Ali Baranowski

Environmental Issues
Abstract
Elevated levels of nitrates and phosphates in Lake Fred have indicated the need for a new
watershed management plan to be implemented in this region. The goal of this new plan would
be to reduce the level of pollutants in the lake in order to ensure the vitality of this ecosystem. By
constructing an articifical wetland adjacent to Lake Fred and the Morses Mill Stream, the influx
of nitrogen rich stormwater runoff not properly draining on Stockton Universitys many
impervious surfaces could be filtered out by native vegetation before it has the chance to reach
the lake. Based on two similar studies from a farm in Southern Minnesota and land near Ohio
University, within five years significant reductions of nitrates could be observed in the surface
waters of Stockton University. Phosphates have been banned in all fertilizers in New Jersey and
thus will not be heavily focused on in this plan. By simply following the law, phosphate pollution
should become a non-issue. However, nitrate pollution is an area of central concern and by
implementing the watershed plan outlined below, Lake Fred can be restored to robust ecosystem
that it once was.
Introduction
Nitrate and phosphate pollution in surface waters has become an issue for countless bodies of
water around the country. Recently, Lake Fred of Stockton University has become another
ecosystem that has fallen victim to these pollutants. Elevated levels of nitrates and phosphates
commonly cause eutrophication, nutrient loading in a body of water which results in algal
blooms that create oxygen-starved dead zones which kill aquatic life. If this lake is to remain a
healthy habitat for unique Pinelands species and enjoyed by the local community in the future, it
is crucial that a new watershed management plan is created to takle this issue.
In this report, the nine EPA elements for watershed planning will be outlined. Sources of
pollution will first be identified in order to determine where the problem is coming from. Next,
total load reductions that can be achieved if the proposal is implemented will be estimated. Then,
the plan itself will be revealed and statistics from similar studies will be shared. Technical and
financial assistance that is needed will be outlined in the adjacent section. The information and
education component will be detailed and then a schedule for implementation is presented.
Measurable milestones will be shown to illustrate what should occur within five years of
undertaking this project. Lastly, criteria to determine whether pollutant load reductions are being
achieved are shared and monitoring components are selected. Upon reading this watershed
management plan, the project proposal should be clearly understood by those with even minimal
understanding of environmental science.

Sources
There are numerous potential sources of nitrates and phosphates that could be contributing to the
elevated pollution levels of Lake Fred. One major contributing source of nitrates and phosphates
is stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. With the Stockton University campus containing
a myriad of parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings; after periods of precipitation, total stormwater
runoff is likely not all reaching the storm drains on campus and instead flowing into Lake Fred or
the Morses Mill Stream. Further, the Morses Mill Stream, which flows into Lake Fred ,is in close
proximity to numerous major roads and highways where stormwater runoff is not properly
draining and instead flowing into the stream. On these roads and highways (highlighted in Figure
1 below) emissions from automobiles of all types are being released into the atmophere where
they can deposit into the soil and water of the surrounding area. When a precipitation event
occurs, the saturated soils will contribute to the flow of nitrogen rich water infilitrating the
Morses Mill Stream. Another possible source of nitrates and phosphates is found in fertilizers
that many farmers utilize on their land. It should be noted though that New Jersey has passed a
law that limits the amount of nitrates allowed in commercial fertilizers and completely outlaws
phosphates in such applications. In addition, there are not many large farming operations in close
proximity to Stockton University. However, the farms that are located near Morses Mill Stream,
highlighted in Figure 2 below, should still be a contributing factor taken into consideration when
it comes to Lake Freds pollution problem.

Figure 1: Map showing roads and highways surrounding the Stockton University campus.

Figure 2: Map showing the farms and residential developments within proximity to Morses Mill
Stream and Lake Fred. Green shading displays farms, brown shows the residential developments
with Morses Mill Stream highlighted in light blue.
Estimate of Load Reductions
By implementing the plan outlined below a potential reduction of nitrate and phosphate levels in
Stockton campus lakes as high as 75% could be observed.
Mangament Measures
In order to reduce pollution levels, I propose that an artifical wetland is constructed on or near
the Stockton University campus containing natural plants to help filter out harmful pollutants.
This wetland would have a multitude of benefits for Lake Fred as well as the ecology of the
region as a whole. By pumping water from Morses Mill Stream into an artificial wetland, we
could reduce the polluted stormwater run-off reaching Lake Fred. The wetland would also
provide a valuable habitat for the unique wildlife of the Pinelands. In addition, this would be a
wonderful addition to the Stockton University campus that would help educate students,
especially environmental science majors, about water pollution and the importance of wetlands.
Possible locations for this wetland are outlined in Figure 3 below. The red shaded areas are the
most ideal locations, as they are close to both Lake Fred and the Stockton campus. The yellow
shaded region is also a potential contender, though it is not as close to the campus infrastructure
and Lake Fred as would be most desirable. Water would be pumped from Morses Mill Stream
into a shallow artificial wetland where native vegetation will filter out pollution. This cleaned
water will then flow to Lake Fred via an outlet pipe in a safe and stable manner.
Artifical wetlands have been proven to be effective in treating nitrate polluted waters. To
illustrate this point, a study conducted in Southern Minnesota can be examined. To combat

