COMPREHENSIVE

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

PLAN

PROJECT SUMMARY

For Fayette County,

West Virginia

September 28, 2005 Revised December 19, 2005 Prepared by:

In association with:

Submitted to:

Mr. David Pollard County Resource Coordinator Fayette County Commission Fayette County Courthouse 1105 Mercer Street = Post Office Box 5849 Fayetteville, WV 25840-0307 Princeton, West Virginia 24740

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE & LOCAL COORDINATOR...... 2 2.1. Project Advisory Committee...... 2 2.2. Local Office...... 3 2.3. Local Project Coordinator...... 3 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & PROJECT MEETINGS ...... 4 3.1. Public Participation Plan...... 4 3.2. Project and Public Meetings...... 4 3.2.1 Wastewater Service District Interviews...... 5 3.2.2 Project Web Site...... 5 4. COMMUNITY PROFILE ...... 6 4.1. Location ...... 6 4.2. Population and Demographics...... 8 4.3. Land Use ...... 9 4.4. Natural Resources...... 9 4.4.1 Topography...... 9 4.4.2 Surficial Geology ...... 10 4.4.3 Soils ...... 10 4.4.4 Wetlands and Floodplans ...... 12 4.4.5 Floodplains ...... 12 4.5. Existing Infrastructure...... 13 4.5.1 Existing Wastewater Infrastructure ...... 13 4.5.2 Existing Water Supply Infrastructure...... 21 4.6. Regulatory Issues...... 24 4.6.1 Water Quality Standards ...... 24 4.6.2 Anti-Degradation...... 24 4.7. Wastewater Facility Permitting...... 25 4.7.1 Division of Water and Waste Management (DWWM) ...... 25 4.7.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Overview ...... 26 4.8. Legal and Institutional Issues...... 30 4.8.1 Background...... 30 5. WASTEWATER NEEDS DEFINITION ...... 33 5.1. Needs Definition for Currently Unsewered Areas ...... 35 5.2. Onsite Systems ...... 35 5.3. Cluster Systems ...... 36 5.4. UIC Systems...... 38 5.5. Recreational Area WWTFs...... 40 5.6. Septage Management ...... 40 5.7. Package Treatment Plant Overview ...... 42 5.8. PSD and Municipal WWTF Overview ...... 44 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 iii

5.8.1 WWTF Overflows ...... 46 5.8.2 WWTF Financial Evaluation ...... 49 5.9. Watershed-Level Water Quality Analysis ...... 53 5.9.1 Bacterial Contamination ...... 53 5.9.2 Pollutant Sources ...... 56 5.9.3 Watershed Assessments...... 57 5.10. Needs Summary...... 58 6. ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING...... 59 6.1. Technology Overview ...... 59 6.1.1 Treatment ...... 59 6.1.2 Disinfection ...... 62 6.2. Onsite Systems ...... 64 6.2.1 Technology Options ...... 64 6.2.2 Treatment ...... 64 6.2.3 Disinfection Options...... 65 6.2.4 Dispersal Options ...... 65 6.2.5 Technology Screening Summary...... 67 6.3. Cluster Systems ...... 67 6.3.1 Collection ...... 68 6.3.2 Treatment ...... 70 6.3.3 Dispersal...... 71 6.3.4 Technology Screening Summary...... 72 6.4. Package Plants...... 72 6.4.1 Treatment ...... 72 6.4.2 Disinfection ...... 73 6.4.3 Disposal...... 73 6.4.4 Technology Screening Summary...... 73 6.5. PSDs and Municipal WWTFs ...... 75 6.5.1 I/I Reduction and CSO/SSO Control...... 75 6.5.2 I/I Reduction vs. Increasing Treatment and Collection System Capacity .....77 6.6. Management Options ...... 79 6.6.1 Identification of Management Options ...... 79 6.6.2 USEPA Management Models ...... 82 6.7. Screening Management Options...... 83 6.7.1 Onsite Systems ...... 83 6.7.2 Cluster Systems ...... 83 6.7.3 Package Plants...... 84 6.7.4 UIC Systems...... 84 6.7.5 PSD and Municipal Systems...... 84 6.8. Financial Options ...... 84 6.8.1 Identification of Financial Options ...... 85 6.8.2 Government Financing Options ...... 85 6.8.3 Affordability Guidelines...... 85 6.8.4 Screening Financial Options ...... 86 6.8.5 Fayette County Wastewater Management Funding Plan ...... 87

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 iv

7. PREFERRED PLAN ...... 89 7.1. Onsite Systems ...... 89 7.1.1 Onsite System Inventory and Database ...... 89 7.1.2 Onsite System Repair/Replacement...... 92 7.2. Cluster Systems ...... 94 7.2.1 Design Criteria and Present Worth Analysis Assumptions...... 95 7.2.2 Summary ...... 97 7.3. Recreational Area Wastewater Management Systems...... 99 7.4. UIC Systems...... 100 7.5. Package Plants...... 100 7.5.1 Extended Aeration Systems with Little or No Useful Life Remaining...... 101 7.5.2 Summary ...... 101 7.6. PSD and Municipal WWTFs...... 102 7.6.1 Existing CIPs for Collection and Treatment System Improvements and Sewer Extension...... 102 7.6.2 CSO and SSO Remediation...... 103 7.7. Water Quality Monitoring Program...... 108 7.8. County-wide CIP ...... 108 7.9. Scenario I...... 109 7.10. Scenario II...... 110 7.11. Watershed CIPs ...... 112 7.12. Implementation Plan...... 115 7.13. Financing Plan ...... 115 7.13.1 Funding Sources ...... 115 7.13.2 Cost per Household...... 115 7.14. Management and Institutional Structure ...... 117 7.14.1 Ownership...... 117 7.14.2 Administration ...... 117 7.14.3 Operations ...... 117 7.14.4 Regulatory Changes ...... 118 REFERENCES ...... 120 APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS...... 122

List of Figures Figure 4-1: Fayette County Location Map...... 7 Figure 4-2: Fayette County PSD and Municipal WWTFs ...... 15 Figure 4-3: Fayette County Package Plants ...... 16 Figure 4-4: Existing vs. New Septic System Permits Issued 1978-2004 ...... 19 Figure 4-5: Types of Septic Systems Installed 1978-2004 ...... 20 Figure 4-6: Permitting and Engineering Branch Organizational Chart ...... 26 Figure 5-1: Unsewered Wastewater Management Options...... 35 Figure 5-2: Soils Based Wastewater Management Decision Process ...... 37

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 v

Figure 6-1: Onsite Wastewater Management System Options ...... 66 Figure 6-2: Management Options For Cluster Systems ...... 69 Figure 6-3: Alternative Wastewater Conveyance Systems ...... 70

List of Tables Table 2-1: Project Advisory Committee ...... 2 Table 3-1: Scheduled Meetings ...... 4 Table 4-1: Population of Principal Communities in Fayette County...... 8 Table 4-2: Fayette County Demographics...... 9 Table 4-3: Summary of Slopes within Fayette County ...... 9 Table 4-4: Summary of Soils found in Fayette County ...... 11 Table 4-5: Fayette County PSD and Municipal WWTFs ...... 13 Table 4-6: Fayette County Package Plants ...... 14 Table 4-7: Housing Stock Age Distribution, Fayette County ...... 17 Table 4-8: Fayette County Septic System Permit Review 1978-2004 ...... 18 Table 4-9: Summary of Fayette County Water Supply Systems...... 22 Table 4-10: Summary of Fayette County Water Supply Systems (Continued)...... 23 Table 4-11: General NPDES Permits ...... 28 Table 4-12: Permitting Authority by System Type ...... 29 Table 4-13: Wastewater Management Systems Rules and Regulations ...... 29 Table 4-14: Types of Public Wastewater Management Entities ...... 30 Table 4-15: Water and Sewer Utility Rules ...... 31 Table 5-1: Summary of Wastewater Management Practices by Community ...... 34 Table 5-2: Summary of Potential Cluster System Evaluations ...... 38 Table 5-3: Fayette County UIC Permits ...... 39 Table 5-4: Major Put-ins and Takeouts ...... 40 Table 5-5: Sludge/Septic Land Disposal General Permits ...... 41 Table 5-6: Land Application Sites ...... 41 Table 5-7: Summary of Package Wastewater Treatment Plants in Fayette County ...... 43 Table 5-8: Summary or Wastewater Needs for Package Plants ...... 44 Table 5-9: Summary of PSD and Municipal WWTFs in Fayette County...... 45 Table 5-10: Summary of PSD and Municipal WWTFs Discharge Locations ...... 47 Table 5-11: CSO Control Policy Compliance Summary...... 48 Table 5-12: Estimated Equalization Storage Requirements...... 48 Table 5-13: Summary of 2004 Annual Report Key Items ($) ...... 50 Table 5-14: Summary of 2004 Annual Report Key Items ($/Customer) ...... 50 Table 5-15: 2004 Total Operating Expenses ($/1,000 gallons)...... 51 Table 5-16: PSD and Municipal WWTF Needs Summary...... 52 Table 5-17: Fayette County Streams Impaired by Fecal Coliform ...... 55 Table 5-18: Risk Potential to Public Health through Exposure to Sewage Through Riverine Flow and Discharge ...... 56

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 vi

Table 5-19: Fayette County Watersheds ...... 57 Table 5-20: Fayette County Watershed Water Quality Summary...... 58 Table 5-21: Summary of Needs by Sector...... 58 Table 6-1: Fayette County Cluster System Treatment Alternatives ...... 60 Table 6-2: Recommended Technology Options for Onsite Systems ...... 67 Table 6-3: Summary of Fayette County Package Plants ...... 74 Table 6-4: O&M Practices for CSO and SSO Control*...... 75 Table 6-5: Collection System Controls for CSO and SSO Control*...... 76 Table 6-6: Storage Facility for CSO and SSO Control ...... 76 Table 6-7: Treatment Technology for CSO and SSO Control...... 77 Table 6-8: Matrix of Ownership Options ...... 79 Table 6-9: Typical MMR Responsibilities* ...... 81 Table 6-10: Summary of USEPA’s Management Models* ...... 82 Table 6-11: Median Household Incomes in Fayette County ...... 86 Table 7-1: Onsite Inventory and Database Costs...... 91 Table 7-2: Onsite System Scenarios ...... 93 Table 2-3: Scenario A Onsite CIP ...... 94 Table 2-4: Scenario B Onsite CIP ...... 94 Table 7-5: Potential Cluster System Sites ...... 95 Table 7-6: Cluster System CIP Summary...... 98 Table 7-7: Capital Costs by WWTF Component...... 98 Table 7-8: Per User Capital Costs by WWTF Component...... 99 Table 7-9: Recreational User Public Outreach Program Cost Estimates ...... 100 Table 7-10: UIC System CIP ...... 100 Table 7-11: Package Plants Summary ...... 102 Table 7-12: PSD and Municipal Collection, Treatment, and Sewer Extension CIP ...104 Table 7-13: PSD and Municipal WWTF CSO/SSO Control High CIP Estimate ...... 105 Table 7-14: PSD and Municipal WWTF CSO/SSO Control Low CIP Estimate ...... 106 Table 7-15: PSD and Municipal WWTF Total CIP ...... 107 Table 7-16: Water Quality Monitoring Program CIP ...... 108 Table 7-17: Scenario I Proposed Solutions ...... 109 Table 7-18: Scenario I County-wide CIP ...... 110 Table 7-19: Scenario II Proposed Solutions ...... 111 Table 7-20: Scenario II County-wide CIP...... 112 Table 7-21: Watershed Level CIP Summary...... 113 Table 7-22: Preferred Plan Watershed CIPs (Low Estimate)...... 114 Table 7-23: Preferred Plan Watershed CIPs (High Estimate)...... 114 Table 7-24: Scenario A Onsite User Costs...... 116 Table 7-25: Scenario B Onsite User Costs...... 116 Table 7-26: Cluster System User Costs...... 116 Table 7-27: PSD and Municipal User Charges ...... 117

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 vii

1. INTRODUCTION

Lombardo Associates, Inc. (LAI) in association with Stafford Consultants, Inc. have been contracted to develop wastewater management solutions to achieve water quality standards to protect tourism industry vital to Fayette County as well as protect public health and safety. The project was initiated in May 2004 and is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2006.

The existing wastewater management practices in the County include the following sectors:

1. Individual onsite systems 2. Large subsurface dispersal septic systems, permitted by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permitting program 3. Package plants 4. PSD and municipal wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) 5. Recreational area wastewater management

Solutions will be focused on upgrading and expanding the existing sewer system as necessary, developing cluster systems to serve villages throughout the County as appropriate, and repairing and upgrading individual onsite systems.

The project was comprised of seven main activities.

1. Forming a Project Advisory Committee and Local Coordinator 2. Development of a public participation plan to ensure stakeholders are actively involved in the project as it progresses 3. Reviewing Previous Planning Efforts - reviewing engineering reports, identifying wastewater needs data gaps, and preparing Executive Summary of the issues and wastewater needs of each sewer system and for unsewered areas 4. Assembling Community Profile - describing the population, land use, socio economic and physical (soils, geology, ground and surface waters – quantity and quality, etc.) characteristics of Fayette County. 5. Identifying Existing Wastewater Needs - identifying current wastewater needs for unsewered areas, identifying current wastewater needs for sewered areas, prioritizing wastewater needs based on watershed quality analyses 6. Identification and Screening of Technology, Management, and Financing Options 7. Evaluation of Options and Preparation of Preferred Capital Improvement Program - solution generation, committee and public review and feedback, generation of county-wide wastewater management scenarios, development of preferred Plan

The goal of the project is to develop a sustainable, long-term wastewater management plan that is both economically and financially viable.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 1

2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE & LOCAL COORDINATOR

2.1. Project Advisory Committee

LAI composed the Project Advisory Committee, which consists of the members listed in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1: PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPRESENTI NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL NG Jesse National Park PO Box 246 304 465-0508 [email protected] Purvis Service Glen Jean, WV 25846 Randy Plateau Action PO Box 687 304 574-4339 [email protected] Boyd Network Edmond, WV 25837 Mark Fayette County PO Box 710 Ehrnschwe Water Quality 304 574-1993 [email protected] Edmond, WV 25837 nder Coalition Al Public Service Box 33 Gannon 304 469-4642 Districts Oak Hill, WV 25901

Lombardo Associates Pio Lombardo 49 Edge Hill Rd 617 964-2924 [email protected] Lombardo Associates Newton, MA 02467 WVDEP Division of Water & Elbert WVDEP Wastewater Management 304 558-0633 [email protected] Morton 601 57th Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Ken Fayette County HC82 Box 14-B Transition 304 438-7113 [email protected] Toney Team Rainelle, WV 25962

Fayette County Philip 202 Church Street Health 304-574-1617 [email protected] Perone Department Fayetteville, WV 25840

Dave Fayette County Courthouse Pollard Fayette County 304 574-4258 [email protected] Fayetteville, WV 25840

WVPRO Doug Rafting Business PO Box 78 304 574-4909 [email protected] Proctor Community Lansing, WV 25862

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 2

NAME REPRESENTING ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL

Stafford Consultants, Edward Stafford Inc. [email protected] 304 425-9555 Shutt Consultants, Inc. POB 5849 Princeton, WV 24740

NPS/Grants Program Manager DE/PA/WV Branch Leo N. 1650 Arch Street (3WP11) 215 814-5732 [email protected] Essenthier Water Protection Philadelphia, PA 19103 Division U.S. EPA S/Grants Program Manager DE/PA/WV Branch Bernie 1650 Arch Street (3WP11) 215 814-5403 [email protected] McCullagh Water Protection Philadelphia, PA 19103 Division U.S. EPA

Together the Project Advisory Committee worked with the objective of providing review comments and advice to the project engineers to produce for Fayette County the optimal solution for its wastewater management needs.

2.2. Local Office

A local project office was set up in the Fayette County Courthouse. This room houses documentation and plans for the project and is located on the Third Floor of the Courthouse next to David Pollard’s office:

2.3. Local Project Coordinator

The name and contact information of the local project coordinator is:

Mr. Mark Ehrnschwender P.O. Box 710 Edmond, WV 25837

304-574-1993 [email protected]

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 3

3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & P ROJECT MEETINGS

3.1. Public Participation Plan

Public participation was a key element of the Fayette County wastewater management planning process. The most effective public involvement is true, two-way communication in which the engineers and Project Advisory Committee present plans and information to a listening public and the public responds with suggestions/comments. An important component of this two-way communication was scheduling meetings throughout the planning process.

3.2. Project and Public Meetings

Both project meetings and public meetings were held to actively involve the public. LAI organized ten project meetings, including the kick-off meeting at the beginning of the project, and subsequent monthly meetings, with the Project Advisory Committee.

Additionally, four project meetings were held on the same day as public meetings. During the public meetings the following issues will be discussed:

1. Project kick-off: overall project objectives and schedule and community comments and issues of concern 2. Results of wastewater needs assessment 3. Alternative options 4. Preferred plan and implementation approach

Table 3-1 shows the scheduled time for the project and public meetings. The first meeting was held in May 2004.

TABLE 3-1: SCHEDULED MEETINGS 2004 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Project X Meeting Public Meeting X 2005-2006 Jan-05 Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-05 Feb-06 Project X X X X X X X X Meeting Public X X X Meeting

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 4

3.2.1 Wastewater Service District Interviews

The LAI team interviewed the wastewater service districts to discuss their wastewater management challenges and issues of concern on July 26-27, 2005.

3.2.2 Project Web Site

LAI developed a project web site to provide internet access to documents, data, meeting materials, reports and other relevant information from the planning process. The web site defines the project objectives, describes the specific tasks that will be completed, provides a schedule for major milestones, and will discuss the final outcomes. As reports are generated, they are posted on the web site. The web site is an important tool to help disseminate information about the project.

Moreover, the names and contact information for all members of the Project Advisory Committee are provided.

The web site is located at: http://www.lombardoassociates.com/fayette_county_west_virginia.php

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 5

4. COMMUNITY PROFILE

In order to identify the wastewater needs of the County, it is beneficial to assess the existing environmental, socio-economic, and infrastructure conditions. The regulatory, legal, and institutional issues also need to be considered in wastewater planning. To that extent, LAI has prepared a Community Profile, which includes information on the following:

§ Population and demographics § Land use § Natural resources § Existing infrastructure § Regulatory Issues § Legal and institutional issues

The two main goals of the Community Profile are to identify:

§ Key issues and problems that will require special focus § Important data needed for the subsequent steps involved in developing the action plan

4.1. Location

Fayette County is located approximately 25 miles southeast of Charleston, the capital of West Virginia, and approximately 150 miles west of Richmond, Virginia. A location map showing the County and surrounding areas are provided as Figure 4-1. The County encompasses 427,689 acres (equivalent to 664 square miles), approximately 2.8 percent of the state’s total land mass. Leading industries and chief agricultural products are tourism, coal, ferro-alloys, lumber, livestock, and dairying.

The lack of basic infrastructure has plagued Fayette County’s development efforts for decades. When the County could rely on coal to provide healthy severance taxes and a wealth of jobs, the infrastructure issues were merely reflected in public health and convenience issues. Thus, past efforts to provide water and wastewater service was based on meeting that public need. Unfortunately, as the coal presence dwindled, lack of population density made it very difficult for the County to compete for the limited funding sources available for providing these basic services.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 6

FIGURE 4-1: FAYETTE COUNTY LOCATION MAP

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 7

4.2. Population and Demographics

According to the 2001 US Census Bureau estimates, Fayette County is home to approximately 47,089 people, 2.8 percent of the state population. The county seat is Fayetteville.

Fayette County’s population is distributed in a number of small cities, hamlets, and sparsely populated rural areas. Approximately, 61 percent of the County’s population is distributed in rural areas, with the remaining 39 percent concentrated in 10 incorporated communities with populations ranging from 174 to 7,589 people. Oak Hill is the largest community in Fayette County, with an estimated year 2000 population of 7,589 (15.9 percent of the County total). The population of principal communities is summarized in Table 4-1.

TABLE 4-1: POPULATION OF PRINCIPAL COMMUNITIES IN FAYETTE COUNTY 1990 2000 Community Percentage Percentage of Population Population of County County Oak Hill 6,812 14.20% 7,589 15.9% Montgomery 2,449 5.10% 1,239 2.6% Fayetteville 2,182 4.60% 2,754 5.8% Powellton 1,905 4.00% 1,796 3.8% Ansted 1,643 3.40% 1,576 3.3% Mount Hope 1,573 3.30% 1,487 3.1% Smithers 1,162 2.40% 901 1.9% Gauley Bridge 691 1.40% 738 1.6% Meadow Bridge 325 0.70% 321 0.7% Pax 167 0.30% 174 0.4% Thurmond 39 0.10% 7 0.0% Other Areas 29,004 60.50% 29,007 61.0% COUNTY TOTAL 47,952 47,589

Key demographics of Fayette County are presented in Table 4-2. The County is generally lower than West Virginia on economic benchmarks. Fayette County is also considerably lower than the national average on these economic benchmarks .

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 8

TABLE 4-2: FAYETTE COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS Fayette West Unites Statistic (2000) County Virginia States Population 47,579 1,808,344 -- Median Household Income (1999) $24,788 $29,696 $41,994 Median Per Capita Income $13,809 $16,477 $21,587 Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing $50,900 $72,800 $119,600 Units Total Housing Units 21,616 844,623 -- Total Households 18,945 736,481 -- Average Household Size 2.41 2.40 2.59 Percent of Population in Poverty 21.7% 17.9% 12.4%

4.3. Land Use

The majority of the County is classified as rural. Other land uses in the County include: residential, recreation, public facilities, commercial, mining, and industrial.

4.4. Natural Resources

4.4.1 Topography

Fayette County is characterized by rugged topography. Steep hills and gorges measuring hundreds of feet in depth are common. The New River valley is the largest gorge in the County. The 1975 USDA geological survey indicates that the New River valley is 1,300 to 1,700 feet deep and about a mile wide.

Table 4-3 illustrates the total acres and the percentage of the total land that is at various slope intervals.

TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF SLOPES WITHIN FAYETTE COUNTY

Grade Acres Percent < 10% 55,700 13.5% between 10-20% 69,770 17.0% between 20-30% 63,350 15.4% >30% 222,640 54.1%

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 9

4.4.2 Surficial Geology

The West Virginia State Geologic Survey categorizes Fayette County as displaying the characteristics, uplifting, erosion and coal beds of the Pennsylvanian Period. Fayette County lies within the Allegheny Plateau region. Narrow valleys with very steep sides characterize the area, with the deepest geologic erosion along the New River.

