MODEL FACILITY PLAN
for a
SMALL COMMUNITY
Supplement to: Guidance for Preparing
A Facility Plan
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
September 1975
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-08
-------
MODEL
FACILITY PLAN
for
a Small, Rural Community
BRANT,
SOUTH DAKOTA
-------
FOREWORD
This model plan for a fictitious small, rural community supplements
the Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan, published in May 1975.
The plan is for a small community with relatively simple pollution
problems to comply with facility planning regulations and assure cost-
effective and environmentally sound waste treatment works. The problems
addressed are typical of many small communities which do not have an
infiltration/inflow problem; are located within effluent limitation
segments; have few environmental constraints; and have no industries.
In general, we would expect a more comprehensive plan for a community
faced with more complex problems. Where a community is not faced with
such a situation, however, this plan may aid in preparing a facility plan
expeditiously and at minimum cost.
This plan is provided for illustrative purposes only and should not
be read as an ironclad guide to facility planning for small, rural communi-
ties. The Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan and other guidance in
the grants program emphasize repeatedly that the amount and level of detail
required will vary with local circumstances, the size and nature of needed
facilities and the extent of previous planning efforts. Municipalities
and their consultants are expected to exercise professional judgment in
determining the content of facility plans.
We welcome your suggestions for changes, additions or deletions which
would help achieve the Agency's objective of timely preparation of facility
plans of quality.
Deputy
for Wate
ohn T. Rhett
ssistant Administrator
Program Operations (WH-547)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
1. Sunmary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 1
2. Introduction 3
2.1 Study Purpose and Scope 3
2.2 Planning Area 3
3. Effluent Limitations 3
4. Current Situation 5
4.1 Conditions in Planning Area 5
4.1.1 Institutions 5
4.1.2 Economic, demographic and land-use data 5
4.1.3 Water uses and quality 6
4.1.4 Environmental conditions 6
4.2 Existing Treatment Systems and Wastewater Flows 7
4.3 Infiltration and Inflow 8
5. Future Situation - Forecasts of Flow and Waste Loads 11
6. Alternatives 12
6.1 Regional Solutions 12
6.2 Alternative Waste Treatment Systems 12
6.3 Evaluation (monetary, environmental, implementation) 12
7. Plan Selection 17
7.1 Views of Public and Concerned Interests on Alternatives 17
7.2 Trade-off Evaluation and Ranking of Proposals 18
7.3 Selected Plan 21
7.4 Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan 21
8. Preliminary Design and Cost Estimates 22
8.1 Description of Design 22
8.2 Summary of Cost Estimates 26
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
9. Arrangements for Implementation 26
9.1 Institutional Responsibilities 26
9.2 Implementation Steps 26
9.3 Schedule for Preparation of Construction 28
Drawings and for Construction
9.4 Operation and Maintenance 28
9.5 Financial Requirements 28
10. Summary of Environmental Considerations 29
10.1" Existing Environmental Conditions 29
10.2 Future Environment Without the Project 29
10.3 Evaluation of Alternatives 29
10.4 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan 30
APPENDIX
Exhibit 1 - "Letter of Clearance" in Compliance 3]
with OMB Circular A-95
Exhibit 2 - Statement specifying that the requirements 31
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
have been satisfied
Exhibit 3 - Map of Sewer System, Brant, South Dakota 32
Exhibit 4 - Copy of NPDES Permit Number SD-9999999, 31
Brant, South Dakota
Exhibit 5 - Correspondence from Agencies consulted 33
during preparation of the plan
Exhibit 6 - Notice of Public Hearing and Record of 34
Public Hearing
Exhibit 7 - Copy of Resolution of Intent 36
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE
1. Average Effluent Concentration r
2. Population Data and Projections, Brant, South Dakota 6
3. Average Daily Wastewater Flows - GPD g
4. Infiltration Analysis IQ
5. Inflow Analysis IQ
6. Alternative la - Remodel Existing Plant 12
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
7. Alternative Ib - Three-Cell Stabilization Pond System 14
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
8. Alternative Ic - Complete Withholding in Lagoon 15
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
9. Alternative Id - Package Plant 16
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
10. Alternative 3 - Land Application of Effluent 17
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
11. Economic Evaluation of Alternatives 20
12. Ranking of Final Alternatives 22
13. Three - Cell Stabilization Pond System 27
Construction Cost Estimates
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Topographic Map, Town of Brant, South Dakota 4
2. Diurnal Flow Pattern g
3. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Brant, 23
South Dakota
-------
1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Brant is a small, rural community with a present population
of about 475. The sewage collection system and treatment pi ant were con-
structed in 1950. The plant was designed to provide primary settling and
digestion of sludge in an Imhoff tank and an intermediate degree of biological
treatment by a trickling filter. The plant is inoperable and untreated sewage
is discharged to a confined area. The Town has a responsibility to meet the
new State and Federal regulatory requirements for secondary treatment. To
alleviate the wastewater management problems identified in the preparation of
this report, several alternatives for sewage treatment and effluent disposal
were considered. Treatment alternatives considered involved: (1) remodeling
the existing treatment plant; (2) abandoning the existing treatment facility
and providing a 3-cell stabilization pond system, or (3) providing complete
retention of sewage in lagoons (zero discharge), or (4) providing treatment
with land application by spray irrigation; or (5) installing a waste treatment
package plant. Specific conclusions and recommendations from this study are
presented below.
Based on the results of this investigation, it can be concluded
that:
1. excessive infiltration and inflow does not exist,
2. State and Federal regulations related to secondary treatment
cannot be met by the presently inoperable treatment plant, and
3. the present discharge of untreated sewage causes public health
hazards and odor problems.
After evaluating the economic, environmental, and social costs related
to the alternative plans, it is recommended that:
1. the existing treatment plant be abandoned and a 3-cell stabili-
zation pond system be constructed to provide adequate treatment
of the Town's sewage, and
2. a Step 2 grant should be applied for to design the proposed
facility.
In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Program
Guidance Number 55, Subject: Format for Reporting Costs of Planned Treatment
Works in Step 1 Facilities Plans, dated July 25, 1975, the following page
presents a Summary of Costs of Planned Treatment Works Scheduled by Project
and Category for Brant, South Dakota.
Exhibit 1, included in the appendix, contains a copy of the letter,
Subject: State Intergovernmental Clearinghouse "Letter of Clearance" on
Project Review in Conformance with OMB Circular No. A-95.
Exhibit 2, included in the appendix, contains a statement specifying
that the Requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of
Part 7 of 40 CFR have been satisfied.
