The Great Swamp Watershed Association greatly appreciates the help of corporations and other businesses whose volunteers have assisted in the removal of invasive species, the construction of trails, and the planting of native species at our Conservation Management Area (CMA). Not only is this an effective way to improve the watershed and volunteer time to a great cause, but it also provides a team building experience between the workers, and it's a fun way to spend the day!
Last spring and summer, over 200 employees from Pfizer, Ethicon, Verizon, Goldman Sachs, Mars, and Eisner pitched in at the CMA to help clear invasive plants, replant native plant species, erect fencing, build boardwalks and mulch the trail system. This spring/summer, nearly 300 employees from Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, Ethicon and Royal Bank of Canada, through 15 corporate workdays (so far!), have signed up to volunteer their time and energy through their employer community give-back programs.
GSWA’s primary goal for the CMA is to restore the property to a diverse ecologically functioning state. Restoration projects undertaken to date have included 15+ acres of invasive plant species control, installation of 23 acres of deer exclosure fencing, enhancement of vernal pool habitat, stream bank stabilization and replenishment, and the replanting of over 2,000 native shrubs and 4,500 live stakes. GSWA wishes to thank all of those hard-working corporate employees who rolled up their sleeves during team workdays to help us move closer to our restoration goals. To learn more about the CMA and the work being done there, visit www.greatswamp.org.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
How Can We Have Four “100-Year” Floods In 15 Years?
By Jim Northrop, GSWA Member
In Bound Brook, New Jersey, there was a flood in 1996, and in 1999 Hurricane Floyd brought 17 feet of water to downtown Bound Brook. In 2007, there was another flood, followed recently by heavy rainfall which caused more downtown flooding. Some people call these “100-year floods,” but they all occurred over a mere 15 years. How can we have several “100-year” floods in the short span of 15 years?
Some people mistakenly believe that a “100-year” storm or “100-year” flood happens only once every 100 years. The term “100-year” flood is shorthand for a flood that statistically has a 1% (1/100) chance of occurring in any given year. Likewise, the term “100-year” storm is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1% chance of occurring this year. For a hydrologist studying water flows, “100-year” means an extreme hydrologic event having a 100-year recurrence interval.
Based on historical data about rainfall and stream stage at a given location, a process of frequency analysis is used to determine the probability that an extreme hydrologic event (such as a river cresting at a flood stage of 20 feet) will be equaled or exceeded in any given year.
Ten or more years of data are required to perform a frequency analysis for the determination of recurrence intervals. Of course, the more years of historical data the better -- a hydrologist will have more confidence for an analysis of a river with 30 years of record than one based on 10 years of record.
Thus, the terms “100-year” storm or “100-year” flood, are used merely to simplify the definition of a storm or flood that statistically has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. It is not the promise of a 100-year interval.
In Bound Brook, New Jersey, there was a flood in 1996, and in 1999 Hurricane Floyd brought 17 feet of water to downtown Bound Brook. In 2007, there was another flood, followed recently by heavy rainfall which caused more downtown flooding. Some people call these “100-year floods,” but they all occurred over a mere 15 years. How can we have several “100-year” floods in the short span of 15 years?
Some people mistakenly believe that a “100-year” storm or “100-year” flood happens only once every 100 years. The term “100-year” flood is shorthand for a flood that statistically has a 1% (1/100) chance of occurring in any given year. Likewise, the term “100-year” storm is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1% chance of occurring this year. For a hydrologist studying water flows, “100-year” means an extreme hydrologic event having a 100-year recurrence interval.
Based on historical data about rainfall and stream stage at a given location, a process of frequency analysis is used to determine the probability that an extreme hydrologic event (such as a river cresting at a flood stage of 20 feet) will be equaled or exceeded in any given year.
Ten or more years of data are required to perform a frequency analysis for the determination of recurrence intervals. Of course, the more years of historical data the better -- a hydrologist will have more confidence for an analysis of a river with 30 years of record than one based on 10 years of record.
