From WritingWiki

Contents 1 Goals 2 Purpose 3 Project Plans 4 Methodology 5 Summary of Project 6 Mapping Information 7 Model Criteria 7.1 Habitat 7.2 Production 7.3 Information 7.4 Regulation 7.5 Results of the Retention/Detention Ponds Found 7.6 Preliminary Findings 7.7 Recommendations 7.8 Future Projects 7.9 Point of Contacts 7.10 Expected Timeline 7.11 Useful Links 7.12 Summary 7.13 Maps 7.14 Contact

Goals

Working together, we would like to focus on one aspect of sustainability around campus. Sustainability encompases both tangibles and intangibles. "Tangibles" might include measurable outputs such as carbon dioxide emissions. However, the focus of our project is on the "intangibles," things that are difficult to quantify, and hence put a price tag on. Specifically, we will be focusing on the following aspect of campus sustainability:

• Whether current dredging practices and techniques for retention ponds on campus are beneficial in terms of their overall quality.

• The question that guides our project is: Are current management practices working to enhance the ponds' overall quality?

Purpose

We felt that since the college has many aspects of environmental sustainability that is has yet to attain, one of the best places to start would be here.

Project Plans

• Define criteria of a retention pond; perhaps there are more ponds than the College Buildings and Grounds Department count.
• Determine the exact number of retention ponds around William and Mary and find where they are located using GIS mapping.
• Determine current dredging practices such as: How, why, and when they occur.
• Establish 4 Models to Evaluate Retention Ponds: Habitat, Production, Regulation, and Information.

Methodology

• 6 retention ponds were observed and evaluated on the 4 models of: Habitat, Production, Regulation, and Information.
• Using those criteria: We assessed the ponds on three days 3/25, 3/26, and 4/9.
• GIS Mapping was used to locate the ponds.

Summary of Project

• Established our 4 modeling criteria of: Habitat, Production, Regulation, and Information for 6 retention ponds.
• GIS Mapping located the approximate area of the retention/detention ponds
• Conducted field observations to evaluate the ponds based on that criteria
• Retention and detention ponds were distinguished in terms of their functions: Control for sedimentation equaled detention (often had little to no standing water) while retention ponds had more standing water and had broader functions.
• For more detailed information about our project: Look at our modeling criteria and the attached summary paper:

Mapping Information

• Map of retention/detention ponds on campus: Attached Document

Model Criteria

Habitat

• 1. Is ground cover/ trees/ brush present?
  • All- 1
  • Some 2-3
  • Few 4
  • none 5
• 2. Is there a lot of above?
  • 90-100% covered- 1
  • 70-90%covered- 2-3
  • 50-70% covered- 4
  • Below 50%- 5
• 3. Variety of ground cover/brush/ trees present?
  • Large variety- 1
  • Some-3
  • None- 5
• 4. Nests present?
  • Yes, lots- 1
  • Some - 2-3
  • Few- 3-4
  • None- 5
• 5. Variety of species?
  • Same scale as 3rd.
• 6. Amount of animals?
  • Same scale as 4th.
• 7. Underwater vegetation?
  • Same scale as 4th.
• 8. Size of pond (retention v. detention)
  • Large-1
  • Medium-2-3
  • Small- 3-4
  • No water present-5
• 9. Depth of water
  • Deep- 1
  • Shallow- 3
  • no water - 5
• 10. Food for animals?
• Same scale as 4th.

Production

• Amount of fruit bearing trees
• Ability to support a vast food chain
  • Most important criteria for this model
• Amount of harvestable animals/fish(if applicable)

Information

-All these criteria will be rated based on the following scale 1=best/5=worst

• Aesthetic Qualities of Pond-Water Clarity, etc.
• Location-Is it surrounded by a lot of tree/vegetative cover or impervious surface?
• Educational-Can students and others learn valuable information from retention pond?
• Recreational-Does it provide leisure and other intangible values to the individual?
• Other-Does this pond have any distinct features that distinguishes it from others?