-------
SUr.«.,V,ARY Or COSTS OF PLANNED TREATMENT WORKS
SCHEDULED BY PROJECT AND CATEGORY
(Rca d instructions on reverse bfffire completing form)
1
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
PROJECT STEP
ESTIMATED CALENDAR QTR/YEAR
APPLICATION WILL BE SUB-
MITTED TO EPA FOR FUNDING
a. CATEGORY 1
Secondary .Treatment and BPWTT
b. CATEGORY II
More Stringent Treatment
c. CATEGORY IIIA
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
d. CATEGORY 1MB
Major Sewer System Rehabilitation
e. CATEGORY IVA
New Collectors, etc.
f. CATEGORY IVB
New Interceptors, etc.
g. CATEGORY V
Correction of Combined Sewer Over-
flows
h. CATEGORY VI
Treatment and/or Control of
Stormwaters
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
STEP 1 PROJECT COST
Project No. C ^99^99*^ _m
GRANDTOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF
ALL PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE ENTIRE GRANT
* SECOND
** PROJECT
STEP 2
3/75
$
/
$ J.
MUNICIPALITY (Applicant):
* THIRD
PROJECT
STEP ^
1/76,
$
ss^o
^6^(t>0
$ ^
/Off. %0&
* FOURTH
PROJECT
STEP
$
$
U,^v
* FIFTH
PROJECT
STEP
$
$
72-
TOTAL ,".LL
PROJECTS
* Hjjtoa.
-35J40
46JU>
' ' 115,200
$
/1 7,200
COST ESTIMATES OF RECOMMENDFD PROJECTS WERE COMPUTED AS OF 4o*je. \*5T f=5 AND REFLECT THE LATEST
CONSTRUCTION COST INDFX OF 2-2^^*2—
(month and year)
AS REPORT ED BY THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD
NOTE: Suggested format Coi d«in to be included in the facilities plan.
* Include project description in Facilities Plan narrative.
**The First Project is the initial /Step 1) project under this grant for the treatment works.
•£. J-*JC.£.LJ&£. £> £r16M££.&itf*T 4fllC>P&:'fa')7r&P 5U/t&£ Of t~£Wt-j ft&CftL. •*( /j&tf//J/i>7KATItf&'~ ^^^T*^
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Study Purpose and Scope
The waste treatment system for the Town of Brant, South Dakota, con-
structed in 1950, consists of a sewage collection system and plant units
including a lift station, Imhoff tank, trickling filter, final settling
tank and sludge drying beds. The treatment plant units are presently
inoperable because of disrepair. The existing treatment facilities cannot
be made functional without major renovations or replacement of the treat-
ment works with new facilities.
to (1) develop and evaluate
choose the plan which will
preliminary designs for that
The purposes of this facility plan are
alternative waste treatment approaches, (2)
best solve the problem, and (3) present the
plan.
2.2 Planning Area (MAP)
The Town of Brant, South Dakota, is located in Burnham County along
South Dakota Highway 99. The planning area, as determined by the State
in conjunction with local officials, encompasses the entire Town of Brant.
Figure 1 shows the planning boundaries on a topographic map. Exhibit 3,
included in the Appendix, shows the layout of the Town and its present
water and sewer system in detail.
3. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Pursuant to the State of South Dakota continuing planning process,
all of the water segments in the area have been classified as "effluent
limitation segments." Thus, any projects for the construction of publicly
owned waste treatment works must provide for the application of the best
practicable waste treatment technology (BPWTT). The identification of and
provision for applying BPWTT is to be based on consideration of alternative
waste treatment management techniques including biological or physical-
chemical treatment and discharge to receiving waters, treatment and reuse,
and land application.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued
a municipal discharge permit to the Town of Brant which expires on
December 31, 1976. The permit is included as Exhibit 4 in the Appendix.
The quality of effluent discharge must, as a minimum, meet the
following limitations no later than December 31, 1976:
-------
Figure 1
Brant, South Dakota
o
\J o t<3tenndge
I o p~) 4 CfHintry Clubj
Planning Area Boundary
4
-------
TABLE 1
Average Effluent Concentration
30 Consecutive 7 Consecutive
Parameter Day Period Day Period
BOD5 - mg/1 30 45
Total Suspended Solids - mg/1 30 45
Fecal Col iform - number/100 ml 200 400
Total Residual Chlorine - mg/1 0.5
pH - units Shall remain between 6.0 and 9.0
The methods of sampling and allowable deviations are outlined in the
permit.
4. CURRENT SITUATION
4.1 Conditions in Planning Area
4.1.1 Institutions
The Town Council for the Town of Brant is responsible for the planning,
financing and operating publicly owned waste treatment works in the planning
area., As indicated by Exhibit 6, the Brant Town Government has the necessary
legal, financial, institutional, and managerial resources to construct,
operate, and maintain a wastewater treatment system.
4.1.2 Economic, demographic and land-use data
The Town of Brant is a small community with an active retail business
which serves the surrounding farm trade area. The economy is based on
agriculture and allied enterprises. The community has no manufacturing
industries or large commercial establishments nor does it anticipate any
in the future.
A modern public grade and high school system serves the community and
most of the surround farming area within 15 miles. A small nursing home is
located in the community.
The Series E economic and population projections (OBERS) developed by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) project over the planning period a
population decline of Isss than 1 percent for the State and for the dis-
aggregated areas (BEA economic area and non-SMSA portion of BEA economic
area) which include the Town of Brant.
The population of Brant, however, has increased slowly at a rate of
slightly more than 1 percent between 1950 and 1960 and between 1960 and
1970. Even though the State, as a whole, is projected to have a decrease
in population over the next twenty years, it seems reasonable to assume
-------
that the Town of Brant may continue to grow slowly from natural growth and
intra- and interstate migration.
The South Dakota Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed
and approved the population projection of 550 persons by the year 1997 for
this facility plan. Table 2 presents past population data and projections.
TABLE 2
Population
Data and Projections
Brant, south Dakota
Year Population
1950 (U.S. Census) 374
1960 " " 399
1970 " " 461
1977 (Projected) 480
1997 " " 550
4.1.3 Water uses and qua-lity
A public water system supplied by wells serves the community. The wells,
as shown on Exhibit 3, are located in the northeast part of the town.
The present discharge of untreated sewage to the confined area does
not provide for any degree of treatment. Conditions that favor natural
biological treatment and accompanying bacterial reduction such as in a
well constructed and maintained stabilization pond system are not present.
Control of the operation is not possible. The present discharge of un-
treated sewage causes public health hazards and odor problems. Mosquitos
breed in the area and their control is difficult due to a heavy growth of
vegetation.
4.1.4 Environmental conditions
With its long severe winters and hot summers, the climate typifies the
continental climate of the north-central States. Annual precipitation amounts
to about 20 inches, of which about 1/3 occurs as snow.
