m
 
(31 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Picture of a wet pond 2.jpg|right|400 px|alt=Puzzle globe|Picture of a wet detention pond]]
+
[[File:Picture of a wet pond 2.jpg|thumb|300 px|alt=photo of a wet pond|<font size=3>Photo of a wet detention pond</font size>]]
[[File:Picture of a dry pond 1.jpg|right|400 px|alt=drypond|Example of a dry pond]]
+
[[File:Pdf image.png|100px|thumb|left|alt=pdf image|<font size=3>[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:Types_of_stormwater_ponds_-_Minnesota_Stormwater_Manual.pdf Download pdf]</font size>]]
 
+
[[File:General information page image.png|left|100px|alt=image]]
Several distinct pond design variants (see [[Ponds and wetlands|CADD designs]]) are typically described in current stormwater management literature. While it is possible that any one of these pond types could be beneficially implemented somewhere in Minnesota, both the climatic conditions and the applicable regulations prevalent throughout the state strongly favor the use of one of them in particular, namely the wet extended detention pond. Indeed, the wet extended detention pond is the only design variant fitting the description of a Wet Sedimentation Basin as described in the MPCA CGP. For this reason, much of the discussion in this chapter is focused primarily on wet extended detention ponds; however, all four main design variants are presented here for the sake of completeness.
+
[[File:Picture of a dry pond 1.jpg|thumb|300 px|alt=photo of a dry pond|<font size=3>Photo of a dry pond</font size>]]
 
 
[[File:Pond permit alert 4.jpg|center|500 px|alt=fact sheet 1]]
 
  
 +
Several distinct pond design variants (see [[Computer-aided design and drafting (CAD/CADD) drawings|CADD designs]]) are typically described in current stormwater management literature. While it is possible that any one of these pond types could be beneficially implemented somewhere in Minnesota, both the climatic conditions and the applicable regulations prevalent throughout the state strongly favor the use of one of them in particular, namely the wet extended detention pond (wet pond). Indeed, the <span title="A stormwater retention basin that includes a combination of permanent pool storage and extended detention storage above the permanent pool to provide additional water quality or rate control"> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_ponds '''wet pond''']</span> is the only design variant fitting the description of a ''Wet Sedimentation Basin'' as described in the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program MPCA Construction General Permit (CGP)]. For this reason, much of this discussion focuses on wet extended detention ponds; however, all four main design variants are presented here for the sake of completeness.
  
 +
==Flow-through pond (no extended detention) design==
 +
Often called a “wet pond” in other literature, a pond that has an essentially unrestricted spillway as its primary outlet, with its crest at the elevation of the <span title="a constant or permanent pool of water maintained in a constructed pond or wetland, designed to allow suspended particles to settle by gravitation"> '''permanent pool'''</span>. It provides water quality treatment by holding a volume of stormwater equal to the permanent pool volume, permitting settling to occur. The water stored in the pond is later displaced by new runoff. Note that “wet sedimentation basin” in the MPCA CGP is not a flow-through pond (“wet pond”) but rather a wet extended detention pond. The flow-through pond is generally not a good design option for Minnesota, because the storage volume allocated for treatment is entirely below the permanent pool, making it inaccessible to new runoff during frozen conditions (see [[Cold climate impact on runoff management]]).
  
==Flow-through pond (no extended detention) design==
+
{{alert|All pond designs should incorporate an access bench|alert-info}}
Often called a “wet pond” in other literature, a pond that has an essentially unrestricted spillway as its primary outlet, with its crest at the elevation of the permanent pool. Provides water quality treatment by holding a volume of stormwater equal to the permanent pool volume, permitting settling to occur. The water stored in the pond is later displaced by new runoff. Note that “wet sedimentation basin” in the MPCA CGP is not a flow-through pond (“wet pond”) but rather a wet extended detention pond. The flow-through pond is generally not a good design option for Minnesota, because the storage volume allocated for treatment is entirely below the permanent pool, making it inaccessible to new runoff during frozen conditions (see [[Cold climate impact on runoff management]]).
 
