Lake Fred Watershed Characterization

By: Greg Andlauer, Dana Kelly, Michael Herrick, Michael Quattrone, Carly Hall

Watershed Hydrology (ENVL 3434)

14 December 2020

Stockton University

Dr. Emma Witt

 Contents

Introduction 3
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Lake Fred 3
Figure 2 - Lake Fred & Nearby Water Bodies Within Pinelands Management Areas 4

Land Use Change 5

Figure 3 - Land Usage of the Area Surrounding Lake Fred and a Close up View
of Lake Fred in 1995 6
Figure 4 - Land Usage of the Area Surrounding Lake Fred and a Close up View
of Lake Fred in 2015 6

Lake Fred Watershed Characteristics 7

3.1 Site Characterization 7
Figure 5 - Lake Fred Watershed Boundary with Elevation. 7
Figure 6 - Lake Fred Watershed Land Use 8
3.2 Soil Characterization 9
Figure 7 - Soil Types Within Lake Fred’s Watershed 9

History of Lake Fred 9

Streams Feeding Into Lake Fred 10

5.1 Stream Origins and Pollutants 10
Figure 8 - Morses Mill Stream, Cedrik Run, Land Use/Coverage and Roads Present
Within Lake Fred Watershed 12
5.2 Impacts to Lake Fred and Tributaries 12
Figure 9 - Stream Channelization on Stockton University Campus 13
Figure 10 - Stockton University Construction Within 300 ft. Wetlands Buffer 14
Table 1 - Runoff Rates from Various Stockton University Development Areas 15
Figure 11 - Kirkwood Cohansey Aquifer (Source: Pinelands Alliance, 2019 17

References 18
 1. Introduction

In the Pine Barrens area of New Jersey, almost all of the lakes are created from
man-made-dams. Lake Fred, shown in Figure 1, is one of those cases with a stream flowing into
it from Morse’s Mill Creek and a dam at the other end to have a constant water level in the lake.
While it’s exact age remains uncertain, Lake Fred could be about 200 years old based on
documentation of mapping the lake dating back to 1828. Lake Fred is located on the property of
Stockton University and maintains a trail that completely wraps around the lake which measures
out to 1.3 miles. All of the pinelands area, which takes up about 938,000 acres, 7 different
counties, and 19% of the property in New Jersey, is part of The Comprehensive Management
Plan (CMP), (Jmott, n.d.).

Figure 1 - Aerial View of Lake Fred

Lake Fred’s location within Pinelands Management areas, as seen in Figure 2, gets about
44 inches of precipitation a year. An average of 24 inches of that evaporates into the air or comes
from vegetation and an additional 2 to 3 inches runs off the land into the nearest water body. The
amount of runoff is low because Pinelands soils are porous. Lastly, around 17 to 19 inches of the
44 inches works its way into the shallow aquifer, which is a necessary component to Lake Fred
and it’s connecting streams health; Pinelands groundwater accounts for more than 90 percent of
streamflow (Pinelands Commission, 2018). Thereby, during droughts less water is available to
recharge the aquifer, so streams and wetlands receive less water as well. Water pumped from the
aquifer by wells can drastically reduce the water available to feed streams and wetlands. The
aquifer in question is the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer and contains some 17 trillion gallons of
fresh water. Due to how shallow it is, the aquifer is easily polluted by fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides and chemicals that are spread or spilled on the ground’s surface (Pinelands
Preservation Alliance, 2019).

Figure 2 - Lake Fred & Nearby Water Bodies Within Pinelands Management Areas
Note. The development area immediately surrounding Lake Fred is that of Stockton University’s
Galloway Campus.
 2. Land Use Change