Gentle rolling plains characterize the topography of the area. Soils
range from clays to mixtures of clay and silt.
There are no surface water impoundments in the planning area. An
overburden of impermeable clays protects the excellent water quality of
groundwater aquifers.
-------
The plant effluent originally discharged to a drainage ditch which was
closed by the adjacent downstream landowner a number of years ago. Efforts
to reopen the ditch have been unsuccessful. Presently, untreated sewage
is bypassed to a confined area near the plant. Except for this problem
area at the present discharge location, there are no known environmental
factors such as wetlands, flood plains and waterways, unique plant or animal
communities, or other important fish and wildlife habitats; historic,
archeological and cultural features; air quality factors; or other factors
that would be significantly affected by the waste treatment alternatives.
(See letters and comments contained in Exhibit 5).
4.2 Existing Treatment Systems and Wastewater Flows
The sewage collection system, constructed in 1950, serves the developed
areas of the town. Pipes have been extended as required to serve new areas.
The sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 10,400 feet of 8-inch
and 1,200 feet of 10-inch vitrified clay pipes with predominantly oakum -
bituminous joints. No combined sewers or storm water inlets exist.
The existing wastewater treatment plant comprises a lift station,
Imhoff tank, trickling filter, final settling tank, and sludge drying beds.
The lift station, located adjacent to the Imhoff tank, consists of two
wet-pit pumps and a raw sewage bypass. Frame buildings cover all units
with the exception of the sludge drying beds. The system was originally
designed and constructed to handle 30,000 6PD of sewage.
All the plant units need repair, and mechanical equipment, such as the
lift station pumps, filter distributor, and the recirculation pump, requires
replacement. The lift station pumps have been repaired frequently and are
presently inoperable. As a result, sewage bypasses the treatment plant
and flows untreated to a confined area near the plant.
The flow of the domestic influent wastewater averaged about 36,850
gallons per day during a 10 day measurement period in October 1974. Total
flow measurements were obtained at a 90 V-notch weir which was installed
in the downstream manhole of the collection system. Flows were measured at
hourly intervals throughout the period and total daily flows were calcu-
lated. Table 3 summarizes the average daily flows for the 10-day observation
period.
-------
TABLE 3
Average Daily Wastewater Flows-GPD
Date
Notes
October 12,
October 13,
October 14,
October 15,
October 16,
October 17,
October 18,
October 19,
October 20,
October 21,
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
Rain of 1 inch
Flow (GPP)
37,500
42,000
35,000
36,000
41,000
35,000
35,000
33,000
34,000
40,000
Average 36,850
The per capita flow, based on an estimated resident population of 475
and an assumed resident population equivalent of 62 for the 250 students
from outlying areas, amounts to 68 gallons per day, about average for a
community of the same size.
Hourly flow measurements obtained October 12, 1974, indicate the
diurnal flow pattern during dry weather as shown by Figure 2.
4.3 Infiltration and Inflow
An infiltration/inflow analysis of the sewage collection system was
completed as one of the requirements for grants for wastewater treatment
facilities from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South
Dakota Department of Environmental Protection.
Groundwater does not migrate freely in the near impervious clay and
silty clay soils.
As previously noted, oakum-bituminous joints were provided throughout
the sewer system. There are also 40 manholes located throughout the system.
Thirty manholes are brick and mortar construction and ten are precast con-
crete. A visual inspection of several key manholes indicated that these
manholes were in excellent repair. Lamping of several sewer reaches showed
no signs of deposition, root intrusion, or disrepair. Wastewater flows were
measured during the early morning hours of May 4, 1974, 5 days after a 3 week
period of snowmelt and intermittent precipitation. Inspection of the water
level gauges installed in several key manholes indicated groundwater elevations
were below the sewer levels. Table 4 indicates the flow measurements from
12:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. and compares them to the expected dry weather flow
measurements taken October 12, 1974.
-------
a
j
u.
<£
ui
c/7
4:
CC
a
•£.
D
U-
o
aJ
vfl
5
¥
OOO (0/ )
-------
TABLE 4
Infiltration Analysis
Flow Flow Infiltration
5/4/74 10/12/74
Gals/Hour Gals/Hour Gals/Hour
12:00 p.m. 225 200 25
1:00 a.m. 250 175 75
2:00 a.m. 210 125 85
3:00 a.m. 180 100 80
4:00 a.m. 140 80 60
5:00 a.m. 175 100 75
Table 4 shows that the flows recorded during a high water table condition
on May 4, 1974, do not greatly exceed those expected under dry weather conditions,
The maximum infiltration is about 85 gallons per hour or 1.5 gallons per
minute.
Wastewater flows were measured on October 26, 1974, during a storm pro-
ducing 3 inches of rainfall in 6 hours to determine whether an inflow problem
exists in the Town's sewer system. Table 5 summarizes the measurements and
compares them with dry weather measurements obtained on October 12.
TABLE 5
Inflow Analysis
Time Flow Flow Inflow
of 10/26/74 10/12/74
Measurement Gals/Hour Gals/Hour Gals/Hour
11:00 a.m. 2375 2450
12:00 a.m. 2750 2600 150
1:00 p.m. 3250 3100 150
2:00 p.m. 3375 3200 175
3:00 p.m. 3665 3450 215
4:00 p.m. 3650 3550 100
As indicated by Table 5, the flows recorded during the storm were only
slightly higher than flows preceding the storm. Because of relatively dry
ground conditions, infiltration was assumed to be negligible. The maximum
inflow is about 215 gallons per hour or 3.6 gallons per minute.
It is apparent from the above information that the sewer system is in
very good condition and that the infiltration and inflow can be considered
negligible since neither amounts to more than that which could be expected
from typical infiltration/inflow sources. The cost to transport and treat
such minimal flows would be more cost-effective than the cost to rehabilitate
the system. Thus, the infiltration/inflow analysis demonstrates that a sewer
evaluation survey would not be cost-effective or environmentally sound and,
thus, is not required.
10
-------
5. FUTURE SITUATION - Forecast of Flow and Waste Loads
The proposed improvements are based on projected 1997 flows and waste
loads which, in turn, are related to projected increases of population.
Students residing outside the community contribute a load to the system also.
Data obtained from school officials regarding present and future enrollments
were used as a basis for evaluating needs for the public school system.
The present school enrollment includes 250 students from outlying areas.
The number of outside students is not expected to increase substantially
in future years. Thus, it was assumed that outside students would increase
by only 20 per cent during the next 20 years resulting in a total of 300
students. For determining design flows and wasteloads, four outside students
were considered to be equivalent to one permanent resident.
