I am in favor of most of these proposed changes, especially Alternative 2. I am not, however, in favor of removing classification IV from the regulations. These small dams that have no impact on anyone but the owners should not be subjected to the expense of  a certified engineer.

I am in favor of most of these proposed changes, especially Alternative 2.  I am NOT, however, in favor or removing Classification IV from the regulations.  These small dams that have no impact on anyone but the owners should not be subjected to the expense of a certified engineer.

On behalf of Dewberry & Davis LLC I am writing to provide comments concerning the proposed Virginia Dam Safety Regulations which were published for public comment on August 20, 2007.  I would like to start out by commending the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) for undertaking this effort to revise the dam safety regulations with the goal of improving the safety of Virginia’s dams.  On the whole we believe the proposed regulations are a significant improvement over the current regulations.  The regulatory changes concerning permitting and reporting requirements, emergency action plan development and clarification of terminology are much needed enhancements to the regulations.  In particular, the updated criteria for development of emergency action plans will go a long way towards increasing safety for persons and property located within potential dam break inundation zones.

 

After reviewing the proposed regulations and background information concerning their development, it is clear that one major objective of the new regulations is to remove distinction between existing and proposed dams with regards to meeting prescribed standards, particularly concerning spillway capacity.  It is this objective towards which the following comments are directed.

 

One important aspect of the current (existing) dam safety regulations is recognition that judgment of competent and experienced professional engineers should weigh heavily into dam safety evaluations.  Section 130 of the current (existing) regulations provides consideration for existing dams constructed prior to the enactment of the Virginia Dam Safety Regulations and allows issuance of regular operation and maintenance certificates to dams that may not satisfy current criteria provided that the dam does not pose an unreasonable hazard to life and property.  Sound engineering judgment on the part of competent and experienced professional engineers has been required to make these determinations.  Similarly, Table 1 of the current (existing) regulations states that it was not the intention to establish rigid design flood criteria and “Safety must be evaluated in the light of peculiarities and local conditions for each impounding structure and in recognition of the many factors involved” again requiring the judgment of competent and experienced professional engineers.  Statements to this effect have been conspicuously removed from the proposed regulations.  In the past Dewberry has worked successfully with staff from the Division of Dam Safety on a number of dam safety projects where the experienced judgment of both DCR and Dewberry staff was involved in the evaluation and selection of appropriate design criteria for both existing and proposed dams.  This collaboration has always been considered a critical component of the design process and in our opinion should remain so.

 

We understand and appreciate the notion that in the interest of public safety there should be no distinction between existing or new dams when it comes to design criteria.  While it is difficult to argue against this position from a public safety standpoint, the implication is that funding should not be a factor when it comes to public safety.  However, funding is usually a factor which must be considered alongside risk when making decisions concerning rehabilitation of the nation’s infrastructure.  Upgrading dams to meet current design standards can often be cost prohibitive and in some cases unwarranted if a significant improvement in public safety is not achieved.  It should be recognized that design criteria is subject to change and it is therefore possible for a recently constructed dam, which met all criteria in effect at the time of design, to be found non-compliant with current criteria.  Under the proposed regulations this would automatically result in issuance of a conditional operation and maintenance certificate and the need for the dam owner to plan for potentially expensive upgrades regardless of the level of risk imposed by the deficiency.

 

In conclusion, it is our the opinion that engineering judgment and risk assessment should remain a key element in making determinations concerning the need for dam upgrades and in prioritizing/scheduling dam rehabilitation projects and this principle should not be lost with the adoption of new dam safety regulations.  We therefore encourage the Department of Conservation and Recreation to continue distinguishing between existing and new dams in the regulations and to recognize the need for case by case evaluations of existing dams with respect to meeting current design criteria.  Accordingly, we support further consideration of Alternative 2 as described in the Ad Hoc Dam Safety Study Committee report dated 4-30-05, which outlines an alternative procedure for regulation of existing dams.

