If the municipality is delegated the authority to be the local program administator by the state.  Does this authority to review and approve projects also apply to state and federal projects or only to projects proposed by the private developers?

Can a municpality or private individual create a wetland bank or mitigation site and also sell credits as a nutrient mitigation bank?  Enabling these banks to have overlapping functions woukld make the creation of these banks (especially in urbanized areas with higher land costs) much more feasible.  Can existing wetland mitigation banks apply to sell credits?

These regulatory changes appear to have the unattended effect of pushing more development to greenfields since brownfield development is alreadly more difficult and costly.  New stormwater requirments will require larger or multiple parcels in order to achieve the required storm water improvments.  Has this been taken into account during the drafting of these changes?  What is being done to deter the development of greenfields and sprawl.  More should be done to encourage the sustainable development of urban infill sites and the redevelopment of brownfield sites where existing infrastructure is already in place.  Maybe a sliding scale for stormwater improvements should be utilized for urbanized areas versus suburban/exurban areas to reduce sprawl and encourage development with existing state and local infrastructure and services are already in place.

I am a Va certified Horticulturist, have been a resident of Virginia Beach all my life, and am a  production manager for a landscape company in Chesapeake.  I am VERY concerned with the OVER use of phosphorus in our area.  Of the many soil samples taken locally that I have seen, NONE have shown a major phosphorus deficiency. At the very least, we should limit the amout of phosphorus available commercially, if not statewide, than regionally, with the understanding that other regions in the commonwealth may have different nutrient needs.

I believe we should strive to follow Minnesota in becoming a phosphorus free commonwealth, at least in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Attached is a link to a summary of the results of legislation in Minnesota essentially banning the use of phosphorus in fertilizers. 

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/protecting/waterprotection/07phoslawrptsumm.pdf

Other states poised to follow Minnesota’s lead

Currently Minnesota is the only state regulating the use of phosphorus fertilizer on lawns and turf. Phosphorus regulating rules or legislation is advancing in four states, Florida, Maine, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which have used the Minnesota law as a reference.

RTD article on 7/13/09 says .. "Before construction, a developer must get a permit that lays out, with some flexibility, how the project must deal with stormwater."    Question 1:  will  approved subdivisions be exempt from needing such permit?  Question 2:  if an individual scattered lot owner is building a new home on his lot, does that property owner need such a permit?   Question 3:  What type/detail of grading plan will be required?  ...  to be prepared by whom?

Thank you - M. Jarvis

I think everyone would agree with the principals embraced by the James River Association and all concerned citizens over the horrible state of our waterways. I applaud our state for moving the cause forward. My only problem is the approach. It resembles the traditional "cram down" approach. Here is the requirements we want and to achieve the desired results, we need to cram it down your collective throats. People and businesses tend to avoid (or fight against) things being crammed down their throats. Its human nature. While its obvious what the "sticks" are in this proposal, are there any carrots????

My business location has been part of the Richmond City landscape since 1925. We have a flat roof and a small parking lot. I am concerned about our environments health. I am a pharmacist by the way. I am convinced the health consequence from our environment are very real and hidden from our collective awareness. I began looking into installing a water catchment system for our roof runoff to be used to flush our toilets at the pharmacy. Besides costing 5-10K to install, there was absolutely no financial incentive (carrots) for either my taxes or my water bill. I also thought about installing solar panels on my roof to reduce our carbon footprint. The benefit in reduced costs to our electric bill are there for a payback over the next 7-10 years. I am much more interested in pursuing the electric investment than the no payback, water runoff to flush toilet investment.

 In the long term, it will benefit all of us if our government uses its powers to create "serious" carrots. That, and only that, will cause real and pragmatic change in the health of our environment and support from the construction community. We need not only new construction, but also existing homes and businesses to become invested in this effort. If the state will sacrifice short term tax gains by putting substantial incentives in place, these goals for our  collective environmental health will exceed everyones expectations. A more sustainable pattern of growth and water resources will benefit.

Please consider using very large carrots!!!!

Thank You

Yours

Bill Towler - Rph

Grove Avenue Pharmacy - Since 1946

4911 Grove Avenue Richmond, Va  23226

The proposed increase in fees is astronimical. Currently the fee works out to around $100 a year. If this passes it could go to over a $1000 to $2000 a year. It also adds a new fee for "maintenance". We already have to pay fees for everything else, this just makes it even more costly to try and undertake a project. I suggest keeping the existing fee structure, but making them annual instead of for the life of the permit.

I also would like to know the procedure for notifying the permit holder that their annual fee is due. Will it be letter, email, both? One time notice?

