SECTION 1. WATER RESOURCES

Compiled by Otto S. Zapecza, Donald R. Rice and Vincent T. dePaul, U.S. Geological Survey

Purpose and Scope

This section of the technical report provides the supporting data and describes the data sources, methodologies and assumptions used in the assessment of the water resources and the potential change to those resources as presented in the “New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update” (USDA Forest Service, 2002) referred to hereafter as “the Highlands study report.” Included in this technical report are Highlands ground water and surface water use data and the methods of data compilation and estimation. Streamflow records from selected USGS gauging stations are tabulated and stream baseflow is estimated. The methods of watershed analysis are discussed and the water budget data are provided. Information on Highlands surface water quality trends is presented in a series of maps. USGS web sites are provided as sources for additional information on ground water levels, streamflow records, and ground and surface water quality data. Interpretation of these data and significant findings are documented in the Highlands study report.

1-1. Withdrawals of Ground Water and Surface Water

Introduction

In order to evaluate existing hydrologic conditions within the Highlands study area, an assessment of the volume of water withdrawn from aquifers, reservoirs and other surface water sources was performed. Site-specific and aggregated data on withdrawals of ground water and surface water in 1995 were collected and compiled with other reported and estimated Highlands water use data. New Jersey and New York water use data were collected differently because each State has different requirements regarding water use regulation and monitoring.

New Jersey data included metered withdrawals for all categories of use (public supply, commercial, industrial, irrigation, mining, and thermoelectric power) reported to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as monthly values. Data on water withdrawals in New York State were collected from various sources including the New York District of the USGS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), New York State Department of Health, and directly from public suppliers. Total withdrawals of freshwater in the Highlands in 1995 were estimated to be approximately 695 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), including 145 Mgal/d of ground water and 550 Mgal/d of surface water.

The results of the assessment are presented in the Highlands study report “New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update” in the sections under the heading 2. Resource Assessment and Conservation Values, Ground Water—Aquifers and Wells and Surface Water—Streams, Rivers and Reservoirs. The water withdrawal data and methods of compilation are provided below.

Highlands Water-Use Data Tables (on CD in back pocket)

1995 New Jersey Ground Water Withdrawal data = nj_wells.xls

1995 New York Ground Water Withdrawal data = ny_wells.xls

Information provided includes County, Township, HUC 14 (in NJ), Well Owner, Well Name, Land Surface Elevation, Well Depth, Aquifer tapped, Type of Use (public supply, industrial, irrigation etc.), and 1995 Withdrawals in Million Gallons Per Year.

1995 New Jersey Domestic Water use estimates = domusenj.xls

1995 New York Domestic Water use estimates = domuseny.xls

Information provided includes County, Township, and 1995 Estimated Withdrawals in Million Gallons Per Year.

1995 New Jersey Surface Water Withdrawal data = nj_swuse.xls

1995 New York Surface Water Withdrawal data = ny_swuse.xls

Information provided includes County, Township, HUC 14 (in NJ), User Name, Site Name, Use (public supply, irrigation, etc.), and 1995 Withdrawals in Million Gallons Per Year.

Data Sources, Compilation and Methods of Estimation

New Jersey Data

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) requires all nonagricultural water users capable of withdrawing more than 100,000 gallons per day (70 gallons per minute) to obtain water allocation permits. As conditions of these permits, the users must submit metered monthly withdrawal data to the NJDEP on an annual or quarterly basis. Agricultural (irrigation) water users must submit monthly data also, however these withdrawals are rarely metered and are usually estimates of hours of use multiplied by the pump capacity. These monthly data are entered in the NJDEP Bureau of Water Allocation database and transferred electronically to the USGS.

Data on nondomestic withdrawals of ground and surface water use in New Jersey were compiled from electronic retrievals of owner data, site data, and monthly withdrawal data provided by NJDEP. Paper records of the withdrawal data for public suppliers and high-volume commercial and industrial users were used to correct inconsistencies or omissions from the electronic retrievals. Aggregated withdrawal values were disaggregated using ancillary data (well identified as standby or emergency, pump capacity) and previously reported annual withdrawal data.

Most public-supply, commercial, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric-power water use data were site-specific and metered withdrawals. Irrigation water use for non-agricultural purposes such as golf courses, recreational facilities, and community parks were also site-specific and metered withdrawals; however, agricultural/horticultural irrigation water use data were site-specific, but values were estimated. Farmers estimated monthly withdrawals by monitoring pump capacity, application rate, and pumping time.

Withdrawal values that were reported as combined withdrawals for multiple wells or well fields or for wells and surface-water withdrawals in New Jersey were disaggregated based on the most site-specific reported data. For example, if data for a single water-allocation permit were reported only as aggregated values, the values were divided by the number of wells associated with that permit. Wells or surface water sites that were identified as “standby” or “emergency” were not included in the distribution of the aggregated withdrawal value.

New York Data

In New York, water use is monitored less extensively than it is in New Jersey. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the primary agency responsible for water resources management. NYSDEC administers the Water-Supply Permit Program, which requires a permit for public supply withdrawals. The New York State Department of Health, through its County offices or County health departments, collects public supply water use data, however, water suppliers in New York are not required to report withdrawal information. Therefore, withdrawals in New York were compiled from County health departments, directly from water suppliers and from published data. Withdrawal data were collected from the Orange County Health Department, Suffern Village Water Department, and United Water New York. Withdrawals of surface water for the Village of Nyack were obtained from Reed and others (1996 and 1997). The withdrawal data for the Croton Reservoir system is from 1990 (Linsey and others, 1997) as 1995 data were not available.

Unreported public supply withdrawals in the New York Highlands were estimated by multiplying the population served as reported in USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database by a per capita coefficient. Several coefficients were applied when local variations in withdrawals were known. A coefficient of 85 gal/d was used for public suppliers who serve only residential customers (residential subdivision, mobile home parks). A coefficient of 116 gal/d was used for seven public suppliers who deliver water to residential and other customers in Orange County based on the monthly withdrawal data (October 1992-September 1996) reported to the Orange County Health Department. When local usage was not known, a coefficient of 100 gallons per day person (gal/d) was used for public suppliers who deliver to both residential and non-residential customers (commercial, industrial, public use).

