WPCMAR Quarterly Meeting Minutes

WPCAMR

Western PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation

Quarterly Meeting Minutes

May 17, 2005

Westmorland Conservation District, Greensburg, PA

In attendance:

Lee Roy Vatter Indiana

Lance Bowes Venango

David Beale Armstrong

Bob Eppley WPCAMR president

Jim Resh Indiana

Jeff Fliss DEP

Dave Kemp Somerset

Phil Thomas Somerset

Lester McNutt Somerset

Jeffrey Gerard WPCAMR

Bruce Golden WPCAMR

Meeting called to order by President Bob Eppley at 10:45 a.m.

Minutes

Draft minutes presented.

On motion by McNutt/Vatter minutes approved.

Treasurers Report

Treasurers report presented by Bruce Golden for treasurer Greg Phillips.

On motion by McNutt/Beale treasurers report approved.

Watershed Coordinator Position

Bob Eppley noted that the watershed coordinator job is now open as a result of Deb's Simko's resignation in April. The executive committee has moved ahead to fill the position and have received a number of resumes and applications which are currently being considered. The next step is to interview appropriate candidates. Those interested in being on the interview committee were invited to do so. Because the bylaws were silent on the interview processes, precedent will serve as a guide. Jeff Fliss suggested that someone from DEP be on the interview committee, most appropriately Garry Price, adviser to the 319 grant. However, since Garry was unavailable, Jeff volunteered to serve. Potential salary and benefits were discussed. The Job description was also discussed. It remained similar to the Job description held by the former watershed coordinator which includes outreach to conservation districts and watershed organizations and acting as a resource person. Not included in the description was that of project manager for watershed type projects. Greg Phillips suggested that the board provide focus for the position, more so than was done for the previous watershed coordinator, with more emphasis given to conservation districts and their individual needs. Jeff Fliss counseled that duplication of effort between WPCAMR's watershed coordinator and conservation districts' watershed specialist should be avoided.

Bruce Golden stated totaled 33 applications were received and about a dozen seem to be qualified, at least on paper. Of the dozen mentioned, he said there was a diversity into types of qualifications presented, representing an additional dimension in choice. Bob Eppley emphasized making to conservation district link strong regardless of who is chosen. He also noted that whoever is chosen will have a learning curve.

Greg suggested establishing the interview / review committee to move the process along as quickly as possible. After considerable discussion, moving quickly to form a committee to review applicants seemed warranted.

Motion by Beale/Vatter: Form a committee to review and weed applications following the end of this meeting. Motion passed.

Regional Coordinator Report

Bruce Golden presented the Regional Coordinator report. Text available on WPCAMR website for this meeting.

The following discussions occurred during the report.

AMR Conference

On a question of conference funding, Bruce noted there is a total of $9,000 in unrestricted funding: $2000 provided by Dave Hess and his wife, $1000 provided by an anonymous donor through Dave Hess, $4000 from the Western Pennsylvania watershed program (John Dawes administrator). Bruce also noted that $2400 in restricted funds would be made available by the Office of Surface Mining, and an undetermined amount through the C-SAW program. He added that the conference committee was trying to optimize by keeping the cost as low as possible to the participants by underwriting food costs and accommodation costs at the Atherton Hotel. No scholarships, as such, will be available. On a question of DEP funding, Bruce noted that an application was made for conference funding but was turned down.

SMCRA Reauthorization

On a question by Jeff Fliss regarding what would happen to funding if absolutely no legislation were passed, Bruce responded that enough fees to keep the OSM program going would be collected and the principle in the abandoned mine reclamation fund would be spent down until exhausted. Bruce did not feel that it was likely that all fees would cease; some legislation is likely to keep that going whether that be the Santorum bill or some other yet to be introduced legislation, or just going year to year as has been the case for the last few years. His opinion was that the Santorum bill is okay legislation, a compromise, in which some things are good and others that are not so good, but overall a bill that we could live with... probably as good as we could hope to get.

Greg suggested that when something significant happens with the reauthorization effort, the coalition should get out a letter or communication to the conservation districts, also noting the very significant efforts made by the coalition and the AML campaign. Greg further stated that the service the coalition offered saves the district considerable time and is more than worth the dues are are paid to the coalition.

Quick Response

Greg noted that some conservation districts are not aware of the Quick Response program and need to be informed as soon as the program is fully in place.

Bruce noted that WPCAMR is the fiscal sponsor of the Growing Greener grant Quick Response; DEP is the point of contact, specifically the DEP watershed managers, for potential applicants to apply. The choice of what projects are funded and what are not is solely in the hands of DEP. Bruce outlined the general procedure that is to be followed.

Jeff Fliss asked if only emergency repairs are eligible as opposed to say a treatment system that has become plugged. Bruce responded by saying that that wasn't entirely clear. Bob Eppley added that has been the subject of conversation in DEP and one opinion was that anything that interfered with continued good operation of the system could be considered, but no final decision has been made. Jeff Fliss made the comment that any repair has to be more than just a band-aid because of the nature of the Growing Greener II funding. Growing Greener II is for capital projects only.

Growing Greener match requirement

Bruce noted that all Growing Greener grants now require a mandatory 15% match, although match may be provided with cash or in-kind contributions. A number of watershed groups object to this requirement because it is practically unattainable, especially for some types of grants, most notably construction grants. Construction grants tend to be high dollar with little opportunity to provide in-kind match because of the necessity of professional services. This leaves cash as the only acceptable match. A $200,000 construction grant request would require $30,000 in cash match. Related to this, Bruce stated he was contacted by Pennsylvania Representative William Adolph's office (Adolf is chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee) soliciting comment on the 15% match requirement. That office would like to receive testimony on the hardships the match requirement as on watershed groups and their ability to do projects should the policy hold. Bruce asked if any watershed groups would be willing to write a letter to Representative Adolf. A discussion ensued about the general subject. More than one watershed group declined to submit grant applications in the last round because of the match requirement. It was felt that DEP was firmly entrenched in the policy of making watershed groups self-sustaining and, more than likely, a legislative solution would be required. Information was provided to contact Representative Adolph.

Innovative treatment projects

Dave Kemp noted that there now exists a pellet producing system using wood and coal spoils.

Reports by attendees were given for projects from around the region.

Motion by Resh/Bowes to schedule next meeting at the Armstrong conservation District Spring Center at crooked Creek Park. Motion passed.

Motion to adjorn at Bowes / Vatter. Motion passed.

_____________________________________________________

Review committee formed comprised of: