Tim Hugo Holds a North South Corridor Press Conference

On Wednesday, September 4th 2013 Delegate Tim Hugo (Virginia House of Delegates R-40th) along with Delegate Michael Webert (R-18th), Delegate Randy Minchew (R-10th), Delegate Bob Marshall ( R-13th) and Prince William County School Board Members Alyson Satterwhite and Gil Trenum held a news conference in front of Sudley Methodist Church on Sudley Road within the Manassas Battlefield. The news conference attended by about 75 community members and media was to announce that Tim Hugo along with Bob Marshall, Randy Minchew, Michael Webert and the other elected officials listed below have sent a letter to Governor McDonnell regarding the North/South Corridor Project also known as the Bi-County Parkway and asking for a meeting with the Governor. Delegate Hugo will personally deliver a copy of the letter today in Richmond.

The news conference was held ahead of today’s Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CBT) scheduled meeting. At the VDOT meeting they will discuss and potentially sign the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for the Bi-County Parkway which would provide $7 million to acquire the private land and design the Battlefield Park Bypass. In addition, once the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is finalized in the near future the Federal Highway Administration will sign the Record of Decision and VDOT will be free to begin the design phase of the Prince William County portion of the project with the $12 million already allocated to the project.

Though in public meetings it was emphasized that the roadway is 25 years away, as Delegates Hugo and Marshall pointed out the VDOT and CBT have made several misleading and conflicting claims and statements about this roadway. Meanwhile as Delegate Hugo pointed out opposition to the roadway grows, from a small group of activist residents lead by Mary Ann Ghadban, Philomena Hefter, and Page Snyder opposition to the Bi-County Parkway has grown. According to Delegate Hugo 700 attended the last Town hall meeting and group of supporters attended the news conference. A coalition has seemingly grown from a “diverse group who could not agree on the time of day but can agree that this is not the right project.”

In the news conference Delegate Hugo besieged the CBT, VDOT and the Governor to “Stop. Think. Slow down. Listen. This (Bi-County Parkway) is not the right project.” Delegate Randy Minchew followed Delegate Hugo and though Delegate Minchew (whose district covers sections of Loudoun, Clark and Fredrick counties) supported the Transportation Budget he wanted the take the time to make sure that the money is well spent. He, too, felt the process needed to slow down to get more input from the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Delegate Bob Marshall pointed out the false and misleading statements that have been made by VDOT and CBT about the Bi-County Parkway.  In addition, Delegate Marshall felt false claims have been made about the desirability and usefulness of the road to Dulles.

The Delegates felt that Governor McDonnell and Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton were rushing the Bi-County Project through to assure their legacy before they left office. According to the Delegates this would be the wrong legacy to leave. The constituents need to have a voice. The concerns raised need time to be addressed in a fiscally responsible manner. Though according to Delegate Marshall Secretary Connaughton said "most will go along with the road after they use this issue for campaigning,” the fight against the road can continue even if the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Programmatic Agreement is signed today. Delegate Hugo does not think this is a partican issue (though the list below is all Republican); he called the opposition to the Bi-County Parkway a citizen issue. “If the Programmatic Agreement is signed we will continue the fight in January when the House of Delegates is in session.” The legislature can fight with budget amendments, legislation and by changing the composition of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

In case you are new to the issue the North South Corridor or Bi-County Parkway will be a limited access highway approximately 45 miles in length running through what is now the Rural Crescent, predominantly agricultural and rural lands, and is essentially a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. The only access points in Prince William County will be I-66, Route 29, and existing Route 234 west of the Battlefield. The new road will also be called 234 and be 2.5 miles west of Sudley Road and expanded to carry 4 lanes of traffic.

In addition to the $19 million mentioned above, funds have been allocated for “traffic calming” on route 29 through the park ahead of the development of any other roadway. VDOT has not explained what kinds of traffic calming measures would be used. In addition, though Sudley Methodist Church will maintain an access route and be eligible for signage, though their road will be closed to the public. Prince William County community objections to this planned parkway have focused on several issues that are still of concern to the community:

1. The Bi-County Parkway will drive all the east-west traffic from route 29 which will be effectively closed to through traffic by "traffic calming measures" to I-66 increasing traffic on that road.
2. The Bi-County Parkway is intended to be a 4 lane and 6 lane highway that will provide direct access to Dulles Airport, but have limited access to the Prince William community, yet will utilize a section of the Rural Crescent for the road essentially destroying the intent of the Rural Crescent.
3. The planned road will require that Virginia invoke eminent domain to take land from more than a dozen homeowners. The Programmatic Agreement allocates $3 million to acquire the desired land.
4. Route 234 through the Battlefield, providing road access to several businesses and Sudley Methodist Church (that predates the Civil War) will be eliminated. According to Reverend Mitchell, closing the road to through traffic will remove the Church from everyday lives of its members and potential members in the community, and effectively land lock and isolate the Church within the park to a slow death. This has happened to other churches.
5. Closing route 234 through the park and route 29 through the park to through traffic essentially isolates northwestern Prince William County from the rest of the county and Manassas. There is no route from Heathcote Health Center to Prince William Hospital without going on I-66. The only route from Dominion Valley, Regency and all the development on route 15 to Manassas or anywhere will be I-66 which will be the only way to cross from western Prince William County to Eastern Prince William County.
6. The Bi-County Parkway does nothing to improve east-west traffic, instead it provides connectivity to the airport that Prince William residents do not want, divides the county and eliminates connections within Prince William county and only benefits the Loudoun County developments.
7. Delegate Hugo stated “If this road through groundwater in the Rural Crescent is severely threatened.” The route through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damages our watershed and water resources. The Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has called the corridor one of three priority conservation area for the region.

Other signatories to the letter to the Governor are:
State Senator Dick Black (R-13th)
State Senator Richard Stuart (R-28th)
State Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-27th)
Delegate Rich Anderson (R-51st)
Delegate Tim Hugo (R-40th)
Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R-31st)
Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13th)
Delegate Randy Minchew (R-10th)
Delegate David Ramadan (R-87th)
Delegate Michael Webert (R-18th)
Prince William County Board Supervisor Maureen Caddigan (R-Potomac)
Prince William County Board Supervisor Pete Candland (R-Gainesville)
Loudoun County Board Supervisor Janet Clarke (R-Blue Ridge)

A New Round of Rebate Funding for the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

The Virginia Energy Efficiency Rebate Program was originally launched in late October 2009 by Governor Kane. Utilizing a portion of the stimulus dollars that Virginia received to support the purchase of energy efficient products and upgrades for Virginia homeowners and commercial businesses. Energy efficiency improvements under the program included upgrading heating and air conditioning equipment, adding insulation, replacing leaky windows, and other improvements to reduce energy consumption. Homeowners were eligible for rebates for up to 20 % of the costs of qualifying products and projects, up to a maximum of $2,000.

The first round of funding totaling about $10 million was reserved in less than three weeks when the program opened. In late March 2010, Governor Bob McDonnell announced that approximately $6.5 million was available for a second round of the rebate program to make existing homes and businesses more energy efficient. Funds for the second and final round of the Energy Efficiency Rebate Program were exhausted on March 26, 2010. Over 3,000 applicants were wait-listed, and eventually approved for rebates when much of the rebate reservations were not used. The Energy Efficiency Rebate Program was closed out on April 29, 2011 after paying out $10.4 million to Virginia homeowners and businesses.

Once more, unclaimed funds remain and are now being made available to other homeowners. Approximately $5 million will be available for a new Virginia Home Efficiency Rebate Program to make existing homes more energy efficient. Energy efficiency improvements include upgrading heating equipment, adding insulation, replacing windows, and making other improvements to existing homes that reduce energy consumption and utility costs. Under this new program, homeowners will be eligible to reserve funds for rebates for up to 20 % of the costs of qualifying products or services, up to $595 whichever is less. Also a rebate is available for energy audits for the cost of the audit or $250 which ever is less. The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy opened up the reservation process at noon of June 20th 2011 and the money is likely to be gone quickly, but sign up on the waiting list. Any money not used within the time limit will become available to those on the wait list. The $5 million is simply unclaimed funds from other rounds. https://epm.virginiainteractive.org/HERebate/

Qualified energy efficient items and improvements purchased and installed on or after March 26, 2010 are eligible for the rebate if they meet all the other eligibility requirements. So if you were shut out of the last round of rebates and have an the required documentation, and used a Virginia business to purchase or perform the work you can apply. Items covered under the program are: oil furnace, gas, propane or oil hot water boiler, Insulation and air sealing, replacement windows and exterior doors, storm doors. Funding is available for homeowners to reserve funds for geothermal heat pump systems under our new Geothermal Heat Pump Rebate Program. The geothermal rebate is 20% of the cost or $2,000 which ever is less. http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/ARRA-Public/GeothermalHeatPump.shtml