4.4.3 Soils

The soil survey for the Winona area is the only County area known to be in digitized format. The soil types of the Fayette County, WV are described in the 1975 USDA Soil Survey and presented on Table 4-4.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 10

TABLE 4-4: SUMMARY OF SOILS FOUND IN FAYETTE COUNTY

Depth to Depth to Depth from O/O Passing No % of Soil Series USDA Texture Permeability Acres GW Bedrock Surface 200 Sieve County Ashton >6 >5 0-10 fine sandy loam 40-70 2-6.3 10-48 silt loam 60-80 .63-2 40-60 silt loam to fine sandy loam 40-80 .63-6.3 1,500 0.36% Atkins 0 >4 0-10 silt loam 70-95 .63-2 10-34 silty clay loam, silt loam 65-85 .2-.63 34-55 silt loam 45-85 .2-.63 Brinkerton .5-1 >4 0-8 silt loam 75-95 .63-2 530 0.13% 8-25 silty clay loam 80-95 .2-.63 25-54 silty clay loam 70-85 <.2 Calvin >4 1.5-2.5 0-6 silt loam 50-80 2-6.3 3,060 0.74% 6-15 silt loam 45-80 2-6.3 290 0.07% 15-24 very channery silt loam 15-45 2-6.3 6,930 1.68% 24 siltstone bedrock Chavies >4 >4 0-34 fine sandy loam 40-70 2-6.3 1,030 0.25% 34-50 sandy loam, loamy sand 30-55 2-6.3 Clymer >4 3.5->5 0-12 loam, fine sandy loam 40-60 2-6.3 1,590 0.39% 12-32 clay loam, fine sandy loam 30-60 .63-2 32-44 sandy loam, loamy sand 25-45 2-6.3 44 sandstone, bedrock Cookport 1.5-2 3.5->4 0-12 loam 40-70 2-6.3 1,600 0.39% 12-20 clay loam 40-65 .63-2 20-42 clay loam(fragipan) 35-55 .2-,63 42 sandstone bedrock Dekalb >4 1.5-3.5 0-8 loam 30-60 2-6.3 8-21 channery fine sandy loam 20-55 2-6.3 50,830 12.35% 21-39 very channery sandy loam 15-45 39 sandstone bedrock 97,190 23.62% Ernest 1.5-2 >4 0-10 silt loam 70-85 .63-2 6,520 1.58% 10-27 silty clay loam 75-90 .63-2 27-55 channery silty clay loam(fragipan) 60-90 .2-.63 10,520 2.56% Gilpin >3 2-3 0-11 silt loam 60-85 .63-2 62,850 15.27% 11-22 channery silty clay loam(fragipan) 55-80 .63-2 22-31 very channery heavy silt loam 15-70 .63-2 31 shale bedrock Gravelly alluvial land too variable to be rated 1,190 0.29% Landes ft>4 ft>6 0-31 fine sandy loam 40-70 2-6.3 260 0.06% 31-60 sratified sandy loam and silt loam 2-6.3 Lickdale 0 >5 0-18 silt loam 70-95 2-6.3 710 0.17% 18-40 silty clay loam to silt loam 70-85 <.2 40-60 silt loam 60-80 .2-.63 Made Land too variable to be rated 1,060 0.26% Meckesville >3 >5 0-23 silt loam to silty clay loam (fragipan) 55-70 .63-2 180 0.04% 23-38 channery silty clay loam 55-70 .63-2 1,010 0.25% 38-62 channery silty clay loam 40-65 .2-.63 Mine Dump too variable to be rated 1,270 0.31% Monongahela 1.5-2 >5 0-13 silt loam 70-95 .63-2 360 0.09% 13-28 heavy silt loam 70-100 .63-2 28-56 silt loam and clay loam(fragipan) 60-95 .2-.63 Muskingum >3 2-3 0-11 silt loam 50-85 2-6.3 30,880 7.50% 11-35 Channery silt loam 50-65 .63-2 35 siltstone bedrock 91,300 22.19% Philo 1-2 >4 0-15 silt loam 65-90 .63-6.3 1,590 0.39% 15-28 loam to silt loam 55-90 .2-2 28-50 loam to sandy loam 45-80 .63-6.3 Pope >3 >4 0-32 fine sandy loam 40-70 2-6.3 620 0.15% 32-50 stratified sand, silts and a few pebbles Rayne >3 3.5-4 0-10 silt loam 60-85 .63-2 1,440 0.35% 10-33 silty clay loam, silt loam 60-85 .63-2 33-45 channery clay loam 45-70 .63-2 45 sandstone bedrock Shelocta >3 >4 0-15 silt loam 60-80 .63-2 4,640 1.13% 15-37 channery silty clay loam 45-70 .63-2 37-60 channery silt loam to channery loam 36-60 .63-2 Steep Rock land too variable to be rated 7,600 1.85% Strip mine spoil too variable to be rated 19,520 4.74% Summers 4 1.5-3 0-14 loam 30-60 2-6.3 210 0.05% 14-22 channery fine sandy loam 20-55 2-6.3 22-33 very channery sandy loam 15-45 2-6.3 33 sandstone bedrock Wharton 1.5-2 >4 0-9 silt loam 70-90 .63-2 2,260 0.55% 9-29 silty clay loam to silty clay 80-95 .63-2 29-60 clay 65-100 <2 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 11

4.4.4 Wetlands and Floodplans

Due to the Fayette County’s rugged topography, wetlands are generally limited to valley bottoms. An extensive wetlands network is found along the Meadow Creek drainage. Wetlands comprise 8.61 sq. mi. of Fayette County or 1.3 percent.

There are 17 classified watersheds within Fayette County, containing more than 130 named rivers and streams. The northern quarter of the County drains into the Gauley River, a tributary of the Ohio. The rest of the County drains into the Kanawha River and its tributaries, including the New River.

The New River is the most heavily used water body in the State for both its recreational and natural resources. It draws vacationers throughout the eastern United States, and is a major contributor to the County’s local economy.

4.4.5 Floodplains

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped the floodplains of Fayette County as part of a flood risk assessment program conducted for the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1996. The relative risk of flooding is assigned on a relative scale of 1 – 100.

Due to the rugged topographic relief characteristic of Fayette County, floodplains are generally limited to valley bottoms and immediately adjacent areas. Floodplains in the County are thus relatively limited in extent.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 12

4.5. Existing Infrastructure 4.5.1 Existing Wastewater Infrastructure

Centralized & Package Plant Wastewater Infrastructure

Fayette County has 14 operating public service districts (PSDs) or municipal wastewater treatment facilites (WWTFs). All of these systems discharge treated wastewater to surface streams within the County. These wastewater collection and treatment facilities are listed in Table 4-5 and shown on Figure 4-2.

TABLE 4-5: FAYETTE COUNTY PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTFS

Flow (gpd) No. WWTF Permitted

1 Ansted 230,000

2 Arbuckle 400,000

3 Armstrong NA

4 Deepwater NA

5 Fayetteville 500,000

6 Kanawaha Falls 1,250,000*

7 Meadow Bridge 138,000

8 Montgomery 500,000

9 Mount Hope 308,000

Oak Hill - 750,000 Minden Rd

10 Oak Hill -Route 300,000 61 Oak Hill - 16,000 Industrial Park Page-Kincaid - 16,000 Beards Fork 11 Page-Kincaid - 48,000 Loop Creek 12 Pax 60,000 13 Smithers 300,000

14 White Oak 750,000

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 13

Two systems, Armstrong PSD and Deepwater PSD, collect and discharge sewage into the Kanawha Falls PSD system for treatment. Combined, systems serve about 13,422 customer accounts. Assuming all accounts are residential households, and 2.4 people per household, approximately 32,200 people, or 69 percent of the County population, are served by these systems. The actual number of people served is lower, as the 13,422 accounts include non-residential accounts. Therefore, it is likely that the population served in the centralized sewer systems is 50 to 60 ± percent of the County’s population.

Several other package wastewater treatment systems are also documented within the County and are listed in Table 4-6 and shown on Figure 4-3.

TABLE 4-6: FAYETTE COUNTY PACKAGE PLANTS Permit No. Name Flow (gpd) 1 Babcock State Park Pool Backwash 3,500 Pool bathroom 4,000

Cabins 3,500

Campground 14,000

Admin Bldg 5,000

2 Briarwood Place 8,000 3 Canyon Rim 15,000 4 Danese Elementary 1,200

5 Green Sumit Estates 24,000

6 Hill & Dale Estates 6,000 Midland Trail High 7 15,000 School 8 Midway T & C, Inc. 7,000 New River Gorge 9 Campgrounds 5,000 (formerly Songers) 10 New River Ranch 12,000 North American River 11 8,000 Runners 12 Songer Whitewater 8,000

13 Thurmond Depot 2,000 Western Family 14 7,000 Restaurant

15 Whitewater Inn 10,600

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 14

FIGURE 4-2: FAYETTE COUNTY PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTFS

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 15

FIGURE 4-3: FAYETTE COUNTY PACKAGE PLANTS

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 16

Onsite Wastewater Infrastructure

Based upon available information about centralized wastewater service areas, approximately 15,400 – 23,000 ± people, or approximately 6,400 – 9,700 ± households rely upon onsite septic systems for wastewater management. It is understood that many of these households have direct wastewater discharge to local streams and open drainage ditches.

The age of existing onsite septic systems can be approximated by reviewing the age of the County’s housing stock. Table 4-7 presents the age distribution of housing stock in Fayette County from the 2000 US Census.

TABLE 4-7: HOUSING STOCK AGE DISTRIBUTION, FAYETTE COUNTY House Age Percent of Cumulative Year Built Number of Units (yrs) Current Stock Percentage Less than 1995 - Date 1,665 8% 8% 10 1990 - 1995 10-15 916 4% 12% 1980 - 1990 15-25 2,388 11% 23% 1970 - 1980 25-35 4,107 19% 42% 1960 - 1970 35-45 1,727 8% 50% 1940 - 1960 45-65 5,785 27% 77% < 1940 Greater 65 5,028 23% 100% Total 21,616

It appears that approximately 80 percent of the onsite systems are 25+ years old. Because a significant percentage of the County is served by off-site wastewater collection systems, Table 4-7 may not be an accurate representation of the County’s septic system age distribution.

To get a better assessment of the age and type of septic systems installed in Fayette County, the County Health Department files from 1978 to 2004 were reviewed. Information on system type, water supply source, dispersal method, and depth to bedrock/groundwater was recorded. Table 4-8 shows the breakdown of system types by year.

A total of 3,468 permits were issued from 1978 to 2004. Approximately 75 percent of the permits were for new systems. These numbers are reasonably consistent with Table 4-7 estimates. Figure 4-4 compares the number of permits for new systems versus the number of permits for modification/repair of existing systems by year. Figure 4-5 shows the percentage of permits issued by type.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 17

TABLE 4-8: FAYETTE COUNTY SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMIT REVIEW 1978-2004

System Type Water Supply Disposal System 6 ft to gw/bedrock Year Total New Existing Public Private Unknown Chamber Graveless Pipe Standard Pumped Unknown yes no Unkown 1978 144 113 31 100 41 3 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 144 1979 173 120 53 93 74 6 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 173 1980 168 126 42 94 74 0 0 0 168 0 0 27 26 115 1981 132 122 10 87 38 7 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 132 1982 117 80 37 86 31 0 1 0 116 0 0 10 15 92 1983 104 76 28 75 24 5 0 1 103 0 0 26 8 70 1984 87 69 18 58 22 7 0 0 87 0 0 15 4 68 1985 105 73 32 73 31 1 0 0 105 0 0 36 4 65 1986 104 83 21 63 38 3 0 1 103 0 0 24 11 69 1987 109 96 13 60 45 4 0 0 109 0 0 30 10 69 1988 117 95 22 65 50 2 0 1 116 0 0 25 6 86 1989 96 96 0 60 26 10 0 13 83 0 0 20 3 73 1990 91 89 2 46 28 17 0 17 74 0 0 14 7 70 1991 118 92 26 63 52 3 0 40 78 0 0 49 13 56 1992 120 77 43 72 46 2 67 53 0 0 0 46 12 62 1993 146 124 22 93 40 13 10 104 32 0 0 61 5 80 1994 135 119 15 80 49 6 54 66 15 0 0 57 12 66 1995 144 121 23 88 50 6 46 84 14 0 0 29 15 100 1996 156 109 47 95 59 2 86 64 6 0 0 69 50 37 1997 174 129 45 105 66 3 114 56 4 0 0 68 76 30 1998 169 112 58 103 66 0 85 72 12 0 0 72 54 43 1999 127 77 50 85 42 0 78 49 0 0 0 44 39 44 2000 135 92 43 97 38 0 87 35 13 0 0 61 21 53 2001 146 95 51 111 35 0 93 45 5 3 3 79 27 40 2002 115 86 29 97 16 2 78 34 3 0 0 59 37 19 2003 141 90 51 125 15 1 79 53 9 0 0 69 9 63 2004 95 69 26 70 21 4 33 43 9 0 10 37 10 48 Totals 3,468 2,630 838 2,244 1,117 107 911 831 1,713 3 13 1,027 83 1,967

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 18

FIGURE 4-4: EXISTING VS. NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMITS ISSUED 1978-2004

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 19

FIGURE 4-5: TYPES OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS INSTALLED 1978-2004

Septic System Insallations Dispersal Method Pumped Unknown 0% 0% New Chamber 76% 26%

Existing Standard 24% Graveless Pipe 50% 24%

Water Supply Greater than Six Feet to Groundwater/Bedrock

Public 65%

Unkown 64%

Private 32% yes 33% Unknown 3% no 3%

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 20

4.5.2 Existing Water Supply Infrastructure

As described in the Fayette County Water Resources Assessment and Implementation Plan, Volume 2, Fayette County has 28 public water supply systems, as defined by the State of West Virginia Division of Health and recognized by the Public Water Supply Inventory published by WV Environmental Engineering Division. Fourteen of these systems are either owned and operated by the West Virginia American Water Company (WVAWC), or are being studied by the West Virginia American Water Company for inclusion in their Plateau Region Project.

Tables 4-9 and 4-10 indicate that water systems in the County serve approximately 4,714 to 5,611 households, or (assuming 2.4 persons per household) approximately 12,700 to 13,500 people. This is approximately 26 to 28 percent of the County population.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 21

TABLE 4-9: SUMMARY OF FAYETTE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS

Consumption Per Capita Population Persons per per Water System Name Notes Consumption Served Connection Connection (GPD) (GPD) Arbuckle PSD 2 1200 3.9 40 157 Armstrong PSD 3.5 2160 2.7 52 141 Bellwood 4 132 2.7 Clifftop Danese PSD 3 1500 3 56 169 Deepwater PSD 3,11 134 Fayetteville 1 161 Gauley River PSD 3,6,7 1460 2.7 108 292 Kanawha Falls CWA 5 100 2.5 Kanawha Falls PSD 7,8,9 3045 2.5 120 299 Meadow Bridge 5,9 729 2.7 Mount Hope 5 2375 2.4 89 216 Page-Kincaid PSD 3 132 Pax 10

Notes: 1. Sells water to Arbuckle PSD 2. Buys some water from Fayetteville 3. MDD from inspection report 4. ADD from sanitary survey 5. Population and number of connections from Sanitary Survey 6. Buys all water from Kanawha Falls PSD 7. Population from Kanawha Falls PSD sanitary survey 8. Sells water to Gauley River PSD 9. ADD, MDD and total metered sales from inspection report 10. Will begin to purchase all water from Bradley 11. Sells water to Kanawha Water Co. - Montgomery Heights Division WVAWC

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 22

TABLE 4-10: SUMMARY OF FAYETTE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS (CONTINUED) Unaccounted for Water Number of Retail Connections (GPD) Average Maximum Total Bulk Retail Water System Reporting Daily Daily Peaking Metered Metered Metered Notes (GPD) % Resid. Comm Other Unmetered Total Name Year Demand Demand Factor Sales Sales Sales (GPD) (GPD) (GPD) (GPD) (GPD) Arbuckle PSD 2 1996 7,412 47,808 0 47,808 26,321 36 303 1 0 0 304 Armstrong PSD 3.5 1995 177,222 200,000 1.13 111,997 0 111,997 65,225 37 777 12 8 0 797 Bellwood 4 1995 11,000 0 0 0 11,000 100 0 0 0 49 49 Clifftop 1995 5,326 0 0 0 5,326 100 0 0 0 27 27 Danese PSD 3 1996 158,901 185,000 1.16 83,748 0 83,748 75,153 47 482 13 2 0 497 Deepwater PSD 3,11 1996 41,353 48,000 1.16 35,221 15,180 20,041 6,132 15 150 0 0 0 150 Fayetteville 1 1996 447,352 588,980 1.32 297,429 8,362 289,067 149,923 34 1,637 151 4 yes 1,792 Gauley River PSD 3,6,7 1996 167,164 200,000 1.2 157,337 0 157,337 9,827 6 505 2 9 0 539 Kanawha Falls CWA 5 4/21/1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 Kanawha Falls PSD 7,8,9 1996 712,000 760,000 1.07 532,000 167,164 364,836 180,000 25 110 114 2 0 1,221 Meadow Bridge 5,9 1996 70,000 90,000 1.29 0 0 0 70,000 100 70 3 0 200 273 Mount Hope 5 1996 354,304 629,400 1.78 212,293 0 212,293 142,011 40 950 30 1 0 981 Page-Kincaid PSD 3 1995 121,044 200,000 1.65 85,548 0 85,548 34,496 29 627 29 0 0 656 Pax 10 1995 0 200

Notes: 1. Sells water to Arbuckle PSD 2. Buys some water from Fayetteville 3. MDD from inspection report 4. ADD from sanitary survey 5. Population and number of connections from Sanitary Survey 6. Buys all water from Kanawha Falls PSD 7. Population from Kanawha Falls PSD sanitary survey 8. Sells water to Gauley River PSD 9. ADD, MDD and total metered sales from inspection report 10. Will begin to purchase all water from Bradley 11. Sells water to Kanawha Water Co.- Montgomery Heights Division WVAWC

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 23

4.6. Regulatory Issues

4.6.1 Water Quality Standards

Water quality standards (WQSs) are standards for ambient water quality in surface water bodies and serve as the key standards to ensure the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) are met. States are required to specify designated uses and establish criteria to protect the designated uses for each water body in their state. Some designated uses are agriculture, drinking water supply, and recreation. The criteria can be either a numerical limit or narrative description for the amount of the pollutant causing the impairment that can be input into the water body without adversely affecting the designated use. Together, the designated use and numerical or narrative criteria comprise a WQS. These standards are subject to review and approval by US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

In West Virginia the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board establishes the WQSs that are the basis for establishing enforceable limits on pollutants that deteriorate water quality. They are designed to keep state waters free from substances that are toxic or harmful to human health, fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

4.6.2 Anti-Degradation

The CWA establishes guidelines for states to regulate discharges into state waters. The states also maintain water quality standards to ensure that water uses are protected. The CWA also mandates that states develop an anti-degradation policy to further protect waters.

The anti-degradation rule was established in West Virginia during the 2001 legislative session. This rule outlines four levels of protection for state waters: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 2.5, and Tier 3.

Tier 1 protection applies to all waters and must be applied to all permit application reviews.

The next level of protection, Tier 2, is reserved for high quality waters, unless a higher protection level is identified. New or expanded regulated activities that will cause significant degradation must undergo a review process. Significant degradation is defined as that which will reduce a stream’s assimilative capacity by ten percent or more. This review also applies to other activities that will reduce the stream’s assimilative capacity by twenty percent or higher when considered with other permitted activities. The Department of Environmental Protection may also require alternatives to the proposal. Tier 2 protection is the default protection for most waters in the state.

Tier 2.5 waters are naturally producing trout streams, WVDEP determined reference streams, or streams with a high biological score indicating high water quality. The Division of Water Resources and the Division of Natural Resources have developed a presumptive Tier 2.5 list of 444 streams covering over 2,000 river miles across the state. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 24

No significant degradation of a Tier 2.5 stream will be permitted, although short-term degradation may be allowed. Existing permittees discharging into a Tier 2.5 stream may be required to submit an alternatives analysis during the permit renewal process.

The highest level of protection to Outstanding National Resource Waters is Tier 3. This protection level applies to waters within West Virginia’s five wilderness areas, including, Dolly Sods, Laurel Fork North, Laurel Creek South, Otter Creek, and Cranberry. The stream list has not been completed. Tier 3 waters cannot be degraded, but can be improved by a new or existing operation; however, short-term changes to water quality may be allowed.

The Tier 2.5 list for Fayette County streams includes, but is not limited to, Glade Creek, Wolf Creek, Mill Creek, Laurel Creek (above Cotton Hill), Dunloup Creek (downstream from sewage treatment plant).

4.7. Wastewater Facility Permitting 4.7.1 Division of Water and Waste Management (DWWM)

The Division of Water and Waste Management (DWWM) regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The DWWM manages many federally initiated programs, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Underground Injection Control System (UIC) programs.

The organizational chart for the Permitting and Engineering Branch of DWWM is shown in Figure 4-6 below.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 25

FIGURE 4-6: PERMITTING AND ENGINEERING BRANCH ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

The Engineering Section also administers a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Program, which oversees communities with CSOs to make sure the communities comply with USEPA's CSO Control Policy, which includes the implementation of the Nine Minimum Controls, preparation of Water Quality Studies, preparation of a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP), and implementation of the LTCP. This program also loans flow monitoring equipment to communities having combined sewers for their use in collecting data to characterize the CSOs.

The permit type dictates whether the DEP, Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), or both have jurisdiction over the wastewater system.

4.7.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Overview

DWWM’s primary permitting program is the NPDES program. The NPDES program is a federally delegated program pursuant to the Clean Water Act. NPDES permits in West Virginia are issued under the authority of the DWWM. DWWM issues both individual and general NPDES permits.

Sewage sludge permits are water pollution control permits but not NPDES permits. Individual permits will be required for most industrial, commercial or industrial landfill, and wastewater treatment activities. DWWM currently administers ten general permits for certain classes of activities. If an activity can be covered by a general permit,

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 26

the owner/operator will simply need to register for coverage by that general permit. The general permitting process is designed to be much faster and less expensive than the individual permitting process.

General Permits are issued to cover a class of facilities with similar type discharges under one permit. Rather than issuing individual site specific permits to each facility, permittees are registered for coverage under the General Permit. DWWM has issued a number of General Permits as discussed in more detail below.

Individual Water Pollution Control Permit

To ensure technology based waste treatment requirements are in place and the state’s water quality standards are protected (applicable to industrial waste, sewage treatment and disposal systems greater than 50,000 gallons per day).

All individual Permits contain effluent limitations that require compliance with the BOD-5, TSS, and pH standards of the Secondary Treatment Regulations of 40 CFR 133. More stringent water quality-based effluent limitations for BOD-5 and Nitrogen may be imposed in Permits where such are required to protect the dissolved oxygen water quality standard in the receiving stream. Permits may also contain water quality based effluent limitations for fecal coliform, total residual chlorine, copper, lead, zinc, or any other toxic pollutant expected present in the discharge in amounts that could violate WQSs. Permits for publically owned treatment works (POTWs) may also include requirements for the control of CSOs and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), the control of indirect discharges to the POTW, the development and implementation of POTW Pretreatment Programs, where required, and requirements for the proper disposal or reuse of biosolids. A wasteload allocation must be obtained for each permit application.

Anyone acquiring, constructing, installing, modifying or operating a facility discharging treated or untreated sewage, industrial waste, other wastes or effluent from these wastes into state waters must apply. The applicant must receive a permit from the DHHR if proposing a sewage facility that is not federally funded.

General Permits

The following General Permits are currently issued (Table 4-11).

