniques of Water- 62 p. Resources Investigations, book 4, chap. Dl, 17 p. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p. 57 REFERENCES CITED-Continued New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec- tion, 1974, Land oriented reference data sys- Lewis-Brown, J.C., and Jacobsen, Eric, 1995, tem: Trenton, N.J., New Jersey Department Hydrogeology and ground-water flow, frac- of Environmental Protection Bulletin 74, tured Mesozoic structural-basin rocks. Stony 151 p. Brook, Beden Brook, and Jacobs Creek drainage basins, west-central New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec- tion, 1992, New Jersey statewide water sup- U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4147,83 p. ply master plan, task 2 report-Water supply baseline data development and analyses: Lyttle, P. T. and Epstein, J. B., 1987, Geologic map Prepared by CH2M HILL, Metcalf & Eddy, of the Newark 1° x 2° Quadrangle, New Jer- Inc., and New Jersey First, Inc., November sey, Pennsylvania and New York: U. S. Geo- 1992,326 p. logical Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Nicholson, R.S., McAuley, S.D., Barringer, J.L., and Series Map 1-1715, scale 1:250,000. Gordon, A.D., 1996, Hydrogeology of, and National Climatic Data Center, 1993, Climatologi- ground-water flow in, a valley-fill and car- cal data annual summary. New Jersey, 1992: bonate-rock aquifer system near Long Valley Asheville, N.C, National Oceanic and in the New Jersey Highlands: U.S. Geologi- Atmospheric Administration, v. 97, no. 13, cal Survey Water-Resources Investigations 22 p. Report 93-4157,159 p., 3 pi. . 1994, Climatological data annual summary. Nicholson, R.S., and Watt, M.K., 1998, Simulation New Jersey, 1993: Asheville, N.C, National of ground-water-flow patterns and areas Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contributing recharge to streams and water- v. 98, no. 13,14 p. supply wells in a valley-fill and carbonate- rock aquifer system, southwestern Morris 1995, Climatological data annual summary. County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey New Jersey, 1994: Asheville, N.C, National Water-Resources Investigations Report Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 97-4216,40 p. v. 99, no. 13,12 p. Price, Curtis V., and Schaefer, Frederick L., 1995, 1996, Climatological data annual summary. Estimated loads of selected constituents New Jersey, 1995: Asheville, N.C, National from permitted and nonpermitted sources at Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, selected surface-water-quality stations in the v. 100, no. 13,11 p. Musconetcong, Rockaway, and Whippany River Basins, New Jersey, 1985-90: U.S. Geo- . 1997, Climatological data annual summary. logical Survey Water-Resources Investiga- New Jersey, 1996: Asheville, N.C, National tions Report 95-4040,28 p. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, v. 101, no. 13,12 p. Principi, V.C, 1991, The State of New Jersey 1991 well permit data report: Trenton, N.J., New Nawyn, J.P., 1997, Water use in Camden County, Jersey Department of Environmental Protec- New Jersey, 1991: U.S. Geological Survey tion and Energy, 44 p. Open-File Report 97-12,39 p. Rantz, S.E., 1982, Measurement and computation Nawyn, J.P., 1998, Withdrawals of ground water of streamflow: Volume 1—Measurement of and surface water in New Jersey, 1991-92: stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98- Water-Supply Paper 2175,284 p. 282,57 p. Reed T.J., Centinaro, G.L., DeLuca, M.J., Hutchin- son, J.T., and Scudder, J.J., 1997, Water- resources data. New Jersey, water year 1996, v. 1—Surface-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report N.J.-96-1,562 p. 58 REFERENCES CITED-Continued U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Infil- tration/Inflow, I/I analysis and project certi- Reed T.J., DeLuca, M.J., Centinaro, G.L., and fication: Washington, DC, U.S. Hutchinson, J.T., 1996, Water-resources data. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of New Jersey, water year 1995, v. 1-Surface- Municipal Pollution Control, May 1985,8 p. water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water- U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978, The Nation's Data Report N.J.-95-1,512 p. water resources: The second national Saarela, Helve, 1992,1988 New Jersey water with- water assessment by the Water Resources drawal report: Trenton, N.J., New Jersey Council-Mid Atlantic Region (02): Wash- Department of Environmental Protection ington, D.C., U.S. Water Resources and Energy, 42 p. Council, 188 p. Schopp, R.D., and Bauersfeld, W.R., 1986, New Jer- Vecchioli, John, and Miller, E.G., 1973, Water sey surface-water resources, in Moody, resources of the New Jersey part of the D.W., Chase, E.B., and Aronson, D.A., Ramapo River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey compilers. National water summary Water-Supply Paper 1974,77 p. 1985—Hydrologic events and surface- Vermeule, C.C., 1894, Report on water-supply, water resources: U.S. Geological Survey water-power, the flow of streams and Water-Supply Paper 2300, p. 335-340. attendant phenomena: Trenton, N.J., Geo- Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, P.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, logical Survey of New Jersey, Final Report Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological of the State Geologist, v. HI, 352 p. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294,63 p. Voronin, L.M., and Rice, D.E., 1996, Hydrogeology Snavely, D.S., Harrison, E.Z., and Pike, H.C., 1990, and simulation of ground-water flow. Pica- New York water supply and use, in Carr, tinny Arsenal and vicinity, Morris County, J.E., Chase, E.B., Paulson, R.W., and New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Moody, D.W., compilers. National water Resources Investigations Report 96-4061, summary 1987-Hydrologic events and 64 p. water supply and use: U.S. Geological Sur- vey Water-Supply Paper 2350, p. 383-392. Winter, C.W., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 1998, Ground water and surface Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., 1998, water—A single resource: U.S. Geological Estimated use of water in the United States Survey Circular 1139,79 p. in 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200,71 p. Zripko, P.N., and Hasan, Asghar, 1994, Depletive water use project for regional water resource Stanford, S.D., Witte, R.W., and Harper, D.P., 1990, planning areas of New Jersey: Trenton, N.J., Hydrogeologic character and thickness of New Jersey Department of Environmental glacial sediments in New Jersey: Trenton, Protection, Office of Land and Water N.J., New Jersey Geological Survey Open- Planning, 149 p. File Map 3, scale 1:100,000. Thomthwaite, C.W, Mather, J.R., and Carter, D.B., 1958, Three water balance maps of eastern North America: Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C., 47 p., 3 pi. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994,1994 County and city extra-Annual metro city and county data book: Washington, D.C., U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1,043 p. 59 APPENDIX 1. MONTHLY MEAN OBSERVED AND RECONSTRUCTED STREAMFLOW FROM OCTOBER 1992 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1996 BY SUBWATERSHED FOR 34 STREAM FLOW-GAGING STATIONS IN THE PASSAIC AND HACKENSACK RIVER BASINS, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK 60 3 3 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND •i o 8 i I 8 i S8S Oct. 1992 .**• —-—^ . I- Dec. 1992 3 > - - '" 2 1993 o12 o Feb. -^^ * S ;=* Apr. 1993 -—< ^^ -*II a* | a v^& • CD O June 1995 CO -« If Aug. 1995 Reconstructed 1Li Oct. 1995 ¥1 Dec. 1995 » "TZ K - Feb. 1996 •I streamflow : 7 • (t s Aug.1993 : ¥ Aug.1993 | » \ Sr Oct. 1993 ; \ ^ s. Oct. 1993 \ Dec. 1993 ! Dec. 1993 V f • i y ^ ^1 Feb.1994 > I _ Feb.1994 u^___ Q. 1 1 § L 7 Apr. 1994 Apr. 1994 -—-" ^^ I T) / y^- i - • -< ^ 8 K June 1994 > f June 1994 < O u^ -o - • / ^ O Aug. 1994 '•} J Aug.1994 ft ^ s. 1 Oct. 1994 < < Oct. 1994 K 1 Dec. 1994 : * ~v^ • Dec. 1994 1 1 zo >v \\ S | Feb.1995 ' > Feb. 1995 : to 1 <^ [\ s • it Apr, 1995 j / Apr. 1995 i> o i June 1995 June 1995 i ; o z : i s/ J m Aug. 1995 i 8 : Aug. 1995 t ^ 1 Oct. 1995 Oct. 1995 to i z^ p. Dec. 1995 X. Dec. 1995 7 "S Feb. 1996 =- Feb. 1996 3 ^2 . June 1996 Aug.1996 ' >< Aug.1996 ^ - ? DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND cr 3 -k-^rorocau^AUi -^-••rorococo-u-tkcn §o Ol O CJ1 O Ol Q bi o g g g g g g g g » § oooooooooOOOQOOOOQ oooooooooo Oct. 1992 j*^—" S lb Dec. 1992 ^^^ = 1 Feb. 1993 *<=dl_____^ Apr. 1993 * "-^ I M June 1993 a.^i s :*•""*' Aug.1993 z 0 9 & i S 8 1 Oct. 1993 JL^ CD ffl Dec. 1993 :^-^=»« o o B- Feb. 1994 > C 3) 3) 31 * ^ -—-** Apr. 1994 i £ i m ^*r-—— ^^^ 11 s a Sf X June 1994 5 a o Z s 3 !t> 9 Aug. 1994 I III i MONTH 8 8 - 2 is h JO 31 mR I I I f •o a a a Dec. 1994 i s : ^^ >^ hi i Feb. 1995 -^ o :^S>' s Apr. 1995 I Oct. 1995 Dec. 1995 eg V: Feb. 1996 Apr. 1996 1: June 1996 3 Aug. 1996 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ^ to u £ en g> 5' 3 o o8 8 8 8 8 8 i - «n i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i r T r r T T | I I I I | s p (0 3 0) ^ 1 B> s "8 JL) ?