1

Meeting Notes MS4 General Permit Reissuance Stakeholder Input Meeting

January 14, 2010, 1:00-4:30, Board Room MPCA, St. Paul Office

Proposed timeline January - April 2010 – Gather Stakeholder Input April – September - MPCA drafts permit October – November – Public notice draft permit November – April 2011 – Respond to comments/requests, finalize permit April – May – MPCA Citizen’s Board June 1, 2011 – Effective date new permit

Comments: • Don’t want stakeholder input separated from the permit development process. Stakeholders

having the opportunity to respond to the drafts • Expected guidance document will be ready • Would like to see three items added to the timeline: (1) Development of Guidance Document, (2)

permit submittal process, (3) submittal process for permit application and SWPPP. • Time for review of submittals

Impaired Waters & TMDLs

1. Define a process for permittee to comply with the Waste Load Allocation Comments:

a. Permit should be tied to TMDL WLA which is approved by EPA. Heard permit will be tied to the implement plan - that is not an approved document.

b. Define what “define a process” means (assume commenter is referring to some language on one of the PowerPoint slides).

c. Need to better quantify BMPs. d. TMDL process and WLA is a quantitative exercise. e. MS4 has not been a quantitative exercise. f. TMDL WLA is a quantitative number. If the permit requires compliance with the WLA we will

have to make progress in quantifying BMPs; this will have to be done by the State. g. Agrees with numerical standards in the new permit to measure progress. We need numbers to

measure so that we can determine progress. Should the numbers be standardized? h. Numerical benchmarks in the permit would make it easier to understand. i. “NO” to quantifiable results in the permit at this time. j. Doesn’t want to see quantified standards in the permit. k. Do not have quantifiable information in the permit; there is too much uncertainty. It would be

okay if the numbers existed and were approved by most of the permittees and regulators. l. Do we assume the WLA is the same as the water quality standard; that is, the WLA will be

enforced until the water quality requirement is met in the receiving water? m. We need a more open TMDL process that addresses practicality. The commenter cited the

example of a naturally impaired water (impaired for DO) in the St. Michael area where the commenter felt that the listing of the impaired water and TMDL reflected a natural process, not a manmade impairment.

n. Why focus on compliance when impaired waters won’t be removed from the list? o. Correcting the water impairment is the goal not meeting the WLA. Doesn’t trust the accuracy of

the modeling to determine WLA. 2. Need a reporting requirement to determine compliance Comments:

a. Determining compliance should be more of a progress report. Should factor in the limitations of the cities.

wq-strm4-85b

2

b. Only problem with that approach is most TMDLs have long term implementation plans. c. Progress report as to how far you are making it to compliance. d. MS4s need to get credit for BMPs already implemented, not just get credit for BMPs added after

the TMDL approval process. e. The reporting requirement should only be what you (the permittee) has done in the past year. We

can’t have hard numbers. f. There has to openness in the reporting requirement. The requirement must be in line with the

resources available to do the reporting. We need to acknowledge that the agriculture issue is a big problem and we need the agricultural sector to participate in reporting.

g. We need a reporting process for the entire TMDL, including both the WLA and the LA. This is a TMDL program issue.

h. Reporting process should be required for all parties, including those within the LA. i. Everybody should be tracked.

3. Most TMDL’s will take multiple permits to implement – schedule a. No comments

Construction Stormwater Erosion and Sediment Control

1. Permit needs clear expectations and measures for ESC program Comments:

a. Would like the permit to prescribe the goal, not outline specific requirements. MPCA shouldn’t be prescribing individual BMPs.

b. Doesn’t like specific requirements requiring quantitative reporting. Trouble with reporting requirements, difficult to quantify.

c. No specifics in permit (several commenters). d. No specifics but rather outline main components. e. Need better understanding of individual roles between State and MS4s. f. Need clear definition of roles, who does what. g. Permit needs to be clear on expectations and program elements.

2. List ESC components that are required Comments:

a. Step backwards and contradictory. b. ESC means three components; regulatory, inspection and enforcement. c. Clarity is wonderful. d. A frustrating point of the construction program in general is duplication and overlap. e. Likes clarity, doesn’t like overlap. Should have a single layer or only one permit to comply with. f. Get rid of redundancy. Doesn’t like multiple layers. g. Didn’t understand what was wrong with the current permit; has the MPCA specifically identified

something that is not working. Post Construction & P2 BMP Operation and Maintenance

1. Attempt to maintain pre-development runoff Comments:

a. Unfortunate timing. b. Should wait for MIDS. c. What will be the pre-development standard?