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 27

TABLE 4-11: GENERAL NPDES PERMITS

Description Permit No. Small Sewage Facility Permit (maximum of 50,000 1 WV0103110 gallons per day) Disposal of Sewage from Small Sewage Treatment 2 WV0107000 Systems Serving Individual Residents (HAUs) Hydrostatic Water Testing from a Newly Constructed 3 WV0113069 Pipeline Permit 4 Car Wash Permit WV0078743 Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity Permit 5 WV0111457 (except for construction and mining activities) 6 Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Permit WV0115924 Storm Water Discharges from Separate Storm Sewer 7 WV0116025 Systems (MS4) 8 Water Treatment Plant WV0115754 DRAFT Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 9 WV0105716 (CAFO)

Other DWWM Permits and Certifications

In addition to its NPDES permitting program, the DWWM issues permits or certifications under its UIC (classes I and V) program, the Safe Dams program pursuant to the state Dam Safety Act, and a certification program for federally issued permits or licenses pursuant to Section 401 of the federal CWA.

The UIC program is a federally delegated program pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows the DWWM to issue permits to ensure injection of fluids into the ground for treatment is done in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Ac t and is protective of the groundwater. Anyone proposing to inject fluids into the subsurface, including fluids from a domestic waste system that has the capacity to serve 20 or more people, must apply for a UIC permit. The applicant must receive a construction permit from the county health department if the method of injection is a subsurface distribution system such as a drain field to a septic system.

Finally, Section 401 of the CWA provides that any permit, certificate or license issued by a federal authority, such as the United States Army Corps or Engineers of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, must receive certification from the State where the activity will take place. This “401 certification” certifies that the proposed, federally approved activity is consistent with the State’s water quality standards.

Permitting Authority

Table 4-12 summarizes the permitting process for the different classes of wastewater systems. All systems require approval/registration with both the Health Department and DEP. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 28

TABLE 4-12: PERMITTING AUTHORITY BY SYSTEM TYPE

Design Flow System Type Permit Type Permitting Authority Conventional Septic Seal 1A Permit from Registration <600 gpd Septic System Permit Health Dept with DEP 1B HAU HAU General Health Dept Subsurface DEP injection 2A UIC construction discharge permit permit 600-50,000 DEP gpd Health Dept discharge Surface 2B NPDES construction permit discharge permit (General or Individual) DEP Health Dept Surface discharge >50,000 gpd 3 NPDES construction discharge permit permit (Individual)

Rules and Regulations

Rules and regulations that govern the design, installation, and operation of wastewater management systems in West Virginia are presented in Table 4-13.

TABLE 4-13: WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS RULES AND REGULATIONS

Agency Legislative Rule Effective Scope System Date Type Establishes minimum Title 64, Series 9 requirements for sewer Sewer Systems, systems, sewage Sewage WV Division treatment or disposal Treatment May 1, 1998 All of Health plants which serve public Systems, and sewer systems, and Sewage Tank certification of sewage Cleaners tank installers Title 64, Series Site requirements, design, 47 Design construction, and WV Division Standards for December 1, maintenance for sewage All of Health Individual and 1983 treatment or collection Onsite Sewage systems Systems WV Sets criteria and Title 47, Series Department of standards for the State’s 13 Underground June 1, 2002 2A Environmental Underground Injection Injection Control Protection Control Program (UIC), Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 29

which regulates underground injections by five classes of wells Title 47, Series 10 National WV Pollution Department of August 23, Establishes requirements Discharge 2B, C Environmental 1993 for the NPDES program Elimination Protection System (NPDES) Program

4.8. Legal and Institutional Issues

Wastewater management programs consist of three elements: ownership, administration, and operation. The ownership may be public, private, or a combination.

In West Virginia there are three types of public wastewater management entities that can be established. They are listed along with the mechanisms to form the entities in Table 4-14.

TABLE 4-14: TYPES OF PUBLIC WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ENTITIES

Public Wastewater Entity Mechanism for Establishing Sewage management Petition of the public districts County commission Public sewage district County commission resolution Town council and mayor Municipality Town charter

4.8.1 Background

The WV Public Service Commission (PSC) supervises and regulates the rates, services, operations and most other activities of all public utilities and many common and contract motor carriers passengers and property within West Virginia. The PSC processes and acts on petitions filed by these regulated entities and acts upon complaints against utilities and common carriers. Information is in the process of being collected regarding water and sewer rates in each community, as well as, how they are collected.

The Water and Wastewater Division governs the water and sewer public utilities. It’s responsibilities are as follows:

§ Investigating formal cases and making recommendations to the PSC § Performing detailed management and operation audits known as Focused Management Audits. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 30

§ Participating in hearings before the PSC and offering evidence and testimony regarding revenue requirements, operating performance, quality of service, and construction activities. § Investigating informal complaints and responding to customer requests for information. § Responding to water and wastewater utility inquiries for technical, operational, financial, and regulatory assistance.

Amy Swan is the Director of the Water and Wastewater Division.

Table 4-15 summarizes the rules that govern the water and sewer utilities in West Virginia. TABLE 4-15: WATER AND SEWER UTILITY RULES

Rule Effective Date Scope Title 150 Series 7 October 24, 2003 Govern the operation and service of Rules for the Government jurisdiction of the PSC pursuant to of Water Utilities West Virginia Code §24-2-1. Title 150 Series 5 August 25, 2003 Govern the operation and service Rules for the Government jurisdiction of the PSC pursuant to of Sewer Utilities West Virginia Code §24-2-1

The PSC prefers public service districts (PSDs) to apply for rate changes every 2-3 years and keep rate increases less than 5 percent. A rate review considers:

§ Income § Expenses § Operation and maintenance § Dept service

If specific expenses have been identified, they may also be included. Normally, the PSC allows for an approximate 2.5 percent surplus. Driven by USEPA, the PSC is currently working to integrate Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) into the rates for the water PSDs. At this time, CIPs are not incorporated into the rates for any of the sewer utilities.

Municipalities set their own rates through ordinances. The PSC only gets involved if there are complaints.

In 1987 the State passed legislation promoting the consolidation of PSDs. However, there was little success in consolidation. The PSC has since reduced its consolidation efforts. Currently, Counties are responsible for issuing an order for a PSD to consolidate.

It is unclear if the existing legislation in WV provides the PSC jurisdiction over onsite systems. However, even if it does, rule changes and/or additions would be necessary to address utility management onsite systems because the current rules are specific to sewers. For example, currently if one does not pay his sewer bill there are mechanisms

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 31

in place to turn off the water. It is important that there be a similar mechanism for onsite to ensure payment.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 32

5. WASTEWATER NEEDS DEFINITION

As part of the wastewater planning efforts, LAI identified Fayette County’s existing wastewater needs. Both sewered and unsewered areas were evaluated and the needs are prioritized on a watershed level. It is important to have an accurate analysis of the existing wastewater needs to be able to develop appropriate solutions for wastewater management.

The wastewater needs analysis included GIS maps of soils information, water resources, and other geomorphologic features of the County. The existing wastewater infrastructure in the County was also evaluated. In sewered areas, the wastewater management needs were defined by reviewing collection and treatment system capacity, treatment plant performance, the extent of infiltration and inflow, and current plans for improvement.

The existing wastewater management practices in the County include the following sectors:

1. Individual wastewater systems, typically onsite septic systems 2. Large subsurface dispersal septic systems (UIC) 3. Recreational area WWTFs 4. Privately owned package treatment plants 5. PSD WWTFs 6. Municipal WWTFs

Moreover, a water quality analysis for the seventeen subwatersheds in the County was performed. The existing wastewater management practices in the watershed and impaired streams were examined.

The wastewater needs definition was used by LAI to identify and screen technological, management, and financial options suitable to meet the wastewater management needs of Fayette County.

The existing wastewater management practices are presented by community in Table 5- 1.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 33

TABLE 5-1: SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY COMMUNITY

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 34

5.1. Needs Definition for Currently Unsewered Areas

Decentralized wastewater management involves the use of onsite and cluster systems and integrates them with centralized sewer systems. The GIS maps produced combined with Health Department data were used by LAI to determine which parcels can rely on traditional or innovative onsite systems as a long-term strategy and which parcels require off-site solutions. Off-site solutions are required for parcels:

§ In or too close to wetlands or floodplains, or other environmentally sensitive areas § With space constraints

Characterized by soils with:

§ Shallow depth to groundwater where mounds are not feasible § Shallow depth to bedrock where mounds are not feasible § Excessively slow percolation rates (slower than 60 minutes per inch)

Figure 5-1 shows the wastewater management options for the unsewered areas.

FIGURE 5-1: UNSEWERED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Existing Unsewered

Communities Dispersed Properties

Connection Cluster Onsite to existing system for systems for sewers for part or all part or all of part of study of study study area area area

5.2. Onsite Systems

The site conditions in Fayette County make the design and implementation of onsite systems a challenge. Review of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey information indicates that a majority of the soils are characterized by: Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 35

§ Slow percolation rates § Shallow depth to bedrock § Shallow depth to groundwater

Moreover, the terrain consists of steep slopes.

As discussed in the Existing Wastewater Infrastructure section, the housing stock distribution for the County indicates that approximately 80 percent of the onsite systems are at least 25 years old. The poor site conditions combined with the age of the systems indicates that it is likely that a significant portion of the systems will require repair or replacement in the next five to ten years.

5.3. Cluster Systems

Cluster systems are an increasingly important choice for wastewater management. Cluster systems have numerous advantages over centralized and onsite approaches in many smaller communities, and their value is being increasingly recognized nation-wide. Cluster systems are well-suited for communities, where population densities can be highly variable and neither centralized nor onsite wastewater systems are the best approach to wastewater management from an economic, environmental, public health, or community satisfaction point of view. In areas like West Virginia, an economically optimized combination of cluster systems, onsite systems, and sewer systems that is environmentally acceptable is generally preferable.

For Fayette County two types of cluster systems are proposed:

§ Community-wide cluster systems, which serve a large number of homes § Small clusters, which serve a few homes (generally less than 10).

Review of water quality data and discussion with members of the local community were used to identify communities with water quality problems known or suspected to be caused by failing wastewater systems or direct discharges. This effort resulted in an initial list of 26 prioritized communities, which was distributed to members of the Project Advisory Committee including the County Health Agent, for review and comment. These areas were assessed to determine their potential for a cluster wastewater management system.

Factors considered when evaluating the area included:

1. Density 2. Public health threat from existing wastewater systems and direct discharges 3. Water quality impairment due to existing wastewater systems and direct discharges 4. Soil suitability for onsite systems 5. Lot size

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 36

GIS mapping was employed to perform soils analysis of the selected areas. The USDA Soil Survey of Fayette and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia (March 1975) was digitized for those areas. Percolation rate, depth to bedrock, and depth to groundwater were evaluated and each area was divided into the following categories:

§ Off site solution required § Mound system possible § Conventional onsite system feasible

Figure 5-2 shows the decision process for determing the appropriate wastewater strategy for the area based on the site soils.

FIGURE 5-2: SOILS BASED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS

Is perc rate < 60 mpi?

yes no

Is depth to bedrock > no Off site solution 2.5 ft? required

yes

Is depth to no Off site solution groundwater > 2.5 ft? required

yes

Is depth to bedrock & no groundwater > 4.5 ft? Mound Required

yes

Conventional onsite feasible

A total of 18 areas was field reviewed to assess their need for implementation of cluster wastewater management systems. Table 5-2 summarizes the results of the evaluation.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 37

TABLE 5-2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CLUSTER SYSTEM EVALUATIONS

Public Health/ Soil Community Density Environmental Suitability Recommendation Impact Constraints many direct BR, GW, 1 Jodie high community cluster discharges PERC close to high use Brooklyn & BR, PERC, 2 high reach of New community cluster Cunard slope River Keeney Creek BR, GW, 3 Wionna high community cluster impaired PERC 4 Youngstown high direct discharges BR, PERC community cluster impaired community cluster, connect 5 Summerlee high BR, PERC watershed to Oak Hill sewer low, denser along some direct BR, PERC, 6 Bachman cluster along stream, onsite stream discharges slope Keeney Creek BR, GW, 7 Lookout moderate to high community cluster impaired PERC at least one direct 8 Collinsdale high adequate onsite discharge at least one direct 9 Mahan low GW, PERC onsite discharge 10 Beckwith low to moderate none known BR, PERC small clusters, onsite 11 E. Kingston moderate none known BR, PERC onsite few failing septic 12 Mossy low to moderate BR, PERC onsite systems 13 Derry Hale low none known BR onsite 14 Dunloup low none known BR onsite 15 Beauty low none known BR, PERC onsite

16 Laurel Creek low none known BR, PERC onsite

17 Hico low to moderate none known BR, PERC onsite

River Ridge proposed 82 BR, PERC, connect to Kanawha Falls 18 none known Subdivision homes slope PSD, community cluster BR: shallow depth to bedrock GW: shallow depth to groundwater PERC: slow percolation rate NA: not applicable

5.4. UIC Systems

The UIC program is a federally delegated program pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows the DWWM to issue permits to ensure injection of fluids into the ground

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 38

for treatment is done in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and is protective of the groundwater.

Anyone proposing to inject fluids into the subsurface, including fluids from a domestic waste system that has the capacity to serve 20 or more people, must apply for a UIC permit. A total of 24 UIC permits have been issued in Fayette County (Table 5-3).

TABLE 5-3: FAYETTE COUNTY UIC PERMITS Issue/Reissue Current Avg. Flow No. Permittee Permit ID Facility Name Date Status (gpd) A & S Star Headstart 1 A & S STAR INC 0442-02-019 1/27/2003 for Fayette County New 400

2 BALLARD, RANDALL 0230-99-019 7/5/2001 Drift-A-Bit New 249 Sunny SBT VIII 3 BANDY INC 0503-02-019 6/6/2003 Convenience Store New 750

4 BARKER, KAREN 0110-95-019 6/25/2002 River Knight's Lounge New 154 Awesome Adventures, 5 CANTRELL, RICHARD LEE 0510-02-019 4/30/2003 LLC (Campground) New 4,185 Chestnut Creek 6 Chestnut Creek Campground 0100-95-019 1/17/2002 Campground Renewed 420 Emmanueal Baptist 7 EMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH 0252-99-019 6/23/2000 Church New 249

8 Extreme Expeditions of WV Inc 0229-99-019 6/5/2000 Extreme Expeditions New 5,000 F & W CORPORATION DBA Bridge Haven Golf 9 BRIDGE HAVEN GOLF CLUB 0102-95-019 9/1/2000 Club New 500 Divide Elementary 10 FAYETTE CNTY BD OF ED 0107-95-019 11/14/2000 School New 500 Gatewood Elementary 11 FAYETTE CNTY BD OF ED 0108-95-019 11/14/2000 School New 500

12 FAYETTE CNTY BD OF ED 0109-95-019 11/14/2000 Nuttall Middle School New 500 FAYETTE COUNTY Fayette County 13 COMMISSION 0134-95-019 3/8/2001 Commission New 2,900

14 GRAY, TED 0498-02-019 1/10/2003 Midway T&C Inc. New 1,000

15 Hamrick, Jerl & Linda 0113-95-019 5/11/2000 Sum' pin' diff'rnt Club New 249

16 LAVINE, BRIAN 0251-99-019 5/21/2001 Sedona Grille New 1,000 Lost Paddle Inc., Class VI River 17 LOST PADDLE INC 0099-95-019 5/10/2004 MountainRunners State Renewed 5,000 Outdoor Center, Lost 18 LOST PADDLE INC 0161-96-019 12/12/1999 Paddle Inc. New 5,000 U-Save Convenience 19 MILLER, FRED 0358-01-019 11/5/2001 Mart New 249 MOUNTAIN RIVER TOURS, 20 INC. 0115-95-019 11/19/2001 Mountain River Tours Renewed 5,000 NEW RIVER GORGE New River Gorge 21 NATIONAL RIVER 0104-95-081 12/7/2000 TheNational Dun RiverGlen New 16,400 NEW RIVER GORGE Complex, New River 22 NATIONAL RIVER 0105-95-019 5/28/2001 Gorge National River New 5,000 New River Exxon, 23 ROSS, DAVID 0535-02-019 12/5/2003 LLC New 700

24 SPEAREN, DOROTHY 0474-02-019 10/28/2003 Liquid Cafe Bar New 249 Total 56,154

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 39

5.5. Recreational Area WWTFs

The impact of the recreational sector is difficult to quantify. Though the number of professional rafting outfitters is known, there is no information available to quantify the number of:

§ Private boaters § Anglers § Campers § Picnickers § Hikers § Mountain bikers § Climbers

The National Park Service (NPS) has wastewater facilities at each of the major put-ins and takeouts (see Table 5-4). These are vault toilets and are pumped as needed by the NPS. The Park Service also provides some type of facility at most major trailheads (often only a port-a-let).

TABLE 5-4: MAJOR PUT-INS AND TAKEOUTS

Put-ins Takeouts Cunard Fayette Station Prince Stone Cliff Stone Cliff Teays

There are approximately 20 rafting companies operating in the County. Some rafting outfitters are rumored to have own private facilities at some spots along the river, but most stop off points would appear to be without any. It is estimated that there may be as many as 50 “preferred lunch spots” with varying degrees of use along the New River in Fayette County.

Between the river and the greater gorge recreation area, it should be assumed that there is sufficient need to further investigate this issue.

5.6. Septage Management

Septage haulers are licensed by the County Health Departments. Per the County Health Department, the only licensed hauler in the County is Crosier Sanitary Service. However, haulers licensed in other counties can pump septage from Fayette County. Haulers from the following counties are known to pump in Fayette.

§ Nicholas County (2 haulers) § Kanawha County (3 haulers) § Raleigh County (4 haulers)

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 40

Crosier Sanitary Service pumps on average 1,000 gallons of septage from Fayette County per day, five days a week. They predominantly pump from the package treatment plants and restaurant grease traps.

Septage and sludge can be managed as follows:

§ Land applied § Landfill § Sent to WWTF

WVDEP issued General NPDES permits for land disposal of septage and sludge in Fayette County (see Table 5-5). It is land applied in accordance the standards specified in 40 CFR Part 503 for Class B sewage sludge biosolids.

TABLE 5-5: SLUDGE/SEPTIC LAND DISPOSAL GENERAL PERMITS

Issue/ Current Expiration Permittee Permit ID Facility Name Reissue Status Date Date CROSIER, Crosier Sanitary WVSG10002 Renewed 3/14/2003 3/13/2008 RONALD Service, Inc. Crosier's CROSIER, WVSG20054 Sanitary Service, Renewed 3/14/2003 3/13/2008 RONALD Inc.

Under Permit No. WVSG1002 Crosier Sanitary Service, Inc. is permitted to land apply domestic septage and/or liquid sewage sludge at the locations and loading rates presented in Table 5-6.

TABLE 5-6: LAND APPLICATION SITES

Maximum Five Year Lifetime Annual Cumulative Site Loading Rate Loading Rate Loading Rate (gal/ac) (gal/ac) (gal/ac) David Simms Farm 25,000 250,000 Paul Blake Farm 25,000 150,000 C.W. Pitsenbarger 25,000 250,000

Under Permit No. WVSG20054 Crosier Sanitary Service, Inc. is permitted to dispose domestic septage and/or liquid sewage sludge at City of South Charleston Wastewater Treatment Plant in South Charleston, WV. Approximately, 30 percent of septage Crosier Sanitary Service pumps goes to the treatment plant.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 41

It is estimated that there are approximately 8,900 onsite systems installed in the County. According to Ron Crosier, on average septic systems in the County are pumped every 7 years. Thus, approximately 1.27 million gallons of septage are pumped annually from the onsite systems in the County.

Additionally, each PSD and municipal WWTF generates and processes their sludge. The sludge is then either land applied or sent to a landfill.

5.7. Package Treatment Plant Overview

There are fifteen (15) package wastewater treatment systems operating in the County. Table 5-7 summarizes the data collected for each treatment facility.

The majority of these systems is old and has limited useful life remaining. Thus, those systems need to be either repaired, upgraded, or replaced depending on the wastewater needs of the area that they serve.

The collection systems for the package plants were not evaluated since there was insufficient flow data available. Inflow and infiltration (I/I) may or may not be an issue for some of the facilities.

All of the treatment plants except for the following:

§ Babcock State Park Cabins § New River Ranch § Canyon Rim use the extended aeration process for wastewater treatment. All of these extended aeration facilities except the newly installed Songer Whitewater appear to have reached their useful economic life such that major improvements will be needed in the next five years and repair/replacement of the facilities should be programmed.

Additionally the extended aeration process is sensitive to varying loadings and their reliability to produce consistent treatment levels is questionable. At a minimum, the extended aeration facilities should have:

§ Equalization tanks to dampen daily and seasonal variations

Preferably, it is LAI’s opinion that the old extended aeration facilities be changed to recirculating media filters such as the recirculating sand filters used at:

§ Babcock State Park Campground § New River Ranch

Table 5-8 summarizes the wastewater needs for the package plants.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 42

TABLE 5-7: SUMMARY OF PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN FAYETTE COUNTY

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 43

TABLE 5-8: SUMMARY OR WASTEWATER NEEDS FOR PACKAGE PLANTS

Treatment Permit Flow Upgrade / WWTF Type (gpd) Replace 1 Danese Elementary Ext. Aeration 1,200 R 2 Thurmond Depot Ext. Aeration 2,000 R Babcock State Park 3 Ext. Aeration 3,500 R Pool Backwash Babcock State Park 4 RSF 3,500 U Cabins Babcock State Park 5 Ext. Aeration 4,000 R Pool Bathroom Babcock State Park 6 Ext. Aeration 5,000 R Admin Bldg New River Gorge 7 Ext. Aeration 5,000 R Campgrounds 8 Hill & Dale Estates Ext. Aeration 6,000 R 9 Midway T & C, Inc. Ext. Aeration 7,000 R Western Family 10 Ext. Aeration 7,000 R Restaurant 11 Briarwood Place Ext. Aeration 8,000 R North American River 12 Ext. Aeration 8,000 R Runners 13 Songer Whitewater Ext. Aeration 8,000 U 14 Whitewater Inn Ext. Aeration 10,600 R 15 New River Ranch RSF 12,000 U Babcock State Park 16 Ext. Aeration 14,000 R Campground Midland Trail High 17 Ext. Aeration 15,000 R School Aerated 18 Canyon Rim 15,000 U Lagoon 19 Green Summit Estates Ext. Aeration 24,000 R Upgrade Subtotal 38,500 4 Replace Subtotal 120,300 15 Total 158,800 19

5.8. PSD and Municipal WWTF Overview

There are a total of fourteen (14) PSD and municipal WWTFs serving wastewater needs in areas of Fayette County. Two of them, Armstrong and Deepwater, are collection systems only. A third, Smithers, is scheduled to abandon its treatment facility and send flow to the Kanawha Falls WWTF.

The treatment facilities in general are aging and in need of improvements. Table 5-9 summarizes general information for each PSD and municipal WWTF.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 44

TABLE 5-9: SUMMARY OF PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTFS IN FAYETTE COUNTY

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 45

5.8.1 WWTF Overflows

Combined sewer systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Most of the time, combined sewer systems transport all of their wastewater to a sewage treatment plant, where it is treated and then discharged to a water body. During periods of heavy rainfall or snowmelt, however, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or treatment plant. For this reason, combined sewer systems are designed to overflow occasionally and discharge excess wastewater directly to nearby streams, rivers, or other water bodies. These overflows, called CSOs, contain not only storm water but also untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, and debris.

