LTRSD Wastewater PER

Luce Township Regional Sewer District Preliminary Engineering Report
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I - PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Existing Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Twenty Year Study Area and Twenty Year Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Project Area(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SECTION II - CURRENT SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. Description of Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Current Wastewater Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Current Operating Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Significant Wastewater Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SECTION III - FUTURE SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. Current Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Proposed Design Wastewater Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
E. Evaluation of Ability to Transport and Treat Wastewater Flows . . . . . 5
SECTION IV - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A. Description of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Rationale for Selection of Recommended Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SECTION V - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Land and Land Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Surface Water Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
D. Groundwater Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
E. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
F. Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
G. Land Use and Cultural Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
SECTION VI - SELECTED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B. Project Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C. Preliminary Design Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D. Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
E. Project Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
F. Contract Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
REVISED April 13, 2001
January 8, 2001 i
SECTION VII - LEGAL, FINANCIAL & MANAGERIAL CAPABILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

A. Management Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B. Land Acquisition Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C. Inter-Local Governmental Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
SECTION VIII - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A. Time and Place of Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B. Public Hearing Transcript, Sign-Up Sheet and Comments . . . . . . . . 26
APPENDICES
Appendix A-Figures
Appendix B-Tables
Appendix C-Letter from Health Department.
Appendix D-Wasteload Allocation Letter.
Appendix E-Estimated Project Costs.
Appendix F-Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Appendix G-Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
Appendix H-IDEM Clearance for Rockport WWTP Site
Appendix I-Good Faith Negotiation Letter
Appendix J-(Interlocal Agreement or Letter of Intent)
Appendix K-Preliminary Design Summary
Appendix L-Project Financing
Appendix M-Acceptance Resolution
Appendix N-Designated Management Authority Resolution
Appendix O-Designated Signatory Resolution
Appendix P-Affidavit of Publication for Public Hearing Notice
Appendix Q-Transcript of Public Hearing
January 8, 2001 ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Summary of Current Wastewater Flows

Table 2 - Projected Population in the Service Area
Table 3 - Proposed Design Wastewater Flows
Table 3A - Projected Wasteloads
Table 4 - Types of Land in Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project
Table 5 - Historic and Architecturally Significant Sites
Table 6 - Project Information
Table 7 - Milestones and Time Schedule-Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities
Project
REVISED March 21, 2001
January 8, 2001 iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Study Area, Service Area and Project Location Map

Figure 2 - Historical and Projected Service Area Population
Figure 3 - Projected Wastewater Flows
Figure 4A - National Wetlands Inventory Maps of the Project Site
Figure 4B - National Wetlands Inventory Maps of the Project Site
Figure 4C - National Wetlands Inventory Maps of the Project Site
Figure 4D - National Wetlands Inventory Maps of the Project Site
Figure 5A - Spencer County Soils Maps of the Project Site
Figure 5B - Spencer County Soils Maps of the Project Site
Figure 5C - Spencer County Soils Maps of the Project Site
Figure 5D - Spencer County Soils Maps of the Project Site
Figure 6A - FEMA Floodplain Maps of the Project Site
Figure 6B - FEMA Floodplain Maps of the Project Site
Figure 6C - FEMA Floodplain Maps of the Project Site
Figure 6D - FEMA Floodplain Maps of the Project Site
Figure 7A - Stream Crossings for the Project
Figure 7B - Stream Crossings for the Project
Figure 7C - Stream Crossings for the Project
Figure 7D - Stream Crossings for the Project
Figure 8A - Historic and Architectural Sites
Figure 8B - Historic and Architectural Sites
Figure 8C - Historic and Architectural Sites
Figure 9 - Project Details - Richland City Area
Figure 10 - Project Details - S.R.161 from Richland City to Main Pump Station
Figure 11 - Project Details - French Island Boat Club and Force Main to Eureka
Figure 12 - Project Details - Eureka and Force Main to Hatfield
Figure 13 - Project Details - Hatfield Area
Figure 14 - Project Details - S.R.66 / Sand Ridge to Main Pump Station
Figure 15 - Project Details - C.R.200 N. / Force Main to New Rockport WWTP
Figure 16 - Rockport WWTP Preliminary Site Plan
January 8, 2001 iv
SECTION I - PROJECT LOCATION
A. Existing Service Area
The proposed Luce Township Regional Sewer District encompasses an area of

approximately 4911 acres in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana. The
District’s proposed boundaries are shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A-Figures.
The proposed Luce Township Regional Sewer District does not have an existing
service area. See Figure 1 in for the Proposed Service Area.
B. Twenty Year Study Area and Twenty Year Service Area
The twenty-year Study Area and the twenty-year Service Area are the same. We
show in Figure 1 the twenty-year Study Area/Service Area.
C. Project Area(s)
In Figure 1, we also show the location of the Project within the Study Area. The
Project is located in Sections 34 and 35, Township 6 South, Range 7 West,
Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29 and 32,
Township, 7 South, Range 7 West, Sections 6 and 7, Township 7 South, Range
7 West, and Sections 5 and 6, Township 8 South, Range 7 West in Luce
Township, and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 7 South,
Range 6 West in Ohio Township. Details of the project area are included in
Section VI.
January 8, 2001 1
SECTION II - CURRENT SITUATION
A. Description of Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment System
1. Existing Wastewater Collection System
All of the homes and businesses in the project area are currently served
by individual septic tank systems for wastewater disposal. There is no
existing wastewater collection system in the study area.
2. Wastewater Treatment System
The proposed Luce Township Regional Sewer District does not have an
existing wastewater treatment facility. All homes and businesses rely on
individual septic tank systems for wastewater disposal.
All of the wastewater flow collected by the proposed project will be

pumped to the new wastewater treatment plant that has been financed
and is currently being designed for the City of Rockport, Indiana.
B. Current Wastewater Flows
1. Wastewater Flows
In Table 1 of Appendix B-Tables we show the current estimated

wastewater flows generated within the project area. As can be seen in
Table 1, the current average design flow from the project area is 247,920
gallons per day. The current wastewater flows are based on 310 gallons
per day (gpd) for all users with the exception of the Luce Elementary
School. Average water usage for the Elementary School is approximately
850 gallons per day and we have estimated the wastewater generation at
the same 850 gallons per day.
C. Current Operating Problems
All of the homes and businesses in the project area rely on existing septic tank
systems for sewage disposal. Existing on-site disposal systems consist of septic
January 8, 2001 2
tanks with absorption trenches and/or direct connections to creeks and ditches.
The majority of these systems were constructed prior to the present requirements
for soil evaluations.
The soil conditions and high groundwater levels in the project area do not allow
for the repair of most of the on-site systems within current regulations. Where
soil conditions would allow proper repair, factors such as lot configuration and
existing structures make rehabilitation of existing on-site systems a difficult task
and a temporary solution at best.
The Spencer County Health Department has been forced to close one food
establishment and ordered another establishment to limit food services due to
inadequate means of sewage disposal. In addition, several residences have
been forced to vacate due to inadequate sewage disposal. A letter from the
Spencer County Health Department indicating support of the project is included
in Appendix C-Letter from Health Department.
D. Significant Wastewater Contributors
As noted previously, the Luce Elementary School is the only significant

wastewater contributor with an estimated average wastewater generation of 850
gpd.
January 8, 2001 3
SECTION III - FUTURE SITUATION
A. Current Population
The current population of Luce Township is estimated to be 3109 persons. The

current population of the proposed service area is estimated to be 2028 persons
(based on 751 households and 2.7 persons per household).
B. Population Projections
The projection of the Service Area’s future population has been based on past
population trends. Table 2 in Appendix B shows the projected population in the
Service Area.
Figure 2 in Appendix A shows the projected Service Area population in a

graphical format.
C. Proposed Design Wastewater Flows
The current estimated wastewater flow generated within the project area is
approximately 247,920 gallons per day. The majority of this wastewater flow
(approximately 94%) is generated by domestic sources. The remainder of the
wastewater flow is generated by small commercial / institutional and industrial
facilities such as taverns, insurance offices, convenience stores, restaurants,
auto repair shops, churches, volunteer fire departments, lodges, and the
Elementary School.
The majority of the lots in the communities of Richland City, Hatfield, and Eureka
have been built upon. Growth within these communities will be minimal. The
French Island Boat Club area has the potential for additional growth. However,
since many of the residences at the Boat Club are only occupied on a seasonal
basis and much of the undeveloped area at the Boat Club is used for
campgrounds, substantial growth at the Boat Club is not anticipated. Residential
and commercial growth within the project area will take place along the roadways
connecting the various communities. It is anticipated that growth within the
project area will continue at the past rate of 0.50% per year. With the anticipated
January 8, 2001 4
growth, the projected average flows from the proposed Luce Township Regional
Sewer District at the end of the planning period is 273,930 gallons per day.
Table 3 in Appendix B provides the projected wastewater flows generated from

