Obtain Stormwater Plan Approval Faster with Streamlined Review Read more
	Common Construction General Permit Plan Review Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them Read more
	The Biggest Erosion and Stormwater Issue in Virginia: Minimum Standard #1  Read more
	How the Presence of Wild Bats Can Impact Virginia Water Protection Permit Applications Read more
	DEQ Grant Funding Used to Install Stormwater Infrastructure in Richmond Libraries Read more

Obtain Stormwater Plan Approval Faster with Streamlined Review

The streamlined plan review process (Guidance Memo No. 22-2011) is intended to reduce the time needed to obtain plan approval by allowing a certified Dual Combined Administrator (DCA) to certify the plans for regulatory compliance in lieu of the standard plan review process when DEQ is the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program authority and/or the Virginia Stormwater Management Program authority for development projects. Plans submitted under streamlined review must complete a thorough quality assurance process by the certifying DCA and meet all regulatory requirements. Below are five examples of common problems DEQ has seen with submitted plans:

1. Not Following the Design Guide – Plans are being submitted with DCA signatures; however, the plans were not prepared in accordance with the Stormwater Management (SWM) and Erosion & Sediment Control (ESC) Design Guide (Guidance Memo No. 22-2012; Design Guide to be incorporated into the new Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook). Any SWM and/or ESC plan submitted for streamlined plan review must be prepared in accordance with the Design Guide (or the new Stormwater Management Handbook after July 1, 2024).
2. Incomplete Plans – Plan sets submitted for streamlined plan review should be approvable, and must include signed and sealed SWM & ESC plans, a complete Plan Submission Checklist, all construction details, supporting computations, drainage area maps, outfall analysis, Virginia Runoff Reduction Method worksheet, nutrient credit letter of availability (if purchasing credits), and other design elements required by regulation and listed in the Design Guide/new Stormwater Management Handbook. All plans submitted as streamlined are administratively reviewed by DEQ staff for completeness of the plan submission checklist and regulations. If the plans appear to be missing any of these elements, DEQ will consider the plans incomplete and will notify the applicant of the deficiencies. The plans will not advance into the “Audit Period” until DEQ determines the plans are complete.
3. Project Does Not Meet Water Quantity Requirements – The plan and computations do not clearly demonstrate compliance with channel protection, flood protection, or 9VAC25-870-66 D. All supporting information used to demonstrate compliance should be included in the plan set or calculations packet.
4. No Curve Number Adjustment for Compacted Soils – For disturbed soils, the hydraulic soil group (HSG) should be adjusted by at least one factor (i.e. HSG B → HSG C) from the pre-development HSG when selecting the post-development curve number, unless the plans address soil compaction in a manner specified in Section 5.302 D of the Design Guide or Appendix A Section 3.7.2 of the new Stormwater Management Handbook.
5. Project Needs an Exception, Variance or Waiver – Exceptions, variances, and SWM waivers do not meet the Design Guide/new Stormwater Management Handbook and are unable to be processed through the streamlined plan review process. These requests require DEQ review and approval through the standard review process.

Prior to submitting the plans for streamline plan review, DEQ recommends designers and DCAs address the common issues listed above. If there are questions or concerns related to plans not being eligible for the streamline plan review process, it is recommended that a pre-application meeting be scheduled with DEQ plan review staff to avoid potential project delays. For assistance submitting for streamlined plan review or to schedule a pre-application meeting, please contact April Rhodes at 571-866-6091 or PlanReview@deq.virginia.gov.

Common Construction General Permit Plan Review Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

As DEQ continues to work to improve the plan review process, we recommend designers address the common issues listed below:

1. Templated Designs – Every project site is unique and requires a stormwater management (SWM) design specific to that site. Often projects are submitted with designs that do not fit the site and appear to be a template design, rather than a design tailored to the needs of the site. These plans often do not adequately account for or mimic pre-development drainage areas and topography.
2. Incomplete Plans – Plan sets should include signed and sealed SWM and erosion & sediment control (ESC) plans, a complete ESC/SWM Plan Submission Checklist, construction details, supporting computations, drainage area maps, outfall analyses, Virginia Runoff Reduction Method worksheet, nutrient credit letter of availability (if purchasing credits), and other design elements as required by regulation. DEQ reviews plans for administrative completeness to determine if sufficient information is provided to conduct a technical review (9VAC25-870-55). If the plans are missing any of these elements, DEQ will consider the plans incomplete and will notify the applicant of the deficiencies within 15 days of receipt. The plans will not advance to technical review until DEQ determines the plans are complete per regulation. 
3. Plans Appear Unclear or Contradictory – The plans and computations must be consistent and support the project narrative. Often the design will appear at odds with the project narrative. Computations critical for the plan review are frequently presented without supporting information or justification. In addition, there are often inconsistencies between the design computation and the SWM plan design plans.
4. Plans Not Submitted Through VITAShare – Information detailing how plans are to be submitted to DEQ for review are outlined on the webpage. Any files over 20 MB must be submitted through the VITAShare file sharing platform. To obtain VITAShare access, email PlanReview@deq.virginia.gov.
5. Inadequate Best Management Practices Construction Details – Best management practices (BMP) designs submitted for review must be complete and approvable. BMP details should include sufficient information to meet the design criteria from the . Design storm water surface elevations, freeboard determinations, orifice and weir sizing, and structural engineering design details are often missing or incomplete.