Regulation

-Retention Ponds will be graded based on the percentage of algal production observed along with Overall Water Clarity:

• Clear- 0-20% algal bloom production
• Somewhat Clear- 20-40% algal bloom production
• Moderately Cloudy-40-60% algal bloom production
• Very Cloudy-60-80% algal bloom production
• Unclear-80-100% algal bloom production

Results of the Retention/Detention Ponds Found

-Method- 5/6 Ponds were evaluated Based on the following 4 Models:

• Regulation
• Information
• Production
• Habitat

-Regulation Model: Evaluated based on Percentage of Algal Nutrient Production and Overall Water Clarity:

• 0-20% clear
• 20-40% somewhat clear
• 40-60% moderately clear
• 60-80% very cloudy
• 80-100% unclear

-Information Model:

• Evaluated on Scale of 1-5 to determine Aesthetic Values: 1 Best/5 Worst

1. Health Center Pond

• • Last Dredged: 2004

Regulation

• Moderately High Algal Production: 60-80%/Pond had pockets of algal production, but also pockets of very clear areas. This proves the pond might have been undergoing cyclical

Information Model -Overall Rating: 4-Very Poor

• Surrounding Area: Moderate amount of vegetation and tree cover, but mostly impervious surface due to parking lots from Yates Dormitory and the Student Health Center. This has resulted in poor water clarity.
• Educational: May learn some useful information from pond such as: How small fish and some aquatic invertebrates are sustained despite impervious surface that creates potential for runoff.
• Aesthetics: Water clarity was not very good throughout the pond despite observing a large number fish and other invertebrates.
• Recreational: Currently, pond does not have any recreational values. The poor water clarity/quality does not make this pond desirable for fishing or any other enjoyment activities due to high degree of sedimentation.
• Other: Pond has potential to become more aesthetically pleasing. Employing more Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as sedimentation fences to improve the overall water quality would be desirable.

Habitat -Overall Rating: 3- Moderate.

• Variety: A variety of plants present allows for maximum amounts of variety in wildlife. Several species of birds were observed as well as squirrels in immediately surrounding area.
• Fish: A surprising note was the amount of small fish present in the pond, feeding on the algae present.
• Pond Plants: This retetion pond was the only one of note which seemed to have actual pond grasses and plants inside of it.
• Coverage: Not completely covered with tall trees and brush and it does border an impervious surface (though not to the extent as some other worse ones)
• Area appeared rather open.
• Area of detention pond larger than retention pond observed, nearby creeks and more ponds, but pond is small compared to others.
• Shallow pond water.

Production Overall Rating- 4- Poor

• Very small fish present, nothing harvestable
• No fruit bearing trees present, though bushes may contain berries later on

2. Randoph Complex Pond

• • Last Dredged- ??? (This pond is next on the list of ponds to be dredged)

Regulation Model

• Clear: 0-20% Algal Production

Information Model -Overall Rating: 3-Moderate

• Surrounding Area: Dense vegetation and tree cover, less impervious surface/hence a lot of buffers such as tree cover and shrubs. However, more pollution control measures such as bushy plants should be added to control further for runoff.
• Educational: Vegetative cover/presence of aquatic grasses/small fish and frogs present. Hence, supports a lot of wildlife.
• Aesthetics: High water quality/appears to not have been as impacted by presence of phosphates/nitrates.
• Recreational: Pond supports a lot of fish and frogs, which suggests its recreational value is high
• Other: Pond appears to be free flowing with a lot of standing water. Hence, this might explain why this pond appears to support a lot of fish since they possibly moved downstream due to storm activities.

Habitat Model -Overall Rating: 2- Very Good

• Variety of species present
• Amount of species rather high
• Nests present
• Covers a lot of space
• Small fish present
• Variety of trees/ground cover/ brush
• 100% cover by trees/ brush/ground covers
• Some grass in pond present
• Shallow water

Production -Overall Rating: 2- Very Good

• Thorned Brush present
• A variety of species, along with algae and small fish present to support a larger food web
• Plenty of fallen trees for insects to be present
• Covers Large Area

3. Crim Dell-Retention Pond

• • Last Dredged: 1993

Regulation Model

• Clear: 0-20% Algal Production

Information Model -Overall Rating: 2-Very Good

• Surrounding Area: Construction of the new science center creates some opportunity for runoff of non-point source pollutants. There is some impervious surface, but it does not appear to have affected water clarity.
• Educational: This pond supports the following: A lot of vegetative cover due to presence of small grasses and shrubs, presence of many small and big Koi fish and other species, and few black snakes. This pond appears to be a great place that supports a large amount of plant and animal species despite
• Recreational: Provides opportunity for fishing/other enjoyment activities.
• Other: Pond appears to support a vast amount of animal and plant life in comparison to the other ponds observed.

Habitat -Overall Rating: 1- Best

• Covers the largest area of all ponds
• Deepest Water
• Larger and more diverse fish population
• Nests present
• Mostly surrounded by trees, some brush present, no immediate ground cover present.
• Variety of wildlife, large amount of it.