USEPA developed a CSO Control Policy to provide guidance on how communities with combined sewer systems can meet Clean Water Act goals. The CSO Policy contains nine minimum controls to reduce the prevalence and impacts of CSOs; these controls are not expected to require significant engineering studies or major construction. The nine minimum controls are as follows:

1. Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and the CSOs 2. Maximum use of the collection system for storage 3. Review and modification of pretreatment requirements to assure CSO impacts are minimized 4. Maximization of flow to the publicly owned treatment works for treatment 5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather 6. Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs 7. Pollution prevention 8. Public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts 9. Monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls

Communities with combined sewer systems are also expected to develop long-term CSO control plans that will ultimately provide for full compliance with the Clean Water Act, including attainment of water quality standards.

Table 5-10 summarizes all of the outlets for each facility and their discharge locations and Table 5-11 provides a summary of compliance with the CSO Control Policy for the CSO communities. Table 5-12 summarizes the estimated equalization storage requirements based on recorded wastewater flows from July 2003 to June 2004.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 46

TABLE 5-10: SUMMARY OF PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTFS DISCHARGE LOCATIONS

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 47

TABLE 5-11: CSO CONTROL POLICY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

WWTF Compliance Summary Changed to combined sewer system in Sept. 2004, in Fayetteville process of developing LTCP Montgomery WVDEP approved LTCP Smithers Does not have WVDEP approved LTCP

TABLE 5-12: ESTIMATED EQUALIZATION STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

Average Daily Storage Required1 (MG) Flow Jul 2003- No. WWTF Jun 2004 Sustained Sustained Average Design4 (MGD) Min1 Max2 Daily3 1 Ansted 0.292 59.66 2.86 15.12 26.47 2 Arbuckle UNK 3 Armstrong UNK 4 Deepwater UNK 5 Fayetteville 0.714 139.24 3.68 29.62 82.39 6 Kanawaha Falls 1.281 80.12 4.27 26.08 31.82 7 Meadow Bridge 0.044 4.01 0.47 1.18 0.14 8 Montgomery 9 Mount Hope 0.243 68.94 38.38 14.30 6.83 Oak Hill - 0.603 Minden Rd 77.96 28.38 16.02 5.79 Oak Hill -Route 10 0.375 61 20.66 1.22 6.58 14.38 Oak Hill - UNK Industrial Park Page-Kincaid - 0.012 Beards Fork 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.00 11 Page-Kincaid - 0.026 Loop Creek 0.36 0.12 0.20 0.48 12 Pax UNK 13 Smithers 0.059 2.58 0.99 1.10 0.18 14 White Oak 0.761 82.45 5.57 27.90 29.96 1. All storage requirements are based on flow data from July 2003 to June 2004 2. Storage computed as difference between daily flow and sustained minimum flow (determined from flow hydrograph) 3. Storage computed as difference between daily flow and sustained maximum flow (determined from flow hydrograph) 4. Storage computed as difference between daily flow and average daily flow for the year 5. Storage computed as difference between daily flow and design flow

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 48

5.8.2 WWTF Financial Evaluation

Analysis of Rates and Annual Reports

Table 5-5 summarizes the financial information for each WWTF. Included are rate information, outstanding debt, and annual operating expenses. The cost per 4,500 gallons ranges from $23.96 for White Oak PSD to $53.25 for the City of Fayetteville. Meadow Bridge has no outstanding debt. Kanawha Falls PSD has the highest outstanding debt at $7.3 million, but that is combined water and sewer. The City of Oak Hill has the second highest outstanding debt at $4.3 million. The annual operating expenses in the County ranged from a minimum of $123 per customer for the Deepwater PSD to a maximum of $530 per customer for the Page-Kincaid PSD. There is a wide range of rates, debt, and operating costs for the WWTFs in the County.

Tables 5-13, 5-14, and 5-15 present the key line items from the following sections of the 2004 annual reports submitted to the PSC:

1. Balance sheet 2. Sewer property account 3. Sewer income statement 4. Earned surplus account 5. Reserve for depreciation of utility plant 6. Taxes 7. Statement of cash flows in dollars, dollars per customer, and dollars per 1,000 gallons, respectively.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 49

TABLE 5-13: SUMMARY OF 2004 ANNUAL REPORT KEY ITEMS ($)

Net cash Total Assets Total Sewer Total Sewer Total Earned provided by and Other Plant Per Operating Operating Surplus, End operating WWTF Debts Balance Sheet Revenues Expenses of Year activities Ansted $3,701,194 $3,620,336 $283,180 $255,042 $162,854 ($100) Arbuckle $2,014,726 $5,031,604 $304,218 $173,305 $0 $82,820 Armstrong $2,242,262 $3,395,023 $233,215 $174,818 $0 $29,895 Deepwater $2,122,944 $2,084,049 $108,433 $61,319 ($195,963) $27,531 Fayetteville $3,997,287 $6,063,834 $654,031 $480,748 $376,796 $91,968 Kanawha Falls $15,777,031 $3,071,043 $806,793 $516,754 $0 $1,660,170 Meadow Bridge $5,585,242 $5,523,801 $128,858 $99,603 $231,573 $16,103 Montgomery $3,871,528 $5,012,903 $521,210 $305,657 $0 $77,515 Mount Hope $6,397,949 $5,839,969 $337,826 $216,253 ($465,350) $104,272 Oak Hill $10,168,464 $12,920,578 $1,097,864 $728,560 $0 $87,646 Page-Kincaid $3,168,136 $3,139,419 $87,679 $147,751 ($937,054) ($16,006) Pax $2,014,875 $2,819,419 $46,192 $36,849 $564,401 $1,211 Smithers $1,858,135 $1,717,387 $134,383 $114,393 ($163,435) ($15,555) White Oak $3,837,795 $0 $356,205 $234,848 ($440,699) $83,026

TABLE 5-14: SUMMARY OF 2004 ANNUAL REPORT KEY ITEMS ($/CUSTOMER)

Total Assets Total Sewer Total and Other Plant Per Operating WWTF Debts Balance Sheet Expenses $/customer Ansted $5,191 $5,078 $358 Arbuckle $2,410 $6,019 $207 Armstrong $2,824 $4,276 $220 Deepwater $4,246 $4,168 $123 Fayetteville $3,966 $6,016 $477 Kanawha Falls $5,039 $981 $165 Meadow Bridge $15,733 $15,560 $281 Montgomery $3,027 $3,919 $239 Mount Hope $13,084 $11,943 $442 Oak Hill $3,031 $3,851 $217 Page-Kincaid $11,355 $11,252 $530 Pax $13,256 $18,549 $242 Smithers $3,895 $3,600 $240 White Oak $3,031 $0 $186

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 50

TABLE 5-15: 2004 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES ($/1,000 GALLONS)

Total Operating WWTF Expenses $/1,000 gallons Ansted $3.04 Arbuckle $0.88 Armstrong unk Deepwater unk Fayetteville $2.63 Kanawha Falls $1.13 Meadow Bridge $1.98 Montgomery $1.67 Mount Hope $1.92 Oak Hill $1.90 Page-Kincaid $6.32 Pax $1.68 Smithers $1.04 White Oak $0.86

Wastewater Needs Summary

Table 5-16 summarizes the known wastewater needs at this time. Included are the known existing CIPs for each WWTF, the number of CSOs/SSOs that need at a minimum control strategies for reduction/elimination, and the estimated quantity of storage required for equalization.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 51

TABLE 5-16: PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTF NEEDS SUMMARY

Existing CIP Collection, CSO SSO Equalization Collection Treatment Sewer Extension Treatment, Storage No. WWTF System System Project Capital Sewer Requirements Improvements Improvements No. Description No. Description Costs Extension (MG) Capital Costs Capital Costs Capital Costs 1 Ansted $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 3,149,000 $ 3,469,000 0 4 PS 26.47 2 Arbuckle $ - $ 1,991,000 $ 10,378,000 $ 12,369,000 0 2 PS, WWTF UNK 3 Armstrong $ - $ - $ - $ - UNK UNK UNK 4 Deepwater $ - $ - $ - $ - UNK UNK UNK 5 Fayetteville $ - 2 PS 0 82.39 6 Kanawaha Falls $ - 0 8 PS 31.82 7 Meadow Bridge $ 85,000 $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,685,000 0 0 0.14 8 Montgomery $ 1,502,116 $ 1,307,174 $ 2,809,290 6 PS 0 0.00 9 Mount Hope $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 1 PS 6.83 Oak Hill -Minden Rd 0 1 WWTF 5.79 $ - $ - $ - $ - 10 Oak Hill -Route 61 0 1 WWTF 14.38 Oak Hill -Industrial $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0 UNK Park Page-Kincaid - $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 0 0 0.00 Beards Fork 11 Page-Kincaid - Loop $ - $ - 0 0 0.48 Creek 12 Pax $ - $ - $ 2,473,812 $ 2,473,812 0 0 UNK 13 Smithers $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 PS, manholes 1 PS 0.18 14 White Oak $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 1 WWTF 29.96 Totals: $ 1,890,000 $ 3,920,000 $ 23,510,000 $ 29,310,000

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 52

5.9. Watershed-Level Water Quality Analysis Under the CWA States are required to specify designated uses and establish criteria to protect the designated uses for each water body in their state. Title 46 Series 1 Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards establishes the designated uses and appropriate WQS required to protect the designated uses for the waters in West Virginia.

The water use categories are as follows:

Category A – Public water supply. This category is used to describe waters, which, after conventional treatment, are used for human consumption. This category includes streams on which the following are located: all community domestic water supply systems; all non-community domestic water supply systems, (i.e. hospitals, schools, etc.); all private domestic water systems; all other surface water intakes where the water is used for human consumption.

Category B – Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life. This category includes 2 sub-uses: B1 – Warm water fisheries. Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life in warm water fishery streams. Streams or stream segments which contain populations composed of all warm water aquatic life. B2- Trout waters. Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life in trout waters.

Category C – Water contact recreation. This category includes swimming, fishing, water skiing and certain types of pleasure boating such as sailing in very small craft and outboard motor boats.

Category D – Agriculture and wildlife uses. Agriculture and wildlife uses, which includes all stream segments used for irrigation, all stream segments used for livestock watering, and all stream segments and wetlands used by wildlife.

Category E – Industrial, water transport, cooling and power water supply. This category includes cooling water, industrial water supply, power production, commercial and pleasure vessel activity, except those small craft included in Category C.

At a minimum, all waters in the State are designated for the propagation and protection of aquatic life (Category B) and contact recreation (Category C). Additional information is required to determine which of the two Category B sub-uses are appropriate for these waters.

5.9.1 Bacterial Contamination

Many West Virginia waters contain elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Contributors to the problem include leaking or over flowing sewage collection systems, illegal homeowner sewage discharges by straight pipes or failing septic systems, and non-point flows from urban or residential areas and agricultural lands.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 53

Other West Virginia waters besides those identified on the 303(d) list may be impaired for fecal coliform bacteria, but those waters are not listed because there is insufficient data demonstrating impairment. The WVDEP’s watershed assessment and TMDL development methodologies will subject suspect streams to intensified bacteria monitoring in the future and additional listings may be forthcoming.

This intensified monitoring effort increased the number of fecal coliform listings in West Virginia from 29 on the 2002 Section 303(d) list to 189 on the 2004 list. The combined length of waters identified as impaired for fecal coliform is approximately 1,634 miles. Fourteen streams (accounting for over 200 river miles) in Fayette County are currently identified as impaired due to bacterial contamination.

Bacterial water quality standards are that the maximum allowable level of fecal coliform content for Primary Contact Recreation (either MPN or MF) shall not exceed 200/100 ml as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5 samples per month; nor to exceed 400/100 ml in more than 10 percent of all samples taken during the month. Table 5-17 lists the Fayette County impaired streams due to fecal coliform.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 54

TABLE 5-17: FAYETTE COUNTY STREAMS IMPAIRED BY FECAL COLIFORM

Impaired Projected Stream Criteria Reach 2002 Watershed Plate No. Length TMDL Year Code Affected Description list? (stream-mi) (No Later Than) From mouth to RM 12.7 C12 WVK-61 Fecal Coliform 15.0 and from RM 17.5 to RM 2004 No 19.8 UPPER KANAWHA WATERSHED - C16 WVK-72-A Fecal Coliform 2.6 Entire length 2004 No HUC# 05050006 From RM 9.3 to C14 WVK-76 Fecal Coliform 10.7 2004 No headwaters C14 WVK-76-C Fecal Coliform 2.5 From mouth to RM 2.5 2004 No GAULEY WATERSHED - HUC# C2 WVKG-19 Fecal Coliform 68.8 Entire length 2016 No 05050005 C8, C9 WVKN-lo Fecal Coliform 57.0 From RM 1.2 to RM 58.2 2007 No C9 WVKN-9 Fecal Coliform 2.8 Entire length 2007 Yes C10 WVKN-10 Fecal Coliform 10.0 Entire length 2007 No LOWER NEW WATERSHED - HUC# C11 WVKN-15 Fecal Coliform 4.8 Entire length 2007 Yes 05050004 C12 WVKN-16 Fecal Coliform 2.6 Entire length 2007 Yes C8 WVKN-21 Fecal Coliform 6.2 Entire length 2007 Yes C8 WVKN-24 Fecal Coliform 0.5 From mouth to RM 0.5 2007 No C10 WVKN-32 Fecal Coliform 11.8 Entire length 2007 Yes

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 55

Riverine discharges are categorized with respect to the sewage effluent load and the degree of dilution. The total human population in the watershed above the study area characterizes effluent load (WHO, 1999). The population of relevance is the peak population that in recreational water use areas is often significantly greater than the resident population and is likely to occur during weekends and local holidays during the summer season. Table 5-18 shows the public health risk with respect to dilution effect and level of treatment.

TABLE 5-18: RISK POTENTIAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH EXPOSURE TO SEWAGE THROUGH RIVERINE FLOW AND DISCHARGE

Source: WHO, 1999

5.9.2 Pollutant Sources

Point Sources

The most prevalent fecal coliform point sources are the permitted and unpermitted discharges from sewage treatment plants. All treatment plants are regulated by NPDES permits that require effluent disinfection and compliance with strict fecal coliform limitations (200 counts/100 milliliters [average monthly] and 400 counts/100 mL [maximum daily]). However, noncompliant discharges and collection system overflows can contribute significant loadings of fecal coliform bacteria to receiving streams.

WVDEP issues individual NPDES permits to both publicly owned and privately owned wastewater treatment facilities. Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are relatively large facilities with extensive wastewater collection systems, whereas private facilities are usually used in smaller applications such as subdivisions and shopping centers.

CSO are outfalls from POTW sewer systems that carry untreated domestic waste and surface runoff. CSOs contain fecal coliform bacteria and are permitted to discharge only

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 56

during precipitation events. Permitted CSOs are required to comply with EPA requirements regarding their management. SSO are unpermitted overflows that occur as a result of excessive infiltration and/or inflow to POTW collection systems.

Non-Point Sources

Sources of fecal coliform bacteria to a watershed include leaking sanitary sewers, runoff from urban and residential areas, and runoff from crop and pasture lands. Failing septic systems, including direct discharges, are another common source of fecal coliform bacteria to a watershed.

Fayette County is predominantly forested, which would have low fecal coliform accumulation rates. Thus, storm water runoff should not be a significant non-point source of fecal coliform in the County, except in localized areas.

5.9.3 Watershed Assessments

LAI performed watershed assessments of the major watersheds within Fayette County to correlate water quality impairments with pollutant sources. There are three major drainage basins in the County: the Upper Kanawha River, Lower New River, and Gauley River. These are subdivided into subwatersheds. Table 5-19 lists the watersheds in the County and Table 5-20 lists number of water quality exceedences in the portion of the watershed within the Fayette County. .

TABLE 5-19: FAYETTE COUNTY WATERSHEDS

Total Area within % Area Watershed Subwatershed Watershed Fayette County within Area (sq. mi.) (sq. mi.) County Twentymile Creek 86.7 6.2 1% Gauley River 126.8 62.1 9% Gauley River Lower Meadow River 160.3 75.8 11% Upper Meadow River 205.4 19.6 3% Manns Creek 58.4 58.4 9% Lower New River 121.5 121.5 18% Upper New River 95.2 92.2 14% Lower New River Dunloup Creek 48.5 38.7 6% Upper Meadow Creek 14.7 11.6 2% Lower Meadow Creek 17.4 6.6 1% Smithers Creek 29.5 25.2 4% Kanawha River 30.2 3.4 1% Lower Paint Creek 51.7 16.3 2% Upper Kanawha River Cabin Creek 72.7 1.4 0% Armstrong Creek 26.6 26.1 4% Loop Creek 56.7 56.7 8% Upper Paint Creek 71.2 46.6 7% Total: 1273.3 668.5 100%

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 57

TABLE 5-20: FAYETTE COUNTY WATERSHED WATER QUALITY SUMMARY

Total No. Total No. Total Max Min Mean Exceedences Exceedences (> Sample (MPN/100 (MPN/100 (MPN/100 Watershed Subwatershed (> 200 MPN/100 400 MPN/100 Count ml) ml) ml) ml) ml) Twentymile Creek 52 35,000 0 1,050 22 16 Gauley River 141 60,000 0 1,940 61 42 Gauley River Lower Meadow River 7 120 2 36 0 0 Upper Meadow River 65 4,400 0 240 16 8 Manns Creek 9 360 17 110 2 0 Lower New River 141 18,000 2 1,089 74 53 Upper New River 45 9,600 2 446 18 14 Lower New River Dunloup Creek 58 60,000 1 4,846 10 7 Upper Meadow Creek 10 8,600 1 619 4 2 Lower Meadow Creek 1 1 1 1 0 0 Smithers Creek 132 4,000 0 171 17 11 Kanawha River 12 4,300 2 378 1 1 Lower Paint Creek 8 2 2,800 416 2 2 Upper Kanawha River Cabin Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 Armstrong Creek 153 56,000 0 337 24 14 Loop Creek 276 60,000 0 656 43 27 Upper Paint Creek 12 6,000 2 656 4 3

5.10. Needs Summary

Table 5-21 provides a brief summary of the wastewater needs for each sector. It should be noted that the enabling legislation is required for management of decentralized wastewater systems as discussed previously.

TABLE 5-21: SUMMARY OF NEEDS BY SECTOR

Sector Wastewater Needs Onsite inventory & database Onsite System replacement Leach field repair only Cluster 8 community cluster systems Onsite and cluster Enabling legislation UIC System upgrades/repairs (24 systems) Recreational Areas Public outreach and education Upgrade (~4 systems) Package Plants Replace (~15 systems) Collection system improvements ($1,890,000) Treatment system improvements ($3,920,000) PSD & Municipal WWTFs Sewer extensions ($23,510,000) SSO/CSO controls

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 58

6. ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING

The wastewater needs definition was used by LAI as the basis to identify and screen technical options suitable to meet the wastewater management needs of for each of the sectors. The full range of potential technical solutions was considered.

Available technologies were identified for each sector. Only technologies that can meet minimum performance and environmental protection requirements were considered technically viable. High reliability and minimal operational requirements are important technology selection criteria.

Types of management entities were identified and screened based on existing management tools, legal considerations, and public acceptability. Federal and state financing options were identified and screened based on existing financing tools, legal considerations, affordability criteria and public suitability.

After the screening process, a short list of suitable technology, management, and financial options was developed for unsewered and sewered areas in Fayette County. This short list of alternatives was subject to further evaluation during the development of the Screened Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Plan.

6.1. Technology Overview 6.1.1 Treatment

The treatment technologies for cluster systems can be the same as onsite systems, as well as those used in large centralized wastewater treatment plants. As the wastewater management systems get larger, more sophisticated mechanical systems may become preferable to the land-intensive systems typical of onsite technologies. The generic options for components of a treatment system are:

§ Septic Tanks or Primary Clarifiers § Flow Equalization Tanks § Anaerobic Upflow Filter (AUF) or Vegetated Submerged Beds (VSB) § Aerobic Treatment using: o Fixed Film Processes, most commonly recirculating media filter (RMF) o Suspended Growth / Activated Sludge o Integrated Fixed Film & Suspended Growth, such as the FAST or LOTUS systems

Table 6-1 shows the treatment technologies for Fayette County wastewater management. Theses technologies are applicable for design flows up to 50,000 gpd or greater. Thus, they can be used for onsite systems, cluster systems, package plants, and centralized systems.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 59

TABLE 6-1: FAYETTE COUNTY CLUSTER SYSTEM TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Design Flows (gpd) Pre-treatment Technology+ 2,000 – 10,000 – 20,000 – Needed < 2,000 10,000 20,000 50,000+ Pre-treatment -- Septic Tank++ ü ü ü +++ -- Anaerobic Upflow Filter ü ü ü ü Secondary Treatment Fixed Film Growth Rotating Biological Contactor ü ü ü Trickling Filter ü ü ü ü Vegetated Submerged Beds ü ü ü ü ü Constructed Wetlands ü ü ü Recirculating Sand Filters ü ü ü ü ü Intermittent Sand Filters ü ü ü Suspended Film Growth Oxidation Ditch ü Activated Sludge Systems ü ü ü ü Sequencing Batch Reactor ü ü ü ü Membrane Bioreactor ü ü Tertiary Treatment ü Nitrogen Removal ü Phosphorus Removal

Currently, there is no requirement for nitrogen or phosphorus reduction for any of the wastewater management systems in the County. However, according to WVDEP, there is discussion regarding the potential need for nutrient limits for WWTFs in the future.

Septic Tanks and Primary Clarifiers A primary clarifier is a physical separation process that utilizes retention time and settling velocity of sediment and other suspended solids to reduce BOD and TSS at the influent of a treatment facility. Septic tanks act as primary clarifiers, with the difference being location and size.

Flow Equalization Tanks One common issue in smaller, highly residential communities is a high peaking factor on the average daily flow. This is due to the heavy water usage during morning and evening hours, as people prepare for and wind down from the typical workday. Pump stations and sewers can inexpensively be designed with enough capacity to accommodate this temporary, high flow rate. The capital cost of adding capacity to a treatment system is considerably larger. In addition, treatment facilities work better when wastewater flows remain close to the design flow rate. For this reason, flow equalization tanks are used to store excess flow from the high flow periods and supplement flow during low flow periods. Flow equalization tanks save considerable capital cost and improve the quality of wastewater treatment during normal operation.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 60

AUF’s and VSB’s AUF’s and VSB’s provide treatment through anaerobic biological transformations of organic and inorganic contaminants. Organic material is converted to simpler forms which either form methane gas and carbon dioxide or simple, more readily available organic molecules that are easier to treat in downstream aerobic processes. Denitrification can occur as nitrates get reduced to nitrogen gasses in the anaerobic environment.

AUF’s may be used as a pretreatment step or as a denitrification step. Performance is reasonably reliable and risk to the user is small. Environmental risk is dependent upon how the system is employed. Typically it would not be a stand-alone process and would be followed by additional polishing unit operations. The major drawbacks include temperature sensitivity and potential media clogging. Power use is negligible and operator attention is low.

The VSB system is suitable for onsite and small community applications. The performance is reliable and at low loading is suitable for subsurface recipients. It is sensitive to seasonal changes. The major drawbacks include possible odors and system clogging. Energy consumption is negligible and operator attention is low. The aesthetic benefits of vegetative cover are a plus.