Projected population and school enrollment to the year 1997 which will
be used as a basis of design is summarized as follows:
Resident Population 550
Outside Students 300
Total Equivalent Resident Population—625
The following flow and waste loading criteria have been adopted:
Waste Flow-- - 80 Gallons/Person/Day
B.O.D. -0.15 Pounds/Person/Day
Total Suspended Solids 0.20 Pounds/Person/Day
Outside Students 25% of Permanent Residents
The waste flow of 80 gallons per capita per day was determined by
assuming that water consumption and thus waste water flow would gradually
increase at a rate slightly less than 1 percent over 20 years.
The design of wastewater treatment facilities is based on the following:
B.O.D. 94 Pounds/Day
Suspended Solids (625 x 0.20) 125 Pounds/Day
Average Flow (625 x 80) 50,000 Gallons/Day
or 35 Gallons/Minute
Maximum Hourly Flow -—125,000 Gallons/Day
(250% x Average) or 87 Gallons/Minute
11
-------
6. ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Regional Solutions
Because of its geographic location and distance from other communities
in the area, regional solutions to wastewater treatment problems are not
possible.
6.2 Alternative Waste Treatment Systems
The following alternative waste treatment and management techniques
for Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) were considered:
1. treatment (biological or physical-chemical and discharge)
2. treatment and reuse
3. land application
The implications of the "no action" plan were also considered. The
"no action" plan would mean that the presently inoperable treatment plant
would continue to be bypassed with discharge to a confined area near
the plant with resultant violation of permit conditions.
Further, the discharge of untreated sewage results in a serious health
hazard and odor problems. Mosquitos breed in the area and control is
difficult due to the heavy growth of vegetation.
6.3 Evaluation (monetary, environmental, implementation)
Alternative methods included under three categories of wastewater
treatment management techniques for BPWTT were considered as follows:
1. Biological treatment and discharge,
a. Remodel existing plant
b. Stabilization ponds
c. Complete retention in lagoon (zero discharge)
d. Package plant
2. Treatment and reuse, and
3. Land application of effluent by spray irrigation.
Treatment and reuse is not a viable option since no industries exist
and there are no other opportunities, such as watering golf courses or
highway median strips etc., for reuse of non-potable water.
12
-------
Alternative la - Remodel Existing Plant
Complete remodeling of the existing treatment plant to provide secondary
treatment would be required. Major elements of the remodeling program would
include upgrading the single-stage low-rate trickling filter by improving
distribution by recirculation, repairing the existing Imhoff tank, con-
structing a new structure over the Imhoff tank, providing a new lift station,
overhauling or replacing the rotary distributor head, installing a new
recirculation pump, and constructing a final clarifier of adequate size
and in a new location to avoid present flooding problems. A chemical additive
system would be provided to insure meeting secondary treatment requirements.
The cost of chemicals would increase operation and maintenance costs.
Disinfection would be provided by a vacuum-feed chlorinator.
Effluent meeting effluent limiations set by the NPDES permit would be
discharged to an intermittent stream tributary to Turkey Creek. Sludge would
be dried on the existing sludge drying beds and disposed of in sanitary land
fill sites.
Estimated costs for remodeling and additional treatment units are shown
in Table 6.
TABLE 6
Alternative la - Remodel Existing Plant
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
Item
Lift Station
Remodel treatment plant
Effluent pump station
4" Force main (3000 ft.)
Cost,
dollars
$ 25,000
75,000
25,000
15,000
Life,
years
20
25
25
50
Salvage
Value,
dollars
0
15,000
5,000
9,000
Total construction cost $140,000
Salvage value at year 20 29,000
Sites and easements 5,000 5,000
Contingencies and 35,000
engineering
Total Capital Cost $180,000
Annual O&M Costs 5,000
13
-------
Alternative 1b - Three-Cell Stabilization Pond System
Stabilization ponds will provide efficient trouble-free wastewater
treatment when properly designed, constructed, operated and maintained.
Such ponds are usually designed to accommodate 20-25 pounds/BOD /acre/day
loading rate.
Sludge accumulation is not considered a problem in the operation of
stabilization ponds. Wave action disperses any sludge accumulations which
may develop under ice cover. The amount of residual sludge is so small
compared to the volume of the ponds that removal of the accumulations need
not be considered.
Effluent meeting effluent limitations set by the NPDES permit would
be discharged intermittently, in late Spring and late Fall, to an
intermittent stream tributary to Turkey Creek.
The cost estimate for a three-cell stabilization pond system is shown
in Table 7.
TABLE 7
Alternative 1b - Three-Cell Stabilization Pond System
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
Item
Cost,
dollars
Life,
years
Salvage
Value,
dollars
10" Gravity sewer (700 ft.) $ 7,000
Lift station 25,000
4" Force main (2800 ft.) 14,000
Stabilization ponds 44,000
(8.8 acres)
50
20
50
50
$ 4,200
0
8,400
26 ,400
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Contingencies and engineering
$90,000
9,000
25,000
$39,000
9,000
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$124,000
2,500
14
-------
Alternative 1c - Complete Retention In Lagoon (Zero Discharge)
On the basis of a minimum net evaporation loss of 24 inches per year
and an average sewage flow of 50,000 gallons per day, an area of 28 acres
of water surface would be required if seepage losses were neglected.
Assuming some seepage losses, a minimum of 25 acres of lagoon water surface
can be assumed.
The estimated cost for a withholding lagoon is shown in Table' 8.
TABLE 8
Alternative 1c - Complete Retention in Lagoon (Zero Discharge)
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
Item
10" Gravity sewer (700 ft.)
Lift station
4" Force main (3600 ft.)
Lagoon (25 acres)
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Contingencies and engineering
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
Cost, Life,
dollars years
$ 7,000 50
25,000 20
18,000 50
125,000 50
$175,000
40,000
35,000
$250,000
3,000
Salvage
Value,
dollars
$ 4,200
0
10,800
75,000
$ 90,000
40,000
Alternative Id - Package Plant
Several different models of waste treatment package plants are avail-
able from manufacturers. These package plants, using biological treatment
technology, employ either contact stabilization or extended-aeration acti-
vated sludge units.
The package plant could be located on the site proposed for the three-
cell waste stabilization pond system (Ib). This would preclude an effluent
pump station as required in alternative la. Effluent meeting or exceeding
effluent limitations set by the NPDES permit would be discharged to an inter-
mittent stream to Turkey Creek.
15
-------
Proper operation and maintenance is absolutely crucial to the successful
performance of package treatment plants. Virtually all recorded failures of
package plants can be traced to improper operation, to neglect, or to inadequate
maintenance, or to any combination of these. Thus, to insure adequate treat-
ment it will be necessary to have a part-time, State certified operator main-
taining the plant.
The cost estimate for a package plant capable of handling 50,000 gallons
per day utilizing extended aeration with a loading rate of 10 Ibs. BOD/1,000
cu. ft. of aeration tank capacity and a detention time of 24 hours is shown
in Table 9.
