Page 1

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS

summary report

prepared by ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 2005

with sub-consultants

DERRON L. LABRAKE, P.W.S., Consulting Ecologist

and

LESLIE JONES SAUER Andropogon, Principal Emeritus


CREDITS: ANDROPOGON PROJECT TEAM: Chad Adams, Project Manager Amrita Dasgupta, Landscape and Graphic Designer SUB-CONSULTANTS: Derron L. LaBrake, P.W.S., Consulting Ecologist Leslie Jones Sauer, Andropogon, Principal Emeritus Andropogon Associates Ltd. would like to thank the following for their input and support with this project: The Faculty and Students of The Lawrenceville School Christopher Budzinski – Township of Lawrence Elaine Mills Hopewell Valley Engineering Kelley Varnell Inc. Howard Meyer


Table of Contents Introduction Overview Cultural Location Map Frederick Law Olmsted Master Plan Analysis Regional Analysis – State Physiographic Provinces Urbanization Trend NJ Priority Conservation Sites

Regional Analysis – Central New Jersey NJ Priority Conservation Sites Bedrock Geology Watershed Management Areas Topographic Relief

Regional Analysis – Lawrence Township Topographic Relief/Watersheds Geology Landcover

Regional Analysis – Upper Shipetaukin Creek Watershed Context Topographic Relief/Watersheds Potential Partnerships Wood Turtle Habitat Water Supply Wells / Well Head Protection Infiltration Potential Prime Farmland Historic Aerial Photo Sequence – 1940 to 2000 Historic Map Sequence – 1851 to 1976

Site Analysis – The Lawrenceville School Parcel Boundaries Topographic Relief

Hydrologic Soils Groups Hydric Soils FEMA Flood Boundaries Soil Drainage Class Landcover – 1995/97 Slope Solar Aspect AutoCAD Base Plan Environmental Structure Analysis Environmental Constraints CityGreen Analysis

Review of Current Land Management Practices Existing and Proposed Maintenance Practice Preliminary Land Management Recommendations

Conceptual Plan for Pond and Stream Restoration The Problem and Plan Alternatives BMP Discussion

Curriculum Integration Mental Mapping Exercise Summary Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve, Plant Stewardship Index Program

Grant Funding Opportunities Summary / Recommendations


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Introduction The Lawrenceville School laid important groundwork in a series of visioning efforts to guide the development of the “The Green Campus Initiative.” Seen through the lens of land and water management, this holistic approach to campus planning will enable The School to protect, enhance, and preserve the timeless quality of its campus fabric.

At the same time, the process allows for an understanding and integration of the significant historical and cultural landscapes and seeks to recognize and establish larger whole systems and reconnect isolated fragments.

The campus setting is a significant cultural landscape that lies within a matrix of woodlands, open fields, and wetlands. Together the natural and cultural landscapes make The School a special place to be protected and preserved. These elements of the campus landscape are most remembered and treasured, by both students and alumni, as special qualities of The School.

Andropogon Associates gathered a base of strategic information from relevant studies. The objective was to synthesize the information to evaluate how this place developed ecologically and culturally over time. Andropogon also sought to determine which ecological and cultural conditions were most influential in its growth. This foundation will allow The School to assess the impacts of future land use on the campus landscape, natural resources, and specifically on the hydrology of the local watershed. It will also provide the basis of an educational curriculum.

The landscape also plays a vital role in protecting its local watershed. Better land use and land management decisions provide the starting point for a sustainable water resource management program within each watershed. It is crucial for The Lawrenceville School to invest resources to areas of the landscape contributing to maintainenance of a healthy, functioning ecosystem. Understanding and managing campus resources is a complex and continuously changing task. By embedding sound environmental principles in the management of the campus and demonstrating better resource management, The School creates opportunities to showcase progressive environmental principles with practices that meet or exceed regulatory compliance and increase the environmental conscious of the students. The campus setting will be a tool for learning about, conserving, restoring, and improving the environment, and increasing the awareness of the students’ daily impact on the environment, while serving as a model for the community at large. This Land and Water Management Summary Report seeks to provide understanding of the institution within its regional context. Some important goals included: • Create an ecological baseline of the existing physical structure of the land. • Assist The School in facilitating the collaborative input of both internal and external information. • Develop overall strategies to achieve more sustainable land and water management, and recommendations for Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pilot projects. • Examine current land and water management practices and provide alternatives with their cost implications. • Develop appropriate land and water management goals for the site, based on the latest, best science, the needs and desires of The School. • Create new “green” curriculum possibilities. • Structure a document that will raise the awareness of The Lawrenceville School as a significant ecological and cultural landscape resource for the students, alumni, faculty, and staff, as well as the wider community.

PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY A sustainable campus starts with understanding and respecting the natural systems of the landscape. This work inventoried the natural systems. The inventory informs design guidelines to: • Connect to and respect natural patterns in the landscape • Restore and preserve natural drainage systems and flood retention areas • Enhance surface and groundwater quality • Enhance vegetation and wildlife diversity

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

The goal is to provide an integrated perspective of the natural, historical, cultural and social values that are relevant to The School. Feasible solutions and strategies for implementation will come from a thorough and continuing understanding of the campus as it exists today. Understanding the campus form and character will lead to informed strategies to build on assets already in place within the context of The School’s plans and within the region. Our approach to the Land and Water Management Summary Report was guided by the following principles: THE SITE COMES FIRST This is and should be implicit in our approach. We begin with a thorough understanding of place, of opportunities, of constraints. FORM FOLLOWS FLOW Water – Sunlight – Air – Energy - Materials – Life FORM CHANGES FLOW The site is not a static platform for buildings to sit on, but an inextricably linked part of the whole. This study analyzes regional and site environmental and cultural conditions. It evaluates these patterns and their significance and spells out the implications for campus land use and management decisions.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

1


Overview This project was divided into the following tasks: Interviews were conducted with representatives of The Lawrenceville School, neighbors, state and local agencies, grant funding organizations, and conservation organizations to obtain background information about the region and The School. Data were collected from the Internet, Lawrence Township, Mercer County, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Hopewell Valley Engineering, and Kelley Varnell, Inc. The GIS data, AutoCAD files, and aerial photography were organized into a spatial database and processed. Splicing of AutoCAD files was performed to create a current base plan. Many plans were incorporated from different time periods and aerial photography was used to fill in missing information. GIS analysis was performed at state, regional, township, and site level scales to compile all relevant datasets into a comprehensible story about The Lawrenceville School’s physical history and composition. Historic aerial photography and maps were analyzed to determine physical and perceptual changes to the area over time. Multiple site visits were conducted to thoroughly understand the area and to begin to develop recommendations for land and water management and pilot projects. A “mental mapping” exercise was conducted with students of three “Rivers” classes coordinated by Aldo Leopold Fellow, Josh Hahn. This exercise was intended to educate the students about their surroundings and to determine how they understood their local environment. Quantitative analyses were performed on the area using CITYgreen software to determine air, land, and water quality and quantity effects on the environment. Conceptual design solutions to the stormwater problems at The Pond were created. The management practices of The School were identified and quantified and alternatives were proposed. Suggestions were created for future land and water management and curriculum integration ideas were proposed.

2


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Cultural Location Map SHORE BROOK GOLF COURSE

HOPEWELL VALLEY GOLF CLUB

RT 206

RT 1

PRINCETON BATTLEFIELD STATE PARK

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL RECREATIONAL LAND NATURAL HERITAGE PRIORITY SITES

PRINCETON COUNTRY CLUB

TWIN PINE AIRPORT

NJ DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NJ OPEN SPACE TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

TRENTON MERCER AIRPORT MERCER OAKS GOLF COURSE

COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY

RT 95

RT 295

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

3


Frederick Law Olmsted Master Plan Analysis

ANALYSIS of the OLMSTED MASTER PLAN ZONE 1 DEVELOPMENT

MIXED VEGETATION

profuse / dense planting SEPARATION BUFFER

separation of active spaces screening of outside space to give “infinite boundary” feeeling VIEWS

areas of active use long views to areas beyond and into site PASSAGES OF SCENERY

constant opening of views PICTURESQUE STYLE CIRCULATION PASTORAL STYLE / GREENSWARD

scattered groves on open green mixed turf with shade trees

MIXED WOODY BORDER PLANTING

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BY OLMSTED

TRIANGULAR ISLANDS

Background image ‘The Lawrenceville School, Master Plan 1886’ courtesy: Kelly Varnell Inc. 611 Broadway Suite 401, New York, NY 10012

4


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Frederick Law Olmsted Master Plan Analysis Frederick Law Olmsted created The Lawrenceville School Master Plan in 1886. While The School was founded in 1810, this was the first significant planning effort to shape future growth. The Master Plan created a flexible framework that has adapted remarkably to allow for growth over the years. The current core campus has expanded over three zones of development and primarily remains in keeping with Olmsted’s vision.

STYLE AND PLANTING Olmsted encouraged the use of native plants and shrubs, using non-natives with discretion. One characteristic of his planting design was the irregular massing of trees and shrubs in naturalistic groupings. His designs avoided showy and formal floral displays and hard-edge or specimen planting, creating instead places that had either “considerable complexity of light and shadow near the eye” or “obscurity of detail further away.”

In Olmsted’s landscapes there was a palette of key elements and features that represented his design principles, summarized as follows:

Olmsted employed two major landscape design styles. The “Pastoral” style attempted to emulate uncultivated nature, consisting of expansive open meadows (greensward) with small bodies of water and scattered trees and groves and provided a soothing, restorative atmosphere. The “Picturesque” style, characterized by a density of planting, especially with shrubs, creepers and ground cover, on steep and broken terrain, produced an effect of mystery through the play of light and shade, creating a sense of the richness and bounteousness of nature. On the whole there was to be a subordination of all elements, all features and objects, to the overall design and the effect it was intended to achieve—“The Art to conceal Art.” Both of these design styles were used in the design of The Lawrenceville School campus, particularly in the planting arrangement.

“CHOREOGRAPHY OF VIEWS” The combination of road alignment and the placement of vegetation, especially large trees among open green spaces, was a vital element in the “choreography” of the landscape. Trees were always placed as screening boundaries so that “the imagination would be likely to assume no limit” to the spaces beyond. The choreography of sequenced views was also created through the use of plantings — to frame, block, or terminate views, to create smaller more intimate spaces within the larger landscape and to create a variation in a texture and color. The main entryway of the School prescribes to the above ideas with its curving split entryway providing a series of openings and framed views into the main space of the campus and off into the distance sloping down to The Pond — leaving the viewer with a sense of infinite boundaries. This sequence of entry was a crucial component of his design. The later addition of The Bowl to the campus followed this principle in having a central open space terminated by a mature forest grove. “SEPARATION OF USES” Spaces were designed based on different activities, with separate pathways for people and vehicles, and were separated by buffer planting to minimize visual and physical overlap. This was to ensure safety of use and reduce distraction to those using the space. PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL FEATURES Olmstedian design is known for responding to the topography and revealing the “genus loci,” genius of the place, through design. The Lawrenceville School was sited on a slightly rounded south-facing slope, with distant views across open fields to The Pond and a stream along a forested edge. This condition is locally unique. Olmsted believed that town streets in their straight regularity did not encourage contemplation or leisure; activities he believed enhanced the quality of life. He chose instead to design gracefully curved roads and paths devoid of sharp corners that responded to existing topography and original landscape features — a characteristic that is noticeable both in the original Master Plan and the pattern of the campus growth since. This led to the creation of distinctly triangular shaped spaces, which were typically planted with canopy trees and lawn.

prepared by

SANITATION AND SERVICE Olmsted placed great emphasis on functionality in the landscape. There was always provision for adequate drainage and other engineering considerations. The designs were not simply an arrangement of surface features. Ornament for ornament’s sake was decried and every feature and aspect of his design had a purpose of utility or service. At the Lawrenceville School, the siting of the campus was on the best infiltrating soils, which drained quickly away to The Pond and down the stream to the wetlands beyond. Early sewage treatment was in open lagoons at the site of the current maintenance materials storage area. There is no coincidence that this site has the highest infiltration rate in the local region—it was the best place to allow nature to “remove” the sewage. SUMMARY Frederick Law Olmsted’s design for The Lawrenceville School campus is visible even today as a significant legacy. Ancient trees and their younger replacements grace the buildings surrounding The Circle. Visitors entering the main gate circulate through the campus spaces along curvilinear roads and pathways that reveal views and openings in a carefully choreographed sequence. Aesthetically, the campus evolved in a fashion that primarily held to the original design intent, with the potential exception of the athletic and maintenance facilities. The original functional design for stormwater management has, however, been exceeded by the demands placed on the system. Impervious surface cover, both on the campus and in the Town of Lawrenceville, (upstream), has increased to the point where a re-thinking of the design is imperative. Flooding, sedimentation, and pollutant transport will not only continue to be a problem on the core campus of The School, but have deleterious effects on the downstream wetland systems as well. Enhancement of the functional capabilities of the site—solutions to these problems—can be found through ecological design. Olmsted pioneered this kind of thinking in his day; the legacy of The Lawrenceville School’s campus is based on “restorative” site design. Again the answers may come from the “genius of the place.”

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

5


Frederick Law Olmsted Master Plan Analysis

ANALYSIS of the MASTER PLAN as of 1940 ZONE 1 •

H UT SO ION H T RT TA O N N RIE O

• •

BEGINNING OF ZONE 4

ZONE 1

Main entryway with characteristic Olmstedian curving circulation around The Circle to create the inviting impression of large open space with pockets of shade, ever-changing perspectives and ‘infinite boundaries’. Long view toward the east framed by tree groves, Edith Memorial chapel and Cleve House. Side roads planted with separation buffer for vehicular access and boundary separation. Circle bounded by Foundation building, Upper House, Memorial Hall, Chapel and north side residential cluster.

ZONE 2 •

Development along a Formal north-south axis to create a sunny gathering space in The Bowl, with The Woods as the axial terminus.