Figure 3 and Figure 4 display the change in land use and land coverage over a 20 year
time period. It is important to look at land use/coverage when discussing watersheds due to the
influence land uses have on runoff water quantity, as well as quality. When depicting the land
uses within areas of inflow and outflow of Lake Fred, two major points stand out. The first being
that there is a great deal of agricultural land nearby, which could lead to an increase of nutrient
runoff from fertilizers being applied. Also, there could be an influx of pesticides and herbicides
entering the water from the agricultural areas. Secondly, urban development is decently high
within the area and often associated with urban development is impervious structures/surface
coverings. These impervious surfaces do not allow water to enter the soil and naturally continue
its track within the watershed. Instead, they funnel water into stormwater drains and they are
either directly drained into the nearest lake/stream, or are pumped to a utility authority and dealt
with accordingly. Stormwater drains that drain into lakes and streams completely skip the natural
process of the watershed, and can both over pump water into a waterway and pollute that same
waterway with unfiltered runoff that is collected through these impervious surfaces.
With these two issues in mind, the comparison between Figure 3 and Figure 4 provides
us with very useful, terrifying information. Within the 20 year span from 1995-2015, urban
development within the Lake Fred inflow and outflow increases dramatically. Further, some of
the development had been in progress since 1970, whereas modern day regulations such as the
Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan weren’t created until the later half of the 1970s.
Specifically, early Stockton University development contributed heavily to runoff qualities and
continues to be an issue today; due to the timeline, these areas are grandfathered in and don’t
follow the same regulation as newer construction (Tompkins, 2011). This means that there will
be more runoff that will be dealt with un-naturally, leading to more overpumping of polluted
water into lakes and streams. Also, most of the urban development that has occurred within this
area was once land that was forested. Not only are urban developments with impervious surfaces
becoming more numerous, but they are building over areas that once acted as a natural way for
water to enter the watershed of the Lake Fred area. If this occurrence continues to increase at a
rapid pace without proper management, it will eventually lead to the destruction of the Lake Fred
watershed.

Figure 3 - Land Usage of the Area Surrounding Figure 4 - Land Usage of the Area
Surrounding Lake Fred and a Close up View of Lake Lake Fred and a Close up View of
Fred in 1995 Lake Fred in 2015
 3. Lake Fred Watershed Characteristics

3.1 Site Characterization

The Lake Fred watershed is shown in Figure 5 with the surrounding areas elevation
shown in 5ft contour lines. The topographic features of the area help give a better idea of how
the water will be flowing within the watershed by observing the elevation in relation to the
natural flow of water. Within the watershed, Morses Mill and Cedick Run are the two streams
that feed Lake Fred on Stockton’s campus. Morses Mill, the larger of the two streams averaged
11.8 cubic feet per second of discharge in the 2007 water year (USGS), while Cedick run is a
much smaller bog like stream bubbling up from groundwater.

Figure 5 - Lake Fred Watershed Boundary with Elevation.

Note. Contours are at a 5ft contour interval, with 60ft being the Index contour shown in yellow
 In the watershed, there are a few different types of land uses, as shown in Figure 6, the
main of which being forest, wetlands, and urban, with exclusively these three in the closest
proximity to Lake Fred. Further away from Lake Fred there is a decent amount of land dedicated
to agriculture, posing a risk as a possible location for contaminants to enter the watershed.
Mainly risking the addition of pesticides and fertilizers, these can have detrimental effects on the
lake when they arrive and other unwanted effects throughout the watershed as they flow
throughout it. Added levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from fertilizers will create the perfect
ecosystem for an algae bloom, which can cause massive decreases in water quality and dissolved
oxygen levels making it much harder for the aquatic life present in the lake or stream.

Figure 6 - Lake Fred Watershed Land Use

3.2 Soil Characterization
The Lake Fred watershed is made up
of a variety of soil types. These soils
mainly consist of sandy, loamy soil
underlaid by gravel, while some types
are topped with high levels of clay
forming peat. The peat-topped layers,
due to the high clay content, result in
low levels of draining, creating a
higher water holding capacity with
the tendency to create runoff.
Meanwhile, the more sandy layers are
categorized as having high levels of
draining, allowing for the rapid
movement of water that either flows
through the soil from other areas, or
lands on it from precipitation events.

Figure 7 - Soil Types Within Lake Fred’s Watershed

4. History of Lake Fred

Lake Fred is a man-made lake located on the Stockton University main campus, which
was founded in 1969. This lake can be dated back almost 200 years ago. The first time that
“Lake Fred” was used in print was on May 1, 1973, a few years after the initial founding of the
university. The name was used in The Argo by a faculty member, Dick Colby, in reference to and
he mentioned the main lake on the campus as Lake Fred and it was final after that with the name
sticking. “Fred, whoever or however many, became a fixture around the lakeshore, fishing,
playing guitar, and seeking typical 1970s inspiration. According to this story, which has come to
be associated with the name Fred Sommers, the Stockton community somehow began calling the
body of water Fred's Lake, or Lake Fred” (Kinsella, n.d.).