TABLE 9
Alternative Id - Waste Treatment Packages Plant
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
Item
10" Gravity sewer (700 ft.)
Lift Station
Package plant
4" Force main (3000 ft.)
Total construction cost
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements
Contingencies and engineering
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
Cost,
dollars
7,000
25,000
85,000
15,000
$132,000
9,000
33 ,000
$174,000
7,500
Life,
years
50
20
20
50
Salvage
Value,
dollars
$ 4,200
0
0
9,000
13,200
9,000
Alternative 3 - Land Application of Effluent
Land application facilities would require holding lagoons with capacity
for storage of 9 months sewage flow. Irrigation can normally be practiced
for a maximum of 90 days per year. Storage in lagoons is proposed with
crop application by spray irrigation with an application rate of 5-inches per
acre per week.
The estimated costs for storage in lagoons and land application are
indicated in Table 10.
16
-------
TABLE 10
Alternative 3 - Land Application of Effluent
Capital Costs and Salvage Values
Item
Cost,
dollars
Life,
years
Salvage
value,
dollars
10" Gravity sewer (700 ft.)
Lift station
4" Force main (3600 ft.)
Storage lagoon (10 acres)
Irrigation pump station
Spray irrigation system
Land for spray irrigation
(15 acres)
$ 7,000
25,000
18,000
75,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
50
20
50
50
20
20
Permanent
$ 4
200
0
10,800
45,000
0
0
15,000
Total construction cost $175,000
Salvage value at year 20
Sites and easements 40,000
Contingencies and engineering 40,000
$ 75,000
40,000
Total Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
$250,000
4,000
7. PLAN SELECTION
7.1 Views of Public and Concerned Interests on Alternatives
No objections have been expressed or received regarding the project
to date. A public hearing regarding the economic and social effects of
the location, design and environmental impact of each alternative was held
at the Brant Town Hall at 8:00 P.M. on November 4, 1974. A record of the
meeting and notice of the public hearing are included as Exhibit 6 in the
appendix.
Letters and comments from the agencies consulted below during the
development of the plan are included as Exhibit 5 in the appendix.
1. South Dakota Department of
Environmental Protection
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
2. State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Education & Cultural Affairs
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
3. Southeastern Council of Governments
208 East 13th Street
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102
17
-------
4. Burnham County Planning Commission
Burnham County Courthouse
Burnham, South Dakota
5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Omaha District Engineer
Omaha, Nebraska 68101
7.2 Trade-off Evaluation and Ranking of Proposals
The alternatives evaluated in detail include (1) remodeling of
existing plant, (2) a 3-cell stabilization pond system, (3) complete
retention in a lagoon, (4) a package plant, and (5) spray irrigation of
effluent. The alternatives were evaluated with respect to direct monetary
costs, environmental impacts, effluent requirements, and operation con-
siderations.
The existing plant would require extensive remodeling and additional
units to meet current effluent requirements. The effluent drainage pro-
blem would also need to be solved either by legally opening the drainage
ditch (closed several years ago by the land owner) or pumping the effluent
3000 feet to the downstream discharge point. Operation and maintenance of
this mechanically operated facility would be costly and present a con-
tinuing problem because of the severe winters experienced.
Complete withholding of wastes in a lagoon or withholding of 9-months
of waste for later irrigation are somewhat similar to the 3-cell stabili-
zation pond system proposal except that, for the former alternatives, more
than twice as much land is required for flow storage. Also, both of the
former methods cost more to construct and operate than the 3-cell stabili-
zation pond system. Thus, they do not compare favorably with the
stabilization pond system.
Installation of a waste treatment package plant would provide adequate
treatment of wastes. Operation and maintenance costs, however, would be
high. Such a plant would require a full-time, State certified operator
to ensure proper operation of the unit to meet water quality effluent
criteria. Energy costs would also be high because the severe winters
would require that the plant be installed in a heated building.
Stabilization ponds provide a method of treatment which requires
significantly less close attention and maintenance than a mechanical plant.
As a result, the quality of treatment has been shown to be better with
stabilization ponds than conventional mechanical plants in the smaller
communities. Effluent discharges from the stabilization ponds will be
controlled and will be made only during selected periods. The ponds
would be drained only when the effluent would meet secondary treatment
requirements and would have limited adverse impacts on stream water quality.
18
-------
Table 11 presents the economic evaluation of the alternatives. The
dollar amounts are rounded off to the nearest 100 dollars.
The environmental effects that are common to each alternative are as
follows:
1. Each alternative would have minor adverse impacts to the water
quality of Turkey Creek.
2. Each alternative would reduce the public health hazards and odor
problems at the existing discharge point.
3. None of the alternatives would have significant primary adverse
impacts on:
a. plant and animal communities,
b. ecosystems,
c. endangered or locally threatened species,
d. unique or vulnerable environmental features,
e. unique archeological, historic, scientific or cultural areas,
parks, wetlands, or stream corridors,
f. community growth patterns and land use trends,
g. air quality, or
h. aesthetics.
4. None of the alternatives will have significant secondary effects.
The environmental effects that differ among the alternatives include:
1. Remodeling of the existing treatment plant or installation of a
package plant would require more fuel and power for continued operation
whereas the storage ponds would require fuel or power input for pumping
operations only;
2. The storage pond alternatives require several acres of land that
will be permanently lost to agriculture; however, the productivity of the
proposed area is presently minimal; and
3. Some terrestrial wildlife habitat would be lost in the proposed
storage pond areas.
Table 12 summarizes the ranking of each alternative.
19
-------
TABLE 11
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1
2
Remodel
Item
Interest Existing
Factor Plant
Waste Complete Retention
Stabilization in Lagoon
Pond System (Zero Discharge)
Land
Package Application
Plant of Effluent
Capital Cost 1.00000 $150,000 $124,000
Interest During3 1.00000 1,100 900
Construction
Salvage Value 0.30454 -10,400 -14,600
Total Present Worth 140,700 110,300
Average Annual 0.08807 $ 12,400 $ 9,700
Equivalent Cost
Annual Operation 5,000 2,500
and Maintenance Cost
4
Annual Net Return
from Sale of Crops
Total Average Annual $17,400 $ 12,200
Equivalent Cost
$250,000
1,900
-39,600
212,300
$ 18,700
3,000
$ 21 ,700
$174,000
1,300
-6,800
168,500
$ 14,800
7,500
$ 23,300
$250,000
1,900
-35,000
216,900
$ 19,100
4,000
-1,500
$ 21,600
1. Reference: Engineering Economy, by E.L. Grant and W.G. Ireson, Ronald Press, New York, 1970
2. Interest (Discount) Rate = 6 and 1/8 percent. Effective 1 July 1975. Published annually in
the Federal Register, 40 CFR 3200, by the U.S. Water Resources Council
3. Reference: 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A(f)(6)
4. Assume Net Return from Sale of Crops @ $50 per Acre.
-------
TABLE 12
Ranking of Final Alternative Proposals
1. Environmental Effects
2. Monetary Costs
3. Implementation
Capacity
4. Contribution to
Objective and Goals
5. Energy and Resources use
6. Reliability
7. Public Acceptability
8. Composite Ranking
7.3 Selected Plan
Rank
la
2
4
3
5
3
3
3
of Alternative Proposals
Tb fcTTd3
2
1
1
3
5
2
4
1
2
2
1
5
2
4
2
3
3
2
5
2
3
1
2
2
On the basis of the cost-effectiveness analysis, effluent requirements,
public involvement, operational considerations, and the probable effects on
the environment, the three-cell waste stabilization pond system (Alternative
Ib) was selected.