  
 
==Wet extended detention pond==
 
==Wet extended detention pond==
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
==Dry pond==
 
==Dry pond==
 +
{{alert|Dry ponds do not receive credit for volume or pollutant removal|alert-info}}
 +
 
This pond has no permanent pool; it relies only upon extended detention storage for its treatment volume. It is highly susceptible to sediment resuspension and generally only useful for rate control.
 
This pond has no permanent pool; it relies only upon extended detention storage for its treatment volume. It is highly susceptible to sediment resuspension and generally only useful for rate control.
  
[[File:Pond permit alert 2.jpg|center|500 px|alt=fact sheet 1]]
+
<noinclude>
 
 
 
 
'''The next section in the chapter addressing stormwater ponds is Design.  To proceed to that section, click [[Design specifications for stormwater ponds|here]]'''.
 
  
'''To return to the previous section, click [[Overview for stormwater ponds|here]].'''
+
==Related pages==
<br>
+
*[[Overview for stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Types of stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Design criteria for stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Design considerations for constructed stormwater ponds used for harvest and irrigation use/reuse]]
 +
*[[Construction specifications for stormwater ponds]]
 +
<!--[[Construction observations for stormwater ponds]]-->
 +
*[[Assessing the performance of stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Operation and maintenance of stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Cost-benefit considerations for stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Calculating credits for stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Stormwater wet pond fact sheet]]
 +
<!--[[Additional considerations for stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[Links for stormwater ponds]]
 +
*[[External resources for stormwater ponds]]-->
 +
*[[References for stormwater ponds]]
 +
<!--*[[Supporting material for stormwater ponds]]-->
 +
*[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using stormwater pond as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]]
  
[[category:BMP]]
+
[[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Guidance and information/BMP types and terminology]]
 +
[[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Structural practices/Wet pond]]
 +
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 21:02, 15 August 2022

photo of a wet pond
Photo of a wet detention pond
image
photo of a dry pond
Photo of a dry pond

Several distinct pond design variants (see CADD designs) are typically described in current stormwater management literature. While it is possible that any one of these pond types could be beneficially implemented somewhere in Minnesota, both the climatic conditions and the applicable regulations prevalent throughout the state strongly favor the use of one of them in particular, namely the wet extended detention pond (wet pond). Indeed, the wet pond is the only design variant fitting the description of a Wet Sedimentation Basin as described in the MPCA Construction General Permit (CGP). For this reason, much of this discussion focuses on wet extended detention ponds; however, all four main design variants are presented here for the sake of completeness.

Flow-through pond (no extended detention) design

Often called a “wet pond” in other literature, a pond that has an essentially unrestricted spillway as its primary outlet, with its crest at the elevation of the permanent pool. It provides water quality treatment by holding a volume of stormwater equal to the permanent pool volume, permitting settling to occur. The water stored in the pond is later displaced by new runoff. Note that “wet sedimentation basin” in the MPCA CGP is not a flow-through pond (“wet pond”) but rather a wet extended detention pond. The flow-through pond is generally not a good design option for Minnesota, because the storage volume allocated for treatment is entirely below the permanent pool, making it inaccessible to new runoff during frozen conditions (see Cold climate impact on runoff management).

Information: All pond designs should incorporate an access bench

Wet extended detention pond

The wet sedimentation basin referenced in the MPCA CGP falls under this category. This indicates a combination of permanent pool storage and extended detention storage above the permanent pool to provide additional water quality or rate control.

Micropool extended detention pond

This variation of the wet extended detention pond has a markedly smaller permanent pool at the pond outlet to prevent resuspension. Typically, the permanent pool in a micropool extended detention pond will not be large enough to satisfy the requirements of the MPCA CGP.

Dry pond

Information: Dry ponds do not receive credit for volume or pollutant removal

This pond has no permanent pool; it relies only upon extended detention storage for its treatment volume. It is highly susceptible to sediment resuspension and generally only useful for rate control.


Related pages

This page was last edited on 15 August 2022, at 21:02.