the project area during the Planning Period.
These projected flows are shown graphically in Figure 3 of Appendix A.
The projected wasteloads are shown in Table 3A in Appendix B.
The Luce Township Regional Sewer District will utilize the new wastewater
treatment facility currently being designed for the City of Rockport. The new
WWTP will have a average design capacity of 300,000 gpd and have the
capability of being expanded to at least 600,000 gpd. The new Rockport WWTP
is being designed for easy expansion in anticipation of receiving wastewater flow
from the Luce Township Regional Sewer District.
D. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Limits
An NPDES permit has not been issued for the new Wastewater Treatment Plant
being designed for the City of Rockport. However, during the Preliminary
Engineering Report stage of the Rockport Wastewater Facilities Project, the City
of Rockport obtained a Wasteload Allocation Letter from IDEM listing proposed
effluent limits for various discharge locations. We anticipate no changes in the
proposed plant effluent limits as a result of this project. A copy of the City of
Rockport’s Wasteload Allocation Letter is included in Appendix D-Wasteload
Allocation Letter.
E. Evaluation of Ability to Transport and Treat Wastewater Flows
Luce Township Regional Sewer District’s proposed sewer system will be entirely
new and will have the capacity to transport the wastewater generated from the
project area. In addition, the new North Rockport WWTP and subsequent
expansion will have the capacity to treat the wastewater generated within the
project area.
January 8, 2001 5
SECTION IV - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Description of Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered to resolve the problems described in

Section II. These alternatives were the only ones believed feasible.
Description of Alternatives Reviewed in Detail

Alternative Title Brief Description
A No Action Take no action. Allow existing condition to exist and
deteriorate.
B Low Pressure Sewer Low Pressure Sewer (LPS) system utilizing grinder pumps
System. at every home and business and small (1½" - 6") diameter
Treatment at Rockport pipes to convey the sewage under pressure.
Wastewater treatment to be provided at the new North
Rockport WWTP.
C Low Pressure Sewer LPS system in which some of the homes and businesses
System with homes share a grinder pump unit.
sharing grinder pump. Wastewater treatment to be provided at the new North
Treatment at Rockport Rockport WWTP.
D Conventional Gravity Utilizes minimum 8" diameter sewer laid to grade with
Sewer system. manholes located every 400 feet or at every change in
Treatment at Rockport grade, direction, and pipe size.
Wastewater treatment to be provided at the new North
Rockport WWTP.
E Low Pressure Sewer Low Pressure Sewer (LPS) system utilizing grinder pumps
System. at every home and business and small (1½" - 6") diameter
New WWTP pipes to convey the sewage under pressure.
Wastewater treatment to be provided at a new WWTP
located along C.R. 150 S. near Clear Creek.
F Low Pressure Sewer LPS system in which some of the homes and businesses
System with homes share a grinder pump unit.
sharing grinder pump. Wastewater treatment to be provided at a new WWTP
New WWTP located along C.R. 150 S. near Clear Creek.
January 8, 2001 6
Alternative Title Brief Description

G Conventional Gravity Utilizes minimum 8" diameter sewer laid to grade with
sewer system. manholes located every 400 feet or at every change in
New WWTP grade, direction, and pipe size.
Wastewater treatment to be provided at a new WWTP
located along C.R. 150 S. near Clear Creek.
For alternatives B through G listed above, we also considered various service

area sizes. The service area alternatives considered include:
1.) Communities of Richland City and Hatfield, along with the area
along S.R. 66 between Hatfield and Sand Ridge and the area
along S.R. 161 between Sand Ridge and Richland City. This area
includes 688 users.
2.) Communities of Richland City, Hatfield, and Eureka, along with
the area along S.R. 66 between Hatfield and Sand Ridge, the area
along S.R. 161 between Sand Ridge and Richland City, and the
area along the County Road between Hatfield and Eureka. This
area includes 736 users.
3.) Communities of Richland City, Hatfield, and Eureka, along with
the French Island Boat Club. Also the area along S.R. 66
between Hatfield and Sand Ridge, the area along S.R. 161
between Sand Ridge and Richland City, and the area along the
County Road between Hatfield and Eureka and the Boat Club.
This area includes 798 users.
B. Rationale for Selection of Recommended Alternative
As previously noted, all of the homes and businesses in the project area rely on
septic tank systems for sewage disposal. Many of these on-site systems have
direct connections to creeks and ditches. In addition, factors such as lot
configuration, existing structures, and high groundwater levels make
rehabilitation of the existing on-site systems a difficult task and a temporary
solution at best.
We have developed cost estimates and conducted cost-effectiveness analyses

for each of the alternatives listed above (except the no-action alternative). The
cost effectiveness analyses indicate that Alternative C-3 (LPS system for the
January 8, 2001 7
communities of Richland City, Hatfield and Eureka, along with the French Island
Boat Club and the areas between the communities, with some homes and
businesses sharing a grinder pump unit and treatment at the new North
Rockport WWTP) is the most cost-effective alternative. Because of this, we have
chosen to implement Alternative C-3. This Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report is the first step in this implementation.
Cost estimates for the various alternatives (except the no-action alternative) are
provided in Appendix E-Estimated Project Costs. Details of the cost-
effectiveness analyses are included in Appendix F-Cost-Effectiveness
Analyses.
January 8, 2001 8
SECTION V - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION
A. Alternative Sites
In developing the Luce Township Regional Sewer District Wastewater Collection

and Treatment Facilities Project, we considered two collection system
alternatives (Low Pressure Sewer vs. Conventional Gravity Sewer) and two
treatment alternatives. The collection system layouts took into account factors
such as the location of existing structures, topography, soil conditions, and the
location of existing underground and overhead utilities. The Low Pressure Sewer
system, which utilizes small diameter (1½" to 6") pipe to convey the wastewater
under pressure, proves to be not only the most cost effective alternative but is
also the preferred choice due to the high groundwater levels in the project area
and the narrow corridors available for construction within the communities.
For wastewater treatment, the two alternatives considered were: 1) Utilize the
new Rockport WWTP currently being designed, and 2) Construct a new WWTP
at a location near the Ohio River. For construction of a new WWTP, some of the
criteria used in searching for a suitable site were proximity to the Ohio River, the
location of wetlands, and the location of the site in relation to the 100-year
floodplain. Utilizing the new Rockport WWTP not only proves to be the most cost
effective, but is also less disruptive to undisturbed lands.
B. Land and Land Impacts
1. Soils
Soils in the Project Area will not adversely affect the Project. The effects
of high groundwater levels will be lessened by the relatively shallow depth
required for Low Pressure Sewer systems. Where groundwater levels
are above the level of the excavation, normal dewatering methods will be
implemented to protect the work area or directional boring will be used.
Siltation and erosion will be kept to a minimum. Mitigation measures to
lessen siltation and erosion cited in comment letters about the Project
from the Spencer County Soil Conservation Service will be implemented.
January 8, 2001 9
2. Prime Agricultural Land
Portions of the Project will not be constructed in or across prime farmland

as determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. A copy of the completed Form AD-1006 from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service indicating that the project will
not impact prime farmland is included in Appendix G-Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating Form.
3. Disturbed Land
The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project will be built

on both disturbed and undisturbed lands. Table 4 in Appendix B
describes the amounts of disturbed and undisturbed land required for the
project. The acreage shown for each project segment is based on a
construction width of 20 feet for pressure sewers and force mains.
Figures 1, 4A - 4D, 5A - 5D, 6A - 6D, 7A - 7D, 8A - 8C, 9, 10, 11, 12,

