Fayette County Wastewater Management Plan

February 14, 2006

Project Overview

1. Form Project Advisory Committee2. Develop Public Participation Plan3. Review Previous Planning Efforts4. Assemble Community Profile5. Define Existing Wastewater Needs6. Id and Screen Options7. Evaluate Alternatives and

Develop Preferred Plan

How can you learn more?

Project website Meeting minutes Project reports

http://www.lombardoassociates.com/fayette_county_west_virginia.php

County libraries, National Park Service, 3rd Floor of County Courthouse Project reports

Wastewater Management Sectors

Onsite systems Cluster systems Recreational areas UIC systems Package plants PSD & municipal WWTFs WQ monitoring program

County Preferred Plan

$58,500,000 38% $93,200,000 37%

$14,550,000 9% $14,550,000 6%

$221,000 0.14% $221,000 0.09%

$80,000 0.05% $80,000 0.03%

$9,218,000 5.9% $9,218,000 3.7%

$72,690,000 47% $131,590,000 53%

$425,000 0.3% $425,000 0.2%GRAND TOTAL $155,690,000 100% $249,290,000 100%

PSD & Municipal WWTFs

Water Quality Monitoring

Percent of Total

Onsite (low estimate)

Cluster

UIC

Capital CostsSector

Low Estimate High Estimate

Recreational Areas

Package Plants

Capital CostsPercent of Total

PSD & Municipal Systems

PSD & Municipal WWTF CIP

Collection System

Improvements Capital Costs

Treatment System

Improvements Capital Costs

Sewer Extension Project Capital

Costs

Collection, Treatment,

Sewer Extension

Capital CostsAnsted 300,000$ 20,000$ 3,149,000$ 3,469,000$ Arbuckle -$ 1,991,000$ 10,378,000$ 12,369,000$ Armstrong -$ -$ -$ -$ Deepwater -$ -$ -$ -$ Fayetteville -$ -$ -$ -$ Kanawaha Falls -$ -$ -$ -$ Meadow Bridge 85,000$ 600,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,685,000$ Montgomery 1,502,116$ 1,307,174$ -$ 2,809,290$ Mount Hope -$ -$ -$ -$

Pax -$ -$ 2,473,812$ 2,473,812$ Smithers -$ -$ -$ -$ White Oak -$ -$ -$ -$

Total 1,890,000$ 3,920,000$ 23,510,000$ 29,310,000$ Percent of Total 1% 3% 16% 20%

WWTF

Oak Hill -$ -$ -$ Page-Kincaid

Existing CIP

-$ -$ 5,500,000$ -$

5,500,000$

PSD & Municipal WWTF CIP

CSO/SSO Capital Costs

(Low)

CSO/SSO Capital Costs

(High)

Ansted 6,618,000$ 13,236,000$ Arbuckle -$ -$ Armstrong -$ -$ Deepwater -$ -$ Fayetteville 20,597,000$ 41,194,215$ Kanawaha Falls 7,955,000$ 15,909,000$ Meadow Bridge 36,000$ 71,000$ Montgomery 9,250,000$ 18,500,000$ Mount Hope 1,707,000$ 3,414,500$

5,041,000$ 119,000$

Pax -$ -$ Smithers 45,000$ 90,000$ White Oak 7,489,000$ 14,977,500$

Total 58,900,000$ 117,800,000$ Percent of Total 67% 80%

238,500$

WWTF

Oak Hill 10,081,500$ Page-Kincaid

CSO/SSO CIP

PSD & Municipal WWTF CIP

Total Capital Costs

Percent of Total

Total Capital Costs

Percent of Total

Ansted 10,087,000$ 11% 16,710,000$ 11%Arbuckle 12,369,000$ 14% 12,370,000$ 8%Armstrong -$ 0% -$ 0%Deepwater -$ 0% -$ 0%Fayetteville 20,597,000$ 23% 41,200,000$ 28%Kanawaha Falls 7,955,000$ 9% 15,910,000$ 11%Meadow Bridge 2,721,000$ 3% 2,760,000$ 2%Montgomery 12,059,290$ 14% 21,310,000$ 14%Mount Hope 1,707,000$ 2% 3,420,000$ 2%

5,041,000$ 6%5,619,000$

Pax 2,473,812$ 3% 2,480,000$ 2%Smithers 45,000$ 0% 90,000$ 0%White Oak 7,489,000$ 8% 14,980,000$ 10%

Total 88,200,000$ 100% 147,100,000$ 100%Percent of Total 100% 100%

5,740,000$

WWTF

4%Oak Hill 10,090,000$ 7%Page-Kincaid

Total CIP (High)

6%

Total CIP (Low)

Onsite Systems CIP

Activity BudgetDatabase of all existing systems $30,000 Inventory of all existing systems $140,000 GIS mapping of parcels and on-site systems $50,000 Out-reach and training program $10,000 Misc. & contingency $50,000

Total $280,000

Management system requirements

Onsite Systems CIP

Scenario A Failure = 35%Existing

ConditionSolution % No.