7.4 Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan
The proposed treatment facility ponds will be constructed on land which
is primarily used for grazing. Much of the site is unsuitable for crop farm-
ing since it is a low area and cannot be properly cultivated during wet
seasons. As such, the productivity is limited to grazing during suitable
weather conditions. No relocation of people or existing structures will be
required for the project. (See Map, page 23.)
Pollution of groundwater will not result from the proposed installation.
No shallow aquifers exist permanently in the area and the soil is extremely
impervious under proper compaction during construction. The proposed project
will have no effect on the water supply from the wells located in the northeast
part of the town.
No change in the value of adjacent property values is anticipated as
a result of the project. The project is not expected to adversely affect
the recreation potential of the area.
Temporary adverse environmental effects will result during construction.
Noise from construction equipment will exist, particularly during the
grading of the stabilization ponds. Although control measures will be
exercised, blowing dust will occur on windy days. Any debris such as trees,
roots, and fencing will be removed from the site for proper disposal. No
burning will be permitted at the site.
21
-------
Some odors may develop in the stabilization ponds in the spring when
the ice cover melts and the transition from anaerobic to aerobic conditions
takes place. Such odors will be of short duration and result in only a
minor irritant because of the location and remoteness of the site.
The project will improve water quality without creating additional
environmental problems. The proposed site has a low productivity since
most of the land is not farmed and is grazed only periodically. Wildlife
habitat, although disturbed temporarily during construction, will essentially
be unchanged and probably be improved. The potential for long-term
agricultural productivity of the site is minimal.
Additional land is available adjacent to the site for future expansion
of the treatment facilities. The present site should be adequate for a
minimum of 20 years unless growth of the community occurs at a much higher
rate than estimated.
The land for the site of the treatment facilities will be permanently
lost to agricultural production, however, the productivity of the area is
presently minimal. Some terrestrial wildlife habitat may be lost. Because
of the low growth rate of the community, secondary impacts of the project
would not be significant.
Fuels and other forms of energy will be utilized during construction.
Construction materials will be installed on the project and remain per-
manently.
The design of the stabilization ponds will result in an aesthetically
pleasing appearance. The dikes for the oonds will be at a sufficiently flat
slope to prevent erosion. All slopes and the entire developed site will be
seeded to native grass. Maintenance and management of the site, such as not
mowing until after 1 July, can be such that it can be a good habitat for
wildlife.
8. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES
8.1 Description of Design
The proposed facilities consist of a section of gravity interceptor
sewer, lift station, force main and three-cell waste stabilization pond.
The design will permit controlled withdrawals from the pond at optimum
periods of the year. Overflow from the stabilization pond will be to a
watercourse tributary to Turkey Creek. Figure 3 shows a flow diagram and
site plan for the proposed facilities.
22
-------
PROPOSED
TRE.ATME.HT
OF BRAMT, Sourw
\11=400' ~
23
-------
Lift Station
The lift station is designed in accordance with the previous criteria
as follows:
Average Flow—- - - 35 Gallons/Minute
Maximum Flow - 88 Gallons/Minute
The proposed lift station will be equipped with two pumps, each with
a capacity of 100 gallons per minute. The minimum size of force main from
the lift station to the treatment facilities will be 4 inches in diameter.
A minimum flow of approximately 100 gallons per minute is required to main-
tain a velocity in excess of 2 feet per second in the force main and thereby
avoid deposition of solids in the line.
A factory built underground lift station is considered most suitable
and economical for this installation. A standby motor-generator unit
will be furnished for operation of the lift station during power outages.
Design of Stabilization Pond
Design computations and data for the stabilization ponds follow:
Design Criteria.
Design Population Equivalent 625
B.O.D.— - - - - 94 Pounds/Day
Suspended Sol ids - — -125 Pounds/Day
Flow-- - -— - 50,000 Gallons/Day
Waste Stabilization Pond System
The waste stabilization pond system or controlled discharge pond is
designed to receive and retain wastewaters for six months to one year.
At the end of this long-term detention, the contents of the pond are
discharged during an interval of one to three weeks.
Ponds of this type have operated satisfactorily in Northern States
using the following design criteria:
Overall organic loading: 20 - 25 pounds BODr/Acre/Day
Liquid depth: not more than 6 feet for the first cell.
Not more than 8 feet for subsequent cells.
Hydraulic detention: At least 6 months above the 2 foot
liquid level (including precipitation), but not less than
the period of ice cover.
Number of cells: At least 3 for reliability, with piping
flexibility for parallel or series operation.
24
-------
The design of the controlled discharge pond must include an analysis
showing that receiving stream water quality standards will be maintained
during discharge intervals, and that the receiving watercourses can
accommodate the discharge rate from the pond.
Selecting the optimum day and hour for release of the pond contents
is critical to the success of this method. The operation and maintenance
manual must include instructions on how to correlate pond discharge with
effluent and stream quality. The pond contents and stream must be care-
fully examined through appropriate laboratory tests before and during the
release of the pond contents to meet effluent criteria and stream water
quality standards.
The design will permit controlled withdrawals from the pond at optimum
periods of the year to an intermittent stream to Turkey Creek which is
tributary to the Missouri River.
The stabilization pond will be located approximately 2000 feet south-
west of the community. The topography of the suggested location is
reasonably flat; the land is of low productivity; and the site is accessible.
These conditions will substantially reduce the cost of the installation.
The closest residence will be approximately 700 feet from the water edge.
Experience with operation of stabilization ponds under similar conditions
indicates that no problems would be expected, particularly in view of the
distance to the nearest dwelling place.
