Difference between revisions of "Case studies for pretreatment"
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Discussion of how the performance was measured or estimated | Discussion of how the performance was measured or estimated | ||
:'''Measured or Estimated Pollutant Removal Performance''': | :'''Measured or Estimated Pollutant Removal Performance''': | ||
| + | For proprietary practices, did were the manufacturer claims met? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Discussion of lessons learned through the implementation of this pretreatment practice | ||
| + | ==Villa Park Stormwater Improvements - Preserver== | ||
| + | ===Project Overview=== | ||
| + | Narrative description of pretreatment project | ||
| + | :'''Project Location''': Roseville, MN | ||
| + | :'''Year Constructed''': | ||
| + | :'''Type of Pretreatment Practice''': Proprietary settling device | ||
| + | :'''Specific Practice''': The Preserver | ||
| + | :'''Practice Owner''': | ||
| + | :'''Practice Designer''': | ||
| + | ===Design Considerations=== | ||
| + | :'''Design Cost''': | ||
| + | :'''Design Year''': | ||
| + | The total contributing drainage area to the Preserver was 242 acres, with 8 acres of direct drainage area. An estimated 30% of the direct drainage area to the Preserver was impervious (2.4 acres). The land use of the contributing drainage area was residential, with a mature tree canopy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | List of existing impairments and TMDLs that the BMP drains to | ||
| + | :'''Total Contributing Drainage Area''' (acres): 242 | ||
| + | :'''Total Impervious Area''' (acres): ~30% | ||
| + | :'''Watershed Slope''' (%): | ||
| + | :'''Downstream Structural Best Management Practice''': Irrigation cistern | ||
| + | :'''Design Pollutant Removal Performance''': | ||
| + | Discussion of why that particular pretreatment system was chosen for that project location, specific rationale (e.g., site characteristics, ease of maintenance, etc.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Description of sizing criteria used to design pretreatment practice | ||
| + | ===Construction Considerations=== | ||
| + | :'''Construction Cost''': | ||
| + | :'''Construction Year''': | ||
| + | Description of adverse site conditions/other construction challenges encountered during installation | ||
| + | ===Maintenance Considerations=== | ||
| + | List or description of types of maintenance practices used for the upkeep of the pretreatment system | ||
| + | :'''Maintenance Frequency''': | ||
| + | :'''Maintenance Cost''': | ||
| + | :'''Disposal Cost''': | ||
| + | The mature tree canopy in the contributing drainage area contributed to heavy organic loads, including large debris. The total captured material would likely be greater with more frequent cleaning of the system - the sump was full approximately halfway through the monitoring period. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Discussion of any additional maintenance considerations | ||
| + | ===Results=== | ||
| + | Discussion of how the performance was measured or estimated | ||
| + | :'''Measured or Estimated Pollutant Removal Performance''': 2,768 lbs of material captured by the pretreatment device, including: | ||
| + | *0.526 lbs phosphorus | ||
| + | *Significant heavy metals | ||
For proprietary practices, did were the manufacturer claims met? | For proprietary practices, did were the manufacturer claims met? | ||
Discussion of lessons learned through the implementation of this pretreatment practice | Discussion of lessons learned through the implementation of this pretreatment practice | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 25 January 2019
This page is in development
Project Name
Project Overview
Narrative description of pretreatment project
- Project Location:
- Year Constructed:
- Type of Pretreatment Practice: (e.g., forebay, proprietary settling device, etc.)
- Specific Practice: (e.g., rock inlet, name of proprietary device)
- Practice Owner:
- Practice Designer:
Design Considerations
- Design Cost:
- Design Year:
Narrative description of contributing drainage area, including description of land use
List of existing impairments and TMDLs that the BMP drains to
- Total Contributing Drainage Area (acres):
- Total Impervious Area (acres):
- Watershed Slope (%):
- Downstream Structural Best Management Practice:
- Design Pollutant Removal Performance:
Discussion of why that particular pretreatment system was chosen for that project location, specific rationale (e.g., site characteristics, ease of maintenance, etc.)
Description of sizing criteria used to design pretreatment practice
Construction Considerations
- Construction Cost:
- Construction Year:
Description of adverse site conditions/other construction challenges encountered during installation
Maintenance Considerations
List or description of types of maintenance practices used for the upkeep of the pretreatment system
- Maintenance Frequency:
- Maintenance Cost:
- Disposal Cost:
Description of maintenance challenges, discussion of ease of maintenance
Discussion of any additional maintenance considerations
Results
Discussion of how the performance was measured or estimated
- Measured or Estimated Pollutant Removal Performance:
For proprietary practices, did were the manufacturer claims met?
Discussion of lessons learned through the implementation of this pretreatment practice
Villa Park Stormwater Improvements - Preserver
Project Overview
Narrative description of pretreatment project
- Project Location: Roseville, MN
- Year Constructed:
- Type of Pretreatment Practice: Proprietary settling device
- Specific Practice: The Preserver
- Practice Owner:
- Practice Designer:
Design Considerations
- Design Cost:
- Design Year:
The total contributing drainage area to the Preserver was 242 acres, with 8 acres of direct drainage area. An estimated 30% of the direct drainage area to the Preserver was impervious (2.4 acres). The land use of the contributing drainage area was residential, with a mature tree canopy.
List of existing impairments and TMDLs that the BMP drains to
- Total Contributing Drainage Area (acres): 242
- Total Impervious Area (acres): ~30%
- Watershed Slope (%):
- Downstream Structural Best Management Practice: Irrigation cistern
- Design Pollutant Removal Performance:
Discussion of why that particular pretreatment system was chosen for that project location, specific rationale (e.g., site characteristics, ease of maintenance, etc.)
Description of sizing criteria used to design pretreatment practice
Construction Considerations
- Construction Cost:
- Construction Year:
Description of adverse site conditions/other construction challenges encountered during installation
Maintenance Considerations
List or description of types of maintenance practices used for the upkeep of the pretreatment system
- Maintenance Frequency:
- Maintenance Cost:
- Disposal Cost:
The mature tree canopy in the contributing drainage area contributed to heavy organic loads, including large debris. The total captured material would likely be greater with more frequent cleaning of the system - the sump was full approximately halfway through the monitoring period.
Discussion of any additional maintenance considerations
Results
Discussion of how the performance was measured or estimated
- Measured or Estimated Pollutant Removal Performance: 2,768 lbs of material captured by the pretreatment device, including:
- 0.526 lbs phosphorus
- Significant heavy metals
For proprietary practices, did were the manufacturer claims met?
Discussion of lessons learned through the implementation of this pretreatment practice