• (D ^ 1 ^• 3 3 ^ ? % 3 O S. D> » a o) e m z x 8! § O TJ $ g 33 31 •< c-i Z F% a a CD s i o W ST ^ i. =! O to € M -^i W R 3J (Do o 1 a 1 s ® % -^ s a. (O crS 0) a $ (Q s 3 CO o O s 1 ' ' * ' ' ' ' ' ^ ^ ^ ' • ' • • • ^ ' • • • • t • f • • 1 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND a a S.IO CO -i JJ o to -* b. Mo apoR 3 6i 5 3 ® 3 OD^ ^i3 0) " 3 ?o c_it 2 o en 8 8 « o |S a •^ o a. -A $ a to'g 3 6 (Q o ^^ •3 2» s. s DISCHARGE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 30 3 sills s § s 8 S 1 |3 Oct. 1992 Oct. 1992 \"~~^—~« Dec. 1992 Dec. 1992 3J* :\ > ; : *^ is Feb. 1993 Feb. 1993 2 2 • Oct. 1993 Oct. 1993 i 1 | rv. Dec. 1993 Dec. 1993 > • CJ3 1 8 / <-— Feb. 1994 Feb. 1994 :VC. lag- Q. o Apr. 1994 Apr. 1994 .yf •^ m - o3 1 June 1994 June 1994 /V" a. z Aug. 1994 Aug. 1994 ' a \f II d Oct. 1994 Oct. 1994 K : 3 a B. Dec. 1994 Dec. 1994 • 3> 5 v^ 1 Feb. 1995 • Feb.1995 :< < 3 5 Apr. 1995 Apr. 1995 • ii > »5 (r^ §• ? June 1995 June 1995 \( : z 1- Aug. 1995 Aug. 1995 : z V a Oct. 1995 Oct. 1995 o « Dee. 1995 Dec. 1995 Feb. 1996 Feb. 1996 Apr. 1996 Apr. 1996 i : 1 June 1996 June 1996 7 m Aug. 1996 Aug. 1996 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, J3 3 u o i 8 8 § § ! i i § § § S § 8 I" , • »J_L. I- Oct. 1992 illll 1'' '^ Dec. 1992 > • Feb.1993 if-^ DO 3 ll Apr. 1993 ^ 2f " ll June 1993 V" || Aug.1993 \ c_ o (D cr 8 S S Oct. 1993 :X ****•b^^ Dec. 1993 " $ I I § -^5^- Feb.1994 ^ a s> i—s || Apr. 1994 . m June 1994 >s •< •< x s r* X 3D 3) 9 Aug. 1994 s it • ' 11 1 Oct. 1994 B ff i i 3 a o Dec. 1994 N. : g * S Z i^V6* Feb.1995 3 5 S »< o § | Apr. 1995 - Jr - f| fat June 1995 / I °o Aug. 1995 Oct. 1995 ai a^ Dec. 1995 > 2 - Feb.1996 4 a (a Apr. 1996 -** June 1996 J5 i Aug.1996 •5 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND S I 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 It s.en Xo CO ffi-a. o|- I s 3) » i ^ 5 S I I S % S d II a3D zO > I I • ? oI y z DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND S g 8 fi g 8 a § § 8 § § § 8 o o o o o o o lit X 31 3) 31 z ||| 5= Z 1 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND C 3 ft 0) 8 S ,1 8 8 r Z 0 Aug. 1994 3> 2 1 Oct. 1994 CO s. I I a a 5 o S z x if o If z c11 o B 3 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FEET PER SECOND ojS3 (a I § 8 8 8 8 § S 8 I I S I IS If 03 S -•J 3 2 Sf \ I I S 5 S to S 0) 3 PI < PI S B C g C « Q. <•> la IIIi o i w Si * ilco S g g to i § •9 CO 3 3 S3 DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND =r(Q s i S § g § § I o S i s i I 1 g § Oct. 1992 •—_ x o 7 • Dec. 1992 } ^y u Feb. 1993 : ^ ^d. 11 Apr. 1993 _, zi ^^ June 1993 ^ '-^ fi Aug.1993 . o : Oct. 1993 »V 53it n :\\ Dec. 1993 "-i D a Feb. 1994 ___^ i CT a. :==s Apr. 1994 ^^r^ — -— ' : to O T3 -O June 1994 to S4 •O 13 / ^ a03 ac I I Aug. 1994 . . JO 3) • A^ Oct. 1994 3 a I I (f. 3 a o Dec. 1994 Is » z z v. si Feb. 1995 < II Apr. 1995 : r' a June 1995 h S Aug. 1995 : :tr^^~- I Oct. 1995 -— o N 8 Dec. 1995 : -^ to Feb.1996 7 to / Apr. 1996 J I : [ June 1996 o _$ 01 5 Aug.1998 3 - f • ^ APPENDIX 2. DAILY MEAN OBSERVED AND RECONSTRUCTED STREAMFLOW FROM MAY 1,1995, THROUGH OCTOBER 31,1995, BY SUBWATERSHED FOR 34 STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATIONS IN THE PASSAIC AND HACKENSACK RIVER BASINS, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK 75 300 Observed streamflow 8 250 CO GC UJ J; 200 UJ CO D O 100 UJ O DC < X 50 Q CO O May June July August September October 1995 1.500 Reconstructed streamflow 8 1,300 UJ S 1.100 t UJ Q. ; UJ wi EXPLANATION 01376800 Hackensack River at West Nyack, N.Y. 01377000 Hackensack River at Rivervale. N J. Figure 2-1 a. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Hackensack River Basin, New Jersey and New York, May-October 1995. 76 1.000 8 LU CO 600 cr UJ Q. b LU 600 - U. g m z> o 400 LU O < X 200- o w Q 2900 8 2400 '• UJ V) cc UJ a. 1900 • ti UJ SO 1400 CD O 900 : aUJ < X o 400 • CO o -loot May June July August September October 1995 EXPLANATION • 01377500 Pascack Brook at Westwood, N. J. •01376500 Hackensack River at New Milford, NJ. Figure 2-1 b. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Hackensack River Basin, New Jersey and New York. May-October 1995-Continued. 77 5,000 5,000 August September 1995 EXPLANATION -01389005 Passaic River below Pompton River at Two Bridges, N.J. - 01389500 Passaic River at Little Falls, N.J. -01389880 Passaic River at Rt. 46 at Elmwood Park, N.J. Figure 2-2. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Lower Passaic River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995. 78 700 Q 7 600 8Ui CO 500 DC UJ Q. 400 Uit oU- 300 CD 3 200 Oz _ 100 111 oOf* < 0 o (£ -100 O -200 EXPLANATION 01382500 Pequannock River at Macopin Intake Dam, N.J. •01382800 Pequannock River at Riverdale. N.J. Figure 2-3. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamf low for streamf low-gaging stations in the Pequannock River Basin. New Jersey, May-October 1995. 79 4.000 3.500 8LU CO DC 3.000 UJ Q. b 2.500 HI o 2,000 o^ z 1.500 ow DC 1.000 < I C) CO 500 • EXPLANATION 01388500 Pompton River at Pompton Plains, N.J. 01388910 Pompton River at Mountain View, N.J. Figure 2-4. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Pompton River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995. 80 700 o 2 {5 600 ui (0 £E UJ 500 Q. h- U LU 400 O CO 3 O 300 z uf CD 200 5 X O 100 CO July August September October 1995 700 8 600 111 CO d LU 500 Q. m 400 ^LL O m 3 300 U z UJ 200 C35 o 100 CO EXPLANATION 01387400 Ramapo River at Ramapo, N.Y. 01387450 Mahwah River near Suffem, N.Y. • Figure 2-5a. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Ramapo River Basin, New Jersey and New York, May-October 1995. 81 1,400 • g 1.200 ; UJ CO DC UJ 1,000 Q. h- JJ 111 U. 800 O m o 600 2 UJ O 400 «f I o 200 (A Q 1,400 r • EXPLANATION 01387500 Ramapo River near Mahwah, N.J. 01388000 Ramapo River at Pompton Lakes, N.J. • Figure 2-5b. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Ramapo River Basin, New Jersey and New York. May-October 1995~Continued. 82 200 200 • September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01379700 Rockaway River at Berkshire Valley. N.J. 01379773 Green Pond Brook at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. Figure 2-6a. Dally mean observed and reconstructed streamf low for streamf low-gaging stations In the Rockaway River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995. 83 1.000 8ai CO oc tu Q. I- UJ 111 600 u. g m o z oul < oI CO Q Q Z 8 CO oc Ui Q. b u.Ui g m O oUi GC < oX CO Q August September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01380500 Rockaway River above reservoir at Boonton, N.J. 01381000 Rockaway River below reservoir at Boonton, N.J. 01381200 Rockaway River at Pine Brook, N.J. Figure 2-6b. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Rockaway River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995-Continued. 84 1.200 r D Z 8 1.000 • UJ Ui DC UJ Q. ui UJ u. O CQ •D O UJ o ac < oi (0 Q May June July August September October 1995 1,200 r August September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01391000 Saddle River at Ridgewood. N.J. 01390500 Hohokus Brook at Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J. 01391500 Saddle River at Lodi. N.J. Figure 2-7. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations • In the Saddle River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995. 85 800 800 8 LU CO tr 600 UJ Q. t u.UJ o 400 (D uZi z uf O 200 VL < oZ CO August September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01378690 Passaic River near Bemardsville, N.J. 01379000 Passaic River near Miiiington, N.J. 01379500 Passaic River near Chatham, N.J. Figure 2-8a. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Upper Passaic River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995. 86 2.200 D Z 2.000 • 8 UJ 1.800 (0 LU 1.600 Q. 1,400 te UJ u. 1.200 U CD D 1.000 O z 800 LU O 600 a: < 400 oX CO Q 200 0 2.200 Q Z 2.000 LU 1.800 CO g 1.600 t 1.400 Ul U. 1,200 O § 1.000 o z 800 uT 600 400 oi CO 200 Q 0 August September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01379580 Passaic River near Hanover Neck. N.J. 01381900 Passaic River at Pine Brook, N.J. 01382000 Passaic River at Two Bridges, N.J. Figure 2-8b. Dally mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamf low-gaging stations in the Upper Passaic River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995-Continued. 87 300 Observed streamflow 8 250 UJ £ UJ Q- 200 h tD UJ LL 9 150 CO D O 2 100 oUJ 5 5 ^ (0 o ^^•^^b May June July August September October 1995 August September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01383500 Wanaque River at Awosting. N.J. 01384500 Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, N.J. 01387000 Wanaque River at Wanaque, N.J. Figure 2-9. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamflow-gaging stations in the Wanaque River Basin. New Jersey, May-October 1995. 88 500 UJ 400 : c/) July August September October 1995 EXPLANATION 01381500 Whippany River at Morristown, N.J. 01381800 Whippany River near Pine Brook, N.J. Figure 2-10. Daily mean observed and reconstructed streamflow for streamf tow-gaging stations in the Whippany River Basin, New Jersey, May-October 1995. 89 Hydrographs of Upstream Wastewater Input and Streamflow (1999) 10000 - Ramapo River at Mahwah - Upstream Wastewater Input J—/'^,v/vw/ - "V 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov l-Dec EX. NJDEP-19 Hydrographs of Upstream Wastewater Input and Streamflow (1999) B/l SIB 8/15 6/22 6/29 7/6 7/13 7/20 7/27 B/3 B/10 6/17 a24 6/31 9/7 9/14 EX. NJDEP-20 Hydrographs of Upstream Point Source Inputs and Streamflow (1999) Ramapo River at Oaktand Upstream Point Source Inputs 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec EX. NJDEP-21 Participated in various research projects: a systems analysis of conjunctive ground- water and surface-water use for irrigation in Smith Valley, Lyon Co. Nevada; calibration and use of a flash-flood simulation model to examine the sensitivity of a flash flood to various basin parameters; and water-quality sampling of the Truckee River for Nevada State Health Department enforcement of water quality standards. Supervisor: Dr. Gilbert F. Cochran. Activities: collecting water-quality samples, analyzing water-use data, analyzing regional ground-water flow systems, developing and using a ground-water budget model, and preparing project reports. CONSULTANT - March 1978 to September 1978: Nevada State Engineers Office, Division of Water Resources, 201 South Fall St., Carson City, Nevada, 89710. Compiled ground-water use inventories and ground-water rights abstracts for an analysis of potential withdrawal limitations in various Nevada ground-water basins. Supervisor: Mr. Jack Cardinalli. RELATED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES • Registered Professional Geologist in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; License number PG-002000-G. • Chairman, Ground Water Subcommittee of Hydrometric