Who makes the determination that a project is complete? Most projects reach 95% stabilization at occupancy , but that last 5% can be problematic. Getting grass to grow everywhere is difficult for almost everyone. I'd hate to see DCR or a local authority applying strict criteria on a permit holder just to make them have to pay another annual fee for something very minor in nature.

I also do not like the annual increase on the fee that is linked to the cost index. Once again that adds a burden on permit holder's to figure out what they have to pay. The fees are way to high as proposed and adding that increase just adds insult to injury.

In conclusion, it's too much fee for too little benefit to the environment. It's a tax in sheeps clothing on the backs of new development when the chief cause of pollution in the state is from existing development which gets off scott free.

It can be a help to reduce our stormwater runoff along with its associated nutrient pollutants and our topsoil. The fee schedule should be well thought-out to avoid it being a similar fiasco to water/sewer municipality billing. Associate the fee directly to the stormwater runoff rate (and quality) so that efforts to remediate the core issue cause an equal reduction (up to elimination) of the stormwater fees. It will be incentive to help the situation. Let's also encourage potential improvements (where available) to existing properties. If a property could mitigate runoff from themself and an adjacent property, it would be better planning to include the both and offer a mitigation bank payback based on porximity and need rather than in some remote location like sometimes happens in wetland mitigation currently. This would encourage a 'bigger picture' approach to stormwater management instead of merely trying to shuck the additional tax burden.

In addition, do not allow this fee to be used for other matters as a revenue producing tax substitute. Stormwater specific use of stormwater specific fee/tax.

Finally, please make this fee structure inclining so that there is not a large processing fee and a tiny amount actually related to runoff. When you see what has happened to water billing it has become a disincentive to conserve. (City of Richmond fees near $50 without using a drop of water: thousands of gallons more, at pennies on the gallon) If that charge equalled actual usage and still included the same cost of infrastructure per gallon of water, it would encourage conservation without adding to our costs.

If this is a worthwhile issue to tackle (and I firmly believe that it is) we should address the root cause with more carrot and less stick. (To borrow from another public commenter)

If the ongoing inspection and upkeep (as well as public awareness) can be offered through the DCR (and others) on a limited basis without charges and penalties it would encourage behavior we now know to be beneficial to our watersheds (and therefore us all).

The state has made progress in doing its part to clean up the bay, most notably in reducing point-source pollution from sewage treatment plants and in providing incentives for farmers to reduce agricultural run-off.  Now it is time to reduce suburban water pollution.  I think this legislation is a good start in that direction.  I agree with one of the commenters that it is important to assess fees and to award dispensations from such fees in a logical and fair manner.  Hopefully, the law will not be overly prescriptive, dictating exactly what must be done, but rather do a straightforward assessment of the amount of pollution expected from a project, and then assess fees accordingly.  I also strongly agree with one of the commenters who suggests a state-wide effort to reduce phosphorus in lawn fertilizer.

I am writing in support of the Proposed Stormwater Regulations.

I live in Virginia, I drink the water and I hope my children and grandchildren will.  I see that stormwater runoff can be harmful in many ways if not regulated and managed.  I do not believe such problems are adequately addressed without effective regulation which includes enforcement, and provision for paying for the necessary regulatory system.

I support the improvements to the stormwater runoff regulations.

Robert M. Spiller, Jr.

Penn Laird, VA 22846

I am opposed to the proposed stormwater regulations aimed at business:

1. Business is only a small part of the problem. Farms are a greater problem, yet aren't targeted by these proposed regulations.

2. Virginia is only a small part of the problem. The James River watershed empties into the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay- where the Bay meets the Atlantic Ocean. The bulk of the problem with Bay pollution lies in Maryland, not Virginia.

3. In this time of economic distress, businesses need fewer regulations, not more, so they can have the resources they need to grow and create desperately needed jobs.

I am in favor of a clean Chesapeake Bay. I believe the stormwater regulations directed at Virginia businesses is absolutely the wrong way to achieve this worthwhile goal. Ditch the stormwater regulations aimed at business, and take another look at the problem - farms and runoff from Maryland. When those pieces of the puzzle are sufficiently addressed, then it's time to come back to the idea of stormwater regulations aimed at Virginia businesses - if there's even a need for them at that point.

Respectfully,

Mary Ellin Arch

I care about clean water and want the Commonwealth of Virginia to take strong action to control runoff from new development; which is hurting our streams, rivers, reservoirs, and the Chesapeake Bay.  The proposed parts of the Stormwater Regulations should be passed in their current form. 
 

The changes are a drastic departure from the existing regulations in both methodology and detail. I will limit my comments to three points:

1.       Perhaps I did not see it, but will there be any exemptions or modifications to the phosphorus removal requirements for project that discharge to combined sewers as exist in the current regulations?

