SUMMARY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF PENTREE’S “JEFFERSON COUNTY

Go to: OVERVIEW (SaveOurCounty) DETAILS (listener) PLANNING SCHOOLS ENVIRONMENT EROSION Report corrections+broken links to Webmaster Get updates on local issues

To all:

The challenge facing Jefferson County is how to grow and develop while preserving the community's character, quality of life, and landscape. One key issue in this challenge is the planning and construction of major infrastructure systems, such as sewer facilities. As you may know, the Jefferson County Public Service District, which has authority to plan for and develop sewer facilities, has hired a consultant, Pentree Engineering, Inc., to develop a "Countywide Sewer Facilities Plan." A draft of that Pentree Plan is available, and the PSD is taking public comments now.

The Pentree Plan is very thick, and crammed full of a lot of information. Because not every local citizen may have the opportunity to fully review the Pentree Plan, I have reviewed it and summarized it in the attached document. The document describes the contents of the Plan, highlights information that is absent from the Plan, and references and cites specific information in the Plan so that you can further review the full Pentree document at one of our local libraries, if you wish. I hope you find the summary helpful.

I also enclose a letter that I have sent to my mayor, Mayor Randy Hilton, and other parties, which raises my concerns about the Pentree Plan and its potential impacts. My letter speaks for itself, so I will not repeat my points here.

Because our major infrastructure decisions are so important for Jefferson County, its growth and development, and our local quality of life, I urge every citizen to comment on the Pentree Plan to the Jefferson P.S.D. The comment deadline is September 5. You can email comments to the Jefferson County PSD at jcpsd@intrepid.net. You can also attend a special meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 15 at 7PM at 108 East Washington Street in Charles Town, at which the Planning Commission will consider the Pentree Plan and decide whether to submit comments on it to the PSD.

Let me know if you cannot open the enclosed documents or have formatting problems, and I will email you with the text pasted into the email text. I welcome any comments or questions on the enclosed documents. Thank you for your consideration. Matt Ward

August 1, 2000

Mayor J. Randolph Hilton

City of Charles Town

101 E. Washington Street

Charles Town, WV 25414

Re: Concerns About the Pentree Sewer Plan for Jefferson County

Dear Mayor Hilton:

I am writing to express concerns regarding the sewer facilities plan that has been drafted by Pentree Engineering, Inc. for the Jefferson County Public Service District (PSD), and to provide you and the City Council with a summary of the Pentree Plan for your review.

As you know, Pentree has completed a draft of a sewer facilities plan and provided it to the Jefferson PSD. The PSD is seeking comment on the draft plan, including from the City of Charles Town. Charles Town is interested in future sewer plans because we own and operate the Charles Town Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves our own citizens as well as many citizens in Jefferson County. Implementation of the Pentree Plan could impact the Charles Town plant and any future expansion of the Charles Town plant to meet the County’s needs. In addition, the City of Charles Town should be interested in this draft plan because the Pentree Plan acknowledges that “[t]here will be significant growth and development expected from the implementation of this project.” Plan, p. VI-8. Growth and development could impact Charles Town by increasing traffic congestion, threatening the success of our downtown retail stores, draining public and private resources from our established community, or affecting local services such as schools, fire protection, and emergency services.

For these reasons, I believe that it is important for the City of Charles Town’s Utility Board and City Council to review and comment on the proposed Pentree Plan. Because the Plan is several hundred pages long, and not every local official and citizen may have the opportunity to review it fully, I have reviewed and summarized the entire plan in the enclosed document. The summary and the views expressed in it are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the assessment of the City of Charles Town or any other organization. I have also promised the Jefferson County Planning Commission, on which I sit as Charles Town’s representative, that I would provide a summary of the Pentree Plan, which I plan to do at the August 8 meeting of the County Planning Commission.