Determinations Technical Committee (ISO TCI 13/SC8) of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Member of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) representing the USA on ISO/TCI 13, April 1994 to present. • Instructor, USGS Northeastern Region Ground-Water Principles Course, May 1993 to present. • Part-Time Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ: Spring 1998 and Spring 1999 taught Graduate Level Groundwater Engineering class (180:574) PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS Quantitative analysis of ground-water flow; transport of ground-water solutes; interaction of ground-water and surface-water systems; wetland hydrology; use of computers in the geosciences for modeling and database management; use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for hydrogeologic investigations. DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (Uu o •8 § mg |« P0 O r^hi aa m l x z ^ o | a. m • o. H Aug. 1994 •o • ii a? z o fti cr || •RiS. §1 3, ANTHONY S. NAVOY U.S. Geological Survey New Jersey District Office 810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206 West Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Phone: (609) 771-3930 Fax: (609) 771-3915 Email: [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D., Geology, The Pennsylvania State University; University Park, PA, December 1991. Emphasis: Hydrogeology, Ground-Water Flow and Transport Modeling. Dissertation: Aquifer-Estuary Interaction and the Vulnerability of Ground-Water- Supplies to Sea-Level-Rise Driven Saltwater Intrusion. Advisor: Dr. Richard R. Parizek, Department of Geosciences, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. M.S., Hydrology, University of Nevada, Reno; Reno, NV, December 1978. Emphasis: Hydrogeology, Water-Resource Management. Thesis: Assessment of Management Strategies for Drought Mitigation through a Conjunctive Use Irrigation System in Smith Valley, Lyon Co., Nevada. Advisor: Dr. Gilbert F. Cochran, Center for Water Resources Research, Desert Research Institute. B.S., Geology, University of Rhode Island; Kingston, RI, May 1976. Diploma, Will C. Crawford High School; San Diego, CA, June 1972. EXPERIENCE SUPERVISORY HYDROLOGIST AND HYDROLOGIST - May 1983 to present: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division, New Jersey District Office, 810 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 206, West Trenton, New Jersey, 08628, (609) 771-3900. April 1996 to present: Supervisory Hydrologist, GS-1315-13, Assistant District Chief for Hydrologic Systems Investigations and Research, responsible for the technical oversight and administration of hydrologic projects (about 30 projects) in the New Jersey District and supervision of program chiefs (3 program chiefs with 45 to 50 subordinate employees). Supervisor: Mr. Eric J. Evenson. Activities: planning the District research program, performing technical oversight of projects, preparing project proposals, reviewing project progress, performing personnel evaluations, reviewing reports, developing federal, state, and local cooperators, negotiating with project cooperators and agency officials, distributing office resources to meet commitments, and performing administrative tasks related to the operation of the District Office, including personnel, budget, and purchasing. Dec. 1993 to April 1996: Supervisory Hydrologist, GS-1315-13, Program Chief of the Hydrologic Simulation Program, responsible for the technical oversight and administration of ground-water modeling and related hydrogeologic projects (usually EX. NJDEP-25 5 to 7 projects) in the New Jersey District and supervision of project personnel (usually 10 to 15 employees). Supervisor: Mr. Herbert T. Buxton. Activities: performing technical oversight of projects, preparing project proposals, reviewing project progress, performing personnel evaluations, reviewing reports, developing federal, state, and local cooperators (clients), informing the public, about project progress, providing hydrogeologic consultative services for USGS, U.S. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection, and participating in the operation of the District Office. Jan. 1991 to Nov. 1993: Hydrologist, GS-1315-13, Project Chief of Northeastern U.S. Nonpoint-Source Ground-Water Contamination Project, a multi-year investigation associated with the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program. Objective to incorporate regional ground-water flow and transport analysis with regional ground-water-quality databases to facilitate investigation of management or mitigation of nonpoint-source ground-water contamination. Supervisor: Mr. Herbert T. Buxton. Activities: using ground-water flow model, using particle-tracking analysis techniques, performing a regional analysis of land-use and ground-water quality data using Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques. Feb. 1990 to Jan. 1991: Hydrologist, GS-1315-13, Project Chief of project to use Camden area ground-water flow model, particle tracking, and transport modeling techniques to assess the risk of saltwater intrusion into Coastal Plain aquifers due to potential sea-level rise. Study supported by the USGS Climate-Change Hydrology Program. Supervisor: Mr. Herbert T. Buxton. Activities: developing and using ground-water flow model, using particle-tracking analysis techniques and one-dimensional solute-transport analysis; modeling operations supported by using GIS techniques. June 1986 to Jan. 1990: Supervisory Hydrologist, GS-1315-13, Program Chief of the Hydrologic Simulation Program, responsible for the technical oversight and administration of ground-water modeling and related projects (usually 5 to 7 projects) in the New Jersey District and supervision of project personnel (usually 10 to 20 employees). Also maintained responsibility as Project Chief of Camden ground-water study. Supervisors: Dr. P. Patrick Leahy and Mr. Herbert T. Buxton. Activities: preparing project proposals, reviewing project progress, performing personnel evaluations, reviewing reports, developing federal, state, and local cooperators (clients), informing the public, about project progress, and participating in the operation of the District Office. During the period July 1988 to Jan. 1989, Acting Assistant District Chief, responsible for the administration of all District research projects (28 projects) and project personnel (55 employees). Duties included negotiating with project cooperators and agency officials, distributing office resources to meet commitments, planning for short- and long-term goals, and performing associated administrative tasks. Supervisor: Mr. Donald A. Vaupel. May 1983 to May 1986: Hydrologist, GS-1315-12, Project Chief of Camden and Vicinity Ground-Water Study, a multi-year cooperative effort with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Objective to perform a high- resolution analysis of the ground-water flow system and evaluate the effects of water-supply management strategies (NJDEP Water-Supply Critical Area Policy). Improvement of the conceptualization of interaction between aquifer system and Delaware River was a major focus. Sophisticated data collection methods and numerical flow-modeling techniques used, including GIS to manage flow-model data and output. Supervisor: Dr. P. Patrick Leahy. Activities: directing subordinate project personnel and drilling crews (contract, State, and USGS) to collect and analyze field data; designing and organizing project computer database system; analyzing drill cuttings and borehole geophysical logs; designing and performing aquifer tests; analyzing regional ground-water flow system; designing, calibrating, and using ground-water flow and transport models; preparing and reviewing project reports. HYDROLOGIST (on sabbatical) ~ August 1982 to May 1983: USGS, Water Resources Division. Selected for USGS Graduate School Program. Attended The Pennsylvania State University for one academic year to take course work for a Ph.D. in Geology with emphasis in hydrogeology and ground-water modeling. Subsequent dissertation research was concurrent with USGS research projects. Supervisor: Mr. William B. Scott. HYDROLOGIST -- January 1979 to August 1982: USGS, Water Resources Division, East-Central Florida Subdistrict Office (Orlando area), 224 W. Central Parkway, Altamonte Springs, FL, 32714, (407) 648-6191. Hydrologist, GS-1315-11, Involved in research projects as Project Chief and Project Member. Projects included: study of the ground-water resources of Flagler County, Florida; assessment of impact of urban water recharge into the Floridan aquifer through solution cavities in the vicinity of Gainesville, Florida; compilation of ground-water-flow model input data for the Floridan aquifer Regional Aquifer System Assessment project; hydrogeologic data summary of a 2,000 foot-deep core hole at Polk City, Green Swamp Area, Central Florida; compilation of the water resources of the Withlacoochie River Region of Central Florida; and potentiometric- surface mapping of carbonate aquifers in the Gainesville area and Sumter County. Supervisor: Mr. Robert A. Miller. Activities: collecting ground-water level, water quality, and stream discharge data; directing drilling crews (contract, State, and USGS); analyzing drill cuttings and borehole geophysical logs; performing aquifer tests; compiling data for ground-water models; analyzing regional ground-water flow systems; and preparing project reports. GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOW - January 1977 to November 1978: Center for Water Resources Research, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada System, P.O. Box 60220, Reno, NV 89506. Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 Page 7-3a • 7.2.3 Regional Potable Water Supply United Water New York, Inc. (UWNY) in West Nyack, New York produces potable water from the Aquifer, in accordance with NYSDEC permits and Rockland County Health Department regulations. UWNY is a waterworks corporation regulated by the Public Service Commission of New York. UWNY serves approximately 68,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers, solely in Rockland County. Approximately 70% of UWNY's water supply comes from 55 wells located throughout the County (Figure 7.3). The remaining 30 percent comes from Lake Deforest, a surface water reservoir located in the Hackensack River Watershed. The water sources are connected within UWNY's regional water supply and distribution system. None of UWNY's systems are isolated from the rest of the distribution system. Interconnections are also available with adjacent water companies, such as Nyack to the east and United Water New Jersey to the south. In the event that one supply source is not available, water j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc | EX. NJDEP-25 Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use April 2001 Page 7-4 • can be distributed from other sources into the area where the supply is not available. Further details of UWNY's system are included in Appendix H-2. For the year of 1998, UWNY produced 10,550.2 million gallons (MG) of water and sold 9,064.5 MG. The balance was non-revenue producing, including water used in fire fighting and hydrant flushing, and water lost due to leaks, main breaks or improper metering. The total average UWNY system capacity is approximately 30 million gallons per day (mgd). Longer term maximum supply capability is approximately 40 mgd. UWNY has contracted to provide water to service the Project in accordance with its tariff. A copy of the contract, as amended on March 15, 2001 is included in Appendix H- 1. The estimated 23 MG contracted to be supplied to the Project annually is approximately 0.2 percent of UWNY's 1998 annual production. Based upon operations at base load with steam augmentation, the maximum amount of water required by the Project is expected to be 23 MG per year. Due to its proximity, it is assumed that the RVWF will supply most of the water to the Project. Information on the distribution system, available capacity, water quality, analysis of potential impacts and mitigation of Project usage are included in UWNY's report in Appendix H-2; a summary is presented below. 7.2.4 Ramapo Valley Well Field UWNY operates the RVWF, which includes 10 wells penetrating the unconsolidated Aquifer, on the western side of the Ramapo River near the confluence of Tome Brook. The well field is approximately one mile southwest of the Site. The well field is designated as a public community water supply, and contributes approximately 30 percent of UWNY's total water supply to Rockland County. The RVWF's sand and gravel aquifer is connected hydraulically to the Ramapo River, which is designated by NYSDEC as a Class A water body, indicating the water may be used for drinking purposes. The RVWF and Aquifer boundaries coincide with the Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) shown on Figure 7.1 (UWNY, 1999). The water pumped from the RVWF is derived from induced infiltration. Estimated well yields from existing individual RVWF water supply wells range up to a maximum yield j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 Page 7-5 of approximately 2 mgd for an individual well. Well depths at RVWF range from 70 to 125 feet. UWNY's water production at the RVWF is permitted so as to maintain at least 8 mgd of flow in the Ramapo River when the well field is active, as measured at a nearby gauging station (see Table 7.2). NYSDEC and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) established this minimum river bypass flow volume to protect downstream ecology and river uses. UWNY uses surface water and/or groundwater augmentation to maintain the river flow volumes during summer and early fall, when river flows are low. Such augmentation is necessary to allow continued withdrawals from the RVWF. See Table 7.2 for information on RVWF pumping restrictions as they relate to Ramapo River flow. Surface water releases from Potake and Cranberry Lakes are the primary means to augment flow in the river. Groundwater from RVWF is also sometimes used to augment flow. Production volumes from 1997 through 2000 at RVWF (including pumping to the Ramapo River to control contaminant dispersion) have been below permitted allocations, as shown on Table 7.3. The permitted allocation of the RVWF is sufficient to serve the Project; however, UWNY cannot use all of its permitted allocation due to constraints based on Ramapo River flow. However, with improvements to be paid for by the Applicant that will increase flow in the Ramapo River and otherwise improve the reliability of UWNY's system, the impacts of the Project's usage will be offset. UWNY is evaluating additional potential augmentation supplies, to ensure that RVWF is kept in service even during drought scenarios. 7.2.5 Alternative Sources of Project Water Supply The Applicant has evaluated other potential sources of water supply to the Project, including water from bedrock and overburden within the Project Area, as discussed below. Available information indicates that these potential sources are unlikely to supply sufficient water to service the Project. As an alternative, the Applicant has focused on reducing the water supply requirements of the Project by adopting air cooled technology, designing significant on-Site storage to minimize water demands during periods of restrictions on the RVWF, and recycling some of the steam cycle blowdown stream. The Precambrian crystalline rocks in western Rockland County have low storage capacities and are not a source of large groundwater supplies (USGS, 1959). Groundwater in crystalline bedrock is typically contained in fractures, joints or interstitial J :\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\section 7.doc Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 Page 7-8 contributions based on an estimated annual Project demand of 23 MG. A water balance diagram showing water requirements under different operating conditions is presented in Table 8.2. Under base load operation with steam augmentation average water consumption is estimated to be 63,000 gpd with a peak requirement of 219,000 gpd. Steam augmentation will be limited to 10 hours/week for a maximum of 12 weeks. Under base load operation (without steam augmentation) average water consumption is estimated to be 40,000 gpd with a peak requirement of 74,800 gpd. It is estimated that Project peak use will be met by combining water supplied by UWNY and water taken from the 9 MG of on-Site storage. Water will be stored for Project use in three 3-MG aboveground water tanks to be located on the Site. These tanks will be refilled during off-peak flow demands, in coordination with UWNY, to minimize impacts. A total of 750,000 gallons of stored water will be reserved for fire suppression needs. The on-Site fire pumps will be capable of delivering a maximum of 2,000 gpm. This would supply four hydrants operating simultaneously with 500 gpm each. Therefore, with 750,000 gallons of on-Site storage dedicated to fire suppression, more than 6 hours of water supply would be available at maximum flow conditions for fire protection. Water used by the Project will be vented to the atmosphere through the stacks or discharged as wastewater to the Rockland County Sewer District (RCSD). Estimated volumes are shown on Table 8.2. RCSD's wastewater ultimately is discharged to the Hudson River. The Applicant would support in good faith a reasonable plan by RCSD to achieve in-basin discharge of RCSD treated wastewater flows. 7.3.2 Supply During Water Restrictions During a water emergency, restrictions on water usage are determined according to Rockland County Health Department Article V regulations, entitled Mandatory Water Conservation Measures. A copy is included in Appendix H-2. j:\a311 -004\a311 -004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 ; Page 7-9 • The Project will be subject to and operate in accordance with all water use prohibitions identified in these regulations. Impact to Project operations would occur during a Stage IV emergency, which prohibits all commercial and industrial establishments from using water in excess of the user's average daily consumption for the preceding 12 calendar months. During the summer of 1999, a Stage II drought alert was issued by the Rockland County Health Department, which restricted watering of lawns, washing of paved surfaces and non- commercial washing of vehicles, as described in Appendix H-2. In the event of Stage II drought alert, Ramapo Energy has committed to eliminate withdrawals from the UNWY system. During this restriction and other emergencies, 9-MG storage capacity on-Site will be used as the supply source for the Project. 7.3.3 Water Quality Three 3-MG tanks will be installed at the Energy Facility. Two tanks will be used to store raw water received from UWNY. The third tank will store demineralized water for use as make-up for the steam cycle. Portable trailer-mounted demineralizers will be used to treat the raw water and will be removed from the Energy Facility Site for off-site regeneration and back washing. 7.3.4 Dewatering Dewatering may be required at the foundation excavations. The water will be discharged to the stormwater management system described in Section 8.0. During design, additional groundwater information will be obtained to determine if dewatering will be necessary during operation of the Project. If applicable, dewatering controls will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with applicable engineering standards and practices. 