Amendment to the Preliminary Engineering Report

for Lebanon Wastewater Treatment Plant

Improvements

prepared for

Lebanon Utilities City of Lebanon, Indiana

January 2025

Revised February 2025

‌TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents i

List of Tables v

List of Appendices vi

List of Attachments viii

Executive Summary 1

Summary of Project Need 1

Summary of Project Scope 2

Opinion of Probable Cost 5

1. Current Conditions 6

2. Collection System 6

3. Unserved Areas 6

4. Wastewater Treatment 6

   1. WWTP Facility 6

   2. WWTP Hydraulic Capacity Analysis 6

   3. WWTP Influent Mass Loading Analysis 7

   4. WWTP Influent Flow Breakdown 7

   5. Treated Effluent Discharge 8

5. NPDES Permit 8

6. Plant Facilities and Processes 9

7. Current Population 10

8. Current Significant Dischargers 10

9. Right of Way and Easements 10

1. Utility Needs 11

2. Service Area 11

3. Population Projection 11

4. Influent Flow and Wasteload Projections 11

5. WWTP Effluent Discharge 12

6. Proposed WWTP Effluent Limits 15

   1. Prairie Creek (Outfall 001) 15

   2. Eagle Creek (Outfall 002) 15

1. Evaluation of Alternatives 17

2. WWTP Alternative 1: No Action and/or Optimization of Current Facilities . 17

3. WWTP Alternative 2: Regionalization 17

4. WWTP Alternative No. 3: Phased Approach for Expansion 18

   1. Advantages 20

   2. Disadvantages 21

   3. Opinion of Probable Cost 22

5. Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 1: Discharge all to Prairie Creek (Sugar Creek Watershed) 22

6. Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 2: Discharge to both Prairie Creek and POL5 – Eagle Creek at SR 32/US 421 22

7. Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3: Discharge to both Prairie Creek and POL7 – Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir 22

   1. Alternative 3a Effluent Lift Station with Forcemain the Entire Way 23

   2. Alternative 3b Combination of Forcemain and Gravity Main 24

   3. Alternative 3c Effluent Lift Station with Forcemain the Entire Way and an Intermediate Lift Station 24

1. Proposed Project 26

2. Recommended Project 26

   1. WWTP 26

      Headworks Improvements 26

      Grit Removal Improvements 26

      Anaerobic Basin Improvements 27

      Biological Treatment Process 27

      Secondary Clarifiers 27

      Tertiary Filtration 27

      UV Disinfection 27

      Solids Handling 28

      Electrical Improvements 28

      Miscellaneous Improvements 28

      Demolition Work 28

   2. Effluent Lift Station and Forcemain 28

3. Project Costs 29

4. Property 29

5. Project Schedule 30

1. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 31

2. Disturbed and Undisturbed Land 31

   1. Land Disturbance 31

   2. Archaeological Survey 32

3. Historic and Architectural Properties 32

4. Wetlands 33

5. Surface Waters 34

6. Groundwater 34

7. Floodplains and Floodways 34

8. Plants and Animals 35

9. Farmland 35

10. Air Quality 36

11. Open Space and Recreational Opportunities 36

12. Lake Michigan Coastal Program 36

13. National Natural Landmarks 36

14. Mitigation Measures 37

15. Induced/Secondary Impacts 37

1. Public Participation and Legal, Financial, and Managerial Capability 38

2. Public Participation 38

   1. Public Hearing 38

   2. Availability to the Public 38

   3. Public Comments 38

   4. Mailing Labels 38

3. Legal, Financial, and Managerial Capability 38

   1. Resolutions 38

   2. SRF Project and Financing Information 38

   3. Inter-local Government Agreement 38

   4. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) 38

   5. Utility Regional Planning Meetings 39

   6. Asset Management Plan and Fiscal Sustainability Plan 39

‌LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Current Facility Loadings Table 1-2 Current Design Loadings Table 1-3 Current NPDES Permit Limits

Table 2-1 Historical Census Population Data Table 2-2 20-year Needs Versus Existing Capacity Table 2-3 Summary of Potential Outfall Locations

Table 2-4 Preliminary Effluent Limitations (Outfall 001) Table 2-5 Preliminary Effluent Limitations (Outfall 002) Table 3-1 Net Present Worth – Digestion

Table 3-2 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Probable Cost Summary

Table 3-3 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3a Probable Cost Summary Table 3-4 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3c Probable Cost Summary Table 4-1 Proposed Project Schedule

‌LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Figure A-1 Existing WWTP Site Plan

Figure A-2 Existing and Proposed 20-year Service Area Map Figure A-3 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 1 Expansion Site Plan Figure A-4 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 2 Expansion Site Plan Figure A-5 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 3 Expansion Site Plan Figure A-6 Alternative 3a Effluent Discharge Plan

Figure A-7 Alternative 3c Effluent Discharge Plan Figure A-8 WWTP USGS Topographic Map

Figure A-9 Chicago Street Office/Garage USGS Topographic Map Figure A-10 Effluent Forcemain USGS Topographic Map

Figure A-11 WWTP Historic Sites and Structures Map

Figure A-12 Effluent Forcemain Historic Sites and Structures Map

Figure A-13 Chicago Street Office/Garage Historic Sites and Structures Map Figure A-14 WWTP Wetlands Map

Figure A-15 Effluent Forcemain Wetlands Map

Figure A-16 Chicago Street Office/Garage Wetlands Map Figure A-17 WWTP Surface Waters Map

Figure A-18 Effluent Forcemain Surface Waters Map

Figure A-19 Chicago Street Office/Garage Surface Waters Map Figure A-20 WWTP Floodplain Map

Figure A-21 Effluent Forcemain Floodplain Map

Figure A-22 Chicago Street Office/Garage Floodplain Map

Appendix B Cost Opinion Tables

Table B-1 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 1 Expansion – Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-2 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 2 Expansion – Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-3 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 3 Expansion – Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-4 WWTP Opinion of Net Present Worth

Table B-5 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3a - Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-6 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3a – Opinion of Net Present Worth Table B-7 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3c - Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-8 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3c – Opinion of Net Present Worth

Appendix C 2025 NPDES Permit

Appendix D IDEM Preliminary Effluent Limitations Letter PEL Letter Outfall 001

PEL Letter Outfall 002

Appendix E USFWS IPaC Verification Letter and Species List

Appendix F NRCS Farmland Conversion Correspondence

Appendix G Public Participation Documents Publisher’s Affidavit of Public Hearing Notice Public Hearing Meeting Minutes

Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet Public Hearing Q&A

Appendix H Legal, Managerial, and Financial Forms Signatory Authorization Resolution

PER Acceptance Resolution

SRF Project Financing Information Form Cost & Effectiveness Certification Form

Asset Management Program Certification Form

‌LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A

Attachment B

Cost Opinion Reference – Chicago Street Office/Garage

Cost Opinion Reference – WWTP Lab and Office Renovations Attachment C

IPaC Additional Correspondence Attachment D

Outfall 002 Location Map Attachment E

NRCS Additional Correspondence Attachment F

SRF Comments and Responses

‌EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared for the City of Lebanon Utilities (Lebanon Utilities), a municipally owned family of utilities providing service to the City of Lebanon and the Town of Ulen. Both Lebanon and Ulen are located in Boone County, at the intersection of State Roads IN-32 and IN-39, approximately 29 miles northwest of downtown Indianapolis, Indiana, with the Town of Ulen surrounded by the City of Lebanon.

‌Summary of Project Need

Lebanon Utilities currently operates a wastewater collection system and an extended aeration activated sludge facility, known as the Lebanon wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The WWTP consists of a headworks structure with four (4) raw sewage pumps, a vortex grit removal structure, an anaerobic basin, four (4) parallel oxidation ditches, three (3) final clarifiers, and a UV disinfection structure. Additionally, there is a digester control building and three (3) aerobic digesters for sludge treatment. Dewatering occurs via a centrifuge and the biosolids produced are disposed of through either land application or landfill. Biosolids are removed from the facility by a contract hauler and disposed of under the contract haulers land application permit. The WWTP has undergone previous expansions in response to growth in the community. The latest expansion was completed in 2020 that increased the WWTP capacity to 5 million gallons per day (MGD). Based on the last three years of MRO data, it has approximately 2.28 MGD available capacity. The plant is rated for a peak flow capacity of 15 MGD. However, due to the acceleration of industrial development in and around the City, the remaining available capacity is being utilized, and additional domestic, commercial and industrial developments continue to emerge. Specifically, the Limitless Exploration/Advanced Pace (LEAP) District is moving forward and will encompass over 9,000 acres of land to the northwest of the existing Lebanon city limits. LEAP is predominantly an advanced manufacturing and/or R&D development.

In conjunction with a recently established Water Supply and Interlocal Corporation Agreement (WSICA), Lebanon Utilities and Citizens Water (Citizens) are collaborating on a project that outlines a phased approach for Citizens to deliver peak water volumes, including up to 25 million gallons per day (MGD), from the Upper White River Watershed to the LEAP District beginning year 2027. Consequently, any generated wastewater from LEAP will be sent to the Lebanon WWTP. As a result, the existing Lebanon WWTP will require expansion to accommodate this future growth. Additionally, the agreement also requires maintaining a water balance within the Sugar Creek Watershed (Lebanon area) and the Upper White River Watershed (Indianapolis area). Thus, in order to maintain the water balance within each of the two watersheds, the water transferred from the Upper White River Watershed to the LEAP District and eventually to the Lebanon WWTP, will need to be returned to the Upper White River Watershed. To accomplish this, a new effluent pump station and force main will need to be constructed to convey up to an average daily flow of 15 MGD and a peak flow of

25 MGD of treated effluent from the Lebanon WWTP back to the Upper White River Watershed.

‌Summary of Project Scope

Lebanon WWTP expansion alternatives evaluated in this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) include no action or optimization of current facilities, regionalization, and a phased approach to expansion. The first alternative, no action or optimization of current facilities, is deemed not feasible because the existing facility cannot provide the required additional capacity needed to meet growth in the community. The second alternative, regionalization, has also been determined as not feasible due to the existing facility already providing regional treatment to the Town of Ulen. Additionally, no nearby treatment facilities were found to have the capacity to handle the projected flows from the Lebanon WWTP. The third and final alternative includes a phased approach to expansion of the existing facility, to accommodate the anticipated increased flows. Thus, Alternative No. 3 has been determined to be the best option and is recommended for implementation.

The selected alternative involves a 3-phase approach with various facility upgrades. Phase 1 would increase the design average daily flow rate from 5 MGD to 10 MGD and the peak flow from 15 MGD to 24.5 MGD. Phase 2 would further increase the design average daily flow to 15 MGD with the final phase or Phase 3 increasing it to 20 MGD. Initially, only Phase 1 will take place which would majorly include:

1. Modification of the existing Fine Screen to 25 MGD capacity

2. Addition of a second, new 25 MGD capacity Fine Screen

3. Addition of a second Screenings Washer/Compactor

4. Replacement of existing Raw Sewage Pumps 1 - 4, 17,400 gpm firm capacity

5. New 2nd Vortex Grit removal unit, with 2nd Classifier

6. Mixer improvements in the Anaerobic Tank

7. New Vertical Loop Reactor (VLR No. 1) aeration basin

8. New Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) split structure

9. Mechanisms of existing Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 repaired/repainted

10. New Clarifier No. 4 (110-foot diameter)

11. Replacement of existing RAS pumps 1, 2, 3, 4

12. New RAS/WAS pump station, 4,000 gpm firm capacity

13. New Tertiary Filtration – 30 MGD capacity

14. Equipment added to the second UV Disinfection channel – 30 MGD capacity

15. Conversion of Aerobic Digester No. 2 into a WAS holding tank

16. Addition of two new 60’ diameter Anaerobic Digesters

17. New Digester Control Building

18. New Sludge Thickening and Dewatering Building

19. New non-potable water system

20. Renovation of existing utility offices for laboratory/additional office space

21. New Chicago Street office/garage space

22. New Electrical Building

23. New Emergency Generator

24. Demolition of:

    1. Sludge Storage Tanks

    2. Laboratory/Filter Building

    3. Maintenance Shop

    4. Aerobic Digesters (No. 1 and 3)

    5. Chlorine contact tank

The proposed site plan for the Phase 1 improvements is shown in Appendix A, Figure A-3.

As the WWTP expands, it will continue to discharge to Prairie Creek via Outfall 001. However, a portion of the effluent will be diverted to the Upper White River Watershed by discharging to Eagle Creek via a new Outfall 002 to maintain balance within the two watersheds and comply with the WISCA agreement. Therefore, as part of this PER report, three alternatives for the effluent discharge were evaluated.

