In Spotsylvania County, sPower was allowed to build 300 permanent stormwater ponds as temporary erosion & sediment control ponds, and then “convert” them to permanent stormwater ponds after the construction phase was completed.  The problem with this approach is that the more stringent requirements for the construction of stormwater ponds were not enforced by either Spotsylvania County or VA DEQ.  For example, the compacting requirements for building the embankments are different, and the slopes of the banks are different.  These construction features cannot be changed later to meet the more stringent requirements for permanent ponds.

Recommendation:  clarify the regulations that a new stormwater pond must be built to the more stringent standards for permanent ponds, even if it will initially serve as an erosion & sediment pond during construction.  Construction standards for temporary erosion & sediment ponds should only be used when the pond will be removed after construction is completed.  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current regulations for impoundments.  My wife and I purchased a farm in 1996 which had everything we were looking for in a piece of property.  Chief among the attractive features was a wonderful pond which would serve us well in our plan to raise sheep and goats on the farm.  It functioned well as a water source for these animals and allowed us to use it for the irrigation of nursery plants as well.  We had no qualms about this pond as it was designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The pond dam was also constructed by The Corps.

In the 28 years we have owned the farm this pond has never given us any trouble. On only one occasion, during hurricane Jeanne in 2004, has water ever entered the spillway.  During this event, the dam functioned brilliantly.

It was quite a surprise when, in the latter part of 2022, we received a letter from The Commonwealth stating that our dam was now subject to regulation as it fit into the parameter of a dam height of 25 feet or more with an impoundment of more than 15 acre/feet.  We were informed of the need for inspection, creation of a Dam Break Inundation Zone Study and the development of an Emergency Action Plan.  While we were pleased to hear that there were grants available to assist with the expenses involved herein, we were shocked to find that these requirements were to cost well in excess of $30,000.00 and, while we might be able to receive 50% of the cost in the form of grants, we would be required to demonstrate our ability to pay for the entire amount should grants not be available for one reason or another.  Like so many of our neighbors, we struggle to find the funds to keep our operations going and the specter of this additional expense has been the source on some sleepless nights.

Two issues prompted me to write during this public comment period.  First, would it not be appropriate to consider that a Dam engineered and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at no small expense to the previous landowner and used as a major inducement for our purchase of this property; all of which occurred well before the current regulations were put into place, be accorded  "Grandfathered" status and not subject to the current regulations?   Secondly, it seems that dam height (as defined in the current regulations) being used as the determining factor for regulation is inherently flawed.  By this I mean that the relevant issue, at least in our case, is that we have a properly functioning spillway which handled the 13+ inches of rain we had during hurricane Jeanne without issue.  The water level never neared the top of the dam.  If we were to add additional height to the top of the dam it would not make it any more safe, as the important feature to consider is the height from the natural stream bed level below the dam to the lowest point on the spillway- not the highest point of the dam.

As we cannot afford to pay the expenses required to meet these current regulations we will, if not given some consideration, be forced to decrease the impoundment below the stated 15 acre/feet stated therein in order to be in compliance.  This would seem to be a "lose-lose" scenario.  The benefit to the ecosystem of the current pond would suffer in this situation as would available fresh water for any emergency.  The wildfire issue in Virginia this Autumn (one of which was in our home county of Patrick) points out the potential benefit of having a good water source to tap into in such a case. 

My wife and I request that some consideration be given in the Impoundment Regulations for cases like ours- a perfectly functioning pond, engineered and built by an organization with the highest credentials.  This appears to be especially relevant when said construction was completed well before any of the current regulations were in place.

My family is currently dealing with an old dam that was deemed out of compliance with safety regulations by the DCR. As the costs of rehabilitating the dam to be compliant are far too great for us to consider as private land owners, we are working with DCR to determine how we will safely decommission (i.e. lower dam level below regulatory thresholds) or remove the dam entirely. This is unfortunate because the 17 acre pond created by the dam is a rich ecology providing valuable habitat to many species, along with beauty and recreation for us, but we simply do not have the means to pay for the dam to be re-engineered and brought up to current safety standards. 

This is a burden for any private landowner facing this situation, but it is especially disappointing there aren't any specific modes of assistance for dams, like ours, that were built well before we owned the property and prior to the passing of the first U.S. dam safety regulations. 

I appreciate and understand the paramount value of safety and the immense costs associated with dam failures. I also feel, however, that the state is painting very broad strokes with the current DCR programs to bring private dams into compliance that do not adequately capture the nuance of these old and varied dams. Further, it feels appropriate that state legislation regarding dam safety should consider and rehabilitate existing dams differently than dams built after the legislation is passed.

Without providing the necessary assistance (i.e. more than matching fund grants) to private dam owners in our commonwealth, this program is placing the burden of addressing these old dams unfairly on citizens who cannot afford this scale of this infrastructural improvement.

I live in a small neighborhood of 26 home owners in Goochland County.  Our neighborhood has a small 9 acre community lake.  The VA Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) informed us last year that we must comply with state regulations under the Dam Safety Act.  We have hired an engineering firm to help us understand our obligations and to help design and oversee mitigation activities.  So far, we have spent $31,000.  We are not yet sure what the final cost will be to our home owners, but it is likely to be in excess of $100,000.  This is a lot of money for 26 families to bear.

