SSIS Final Report

Septic System Impact Study
Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming

Prepared For:
The Goose Creek Watershed Planning Committee Partnership
December 2006
Prepared by:
Building Community Through Better Engineering
Table of Contents
1.0 Page BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 History of the Goose Creeks Assessment and Planning Program .............. 1 1.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Funding .......................................................................................... 2 1.4 Acknowledgements.................................................................................... 3 PHASE 1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS ..................................... 4 2.1 Base Map.................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Study Area ....................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Cities ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Creeks ............................................................................................. 4 2.1.4 Lakes ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.5 Sheridan County Roads ................................................................... 5 2.1.6 National Forest ................................................................................ 5 2.1.7 Parcel Boundary............................................................................... 5 2.1.8 SAWS Boundary ............................................................................... 5 2.1.9 Drinking Water ................................................................................ 5 2.1.10 Sewer Service Boundary................................................................... 5 2.1.11 Potential Sewer Service Boundary.................................................... 5 2.1.12 Sewer............................................................................................... 5 2.1.13 Imagery ........................................................................................... 6 2.2 Input Data .................................................................................................. 6 2.2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations................................................... 6 2.2.2 Impaired Streams ............................................................................ 7 2.2.3 City of Sheridan Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall and Fecal Coliform Discharge Data............................................. 8 2.2.4 Septic Permits.................................................................................. 8 2.2.5 SAWS Taps....................................................................................... 9 2.2.6 FEMA/FIRM Boundary ...................................................................... 9 2.3 Data Interpretation................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Septic Density................................................................................ 10 2.3.2 Developed Parcels ......................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Undeveloped Parcels ..................................................................... 10 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer Capacity ................................................................ 11 2.4 Aquifer Sensitivity Data............................................................................ 11 2.4.1 Depth to Initial Groundwater......................................................... 12 2.4.2 Geohydrologic Setting................................................................... 12 2.4.3 Soils............................................................................................... 13 2.4.4 Aquifer Recharge........................................................................... 13 2.4.5 Land Surface Slope ........................................................................ 13 2.4.6 Vadose Zone.................................................................................. 14 2.4.7 Aquifer Sensitivity ......................................................................... 14 2.5 Designation of Impact Zones ................................................................... 15
2.0
Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Table of Contents-Final Rpt.doc
Table of Contents Contd.

Page 3.0 PHASE II ASSESS OPTIONS TO MITIGATE SEPTIC RELATED IMPACTS ......... 16 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 16 3.1.1 Benefits of Alternative Technology Evaluation .............................. 16 3.1.2 Jurisdictional Oversight ................................................................. 16 3.1.3 Systems Considered ...................................................................... 17 3.2 Alternative Central Systems ..................................................................... 18 3.2.1 City of Sheridan Sewer System Expansion..................................... 18 3.2.2 Regional Central Sewer System ..................................................... 18 3.2.3 Cluster Systems............................................................................. 20 3.2.4 Permitting Considerations for Additional Central Systems ........... 21 3.3 Alternative Collection Systems................................................................. 22 3.3.1 Conventional Collection Systems .................................................. 22 3.3.2 Septic Tank Effluent Collection Systems ....................................... 23 3.3.3 Vacuum Sewer Collection Systems ................................................ 24 3.4 Alternative Onsite Systems ...................................................................... 27 Table 3.1 Applicability of Alternative Onsite Septic Systems ................... 28 3.4.1 Alternative Treatment Methods..................................................... 29 3.4.2 Alternative Septic Tank Effluent Disposal Methods ....................... 30 3.5 Design Requirements............................................................................... 33 3.6 Site Investigation ..................................................................................... 34 3.7 Construction and Post-construction Requirements.................................. 35 3.8 Program Management.............................................................................. 36 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 38 4.1 Continue implementing programs outlined in the Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan.......................................... 38 4.2 Sheridan County should consider updating the current septic permitting program .............................................................................................. 38 4.3 Sheridan County should consider establishing a licensing program for septic system installers and pumpers............................................ 39 4.4 Sheridan County should select an appropriate Management Program .... 39 4.5 Initiate a Regional Sewer Master Plan for the Little Goose Drainage........ 39 4.6 The City of Sheridan should continue wastewater collection and treatment master planning and plan implementation ......................... 40 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 41
4.0
5.0
ii
Table of Contents Contd.