ZONE 3 • ZONE 2

• •

ZONE 3

N

Secondary open space, the Flagpole Green, with a view to The Pond, bounded by Irwin Dining center, Bunn Library and east residential cluster overlooking golf course and views. Intermediate curving, crisscrossing smaller paths for easy circulation. Creation of Tihonen field bounding Flagpole Green toward the Pond with a view toward the south.

ZONE 4 •

Western periphery development parallel to formal north-south axis with formal lines of planting and as building edge to Green Field. Historic Aerial Photographs courtesy: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Tidelands Management, Aerial Photography Library

6


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

ANALYSIS of the EXISTING MASTER PLAN ZONE 1

MIXED VEGETATION

profuse / dense planting EXISTING TREES FROM OLMSTED MP

TREES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE OLMSTED MP MIXED WOODY BORDER PLANTING TREES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE OLMSTED MP SEPARATION BUFFER

separation of active spaces screening of outside space to give “infinite boundary” feeeling TREES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE OLMSTED MP PASTORAL STYLE / GREENSWARD

scattered groves on open green mixed turf with shade trees

ZONE 4 TREES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE OLMSTED MP VIEWS

areas of active use long views to areas beyond and into site PASSAGES OF SCENERY

constant opening of views

ZONE 2

PICTURESQUE STYLE CIRCULATION EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION AREAS

TRIANGULAR ISLANDS NORTH SOUTH AXIS ORIENTATION

ZONE 3

Background image ‘The Lawrenceville School, Master Plan 1886’ courtesy: Kelly Varnell Inc. 611 Broadway Suite 401, New York, NY 10012

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

7


Regional Analysis - State

PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES

New Jersey is divided into the Valley and Ridge, Highlands, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces. Each province defines a region in which relief, landforms, and geology are significantly different from that of the adjoining and nearby regions. The boundary between each province is determined by a major change in topography and geology. The Lawrenceville School is situated within the Piedmont, but shares many characteristics of the Coastal Plain.

The physiographic provinces are delineated at a scale of 1:100,000. These data can be used with the state’s geologic data set to break out different geologic regions when compiling or analyzing information. Supplemental Information The province boundaries were derived from the Bedrock Geology of New Jersey dataset as well as the information in The Physical Geography of New Jersey: Final report of the State Geologist, Vol. 4, by Roland D. Salisbury, 1898.

8


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

ON THE EDGE The Lawrenceville School is situated on the fall zone between the Piedmont and the Inner Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces. Early European settlers built their major cities on this physiographic boundary from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. These were the places where the coastal rivers were navigable for shipping, and goods and materials were brought down from the hills to them. Trenton and Philadelphia are the examples in this region. In ecological terms, most richness and diversity occurs in edges, where shared attributes of two or more conditions occur. The Lawrenceville area is no exception.

Where the water cannot infiltrate, it makes distinctive, angular turns, finding the easiest path across the surface. In the Coastal Plain, the watercourses form braided, sinuous patterns that broaden as the gradient decreases. The presence of indigenous Sweetgum (Liriodendron tulipifera) trees on The Lawrenceville School campus not far from mature Beech (Fagus) forest patches clearly indicate that it is a transitional place.

The Inner Coastal Plain is characterized by deep, sandy sediments deposited by the advancing and retreating of the oceans, and shaped by deltaic streams formed as the Wisconsin ice sheet retreated 10,000 years ago. The rolling hills of the Piedmont Province, or “foot of the mountains,” were shaped by ancient tectonic movement. The igneous and metamorphic rock created by heat and pressure has created a rolling landscape that is sometimes rugged where the bedrock nears the surface. Soils tend to be thin on ridges and deeper in stream valleys. The plant communities differ significantly between the two physiographic provinces, from Oak-Beech-Hickory forests in the Piedmont, to the Pine forests of the Coastal Plain.

The landscape of The Lawrenceville School, with its open meadows and agricultural fields, forested patches and wetlands, offers significant visual and ecological diversity. Recent or intense residential development in Central New Jersey has made these conditions relatively rare, however large, undeveloped open spaces are adjacent to the campus. There is great opportunity to use these places as a “living laboratory” to teach the observer about the interface of these ecosystems, much as Olmsted believed that the collection of trees in the original master plan and physiographic provinces would serve as a “library” and “museum” of nature.

Lawrenceville shows evidence like this transition zone in its topography, soils, vegetation, and surface water movement. Steeper on the west side of Route 206, the east side flattens in a broad plain with significantly more wetlands. Water does not penetrate the clays and hard rock of the west side as easily as the deeper, sedimentary soils to the east. This is reinforced in the stream network pattern.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

9


Regional Analysis

STATE

URBANIZATION TREND Analyses compare urbanization over a century (1880’s-1990’s). The metropolitan areas of New York and Philadelphia, beginning as isolated patches are seen to nearly grow together in a continuous line of sprawling urban and suburban development. Notably, Lawrenceville is one of the last remaining patches of “open space” in this corridor. It therefore is one of relatively few places that one can view the “fall zone” of the Piedmont and Inner Coastal Plain provinces in a condition that reveals the natural structure of the place. Lawrenceville is also a part of an undeveloped corridor that runs perpendicular to the lay-lines of physiographic provinces, from the Pine Barrens to the Delaware Water Gap.

LAWRENCEVILLE

NEW JERSEY, 1880’S Based on a historical map

NEW JERSEY, 1992 / 93 Based on a satellite image

Images courtesy: CRSSA (Center for Remore Sensing and Spatial Analysis), Rutgers University,

10


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

NJ PRIORITY CONSERVATION SITES An analysis of the spatial distribution of statewide sites targeted for conservation of threatened and endangered species and habitats reveals that the greatest concentration of these areas lies in the northwest and the southeast of the state. Stating that this is the Highlands and the Pine Barrens is an oversimplification of this pattern, but essentially these are the largest undeveloped regions in New Jersey. Central New Jersey and the Lawrenceville area, have very little habitat remaining, and that which does remain is fragmented and widely dispersed. There is one significant exception adjacent to The Lawrenceville School; the Delaware and Raritan Canal forms a linear green corridor that stretches across the State linking many parks and natural patches. The School property, properly managed, can be an important asset to this ecological linkage.

NJ PRIORITY CONSERVATION SITES

The Natural Heritage Priority Sites Database was created to identify the best habitats for rare plant and animal species and natural communities through analysis of information in the NJ Natural Heritage Database. Natural Heritage Priority Sites contain some of the best and most viable occurrences of endangered and threatened species and their natural communities, but they do not cover all known habitat for endangered and threatened species in New Jersey. If information is needed on whether or not endangered or threatened species have been documented from a particular piece of land, a Natural Heritage Database search can be requested by contacting the Office of Natural Lands Management.

NATURAL HERITAGE PRIORITY SITES

Through its Natural Heritage Database, the Office of Natural Lands Management (ONLM) identifies critically important natural areas to conserve New Jersey’s biological diversity. The database provides detailed, up-to-date information on rare species and natural communities to planners, developers, and conservation agencies for use in resource management, environmental impact assessment, and both public and private land protection efforts. The Natural Heritage Priority Sites database represents some of the best remaining habitat for rare species and exemplary natural communities in the state. These areas are considered to be top priorities for the preservation of biological diversity in New Jersey. If these sites become degraded or destroyed, we may lose some of the unique components of our natural heritage.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

11


Regional Analysis - Central New Jersey

NJ PRIORITY CONSERVATION SITES

NATURAL HERITAGE PRIORITY SITES

Natural Heritage Priority Sites contain some of the best and most viable occurrences of endangered and threatened species and natural communities, but they do not cover all known habitat for endangered and threatened species in New Jersey. If information is needed on whether or not endangered or threatened species have been documented from a particular piece of land, a Natural Heritage Database search can be requested by contacting the Office of Natural Lands Management at: Office of Natural Lands Management, Division of Parks and Forestry, NJ Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 404, Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 Phone: 609-984-1339 Fax: 609-984-1427

12


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

BEDROCK GEOLOGY

The geology of New Jersey clearly differs in its structure from north and south. The “Fall Zone� previously described under Physiographic Provinces is the southwest to northeast diagonal line that runs directly through the town of Lawrenceville. Piedmont geology is thoroughly folded and faulted and presents very different landforms than that of the Coastal Plain. The Lawrenceville School is underlain by the Stockton geologic formation. The bedrock is gray, feldspathic sandstone conglomerate with some red shale. The aquifer capacity of this bedrock is significant. The town of Lawrenceville, on the other side of Route 206, is founded on the Lockatong formation. Some of the buildings at the School are constructed of this material. Lockatong consists of hard, reddish to blue-gray argillite and argillitic shale and is a poor aquifer, due to fissures and fractures and low infiltration potential. These are both Triassic formations (225 million to 195 million years ago) formed as North America separated from Africa. Just south and east of The Lawrenceville School property begin deep layers of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay, many high in glauconite. These Coastal Plain layers are much younger geologically, from the Cretaceous Period (135 million to 65 million years ago). Sediments were deposited by rivers flowing from uplifted regions and by repeated ocean level change.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

13


Regional Analysis

CENTRAL NEW JERSEY

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection has divided the State into 20 watersheds, or Watershed Management Areas. These physical divisions have management plans, funding, and outreach allocated both statewide and by area. The Lawrenceville School lies within Watershed Management Area 11, Central Delaware. The Shipetaukin Creek, which flows through the campus into the Assunpink Creek, ultimately ends up in the Delaware River and then the Atlantic Ocean. Casual observation of a map would lead one to believe that the Shipetaukin Creek flows into the D&R Canal, however, a visit to the confluence reveal that the Shipetaukin, as well as other local streams, flow underneath the Canal in culverts. The water systems are completely separate. Further information on watershed management areas may be found at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/ basicinfo.htm

14


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF

This map shows the topographic relief of five central NJ Watershed Management Areas. The two on the western side flow into the Delaware River, the three others into the Raritan River. The pattern of elevation reveals that The Lawrenceville School property lies at a foot of the large upland region extending to the north. It is situated in the broad, relatively flat drainage area of the Assunpink Creek at approximately 100 feet above sea level.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

15


Regional Analysis - Lawrence Township

TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF / WATERSHEDS

Topography viewed from the Township scale reveals similar patterns to the regional view, but with finer detail. Several features relating to The Lawrenceville School are evident. There is a distinct pattern and elevation difference that occurs on either side of Route 206 (which follows the northwestern edge of the campus). There is a rapid elevation change, climbing higher to the northwest from the flat areas of the southeast. The watercourses exhibit dramatically different flow patterns on either side of this line; the Piedmont’s angular, jogging patterns versus the sinuous curves of the Coastal Plain. The campus occupies a significant portion of, and is wholly encompassed by the Shipetaukin Creek watershed. The campus sits near the top of the watershed, meaning that very little water flows down into the property; it actually originates there. This is known as a “headwater”, or, the water from which a river arises. This portion of a watercourse is the most critical to the overall health of a water system. If pollution and sediment pick-up occur here, the downstream effects multiply cumulatively. Two tributaries of the Shipetaukin Creek originate within a short distance of the property boundary and then flow through the campus. All water that falls on the property ends up in these tributaries carrying pollutants and sediment from the surfaces it crosses. The Shipetaukin Creek, measured at the confluence just below the property, is classified by the State of NJ as “moderately impaired” as are all the downstream waters. The Shipetaukin Creek is a headwater of the Assunpink Creek that feeds the Delaware Estuary. Changes in stormwater management practice in headwaters can have significant impacts on all water quality downstream.

16


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

GEOLOGY

GNEISS

GEOLOGY

The Lawrenceville School is situated on the Stockton geologic formation. Route 206 follows the divide between Stockton and Lockatong along the northwestern campus edge. Note the presence of numerous faults and folds within the Lockatong and other formations to the north. The absence of these fractures and its relative porosity makes the Stockton sandstones and conglomerates highly suitable as groundwater aquifers.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

17


Regional Analysis

LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP

LANDCOVER

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA 11: CENTRAL DELAWARE (IN ACRES) LAND USE TYPE Agriculture Barren Land

1986

1995

NET CHANGE

59,215

52,477

-6,738

795

1,072

278

Forest

45,714

46,883

1,168

Water

3,405

3,502

97

Urban Land

39,192

44,987

5,795

Wetlands

25,702

25,102

-600

This map of landcover from 1995/1997 illustrates the highly fragmented state of the landscape of Lawrence Township and beyond. In Lawrence Township, urbanized land dominates, followed by agricultural land, then wetlands and forests. Lawrence Township was more than half urbanized then, and this percentage has since grown. The Lawrenceville School property contains a mixture of land cover conditions. From an ecological perspective, the non-urbanized portions of the campus create valuable habitat and connectivity to the natural systems on neighboring properties. Maintaining interconnected stream corridors is particularly vital to water quality, biodiversity and species richness.

18


THE

Regional Analysis - Upper Shipetaukin Creek

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

WATERSHED CONTEXT

This aerial photograph from 2000 reveals the pattern of suburban development divided by small woodlots, linear wetland systems, and agricultural fields that characterizes the upper Shipetaukin Creek Watershed. Note the density of development to the north and west of The Lawrenceville School property and the relative lack of large areas of forest cover. Source: Year 2000 Orthophotography, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

19


Regional Analysis

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF / WATERSHEDS

ET

R

N GE

BE

S

E TR

This view of the upper Shipetaukin Creek watershed shows the relationship of topography and elevation to the flow patterns of the watercourses. The two stream tributaries that flow through The Lawrenceville School receive runoff both from the campus and from the town above. The ridgeline that divides these subwatersheds from the main stem of the Shipetaukin Creek is essentially Bergen Street. Areas north of Bergen Street flow down the north side of the ridge to the Shipetaukin branch that then curves back around to pass east of the School property.

COPYRIGHT 1992-2005, TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE Planimetric and topographic information provided in digital format from Lawrence Township, Mercer County digital files. Certain conditions apply, as outlined in the License Agreement Number 18, dated April 25, 2005.