2.       The proposed regulations discourage redevelopment of existing sites in urban areas. A proposed site, such as in the City of Richmond, that is currently 100% impervious and in the proposed development will be 90% impervious, is required to achieve the same phosphorus removal as a greenfield site.

3.       The recommended BMPs are an improvement over the existing BMPs in the regulations, but they need to address minor innovations in modifying the measures. For example, I tried to use bioretention with a storage pipe manifold underneath and was told by the reviewer that he “had never seen it before and wouldn’t allow it.”

I am pleased with the overall approach for these regulations.

I don't understand way the permit fees for Municipal storm sewer systems, while graduated for General permits, and small individual, are the same for medium and large systems, as determined by population.  It need not be a linear increase, but perhaps going up from the $16,000 to $20-24K.

August 14, 2009

Regulatory Coordinator

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

203 Governor Street, Suite 302

Richmond, VA 23219

RE:  Proposed Revisions to Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit Regulations

Dear Regulatory Coordinator:

The new proposed regulatory requirements contemplated in the Soil and Water Conservation Board’s revised stormwater regulations are cause for great concern among the business community.  The regulations’ new technical quality and quantity standards create an undue burden on new development and redevelopment with only minimal benefits provided to the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

The business community understands the need for increased stormwater regulation to protect our environment.  There is no question that the Chesapeake Bay is important to all of us and that we all need to be a part of the solution.  However, the proposed stormwater regulations are concerning for the following reasons:

• The standards as written do not appear to take into account relative costs and financial impacts to the overall economy versus the benefit to the  Bay.  Preliminary engineering studies have shown that onsite stormwater mitigation costs will increase by between 3 and 20 times, depending on project characteristics. This significantly increases the size and number of BMPs or requires development to use more land.  In some cases, projects become economically infeasible due to the cost of mitigation.
• The revisions as written make redevelopment more challenging and new development more land intensive and expensive, which will promote the very type of sprawling development the General Assembly and Governor sought to discourage with the passage of House Bill 3202 in 2007.
• Localities will need to fund long term program costs with general fund dollars or stormwater utilities.  Sources of funding for long term administration of State administered areas is unknown.
• The water quality improvements based upon these new regulations are relatively unknown, anticipating improvement on a “more is better” philosophy  versus scientific study.
• Scientific studies indicate that the largest  contributor of phosphorus runoff into  the Chesapeake Bay is agricultural runoff.  There is currently no state mandate requiring any regulation on agricultural runoff.    We believe it is irresponsible to ignore the largest contributor of phosphorus to the Bay while imposing strict regulation on a much smaller contributor, especially given the enormous economic toll the limits will have on the Commonwealth.

Virginia is consistently recognized on a national level as the best state in which to do business, which brings us notoriety and improves our ability to attract businesses to the Commonwealth.  These regulations will hinder business relocation and expansion efforts while providing little benefit to the health and prosperity of the Chesapeake Bay.

Impacts of this magnitude certainly warrant proper time, input, and study by all sectors of the community.   I respectfully submit that more time is needed to evaluate a series of potential solutions with true input from all sectors with scientific and economic data to support a unified cost- effective solution, and encourage you to not enact the stormwater regulations as they are currently written.

Sincerely,

Fred Norman

CVC, LLC

Member of the Greater Richmond Chamber

How about the fixing of old problems. Many culverts  running under roads  do not have the proper dischasrge points. Many empty out into people yards. Thus is what is called directed flooding? VDOT is directing water at my yard, that is illegal, isn't it? To use a ditch or channel to direct run off water at a neighbor isn't legal as far as I have read. One isn't allowed by law to direct run off water at another, however VDOT does that to me. This water should be funneled into an existing 42 inch storm drain enstead. However, seems after 35 years still no plans have been made to correct this as far as I have owned the property and for how many years proir to that iis anyone's guess.

So fix the old  as you fix the new, that is my response.

John Strother

This Regulation should NOT be approved.  At a time when the building industry is struggling and home builders, general contractors and small businesses are closing their doors, Virginia simply can't afford another layer of intrusive regulation.  The science has not yet been proven.  As with each of the previous increases to the requirements for nutrient reduction and stormwater retention, the environmental assures us that this is what is necessary to save the bay, but it never seems to be effective.  These environmental experiments should be conducted at government expense first to establish the most COST EFFECTIVE methodologies for stormwater management instead of just doubling the previous requirements.  Let VDOT try to attain the phosphorous reductions on a couple of State projects, then see if the costs make any sense.  Also the fees are ridiculous.  Most counties already collect large fees for land disturbing activities to support their local inspections of BMP's.

