Cailin Bader

ENVL Issues

Lake Fred Watershed Proposal

A landmark that the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey boasts quite often is its

location close to a large body of water known as Lake Fred. Unfortunately it has come to our

attention that this lake has come under fire from the pollution of two very well-known nutrients;

nitrates and phosphates. Both of these nutrients are used by plants for growth but when used in

excess can cause eutrophication and over-growth of plants and algae in water systems. This in

turn can create low dissolved oxygen which will inevitably kill off any other living organisms

such as fish (EPA 2012). Therefore it is necessary ti implement a nine point plan to reduce both

of these nutrients and preserve the overall health of Lake Fred.

A. Identifying the sources and causes of phosphate and nitrate pollution.

There are many sources of phosphates and nitrates, though they can be found naturally

ecosystems it is the overuse of them by humans that has led to many problems. Some of

these sources that are shared between the two include the leaking of septic tanks, run-off

from animal manure and cropland and run-off from fertilized lawns (EPA 2012). In the

case of animal waste we may not have issues with farm animals contributing but Stockton

College has been overrun with Canadian Geese. Their populations have now begun to

grow at a faster than usual rate and have started to stay longer periods of time instead of

migrating as they are supposed to (also known as over-wintering). The longer they reside

in one area the larger amount of waste is excreted and winds up in Lake Fred. While

study done by Unckless and Mackarewicz that measured the impact of goose feces on

water quality found no immediate results they did acknowledge that a build-up of

nutrients over time can have an impact on water quality (Unckless and Mackarewicz

2007). The biggest issue the lake faces right now though is likely the 243 acres of lawn

the college has to fertilize (Chirenje and Hossay 2009). While a ban on fertilizers with

phosphorus has taken place this still doesn’t curb the large amounts of nitrogen entering

the soil and it certainly doesn’t stop unscrupulous people from import fertilizers with a

mix of both from other states that do not have the ban (Saffert 2011).

B. Load Reduction Estimations

Our aim is for a 60% load reduction with a focus on run-off management since it is

estimated that 5 pounds of phosphates and 10 pounds of nitrates are going into the lake

load reductions come out to 2 pounds of phosphates and 4 pounds of nitrates.

C. NPS Management Measures

In regards to fertilizer containing nitrates, the recommended level is about 3 pounds per

1000 square feet or about 130 pounds per acre, this amount could be regulated heavily

and even decreased if necessary (Bowers n.d.) If the college wanted to apply more

fertilizer they will need to hire professional fertilizer applicators to be able to apply the

allotted 4.25 pounds of nitrogen lawns. This of course could be money better spent

towards other solutions (Saffert 2011).

One such solution is the application of rain gardens around at least half of the 243

acres of lawn we have around Stockton College, particularly by the athletic fields and

areas around the lake itself. Rain gardens are planted depressions that use the aid of wild

flowers and other plant life to soak up run-off water that accumulates within the

depression. They are important because they help absorb some of the nitrates and

phosphates that would normally leach into the ground and filter into the lake and they

allow more healthy water to recharge into the ground and lake. They are also pleasing to

the eye and would provide an added aesthetic value to the campus (Bannerman 2003).

However, simple one-phase rain gardens are not usually effective at removing a lot of

nitrogen because denitrification needs a longer retention time than conventional rain

gardens allow (Yang 2010). A new biphasic rain garden has been developed by Yang

Hanbae helps fix this by “creating a two column system in which the first column drains

into the second one using a PVC piping system.” Column one then becomes saturated

and creates anaerobic conditions in which denitrification can occur. The second column

then provides an area for aerobic process to be carried out and most of the nitrates get

removed (Kubitza, Jepsen, et. al 2011). Results using this method showed that over 90%

of nutrients were removed (Yang 2010). Therefore it is best to go the route of the

biphasic rain garden construction rather than a monophasic one.