5. Streams Feeding Into Lake Fred

5.1 Stream Origins and Pollutants
Figure 8 offers a more in-dept visualization of the main inputs that feed into Lake Fred.
Specifically, the two bodies of water displayed on the map are Morses Mill Stream (Blue Line)
which flows from the western edge of the lake, and Cedik Run (Lime Green Line) which flows
from the southern edge of the lake, near Stockton University’s main campus. Morses Mill Stream
covers a lot more area than Cedik Run and the area that Morses Mill Stream covers has a far
greater ability to pollute the stream than the area that surrounds Cedik Run. The land around
Cedik Run is completely forested and only flows under one road. The stream does run directly
behind Stockton University’s main campus, so this could lead to an increased rate of polluted
runoff from the parking lots present at the university, but overall this stream is going to provide
much cleaner, more pure water flow into Lake Fred.
Morses Mill Stream flows across multiple roads, through agricultural land, urban land,
and could easily be affected by an area of groundwater contamination that is located about one
mile northwest of where the stream stops. The roads, especially White Horse Pike, a highly used
road with heavy traffic occurring daily that is located directly at the point where the stream stops,
contribute to increased runoff of salt due to salting that occurs during the winter months along
with other petroleum/gasoline related pollutants. The agricultural land that the stream flows
through contributes to increased nutrient and pesticide runoff. As for the contaminated
groundwater area, according to Figure 8, it is located within a wetland area. This means that the
water table is extremely high in the area, and within that same wetland area is the point where
the Morses Mill Stream concludes. Thus, pollutants from the contaminated groundwater could
easily flow into the stream, then ultimately into Lake Fred. The known pollutants within the area
of groundwater contamination are the VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) Methylene Chloride,
a potential occupational carcinogen, PCE (Tetrachloroethylene), a probable human carcinogen
and a neurotoxin, and the metal Mercury, a neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor, which leads to
major birth defects.
It is also important to point out and discuss the groundwater contamination area that is
located approximately a half mile north of Lake Fred. The contaminated area is extremely close
to Lake Fred, thus groundwater pollutants could potentially reach the lake from this area. The
contaminants within this area are VOCs in the form of DCE (Dichloroethene), an irritant and
possibly can affect human red blood cell levels, and TCE (Trichloroethylene), a known human
carcinogen and can also cause other severe central nervous system and respiratory issues.
Overall, Figure 8 provides us with useful information on where each of the two main
streams that feed into Lake Fred flow from, and possible impacts to the water quality of each
stream from surrounding factors such as land use, impervious surfaces/roadways, and areas of
groundwater contamination. These two streams greatly differ in composition of surrounding land
area and how it is utilized by humans and it is these differences that make these two inputs of
Lake Fred vary so greatly. It is important to understand how the streams that flow into Lake Fred
differ because if there were to ever be an issue with water quality, such as dangerous levels of
Methylene Chloride being measured, we would be able to figure out the source of the pollution
and ultimately develop a plan to combat the issue. Without this knowledge, we might not be able
to figure out the source of the Methylene Chloride until it is too late to mitigate the increase of
the toxic substance.
Figure 8 - Morses Mill Stream, Cedrik Run, Land Use/Coverage and Roads Present Within Lake
Fred Watershed
5.2 Impacts to Lake Fred and Tributaries
Lake Fred is the result of man-made dams, yet it wasn’t always impacted as heavily by
human behavior as it is today. Within Section 2, the way development has rapidly increased
surrounding the area is discussed as well as the main source of said development - Stockton
University. The Pinelands of Galloway Township were chosen for what would later become
Stockton University in 1969, and the school began dipping into the concept of creating an
environmental legacy immediately with The 1971 Comprehensive Architectural Master Plan that
emphasized the natural environment. However, there was no guidance for this development; a
majority of current NJDEP regulations didn’t exist, and the Pinelands Commission wouldn’t be
formed until 1978.
Stockton’s sewer plan of the time consisted of two 175-foot deep wells meant for water
supply, which raised concern due to the potential for Morses Mill Stream to be contaminated, but
was prevented by no agency (Schawrtz, 2011). Today, a study of Morses Mill Stream covering
91.3 km2 found
● 23 commercial and industrial wells,
● 19 public-supply and institutional wells, and
● 37 irrigation wells within the area.
Despite the 1971 Comprehensive Master Plan suggesting the implementation of native plants for
lawn, Stockton replaced both natural forest and field cover with turf and ornamental trees which
require irrigation, fertilizing, and mowing (Cromartie, 2011). In addition to the potential impact
from wells and lack of native vegetation, runoff from the campus was channeled directly into
Lake Fred and surrounding wetlands, and one stream was converted into a drainage ditch. The
conversion of the stream to a drainage ditch is a practice known as stream channelization, a
practice rarely used today. The popularity fell because the flood conveyance benefits of
channelization and diversions are often offset by ecological losses resulting from increased
stream velocities and reduced habitat diversity; like dams, channelization and diversions cause
changes to stream corridors. Nevertheless, stream channelization is still present outside the Arts
and Science’s Building of Stockton University.