The withdrawals of commercial and industrial users in New York were estimated by applying water-use coefficients based on the number of employees and the type of establishment. The coefficients were developed as part of the Institute for Water Resources (IWR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Municipal and Industrial Needs (MAIN) water demand model (Opitz and others, 1994). The IWR-MAIN model provides nonresidential water-use coefficients (gallons per employee per day) based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of the water user. SIC was the statistical classification system used in Federal economic statistics to identify the activity of the economic unit or establishment (OMB, 1987). In addition, estimated withdrawals of commercial and industrial users in New York were compared with reported withdrawals of similar businesses in New Jersey to identify and correct any inconsistencies of New York data.

Estimating Domestic Water Use

Self-supplied domestic water use was estimated for each municipality in the Highlands based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data on population, number of housing units, and 1990 U.S. Census data on source of water. To determine the self-supplied domestic population, the publicly supplied population in the study area was first estimated. The 1990 U.S. Census of Housing provides data on “source of water” (public system or private company; individual well, drilled or dug; or some other source) by housing unit, as well as the number of total housing units by municipality. The number of persons per housing unit was determined by dividing the population by the number of housing units. To estimate the publicly supplied population, the number of persons per housing unit was multiplied by the number of housing units reported to be served by public suppliers. The number of self-supplied domestic users was then calculated by subtracting the number of publicly supplied persons from the total population. The domestic water use for each municipality was estimated by multiplying the number of persons with self-supplied water within each municipality by a per capita use coefficient of 85 gallons per day. All domestic water use was assumed to be from ground water.

1-2. Ground-Water Level Data

Long-term ground-water level monitoring data from selected USGS network observation wells presented in the Highlands study report (Figure 1-1) provided important information on how water levels within Highlands’ aquifers respond to seasonal changes in climate, changes in recharge patterns, and the effect of ground-water withdrawals.

Figure 1-1A. hydrographs 1 through 4 show how ground water levels in various Highlands aquifers respond to seasonal changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration and water use. Water levels typically are highest in winter and early spring as a result of reduced evapotranspiration, low temperatures, snowmelt, and spring rains that recharge the aquifers. Ground water levels typically start to decline as summer begins and continue to decline through late fall. Water use is highest in summer when water is used for irrigation and recreation. More water evaporates from land surface and transpires from plants also reducing recharge. Water levels are typically lowest in the late fall, and they rise again during winter, completing the cycle.

Figure 1-1B. shows a water-level hydrograph from a well where water levels have been recorded since 1966. This well is used to monitor water levels in the glacial aquifer system within the Whippany River Basin. The declining water levels shown in this well are typical of those from wells located in this part of the Highlands and in wells in municipalities to the east within the basin. The declining water levels are a result of ground water withdrawals from the aquifer exceeding the natural recharge rate of the aquifer.

Figure 1-1. Water-level trends in five Highlands wells, Morris County, New Jersey. A. Hydrographs showing typical seasonal fluctuations. B. Hydrograph showing long-term water-level declines due to ground water withdrawals.

Additional ground-water level data collected by the USGS, associated well information, and long term water-level hydrographs available within the Highlands and other areas of New Jersey (Figure 1-2) and New York State can be accessed from the following USGS web sites:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nj/nwis/gw New Jersey Ground Water Data

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/gw New York State Ground Water Data

Figure 1-2. Ground-water data for New Jersey (web site).

1-3. Streamflow Data and Baseflow Determination

Streamflow records integrate the effects of climate, topography, and geology of a specific drainage area and show the distribution and magnitude of total stream runoff in time. Long-term streamflow data are important for assessing changes that result from climatic conditions or human activities such as agricultural practices, urbanization, and ground water development.

Selected streamflow data collected at 37 continuous gauging stations within the Highlands study area are provided in table format in the file streamflow.xls. Figure 1-3 provides the location of the gauging stations and station identifier information.

Figure 1-3. Location of selected streamflow gauging stations in the New York–New Jersey Highlands study area. Station number, name, county, drainage area above the stream gauge and period of analysis are provided in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Highlands streamflow gauging stations, their drainage area, and period of record. Total streamflow and estimated baseflow data for these stations are provided in the file streamflow.xls.