On behalf of the City of Manassas I am providing comments concerning the proposed Virginia Dam Safety Regulations which were published for public comment on August 20, 2007.  I would like to first acknowledge the efforts by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to improve Virginia Dam safety by undertaking this effort to revise the dam safety regulations.

 

It is understood that many of the changes that are proposed reflect changes in the industry at both the State and federal level that will better identify the risks inherently associated with dam construction.  The requirements to put into place emergency action plan development and clarification of terminology along with the requirement to perform dam break analysis and notify persons and property located within potential dam break inundation zones are much needed enhancements to the regulations. 

 

The City is concerned primarily on two aspects of the new regulations; first the removal of flexibility of the new regulations in regard to dam classification and, secondly on the implementation strategy of the new regulations.  The current regulations rely on the judgment of competent and experienced professional engineers to evaluate the dam classification in the context of various factors that apply to each dam design, including risk that should weigh heavily into dam safety evaluations.  The revised Table 1 takes this discretionary aspect out of the process which will not allow the flexibility that has been used in the past successfully throughout the Commonwealth.

 

The Second issue in reference to the implementation strategy is concerning from a cost standpoint and does not mirror similar initiatives in other areas of infrastructure improvement.  The State regulates building construction under the Uniform Statewide Building Code USBC which requires an owner to maintain a building in conformance to the Code that existed at the time of permit issuance.  The owner does not have to update to current codes until such time that he performs new work on the structure. This is to protect the owner from costly upgrades every time the Code changes. 

 

Another public example is when roads are reconstructed they have to meet the Code in existence at the time.  Every road can not be updated to new standards every time a new design criteria is placed into effect because this would be cost prohibitive. 

 

It must be recognized that funding is usually a factor which must be considered alongside risk when making decisions concerning rehabilitation of the nation’s infrastructure.  Upgrading dams to meet current design standards can often be cost prohibitive and in some cases unwarranted if a significant improvement in public safety is not achieved. In the case of the City of Manassas T. Nelson Elliot Dam project we are being requested to spend almost $10 million dollars in funds to achieve a full PMF storm design.  This will result in higher water rates for our residents and businesses.   

 

The City would like to see a distinction in the regulations for new dams and existing dams and to see the current regulations stay in place under Section 130 that provides for exemptions for dams that were constructed prior to July 1, 1982 that do not pose an unreasonable hazard to life and property. 

 

In recent meetings with Virginia Department of Conservation Recreation Staff (DCR) it was noted that there are 594 state regulated dams throughout the state.  It is anticipated this list will grow to well over 1,000 with the new regulations that will go into effect this summer.  The City’s Dam is one of only  nineteen (19) Class 1 risk dams in the state whose sole purpose is to operate as a water supply reservoir.  If the dam regulations are not changed to provide relief to the City it is requested that the Board works closely with the Legislature and Governor on a funding strategy to assist localities that are impacted adversely by adhering to the new regulations.

I am in favor of most of these proposed changes - especially Alternative 2. I am NOT, however, in favor of removing Classification IV from the regulations. These small dams, that have no impact on anyone but the owners, should not be subjected to the expense of a certified engineer.

I had the opportunity to attend the public hearing on October 10th at the Henrico County Government Complex.  The public comment presented that evening was quite compelling in regards to personal experiences during the August 1969 flood in Nelson County, Virginia (Hurricane Camille).  That testimony tangibly evidenced the reality of rainfalls approximating probable maximum events and provided a compelling and visceral authenticity to the havoc and destruction that can result from such an event.  Unfortunately, because of the horror and severity of that experience, the speaker draws the conclusion that nothing can be done to lessen the ravages of an extreme storm event. 