1. Discharge all treated effluent to Prairie Creek (i.e. Sugar Creek Watershed): This alternative is deemed not feasible because Prairie Creek is a small creek. Evaluation of the USGS stream gage data over a 36-year monitoring period revealed the overall mean flow carried by this stream at this discharge location is approx. 43 cfs with a median daily mean flow of 18 cfs. Therefore, an additional discharge of up to 25 MGD (~ 39 cfs) would increase the mean and median flow carried by the stream by as much as 91% and 217%, respectively, causing a significant negative environmental impact on the stream hydrology. There is also a risk of flooding because of generally low flows in this creek. Additionally, this option does not comply with the WISCA agreement, which requires maintaining a water balance within both the Sugar Creek and the Upper White River watersheds.

2. Discharge to both Prairie Creek and to Eagle Creek at SR32/US 421 (POL5): This alternative considers directing effluent to both the Sugar Creek watershed (via Prairie Creek) and the Upper White River watershed (via POL5 - Eagle Creek at SR32/US 421), to maintain a better water balance. However, due to environmental sensitivity at the POL5 discharge location, this alternative is deemed not feasible.

3. Discharge to both Prairie Creek and to Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir (POL7): This alternative considers directing effluent to both the Sugar Creek watershed (via Prairie Creek) and the Upper White River watershed (via Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir), to maintain a better water balance. This alternative has

three sub-alternatives because there are multiple design options when considering how to transport the additional effluent flow to Eagle Creek Reservoir. These sub-alternatives are listed below:

3a. Installation of a new effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a forcemain extending (~16 miles) to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge location.

3b. Installation of a new 5 pump effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a forcemain to an intermediate wet well located approximately 7 miles from the WWTP. Further, a gravity main from the wet well to an intermediate lift station located approximately

6.5 miles from the intermediate wet well, and finally another forcemain from the intermediate lift station to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge location for the remaining ~2.5 miles. Alternative 3b is deemed not feasible due to excessive flow velocity (> 5 fps) in the proposed gravity main. Attempts to reduce velocity by adjusting pipe size and slope resulted in excessive intermediate lift station depth. The use of drop manholes was also considered but ruled out due to concerns about structural integrity of the manholes under high flow conditions.

3c. Installation of a new effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a forcemain to an intermediate lift station located approximately 9.4 miles from the WWTP, followed by another forcemain from the intermediate lift station to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge location for the remaining distance (~6.6 miles).

Effluent discharge Alternative No. 3a is selected as the preferred solution, as it is compliant with the WISCA agreement and because the selected Outfall 002 location (POL7) has sufficient capacity to handle additional flows. Additionally, Alternative 3a required the lowest overall pump horsepower amongst all feasible alternatives, resulting in reduced energy costs and overall project costs. Selected Alternative No. 3a will majorly involve:

1. Existing UV - Extension Structure

2. 30-in DI Gravity Sewer

3. New Effluent Pump Station and Valve Vault

4. Effluent Pumps (140 hp)

5. Effluent Pump VFDs

6. New Effluent 48'' Flow Meter and Meter Vault

7. 48-in DI Forcemain

8. 48'' Steel Casing (Jack and Bore)

9. Air Release Valve and Structure

10. New UV Re-Disinfection Structure

11. New UV Re-Disinfection Equipment

12. Power to New UV System and Electrical

13. New Cascade Aeration System

14. Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control

The proposed forcemain route demonstrating the selected effluent discharge improvements is shown in Appendix A, Figure A-6.

‌Opinion of Probable Cost

The opinion of probable cost for the proposed WWTP expansion project, including all three phases of WWTP expansion is $214,900,000. For the initial Phase 1 specifically, the opinion of probable cost is $92,900,000. A detailed breakdown of Phase 1 expansion construction and non-construction costs is included in Appendix B, Table B-1.

The opinion of probable cost for the proposed new effluent pump station and forcemain project is $103,000,000. A detailed breakdown of construction and non-construction costs is included in Appendix B, Table B-5.

1. ‌CURRENT CONDITIONS

   
   

2. ‌Collection System

   Lebanon Utilities has approximately 502,000 feet of collection system piping ranging in size from 8-inch to 48-inch piping. In addition, there are 19 lift stations throughout the collection system. Lebanon Utilities operates a separate sanitary sewer system.

   Currently, there are no capacity concerns with the existing collection system, but in the future as development is added, the system capacity will need to be reviewed and increased accordingly.

   Refer to Attachment A - Amendment to the Preliminary Engineering Report for Lebanon Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements (Collection System Improvements) prepared by BF&S (December 19, 2024) for a more detailed discussion on collection system and required improvements.

3. ‌Unserved Areas

   Incoming development will be outside of existing city limits expanding the area that is currently being served by Lebanon Utilities. The Limitless Exploration/Advanced Pace (LEAP) District is located in the northwest of the Lebanon Utilities service area. LEAP is predominantly an advanced manufacturing development. Additionally, a significant residential development is planned in the southern portion of the Lebanon Utilities service area.

4. ‌Wastewater Treatment

   
   

   1. ‌WWTP Facility

      The existing WWTP is a 5 MGD extended aeration activated sludge facility, located at 802 Lafayette Ave, Lebanon, IN 46052. It consists of a headworks structure with four (4) pumps, a vortex grit removal structure, an anaerobic basin, four (4) parallel oxidation ditches, three

      (3) final clarifiers, and a UV disinfection structure. Additionally, there is a digester control building and three (3) aerobic digesters for sludge treatment. Dewatering occurs via a centrifuge and the biosolids produced are disposed of through either land application or landfill. Biosolids are removed from the facility by a contract hauler and disposed of under the contract haulers land application permit. A figure showing the existing WWTP site plan is included in Appendix A, Figure A-1.

      The WWTP was originally constructed in the 1950s, with major plant improvements and expansion projects occurring in 1998, 2005, and 2018.

   2. ‌WWTP Hydraulic Capacity Analysis

      For the Lebanon WWTP, the facility’s current design average flow is 5.0 MGD. Evaluation of the Monthly Reports of Operation (MRO’s) from April 2021 to March 2024 revealed that the

      WWTP is operating at approximately 54% of its design hydraulic capacity. The average daily flow during that period of time was 2.72 MGD, with a maximum day of 12.7 MGD.

   3. ‌WWTP Influent Mass Loading Analysis

      The current facility influent loadings (at 2.72 MGD current average flow) and design loadings (at 5 MGD design flow) are listed in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 below, respectively. Current facility loadings are pulled from Lebanon’s monthly MRO data and the current design loadings were determined during design of the 2018 WWTP expansion.

      Table 1- 1 Current Facility Loadings

      Influent Parameter	Concentration	Mass
      CBOD5	154 mg/l	3,094 lbs/day
      TSS	156 mg/l	3,200 lbs/day
      NH3N	19 mg/l	367 lbs/day
      TP	5 mg/l	102 lbs/day

      
      

      Table 1-2 Current Design Loadings

      Influent Parameter	Concentration	Mass
      cBOD5	156 mg/l	6,505 lbs/day
      TSS	146 mg/l	6,088 lbs/day
      NH3N	24 mg/l	1,001 lbs/day
      TP	6 mg/l	250 lbs/day

      
      

      Under current conditions, the WWTP is operating at the following capacities for each parameter listed: cBOD5 at 48%, TSS at 53%, NH3N (ammonia) at 37%, and Total Phosphorous (TP) at 41%.

   4. ‌WWTP Influent Flow Breakdown

      Influent flow to the Lebanon WWTP consists of residential, commercial, industrial, and infiltration/inflow (I&I). Of the existing 5 MGD average capacity, 3.18 MGD is allotted for residential flows and 1.82 MGD for industrial/commercial sources. Additionally, the estimated I&I considers influent flow on wet versus dry days to determine how much extra

      flow is coming to the plant due to rain. For this analysis, a wet day is considered any day that it rained and the two days after. The three-year average of wet weather I&I is 0.6 MGD. The peak flows for the wet and dry weather days of the previous three years were 12.7 MGD and

      4.9 MGD, respectively.

   5. ‌Treated Effluent Discharge

      Treated effluent is currently discharged to Prairie Creek (via Outfall 001) within the Sugar Creek Watershed.

5. ‌NPDES Permit

   The city currently holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. IN0020818 (included in Appendix C) that went into effect April 1, 2025 and expires on

March 31, 2030. Table 1-3 below summarizes the current effluent limits.

Table 1-3 Current NPDES Permit Limits

Refer to the complete NPDES Permit in Appendix C for description of annotations.

1. ‌Plant Facilities and Processes

   The condition of the existing WWTP is very good. Having been expanded in 2018, the facility had many aging elements updated. The exception to this are secondary clarifiers No. 1 and 2 and the return activated sludge pumps No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The facility has abandoned infrastructure in the form of primary clarifiers/sludge storage (removed from service in 2018) and tertiary filters (removed from service in 2018). The remaining equipment at the facility is within its useful life. Overall, the facility is well maintained and clean.

   Influent wastewater from the service area flows to the headworks structure comprised of an influent screen rated at 22.5 MGD with 0.25-inch bar spacing, and four (4) 2,600 gpm raw sewage pumps. There are two 20-inch magnetic flow meters serving the raw sewage forcemains. Flow is then sent to a vortex grit removal system rated at 20 MGD.

   Additionally, in 2018, a new anaerobic basin with three treatment cells/tanks totaling 0.465 million gallons of anaerobic capacity, was added. Each of the three anaerobic tanks contains a propeller mixer.

   There are four existing oxidation ditches on the premise with dimensions as follows:

   • Oxidation ditch 1 volume: 446,200 gallons, 2 rotors at 40 hp each

   • Oxidation ditch 2 volume: 446,200 gallons, 2 rotors at 40 hp each

   • Oxidation ditch 3 volume: 725,000 gallons, 4 rotors at 75 hp each

   • Oxidation ditch 4 volume: 725,000 gallons, 4 rotors at 75 hp each

   The flows from each oxidation ditch are combined into a combination box built in the 2018 expansion. From there, the flow is split up into the three circular, center feed secondary clarifiers. Two have a 75 ft diameter and 522,467-gallon capacity per tank. The third was newly installed in the 2018 project and has a 90 ft diameter. Before being discharged to Prairie Creek, the wastewater goes through the disinfection structure which utilizes ultra-violet light irradiation, and serpentine weir level control. The channel is 31 ft long, 4 ft wide, and holds a volume of 3,358 gallons. The capacity of the existing UV system is rated at 15 MGD. The final effluent is discharged to the nearby Prairie Creek.

   The WWTP has three aerobic digesters, each with a tank volume of 308,024 gallons. The detention time in these tanks is 45 days. In 2018, the digester control building was refurbished to allow for the placement of a dewatering centrifuge. This sludge dewatering improvement involved the installment of one (1) 115 GPM centrifuge. The solids are ultimately disposed of via land application through a contracted sludge transportation service.

   The facility has a strong track record of compliant operations. Over the two years prior to the submission of this PER, the facility recorded three total phosphorus violations and two E. Coli violations.

2. ‌Current Population

   The current population of Lebanon City and the Town of Ulen are 16,662 and 114 people, respectively, totaling 16,776 people.

3. ‌Current Significant Dischargers

   The City of Lebanon and the surrounding area is home to a number of industries. The following are among the largest industrial users approved to discharge to the Lebanon WWTP:

   • FGF, LLC

   • Skjodt Barrett Foods

   • Ken’s Foods, Inc.

   • DS Smith

   • Kuraray MonoSol

   • Eli Lilly and Company (future allocated flow)

   • White Castle – Meat Plant

   • United States Cold Storage

   • Hendrickson Commercial Vehicle Systems

   • Johnson Controls/Air System Components

   • IBC Coatings Technologies

   • McKinley Packaging

   • Catalina Snacks

   • Gorton’s Inc

4. ‌Right of Way and Easements

The work at the WWTP will be constructed within the current property boundary and will not utilize any new road right-of-way (ROW) or easements. However, the work associated with the new effluent forcemain, which will run from the new effluent pump station at the WWTP to Outfall 002 at Eagle Creek, will require ROW and easements, with only the on-site WWTP portion of the forcemain not needing these.

1. ‌UTILITY NEEDS

   
   

2. ‌Service Area

   The existing and proposed 20-year service area for Lebanon Utilities is shown in Appendix A, Figure A-2. The proposed 20-year service area includes the city limits of Lebanon including the Town of Ulen, and the anticipated future industrial and residential growth. Specifically, the LEAP-Lebanon project is moving forward and will encompass over 9,000 acres of land to the northwest of the existing Lebanon city limits. This additional area is located at the midpoint of Indianapolis and Purdue University along I-65. LEAP expands approximately as far west as the intersection of State Road IN-32 and Wolf Creek and approximately as far north as the intersection of E 400 N and I-65 of the existing Lebanon City limits.

3. ‌Population Projection

   The 20-year service area population is projected to increase from 16,776 people to 21,156 people. The projection includes both the City of Lebanon and the Town of Ulen population. Historical United States Census population data for the City of Lebanon and the Town of Ulen are summarized in Table 2-1 below. 20-year projections assume an average growth rate based on Census data from 1980 to 2020.

