December 19, 2008
Regulatory Coordinator
RE: Proposed Amendments to 4VAC50-60 Part I and XIV General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board
Dear Regulatory Coordinator:
We have reviewed the referenced proposed regulation and find it to be generally a good regulation that provides the required environmental and flooding protection, while providing appropriate flexibility for innovative approaches. For increased clarity in the regulation, we would request that the Department consider the following comments:
1. Line 971 - Notice of termination should include provisions for reporting participation in regional programs. We would suggest an item “e.” worded “in lieu of items a. – d. the operator may provide reference to a regional stormwater management program for which the administrator of the regional program reports the information a. – d. for the regional facilities to the Department as part of a MS-4 program, or other applicable stormwater management program.
2) Line 1241 – Suggest adding “The operator may charge the costs of providing public access to the SWPPP in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.”
3) Line 1241 – Suggest adding “The operator may require request to review SWPPP be made in writing.
3) Line 1983 – Suggest adding “…. adequate channel in accordance with technical criteria in sections 1186 -1190.”
4) Line 1993 – Suggest modifying to state “J. Construction of stormwater management impoundment structures within a designated 100 year floodplain shall be in accordance with good engineering practice and shall be in compliance with all applicable regulations under the National Flood Insurance Program, 44 CFR Part 59.”
5) Line 1979 – Should add a clarification that “Temporary Sediment Basins” are not considered “Impounding Structures”. Current standards require temporary sediment basins to be designed for a 25 year storm.
6) Line 2001 – It appears that this paragraph is replicating requirements contained in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and regulations. Since this is not applicable statewide we would suggest the paragraph be deleted since it is governed by separate state law and regulations. In the absence of deleting this reference would request the last sentence delete “…that has been approved by the board” and / or clarify that “board” means either the “Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board, Virginia Conservation and Recreation Board or Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board” since all these board have exercised approval authority over programs applicable to this permit.
7) Line 2009 – and relationship to definitions Line 477. There appears to be an inconsistency over “pollutant of concern” from the definition and the “Water Quality Criteria” . For “Small Construction Activity” and in the absence of a TMDL the pollutant of concern is limited to sediment. As stated, “For the purpose of this subdivision, the pollutant(s) of concern include sediment or a parameter that addresses sediment (such as total suspended solids, turbidity or siltation)”. We believe it would be appropriate to clarify when small construction activities are required to go beyond erosion and sediment control standards, for sediment, and implement water quality standards based on Phosphorus.
We would be available to meet or discuss our comments and the proposed action if necessary. It is important for you to understand our positions on the matters outlined in this letter. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this regulation development process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (804) 365-6179.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Flagg, Director
Department of Public Works