 

It is true that in the midst of an event of this magnitude, available latitude for action will be quite limited and the clarity of emergency responders in making spot judgments will be considerably compromised.  However, this merely points to the need for and benefits of planning and preparedness with regards to these events.  The concentrated flood wave from a dam failure would be additive to the already extreme flood conditions that would prevail.  Dam failures can indeed worsen the consequences of extreme flood events.  Where the failure of an impounding structure due to inadequate spillway capacity can be shown to significantly increase the severity and/or extent of flood impacts, the provision of sufficient spillway capacity for passing a probable maximum flood will ultimately prevent injuries and the loss of additional lives, and prevent significant additional damages to property.  If the extent of additional flooding resulting from a dam failure can be shown to be small for extreme flood events, then the Department has provided a process whereby lesser spillway flood passage criteria can be applied (proposed incremental damage assessment: 4VAC50-20-52). 

 

With regard to emergency response, the speaker implied that, in the face of such extreme events, preparedness activities are of little to no value.  Preparedness is a sacred foundation principle for the military, for police, for fire fighters and for emergency responders of all types.  The presence of an emergency response document, together with a commitment to undertaking drills and exercises, is not sufficient to prevent or mitigate disaster.  However, preparedness in knowing available options and opportunities in advance and having simulated extreme events will, by definition, make critical knowledge more readily available, enhance communications, define action plans to be implemented in the absence of available communications, and improve decision making and decision support under stressful, rapid-response conditions.  Prepared owners and responders do indeed derive purposeful benefits, even under extreme circumstances.

 

October 17, 2007

 

RE: 4 VAC 50-20- Impounding Structure Regulations

Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board

Department of Conservation and Recreation

 

The Headwaters Soil and Water Conservation District (HSWCD) would like to submit the following comments on the proposed Impounding Structure Regulations (4 VAC 50-20). 

 

4VAC50-20-30 Definitions:  We believe the regulations need to have the definition of the term “alteration” modified to exclude normal maintenance or other minor activities. 

 

4VAC50-20-54 Dam Break Inundation Zone Mapping: The proposed requirement for dam break inundation zone mapping is expected to cost the district $131,336 using the estimated per dam cost in the economic analysis.  Conservation Districts are subdivisions of state government and have no revenue powers to raise funds.  We question our ability to comply with this.   The HSWCD acknowledges that the proposed regulations have the potential to improve public safety.  However, we hope that those in the General Assembly who vote for these regulatory changes will also appropriate the necessary funding for Conservation Districts to comply. 

 

4VAC50-20-80 Alterations Permits, paragraph A: “Conducting necessary repairs” implies that a permit is needed for even minor repairs.  This has the potential to require a permit for even simple maintenance such as filling groundhog holes and removing brush.  Clarification should be made so that the wording does not include normal maintenance items. 

 

4VAC50-20-105 Regular Operation and Maintenance Certificates, paragraph B: 

In all places where “owner” is used, the wording should be changed to read the owner or owner’s certifying engineer shall ….etc.  

 

4VAC50 -20-175 Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for High and Significant Hazard Potential Dams, paragraph E:

Headwaters SWCD acknowledges the benefit of drills and table top exercises for emergency planning.  However, to conduct a drill each year for eleven (11) dams will strain the resources to the breaking point of not only the district but each of the paid and volunteer fire and rescue organizations that would need to participate annually.   The three year requirement for table top exercises, while less often, will still tax the resources of all participating.   We suggest that a table top exercise be conducted once per permit duration (no more than once every two years for conditional and once every six years for regular permits).   We also suggest that only one drill per permit duration be required (no more than once every two years for conditional and once every six years for regular permits). We further believe that one drill dealing with the emergency personnel should, meet the requirement for all the dams in that department’s response area.  In our situation a drill per dam means five drills for just one fire department and will lead to the “cry-wolf-syndrome”.

 

4VAC50-20-175 Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for High and Significant Hazard Potential Dams, paragraph F:

The existing monitoring and warning equipment in our district is part of the National Weather Service Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System (IFLOWS).  The maintenance is handled by the Virginia Department of Emergency Services.  They have decided to reduce their testing from twice a year to once a year.  The actual ownership of the IFLOWS has not been determined.   The HSWCD questions how this regulation can hold it responsible for testing of equipment owned and serviced by a different agency.    The cost of testing an IFLOWS because of the long transducer cable exceeds that of the normal stream gauge and is estimated at $500-$750 per test or $1,000 -$1,500 per year per dam gauge if required.