List of Figures Figure No. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 GIS Base Map Geographic Features GIS Base Map Utilities Water Quality Monitoring Stations and Creek Impairment Septic System, Water Tap and Floodplain Locations Septic System Density and Developed/Undeveloped Parcels Groundwater Sensitivity Classes Septic Impact Zones Conventional Septic System Vacuum Sewer Valve Pit and Main Typical Vacuum Station Conventional Septic Tank Aerobic Treatment Unit Septic Tank Effluent Pumping Unit Chamber Unit Effluent Disposal Dosed Drainfield Mound System Evapotranspiration Unit Sand Filters Wetland Disposal
Attachment A CD containing GIS data file
iii
1.0
BACKGROUND
Assessment and planning activities have been actively ongoing in the Goose Creek Watershed since 1993. This Septic Impact Study is one component of a carefully crafted and well thought-out Management Plan to address water quality concerns in the watershed. A brief history of the water quality work in this watershed follows. 1.1 History of the Goose Creeks Assessment and Planning Program Between 1993 and 1997 the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) collected water quality data in the Goose Creek Watershed. This work identified elevated concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in Big and Little Goose Creeks. Based on the data, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) placed Big Goose and Little Goose Creeks on Table A of the 1998 Section 303 (d) list of impaired waters in Wyoming. In 1998 and 1999, WDEQ implemented a more detailed water-quality monitoring program. WDEQs sampling revealed elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations on Goose Creek, Big Goose Creek and Little Goose Creek exceeding standards for the streams designated use of Recreation and Human Consumption. Elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria were also identified in tributaries of the Goose Creeks, leading to the placement of Beaver Creek, Jackson Creek, Kruse Creek, Park Creek, Rapid Creek, Sackett Creek and Soldier Creek on the 303(d) list of impaired streams. In 2000, the City and County of Sheridan and the Sheridan County Conservation District created the Goose Creek Drainage Advisory Group (GCDAG) to address the apparent water quality problem in the watershed. Procurement of a Clean Water Act Section 319 grant ($217,500) and contributions from GCDAG members ($145,000) allowed a comprehensive assessment project within the watershed. The Goose Creek Watershed Assessment, undertaken by the GCDAG, was the first comprehensive evaluation of the watershed. The Watershed Assessment included collecting credible chemical, physical, biological, bacteriological and habitat information on Goose Creek, Big Goose Creek, Little Goose Creek and 8 tributaries within the watershed. Sampling occurred 8 times during 2001 and 2002 from 46 locations within the watershed. Samples were analyzed for 17 parameters. The final report was published in July 2003, accompanied by a public information and outreach program. Another Section 319 grant helped fund a watershed planning process which was initiated in September 2003. The Goose Creek Watershed Planning Committee met monthly throughout 2004 to develop The Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan, which was published in December 2004 and filed with the Sheridan County Clerks office in April 2005. The planning process was collaborative and included local landowners, watershed residents, the Sheridan County Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Sheridan County officials, City of Sheridan officials, the Sheridan County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. An extensive public participation process, including mass mailings and public meetings, was included in the planning process.
Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc
The Watershed Management Plan identifies specific Issues and provides Objectives and a list of Action Items to address each Issue. This Septic Impact Study addresses, in whole or in part, three of the Action Items regarding Issue 4.1.1 Rural and urban septic systems are likely contributors of bacteria to local streams. The Action Items addressed by this study include: 1) The Goose Creek Watershed Planning Committee will consider sponsoring a feasibility study to evaluate potential sewage treatment options and/or the need for expanding central sewer lines to rural areas. 2) The City of Sheridan and Sheridan County will identify and map septic systems in or near riparian areas, and within City limits, as feasible, and 3) The Goose Creek Watershed Planning Committee will evaluate alternative individual sanitation system technologies and systems for the treatment of wastewater from multiple dwellings. HKM Engineering Inc. entered into an agreement with the City of Sheridan and Sheridan County in June 2006 to assess the impact of septic systems in the Goose Creek Watershed, evaluate alternative treatment technologies and determine criteria for implementing various alternatives in high impact or highrisk zones. The project is divided into phases. The first phase is the inventory of existing septic systems and mapping those systems, along with other relevant information, on a Geographic Information System (GIS) map. The outcome of Phase I is the identification of zones of high risk for impacts to groundwater. Phase II is intended to develop options to mitigate impacts from conventional septic systems. It includes identifying appropriate alternative technologies and methods by which those technologies could be applied within the Sheridan County septic permitting process. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a recommended mechanism with which septic system installation and replacement can be evaluated for appropriate use of alternative technologies in areas of high risk for impacts to groundwater. This report documents the data gathered and methods used to develop a recommended evaluation criteria and septic permitting approach. The recommended strategy for implementing alternative septic system technologies requires minor amendment to the current Sheridan County septic system permitting program. Implementation of the program should include review and updates, if determined appropriate, to the 201 Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the County and the Delegation Agreement between WDEQ and the County. In addition, detailed evaluation criteria and design guidelines should be developed, which are beyond the scope of this study. A commitment of appropriately trained staff to implement and administer the program will also be necessary. 1.3 Project Funding This project is funded by a $ 54,000 grant secured by the City of Sheridan. The grant is from the Clean Water Act Section 319 program, administered by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. A $ 36,000 in-kind match is also provided by the City of Sheridan, Sheridan County and the Sheridan County Conservation District.
1.4 Acknowledgements The information gathered and mapped for this project was provided from myriad of sources including Sheridan County, the City of Sheridan, Sheridan Area Water Supply and the University of Wyoming. Without the helpful cooperation of staff from these agencies, this report would not be possible. Tremendous support and guidance was provided by staff from the Sheridan County Conservation District, and the Sheridan County and City of Sheridan engineering and planning departments. Input from the public, agency staff and policy boards was crucial for completion of this study. The questions and comments provided during public meetings held on October 5, 2006 and December 7, 2006 helped formulate the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
2.0
PHASE I INVENTORY OF EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping was the tool selected to inventory and evaluate septic systems in the watershed. A GIS is a computerized tool into which data is input. Using GIS, many types of data from many different sources can be stored, analyzed and displayed on a common map allowing comparison and evaluation of complex sets of data in a simple, spatial format. A compact disk containing SHP files of all of the data described in this section is included with this report. Figures displaying selected data layers are included at the end of the report. The following sections describe the data input into the GIS map for this project. 2.1 Base Map A base map was compiled containing general information and features within the watershed. The base map is a general depiction of features of interest in the Septic Impact Study Area. The following data are included in the Base Map. 2.1.1 Study Area The study area for this Septic Impact Study encompasses the Goose Creek Watershed (excluding public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service) and is the same as defined in the Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan. The area includes all contributing areas to Big Goose, Little Goose, and Goose Creeks. Big Goose Creek flows northeast from the Big Horn Mountains and enters Sheridan on the southwest end of town. Little Goose Creek flows northeast to the town of Big Horn and continues north, entering Sheridan on the south end of town. The Big and Little Goose Creeks join near the center of Sheridan to form Goose Creek. Goose Creek then flows north and enters the Tongue River. The watershed boundary was downloaded from the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center (WYGISC) website. The original downloadable dataset contained hydrologic unit watershed boundaries for the entire state of Wyoming. The Goose Creek watershed boundary was extracted from this larger dataset for use as the study boundary within this Septic Impact Study. 2.1.2 Cities The cities layer is used within the Septic Impact Study mapping as a reference layer to describe the study boundary in terms of its location within Sheridan County. The dataset includes all Sheridan County cities along with demographic information from the 2000 U.S. Census. This data is referred to as TIGER line data and is the geographic line work created by the U.S. Census Bureau for carrying out the 1990 and 2000 Census. This data was made available for download on the Wyoming GIS Coordination Structure (WGCS) website. 2.1.3 Creeks The creek dataset includes all Sheridan County as well as the portion of Johnson County water features that fall within the study area. Water features include canals, ditches, and streams from the 2000 U.S. Census. As with the cities layer, this dataset is a part of the TIGER line data created by the U.S. Census Bureau and made available for download on the WGCS website. 2.1.4 Lakes The various lakes and ponds within Sheridan County and a portion of Johnson County are shown within this layer. Again, this TIGER
line dataset was created by the U.S. Census Bureau and made available for download on the WGCS website. 2.1.5 Sheridan County Roads Road names, locations, and other accompanying information is presented in this dataset supplied by the Sheridan County GIS department. 2.1.6 National Forest This dataset illustrates the National Forest and other public lands within Sheridan County and the study area. The Bighorn National Forest within the area of interest was clipped from a larger original layer depicting all public lands within the state of Wyoming. These lands include National Forest, wilderness areas, state parks, and others. This layer was published by the Spatial Data and Visualization Center located in Laramie and was available to download from the WGISC website. 2.1.7 Parcel Boundary The parcel boundary layer contains the approximate parcel boundary locations within Sheridan County. A parcel is land owned by a single private owner. More than one subdivided lot may be contained within a parcel. Additional information is tied to this layer in the GIS database, including ownership, parcel address, legal description, and subdivision name. This data was provided by the County via the City of Sheridan GIS department and is current through April of 2006. 2.1.8 SAWS Boundary This service boundary encompasses the area within which water service can be provided as part of the Sheridan Area Water Supply (SAWS) regional water system. This boundary was established during the planning phase of the regional water project and was provided through the City of Sheridan GIS department. 2.1.9 Drinking Water The existing drinking water system pipe layout for the City of Sheridan and SAWS service areas is illustrated within this dataset. This layer was created by exporting pipe data from the computerized water model of Sheridans system. 2.1.10 Sewer Service Boundary This boundary was established in 1977 as part of the EPA 208 Wastewater Planning Study and continues to be referenced as the sewer service boundary. It appears to be based mostly on topography or areas that can be provided sewer service by gravity flow. However, in some areas this does not hold true and the boundary may have been based on what was considered to be developable land at the time. This boundary continues to be studied as part of the City of Sheridan Wastewater Collection System Assessment. 2.1.11 Potential Sewer Service Boundary As stated above, the existing Sewer Service Boundary is under review and possible revision as part of the City of Sheridan Wastewater Collection System Assessment. This layer was provided by the City of Sheridan as part of that ongoing study. The potentially larger Sewer Service Boundary reflects the Citys desire to initiate infrastructure and land use planning activities well into the watershed. 2.1.12 Sewer Sheridans existing sewer system layout is shown within this dataset. This layer was created by exporting pipe data from the sewer model created by HKM as part of the ongoing City of Sheridan Wastewater Collection System Assessment. An initial layout of pipes was supplied by the City of Sheridan GIS department and was used to create the preliminary model for the draft version of this report put out in 5