I would also like to express my concerns that the Pentree Plan, as drafted now, is not in the interests of the citizens of Charles Town and Jefferson County. Sewer infrastructure decisions are major investments for a local community, which can drive development and investment patterns for decades to come. The Pentree Plan has several fundamental flaws that could adversely impact Charles Town and the people of Jefferson County, including:

Cost of the Pentree Plan – The Pentree Plan calls for the potential construction of four new sewer treatment plants, and the potential construction of a vast network of sewer collection lines across Jefferson County. If all recommended new facilities were built, the total cost of the Pentree Plan is more than $234 million. Although the Plan acknowledges that it may not be financially feasible to build all of the recommended new facilities at this point, the Plan does suggest that the construction of a Flowing Springs Plant in the Millville area, with 1 million gallons per day capacity, is a top priority.

Cost to Citizens of the Pentree Plan – The Pentree Plan estimates the cost to serve each ratepaying household in Jefferson County under the proposed new facilities plan. Cost per household ranges from $7,879 to $57,040, depending on the area of the County served. The average cost per household for the Pentree Plan is $25,769. Pentree estimates that the County sewer rates associated with the service alternatives proposed in the Plan – already the highest sewer rates in the State at $10.79 per thousand gallons of service – would range from $10.39 per thousand gallons to $19.52 per thousand gallons. The average County sewer rates per household for these range of Pentree alternatives is $14.39 per thousand gallons, which is a one-third increase over current sewer rates. This average new rate of $14.39 per month per household would mean that the average household in Jefferson County would spend 2.5% of its income on sewer bills, based on 1990 Jefferson County income figures.

Pentree Conflicts of Interest – It is my opinion that the Pentree Plan cannot be taken as legitimate, because the firm has fundamental financial conflicts of interest. First, Pentree’s contract provides that the firm will both produce a countywide sewer needs study (i.e., the Plan considered here), and be paid for design and construction management services on any sewer plant that is built based on the recommendations in the Pentree county-wide study. See May 12, 1997 contract between Pentree Engineering, Inc. and the Jefferson County PSD. Second, Pentree Engineering, Inc. either owns or represents a large number of the developers operating in Jefferson County. For example, in 2000 Pentree acquired and now wholly owns Appalachian Surveys, Inc. Pentree has also been hired as the engineer for a number of local development projects, including the Greenvest development at Huntfield, the Murphy’s Landing development, the Carriage Park development, the Norbourne Glebe development, and others.

Impacts on Growth and the Community – The Pentree Plan states that “[t]here will be significant growth and development expected from the implementation of this project,” and that “existing landowners could benefit from the development of land due to the project.” The Pentree Plan, however, does not include any discussion of how major new sewer infrastructure could spur growth or affect local growth patterns. Nor does the Pentree Plan indicate whether its proposed new sewer facilities conform to the current zoning and land use laws in Jefferson County. In addition, the Pentree Plan does not include any discussion of the potential impacts of major new sewer plants on natural, historical or community assets in Jefferson County. For example, the Plan calls for a new sewer plant near the Shenandoah River, near the National Park, shortly upstream from the confluence of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. Likewise, the Plan calls for a new sewer plant on the Potomac River, in the National Park, shortly upstream from the confluence of the Rivers. The confluence of the rivers is the most visited tourist spot in West Virginia, as well as a critical natural resource. However, there is no discussion of potential impacts on the rivers, recreation, tourism, Civil War battlefields, or other community assets. Nor is there any discussion (as required by the State) of the impacts of the proposed sewer facilities on wetlands, water quality, endangered species, or air quality.

No Serious Consideration of Existing Sewer Systems – Another concern is that the Pentree Plan contains no discussion of meeting existing and future sewer needs through the use or potential expansion of the existing sewer plants, particularly the Charles Town Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although Charles Town’s plant has 546,000 gallons per day of available capacity, and could significantly expand in the future, there is no discussion of such option in the Pentree Plan. The primary thrust of the Pentree Plan is the construction of a new sewer plant at Flowing Springs, which Pentree suggests could serve 15 of the 22 service areas in Jefferson County. Charles Town should insist that the Jefferson PSD plan fully evaluate the costs and benefits of using existing systems, including the Charles Town plant, including the potential of increasing the capacity of the Charles Town Plant to 1.6 million gallons per day or 2.4 MGD.

