Conservation Commission Meeting Agenda/Materials 109R and 131 Clark Lane Exhibit List (linked)

2.023
Wet Larscs
Water Ford Ct.
To: Corps WAKA Cow 55157] —
cc AGA
zs
C-22-14 |
109R & 131 CLARK LANE
|
PUBLIC HEARING 01-26-23
EXHIBIT #65
Deca nestor jHececds
ok Rctentwr Peds
9/23/2623

2/22/23, 10:27 PM Is pond algae toxic?: University of “linois Extension
== SSS SS SEES ad
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS (HTTP://IL. |1S.EDU/) URBANA-~CHAMPAIGN a SELECT LANGUAGE V
Is pond algae toxic? "
August 09, 2020
URBANA, II of most Midwestern
farm ponds, and species of algae vary greatly. Though most
pond algae is not toxic, Regge erates roe
"may increase chances for toxic algae to thrive
"Rainfall helps flush nutrients and algae out of the pond,
reducing the potential for blooms,” says Duane Friend iainas
(https://extension.illinois.edu/staff/duane-friend), University of - ”
Illinois Extension (https://extension.illinois.edu/) energy and it ILLINOIS EXTENSION
environment (https://extension.illinois.edu/global/energy- COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, CONSUMER
& ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
environment) educator. "If an algae bloom occurs, do not allow
livestock or pets to use the pond for drinking or cooling."
e as it dies off as the season
progresses. "If humans come in contact with the algae, they may e) i in irritati usea and
gastrointestinal issues if ingested," Friend says. In severe cases,
Using pond dyes to reduce sunlight penetration into the ponds may reduce some algae production, Friend says.
Although pond algaecides may be used in early to mid spring, no chemical applications should be applied to ponds
after July 1.
SOURCE: Duane Friend (https://extension.illinois.edu/staff/duane-friend), Energy and Environment Educator,
University of Illinois Extension
WRITER: Judy Mae Bingman (https://extension.illinois.edu/staff/judy-mae-bingman), Communications and
Marketing Manager, University of Illinois Extension
ABOUT EXTENSION: Illinois Extension leads public outreach for University of Illinois by translating research into action
plans that allow Illinois families, businesses, and community leaders to solve problems, make informed decisions, and
adapt to changes and opportunities.
Ponds (taxonomy/term/\66)
\
Search Extensign \ \, Go
wa
Find an Office (/global/where-we-serve)
https://extension illinois.edu/news-releases/pond-algae-toxic 413

2/22/23, 10:25 PM Gardening Clay: Pollutants washed into retention ponds make them hazardous
HOME-GARDEN
Gardening Clay: Pollutants washed into
retention ponds make them hazardous
Raymond H. Zerba Jr.
Published 12:01 a.m. ET Sept. 12, 2009 | Updated 12:00 a.m. ET Sept. 12, 2009
One of our readers called this week about a pond in their neighborhood that had a sudden
fish kill. The reader was concerned that it might have been caused by chemical pollutants.
This was not a regular pond but a retention pond. There are a lot of misconceptions about
what retention ponds are and what they do. These water bodies are manmade and designed
to collect all rainfall that is not absorbed by surrounding landscapes. If it were not for them,
neighborhoods would flood and roadways would be impassible after a rain.
drains. They. are in fact aT waste ——
ae
These retention ponds work bt residents in communities that lia them:n must understand
drain." Do your part - don't Aeasie oil or radiator fluid and let it flow down these drains. Don't
even wash » co: and let the chemicals go down the drain. If it's not safe to put on plants, it
shouldn't be allowed down these drains.
When you fertilize, stay at least 10 feet back from the water's edge of a retention pond
adjoining your property. This is your "ring of responsibility." If your land slopes toward the
pond, avoid weed and feed products.
When mowing, cut in a direction that sends clippings away from the water and don't blow
clippings from the street down storm sewer openings. This leads to a muddy bottom, which —
in turn leads to mosquit ‘ito outbreaks.
To address the fish kill question, if it happens all at once (rather than gradually - which
would be the case for a toxic buildup), it is probably from a temperature inversion that leads
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/lifestyle/home-garden/2009/09/12/gardening-clay-pollutants-washed-into-retention-ponds-make-th/15973751 007/ 1/2

2/22/23, 10:25 PM Gardening Clay: Pollutants washed into retention ponds make them hazardous
to oxygen depletion. To keep this from happening again, install aerating devices that
circulate the water by spraying it in the air so it splashes back down, bringing more oxygen.
Bi if you stock them with fish, do not eat the
sidaeemnhrerTOeRee ean De nonotin he watered tin 1k twice al bout allowing your
pets to drink the water.
Raymond Zerba is a University of Florida Clay County extension faculty member. For
answers to specific plant questions, go to clay.ifas.ufl.edu and under the heading
"Horticulture" click on "Ask a Master Gardener," or call 269-6355 in Orange Park, 284-6355
in Green Cove Springs and Middleburg or (352) 473-3711 in Keystone Heights.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/lifestyle/home-garden/2009/09/1 2/gardening-clay-pollutants-washed-into-retention-ponds-make-th/15973751007/ 2/2