 

While I cannot fault the DCR or the intent of the Dam Safety Act, what is troublesome is the assumption of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) upon which the analysis, and thus the resulting mitigation, is based.  The PMP was determined by a 2015 study found here: https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dam-safety-and-floodplains/document/pmp-final-report.pdf.

 

Our dam is required to withstand a Probable Maximum Precipitation rainfall event of 28.9 inches within a 6 hour period.  This enormous amount of rain would overtop our dam and possibly cause damage to VA State Route 6 downstream, according to the analysis done thus far.

 

While I am sympathetic to DCR’s obligations for dam safety, I do think the Probable Maximum Precipitation assumptions should be reasonable.  I think 28.9 inches in a 6 hour period is not reasonable, nor probable.

 

And I wonder if Goochland gets 28.9 inches of rain within 6 hours,  what possible difference our 9 acre lake could make, whether the dam withstands the event or totally collapses.

 

I am a 22-year resident of a Goochland Co. neighborhood which contains 26 homes along with a 9–10-acre community lake. The lake's dam has been determined by DCR's "Dam Safety Act" to of concern, forcing our neighborhood (comprised largely of retirees on fixed incomes) to spend tens of thousands of dollars (with no end in sight) to hire an expert engineering firm to represent us as to the complexities of DCR's mandates, required calculations, reports, and on and on......  

I am the only community homeowner whose home is downstream from the community lake and dam, although located at a vertical elevation safe from the calculated potential dam failure and resultant flooding.

The DCR design guidelines seem far beyond what is reasonable in theoretical rainfall magnitudes, in mandated dam/spillway/ remediations, as well as periodical maintenance observations and records.

 I implore you to find   more realistic design parameters to address DCR's dam safety. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) impounding structure regulations. Fairfax County owns and operates 23 facilities regulated by DCR. The Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) operates 19 of these facilities, with the remainder operated by the Fairfax County Park Authority (FCPA). Section 4VAC50-20-160 of the impounding structure regulations state that: In accordance with § 10.1-609.2 of the Code of Virginia, impounding structure owners shall not permit the growth of trees and other woody vegetation and shall remove any such vegetation from the slopes and crest of embankments and the emergency spillway area, and within a distance of 25 feet from the toe of the embankment and abutments of the dam. We have been advised by DCR Dam Safety staff there are no provisions for variances from this policy. We are requesting that DCR consider including provisions for variances from Section 4VAC50-20- 160 in the regulations for the following reasons: a. As a result of the 2008 changes to the impounding structure regulations, a number of impoundments that act as dry ponds formed by roadway embankments in Fairfax County were deemed to be regulated structures. b. These impoundments are generally quite wide (top width ranging from 40 to 80 feet), designed to temporarily detain water for the 10-year event. The detention time is typically less than 12 hours, and therefore precludes the development of a phreatic surface. c. The control structure creating the temporary impoundment was installed after construction of the roadway, and we generally do not have easements that allow us to keep the entire embankment free from woody vegetation. We request that tree-clearing limits for these facilities be established based on the unique characteristics of the facility, including a geotechnical evaluation/study when necessary. We also request that the regulations better define methods for establishing the limits of the embankment for these structures, as they may have considerable roadway embankment lengths. Please note that we had earlier provided several comments to DCR on the impounding structure regulations and associated guidance document in October 2018, which are attached for reference. We received a response in December 2018, indicating that one or more regulatory actions would be initiated starting in the spring of 2019 to consider the issues we raised. However, to our knowledge, these regulatory actions have not yet been initiated. We request that these previously submitted comments also be officially considered during this periodic review cycle. We look forward to receiving DCR’s response to our comment related to regulated dry impoundments created by roadway embankments, as well any notice of initiation of regulatory actions to consider issues raised by comments sent previously. Please contact Dipmani Kumar at (703) 324-4612 if you have any questions or need additional information. Note: Attachments transmitted separately by e-mail.

The current Dam Safety Regulations need a complete review and should be revised to be more in accordance with realistic safety requirements for other infrastructure,  such as Roads. The Virginia Department of Transportation is encouraged to  place a safety sign on a dangerous curve rather than rebuild the road, perhaps because our budgets do not  allow for 100% safe roads. Dam Safety has largely been placed on the landowner and thus the safety standards have been outrageously overstated. For example, the Probable Maximum Precipitation requirements suggest that in many cases all streams and roads would be flooded, and impoundments would just not matter.

Please carefully consider the following:

Funding should be from the Commonwealth, not the landowner. Most dams were built with Government assistance, whether for grist mill power, agriculture, or other Government Programs. Landowners should not have to bear the burden of previous Government mistakes.

Standards of safety, such as rainfall amounts, are unrealistic and need to be corrected.

Risk of dam failures needs to be revised. I believe four deaths have been attributed to dam failure in recent years. Highway deaths were over 1,000 just for 2022.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I was unable to find the comment information and only heard about it from a friend, despite being on the various mailing lists of DCR.