2. Pond Inventory requirements Comments:

a. How they function, how to determine if they are efficient or not. b. Water quality of pond and deduction time. c. The reporting requirements for the pond inventory will result in a tremendous amount of

paperwork and submittals coming into the MPCA that the Agency won’t have time to process. Address the incoming paperwork.

3

3. Performance Standard for Ponds Comments:

a. Using similar process in the Stormwater Manual now calculating pond effectiveness. b. What is a standard? c. Effectiveness of BMPs. d. Why is the MPCA focusing on ponds and not looking at other treatment measures? e. Standards are already in place at time of applying for a permit, why do we need them now? f. Why develop performance standards for new ponds? How are private ponds and ponds with

limited access going to be handled? Where to draw the line with private ponds. g. Access to ponds that aren’t yours. h. A number of MS4 have gone through non-deg. i. Different types of ponds (constructed wetlands, natural water bodies, etc.), some don’t have

discharge; how will they all be addressed? j. Need BMP maintenance part in the permit. k. Get maintenance into the permit without performance standards. l. Need to keep the possible expense in mind; need to track expenses and costs. m. Pond treatment effectiveness needs clarification.

4. Improve Documentation of Inspections and Maintenance a. No comments.

Mapping your system (Paul Leegard questioned the audience and most of the MS4s present have GIS systems.)

1. Improve use as tools for: • BMP implementation • Tracking BMP Maintenance • Emergency response • Evaluation on watershed basis

2. Current language does not require all pipes to be mapped 3. Requirement for flow direction or connectivity Comments:

a. Map may not be the best tool for tracking maintenance. b. Mapping is already a requirement, more specific. c. Outfalls are not mapped well. d. Clarification would help. e. Direction how ultimately you want us to use it. f. Rochester has a functional system. Each MS4 should be able to develop its own system. MCM 3

is the basis for the map. g. Supports integrating maps for various cities. h. Watershed districts benefit most from having good maps that link to each other. A standard is

needed. Who will assemble the available data? i. Need to know about other MS4 systems. j. Cities have good maps but what about pipes from other entities such as railroads, MnDOT, etc. k. Are mapping of all the pipes; and railroads (MNDOT). l. Why are we doing this? Are we building on what has already been done? m. We need better definitions; e.g. what is an outfall? n. We need much more information. Just knowing inlets is not enough. o. Need time to incorporate new elements into maps. p. It will take many years to get this done. Overland flow should not be part of the connectivity.

Why would we make these requirements? q. Mapping requirements are exceedingly onerous financially. r. Mapping requirements are onerous for townships. This is not a one size fits all situation. The

same is true for rural MS4s.

4

s. Rural cities – don’t make us map every pipe, driveway culverts. Define pipes.

SWPPPs and coordination of local water plans 1. Attempt to align timing of water plan and SWPPP development Comments:

a. Common complaint of planning cycle (integrate, reduce number of plans). b. Multiple jurisdictions. c. Requires flexibility on both sides. Need more flexibility on timing of SWPPP development within

the permit requirements. d. Would operate under an old SWPPP for a longer period of time. e. Less to do with timing issue and more to do with managing requirements. Need appendix of

requirements. f. A completely different document (paper chase). g. Like the idea. h. This really doesn’t help Rochester.

2. Identify appropriate contents for integration of each Comments:

a. Next step beyond the timing issue, align the contents of a SWPPP and water plan. b. Good water management plans would negate the need for MCMs. c. Watershed district planning process and timing also a problem. d. SWPPP with minimum control measures is a bad process. e. Better water management plans that target water quality goals. f. Based on watersheds and water plans making/or converting them to TMDLs. g. Are we pursuing watershed district plans to meet TMDLs?

Anti-degradation

1. Applies to all MS4’s Comments:

a. Move to implement BMPs in site that becomes restrictive. b. Applies to goal of permit as flexibility that we may need for complete implementation. c. Clarification, 1988 or pre-settlement? d. 1988 standards trying to obtain in the current permit anti-degradation requirements. e. 1988 is a standard we have all invested in. f. We have learned some lessons through 30 cities. g. Until the new anti-degradation rule takes effect the old rule is in place.

2. Anti-degradation information requirements for application Comments:

a. Implement the volume standards you will meet water quality rules, and you will meet anti-degradation forward.

b. Helps you prepare the plan but makes it more difficult to implement. c. Maximize flexibility and control. d. Specific requirements?