2/22/23, 10:03 PM L.E.W. Inc Blog: Flooding! Why Lakes And Retention Pands Fail To Manage Stormwater Runoff
Pete Balciunas
Pete is the owner of
Wingman Digital
keting andis
https://www.lewincfl.com/blog/flooding
Flooding! Why
Lakes And
Retention Ponds
Fail To Manage
Stormwater
Runoff
1/8

2/22/23, 10:03 PM L.E.W. Inc Blog: Flooding! Why Lakes And Retention Ponds Fail To Manage Stormwater Runoff
excited to, omote | By: Pete Ba._.anas
Wingman clients
with educational
writing.
‘Through the development of
homes, buildings and parking
lots, we're altering our
watersheds having to build our
- ownsystems to manage water
runoff, Linch of rain ina
_ square foot of surface area
produces .62 gallons of water.
Large roofs of buildings and
the surface area of parking lots
collect millions of gallons of
water from an average rain
event. This water needs to go
somewhere. This is where
water retention ponds are
necessary to help mitigate the
storm flow. Water quality ina
retention pond is a huge.
challenge because of the type
of water the pond collects.
Many retention ponds suffer
from water health issues
ete yo
thatare multiplied when
dhey're-not maiptgined.
Retention ponds are inundated
https://www.lewincfl.com/blog/flooding 2/8

2/22/23, 10:03 PM
https://www.lewincfl.com/blog/flooding
L.E.W. Inc Blog: Flooding! Why Lakes And Retention Ponds Fail To Manage Stormwater Runoff
with all kina. uf nutrients and
aRnenianeaiggtOR doingits
_job that can lead to aesthetic
issues, overgrowth of water
weeds, wildlife sickness/death
7 and flooding.
Why do we maintain
retention ponds?
_ Retention ponds with no
circulation or irritation are
ns Stagnant water i is
never good. Runoff from lawns,
roads, and parking lots load
our retention pondsWith
challenges. Fertilizers run ning
into aretention on trom
lawns aid in algae blooms that
choke off oxygen and | Inereane
other water weeds. Water
temperatures rise and the
system collapses upon itself.
_ This can cause death events of
both good plant and wildlife.
3/8

2/22/23, 10:03 PM L.E.W. Inc Blog: Flooding! Why Lakes And Retention Ponds Fail To Manage Stormwater Runoff
All of this the. falls tothe
bottom of the pond and begins
to decompose, upsetting the
water chemistry and causes
vet F
__ silt buildup that reduces water
volume and causes drain
Tropical Storm Fay
affected most of
Florida and stalled over
Melbourne causing
record flooding.
byes 5
f Lamplighter
Sy Village
= ¥
https://www.lewincfl.com/blog/flooding 4/8

2/22/23, 10:03 PM
https://www.lewincfl.com/blog/flooding
L.E.W. Inc Blog: Flooding! Why Lakes And Retention Pands Fail To Manage Stormwater Runoff
Stay ahaead of
increase of flooding
dangers.
Water is powerful and will do
whatever it can to reach its
own level. If retention pond
_ drains are obstructed by silt,
plant. roots, and debris, the
design of thefeterition pond
will cease to work properly.
Sometimes the problem is
easily recognized while other
times the trouble is
underwater. Underwater clogs
in drainage are like a ticking
time bomb because you won't
notice the problem until there
are rain events that cause
flooding. The only way to
assess what’s happening under
the surface of the retention
pond is to get eyes in the water
to assess what's going on.
Commercial divers or
underwater ROV’s (remote
operated vehicles) manned by
5/8

Water Retentiv., and Detention Ponds
Running head: HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR WATER RETENTION AND
DETENTION PONDS
Jeremy J. Hansen
Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton, Wisconsin
Town of Grand Chute Fire Department, Grand Chute, Wisconsin

Water Retentiv.. and Detention Ponds 3
Abstract
The problem was the Town of Grand Chute had not implemented risk reduction
measures to reduce injuries and deaths related to the increasing number of water retention
and detention ponds. The purpose of the research is to determine the hazards and identify
prevention methods to reduce the potential for injuries and deaths related to water
retention and detention ponds. Descriptive Research was selected to answer the
following four research questions: (a) what are the legal requirements for the water
: retention ponds, (b) what is the statistical population at risk within the community, (c)
what access obstacles would be the most effective to reduce potential injuries and deaths,
and (d) who would be responsible for pond-related injuries anid deaths, The procedures
used by the author included a literature review, personal interviews, and observational
analysis. The research revealed ponds are constructed based on standards set by the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act. Standards are written primarily for
improving water quality and not for the safety of the civilian population. Research
suggested 77.8% of all exposed occupancies were residential. Most often, natural
barriers are used to persuade people from entering the ponds. !
the desig. To claim damages for negligence, the plaintiff must prove the proximate
cause of injuries was due to the pond and a fail to act. Recommendatio:
developing pond specific water rescue training, publishing an article discussing pond
_ safety and distributing to all occupancies, developing a curriculum for use in the
elementary schools.