August 17, 2009

Regulatory Coordinator
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
203 Governor Street, Suite 302
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE:  Stormwater Management Regulations (Proposed) 4VAC50-60

To the Coordinator:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the proposed stormwater management regulations.  I appreciate the tremendous effort the DCR has undertaken to ensure that all voices are heard, and that the public is adequately notified of the impending regulations.  As a longtime resident of the Bayfront area of Virginia Beach, and an active participant in many past water quality initiatives, I understand the complexity and importance of providing water quality protection in Virginia, and offer the following comments and observations.

I am professional engineer with over 25 years of experience in the field of stormwater management.  While working as the VPDES administrator for a large municipality in the early 1990s, I worked with several regional committees, including the Hampton Roads Regional Stormwater Committee, to implement a comprehensive plan to address stormwater discharges throughout our watersheds, including discharges from development and redevelopment sites, as well as construction site activity.  Prior to the VPDES regulations, the municipality I worked for, Virginia Beach was on the forefront of stormwater management, adopting their own Stormwater Management Ordinance in 1988, and implementing the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance in 1991.  Virginia Beach and other communities of Tidewater also relied heavily on the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control regulations to protect our waterways from excessive erosion and sedimentation during construction.  Working together on the regional stormwater committee, the communities of Tidewater forged a regional approach to many stormwater issues that became a model for the rest of the State.  I am no longer working for Virginia Beach, but I consider myself very fortunate to have worked with the regional committee which still stands today.

Like other stormwater engineers who have worked in the field for many years, both in the private and public sector, I can attest to the fact that one of the greatest difficulties in effectively regulating stormwater at the local level is deciphering the many conflicting, overlapping requirements of the numerous State and Federal agencies that promulgate regulations.    All Hampton Roads communities have land areas within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area, but some also have a portion of their land area outside the Bay area. Many communities had a confusing array of requirements depending on which watershed a project was located in, and many requirements of the State Stormwater Management Regulations slipped through the cracks as a result.  The purpose of 2001 revisions to the State Stormwater Management Regulations was to rectify the confusing situation so that watersheds were adequately protected, and to ensure that stormwater requirements were more evenly applied within all watersheds.  I strongly supported the 2001 revisions in the hopes that they would provide a unified approach to stormwater in all watersheds, and that they would provide a clearer path to conformity to the State’s stormwater program.  Alas, due primarily to limited resources within the municipalities, and perhaps due to some fatal flaws within the regulations, very few were able to amend their own programs sufficiently to conform to the 2001 revisions.  I have performed internal audits of ordinances for local municipalities, and have found several holes in compliance to the Stormwater Management Regulations, the Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.  These lapses were in no way intentional, but as a direct result of limited resources, and the difficulty in achieving the required coordination between many beleaguered city departments.  One local municipality revised their stormwater ordinances and manuals by literally crossing out the old requirements and typing in the new ones.  Others simply ignored the 2001 revisions all together and maintained their existing programs, however lacking.  Most local municipalities were very slow to adopt or use of the “Blue Book” (Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook) even though it provided practical design guidance for most common stormwater management facilities in use in Virginia.  Obviously, all these examples are a clear indication of limited resources.  Sadly, the 2001 revisions did little to ensure statewide compliance with stormwater management initiatives, but instead overloaded the communities already working diligently toward effective water quality and volume controls under their existing MS4 programs. 

This brings me to the subject of today’s proposed Stormwater Management Regulations.  It is my understanding that the intent of HB 1177 was to consolidate the State’s stormwater management program under one department (the DCR), ensure statewide adoption of stormwater management regulations, and to ensure consistent and equitable application of stormwater management regulations across the state.  I wholeheartedly  endorse  the original intent of today’s proposed regulations, but   believe that they reach far beyond  ensuring statewide compliance,  add a degree of difficulty due to the return of the  very old concept of the “keystone pollutant”, and   require  that each municipality drastically revise the programs they already have in place, regardless of whether they are effective or not.   And further, it is very difficult to understand how these revisions will provide additional water quality protection in the urban/suburban communities of Hampton Roads, especially in municipalities where the majority of the developable land is already developed. 

I have long been a proponent of statewide stormwater management requirements.  Some of the worst cases of streambank erosion, hillside erosion, and sedimentation can be seen in the central and western part of the state.  And the degradation of the Chesapeake Bay is due to, in great part, the agricultural activities within the entire Bay watershed, and the lack of adequate sanitary sewer treatment facilities within the entire watershed, and is certainly not solely due to development within the Hampton Roads areas or other areas east of Richmond.  So I applaud the statewide application of stormwater controls not only because of the issue of fairness, but because it will result in a reduction of pollutants to our natural waters. 

