This has just passed the House and as with the Health Care bill, has been defanged there (although maybe not as badly as the Health Care bill). Now, it is up to the Senate.

The Richmond Sunlight’s Bill Tracking page for this bill shows two versions. The original and the eviscerated version that will proceed. The original bill is HB619 and the version as modified and passed by the House is HB619E. The Richmond Sunlight’s information on the right side of the page explains how to find the changes (they are either highlighted {shown as underlined below} if something is added,or have a line through them if something is deleted

The original change draws a clear line that identifies the first fine ($100) and each additional fine ($1000). The new, upgraded version allows for the locality to pick a figure between $100 & $1000 on each and every violation (each day constitutes a different violation). On the surface this may seem better, however, there is a lot of room for a ‘hitch in the get-a-long’ of this UNLESS this is (1) incorporated into the jurisdictions ordinance and (2) is applied in the same way to each and every violator.

If the violator is a simple citizen clearing an area of his/her backyard for a garage or shed, as opposed to a big development, I can see where you may want some latitude. This new version makes it easy for local government to make an uneven playing field by treating ‘friends’ or ‘family’ or ‘good old boys/girls’ differently from other people when the overall situations may be exactly the same. But, hey! We all know that kind of stuff doesn’t happen, right? There is no way any local jurisdiction in Virginia would slap a civil fine of $100 on someone who is a friend of one of the Supervisors/Council members and a $1000 fine on someone else that someone didn’t like or was new to the area, etc. We all know that codes are fairly and equally applied in the area of enforcement. I can see where this could get interesting.

Take the time to go to the Richmond Sunlight site and look at the changes between those two bill (just click on the View Full Text link). Take time to vote on what you think while you’re there. If you have feelings about this, either pro or con, now is the time to start contacting your State Senator and let him/her know what you think and what you would like to see happen. I would prefer that the fee be based upon the amount of surface area involved so that those doing the most damage will pay the highest fees. I would also like to see that the money collected for this would be mandated to be used for restoration efforts. But…that’s just my opinion.

Wonder what, if anything, the Town of Christiansburg will do with this if it passes at the State level.

I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused customers, but the Historic Structure has to have priority. The floors are American Chestnut which as most of you know is extinct, so there is NO replacing it. Drying out those floors has been a very slow process to insure there was no warping or other damage. Except for a bit more painting that needs to be done, the store is about ready. Our inventory is a bit low because we were unable to verify that there were no hazardous chemical or sewage in the stormwater so anything that got possibly damp… got gone! The safety, health, and well being of you and your families is and always will be our primary goal within the store.  We hope to start with hours from 10:00AM to 5:00PM Wednesday through Saturday and 1:00PM to 5:00PM on Sundays starting July 29th, Wednesday.

After being closed for over two months trying to repair damage to the Depot from the stormwater flooding that occurred (by the way, the stormwater drain by the other train station is still funneling a ton of water directly into the floodplain. (A short video is available but it may be a bit slow to load right now.) That water comes off of all the area above the Main Street intersection. During a good rain, it creates a kinda kewl waterfall, unless, of course, you have to be out in that rain trying to keep more flooding from happening. That should be a heads up to all of you who live in that area. Whatever you put in your yard or in the ditch ends up coming through that pipe under the road and dumping on to the ground then goes directly into the Creek. That means, what you dump you (or someone else) drinks. What you dump affects aquatic life and the nearby plants and animals relying on that Creek to stay alive.

It also means that a lot more sedimentation is going into the Creek. When that settles out, you will find the water level slowly increasing and more flooding is likely. If you can remember a time when the water didn’t come over the bank nearly as much, this process is a likely culprit. Try filling a glass of water to the brim, then toss in a couple of tablespoons of dirt and what happens. Be sure you have a towel handy or do it on a surface that you don’t mind getting wet though!

Then you really, really have to wonder about the number of sewage issues and how much of that ended up going into the stormwater. That adds the potential for a lot of nasty bacteria and such ending up in the water supply. Thus far, we are still fighting against future flooding in Cambria.

Before you start saying, well it’s in a floodplain so it is suppose to flood, remember that it has been in that floodplain for decades without any flooding. The problems did not start until the town raised the road level again (now a total of 18″ in 20 years), installed that crazy concrete ‘dam’ in the middle of the road, installed a drainage – sidewalk system that looks nice but is totally dysfunctional, and started allowing a lot of development in the surround area without enforcing the town’s codes (and state laws) concerning stormwater and erosion/sediment control.