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 5
Introduction
In 1997, the Town of Grand Chute created a sanitary district to address the issue
of storm water management. One objective of the sanitary district was to construct storm
water retention ponds for the purpose of slowing the influx of water produced during a
storm event. While these retention ponds are successful at their designed purpose, the
ponds create a new hazard for those who live in the community.
The problem is the Town of Grand Chute has not implemented risk-reduction
measures to reduce injuries and deaths related to the increased number of water retention
ponds.
The purpose of the research is to determine the hazards and identify prevention
methods to reduce the potential for injuries and deaths related to water retention ponds.
Descriptive Research was selected to answer the following four research
the statistical population at risk within novo, (c) what access obstacles would
be the most effective to reduce potential injuries and deaths, and (d) who would be
responsible for pond-related injuries and deaths.
Background and Significance
The Town of Grand Chute is located in the Fox River Valley region of Wisconsin,
one of the largest and fastest growing urban centers in the state, supporting many
nationally and internationally known corporations and businesses. The Fox Cities are
located in eastern Wisconsin, approximately 100 miles north of Milwaukee and 30 miles
south of Green Bay. The Town of Grand Chute is around 15,000 acres in size or 25
square miles. Of the 10,000 plus acres that fall within four major zoning categories,

Water Retention. and Detention Ponds 14
community and can also enhance the pollutant removal. A vegetative buffer should be
preserved around the pond to protect the banks from erosion and provide some pollutant
removal before the runoff enters the pond (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 2006).
~Alltetention and detention ponds need maintenance. The responsibility for long-
term inspection and maintenance depends on the local ordinance (“Storm water
detention,” 1998). The local municipality or parks district may have the responsibility of
planting and maintaining the ponds structure. However, the surrounding homeowners’
association or property owners may be responsible for trash pickup and aaa,
Retention and detention ponds are the drainage basin for an area, and tend ito bea
magnet for items like garbage. Trash and debris are washed into other areas after heavy
rain and wind events. Trash and debris should be removed routinely to maintain an
attractive appearance and to prevent the outlet from onan clogged. According to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999), retention and detention ponds
should be inspected after each rain event.
The Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Subdivision Ordinance (1997) states the
maintenance, including mowing any grass or clearing the drains of debris, is the
responsibility of the property owners of the land division (Chapter 37, Section
18.35(2)(j)). The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (2009) identifies the
property owner as responsible for non-structural maintenance such as mowing, litter
removal, algae removal, tree limbs removal, and landscaping. In addition, maintenance
may also include control of alga row srantansetSp ane Ody (United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

Water Retention. and Detention Ponds 16
e Inspect the pond shoreline for erosion, and stabilize as needed.
e Inspect for and remove trash and debris.
e Monitor the shoreline and side slopes for vegetation and conduct supplemental
planting as needed for the first three years. Then, inspecting once a year should
be adequate.
e Remove nuisance plants. Native plants may require mowing or prescribed
burning.
The State of Hawaii (2009) recommends that each pond is inspected annually to verify
that the person responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the retention or detention
pond is completing the task.
Ponds, like any body of water, tend to attract people of all ages (“Pond building,”
1998). For this reason, there is always a chance of injuries or drowning. Whether it is a
detention pond, retention pond, or a swimming pool, it is difficult to predict what a young
child passing by may do. Water retention and detention ponds do not have desirable
loudy. This is caused by
sediment, algae, and other particles suspended in the water (“Storm water detention,”
1998). If the pond is large enough and contains fish, bottom-feeding fish, specifically the
carp species, can cause a lot of turbulence in the water while they search for food.
Retention ponds can remove 30 to 80% of certain pollutants from the water before
they enter nearby streams (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2007).
According to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Storm water detention,”
1998) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2007) the removed pollutants
_include sediments, bacterias, greases, oils, chemicals, and metals. These sediments and

Water Retentio.. and Detention Ponds 17
contaminants can settle out of the water and become trapped in the soil and accumulate.
These pollutants can bioaccumulate and have a negative effect on the overall water
quality, subsequently affecting plants, animals, and human life (National Aeronautics and
: _ Space Administration, 2007). Therefore, swimming in a retention or detention pond is
highly discouraged.
The water may contain a mixture of chemical and biological waste. This may be the
result of saturated ground, over-taxed sewage and septic systems, or commercial or
industrial runoff. People and first responders who are exposed to water from a retention
or detention ponds could expect to contract an illness. In the Emergency Operations
Manual, Book 8: Inland water rescue and emergencies, the Fire and Rescue Departments
of Northern Virginia (2009) list several common. illnesses associated with exposure to
contaminated water:
e Gastrointestinal illnesses following ingestion of the contaminated water.
e Infectious hepatitis or aseptic meningitis from viruses in sewage-contaminated
water.
e Leptospirosis following exposure to waters contaminated by animal urine.
e Intestinal bacteria such as E. Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Hepatitis A Virus, and
agents of typhoid, paratyphoid, and tetanus.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) believes regions with a
cold climate pose another challenge. The spring snow melt may have large pollutant
loads which can rapidly overwhelm the pond. In addition, high concentrations of road
salt and road sanding may impact pond vegetation as well as reduce the storage and
treatment capacity of the pond.

