In these tough economic times for the development industry, not one week goes by that you do not hear about furloughs, layoffs, complete closing of offices of developers and/or engineering firms or even worse bankruptcies.  The new requirement for the public viewing of the SWPPP at a publicly accessible location and an individual to accompany the SWPPP to address any questions or concerns for no less than twice a month is just another financial burden on the engineer, developer or contractor.  The developer would like to add this additional cost to the sale of their property.  However, due to the economic situation they will not be able to do that in order to keep their cost competitive with other developers whose projects were constructed before the new regulations are in place.

 

Furthermore, if citizen groups are concerned about the impacts of the construction in regards to sediment on their properties or in the streams, the erosion and sediment control plans, which are part of the approved plans, are available at the localities for public viewing.

Table 3.11-1 in section 3.11 of the stormwater handbook (bioretention) explicitly shows two target P removal efficiencies based on whether the bioretention BMP is designed for 1xWQV or 2xWQV. Table 1 in section 4VAC50-60-1184. Water quality. does not show bioretention as a viable technology based BMP for the 66% -100% impervious cover range. Infiltration and extended detention BMPs are included in multiple technology based cover ranges based on varying design criteria and the "multiple" of the WQV treated. It seems that the 2xWQV bioretention design should be included as a 65% removal option.

 

 

Including a water qualtiy flow (WQF) in the design standards would give designers greater flexibilty to design innovative BMP layouts and would provide a consistent standard for manufactured BMP designs.

 

Section 4VAC50-60-1184. Water quality states that "Design standards and specifications for the BMPs in Table 1 that meet the required target pollutant removal efficiency will be available at the department." A water quality storm flow rate associated with 1xWQV, 2xWQV, etc. should be made part of the available design standards and specifications. Manufactured BMPs and innovative "offline" designs of traditional BMPs found in the storm water handbook should have an official and standardized basis of design.

One method would be to use the SCS routing of the 0.7 inch storm to produce the WQV as discussed on page 5-36 of the handbook:

 

volume of 0.5 inches to find the rainfall amount. Using SCS methods, the rainfall needed to

generate 0.5 inches of runoff from an impervious surface (

RCN=98) is 0.7 inches. The SCS designwater quality storm using SCS methods is

ConnDOT and the State of Maryland use a curve number based method, the ConnDOT and MD DEQ methods can be accessed from the links below.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/ddrainage/11.C.pdf

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/sedimentstormwater/Appnd_D10.pdf

Joseph Battiata and Leinhart published an article that developed a method based on the Santa Barbara unit hydrograph that provides athird method for WQF calculation. I am not sure if this article is available online at this time.

First, the focus of this permit should be on ease of implementation to assist with maximium compliance.  The requirements for stormwater permits are not well understood outside of No. Va. jurisdictions and are seldom enforced except against large homebuilders and commercial developers.  The DCR should make every effort to synthesize the various requirements for erosion controls, storm water mangement and BMP's so that it is possible for contractors to know what is needed to comply.  This requirement will apply to Harry homeowner installing a pool or tennis court in the Ches Bay region, not ot mention single lot/custom home builders without staff to dedicate to regulatory compliance.

Second, the DCR should keep the current system or be required to respond to a Notice of Intent within a short time, such as one week; otherwise, builders will be stuck holding lots waiting for a response to the NOI.  That is an unreasonable economic hardship.

Also, the requirement for public disclosure for the SWPPP at the operator's expense is unnecessary, improper and very difficult to implement.  The SWPPP is required by statute to be kept on the site so a duplicate would have to be made for public review.  The SWPPP includes approved E&S plans, stormwater detention design plans, a narrative description of procedures to comply, records of inspections and actions taken, maps of the BMP's and various site attributes, and possibly spill prevention plans or groundwater protection plans.  It is constantly being updated and evolving and contains information on the operator's business practices that should not be subject to public scrutiny.  It is an internal document for which no legal authority exists to require disclosure.

 

First, I want to state that protection of our environment as part of land disturbing activities, is and should be the number one priority.  However, during these difficult economic times, when both the public and private sector are forced to move forward with less money, some of the proposed changes make very little financial sense and represent a burden that is not necessary.

Having dealt with SWPPP’s in my role as a land development manager I was surprised by the amount of regulation, with little or no enforcement from the State/DCR.  As a matter of fact we found it difficult to even get DCR to recognize that they had received our permit submissions, let alone receive a letter issuing a letter acknowledging permit coverage.  One proposed change will require issuance of the coverage letter, not just submission of the statement.  Let’s not hold up the few development opportunities anticipated, in the near future, and thus delay future anticipated tax revenues, for the additional time that it will take the already overburdened DCR staff to issue the coverage letter. 

Additionally, the proposed new regulations will require a public posting of the SWPPP by the operator twice monthly.  Who is going to enforce?  We have never even seen an inspector on any site covered by a SWPPP.  Why make this requirement when there is not even enough inspectors to enforce what is already in place.  Also, why should the operator be required to show up twice a month, when we all know that no one is going to show up to review the SWPPP, let’s not waste anyone’s valuable time.

Let’s protect the environment, but keep the requirements as they stand and not add burden to both the state and the operator.

 

It seems that some of the changes make sense, are well worth it and are important. However, there are some items that just don't seem to pass the 'common sense' test.

1. Waiting for a response to the registration statement. There should be a time limit for DCR to review the Notice of intent. For example: If they don't respond within 5 days, it's assumed approved. It is a terrible idea to place this road block into the already bottle-neck process.

2. The public posting of the SWPPP twice a month. This is extremely excessive and a total waste of money and people's time. Please rethink it.

3. Prohibiting coverage of multiple builders within the same construction site. This may solve a problem of responsibility for the particular site, but creates other problems.  There needs to be something addressing this scenario or else, people will be forced to ignore the regulations or be confused as to what to do.  

4. No Grandfathers allowed.  It would be unfair if existing permits/projects were not allowed to be "Grandfathered" by the new regulations. Perhaps a transitional period of a year so the already economically strained builders and subcontractor don't get stuck with these unanticipated costs.