However, a return to the concept of statewide keystone pollutant seems to be a step backward, especially when considering that many municipalities are in the midst of preparing comprehensive implementation plans to address other pollutant loads in impaired watersheds (under another State agency’s purview).  In fact, a recent review of the State’s Impaired Waters List revealed that very few waters are listed as impaired due to phosphorus.  I understand that reducing phosphorus in the Bay is critical to the Bay’s long-term survival.   But reducing other pollutants may be as critical, if not more critical, especially in terms of nearshore uses of the Bay.  In fact, high fecal coliform levels have closed local beaches in recent years, and have drastically reduced oyster harvesting in the waters of Tidewater.  Doesn’t it stand to reason that any watershed management plan should target the pollutant most-impairing that waterway?  Another example of how the keystone approach can be problematic   is in the case of re-development sites or ultra-urban sites such as gas stations, and in some cases, roadways.   I believe BMPs for these sites should be selected to remove as much oil, grease, grit, and sediments as possible.   Where is the source of phosphorus at a gas station, except through air deposition?

Further, an unintended consequence of returning to the keystone approach is in discouraging the development and use of manufactured stormwater devices, which have historically been poor at removing phosphorus but are very effective in removing sediment, oils and grease, heavy metals, and other particulates.  I believe these devices can play a very important role in the removal of such pollutants that are common to roadways, as well as highly developed sites.  Communities need all the tools available to them to address pollutants affecting their waterways. 

Another issue in today’s proposed regulation is runoff reduction and volume control.  Although it is clear that many of our streams and rivers have suffered over the years due to lack of adequate stormwater management, I believe this is more due to the lack of enforcement of the current regulations, not the regulations themselves.  Virginia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook has long been held as one of the best in the nation.  MS-19, the cornerstone of volume control and channel adequacy, can stand on its own if implemented and enforced properly, and it equitably applies additional controls for inadequate or highly eroded channels.  Runoff reduction methodology is one of many tools that communities can now employ to reduce runoff and protect channels.  But many runoff reduction methods are difficult to employ in the coastal regions due to their dependency on infiltration, and their required minimum depth differential to groundwater levels.  Many Hampton Roads communities are already reviewing their ordinances and standards to allow for low impact development (LID) practices, but are concerned about the inspections, maintenance, and tracking of these facilities if they become mandatory.   (Allowing them is one thing:  tracking them is another.)

In closing, those municipalities already hard at work  accomplishing the very time-consuming  but necessary task of developing comprehensive watershed action plans should  be free to implement whatever controls they feel are necessary  to improve water quality within the watershed.  These controls may include much needed source controls, development controls, regulatory action, and retro-fitting in order achieve their watershed-wide goals.  The State stormwater management regulations should provide them with a framework of how best to achieve those goals, without hampering them by imposing overly authoritative, restrictive oversight.  And most importantly, requiring a total revamping of a municipality’s development standards in today’s development climate will only detract from their efforts to protect their watersheds, by requiring them to devote their limited staff and resources to revising controls which will have very little impact in existing developed urban/suburban areas.  

I believe the Department of Conservation and Recreation should limit their revisions to the current regulations to the following:

• Require that all (MS4) municipalities conform to the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations for both water quality as well as volume control.
• Revise the current regulations to require that all additional impervious areas be treated in accordance with established methodology.  “Established methodology” could include the methodology(s) defined in the BMP clearinghouse, but should be tailored by each community to determine the feasibility of each method.
• Require that all redevelopment reduce pollutants by a minimum of 20%, but allow municipalities to develop watershed retrofitting plans, and allow payment into the retrofitting fund for that watershed.  Any watershed management plan that depends solely on development control to improve water quality will fail miserably, especially in existing urban/suburban areas.  I believe municipalities must increase stormwater fees to fund major retrofitting projects in order to effectively improve water quality. 
• Return to the technology-based criteria, and continue to develop pollutant removal data to update the methodology outlined in the BMP Clearinghouse information.  This will help municipalities tailor their programs to target pollutants of concern.   One detail of the proposed revisions that I believe is long overdue, and will have a profound impact on how sites are developed, is the distinction between managed turf and natural areas.  I believe this simple aspect of the revisions should remain, as it important to both water quality and quantity. 

Again, thank you for allowing me to comment on these regulations.  The process has been illuminating and has forced all of us to think deeply and differently about the State’s role in protecting water quality.

Sincerely, 

June Barrett-McDaniels, P.E., CFM

Aquarius Engineering, PC

2400 Ketch Court

Virginia Beach, VA 23451

757-496-2570

Thanks for allowing comments

 I have witnessed and have been concerned for many many years, for not only the huge areas of forests cut for development in our rural lands but also the runoffs associated with those clearcuts. These clearcuts are the result of developers and the developers are then in fact the loggers.