January 2006. Since then, the model has been modified and continues to be updated as changes and additions are made to the system. 2.1.13 Imagery A mosaic of imagery layers were compiled encompassing the study area. High resolution aerial photos exist for the City of Sheridan and developed areas along Big Goose Creek, Little Goose Creek, and Soldier Creek. The City photography was taken in April 2002 and the areas along the creeks were taken in 2004. The remainder of the area was augmented using 2002 Color Infra Red photography available for download by quadrangle from the WGSC website. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 represent various combinations of information provided in the GIS base map. 2.2 Input Data Following compilation of the base map, data of specific relevance to the Septic Impact Study was input. The following sections describe the data input into the project-specific mapping. 2.2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations Forty-six water quality monitoring stations were used during the 2001-2002 Goose Creek Watershed Assessment to monitor various water quality parameters on Big Goose, Little Goose, and Goose Creeks as well as several tributary streams within the watershed. The locations of these stations are shown in this layer along with a summary of some of the fecal coliform bacteria data collected at each. This layer was created by compiling select data found within the final Goose Creek Watershed Assessment report. Specifically, information exists within this layer to describe the creek monitored and the numbers of geometric mean samples collected at that site that exceeded the fecal coliform standard. Fecal coliform sampling was conducted during the months of April, May, August, and October for both 2001 and 2002. Five samples were collected during each month for a total of 40 samples at each site during the entire study. The fecal coliform standard states that concentrations must not exceed a geometric mean of 200 organisms per 100 milliliters based on a minimum of not less than five samples obtained during separate 24 hour periods for any 30 day period, (Chapter 1, Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations). If the standard was exceeded during any of the eight geometric mean sampling events, the stream segment from that point upstream was considered to be impaired. The highest occurrence of exceedance was four times out of the eight geometric mean sampling events. That occurred at only one station, Soldier Creek just upstream of the confluence with Goose Creek. Three exceedances occurred at two different sampling stations, on Jackson Creek near the community of Big Horn and on Little Goose Creek near the confluence with Big Goose in the heart of Sheridan. All remaining stations had two or less exceedances of the fecal coliform standard during the eight sampling events. The dataset used to create the Monitoring Stations layer also contains information on the overall rank of the sites (1-46) based on the average
fecal concentration of all 40 samples at each site. A ranking value of one describes the least impaired stream segment while a rank of 46 describes the worst case. The station rankings and number of exceedances are shown in Figure 2.3. The highest average fecal concentration occurred in Little Goose Creek at the bridge crossing Highway 87 just south of Woodland Park School (LG7). The second highest average concentration occurred in Park Creek (BG13), which is tributary to Big Goose Creek fairly high in the watershed and in an area of very few septic systems. This suggests other non-point sources of fecal coliform bacteria are contributing to the documented impairment in Park Creek. The third highest average concentration occurred at a storm drain outlet discharging into Little Goose Creek at Coffeen Avenue (LG3). This storm drain collects runoff from developed areas along Coffeen Avenue, an area where septic systems are unlikely. This drain continuously discharges and is therefore draining groundwater from the area. Fecal coliform may be entering the system from leaking sanitary sewers or unknown septic systems in the area. Again, other sources appear to be contributing fecal coliform impacts to the creek. The fourth highest average fecal concentration was in Soldier Creek (GC4) at the confluence with Goose Creek and the fifth highest was on Jackson Creek (LG17), tributary to Little Goose Creek near Big Horn. 2.2.2 Impaired Streams This data layer was created based on data obtained from the 2001-2002 Goose Creek Watershed Assessment. As described above, if any monitoring site exceeded the fecal coliform standard during the 2001-2002 monitoring period, the stream segment upstream of that site is considered to be impaired. According to the WDEQ, Chapter 1, Rules and Regulations, fecal coliform concentrations shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 organisms per 100 milliliters (based on a minimum of not less than 5 samples obtained during separate 24-hour periods for any 30 day period), nor shall the geometric mean of 3 separate samples collected within a 24-hour period exceed 400 organisms per 100 milliliters. This layer shows the segments found to be impaired due to fecal coliform concentrations. The creeks layer was used as a reference to select the impaired stream sections. These impaired segments were then exported to a new layer entitled impaired creeks. Generally, impaired creek sections are located as follows: Goose Creek: From the confluence of Little and Big Goose, downstream for about four miles north of Sheridan. Big Goose Creek: From Normative Services, downstream to the confluence with Little Goose Creek. Little Goose Creek: From the bridge on Highway 87 just south of the Big Horn Wye (junction with Highway 335), downstream to the confluence with Big Goose Creek.
Tributaries: All tributaries sampled showed some level of impairment near their confluences with either Big Goose or Little Goose Creeks. Sampled tributaries included Soldier Creek (tributary to Goose Creek), Park Creek, Rapid Creek in the Big Goose drainage and Jackson Creek, Sackett Creek, Kruse Creek and McCormick Creek in the Little Goose drainage.
2.2.3 City of Sheridan Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall and Fecal Coliform Discharge Data In addition to the 2001-2002 Goose Creek Watershed Assessment monitoring data, fecal coliform discharge data was also obtained from the City of Sheridan Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The plant outfall is located on Goose Creek approximately 470 feet north of Fort Road and is shown as a single point within the WWTP discharge layer. Fecal coliform geometric mean data by month for the time period from January 2001 to August 2006 is shown as a table within the map. The data shows that the WWTP outfall has never exceeded the fecal coliform standard for the time period reported, which includes the timeframe of the watershed assessment monitoring. The highest geometric mean for this time period was 149 organisms/100 ml occurring in December of 2005. The average geometric mean for this location was 55 organisms/100 ml. The City of Sheridan WWTP discharge does not exceed the fecal coliform water quality standard for Goose Creek. The assessment monitoring stations, WWTP and the impaired stream segments are shown on Figure 2.3. 2.2.4 Septic Permits Data for permitted septic systems in Sheridan County was obtained through the County GIS department. In its initial format, the septic permits had been tied to a spatial location on the map using a GIS technique referred to as geocoding. This process generated septic permit locations using an existing roads layer as a reference. Through geocoding, each septic permit address was placed as a point somewhere along its corresponding road. The placement of the point along the road depends on the address number and points were offset fifty feet to the right or left of the road centerline. The geocoding process used to generate the initial septic permit layer gave a good general representation of where septic systems are within the county. However, in order to look at development density, it was advantageous for each septic permit location to be tied to the correct parcel address within the parcel boundary layer. Therefore, the time was taken as part of this study to manually move each septic permit location from its geocoded placement along the road to its correct parcel. Septic permits located outside of the study boundary were excluded from this process. Approximately 1,360 septic permits fall within the study boundary of the total 2,356 permitted septic systems within the entire County.
Data Limitations: Many parcels have more that one septic permit tied to them. The reason for this may be because the septic system was initially permitted and was re-permitted due to repair or replacement of the system. The original permits were not removed from the dataset, resulting in the duplicate permits. Several septic permits exist within the City of Sheridan where sanitary sewer service is currently available. Any septic systems within these areas should have been abandoned and the residence connected to City sewer. The septic dataset does not reflect permitted systems that were abandoned due to connection to the City sewer however, as can be seen specifically in the Downer Neighborhood area where sanitary sewer is now available. The data layer displays only those septic systems which are properly permitted with Sheridan County. There are undoubtedly septic systems in existence that were either installed prior to the Countys permitting program (1979) or were installed without permits. 2.2.5 SAWS Taps Data for the number of water accounts/taps was obtained through SAWS. These accounts represent all users served within the SAWS service boundary excluding City users. As with the septic permits, all water taps were initially geocoded by address and manually moved to the correct parcel within the parcel boundary layer. Data Limitations: The SAWS tap layer contains 1,668 accounts/taps. Based on a recent report completed by Entech, Inc. the current number of SAWS users is 1,449. It is believed that the data used for this study and obtained by SAWS contained some duplicate entries of accounts possibly due to the combining of databases between the City of Sheridan and SAWS. SAWS also has records for taps obtained where no service was actually installed and the city records would not reflect those. The SAWS tap information was used within this Septic Impact Study as an aide in determining development densities and development potential. Although the tap information is not entirely accurate due to the duplicate entries, it was sufficient to use for development as described in the data interpretation section of this report. 2.2.6 FEMA/FIRM Boundary The floodplain boundary portrayed within this layer was obtained from the City of Sheridan GIS department. This layer contains the projected boundaries of the 100 and 500-year flood areas as presented by FEMA through their FIRMs (Flood Insurance Rate Maps). The data is not intended to be used at small scales and should only be used in general terms. Figure 2.4 shows the locations of permitted septic systems, SAWS taps and the 100-year floodplain.
2.3 Data Interpretation With project-specific data input into the GIS map, data interpretation and evaluation can be conducted. The following conditions were determined using the input data and are considered important to understanding conditions in the watershed that may affect water quality relating to septic systems. 2.3.1 Septic Density In order to better visualize the areas within the study area where the majority of the septic systems are located, a septic density layer was created using the septic permit layer previously described. Using GIS, the septic permit layer was overlaid on a square mile grid. The intersection tool was then used to automatically generate a new point data layer containing one point per square mile. Each new point now contains data that represents the number of septic permits falling within the square mile section. The data is displayed so that larger circles represent a higher density of septic systems and smaller circles represent lower densities. Based on this dataset, areas with the highest density of septic systems are generally located along Little Goose Creek from just downstream of the Powder Horn golf course development to the areas just south of the airport. In addition, the community of Big Horn and surrounding area revealed similar higher densities. Areas along Big Goose Creek worth noting include the rural subdivisions approximately 5 miles west of town along Big Goose Road as well as the area to the southeast of Kendrick Golf Course. Figure 2.5 shows the septic system density within the study area, as well as the impaired segments of creeks. Within the Little Goose drainage, the higher septic system density appears to generally correlate with the creek impairment. This correlation is less defined in other areas of the watershed, again suggesting other non-point sources may be contributing to creek impairment. 2.3.2 Developed Parcels Using the septic permit, water tap, imagery and parcel layers, a developed parcels layer was generated so that a general idea of development density may be obtained. Since both water tap and septic permit information were reconciled to the correct parcel as described above, GIS intersect features were then used to select the parcels containing a septic permit, water tap, or both. These parcels were then grouped into the developed parcels layer. The imagery layers were used to check the remaining parcels within the study area. In some instances, there were certain parcels that did not contain a septic permit or water tap but the aerial photography indicated that the lot had been built on. These built-on parcels were also added to the developed parcels database. The amount of developed land within the study area encompasses approximately 66,000 acres, or 46% of the total 142,000 acres within the study area. There are 2,044 developed parcels of 3,270 total within the study area, excluding parcels within Sheridans corporate limits. 2.3.3 Undeveloped Parcels The undeveloped parcels layer contains all of the remaining parcels within the study boundary that were not
10