Water Retention. and Detention Ponds 18
Both retention and detention ponds have received a lot of press regarding their
potential as breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Concerned parties are raising questions
about whether the benefits of these ponds are worth the potential risks associated with
mosquitoes that rely on water for hatching grounds (“Implementing the phase II,” 2003).
In the article Mosquitoes associated with storm water detention/retention areas,
published by the University of F lorida IFAS Extension (2003) adds validity to the
concern by stating, the widespread use of storm water systems may lead to the increase of
the mosquito population, unless adequate precautions are taken. Mosquito proliferation
in stormwater ponds is a concern, especially when so many wet and dry ponds are in
place and continue to be installed across the country. In general, the concern surrounds
the potential for creating a mosquito breeding habitat due to the shallow and stagnant
standing water, thus increasing the potential risk to adjacent community of exposure to
the West Nile virus (“Implementing the phase II,” 2003).
Since the retention ponds are
constructed to have water in them at all times, it would be difficult to completely
stages of the mosquito (“Implementing the phase II,” 2003).
Froparly designed, operated, and maintained ponds are not conducive to standing
water and as such should not be fertile breeding grounds for mosquitoes (“Implementing
the phase II,” 2003). Regulations relating to the design and construction of detention
ponds stipulate that storm water inflow must be dissipated within 72 hours so to

Water Retentio.: and Detention Ponds 19
accommodate a new volume of incoming storm water (“Mosquitoes associated with
storm,” 2003). Guo et al. (2006) believe it is important to design the pond to drain the
water in less than 72 hours to eliminate or reduce the potential of maintaining a mosquito
breeding ground.
Safety and legal liability begin with the design of the pond. Engineers who fail to
account for public safety when designing water retention or detention ponds put
themselves, their clients, and their employers at considerable risk (Guo et al., 2006).
According to the article Pond building: A guide to planning, construction, and
maintaining recreational pond (1998) the owner of the pond may be liable in a case of
injury or death resulting from use of the pond whether or not use of the pond was
authorized. In addition to the property owner, failure to properly address pond-related
risks could leave all parties involved with the design, construction, and maintenance
subject to legal liability in the event of an injury or death (Guo et al., 2006).
Retention and detention ponds can be a successful method for managing storm water.
However, the ponds can be dangerous and pose a risk to publi y, and the
welfare of people. Urban storm drainage system planners, designers, facility owners,
maintenance staff, and municipalities, including their elected officials and governing
bodies, must be aware of such risks and insist on the use of recommended techniques to
minimize them (Guo et al., 2006). The Center for Disease
_ suggests one intervention to prevent drowning de
creations of barriers and protection of those at risk. Commonly employed strategies are
water safety education, fencing of water hazards, and wide-spread teaching of the
resuscitation techniques (Conner, Cryer & Langley, 2007).

Water Retentio., and Detention Ponds 20
the ponds should be distributed to home owners’ and the home owner’s association,
d Prevention (2010) states formal swimming
lessons can help protect young children from drowning. Bernard, Paulozzi, and Wallace
(2007) agree and recommend providing swimming lessons to children aged four years or
older. However, Guo et al., (2006) suggest there is no substantial research to confirm
swimming lessons lessen the risk of drowning. It seems obvious that for an individual,
swimming ability would be protective in a drowning situation. However, it is likely that
the ability to swim also reduces one’s fear of the water, reduces that likelihood of
adaptive supervision, and affects the choice of activities undertaken (Guo et al., 2006).
One thing that can be agreed upon is the supervision of those at risk. Drowning
prevention measures should include carefully supervising children around any water
source (Bernard, Paulozzi, & Wallace, 2007). Supervisors of children should provide
“touch supervision,” meaning they should be close enough to reach the child at all times.
Adults should not be involved in any distracting activities, such as reading, playing cards,
talking on the phone, or mowing the lawn, while supervising children (Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2010). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2010)

Water Retentiv.. and Detention Ponds 21
reported most children who drown were last seen in the home, had been out of sight for
less than five minutes, and were in the care of one or both parents at the time.
Depending on their size, water retention and detention ponds could be mistaken for
recreational bodies of water. The ponds should be clearly marked with warning signs
that prohibit swimming (State of Hawaii, 2009). The warning signs should inform people
that the ponds may fill suddenly with deep water, and should include educational
interpretative signs that explain how the retention pond works (Guo et al., 2006).
weather. Most ponds have items such as inlet and outlet/overflow pipes that are
unprotected (Guo et al., 2006). Due to normal curiosity, children may enter an
unprotected pipe or they may be drawn in due to the water’s current. Preventing this
hazard can be accomplished by installing a guard over the pipe’s opening (“Pond
building,” 1998). Bars on the face of an inlet or outlet pipe should provide an opening
between them of 4-5 inches (Guo et al., 2006). When possible, integrate the pipes into an
outlet structure that has multiple small openings and a sloping trash rack at the pipe
entrance. The rack should have a surface area that is many times larger than the surface
area of the outlet pipe. Guo et al. (2006) argue a larger rack can reduce the velocity of
the water flowing into it and minimize the risk of a person being pinned against the rack.
The larger rack allows some water to pass through if some of the surface area is covered
with trash or debris.
Even with constant supervision and children who have completed swimming lessons,
barriers such as a fence are necessary to protect people (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2010). In some cases, the construction of retention and detention ponds