Infrastructure Cart Before the Planning Horse – Finally, the Pentree Plan is not appropriate at this time because it lays out proposals for major new infrastructure systems before Jefferson County has taken steps to manage local growth. Until Jefferson County revises its Comprehensive Plan, considers changes to zoning and land use laws, and attempts to obtain the authorities of the Local Powers Act, it is not appropriate to put forth this Pentree Plan. Although the PSD may claim that the Pentree plan is “only a study,” that claim is belied by the fact that the final Pentree Plan is intended to be submitted soon to the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, which are the entities that provide funding and approvals for new sewer systems.

For these reasons, I urge you and the City of Charles Town to seriously consider the Pentree Plan, and to provide comments that reflect the best interests of the people of Charles Town. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Matthew W. Ward

cc: City Manager Jane Arnett

Charles Town Utility Board

Jefferson County Planning Commission

Hoy Shingleton, Jr., Esq.

PSD Director Calvin Fleming

Mayors of Bolivar, Harpers Ferry, Ranson and Shepherdstown

Enclosure

MWW:mw

SUMMARY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF PENTREE’S “JEFFERSON COUNTY COUNTYWIDE WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT”

Prepared by Matt Ward, August 1, 2000[1]

PURPOSE AND USE OF PENTREE SEWER PLAN

Use of the Pentree Plan – The Pentree plan for sewer facilities in Jefferson County is titled a “Countywide Wastewater Facilities Plan.” The document indicates on its title page that it has been developed “for submittal to WV Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council.” According to Public Service District (PSD) Chairman Richard Flaherty, the document will also be submitted to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protections, which issues funding, discharge permits and other approvals for public sewer systems.

Purpose of the Pentree Plan -- “The purpose of this facilities plan is to assess the needs and evaluate the alternatives for providing wastewater service to the residents and businesses of Jefferson County.” Section I, page I-1. The Plan also indicates that “[i]f existing residents for an area can be economically served, their needs should be provided for.” Page I-5.

Origin of the Pentree Plan – In a January 17, 1996 letter from the WV Public Service Commission to the Jefferson County PSD, the State provides “comments concerning the request for assistance in planning for water and sewer needs in Jefferson County.” Appendix J, January 1996 PSC Letter, p. 1. This letter led directly to the hiring of Pentree to conduct sewer and water feasibility studies. The letter states that “[t]he review that we have done indicates the need to study the feasibility of building a large treatment facility on the Shenandoah River, east southeast of Charles Town,” which the letter labels the “Shenandoah River Plant.” The letter concludes with respect to sewer that, “we encourage the District to seek funding on a large scale whenever possible. . . . While the Shenandoah Sewer Treatment Plant seems to be visionary, we feel that this type of planning is certainly necessary for the County. We also believe that the West Virginia Infrastructure Council will look favorably on projects if they are long term oriented and allow for growth and development.” Id., pp. 3-5. In August, 1996, the PSD published public notice of a “Request for Engineering Proposal,” which resulted in the hiring of Pentree. The PSD request sought an engineer to provide both “feasibility studies” on County-wide water and sewer needs, and to provide “design . . . preparation of bidding and contracting documents . . . [and] construction management services” for any sewer facilities that are built as a result of the feasibility studies. See Appendix G. The Pentree Plan’s top priority recommendation is to build the Shenandoah Plant, now known as the “Flowing Springs Plant.” See, e.g., pp. VI-4 and X-2.