1. General Requirements - This requires that the water quality meet the “state designated uses”. What this means is that the storm water regulations will be dictated by the current TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) study for that watershed. Therefore, if the current TMDL requirements call for a sediment load reduction in the Upper Clinch River Watershed, the developer must take additional steps to reduce the sediment load which will increase the developer’s cost for the development. The TMDL program is an unfunded mandate within the State Government, which in turn, will place the implementation of the TMDL requirements solely on the local government and on the citizens of Tazewell County.
2. Water Quality Requirements – Under this section, the State is proposing to lower the water quality standards for phosphorus loads from 0.45 lbs/ac/yr to 0.28 lbs/ac/yr. This change will have a significant impact on development. According to Hanover County’s findings, the impact on the development of a single lot would increase from $1250/lot to $22,000/lot. We realize that the cost of development in Hanover County’s is significantly different from our area, but this is a 17.6% increase for the development. This increase is due to the combination of the reduction of the phosphorus loading and the BMP (Best Management Practices) that must be implemented to control the discharge. The installation of the BMP’s to meet the proposed regulations are going to be 5 to 10 times the cost to construct compared to today’s regulations.
3. Water Quantity – This section proposes to protect properties and State waters from the changes to runoff volume and reduce the runoff to undeveloped conditions. The proposed requirement will increase the need for underground storage or larger storm water basins or more open space (having to retain some of the developable land to control runoff volume increases). For example, a person wants to develop 10 acres – he may have to retain 2 of these acres to control runoff volume increases and only be allowed to develop 8 acres.
4. Storm Water management impoundment structures of facilities – This section covers the proposed BMP’s (Best Management Practices). These proposed BMP’s are going to increase the installation cost of by 5 to 10 times the cost compared to today’s regulations. These proposed BMP’s (Best Management Practices) are designed based on infiltration measures. This is okay in the other areas, but Tazewell County is located in Karst Terrain (risk of sinkhole formation). The use of the proposed BMP’s (Best Management Practices) that are designed based on infiltration are not recommended in areas with moderate or high risk of sinkhole formation (specifications for Bioretention 2). Therefore, if this BMP is cannot be used, a combination of other BMP’s must be installed, which increases the price of the project. The efficiency of the BMP, the cost effectiveness of the BMP, and the technical data all must be achievable.
5. Delegation of the Storm Water Program – The proposed regulations states that the adoption of the Storm Water Program by the some localities is voluntary. We would have to voluntarily adopt the Strom Water Program from DCR. The proposed regulations have set the permit fees and the locality would receive 72% of the permit fees to run the local program. In order to adopt the program the locality must submit an application to DCR containing the following:

December 19, 2008

 

Regulatory Coordinator

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

203 Governor Street, Suite 302

Richmond, Virginia 23219

 

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

 

 The current VA DCR regulations do not address the use and recommend the use of Pervious Concrete as part of a Stormwater Management System. This omission makes it very difficult for the engineering community to design or recommend to local governments the use of a Pervious Concrete Stormwater Management System. Without the states formal approval, the local agencies are very reluctant to approve such designs. The Pervious Concrete Stormwater Management System has been in use accross the United States for the last fifteen years, so therefore there is adequate data showing the efficency of this system to greatly eliminate storm water runoff and to filter out all of the first flush polutants. Is it possible to have this system formally adopted by the Va DCR?

On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Virginia (HBAV) please accept these comments on the proposed Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) regulation at Part XIV of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) relating to the General Permit for Construction Activities (4VAC50-60-1100 et seq.). HBAV is a 6000 member statewide trade association representing the interests of the home building industry and the businesses that provide products and services to that industry.

 

HBAV and several of its members participated in the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) process where many of our concerns were addressed. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in that process and we are sincerely hopeful that we can maintain a strong working relationship with DCR as we move through this and other regulatory issues. While DCR has been accommodating to our industry on many of the problems that have arisen from the language in the proposed General Permit, there are still a number of issues that HBAV feels need to be addressed prior to the adoption of the final regulation in December.

 

 

1. HBAV commends DCR on the inclusion of vesting language through the use of the current "Technical Standards" in the General Permit and encourages the Board to maintain and strengthen that language.

 

HBAV appreciates the inclusion of the current language contained in 4VAC50-60-60 in the proposed General Permit. HBAV is aware of the regulatory process addressing the new technical standards and asked that some provision be included in Part XIV to eliminate doubt on which technical standards would be enforced should new criteria be adopted after the adoption of the General Permit, and to vest those approved preliminary plans approved prior to the adoption of the new technical standards. It is our understanding that with the General Permit drafted in this manner, no new technical standards could be enforced or incorporated by reference as that is a separate regulatory matter.

 

HBAV believes this is a necessary addition, and eliminates substantial confusion. HBAV recommends the Board retain this language in the final version of the General Permit. Furthermore, HBAV understands that upon the adoption of new technical standards for stormwater management, the General Permit will have to be revised yet again.

 

II. HBAV would prefer an administrative extension for current permit holders over the requirement for re-application in the proposed regulation.

 

Given the difficult economic times and several of the changes to requirements in the proposed General Permit, HBAV requests the proposed General Permit regulation include a provision that allows for the administrative re-approval for permit holders under the current regulation. On June 30, 2009 all General Permits, by law, will expire and new permits will need to be obtained. Under the current proposed regulation, each permit holder would be required to resubmit their application for permit coverage. The results of this process could be disastrous. There is the potential for many projects to experience lapses in coverage while re-approval is sought.

 

The application process is time consuming and can be expensive. Additionally, there could be significant down time for any project underway as land disturbance would halt while an application is under review by the department. In these difficult economic times, the simple ability to continue work on a project can be the lynchpin keeping the doors of a company open, and its employees working. Not knowing the number of outstanding permits, and the response time and capabilities of the department, HBAV feels that it is prudent to allow for an administrative extension of current permits to allow previously approved work to continue.

 

III. The proposed regulation lacks a limitation on time to respond by the permitting authority to the request for permit coverage.

