m (1 revision)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:pond.png|right|400 px|alt=Puzzle globe|Picture of a wet detention pond]]
+
[[File:Picture of a wet pond 2.jpg|right|400 px|alt=Puzzle globe|Picture of a wet detention pond]]
[[File:Drypond.jpg|right|400 px|alt=drypond|Example of a dry pond]]
+
[[File:Picture of a dry pond 1.jpg|right|400 px|alt=drypond|Example of a dry pond]]
  
 
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.
 
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:pondalert4.jpg|center|500 px|alt=fact sheet 1]]
+
[[File:Pond permit alert 4.jpg|center|500 px|alt=fact sheet 1]]
  
  
Line 20: Line 20:
 
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:alert2.jpg|center|500 px|alt=fact sheet 1]]
+
[[File:Pond permit alert 2.jpg|center|500 px|alt=fact sheet 1]]
  
  

Revision as of 20:33, 1 November 2012

Puzzle globe
drypond

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. 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.

fact sheet 1


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. 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

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

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.

fact sheet 1


The next section in the chapter addressing stormwater ponds is Design. To proceed to that section, click here.

To return to the previous section, click here.


Notice: Only variables should be passed by reference in /var/www/stormwater-wiki/releases/20200904135518/skins/Mpca/Mpca.php on line 231

Privacy policy

Template:Footer