20


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS

A great proportion of the larger open spaces within Lawrence Township are owned by municipal or state agencies. Individuals and private corporations hold some of the remaining pieces. Many of these properties contain or border wetlands and stream channels of the Shipetaukin Creek. Gaining funding for environmental restoration and stormwater management is easier when landowners are bound together as a consortium. A relatively large land area is still agricultural within the watershed. Farmland in New Jersey provides many exclusive grant opportunities. These land owners could partner with The Lawrenceville School to receive the benefits of these exclusive grants to improve water quality throughout the watershed. Source: Mercer County parcel database

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

21


Regional Analysis

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

WOOD TURTLE HABITAT

Habitat in the lower reaches of Shipetaukin Creek have been classified as “moderately impaired” by the NJDEP due to sedimentation and pollution.

The Wood Turtle is considered a “threatened species” by the state of New Jersey. Wood Turtle habitat is high quality stream banks, wetlands, and adjacent meadows and forests. It is an indicator species of high quality natural systems. The reason this habitat is not shown on the Lawrenceville School property is that the Shipetaukin Creek is considered “moderately impaired” below Route 206. If the quality of vegetated and water systems were improved, it would most likely become home to resident turtle populations. There is significant grant money available for habitat improvement of this nature.

22


THE

WOOD TURTLE WITH A RADIO TRANSMITTER Image courtesy Yohann Dubois, Don Thomas and collaborators, viewed at http://www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca/biodome/e4-rech/eprojet1.htm Subsidized by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, the Granby Zoo, the Montréal Biodôme and the St. Lawrence Valley Natural History Ecomuseum.

WOOD TURTLE HABITAT This dataset (facing page) is a product of the Landscape Project, an ecosystem-level approach to the long-term protection of imperiled and priority species and their important habitats in New Jersey. 1) A 322 meter (0.2 miles) buffer is applied to all streams within a one-mile radius of each Wood Turtle sighting location. The buffers are clipped so that all areas being designated as critical Wood Turtle habitat are within one mile of a Wood Turtle sighting. 2) The NJDEP LULC layer is overlaid on the buffered areas. All areas classified as urban, with the exception of powerline corridors, are deleted from the buffered areas. 3) Next, the NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands layer is overlaid on the stream buffers, and all wetlands that are contiguous with the buffered areas are selected and clipped to only include wetlands within one mile of a sighting. Those wetlands are then merged into the stream buffers. 4) Lastly, a staff turtle biologist conducts a detailed inspection and revision of each resultant polygon to ensure biological accuracy. The Wood Turtle model is a stand-alone layer that is not used to value habitat patches. A radius of one mile as the starting point for Wood Turtle habitat mapping was chosen based upon ecological studies that demonstrated Wood Turtle movements of 800m (Harding and Bloomer), 1km (Mitchell 1991), and 1.9km and 3.6km (Quinn and Tate 1991) along riparian corridors. Carroll and Ehrenfeld (1978) demonstrated that Wood Turtles displaced up to 2km were well within their home range. In addition to linear movements following watercourses, it is well documented that Wood Turtles travel beyond the riparian zone during the summer months. The 322m buffer represents a mean distance Wood Turtles traveled from their hibernation/breeding streams according to various natural history studies (Burt and Collins n.d.; Ernst 1986; Harding and Bloomer 1979; Strang 1983; Kaufmann 1992, 1995; Brewster and Brewster 1991; Farrell and Graham 1991; Quinn and Tate 1991), as well as ongoing research (R.L. Burke, Hofstra University; J.L. Behler, Wildlife Conservation Society).

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

WATER SUPPLY WELLS / WELL HEAD PROTECTION (see diagram on next page) The Lawrenceville School has three water supply wells on the property. Sources interviewed at The School stated that their depth was between 100 and 300 feet. The water supply wells for the Town of Lawrence are very close to the southwestern property boundary of The School. The reason for these locations is primarily due to the high quality of the aquifer below the surface-the Stockton geologic formation. Aquifers are geologic units that are porous and permeable enough to hold and allow water to flow through them in quantities sufficient to supply wells. They are recharged with water from precipitation that percolates through pervious land surfaces and becomes ground water. Groundwater is vulnerable to contamination and once polluted, it is difficult and costly to clean up. Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA’s) are determined so that potential contamination can be identified and dealt with before it becomes a problem. A WHPA consists of three tiers, each based on the time of travel (TOT) through the subsurface to the well. The outer boundaries of these tiers have the following times of travel: • Tier 1 = two years (730 days) • Tier 2 = five years (1,826 days) • Tier 3 = twelve years (4,383 days) The portion of the zone of contribution designated as the WHPA is based upon the TOT of the ground water to a pumping well. The TOT’s are based on the need to assess the relative risk of contamination to the well, allowing priority to sources that pose an imminent threat. Source: NJ Department of Environmental Protection

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

23


Regional Analysis

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

WATER SUPPLY WELLS / WELL HEAD PROTECTION

24


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

INFILTRATION POTENTIAL

Total campus acreage

7.7 acres

1.2%

418.2 acres

66.9%

34.4 acres

5.5%

45.5 acres

7.3%

119.7 acres

19.2%

625.5 acres

100%

Ground-water recharge is defined as that water which infiltrates vertically downward from the land surface to below the unsaturated zone. This water may then move laterally to discharge in streams or to enter an aquifer. These data are based upon the landcover, the soil infiltration capability and geographic location. Groundwater recharge in Lawrenceville is moderate in the Town, very fast in higher elevations underlain by the Stockton formation, and very slow to nonexistent in wetland areas. On The Lawrenceville School property, about 70% of the land infiltrates up to 13 inches of water per year. Conversely, nearly 20% of the land doesn’t infiltrate at all. The spatial arrangement of these areas has great implications for stormwater management. There is great opportunity to use infiltration-based best management practices (BMP’s) as an alternative to piping stormwater to detention basins. Detention basins do not eliminate the damage caused by excessive stormwater volume, they merely change when it occurs. A strategy based upon infiltration will recharge the aquifers, clean the water, and provide base flow to streams and ponds to help maintain ecological stability. Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

25


Regional Analysis

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

PRIME FARMLAND

405 acres 64.8% of property

Prime farmland is determined by analyzing the soil crop production capability and designating those that are the best available in the region. Mercer County has high quality agricultural soils in general. At The Lawrenceville School, 65% of the property is designated as prime farmland. In many cases, prime farmland is also the most suitable for development, therefore a high percentage of these soils are now covered with impervious surfaces. Determining future land use at The School should consider whether farming is a viable option, where it should occur, and to what extent. Currently, most of the land in agricultural production is on prime farmland, but some is on unsuitable land that may be better suited to meadow, forest, or wetland.

26


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTO SEQUENCE - 1940 TO 2000 1940

1951

OPEN AGRICULTURAL LAND

Aerial photgraphs showing progressive stages of change in town, forest, agricultural and campus areas.

CAMPUS TOWN SEWAGE LAGOONS TREE GROVES ADDED

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

27


Regional Analysis

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

1965

1974

OPEN AGRICULTURAL LAND CAMPUS TOWN TREE GROVES ADDED

28

Historic Aerial Photographs courtesy: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Tidelands Management, Aerial Photography Library


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

2000 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTO SEQUENCE When the Olmsted Master Plan was implemented in the late 1880’s, the surroundings were mostly open agricultural land, drained wetlands, small hedgerows, and probably a small town core on Route 206. The 1940 aerial photograph is probably not significantly different from this condition, except that the town extended further along the road. On The School property, The Bowl and its surrounding buildings had been constructed, the site of the current golf course was for skeet shooting, and there was a golf course where there are now community gardens and cropland. Sewage lagoons are present in what is now the maintenance materials storage area. The 1951 aerial photo shows growth in the town, the addition of an athletic facility to the campus, an increase in forested area, and the absence of a golf course. The view of 1965 shows further growth in the town, new buildings at The School, and continued forest expansion. The sewage lagoons have disappeared as municipal service pipes came through, and the lagoons were filled with debris; a dumping site began. In 1974, the town and School have both grown, and forest and wetland areas have increased. The modern day, year 2000 aerial shows perhaps the most significant changes of any time period. The town has grown exponentially and agricultural land has been greatly reduced. Many new buildings were added to The School and the forested areas have increased in density and spread. Sixty years of visible land use change is expressed by an increased human population with a change in needs and desires. Agriculture is diminished and residential areas increased. A change in attitude and regulation toward the environment in the sixties and seventies may have caused a great visible increase in forest and wetland area. At present, the region may have reached its population carrying capacity given the management mechanisms in place. The land and water systems are deteriorating in quality through invasive species and waterborne pollution and sedimentation. Changes in management and practice could certainly solve this problem. As the area becomes denser and more urban, greater human intervention will become necessary to enhance the capacity of the natural systems to function sustainably.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

29


Regional Analysis

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

HISTORIC MAP SEQUENCE - 1851 TO 1976 1851

Lawrenceville is located at 40°18’11” North, 74°44’13” West. Located halfway between Princeton and Trenton. The village and township were founded as Maidenhead, which was the village from which the town’s Quaker founder originated. Town and township were renamed after the War of 1812 to honor naval hero James Lawrence, famous for saying, “Don’t give up the ship” during the Battle of Lake Erie. The Lawrenceville School was founded in 1810 as a private boarding school. The map sequence illustrates the relative importance of regional features over time. In 1851, Lawrenceville was depicted as a cluster of dots along what is now Route 206. This road is clearly a subordinate route between Trenton and Princeton. The Delaware and Raritan Canal is prominently featured as is the railroad paralleling it. The watercourses are clearly expressed. The map of 1872 labels The School and the adjacent Presbyterian Church. The branches of the Shipetaukin Creek are clearly articulated. The “Princeton Turnpike” remains the preferred route, connecting Trenton and Princeton.

30

1872


THE

1878

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

1890

In 1878, the railroads and the D&R Canal remain emphasized, the road system and Lawrenceville are not drawn as particularly important. The map of 1890 is a forestry management map, illustrating that there were indeed forests for production in the region. Lawrence Township, however, was primarily agricultural. The Pond at The Lawrenceville School is drawn on the map.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 19, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

31


Regional Analysis

32

UPPER SHIPETAUKIN CREEK

1918

1938

1918’s map shows the most detail about The Lawrenceville School to date. The Circle is clearly drawn, as is The Pond and the creek tributaries. The road systems are drawn with greater clarity and begin to take precedence over the railroads and the D&R Canal.

The map of 1938 appears to emphasize political jurisdictions and road hierarchies. The Pond is shown, and additional roads indicate some growth in the town.


THE

1956

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

1976

HISTORIC MAP SEQUENCE As maps are drawn for different purposes, it is difficult to directly compare them. Some trends, however, may be observed in this map series. The maps clearly reflect the changes in importance of transportation systems over time. All the maps have highly accurate representations of the water systems, but this is less so in the newest maps. The Lawrenceville School, which is one of the most important features of Lawrenceville, appears infrequently and different features are represented. One could speculate that a private institution surrounded by high walls and fences may be somewhat of an “unknown” to mapmakers. The Lawrenceville School’s current outreaching relationship to the surrounding community as well as technical advances in mapmaking could change this in future representations.

In 1956, the town of Lawrenceville has grown, and The Lawrenceville School Golf Course is featured on the map. The only other school feature is The Pond. The road hierarchy is clearly drawn.

By 1976, significant changes in transportation routes have occurred. Interstate 95 has been constructed, and Route 1 and Route 206 are represented as having nearly equivalent status as collector roads. The town of Lawrenceville has grown, but The Pond is the only visible feature of The School.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

Historic Maps courtesy: Rutgers University Map Collection

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

33


Site Analysis : The Lawrenceville School PARCEL BOUNDARIES

The parcel boundaries of the 625 acres of The Lawrenceville School and its surroundings are represented here. The aerial photo is from 2000, and the building footprints are the most current that could be obtained. Sources: Mercer County Parcel Data; Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Year 2000 Orthophotography, Hopewell Valley Engineering

34


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF

COPYRIGHT 1992-2005, TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE Planimetric and topographic information provided in digital format from Lawrence Township, Mercer County digital files. Certain conditions apply, as outlined in the License Agreement Number 18, dated April 25, 2005.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

35


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF (previous page) This digital elevation model shows height in feet above sea level represented by color ranges. Some features to note are the rapid elevation change on the west side of Route 206. This is seen as the charge from orange to red to brown. Above that is a grayish white that represents a ridgeline. The ridgeline elevation is approximately 190 to 200 feet. All rainwater that lands below the ridgeline moves through the campus of The Lawrenceville School in the two tributaries of the Shipetaukin Creek. The perimeter of The Lawrenceville School, seen as an orange range of color on the western half, represents an elevation of about 115 to 120 feet. The campus core is sited on the highest contiguous area on the property, ranging from about 105 to 115 feet. The Lavino Field house and the Facilities and Maintenance buildings are lower, from about 85 to 95 feet, and are therefore in danger of flooding when The Pond backs up and the tributaries overtop their banks. Water drains through the property to the east, with the lowest elevation at approximately 62 -64 feet where the creek tributaries leave the property. Two-foot contours from 1995 with one-foot contours from ca. 2000 to 2003 in the core campus of The Lawrenceville School were used to generate this digital elevation model. The datasets were joined based on general field observations in May and June of 2005.

HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP DEFINITION A hydrologic soils group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a very slowly permeable layer. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. CLASSES The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the definitions of the classes, infiltration rate is the rate at which water enters the soil at the surface and is controlled by the surface conditions. Transmission rate is the rate at which water moves in the soil and is controlled by soil properties. Definitions of the classes are as follows: A. (Low runoff potential). The soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravels. They have a high rate of water transmission. B. The soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. They have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. The soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly have a layer that impedes downward movement of water or have moderately fine to fine texture. They have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). The soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of clay soils that have a high swelling potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. They have a very slow rate of water transmission. Dual hydrologic groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D, are given for certain wet soils that can be adequately drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition, the second to the un-drained. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes. Soils may be assigned to dual groups if drainage is feasible and practical. Hydrologic soils ratings are a critical component of design for stormwater management. A full 72% of The Lawrenceville School property is classified as “A” and “B” soils, which means that it has good infiltration potential for stormwater. The rest of the property does not drain well at all, but its spatial arrangement allows for good design to minimize its liabilities and move water through the stream system to where it can infiltrate.

