Public access is critical to holding builders and developers accountable.

I am more than overjoyed to know that more stringent requirements regarding stormwater runoff from sites for builders may be in the works. I am a sailor and hate to see plumes of muddy water running off construction sites. But no input or oversight from the public weakens any new regs. It is a fact that there are never enough inspectors to do their jobs. Extra eyes should be welcome. Transparency is a goal for more governmental agencies and this case is no different.

Re: subject Regs., what are builders and Virginia regulators trying to hide?

 I join the thousands of Va. citizens wondering about that, too; so I'm objecting to this new "secrecy provision" in the proposed Virginia runoff permit. We insist that Virginia protect the public’s waterways; in this case, by maintaining public access to builders’ runoff prevention plans.

I am writing this letter in response to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's email alert regarding proposed changes in development regulations that would allow the Virginia development community to eliminate public accessibility to various stormwater applications.  The citizens in the Bay watershed are best served by what CBF initiatives and proposals, not those from the building industry. 

 I have been in the planning and preservation planning field for 25 years in Maryland, Virginia, and California. All development applications, zoning applications, building applications, grading applications, etc. are applications available for public review.  This is standard practice and it is a good practice that allows communities to understand the complexity of a development application in their neighborhood and its environmental impacts.  

This proposal to shield components of stormwater plans from public review puts communities and the protection of the bay at a tremendous disadvantage. It is a seious step backwards. As a planner and a preservationist, I say this proposal stinks like a dead fish, which is all that we will have in the bay with these kinds of grossly irresponsible public policy decisions. 

Absolutely unacceptable to shield development plans from public review!  Not in this day and time. I am incredulous that such a concept is being seriously considered. 

It is difficult to unsdestand how less public access to any regulatory documents is a good thing and certainly in the case of controlling polluting run off from construction sites has to be counter productive.  The citizenry are a vital component of compliance supervision.  Therefore public access to construction permints should be a part of the regulations.

All permits and plans required to protect water quality should be open to citizen review.

I've read the Agency Background Document. Stormwater runoff appears to be the greatest single contributor to degradation of surface waters in Virginia.  I'm appalled at the lack of transparency proposed for the next General Permit & the "fox guarding the henhouse" aspects of the inspection/reporting procedure. The public must be able to review such documents in order to remain aware of what's being done, how, and where.

Dear Sirs,

I support most of the proposed changes to the construction general permit. In particular, I support stronger conditions that require contractors to develop and follow a runoff prevention plan with tough pollution reduction controls, including prompt stabilization of denuded areas and more frequent site inspections to identify and fix runoff problems.

I strongly oppose the newly proposed scerecy that would be allowed for builders regarding their pollution runoff plans for building sites. The public must continue to have access to these runoff plans in order to hold builders accountable for following their own plans. The water quality of the Chesapeake Bay is improving nad will only continue to improve if sound policies are created and enforced.

Thank you,

Paul O'Hearn

For transparency, accounatability, and maintaining public trust, Pollution and Run-off Prevention Plans for Permits should be readily available for public review.    Preferably these should be posted online.

I was astouned to learn that proposed changes to regulations shield development plans from public review!  Not in this day and time. I am incredulous that such a concept is being seriously considered. 

We need a certification program that localities can us to make certain the installers of BMP vegetation have a basic knowledge of the types of plants and the specific locations of each type to promote the water quality and quantity criteria. The certification program should not be a burden to the landscaping community but a tool to help. The certification could consist of the recognition of existing certification programs hosted by VCE, VDACS, DGIF or others that can be recognized by DPOR and DEQ to qualify a landscape installer to have the basic understanding and premise of vegetative stormwater management. This certification would qualify for landscape installers and maintainers of water quality vegetation to provide a credit that can be used for the local pollution removal efficiencies. This certification could be modeled after the RLD online certification program and would require proof of passing one if not all of the respective hands on training programs provided by the above listed entities as well as others that have similar programs that DPOR could recognize.

We want the James River to remain a clean and beautiful place to go swimming. Please keep pollution prevention efforts accessible to the public.

It is essential that an important issue such as pollution controls remain transparent and readily available to the public..