Pentree Gets Contract for Both Needs Study and Sewer Construction – On May 12, 1997, the Jefferson County PSD signed a contract with Pentree Engineering, Inc. that allowed this firm both to create the county-wide study of sewer “solutions,” Pentree Contract Exhibit A, p. 1, and to be paid for various design and construction management services for anything recommended to be build by the sewer needs study. Pentree Contract Exhibit A, pp. 2-10.[2]

JEFFERSON COUNTY – CURRENT SITUATION

Current Situation – Section II of the Plan describes the current situation in Jefferson County, including existing septic systems, p. II-1; estimated flows from residences, schools, and commercial/industrial dischargers, pp. II-1, II-2; existing major treatment plants in Charles Town, Harpers Ferry and Shepherdstown, pp. II-2; smaller treatment plants, pp. II-2; soil conditions, p. II-2; areas claimed to need public sewer facilities due to concerns with septic systems, p. II-2, II-11 to II-14; results from a 1982 study of County water wells indicating levels of contamination, p. II-3; the year 2000 County population of 40,646, p. II-5; and other local demographic conditions.

Current Sewer Demand – Plan lists current situation of 5,906 households on existing public sewers, 8,486 on septic tank or cesspool, and 214 treated by other means, for a total of 14,606. P. II-1. Using an estimated per-house population of 2.46 persons, the Pentree Plan estimates that there is a Jefferson County population of 27,141 people in the Plan’s 22 sewer study areas (i.e., areas not in incorporated municipalities), which equals 11,033 households in the sewer study area. P. II-7. From this population count, the Plan also estimates total potential sewer demand in Jefferson County, based on an “estimated dwelling unit” or “EDU” formula. The Plan assumes that an “estimated dwelling unit” or “EDU” (i.e., one house) will produce 172 gallons per day of sewage demand. In addition to the EDU’s from the 11,033 households, the Plan estimates that the County’s schools create approximately 408 EDUs, Section II, p. II-9, and that the County’s large industrial and commercial water users use 1,486 EDUs. P. II-10.

Existing Sewage Treatment Plants – Plan states that, according to the WV DEP, there are 22 existing treatment plants in Jefferson County (including large public plants and on-site package plants), and another 73 wasteload allocations (i.e., unused permits to discharge sewage from plants). The City of Charles Town Wastewater Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day (“MGD”), the Shepherdstown Wastewater Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 0.4 MGD, and the Harpers Ferry Wastewater Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 0.3 MGD. Currently, these three existing public plants have available capacities of approximately 546,000 gallons at Charles Town, 100,000 gallons at Harpers Ferry, and 60,000 gallons at Shepherdstown. The Plan does not explain whether there are any reserve capacity requirements associated with these existing plants.

Plan Calls for Elimination of Septic Systems – The Plan concludes that continued use of septic systems in Jefferson County is not a feasible option, and that “[t]he proposed [new public sewer] systems will provide for abandonment of many of these systems and their widespread negative effects on the environment.” Section VI, p. VI-7; see also Section I, p. I-3. The plan describes local soil conditions, p. VI-2 and VI-3, and local hydrological conditions. Section VI, pp. VI-5, VI-6. Plan also describes information on septic failure and upgrade information from the West Virginia Department of Health and other sources, and provides statements from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan regarding septic systems. Pp. VI-3 to VI-7. The Pentree Plan describes groundwater and surface water contamination that may be from sewage pollutants. P. VI-6. The Pentree Plan indicates that there may be a “need for an up-to-date, larger and more long-term study [on septic systems] to be performed by the West Virginia Department of Health or other independent knowledgeable parties.” Pp. VI-4, X-1.

Pentree Septic Assessment is Questioned by Health Authorities – The Plan’s extensive discussion on failed septic systems is not necessarily supported by County and State health authorities, according to documents in the Plan. Nor does the Plan contain any discussion of the relative costs of fixing and upgrading septic systems, versus the construction of one of more new public sewer plants. Statements of health authorities include:

The plan acknowledges that, according to the Jefferson County Health Department, “countywide septic tank system failure rates [are] only about 1% or 1.5% or less than 2%.” Page VI-3.