36


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUPS

Total campus acreage

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

4.4 acres

0.7%

4.7 acres

0.8%

444.1 acres

71.0%

21.5 acres

3.4%

94.2 acres

15.0%

36.5 acres

5.9%

20.1 acres

3.2%

625.5 acres

100%

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

37


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

HYDRIC SOILS

82.4 ACRES 13.17%

A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils along with hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are used to define wetland boundaries. Approximately 82 acres (14%) of The Lawrenceville School is classified as hydric soils. This land and its periphery are un-buildable but offer the potential for high quality wetlands for both stormwater management and as part of an ecological curriculum.

38


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

FEMA FLOOD BOUNDARIES

In support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has undertaken a massive effort of flood hazard identification and mapping to produce Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. Several areas of flood hazards are commonly identified on these maps. One of these areas is the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), which is defined as an area of land that would be inundated by a flood having a 1% chance of occurring in any given year (previously referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood). The 1% annual chance standard was chosen after considering various alternatives. The standard constitutes a reasonable compromise between the need for building restrictions to minimize potential loss of life and property and the economic benefits to be derived from floodplain development. The data for the 100-year flood mapping at The Lawrenceville School predates the recent growth spurt in suburban development upstream and may underestimate the actual flooding currently experienced.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

39


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

SOIL DRAINAGE CLASS

Total campus acreage

417.6 acres

66.8%

93.9 acres

15.0%

31.4 acres

5.0%

57.9 acres

9.3%

20.1 acres

3.2%

4.4 acres

0.7%

625.5 acres

100%

This map represents the natural drainage condition of the soil and refers to the frequency and duration of periods when the soil is free of saturation. These classifications are, in order: Excessively drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, and poorly drained. The Lawrenceville School property is 92% well drained and moderately well drained. There are few constraints presented by this analysis.

40


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

LANDCOVER – 1995 / 1997

The 1995/97 updated land use/land cover (LULC) was mapped for the purpose of providing trend analysis data throughout the state. All work was performed by Aerial Information Systems, Inc., (AIS), Redlands, CA., under the direction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

41


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

SLOPE

Lawrenceville’s land is very flat. The steeper slopes that occur on the map generally occur where there are sharp transitions between built surface areas. Some also appear due to anomalies within the data and limitations of the GIS software. Slope is generally a building constraint where land is too steep. The opposite condition occurs here, in that the constraint for building suitability is where the land does not slope, and therefore does not drain water away. Care should be taken in design and planning with regard to flat, wet areas.

COPYRIGHT 1992-2005, TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE Planimetric and topographic information provided in digital format from Lawrence Township, Mercer County digital files. Certain conditions apply, as outlined in the License Agreement Number 18, dated April 25, 2005.

42


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

SOLAR ASPECT

Solar aspect measures the orientation of the ground surface in relation to the sun. While it is most critical as a site design factor where topography is steeper, there are great implications for flat sites as well. Microclimate depends highly on even very slight changes in aspect. Cool and warm pockets of air and moisture, wind currents, and plant physiology can change radically in a matter of inches if the aspect changes. Building energy costs, irrigation and fertilizer requirements, snow and ice removal costs, and comfortable places to be; all depend upon solar orientation.

COPYRIGHT 1992-2005, TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE Planimetric and topographic information provided in digital format from Lawrence Township, Mercer County digital files. Certain conditions apply, as outlined in the License Agreement Number 18, dated April 25, 2005.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

The core campus of The Lawrenceville School has been built on a south-facing slope. It is the best location on the property for this purpose. Another highly suitable area would have been the area that is now the golf course and adjacent agricultural fields.

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

43


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL N

TENNIS COURTS

THE CIRCLE

THE FLAGPOLE GREEN

LAVINO FIELD HOUSE THE BOWL

TIHONEN FIELD ‘42 FIELD

KIRBY ARTS CENTER

THE

WOODS

THE POND

FACULTY HOUSING

‘49 FIELD

CHAMBERS FIELD

44

COPYRIGHT 1992-2005, TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE Planimetric and topographic information provided in digital format from Lawrence Township, Mercer County digital files. Certain conditions apply, as outlined in the License Agreement Number 18, dated April 25, 2005.


THE N

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

AUTOCAD BASE PLAN The base plan for The Lawrenceville School was compiled using engineering documents provided by the Township of Lawrence, Hopewell Valley Engineering, and aerial photography of the campus from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Year 2000. The combined base plan reflects the built plan as of 1995, with changes made to it over the years as represented by the engineering drawings and aerial photography. Contours needed to be interpolated between plans of different years. The plan shows existing and modified natural features such as contours, drainage, paths, depression areas and vegetation - including ground cover, trees, shrubs, and hedges. It also contains existing and proposed buildings, driveways and roads, curbs and sidewalks, parking areas, paths, walls, dams, paved fields and other built structures. In addition the plan contains information about utilities and control features located on site–water, electricity, gas, steam, sanitation lines, telephone, cable, streetlights and stormwater pipes. In excess of 150 man-hours were spent preparing the AutoCAD base map.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

45


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

46


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS The environmental structure analysis shows the critical ecological factors of the land and water systems around Lawrenceville. These factors may be used as a tool to determine areas that are particularly sensitive to human intervention or those that may be simply cost prohibitive to build upon. They may also inform decisions about ecological restoration or management strategies. It is important to recognize that these factors are interrelated and interdependent. Living systems’ component pieces cannot be examined or valued in the same fashion as functional entities. The pieces may, however, help to understand how these systems work and how they affect choices we would like to make about the land. The components of the environmental structure analysis are as follows: Wet Areas: These areas include surface water, hydric soils, soils with poor infiltration capability, and poorly drained soils. These areas are difficult and costly to build upon, and conversely, they are ranked highly in terms of biodiversity and species richness. The life cycles of many organisms are dependent upon these kinds of conditions. Highly Erodible Soils: These soils are unstable and, if disturbed, become significant polluters of local water systems. Mature Forest: Mature forest areas are critically important as species habitat. Included in this category are several “oldfields” that, while not the same, support an equally important habitat class. Wetland: Wetlands are perhaps the most valuable naturally condition in terms of the ecological services they provide and their role in support of biodiversity and species richness. Wetland Buffers: Two buffers were mapped, 100 feet and 300 feet. These are used as proxies to account for mapping errors and encompass the peripheral areas of wetlands that are important to their continued existence. The 100 foot buffer is a minimum legal setback in many states and nations for wetland protection and 300 feet is considered “good practice” for maintaining wetland health. Some factors that are not mapped here include prime farmland and culturally important areas such as the Olmstedian core of The Lawrenceville School. They should be considered in all decision making, but if they were included in this map, the entire property would have been encompassed.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

47


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

The map of environmental constraints is an overlay of the factors used in the environmental structure analysis. There are many ways this kind of analysis is performed, but in this case, all factors except for the 300-foot wetland buffer were considered as equally important. This is because they are all related to each other functionally, they often occupy the same space, they often are used as means of determining each other, and because inaccuracies in mapping often underestimate their extents. The criteria thus become: High Environmental Sensitivity: The incidence of any of the identified environmental structure components with the exception of the 300-foot wetland buffers. Moderate Environmental Sensitivity: 300-foot wetland buffers. Low Environmental Sensitivity: All other areas. These should be analyzed from the perspective of prime farmland and culturally important areas.

48


THE

CITYGREEN ANALYSIS

AIR POLLUTION REMOVAL

CITYgreen is a GIS application for calculating the value of nature’s services. The Lawrenceville School property and the Shipetaukin watershed were analyzed to determine their air quality, carbon storage and avoidance and stormwater runoff volume and quality. By understanding the magnitude and relative costs incurred by a landcover at a point in time, design decisions can be analyzed by how the numbers change.

SUMMARY

The analysis begins with landcover.

The Lawrenceville School Land cover areas are in acres Cropland: Row Crops

220.8

Meadow (Continuous grass, generally mowed, not grazed ) Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees

35.3%

1.6

0.2%

131.3

21.0%

Shrub

28.8

4.6%

Trees

114.4

18.3%

Urban

123.9

19.8%

4.6

0.7%

Water Area Total:

625.3 100.0%

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

The Air Pollution Removal program is based on research conducted by David Nowak, PhD, of the U.S. Forest Service. Dr. Nowak developed a methodology to assess the air pollution removal capacity of urban forests with respect to pollutants such as Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10). Pollution removal is reported in pounds and U.S. dollars, on an annual basis. Removal rates were estimated for 55 cities: Albany, NY Albuquerque, NM Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Baltimore, MD Baton Rouge, LA Boston, MA Bridgeport, CT Buffalo, NY Charleston, SC Cincinnati, OH Cleveland, OH Columbia, SC Columbus, OH

LANDCOVER

green

Dallas, TX Denver, CO Detroit, MI El Paso, TX Fresno, CA Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Indianapolis, IN Jacksonville, FL Jersey City, NJ Kansas City, MO Los Angeles, CA Louisville, KY Memphis, TN

Miami, FL Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN New Orleans, LA New York, NY Newark, NJ Oklahoma City, OK Omaha, NE Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland, OR Providence, RI

Roanoke,VA Sacramento, CA Saint Louis, MO Salt Lake City, UT San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA Seattle, WA Tampa, FL Tucson, AZ Tulsa, OK Virginia Beach,VA Washington, DC

CITYgreen will determine the Air Quality city nearest the site, or users can manually identify a city that better represents air quality, and the results from that city are used.

Total Tree Canopy: 114.4 acres (18.3%)

The program estimates the amount of pollution being deposited within a certain given study site based on pollution data from the nearest city, and then estimates the removal rate based on the area of tree and/or forest canopy coverage on the site.

Shipetaukin Watershed

TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY Land cover areas are in acres Cropland: Row Crops Meadow (Continuous grass, generally mowed, not grazed ) Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees

1,441.2

23.7%

8.0

0.1%

476.9

7.8%

Shrub

530.0

8.7%

Trees

1,508.2

24.8%

Urban

2,064.9

33.9%

62.6

1.0%

Water Area Total:

The methodology determines a pollutant removal rate or flux (F) by multiplying the deposition velocity (Vd) by the pollution concentration (C). F (g/cm2/sec) = Vd(cm/sec) x C (g/cm3) The pollutant flux is then multiplied by the area of the surface over periods in which the pollutant is known to exist over that surface in order to estimate total pollutant flux by hour for that surface. Hourly fluxes can be summed to estimate daily, monthly, or yearly fluxes. Currently, air pollution estimates generated from CITYgreen are designed for urban and suburban forests. Therefore, CITYgreen analyses run on sites in rural areas, far removed from cities, may over estimate tree benefits.

6,091.8 100.0%

REFERENCES

Nowak, D.J. 2003. U.S. Forest Service, Unpublished. City specific data produced for AMERICAN FORESTS.

Total Tree Canopy: 1,508.2 acres (24.8%)

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

49


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

AIR POLLUTION REMOVAL

CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION

By absorbing and filtering out nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) in their leaves, urban trees perform a vital air cleaning service that directly affects the wellbeing of urban dwellers. CITYgreen estimates the annual air pollution removal rate of trees within a defined study area for the pollutants listed below. To calculate the dollar value of these pollutants, economists use “externality” costs, or indirect costs borne by society such as rising health care expenditures and reduced tourism revenue. The actual externality costs used in CITYgreen of each air pollutant is set by the each state, Public Services Commission.

SUMMARY CITYgreen’s carbon module quantifies the role of urban forests in removing atmospheric carbon dioxide and storing carbon. The carbon module multiplies a per unit value of carbon storage by the area of canopy coverage. The program estimates annual sequestration, or the rate at which carbon is removed, and the current storage in existing trees. Both are reported in tons. Economic benefits can also be associated with carbon sequestration rates using whatever valuation method the user feels appropriate. Some studies have used the cost of preventing the emission of a unit of carbon—through emission control systems or “scrubbers” for instance—as the value associated with trees’ carbon removal services.

The Lawrenceville School Nearest Air Quality Reference City: Philadelphia Carbon Monoxide: Ozone: Nitrogen Dioxide: Particulate Matter: Sulfur Dioxide:

LBS. REMOVED/YR 306 3,875 2,039 5,609 2,039

DOLLAR VALUE $131 $11,905 $6,266 $11,504 $1,531

TOTALS:

13,868

$31,336

In recent studies conducted by Dr. David Nowak and Dr. Greg McPherson of the U.S. Forest Service, they have suggested that if urban trees are properly maintained over their lifespan, the carbon costs outweigh the benefits. Tree maintenance equipment such as chain saws, chippers and backhoes emit carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon released from maintenance equipment and from decaying or dying trees could conceivably cause a carbon benefit deficit if it exceeds in volume the amount sequestered by trees. In order to maximize the carbon storage/sequestration benefits of urban trees, the U.S. Forest Service suggests that we should plant larger and longer living species in urban areas, so that more carbon can be stored, mortality rates can be decreased, and maintenance methods can be revised over time as technology improves. For more information on how to estimate urban carbon storage and sequestration, please contact the U.S. Forest Service (Northeastern Forest Experiment Station - Syracuse, NY). REFERENCES 1. Nowak, David; Rowntree, Rowan A., “Quantifying the Role of Urban Forests in Removing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Journal of Arboriculture, 17 (10). October 1, 1991. p.269. 2. McPherson, E. Gregory; Nowak, David J.; Rowntree, Rowan A. eds. 1994. Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 201 p.

Shipetaukin Watershed Nearest Air Quality Reference City: Philadelphia

50

TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY In estimating urban carbon storage and sequestration, the study area (in acres) and the percentage of crown cover are required.

Carbon Monoxide: Ozone: Nitrogen Dioxide: Particulate Matter: Sulfur Dioxide:

LBS. REMOVED/YR 4,033 51,089 26,889 73,945 26,889

DOLLAR VALUE $1,721 $156,958 $82,609 $151,674 $20,179

TOTALS:

182,846

$413,142

CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION Trees remove carbon dioxide from the air through their leaves and store carbon in their biomass. Approximately half of a tree’s dry weight, in fact, is carbon. For this reason, large-scale tree planting projects are recognized as a legitimate tool in many national carbonreduction programs. CITYgreen estimates the carbon storage capacity and carbon sequestration rates of trees within a defined study area.

