Lawrenceville School Environmental Master Plan

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER PLAN

summary report

prepared by ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES, LTD.

in

OCTOBER 2006

with sub-consultant

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

Credits: 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 Township of Lawrence

Andropogon Project Team: Chad Adams, Project Manager Jose Alminina, Principal-in-Charge Amrita Dasgupta, Landscape and Graphic Designer Amy Reese, Landscape Designer Marita Roos, Consulting Principal

Sub-Consultant: Derron L. LaBrake, P.W.S., Consulting Ecologist All pictures of the Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust, courtesy Feodor Pitcairn from his book “Dreaming WIld�.

VOLUME TWO

the lawrenceville school

ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER PLAN

summary report

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 : EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

Guiding Principles

5

How do we know when we have achieved Sustainability?

SECTION 2 : LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT – SUMMARY 8

Volume One Overview

SECTION 3 : SUSTAINABILITY VISION 13

Sustainability; an Overview and Guidelines

13

Principles of Sustainability for The Lawrenceville School

14

Ecological Footprinting

14

Sustainability Indicators and Goals Measuring Tools

15

Environmental Indicators Education/Outreach Water Quality and Quantity Land Restoration / Management Biodiversity Climate Air Quality Energy Use

19

Course of Action

19

Beyond Goals

SECTION 4 : LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

SECTION 5 : WATER

SECTION 6 : LAND

22

52

Stormwater Basics Stormwater; Quantity, Quality, Problems and Solutions

100

Introduction Overview of Land Issues

54

Stormwater Regulations The Regulatory Environment Municipal Mitigation Plan Planning Ahead Reason for Change Stormwater Management Solutions

101

Land Management Current Land Management

104

Proposed Landcover Change

109

Description of Natural Plant Communities

113

Plant Stewardship Index

56

Measuring Stormwater The Water Cycle Hydrologic Soils

115

Invasive Species Overview Where do they come from?

Ecological Impacts Economic Concerns Consequential Impacts Local Challenge Invasives Management General Guidelines Comparison of Landscape Management Techniques Mechanical Management Herbicidal Management Fire Management Prescribed Burning

Environmental Master Plan Vision Plan for a Sustainable Campus What is the Vision Plan?

The Outdoor Learning Centers The Farm: Sustainable Organic Agriculture The Meadow The Wetland The Forest The Pond and Stream The Links: Biohabitat Golf Course The Faculty Residences

42

Circulation and Parking Potential Future Circulation Diagram

59

44

Spatial Representation Three-Dimensional Campus Model Spatial Data Library

Runoff Volumes and Pollutant Loads Measuring Stormwater Pollutant Generation and Transport

61

Best Management Practices Recommended BMPs Structural BMPs Non-Structural BMPs Comparison of BMP Efficiencies

120

Water Quality Introduction Suspended solids (SS) Nitrogen as nitrates (NO3N) Total Phosphorus (TP) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Water Quality Benefits by BMP Existing Stormwater Infrastructure Potential BMP Zones

SECTION 7 : CLIMATE /AIR

48

Curriculum Integration Watershed Study Plant Communities / Invasive Plant Study Sustainable Agriculture Conclusion

76

81

Best Management Practice Solutions Introduction Overall Watershed Sub-Basin Analysis Stormwater Benchmark Achievement Existing Stormwater Infrastructure BMP Solution Strategies by Sub-basin

126

Cimate / Air Summary Best Management Practices

129

Measuring Air Quality Air Pollution Removal Carbon Storage and Sequestration Technical Methodology References Results at The Lawrenceville School Reduced Carbon Emissions through Personal Change

SECTION 8 : APPENDIX

SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Guiding principles How do we know when we have achieved sustainability?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary

Guiding Principles

•

Only a quarter of the Schools’ property is used for its educational mission - the rest lies largely underutilized.

•

The chief goal for sustainability is to program this underutilized land for stormwater management, carbon storage and ecological diversity. The new program areas will demonstrate sustainable land practices and integrate curriculum activities with land management.

The Environmental Master Plan report provides a future vision of The Lawrenceville School. The Plan is a culmination of work that began in late 2004 as part of The Lawrenceville School Green Campus Initiative. In July of 2005, Andropogon Associates completed a Land and Water Management Analysis (hereafter referred to as Volume One), based on research and analysis of The School, its history, and its regional context.

•

Stormwater management – described under Best Management Practices (BMPs) – lies at the heart of sustainability for the School. These techniques – involving restored vegetation, planted swales, water infiltration and recharge – will become highly visible and attractive features throughout the School landscape.

Sustainability Vision •

•

•

The first step toward achieving a sustainable campus is evaluation of the current function of the land and water systems and comparison to the reference landscape.

As stated in Volume One, a sustainable place must begin with an understanding and respect for its context and its structural and dynamic qualities. The guiding principles are:

A reference landscape is the unaltered native conditions of an area. Though an unattainable ideal, it serves as the benchmark against which current quality and future improvements will be measured. For the Lawrenceville School Campus, this is a mixture of forest, native grassland, wetlands, and watercourses.

This is implicit in our approach. We begin with a comprehensive understanding of place, of opportunities, and of constraints.

The gap in performance between the current and reference landscapes is illustrated in terms of: o Carbon Storage and Sequestration o Air Pollutant Removal o Stormwater Volume o Stormwater Quality o Ecological Diversity and Health

Section 1 2

The Environmental Master Plan serves to guide The School in its ongoing Green Campus Initiative efforts. The purpose of the Plan is to allow The School to pursue sustainability, by providing a set of guiding principles, specific target goals based on opportunities and problems presented by the campus, and metrics for evaluating progress. Sustainability is a word that is perhaps overused in our culture, without full respect of its true meaning. The 1987 Brundtland Report defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” There are many more definitions of sustainability, most of which share the notion that the future should afford the same opportunities as the present – economically, socially, and environmentally.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Site Comes First 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.

Volume One presented an overview of the historic evolution of both The Lawrenceville School campus and the formative processes of the landscape surrounding it. Opportunities and constraints were identified, and conceptual solutions were offered for existing problems. Perhaps most importantly, the study (and the interaction with students and faculty in class), provided a framework for understanding sense of place. Only by enabling people to understand and recognize where they are can they be expected to truly care for that place.

The Environmental Master Plan further illuminates both the positive and negative aspects of the campus, based on analysis of land and water systems.

It is important to note that sustainability can only be achieved through interweaving built and natural systems with the actions of those who inhabit the place. While it is beyond the scope of this study to delve into energy, procurement, waste, recycling, food systems, and transforming existing and future structures into “green” buildings, some of these areas are discussed as they pertain to the site. Fortunately, some of these areas of study are being investigated both by other consultants and internally, with positive and interesting results.

Considerable effort went into the following topics in the Environmental Master Plan: • Vision Plan for a Sustainable Campus • Curriculum Integration • GIS-based Data Library • Stormwater Management • Invasive Plant Species / Habitat Restoration

THE

LEWISVILLE ROAD ENTRANCE

ISV

ILL

ER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

OA

D

‘42 FIELDS BAKER GATE

WAUGH BASEBALL FIELD

CHAMBERS FIELD THE POND

26

‘49 FIELD

23

12

TIIHONEN FIELD

27

24 THE CRESCENT

11

21

20

9 37

FLAGPOLE GREEN

THE WOODS

28

18 19 20 21 22 23

32

29

14

19

8 7

18

THE CIRCLE

6

30

31

16

17

5

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

33

15 GREEN FIELD

2 35

4 << TO PRINCETON

GUARDED GATE

3

KENNEDY HASKELL KINNAN DICKINSON WOODHULL GRISWOLD CLEVE MCCLELLAN STANLEY STEPHENS KIRBY RAYMOND (THOMAS AND DAVIDSON) DAWES (PERRY ROSS AND CROMWELL) REYNOLDS MCPHERSON UPPER

MEMORIAL HALL FATHER’S BUILDING EDITH MEMORIAL CHAPEL BATH HOUSE (OUTDOOR PROGRAMS) BUNN LIBRARY IRWIN DINING CENTER (POST OFFICE, ETC, LOUNGE)

34

TENNIS COURTS

HAMILL

Academic & Administrative

13 THE BOWL

10 GOLF COURSE

22

EGLIN MEMORIAL TRACK

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Residential Houses

LEW

25

green

36

MCGRAW INFIRMARY LAVINO FIELD HOUSE SQUASH COURTS F.M.KIRBY SCIENCE CENTER CORBY COMPUTER CENTER MACKENZIE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING GRUSS CENTER OF VISUAL ARTS NOYES HISTORY CENTER KIRBY ARTS CENTER HOGATE HALL ABBOTT DINING HALL JULIET LYELL STAUNTON CLARK MUSIC CENTER

1

36 FOUNDATION HOUSE MAIN (CLASS OF 1891) GATE

MAIN STREET – ROUTE 206

(HEAD MASTER’S RESIDENCE)

TO TRENTON & I-95 >>

37 GOLF HOUSE

Section 1

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

3

outdoor learning centers

A

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION LEARNING CENTER CIRCULATION

THE FARM

A

PRIMARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SECONDARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

B

MEADOW FOREST VEGETATION

THE MEADOW

AGRICULTURE PLAYING FIELDS GOLF COURSE

C

RESIDENTIAL AREAS CORE CAMPUS

THE WETLAND

STREAM WETLANDS

F

B

D THE FOREST

C

E THE POND AND STREAM

D

E

G

F THE LINKS

G FACULTY RESIDENCES

Section 1 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

How do we know when we have achieved sustainability?

One of the greatest challenges in the conceptualization of a sustainable campus is to determine, “what exactly is sustainable?” Many global sustainability efforts focus on “carbon neutrality,” or lowest “ecological footprint.” These are important because they are measures of energy and pollution produced and consumed by human endeavors. We have measured some of these things as part of this effort. What is lacking from a landscape perspective through these metrics is an evaluation and measure of local flows of energy, materials, and waste. One way to approach this site-level investigation is to measure current conditions against an idealized or truly sustainable condition. To achieve this, we have measured the function of the land and water systems of the current state of The Lawrenceville School Campus versus the reference landscape – which at this place means a mixture of forest, native grassland, wetlands, and watercourses. Obviously, the property is not going to be returned to these conditions, BUT, as a target for sustainability, the functional state of such a landscape can be approximated by technological innovation.

We have demonstrated the gap in function between the current landscape and what it could be in terms of: • • • • •

Carbon Storage and Sequestration Air Pollutant Removal Stormwater Volume Stormwater Quality Ecological Diversity and Health

These measures are quantified, and progress toward the goal can be measured. As pilot projects are undertaken by students, faculty, and the institution, they can be monitored through the tools provided as part of this study. This GIS-based data library will serve as a repository for these measurements – basically, it is a three-dimensional spatial database. Any information The School develops as part of the ongoing projects can be placed into the database for the community-at-large. The possibilities are limited only by the imagination. Imagine clicking on a 3-D campus building on a map on the internet and being able to access real-time data linked to that feature. Current temperature, humidity, energy usage, heat loss, maintenance history, etc. are only the beginnings of the possibilities.

The Vision Plan for a Sustainable Campus suggests large-scale habitat restoration efforts on the periphery of the campus, coupled with outdoor learning centers/classrooms that are wired with sensors, infrared video and internet links.

These structures could monitor wind speed, soil moisture, flood events, nutrient cycles, animal movement, etc., and provide not only educational opportunities for science classes, but provide settings for theater, artistic, and literary engagement. The idea is that only about one quarter of The Lawrenceville School property is being utilized for the educational mission, and the rest is deteriorating in quality from a combination of poor (or complete lack of) management, unsustainable agricultural practice, tremendous pressures of stormwater runoff and pollution, and exotic species invasion from both on and off the site. Why not begin to rehabilitate this land and use it as the catalyst that generates real excitement and energy? There is significant ecological capital that is unused and deteriorating, which could be the greatest opportunity for the School.

Human design used to accentuate the restored native landscape in the background (Avalon Preserve, Long Island, NY, by Andropogon)

Why is this effort important? Simply put, when The Lawrenceville School truly begins to evolve into a “green” campus, many benefits will begin to accrue.

Maintenance and energy costs will decrease substantially, it will be a healthier place to inhabit, there will be greater learning opportunities, and it will be richer, more diverse, and more beautiful.

The greatest opportunity that The Lawrenceville School can hope to achieve by pursuing sustainability is to physically transform itself into an educational opportunity. This will allow bright young minds to live in a place demonstrating those values, to learn how they work and why they are important, and to take this knowledge with them and disseminate it around the globe. If this is truly to happen, it cannot be undertaken lightly – it must be done genuinely, with passion and commitment. The Lawrenceville School must become a “living laboratory” for sustainability, in its physical makeup, its operational practice, and its philosophical intent. By providing this kind of overarching framework, every person who comes into contact with The School will know that they have experienced something that exceeds the level at which most places function.

Currently, there is the equivalent of a “green” arms race between independent schools to become the most sustainable. The Lawrenceville School is well positioned to be at the forefront of this competition, and could use this to great advantage. Competition for the best and the brightest minds is increasing, and many potential students are looking for the kind of school that offers a curriculum based upon current sustainability thinking. The Green Campus Initiative has already generated considerable interest among peer institutions and students – by raising the bar to the next level, The School will continue to lead.

Section 1

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

5

SECTION 2

LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT – SUMMARY Volume One Overview

Analysis of the Existing Master Plan

The Land and Water Management Summary Report (Volume One) provided an understanding of the institution within its regional context. Some important products included: •

•

•

•

•

•

ZONE 1

An ecological baseline of the existing physical structure of the land.

MIXED VEGETATION

profuse / dense planting EXISTING TREES FROM OLMSTED MP

Assisting The School in facilitating the collaborative input of both internal and external information.

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

Overall strategies to achieve more sustainable land and water management, and recommendations for Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pilot projects.

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

TREES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE OLMSTED MP SEPARATION BUFFER

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

Examination of current land and water management practices and alternatives with their cost implications.

Appropriate land and water management goals for the site, based on the latest, best science, the needs and desires of The School.

VIEWS

areas of active use long views to areas beyond and into site

ZONE 2 PASSAGES OF SCENERY

constant opening of views PICTURESQUE STYLE CIRCULATION EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION AREAS

New “green” curriculum possibilities.

TRIANGULAR ISLANDS

•

A document to 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.

Section 2 8

LAND AND WATER MANAGMENT– SUMMARY

ZONE 3

NORTH SOUTH AXIS ORIENTATION

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

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Volume One Overview The Lawrenceville School Land and Water Management Analysis Summary Report (Volume One) laid important groundwork in a series of visioning efforts to guide the development of Lawrenceville’s “Green Campus Initiative.”

Volume One also provided understanding of how a school with the desire to become sustainable starts by interpreting and respecting the natural systems of the landscape within its regional context.

The project approach and methodology took inventory of the natural systems of the campus and surrounding area. The inventory informed design guidelines that were used to create the Environmental Master Plan found in this study.

•

• •

•

The guidelines which shaped the master plan were 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

Andropogon gathered information from relevant studies in order to evaluate how the campus developed ecologically and culturally over time. Andropogon also determined which ecological and cultural conditions were most influential in its growth. The process allowed for an understanding of the significant historical and cultural landscapes and helped to recognize larger systems and isolated fragments.

An ecological baseline was developed for Lawrenceville School: •

•

•

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.

AutoCAD files were spliced 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.

Once the baseline was established, recommendations for land and water management were developed for the School: • • •

Conceptual design solutions to the stormwater problems at The Pond were created.

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: • Identify and remove invasive plant species from the wetland and forested areas.

• Complete a plan for managing stormwater from on and off the property.

• Refine the inventory of plant species on the property.

• Determine where marginal agricultural areas are removed from production and may be restored to meadow, forest or wetland.

• 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.

These findings became the baseline for Volume Two, The Environmental Master Plan.

Section 2

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

9

SECTION 3

SUSTAINABILITY VISION Sustainability; an Overview and Guidelines Principles of Sustainability for The Lawrenceville School Ecological Footprinting Sustainability Indicators and Goals Environmental Indicators Course of Action Beyond Goals

What are the components of a Sustainability Vision?

•

Integrating sustainability into the School curriculum requires active learning on the part of teachers and students. Observing, measuring and evaluating daily events is the basis of “learning about where we live” and will inform progressive change at the School.

•

Lawrenceville School can easily surpass the New Jersey standard for carbon sequestration – considered among the nation’s best – simply by restoring forest, meadow and wetlands cover to the underutilized campus perimeter.

•

Immediate goals include performing an energy audit, purchasing renewable energy, reducing fertilizers and pesticides, establishing stream buffers and creating a new faculty/staff position to assist with implementing and tracking sustainable practices.

•

Short term goals include maintaining the energy audit, incorporating stormwater BMPs throughout campus, using alternative fuels and tracking energy use as part of student curriculum.

•

Longer term goals include public outreach, grant partnerships, landscape restoration, and application of LEED standards to new and existing buildings.

Section 3 12

SUSTAINABILITY VISION

“Sustainability is a systemic concept, relating to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society, as well as the non-human environment. It is intended to be a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in a very long term. Sustainability affects every level of organization, from the local neighborhood to the entire planet.”

Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability)

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

SUSTAINABILITY VISION Sustainability; An Overview and Guidelines

Principles of Sustainability for The Lawrenceville School:

Defining Sustainability You may have heard many similar words used to define sustainability, but what does “sustainability” really mean and how can you tell if your property is sustainable? Sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community, or in this case a campus - whether the economic, social and environmental systems that make up the campus are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all its residents, present and future.

The main principles of sustainability: • Acknowledging that there are limits to the natural, social and built systems upon which we depend • Viewing society, economy and environment as related, connected parts • Conserving biodiversity and ecological integrity • Distributing resources and opportunities efficiently • Committing to best management practice • Ensuring benefits/results for present and future generations

Sustainability Overview Environmental action is becoming increasing prevalent in the media, and maybe for good reason. The United Nations’ 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment offers a stark conclusion: “The bottom line. . . is that human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”

Today’s challenges range from reversing global warming to reducing the loss of biodiversity. Hybrid cars, green buildings and alternative fuels are becoming common. Compared to 40 years ago, air and water are cleaner, poisonous compounds are banned, and the concepts of energy efficiency are understood. Homeowners separate their trash in recycling bins and some consumers can now choose wind power as their source of electricity.

Government regulations fall short of solving current global environmental issues. These problems require a new perspective that weaves together systems of commerce and transportation with nature on regional, national, and global levels. Without this integration, we end up with approaches that solve problems within one system but are not able to reverse larger trends.

Thinking about natural systems requires us to understand that while there is only one earth, it is composed of multiple subsystems all interacting with each other. GIS, satellite imagery, and three-dimensional mapping provide us with the technology necessary to understand their interdependency. This increased ability to observe, document, and analyze natural resources and processes reveals how much human action affects the environment.

Sustainable Guidelines Principles of sustainability can be general and seemingly broad. The challenge is to frame them so they address the specific issues of The Lawrenceville School. The second challenge is to understand what the existing problems are, and then how to go about solving them. This section of the report summarizes the problems and potential solutions. The principles of sustainability are written specifically for The School with an understanding of The School’s philosophy, mission and desired result. At the end of the section there is a timeline that guides the school on a course of action. This task list requires comprehensive management of building design, construction, renovation, procurement, landscape, energy, water, waste, emissions, transportation, human health and productivity. The implementation framework revolves around capital planning and construction, annual financial and budget planning, supporting departments and broad-based review. Success may be achieved by following this agenda, with a further commitment by The School to implement the recommended sustainable practices in a timely manner.

Despite these strides in pollution controls and public awareness, the American environmental movement has not solved the issues that transcend these fixes.

Ecosystem degradation-caused by “the strains we are putting on the natural services of the planet,” in the words of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, threaten the well-being of people everywhere.

•

Advocate and implement sustainable practices with goals of developing energy efficient renewable resources; reducing the use of fossil fuels; creating effective waste management and recycling procedures; and purchasing from local and regional suppliers who meet stringent environmental standards.

•

Ensure the health, safety and productivity of staff and students through design, maintenance and renovation of energy efficient and high performance buildings and systems; supporting locally grown produce; and encouraging fuel free transportation alternatives such as bicycling and walking.

•

Restore and enhance campus ecosystems through creative landscape management measures; increasing native vegetation diversity; water monitoring, management and conservation.

•

Encourage environmental inquiry and institutional learning throughout the campus community by integrating sustainability in curriculum; increase awareness of environmental responsibilities among staff, students and area citizens.

•

Establish indicators and monitoring tools to measure and audit continuous improvement in environmental policies and practices; provide institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation; and ensure growth and advance reputation as responsible environmental stewards.

•

Promote the functional natural systems of the land as an organizing principle for decision making.

Section 3

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

13

Ecological Footprinting

Sustainability Indicators and Goals Measuring Tools

An ecological footprint is the amount of land and water a person or a human population needs to support what we use and what we discard. The term was first formed in 1996 by Canadian ecologist William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel (a graduate student working with Rees at the University of British Columbia at the time). The ecological footprint is an accurate indicator of a person’s, group’s or country’s energy consumption. Footprinting can measure and manage the use of resources throughout the economy. It is commonly used to measure the sustainability of individual lifestyles, goods and services, organisations, industry sectors, regions and nations. (From My Foot Print website) The online Ecological Footprint Quiz, <http:// www.myfootprint.org> estimates how much productive land and water you need to support what you use and what you discard. After answering 15 questions you are able to compare your Ecological Footprint to what other people use.

In particular, schools can: •

•

•

Calculate an ecological footprint for a school or campus, as part of a course project. Identify the areas that are contributing most to your footprint.

Show decision-makers (student groups, teachers or professors, facilities staff) how they can reduce the campus footprint.

Involve K-12 students through activities that allow them to compare their footprints to those of other schools, as well as their own personal footprints with those of fellow classmates. An ecological footprint quiz specifically tailored to children is available.

To take this quiz, and download lesson plans, visit <www.kidsfootprint.org>.

Section 3 14

SUSTAINABILITY VISION

Measuring progress toward sustainability is as difficult as defining the term sustainability. The need for environmental analysis and particularly for indicators of sustainability is a key requirement to implement and monitor any initiative put in place toward a healthier, greener campus.

By using indicators, we can measure and track progress and changes that are happening in the environment. Environmental indicators normally include physical, biological and chemical measures. Of course indicators have to be measurable, and they have to be relevant and meaningful to the campus setting. For this study, the environmental indicators have been organized in the following categories: • • • • • • •

Education / Outreach Water Quality and Quantity Land Restoration / Management Biodiversity Climate Air Quality Energy Use

The goal of these sustainability indicators is to show the present state of the campus in a key set of critical functions - human, environmental and economic. The indicator results will serve as the baseline, reflecting the campus’ current performance, and will be used to create goals or targets for the future operation of the campus.

The aim is to use these results to encourage staff and students to integrate environmental considerations into all decision-making. The indicators will track the results over time, showing progress towards new efforts.

Methods for measuring various aspects of progress include CITYgreen software, which helps quantify air and water pollution impacts, and the Plant Stewardship Index developed by the Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve which aids in measuring ecological health and diversity. Both of these methods have been discussed in detail in Volume One of the Summary Report (Land and Water Management Analysis, 2005).

Another method of rating the sustainability index of a project or system is the LEED system, which is primarily applied to built structures but incorporates an emphasis on site design and landscape ecology.

CITYgreen CITYgreen is a GIS application for calculating the value of nature’s services.

Using the software we were able to analyze ecosystem services and create comprehensive maps for this study. Next, we calculated dollar benefits based on specific site conditions. For this study we focused the analysis on: • • •

Stormwater Runoff Air Quality Carbon Storage and Sequestration

Plant Stewardship Index Program Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve (BHWP) has created a tool called the Plant Stewardship Index, which helps to protect and manage our local native plant habitats. This analytical tool assists land stewards and practitioners in the evaluation and monitoring of the plants and habitats they manage. By using this Index, the relative ecological quality of each plant and plant community on a given property is assessed and given an overall standardized rating. 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.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Environmental Indicators LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)

Education / Outreach

Water Quality and Quantity

Among the various methods used to determine the sustainability index of a site or built project, is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) Rating System® which is rapidly becoming the industry standard for defining and evaluating green design and construction. LEED represents a fundamental shift in the way we think of designing with the land and its immediate and widespread impact on surrounding ecology.

As the arena where today’s young people learn the knowledge – and habits – that will stay with them into adulthood, schools have a special opportunity to influence the actions of the next generation.

Environmental protection programs in the United States have successfully improved water quality during the last quarter century, yet, many challenges remain. A recent national water quality inventory done by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that nearly 40% of surveyed waters in the US remain too polluted for fishing, swimming and other uses. The leading causes of impairment found in the survey include silt, sewage, disease-causing bacteria, fertilizer, toxic metals, oil and grease. (Source EPA - Watersheds)

Landscape-based decisions and site interventions alone account for 27 LEED credits, which exceed the minimum for basic certification (26 credits) and represent nearly 40 percent of total possible credits. While it is not advisable to pursue such a narrow agenda for certification since LEED also requires fulfillment of prerequisites in all its five categories, the above does demonstrate the prominent role that the site plays in the overall design process.

Many institutions have adopted the LEED system as their reference criterion for sustainable design. The LEED system offers a standard that is well established and well supported by the design industry, but is also generic and does not address particular building types or physical environments. The Lawrenceville School could use the LEED Rating System as a baseline but should consider following the site and campus specific set of performance guidelines produced in this study. (From LEED in the Landscape: Beyond

the Box; By Jose Alminana and Theodore Eisenman, Andropogon Associates, Ltd. For full article see Appendix.)

A campus landscape is expected to support a number of complex functions such as orientation, circulation, recreation, identification as a special place, and the provision of a living environment. At its best, it also reflects and supports the spirit of the institution.

What is sometimes forgotten during the development of site infrastructure is that the site itself can be a classroom and can teach valuable lessons.

Every part of a site expresses meaning- the “medium is the message.” The entire experience of the landscape- from arrival in a parking lot, its overall organization, infrastructure like paths, roads, service facilities, building location, journeys along its walkways, feelings of safety, protection for pedestrians from automobiles, and so forth….all convey attitudes which are absorbed subconsciously by those using or living in the landscape.

All environments teach, a healthy urban woodland teaches one kind of lesson about nature and our relationship to it while a blighted urban landscape quite another. In this way, a parking lot or any other kind of land use becomes a lesson about our views concerning the worth of that space. The campus itself provides an opportunity to impart values about land stewardship.

For example, the sustainable management of water on campus is an excellent chance to educate both the student body and the surrounding community.

All water should be seen as a crucial component of the local watershed.

Students can learn about the movement of rainwater in and through their campus as a starting point to explore the nature of urban watersheds and their school’s place within its own watershed. Water pathways for stormwater runoff throughout the campus can be made visible and treated as handsomely paved gutters, swales, or open channels with hedgerows of water-tolerant trees. Water is a living system, an essential element. We should celebrate it in the landscape, not put it into a pipe.

Some successes have been achieved primarily by controlling point sources of pollution and, in the case of ground water, preventing contamination from hazardous waste sites. While such sources continue to be an environmental threat, it is clear that potential causes of water body impairment are as varied as human activity itself. For example, besides discharges from industrial or municipal sources, our waters may be threatened by urban, agricultural, or other forms of polluted runoff; landscape modification; depleted or contaminated ground water; changes in flow; over-harvesting of fish and other organisms; introduction of exotic species; bioaccumulation of toxins; and deposition or recycling of pollutants between air, land and water.

The federal laws that address these problems have tended to focus on particular sources, pollutants, or water uses and have not resulted in an integrated environmental management approach. Consequently, significant gaps exist in our efforts to protect watersheds from the cumulative impacts of a multitude of activities. Existing air, waste and pesticide management, water pollution prevention and control programs and other related natural resource programs are, however, excellent foundations on which to build a watershed approach.

Action: Water quality is a two-fold issue for Lawrenceville: drinking water and stormwater runoff. While the drinking water comes from three oncampus wells, the campus is still connected to the township sewer lines. The recommendation is to ultimately eliminate the dependence on the township for water treatment, and treat effluent onsite. Instead, creating a “Living Machine” is a sustainable opportunity, making use of natural bioremediation processes in indoor wetlands to remove contaminants from sewage and other waste water sources. This naturally treated water could be used for toilet flushing or irrigation once it completes the treatment cycle. As noted in Volume 1, if at some point The School decides to or is asked to perform some level of pretreatment before discharging its wastewater to the local waste water treatment plant, it would be the ideal time to assess the potential for gray water re-use.

Section 3

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

15

Land Restoration / Management Stormwater runoff is a major concern and is crucial to the integrity of the watershed. Campus stormwater runoff measures 50.4 acre ft. of volume for a 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event. One acre-foot is the volume of water sufficient to cover an acre of land to a depth of 1 foot. On average, 1 acre-foot of water is enough to meet the demands of 4 people for a year. In comparison, the runoff from a restored natural environment at the campus would measure 30.6 acre ft., a significant improvement because of better infiltration into the soil.

Contaminants in the water could be reduced to negligible amounts through this approach.

The most effective tool to combat stormwater runoff is proper site design and the appropriate selection of Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Stormwater BMPs are methods, activities, and maintenance procedures used to reduce the amount of water and pollutants entering a water body. In the developed areas of the campus, sustainable design technologies such as pervious parking lots, infiltration trenches, and underground recharge beds can be used. In the landscape, vegetated swales work as biofilters to remove pollutants and facilitate stormwater infiltration. Vegetated solutions to stormwater management provide a significant level of contaminant reduction that is crucial to controlling nonpoint sources of pollution before the water reaches local waterways. This approach reinforces the natural hydrologic cycle that infiltrates water into the soil, recharges groundwater, and sustains base flow in area streams.

Section 3 16

SUSTAINABILITY VISION

The diversity and proportion of functional local ecosystems have been greatly altered by human land-use activities. We have cleared forests, dammed rivers, drained wetlands, established new vegetative communities and released a variety of chemicals into the land. As a result of these activities, many ecosystems that provide important functions are degraded. Within the last century we have become aware of the potentially dangerous consequences of these actions and are attempting to reverse the degradation process by restoring these important ecosystems.

•

Sustainable Agriculture integrates three main goals for The Lawrenceville School: environmental stewardship, organic production, and education. To organically grow food that is used to feed the local population is probably one of the most personal and sustainable accomplishments any community could achieve. Valuable lessons can be learned from starting a plant from a seed to the point where you taste that same fruit or vegetable during a meal. Sustainable agriculture can also be an outlet to the community and possible partnerships and grants can be perused. It is important to point out that agriculture practices vary, with some being very harmful to the environment. Conventional agriculture is the largest single non-point source of water pollutants including sediments, salts, fertilizers (nitrates and phosphorus), pesticides, and manures. Pesticides from every chemical class have been detected in groundwater and are commonly found in groundwater beneath agricultural areas; they are widespread in the nation’s surface waters. Currently on campus, inadequate land buffers exist between the agriculture fields and the stream. Reducing the farmed area and buffering the area with meadow can help offset these impacts.

•

Land Management and Using Native Plants. Restoration of native plant communities helps to mitigate erosion, improve the quality of stormwater runoff by filtering pollutants, and provide habitat for local wildlife. Regional biodiversity may increase by introducing locally threatened or endangered species on campus. Native species planted in appropriate locations also require significantly fewer hours of maintenance. Furthermore, the need for costly chemical fertilizers may be eliminated by using compost generated on-site. Establishing sustainable maintenance and resourceful reuse of waste generated onsite are both anticipatory future-directed practices that will help ensure the long-term ecological and economic robustness of the campus. The establishment of new areas of habitat will offer Lawrenceville students the opportunity to actively study and monitor the restoration as part of the natural sciences curriculum. Creating new habitats in accessible locations and structuring movement through the campus around natural systems integrates the ecology into the students’ daily life.

While measures like these rigorously focus on local conditions, their effects will be far reaching as generations of Lawrenceville students leave their green campus and enter the adulthood as stewards of the natural world.

Action: One of the most tangible goals at The Lawrenceville School is to restore the structure and function of the degraded ecosystems and habitat areas located on campus.

•

Wetlands. Several large wetlands and riparian buffers exist or once existed on campus. The wetland zone that is recommended for restoration in the Vision Plan has the potential to become one of the most productive ecosystems on campus, providing habitat for numerous terrestrial and aquatic species. Monitoring will become an important aspect of this restoration and can be become an important subject within the integrated curriculum.

•

Meadow and Forest. Recommendations for recovering both meadow and forest focus on maintaining and restoring native habitats that once occupied a larger place on the local area. In fact, meadow areas are among the rarest types of habitats in the state of New Jersey.

Nationwide, these two types of plant communities are diminishing, and the diversity of wildlife species has suffered. The area proposed for meadow restoration is currently farmed using conventional tilling methods which contribute to erosion problems. Meadows function as transitional areas between upland areas and low-lying wetlands. In this capacity, they slow and filter runoff.

THE

Biodiversity

Climate

Biodiversity provides critical indirect benefits to humans that are difficult to quantify because we rarely put a price tag on them. These benefits encompass ecosystem services such as air and water purification, climate regulation, and the generation of moisture and oxygen. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$1654 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.

The growing consensus is that global warming is a human-made problem due to the heat-trapping gases put into the atmosphere from industries, cars and homes. These gases act like a blanket, keeping more heat near the earth’s surface. More heat also means more energy in the atmosphere, which means more frequent or severe weather events – droughts, storms and floods. With each new piece of research, the expected effects of global warming become clearer, more urgent and more disturbing. Scientists believe this will be one of the greatest challenges humanity will face this century.

All species provide at least one function within an ecosystem. Each function is an integral part of regulating the species balance, diversity and health: all aspects of which are necessary for the ecosystem as a whole to survive and prosper. Ecosystems also provide various infrastructures of production (soil fertility, pollinators of plants, predators, decomposition of wastes) and services such as purification of the air and water, stabilization and moderation of the climate, decrease of flooding, drought, and other environmental disasters.

There are three major categories of actions that can be taken to mitigate global warming:

(Source: The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.)

A more diverse ecosystem is better able to withstand environmental stress and consequently is more productive. The loss of a species is thus likely to decrease the ability of the system to maintain itself or to recover from damage or disturbance. Just like a species with high genetic diversity, an ecosystem with high biodiversity may have a greater chance of adapting to environmental change. In other words, the more species comprising an ecosystem, the more resilient and stable the ecosystem is likely to be. The mechanisms underlying these effects are complex and hotly contested. In recent years, however, it has become clear that there are real ecological benefits of biodiversity.

(Wikipedia)

Action: A systems approach is the key to sustainable design. In other words, no problem is seen in isolation but always in the context of a larger system.

The most dynamic spaces on this campus are going to be where water interfaces with the land, or where the meadow transitions to woodland. The goal is to restore the landscape so that it is functions as a healthy system.

When new landscapes are created by ignoring or even obliterating existing topography, soils, vegetation, and hydrologic systems, energy is consumed and resources depleted unnecessarily. We also lose the sense of place – the essence or special character of the site. Preserving a sense of place is especially significant for campus landscapes. As the setting for academic life, a campus landscape that is welcoming, coherent, and beautiful is often a determining factor for many students in choosing a school, and the distinctive image of the landscape should endure as a cherished memory for alumni.

1.

2.

3.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Action: At the Lawrenceville School, landscape restoration can produce significant results. Part of the campus strategy should be to restore available acreage into “sinks.” If this acreage were converted to a young forest full of rapidly growing trees, it would absorb carbon dioxide while releasing oxygen, and help create the optimal balance of gases in the atmosphere. For example, if forest, meadow and wetland were restored on the underutilized peripheral areas of the property, the rate of carbon sequestration would increase from its current 50 tons per year up to 160 tons per year.

Reduction of energy use (conservation) Shifting from carbon-based fossil fuels to alternative energy sources Carbon sequestration

The natural greenhouse effect is being intensified as humans alter the global carbon cycle. Forests, soil, oceans, the atmosphere, and fossil fuels are important stores of carbon. Carbon is constantly moving between these different stores that act as either “sinks” or “sources.” (from David Suzuki’s

website)

A sink absorbs more carbon than it gives off, while a source emits more than it absorbs. Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon moving between trees, soil, oceans and the atmosphere was relatively balanced.

Burning fossil fuels tips this balance. Oil, coal and gas combustion introduce at least 6 billion tons of carbon to the carbon cycle every year - carbon that was stored underground, separated from the atmosphere for millions of years.

Living forests absorb carbon dioxide and convert it to biomass through photosynthesis. Forest soils also store large amounts of carbon in their organic layer. Deforestation alters the carbon cycle by eliminating trees and disturbing forest soils, releasing the carbon stored in both to the atmosphere.

(American Forests)

Modern farming practices also disrupt the carbon cycle. Soils, which contain about 75% of carbon found on land, are excellent sinks. Once cultivated, the amount of organic matter that soils contain drops by 20-50%. This is why meadows with zero tillage are highly efficient solutions.

Section 3

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

17

Air Quality

Energy Use

New Jersey has been advancing the concept of pollution prevention, which minimizes the amount of hazardous materials introduced to the environment.

By more efficiently producing materials in order to reduce pollution output, energy use overall becomes more proficient. This involves promoting processes that produce the same amount of product with less energy. In terms of growth, this can be viewed as increasing the production unit output at the same time stabilizing or decreasing energy consumption needs. This is exactly what is happening in New Jersey today. To assist in this process, the NJDEP is contracting with Rutgers University to develop a self-audit for all companies to examine their energy and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) management strategies.

We are on the verge of a profound shift in the way we produce and use energy. This movement away from the wasteful and ecologically destructive consumption of fossil fuels will lead us towards cleaner, more efficient power sources. Past energy revolutions – from wood to coal, from coal to oil and gas – have brought an explosion of new profits, productivity and improvements in human health. Investing in new clean energy sources may make us healthier and wealthier, too.