Remember that glass of water experiment I spoke of earlier? In the real world that dirt is picked up and carried by water going to stormdrains. Some of that sediment settles out in those basis designed to collect and channel stormwater flow. As time goes by, layers of sediment build up and the result is that the catch basins cannot hold as much water. That is why people saw the Town’s trucks out in Cambria at 6AM on the morning of the 15th. They were trying to pump out the sediment that had built up, preventing the system from draining effectively. The fact that that is a fairly new system shows that there is a significant problem with either the amount of sediment going into the drains or that town staff have not been given the latitude to do the type of monitoring and maintenance required to make sure these types of situations do not occur. Preventative maintenance is much less expensive than dealing with the affects of doing nothing.

By the way, there are those who are reporting that they have been assured by one council member that their problems will be taken care of by the Town. Cambria Emporium and Cambria Depot, two of the buildings in Town listed in the Federal Registry of Historic Places have not been provided such assurances from anyone in the Town. We do however, have new painting for parking and crosswalk which is appreciated as it adds to customer and tourist safety. I just hope the paint surface used can be seen from several inches under muddy water.

By the way, in any situation where you have reported these types of erosion and sediment control issues, notify the Town first. You do not have to accept being ignored as many have complained to me has been done to them. If the Town does not deal with the problem, your next course of action is to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation for help.

The link above takes you to the entrance of the full website (which contains a lot of other information) and there are links across the top to click on to go to specific areas. The link labeled **Video of Meetings” will take you to a page with all of the recordings that are currently available. (Some of the older ones have been removed to save space on the server but are available, just let me know what you need).

One of the patterns you will notice can be found in the responses of the Mayor: “Let’s wait and see.” Last night he provided a new variation on that theme: “Let’s wait and monitor” or “Let’s wait and watch”. (Based upon a review of the historical minutes, this translates into Let’s do anything we can to pretend we’re doing something until the issue goes away!)

I am starting a list of such statements that appear to be designed to take action by not taking action. This type of attitude has cost the Town a lot…and I am sure will cost the Town a great deal more as times progresses. This is an awful lot like putting a band-aid on a cut without cleaning it and applying antibiotic first. It looks good on the surface, but it can lead to some serious problems later. You can’t hide issues forever. At some point, you have to take charge, show some leadership and start dealing with the issue. (Since this specific issue realted to stormwater, erosion & sediment control, it is nteresting that the Town of Christiansburg is under a Corrective Action by DCR for failure to document inspections related to erosion/sediment control and stormwater.)

Watch the video and you will see some good examples of where those leadership qualities were exhibited by Michael Barber, Ann Carter, Henry Showalter, and Jim VanHoozier. Leadership means being outfront, making decisions, and getting things done. IT DOES NOT MEAN LET’S WAIT AND SEE! Rather than Waiting to See, why not come up with a solution. If a solution is not currently present, then set up some specific critera where followup reviews are done on a regular basis until such time as the issue is resolved. Mr. Mayor, it is time to take some positive action rather than negative inaction!

It is a crying shame that one of our older citizens cannot enjoy her property in her retirement years. People build homes with yards with a reasonable expectation that the property can be used as they wish. Who knows maybe you or one of your family members will be the next person to have such a problem.

Despite the issues noted, page 31 of the pdf document (DCR report./Corrective Action) gives a Local ESC Program Rating that reports the following. While not a perfect score, it clearly shows those areas where opportunities exist for the Town of Christiansburg to improve its performance when it comes to the management of Erosion & Sediment and Stormwater.

CERTIFIED PERSONNEL (Scored 45 of 45 possible points):

1. Locality has a Certified Program Administrator
2. Plans are reviewed by a Certified Plan Reviewer
3. Inspections are conducted by a Certified Inspector

ESC Ordinance (Scored 45 of 45 possible points):

1. All required items are present and correct and all optional items are included.

General Program Administration (Scored 8 out of 10 possible points)

1. 2 points for Locality charges plan review/land disturbance permit fees.
2. 2 points for Locality requires pre-construction conference.
3. 0 points for Locality has developed an ESC application package, including standard forms and instructions
4. 2 points for Locality uses a database or attaches a standard tracking/summary sheet to the project folder
5. 2 points for Locality organizes ESC documents by project.