 

4VAC50-20-180 Inspections, paragraph D:

The term “damage” is open to considerable interpretation and should be further defined to exclude minor erosion that can be fixed and seeded immediately without powered equipment. 

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Horn, Chairman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, I believe that the proposed regulations are an improvement over the existing regulations.  Below are some specific areas where I believe additional revision may be warranted:

 

1.         The term “planned land-use” is used several places in the regulations.  Is this intended to be total build out condition in accordance with a valid comprehensive plan-  Could this term be defined?

 

2.         4 VAC 50 – 20-54, B – Extending inundation mapping to a point downstream where the WSEL of the SDF with a failure is within 1-foot of the WSEL of the SDF without a failure appears excessive.  Extending the mapping to a point where the two conditions converge to within 2 to 3 feet should be adequate for the extreme events that are being considered (PMF to 100-year).

 

3.         4 VAC 50 – 20-54, B – Is it the intent of the regulations to require mapping to include profiles and cross sections in addition to the plan of the inundation mapping-  If so, what is the purpose of providing profiles and cross sections on the inundation mapping?  The modeling input data will include profile and cross section information, but the inundation mapping should not be required to include cross sections and profiles.

 

4.         4 VAC 50 – 20 – 40, C – Requires a dam break analysis by an engineer to support the appropriate hazard category, yet 4 VAC 50 – 20 – 54, E states that low hazard potential impounding structures do not require an engineer to prepare the inundation mapping.  This appears to be a contradiction as the evaluation to support a dam category of “low hazard” must be supported by a dam break analysis that includes the downstream inundation areas.  A professional engineer should be required for all inundation mapping, irregardless of the dam category. 

 

5.         4 VAC 50 – 20-54, F.2. -        States that a note must be placed on all maps that includes the statement “Mapping of flooded areas and flood wave travel times are approximate.  Timing and extent of actual inundation may differ from information presented on this map.”  This is the only place in the regulations that mentions flood wave travel time on inundation mapping.  The regulations need more direction as to what is desired and required for flood wave travel time on the inundation mapping.

 

6.         The economic impact statement asserts that the cost for inundation mapping is anticipated to average $16,417 each.  This is too low to prepare the level of detail that appears to be required by the regulations. 

• The inundation mapping must extend until the increase in WSEL during the SDF with a failure is less than 1-foot greater than the WSEL of a SDF without a failure.  This requirement will require long reaches to be mapped.
• Detailed survey is required, but the regulations do not specify what constitutes a detailed survey.  Does the survey effort required for inundation mapping need to meet the FEMA requirements for Flood Insurance Study mapping-
• Each structure located within or near the inundation zone will need to be located and its FFE shot.
• The cost to prepare the inundation mapping must reflect the time and care that must be taken in their preparation due to their critical use in emergency situations.

7.         The regulations do not provide any guidance as to the study survey requirements.  Inundation mapping is similar to the FEMA FIS studies.  Should FEMA survey requirements for FIS mapping development be required?

 

8.          4 VAC 50 – 20 – 175, G.7 – Dam owners are not equipped for rapid notification of downstream residents in the event of an emergency.  This notification is usually performed by the locality’s EMS.  What will the Emergency Action Plan process be if the locality refuses to sign the plan accepting any responsibility for notification?

 

9.         A lot of problems with inadequate operation and maintenance of dams in the past has occurred due to lack of financial resources on the part of dam owners.  Has any consideration been made to require prospective new dam owners to show adequate financial ability and commitment (similar to that required by sanitary landfill owners) to properly operate and maintain a dam after construction; prior to issuing a permit to construct?

 Capacity should be determined by inflow hydrographs

 

The computation of an inflow hydrograph is a function of the watershed characteristics, while an outflow hydrograph is both function of inflow and dam design, including reservoir characteristics, dam height, spillway characteristics, and gate(s) operating procedures. The setting of SDF design based on the outcome of that design is circular logic.