Thus, the terms “100-year” storm or “100-year” flood, are used merely to simplify the definition of a storm or flood that statistically has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. It is not the promise of a 100-year interval.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Join GSWA for a Vernal Pool Exporation at the CMA
Pull on your rubber boots, grab a flashlight, and join us for a Spring Peeper Party from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Friday, March 26, in the vernal pools of GSWA's 50-acre Conservation Management Area. This forested wetland contains many vernal pools that will be jumping with the spring breeding amphibians that rely so heavily upon them. We'll take an evening stroll around the trails, seeking spring peepers, chorus frogs, wood frogs and more.
Visit www.greatswamp.org to register, or to find out more about GSWA's spring educational programs, including our popular monthly Breakfast Briefings.
Visit www.greatswamp.org to register, or to find out more about GSWA's spring educational programs, including our popular monthly Breakfast Briefings.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Are Energy Thieves Lurking Around Your House?
By Jim Northrop, GSWA Member
Electricity use by power-hungry household consumer electronic devices is rising fast. For example, the very popular, new flat-panel televisions have turned out to consume more electricity than some refrigerators. And then there are personal computers (how many do you already have in your house?). What about iPods, cell phones, game consoles and digital clocks? The New York Times reports that Americans now have as many as 25 consumer electronic products in each household, compared with just three in 1980.
Appliances like refrigerators are covered by mandatory efficiency rules specifying how much power each category of appliance may use. The New York Times claims that today's new refrigerators consume only about 55% of the power consumed when the standards took effect. Further, the Times says that a new clothes washer today is nearly 70% lower in energy consumption than a new unit in 1990. But, don't relax -- now we have a growing, off-setting challenge, which may eventually cancel out the energy savings of appliance standards. Makers of consumer electronic devices have been successful in resisting the application of such energy efficiency standards to their products.
Most Consumer Electronic Devices Never Sleep
One way this is a different kind of challenge, is that many modern consumer electronic devices cannot be entirely turned off. Even when not in use, they draw electricity while they wait for a signal from a remote control, or wait to record a television program.
Of course, a single-minded person can find many of these electronic devices around the house, and turn them off when not in use -- but, in most homes there are so many of them! And some family-member users are particularly difficult to "police." There are some ways to let the problem take care of itself, however, if one takes the time to set it up properly. For example, plug the computers and entertainment devices into "smart" power strips. The strips turn off when the electronics are not in use, cutting power consumption to zero.
Another difficulty in controlling power wasted by consumer electronics devices is that many products now require large amounts of power to run. Flat-screen TV is perhaps the biggest offender. As liquid crystal displays and plasma technologies replace the old cathode ray tubes, and as screen sizes increase, the new televisions need more power than older models did. How often is the TV left operating when the viewers have all left the room?
Until energy usage by consumer electronic devices is better regulated, each of us must be more vigilant. While energy waste per device may seem trivial, it adds up fast.
Electricity use by power-hungry household consumer electronic devices is rising fast. For example, the very popular, new flat-panel televisions have turned out to consume more electricity than some refrigerators. And then there are personal computers (how many do you already have in your house?). What about iPods, cell phones, game consoles and digital clocks? The New York Times reports that Americans now have as many as 25 consumer electronic products in each household, compared with just three in 1980.
Appliances like refrigerators are covered by mandatory efficiency rules specifying how much power each category of appliance may use. The New York Times claims that today's new refrigerators consume only about 55% of the power consumed when the standards took effect. Further, the Times says that a new clothes washer today is nearly 70% lower in energy consumption than a new unit in 1990. But, don't relax -- now we have a growing, off-setting challenge, which may eventually cancel out the energy savings of appliance standards. Makers of consumer electronic devices have been successful in resisting the application of such energy efficiency standards to their products.
Most Consumer Electronic Devices Never Sleep
One way this is a different kind of challenge, is that many modern consumer electronic devices cannot be entirely turned off. Even when not in use, they draw electricity while they wait for a signal from a remote control, or wait to record a television program.