These rebates are for Virginia homeowners only, not commercial facilities and the energy efficiency products and systems must be purchased from a Virginia company. In addition, these items qualify under the Federal Home Energy Efficiency Improvement Tax Credit Program The tax credit amount was reduced to 10% of cost up to $500 on qualifying items installed in 2011 and additional restrictions were added. More information on the federal tax credits, which were extended until December 31, 2011, is available at the Department of Energy web site. http://www.energystar.gov/

One of my most successful home improvement projects was my home insulation project. Following the recommendations by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory the attic, crawl spaces, eves, ductwork, underside of a large portion of the main level floor were insulated with cellulose. The pipes, end caps, knee wall, sump pumps and all identified areas were sealed, the garage was insulated and an insulated garage door installed. My total electricity bills for the following 12 months were 27% less than I paid in the 12 months before I added the additional insulation to the house, and the winter liquid propane usage (as measured in volume used December through March for both years) was reduced by 25%. I was very surprised at the energy savings for what was a well insulated home. The payback on this project was under 4 years, and I did not get any rebates because I completed the project in 2007.

The Next Steps in Chesapeake Bay Restoration in Virginia

On Friday, Governor McDonnell announced the appointment of a new Assistant Secretary for Chesapeake Bay Restoration in Virginia, Anthony Moore. Mr. Moore recently served for six years at the US EPA as a Senior Policy Advisor for the Office of Water. Prior to serving at the EPA, Mr. Moore briefly served as the Director of Policy for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, was Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and worked as a Chemist for Dominion Power for 15 years. This appointment marks the first step in Virginia’s response to the anticipated release of the final total maximum daily load, TMDLs for nutrients and sediments.

If you will recall, this past spring EPA released the “Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” developed under President Obama’s Executive Order. The Strategy was released in May 2010 and outlines actions that will be taken by each federal agency to control pollution, restore habitat and wildlife, conserve land, and increase public awareness and accountability in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The executive order complements and overlaps with the settlement agreement resolving the lawsuit brought by former Maryland State Senator Bernard Fowler, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland and Virginia watermen’s associations, and others filed against the EPA in January 2009 alleging the Agency failed to fulfill its duties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. EPA settled the lawsuit with the “settlement agreement,” which requires EPA to:
Establish and implement a Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, TMDL, for nutrients and sediments. This will include reviewing watershed implementation plans (WIPs) by the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to ensure those jurisdictions achieve the nutrient and sediment allocations under the TMDL.
Review state-issued permits, including proposed construction general permits and NPDES permits for “significant point source discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment” in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Develop new storm water regulations by 2012 and concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations by 2014.
Issue guidance on permitting for municipal separate storm sewer systems.

Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, Doug Domenech, in a press conference last week said the amount of nitrogen from cars, power plants, fertilizer and other sources is down 20 percent bay wide since 1985. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, this decrease in large part to the water shed states reducing point source reductions by improving sewage treatment plant discharge. The new TMDLs are to take effect next year; the federal government could punish states that do not meet requirements by withholding grant money, imposing more regulations and taking other measures. Mr. Domenech called the consequences "unnecessarily aggressive,” but it is still unclear what how the reductions will be measured, documented and enforced. Mr. Domench argued the current approach, in which states are encouraged not required to meet EPA pollution reduction goals, is working and therefore should not be changed. Pointing out that new regulation could lead to job losses, especially among farmers, ranchers and land developers.

Yet, despite more than 25 years of effort, the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded and considerably short of attaining the 2010 water quality goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement by the states. As a result of the court order, the US EPA is required to draft a new Bay-wide cleanup plan by May 2011. After point source reduction, which was mandated by federal regulation, improvements in water quality of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed stalled. All of the states failed to meet the 2010 deadline for water quality in the Bay. The new federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan is will establish and apportion an allowable pollution budget among the states and review the implementation plans for achieving those goals. The US EPA will set nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment limits for each impaired tributary and the Bay, together with maximum allowable point source and nonpoint source loadings.