Figure 9 - Stream Channelization on Stockton University Campus

The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) was created in 1981 but
Stockton’s effect on water quality didn’t end with the creation of it, as simultaneous dorms were
being planned adjacent to Lake Fred. The Pinelands CMP (1981) states, “No development shall
be carried out within 300 feet of any wetland,unless the applicant has demonstrated that the
proposed development will not result in significant adverse impact on the wetland, as set forth in
N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.7.” The Stockton University (2020) Master Plan on the other hand states,
“Wetlands buffers in the central core development area of the 1990 Master Plan were agreed to
be established in 175’. Outside the core areas, many, if not most, areas are more environmentally
sensitive and will require a larger buffer area. Withthis consideration, Stockton has agreed to use
a 300’ buffer in all areas outside of the core, and so the various maps show the extent of
additional land between 175’ and 300’ protected by this decision.” This is due to the fact
pre-commission construction required various exceptions to be applied to Stockton University.
This includes runoff rates and areas of development.

Figure 10 - Stockton University Construction Within 300 ft. Wetlands Buffer

 Specific sources of runoff contributing to Lake Fred from Stockton University were
determined when Marathon, a consulting company, performed an overall environmental
investigation of the entire Stockton campus for wetlands and threatened & endangered species.
On the south side of Vera King Farris Drive, stormwater management systems discharge towards
the intermittent stream on-site that feeds Lake Fred and the unnamed tributary to Morse’s Mill
Stream. An off-campus development area at the upstream end of the tributary to Morse’s Mill
Stream discharges to Lake Fred. The areas front on the southerly side of Pomona Road drain in
the easterly direction towards a tributary of Morse’s Mill Stream which discharges into Lake
Fred and then into Morse’s Mill Stream. Housing 1 area sits on the northerly bank of Lake Fred
and discharges to it. The Health & Sciences buildings drain towards a tributary of Morse’s Mill
Stream which discharges downstream of Lake Fred. A development area on the northerly side of
Duerer Street drains in the northerly direction towards a tributary of Morse’s Mill Stream which
discharges into Lake Fred and Morse’s Mill Stream. The ultimate discharge point for the entire
Stockton campus is the point in Morse’s Mill Stream immediately upstream of the Garden State
Parkway.

Table 1 - Runoff Rates from Various Stockton University Development Areas

Development Drainage Shed Direction of Total Runoff Volume (cf)

Area Discharge Peak Runoff Flow Rate
(cfs)

Q2 Q10 Q100 V2 V10 V100

North to Lake Fred 53.70 85.93 161.40 216,843 363,436 677,364

South to unnamed tributary 33.59 63.19 130.45 135,567 263,317 525,913

1
Total to Morse’s Mill Stream 87.29 149.12 219.85 362,409 626,754 1,203,278

2&3 N/A 0.98 12.63 77.64 N/A N/A N/A

5 East N/A 5.69 21.36 63.79 N/A N/A N/A

5 West N/A 1.76 11.61 45.70 N/A N/A N/A

6 N/A 0.25 4.43 32.12 N/A N/A N/A

7 N/A 2.02 11.83 44.68 N/A N/A N/A

10 N/A 1.87 7.50 22.87 N/A N/A N/A

(Data sourced from Marathon & Stockton, 2010)