Action: The steps for restoring air quality are similar to those for improving climate. Reducing emissions and restoring the landscape are the overall goals. Trees are CO2 users and at the same time 02 producers; they are nature’s land based counterweight for CO2 emissions. Restoration of The Lawrenceville School’s forests can significantly improve carbon storage and CO2 reduction. A restored campus landscape would absorb toxins at a rate of up to 76,000 lbs. per year versus the current rate of about 18,000 pounds removed per year.

Action: Lawrenceville should take immediate action to conserve energy.

Steps should be taken by the student body to conserve energy and incentives should be put in place to ensure their participation. Energy use at Lawrenceville largely suffers from a common problem in economics known as the “tragedy of the commons.” Because students living in dormitory housing do not bear the costs of energy use individually, they tend to over-consume electricity and water. Making students aware and acknowledging good environmental behavior can boost positive participation. Students can even be rewarded for engaging in habits that reduce utility costs and benefit the environment.

This awareness will continue to grow as the students strive to be better environmental citizens.

Recommending energy alternatives is beyond the scope of this study; however, this is an area of great impact. An energy audit is the first step to assess how much energy the campus as a whole consumes, and to identify all energy conservation opportunities. An audit will show the problems that may, when corrected, help conserve energy and money over time. During the audit, you can pinpoint where buildings are losing energy. Audits also determine the efficiency of heating and cooling systems. An audit can help evaluate the efficiency of the oil-fired power plant that generates steam to heat the campus buildings. Specific information for each building should be gathered as a baseline for measuring. That information could be entered into the GIS database through static or live links to each building.

Examples of Renewable Energy Sources and water quality improvement measures.

Section 3 18

SUSTAINABILITY VISION

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Course of Action Progress toward sustainability should be guided by a clear vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision. Goals are broken up into four categories: Immediate • • • •

•

•

Energy audit.

Purchase renewable energy.

GIS staff position/teacher/planner.

Operations staff implements sustainable maintenance strategies which includes using commercially available organic products for maintaining golf courses, athletic fields, and campus turf management. Fertilizers and herbicides used in campus planting beds should also be organic.

(See Report 1 – pg 54). Eliminate or reduce maintenance in transitional spaces that have been identified and leave as meadow or let return as forest. Implement a composting program.

Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage in the landscape management practices. Buffers for pesticide application should be established for flowing creeks and drainage swales.

Provide space for occupant waste recycling.

Short-term (1-2 Years) • Update GIS database with energy statistics of individual campus buildings.

• Dramatically reduce pollutant loads in the creek to measurably improve water quality conditions by using stormwater retrofits (vegetated swales, rain gardens, and filter systems), BMPs for new development, and control of trash and debris.

• Run diesel vehicles on bio-diesel fuel (manufactured on site).

• Reduce energy consumption on campus (including dorms) as a result of environmental education and student participation in energy-saving practices.

• Support all faculties and departments in achieving cost-effective, environmental impact reductions associated with procurement practice, utility supply and consumption (energy, water, etc), campus planning, landscaping, building design and operations, transportation, and waste management.

• Engage the student body and administrative departments in a recycling program to help reduce waste.

• •

School-funded students & coordinator perform outreach tasks on and around campus in Lawrence Township.

Begin pilot landscape restoration projects. These should be continually measured and monitored.

Medium-term (2-4 Years) • Establish partnerships with municipal, individual and corporate owners of lands surrounding the Campus and Shipetaukin Creek to gain funding for environmental restoration and support for conservation • Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the watershed and increase volunteer participation in watershed restoration activities.

• Create a sustainability council to provide a forum where students, faculty, staff, administration and the community members can have dialog about environmental issues.

• Establish grant funding pipeline internally by faculty and student projects.

• Protect and enhance the ecological integrity of creeks to enhance aquatic diversity through stream restoration and stream protection.

• Apply new green building standards to recent projects. (see LEED) • Modify landscape to encourage habitat diversity; plant native species and reduce areas of turf to encourage water absorption and reduce mowing and lawn treatments.

• Reduce solar heat gain through numerous landscape-based interventions.

• Strategically site trees, shrubs, and vines to shade buildings and hard surfaces, reducing the overall solar gain and heat radiation of built structures.

Long-term (full integration into School operations/curriculum) • Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by introducing porous paving, de-paving and increasing the township’s awareness to upstream responsibility.

• Minimize impervious paved areas to decrease run off and use lightcolored paving surfaces and avoid the use of curbs to allow water to enter vegetated swales and meadow areas.

• Expand the range of forest cover throughout the watershed and create a contiguous corridor of forest along the margins of its creeks through: forest protection, watershed reforestation and riparian reforestation.

• • • • •

• •

•

•

Hire full-time sustainability program coordinator.

Full curriculum integration.

Set a goal of LEED certified buildings with any new construction.

Renovate existing buildings to comply with LEED certificatoin.

Review all campus buildings: ensure energy efficient buildings, structures and renovations. Ensure that all routine maintenance work, including major replacements are reviewed against an energy efficiency checklist to ensure that opportunities to switch fuels or install controls or improve thermal standards are taken. Identify low cost measures, outline more extensive and optimized energy efficiency improvements for further detailed investigation and costing and include as key criterion when employing architects and associated consultants for new building projects.

Large scale landscape restoration.

Construct wetland treatment systems to treat human waste on site to drinking water standards before leach field infiltration, or construct a living machine facility.

Retrofit campus lighting to motion-triggered lights whenever possible.

(A bright, motion-sensitive prowler light is more effective as a crime deterrent than a constant light.)

Use photovoltaic lighting. For sites that are off-grid, the cost-saving is immediate; for others, higher initial costs are offset by near zero operating costs.

Beyond Goals Principles, indicators, and goals are important tools for organizing and measuring a project’s environmental aspirations. Yet, this study cannot anticipate the specific opportunities that each unique site and program presents. Developing a campus that fully supports the local ecological health and the educational values of the Lawrenceville School requires moving beyond this Environmental Master Plan and toward a holistic approach that responds to each particular challenge with thorough analysis and innovation.

Section 3

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

19

SECTION 4

LIVING LABORATORY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE VISION PLAN Environmental Master Plan Circulation and Parking Spatial Representation Curriculum Integration

What are the components of the Vision Plan?

Environmental Master Plan Vision Plan for a Sustainable Campus

•

The campus of The Lawrenceville School should become a living laboratory for sustainability education.

•

Restoration of the campus landscape, as a process, will provide educational opportunity, and serve as a conduit for grant funding.

•

The restored natural landscape communities will make the property more beautiful, more robust and resilient and contribute to operational cost savings.

•

The restored environment will be organized into “themed” areas, each with discrete, designed structures or spaces that allow interaction with nature while limiting the perception of “wildness.”

•

The latest science and technology will enhance the functional capabilities of the landscape - providing water and air purification more efficiently than an unmanaged site.

•

Real-time monitoring of project progress may ulimately be enabled through sensory links to the three-dimensional GIS mapping database. The database will serve as a repository for spatial information collected as part of The Green Campus Initiative.

How can sustainability be expressed in the future physical design and form of The Lawrenceville School? While it is easy to grasp sustainable concepts of actions that people may choose to take – use less energy, produce less waste, etc – it is a bit more difficult to understand what sustainability truly looks like in the built environment. As modern development is predominately unsustainable, visual experience with such designs is uncommon. In order to physically create a sustainable place requires us to move beyond what we are accustomed to and accept some tradeoffs that may be unfamiliar to us. To move forward, we must question all that we take for granted and ensure that it appropriately targets the goal. Frederic Law Olmsted’s original vision for The School incorporated proportion, aesthetics, scale, and ecological function. It is important that The School retain and expand upon that legacy as it moves forward into the future.

Set amidst a backdrop of stately old trees, manicured lawns, and classicallydesigned architecture, The Lawrenceville School campus manifests the cultural and mental concepts of “learning.” It is beautiful, comfortable, and unmistakable. Recognizing the importance of this aspect, the Vision Plan seeks to preserve this quality. In such a setting, small, striking, technological design interventions spark the imagination and stir curiosity, promoting institutional change by engaging the minds and interest of visitors and residents alike.

The strategy for the Vision Plan is therefore to make targeted, unthreatening interventions within the campus core: but these interventions must pack a considerably practical and technological punch if the property as a whole is to reach the overall goal of functional equivalency to the reference landscape of forests, meadows, and wetlands. The peripheries, the leftover and currently unnoticed spaces, provide the real opportunity to significantly improve the ecological function, sustainability, and educational prospects at this campus.

The analysis of climate, air quality, water, and biotic systems on The Lawrenceville School property has revealed some serious deficits in terms of its ecological functioning. The degraded streams, forest patches, agricultural fields, and wetlands should become places that are restored to their fullest natural beauty and functional capability. The “Living Laboratory” can become the generator of excitement, energy, funding, and learning opportunity.

By enabling students, faculty, and neighbors to participate in the process of design, construction, and monitoring of the Living Laboratory, they will become empowered to make it the best that it can possibly be.

Section 4 22

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

outdoor learning centers

A

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION LEARNING CENTER CIRCULATION

THE FARM

A

PRIMARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SECONDARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

B

MEADOW FOREST VEGETATION

THE MEADOW

AGRICULTURE PLAYING FIELDS GOLF COURSE

C

RESIDENTIAL AREAS CORE CAMPUS

THE WETLAND

STREAM WETLANDS

F

D

B

THE FOREST

C

E THE POND AND STREAM

D

F

E

THE LINKS

G

G

FACULTY RESIDENCES

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

23

What is the Vision Plan?

The Outdoor Learning Centers

The Vision Plan delineates future potential zones for the entire property.

The zones are laid out with respect to the current campus arrangement and intended to be flexible enough to allow for programmatic expansion of School facilities into the foreseeable future. Implicitly, the Vision Plan is geared toward a sustainable future, with the understanding that there is a balance and a limit to how much growth this parcel of land can or should reasonably accommodate. We must acknowledge the need to maintain, in perpetuity, the capacity to sustain both its sense of place and its ecological functionality.

With this in mind, the Plan does not limit the opportunity for The School to develop its built facilities, rather it allows for expansion in a strategic fashion, embedding the precepts of Olmsted’s vision. Flexibility is built into the plan through the arrangement of temporal landscapes, like meadow, where growth is likely to be needed, rather than the more expensive proposition of recreating a forest and then having to remove it.

The outdoor learning centers could ultimately contain state-of-the-art facilities that are digitally linked to The School’s intranet and GIS Data Library. Wireless connections between the centers and digital sensors could relay real-time and historic data about climatic conditions (air, wind, and water information), infrared video of nocturnal species movement, plant and macro-invertebrate growth and movement, etc. These outdoor learning centers can be the bridge between the educational enclave that is familiar to one that is potentially quite different and exciting.

The possibilities for these new green buildings are endless. The designs could result from student competitions; they could be temporary, permanent, or constantly evolving. They offer a means of rapidly engaging people in green architecture, without the significant cost and time expenditure of typical major facilities construction. They may begin as small art installation projects, outdoor performance pieces, or even science experiments. The key is to engage people with the landscape. This connection will enable people to recognize healthy, functional native landscape communities and to differentiate them from the invaded, impaired landscapes with which most people are familiar.

The intent of the Vision Plan is to create a Living Laboratory out of the property, including all of The School’s land into the active pursuit of its educational mission. Each restored landscape community should be linked with clear circulation routes and contain a structure which functions as an outdoor learning center. These centers are discovery stations to showcase the habitat in which they are located. The outdoor learning centers are an opportunity for participation in green design and construction by the students and staff. Each center should reflect the environment in which it’s located through its building materials, function and positioning.

A Section 4 24

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

B

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Six outdoor learning centers are suggested to correspond with the habitat types that have the greatest restoration potential on The Lawrenceville School property: A.

The Farm – One of the most successful components of the Green Campus Initiative to date has been spearheaded by Gary Giberson, transforming the dining services of The School into a locally-sourced, organically-based food chain. The logical evolution of this is to produce food on-site, with students and staff involved in the process.

F B.

D

The Meadow – The physiographic history of this place included the now rare and ecologically valuable warm-season grass meadow as a major component. This habitat type is extremely biodiverse and creates highly measurable ecological function as well as visual interest throughout the seasons. The proposed site has been identified as a probable Lenni-Lenape habitation area, with a large number of artifacts recovered.

C.

The Wetland – There is a significant amount of both forested and herbaceous wetland on the property, currently highly degraded.

Restoration will yield some of the most interesting and diverse areas on campus.

D.

The Forest – The forested communities on the property vary in health and species composition. They are the most valuable systems in terms of climate moderation and offer significant educational opportunities, particularly at the canopy level, where human experience is uncommon.

E.

The Pond and Stream – The watercourses on the property are perhaps the most degraded areas, but offer some of the best research opportunities for the science curriculum.

F.

The Links – Golf courses are typically not known to be good ecological systems, and are resource and maintenance intensive. While the Grounds department has taken a proactive approach to sustainable management, reconfiguration and re-purposing of the course could have interesting possibilities. The golf course could be modified to weave its way through all the other landscape habitat restoration typologies, becoming both a recreational and an educational experience. Audubon certification could lend credibility and comparative metrics, and users who may not otherwise be inclined to experience natural areas could enjoy the benefits of the overall restoration projects.

These restoration opportunities and outdoor learning center descriptions are described on the following pages.

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

25

A

THE FARM

The Farm: Sustainable Organic Agriculture The Lawrenceville School’s Dining Services has undergone a revolution in the past year under the direction of Gary Giberson. It now is focused on sourcing and preparing locally-grown, organic, fresh, unprocessed foods. There has been great cooperation between The School and local organizations like the Rutgers EcoComplex, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey, the “Slow Food” Movement, the Trenton Farm Market, and neighboring farmers like Terhune Orchards, Sandy Acres Farms, and Cherry Grove Farm.

The program currently includes food education programs through the Dining Services, and limited on-site production of basil in a small greenhouse facility.

Desire exists to expand on-site production so that food production and class projects may be intertwined. Aquaculture and vermiculture could supplement food production while enabling waste recycling and composting.

The Vision Plan suggests a portion of the campus be utilized for a smallscale organic agricultural operation. Currently, this location is leased to a conventional vegetable farming operation, which is degrading the quality of the land through unsustainable agricultural practice. The underlying soils are “prime agricultural soils” and are among the best on the property. The existence of buildings and infrastructure on the parcel would allow the program to begin with little or no cost. Ultimately, a manager should run the “farm” so that the students can enjoy involvement without being fully responsible for its success or failure.

A future vision for this area may include an outdoor learning center like a straw-bale barn with greenhouses, powered with wind and solar, and heated and cooled through geothermal pipe systems. This facility would be visible from Route 206 and would provide a powerful visual symbol of The School’s commitment to the Green Campus Initiative. The adjacent Cherry Grove farm could provide the opportunity for the students to learn about and participate in free-range livestock farming, precluding the need for The School to develop such a labor-intensive operation itself. By creating a system whereby the students participate in the production of their food, and understand the full cycle of growth to waste production, it will help to engage them in all aspects of the Green Campus Initiative.

Examples of solar powered and sustainable agriculture.

Section 4 26

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Right: Examples of Students engaged in Sustainable Farming Below: Diagram of the Proposed Outdoor Learning Center at The Farm

WIND GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

CLERESTORY FOR NATURAL LIGHT

SOLAR PANELS

CEILING FANS TO ASSIST IN VENTILATION / COOLING

HAYBALE CONSTRUCTION

SUNKEN PROPAGATION GREENHOUSE AGRICULTURE

RAIN BARREL (TYP)

FLEXIBLE CLASSROOM

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

27

B

THE MEADOW

Section 4 28

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

The Meadow The New Jersey of the past was a patchwork of forests, meadows, and wetlands. Frequent fires resultant from lightning strikes and Native American burning method of species management contributed to the “patchy” nature of the land. From an ecological perspective, many adjacent patches increase the amount of “edge,” the interface between habitats. Generally speaking, an increase in edge increases biodiversity, but only if large patches of contiguous varied habitat types also remain.

The bunch grass meadow is a biologically important habitat type that coevolved with the flora and fauna of New Jersey. It is now one of the rarest habitats to be found in the state. Bunch grass refers to clump-forming grasses rather than the single-stem grasses commonly found in agriculture.

The clump-forming growth strategy allows for significantly greater species diversity through variations in the patterns of open and closed areas. The diversity affords greater resilience and faster soil-building because of differing root structures and nutrient compositions in the various plants. A bunch grass meadow will also provide the greatest visual show, both in terms of wildflowers and the interesting bird species that will be drawn to it.

The Vision Plan suggests that meadow be the replacement landscape for all areas that are not mown lawn or horticulturally planted. Meadowlands are also suggested for land that should not be reforested because of potential future building needs and for lands that are not adapted to be wetlands due to soil conditions. The meadow should be as large and contiguous as possible, replacing the area that is currently leased for corn and soybean production, which degrades soil quality and releases pollutants into the water systems through erosion.

Once established, meadow management is significantly more cost-effective than turf grass or agricultural crops, requiring only occasional mowing, prescribed spot burning, and mechanical invasive species removal. The robust plant species of the meadow and the undisturbed soils beneath them act as significant sinks for atmospheric carbon, and air pollutants- contributing greatly toward the sustainability goal of carbon and air pollutant neutrality.

The node indicated as “B” on the Vision Plan merits archeological investigation and interpretation. We have learned that a great number of Native American artifacts have been discovered on this site, and a cursory investigation of the settlement patterns of the Lenni-Lenapi suggests that this may have been an important site. It is a low rise situated on the edge of the interface between former meadow, upland forest, forested wetland, and herbaceous wetland.

It is a highly productive biological site which would have been prized by the Lenape, who were not only hunters and gatherers, but quite skilled in agriculture. This could make for an interesting location for an outdoor learning center which could function as both an archeological base station and an opportunity for monitoring the biodiversity unique to the meadow ecosystem.

GREEN ROOF TIMBER STRUCTURE CLASSROOM

OVERLOOK

MEADOW / ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIG SITE

Facing Page: Examples of Managed Meadows This page: Diagram of Proposed Outdoor Learning Center at The Meadow

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

29

C

THE WETLAND

The Wetland Throughout the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, wetlands were regarded as a waste of land – they were good for nothing. Settlers and even many people today have viewed them as a source of mosquitoes, unpleasant odors, and disease. It has since been discovered that these are all false allegations.

Because abundant wildlife and fresh clean water were in such a seemingly limitless supply, the important role played by wetlands in maintaining the systems on which our survival depends was concealed. The direct relationship between wetland loss and the intensity and frequency of floods was also obscured. Consequently, about 80 to 90% of New Jersey’s wetlands were drained, ditched, filled or levied off to make room for what we once believed were ‘more important uses’: agricultural, urban, industrial and recreational development. Only now are we as a society beginning to understand the heavy price we pay for development in wetlands.

Wetlands are parts of our landscape that are either permanently or seasonally wet. As a consequence, a specific community of plants have adapted to wetland soils that are either inundated or saturated for at least part of the year. Many types of wetlands exist, each with a community of plants adapted to specific conditions that are determined by the hydrology (the source, periodicity, and quality of the water supply), and the underlying soil chemistry.

Some wetlands, such as fens or sedge meadows, may be fed by subsurface or surfacing groundwater. Others, such as a floodplain forest, are periodically flooded by overflowing rivers or streams. Still others, such as bogs or vernal pools, capture rainwater in depressions or basins on the land.

Wetlands provide us with critical natural services. They remove pollutants and toxic substances from water and recharge groundwater supplies. Wetlands buffer the land, reducing flood and storm damages. Additionally, they provide important habitat for wildlife, valuable open space, and recreational opportunities, such as fishing, hunting and bird watching. The value of wetlands is becoming ever more evident as they continue to be lost. The Lawrenceville School’s wetlands are severely impaired in their function due to stormwater damage and colonization of invasive species. Fortunately, restoration of wetlands is becoming a priority at a State and Federal level, and there is significant grant money and technical assistance available.

Examples of flora and fauna in the wetland systems at the Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust and around the North East region

Section 4 30

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

A wetland-centric outdoor learning center would offer a fantastic opportunity for measuring biodiversity and natural function because these systems are so incredibly productive. As so many species use wetlands as a part of their life cycles, sensors and frequent measurements recording the conditions of the environment would reveal interesting patterns and other unknown information.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

31

D

THE FOREST

Examples of Canopy Walks at “Tree Top Walk”, Walpole, Australia; Forest floor at The Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust

Section 4 32

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

The Forest

OVERLOOK

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

CANOPY BRIDGE

The forest patches at The Lawrenceville School are in trouble. The combination of deer browse, invasive species, and soil compaction have made it so the next generation of trees to replace the older canopy species is either nonexistent or under great duress. This must be dealt with if we are to achieve the functional capabilities of the reference landscape. As previously mentioned, forests are the single most capable natural system for removing carbon and other air pollutants from the atmosphere. Additionally, they contribute to water quality, species habitat, and soil stabilization. The good thing about forest restoration is that, once established, forests can be largely self-organizing and self-maintaining, providing these services free of charge.

Fortunately, there are some high-quality mature forest stands on the campus.

One hands-on way to learn about forests’ form and function that humans do not often experience is to get up into the canopy of the trees. This could be the theme for a remarkable outdoor learning center that takes a cue from the existing “ropes course” structures.

Forest canopies play a key role in ecosystem processes, including energy flows, biogeochemical cycles and the dynamics of climates. The forest canopy is the principal site of energy assimilation in primary production, involving the interchange of oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide between plants and the atmosphere. Most photosynthetic activity occurs in the canopy and forests account for almost half of all the carbon stored in terrestrial vegetation.

Forest canopies sustain countless species of unusual animals, plants, fungi, and epiphytes. This important reservoir of genetic diversity ensures that vital ecological processes are performed by a variety of species, rather than a few, maintaining the integrity of the forest ecosystem in case of disturbance.

Pollination and seed dispersal by many different organisms ensure the regeneration of the forest, while the death and decay of trees and leaves speed the return and recycling of nutrients to the ground. All three processes are prevalent in the canopy and afford great opportunities for meticulous observation and detailed measurement.

SPIRAL ACCESS STAIR

Diagram of Proposed Outdoor Learning Center at The Forest CLASSROOM (BELOW)

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

33

E

THE POND AND STREAM

Section 4 34

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

The Pond and Stream Ponds and science classes are inseparable in our culture. There is an economy of scale and diversity that allows for the study and understanding of a pond ecosystem in a discrete time period. Understanding the pond’s context in the land and the dynamic forces that act upon it are useful for participation in a Green Campus Initiative. Studying the cause and effect relationships in these systems, as well as micro- and macrobiotic interactions within the pond community, can rapidly reveal the how human actions impact the environment.

This can aid in understanding whether or not our actions are sustainable.

As identified in Volume I, and in this document, the pond and associated streams on the property of The Lawrenceville School are not functioning as they should, due to damage from the external pressures of stormwater and invasive plant species. The NJDEP has established the Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET) to document the health of the state’s waterways. There are over 800 AMNET sites throughout the state of New Jersey regularly sampled for biological content. Streams are classified as non-impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on the AMNET data. The Shipetaukin Creek (at Lawrenceville), was classified as severely impaired.

At the present, neither the pond and nor the stream channels are functioning biologically or structurally. This is a great lesson on “what bad looks like.” It is also a useful starting point for a meaningful integrated restoration project that can greatly improve over time. Curtailing physical damage to The School’s property from flooding is one motivation for change, but the support of the sustainability education mission should come into play as a need to get started.

Complexity, and therefore interest, is added to this problem because such significant amounts of stormwater are generated off The School’s property, in the Town of Lawrenceville uphill. This creates the need for public outreach and civic participation within and throughout the community - an opportunity for the students to strengthen “Town and Gown” relationships. An outdoor learning center at the pond could go far beyond a scientific measuring and gauging station- it could become the repository of information and the gathering place for a student-organized watershed association. Social and political learning should stand alongside the science curriculum, leading to a truly robust and holistic education.

WIND SOCK

WIND VELOCITY MONITOR

SHADE CANOPY

UNDERWATER VIEWING SCOPE POND OVERLOOK POND

SUNKEN CLASSROOM WITH UNDERWATER VIEWS INTO POND

Facing page: Examples of healthy pond and stream systems at Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust This page: Diagram of Proposed Outdoor Learning Center at the Pond and Stream

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

35

Current degraded stream condition

LOSS OF TREES DUE TO EROSION

LITTLE OR NO FLOW OF WATER EXCEPT DURING STORMS

OPPORTUNISTIC INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

DIRECT HIGH VELOCITY PIPE FLOW

EROSIVE UNDERCUTTING OF BANKS

Section 4 36

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Restored stream condition

INFILTRATION ENABLED BY REMOVING OUTFALLS

COIR LOG BANK STABILIZATION

SHALLOW,RE-VEGETATED STREAMBANKS

CONSTANT BASEFLOW SUPPORTS VEGETATION AND CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY

ROBUST RESTORED NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY

Live-stake layering for bank stabilization

WILLOW WATTLES

EROSION CONTROL FABRIC BRUSH LAYER

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

37

F

THE LINKS

Examples of Audubon certified golf courses; The Old Colliers Golf Club, Naples, FL and Haymaker Golf Course, Steamboat ASprings, CO.

Section 4 38

LIVING LABORATORY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

The Links : Biohabtitat Golf Course Audubon certified golf course

The Lawrenceville School’s golf course - a 60 acre 9-hole golf course is an important resource and asset for its students and alumni. It is easy to perceive the golf course as a static fixture of The School’s campus, but in fact, it has been moved and re-configured several times during the evolution of The Lawrenceville School property. The Vision Plan presents an opportunity for integrated, holistic change toward a sustainable future. The golf course is one area that could catalyze significant functional and educational opportunities at The School. It could be used as a tool to weave together the newly restored natural habitats for learning. The course itself could be redesigned with the spirit of the Green Campus Initiative, lending itself to Audubon certification.

This would help in preserving and promoting biodiversity and the ecological communities on campus to an entirely different user base. Not to mention that it would offer a more appealing experience than a standard golf course.

The proposed scheme envisions the golf course becoming an educational and instructive tour, winding in and around the various restored natural habitats.

It would create an appropriate living laboratory environment for hands-on observation and monitoring of these areas, encouraging the golfer to view and be part of the constantly changing environment. The proposed golf course is more of an exploration of the campus - through meadows, wetlands and forest while learning or playing the game.

One of the more challenging sites on The Lawrenceville School property is the dumping area in the forest behind the golf course and the Buildings and Grounds facilities. Throughout The School’s history, this area has served as a convenient place for unwanted materials, even housing open sewage lagoons as recently as the 1960’s. The spirit of the Green Campus Initiative compels The School to address the practices that endure on this site, as well as the potential that lingering toxins may contaminate the area. Responsible recycling and composting, facilitated by the orderly arrangement of the materials area directly behind the Buildings and Grounds facilities, should allow for a compact and efficient means of eliminating the “waste” that continues to accumulate on the site.

One important educational aspect of sustainability is to highlight the very issues that have been “hidden” from modern society, like trash, sewage, and stormwater, and to deal with them as opportunities rather than constraints.

There are means to elucidate these issues in beautiful and functional ways, which are neither “smelly” nor “gross.” An efficient and orderly waste recycling area can be a thing of great beauty, like the Rutgers University EcoComplex on the Burlington County landfill. It could become a highlight of the Green Campus Initiative.

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

39

Why is this important to the discussion of the future golf course? Imagine capping and re-grading of the dump site, to reduce the potential risk of contamination to both people and the adjacent wetland areas. Suddenly there is the opportunity for change in topography, an undulating landform otherwise non-existent on the flat, low-lying campus. The golf course could then be configured to play through and overtop of the former dump site, through a diverse landscape of restored wetland and forest. Additional plantings of “hyper-accumulators,” plants that heal toxic landscapes, could provide yet another educational opportunity and swath of visual diversity. As strange as this may sound, former landfills, quarries, and other toxic sites are now recognized as a highly suitable areas for new golf courses nationally.

It is recommended that The School pursue certification for an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) for the proposed course to solidify its standing as a “green” leader. A joint effort between the United States Golf Association (USGA) and Audubon International, this program promotes ecologically sound land management and the conservation of natural resources. It teaches people about environmental stewardship, enhancing and protecting wildlife habitats and conservation of natural resources. The system’s positive impact extends beyond the boundaries of the golf course and benefits the community beyond. The Audubon certification process is prestigious – golf clubs across the country are pursuing it as the benefits, both environmentally and financially, are immense.

Examples of Audubon certified golf courses; The Old Colliers Golf Club, Naples, FL and Haymaker Golf Course, Steamboat ASprings, CO.

Section 4 40

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

The certification procedure begins with a Site Assessment and Environmental Plan, which requires that the course generate a written plan outlining their goals and proposed projects. This provides a useful tool for monitoring progress in meeting goals. The entire process takes approximately one to three years and requires environmental management standards in the following areas: •

Wildlife and Habitat Management. Management of non-play areas is crucial to providing habitat for wildlife on the golf course. Emphasis is given toward maintaining the best possible habitat for the course considering its location, size, layout, and type of property.

•

Chemical Use Reduction and Safety. A comprehensive and responsible program to control pests will ensure a healthy environment for both people and wildlife. Managing turf areas with environmental sensitivity requires educating workers and members about plant management, pesticide application, and use of fertilizers.

•

Water Conservation. Consumption of previous water resources remains an issue at most golf courses. Attention is directed toward irrigation systems, recapturing and reuse of water sources, maintenance practices, and turfgrass selection.

•

Water Quality Management. Questions about the impact of golf course chemical use on the water quality of lakes, streams, and groundwater sources abound. Strategies are devised to monitor water quality, protect wetlands, reduce erosion, filter runoff, and, if warranted, improve conditions.

•

Outreach and Education. Gaining the support of golfers for an environmental program is an invaluable asset. Focus is placed upon generating public awareness through education. Recognition of tasks well done continually reinforces the worth of the program.

These are all standards that the School is currently seeking to achieve excellence in through the “Green Campus Initiative.” The certification would also assist greatly in bolstering the image of the School as a responsible steward of the environment as well as significantly decreasing costs of maintenance and management.

THE

G

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

FACULTY RESIDENCES

Faculty Residences There is currently a deficit of housing for faculty and their families on campus.

The configuration and location of some of the residences may not be ideally suited for the current and future needs of The School. As part of the Vision Plan, it is a good opportunity to evaluate the potential future configuration of these areas.

Currently, faculty housing is predominantly on the south side of The Pond, adjacent to Lewisville Road. Older residences lie to the west, amongst some groves of mature trees. A newer development is adjacent to the Waugh Baseball Field. There are additional single-family residences along both sides of Lewisville Road and some along Route 206.

Another possibility for expansion lies along Route 206, on the edge of the current golf course. If the golf course is reconfigured as suggested earlier, space could be reserved close to the road to construct residences that relate to the street-grid of the Town. The fence would have to be perforated, but this could be helpful in strengthening “town-gown” relationships and be an improvement to the streetscape.

Regardless of where, when, and if residential expansion is desired, care should be taken to ensure that the new structures “fit” into the spirit and flow of “The Living Laboratory” and the campus landscape. It would be a great opportunity for LEED certification of new “green” buildings.

If new residences are desired, it would be prudent to first strengthen existing patterns and reconfigure some areas that are not currently functioning well.

The residences adjacent to the Waugh Baseball Field are arranged in a fashion that suggests a suburban cul-de-sac, rather than a form that fits into a campus landscape. If more buildings are to be constructed, they should be arranged to strengthen their common internal space (the baseball field), by beginning to surround it. This would give the area more of a sense of completeness, and community.

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

41

CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

Circulation and Parking Potential Future Circulation Diagram One of the greatest challenges facing scholastic institutions is the balance between pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Coupled with that challenge is the provision of adequate parking in the right places. Conflicting goals include minimizing walking distances without a sea of cars damaging the aesthetic quality of the place or creating undue stress on local water systems through stormwater runoff.

The Lawrenceville School has a dense campus core with a circulation design that pre-dates the automobile. While there is a certain amount of flexibility in the layout, cars do not fit well into the core campus. The addition of multiple parking areas over time has impinged upon either the beauty of the campus or its ecological health, or both. The parking surrounding Lavino Field House represents both stresses quite well. The large asphalt surface is a dangerous crossing for students walking to the athletic fields across the stream, and there is a tremendous stormwater volume and pollutant loading on the stream from runoff. Parallel parking in The Circle and The Bowl is a safety concern for pedestrians, a maintenance problem due to blocked access, and a visual deterrent from the stately beauty of the campus.

What can be done about this?

One potential solution is shown on the diagram on the left. The solution is to remove cars from the interior of the campus, except when large events occur or for emergencies. Instead of an internal vehicular circulatory system, the cars are moved to a peripheral loop. The only new roadway needed would be along the western edge of the existing campus, between the athletic fields and the buildings. Some additional path upgrades and extensions would be required to access all existing interior parking lots.

What are the main advantages of this concept?

• • • • •

Section 4 42

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

The campus core becomes pedestrian-oriented, rather than vehicle oriented.

The existing roads can be modified to be permeable to infiltrate stormwater.

Greater parking access can be provided along the loop road, in discrete, compact bays.

Pollutants from vehicle exhaust and leaks can be moved away from people and dealt with through Best Management Practices.

Traffic flow and speed and campus wayfinding can be improved.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

What are the disadvantages of this concept?

• •

New road segments and parking areas will need to be constructed, incurring costs.

Perceived walking distances from parking a car to the internal destination may seem slightly longer (but can be designed so that actual distances are comparable).

One of the prime factors in suggesting this change as part of the Environmental Master Plan is the relationship of the circulatory pattern to the Best Management Practice (BMP) solutions to stormwater management at the School. This campus is highly impervious and contributes significant stormwater runoff and pollutants to the Shipetaukin Creek. Roads and parking areas produce more and dirtier runoff than car-free impervious surfaces. BMP solutions to this problem can achieve an “economy of means” if the sources of stormwater are physically separated. In other words, the roof and pathway runoff is cleaner and will require less mitigation through BMPs than road and parking areas. BMPs can be grouped by the area, rather than designing all BMPs to handle the worst-case scenario.

As shown in the images to the right, the modification of existing surfaces to be permeable, through permeable asphalt and dry-laid cobblestone with subsurface infiltration, can be both beautiful and highly functional for stormwater management. Further explanation of these systems is available in the Stormwater BMPs section of this report.

The Lawrenceville School - Road and parking of impervious asphalt, draining to storm sewer.

Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia - Road and parking details for infiltration.

Adoption of this circulation and parking scheme will provide significant benefits for the campus. The core learning environment will be safer, healthier and more environmentally benign. It is a solid building block for the sustainable future of The Lawrenceville School.

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

43

THE

GREEN CAMPUS

INITIATIVE

mouse over the area you want information for

REYNOLDS

total use

use / person

%age reduction

today

this week

this month

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

xxxxxxxxx

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE

xxxxxxxxx

| THE FOREST | THE POND AND STREAM | THE LINKS |

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

xxxxxxxxx

THE FACULTY RESIDENCES

WASTE GENERATED

xxxxxxxxx

CAMPUS BLDGS | PLAYING FIELDS | ADMINISTRATIVE BLDGS | THE FARM | THE MEADOW | THE WETLANDS

compare it to other buildings!!

Spatial Representation Three-Dimensional Campus Model A three-dimensional model of The School has been developed as a part of this study to be used for spatial orientation on the site. The tool is intended to be the framework and repository (spatial database) for all physical information collected as part of the Green Campus Initiative.

The model has been merged with the GIS data created for this study. This is perhaps the most interesting and powerful application of the product. Using the inherent 3-D capabilities of the GIS, data can be added to the individual elements of the file in countless ways. For example, the user could click on a building and view any information that has been placed in the database (name, color, number of occupants, energy consumption, heat loss, maintenance alerts or history or cost analysis, etc.). The data can be static or even “livelinked” to digital sensors in real-time. Imagine the Buildings and Grounds Department having the capability to click on an athletic field and determine the soil moisture, nutrient requirements, mowing schedule, etc. The Pond and streams could be monitored for water temperature, velocity, volume, pollutant loading, storm flows, etc. as part of the science curriculum.

The 3-D model was created with a drawing program called SketchUp (see www.sketchup.com) by combining information obtained from the following sources: • • • • •

GIS data AutoCAD drawings Blueprints from The School’s Building and Grounds Department Site photographs Field investigation and verification

A Campus Map has been created from a two-dimensional snapshot of the SketchUp model. This may be distributed to visitors and residents alike for orientation purposes. It may also be used on The School’s website to allow viewers to get a sense of the scale and layout of the campus.

Screenshot example of how an interface for taking live readings of the campus workings could look Section 4

44

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

An interactive 3-D version of the model has been included as a product with this study. This is enabled with a free, distributable SketchUp Viewer. The model is also included as a 3-D PDF document. Recent versions of Adobe Acrobat allow 3-D manipulation of this file format. The user may navigate the model and export or print the results using either program. Google Earth, another free product (see http://earth.google.com/), can import the SketchUp file and allow an internet visitor to explore the model overlaid on satellite imagery and transportation networks.

This product is a building block for a digital repository for vast amounts of information. It will reside with the GIS Data Library, but individual departments, groups, or individuals could create and maintain their own versions, or limit access to secure information through digital protection schemes. The 3-D campus model is a flexible tool which should serve The School to expand and enable the spatial representation of The Green Campus Initiative in the years to come.

Spatial Data Library The Lawrenceville Spatial Data Library (LSDL) is a collection of geographic data intended to support the students, faculty and staff of the Lawrenceville School in locating, obtaining, and using geospatial data in an accessible and meaningful way. Spatial data, used in conjunction with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), can be a very powerful tool for communicating information or creating spatial perspectives among users. In addition, data analysis and mapping can inform research and decision making, or simply facilitate the sharing of ideas among the Lawrenceville community. The Spatial Data Library is explained in greater detail in the appendix of this report.

