Thursday, May 27, 2010

New Local Storm Water Regulations

MARTINSBURG - New stormwater management rules that will be implemented through the federal Chesapeake Bay Program will weigh heavily on homebuilders and land developers in Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties.

"This is an issue that is challenging, and we'll have to deal with it," David Hartley, executive director of the Eastern Panhandle Homebuilders Association, said after the Region 9-West Virginia Stormwater Ordinance Project kick-off meeting Wednesday at Mountain State University in Martinsburg.

He said the homebuilding and development industries are taking a wait-and-see attitude for now.

"We'll have to see where things go, but the regulations have to be economically viable or they don't happen," Hartley said. "There has to be a meeting of the minds -

there has to be compromise. That's why we want to have a seat at the table."

He added that of all the sources that introduce pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay, development is the smallest but the easiest to control.

In an earlier interview, Hartley said the cost to manage stormwater in residential developments will increase as a result of new Chesapeake Bay Program requirements, and that will affect the affordability of housing.

"The implications are that it will be costly - it could be dramatically more costly," he said earlier.

Hartley definitely sounded pessimistic about whether the new rules and regulations would be better or more effective than current standards.

About 25 representatives of local counties and municipalities as well as developers and engineering firms were named to a steering committee that will write a model stormwater management ordinance that local jurisdictions can use.

The project is funded by a $30,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant that was channeled through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Region 9 Planning and Development Council, which includes the tri-county, matched the grant with $12,000.

Delta Development Group Inc. of Mechanicsburg, Pa., is facilitating the project.

President Barack Obama issued an executive order May 12 of last year mandating the development and implementation of "a new strategy for protection and restoration of the Chesapeake region," meaning reducing pollutants getting into the Chesapeake Bay directly and indirectly by way of rivers, streams and creeks that flow into the bay.

State and local governments in the 64,000-square-mile Chesapeake Bay watershed will have to comply with new rules regulating nutrient and sediment contamination of the bay from waste water facilities, agricultural operations and storm water runoff.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed includes the greater eight-county Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia in addition to parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Alana Hartman, Potomac Basin coordinator of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, is the liaison between the state and the federal Chesapeake Bay Program. She told members of the steering committee that the federal government is emphasizing non-point pollution sources, including stormwater runoff, in its program plan.

"I would recommend a robust section (in the model ordinance) accounting for growth - population growth," Hartman said. "Stormwater has become a real focus for the bay. Accounting for growth has become the most important thing."

What new developments will be required to do with runoff and how much water runs off developments have been talked about, she said.

"If you control the amount (of stormwater runoff), you control the pollution," Hartman said.

She added that incentives to encourage certain kinds of growth and discourage other kinds of growth have been discussed on the federal level.

Nearly all the counties and municipalities have stormwater management regulations either as part of their subdivision regulations or as standalone ordinances, officials said. Jurisdictions without regulations will be able to use the model ordinance to write their own, customizing it to meet their particular needs, officials said.

However, even jurisdictions that already have stormwater management regulations will be able to use the model ordinance, like Martinsburg.

"There will be aspects of the model ordinance that will apply to Martinsburg's existing regulations," Mike Covell, the city's planner and engineer, said after the meeting. "We might not use it in its entirety, but there's going to be elements that are pertinent and timely that we can amend into our existing ordinance."

Writing the model ordinance is expected to take seven months, Delta Development Group's Steve Hoffman told the steering committee.

It has been divided into seven sections, including such articles as general provisions and definitions, exceptions, inspections and the like, he said. The steering committee will address a different section at each of its monthly meetings, he said.

http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/537475.html?nav=5006

Friday, May 21, 2010

Mtg. Citizens Advisory Committee 04/25/2010 Notes

Results of the Citizen’s Committee Meeting for Watershed Grant 04/24/10 Outline of the Meeting


1. Welcome

2. Introductions

• Icebreakers Why are you interested in the watershed project? What aspect of this project most interests you? How involved do you want to be in the project?

3. Scope of Proposal

4. Organization

5. Promotion Items the Citizen’s would like to see addressed...


1. Why aren’t there wells and septic systems?

2. Improvements to water system

3. Protect home values

4. Why is there water without sewer?

5. Impact on Chesapeake Bay

6. River quality

7. Leaking septic systems

8. Community Infrastructure

9. Mountain Resources

10. Watersheds

11. Parks

12. Green Infrastructure


Additional questions that were asked and items to be considered...


1. What resources exist? /Who do you go to?

2. State funds to fix septic systems?

3. What is being monitored on the other side of the river?

4. What is coming into the Shenandoah from Virginia and then running into the Potomac?

5. When spraying for Gypsy moths is organic spray being used?

6. Surface runoff from gravel roads and large trails

7. Reusing water

8. Dumping – Encouraging the County to have a “free dump” day on the weekend periodically.

9. Can mandatory recycling be put into place?

10. Lawn fertilizer

11. Educating mountain residents on water usage and disposal (“Every drop matters”)

12. Address what is already here, not develop new areas (i. e. existing septic systems, unmaintained

gravel roads, existing platted lots, etc.)Upcoming Citizen’s Committee Meetings


It was determined that Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings around 7:00 p.m. would be the most appropriate times to have the Citizen’s Committee meetings in order to have the most attendance from the citizens that live on the mountain. Additionally, it was determined that the Blue Ridge Fire Hall, Blue Ridge Elementary, Keyes Gap Fire Hall and St. Andrew’s Community Center would be the best places to hold the meetings.