Plan states that, according to the Jefferson County Health Department’s most recent evaluation of 303 septic systems, only four were failing (1.3%) and fifteen required upgrades (5 percent). The plan also states that, according to a 1982 study of Jefferson County by the WV Department of Health, two percent of septic systems were malfunctioning and another six percent were modified. Section II, p. II-1.

In an April 30, 1999 letter from local health administrator Randall DeHaven to Jefferson County PSD Director Calvin Fleming (included in the Plan), DeHaven states that “[i]t is undisputed that Jefferson County has the least percentage of failing [septic] systems in West Virginia.” The letter goes on to state that “[o]ne needs to consider the option of simply repairing or replacing the septic systems. The fact that a septic system is failing does not mean there is a lack of onsite solutions nor does it mean that a public sewer is needed.” The letter concludes by offering suggestions for three neighborhood areas in Jefferson County that could benefit from public sewer due to lot sizes and soil conditions. See Appendix J.

A September 2, 1997 letter of the Jefferson County Health Department to Pentree, included in the Plan, states that:

“The most densely populated portions of this area are already served by central sewage systems with the exceptions of Halltown and Millville. The remaining area is sparsely populated, has larger lot sizes, and has soils generally conducive to the proper functioning of septic tank, soil absorption systems. The rate of failing septic systems would be low in this area. A statistically valid survey performed in 1983 by the WV Department of Health indicated a failure rate of 1.5% county-wide. We believe this figure to be inflated but will accept the State’s findings.”

In a July 14, 1999 letter from the Jefferson County Health Department to Pentree (included in the Plan), the Health Department indicates that Jefferson County septic systems have not caused significant well water contamination in Jefferson County. Appendix J.

PENTREE RECOMMENDATION FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY

Flowing Springs Plant in Millville – “A good choice would be [a new plant] a short distance upstream [on the Shenandoah River] near the mouth of the Flowing Springs Run.” Plan says that this project is one of the top priorities of the Plan, p. X-2. Capital costs for plant alone equal $5,059,500. Page IV-5. “[T]he plant should be sized for 1 MGD due to the other areas likely being served in the future,” i.e., growth. P. IV-5. The Plan recommends that the Flowing Springs Plant would serve all or parts of study areas 1, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. The Plan also suggests that areas 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16 could be treated by “pump[ing] the Berkeley, Opequon and Harpers Ferry Plant flows to the Flowing Springs Plant.” P. X-2. Although the Plan suggest that the plant would be “a good distance away” from Harpers Ferry National Historical Park,” the Plan contains no discussion of the impact the plant could have on the national park, historic lands, or the Shenandoah or Potomac Rivers.[3] Section IV, p. IV-2. Wastewater discharges from the new plant would go into the Shenandoah, shortly upstream from its confluence with the Potomac. The Plan notes that previous plans for the Flowing Springs plant have been developed by Pentree. Section I, p. I-1.

Opequon Creek Plant – “[A]nother plant should be considered in the area where Opequon Creek leaves the county.” If the plant is not constructed, flow could be pumped upstream to the Berkeley Inwood Plant or downstream to the Berkeley Baker Heights plant. Section IV, p. IV-2. The Plan also suggests the alternative of pumping flows to the proposed new Flowing Springs plant. Study areas to be served could include areas 11 to 13.

Potomac Plant – “[I]t would be best to construct a new plant north of Harpers Ferry and Bolivar on the Potomac River. Also worth considering is the possibility of taking the existing Harpers Ferry plant out of service and pumping its flow to this proposed plant. An advantage of this would be a consolidation of plants and the removal of the existing plant from the Historical Park.” Section IV, p. IV-2. Wastewater flow would discharge from plant into Potomac, shortly upstream from its confluence with the Shenandoah. Potential areas to be serve include study areas 7, 8, 9, 10. The Plan contains no discussion of the condition or status of the existing Harpers Ferry Plant, or whether there are any benefits to closing it in favor of a new plant. In addition, proposed new plant would also be on Park land.

Other Plant – The Plan also states that study area 22, a small area in the southeast corner of the county, would best be treated by a “small wastewater facility.”