I am writing this letter to strongly protest proposed changes in development regulations that would allow the Virginia development community to eliminate public accessibility to various stormwater applications.  If this proposal were to be implemented, those from the building industry could have free rein to run roughshod over regulations that will protect the rivers that flow into the Chesapeke Bay.

  All development applications, zoning applications, building applications, grading applications, and the like must remain accessible to the public for public review.  This is  a practice that allows residents to understand the impact of a development application home and how it can effect the environment, rivers and the bay. 

This is a proposal to hide parts of stormwater plans from the public. It will allow builders and developers to proceed with plans that benefit them, while having negative impacts on the impacted communities and the rivers and streams which flow into the Chesapeake Bay. It is a major step backwards. As a lifelong Virginian who spends much time on the James River and its tributaries, I witness firsthand the impacts of bad planning decisions and of irresponsible landowner actions resulting in degraded water quality, ruined fish and invertebrate habitat and increasing water flow issues after even fairly minor weather events.  I urge you to retain the public's ability to review proposed Stormwater Pollution Prevention plans, and to allow the public input into these decisions. 

Currently the RLD inspection is every 14 days or within 48 hrs of a measurable rain event. If I comprehend the proposed inspection period correctly, the new requirement would be every 4 or 7 days plus within 48 hrs of a measured rain event. The amount of fuel to be spent to be in compliance with is requirement would be unbearable not only to the RLD, but the enviroment itself. I am a registered RLD and I have been in the developement field for close to thirty years. Anyone who would propose or support such a requirement immediately tells me they have zero field experience. This type of proposal damages the integrity the branch of government which proposes it. The inspection period should remain at 14 days,48 hrs within a measurable rain event. The rain fall amount should stay at 0.50 . 0.25 should not rerequire an inspection.

Rivers cannot defend themselves. Please reinstate the public’s right to access construction stormwater runoff management plans.

Sincerely,

Christina Daniel

Rivers cannot defend themselves. Please speak on behalf of your local streams and rivers and prevent the concealment of pollution requirements from the public.

Thank you for safeguarding Virginia waters.

Amber Ellis

We must incorporate Stormwater Management plans. Anything else is completely irresponsible and unforgivable.

Tee Clarkson

Virginia Fishing Adventures/Virginia outside

Please make certain these remain open records and available to the public at all times.  Thank you.

Disabling the public's ability to know and respond appropriately to water quality threats in their own community is not in the best interest of improved Virginia water quality. Keep the permits and construction activity transparent to the public.

please act responsibly to the public's needs and interests and remember who pays the bills & votes. I use the water ways a lot in my kayaks and I want clean healthy streams to paddle and swim in ...

Please allow free and public access to stormwater runoff plans.  As citizens it is our responsibility to help government oversee protection of the commonwealth's natural resources. We can only do that if we have access and transparency about things that affect our environment.

Runoff from construction sites contributes to unhealthy river and stream conditions. For the past three years - permitted construction sites in Virginia have been required to make publicly accessible Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) - a working document of construction site water quality assurances and strategies. Agency inspectors cannot be everywhere so informed citizens play a critical role in making sure SWPPP's are followed. The general permit for construction in Virginia is now up for scheduled renewal - and the state is under pressure to permanently extinguish the public's right to access to these plans.  JRA believes that disabling the public's ability to know and respond appropriately to water quality threats in their own community is not in the best interest of improved James River water quality.

I concur with the deletion of allowing the public to come to the construction site to look at the SWPPP. Safety issues and disruption of construction are not in the best interest of anybody. 80% of the items in the SWPPP are in construction plans designed by a professional engineer and reviwed and approved by local government. These plans are public record and available for review at local government offices. The remaining 20% of issues in the SWPPP are provided by the contractor. It should be a simple matter to require the contractor to fill out a form that covers those 20% and how they plan to prevent pollution. The contractor must fill that form out or they would not get the land disturbance permit. That form would be placed in the same location as the plans for people to review at the local government offices.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendments and reissuance of the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities.  As a federal agency with resource stewardship responsibilities for land and water resources under the TVA Act, TVA considers itself a partner with Virginia, supporting the promulgation of rules and regulations that minimize the Commonwealth’s environmental impacts to both aquatic and terrestrial resources. TVA has reviewed the proposed amendments and offers the following comments:

4VAC50-60-1130. Authorization to discharge.