Water Retentio.: and Detention Ponds 22
occurs where there are limitations on space. Typically, these ponds are built with a steep
slope on one or more sides. A fence should be used to create a barrier and deter adults
and children from wandering too close (Guo et al., 2006). The Center for Disease
Control and Prevention (2010) suggests the pond be surrounded by a fence that is a
minimum of four feet tall. The State of Hawaii’s Injury Prevention Panel recommends
that retention ponds have enclosures similar to those that are required for residential
swimming pools, with a four-sided fence at least four feet high that allows access through
one or more locked gates (State of Hawaii, 2009).
The Indiana Builders Association does not believe fencing is an adequate means of
protection (Associated Press, 2011). It believes fencing could even endanger children
who might find a way into a fence-lined pond. The Indiana Builders Association believes
the barrier fence, built to keep children out, may become a barrier to the firefighter
attempting to perform a rescue (Associated Press, 2011). Guo et al. (2006) state ifa
situation does occur where public safety agencies are needed; these rescue agencies may
be impeded by a fence. Additionally, the barrier may also limit the children’s ability to
self-rescue from the pond.
Aesthetically pleasing fencing or railing can be useful in the attempt to keep people
out of harm’s way. However, the cost for some of the fencing may prohibit the use of it.
Most homeowners do not want cheap looking fencing visible from their window. This
can lower property values and ruin the view. In place of using fencing, some have
~ chosen to plant thick shrubs (Guo et al., 2006). Planting of vegetative barriers, from the
top of the bank to the water's edge around the perimeter of wet-bottom ponds without a
;
4 security fence, is highly recommended (State of Hawaii, 2009). Guo et al. (2006) and the

Water Retentiv.: and Detention Ponds 23
State of Hawaii (2009) states a zone of vegetative barriers serve as potential obstacles to
persons or animals who may consider entering the water. The vegetation shall preferably
be planted in a manner that does not disguise the pond's edge. The approach can create a
wildlife habitat and provide an attractive natural shoreline (Guo et al., 2006).
safety. The ponds need to have shallow, slow slopping sides of 8:1 to 12:1 to enhance
safety and allow for easy egress if people happen to fall in (Guo et al., 2006). In their
article, Guo et al. (2006) explain slopes that are too steep can be hazardous to people who
are performing general maintenance, including removing accumulated trash or mowing
the lawn. Where the slopes need to be more aggressive, safety rails need to be installed
(Guo et al., 2006).
Retention and detention ponds are often integrated into spaces that are frequented by
the public. Examples of places where one might find a pond would be parks, bike and
walking trails, playgrounds, apartment building complexes, and residential sub-divisions
(Guo et al., 2006). Guo et al. (2006) recommend modifying the location of the ponds to
reduce the risks to the public. There should be a reasonable attempt to separate certain
lands, such as schools and daycares, from the area where ponds are constructed. The
State of Hawaii (2009) requires ponds to have a one-hundred-foot-wide buffer in the
design surrounding the pond to separate it from schools, childcare facilities, homes,
parks, athletic fields, or housing projects. In addition, trails and sidewalks need to be
separated from all storm water detention facilities by not less than 25-feet, measured from
the one hundred year storm water line (State of Hawaii, 2009).

Water Retentiv.. and Detention Ponds 24
Water retention and detention ponds have been widely used across the United States
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). According to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (2007) the ponds are simple to operate; have low
maintenance costs; reduce or prevent pollution from entering the rivers, streams, lakes,
and ground water; and reduce flooding. When designing the ponds, engineers must pay
special attention to size and shape and not forget about safety (“Pond building,” 1998).
Maintenance of the ponds is normally handled by both the property owner and local
government (“Storm water detention,” 1998). There are many hazards associated with
water retention and detention ponds. Guo et al. (2006) state the ponds can be dangerous
and pose a risk to public health, safety, and the welfare of people. The risks from the
ponds can be reduced using a multi-system approach, including pond design,
maintenance, barriers, and education.
Procedures
The procedures used to meet the goals of this research were built on the APIE
(Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation) change model. An executive
analysis of potential hazards within the Town of Grand Chute determined there was a
potential risk of the population interacting with water retention and detention ponds. The
problem statement, “the problem was the Town of Grand Chute had not implemented risk
reduction measures to reduce injuries and deaths related to the increasing number of
water retention ponds,” was created to drive the research.
During the planning process to mitigate the identified problem, a vision or
purpose statement of change was developed. The purpose statement, “the purpose of the
research was to determine the hazards and identify prevention methods to reduce the

Water Retentiv.. and Detention Ponds 25
potential for injuries and deaths related to water retention and detention ponds.,” was
developed to answer the question of what was expected to be accomplished during the
research. More specifically, four questions were developed to identify particular areas to
be addressed: (a) what are the legal requirements for the water retention ponds, (b) what
is the statistical population at risk within the community, (c) what access obstacles would
be the most effective to reduce potential injuries and deaths, and (d) who would be
responsible for pond-related injuries or deaths. Descriptive Research was selected to
answer the questions.
Interviews were implemented as a method of gathering information about water
retention and detention ponds, specifically codes, standards, and regulations that govern
the ponds. An in-depth analysis of the problem statement, purpose statement, and
research questions was performed to develop the interview questions.
A personal interview was conducted with Thomas Marquardt, Director of Public
Works, Town of Grand Chute, Grand Chute, Wisconsin on May 11, 2011 (Appendix A).
Mr. Marquardt and the Town of Grand Chute were selected for several reasons. First, the
focus of the applied research project centers around the Town of Grand Chute and its
statistics. Within the Town of Grand Chute, the Director of Public Works is responsible
for the construction and maintenance of the ponds. Mr. Marquardt is an educated
individual whose fourteen plus years of prior experience as the Director of Public Works
for a total of two municipalities within Wisconsin allows him to be able to share his
experience from both communities.
A personal interview was conducted with Nick A. Vande Hey, Senior Project
Engineer, McMahon and Associates, Neenah, Wisconsin on May 19, 2011 (Appendix B).