With the production of rain gardens comes the issue of attracting more geese and

causing even more phosphate and nitrogen load. It is thereby advised that fencing be

placed around the gardens to ward them off (as well as people). Other methods of geese

control would combining the efforts of reduced fertilizer to make the grass less nutritious

and less appetizing to flocks of geese. Having vegetation near and around the banks of

the lake also discourages geese from staying around the bank (Hence the application of

rain gardens in trouble spots where there is less vegetation.) A more dire method would

be trapping and removal of the birds with nets and by working with Animal Control until

the birds stop coming back (Canada Geese Management 2008). The cooperation of

students in scaring them off would also contribute in teaching them that the campus is not

a safe place to roost.

D. Technical and Financial Costs

Much of the technical assistance can come from volunteer students and possibly those

wishing to earn Ultra Credit of even have it count as an internship if they are prepared to

take on the building and testing tasks for a semester. Assistance from the hydrology

department as well construction groups that are skilled in building and implementing

PVC piping will be needed. Help from Animal control officers and the Department of

Fish and Wildlife will also be needed if we go the route of removing geese. Working with

the EPA will also be necessary in making sure our results fit certain criteria for

phosphates and nitrogen. As for financial costs money would be needed for PVC piping,

purchasing plants and paying off any employees implemented in the process of building

the rain gardens, managing the geese and taking samples of water after the gardens have

been implemented. The Department of Environmental Protection as a nonpoint source

pollution program has amended the Clean Water Act to include section 319, a grants

program that authorizes the UESPA to grant money towards non-point pollution solution

programs (Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Restoration 2012). A

small added fee could be added to tuition as well to help pay off any supplies needed.

E. Educational components for the public and administrative sector

Since this will be taking place on a college campus this offers us a chance to us this to

our advantage. Informational seminars can be given on phosphates and nitrates by experts

on the subject as well as the ideas we wish to implement. The Stockton channel can

advertise these seminars and more information. Surveys should be taken to gauge

people’s opinion of the rain gardens and whether they wish to have them or not and even

provide feedback on what kind of plants and locations they had in mind. Involving people

in the project and making them feel like they have a hand in something big can often

sway people who are unsure. As for administrative it will be a good idea to explain the

proposal in great detail and remind them that rain gardens and less geese make the

campus look friendlier and more environmentally friendly. This in turn brings more

visitors and prospective students in which means more money for the campus. Getting

signatures in favor of the proposal may also help to convince the administration that

something needs to be done.

F. Schedule for Implementing NPS Proposal

If the proposal is to go through (and likely a year will need to be accounted for as the

document is picked apart and revised) then the first thing that must be done is implement

an education program of about five weeks to educate anyone who will be helping with

the project. Then another year should be spent on planning where the rain gardens should

be placed as well as mapping out their dimensions and the amount we will be creating. A

budget must be made up of how much the raw materials such as the plants, piping will

cost and include the wages of anyone hired for the job. After that is done it will take

another two years to fully construct the rain gardens and begin the daunting task of

keeping geese at bay. If the fertilizer restriction goes through then that should be set to

the date of the final constructed rain garden. Furthermore a beginning sample of water

should be taken to gauge how bad the water quality is and have it as a comparison for

later down the road. After that it can take many years for any progress to be seen. In one

study of the Lyon Creek Watershed they projected a twenty year proposal therefore at the

very least a minimum of ten years should be accounted for with this project (Lyon Creek

Watershed 2012). After the first year of rain garden construction water samples should be

taken of Lake Fred and have them compared to the original water samples. For the next

eight years samples should be collected every six months during the beginning of spring

and end of summer when the lake is less likely to be frozen. A detailed count of how

many geese are seen each month should also be logged to see if there is a decrease in

their populations. This proposal should be updated and revised every two years as see fit

to what the data provides (implementing more rain gardens or even stricter regulations

with fertilizer).

G. Milestones

The first milestone will be constructing and finishing the rain gardens as well as

attempting to scare off geese from the properties which should take about two years, as

seen in the Rancocas Watershed Management Plan the initial steps took about the same

time (James and Wucjik 1998). Once that goes through the next order of business will be

to test the amount of phosphates and nitrates in water, the goal is to get to 0.05 mg/L of

phosphorus and 2 mg/L of nitrogen in water (EPA 2009). For every two years if a 15-

20% decrease in total load is seen then a milestone is reached. The decrease in

eutrophication and overabundance of algae should also be measured and counted as a

mile stone as it decreases. Geese populations should be recorded and counted as a

milestone for every 15-20% reduction per two years. The end goal is for 60% but if that

is not reached within the ten years and there is still improvement then the proposal was

still a success and revisions should continue to be applied to reach that 60%.