 

The owner’s engineer must develop PMF hydrographs for 6-, 12-, and 24-hour durations. The hydrograph that creates the largest peak outflow inflow is to be

used to determine capacity for nonfailure and failure analysis.

 

 

<-xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Virginia Department of Conservation

And Recreation

203 Governor Street

Suite 302

Richmond, Va. 23219

<-xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Re: Proposed Impounding Structure Regulations

 

 

The Department of Public Works has reviewed the draft changes to the Impounding

Structure Regulations and offers the following comments.

 

The proposed changes place a considerable burden on current owners of dams to

upgrade their facilities. While there is provision for owners with facilities 

operating under current operation and maintenance certificates there does not appear to be provision for owners of facilities not currently in compliance.

 

It is understood that facilities not yet regulated but which exceed the threshold

for regulation must first apply for a conditional operation and maintenance certificate.

The timeline for the conditional operation and maintenance certificate is for a maximum

term of two years.

Section 4VAC50-20-155 states that the Board may extend a Conditional Permit provided that the owner is proceeding with the necessary corrective actions. There does not appear to be any maximum length of time that extensions may be granted. In light of the extensive costs involved in upgrading some facilities to meet the new standards is it not reasonable to state that owners making progress toward correcting deficiencies may request an extension of the current conditional certificate on one year increments. The total number of extensions not to exceed the time allowed owners holding current operation and maintenance certificates

to comply with the new standards based on the hazard potential classification.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

 

Edward L. Priestas, P.E.

Director of Public Works

Henrico County, Virginia

 

On behalf of the Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA), we offer the following comments on DCR's proposed impounding structure regulations, 4 VAC 50-20-20 et seq.  VMA has not been directly involved in this rulemaking proceeding, has not been invited to participate in the development process, and has received no information to suggest that captive industrial waste impoundments will be subject to the proposed regulations.  However, the definition of "impounding structure" could be interpreted to encompass such impoundments ("used to retain or store waters or other materials").  We do not believe that such an interpretation would be appropriate, and we ask that DCR clarify in the final regulations that captive industrial waste impoundments are not covered.  Alternatively, if DCR intends for them to be covered, we respectfully request an opportunity to meet with DCR to better understand DCR's applicability determination and discuss how DCR's regulations will conform with those administered by DEQ for waste impoundments.  Based on the different ages, uses and design features of captive industrial waste impoundments across the Commonwealth, we do not believe that a one-size-fits-all regulatory program would be appropriate; instead, technical requirements would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  
 
We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and we look forward to receiving your response.  Please feel free to contact me at 804-787-8086 or bsmith@hunton.com with questions or for more information.  
 
Sincerely,
Brooks Smith
Counsel to the VMA Water Subcommittee

I recommend that wherever possible specific technical criteria be removed from the regulations and placed in guidance documents.  One reason for this is that once specific technical criteria becomes part of a regulation, the ability to amend or possibly even “correct” the criteria, based on newer or more technically accurate information, becomes difficult to accomplish in a timely fashion.  For example, it is recommended that the threshold criteria related to incremental damage analysis (IDA) be placed in a guidance document providing detailed technical IDA procedures rather than appearing in the regulations.  One good example of this approach is the guidance document for performing incremental damage analysis found in the “Ohio Critical Flood Guidelines” at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/dsafety/critfld/tabid/3325/Default.aspx.  The threshold criteria and technical guidance provided in this document are clearly presented and in keeping with industry standards and I recommend that something similar be considered for Virginia.

 

Whether or not the IDA threshold criteria presented in section 4VAC50-20-52C is removed from the proposed regulations, the thresholds should relate to the incremental increase in water surface elevation and velocity associated with the non-failure and failure scenarios for a particular design storm, which is in keeping with the IDA guidelines presented in both the “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, FEMA 94” and the “Ohio Critical Flood Guidelines”.  The current wording in the proposed regulations does not clearly refer to the incremental increase in flood depth or velocity.