Water Retentic.. and Detention Ponds 26
Mr. Vande Hey was selected based on information found during the literature review. An
internet search produced a PowerPoint presentation from March 5, 2008 that was
prepared by Mr. Vande Hey and presented to the Town of Menasha. McMahon and
Associates has been used by the Town of Grand Chute and other local municipalities to
design water retention or detention pond systems. Mr. Vande Hey has worked for
McMahon and Associates for 15 years and in a similar position for two years in
Washington D.C. He is a council member for the Northeast Wisconsin Stormwater
Consortium and the Fox Wolf Watershed Alliance.
To determine the population at risk, the author performed an in-depth analysis of
the census data for the Town of Grand Chute. The author used the United States Census
Bureau website to gather information related to the population of the Town of Grand
Chute. The data was stratified into specific age categories, populations of each age
group, and percentages that each age group accounted for within the total population
(Appendix C). The author searched the Center of Disease Control and Prevention
website for statistical date related to drowning. The data collected from the United States
Census Bureau was collated with information gathered from the Center of Disease
Control and Prevention to determine the population at risk.
The procedure for determining if the statistical population at risk would interact
with a water retention or detention pond began with performing an exposure analysis.
Data for the analysis was obtained from Thomas Marquardt, Director of Public Works
and Richard Trilling, Assistant Chief of Prevention, both from the Town of Grand Chute.
Assistant Chief Trilling and Director Marquardt worked with additional Town of Grand
Chute staff to gather maps for the research. Additional contacts were made with

Water Retcution and Detention Ponds 27
individuals from Outagamie County, Wisconsin, Planning and Zoning Departments. In
both cases they referred the author back the Town of Grand Chute.
The location of the water retention and detention ponds was determined by
observing their locations as plotted on the Town of Grand Chute’s 2011 Stormwater
Management Plan. The map was provided to the author by Assistant Chief Trilling. The
map measured 14.5 inches by 10.5 inches (Appendix D). It contained all of the roads,
highways, lot boundaries, and ponds for the Town of Grand Chute.
The Stormwater Management Plan map was used in conjunction with the map
index. The map index pages are used by the Grand Chute Fire Department to respond to
emergency incidents. The fire department map index lists all of the streets in the Town
of Grand Chute alphabetically, and in some cases for longer streets, by address block
numbers. Each map page represented a small area of the Town of Grand Chute. The
map pages showed address numbers, street names, and lot boundaries. The legend on the
map indicated that one inch was equivalent to 450 feet. The maps measured 8.2 inches
(3,690 feet) by 7.5 inches (3,375 feet). The pages have a one-inch (450-foot) overlap
around all four edges of each map page with the adjoining map page. An example of one
of the map pages can be viewed in Appendix E. A total of 128 map pages were
reviewed. The map index was last updated and printed on February 15, 2011.
The fire department map index broke the Town of Grand Chute into 128 pages, or
sections, which created a grid system for observing pond locations. Taking one map
index page at a time, and starting from the southeastern most corner of the Town of
Grand Chute, the author observed the location of the ponds on the Stormwater
Management Plan map and plotted the pond on the fire department map index pages.

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 28
The location of the pond was based on its represented position on the Stormwater
Management Plan map in relationship to road curves and lot boundaries. It was then
transferred to the fire department index map. Verification of the pond location was
performed by utilizing the Town of Grand Chute’s Geographic Information System (GIS)
webpage. The GIS was last updated with aerial photographs in the summer of 2010. The
author attempted to visually identify the pond to more accurately place it on the fire
department map index.
Ponds used within this research were randomly selected. The process started by
taking one page from the fire department map index, starting with the highest page
number, and plotting it onto the Stormwater Management Plan map containing the pond
locations. Ponds were selected by working from the southeastern corner of the map
index and working to the northwest. When multiple ponds existed on a single map index
page, the first pond was selected and then every third. The total amount of water
retention or detention ponds within the Town of Grand Chute was 349 (Appendix D).
The total number of ponds studied was 104 or 29.8%.
The name given to the location of each pond was based on the closest street
address. A circle was drawn from the approximate center of the pond using a locking
compass. Research was not able to determine what a “safe” distance from a pond was.
For that reason, the author personally chose to use a 500-foot radius from approximate
center as the measuring distance. This produced a measuring area that contained a 1,000-
foot-diameter circle. This process was repeated for all 128 pages of the fire department
map index. The locking compass was recalibrated to the 500-foot radius (1,000-foot