Of course, a single-minded person can find many of these electronic devices around the house, and turn them off when not in use -- but, in most homes there are so many of them! And some family-member users are particularly difficult to "police." There are some ways to let the problem take care of itself, however, if one takes the time to set it up properly. For example, plug the computers and entertainment devices into "smart" power strips. The strips turn off when the electronics are not in use, cutting power consumption to zero.
Another difficulty in controlling power wasted by consumer electronics devices is that many products now require large amounts of power to run. Flat-screen TV is perhaps the biggest offender. As liquid crystal displays and plasma technologies replace the old cathode ray tubes, and as screen sizes increase, the new televisions need more power than older models did. How often is the TV left operating when the viewers have all left the room?
Until energy usage by consumer electronic devices is better regulated, each of us must be more vigilant. While energy waste per device may seem trivial, it adds up fast.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Inspired By the Great Swamp, Marcellus Hartley Dodge Became the Quiet Leader Who Saved It
The Dilemma: Nature or Technology?
In 1959, it was discovered that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was developing plans to acquire the land we call “The Great Swamp,” and there to construct a "jetport." Their aims were ambitious, and their jetport would be one of the largest in the world. Many residents of the area were up in arms, but they were opposed by powerful pro-business interests.
In time, however, a defensive strategy emerged -- transfer as much land as possible from strategic places in the middle of the Great Swamp, to the Federal Government, for use as a wildlife sanctuary. It was believed this would keep the land out of the reach of the Port Authority, and thus defeat the jetport plan.
A Captain of Industry Becomes Engaged In Open Space Issues
After 1907, when M. Hartley Dodge married Geraldine Stillman Rockefeller, youngest daughter of William Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller and a founder of Standard Oil Company (NJ), the young couple became among the largest landowners in the Great Swamp area. It was known that Dodge was a generous donor of land to the newly-formed Morris County Park Commission. In 1957, Mr. Dodge and others donated over 50 acres to the Morris County Park Commission for Loantaka Park, the first link in the Loantaka Brook Reservation. But the actual extent of his concern for saving the Great Swamp was not revealed until later.
Dodge was the retired Chairman of the Board of the Remington Arms Company and had served for many years as a Director of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad. He was also a member of various other boards. He lived in Madison Borough and made substantial contributions (usually anonymously) to local causes. Born in 1881, “Marcy” Dodge was a friend of the rich and famous, and was descended from a founder of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation.
Launching the “Defensive Strategy”
In September, 1960 almost 1,000 acres of private land was quietly transferred to the North American Wildlife Foundation, a prestigious national conservation organization in Washington, D.C. There was a small problem -- 1,000 acres was not enough land to interest the Dept. of the Interior, so the North American Wildlife Foundation had agreed to hold the title until more land was acquired and the Federal Government would accept it. It was known that Marcellus Hartley Dodge had been a trustee of the North American Wildlife Foundation for many years. The newspapers hinted that M. Hartley Dodge was behind it all, but Dodge himself was unavailable for comment. It was later established that most of the money to buy up the acreage had come from Mr. Dodge, and that he had done much of the prodding to win over landowners so they would sell their property.
It soon became evident that a broader base of money and support was needed to carry out the conservationists’ plan. Dodge was instrumental in forming the Great Swamp Committee. It is said that M. Hartley Dodge watched anxiously from the sidelines, knowing that much more private land in the Great Swamp area must be acquired before the U.S. Dept. of the Interior would accept the gift, and thereafter take responsibility to operate it as a wildlife sanctuary. Dodge himself dipped into his own pocket several times to prevent a land purchase from getting away.
In June, 1961, the Regional Director of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife promised that a gift of 3,000 acres would guarantee a national wildlife refuge, and that 2,000 acres would be large enough for the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin active management. He also agreed to have signs erected to indicate the presence of the U.S. Government.