considered developed as described above. The developed and undeveloped parcel data layers have excluded areas within the City of Sheridan corporate boundary. The amount of undeveloped land within the study boundary equates to approximately 76,000 acres, or 53% of the available parcels within the study area. There are 1,226 undeveloped parcels of 3,270 total within the study area, excluding parcels within Sheridans corporate limits. Figure 2.5 shows the developed and undeveloped parcels. It should be noted that parcels are defined by current landownership. Future subdivision of existing large parcels is likely, which could change density and the mix of developed versus undeveloped parcels. 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer Capacity This layer was developed for the draft City of Sheridan Wastewater Collection System Assessment completed in January 2006. Modeling results from the peak hour plus extreme flows plus build-out scenario are depicted in this layer. The data shows the existing sewer system at the time the model was completed with the pipes color coded by flow versus capacity. Full build out to the sewer service boundary was considered for this analysis. This layer indicates that several sewer interceptors would be at capacity if build out occurs during peak conditions. Pipe segments shown in red are those that are flowing more that 80% full. The majority of the lines at or over capacity are located on the western side of Sheridan. This layer also includes a possible revised Sewer Service Boundary anticipated to be included in the finalized Wastewater Collection System Assessment. This boundary extends well into the watershed, indicating the Citys interest in extending its infrastructure and land use planning boundaries. Data Limitations: This dataset is based on modeling results conducted from a preliminary version of the sewer model of Sheridans system. Demand allocation and refinement of the model are currently taking place through the ongoing City of Sheridan Wastewater Collection System Assessment. 2.4 Aquifer Sensitivity Data In 1992 a mapping project entitled the Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment, was undertaken by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Qualitys Water Quality Division, the University of Wyomings Water Resources Center, the Wyoming State Geological Survey, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. The projects goal was to develop a digital GIS-based map that could assess the states relative groundwater sensitivity and vulnerability to contaminants that may be introduced at some location above the uppermost aquifer. The project was approached by first developing an aquifer sensitivity rating layer. By EPA definition, aquifer sensitivity refers to the relative ease with which a contaminant applied on or near the land surface can migrate to the aquifer of interest, based solely on hydrogeologic factors (Wyoming Ground Water
11
Vulnerability Assessment Handbook, I-25). An overlay/index method utilizing GIS technology was used to generate the aquifer sensitivity layer. The general idea behind this technique is to combine spatial data layers representing various characteristics through the assignment of a numerical rating for each feature. The hydrogeologic factors used to develop aquifer sensitivity are depth to groundwater, geohydrologic setting, soil composition, recharge rate, land slope, and vadose zone characteristics. Individual parameter rating maps were developed for each of the six hydrogeologic factors listed above. Each individual parameter was assigned a numerical rating ranging from one to ten, with ten representing areas where the groundwater is more sensitive to contamination and one representing areas that are least sensitive. Aquifer sensitivity was then developed by overlaying each individual parameter rating map and summing the rating values. Once the aquifer sensitivity layer had been established, the mapping project was taken a step further in order to define groundwater vulnerability. Groundwater vulnerability combines aquifer sensitivity with existing land use practices and pesticide use. While aquifer sensitivity is based exclusively on natural occurring factors, groundwater vulnerability incorporates the effects from human impacts such as land use, management practices, and contaminant properties. For the purposes of this Septic Impact Study, only the aquifer sensitivity data and contributing layers were utilized. This information is beneficial to the study as it will identify areas where groundwater is more sensitive to contamination due to natural occurring conditions within the aquifer. The groundwater vulnerability data focuses primarily on pesticide use and does not apply to this Septic Impact Study. However, groundwater vulnerability to pesticide use is one example of how sensitivity data may be combined with existing land use practices. The final Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment Handbook was published in 1998 and digital data products were made available in 1999. The following aquifer sensitivity data layers for Sheridan County were obtained through the Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center located on the University of Wyoming campus. This center is responsible for the distribution and development of a wide variety of geospatial data sets for use by various organizations. A description of each layer stating the various sources used for its development as well as how it relates to potential contamination is summarized below. 2.4.1 Depth to Initial Groundwater This layer describes the depth to first encountered groundwater generated from the State Engineers Office (SEO) well permits database. An interpolation technique was used to generate a continuous surface of depth values from the mapped water depths of the SEO wells database. A sensitivity rating was assigned to the water depths and is depicted in this layer. Ratings range on a scale of one to ten with ten being the most sensitive and one the least sensitive. The higher the sensitivity rating, the closer groundwater is to the land surface and the quicker contaminants can reach it. 2.4.2 Geohydrologic Setting Geohydrologic setting refers to the characteristics of the uppermost aquifer and is based on aquifer media
12
and hydraulic conductivity. The Wyoming State Geological Survey developed this layer using the Water Resources Research Institute Basin Ground Water Report Series, USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlases, and selected USGS Water Supply Papers. Based on these references, a ranking system was developed for all geological formations in Wyoming by generalized hydrologic characteristics ranging from a high-yield aquifer to an aquiclude/aquitard with low to no yield. Geologic formations were classified based on The Stratigraphic Chart Showing Phanerozoic Nomenclature for the State of Wyoming. Also used was the Geologic Map of Wyoming. When geologic formations were combined with hydrologic characteristics, the resulting geohydrologic setting sensitivity rating layer was developed. Ratings range from one to ten with one representing unfractured massive shale with low hydraulic conductivity and ten representing well-developed karst limestone or gravel with a high conductivity. 2.4.3 Soils The thicker the soil, the longer contaminants remain in the soil and may be degraded. In addition, the finer the soil texture, the less easily contaminants can pass through open spaces to the aquifer. Organic content also plays a role in contaminant degradation due to the greater potential for chemical reactions to degrade the contaminants before reaching the aquifer. The soils layer for this project was developed based on the following five soil-forming factors: soil parent material, climate, biota, topography, and time. This layer was compiled based on digital surficial geology, bedrock geology, and elevation. The following sources and available data were used to generate this generalized soils map: published soil surveys, maps, and reports of the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and numerous theses and scientific papers published by the Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station and the University of Wyoming. Sensitivity ratings for soils consider the following parameters on a weighted average basis: soil texture and rock content, depth to bedrock, depth to groundwater, and soil class mineralogy. 2.4.4 Aquifer Recharge Aquifer recharge refers to the amount of water that infiltrates the soil and percolates through the unsaturated material into the groundwater. Contaminants can move from the ground surface into a shallow aquifer with greater ease using recharge as a primary transport mechanism. Therefore, areas with higher amounts of net annual recharge are more susceptible to contamination. Factors affecting recharge include precipitation, sand and rock content of the soil, and seasonal patterns such as snowmelt runoff. This layer was produced using published percolation percentages for documented soil/vegetation combinations as well as soil type and average annual rainfall. Sensitivity ratings are based on a scale of one to ten with one having the least amount of recharge and ten having a greater amount of recharge. 2.4.5 Land Surface Slope Aquifer sensitivity is affected by land surface slope due to the longer surface residing times for water-borne contaminants on a flat slope, increasing the potential for contamination. This dataset represents land slope calculated from the USGS 3-arc-second
13
digital elevation model (DEM). GIS techniques were used to calculate the percent change in each cell within the elevation model. Sensitivity ratings were assigned to the slope map through a set of functions describing how percent slope influences potential groundwater contamination. 2.4.6 Vadose Zone The vadose zone is defined as the unsaturated zone above the water table and below the soil horizon. This dataset describes the vadose zone media in terms of how easily contaminants can move through it. The Wyoming State Geological Survey modified the DRASTIC model sensitivity ratings for vadose zone media to include media typically found in Wyoming such as coal sequences. Sensitivity ratings range from one to ten with rank one representing a confining layer and rank ten representing a highly fractured layer. 2.4.7 Aquifer Sensitivity Aquifer sensitivity refers to the relative ease with which a contaminant applied on or near the land surface can migrate to the aquifer of interest, based solely upon hydrogeologic factors. This layer was created using GIS map overlay techniques of the six sensitivity rating layers described above. Each of these six sensitivity ratings was summed with equal weights to develop overall aquifer sensitivity. High values indicate areas where the aquifer is more sensitive to contamination while low values represent areas where the aquifer is least sensitive to contamination. Data Limitations: The data is not intended to replace site investigations. The data should only be used for regional-scale analysis. The sensitivity rating values can only be used in relative terms. In other words, the ratings only describe the regions that have a higher pollution potential than others within the same study area. The model used to assess aquifer sensitivity is referred to as the DRASTIC model. This model defines pollution potential as the sum of seven parameter ratings (Depth to groundwater, recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone, and conductivity). Each rating parameter is multiplied by a weight ranging from one to five depending on the relative importance of each parameter. The procedure used for defining Sensitivity within the Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment Handbook has been modified from the original DRASTIC model in the following ways: 1. The hydraulic conductivity and aquifer media layers have been combined within the Wyoming model to form the geohydrologic setting layer. Therefore, the Wyoming model only contains six model parameter layers while the DRASTIC model contains seven. 2. The Wyoming model uses a different method for assigning rating values based on the unique nature of Wyomings hydrogeologic environment. 3. Equal weights are assigned to the parameters within the Wyoming model due to lack of scientific information describing the weight relationships between these parameters.
14
Figure 2.6 show the Groundwater Sensitivity Classes established by the methods described above. 2.5 Designation of Impact Zones Using the aquifer sensitivity classes described above, Impact Zones were delineated within the Septic Impact Study area. The Impact Zone designations are intended to provide a key map which will show landowners, septic installers and the permitting authority in which areas alternative systems might be appropriate. For example, if a parcel proposed for development or septic replacement falls within either the Critical Impact Zone, High Impact Zone or the Medium Impact Zone, extensive site investigations should be required that might include items such as permanent groundwater monitoring wells or soil coring and evaluation by a trained professional. From the information gained in the site investigation, the designer can then select an appropriate septic technology. The specific alternative technologies are discussed later in this report. If a proposed septic system installation or replacement falls in the Regular Impact Zone, the level of site investigation and design and a conventional system installation should be adequate. The Impact Zones simply direct the determination of whether an alternative system should be considered. Designation Criteria: The five sensitivity classes determined in the Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment report were designated into four Impact Zones for this study. High sensitivity was designated High Impact. Medium-high sensitivity was designated Medium Impact. Medium, Medium-low and Low sensitivity areas were designated Regular Impact for septic system impacts. A Critical Impact Zone was designated for the community of Big Horn and its surrounding area. All of this area falls within the High Groundwater Sensitivity Class and due to the unusually high density of development in this area, it warrants a greater level of care regarding onsite wastewater management. A fifth Impact Zone of SS was designated for those parcels that can be connected to an existing central sewer system. For the City of Sheridan, if sanitary sewer is available within 400 feet of a parcel boundary, it is assumed the parcel can be connected to it. For the Powder Horn, the entire platted boundary was designated as the SS Impact Zone. The Impact Zones are mapped according to parcel boundary. If a parcel is split by a sensitivity class, the sensitivity class encompassing the greatest area of the parcel was used to designate the Impact Zone. Figure 2.7 show the Impact Zone designations determined for this study.
15
3.0
PHASE II ASSESS OPTIONS TO MITIGATE SEPTIC-RELATED IMPACTS