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 29
diameter) every five map index pages. A map index page with the 500-foot exposure
circles drawn on it can be viewed in Appendix E.
The buildings that had fallen within the circle were identified and counted. The
structures were broken into several categories including:
e One and Two Family
e Multi-Family
e Hotels/Motels
© Commercial
e Places of Assembly, also broken down into:
o Educational
o Daycares
o Other (including restaurants, pub, churches, etc.)
e High-rises
The GIS was used to verify the existence of the structure. In a few cases, there was an
address assigned to a lot but the GIS did not show a structure. The open lot was not
counted. GIS, and the author’s personal knowledge of the Town of Grand Chute, was
used to verify the category of the structure. In some instances, the distances between the
ponds meant the measured circles of two or more ponds would overlap. A structure that
fell in multiple measured circles was counted in each circle. The information was
accumulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Appendix F).
The author contacted the Town of Grand Chute’s attorney, three law firms in the
region, two others within the State of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin — Marquette
law professors, Wisconsin League of Municipalities, and Wisconsin Towns’ Association

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 30
in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a legal opinion of liability related to water retention
and detention ponds. Liability-related opinions listed in the results sections are based on
tort law cases for water retention and detention ponds found during an internet search.
The evaluation step of the APIE change model will be used in the future to
measure the results of this research. An evaluation tool would be developed based on the
recommendations.
Limitations
There are possible limitations to the research. The information listed in this
research is based on the opinions of the individuals interviewed. Information gathered
during the interviews assumed the individuals had the requisite knowledge to accurately
respond to each question. It was assumed the individuals interviewed gave the necessary
time to fully answer the interview questions and provided an accurate account of what
their organization believes is accurate and current techniques and procedures.
The research focused only on the Town of Grande Chute and is an accurate
representation of the Town of Grand Chute. The data may not be representative of other
municipalities. The pond exposure data was obtained by using the most current aerial
views of the Town of Grand Chute. The GIS webpage showed the aerial photos were
taken in 2010. The age of the aerial photos means the statistical data may not be
completely accurate for 2011 structural construction.
The pond locations were taken from the Stormwater Management Plan. The
author made a significant effort to place the pond in the correct location. The pond was
located onto the fire department map index by carefully observing lot lines and lot
configurations. It is possible the pond was not placed in the exact location as it was on

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 31
the Stormwater Management Plan map. A variance of just a few feet could skew the
number of exposed structures.
Only structures inside the Town of Grand Chute borders were counted. In a few
instances, ponds near the borders had structures within the 500-foot boundary that were
not counted because they did not fall within the Town. The research did not take into
account the size of the land parcels. Commercial lots are often larger than residential
lots, thus creating more exposures for a land area zoned residential as compared to
commercial land. Each structure was counted only once. Whether it was a multi-family
structure with four units or thirty, the structure was only counted once within the 500-foot
circle. This also holds true for a commercial building. Whether it was one company or a
strip mall with multiple shops under one roof, it was counted only once.
Results
The purpose of the research was to identify hazards and prevention methods to
reduce the potential of injuries and deaths related to water retention and detention ponds.
The research was driven by four questions.
The research revealed that water retention and detention ponds are constructed
based on standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act and
the recommendations from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (T.
Marquardt, personal communication, May 11, 2011). N. Vande Hey (personal
communication, May 19, 2011), stated Wisconsin is regulated by the federal
requirements of the EPA’s Clean Water Act. The main purpose of the standards is to
protect property from water runoff. Essentially, the ponds are a flood-control measure
meant to improve water quality by removing suspended solids, including the pollutants

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 32
from water runoff. Wet Detention Code 1001 provides guidance for pond
construction (N. Vande Hey, personal communication, May 19, 2011). The Town of
Grand Chute follows the stormwater utility regulation section of the Town’s ordinance.
The ordinance references the regulations put in place by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, specifically NR 151 and 216 (T. Marquardt, personal communication,
May 11, 2011 and N. Vande Hey, personal communication, May 19, 2011).
A review of the standards and regulations found they were written with the
primary purpose of improving water quality and providing a method for reducing the
total suspended solids during peak flows for post-construction sites (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 2007). The standards lack any reference to safety
measures or obstacles to protect the civilian population.
The research focused on the potential interaction between the water retention and
detention ponds and the civilian population. In the Town of Grand Chute, 5.8% of the
population is under of the age of 5 years, 5.1% of the population is between the ages of 5
and 9 years, 4.7% of the population is between the ages of 10 and 14 years, and 5.6% is
between 15 and 19 years. A total of 21.2% of the population is age 19 and under.
An exposure analysis observed 104 ponds or 29.8% of the total water retention
and detention ponds within the Town of Grand Chute. Only ponds within the Town of
Grand Chute were included in this research. Information obtained for the research was
placed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
Results for the Stormwater Management Map (Appendix D), the Grand Chute
Fire Department’s map index (Appendix E), and the data available from the Town of
Grand Chute GIS shows the civilian population does have the potential to interact with