 

Under current regulation, an operator requesting coverage under the General Permit is assumed to have coverage upon submission of a complete permit application. At the time of submission, including a mailed request, land disturbance can begin. The proposed regulation not only eliminates "administrative efficiency of the General Permit" as was envisioned by Congress in the creation of the General Permit, but also provides no timeframe in which the permitting authority must respond to the request for coverage.

 

The General Permit was intended by Congress to be an abbreviated process to provide a framework to accommodate the vast number of permits that are necessary under the Clean Water Act (CWA). By providing a structure in the CWA for permittees to operate under with an administrative approval process, Congress sought to prevent delays and the scrutiny that is necessary in the Individual Permit process. By inserting the language at lines 743-744 in the current draft in 4VAC50-60-1130 that reads. "upon issuance of coverage under the general permit by the permit issuing authority," the proposed regulation will eliminate that allowance for an abbreviated review process that is the purpose of the General Permit.

 

Without the administrative approval that is provided in the current regulation, many projects could be forced to wait for an unspecified period of time when resources have been allocated to the project requesting coverage. This down time creates an uncertainty in construction schedules, and could create problems in the financial viability of projects given the downturn in the economy. For these reasons, HBAV requests the removal of the above quoted language from the draft regulation.

 

IV. Permit holders should not be required to make Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans available to the public.

 

HBAV strongly recommends that paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part B in Section II referring to the public availability of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) be removed. There are a number of practical, economic and legal reasons for eliminating this section with no substantial evidence to the contrary, or that inclusion of this language will provide additional environmental benefit. A SWPPP is a dynamic document that contains a multitude of information, some of which can be proprietary, and a great deal of that information can change on a daily basis.

 

The SWPPP is also a very technical document whose interpretation and understanding requires someone with specific engineering knowledge. Mandating public availability of this document creates a hardship for a permit holder by requiring the time of either a project manager or engineer to spend valuable time in a public place answering questions about the SWPPP. These professionals are highly skilled and need to be present either on the job site or working in a capacity to provide the professional services that are required of them. As a result, making the SWPPP available creates a financial and logistic burden on the permit holder that will provide no environmental benefit.

 

While the Clean Water Act (CWA) does encourage public participation, the Act specifically says that only permits and permit applications and documents obtained by the permitting authority shall be publicly available. It does not provide for public availability of internal control documents such as the SWPPP. The SWPPP is reviewed by the permitting authority but is not obtained. It remains in the possession of the permitee at all times. Furthermore, in Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association v. EPA (hereinafter TIPROA v. EPA) The Seventh Circuit held that SWPPPs are not required to be made public by the CWA because they are neither permits nor permit applications and thus are not subject to Sections 1342(j) and 1342(a)(1) of the CWA. TIPROA v. EPA goes on to uphold an EPA argument stating definitively that "an additional public hearing on each individual… SWPPP would eviscerate the administrative efficiency inherent in the general permitting concept…This would be inconsistent with Congress’ intent to allow for the use of general permits." The Seventh Circuit confirms that SWPPPs are internal documents and not part of the public discourse in the issuance of a General Permit.

 

Proponents of the public availability language will argue that SWPPP availability is imperative to citizen enforcement of the general permit. This is a fallacy. The SWPPP is not a regulated document. It is an agreed upon internal control document that provides a blueprint to the permit holder on how to comply with the provisions of the General Permit. SWPPP availability does not change a citizen’s ability to monitor compliance with a General Permit. Additionally, the SWPPP is not a vehicle of enforcement. The General Permit is issued to allow discharges of stormwater to the waters of the Commonwealth from construction activities. Therefore, the only interest the public and the Commonwealth have in the runoff discharged, is the quality and quantity of the water at the point of discharge into a public waterway, which is regulated and enforceable by the General Permit alone.

 

The public availability of SWPPPs is not provided for by the Clean Water Act, in fact it has been demonstrated that the opposite is true. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the inclusion of this language in the General Permit regulation. Requiring the availability not only of the SWPPP, but also of an employee or engineer of the permit holder during business hours at a public place creates a logistical, practical and economic burden on the permit holder that provides no additional environmental benefit. Making the SWPPPs publicly available provides no additional means of redress for citizens. Most citizens are neither qualified to interpret nor examine the practices delineated in the SWPPP. Permit holders restrict access to construction sites for both safety and security reasons eliminating any ability for a member of any citizen to inspect the stormwater management facilities on site.

 

For these reasons, HBAV asks you to balance the public benefit against the added cost to conducting business and adhere to the guidance of the court in interpreting the intent of the CWA by removing paragraphs 4 and 5 of part B in Section II.

 

V. The SWPPP does not need to contain information on endangered species.

 

While HBAV recognizes the importance of the preservation of endangered species in Virginia, we would discourage the Board from including language in the General Permit that would require the identification of all endangered species located on a construction site in the SWPPP. The General Permit’s purpose is to protect the waters of the Commonwealth, and identification of endangered species in internal control documents will not further protect water quality. This is an important issue, but its place is not in a document designed to protect water quality and water quality alone. In Section II, Part A, Paragraph 2 the regulations delineates the purpose of the SWPPP. The two functions outlined are (1) to identify potential sources of pollution that might contaminate stormwater, and (2) to describe control measures that will be used to minimize those pollutants. For these reasons we ask that the Board delete the language at Section II, Part D, Paragraph 6.

 

We thank the Board and DCR for the opportunity to comment on the VSMP General Permit. We would also remind the Board and DCR any unnecessary addition to a regulation can cost time and money, which will find its way into the price of a new house. At a time when housing affordability has become a significant issue for all Virginians, HBAV feels that the addition of any unwarranted cost could endanger the home building industry and the ability of consumers to achieve the American dream of home ownership.

 

As a Virginian fisherman who spends considerable time fishing Virginia rivers, I continue to be disappointed with the efforts to protect Virginia rivers.  Frankly, the rivers don't seem to be getting any cleaner and fish kills seem more frequent.  Something seems out of sync, especially on the Shenandoah.  Bank protection seems limited and I am more or less convinced that heavy runoffs from farms and construction sites are significantly damaging the rivers.  