New Plant Capacities? – The Plan never indicates how many MGD its new plants would be, except for the recommendation that the new Flowing Springs plant have a capacity of 1 MGD. In Appendix F, the Plan indicates that the Jefferson PSD has proposed to the State an additional 2,662,000 gallons per day of sewer flow, which is larger than the existing Charles Town, Harpers Ferry and Shepherdstown plants combined (which total 1,900,000 MGD).

Unknown Financial Feasibility – The Plan admits that it puts forth a plan for “possible sewer systems . . . which are NOT financially feasible to construct.” Disclaimer page. The Plan does indicate that County decisions regarding which of the 22 study areas to be served should be based on cost-effectiveness of service, and the Plan makes initial recommendations about the most cost-effective areas to serve. See Section X.

Cost to County Customers – The recommended sewer options in the Pentree Plan would have a total cost of more than $234,000,000. The cost per “estimated dwelling unit” (or household) ranges from $7,879 to $57,040, depending on the study area. The average cost per household for the Pentree Sewer Plan is $25,769. P. VII-3. Such costs would presumably have to be recovered from customers through sewer rates.

The Plan also estimates the cost per estimated dwelling unit under a variety of alternative service options, all of which include the additional of significant new numbers of EDUs (households) to the system. See Appendix A.

Impact of Sewers on Local Income – The Pentree Plan states that the “Jefferson County P.S.D. presently charges $10.79 per thousand gallons for wastewater service. . . . Based upon the P.S.D. rates, 1.88 percent of [Jefferson County] income is used toward the payment of sewer bills.” Page V-1. Jefferson County already has the highest sewer rates in the State. The alternatives for new facilities outlined in the Pentree Plan will create sewer rates of between $10.39 per thousand gallons to $19.52 per thousand gallons. The average County sewer rates for these range of Pentree alternatives is $14.39, which is a one-third increase over current sewer rates. This average new rate of $14.39 per month per household would mean that the average household in Jefferson County would spend 2.5% of its income on sewer rates, based on 1990 Jefferson County income figures.

The Plan suggests that County sewer rates could be lowered either by lowering O&M costs or increasing customer density. The Plan indicates states that “[n]ew and more efficient treatment plants are one method of lowering cost,” but acknowledges that new plants require new debts.[4] P. X-1. Moreover, the Plan itself indicates that 25 of 26 options for new sewer facilities will raise, not lower, rates. Further, the Plan fails to consider whether O&M costs could be lowered by upgrading or expanding existing treatment plants, such as the Charles Town plant.

Local Share? – The Plan states that “[t]here is no known documentation which suggests the local populace cannot afford their local share of the proposed project.” P. VI-10. The Plan does not discuss the local share requirements for the financing of new sewer facilities, such as the requirement that 20 percent of sewer facilities be locally financed when State Revolving Fund monies are used.

No Explanation of Financing – The Plan provides no information on how the proposed new sewer facilities could be financed. Nor does the Plan explain the role of local ratepayers in serving debt on new facilities, or the potential methods of financing local share requirements for new sewer systems.

Other Costs Not Included -- The Plan states that “[t]he project will require a few acquisitions of . . . property.” In addition, “approximately 1,000 rights of way will be required” for the sewage collection system. P. VI-10. However, there is no discussion or analysis of the costs of such acquisitions.

POTENTIAL GROWTH, COMMUNITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM PENTREE PLAN

Pentree Plan Expected to Increase Growth – The Plan states that “[t]here will be significant growth and development expected from the implementation of this project.” P. VI-8. The Plan also states that “existing landowners could benefit from the development of land due to the project.” In addition, the Plan states that its proposed new sewer lines are sized “large enough to handle significant growth.” Section III, p. III-2. However, the Plan also makes the unexplained statement that “the proposed systems do not serve areas where there is no existing populations.” P. VII-2.

