RSS

Daily Archives: July 8, 2009

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg Part 2

Beginning on page 3 of pdf created from the document received from DCR addressed in Part 1 of this series (Department of Conservation and Recreation) is the “LOCAL ESC PROGRAM REVIEW CHECKLIST”. Four different program areas are evaluated: Administration, Plan Review, Inspection & Enforcement.

Let me make it clear at the onset that this checklist includes a combination of things that are Minimally required, Recommended practices, or deal with ‘optional items’ where the criteria MUST be met if these ‘optional items’ are utilized by the Town.

In Part I: Administration the Town’s performance looks pretty good until you get to page 6 where the NO’s start coming in or what appear to be recommended steps:

  • Plan review/land disturbance fees are enough to enable local ESC program to be fully self-sufficient
  • Locality has developed an ESC plan/Permit application package that includes a standard application form and user-friendly instructions for conducting land-disturbing activities.
  • Project start and finish.

These results rather lead one to the impressions:

  • That taxpayer money is having to be used to support the costs of the ESC (Erosion and Sediment Control) rather than having the person doing the land disturbing cover that cost.
  • That without a standard application form and user-friendly instructions it is possible for ‘arbitrary and capricious’ behaviors to be perceived even if not true and that misunderstandings could occur between the person completing the application and the town.
  • That the failure to include start and finish dates of projects could potentially leave projects “in development” or hanging around for decades.

Ultimately, this speaks to the issue of what happens when the focus is only on meeting MINIMUM requirements of State Code. The reason for establishing MINIMUM requirements is because there is such diversity in topography, soil types, and absorption rates, this leaves jurisdictions with the flexibility to ADD to these minimum standards in a way that best serves its citizens. It is not a law saying that ONLY those minimum standards must be met. It is a starting place, common ground, from which the Town should be building its ordinances to protect citizens and the environment.

In Part II: Plan Review there were also a few NO’s.

  • Maintenance agreements for permanent facilities are required for plan approval.
  • Plan preparers and plan reviewers use the minimum standard and plan review checklists and the checklists are maintained in the project file.
  • When plan review is provided by s SWCD or other outside source, the plan reviewer meets with the inspector(s) prior to commencement of land disturbing activity.
  • Lot by lot grading plans are required for plan approval of subdivision projects.

Again, this section speaks primarily to how the Town of Christiansburg prefers to meet the minimum standards. All of the NO’s above were related to recommended items. The Maintenance of permanent facilities for stormwater management is a requirement. Now whether it is done by the Town, agreed to by the developer, or falls upon the shoulders of the property owner is not clearly defined at the early stages of the process and could become a ‘bone of contention’ later on. The Lot by Lot grading plans would insure that criteria are met for each indivudal lot, thus preventing issues arising in the future where grading on one lot could have a negative affect on another lot if the parcel is taken as a whole.

In Part III: Inspection, there were some NO’s and some of these are required. The required articles are denoted by bold print.

  • Inspections are conducted during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls.
  • Inspection frequency satisfies the requirement
  • Inspection documentation includes deadlines for correcting violations and notes on verbal or written communication with responsible party.
  • ECS measures are repaired and maintained
  • Sites visited during the program review process are consistent with the applicable VESCR Minimum Standards
  • The responsible party is required to submit monitoring reports to the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority.
  • As-built documentation is required for all permanent SWM facilities installed to meet Minimum Standard 19.

This is a highly relevant component of the entire process. The Town Council can vote on and pass ordinances all day long such as the erosion & sediment control ordinance discussed here. But! Exactly what use is an ordinance if it is not followed up on by inspections? These inspections are a crucial component in making sure that things are being done correctly and that future problems can be averted (the state code even allows for modification of plans should problems arise during the process. All the Plans and Enforcement in the world are wasted (including taxpayer money to support those activities) if the necessary inspections are not being done!

In Part IV: Enforcement there were only two (2) NO’s and both were recommended rather than required.

  • Locality has disseminated an enforcement policy to the development community.
  • Locality has developed a schedule of civil charges/administrative fines.