Examples of views generated from the 3D SketchUp model of The Lawrenceville School campus Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

45

LEWISVILLE ROAD ENTRANCE

Residential Houses

LEW

ISV

ILL

ER

OA

D

‘42 FIELDS BAKER GATE

WAUGH BASEBALL FIELD

25

CHAMBERS FIELD THE POND

26

‘49 FIELD

23

12

TIIHONEN FIELD

27

24 THE CRESCENT

11

21

20

9 37

FLAGPOLE GREEN

THE WOODS

28

18 19 20 21 22 23

32

29

14

19

8 7

18

THE CIRCLE

6 17

5

30

31

16

33

15 GREEN FIELD

2 35

4 << TO PRINCETON

GUARDED GATE

Section 4 46

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

3

KENNEDY HASKELL KINNAN DICKINSON WOODHULL GRISWOLD CLEVE MCCLELLAN STANLEY STEPHENS KIRBY RAYMOND (THOMAS AND DAVIDSON) DAWES (PERRY ROSS AND CROMWELL) REYNOLDS MCPHERSON UPPER

MEMORIAL HALL FATHER’S BUILDING EDITH MEMORIAL CHAPEL BATH HOUSE (OUTDOOR PROGRAMS) BUNN LIBRARY IRWIN DINING CENTER (POST OFFICE, ETC, LOUNGE)

34

TENNIS COURTS

HAMILL

Academic & Administrative

13 THE BOWL

10 GOLF COURSE

22

EGLIN MEMORIAL TRACK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

36

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

MCGRAW INFIRMARY LAVINO FIELD HOUSE SQUASH COURTS F.M.KIRBY SCIENCE CENTER CORBY COMPUTER CENTER MACKENZIE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING GRUSS CENTER OF VISUAL ARTS NOYES HISTORY CENTER KIRBY ARTS CENTER HOGATE HALL ABBOTT DINING HALL JULIET LYELL STAUNTON CLARK MUSIC CENTER

1

36 FOUNDATION HOUSE MAIN (CLASS OF 1891) GATE

MAIN STREET – ROUTE 206

TO TRENTON & I-95 >>

(HEAD MASTER’S RESIDENCE)

37 GOLF HOUSE

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

47

Curriculum Integration Examples of students at the Schuykill Center for Environmental Education taking readings of stream levels and water quality of the Wissahickon Creek

A critical component of a successful Green Campus Initiative is stakeholder involvement. In this case, the faculty, students, staff and surrounding community of The Lawrenceville School must be engaged in a fulfilling, meaningful fashion. The idea that the physical place – the campus - becomes the classroom that is evolving and demonstrating sustainability for all to witness is perhaps a different take on curriculum integration than the norm.

It is far too easy to undertake studies and create reports to populate office shelves – it is another thing entirely to engage an entire community to work together to realize the birth of a new concept. We feel this is crucial for longterm success of the project.

The Living Laboratory will take some time to develop, but that does not mean that the site lacks the immediate ability to educate keen observers. In fact, it is necessary to observe and record the current conditions and function of the site so that change is measured over time. In the spring of 2006, we engaged the students from several classes by beginning the observation and recording process.

Two basic themes were explored over the course of multiple site visits with several classes. The first was the study of watersheds, what they are, how they function, what processes are at work within them. The second was plant communities, specifically the observation of the structure and function of native plant communities vs. invasive exotic plant communities. The students were given background information prior to the site visits, led on the site visits

by Andropogon representatives and Lawrenceville faculty, and asked to report on their findings and observations in classes subsequently.

Watershed Study For the watershed studies, students attended guided field visits during both dry conditions and during storm events. The groups visited sites of local hydrologic interest (streams, ponds, culverts, detention basins, stormwater drains, road crossings, D&R Canal, etc.) They compared water flow during dry and wet conditions and examined damage to stream channels both when it was dry and while raining to witness the actual damaging forces at work.

Each group followed the watercourses uphill to the edge of the watershed and considered how land cover and land management contribute to runoff and pollution.

Section 4 48

LIVING LABORATORY – THE VISION PLAN

The groups visited many different parts of the Shipetaukin Creek watershed to examine how water moves differently across different surfaces and to note the relationship between the top and bottom of the watershed. During the rainstorm visits, the students looked down storm drains and attempted to link the inflows to their eventual outfall, and to notice the change in volume and velocity of the water downstream. They were asked to map their results and provide narrative feedback on their findings.

To strengthen the pedagogical results of this exercise, we suggest the following activities for future sessions: • • • •

Site and monitor gauging stations for water quantity and quality before and after storms.

Collect, identify and measure macro-invertebrates.

Create digital maps with data to link to GIS data library.

Establish a watershed association to engage the neighbors of the Shipetaukin Creek.

Plant Communities / Invasive Plant Study Students were guided on field investigations of The Lawrenceville School property and its surroundings to understand the dynamics of plant communities.

They examined the relationship between a managed (horticulture and agricultural) landscape versus “natural” landscapes. The characteristics of native plants and exotic invasive plants were questioned and observed. The students were subsequently asked to describe the dynamics of horticultural vs. “natural” systems. They were asked to determine the relationships between land use patterns and invasive plant colonization.

In the future, the students should examine these related possibilities: • Learn and utilize the Bowman’s Hill Plant Stewardship Index to map and evaluate plant communities.

• Learn plant sampling techniques (transects, quadrats, etc.) to facilitate baseline and future monitoring. Examples are included in the appendix of this report.

• Research and apply for grants to remove invasive plant species.

• Organize task forces/student/citizen groups to remove invasives throughout the watershed.

• Create digital maps with data to link to GIS data library.

THE

Sustainable Agriculture

Conclusion

The students who participated in the above activities were encouraged to find out more about sustainable agriculture and how it relates to those topics.

Small garden pilot projects seem to have evolved as a result. In the future, the students could:

By using the physical campus as a platform for expansion of knowledge of “place” and physical natural processes, The Lawrenceville School community can achieve a greater depth of learning than can be obtained from books and lectures. The process of transforming and restoring the campus should be a collaborative effort between each generation of students, faculty and staff.

Small events and actions, like the planting of a tree by each student as part of the overall symbolic effort, or the design of a small installation in the forest by an art class, will systematically connect the people to the place – and through the process – the place to the people. The three-dimensional GIS database can be used to record each intervention and its function over time.

The concept of “many hands make light work” will quickly reveal that progress does not require much effort, as long as the will to act is enabled.

• • • •

Begin sustainable agriculture studies in community gardens and greenhouses.

Visit local organic farms.

Visit Rutgers EcoComplex.

Coordinate with Dining Services program to learn about food production, travel, and preparation.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Examples of outdoor classroooms at The Ross School by Andropogon.

Section 4

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

49

SECTION 5

WATER Stormwater Basics Stormwater Regulations Measuring Stormwater Runoff Volumes and Pollutant Loads Best Management Practices Water Quality

WATER Stormwater is a modern problem that faces all urbanizing regions. At The Lawrenceville School, it is perhaps the greatest challenge impacting the site. Flooding is an expensive and dangerous result of impervious surface cover.

Short and long-term damage to the land and water systems is prevalent throughout The School’s property. The ability of the remaining fragments of un-managed “natural” land to remedy the problem is compromised. Fortunately, there are solutions, but they must be part of an integrated, overall strategy to be effective in a cost-effective fashion.

Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be considered as a part of every physical development project on the campus. Every building, road, sports field, and landscape should be considered in terms of both its stormwater contribution, and conversely, its potential to infiltrate water into the ground.

The Vision Plan strives to make stormwater management an integral part of The School’s educational experience.

The solutions to the problem are an opportunity for beauty, function and teaching in all areas of the campus.

Stormwater Basics Stormwater; Quantity, Quality, Problems and Solutions What is Stormwater?

Water Quantity

Stormwater runoff is rainfall or snowmelt that runs off the ground or impervious surfaces like buildings, roads, or parking lots and drains into natural or manmade channels. In some cases, it runs directly into streams, rivers, lakes or the ocean. In other cases, particularly urbanized areas, it drains into streets and manmade drainage systems consisting of inlets and underground pipes commonly referred to as storm sewers. These sewers are not to be confused with sanitary sewers that transport human and industrial wastewaters to a treatment plant before discharge to surface waters. Stormwater entering storm sewers does not usually receive any treatment before it enters streams, lakes and other surface waters.

Changes in land use upstream of The Lawrenceville School have created stormwater runoff problems and this is most evident in the condition of the streams on campus. Increased impervious surface due to development has decreased the amount of rainwater that can infiltrate the soil, which amplifies both the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. These changes incite more frequent and severe flooding. Under natural conditions, typically 10% of rainwater falling on the land surface runs off into streams, rivers or lakes. The remainder evaporates into the air, is evapotranspirated by plants or infiltrates the soil replenishing groundwater supplies.

Controlling stormwater runoff and its impacts is a serious challenge facing many municipalities and campuses across the nation. Citizens are complaining about flooding caused by increased amounts of stormwater runoff, and the state and federal governments have responded by mandating local stormwater programs to control pollution.

Examples of flooding on The Lawrenceville School campus.

The rate of runoff and streamflow after a storm event shows dramatic increases under post versus predevelopment conditions. The higher and more rapid peak discharge of runoff and streamflow can overload the capacity of the stream or river, causing downstream flooding and streambank erosion.

Local governments spend millions of dollars each year repairing damage to public and private property caused by uncontrolled stormwater runoff. In heavily developed areas, damage to public and private property occurs during heavy rains. The destruction is often multi-faceted, involving roads, culverts, bridges, and utility lines. Frequently, properties are flooded and runoff deposits sediment and debris on properties and roads.

Eroding stream banks clog stream channels, culverts, and pipes with sediment, contributing to flooding problems. Sediment is washed into ponds, lakes and other impoundments reducing their capacity to store water and requiring costly removal efforts. The increased volume and velocity of runoff and streamflow accelerates channel erosion and changes in streambed composition. This can destroy fish habitat and disrupt the natural ecology of the stream or river.

Section 5 52

WATER

THE

Water Quality

Stormwater Solutions

Stormwater runoff is also a major source of water pollution. Various pollutants accumulate on surfaces due to man’s activities and are washed off during storms into drains or directly into streams, rivers and lakes. Pollutant levels are typically much higher in the first inch of runoff commonly referred to as the “first flush.” Some studies have found that approximately 90 percent of the pollutant loading is contained in the first flush. (Source: EPA) Therefore, effective water quality protection requires the treatment of the first flush through the use of various preventive and control measures.

Every opportunity should be taken to strengthen and enhance the natural systems on a site. Integral to this approach is “economy of intervention” – devising multi-purpose strategies that utilize a site’s natural resources to solve problems such as increased impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. An integrated, multi-disciplinary approach incorporates solutions to the challenges of water management into every aspect of site design and architecture – from roofs and parking lots, to restored natural drainage patterns and native plant communities. Implementing a wide array of cost-effective techniques for stormwater management that meet or exceed regulatory requirements can augment the inherent beauty of the place while protecting its viability. Rather than relying upon costly, heavily engineered solutions such as stormwater conveyance pipes or detention basins, stormwater management solutions should be modeled after natural systems.

Why is it a problem at Lawrenceville?

The difficulties of stormwater management are a concern for many academic campuses. The need to balance beautiful, green, walkable spaces with buildings, roads, and parking in a dense arrangement tends to create a great quantity of excess runoff and not many places to put it. This localized “stormwater hotspot” creates pressure on the local watercourses that are not adapted to deal with massive quantities of water rushing by during storms, but are nearly dry the rest of the time.

At The Lawrenceville School there is the additional reality that The School lies at the bottom of the watershed, and significant floodwaters rush down through the campus watercourses from off the property. At The Pond, nearly 3⁄4 of the entire stormwater load is contributed from off the property uphill. With that said, the campus itself is highly impervious, more so than nearly anywhere else within the watershed. This adds significant volume and pollutant loading to an already strained system. The images on these pages of damage to stream channels and structures and those showing flooding attest to the fact that the system is not working properly.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Examples of damaged and eroded stream banks along the Shipetaukin Creek tributary feeding into The Pond.

In the developed areas of a site, sustainable design technologies such as pervious parking lots, infiltration trenches, and underground recharge beds can be used. In the landscape, vegetated swales work as biofilters to remove pollutants and facilitate stormwater infiltration. Vegetated solutions to stormwater management have the added benefit of providing a very significant level of contaminant reduction that is crucial to controlling nonpoint sources of pollution before the water reaches local waterways. This approach reinforces the natural hydrologic cycle that infiltrates water into the soil, recharges groundwater, and sustains base flow in area streams.

Stormwater management is perhaps the greatest physical site challenge facing The Lawrenceville School. Fortunately, there are cost-effective solutions that can be both beautiful and educational. It is important to view this problem as a significant opportunity for expressing change toward The Green Campus Initiative.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

53

Stormwater Regulations The Regulatory Environment

Municipal Mitigation Plan

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released findings that the nation’s water quality is degraded and will continually get worse if measures are not found to control non-point source pollution. In response to this finding, the EPA initiated a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program for all Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) in urbanized areas. The ultimate goal is to stabilize and improve the nation’s water quality. The program is being managed at the state level and has been implemented slightly differently by each state. In New Jersey, as with most states, the permit (New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNJPDES permit) requirements are being phased in over a five-year period.

Implementation began in 2005, and there will be changes to the next five-year NPDES permits issued in 2010.

Lawrence Township is in compliance with the New Jersey National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) and has on record a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP). (A copy of the SPPP should be requested from the Township if it has not already). New Jersey’s Stormwater Management rules include a clause worth mentioning, and that is a provision that allows a municipality to develop a “Municipal Mitigation Plan.” A Municipal Mitigation Plan (MMP) is a mechanism for minimizing the potential deficits that may be caused by some development and redevelopment, where it is not possible to comply with the post-construction stormwater management requirements. If a MMP has been developed, it guides how and where a deficit will be offset, generally by improving stormwater quality or quantity at another location within the municipality. The importance of an MMP to the School cannot be understated, given the fact that a significant portion of the stormwater from Lawrenceville Township flows through the campus. With an MMP, any development or redevelopment undertaken in Lawrenceville that does not comply with the post-construction stormwater management requirements could be obliged to mitigate the negative effects of that development through funding restoration activities downstream, potentially on The School’s land.

This could be used to rectify the decades of damage downstream from the poor development practices of the past. Restoration opportunities should be identified and an MMP developed if one does not already exist.

If the 2010 permit requires municipalities who have not had a significant improvement in their stormwater quality to mitigate, The School has the land to use for buffering the stormwater quality. The School may want to consider starting a macroinvertebrate sampling program that covers the watershed (all within Lawrence Township). The sampling program would draw from the same locations year after year and be able to show improvements, if there are any, in the water from the township. The School could also measure the improvements that occur when farming ceases on parts of the property, or when the stream on the golf course is restored and reconnected to its wetland.

These regulations could help fund The School’s own stormwater management projects by working with those who cannot manage the stormwater on their own property. Consequently, while this opportunity exists it may not be fully realized unless there is a cooperative agreement between the Township of Lawrence and The School. If they agree to work together a great many of the ills associated with lack of stormwater management in the past could be rectified on The School’s land.

Managing stormwater through infiltration techniques is a recent change to the new NPDES program as a result of the current findings from the EPA. Infiltration has proven to be the most efficient solution because effective infiltration of the 2-year-24 hour storm results in the permeation of approximately 90% of the annual precipitation. The soils treat and purify the water and the base flow in the watershed is maintained. The EPA found that detention basins that are designed to just catch and release storm flow are not the best course of action because they do nothing to reduce the increased volume of stormwater from the land that has now been made impervious. Essentially, they serve to reduce the peak discharge rate but the potential still exists for flooding downstream.

The NJPDES permits that have been issued focus on improving the quality of the stormwater flowing through MS4s, through a variety of active and passive control measures. Each New Jersey municipality is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP). SPPP’s are required to include, at a minimum, public education, post-construction stormwater management, new ordinances for preventing waste from entering the MS4, preventing solids and floatables from entering the system, improvements to the municipal maintenance operations, and municipal employee training. The public education program is for helping the public understand the connection between their activities and surface water quality. The post-construction stormwater management is aimed at managing stormwater from newly developed and redeveloped areas through infiltration and BMPs aimed at improving stormwater quality. The new ordinances focus on preventing anything but stormwater from entering the MS4. The solids and floatables control, municipal operations and maintenance, and municipal employee training are municipality controlled activities that should improve the quality of the stormwater entering their MS4.

There are a number of “optional measures” that can be part of the SPPP and they include: • • • • • •

Wildlife management Fertilizer and pesticide management ordinances Retrofit of existing stormwater management measures Road de-icing Adoption of abandoned stormwater management basins Planting of native vegetation in existing landscapes

Section 5 54

WATER

Planning Ahead Having status as a private school, The Lawrenceville School is exempt from any stormwater obligations possibly until 2010. However, The School must comply with ordinances if it suddenly contributes stormwater to Lawrence Township’s separate storm sewer system by adding new buildings or adding impervious surface to the campus. An option to consider, if and when new construction occurs, is to phase in the permit’s requirements over the next five years so that The School will be in compliance in 2010.

There are many opportunities to engage the township and the upstream landowners toward a voluntary stormwater program. For example, a “rainbarrel” fund can attract the support of local companies in the township to sponsor rain-barrels in a neighborhood. Or start a “disconnect your downspout weekend” and help landowners to install rain-gardens at the end of those spouts instead of piping them into the township’s storm sewer system. These projects could all be integrated into the classroom since they are all connected to studying the effects of changes in stormwater management practices and what impact they have on water quality in the stream.

Reason for Change

To explain this further, traditional stormwater basins only slow the release of stormwater, which extends the duration of the bank-full flows downstream. The bank-full flow is the stormwater discharge that does the most damage to a stream channel. Once the stormwater volume in the stream channel has exceeded the bank-full stage, it can access its floodplain and erosion is reduced. By shaving off the peak discharge, stormwater basins prolong the discharge of a lower flow of water just below the peak stormwater flow. This prevents a stream from getting over the bank-full stage and increases the length of this phase.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

As a result, channel erosion and deepening is magnified, but there is no increase in the flood elevation, making it seem fine, according to regulations. This has ruined many miles of stream channels.

Streambanks may, in some cases, reach an equilibrium with the changes in stormwater rate and volume, but, typically by the time that occurs, more development happens and further burdens the system. New NPDES stormwater regulations focus on keeping that equilibrium point from moving any further.

Stormwater Management Solutions The key to effective stormwater management is to get as close as possible to the source and manage it there. For example, connecting a downspout to a small infiltration bed next to the building for $2,500 is much less expensive than finding an area with suitable soils in a downstream area that can infiltrate the stormwater from 20 buildings. The lower you go in a watershed, the worse the soils tend to be for infiltration. To store enough stormwater to make the system worthwhile, it will have to be larger than the total area of individual beds and placed higher in the watershed where the soils are generally more permeable.

By infiltrating stormwater, its quality is improved through soil filtration. Water is also being added to a system that has been increasingly deprived of recharge over the years by the ever increasing amount of impervious land. Streams gain speed as they flow downstream from groundwater discharges. If impervious surfaces eliminate groundwater recharge, the groundwater elevation drops and groundwater will flow into the streams at decreasingly lower elevations.

As this occurs, the streams at the tops of the watershed will eventually go dry, as will shallow wells.

BANK-FULL STORMWATER FLOW

BENEFICIAL CONTROLLED FLOODING WITHIN FLOODPLAIN

Bank-full flow is the most damaging stormwater discharge to a stream channel, magnifying both erosion and deepening. Traditional stormwater basins capture enough water to lower the water level and thereby prevent the channel from overflowing. Additionally, they slowly release stormwater for the duration of bank-full flows, increasingly the length of this phase. In these ways, traditional stormwater basins disrupt the natural balancing mechanisms of the system.

In a healthy stream system, as stormwater volume increases, the excess flow spills over the streambanks, spreading the force over a greater area, lowering velocity, and infiltrating into the soils of the floodplain. The plants in the floodplain are adapted to wet and dry conditions, and help to slow the stormwater. Nutrients are distributed to the soils in the floodplain as the water slows and drops sediment - similarly, pollutants are diluted and sequestered by plants and soil.

Another BMP option is a rain garden built from sandy soil and planted with Coastal Plain species that are adapted to the wet and dry extremes that go with living in such soils. The sand would provide a reservoir for stormwater and the plants will make it look much more attractive. There are a plethora of ways to manage stormwater if you apply imagination and science to the problem. The soils around the Lawrenceville School are generally great infiltrators, making these types of BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s highly cost effective.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

55

Measuring Stormwater The Water Cycle

Hydrologic Soils

The Water Cycle (or Hydrologic Cycle) is the circulation of water within the Earth’s hemisphere. Water moves between the atmosphere, the land, surface water, and groundwater. It moves through evaporation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and sub-surface flow. By understanding the average volumes of water in each stage, calculations can be made based on land cover and storm events to determine runoff.

The rate the initial amount of precipitation from a rainfall permeates soil is controlled by the physical properties of soil and the type of vegetation growing in that area. Soil is constantly being formed at the bedrock/surface interface with the uppermost layer of bedrock constantly eroding, so that the “newest” soil is on the bottom. The growth of plant roots and a complex food chain of micro- and macro organisms enrich the soil surface with organic matter, while wind and water transport some soils to locations beyond the original sites.

Mean Annual Precipitation According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), annual average precipitation in the area is about 45 inches.

Annual Runoff and Base Flow Base flow is “the water that percolates downward until it reaches the groundwater reservoir and then flows to surface streams as groundwater discharge.” (Viessman, et al, 1996). Between precipitation events, ground water provides the base flow to the stream channel. When the land is paved over, infiltration is converted to runoff and recharge cannot occur. Since streams are the surface expression of the ground water table, in the periods between precipitation, flow in streams is significantly reduced, because the ground water table has not been recharged.

45” PRECIPITATION ANNUAL AVERAGE

26” ESTIMATED EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

Where human activity has cleared the original woodland for cultivation or building, the surface layer has been removed, graded and frequently compacted, greatly reducing the natural ability of the soil to infiltrate rainfall.

Hydrologic soils are a grouping of soils having the same runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Hydrologic groups are used in equations that estimate runoff from rainfall. 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. The soils of the U.S. are placed into four groups A, B, C, D. Definitions of the classes are as follows: A. Soils with low runoff potential. Soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of deep, well drained to excessively well-drained sands or gravels.

B. Soils having moderate infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.

C. Soils having slow infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine textures.

11” IMMEDIATE

STORMWATER RUNOFF

8” GROUNDWATER BASEFLOW AND RECHARGE

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

Section 5 56

WATER

D. Soils with high runoff potential. Soils having very slow infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.

Erosion of Group “B” soils due to poor agricultural practice on The Lawrenceville School campus.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

HYDROLOGIC SOILS

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

57

Runoff Curve Numbers by Landcover LAND USE

Hydrologic Soils Group A

B

C

D

Good Condition – grass coverage >75%

39

61

74

80

Fair Condtion – grass coverage 50% to 75%

49

69

79

84

Commercial and business area (85% impervious)

89

92

94

95

1/8 acre or less (65% impervious)

77

85

90

92

1⁄4 acre (38% impervious)

61

75

83

87

1/3 acre

57

72

81

86

1⁄2 acre

54

70

80

85

1 acre

51

68

79

84

Paved surfaces

98

98

98

98

Gravel surface

76

85

89

91

Meadow

30

58

71

78

Poor

45

66

77

83

Fair

36

60

73

79

Good

25

55

70

77

Open Spaces:

Residential:

LANDCOVER

Forest:

15 11 14 1 16 12 7 4 2 5 9 10 6 3 13 8

Section 5 58

WATER

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Runoff Volumes and Pollutant Loads Modeling Stormwater Behavior

Pollutant Generation and Transport

There are many engineering methodologies for measuring stormwater. It is important to match the methodology to the nature, scale, and extent of the study area. Stormwater was modeled for this project using the TR-55 model, a software package used for estimating runoff hydrographs and peak discharges for small urban watersheds. The model was developed by the NRCS (formally SCS) and therefore uses SCS hydrograph methodology to estimate runoff.

Using detailed input data entered by the user, the TR-55 model can calculate the area-weighted runoff curve number, time of concentration and travel time.

This model is useful to obtain an assessment of the order of magnitude of stormwater flows and make assumptions about the sizing of BMPs to reduce quantity and improve quality of the water.

Various types of impervious surfaces will generate varying concentrations of pollutants and these differences are included in the analysis of the mass transport of sediment conveyed by runoff.

The GIS-based landcover information was used to provide both the current conditions and an estimate of the potential land cover changes. Other important inputs to the calculations are slope, hydrologic soils groups, area of each sub-watershed, and detailed precipitation volume, rate, and timing data.

The critical resultant information is the volume of runoff and the amount of pollutants generated by these changes. The USDA Soil Conservation Service “Cover Complex Method” was used to calculate the response of each different cover type to precipitation. Curve numbers (CN) based on land cover type are determined and used to calculate runoff volume. CN values range from a low of 55 for a mature forest (the land cover type which generates the least runoff) to a high of 98 for impervious surfaces, (where runoff is almost total). CNs reflect both land cover type and soil type but they are empirical parameters based on research and observation. There are limits to the accuracy of these numbers and interpretation requires professional judgment.

The CN value is important in evaluating the effects of recommended landscape changes or installation of BMPs. Converting land from one cover type to another more pervious one for example, converting lawn to meadow or planting beds, will result in a landscape that produces less runoff. The CN value serves as the parameter to estimate this effect, with the lower the CN the less run-off. If the School builds on a forest with a low CN the difference between the CN for built and undeveloped site is large. With a greater CN there is less of a difference, so that a lower CN represents a more conservative approach.

The application of a water balance model in the evaluation of pollutant transport is a complex process, since it does not trace the movement of a given raindrop through the drainage system, but rather replicates the observed change in stream level during a flood. Non-point source (NPS) pollutants are extraordinarily diverse. While the mix of pollutants will fluctuate with land cover type, pollutants move in association with or attached to particle- as suspended solids or as dissolved solutes.

To understand the movement of particulate and dissolved pollutants in runoff requires a discussion of the various components of NPS pollution.

Particulates Storm runoff scours and suspends many pollutants as particulates, which are flushed from the surface of rooftops, pavements and roads. Pollutants transported as particulates include total phosphorus, organic matter, organic nitrogen, metals and some herbicides and pesticides.

“First Flush” Researchers have identified the effect known as “first flush” by analyzing the water quality samples over the duration of a storm. Concentrations of oil, solids and other pollutants accumulate between storms. Studies show that the water that washes off early on in a storm has the highest concentration of pollutants and is known as the “first flush.”

Stormwater managers adopted the concept that 90% of the annual stormwater pollutant load was transported in the first half inch of runoff from all surfaces.

New research suggests that the “half-inch sizing” rule may not be an adequate design criterion for sites with high impervious cover. These sites may require capture of a stormwater volume of one or more inches to prevent washing away the first flush before it can be treated or infiltrated.

Pollutant Transport Most of the NPS pollution transported during a storm occurs during the relatively short spans of heavy rainfalls, totaling about 25 to 30 days a year. This is especially true for pollutants transported by or associated with particulates, especially colloids. These particles, such as clay soils, are so small that they do not settle but remain suspended in the water for many days. It is possible to add chemicals to a stormwater basin to coagulate these colloids so that they settle, but this turns a stream channel or pond into a treatment area and removes sludge required for a natural system to function.

To accurately measure the amount of particulates transported during a given storm, both volume and concentration must be measured simultaneously.

Dry weather chemistry is seldom indicative of expected wet weather concentrations. To fully develop this information for a watershed, a number of storms must be measured over several years.

Soluble Pollutants Several types of NPS pollutants are soluble, or quickly become soluble in runoff.

These include nitrates, ammonia, salts, many pesticides and hydrocarbons.

While the load increases in heavy storms because the heavier volume of water scours more pollutants from the land surface, the concentration of pollutants will actually decrease as they are diluted over a given storm. The current regulatory requirement defines a “total maximum daily load” (TMDL) for a given pollutant. Although these requirements are complicated by differences in wet and dry weather conditions, the total amount of pollutants carried by runoff is significantly greater in wet weather and represents the major portion of the total annual discharge. Dry weather sampling reflects the steady discharge of soluble pollutants into the stream flow.

Some NPS pollutants enter the system through precipitation, especially downwind of industry using fossil fuels. Paved surfaces also generate nitrogen load, derived from a mix of sediment, animal wastes and human detritus of many different forms.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

59

Design Guidelines for Subsurface Infiltration •

Avoid piping water long distances. Look for infiltration opportunities within the immediate project area.

•

Consider past uses of site and appropriateness of infiltration design and porous pavement.

•

Consider the source of runoff. Incorporate sediment reduction techniques as appropriate.

•

Perform site tests to determine depth to seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and soil conditions, including infiltration capabilities. Design accordingly.

Maintain 3 ft. above high water table and 2 ft. above bedrock.

•

Avoid excessive earthwork (cut and fill). Design with the contours of the site. Maintain a sufficient soil buffer above bedrock.

•

Do not infiltrate on compacted fill.

•

Avoid compacting soils during construction.

•

Maintain erosion and sediment control measures until site is stabilized. Sedimentation during construction can cause the failure of infiltration systems.

•

Spread the infiltration over the largest area feasible.

Avoid concentrating too much runoff in one area. A good rule of thumb is 5:1 impervious area to infiltration area (i.e., 5 ac. of impervious area to 1 ac. of infiltration area). A smaller ratio is appropriate in carbonate bedrock areas.

•

The bottom of the infiltration area should be level to allow even distribution.

•

The surface of the permeable pavement should not exceed 5% slope. Use conventional pavement in steep areas that receive vehicular traffic.

•

Provide thorough construction oversight.

Source: Cahill Associates, West Chester, PA

Section 5 60

WATER

PERMEABLE PAVEMENT

BROKEN CURB ON BUMP STOPS

INFILTRATION AT SOURCE

Diagram explaining an integrated BMP with pervious pavement, subsurface infiltration, and a bio-swale.

OVERLAND FLOW

NATIVE RIPARIAN FOREST

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Best Management Practices The Environmental Master Plan proposes a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) or mitigation measures be considered to reduce stormwater volume, rate and pollution resulting from developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;both existing and futureâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;on The Lawrenceville School Campus.

With this Environmental Master Plan, a detailed set of stormwater management measures appropriate to The Lawrenceville School Campus have evolved.

These measures focus both on what can be accomplished within the footprint of each sub-watershed as well as campus-wide land management changes.

Over time these can significantly reduce the impacts from development of both the campus and the surrounding area. The measures suggested are proven methods used throughout the country as ways to better manage stormwater.

This section describes generic recommended BMPs and examines their potential to meet both campus needs and local, state and federal regulations.

Many of the benefits of these BMPs go beyond regulatory goals and set a high standard for The Lawrenceville School.

Recommended Best Management Practices The BMPs recommended in this report can be divided into two general categories: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are built measures that physically provide volume reduction, rate control or pollutant removal.

Non-structural measures include conversions of existing land cover types to reduce land surfaces with high runoff, as well as campus-wide management programs, which help avoid or reduce pollutants before they enter the drainage system. Volume reduction measures proposed will also reduce flow rates during heavy storms and mitigate flooding concerns.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL CAMPUS STRUCTURAL BMPs Permeable Pavement with Storage/Infiltration Other Surfaces with Storage/Infiltration Vegetated Roof Systems and Roof Gardens Water Quality Inlets Rain Gardens Tree Trenches Runoff Capture and Re-use Systems Ponds and Wetlands Storage/Treatment NON-STRUCTURAL BMPs Reduction in Chemical Application Street Cleaning by Vacuum Removal Land Cover Conversions Stormwater Management Education ADDITIONAL MEASURES Creation of Riparian buffers Detention Basin Retrofit Intensive Wetland treatment systems

The BMPs proposed vary widely and do not always lend themselves easily to direct comparison. However, two key criteria - reduction of runoff volume during design rainfalls and reduction of selected non-point source pollutantscan serve as measures of their effectiveness. The BMPs discussed here were chosen after the considerable analysis and mapping executed for Volume I. Additional measures not presently part of the overall campus-wide stormwater management strategy, such as creation of riparian buffers, retrofits of detention basins and intensive wetland treatment systems may prove useful in the future and are listed in the table alongside.

The following discussion of each BMP is intended to offer a comprehensive description without providing full design specifications. Final designs will vary depending on specific field conditions.

Examples of Stormwater Best Management Practices

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

61

Structural BMPs The structural BMPs considered vary greatly in efficiency, cost and overall applicability depending on their actual site location, but all require construction or installation. The most effective measures are applied near the sources of runoff, usually impervious surfaces upland. Through their strategic location, they are able to reduce the amount of runoff, the rate of flow and the kinetic energy of the stormwater that scours and transports pollutants.

Permeable Pavements with Storage/Infiltration Beds

Pervious Pavement with Storage / Infiltration beds at the Morris Arboretum

Permeable pavements with storage/infiltration beds have been used in a number of locations throughout the country. The pavement most used is permeable asphalt. The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJ DOT) has a specification for an open-graded asphalt mix that is used as a thin (0.5”) topping on impermeable roadways to prevent “hydroplaning.” Permeable pavements may also be constructed with an open graded concrete. Examples of projects built in similar climatic conditions can serve as comparables for this BMP, since there has been limited local experience with permeable paving with storage/infiltration beds.

Permeable concrete has been in use for over a decade in the sandy soils of Florida. Here, the pavement is laid without a sub-grade storage bed and rainfall infiltrates directly as the soils are highly absorbent. The Lawrenceville School is located in the Coastal Plain, but the soil type varies (see Volume I), requiring stone storage infiltration beds beneath some of the pavement. The function of the underground bed is to infiltrate rainfall slowly (or in some cases rapidly) into the soil, where it moves into and recharges the water table. The slower the movement of water into the soil, the greater the storage capacity required and therefore the deeper the underground bed required as part of this system. The volume reduction benefits and representative costs for 2002 are shown in the tables alongside.

Section 5 62

WATER

THE

VOLUME REDUCTION BENEFITS FOR STORAGE/ INFILTRATION BEDS RAINFALL EVENT

IN/SF OF BMP

1” Rainfall

2.0”

0.17

CF/SF OF BMP

ASSUMPTIONS

BMP stores total runoff volume of 1” rainfall and 1” of additional runoff conveyed from surrounding areas.

2-Year Storm

7.2”

0.6

(3.25”)

BMP stores total runoff volume of 2-year storm and equal volume of runoff conveyed from surrounding areas.

Annual Precipitation

87.0”

3.67

(45”)

It is assumed here that this BMP can store the total run-off volume of 1 inch of rainfall falling directly on the surface and 1” of rainfall from surrounding areas and that this water subsequently infiltrates into the soil, picking up runoff from adjacent continuous surfaces

COST ASSUMPTIONS: PERMEABLE PAVEMENT WITH STORAGE/ INFILTRATION BEDS (Please note cost assumptions date from 2002) ITEM

$/SF

DEMOLITION AND EARTHWORK

$4.00

PERMEABLE ASPHALT PAVING (2.5”)

$0.50

(THE COST OF ASPHALT IS ABOUT 25% LESS THAN CONCRETE. THIS COST DIFFERENTIAL OCCURS, IN PART, BECAUSE THE PAVEMENT IS THINNER (2.5” VERSUS 6”).

STONE AND GEOTEXTILE FABRIC

$3.00

PIPING AND STORMWATER STRUCTURES

$0.50

TOTAL

$8.00

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

The capacity of this type of BMP to store and infiltrate significant volumes of runoff and to limit transport of NPS pollutants is well documented. (Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non Point Pollution in Coastal Waters, January 1993 United States Environmental Protection Agency #840-8-92002: National Pollutant Removal Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices, June 2000, Winer, R., Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicot, MD) Where conditions are suitable for infiltration this is the most effective, volume-reducing BMP. A major constraint in using this BMP is the capacity of the soils to infiltrate.

The groundwater recharge in Lawrenceville Township is moderate, 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 does not infiltrate at all. The spatial arrangement of these areas has great implications for stormwater management.

Parking areas and future parking areas and building sites need to be considered in concert with the natural drainage system. For instance, a large existing lot encroaches on the stream. The general goal of minimizing vehicular traffic in the core of the campus may require some modification of the current parking arrangement. Additional parking and new building sites are also likely future requirements. An overall plan and policy for new development suitability should be developed but may be modified as goals for sustainability are refined.

There has been some concern that the infiltration of stormwater will violate certain state water quality rules regarding underground injection wells. During the 1970s, deep injection wells were used for the disposal of waste water effluent and industrial discharge, negatively impacting water quality. Many states then developed regulations to prohibit use of ground water aquifers as receiving water bodies. Infiltration of rainfall is very different issue, but the question of sub-surface pollutant migration is a valid concern. There has been much discussion of stormwater infiltration systems falling under this prohibition, especially in coastal states with unconsolidated sub-surface formations, vulnerable to contaminants. The resolution of this issue is to use the cat-ion capacity of the soils as a guide to pollutant removal efficiency, with coastal sands requiring additional organic materials at the bottom of the infiltration bed. Projects in the coastal sands of New Jersey have followed this design and overcome concerns.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

63

Stormwater runoff capture and storage systems at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia (top) and Trexler Memorial Park (below)

Storage/Infiltration Beds under other Surfaces

Runoff Capture and Re-use Systems

A number of areas on the campus, besides parking lots, are potentially suitable for the construction of storage/infiltration beds, to hold and where possible infiltrate stormwater. Athletic fields, intramural play fields and recreation areas are all facilities that could be underlain by this BMP. The surface in this case is most likely to be turf, but can also be an impermeable surface such as artificial turf, that drains to a sub-surface stone infiltration/storage bed (Figure 4-4).

However, for The Lawrenceville School to achieve volume reduction in a given rainfall the underlying soil must either allow infiltration of the stored volume or there must be quantifiable re-use of the stored water. The stormwater should not simply be held as detention storage.