13, 14, 15A, and 15B show detailed locations of the facilities at various
scales or with particular environmental or cultural characteristics
highlighted. In each of these figures, the pressure sewer lines that will be
constructed in undisturbed land are shown as dashed lines. The
pressure sewer lines in disturbed areas are shown as solid lines. The
pressure sewer lines in undisturbed areas are to be located in easements
adjacent to existing rights-of-way or along property lines, except near the
northwest corner of the intersection of S.R. 66 and S.R. 161 where the
pressure sewer line follow along a drainage ditch at the base of a ridge in
order to avoid a small cemetery located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of S.R. 66 and S.R. 161. In addition, the area immediately
surrounding this cemetery is wooded.
Each of the lift stations will be built in areas of about 30-feet by 30-feet
adjacent to existing rights-of-way. The status of disturbance on the land
for these lift stations is described in Table 4. The grinder pump stations
will be located either in the existing right-of-way or in private easements
REVISED September 24, 2001
January 8, 2001 10
on the lots being served, while the pressure sewer lateral will be located
in previously disturbed land in easements and existing rights-of-way.
Impacts to trees and wooded lands will be minimal. Where possible, the
sewer routes were selected to minimize disturbance to wooded areas.
However, the location of existing utilities, particularly water lines and gas
lines, was often the controlling factor in the locations of the proposed
sewer routes.
The segment of pressure sewer from the Boat Club lift station to Eureka
has the greatest impact to trees. Of the nearly 10,800 feet of pressure
sewer from the Boat Club lift station to C.R. 50 S. on the south side of
Eureka, approximately 30 percent is in or along wooded areas. The
segment of sewer along the north side of C.R. 200 N. between the main
pumping station and Base Road will impact approximately 1500 lineal feet
of wooded areas. However, both of these sewer segments will be
adjacent to existing county road right-of-way so any impact to these
wooded areas will be minimal.

10a
The expansion to the Rockport WWTP will occur in the area shown in
Figure 16 in the southern portion of the site. Construction for the plant
will be limited to those areas of the site that have previously received
environmental clearance through IDEM. In Appendix H-IDEM Clearance
for Rockport WWTP Site, we have provided a copy of the approval letter
for the project currently being designed.
4. Topography and Elevations
The topography of the project area varies from flat to gently rolling. In
Richland City, the terrain is flat with elevations in the vicinity of 390 feet.
In Hatfield, the topography is relatively flat with elevations varying from
around 380 feet along Tower Ditch and Hatfield Drain to approximately
390 feet in the remainder of the community. The majority of the areas
along S.R. 66 and S.R. 161 are flat with the exception of the Sand Ridge
area. Sand Ridge is the area at the intersection of S.R. 66 and S.R. 161.
Elevations along S.R. 66 and S.R. 161 are in the vicinity of 390 to 400
feet while the elevations near Sand Ridge are in the range of 430 to 440
feet. The topography of Eureka and the route from Eureka to Hatfield is
relatively flat with elevations ranging from 380 feet along Willow Pond
Ditch to 400 feet at the east side of Eureka and the south end of Hatfield.
The French Island Boat Club area is flat with an elevation around 380
feet. The area between the Boat Club and Eureka is gently rolling just
north of the Boat Club and relatively flat near Eureka.
The terrain along the 12-inch force main (C.R. 200 N.) to the new
Rockport WWTP varies from gently rolling to flat. Elevations along this
route vary from 380 feet to nearly 470 feet. We have provided a
topographic map showing the Project Area in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
C. Surface Water Hydrology
1. Outstanding State Resources Waters, Exceptional Use Streams and

Natural and Scenic Rivers
There are no outstanding state resources waters in Spencer County.

There are two limited use streams (Hawk Run and Blackhawk Creek) in
January 8, 2001 11
Spencer County. These limited use streams are located in the northeast
part of the County and are not near the Project Site. There are no
exceptional use streams or natural and scenic rivers in Spencer County
or near the Project Site. There are no waters of high quality in Spencer
County or near the Project site. The Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Facilities Project will not adversely affect outstanding state
resources waters, limited or exceptional use streams, or natural and
scenic rivers.
2. Wetlands
We reviewed the National Wetlands Inventory Maps of the Service Area

to identify wetlands that might be affected by the Wastewater Collection
and Treatment Facilities Project. In Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D of
Appendix A we have provided copies of the National Wetlands Inventory
Maps on which we have depicted the Project locations.
As can be seen in Figures 4A through 4D, a small portion of the 12-inch

force main from the main pumping station to the Rockport North WWTP is
the only sewer impacting a wetlands area as indicated by the National
Wetlands Inventory Maps. This wetlands area (PFO1C) is located along
C.R. 200 N. approximately 1700 feet east of Silverdale Road.
We have included in Figures 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D copies of the Spencer
County Soils Map on which we have depicted the Project locations.
Mitigation measures to lessen wetland impacts cited in comment letters

about the Project from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be implemented.
3. Floodplains
In the Project Area, we identified thirteen (13) locations where the project
will be constructed through areas designated as 100-year floodplains.
The 13 areas are described below:
1. Along Hooppole Ditch on the north side of Richland City near State
Road 161.
January 8, 2001 12
2. Along County Road (C.R.) 200 North from a point approximately 600 feet
east of C.R. 275 W. to Base Road, and south along Base Road from C.R.
200 N. to the headworks of the Rockport WWTP.
3. Portions of the site of the new Rockport wastewater treatment plant
expansion.
4. Along Hatfield Drain from a point near the intersection of C.R. 150 N. and
C.R. 850 W. to C.R. 900 W. in the northern portion of Hatfield.
5. Along C.R. 900 W. from a point near Hatfield Drain to the intersection of
C.R. 900 W. and C.R. 150 N. in the northern portion of Hatfield.
6. Along the south side of C.R. 100 N. at Tower Ditch in Hatfield.
7. Along Tower Ditch from the east side of C.R. 850 W. to a point just west
of C.R. 900 W. in Hatfield.
8. Along an unnamed tributary to Tower Ditch from a point approximately
170 feet west of C.R. 850 W. to the confluence with Tower Ditch in
Hatfield.
9. Along C.R. 950 W. just north of C.R. 50 N. on the southwest side of
Hatfield.
10. Along Base Road at an unnamed tributary to Baker Creek approximately
one-half mile north of Eureka.
11. Along C.R. 850 W. at Willow Pond Ditch on the north side of Eureka.
12. Along C.R.850 W. at Clear Creek just south of Eureka.
13. The French Island Boat Club area from the Ohio River to a point just
north of the proposed Boat Club Lift Station.
We show in Figures 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D in Appendix A the 100-year

floodplains defined by FEMA within and around the Project Site. The
Hatfield Lift Station, the Eureka Lift Station, and the Boat Club Lift Station
will be located in the 100-year floodplain. These lift stations sites will be
graded such that the lift stations are protected from a 100-year flood and
they are accessible during a 25-year flood. The top of each lift station wet
well and valve pit, along with the electrical control panel, will be least 2
feet above the 100-year flood level. In addition, some of the proposed
structures for the wastewater treatment plant expansion will be located in
the floodplain. The elevation of the top of these structures will be above
the 100-year flood level and will closely match the elevations of the
structures currently being designed for the Rockport North WWTP.
The Lake Michigan coastal zone will not be affected by the Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Facilities Project.
REVISED October 22, 2001
January 8, 2001 13
4. Stream Crossings
Sixteen (16) stream crossings will be required for the Project. These
crossings will be:
A. Hooppole Ditch on the north side of Richland City along S.R. 161.
B. McCoy Drain along the west side of S.R. 161 just south of C.R. 300 N.
C. Unnamed tributary to McCoy Drain along C.R. 200 N. approximately
2900 feet east of C.R. 450 W.
D. Huffman Ditch along C.R. 200 N. approximately 1400 feet west of
C.R. 200 W.
E. Unnamed tributary to Huffman Ditch along C.R. 200 N. approximately
2500 feet west of C.R. 100 W.
F. Unnamed stream along Base Road approximately 1400 feet south of
C.R. 200 N. and located just north of the new Rockport WWTP.
G. Hatfield Drain at the northeast corner of the intersection of C.R. 150
N. and C.R. 850 W. in Hatfield.
H. Hatfield Drain approximately 450 feet east of C.R. 900 W. in Hatfield.
I. Hatfield Drain along the west side of C.R. 900 W. in Hatfield.
J. Tower Ditch on the east side of C.R. 850 W. in Hatfield.
K. Tower Ditch approximately 200 feet west of C.R. 850 W. in Hatfield.
L. Tower Ditch approximately 700 feet west of C.R. 850 W. in Hatfield.
M. Tower Ditch on the east side of C.R. 900 W. in Hatfield.
N. Tower Ditch approximately 150 feet south of C.R. 100 N. in Hatfield.
O. Willow Pond Ditch along C.R. 850 W. just north of Eureka.
P. Clear Creek along C.R.850 W. just south of Eureka.
These stream crossings are shown in Figures 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D in
Appendix A. The letter identifiers in this list match the stream crossing
locations shown in these figures. All stream crossings will be constructed
using either the open cut method or by directional boring so that no
surface disturbance occurs.
All mitigation and erosion control methods for the stream crossings will be
implemented as required by the regulating agencies.
No new discharges will be required for the Wastewater Collection and