Beginning on page 10 and continuing through page 34 you can find the reviews of specific land disturbing sites. However, on page 35 is the Local Program Overall Rating which shows why the Corrective Action Agreement was warranted (a minimum of 70 points is required):

Available
Points
Earned
Points
Program Area
100 98 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
100 85 PLAN REVIEW
100 55 INSPECTION
100 80 ENFORCEMENT

This one sure doesn’t take a brain surgeon or an engineer to figure it out. It is a simple 4 step process. Only in this case, one of the steps is inadequate. The scenario is not unlike sitting in a chair with one broken leg. So long as you maintain perfect balance and don’t move, you’ll be just fine as long as your muscles hold out. Sooner or later though, you’re going to get tired, a muscle will spasm…and BAM! You’re gonna hit the floor.

I’m still wondering if any of the Town Council members were aware of this report. I know that some were not until Tuesday night.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 8, 2009 in Environment, FOIA, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Erosion & Sediment Control Corrective Action Required in Christiansburg

I recently requested a document from Department of Conservation and Recreation. This request was based on a comment made by the Christiansburg Town Manager to Town Council at a public meeting, the Town Council Meeting of December 16, 2008 (written minutes). This statement was to advise Town Council that the Erosion & Sediment Stormwater Ordinance for the Town of Christiansburg (Chapter 10 of the Town Code) (or audio at the 45 minute mark) needed to be modified slightly because there were changes in definitions of the State Code and a few minor changes in design. The Town Council voted to accept this ‘document’. Only one problem, the document didn’t exist. Or at least when I asked for a copy I was told that it hadn’t been written yet. (The updated version of Chapter 10 of the Town Code is now available at the town website (see link above). If it had and if the Town Council members had read it, they would have found that there were a lot of changes and they were significant, not minor. Of particular note was increased enforcement, increased fines for violators, and higher standards in erosion & sediment/stormwater control measures.

Since that time, I did a review of Town Council Meeting Minutes, the Town Code, the State Code, and just about everything else I could find. I did line by line comparisons of the Town Code with the State Code and the various DCR documents that establish guidelines and criteria.

DCR did a program review for the Town of Christiansburg. The specific dates of that review were October 21 and 22 of 2008. Someone within the Town of Christiansburg received a Corrective Action Statement from DCR based on the results of that study. It mandated that the Town of Christiansburg woul sign the Corrective Action Agreement no later than April 18, 2009 and that a written report on progress would be provided to DCR no later than June 17, 2009. It also mandated that the corrective actions would be completed no later than September 15, 2009.

I will be reporting on several aspects of this report but, for now, I want to focus only on the Corrective Actions. Take a look at these and see if it really looks like a few minor changes based upon definitions were needed, or if there are/have been greater issues with the Town’s approach to Stormwater management. It is important to realize that once property is rezoned, the Town Council is effectively out of the picture and totally dependent upon the actions of the Town Manager to insure that the health, safety, and well-being of citizens is maintained. The Codes of the Town of Christiansburg give virtually exclusive rights to the Town Manager to enforce criteria, make waivers, accept less than minimum standards, etc.

The program component that is noted for corrective action is “INSPECTION” and 4 specific items were noted.

  1. Inspections shall be conducted during or immediately following initial installation of E&S controls per 4VAC50-30-60B.
  2. Inspections shall be conducted at the required frequency per 4VAC50-30-60B.
  3. Erosion and Sediment control measures shall be repaired and maintained per 4VAC50-30-60A and Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 1992. (VESCH).
  4. Inspections shall ensure that sites are consistent with the applicable Minimum standards (4VAC50-30-40).

Of course I’m not a professional, but this looks like someone is saying that Inspections for Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Management were not be done in compliance with State Codes and that the Town of Christiansburg has been directed to correct these ‘errors/ommissions’.

Note that this document was signed by the Town Manager on 4/3/09 (the document from DCR is dated 3/19/09). There are a total of 35 pages in this document. This is the first page. Additional pages provide more specific information concerning the reviews performed and areas that were scored.

More on the information found on these additional pages tomorrow.

EmailFacebookGoogle BookmarksGoogle+LinkedInShare
 
Comments Off

Posted by on July 8, 2009 in Citizen Participation, Environment, Land Use

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,