3.1 Introduction A primary objective of the research and recommendations on alternative systems under this project is to provide technologies that may help to alleviate impacts to the watershed currently occurring from conventional septic tanks and drainfields. These alternative systems may be considered a toolbox of possible solutions that can be used by Sheridan County, developers, engineers and others to provide acceptable wastewater management. Taking these steps is being done, in part, to fulfill Action Items contained in the Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan. A primary purpose of enhanced policies regarding wastewater management is to preserve the environment and protect public health. While several technologies are presented to provide alternatives for a particular site, there is no guarantee that a design and application for a sewage system on every site will be approved. The issuance of a permit to construct treatment facilities is not a guarantee that the system will work as designed particularly if it is not properly maintained. Design professionals need to be involved throughout planning, design and construction of any project. 3.1.1 Benefits of Alternative Technology Evaluation The benefits of analyzing alternative sewage facilities include the following: Comply with the Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan and avoid more stringent regulation by the WDEQ of activities within this watershed. Upgrade the level of sewage treatment throughout this most populated area of Sheridan County. Provide sewage treatment methods that can accommodate growth and increased density of homes in the Big and Little Goose valleys. Encourage the extension of central sewage collection facilities where they are determined to be feasible. Provide alternative methods of onsite treatment that are superior to conventional systems in the particular circumstances of the differing site sizes and conditions that are found throughout this area. Provide alternatives for treatment when considering operation, maintenance and life-cycle costs. 3.1.2 Jurisdictional Oversight As alternative systems are evaluated for a particular area, the following jurisdictional and regulatory considerations must be made: The City of Sheridan has authority within the City and within one mile of the City, and over connections to or extension of the City of Sheridan sanitary sewer system. The County reviews, approves and inspects onsite systems within the County that receive less than 2000 gallons per day (gpd). Detailed design criteria and site investigation requirements are outlined in the Countys regulations for permits to construct,
16
install, or modify small wastewater facilities. These regulations can be found on the Sheridan County web page at http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/www/Permitting/Pages/SMWW/smallw astewater.asp. The County regulations include several options for alternative systems. The WDEQ reviews and approves onsite systems that receive more than 2000 gpd, cluster systems (central systems that do not connect to the City sewer), and extensions of the City sewer system. Chapter II, Part D of the Water Quality Rules and Regulations specify design criteria for small wastewater systems. These rules also provide for use of several alternative technologies. If a discharge is proposed from a treatment facility, a discharge permit must be obtained from the WDEQ. Developments and their associated water and sewer systems must comply with City and/or County comprehensive plans, subdivision rules, and appropriate policies. Approval is needed for subdivisions from the City Planning Commission or County Planning and Zoning Commission, as appropriate.
Therefore, depending on the particular project, the City, the County or the WDEQ may be involved in the review and approval of designs. Once constructed, it is the responsibility of the owner of the system to provide proper operation and maintenance, keeping the system in good working order, and to comply with appropriate state and local regulations. Compliance with local plans and planning processes is an important consideration. While proper sewage treatment is a critical component to managing growth in the Goose Creek Watershed, it should not be the primary factor. Overall land use planning should control development. 3.1.3 Systems Considered The conventional onsite sewage system is a septic tank followed by a drainfield that is fed by gravity. This is the standard onsite sewer system used in Sheridan County for homes that are not connected to a central system. A conventional septic system is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Alternative systems that are considered in this report are: City of Sheridan sewer system expansion; Regional central sewer system, including cluster systems; Alternative collection systems (for a central sewer system); and Alternative onsite systems. In addition to discussion on types of systems, the following related matters are also discussed and recommendations provided: Design requirements for proposed system; Requirements for the site investigation; Construction requirements; and
17
3.2
Management and operational requirements.
Alternative Central Systems 3.2.1 City of Sheridan Sewer System Expansion The City of Sheridan currently provides sewer to users outside of the city limits to a limited extent. The City has an extensive evaluation of its sewer collection system underway which includes a master plan for possible extension of the system into unsewered areas in and around the City and a capital improvements plan to identify needed improvements to older parts of the system. As part of this and other on-going planning efforts, the City has tentatively established a new Sewer Service Boundary which is shown in the GIS mapping described in previous sections of this report. It is likely the City will finalize this boundary to establish an area that the City can be expected to grow into over the coming years. The City plans to eventually extend sanitary sewer service throughout this area. The process of providing City sewer throughout this area will take many years however, and improvements will be phased in as they are determined feasible and as development occurs. In the mean time, users will need to find alternative means to provide sewer service. Within the City limits, City sewer service is available immediately, however new user(s) must provide for any needed extensions. As the City allows extensions throughout the planning area over the next several years, proposed extensions must be approved by the City and it must be determined that the sewage contribution from these extensions will not create capacity problems within the remainder of the City sewer system. All extensions must be designed and installed according to City standards and must be funded by those benefiting from the extensions. Work is still underway on this master plan and final recommendations have not yet been made. Ultimately, however, the most desirable option for sewer service within this area surrounding the City is by an expansion of the Citys system. As areas are developed prior to City service being available, thought should be given to how a central collection system can eventually be installed to serve the development. 3.2.2 Regional Central Sewer System An alternative to the extension of the City sewer system beyond the planning boundary is to create a separate central sewer system with its own wastewater treatment plant. This is not proposed in the Big Goose portion of the study area due to a much smaller population, but may be feasible in the Little Goose valley which has a much larger population and higher density of development. Such a system would need to be owned and operated as a public system administered by a public entity such as the County, joint powers board or an established sewer district.
18
If a central sewer system was determined to be feasible in the Little Goose valley, it would likely commence south of the City planning boundary (south of the Big Horn junction or Big Horn wye). It would then extend as far south and as far out the east and west sides of the valley as is practical, based primarily on the density of homes and number of users gained for the length of line installed. A likely service area includes the community of Big Horn and developments such as the Powder Horn, McNally, Meadowlark Meadows, Knode Ranch and Big Horn Ranch. Currently the Powder Horn provides a central sewer system and has its own extended aeration package treatment plant. This plant serves the approximate 150 homes in this development, but is expandable to serve a much larger number. This plant seems to provide satisfactory treatment and has been complying with its discharge permit. Having this system, the Powder Horn understands the operational requirements, responsibilities and costs associated with having a central sewer system and package treatment plant. While they can continue as they are for many years to come, they are very interested in studying the idea of a regional or area-wide sewer system (such as the Little Goose valley south of the Citys service area), and possibly participating in such a system. If a central sewer system is considered for this area, the collection system is a major component in all phases of planning, design and construction. The three different types of collection systems as described in Section 3.3 all need to be thoroughly evaluated. The costs for the collection system may exceed that for the treatment plant, so careful consideration of the alternatives is required. Advantages of a central sewer system in the Little Goose valley include: Elimination of the many onsite systems that may not be working properly and may be impacting both surface and groundwater. It would also greatly reduce the maintenance requirements associated with onsite systems and extra costs associated with replacement due to their limited life. A single entity responsible for the operation and maintenance of the sewer facilities. This typically leads to improved overall performance and benefits from economy of scale. While onsite systems have generally served this area satisfactorily, growth has been significant in the last 10 years and this area will continue to grow. At some point onsite systems may reach a saturation point. Typically areas serving more than 1,000 homes can support a central sewer system, depending on the development density. There are over 3,200 existing parcels within the watershed outside of the City of Sheridan, so planning for an additional central system is reasonable. If a central sewer system is needed in the future, it is advantageous to construct the collection system prior to full development of the area. Costs are also saved by constructing one system for each home, rather than an onsite system initially and the central system in the future.
19
Concerns to be more fully explored include: Costs can be quite high for a central collection system and wastewater treatment plant. This will have to be studied carefully during preliminary engineering. While it should be possible to obtain a discharge permit for another treatment plant, it is a significant commitment to provide the level of operation and maintenance needed to comply with the permit requirements over the long term. There are considerable responsibilities in the ownership, operation and maintenance of a sewer system. The City has the resources and experience to do this. A sewer district might need to be formed, with staff and other resources developed. A thorough investigation is required to more fully understand the feasibility of such a system and associated costs. To be successful, this district and system would need the backing of the residents within the area. An outreach effort will be needed to determine the level of support.
3.2.3 Cluster Systems Central sewer systems on a much smaller scale are cluster systems or decentralized systems. These systems serve one particular development or possibly adjoining developments. The system consists of a central collection system and a single treatment unit. The treatment facilities could be a mechanical extended aeration package plant, or a larger variation of the onsite systems discussed in this report. The primary advantages of this type of system include: Smaller collection systems are needed, reducing costs. Being smaller than the central systems described above, cluster systems can be more easily planned, constructed and expanded as needs warrant. The primary concerns are: The system has to be ready to serve the first house. Some types of treatment systems may not work well until several homes are contributing flows. Small package treatment plants do not have a good history of providing a high level of treatment because loadings tend to vary and operation is typically not at the level required to fully manage the treatment process. Costs for operation, maintenance and management of the system are often disproportionately high because of the relatively small number of users. Smaller size can mean higher unit costs due to lack of economy of scale. It is often difficult to maintain an adequately trained and certified operator to operate the treatment system. The entity that is responsible for the system can be a concern. Homeowners associations or small districts often do not have the personnel, funding or other resources to adequately manage a sewer system over the long term. A larger sewer district that may
20
manage several cluster systems would be better suited to provide the appropriate level of management and operation. The feasibility of using cluster systems should be included as a component in any overall master planning effort for providing central sewer service within the study area. 3.2.4 Permitting Considerations for Additional Central Systems One of the considerations as options involving additional wastewater treatment plants are evaluated, is whether these plants could obtain a permit to discharge to one of the Goose creeks. Discharge permit applications and monitoring requirements are handled by the Cheyenne office of the DEQ. Leah Kraftt is the head of this program. The City of Sheridans wastewater treatment plant has a discharge permit. Their permit establishes the limits shown for the following parameters.
Parameter BOD5 TSS Ammonia pH Fecal Coliforms Chlorine residual Average Limit 30 mg/L (w/ 85% removal) 30 mg/L (w/ 85% removal) 1.78 mg/L Within range of 6-9 200 colonies/100 ml Maximum Limit (daily) 90 mg/L 90 mg/L 3.56 mg/L 400 colonies/100 ml 0.02 mg/L
The Citys wastewater treatment plant has a very good history of complying with their discharge permit. For example, BOD and TSS consistently run under 5 mg/L, and they have not had difficulty meeting any of the other requirements. There are no current indications that these limits will become stricter in the near future. All of the Goose creeks are Class 2AB. This class of water is known to support game fish populations or spawning and nursery areas at least seasonally and all their perennial tributaries and adjacent wetlands and where a game fishery and drinking water use is otherwise attainable. There is no current movement to change these classifications. There does not appear to be any increased difficulty in obtaining discharge permits for these creeks due to their impairment status. Permits require an involved application and public comment period. Once permits are granted, there is on-going monitoring and reporting required. It is anticipated that any additional requests for discharge permits would have to meet limits similar to the Citys shown above. A properly designed and operated secondary treatment plant should be able to meet the BOD and TSS limits shown. With the fecal coliform limit, disinfection is required. With a maximum limit on chlorine residual, either disinfection other than chlorine must be used, or de-chlorination will be needed. The ammonia limit may be the most challenging to meet. However, this limit should not result in extraordinary technology within a treatment facility. 21