 

Similarly it is recommended that specific technical criteria related to development of spillway design floods (SDF), such as the required storm durations proposed in section 4VAC50-20-50D, be removed from the regulations and placed in a guidance document concerning SDF development.

 

It is my opinion that the regulation of large or high risk impoundments focuses too much on dealing with PMF induced impacts at the expense of addressing preventative measures for the so called "sunny day breach".   As one whose family and friends live in an inundation zone I am more concerned about the sudden breach than what would happen as a result of a PMF event.  The meteorological event triggering a PMF will provide warning that, coupled with a emergency notification system, will likely give me time to move to higher ground before all avenues of travel are flooded.  One should remember that most modes of transportation have storm systems designed for 10 to 100 yr events at best. 

It is my opinion that dams whose sudden failure would cause loss of life should be closely monitored for changes in piezometric surface within the dam or indication of sediment bearing leakage that would indicate piping/erosion within the dam.  The ability of a impoundment to withstand runoff from a PMF provides no assurance against a sunny day collapse.  I believe that owners of high or significant risk class impoundments not only have the ability and financial resources provide monitoring, but an obligation to their neighbors in the inundation zone to provide a means to detect possible sudden failure and prevent that failure by having the ability to lower the impoundment level until repairs are made to the structure.

It is respectively suggested that monitoring of high & significant risk impoundments be expanded to include active monitoring within the structure, an emergency response plan if a problem is detected, and require a means to lower the level of the impoundment until the structure is further evaluated and repaired.

Taxation, fees additional regulations, all under the rouse of public safety. However, where and when does it end. Why not help Virginians bring the existing dams into compliance before imposing additional burdens on the back of the Commonwealths tax and fee payers! This is just absolutely rediculous and flat out wroung!!!!! Our Countrys highway system does not even have to meet your proposed standards! In the name and memory of Washington, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry please do the right thing!

1) 4VAC50-20-52: Incremental Damage Assessment – As written this appears to be only permitted under certain conditions.  What if maint. is needed and there is no possibility of additional downstream development (dam located in the National Forest) and there is an economic value in not designing to the full SDF?  Can a maintenance or spillway expansion project be proposed for a reduced SDF under these circumstances?  As written this appears to only apply to existing dams that do not need any maintenance – eventually, all dams will be required to perform some maint. at which time it appears they would have expand to the SDF without exception.

 

2) 4VAC50-20-52 and 4VAC50-20-52:  There are references in each of these sections related to water depths where the limits are 1 to 2 ft and velocities within 3 ft/s.  With the level of accuracy associated with some mapping sources and the modeling software, these tolerances may be very difficult to meet with confidence.

 

3) 4VAC50-20-175:  What is expected from the remote sensing equipment tests?  If the equipment is maintained by contract under IFLOWS, is this sufficient?

 

4) 4VAC50-20-175: Keeping track of every individual owner, lessee, etc... takes a significant, continuous effort.  Using reverse 911 systems would be preferred.  The use of cell phones is making efforts more difficult for any process employed.

 

5) 4VAC50-20-175: The owner is made fully responsible for development of the EAP.  Will there be feedback from the Department on whether it is deemed to be sufficient?

 

6) 4VAC50-20-320:  In the past I have had difficulty locating applicable references from the sources listed – this included consultation with Department of Conservation and recreation staff.  Are there specific titles (examples that are representative or basic texts referred to by Dept. of Conservation and Rec. staff) that can be provided by the Department that would assist with locating and identifying appropriate source materials similar to what is done in 4VAC50-20-330?

 

7) 4VAC50-20-175: Have all state and local officials been made aware of the frequency of meeting associated with this regulatory requirement and can owners expect full cooperation?  The number of meetings (when looking at all dams in a locality) could cause a significant strain on staffing at both the state and local level (something of which the owner has no control) creating a potential violation condition for dam owners.

 

8) Better Define: “Economic Impact”, "Planned Land Use"

 

(wmonroe@co.augusta.va.us)