Action | Amend and Reissue the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Small MS4s |
Stage | Proposed |
Comment Period | Ended on 1/4/2013 |
1 comments
Subject: Proposed Draft Amendments to 4VAC 50-60-10, 4VAC60-60-1200 et seq.
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Part XV) – Published November 2012
Dear Sir or Madam:
The City of Alexandria (City) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments during the 60-day public comment period ending January 4, 2013 for the Proposed Draft Amendments to the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) as published in the Virginia Register of Regulations Volume 29, Issue 5; November 5, 2012). The draft regulations are anticipated to be effective July 1, 2013. As a regulated community that strives to protect and enhance its water resources, the City has participated in the process and continues to track the progress of these regulations. Given the number of regulatory actions taking place in the stormwater arena in response to the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the City recognizes the hard work performed by Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) staff in drafting these regulations.
The City has some concerns with the proposed regulations and the overall approach with respect to the reductions for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Localities should have the maximum flexibility to meet these reductions at the local level through the implementation of innovative techniques that will work to reduce the level of nutrients and sediment that may impact the Bay. DCR should create incentives for the use of innovative techniques and not tie the localities hands by only allowing those BMPs currently being proposed through the BMP Clearinghouse. While the City somewhat agrees with DCR’s approach to regulating proprietary devices at the state level, the City has regulated the use of water quality BMPs at the local level since 1992 by applying reasonable assumptions and observing effectiveness for local conditions. Consequently, the City should be able to try new, innovative BMPs at the local level without going through the long and laborious process required for proprietary devices being sold on the open market. Given the short schedule to meet the reductions, competing priorities, space constraints for siting practices, and funding needs; the City must have maximum flexibility to be creative and not be limited by the current menu of BMPs to meet these unfunded mandates. Given the enormous initial order of magnitude cost estimates generated when considering strategies to meet the entire target reductions, maximum flexibility must be allowed at the local level.
For instance, DCR should allow for trading within the locality from unregulated to regulated lands via this permit, and between regulated sectors with separate state permits held by the same locality. Specifically, sediment removal as part of channel maintenance should be considered as a BMP since sediment is being removed from the system and can no longer impact downstream. Given the armored natured of these altered local flood channels, much of the sediment deposited in these channels originates from upstream. If the City removes this material, the locality should be granted comparable removal efficiencies for the sediment and the associated nutrients that are removed from the system, and be able to apply these reductions toward the target reductions for the regulated area. DCR has already set this precedent with the stream restoration credits. Additionally, reductions in the combined sewer system that is regulated under the City’s VPDES permit should be transferrable internally to the MS4 regulated area without having to go through the formal credit exchange program. This is the sort of flexibility that would benefit the Bay without creating unnecessary hurdles or disincentives.
The following specific comments are also provided in response to this proposed draft. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Section I.B: Special Conditions for TMDLs other than Chesapeake Bay
The permit places the burden or drafting the required action plans on the locality, while these appear to basically be implementation plans that the state would draft in consultation with entities that have been given a wasteload allocation in the TMDL.
Section I.C: Special Conditions for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
To paraphrase the City’s response to DCR’s November 2011 Information Request: DCR’s 5.3.2 Local Goal Data that was submitted to localities in 2011 provides overwhelming evidence that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the WLA for “Regulated Stormwater”, and the resultant target reductions that further allocated the TMDL loads to the local level, were not based on actual local land use data or local stormwater quality facility BMP inventory data. This is not just true for the City, since other localities have voiced this same concern. It is practically common knowledge by those close to the process that the Chesapeake Bay Model cannot be applied at the local level. Yet the process moves forward without accurate data. Early estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars to meet the phased MS4 permit reductions for the City alone. These types of dollar amounts and fiscal commitment warrant better information.
Section II.B. Minimum Control Measures
Again, thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments in support of the MS4 General Permit. Please feel free to contact me or Jesse Maines at 703-746-4065 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
William J. Skrabak, Deputy Director
Department of Transportation and Environmental Services
Office of Environmental Quality
C: Mark Jinks, Deputy City Manager
Richard J. Baier, P.E., LEED AP, Director, Transportation and Environmental Services
Emily A. Baker, P.E., City Engineer
Yon Lambert, AICP, Deputy Director, T&ES, Operations
Lalit K. Sharma, P.E., Division Chief, T&ES, Office of Environmental Quality
Jesse E. Maines, Sr. Environmental Specialist, T&ES, OEQ