Now Here is Some Clear Thinking About the Snowshoe Sewer Matter

Gentlemen, here is Eight Rivers Safe Development Inc.'s response to the recent PSD request for input concerning the sewage treatment plant for the Pocahontas PSD. Eight Rivers provided in writing at the July 29, 2008 PSD meeting in Durbin a detailed description of the alternative of building a new membrane plant on the mountain and a request to wait for the completion of the Elk Headwaters Watershed Association Comprehensive Watershed Plan for defining the best solution for the Linwood / Slatyfork area. This was the PSD meeting where Site #7 was selected. The PSD has a copy of this document.

The proposal is simply to build a membrane biological reactor only - not a SBR with membrane filtration - on the mountain at a suitable location where it could receive and treat - with minimal additional infrastructure - the sewage from both Snowshoe and Silver Creek.

The effluent from this new plant would discharge into Shavers Fork so that it eliminates the current and future (increased) inter-basin water transfer from Shavers Fork to the Elk River.

This alternative would eliminate the need for a new and expensive pipeline off the mountain (1500 ft elevation drop) to a regional plant located at Site #7. This also would reduce spill potential and reduce pipeline maintenance expense.

This also would eliminate the negative aesthetics (odor and visual) of a sewage plant at the entrance to the resort. It also would allow a future sewage treatment facility to serve Slatyfork and Linwood in a more suitable location for its customer base.

The shared membrane plant on the mountain would be built and operated by the Pocahontas PSD with user fees collected from residents/businesses which are served by the new plant.

Recycling of effluent for snow-making or other purposes would be an option for Intrawest to consider in the future - a membrane plant would enable water recycling efforts for use on the mountain. However, the cost of water recycling infrastructure should not be included in the scope/cost estimate of the PSD project. One advantage of having water for snow-making on top of the mountain is it would reduce pumping costs from Shavers Lake. Other ski resorts use similar recycling effectively.

There are grants available to fully or partially pay for infrastructure projects to recycle water and reduce CO2 footprint (power use). This also would generate positive PR for the resort, and help it achieve its goal as a member of the "Sustainable Slopes" group of ski resorts focused on green initiatives.

Locating the shared membrane plant at the existing Silver Creek plant site would be ideal, however a plant located on the ridge - near the fire station - also may be feasible and allow gravity flow or minimize need for pumping from both resorts. This location also could provide water for fire service hydrants, reducing demand for potable water on the mountain as well, and further reducing Snowshoe potable water production costs along with associated carbon footprint.

The existing enclosure at the Silver Creek air oxidation ditch could be reused to maintain the temperature needed for a membrane plant or a new simple ("pole barn") enclosure could be built. It is expected that a comparable capacity membrane plant would have a much smaller foot print than a SBR and would easily fit in a small building.

The equalization tank at Snowshoe still could be used for load shedding during periods of peak flow. This would require a lift station at the existing Snowshoe plant to pump raw or partially treated sewage to the new plant on the ridge or at Silver Creek.

The aerated ponds / filters / sanitization system at the existing Snowshoe plant could be "moth-balled" and be used for storage / pretreatment of sewage from Snowshoe during times of peak load with partially treated effluent from these ponds going to the new membrane plant or discharging completely treated effluent into Cupp Run as today. This may not be an issue if the loads are significantly reduced or used intermittently only. The ponds also would provide for storage during periods of main plant maintenance.

The alternatives investigated by Thrasher should be compared on a comparable basis. This includes sufficient detail in the project description, description of facilities, line item capital cost (equipment, piping, infrastructure) and operations/maintenance cost to allow for a fair and factual comparison by Thrasher, PSD, DEP and the public.

NOTE: This conceptual framework is provided pursuant to the PSD's solicitation of public input and is not intended as a comprehensive engineering proposal.

My e-mail today to PSD Counsel Tom Michael:

Tom,
As we approach January, 2009, I am hopeful we will enter an era of new and open thinking regarding the Snowshoe Sewer matter. I applaud George Phillips and 8 Rivers for their continued interest and ingenuity in this difficult problem which I view as finding a solution that (1) Meets the needs of Snowshoe (2) Is cost effective and fair regarding the Snowshoe rate payers (3) Is environmentally sound and cutting edge (4) Is an example of collective thinking.

Why did the PSD accept the sewer system without the water? It seems the PSD has taken all the burden without the benefit?

I anticipate that the first meeting of the County Commission in January will vote to invite the PSD to the Commission for a complete update and open air discussion of this issue. I feel the Commission has a responsibility to bring the stakeholders to the table and to help achieve the above 4 goals.

Our County's future depends upon building consensus which results from transparent planning.

With kindest regards,
Martin Saffer

Here is what Tom Michael says the PSD will do in the future as to communicating from the PSD to the public. It is exactly what we need.

1. The District will strive for the maximum amount of openness, transparency and public participation.
2. The District will commit to evaluation of reasonable alternatives for the site or sites for wastewater treatment.
3. The District will make a draft of the revised Facilities Plan available to the parties and allow time for comment.
4. All parties hereby pledge to make every reasonable effort to work together and to communicate openly, freely and honestly with each other in good faith.