Several runoff capture and re-use systems offer the opportunity to hold significant amounts of direct rainfall from roof areas that do not lend themselves to a green roof system. Since roof runoff is less polluted than street or pavement runoff, this water can be used as a source for a variety of non-potable needs. For larger commercial or industrial buildings, vertical storage units of large (24” plus diameter) pipes can be incorporated into the roof drainage system. Captured rooftop runoff can also be stored in basement structures, but this requires re-use of the rainfall before the next storm and energy to pump the stored water. A two-level control structure or “weir” can be used to allow the initial “first flush” to bypass the storage system. In addition, a filter should be used to prevent leaves and debris from entering the storage tank.

It is suggested that all campus runoff capture and re-use systems be designed so that they are emptied every 72 hours and are therefore prepared to receive the next storm. Captured rainfall can serve a number of re-use purposes including irrigation and chiller system water (with some chemical clarification and ion removal). They reduce the use of treated water through substitution. This BMP can greatly reduce runoff volume in a sub-watershed that has few other opportunities, as well as reduce consumption of treated water. The variations for this BMP are quite different in both form and function, and require significant further design development before they can be considered as actual solutions. However, each offers the opportunity to incorporate stormwater benefits with site improvements that will enrich the campus in many other ways. In the more impervious portions of the campus, where vegetated roof systems are not feasible or desired, capture and re-use provide the only possible volume reduction solution.

The soils on any proposed site must be evaluated to determine feasibility.

Evaluation must include testing at a number of locations within the proposed bed footprint. Final bed bottom elevations are controlled by the most suitable horizon for infiltration.

COST ASSUMPTIONS FOR INFILTRATION/STORAGE BEDS UNDER OTHER SURFACES (Please note cost assumptions date from 2002) ITEM Demolition and Earthwork

$/SF $3.50

Stone and Geotextile

$3.00

Piping and Stormwater Structures

$0.50

Total

$7.00

Note: Surface restoration costs will vary with choice of surface (turf, artificial turf, etc.) and are not included in this table.

Section 5 64

WATER

This BMP should not be confused with large pipe or tank systems placed below grade to detain runoff. These below-grade systems intercept runoff from all surfaces and require that NPS pollutants be removed if their water is to be reused. Their purpose is to provide below grade detention and they function like a surface detention basin. This detention basin must also be emptied before the next storm. Volume reduction for this BMP is shown in Table 4-5 and cost assumptions in Table 4-6.

THE

VOLUME REDUCTION BENEFIT—CAPTURE & RE-USE SYSTEMS RAINFALL EVENT

IN/SF OF BMP CF/SF OF BMP

1” Rainfall

1.0”

0.083

ASSUMPTIONS

BMP stores total runoff volume for the 1” storm.

2-Year Storm

1.8”

(3.25”)

0.15

BMP captures 50%. of the 2-year storm

Annual Precipitation

32.0”

(45”)

Approx. 70% of annual of45” average precipitation occuring in storm events equal or less than 1.8 inches.

COST ASSUMPTIONS FOR RUNOFF, CAPTURE & RE-USE SYSTEMS* (Please note cost assumptions date from 2002) ITEM

$/SF

STORAGE (3.6”) AND PIPING

$3.45

TOTAL

$3.45

Vegetated Roof Systems and Roof Gardens Used for centuries, vegetated roofs have recently been adapted to modern buildings. This work is largely a response to the problem of stormwater runoff in highly urbanized communities, such as the German cities rebuilt after World War II. A simple vegetated roof, sometimes called an “extensive vegetated roof system,” cannot exceed 22% roof slope. In this system a top layer of low growing, drought tolerant vegetation is supported by a series of thin layers. These layers consist of a waterproofing layer, a root barrier, a drainage/storage layer, growth media, and the actual vegetation. It is assumed that a vegetated roof consists of a 2-inch drainage layer with 40% void space, 4 inches of growth media with 20% water holding capacity, and vegetation.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Vegetated roof systems, clockwise from top right; Extensive roof gardens, Savannah and at Chicago City Hall, extensive roof garden on sloping roof, Intensive roof garden in Keystone, PA

Based on local climatic conditions, during the growing season, much of the rainfall is returned to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration. Each square foot of vegetated roof can evapotranspire 1.7 inches of stormwater during the 2yr storm. This BMP can be used both on new buildings as well as to retrofit existing ones.

The vegetated roof not only returns up to 70% of the annual rainfall to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration, it also reduces the production of CO2.

Experience in Europe over the past 20 years confirms that the life of a building roof is doubled by adding a layer of vegetation that insulates and protects the roof materials from ultra-violet deterioration. In addition to the stormwater benefits, the extra layers on the roof can add substantial insulation benefits, reducing energy costs. These energy savings are not included as benefits in the tables, but can represent a significant savings in building operation costs.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

65

Volume Reduction Benefits for Vegetated Roof Systems RAINFALL

IN/SF OF BMP

1” Rainfall

1.7”

CF/SF OF BMP

ASSUMPTIONS

0.14

BMP stores runoff volume of 1” rainfall and 0.7” of additional runoff conveyed from surrounding areas

2-Year Storm

1.7”

0.14

(3.25”) Annual Precipitation (45”)

BMP captures approx.50% of the 2-year storm

35.0”

2.92

Approx. 75% of the annual precipitation occurs in storms less than 1.7”

The “intensive” roof garden is more complicated to design and build. It provides a landscape that includes everything from trees to ground covers and requires deep soils. A roof garden must be integrated into the design of a building with significant added structure to support this type of roof.

Section 5 66

WATER

Clockwise from top: An “intensive vegetated roof” or “roof garden” from Shinjuku Mitsui, Tokyo, Japan; Section showing a gradient of technical requirements for planting extensive and intensive roof systems; Vertical rain storage cisterns.

THE

The image to the left shows an example of a multi-layer green roof, illustrating the additional space that can become available with a roof garden. If irrigation is required and the irrigation water provided from external sources, water from other impervious sources can be used for this purpose. This will increase the amount of stormwater volume reduction that this BMP can provide. If cisterns are constructed as a part of the roof design, they can capture and re-use any rainfall not held by the green roof itself. In these cases, the water holding tanks will increase the structural design requirements and therefore the cost.

Cost Assumptions for a Simple Vegetated Roof System (Extensive) Cost Details* Item Waterproofing Drainage Layer (4”) Growth Media (4-8”) Vegetation Piping, Geotextile, etc.

Total

$7.00 - $12.00

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Water Quality Inlets Although not very dramatic, this small BMP can be inexpensive, easy to install, and provides significant water quality improvement by preventing trash and debris from reaching the stormwater system. However, this BMP does not effect volume reduction or rate control.

A box within the inlet structure captures detritus of all sorts, holding it for later removal. Everything from grass clippings and dead leaves to paper, animal wastes, and a mix of synthetic organic materials can be captured during the initial flush of runoff. Small containers are installed in area drains and inlets or more elaborate structures retrofitted in larger existing inlet boxes. It is also possible to build large sub-surface containment chambers which are very expensive but useful when there are no other options. These units must be cleaned and maintained every three months and maintenance costs can be considerable. If these inlet boxes are not maintained they are futile.

Installing a considerable number of water quality inlets throughout the drainage system of The School - on roads, parking lots, lawns - can offer a substantial reduction in pollutant transport. These units must be cleaned on a regular basis to operate successfully and the cost of maintenance must be included in the cost-benefit comparison.

Rain Gardens

Cost Assumptions for Roof Gardens (Intensive) This cost assumption is current / 2004 and per square foot. Costs will vary significantly depending on the amount and size of vegetation used. Costs of additional structure are not included. Cost Details* Item Waterproofing Drainage Layer (4”) Growth Media (18-36”) Vegetation Piping, Geotextile, etc.

Total

$20.00 -- $25.00

Small Water Quality Inlets; Bottom right: Reinforced Concrete Outlet Box; Extreme right: Typical views: Plan, Profile and Section of sub-surface containment chamber.

Reinforced Concrete Outlet Box

prepared by

Section 5 ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

67

Rain garden and wetland system leading to a pond / detention basin at Sidwell Friends School CAPTION TO DISCUSS

Section 5 68

WATER

THE

Rain gardens are dispersed shallow planting basins generally 6 inches to 1 foot in depth. The planting areas can be any size or shape, but in the campus landscape it is recommended that the sites should be at least 1,000 square feet in size and located in areas that are less than 3% slope. Rain gardens are planted with wetland vegetation—herbaceous plants, shrubs, understory and canopy trees. Areas that were once predominately lawn or planting beds can also be converted to rain gardens. They can also be established in poorly drained areas, which are difficult to maintain as good lawn, as well as in open swales in parking islands. Cumulatively, use of this BMP can significantly contribute to the reduction of developmental impacts. Rain gardens would not only reduce quantity and velocity of the water but also improve its quality by effectively capturing and filtering pollutants with their dense, deep-rooted vegetation aided by associated micro-organisms. They may also provide a positive aesthetic contribution to the campus and an increase in campus biodiversity.

This BMP provides some rainfall retention and storage capacity, some evapotranspiration from the plants and if the soils permit, some infiltration. Rain gardens can take many different configurations and readily adapt to a range of environmental conditions. Examples of this BMP are shown alongside.

• • • • • •

• •

General Guidelines for Rain Garden Design •

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Provide positive connection to storm sewer for run-off overflow.

Calculate retention and storage run-off volume based on both surface water and soil water-holding capacity.

Survey existing conditions to avoid disturbance of existing vegetation and utilities.

Design depression so that standing water is held for no longer than 3 – 4 days to avoid breeding mosquitoes.

Design rain gardens with tall grass buffers to slow run-off and to filter sediment from overland flow.

Designs should include native plant species suited to seasonal fluctuations. Most flood plain species are well adapted to rain garden conditions and will tolerate periods of water inundation as well as very dry conditions. Use plant material that tolerates longer periods of standing water in the lowest part of the depression.

Test soil to determine specific site percolation rates.

Rain gardens will require soil amendments. Excavation to create these features will expose sub-soils that lack nutrients and organic matter to support new vegetation.

Amend soil, where necessary, to increase infiltration and water holding capacity.

Incorporate soil amendments for the new plantings adding organic material, such as leaf mould or composted material (10%) mixed with sand (50%) and topsoil (40%). A soil pH of 5.5 to 6.5 is optimum for pollutant removal by microbial action.

Cover soil in the planted areas with attractive pebbles to weigh it down and avoid use of floatable mulch.

The importance of this BMP as a stormwater mitigation measure is its ability to reduce retained volume by slow infiltration and evapotranspiration. With the compacted soils in the campus core, soil replacement may be necessary in some locations to foster plant growth and encourage infiltration or at least to increase the water holding capacity of the soils. Soil replacement will add to the cost of this BMP. A volume reduction of 0.05 inches during the 2-year storm of 3.25 inches is assumed. Additional storage capacity is possible under optimal conditions with the use of a sub-surface storage and infiltration bed. If that storage and infiltration capacity were included, the volume reduction could be on the order of 1.8 inches for the 2-year rainfall, as shown in Table 4-10.

Above: Recharge Trench Details Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

69

Volume Reduction Benefit for Rain Gardens RAINFALL

IN/SF OF BMP

1” Rainfall

1.0”

CF/SF OF BMP ASSUMPTIONS 0.08

BMP soil medium has a moisture capacity of 15% of total soil volume capable of storing total direct rainfall for the 1” storm.

2-Year Storm (3.25”)

1.8”

0.15

Based on above estimate, the max. moisture capacity in one cubic foot of soil mix is 1.8”.

Annual Precipitation

32.0”

2.67

(45”)

Approx. 70% of annual precipitation occurs in storm events equal or less than 1.7”.

Part of the cost of this BMP is a soil amendment to a depth of two to four feet for the planting zone. Under this zone it is important to install a perforated underdrain in a gravel bed connected to campus storm drains or to install a French drain as conditions suggest, to convey the excess water from extreme or back to back storms. Construction of the rain garden can require grading to create a gentle depression. Ideally, this BMP will be strategically placed to intercept the first flush of run-off from adjacent impervious surfaces. Areas of turf and sparse horticultural plantings that now typically convey run-off by sheet flow to the stormwater infrastructure system can be converted to rain gardens. Cost assumptions are shown here.

Cost Assumptions for Rain Gardens* Please note cost assumptions date from 2002.

Section 7 70

WATER

ITEM

$/SF

SOIL AMENDMENT

$1.50

STONE

$3.00

VEGETATION

$5.00

PIPING

$0.50

TOTAL

$10.00

Above: Rain Garden Conceptual Plan and Section Left: Examples of rain gardens in public spaces

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Non-structural BMPs Several non-structural BMPs are suggested for The Lawrenceville School Campus to prevent pollutant incorporation in stormwater runoff.

Fertilizer and Salt Reduction

Pavement Cleaning

Fertilizer

This BMP is a non-structural measure intended to remove pollutants from land surfaces that accumulate the most significant amount of NPS pollutants, especially particulates, by maintenance measures such as street sweeping.

The School presently maintains over 31 acres of roads and parking areas that represent over 5% of the campus area. Within the core campus the density of impervious surfaces represent a greater problem than percentage of the overall campus suggests. The primary non-structural BMP of sweeping and vacuuming roads and parking lots can significantly contribute to the reduction of NPS pollutants entering the storm sewer system, although this measure offers no volume reduction benefit.

While street sweeping has been considered a good housekeeping technique for decades, earlier mechanical sweeper technology could not pick up finegrained sediments that contained a substantial amount of the pollutant load.

New equipment available today can collect particles less than 10 microns in diameter (a human hair is 40-120 microns in diameter).

There are three basic types of sweepers, effective under wet, dry and frozen conditions: • • •

Traditional mechanical sweeper that conveys the debris into a hopper for removal.

Regenerative air sweepers that blow air on the road surface, loosening fine particles and sediments, which are then vacuumed up.

Vacuum filter sweepers that combine the mechanical process with a high powered vacuum to capture small particles.

The optimal frequency for a street sweeping program varies with local weather patterns. Whenever possible ensure that areas with high amounts of debris be cleaned before a storm. While it is difficult to predict storms and clean accordingly, an alternative approach is to sweep bi-weekly and provide extra services to construction sites.

Salt

“There are significant economic costs associated with the inefficient use of fertilizer, and by the damage caused to aquatic, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems, to the ozone layer and through the climate change by the introduction of reactive nitrogen... (and) only one quarter to one third of applied fertilizer nitrogen is actually absorbed by crops.”

William Moomaw, Tufts Campus, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Meeting February 17, 2003.

Reducing road salt (calcium chloride) can also reduce pollutant loads. A study monitored five different infiltration basins for water quality and analyzed the runoff entering and the groundwater below each basin for arsenic, cadmium, calcium, carbon chloride, chromium, lead, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sodium and sulfate. “Concentrations of most constituents were low, generally within the standards for potable water. A major exception was road de-icing salts in the winter.” (Ku, H. F. H. and Simmons, D. L., 1986,

Effect of Urban Stormwater Runoff on Ground Water Beneath Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4088, 67p.) The Vermont Agency of Transportation

Reduction of fertilizer application on maintained landscapes especially lawns, athletic fields and intramural fields is an important measure to reduce water quality impacts. The goal is to adopt fertilizer application rates that will maximize the appearance and quality of the campus but also minimize pollutant load.

has been able to reduce the statewide use of salt by 28% by mounting infrared sensors on truck beds to determine if the road temperature, which is often warmer than the air temperature, actually warrants a salt application.

Soil samples should be taken to determine missing plant nutrient requirements before a fertilization program is carried out. Testing should be done with every new planting and again one or two years after the installation of new landscapes and every 2-3 years for established landscapes. Based on these soil samples, fertilizer timing and rate can be adjusted so that nutrients are not applied in excess ending up in the groundwater and streams.

DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES

Fertilizing is neither necessary nor desirable in all areas of the campus.

Fertilizer often benefits weed species. In contrast, many native species are adapted to the range of soil and pH conditions that exist. The use of organic fertilizer and compost should also be considered, especially when creating new planting beds. Compost improves structure, water-holding capacity and nutrient content of the soil. Compost should come from an on-campus recycling effort and organic fertilizers maybe sourced from such organizations as, Gardens Alive (www.gardensalive.com).

Time; Late Fall

Fertilizer Application Rates Ratio: 10-5-5, 12-6-6, 18-6-12 Time; October – March Rate: 1 – 2 Lbs actual Nitrogen/1000 Square Feet SMALL TREES AND SHRUBS Ratio: 16-4-8, 12-4-8 Rate: 2-4 lbs of complete fertilizer per 1000 Square Feet/Year AZALEAS AND RHODODENDRONS Ratio: 8-8-8, 10-10-10 Time; Split applications March, May, July Rate: 2-3 pints/ 100 Square Feet ATHLETIC FIELDS Ratio: 12-4-8, 16-4-8, 8-8-8, 10-10-10, 95-0-0-, 33-0-0 Time; September and November Rate: 1 Lb. actual nitrogen per 1000 Square Feet/ 2X a Year LAWN Ratio: 12-4-8, 16-4-8 Time; February, September and November Rate: Slopes and Sandy Soils .25-.50 Lb. Nitrogen per 1000 Square Feet/ Year1 Lb. actual nitrogen per 1000 Square Feet/ 2X a Year

Section 7

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

71

Land Cover Conversions

Recommendations for Campus Land Cover Conversions

In an integrated stormwater management plan, the landscape is an important factor not only in sustaining the aesthetic and functional resources of the campus, but also in mitigating the amount and rate of stormwater runoff.

Reduce lawn and whenever possible, confine to flatter areas

The Lawrenceville School Campus needs to be both coherent and attractive.

Its rich natural and cultural heritage makes it a special place, providing the setting for campus life. On the campus the major landscapes include: 1.

2.

3.

The flat open greens of the historical core, with their huge relic trees The mixed pattern of agriculture, remnant forest and wetland patches The golf course and athletic fields

It is these elements of the campus landscape that are remembered and treasured by both the students and alumnae. The land conversion strategies recommended in this plan strengthen the inherent character of the campus.

Land cover conversion allows The School to replace non-essential lawn areas with vegetation that reduces both the rate of surface runoff and the associated pollutant load. Some volume reduction is also possible, since precipitation is held on the land longer and allowed to evaporate and soak in to the more absorbent surface layer.

This study considers a number of changes to the campus landscape that will produce less runoff and require little if any application of chemicals. These measures include lawn or rough grass conversions to meadow, old field, horticultural plantings or rain gardens, and forest restoration. Increasing the roughness and variation of the surface will lower the curve number and therefore decrease the net amount of immediate runoff. Reducing the curve number allows a higher estimate of the amount of rainfall that soaks into the soil and does not contribute to immediate runoff. Actual reduction in runoff volume varies with the type of vegetation conversion, but this BMP can hold as much as 0.5 inches of rain during a 2-year storm. On an annual basis, the amount of evapotranspiration from these landscape conversions should increase by several inches.

Woody old fields and wildflower meadows as buffers between lawn and forest

Section 5 72

WATER

Reducing the extent of lawn is one of the easiest and most effective ways of improving water quality. Lawns on gentle slopes can shed water nearly as rapidly as pavement. In contrast to lawn, â&#x20AC;&#x153;natural forest soils with similar overall slopes can store up to 50 times more precipitation than neatly graded turf.â&#x20AC;? (Arendt, Randall. Growing Greener, Putting Conservation into Local

Plans and Ordinances)

Existing lawn areas can be converted to a number of different land cover types that include: 1.

2.

3.

Horticultural plantings - groundcover/low shrubs/grasses Meadow, old field and savannah Rain gardens

While turf is inexpensive to install, the cost of maintenance to promote an attractive healthy lawn is high - requiring mowing, irrigation, fertilizer, lime and herbicides - all have a negative impact on water quality.

Replace lawns wherever possible, with densely planted, more complex cover types including wildflowers, ferns, grasses and seedling size trees and shrubs, leaving little exposed soil or mulch. Favor native plant species at the edges of the campus, as these species are adapted to the local climate and are deep rooted allowing them to tolerate drought.

Increase forested areas by restoring managed woodland to forest: The most straightforward way to restore natural hydrologic patterns is to reforest all stream edges on campus. Where these edges are already in woodland with cleared understory this means converting managed woodland back to layered forest. This forest should be a native plant community managed and selectively thinned to provide greater visibility, while retaining the natural stratification of canopy, understory, shrub and ground layers. The restoration of these remaining woodland areas will benefit from a systematic, long-term management program in which small scale projects are initiated and include monitoring the landscape, stabilizing erosion, controlling exotic species and developing specific approaches for difficult conditions on campus.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Convert rough grass areas to more complex cover types: Rough grass is poorly maintained lawn frequently with a high percentage of bare spots and weed species. Where rough grass occurs within the campus, these areas can be replanted to meadow or more complex core types. As the campus develops, areas that have been construction-staging sites and transition areas that require stabilization for erosion control may also be good candidates for this planting strategy.

Rough grass conditions occur primarily on the campus along woodland edges. They tend to be linear configurations, following roadways and paths.

By maintaining a simple buffer of native meadow grasses, perennials and woody pioneer species, it is possible to reduce run-off and in turn reduce erosion and sedimentation. Tall grass cover is especially suitable for sites where a dense, stable cover must be established fairly quickly. Tall grass meadow is composed primarily of native grasses with occasional naturalized alien grasses and wildflowers. Eventually this cover type will return to forest if it is not mowed or burned bi-annually. Almost any site with 40% or less tree cover can be stabilized with native grasses. The infertile subsoil which occurs on disturbed sites is a poor medium for turf, but will support a dense growth of native grasses with only minimal maintenance required.

Woody old fields and created wildflower meadows Irrigation Drip irrigation is required for all plant establishments during the first growing season, at a minimum. Irrigation is not recommended on an ongoing basis for meadow and woodland plantings, though it will be necessary in planting beds.

Decompaction Soils that are compacted by construction staging will require decompaction and soil amendments to restore fertility and soil structure. Cost estimates should assume that all soils are loosened at least to a depth of 12 inches.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

73

Comparison of BMP Efficiencies Volume Reduction Benefit

Permeable Pavement with Infiltration/Storage Beds

BMP benefits are described in volume per unit area, as cubic feet per square foot (CF/SF) of BMP, with volume reduction values for the various BMPs discussed summarized in the tables below, in inches per square foot of BMP and in cubic feet per square foot.

With permeable pavement the paved surface is capable of infiltrating the total amount of rain during any given storm. The storage capacity of the bed is designed to hold this volume. If the soil is capable of infiltrating the stored volume, draining before the next rainfall, and if runoff from a contiguous area of equal size can be conveyed to the bed, the storage bed can effectively capture twice the amount of rainfall.

Structural BMPs provide greater volume reduction on a square foot basis, however in some cases the opportunities to build these BMPs are limited and there is a greater opportunity to build measures such as rain gardens, tree trenches and to convert lawn to other cover types. These BMPs while less efficient on a square foot basis nonetheless can have a significant cumulative effect and also offer substantial pollution reduction benefits.

During a rainfall of 3.25 inches in 24 hours, this BMP is assumed to hold 7.2 inches of volume per unit area. This volume reduction applies to all types of storms, up to the 100-year frequency rainfall. It should be stressed that the limiting factor is the ability of the bed to infiltrate the runoff into the sub-soil in a reasonable time period following rainfall.

Volume Reduction Benefit for Selected BMPs (Inches per SF of BMP) 1” rainfall Vegetated Roof

1”

Roof Gardens Runoff Capture and Re-use

3.25” rainfall

45” annual

1.7”

32”

2”

2.8”

41”

1”

3.25”

45”

Rain Gardens

0.2”

0.57”

3”

Tree Trenches

0.9”

3.25”

6”

Lawn Conversions

0.2”

0.2 – 0.5”

3”

Volume Reduction Benefit per BMP Measure (Shown in CF per SF of BMP) 1” rainfall

3.25” rainfall

0.17

0.60

3.67

0.17

0.60

3.67

Vegetated Roofs

0.08

0.14

2.67

Roof Gardens

0.17

0.23

3.42

Runoff capture and Re-use

0.08

0.15 to 0.33

3.83

Rain Gardens

0.02

0.05

0.25

Tree Trenches

0.07

0.30

0.50

Lawn Conversions

0.02

0.02 to 0.04

0.25

Permeable Pavement

45” annual

with Storage/Infitration Beds Other Surfaces With Storage/Infiltration Beds

Section 5 74

WATER

Other Surfaces with Storage/Infiltration Beds This BMP offers the potential for substantial volume reduction because of the location of prospective bed sites and the extensive surface areas possible.

Again, the limiting factor is the ability of the bed to infiltrate the runoff into the sub-soil in a reasonable time period following rainfall. These areas may also collect and capture runoff from upstream and adjacent lands, but in the lower lying play field locations, infiltration may be constrained by the water table near the surface. A volume reduction of 7.2 inches is assumed during the 2year rainfall, but should be reevaluated with every site design.

In some situations, these beds provide a kind of reverse flood plain storage, with the volume of runoff held in a stone bed rather than a riparian flood plain, now filled with earth and structure. This is a less desirable alternative than the preservation of the natural riparian system.

Runoff Capture and Re-use The potential capture for this BMP varies, and for some situations could result in a “zero runoff” condition under any rainfall. However, it is impossible to assign an average capture number, as in the case of the storage beds and rain gardens. The 2-year value applied is 3.25 inches, since in most of the anticipated applications the contributing surface area will be limited to direct rainfall on the BMP.

THE

Vegetated Roof Systems The volume removed by this BMP varies with the design. On average, a simple vegetated roof reduces annual runoff by 70%. It can retain the entire initial 1-inch of runoff, and is assumed here to reduce the 2-year frequency design storm (3.25 inches) by 1.7 inches during a heavy rain. The detention capacity of this BMP is greater than the 1-inch rainfall and effectively reduces the peak rate of discharge by 2.5 inches or more. Roof garden systems are substantially different in form and function, with the possibility of an additional 20 inches of water added per unit area by irrigation to the natural 48 inches rainfall. However, this type of design can also collect rainfall from adjacent roof areas and hold it in cisterns for subsequent re-use as irrigation. The volume “credit” applied in such a system is actually increased, with the assumption that 2.8 inches is removed per unit area during the 2-year rainfall, because of this storage capacity.

Unit costs of selected BMPs

Cost Comparisons Although the structural BMP measures discussed are quite different in form and application, it is useful to compare them on the basis of the unit cost of runoff volume reduction, operation and maintenance costs as well as total construction costs. On a first cost basis, the table below shows BMP measures in terms of estimated cost per unit area (square feet).

Some measures such as water quality inlets, do not lend themselves to the same scale of analysis, so an assumption is made as to the number of units to be installed per acre of maintained landscape (10) at a fixed cost ($1,000 each, installed), for a unit cost of approximately $0.22 per square foot. Depending on the configuration and location of inlets in the existing storm drain system, this unit cost could vary widely, but for comparison purposes a representative figure is given.

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Cost benefit analysis of volume reduction by selected BMPs

Measure

Unit Cost ($/SF)

Permeable Pavement

O&M Cost

Measure

Unit Cost

($/SF/yr)

8.00

0.04

7.00

0.02

21.00

0.03

0.22

0.11

Runoff capture and re-use

21.00

0.05

Rain gardens

10.00

0.25

Lawn conversion

5.00

0.20

Forest restoration

5.00

N/A

Volume Reduction

Cost Benefit

2-year rainfall ($/SF)

(CF/SF)

($/CF)

with Storage/Infitration Beds Other Surfaces with Storage/infiltration Vegetated Roofs Water Quality Inlets

Rain Gardens For this BMP, improved soil retention and subsequent uptake of rainfall by the vegetation provides volume reduction. A volume reduction of 0.5 inches during the 2-year storm of 3.25 inches is assumed. Additional storage capacity is possible under optimal conditions with the use of a sub-surface storage and infiltration bed. If storage and infiltration capacity are included, volume reduction efficiency could be 2 inches or more for the 2-year rainfall.

green

The wide range of unit costs suggests that if all of the measures listed were equally feasible and there were equal opportunities for these BMPs to be applied throughout the campus, it would be appropriate to simply choose the least expensive BMPs to achieve volume reduction. However, given the potential application sites within the campus, use of all BMPs equally is not possible. For example, while the landscape measures are widely distributed and potentially successful, they are substantially more expensive than the larger, single site structural measures, such as storage/infiltration beds.

However, opportunities for installation of these structural measures are limited by area. Furthermore, water quality may be more important as design criteria than volume control.

Permeable Pavement

8.00

0.60

$13

7.00

0.60

$12

Vegetated Roof System

15.00

0.14

$107

Roof Garden

21.00

0.23

$91

Runoff Capture and Re-use

21.00

0.15-0.33

$63 - $140

Rain gardens

10.00

0.05

Lawn conversion

5.00

0.02 - 0.04

with Storage/Infiltration Other Surfaces Storage/infiltration

$200 $125 -$250

The bar chart at the end of the section illustrates the costs and benefits in graphic form, and makes clear that the greatest volume reduction is achieved by the largest structural measures. This reflects an economy of scale not achievable by more widely distributed measures, with infiltration beds offering the greatest total volume. Although these BMPs are site specific, these figures suggest that there should be further evaluation of the use and application of each structural measure.

One way of optimizing the BMP selection process is to apply a cost-benefit analysis. The table below defines “the benefit” as the potential volume reduction.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

75

Water Quality Introduction

Suspended Solids (SS)

In most situations, reduction of runoff volume also reduces the mass transport of pollutants, especially where stormwater passes through an infiltration system. Avoidance, transport reduction, elimination, capture, or a combination of all these, are all strategies to improve water quality.

As illustrated in the previous section, different land surfaces on the campus produce particulate pollutants in various amounts, hence the average concentration in stormwater runoff varies by land cover and use. Smaller rainfalls generate a smaller load of suspended solids.

When combined with a program to reduce fertilizers and to increase pollutant removal, significant volume reduction and NPS reduction is possible. Some of the BMPs recommended, especially the non-structural measures, reduce surface runoff. This can be done in a number of ways; by creating a rougher and denser vegetative cover, by providing a permeable surface that filters pollutants, or by catching and removing pollutants as they move through the storm sewers. Once NPS pollutants are suspended or dissolved in runoff their removal is far more difficult. Intervention in the runoff flow is the most difficult option for water quality, although a number of new methods and techniques have been developed over the past ten years. Pollutant capture by measures that slow, filter, separate, settle, skim or in some fashion treat stormwater in transit, has dominated the shopping list of “innovative BMPs” in many recent publications on stormwater management (ASCE, 2002).

However, evaluating the net benefits of pollutant reduction is more complex than the issue of volume reduction. In order to define the potential benefit of any given measure, the water quality problem must be understood in the context of how much pollution is conveyed during runoff from the campus under current conditions.

Where landscape cover change is proposed, the reduction in immediate runoff is estimated by a change in the “curve number” in the hydrologic model. The actual removal of pollutants from the new or constructed surfaces is added to this benefit.

As might be expected, land use impacts the quality of the runoff. Roads generate more suspended solids than rooftops, and natural woodlands produce less runoff and less nitrogen than maintained landscapes.

Annual Suspended Solids reduction by structural BMP measures Measure

Percent Reduction

Pervious Pavement

95%

Vegetated Roof (simple)

90%

Water Quality Inlets

30-60%

Lawn Conversion

50%

Rain Gardens

60%

Tree Trenches

60%

Storage/infiltration

80%

Runoff Capture and Re-use

100%

Are the proposed BMP measures justified in terms of improving water quality in campus watersheds? The first question to evaluate is the location of the proposed BMPs in the respective drainage systems- will they do the most good on the parcels where they are feasible to install?

This load can be reduced by the BMPs considered, with the infiltration beds potentially most successful and least expensive, but they must be used in the areas responsible for pollutant generation. Unlike the reduction in runoff volume, the generation of pollution is surface specific - the levels of pollutant reduction possible depend on changing the actual surfaces generating the pollutant.

In the case of the athletic fields, with storage and infiltration beds beneath, the rainfall will infiltrate into a stone layer and subsequently into the soil. In some cases, this runoff may be captured and returned to the field as irrigation. Any nutrients applied will be re-used.

Street vacuuming would do more to reduce this suspended solids load than more expensive structural measures. Installations of small inlets with containers that are periodically cleaned are also very effective, especially in those portions of the campus where no other BMPs are suitable. The table alongside compares the benefit of these non-structural measures with structural BMPs.

Section 5 76

WATER

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Nitrogen as Nitrates (No3N)

Total Phosphorus (TP)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

The same list of potential BMPs was used to evaluate the potential reduction of soluble nitrate. Since dissolved pollutants are conveyed in runoff in a relatively constant concentration volume reduction is important as more runoff means more pollutants. The table below summarizes the nitrate removal assumed for each BMP.

Transport of phosphorus is closely related to transport of suspended sediment, and the reductions anticipated are proportional. The table below summarizes BMP efficiency assumed for TP reduction with the mix of BMP measures considered. This table shows that BMPs can make a major impact on this nutrient.

Nitrate reduction in stormwater by BMP

Total Phosphorus reduction in stormwater by BMP (% REDUCTION)

The final NPS pollutant considered in this report is chemical oxygen demand, a collective measure of the organic matter present in runoff. This organic matter includes all of the natural detritus flushed into a stream, from leaves and decaying vegetation to the human detritus scoured from our community including paper, animal waste, discarded materials of all types like grass clippings, petroleum drippings, and lawn chemicals. This load of waste materials subsequently decays in waterways, exerting a demand for oxygen that significantly impacts micro- and macro-organisms that sustain water quality, including finfish communities. The available scientific data indicates that this load is equal to or greater than that discharged from wastewater treatment plants as residual effluent and is therefore an important part of the NPS load reduction program for the campus. The potential efficiency of the BMPs for COD reduction is shown below.

BMP

% REDUCTION

BMP

% REDUCTION

20

Pervious Pavement

90

Vegetated Roof

60

Vegetated Roof

90

Roof Garden

60

Roof Garden

80

Water Quality Inlets

40

Water Quality Inlets

50

Lawn Conversion

80

Lawn Conversion

60

Rain Garden

80

Rain Garden

60

Tree Trench

80

Tree Trench

60

Infiltration Beds

20

Infiltration Beds

70

Capture And Re-use

100

Capture And Re-use

100

Street Vacuum Units

30

Street Vacuum Units

80

Fertilizer Reduction

30 To 90

Fertilizer Reduction

50 To 100

Pervious Pavement

This table illustrates that for nitrate reduction non-structural measures have the greatest potential to improve water quality. Although, fertilizer reduction programs currently in place at The Lawrenceville School for both lawns and athletic fields can not be estimated until further data is collected and analyzed, The Lawrenceville School Buildings and Grounds Department is reducing fertilizer, salt and pesticide/herbicide application wherever possible, and exploring ways to reduce their use still further. It is important to note that reduction of nitrates by as much as 30% or 543 pounds/year could be achieved by cover conversions and street sweeping alone.

Total COD reduction by BMP measures (% REDUCTION) BMP

% REDUCTION

Infiltration Beds

100

Runoff Capture And Re-use

100

Pervious Pavement

90

Vegetated Roof

90

Street Vacuum Units

80

Roof Garden

80

Rain Garden

50

Tree Trench

50

Fertilizer Reduction

50 To 100

Lawn Conversion

40

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

77

RAIN GARDEN IN LOCAL DEPRESSION TO RECEIVE DRAINAGE

ROOF DOWNSPOUTS CONNECTED TO RAIN GARDEN

Water Quality Benefits by BMP The following section describes the water quality benefits of each BMP in terms of four major NPS pollutants- suspended solids, nitrogen as nitrates, total phosphorus and chemical oxygen demand (COD).

Permeable Pavement and Other Surfaces with Recharge/Infiltration Beds Beneath This system is very efficient in removing particulates, but allows solutes such as nitrogen as nitrates to pass directly through the pavement or vegetation and into the groundwater, creating a polluted base flow that contributes to the net flux of nitrates from the watershed. For organic pollutants, the soil provides a variety of treatment and removal processes both biochemical and physical.

Nitrates are assumed to pass through the sub-surface without transformation by anaerobic bacteria.

Reduction or removal per unit area varies by pollutant. The removal mechanisms for particulate-associated NPS pollutants, such as metals, phosphorus, organics and some nitrogen forms, are a function of the cat-ion exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil. The soils found in the Lawrenceville area are very efficient in removing pollutants from the percolating rainfall, acting as a water quality filter.

RECONNECT TO STORMWATER PIPE SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW

When an infiltration BMP is used in athletic field rehabilitation, care must be taken to minimize the application of fertilizers, especially nitrogen. Some designs may lend themselves to subsequent capture and re-use of rainfall for irrigation, and some designs may actually include irrigation systems, but where these are installed every effort should be made to apply only captured rainfall.

Vegetated Roof Systems and Roof Gardens A simple green roof system requires few additional nutrients or water in the New Jersey climate. Additionally, it generates very little detritus or solutes in the small amount of rainfall that finds its way through the system and down to the surface. With a 70% retention rate of annual rainfall, the 30% that becomes surface runoff transports very little NPS pollution, and can be considered quite clean. Overall pollutant removal capability of a roof garden is also significant, but cannot equal a simple green roof system, since both nutrients and water are added (although there is the possibility of significant capture and use of precipitation).

BMP systems working together

Section 5 78

WATER

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Water Quality Inlets The pollutant removal capability of this BMP varies greatly. Surface inlets collect runoff from relatively small areas and connect to larger pipes; these in turn may have additional inlets. The small European catchment â&#x20AC;&#x153;buckets,â&#x20AC;? cleaned on a regular basis, can do a very efficient job of collecting detritus and human trash. Each type of structure captures and removes organic debris. Regular removal of accumulated material is required to prevent these materials from decomposing and passing into the drainage.