7.3.5 Distribution, Piping, Pressure and Storage Systems Water will be supplied to the Project through UWNY's existing 30-inch pipe located in Route 59/17 at the intersection of Tome Valley Road. Currently, the RCSWMA owns a 16- inch line running up Tome Valley Road, which ties into an existing 8-inch servicing the MRF and Co-composting facilities. The Applicant expects to obtain an agreement with RCSWMA and UWNY to tie into this 8-inch line. A new 8-inch water supply line will then be constructed by the Applicant along the Project access road, in the same trench as the wastewater interconnect, to minimize impacts. UWNY and the Applicant j:\a311-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use April 2001 Page 7-10 will each install meters to record Project water consumption. UWNY, the Town of Ramapo and Rockland County will not construct any distribution piping, mains or pumps to serve the Project. Following implementation of system improvements funded by the Applicant, the operation of the Project is expected to have no discernible effect on UWNY's water system pressures. The elevation of UWNY's 30-inch pipe at the Route 59/17 intersection with Tome Valley Road is 291 feet (relative to NGVD 1929 datum). Pressure in this pipe is directly controlled by the RVWF pump station, which produces a gradient ranging from 690 to 757 feet. The resulting range of pressure available in UWNY's 30-inch main is 172 psi to 202 psi. The anticipated overflow elevation of the Project storage tanks is 750 feet. The high elevation of the site relative to UWNY's available pressure gradient will require a booster pump system to obtain adequate service. The Applicant will design and build a booster system to provide adequate service. An area has been set aside on the Site for the possible later installation of a storage tank to be used by UWNY. 7.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Water Supply A cumulative analysis of the available capacity of the water supply was assessed with respect to quantity, quality, pressure and impacts during both normal and drought periods on other users of the water supply. Because details of Tome Valley Station's estimated water needs are not known to the Applicant, this analysis was done using the NYSDPS' proposed methodology of estimating supply based upon the known proposed size of Tome Valley Station (827 mw) as compared to the known size and water supply requirements of the Project. Applying a peak Project water supply volume of 219,000 gpd from UWNY, it was determined that Tome Valley Station would have a peak use of 165,000 gpd, using NYSDPS' proportional methodology. Thus, the cumulative peak water requirements would be 384,000 gpd. However, it is understood that the Tome Valley Station will be unable to operate under steam augmentation conditions. Therefore, it is more appropriate to estimate Tome Valley Station's water consumption based on Project's base load conditions. Using this methodology. Tome Valley Station's average daily requirement would be 30,000 gpd, resulting in a cumulative daily average of 70,000 gpd. The average daily consumption for the Project, including steam augmentation, is 63,000 gpd. j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 Page 7-11 Therefore, the maximum average cumulative consumption would be 93,000 gpd, or 34 • MG per year. This conclusion of no impact is contingent on capital contributions to UWNY from both companies in accordance with their respective agreements, which will be sufficient to offset the effect of the combined usage and to provide benefit to existing customers of UWNY. The existing 30-inch main in Rt. 17/59 is designed to carry the available 14 mgd maximum permitted production at RVWF. Combined peak supply to the two plants represents approximately one percent of the pipe carrying capacity. UWNY anticipates no effect on other customers receiving water from the same line, nor significant impacts on system pressure or potable water quality are anticipated. Stormwater from the Project will be detained and reintroduced into the ground at the Site, as described in Section 8.0, Stormwater, Wastewater, and Solid Waste. Therefore, the quality and quantity of recharge to Tome Brook will not be affected. Based on the - assumption that the stormwater control design for the Tome Valley Station is of a similar nature to the Project, no impacts to the quantity and quality of recharge to Tome Brook are anticipated. 7.4 Impacts and Mitigation The Project has been designed to reduce overall consumptive water use to the extent feasible, primarily through incorporation of air-cooled technology and wastewater recycling. UWNY, which operates an extensive interconnected system of groundwater and surface water supplies servicing much of Rockland County, has contracted to supply the Project. The Project's estimated annual water use of 23 MG represents 0.2 percent of the total supply produced in 1998 by UWNY. The Applicant has consulted and coordinated" with UWNY, NYSDEC Region 3 and Rockland County personnel to develop a water supply plan for the Project that has no adverse impacts on the regional water supply system. The plan includes significant on-Site storage facilities to reduce water requirements during periods of water restrictions within the j:\a311 T004\a311 -004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\section 7.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 Page 7-12 County. The Applicant also intends to provide significant capital contributions to UWNY. These financial resources will be dedicated to improving the efficiency of existing water supply resources, as well as assisting in the development of additional water supplies for the benefit of the UWNY customer base. Following analysis of the Project's normal and peak requirements and the existing water supply resources in Rockland County, and subject to the terms of its agreement with the Applicant, UWNY has concluded that construction and operation of the Project will have no adverse impact on UWNY's water resources, supply and distribution system, or customers. Given the anticipated development of water supply projects funded by the Applicant, UWNY has indicated it can meet Project water needs through efficient use of its existing system, while maintaining the required flow volumes in the Ramapo River. Due to its proximity, it is expected that the Ramapo Valley Well Field will supply the primary portion of water for the Project. These groundwater wells penetrate the unconsolidated Aquifer adjacent to the Ramapo River at the base of Tome Valley. No groundwater or surface water will be withdrawn to service the Project from Tome Valley and adjacent upland recharge areas. The Project will have no impact on groundwater recharge or quality, as stormwater on the Site will be detained to remove solids then re-directed into the watersheds on the Site, as described in Section 8.0, Stormwater, Wastewater, and Solid Waste. The Applicant will construct three 3-MG aboveground storage tanks on the Site. This water will be used during water restrictions imposed by Rockland County, to minimize impacts on UWNY's system during potential drought periods. The Applicant will coordinate refilling of the tanks with UWNY, to reduce impacts. To improve water supplies in Rockland County, the Applicant has agreed to contribute $1,340,000 to UWNY, payable within 15 days following the start of construction of the Energy Facility. This contribution would be used to fund all or portions of the following projects designed to enhance UWNY water supply: improvements to the water release infrastructure at Potake Pond, or the construction of a water tank in Tome Valley. The Applicant will also make an additional $300,000 contribution targeted to improve water supply for the Tome Valley area, which may include improving the efficiency of releases of water to augment flow in the Ramapo River or the construction of additional storage facilities j:\a311 -004\a311 -004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section: Groundwater, Water Supply, and Use Revised April 2001 Page 7-12a to improve the reliability of its system. These capital contributions will offset the impacts of Project usage. • j :\a311 -004\a311 -004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 7.doc Ramapo Article X Application Section 8: Stormwater, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Revised April 2001 Page 8-13 • Preliminary Anticipated Daily Waste Volumes and Characteristics 1 for Base Load Operations || Description Effluent Flow (gpd) Average 22,500 Maximum 41,600 PH 6.0 to 9.0 Total Conductivity <20 uS/cm*' Ammonia (NH3) <0.5 mg/1 Iron (Fe) <1 mg/1 (average) Temperature <140 0F The Applicant proposes to replace the existing three pumps located within the pump pit with Grinder Pumps. Process effluent and sanitary wastes generated by daily operations will be discharged via a single 8-inch diameter sewer pipe, as illustrated on Drawing C-9, Proposed Interconnects and Wetland Impacts, in Appendix A. The proposed 8-inch line will connect to the existing 8-inch sewer main located on the MRF and Co-Composting Facility Property. The Water Balance Diagram shown on Table 8.2 illustrates the average and maximum water and sewage discharge for the Base-load Operation and Daily Stop/Start Operation. The average sewage discharge during basic load operation is estimated to be approximately 22,500 gal/day for the Energy Facility. The maximum sewage discharge is listed as 62,500 gal/day during daily stop/start operations. 8.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation The existing 8-inch sewer main within Tome Valley Road is estimated to handle capacity of approximately 652,780 gal/day. The maximum wastewater effluent flow is less than 10% of the sewer main capacity. Thus, existing sewer main currently has ample capacity to service the development. The alternative design of discharging the sanitary wastewater into a subsurface disposal system on-site was evaluated. Because of the significant amount of ledge and steep slopes on the property, this alternative was considered impractical. A wastewater SPDES permit is not required for the Project. There will not be any discharge of process effluent to the Ramapo River, Tome Brook, or Candle Brook. For boiler biowdown only. Conductivity of plant service drains and sanitary waste will be dependent upon the quality of the local potable water supply. j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 8.