Map ID	Station number	Station Name	County	Drainage area (sq. miles)	Period of analysis
1	01369000	Pochuck Creek near Pine Island, NY	Orange	98	1938-76
2	01372800	Fishkill Creek at Hopewell Junction, NY	Dutchess	57.3	1964-75
3	01372850	Whortlekill Creek at Hopewell Junction, NY	Dutchess	7.37	1960-67
4	01373690	Woodbury Creek near Highland Mills, NY	Orange	11.2	1966-67
5	01374420	Lake Tiorati Brook at Cedar Flats, NY	Rockland	10.6	1961-62
6	0137449480	East Branch Croton River near Putnam Lake, NY	Putnam	62.1	1996-99
7	01374559	West Branch Croton River at Richardsville, NY	Putnam	11	1996-99
8	01374598	Horse Pound Brook near Lake Carmel, NY	Putnam	4.94	1997-2000
9	01378690	Passaic River near Bernardsville, NJ	Somerset	8.83	1968-75
10	01379000	Passaic River near Millington, NJ	Somerset	55.4	1980-2000
11	01379700	Rockaway River at Berkshire Valley, NJ	Morris	24.4	1986-95
12	01379773	Green Pond Brook at Picatinny Arsenal	Morris	7.65	1983-2000
13	01383500	Wanaque River at Awosting	Passaic	27.1	1920-2000
14	01384000	Wanaque River at Monks,NJ	Passaic	40.4	1935-84
15	01384500	Ringwood Creek near Wanaque, NJ	Passaic	19.1	1935-78, 1986-2000
16	01385000	Cupsaw Brook near Wanaque, NJ	Passaic	4.4	1935-57
17	01386000	West Brook near Wanaque	Passaic	11.8	1935-77
18	01387250	Ramapo River at Sloatsburg, NY	Rockland	60.1	1960-62
19	01387400	Ramapo River at Ramapo, NY	Rockland	86.9	1980-99
20	01387450	Mahwah River near Suffern, NY	Rockland	12.3	1959-96
21	01387480	Mahwah River at Suffern, NY	Rockland	20.7	1960-61
22	01396190	South Branch Raritan River at Four Bridges, NJ	Morris	31.0	1999-2000
23	01396500	South Branch Raritan River near High Bridge, NJ	Hunterdon	65.3	1919-2000
24	01396580	Spruce Run at Glen Gardner, NJ	Hunterdon	11.3	1992-2000
25	01396660	Mulhockaway Creek at Van Syckel, NJ	Hunterdon	11.8	1978-2000
26	01398500	North Branch Raritan River near Far Hills, NJ	Somerset	26.2	1922-74, 1978-99
27	01399190	Lamington River at Succasunna, NJ	Morris	7.37	1977-86
28	01399500	Lamington River near Pottersville, NJ	Morris	32.8	1922-2000
29	01399510	Upper Cold Brook near Pottersville, NJ	Hunterdon	2.18	1983-95
30	01399670	South Branch Rockaway Creek at Whitehouse Station, NJ	Hunterdon	12.3	1978-2000
31	01399700	Rockaway Creek at Whitehouse, NJ	Hunterdon	37.1	1978-83
32	01445000	Pequest River at Huntsville, NJ	Sussex	31.0	1940-61
33	01445500	Pequest River at Pequest, NJ	Warren	106	1922-2000
34	01446000	Beaver Brook near Belvidere, NJ	Warren	36.7	1923-60
35	01455200	Pohatcong Creek at New Village, NJ	Warren	33.3	1960-68
36	01455355	Beaver Brook near Weldon, NJ	Morris	1.72	1969-70
37	01457000	Musconetcong River near Bloomsbury, NJ	Warren	141	1922-2000

Information on drainage area (area of watershed above the stream gauge), period of record (how long the gauge has been operating), mean annual discharge for the period of record, the highest mean annual discharge, and the lowest mean annual discharge at each gauge is provided in the file streamflow.xls. Mean annual discharge in cubic feet per second per square mile and mean annual discharge in inches over the drainage basin also are included. These values allow planners and researchers to compare the hydrologic characteristics of watersheds regardless of differences in their size. Mean annual discharge in cubic feet per second per square mile is the annual average of the cubic feet of water flowing per second past a gauging station for each square mile of area drained above the station, if runoff is assumed to be distributed uniformly in time and area (Reed and others, 2002). Mean annual discharge in inches over the drainage basin—the depth to which the drainage area would be covered if all the annual discharge were uniformly distributed over it—is a useful statistic because it can be compared to annual precipitation.

The long-term mean annual precipitation averaged over the Highlands study area is in the range of 44 to 52 inches per year. The annual discharge in inches over the drainage basin can be thought of as the amount of water that enters the basin as precipitation and leaves the basin as streamflow, after being diminished by evapotranspiration and ground or surface water withdrawals. Mean annual discharge at a gauging station, expressed in cubic feet per second per square mile or in inches over the drainage basin can be compared to the same statistic for nearby drainage basins. If these discharge values are substantially different, it is likely that either natural hydrologic conditions or land use changes has affected the discharge at one of the stations, or that the period of record at one of the stations is very short.

Baseflow determination at selected gauging stations

Total streamflow or stream discharge can be separated into two components, direct runoff and baseflow. Baseflow is the ground water contribution to streamflow. Baseflow and runoff are two important components of the water budget analyses for Highlands’ watersheds. Changes in baseflow or runoff are strong indicators of changes in watershed conditions. The amount of baseflow in a stream is a measure of the infiltration capacity and yield of the underlying ground water system. Baseflow conditions within a watershed can be equated to the amount of ground water recharge in the watershed when averaged over the long term. Therefore, baseflow is an important variable in watershed characterization and was estimated from existing long-term streamflow data.

Estimated baseflow data for the selected gauging stations described above are provided in the file streamflow.xls. Hydrograph separation provides a systematic method with which to estimate the baseflow and direct runoff components of total stream discharge. Direct runoff consists of overland runoff, interflow (water that travels laterally within the unsaturated zone during or directly after a precipitation event and discharges to streams without recharging the water table) and precipitation that falls directly on surface water bodies, while baseflow is composed largely of ground water discharge. Most hydrograph separation techniques identify time periods of negligible surface runoff where ground water discharge (baseflow) equals streamflow; ground water discharge is then interpolated between these periods.

The automated hydrograph separation technique used in this report and described by Rutledge (1998) uses streamflow partitioning to separate the direct runoff and ground water components of streamflow. The principal assumption of this method is that base flow (and therefore ground water discharge) is equal to streamflow on days that fit a requirement of antecedent recession; that is, streamflow on any one day is greater than or equal to streamflow on the following day with a subsequent decline of not more than one-tenth of a logarithmic cycle. When days do not fit this requirement, the larger declines or increased streamflow are assumed to result from changes in the runoff part of streamflow, and the ground water discharge part of streamflow is determined by linear interpolation.

There are 86 continuous streamflow record stations, both active and discontinued, within the Highlands study area. The 37 stations chosen for baseflow estimation had at least two or more complete years of continuous streamflow record available, were not significantly affected by flow diversion, regulation, or other inputs such as industrial or wastewater discharges, and had a drainage area less than 500 square miles.

Baseflow was calculated to range from 62.2 to 90.8 percent of streamflow, with an average of 75.2 percent for the 37 stations. The highest baseflow percentages are generally associated with those basins that are underlain with a high percentage of permeable aquifer materials (thick deposits of glacial sediments and/or carbonate rock) and with little development. The lowest baseflow percentages are generally associated with basins containing the highest percentages of impervious cover or where the geologic material is less permeable and overlain by thin, clayey soils such as those near the eastern margin of the study area.