The larger systems that have been developed over the past several years are generally intended for installation in new catch basins or inlet boxes, with one or more compartments for settling, filtration, oil separation and other NPS removal processes. They can be effective in small catchments where the hydraulic loading is limited, but the associated operation and maintenance can be significant. Highly urbanized communities adjacent to waterways have found that they are the only possible methods of reducing NPS loadings.

Rain Gardens and Tree Trenches Both rain gardens and tree trenches are efficient in removal of most NPS pollutants through the filtration of water through the soil and the uptake of pollutants by plants and their associated micro-organisms. Related environmental benefits, such as atmospheric reduction of CO2, moisture returned to the atmosphere, habitat value and overall improvement of campus aesthetics are also important considerations in any strategy for environmental sustainability.

Runoff Capture and Re-use Runoff capture and re-use systems collect rainfall in the immediate vicinity of the impervious surfaces for storage and re-use. Irrigation, cooling and sanitary supplemental flows have all been considered as possibilities for reuse and should decrease the demand for treated potable water for these uses.

Capture, storage and re-use systems are shown with 100% pollutant removal since re-use will prevent direct conveyance.

Landscape Conversions A number of measures are recommended that would change the remaining undeveloped portions of the campus into landscape cover types that produce less runoff and require little if any application of chemicals. Like rain gardens and tree trenches, land cover conversions offer water quality benefits, but because the overall reduction in runoff volume is relatively small, the net water quality benefit is limited.

Cost benefit analysis of Volume reduction by selected BMPs

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

79

Stormwater Solutions The Lawrenceville School In order to quantify the stormwater regime of the watercourses flowing through The Lawrenceville School, it is necessary to examine the entire watershed, and then to divide it into subbasins for detailed study. By comparing the area and the landcover of each sub-basin, calculations can be made to determine both the stormwater volume and quality that is contributed within each. The two-year, 24-hour storm event is the standard precipitation model that is used to model the impacts. In this location, the design storm is 3.25 inches within a 24-hour period.

By examining the stormwater quantity and quality contributed within each watershed sub-basins, target goals can be established and BMPs sited to achieve those goals. The choice of type, size, and quantity of BMPs is highly dependant upon local conditions such as soil type and existing structures or landscapes. Ultimately, choice of BMP should respond to a balance between volume reduction and water quality improvement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; generally, it is cheaper to reduce the former and more expensive to improve the latter. It is also important to consider spatial location within the sub-basin when siting BMPs. Simply put, water flows downhill and it is often difficult to find enough area below a stormwater producing area to effectively absorb and treat it. The most effective strategy is to deal with the problem with multiple BMPs, sited where each problem occurs, rather than collecting water in large systems.

The position of The School in the Shipetaukin Creek watershed is challenging because it is downhill from the town of Lawrenceville. It cannot be emphasized enough that efforts should be made to educate the community about small, reasonable stormwater management changes that each person could make to their property. This is probably the most efficient means of mitigating the stormwater burden entering the property from uphill.

Section 5 80

WATER

WATERSHED STREAM QUALITY MAP

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Best Management Practice Solutions Introduction The watercourses on the property of The Lawrenceville School are not functioning as they should, due to damage from the external pressures of stormwater and invasive plant species. The NJDEP has established the Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET) to document the health of the state’s waterways. There are over 800 AMNET sites throughout the state of New Jersey regularly sampled for biological content. Streams are classified as non-impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on the AMNET data. The Shipetaukin Creek (at Lawrenceville), was classified as severely impaired.

The Center for Watershed Protection, is a non-profit 501(c)3 corporation that provides local governments, activists, and watershed organizations around the country with the technical tools for protecting watercourses. Their ranking system for watersheds correlates to the AMNET system and is used as a rule of thumb for watershed management planning. Simply put, the impervious cover percentage of a watershed sub-basin is related to its ability to support aquatic life. Impervious cover of less than 10% of total area correlates to “Sensitive” stream classification, 11% - 25% is “Impacted,” and greater than 25% is “Non-Supporting.” These classifications match observed results from both the NJ monitoring and the measurements of landcover produced for this study.

Sensitive Stream

The map of watershed stream quality correlates impervious cover percentage with water quality in the streams. It should be noted that both the core town of Lawrenceville and the core campus area of The Lawrenceville School fall into the “Impacted” or “Non-Supporting” categories. Further, field verification suggests that some of these areas are actually more degraded than the classifications suggest. We believe that Sub-basins A-1 and A-3 should be classified as “Non-Supporting.” Note that this means that the entire core campus of The Lawrenceville School is in the worst water quality category.

Subwatershed typically has impervious cover of zero to 10 percent. Streams are of high quality, and are typified by stable channels, excellent habitat structure, good to excellent water quality, and diverse communities of both fish and aquatic insects. Since impervious cover is so low, they do not experience frequent flooding and other hydrological changes that accompany urbanization.

Because of the need to set achievable goals for stormwater management as part of The Vision Plan, we have added an intermediate goal between the existing conditions and the hypothetical “reference landscape” suggested previously. The new benchmark is to reduce stormwater impacts in all subbasins on the property to equal or better than that of a 10% impervious cover watershed. Obviously, this does not mean removing buildings and roads in the core campus, but the goal is to make it function as if it has 10% or less impervious cover. This can be accomplished through the strategic siting of stormwater BMPs. The charts on the next two pages document the stormwater numbers of the existing conditions for the 1)existing conditions of the property, 2)the hypothetical 10% impervious target, and 3)the hypothetical “reference landscape” target. These benchmarks should be used to guide progress toward achievement of The Vision Plan.

Impacted Stream Subwatershed typically has impervious cover ranging from 11 to 25%, and shows clear signs of degradation due to watershed urbanization. Greater storm flows begin to alter the stream geometry. Both erosion and channel widening are evident in alluvial streams. Stream banks become unstable, and physical habitat in the stream declines noticeably. Stream water quality shifts into the fair/good category during both storms and dry weather periods. Stream biodiversity declines to fair levels, with the most sensitive fish and aquatic insects disappearing from the stream.

Non-Supporting Stream

Subbasin

Total Acreage

Impervious Acreage

% Impervious

A-1

253.49

53.81

21.23%

A-2

81.37

11.46

14.08%

A-3

85.78

19.07

22.23%

B-1

118.27

21.98

18.58%

B-2

100.17

4.06

4.05%

C-1

48.60

13.44

27.65%

C-2

148.40

1.52

1.02%

C-3

114.54

4.71

4.11%

D-1

2498.10

184.88

7.40%

D-2

31.97

4.88

15.26%

D-3

49.23

1.64

3.33%

D-4

182.99

1.01

0.55%

D-5

147.85

0.00

0.00%

Subwatershed impervious cover exceeds 25%. Streams in this category essentially become a conduit for conveying stormwater flows, and can no longer support a diverse stream community. The stream channel is often highly unstable, and stream reaches can experience severe widening, downcutting and streambank erosion. Pool and riffle structure needed to sustain fish is diminished or eliminated, and the stream substrate can no longer provide habitat for aquatic insects, or spawning areas for fish. Water quality is consistently rated as fair to poor, and water contact recreation is no longer possible due to the presence of high bacterial levels. The biological quality of non-supporting streams is generally considered poor, and is dominated by pollution tolerant insects and fish.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

81

WATERSHED SUB-BASINS

Subbasin

Section 5 82

WATER

Total

Impervious

%

Acreage

Acreage

Impervious

A-1

253.49

53.81

21.23%

A-2

81.37

11.46

14.08%

A-3

85.78

19.07

22.23%

B-1

118.27

21.98

18.58%

B-2

100.17

4.06

4.05%

C-1

48.60

13.44

27.65%

C-2

148.40

1.52

1.02%

C-3

114.54

4.71

4.11%

D-1

2498.10

184.88

7.40%

D-2

31.97

4.88

15.26%

D-3

49.23

1.64

3.33%

D-4

182.99

1.01

0.55%

D-5

147.85

0.00

0.00%

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Overall Watershed Sub-Basin Analysis Each watershed sub-basin was examined to determine its contribution to the current stormwater loading on the campus. Further detail may be found in the appendix. The summary is as follows: Sub-Basin A: Watershed sub-basin A (A-1, A-2, A-3) is one of the most impervious and impaired in the entire watershed. The bulk of The Lawrenceville School’s core campus falls within it. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 12.5 acre feet out of a total of 45.9 acre feet (27%).

In terms of area, 156.5 acres of The School’s land are represented (37.2% of the total area of 420.2 acres). This means that a significant amount of stormwater (73%) is coming from off the property and flowing into The Pond.

However, The School’s property produces a great amount of stormwater relative to the land area because the core campus is so impervious. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 72, as compared to 78 for the entire sub-basin, which is not appreciably different from the surroundings. BMPs will have to be used to capture excess stormwater.

In terms of contaminant loading, the values vary in terms of pollutant concentration. Efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, increase infiltration, and increase vegetative cover are necessary to lower the values to benign levels.

In terms of contaminant loading, the values vary in terms of pollutant concentration. Efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, increase infiltration, and increase vegetative cover are necessary to lower the values to benign levels.

Contaminant loading is acceptable in this sub-basin, but it is downstream from the rest of the campus, it would be prudent to improve the absorption capabilities of the sub-basin to help remove excess pollutants from upstream.

Sub-Basin C: Watershed sub-basin C (C-1, C-2, C-3) is mixed in terms of stormwater impact. The most impervious area of campus is in C-1, but C-2 and C-3 are mostly natural and agricultural areas. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 14.1 acre feet out of a total of 18.5 acre feet (76%).

In terms of area, 236.8 acres of The School’s land are represented (76.2% of the total area of 310.7 acres). Nearly all of the stormwater is produced by the core campus of The School. The natural areas downstream are forced to absorb the impact of the campus. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 67, the same as the entire sub-basin.

Land cover change to increase forest, wetland and meadow area will be most effective to capture excess stormwater.

In terms of contaminant loading, the values vary in terms of pollutant concentration. Efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, increase infiltration, and increase vegetative cover are necessary to lower the values to benign levels.

Sub-Basin B: Watershed sub-basin B (B-1, B-2) is highly impervious in the town, but is mostly pervious at The School. The golf course of The Lawrenceville School’s falls within it. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 9.8 acre feet out of a total of 25.0 acre feet (39%).

In terms of area, 99 acres of The School’s land are represented (45.3% of the total area of 218.4 acres). This means that a significant amount of stormwater (61%) is coming from off the property and flowing through the golf course.

However, The School’s property produces a great amount of stormwater relative to the land area because the turf-grass of the golf course does not infiltrate water very well. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 76, as compared to 79 for the entire sub-basin, which is not appreciably different from the surroundings. BMPs will have to be used to capture excess stormwater.

Sub-Basin D: Watershed sub-basin D (D-1 through D-5) is a large watershed. The Lawrenceville School’s land is nearly all agricultural or natural here. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 13.5 acre feet out of a total of 302.3 acre feet (4%).

In terms of area, 129.7 acres of The School’s land are represented (4.5% of the total area of 2907.1 acres). This means that nearly all the stormwater (96%) is coming from off the property and flowing through its edge. This area is the best on the site currently, but could be improved through better agricultural practice and restoration of the damaged natural systems. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 77, the same as the entire sub-basin, because there is a lot of open space upstream.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

83

EXISTING STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Section 5 84

WATER

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Stormwater Benchmark Achievement The following pages represent the three stages of stormwater benchmarks within the most problematic watershed sub-basins on the campus, A-2, A-3, and C1. It is assumed that by following the strategy of The Vision Plan in the other sub-basin areas, the target goals will be achieved for the overall property. Note that while some of these other sub-basins are mostly open space, they will need significant restoration of natural landscapes to meet the goals for the overall campus, because they must compensate for the relative condition of A-2, A-3, and C1.

Existing Stormwater Infrastructure There are currently six large detention basins connected to an aging pipe conveyance network on The Lawrenceville School property. This system was designed to comply with the outdated set of New Jersey stormwater regulations. The functional design of the system is to get the water off the site and into the local watercourses as quickly as possible. Buildings, roads and pathways are connected by drains, curbs and gutters to the pipe infrastructure or the water sheets off into the adjacent grass, either ponding or eroding depending on local velocity. The images on this page attest to the damaging effects of this strategy.

It is recommended that the existing stormwater basins on The Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s property be redesigned to infiltrate the 2-yr, 24-hr storm, and do something to improve the quality of the stormwater. One solution would be to raise the outlet structures and plant emergent vegetation. An assessment should be made of the soil conditions in the bottoms of the existing stormwater basins to determine whether they would function best as infiltration basins or as extended detention/wetland detention basins to improve water quality.

Whatever the decision, retrofitting should not significantly reduce their ability to retain the stormwater they are designed to store. Updating or retrofitting the basins would involve raising the outlet to an elevation that will keep the 2yr, 24-hr storm in the basin either long enough to infiltrate or long enough to sustain wetland habitat where stormwater pollutants can be removed. This is an intermediary strategy that may be used to extend the design lifespan of the current stormwater system.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

85

POTENTIAL BMP ZONES

*THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE REPRESENTS THE “BEST-CASE” AREA REQUIREMENT FOR INFILTRATING THE STORMWATER VOLUMES INDICATED BY USING INFILTRATION BEDS. THE USE OF OTHER TYPES OF BMPS THAT ARE LESS EFFICIENT AT INFILTRATING WOULD REQUIRE MORE AREA.

Section 5 86

WATER

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Sub-basin A-2 BMP Strategy As previously mentioned, sub-basin A-2 creates a stormwater burden upon the Shipetaukin Creek. It has an area of 81.37 acres, 11.46 of which are impervious, for an impervious percentage of 14.08%. There are quite a few athletic fields and campus lawn areas, which do not handle stormwater much better than impervious surfaces.

Target benchmarks for stormwater management improvements are to make the sub-basin perform as if it 1)10% impervious or less, or 2)As if it were the reference forested landscape. Stormwater volumes and pollutant loading was calculated for the current conditions and each of the two benchmarks, and the differences represent the goals.

The BMP strategy for solving this problem is complex, and will probably best be determined based on ongoing campus construction, maintenance, or replacement cycles. The two basic structural BMP types with the most merit for the kinds of conditions represented here are subsurface infiltration beds and rain gardens, most likely with a combination of the two in series.

The infiltration beds are far better at infiltration, but lacking in terms of water quality improvement, while rain gardens fall at the other end of the spectrum.

They tend also to be among the cheapest and most expensive BMP solutions respectively. For illustrative purposes, and to demonstrate an order of magnitude of cost, we have compared the differences between the two BMPs as if they were used mutually exclusively to treat the entire stormwater burden.

The real answer, both in terms of cost, and in terms of type, should be a mixture of many BMP types as local projects and conditions dictate.

For this sub-basin, 1.2 acre feet of stormwater volume must be removed to meet the first benchmark, and 2.8 acre feet to meet the second. The pollutant loading difference is considerable but varies greatly by pollutant. To mitigate 1.2 acre feet of stormwater within the correct time frame would require a total of 2.1 acres of subsurface infiltration beds, with a total cost of about $630,000.00. To do the same with rain gardens including infiltration capability would require 8.2 acres, with a cost of 3,600,000.00. To reach the second benchmark, 4.7 acres of infiltration beds at $1,400,000.00 or 18.7 acres of rain gardens at $8,100,000.00 would be necessary. Obviously, rain gardens are not the most efficient infiltrators.

To put this into spatial terms, the map on the left illustrates the area needed to use subsurface infiltration beds within the sub-watershed as compared the suitable site locations for infiltration. Basically, the colored squares representing the two benchmark volume area requirements must be fit within the potential BMP zones (hatched area).

The pattern and distribution of the actual BMP construction would be strategically placed to be downhill of the largest stormwater contributors.

Note that roads, parking area, and pathways are excellent candidates for retrofitting. Open lawn areas downslope from impervious elements are the most cost-efficient possibilities for infiltration, but poor soils and areas with mature vegetation should be avoided. There is enough space to handle the infiltration requirements in this sub-basin, but the design must strategically respond to the site.

CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

The Circulation Diagram indicates a suggested potential future woven into The Vision Plan. Part of the thinking behind the diagram relates to stormwater BMP solutions, in addition to the previously discussed advantages. The placement of a road and parking between the western edge of the campus core and the athletic fields would be a perfect opportunity for permeable paving with infiltration beneath. The cost of this is comparable with the cost of standard road and parking lot construction, so the benefits could be achieve with very little expense. The linear patterns of roads and pathways offer the opportunity to create linked BMP systems moving downhill. Bioswales and rain gardens should be sited as visible landscape elements to complement infiltration beneath. Vegetated BMP strategies are needed to improve water quality.

Landcover change to remove lawn, strategies to capture roof runoff, water quality inlets, etc., all must be considered as part of an integrated strategy to ameliorate both the volume and quality of stormwater.

SUB-BASIN A2 Stormwater Storage Requirement Volume (CF) Volume (ACRE FT)

10% Impervious Condition

Reference Forested Landscape Condition

53875.0

122096.0

1.2

2.8

BMP Infiltration Potential (CF/SF)

Cost/SF

BMP Area Required to Mitigate Volume (ACRES)

Total Cost

BMP Area Required to Mitigate Volume (ACRES)

Total Cost

Infiltration Bed

0.6

$7.00

2.1

$628,541.67

4.7

$1,424,453.33

Rain Garden (w/Infiltration)

0.15

$10.00

8.2

$3,591,666.67

18.7

$8,139,733.33

BMP Type

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

87

Current Conditions - SUB-BASIN A2 Landcover

10% Impervious Landscape Conditions Acres

Percent

Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

11.2

13.8%

Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75%

52.6

64.9%

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75%

Cropland and Pasture

4.5

5.5%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

2.1

2.6%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

8.4

10.4%

Urban - 85% Impervious

1.6

2.0%

Urban - 25% Impervious

0.7

0.9%

0

0.0%

Water

81.1

100.0%

Water Total

Acres

Percent

3.9

4.8%

59.9

73.9%

Cropland and Pasture

4.5

5.5%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

2.1

2.6%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

8.4

10.4%

Urban - 85% Impervious

1.6

2.0%

Urban - 25% Impervious

0.7

0.9%

0

0.0%

81.1

100.0%

Total

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches)

2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches)

Runoff Curve Number Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

69

Runoff Curve Number

0.81

inches

237,769.0

cu. ft.

5.5

acre ft.

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand

Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

65 0.62

inches

183,894.0

cu. ft.

4.2

acre ft.

16.4500

ppm

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) 24.0000

ppm

Biological Oxygen Demand

0.0021

ppm

Cadmium

0.0011

ppm

Chromium

8.7100

ppm

Chromium

2.0400

ppm

Chemical Oxygen Demand

4.0500

ppm

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

Copper

0.0105

ppm

Copper

0.0105

ppm

Lead

0.0065

ppm

Lead

0.0059

ppm

Nitrogen

1.1200

g/ml

Nitrogen

0.9700

g/ml

Phosphorus

0.1197

g/ml

Phosphorus

0.0711

g/ml

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

Zinc

0.1779

ppm

Zinc

0.1667

ppm

Cadmium

88

Landcover

THE

DIFFERENCE

green

Reference Forested Landscape Conditions

Acres

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

DIFFERENCE

Landcover

Acres

Percent

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

81.1

100.0%

Total

81.1

100.0%

Acres

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches) Runoff Curve Number 0.19

inches

31%

Runoff Depth (in.)

53,875.0

cu. ft.

29%

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

acre ft.

29%

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

1.2

% Change

59 0.39

inches

0.42

inches

108%

115,673.0

cu. ft.

122,096.0

cu. ft.

106%

2.7

acre ft.

acre ft.

106%

2.8

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading)

% Change

7.5500

ppm

46%

Biological Oxygen Demand

5.1200

ppm

18.8800

ppm

369%

0.0010

ppm

91%

Cadmium

0.0001

ppm

0.0020

ppm

2000%

6.6700

ppm

327%

Chromium

0.3700

ppm

8.3400

ppm

2254%

3.7000

ppm

1057%

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

3.7000

ppm

1057%

0.0000

ppm

0%

Copper

0.0105

ppm

0.0000

ppm

0%

0.0006

ppm

10%

Lead

0.0050

ppm

0.0015

ppm

30%

0.1500

g/ml

15%

Nitrogen

0.7500

g/ml

0.3700

g/ml

49%

0.0486

g/ml

68%

Phosphorus

0.0100

g/ml

0.1097

g/ml

1097%

0.0000

g/ml

0%

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

0.0000

g/ml

0%

0.0112

ppm

7%

Zinc

0.1499

ppm

0.0280

ppm

19%

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

89

POTENTIAL BMP ZONES

*THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE REPRESENTS THE “BEST-CASE” AREA REQUIREMENT FOR INFILTRATING THE STORMWATER VOLUMES INDICATED BY USING INFILTRATION BEDS. THE USE OF OTHER TYPES OF BMPS THAT ARE LESS EFFICIENT AT INFILTRATING WOULD REQUIRE MORE AREA.

Section 7 90

WATER

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Sub-basin A-3 BMP Strategy Sub-basin A-3 also creates a stormwater burden upon the Shipetaukin Creek.

It has an area of 85.78 acres, 19.07 of which are impervious, for an impervious percentage of 22.23%. There are athletic fields and significant campus lawn areas, which do not handle stormwater much better than impervious surfaces.

Target benchmarks for stormwater management improvements are to make the sub-basin perform as if it 1)10% impervious or less, or 2)As if it were the reference forested landscape. Stormwater volumes and pollutant loading was calculated for the current conditions and each of the two benchmarks, and the differences represent the goals.

The BMP strategy for solving this problem is complex, and will probably best be determined based on ongoing campus construction, maintenance, or replacement cycles. The two basic structural BMP types with the most merit for the kinds of conditions represented here are subsurface infiltration beds and rain gardens, most likely with a combination of the two in series.

The infiltration beds are far better at infiltration, but lacking in terms of water quality improvement, while rain gardens fall at the other end of the spectrum.

They tend also to be among the cheapest and most expensive BMP solutions respectively. For illustrative purposes, and to demonstrate an order of magnitude of cost, we have compared the differences between the two BMPs as if they were used mutually exclusively to treat the entire stormwater burden.

The real answer, both in terms of cost, and in terms of type, should be a mixture of many BMP types as local projects and conditions dictate.

For this sub-basin, 3.5 acre feet of stormwater volume must be removed to meet the first benchmark, and 3.8 acre feet to meet the second. The pollutant loading difference is considerable but varies greatly by pollutant.

To mitigate 3.5 acre feet of stormwater within the correct time frame would require a total of 5.8 acres of subsurface infiltration beds, with a total cost of about $1,770,000.00. To do the same with rain gardens including infiltration capability would require 23.2 acres, with a cost of $10,091,000.00. To reach the second benchmark, 6.3 acres of infiltration beds at $1,900,000.00 or 25.1 acres of rain gardens at $10,900,000.00 would be necessary.

To put this into spatial terms, the map on the left illustrates the area needed to use subsurface infiltration beds within the sub-watershed as compared the suitable site locations for infiltration. Basically, the colored squares representing the two benchmark volume area requirements must be fit within the potential BMP zones (hatched area).

The pattern and distribution of the actual BMP construction would be strategically placed to be downhill of the largest stormwater contributors.

Note that roads, parking area, and pathways are excellent candidates for retrofitting. Open lawn areas downslope from impervious elements are the most cost-efficient possibilities for infiltration, but poor soils and areas with mature vegetation should be avoided. This sub-basin is faced with the problem that the largest impervious area is at the bottom of the hill. The Lavino Field House and associated parking lots should be configured to drain â&#x20AC;&#x153;uphillâ&#x20AC;? to reach areas for potential infiltration. Storage and re-use of roof runoff should be considered.

CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

As in A-2, The expansion of parking between the eastern edge of the campus core and the golf course would be a perfect opportunity for permeable paving with infiltration beneath. The linear patterns of roads and pathways offer the opportunity to create linked BMP systems moving downhill. Bioswales and rain gardens should be sited as visible landscape elements to complement infiltration beneath. All low, wet areas on the core campus are good rain garden candidates. Vegetated BMP strategies are needed to improve water quality. Landcover change to remove lawn, strategies to capture roof runoff, water quality inlets, etc., all must be considered as part of an integrated strategy to ameliorate both the volume and quality of stormwater.

SUB-BASIN A3 Stormwater Storage Requirement Volume (CF) Volume (ACRE FT)

BMP Type

BMP Infiltration Potential (CF/SF) Cost/SF

10% Impervious Condition

Reference Forested Landscape Condition

151377.0

163873.0

3.5

3.8

BMP Area Required to Mitigate Volume (ACRES)

Total Cost

BMP Area Required to Mitigate Volume (ACRES)

Total Cost

Infiltration Bed

0.6

$7.00

5.8

$1,766,065.00

6.3

$1,911,851.67

Rain Garden (w/Infiltration)

0.15

$10.00

23.2

$10,091,800.00

25.1

$10,924,866.67

Section 7

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

91

Current Conditions - SUB-BASIN A3 Landcover

10% Impervious Landscape Conditions Acres

Percent

Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

19.84

23.2%

Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75%

47.74

55.9%

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75%

Cropland and Pasture

0.6

0.7%

Cropland and Pasture

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

0.4

0.5%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

12.1

14.2%

Urban - 85% Impervious

0.3

Urban - 25% Impervious

1.8

Water Total

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

Acres

Percent

5.2

6.1%

62.5

73.1%

0.6

0.7%

12.1

14.2%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

0.4

0.5%

0.4%

Urban - 85% Impervious

0.3

0.4%

2.1%

Urban - 25% Impervious

1.7

2.0%

2.7

3.2%

Water

2.7

3.2%

85.5

100.0%

Total

85.5

100.0%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches)

2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches)

Runoff Curve Number Runoff Depth (in.)

74

Runoff Curve Number

1.07

inches

inches

332,140.0

cu. ft.

180,763.0

cu. ft.

7.6

acre ft.

4.2

acre ft.

33.4500

ppm

Biological Oxygen Demand

14.5600

ppm

Cadmium

0.0033

ppm

Cadmium

0.0009

ppm

Chromium

17.0500

ppm

Chromium

0.3800

ppm

Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper

8.6800

ppm

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

0.0105

ppm

Copper

0.0105

ppm

Lead

0.0073

ppm

Lead

0.0058

ppm

Nitrogen

1.3000

g/ml

Nitrogen

0.9300

g/ml

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand

Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Runoff Depth (in.)

64 0.58

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

92

Landcover

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading)

0.1805

g/ml

Phosphorus

0.0589

g/ml

21.2800

g/ml

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

0.1919

ppm

Zinc

0.1639

ppm

THE

DIFFERENCE

green

Reference Forested Landscape Conditions

Acres

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

DIFFERENCE

Landcover

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

Water Area Total

Acres

Percent

Acres

82.8

96.9%

82.8

2.7

3.2%

2.7

85.5

100.0%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches) Runoff Curve Number 0.49

inches

84%

Runoff Depth (in.)

151,377.0

cu. ft.

84%

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

acre ft.

84%

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

3.5

% Change

63 0.54

inches

0.53

inches

98%

168,267.0

cu. ft.

163,873.0

cu. ft.

97%

3.9

acre ft.

acre ft.

97%

12.6700

ppm

20.7800

ppm

164%

3.8

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading)

% Change

18.8900

ppm

130%

Biological Oxygen Demand

0.0024

ppm

267%

Cadmium

0.0006

ppm

0.0027

ppm

450%

16.6700

ppm

4387%

Chromium

0.3700

ppm

16.6800

ppm

4508%

8.3300

ppm

2380%

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

8.3300

ppm

2380%

0.0000

ppm

0%

Copper

0.0105

ppm

0.0000

ppm

0%

0.0015

ppm

26%

Lead

0.0056

ppm

0.0017

ppm

30%

0.3700

g/ml

40%

Nitrogen

0.9000

g/ml

0.4000

g/ml

44%

0.1216

g/ml

206%

Phosphorus

0.0467

g/ml

0.1338

g/ml

287%

14.5800

g/ml

218%

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

14.5800

g/ml

218%

0.0280

ppm

17%

Zinc

0.1611

ppm

0.0308

ppm

19%

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

93

POTENTIAL BMP ZONES

*THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE REPRESENTS THE “BEST-CASE” AREA REQUIREMENT FOR INFILTRATING THE STORMWATER VOLUMES INDICATED BY USING INFILTRATION BEDS. THE USE OF OTHER TYPES OF BMPS THAT ARE LESS EFFICIENT AT INFILTRATING WOULD REQUIRE MORE AREA.

94

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Sub-basin C-1 BMP Strategy Sub-basin C-1 is the most problematic for stormwater on the property . It has an area of 48.60 acres, 13.44 of which are impervious, for an impervious percentage of 27.65%. There are athletic fields and significant campus lawn areas, which do not handle stormwater much better than impervious surfaces.

Target benchmarks for stormwater management improvements are to make the sub-basin perform as if it 1)10% impervious or less, or 2)As if it were the reference forested landscape. Stormwater volumes and pollutant loading was calculated for the current conditions and each of the two benchmarks, and the differences represent the goals.

The BMP strategy for solving this problem is complex, and will probably best be determined based on ongoing campus construction, maintenance, or replacement cycles. The two basic structural BMP types with the most merit for the kinds of conditions represented here are subsurface infiltration beds and rain gardens, most likely with a combination of the two in series.

The infiltration beds are far better at infiltration, but lacking in terms of water quality improvement, while rain gardens fall at the other end of the spectrum.

They tend also to be among the cheapest and most expensive BMP solutions respectively. For illustrative purposes, and to demonstrate an order of magnitude of cost, we have compared the differences between the two BMPs as if they were used mutually exclusively to treat the entire stormwater burden.

The real answer, both in terms of cost, and in terms of type, should be a mixture of many BMP types as local projects and conditions dictate.

For this sub-basin, 1.9 acre feet of stormwater volume must be removed to meet the first benchmark, and 2.3 acre feet to meet the second. The pollutant loading difference is considerable but varies greatly by pollutant. To mitigate 1.9 acre feet of stormwater within the correct time frame would require a total of 3.2 acres of subsurface infiltration beds, with a total cost of about $960,000.00. To do the same with rain gardens including infiltration capability would require 12.6 acres, with a cost of $5,490,000.00. To reach the second benchmark, 3.9 acres of infiltration beds at $1,200,000.00 or 15.6 acres of rain gardens at $6,800,000.00 would be necessary.

To put this into spatial terms, the map on the left illustrates the area needed to use subsurface infiltration beds within the sub-watershed as compared the suitable site locations for infiltration. Basically, the colored squares representing the two benchmark volume area requirements must be fit within the potential BMP zones (hatched area).

The pattern and distribution of the actual BMP construction would be strategically placed to be downhill of the largest stormwater contributors.

Note that roads, parking area, and pathways are excellent candidates for retrofitting. Open lawn areas downslope from impervious elements are the most cost-efficient possibilities for infiltration, but poor soils and areas with mature vegetation should be avoided. There is enough space to handle the infiltration requirements in this sub-basin, but the design must strategically respond to the site.

CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

The Circulation Diagram indicates a suggested potential future woven into The Vision Plan. Part of the thinking behind the diagram relates to stormwater BMP solutions, in addition to the previously discussed advantages. The reduction of automobiles in the center of campus would allow all the paving to be made permeable, and water quality would already be improved because the cars are limited. The linear patterns of roads and pathways offer the opportunity to create linked BMP systems moving downhill. Bioswales and rain gardens should be sited as visible landscape elements to complement infiltration beneath. All low, wet areas on the core campus are good rain garden candidates. Vegetated BMP strategies are needed to improve water quality.

Landcover change to remove lawn, strategies to capture roof runoff, water quality inlets, etc., all must be considered as part of an integrated strategy to ameliorate both the volume and quality of stormwater.

SUB-BASIN C1 Stormwater Storage Requirement Volume (CF) Volume (ACRE FT)

10% Impervious Condition

Reference Forested Landscape Condition

82401.0

102213.0

1.9

2.3

Total Cost

BMP Area Required to Mitigate Volume (ACRES)

Total Cost

BMP Infiltration Potential (CF/SF)

Cost/SF

BMP Area Required to Mitigate Volume (ACRES)

Infiltration Bed

0.6

$7.00

3.2

$961,345.00

3.9

$1,192,485.00

Rain Garden (w/Infiltration)

0.15

$10.00

12.6

$5,493,400.00

15.6

$6,814,200.00

BMP Type

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

95

Current Conditions - SUB-BASIN C1 Landcover

10% Impervious Landscape Conditions Acres

Percent

Acres

Percent

Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

12.8

26.7%

Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

12.8

26.7%

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75%

22.8

47.5%

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75%

22.8

47.5%

Cropland and Pasture

0.8

1.7%

Cropland and Pasture

0.8

1.7%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

0.1

0.2%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

0.1

0.2%

11.5

24.0%

11.5

24.0%

48

100.0%

48

100.0%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

Total

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

Total

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches)

2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches)

Runoff Curve Number Runoff Depth (in.)

73

Runoff Curve Number

1.01

inches

176,806.0

cu. ft.

4.1

acre ft.

31.5600

ppm

Biological Oxygen Demand

Cadmium

0.0030

ppm

Chromium

15.3800

Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Biological Oxygen Demand

Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Runoff Depth (in.)

63 0.54

inches

94,405.0

cu. ft.

2.2

acre ft.

12.6700

ppm

Cadmium

0.0006

ppm

ppm

Chromium

0.3700

ppm

7.7500

ppm

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

0.0105

ppm

Copper

0.0105

ppm

0.0071

ppm

Lead

0.0056

ppm

1.2600

g/ml

Nitrogen

0.9000

g/ml

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading)

96

Landcover

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading)

0.1684

g/ml

Phosphorus

0.0467

g/ml

14.1800

g/ml

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

0.1891

ppm

Zinc

0.1611

ppm

THE

DIFFERENCE

green

Reference Forested Landscape Conditions

Acres

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

DIFFERENCE

Landcover

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

Water Area Total

Acres

Percent

Acres

48

100.0%

48

0

0.0%

0

48

100.0%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR Rainfall Event (3.25 inches) Runoff Curve Number 0.47

inches

87%

Runoff Depth (in.)

82,401.0

cu. ft.

87%

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

acre ft.

87%

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

1.9

% Change

60 0.43

inches

0.58

inches

135%

74,593.0

cu. ft.

102,213.0

cu. ft.

137%

1.7

acre ft.

acre ft.

137%

2.3

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading)

% Change

18.8900

ppm

149%

Biological Oxygen Demand

7.0000

ppm

24.5600

ppm

351%

0.0024

ppm

400%

Cadmium

0.0001

ppm

0.0029

ppm

2900%

15.0100

ppm

4057%

Chromium

0.3700

ppm

15.0100

ppm

4057%

7.4000

ppm

2114%

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

7.4000

ppm

2114%

0.0000

ppm

0%

Copper

0.0105

ppm

0.0000

ppm

0%

0.0015

ppm

27%

Lead

0.0052

ppm

0.0019

ppm

37%

0.3600

g/ml

40%

Nitrogen

0.7900

g/ml

0.4700

g/ml

59%

0.1217

g/ml

261%

Phosphorus

0.0103

g/ml

0.1581

g/ml

1535%

7.4800

g/ml

112%

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

7.4800

g/ml

112%

0.0280

ppm

17%

Zinc

0.1527

ppm

0.0364

ppm

24%

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

97

SECTION 6

LAND Land Overview Land Management Invasive Species

LAND LAND OVERVIEW Land is an asset, with physical laws and properties by which it operates. The biotic systems which bepend on it are intertwined with its form and function. Land should be managed in such a fashion that does not compromise its ability to function in the future.

The guidelines which shaped the master plan were 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

There are significant problems with the unmanaged peripheral areas of the property of The Lawrenceville School, particularly with regard to invasive plant species. These problems are not insurmountable - in fact, they offer great educational opportunities through the process of their solutions.

Land management needs to become a more expansive part of The Green Campus Initiative. The benefits will include cost savings, energy use reduction, climate moderation, and make for an extremely dynamic visual setting in which to learn.

Introduction Overview of Land Issues The purpose of a scholastic campus is to provide a setting for the life of the school. Much of that life of course takes place in buildings and its richness depends on the quality of those buildings. However, there is also a large part that goes on outside buildings, in the landscape. The daily passage of people in the landscape should provide a nexus of meetings, of recreation, or merely relaxation, all of which greatly enrich scholastic life. If a campus has an image in the mind as a place to be loved and admired, it is likely to be formed not so much by the buildings as by the spaces in between.

The appearance of these fragmented remnant landscapes is worth considering. We, as residents of the urbanized Northeastern United States, are used to seeing patches of “forest” along the edges of roads and our properties. Typically, the edges of these patches are an unruly collection of thorny, aggressive shrubs and vines. If one looks carefully at the spacing and arrangement of this situation, it becomes clear that it is “disordered”. There is a structural arrangement of a healthy natural community that strikes a balance between competition and cooperation – it is “ordered”.

Land, to a scholastic institution, is both an asset and a liability. The value, besides the obvious, purely economic, can be thought of in terms of its utility, its aesthetics or its ability to teach. The liabilities are incurred in the shortterm as maintenance – to keep an inherently dynamic system at a preferred condition. A longer-term understanding of sustainability raises the question of whether the repeated short-term actions can continue into the future, or whether they ultimately cause the resource to fail. The expanded vision of a sustainable campus – the living laboratory – requires a re-thinking of exactly what it looks like and, perhaps more importantly, how it functions.

If we are to transform the campus into a beautiful, functional, orderly system by restoring and expanding the degraded remnant natural patches, we must accept two concepts. First, while we can design it to work with the site, it will not be self-sustaining. The pressures of human activity, invasive plants, deer, and increased intensity of storm events require us to take an active managerial role. Second, this requires maintenance, which must be thought of in just the same way as we currently mow the lawn (but with far less input needed). Time and effort will be necessary to protect the investment. The reward, if properly designed, executed and maintained, will bring long-term cost savings in terms of energy use, labor and pollutant emissions and create a much healthier, more inspiring learning environment.