It appears possible to obtain a discharge permit for another treatment plant in the Little Goose valley south of Sheridan. 3.3 Alternative Collection Systems 3.3.1 Conventional Collection Systems A conventional sewer collection system is designed to carry raw sewage that is discharged from all types of users connecting to the sewer system. Conventional systems that are a public sewer system or otherwise regulated by the Wyoming DEQ must comply with the requirements of: Chapter 3 Regulations for Permit to Construct, Install or Modify Public Water and Wastewater Facilities Chapter 5 Operator Certification Requirements Chapter 11 Design and Construction Standards for Sewage Systems Conventional collection systems must be designed and constructed per Part B of Chapter 11. These requirements include: Gravity collection sewers shall be at least 8 inches in size. Lines must be laid to grade, with a minimum slope of 0.004 ft/ft. Manholes are required every 400 feet, at change of directions or slopes. Lift stations are needed where gravity flow cannot be maintained. These stations must include two pumps capable of handling 3-inch solids. There are also several other requirements associated with a raw sewage lift station. Chapter 3 requires designs be prepared of proposed systems by a licensed professional engineer. These designs must be approved by DEQ prior to construction. They must also be approved by the Owner of the public sewer system. Public systems may be owned by a city, county, district or joint powers board. Chapter 5 requires that a public sewer system employ certified operators. Certification includes a specified number of contact hours with the system, testing and continuing education. Conventional gravity sewer collection systems are relatively expensive because of the need to lay lines to grade and the other requirements listed above. This results in lines that may be relatively deep. While every attempt is made to eliminate lift stations, terrain may require pumping on a particular project, and again these can be relatively expensive because of their depth and the requirements of handling raw sewage. Conventional systems typically work well within a city or for a relatively densely populated service area. The length of the collection system necessary to serve users in less densely populated areas typically requires that alternative systems be considered, due to the cost.
22
Advantages of a conventional collection system include: This is a well known technology. Operators are very familiar with these systems. It can handle raw sewage easily. With the large pipe sizes and manholes for access, maintenance is relatively straight forward. With the 8-inch minimum size, lines often have extra capacity for growth or above-normal flows. Frequently extensions can be made using existing lines. Disadvantages with a conventional collection system include: Relatively high costs per user when in a rural environment. Terrain can make it difficult to maintain gravity flow and minimum grades. 3.3.2 Septic Tank Effluent Collection Systems Septic tank effluent collection systems receive septic tank effluent (also called greywater). Septic tanks remove solids, therefore smaller diameter lines can be used than are used with conventional collection. Septic tanks either already exist (as in the case of an existing subdivision that was originally installed with septic tanks and drainfields), or are installed to provide the solids removal required for the user to connect to this type of system. There are two types of septic tank effluent collection systems: Septic tank effluent gravity systems (STEG) Septic tank effluent pumping systems (STEP) As the above names imply, the STEG system works using gravity flow and the STEP system requires pumping. If pumping is required, small pumping units are typically installed immediately downstream of the septic tank, and serve only that home. These pumping units are typically owned and operated by the individual homeowner. Since they pump greywater, they do not have to handle the large solids discussed above for raw sewage pump stations. Pumps that can handle at least -inch solids are recommended. Septic tank effluent collection systems have several advantages over a conventional collection system. These include: Smaller diameter lines can be used. Typically these will be 4-inch, although sizing is required based on slopes and design flows. Variable grades can be used. This includes negative grades at times. All grades and elevation of lines must be carefully designed from a hydraulic standpoint. Manholes are not normally used, however cleanouts are required for maintenance. Manholes are recommended at certain key line junctions. Since variable grades are allowed, the lines typically are not as deep as conventional lines. The shallower and smaller lines not only save cost, but construction time.
23
When a development with onsite sewage systems is being retrofitted with a central collection system to eliminate drainfields, a septic tank effluent collection system is less disruptive than a conventional system in that the septic tank is saved (does not need to be bypassed), resulting in less excavation within the yard. It is also easier to adapt a variable grade design to fit a developed area than a conventional collection system. While more pump stations may be needed (for the individual users), they are less complex than raw sewage lift stations.
Concerns regarding effluent collection systems include: While the septic tanks remove solids, they do not remove 100% of the solids. Therefore there is potential for solids deposition and maintenance of the variable grade line. Septic tanks maintain anaerobic conditions so septic tank effluent has an odor. Any venting of the sewer to the atmosphere can result in odors. Therefore this system has to be well thought out, so nuisance odors do not become a problem. If septic tank effluent flow enters a conventional collection system, hydrogen sulfide may also be a problem. Hydrogen sulfide can result in more corrosive conditions than are normally found in conventional collection systems. Also, septic tank effluent has anaerobic properties so the owner of any conventional sewer system would need to approve its discharge. Responsibilities and costs for the individual user are greater with this system than with a conventional collection system because septic tanks still must be periodically pumped and maintenance performed on small pump stations if they are necessary. Increased user responsibilities mean a more involved and on-going public education process. Overall, operation and maintenance costs are generally higher with a STEG or STEP system, as opposed to a conventional collection system. Septic tank effluent systems do not handle high volumes or unusual waste streams (such as grease or industrial or commercial waste), as well as a conventional collection system. Air vents and isolation valves may be needed in the system. 3.3.3 Vacuum Sewer Collection Systems While vacuum sewer collection systems are newer technology than conventional systems, they have been used throughout the country and in Europe for many years. They are relatively new to Wyoming, however. This newer technology should be accepted by Wyoming DEQ, provided there is a thorough design and an appropriate entity to own and operate the system. As the name implies, a vacuum sewer collection system utilizes a vacuum to transport the sewage through the pipes and bring it to a point where it can be delivered to a receiving interceptor. Vacuum technology differs considerably from conventional technology discussed in the previous section. Depending on the circumstances of the area to be served,
24
vacuum technology can provide some advantages. Therefore it is appropriate to compare it to conventional technology to make an informed decision. A vacuum sewer consists of the following components: Gravity service lines. These are identical to a service line for a conventional system (from the house to the yard or boulevard area). However, it leads to a valve pit rather than to a gravity main in the street. Valve pit. A valve pit consists of two parts; a sump and valve housing. The sump is located in the lower part of the housing and sewage enters this sump from the house. The upper part of the valve pit includes a vacuum interface valve. This valve monitors the amount of sewage in the sump by a sensor pipe. When ten gallons of sewage collects, this valve opens and the differential pressure from the vacuum sewer main propels the sewage into the main. Once the contents of the sump are emptied, the interface valve closes maintaining a vacuum on the system. Up to four homes can be served by one valve pit, provided they are in relative close proximity to each other. There is no electricity in the valve pit. A valve can handle a maximum flow of approximately 30 gallons per minute. A short run of smaller diameter pipe (laid relatively flat) connects the vacuum interface valve to the vacuum sewer main in the street. Figure 3.2 illustrates a typical valve pit. Collection piping (vacuum sewer main). Collection piping consists of 4 to 8 PVC pipe laid throughout the service area such that all homes have a relatively easy connection to the collection piping. Vacuum sewer mains are airtight with no manholes. They are laid in a sawtooth profile rather than to a grade as with a conventional system. Between the sawtooths, the pipe slopes can be minimal, at approximately 1 foot in 500 feet. Up to 10,000 feet of piping can connect to one vacuum station. This PVC piping can be tapped for future connections like a conventional collection system. The vacuum propels the sewage through the collection of piping at a velocity of about 15 feet per second. This prevents solids from settling out in the system. See Figure 3.2. Vacuum station. The main component of a vacuum sewer system is the vacuum station. The primary features of a vacuum station are: A collection tank for the sewage brought into the station by vacuum The vacuum pumps which maintain a vacuum on the collection system The more conventional sewage pumps which discharge the collected sewage to the gravity interceptor via a force main (somewhat similar to a sewage lift-station). A basic vacuum station is illustrated in Figure 3.3. Up to 2000 homes can be served by a single vacuum station. Since vacuum sewers are relatively new to this area, the owners of several existing vacuum sewers were contacted. All of these owners (and operators) were pleased with their systems. In many cases, they had
25
installed multiple neighborhood vacuum systems because of their experiences with their initial installation. Vacuum sewers were used in these communities for various reasons including: high groundwater; shallow bedrock; close proximity to lakes; and the need to minimize trenching.
They all believed operation and maintenance was reasonable and they had not had significant problems with the valve pits, vacuum sewers, or vacuum station. Therefore, this technology continues to be applied and should be considered as a sewage collection alternative in the Goose Creek Watershed. Primary advantages to a vacuum sewer collection system include: Relatively ease of design for an existing neighborhood to solve collection problems. The shallow bury depth of the collection sewers, thus avoiding problems associated with high groundwater and soils that are difficult to excavate. This results in cost savings for installation. A much reduced surface restoration effort and cost, as compared to deeper sewers. A shorter construction period, thus reducing disruptions to the neighborhood. The ability to serve a large area from one vacuum station (as opposed to lift-stations which are limited by the slope of the collection sewers and the ground). The ability to easily adjust the location of the collection sewer if obstacles are encountered, as opposed to gravity lines that must be laid to a specific grade. A resulting sewage collection system that does not leak. Manholes are not required, thus resulting in a cost savings. Easier installation around other buried utilities. Since the vacuum extends from the users valve pit through the collection system, it is a cleaner system than conventional sewers. With its airtight design, odors are not an issue. Vacuum systems are typically readily expandable. This may prove valuable in the future as the initial service area may be expanded. The largest initial investment the vacuum station, has the potential to allow a considerable number of additional connections in the future. Disadvantages of a vacuum sewer system include: A vacuum station is somewhat more complex than a conventional lift station. A station involves both vacuum pumps and discharge pumps. It also is more expensive than a conventional lift station. Vacuum technology is different than the conventional collection systems with which sewage system operators are more familiar. Training is provided by the system manufacturer, however, and
26
from discussions with operators, this difference is not significant once they develop a familiarity with the system. Of all of the issues discussed above, a primary item to be considered is the reduced depth required for the collection sewers and thus the reduced construction cost. This is especially true in areas where soil type and groundwater make installation of a conventional system difficult. Therefore it appears a vacuum system should result in a cost savings in many situations. 3.4 Alternative Onsite Systems Several types of onsite, single-user sewage treatment and disposal systems are described in this document. These systems provide the developer, homeowner, design engineer and County staff with alternative systems that may be used to address the goals of the Watershed Plan and characteristics of the particular site. Onsite systems should not be used when connection to a central system is an option. If the new sewer service is within 400 feet of a central sewer system, or falls within the SS Zone as defined in this study, connection shall be made to that system with the approval of the system owner. If there is a compelling reason this connection cannot be made, the need to make this connection may be appealed to the City Planning Commission or County Planning and Zoning Commission as appropriate. Reasons to consider or require alternatives to the conventional septic tank and gravity fed drainfield include the need to: Address specific site conditions High groundwater table Bedrock or hard soil layers close to the ground surface Fractured rock beneath the site Tight soils (slow percolation rate) Gravelly or fractured soils (high percolation rate) Small area available Topographic restrictions, such as slope and converging slopes Provide improved treatment Reduce the potential for treated effluent leaving the property or reaching ground or surface water Provide a longer life for the system Replace an existing failed conventional system. Other considerations for alternatives at a particular site include: The level of operation and maintenance required and the ability of the owner to provide it. The proximity of the site to proposed extensions of a central sewer system. The characteristics of the wastewater. The applicability of various alternative systems for specific sites or to address specific problems is summarized in Table 3.1. The following subsections discuss these alternative systems. Alternative systems should be selected only
27
Table 3.1 Applicability of Alternative Onsite Septic Systems

