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.