Representatives with the City of Norfolk have reviewed the proposed revisions to the Virginia Stormwater Regulations, 4 VAC 50-60.  While the goals to improve urban storm water runoff is an administrative goal, the City believes these proposed regulations establish unrealistic expectations and standards that will adversely impact the cost of housing and development patterns within an urbanized area with limited improvement to water quality.   

The City of Norfolk has always been a leader in storm water management in the Commonwealth.  We were one of the first localities to adopt a storm water program and utility.  Our storm water utility rates remain the highest of all Phase I communities.  As with some of our fellow Phase I communities, we experience undersized, aged infrastructure that requires substantial investment to improve and maintain.  These proposed regulations will negatively impact this locality’s ability to fund flood reduction projects that improve quality of life and public health of our residents.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth continues to pass-on federally mandated regulation and compliance requirements on to local governments without giving localities adequate resources and authority to execute these mandates.  The Commonwealth would be better served to work closely with the localities in a partnering relationship as opposed to a regulator/regulated environment that fails to produce noticeable results in water quality improvement.

Outlined below are further comments reflecting specific concerns and recommendations associated with the proposed regulations.

Comment:  The proposed regulations, that increase the stringency of the technical criteria for redevelopment, doubling phosphorus reduction from current regulations, create a financial disincentive to redevelop urban areas, especially small infill lots, and encourages sprawl.  A cost benefit analysis performed for the region found that it was thirty times more expensive to remove one pound of phosphorus from redeveloped projects compared to new development.  DCR regulations should not conflict with redevelopment of existing lots for social, land use, transportation and environmental reasons.  An offsite pollutant load reduction alternative or “offset” that has been proposed in lieu of on-site controls is not feasible for urban localities such as Norfolk.

Recommendation:  The City of Norfolk requests that further analysis be conducted to develop a means to financially encourage redevelopment and infill lot development in order to increase phosphorus removal from sites that are currently untreated verses encouraging the development of greenlands which are either becoming scarce or non-existing in Cities throughout the State.  The City also requests that the state provide guidance on an approved “offset” program based on watershed exchange prior to adoption of these regulations.     

Comment:  The proposed regulations appear to combine the technical criteria for post construction storm water with the administration of the Construction General Permit.  Currently the City of Norfolk has an established site plan review process that addresses many aspects of site development, not just storm water.   

Recommendation:  Separate the administration of the Construction General Permit from the technical requirements.  Require contractors to obtain the Construction General Permit prior to land disturbance activity verses during the site plan review process.

Comment:  Proposed Construction General Permit fee collection and administration will require substantial procedural changes and internal reorganization.  It may also place an unnecessary burden and expense on property owners/developers prior to land disturbance activity occurring.  Properties approved within the City of Norfolk site plan review process have 5-years to develop a site.  If a portion of the General Construction permit fee is required at the time of site plan review, the owner/developer may or may not require the permit within that 5-year time frame.  Tracking the administration for these permits will become logistically complicated.

Recommendation:  Establish the statewide fee structure for the General Construction Permit issuance; however allow the local government the ability to implement the program at their own schedule.  Establish the fee structure so that payment and issuance of the permit is prior to land disturbance activity, not during site plan review.  Also, add a grandfathering clause to the proposed regulations that address those sites that have been approved under the current regulations, but developed under the new regulations.

Comment:  The Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) specifications and removal efficiencies do not take into account the unique physical challenges faced in the Tidewater Region, (i.e. high ground water table, flat topography, submerged outfalls, etc.)  The proposed technical criteria also do not address pollutants of concern for impaired waters within Tidewater such as bacteria or nitrogen. 

The criteria also encourage environmentally sensitive designs (ESD).  Most of the means to address these criteria proposed in the new technical criteria will not to be feasible in Norfolk due to the physiological conditions.  These types of designs have also been known to have a short life span and require extensive inspections and maintenance, as well as frequent replacement to ensure the BMP continues to function as designed.  These types of BMPs also do not generally address water quantity challenges facing Norfolk.

Recommendation:  DCR should consider an adjusted technical criteria for the Coastal Plain that addresses these unique challenges.  DCR should move forward with approval of that portion of the regulations that address the Construction General Permit; however continue to develop and improve the technical criteria through a Technical Advisory Committee to address the issues outlined above prior to approval and implementation of the proposed regulations. 

Comment:  The Economic Analysis associated with the proposed regulations addresses the unknown costs associated with the implementation of the proposed regulations with unknown significant water quality improvements.  In light of current economic conditions, required fees associated with the implementation of these proposed regulations may cause a significant hardship on local taxpayers.  DCR has failed to take into account the financial burden associated with the pending Total Maximum Daily Load requirements. The costs associated with the start up programs to address the proposed regulations will be paid for up front by the local government prior to the collection of the General Construction Permit fees   

Recommendation:  The City requests DCR review the fee structure to ensure local governments are given the time to establish or modify necessary programs. Also the City is requesting an increased fee percentage during the initial start up period to recoup the initial costs associated with the programs being brought on line prior to the fee collection beginning.         

Although, the City realizes that these proposed regulations are a step in the right direction to improve the water quality and quantity issues, we cannot support the regulations as currently proposed due to the extensive limitations placed on redevelopment and burden placed on tax payers within Norfolk as stated above.

We look forward to continue working with DCR to address the above-noted concerns and to continue improving the regulations to the benefit of the Commonwealth.