Unclear Whether Pentree Plan Conforms to Jefferson County Land Use Laws and Plans – The Plan projects 2.56 percent growth rate for Jefferson County, with a year 2020 population of 58,879 in 23,935 homes. Section III, pp. III-1 to III-2. The Plan states that, based on the County Comprehensive Plan, approximately 5,400 additional housing units will need to be constructed by 2005 to meet projected population increases. P. III-2. The Plan also assumes that total EDUs for schools, commercial and industrial would growth from 1,894 in 2000 to 2,598 in 2020. Section III, p. III-7.

However, it is not clear whether the Plan is designed to meet this projected population, or some other population. It is also not clear whether the Plan’s proposed location of new facilities and sewer lines conforms to existing zoning maps and County land use plans,[5] or whether Pentree is assuming that expanded growth will be evenly distributed across its 22 sewer study areas, as opposed to being channeled into preferred growth zones.

Unclear Impact on Local Growth Patterns – The Pentree Plan quotes sections of the 1994 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that calls for growth corridors and the use of infrastructure to promote orderly, high-density, clustered development patterns. P. III-3. The Plan also states that “[t]he possible projects within this facilities plan do conform to existing land use plans and will not cause significant changes to existing land use patterns.” Page VI-10. However, there is no discussion in the Plan about how the new sewer facilities are tied to zoning or land use plans. Nor does the Plan explain how the construction of new sewage and collection facilities will affect growth patterns, or explain whether it will affect the scoring of subdivisions under the County’s LEESA point system. Nor does the Plan acknowledge that the County is currently undertaking major efforts to revise the Comprehensive Plan and land use laws.

Plan Claims that Growth is Not a Concern – The Plan states that “[a] consequential result of a new sewer system to existing residents is a potential increase in residential development. This should not be considered as a deterrent to wastewater systems. Possible future development in excess of the normal rate for Jefferson County should be controlled by zoning laws rather than denying existing residents the benefits of a sanitary environment.” Page. I-5. The plan states the position that, “Any advances in wastewater collection and treatment could encourage such needed growth” in new industry and jobs, but does not provide any support for this statement. Section I, page I-2.

Plan Includes Irrelevant Articles on Sprawl – the Pentree Plan includes in Appendix J, “Project Documents,” two copies of articles on urban sprawl. The first is a copy of a short article titled, “New Houses Aren’t Eating Up Land, Says NAHB.” The National Association of Home Builders is the lobbying organization for home building developers. The other article is a story from a Virginia newspaper that discusses a computer glitch in a Department of Agriculture study on land use and development rates. This article is not relevant to Jefferson County. Together, these articles seem to suggest that urban sprawl does not exist, and that new homes do not affect land use.

Impacts of Pentree Sewer Plan on Local Environment – Section VI of the plan discusses expected air impacts, water impacts, water supply impacts, biological impacts, impacts on sensitive areas, land use impacts, and socio-economic impacts that may be associated with implementation of the Pentree Plan. Pp. VI-7 to VI-11. The Plan makes the bald statement that “[t]he wastewater projects will have no avoidable adverse impacts and mitigative measures will be taken to limit environmental impacts. There will also be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.” P. VI-7. These claims, whether accurate are not, are clearly intended (by their use of specific legal terms) to avoid the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an environmental assessment or impact statement for “major federal actions that may significantly affect the environment,” which can include government permits or funding of sewer systems.

The Plan also states that “[n]one of the proposed project construction will affect any known sensitive environmental areas.” P. VI-9. However, the Plan contains no discussion of the potential impacts on the confluence of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers from the construction of two major new sewer plants at that confluence. Nor does it provide any discussion of the impact on historic properties or resources in the Harpers Ferry / Bolivar area.

Impacts on Air Quality -- The Plan states that “[t]here will be significant growth and development expected from the implementation of this project.” P. VI-8. Although the Plan claims that this will cause no adverse impact on air quality, there is no discussion on this matter, including whether new cars and traffic associated with increased growth could impact air quality.

