• The six Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) in the proposed rule are the same as those in our recently expired permit.  However, this proposed rule further dictates (“The operator shall…”), for each MCM, specific actions, not all of which are relevant to all facilities.  For example, In MCM3,

• “The MS4 Program shall effectively prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, nonstormwater discharges…”

Non-municipal systems regulated via this permit do not have regulatory mechanisms at their disposal and could not comply with that and some of the other dictated control measures. 

‘Shall’ statements that have no benefit and/or applicability should be able to be satisfactorily addressed by saying NOT APPLICABLE in the action determination.

• The permit is relatively prescriptive in its implementation language, and takes away much of the flexibility in defining BMPs that best suit each facility.  Each of the six MCMs has 3 to 9 specific requirements that must be addressed in a draft Plan.  It would be preferable, and more reasonable, to allow each MS4 to select a subset of the prescribed actions, or to prescribe only a few essential actions and make the others subject to review and selection.

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.

The Regulatory Coordinator:

On behalf of the City of Alexandria, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the VSMP MS4 Phase II permit regulations (4VAC50-60 Part I and Part XV).  The City is pleased to be a partner with the Commonwealth to protect our waters and recognizes the considerable effort undertaken by staff from the Department of Conservation and Recreation in developing these amendments. 

Geographically, the City of Alexandria is located at the bottom of several watersheds and, pollutant loadings within the City’s waterways are significantly influenced by upstream activities.  The City recognizes the importance of reducing adverse impacts on water quality from non-point sources and has committed significant efforts and resources to improve the water quality with watershed wide efforts, including commitment to two large cross jurisdictional watershed/stream restoration projects.  It is currently participating in a Watershed Feasibility Study for Cameron Run/Holmes Run watershed in partnership with Fairfax County and the US Army Corps of Engineers.  The City’s portion of funding for this project is just $ 1 million.  The City, in a joint effort with Arlington County, and US Army Corps of Engineers, has also developed a master plan for stream restoration for Four Mile Run with the total cost approaching one million dollars.  A demonstration project for implementation of an element of this master plan is in planning stages with potential costs ranging above $2 million.  All of the above efforts demonstrate the City’s environmental stewardship and its continued commitment to improve water and environmental quality and are consistent with the goals of the MS4 permit regulations.  Any permit regulations which require activities other than most efficient and best use of available resources will occur at the expense of other on-going environmental efforts which may be more effective in improving Alexandria’s environment and water quality.

Although the proposed permit regulations contain a number of improvements, there are several changes that will result in a significant additional cost burden to regulated communities, while yielding marginal benefits.  This is particularly true for the section dealing with TMDL pollutants of concern. 

The City requests that the Board reconsider several specific amendments prior to final adoption:

Outfall Reconnaissance (4VAC50-60-1240 Section I.B.6):  The City recommends eliminating the requirement to inspect all stormwater outfalls during the permit period.  A strength of the existing permit regulations is that localities have the flexibility to focus illicit discharge elimination efforts based on identified risk factors and initial field reconnaissance.  This approach recognizes that continuously and repeatedly inspecting low-risk outfalls does not represent an effective use of limited resources and diverts attention from areas that deserve closer attention and scrutiny.  The proposed outfall reconnaissance language will require localities subject to a TMDL stormwater wasteload allocation to inspect all outfalls during the five year permit period regardless of an assessment of potential risk.  This approach represents a particular burden for larger MS4 Phase II communities such as Alexandria, which has identified over 430 stormwater outfalls. 

Outfall Monitoring (4VAC50-60-1240 Section I.B.7):  The City recommends eliminating or modifying the requirement to conduct wet-weather water quality monitoring.  As proposed, this requirement, when implemented for like kind of facilities, will be cost prohibitive and due to the redundancy may not be necessary or useful.  Should the Board pursue wet-weather monitoring, the City recommends allowing localities to monitor a representative sample of facilities with similar characteristics.  This will allow the City to characterize pollutant loadings for certain land uses to determine if selected BMPs are appropriate for the drainage area, while ensuring that the cost of monitoring does not diminish the City’s ability to apply more stringent BMPs should they be determined to be necessary. 

Low Impact Development 4VAC50-60-1240 Section II.B.5):  The City recommends eliminating the requirement to track the number of acres developed utilizing low impact development (LID) principles until the Board promulgates specific guidance on what qualifies as reportable LID practices under the terms of this permit program.  The City has been on the forefront of promoting LID techniques and is currently working with the Northern Virginia Regional Commission to develop a regional LID manual.  However, at this time, there is no consistent State-wide guidance regarding LID design or performance standards.  Further, it is unclear what threshold would be used for determining if a site qualifies as reportable LID.  As a result, the information reported would be arbitrary and meaningless for comparative purposes.  The City understands that guidance is being developed in conjunction with revisions to the entire Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations.  Tying tracking of LID to the adoption of these Regulations, or waiting until the next permit cycle, would help ensure uniform application of measurable practices and meaningful data.

In addition to the above stated comments, the City supports the comments outlined by Northern Virginia Regional Commission, of which City is a member jurisdiction.  Their comments also reflect City’s other concerns and suggestions to modify the permit.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues.  Please do not hesitate to contact me at (703) 519-3400 ext. 163 if you should have any questions regarding our comments.

Sincerely,

William Skrabak, Chief

Division of Environmental Quality

Department of Transportation and Environmental Services

City of Alexandria

I question the definition of "Physically interconnected" especially as it applies to Counties.  VDOT maintains all roadway drainage systems and they are interconnected to the Counties systems throunghout.  Is that the intent of the definition?

Under Sec. I B 8 and 10 reference is made to stormwater discharges in gallons.  Stormwater is usually measured in cubic feet per second as a flow, is it intended to then convert flow to volume?

Under Section II A it states that our program plan must have a public comment period prior to submittal.  Since the program plan is required by state and federal laws, what is the purpose of public comment on it.  We are already required by law to hold public comment for ordinance changes and make the program available for public view.  It seems like another unnecessary step to go through.

Under Section II B 3 reference is made to the EPA guidance manual.  Is it appropriate to list this specifically in the regulations.  If the document changes, do the regulations need to be changed.  Other documents are referenced elsewhere. 

Section II B 3 b. again references physically intereconnected systems for mapping.  Does this mean we must include VDOT systems in our mapping?  Is DCR going to require them to provide this information to localities?   (It seems to say that in g.)

I also noticed the word plant instead of plan (line 1304) in Section II B 4 a. (2)

I have another concern with regard to the time period expected to implement these changes.  It has taken us 5 years to get to this point, with the additions of the TMDL and monitoring requirements, as well as mapping and inspection of all outfalls, it may be unrealistic to expect these in a short period of time.  Especially as budgets and programs are planned in jurisdictions.