Closing the Gaps Was Unexpectedly Difficult
The conservationists were far from being out of the woods. The Dept. of the Interior needed a management unit of contiguous or at least closely spaced properties. Much of the land bought thus far was widely scattered within the whole refuge boundary. To close in these areas, the Great Swamp Committee wanted at least $600,000. (The final amount spent was almost double.) By November, 1961, a total of $450,000 had been contributed by 1,200 individuals and more than 100 organizations. However, by far the largest proportion had been contributed by a few generous families -- more than $300,000 had come from M. Hartley Dodge and $50,000 from Mrs. Dodge.
On Christmas Day 1963, M. Hartley Dodge died. He had done what he could, whenever he could, to save his beloved swamp, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that the refuge would soon be a reality. Five months later, more than a thousand people watched as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior formally received a gift of 2,600 acres of land worth over $1 million, to form the nucleus of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.
Though Marcellus Hartley Dodge had been dead for five months, surely his spirit was present. Where did this dedication ceremony take place? At the M. Hartley Dodge estate.
In 1959, it was discovered that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was developing plans to acquire the land we call “The Great Swamp,” and there to construct a "jetport." Their aims were ambitious, and their jetport would be one of the largest in the world. Many residents of the area were up in arms, but they were opposed by powerful pro-business interests.
In time, however, a defensive strategy emerged -- transfer as much land as possible from strategic places in the middle of the Great Swamp, to the Federal Government, for use as a wildlife sanctuary. It was believed this would keep the land out of the reach of the Port Authority, and thus defeat the jetport plan.
A Captain of Industry Becomes Engaged In Open Space Issues
After 1907, when M. Hartley Dodge married Geraldine Stillman Rockefeller, youngest daughter of William Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller and a founder of Standard Oil Company (NJ), the young couple became among the largest landowners in the Great Swamp area. It was known that Dodge was a generous donor of land to the newly-formed Morris County Park Commission. In 1957, Mr. Dodge and others donated over 50 acres to the Morris County Park Commission for Loantaka Park, the first link in the Loantaka Brook Reservation. But the actual extent of his concern for saving the Great Swamp was not revealed until later.
Dodge was the retired Chairman of the Board of the Remington Arms Company and had served for many years as a Director of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad. He was also a member of various other boards. He lived in Madison Borough and made substantial contributions (usually anonymously) to local causes. Born in 1881, “Marcy” Dodge was a friend of the rich and famous, and was descended from a founder of the Phelps-Dodge Corporation.
Launching the “Defensive Strategy”
In September, 1960 almost 1,000 acres of private land was quietly transferred to the North American Wildlife Foundation, a prestigious national conservation organization in Washington, D.C. There was a small problem -- 1,000 acres was not enough land to interest the Dept. of the Interior, so the North American Wildlife Foundation had agreed to hold the title until more land was acquired and the Federal Government would accept it. It was known that Marcellus Hartley Dodge had been a trustee of the North American Wildlife Foundation for many years. The newspapers hinted that M. Hartley Dodge was behind it all, but Dodge himself was unavailable for comment. It was later established that most of the money to buy up the acreage had come from Mr. Dodge, and that he had done much of the prodding to win over landowners so they would sell their property.
It soon became evident that a broader base of money and support was needed to carry out the conservationists’ plan. Dodge was instrumental in forming the Great Swamp Committee. It is said that M. Hartley Dodge watched anxiously from the sidelines, knowing that much more private land in the Great Swamp area must be acquired before the U.S. Dept. of the Interior would accept the gift, and thereafter take responsibility to operate it as a wildlife sanctuary. Dodge himself dipped into his own pocket several times to prevent a land purchase from getting away.
In June, 1961, the Regional Director of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife promised that a gift of 3,000 acres would guarantee a national wildlife refuge, and that 2,000 acres would be large enough for the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin active management. He also agreed to have signs erected to indicate the presence of the U.S. Government.
