On behalf of Wild Virginia, I write to oppose a fast track approval of the proposed modification to the implementation requirements for criteria specific to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries as defined at 9 VAC 25-26-18. In doing so, I cite and endorse comments filed separately by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We disagree with the assertion offered in the "Action Summary" on Town Hall for this action that the rulemaking is "noncontroversial."

While a change to the implementation methods to allow for additional data to be incorporated into the analysis seems a desirable goal, the change proposed here is not sufficiently defined or supported in the record. Allowance for "any scientifically defensible method" leaves too much room for vital decisions to be made later and without adequate safeguards. Allowing undefined alternatives to a decades-old and proven method without greater scientific explanation and scrutiny is not acceptable.

The most important factor to consider in deciding whether any method should be allowed, is whether that method provides the required degree of protection for the aquatic system. We believe that question has not been answered at this time and should be addressed through the full regulatory process.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. David Sligh