The Lawrenceville School

Shipetaukin Watershed

Carbon Storage and Sequestration Total Tons Stored: 4,922.61 Total Tons Sequestered (Annually): 38.32

Carbon Storage and Sequestration Total Tons Stored: 64,901.79 Total Tons Sequestered (Annually): 505.28


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

STORMWATER RUNOFF REDUCTION

SUMMARY

The CITY green stormwater runoff analysis estimates the amount of stormwater that runs off a land area during a major storm, as well as the time of concentration and peak flow. The program determines runoff volume based on the percentage of tree canopy, and other landcover features, as digitized by the user in the CITYgreen view or as reported in a raster data set. The analysis also considers a variety of localized information identified automatically by CITYgreen or entered by the user, such as local rainfall patterns, soil type, and other site characteristics. The Stormwater Runoff program incorporates procedures and formulas developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), to estimate runoff volume as well as percent changes in time of concentration and peak flow. The Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds model, commonly referred to as Technical Release 55 or TR-55, was incorporated into CITYgreen and customized, with the help of Don Woodward, PE, a hydraulic engineer with NRCS, to determine the benefits of trees and other urban vegetation with respect to stormwater management. TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY

CITYgreen’s stormwater runoff analysis enables a user to map urban land cover features (grassland/shrub, trees, buildings and impervious surfaces) and determine percentages of each land cover feature. Land cover percentages are then combined with average precipitation data, rainfall distribution information, percent slope, and hydrologic soil group, to estimate how trees affect runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak flow. In addition, the program estimates the additional volume of water, in cubic feet, that would have to be managed if trees were removed when comparing two scenarios. This volume estimate can be associated with an economic value since planners generally know the cost per cubic foot to build a retention pond in their municipality. CITYgreen also enables the user to model different land cover and precipitation scenarios to determine acceptable development or conservation practices. The TR-55 model was designed to analyze runoff patterns during a 24-hour single storm-event. Engineers and nonengineers typically design stormwater management facilities for average storm events, usually 24 hours in duration, according to NRCS. CITYgreen allows the user to input values for the amount of rain that would typically fall during a typical 24-hour event observed within a two-year span. This value is based on NRCS estimates of rainfall distributions for different regions of the country. The user is also asked to input a slope, which can be best thought of as the estimated average slope of the site. The following formulas are used to estimate curve numbers, stormwater runoff, time of concentration and peak flows. FORMULAS USED IN CALCULATIONS

Curve Numbers: CN (weighted) = Total Product of (CN x Percent land cover area) / Total Percent Area or 100 Potential Maximum Retention after Runoff begins: S = ( (1000 / CN) - 10) Runoff Equation: Q = [ P - 0.2 ((1000 / CN) - 10) ]2 / P + 0.8 ((1000 / CN) - 10)

Flow Length: F = (total study area acres0.6) * 209.0 Lag Time: L = ((F0.8) *((S + 1.0) 0.7) / (1900 * ((slope)0.5))) Time of Concentration: Tc = 1.67 * L Unit Peak Discharge: log(qu) = C0 + C1log(Tc) + C2[log(Tc)]2 Peak Flow: Peak = (qu * Am * Q * Fp) Storage Volume: Vs = Vr *(C0 + (C1(qo/qi)) + (C2 ((qo/qi) (qo/qi))) + (C3 (qo/qi) * (qo/qi) * (qo/qi))) * study area acres * 43560.17 / 12 VARIABLE DEFINITIONS

P = Average Rainfall for a 24-hour period (inches) Am = study area acres / 640 to determine square miles Fp = Swamp pond percentage adjustment factor qo =Existing peak flow condition with trees qi = Peak flow without trees C0..... = TR-55 Coefficents in accordance with raintype OUTPUT VALUES

Peak = Peak Flow (cfs) Vs = Storage volume (cubic feet) Vr = Runoff Volume (in) CN = Runoff Curve Number (weighted) Q = Runoff (inches) F = Flow length (feet) S = Potential Maximum Retention after Runoff begins (in) L = Lag Time (hours) Tc = Time of Concentration (hours) qu = Unit Peak Discharge (csm / in) TR-55 formulas are used in most engineering firms, soil conservation districts, and municipalities around the country. Over 300,000 copies of the TR-55 manual have been sold by the US National Technical Information Service as of 1994. The NRCS methods used in TR-55 are very effective in evaluating the effects of land cover/ land use changes and conservation practices on direct runoff. For more information about TR-55, see the following website: www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/water/quality/common/tr55/tr55.html The CITYgreen stormwater runoff analysis is not intended to be used to design stormwater management facilities, culverts, or ditches. The program is used to estimate the effects of vegetation, especially trees, on runoff volume and peak flow. Percent changes in runoff volume and peak flow are determined automatically by comparing two different scenarios of the same site.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

51


Site Analysis

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

REFERENCES

1.Cronshey, Roger G., “Synthetic Regional Rainfall Time Distributions”, Statistical Analysis of Rainfall and Runoff, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling (1981), Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, 1982. 2. Chapter 2, Engineering Field Handbook Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington DC, 1990. 3. Chapter 15, Section 4, “Hydrology”, National Engineering Handbook, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington DC, 1985. 4. Kibler, David F., Small, Aaron B., and Pasquel, R. Fernando, “Evaluating Hydrologic Models and Methods in Northern Virginia”,Virginia Tech University Research Paper Evaluating Runoff Models, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg,VA. 5. Rallison, Robert E. and Miller, Norman, “Past, Present, and Future SCS Runoff Procedure”, RainfallRunoff Relationship, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rainfall-Runoff Modeling (1981), Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, 1982. 6. Technical Release 55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., June, 1986. 7. Water Environment Federation-American Society of Civil Engineers, Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1992. 8. Woodward, Donald M. and Moody, Helen Fox, “Evaluation of Stormwater Management Structures Proportioned by SCS TR-55”, Engineering Hydrology: Proceedings of the Symposium, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1987. 9. Sanders, Ralph A., “Urban Vegetation Impacts on the Hydrology of Dayton, Ohio”, Urban Ecology, vol. 9, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1986. STORMWATER Trees decrease total stormwater volume and slow peak flow; both help cities to manage their stormwater and decrease detention costs. CITYgreen assesses how land cover, soil type, slope, and precipitation affect stormwater runoff volume, time of runoff concentration, and runoff peak flows. It calculates the volume of runoff in a 2-year 24-hour storm event that would need to be contained by stormwater facilities if the vegetation were removed. This volume multiplied by local construction costs calculate the dollars saved by the tree canopy. CITYgreen uses the TR-55 model developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) which is very effective in evaluating the effects of land cover/land use changes and conservation practices on stormwater runoff. The infiltration percentage in the report estimates the decrease in ground water recharge when the vegetation is replaced by impervious surface. WATER QUALITY (CONTAMINANT LOADING) Cities must comply with Federal clean water regulations and develop plans to improve the quality of their streams and rivers. Trees filter surface water and prevent erosion, both of which maintain or improve water quality. Using values from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Purdue University’s L-thia spreadsheet water quality model, American Forests developed the CITYgreen water quality model. This model estimates the change in the concentration of the pollutants in runoff during a typical storm event given the change in the land cover. This model estimates the Event Mean Concentrations of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Suspended Solids, Zinc, Lead, Copper, Cadmium, Chromium, Chemical Oxygen Demand(COD), and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Pollutant values are shown as a percentage of change.

52

The Lawrenceville School

Shipetaukin Watershed

STORMWATER, WATER QUANTITY (RUNOFF) 2-yr, 24-hr Rainfall: 3.25 in.

STORMWATER, WATER QUANTITY (RUNOFF) 2-yr, 24-hr Rainfall: 3.25 in.

Curve Number reflecting existing conditions: 77 Existing Runoff Depth (in.): 1.2476 Existing Runoff Volume (cu.ft.): 2,830,493 Flow Rate: (cu.ft/min.) 1,965

Curve Number reflecting existing conditions: 79 Existing Runoff Depth (in.): 1.3744 Existing Runoff Volume (cu.ft.): 30,393,427 Flow Rate: (cu.ft/min.) 21,106

Curve Number if built out with residential development: 81 Built out Runoff Depth: (in.) 1.5085 Built out Flow Rate Runoff Volume: (cu.ft.) 3,422,409 Flow Rate: (cu.ft/min.) 2,376

Curve Number if built out with residential development: 83 Built out Runoff Depth: (in.) 1.6505 Built out Flow Rate Runoff Volume: (cu.ft.) 36,499,091 Flow Rate: (cu.ft/min.) 25,346

Change in Flow Rate: (cu.ft/min) 411.05 Additional Storage volume needed: (cu. ft.) 592,029 Construction cost per cu. ft.: $2.00

Change in Flow Rate: (cu.ft/min) 4,240 Additional Storage volume needed: (cu. ft) 6,101,827. Construction cost per cu. ft.: $2.00

Total Stormwater Savings:

$1,184,058

Total Stormwater Savings:

$12,203,655

Annual costs based on payments over 20 years at 6% interest:

$ 103,232 per year

Annual costs based on payments over 20 years at 6% interest:

$ 1,063,970 per year


green

THE

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

WATER QUALITY MODEL The Lawrenceville School SUMMARY

The water quality model works with the Stormwater model, TR-55, to calculate the effect of landcover on the amount of pollutants and suspended solids in surface water runoff. As with TR-55, the water quality model is based on a storm event calculation; that is, how landcover affects the runoff from a typical 2 year, 24-hour storm. This relationship between the landcover and water quality is predicted using the L-THIA spread sheet model, which was developed by Purdue University and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model works with TR-55 by making use of the curve number system: matching curve numbers with specific pollutant loadings during a storm event.

STORMWATER, WATER QUALITY (CONTAMINANT LOADING)

Existing Built Out (RCN) 77 81

Contaminant

Biological Oxygen Demand (ppm) 39.11 Cadmium

(ppm)

Chromium

(ppm)

Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper

TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY

Lead

Don Woodward of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed the CITYgreen water quality from TR-55 and L-THIA using the following default values for loadings:

(ppm)

Nitrogen

(g/ml)

Phosphorus

(g/ml)

Suspended Solids Zinc

(ppm)

(ppm)

(g/ml)

(ppm)

0.00 22.05 11.45 0.01 0.01 1.41 0.22 42.24 0.20

Percent Change in Contaminant Loadings 19.33

46.67 0.01 28.71 15.15 0.01 0.01 1.56 .27 70.68 0.21

1 30.20 32.31 0.00 0.00 10.64 22.73 67.33 5.00

0

REFERENCES

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Shipetaukin Watershed

Lenz, M.R. and C.F.H., How. “Modeling in an urban park environment: A water quality modeling case study in Central Park.” Fourth International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling. Banff, Alberta, Canada: September 2000. Schuler, T. “The Importance of Imperviousness.” Article 1. Center for Watershed Protection. Silver Spring, MD, 1994. Berka, C., D. McCullum, and B. Wernick. “Land Use Impacts on Water Quality: Case Studies in Three Watersheds.” The Lower Frasier Basin in Transition: A Symposium and Workshop. Kwantlen College, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, 1995. Lee, G.F. “Water Quality Management Issues,” Stormwater Runoff Water Quality Science/Engineering Newsletter. Number 2,Volume 5 (February 2002). Kayhanian, M., et al. “CalTrans Stormwater Management Program,” Stormwater: The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professions. Waschbusch, R.J., W.R. Selbig, and R.T. Bannerman. “Sources of Phosphorus in Stormwater and Street Dirt from Two Urban Residential Basins in Madison, WI,” Proceedings of the National Conferences on Tools for Urban Water Resources Management and Protection (EPA), 2000.

STORMWATER, WATER QUALITY (CONTAMINANT LOADING)

Existing Built Out (RCN) 79 83

Contaminant

Biological Oxygen Demand (ppm) 42.89 Cadmium (ppm) Chromium (ppm) Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead

(ppm)

(ppm)

Nitrogen

(g/ml)

Phosphorus

(g/ml)

Suspended Solids Zinc

(ppm)

(g/ml)

(ppm)

0.00 25.38 13.30 0.01 0.01 1.48 0.24 56.46 0.21

Percent Change in Contaminant Loadings 17.63

50.45 0.01 32.05 17.01 0.01 0.01 1.63 .29 84.89 0.22

1 26.28 27.89 0.00 0.00 10.14 20.83 50.35 4.76

0

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

10

20

for

30

40

50

60

70

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

53


Review of Current Land Management Practices Andropogon reviewed current land and water management practices with information from The Lawrenceville School’s Buildings and Grounds Department. The School land management was divided into the three areas with different maintenance regimes: golf course, athletic fields, and main campus. Approximately 57 acres of golf course, 45 acres of athletic fields, and 90 acres of the campus are routinely maintained. Costs for maintenance of residences and agricultural land were not included. Maintenance activities include mowing, trimming, fertilization, irrigation, winter salt application, snow plowing, mulching, and leaf removal. Maintenance practices, quantified in dollar costs derived from time and materials, were totaled by area. The approximate per acre annual costs are: Golf course $3,026.00 Athletic fields $3,230.00 Campus $3,504.00 The total maintenance costs measured for these areas is approximately $633,000.00. The costs per acre numbers are similar, but the costs are derived from different practices. For example, the campus requires salting of roads and walkways, snow plowing, and mulching, which is not done in the other areas. The methods, practice, and timing of maintenance activities at The Lawrenceville School were analyzed to determine how improvements in efficiency or other cost savings could be achieved. Ultimately, the practices were deemed sound, and the only feasible way to reduce costs and improve the ecological health of these areas is to reduce the areas that are actively managed. Aerial photo analysis and discussions with Grounds Manager Tim Moore identified areas where maintenance could be reduced or eliminated. These transitional spaces could become meadows or returned to forest. Preliminary estimates indicate that 13.4 acres of the golf course, 4.5 acres of area around the athletic fields, and 5.9 acres of the campus could be changed. These areas include: golf course areas not in active play, the periphery of athletic field areas, and unused campus areas like storm water retention basins and the stream edge. The sum total savings in maintenance costs if this was implemented would be $65,600.00 annually. The ancillary benefits would include a reduction in maintenance manhours required, reduced wear and tear on equipment and a surplus of materials. MAINTENANCE PRACTICE AT THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL Tim Moore ranked the philosophical priorities of maintenance as: safety first, health second, and aesthetics third. Within this framework, the work goals are prioritized by availability of labor. Generally, three people are responsible for the golf course, three for the athletic fields, and the campus is the shared responsibility of five people. Maintenance responsibilities are performed to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the three philosophical goals. The winter snow and ice removal regime is a safety priority and no changes are suggested. Mowing, trimming, mulching, and leaf removal are performed at the minimum levels necessary to keep the property safe, functional, and looking clean. Aesthetics are considered quite important in the central campus. The practices used to perform these tasks are progressive and no change is required, however, the physical matter is placed in the maintenance storage area. The storage area is located in a particularly vulnerable environmental zone, and the nutrient loading from runoff into the water systems is detrimental. A composting program could greatly reduce this pressure, and the composted product would reduce purchase costs of mulch, soil amendments, and fertilizer.

