m
m
Line 87: Line 87:
 
Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 2 feasible?
 
Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 2 feasible?
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 57|Yes]]
+
[ Box 57 Yes]
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 10|No]]
+
[ Box 10 No]
  
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Are there restraints due to lack of available right-of-way, off-site drainage, and/or rate control requirements? '''Answer''': Yes
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Are there restraints due to lack of available right-of-way, off-site drainage, and/or rate control requirements? '''Answer''': Yes
Line 126: Line 126:
 
Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible?
 
Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible?
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 12|Yes]]
+
[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_design_sequence_flow_chart#Box_12 Yes]
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 15|No]]
+
[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_design_sequence_flow_chart#Box_15 No]
  
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER:
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER:
Line 138: Line 138:
 
Is BMP relocation feasible
 
Is BMP relocation feasible
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 15|Yes]]
+
[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_design_sequence_flow_chart#Box_15 Yes]
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 13|No]]
+
[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_design_sequence_flow_chart#Box_13 No]
  
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible? '''Answer''': Yes
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible? '''Answer''': Yes
Line 147: Line 147:
 
Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 1 feasible?
 
Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 1 feasible?
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 61|Yes]]
+
[ Box 61 Yes]
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 14|No]]
+
[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_design_sequence_flow_chart#Box_14 No]
  
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Is BMP relocation feasible - '''Answer''': No
 
PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Is BMP relocation feasible - '''Answer''': No
Line 162: Line 162:
 
Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 2 feasible?
 
Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 2 feasible?
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 54|Yes]]
+
[ Box 54 Yes]
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 10|No]]
+
[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_design_sequence_flow_chart#Box_10 No]
  
 
==PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 1 feasible? - '''Answer''': No
 
==PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 1 feasible? - '''Answer''': No
Line 177: Line 177:
 
Is the site located in a DWSMA (Drinking Water Supply Management Area), wellhead protection area, or within 200 feet of a drinking water well?
 
Is the site located in a DWSMA (Drinking Water Supply Management Area), wellhead protection area, or within 200 feet of a drinking water well?
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 16|Yes]]
+
[ Box 16 Yes]
  
[[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 17|No]]
+
[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 17 No]
  
 
==PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER:==
 
==PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER:==

Revision as of 13:36, 28 December 2021

Box 1

Did you gather the site information necessary to proceed through the flow chart?

Yes

No or Unsure

Box 2

Prior to using the flow chart, gather the following preliminary information.

  • Conduct site review
  • Define performance goal

Conduct site review

PROCEED TO THE NEXT STEP

Box 3

  • New and redevelopment projects: Retain on site a volume of 1.1 inches from impervious surfaces
  • Linear projects: Retain on site the larger of 1.1 inches from all new or 0.55 inches from all new and fully reconstructed impervious surfaces

PROCEED TO THE FIRST QUESTION

Links

Box 4

Does project create one acre or more of new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces?

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: The previous question defined the performance goals.

Box 5

MIDS PERFORMANCE GOAL DOES NOT APPLY
The project creates less than 1 acre of impervious surface.

Box 6

image of a project where ROW will not be constraining
Example of a linear project where site constraints likely do not exist
File:Example limited ROW.jpg
Example of a linear project where ROW will likely be constraining

Is the project linear?

Yes

No

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Does project create one acre or more of new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces? Answer - Yes

Box 7

Are there constraints due to lack of available ROW, off site drainage and/or rate control requirements?

Yes

No

Box 8

Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 2 feasible?

[ Box 57 Yes]

[ Box 10 No]

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Are there restraints due to lack of available right-of-way, off-site drainage, and/or rate control requirements? Answer: Yes

Box 9

image of stop sign
You have completed the flow chart. Return to Flexible treatment options

Select Flexible treatment Option 2. You have completed the flow chart.

  • Provide documentation of offsite runon to project area
  • Provide documentation of lack of right-of-way

Flexible Treatment Option 2 (FTO #2)

Applicant attempts to comply with the following conditions:

  1. Achieve volume reduction to the maximum extent practicable (as determined by the Local Authority), and
  2. Remove 60 percent of the annual total phosphorus load, and
  3. Options considered and presented shall examine the merits of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site.

PREVIOUS STEP: It was determined that the site is linear, there are constraints due to lack of right-of-way or off/site drainage and/or rate control requirements, and a reasonable effort to acquire all of the right-of-way cannot be made.

Box 10

image of stop sign
You have completed the flow chart. Return to Flexible treatment options

SELECT FLEXIBLE TREATMENT OPTION 3

Off-site mitigation (including banking or cash or treatment on another project, as determined by the local authority) equivalent to the volume reduction performance goal can be used in areas selected in the following order of preference:

  1. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity.
  2. Locations within the same Department of Natural Resources (DNR) catachment area as the original construction activity.
  3. Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up-stream.
  4. Locations anywhere within the local authority's jurisdiction.

PREVIOUS QUESTION: It was determined that Flexible Treatment Option 2 is not feasible.

Box 11

Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible?

Yes

No

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER:

  • Is the project linear? Answer: No

or

  • Are there constraints due to lack of available ROW, off site drainage and/or rate control requirements? Answer: No

Box 12

Is BMP relocation feasible

Yes

No

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible? Answer: Yes

Box 13

Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 1 feasible?

[ Box 61 Yes]

No

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Is BMP relocation feasible - Answer: No

Flexible Treatment Option 1 (FTO #1)

Applicant attempts to comply with the following conditions:

  1. Achieve at least 0.55 inch volume reduction goal, and
  2. Remove 75 percent of the annual total phosphorus load, and
  3. Options considered and presented shall examine the merits of reloacting project elements to address varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site

Box 14

Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 2 feasible?

[ Box 54 Yes]

No

==PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER: Is Flexible Treatment Option (FTO) 1 feasible? - Answer: No

Flexible Treatment Option 2 (FTO #2)

Applicant attempts to comply with the following conditions:

  1. Achieve volume reduction to the maximum extent practicable (as determined by the Local Authority), and
  2. Remove 60 percent of the annual total phosphorus load, and
  3. options considered and presented shall examine the merits of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other constraints across the site.

Box 15

Is the site located in a DWSMA (Drinking Water Supply Management Area), wellhead protection area, or within 200 feet of a drinking water well?

[ Box 16 Yes]

[MIDS design sequence flow chart - Box 17 No]

PREVIOUS QUESTION and ANSWER:

  • Are there zoning and land use requirements that make the Performance Goal not feasible? - Answer: No

or

  • Is BMP relocation feasible? - Answer: Yes

Discussion

A drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) is the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) approved surface and subsurface area surrounding a public water supply well that completely contains the scientifically calculated wellhead protection area and is managed by the entity identified in a wellhead protection plan. The boundaries of the drinking water supply management area are delineated by identifiable physical features, landmarks or political and administrative boundaries.

Links