Aerobic Processes Aerobic processes utilize microbial uptake to remove BOD and TSS, as well as, to convert ammonia to nitrate. These processes come in three basic configurations, as discussed below.

Fixed Film Processes

Fixed Film processes inc lude:

§ Intermittent Sand Filters § Recirculating Media Filters (RMF), where the media is either sand, gravel, foam or textile § Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC)

Fixed film processes utilize media with a high surface to volume ratio as a substrate for a biofilm to grow on. Wastewater and air are mixed, using fans and/or spray heads, and contacted with the biofilm. In the case of RBCs, an engineered surface is rotated through the wastewater stream, where a biofilm grows on the surface. The bacteria in the biofilm use the nutrients in the wastewater as an energy source to fuel growth.

Fixed film technology has the advantage of not producing large quantities of sludge and not needing energy intensive aeration and mixing. In addition, a secondary clarifier and return sludge pumps are not necessary, simplifying the process. Due to the reliance on surface area, the footprint of these types of systems can become excessive as the flow increases. Fixed film processes are also much more robust, minimizing operator involvement requirements.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 61

Suspended Growth Processes

Suspended growth processes include the following:

§ Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) § Oxidation Ditches § Conventional Activated Sludge Processes § Membrane Bioreactors

Suspended growth processes treat wastewater using the same bacteria as the fixed film processes. The difference is that in this process, solids are maintained in suspension within an aeration tank. These suspended solids grow as the bacteria absorb nutrients. A secondary clarifier is needed following the aeration tank to settle the biosolids into what is then called activated sludge. A portion of the activated sludge is returned to the aeration tank where it is blended with influent wastewater to ensure that sufficient biomass is available to uptake the available nutrients. SBRs and Oxidation Ditches are different configurations of the conventional activated sludge process.

Membrane bioreactors utilize the same technology, using membranes in place of a secondary clarifier. These processes have a range of treatment options, depending on the type of membranes used. Costs for membrane bioreactors are generally high, making them a viable option only in areas with severe space constraints and/or a higher required treatment levels.

The major drawbacks of suspended growth systems are as follows:

§ Higher sludge production and associated disposal issues § High energy consumption § High degree of operator involvement required

Integrated Fixed Film and Suspended Growth Processes

Integrated Fixed Film and Suspended Growth combine the fixed film and suspended growth technologies in one treatment process. Examples of these processes include the following:

§ FAST § AccuWeb § LOTUS § AnoxKaldnes HYBAS

These processes tend to require less space and are often more applicable to lower flows than the traditional suspended growth processes. In addition, by combining both processes, resistance to toxic upsets is increased.

6.1.2 Disinfection

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 62

The potential disinfection options are:

· Ozone · Chlorine · Ultraviolet (UV)

Ozone

Ozone disinfection operates by bubbling ozone through the wastewater. Ozone (O3) is a strong oxidant and is highly toxic to microorganisms. The process by which ozone disinfects also destroys the ozone molecule, leaving only molecular oxygen (O2) and inert organics in the disinfected wastewater. Ozone disinfection is also subject to concerns arising from the lack of disinfectant residuals to deter bacterial regrowth. Bromate, a known carcinogen, is a potential disinfection by-product for water that contains bromide. Ozone disinfection also has the highest energy costs of the three disinfection systems considered.

Ozone has the following advantages:

§ Strong disinfecting power § No hazardous material storage necessary § No need to remove prior to discharge § No THM or HAA formation

Ozone has the following disadvantages:

§ No residual to prevent bacterial regrowth § High capital cost § High operating cost § Potential bromate formation for bromide-containing water

Chlorine

The use of chlorine for wastewater disinfection has been practiced for the past century. A variety of technologies are used including tablets, gas, and chlorine dioxide. Due to its deleterious environmental effects, dechlorination may be required. Chlorination of waters containing organic materials, such as treated wastewater, has a strong potential to form THM and HAA acids. Both are known carcinogenic disinfection by-products.

Chlorine has the following advantage:

§ Maintenance of residual to prevent bacterial regrowth

Chlorine has the following disadvantages

§ THM and HAA formation potential is high for treated wastewater § Hazardous chemical delivery and storage is necessary

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 63

§ Dechlorination is normally necessary

Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV)

UV disinfection operates by exposing the wastewater to a UV light source of sufficient intensity to kill infectious organisms in the wastewater. UV does not maintain a residual to prevent bacterial regrowth. This lack of residual disinfectant and the potential for bacterial regrowth has been a concern with this method.

UV has the following advantages:

§ No hazardous material storage necessary § No need to remove prior to discharge § No THM, HAA or bromate formation § Mechanically simple system § Low operating and maintenance costs

UV has the following disadvantages:

§ No residual to prevent bacterial regrowth

UV disinfection is the most simple and lowest cost option for disinfection at this scale. None of the cluster systems will have long dispersal pipes, making the concerns about bacterial regrowth less significant.

6.2. Onsite Systems

A portion of the existing unsewered areas analyzed during the Wastewater Needs Definition process demonstrated suitability for onsite wastewater management solutions. LAI identified possible technology options for these areas where onsite solutions are possible.

6.2.1 Technology Options

There are some technology options that can be implemented to improve the performance of onsite systems given the challenging site conditions. Figure 6-1 shows the technology options that were screened for the onsite areas of the County. Treatment, disinfection where necessary, and disposal options that may be applicable to Fayette County are discussed further in the following sections.

6.2.2 Treatment

§ Dual Compartment Septic Tank § Effluent Tee Filter § Anaerobic Upflow Filter (AUF) § Alternative Secondary Treatment Systems o Fixed Film Processes Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 64

o Suspended Growth Processes o Integrated Fixed Film and Suspended Growth Processes

6.2.3 Disinfection Options

The potential disinfection options for onsite systems are:

· Ozone · Chlorine · Ultraviolet (UV)

These disinfection processes are discussed in Section 2.

6.2.4 Dispersal Options

The potential dispersal options for onsite systems are:

§ Subsurface drainfield (gravity and pressure) § Chamber systems § Bottomless sand filters § Mound systems § Drip irrigation § Low pressure pipe § Alternative drainfield systems

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 65

FIGURE 6-1: ONSITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OPTIONS

WASTEWATER SANITARY WASTE GREY WATER SOURCE · Urine · Bath/Shower · Feces · Laundry · Kitchen

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY WATER FLUSH RECYCLE TOILETS TOILET SYSTEM · Biological · Privy · Incinerating GREY WATER · Oil Flush TREATMENT

· Compost SOLIDS · Filtration TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD DISPOSAL · Disinfection WASTEWATER

LIQUIDS SOLIDS DISPOSAL DISPOSAL

AEROBIC TREATMENT SYSTEMS (S ECONDARY TREATMENT) HOLDING

TANK Fixed Film Processes Suspended Growth Processes

SEPTAGE SEPTIC - Recirculating Media Filters - Activated Sludge TREATMENT DISPOSAL TANK - Intermittent Media Filters - Sequencing Batch Reactor

- Constructed Wetlands - Membrane Bio-Reactor OFF-SITE WASTEWATER - Rotating Biological Contactor SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ANAEROBIC UPFLOW DISPOSAL Integrated Fixed Film & Suspended Growth FILTER - Media and Activated Sludge

SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM

DISINFECTION · Chlorine MOUND DRAINFIELD · UV Radiation · Built-Up · Trench DRIP DISPERSAL · Ozone · Trench · Field · Field

DISPOSAL SURFACE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION SUBSURFACE REUSE DISCHARGE DISCHARGE

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 66

6.2.5 Technology Screening Summary

The technology options were screened based on the following criteria amongst others:

§ Cost effectiveness § Operational requirements § Technical reliability § Legal considerations § Environmental considerations § Management requirements

Table 6-2 presents the recommended onsite system technology options for given site conditions. Advanced treatment options were determined to be too costly for individual onsite systems. Moreover, nutrient enrichment is not an issue in Fayette County at this time; thus, there is no need for nitrogen or phosphorus reduction technologies.

TABLE 6-2: RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR ONSITE SYSTEMS Site Condition Recommended Option ü Two compartment septic tank All areas ü Effluent filters ü AUF Soils with slow percolation rates ü Pressure distribution ü Secondary Treatment Soils with shallow depth to bedrock / ü Mound system groundwater ü Secondary Treatment

6.3. Cluster Systems

A portion of the existing unsewered areas is unsuitable for onsite wastewater management options. For these areas, decentralized cluster treatment options were developed by LAI. Off-site solutions may be used by more than one household and require a collection system to transmit wastewater from the household(s) to the treatment and/or dispersal site. The size of the system may be community cluster, or may increase incrementally to a larger central wastewater facility.

A flowchart providing an overview of the wastewater management options for cluster systems is presented in Figure 6-2. Usually, a cluster system is one that includes transport of wastewater from more than one home to a common area for treatment and dispersal. This is in contrast to a centralized system where one facility serves a large area or the entire community. Wastewater conveyance systems often represent up to 70 percent of the total capital cost associated with wastewater management and should be given considerable emphasis in the alternatives analysis and technology selection.

Each alternative must be evaluated for a given site, in terms of its appropriateness in solving the problem, its costs, and its environmental impacts.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 67

6.3.1 Collection

As discussed earlier, because the transport (collection) component costs represent a large percentage (up to 70 percent) of a total wastewater management system's cost, considerable attention needs to be placed on: 1. Route optimization, and 2. Collection technology choice when off-site solutions are examined.

The key factors that must be considered in the selection of an appropriate wastewater collection system are:

§ Local topography § Depth to bedrock or groundwater § Development Density

Collection system alternatives include:

§ Conventional Gravity § Septic Tank Effluent (both gravity and pumped) § Grinder Pump § Vacuum A flowchart detailing the options for wastewater conveyance is presented in Figure 6-3.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 68

FIGURE 6-2: MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CLUSTER SYSTEMS

Wastewater Wastewater Flow source Quantity and Quality

Conventional Septic Tank & Grinder Pump Collection Gravity Sewer Effluent Pump Septic Tank & Small-Diameter Pressure Sewer Vacuum Sewer Gravity Sewer

Pretreatment

- Septic tank - Anaerobic upflow filter Secondary Treament

Fixed Film Processes Suspended Growth Processes

Treatment - Recirculating Media Filters - Activated Sludge - Intermittent Sand Filters - Sequencing Batch Reactor - Constructed Wetlands - Membrane Bio-Reactor - Rotating Biological Contactor Integrated Fixed Film & Suspended Growth

- Media & Activated Sludge

Advanced Treatment Disinfection Nitrogen removal Disinfection

- UV - Biological denitrification - Chlorine - Ozone Phosphorus removal

- Chemical precipitation - Mineralization - Sorption Dispersal

Subsurface Dispersal Land Application Reuse Direct - Beds / Trenches - Spray irrigation - Toilet flushing Reuse - Drip distribution - Overland flow - Irrigation Discharge - Rapid infiltration - Cooling tower make up

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 69

FIGURE 6-3: ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS

PROPERTY WASTEWATER

CONVENTIONAL COMBINATION ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS

Gravity Force Septic Tank Grinder Vacuum Sewers Mains Effluent Pump

Large Main / Lateral / Interceptor Trunk Collector Gravity Pressure Sewers Sewers Sewers

Selected Collection System Alternatives

Pressure and vacuum system require pumps and/or valve assemblies for each property. This complicates the design and increases operation and maintenance requirements. In cases where multiple pump stations and long, flat sewer reaches would be necessary, these complicating factors are frequently offset by advantages such as shallower burial depth, smaller diameter pipes and no need for area pump stations. In general, the topography of Fayette County suggests that excessive pump stations or deep cuts for gravity pipe installation would not likely be needed. This eliminates the major advantages of pressure sewers and vacuum systems, except for limited areas.

For the reasons discussed above, vacuum and grinder pump pressure systems will not be considered for the cluster collection systems. Only gravity-based sewers with pressure systems being installed on individual properties as needed, will be evaluated for wastewater conveyance to the treatment facility.

6.3.2 Treatment

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 70

Selected Fixed Film Technology

Experience has shown that for the flow rates expected from Fayette County Cluster Systems (less than 50,000 gpd), RMF’s are proven to be simple, effective and economical. In addition, recent installations of recirculating sand filters (RSF), the simplest of the RMF technologies, are currently being used with succes sful results in Fayette County. For these reasons, RMF’s are the selected fixed film technology.

The various RMF manufacturers generally utilize proprietary media and tend to have a smaller footprint than RSF’s. This makes them attractive where space is a consideration. A detailed site design would be required to determine the most cost effective type of RMF for the proposed treatment facility site. Simplicity of design, availability of local suppliers, and lower capital cost combined with available space at potential treatment sites makes RSF’s the most likely choice for treatment.

Selected Suspended Growth Technology

SBR’s were selected to represent a typical small-scale suspended growth wastewater treatment system. The footprint and costs associated with SBRs are representative of suspended growth systems that are applicable to the range of flows associated with the proposed Cluster Systems in Fayette County.

Selected Integrated Fixed Film and Suspended Growth Technology

The most commonly used integrated fixed film and suspended growth technology is the FAST system. This system has an operating history and numerous nationwide installations. The FAST system is representative of the typical costs and footprint associated with an installed integrated fixed film and suspended growth system.

6.3.3 Dispersal

Alternative disposal / reuse systems include:

§ Drip irrigation, § Subsurface leachfield § Water reuse for non-potable purposes § Surface discharge (For surface dispersal options, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit is required.) § Various combinations of the above

A detailed analysis of each site is needed to determine the feasibility of each dispersal system. Such an analysis is not within the scope of this project. Poor soils, steep slopes and shallow depth to bedrock are typical in Fayette County. In addition, the permitting process for surface discharges in Fayette County is not prohibitively extensive and surface discharges are the most common for existing treatment facilities. Surface discharge is generally the most economical method of discharge, providing the wasteload allocation for the receiving stream does not result in excessively restrictive effluent water quality standards. For these reasons, the surface discharge option is considered to be the most feasible to implement. The Screened Alternatives Analysis

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 71 and Preferred Plan will only consider surface discharge as a method of dispersal, with constructed wetlands used as buffers in the event of plant upsets.

6.3.4 Technology Screening Summary

In summary, the alternatives analysis for each cluster system will consist of the following options:

Collection System:

§ Conventional Gravity / Pump Station System § STEG System § Combined Systems where STEP units are used as needed in the STEG systems and Grinder Pumps are used as needed in a Conventional Gravity system

Treatment System:

§ RMF’s, specifically a RSF § SBR’s § FAST

Disinfection:

§ UV System

Dispersal:

§ Surface Discharge with Constructed Wetland Buffer

A detailed cost analysis and preferred alternative recommendation is presented in the Screened Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Plan.

6.4. Package Plants 6.4.1 Treatment

The potential treatment technologies for the package plants are the same as the ones discussed for the cluster systems. The difference in the screening analysis comes from the fact that the package plants are already in existence. The majority of the package plants are extended aeration plants that are either close to or have already exceeded their expected life span. The other plants are RSF’s or a lagoon, all of which appear to be in good to excellent shape. Table 6-3 lists data for each of the package plants.

The detailed analysis of alternatives for upgrading or replacing the existing package plants will be presented in the Screened Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Plan. The following two options will be developed for Package Plants that are failing or are operating beyond their expected life span:

§ Rehabilitating the existing extended aeration plants to current Best Management Practices

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 72

§ Replacing the existing plant with a RMF, utilizing salvageable components of the existing system

6.4.2 Disinfection

The disinfection options for the package plants are the same as for the cluster systems. UV disinfection is the preferred method of disinfection for these systems when maintaining residual is not a requirement.

6.4.3 Disposal

Surface discharge combined with constructed wetlands will be used as a method of disposal in the Screened Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Plan.

6.4.4 Technology Screening Summary

The alternatives analysis for each Package Plant where treatment is failing or nearing the end of its useful life will consist of the following options:

Treatment System:

· New RMF treatment facility · Rehabilitation of the existing extended aeration plants

Disinfection:

· UV System

Dispersal:

· Surface Discharge with Constructed Wetlands

A detailed cost analysis and preferred alternative recommendation is presented in the Screened Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Plan.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 73

TABLE 6-3: SUMMARY OF FAYETTE COUNTY PACKAGE PLANTS Permit Permit Actual NPDES Permit Description of Served Treatment WWTF Discharging No. Name Permit # Flow Flow Flow Owner Age # Area System Condition Watershed (gpd) (gpm) (gpm) 1 Babcock State Park WV0100374 State Park State Park Manns Creek Pool Backwash 3,500 2 Pool Filter backwash 30 Settling pond old Extended Pool bathroom 4,000 3 <1 Pool 30 old Aeration Recirc Sand Cabins 3,500 2 Cabins 5 new Filter Extended Campground 14,000 10 Campground old Aeration Extended Admin Bldg 5,000 3 Admin and restaurant old Aeration Extended Arbuckle 2 Briarwood Place WV0103110 WVG550896 8,000 6 Earnest Lester Trailer Park old Aeration Creek 3 Canyon Rim WV0103373 WVG550735 15,000 10 US Dept. of Interior Visitor Center and park >10 Lagoon old Mill Creek Fayette County Board of Extended 4 Danese Elementary WV0103110 WVG550693 1,200 1 0.5 to 1 School old Manns Creek Ed. Aeration Green Summit Estates, Extended 5 Green Sumit Estates WV0103110 WVG550746 24,000 17 5 Subdivision old Wolf Creek Inc. Aeration Extended Arbuckle 6 Hill & Dale Estates WVG550404 6,000 4 1 to 2 Charles K. Toombs Trailer Park old Aeration Creek Midland Trail High Fayette County Board of Extended 7 WV 0039101 WVG550672 15,000 10 3 to 5 School old Glade Creek School Ed. Aeration Extended Plum Orchard 8 Midway T & C, Inc. WV0039101 WVG551231 7,000 5 <1 to 2 Ted & Charlotte Gray Restaurant/Service Station old Aeration Lake New River Gorge New River Gorge Extended 9 Campgrounds WV00891959 WVG550440 5,000 3 1 to 3 Campground 17 old Mill Creek Campground, Inc. Aeration (formerly Songers) Recirc Sand 10 New River Ranch WV0103110 WVG551304 12,000 8 <1 New River Ranch, Inc. Campground new Sugar Creek Filter North American River Extended 11 WV0081959 WVG550190 8,000 6 1.7-2.4 Frank Lukas Rafting Company old Glade Creek Runners Aeration Extended 12 Songer Whitewater WV0103110 WVG551267 8,000 6 1 to 5 Songer Whitewater, Inc. Rafting Company 4 new Glade Creek Aeration Extended Arbuckle 13 Thurmond Depot WV0103110 WVG 550703 2,000 1 1.5 National Park Service Visitor Center, one home old Aeration Creek Western Family Extended 14 WV0083933 WVG550327 7,000 5 1 to 3 Tomco Enterprises, Inc. Restaurant and Store >14 old Laurel Creek Restaurant Aeration Recreation Management Extended 15 Whitewater Inn WV0080829 WVG550626 10,600 7 1 to 3 Motel old Wolf Creek Services, Inc. Aeration Total 158,800

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 74

6.5. PSDs and Municipal WWTFs

Based on the Wastewater Needs Definition, suitable technologies to address the various wastewater issues in sewered areas were identified. Technology options were identified for the following issues: · Collection systems rehabilitation (for I/I reduction) · SSO elimination/CSO management

6.5.1 I/I Reduction and CSO/SSO Control

There are many operational practices and technologies that can be used to reduce/eliminate the frequency, duration, and volume of CSOs and SSOs. Techniques used to control CSOs and SSOs can be grouped into the following four categories:

1. Operation and maintenance practices (Table 6-4) 2. Collection system controls (Table 6-5) 3. Storage facilities (Table 6-6) 4. Treatment technologies (Table 6-7)

The effectiveness of the control strategies can be related to a number of different factors. Some of these factors include:

§ Current condition of the sewer system § Characteristics of the wet weather flows § Hydraulic and pollutant loading to a particular WWTF § Climate (seasonal variations) § Land and space constraints, surrounding area, etc. § Maintenance requirements

TABLE 6-4: O&M PRACTICES FOR CSO AND SSO CONTROL*

System Pollutants/Problems Technique Description Type Addressed Inspecting and testing of sewer system to track condition and Sewer inspection & identify potential problems (e.g. leaks, direct connections). Sewer CSS, SSS I/I testing testing techniques include air testing, hydrostatic testing, and smoke testing. Cleaning and flushing to remove blockages caused by solids, FOG, BOD, TSS, nutrients, and root intrusion. Blockages are the leading cause of SSO events. Sewer cleaning CSS, SSS toxics, pathogens, Cleaning techniques include hydraulic cleaning, mechanical floatables, FOG cleaning, and chemical cleaning. Focuses on best management practices. Public education and Pollution prevention CSS, SSS Nutrients, toxics, FOG working with customers to reduce pollutant loads to the sewer system is a key element. Water quality monitoring and public notification is important to BOD, TSS, nutrients, WQ monitoring & minimize the public health impacts from CSO and SSO discharges. CSS, SSS toxics, pathogens, public notification Posting signs at CSO and SSO locations, fact sheets, and FOG coordinating with community groups are all important components.

*Taken from the USEPA’s 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSO’s and SSO’s.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 75

TABLE 6-5: COLLECTION SYSTEM CONTROLS FOR CSO AND SSO CONTROL*

System Pollutants/Problems Technique Description Type Addressed Measures that can help maximize flow to the treatment plant include: capacity BOD, TSS, nutrients, Maximizing flow to the evaluations of sewer system and pump stations, sewer investigations to identify CSS, SSS toxics, pathogens, treatment plant bottlenecks or constrictions, target O&M activities to remedy structural floatables deterioration and obstructions Monitoring and real- Peak wet weather flow Installing flow monitors to better understand and manage sewer system response CSS, SSS time control rate to wet weather flows Inflow reductin results in more conveyence, storage, and treatment capacity for sanitary flows. Common techniques to reduce inflow include disconnection of roof I/I, peak wet weather Inflow reduction CSS, SSS leaders, redirection of area and foundation drains and basement sump pumps, and flow rate elimination of cross connections between separate sanitary and storm water systems Sewer separation can be applied on a system-wide basis or to select areas. It is the most widely used CSO control. Three approaches to sewer separation are 1) full separation where the existing sewer lines become the storm sewer system and I/I, peak wet weather Sewer separation CSS a new sanitary sewer system is constructed, 2) full separation where the existing flow rate sewer lines become sanitary sewer and a new storm water system is constructed, and 3) partial separation where a new storm sewer is constructed for street drainage, but roof leaders and sump pumps remain connected to the existing CSS. Common sewer rehabilitation techniques include removal and replacement of defective lines, trenchless technologies (sliplining, cured-in place pipe, modified I/I, peak wet weather Sewer rehabilitation CSS, SSS cross-section liners, and pipe bursting), shotcrete where a mixture of cement, flow rate sand, and water is applied to sewer walls, and grouting and epoxy injections to seal leaks and cracks. Service lateral I/I, peak wet weather Lateral rehabilitation techniques are generally the same as sewer rehabilitation CSS, SSS rehabilitation flow rate techniques. Common manhole rehabilitation techniques include sealing pick holes in manhole covers and installing gaskets between manhole cover and frames, spot repairs I/I, peak wet weather with grout or fast-drying cement to patch defects in sidewalls or bases, coating Manhole rehabilitation SSS flow rate systems to rebuild structural integrity and protect against deterioration, reconstructing manholes where necessary, and placing inserts and liners in deteriorated manholes. *Taken from the USEPA’s 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSO’s and SSO’s.