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section 8: Stormwater, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Revised April 12,2001 Page 8-17a 8.5.4 State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Requirements • The NYSDEC administers the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program, pursuant to the Clean Water Act (1972). A NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-93-06) would be applicable to the Project, since greater than five acres of land area will be disturbed. In addition, a SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities (GP-98-03) would be required during the operation of the facility. Pursuant to permit conditions, a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared and maintained on site during the construction and operation of the facility. A Notice of Intent, Transfer or Termination form will be completed and sent to the NYSDEC at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of construction. As part of the SPDES permit for Industrial Activities, an on-site monitoring program for discharges will be established, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be established on site, and associated record retention/reporting procedures will be followed. Estimated Stormwater Discharge Characteristics . For Operations Description Effluent || 1 Oil and Grease None that would produce a visible oil film || ~ equal to the pH of ambient rainfall • pH BOD5 Less than that which would cause receiving water dissolved oxygen to be less than 7.0 mg/L from other than natural causes COD Less than that which would cause receiving water dissolved oxygen to be less than 7.0 mg/L from other than natural causes TSS None from sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes that will cause deposition or impair the receiving waters for their best usages Total Phosphorus None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the receiving waters for their best usages Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen None that will cause the concentration in the receiving waters to rise above ambient levels Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen None that will cause the concentration in the receiving waters to exceed 10,000 ug/L The Applicant proposes to perform sampling as discussed in Appendix 1-1, Section 7.0 to ensure compliance with the requirements of its SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities (GP-98-03) j:\a31 l-004\a311-004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\section 8.doc | Table 8.2 Water Balance Diagram For Ramapo Energy Project Average Peak , Average Peak Average Average Peak Base Load Operaliun Gals/hr. Gals/hr. •. Gals/day Gals/day Gals/yr Gats/wk Gals/min Gals/min Make-up 1.404 17.375 33.698 69.500 12.299.826 235,900 23.4 289.6 Potable 221 400 5,300 5,300 1.934.394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Total Make-up 1,625 17.775 38,998 74,800 14,234.220 273,000 27.1 296.3 Potable to Sewer 221 400 5.300 5.300 1,934,394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Drain/Blowdown to Sewer 721 8,920 17,299 53,100 6,314,154 121,100 12.0 148.7 Total Loss to Sewer 942 9,320 22,599 58.400 8,248,548 158,200 15.7 155.3 Vent Losses 683 8,455 16,399 16.400 5,985,672 114,800 11.4 140.9 1 1 Average : Peak >'• Average' Peak Average Average Peak Dally Stop/Start (6 days/week, 18 hours/day) : Gals/hr. Gals/hr. Gals/day Gals/day Gals/yr GalsAvk Gals/min Gals/min Make-up 1.696 17,375 40.712 69,500 14,859,900 285.000 28.3 289.6 Potable 221 400 5.300 5,300 1.934,394 37.100 3.7 6.7 Total Make-up 1,917 17,775 46,012 74,800 16,794,294 322.100 32.0 296.3 Potable to Sewer 221 400 5,300 5,300 1,934.394 37.100 3.7 6.7 Drain/niowdown to Sewer 1.257 12,876 30,170 57,200 11.011.968 211,200 21.0 2146 Total Loss to Sewer 1.478 13,276 35,469 62,500 12.946,362 248,300 24.6 221.3 Vent Losses 439 4,499 10,542 12,300 3,847,932 73,800 7.3 75.0 1 1 !, • . Average ' ••-:,Peak-.- Average •;;;, .Peak:-,-;: Average Average Peak 6 Days/week Base Load Operation .; J Gals/hr. Gals/hr. Gals/day Gals/day Gals/yr Gals/wk Gals/min Gals/min Make-up 1.417 17,375 33.998 69,500 12,409.320 238,000 23.6 289.6 Potable 221 400 5.300 5,300 1.934.394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Total Make-up 1,637 17.775 39.298 74,800 14,343.714 275.100 27.3 296.3 Potable to Sewer 221 400 5,300 5,300 1.934,394 37.100 3.7 6.7 . Drain/Blowdown to Sewer 855 10.491 20,527 53,100 7.492.518 143,700 14.3 174.8 Total Loss to Sewer 1,076 10.891 25.827 58,400 9,426.912 180.800 17.9 181.5 Vent Losses 561 6.884 13.471 16.400 4,916.802 94.300 9.4 114.7 Notes 1. Peak hourly flows based on one boiler blowdown per hour. 2. Peak daily flows based on four boiler blowdowns in one day. 3. During initial operation of plant or alter major combustion inspection shutdown (every three years), raw water consumption could increase to 400,000 gals/week for a period of 2-3 weeks 4. Over the same 2-3 week period, waste water discharge will increase to 240,000 gals/week. 5. To obtain average monthly flows divide gals/year by 12. Revised April 2001 Page 1 of 3 j:\a31 l-004\a311-004.3(sbreview)\errala 5\iab!e 8.2doc.iloc Table 8.2 (continued) Steam Augmentation Schedule Tor all 4 units: 12 weeks 5 days/week 8 hours/day Base Load Operation with Annual Average Peak Annual Average Peak Gals/yr Annual Peak Gals/min Steam Augmentation Gals/hr. Gals/hr. : Gals/day. Gals/day Average Gals/min Steam Injection 72,300 1111111 16.5 1205.0 Make-up 17,375 33,698 69,500 12,299,826 23.4 289.6 Potable 400 5,300 5,300 1,934,394 3.7 6.7 Total Make-up MBmrnx^mm 90,075 iliiiiiiii mmmmmm 43.6 1501.3 Potable to Sewer 221 400 5,300 5,300 1,934,394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Drain/Blowdown to Sewer 721 8,920 17,299 53,100 6,314,154 121,100 12.0 H8.7 Total Loss to Sewer 942 9,320 22,599 58,400 8,248,548 158,200 pEmOPM 15.7 155.3 Vent Losses 683 8,455 16,399 16,400 5,985,672 114,800 11.4 140.9 Stack Release i»sa99P 72,300 i«6i(gO0JM 1205.0 Total Loss to Atmosphere Mtsiamiiiiiiii 80,755 wmmmmm msumw. msmm 1345.9 Daily Stop/Start (6 days/week, Annual Average Peak Annual Average Peak Gals/yr Summer Annual Annual Avg. Peak Gals/ min 18 hours/day) with Steam Gals/lir Gals/hr Gals/day Gals/day Average Average Gals/min Augiuentaliqn . .. . GalsAvk Gals/wk Steam Injection 72,300 23,770 144,600 8,676,000 723,000 16.5 1205.0 Make-up 17,375 40,712 69,500 14,859,900 285,000 28.3 289.6 Potable 400 5,300 5,300 1,934,394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Total Make-up WMmmmm 90,075 ^iMSi mmsmmtmi mmn 1501.3 Potable to Sewer 221 400 5,300 5,300 1,934,394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Drain/Blowdown to Sewer 1,257 12,876 30,170 57,200 11,011,968 211,200 21.0 214.6 Total Loss to Sewer 1,478 13,276 35,469 62,500 12,946,362 248,300 24.6 221.3 Vent Losses 4,499 12,300 3,847,932 73,800 75.0 Stack Release 72,300 1205.0 Total Loss to Atmosphere 76,799 rap@jt?3.r2if vmm mmmm 1280.0 Revised April 2001 Page 2 of 3 j:\a311-004\a31 l-004.3{sbreview)\errata 5\lable 8.2doc.doc Table 8.2 (continued) Annual Average Teak Annual Average Peak Gals/yr Summer Annual Annual Avg. Peak Gals/ min 6 Days/week Operation with Gals/hr Gals/hr Gals/day Gals/day Average Average Gals/min Steam Augmentation GalsAvk Gal/wk Steam Injection Miilllliii 72,300 1205.0 Make-up 1,417 17,375 12,409,320 238,000 23.6 289.6 Potable 221 400 1,934,394 37,100 3.7 6.7 Total Make-up 90,075 mmmmm mmmmwMm wmmmm 1501.3 Potable to Sewer 221 400 5,300 5,300 1,934,394 37.100 3.7 6.7 Drain/Blowdown to Sewer 855 10,491 20,527 7,492,518 143,700 14.3 174.8 53,100 Total Loss to Sewer 1.076 10,891 25,827 58,400 9,426,912 180,800 Mii 17.9 181.5 Vent Losses 6,884 13,471 4.916,802 114.7 Stack Release 72,300 1 1205.0 Total Loss to Atmosphere 79,184 Mm 1319.7 Revised April 2001 Page 3 of 3 j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\table 8.2doc.doc Ramapo Article X Application Section 9: Land Use and Local Laws Revised June 2001 Page 9-10 • Section 2-22, Noise Local law 7-1982 establishes and imposes restrictions upon "unreasonable noise" within the Town of Ramapo. Ramapo Energy will comply with Local Law 7-1982 with the possible exception of Clause 244-4.C.b, which requires that an L10 noise level of 60dBA not be exceeded at any real property line during construction. This requirement is unreasonably restrictive for certain aspects of construction of the project. In particular, construction activities will be performed on the western property line at the site entrance, and adjacent to the southern property line. A single piece of construction equipment, such as an excavator operating for an hour at the property line would exceed and L10 of 60dBA. Such would be true for any construction project near roadways or property lines. Therefore, Ramapo Energy requests a waiver from Clause 244-4.C.b. Section 2-26, Property Maintenance Local Law 3-1987 establishes regulations for maintenance of parking lots, accessory structures or associated other open space. The Project has incorporated the applicable guidelines to the design of parking areas and will therefore be in compliance with the • local law. Section 2-27, Property Ownership Registration Local Law 8-1983 requires registration of a property for any owner not a resident of the Town. The Applicant will comply with all property ownership requirements of the local law unless otherwise superceded by the Article X process. Section 2-29, Sewers Local Law 1-1965, Sewage Disposal, provides regulations for sewage disposal and disposal facilities. All sewage generated on the site will be discharged to the Rockland County Sewer District No. 1 sewer system for treatment at its wastewater facility. The Project will comply with all applicable guidelines established in the local law. j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\sections\section 9.doc Table 9.5 Summary of Town of Ramapo Zoning Compliance for Ramapo Energy Project Provisions of the Zoning Regulations Degree of Compliance | Use of water tanks Special approval needed. (§376-33 K) Structure heights Relief needed for exhaust stacks, turbine buildings, (§376-41 and §376-60) air cooled condensers, and HRSGs and various switchyard structures. Street