3. Evaluate need for water resource specific requirements Comments:

a. Eco-region based standards.

One size does not fit all 1. Evaluate appropriate requirements by population Comments:

a. Issue is really staff based (i.e. staff resources), not population based. b. Larger population does not mean more requirements. c. More options for non-traditional MS4s.

5

d. Most MCMs are related to cities; need more options for MNDOT. e. Base on population density. f. Concept is interesting when being combined with moving towards more specific requirements,

and lots of variance with each one of those requirements. g. Waiver of some type for MS4s is already in EPA rule. h. Based on who has zoning authority. Others are doing the work. i. Although the new permit may be implementation based, should have a program development

component for new MS4s coming on board. j. Easy to understand. k. Need better reference documents; labeled well.

2. Process for documenting partnerships 3. Co-Permittee options Comments:

a. Would not be interested in a co-permittee permit (generally cities response). b. Yes, and nice to have a permit you can coordinate with staff and PCA (generally counties,

townships response). Stakeholders

1. Other key issues regarding the existing MS4 General Permit you would like to see addressed in the new permit?

2. What’s not working and why? Comments:

a. Like MCM approach, like BMP format, want guidance. b. MCM formatting structure should stay the same; invested in this format. c. Keep the BMP summary sheet format the same; familiar with format. d. Take what you write and look back at what was written. e. Level of required detail needs to be outlined in permit. f. Critical to write guidance document when writing the permit. g. Need to clarify MCM 3. h. Education BMPs need to be clarified. i. Find a better way summarize the education effort of MCMs and BMPs. j. Consolidated education BMPs. k. Public meetings not a good use of resources. l. Annual meeting very little turn-out, find better way to do public input. m. Likes pilot projects; example would be pond inventory.

Comments that were submitted to the MPCA, via e-mail, prior to the stakeholder meeting Commenter #1: • Issue – Post Construction STP Performance Life Cycle Commenter #2: • We are please to read in your overview that “…the MPCA does not expect to be making whole scale

changes to the existing permit with this permit reissuance effort. We hope to focus our efforts on the main issues that have been problematic for stakeholders, the MPCA, and the environment; and to make changes only where needed to clarify permit requirements.” In fact we would suggest that the following principals guide the revision: o That the requirements be simplified where-ever possible so that efforts can be focused on getting

conservation on the land as cost effectively as possible with minimal time spent on reporting, calculations, modeling and mapping.

o That the language and requirements stay true to the requirements as articulated by the CWA and EPA regulations for the minimum controls.

o That new requirements be considered only where there is evidence that existing requirements are clearly inadequate.

6

o That where evidence shows that existing requirements are redundant or are not resulting in the intended benefit/outcome that they be considered for removal.

o That it be recognized that whenever “we” decide to regulate something “we” are imposing a cost to the regulated community, and there is a responsibility to apply the regulation in a way that keeps that cost down to only what is needed, and in proportion to the impact caused by the regulated activity(s).

• With respect to bullet item one – “Impaired Waters and TMDLs” that this be considered in the light that TMDLs are not particularly informative, TMDLs do not consider where it is most economical to implement, the science behind many of the Standards is increasingly being shown to be uncertain, water quality modeling has uncertainties, and for Lake Pepin sources are increasingly be being associated with nonpoint or LA components. This is necessary so that response to impairments can be directed where it makes the most economic sense. Also that the permit includes language that specifically allows for MS4 trading, as part of, or as a separate general permit.

• With respect to Construction Erosion Control – we would suggest that existing programs are sufficient, but we don’t understand all the redundancy as to why this is required for MS4 permits when an MPCA General Construction permit is required as well. We would suggest that where there are approved MS4 permits with erosion control programs and ordinances, that MPCA recognize the local program and permit as satisfying the MPCA General Construction permit and eliminate the redundancy.

• With respect to post construction BMP operation and maintenance – similar to item 3 above we suggest that in Scott County at least local Watershed Management Organization standards are typically more comprehensive and are tailored to the local watershed(s). We recommend MPCA recognize where Local Water Plans have been approved by MS4 communities and consider these plans and implementation as satisfying both the MS4 requirement and the MPCA General Permit for Construction so that MPCA does not need to issue a separate permit for the same thing, thereby eliminating some redundancy.

• With respect to mapping our system – we are already done. Changes that require additional mapping work, or conversion to other platforms that were not in the last permit, are unnecessary and unproductive for us at the local level.