54

Irrigation and fertilization are two maintenance practices that have great cost and environmental implications. A complicated process of turf grass maintenance is required to achieve good looking, playable surfaces on the golf course and the athletic fields. The grass on the athletic fields is a mixture of bluegrass, tall fescue, and perennial rye grass which is ideal for this region. The 20 acres of irrigated fields are composed of more bluegrass than the 40 acres of non-irrigated fields which favor tall fescue. Fertilizer is applied at a rate of 1 to 1.5 lbs per 1000 ft 2 on the 20 irrigated acres in three applications (1/3 spring, 1/ 3 summer, and 1/3 fall). The clippings are returned to the soil. Fertilizer is applied at a rate of 0.5 lb per 1000 ft 2 to the athletic fields that are not irrigated. Penn State’s Department of Crop and Soil Sciences has determined that the best management practice (BMP) for turf grass with clippings returned to the soil is a maximum of 2 lbs per 1000 ft 2 per year for bluegrass, ryegrass and tall fescues. Irrigation of the athletic fields is closely monitored. When there is sufficient rainfall, the fields are not irrigated. About one inch of water per week is generally applied to the irrigated fields. The applications are determined by observing the condition of the turf grass daily and watching for wilt. The water is applied when the turf grass begins to wilt. Water is applied from 12:00 to 1:00 AM to minimize evaporation. In June 2005, which was dryer than average, 493,500 gallons were applied to the 20 acres of irrigated athletic fields. In May 2005, which was wetter than average, the irrigation system was not used until May 19 th. From the 19 th on, only 191,250 gallons of water were applied to the irrigated fields. Penn State’s Department of Crop and Soil Sciences has a BMP for irrigation timing. Turf grasses may be damaged by frequent light watering. Frequent watering keeps upper soil layers near a constant saturation point. This condition encourages shallow rooting and promotes weak turf which is susceptible to disease and insect attack and traffic damage. Deep watering only when plants show signs of wilting is sound practice and an important step for the development of healthy, vigorous turf grasses. Pesticide and herbicide use at Lawrenceville is minimized to spot application when there is a significant problem. An integrated pest management used is a reactive vs. proactive fashion to keep applications at a minimum. This is considered a BMP. Fungicide application is used to keep the golf course healthy. The soil is tested twice per year or as necessary, and a systemic fungicide is applied quarterly. Generally, the annual budget for fungicide on a golf course is about $52,000. The Lawrenceville School spends $13,000. An ecologically sustainable solution ideally would require no fungicide; if this is not possible, minimization is the best strategy. Lawrenceville has the option of exploring the use of gray water to irrigate turf grass; the proximity of a gray water source will dictate whether it is a feasible option. If at some point The School decides to or is asked to perform some level of pre-treatment before discharging its wastewater to the local waste water treatment plant, it would be the ideal time to assess the potential for gray water use for turf grass irrigation.


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

EXISTING AND PROPOSED MAINTENANCE PRACTICE

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

55


Conceptual Plan for Pond and Stream Restoration THE PROBLEM AND PLAN ALTERNATIVES The Pond has been a feature of The Lawrenceville School since its early days. In the 1800’s there was little impervious surface in the surrounding area. The stream and The Pond were in hydrologic balance. As The School and the town have grown and increased impervious surface cover, this balance no longer exists. The Pond has filled with sediment, eroded from the town above and the campus. Base flow of groundwater to feed The Pond has been changed due to this impervious surface cover. The water quality and The Pond’s ability to support biological life has diminished because of the lack of base flow and the intensity of stormwater flow. The core campus of The Lawrenceville School drains directly into The Pond, with the exception of the buildings downstream. The dam on The Pond was raised in the 70’s to provide increased storage for stormwater volume and to maintain a controlled water level rather than a fluctuating bank edge. The pipe outlet elevations for the storm drainage system of The School were not changed. As more roads and buildings were constructed both on the campus and for upstream suburban developments, more stormwater runoff was created and a flooding problem began. This has increased in recent years. As part of “The Green Campus Initiative,” a sustainable stormwater management solution for the campus was requested. There are several possible solutions to flooding at The Pond. The following three plans illustrate a range of solutions that approach the problem differently and have varying degrees of success with regard to sustainability. PLAN I One approach to stormwater management is to pass the water through a site and away as efficiently and quickly as possible. This has been a standard in our country for quite some time. To accomplish this goal it will be necessary to construct an engineered stream channel to handle high water flows and alleviate flooding. The berm around The Pond would be raised to contain more volume and a larger dam installed to increase storage. Most stream bank areas would have to be stabilized due to the velocity and scouring potential of the storm flow. There are significant liabilities to this approach. The downstream impact of this solution is considerable. The force and volume of water is greatly increased by moving through this channel. Sediment containing pollutants will be carried much further until the water slows down and it is deposited. This solution provides no aquatic or terrestrial habitat value. The flow in the channel will fluctuate from very little to very much. It is very expensive to construct this kind of engineered solution. PLAN II The second approach to stormwater management of The Pond implements BMPs to achieve multiple goals. These include re-vegetation and restoration of the riparian channel, surrounding detention basins with woody vegetation and creation of stormwater wet basins/wetlands alongside the stream channel upstream of The Pond. These basins will help improve water quality by removing pollutants and excess nutrients from the upstream waters. It may be necessary to construct sediment fore-bays to allow for periodic sediment removal. The Pond edge should be naturalized to aid in nutrient removal and to improve pond water quality.

56

To protect The Pond from future sedimentation a stormwater flow diversion channel should be created. This will allow the larger volumes of storms to bypass The Pond and route the water to re-enter the stream channel farther down. This will reduce flooding as well. This strategy solves all of the visible effects that are currently experienced with stormwater. Unfortunately, it has a limited life span because the source of the problem still remains. The impervious surfaces upstream will still generate runoff which will continue to damage the downstream riparian corridor. PLAN III A sustainable approach to this problem incorporates all the ideas of Plan II. In addition, the source of the problem is dealt with. The campus of The Lawrenceville School is a significant contributor to stormwater runoff due to the large amount of impervious surface area of the paths, roads, parking lots and buildings. Infiltration potential on the campus is considerable. We can take advantage of this potential by the construction of infiltration BMPs to capture the stormwater and allow it to percolate into the ground surface. There are many types of infiltration BMPs that would be highly effective, comparatively inexpensive and either unseen or created as beautiful landscape assets. By infiltrating the water into the ground it becomes cleaner, recharges the aquifers, and provides base flow to improve the condition of the stream channel and The Pond. The aquatic and terrestrial systems in the riparian corridor would have a chance to restore themselves. It may be possible to discuss a partnership with the Township of Lawrence to manage sediment loading from the upstream residential area into The Lawrenceville School property. CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION OF THE POND The current plan for dredging The Pond would remove some of the organic rich surface sediments and reduce the frequency of summer algae blooms for a year or two, but it would rapidly fill with sediment. A more sustainable approach would be to make The Pond a functioning water body, with a shallow (less than 24-inch deep) shelf around its perimeter for rooted aquatic vegetation to grow. Emergent and submergent vegetation provides habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates and amphibians to live and reproduce. A properly balanced macroinvertebrate and amphibian community keeps unwanted pests and mosquitoes under control. The Pond will also need to have one or more deep pools. Proper depth allows thermal stratification; a warmer, less dense surface layer overlying a cooler, denser layer during the summer months. Stratified ponds undergo a seasonal mixing and overturning of the water which evenly distributes nutrients and trace minerals. To undergo stratification, the depth must be at least eight feet deep and ideally ten feet deep. An additional benefit deepening The Pond is the dilution of the concentration of pollutants in the sediment. By removing a greater volume of sediment, there are more disposal options because the toxicity is lowered. This would significantly reduce the cost of dredging The Pond. A properly designed pond with upstream wetlands pools and a stormwater relief channel would be attractive, sustainable and not require frequent dredging.


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

WORST CASE SCENARIO

engineered stream channel to alleviate flooding hard engineered stream bank stabilization

PLAN I This plan represents the methodology that is now falling out of favor within the engineering community because it does not address the problem of stormwater on the site, it simply moves it downstream. The elements described here are designed to maximize the rate and volume of stromwater that can be moved through the site. The enhancement of the detention capability of the Pond serves to regulate the volume that the channels can hold within their banks. The construction cost is very high, and the damage caused downstream would be significant.

LARGER DAM TO HANDLE INCREASED STORAGE IN POND

ENGINEERED STREAM CHANNEL TO HANDLE HIGH FLOWS AND ALLEVIATE FLOODING

HIGHER BERM AROUND POND TO CONTAIN GREATER FLOOD FLOWS

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR IDEA DEVELOPMENT ONLY. ACTUAL SHAPE, SIZE, NUMBER, AND LOCATION OF BMP’S TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH FURTHER STUDY.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

57


Conceptual Plan for POND AND STREAM RESTORATION NEW STREAM CHANNEL EXPANDED WETLANDS

SHORT TERM SOLUTION

STREAM BANK STABLIZATION

meadow reforestation woody vegetation stormwater wetland basin naturalized pond edge riparian re-vegetation stormwater flow diversion channel

PLAN II This plan represents a solution to the flooding problem that accomplishes most of the goals, but does not address the root cause. All of these measures are part of a sustainable solution, but the final step, removing the stormwater at it’s origin, is not covered. Because the source of the stormwater is unchanged, these BMP’s will fail over time and need to be replaced.

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR IDEA DEVELOPMENT ONLY. ACTUAL SHAPE, SIZE, NUMBER, AND LOCATION OF BMP’S TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH FURTHER STUDY.

58


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION

NEW STREAM CHANNEL EXPANDED WETLANDS

STREAM BANK STABLIZATION

meadow reforestation woody vegetation wetland basin infiltration gallery riparian re-vegetation stormwater flow diversion channel roof-top garden

PLAN III This plan represents a sustainable solution to the flooding problem at The Lawrenceville School. The site analysis revealed that this landscape has great infiltration potential. The only way to relieve the pressure on The Pond and the streams and restore their health and function is to capture and infiltrate the water into the ground rather than piping it into The Pond. Infiltration BMP’s can be inexpensive, invisible, or beautiful landscape assets. CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR IDEA DEVELOPMENT ONLY. ACTUAL SHAPE, SIZE, NUMBER, AND LOCATION OF BMP’S TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH FURTHER STUDY.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

59


Conceptual Plan for POND AND STREAM RESTORATION

BMP DISCUSSION Lawrenceville has wisely chosen to focus on land and water sustainability. Many of the site’s natural systems have been pushed to the limit, such as the streams and forest habitats. While buildings have been refurbished and rebuilt, the landscape has borne incremental insults that have had a cumulative impact. This BMP discussion is intended only to summarize general issues and to focus primarily on those issues that should be addressed as soon as possible.

STREAMS The streams are the most severely stressed natural systems on the site. The stream entering the campus at Manning Lane is typical of all the Shipetaukin Creek tributaries on campus. The headwaters are in the developed residential and commercial portions of Lawrenceville with large impervious areas and storm drains that send high velocity, high volume runoff to the campus. The middle sections of the creek flow through the campus, in this case the golf course. The stream has been channelized upon entering the campus and is eroding a deeper and steeper channel throughout. The banks are consistently mown and as a result are collapsing with high sediment loads to the stream. The stream than enters a stretch of wide shallow wetlands where it recovers substantially before reaching the main stem of Shipetaukin.

THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM Any successful solution to the incremental degradation that has occurred will depend upon developing a coherent vision of the natural drainage systems of this site. The development of a Natural Drainage System Plan should be a first priority and will provide a context for many student projects to monitor, design, and implement. The components of the Natural Drainage System should include: 1. New Wetlands- The existing wetlands on site provide excellent models for future stream restoration. Extensive stretches of the stream in the golf course can be converted to herbaceous wetlands without adversely impacting how the course is played. These headwater wetlands will increase infiltration of high frequency storms while mitigating the impacts of higher volume storms as well. 2. Channel Lengthening- The existing stream channels have been shortened in places due to being channelized and /or constricted. There are, however, several opportunities to lengthen the channel to flow through new and existing wetlands. The golf course channel should be reconfigured to follow the historic stream channel. 3. Revegetated Riparian Corridors- Riparian reforestation is a vital component of the Natural Drainage System in combination with buffering grasslands and wetlands where visibility is a concern. 4. Reinforced Channels- Wherever mown turf reaches the water’s edge along a creek or pond, a reinforced surface should be incorporated. This will ensure that there is no sedimentation where there is insufficient vegetation to provide stabilization.