Frontage Relief needed. (§376-41) Building spacing Compliant (§376-62 and §376-31) Noise output • Relief needed for the Energy Facility's operations (§376-104 8) Use for freight or truck transfers Compliant (§376-31) Parking spot locations Compliant (§376-31) Loading berth Compliant (§376-77 A) Buffer area to Residential Zones Compliant (§376-31) Maximum length or extent of buildings Compliant (§376-31) Minimum off-street parking Compliant (§376-31) Entrances to parking / loading Compliant (§376-31) Setbacks Compliant (§376-41) Yards Compliant (§376-41) Minimum lot area Compliant (§376-41) Development coverage Compliant (§376-41) Floor ratio Compliant (§376-41) Lanes for parking spots Compliant (§376-71 A) j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\sections\section 9.doc :-:,-p^: ii-'K'. ' • Table 9.6. Compliance Review p^theTpwR of Ram^ Town pfRamapo . ' / Local?LawNumber' (orotjier; -. Manuscript'Table of v^: source) if SectiprrPeeraed t Cojmpiiance if Qeemed-^ "Contents §ectiohNo. Section Title • •'••'•' ; ' - ' Applicable - [ * , ' ' Appficable2'3 §2-1 Alann Systems Not Applicable §2-2 Alcoholic Beverages Not Applicable §2-3 Animals Not Applicable §2-4 Bingo Not Applicable §2-5 Blasting and Explosives Local Law 10-1992 Full Compliance §2-6 Buildings, Numbering of Local Law 3-1993 Full Compliance §2-7 Buildings, Unsafe Local Law 7-1979 Full Compliance §2-8 Business and Commercial Activity Local Law 1-1965 Full Compliance §2-9 Contractors Local Law 12-1988 Full Compliance §2-10 Electrical Standards Chapter 12 of the Ramapo Code Full Compliance §2-11 Excavations and Soil Removal Local Law 4-1968 Full Compliance §2-12 Fair Housing Not Applicable §2-13 Firearms Not Applicable §2-14 Fire Prevention Local Law 6-1997 Partial Compliance §2-15 Flood Damage Prevention Local Law 8-1987, as amended Not Applicable-) , §2-16 Games of Chance Not Applicable §2-17 Ilomebuyers Proteclion Not Applicable §2-18 Hotels, Inns and Boardinghouses Not Applicable §2-19 Housing Standards Not Applicable §2-20 Landscapers Not Applicable §2-21 Littering Local Law 1-1985 Full Compliance §2-22 Noise Local Law 7-1982 Raftia}:i^€ompUance waiver requested • ,-- - 1 References to local laws are as most recently amended 2 See Section 9.3 for description of local law requirements reviewed 3 Article X incorporates any approval, consent, permit, certificate or condition of local regulatory authorities j:\a31 l-004\a311-004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\sections\section 9.doc Ramapo Article 10 Application Section 11: Noise Revised June 2001 Page 11-5 flB sleep disturbance in establishing these regulatory limits for housing sites. Technical and economic considerations, including the fact that most HUD-assisted housing is in urban areas, led HUD to set higher levels than those recommended by the EPA guidelines. Because the EPA recommended L^ is 55 dBA, the EPA recommendation will be used as a design goal at the nearest residence, and the HUD regulations, although not applicable, will automatically be complied with. 11.3.4 Operational Noise Goals for Hiking Trails The Modified CNR Method is derived from experience with complaints about noise from residential communities. Such complaints occur most commonly at night when people are relaxing at home. Since no campgrounds are located in the vicinity of the Project Area, the Modified CNR is a conservative estimate of the impacts, and will be applied to the hikin?'o trails in Harriman State Park. 11.3.5 Town of Ramapo Code There are two Chapters of the Ramapo Code that pertain to noise - Chapter 244 (Local Law 7-1982) and Chapter 376 (Ramapo Zoning Code). Local Law 7-1982 establishes qualitative noise restrictions regarding "unreasonable noise". The CNR method described in Section 11.3.1 provides noise ratings that are indicative of the level of disturbance caused by noise. "Unreasonable noise" is defined by Local Law 7-1982 as "any excessive or unusually loud sound or any sound which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities or which causes injury to animal life or damage to property or business." Using the CNR method, the Project achieves the chosen CNR goal of "D", which anticipates the community's reaction to be sporadic complaints. Certainly, a CNR of "D" would not qualify as "unreasonable noise" - otherwise, a more aggressive reaction by the community would be anticipated. The project will meet requirements of Local Law 7-1982 with the possible exception of Clause 244-4.C.b, which requires that an L10 noise level of 60dB A not be exceeded at any real property line during construction. This requirement is unreasonably restrictive for certain aspects of construction of the project. In particular, construction activities will be performed on the western property line at the site entrance, and adjacent to the southern property line. A single piece of construction equipment, such as an excavator operating for an hour at the property line would exceed and L10 of 60dBA. Such would be true for any construction project near roadways or property lines. j:\a311 -004\a311 -004.3(sbreview)\eiTata 5\sections\section 11 .doc Ramapo Article 10 Application Section 11: Noise Revised June 2001 Page 1 l-5a The Ramapo Zoning Code (Section 376-104.3(1)) specifies quantitative noise requirements. It establishes property-line noise limits for the Town. Two sets of limits are provided: one for daytime activities, and a second more stringent one for activities at night, on Sundays and within 200 feet of a residence district. The more stringent limits apply to this project because the power plant will operate at night and on Sundays. These nighttime/Sunday limits are 6 dB lower than the daytime limits. (Noise from daytime construction activity is exempt from the Ramapo Code.) • • j:\a31 l-004\a31 l-004.3(sbreview)\erTata 5\sections\section 11.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section 18: Natural Gas Interconnection Revised June 2001 Page 18-2 • The 3,000-foot lateral to the Project consists of the following facilities: • Approximately 3,000 feet of 24 inch pipeline interconnecting with the existing 30 inch Algonquin Gas Transmission pipeline. The line will be routed along an existing Con-Ed right-of-way which crosses the Algonquin line and forms the western boundary of the Project site. A corridor of approximately 75-foot temporary and 50-foot permanent ROW will be required with additional temporary workspace requirements possible in some areas. This routing completely avoids the boundaries of the Town of Ramapo Landfill as shown on the plot plan. Algonquin routinely constructs pipelines through rocky terrain and conventional construction techniques will allow a trench to be excavated in the right-of-way. The trench for the 24-inch diameter pipeline will be approximately 6 feet deep. See Drawing C-9 in Appendix A for proposed route. • A gas measurement facility at the Energy Facility Site will be sized for a maximum flow of 200 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day. The gas metering equipment and controls will be contained within a building sized approximately 40 feet by 75 feet. • The Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for the new 24-inch lateral is anticipated to be 1,000 psi. This information will be confirmed as design plans of the interconnection are finalized with Algonquin. 18.3 Available Gas Supplies The Applicant expects regional gas supply to increase in order to meet the demand from new gas fueled electric generation projects located in the Northeast. The increased demand for gas in the Northeastern United States will be more than adequately provided by the combination of new gas supplies from Sable Island, Nova Scotia into New England and expansion of the existing pipeline infrastructure in the Midwestern United States supplying new or existing gas storage fields in New York and Ontario, Canada. The Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline from Sable Island can increase its delivery capacity to approximately 1,000 MMcf per day (through the installation of additional compression stations.) Currently, there is sufficient capacity on the pipelines in the transportation path of the Project to provide the required amount of fuel. Tennessee and Algonquin pipelines each flow approximately 1,000 MMcf per day to points downstream of the Project. In addition, the proposed Millennium Pipeline is designed to deliver approximately 700 MMcf per day to points downstream of the Project. Together these pipelines will be able to deliver 2,700 MMcf per day into the area. The Project will need an approximate maximum of 190 MMcf or 24-hour operation. Thus, the Project will require only 7% of the total expected available throughput of the system. j:\a3 Il-004\a311-004.3(sbreview)\errata5\sections\section 18.doc | Ramapo Article X Application Section 18: Natural Gas Interconnection Revised April 2001 Page 18-3 The size and location of the proposed Millennium pipeline identifies it as a potential source • of gas supply for the Project. However, since the pipeline has not been permitted by FERC yet, it is imprudent to rely on it as a dedicated source for the Project. Therefore, Ramapo Energy proposes to interconnect with the adjacent Algonquin pipeline, which is in service and much closer to the Project. If the Millennium pipeline becomes reality, it will include an interconnection with the Algonquin pipeline, thereby providing the Project with an alternative transportation route. Affiliates of Ramapo Energy, currently own or have agreements in place for a portfolio of gas supply and firm transportation. Ramapo Energy has 30,200 MMBtu per day of firm transportation on Algonquin Gas Transmission (AGT) that can access the Ramapo site via secondary delivery point rights pursuant to AGT's FERC tariff. In addition, affiliates of Ramapo Energy have entered into precedent agreements for 50,000 MMBtu per of firm transportation on Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) that delivers into AGT at Mendon, MA. This gas can flow to Ramapo on a firm basis via a "backhaul" by displacing gas entering the AGT system south of Ramapo. Finally, affiliates of Ramapo Energy have entered into gas supply contracts for firm bundled delivery to points in Massachusetts via TGP and AGT for volumes of 43,000 MMBtu per day and 43,000 MMBtu per day, respectively. These two gas supply contracts allow affiliates of Ramapo Energy to deliver the • gas at alternate delivery points that could include Ramapo. Thus, Ramapo Energy will own or control a portfolio of gas or gas transportation of up to 166,200 MMBtu per day, some or all of which could be delivered to the Ramapo Energy Project. In addition to the above, Ramapo Energy is considering purchasing additional primary firm transportation on AGT and Texas Eastern Transmission or additional gas or transportation via the thriving natural gas "secondary" market for these services which has developed since FERC Order 636 was promulgated in 1992. The Ramapo Energy Project is uniquely situated to purchase gas or transportation in the secondary market because it is located at the beginning of AGT pipeline system with over 1,000 MMcf of gas capacity passing by the Project's site. This provides ample secondary opportunities to purchase gas or transportation. Primary owners of firm transportation will resell firm capacity in a secondary market when it is economically advantageous. Ramapo Energy will manage its portfolio above in addition to purchasing other gas or gas transportation in this daily secondary market to provide gas to the Ramapo Energy Project. j:\a311 -004\a311 -004.3(sbreview)\errata 5\section 18.doc Ramapo Article X Application Section 18: Natural Gas Interconnection Revised April 2001 Page 18-4 Finally, because the Ramapo plant is a merchant power plant, Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership (Ramapo Energy) may sell all or a portion of the electric output of the Ramapo plant via gas "tolling" contracts. Tolling allows third parties to supply their gas to the Ramapo plant and receive electricity in return for paying Ramapo Energy a tolling fee. Ramapo Energy will not "lock-in" all of the firm gas supply needed for the Ramapo plant because it then may have to forego a potential tolling opportunity. The daily gas market provides gas for those willing to pay the most competitive price, if Ramapo Energy does not "toll" the plant gas will be purchased in this daily market. 18.4 Local Distribution Company (LDC) The Project will contract for gas directly from the interstate pipeline system. Because the Project is located nearly in the center of a triangle consisting of three interstate pipelines there is no detrimental impact to Orange and Rockland Utilities, the LDC. In fact, part of the Project's portfolio of supply will consist of pipeline transportation "released" into the marketplace by the LDCs when they are not using it. This will increase the value of existing pipeline transportation. Traditionally LDCs have released capacity below the LDCs cost in order to "recover" some of the interstate pipeline costs in the non-peak periods. The presence of an additional gas load due to the Project should allow the LDC to recover more of its interstate pipeline costs in the capacity release market. Thus, the Project will have a beneficial effect on the LDC. 18.5 Cumulative Analysis As stated before the Project will need an approximate maximum of 190 MMcf for 24 hour per day operation. Based on the ratio of the Projects' output, the Tome Valley Station's estimated need is a maximum of approximately 140 MMcf per day. Thus, together both projects will require a total of 330 MMcf per day, which is only 12% of the total expected available throughput of the system. As a result of discussions with various interstate gas transmission companies, it is reasonable to conclude there will be ample capacity to supply both projects. j:\a311-O04\a311-O04.3(sbreview)\errata5\section 18.doc | New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Air Permit Application DEC ID APPLICATION ID - 1 - 1 1 / 1 1 Section I - Certification Title V Certification 1 (xrWy under penalty of law that this document and all attachments vvere prepared under my directs a system designed to assure that quaMed personnel property gather and evaluate the Information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for gathering the Intormation [required pursuant to 8 NYCRR 201-8.3(d)] 1 believe die information Is, true, accurate and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information. Including the possibility of fines and Imprisonment for knowing violations. Responslbie Official Title Date. 1 1 State Facility Certification I certgy that this facility wM be operated in confomnance with all provisions of existing regulations. Responsible Official Guy Marehmont Title Vice President Mgnatore Date- CJ UCU/tjAAu^X S> ' & i ol Section II - Identification Information Tide V Facility Pemut State Facility Peimit 0 New 0 Slgniflcant Modification D Administrative Amendment 3 New D Modification 0 Renewal 0 Minor Modification General Pemrit Title: General Peimit THte: ^Application Involves construction of new facility Q Application involves constructicm of new emission unit(s) Owner/Firm Name Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership Street Address 65 Boston Post Road City Marl borough State MA Country USA Zip 01762 Owner Ciassmcation- d Pederal d State 0 Municipal Taxpayer 10 Corporation/Partnership 0 individual a Facility 0 Confidential Name Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership Location Address Tome Valley Road D City / BTTown /0 Village Ramapo Zip 10931 Project Description 0 Continuation Sheet(s) The proposed Facility will consist of tour natural gas-fited combustion turbines with a nominal etedric generating capacity of approximately 1100 megawatts. Refer to Section 1.0 of the Article X Application for additional details. Owner/Firm Contact Mailing Address Name (Last, First Middle Initial) Marehmont, Guy Phone No. (508) 788-7214 Affiliation Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership | Title Vice President Fax No. (608) 786-7201 | Street Address 65 Boston Post Road West, Suite 300 | City Mariborough | State' MA | Country US Zip 01752 Facility Contact Mailing Address Name (Last, First Middle Initial) Marehmont Guy Phone No. (608) 786-7214 Afflliatlon Ramapo Enerqy Limited Partnership Title Vice President Fax No. (508) 788-7201 II Street Address 65 Boston Post Road West. Suite 300 1 City Mariborough State - MA Country US A Zip —01752 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Air Permit Application DEC ID Section IV - Emission Unit Information Emission Unit Description 0 Continuation Sheet(s) EMISSION UNIT V 0 0 0 0 1 Four combustion turbines and associated heat recovery steam generators that exhaust to four individual stacks. The turbine will be an Alstom Power GT-24 or equivalent, employing dry low NO, technology and Tiring natural gas. selective catalytic reduction system is proposed for further NO, control on each unit. Steam injection may be used when ambient temperatures exceed 50° F. Building O Continuation Sheet(s) Building Building Name Length (ft) Width (ft) Orientation 1 Turbine Hall 1 100 95 90 2 Turbine Hall 2 100 95 90 3 Turbine Hall 3 100 95 90 4 Turbine Hall 4 100 95 90 Emission Point ^Continuation Sheet(s) EMISSION PT. S 0 0 0 1 Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) 600 180 108 216 225 Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM(N) Distance to Date of (EPS) ' (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal 59.4 225 EMISSION PT. S 0 0 0 2 Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) (f0 Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) 600 180 108 216 225 Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NVTM(N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal 59.4 225 Emission Source/Control ^Continuation Sheet(s) Emission Source Date ot Date ot Date ot Control lype ID lype Construction Operation Removal Code Description Manufacturers Name/Model No. G001 C GT-24 (or equivalent) Design Design Capacity Units Waste teed Waste lype Capacity Code Description Code Description Code Description 1930 201 || Emission Source Date ot Date oi Date ot Control lype ID lype Construction Operation Removal Code Description Manufacturers Name/Model No. G002 C GT-24 (or equivalent) Design Design Ca pacity Units Waste Feed Waste lype Capacity Code Description Code Description Code Description 1930 201 6 of 25 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Air Permit Application DEC ID Section IV - Emission Unit Information Emission Point (continuation) EMISSION UNIT U 0 1 EMISSION PT. | S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) (ft) Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) 620 180 108 216 225 Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM (N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal 906,927.^: , • Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) (ftl Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) 620 180 108 216 225 Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM (N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal 59.4 571.299 ' 4555.059'•• . 200 - • '-' EMISSION UNIT EMISSION PT. Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) (ft) Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM (N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal EMISSION UNIT EMISSION PT. Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) m Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM (N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal EMISSION UNIT EMISSION PT. Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) (ft) Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM (N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal EMISSION UNIT EMISSION PT. Ground Elev. Height Height Above Inside Diameter Exit Temp. Cross Section (ft) m Structure (ft) (in) (F) Length (in) Width (in) Exit Velocity Exit Flow NYTM (E) NYTM (N) Distance to Date of (FPS) (ACFM) (KM) (KM) Building Property Line (ft) Removal 7 of 25