Treatment Facilities Project.
January 8, 2001 14
D. Groundwater Hydrology
No sole source aquifers will be affected by the Wastewater Collection and

Treatment Facilities Project. Groundwater quality will not be affected by
construction of the Project. High groundwater may be a problem during
construction. However, the effects of high groundwater levels will be lessened by
the relatively shallow depth required for Low Pressure Sewer systems. Where
groundwater levels are above the level of the excavation, normal dewatering
methods will be implemented to protect the work area or directional boring
techniques will be used.
E. Air Quality
We evaluated air quality impacts from the proposed Project for conformance with
applicable Rules under Title 326 Articles 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8, the Federal 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments.
1. Construction Activity
To minimize non-conformance with 326 IAC 6-4, "Fugitive Dust

Emissions", reasonable and proper construction techniques and clean-up
practices will be provided. In addition, surface wetting practices will be
utilized to control dust emissions were required. Please note that 326
IAC 6-4-6(3) provides for an exception of the Rule "...from construction or
demolition activity where every reasonable precaution has been taken in
minimizing fugitive dust emissions". Exhausts of construction equipment
will be required to have mufflers for noise and air pollution abatement.
2. Clean Air Act Title I - Nonattainment
Spencer County, Indiana is not a Nonattainment, Maintenance or At Risk

Area as defined under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and is not
subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to inventory VOC emission
sources and establish requirements of Reasonable Available Control
Technology (RACT).
January 8, 2001 15
3. Clean Air Act Title III - Hazardous Air Pollutants
Title III calls for a program to prevent accidental releases of hazardous air
pollutants from facilities. We do not anticipate use of chemicals in the
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project that may release
hazardous air pollutants as defined by EPA's Hazardous Air Pollutant
Listing. If potential hazardous air pollutants are used on the Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Facilities Project, we will require monitoring,
record keeping, reporting, vapor recovery, secondary containment,
design, equipment, work practices and operation according to Federal
standards.
4. Clean Air Act Title V - Permits
Title V creates a new operating permit program that applies to all major
sources under Title I and III. The Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities Project is not a major source under these regulations.
F. Biota
1. Endangered Species
The construction and operation of the Project will not negatively impact
state or federal-listed endangered species or their habitat. The Project will
be implemented to minimize impact to non-endangered species and their
habitat. Mitigation measures cited in comment letters from the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will be implemented.
G. Land Use and Cultural Impacts
1. Historic, Architectural, and Archaeological Sites
A. Historic and Architectural Sites
To identify sites and structures listed on the National Register, we

reviewed the Historic Indiana Guide 1997/98 and searched the
January 8, 2001 16
National Register Information System. We obtained a list of State

Historic Sites and Structures from the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources’ Internet site to identify any sites on the State Register
near the Project Site.
The Interim Report of Historic Sites and Structures is not yet available
for Spencer County. We contacted the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA),
along with the Historic Landmark Foundation, for information
pertaining to potentially historic sites that may be affected by the
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project. We show in
Table 5 of Appendix B the listed or potentially listed historic sites
near the project area.
Although other sites were identified by the Historic Landmark

Foundation and DHPA, none of the additional sites in the project area
were rated above “C” (Contributing) and are not considered historic.
The eight sites listed in Table 5 are near the pressure sewer
alignments in the project area. However, none of the historic and
architectural sites will be adversely affected by the Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Facilities Project. Site 1 is a house along
C.R. 100 W. approximately 900 feet south of C.R. 200 N. while the
sewer will be on the north side of C.R. 200 N. Site 2 is approximately
400 feet north of C.R. 200 N. Since the sewer will be installed about
15-25 feet from C.R. 200 N., the sewer construction will not affect the
structure. Site 3 is located near the intersection of C.R. 900 W. and
Barnett Street in Hatfield. The sewer will be installed approximately
30-40 feet from the structure. Site 4 is located at 8910 Old S.R. 66 in
Hatfield. The sewer will be installed approximately 70-80 feet from
the structure. Site 5 is located on the south side of C.R. 100 N. in
Hatfield. The sewer will be installed along the rear lot line of the
property approximately 90-100 feet from the house and will not affect
the structure. Site 6 is located along C.R. 800 W. near Eureka. No
sewer will be installed along or near this site. Site 7 is on the west
side of C.R.850 W. while the sewer will be installed on the east side of
the roadway. Site 8 is located approximately one-quarter mile east of
C.R.850 W. while the sewer will be installed along the roadway.
January 8, 2001 17
We show in Figures 8A, 8B, and 8C in Appendix A the locations of

the above referenced historic sites. The site number in the
descriptions above are used as identifiers in the figures.
B. Archaeological Sites
The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project will be

constructed on both disturbed and undisturbed areas. A significant
portion of the project will be constructed along roadways and lot lines
in the communities of Richland City, Hatfield, and Eureka along with
the French Island Boat Club area. In addition, the lines connecting
the communities of Richland City, Hatfield, Eureka, and the Boat Club
will be constructed adjacent to, or near, existing utilities such as gas
lines, telephone lines, and water lines. The main force main along
C.R. 200 N. and Base Road to the Rockport WWTP will also be
constructed adjacent to existing utility lines.
During the preliminary engineering stages for the new Rockport

WWTP, an archaelogical site was discovered on the west side of
Base Road on the property to be used for the treatment plant. An
archaeological investigation was completed on this site and the
findings reported to the Department of Natural Resources. In
addition, a portion of the project will be constructed in soil series
(Algiers, Ginat, Huntington, Newark, Sciotoville, Weinbach, Wheeling,
Wilbur, and Woodmere) that formed in alluvium. A significant
archaeological site was found in the project area. The pressure
sewer line will be constructed within the County Road right-of-way in
the area of this new archaeological site.
2. National Natural Landmarks
No national natural landmarks exist in the Service Area.
January 8, 2001 18
3. Open Space and Recreational Opportunities
The proposed project’s construction and operation will neither create nor
destroy open space and recreational opportunities.
4. Induced Impacts
The pace of development in the communities of Richland City, Hatfield,

and Eureka, as well as the undeveloped areas nearby, may be
accelerated with the increased availability of sewer service. However, the
amount of development will be limited by the use of the Low Pressure
Sewer system and any Intermunicipal Agreement with the City of
Rockport. The proposed Luce Township Regional Sewer District will
ensure, through rules, regulations, or other means, that future
development using SRF-funded facilities will not negatively impact
sensitive environmental areas.
January 8, 2001 19
SECTION VI - SELECTED PLAN
A. Project Description
In the Luce Township Regional Sewer District Wastewater Collection and