   Table 2-1 Historical Census Population Data

   Year	Population Lebanon, IN	% Change	Population Ulen, IN	% Change
   1980	11,456	--	--	--
   1990	12,059	5%	--	--
   2000	14,222	18%	123	--
   2010	15,792	11%	117	-5%
   2020	16,662	6%	114	-3%
   2030 (projected)	18,405	10%	110	-4%
   2044 (projected)	21,156	15%	104	-5%

4. ‌Influent Flow and Wasteload Projections

   An analysis was completed to determine future flows over the next 20 years. In conjunction with a recently established Water Supply and Interlocal Corporation Agreement (WSICA), Lebanon Utilities and Citizens Water (Citizens) are collaborating on a project that outlines a phased approach for Citizens to deliver peak water volumes, including up to 25 million gallons per day (MGD), from the Upper White River Watershed to the LEAP District beginning year 2027. Consequently, any generated wastewater from LEAP will be sent to the Lebanon WWTP. As a result, the existing Lebanon WWTP will require expansion to accommodate this future growth. Additionally, based on Lebanon Utilities’ input, available land usage development plans, and review of the WWTP site, the facility expansion is proposed in three phases. Due to the unknown timelines of the upcoming developments, the

   WWTP expansion is proposed to be divided into reasonable phases to balance the future development capacity needs. Phase 1 would increase the design average flow from 5 MGD to 10 MGD. Phase 2 would further increase it to 15 MGD and the final phase or Phase 3 would increase it to 20 MGD.

   The following Table 2-2 is a summary of current and anticipated phased raw sewage flows and characteristics for the 20-year planning period.

   Table 2-2 20-year Needs Versus Existing Capacity

   Design Criteria	Current Influent Conditions	Anticipated 20-Year Influent Conditions			Existing Infrastructure Capacity
   		Phase 1	Phase 2	Phase 3
   Average Daily Flow	2.7 MGD	10 MGD	15 MGD	20 MGD	5 MGD
   Peak Hourly Flow	12.7 MGD	24.5 MGD	34.2 MGD	48.3 MGD	15 MGD
   CBOD5 Loading	154 mg/L	177 mg/L	186 mg/L	186 mg/L	156 mg/L
   	3,094 lbs/day	14,760 lbs/day	23,254 lbs/day	31,006 lbs/day	6,505 lbs/day
   TSS Loading	156 mg/L	180 mg/L	188 mg/L	188 mg/L	146 mg/L
   	3,200 lbs/day	14,986 lbs/day	23,458 lbs/day	31,277 lbs/day	6,088 lbs/day
   P Loading	5 mg/L	5 mg/L	5 mg/L	5 mg/L	6 mg/L
   	102 lbs/day	417 lbs/day	625 lbs/day	833 lbs/day	250 lbs/day
   NH3N Loading	19 mg/L	21 mg/L	22 mg/L	22 mg/L	24 mg/L
   	367 lbs/day	1,775 lbs/day	2,799 lbs/day	3732 lbs/day	1,001 lbs/day

   
   

5. ‌WWTP Effluent Discharge

   The WISCA agreement requires maintaining a water balance within the Sugar Creek Watershed (Lebanon area) and the Upper White River Watershed (Indianapolis area). In order to maintain the water balance within each of the two watersheds, the water transferred from the Upper White River Watershed to the LEAP District and eventually to the Lebanon WWTP, will need to be returned to the Upper White River Watershed. To accomplish this, a new effluent pump station and force main will need to be constructed to convey up to an average daily flow of 15 MGD and a peak of 25 MGD of treated effluent from the Lebanon WWTP back to the Upper White River Watershed.

   As the WWTP expands, it will continue to discharge to Prairie Creek via Outfall 001. However, a portion of the effluent will be diverted to the Upper White River Watershed by discharging to Eagle Creek via a new Outfall 002. This will comply with the WISCA

   agreement and maintain balance within the two watersheds. To accomplish this, a new effluent pump station will be constructed at the Lebanon WWTP, along with a forcemain to convey the required flows to the Upper White River Watershed.

   
   

   Potential outfall locations (POL) considered for the discharge of the effluent force main located within the Upper White River watershed include:

   • POL1: Eagle Creek at Zionsville/Main St.

   • POL2: Fishback Creek at I-65

   • POL3: Neese Ditch at SR 32

   • POL4: Mounts Run at SR 32

   • POL5: Eagle Creek at SR 32/US 421

   • POL6: Fishback Creek at I-865

   • POL7: Eagle Creek at I-65 (Eagle Creek Reservoir)

   
   

   While a total of 7 potential outfall locations were initially considered, only two proved to be worth further evaluation. Selection of the most suitable outfall locations was based on several criteria, including watershed area, 7-day/10-year low flow, harmonic mean flow, 10-year and 100-year peak flow data. These data were collected using various USGS resources. Additionally, the distance and accessibility to the potential discharge points were also key factors in the assessment. Refer to Table 2-3 below for a summary of the POL locations.

   Table 2-3 – Summary of Potential Outfall Locations

   Potential outfall location (POL)	Watershed Area (SQ. MI.)	7-day, 10-year low flow (CFS)	Harmonic mean flow (CFS)	10-YR peak flow (CFS)	100-YR peak flow (CFS)	Approx. Distance from WWTP to Outfall (MI.)
   1: Eagle Creek at Zionsville/ Main St.	105.8	1.26	11.0	9,310	17,000	15.5
   2: Fishback Creek at I- 65	1.76	0.0041	0.142	861	1,160	6.0
   3: Neese Ditch at SR 32	4.01	0.0121	0.214	288	469	7.5
   4: Mounts Run at SR 32	12.09	0.0418	0.979	642	1,030	8.5
   5: Eagle Creek at SR 32/US 421	27.83	0.180	2.57	4,280	7,890	11.0
   6: Fishback Creek at I- 865	15.25	0.0686	1.10	3,020	5,580	12.5
   7: Eagle Creek at I-65 (Eagle Creek Reservoir)	121.2	1.73	14.3	10,100	18,400	15.5

   
   

   Locations POL 2, 3, 4, and 6, were found to exhibit very low harmonic mean flows, making them less favorable for outfall discharge. While POL1 seemed to have sufficient capacity to handle additional flows with minimal risk of flooding, its limited accessibility made it a less optimal choice. Therefore, POL5 and POL7 were identified as the most suitable options for further evaluation and are covered in detail in the following Section 3.

6. ‌Proposed WWTP Effluent Limits

   1. ‌Prairie Creek (Outfall 001)

      1, 2025 and expires on March 31, 2030.

As discussed in Section 1.4, the city currently holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. IN0020818 (included in Appendix C) that went into

Table 2-4 Preliminary Effluent Limitations (Outfall 001)

Parameter Summer Winter

TSS

NH3N

12

1.23

18

1.85

2.78

Phosphorus

1.0

1.0

Table 1-3 in Section 1.4 summarizes the current effluent limits with regards to Prairie Creek.

1. ‌Eagle Creek (Outfall 002)

A Preliminary Effluent Limitation (PEL) letter from IDEM dated

lists the

anticipated effluent limits associated with flows up to 15 MGD design average flow. The

anticipated limits are shown below in Table 2-5. The IDEM PEL letter is included in Appendix D.

January 2025

264623-01-001

‌3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The following section presents proposed alternatives to address the anticipated increased future flows at the Lebanon WWTP. The evaluation of alternatives includes technical feasibility, reliability, operational, and maintenance considerations; implementation issues; and the life cycle cost for each component of the overall project. Environmental impacts are covered in Section 5.

A cost and effectiveness analysis was completed for the feasible alternatives and meets the minimum requirements of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. The Cost & Effectiveness Certification Form is included in Appendix H. Life cycle cost analyses were performed for each technically feasible alternative, all presented as Net Present Value (NPV) in 2024 equivalent dollars over a 20-year planning period. Net present values are calculated using the “real” discount rate taken from Appendix C of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) circular A-94, which, for a 20-year planning period, is 2.5% as of the time of this document’s preparation (last updated December 2023). Capital costs include equipment, installation, and ancillary support equipment required for a successfully operational system. The estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the equipment is also included.

1. ‌WWTP Alternative 1: No Action and/or Optimization of Current Facilities

   As demonstrated in Section 1.3.2 the existing Lebanon WWTP capacity will not be able to support the incoming industrialization/developments. While current operations at the WWTP are at 54% hydraulic capacity, the remaining capacity will to be quickly used up by additional domestic, commercial, and industrial developments due to the acceleration of industrial development in and around the city. As a result, the existing WWTP will need to be expanded to accommodate this future growth. Additionally, economic development in the region is dependent on the ability to provide public utility services, including wastewater treatment. The no action alternative will limit the City’s ability to treat additional wastewater and restrict regional economic growth. Thus, the no action alternative is not a viable option for the future of this area.

2. ‌WWTP Alternative 2: Regionalization

   The option of regionalization and sending wastewater flows from Lebanon to another community was evaluated, but is not a viable alternative. While the Lebanon WWTP has a few other major cities within its 25-mile radius, none of those cities’ wastewater facilities would be able to handle the anticipated additional flow in place of Lebanon. For instance, Frankfort WWTP, approximately 17 miles from Lebanon City, has a design flow of 9 MGD which is insufficient for an anticipated 10 MGD Phase 1 flows. This is the same case for the other surrounding cities as there are no wastewater treatment facilities in the area that have enough capacity to treat the initial Phase 1 (10 MGD) flow from Lebanon. For reference, surrounding wastewater utilities are sized as follows: Brownsburg WWTP at 5.25 MGD, Pittsboro WWTP at 1.2 MGD, and Crawfordsville WWTP at 4.7 MGD. Additionally, the

   Lebanon WWTP already serves as a regionalized facility for the Town of Ulen. Therefore, the regionalization alternative is not a viable option for this project.

3. ‌WWTP Alternative No. 3: Phased Approach for Expansion

   Alternative No. 3 focuses on expanding the plant capacity as well as the ability to meet future nutrient limits while keeping the treatment process similar to the current facility to provide consistent operations. Components of this alternative are described in detail below. Note, due to the unknown timelines of the upcoming developments, the expansion alternative is divided into phases to balance the future development capacity needs with facility operational needs. Overall, the treatment process is intended to remain extended aeration with the only significant change being the conversion from aerobic digestion to anaerobic digestion based on space constraints and operational savings. The individual components associated with each of the phases are listed below.

   Phase 1 Improvements (5 to 10 MGD):

   1. Modify existing fine screen to 25 MGD capacity

   2. Addition of a second, new 25 MGD capacity fine screen

   3. Addition of a second screenings washer/compactor

   4. Replace existing Raw Sewage Pumps 1 - 4, 17,400 gpm firm capacity

   5. New 2nd Vortex Grit removal unit, with 2nd Classifier

   6. Mixer improvements in the Anaerobic Tank

   7. New Vertical Loop Reactor (VLR No. 1) aeration basin

   8. New Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) split structure

   9. Repair/repaint mechanisms of existing Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2

   10. New Clarifier No. 4 (110-foot diameter)

   11. Replace existing RAS pumps 1, 2, 3, 4

   12. New RAS/WAS pump station, 4,000 gpm firm capacity

   13. New Tertiary Filtration – 30 MGD capacity

   14. UV Disinfection – Add second channel equipment – 30 MGD capacity

   15. Conversion of Aerobic Digester No. 2 into a WAS holding tank

   16. Addition of two new 60’ diameter anaerobic digesters

   17. Digester control building

   18. New Thickener and Dewatering Building

   19. New non-potable water

   20. Renovate existing utility offices for laboratory/additional office space

   21. New Chicago Street office/garage space

   22. New Electrical Building

   23. New Emergency Generator

   24. Demolition:

       1. Sludge Storage Tanks

       2. Laboratory/Filter Building

       3. Maintenance Shop

       4. Aerobic Digesters (No. 1 and 3)

       5. Chlorine contact tank

   Refer to Appendix A, Figure A-3 for a proposed site plan of the Phase 1 expansion improvements.

   Phase 2 Improvements (10 to 15 MGD):

   1. Second Wet Well added

   2. New Raw Sewage Pumps (5-6) – 23,200 gpm firm capacity

   3. Second Anaerobic basin added

   4. New Vertical Loop Reactor (VLR No. 2) aeration basin.

   5. Clarifier No. 5 – new 110-foot clarifier

   6. Addition of third Anaerobic Digester, includes heating and mixing.

   7. Dewatering expansion, new dewatering centrifuge and polymer feed unit.

   Refer to Appendix A, Figure A-4 for a proposed site plan of the Phase 2 expansion improvements.

