AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 1 1 11,2009, the Regional Water Board produced a revised draft. On May 13,2009, the Regional Water 2 Board held a public hearing to discuss revisions to the December 2007 draft. At each preliminary 3 stage of the permitting process, the Regional Water Board provided sufficient notice and solicited 4 public comment on revisions from the prior draft in keeping with the public participation 5 requirements in the federal statute and regulations. 33 V.S.C. S 1251(e); 40 C.F.R S 124.10(b)(2). 6 However, at the final stage, the Regional Water Board abruptly departed from its prior efforts 7 to provide for meaningful public participation. On September 24,2009, the Regional Water Board 8 published a new "Final Tentative Order" reissuing the MRP, to be proposed for adoption by the full 9 Regional Water Board at its regularly scheduled October 14, 2009 meeting. Not only did this 10 truncated notice period deprive Petitioner and other stakeholders of a full and meaningful opportunity 11 for comment and participation, it failed to provide 30-day mandatory advance notice required under 12 the federal regulations. 40 C.F.R. S 124.10(b)(2) ("Public notice ofa public hearing shall be given at 13 least 30 days before the hearing. ") (emphasis added).) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The Regional Water Board deprived Petitioner of the opportunity to comment on substantive new requirements in the MRP. There is no dispute that the September 24 Final Tentative Order contained significant substantive changes from the February 2009 draft that was the subject of the Regional Water Board's May 2009 hearing, or that the changes will result in additional costs and burdens on permittees. (See Appendix B to Final Tentative Order, showing changes from February 2009 tentative order.)7 The new draft also replaced some more flexible provisions of the draft tentative orders that provided continuity from past permit requirements with more prescriptive and inflexible requirements. For example, for new development and redevelopment projects, the Final Tentative Order included the following new LID-only requirements: . A requirement that 100 percent of storm water from regulated projects be treated onsite through a handful of prescribed methods, with alternatives such as bioremediation allowed only where the permittee can demonstrate that the preferred methods are infeasible; 7 Provision C.3.c. regarding LID was nearly completely rewritten and Provision C.t 0 regarding Trash Load Reduction was replaced in its entirety. sf-27480S3 8 PETITION FOR REVIEW