Closing the Gaps Was Unexpectedly Difficult
The conservationists were far from being out of the woods. The Dept. of the Interior needed a management unit of contiguous or at least closely spaced properties. Much of the land bought thus far was widely scattered within the whole refuge boundary. To close in these areas, the Great Swamp Committee wanted at least $600,000. (The final amount spent was almost double.) By November, 1961, a total of $450,000 had been contributed by 1,200 individuals and more than 100 organizations. However, by far the largest proportion had been contributed by a few generous families -- more than $300,000 had come from M. Hartley Dodge and $50,000 from Mrs. Dodge.
On Christmas Day 1963, M. Hartley Dodge died. He had done what he could, whenever he could, to save his beloved swamp, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that the refuge would soon be a reality. Five months later, more than a thousand people watched as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior formally received a gift of 2,600 acres of land worth over $1 million, to form the nucleus of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.
Though Marcellus Hartley Dodge had been dead for five months, surely his spirit was present. Where did this dedication ceremony take place? At the M. Hartley Dodge estate.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Living Streamside
GSWA is introducing a new educational series this fall on what homeowners can do to protect the streams, ponds, lakes and wetlands that flow into the Great Swamp. We will tell you how you can prevent everyday products from contaminating our waterways, how you can have a “green” yard, and how you can conserve water. For instance, did you know you could make a difference by switching to a dishwasher detergent containing little or no phosphates? Phosphorus accelerates plant growth in our ponds and streams, reducing oxygen needed to support fish and other organisms. The actions of every one of us affect the health of our water. You don't have to live on a stream to develop good streamside living practices.
If you have already taken steps to protect the watershed, share your tips with us. Post your comment.
If you have already taken steps to protect the watershed, share your tips with us. Post your comment.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
How to Recognize a Truly “Green” Home
I find it hard to go to a hardware or home improvement store without being almost overwhelmed by the many products and new materials competing for attention as a “must have” step toward becoming environmentally “correct.” How to make my home into a “greener” place has become an ongoing learning process for me.
Having a “green” home is not just a fad. A “green” home uses less energy, water and natural resources, creates less waste, reduces greenhouse gases, and is healthier for the people living inside, compared to a standard home.
A home can be built “green,” or one can make it “green” later. A “green” make-over can happen all at once, or it can be a gradual process. But what it all comes down to, I think, is a new way of thinking and a new way of living. Commercial developers and building owners are perhaps the most important part of the equation. Architects and engineers have traditionally taken their cue from clients regarding a building’s environmental performance. The standard practice has been to focus more on construction costs than long-term operational costs. With a typical building lifespan of 75 years, however, maintenance and other ongoing expenditures often prove to be much greater than the initial costs. This makes energy efficiency, for example, an excellent investment over time.
What Shade of “Green?”
With so many voices advocating different ways to get to “green,” I started looking for some standards. I found that the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-profit trade organization, has been a pioneer in defining standards for “green” building design, construction, operation and maintenance, by offering a LEED certification for those building projects which qualify. “LEED” stands for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.” Importantly, it is homes and other building PROJECTS which may be certified, not builders; but any builder is eligible to register a project with LEED. This is a voluntary rating system, with inspections by qualified third parties, and is appropriate for a wide range of “green” situations, including “green” homes, affordable housing, mass-production homes, custom designs, stand-alone single-family homes, duplexes and townhouses, suburban and urban apartments and condominiums and lofts in historic buildings.
Apparently, I was not the only one doing some learning! This year the latest version of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED building performance certification system will begin requiring the submission of building operation performance data on a recurring basis and as a pre-condition to certification. USGBC had found too often a performance gap between the energy modeling done during the design phase and what actually happens during daily operation after the building is constructed. So, ongoing monitoring and reporting of data will be required. It is thought that this will improve building performance by bringing to light external issues such as occupant behavior or unanticipated building energy use and water consumption patterns.