Treatment Facilities Project we will construct a Low Pressure Sewer (LPS)
system to provide wastewater collection for 798 homes and businesses in the
communities of Richland City, Hatfield, Eureka, and the French Island Boat Club
plus the areas along S.R. 161 from Richland City to S.R. 66, along S.R. 66 from
Sand Ridge to Hatfield, along C.R. 900 W. / Base Road / C.R. 850 W. from
Hatfield to Eureka, and along C.R.850 W. from Eureka to the Boat Club. Some
homes and/or businesses will share a grinder pump unit. In addition, we will
expand the new WWTP currently being designed for the City of Rockport. This
project was described as Alternative C-3 in Section IV.
The LPS system in Richland City serves 226 homes and businesses and
consists of approximately 170 grinder pump units and 2-inch through 6-inch
diameter pressure sewers that convey the wastewater to the Richland Lift
Station. The Richland Lift Station is located on the south side of Richland
approximately 250 feet south of Hodges Drive. Wastewater collected at the
Richland Lift Station is pumped through an 8-inch force main to the main
pumping station located at the northeast corner of the intersection of S.R. 161
and C.R. 200 N. Twenty homes and businesses along the 8-inch force main are
also served by the project.
The LPS system at the Boat Club serves 51 users and consists of approximately
38 grinder pump units and 2-inch through 4-inch pressure sewers that convey the
wastewater to the Boat Club Lift Station. The Boat Club Lift Station is located on
the east side of C.R.850 W. just north of the Boat Club. Wastewater collected at
the Boat Club Lift Station is pumped through a 4-inch diameter force main to the
Eureka collection system. Eight homes between the Boat Club and Eureka are
also served by the project.
The LPS system in Eureka serves 41 users and consists of approximately 31

grinder pump units and 2-inch through 4-inch diameter pressure sewers that
convey the wastewater to the Eureka Lift Station. The Eureka Lift Station is
located on the west side of C.R. 850 W. just south of Willow Pond Ditch.
Wastewater collected at the Eureka Lift Station is pumped through a 4-inch
January 8, 2001 20
diameter force main to the Hatfield Lift Station. Seven homes between Eureka
and C.R. 50 N. (at the south end of Hatfield) are also served by the project.
The LPS system in Hatfield serves 375 homes and businesses and consists of
approximately 281 grinder pump units and 2-inch through 6-inch diameter
pressure sewers that convey the wastewater to the Hatfield Lift Station located
on the east side of C.R. 900 W. just south of Tower Ditch. Wastewater collected
at the Hatfield Lift Station is pumped through a 10-inch diameter force main along
S.R. 66 and a portion of S.R. 161 to the main pumping station. In addition, 70
homes and businesses along the 10-inch force main are also served by the
project.
All of the wastewater collected in the system terminates at the main pumping
station and is pumped through a 12-inch diameter force main along C.R. 200 N.
and Base Road to the new WWTP currently being designed for the City of
Rockport. The new Rockport WWTP is being designed to treat an average daily
flow of approximately 0.30 mgd. The new Rockport WWTP site has ample area
to accommodate expansion of the facility.
The components of the expansion of the Rockport WWTP will include one
300,000 gallon oxidation ditch, two 25-foot diameter circular clarifiers, and one
sludge belt press. We anticipate being able to utilize the headworks,
chlorination/dechlorination facilities, and reaeration system currently being
planned for the WWTP.
In Figure 10 through Figure 15 we show details of the various sewer project

areas. In Figure 16 we have provided a preliminary site plan for the proposed
Rockport Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion.
Right-of-way / Easement acquisition is required for portions of the Luce Township

Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project. In addition, land
acquisition is required for the five lift station sites. In Appendix I-Good Faith
Negotiation Letter, we have provided copies of letters indicating that we are
negotiating in good faith for the land required for the project.
January 8, 2001 21
In Appendix J-(Interlocal Agreement or Letter of Intent), we have provided a

copy of the agreement between the Luce Township Advisory Board and the City
of Rockport for the treatment service necessary for the Wastewater Collection
and Treatment Facilities Project.
In Table 6 in Appendix B we show the types of land that the different parts of
this Project are going to be built on.
B. Project Phasing
The Project is intended to be constructed as one (1) phase.
C. Preliminary Design Summary
The Project design is based on estimated flows from the project areas. A copy of
the planning level design summary is included in Appendix K-Preliminary
Design Summary.
D. Project Costs
We estimate the cost of the Project to be $11,140,000. We have provided

detailed cost estimates for the Project in Appendix E-Estimated Project Costs.
The monthly sewer rate estimates, along with the SRF Project Financing
Information form(s) are provided in Appendix L-Project Financing. Based on
preliminary analysis, the average monthly sewer bill for the project area will be
approximately $124.39. This is based on financing the entire project through the
State Revolving Loan Fund.
According to the 1990 Census, the Median Household Income for Luce Township
is $29,315. The $124.39 average monthly sewer bill would likely be a large
burden to most of the homeowners in Luce Township. The acquisition of grants
would reduce the effect on the proposed Luce Township RSD’s sewer bills. A
rate analysis by the Luce Township RSD’s rate consultant will be needed to
determine the rate effect on the Luce Township RSD’s customers as well as the
final rate structure.
January 8, 2001 22
E. Project Schedule
Table 7 in Appendix B presents the estimated project time schedule for the
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project.
F. Contract Operations
The Luce Township RSD is a proposed new entity and, as a result, does not
presently contract for any services.
January 8, 2001 23
SECTION VII - LEGAL, FINANCIAL & MANAGERIAL CAPABILITIES
A. Management Resolutions
1. Preliminary Engineering Report Acceptance Resolution
This Preliminary Engineering Report has been accepted by the Luce

Township Advisory Board on behalf of the proposed Luce Township
Regional Sewer District. In Appendix M-Acceptance Resolution, we
have included a copy of the executed resolution accepting this report.
2. Designated Management Authority Resolution
We have included a copy of the executed Designated Management

Authority Resolution in Appendix N-Designated Management Authority
Resolution.
3. Designated Signatory Authorization
We have included a copy of the executed Designated Signatory

Resolution in Appendix O-Designated Signatory Resolution.
4. SRF Project Financing Information
The SRF Project Financing Information Form has been provided in

Appendix K-Project Financing.
B. Land Acquisition Schedules
We are currently pursuing purchase of the land required for the lift station sites.
These five tracts are the only ones required for the Project. We’d anticipate
completing purchase of this tracts before closing on the SRF loan. Easements
for sewer lines and grinder pump stations will be acquired during design.
January 8, 2001 24
C. Inter-Local Governmental Agreement
An inter-local government agreement is required for this Project. A copy of this

agreement is provided in Appendix I-Interlocal Agreement or Letter of Intent.
January 8, 2001 25
SECTION VIII - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Time and Place of Public Hearing
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Spencer County Journal-
Democrat on January 25, 2001. A copy of the affidavit of publication for the
public notice is included in Appendix P-Affidavit of Publication for Public
Hearing Notice. A completed draft of this preliminary engineering report was
made available to the public from the date of the notice until the time of the public
hearing at the Luce Township office along with Commonwealth Engineers, Inc. in
both Jasper and Evansville. A public hearing was conducted for the Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Facilities Project at the Luce Elementary School on
February 8, 2001.
B. Public Hearing Transcript, Sign-Up Sheet and Comments
A copy of the transcript from the public hearing, the attendance record, and the
hearing document are included in Appendix Q-Transcript of Public Hearing.
One written comment was received after the public hearing. The written
comments are included in this appendix after the transcript.
Revised March 8, 2001
January 8, 2001 26
Appendix Q-Transcript of Public Hearing
January 8, 2001 28
Appendix A
Figures
January 8, 2001 29
Figure 2
Historical and Projected Service Area Population
January 8, 2001 31
Figure 3
Projected Wastewater Flows
January 8, 2001 32
Appendix B
Tables
January 8, 2001 46
Table 1
Summary of Current Estimated Wastewater Flows
Category Flow (gallons per day)
(1)
Average Design Flow 247,920
Peaking Factor 3.5
(2)
Peak Design Flow 867,720
(3)
Peak Sustained Infiltration 0
Peak Hourly Inflow / Wet Weather Infiltration 0
Total Peak Wet Weather Flow 867,720
(1)
Based on 310 gallons per residential and commercial connection per day plus 850gpd for the Luce Elementary School.
(2)
Based on a peaking factor of 3.5.
(3)
Peak Sustained Infiltration will be zero for a pressure sewer system.
January 8, 2001 47
Table 2
Projected Population in the Service Area
Year Service Area Population (Persons)
2000 2,028
2002 2,048
2004 2,069
2006 2,090
2008 2,111
2010 2,132
2012 2,153
2014 2,175
2016 2,196
2018 2,218
2020 2,241
(1)
Based on data supplied by the Indiana State Data Center.
January 8, 2001 48
Table 3
Proposed Design Wastewater Flows
Category Flow (gallons per day)
Average Design Flow (1)