H. Criteria to be Set.

A 60% reduction in phosphate and nitrogen loads in the main criteria with phosphate

leveling out around 0.05 mg/L and nitrates around 2 mg/L (EPA 2009). Dissolved

oxygen should not be less 7 mg/ L (NJDEP 2011). Eutrophication should become

lessened and a decrease in chlorophyll should be logged. Criteria for total loads should be

2 pounds of phosphate and 4 pounds of nitrate by the end of the ten years. If goal is not

met revisions should be put in place.

I. Monitoring

Monitoring of the lake’s dissolved oxygen level, amount of chlorophyll and nutrient load

must be carried out under trained faculty or employees from the EPA and be taken at

least twice a year if not more. Students can be allowed to help but must be supervised at

all times to prevent mistakes on contamination with the samples. These can be assessed at

the College and other laboratories to get a more accurate summation of what the true

calculations are. This will also prevent the college from “fixing” the numbers to make it

look better.

Bibliography

Bannerman Roger (2003) Rain Gardens: A How-to Manual for Homeowners. Learningstore.uwex.edu

retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 from http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/GWQ037.pdf

Bowers H. Fred n.d Septic Systems and Nitrate Nitrogen as Indicators of Ground Water Quality nj.gov

retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 from http://www.nj.gov/dep/dwq/pdf/nitrates.pdf

Canada Geese Damage Management (2008) Control Techniques Home Page ICDWM.org retrieved on

Feb. 20 2014 http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/CanadaGeese/ControlTechniquesHome.aspx

Chirenje Tait, Hossay Patrick, et.al (2009) Institutional Green House Gas Emissions Inventory and Energy

Analysis. Richard Stockton College of New Jersey retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 from StocktonEnergy(1).pdf

Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Restoration. (2012) Nonpoint Source Pollution

Program. The State of New Jersey retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 from

http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedrestoration/nps.html

Haines S. Williams, Wujcik K. James, et. al (1998) Clean and Plentiful Water A Management Plan for

Rancocas Creek Watershed. Burlington..nj.us. retrieved on Feb. 20 2014

http://www.co.burlington.nj.us/upload/RC_Watershed/Images/Rancocas_Management_Plan.pdf

Kubitza Josh, Jepsen Mark et. al (2011) Biphasic Rain Garden Could Reduce Harmful Run-Off. Ohio-

State.edu retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 http://sustainability.cfaes.ohio-state.edu/uncategorized/biphasic-

rain-garden-could-reduce-harmful-runoff/

Lyons Creek Watershed (2012) Lyons Creek Watershed Management Plan for Nitrate Reduction

Iowadnr.gov retrieved on Feb. 20 2014

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/water/watershed/files/lyonscreekwmp.pdf

NJDEP (2011) Surface Water Quality Standards. Nj.gov retrieved on Feb. 20 2014

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_9b.pdf

Saffert Heather (2011) The New Jersey Fertilizer Law: Tackling Nonpoint Source Pollution. Clean Ocean

Action retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 https://www.neiwpcc.org/npsconference/12-

presentations/Saffert_NJ%20Fertilizer%20Law.pdf

Unckless Robert and Mackarewicz Joesph (2007) The Impact of Nutrient Loading from Canada Geese

(Branta canadensis) on Water Quality. Carleton.edu retrieved on Feb. 20 2014

http://www.carleton.edu/departments/GEOL/Resources/comps/CompsPDFfiles/2009/LinetdWebPg/Pa

pers/CanadaGooseLoading.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012) 5.7 Nitrates water.epa.gov retrieved on

Feb. 20 2014 http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms57.cfm

United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). (2012) 5.6 Phosphorus water.epa.gov retrieved on

Feb. 20 2014 http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms56.cfm

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009) State Development of Numeric Criteria for

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution. Cfpub.epa.gov retrieved on Feb. 20 2014 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/wqsits/nnc-development/