Construction Unit Cost

Construction Cost

Development Costs

Capital Costs

System repair/replacement 18% 1,508 $8,000 $12,070,000 $3,630,000 $15,700,000Failure connect to small cluster 9% 754 $15,000 $11,320,000 $3,400,000 $14,720,000Failure connect to sewer 9% 754 $15,000 $11,320,000 $3,400,000 $14,720,000

Subtotal 35% 3,017 $34,710,000 $10,430,000 $45,140,000

Non-failure connect to cluster 4% 371 $15,000 $5,570,000 $1,680,000 $7,250,000

Non-failure connect to sewer 9% 754 $15,000 $11,310,000 $3,400,000 $14,710,000

Subtotal 13% 1,125 $30,000 $16,880,000 $5,080,000 $21,960,000No action needed 52% 4,477 $0 $0 $0 $0

Subtotal 52% 4,477 $0 $0 $0 $0

Totals 100% 8,619 $68,000 $51,590,000 $15,510,000 $67,100,000

Failure or malfunction

Good

Onsite Systems CIP

Scenario B Failure = 50%Existing

ConditionSolution % No.

Construction Unit Cost

Construction Cost

Development Costs

Capital Costs

System repair/replacement 25% 2,155 $12,000 $25,860,000 $7,760,000 $33,620,000Failure connect to small cluster 13% 1,077 $15,000 $16,170,000 $4,860,000 $21,030,000Failure connect to sewer 13% 1,077 $15,000 $16,170,000 $4,860,000 $21,030,000

Subtotal 50% 4,310 $58,200,000 $17,480,000 $75,680,000

Non-failure connect to cluster 6% 531 $15,000 $7,970,000 $2,400,000 $10,370,000

Non-failure connect to sewer 12% 1,077 $15,000 $16,160,000 $4,850,000 $21,010,000

Subtotal 19% 1,608 $30,000 $24,130,000 $7,250,000 $31,380,000No action needed 31% 2,702 $0 $0 $0 $0

Subtotal 31% 2,702 $0 $0 $0 $0

Totals 100% 8,619 $72,000 $82,330,000 $24,730,000 $107,060,000

Failure or malfunction

Good

Proposed Cluster Systems

Cluster System CIP

Current onsite areas proposed to have cluster systems (mini-sewers)

Wastewater Management System: STEG - RSF - UV - Constructed Wetland - Direct Discharge

No. UsersWWTF Flow

(gpd)Capital Costs

Unit Capital Cost / User

% of MHI (No Grant, 0.5%

40-yr. Loan)

% of MHI (100% Grant)

1 Winona 80 22,000 $2,220,000 $18,400 5.54% 2.75%2 Bachman 66 17,000 $1,490,000 $15,500 5.35% 3.09%3 Brooklyn & Cunard 100 27,000 $2,400,000 $16,600 4.76% 2.34%4 Summerlee 167 43,000 $2,940,000 $12,200 3.42% 1.65%5 Lookout 107 29,000 $2,550,000 $16,500 4.63% 2.23%6 Youngstown 61 16,000 $1,500,000 $16,900 5.80% 3.34%7 Jodie 74 18,000 $1,490,000 $13,800 4.81% 2.80%

655 172,000 $14,590,000 $15,700 4.90% 2.60%

Study Area

Total (average)

UIC Systems CIP

Typically large septic systems

Total Flow (gpd)

Unit Cost ($/gal)

Construction Costs

Development Costs

Capital Costs

24 systems 56,154 $20 $169,000 $52,000 $221,000

Recreational Areas CIP

Public education and outreach

Quantity Unit Cost Total CostsFact Sheets 30,000 LS $30,000Pamphlets 30,000 LS $30,000Workshops 4 $5,000 $20,000Misc LS $20,000

$80,000Total

Package Plant CIP

19 systems total 4 minor upgrades 15 total replacement

Package Plant CIPTreatment

TypePermit Flow

(gpd)Upgrade / Replace

Capital Costs

1 Danese Elementary Ext. Aeration 1,200 R 94,0002 Thurmond Depot Ext. Aeration 2,000 R 124,000

3Babcock State Park Pool Backwash

Ext. Aeration 3,500 R 207,000

4Babcock State Park Cabins

RSF 3,500 U 38,000

5Babcock State Park Pool Bathroom

Ext. Aeration 4,000 R 216,000

6Babcock State Park Admin Bldg

Ext. Aeration 5,000 R 281,000

7New River Gorge Campgrounds

Ext. Aeration 5,000 R 281,000

8 Hill & Dale Estates Ext. Aeration 6,000 R 361,0009 Midway T & C, Inc. Ext. Aeration 7,000 R 440,000

10Western Family Restaurant

Ext. Aeration 7,000 R 440,000

11 Briarwood Place Ext. Aeration 8,000 R 489,000

12North American River Runners

Ext. Aeration 8,000 R 489,000

13 Songer Whitewater Ext. Aeration 8,000 U 82,00014 Whitewater Inn Ext. Aeration 10,600 R 743,00015 New River Ranch RSF 12,000 U 103,000

