Due to the ambiguity of this proposed rulemaking, the fast-track process is inadequate and inappropriate, particularly when limited to the holidays and winter break where public review, capacity, and availability are limited. Per § 2.2-4012.1 and for purposes of thorough review and transparency, I request that the normal (not fast-track) promulgation of the Administrative Process Act be followed in this proposed modification.

On behalf of Wild Virginia, I write to oppose a fast track approval of the proposed modification to the implementation requirements for criteria specific to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries as defined at 9 VAC 25-26-18. In doing so, I cite and endorse comments filed separately by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We disagree with the assertion offered in the "Action Summary" on Town Hall for this action that the rulemaking is "noncontroversial."

While a change to the implementation methods to allow for additional data to be incorporated into the analysis seems a desirable goal, the change proposed here is not sufficiently defined or supported in the record. Allowance for "any scientifically defensible method" leaves too much room for vital decisions to be made later and without adequate safeguards. Allowing undefined alternatives to a decades-old and proven method without greater scientific explanation and scrutiny is not acceptable.

The most important factor to consider in deciding whether any method should be allowed, is whether that method provides the required degree of protection for the aquatic system. We believe that question has not been answered at this time and should be addressed through the full regulatory process.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. David Sligh

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am writing to request a thorough vetting of this proposed water quality regulation modification instead of a 30-day, fast-track approval occurring during the holidays. Thank you for your consideration.  

As Nature Forward’s Northern Virginia Conservation Advocate, I am writing to ask that modification of implementation requirements for criteria specific to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries not be subject to the fast-track process. Instead, we ask that the normal (not fast-track) promulgation of the Administrative Process Act be followed in this proposed modification.

Nature Forward is concerned with the ambiguity of this proposed regulation, and we believe this topic needs more discussion to ensure that the change does not produce unintended consequences due to its ambiguity.

We recommend against fast-tracking this change and ask that this topic be addressed via the full regulatory process.

-Renee Grebe

I oppose the current fast track proposal to amend the Commonwealth's water quality
standards regulations. Any change to the assessment of water quality criteria is a major change that, almost by definition, cannot be noncontroversial, at least in the sense that the changes must go through the fullest extent of transparency, discourse, and vetting by interested stakeholders and experts. This is particularly true because the current process that this action seeks to amend involved the work of regional experts and external stakeholders. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to hearing more about the next steps in this regulatory development process.

Behalf of Lynnhaven River Now, I am writing to share that we are opposed to this fast-tracked rule making procedure. 

In 2002, a committed group of local citizens came together to foster partnerships that would apply public and private resources to the challenge of reducing pollution in the Lynnhaven River, which is a tidal tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. That core group formed what has grown into an award-winning river restoration project with over 12,000 members called Lynnhaven River NOW or LRNow. “Now” because the work of restoring and protecting the beautiful Lynnhaven is something that we can do NOW for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren.  Back in 2002 when we were founded, only 1% of the Lynnhaven met the water quality standards to safely harvest and eat shellfish. After 20 years of restoration work, community education, stakeholder engagement, and policy advocacy, over 50% of the Lynnhaven is now safe to harvest and recreate. As an organization, we deeply understand that the path to restoring any water body, is a long and complex road that requires sound science and methodology. Progress is earned over years but can be lost quickly if we do not stay the course. Much like the Lynnhaven, the Chesapeake Bay has made great progress over the years. This progress was achieved thanks to work of the Bay programs and cooperation between states following a highly scientific blueprint provided by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. All this hard-earned progress can be jeopardized by any hasty, nontransparent modifications to the implementation requirements for criteria specific to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries as defined at 9 VAC 25-26-18.  Therefore, we ask the normal (not fast-track) promulgation of the Administrative Process Act be applied to this matter.  

Thank you.