nitrate pollution orginating from agricultural tile drainage waters, a tile drainage system from a
Minnesota farm field was rerouted into a constructed wetland. The study found that after being
pumped through the wetland, the total load of nitrates that reached the nearby creek was reduced
by 262 to 332 pounds (Ross, 2014). Further research that can support our wetland construction
plan comes from Ohio University, a leader in constructed wetland research. Two one-hectare
wetlands were constructed, one with native vegetaion and another serving as an unplanted
control, and over a two-year period water from the Olentangy River was pumped into the
wetlands. The study concluded that nitrate removal for the first wetland was 39% while the
second wetland showed a 37% reduction (Kelly, 2006). From these two studies, it is proven that
wetlands are an effective method for reducing nitrate levels in water.

Figure 3: A map of the land surrounding Stockton University that could be available for wetland
construction. Red shading displays the best areas for wetland construction. Yellow shows areas
that could still work but will be less ideal for construction.
Technical and Financial Assistance Needed
To effectively carry out this plan, extensive financial assitance will be required. Total costs of the
wetland will depend greatly on the configuration, location and site- specific conditions.
According to the US EPA (BMP #: Constructed Wetlands, n.d), typical contruction costs ranged
from $30,000 to $65,000 dollars per acre (as of 2004). If a one-hectare wetland was constructed,
a rough estimate of the cost could range from $74,131.5- $160,618.25. This price includes the
excavation, hauling, grading, vegetation, outlet structure and inlet structure that would be
required for the project. While this cost may seem daunting, grants could be written in an attempt
to garner funding from the NJ EPA . If Lake Freds pollution problem is ignored, Stockton could
wind up paying just as much or even more at a later date to solve a eutrophication crises.

If the project were approved and funding was achieved, a consulting firm would be required to
carry out the plan. A team of hydrologists, soil scientists/ botanists, construction crew members
and consultants would be required to create our wetland. Depending on the specifics of the plan,
anywhere from 20-50 individuals could be hired to work on this project. To lessen costs, student
volunteers/interns could be gathered from the Stockton University campus to assist with the
research required before and after wetland construction.
Information and Education Component
A crucial element of this watershed managament plan involves educating the public about the
project plans. Uninformed individuals will complain and possibly protest if they discover the
high cost of the project. The public will also likely become irrate at seeing forest being cleared
for the wetland. It is of vital importance that public meetings are held to educate Stockton
students, faculty, and members of the surrounding community about the new plan. It should be
made clear why this project is so important, the reason behind the high cost and the positive
benefits that this plan will have on the local ecosystem. The local newspaper, The Press of
Atlantic City, could write a postive article about the proposal and Stockton University could
share the article on their various social media pages. We could reach out to Stockton Water
Watch and ask them if they would survey the students, faculty and surrounding community to get
their input on the project. Tours could even be offered of Lake Fred and Morses Mill Stream to
put the local watershed on display and show the public the beautiful waters that are at risk.
Schedule for Implementing Plan

Figure 4: Detailed schedule for implementing project plans. Timeline depends on many factors
and can only be estimated at this point.
Measurable Milestones
Within about one year, I would like to have gained approval from the Stockton administrators
and have a grant approved for the proposal. Within two years I would like to have public
approval for the project, a consulting company hired, the land cleared, and the wetland
excavated. Within the third year, I would like the inlets and outlets installed and the wetland

completely seeded. Since the vegetation may take considerable time to achieve peak efficiency,
by the end of the fourth year the wetland vegetatation should be well established and ready to
filter pollutants. By year five, we could begin conducting a study to determine the nitrate/
phopshate load reductions that the wetland has created.
Criteria to Determine Whether Pollutant Load Reductions Are Being Achieved

Figure 5: This chart displays criteria/ indicators that can be used to determine whether nitrate
and phophorous loads are being reduced or not.

Monitoring Component

Figure 6: This chart displays monitoring components to evaluate the effectiveness of the
artificial wetland. Monitoring criteria will be based on New Jerseys water quality standards and
the water quality targets determined by staff hydrologists.

References
BMP #: Constructed Wetlands (Rep.). (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from BF
Environmental website: http://www.bfenvironmental.com/pdfs/ConstrWetlands.pdf
Kelly, C. (2006). Stormwater Treatment Areas: Experiences with Nitrate Removal (Rep.).
Retrieved February 20, 2016, from Florida Department Environmental Protection website:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/southeast/ecosum/ecosums/NitrateSTA final.pdf
Ross, N. B. (2014). Constructed Wetland Used to Treat Nitrate Pollution Generated from
Agricultural Tile Drainage Waters in Southern Minnesota (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Minnesota. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from
http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/167310/Ross_umn_0130M_15460.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y