1. Paragraph A: If construction cannot begin until receiving acceptance of the registration statement from the board, scheduling can become a critical issue in the project planning process. TVA suggests limiting the review period e.g., 30 days, that would authorize construction following a defined time period after a complete registration statement is submitted. This would allow time to effectively manage projects and construction activities.
2. Paragraph A.1.c: Clarify that minor maintenance activities would not be considered “Discharge of storm water associated with construction activities including stormwater associated with emergency-related construction related activities”. TVA suggests adding an additional paragraph, i.e., ‘Maintenance performed to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the site would not be considered construction, e.g. re-clearing, minor excavation performed around an existing structure necessary for maintenance or repair, and repaving of an existing road, is not considered a construction activity for the purpose of this permit.’

4VAC50-60-1170. General permit.  Section II.A.2.b(4)

1. Paragraph (g): The intent about preserving topsoil should be clarified by rewording to ‘...preserve topsoil in place and/or preserve for reuse elsewhere on the project where feasible;’
2. Paragraph (h) states that “...stabilization of denuded areas shall be initiated immediately upon reaching final grade or for areas that may not be at final grade but will remain dormant for longer than 14 days. Temporary stabilization shall be installed within seven days of initiation.”
   • Similar to Section I.B.4.c for inspections, there should be an exception for snow cover or frozen ground conditions for stabilization. Additionally, there should be an exception for adverse soggy ground conditions which would also preclude immediate initiation of stabilization measures. TVA suggests rewording paragraph (h) to read ‘...but will remain dormant for longer than 14 days, except where the initiation of stabilization measures is precluded by weather conditions. In those cases, stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as practicable.’
3. Paragraph (i): Prohibits discharges from basins and other impoundments unless an outlet structure that withdraws water from the surface is utilized. It should be noted that 40 CFR 450.21(f) provides “when discharging from basins and impoundments, utilize outlet structures that withdraw water from the surface, unless infeasible.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explained its reasoning for including the “unless infeasible” language:
   • For certain controls, EPA included “unless infeasible” to recognize that there may be some sites where a particular control measure cannot be implemented, thus allowing flexibility for permittees. TVA requests that the “unless infeasible” language be included.

TVA appreciates your consideration of the above comments. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of these comments, please contact Steve Barnes at 423-751-6436 or by email at sebarnes@tva.gov.

Sincerely,

John W. Myers
Director
Environmental Policy and Regulatory Affairs
 

Publicly accessible Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) are vital to citizen involvement in protecting our creeks, steams, rivers, lake and bays. I strongly encourage you to to maintain your earlier decision to "require public accessibility of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans from construction sites upon request", and furthermore this requirement should be re-instated into the pending construction general permits.  Water is our source of life. This is a small action than can go a long water to keeping our water supplies, water access and all that depends on it clean for us, our children and future generations. 

The City of Norfolk appreciates the opportunity to participate in the public comment period for the Construction General Permit. Although DCR and DEQ staff worked hard to complete this process, we believe there are some items which were not adequately resolved during the RAP process. In the interest of achieving compliance when VSMP Authority (local) Programs begin enforcing the Construction General Permit, we would like to offer the following comments on the Construction General Permit, February 11, 2013 Version published for public comment on 4/8/2013:

1. The option of simply “every four days” for self-inspection was never discussed, nor endorsed, by the RAP. The proposed language is suggested to state self-inspect “every four working days”. Without this change, compliance with this requirement will be extremely difficult and burdensome on a majority of permittees, and enforcement at the local level will be equally difficult and burdensome, therefore setting both the permittee and municipality for non-compliance..
2. Line 38, the definition of “Immediately” (which defines the deadline for initiating stabilization measures) needs to include an exception for documented weather or emergency events. For example, if there is a heavy precipitation event on the next work day following the day when earth-disturbing activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, it may not be possible to “immediately” initiate stabilization measures.
3. 4VAC50-60-1150 A.1. requires that permit coverage be obtained through the state’s electronic database (“e-permitting”), but also that a complete (paper) registration statement be submitted to the VSMP authority. Since the VSMP authority is not technically issuing permit coverage, they should not be receiving paper registration statements. We recommend that, if a paper registration statement is required, that it should be submitted to DEQ, not the VSMP authority program.
4. 4VAC50-60-1150 A.3.a. has conflicting language requiring that, in order to continue existing permit coverage, that all information be entered into the available electronic database 90 days prior to the effective date of this general permit, but then goes on to state that there is a June 1 reapplication date. 90 days would be some time around April 1. The deadline date (April 1 or June 1) needs to be resolved and the language corrected throughout the regulation.
5. 4VAC50-60-1160. Termination of state permit coverage has requirements that the operator electronically enter a significant amount of detailed information to the state database in order to terminate permit coverage. We strongly recommend that these requirements be simplified and that this detailed information be collected from the VSMP authority programs to maintain consistency and accuracy. Additionally, the requirement for both electronic and paper copies of the termination documents should not be necessary. Coordination between the VSMP Authority and DEQ through the state’s electronic database should be able to satisfy the termination requirement.
6. 4VAC50-60-1170.B.3. Limitations on coverage for discharges to impaired waters. Is DEQ going to provide a means for permittees to identify whether their sites are located within TMDL watersheds as well as the TMDLs which address “pollutants of concern”? There is a definite need for a statewide system or methodology to make these determinations with certainty and consistency. Our understanding is that the new electronic database (“e-permitting”) was originally designed with this capability, but that the project has been scaled back and may not include GIS capabilities at this time.
7. The term “common plan of development” on lines 306 and 704 requires further definition and clarification. During the RAP process DCR staff referenced the EPA definition which is included in 4VAC 50-60-10, however, this definition is vague and requirements have historically not been enforced consistently. This leaves the local programs vulnerable to being burdened with many non-compliant lots on July 1, 2014.  DCR committed to providing further guidance on this issue at some point in the future, but lacking this guidance the definition remains open to interpretation. As a result, each local VSMP authority program will, by necessity, develop guidance which meets the needs and intent of their program.

Additional Concerns Related to the Construction General Permit:

1. Which entity (DEQ or VSMP Authority) will be enforcing Construction General Permits which were issued or continued prior to July 1, 2014? This issue was not addressed in the VSMP Regulations. We are concerned about the current compliance status, the timely transition of these permits, and staffing levels to handle these additional inspections and the definition of common plan of development.
2. How does DEQ plan to publicize the “e-permitting” system? Will there still be a means for an applicant to submit a paper registration statement only in order to obtain permit coverage? We are concerned that the burden of training system users and implementation of this system will fall to the VSMP authority (local) programs and that we will not have adequate staffing to handle this work load.
3. For construction activities >2500 square feet, but <1 acre located within a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act area which are currently covered under a Construction General Permit, does DEQ plan to terminate coverage on or prior to July 1, 2014 since these activities will no longer require Construction General Permit coverage after July 1, 2014?
4. Training/Certification for the new regulations is only mandated for municipal staff that perform site plan review or inspection, why is the state not setting up an additional training session for contractors to train them on the requirement of the permits, similar to the RDL program?

I object to neighbors and concerned environmental activists being denied access to a site wherein the plan for protection from stormwater damage should be posted with all environmental concerns relevant to that site.

Diana Parker

Virginia Snead,
I am writing to urge you to reinstitute public availability of SWPPPs. Transparent and available environmental information is the best path to keeping the public informed. The public has the right to know about decisions that will have a direct and substantial effect on the health of our environment, and therefore on our own personal health. Again, as a concerned voting citizen, I urge you to reinstitute public availability of SWPPPs.  The public is aware, and those who use the river and care about its well being are watching.

.