Due to the ambiguity of this proposed regulatory rule making, the fast-track process is insufficient and inappropriate, particularly when limited to occur during the holidays where public review, capacity, and availability are limited. Per § 2.2-4012.1 and for purposes of thorough review and transparency, I request that the normal (not fast-track) promulgation of the Administrative Process Act be followed in this proposed modification.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on this important issue. I am writing today request that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality offer and perform a thorough vetting and analysis of the proposed water quality regulation modification, instead of the proposed fast-track, 30-day approval process which would take place during the holiday season which would limit participation and diminish the quality of the process. Thank you for your consideration.  

I write to oppose the “fast-track" process to changes to 9VAC25-260 to allow for the "us[e of] alternative scientifically defensible methods" in conducting assessments of Chesapeake Bay water criteria (e.g. dissolved oxygen).

Currently, assessment is conducted through cumulative frequency distribution (CFR) methodology, a methodology chosen after significant vetting and stakeholder engagement, which has been a proven tool in efforts to achieve the remediation of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay.

In this proposed fast-track proposal, no definition is provided as to what the proposed "alternative methods" to the CFR methodology would be, nor the level of scientific scrutiny in determining if they are "defensible". Such a proposal lacks transparency, and opens the door to significantly undermining protections for the Bay.

While the State Water Control Board's discussion of this proposal in the Regulatory Town Hall  as a means to adopt a more flexible approach to conducting assessments may have merit, a robust stakeholder engagement process is critical to evaluating whether such a change is merited, and if so, developing strong definitional language to ensure that the water quality standards within 9 VAC 25-260 are met.

For these reasons, I oppose the Fast Track process and request a full review under the Administrative Process Act.

While the State Water Control Board's discussion of this proposal in the Regulatory Town Hall  as a means to adopt a more flexible approach to conducting assesements may have merit, a robust stakeholder engagement process is critical to evaluating whether such a change is merited, and if so, developing strong definitional language to ensure that the water quality standards within 9 VAC 25-260 are met.

For these reasons, I oppose the Fast Track process and request a full review under the Administrative Process Act.

The proposed rule is ambiguous and needs clarifying language to describe the intended purpose more adequately. To allow for a full review and more transparency, I ask that the regular process under § 2.2-4012.1 of the Administrative Process Act be used instead of fast-tracking this rulemaking. This will provide adequate time for review and public input on this consequential rule, as the 30-day period is already short and further impacted by the holiday season.

I oppose the current fast track proposal regarding an amendment to change Virginia's water quality standards and encourage a full review process for this proposed change. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this issue. Due to the ambiguity contained within this proposed regulatory rule making, the fast-track process is both insufficient and inappropriate. Per § 2.2-4012.1, we request that the normal promulgation of the Administrative Process Act be followed in this matter.

I am writing to you requesting that the proposed regulation amendments published as 9VAC25-260, Water Quality Standards, be removed from the fast-track adoption process and be proposed to a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action subject to full Administrative Process Act public notice and comment. Before Virginia proposes any amendments to 9VAC25-260-185 it should coordinate its proposals with and seek approval from the US EPA and the Chesapeake Executive Council as required by 33 U.S.C. 1267 (g)(1) and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

You use the term "alternative scientifically defensible methods" in your proposal. However, you fail to define it, which reminds me of the term "alternative facts." All jurisdictions need to participate using the same criteria. It must be transparent, open to comment, and use sound science.

Fast-track rulemaking is not the Virginia way.

On the face of it, opening up criteria to new datasets seems like a good idea. If the only threshold those data sets have to cross is being "scientifically-defensible," however, that is problematic. Using open-ended, subjective language like this could result in the use of better datasets, and also could result in the use of datasets that are intentionally designed to be industry-friendly and to insert doubt and questions into the process, at the very least. 

Given DEQ's history of ignoring the precautionary principle (see "biosolids," for one example), it is unreasonable to expect public trust and to fast-track such a sloppy modification to important environmental rules.

Regular process and review are required, along with better, more specific language in the proposed change to ensure the criteria are enhanced and not degraded in the future.