Additional Streamflow Data

Detailed records of stream stage, discharge, streamflow statistics, peak discharge, long-term streamflow hydrographs and descriptive surface water site information within the Highlands and other areas of New Jersey and New York State can be accessed from the following USGS web sites:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nj/nwis/sw for New Jersey Surface Water Data (Figure 1-4)

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/sw for New York State Surface Water Data

Figure 1-4. Surface-water data for New Jersey (web site).

1-4. Watershed Assessment

Methods of Analysis

In order to evaluate existing hydrologic conditions on a watershed scale and potential changes to watershed hydrology based on future development scenarios, streamflow characteristics were simulated with a watershed model. The model was developed by the USGS in cooperation with the New Jersey Office of State Planning, for the purpose of defining streamflow characteristics associated with 820 biologic monitoring sites in New Jersey. The watershed model incorporates long-term climate, topography, soils, impervious surface, and water withdrawal data and is calibrated to existing long-term stream gauge data (Kauffman, L.J., USGS written communication 2001). The model provided water budget data for approximately three-fourths of the 1.5 million acre study area, including all of the New Jersey Highlands and the New York part of the Passaic River Basin. The model simulated the effect of increasing impervious surface area and ground water withdrawals on changing watershed characteristics. Predicted trends in changing watershed conditions within the modeled area including increased runoff, decreased baseflow, decreased evapotranspiration and an overall increase in streamflow related to the percent increase in impervious surface cover can be applied to areas of the Highlands outside of the modeled area.

Water budgets were analyzed at watershed and subwatershed scales related to previously defined Hydrologic Unit Codes (Ellis and Price, 1995). Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) refer to a numbering system used to identify the boundaries and the geographic area of drainage basins for the purpose of water-data management. The largest size drainage area is the HUC 8, (identified by an 8-digit number) which corresponds to the entire surface water drainage area for major river basins. These large drainage basins have been further subdivided into smaller watersheds HUC 11 (identified by an 11-digit number) and subwatersheds HUC 14 (identified by a 14-digit number) that drain specific reaches of streams and tributaries within the larger basin. Figure 1-5 shows a map of the 30 HUC 11 watersheds that are wholly or partially within the area of the watershed model used to simulate Highlands water budgets. Table 1-2. lists the eleven digit Hydrologic Unit Code as identified by Ellis and Price (1995) and associates each HUC 11 with a map identification number in Figure 1-2. Generalized names are given for watersheds based on the predominant stream draining each watershed. HUC 11 watersheds within the Highlands region have an average area of about 50 square miles and a maximum area of about 150 square miles. In contrast, HUC 14 subwatersheds have an average area of approximately 8 square miles and a maximum area of about 20 square miles. Figure 1-6. shows a map of the 182 HUC 14 subwatersheds in the modeled area.

Figure 1-5. HUC 11 watersheds within the Highlands simulated in the watershed model (index numbers identify specific HUC 11 watersheds as listed in Table 1-2).

Table 1-2. Map identifiers, HUC 11codes and watershed names for watersheds shown in Figure 1-5.

Figure 1-6. HUC 14 subwatersheds within the Highlands simulated in the watershed model.

Water Budget Data

The data used for the hydrologic assessment of Highlands watersheds as described in Section 2. Resource Assessment and Conservation Values, Water Budget, Watershed Conditions and

Section 3. Potential Changes and Resources at Risk, Changes in Water Resources of the New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update is provided in spreadsheet format. HUC11waterbudgets.xls provides the data for HUC 11 watersheds and HUC14waterbudgets.xls provides the data for HUC 14 subwatersheds.

These data were specifically used to develop Figures 2-11(Variations in baseflow by subwatersheds), Figure 3-15(Effect of impervious surfaces on streamflow), Figure 3-16 (Predicted changes in streamflow), Figure 3-17(Sustainable water yield, 1995) and Figure 3-18 (Sustainable water yield, low-constraint scenario) presented in the New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update.

The following data is provided for each HUC 11 watershed and HUC 14 subwatershed:

• Map ID related to Figure 1-5
• 11 and 14 digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) from Ellis and Price (1995)
• Watershed/subwatershed name (based on stream name or stream segment draining the basin)
• Area in square miles (within Highlands boundary)
• Average annual precipitation in inches per year

For the 1995, high-constraint (HC) scenario, and low-constraint (LC) scenario simulations, the following information is provided for each watershed:

• Evapotranspiration (ET) in inches per year
• Total streamflow in inches per year
• Runoff in inches per year
• Baseflow in inches per year
• Percent impervious surface
• Ground water withdrawals from major supply wells

The data provided for the water budget components; evapotranspiration, total streamflow, runoff, and baseflow, were derived from three separate watershed model simulations. The model simulations include 1995 conditions based on existing data and versions of two projected development scenarios based on a high and low-constraint build-out analysis. These future development scenarios are discussed in detail in this Technical Report in the section on build-out analysis. The simulations were used to evaluate how these four water budget components would change with respect to changes in impervious surface cover and ground water withdrawals on a watershed and subwatershed basis.

The model assumed that precipitation, surface water withdrawals, and discharge into streams do not change from scenario to scenario. The model assumed all additional water supply needs would be from ground water since ground water is the predominant source of water for Highlands residents. Ground water increases were based on population projections for the high and low-constraint scenarios at a rate of 85 gallons per day for per person. All 1995 ground water withdrawals from major supply wells and all additional withdrawals estimated for the build-out scenarios were assumed to be exported from each basin as treated sewage. All 1995 estimated domestic well withdrawals are considered returned near the point of withdrawal within the same watershed by a septic system. Not all precipitation that falls on impervious surfaces evaporates or discharges directly to streams; some returns to pervious area and infiltrates. Therefore, it was assumed that 70 percent of the impervious surface within a watershed was effective whereas the remaining 30 percent functions as pervious.