If there are questions or concerns related to the SWM plan review process, it is recommended that a pre-application meeting be scheduled with DEQ staff to avoid potential project delays. For assistance with plan review or to schedule a pre-application meeting, please contact April Rhodes at 571-866-6091 or PlanReview@deq.virginia.gov.

The Biggest Erosion and Stormwater Issue in Virginia: Minimum Standard #1 

The most significant erosion control and stormwater management issue in Virginia is the lack of compliance with Minimum Standard #1. Minimum Standard #1 sets out the requirements for temporary and permanent soil stabilization. Complaints of sediment transport are increasing now that Virginia is experiencing more regular rainfall.

DEQ’s compliance inspectors are seeing that site operators are focused on perimeter controls, such as silt fences, traps, and basins – however, they are failing to stabilize sites with seed and mulch, either within seven days of reaching final grade, or on sites that are not at final grade but will remain dormant for longer than 14 days (note that “tracking” an area every two weeks is not a way to keep a site from becoming dormant).

Why does it matter?

Typical perimeter controls remove on average 60% of sediment loads. Seed and mulch (even before germination) can reduce sediment loads by as much as 90%. Putting these in series as required through application of the minimum standards prevents an average of 96% of the sediment load from leaving the site. In contrast, fully functioning perimeter controls only result in a 40% reduction of the sediment load leaving the site.

Many site contractors/operators also miss the connection between vegetative cover and stormwater management system requirements. Typically, permanent stormwater management systems are designed based on the presence of vegetative cover, not bare earth on non-impervious surfaces. Some uses, such as solar sites, are designed to sheet flow across vegetated areas. When they are not vegetated, there are erosion control issues, increased nutrient pollution, and quantity control exceedances.

There are many factors that impede vegetative growth and successful soil stabilization including soil compaction and lack of topsoil, which affects plant fertility. As a reminder, if there is a large storm before vegetative germination and growth then requirements to maintain and repair erosion control measures include reseeding. This must be accomplished promptly to ensure continued performance of the intended stabilization function.

These requirements apply to all regulated land disturbing activities in Virginia that exceed the disturbance threshold area (ranging from 2,500 square feet to 1 acre) – not just large-scale projects such as solar farms, landfills, linear construction, and subdivisions.

What if these requirements are ignored?

Pursuant to the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Erosion and Sediment Control Law, programs administered by local governments and the Department of Environmental Quality are authorized to issue notices to comply, notices of violation, stop work orders, and emergency orders for noncompliance with erosion control and stormwater management requirements

How the Presence of Wild Bats Can Impact Virginia Water Protection Permit Applications

Virginia Water Protection (VWP) permit applicants and DEQ staff should consult the updated resource tools for the Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) and the Little Brown Bat/Tri-colored Bat, in addition to DWR’s Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS), as a part of the normal application review procedures. DWR expects more information to come out this year to guide applicants and agents about the coordination process for NLEB and other bat species. For now, DWR has provided a draft excerpt regarding what applicants and agents may see in way of agency review comments to include:

Adhere to the below NLEB Conservation Recommendations.

Option 1: Assume that NLEBs are present on site.

1. For projects located in Chesapeake, Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Surry, Sussex, Southampton, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach (year-round presence):
   
   a. No tree removal, timbering, or prescribed fire from Dec. 15 - Feb. 15 and April 15 - July 30 of any year.
   
   
2.  For anywhere else in Virginia

a. No disturbance of hibernating bats and/or physical modification of the hibernaculum entrance.

b.  No entry into a known hibernaculum. No modification of the hibernacula. No prescribed fire, blasting, pile driving, drilling, and certain military operations, and/or certain pesticide use within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum.

c. No tree clearing or prescribed fire within 0.25 miles of known NLEB hibernaculum at any time of the year.

d. No tree clearing or prescribed fire within close proximity of NLEB during the pup season from May 15 - July 31of any year.

Option 2: Hire a consultant to perform a NLEB survey, in adherence to USFWS protocols, throughout the project/activity site and coordinate the results of the survey with DWR.

a. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Survey Protocols.

b. Coordinate with DWR: Rick Reynolds, DWR Mammologist, at 540-248-9360 or Rick.Reynolds@dwr.virginia.gov; DWR’s Environmental Services Section at 804-481-5296 or ESSProjects@dwr.virginia.gov. Upon review of the survey results, DWR will make final comments regarding the protection of NLEBs associated with your project.

DEQ Grant Funding Used to Install Stormwater Infrastructure in Richmond Libraries

Recently, the James River Association has announced plans for strengthening the stormwater infrastructure of Richmond’s Ginter Park Branch Library using green infrastructure such as rain gardens and conservation landscaping. These efforts are part of their greater Greening Richmond Public Libraries initiative, which is partially funded by DEQ’s Nonpoint Source Management Implementation 319(h) Program.

The Greening Richmond Public Libraries initiative launched in 2019 with the implementation of a community-supported green infrastructure site plan at Westover Hills Branch Library. Since then, the James River Association, Richmond Public Library, Richmond Department of Public Utilities, and Four Winds Design have worked together to engage library users and stakeholders in planning and design processes that resulted in the implementation of green infrastructure site plans at Broad Rock Branch, East End Branch, North Avenue Branch, and West End Branch.

The primary goal of these plans is to manage stormwater on and around library grounds with green infrastructure like rain gardens and conservation landscaping. The Greening Richmond Public Libraries team intends to work at Belmont Branch and Hull Street Branch beginning next year.

Anyone interested in the project can complete an interest form online or in-person at Ginter Park Branch Library by March 15.