We All Must Stay Abreast of Improved “Green” Methods
I was pleased to find that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) appreciates the need to have standards defining when to call a building project “green.” This year the AIA began requiring its members to take four hours of continuing education courses in “green” design, every year. It is reassuring that I am not the only one engaged in a continuing learning process about the newest ways to make a building project “green.” Under the auspices of the AIA, licensed architects learn about such things as how to reduce heat gain from sunlight; the most energy-efficient ways to position buildings relative to the sun, wind and other elements; ways to bring in natural light and reduce electricity consumption; and the preservation and re-use of existing buildings. Whereas architects typically walk away from their projects after they are completed (perhaps visiting only occasionally) now there is more emphasis on following the life of a building after it is occupied. More and more, the architect is becoming interested in studying how tenants use the structure and how its sustainable aspects hold up over time.
Not only are the physical building materials and methods of “green” construction rapidly changing ----- there is an important change in professional thinking. Thanks to LEED and other measures of “green,” an on-going measure will be applied, not just an initial focus at the design and construction.
Having a “green” home is not just a fad. A “green” home uses less energy, water and natural resources, creates less waste, reduces greenhouse gases, and is healthier for the people living inside, compared to a standard home.
A home can be built “green,” or one can make it “green” later. A “green” make-over can happen all at once, or it can be a gradual process. But what it all comes down to, I think, is a new way of thinking and a new way of living. Commercial developers and building owners are perhaps the most important part of the equation. Architects and engineers have traditionally taken their cue from clients regarding a building’s environmental performance. The standard practice has been to focus more on construction costs than long-term operational costs. With a typical building lifespan of 75 years, however, maintenance and other ongoing expenditures often prove to be much greater than the initial costs. This makes energy efficiency, for example, an excellent investment over time.
What Shade of “Green?”
With so many voices advocating different ways to get to “green,” I started looking for some standards. I found that the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-profit trade organization, has been a pioneer in defining standards for “green” building design, construction, operation and maintenance, by offering a LEED certification for those building projects which qualify. “LEED” stands for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.” Importantly, it is homes and other building PROJECTS which may be certified, not builders; but any builder is eligible to register a project with LEED. This is a voluntary rating system, with inspections by qualified third parties, and is appropriate for a wide range of “green” situations, including “green” homes, affordable housing, mass-production homes, custom designs, stand-alone single-family homes, duplexes and townhouses, suburban and urban apartments and condominiums and lofts in historic buildings.
Apparently, I was not the only one doing some learning! This year the latest version of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED building performance certification system will begin requiring the submission of building operation performance data on a recurring basis and as a pre-condition to certification. USGBC had found too often a performance gap between the energy modeling done during the design phase and what actually happens during daily operation after the building is constructed. So, ongoing monitoring and reporting of data will be required. It is thought that this will improve building performance by bringing to light external issues such as occupant behavior or unanticipated building energy use and water consumption patterns.
We All Must Stay Abreast of Improved “Green” Methods
I was pleased to find that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) appreciates the need to have standards defining when to call a building project “green.” This year the AIA began requiring its members to take four hours of continuing education courses in “green” design, every year. It is reassuring that I am not the only one engaged in a continuing learning process about the newest ways to make a building project “green.” Under the auspices of the AIA, licensed architects learn about such things as how to reduce heat gain from sunlight; the most energy-efficient ways to position buildings relative to the sun, wind and other elements; ways to bring in natural light and reduce electricity consumption; and the preservation and re-use of existing buildings. Whereas architects typically walk away from their projects after they are completed (perhaps visiting only occasionally) now there is more emphasis on following the life of a building after it is occupied. More and more, the architect is becoming interested in studying how tenants use the structure and how its sustainable aspects hold up over time.
Not only are the physical building materials and methods of “green” construction rapidly changing ----- there is an important change in professional thinking. Thanks to LEED and other measures of “green,” an on-going measure will be applied, not just an initial focus at the design and construction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