60

5. Check Dams- Small-scale check dams can be used to collect sediment and raise degraded channel bottoms in selected places. 6. Retrofitted Storage- The sill that was added to the dam at some time to raise the water elevation of the central pond has rendered much of the historic drainage infrastructure dysfunctional and aggravates flooding. The dam should be retrofitted which will also require reworking and replanting of the water margins. 7. Headwater Storage and Infiltration- Many small scale infiltration sites can be installed on campus that will permit cutting historic drainage off at the source to reduce runoff to the streams. 8. Quantified Modifications- All of the changes proposed above can be quantified to provide calculations suitable for use under the new state stormwater regulations. The calculations for retrofitted storage, infiltration, and pollutant reduction can be incorporated into The School’s future permit applications. 9. Impervious and/or Parking Area Suitability Analysis- Parking areas and future building sites need to be considered in concert with the Natural Drainage System. A general goal is to minimize vehicular traffic in the core of the campus, which may lead to some modification of current parking arrangements. Additional parking and new building sites are also likely future requirements. The large existing lot encroaches on a stream. An overall plan and policy for new development suitability should be developed but may be modified as goals for sustainability are refined. 10. Long Term Protection- Some kind of easement protection of the Natural Drainage System is mandatory. Similarly, The School should seek commitments from the Township to control any increase in runoff before making heavy expenditures to accommodate storm water. The new stormwater regulations provide a platform to quantify and document these negotiations. The School’s plan can be an important component of the Township’s Watershed Management and Stormwater Mitigation Plans and an exchange of “Nature’s Services” could also be discussed.

NATURAL LANDSCAPES Plant Stewardship Index: The most important first step is to develop some baseline monitoring of all the natural habitats on the site. The Plant Stewardship Index developed by Bowman’s Hill should be used to establish baseline data prior to initiating management or restoration activities. This index emphasizes plant priority as an indicator of ecosystem health. Using a measurable target is essential to replicating monitoring efforts.


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Forests- The forests on campus have been fragmented by the development of The School as well as by farming activities. The forests also vary considerably in quality, from mature Oak/Beech forests to Norway maple woodlands. In addition to invasives management, some reforestation is needed to create a more viable woodland corridor. The students can provide effective planning and implementation of these projects. Autumn olive (Eleagnus angustifolia) is a prolific invasive meriting immediate control efforts. Deer management will be a very interesting topic for the students.

Many of the goals set forth in this document can be more completely fulfilled through co-operative partnerships. Resources, knowledge and funding can be enriched in this way. Student involvement should be encouraged. Some neighborhood potential opportunities follow.

Grasslands- The most significant grassland opportunities occur on the currently farmed land and should be part of long range planning for that area. In the meantime, grassland margins to buffer woodlands and wetlands are a very desirable management strategy. Wetlands- The site supports an exceptional area of wetlands that are vital to sustaining stream habitats on this site. The most serious concern is the ongoing invasion of the wetlands systems by Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), one of the most pernicious threats to such environments. The invasion is well underway and must be stopped quickly, especially before it moves further downstream. Loosestrife control is the highest priority and should be initiated this spring. NRCS funding may be available for some of this work. Another invasive of concern on site is Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum japonicum), which is only limited in areas at present but will expand rapidly if not controlled now. Goose management is an excellent opportunity for student investigation, project design and implementation.

STATE OF NJ

NJ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MERCER COUNTY

LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP

LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

CHERRY GROVE FARM

AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERS IN SHIPETAUKIN CREEK WATERSHED

LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS

on

JULY 15, 2005

FARMING Wetland Buffers- There are no immediate concerns regarding the farming program except for providing adequate buffers to the wetlands from the impacts of herbicide applications to riparian habitats. The surfactant used in Round Up and other herbicides is associated with marked reductions in amphibians. A buffer of both woodlands and grasslands are needed to minimize the likelihood of contamination. At this time a buffer of no less than 300 feet is recommended, at least 100 feet of which is forested with a meadow margin of no less than 50 feet. Further monitoring is needed to determine the effectiveness of these measures. The currently farmed area offers a wealth of opportunities that can be an important component of the student investigations.

GOLF COURSE The Natural Drainage System- The only immediate changes recommended at this time in the golf course are those associated with implementing the Natural Drainage System, including the creation of riparian wetlands, check dams and channel lengthening / re-routing. The students should determine any further projects.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

61


Curriculum Integration MENTAL MAPPING EXERCISE SUMMARY The Lawrenceville School Land and Water Management Analysis is presented here as a report. Part of the Green Campus Initiative, it should become a “living document” that is integrated into the philosophy, practice, lifestyle, and curriculum of The School. Andropogon presented several parts of this analysis directly to students and teachers in their classes during the course of the study. The goals were to involve them in the data gathering process, to solicit their ideas, knowledge, and experience about the place, and to provide them with a framework with which they could view their local and regional surroundings. The information and ideas necessary to plan a program of ecological sustainability in a curriculum are cross-disciplinary in nature. Both Science and Humanities are critical components of a “green education.” In addition to teaching the fundamental processes by which the Earth functions, it is important that students be aware of human perceptions and their surroundings. If The Lawrenceville School can evolve into a “living laboratory” then the resources will provide exponential educational benefits. Suggestions for achieving these goals include the following: • Perform Mental Mapping Exercise with students and faculty (example follows) • Participate in the Bowman’s Hill Plant Stewardship Index Program • Map Campus vegetation, then map Shipetaukin Creek Watershed vegetation • Map invasive plants • Secure grant money to remove and manage invasive plants • Establish a student-run watershed association • Sample water quality; measure volume and rate before, during and after storms • Map water movement through the watershed during storms • Incorporate some aspect of organic farming into curriculum

62

MENTAL MAPPING EXERCISE Andropogon conducted this Mental Mapping exercise with students of three “Rivers” classes coordinated by Aldo Leopold Fellow, Josh Hahn in May 2005. The intention was to educate the students about their surroundings and to determine how they understood their local environment.

SUMMARY Mental maps are the maps of our surroundings that we have in our heads. We can divide our mental maps into neighborhood or local maps, and global mental maps, that is, how we imagine what the Earth looks like and where different countries and regions are located. We use neighborhood mental maps in everyday travel to school, work, and recreation. We use global mental maps to think about other places, other countries, such as when we watch the news, plan a trip, study another country, send an email on the computer, or a letter by regular mail. Everyone has a different mental map. What your mental maps looks like can vary depending on what is important to you. For instance, a person who plays outdoor soccer in the summer might know where all the outdoor fields are, but a person who is interested in collecting comic books might know instead where all the best comic book stores are and not have a clue as to where the soccer fields are. Because mental maps depend so much on personal values, they are sometimes not as complete or as spatially precise as a cartographic map. METHODOLOGY EXERCISE ONE On the paper provided please draw your mental map of The Lawrenceville School area (and beyond – if it is important to you) from memory. Do not just draw (or copy from) a street map! This should be a mental map, not a cartographic map. In drawing this map, you should express the spatial relationships, distances, orientations, etc. that are most important to you. Take 30 minutes to draw and annotate your map. Show as much detail as you wish, and remember to focus on making the map accurate in terms of what is important to you - the places you live, eat, work, walk, recreate, etc. Leave off things that are not important. You might qualify places by emotional quality (good place/bad place/happy place/scary place), smell, color, temperature, etc. – If it is something that comes to your mind, it is worth mapping. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, and the more open you are, the better the product will be. Your representation of “your” Lawrenceville can be as diagrammatic, detailed, or poetic as you wish. EXERCISE TWO You are now Aldo Leopold during his studies at The Lawrenceville School. Based on your readings and research of his life, do the same exercise as above, from his perspective. Think about his perception of humankind in nature. What did he look at? How did he describe things? Where did he go for relaxation, recreation, spiritual enlightenment, scientific studies, etc?


THE

EXERCISE THREE Using your mental map and “Aldo’s” mental map, color and annotate the provided base plans to make a cartographically accurate representation of: 1) your present day Lawrenceville map, and 2) Leopold’s Lawrenceville. On the second map, make some speculations about what the land once looked like. Indicate which roads/paths/buildings/landscape features would not have existed. Do you think it has changed? How? These maps will be scanned to be imported into the GIS Database.

Please label the back of each map with your name, your age, and your home town. When your maps are complete, please answer the following questions. Do not look at the questions until you are finished with your map. 1. What do you personally consider to be the most important features you drew on your map? Why are they important? 2. Are there blank areas on your map? If so, why? What do you guess is in these ‘empty’ spaces?

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

PROCEDURE – PERSONAL MENTAL MAP 1. Tape a plastic sheet over the top of the aerial photo base plan so the edges align. 2. Using your mental map as a reference, translate your thinking to the plastic overlay. 3. Focus on what places are important to you, places you routinely go because of schedule, and how you get between these places. 4. Use only the colors and line-types listed below: • Where you live (if not in the map window, put your dot on the road you leave from at the edge of the map). • Places you go in your daily routine • Places that are most important or special to you • The routes you primarily use to get between places • Routes that are highly important or special to you Try to make the line weight (thickness and the dot size the same as you see above. Be very precise with the placement of the lines – if you walk on a path or road, draw exactly that line – but if you short-cut through the grass, draw it exactly where you do it. On the paper aerial photo, write your name and what kind of environment you were raised in: urban, suburban, or rural. You may also write down any reflections or revelations that this exercise brought to your attention.

3. How long have you lived in the Lawrenceville area? How has this affected your mental map? 4. Do you have a car? A bicycle? Has this affected your mental map?

PROCEDURE – LEOPOLD MENTAL MAP

5. Did you draw mostly buildings or landscapes? Why do you think that is?

1. Using your Leopold mental map as a reference, translate your thinking to large scale aerial photo. 2. Focus on what places were important to him, places he routinely went because of schedule, and how he traveled between these places. 3. Try to identify specifically where the places he named are on the photo. 4. Use the same color scheme as above. 5. Look at the land use patterns in the photo and speculate as to how the land has changed. Feel free to draw on the photo what you think it used to be like or to verbally describe how you feel it was different.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

63


Curriculum Integration EXAMPLE RESULTS OF CLASS EXERCISE THREE

OVERLAY OF ALL PERSONAL MENTAL MAPS CREATED

OVERLAY OF ALL LEOPOLD MENTAL MAPS CREATED

<< EXAMPLES OF PERSONAL MENTAL MAPS CREATED BY THE STUDENTS

<< EXAMPLES OF LEOPOLD MENTAL MAPS CREATED BY THE STUDENTS

CONCLUSIONS

The studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s illustrative maps were collected, analyzed, and presented to the class. The drawings expressed a diverse range of styles and representations, but there were some strong commonalities. It seemed that students did not leave the center of the campus. The results of exercise three confirmed this hypothesis. The direct overlay of all of the scaled maps revealed that the students did not leave the residence and classroom areas except to go to the athletic fields or the shops across the street. No students spent time in the natural areas of The School. Furthermore, their analyses of where they thought Aldo Leopold traveled during his time as a Lawrenceville student looked very similar to their own experiences. Even though they read his writings that described all his experiences in nature around Lawrenceville, they drew the maps from what they knew. They had no frame of reference from which to speculate about what it might mean to go hiking for a few hours around the area.

64

It became apparent that the schedule to which the students abide does not allow the free time to explore. Discussions with them indicated that it was unclear where they could or would go to experience nature if they had the opportunity. Field visits with the science classes to educate the students about natural systems would help to familiarize them with their surroundings. An holistic understanding of the place where one lives is important to an ecological education.


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

BOWMAN’S HILL WILDFLOWER PRESERVE, PLANT STEWARDSHIP INDEX PROGRAM Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve (BHWP) has broadened its horizons and is reaching beyond its 100-acre site to help protect and manage our local plant habitats. With the use of BHWP’s plant database, and the assistance of experts from the Delaware Valley Region of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the Preserve has developed the Plant Stewardship Index. This analytical tool will assist and educate land stewards and practitioners to monitor and evaluate the plants and habitats they protect and manage. By using this Index, you will be able to evaluate the relative ecological quality of each plant and plant community on a given property as well as calculate an overall standardized rating for the site. Similar tools have been accepted and implemented elsewhere, but this is the first time a Floristic Quality Assessment Index has been created for this region with a focus on educating professionals and the general public alike. 2005 session

April 2nd (9:30-12:30)

Introductory Workshop to Plant Stewardship Index (3hr)

April 16 th

*The Spring Ephemerals (Knowing Native Plants Series)

May 21st

*Flowering Shrubs (Knowing Native Plants Series)

June 11th

*Focus on Ferns (Knowing Native Plants Series)

July 9 th

*Meander through Our Meadow (Knowing Native Plants Series)

TBA (summer)

MEASURES OF SUCCESS Measuring progress is critical to achieving success in ecological restoration. Dollar costs change due to externalities from landcover change can be quantified with CITYgreen software and different maintenance and management regimes can be spatially measured in terms of labor and materials. Goal achievement for ecological health is more difficult to quantify. The Bowman’s Hill Plant Stewardship Index Program makes this possible in an inexpensive and interesting forum. Essentially, vegetation is mapped and each plant correlated to a number in the index. The rankings are based upon local rarity (due to specific habitat needs). Certain plants are indicators of ecological health, and if they can be grown and survive, the ecological restoration is a success. It is therefore possible to set numeric targets based on diversity or successful establishment of rare plants.

Plant Stewardship Index Field Training Workshop (8hr)

September 24th

*Fall Flowers: The Amazing Aster Family (Knowing Native Plants Series)

October 15th

*Trees of BHWP (Knowing Native Plants Series)

November 12 th

*Winter Botany (Knowing Native Plants Series)

Cost for Introductory Workshop and receipt of Index only: $80

If faculty and students can participate in this ongoing program, it will provide the opportunity for annual targets to be reached and will facilitate grant opportunities.