273,930
Peaking Factor 3.5
Peak Design Flow (2)
958,755
Peak Sustained Infiltration (3)
0
Peak Hourly Inflow / Wet Weather Infiltration 0
Total Peak Wet-Weather Flow 958,755
(1)
Based on 0.5% growth per year for 20-year planning period.
(2)
Based on a peaking factor of 3.5 from Ten State Standards, Figure 1.
(3)
Infiltration will be zero for pressure sewer systems.
Table 3A
Projected Wasteloads
Category Concentration (mg/l) Loading (lbs/day)
CBOD5 180 411
TSS 155 354
January 8, 2001 REVISED March 21, 2001

Table 4
Types of Land in Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project
Land Type
Project Segment Disturbed (acres) Undisturbed (acres)
Richland City 18.5 3.5
S.R. 161 from Richland to Sand Ridge 2.4 5.1

S.R. 66 from Sand Ridge to Hatfield 9.8 7.0
Hatfield 29.5 7.9

County Road from Hatfield to Eureka 1.7 2.1
Eureka 3.3 0.5

C.R.850 W. from Eureka to French Island Boat
Club 0.6 5.4
French Island Boat Club 4.1 0.2
Main Lift Station & Force Main along C.R. 200 N.

to new Rockport WWTP 1.7 15.2
TOTAL 71.6 46.9

NOTE: Acreage for lift station sites included in each respective community.
January 8, 2001
Table 5
Historic and Architecturally Significant Sites
Description Number Rating(1) Map Identifier
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
NONE
STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
NONE
INDIANA HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY
OHIO TOWNSHIP
House (C.R. 100 W. south of C.R. 200 N) 45016 N 1
LUCE TOWNSHIP
House (C.R. 200 N. approx. 0.9 mi. E of S.R. 161) 40029 N 2
House (corner C.R. 900 W. & Barnett in Hatfield) -------- O 3

Dr. Roach house (8910 Old S.R. 66 in Hatfield) -------- O 4
House (9119 West C.R. 100 N. in Hatfield) -------- N 5

Pattie house (322 North C.R. 800 W.) -------- N 6
(Approx. ½ mile from proposed sewer lines)
Mattingly house (just south of Eureka) 40044 N 7
Mattingly Cemetery (south of Eureka) 40045 C 8
(1)
O-Outstanding N-Notable C-Contributing NC-Non-Contributing
January 8, 2001
Table 6
Project Information
Project Sec/ Land NWI FEMA Flood-
Component Quad Map Twp/Range Classification Wetlands plains Notes
1 Richland City Sec. 34 & 35, T.6 Disturbed 18.5 Ac No Yes
S., R.7 W. Undisturbed 3.5 Ac Extreme north
Sec. 2 & 3, end of project
T.7 S., R.7 W.
2 Richland City Sec. 2, 3, 10, 11, Disturbed 2.4 Ac No No

14 & 15, Undisturbed 5.1 Ac
T.7 S., R.7 W.
3 Richland City Sec. 14, 15, 16, Disturbed 9.8 Ac No No

21, 22 & 23, Undisturbed 7.0 Ac
T.7 S., R.7 W.
4 Richland City Sec. 17, 18, Disturbed 29.5 Ac No Yes Along

19 & 20, Undisturbed 7.9 Ac Tower Ditch,
T.7 S., R.7 W. Hatfield Drain,
& Baker Creek
5 Richland City Sec. 20 & 29, Disturbed 1.7 Ac No Yes At Willow

T.7 S., R.7 W. Undisturbed 2.1 Ac Pond Ditch &
tributary
6 Richland City Sec. 29, Disturbed 3.3 Ac No Yes

T.7 S., R.7 W. Undisturbed 0.5 Ac Extreme NW
corner of
Eureka
7 Richland City Sec. 29 & 32, Disturbed 0.6 Ac No Yes At Clear

& T.7 S., R.7 W. Undisturbed 5.4 Ac Creek and area
Owensboro Sec. 5, near Boat Club
West T.8 S., R.7 W. Lift Station
8 Owensboro Sec. 5 & 6, Disturbed 4.0 Ac No Yes Entire

West T.8 S., R.7 W. Undisturbed 0.3 Ac area
9 Richland City Sec. 11 & 12 Disturbed 1.7 Ac No Yes From

& Rockport T.7 S., R.7 W. Undisturbed 15.2 Ac 600' east of
Sec. 7, 8, 9, C.R.275 W. to
10 & 15 Rockport
T.7 S., R.6 W. WWTP
Project
Component Description
1. Community of Richland City
2. Force Mains along S.R. 161 from south end of Richland City (Richland L.S.) to Sand
Ridge
3. Force Main and Pressure Sewers along S.R. 66 from east end of Hatfield to Sand Ridge
4. Community of Hatfield
5. Force Main along County Road from Eureka to Hatfield
6. Community of Eureka
7. Force Main along C.R.850 W. from Boat Club to Eureka
8. French Island Boat Club
9. Force Main from Main Pumping Station along C.R. 200 N. and Base Road to new
Rockport WWTP.
January 8, 2001 52
Table 7
Milestones and Time Schedule-Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project
Estimated
Milestone Date
Preliminary Engineering Report (Pre-Hearing Draft)
Completed and Submitted to Township and Steering
Committee January 2001
Township and Steering Committee Authorize Regional Sewer
District Petition to be Submitted to IDEM January 2001
Township and Steering Committee Hold Public Hearing for
PER February 2001
Township Negotiates Draft Intermunicipal Agreement with
City of Rockport March 2001
Township Approves PER and Submits to IDEM for Review
and Approval March 2001
Township Authorizes Rate Consultant’s Analysis (Financial
Report) April 2001
IDEM Approves PER June 2001
IDEM Creates Luce Township Regional Sewer District (RSD) July 2001
RSD Authorizes Plans and Specifications August 2001
Plans and Specifications Completed and Submitted to IDEM January 2002
District Completes Land Acquisition and Easements March 2002
IDEM Approves Plans and Specifications, Issues
Construction Permit and Authorizes District to Advertise for
Bids April 2002
District Opens Bids May 2002
District Completes Financing and Closes SRF Loan June 2002
Construction Begins July 2002
Construction Substantially Complete July 2003
Initiation of Operation August 2003
January 8, 2001 53
Appendix F
Cost Effectiveness Analyses
January 8, 2001 57
Appendix F
Luce Township Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project
Hatfield, S.R.66, S.R.161, & Richland City - Treatment at Rockport
Alternative B-1 Alternative C-1 Alternative D-1
Pressure Sewer
Item Description Pressure Sewer (Homes share pump) Gravity Sewer
Total Project Cost $10,747,000 $9,844,000 $11,273,000
Individual Costs
Service Lateral $137,600 $103,200 $192,700
Septic Tank Abandonment $137,600 $137,600 $137,600
Grinder Pump
Electrical Connection $206,400 $154,800 $41,100
Total Capital Costs $11,228,600 $10,239,600 $11,644,400
Present Worth of O,M&R
($256,500 x 10.00353) $2,565,900
($241,500 x 10.00353) $2,415,900
($220,000 x 10.00353) $2,200,800
Present Worth of Salvage

Value
($7,089,600 x 0.22473) $1,593,300
($6,436,600 x 0.22473) $1,446,500
($7,779,300 x 0.22473) $1,748,300
Net Present Worth $12,201,200 $11,209,000 $12,096,900
Number of Users 688 688 688
Net Present Worth per User $17,734 $16,292 $17,583
January 8, 2001 58
Appendix F
Eureka, Hatfield, S.R.66, S.R.161, & Richland City - Treatment at Rockport
Pressure Sewer
Individual Costs
Service Lateral $147,200 $110,400 $206,400
Grinder Pump
($276,800 x 10.00353) $2,768,900
($257,800 x 10.00353) $2,578,900
($234,200 x 10.00353) $2,342,800

Value
($7,510,500 x 0.22473) $1,687,800
($6,812,300 x 0.22473) $1,530,900
($8,184,000 x 0.22473) $1,839,200
January 8, 2001 59
Appendix F
Boat Club, Eureka, Hatfield, S.R.66, S.R.161, & Richland City - Treatment at Rockport
Pressure Sewer
Individual Costs
Service Lateral $159,600 $119,600 $218,800
Grinder Pump
($302,200 x 10.00353) $3,023,100
($282,200 x 10.00353) $2,822,900
($252,400 x 10.00353) $2,524,900

