Virginia Regulatory Town Hall View Comments

Department of Environmental Quality

State Water Control Board

Guidance Document Change: The Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook provides information on stormwater management, including erosion and sediment control, in Virginia and includes guidance to implement water quality and water quantity criteria in the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Regulation, 9VAC25-875 (VESM Regulation), effective July 1, 2024. Version 1.1 of the Handbook makes technical corrections and updates to Version 1.0 (effective April 27, 2024). A full list of revisions is available under the “Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, Version 1.1” banner on the DEQ website at: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/water/stormwater/stormwater-construction/handbooks The Handbook replaces the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Third Edition, 1992 (to be rescinded July 1, 2025) and the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, First Edition, 1999 (to be rescinded July 1, 2025). To allow time for the regulated community and other stakeholders to transition to the Handbook, DEQ will accept applications, plans, specifications, and other submissions developed using the Handbook and Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) 4.1 beginning on July 1, 2024, concurrent with the effective date of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Regulation, 9VAC25-875. Where DEQ serves as the VSMP authority, any stormwater management plan submitted and deemed complete (9VAC25-875-110) before July 1, 2025, may use either specifications in the existing manuals, handbooks, and guidance listed above or the Handbook and VRRM 4.1. After July 1, 2025, when modifications are submitted to approved plans that were developed without using the Handbook and VRRM 4.1, if the land-use assumptions upon which the stormwater management facility was designed and implemented change (e.g., increase in impervious cover), then the areas which result in an increase in nutrient loading should comply with the Handbook and VRRM 4.1. Because Version 1.1 of the Handbook is limited to updates and technical corrections and does not include any changes to the BMP specifications, going from Version 1.0 to Version 1.1 is not expected to impact plans that have been submitted or are in progress based on Version 1.0.

8 comments

All comments for this forum

Back to List of Comments

7/15/24 8:46 am

Commenter: Molly Thomson

Figure P-SUP-08-1

The level spreader detail was updated to be less blurry but in the process the length of level spreader changed back to 50' instead of Lls. and the Lsf was also not labeled on this version.

CommentID: 227209

8/7/24 11:50 am

Commenter: Bin Zhang

5.3.1.19 Applicability of MS-19

The text indicates downstream analysis should be performed for the developed condition runoff. It also indicates discharge from ST and SB should be analyzed. However, we have also received guidance from DEQ that MS-19 should apply to the condition during construction. Could this section be revised to clarify how MS-19 should be applied to "during construction" situation, is it limited to checking ST and SB. If it is to be applied to all discharges. What would be the limit of analysis?

CommentID: 227305

8/7/24 12:00 pm

Commenter: Bin Zhang

Table C-SCM-12-1

In the "Discharge" section, 1c duplicates with 1b. 1e duplicates with 1d. For the analysis in 1b, 1d, and 1f, is it only required at the point of discharge?

CommentID: 227307

8/14/24 4:10 pm

Commenter: Jerry Stonefield

Grandfathering and Time Limits provisions still incorrect

Section 5.2.2.1. The changes shown in SW Handbook version 1.1 do not accurately reflect the Grandfathering and Time Limits for Applicability of Approved Design Criteria provisions (not interchangeable terms). Local state projects that had an OBLIGATION of local, state or federal funding prior to 7/1/12 still must have commenced construction prior to the end of ONE permit cycle (not two cycles) as per 9VAC25-875-490.C (480.B does not apply to GRANDFATHERED projects). Projects where there governmental BONDING or PUBLIC DEBT FINANCING had been issued before 7/1/12 do not have a deadline to COMMENCE the LDA(not completion)

CommentID: 227374

8/14/24 4:30 pm

Commenter: jerry stonefield

Section 5.2.2.2 incorrectly mixes Times Limits and Grandfathering

Section 5.2.2.2. Changes made in Version 1.1 incorrectly conflates Grandfathering and Time Limits terms. 9VAC25-875-480 describes the Time Limits for Applicability of Approved Design Criteria (project that started construction or obtained GCP prior to 7/1/2014) had two permit cycles to commence construction. Projects that are considered GRANDFATHERED by the VESMP authority(per 9VAC25-875-490) had ONLY ONE permit cycle (per 9VAC25-875-490.C) to commence construction (i.e., prior to 7/1/2019).