I closely follow and fully support the efforts of the the Shenandoah and Potomac Riverkeepers.   I fully support the current efforts of these riverkeepers in their call for improvements in the General Construction Permit process.  It is critical that SWPPPs are made available to the public for every construction site in Virigia.  I can think of no reason why these improvements should not be fully considered and implemented.  

I would like to request that information be provided to me on the outcome related to process.  Thanks.

John Fawsett

8221 Bayberry Ridge Rd,

Fairfax Station, Va 22039     

I am so tired of hearing how the efforts to  improve the quality of our waterways is short-sighted and an "added burden" to developers and/or land owners...rivers run for hundred and even thousands of miles; what we do on any one piece of the river impacts every inch of the river and its environs all the way down...I am a fisherman, but more centrally, am an "appreciator" of everything a river offers and provides... and I heartily support the Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper’s efforts to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every constructions site in the Commonwealth. As custiodian of our resouces (with the resposibility of ensuring their health for our children and our children's children)   the Commonwealth must take "the long view" to protect and repair our rivers and streams and the Commonwealth of Virginia should be a leader and do more to protect streams that are already “impaired” from additional damage which would be caused by sediment running off construction sites. Please, Govenor Kaine, have Virginia take these steps now, rather than wait another five years for the next permit renewal. 

JUST DO IT ! ! !

 

Michael Mulloy

2345 Paddock Lane

Reston, VA, 20191-2622

mfmulloy@comcast.net

Silt is literally choking the life out of the rivers and the Chesapeake. Enough is enough for crying out loud.

As a riparian landowner on a Virginia State Scenic River, Goose Creek, this issue hits close to home and gets progressively worse every year.

How often does Fairfax City have to pump the silt from behind the dam on Goose Creek?.

Protecting the environment should be priority 1 for anyone disturbing the natural processes.

Those doing the damage on a large scale should be under the strictest regulations/monitoring.

As a Virginia resident and user of Virginia's waterways, I see first hand the effects of runoff from construction and industrial sites. There is nothing like canoeing down a beautiful stream, then coming around a bend to find mud and runoff choking and clouding the stream with silt from a construction site as I have seen so many times. I recall in particular an industrial site just above the confluence of the North and South Anna Rivers that turned a clear stream into a muddy wash.

As a resident of the world, I understand the cause and effect relationship of a local phenomenon that can have a global effect, and so I recognize that runoff from a small stream in Hanover County can be a factor in the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. 

So, with the general permit for discharges for stormwater and construction activities up for renewal, this is the time to make certain that our government regulatory process will be there to safeguard the vital health of our waterways. These regulatory processes are one of the few ways to protect our eco-system and the continuance of our natural systems.

Environmental groups and others play a role, too. I particularly support the efforts of The Shenandoah and Potomack Riverkeepers and their efforts to make stormwater pollution prevention plans available to the public for every construction site in Virginia.

But the only group that can really regulate this is the government, and I urge the strongest possible revisions to the system to engender the highest and best protection of the environment possible. Developers' and contractors' pleas for easier regulatory procedures and lessening of their burdens are not to be regarded as benign. The regulations must not be relaxed, they must be strengthened. I am a class A construction contractor myself, and gladly support any measure that will increase the protection of our environment.

Thank you.

John Moser

Va contractor license #2705 062567A

Please recognize the damage that has been done and continues to be done with the curtrent rule. It must be changed so we stop damaging the property of VA citizens. Our waterways are most important assets and the mud/detritus from construction ruins them for paddling, swimming, fishing and more. Please fix this now.

Thank you, Mike Aronoff Instructor Trainer Educator American Canoe Association

2218 Nobehar Drive, Vienna, VA 22181. 703 264 8911

  ,

I have watched a deterioration of our rivers, bays, forests, and wetlands over many decades.  It has saddened me that we let the greed of people trying to make money trump the rights of all citizens to enjoy the bounty of nature.  The bay and its entire watershed are in danger of irreversible damage and yet we still have developers and business interests willing to sacrifice our environment for a few dollars.

We have all witnessed the greed of the past few years put our entire financial system in danger and cause millions of people to lose their jobs and homes.  It's time to put the general public first.  Americans are fed up with business (I am a life long businessman by the way)  putting money ahead of the public good.

I fully support the current efforts of the Potomac and Shenandoah riverkeepers in their call for improvements in the General Construction Permit process.  It is critical that SWPPPs are made available to the public for every construction site in Virigia.

I would like to request that information be provided to me on the outcome related to this action and I will work to support those that vote for improvements in the General Construction Permit process and to defeat those that don't. 

Thanks.

Tom Fore

 

The Shenandoah River and it's tributaries have been under assualt from many different points and sources for the last 20 years and this is one area (storm water managment and construction runoff) that is woefully behind the times. The mainstem of the Shenandoah River, from Riverton Dam to Warren Dam is a virtual dead zone due to runoff and heavy silt that has accumulated over the decades. The current regulations do not even meet the requirments of the Federal Clean Water Act, let alone show common sense and good stewardship of the land and our waters. I urge that these regulations be brought up to date using the "best practices " standards that will help improve and sustain our waters.

Recently I was involved with the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia when they failed to use remediation measures adjacent to Dry River in Rockingham County.  The city did react to the Rockingham County inspectors after I called the DCR authorities to report this apparent violation.  The city did send a crew up to the dig site the next day and added some erosion control matting to reduce the amount of sediment that would wash into Dry River with the next substantial rainfall.

During my investigation of this issue, I was told that unless the "disturbed" soil area exceded 10,000 sq. ft, no action was required.  This is rediculus.  The amount of disturbed soil should be about 1/10 of the area now required that will trigger actions by the responsible party.  In addition, actions by government agents and entities should be required to self report these violations.  It is fari and reasonable to expect government people to set a proper example for environmental stewardship.  Individuals do not have the respources that cities and towns have and should set a good example to protect resources. 
 

Recently I was involved with the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia when they failed to use remediation measures adjacent to Dry River in Rockingham County.  The city did react to the Rockingham County inspectors after I called the DCR authorities to report this apparent violation.  The city did send a crew up to the dig site the next day and added some erosion control matting to reduce the amount of sediment that would wash into Dry River with the next substantial rainfall.