Impacts on Water Quality – The Plan discusses water quality impacts if the recommended sewer construction plan is not implemented. P. VI-8. However, the Plan provides no discussion about how water quality impacts can be avoided by alternatives to major new sewer facilities, such as through alternative sewer technologies (such as improved septic approaches, constructed wetland treatment systems, etc.). Nor does the Plan consider how land conservation could be used to protect surface and ground water quality, an approach that is being taken in other states. Currently, the U.S. EPA will allow states to use up to 20 percent of wastewater State Revolving Fund monies (i.e., state sewer monies) for land conservation purchases to protect the quality of surface water and groundwater. Rather than reviewing the potential to use such funding for open space conservation in Jefferson County in a manner that could protect water quality, the Plan calls only for the construction of major new sewer facilities and pipes that will cause “significant growth and development” and thus further water contamination. See p. VI-8. In addition, the Plan fails to discuss the potential that new U.S. EPA regulations for “Total Maximum Daily Load” requirements might restrict the ability to discharge major new sewage flows into the Potomac, Shenandoah or Opequon Rivers.

Impacts on Endangered Species – The Plan states that the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Section indicates that there are approximately eighty (80) rare species in Jefferson County. There are sixteen (16) federally endangered species and another five federally threatened species. Section I, p. I-2. The Plan acknowledges that it has not assessed the impact of the Plan or new sewer facilities on endangered and threatened species. P. VI-9.

Impacts on Wetlands – Appendix E is labeled “Wetlands Maps,” but no information is included other than a note that wetlands maps “will be included in future addendums (sic).”

No Environmental Screening Checklist – Section IX is labeled “Environmental Screening Checklist,” but contains no information other than a notation that “[t]he Environmental Screening Checklist will be included in future addendums (sic) as projects are developed based upon this facilities plan. The Checklists will be project specific.” P. IX-1.

Impact of the Pentree Sewers on Local Communities and Historic Resources – The Plan provides no discussion of the potential impacts of new sewer plants and facilities on historic, natural, or cultural resources in Jefferson County, either from the construction projects or from the indirect impacts of new growth and development. There is no discussion of impacts on the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, nor on the recreational values of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. There is no discussion of impacts on Civil War battlefield or other historic sites.

In Appendix D, the Plan includes an April 11, 2000 letter sent from Pentree to the WV State Historic Preservation Office, stating Pentree’s view that because the sewer study is County-wide, the identification of historic or cultural sites potentially impacted by the sewer facilities “is probably impossible for a study of this size and that you would likely prefer to wait until actual projects are identified.” There is no response from the State Historic Preservation Office included in the Plan. In an earlier, July 7, 1998 letter from Pentree to the State Historic Preservation Office, Pentree includes maps of the area in which the proposed Flowing Springs plant would be sited. The Historic Preservation Office wrote back requesting the location of specific facilities and lines, which Pentree later provided. On November 13, 1998 the State Historic Preservation Office wrote that “the proposed [Flowing Springs] project location is situated in an area of high probability for archeological deposits. Our files and maps indicated that several sites exist in and around the proposed alignments, and the potential for further discovery is high. . . . As a result, we recommend that a Phase I archaeological survey be performed on all alignments, pump stations, and other project structures located outside of established rights-of-way.” Appendix D. The Plan does not indicate that any Phase I survey has ever been conducted.

Nor does the Plan discuss the potential impacts on established local communities and municipal revenues in Charles Town, Harpers Ferry, Ranson, Bolivar or Shepherdstown from the construction of new, competing sewer plants. For example, there is no discussion regarding the fiscal impacts on Harpers Ferry and Bolivar of closing their existing plant in favor of a new Flowing Springs Plant or Potomac Plant. A basic principle of “smart growth” is to focus investment in established communities, rather than drain investment from established communities by setting up competing systems.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

No Public Participation – The Plan says that “[p]ublic meetings will be held as various projects suggested by this plan are taken into consideration,” Pp. V-1 and VI-11, but it does not state that there will be any public meetings to consider the overa