   Phase 3 Improvements (15 to 20 MGD):

   1. Raw Sewage Pumps (7-8) added – 40,600 gpm firm capacity

   2. Grit Removal – 3rd vortex grit removal added, w/ 3rd classifier

   3. New Vertical Loop Reactor (VLR No. 3 and No. 4) aeration basins.

   4. Clarifier No. 6 – new 110-foot clarifier

   5. RAS/WAS pump addition – 8,000 gpm firm pump

   6. Tertiary filtration expansion

   7. UV Disinfection – add second UV structure and effluent pumps

   8. Digestion – Addition of fourth 60’ diameter anaerobic digester

   9. Digester Control Building addition for heating and mixing.

   10. Thickener and Dewatering Building additions including a third RDT unit and polymer feed.

   11. Demolition:

       1. Existing Oxidation Ditches (No. 1 – 4)

       2. Operations Building

   Refer to Appendix A, Figure A-5 for a proposed site plan of the Phase 3 expansion improvements.

   1. ‌Advantages

      Future wastewater treatment needs within the community are rapidly changing with respect to both capacity and process requirements. From the addition of the headworks in 2005 to present, all infrastructure placed at the WWTP has been designed with the ability for future expansion as well as treatment potential. In 2018, Lebanon Utilities installed both biological phosphorus removal and dissolved oxygen control to address total phosphorus effluent limits and to prepare for future total nitrogen effluent limits.

      In this expansion, the projected future treatment capacity needs from the community have to be balanced with the existing flows and immediately allocated flows to provide a facility that can accept growth and be operable within the current flow range. To address this, the expansion ability within the existing infrastructure and a phased approach were leveraged in the approach to this expansion.

      The initial phase for the project increases the capacity of the WWTP from 5 to 10 MGD. The project will occur within the existing site for all phases. The existing site has been developed to provide for expansion; however, the current use of oxidation ditches for secondary aeration cannot be maintained due to space limitations. To maintain an extended air process for secondary treatment, secondary aeration is being revised to use vertical loop reactors in lieu of oxidation ditches. In doing so, the overall volume necessary for extended aeration treatment can be provided with an increased operational depth that allows the tankage to occupy a smaller area. This revision to VLRs will allow the design direction for both biological phosphorus removal as well as total nitrogen removal to be maintained.

      In addition to the revision to VLRs, both tertiary filtration and anaerobic digestion are revisions to the existing treatment process. Tertiary filtration is being added to address future total phosphorus limitations. Anaerobic digestion is being added to address space constraints associated with maintaining the current aerobic digestion.

      The comparison of digestion processes was undertaken to review the net present worth of the options. Table 3-1 presents the net present worth summary for anaerobic and aerobic digestion.

      Table 3-1 Net Present Worth - Digestion

      	10 MGD Capacity	15 MGD Capacity	20 MGD Capacity
      Estimated Total Capital Cost1
      Anaerobic Digestion	$12,565,000	$17,190,000	$20,650,000
      Aerobic Digestion	$9,485,000	$15,940,000	$19,880,000
      Estimated Annual O, M, R2
      Anaerobic Digestion	$325,000	$427,000	$611,000
      Aerobic Digestion	$480,000	$778,000	$1,030,000
      Estimated Net Present Worth
      Anaerobic Digestion	$18,907,000	$25,530,000	$32,580,000
      Aerobic Digestion	$18,860,000	$31,130,000	$39,980,000

      1 – Capital costs are presented as the total of all capital through each phase of the expansion.

      2 – Operations, Maintenance, and Replacement

      As indicated above, the modification of the facility from aerobic digestion to anaerobic digestion has a slightly higher net present worth than anaerobic digestion for the first phase of the project. This is due to anaerobic digestion requiring new facilities as opposed to the reuse of the existing aerobic digesters. However, due to the higher operational costs associated with aerobic digestion, future phases result in the net present worth for anaerobic digestion being lower than aerobic digestion. Based on space constraints, similar net present worth for Phase 1 and lower net present worth for Phases 2 and 3, anaerobic digestion is the preferred alternative.

      
      

   2. ‌Disadvantages

      With the use of the existing site, the additional flow associated with the potential growth results in the need to reorient the site. Although past expansions have been done with future expansion in mind, the addition of the VLRs and additional clarifiers will result in the need to demolish portions of the existing infrastructure. In the first phase of the proposed project, the demolition is largely limited to structures that have been abandoned in place. This includes the existing filter building that now only serves as laboratory space and the former primary clarifiers. The Phase 1 expansion does require the demolition of the existing maintenance garage and aerobic digesters to provide future space. Phase 2 does not require demolition. Phase 3 does require the demolition of the existing oxidation ditches as well as the existing operations building.

   3. ‌Opinion of Probable Cost

      A detailed breakdown of the Phases 1, 2, and 3 opinion of probable costs and the net present worth of this alternative are shown in Appendix B, Tables B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4, respectively. A summary of the probable WWTP expansion costs for each of the phases can be seen below in Table 3-2.

      Table 3-2 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Probable Cost Summary

      
      

      	Opinion of Probable Cost
      Phase I Capital Cost	$92,900,000
      Phase II Capital Cost	$52,420,000
      Phase III Capital Cost	$69,580,000

      The selected alternative for the WWTP expansion is detailed in Section 4.1.1.

      To address the WISCA agreement, alternate effluent discharge locations were evaluated. The three alternatives for the proposed effluent discharge improvements/modifications, are as follows.

4. ‌Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 1: Discharge all to Prairie Creek (Sugar Creek Watershed)

   This option is deemed not feasible because of the limited flow capacity of Prairie Creek. Evaluation of the USGS stream gage data over a 36-year monitoring period revealed the overall mean flow carried by this stream at this discharge location is approx. 43 cfs with a median daily mean flow of 18 cfs. Therefore, an additional discharge of up to 25 MGD (~ 39 cfs) would increase the mean and median flow carried by the stream by as much as 91% and 217%, respectively, causing a significant negative environmental impact on the stream hydrology. There is also a risk of flooding because of generally low flows in this creek. Additionally, this option does not comply with the WISCA agreement, which requires maintaining a water balance within both the Sugar Creek and the Upper White River watersheds.

5. ‌Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 2: Discharge to both Prairie Creek and POL5 – Eagle Creek at SR 32/US 421

   This alternative considers directing effluent to both the Sugar Creek watershed (via Prairie Creek) and the Upper White River watershed (via POL5 - Eagle Creek at SR32/US 421), to maintain a better water balance. However, due to environmental sensitivity at the POL5 discharge location, this alternative is deemed not feasible.

6. ‌Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3: Discharge to both Prairie Creek and POL7 – Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir

   This alternative considers directing effluent to both the Sugar Creek watershed (via Prairie Creek) and the Upper White River watershed (via Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir),

   to maintain a better water balance. The WWTP would continue to discharge effluent to Prairie Creek, however, will also start discharging a portion to Eagle Creek Reservoir, as the WWTP expands. This alternative has three sub-alternatives because of multiple design options when considering how to transport the additional effluent flow to Eagle Creek Reservoir. These sub-alternatives are discussed in detail below.

   1. ‌Alternative 3a Effluent Lift Station with Forcemain the Entire Way

      Alternative 3a involves installation of a new 5 pump effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a 48-inch DI forcemain extending (~16 miles) to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge location. Each pump will have a VFD and will be 140 HP. With four pumps running at full speed, the capacity of the station will be 14,000 gpm (20 MGD) at 70-feet of total dynamic head. This will allow for one pump to be fully redundant. The pump station will also have the capacity to handle 17,400 gpm (25 MGD) flow with all 5 pumps running, should the need arise. Station piping will be 20-inch within the wet well and valve vault and will connect to a 48-inch forcemain header that will run to convey flows to Outfall 002, i.e. Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir. Additionally, a UV disinfection structure and a cascade aeration system will be provided at the discharge to Eagle Creek Reservoir to re-disinfect and re-aerate the effluent. The proposed forcemain route demonstrating Alternative 3a effluent discharge improvements can be seen in Appendix A, Figure A-6.

      
      

      Advantages

      • Lowest overall pump horsepower requirement, thus, the total probable cost is the lowest of all feasible alternatives.

      • Maintains water balance within both the Sugar Creek and the Upper White River watershed and is thus compliant with the WISCA agreement.

        Disadvantages

      • The absence of an intermediate lift station necessitates higher horsepower pumps in the new effluent pump station to achieve the required head and flow rates.

        
        

        Opinion of Probable Cost

        A detailed breakdown of the opinion of probable cost and the net present worth of alternative 3a is included in Appendix B, Table B-5 and B-6, respectively. A summary of the probable cost for the effluent discharge improvements can be seen below in Table 3-3.

        Table 3-3 – Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3a Probable Cost Summary

        	Opinion of Probable Cost
        Capital Cost	$103,000,000
        Net Present Value	$97,630,000

   2. ‌Alternative 3b Combination of Forcemain and Gravity Main

      Alternative 3b involves installation of a new 5 pump set-up effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a 48-inch DI forcemain to an intermediate wet well located approximately 7 miles from the WWTP. Next, a gravity main from the intermediate wet well to an intermediate lift station located approximately 6.5 miles from the wet well, and finally another 48-inch DI forcemain from the intermediate lift station to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge location for the remaining ~2.5 miles. However, Alternative 3b is deemed unfeasible. A 36-inch gravity main was initially proposed for the portion of the route (~6.5 miles) where the grade naturally sloped and favored gravity flow. However, upon evaluating the system with standard manholes and a constant slope for the gravity pipe, the resulting flow velocity exceeded 5 feet per second (fps), which is considered too high for a buried gravity main. Moreover, when attempting to reduce the velocity by adjusting the pipe size and slope, the required depth at the upstream end becomes excessive, further complicating the feasibility. The use of drop manholes (with 2-3 feet of vertical drop over certain sections) was also explored as a potential solution to manage the depth and velocity issues, but due to concerns regarding the impact of the high flow rate and water mass on the structural integrity of these manholes, this is not considered a viable option.

      
      

   3. ‌Alternative 3c Effluent Lift Station with Forcemain the Entire Way and an Intermediate Lift Station

      Alternative 3c involves installation of a new 5 pump effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a 48-inch DI forcemain to an intermediate 4 pump lift station located approximately 9.4 miles from the WWTP, followed by another 48-inch DI forcemain from the intermediate lift station for the remaining distance (~6.6 miles) to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge point. Each pump in the effluent lift station will have a VFD and will be 100 HP. Each pump in the intermediate lift station will also have a VFD and will be 60 HP. Additionally, a UV disinfection and a cascade aeration system will be installed just prior to discharge to Eagle Creek Reservoir, to re-disinfect and re-aerate the effluent after traveling for ~16 miles. The proposed forcemain route demonstrating Alternative 3c effluent discharge improvements can be seen in Appendix A, Figure A-7.

      Advantages

      • Maintains water balance within both the Sugar Creek and the Upper White River watershed and is thus compliant with the WISCA agreement.

        Disadvantages

      • Highest overall pump horsepower requirement, thus, the total probable cost is the highest of the feasible alternatives.

Opinion of Probable Cost

A detailed breakdown of the opinion of probable cost and the net present worth of Alternative 3c is included in Appendix B, Table B-7 and B-8, respectively. A summary of the probable cost for the effluent discharge improvements can be seen below in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 – Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3c Probable Cost Summary

Effluent discharge Alternative No. 3a is selected as the preferred solution, as it is compliant with the WISCA agreement and because selected Outfall 002 location POL7 has sufficient capacity to handle additional flows. Additionally, Alternative 3a required the lowest overall pump horsepower, resulting in reduced energy costs and overall project costs. The selected alternative for the effluent discharge improvements is detailed in Section 4.1.2.

1. ‌PROPOSED PROJECT

   
   

   The proposed project components and overall project plan are the result of an evaluation of the alternatives outlined in Section 3. The evaluation included the consideration of capital improvement costs, net present worth costs, technical feasibility, system reliability, ease of implementation, operation and maintenance consideration, and environmental impacts.

   Among the alternatives considered for the WWTP expansion, there is only one feasible option (Alternative 3) to meet future growth. Cost estimates for the selected WWTP alternative are included in Appendix B, Tables B-1, B-2, and B-3. The site plans for the proposed WWTP phased improvements are included in Appendix A, Figures A-3, A-4, and A-5.

   Among the alternatives considered for the effluent discharge improvements, Alternative 3a is the optimal option. Cost estimate for the selected effluent discharge improvements alternative is included in Appendix B, Table B-5. The exhibit for the proposed forcemain route and effluent discharge improvements is included in Appendix A, Figure A-6.

2. ‌Recommended Project

   1. ‌WWTP

      The recommended project includes Phase 1 of Alternative 3 as described in Section 3. Alternative No. 3 focuses on expanding the plant’s capacity as well as the ability to meet future nutrient limits while keeping the treatment process similar to the current facility to provide consistent operations. Due to the unknown timelines of the upcoming developments, this expansion alternative is divided into phases to balance the future development capacity needs with facility operational needs. The timeline for these different phases will be dependent on the demand from new industrial, commercial, and residential users.

      The initial Phase 1 work will include:

      ‌Headworks Improvements

      Improvements to the existing headworks are required for the capacity increase as well as to address limitations of existing equipment. The proposed work includes:

      • Modification of the existing fine screen to increase to 25 MGD capacity

      • Addition of a second, new 25 MGD capacity fine screen

      • Addition of a second screenings washer/compactor

      • Replacement of existing Raw Sewage Pumps 1 – 4 to provide a 17,400 gpm firm capacity.

