Loss of grant not likely to affect area projects

New Moorefield sewer treatment plant looking to fill $3 million funding hole October 21, 2011 By John McVey - Journal staff writer (jmcvey@journal-news.net) MARTINSBURG - The loss of a key $3 million grant to build the new Moorefield/Hardy County wastewater treatment plant will not have a big impact on plans to upgrade and improve sewer plants in the tri-county, said Sen. Herb Snyder, D-Jefferson. "It will be almost insignificant," he said in a telephone interview Thursday. Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered the seven jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen phosphorus and sediment pollution getting into the bay via its tributaries. The Potomac River is one of the bay's major tributaries and the greater, eight-county Eastern Panhandle is in the Potomac River watershed. To comply with the very strict pollution controls, upgrades and improvements must be made to the major wastewater treatment facilities in the Panhandle. It has been estimated that Berkeley County Public Service Sewer District will have to spend about $40 million to upgrade five sewer treatment plants and Martinsburg expects to pay about $45 million to make major improvements to its treatment facility. Part of the funding for those projects will come from bonds financed with surplus lottery funds, made possible by Senate Bill 245, which was shepherded through the Legislature by Snyder. Without SB245 funds, the entire cost of the sewer plant improvements would be shouldered by customers. With the SB245 funds, customers only would have to pay a portion of the costs. "I hope with good interest rates and if construction costs are down, we could be at 50 cents on the dollar," Snyder said. Original estimates were that SB245 funds would cover about 40 percent of the costs for upgrades and improvements to local sewer plants. Snyder added that with the West Virginia Public Service Commission denying the Jefferson County Public Service District's application to build the new $27 million Flowing Springs plant, "that puts more money into the pot." The Flowing Springs plant was part of the original SB245 funding calculations. The state PSC ruled against the JCPSD's application in August. Additionally, a very large treatment plant to serve Moorefield, Hardy County and the Pilgrim's Pride poultry processing plant there was in the works. The cost of the new plant, which would replace four sub-par plants, was set at between $36 million and $37 million. The funding was to come from a combination of local, state, corporate and federal grants as well as slightly higher rates for customers. SB245 funds were not part of funding package. Part of a total $8.5 million EPA grant package, the $3 million grant that has been lost because of $140 million in overall budget cuts to the agency, reports indicate. The plant would be designed to handle 4.1 million gallons of wastewater per day and reduce about 45 percent of phosphorus pollution and about 30 percent of nitrogen pollution getting into the Chesapeake Bay from the Potomac River watershed, according to reports. An official with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection reportedly described the plant as "the single most significant project we have in West Virginia to clean up the Chesapeake Bay." The funding for the new Moorefield/Hardy County plant took some 10 years to put together. The state PSC approved the plant at the end of August and planners were going to put the project out to bid in about a month. The EPA grant was pulled toward the end of September. The EPA grant package was secured by the late U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., and has been championed by U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., since Byrd's death. Reportedly, EPA, local and state officials as well as a Rockefeller representative met in Moorefield to try to find alternative funding sources to build the plant. Some local officials had feared that if SB245 funds had to be diverted from tri-county projects to fill the $3 million hole created by EPA canceling its grant to build the new Moorefield/Hardy County plant, that would mean less money for tri-county projects and therefore rates would have to raised higher to make up the difference.

Chesapeake Bay restoration is headed in right direction

Chesapeake Watershed Forum draws participants from throughout region October 1, 2011 By John McVey - Journal staff writer (jmcvey@journal-news.net) , journal-news.net SHEPHERDSTOWN - Jeff Corbin does not like to talk about the Chesapeake Bay restoration - he wants to talk about the Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration. "If we clean up the rivers, creeks and streams in the watershed, downstream will take care of itself," he told guests of the sixth annual Chesapeake Watershed Forum that is being held this weekend at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Conservation Training Center near Shepherdstown. Corbin is the senior advisor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's administrator. Friday, he discussed the current status of the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load and the six watershed states' Phase II watershed implementation plans. The forum was hosted by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, drawing about 350 attendees for a wide range of seminars. Participants came from throughout the watershed region. Under a presidential executive order, the EPA has issued new, strict limits on the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and sediment that can get into the bay via its tributaries, such as the Potomac River, with the goal of cleaning up the bay. The greater, eight-county Eastern Panhandle is in the Potomac watershed. "Now is the time," Corbin said. "Every level of government is determined to restore our waters." He said that things are headed in the right direction. Since the mid-1980s, when the Chesapeake watershed states agreed to voluntarily cut pollution in the bay, the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus has been reduced. The amount of nitrogen in the bay has been reduced by 24 percent since 1985, Corbin showed, and phosphorus has been reduced by 25 percent. The overall targets set out by the EPA in its "pollution diet" for the bay are to reduce nitrogen by another 27 percent and phosphorus by an additional 24 percent by 2025, he said. These reductions would restore the bay to 1950s levels of pollution. The reductions are divided into two-year milestones that states' have to meet through 2025, he said. The seven watershed jurisdictions are generally on track or ahead of schedule to meet their 2009-2011 milestones, he added. Corbin cited recent developments in the watershed states that will go toward meeting the EPA's mandates. In West Virginia, which only contributes 3 to 4 percent of the total pollution, he pointed out legislation has been passed that sets aside excess lottery revenues to fund upgrades and improvements to wastewater treatment plants in the Eastern Panhandle. Senate Bill 245, shepherded through the Legislature by state Sen. Herb Snyder, D-Jefferson, will fund about 40 percent of treatment plant construction. Jim Edward, deputy director of the Chesapeake Bay program office, EPA Region 3, also spoke Friday, and he talked about some of the goals set out in the executive order. For instance, two of the milestones are to restore 30,000 acres of wetlands in the bay watershed.

Partipant: Watershed Forum well worth trip

October 1, 2011

By John McVey - Journal staff writer (jmcvey@journal-news.net) , journal-news.net SHEPHERDSTOWN - Joe Tieger not only drove all the way from Port Tobacco in southern Charles County, Md., to attend the Chesapeake Watershed Forum this weekend at the National Conservation Training Center outside Shepherdstown, he also paid his own way. "They have some really worthwhile programs," he said Friday after one of the seminars. "There's an amazing amount of information and a lot of really bright people. It's worth it." Tieger is a member of the Port Tobacco River Conservancy, a volunteer group working to restore that tidal tributary of the Potomac River. The forum is hosted by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, attracting about 350 participants from throughout the watershed region. Tieger was most interested in seminars dealing with water quality issues and urbanization's impact on water quality. "We have to deal with what's being developed, what's going to be developed and retrofitting what has been constructed," he explained. "Growth is a burden on our resources, and developers have to pay their fair share." Several of the seminars offered at the forum dealt with stormwater management, which is one of the areas targeted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay "pollution diet." Land developers are facing new rules to control stormwater runoff during both pre- and post-construction as part of the EPA's efforts to reduce pollution in the bay. Also, already developed residential and commercial sites might have to install new stormwater management infrastructure to meet the stricter EPA requirements.