Lawrenceville alumnus Aldo Leopold, in his seminal text A Sand County Almanac, proposed a philosophical reference point for this scenario – the land ethic. He argued for an expansion of ethics to include the nonhuman members of the biotic community, collectively referred to as “the land”. “A thing is right

when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

The principle of the land ethic does not significantly differ from modern notions of sustainability. What is different is that the ecological health and diversity of most places is significantly worse since Leopold’s time. New Jersey is one of the most densely populated states in the Union. Natural areas have been fragmented into pieces too small and too divided to support viable ecological communities. This condition allows opportunistic species to colonize and further weaken the remaining pockets of biodiversity. The value of such a landscape in terms of function, resilience and beauty is subsequently lessened.

Section 6 100

LAND

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Land Management Current Land Management In Volume One, 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 (except for large common areas) 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 Athletic fields Campus

$3,026.00 $3,230.00 $3,504.00

The total maintenance cost measured for these areas is approximately $740,000. 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.

Discussions with Grounds Manager Department Personnel identified areas where maintenance could be reduced or eliminated. These transitional spaces could become meadows or returned to forest. Preliminary estimates indicate that 12.0 acres of the golf course, 5.0 acres of area around the athletic fields, and 9.0 acres of residential common areas around 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 stormwater detention basins and the stream edges. The sum total savings in maintenance costs if this was implemented would be about $78,000.00 annually. The ancillary benefits would include a reduction in maintenance man-hours required, reduced wear and tear on equipment and a surplus of materials.

The philosophical priorities of maintenance at The Lawrenceville School are currently: 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 proposed maintenance program suggested on the following pages is based on change that should occur immediately. This will require funding to being the land restoration pilot projects (i.e. converting lawn to meadow), but it is anticipated that annual maintenance savings will quickly recover this cost outlay. Note that the proposed changes are an interim step toward the vision plan – this represents the opportunity to “test the model” and collect data on the results through monitoring.

Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

101

CURRENT MAINTENANCE MAP

MAINTAINED – CAMPUS CORE MAINTAINED – RESIDENTIAL AREA MAINTAINED – GOLF COURSE MAINTAINED – ATHLETIC FIELD MAINTAINED – ATHLETIC FIELD PERPIHERY UNMAINTAINED MEADOW UNMAINTAINED FOREST UNMAINTAINED WATERCOURSE AGRICULTURE – MAINTAINED BY OTHERS MAINTAINED BY OTHERS

Section 6 102

LAND

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Costs For Current Maintenance Program 1 Maintenance Area

Golf Course

Athletic Fields

Campus

Golf Course Total

Athletic Fields Total

Campus Total

Total

61 Acres

58 Acres

105 Acres

224 Acres

Maintenance Activity Grass Cutting

21 Fields Labor

$1,420.00

$1,800.00

$1,500.00

$86,620.00

$104,400.00

$157,500.00

$348,520.00

Equipment

$250.00

$175.00

$175.00

$15,250.00

$10,150.00

$18,375.00

$43,775.00

Labor

$475.00

$600.00

$600.00

$28,975.00

$34,800.00

$63,000.00

$126,775.00

Equipment

$1.00

Fertilizer

$370.00

$155.00

Water

$35.00

$25.00

Trimming N/A

N/A

$61.00

$61.00

Fertilizing $65.00

$22,570.00

$8,990.00

$2,135.00

$1,450.00

$6,825.00

$38,385.00

Watering N/A

N/A

$3,585.00

Road/Walkway Salting Salt

N/A

N/A

$55.00

N/A

N/A

$5,775.00

$5,775.00

Labor

N/A

N/A

$445.00

N/A

N/A

$46,725.00

$46,725.00

Fuel

N/A

N/A

$0.30

N/A

N/A

$31.50

$31.50

Labor

N/A

N/A

$8.00

N/A

N/A

$840.00

$840.00

Fuel

N/A

N/A

$0.60

N/A

N/A

$63.00

$63.00

Mulch

N/A

N/A

$75.00

N/A

N/A

$7,875.00

$7,875.00

Labor

N/A

N/A

$80.00

N/A

N/A

$8,400.00

$8,400.00

Snow Plowing

Mulching

Leaf Removal Labor Notes: 1

- Costs are per acre

$475.00

$475.00

$500.00

$28,975.00

$27,550.00

$52,500.00

$109,025.00

TOTALS

$184,586.00

$187,340.00

$367,909.50

$739,835.50

COST PER ACRE

$3,026.00

$3,230.00

$3,503.90

Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

103

Proposed Landcover Change PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CHANGE MAP The proposed interim landcover changes are the first steps toward implementation of The Vision Plan. The plan indicates changing the landcover on a full 26 acres of land currently maintained as lawn. By removing the current annual maintenance regime of mowing, trimming, fertilization, and watering from these 26 acres, approximately $78,000 would be saved annually. Some annual maintenance will need to be performed on the new landscape, particularly for the first few years of establishment, but this would subtract about $10,000 or less.

The spreadsheet shows the cost for converting the lawn to meadow, forest and planting beds to be about $3.75 million dollars. However, there are some important factors that can make that a much smaller number. As indicated in Volume I, grant money is available to match a minimum of 50% of that cost. Further, this number represents hiring a landscape contractor to do the installation. An approach we find to be much more successful (given the intent of the project), is to have the local community assist with the planting.

This would easily remove another 50% from the total cost. Finally, it is likely that many of the plants could be sourced for free, either by donors or through cooperation with a local conservancy / nursery. It is exciting to watch how people will commit time, energy and money to projects like this.

The replacement landcovers suggested for these areas include 3⁄4 of an acre of planting beds along Route 206, under the existing street trees and behind the fence. This would incur an annual maintenance cost of approximately $6,000 per year, depending on how complex and how hardy the plants are. If native plants are used, the cost will be considerably less.

About 12 acres of the golf course can be converted to meadow, as these areas are not used for game play. The cost for meadow conversion, if contracted out, would be about $1 per square foot fro materials, equipment, plants and labor. The current “meadow” within the golf course needs rehabilitation, as it is predominantly invasive plants at this point. This also applies to the “meadow” along the forested edge of the stream tributary leading into The Pond.

The common landscape of the older residential area along Route 206 could be removed from maintenance by converting the lawn under the trees to forest understory plantings. This would include predominantly young specimens suitably protected from deer browse. This represents around 9 acres at about $5 per square foot.

Section 6 104

LAND

REFORESTATION LAWN TO MEADOW LAWN TO PLANTING BED

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Campus Area (AC)

Area (SF)

Cost ($)

O&M Cost ($/YR)

Volume

Lawn to Planted Bed

0

0

$0.00

$0.00

0

Lawn to Meadow

0

0

$0.00

$0.00

0

Lawn to Old Field / Successional Forest

9

392040

$1,960,200.00

$1,568.16

19602

Reduction (CF)

Finally, the athletic fields around the campus all have a wide mown swath of lawn surrounding them. The maintained width can be expanded and the forest edge restored in much of this area. Approximately 4 acres could be changed, sometimes in strips as narrow as 3-5 feet. This could also be converted to meadow if forest is undesirable.

STORMWATER VOLUME REDUCTION (CF)

19602

INSTALL COST TOTAL ($)

$1,960,200.00

O&M COST TOTAL ($/YR)

These landcover conversions will reduce the costs and impacts of maintenance on the campus. They will also perform valuable functions for air and water cleansing. About 60,000 cubic feet of stormwater would be absorbed during a two-year storm that currently runs off, and at least half of the pollutants removed and purified by the plants (see chart). If properly installed and maintained this strategy will create a more diverse and beautiful landscape and engage the community in the process.

$1,568.16

Golf Course Area (AC)

Area (SF)

Cost ($)

O&M Cost ($/YR)

Volume Reduction (CF)

Lawn to Planted Bed

0

0

$0.00

$0.00

0

Lawn to Meadow

11.85

516186

$516,186.00

$2,064.74

25809

Lawn to Old Field / Successional Forest

0.15

6534

$32,670.00

$26.14

327

STORMWATER VOLUME REDUCTION (CF)

26136

INSTALL COST TOTAL ($)

$548,856.00

O&M COST TOTAL ($/YR)

$2,090.88

Landcape Restoration Technique BMP TYPE

COST/SF

O&M COST/

($/SF)

YR ($/SF)

Athletic Fields

STORMWATER VOLUME REDUCTION

$10.00

$0.20

0.05

Lawn to Meadow

$1.00

$0.004

0.05

Lawn to Old Field / Successional Forest

$5.00

$0.004

0.05

Area (SF)

Cost ($)

O&M Cost ($/YR)

Volume

0.7

30492

$304,920.00

$6,098.40

1525

0

0

$0.00

$0.00

0

4.3

187308

$936,540.00

$749.23

9365

Reduction (CF)

(CF/SF) * Lawn to Planted Bed

Area (AC) Lawn to Planted Bed Lawn to Meadow Lawn to Old Field / Successional Forest STORMWATER VOLUME REDUCTION (CF)

* Stormwater Volume Reduction is

INSTALL COST TOTAL ($)

calculated for the two-year (3.25 in/24 hr)

REDUCTION

$1,241,460.00

O&M COST TOTAL ($/YR)

storm event STORMWATER POLLUTANT

10890

SUSPENDED

NITRATE

PHOSPHORUS

SOLIDS

$6,847.63

CHEMICAL

Total Restoration Impacts

OXYGEN

INSTALL COST TOTAL ($)

$3,750,516.00

DEMAND

O&M COST TOTAL ($/YR)

$10,506.67

Lawn to Planted Bed

50%

80%

60%

40%

Lawn to Meadow

50%

80%

60%

40%

Lawn to Old Field / Successional Forest

60%

80%

60%

50%

TOTAL STORMWATER VOLUME

56628

REDUCTION (CF) *

Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

105

Costs For Proposed Maintenance Program Maintenance Area Maintenance Activity

Golf Course Total

Athletic Fields Total

Campus Total

Total

49 Acres

53 Acres

96 Acres

198 Acres

Grass Cutting

21 Fields Labor

$69,580.00

$95,400.00

$144,000.00

$308,980.00

Equipment

$12,250.00

$9,275.00

$16,800.00

$38,325.00

Labor

$23,275.00

$31,800.00

$57,600.00

$112,675.00

Equipment

$49.00

Fertilizer

$18,130.00

$8,215.00

Water

$1,715.00

$1,325.00

Trimming $49.00

Fertilizing $6,240.00

$32,585.00

Watering N/A

$3,040.00

Road/Walkway Salting Salt

N/A

N/A

$5,775.00

$5,775.00

Labor

N/A

N/A

$46,725.00

$46,725.00

Fuel

N/A

N/A

$31.50

$31.50

Labor

N/A

N/A

$840.00

$840.00

Fuel

N/A

N/A

$63.00

$63.00

Mulch

N/A

N/A

$7,875.00

$7,875.00

Labor

N/A

N/A

$8,400.00

$8,400.00

Snow Plowing

Mulching

Leaf Removal

106

Labor

$23,275.00

$25,175.00

$48,000.00

$96,450.00

TOTALS

$148,274.00

$171,190.00

$342,349.50

$661,813.50

PROJECTED SAVINGS

$36,312.00

$16,150.00

$25,560.00

$78,022.00

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

FUTURE MAINTENANCE MAP

MAINTAINED – CAMPUS CORE MAINTAINED – RESIDENTIAL AREA MAINTAINED – GOLF COURSE MAINTAINED – ATHLETIC FIELD MAINTAINED – ATHLETIC FIELD PERPIHERY MAINTAINED – PLANTING BED UNMAINTAINED MEADOW UNMAINTAINED FOREST UNMAINTAINED WATERCOURSE AGRICULTURE – MAINTAINED BY OTHERS MAINTAINED BY OTHERS

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

107

NATURAL AREAS

Section 6 108

LAND

THE

Description of Natural Plant Communities In the spring of 2006, we surveyed the entire property of The Lawrenceville School to access the ecological health and composition of the plant communities. Plants were identified in terms of the representative communities present, and to what extent they were compromised by invasive exotic species.

The natural communities were divided into 16 groups, representing the areas of the property not currently maintained.

ID Code

1

The Natural Areas map shows the 16 representative plant communities, and the color-coded tables list the predominant observed species. We assigned these plant communities a ranking based upon their perceived level of species invasion. This ranking was designed to be used as a strategic tool to determine where restoration activities should be concentrated. Finally, we applied the Floristic Quality Assessment Index (developed by Bowman’s Hill Wildlife Preserve), to obtain a relative ecological health ranking for the plant communities. This effort was preliminary, as a more in-depth vegetation analysis is required for full utilization of the tool.

Finally, we assessed the invasive plant species present on the property in terms of their threat level by species, providing background on control and management potential. We then assesses and described the potential for the three main natural landscape management techniques – mechanical clearing, herbicides, and prescribed burning.

Plant Community

Floodplain Forest

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

ID Code

4.91

3

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

Plant Community

Mature Forest (red maple, green ash)

Acer rubrum

red maple

Acer rubrum

red maple

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Fraxinus americana

white ash

Quercus palustris

pin oak

Acer platanoides

Norway maple

Prunus serotina

black cherry

Liriodendron tulipifera

tulip tree

Ostrya virginiana

eastern hop-hornbeam

Crataegus sp.

hawthorn

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

Viburnum dentatum

northern arrow-wood

Lonicera tatarica

tartarian honeysuckle

Lindera benzoin

northern spicebush

-2.00

Invasives Invasives

Acer platanoides

Norway maple

Norway maple

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Lonicera tatarica

tartarian honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica

bush honeysuckle

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Acer platanoides

Mature Forest (black cherry, black locust, hickory)

4 2

Mature Forest (red oak, American beech, hickory)

11.94

Carya glabra

sweet pignut hickory

Prunus serotina

black cherry

Quercus rubra

northern red oak

Robinia pseudoacacia

black locust

Fagus grandifolia

American beech

Acer rubrum

red maple

Carya glabra

sweet pignut hickory

Amelanchier canadensis

oblong service-berry

Acer rubrum

red maple

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Quercus palustris

pin oak

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Acer saccharum

sugar maple

Sassafras albidum

Sassafras

Invasives

Lindera benzoin

northern spicebush

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Viburnum dentatum

northern arrow-wood

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Viburnum acerifolium

maple-leaf viburnum

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

Euonymus atropurpureus

eastern burning-bush

Podophyllum peltatum

May-apple

Polygonatum biflorum

small Solomon’s-seal

Mitchella repens

partridge-berry

1.00

Invasives Berberis vulgaris

European barberry

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

109

ID Code

5

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

Plant Community

Mature Forest (red oak, green ash) Quercus rubra

northern red oak

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Viburnum acerifolium

maple-leaf viburnum

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Cornus florida

flowering dogwood

3.58

ID Code

7

Virginia creeper

Celastrus orbiculata

oriental bitter-sweet

Acer rubrum

red maple

Prunus serotina

black cherry

Liquidambar styraciflua

sweet gum

Ostrya virginiana

9

Sassafras eastern hop-hornbeam

quinquefolia

Virginia creeper

Toxicodendron radicans

poison ivy

Impatiens capensis

Plant Community

Mature Forest (pin oak, red maple)

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Celastrus orbiculata

oriental bitter-sweet

Acer platanoides

Norway maple

Mature Forest (black locust, red maple, green ash, black cherry)

11

spotted touch-me-not

Disturbed Community (forested) Acer negundo

box-elder

Quercus palustris

pin oak

Prunus serotina

black cherry

Betula lenta

sweet birch

Catalpa speciosa

northern Catalpa

Ilex verticillata

common winterberry

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Lindera benzoin

northern spicebush

Ulmus americana

American elm

Viburnum dentatum

arrow-wood

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

Mitchella repens

partridge-berry

Robinia pseudoacacia

black locust

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Rubus spp.

raspberry

European privet

Solidago spp.

goldenrod

Invasives

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Phytolacca americana

common pokeweed

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

Polygonum cuspidatum

Japanese knotweed

Gleditsia triacanthos

honey-locust

10

Young Forest (red maple, pin oak, green ash)

6.96

Mature Forest (pin oak, green ash, red maple) Quercus palustris

pin oak

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Acer rubrum

red maple

Ulmus Americana

American elm

Viburnum dentatum

arrow-wood

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

black locust

Acer rubrum

red maple

Acer rubrum

red maple

Alnus serrulata

brook-side alder

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Quercus palustris

pin oak

Crataegus crus-galli

cockspur hawthorn

Lindera benzoin

northern spicebush

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Polygonum perfoliatum

Asiatic tearthumb

Ostrya virginiana

eastern hop-hornbeam

Acer saccharinum

silver maple

Impatiens capensis

spotted touch-me-not

Viburnum dentatum

arrow-wood

Leersia oryzoides

rice cutgrass

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Juncus effuses

soft rush

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Acer platanoides

Norway maple

Onoclea sensibilis

sensitive fern

Invasives

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Symplocarpus foetidus

skunk-cabbage

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

Leersia oryzoides

rice cutgrass

Polygonum perfoliatum

Asiatic tearthumb

Carex strict

uptight sedge

Leersia oryzoides

rice cutgrass

Juncus effusus

soft rush

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Toxicodendron radicans

poison ivy

Invasives

LAND

8.32

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

Plant Community

red maple

Robinia pseudoacacia

Section 6

ID Code

Invasives

4.02 8

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

Acer rubrum

Ligustrum vulgare

Invasives

110

4.60

ID Code

Parthenocissus

Invasives

6

Intermediate Forest (red maple, black cherry)

Sassafras albidum

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

Plant Community

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Celastrus orbiculata

oriental bitter-sweet

Euonymus atropurpureus

eastern burning-bush

5.00

Invasives Catalpa speciosa

northern Catalpa

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

Polygonum cuspidatum

Japanese knotweed

-1.13

THE

ID Code

12

Plant Community

Sedge Wetland Meadow

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

ID Code

11.25

13

Plant Community

Scrub/Shrub Wetland

Phalaris arundinacea

reed canary grass

Cornus amomum

silky dogwood

Polygonum perfoliatum

Asiatic tearthumb

Rosa palustris

swamp rose

Impatiens capensis

spotted touch-me-not

Alnus serrulata

brook-side alder

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Rosa palustris

swamp rose

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

ID Code

9.05

14

Disturbed Community (herbaceous) Juniperus virginiana

eastern red cedar

Prunus serotina

black cherry

Morus sp.

crabapple

Quercus palustris

pin oak

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Liquidambar styraciflua

sweet gum

3.21

purple loosestrife

Vernonia noveboracensis

New York ironweed

Phragmites australis

common reed

Nuphar advena

spatterdock

Acer rubrum

red maple

Rubus sp.

raspberry

Sagittaria latifolia

broad-leaf arrow-head

Acer saccharinum

silver maple

Apocynum cannabinum

clasping-leaf dogbane

Cuscuta gronivii

dodder

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

green ash

Solidago spp.

goldenrod

Symplocarpus foetidus

skunk-cabbage

Catalpa speciosa

northern Catalpa

Cornus florida

flowering dogwood

Robinia pseudoacacia

black locust

Acer negundo

box-elder

Leersia oryzoides

rice cutgrass

Rosa palustris

swamp rose

Cornus amomum

silky dogwood

Sambucus canadensis

American elder

pin oak

Phalaris arundinacea

reed canary grass

Symplocarpus foetidus

skunk-cabbage

Impatiens capensis

spotted touch-me-not

Ulmus americana

American elm

rice cutgrass

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

halberd-leaf tearthumb

Juglans nigra

black walnut

Alnus serrulata

brook-side alder

Leersia oryzoides

Salix nigra

black willow

Polygonum arifolium

Onoclea sensibilis

sensitive fern

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Juncus effuses

soft rush

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Caltha palustris

marsh-marigold

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Carex stricta

uptight common sedge

Phytolacca americana

common pokeweed

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

Gleditsia triacanthos

honey-locust

Polygonum arifolium

halberd-leaf tearthumb

Invasives Leersia oryzoides

rice cutgrass

Catalpa speciosa

northern Catalpa

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

F.Q.I. Value (est.)

Plant Community

Lythrum salicaria

Quercus palustris

green

Invasive garlic mustard dominates the forest groundplain on The Lawrenceville School campus.

Invasives Phalaris arundinacea

reed canary grass

Invasives

Polygonum perfoliatum

Asiatic tearthumb

Catalpa speciosa

northern Catalpa

Lythrum salicaria

purple loosestrife

Paulownia tomentosa

royal Paulownia

Leersia oryzoides

rice cutgrass

Rosa multiflora

wild rose

Ligustrum vulgare

European privet

Alliaria petiolata

garlic mustard

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

15

16

Monoculture of Invasives

-5.00

Polygonum cuspatatum

Japanese knotweed

Phragmites australis

common reed

Lythrum salicaria

purple loosestrife

Hedgerow

-5.00

Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

111

FLORISTIC QUALITY

Section 6 112

LAND

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Plant Stewardship Index The Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve has developed a Plant Stewardship Index (PSI), which is a Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) for the Delaware Valley Region. A Floristic Quality Index is a measure of the relative health/stability of a plant community, based on the number of different plant species present, their relative rarity/occupying a narrow niche in the region, and on the number of invasive plant species present and their relative aggressiveness. Rare/narrow niche plant species are assigned high Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) values and invasive plant species are assigned negative CC values (see Table 1). The PSI has been under development for a number of years and the Coefficients of Conservatism (CC) for each of the 900+ plant species contained in the PSI list have been reviewed and commented on by locally renowned botanists.

1 – Floodplain Forest – FQI 4.91

We conducted a cursory assessment of the Floristic Quality of the plant communities we characterized (looking only at the predominant species) on the School’s property. As can be seen from the results presented below, the FQIs ranged from a high of 11.84 to a low of -2.00, with most of them falling in the range of 4.00 to 6.00.

Habitat management decisions can be made based on the FQI values. For example, if the two invasive plants identified in the (1) Floodplain Forest are removed, the FQI increases to 6.43, and if the two most aggressive invasive plants are removed from the (3) Mature Forest, the FQI becomes positive 1.

Another way to improve the FQI of a community would be to plant species with higher CC values, for example if the two invasive plants are removed from the (1) Floodplain Forest and two new plants with CC values of five (5) are planted (Acer saccharum and Viburnum dentatum), then the FQI would increase to 9.00, and if the two most aggressive invasive plants are removed from the (3) Mature Forest and two new plants with CC values of five (5) are planted the FQI becomes 4.9.

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES RANKING:

2 – Mature Forest (red oak, American beech, hickory) – FQI 11.84 3 – Mature Forest (red maple, green ash) – FQI -2.00

common name

species name

invasive potential

5 – Mature Forest (red oak, green ash) – FQI 3.58

Asiatic tearthumb

Polygonum perfoliatum

High

6 – Mature Forest (black locust, red maple, green ash, black cherry) – FQI 4.02

common reed

Phragmites australis

High

7 – Intermediate Age Forest (red maple, black cherry) – FQI 4.60

garlic mustard

Alliaria petiolata

High

8 – Young Forest (red maple, pin oak, green ash) – FQI 6.96

Japanese honeysuckle

Lonicera japonica

High

9 – Mature Forest (pin oak, red maple) – FQI 8.32

Japanese knotweed

Polygonum cuspidatum

High

10 – Mature Forest (pin oak, green ash, red maple) – FQI 5.00

Norway maple

Acer platanoides

High

11 – Disturbed Community (forest) – FQI -1.13

purple loosestrife

Lythrum salicaria

High

12 – Sedge Wetland Meadow – FQI 11.25

reed canary grass

Phalaris arundinacea

High

13 – Scrub/Shrub Wetland – FQI 9.05

wild rose

Rosa multiflora

High

14 – Disturbed Community – FQI 3.21

bush honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica

Moderate

15 – Monoculture of Invasives – FQI -5.00

eastern burning-bush

Euynomus alatus

Moderate

16 – Hedgerow – FQI -5.00

oriental bitter-sweet

Celastrus orbiculata

Moderate

rice cutgrass

Leersia oryzoides

Moderate

Tartarian honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica

Moderate

European barberry

Berberis vulgaris

Low

European privet

Ligustrum vulgare

Low

northern Catalpa

Catalpa speciosa

Low

royal Paulownia

Paulownia tomentosa

Low

4 – Mature Forest (black cherry, black locust, hickory) – FQI 1.00

To properly apply FQIA to the various plant communities on the School’s property a comprehensive list of the species found in each of the communities needs to be developed, not just a list of the predominant species. From the FQIs that will result from those lists, management decisions can be made.

Invasive examples: Chinese Privet and Burning Bush Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

113

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

This map represents the current state of invasive plant species on The Lawrenceville School Campus. The analysis was performed on remnant natural vegetation patches that are currently un-maintained. All of these areas have invasive plants within them â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the analysis was geared toward a management strategy. Typically, we advocate action at the two ends of the spectrum.

That means, we start with the least and most invaded areas. The best quality areas are improved and protected, and the worst quality areas are mitigated so they become less of a threat to neighboring areas.

Section 5 114

LIVING LABORATORY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE VISION PLAN

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Invasive Species Overview

Ecological Impacts

A biological invasion of non-native plants is spreading into our nations’ fields, forests, wetlands, waterways, and natural areas. Referred to as exotic, nonnative, alien, noxious, or non-indigenous weeds, invasive plants impact native plant and animal communities by displacing native vegetation and disrupting habitats as they become established and spread over time.

Invasive plant species pose one of the greatest threats to the conservation of biological diversity, and are a significant problem for land managers across the United States. Weed invasion is considered the second most serious threat to natural habitats, after habitat fragmentation and loss (Randall 1996).

Thousands of non-indigenous plant species are known to persist in the United States. How many of these are plant invaders? According to the National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils there are a total of 300-plus plant species invading woodlands and meadows in the 49 continental states and Canadian provinces. Some of the plants noted are often found in ornamental plantings and landscapes. In fact, many non-native plants introduced for horticultural and agricultural use now pose a serious ecological threat in the absence of their natural predators and control agents. According to The Flora of North America, one-fifth to one-third of all species growing north of Mexico has come from other continents.

Native plants, which have evolved over millennia, have an important function within an ecosystem. They are an important food source for local wildlife throughout the food chain. They provide shelter to specific wildlife species. They support the soil chemistry and the maturation of the plant community for the richest possible biodiversity. The level of biodiversity in all ecosystems determines their resilience. Invasive species compromise all of these functions. Over time, a single aggressive species may destroy entire communities of native plants and living creatures. Invasive species negatively affect the ecological function of native areas, their economic potential, and their visual quality.

These fast-growing plants rapidly colonize natural areas and compete with native plants for light, soil moisture, and growing space. The loss of native species to invasive plants is usually not a simple substitution of one plant for another. Invasive plants can push out whole communities of native plants and the living creatures that depend on them. Often the invasive species fulfills some roles of an ecological niche, but never all. A particular invasive may be similar in size and form to the native it displaces, but be inedible to insect species that depend upon it due to chemical compound differences. It may provide nesting opportunity for a bird species which seeks a similar habitat, but lack the thorns that protect the nest like the native variety, not to mention the decline in available food for the bird because the insect it depends on is no longer present. The impacts are interwoven and insidious. With time, they can change the entire quality of natural areas, transforming the fundamental natural processes that are an integral part of the local ecology.

Many ecological functions are supported at any one moment in time by a relatively small number of species within an ecosystem. The removal of any one of those species can induce a transformation of the ecosystem. The level of biodiversity in all ecosystems determines their capacity to respond to external shocks, whether human-induced or natural environmental events.

From an ecological perspective, biodiversity protects an ecosystem by equipping it to respond to a range of environmental conditions and changes.

Invasive species that extirpate a native plant from an ecosystem may be critical in undermining the buffering role played by that species. In a time of more frequent and violent weather events exacerbated by global climate change, this loss of resiliency can mean the difference between success or failure of an ecosystem.

Drawing from a National Park Service publication, some ways that invasive plants contribute to the decline of local ecologies include: • • • • • • • • •

replacing complex communities with single species monocultures, thus reducing biodiversity interfering with natural development and maturation of forests and other plant communities altering soil chemistry, which in turn alters nutrient availability and microbiota providing less or poorer-quality food for wildlife and people producing chemicals toxic to native insects and butterflies displacing rare plant species increasing predation on nesting birds serving as intermediate hosts for plant diseases genetically weakening native species through hybridization

Where do they come from?

In some cases, invasive plants arrive purely by accident, as seed in agricultural products, or on shipments from overseas. In other cases, invasive plants are selected for their horticultural attributes. Beautiful, unusual, exceptionally hardy, drought-tolerant, or fast-growing plants are sought by gardeners the world over. Unfortunately, plants selected for their resilience may be invasive because of their adaptable nature.

Section 5

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

115

Economic Concerns In 1993, after an extensive review of exotic species, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) concluded that pest plants and animals have an effect not only on natural areas but also on agriculture, industry and human health. In its report, “Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States,” the agency noted that from 1906 to 1991, just 79 problem plants and animals caused documented losses of $97 billion, and that a worst-case scenario for a mere 15 potentially high-impact species could cause another $134 billion in future economic losses.

Invasive species have a great variety of consequences, ranging from negligible to severe, and each invasive type has its own spectrum of species it affects and its own type of reaction. These impacts have been measured in a great variety of different ecosystems- terrestrial, fresh-water and marine, animal, plant and microbe- and have a great variety of economic and ecological effects. Selected studies have documented the economic loss of some of the biggest invasive culprits. For example: •

•

Lythrum salicaria, (purple loosestrife) which was introduced in the early 19th century as an ornamental plant has been spreading at a rate of 115,000 ha/yr and is changing the basic structure of most of the wetlands it has invaded. Competitive stands of purple loosestrife have reduced the biomass of 44 native plants and endangered wildlife, including the bog turtle and several duck species which depend on these native plants. Loosestrife now occurs in 48 states and costs $45 million per year in control costs and forage losses (ATTRA 1997). It is present in the wetlands on The Lawrenceville School property.

Control of weed species in lawns, gardens, and golf courses is a significant proportion of the total management costs of about $36 billion/yr. In fact, it is estimated that each year about $1.3 billion of the $36 billion is spent just on residential weed, insect, and disease pest control each year. Because a large proportion of these weeds, such as dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) are exotics, it is estimated that $500 million is spent on residential exotic weed control and an additional $1 billion is invested in non-indigenous weed control on golf courses (USBC 1998).

Images of invasive plants: from top to bottom; lesser celandine (also on facing page), Japanese knotweed, purple loosestrife

Section 8 116

LAND

•

In U.S. agriculture, weeds cause an overall reduction of 12 percent in crop yields. In economic terms, this reduction represents about $33 billion in lost crop production annually, based on the crop potential value of all U.S. crops of more than $267 billion/yr (USBC 1998).

Based on the survey that about 73 percent of the weed species are non-indigenous, it follows that about $24 billion/yr of these crop losses are due to introduced weeds. However, non-indigenous weeds are often more serious pests than native weeds; this estimate of $24 billion/yr is conservative. In addition to direct losses, approximately $4 billion/yr in herbicides are applied to U.S. crops (Pimentel 1997), of which about $3 billion/yr is used for control of non-indigenous weeds.

Therefore, the total cost of introduced weeds to the U.S. economy is about $27 billion annually.

As daunting as these losses sound, the extent of economic damage caused by invasive species is only beginning to be appreciated by economists and policy makers, and the methods by which to do so are still being explored or have not been tested at the landscape scale.

•

Hybridization between native cordgrass, (Spartina alterniflora), and an exotic cordgrass, (Spartina folisa), have created a fast growing plant with rhizomatous roots which accentuates tidal sediment build up and has decreased habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl in the San Francisco Bay (Vila et al. 2000).

•

In forests, more than 20 non-indigenous species of plant pathogens attack woody plants. Two of the most serious plant pathogens are the chestnut blight fungus (Cryphonectria parasitica) and Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi). Before the accidental introduction of chestnut blight, approximately 25 percent of eastern U.S. deciduous forest consisted of American chestnut trees. Now chestnut trees have all but disappeared. Removal of elm trees devastated by O. ulmi costs about $100 million/yr. (Mooney and Hobbs 2000).

There have been few attempts to account for the economic costs of these invasions and those that do exist vary very widely. Two estimates of the costs of invaders to the U.S. economy are the US OTA estimates of damage costs totaling approximately $97 billion from 79 exotic species during the period from 1906 to 1991 (US OTA, 1993).

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Consequential Impacts Introduced plants, animals, and pathogens often pose initially hidden, but eventually monumental problems in the U.S. Some of the most costly invaders remained inconspicuous in this country for decades and then spread swiftly.

Their harmful effects are often subtle and surreptitious, but the eventual impacts on the economy or natural environment are no less real, and often disastrous and even irreversible, as when native species disappear.

Invasive plants are estimated to have infested over 100 million acres in the U.S., and every year, they will spread across an added 3 million acres. Every day, up to 4,600 acres of additional federal public natural areas in the western continental U.S. is negatively impacted by invasive plant species (Bureau of Land Management 1996). Invasive species have also dramatically modified some habitats. In some cases, invasive species have altered the ecology of an area to such an extent that the original ecosystem is fundamentally changed.

Some plant invasions have been shown to alter ecosystem processes, like nutrient cycling, fire frequency, hydrologic cycles, sediment deposition and erosion. For example, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has accelerated the fire cycle in western states by 20-fold and the fires are much hotter than ever recorded.

Invasive Species Councils Although widespread interest in the ecological impacts of invasive plants has increased on a national level, there has been very little coordinated effort to address the problems associated with invasive plant species in New Jersey.

On March 5, 2004, Governor McGreevey, by Executive Order No. 97, formed an Invasive Species Council that was supposed to prepare a New Jersey Invasive Species Management Plan and provide it to the Governor by June 2005. The New Jersey Invasive Species Council may have been formed, but it never completed the tasks set out by EO No. 97. The National Invasive Species Council formed by Executive Order 13112 on the other hand is well developed and has a website maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (http://w ww.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml). E.O. 13112 required the preparation of an Invasive Species Management Plan, which was subsequently prepared in 2001. The annual budget (2006) for the National Invasive Species Council is more than $1,255-million, with $465.9-million budgeted for controlling invasives. Many grants are available at state and federal levels to deal with this problem.

Local Challenge

The reach of ecological impact is perhaps even more difficult to assess than the economic effect of invasion. Putting a price on ecosystem services, or those benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems, is incredibly complex. Ecosystem benefits can include timber, game animals, and pharmaceutical products, items in which we have assigned economic value.

Ecosystem services, such as purification of water, sequestration of carbon, regeneration of soil fertility, decomposition of wastes, and maintenance of biodiversity are more complex. Hence, assigning values to such services is vastly more difficult.

Why are invasive plants a problem for The Lawrenceville School? While government policies and practices may help prevent and manage accidental and intentional introduction of potentially harmful and costly exotic species, we as a nation have a long way to go before the resources devoted to the problem are in proportion to the risks. The environmental and economic assessment contained in this report advance the argument that investments made now to the environment will be returned many times over in the restoration of natural ecosystems, diminished losses to woodlands, and lessened threats to existing native plant communities.

The true challenge lies not in determining the precise costs of the impacts of exotic species, but in preventing further damage to natural and managed ecosystems caused by non-indigenous species. Formulation of sound prevention policies needs to take into account the means through which nonindigenous species gain access to and become established in the United States. Since the modes of invasion differ widely, a variety of preventative strategies will be needed. For example, public education, sanitation, and effective screening and searches at airports, seaports, and other ports of entry will help reduce the chances for biological invaders becoming established in the United States.

Lawrence Township consists of managed residential properties with regularly maintained lawns and tidy public spaces. In contrast, The Lawrenceville School owns a significant amount of unmanaged land and watercourses within the townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundaries, and plays a vital role in the distribution and dispersal of invasive plants and seeds. As the property owner, there is an accompanying responsibility- socially, economically, environmentally and educationally- to eliminate the invasives at the source. On the campus, invasive species such as phramites, purple loosestrife, and Japanese knotweed, present the greatest threat to the campus ecological function. Lesser threats include multiflora rose and Chinese privet. Each of these plants inhabits space that would be better occupied by a native plant, which co-evolved with other native species.

For example, in wetlands dominated by purple loosestrife, specialized marsh birds avoid nesting and foraging. The federally endangered bog turtle also loses basking and breeding sites when this invasive encroaches. Less visible, but no less damaging are the effects this plant has on the chemistry of the wetland. The leaves decompose at a different rate than native species altering the nutrients available and directly affecting communities of wildlife that depend on the decomposition of plant tissue in the spring.

An environmental responsibility comes from knowing that invasive plants are taking up space on the campus that would be better occupied by a native plant. Having a excess of invasives in a non-urban setting is like putting down an area of pavement in the forest. They simply do not contribute to the ecology the way a native plant would and they consume soil nutrients that may not get cycled back the way a native plant would.

Managing invasives on the property does not just have to be a maintenance issue. Experiments and monitoring should be woven into the curriculum.

For example, with the help of a program coordinator or visiting ecologist, an experiment can be conducted with leaves from native and invasive plants to see how fast native leaves are consumed versus how fast the invasive leaves are consumed. The theory being that the base of the food chain in a freshwater stream is leaf litter and if the natives are being replaced by invasive plants are we slowly robbing the stream of its source of food. If this deficit increases a little bit each year, it may continue for years at just below the threshold of ecological damage and then one day the scales tip and the stream crashes because there is not enough food to sustain life in the stream.

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

117

This page: clockwise from top left; a collection of invasive plants above The Pond on the stream channel, Japansese honeysuckle, Japansese knotweed, multiflora rose, burning bush.

Facing page: Images of Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose on the campus

Section 8 118

LAND

THE

Invasives Management

To begin any management against invasives, it is important to first identify the most detrimental species. At The Lawrenceville School, the first species that should be removed are the ones that have the greatest ability to spread.