        ‌Grit Removal Improvements

        The addition of a second grit removal unit is requisite to address the design peak flow of 24.5 MGD associated with Phase 1. A New 2nd Vortex Grit removal unit, with a 2nd Classifier will

        be required to provide 40 MGD of capacity. This 2nd grit unit will match the capacity of the existing unit for redundancy and addresses the capacity necessary for Phase 2.

        
        

        ‌Anaerobic Basin Improvements

        To address peak flow mixing issues in the existing anaerobic basin, mixer improvements have been included in the scope for Phase 1.

        ‌Biological Treatment Process

        To address the additional aeration volume needed for the 5 MGD expansion increment, a new vertical loop reactor is proposed. The reactor will provide an additional 2.56 million gallons of aeration tankage that will serve in parallel with the existing 2.34 million gallons in the existing oxidation ditches.

        
        

        ‌Secondary Clarifiers

        Recommended improvements to the secondary clarifiers include both work that is necessary for capacity expansion, as well as work that is necessary for continued operational life. This work includes:

      • New Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) split structure

      • Repair/refurbishment of existing Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2

      • New Clarifier No. 4 (110-foot diameter)

      • Replacement of existing RAS pumps No. 1, 2, 3, 4

      • New RAS/WAS pump station with 4,000 gpm firm capacity

        
        

        ‌Tertiary Filtration

        To address future effluent limitations as well as provide the potential for future reuse, tertiary filtration was included in the treatment process. Tertiary filtration will be provided with a 30 MGD capacity to address the Phase 1 peak flows.

        
        

        ‌UV Disinfection

        The existing UV disinfection system at the facility has a peak capacity rating of 15 MGD. To provide disinfection for the Phase 1 flows, UV disinfection equipment will be added to the second channel in the UV structure. This second channel was originally constructed to facilitate expansion.

        ‌Solids Handling

        To address digestion requirements for the expansion, the digestion process will be revised to anaerobic digestion. This is being done due to space constraints as well as to reduce future operational costs. Improvements to the solids handling process will include:

      • Conversion of Aerobic Digester No. 2 into a WAS holding tank

      • Addition of two new 60’ diameter anaerobic digesters

      • New Digester control building

      • New Sludge Thickening and Dewatering Building

        ‌Electrical Improvements

      • New Electrical Building

      • New Emergency Generator

        ‌Miscellaneous Improvements

      • New non-potable water system

      • Renovation of existing utility offices for laboratory/additional office space.

      • New Chicago Street office/garage space.

        
        

        ‌Demolition Work

        The above improvements involve the demolition of the following existing structures/equipment:

      • Sludge Storage Tanks

      • Laboratory/Filter Building

      • Maintenance Shop

      • Aerobic Digesters No. 1 and No. 3

      • Chlorine contact tank

   2. ‌Effluent Lift Station and Forcemain

      Alternative 3a selected for effluent discharge improvements involves installation of a new 5 pump effluent lift station at the WWTP site with a 48-inch DI forcemain extending (~16 miles) to the Eagle Creek Reservoir discharge location. Each pump will have a VFD and will be 140 HP. With four pumps running at full speed, the capacity of the station will be 14,000 gpm (20 MGD) at 70-feet of total dynamic head. This will allow for one pump to be fully redundant. The pump station will also have the capacity to handle 17,400 gpm (25 MGD) flow with all 5 pumps running, should the need arise. Station piping will be 20-inch within the wet well and valve vault and will connect to a 48-inch forcemain header that will run to convey flows to Outfall 002 i.e. Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir. Additionally, a UV disinfection structure and a cascade aeration system will be included just prior to discharge to Eagle Creek Reservoir, to re-disinfect and re-aerate the effluent after it travels for ~16 miles.

      Alternative No. 3a will majorly involve:

      1. Existing UV - Extension Structure

      2. 30-in DI Gravity Sewer

      3. New Effluent Pump Station and Valve Vault

      4. Effluent Pumps (140 hp)

      5. Effluent Pumps VFDs

      6. New Effluent 48'' Flow Meter and Meter Vault

      7. 48-in DI Forcemain

      8. 48'' Steel Casing (Jack and Bore)

      9. Air Release Valve and Structure

      10. New UV Re-Disinfection Structure

      11. New UV Re-Disinfection Equipment

      12. Power to New UV System and Electrical

      13. New Cascade Aeration System

      14. Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control

3. ‌Project Costs

   The opinion of probable cost for the proposed WWTP expansion, including all three phases of WWTP expansion is $214,900,000. For the initial Phase 1 specifically, the opinion of probable cost would be $92,900,000. A detailed breakdown of construction and non-construction costs for Phase 1 is included in Appendix B, Table B-1. A 10% contingency is included in each of the three phases construction cost estimate.

   The opinion of probable cost for the proposed new effluent pump station and forcemain is

   $103,000,000. A detailed breakdown of construction and non-construction costs is included in

   Appendix B, Table B-5. A 10% contingency is included in the construction cost estimate.

4. ‌Property

   The City of Lebanon owns the property on which the proposed WWTP expansion improvements will be constructed, thus will not utilize additional road right-of-way (ROW) and will not require easements. However, the work associated with the new effluent forcemain, which will run from the new effluent pump station at the WWTP to Eagle Creek at I-65/Eagle Creek Reservoir (Outfall 002), will require ROW and easements, with only the on-site portion of the forcemain not requiring these.

5. ‌Project Schedule

Table 4-1 Proposed Project Schedule

1. ‌EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

   
   

   The City of Lebanon Utilities (Lebanon Utilities) is proposing improvements to its existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to expand capacity for potential incoming industries. Additionally, Lebanon Utilities and Citizens Water (Citizens) are collaborating on this project to maintain water balance within the Sugar Creek Watershed (Lebanon area) and Upper White River Watershed (Indianapolis area). Up to 25 million gallons per day (MGD) of water will be delivered from the Upper White River Watershed to the Lebanon area. Water will then be returned to the Upper White River Watershed to maintain a balance between the two watersheds. This will be accomplished with a new effluent pump station and approximately 86,200 linear feet (LF) of 48” ductile iron (DI) forcemain and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment near the outfall discharge location. Lastly, Lebanon Utilities proposes constructing a new office building and garage at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) located at 750 West Chicago Street (Chicago St. Office/Garage), to allow for more space at the WWTP.

   The Project Areas are identified in Table 5-1 below. USGS Topographic Maps of the Project Areas are provided in Appendix A, Figures A-8 through A-10.

   Table 5-1 Project Area Locations

   Project Area	County	Civil Township	Quadrangle Map	Township, Range, Section
   WWTP	Boone	Center	Lebanon	T19N, R1W, Section 36
   Effluent Forcemain	Boone	Center Worth Perry Whitestown Zionsville	Lebanon	T19N, R1W, Section 36
   				T18N, R1W, Section 1
   				T18N, R1E, Sections 5, 6, 8, 16
   			Fayette	T18N, R1E, Sections 21, 22, 26, 27, 35
   			Zionsville	T18N, R1E, Section 36
   				T17N, R1E, Section 1
   				T17N, R2E, Sections 6, 7, 8
   	Hendricks	Brown	Zionsville	T17N, R2E, 17
   	Marion	Pike	Zionsville	T17N, R2E, Sections 16, 21, 28
   Chicago St. Office/Garage	Boone	Center	Lebanon	T19N, R1W, Section 36

2. ‌Disturbed and Undisturbed Land

   1. ‌Land Disturbance

      All land disturbances for the proposed Project will occur within the existing WWTP parcel, along existing roadways and railways, and within the existing WTP parcel; the project will exceed one (1) acre of land. Information on soil types in the Project Areas was provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey map program (https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/Homepage.htm).

      The WWTP Project Area is comprised of Fincastle-Urban land complex (YfuA), Treaty-Urban land complex (YmyA), and Udorthents, loamy (Uby).

      The Effluent Forcemain Project Area is comprised primarily of Fincastle-Urban land complex (YfuA), Urban land-Mahalasville complex (UhuA), Treaty-Urban land complex (YmyA), Crosby silt loam/fine-loamy subsoil (CudA), Mahalasville silty clay loam (MamA), Treaty silty clay loam (ThrA), Urban land-Crosby silt loam complex/fine-loamy subsoil (UcfA), and Urban land-Treaty complex (UmyA).

      The Chicago Street Office/Garage Project Area is comprised of Fincastle-Urban land complex (YfuA) and Treaty-Urban land complex (YmyA).

      A Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for stormwater runoff associated with construction activities that disturb greater than one (1) acre of land will be necessary. Sediment removed during construction will be stockpiled and used as backfill or disposed of properly. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented during construction to minimize the siltation of adjacent waterways and erosion of soils on the construction site.

   2. ‌Archaeological Survey

      Construction activities in previously undisturbed areas have the potential to affect archeological sites and require an archeological study. All proposed construction activities will occur within areas of previously disturbed land and will not require a Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance. The WWTP and WTP parcels were previously disturbed during construction and/or other expansion projects. The forcemain will be installed along existing rights-of-way of CSX railroad in Lebanon, Interstate 65, Indianapolis Road, and Lafayette Road that were previously disturbed. SRF will coordinate with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) to determine if an investigation is warranted. If required, the Archaeological Reconnaissance will be completed. If, at any time during the construction phase, artifacts, human remains, or other items of archaeological significance are encountered, construction must stop and IDNR DHPA must be contacted.

3. ‌Historic and Architectural Properties

   The proposed Project was evaluated for the presence of historical or architectural structures and landmarks. Properties were identified using the IDNR Indiana Historic Buildings, Bridges, and Cemeteries Map application (https://indnr.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html) that includes data from the State Historic Architectural and Archeological Research Database (SHAARD). Refer to Appendix A, Figures A-11 through A-13 for Historic Sites and Structures Maps. No historical or architectural sites, historic districts, or cemeteries are in or directly adjacent to the WWTP or Chicago Street Office/Garage Project Areas. Direct impacts to historical structures along the Effluent Forcemain route are not expected as part of this project since the project area is within the existing road and railway rights-of-way. This

   includes no direct impacts from ground disturbances within 250 feet of the Lincoln Memory Gardens. The following historic sites, historic district, and cemetery are adjacent to the Effluent Forcemain Project Area.

   • 011-349-28514: Penn Central Railroad Viaduct (Over South Street, Lebanon, IN)

   • 011-349-25036: Penn Railroad Bridge (I-65/U.S. 52, Lebanon, IN)

   • 011-349-25051: House (2050 S. Indianapolis Road, Lebanon, IN)

   • 011-349-25052: Farm (2460 S. Indianapolis Road, Lebanon, IN)

   • 011-205-45009: House (State Road 52, Whitestown, IN – current imagery shows demolished)

   • CR-06-24: Lincoln Memory Gardens (6851 S. Indianapolis Road, Whitestown, IN)

   • 011-699-40049: Farm (Lafayette Road, Zionsville, IN – current imagery shows demolished, now subdivision)

   • 011-699-40050: House, Schoolhouse (7940 S. Harmon Avenue, Zionsville, IN)

   • 011-699-40051: House (7960 Royal Avenue, Zionsville, IN)

   • 063-699-00001: House (9505 Lafayette Road, Indianapolis, IN)

   • 063-699-00002: House (7867 Hunt Club Avenue, Zionsville, IN)

   • 097-699-50013: House (9423 Lafayette Road, Indianapolis, IN)

   • 097-699-50014: Olaker House (9153 Paddock Court, Indianapolis, IN)

   • 097-699-50015: Olaker Carriage House (Paddock Court, Indianapolis, IN)

   • 097-699-50016: Old Acres Bridge (Thoroughbred Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN)

   • 097-699-50010: House (8606 Lafayette Road, Indianapolis, IN)

   • 097-699-50021: House (8562 Lafayette Road, Indianapolis, IN – current imagery shows demolished, now gas station)

   • NR-2105: Traders Point Eagle Creek Rural Historic (Between 1-865, I-465, and Lafayette Road)

   • 097-699-50077: Farm Bureau Co-Op (7614 Lafayette Road, Indianapolis, IN)

   Additionally, no National Historic Landmarks were identified in or near the Project Areas as viewed on the National Parks Service list (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/national historiclandmarks/list-of-nhls-by-state.htm).

4. ‌Wetlands

   Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by water for a period that allows vegetation to grow that is adapted for such soil conditions. Wetlands are identified by having hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland locations within or near the Project Areas were identified with data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) layer accessed through Indiana Map (https://www.indianamap.org/). Refer to the Wetlands Maps in Appendix A, Figures A-14 through A-16. If identified during the proposed Project, impacts and disturbance of wetlands will be avoided, minimized, or mitigated, as needed. IDEM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulate construction activities in a wetland. If wetlands are to be disturbed, an IDEM Section 401 Water Quality Certification and a USACE Section 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act (401/404 Permits) for wetland disturbance will be required.