Overall, for each watershed or subwatershed, the model generated budget components of evapotranspiration, total streamflow (runoff+baseflow) plus ground water withdrawals balanced well with respect to total precipitation. Minor differences were attributed to changes in ground water storage.

Projected increases in impervious surface cover and ground water withdrawals based on the high and low-constraint build-out analysis were the factors driving the change in budget components between 1995 and the high and low-constraint development scenarios. A comparison of 1995, high-constraint, and low-constraint impervious surface cover and ground water withdrawals for HUC 11 watersheds are shown in Figure 1-7 and Figure 1-8, respectively. Variations in impervious surface cover between the high and low-constraint scenarios are relatively small when compared to each other, however, the projected increases are significant over the 1995 impervious surface cover. A similar relation is true for a comparison of ground water withdrawals. Therefore, the simulated water budgets show little change between the high- and low-constraint scenarios and the New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update compares only 1995 and the low-constraint scenario data in the discussion of changes in water resources.

Figure 1-7. Percent impervious surface cover for 1995, high-constraint (HC) and low-constraint (LC) development scenarios by HUC 11 watersheds. (HUC 11 watershed and map identifiers are shown in Figure 1-5).

Figure 1-8. Ground water withdrawals for HUC 11 watersheds in millions of gallons per day for 1995, high-constraint (HC) and low-constraint (LC) scenarios. (HUC 11 watershed and map identifiers are shown in Figure 1-5)

1-5. Ground and Surface Water Quality

Source of Data

Ground and surface-water-quality data analyzed for the New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update were retrieved from the following USGS web sites:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nj/nwis/qw for New Jersey Water Quality Data (Figure 1-9)

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/qw for New York State Water Quality Data

Figure 1-9. Water-quality data for New Jersey (web site).

Surface Water Quality Trends

In order to assess changes in Highlands’ surface water quality, trends in water quality were determined for samples collected from 23 locations on New Jersey Highlands’ streams for the period 1986 to 1995 (Barringer and Hickman, 1999). Figure 1-10 shows the location of the 23 stream sampling sites and the associated information identifying each site. Trend tests were run on selected water-quality constituents for samples from those sampling locations where seasonal data were available with at least 5 years of record. Comparable data were not available for sites in New York.

A trend in water quality is defined as a statistically significant increase or decrease in a particular constituent concentration over time. The statistical tests used to identify trends in Highlands’ stream water quality were the seasonal Kendall test and Tobit regression. The seasonal Kendall trend test is a non-parametric test that accounts for seasonal variations in concentrations by comparing ranks of data from the same recurring time intervals; for example, in a four-season year, springtime values are compared only to other springtime values, summer values to summer values and so forth. Because it is a non-parametric test, it does not require assumptions about the normality of the data.

Where 5 percent of the data was censored (non quantifiable or non detect) at more than one reporting limit, tobit regression was used. Tobit regression is a type of linear regression that considers both censored and non-censored values of the response variable (the unadjusted-water-quality constituent) and uses maximum-likelihood estimation for determining slope and intercept of the modeled trend line. Tobit regression does not account for seasonality. The seasonal Kendall is considered the more accurate test because surface-water quality data exhibit seasonal variation due to changing conditions from agricultural and residential land-use practices, biological activity, and precipitation.

Another major cause in surface water quality data variability is stream discharge. Water quality characteristics may be affected by streamflow in various ways. Specific conductance and many dissolved constituents are generally inversely related to discharge. Dissolved oxygen and suspended solids can typically increase with increased streamflow. Apparent trends in the unadjusted values alone may reflect changes in weather patterns. Increased precipitation (and increased streamflow) may serve to dilute dissolved constituents, thereby decreasing concentrations. Decreased precipitation may decrease total loads washing over land surface resulting in lower total constituent values and conversely increase contribution from base flow, oftentimes resulting in an increase in dissolved constituent concentration. Therefore, a flow adjustment technique is desirable.

Values were flow adjusted using a LOWESS (locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) curve. The LOWESS curve represents a nonlinear, smoothed relation between two variables (instantaneous discharge and each constituent). The method utilizes a series of weighted least squares regressions; observations are weighted by both distance from the fitted line and the magnitude of residuals from the previous regression. LOWESS is more desirable than simple regression because it makes no assumption of data linearity or normality. Tobit regression does not incorporate this flow adjustment.

Over the period of analysis, 1986 to 1995, many Highlands streams show some trends indicating improving water quality. Decreases in total ammonia, phosphorus and nitrogen are attributable to sewage treatment plant upgrades. Nitrates were increasing at several sites. Increasing nitrates in streams may be due to sewage treatment plant upgrades where new treatment processes are utilized to convert ammonia into nitrate for discharge. However, increasing nitrates may also be a result of changing land use patterns. Fecal coliform levels were generally stable. Degraded water quality was indicated by the trends for dissolved solids, sodium, and chloride concentrations, which were increasing at most sites, possibly due to road deicing or upstream point discharges. Summaries of the results of the trend tests are given in Table 1-3. Direction of trend for selected water-quality characteristics and site locations are shown on Figures 1-11 to
1-20.

Figure 1-10. Location of stream sampling sites used in the water quality trends analysis.

Table 1-3. Summary of trend tests for water-quality constituents at selected surface-water-quality stations in the Highlands region of New Jersey, water years 1986-95. [Modified from Hickman and Barringer, 1999; MPN, most probable number per 100 milliliters of water]
		Number of stations and result of test
	Unadjusted values			Flow-adjusted values
Constituent	Decrease	Increase	No change	Decrease	Increase	No change
Physical properties
pH	1	8	13	0	6	16
Dissolved oxygen	5	1	17	0	5	17
5-day biochemical oxygen demand	6	0	17	0	0	1
Alkalinity	0	5	13	0	3	13
Specific conductance	0	10	13	0	9	13
Nutrients and bacteria
Total Nitrogen	11	1	11	12	1	9
Total Ammonia	19	0	3	0	0	1
Total nitrite plus nitrate	0	6	17	1	6	15
Total phosphorus	15	0	8	8	0	3
Total organic carbon	5	1	11	3	0	12
Fecal coliform (MPN)	2	0	20	0	1	10
Dissolved constituents
Solids	0	12	5	0	10	6
Sodium	0	9	8	0	9	7
Calcium	0	9	8	0	5	11
Chloride	0	14	4	0	11	6
Sulfate	7	0	10	1	0	15

Figure 11. Results of trend tests for total nitrogen: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-11. Results of trend tests for total nitrogen: a) unadjusted constituent and b) flow adjusted constituent value

Figure 1-11. c) Results of trend tests for total ammonia; unadjusted constituent value only.