 Once the lands have been developed (I feel their degraded) the need for runoff protection starts then??

 The so called "developers" need to leave the trees be, or PAY for their degradation to the highest degree... starting with those chainsaws!

 Please pass "sound" environmental runoff standards for ALL waterways!!

STORMWATER REGULATIONS

            The Headwaters Soil & Water Conservation District covers Augusta Co. We have been successful in helping farmers and other landowners manage nutrients and natural resources so they can remain productive as well as preserving their way of life.

            In the process, the environment and particularly water quality are improved. Although more can be done, we feel future gains will be harder to secure and the ratio of money spent per nutrient reduction will increase. In other words, the low hanging fruit has been harvested.

            Stormwater from developments in our county have negatively affected landowners downstream for years.

            After reading the solution in the Hornung/HomeBuilders Assoc. of Virginia's proposal, we felt a need to voice our concern.

            New development is the only sector showing an increase in pollution. They need to address this problem on their own job sites; not by creating a fund expecting the sectors of Agriculture and point source facilities to cover development’s short fall.

            We recognize the complexity of this issue and stand ready to continue our conservation efforts in assisting those eligible for our programs. Those in Agriculture will continue to carry out their role in striving for cleaner water. Every sector needs to do their share, including the Homebuilders Association.

I am in support of well-designed and well-evaluated regulatory improvements in how post-construction stormwater runoff is managed.  Stormwater runoff is probably our toughest water-impairment issue, and development sites can cause sediment and excessive flow problems if not managed adequately.  I encourage the Board to consider carefully the many comments on this issue and develop a final rule that is reasonable for impacted businesses but that moves the state forward to a lower stormwater-impact future.

I am in favor of using the most cost effective methods available to clean phosphorus, nitrogen and sediments from Virginia waters.

Based on the DCR presentation, Agriculture contributes 46% of pollutants to our streams but the current proposals concentrate on runoff from new development.

Pollution from urban ruoff and wastewater treatment plants are responsible for just over half the problems but nutrient removal is expensive. Since these sources require new permits and have deeper pockets they are easier to target for state regulations. Tighter controls on agricultural runoff is a cheaper way to remove nutrients but farmers typically do not have the money to do so.

However, since the goal is removal of pollutants, let's get the most bang for the buck possible. It seems to me that fees on new development to pay for reducing agricultural nutrient loads is the most cost effective method.

I am also in favor of looking at a "flush tax" to reduce wastewater treatment plant pollution.

1. We strongly recommend that DCR include representation from the turfgrass industry on the Virginia SWM BMP Clearinghouse Committee.

2. We recommend that DCR consider development of a supplement to the stormwater management handbook that specifically addresses the management of runoff on sites with turf-intensive uses such as golf courses. Many of the practices and design approaches could be implemented in a more cost-effective and efficient manner.

3. We recommend that DCR consider development of an alternate list of management practices for turf-intensive uses, including providing credit for ongoing BMPs, nutrient management planning and implementation, integrated pest management planning, water efficient golf course development and other similar practices which could have a much more beneficial effect on water quality for these land use settings.

4. We recommend that DCR develop guidance to reduce permit overlap and clarify roles and responsibilities in instances where a VPA or VPDES discharge permit or other similar permit affecting golf course water and nutrient management has been developed and integrated into a golf course management plan. At present, we foresee the possibility for conflicts between these competing permit interests and the CGP/Post-construction stormwater unless some clear guidance is provided.

5. We recommend that DCR further consider guidance or refinement of the existing guidance on the application of open space versus turf crediting for turf-intensive uses such as golf courses. The many different cover and grass types (irrigated turf, roughs (first/second cuts), managed forest cover, and non-managed forest cover) on a golf course setting may cause some regulatory confusion without further specific guidance.

6. We recommend that DCR consider how runoff reuse practices (commonly employed on a large scale at golf courses) could be adapted to provide the appropriate crediting for golf course. In many instances, portions of courses receive intensive water harvesting through irrigation storage reservoirs and reuse for irrigation which results in significant decreases in total runoff volume and annual pollutant loads, consistent with the principles and practices embodied in the runoff reduction method. Golf courses or other large scale runoff harvesting efforts should be appropriately credited in a similar fashion to small scale runoff harvesting (cisterns, rain barrels, etc).

7. We recommend that DCR provide written clarification that stripping and replacing sod, and other golf course maintenance and upkeep practices which do not result in changes to the footprint of those land surfaces is considered maintenance (operation and maintenance of an existing facility) and are therefore exempt from the requirements of the Construction General Permit. In a recent meeting with DCR there was considerable discussion of this matter, and the "kickouts" that would mandate coverage if the bounds of "operation and maintenance" were exceeded. A guidance document would be very useful to the regulated public to reduce confusion for golf course managers and local governments ultimately implementing this program.