During my investigation of this issue, I was told that unless the "disturbed" soil area exceded 10,000 sq. ft, no action was required.  This is rediculus.  The amount of disturbed soil should be about 1/10 of the area now required that will trigger actions by the responsible party.  In addition, actions by government agents and entities should be required to self report these violations.  It is fari and reasonable to expect government people to set a proper example for environmental stewardship.  Individuals do not have the respources that cities and towns have and should set a good example to protect resources. 
 

As an avid fisherman and outdoorsman, I am appalled by the lack of enforcement concerning violations within our watershed as far as sediment runoff is concerned. Just this year on the South Fork of the Shenandoah in Page County, VA  I personally witnessed a 953 Caterpillar Track Loader builing a boat ramp on the bank of the Shenandoah. The operator placed riprap, concrete, loose dirt  and even a few tree stumps into the river. A spoil pile remained on the bank of the river (less than 10 feet from the waters edge) for approximately three weeks. There was no silt fence in place and after contacting Jeff Kelble, I found out that he had placed numberous phone calls to the Page County building permit offices and found absolutely no interest in following up on the infraction.  This is, I feel, a slap in the face to every sportsman and woman in Virginia.

I strongly support the Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Rivedrkeeper's efforts to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every constructions site in the Commonwealth.

Please enact these steps now instead of waiting.  The peril of several of Virginia's "Blue Ribbon Streams" and, don't forget, many constituents drinking water continues to dangle from a thread with the constant tinkering of politicians. 

 

I am a nature photographer that loves our river and valley.  On a good day, the river can be crystal clear.  On a bad day, you can't see anything due to stormwater pollution.  I travel around photographing the river and valley and have seen many construction sites that seem not to care about our river, and our communities.  There has not been one construction site that I have seen that has done everything they could to prevent stormwater pollution.  I have seen muddy water flowing from these sites because of neglected or absent erosion controls.  The slow in the housing market and economy has affected developers to the point where they have never finished developing.  These sites are half filled with houses and the other half are lots of barren ground, collapsing silt fences and abandoned construction paraphanelia.  Some of these sites have been like this for years.  A lot of these developers are not from around here.  They come in, try to make as much money as they can then leave these sites in deplorable conditions.  I support the Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper in there efforts to keep our rivers clean.  Bush, in his final days as President, wants coal companies to dump their waste in streams so that they can have bigger profits.  I hope Virginia will not join Bush in his anti-environmental policies.  We are better than that.  We need to help protect and preserve what we have.  Andrew Thayer  PO Box 359 Woodstock, Virginia     www.athayer.com

We must not sacrifice the future of our children, and perhaps our species, to calls for convenience and profit. The Chesapeake Bay is on the verge of becoming a dead body of water, and it is the pollution of the streams and rivers that empty into it that is responsible.  As an angler who loves to float and fish Virginia’s many beautiful rivers, I cringe when I see new construction along the banks of the James, or the Shenandoah, or the Potomac.  It seems I am cringing more often every year.  I ask you to take the long view and strengthen the general permit for discharges for storm water and construction activities and afford the maximum protection to our waterways.  We must slow and as possible reverse their degradation now.  I am 57 years old and according to research cited by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, I have never in my lifetime seen the bay in a healthy state.  I imagine what Virginia must have been like, and it makes my heart heavy to know that I will never see anything approaching that state.  Please act now to give future generations that opportunity.

In this regard, I support the efforts of the Shenandoah and Potomac Riverkeepers to make storm water pollution prevention plans available to the public for every construction site in Virginia.  Please consider the changes to the Construction General Permit recommended so that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every construction site in the Commonwealth.  Please act to stop sediment runoff now.

I am a licensed physical therapist and a member of the Virginia State Bar, so I am very familiar with the value of government regulation.  I am subject to regulation to protect the public.  Please exercise the state’s power to protect the right of the public to a clean and healthy environment.

Bob Dickinson

rpdickinson@lawyer.com

I suppor Shenandoah and Potomac Riverkeepers' efforts to require public notice of all construction.  Silt from construction is a major source of damage to our streams in Virginia

As an active environmentalist who is very familiar with the negative impacts of inadequate sediment control structures over the years in Virginia, I strongly encourage Virginia to strengthen sediment control standards and construction oversight, in adherence to the EPA's Clean Water Act. I have witnessed, documented, and reported numerous sediment control failures at construction sites that have resulted in heavy dumps of silt and sediment in downstream creeks and streams. I am an avid hiker and kayaker, and I see the negative effects of construction site run-off, increased sedimentation and impermeable surfaces in Virginia's watersheds.

Sediment control structures are a trivial component of most construction projects. Actual adherence to Virginia's legal standards would significantly reduce the number of construction-related contmination events. Raising the bar would increase project costs by an insignificant fraction of a percentage, but would significantly reduce the number of contamination events, as well as their severity.

There is no practical way to remove sediment from a stream, once it's been washed off a construction site. There is apparently no rational incentive for construction companies to build sediment control structures any stronger than Virginia's minimal requirements. Given the significant downstream costs of construction-based sediment contamination in Virginia watersheds, and the reluctance of construction companies to go beyond Virginia's standards, I believe that it is incumbent on Virginia to raise her standards, in order to ensure adequate protection of her watersheds. This can be done at minimal cost. 

At present, the state is carrying the expense of construction-based sediment contamination events, in the form of degraded watercourse and increased erosion, the related negative impacts on downstream fisheries and the degraded health of the Cheseapeake Bay. Given the increased frequency of what once were five and ten year storms, the current standards are inadequate. They serve as a trivial and short-term subsidy of construction projects, that result in serious, and long-term costs. This is not good economics.

I support the Shenandoah & Potomac Riverkeeper's recommended changes to the Construction General Permit, including making SWPP's available to the public. This is a minimum standard of communication with the citizens of Virginia, who are affected by pollution and degradation of the natural places and watersheds entrusted to the state. I encourage Virginia to set a higher standard for environmental protection, and to resist following the short-term and self-interested advice of companies more concerned about profit than Virginia's long-term well-being.

