fayette county wastewater management plan february 14, 2006
TRANSCRIPT
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?