• With respect to SWPPPs and Local Water Plan (LWP) – see comments 3 and 4 above. We strongly object to turning LWPs into SWPPPs. Any changes here should be consistent with the joint committee recommendations for Rule 8410 revisions as lead by Jim Haertel at BWSR last year. This group considered this interaction, other actions when there has already been a group working on this would be counterproductive.

• With respect to nondegradation – we recommend that non degradation be considered on a watershed basis, not an MS4 permit by MS4 permit basis, and actual (real) monitoring data be accepted as evidence of meeting nondegradation, rather than modeling. For example, monitoring data confirms that Spring Lake in Scott County has improved, this should override any modeling results, as it provides real data that the combined programs of the City of Prior Lake, the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District, Scott County, and Spring Lake Township are sufficient to prevent degradation.

• With respect to last bullet point that one size does not fit all – we concur and feel that flexibility is key.

Stakeholder Input MeetingJanuary 14, 2010

wq-strm4-85b

20 Year VisionStepping Back • Where we startedMoving Forward• External drivers• Where we’re going Timeline

Reduce or eliminate environmental damage caused by stormwater runoff leading toward attainment of water quality standards through the MS4 permit and better stormwater managementThe sooner municipalities reach stormwater goals - no need for new TMDL/WLA for MS4s; stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to impairment

20 years:• Varying levels of stormwater treatment are

needed to be protective of water quality• Certification program - potentially

5-10 years:• Coordinated water planning5 years:

• Mapping• MIDS – Minimal Impact Design Standards• Performance based measures

First Phase II MS4 General Permit issued 2002Appeals Court ruled on:• Use of general permits and BMPs• Public notice of SWPPPs• Non-degradation determinationsPermit re-issued in 2006MS4s focus on program development• SWPPP & 6 MCMs

Phase II rule – iterative process w/each 5 year permit cycle (64 Fed. Reg. 68754 (1999))NCR Report – Urban Stormwater Management EPA MS4 Permit Improvement Guide (in draft)EPA rulemaking – revise NPDES stormwater regulations by 2012• propose requirements that include design,

performance standards for stormwater discharges from newly developed, redeveloped sites

Where we started

Where we need to be

Shift from development to measuring implementation• EPA MS4 Permit Improvement GuideStrengthen program each 5 year permit cycle• Clear expectations in permit, track

accomplishments• Improved stormwater managementMeasure success• Demonstrate progress• Focus on BMP effectiveness, selection,

improving efficiency

Performance Based MeasuresKnow your system; identify where:• No treatment or limited treatment?• BMPS working or not working?• BMPS suitable for parameter or

impairment? • Treatment should occur in the future?

(i.e. protective)• Existing monitoring (e.g. watershed

district, other…,) is adequate?

Clear goals and expectations Clear permit provisions• Include specifics

(e.g. who, what, where, when, how)Clear what compliance looks likeClear accessible information • Multiple users

(e.g. other MS4s, the public, Legislature, USEPA)

Jan > Apr 2010 – gather stakeholder inputApr > Sept – MPCA drafts permitOct > Nov – public notice draft permitNov > Apr 2011 – respond to comments/requests, finalize permitApr > May – MPCA Citizens’ BoardJune 1, 2011 – effective date new permit

Impaired waters & TMDLs Construction stormwater erosion & sediment controlPost construction & P2 - BMP operation & maintenanceMapping your systemSWPPPs & coordination with local water plansAnti-degradationOne size does not fit all

Define a process for permittee to comply with the WLA Need a reporting requirement to determine compliancemost TMDLs will take multiple permits to implement- schedules

Permit needs clear expectations and measures for ESC programsList ESC components that are required

Attempt to maintain pre-development runoff• Standards for new development• Standards for redevelopment• Trading/credit for difficult sitesPond inventory requirementsPerformance standard for pondsImprove documentation of inspections & maintenance

Improve use as tool for:• BMP implementation• Tracking BMP maintenance• Emergency response• Evaluation on watershed basis Current language does not require all pipes to be mappedRequirement for flow direction or connectivity

Attempt to align timing of water plan and SWPPP developmentIdentify appropriate contents for integration of each

Applies to all MS4sAnti-degradation information requirements for applicationEvaluate need for water resource specific requirements

Evaluate appropriate requirements by populationProcess for documenting partnershipsCo-Permittee options

Other key issues regarding the existing MS4 General Permit you would like to see addressed in the new permit?What’s not working and why?