The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) would like to commend DCR for their efforts to amend the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations.  As the process moves forward, we hope that DCR will recognize the importance of local administration of the program, and will provide the necessary incentives to ensure that “non-Tidewater” and “non-MS4” localities choose to request delegation of the program.  (This may require that greater than 70% of the stormwater permit fees remain with the locality.)  If localities do not request delegation, Soil and Water Conservation Districts should be offered the opportunity to administer the program on DCR’s behalf.  Local administration of the program (either by the locality or by Soil and Water Conservation Districts) will maximize efficiencies and will allow essential coordination with other established local procedures within the development process. 

The TJSWCD also urges DCR to ensure that, regardless of where the program administration lies, review of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) prior to the issuance of permits, is a required element of the program.

Additionally, to avoid confusion and the need to meet multiple requirements intended for the same effect (protection of downstream properties and waterways from increases in volume, velocity and peak flow rate of stormwater runoff), a project that complies with the new Stormwater Regulations should be deemed to meet the requirements for Minimum Standard #19 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, 4VAC50-30-40. 

Education and information about the VSMP will be an integral part of achieving compliance.  The TJSWCD therefore urges DCR to provide regularly scheduled technical workshops to engineers, review and inspection authorities, the development community, and localities, about the administrative and technical requirements of the program.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the upcoming amendments.

I have attended several presentations on the new (draft) stormwater regulations.  It appears DCR is going to strongly encourage those localities that have the option of adopting a program in accordance with these regulations to run their own program.  DCR certainly does not have the resources to handle running these programs.  The regulations then, should be developed in a manner that is favorable to the locality.  A mandatory fee schedule would not be in the locality's best interest.  The locality should determine what it will cost to administer the program and then set their fees to cover these costs (along with any monies the state will require).  If fees are set by the state, and we find they do not cover 100% of our costs to run the program, it is unlikely we will adopt a stormwater management program.  I hope all localities are consulted (maybe by the local DCR staff) as the draft regulations are developed.

Dear Regulatory Coordinator: (Please see full comment letter w/ Appendix mailed April 9, 2008)

            Please accept these comments regarding the NOIRA for the regulatory action amending Parts I, II, and III of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit Regulations.  Hanover County supports the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board’s purpose to protect the quality and manage the quantity of stormwater runoff to state waters and welcomes the re-issuance of the NOIRA.  We commend the Board and Department on its inclusive approach to the regulatory process and appreciate the considerable work and progress by all those involved under the previous regulatory action. 

This regulatory action should establish a framework for state, local government and community partnerships to aid in the achievement of Virginia’s stormwater and related environmental goals based on cost effective and scientifically justified technical and administrative requirements.  Overall, we believe the previous action was too broad.  The need to establish manageable criteria for the Board’s approval of qualifying local programs has been delayed and unnecessarily expanded to include significant increases in complex, scientifically incomplete, and costly stormwater quality, quantity and administrative requirements.  We are concerned that such changes were being proposed while existing standards for erosion and sediment control and water quality, in many parts of the state, are not adequately understood or enforced.

We strongly recommend that the Board separate the administration and implementation of local stormwater management programs from changes to the technical criteria applied to stormwater quality and quantity.  We believe the regulations should utilize existing and successful regulatory models for the administration of local programs to the extent possible without the addition of costly and burdensome administrative procedure and reporting.  The Department should organize its administrative and technical resources “to allow effective interaction with local government to develop local programs that are compliant with existing regulation and aid in meeting Virginia’s goals.” (Honorable Tayloe Murphy)

 In summary, our comments on the NOIRA address the following main areas, with details of our concerns on the previous regulatory draft, and recommended actions.  Detailed descriptions of our concerns are provided within the attached appendix.

Summary of concerns on NOIRA and previous regulatory draft:

·                    Public Meetings and Involvement  - the Board should hold public meetings on the NOIRA.  The department has and should continue to hold regular meetings on the substance of the proposed regulatory criteria.  The larger regulated public is not informed on the technical details and associated impacts of the proposed actions and other related matters.

·                    Department Implementation - The stormwater program must be coordinated with the other Divisions within DCR to reduce duplicative and costly local program reviews, reporting, construction project inspections and permits.

·                    Enforcement – The Department should support local enforcement.  Regulations must provide for appropriate penalties, eliminate unnecessary enforcement steps, and provide localities enhanced tools to effectively enforce the stormwater program.

·                    Cost Effectiveness of Technical Standards – Significant modification to the existing technical requirements in the regulation should not be made with this action.  New standards require further analysis and must be scientifically justified, economically feasible, and technically achievable.