TABLE 6-6: STORAGE FACILITY FOR CSO AND SSO CONTROL

System Technique Pollutants/Problems Addressed Description Type In-line storage techniques include the use of flow Peak wet weather flow rate, BOD, regulators, in-line tanks or basins, and parallel relief In-line storage CSS, SSS TSS, nutrients, toxics, pathogens, sewers. Areas where the sewer slope is relatively flat floatables generally offer the best opportunities for in-line storage. Off-line storage facilities can be applied to many different Peak wet weather flow rate, BOD, site-specific conditions by modifying the design. Thus, Off-line storage CSS, SSS TSS, nutrients, toxics, pathogens, they are one of the most commonly used CSO controls. floatables Typically they consist of tanks and basins or deep tunnels located adjacent to the sewer system.

On-site storage is storage at the WWTF. The most Peak wet weather flow rate, BOD, common forms of on-site storage are flow equalization On-site storage and flow CSS, SSS TSS, nutrients, toxics, pathogens, basins and converted abandoned treatment facilities (e.g. equalization floatables old clarifiers, lagoons). On-site storage is generally much more cost effective than off-line storage. *Taken from the USEPA’s 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSO’s and SSO’s.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 76

TABLE 6-7: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY FOR CSO AND SSO CONTROL

System Technique Pollutants/Problems Addressed Description Type

Implementing supplemental treatment technologies to supplement wastewater treatment during wet weather. The level of treatment Peak wet weather flow rate, BOD, required and characteristics of wet weather flow determine the types Supplemental treatment CSS, SSS TSS, pathogens of technologies. Some common technologies used include ballasted flocculation or sedimentation, chemical flocculation, deep bed filtration, and microscreens. Some simple plant modifications that increase the ability of the treatment plant to treat wet weather flows include: ensuring equal distribution of flow among treatment units, installing baffles to protect Peak wet weather flow rate, BOD, Plant modifications CSS, SSS clarifiers from hydraulic surges, using metal salts and polymers to TSS increase SS removal, and switching from operation in series to operation in parallell during wet weather flows for certain unit operations Disinfection at WWTFs is common, but limited for CSO and SSO Disinfection CSS, SSS Pathogens discharges. Common types of disinfection are chlorine and UV. Vortex separators (swirl concentrators) concentrate and remove SS and floatables. The concentrated sewage and debris goes to the Vortex separators CSS TSS, floatables treatment plant and the dilute mix is discharged to the receiving water. Three categories of floatable controls are 1) source controls that prevent solids and floatables from entering the system, 2) collection Floatables controls CSS Floatables system controls that keep solids and floatables in the sewer system and prevent their discharge, and 2) end-of-pipe controls that capture solids and floatables as they are discharged from the sewer system. *Taken from the USEPA’s 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSO’s and SSO’s.

6.5.2 I/I Reduction vs. Increasing Treatment and Collection System Capacity

A Sewer System Evaluation Study (SSES) should be performed to identify the sources of I/I and determine the cost effectiveness of treatment and transport versus I/I removal. The following approach, taken from USEPA publications on I/I removal, is recommended:

1. Flow Monitoring

2. Physical Inspection of Problem Subsystems

3. Cost Effective Analysis and Prioritization of Problem Subsystems

Flow Monitoring

Flow monitoring would be conducted as follows:

1. Review and analyze plant influent flow data, pump stations flow data and CSO/SSO flows

2. Divide the collection system into subsystems and identify the nodes (manholes) which are located at the outlet of each subsystem

3. Monitor flows within each subsystem by monitoring flow at the nodes and compare them to the expected sewer flows from the corresponding subsystems

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 77

4. Prioritize each subsystem by infiltration intensity (measured in gpd/inch-mile of pipe)

5. Using early morning flow data and rainfall data, determine if the excess flows are a result of infiltration, inflow, or both. Decide the appropriate time period of the year to perform further monitoring within the problem subsystems.

Physical Inspection of Problem Subsystems

Once the problem subsys tems are identified, a physical inspection should be used to further define the I/I problem. The physical inspection of the problem subsystems includes the following:

1. Measure early morning flows (between 2 a.m. to 5 a.m.) at key manholes and at upstream m anholes to identify infiltration by reach. A high percentage of flow at this time can be assumed to be I/I. Prioritize reaches between manholes where flows were measured according to I/I intensity.

2. Smoke tests should be performed on prioritized reaches within the subsystem. The smoke test will help identify inflow sources such as catch basins, roof and driveway drains, crossing connections, manhole covers, and bad joints.

3. Dye tests should be used on ditches, streams or storm sewers located above or crossing near prioritized reaches.

4. Analyze data from 1,2, and 3 above to determine the most likely source of I/I within the reach.

5. Estimate costs for recommended rehabilitation methods based on data analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

After all data and results have been analyzed and summarized, a cost-effective analysis must be conducted to determine the most cost effective method of reducing I/I that contributes to CSOs and SSOs. The basis of comparison will be total Present Worth, and it will include the following:

1. Cost of transporting and treating existing I/I through the methods described in this section. Alternatives for storage and treatment capacity will be evaluated. The total Present Worth will include capital, engineering, permitting and O&M.

2. Cost of I/I reduction through methods described in this section. Present Worth will include rehabilitation, repair, replacement, and engineering costs.

3. Optimization of I/I removal, collection system and treatment capacity strategies.

The final recommended plan will be guided by the results of the flow and physical inspections.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 78

6.6. Management Options 6.6.1 Identification of Management Options

LAI identified management options for Fayette County wastewater management. Both public and private management options for operation, maintenance, repair, monitoring, and administration, or a combination of the two, were considered. Wastewater management programs consist of three elements: 1. Ownership 2. Administration 3. Operation

Ownership

Ownership describes the entity that has legal responsibility, liability and authority regarding all aspects of a wastewater management system. Ownership is sometimes referred to as the Institutional Structure of a wastewater management system.

Traditionally, centralized wastewater systems have been owned and managed publicly, while onsite and cluster systems have been owned and managed privately with public oversight. Today these are not the only options. Onsite and cluster systems have successfully been implemented using other innovative ownership structures. Table 6-8 describes the range of possible ownership structures.

TABLE 6-8: MATRIX OF OWNERSHIP OPTIONS

Ownership Infrastructure Centralized Cluster Onsite Institution · Sanitary District · Public Service District – new or existing · Assessment districts Public · Regional wastewater Traditional Innovative Innovative authorities · Municipal corporations · County commissions Combination · Combinations Innovative Innovative Innovative Public / Private · Private Individuals · For-Profit Corporation Private Innovative Innovative Traditional · Non-Profit Corporation · Cooperative Association

The ownership of a wastewater system may constrain the available financial and institutional management system options available. For example, privately owned systems have traditionally been unable to obtain public funding in the form of grants.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 79

Recent legislation and programs in some states enable septic system loan programs to be used for private systems. Presumably, they could be used for small cluster systems as well.

The administration and monitoring, maintenance and repair (MMR) options are discussed in the following Sections. An owner can either perform some or all of these activities internally, or have them performed by others (outsourced).

Administration

The administration element is comprised of the following functions: § Ownership Management § Program Management for Implementation of Capital Improvements § Use Regulation § Regulatory Compliance Reporting § Customer Service, Billing and Collections § User Charge System o Capital costs o Operation and maintenance costs o Repair fund o Replacement-depreciation fund § Financial

Operations Management – Monitoring, Maintenance and Repair

The operations element consists of the following activities:

§ Maintenance § Monitoring § Repair – Replacement

The MMR activities required for wastewater systems are heavily influenced by system capacity, with larger systems having more requirements than smaller systems. The equipment dictates maintenance and repair activities, while monitoring requirements are dictated by permits.

Table 6-9 presents typical MMR responsibilities for the range of wastewater management system sizes.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 80

TABLE 6-9: TYPICAL MMR RESPONSIBILITIES*

Small Medium Large Very Large Centralized Onsite Systems Systems Systems Systems Systems MMRA Activity Systems 2,000 – 10,000 – < 2,000 gpd 50,000+ gpd 10,000 gpd 50,000 gpd Treatment, collection, Periodic Treatment, dispersal system On-going treatment, collection, Maintenance residuals removal collection system maintenance dispersal system maintenance maintenance activities activities

Regular inspections Regular inspections Periodic Regular inspections Inspections Periodic Regular sampling Regular sampling Regular sampling Monitoring Inspections Remote On-call personnel On-call personnel Full time personnel monitoring systems may Remote monitoring SCADA system SCADA system systems be appropriate

Preventative repair and replacement Preventative repair and Component repair Component repair as needed program replacement program Repair as needed Full time personnel On-call personnel On-call personnel Redundant systems Discharge permit Discharge permit Discharge permit Varies by degree of oversight Compliance reporting (Education, Permit Applications, Compliance Compliance reporting Administration Minimal customer Inspections, etc.) reporting service Full customer service System use regulation System use regulation System use System use regulation regulation *Taken from the 2004 Cluster Wastewater Systems Planning Handbook, by Lombardo Associates, Inc. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 81

6.6.2 USEPA Management Models

USEPA has developed Voluntary National Guidelines for the Management of On-Site and Clustered Wastewater Treatment Systems. The management guidelines consist of five management models, with progressively increasing management controls as the sensitivity of the environment and/or treatment system complexity increases. The purpose of the models is to provide a guide to match the needed management controls to the potential public health and water quality risks presented by decentralized systems in a particular area. The models are flexible to allow for customization by substituting elements of one model into another to accommodate local needs, practices, and conditions. The key elements of the five models are summarized in Table 6-10.

Currently in Fayette County, it appears that the management of most of the package treatment plants falls under Level 3. Management of the onsite systems generally falls under Level 1.

TABLE 6-10: SUMMARY OF USEPA’ S MANAGEMENT MODELS* Management Model Objectives Basic features

Management Model 1 § Only conventional on-site systems. § Owner awareness of § Prescriptive design/site Inventories and maintenance perm itting program, requirements. reminders installation, and O/M § Owner education to improve O/M. needs. § Inspections only during construction § Compliance with and complaint evaluations. codes, regulations. § Create and maintain system inventory.

Management Model 2 § Maintain prescriptive § Prescriptive design/site program for sites that requirements. Maintenance contracts meet code criteria (MP § Allowances for specified alternatives 1). where code not met. § Permit only approved § O/M contracts and reporting alternative systems on required for alternative systems. sites not quite meeting § Inspections and owner education as criteria. in MP 1. § Create and maintain inventory.

Management Model 3 § Onsite system designs § Wider variety of designs allowed. based on site § Performance of required O/M tasks Operating Permits conditions and governs operating permit renewal. performance § OWTS monitoring/inspections requirements. required. § System performance § Property sale and change-of-use assumed by O/M task compliance-assurance inspections. completion and verified § Create and maintain inventory. through permit renewal inspections.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 82

Management Model 4 § Responsible public or § Performance governs acceptability. private entity assumes § Operating permits ensure Responsible management O/M and compliance. entity operation and inspection/monitoring § All systems are inspected regularly. maintenance responsibilities for all § Monthly/yearly fees support systems in program. management area. § Owner responsible for all costs. § Create and maintain inventory.

Management Model 5 § Public or private RME § Performance governs acceptability. owns and operates all § All systems are inspected regularly. Responsible management systems in § Monthly/yearly fees support entity ownership management area. program. § Similar to centralized § Users relieved of all O&M sewer system service responsibilities. approach. § RME funds installation & repairs. § Create and maintain inventory.

*Taken from the USEPA Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems, Federal Register: March 28, 2003, Volume 68, Number 60, Notices, Page 15172-15173. 6.7. Screening Management Options

The management options were screened based on criteria developed in consultation with the Project Advisory Committee. These criteria included, among others:

· Existing management systems tools · Legal considerations · Acceptability to public

6.7.1 Onsite Systems

LAI recommends that the County develop and implement a Level 3 or 5 management system for the onsite systems. This would most efficiently track the installation and performance of these systems. Given the decentralized approach advocated in Fayette County, it is especially important that the onsite systems receive sufficient attention to ensure their performance.

Recommended ownership options include:

§ Homeowners Association § PSD § Improvement District

6.7.2 Cluster Systems

LAI recommends that Fayette County develop and implement a Level 5 management program for the proposed cluster systems. All cluster systems would be required to join

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 83

the RME that is created or designated. A Level 5 management system is all encompassing and would help ensure that the best performance from the systems.

Ownership options that warrant consideration include:

§ Utility § PSD

6.7.3 Package Plants

Based on LAI’s work to date, we recommend that Fayette County develop and implement a Level 5 management program on a voluntary basis for the package treatment facilities. All existing plants would have the option of joining the RME that is created or designated. Those who do not volunteer to join the RME would continue to operate as Level 3 management programs. A Level 5 management system is all encompassing and would help ensure that the best performance from the systems.

Ownership options that warrant consideration include:

§ Private Individual (existing) § Utility § PSD

6.7.4 UIC Systems

Similarly to the package plants, LAI recommends the County develop and implement a Level 5 management program on a voluntary basis for UIC systems. Those who do not volunteer to join the RME would continue to operate as Level 3 management programs.

Ownership options that warrant consideration include:

§ Private Individual (existing) § Utility § PSD

6.7.5 PSD and Municipal Systems

The existing management structure of PSDs and municipalities managing the centralized systems in the County should be continued. Consolidation of PSDs should be pursued when there are distinct advantages to all parties.

6.8. Financial Options

A budget needs to be established for the wastewater management systems and revenues and expenses must match the budget allowances. The budget should also provide for long-term asset management. Moreover, the procurement of capital resources is a significant issue.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 84

6.8.1 Identification of Financial Options

The LAI team identified financial options for the envisioned Fayette County wastewater management program. Financial options may include, among others:

· Property owner connection and user charges · Innovative fee structures, such as a water quality protection fee on recreational water users · County-wide property owner taxes · Government loans and grants

6.8.2 Government Financing Options

Grants and loans for wastewater projects are available under several state and federal programs. Major programs that are available include:

Federal Sources § USEPA Nonpoint Source Section 319 Grant Program § USEPA State Revolving Fund § USDA Rural Utilities Service § HUD Community Development Block Grants § Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration § USEPA Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities § US Army Corps of Engineers § Appalachian Regional Commission

State Sources § State Revolving Funds § WV Infrastructure and Jobs Council § WV Housing Development Fund § WV Water Development Authority § WV Development Office

6.8.3 Affordability Guidelines

The USEPA (1995) has developed guidelines to assess the affordability of wastewater fees. Simple assessment guidelines are the annual cost as a percentage of Median Household Income (MHI) with the following benchmarks for comparison:

Little Impact Less than 1 % Mid-range Impact 1.0 % – 2.0 % Large Impact Greater than 2.0 %

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 85

The 2000 MHI 1% and 2% levels for several communities in Fayette County are presented in Table 6-11.

For situations of large impacts, secondary indicators should be examined and include:

§ Bond Rating § Overall Net Debt as Percent of Full Market Value of taxable Property § Unemployment § Median Household Income – as % of State Median § Property Tax revenues as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property § Property Tax Collection Rate

TABLE 6-11: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES IN FAYETTE COUNTY

2000 Median 1% MHI 2% MHI 1% MHI 2% MHI Community Household Income Annual Annual Montly Monthly Ansted $25,028 $250.28 $500.56 $20.86 $41.71 Fayetteville $35,043 $350.43 $700.86 $29.20 $58.41 Meadow Bridge $23,194 $231.94 $463.88 $19.33 $38.66 Montgomery $20,606 $206.06 $412.12 $17.17 $34.34 Mount Hope $18,375 $183.75 $367.50 $15.31 $30.63 Oak Hill $24,792 $247.92 $495.84 $20.66 $41.32 Pax $21,875 $218.75 $437.50 $18.23 $36.46 Smithers $20,417 $204.17 $408.34 $17.01 $34.03

Grants are available for connection and assessment fees for low-income families and the elderly. It may also be advantageous to develop fee deferral programs for the elderly and low-income households in which the fees accumulate and are paid when the property is sold. Obviously, cash flow financing will need to be provided to the ownership agency.

The Health and Human Services poverty guidelines for a three person household for 2005 is $16,090 per year. Thus, 2 percent of the poverty level is $26.82 per month.

6.8.4 Screening Financial Options

The financial options were screened based on criteria developed in consultation with the Project Advisory Committee. These criteria included, among others:

§ Existing financial tools § Legal considerations § Acceptability to public

LAI recommends that the County target the following sources for funding the County- wide Capital Improvement Plan.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 86

6.8.5 Fayette County Wastewater Management Funding Plan

The Fayette County Wastewater Management Plan is expected to result in several phased projects, over a number of years, as funds become available for implementation.

Because the plan has drawn considerable interest from state and federal agencies with the ability to provide or assist with acquiring funds, it is highly recommended that initial efforts for obtaining funding take the following three-pronged approach:

1. Fund the Winona cluster system. Potential funding of this project will ultimately funnel through a request to the West Virginia Infrastructure Council which could include any/and or all of the following sources: (1) State Revolving Loan Fund administered through WV DEP and/or other DEP funding sources coordinated through US EPA (2) HUD Small Cities Block Grant administered through the WV Development Office (3) Appalachian Regional Commission also through the WV Development Office (4) Special appropriation request through Congress (5) Rural Utility Service, a program of USDA (6) Funds from a private purveyor of wastewater treatment services interested in an O&M contract on the system (7) Local bond issue using the Tax Increment Financing Statute or Industrial Development Bond Statute

2. Fund an onsite program of approximately 100 systems. Potential funding of this system should come through the US Army Corps of Engineers Program available in the Congressional District of Nick J. Rahall, with any needed matches coming from any or all of the above-listed sources.

3. Fund a demonstration project of about 10 to 20 of onsite systems using an anaerobic upflow filter to assess their viability as a cost effective solution for sites with difficult site conditions. The process is passive, low cost and has been shown to be effective. Construction costs could be in the $8,000 to $10,000 per property versus $12,000 to $15,000 per property that would be with advanced treatment systems. The results from the demonstration project would help refine the cost estimates for the onsite sector.

4. Fund a centralized system upgrade and/or extension. This upgrade should either concentrate on SSO and/or I&I issues, extend service to unserved areas through the use of an existing treatment asset, or the combination of these. Funding for this project will ultimately funnel through a request to the West Virginia Infrastructure Council and will include any or all of the sources listed for the Winona cluster system.

Note that each potential funding source, with exception of the local bond issues, should be used for only one phase of the initial three-pronged project and each must be evaluated as to which is the best fit. This will be identified in discussions with Regional Planning Council staff and IJDC staff.

The process for obtaining these and future funds will be guided through the following procedure:

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 87

§ Adoption of the plan by the Fayette County Planning Commission and the Fayette County Commission as the official wastewater plan of the county § 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 § Followup 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

It should be noted that while the plan places priorities on certain projects based on impact on water quality, certain phases of the project could move forward in the timetable due to availability and suitability to funding sources that may not otherwise fit with projects higher on the priority listing.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 88

7. PREFERRED PLAN

A recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was provided for the following sectors of wastewater management in Fayette County.

§ Onsite systems § Cluster systems § Recreational area wastewater management systems § UIC systems § Package plants § PDS and municipal wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs)

7.1. Onsite Systems

7.1.1 Onsite System Inventory and Database

A key element to the success of the onsite component of the Wastewater Management Plan is the proper management and oversight. A level 5 management model from the USEPA’s Voluntary National Guidelines for the Management of Onsite and Clustered Wastewater Treatment Systems is recommended in Fayette County and will be implemented in a phased approach. At a minimum, all onsite systems in the County should be brought up to level 1 management, which requires an inventory of systems.

However, the inventory of existing onsite systems in the County is virtually nonexistent and needs to be created for any responsible management entity (RME) to be successful. The RME needs to know how many systems there are, where they are located, and what condition they are in.

Areas with public health issues stemming from direct discharges and malfunctioning systems will be prioritized to raise the level of management first. Water quality monitoring will also be used to prioritize systems on a watershed basis.

It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the County is currently sewered. There are a number of direct discharges in the County. The remainder of the unsewered population is served by onsite septic systems. Failing onsite septic systems are a major concern in the County.

Septic systems are permitted and regulated by the Fayette County Health Department. All of the County Health Department’s files are currently hard copies only. There is no way to track a given septic system. Common problems that are encountered include:

1. Many of the septic systems are currently unpermitted. 2. Other systems are permitted long after the system is installed. 3. There is no unique identifier used to track a system. Thus, in some cases multiple permits have been issued for a single system since there is no way to

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 89

connect permits for upgrades with the original permit that was issued for that system. 4. There is no method of spatially locating the permitted systems. The files are not tied to any other County database. 5. There are no street addresses in the County.

Development and implementation of a database to track onsite systems is essential to the County’s implementation of a level 5 management model, thereby, ensuring the performance of the onsite systems. Given the large percentage of the County that is unsewered, performance of the onsite systems is essential to the meeting water quality objectives.

LAI recommends the County conduct an inventory of onsite systems and develop a database to track the systems for successful implementation of an onsite management system and asset management. This would consist of the following activities.

1. Database of all existing systems a. Meetings with County Health Department staff to discuss data needs b. Establish parcel identification number (PID) for each parcel, which can be linked to the Assessor’s database (meetings with County Assessor and WV Tax Office) c. Develop database with owner, site evaluation, and system information including, in part: i. Owner name ii. Property location (address, if available) iii. Mailing address iv. Permit number v. Installation date vi. Modification (repair, upgrade, replacement) date vii. Percolation rate viii. Depth to bedrock ix. Depth to groundwater x. Design flow xi. Lot size xii. Water supply source xiii. Dispersal system type xiv. Dispersal system area xv. GPS coordinates of wastewater system and wells, where applicable

2. Inventory of all existing systems a. Homeowner questionnaire b. Homeowner interviews and field inspections c. Review of Health Department files d. Input of system info to onsite database created

3. GIS mapping of parcels and onsite systems a. Create dataset of parcels from existing tax maps

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 90

i. Create shapefile of parcels with PID ii. Link to onsite system database b. Maps showing spatial distribution of onsite systems and i. System age ii. Soil characteristics (percolation rate, depth to bedrock, depth to groundwater) iii. System type iv. Modifications (repairs, upgrades, replacements)

4. Out-reach and training program a. Public participation plan i. Establish project web site for dissemination of information ii. Hold public meetings to inform homeowners and encourage participation b. Training of County Staff i. Presentation to County staff showing integration of databases with GIS ii. Training sessions for Health Department staff and other County staff as deemed appropriate 1. Navigation of onsite database 2. Data entry into onsite database 3. Cross checking of onsite database with assessor’s database

The major accomplishments of this effort would be:

1. Complete inventory of all existing onsite systems 2. Onsite database all existing systems 3. GIS mapping of onsite systems 4. Training program for County staff on use of database

Training of County staff to use to database developed is vital to the success of this effort. The database will become a tool that the County uses for effective management of the onsite systems.

Table 7-1 presents the estimated costs to complete each of the major activities. The total cost estimated for this effort is $280,000.