The Federal Clean Water Act gives regulatory authority to the states to restrict pollutants discharged into the waters of the Bay from point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants. In contrast, that authority does not extend to non-point sources, such as farms, ornamental gardens, horse facilities and septic systems. The states need to address these non-point sources using other regulatory schemes. That lack of bright line regulatory authority has been the root cause of the stalled cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. There were always other calls for the resources of the states. Reductions in discharge of contaminants can be achieved through the implementation of “agricultural best management practices” operations and sensible management of septic systems in the state. In Virginia, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts work with farmers, and livestock owners to develop BMP implementation plans. The property owners are not “required” to implement BMPs and there is no system to verify the BMPs are followed. The most recent budget cycle has slashed the Soil and Conservation budgets throughout the state. There has never been and mechanism for enforcing the adoption and maintenance of BMPs now it seems there will be no budget for developing them.

New Septic Regulations for Alternative Septic Systems in Virginia

The Emergency Alternative Onsite Sewage System (AOSS) Regulations published on November 16, 2009 by the Virginia Department of Health were approved by Governor McDonnell on April 6, 2010, and are now in effect.

The emergency regulations implement the 2007 legislation and require professional operators certified by DPOR to operate and maintain all alternative on site septic systems, AOSS, including those of single family homes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. While I object to routine sampling requirements for functioning single family AOSSs, and I feel there should be provisions within DPOR regulations for homeowners to become qualified to operate and maintain their own systems; overall I believe that these regulations are good and will ensure the proper functioning and operation of existing and future AOSSs in Virginia, The Emergency Alternative Onsite Sewage System Regulations despite their flaws will serve to protect the waters of the state and public health, and will set a higher standard of performance for these on site systems.

Single family homeowners with alternative systems need to comply with these new regulations. Every owner of an AOSS must hire a licensed operator to operate and maintain their system as evidenced by a contract. This portion of the regulations should ensure that these systems are properly operating and protecting the waters of the state. The other requirements of the regulations will all be handled by the licensed operator so the most important step is to hire a licensed, and qualified operator. Since there are no provisions in the regulation for a homeowner to become qualified to maintain their own system even homeowners who work for the Department of Health, are Professional Engineers or in other ways might be capable of and interested in operating or maintaining their own system, there is little a homeowner can do to reduce the costs associated with this regulation. Perhaps when the final regulations are developed they will be less burdensome for the single family homeowner and allow for a homeowner to become licensed to operate their own systems.

Effective July 1, 2009, Virginia law required that soil evaluators, installers, and operators of on site sewage systems must be licensed by the Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators and Onsite Sewage System Professionals at the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR). The new regulations require the same operation, maintenance, sampling, record keeping behavior in single family home owners as required of clustered systems of up to 39,999 gallons per day. These regulations require that for single family homes, in addition to being operated and maintained by a licensed operator, have samples and taken by a licensed operator every five years (or at the operator’s discretion after an incident) and analyzed at the homeowner’s expense and maintain an operating manual and records on site.

Here are the basics of the new regulations:
Owner responsibilities. The owner of an AOSS must:

Maintain a relationship with a licensed operator as evidenced by a contract.

Have the AOSS operated by a licensed operator;

Have a licensed operator visit the AOSS at the frequency outlined below;

Minimum Operator visit frequency for AOSS up to 1,000 gallons per day of average daily flow:
Initial Visit must take place within 180 calendar days of the issuance of the operation permit Regular Visit after Initial Visit -Every 12 Months


Have the licensed operator collect all samples required by the regulation and have the analysis performed by an accredited laboratory;

SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR AOSS under 1,000 gallons per day :
1. The Flow must be Estimated (The basis for this estimation is unknown since the licensed operator is only on site one day a year unless there is an incident)
2. BOD and TSS- a Grab sample must be taken every 5 years
3. TRC, Contact Tank (if there is one)- a Grab sample must be taken every 5 years
4. Fecal Coliform- a Grab sample must be taken every 5 years

Keep a copy of the log provided by the operator on the property where the AOSS is located, make the log available to the Department of Health upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the log to any future owner;

Keep a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) on the property where the AOSS is located, make the manual available to the Department of Health upon request, and make a reasonable effort to transfer the O&M Manual to any future owner. For existing systems they will have to have their licensed operator create an O&M Manual.