·                    State Agency Coordination - The Department should work with other state agencies including the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to enhance state and local implementation.

·                    Local Flexibility - Localities must be allowed the oversight and flexibility to design and implement a stormwater program appropriate to the community.  Provisions should be included to facilitate Comprehensive Plan implementation and prevent sprawl, and to allow pollution trading between sources.

·                    Regional and Watershed Plans – The regulations should promote the development and implementation of regional and watershed plans as directed by the enabling legislation.  The proposed draft regulation removes many existing beneficial provisions and adds burdensome and unnecessary constraints.

·                    Design Flexibility– Regulations should permit on and off-site mitigation approaches to stormwater treatment to encourage cost effective designs and creative solutions.

·                    Establishment of Load Limits – any established load limits must be technologically and economically attainable.

·                    Fees – Fees should be reviewed annually and be commensurate with services rendered.  State and local revenue requests should be accounted for separately and should include an accounting of associated cost for personnel and overhead.

Recommended Actions:

·        The Board should hold public meetings to hear public comment on the proposed NOIRA.

·        The primary purpose of the regulatory action should be to establish manageable criteria for the Board’s implementation and approval of local stormwater programs utilizing existing technical criteria.  Overall, we believe the regulatory action is too broad.

·        Revisions to “Stormwater Management Program Technical Criteria” should be suspended under this NOIRA action and separated and assigned to a separate study advisory panel. Stormwater programs should continue the use of current technical criteria. 

·        The conclusion of this regulatory action should serve as the starting point for the application of existing stormwater water quality and quantity criteria statewide.  While technical criteria for stormwater quality existed for Chesapeake Bay Areas, MS-4, and voluntarily adopted stormwater program localities, the Board has not specifically enacted technical criteria applicable to VSMP Permits for Construction Activities.

·        The Board should coordinate with other state agencies, particularly, VDOT, to ensure state regulatory actions including those regarding roads are environmentally friendly and appropriate.

We recognize the substantial effort by the Board and by the Department under this regulatory action.  We appreciate your efforts and all those who have served in an advisory role.  We recognize and are pleased by your efforts to include representatives of the regulated community, including local governments, in this endeavor, which has important implications for the quality of our environment and our communities. 

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            J. Michael Flagg, P.E.

                                                            Hanover County Director of Public Works

                                                            P.O. Box 470  Hanover, Virginia 23069

4VAC50-60-160. D3. "Comprehensive hydrologic and hydraulic computations of the pre-development and post-development runoff conditions for the required design storms, considered individually."

Water Quality should ideally not be computed based on a outdated peak flow rate methodologies (Rational Method, TR-20 or TR-55) when more advanced hydrology calculation methods (SWMM) are available and can be employed to analyze actual long-term, historical rainfall data and resulting runoff and pollutant loadings.  Use of peak flow rates are commonly used for water conveyance design and came about as a result of flood protection, not water quality.  The peak flow methods are easy to use, however they make too many assumptions based on static parameters and not dynamic parameters. They do not account for known variances in environmental conditions (hydrology, pollutant loads and antecedent conditions) and should not be used for water quality.  This interpretation of a simplified hydrology for the area does not allow for accurate assessment of annual pollutant removal performance.  The preferred hydrology and sizing methods would be to base WQ_f and WQ_v (targeting the WQ_v 80^th to 90^th % - supported by EPA, WEF and ASCE) from advanced hydrology continuous simulation methodologies that utilize long-term historical rainfall data (> 25 years).  This can account for antecedent conditions and variable pollutant loadings. 

Sand Filters listed in Table 1, are credited with 65% Phosphorous removal.  This is exceptionally high when considering pollutant removal efficiencies based on field testing and credits given to Sand Filters from other state jurisdictions and additionally the pollutant removal unit process limitations.  Performance data from the International Stormwater Database and many other sources indicate much lower performance capability of sand filters.  The International Stormwater Database an average of 47% Total Phosphorous (TP) removal, with a standard deviation of 16%. 

4VAC50-60-60C

Please consider the following recommendations for the NOIRA regulatory action amending Parts I, II, III for the VSMP Permit Regulations.

• Solicit more pubic involvement and input into this process.  The greater public is not aware of the significant impacts associated with these proposed amendments, nor do they understand their technical details.
• Suspend these amendments and utilize the existing criteria.  Focus on implementation of the existing criteria throughout all localities.
• Allow localities greater flexibility to design and implement stormwater programs that are consistent with their growth and development plans.  
• Coordinate with other state agencies to ensure that each agencies new/proposed regulations are compatible with one another.