TABLE 7-1: ONSITE INVENTORY AND DATABASE COSTS

Activity Budget Database 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

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 91

This effort is core to the management of onsite systems. Without knowing the number, location, and condition of systems installed it is impossible to run an effective management program. By linking the onsite database to the assessor’s database, it will allow the County to operate more efficiently. One example of where the onsite database and assessor’s database can be used together is at time of property transfers. The proposed system will allow buyers to obtain base information on the septic system.

7.1.2 Onsite System Repair/Replacement

Solutions in the unsewered areas will be focused on developing cluster systems to serve communities or small groups of onsite properties throughout the County as appropriate, and repairing and upgrading individual onsite systems.

Due to the poor quality of the County Health Department records at this time, the number of onsite systems in the County must be estimated. The 2000 US Census block groups were used to estimate the population and subsequently the number of onsite systems. As discussed in the Task 5 Existing Wastewater Needs for Unsewered Areas report, estimates of the number of onsite systems were made geographically by watershed to support the prioritization of needs on a watershed water quality basis. The total number of onsite systems was estimated at 8,619.

The CIP for the onsite wastewater sector is based on the total number of 8,619 onsite systems that was estimated during the needs analysis and the following assumptions:

Failure

The percent of existing systems that:

1. Are either failing or malfunctioning 2. Are in good condition and require no action

Solutions

The percent of failures that will be solved by:

1. Repair/replacement of the onsite system 2. Connection to a small cluster system. 3. Connect to a sewer system

It should be noted that the small cluster systems will also include a number of systems in good condition. For the purpose of this evaluation, it was assumed that one third of the systems connecting to the small cluster systems will be in good condition.

Moreover, it was assumed that a portion of the existing onsite systems will be connected to a central sewer system in the future. It was assumed that half of the systems that will connect to sewer systems will be in some mode of failure and the other half will be in good condition.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 92

The lack of an onsite system inventory makes it a challenge to quantify the condition and needs of the onsite systems. LAI estimated the CIP for the onsite sector under two different scenarios based on discussions with the County Health Department. Table 7-2 shows the assumptions for each of the scenarios.

TABLE 7-2: ONSITE SYSTEM SCENARIOS

Scenario A Scenario B Existing Condition % No. % No. Failure or malfunction 35% 3,017 50% 4,310 Good condition 65% 5,602 50% 4,309 Total 100% 8,619 100% 8,619 Solutions % No. % No. System repair/replacement 17.5% 1,508 25.0% 2,155 Failure connect to small cluster1 8.8% 754 12.5% 1,077 2 Failure connect to sewer 8.8% 754 12.5% 1,077 Subtotal 35% 3,017 50% 4,310 Non-failure connect to cluster3 4.3% 371 6.2% 531 Non-failure connect to sewer4 8.7% 754 12.5% 1,077 Subtotal 13.1% 1,125 18.7% 1,608 No action needed 51.9% 4,477 31.3% 2,702 Subtotal 52% 4,477 31% 2,702 Total 100% 8,619 100% 8,619 1. 25% of systems in failure or malfunctioning 2. 25% of systems in failure of malfunctioning 3. 33% of total cluster systems are for systems in non-failure mode 4. 50% of total systems connecting to sewer are in non-failure mode

Moreover, the lack of reliable information regarding the condition of onsite systems and site conditions makes it difficult to estimate the cost for the repair/replacement of an onsite system. Based on information available and other representative projects, the cost of a system repair/replacement is estimated to range from $8,000 to $12,000 per system.

Scenario A is conservative and produces a low estimate of the CIP. It assumes a failure or malfunction of 35 percent and a repair/replacement cost of $8,000 per system. Scenario B uses the higher failure rate of 50 percent and the $12,000 per system repair/replacement cost, which results in a higher estimate of the CIP.

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 present the CIP for Scenarios A and B respectively. The CIP for Scenario A is $67.1 million dollars and results in almost half of the onsite systems being repaired/replaced, connected to a small cluster, or connected to a sewer. The Scenario B CIP is $107.1 million and results in approximately 70 percent of the onsite systems being repaired/replaced, connected to a small cluster, or connected to a sewer.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 93

TABLE 2-3: SCENARIO A ONSITE CIP

Existing Construction Construction Development Solution % No. Capital Costs Condition Unit Cost Cost Costs System repair/replacement 18% 1,508 $8,000 $12,070,000 $3,630,000 $15,700,000 Failure connect to Failure or small cluster 9% 754 $15,000 $11,320,000 $3,400,000 $14,720,000 malfunction Failure 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 Good 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 $21,960,000 No 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

TABLE 2-4: SCENARIO B ONSITE CIP

Existing Construction Construction Development Solution % No. Capital Costs Condition Unit Cost Cost Costs System repair/replacement 25% 2,155 $12,000 $25,860,000 $7,760,000 $33,620,000 Failure connect to Failure or small cluster 13% 1,077 $15,000 $16,170,000 $4,860,000 $21,030,000 malfunction Failure 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 Good 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 $31,380,000 No 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

7.2. Cluster Systems

Table 7-5 presents the communities that were selected as potential cluster system sites and the number of residences proposed to be served by the system.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 94

TABLE 7-5: POTENTIAL CLUSTER SYSTEM SITES

No. Community Residences Bachman 66 Brooklyn & Cunard* 100 Jodie 74 Lookout 107 Summerlee 137 Winona 80 Youngstown 61 Total 625 *Potential connection to Arbuckle PSD

7.2.1 Design Criteria and Present Worth Analysis Assumptions

Flows

The design flows for each area were determined based on the following criteria:

§ Number of developed parcels § 20% increase in developed parcels over 20-year system lifetime § 175 gpd per developed parcel, based on 2.5 people per residence and 70 gpd per person § An infiltration and inflow (I/I) allowance of 250 gpd per in-mile of pipe

Septic Tanks

The number of septic tanks used for STEG system analysis is based on the number of houses to be connected. A planning level assumption was made that half of the houses cold be cost effectively combined into one septic tank. The incremental cost difference between a standard 1,000 gallon septic tank, typical of what is installed for a single system, and a 1,500 gallon septic tank required for two dwellings is approximately $500. In addition to septic tank savings, there is savings associated with only needing one lateral connection from the combined septic tank to the street sewer. In cases where properties are close to each other, it is cost effective to use a combined tank. The design number of septic tanks is 75 percent of the number of developed parcels.

Pipe Lengths

An average of 50 feet per house connection was used to determine the length of the sewer lateral house connections. A lot-by-lot analysis to determine the actual lateral lengths was not performed. In addition, the reduced requirement for laterals associated with combined systems was not quantified in the present worth analyses.

STEG and Conventional Gravity Collection Systems

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 95

As outlined in the previous report, the two collection system alternatives to be compared are STEG and conventional gravity systems with STEP systems and grinder pumps as needed. The limits of the collection system will begin at each developed property’s foundation wall to limit the issue of poor plumbing and house connections being a source of infiltration and or inflow.

The major differences in design criteria used to evaluate the present worth of STEG and conventional gravity systems are as follows:

STEG Systems:

· 4” minimum diameter pipes for laterals and street sewers · Cleanouts instead of manholes · Installation of septic tanks required · Pumping of septic tanks every 5 years required · STEP systems required for low-lying individual properties that cannot be served by gravity

Conventional Gravity Systems:

· 6” house laterals and 8” minimum diameter street sewers · No septic tanks required · Grinder pump systems required for low-lying individual properties that cannot be served by gravity

Treatment costs are included due to the effect of the two collection systems on the treatment costs. STEG systems have an I/I allowance that is half that of conventional gravity systems due to the 4” minimum diameter pipes versus 8” minimum pipes. The I/I allowance is calculated based 250 gpd per inch-mile of pipe, where an inch-mile is the diameter of the pipe in inches times the length of pipe in miles. STEG systems also have primary settling, in the form of septic tanks, built into the collection system. This eliminates the need for a primary clarifier as a part of the treatment system. The recirculating sand filter treatment option was chosen as a basis for comparison of the two collection system alternatives. UV disinfection and direct discharge were assumed. The treatment options are evaluated separately, using the selected collection system alternative.

The present worth analyses for each cluster system assume that half of the houses will be combined into a larger septic tank serving two homes. The total number of septic tanks is less than the number of connections to reflect this arrangement. The installed cost used for each septic tank was taken to be the weighted average of the approximate tank installation costs ($1,000 and $1,500 for a 1,000 and 1,500 gallon tank respectively). A 5-year pumping frequency for septic tanks associated with the STEG systems is included in the O&M cost sections.

RSF, SBR and FAST Treatment Systems

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 96

As outlined in the previous report, the three treatment system alternatives to be compared are recirculating sand filters (RSF), sequencing batch reactors (SBR) and the fixed film activated sludge (FAST) systems. The STEG collection system and its associated costs are assumed for each of the three systems.

The major differences in design criteria used to evaluate the present worth of the three treatment systems are as follows:

RSF:

· Flow equalization required · Recirculation tank required · Lower energy requirement · Lower operations requirement

SBR:

· Flow equalization not required · Recirculation tank not required · High operations requirement · High energy requirement

FAST:

· Flow equalization required · Recirculation tank required for nitrogen removal · High energy requirement

7.2.2 Summary

Table 7-6 summarizes the estimated costs for each of the cluster systems. The per user capital costs range from a high of $30,300 in Winona to a low of $19,000 in Jodie. The total capital cost for the seven cluster systems is estimated as $14.6 million. Approximately 40 percent of the capital costs are associated with the collection system of the cluster systems as shown on Tables 7-7 and 7-8.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 97

TABLE 7-6: CLUSTER SYSTEM CIP SUMMARY

Wastewater Management System: STEG - RSF - UV - Constructed Wetland - Direct Discharge % of MHI WWTF Flow Unit Capital % of MHI Study Area No. Users Capital Costs (No Grant, 0.5% (gpd) Cost / User (100% Grant) 40-yr. Loan) 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% Total 655 172,000 $14,590,000 $15,700 4.90% 2.60% (average)

Construction Develop. Annual Total Present Present Worth Study Area Capital Costs Costs Costs O&M Worth Per User 1 Winona $1,472,000 $745,000 $2,217,000 $54,500 $2,424,000 $30,300 2 Bachman $1,021,000 $460,000 $1,481,000 $50,600 $1,783,000 $27,100 3 Brooklyn & Cunard $1,653,000 $744,000 $2,397,000 $58,100 $2,610,000 $26,100 4 Summerlee $2,022,000 $910,000 $2,932,000 $68,450 $3,162,000 $19,000 5 Lookout $1,757,000 $791,000 $2,548,000 $59,250 $2,745,000 $25,700 6 Youngstown $1,028,000 $463,000 $1,491,000 $50,450 $1,789,000 $29,400 7 Jodie $1,021,000 $460,000 $1,481,000 $51,300 $1,791,000 $24,300 Total $9,980,000 $4,580,000 $14,550,000 $393,000 $16,310,000 $25,986 (average)

TABLE 7-7: CAPITAL COSTS BY WWTF COMPONENT

Collection Treatment Dispersal Develop. Total Capital Study Area System System System Costs Costs 1 Winona $939,000 $493,000 $40,000 $745,000 $2,217,000 2 Bachman $570,000 $411,000 $40,000 $460,000 $1,481,000 3 Brooklyn & Cunard $1,027,000 $586,000 $40,000 $744,000 $2,397,000 4 Summerlee $1,166,000 $816,000 $40,000 $910,000 $2,932,000 5 Lookout $1,121,000 $596,000 $40,000 $791,000 $2,548,000 6 Youngstown $559,000 $429,000 $40,000 $463,000 $1,491,000 7 Jodie $534,000 $447,000 $40,000 $460,000 $1,481,000 Total $5,920,000 $3,780,000 $280,000 $4,580,000 $14,550,000

The costs presented are for treatment to meet the existing limits. If nutrient removal is required in the future, the treatment technology selection should be reevaluated and the cost analysis adjusted appropriately.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 98

TABLE 7-8: PER USER CAPITAL COSTS BY WWTF COMPONENT Total Collection Treatment Dispersal Study Area Capital System System System Costs 1 Winona $27,720 $11,740 $6,170 $46,000 2 Bachman $22,420 $8,640 $6,220 $37,280 3 Brooklyn & Cunard $23,960 $10,270 $5,860 $40,090 4 Summerlee $17,550 $6,980 $4,890 $29,420 5 Lookout $23,800 $10,480 $5,570 $39,850 6 Youngstown $24,420 $9,160 $7,030 $40,610 7 Jodie $20,000 $7,220 $6,040 $33,260

7.3. Recreational Area Wastewater Management Systems

There are approximately 20 rafting companies operating in Fayette County. In additional, there are a number of:

§ Private boaters § Anglers § Campers § Picnickers § Hikers § Mountain bikers § Climbers

It is estimated that there may be as many as 50 “preferred lunch spots” with varying degrees of use along the New River in the County that lack wastewater management systems. Thus, there is a need to discuss proper wastewater management practices for the recreational sector.

As part of the County-wide CIP that is being developed, LAI recommends the County implement a public outreach program educating the rafting outfitters and other recreational users about proper wastewater management. The public outreach program should consist of the following components:

§ Fact sheet explaining the water quality impacts of recreational users § Pamphlet discussing best management practices that should be followed by recreational users § Workshops with the rafting outfitters and other recreational users educating them about wastewater management and water quality issues

The budget for the public outreach program components is estimated in Table 7-9.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 99

TABLE 7-9: RECREATIONAL USER PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES

Quantity Unit Cost Total Costs Fact Sheets 30,000 LS $30,000 Pamphlets 30,000 LS $30,000 Workshops 4 $5,000 $20,000 Misc LS $20,000 Total $80,000

The budget provides for development and production of 30,000 fact sheets and pamphlet each, as well as, one workshop a year for four years.

7.4. UIC Systems

There are a total of 24 Underground Injection Control (UIC) systems in Fayette County. The CIP for this wastewater sector is based on the following assumptions:

1. Failure rate of 15 percent 2. Cost to repair of $20 per gallon 3. Development costs equal to 30 percent of construction costs

The capital cost estimate for the UIC systems is presented in Table 7-10. The total is estimated at $112,000.

TABLE 7-10: UIC SYSTEM CIP

Total Unit Cost Construction Development Capital Flow ($/gal) Costs Costs Costs (gpd)

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

No field assessment was preformed for the UIC systems. Thus, the CIP is a budget allowance for planning purposes only.

7.5. Package Plants

All of the extended aeration package plants will require flow equalization to be added. In addition, emergency generators are recommended at all facilities to guard against failure due to extended power outages.

A detailed discussion of the recommended actions for the following categories of package plants will be presented in subsequent sections:

§ Extended Aeration Plants with little or no useful life remaining § Extended Aeration Plants with more than 10 years of useful life that only can be made acceptably reliable with minimal upgrades

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 100

§ Existing RSF systems that require minimal upgrades § The Canyon Rim Aerated Lagoon System that needs minimal upgraded to ensure continued acceptable performance

7.5.1 Extended Aeration Systems with Little or No Useful Life Remaining

With the exception of the newly installed Songer Whitewater treatment facility, all the extended aeration facilities are operating either close to or beyond their useful economic life. Flow equalization, a critical process component to compensate for variations in influent flow, is not currently in place at any of these facilities. In addition, approximately half the facilities do not have any filtration between the clarifier and the disinfection system. Where filtration is present, washout has been noted to cause clogging and overflow of the filters. The disinfection systems are, with some exceptions, either not being used or not in accordance with best management practices.

The extended aeration process is sensitive to varying influent flows and loads, and its use for applications in Fayette County is not recommended. At a minimum, the extended aeration facilities would require flow equalization to dampen daily and seasonal variations and disinfection systems that are upgraded to current best management practices. For those facilities that do not have filtration between the clarifier and the disinfection system, filtration must be added. As an additional buffer against process failure or wet weather flows exceeding capacity, a constructed wetland is recommended for the discharge point. This option has aesthetic value as well as an added measure of protection for the receiving stream.

The preferred treatment system, an RSF system, was determined in the analysis for the cluster systems. That same analysis and conclusions applies to the package plants. RSF systems represent the most reliable treatment option for flows under 20,000 gpd where intense operations and maintenance is not feasible. While the initial capital cost of these systems may be slightly higher than packaged suspended growth systems, the O&M costs are lower. Suspended growth systems, such as FAST, SBR and extended aeration require more extensive O&M and have higher energy requirements. The resulting annual cost in terms of present worth is typically lower for RSF systems. Even with increased operations and maintenance, suspended growth technologies are not as resistant to upsets and washout as RSF systems. For these reasons, RSF systems are chosen as the preferred wastewater treatment option for the Fayette County package plants.

7.5.2 Summary

Table 7-11 presents the estimated capital costs for the upgrade and replacement of the package plant systems. A detailed design for each facility may present opportunities to salvage some of the existing equipment associated with the old systems. Since the collection systems for the package plants were not evaluated, improvements to the package plant collection systems were not included in the analysis. Moreover, the costs presented are for treatment to meet the existing permit limits. If nutrient removal is required in the future, the treatment technology selection should be reevaluated and the cost analysis adjusted appropriately. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 101

TABLE 7-11: PACKAGE PLANTS SUMMARY

Existing Permit Flow Upgrade / Construction Development WWTF Capital Costs Treatment Type (gpd) Replace Costs Costs 1 Danese Elementary Ext. Aeration 1,200 R $72,000 $22,000 $94,000 2 Thurmond Depot Ext. Aeration 2,000 R $95,000 $29,000 $124,000 Babcock State Park Pool 3 Ext. Aeration 3,500 R $159,000 $48,000 $207,000 Backwash 4 Babcock State Park Cabins RSF 3,500 U $29,000 $9,000 $38,000 Babcock State Park Pool 5 Ext. Aeration 4,000 R $166,000 $50,000 $216,000 Bathroom Babcock State Park Admin 6 Ext. Aeration 5,000 R $216,000 $65,000 $281,000 Bldg New River Gorge 7 Ext. Aeration 5,000 R $216,000 $65,000 $281,000 Campgrounds 8 Hill & Dale Estates Ext. Aeration 6,000 R $277,000 $84,000 $361,000 9 Midway T & C, Inc. Ext. Aeration 7,000 R $338,000 $102,000 $440,000 10 Western Family Restaurant Ext. Aeration 7,000 R $338,000 $102,000 $440,000 11 Briarwood Place Ext. Aeration 8,000 R $376,000 $113,000 $489,000 North American River 12 Ext. Aeration 8,000 R $376,000 $113,000 $489,000 Runners 13 Songer Whitewater Ext. Aeration 8,000 U $63,000 $19,000 $82,000 14 Whitewater Inn Ext. Aeration 10,600 R $571,000 $172,000 $743,000 15 New River Ranch RSF 12,000 U $79,000 $24,000 $103,000 Babcock State Park 16 Ext. Aeration 14,000 R $838,000 $252,000 $1,090,000 Campground 17 Midland Trail High School Ext. Aeration 15,000 R $936,000 $281,000 $1,217,000 18 Canyon Rim Aerated Lagoon 15,000 U $63,000 $19,000 $82,000 19 Green Summit Estates Ext. Aeration 24,000 R $1,877,000 $564,000 $2,441,000 Upgrade Subtotal 38,000 4 $234,000 $71,000 $305,000 Replace Subtotal 120,800 15 $6,851,000 $2,062,000 $8,913,000 Total 158,800 19 $7,085,000 $2,133,000 $9,218,000

7.6. PSD and Municipal WWTFs

7.6.1 Existing CIPs for Collection and Treatment System Improvements and Sewer Extension

For the PSD and municipal WWTFs CIP, if available, capital cost estimates were taken from existing facility plans/engineering reports. However, many of the facilities do not have recent Wastewater Management Facility Plans. In those cases, the facility was consulted to determine what an appropriate budget allowance for necessary improvements. The costs were broken down into the following categories:

§ collection system § treatment system § sewer extension.

LAI recommends that facilities without current Wastewater Management Facility Plans retain an engineer to prepare one. Sound asset management requires facilities develop and routinely update a CIP.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 102

Table 7-12 presents the known and estimated capital costs for each WWTF and a brief description what improvements are proposed/planned. The total capital costs are estimated as follows:

Collection system improvements $1.9 million, Treatment system improvements $3.9 million, Sewer extension projects $23.5 million Total $29.4 million

7.6.2 CSO and SSO Remediation

Based on the data collected and field review of many of the CSO and SSO locations, LAI estimated the costs associated with CSO and SSO remediation for each WWTF. In the absence of detail I/I evaluations, LAI estimated the costs for CSO and SSO remediation based on the storage requirements for excess flow above the design flow. The storage capacity needed at each facility was estimated through analysis of the July 2003 to June 2004 flow data at each facility. Overflow abatement costs were also estimated in the IJDC Draft 2005 Inventory Report for Montgomery. Table 7-13 presents the cost estimates for each WWTF. The total cost to remediate the overflows was estimated at $117.7 million. Flow data was not available for each facility; thus, the total cost of CSO/SSO abatement may be even greater.

However, WWTFs can handle peak flows for up to 72 hours without problems so the estimates in Table 7-13 should be considered conservative. Analysis of the sewer system should result in an optimal combination of I/I removal and additional storage capacity, which may reduce the costs for CSO/SSO control by as much as 50 percent as shown in Table 7-14.

Thus, the costs for CSO/SSO control are estimated to range from approximately $58.9 million to $117.7 million.