Figure 1-12. Results of trend tests for total nitrite plus nitrate: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-13. Results of trend tests for total phosphorus: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-14. Results of trend tests for fecal coliform (MPN): a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-15. Results of trend tests for dissolved chloride: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-16. Results of trend tests for dissolved sodium: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-17. Results of trend tests for specific conductance: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-18. Results of trend tests for total dissolved solids: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-19. Results of trend tests for dissolved oxygen: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

Figure 1-20. Results of trend tests for pH: a) unadjusted constituent value and b) flow-adjusted constituent value.

1-6. References

Ellis, William H., and Price, Curtis V., 1995, Development of a 14-digit Hydrologic coding scheme and boundary data set for New Jersey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4134, 1 plate.

Hickman, R.E. and Barringer, T.H., 1999. Trends in water quality of New Jersey streams, water years 1986-95: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4204; 174 p.

Kauffman, L.J., U.S. Geological Survey, written communication, 2001.

Linsey K.A., Wolcott S.W. and Schoonmaker N.B. 1999 Identification of potential water resources monitoring sites in the Croton Reservoir System, southeastern New York. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-638; 36p.

Office of Management and Budget, 1987, Standard Industrial Classification Manual: U.S. Government Printing, 548 p.

Opitz, E.M., Steinbeck, J.R.M., and Dziegielewski, Benedykt, 1994, Application of the IWR-MAIN water demand analysis software, version 6.0, selected study areas in the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority service area: Carbondale, Ill., Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., 112 p.

Reed T.J., DeLuca, M.J., Centinaro, G.L., and Hutchinson, 1996, Water-resources data, New Jersey, water year 1995, v.1—Surface-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report N.J.-95-1, 512 p.

Reed T.J., Centinaro, G.L., DeLuca, M.J., Hutchinson, 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.

Reed T.J., White, B.T., Centinaro, G.L., Dudek, J.F., Corcino, V., Spehar, A.B., and Protz, A.R. 2002, Water-resources data, New Jersey, water year 2001, v.1—Surface-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NJ-01-1, 297 p.

Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing the recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow records—Update: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4148, 43 p.

USDA Forest Service, 2002, New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update.

1-7. Bibliography of USGS Reports

New York Highlands

Archer, R. J., and Turk, J. T., 1977, Discharge and water-quality data for selected streams at low flow including some bottom-material analyses, and limnological study of six lakes, Westchester County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-781, 72 p.

Asselstine, E. S., and Grossman, I. G., 1955, The ground-water resources of Westchester County, New York, part 1, records of wells and test holes: New York State Water Power and Control Commission Bulletin GW-35, 79 p.

Ayer, G. R., and Pauszek, F. H., 1968, Streams in Dutchess County, N.Y., their flow characteristics and water quality in relation to planning for the future: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Resources Commission Bulletin 63, 105 p.

Barnes, C. R., 1986, Method for estimating low-flow statistics for ungaged streams in lower Hudson River basin, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4070, 22 p., 5 figs.

Bugliosi, E. F., and Trudell, R. A., 1988, Potential yields of wells in unconsolidated aquifers in upstate New York--lower Hudson sheet: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4274, 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000.

Butch, G.K., Murray, P.M., Robideau, J.A., Gardner, J.A. 2^nd, 2002 Water resources data, New York, water year 2001, Volume 1. Eastern New York, excluding Long Island: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NY-01-1, 592 p.

Eissler, B. B., 1978, Selected low-flow characteristics of streams in the vicinity of Warwick, Orange County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-811, 21 p.

Frimpter, M. H., 1970, Ground-water basic data, Orange and Ulster Counties, New York: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Resources Commission Bulletin 65, 93 p.

Frimpter, M. H., 1972, Ground-water resources of Orange and Ulster Counties, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1985, 80 p.

Garber, M. S., 1985, Effects of increased pumpage on a fractured-bedrock aquifer system in central Orange County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4348, 27 p.

Grossman, I. G., 1957, The ground water resources of Putnam County, New York: New York State Water Power and Control Commission Bulletin GW-37, 78 p.

Heisig, P. M., 2000, Effects of residential and agricultural land uses on the chemical quality of baseflow of small streams in the Croton Watershed, southeastern New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4173, 16 p.

Irwin, D. J., 1988, Thickness and potential well yield of the stratified deposits in the Croton River basin, Putnam County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4120, 3 sheets.

Linsey, K. S., Wolcott, S. W., and Schoonmaker, N. B., 1999, Identification of potential water-resources-monitoring sites in the Croton Reservoir System, Southeastern New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-638, 36 p.

Lumia, Richard, 1982, Evaluation of rainfall-runoff data network, Rockland County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 81-49, 24 p.

Lumia, Richard, 1984, Flood discharge profiles of selected streams in Rockland County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4049, 32 p.

Lumia, Richard, 1991, Regionalization of flood discharges for rural, unregulated streams in New York, excluding Long Island: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4197, 119 p.

Moore, R. B., Cadwell, D. H., Stelz, W. G., and Belli, J. L., 1982, Geohydrology of the valley-fill aquifer in the Ramapo and Mahwah Rivers area, Rockland County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-114, 6 sheets, scale 1:24,000.

Moore, R. B., LaFleur, R. G., and others, 1982, Geohydrology of the valley-fill aquifer in the Sprout and Fishkill Creeks area, Dutchess County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-81, 6 sheets, scale 1:24,000.