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 33
the water retention and detention ponds. The research looked at the type of occupancy
and if there was an exposure to a water retention or detention pond. The total number of
exposed structures and the percent of the overall sample can be viewed in Table 2.
Table 2
Pond Exposure by Occupancy Type as a Percentage
Occupancy Exposures Percent
1-2 Family 944 61.9
Multi-family 243 15.9
Hotel/Motel 5 0.3
Commercial 316 20.7
Place of Assembly 16 1.0
High-rise 1 0.1
The exposure sample of 104 ponds was used to determine the rate of exposure.
As long as one structure of a specific type was found to be within the exposure circle, the
occupancy type was considered to have an exposure to that particular pond. One-two
family occupancy had 57 exposure incidents for a rate of 54.8%. Multi-family
occupancies had 30 exposure incidents for a rate of 28.8%. Hotel/Motels had three
exposures for a rate of 4.8%. Commercial occupancies had 43 exposure incidents for a
rate of 41.3%. Places of Assembly had nine exposure incidents for a rate of 8.6%.
Places of Assembly were broken down into three sub-categories that included educational
facilities, daycares, and other. Educations facilities had one exposure incidents for a rate
of 0.9%. Daycares had three exposure incidents for a rate of 2.8%. Other occupancies,
that included restaurants, pubs, or churches, had 11 exposure incidents for a rate of 4.9%.
High-rise occupancies had one exposure incident for a rate of 0.9%. The aforementioned
data can be viewed in Table 3.

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 34
Table 3
Rate of Exposure as a Percentage of the Total Sample Listed by Occupancy Type
Occupancy Exposures _ Percent
1-2 Family 57 54.8
Multi-family 30 28.8
Hotel/Motel 3 4.8
Commercial 43 41.3
Place of Assembly 9 8.6
High-rise 1 0.9
In many cases, the occupancy type had multiple buildings exposed to a single
pond. Table 4 illustrates the average number of buildings exposed to each pond. It
should be noted, the size of each building not taken into consideration. A multi-family
structure may contain four or forty families. The true number of persons exposed it still
unknown.
Table 4
Average Number of Exposed Structures per Incident Listed by Occupancy Type
Occupancy Incidents Structures _ Average
1-2 Family 57 944 16.56
Multi-family 30 243 8.1
Hotel/Motel 3 5 L.7
Commercial 43 316 7.35
Place of Assembly 9 16 1.8
High-rise 1 1 1
According to T. Marquardt (personal communication, May 11, 2011) the pond
must be constructed with a 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope above the water line. There
must be a 10:1 slope below the water line and the 3:1 slope after the ten-foot-depth mark
is reached. This data is confirmed in the Wet Pond 1001 standard. It recommends the
side slopes below the safety shelf shall be 2:1 or flatter and the interior side slope above

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 35
the safety shelf shall be 3:1 or flatter (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
2007).
Most often, natural barriers are used to dissuade people from wading into the
ponds (T. Marquardt, personal communication, May 11, 2011). N. Vande Hey (personal
communication, May 19, 2011) believes access obstacles should be made of natural
materials. For one, there are no fences around pond, lakes, or rivers. The ponds, lakes,
and rivers are much larger and deeper than a water retention or detention pond (N. Vande
Hay, personal communication, May 19, 2011). Access obstacles, such as tall grasses and
barberry or other thorny bushes can be used. It is up to the authority having jurisdiction
to decide what cost they are willing to incur in order to secure the pond (T. Marquardt,
personal communication, May 11, 2011).
T. Marquardt and N. Vande Hey agree (personal communication May 11, 2001
and personal communication May 19, 2011) fences or other permanent obstacles may
hinder first responders from performing a quick rescue if someone needs help. Both
agree that fences may need to be installed if there is an uncommon situation that could
potentially add danger. N. Vande Hey (personal communication May, 2011) gave an
example of a business that is discharging warm water that in colder climates could make
ice conditions unpredictable. If there is an exposure to a large number of children, like a
daycare, schools, or playground, a fence may be considered (T. Marquardt, personal
communication, May 11, 2011). N. Vande Hey (personal communication, May 19, 2011)
would give more consideration to fences if they are retrofit ponds that are going into an
existing area. The Wet Pond 1001 standard recommends additional safety features

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 36
beyond the safety shelf where conditions warrant them (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, 2007).
N. Vande Hey (personal communication, May 19, 2011) believes top soil can be
used as an obstacle. This opinion is reinforced in the Wet Pond 1001 standard; it states
top soil must be spread on all distribution areas above the safety shelf to a minimum
depth of four inches (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2007). Incorporating
12 inches of top soil on top of the safety shelf will produce a mucky situation for anyone
who decided to enter the pond. This hostile condition may persuade an individual to
reconsider before entering into the deepest parts of the pond. While the top soil does not
restrict access it does make it quite unpleasant (N. Vande Hey, personal communication,
May 19, 2011). The addition of thorny brush and tall grasses can increase its
effectiveness (N. Vande Hey, personal communication, May 19, 2011).
daily activities that are fully understood and can be appreciated by any age. The rationale
for this ruling is that, since individuals are expected to avoid obvious dangers there is no
reasonable risk of harm (Kozlowski, 1985). The law then is there are no damages
awarded for injuries caused by a danger found to be obvious.
Under Illinois law, owners of land generally do not owe a duty to protect
individuals from falling into bodies of water and drowning or potentially drowning
(Ahmed y. Pickwick Place Owners’ Association and Vista Property Management, Inc.,
2008). The potential of drowning in a body of water is normally considered an open and

Water Retention and Detention Ponds 37
obvious risk that individuals should appreciate and avoid. The law does not require
persons to warn or protect against possible injuries and death from open and obvious
conditions. An