Plan Reviews (Scored 85 out of 100 possible points)

1. 20 of 20 points: Prior to commencement of land disturbing activity, an approved plan or agreement-in-lieu-of-plan is required for all projects.
2. 5 of 5 points: Where there is a plan or agreement in lieu of plan, designation of a Responsible land Disturber or individual holding a certificate of competence is required prior to commencement of land distrubing activity (UNLESS APPROPRIATELY WAIVED)
3. 5 of 5 points: Plans are reviewed within 45 days of receipt.
4. 5 of 5 points: The plan reviewer states in writing the reasons for disapproval and specifies the needed modifications for approval.
5. 20 of 30 points: 70% of reviewed plans meet the applicable Minimum Standards (should have been 100%)
6. 10 of 15 points: 70% of reviewed plans comply with VESCH guidelines (should have been 100%)
7. 5 of 5 points: Maintenance responsibilities for ESC measures are included in the approved plan
8. 5 of 5 points: Locality maintains a copy of approved plan or agreement in lieu of plan and associated documentation until final stabilization
9. 5 of 5: Variances are requested and responded to in writing
10. 5 of 5: Other considerations: Locality implements two of the items listed below:
    1. No. maintenance agreements for permanent facilities are required for plan approval.
    2. No. Plan preparers and plan reviewers use the minimum standard and plan review checklists and the checklists are maintained in the project file.
    3. YES. Opportunity for inspector review and recommendation is incorporated into the plan review process.
    4. No. When plan review is provided by a SWCD or other outside source, the plan reviewer meets with the inspector(s) prior to commencement of land disturbing activity.
    5. No. Lot by lot grading plans are required for plan approval of subdivision projects.
    6. Yes. All plans are stamped and dated upon approval

Inspections (55 of 100 possible points earned)

1. 5 of 15 poinst for: inspections are conducted during or immediately following initial installation of erosion and sediment controls. Based upon: For at least 50% (but no more than 69%) of reviewed projects, inspections occurred during or immediately following installation
2. 0 of 20 points: Inspection frequency satisfies the requirement of 4VAC50-30-60. Based upon: Inspection frequency averages greater than once in every four week period or the locality has not fully implemented it’s Board approved Alternative Inspection Program.
3. 15 of 20 points: Inspection documentation meets program requirements. Based upon: documentation includes project name, inspection date, violations, changes that are required, and notes on verbal or written communications with responsible party. (Note: the missing component that would have given them all 20 points was – deadlines for correcting violations.)
4. 20 of 30 points: Visited sites meet the VESCR Minimum Standards. Based upon: Each visited site meets all but two of the applicable Minimum Standards (Note: If this had been three instead of two, the score earned would have been zero.)
5. 10 of 10 points: Inspections were conducted at the completion of a project and prior to release of any performance bond. Based upon: At least 70% of the sites were inspected at project completion.
6. 5 of 5 points: Inspection Management. Based upon: Locality implements two or more of the items listed below:
   1. Yes: Procedure in place to coordinate plan changes resulting from inspection activities with the plan approval authority.
   2. NO: The responsible party is required to submit monitoring reports to the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority.
   3. Yes: When variances are requested during land disturbance they are responded to in writing.
   4. Yes: A pre-construction meeting is held on all sites requiring a plan.
   5. Yes. Duplicated copies of inspection reports are left on-site with the responsible party.
   6. NO: As-built documentation is required for all permanent SWM facilities installed to meet Minimum Standard 19.

Enforcement (80 of 100 possible points)

1. 20 of 30 points: When violations noted on written inspection reports remain during subsequent inspection(s), Notices to Comply (or equivalent action) are issued. Based upon: Where violations remained, NTC were issued 70% of the time.
2. 10 of 10 points: Notices to Comply (or equivalent action) contain specific measures that need to be taken and specify deadlines for completion. Based upon: Yes or inspection documents and site visits indicate enforcement was not necessary.
3. 10 of 10 points: Advanced enforcement such as Stop Work Orders (or equivalent action) contain specific measures that need to be taken and specify deadlines for completion. Based upon: Yes or inspection documentation and site visits indicate enforcement was not necessary.
4. 30 of 30 points: Advanced enforcement such as Stop Work orders (or equivalent action) were issued when appropriate. Based upon: Advanced enforcement was issued 100% of the time or inspection documentation and site visits indicate advanced enforcement was not necessary.
5. (4 individual components worth 5 points each for a total of 20 points: 10 of 20 points earned.)
   1. 5 of 5 points: Locality has developed or utilized standard enforcement documents
   2. 0 of 5 points: Locality has disseminated an enforcement policy to the development community.
   3. 0 of 5 points: Locality has developed a schedule of civil charges/administrative fines.
   4. 5 of 5 points: Bond revocation, civil penalties, criminal penalties, etc. are used to secure compliance.