Thanks for your time, Kris Unger

My concern regards what seems to be growing siltation on the edges of main currents. Areas that used to hold nursery level water life seems to have disappeared. A certain amount of siltation is normal of course, but it seems to me the rivers are holding excess silt (mud) that is swpt somewhere else only with extraorinary rain events. I have lived in many developing countries where construction runpp has contributed to aquatic death of rivers

I support Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper’s efforts to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and make them available to the public for every constructions site in the Commonwealth.

As a resident of VA I have personally seen the effects of sediment in the body of water I live on and enjoy fishing and boating in.  The Commonwealth of Virginia must do more to protect streams that are already impaired from additional damage which is caused by sediment running off construction sites. The state must not delay another 5 years when this permit would be up for renewal again.

Support of Shenandoah Riverkeeper's change of SWPPP

 

I fish the Shenandoah River nearly every day in the summer.  After even a brief rain, way too much runoff is coming into the river. The river gets muddy way too fast and greatly affects the quality and health of our beloved river.

I support the Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper's efforts to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every construction site in the Commonwealth. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia needs to do more to protect streams like the Shenandoah River from additional damage which could be caused by sediment running off construction sites.  Please take these steps now rather than wait another five years for the next permit removal.

Jay Cohen (jkcohen4@verizon.net)

352 Pyletown Road

Boyce, VA 22620

 

 

 

There is already too much muddy sediment in many of the streams and rivers of the Shenandoah Valley.  In some places the bottom of the streams are choked with silty sediments that smother the benthic life, spoil the fishing, get easily stirred up and make fishing and boating access more difficult.  The excessive nitrogen and phosphorus that comes with the storm water run-off causes algae blooms, and causes conditions that favor overgrowth of bacteria that are harmful to both people and aquatic life. 

Storm water run-off contributes a substantial amount of pollution to our waterways.  In the karst (limestone) geology of the Shenandoah Valley where surface waters and ground waters frequently mix, polluted storm water can easily impact ground water.  Because a large portion of the population depends on ground water for their drinking water, it is extremely important that storm water be kept as clean as possible.

I have seen too many instances of muddy soil sediments running off from construction sites in Page County and other nearby jurisdictions.  Therefore I ask that the Commonwealth of Virginia do more to protect streams that are already ‘impaired’ from the additional damage caused by sediment running off from construction sites.

Please add requirements to this General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities to require full and effective implementation of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a primary condition for continuation of the Stormwater General Permit.  Please strengthen the enforcement of Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and make violations of E&S Regs. a serious violation of the Stormwater Permit.  Please add a provision to the regulations that would require suspension of work other than erosion and sediment control activities, from the time that an erosion and sediment control violation occurs until the erosion and sediment control measures are re-established and any sediment that had left the site have been cleaned up.  The present regulations do not have enough serious consequences for violations.  Without the addition of more serious consequences, it will not be possible to fully enforce the improved regulations.

It is very important that Virginia take action now to make substantial improvements to the Stormwater Permit regulations now so that our streams do not get even more impaired than they are already and to protect ground water in areas with karst (limestone) geology.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Charles Newton

Shenandoah Valley Soil & Water Conservation District, Director

cnewt1@yahoo.com

I am concerned about siltation control at construction sites. Several years ago when site prep for Millbrook High School was being done there were three successive siltation fence failures that allowed heavy siltation on my property resulting in a fishkill in a small farm pond and ultimately into Red Bud Run. My complaint to the school system and the contractor resulted in a biased study by  Triad Engineering defending their work as "meeting specs." Oviously their siltation control efforts were not sufficient, so I robustly request that stronger rules be made to uprade the siltation and runoff control measures. A neighbor who inspects such matters for Loudoun County was flabbergasted at the situation we had. A similar situation has since occured at the Red Bud housing  development site prep resulting in direct runoff into Red Bud Run which incidentally is being cultivated as a trout fishery. These two experiences have convinced me that the current siltation requirements are not sufficient  to safeguard our waterways and that enforcement is also lacking.    Sincerely, Penny and Wayne Seipel  271 Morgan mill rd. Winchester, Va 22603   email: wdseipel@aol.com

I am a 74 year old native Virginian.  I live on the Shenandoah River in Clarke County, an avid catch and release fisherman and have probably spent more time in the river than anyone else alive.  Literally! !   Over the last 50 plus years I have seen many changes in the river.  None good!  Yielding to developers or commercial enterprises can only negatively affect the current fragile state of the river.   

I strongly support the Shenandoah Riverkeeper's effort to change the Construction  General Permit so that SWPPP's are made available for every construction site in the river vicinity.

Further, the State of Virginia should do more now to clean up, and keep clean, Virginia's rivers and streams.

Thank you,

Doug Jackson

1125 Leeds Manor Lane

Bluemont,  VA  20135

djackson1125@aol.com

 

This is an opportunity to put teeth into the permit and the review process.  I was one of the volunteers with UVA Law School students and the Shenandoah River keeper.  It  became apparent that the process was flawed and many things could have been prevented if there had been clear concise regulations with an adequate review.  In most problem sites, the problem occured and then there was an attempt at remediation.  While other states such as Maryland are doing many things to be proactive in water quality improvement, Virginia has taken a back seat.  There is a glimmer of hope that Virginia may be changing in the recent action of the SWCB delay of Merck's discharge permit into the South Fork of the Shenandoah.  Both North River and Middle River, which are tributaries of the South Fork of the Shenandoah, alreadt suffer from heavy sediment deposits.  I strongly urge a more stringent regulatory approach and with a sincere effort to review and then enforce.

As a frequent paddler of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers and many other streams and rivers in Virginia, who grew up in Virginia, and learned to canoe and kayak in Virginia, I would like to express my support for the suggestions made by the Riverkeeper to provide more transparency to the construction permitting process and additional protection to the rivers and streams of Virginia.  I understand that this is a difficult economic time however if the improvements are not made during the current construction permit renewal cycle these needed changes will wait another 5 years and protection of the streams and rivers of Virginia will not be enacted.  

