PSC/PSD/Sewer Issues

The PSC vs. PSD sewer battle at Snowshoe is a real immediate problem that needs focus from the Commission. Here is an email I received which I agree with 100%:

I hope that you and David are staying close to this.

The strong handed threats by the PSC and DEP - e.g. fines against the PSD and individual PSD members - are nothing more than bullying tactics.

The accusations against Litsey - especially without evidence - are borderline libelous. Requesting his resignation based on a unfounded conflict of interest is out of the authority of the PSC and DEP. My understanding is these matters are reviewed / handled by a State ethics board.

I seriously doubt that the Thrasher Facilities Plan received such scrutiny by the DEP or PSC - certainly the issuance of a FONSI by the DEP - the basis of 8Rivers lawsuit - shows that. When I called the PSC to offer to present our concerns regarding the Thrasher Plan their engineer said he was not interested and refused. He also said the only karst in the valley was in the streambed - which demonstrates the ability/level of concern of the PSC for the technical merit of any plan.

I am disappointed as both responses show that agencies will do whatever is necessary to justify/defend their decision/position - apparently a foregone conclusion - and that the PSD do not really control a project but are expected to be "Yes" men.

In my view the PSD has done an admirable job - on their own - to find a better/less expensive solution. Just because their proposal missed some deliverables is no reason to make threats or rebuke the PSD in public documents. The proper response would have been to point out the deficiencies and request the PSD provide the information or submit a reasonable plant to obtain the information in a timely manner.

I see nothing wrong in a landowner or developer making use of a public utility such as a sewer or water system.I look askance , though,at him being on the board which decided on the site Also,the proposed Snowshoe sewer project seems a little strange when we are told that 3 sewers for one community are cheaper than one. Three may have other values, but lower cost could not be one of them.

Freeholder, I believe the decentralized system being proposed makes use of some existing infrastructure as opposed to the building of a centralized "mega-plant" that services all areas. The decentralized system avoids the necessity of transferring the sewage great distances over rough terrain and addresses the complexity and unknown dangers of significant interbasin transfer of water (Shavers Fork drainage to Elk River drainage areas). Thus the potential for costs savings with the three plant system.

IMO, what this comes down to is what is needed/wanted in the Linwood area and up and down Route 219. Some locals want services in that area (for property values and development possibilities) and others do not (concerns for costs) The two major developments in the area under question (Slaty Ridge and Slaty Fork Farms) apparently do not want the Route 219 system due to anticipated costs. Other landholders along Route 66 and 219 want the mega-system for obvious reasons. While there is no solution to make everyone happy, the county as a whole and certainly all residents of the affected area should be closely looking at costs.

On Saturday, January 7th, 2012, an historic first occurred. For the first time in ten years, a group of all-comers - invited for four consecutive weeks by ads in the Pocahontas County Times, expressed a unamity of opinion on a treatment site location for the Snowshoe Sewage Situation.

I asked the assembled group at the very end this general question, - Is there anyone here that objects to the SBR site at the existing VIllage Plant and the Two Million Dollar savings it represents as the treatment site for the mountain top solution? There were no objections.

None!

For the Valley Solution the task is one of choice and expense. We have three willing landowners, three good sites, and an excellent ongoing process to make sure that the details of those costs are made fully public, and that the sites are documented safe by appropriate methodologies that has already started and will be finished next week. The board will vote. Cost, not safety, will be the deciding factor for this board member. Safety is task one, and it must be satisfied before we even vote.

Whatever, the outcome, I will be eternally appreciative to the cooperative spirit and willingness to serve the common good of Mr. Curtis, Mr. Galford, and Mr. Deberry of Snowshoe who are working equally hard and making personal sacrifices to make this come to fruition. With their continued support and helpfulness the Public Service District will meet its mandate.

BE SAFE! BE FRUGAL! BE DONE!

Hurrah! thanks for all your work.

Last Night in Durbin, the Pocahontas County Public Service District Chairman Tom Shipley announced two special meetings to be called for NEXT WEEK at the Library in Linwood.

On Tuesday Night the Board will "Receive" the updated version of the facilities plan "update" detailing the costs and features of the various treatment sites and collection systems. It is believed this meeting will be at 7:00 pm and will reflect the best efforts of Dr. Rigby in his tweaking of various previous proposals in accordance with the DEP questions.