The initial focus of removal should be on Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) and Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed) because they are relatively recent arrivals, and the Phragmites australis (common reed) because it is not as wide spread as the others making a successful outcome happen sooner.

Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) and Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) should be the next targets because they populate the land in more areas than any other invasive on the campus. Others include Eleagnus angustifolia (Russian olive), Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard), Acer platanoides (Norway maple), Euonymus alatus (burning bush), and Ranunculus ficaria (lesser celandine).

To understand the strategy above, it helps to know that in late July, early August, the plant has its reached a point of maximum growth and reproduction.

By cutting it at this time of year, it will sprout again in attempt to store starch for next spring’s growth cycle. Its seed will be 99% non-viable since all of the energy will be focused on rhizome growth. Any effort of treating these newly sprouted shoots with an application of herbicide in the fall will be maximized.

The herbicide will be transported down to the root, further than if you opted not to cut the plant at all.

Here is an example of species-specific strategy targeting Phragmites in a wetland:

• • •

While there is particular method to eradicate each species, the course of action is similar. Mechanical, chemical or biological methods are used to eliminate the invasive species ability to survive. With these practices, there should be a 50-75% reduction in native species each year. After two years of treatment, spot treatment rather than blanket attacks should be sufficient.

However, vigilance is the key to keeping invasive species at bay.

Most of these species are carried by water, so unless one can eradicate them from the entire watershed, some colonizers will always return. After removal, some areas may require restoration, including the planting of native trees and shrubs. The native plant community will return over time as their seeds have quietly waited in the soil for an opportunity to regenerate.

Good general practices will also help management of invasives. These include: - Develop a monitoring and management plan that minimizes the risk of introducing invasive plants, and eradicates any new infestations before they can begin to spread. Prevention is the most effective strategy.

- Avoid planting species known to be aggressive spreaders within the campus landscape. Some popular ornamental plants are well behaved in the garden, but spread relentlessly into nearby woods and fields. Common, but little recognized, invaders include Norway maple (crimson king maple and relatives), burning bush, privet, Japanese barberry, Japanese honeysuckle (vine and shrubs), Japanese maple, amur cork tree, empress tree, English ivy, periwinkle and Bishop’s weed (Goutweed).

- Avoid spreading invasive seeds around. Remove plant fragments from boots and maintenance equipment after use in management projects, and before driving into adjacent natural areas.

- When weeding out invasive plants, throw the fragments onto a tarp, and bag and dispose of the cuttings. Do not throw the cuttings into nearby wood, streams or compost areas.

- Accept topsoil and fill only from sites known to be free of knotweed and other aggressive plant species. Tiny root fragments from some of these aggressive plants are enough to colonize new sites.

Removal of each species may take three to five years. Rather than attempting to eradicate an invasive species campus-wide, it is better to target the best existing habitats for removal first.

•

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

General Guidelines

The most effective strategies for removing established invasive plants vary by species, by site context, and by the size of the area to be managed. The recommendations given here are general guidelines, which are best tailored to meet the needs and constraints of the individual project areas.

•

green

Early August: mechanically cut all of them as low to the ground as possible and if budget is available remove the cut stalks and as may of the old ones as possible.

Early October: Spray the new sprouts that will come up with Rodeo (the best herbicide for killing Phragmites).

Mid spring: spot treat any that survive the treatment.

Early August: cut off and remove any that survived.

Early October: spray any of the new sprouts that come up.

See Appendix for Recommendations on Specific Plant Invaders on The School Campus.

Right: Forest floor dominated by lesser celandine Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

119

Comparison of Landscape Management Techniques Mechanical Management Mechanical landscape management is straightforward – undesirable species should be pulled out be hand or with specially designed tools to remove the roots. Cutting can help, but often this can exacerbate an invasive plant problem many can propagate themselves from small cuttings. This method can be time-consuming be very effective if the timing is correct.

Herbicidal Management Herbicide use should be as limited as possible. Andropogon Associates does not advocate the use of pesticides or herbicides as an approach to land management. While eradicating invasives can be an exhaustive and weighty battle, mechanical means such as hand-pulling and cutting are the recommended procedures. You may see in this report the suggestion of herbicides that use glyphosate as the primary ingredient. The chemical is only absorbed by the leaves of plants and it is not absorbed by the roots from the soil. Glyphosate binds tightly to soil so it does not pass through the soil and end up in the aquifers. It is rapidly metabolized in the soil by

Left: Images of Fire crew performing a control burn, during and after the event; Above: Example of Mechanical Clearing

Section 6 120

LAND

CRITERIA

FIRE

HERBICIDES CRITERIA CRITERIA

FIRE MECHANICAL CRITERIA FIRE CLEARING

Ease of management

Some special equipment &

Equipment generally Ease ofavailable management Ease of–management

Equipment available, no Equipment generally generally available available – management – Equipment Equipment generally Equipment available, available available, no – no Some special Ease Someequipment ofspecial management equipment & &Equipment Some special equipment Ease of & Some special equipment &

Equipment Equipment genera ava

trained crews required

trained crews required

special training for crews trained crews trained required crews required

crewsrequired required trained crews trainedrequired crews

crews trained required training special for training crews for crews trained special crews required

specialcrews training re trained

Frequency of mgt

Low

Relatively low Frequency Frequency of mgt of mgt

LowHigh Frequency Low of mgt

RelativelyLow Relatively low low Frequency of mgt

Relatively High low Low High

Relatively High low

Scheduling

Highly weather dependent

Somewhat weather dependent Scheduling Scheduling

Weather dependent Somewhat weather dependent weather dependent Highly weather Scheduling Highly dependent weather dependent Somewhat Highly weather Scheduling dependent

Somewhat Weather weather dependent Weather dependent dependent Highly weather dependent

Somewhat Weather weathe depen

Increases biodiversity

Best

No

BestUsually Increases Best suppresses biodiversity diversity

Suppresses invasive exotics

Can be very effective

Most effective Suppresses CanMay be very favor Caneffective be disturbance very invasive effective spp.exotics Most effective Can Mostbe effective very effective effective May favor Can May disturbance be favor very effective disturbance spp. spp.

Suppresses invasive exotics invasive exotics Suppresses Suppresses invasiveMost exotics

Most May effective favor distu

Outcome

Somewhat unpredictable

Fairly predictable Outcome Outcome

Somewhat Predictable Outcome Somewhat unpredictable unpredictable Fairly predictable Somewhat Fairly predictable unpredictable Outcome

Fairly Predictable predictable

Environmental hazards

Smoke

Overuse may lead Environmental to problems Environmental hazards hazards

Smoke Erosion Environmental Smoke hazards

Public acceptance

Low – esp. in populated areas

OK – but less acceptable in populated areas Public acceptance Public acceptance

OK – but Low OK less–– acceptable but less acceptable in populated in populated areas OKareas – butGood less acceptable Good LowGood – esp.

Public Low in populated – esp. acceptance in populated areas areas esp. in populated Public acceptance areas Low – esp.ininpopulated populatedareas areas

IncreasesIncreases biodiversity biodiversity

HERBICIDES FIRE HERBICIDES CRITERIA

No

Best No

HERBICIDES MECHANICAL FIRE MECHANICAL CLEARING CLEARING

Increases biodiversity No

UsuallyBest suppresses Usually suppresses diversity diversity

Fairly predictable Predictable Somewhat Predictable unpredictable

Overuse may Smoke Overuse lead may to problems lead Environmental to problemshazards Overuse Erosion may lead Smoke Erosion to problems

HERBICIDES MECHANICAL

NoUsually suppre

Overuse Erosion may lead

OKGood – but less acc

THE

dephosphorylation. Glyphosate herbicides are used most frequently because they are biodegradable. However, glyphosate is a nonselective systemic herbicide that affects all green vegetation. To be safe and effective, herbicide use requires careful knowledge of the chemicals, appropriate concentrations, and the effective method and timing of their application.

Key Issues: Fire and diversity. What is a fire regime? What plant communities benefit from fire? What variables affect fire? What are typical patterns of fire?

What are the consequences of fire suppression?

1.

Fire Management Fire has been a frequent visitor to the North American landscape for thousands of years. During spring and fall dry seasons, and even during periods of summer rain, fires ignited in grass, dry leaves, and brush at the base of lightning-struck trees. Native Americans also set fires to reduce vegetation, improve wildlife or grazing habitat, and create space for crops.

Wildlife were nourished by the diversity of plants that thrived in these regular fire regimes.

During much of the 20th century, intensified fire suppression and prevention activities decreased the frequency of wildfires and the area they covered.

This brought about changes in forest ecosystems. Understory brush and hardwoods became more dense and both live and dead vegetation accumulated, increasing the risk of large and damaging wildfires.

In the last 40 to 50 years these changes in to the nation’s forests have prompted a return to using fire, under carefully controlled conditions, to accomplish many of the same benefits that were historically provided by natural fires. Today, approximately 1.5 to 2 million acres are prescribed burned each year for forest management, agriculture, grazing, and ecological restoration. For the continued use of prescribed fire, landowners and the public alike must understand the value of fire for accomplishing various management goals as well as the constraints that limit its use.

Fire is a natural catalyst for diversity.

Fire deposits a layer of mineral soil – an ideal seedbed for regeneration of indigenous species.

Without fires forested communities become monocultures, have an excess of fuel, and stagnate from inadequate reproduction.

Grasslands become stagnant and are invaded by shrubs and trees.

Cool season grasses tend to dominate over warm season where fire is suppressed.

Fire may be the only effective means of controlling the spread of some insects.

2.

Fire is a natural event in the life cycle of ecological communities.

Many communities are fire-dependent; that is, they require periodic burning to perpetuate the ecosystem. These include grasslands, chaparral, pine forests and certain deciduous forests including aspens and some oaks.

Grassland communities typically burn on a 5 – 10 year regime; pine communities naturally burn every 2 – 25 years.

The longleaf pine / wiregrass community of the southeastern U.S. requires fire every 2 – 3 years in order for the serotinous pinecones to open and reseed. Much research into fire ecology has originated with attempts to reestablish this particular ecosystem.

3.

Fire supports an open landscape character.

Fire dependent communities are characterized by generally more xeric conditions and an open or savannah-type landscape character. An exception is deserts, where the lack of fine fuel will not sustain a fire.

Mesic and hydric communities are typically not fire dependent due to high fuel moisture content / presence of green vegetation in the ground layer.

Marshlands – fires here suppress invasive such as phragmites and increase nutrient availability for wildlife diversity.

Many hardwood species are not favored by burning; fire suppression tends to promote a closed canopy of hardwood species.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

4.

Fire in the natural environment is complex.

Wildland is affected by numerous variables.

Topography, weather / air masses and type and quantity of fuel are probably the most critical.

Air temperature, relative humidity, fuel moisture, and soil moisture also play a significant role.

5.

Local and regional variables affect fire behavior.

Fire will accelerate when moving uphill on a slope.

Fire will accelerate if surface winds are present.

Low fuel moisture, ie. drought conditions, or lots of deadwood will contribute to fire.

Air masses that create updraft may cause a controlled fire to surge into an uncontrolled one.

6.

Fires display several typical patterns.

Ground fires are sustained by glowing combustion that periodically burst into flames.

Surface fires are characterized by a flaming front. They are confines to the ground / shrub / understory layers.

Crown fires are sustained by surface fire and characterized by surges into the canopy. A crown fire requires a heavy fuel load and presence of an air mass suitable for a convective column to form (ie. lacking in surface winds and inversions).

Mass fires (conflagrations) are destructive crown fires characterized by surges and synergistic behavior. The fire in effect creates its own fire environment and may move very rapidly and unpredictably. Speeds of mass fires reach 5 – 25 mph.

7.

Fire management has usually meant fire suppression.

A small percentage of fires become mass fires – on the same logarithmic proportion as floods and earthquakes.

Suppressing all wildland fires has concentrated the fuel reservoir, thus making it much more likely that an uncontrolled fire will be disastrous.

A fire management strategy of redistribution rather than exclusion corresponds to the natural fire regime.

Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

121

Prescribed Burning Key Issues

Controlled burn in forest with rapid vegetative regeneration

•

What is meant by a prescribed burn

•

What are the techniques for burning

•

When is it suitable vs. not suitable to burn

•

What are the effects of burning vs. other vegetation management techniques

Overall management objective: •

Mimic the natural fire regime.

Selective Objectives:

Section 6 122

LAND

•

Reduce fuel accumulation thereby preventing more disastrous fires

•

Improve habitat by increasing plant reproduction – creating seedbed

•

Increasing pH

•

Improve diversity by killing undesirable exotics / cool season annual grasses for spring burn

THE

Types of burns

Preparing for a burn

Headfires – fires that move with the wind • Faster fire that is cooler at surface but hotter 18” and above.

• Most effective for killing shrubs and trees and getting burndown of standing trees, cleaning up brush and debris

1.

Know natural fire regime for your ecosystem – establish the parameters for burning, ie twice in five years; twice in one year, then not for three years. Fire intervals are not naturally regular.

2.

Know site conditions – topography, prevailing winds, amount of live fuel and dead fuel.

3.

Design firebreaks around area to be burned. Use existing paths or roads where possible. Use existing paths or roads where possible.

Use wetlands and open water as firebreaks. Often it will be necessary to plow and / or burn a firebreak. Plow away from area to be burned to avoid sparking debris.

4.

Take care to have accurate up-to-the-minute weather readings. Calm days are less predictable – steady winds from one direction are preferred.

5.

Use reliable equipment and personnel. A typical crew and equipment list for burn might include: 6 to 10 people, 2 pickups, a pumper, small dozer, weather kits, drip torches, a quantity of diesel-gas fuel, two-way radios.

6.

Mop up. Check for smoldering debris after the burn and make sure it is put out.

Backfires – fires that move against the wind • Slower fire that is hotter at surface • Effective for heavier fuel loads – 2000 lbs / acre up.

• Effective for reducing damage to overstory trees • Better for keeping control where weather is risky

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Top: Forest restoration with seedlings protected by plastic tubes Below: Restored forest with dense native understory

Flankfires and strip headfires – burning sideways to the wind • Used when backfire would be too slow but headfire would be too dangerous

Section 6

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

123

SECTION 7

CLIMATE / AIR Cimate / Air Summary Measuring Air Quality Reduced Carbon Emissions through Personal Change

CLIMATE / AIR Global climate change and air pollution are one of the most frequently discussed media topics of our time. As with most complicated environmental issues, it is often overwhelming to conceive of what one can do as an individual, or as part of a community, to positively effect change. Fortunately, there are many actions that The Lawrenceville School community can undertake which can make a serious impact with very little effort:

•

The School can make incremental modifications to its operations and maintenance standards and achieve great functional and fiscal savings.

•

By making landcover changes as suggested in The Vision Plan, emissions could be reduced by more than four times the current rate, with a potential value of greater than $130,000.00 annually.

•

Each individual, by making relatively effortless changes to daily lifestyle, could reduce their carbon footprint by a third.

•

Making these changes within the community could lead to educational opportunities, economic opportunity, and promotion of a genuine image of sustainability.

Climate / Air Summary Air pollution is any chemical, biological or physical substance that alters the natural composition of the atmosphere. Deterioration of air quality is quite harmful to human health, causing illness and even death for thousands of people every year. It is also detrimental to Earth’s equilibrium. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are chemical compounds that naturally accumulate in our atmosphere, absorbing the heat reflected off of the Earth’s surface. By preventing the heat from being lost to space, this insulation makes the planet habitable. The extraordinary increase in GHGs since the Industrial Revolution has intensified this natural process. Major air pollutants come in many forms and result from human activity. The combination of clearing forests, automobile emissions and burning coal, oil and other fuels contribute significantly to GHG emission. Currently, carbon dioxide emissions account for over 80% of GHGs released into our atmosphere. Large quantities of trapped radiation have incrementally increased the Earth’s surface temperature, a phenomenon commonly referred to as global warming.

The effects of global warming are dramatic. Glaciers everywhere are melting at an alarming rate; shrinking ice shelves are altering ecosystems faster than many species can evolve to cope with the changes. Equally, plants and animals in more temperate climates are responding to global warming by moving closer to the poles. Weather patterns have also been affected, with increased frequency and severity of weather events like storms, droughts, and flooding. MIT’s Kerry Emanuel notes that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in the last thirty years while the National Resources Defense Council reported that national precipitation has increased 5-10% since the early 20th century. It is evident that sustained GHG emissions will continue to produce disastrous effects. With this in mind, means of preventing GHGs and air pollution are essential to sustainability plans.

The New Jersey Sustainable State Institute (NJSSI) recognizes the United States as the single greatest producer of GHGs, contributing 23% of the total emissions while representing 5% of the world’s population. It would be globally beneficial to amend this ratio. As small adjustments to individual lifestyle choices can appreciably reduce the total amount of GHG emissions, a community like The Lawrenceville School is in a unique situation. Institutional changes complimented by encouraging the student body to improve their personal habits can lower overall energy use and hence GHG emissions.

Section 7 126

CLIMATE / AIR

One way to conserve energy is to buy recycled paper products. Not only does it decrease forest loss, they require 70 – 90% less energy to make. In a livein, academic setting, the potential energy savings from such a measure is astounding. Likewise, regular light bulbs use up to 60% more energy than compact fluorescent bulbs. The School should replace light bulbs as needed throughout The Campus. At the same time, students should be encouraged to turn off their computers, stereos, TVs, and DVD players when they are not in use. This reduces carbon dioxide output by thousands of pounds per year. Ideally, these appliances should be unplugged when they are not being used. It is estimated that 18 million tons of carbon dioxide every year are wasted keeping display clocks lit and memory chips working when electronic devices are idle. An appealing way to motivate students to change their energy-use behaviors is through Student Dorm Energy Competitions.

Personal responsibility, creativity, and teamwork will be rewarded while peer pressure can be exploited for positive effect. Finally, each student should plant a tree somewhere on The Campus as part of the comprehensive restoration strategy. Over the course of one year, a tree will absorb two thousand pounds of carbon dioxide. (stopglobalwarming.org) Students have a deeper commitment to sustainability goals if they are actively involved in the process and planting a tree is simple, long-lasting, and one of the best BMPs for improving air quality.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Best Management Practices There are BMPs designed to help mitigate the GHGs and protect air quality, many of which overlap those directed towards stormwater management.

The most effective way to decrease GHGs in the atmosphere is to emulate nature’s method of maintaining equilibrium. Nature stores carbon in forests, soil, oceans, and fossil fuels. Trees absorb atmospheric pollutants and store carbon dioxide as biomass. Each year in New Jersey, rural forests and urban trees collectively absorb over 10 million tons of carbon dioxide from the air. (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/gcc/Carbon Sequestration10.pdf) Shrubs and plants also consume carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to oxygen through photosynthesis. Logic would lead to increasing the forest and vegetative cover on The Campus to lessen its ecological impact. This idea is reflected through land cover conversions, for instance converting lawn to meadow or planted areas.

BMPs for climate moderation at The Lawrenceville School Campus

Carbon fixation in soil is another method of sequestration. Nearly 75% of world’s terrestrial carbon is stored as soil organic matter (SOM) in the top three feet of soil. However, not all soils process carbon equally. Because of intensive mechanized tillage and chemical additions, conventionally farmed soils are less productive than organically farmed soils. Transforming The School’s farm from conventional to organic will effectively create a net carbon sink. Global GHG emissions can potentially decline 5-15% per year through carbon sequestration. (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php)

Additional Measures Personal Habit Change Creation of Riparian buffers Detention Basin Retrofit Intensive Wetland treatment systems

Structural BMPs Vegetated Roof Systems and Roof Gardens Rain Gardens Tree Trenches Ponds and Wetlands Storage/Treatment Non-structural BMPs Reduction in Chemical Application Land Cover Conversions Climate Management Education

These non-structural BMPs are quite efficient as they improve air quality and manage stormwater simultaneously. Structural BMPs that also help enhance air quality include rain gardens and tree trenches. Creation of riparian buffers and wetland systems also serve the same purpose by increasing the quantity and expanse of vegetation. In fact, any means of extending the area of vegetated, non-lawn regions improve the locality’s ability to sequester carbon and move closer to sustainability.

Section 7

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

127

15 11 14

1

16 12

MEADOW FOREST VEGETATION

7 4 2 5

AGRICULTURE

9

PLAYING FIELDS

10 6 3

GOLF COURSE

RESIDENTIAL AREAS CORE CAMPUS

13 8

STREAM WETLANDS

current conditions

Section 7 128

CLIMATE / AIR

reference landscape conditions simulated by vision plan

THE Current Conditions

Reference Landscape Conditions

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Difference

Air Pollution Removal Pollutant

Lbs. Removed/yr

Dollar Value

399

$170.00

Ozone

5,048

$15,510.00

Nitrogen Dioxide

2,657

$8,163.00

Particulate Matter

7,307

$14,987.00

Sulfur Dioxide

2,657

$1,994.00

18,068

$40,824.00

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Storage

Total Tons Stored

Pollutant

Lbs. Removed/yr Dollar Value

Carbon Monoxide Ozone

21,159

$65,004.00

16,111

$49,494.00

Nitrogen Dioxide

11,136

$34,212.00

8,479

$26,049.00

Particulate Matter

30,624

$62,815.00

23,317

$47,828.00

Sulfur Dioxide

11,136

$8,357.00

75,725

$171,101.00

Carbon Storage

Total Tons Stored

49.9

Carbon Sequestration

Measuring Air Quality In order to quantify the air quality impacts of The Lawrenceville School, CITYgreen software was used with the GIS landcover data.

Air Pollution Removal 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 well-being 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.

Carbon Storage and Sequestration 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.

209.3

$543.00

8,479

$6,363.00

57,657

$130,277.00

20,465.7

Total Tons Sequestered

Annually

1,271

Total Tons Stored

26,878.9

Total Tons Sequestered

Dollar Value

$713.00

6,413.2 Carbon Sequestration

Lbs. Removed/yr

1,670

Total Tons Sequestered Annually

159.3

Annually

Technical Methodology

Results at The Lawrenceville School

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

The difference in air pollutant removal between the current conditions at The School and the hypothetical “reference landscape” was determined in order to set target goals for the Vision Plan. As seen in the table above, the current conditions allow the property to remove 18,068 lbs. of air pollutants per year - a function worth $40,824. The total carbon stored in trees is approximately 6413.2 tons. Each year, an additional 49.9 tons of carbon is sequestered by the trees from the atmosphere.

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.

For comparison, the “reference landscape”, to be simulated in function by The Vision Plan, would remove 75,725 lbs./year of air pollutants, sequester 209.3 tons of carbon per year, and have a total of 26,878.9 total tons of carbon stored in biomass. The increase in pollutant removal that could be achieved by this plan on this property is more than four times greater than the current conditions. The annual value of this change can be quantified at more than $130,000.00 per year.

These are significant reductions that represent a positive by-product of landscape restoration. Many countries around the globe are currently engaged in carbon credits trading, a potentially lucrative market for landowners managing “carbon sink” landscapes. Even if the United States does not join this marketplace, it may be an interesting exercise for schools to stage competitions across the region, the country, or the planet. Coupling landcover change with some modifications to The School’s operations and the energy habits of its inhabitants could place The Lawrenceville School in a leadership role amongst its peers.

Section 7

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

129

In any given year, tens of billions of tons of carbon move between the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere. Human activities add about 5.5 billion tons per year of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The illustration above shows total amounts of stored carbon in black, and annual carbon fluxes in purple. (Illustration courtesy NASA Earth Science Enterprise)

Section 7 130

CLIMATE / AIR

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Reducing Carbon Emissions Through Personal Change

Carbon Output and Potential Reduction Average Production of CO2/yr (North American)

by Person

by School

15,000

lbs/yr

27,000,000

lbs/yr

1

Person

1,800

People

Action

Reduction

Unplug electronic devices

1,000

lbs/yr

1,800,000

lbs/yr

Recycle 50% of waste

2,000

lbs/yr

3,600,000

lbs/yr

Reduce shower time (by 2 minutes/day)

350

lbs/yr

630,000

lbs/yr

Reduce temperature 2º at night in winter

158

lbs/yr

283,500

lbs/yr

Computers “sleep” after 10 minutes

250

lbs/yr

450,000

lbs/yr

Wash clothes in “warm” or “cold” twice/week

500

lbs/yr

900,000

lbs/yr

1 Person Action

372 Part Time People * Reduction

Share Ride Twice/Week

1,590

lbs/yr

591,480

lbs/yr

TOTAL REDUCTION

5,848

lbs/yr

8,254,980

lbs/yr

POTENTIAL TOTAL

9,152

lbs/yr

18,745,020

lbs/yr

REDUCTION PERCENTAGE * Part time people are reduced in half for calculations

31%

Conserving energy to reduce GHG emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, does not have to mean discomfort and sacrifice. There are many small actions one can do which do not significantly change a lifestyle.

The Lawrenceville School population is roughly 1800 people per day (assuming 328 faculty, staff and their average 1.5 family members each and 800 resident students. 122 part-time faculty and staff and 255 day students are calculated as half, to more accurately establish energy use). Based on this number, calculations show what an impact these small changes make on overall energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The average American generates 15,000 lbs of CO2 every year from personal energy use, transportation, and energy expended for all of the services and products we use. On The School’s Campus that translates to 27,000,000 lbs of CO2 every year.

The practice of setting computer equipment to go to “sleep” mode after 10 minutes, rather than to “screen saver” mode, could avert 250 lbs of carbon emissions per unit annually. Assuming that each resident has one for their use, a total reduction of 450,000 lbs of carbon would be realized.

Finally, if the 372 part-time day staff and day students shared a ride to school two days a week, each person would save 1,590 lbs/yr, which ends up saving 591,480 lbs/yr altogether.

With these minor modifications to daily lifestyle, the residents of The Lawrenceville School could reduce their collective CO2 emissions by 8,254,980 lbs/yr to 18,745,020 – or by 31%, nearly a third of the North American average.

One way of reducing energy consumption is unplugging electronic devices when they are not being used. This includes things like cell phone chargers, hair dryers, and stereos. One person unplugging unused electronics saves 1,000 lbs/yr, and if everyone on The Campus did so, 1,800,000 lbs of CO2 per year would be saved. That’s quite a large number for such little effort.

If The School’s recycling program could reduce the daily waste by half, 3,600,000 lbs of CO2 would be saved every year. In terms of energy, recycling one glass bottle saves enough energy to light a 100-watt light bulb for 4 hours.

Additionally, glass produced from recycled glass reduces related air pollution by 20% and related water pollution by 50%. (www.earth911.org)

Every student should plant a tree as a part of the curriculum - one half of a tree’s weight is carbon -imagine how many tons are stored in a forest.

If residents took slightly shorter showers, or refrained from letting showers run for too long before they got in, 630,000 lbs of CO2 a year would be saved (for 2 minutes of reduction). This is not a suggestion to take three-minute showers by any stretch, just to be more aware of the time showers run. On average, showers flow 2.5 gallons of water each minute and every gallon of heated water used produces 3 ounces of CO2. With these figures it is easy to see how just a couple of minutes here and there, amongst 1800 people, can really make a difference.

A reduction of nighttime winter temperatures in residences of merely 2 degrees would reduce carbon emissions by about 158 lbs of CO2 per year. The total savings would be approximately 283,500 lbs of carbon annually.

Section 7

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

131

SECTION 8

APPENDIX Section 1: LEED in the Landscape Section 4: Environmental Management for Golf Courses Section 4: Spatial Data Library Section 5: Stormwater Analysis By Sub-basin Section 6: Techniques for managing invasive Plants Section 6: Plant Sampling techniques

LEED IN THE LANDSCAPE

Section 8

134

APPENDIX

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

135

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GOLF COURSES Since its inception in 1992, the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) has been assisting golf courses in their efforts to blend environmentally responsible maintenance practices into day-to-day golf course operations.

Drawing upon the expertise and experience of golf course superintendents, golf industry experts, university researchers, and environmental professionals from diverse backgrounds, Audubon International has developed Standard Environmental Management Practices that are generally applicable to all golf courses. These practices form the basis for the ACSP’s certification guidelines.

Environmental Planning Evaluation and planning helps course managers to balance the demands of golf with their responsibility to the natural environment. An initial site assessment and environmental plan, followed by yearly review and goal setting, helps golf course superintendents and others to responsibly care for the land, water, wildlife, and natural resources upon which the course is sustained.

• •

• • •

•

•

Conduct a site assessment to evaluate current environmental management practices, identifying strengths and liabilities.

Develop a map of the course that highlights wildlife habitats, water resources, and management zones to use for planning and project implementation.

Set goals and priorities and assign responsibilities to staff.

Evaluate progress toward goals and objectives at least once per year.

Train employees regarding the importance of environmental performance and specific techniques for ensuring environmental quality.

Communicate regularly to employees, customers, stakeholders, and community members about environmental goals, issues, project implementation, and progress.

Document environmental activities and results to assist with planning and track progress.

Golf courses provide extraordinary opportunities for nature conservation, when proper environmental management practices are followed.

Section 8 136

APPENDIX

Golf and Environment Wildlife and Habitat Management Implementing environmental management practices enhances existing natural habitats and landscaping on the golf course to promote wildlife and biodiversity conservation. The great variation in golf course location, size, and layout, as well as special wildlife species and habitat considerations, must be accounted for when planning and implementing appropriate practices.

General Knowledge •

•

• •

Identify core habitats, such as mature woodlands, wetlands, or stream corridors, and special habitat concerns, such as endangered or threatened species, on the property.

Train staff to understand that management practices may positively enhance or adversely impact wildlife species and habitats on the property.

Identify the dominant native plant community and ecological region in which the golf course is located.

Maintain an on-going written inventory of at least bird and mammal species to document and track wildlife use of the property.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancements • •

•

• •

•

Maintain natural wildlife habitat in at least 50% of all minimally used portions of the property.

Connect small and large natural areas as much as possible to improve wildlife movement throughout the golf course and from the course to neighboring natural areas. For instance, connect woods, meadows, stream corridors, and ponds with corridors of natural vegetation.

Maintain or plant varying heights and types of plants, from ground cover to shrub and tree layers in habitat areas such as woods, desert, or prairie (e.g., leave understory in woodlands; maintain grasses and herbaceous plants in tall grass areas).

Leave dead trees standing when they do not pose a safety hazard.

Maintain a water source for wildlife with aquatic plants and shrubbery or native landscaping along the shoreline (i.e., not turfgrass). This could be a pond, stream, wetland, or river corridor. On smaller properties, this may also include a birdbath or created “backyard” pool.

Naturalize at least 50% of out-of-play shorelines with emergent aquatic and shoreline plants. Give special attention to shallow water areas (<2ft. deep) since wildlife is most abundant when shallow water includes emergent aquatic vegetation.

• •

Choose flowers for gardens or container plants that will provide nectar for hummingbirds or butterflies.

Maintain nesting boxes or other structures, when appropriate, to enhance nesting sites for birds or bats.

A diversity of wildlife and habitats add to the nature of the game.

Habitat Protection and Biodiversity Conservation • •

•

•

•

• • •

Complete any mitigation projects required by permit.

Protect wildlife habitats, and any endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species, from disturbance by golfers and maintenance activities.

Use buffers, mounted signs, fencing, or designated “environmentallysensitive zones” (per USGA rules) as needed.

Establish and maintain at least 80% of the landscaped trees, shrubs, and flowers, excluding turfgrass, with plants that are indigenous to the native plant community of the ecological region of the property.

Purchase landscape plants from locally-grown sources, whenever possible, to support the genetic integrity of local native plant communities.

Avoid disturbing known bird nests or den sites until after young have dispersed. Stake or flag such areas when needed (e.g., rope killdeer nests; avoid removing shrubs or trees during bird nesting season if nests are present; do not mow fields until after bird nesting season).

Restore degraded habitats, such as eroded slopes, compacted soils, polluted water sources, or areas overrun with invasive exotic species.

Clean up trash from habitat areas when necessary.

Confine roads, cart paths, trails, and necessary vegetation removal to the edges of existing habitats to minimize habitat disturbance and fragmentation.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Chemical Use Reduction and Safety Golf courses must employ best management practices and integrated pest management techniques to ensure safe storage, application, and handling of chemicals and reduce actual and potential environmental contamination associated with chemical use.

Proper turf management ensures healthy turf and a healthy environment.

General Knowledge

• •

• • •

Meet applicable state/provincial and federal regulations for chemical storage, handling, application, and disposal.

Train maintenance staff in the basic tenets of integrated pest management.

Educate maintenance staff about the risks to human health and the environment associated with chemical manufacturing, use, storage, and disposal, including: acute and chronic health problems, degraded water quality and soil health, and negative impacts to wildlife and habitats.

Cultural Practices and IPM Techniques •

•

Maintain green, tee, and fairway mowing heights at levels that can be reasonably maintained on a day-to-day basis without continually stressing turf or maximizing chemical inputs.

Inventory soil types for all playing surfaces and assess conditions such as soil structure, nutrient levels, organic content, compaction, and water infiltration.

Environmental management practices begin at the maintenance facility with staff training and the proper storage and handling of equipment and chemicals.

•

•

• •

• • •

•

• •

Regularly work to improve soil health. This may include: amending organic content, aerating, and improving water infiltration to cultivate a diverse, living biotic soil community.

Base fertilizer applications upon soil test information.

Maximize turf health and minimize resource inputs by improving turf conditions.

Plant pest-resistant or stress-tolerant cultivars on playing surfaces and in landscaping. Select plant species/cultivars best suited for climate, soils, and growing conditions.

Designate and train key staff to monitor plant health and pest populations as part of the IPM program.

Identify and record turf “hot spots” where disease or insect outbreaks first occur. Identify other areas where poor growing conditions often lead to problems.

Use scouting forms to record the type, severity, location, and treatment of pest problems.

Establish aesthetic and functional thresholds for insects, fungal diseases, and weeds for all managed areas.

Evaluate potential control measures, including alterations in cultural management, biological, physical, and mechanical controls, and chemical methods.

Consider the environmental impact of pest control measures, e.g, leaching and runoff potential, toxicity to non-target organisms, soil absorption capacity, pesticide persistence, water solubility, effects on soil microorganisms.

Actively work to reduce turf stresses and change cultural practices or other conditions to prevent or discourage recurrence of problems.

Maintain records of treatments employed and their effectiveness and use them to guide future pest control decisions.

Best Management Practices for Chemical Use • • • • •

•

• •

Pesticides are applied by a trained, licensed applicator or as directed by law.

Maintain a current Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each chemical at the facility.

Read and follow label directions when using chemical products.

Apply pesticides only when and where scouting indicates that pest threshold levels have been exceeded.

Treat problems at the proper time and under the proper weather conditions to maximize effectiveness and minimize harmful environmental impacts.

Employ practices and use products that reduce the potential for contamination of ground and surface water, e.g., curtains on application equipment, spoon-feeding, slow-release products, and selected natural organic products.

Eliminate potential chemical runoff and drift by avoiding applications during high winds or prior to heavy rains.

Establish “no spray zones” and buffer areas, particularly around water features and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Communication and Education •

•

•

• • • •

Train and encourage continuing education for maintenance staff, including state/provincial licensing, professional association training, and IPM certification. If applicable, provide non-English speaking employees with training in their native languages.

Communicate with employees and clientele regarding the IPM program to maintain a dialogue regarding thresholds, epidemics, and control measures in relation to environmental quality.

Communicate with the green committee, club manager, and club pro, as appropriate, to coordinate and assure support for needed golf maintenance activities.

Maintenance Facility and Equipment Chemical storage structure should be secure, well ventilated, and allow limited personnel access.

Organize maintenance facility for efficient and proper storage of equipment and supplies.

Properly calibrate all equipment used to apply materials.

Prevent gasoline, motor oil, brake and transmission fluid, solvents, and other chemicals used to operate and maintain equipment and vehicles from contaminating soils, surface waters, or ground water.

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

137

Water Conservation • • • • • •

Clean and maintain equipment in ways that prevent wash water from draining directly into surface waters (e.g., lake, pond, stream).

Properly store all chemicals. Pesticides and fertilizers are stored on plastic or metal shelving to keep them off the floor.

Store liquid products below dry materials.

Handle all pesticides over an impermeable surface.

Keep a spill containment kit readily available and follow spill containment procedures.

Triple rinse, puncture, and properly dispose of empty chemical containers.

Additional Maintenance Facility Standards NOTE: The following maintenance facility specifications are considered standard for environmentally-responsible chemical storage and handling. Because they involve infrastructure standards, we strongly recommend them, but do not require them for certification in the ACSP for Golf Courses.

• Fuel is stored on an impervious surface that has spill containment and a roof.

• Chemical storage structure is fire proof.

• Explosion-proof lights are used in chemical storage and maintenance areas.

• Chemical storage area has a sealed metal or concrete floor, and spills are contained by a sump located near the middle of the floor, and a lip along the edges.

• Grass clippings are blown off equipment with compressed air instead of, or prior to, washing with water.

• A catch basin to collect grass clippings, grease, and oils is installed and maintained.

Reminding golfers to replace divots and repair ball marks raises awareness of the importance of proper turf care. Above, a tee marks the spot of each golfer violation.

Water conservation on the golf course involves maintaining irrigation equipment to maximize efficiency and minimize waste, as well as employing water conserving irrigation practices.

• • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • •

•

138

APPENDIX

•

General Knowledge

•

Section 8

•

Prioritize water conservation and train employees to employ conservation techniques.

Identify water sources used for irrigation and drinking water.

Train key staff to operate and manage the irrigation system correctly.

Properly install and maintain irrigation equipment, retention structures, and plumbing fixtures.

Eliminate uncontrolled releases of water out of water retention structures.

Design, install, and test the performance of the irrigation system to maximize the efficient use of water.

Inspect the irrigation system for proper water distribution in all irrigated areas at least once per year.

Adjust rotation speed and operating pressure to match sprinkler spacing to nozzle performance.

Check all irrigation equipment daily and maintain the system on a regular schedule.