Well, that’s it for my review of the DCR Audit and Corrective Action. Hope you have learned as much as I have. It will be interesting to see what actions the Town has taken to correct these issues. Come to Town Council meetings and bring your questions with you. It is your property, your town, and your government.

I feel this shows that NOT ALL SITES ARE TREATED EQUALLY! Pay close attention to the Aquatic Center where some of our own town staff are helping with the work. I hope that better care of that facility is taken in the future than it is during these phases. And, to be so very, very close to a creek that runs into Crab Creek where there are already problems with sedimentation….good grief. Guess my mom was right again: “Judge a peson by what he does, not by what he says he will do.”

Now…to the site visit reports:

• AEP Tech Drive Station
  • Perfect score!
  • Comments: Road cut to be seeded 10/23/08. Road has good CRS application
• Christiansburg Aquatic Center (A few NO’s here)
  • Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
  • Sec. 1: Seeded?
  • Sec. 1: Mulched?
  • Sec. 6: Are sediment traps or basins installed where indicated on the plans?
  • Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
  • Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
  • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
  • Comments: Drainage channel lacking geotextile lining at arch culvert. Numerous slopes eroding due to inadequate vegetative stabilization. Silt fence & inlet protection failing in numerous areas. No sediment traps present.
• Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO’s:
  • Sec 3: Does permanent vegetation provide adequate stabilization?
  • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
  • Sec. 18: Have all temporary control structures that are no longer needed been removed?
  • Comments: SWM Basin missing outlet protection to receiving channel. Outlet protection into basin not sized properly. Basin requires additional seeding for adequate vegetative cover. Old silt fence has not been removed.
• Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision NO’s:
  • Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
  • Sec. 1: Seeded?
  • Sec. 1: Mulched?
  • Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
  • Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
  • Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
  • Comment: Basin Outfall receiving channel not propertly shaped. Outlet protection of sediment basin undersized. Roadway requires CRS application. Inlet protection failing on some inlets.
• AGILOP Lot 108 Wind Mill Hills Subdivision NO’s:
  • Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
  • Comment: Silt fence not entrenched.
• AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision NO’s:
  • Perfect score!
  • Comments: No problems observed.
• AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision No’s:
  • Sec. 2: Are soil stockpiles and borrow areas adequately stabilized or protected with seeding and/or sediment trapping measures?
  • Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
  • Comments: Silt fence not entrenched. Stakes on wrong side of silt fence. Stockpile silt fence not entrenched.

This series will conclude tomorrow with the Inspection/Enforcement discussion.

However, these issues, if correctly dealt with by the Town serve to benefit both citizens and developers. Doing something the RIGHT way, the first time, is something that I was raised up to believe. Only partially doing a job, or doing a job poorly simply means you will have to deal with it at some point in the future. In situation such as the management of Stormwater, it is not only the Town that pays for errors, it is citizens. If things are not done properly at the beginning and problems occur, YOUR TAXMONEY is what will have to be used to fix the problem, if it gets fixed. Alternately, it is your out of pocket expenses to replace and repair, it is your insurance rates going up, it is your property values going down. And, to be affected by these things, you do not have to live on an affected property, you only have to live near it.

Shortcuts and doing only the minimum the law requires is a bit less than taxpayers have a right to expect from government. I think it would be a good idea for elected officials to do a more thorough review of Erosion & Sediment Control and Stormwater ordinances to see where the minimum is just maybe…not enough. That would be a good review of at least one part of the code.

The proposed recodification of the Code that is suppose to be in the works would simply make sure that the Town Code meets the minimum standards as required by the State. What Town Council needs to take a close look at is where in the State Codes they are allowed to do more than meet that minimum and determine if THOSE areas should be revised.