Excess runoff resulting from impervious surfaces can have a variety of impacts on
waterways. Lack of vegetation in urban areas prevents natural filtration from occurring, allowing
stormwater to accumulate contaminants that have been released from anthropogenic sources that
can pollute both ground and surface water. In addition to contaminants, runoff can collect
sediment which both increases erosion rates as well as deposits excess into water bodies. As a
result of the increased urbanization surrounding the Lake Fred watershed, all of these effects
have been observed.
NJDEP (2014) ranked Morses Mill stream as impared, with the primary source of
pollution listed as urban runoff/sewage and the secondary source agriculture. When assessing the
groundwater below Stockton University’s campus and therefore below Lake Fred, nitrogen
contamination was found and attributed to runoff from fertilizer use and sewage. Phosphorus
affects the streams and watershed overall as well. In addition to fertilizer, these pollutants are
also caused by animal waste such as that left behind by geese on campus. Lead, copper, barium,
and nickel discovered in excess were determined to be caused by sediment deposits (Ruggles,
2016). A beach on Lake Fred had been eroded completely until it was restored in 2019, however,
restoration projects only undo previous harm and don’t prevent future erosion. Even the
groundwater was found to be affected by the development. A study done by USGS (2006) found
that groundwater levels were affected by seasonal use, with the wells discussed previously being
specifically mentioned in the study.
Beyond the entire Lake Fred Watershed, the Kirkwood Cohansey Aquifer is impacted by
the fertilizer, wells, contamination, and other threats discussed. While Lake Fred may be a small
man-made water body, it’s watershed as well as connecting streams and aquifers hold great
significance to the ecosystem and health of the surrounding area. Pinelands water bodies are
extremely sensitive to human influences from housing developments, agricultural activities,
septic systems, landfills, and the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Reasons for this include
Pinelands soils being highly porous, composed primarily of quartz (silica), and having little or no
organic content and clay. As a result, the soils have little filtering ability with regards to
contaminants. Further, strong interconnection between groundwater and streams make the
Pinelands a very fragile ecosystem; almost all Pinelands streams are directly fed by groundwater.
There is increasing evidence to support an association between agricultural activities and
fertilizer use on home lawns, and nitrogen in groundwater, as observed in the case of Morses
Mill Stream and Lake Fred. Nutrients entering Pinelands waters increase the rate of growth of
non-Pinelands plant species, and with time, native Pinelands species are replaced with the more
invasive species. Therefore, the impacts to Lake Fred Watershed become the impacts to the
Pinelands.

Figure 11 - Kirkwood Cohansey Aquifer (Source: Pinelands Alliance, 2019

 References

ATSDR. (1997, September). ToxFAQs™ for 1,2-Dichloroethene. Retrieved December 14, 2020,
from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=463&tid=82

ATSDR. (2001, February). ToxFAQs™ for Methylene Chloride. Retrieved December 14, 2020,
from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=233&tid=42

ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene (PERC). Retrieved December 14, 2020,
from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=265&tid=48

ATSDR. (1999, March). Toxic Substances Portal - Mercury. Retrieved December 14, 2020, from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=115&tid=24

ATSDR. Trichloroethylene (TCE). Retrieved December 14, 2020, from

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=30

How old is Lake Fred? (Part One). (2015, January 29). Retrieved October 01, 2020, from

https://blogs.stockton.edu/ssnh/time-capsules/how-old-is-lake-fred/

Jmott. (n.d.). New Jersey Pinelands Commission: The Comprehensive Management Plan.

Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://nj.gov/pinelands/cmp/

Kinsella, T. (n.d.). Naming Lake Fred. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from

https://stockton.edu/stories/naming-lake-fred.html

New Jersey Pinelands comprehensive management plan: The second progress report on plan

implementation. (2018). New Lisbon, New Jersey: Pinelands Commision.

Tompkins, K. (2011). Reaching 40: The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Galloway, NJ:
 The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

USGS Surface Water Data for New Jersey: USGS Surface-Water Annual Statistics,
waterdata.usgs.gov/nj/nwis/annual?referred_module=sw.