On Thursday Night - Same Time, Same Place the Board will vote on its preferred alternatives to serve the mountain community.

It appears at this time it may actually be possible to reach conscensus without acrimony. Ten years ago this process started. Could it be possible that we can put behind this misery come next Thursday Week?

In the meantime we have much for which to be thankful: 1) The coming together of the community to seek out and find a more Karst Friendly solution that may be affordable. 2)Cheapeake Bay standards that have forced improvements in technology and demand for that high level technology that has reduced costs as production costs have decreased. 3) The wisdom of Pocahontas Countian George Phillips in bringing alternatives to the table. 4) The wisdom of our County Commission in supporting the full exploration of this knowledge and Dr. Rigby who was willing to explore it more fully. 5) The Pocahontas County Times and especially Editor Pam Pritt in encouraging this exploration and full disclosure. 6) The courage and sacrifice of residents in discouraging inappropriate takings. 7) the spirit of compromise shown by local landowners and corporations in making alternatives available to the community, and finally, 8) The courage and strength of our County Commission in supporting the search for solutions even in the darkest of times.

Will the spirit of community prevail? An important chapter will be written next week.

Last Thursday Evening - The Pocahontas County Public Service District passed a resolution by a 2 to 1 margin that designated site 7-A as the preferred site for valley 300,000 gallon per day wate water treatment facility. Site 7A is a new site selected by Snowshoe Mountain Corporation and Dr. Rigby as a possible site that elimated $700,000.00 in Micropyle costs as it sits on a very hard sandstone, $400,000.00 in Lift Pump Station costs, and a large amount in special costs associated with the welcome sign area that is just on the outskirts of site 7- between it and the golf course and tucked back into the woods.)

With the cost savings they were able to realize, Site 7 became very competitive with the other sites, and was deemed safer and less obtrusive by the Board. The Cost will come down even more if chillers are deemed not required by DNR and DEP, and if the Home Owners Association South and West on 219 confirm via their homeowners association bylaw procedures that they do not wish to be connected to the system. The preferred treatment strategy was the utilization of Membrane Technology and exiting via Cupp Run.

The preferred Mountain Top Site was designated as the existing Snowshoe Village facility with Waste Water from Silver Creek to be pumped over the ridge line to the Snowshoe Village. The treatement strategy will be the Sequenced Batch Reactor strategy followed by sand filtration using and improving the existing sand filtration equipment that is currently in place. It will be a 550,000 gallon per day plant with the goal to process everything as fast as it comes in, and storing as little as possible in the EQ facility. The concept is to treat the waste as close to its source as possible and release it back to the natural environment as quickly as possible minimizing risk of storage and catasrophic events, which are never planned.

Both sites will eventually work on the utilization of plants to reduce metals from the water to enhance the water for the reciving trout streams beyond the chemical treatment anticipated to be required for metals removal. The effluent will be released to Cupp Run until such time as it become neccessary to return it to Shavers Fork, a cost saving measure for the time being. Indeed, given the state of the economy, limited growth experience in the last 4 years indicates that it may well be quite some time before the utilization of the assimilative capacity of the Elk Watershed requires such a pump over.

Today, Dr. Rigby, the district engineer, and Chris Negley, attorney, met with representatives of the DEP, PSC, and the IJDC to go over all of their requested information from our last submission. Dr. Rigby, reported a very positive interaction with staff from all agencies and a positive feeling on everyone's part.

This has been made possible by the tremendous spirit of cooperation from the Friels, The Galfords, Dave Curtis, and the Snowshoe Mountain Corporation. That said, as we all know, it is not a done deal until the PSC says go. But for the moment, I would like to than all of them for their willingness to work with us to move this project forward and Get R' Done. Another great step occurred today. Let us all hope that the progress continues.

David, thanks for your work and encouraging posts. I am curious about the dissenting vote on the PSD. What were the concerns that prompted the "nay" vote?

Mr. Litsey, thanks again. Excellent work.

Eight Rivers Safe Development, Inc.
100 Poplar Estates
Scott Depot, WV 25560

February 27, 2012

Mr. Scott Mandirola
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Water and Wastewater Management
601 57th St., SE
Charleston, WV 25304

Dear Mr. Mandirola:

Eight Rivers Safe Development, Inc. is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting economically sound and environmentally safe development on karst.