Cost for Introductory Workshop, Plant Stewardship Index Field Training Workshop, Knowing Native Plants Series and receipt of Index: Preserve members: $300, Non-members: $350 *These courses also are offered separately by BHWP. We highly recommend that participants who are not confident in their field ID skills attend the Knowing Native Plants Series. For a detailed course outline, visit our website at www.bwhp.org For more information or to pre-register, please call (215) 862-2924. Walk-ins welcome for the Introductory Workshop:

BOWMAN’S HILL WILDFLOWER PRESERVE P.O. BOX 685 NEW HOPE, PA 18938

At the Introductory Workshop, attendees will receive a copy of the Index, which contains 900 native and non-native plants found throughout the region and a packet of information on the Index and its use. In 2006, BHWP will offer a series of advanced courses relating to the use of the Index; certificate will be awarded on successful completion of the courses.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

65


Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve PLANT STEWARDSHIP INDEX PROGRAM YEAR ONE: USE OF THE PLANT STEWARDSHIP INDEX; RECOGNITION OF COMMON PLANTS, BOTH NATIVE AND EXOTIC INVASIVE, ON A PROPERTY

YEAR TWO: SPECIALIZED CERTIFICATION PROGRAM This course is for those who have already taken year one or have alternate applicable experience. The successful completion of this course work will result in the award of a certificate. • Botanical method of plant identification, plant morphology, plant family characteristics, taxonomic key usage. • Plant Communities and Indicator species; use of the Index in conjunction with the National Vegetation Classification System. • Focus on the identification of Grasses, Sedges & Rushes through the use of dichotomous keys. • Goal Setting / Management Practices / Seasonal and repetitive sampling and comparisons. • Examination for certificate

PART 1. INTRODUCTION TO PLANT STEWARDSHIP INDEX 04/2/05 (9:30AM-12:30PM) • General background on ecosystems, succession, plant communities and how they relate to the Index. • What is the Plant Stewardship Index? • How can it be used to determine plant community quality? • How can it be used on your property to develop and monitor a management plan? • What plants are you likely to encounter when exploring the Delaware Valley Region? ID and Habitat Tips • --60 Common Plants found in the Piedmont Region • -- Common Invasive Plants 3 hr PART 2. RECOGNITION OF SELECTED PLANTS IN HABITAT AND PLANTS IN SEASON. EACH COURSE INCLUDES BACKGROUND LECTURE AS WELL AS IDENTIFICATION IN THE FIELD. BHWP- Knowing Native Plants Series: • The Spring Ephemerals 04/16/05 (1:30-4pm) 2.5 hr • Flowering Shrubs 05/21/05 (10am-1pm) 3 hr • Focus on Ferns 06/11/05 (10am-1pm) 3 hr • Meander Through our Meadow 07/09/05 (10am-1pm) 3 hr • Fall Flowers: The Amazing Aster Family 09/24/05 (10am-1pm) 3 hr • Trees of BHWP 10/15/05 (10am-1pm) 3 hr • Winter Botany 11/12/05 (10am-1pm) 3 hr Total 23.5 hr

OTHER: CONTINUING EDUCATION • New developments • Index subscription / updated revisions (licensing fee) • Updated Classes ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve would like to extend its appreciation to all the experts and participants who have shared their expertise and knowledge in the creation of the Plant Stewardship Index. Special thanks to the program advisors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania for assigning and reviewing the Coefficients of Conservatism: Dr. Ann Rhoads, Jack Holt, Janet Ebert, Bill Rawlyk, Dr. Emile DeVito and Mary Leck. EXAMPLE OF PLANT STEWARDSHIP INDEX

PART 3. SUMMER FIELD INSTRUCTION ON IDENTIFICATION, SAMPLING AND OBTAINING PLANT SPECIMENS. We will select a preserved property in the area; experts from BHWP will demonstrate use of the Index by sampling areas of the property. • Sampling Standardization • Method of sampling • Timing of sampling • Documenting procedures / Data collection • Applying existing plant inventory data (if applicable to sample format) • Field Training • Hands-on training of sampling method • Inventory plants within the sample area against the Index • Calculating the index number for certain areas of the property as well as the overall standardized rating for the property • Reporting of conclusions drawn from data collected • Discussion of how property management, including how removal of invasive plants might affect the Index number. Total 8 hr

66

PA CC

NJ CC

WETLAND STATUS

Anemone

GENUS

quinquefolia

SPECIFIC EPITHET

Anemone, wood

COMMON NAME

3

3

FACU

PA RANK

NJ RANK

HABITAT

Aquilegia

canadensis

Columbine, Eastern

5

5

FAC

Arisaema

triphyllum

Jack-in-the-pulpit

1

8

FACW-

Caltha

palustris

Marigold, marsh

8

9

OBL

Cardamine

concatenata

Toothwort

3

5

FACU

Cerastium

arvense var. villosissimum

Chickweed, field

10

10

na

PE

grassy openings on serpentine barrens

Chrysogonum

virginianum

Green-and-gold; Goldenstar

10

9

na

PE

open woods, limestone

Claytonia

virginica

Spring-beauty

1

1

FAC

Cypripedium

calceolus var. parviflorum

Lady’s-slipper, small yellow

10

8

FAC+

PE

Cypripedium

calceolus var. pubescens

Lady’s-slipper, large yellow

9

8

FAC+

PV

Dicentra

canadensis

Squirrel-corn

6

10

na

Dicentra

cucullaria

Dutchman’s-breeches

6

7

na

Dicentra

eximia

Bleeding-heart, fringed

10

10

na

PE

rich or rocky woods, cliffs; also cultivated

Dodecatheon

meadia

Shooting-star

10

7

FACU

PE

open woods, wooded slopes, bluffs, meadows, on calcareous soils

Epigaea

repens

Arbutus, trailing

6

9

na

Erythronium

albidum

Trout-Lily, white

10

9

FACU

Erythronium

americanum

Trout-lily, yellow

2

4

na

Fragaria

virginiana

Strawberry, wild

2

2

FACU

Hepatica

nobilis var. obtusa

Hepatica, round-lobed

5

8

na

Iris

cristata

Iris, dwarf crested

10

9

na

Mertensia

virginica

Bluebells, Virginia

7

8

FACW

Mitchella

repens

Partridge-berry

6

7

FACU

Mitella

diphylla

Bishop’s-cap

8

7

FACU

Phlox

subulata

Phlox, moss

7

8

na

Podophyllum

peltatum

May-apple

3

3

na

Polemonium

reptans

Jacob’s-ladder, spreading

5

10

FACU

Polygonatum

biflorum

Solomon’s-seal

5

4

FACU

Sanguinaria

canadensis

Bloodroot

4

5

UPL

rich woods, roadside banks

Saxifraga

virginiensis

Saxifrage, early

6

8

FAC-

moist or dry rock crevices, gravelly slopes

Stellaria

pubera

Chickweed, great

3

20

na

moist rocky ground, alluvial woods, mesic forests

Stylophorum

diphyllum

Poppy, wood

0

0

na

native farther west, PA specimens prob. escaped from cult.

Thalictrum

thalictroides

Anemone, rue

7

8

FACU-

Tiarella

cordifolia

Foamflower

8

10

FAC-

Trillium

cernuum

Trillium, nodding

9

10

FACW

Trillium

erectum

Trillium, purple

7

8

FAC-

Trillium

grandiflorum

Trillium, large flowered

8

na

na

Trollius

laxus

Globe-flower, spreading

10

10

OBL

common in moist open woods, thickets comm. rich rocky woods, slopes, cliffs, ledges, pastures, roadside S2

common in moist woods, swamps, bogs comm. in wet open woods and meadows, marshes, swamps, bogs common in deciduous woods

moist woods, meadows, frequently on alluvial soils moist woods and bogs, often on limestone moist, rich rocky woods, slopes S1

rich, moist woods rich woods

frequent in dry openings, woods borders, banks infrequent in moist woods, rich slopes, especially on limestone common in moist woods, rich slopes comm. old fields, meadows, dry open ground rich woods, dry upland slopes PE

wooded slopes, stream banks S3

rich, wooded hillsides and bottomlands moist woods rich, moist woods

PE

dry slopes, rocky ledges, serpentine barrens moist mesic woods S1

low, moist woods, floodplains dry to moist woods

rich woods, banks, thickets S1

moist, rocky, wooded slopes moist woods

S3

moist woods moist or rich woods and slopes

PE

S3

moist calcareous meadows, open woods, swamps


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Grant Funding Opportunities Rehabilitation of natural systems at The Lawrenceville School could be a costly endeavor. Fortunately most of these costs can be covered with grant money. An investigation into available grants revealed that The Lawrenceville School property contains all of the requirements needed to qualify for many of these grants. For example, grants that deal with habitat improvement have the following requirements: Habitat improvement – based eligible sites • Wetlands drained for agricultural use • Abandoned fields • Contains invasive species • Size of 5 or more acres • Home to rare, threatened, or endangered species • Adjacent to protected open space • Contains a stream

WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (NRCS) • Eligibility: Former wetlands drained for agriculture, lands adjacent to wetlands, previously restored wetlands in need of long-term protection • Restoration cost share agreements pay up to 75% of cost website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/ CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (USDA’S FARM SERVICE AGENCY) • To reduce impairment from agricultural runoff • Remove marginal lands from agricultural production / convert to natural systems • Pays signing incentive payment of up to $150/acres of enrolled land, cost sharing up to 50% for installation, annual rental payment for marginal croplands removed from production, additional $$$ for annual maintenance costs website: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/ crep03.htm

It could be a valuable exercise for incoming students to research and apply for grants or participate in an ongoing grant-acquisition process. They could then implement their research ideas related to natural systems on the property.

PARTNERS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE (US FISH & WILDLIFE) • For habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration • 50% cost-sharing (or more if deemed valuable enough) website: http://njfieldoffice.fws.gov/

Here are some examples: LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM (US FISH & WILDLIFE) • Grassland enhancement • Critical migratory stopover areas • Adjacent to protected open space • Provides 75% of project cost website: http://njaudubon.org/

1992 DAM RESTORATION & INLAND WATERS PROJECT (NJ DEP) • Loans available for dam restoration website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/grantandloanprograms/nhr_ driw.htm

WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM (NRCS) • Bog turtle habitat • Grassland restoration • Riparian vegetation restoration • Invasive exotic vegetation control • School-site habitat development projects for environmental education • Provides 75% of project cost website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/

WETLANDS PROTECTION PROJECT GRANTS (US EPA) • Watershed-based wetland management and restoration projects • Up to $60,000 grants available for 2005 website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/ COMMUNITY-BASED HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT GRANTS (NOAA) • To catalyze locally-driven habitat restoration programs • Up to $250,000 grants available website:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/funding_ opportunities/funding.html DEVELOPING GLOBAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS GRANTS (NSF) • Research opportunities for individual students • Up to $22,500 grants for individual students website:http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/NSF/OIRM/HQ/ 04-36/Grant.html

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM (US EPA) • $$$ available for projects that raise public awareness, knowledge, and skills to make informed decisions about environmental quality • Up to $250,000 grants available website: http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants.html WETLAND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS (US EPA) • Up to $300,000 grants available for improvements to wetland quality and quantity website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/grantguidelines/

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

67


THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Summary / Recommendations A former Lawrenceville student once wrote, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to do otherwise.” ALDO LEOPOLD, 1949

This statement is perhaps more relevant in our modern world than it was a half century ago. The pressures faced by natural systems often exceed their capability to regenerate. Restorative design emphasizes an holistic approach which: • • • •

Evaluates solutions in terms of the larger context–every action contributes to the whole. Fosters the natural systems–soils, air, water and wildlife–these are our life support. Integrates cultural perspectives and environmental resources–people are part of ecology. Conserves resources–they are the wealth of the next generation.

NEXT STEPS Time is a critical component of proper ecological management. Acting quickly is most often the most economical and effective course of action. Sustainable systems are interwoven – all of the environmental problems identified at The Lawrenceville School are interrelated and need to be dealt with as such, rather than as discrete pieces. The following priority actions should be considered to stabilize the site and allow it to be successfully managed in the future: 1. Identify and remove invasive plant species from the wetland and forested areas. The most virulent of these include but are not limited to – Purple Loosestrife, Japanese Knotweed, Phragmites and Russian Olive. Failure to eliminate these problems soon will make them nearly impossible to deal with in the future.

A modern approach to restorative design evaluates a site in terms of its function rather than the sum of its pieces. Functional systems provide far greater benefits than can be derived from individual resources. Ecosystem services is the term now used to describe these benefits from nature. Some of these include: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2. Complete a plan for managing stormwater from on and off the property. Restoration and proper design of The Pond and adjacent stream, and of the Golf Course stream should proceed in conjunction with measures to control runoff and encourage infiltration.

Purification of air and water Mitigation of floods and droughts Detoxification and decomposition of wastes Generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility Pollination of crops and natural vegetation Control of the vast majority of potential agricultural pests Dispersal of seeds and translocation of nutrients Maintenance of biodiversity, from which humanity has derived key elements of its agricultural, medicinal, and industrial enterprise Protection from sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays Partial stabilization of climate Moderation of temperature extremes and the force of wind and waves Support of diverse human cultures Providing of aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation that lift the human spirit

3. Refine the inventory of plant species on the property. 4. Determine where marginal agricultural areas are removed from production and may be restored to meadow, forest or wetland. 5. Define the locations where maintenance will be changed on the campus, golf course and athletic fields. Investigate how changes in practice can lower cost, improve efficiency, and reduce environmental degradation.

The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the economic value of the planet. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. (Numerical research: Robert Costanza et. al., 1997) The dollar values being placed on “nature’s services” by economists tend not to have a lot of relevance at the site design scale. However, as demonstrated in this study there are some very real cost benefit analyses that can be derived from alternative ecological design solutions. If we consider Lawrenceville School campus as a “Living Laboratory” for environmental education, the value for future generations of students of a healthy natural system could be incalculable. To achieve this, the campus landscape and its context must be restored to balance, a sustainable land and water management strategy should be implemented, public awareness should be raised, and the resources should be integrated in the curriculum.

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

on

JULY 15, 2005

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

69


THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS

summary report

Prepared by Andropogon Associates Ltd. July 2005 with sub-consultants: DERRON L. LABRAKE, P.W.S., Consulting Ecologist and LESLIE JONES SAUER Andropogon, Principal Emeritus

This CD contains the entire report in Acrobat 5.0 PDF format. “LAWRENCEVILLE.PDF”

N.B.: It is recommended you copy it onto your desktop for smoother viewing and printing.


THE

72

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

271 lawrenceville analysis  
271 lawrenceville analysis