Value
($8,191,200 x 0.22473) $1,840,800
($7,413,300 x 0.22473) $1,666,000
($8,856,700 x 0.22473) $1,990,400
January 8, 2001 60
Appendix F
Hatfield, S.R.66, S.R.161, & Richland City - New WWTP
Alternative E-1 Alternative F-1 Alternative G-1
Pressure Sewer
Individual Costs
Service Lateral $137,600 $103,200 $192,700
Grinder Pump
($462,800 x 10.00353) $4,629,600
($446,800 x 10.00353) $4,468,600
($425,600 x 10.00353) $4,257,500

Value
($7,070,700 x 0.22473) $1,589,000
($6,417,700 x 0.22473) $1,442,300
($7,809,900 x 0.22473) $1,755,100
January 8, 2001 61
Appendix F
Eureka, Hatfield, S.R.66, S.R.161, & Richland City - New WWTP
Pressure Sewer
Individual Costs
Service Lateral $148,200 $111,000 $206,400
Grinder Pump
($470,300 x 10.00353) $4,704,700
($452,300 x 10.00353) $4,524,600
($433,300 x 10.00353) $4,334,500

Value
($7,429,100 x 0.22473) $1,669,500
($6,723,000 x 0.22473) $1,510,900
($8,255,300 x 0.22473) $1,855,200
January 8, 2001 62
Appendix F
Boat Club, Eureka, Hatfield, S.R.66, S.R.161, & Richland City - New WWTP
Pressure Sewer
Individual Costs
Service Lateral $159,600 $119,600 $218,800
Grinder Pump
($480,000 x 10.00353) $4,801,700
($463,000 x 10.00353) $4,631,700
($443,500 x 10.00353) $4,436,600

Value
($7,973,500 x 0.22473) $1,791,900
($7,191,200 x 0.22473) $1,616,100
($8,816,400 x 0.22473) $1,981,300
January 8, 2001 63
Appendix G
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
January 8, 2001 64
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
To Be Provided Upon Receipt
January 8, 2001 65
Appendix H
IDEM Clearance for Rockport WWTP Site
January 8, 2001 66
Appendix I
Good Faith Negotiation Letters
January 8, 2001 67
Appendix J
Interlocal Agreement
January 8, 2001 68
Appendix K
Preliminary Design Summary
January 8, 2001 69
Appendix K
Preliminary Design Summary
Luce Township RSD Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project
Design Flow
Number of Units
1 Bdrm. Apts.@ gpd/unit = gpd

2 Bdrm. Apts.@ gpd/unit = gpd
751 Single Family Homes @ 310 gpd/unit = 232,810 gpd
45 Commercial Lots @ 310 gpd/unit = 13,950 gpd
1 Industrial Lots 310 gpd/unit = 310 gpd
1 Elementary School 850 gpd = 850 gpd
Peaking 3.5 Total Avg. Flow = 247,920 gpd
Factor
Peak Flow = 867,720 gpd
= 603 gpm
Sewer
4,900 Ft 6-inch PVC Pressure Sewer

21,750 Ft 2 1/2-inch PVC Pressure Sewer
63,000 Ft 1 1/2-inch PVC Service
138,600 Ft Total length of sewer
The new sewer will be connected to an existing a new WWTP - inch diameter sanitary sewer in
the City of Rockport, Indiana (relative to streets).
Lift Stations (See attached sheet)
Individual Grinder Pump Stations

Type: Submersible Number: 598
Capacity: 10 to 15 gpm
Waste Treatment
Wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Rockport, Indiana
January 8, 2001 70
Lift Stations
Richland City Lift Station
Type: Submersible (wet/dry, submersible, wet-well mounted, etc.)
Number of pumps 2
Capacity of pumps 320 to 400 gpm
Back-up power source A portable diesel powered generator will be
purchased for use at all Luce Township lift stations
Average wet-well detention time Will be as per 10-State Standards
Audio/visual alarm with self contained power supply or telemetry Provided
Force Main 8,400 ft. of 8-inch PVC, SDR 21 (type)
Force main discharge elevation To be determined during design
Boat Club Lift Station

Number of pumps 2
Eureka Lift Station

Number of pumps 2
Hatfield Lift Station

Number of pumps 2
January 8, 2001 71
Main Pumping Station
Number of pumps 2
January 8, 2001 72
Appendix L
Project Financing

Appendix L
Luce Township Regional Sewer District
Monthly Sewer Rate Estimates
In the following table, we estimate the average monthly sewer bill for the Sewer System
Project based on the following assumptions:
1. The most cost effective alternative is Alternative C-3.
2. The Luce Township Regional Sewer District will finance all of the capital
costs through a loan from the SRF for a 20 year term. The bonds will
require a 25% annual reserve.
3. The loan will be at an annual interest rate of 3.6%.
4. The annual O, M, & R expenses will be as shown in the Project Cost

Estimates; however, the Bond Reserves will be used to cover the
replacement cost estimates.
The average monthly bill is a preliminary estimate. The Luce Township RSD will acquire
the services of a rate consultant to develop the actual rate structure and to refine the
average monthly bill estimate.
LOAN AMOUNT
Sewer System Estimated Project Costs $11,140,000
Supplemental Funding
Cash on Hand $75,000
Grant Funds $0
Total SRF Loan Amount $11,065,000
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Interest Rate 3.6%
Principal & Interest Payments $785,600
Reserve Fund Requirements $196,400
Additional Operations and Maintenance $209,200
Estimated Increased Annual Revenue Required $1,191,200
CUSTOMER BASE
Customer Connections 798
AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL $124.39

Appendix L
Luce Township Regional Sewer District
Monthly Sewer Rate Estimates
In the following table, we estimate the average monthly sewer bill for the Sewer System
Project based on the following assumptions:
1. The most cost effective alternative is Alternative C-3.
2. The Luce Township Regional Sewer District will
A. Receive a $1,500,000 grant from the Build Indiana Fund
B. Receive tap-in fees of $1,596,000 (798 users x $2000 each)
C. Receive COIT funds totaling $300,000 per year for 20 years
D. Finance the remaining capital costs through a loan from the SRF for
a 20 year term. The bonds will require a 25% annual reserve.
3. The loan will be at an annual interest rate of 3.6%.
4. The annual O, M, & R expenses will be as shown in the Project Cost
Estimates; however, the Bond Reserves will be used to cover the
replacement cost estimates.
The average monthly bill is a preliminary estimate. The Luce Township RSD will acquire
the services of a rate consultant to develop the actual rate structure and to refine the
average monthly bill estimate.
LOAN AMOUNT
Sewer System Estimated Project Costs $11,140,000
Supplemental Funding
Tap-In fees $1,596,000
Grant Funds $1,500,000
Total SRF Loan Amount $8,044,000
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Interest Rate 3.6%
Principal & Interest Payments $571,100
Reserve Fund Requirements $142,800
Additional Operations and Maintenance $209,200
Estimated Increased Annual Revenue Required $923,100
Less COIT Funds ($300,000)
Net Total Annual Revenue Required $623,100
CUSTOMER BASE
Customer Connections 798
AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL $65.07

SRF PROJECT FINANCING INFORMATION
(wastewater)
Alternative C-3
Loan Only
1. Project Cost Summary
a. Collection/transport system cost $ 7,085,000

b. Treatment System cost $ 1,500,000
Subtotal Construction Cost $ 8,585,000
c. Contingencies $ 858,000
(should not exceed 10% of construction cost)
d. Non-construction Cost $ 1,697,000
(e.g., engineering/design services, field exploration studies, project management

& construction inspection, legal & administrative services, land costs (including
capitalized costs of leased lands, ROWs & easements), start-up costs (e.g., O&M
manual, operator training).
e. Total Project Cost (lines a+b+c+d) $ 11,140,000
f. Total ineligible costs* (see other side) $ 75,000

* Total ineligible costs should be covered by funds from other sources.
g. Other funding sources (list other grant/loan sources & amounts)
(1) hook-on fees $ 0
(2) cash on hand $ 75,000
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Total Other Funding Sources $ 75,000
2. SRF Loan Amount (line e minus line g) $ 11,065,000
3. SRF interest rate (check one) 2.9% 3.6% U 4.1%
4. Annual OM&R costs:

current $ 0 post-project $282,000 *
5. Avg. monthly residential sewer fee

current $ 0 post-project $ 124.39
* Includes $73,000 Replacement Costs

The following costs are not eligible for SRF reimbursement:
1. Land cost (unless it’s for sludge application) $ 75,000