-Peter Bross

1 I support Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper's efforts
to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every
construction site in the Commonwealth
 
2. I want the Commonwealth of Virginia to do more to protect streams
that are already "impaired" from additional damage which would be
caused by sediment running off construction sites and to take these
steps now, rather than wait another five years for the next permit
renewal
 
3  I am a frequent paddler of VA and MD rivers and due to the water polution 
since I have been paddling, I now get one to two ear, eye or sinus infections 
per year. Anything you can do to help keep the rivers and tributaries cleaner 
will help and is greatly appreciated. When you live IN/ON the rivers and not 
simply look at them from a distance your perspective changes and the rivers 
polution levels have an immediate impact on the regular users. We know the 
importance of having clean water.
Please do what you can.
Thank you for listening!

Thomas Verratti, President
Constructive Change and Coaching Center

Please consider the following points as they relate to the current proposed revisions to Virginia's construction process:

• I support Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper in their efforts to change the Construction General Permit such that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every contruction site in the Commonwealth.
• I want the Commonwealth of Virginia to do more to protect streams that are already "impaired" from additional damage, which would be caused by additional construction sediment runoff. Please take these steps now, as opposed to waiting five additional years for the next permit renewal.
• I've frequently enjoyed our rivers and streams as a kayaker for the past 10 years. Over this period, I have seen firsthand the negative environmental impacts resulting from inadequate construction runoff regulation. Stagnation due to sediment buildup continues to alter the natural course of our rivers and streams everyday, resulting in adverse effects on the stream's inhabitants and ultimately the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's time we reconsider the outdated mentality that business interests and, specifically, development agendas take priority over the environment and the health of our communities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

John Haddock

 

The time has come to seriously address the reality of excessive sediment seeping into our waterways. As the population continues to grow strongly, and in some areas explosively, the old rules and regulations are just not strong enough to prevent an inevitable increase in harmful sediment. Many harmful chemicals (such as potassium) enter our waterways attached to tiny particles of sediment. I own a river outfitting business on the Shenandoah River in Warren County, Virginia. I have observed the river on a daily basis for seven months every year for the past 35 years. It is my observation the algae blooms on the river are increasingly more pronounced and sustained over the past decade. Also, consistant mud deposition at all our landings after high water is much more of a problem now than in the past, creating a stinking mess that I now have to devote manpower and resources to at least make tolerable. The choices are stark. Either we strengthen our control of sedimentation, or we go backwards. The status quo will not do. We at Downriver Canoe Company therefore support the recommendations made by the Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper to strengthen and update the Construction General Permit regulations.

 

 

Virginia Needs to Lead Not Wait.

Virginia has some of the best water on the East Coast and this water should be protected for and by all Virginian's. Over the past few years our waters have become more and more effected by storm run off and polution. We must act now to protect our dwindling supply of clear, clean water.  Although I fish a great deal in Virginia, the water we as a state enjoy is also crucial to our economic development and therefor can't be managed in a "make a buck today plan tomorrow fashion".

I support the Virginia River Keepers proposal to allow public access to the sedimentation plans under current review. The decisions we make now will be passed down to our children and I for one don't want to take my children to another state to show them what water used to be like in the Old Dominion.

I emplore those that can make a positive change to do so. I am currently working on a series of conservation articles that shows a consistent lack of concern for the environment in West Virginia  government and those at Snow Shoe Water and Sewer. They are not happy about what I have written about the Elk River and are even less happy about what I am relaying to the general public about thier polution levels in this river becasue a lack of state oversite, but its all true.

I hope Virginian's and those that lead this state will do all they can to protect our public lands and our diminishing levels of clean water. Please keep me informed of your decision.

Beau Beasley

6729 Eckert Ct.

Warrenton, VA 20187

 

Respectfully

Beau Beasley

Author of Fly Fishing VIrginia 

 

 

 

 

I strongly supplort all efforts to assure that construction runnoff is controlled and that all stormwater pollution prevention plans are made available to the public.  Having been an outdoorsman and avid fisherman for my entire life, I have seen the devastating changes that have occured that compromise the quality of the water and wildlife in and around our rivers and streams.  Efforts from organizations such as the Potomac and Shennandoah Riverkeepers to help stem the further degradation of our waters should be applauded and are long overdue in our area.  I support all their efforts in this matter.  

Developers, large and small, need to be held accountable for the protection of the areas surrounding their projects from detrimental effects caused by these projects.  Their complaints that the regulations requiring increased protection from runnoff and public oversight because of hard economic times are unjustified.  First, It is the very nature of the quality of our streams and rivers in these areas that make many of these areas worthy of developement in the first place. Second, the actions of one developer to fail to  protect our rivers from the runoff from their projects is detrimental to thousands of people downstream who rely upon our waters for drinking and recreation.  I have been a general contractor in Northern Virginia for the past 30 years.  It does not take an disproportionate amount of effort to control the runoff from these projects.  It is true that the cost of these efforts would need to be incorporated into the final cost of the completed projects making them more expensive.  However,  if we hold all developers to the same standards, they do not suffer a disadvantage from this increased cost compared to each other.  If the market for their finished projects exists then it will weather a small increase in the final cost of the project.  It must be remembered that these financial tough times are not likely to endure for an extended period of time but that the regulations we make today in this matter will be in effect for another five years. 

Thank you.   Ralph Hendrickson

Gentlemen and Ladies:

I served on the Tributary Strategies Committee for the Potomac.   Everything, all the time, everywhere is needed to clean up our public waters.  Making Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) available for citizen inspection is one step in the right direction. 

In early fall I survey the submerged aquatic vegetation on a tidal tributary of the Potomac River.  Each and every leaf, stem, and flower part of every strand of six species of SAV is covered with sediment.  If you stir up the water around a SAV stand, you and your kayak are floating in a sea of mud.  It is doubtful that light is reaching the plant for photosynthesis and hence the production of oxygen.  Macroinvertebrates, frogs, and fish populations have been greatly diminished in recent years by mud from construction.  Contaminant-carrying sediment and runoff has landed many of Stafford’s creeks on the “impaired” list.    