Parker, R. A., 1993, Stratigraphic relations of the sedimentary rocks below the Lower Jurassic Orange Mountain Basalt, northern Newark Basin, New Jersey and New York U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Investigations Study MF-2208, 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000, in color.

Perlmutter, N. M., 1959, Geology and ground-water resources of Rockland County, New York: New York State Water Power and Control Commission Bulletin GW-42, 133 p.

Reynolds, R. J., 1988, Hydrogeology of the Croton-Ossining area, Westchester County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4159, 5 plates, scale 1:12,000.

Simmons, E.T., Grossman, I.G., and Heath, R.C., 1961, Ground-water resources of Dutchess County, New York: New York State Water Resources Commission Bulletin GW-43, 82 p.

Snavely, D. S., 1980, Ground-water appraisal of the Fishkill-Beacon area, Dutchess County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Open-File Report 80-437, 14 p.

Snow, R. F., and Wolcott, S. W., 1992, Estimated thickness and potential well yield of stratified-drift deposits in selected areas of northern Westchester County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4030, 6 plates, scale 1:24,000.

Thompson, D. G., and Harrington, A. W., 1935, Ground-water conditions along Croton River below New Croton Dam, New York: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report, 57 p.

Wall, G. R., Riva-Murray, Karen, and Phillips, P. J., 1998, Water Quality in the Hudson River Basin, New York and Adjacent States, 1992-95: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1165, 32 p.

Waller, R. M., 1979, Ground-water appraisal for the community of Kiryas Joel, Orange County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-0401, 23 p.

Waller, R. M., and Finch, A. J., 1982 Atlas of eleven selected aquifers in New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Open-File Report 82-553, 255 p.

Williams, J. H. and Conger, R. W., 1990, Preliminary delineation of contaminated water-bearing fractures intersected by open-hole bedrock wells: Ground Water Monitoring Review, v. 10, no. 4, p. 118-126.

Wolcott, S. W., 1987, Potential well yields from unconsolidated deposits in the lower Hudson and Delaware River basins, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4042, 1 sheet.

Wolcott, S. W., and Irwin, D. J., 1988, Estimated thickness and potential well yield of stratified-drift deposits in the upper Croton River basin, Westchester County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4287, 6 sheets.

Wolcott, S. W., and Snow, R. V., 1995, Computation of bedrock-aquifer recharge in northern Westchester County, New York, and chemical quality of water from selected bedrock wells: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4157, 57 p.

New Jersey Highlands

Anderson, P.W. and Faust, S.D., 1974, Water quality and streamflow characteristics, Raritan River basin, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 14-74, 82 p.

Baehr, A.L., and Reilly, T.J., 2001, Water quality and occurrence of Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and other fuel-related compounds in lakes and ground water at lakeside communities in Sussex and Morris Counties, New Jersey, 1998-1999: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4149, 86 p.

Baehr, A.L. and Zapecza, O.S., 1998, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and other volatile organic compounds in lakes in Byram Township, Sussex County, New Jersey, summer 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4264, unpaginated.

Baker, D.R. and Buddington, A.F., 1970, Geology and magnetite deposits of the Franklin quadrangle and part of the Hamburg quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 638, 73 p.

Barringer, T.H., Reiser, G. and Price, C., 1994, Potential effects of development on flow characteristics of two streams in the Raritan River Basin, New Jersey: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 30, no. 2 283-295.

Buxton, D.E., Hunchak-Kariouk, Kathryn and Hickman, R.E., 1999, Relations of surface-water quality to streamflow in the Wallkill and upper Delaware River Basins, New Jersey and vicinity, water years 1976-93: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4016, 98 p.

Buxton, D.E., Hunchak-Kariouk, Kathryn, and Hickman, R.E., 1999, Relations of surface-water quality to streamflow in the Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, water years 1976-93: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4045, 109 p.

Buxton, D.E., Hunchak-Kariouk, Kathryn, Hickman, R.E., 1998, Relations of surface-water quality to streamflow in the Hackensack, Passaic, Elizabeth, and Rahway River Basins, New Jersey, water years 1976-93: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4049, 102

Carswell, L.D. and Rooney, J.G., 1976, Summary of geology and ground-water resources of Passaic County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 76-75, 47 p.

Czarnik, T.S. and Kozinski, Jane, 1994, Ground-water quality in the central part of the Passaic River Basin, northeastern New Jersey, 1959-88: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4083, 66 p.

Davis, R.E., Drake, Jr., A.A. and Epstein, J.B., 1967, Geologic map of the Bangor quadrangle, Pennsylvania-New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 665, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

DeLuca, M.J., Mattes, G.L., Burns, H.L., 2001, Water resources data for New Jersey-water year 2000, Volume 3. Water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NJ-00-3, 618 p.

Drake, Jr., A.A., 1967, Geologic map of the Bloomsbury quadrangle, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 595, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

Drake, Jr., A.A., 1967, Geologic map of the Easton quadrangle, New Jersey-Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 594, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

Drake, Jr., A.A. and Lyttle, P.T., 1985, Geologic map of the Blairstown quadrangle, Warren County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 1585, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

Drake, Jr., A.A., McLaughlin, D.B. and Davis, R.E., 1967, Geologic map of the Riegelsville quadrangle Pennsylvania-New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 593, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

Drake, Jr., A.A. and Volkert, R.A., 1993, Bedrock geologic map of the Newton East quadrangle, Sussex County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map 1707, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.

Drake Jr., A.A., Volkert, R.A., Monteverde, D.H., Herman, G.C., Houghton, H.F., Parker, R.A. and Dalton, R.F., 1996, Bedrock geologic map of northern New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2540-A, 2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

Dunne, Paul and Tasker, Gary, 1996, Computer model of Raritan River Basin water-supply system in central New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-360, 62 p.

Dunne, Paul and Tasker, Gary, 1996, Managing drought risk with a computer model of the Raritan River Basin water-supply system in central New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-206-96.

Gill, H.E. and Vecchioli, John, 1965, Availability of ground water in Morris County, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development Special Report 25, 56 p.