5. ‌Surface Waters

   Surface waters include rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs. Surface water is an important source of drinking water, irrigation, power generation, and recreation. Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrograph Dataset was used to identify ephemeral (intermittent) and perennial (permanent) streams. The Surface Water Maps are included in Appendix A, Figures A-17 through A-19. The proposed Project anticipates utilizing horizontal directional drilling (HDD) for waterway crossings associated with the effluent Forcemain installation. However, if HDD is not possible, an open-cut installation may be required. If an open-cut installation is required, these disturbances in a waterway below the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) will require 401/404 Permits. Additionally, regulations were reviewed to determine if the Project will impact streams characterized as any of the below:

   • Waters of limited use (327 IAC 2-1-11 (a) and 327 IAC 2-1.5-19 (a)) – None in the Project Areas.

   • Outstanding state resource water (327 IAC 2-1-11 (b), 327 IAC 2-1.3-3 (d), and 327 IAC 2-1.5-19 (b)) – None in the Project Areas.

   • Natural, Scenic Recreational Rivers and Streams (312 IAC 7-2) – None in the Project Areas.

   • Salmonid Streams (327 IAC 2-1.5-5 (a) (3)) – None in the Project Areas.

   • Outstanding River list (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1823/ML18236A739.pdf) –

   None in the Project Areas.

6. ‌Groundwater

   A sole-source aquifer is an underground water supply designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the principal source of drinking water for an area. Due to the limited drinking water alternatives in these areas, additional project approval by the USEPA is required. According to the USEPA’s interactive map of Sole Source Aquifers (Sole Source Aquifers (arcgis.com)), the Project Areas are not located in the counties associated with a Sole Source Aquifer.

   Karst is a landscape formed from the dissolution of limestone and is characterized by sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage systems. Karst features and underground aquifers are susceptible to pollution and contamination from surface waters that enter these formations. The Project Areas do not contain karst features. These underground features are not prevalent in the Project Areas per the IndianaMap (https://www.indianamap.org/).

7. ‌Floodplains and Floodways

   A floodway is the river and the adjacent land reserved to carry and discharge flood water. The 100-year floodplain is the land along a waterway with a 1% chance of flooding in a year; the 500-year floodplain has a 0.2% chance. Disturbances that unduly restrict flood water in these areas must be evaluated for an IDNR Construction in a Floodway Permit. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard zones were accessed through IndianaMap (https://www.indianamap.org/) to identify the floodplains and floodways.

   Floodplain Maps are included in Appendix A, Figures A-20 through A-22. The Prairie Creek floodway and floodplain are located within the WWTP and Chicago Street Office/Garage Project Areas. Additionally, the Prairie Creek, Lucas Ditch, Fishback Creek, Etter Ditch, Green Ditch, and Eagle Creek floodway and/or floodplains are located within the Effluent Forcemain Project Area. The loan applicant is aware of the hazards of locating structures in areas subject to the base flood. The location of the proposed Project outside of the 100-year floodplain is not deemed to be a feasible or reasonable alternative because of the location of existing City-owned parcels and the route chosen along existing railways and roadways has been previously disturbed and is most practicable for construction.

   An IDNR Construction in a Floodway Permit is not expected to be required for land-disturbing activities within the WWTP as all proposed structures and buildings are not located in the floodway; local coordination may be required for structures and buildings located within the 500-year floodplain. The Effluent Forcemain Project Areas will not require a permit, as it is expected to qualify for utility line and outfall exemptions. However, an IDNR Construction in a Floodway Permit is expected for the Chicago Street Office/Garage Project Area, as most of the parcel is located within the Prairie Creek floodway and/or floodplain. Erosion and sediment control measures will be installed to protect waterways from sedimentation.

8. ‌Plants and Animals

   Endangered, threatened, and rare (ETR) species are evaluated by the IDNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect significant natural areas and the species that depend on those areas. The proposed Project was entered into the USFWS’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system (https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/) to obtain an official species list. The Northern Long-Eared Bat and Tricolored Bat were identified in the species list for the Project Areas. The applicable determination key was completed and indicated the proposed Project may affect the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Tricolored Bat. Tree-cutting restrictions may also be required to minimize potential impacts to the Indiana Bat. The verification letter with the official species list and determination key results provided by the IPaC system is provided in Appendix E.

   Tree and shrub removal will be avoided for the proposed Project. If tree and shrub removal for the improvements are required, it will occur between October 1st and March 31st. The construction and operation of the proposed Project are not expected to pose a threat to or negatively impact state or federal-listed endangered species and their habitat. IDNR will be contacted immediately if it is determined that a species from the Indiana or Federal List is found to be disturbed by construction activities. Mitigation measures suggested by IDNR, USFWS, or other regulatory agencies will be implemented to minimize impacts on non-endangered species and their habitat.

9. ‌Farmland

   The loss of farmland as a natural resource due to construction activities may threaten the ability to produce food in sufficient quantities for the United States. The NRCS was contacted

   to determine the proposed Project’s impacts on prime or unique farmland. On August 28, 2024, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form was submitted to NRCS for the WWTP Project Area; and they found that prime farmland will not be converted. On December 10, 2024, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form was submitted to NRCS for the Effluent Forcemain and Chicago Street Office/Garage Project Areas; and they found that prime farmland will not be converted. Refer to Appendix F for NRCS correspondence and the completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating forms.

10. ‌Air Quality

    Air pollution is generated from factories, vehicles, equipment, and naturally occurring sources such as windblown dust. Short-term air quality impacts for the proposed Project may generate dust and noise during construction. Mitigation measures include limiting construction activity to daylight hours on weekdays to minimize noise effects. Construction specifications will require utilizing proper control measures to control wind erosion in construction areas. The generation of dust and other construction debris will be reduced through proper management and cleanup practices. When impacts cannot be avoided, appropriate measures will be utilized.

    The long-term operation of the proposed Project is not expected to have a significant impact on air pollution.

11. ‌Open Space and Recreational Opportunities

    Open and recreational spaces are non-developed public areas that enhance the environmental quality of neighborhoods or communities. According to local and county websites and a review of recent aerial photographs, the Big Four Trail is located south of the WWTP Project Area and the Effluent Forcemain Project Area traverses the Big Four Trail. Additionally, the Effluent Forcemain Project Area parallels the Whitestown Community Trail System (Indianapolis Road – Traders Point Church to Eagles Nest Boulevard). However, any disruption to the trails would only be temporary. The proposed Project’s construction and operation will neither create nor destroy open space and recreational opportunities.

12. ‌Lake Michigan Coastal Program

    The Lake Michigan Coastal Program protects areas and properties, improves recreational areas, and revitalizes waterfronts for areas that drain into Indiana’s portion of Lake Michigan. The Coastal Program Area map provided on IDEM’s website (https://www.in.gov/dnr/lake-michigan-coastal-program/files/lm-boundary_and_watershed.pdf) was reviewed. The Project Areas are not located in the Lake Michigan Coastal Zone. The construction and operation of the proposed Project will not affect the Lake Michigan Coastal Zone.

13. ‌National Natural Landmarks

    The National Parks Service protects areas containing outstanding biological and geological resources or examples of natural history. The National Natural Landmarks website (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/nation.htm) did not identify any National Natural Landmarks within the Project Areas. National Natural Landmarks will not be

    affected by the construction and operation of the proposed Project. No local landmarks were identified in or near the Project Areas.

14. ‌Mitigation Measures

    Erosion control measures will be implemented during all construction activities. Areas disturbed by construction will be restored and revegetated with seeding and other measures, such as erosion control blankets, as necessary. A CSGP for stormwater runoff associated with construction activities is expected for the proposed Project since it will disturb more than one acre of land. An IDNR Construction in a Floodway Permit is expected for the proposed Project since the construction of aboveground structures is expected within the Prairie Creek floodway for the Chicago Street Office/Garage Project Area. If tree and shrub removal is necessary, it will only occur during the approved cutting season from October 1st to March 31st. Construction activity will be limited to daylight hours on weekdays to minimize noise effects. Construction specifications will require proper control measures to control wind erosion from construction areas. Proper cleanup practices will be required to reduce construction debris and dust generation. When impacts cannot be avoided, appropriate measures will be utilized.

15. ‌Induced/Secondary Impacts

The City, through local zoning laws, the authority of its council, planning commission, or other means, will ensure that future development and utility projects connecting to SRF-funded facilities will not adversely affect wetlands, wooded areas, steep slopes, archaeological/historical/structural resources, or other sensitive environmental resources. The City will require new development and utility projects to be constructed within the guidelines of the USFWS, IDNR, IDEM, and other environmental review authorities.

1. ‌PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND LEGAL, FINANCIAL, AND MANAGERIAL CAPABILITY‌

   
   

2. ‌Public Participation

   1. ‌Public Hearing

      A public hearing was held on January 29th, 2025, from 5:00 pm to approximately 5:20 pm at the Lebanon Municipal Building. An informational Open House Meeting preceded the official Public Hearing starting at 4:00 pm. The Public Hearing was noticed in both the Lebanon Reporter and Indy Star newspapers. Documentation including meeting minutes, a sign-in sheet, and a copy of the Publisher’s Affidavit from the newspaper with the Public Hearing

notice is included in Appendix G.

1. ‌Availability to the Public

   A copy of the Preliminary Engineering Report was provided to the City of Lebanon Utilities for the public to review for 10 days prior to the public hearing until five days after the public

hearing.

1. ‌Public Comments

   During the in-person Public Hearing there were zero (0) attendees from the public and no comments were asked during the hearing. Additionally, no written comments from the public were received during the formal waiting period (5 days) after the public hearing took place.

A summary on the public comments is included in Appendix G.

1. ‌Legal, Financial, and Managerial Capability

   1. ‌Resolutions

      The Signatory Authorization Resolution is included in Appendix H. The PER Acceptance Resolution is included in Appendix H. The City of Lebanon Utilities signed the PER

Acceptance Resolution on 19th February 2025.

1. ‌SRF Project and Financing Information

   The SRF Project Financing Information Form and the Cost and Effectiveness Form are included in Appendix H. The current sewer rate for individuals served by Lebanon Utilities who use 4,000 gallons per month is $46.82. Note, the estimated total project cost, as outlined in the SRF Project Financing Information form, include costs for all three project components: WWTP Phase 1 Expansion and Effluent Discharge Improvements as detailed in this PER amendment report, as well as Collections System Improvements as outlined in the BF&S December 19, 2024 report included as Attachment A to this report.

2. ‌Inter-local Government Agreement

   The loan applicant currently has no inter-local agreement.

3. ‌Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC)

   The City of Lebanon Utilities is not regulated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.

4. ‌Utility Regional Planning Meetings

   The City of Lebanon Utilities last participated in a utility regional planning meeting on December 12th, 2024 and will continue to attend regional planning meetings on an annual

basis, pursuant to IC 5-1.2-11.5-6.

1. ‌Asset Management Plan and Fiscal Sustainability Plan

The loan applicant’s existing Asset Management Program (AMP) meets the requirements defined by the State Revolving Fund’s Asset Management Program Guidelines pursuant to Indiana Code 5-1.2-10-16 and is inclusive of the Fiscal Sustainability Plan (FSP) minimum requirements listed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Section 603(d)(1)(E)(i). The Asset Management Program Certification Form is included in Appendix H. Note, the estimated capital asset needs in the next 5 years, as outlined in the AMP Certification form, include costs for all three project components: WWTP Phase 1 Expansion and Effluent Discharge Improvements as detailed in this PER amendment report, as well as Collections System Improvements as outlined in the BF&S December 19, 2024 report included as Attachment A to this report.