Stormwater Regulations Make Sense

I strongly support the proposed new regulations for stormwater management.

 It makes sense to complete the planning/approval process for stormwater management before construction begins, rather than the current system of waiting until after a project is complete. All planning for such projects -- both soil and erosion control and stormwater management -- should occur at the same time, before the ground is disturbed.

The option for a local government (or several) to either administer their own stormwater program(s) or ask the state to provide the service offers the flexibility needed, particularly for smaller localities. Of particular value is the fee structure to ensure the program is not a financial burden on local governments or residents where development occurs. I strongly support the requirement for stormwater management permit fees from the actual developers whose actions create the water quality problems. It is a fair cost of doing business, while protecting the public's interest in clean water. 

State officials should make revisions to the proposed stormwater ordinances to ensure they do not hinder redevelopment in existing urban/suburban areas, which is an excellent opportunity to improve poor stormwater systems, or promote sprawling development in rural areas.

In sum, I very much hope the Commonwealth will adopt the proposed stormwater regulations in their current form, with some modifications to promote sustainablilty and efficient land use.

Sincerely,

Megan Gallagher

The Plains, VA      

As farmers in Augusta County, we are always cautious of regulations. We do recognize however that unmanaged Stormwater can be very disruptive to our business as well as a major source of pollution to our waterways.

      We feel today’s agriculture practices have made very positive steps in controlling nutrient and soil runoff from our land. We are concerned, however, that every contributing source be responsible for their share.

            The documentation of known increases from the development community concern us greatly and the Homebuilders Assoc. of Va. Response to their increased responsibilities by proposed regulations although predictable, should not be tolerated.  Lowering their phosphorous standards and payment to others paying is not going to solve the problem. 

            We ask that all sectors do their share.

I am writing on behalf of the Rappahannock River Basin Commission to offer comments on the proposed regulations.  Generally, the Commission supports the implementation of the revisions to the regulations since improved management of stormwater is essential to the success of the Bay Program, but we feel compelled to express some concerns.  We echo the concern raised by several commenters that the proposed regulations need to be refined to minimize the unintended consequences of promoting sprawl by potentially making it prohibitively expensive to redevelop land in urban and especially suburban areas.  Virginia land use policy has been evolving over the past several years with the goal of promoting more compact development.  We ask that you review the proposed regulations to ensure that we have consistent policies and implementation.  Efforts to incentivize redevelopment and the opportunity to improve the quality of stormwater runoff from sites that currently have little or no stormwater management should be encouraged.  The refinement of offsite alternatives may aid in addressing this issue.  Opportunities for private funds to be invested in offsetting land conservation-related BMPs should also be encouraged.

As we move to implementation of whatever is finally adopted we strongly encourage you to prepare model local ordinances for use by those who must or choose to adopt the program locally.  We understand that the “Bluebook” manual is being revised and that the BMP clearinghouse will be online for the use of those who will design and review new stormwater management plans.  These technical assistance tools will be essential to efficient operation of the program and we want to emphasize that priority that must be placed by DCR on these tasks.

We feel that it is important that either within the regulations or within the guidance documents mentioned above that the reuse of rainwater (harvesting) be proactively promoted.  Not only does this make common sense it can also make economic sense for the property owner as long as we do not include rules that are an impediment to this market-based solution to our water quality problems.  We encourage you to accept some of the previous comments offered on rainwater harvesting (such as comment #7138, Corey Simonpietri, ACF Environmental) that emphasize the need to seize opportunities to keep water on-site for beneficial uses.

I conclude by offering a general principle that the members of the Rappahannock River Basin Commission have come to recognize and endorse – we should empower within our laws and regulations the opportunity for landowners (private and public) to engage in market-based activities (solutions) that improve water quality.  We must evaluate all laws and regulations by asking the question: are we creating an economy that promotes water quality conscious decision-making?

Emmett Hanger, Chair, Rappahannock River Basin Commission

(submitted by Eldon James, RRBC Staff)  

ype over this text and enter your comments here. You are limited to approximately 3000 words.

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.

T

As a lifelong resident of Virginia, I appreciate the overall intent of the regulations, to maintain/improve the quality of streams, rivers and the bay

As a professional that has worked in the site development, owner of an engineering firm and developer of several thousand residential lots, I am very opposed to the proposed regulations as they are current written.

Based on almost 30 years of experience, I believe that thesse regulations will tremendously impact the Virginina economy and take a State that has been historically business friendly, to one that is virtually impossible to work within.