It was determined that the format and protocol for the next Citizen’s Committee meetings will be determined after Jennie Brockman and Seth Rivard have had the opportunity to meet with Downstream Strategies. Also, at the next meeting the anticipated needs of the Citizen’s Committee will be outlined and preferred advertising methods to announce the meetings will be chosen. In regards to advertising, several suggestions were made:


o Banners at 2 Entrances/Exits on the mountain

Possible banner slogans – What’s your vision? Or what are your plans? • Possible meeting dates

o Table at Farmer’s Market

o Ads in The Spirit of Jefferson Newspaper

o Facebook

o Twitter

o Youtube


http://www.blueridgecommunitiesplan.com/uploads/documents/Results%20of%20Citizens%20Committee%20Meeting%20for%20Watershed%20Grant%2004_24_10.pdf

Friday, May 14, 2010

Shenandoah Watershed Profile

Shenandoah Watershed -- 02070007

Shenandoah

map that locates the watershed in the state
closeup map of watershed area

Watershed Profile (from EPA)

Watershed Name: Shenandoah
USGS Cataloging Unit: 02070007
WV 2nd Congressional District
VA 10th Congressional District

Citizen-based Groups at work in this watershed (Provided by Adopt your Watershed)

Water quality monitoring data from this watershed (Provided by STORET)

Environmental Websites Involving this Watershed

National Watershed Network (provided by Conservation Technology Information Center) Exit EPA Disclaimer

Assessments of Watershed Health

Information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Exit EPA Disclaimer

Places Involving this Watershed

Visit the Envirofacts Warehouse to retrieve environmental information from EPA databases on Air, Community Water Sources, Water Dischargers, Toxic Releases,Hazardous Waste, and Superfund Sites Geographic searches include zip code, city, EPA Region, or county.


Small Town Receives $936,000 to Upgrade Water Infrastructure


Release date: 05/11/2010

Contact Information: Kris Lancaster, (913) 551-7557, lancaster.kris@epa.gov



Environmental News


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Kansas City, Kan., May 11, 2010) - EPA has awarded $936,000 to the McDonald County, Mo., Public Water Supply District for the construction of a new wastewater collection system in the Village of Jane, Mo.

EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks said, "It's always a pleasure to help Missouri communities better protect their water resources. These EPA funds will help build a better system that safeguards the crystal streams and vital groundwater that make the Ozarks a national treasure."

The project is designed to eliminate 130 septic systems which have been polluting ground and surface waters in the Village of Jane. A series of pump stations and pipelines will be constructed to convey the wastewater to the existing Bella Vista, Ark., wastewater treatment plant.

EPA oversees the protection of water quality and public health. The Agency is working with community leaders and the public to meet the growing needs and demands of our limited water resources. EPA remains committed to developing innovative and sustainable solutions for managing and financing infrastructure with public and private partners.

# # #

More information about water-related activities in EPA Region 7




Jane is a small village in McDonald County, Missouri, United States. It is located on Route 90 at the intersection with U.S. Route 71. The original settlement is about one mile east on an older alignment of US 71. It had been an unincorporated community for many years, and previously had the ZIP code of 64846, though mail is now delivered from Pineville. It incorporated in 2005. In 2006, the village expanded from its original boundaries to include a large section of US 71. It extends south to within a mile of the Arkansas state line.

Notable residents include: Hank Williams 3rd grew up in Jane MO.

[edit]Overview

Jane is notable in that it is what some consider the epicenter of economic development in MacDonald County as it is currently the only municipality hosting a Walmart store. Also notable is the large Walmart data center situated just to the south of Jane, visible from highway 71, and secret to a conspicuous degree--not even the McDonald County assessor is allowed in without signing a non-disclosure agreement.


New EPA guidelines include technical tools

EPA Releases Land Management Guidance to Reduce Water Pollution to Chesapeake Bay

Release date: 05/12/2010

Contact Information: Enesta Jones, jones.enesta@epa.gov, 202-564-7873, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON - On the same day the federal government announced a comprehensive strategy to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced guidance to help federal facilities reduce their pollution to the bay. EPA is delivering to federal land managers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed the most effective tools and practices to reduce water pollution from a variety of nonpoint sources, including agricultural lands, urban and suburban areas and septic systems. This guidance to provide the technical tools that will be needed to restore the bay is in response to the Chesapeake Bay executive order issued by President Obama in May 2009.