Production -Overall Rating: 2- Very Good

• Fishes in various stages of development present
• A variety of wildlife to support a large food web, along with deep water and a large area of a pond.
• Variety of areas for wildlife to live means there will be a more diverse group of animals living there, supporting a larger food web.
• No noticeable berry trees/ brush present, however

4. Right Law School Detention Pond

• • Last Dredged: 2007

Regulation Model

• 0-20% Algal Production

-Disclaimer: However, water was still unclear due to its reddish color due to high

Information Model -Overall Rating: 5-Worst

• Surrounding Area: Little to no vegetative cover/impervious surface from tennis center parking lot, graduate complex parking lot, and open passageway on left side of pond where graduate students reside. Hence, this creates poor water clarity as the water has a rusty coloration.
• Educational: No fish/aquatic invertebrates/or other significant vegetation was found. Small grasses and rocks served as barriers, but the pond was largely void of any educational values in terms of supporting any animal or plant life. Hence, individuals would not be able to learn valuable educational information
• Recreational: The rusty color of the pond makes it unable to provide any recreational value or enjoyment for others. Fishing and other recreational activities do not appear to be substantially supported by this pond.
• Other: Better management practices should be employed to increase the water clarity of the pond. The current barriers of rocks and small grasses appear to be ineffective as barriers to non-point source pollutants. Larger shrubs/trees and other practices should be employed to increase water clarity of pond.

Habitat Model Overall rating: 5- Worst

• Surrounded by impervious surfaces
• Covered mostly by grass, very sparse amount of trees present.
• When analysis was carried out, no species present
• No standing water, so no fish
• No variety in plants (all grass)

Production Overall rating 5- Worst

• Due to poor habitat model , very poor results for production
• Few species can only support few other species, so very small food web sustained
• No fruit-bearing anything

5. Left Law School Detention Pond

• • Last Dredged- ????

Regulation Model

• 0-20% Algal Production

Information Model -Overall Rating: 3-Moderate

• Surrounding Area: Some impervious surface cover from apartment complex and surrounding intersection on the far right side, but a lot of trees/mosses/shrubs mitigate effects to water clarity/quality.
• Educational: The abundant plant life means this pond has a high educational value. However, there is no evidence fish or other animal species are supported by this pond. Hence, the educational value is mixed.
• Recreational: Individuals might find the pond to be enjoyable because of the great vegetative cover it receives, but there is little standing water due to its function as a detention pond. Hence, this pond does not support a lot of fish or other animal species. Like its educational value, the recreational value is also mixed.
• Other: The management practices of the pond appear to be good in terms of mitigating water quality or clarity issues. However, the pond could be improved aesthetically by having more recreational and educational values by supporting more animal life.

Habitat

• Overall rating: 3- Moderate
• Large vegetative cover in all areas
• Large Area
• No standing water
• Large nest present
• A small burrow was noticed (if it was a burrow)
• Variety of birds and pond was quite capable of sustaining them (for nesting)
• Absence of fruit bearing trees

Production

• Overall rating: 4- Very poor
• Absence of fruit bearing trees
• No fish or water, therefore no algae
• Absence of large variety of things to eat does not allow for a very large food web

6. Pond Behind Facilities Management

• • Last Dredged- 2007

Regulation

• 0-20% algal production.

-Disclaimer: Pond's water clarity was poor, however, due to the predominance of dead leaves and other organic matter.

Information -Overall Rating: 3 Moderate

• Surrounding Area: There is some impervious surface due to runoff from the Campus Center.
• Educational: There were mostly dead leaves found in the pond. No significant amounts of fish, amphibians, or other animal and plant life were found.
• Recreational: The pond's lack of any vegetation or animals means it lacks recreational values.
• Other: The management practices regarding this pond include the use of a fence and some bamboo coverings to mitigate any potential harm from runoff.

Habitat -Overall Rating: 4- Poor

• Very homogeneous species of tree present (bamboo)
• Amount of trees didn't extend far back nor did it surround pond entirely
• Absence of fish in pond
• No large amount of variety in birds/ few birds to begin with
• Shallow water, probably suitable for frogs and tadpoles.

Production -Overall Rating: 4- Poor

• Small amount of water could allow for tadpoles and mosquito larva which could attract predators, but none of these were present at time of analysis.
• Same species of surrounding trees creates nesting sites only for very similar animals.
• No brush present, only bamboo and grass.