Plan Review MS Checklist (I am only including those areas which receive NO answers instead of the desired YES ones):

• AEP Tech Drive Station. Sec. 19 of this contains the NO’s that were noted:

• Christiansburg Aquatic Center Multiple NO’s found:

• • Sec.1: Are limits of clearing and grading shown on the plan?
  • Sec. 6: Are detailed drawings in the plans?
  • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
  • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
  • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
  • Comment: No analysis of adequacy of receiving channels. No calculations for storm sewer system found in file. Sediment traps and sediment basin discussed in narrative but not shown on plan. No permanent controls from post construction runoff.

• Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO’s found:
  • Sec. 1: Are practices shown on the plan?
  • Sec. 1: Are limits of clearing and grading shown on the plan?
  • Sec. 11: Are channel lining and/or outlet protection required on stormwater conveyance channels?
  • Sec. 19: Are properties and waterways downstream from development described and adequately protected from erosion and sediment deposition due to increases in stormwater runoff volume, velocity and peak flow rate?
  • Sec. 19: Are offsite, receiving areas and channels described and adequate?
  • Sec. 19: Are calculations included in the narrative or plan?
  • Comment: No outlet protection design calculation in narrative. Offsite receiving channel at northwest corner has not been analyzed for adequacy.
• Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision:
  • Perfect score!
• AGILOP Lot 108 Wind mill Hills Subdivision:
  • Perfect score!
• AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision:
  • Perfect score!
• AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision:
  • Perfect score!

It’s nice to find that some of the areas inspected had such great scores. As a citizen, knowing and believing that the Town should be an example, I am embarassed at the results found at the Aquatic Center. This is suppose to be a bright and shining star in our Town. We should start by taking good care of it RIGHT NOW!!! Of course some of the issues with Erosion & Sediment Control might just be why some of the delays occurred. Considering some of the stuff I’ve seen on my daily drivebys there, I would just about be willing to bet that has contributed to some of the delays. You can’t get close because it is posted, but a great deal can be seen from the road. A great deal more can be seen from the road with a pair of binoculars or a camera with a really good zoom lens:)

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):

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.

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.

This is a quest for information that began with a statement made by the Town Manager to the Christiansburg Town Council on December 16, 2008. The comment can be found in the Discussions by Mayor and Council Members section of the Minutes of that meeting:

2. An ordinance amending Chapter 10 “Erosion and Sediment Control” of the  Christiansburg Town Code. Manager Terpenny explained that the State periodically reviews our Code, and due to minor changes in definitions in State Code, was  advised that this amendment is necessary to bring our Code into line with State Code. Councilman Wade made a motion to approve the ordinance amendment as recommended, seconded by Councilman Barber. Council voted as follows: AYES: Barber, Carter, Showalter, Stipes, Vanhoozier, Wade. NAYS: None.

Several days later (and several times since), I have asked for a copy of that document. I was told that the ordinance is still being written. It would appear from this information that Town Council actual voted on and approved a non-existent ordinance concerning Erosion and Sediment Control.

Despite multiple requests to the Town and being told that the ordinance was being written, I decided to do a bit of further research. I contacted DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation).

Now, those people have really got it together when it comes to access to public records. They did a superb job in handling my requests, providing the documents I requested quickly and thoroughly, and where I had requested documents that they did not have, they told me who was responsible for those documents and where to obtain them. THAT is a ‘gold star’ FOIA response in my book!!!

Anyway, the results of my FOIA request can be found on the Special Studies page of MyVAResources.com (or if you’re in a hurry go directly to the document, it is a fairly large pdf file). This is the Report following a DCR review of Christiansburg’s Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The first page is a summary with more information following in the document. This first page is entitled: Corrective Action Agreement, Town of Christiansburg, Erosion & Sediment Control Program, March 19, 2009. Note that is the dte of the corrective action. The minutes indicate this was brought before Town Council on December 16, 2008. The town manager signed the agreement to complete the corrective actions (by Sept. 15, 2009). The review of the program by DCR was conducted October 21 & 22, 2008.

I must admit that I am a bit puzzled by what appears to have been Town Council voting on something that didn’t exist, or else I have been denied access to public records. I have asked multiple people, including some of the Town Council members about this document, but I have only been told that it is being written. Sometimes, strange things happen when FOIA requests are concerned.

This would have gone unnoticed by me if it were not for the fact that we have the FOIA and I took the time to learn how to use it. See more information about the Town of Christiansburg and the FOIA at http://www.vaopengov.org Citizen Initiative for Transparency Study Report.