The guidance provides federal land managers with the help they need to implement the best proven tools and practices to restore and protect the region’s waterways and the bay. The cost-effective tools and practices outlined in the document are indicated by current scientific and technical literature to be the most state-of-the-art approaches to reduce water pollution from nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Others in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including states, local governments, conservation districts, and watershed organizations, can also benefit from the information presented in this guidance.

EPA has developed this guidance in close consultation with its federal agency partners. In addition, EPA benefitted from a technical peer review and provided an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the guidance. Based upon this input, EPA modified the final guidance to ensure that it accurately reflects the state of the art in managing nonpoint source pollution in the bay.

To view the guidance: http://www.epa.gov/nps/chesbay502/

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Chesapeake Bay Foundation suit against EPA ends with historic binding agreement for pollution reducationsion

EPA SIGNS BINDING COMMITMENT TO REDUCE POLLUTION
CBF and Partners' Lawsuit Achieves Goal!

CBF President Will Baker and EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe
(left to right) CBF President Will Baker and EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe chat after the May 11 press conference.

A new day has dawned for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), its co-plaintiffs, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 11, 2010, settled their lawsuit with a binding agreement that will require pollution to be reduced across the watershed. This historic settlement is a legally enforceable commitment that requires EPA to take specific actions by dates certain to ensure that pollution to local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay is reduced sufficiently to remove the Bay from the federal "dirty waters" list. (more)

Learn More http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=1547

Visit The Chesapeake Bay Foundation at www.cbf.org

SETTLEMENT SUMMARY

This historic settlement is a legally binding, enforceable document that requires EPA to take specific actions by dates certain to ensure that pollution to local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay is reduced sufficiently to remove the Bay from the federal "dirty waters" list.

The settlement mandates:

  • Reasonable assurances—The settlement outlines what "reasonable assurances" EPA will require of the states to support the Bay TMDL. The Bay TMDL will establish limits for all sources of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment in the Bay region. The states will be required to develop Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) explaining how they will meet the limits for all sources in each area of their state.

  • Consequences—The settlement identifies what consequences EPA will impose upon states and localities that fail to develop sufficient WIPs or meet their limits. One of those consequences could be that permits will not be issued to new sources of pollution. That could include new sewage treatment plants or major new developments.

  • Offsets—The settlement requires that the states offset all new nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment loads. In the settlement EPA has agreed that each state's WIP will provide offsets for new or increased permitted discharges.

  • Dates certain—The settlement establishes dates identifying when EPA will complete development of a Bay TMDL and when the states are to provide WIPs.

  • Tracking—The settlement requires EPA to develop a tracking system that is publically available and which describes whether increased pollution from new, small sewage treatment plants and industrial dischargers have been included in calculating whether the state or local jurisdiction is meeting its new limits. CBF has recently seen an increase in small sewage treatment plants that are below EPA's permit threshold.

  • EPA agrees that one of the biggest sources of pollution in the Bay region is urban stormwater and that this form of pollution is growing. EPA agreed to:
    • a) review all new construction general permits (those that apply to categories of construction) drafted by Bay states and make sure they meet federal standards;
    • b) by July 31, 2010 develop a guidance for major municipal stormwater permits in the Bay region; and
    • c) by Nov. 19, 2012, take final action on industrial and municipal stormwater regulations.

  • Reducing pollution from agriculture—The settlement commits EPA to proposing new regulations for controlling pollution from agriculture by Dec. 15, 2012 and taking final action by Dec. 15, 2014.

  • Addressing air pollution—Under the settlement EPA will require an allocation for air deposition of nitrogen from the states in the Bay TMDL, so that some portion of the total nitrogen budget will be attributed to air pollution.



Monday, May 10, 2010

Mtg. Citizens Advisory Committee 04/25/2010

Jefferson County is conducting a watershed study of the Blue Ridge area that is bordered by the Shenandoah River to the West, the Appalachian Trail and Virginia State line to the East, the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers to the North, and the Clark County, Virginia state line to the South.


Here is a very informative link, that is going to include a discussion forum, to the project web site http://www.blueridgecommunitiesplan.com/.


I am going to suggest to the Jefferson County Planning Department that a Watershed Education Center be created up here on the mountain.


My suggestion to create a Watershed Education Center somewhere up here on the mountain is going to the Blue Ridge Mountain Citizens Advisory Committee a group charted to conduct an analysis of and plan for the protection and improvement of the portion of the Chesapeake Watershed on the Blue Ridge in Jefferson County. The Committee had their first meeting on Sunday April 25th. I am looking forward to my membership.


You might find of interest this video on work being done by Los Angeles County and the Environmental Protection Agency on similar type watershed projects http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGzbDmgQHTo&feature=related


If you would like any additional information on the Committee including its mission and citizen membership, or how you can get more involved please contact me.


Jefferson County has agreed to fund additional $ for this phase of the Watershed Plan. Most of the monies used during this initial phase (now $60,000) is to be used for education.


I am also hoping to get the country going on establishing Shannondale Lake as a model Watershed Project.


Our next meeting will be after the Planning Department meets with our consultant and facilitation firm: Downstream Consultants.