Table of Contents

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

Figure A-1 Existing WWTP Site Plan

Figure A-2 Existing and Proposed 20-year Service Area Map Figure A-3 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 1 Expansion Site Plan Figure A-4 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 2 Expansion Site Plan Figure A-5 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 3 Expansion Site Plan Figure A-6 Alternative 3a Effluent Discharge Plan

Figure A-7 Alternative 3c Effluent Discharge Plan Figure A-8 WWTP USGS Topographic Map

Figure A-9 Chicago Street Office/Garage USGS Topographic Map Figure A-10 Effluent Forcemain USGS Topographic Map

Figure A-11 WWTP Historic Sites and Structures Map

Figure A-12 Effluent Forcemain Historic Sites and Structures Maps

Figure A-13 Chicago Street Office/Garage Historic Sites and Structures Map Figure A-14 WWTP Wetlands Map

Figure A-15 Effluent Forcemain Wetlands Map

Figure A-16 Chicago Street Office/Garage Wetlands Map Figure A-17 WWTP Surface Waters Map

Figure A-18 Effluent Forcemain Surface Waters Map

Figure A-19 Chicago Street Office/Garage Surface Waters Map Figure A-20 WWTP Floodplain Map

Figure A-21 Effluent Forcemain Floodplain Map

Figure A-22 Chicago Street Office/Garage Floodplain Map

January 2025

Revision February 2025 264623-01-001

CP 3

CP 2

CP 4

0 25 50 100 FT

1"=50'

LEGEND:

EXISTING FEATURES

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 4

ANAEROBIC BASINS

940

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 1

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 2

EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS

EXISTING CRUSHED STONE PAVEMENT

DIGESTER NO. 2

EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

OXIDATION DITCH EFFLUENT BOX

OXIDATION DITCH INFLUENT BOX

Drawing: X:\Lebanon\Lebanon_264623_WWTP Exp\DWG\Exhibit\264623-SI-EX-EXHIBIT.dwg | Layout: 2Y1 | Plotted: 09/20/24 @ 10:01:50 | LastSavedBy: MasonF

BLOWER BUILDING

DIGESTER NO. 1

DIGESTER NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH COMBINATION BOX

CP 9

CHEM FEED AND BLOWER BUILDING

DIGESTER CONTROL BLDG

FINAL CLARIFIER

FINAL CLARIFIER

SLUDGE STORAGE TANKS

OPERATIONS BUILDING

GRIT

STRUCTURE

HEAD TANK

CP 5

HEADWORKS

FINAL CLARIFIER

CHLORINE CONTACT TANK

LABORATORY

MAINTENANCE SHOP

ELECTRICAL BUILDING

UV DISINFECTION

TRANSFORMER

CP 8

GENERATOR

CP 7

CP 6

FIGURE A-1 EXISTING WWTP SITE PLAN

FIGURE 1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2024

ProjNo-264623.04.001

0 w

FIGURE A-2

REVISED FEBRUARY 2025

J:- 100N •

"                <I:/        

:?;

0: �. w t w w w g

550N

650N ;i:

:,:

00

·SR.S7

or

,GRAJII, fi!

I

3:

!)

;i: ;i:

� I

71 3i

�

3:

I

",_', El i f!? -� :il

!! 1

�:

�

0'

47 "'�

"

w

k'soN

I "' �

ti w

k ·w.,,

� ·i§

'f,

�

�"'

�

IJio'rNl

f ji,; ;w

,:.                         475·N               

450 N

m 52                                     

,so

l!QON •

,;r�

.....

�

'{,

275N

2soi'I

3:

300 N !!!

250 N

"".,.,

""'{,

.,.""·s;, l.t

250 N

0

...

g

..w,., w

..P'ot,. "5."'.".',

-f,;,

I":'

!E

�

�1><)

AUSTINDR

;i: ;i:

Pi �

"E:4o€

""'l'o

SR 32

.,,

""''

;i:

g

;i:

:,:

3: 25 N

$

SON @

GREEN Sl t; WAL.HUT sr

NOBLEST�

"o ffi

't-fi, 1-65 ,. ¥ow.C�01!

bj. f-65 +.�

Legend

Layer

.._ Current Lebanon Corporate Limits

.. Future System Planning Area

• •wt Center Township Limits

425S

;i:

12

� 000S

I"

4001S

375 S

�•2srs

Lebanon Utilities Wastewater Service Territory

450 $1

400 S

ographrc ln"f6?0'9t1on 0

1<:,· �

a!

0 5,000 10,000

Feet

CP 3

CP 2

CP 4

0 25 50 100 FT

1"=50'

LEGEND:

EXISTING FEATURES

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 4

ANAEROBIC BASINS

940

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 1

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 2

EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS

EXISTING CRUSHED STONE PAVEMENT

DIGESTER NO. 2

EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

OXIDATION DITCH EFFLUENT BOX

OXIDATION DITCH INFLUENT BOX

BLOWER BUILDING

Drawing: X:\Lebanon\Lebanon_264623_WWTP Exp\DWG\Exhibit\264623-SI-EX-EXHIBIT.dwg | Layout: 2Y1 | Plotted: 09/20/24 @ 10:01:50 | LastSavedBy: MasonF

DIGESTER NO. 1

DIGESTER NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH COMBINATION BOX

CP 9

CHEM FEED AND BLOWER BUILDING

DIGESTER CONTROL BLDG

FINAL CLARIFIER

FINAL CLARIFIER

OPERATIONS BUILDING

GRIT

STRUCTURE

HEAD TANK

CP 5

HEADWORKS

FINAL CLARIFIER

CHLORINE CONTACT TANK

LABORATORY

MAINTENANCE SHOP

ELECTRICAL BUILDING

UV DISINFECTION

TRANSFORMER

CP 8

GENERATOR

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

CP 7

CP 6

FIGURE 1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

SEPTEMBER 2024

264623.04.001

CP 3

CP 2

CP 4

0 25 50 100 FT

1"=50'

LEGEND:

EXISTING FEATURES

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 4

ANAEROBIC BASINS

940

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 1

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 2

EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS

EXISTING CRUSHED STONE PAVEMENT

DIGESTER NO. 2

EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

OXIDATION DITCH EFFLUENT BOX

OXIDATION DITCH INFLUENT BOX

BLOWER BUILDING

Drawing: X:\Lebanon\Lebanon_264623_WWTP Exp\DWG\Exhibit\264623-SI-EX-EXHIBIT.dwg | Layout: 2Y1 | Plotted: 09/20/24 @ 10:01:50 | LastSavedBy: MasonF

DIGESTER NO. 1

DIGESTER NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH COMBINATION BOX

CP 9

CHEM FEED AND BLOWER BUILDING

DIGESTER CONTROL BLDG

FINAL CLARIFIER

FINAL CLARIFIER

OPERATIONS BUILDING

GRIT

STRUCTURE

HEAD TANK

CP 5

HEADWORKS

FINAL CLARIFIER

CHLORINE CONTACT TANK

LABORATORY

MAINTENANCE SHOP

ELECTRICAL BUILDING

UV DISINFECTION

TRANSFORMER

CP 8

GENERATOR

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

CP 7

CP 6

FIGURE 1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

SEPTEMBER 2024

264623.04.001

CP 3

CP 2

CP 4

0 25 50 100 FT

1"=50'

LEGEND:

EXISTING FEATURES

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 4

ANAEROBIC BASINS

940

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 1

OXIDATION DITCH NO. 2

EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS

EXISTING CRUSHED STONE PAVEMENT

DIGESTER NO. 2

EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT

OXIDATION DITCH EFFLUENT BOX

OXIDATION DITCH INFLUENT BOX

BLOWER BUILDING

Drawing: X:\Lebanon\Lebanon_264623_WWTP Exp\DWG\Exhibit\264623-SI-EX-EXHIBIT.dwg | Layout: 2Y1 | Plotted: 09/20/24 @ 10:01:50 | LastSavedBy: MasonF

DIGESTER NO. 1

DIGESTER NO. 3

OXIDATION DITCH COMBINATION BOX

CP 9

CHEM FEED AND BLOWER BUILDING

DIGESTER CONTROL BLDG

FINAL CLARIFIER

FINAL CLARIFIER

OPERATIONS BUILDING

GRIT

STRUCTURE

HEAD TANK

CP 5

HEADWORKS

FINAL CLARIFIER

CHLORINE CONTACT TANK

LABORATORY

MAINTENANCE SHOP

ELECTRICAL BUILDING

UV DISINFECTION

TRANSFORMER

CP 8

GENERATOR

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

CP 7

CP 6

FIGURE 1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

LEBANON UTILITIES LEBANON, INDIANA

SEPTEMBER 2024

264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

D Lebanon WWTP

c::::::::J Eagle Creek

.0.--I-.-3,0-00I-.-6,0-00I---,12I,000 FT

FIGURE A-6

ALTERNATIVE NO. 3a

       EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PLAN

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

D Lebanon WWTP

c::::::::J Eagle Creek

0,---_3--'-i,0.-00 6-"-,0.-00          12--:..,000 FT

I I I I

CASCADE AERATION SYSTEM AND EFFLUENT DISCHARGE TO EAGLE CREEK RESERVOIR (OUTFALL 002)

FIGURE A-7

ALTERNATIVE NO. 3c

       EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PLAN

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

� Project Area - WWTP

$

�

:a:

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(1-

"

gc:

�.c i

$

�

:a:

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(1-

.0--I-.-50-0I-.1.,0-00-I ,2,,000 FT

FIGURE A-8

WWTP USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

[=:I Project Area - Chicago St Office/Garage

� (00

$

�

:a:

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(l_

gC:

�

.c"

i

$

�

:a:

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(l_

Copyright:© 2013 National,Geographic S9.s,iety, i;_cubed.,Es,i,._eommunity Maps Contributors, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census•Bureau, USDA, USFWS

���

�0 ,-�I500 -'1-,00�0 I---2,,000 FT

FIGURE A-9

CHICAGO ST OFFICE/GARAGE USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

lr+:-7---=:t-....l..\����T-��  :�rh��+-j���:---r?P7;------:i'--+�3':---\2!.,1,.LH-�---ILt_�l":=3..-:_�:_:-l�._;.::�.---t-_.s:����--k-����U:'.!-_j��4   

Legend

_j  ,.��-!J Project Area- Effluent Forcemain

0,--_3_;_,0.---00 6-'-0,.--00 ;_1=.:..20,.00 FT

I I I I

.

-.,

FIGURE A-10

EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

ph, Ge chnolog1es, Inc, METI/NAS},

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

c::::J Project Area - WWTP

National Register Sites of Indiana Cemeteries

, County Survey Sites

•

Outstanding

Notable Contributing

•

• Non-Contributing

Demolished Other

Historic Bridges

• Outstanding Notable

• Contributing

• Non-Contributing Demolished

�.

j,

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(1-

Other

[:==J Cemetery Areas

[:==J National Register Historic Districts of Indiana

c::::::::::, Proposed 48" DI Forcemain

ft) Lebanon WWTP

.0 I-1.-20-0

140.0

,8100 FT

FIGURE A-11

WWTP HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

• ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

- Project Area - Proposed 48" DI Forcemain National Register Sites of Indiana

:r:

C:

�

�

:"::',

::;: "-

�

1. ,J

   ..,·

   "'

   �

   ;i:i

   ffl

   Cl'.

   ti

   :::,

   
   

   :::, Cl'.

   t;;

   «S

   (/)

   w

   t:::

   (/)

   f-

   (/)

   'i:

   z

   :;;:

   ::;:

   w

   �

   �

   "<'

   
   

   ti.

   
   

   •

   • •

   
   

   ,

   Cemeteries

   
   

   County Survey Sites

   • Outstanding

   • Notable

   • Contributing

Historic Bridges

• Outstanding

• Notable

• Contributing

� Cemetery Areas

� National Register Historic Districts of Indiana

& Lebanon WWTP

Eagle Creek Discharge

c:::;J Eagle Creek

Cl'.

w

"-

0,--_3-"i,0.-00 6-'-,0.-00          12-:..,000 FT

.GS,EP.�.NP.S,U.S.0� US

•

Data Source: US Dept of Interior (NPS)/IN Division of Historic Preservation (DHPA) I Map Service: IGIO

I I I I

FIGURE A-12 EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN HISTORIC SITES &

STRUCTURES MAP (1 of 2)

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

- Project Area - Proposed 48" DI Forcemain National Register Sites of Indiana

�

Q_

$

�·

§

;=:j

N

w

(/)

O'.

::,

::,

t3

g:

(/)

"U)'

�

1ii

z

:;;:

� w

(.)

O'.

0

LJ..

N

:t

�sri Com11Junity Maps Contributors,© 0penStreetMap, Microsoft, E

METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFW

Cemeteries

County Survey Sites

• Outstanding

• Notable

• Contributing

Historic Bridges

• Outstanding

• Notable

• Contributing

� Cemetery Areas

� National Register Historic Districts of Indiana

t

0,--  20�0 40�0              ;800FT

I I I I

FIGURE A-12 EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN HISTORIC SITES &

STRUCTURES MAP (2 of 2)

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

c::::J Project Area - Chicago St Office/Garage National Register Sites of Indiana

Cemeteries

County Survey Sites

• Outstanding

• Notable

• Contributing

• Non-Contributing

• Demolished

Other

Historic Bridges

Outstanding

• Notable

• Contributing

• Non-Contributing Demolished

_j Other

� Cemetery Areas

� National Register Historic Districts of Indiana

c::::::::> Proposed 48" DI Forcemain

\ft) Lebanon WWTP

Ct'.

