|Line 57:||Line 57:|
==Sites with Restrictions==
==Sites with Restrictions==
to the , the the and , [[Flexible treatment options|Flexible Treatment Options Approach]] be followed .
A performance goal specifies what level of stormwater treatment must be achieved. The MIDS performance goals were developed to satisfy the legislation by determing how much precipitation must be retained on a particular site.
An important objective of the Work Group was to determine a performance goal for new development sites that do not have restrictions. Restrictions refer to site factors that prevent attainment of the performance goal. Examples of site restrictions include shallow depth to bedrock, presence of contaminated soils, and lack of access due to presence of utilities.
In deciding a performance goal for new development without restrictions, the Work Group began by identifying and discussing the pros and cons of three common approaches to consider as the MIDS performance goal approach. Those approaches involved retainage of a runoff volume
To help the Work Group select a performance goal that would mimic a site's natural hydrology, the approaches were assessed in comparison with runoff rate and volume from native soil and vegetation conditions. The goal of the assessment was the answer the question, "How well do the performance goal alternatives mimic natural hydrology?" Details of the methods, results, and conclusions of the analyses are included in a report, Assessment of MIDS Performance Goal Alternatives: Runoff Volumes, Runoff Rates, and Pollutant Removal Efficiencies (Barr Engineering Co., 2011)
Long-term continuous simulation XP-SWMM models, developed for three regions of Minnesota (Twin Cities, Southeast and North-Central), estimated the runoff from a 10-acre site with native soils (Hydrologic Soil Group A, B, C, and D) and native vegetation (100 percent deciduous woods and 100 percent meadow). Long-term continuous XP-SWMM models of the same three Minnesota regions also simulated the effectiveness of implementing different volume control performance goals on development scenarios of varying imperviousness and soil type. Between twenty-six and thirty-five years of measured precipitation data with a time increment of 15 minutes was used in the modeling effort. Precipitation in the form of rain and snow on frozen and unfrozen ground conditions was modeled to determine the effectiveness of common volume control performance goals on annual runoff (Barr Engineering Co., 2010).
Performance goals were assessed based on estimated total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiency on an average annual basis. The portion of average annual runoff volume captured onsite varies depending on the performance goal and resulting BMP volume. While strongly correlated with the amount of runoff captured and infiltrated, the overall pollutant removal efficiency is also dependent on other factors such as the varying concentration of pollutants in runoff (such as the “first flush effect”) and pollutant removal that occurs through sedimentation or other mechanisms. Six of the Twin Cities region development scenarios were modeled using P8 modeling software to evaluate the overall average annual phosphorus and total suspended solids removal efficiencies expected from the four performance goals (Barr Engineering Co., 2010). Those four performance goals included retainage of a runoff volume
Table 3-1 of the 2011 Barr Engineering report summarizes the various development scenarios and Minnesota regions modeled with XP-SWMM and P8.
The following conclusions are based on the XP-SWMM and P8 modeling results:
The Work Group discussed the modeling results and considered the level of simplicity, incentive to reduce impervious surfaces, and accounting for different regions of the state for each modeling approach. After a vote, the Work Group selected an approach that would retain a runoff volume equal to an amount times the proposed impervious surfaces. The Work Group decided that one value would be best rather than varying the value by soil type, impervious surface percentage, and location within the state. They selected 1.1 inches as the statewide average.
In April 2011 MIDS Work Group members agreed on a performance goal for new development:
For new, nonlinear developments that create more than one acre of new impervious surface on sites without restrictions, stormwater runoff volumes will be controlled and the post-construction runoff volume shall be retained on site for 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces statewide
In the summer of 2011, the MPCA and MIDS Work Group created a MIDS Re-development and Linear Subcommittee. This group consisted of Forrest Kelly, Tina Carstens, Karen Jensen, Lois Eberhart, Beth Neudendorf, Doug Snyder, Mary Davy, Joe Mulcahy, Randy Neprash, Wes Saunders-Pearce, Brandon Champeau, Jim Hafner, Nick Tiedeken, Bruce Wilson, and Todd Smith. This group evaluated the feasibility of various potential performance goals for re-development sites without restrictions. In June 2013, the group recommended that the MIDS Work Group agree to the following performance goal for redevelopment sites without restrictions:
Nonlinear redevelopment projects on site without restrictions that create one or more acres of new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces shall capture and retain on site 1.1 inches of runoff from the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces
The MIDS Work Group agreed with the subcommittee's recommendation.
In June 2013, the MIDS Re-development and Linear Subcommittee recommended a performance goal for linear projects without restrictions to the MIDS Work Group. After much discussion, the MIDS Work Group agreed to the following performance goal.
Linear projects on sites without restrictions that create one acre or greater of new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces, shall capture and retain the larger of the following:
Mill and overlay and other resurfacing activities are not considered fully reconstructed.
While reducing the volume of stormwater runoff leaving a developed site is the only way to mimic native hydrology, there are situations where attainment of the performance goal is not feasible. For example, infiltration is the most common practice to reduce runoff volumes, but much of Minnesota has tight clay soils, shallow bedrock, or karst topography that are not conducive to infiltration as a stormwater management approach. Other restrictions include but are not limited to sites that have contaminated soil or shallow groundwater, existing building or utility conflicts, or other site constraints such as zoning requirements that create difficulties in providing volume reduction.
In order to accommodate alternative forms of water quality treatment on sites with restrictions, the MIDS Work Group, with the assistance of the Re-development and Linear Subcommittee, developed Flexible Treatment Options and an accompanying Flexible Treatment Options Approach to help determine the appropriate performance goal. Using the flowchart, project proposers are taken through a step by step approach to document site restrictions and how they have attempted to meet the 1.1 inches performance goal. If the performance goal is shown to be infeasible, a 0.55 inch performance and a 75 percent annual total phosphorus removal goal is explored, followed by a maximum extent practicable volume reduction and a 60 percent annual total phosphorus removal goal, and then a final option to meet the 1.1 inches volume reduction goal at an off-site location. More detailed information regarding the Flexible Treatment Options and definitions are included on the Design Sequence Flow Chart.