Fix leaks in a timely manner.

Eliminate non-target watering (e.g., sidewalks, ponds, habitats).

Maintain the pump station regularly to ensure efficient operation.

Upgrade the irrigation system, or components of system (e.g., valves, sprinkler heads, nozzles, computer software), to reduce inefficiency and malfunction and reduce water use.

Install part-circle irrigation heads where possible, to save water.

Incorporate evapotranspiration rates or weather data into daily irrigation decisions.

Avoid running the irrigation system at peak evapotranspiration times.

Water “hot spots” to target needed areas only, rather than running the entire irrigation system during the peak of the day.

Maintain soils and turfgrass to maximize water absorption and reduce runoff and evaporation, including: maintain soil cover, improve soil structure, add or maintain natural organic matter in the soil, and improve drainage.

Reduce or eliminate irrigation on all unused or minimally used portions of the property.

Monitor daily water use, tally monthly usage, and set targets for yearly improvement.

Use turfgrass on greens, tees, and fairways that is appropriate for the local climate and growing conditions.

Hand watering dry spots often saves water by eliminating the need to run the entire irrigation system.

Water Quality Management The use of best management practices helps golf courses to protect the health and integrity of water resources. Water quality monitoring provides a valuable tool for evaluating whether management practices are working.

General Knowledge • • • •

•

•

•

• •

Prioritize the protection of water quality, both on and off the golf course, and train staff to use BMPs to prevent pollution.

Identify the specific watershed in which the property is located, including where wastewater and runoff go after leaving the property.

Eliminate/mitigate erosion to water bodies, such as streams, lakes, and ponds.

Employ environmentally-sensitive plant management techniques within 25 feet of all water bodies and well heads to minimize nutrient and chemical inputs.

Eliminate potential chemical runoff and drift near water bodies by designating “no spray” zones, using spot treatments, increasing thresholds for pest problems, using covered booms, and taking the weather into account prior to application.

Raise mowing heights along in play shorelines to slow and filter runoff.

(Research has shown that, on a slight slope, a 25-foot buffer of 3-inch turf provides filtering benefits.)

Reduce the potential for nutrient loading to water bodies by employing BMPs, such as: using slow-release fertilizers, spoonfeeding, and filtering drainage through vegetative or mechanical filters prior to entering water bodies.

Calibrate and adjust fertilizer and pesticide equipment to prevent misapplication.

Maintain and clean maintenance equipment in a manner that eliminates the potential for on-site or off-site contamination of water bodies.

THE

• • •

•

•

•

Store all chemicals in a manner that eliminates the potential for onsite or off-site contamination of water bodies.

Mix and load pesticides in an area that guarantees spill containment.

Handle and apply fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals in a manner that eliminates potential on-site or off-site contamination of water bodies.

Dispose of all chemical containers and all waste materials in a manner that eliminates the potential for on-site or off-site contamination of water bodies.

Reduce/eliminate the need for chemical algae control in ponds through proper aeration, nutrient reduction, bio-filters, vegetation management, or bio-controls.

When aquatic weed management is required, seek a physical solution (e.g., hand removal of plants) first, and then seek the least toxic method of chemical weed control. Address any underlying causes of the problem.

Streams add beauty and challenge to golf courses, as well as valuable wildlife habitat. Employing BMPs protects water quality both on and off the course.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Water Quality Management: Monitoring

Outreach and Education

•

Golfer support for the environmental management program is essential to its long-term success. A variety of education and outreach activities assist golf course maintenance staff to communicate with patrons and community members and invite participation where appropriate.

Note: The ACSP for Golf Course requires that golf courses form a Resource Advisory Group to help plan and implement environmental projects and educational efforts. Representatives from the golf course, as well as the local community, often participate to offer advice or volunteer assistance.

• •

Visually monitor water bodies for water quality problems, such as erosion, algae, aquatic “weed” growth, fish kills, sediment buildup, etc., as part of regular IPM scouting activities.

Report water quality problems immediately to supervisors and, if required, regulatory agencies for appropriate action.

Establish baseline data for representative water bodies and water sources that may be adversely affected by golf course operations.

Testing practices may include: i.

If there is a creek/stream/river that flows through the golf course, water is tested where water enters and exits the property. ii.

Physical characteristics: dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and specific conductivity. iii.

Nutrients- nitrogen (nitrate and ammonia) and total phosphorus. iv.

Macroinvertebrates- surveys for aquatic organisms to determine water quality in streams. v.

Baseline tests conducted 4x/year for at least a year. vi.

Re-test water sources at least one time per year, or sooner if problems occur. vii. Keep written records of monitoring activities, results, and control measures taken if needed.

Communication, Education, and Involvement •

• •

Communicate environmental goals, objectives, and projects to patrons, staff, and company decision makers. Provide regular updates about progress and accomplishments. Activities may include: one-on-one communication, presentations to the board and committees, environmental display board, newsletter articles, special brochures, signage, posters, scorecard information, course tours, and workshops.

Invite employees, patrons, and community members to help with stewardship projects, as appropriate. For instance: monitoring nest boxes, inventorying wildlife species, hosting workshops or tours.

Communicate with neighboring property owners, homeowners’ associations and community groups to inform them of course’s involvement in the various environmental stewardship projects (e.g., letters to neighbors; press releases; presentations at workshops, seminars, committee meetings).

Community groups often welcome opportunities to participate in golf course environmental projects, such as water monitoring, wildlife surveys, and nest box construction.

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

139

Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) Certification Overview Audubon International awards certification to recognize golf courses that protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and provide wildlife habitats. Achieving certification demonstrates a course’s leadership, commitment, and high standards of environmental management.

Who can achieve certification?

Golf courses enrolled in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP) may apply for certification. There are no restrictions on the types of golf courses that are eligible- nine-hole par 3 courses, courses with tight layouts, municipal courses, resort courses, tournament courses, and country clubs are encouraged to become certified.

How long does it take?

Most courses achieve certification within one to three years, depending on how quickly they plan, organize, implement, and document their environmental practices.

What does certification cost?

The annual registration fee for the ACSP is $150 ($200 international), which includes certification materials and review. There are no additional fees for certification.

What is involved?

ACSP members receive a Certification Handbook to guide certification efforts and documentation. The golf course begins by completing a Site Assessment and Environmental Plan form, provided in the handbook. This information helps golf course personnel to take stock of current environmental management practices and plan improvements.

The course submits its Site Assessment and Environmental Plan to Audubon International and receives a Certification Status Report that offers suggestions to help it proceed toward certification. Staff is also available via phone and email to assist golf course personnel.

Section 8 140

APPENDIX

Once the Site Assessment and Environmental Plan is reviewed by Audubon International, the course implements its plan and documents its efforts and results in each environmental quality area. Designation as a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary is awarded to a golf course upon meeting environmental management standards in the following five areas: • • • • •

Wildlife and Habitat Management Chemical Use Reduction and Safety Water Conservation Water Quality Management Outreach and Education

How does Audubon International verify that the golf course is meeting certification standards?

Written and photographic documentation is required to achieve certification.

If required information is missing or management practices are not in place, Audubon International places a “pending” status on the certification request.

This enables the course to provide the needed documentation or further develop its management strategies.

On-site verification by a qualified third party is required within two years of the initial certification. Recertification is required every two years to ensure that courses continue to uphold certification standards. Courses that do not submit the appropriate documentation or are no longer meeting program requirements are decertified.

What are the benefits of certification as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary?

•

•

•

Environmental Quality– The environmental management practices required for certification help golf courses to improve the quality of our land, water, and air, and to conserve natural resources for future generations.

Image and Reputation– Proven environmental performance can help a course differentiate itself from others in a crowded market and add value by improving public relations and marketing opportunities that attract new golfers or club members.

Customer Satisfaction– Enhancing the nature of a course can enrich golfers’ experience of the game. Surveys show that golfers rank “being outside in nature” among their top reasons for playing golf.

•

•

•

Financial Performance- An effective golf course environmental management program can result in reduced insurance premiums, as well as reduced costs for energy, water, pesticides, fertilizers, equipment wear, and labor.

Worker Safety and Reduced Liability- Best practices for chemical management reduce exposure and liability risks associated with storing, handling, and applying chemicals.

Improved Efficiency– Proper environmental management cuts down on waste and promotes efficient operations.

For more information please e-mail Joellen Zeh, at jzeh@auduboninternation al.org or call (518) 767-9051 x14.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

141

SPATIAL DATA LIBRARY Context

Library Organization

The Lawrenceville Spatial Data Library (LSDL) is a collection of geographic data intended to support the students, faculty and staff of the Lawrenceville School in locating, obtaining, and using geospatial data in an accessible and meaningful way. Spatial data, used in conjunction with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), can be a very powerful tool for communicating information or creating spatial perspectives among users. In addition, data analysis and mapping can inform research and decision making, or simply facilitate the sharing of ideas among the Lawrenceville community.

Ultimately there are many ways to organize and store geographic data within a database. It is most commonly arranged in a logical fashion; however keep in mind that what is logical to one person may be nonsensical to another.

Typically, data is broken down by larger categories or headings under which several corresponding datasets reside. Some examples of headings may include Political, Regional, Geology, or State. For the LSDL, we chose to store our data in a geodatabase, or a geographic database. Essentially, a geodatabase is a Microsoft Access file that stores data much like any other object-oriented data structure. Files in a geodatabase follow a standard hierarchy where certain rules apply to certain objects within the database. As an example, we utilized a feature dataset called Geology. Within this feature dataset, we have 10 feature classes; some are polygon feature classes and some are line feature classes. The common denominator is, however, that all feature classes within the Geology feature dataset exhibit the same projection.

If for some reason a new geologic feature class were created, but it had a different projection, it would have to be placed outside the Geology dataset or within a feature dataset of a similar projection.

Geographic data are available in numerous formats, sizes and file types. For instance, the topographic relief map shown below uses a digital elevation model, or DEM, to indicate the changes in elevation within The Lawrenceville School boundaries. A DEM uses raster cells, or pixels, to represent data.

In this case, each raster is a 4 x 4 foot representation of actual ‘real world’ elevation. As indicated by the red arrows, the elevation decreases from the northwest to the southeast as it approaches the creek tributary identified by the blue lines. This provides a good example of how general observations about the landscape and its existing characteristics could help to inform future projects, site analyses, or simple discussions about place.

Objectives Over the past several decades, the process by which we record and represent contextual information has shifted from hand-drawn paper maps to digital media. Furthermore, the availability and diversity of information accessible to researchers has increased tremendously, challenging educators and students to derive necessary and significant data from sometimes overwhelming sources. In an effort to simplify data searching, we compiled a database of relevant geographic data for the Lawrenceville School and Mercer County.

Our objectives in doing this were to: • • • • • • •

Help the Lawrenceville community better understand their local geography and create a sense of place Support research and teaching that relies on geographic analysis Collect and disseminate spatial datasets from scattered sources Enable collaboration in the Lawrenceville community through centralized access to GIS resources Collect, organize and analyze information as a means of understanding projects and their context Create new information by combining or extracting existing information with ideas or with other information Promote the sharing of information to help solve mutual problems

Section 8 142

APPENDIX

Map projections, simply put, attempt to portray the curvature of the earth onto a flat surface. Imagine an orange peel that wants to lay flat on a piece of paper. It’s nearly impossible to get all parts of the peel completely flat on the surface without some kind of distortion. With projections, this distortion is described in terms of direction, distance, scale, area and conformality.

Certain projections minimize distortions in these properties while sacrificing accuracy and alignment in others. Due to the quantity and complexity of projections, it is important to have an understanding of them before beginning any GIS project. If not adequately understood, many frustrating hours may be spent trying to align layers necessary for analysis. A great resource for understanding map projections can be found at http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/ MapProjections/projections.pdf.

Making GIS functionality easily available to the Lawrenceville community unfolds new challenges for both educators and users. Because the LSDL is a library application, the expertise needed to navigate the data library will likely be located outside of where the data is actually being used. Reference librarians should be informed about GIS as a resource; training sessions or brown-bag lunches could be offered to guide users through the GIS environment. Once the software is understood and in place, it is likely that requests for updates or new information will be made. This is an excellent opportunity for the Lawrenceville community to build a rich data repository of valuable and meaningful spatial data.

The easiest way to upload new data into the database is through the use of ArcCatalog. ArcCatalog acts as a Windows Explorer equivalent for the ESRI suite of software. Due to the number of different files associated with one shapefile or feature class, it is important to get into the habit of managing GIS data through ArcCatalog. Let’s assume we created a shapefile in ArcView called ‘Parcels’. If viewed in Windows Explorer, the Parcels file would actually contain between three and five other files! The most important files to any shapefile or feature class contain the following extensions: .shp, .shx, .dbf.

These are the nuts and bolts of any shapefile. Eliminating just one of these files will cause the entire file to be corrupted and unusable. Countless hours can be spent trying to recover lost data due to the misunderstanding or mismanagement of GIS data. Therefore, it is necessary to provide proper training to users before any major projects are implemented.

THE

Library Structure

Recommendations

The geodatabase hierarchy we chose for the LSDL consists of six feature datasets, five raster datasets, five individual feature classes and two tables.

The breakdown of the feature datasets, which contain several to many feature classes, are shown in the image above. In an effort to provide an understanding of The Lawrenceville School within its regional context, we chose to define the spatial data in terms of the existing physical structure of the land.

We are living in a digital age. It seems appropriate to consider all the possibilities when thinking about the future of the LSDL. In order to support the technical environment required by the GIS, trained staff are necessary to provide assistance with research and troubleshooting. ESRI offers numerous on-line courses through their virtual campus series (http://training.esri.com/ gateway/index.cfm). These virtual campus courses range in length from 1 to 24 hours long and costs vary from free to several hundred dollars. Also, as mentioned above, training seminars offer an effective means of teaching concentrated lessons in shorter sessions.

We incorporated Cultural, Environmental Sensitivity, Geology, Hydrography, Political, and Vegetation data in the library. The feature classes located within these feature datasets are logically placed; that is, dikes, faults and folds were placed in Geology because they are geologic features. Imagine a library that also contained feature datasets for Transportation or Sustainability. Measures for each could be selected and mapped by students or simply derived from other sources and added to the database with little effort.

The LSDL also contains raster datasets. As mentioned above, rasters are pixelated cells containing numerical values. For instance, the Slope raster dataset represents the change in slope from one cell to the next cell, or neighboring cell. Rasters make up their own entity within the geodatabase.

They are isolated from the vector data or feature classes even though their characteristics or context may be similar. The raster datasets that are included within the LSDL include Aspect, DEM_regional, DVRPC_aerial, Slope and TINgrid2. These contain information on solar aspect, 30 meter elevation, aerial data, slope and 4 foot elevation, respectively. In addition weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve provided access to the .mxd files created for the Land and Water Management Analysis. Keep in mind, however, that .mxd files only store file paths, not actual data. For example, when a mapping project is copied and sent elsewhere, the project must include the .mxd files plus all the shapefiles or feature classes (and their necessary counterparts â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see above) contained within the project.

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Implementing the use of ArcIMS (Internet Mapping Server) would allow the Lawrenceville community to publish web-accessible, high-quality maps. In addition, data from multiple sources stored locally or on the Internet, could be added to maps. ArcIMS provides a scalable framework, making it easy to access and customize.

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

143

STORMWATER ANALYSES BY SUB-BASIN Context In order to quantify the stormwater regime of the watercourses flowing through The Lawrenceville School, it is necessary to examine the entire watershed, and then to divide it into sub-basins for detailed study. By comparing the area and the landcover of each sub-basin, calculations can be made to determine both the stormwater volume and quality that is contributed within each. The two-year, 24-hour storm event is the standard precipitation model that is used to model the impacts. In this location, the design storm is 3.25 inches within a 24-hour period.

By examining the stormwater quantity and quality contributed within each watershed sub-basins, target goals can be established and BMPs sited to achieve those goals. The choice of type, size, and quantity of BMPs is highly dependant upon local conditions such as soil type and existing structures or landscapes. Ultimately, choice of BMP should respond to a balance between volume reduction and water quality improvement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; generally, it is cheaper to reduce the former and more expensive to improve the latter. It is also important to consider spatial location within the sub-basin when siting BMPs. Simply put, water flows downhill and it is often difficult to find enough area below a stormwater producing area to effectively absorb and treat it. The most effective strategy is to deal with the problem with multiple BMPs, sited where each problem occurs, rather than collecting water in large systems.

A good example of a difficult situation is Lavino Field House and its parking areas. These impervious areas are directly adjacent to the stream below The Pond, allowing almost no space for BMPs. Some potential solutions include changing the parking surface to permeable asphalt with infiltration beneath, but the soils in the lower half of the main parking lot are too wet for good infiltration. A cistern or other runoff capture and re-use strategies should be constructed to harvest the roof runoff from the building.

The position of The School in the Shipetaukin Creek watershed is challenging because it is downhill from the town of Lawrenceville. It cannot be emphasized enough that efforts should be made to educate the community about small, reasonable stormwater management changes that each person could make to their property. This is probably the most efficient means of mitigating the stormwater burden entering the property from uphill.

Section 8 144

THE

Subbasin

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Total

Impervious

%

Acreage

Acreage

Impervious

A-1

253.49

53.81

21.23%

A-2

81.37

11.46

14.08%

A-3

85.78

19.07

22.23%

B-1

118.27

21.98

18.58%

B-2

100.17

4.06

4.05%

C-1

48.60

13.44

27.65%

C-2

148.40

1.52

1.02%

C-3

114.54

4.71

4.11%

D-1

2498.10

184.88

7.40%

D-2

31.97

4.88

15.26%

D-3

49.23

1.64

3.33%

D-4

182.99

1.01

0.55%

D-5

147.85

0.00

0.00%

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

145

STORMWATER ANALYSES BY SUB-BASIN : CURRENT CONDITIONS Current Conditions Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture

Reference Landscape Conditions Acres

Percent

46.4

7.4%

186

29.6%

203.7

32.4%

Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75%

24.4

3.9%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter

52.2

8.3%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil

96.8

15.4%

Urban - 85% Impervious

0.9

0.1%

Urban - 20% Impervious

14.2

2.3%

4.6

0.7%

629.2

100.0%

Water Area Total

Reference Landscape - Forest, Meadow, Wetlands, BMPs for stormwater management

Water Area Total

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume)

2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES)

2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES)

Runoff Curve Number Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

72

Runoff Curve Number

0.96

inches

2,194,602.0

cu. ft.

50.4

acre ft.

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand

Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Acres

Percent

Acres

624.6

99.3%

527.8

4.6

0.7%

629.2

100.0%

0

64 0.58

inches

1,330,853.0

cu. ft.

30.6

acre ft.

0.38 863,749.0 19.8

inches

66%

cu. ft.

65%

acre ft.

65%

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) 29.6700

ppm

Biological Oxygen Demand

Cadmium

0.0028

ppm

Chromium

% Change 14.5600

ppm

15.1100

ppm

104%

Cadmium

0.0009

ppm

0.0019

ppm

211%

13.7100

ppm

Chromium

0.3800

ppm

13.3300

ppm

3508%

Chemical Oxygen Demand

6.8300

ppm

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.3500

ppm

6.4800

ppm

1851%

Copper

0.0105

ppm

Copper

0.0105

ppm

0.0000

ppm

0%

Lead

0.0070

ppm

Lead

0.0058

ppm

0.0012

ppm

21%

Nitrogen

1.2300

g/ml

Nitrogen

0.9300

g/ml

0.3000

g/ml

32%

Phosphorus

0.1562

g/ml

Phosphorus

0.0589

g/ml

0.0973

g/ml

165%

Suspended Solids

7.0700

g/ml

Suspended Solids

6.7000

g/ml

0.3700

g/ml

6%

Zinc

0.1863

ppm

Zinc

0.1639

ppm

0.0224

ppm

14%

Section 8 146

Landcover

Difference

APPENDIX

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

MEADOW FOREST VEGETATION AGRICULTURE PLAYING FIELDS GOLF COURSE 15 11 14

RESIDENTIAL AREAS CORE CAMPUS

1

16

STREAM

12

WETLANDS 7 4 2 5 9 10 6 3

13 8

current conditions

reference landscape conditions simulated by vision plan

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

147

STORMWATER ANALYSES BY SUB-BASIN : SUB BASIN A Sub-basin A Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75%

School Contribution Sub-basin A Acres 84.9

Percent 20.2%

119.4 5.1 0.0

28.4% 1.2% 0.0%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

3.5

0.8%

27.6 8.6 168.2 2.9

6.6% 2.0% 40.0% 0.7%

Total

420.2

100.0%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75% Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

Acres 28.7

Percent 6.8%

97.1 1.7 0.0

23.1% 0.4% 0.0%

-22.3 -3.4 0

3.0

0.7%

-0.5

18.1 0.9 4.3 2.7

4.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.6%

-9.5 -7.7 -163.9 -0.2

Total

156.5

37.2%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions

78 1.31 1,998,307.0 45.9

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

41.0000 0.0042 23.7200 12.3800 0.0105 0.0079 1.4500 0.2292 49.7000 0.2031

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

Difference

Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Acres -56.2

72 0.96 545,217.0 12.5

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

29.6700 0.0028 13.7100 6.8300 0.0105 0.0070 1.2300 0.1562 7.0700 0.1863

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

0.35 1,453,090.0 33.4

11.3300 0.0014 10.0100 5.5500 0.0000 0.0009 0.2200 0.0730 42.6300 0.0168

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

% Change 38% 50% 73% 81% 0% 13% 18% 47% 603% 9%

Sub Basin A: Watershed sub-basin A (A-1, A-2, A-3) is one of the most impervious and impaired in the entire watershed. The bulk of The Lawrenceville School’s core campus falls within it. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 12.5 acre feet out of a total of 45.9 acre feet (27%).

Section 8 148

APPENDIX

In terms of area, 156.5 acres of The School’s land are represented (37.2% of the total area of 420.2 acres). This means that a significant amount of stormwater (73%) is coming from off the property and flowing into The Pond. However, The School’s property produces a great amount of stormwater relative to the land area because the core campus is so impervious.

The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 72, as compared to 78 for the entire subbasin, which is not appreciably different from the surroundings. BMPs will have to be used to capture excess stormwater.

In terms of contaminant loading, the values vary in terms of pollutant concentration. Efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, increase infiltration, and increase vegetative cover are necessary to lower the values to benign levels.

THE

green

Subbasin

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Total

Impervious

%

Acreage

Acreage

Impervious

A-1

253.49

53.81

21.23%

A-2

81.37

11.46

14.08%

A-3

85.78

19.07

22.23%

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

149

STORMWATER ANALYSES BY SUB-BASIN : SUB BASIN B Sub-basin B Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

School Contribution Sub-basin B Acres 26.0

Percent 11.9%

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75%

55.4 20.0 1.2

25.4% 9.2% 0.6%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

15.7

7.2%

11.7 2.1 85.9 0.4

5.4% 1.0% 39.3% 0.2%

218.4

100.0%

Total Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

79 1.37 1,089,826.0 25.0

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

42.8900 0.0045 25.3800 13.3000 0.0105 0.0080 1.4800 0.2413 56.8100 0.2059

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75% Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

Difference Acres 3.3

Percent 1.5%

54.8 20.2 1.2

25.1% 9.3% 0.6%

-0.6 0.2 0

15.1

6.9%

-0.6

1.2 0.0 2.9 0.3

0.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.1%

-10.5 -2.1 -83 -0.1

Total

99

45.3%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions

76

Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

1.19 426,492.0 9.8

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

37.2200 0.0038 20.3800 10.5300 0.0105 0.0076 1.3700 0.2048 35.4900 0.1975

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

Acres -22.7

0.18 663,334.0 15.2

5.6700 0.0007 5.0000 2.7700 0.0000 0.0004 0.1100 0.0365 21.3200 0.0084

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

% Change 15% 18% 25% 26% 0% 5% 8% 18% 60% 4%

Sub Basin B: Watershed sub-basin B (B-1, B-2) is highly impervious in the town, but is mostly pervious at The School. The golf course of The Lawrenceville School’s falls within it. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 9.8 acre feet out of a total of 25.0 acre feet (39%).

Section 8 150

APPENDIX

In terms of area, 99 acres of The School’s land are represented (45.3% of the total area of 218.4 acres). This means that a significant amount of stormwater (61%) is coming from off the property and flowing through the golf course. However, The School’s property produces a great amount of stormwater relative to the land area because the turf-grass of the golf course does not infiltrate water very well. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 76, as compared to 79 for the entire sub-basin, which is not appreciably different from the surroundings. BMPs will have to be used to capture excess stormwater.

In terms of contaminant loading, the values vary in terms of pollutant concentration. Efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, increase infiltration, and increase vegetative cover are necessary to lower the values to benign levels.

THE

green

Subbasin

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Total

Impervious

%

Acreage

Acreage

Impervious

B-1

118.27

21.98

18.58%

B-2

100.17

4.06

4.05%

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

151

STORMWATER ANALYSES BY SUB-BASIN : SUB BASIN C Sub-basin C Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer

School Contribution Sub-basin C Acres 19.0

Percent 6.1%

Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75%

45.7 126.3 22.2

14.7% 40.7% 7.1%

Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

13.6

4.4%

76.3 3.8 1.6 2.2

24.6% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7%

310.7

100.0%

Total Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75% Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

Acres 13.8

Percent 4.4%

31.2 90.8 21.2

10.0% 29.2% 6.8%

-14.5 -35.5 -1

11.2

3.6%

-2.4

65.6 0.0 1.6 1.4

21.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

-10.7 -3.8 0 -0.8

Total

236.8

76.2%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions

67 0.71 804,731.0 18.5

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

20.2300 0.0016 5.3800 2.2000 0.0105 0.0062 1.0400 0.0954 6.7000 0.1723

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

DIFFERENCE

Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Acres -5.2

67 0.71 613,605.0 14.1

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

20.2300 0.0016 5.3800 2.2000 0.0105 0.0062 1.0400 0.0954 6.7000 0.1723

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

0 191,126.0 4.4

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

% Change 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Sub Basin C: Watershed sub-basin C (C-1, C-2, C-3) is mixed in terms of stormwater impact. The most impervious area of campus is in C-1, but C-2 and C-3 are mostly natural and agricultural areas.

The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 14.1 acre feet out of a total of 18.5 acre feet (76%).

In terms of area, 236.8 acres of The School’s land are represented (76.2% of the total area of 310.7 acres). Nearly all of the stormwater is produced by the core campus of The School. The natural areas downstream are forced to absorb the impact of the campus. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 67, the same as the entire sub-basin.

Land cover change to increase forest, wetland and meadow area will be most effective to capture excess stormwater.

Section 8 152

APPENDIX

In terms of contaminant loading, the values vary in terms of pollutant concentration. Efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, increase infiltration, and increase vegetative cover are necessary to lower the values to benign levels.

THE

green

Subbasin

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Total

Impervious

%

Acreage

Acreage

Impervious

C-1

48.60

13.44

27.65%

C-2

148.40

1.52

1.02%

C-3

114.54

4.71

4.11%

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

153

STORMWATER ANALYSES BY SUB-BASIN : SUB BASIN D Sub-basin D

School Contribution Sub-basin D

Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75% Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area

Acres 178.0 374.6 953.7 142.7 28.8

Percent 6.1% 12.9% 32.8% 4.9% 1.0%

653.4 15.2 537.3 23.4

22.5% 0.5% 18.5% 0.8%

Total

2907.1

100.0%

Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

Landcover Impervious Surfaces: Drain to sewer Open Space - Grass/Scattered Trees: Grass cover > 75% Cropland and Pasture Shrub/Brush: Ground cover 50% - 75% Trees: Forest litter understory: Impaired, some forest litter Trees: Forest litter understory: Forest litter and brush adequately cover soil Urban - 85% Impervious Urban - 20% Impervious Water Area Total Stormwater Quantity (Runoff Volume) 2-YR, 24-HR RAINFALL EVENT (3.25 INCHES) Curve Number Representing Existing Conditions

77 1.25 13,166,683.0 302.3

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

39.1100 0.0040 22.0500 11.4500 0.0105 0.0077 1.4100 0.2170 42.6000 0.2003

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

Runoff Depth (in.)

Runoff Volume (cu. ft.)

Runoff Volume (acre ft.)

Stormwater Quality (Contaminant Loading) Biological Oxygen Demand Cadmium Chromium Chemical Oxygen Demand Copper Lead Nitrogen Phosphorus Suspended Solids Zinc

DIFFERENCE Acres 0.4 0.0 90.4 1.9 22.6

Percent 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.1% 0.8%

Acres -177.6 -374.6 -863.3 -140.8 -6.2

8.7 0.0 5.5 0.2

0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

-644.7 -15.2 -531.8 -23.2

129.7

4.5%

77 1.25 587,233.0 13.5

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

39.1100 0.0040 22.0500 11.4500 0.0105 0.0077 1.4100 0.2170 42.6000 0.2003

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

Sub Basin D: Watershed sub-basin D (D-1 through D-5) is a large watershed. The Lawrenceville School’s land is nearly all agricultural or natural here. The School’s stormwater contribution for a two-year storm to the sub-basin is 13.5 acre feet out of a total of 302.3 acre feet (4%).

In terms of area, 129.7 acres of The School’s land are represented (4.5% of the total area of 2907.1 acres). This means that nearly all the stormwater (96%) is coming from off the property and flowing through its edge. This area is the best on the site currently, but could be improved through better agricultural practice and restoration of the damaged natural systems. The runoff curve number of The School’s land is 77, the same as the entire subbasin, because there is a lot of open space upstream.

Contaminant loading is acceptable in this sub-basin.

Section 8 154

APPENDIX

0 12,579,450.0 288.8

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

inches cu. ft. acre ft.

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm g/ml g/ml g/ml ppm

% Change 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

THE

green

Subbasin

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Total 2498 ACRESImpervious Acreage

Acreage

Impervious

2498.10

184.88

7.40%

31.97

31 ACRES D-1 D-2

%

49 ACRES

4.88

15.26%

D-3

18249.23 ACRES

1.64

3.33%

D-4

47182.99 ACRES

1.01

0.55%

D-5

147.85

0.00

0.00%

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

155

TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING INVASIVE PLANTS Primary Invasives represented on Campus Phragmites australis (Common Reed)

Rosa multiflora (Multiflora Rose)

Effectively controlling phragmites requires a well-timed coordinated attack that uses the plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own reproductive strategy against it. In early August, mechanically cut the phragmites as low as possible to the ground. Remove the cut stalks and the old plants by hand digging. In early October, the new sprouts should be sprayed with Rodeo, a product specifically used for aquatic weed control. Rodeo does not contain adjuvants toxic to fish or aquatic life.

Any sprouts that survive this treatment should be sprayed again in mid-spring.

This process can be repeated again in the fall. The phragmites area will likely come back in native species once the phragmites are removed, they are in an area which should have more shrubby vegetation so I would plant a few woody plants once the phragmites are losing the battle.

Generally the most effective means to eradicate multiflora rose is to cut the canes back to the ground and follow up with herbicide on the stump. Young sprouts, may be mown while they are still small, with a large flail-type mower.

If herbicide is not used, regular mowing is necessary. As shrubs become more established hand-cutting may be difficult. Often a mechanical hedge trimmer or other machinery is the most efficient initial method of cutting back multiflora rose.

Lythrum salicaria (Purple Loosestrife) Regaining control over purple loosestrife is a more specific matter and can not be accomplished by chemical and mechanical means alone. Herbicide application and mowing can damage other native plants in the same area as would controlled burns. For very small areas, it is possible to dig out the plant, including all of its roots. The purple loosestrife has such a spotty occurrence that the neighboring vegetation should revegetate those areas quickly. There should be no restoration action where the purple loosestrife is, only to make sure it is all killed off.

Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese Knotweed) The best way to stop knotweed is to prevent its initial spread. New specimens should be cut back at least three times a season to deplete the energy to the plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rhizomes. Chemically, herbicides with glyphosate must be used carefully to avoid damage to near by native species. New sprouts will require follow-up with herbicide and cutting back. Providing shade and introducing competitors can help halt the spread of knotweed. Restoration where the knotweed has take over should be some planting of native shrubs and trees, emergent plants will be too sensitive to the treatment of any knotweed that needs to be treated repeatedly to kill them all off.

Section 8 156

APPENDIX

Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) To control privet a variety of chemical and mechanical means are used.

Eradicating plants by hand is effective for plants with stems one inch or less in diameter. The entire root must be removed. Mechanical methods such as cutting or plowing should be avoided as they will result in an increase of growth. Privet can be controlled with use of a glyphosate herbicide. For privet, a foliar application in late summer is recommended. To avoid killing desirable plant species, spray in late fall after most natives have dropped their leaves.

A combination of cutting followed immediately by application of glyphosate to the stump is reported to be the most effective in ensuring control.

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Secondary Invasives represented on Campus Trees

Acer platanoides (Norway Maple) Norway maple is a deciduous tree that colonizes woodland areas, creating dense single-species stands with bare soil below. Norway maple casts a heavy shade that eliminates woodland wildflowers, saplings and shrubs that would otherwise grow in the forest understory. This tree is one of the most commonly planted ornamental trees in the country.

-

-

Saplings and trees may be pulled up or cut down. A ‘weed wrench’ is a useful tool for small diameter saplings.

Herbicides are often necessary to control new sprouts from the roots or stump.

In areas where the future tree fall is not a hazard, trees may be girdled and the wound painted with herbicide.

Practical considerations may dictate concentrating first on preventing the further spread of Norway maple into healthy forest, and removing scattered individual trees from the campus landscape. Removal of large, single-species stands of Norway maple within a forest is a longterm prospect.

Since Norway maple forms dense stands that can dominate a forest canopy, removal of canopy trees may need to be done in phases to avoid losing the forest structure. This is a long term consideration, since wholesale removal of the forest canopy may promote growth of other invasive plants. The most effective management strategy for established groves may be to concentrate on removing the smaller subcanopy trees and seedlings on a regular basis, with gradual removal of the larger canopy trees over time.

Paulownia tomentosa (Empress Tree) Use similar control strategies as for Norway maple. Paulownia resprouts vigorously, so control of new shoots is important. Since these trees do not form dense, single species stands to the same extent as Norway maple, management within a natural setting is more straightforward.

Shrubs and Vines

Tatarian Honeysuckle (Shrub Honeysuckle) Berberis thunbergii (Japanese Barberry) Euonymus alatus (Burning Bush) -

Alliaria petiolata (Garlic Mustard)

Generally, the most effective control is to cut the canes back close to the ground, with a follow up of herbicide on the remaining stumps.

Digging out the stumps or small shrubs by hand is an alternative for open fields. Digging is not recommended in wooded areas since the resulting soil disturbance may promote the establishment of other invasives. A better alternative for woodlands would be repeated mowing of resprouts until the root stock dies; repeated cutting is necessary within a growing season since a single cutting will actually thicken the shrubby regrowth.

Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle Vine) Celastrus orbiculatus (Oriental Bittersweet) -

-

As for shrubs, these invasive vines may be cut along the main stem near the base, and herbicide applied to the remaining base. In the absence of herbicide, these vigorous species will resprout from the roots.

Japanese Honeysuckle typically remains green and growing after native plants have lost their leaves for the season. At this time, herbicide can be sprayed on the leaves with minimal risk to adjacent natives. This method is a useful alternative where the honeysuckle has formed a dense, sprawling mat, which may be difficult to cut back easily.

Polygonum perfoliatum (Mile-a-Minute Vine) A fast growing, sprawling vine that quickly smothers young trees and shrubs.

Typically found in open sunny areas or woodland edges; it is not tolerant of shade. This vine is an annual, so its persistence and spread happen through its prolific seed production, not root sprouts.

-

Check for new sprouts regularly in spring and early summer Hand pulling is feasible if done with care – and heavy gloves – since the mature stalks are armed with sharp barbs Once uprooted, the vines are relatively easily pulled away from their supporting vegetation.

Biennial that affects upland habitats. The impacts to perennial plant species are undetermined; this plant does impact some butterfly populations and may affect habitat quality for birds, amphibians and mammals. Garlic mustard prefers partially shaded sites with soil that is not too acid, but tolerates both sun and full shade.

-

-

-

Prevent initial establishment and spread: monitor intact forest communities and remove any new garlic mustard sprouts before they set seed Minimize disturbance; garlic mustard will persist in woodlands in low numbers and then quickly multiply to take advantage of a recent disturbance. Removal of other invasives may promote colonization by garlic mustard.

Established colonies: prevent seed production until seed bank is depleted (approximately 2-5 years) Adjacent unmanaged stands may make on-site management difficult Cutting is the most effective method for preventing seed production; remove the flowering stalks at ground level. This method is labor intensive, but is the most effective, with fewer unintended side effects than chemical applications or fire management.

Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass) A vigorous grass found in a variety of wet and low-lying habitats. Reed canary grass forms dense stands that exclude other species and have little benefit to wildlife.

-

-

-

Effective control methods include cutting/harvesting (5+ times per season, using machinery), prescribed burning, and/or herbicide application. Repeated measures are necessary.

Herbicide applications are best reserved for relatively dry areas with solid stands of reed canary grass. Many herbicides should not be used in wet areas.

Reseeding management areas with native plants may be helpful in minimizing reestablishment of reed canary grass or other weeks.

Herbaceous Plants

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

157

VEGETATIVE SURVEY TECHNIQUES

Section 8 158

APPENDIX

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

159

Section 8 160

APPENDIX

THE

green

CAMPUS INITIATIVE

Section 8

prepared by

ANDROPOGON ASSOCIATES LTD.

in

SEPTEMBER 2006

for

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL

161

THE LAWRENCEVILLE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER PLAN

summary report

Prepared by Andropogon Associates Ltd. October 2006 with sub-consultant: DERRON L. LABRAKE, P.W.S.,

Consulting Ecologist

This CD contains the entire report in Acrobat 7.0 PDF format.

“LAWRENCEVILLE-VOLUME-TWO.PDF”

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