In my jurisdiction the easy- to-build land is mostly developed; this leads developers to parcels with steep slopes and/or erodible soils, land that probably should not be developed at all.   Laws are insufficient, ambiguous, or ignored.  On one occasion in 2006 I reported 38 violations with photographs giving a written explanation of the violation, violations that had been present for well over 30 days.  Ten days and two heavy rains later, the site was still not functioning to stop the deposition of mud and pollutants in wetlands and streams.    

There is little recognition that we are destroying a public asset, Virginia’s formerly beautiful and bountiful waters. When will this “taking” of our public assets stop?  Not until legislation is enacted on many levels.  The “volunteer” efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay have failed abysmally.  It’s beyond time for the state to act in the public interest.

I particularly favor SWPPPs being available at every construction site in Virginia for the public to view upon request.  There is no reason why a citizen observing pollution, or perhaps a site with no pollution, should not be able to learn all the details about plans to manage for clean public waters.  Education of the public is in the public interest.

I value the time, effort, and expertise of the TAC working on this issue.  Please act before another five years passes and inform me of the outcome of this proposal.  Thank you.

 

Patricia Kurpiel
38 Dobe Point,  Stafford, Va
Accokeek Creek watershed, a tributary of the Potomac Creek and the Potomac River

 

I have fished Virginia rivers my entire life, almost 60 years and I continue to be less than enthused with the efforts to protect our rivers.  The rivers are not getting any cleaner and fish kills seem to occur more often.  Something seems out of sync, especially on the Shenandoah and James.  Heavy runoffs from farms and construction sites are significantly damaging these rivers.  

I fully support the efforts of the the Shenandoah and Potomac Riverkeepers and other citizen groups.   I fully support the current efforts of these riverkeepers and groups in their call for improvements in the General Construction Permit process.  It is critical that SWPPPs are made available to the public for every construction site in Virigia.  There is no reason why these improvements should not be fully implemented.  

 

The argument that the efforts to  improve the quality of our waterways is an added burden to developers and/or land owners is a smoke screen.  What we do on any one piece of the river impacts every inch of the river and its environment for its full length.  I am a fisherman, but I am a father and a grandfather;  I want my children and their children to have the resources and beauty that I have had throughout my life.  I heartily support the Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper’s efforts to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every construction site in Virginia. The Commonwealth is the protector of our resouces and has the resposibility of ensuring that they will remain healthy for our children and our children's children.  The Commonwealth must take all neccessary steps to protect and repair our rivers and streams. This should emphasize protection of waterways already designated as impaired from additional damage which would be caused by sediment running off construction sites.

The rules covering the permits for construction in VA need to be strengthened and even more important, the existing rules need to be enforced.  We see muddy water washing into small streams in Northen VA all the time from large and very small (one house construction sites too are a problem) work areas that are not containing runoff.

thank you for your consideration,

Frank and Kathy Collins

December 26, 2008

Mr. David C. Dowling

Policy, Planning and Budget Director

203 Governor Street

Suite 302

Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Dowling:

I am writing to express support for amending the General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities (permit 4VAC50-60) found in Part XIV of the Virginia Stormwater Management Permit Program Regulations and its associated definitions found in Part I of those regulations.

Since 1993, Shenandoah University’s Environmental Studies Department has investigated aquatic ecosystems and water quality in northwestern Virginia.  Our focuses have been upon tributaries to Opequon Creek and the Shenandoah River, which flow into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay.  These studies – as well as related investigations by other universities and nongovernmental organizations – indicate impairment of benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities and consistently point to sediment as a principal stressor.

Opequon Creek and its tributary Abrams Creek clearly illustrate this relationship.  In 1996, the DEQ placed the entire reach of Abrams Creek on its Impaired Waters List because of benthic and bacterial impairments.  Opequon Creek also appears on the Impaired Waters List, with a benthic impairment in its lower segment.  Shenandoah University examined BMI communities at six Abrams Creek sites in 2006 using the EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols.  Our results confirm benthic impairments at all six sites.  TMDL studies by Virginia Tech’s Department of Biosystems Engineering identify sediment as the primary stressor of BMIs in both the Abrams Creek and lower Opequon Creek watersheds.

These findings are consistent with TMDL studies across this commonwealth that, taken together, identify sediment as the predominant stressor of aquatic life in Virginia (with a few exceptions located on the western slopes of the Blue Ridge, where acidity apparently plays a role).  I concur with comments by Shenandoah Riverkeepers that sediment entering water bodies from construction will only add to benthic impairments that already exist.  Controlling sediment runoff into Virginia’s streams, rivers and other bodies of water is essential to protecting aquatic life and restoring the water quality of Virginia’s impaired waters.  

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Woodward S. Bousquet

Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology

Chair, Environmental Studies Department

Shenandoah University

1460 University Drive

Winchester, Virginia 22601

 

As a Virginia paddler and fisherman, I am becoming more and more dismayed at the sad state of the Shenandoah River, my local and favorite Virginia river. I have personally witnessed dead and dying fish. I have caught fish with skin lesions on them. On a South Fork section I recently floated the algae blooms are effectively taking over the river. These are all signs of an unhealthy river, an unhealthy river that some of my drinking water is pulled from.

There is still time to reverse this dying trend. One way to help is to protect our waterways from the additional damage caused by construction site runoff.  Please don't let another 5 years slip by. I want my children's children to be able to enjoy our Virginia rivers.

Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree with and support the Shenandoah and Potomac Riverkeepers' efforts to change the Construction General Permit so that SWPPP's are made available to the public for every construction site in the Commonwealth.

Tim Adams

Stephens City, VA

I support Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper's efforts

to change the Construction General Permit so that Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) are made available to the public for every

constructions site in the Commonwealth

I also want the Commonwealth of Virginia to do more to protect streams
that are already "impaired" from additional damage which would be
caused by sediment running off constructionsites and to take these
steps now, rather than wait another five years for the next permit
renewal.

Thanks,

Asad Makarevic