LJ.J

n_

.0 I-1.-15-0

130.0

,6100 FT

FIGURE A-13

CHICAGO ST OFFICE/GARAGE

HISTORIC SITES &

STRUCTURES MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

Project Area - wwrP NWI Historic Wetlands Palustrine

Riverine Lacustrine

. 1r5-01-r-3010 ---.I600 FT

FIGURE A-14

WWTP WETLANDS MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

- Project Area - Proposed 48" DI Forcemain

I)

lmtts)

Palustrine

1111 Riverine

- Lacustrine

c==J NWI Historic Wetlands

& Lebanon WWTP

Eagle Creek Discharge

�

ID I

�:a:

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(1-

��•hlstM

0,--_3_;_,0.---00 6-'-0,.--00   ;_1=.:..20, .00 FT

I I I I

GS,EP.�.NP.S,US0� USF.WS

FIGURE A-15

EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN WETLANDS MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

Project Area - Chicago St Office/Garage Palustrine

Riverine Lacustrine

NWI Historic Wetlands

0 100 200 400 FT

.---I 1.-------1 ,1

FIGURE A-16

CHICAGO ST OFFICE/GARAGE

WETLANDS MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

[=:I Project Area - wwrP

- NHD Named Rivers, Streams, etc

l.i LakePond Reservoir

l.i SwampMarsh Classified Flowlines

<:=> Proposed 48" DI Forcemain

ft Lebanon wwrP

wu

i'1:

Ct'.

::,

i

Cf) Q_

I

�

i

Ct'.

w

Q_

"

C:

0

C:

.c

Q)

�

�

N

;0,.._I

1;_5.0.--I-..-30-0I ,6I00 FT

FIGURE A-17

WWTP SURFACE WATERS MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

lmtts)

Legend

- Project Area - Proposed 48" DI Forcemain

NHD Named Rivers, Streams, etc

l.i LakePond Reservoir

l.i SwampMarsh

-- Classified Flowlines

8 Lebanon WWTP

Eagle Creek Discharge

$

�:a:

LL

Ct'.

LJ.J

(1-

fflEW�•mstM

0,--_3_;_,0.---00 6-'-0,.--00   ;_1=.:..20,.00 FT

I I I I

GS,EP.�.NP.S,US0� US

FIGURE A-18

EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN SURFACE WATERS MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

[=:I Project Area - Chicago St Office/Garage

- NHD Named Rivers, Streams, etc

k·¥�81J l.i LakePond

Reservoir

l.i SwampMarsh

-- Classified Flowlines

i'i

�

(/)

Ct'.

�s:

w

�

Ct'.

::,

(/)

f-

(/)

0

r.'.)

(3

5:

u

m

:t

�

0

-'"'

�

,."-';

i

N

N

$

r·

�

:a:

LL

01,-----1-0-0-,1,--2--0-0-1, ,4100 FT

FIGURE A-19

CHICAGO ST OFFICE/GARAGE SURFACE WATERS MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

Project Area - wwrP Floodway

1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Protected by Levee 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0,-- 10�0 20�0 ;400FT

I I I I

FIGURE A-20

WWTP FLOODPLAIN MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

:r:

--"?-,i

�

::", '

::;:

Cl.

�

°..".,·

�

;;i

�

:s

z

Cl.

0

0

9

LL

:z;;:

::;:

w

(.)

O'.

0

LL

�

� , [El

0

-�"' '

,."-';

i

N

N

$ I•

�

:a:

LL

O'.

w

(l_

lmtts)

�

Legend

- Project Area - Proposed 48" DI Forcemain Floodway

1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

E:::I 0.2% Annual Chance Protected by Levee 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Lebanon WWTP

Eagle Creek Discharge

0,--_3_;_,0.--00 6-'-0,.--00 ;_1=.:..2,0.00 FT

I I I I

FIGURE A-21

EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN FLOODPLAIN MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

w

WESS ER

ENGINE RI G

More than a Project'"'

Legend

Project Area - Chicago St Office/Garage Floodway

1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Protected by Levee 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Lebanon WWTP

Eagle Creek Discharge

r',1j.

0

�

§

n_

-,:

::;;

3

z

n_

8

0

_J

u..

t-

(/)

0

r.'.)

(3

-

5:

u

�

�

0

_"J '

�

,.".';

i

N

N

$

�

:ua.:.

Ct'.

LJ.J

n_

"'

C: 0 C:

.c

Q)

�

�

N

$

i5

:a:

Ct'.

u..

Ct'.

LJ.J

n_

.0--I-1.-1-0-0----120.0 ,4100 FT

FIGURE A-22

CHICAGO ST OFFICE/GARAGE

FLOODPLAIN MAP

Lebanon Utilities Lebanon, Indiana

Preliminary Engineering Report

January 2025

ProjectNo- 264623.04.001

APPENDIX B

COST OPINION TABLES

Table of Contents

Table B-1 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 1 Expansion – Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-2 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 2 Expansion – Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-3 WWTP Alternative No. 3 Phase 3 Expansion – Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-4 WWTP Opinion of Net Present Worth

Table B-5 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3a - Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-6 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3a – Opinion of Net Present Worth Table B-7 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3c - Opinion of Probable Cost Table B-8 Effluent Discharge Alternative No. 3c – Opinion of Net Present Worth

January 2025

Revision February 2025 264623-01-001

Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Non-Construction Costs

Notes:

1. All probable construction costs are based upon 2024 dollars, and estimated project costs will likely increase with time. Construction costs are volatile and have increased significantly in recent years, due primarily to costs of fuel and raw materials. In providing these cost estimates, Wessler Engineering has no control over the costs of labor, equipment, and materials, or the contractors' methods of pricing. The cost estimates were made without the benefit of design plans and specifications and are provided on the basis of the Engineer's qualifications and experience. Wessler Engineering makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such cost estimates as compared to bids or actual costs.

2. The cost estimates are based on past similar projects and were made without the benefit of field survey, design plans and specifications. These estimates are provided on the basis of the Engineer's qualifications and experience. Wessler Engineering makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such cost estimates as compared to bids or actual costs.

Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Non-Construction Costs

Notes:

1. All probable construction costs are based upon 2024 dollars, and estimated project costs will likely increase with time. Construction costs are volatile and have increased significantly in recent years, due primarily to costs of fuel and raw materials. In providing these cost estimates, Wessler Engineering has no control over the costs of labor, equipment, and materials, or the contractors' methods of pricing. The cost estimates were made without the benefit of design plans and specifications and are provided on the basis of the Engineer's qualifications and experience. Wessler Engineering makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such cost estimates as compared to bids or actual costs.

   
   

2. The cost estimates are based on past similar projects and were made without the benefit of field survey, design plans and specifications. These estimates are provided on the basis of the Engineer's qualifications and experience. Wessler Engineering makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such cost estimates as compared to bids or actual costs.

Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Non-Construction Costs

Notes:

1. All probable construction costs are based upon 2024 dollars, and estimated project costs will likely increase with time. Construction costs are volatile and have increased significantly in recent years, due primarily to costs of fuel and raw materials. In providing these cost estimates, Wessler Engineering has no control over the costs of labor, equipment, and materials, or the contractors' methods of pricing. The cost estimates were made without the benefit of design plans and specifications and are provided on the basis of the Engineer's qualifications and experience. Wessler Engineering makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such cost estimates as compared to bids or actual costs.

2. The cost estimates are based on past similar projects and were made without the benefit of field survey, design plans and specifications. These estimates are provided on the basis of the Engineer's qualifications and experience. Wessler Engineering makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such cost estimates as compared to bids or actual costs.

   prepared for the Lebanon Wastewater Treatment Plant

   	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M
   4								10 MGD $12,565,000 $9,485,000 Operational Cost $1,240 $120 $12,500 $1,190 $20,800 $188,207 $20,800 $15,680 $20,000 $15,600 $990 $100 $9,300 $9,930 $49,920		15 MGD $17,190,000 $15,940,000 Operational Cost $2,480 $120 $19,000 $2,390 $20,800 $376,414 $31,200 $23,520 $20,000 $15,600 $990 $100 $12,200 $9,930 $49,920		20 MGD $20,650,000 $19,880,000 Operational Cost $2,480 $120 $25,300 $2,390 $20,800 $522,797 $46,800 $35,280 $20,000 $15,600 $990 $100 $15,100 $9,930 $49,920
   5
   6	Flow Rate (ADF/Peak)
   7
   8	Estimated Construction Cost
   9	Anaerobic Digestion
   10	Aerobic Digestion
   11
   12
   				Operation
   13		Quantity	Units	(hours/year)	Rate	Units
   14	WAS Thickening
   15	RDT	10, 20	hp	2080	0.08	$/kwh
   16	Polymer Feed	1	hp	2080	0.08	$/kwh
   17	Polymer	5.1/6.7/8.3	lbs/day		5	$/ton TS
   18	Thickened Sludge Pumping	50/100	hp	400	0.08	$/kwh
   19	Manpower	1	manhour	520	40	$/h
   20
   21	Aerobic Digestion
   22	Aeration (10, 15, 20 MGD)	360, 720, 1000	hp	8760	0.08	$/kwh
   23	Manpower	1	manhour	520	40	$/h
   24
   25	Anaerobic Digestion
   26	Mixing	30	hp	8760	0.08	$/kwh
   27	Heating	1	MMBTU/hr	4000	5	$/MMBTU
   28	Manpower	1	manhour	520	30	$/h
   29
   30	Mechanical Dewatering
   31	Centrifuge	10	hp	1664	0.08	$/kwh
   32	Polymer Feed	1	hp	1664	0.08	$/kwh
   33	Polymer	5.1/6.7	lbs/day		5	$/ton TS
   34	Thickened Sludge Pumping	100	hp	1664	0.08	$/kwh
   35	Manpower	1	manhour	1664	30	$/h
   36
   37	Total Estimated Annual O&M Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion
   38								$157,370		$177,050		$198,010
   39								$279,247		$480,754		$645,637
   40
   41	Total Estimated Annual Replacement Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion
   42								$160,000		$240,000		$400,000
   43								$150,000		$200,000		$250,000
   44
   45	Total Estimated Annual OM&R (rounded) Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion
   46								$318,000		$418,000		$599,000
   47								$430,000		$681,000		$896,000
   48
   49	Estimated Annual Interest Rate Estimated Life Net Present Worth (rounded) Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion	2.50% 20	years
   50
   51
   52
   53
   54								$18,770,000		$25,350,000		$32,340,000
   55								$17,880,000		$29,230,000		$37,370,000

   Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
   Item	Description	Est Qty		Unit	Unit Price	Total Price
   1	Existing UV - Extension Structure	1		LS	$ 35,000	$ 35,000
   2	30-in DI Gravity Sewer	80		LF	$ 400	$ 32,000
   3	New Effluent Pump Station & Valve Vault	1		LS	$ 2,300,000	$ 2,300,000
   4	Effluent Pumps (140 hp)	5		EA	$ 213,000	$ 1,065,000
   5	Effluent Pumps VFDs	5		EA	$ 30,000	$ 150,000
   6	New Effluent 48'' Flow Meter & Meter Vault	1		EA	$ 80,000	$ 80,000
   7	48-in DI Forcemain	86,200		LF	$ 600	$ 51,720,000
   8	48-in Steel Casing (Jack and Bore)	1,500		LF	$ 1,500	$ 2,250,000
   9	Air Release Valve & Structure	45		EA	$ 11,000	$ 495,000
   10	New UV Re-Disinfection Structure	1		LS	$ 88,000	$ 88,000
   11	New UV Re-Disinfection Equipment	1		LS	$ 560,000	$ 560,000
   12	Power to New UV system and Electrical	1		LS	$ 80,000	$ 80,000
   13	New Cascade Aeration System	1		LS	$ 200,000	$ 200,000
   14	Pavement repair/replacement	16,000		SF	$ 150	$ 2,400,000
   15	Driveway repair/replacement	18,000		SF	$ 125	$ 2,250,000
   16	Tree Clearing	1		LS	$ 50,000	$ 50,000
   17	Effluent Pump Station - Electrical building	450		SF	$ 380	$ 171,000
   18	Electrical, Instrumentation, and Control	1		EA	$ 750,000	$ 750,000
   19	Mobilization, Demob, Bonds, & Insurance	1		EA	$ 3,233,800	$ 3,233,800
   20	Erosion & Sediment Control	1		EA	$ 1,940,300	$ 1,940,300
   21	Maintenance of Traffic	1		LS	$ 1,293,500	$ 1,293,500
   22	Final Cleanup & Restoration	1		EA	$ 2,587,000	$ 2,587,000
   		Subtotal (Rounded) 10% Contingency				$ 74,000,000 $ 7,400,000
   		Total Probable Construction Costs				$ 81,400,000

   
   

   Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Non-Construction Costs

   Item	Description	Est Qty Unit Unit Price			Total Price
   1	Engineering Fees (Survey, Design, Bid, CA, Permitting, Construction Observation)	1	LS	$ 16,000,000	$ 16,000,000
   2	Legal/Financial	1	LS	$ 975,000	$ 975,000
   3	Engineering Fees (Easement Preparation)	194	EA	$ 5,000	$ 970,000
   4	Land Acquisition Services (Appraisal, Negotiation, & Legal)	194	EA	$ 10,000	$ 1,940,000
   5	Land Purchase (Easement)	1	LS	$ 1,700,000	$ 1,700,000
   6	Land Purchase (Fee Simple) (New UV Re-Disinfection)	1	LS	$ 15,000	$ 15,000
   	Total Estimated Non-Construction Costs (rounded)				$ 21,600,000

   
   

   Total Probable Overall Project Costs $ 103,000,000