Soil Permeability Too Too Slow Moderate Fast Alternative Treatment Systems1 Anaerobic Tank Aerobic Tank Alternative Effluent Disposal2 Conventional Drainfields Alternating Drainfields3 Gravelless Drainfields Sand-lined Drainfields Dosed Drainfields3 Mounds Evapotranspiration4 Sand Filters Wetlands/Lagoons Land Application5 Depth to Bedrock Shallow Fractural Deep Depth to Water Shallow Deep Steeper Slope6 Small Lot Size7
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P
P P P
1. Generally, either of these treatment systems are applicable, however aerobic can provide superior treatment and for some effluent disposal systems such as wetlands/lagoon it is the best choice. 2. Assume these systems will follow one of the above treatment systems. 3. Similar to Conventional, but over the long term will provide improved treatment. 4. These systems can be lined or unlined. Lined systems are required if effluent cannot also move downward. 5. May need other treatment ahead, such as sand filters. 6. Greater than about 7%. 7. Less than 2 acres.
28
after an investigation of site specific conditions. System selection and design should be performed by a professional engineer with a formal design report submitted to the permitting authority. 3.4.1 Alternative Treatment Methods Alternatives to the conventional septic tank treatment method are discussed in this section. A conventional septic tank is intended to remove solids from the waste stream and initiate biological treatment. In addition, grease and oil are captured and there is a 30% to 50% reduction in BOD. This level of treatment is considered secondary treatment. The process is anaerobic, meaning there is no oxygen in the system. Effluent from a septic tank, in a conventional system, flows by gravity to a drainfield or leach field. Figure 3.4 shows a conventional septic tank. Aerobic Treatment. Aerobic treatment units may be used in lieu of anaerobic units (septic tanks), if the conditions require. Properly operated, they provide better treatment than conventional septic tanks, but are still considered secondary treatment. They are more susceptible to changes in loading and to inattention. They may discharge into drainfields or alternative absorption beds, as described in the next section. Aerobic units should: Have adequate aeration equipment, inlet and outlet arrangements and baffling for through mixing. Prevent excessive short-circuiting. Prevent the excessive buildup of solids in the aeration compartment. Sufficient aeration shall be provided to maintain aerobic conditions at the maximum organic loading rate. Aeration units shall be certified by the National Science Foundation or equivalent. Aeration compartments are followed by a settling compartment. Settled solids are returned to the aeration compartment. An alarm system is required to indicate when the aeration system fails, or if there is a high water level. Sludge must be removed from an aerobic treatment unit at least once per year. Proper operation and maintenance of the aerobic unit is critical. Figure 3.5 illustrates an aerobic treatment unit. Pumping Systems. Effluent from the treatment unit may need to be pumped to the disposal location. Pumping should only occur after wastewater is treated in either a septic tank or aerobic treatment unit. Requirements of the pumping facility include: Pumps should be placed in a non-corrosive housing. Use only submersible pumps designed and certified for use as sewage effluent, to work within a corrosive environment and pass inch solids. Electrical wiring and equipment has to be suitable for this environment. The pump(s) should be removable without entering the housing.
29
Pumping units should serve only one tract of land, and normally only serve one user. While single pumping units are acceptable for effluent handling, duplex installations are recommended. Floats should be used so that dosing is achieved. The floats shall be set so the drainfield, mound or other receiving bed is dosed 3 to 4 times per day. The piping and drainback features need to be designed for efficient use of the volume available. A high water alarm should be provided. Piping from the wet well housing to receiving (disposal) bed needs to be protected from freezing. A child-proof cover for the wet well is required. Venting the wet well into the adjoining soil (using a rock bed) is recommended to reduce odors.
Figure 3.6 shows a typical effluent pumping unit. 3.4.2 Alternative Septic Tank Effluent Disposal Methods There are several alternatives to the standard drainfield method of disposing of septic tank effluent. Disposal methods typically provide additional treatment to the septic tank effluent. The soil can provide effective treatment in a suitable location, if the system is properly maintained. Alternative disposal methods provide varying degrees of additional treatment and certain systems are more adaptable for problematic sites. These varying conditions are described in the following section. Alternating Drainfields. Alternating drainfields consist of two drainfields following the septic tank. Valves are provided to allow for switching back and forth between the fields. The goal of this system is to prolong the life of the fields, to improve treatment and to reduce the likelihood of the fields discharging effluent. Biomats can form in the drainfield that may clog the soil matrix. Resting periods restore permeability and improve the level of treatment provided by the soil. Gravelless Drainfields. Chamber units, sometimes called infiltrators, may reduce the absorption area, or be more conducive to construction on certain sites. They do not necessarily improve the level of treatment. Chamber units can be used as allowed by DEQ and County regulations. Figure 3.7 shows a chamber unit installation. Sand-lined Absorption Trenches. Where percolation rates are faster than 5 minutes per inch, a sand-lined absorption trench may be used to provide additional filtration. A sand depth of at least 18 inches is required below the bottom of the piping. Dosed Drainfields. A dosed drainfield uses either a pump or a siphon to periodically dose the drainfield, in lieu of the trickle flow that a drainfield typically receives with the conventional gravity design. Dosing and resting will improve the treatment and extend the life of the drainfield. The dosing chamber is sized for 3 to 4 doses per day. The drainfield
30
dosing and piping system are designed for uniform distribution. Figure 3.8 illustrates a dosed Drainfield system. Mounds. Mound systems may be used where a disposal system is needed to provide sufficient separation to groundwater or bedrock, or because of soils with percolation rates greater than 60 minutes/inch. Secondary treatment is preferred, but not always required. Requirements for mounds include: Calculations have to be made for the effluent loading and absorption rates, basal area, dosing, and distribution piping network. Adequate side slopes (no steeper than 3:1) and coverage over the distribution gravel beds to minimize the likelihood of seepage from the mound. Topsoil stripping and placement on the mound, and the establishment of vegetative growth to help absorb the effluent applied. Dosing of the absorption beds by a siphon or pump. The piping network has to be designed for even distribution, considering the size of pipes, the size of holes and hole spacing. The distribution lines are to be laid in a clean pea gravel bed, with at least 18 inches of sand above the basal area. Figure 3.9 shows a typical mound disposal system. Evapotranspiration Units. Evapotranspiration units may be used in areas of high groundwater, bedrock, and fast percolating soils. They must be preceded by secondary treatment. An evapotranspiration unit has its absorption bed exposed to the atmosphere and is designed for vegetative growth on the bed material, so transpiration is maximized, in addition to evaporation. There are two types of evapotranspiration units. These are: Beds with a liner underneath: These can be used where depth to groundwater, bedrock or fractured rock are issues, soils have too great a permeability, or there are other environmental or site issues. Liners shall be impervious to chemical reaction and the flow of water. Beds without a liner: These can be used when none of the above items are issues of concern for the site. They are generally used where the soil is fairly impermeable. Seasonal variations in temperature, precipitation, evaporation and transpiration must be considered. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a source for this data. The gradation of the sand fill shall be considered for capillary action and permeability. Figure 3.10 illustrates an evapotranspiration unit. Sand Filters. Sand filters can be used when onsite conditions require added filtration media. This need for added filtration may be due to site
31
restrictions such as groundwater, bedrock or poor soils; or it may be due to the need to provide improved treatment over a conventional onsite system. Sand filters must be preceded by secondary treatment. Sand filters can be single pass or recirculating. They also can have liners underneath or have an interface with the soil, depending on the site. Requirements for sand filters include: Sand filter beds must be designed to drain (not hold the water). If a liner is provided beneath the sand, an underdrain system is required. Sand filters (as opposed to sand-lined absorption beds) are to be dosed. The sand grains shall be sized and graded for the application (single pass vs. recirculating). Washed sand shall be used. Organic loading must be taken into account, in addition to hydraulic loading. There shall be a plan to address the eventual plugging of the sand media. Lined beds and recirculating designs must be followed by a drainfield. Unlined beds must meet the separation requirements of a conventional drainfield. The sand beds are to be at least 2 feet thick. Figure 3.11 shows two types of sand filter units. Wetlands or Rock Beds. Wetlands or rock beds may only follow secondary treatment. They shall be on property that is large enough so odors or other nuisances do not impact neighboring property. Wetlands or rock beds should be designed to encourage wetland-type vegetation to aid in the treatment process. The seepage rate from the bottom of the bed and the separation to groundwater or bedrock should be similar to that for a conventional drainfield. If there is effluent from the wetland or rock bed, it shall be disposed of in a drainfield or other acceptable alternative absorption beds. Figure 3.12 shows a wetland disposal configuration. Small Lagoons. Ponds may only be used where property is large enough to prevent odors or other nuisances from affecting neighboring properties. They may only be used following secondary treatment. The design of lagoons is based on: Loading not to exceed 0.45 pounds of BOD5 per 1000 square feet of water surface area. Pond not to exceed 5 feet, and side slopes not to exceed 3:1. No surface runoff into enter the pond. A center inlet shall be provided. They shall be non-discharging. Fencing is provided. The separation to groundwater or bedrock should be similar to that for a conventional drainfield. If this is not present, the bottom of the pond shall be lined to 1x10-6 cm/sec.
32
Advanced or Experimental Systems. More advanced systems such as synthetic media filters may be appropriate for a particular site. Another promising system is the fixed media processes that support a biomass on the surface of the media. Acceptance and approval of these types of systems should be supported with adequate design and operational information to allow a thorough review by the permitting authority. Land Application. The application of treated effluent to the land, such as for irrigation, is allowed by the Wyoming DEQ. Designs shall comply with DEQ Chapter 21 Standards for the Reuse of Treated Wastewater.
3.5
Design Requirements
The design of alternative onsite systems, central or cluster systems, or the extension of mains for central or cluster systems shall all be performed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Wyoming. Designs must comply with DEQ, County or City requirements as appropriate. Currently, the DEQ and County programs do not provide design criteria or permitting processes for some of the alternative technologies appropriate for use in the Goose Creek Watershed. Updating the relevant programs to accommodate alternative technologies is necessary if effective use of alternatives is to occur. References for design standards for onsite systems include the EPA onsite wastewater treatment systems manuals listed in the References chapter of this report. A generalized approach to planning, design and application for a permit to construct an alternative system is provided below. An application to construct an alternative system should include the following: Design Report Design drawings and specifications signed by a professional engineer. Completed application for the review and approval of the system. The Design Report should include the following: The type of facility and wastewater design flows. Type of wastewater if different from typical domestic. Ownership of land and treatment facility. Location address and legal description. Size of lot. Status of the approval of the creation of the lot or subdivision. Type of water supply. Results of site investigation, including: Data on groundwater and surface water (including seasonal variations); Data on bedrock or impermeable soils; Soils data NRCS soils information for the area, a soils profile, testing results of the soils and texture, percolation tests, design loading rate;
33
Discussion of irrigation practices and data on groundwater level fluctuations; Logs of nearby wells and onsite subsurface explorations; Map showing all site and adjoining natural features, topography and proposed improvements; and Pictures of the site. Overview of system components. Size of treatment facilities, including all design calculations. Integrate all appropriate collected data into the design. Summarize the design objectives. Discuss the need for the design of any special treatment or pretreatment facilities required, such as grease traps (if applicable) or disinfection of effluent. Design if required. Recommended operation and maintenance practices. This shall include required operational procedures for system components, maintenance to be performed and the timing of required maintenance. Identify a future replacement system. Signed seal of the professional engineer, including name, address and phone number.
3.6
Site Investigation
A site investigation must be made at the location of all proposed onsite systems. A detailed level of investigation and monitoring is appropriate for alternative systems because they require a greater level of design detail. Investigations for proposed development in areas that lie within the Critical Impact Zone, High Impact Zone or Medium Impact Zone as defined in this report should provide a site investigation according to the list provided below. Site investigation activities that differ from current requirements are noted. Then based on the information from the site investigation, an appropriate alternative technology can be selected if determined appropriate. Initial reconnaissance site investigation. This initial planning activity is not required under the current regulations. Consider the size and configuration of the tract. Look for the type of vegetation, the topography, slopes and converging slopes, drainage, surface water, an indication of the types of soils, rock outcrops, etc. Select areas for the soils investigation. Make a preliminary list of possible acceptable systems for the site. Take into account the owners desires for developing the site. Surveying and site mapping. This proposal is slightly more extensive than currently required. Show: Property lines. Contours, slopes and how the site drains. Surface waters on or within 50 feet of site. Onsite buildings and improvements (both proposed and existing). Adjacent development, including utilities, buildings, treatment facilities, etc. Wells and water lines. Irrigation or drainage ditches. Rock outcroppings or other geological features. Roads, parking areas and any impervious surfaces.
34
