Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Environmental Quality
 
Board
State Water Control Board
 
Guidance Document Change: This guidance document provides for: 1) a streamlined stormwater management (SWM) plan review process in instances where DEQ is the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) authority and 2) a streamlined erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan review process where DEQ is the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program (VESCP) authority when the following conditions are met: • The SWM and/or ESC plan is prepared by a professional engineer licensed to engage in practice in the Commonwealth under Chapter 4 of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, • The SWM and/or ESC Plan is pre-reviewed and signed by a person who holds an active certificate as a Dual Combined Administrator for ESC and SWM, and • A completed Plan Submission Checklist is submitted with the SWM and/or ESC Plan on the cover sheet.
Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
8/30/22  4:31 pm
Commenter: Steve Pandish, PE, Kelsey Ryan, PE, MacKenzie Bauman, PE (Gordon)

Response to GM22-2011
 

We have reviewed the guidance document and offer the following comments:

Section C states:

If DEQ observes a trend of deficient SWM and/or ESC plans that were reviewed by the same Dual Combined Administrator for ESC and SWM, DEQ reserves the authority to suspend, revoke or refuse to grant or review the certification pursuant to the process provided in 9VAC25-850-90 and no longer accept that Dual Combined Administrator for ESC and SWM’s Certification for the streamlined review unless that person retakes all six (6) required classes and passes the related tests to receive a new certification number. For professional engineers, DEQ will notify the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) for their review. For purposes of this guidance DEQ defines a trend of deficiency as:

  1. Five incomplete review checklists, and/or;
  2. Three plan reviews which generate comments that are deemed significant enough to require resubmission in lieu of plan approval.

 

  1. The definition of “a trend of deficiency” is overly punitive and does not allow for an appeal process. We have experienced incomplete reviews resulting in invalid comments. For example, DEQ has made comments they could have been resolved if a thorough review was performed. Additionally, multiple comments for the same issue are not uncommon.

 

There needs to be some type of appeals process to improve the determination of a trend of deficiency.

 

Additionally, there needs to be a timeframe associated with this process. For example, a trend in deficiency is to be evaluated of a two year period.  

 

  1. Furthermore, “comments that are deemed significant enough to require resubmission in lieu of plan approval” is not well defined and subjective.

 

  1. Notifying the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) for their review” may have unintended consequences. It may dissuade participation in the program unless changes to the guidance are made addressing the above concerns.

 

Additionally, having DPOR review compliance with DEQ checklists appears to be outside their charge which is to issue professional credentials, enforce standards of professional conduct, and to work with local law enforcement to assist in bringing criminal charges of individuals practicing without a license.

Signed: Steve Pandish, PE, Kelsey Ryan, PE, and MacKenzie Bauman, PE (Gordon)

CommentID: 127460