Karst landforms contain caves, underground streams and springs which make karst areas more sensitive to surface activities due to high pollution potential (rapid infiltration and transportation of contaminants) and the dynamic nature of karst (e.g. collapse, sinkhole formation, etc.).

Eight Rivers Safe Development, Inc. has carefully reviewed the recent unanimous decision by the Pocahontas County Public Service District to endorse and proceed with a cost-efficient comprehensive sewage treatment development plan for the Snowshoe/Silver Creek resorts and Linwood area.

We note that this plan will locate a new membrane treatment facility at Site 7A at the base of the mountain. This site minimizes immediate impacts to the karst, minimizes pollution potential from infiltration of raw sewage into sinkholes and caves from failed or leaking collection facilities and produces a higher quality effluent for discharge into the Big Spring Fork of the Elk River

The proposed plan decouples the mountain and valley sewage treatment needs by taking a decentralized approach to address the deficiencies on the mountain by retrofitting existing or installing new facilities at Snowshoe/Silver Creek.

A key feature of the proposed plan is the avoidance of the gravity flow pipeline from the Snowshoe/Silver Creek resorts to the base of the mountain. This greatly reduces the risk of a large sewage spill in the karst area of the Big Spring Fork and Upper Elk River where several large and significant caves (Sharps Cave, My Cave, Elk River Cave) and springs (Split Rock Spring, Big Spring Fork Spring Complex, Elk River Springs) are located.

The decentralized approach also enables the future opportunity for water - which is withdrawn from Shavers Lake to service Snowshoe/Silver Creek - to be returned to the Shavers Fork watershed thus eliminating inter-basin transfer from the Shavers Fork to the Elk River watershed.

We note the proposed plan reduces the total project cost by several millions of dollars by the elimination of unnecessary infrastructure (e.g. pipeline down mountain, pumping stations), utilization of membrane technology to reduce plant size and retrofit vs. new build options for existing treatment systems.

We also note that this plan most effectively addresses the majority of stakeholder issues which have repeatedly slowed or delayed this project and that many stakeholders – including Eight Rivers Safe Development - have come together to endorse the plan.

We applaud the Pocahontas County Public Service District for defining a better, less costly solution that will serve the current and future sewerage needs of the area and will require less ratepayer investment and lower usage fees.

Eight Rivers Safe Development, Inc. supports the Pocahontas County Public Service District’s proposal to locate the new membrane treatment facility at Site 7A and to retrofit the existing or build new treatment facilities on the mountain to serve Snowshoe/Silver Creek.

We ask that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Project approve and support this proposal.

We hope that the new plan can be implemented in a timely way and look forward to participating in reviews and providing input as this project moves forward.

Sincerely

George R. Phillips

George R. Phillips
President
Eight Rivers Safe Development, Inc.

Cc: Alex McLaughlin, The Calwell Practice
Pocahontas County Commission
Elk Headwaters Watershed Association
West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited
Snowshoe Property Owners Council

As written, the answer is possibly not - it depends on what land Snowshoe would make available to us. There is more land there but PSD's are not allowed to acquire land just for possible future use. The land is there, and I think we can really make it look so attractive over the next five years with water gardens and landscaping that they would welcome an addition. However there are no guarantees.

It could handle the equivalent of 3 Silver Creeks and employee housing. And please remember, we can't keep the motel we have now open 12 months a year. Gambling would be great - but as I understand it they are laying people off at the Greenbrieer. As far as private housing is concerned, I am afraid this thing is going to end up being so expensive becasue of the long dry lines being required that will have to be paid for by others becasue there are no customers, that people will seek locations that do not require hook-ups. There is a very good chance that the minimum fee for being hooked up to this thing could be very expensive - we'll know very shortly - and If you have a big house for occaisional use, well you could pay big time. If we had been able to keep this thing to 17.5 and the SRF gave us 0% interest, then my wife and I -we do not rent - would pay about 280 a quarter approximately. Well there is no guarantee that we will get 0% interest, or that the state will relent and allow us to not build the lines South until there are customers who want service and get the cost down to 17.5 million.

Like I say, the numbers keep rolling in now that we have a site. Stay tuned.