Gill, H.E., Vecchioli, John and Bonini, W.E., 1965, Tracing the continuity of Pleistocene aquifers in northern New Jersey by seismic methods: Ground Water, v. 3, no. 4, October 1965.

Gordon, Alison D., 1995, Hydrogeology of, and simulated ground-water flow in, the valley-fill aquifers of the upper Rockaway River Basin, Morris County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4145, p. 74.

Gordon, Alison D., 2002, Simulation of transient ground-water flow in the valley-fill aquifers of the upper Rockaway River Basin, Morris County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4174, p. 47. Harte, P.T., Sargent, B.P. and Vowinkel, E.F., 1986, Description and results of test-drilling program at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, 1982-84: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-316, 54 p.

Hill, M.C., Lennon, G.P., Brown, G.A., Hebson, C.S. and Rheaume, S.J., 1992, Geohydrology of, and simulation of ground-water flow in, the valley-fill deposits in the Ramapo River Valley, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4151, 92 p., 4 pls.

Horwitz, G.M. and Anderson, P.W., 1966, Time-of-travel measurements on the Passaic and Pompton Rivers, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 550-B, Chap. B, p. B199-B203.

Jones, W.D., 2001, Water resources data for New Jersey-water year 2000, Volume 2. Ground-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NJ-00-2, 233 p.

Lacombe, P.J. and Duran, P.D., 1988, Map of bedrock-surface topography in parts of the Paterson and Pompton Plains quadrangles, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4061, 1 sheet.

Lacombe, P.J., Sargent, B.P., Harte, P.T. and Vowinkel, E.F., 1986, Determination of geohydrologic framework and extent of ground-water contamination using surface geophysical techniques at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4051, 31 p.

Lyttle, P.T. and Epstein, J.B., 1987, Geologic map of the Newark 1 x2 quadrangle, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 1715, 2 sheets, scale 1:250,000

McAuley, S.D., Nicholson, R.S., Barringer, J.L. and Blyskun, G.J., 1992, Plan to evaluate the hydrogeology of the valley-fill and carbonate-rock aquifers near Long Valley in the New Jersey Highlands: New Jersey Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-3, 24 p.

Meisler, Harold, 1976, Computer simulation model of the Pleistocene valley- fill aquifer in southwestern Essex and southeastern Morris Counties, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 76-25 (changed to Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4028), 70 p.

Nicholson, R.S., McAuley, S.D., Barringer, J.L. and Gordon, A.D., 1996, Hydrogeology of, and ground-water flow in, a valley-fill and carbonate-rock aquifer system near Long Valley in the New Jersey Highlands: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4157, 159 p., 3 pls.

Nicholson, R.S. and Watt, M.K., 1998, Simulation of ground-water-flow patterns and areas contributing recharge to streams and water-supply wells in a valley-fill and carbonate-rock aquifer system, southwestern Morris County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4216, 40 p.

Philips, M.O. and Schopp, R.D., 1986, Flood of April 5-7, 1984 in northeastern New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-423W, 112 p.

Price, Curtis V. and Schaefer, Frederick L., 1995, Estimated loads of selected constituents from permitted and nonpermitted sources at selected surface-water-quality stations in the Musconetcong, Rockaway, and Whippany River Basins, New Jersey, 1985-90: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4040, p. 28.

Reed, T.J., Centinaro, G.L., Dudek, J.F., Corcino, V., and Steckroat, G.C., 2001, Water resources data for New Jersey-water year 2000, Volume 1. Surface-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report NJ-00-1, 233 p.

Reiser, R.G., 2002, Quality of water in tributaries to the upper Delaware River, New Jersey, water years 1985-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-090-02, unpaginated.

Reiser, R.G., and Schopp, R.D., 2001, Sparta, New Jersey, flood of August 11-14, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-104-01, unpaginated.

Reiser, R.G., and Schopp, R.D., 2002, Sparta, New Jersey, flood of August 11-14, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4099, p. 88.

Rice, D.E. and Voronin, L.M., 1997, Analysis of ground-water flowpaths near water-supply wells, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4228, 26 p.

Robinson, K.W., Price, C.V. and Smith, R.A., 1995, Development of a computerized data base of permitted wastewater discharges in New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-152, 14 p.

Sargent, B.P., Green, J.W., Harte, P.T. and Vowinkel, E.F., 1986, Ground- water-quality data for Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, 1958-85: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-58, 66 p.

Schaefer, F.L., Harte, P.T., Smith, J.A. and Kurtz, B.A., 1993, Hydrologic conditions in the upper Rockaway River basin, New Jersey, 1984-86: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4169, 103 p., 2 pls.

Spitz, F.J., and Nicholson, R.S., 2001, Simulated effects of alternative pumping strategies on ground-water-flow patterns and areas contributing recharge to selected wells near Kenvil, Morris County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4180, 32 p.

Storck, D.A., 1994, Hydrology of, and water quality in, the Open Burning Area and vicinity, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, 1989-90: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4134, 69 p.

Storck, D.A. and Lacombe, P.J., 1996, Streambed-material characteristics and surface-water quality, Green Pond Brook and tributaries, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, 1983-90: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4246, 66 p., 2 pls.

Storck, D.A., and Nawyn, J.P., 2001, 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, 95 p.

Summer, W.M., 1998, Passaic Flood Warning System: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-092-98.

Vecchioli, John and Miller, E.G., 1973, Water resources of the New Jersey part of the Ramapo River basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1974, 77 p.

Vecchioli, John and Nichols, W.D., 1966, Results of the drought-disaster test-drilling program near Morristown, N.J.: New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development Water-Resources Circular 16, 48 p.

Vecchioli, John, Nichols, W.D. and Nemickas, Bronius, 1967, Results of the second phase of the drought-disaster test-drilling program near Morristown, N.J.: New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development Water-Resources Circular 17, 23 p.

Voronin, L.M. and Rice, D.E., 1996, Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow, Picatinny Arsenal and vicinity, Morris County, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4061, 64 p.