16Babcock State Park Campground

Ext. Aeration 14,000 R 1,090,000

17Midland Trail High School

Ext. Aeration 15,000 R 1,217,000

18 Canyon RimAerated Lagoon

15,000 U 82,000

19 Green Summit Estates Ext. Aeration 24,000 R 2,441,000

38,500 4 $305,000 120,300 15 $8,913,000158,800 19 $9,218,000

WWTF

Upgrade SubtotalReplace Subtotal

Total

Water Quality Monitoring CIP

Cost/ Watershed

Capital Costs

17 watersheds $25,000 $425,000

Variables Affecting CIP

Percent of onsite systems in failure CSO/SSO abatements costs Needed collection and treatment

system improvements for PSD & municipal WWTFs

County CIP – Preferred Plan

System repair/replacement $13,620,000 $29,160,000Failure connect to small cluster $12,760,000 $18,240,000Failure connect to sewer $12,760,000 $18,240,000Non-failure connect to cluster $6,280,000 $9,000,000Non-failure connect to sewer $12,760,000 $18,240,000Onsite inventory & database $280,000 $280,000

Subtotal $58,500,000 38% $93,200,000 37%

6 Communities $14,550,000 $14,550,000Subtotal $14,550,000 9% $14,550,000 6%

24 Systems $221,000 $221,000Subtotal $221,000 0.14% $221,000 0.09%

Public outreach and education $80,000 $80,000Subtotal $80,000 0.05% $80,000 0.03%

Upgrade $305,000 $305,000Replace $8,913,000 $8,913,000

Subtotal $9,218,000 5.9% $9,218,000 3.7%

Collection $1,890,000 $1,890,000Treatment $3,920,000 $3,920,000Sewer Extension $7,980,000 $7,980,000SSO/CSO $58,900,000 $117,800,000

Subtotal $72,690,000 47% $131,590,000 53%

17 watersheds - 10 years $425,000 $425,000Subtotal $425,000 0.3% $425,000 0.2%

GRAND TOTAL $155,690,000 100% $249,290,000 100%

PSD & Municipal WWTFs

Water Quality Monitoring

Percent of Total

Onsite (low estimate)

Cluster

UIC

Capital CostsSector

Low Estimate High Estimate

Recreational Areas

Package Plants

Capital CostsPercent of Total

Watersheds & Impaired Waters

Watershed CIPs

Capital Costs% of Total

Capital Costs% of Total

Twentymile Creek 1,018,060$ 1% 1,607,460$ 1%Gauley River 8,519,400$ 5% 12,682,300$ 5%Lower Meadow River 8,324,000$ 5% 12,176,000$ 5%Upper Meadow River 2,777,190$ 2% 4,410,790$ 2%Manns Creek 6,205,000$ 4% 8,729,700$ 3%Lower New River 55,775,000$ 36% 89,490,000$ 36%Upper New River 20,100,690$ 13% 32,269,490$ 13%Dunloup Creek 12,975,000$ 8% 24,388,000$ 10%Upper Meadow Creek 1,199,080$ 1% 1,503,680$ 1%Lower Meadow Creek 682,700$ 0% 1,072,500$ 0%Smithers Creek 70,000$ 0% 115,000$ 0%Kanawha River 12,210,100$ 8% 21,534,400$ 9%Lower Paint Creek 1,815,480$ 1% 2,878,280$ 1%Cabin Creek 165,780$ 0% 249,280$ 0%Armstrong Creek 9,371,770$ 6% 18,152,870$ 7%Loop Creek 6,728,820$ 4% 7,493,170$ 3%Upper Paint Creek 8,359,420$ 5% 11,570,920$ 5%

156,300,000$ 100% 250,400,000$ 100%

Lower New River

Upper Kanawha River

Total

High EstimateLow Estimate

Gauley River

Watershed Subwatershed

What’s next? Adoption of the plan by Fayette County

Planning Commission and Fayette County Commission as the official wastewater plan of the county

Secure funding for prioritized projects (availability and suitability of funding sources may affect implementation schedule)

Implementation Steps Filing of the plan with the West Virginia Infrastructure

Council as a pre-application for acceptance for technical feasibility

Formal application through IJDC for the initial, selected projects, with local recommendation of funding sources

Follow-up with the agencies recommended by IJDC Filing of individual funding applications made by

Region 4 Planning and Development Council in consultation with the Fayette County Resource Coordinator

Funding Sources

Grants Loans Increased rates Water quality protection fee

Funding Sources State Revolving Loan Fund HUD Small Cities Block Grant Appalachian Regional Commission Special appropriation request through Congress Rural Utility Service Army Corps of Engineers Funds from a private purveyor of wastewater

treatment services interested in an O&M contract on the system

Local bond issue using the Tax Increment Financing Statute or Industrial Development Bond Statute

Funding Issues

Affordability and willingness to pay must be considered

Need for rate increases for “rainy day funding” for repair/replacement

Need for wastewater fee for unsewered areas = business opportunity for PSDs/ municipalities

Questions?