Comments on Stormwater Discharge General Permit for Small MS4s
(Submitted on behalf of the City of Charlottesville)

Overall, the City of Charlottesville would like to express its support for the comments that have been submitted by the Virginia Municipal Stormwater Association.

To supplement to these comments, we would like to submit the following:

• Regarding the Definition of “MEP” – In addition to being able to reject BMS due to their technical infeasibility or being cost prohibitive or unreasonable, they should also be rejected if they are not appropriate.
• Regarding the definition of “runoff” or “stormwater runoff” – this water should not have to hit a waterway before it is considered either of these terms.
• Regarding the definition of “stormwater” – see comment above (does it have to reach a waterway to be considered-). 
• Question the existing definition of “state waters” including water under the ground…does this mean groundwater or water running through a conveyance system.
• Clarification of the term “physically interconnected” is needed.  Does this mean hard pipe connection only or does it also include connections via surface waters (flow from a pipe in one MS4, into a stream, back into a pipe in another MS4)-
• Section 1220.C.4 - Remove the word “is” in the following phrase “The discharge of materials resulting from a spill is necessary to prevent….”
• Section I.B – General concern about the impact on limited resources of extensive requirements on the operator when TMDL waste loads are allocated to an MS4, especially related to monitoring (Section I.B.7). (Addressed in VAMSA comments)
• Section I.B.5 – the term “shall incorporate applicable BMPs” should be changed to “shall consider incorporation of applicable BMPs”…this would provide the opportunity for the operator to use the MEP process to identify those BMPs that are feasible, cost effective, and appropriate.
•  Section I.B.6 – The term “eliminate” may be too absolute versus what, by definition, a WLA is.  The term “minimize” would be more appropriate.
• Section II.B.4(a)(2) – change the word “plant” to “plan”
• Section II.B.5(b)(4) – In some cases, the phrase “requiring the owner to develop a recorded inspection schedule” may be too prescriptive.  Why would this be needed if an operator has an inspection program-
• Section III.J – Question the applicability of the “Notice of planned changes” text to this general permit.