Dear Mr. Michael Fletcher:

I am a concerned Virginia citizen and a land and water resources engineering student at Virginia Tech. I am currently involved in research on the effects of urbanization (Blacksburg and Virginia Tech) on the local impaired stream, Stroubles Creek. I am also preparing to begin internship work for the Site and Infrastructure Development group at VT involved in regulating stormwater pollution across campus. I have seen the devastating impacts that an improperly built construction site can have on a stream. It is imperative for a builder to follow their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in order to reduce the effects that sediment, nutrients, and other possible pollutants can have on streams. It is also important for builders to have to make these documents available to the public so that we may be sure that proper care is being used in protecting our environment. So I  urge you to put the provision back in the permit which allows citizens to obtain SWPPP’s for construction sites.

Thank you for what you do and for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dylan Cooper

Biological Systems Engineering Major

Virginia Tech, 2015

Edinburg, VA 22824

Virginia Snead,
I am writing to urge you to reinstitute public availability of SWPPPs. Transparent and available enviromental information is the best path to keeping the public informed. The public has the right to know about decisions that will have a direct and substantial effect on the health of our enviroment, and therefore on our own personal health. Again, as a concerned voting citizen, I urge you to reinstitute public availability of SWPPPs.

Comment on Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations (4VAC50-60)

Dear Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board members,

The officers of the Commonwealth, while providing critical technical review, cannot see all. Concerned citizen's groups and individuals are likely to have a much broader perspective and (also) have a legitimate role in ensuring that erosion and sediment controls are up to par. I urge that the proposed regulation be changed to reflect this role:

1. Operators with day-to-day operational control over SWPPP implementation shall have a copy of the SWPPP available at a central location on-site for use by those identified as having responsibilities under the SWPPP or concerned members of the public whenever they are on the construction site. The documents should also be posted and indexed online.

Sincerely yours,

Philip Latasa127 Poplar Road

Fredericksburg, VA 22406

Attn: State Soil and Water Conservation Board

Comments on Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit Regulations (4VAC50-60)

Friends of Accotink Creek (accotink.org) encourages you to reinstitute the public availability of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) in the Construction General Permit.

Friends of Accotink Creek is an all-volunteer local environmental group dedicated to protecting and restoring the Accotink watershed. We lead trash cleanups, invasive removals, and educational activities. Thousands of citizens have worked with us over the years to improve the Accotink watershed community.

Construction-related erosion and sediment control issues are one of the many challenges that the Accotink watershed faces. Friends of Accotink Creek works with non-profits, local government agencies, and developers to monitor, document, and report construction-related erosion and sediment control issues, in order to reduce sediment contamination and degradation of the watershed. We often encounter E&SC issues that have not been properly addressed. Public access to the SWPPPs is an important resource in addressing this issue.

The officers of the Commonwealth, while providing critical technical review, cannot perfectly monitor compliance of all construction sites with filed SWPPPs. Concerned citizen's groups and members of the public have a legitimate role in ensuring that erosion and sediment controls and stormwater management measures incorporated into a SWPPP are implemented and maintained in accordance with the plan. We urge that the proposed regulation be changed to reflect this role:

1. Operators with day-to-day operational control over SWPPP implementation shall have a copy of the SWPPP available at a central location on-site for use by those identified as having responsibilities under the SWPPP or concerned members of the public whenever they are on the construction site.  The documents shall also be posted and indexed online.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Kris Unger / Primary Conservator, Friends of Accotink Creek                               krisunger@gmail.com / 703-849-1464

Hello,

I am writing in support of reinstituting public availability of SWPPPs.  I know that Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Upper James Riverkeeper, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation have all used the SWPPPs as a tool to monitor and get the most polluted construction sites cleaned up, like the Hot Lanes addition to the Beltway.

Please put the provision back in the permit so that citizens can obtain SWPPPs from construction sites.

Thank you for your consideration,

Julie Locascio
Washington, DC

Hello,

I am writing in support of reinstituting public availability of SWPPPs.  I know that Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Upper James Riverkeeper, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation have all used the SWPPPs as a tool to monitor and get the most polluted construction sites cleaned up, like the Hot Lanes addition to the Beltway.

Please put the provision back in the permit so that citizens can obtain SWPPPs from construction sites.

Thank you for your consideration,

Julie Locascio
Washington, DC