Phillip Schocklin

ENVL 4300-001

Lab 4: Lake Fred Watershed Management Plan

Abstract:

This is a watershed management plan for the watershed, which holds Stocktons

campus and Lake Fred within it. The plan calls for a 75% reduction of nitrate and phosphate
pollution in the watershed. It was determined that agricultural land is the biggest contributor of
this pollution. Management solutions include decreases in fertilizer/manure used by farmers, as
well as the development of riparian buffers and crop covers. Financial and technical assistance
for completion will be needed and provided by state departments as well as the landowners
themselves, along with others who agree to help. The public will be given opportunities through
town hall meetings, as well as other ways, to become informed and involved. There will be
short term goals (e.g. fertilizer cutbacks), medium goals (e.g. constructing buffers) and longterm

goals (e.g. 75% pollution reduction). Criteria for a successful plan will involve frequent check-ins
with farmers and meeting project deadlines. Steady monitoring throughout the course of
completion will involve contamination testing often and adjusting accordingly to the results
received. With all of these factors a successful watershed management plan is a great
possibility.
Introduction:

This lab exercise consists of creating a watershed management plan for

Lake Fred. The concern of the plan will be nutrients, specifically nitrates and phosphates, and
how they affect Lake Fred as well as other parts of Stocktons campus. The intent of the written
plan will be to determine ways to lower the TMDLs (total maximum daily loads) by 75%
percent for each nutrient. In order to be as successful and useful as possible, it will follow the
guideline of the EPAs 9 elements for watershed management plans.
Identification:

It is important, before all else, to identify the sources that the pollution is

coming from. The problem is that this is not always the easiest task, especially when it comes to
non-point source pollution. This is one reason why it is so helpful to be familiar with land uses
within watersheds. Notice on the GIS map of Stocktons watershed that there are multiple
spots on or directly aligned with the stream that flows into Lake Fred, that are agricultural
lands. Agricultural activities account for 80 % of all nitrogen added to the environment (egw,
1996). More specifically to the pollutants at hand, fertilizers and manure are the primary
sources of agricultural pollution and are both very rich in nitrates as well as phosphates,
according to the EPA.

Obviously high productivity is essential for agriculture in America. This allows food to
be abundant and also reasonably priced. According to the WVU extension service, this allows
the cost of food for the American consumer to be the lowest in the world. This high production
is achieved by the use of plant nutrients by farmers, however, the nutrients must be used in the
most appropriate amounts (WVU). When fertilizer and manure is used excessively, this is when
pollution problems can occur.
For one, excess nutrients could be washed directly into the stream it is right next to. A
stream which then flows into Lake Fred, further polluting another body of water. It also flows
over wetland areas, causing the water and soil in that area to become more polluted as well.
Another possibility is the excess nutrients becoming compacted in the soil, through processes
such as plowing or tilling soil, and eventually making its way into the groundwater table. This
especially speaks to people who get their drinking water from private wells in the area. Most of
these wells are very shallow and in turn vulnerable to the polluted groundwater (WVU).
With there being urban land uses within the watershed, it is also necessary to mention
that pollution can be attributed to nitrates and phosphates in these areas through point
sources such as sewer pipes. Point sources in urban watersheds can cause significant localized
nitrate problems in surface waters or individual wells. However, they are not responsible for
nitrate and phosphate contamination problems on the scale of those caused by agriculture
(ewg). For that reason, acting on the pollution occurring from agricultural practices is bound to
have a larger effect.

Management Measures:

It is crucial to implement solutions to the main sources of

pollution. One of the most obvious solutions falls on the shoulders of farmers and only farmers.
That solution is to cut back. Only use what is the absolute minimum amount of fertilizer needed
for production. Do the same with the amount of times the soil is tilled.
According to the EPA, other solutions or precautions that could be consist of buffers and
cover crops. Buffers are important in the case that the agricultural area is directly next to
bodies of water. Planting trees and shrubs around crop fields will help absorb and filter excess
nutrients before they are able to reach water (EPA). As for cover crops, other vegetation such
as clovers or grass can be planted to use and in a way recycle the extra nutrients from fertilizers
and manures, disallowing them to pollute the water.

Example of a buffer
Reduction estimate:

The amount of nitrate and phosphate pollution reduced will vary

based on the effectiveness of the management measures, such as buffers. The most important
factor controlling the effectiveness of buffers is the hydrology, or the way the water moves

through or over the buffers (ncsu). If buffers and other measures are designed and executed
correctly, then it should be possible to eventually reach the 75% reduction being strived for.
Assistance needed:

Its impossible to even dream of pulling off a watershed

management plan without assistance, both financial and technical. As far as financial assistance
goes, state funding should be a large factor in solving the states pollution problem. This should
be important to the state, as well as local government, and their assistance both financial and
technical are crucial to the success of the plan. This is not to say that they are the only ones
who should help. Owners of agricultural land, being the reason for much of the pollution,
should take on at least some of the financial burden. For technical assistance, the NJDEP could
be of much help executing the measures needed through their construction and mitigation
sections.
Public understanding:

Getting the public on board and informed about the plan is very

significant for the simple fact that public knowledge is significant. This can lead at the very least
to people spreading the word and awareness about good watershed management plans and at
the most turn into new volunteers, possible funding and an overall more educated community.
One possibility is to hold local government ran informational meetings for the public to
hear town officials as well as environmental professionals speak about what is being done and
why. Another potential idea is to get local college and even high school/middle school students
involved. These people are the professionals of tomorrow and to have them understand, and
maybe even see first-hand, important work being done is vital to the progress that will be made
in the future.

Implementation schedule:

The layout for completion of a management plan should be

divided into pieces as any good plan should. There should be short, medium and long term
goals so that each aspect of the plan receives the attention and focus that it deserves. Whether
the plan takes 5, 10, 25 or more years there should be plenty of time spent on the most
successful approach in order to see the plan through to completion.
Milestones:

As mentioned before, short to long term goals/milestones should be

comprised with achievable, realistic timetables. Short term goals can consist of identifying most
high pollution source areas, implementing smaller solutions such as cutbacks on nutrient usage,
and deciding what areas need to be focused on first. Medium length goals can consist of factors
like implementing other measures such as building buffers for priority areas and reaching a
midpoint on reduction percentage. Long term goals should be completing any other measures
needed and reaching the optimal reduction percentage.
Criteria:

The criteria for success will be strictly making sure that rules are being followed

and projects are being completed in a timely manner. This involves checking in with farmers
and confirming that they are in fact doing their part and using appropriate amounts of nutrients
on their crops. It also should involve striving to meet deadlines for other measures being
implemented. If the criteria for a plan can be successfully followed, the desired reduction
percentage has all the more chance to be achieved.
Monitoring:

Checking on and keeping up with the progress of a watershed management plan

should consist mostly of contamination tests in areas that coincide with the milestones of that
time period. If the test results show more pollution than hoped for by that time, it may be time

to readjust or step up the intensity of the process. If the amount of pollution is decreasing and
on track with what the goals are then most likely all is going according to plan.

Works Cited
1.) Environmental Working Group (EWG). (1996). Pouring it On: Nitrogen Use and Sources of
Nitrate Contamination. Retrieved from www.egw.org/research/pouring-it/nitrogen-useand-sources-nitrate-contamination
2.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture. Retrieved
from www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-agriculture
3.) NCSU. Riparian Buffers: What Are They and How Do They Work?. Retrieved from
www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/BMPs/buffers.html
4.) Bhumbia, Devinder K.. Agriculture Practices and Nitrate Pollution of Water. Retrieved from
www.wvu.edu/~agexten/pubnwsltr/TRIM/3623.htm