It would appear that in addition to the economic impact to most every segment of the economy, these regulations will directly cause "sprawl"  at a greater rate, at a time when every jurisdiction is struggling to deal with current infrastructure issues and find ways to reduce "sprawl" in future developments.  It is also a misconception that "some" of the costs may be passed on to consumers.  All "expenses" necessary to create any product will be passed on by businesses of every type, retail, professional service and construction.  The cost of doing business in Virginia will go up.

Documents shown by the DCR during public hearings show new development as a relatively small percentage slice of the "pie" which is already being treated at a fairly significant rate.  Their would appear to be some much larger slices of the pie where regulations generally in line with current new development would produce a much greater benefit at a significantly reduced cost to the commonwealth and its citizens.

If cleaning up the environment is really the issue, why can't  finding ways to treat existing untreated development become a priority area since it is such a large percentage of the problem.  Something as simple as a tax credit to encourgae existing site owners to add BMP's such as a "Filterra" adjacent to existing storm structures.  This type of BMP can be retrofitted at most existing sites.  I could install two of these "BMP's" that would treat our entire existing office site at 65% removal,  improving water quality significantly more, at much less cost to everyone (regulatory agencies, businesses, and homeowners) than the proposed incremental increase to new developoment over the current regulations

With these regulations, if there is no new developoment, there is no improvement to existing conditions.  Only with redevelopment is there any improvement.

In summary, I think these regulations will have a tremendous impact to the Commonwealth's economy, reputation as a business friendly state, cause sprawl and not have much if any additional impact to improving water quality from the current regulations. 

If the Environment is really the issue, the percentage largest portions of the graphic presented by the DCR goes totally untreated.  These other unregulated areas, can provide the biggest "improvement" to water quality if properly encouraged by the state.

I respectfully request that you do not approve the regulations as written, at the very least send Part 2 back to the TAC, and step back to see where the most benefit for the dollar can be achieved for all Virginians, both public and private.

Sincerely,

Gregory N. Koontz, P.E., L.S.

1. Separate the administration of the VSMP General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Constrcution Activities from the technical requirements to treat the discharge from post-construction stormwater runoff.

2. Allow for delegation to local governments of the VSMP General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities beginning July 1, 2010 while maintaining the statutory deadline for adopting local administration of technical criteria for stormwater quality and quantity.

3. Maintain the current statewide fee schedule for the VSMP General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities and allow delegated local governments to permit and adopt their own fee schedules for the review, inspection and maintenance of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) for post-constuction runoff.

4. Local programs administered by DCR should develop comprehensive watershed stormwater management plans as a complement to local comprehensive plans.

5. Local programs administered by DCR should be adopted no sooner than 15 months following the effective date of the regulation that establishes the local program criteria.

6. Maintain the current standards of 0.45 lbs of phosphorous/acre/year for new development and the 10% reduction in phosphorous for redevelopment activities.

The proposed regulations have several aspects of concern to the County of York.  The first concern is Part XIII fees.   York County is a phase II MS4 community and to date the fees have been $600 every five years.  The Amendment proposes a fee increase to $4,000 annually.  This equates to $20,000 over five years which is a 3000% increase.  While the state is trying to make their program self sufficient, it is putting a burden on the local budgets which are also suffering from the economic impact; having to cut budgets, limit staff hiring and in some cases reduce staff when more work is being required by the state VSMP permit.  At the very least, it should be increased incrementally over the next five years and should not go up to the full amount until the locality has become a Qualifying Local Program and can receive a refund from construction permit issuance. 

The second concern is fees for small construction activities (4VAC50-60-820) of 2,500 sq. ft. to one acre.  A fee of $200 is proposed.  This would apply to all new home construction since most new homes disturb at least 2,500 sq. ft.   Currently no fee is required.     This is a significant additional cost.  Also, the fee for a single lot within a development (purchased for development within previously permitted common plan) would be $290.  This seems excessive since the development is usually still under permit when lots are constructed.

A third concern has to do with fee collection for construction permits.  The requirement that 50% of the fees be paid during the plan review process is an accounting issue.  If we collect a fee during plan review, and the construction never occurs or significantly delayed, are we then required to refund it?  If the fees are collected in one fiscal year but the construction does not occur within that fiscal year or the next, it creates additional administrative burdens in tracking and splitting these fees between fiscal years.  Lastly, it is unclear as to when and how the modification fees would apply if a plan changes area of disturbance due to review comments prior to plan approval.

Annual increase in fees is addressed in 4VAC50-60-840 and is based on CPI-U index but it also states that there will be no decreases in fees.  In light of the current economy, this does not seem appropriate or fair to the applicant.

I am a small business owner for over 35 years. I am a former member of the Albemarle County Architectural review Board. I am against the new storm water regulations. The regulations that are in place now need to be enforced.

The additional regulations would be detrimental to the Economy.