Preliminary Findings

-Ponds were judged on 4 models and the results are the following:

• Regulation Model:

-5 of the 6 ponds fell within the "clear" range with regards to % of algal production.

-An important disclaimer to note: The left detention pond located near the law school, still had poor water quality even though there was no algal production. This was primarily due to its reddish/rusty colored soil, possibly because of some degree of sedimentation.

-The pond with the most algal production was behind Yates due primarily to its exposure to the greatest amount of impervious surface cover: Parking lot of student health center and Yates Dormitory.

-All the other ponds had negligible amounts of algal production.

• Information Model:

Most Aesthetically Pleasing Pond: Crim Dell

-Employed Best Management Practice Techniques:

• Sedimentation fences especially around McGlothlin Street Hall
• Use of woody shrubs, trees, and plants
• Result: Crim Dell receives the highest rating with regards to its educational and recreational values.

• Educational:

-In addition to the BMPs, the large number of animal and plant life found means this pond provides a lot of aesthetic values to individuals. -Examples of animal/plants found: Dense tree cover, black snake, and koi fish

• Recreational:

-Pond provides a great opportunity for individuals to fish and/or learn other valuable information from pond.

Least Aesthetically Pleasing Pond: Left Detention Pond

-Did not employ Best management Techniques:

• No Sedimentation Fence
• No woody shrubs, trees, or plants to control
• Result: The left detention pond receives the worst rating with regards to its educational and recreational values.

• Educational:

-Lack of any aquatic or plant life found -No valuable information to learn from this pond

• Recreational:

-Due to lack of fish found, recreational values are low. -Like with education, no valuable benefits can be derived from pond.

Results from the other Ponds Evaluated

• The rating for the majority of ponds was generally in the moderate range (i.e. on a scale of 1-best/5-worst, between 3 and 4) due to the use of some BMP practices and their support for some educational and recreational values, but on the whole, they did not measure up to the Crim Dell. The Crim Dell provided the most in terms of recreational, educational, and overall aesthetic values.

Recommendations

-Based on the four models we used to evaluate the retention/detention ponds on campus, we think the following should be done to improve their overall quality:

• Employ Best Management Practices at all ponds, particularly the ones by the law school and behind Yates where overall water quality was judged to be either poor or moderate. Perhaps, using the Crim Dell as a template for the others with regard to Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be useful and beneficial.

-Consider employing a combination of the following:

1. Plant more woody shrubs and plants especially around the perimeter of the pond.

2. Minimize the effect of runoff from impervious surface via sedimentation/pollution fences.

3. Develop a set schedule (i.e. every 6 months, after big storm events, etc.) for dredging ponds to enhance their water quality and the overall aesthetic values they provide.

Future Projects

-Given that the ponds, including those most recently dredged still did poorly in terms of overall quality, the following should be looked at using this project as a template:

• Look at what constitutes efficient dredging practices. Perhaps, there are other techniques that would be beneficial other than those currently used by Facilities Management.
• What would be an appropriate schedule for dredging? Research should be done by comparing those ponds where overall water quality is good and find out whether having a set dredging schedule has anything to do with that.

Point of Contacts

• Meeting this Friday, March 21 at 2:00 with Facilities Management
• Emailed John Mattie-Landscape Services/have not heard back from him yet.
• Emailed Sandra Prior- Environmental Health and Safety
• John McFarlane-Director of Facilities Management
• Emailed John McFarlane, Meeting set up for Friday March 21st at 2:00 pm(Purpose: Location of retention ponds, information about dredging practices, incite for models, general Q&A)

Expected Timeline

• March 17-24: Confirm Models, meet with Experts/ Facilities Management about latest dredged ponds, where ponds are located, and get any final unanswered questions answered.
• March 25- April 1: Conduct Mapping of Retention Ponds/ Judge Retention ponds based on confirmed models.
• April 2-9: Continue to Map Retention Ponds and Judge take Digital Pictures (if a camera is available) of sites.
• April 10-17: Plot points on GIS/ add Digital Pictures (if available).
• April 18-25: Compile Data and Draw Conclusions. Possibly Re-meet with Facilities Management about findings.

Useful Links

• http://www.wm.edu/facman/
• http://www.wm.edu/facman/FM/FM-Stormwater.php

Summary

• Summary

Maps

• retentionponds1
• retentionponds2

Contact

pjkenn@wm.edu

mmcmillan@wm.edu