Underground utilities that may conflict with the installation of the system. Any environmental related restrictions such as flood plains, wetlands or riparian protection areas. Any setback requirements. Potential sites for the treatment system, as well as potential replacement sites. Benchmark for subsequent surveys. Include north arrow, scale and proximity to readily known location. Soils investigation Test pit at the proposed disposal site to a depth of at least 4 feet below the bottom of the drainfield or 8 feet, which ever is greater. Prepare a soils profile, including the types of soils and a description of the colors, structures and textures. For alternative systems, depth to and type of bedrock should be determined either by drilling or deeper excavation of a test pit. Groundwater levels should be monitored over a period of time by use of a piezometer rather than by just a single reading from a test pit. Soil profiles should be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer, soil scientist, or geologist. These suggestions are all beyond the scope of the current regulations. Permanent groundwater monitoring wells should be required in the Critical Impact Zone, whereas no permanent monitoring is currently required. Determine seasonal depths to groundwater. Percolation tests per County or DEQ regulations. Pictures of the site investigation operations and soil profile. Also obtain an aerial photo of the site.
3.7
Construction and Post-construction Requirements
Construction and post-construction requirements shall comply with permit conditions specified at the time of approval for the project. These requirements might include: Inspection by the design engineer or his representative to verify construction complies with the design. Preparing record (as-built) drawings following construction. Keeping the permitting authority informed during and following construction. Providing documentation of the completed construction project. Providing the record drawing information, a copy of the design report, and recommended operation and maintenance procedures to the system owner. It is recommended that Sheridan County establish a licensing program for those involved with the installation (construction) and the operation and maintenance of onsite systems. The licensing program should include: Education on the regulations, the alternative systems and their proper installation, operation and repair. A test. A certification and license for the contractor that can be withdrawn.
35
Bonding and insurance requirements. Periodic renewal requirements such as education or retest.
3.8
Program Management
Proper management of any program is important, however it becomes critical as more advanced technologies are used for sewage treatment and disposal. The proposed management plans discussed in this report is derived from the Voluntary National Guidelines fro Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA 832-B-03-001. Effective management is the key to insuring the required level of environmental and public health protection, as well as attaining the objectives for the management of sewer systems within the Goose Creek Watershed that will be developed. Without proper management, no amount of regulations, engineering, permitting and operation will allow these objectives to be met. To upgrade the quality of onsite septic systems in the Goose Creek Watershed, the management of these systems must also be upgraded. This means expanding the Countys involvement in management. As a minimum, this will require more involvement of staff in the oversight of design, installation and operation of systems. The EPA reference used as the guideline for the recommended County program provides a greater involvement in management (as opposed to just permitting), and has created five conceptual levels of management. These five models are outlined below. Management Model 1 Homeowner Awareness specifies appropriate program elements and activities where treatment systems are owned and operated by individual property owners in areas of low environmental sensitivity. This program is adequate where treatment technologies are limited to conventional systems that require little owner attention. To help ensure that timely maintenance is performed, the regulatory authority mails maintenance reminders to owners at appropriate intervals. Management Model 2 Maintenance Contracts specifies program elements and activities where more complex designs are employed to enhance the capacity of conventional systems to accept and treat wastewater. Because of treatment complexity, contracts with qualified technicians are needed to ensure proper and timely maintenance. Management Model 3 Operating Permits specifies program elements and activities where sustained performance of treatment systems is critical to protect public health and water quality. Limited-term operating permits are issued to the owner and are renewable for another term if the owner demonstrates that the system is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Performance-based designs may be incorporated into programs with management controls at this level. Management Model 4 Responsible Management Entity (RME) Operation and Maintenance specifies program elements and activities where frequent
36
and highly reliable operation and maintenance of decentralized systems is required to ensure water resource protection in sensitive environments. Under this model, the operating permit is issued to an RME instead of the property owner to provide the needed assurance that the appropriate maintenance is performed. Management Model 5 RME Ownership specifies that program elements and activities for treatment systems are owned, operated, and maintained by the RME, which removes the property owner from responsibility for the system. This program is analogous to central sewerage and provides the greatest assurance of system performance in the most sensitive of environments. A Management Model should be selected and implemented by the County that is consistent with an updated permitting program, as previously recommended. Since this study identifies much of the Goose Creek Watershed as potentially High Impact Zones from conventional septic systems, Management Model 1 Homeowners Awareness is probably not adequate. A higher level of management to ensure proper maintenance is probably justified. At a minimum, however, measures should be taken immediately to enhance homeowner awareness of their responsibility to properly maintain an onsite septic system.
37
4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear from the groundwater sensitivity mapping that a considerable area within the Goose Creek Watershed is at high risk to impact groundwater from surface uses. Impacted groundwater can, in turn, impact surface water as it discharges into the streams of the watershed. With the documented impairment of the creeks within the Goose Creek Watershed, it is only sensible to improve conditions which could potentially impact groundwater. In addition, current development density and the potential for considerable additional development in the watershed indicate a higher level of care regarding wastewater management is appropriate. The following recommendations are provided as measures to help protect the groundwater resource within the Goose Creek Watershed. 4.1 Continue implementing programs outlined in the Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan. Based on evaluation of the fecal coliform data collected during years of monitoring compared to the locations of septic systems within the watershed, it is clear that other non-point sources are impacting the creeks in the watershed. Efforts to control and improve the quality of non-point sources such as stormwater discharges from developed and undeveloped lands, irrigation return flows, over-population of wildlife and livestock management practices on rural residential development are critical to successful mitigation of impacts to the watershed. 4.2 Sheridan County should consider updating the current septic permitting program. The current septic permitting program administered by Sheridan County, and its enabling agreements, have served development well through the years. The program has been continually updated to meet changing needs. With current increased development pressure and a need to implement alternative septic technologies, it may again be time to update the program. An updated program might include: Review and revision (as appropriate) of the agreement between the WDEQ and Sheridan County regarding its authority to permit individual septic systems in the County and the ability to permit alternative systems; Review and revision of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Sheridan and Sheridan County regarding cooperative efforts for wastewater treatment services in and around the City of Sheridan. Updates might include items such as redefining planning, jurisdictional or service boundaries, or confirming application review and approval processes; Review the permit application process to address the needs for more detailed site investigation work, design by professional engineers or geologists and use of alternative technologies in the Critical Impact, High Impact and Medium Impact Zones, as defined in this report; Establishing a permitting fee structure to help fund the program; Development of criteria for site investigations and design guidelines for alternative septic system technologies; Enhancing field verification of installations and submittal of record drawings; and
38
Establishing a method to enhance operation and maintenance of all septic systems.
The current program struggles to maintain adequate staffing to fulfill all program requirements. For certain, an updated program will require a commitment of additional personnel to establish and administer the program. 4.3 Sheridan County should consider establishing a licensing program for septic system installers and pumpers. A licensing program can help ensure installation, maintenance, and repair are performed correctly and appropriately. Having informed and certified companies performing work on septic systems will help ensure systems are properly installed, operated and maintained. This becomes critical as more sophisticated systems are installed in the County. A licensing program should include certification, which can be withdrawn, contractor bonding, a test and continuing education. A waste manifesting program should be established to track origin and disposition of septic waste. 4.4 Sheridan County should select an appropriate Management Program. A Management Program defines the level of oversight the permitting authority will take in operation and maintenance issues of its septic program. Management Programs vary from providing landowner information, to the permitting authority assuming ownership of septic system maintenance. As the septic permitting program is updated, a Management Program should be selected that is appropriate for the higher level of sophistication in use of technologies. The Landowner Information-level of management is probably not appropriate when alternative septic technologies are in use throughout the watershed. But, an initial effort to enhance homeowner awareness should be undertaken immediately. Again, an appropriate Management Program will require a commitment of additional personnel. 4.5 Initiate a Regional Sewer Master Plan for the Little Goose Drainage. A regional sanitary sewer concept may make sense for the Little Goose drainage for the following reasons: Septic system density along Little Goose is generally higher than along Big Goose; The area of highly sensitive groundwater is much larger in the Little Goose than in the Big Goose valley; Higher density development already exists within this drainage, with the community of Big Horn and the Powder Horn, lending to the likelihood of future higher density development; and The Big Horn School is a large wastewater contributor at about 6,000 gpd. A regional sewer master planning effort should: be a cooperative effort between jurisdictions to ensure all stakeholders are represented and all interests addressed; address land use issues in the watershed and incorporate existing and ongoing comprehensive planning efforts;
39
include evaluation of extending the City of Sheridans existing system, a separate central collection and treatment facility, cluster systems, and combinations thereof; evaluate and provide recommendations for jurisdictional structure for any recommended system, such as forming a regional sewer district, joint powers board, county or City ownership and operation, etc.; and determine funding alternatives for any recommended system.
4.6 The City of Sheridan should continue wastewater collection and treatment master planning and plan implementation. Since the City of Sheridan currently owns and operates the largest central sewer collection and treatment system in the watershed, it makes sense that the existing facilitys usage be maximized. The Sewer Service Boundary is currently being evaluated and potentially expanded. Any service boundary adjustment must use sound engineering and land use planning practices. Updated policies for growth and the actual expansion of the collection system within the new service boundary should be considered. Ongoing upgrades and capacity improvements at the wastewater treatment plant should be continued.
40
5.0
REFERENCES
Cooperative Agreement Between Department of Environmental Quality and the City of Sheridan, Signed June 2006. City of Sheridan Draft Wastewater Collection System Assessment, HKM Engineering Inc., January 2006. Sheridan County Regulations for a Permit to Construct, Install or Modify Small Wastewater Facilities and Related Design Standards, Sheridan County, December 1984. Design Instructions and Worksheets for a Less than 2000 gal/day Gravity Septic System utilizing a Leachfield, Sheridan County. Goose Creek Watershed Assessment, 2001-2002, Sheridan County Conservation District, July 2003. The Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan, Sheridan County Conservation District, December 2004. 2005 Goose Creek Watershed Monitoring Project, Sheridan County Conservation District, August 2006. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, EPA/625/R-00/008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, February 2002. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA 832-B-03-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, March 2003. Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment Handbook, Wyoming Water Resources Center, University of Wyoming and the Wyoming State Geological Survey, SDVC Report 98-01, 1998. Chapter 3 Water Quality Rules and Regulations (relating to permits to construct), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, May 1984. Chapter 11 Water Quality Rules and Regulations (design and construction standards for wastewater facilities), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, May 1984.
41
FIGURE 3.1
Conventional Onsite Septic System
FIGURE 3.2
Vacuum Sewer Valve Pit and Main Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming
FIGURE 3.3
Typical Vacuum Station
FIGURE 3.4
Conventional Septic Tank Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming
FIGURE 3.5
Aerobic Treatment Unit
FIGURE 3.6
Septic Tank Effluent Pumping Unit Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming
FIGURE 3.7
Chamber Unit Effluent Disposal
FIGURE 3.8
Dosed Drainfield Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming
FIGURE 3.9
Mound System
FIGURE 3.10
Evapotranspiration Unit
Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming
Single Pass Sand Filter
Recirculating Sand Filter
FIGURE 3.11
Sand Filters Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming
FIGURE 3.12
Wetland Disposal
Septic System Impact Study Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming

SSIS Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSIS Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Septic System Impact Study

Goose Creek Watershed Sheridan County, Wyoming

Building Community Through Better Engineering

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Table of Contents-Final Rpt.doc

Table of Contents Contd.

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Table of Contents-Final Rpt.doc

Table of Contents Contd.

Attachment A CD containing GIS data file

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Table of Contents-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

PHASE I INVENTORY OF EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

PHASE II ASSESS OPTIONS TO MITIGATE SEPTIC-RELATED IMPACTS

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Management and operational requirements.

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Table 3.1 Applicability of Alternative Onsite Septic Systems

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Construction and Post-construction Requirements

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Establishing a method to enhance operation and maintenance of all septic systems.

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Q:\10\M202210\Report\Final Report\FINAL RPT\Text-Final Rpt.doc

Single Pass Sand Filter

Recirculating Sand Filter

You might also like