Acquisition of sufficient land for construction of the ponds will be
required. The proposed site is in a low area and groundwater has been
noted,at a depth of two feet during an extremely wet seasons. The ground
water level fluctuates with the season and moisture conditions; therefore,
the bottom excavation will be limited to not more than one foot. There are
several borrow sights within one mile of the proposed location to obtain
fill materials to construct the lagoon dikes. Approximately 17 acres of
land will be needed for the construction.
The treatment works' structures and electrical and mechanical equip-
ment will be protected from physical damage by the maximum expected one
hundred (100) year flood. The treatment works will remain fully operational
during the twenty-five (25) year flood.
The stabilization ponds will be designed and constructed to prevent
excessive seepage or subsurface percolation. Because of the impervious
soil conditions, groundwater aquifers will not be affected. A laboratory
analysis of the soil in the area proposed for the stabilization ponds
indicated the following:
Type of Soil Clay (CH)
Maximum Dry Density - 85.0 Pounds/Cubic Foot
Optimum Moisture 31.0 Percent
Coefficient of Permeability g
(90% Proctor) 6 x 10 cm/sec.
25
-------
The coefficient of permeability is well below the normally allowable
value of 3.7 x 10"6 cm/sec. Construction of the stabilization ponds should
present no special problems.
8.2 Summary of Cost Estimates
The project development cost estimates for the 3-cell stabilization
pond system are summarized in Table 12.
The Town of Brant would be responsbile for its share of the Total
Project Eligible Cost, i.e., $115,200 x 20% = $23,000 (assuming a Federal
Grant of 75% and a State Grant of 5% for eligible costs) plus the $9,000
cost for the sites and easements. Thus, the Town's financial obligation
would be $32,000.
The estimated annual costs for operation and maintenance of the
wastewater system are itemized as follows:
Salaries & Labor - $2,000.00 Per Year
Power 200.00 Per Year
Materials & Supplies 300.00 Per Year
Total Estimated Cost - - $2,500.00 Per Year
9. ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
9.1 Institutional Responsibilities
The Town of Brant, South Dakota, which operates the existing sewerage
system, has the legal authority and financial capability to construct and
operate the proposed facility. A copy of the resolution of intent of the
Town Council to construct and operate the proposed facilities is attached
as Exhibit 7.
9.2 Implementation Steps
The recommended implementation and construction schedule follows:
1. Submit Facility Planning Report to the State by 1 July 1975.
2. Receive authorization for engineering design of proposed
facilities by 1 October 1975.
3. Submit completed engineering plans and specifications to the
State along with applications for all necessary permits for
construction to appropriate agencies by 1 December 1975.
4. Sell bonds to finance project by 1 February 1976.
5. Obtain State, Federal, and other agency approval for construction
by 1 February 1976.
6. Advertise for construction bids, receive bids, award contract,
and commence construction by 1 April 1976.
26
-------
TABLE 12
Three-Cell Waste
Stabilization Pond System
Construction Cost Estimates
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Item
10" V.C.P.
Standard Manhole
Lift Station
Standby Motor-Generator
Portable Blower
4" PVC Force Main
Air Relief Manhole
Railroad Crossing
Unclassified Excavation
Inlet Apron
Dike Transfer Pipe & Valve
Outlet Control Structure
Fencing & Gates
Seeding
Soil Sterilant
Gravel Surfacing
Identification Signs
Project Sign
Unit Quantity
L.F. 600
Each 2
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.F. 1,600
L.S.
L.S.
C.Y. 33,000
L.S.
Each 2
L.S.
L.F. 3,600
Acre 10.0
Acre 10.0
S.Y. 6,000
Each 4
L.S.
Construction Cost
Contingency @ 10%
Engineering @ 15%
Legal & Fiscal @
Administrative
Total Project Eligible
Sites & Easements
Total Project Cost
Unit Price
$ 8.00
800.00
-
-
-
5.00
-
-
0.70
-
2,000.00
-
1.50
250.00
125.00
0.80
50.00
"
Cost
Amount
$ 4,800.00
1,600.00
24,000.00
3,500.00
500.00
8,000.00
800.00
2,500.00
23,100.00
100.00
4,000.00
2,500.00
5,400.00
2,500.00
1,250.00
4,800.00
200.00
150.00
$89,700.00
9,000.00
14,000.00
2,000.00
500.00
$115,200.00
9,000.00
$124,200.00
27
-------
7. Complete construction of all proposed facilities by 1 July 1976.
9.3 Schedule for Preparation of Construction Drawings and for
Construction.
The schedule for preparation of construction drawings and specifications
and for construction follows:
1. Receive authorization for engineering design and specification by
1 October 1975.
2. Complete site survey and soil tests by 7 October 1975.
3. Complete design, construction drawings and specifications by
15 November 1975.
4. Produce required number of copies of drawings and specifications
by 20 November 1975.
5. Meet informally with the South Dakota Department of Environmental
Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
discuss proposed design and specifications by 25 November 1975.
6. Make any recommended changes to design and specifications and
submit completed engineering plans and specification to the State
by 1 December 1975.
9.4 Operation and Maintenance
A plan of operation and maintenance will be prepared providing for
staffing, management, training, sampling and analysis for effective operation
and maintenance of the facility. A State certified operator would be' required
on a part-time basis especially during the discharge intervals to operate and
maintain the facility.
The plan of operation and maintenance will be prepared concurrently
with the preparation of the engineering drawing and specifications and
submitted with those plans and specifications no later than 1 December 1975.
9.5 Financial Requirements
The present flat rate sewer charge is $2.00 per month per service for
each of the 225 service connections. The estimated annual financing costs
to be borne by the town have been calculated for two options on a general
obligation bond issue for 20 and 15 year repayment schedules at an interest
rate of 6 per cent. The general obligation bonds may be repaid from revenues
derived from the user charge system.
28
-------
1. Bond Issue - $32,000.00 - 6% - 20 Years
Principal & Interest $2,790.00
Operation & Maintenance 2,500.00
Average Annual Cost $5,290.00
Cost Per Service - $ 1.96 Per Month
2. Bond Issue - $32,000.00 - 6% - 15 Years
Principal & Interest $3,295.00
Operation & Maintenance- 2,500.00
Average Annual Cost --$5,795.00
Cost Per Service (225 Services) $ 2.15 Per Month
A user charge system for operation and maintenance of the publicly
owned waste treatment system will be developed based upon Model No. 1 described
in the Title II Construction Grants Regulations and will be submitted along
with the plan of operation and maintenance. Final project costs will determine
the amount of bonds to be issued.
10. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
10.1 Existing environmental conditions
The South Dakota Department of Environmental Protection has advised
the Town of Brant that adequate wastewater treatment facilities must be
provided to abate public health hazards and prevent pollution of the
downstream watercourse. To date, no formal action has been taken for
enforcement.