CommentID: 227376

8/14/24 4:37 pm

Commenter: Jerry Stonefield

Figure 5-3 missing criteria for Grandfathered gov projects

Figure 5-3 incorrectly neglects a critical criteria that projects with an OBLIGATION of local, state or federal funds, or a Dept. approved SWM plan, prior to 7/1/12 MUST have COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION before the end of ONE permit cycle (per 9VAC25-875-490.C) to remain subject to GRANDFATHERING and Article 4 criteria.

CommentID: 227377

8/14/24 4:52 pm

Commenter: Jerry Stonefield

Figure 5-4

Suggestion: in the final step (red box) that currently reads "Not subject to grandfathering", please add "or Time Limits of Applicability of Approved Design Criteria"

CommentID: 227378

8/14/24 6:06 pm

Commenter: Jacob Dorman, Contech Engineered Solutions

Handbook V1.1_Chapter 8 Comments

Comments following review of Chapter 8 of Handbook V1.1:

1) In the first sentence of 8.4.4.2, reference to 9VAC25-870-65 D of the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Handbook is incorrect.

Recommendation: Change reference to 9VAC25-875-590 D.

2) The proposed table in 8.4.4.2 disincentivizes completion of robust testing by reinstituting a ceiling for TAPE GULD for TP at 50% down from the current 65% allowance. Furthermore, the language preceding the table encourages manufacturers to "shop" around for a more favorable approval from less prescriptive regulatory regimes elsewhere in the country. The former creates inconsistencies with the current approved list of filter and biofilter MTDs in Chapter 8, while the latter does not provide certainty that robust TP data will be used to justify VDEQ's TP efficiency assignment.

Recommendation: (1) Either remove the cap for systems maintaining TAPE GULD for TP since there is no prescribed cap for other state, regional, or national verification or certification programs; or (2) Include the phrase 50%-65% in the Assigned TP Removal Efficiency Colum (column 2) next to TAPE TP removal ≥ 50% and cap the highest TP % awarded for any MTD at 65%. The 2nd recommendation is consistent with DEQ's most recent MTD use guidance document, GM2021-2006, since rescinded, and the still codified 2011 filtering specification which lists MTDs as an allowable configuration while capping TP credit for all filtering practices, proprietary or non-proprietary, at 65%.

3) The phrase "when a higher efficiency is provided, the VDEQ will use the higher efficiency" immediately below the table indicates VDEQ will use a higher efficiency regardless of its origins. Not all state, regional, or national verification or certification programs evaluate phosphorus removal performance, which is VA's pollutant of concern. An approval in another state does not necessarily mean established testing protocols have even been followed, as is required by § 62.1-44. 15:28 of the Code of Virginia. No other state, regional, or national verification or certification currently maintains as robust a testing protocol as TAPE. Antiquated protocols can be used as written. Without sufficient guardrails included, the proposed language is too loosely constructed to effectively implement.

Recommendation: Rewrite sentence to: When a higher efficiency is provided by another state, regional, or national verification or certification program with a current, established testing protocol more robust or equivalent to TAPE, the VDEQ will use the higher efficiency.

4) Column 1 in the Table in 8.4.4.2 references only certification programs within V1.1. However, VDEQ has certified for use in Virginia several verified only MTDs. There is also a practice approved as "other". "Other" is also not referenced in the 8.4.4.2 Table. These practices were listed in V1.0 and were carried over to V1.1. There needs to be agreement between the basis for approval column in Table 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 and the verification and/or certification programs used to assign TP removal efficiencies in the Table in 8.4.4.2 so as not to artificially limit competition and innovation moving forward.

Recommendation: Update Table in 8.4.4.2 to provide full transparency regarding how programs other than those currently listed can be used to meet § 62.1-44. 15:28.

CommentID: 227380