Table 7-15 summarizes the CIP for PSD and municipal sector. The cost of the entire program is estimated to range from $88.2 million to $147.1 million. The CSO and SSO remediation costs are an estimated 67 to 80 percent of the total capital costs for the sector.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 103

TABLE 7-12: PSD AND MUNICIPAL COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND SEWER EXTENSION CIP

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 104

TABLE 7-13: PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTF CSO/SSO CONTROL HIGH CIP ESTIMATE

Storage or Previous CSO Additional Cost of Providing CSO/SSO No. WWTF Remediation Cost Capacity Needed1 Storage Estimates (MG) 1 Ansted 26.472 $13,236,000 2 Arbuckle 3 Armstrong 4 Deepwater 5 Fayetteville 82.388 $41,194,215 6 Kanawaha Falls 31.818 $15,909,000 7 Meadow Bridge 0.142 $71,000 8 Montgomery2 $18,500,000 9 Mount Hope 6.829 $3,414,500 5.787 $2,893,500 Oak Hill 10 14.376 $7,188,000 0.001 $500 Page-Kincaid 11 0.476 $238,000 12 Pax 13 Smithers 0.180 $90,000 14 White Oak 29.955 $14,977,500 Total 198.424 $99,212,215 $18,500,000 1. Storage requirements estimated for flows above design flow from July 2003 to June 2004 2. Cost from 2005 IJDC Draft Inventory Report

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 105

TABLE 7-14: PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTF CSO/SSO CONTROL LOW CIP ESTIMATE

Cost of CSO/SSO No. WWTF Control 1 Ansted $6,618,000 2 Arbuckle $0 3 Armstrong $0 4 Deepwater $0 5 Fayetteville $20,597,000 6 Kanawaha Falls $7,955,000 7 Meadow Bridge $36,000 8 Montgomery $9,250,000 9 Mount Hope $1,707,000 $1,447,000 Oak Hill 10 $3,594,000 $0 Page-Kincaid 11 $119,000 12 Pax $0 13 Smithers $45,000 14 White Oak $7,489,000 Total $58,857,000

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 106

TABLE 7-15: PSD AND MUNICIPAL WWTF TOTAL CIP

Existing CIP CSO/SSO CIP Total CIP (Low) Total CIP (High) Collection, Collection Treatment Sewer Extension Treatment, CSO/SSO CSO/SSO WWTF System System Total Capital Percent of Total Capital Percent Project Capital Sewer Capital Costs Capital Costs Improvements Improvements Costs Total Costs of Total Costs Extension (Low) (High) Capital Costs Capital Costs Capital Costs Ansted $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 3,149,000 $ 3,469,000 $ 6,618,000 $ 13,236,000 $ 10,087,000 11% $ 16,710,000 11% Arbuckle $ - $ 1,991,000 $ 10,378,000 $ 12,369,000 $ - $ - $ 12,369,000 14% $ 12,370,000 8% Armstrong $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - 0% Deepwater $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - 0% Fayetteville $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,597,000 $ 41,194,215 $ 20,597,000 23% $ 41,200,000 28% Kanawaha Falls $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,955,000 $ 15,909,000 $ 7,955,000 9% $ 15,910,000 11% Meadow Bridge $ 85,000 $ 600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,685,000 $ 36,000 $ 71,000 $ 2,721,000 3% $ 2,760,000 2% Montgomery $ 1,502,116 $ 1,307,174 $ - $ 2,809,290 $ 9,250,000 $ 18,500,000 $ 12,059,290 14% $ 21,310,000 14% Mount Hope $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,707,000 $ 3,414,500 $ 1,707,000 2% $ 3,420,000 2% Oak Hill $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,041,000 $ 10,081,500 $ 5,041,000 6% $ 10,090,000 7% Page-Kincaid $ - $ - $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 119,000 $ 238,500 $ 5,619,000 6% $ 5,740,000 4% Pax $ - $ - $ 2,473,812 $ 2,473,812 $ - $ - $ 2,473,812 3% $ 2,480,000 2% Smithers $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 45,000 $ 90,000 $ 45,000 0% $ 90,000 0% White Oak $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,489,000 $ 14,977,500 $ 7,489,000 8% $ 14,980,000 10% Total $ 1,890,000 $ 3,920,000 $ 23,510,000 $ 29,310,000 $ 58,900,000 $ 117,800,000 $ 88,200,000 100% $ 147,100,000 100% Percent of Total 1% 3% 16% 20% 67% 80% 100% 100%

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 107

7.7. Water Quality Monitoring Program

The County-wide CIP includes an allowance for a modest water quality monitoring program. The program should also pursue partnerships with the following to help provide lab services, technical expertise, and other resources.

§ PSDs § Municipalities § WVDEP § NPS § PAN

Until a project is implemented in a watershed, the existing framework for water quality sampling should be used. The PSD and municipal WWTFs and package plants sample their effluent. DEP monitors water quality as part of the Water Quality Assessment Program and TMDL development. Additionally, the National Park Service (NPS) samples waters within its boundaries.

As wastewater management projects are implemented in a watershed, a water quality monitoring program should be developed specific for the watershed. The monitoring program will help measure the impact of the wastewater management improvements on the water quality.

An allowance was made for a monitoring program for each watershed. Table 7-16 presents the recommended CIP for the monitoring program.

TABLE 7-16: WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM CIP

Water Quality Monitoring Program Cost/ Capital Costs Watershed 17 watersheds $25,000 $425,000

7.8. County-wide CIP

After developing detailed CIPs for each of the wastewater sectors in the County, LAI combined them into a single County-wide CIP under various scenarios. Elements of the CIPs for the individual sectors may affect CIPs for other sectors. For example, if a community is served by a cluster system or extension of a PSD or municipal system, the onsite systems in that community should be removed from the onsite CIP to avoid double counting. The County-wide CIP also provides a budgetary allowance for the development and implementation of a water quality monitoring program.

The scenarios present different solutions for meeting the wastewater needs of the County.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 108

7.9. Scenario I

Table 7-17 describes the components from the individual sectors that are incorporated into the County-wide CIP under Scenario I.

TABLE 7-17: SCENARIO I PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Sector Proposed Solutions Onsite Systems § System repair/replacement for 1,195 systems (18%), (low estimate) § Connect 598 (9%) failing systems to small clusters, § Connect 598 (9%) failing systems to sewer systems § Connect 295 (4%) good systems to small clusters, & § Connect 598 (9%) good systems to sewer systems Onsite Systems § System repair/replacement for 1,708 systems (18%), (high estimate) § Connect 854 (13%) failing systems to small clusters, § Connect 854 (13%) failing systems to sewer systems § Connect 421 (6%) good systems to small clusters, & § Connect 854 (13%) good systems to sewer systems Cluster System Community cluster systems for: § Winona, § Bachman, § Summerlee, § Lookout, § Youngstown, and § Jodie Recreational Areas Public outreach and education UIC Systems Repair of systems assuming 15% failure rate Package Plants § Replacement of 15 systems § Upgrading 4 systems PSD/Municipal Systems § Completion of all existing CIPs for collection and treatment system improvements § Sewer extension projects for all existing CIPs § Targeted CSO and SSO abatement projects Water Quality Monitoring Phased implementation of monitoring programs for the 17 watersheds over 10 years

Table 7-18 presents the County-wide CIP under Scenario I. The total CIP for the County under Scenario I is estimated to range from $163.8 million to $254.5 million. Approximately 40 percent of the cost is for onsite and cluster systems. Another 54 to 58 percent is for the PSD and municipal systems. The remainder is divided among the UIC system, recreational wastewater management, package plant, and water quality monitoring sectors.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 109

TABLE 7-18: SCENARIO I COUNTY-WIDE CIP

Low Estimate High Estimate Percent Percent Sector Capital Costs Capital Costs of Total of Total Onsite System repair/replacement $12,430,000 $26,650,000 Failure connect to small cluster $11,670,000 $16,660,000 Failure connect to sewer $11,670,000 $16,660,000 Non-failure connect to cluster $5,760,000 $8,220,000 Non-failure connect to sewer $11,670,000 $16,660,000 Onsite inventory & database $280,000 $280,000 Subtotal $53,480,000 33% $85,200,000 33% Cluster 6 Communities $12,153,000 $12,153,000 Subtotal $12,153,000 7% $12,153,000 5% UIC 24 Systems $221,000 $221,000 Subtotal $221,000 0.13% $221,000 0.09% Recreational Areas Public outreach and education $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal $80,000 0.05% $80,000 0.03% Package Plants Upgrade $305,000 $305,000 Replace $8,913,000 $8,913,000 Subtotal $9,218,000 5.6% $9,218,000 3.6% PSD & Municipal WWTFs Collection $1,890,000 $1,890,000 Treatment $3,920,000 $3,920,000 Sewer Extension $23,510,000 $23,510,000 SSO/CSO $58,900,000 $117,800,000 Subtotal $88,220,000 54% $147,120,000 58% Water Quality Monitoring 17 watersheds - 10 years $425,000 $425,000 Subtotal $425,000 0.3% $425,000 0.2% GRAND TOTAL $163,800,000 100% $254,500,000 100%

7.10. Scenario II

Table 7-19 describes the components from the individual sectors that are incorporated into the County-wide CIP under Scenario II.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 110

TABLE 7-19: SCENARIO II PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Sector Proposed Solutions Onsite Systems § System repair/replacement for 1,308 systems (18%), (low estimate) § Connect 654 (9%) failing systems to small clusters, § Connect 654 (9%) failing systems to sewer systems § Connect 322 (4%) good systems to small clusters, & § Connect 654 (9%) good systems to sewer systems Onsite Systems § System repair/replacement for 1,869 systems (25%), (high estimate) § Connect 935 (13%) failing systems to small clusters, § Connect 935 (13%) failing systems to sewer systems § Connect 461 (6%) good systems to small clusters, & § Connect 935 (13%) good systems to sewer systems Cluster System Community cluster systems for: § Winona, § Bachman, § Brooklyn and Cunard, § Summerlee, § Lookout, § Youngstown, and § Jodie Recreational Areas Public outreach and education UIC Systems Repair of systems assuming 15% failure rate Package Plants § Replacement of 15 systems § Upgrading 4 systems PSD/Municipal Systems § Completion of all existing CIPs for collection and treatment system improvements § Sewer extension projects for Page-Kincaid Phase II and Pax only § Targeted CSO and SSO abatement projects Water Quality Monitoring Phased implementation of monitoring programs for the 17 watersheds over 10 years

Table 7-20 presents the County-wide CIP under Scenario II. The total CIP for the County under Scenario II is estimated to range from $155.7 million to $249.3 million. Approximately 45 percent of the cost is for onsite and cluster systems. Approximately another 50 percent is for the PSD and municipal systems. The remainder is divided among the UIC system, recreational wastewater management, package plant, and water quality monitoring sectors.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 111

TABLE 7-20: SCENARIO II COUNTY-WIDE CIP

Low Estimate High Estimate Percent Percent Sector Capital Costs Capital Costs of Total of Total Onsite (low estimate) System repair/replacement $13,620,000 $29,160,000 Failure connect to small cluster $12,760,000 $18,240,000 Failure connect to sewer $12,760,000 $18,240,000 Non-failure connect to cluster $6,280,000 $9,000,000 Non-failure connect to sewer $12,760,000 $18,240,000 Onsite inventory & database $280,000 $280,000 Subtotal $58,500,000 38% $93,200,000 37% Cluster 6 Communities $14,550,000 $14,550,000 Subtotal $14,550,000 9% $14,550,000 6% UIC 24 Systems $221,000 $221,000 Subtotal $221,000 0.14% $221,000 0.09% Recreational Areas Public outreach and education $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal $80,000 0.05% $80,000 0.03% Package Plants Upgrade $305,000 $305,000 Replace $8,913,000 $8,913,000 Subtotal $9,218,000 5.9% $9,218,000 3.7% PSD & Municipal WWTFs Collection $1,890,000 $1,890,000 Treatment $3,920,000 $3,920,000 Sewer Extension $7,980,000 $7,980,000 SSO/CSO $58,900,000 $117,800,000 Subtotal $72,690,000 47% $131,590,000 53% Water Quality Monitoring 17 watersheds - 10 years $425,000 $425,000 Subtotal $425,000 0.3% $425,000 0.2% GRAND TOTAL $155,690,000 100% $249,290,000 100%

Based on feedback from the Project Advisory Committee and other stakeholders, Scenario II was chosen as the Preferred Plan for the County.

7.11. Watershed CIPs

The goal of the County’s Wastewater Management Plan is to develop an approach to wastewater management that eliminates public health threats and improves water quality. Thus, it is important to look at the proposed CIP on a watershed scale. The County-wide CIPs that was developed for the Preferred Plan (Scenario II above) was broken down to the watershed level for each of the 17 watersheds (see Table 7-21). The subwatersheds are shown on Plate A3.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 112

The Upper and Lower New River watersheds account for approximately half of the total capital costs. TABLE 7-21: WATERSHED LEVEL CIP SUMMARY

Low Estimate High Estimate Watershed Subwatershed % of % of Capital Costs Capital Costs Total Total Twentymile Creek $ 1,018,060 12% $ 1,607,460 1% Gauley River $ 8,519,400 102% $ 12,682,300 5% Gauley River Lower Meadow River $ 8,324,000 100% $ 12,176,000 5% Upper Meadow River $ 2,777,190 33% $ 4,410,790 2% Manns Creek $ 6,205,000 74% $ 8,729,700 3% Lower New River $ 55,775,000 667% $ 89,490,000 36% Upper New River $ 20,100,690 240% $ 32,269,490 13% Lower New River Dunloup Creek $ 12,975,000 155% $ 24,388,000 10% Upper Meadow Creek $ 1,199,080 14% $ 1,503,680 1% Lower Meadow Creek $ 682,700 8% $ 1,072,500 0% Smithers Creek $ 70,000 1% $ 115,000 0% Kanawha River $ 12,210,100 146% $ 21,534,400 9% Lower Paint Creek $ 1,815,480 22% $ 2,878,280 1% Upper Kanawha Cabin Creek $ 165,780 2% $ 249,280 0% River Armstrong Creek $ 9,371,770 112% $ 18,152,870 7% Loop Creek $ 6,728,820 80% $ 7,493,170 3% Upper Paint Creek $ 8,359,420 100% $ 11,570,920 5% Total $ 156,300,000 1870% $ 250,400,000 100%

Note that the cost associated with the public outreach and education for wastewater management in the recreational areas was not included in the watershed CIPs. However, that component is less than 1 percent of the County CIP in each scenario.

Tables 7-22 and 7-23 present a more detailed breakdown of the watershed CIPs by wastewater sector for the low and high estimates, respectively.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 113

TABLE 7-22: PREFERRED PLAN WATERSHED CIPS (LOW ESTIMATE)

TABLE 7-23: PREFERRED PLAN WATERSHED CIPS (HIGH ESTIMATE)

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 114

7.12. Implementation Plan

Because the Plan has drawn considerable interest from state and federal agencies with the ability to provide or assist with acquiring funds, it is highly recommended that initial efforts for obtaining funding take the following three-pronged approach discussed in Section 6.8.5.

7.13. Financing Plan

7.13.1 Funding Sources

The Fayette County Wastewater Management Plan is expected to result in several phased projects, over a number of years, as funds become available for implementation.

The LAI team identified financial options for the envisioned Fayette County wastewater management program. Financial options may include, among others:

§ Property owner connection and user charges § Innovative fee structures, such as a water quality protection fee on recreational water users § County-wide property owner taxes § Government loans and grants o Federal Sources § USEPA Nonpoint Source Section 319 Grant Program § USEPA State Revolving Fund § USDA Rural Utilities Service § HUD Community Development Block Grants § Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration § USEPA Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities § US Army Corps of Engineers § Appalachian Regional Commission o State Sources § State Revolving Funds § WV Infrastructure and Jobs Council § WV Housing Development Fund § WV Water Development Authority § WV Development Office

7.13.2 Cost per Household

The capital costs per user and percent of MHI for various funding options were then computed. Tables 7-24 and 7-25 present a summary of per user capital costs and percent MHI for the onsite Scenarios A and B, respectively. An average MHI of $23,666 was used for the onsite systems since they are located through out the County.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 115

TABLE 7-24: SCENARIO A ONSITE USER COSTS

Unit % of MHI % of MHI Capital (No Grant, Solution (100% Cost / 0% 40-yr. Grant) User Loan) System repair/replacement $10,500 1.52% 0.42% Failure connect to small cluster $19,600 2.48% 0.42% Failure connect to sewer $19,600 2.48% 0.42% Non-failure connect to cluster $19,600 2.49% 0.42% Non-failure connect to sewer $19,600 2.48% 0.42%

TABLE 7-25: SCENARIO B ONSITE USER COSTS

Unit % of MHI % of MHI Capital (No Grant, Solution (100% Cost / 0% 40-yr. Grant) User Loan) System repair/replacement $15,700 2.78% 0.42% Failure connect to small cluster $19,600 3.37% 0.42% Failure connect to sewer $19,600 3.37% 0.42% Non-failure connect to cluster $19,600 3.38% 0.42% Non-failure connect to sewer $19,600 2.48% 0.42%

Table 7-26 presents a summary of per user capital costs and percent MHI for the cluster systems. TABLE 7-26: CLUSTER SYSTEM USER COSTS % of MHI % of MHI Study Area (No Grant, 0.5% (100% Grant) 40-yr. Loan) 1 Winona 5.54% 2.75% 2 Bachman 5.35% 3.09% 3 Brooklyn & Cunard 4.76% 2.34% 4 Summerlee 3.42% 1.65% 5 Lookout 4.63% 2.23% 6 Youngstown 5.80% 3.34% 7 Jodie 4.81% 2.80% Average 4.90% 2.60%

Table 7-27 presents the existing user charges for the PSD and municipal WWTFs in the County.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 116

TABLE 7-27: PSD AND MUNICIPAL USER CHARGES Rate Flat Rate Charge Minimum Tap Fee POTW Usage (gallons) ($/1,000 Charge for 4,500 MHI ($/mo) ($) gal) ($/mo) Gallons first 2,000 9.61 19.22 19.22 100 34.40 $ 25,028 nxt 5,000 6.07 nxt 13,000 4.56 1 Town of Ansted nxt 30,000 4.01 nxt 50,000 3.83 over 100,000 3.41 first 1,000 5.35 15.99 15.99 300 23.97 2 Arbuckle PSD over 1,000 5.32 first 2,000 7.52 15.04 29.68 27.24 3 Armstrong PSD over 2,000 4.88 4 Deepwater PSD 1,000 11.69 35.07 250 52.61 first 2,500 11.50 28.75 48.35 300 53.25 $ 35,043 5 Town of Fayetteville over 2,500 9.80 first 3,000 8.15 16.30 26.52 300 30.68 6 Kanawaha Falls PSD over 3,000 4.15 first 2,000 7.52 15.04 26.24 300 30.04 $ 23,194 nxt 2,000 6.00 7 Town of Meadow Bridge nxt 6,000 4.41 over 10,000 4.25

8 City of Montgomery 1,000 (5/8" meter) 7.01 250 31.55 $ 20,606 first 2,000 6.00 12.00 150 25.60 $ 18,375 9 Town of Mount Hope nxt 8,000 5.44 over 10,000 4.71 first 2,000 7.20 14.40 20.03 200 28.48 $ 24,792 10 City of Oak Hill nxt 38,000 5.63 over 40,000 5.20 first 3,000 9.73 29.29 200 36.32 nxt 3,000 4.75 11 Page-Kincaid PSD nxt 4,000 4.67 nxt 10,000 4.46 over 20,000 4.06 12 Town of Pax not metered 150 $ 21,875 13 Town of Smithers 1,000 6.82 20.46 30.69 $ 20,417 first 2,000 6.19 12.38 23.96 250 23.96 14 White Oak PSD next 28,000 4.63 over 30,000 2.58

7.14. Management and Institutional Structure

7.14.1 Ownership

Table 12-1 presents a matrix of the ownership structures for the various wastewater management systems.

7.14.2 Administration

The PSD, municipality, or other owner of the wastewater management system will fulfill the Administration role.

7.14.3 Operations

Likewise, the PSD, municipality, or other owner of the wastewater management system (or their subcontractor) will perform the operations.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 117

7.14.4 Regulatory Changes

Statewide Legislation

The following State legislation needs to be passed.

Decentralized System Management

Legislation enabling the management of decentralized systems is necessary. Current legislation is specific to centralized sewer systems. The new legislation will provide mechanisms to allow the establishment of management districts for decentralized systems.

Fayette County Regulatory Changes

The following regulatory changes can be implemented by Fayette County. They do not need to be done at the State level.

Site Evaluations

LAI advocates more extensive site evaluations be required for the siting of on-site systems. Also, it is recommended that there be certification/licensing of soil evaluators in the County to ensure adequate evaluations are being performed. At a minimum, the following items should be considered during the site evaluation:

§ deep observation hole testing § soil profile determination § percolation testing § landscape position § hydrogeologic properties

Better site evaluation will reduce the number of onsite system failures.

Design Standards

LAI recommends the County adopt legislation requiring the following for onsite systems:

§ For pre-treatment, an anaerobic upflow filter (AUF) § All septic tanks to be dual compartment septic tanks.

Time of Property Transfer Inspections

LAI recommends septic system inspections at time of property transfer. Not only does it give the buyer valuable information regarding the system, it can be used as a mechanism to help the County collect basic data on existing systems.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 118

Massachusetts requires system inspection at time of property transfer and has developed a standard procedure for the inspections. LAI recommends the County adapt and implement a property inspection program similar to the program in Massachusetts.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 119

REFERENCES

310 CMR 15.000: The State Environmental Code, Title 5: Standard Requirements for the Siting, Construction, Inspection, Upgrade and Expansion of On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems and for the Transport and Disposal of Septage

Hopkins, Evelyn, WVDEP Underground Injection Control Program, personal communication April 2005

Lipson, Julie, WVDEP General Permits and Support Team, personal communication April 2005

Patel, Yogesh, WVDEP NPDES Permit Team, personal communication April 2005

Powers, Melisa, WVDEP General Permits and Support Team, personal communication April 2005

Title 64, Series 9 Sewer Systems, Sewage Treatment Systems, and Sewage Tank Cleaners

Title 64, Series 47 Design Standards for Individual and Onsite Sewage Systems

Title 47, Series 13 Underground Injection Control

Title 47, Series 10 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program

Bitton, G., Farrah, S.R., Ruskin, R.H., Butner, J. and Chou, Y.J. (1983) Survival of Pathogenic and Indicator Organisms in Groundwater. Groundwater, 21, 405–410.

Division of Water and Waste Management, WV DEP (2004). Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report.

Hanes, N.B. and Fragala, R. (1967) Effect of Seawater Concentration on the Survival of Indicator Bacteria. J. Wat. Poll. Control Fed., 39, 97.

Keswick, B.H., Gerba, C.P., Secor, S.L. and Cech, I. (1982) Survival of Enteric Viruses and Indicator Bacteria in Groundwater. J. Environmental Sci. Health, A 17(6), 903–912.

McFeters, G.A. and Stuart, D.J. (1974) Comparative Survival of Indicator Bacteria and Enteric Pathogens in Well water, Appl. Microbial, 27, 823–829.

Omura, T., Onuma, M. and Hashimoto, Y. (1982) Viability and Adaptability of E. Coli and Enterococcus Group to Salt Water with High Concentration of Sodium Chloride. Water Sci. Tech., 14, 115–126.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 120

WHO. (1999). Health-Based Monitoring of Recreational Waters: The Feasibility of a New Approach (The ‘Annapolis Protocol’)

USEPA (2002). Metals, pH and Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs for the Dunloup Creek Watershed, West Virginia

WVDEP (2002a). Memo from John R. Fredericks to Don Hill Re: New River fecal coliform levels.

WVDEP (2002b). West Virginia’s Water Quality Assessment 305 (b) Report 2002.

WVDEP (2002c). Personal Communication from Jim Laine, WVDEP DWR. July, 2002.

WVDEP (2004). TMDLs in Selected Streams in the Upper Kanawha Watershed, West Virginia DRAFT REPORT.

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 121

APPENDIX A: ACRONYMS

Acronym Complete Name AUF Anaerobic Upflow Filter BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CIP Capital Improveme nt Plan CSO Combined Sewer Overflow CWA Clean Water Act DEP Department of Environmental Protection DHHR Department of Health and Human Resources DOT Department of Transportation DWWM Division of Water and Waste Management FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency LAI Lombardo Associates, Inc. LTCP Long Term Control Plan NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service MGD Million gallons per day MMR Monitoring, Maintenance and Repair O&M Operation and Maintenance RMF Recirculating Media Filters POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PSC Public Service Commission PSD Public Service District RBC Rotating Biological Contactors RSF Recirculating Sand Filter SBR Sequencing Batch Reactors SSES Sewer System Evaluation Study SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow TSS Total Suspended Solids USDA US Department of Agriculture UIC Underground Injection Control System USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UV Ultraviolet VSB Vegetated Submerged Beds WQS Water quality standards WVAWC West Virginia American Water Company WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Draft Project Summary Fayette County, West Virginia September 28, 2005 Rev. December 19, 2005 122