10.2 Future Environment Without the Project
Section 6.2 of this report describes the future environment without
the project or the "no action" plan.
10.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
The alternatives considered included (1) remodeling the existing
treatment plant, (2) constructing a 3-cell waste stabilization lagoon,
(3) constructing a lagoon of sufficient capacity to completely store all
wastewater with no discharge, (4) a package plant, and (5) building lagoons
with storage capacity for 9-months of flow with land application during the
3-month growing season.
Section 7.2 of this report describes in detail the evaluation of
alternatives with respect to effluent requirements, environmental effects,
operational considerations and cost-effectiveness.
On the basis of environmental effects, monetary costs, effluent
requirements, operational considerations, and the probable effects on the
environment, the proposed method of treatment is by a stabilization pond
system.
29
-------
10.4 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan
The effluent from the new waste treatment facilities will meet or
exceed current water quality effluent standards.
Section 7.4 of this report describes in detail the environmental
effects of the selected plan.
30
-------
Exhibit 1
A-95
(Include a "Letter of Clearance" on Project Review in Conformance with
OMB Circular No. A-95 from the Appropriate State Intergovernmental Clear-
inghouse.)
Exhibit 2
Civil Rights Compliance
(Include a Statement or EPA Form No. 4700-1 (4-72) assuring compliance
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
Exhibit 4
Copy of NPDES Permit
(Include copy of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Permit.)
31
-------
MAP OF
BRANT
SOUTH DAKOTA
Exhibit 3
-------
Exhibit 5
Correspondence from Agencies
If applicable, several sources of information including Regional,
State and Federal agencies with responsibility or interest in the Facility
Plan should be consulted. Correspondence from these sources, listed below,
should be included in the Facility Plan.
SOURCES
1. Local and Regional Planning Agencies
2. State Historic Preservation Officer
3. The HUD Regional Office
4. The State Coastal Zone Management
Agency
5. The Secretary of Interior or
Secretary of Agriculture
6. The Secretary of Interior or
Secretary of Commerce
7. The Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI),
The Department of Commerce, or the
U.S. Corps of Engineers
SUBJECT
Land use trends, population
projections, planning acti-
vities funded under HUD 701
Grants, water quality, air
quality, unique or vulnerable
environmental features
Unique archeologic, historic,
scientific or cultural Areas
Flood Pisk area identified
under the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973
Coastal zones
Wild & Scenic Rivers
Threatened or endangered
species
Wetlands, flood plains
other environmentally sensitive
areas
33
-------
Exhibit 6
Notice of Hearing
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held at the
Town Hall in the Town of Brant, South Dakota, at 8:00 p.m. on November 4,
1974 to afford the opportunity for individuals to be heard on the econo-
mic and social effects of the location, design and environmental impact
of wastewater treatment facilities for the Town of Brant, South Dakota.
Maps, drawings, environmental statements and other pertinent data
will be available upon request for public inspection and copying from
the Town Clerk, Town of Brant, South Dakota.
All persons interested in the design, location and construction of
the wastewater treatment facilities are invited to appear and express
their views. Written statements may be submitted prior to or at the time
of the hearing.
Barbara M. Townsend, Town Clerk
Affidavit of Publication
State of South Dakota
County of Burnham, ss:
Allen Bates, of said county being duly sworn, on oath says that he
is the publisher of The Three County News, a weekly newspaper printed
and published in Brant, said County of Burnham, and has full and personal
knowledge of all the facts herein stated; that said newspaper is a legal
newspaper and has a bona-fide circulation of at least two hundred copies
weekly, and has been published within said County for fifty-two successive
weeks next prior to the publication of the notice herein mentioned, and
was and is printed wholly or in part in an office maintained at said place
of publication; that the notice and advertisement head NOTICE OF HEARING,
a copy of which, taken from the paper in which the same was published, is
reproduced above, and is made a part of this Affidavit, was published in
said newspaper at least once in each week for 2 successive weeks, on the
day of each week on which said newspaper was regularly published, to wit:
Thursday, the 3rd day of October, 1974 and Thursday, the 10th day of
October, 1974, that the full amount of the fees for the publication of
the annexed notice is $7.77.
Allen Bates, Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before this 5th day of November, 1974.
Kevin Hardy, Notary Public
34
-------
Exhibit 6
Record of Public Hearing - Environmental Assessment
Wastewater Treatment Facilities - Town of Brant, South Dakota
In accordance with the Notice of Hearing published October 3 and
October 10, 1974, into the Three County News, the Hearing for Wastewater
Treatment Facilities was called to order by Michael J. Brant, Chairman
of the Town Council of the Town of Brant, South Dakota, at the Town Hall
at 8:00 p.m., on November 4, 1974. Persons present were as follows:
Michael J. Brant, Chairman, Town Council
Thomas B. Jones, Member, Town Council
Robert W. Smith, Member, Town Council
Barbara M. Townsend, Town Clerk
John H. Hill, Treasurer
Peter C. Cook, Utilities Superintendent
Ralph Schneider, Police Chief
Mrs. Leslie Sterling, Land Owner
Mr. Brant stated that no written statements had been received prior
to the hearing, and requested either written or oral statements from
those present. None were received.
Mrs. Leslie Sterling was present as a representative of the family who
owns the land on which the proposed waste treatment facilities are to be
constructed. The proposed facilities were discussed, and Mrs. Sterling
advised the Board that the site was available pending a survey and final
details of transfer.
The hearing was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Barbara M. Townsend, Town Clerk Michael J. Brant, Chairman
Town Council
35
-------
Exhibit 7
Resolution of Intent
Resolution indicating that the Brant Town Government, having the
necessary legal, financial, institutional, and managerial resources,
intends to construct, operate, and maintain certain proposed treatment
works if such works are approved and funded by the State and Federal
Governments.
WHEREAS, the Town of Brant possesses the necessary legal, financial,
institutional, and managerial resources to construct, operate and main-
tain sewage treatment works and related facilities; and
WHEREAS, the existing collection, treatment and disposal facilities
do not meet current State and Federal requirements; and
WHEREAS, the recently completed facility planning report, prepared
in accordance with the Final Construction Grant Regulations, 40 CFR,
Part 35, Subpart E, dated February 11, 1974, recommends certain improve-
ments to the Town's collection, treatment and disposal facilities will
satisfy State and Federal requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town hereby indicates its
concurrence with the proposed recommended facilities in the referenced
planning report and the Town's intent to construct, operate, and main-
tain such proposed facilities in accordance with State and Federal
requirements, if said facilities are approved and funded by the State
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Dated this 4th day June 1975.
Michael J. Brant, Chairman Robert W. Smith, Member
Town Council Town Council
Thomas B. Jones, Member Barbara M. Townsend,
Town Council Town Clerk
36
-------
|