Only the actual cost of the land is not eligible; associated costs such as
atty. fees, site title opinion and the like are eligible.
2. Materials & work done on private property $

(installation/repair of laterals, including disconnection of inflow into
laterals; abandonment of on-site systems [septic tank or mound
systems]). Grinder pumps, vacuum stations and other
appurtenances/installations on private property to treat/transport ARE
fundable IF owned and maintained by the political
subdivision. $
3. Grant applications and income surveys done for other agencies

(i.e. DOC, RDA, RECD, etc.). $
4. Any project designed to promote economic development and growth is ineligible.
5. Expenses incurred as part of formings RWD’s, RSD, CD’s, etc., or changing their
boundaries, or other non-SRF District activities. $
6. Costs incurred for preparing NPDES permit applications and other tasks
unrelated to the SRF project. $
7. Cleaning of equipment, such as digesters, sand filters, grit tanks and settling
tanks. These items should have been maintained through routine operation,
maintenance and replacement by the political subdivision. Sewer cleaning is
ineligible for SRF unless the cleaning is required for sewer rehabilitation such as
sliplining and cured in place piping (CIPP). $

SRF PROJECT FINANCING INFORMATION
(wastewater)
Alternative C-3
Loan and Grant
1. Project Cost Summary
a. Collection/transport system cost $ 7,085,000

b. Treatment System cost $ 1,500,000
Subtotal Construction Cost $ 8,585,000
c. Contingencies $ 858,000
(should not exceed 10% of construction cost)
d. Non-construction Cost $ 1,697,000
(e.g., engineering/design services, field exploration studies, project management

& construction inspection, legal & administrative services, land costs (including
capitalized costs of leased lands, ROWs & easements), start-up costs (e.g., O&M
manual, operator training).
d. Total Project Cost (lines a+b+c+d) $ 11,140,000
e. Total ineligible costs* (see other side) $ 75,000

* Total ineligible costs should be covered by funds from other sources.
f. Other funding sources (list other grant/loan sources & amounts)
(1) hook-on fees $0
(2) cash on hand $ 0
(3) Connection Fees $ 1,596,000
(4) BIF Grant $ 1,500,000
(5)
(6)
Total Other Funding Sources $ 3,096,000
2. SRF Loan Amount (line e minus line g) $ 8,044,000
3. SRF interest rate (check one) 2.9% 3.6% U 4.1%
4. Annual OM&R costs:

current $ 0 post-project $ 282,000 *
5. Avg. monthly residential sewer fee

current $ 0 post-project $ 65.07 **
* Includes $73,000 Replacement Costs

** Assumes County COIT of $300,000 / year

The following costs are not eligible for SRF reimbursement:
1. Land cost (unless it’s for sludge application) $ 75,000

Only the actual cost of the land is not eligible; associated costs such as
atty. fees, site title opinion and the like are eligible.
2. Materials & work done on private property $

(installation/repair of laterals, including disconnection of inflow into
laterals; abandonment of on-site systems [septic tank or mound
systems]). Grinder pumps, vacuum stations and other
appurtenances/installations on private property to treat/transport ARE
fundable IF owned and maintained by the political
subdivision. $
3. Grant applications and income surveys done for other agencies

(i.e. DOC, RDA, RECD, etc.). $
4. Any project designed to promote economic development and growth is ineligible.
5. Expenses incurred as part of formings RWD’s, RSD, CD’s, etc., or changing their
boundaries, or other non-SRF District activities. $
6. Costs incurred for preparing NPDES permit applications and other tasks
unrelated to the SRF project. $
7. Cleaning of equipment, such as digesters, sand filters, grit tanks and settling
tanks. These items should have been maintained through routine operation,
maintenance and replacement by the political subdivision. Sewer cleaning is
ineligible for SRF unless the cleaning is required for sewer rehabilitation such as
sliplining and cured in place piping (CIPP). $

Appendix M
Acceptance Resolution
January 8, 2001 80
RESOLUTION #_________
RESOLUTION APPROVING SRF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
WHEREAS, the Luce Township Advisory Board, acting on behalf of the proposed Luce Township
Regional Sewer District, has caused a Preliminary Engineering Report, PER, dated _________ to be
prepared by the consulting firm of Commonwealth Engineers, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, said plan has been presented to the public at a public hearing held ______________, for their
comments; and
WHEREAS, the Luce Township Advisory Board finds that there was not sufficient evidence presented in
objection to the recommended project in the Preliminary Engineering Report, and that modifications to the
plan have been made in response to public comment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report dated _________
be approved and adopted by the Luce Township Advisory Board; and
2. That said plan be submitted to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for review and
approval.
Passed and adopted by the Luce Township Advisory Board this ___ day of ______, _____ at their
regularly scheduled meeting.
Chairman Member
Member Member
Member Member
Member Member
Member
January 8, 2001 81
Appendix N
Designated Management Authority Resolution
January 8, 2001 82
RESOLUTION INDICATING WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act, as amended, requires the development and inplementation of water
quality management plans for the purpose of preventing further degradation of our streams; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 208 of the Act, the Governor of the State of Indiana has designated area-
wide waste treatment management agencies which are responsible for water quality management in such
areas; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 208, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management has designated specific local units of government and management agencies for the
purpose of implementing various pollution control measures and practices recommended in the State’s
Water Quality Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 303(a) Indiana has implemented an approved continuing planning
process; and
WHEREAS, a process exists by which all municipal units of government and special districts who intend to
abate pollution may enter into the State Revolving Fund process for the purpose of construction
wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and
Regional Sewer District, desires to abate water pollution within its area of legal jurisdiction; and
Regional Sewer District, further desires to be in compliance with the requirements for obtaining a loan for
the purpose of this control; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, has directed that only an approved
designated management agency can be the recipient of a State Revolving Fund Financial Assistance
Award.
THEREFORE, be it resolved the the Luce Township Advisory Board, acting on behalf of the proposed
Luce Township Regional Sewer District, desires to be the approved designated management agency for
the control of water pollution sources within its area of legal jurisdiction.
By resolution passed by the Luce Township Advisory Board at a meeting this ____ day of __________,
2000.
Advisory Board Chairman
Attest:
Clerk-Treasurer
January 8, 2001 83
Appendix O
Designated Signatory Resolution
January 8, 2001 84
SRF SIGNATORY AUTHORIZATION RESOLUTION
Regional Sewer District, has plans for a municipal water pollution control project to meet State and
Federal regulations, such as the NPDES discharge limitations, and the Luce Township Advisory Board
intends to proceed with the construction of such works; and
WHEREAS, the Luce Township Advisory Board has adopted this Resolution dated _____________ .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Luce Township Advisory Board, that:
1. The Chairman of the Luce Township Advisory Board be authorized to make application for
an SRF Loan and provide the Indiana Department of Environmental Management such
information, data and documents pertaining to the loan process as may be required, and
otherwise act as the authorized representative of the community.
2. The Luce Township Advisory Board agrees to comply with the Department of
Environmental Management, State of Indiana and Federal requirements as they pertain to
the SRF.
3. That two certified copies of the resolution be preppared and submitted as part of the
community’s Preliminary Engineering Report.
ADOPTED this ____ day of ________, ______.
The Luce Township Advisory Board

acting on behalf of
The Proposed Luce Township Regional Sewer District
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
BY:
Chairman
Member Member
Member Member
Member Member
Member Member
January 8, 2001 85
Appendix P
Affidavit of Publication for Public Hearing Notice
January 8, 2001 86
Affidavit of Publication for Public Hearing Notice
To Be Inserted After Hearing
January 8, 2001 87
Appendix Q
Transcript of Public Hearing
January 8, 2001 88

LTRSD Wastewater PER

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LTRSD Wastewater PER

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luce Township Regional Sewer District Preliminary Engineering Report

Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project

SECTION I - PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION II - CURRENT SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SECTION III - FUTURE SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

SECTION IV - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SECTION V - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SECTION VI - SELECTED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

SECTION VII - LEGAL, FINANCIAL & MANAGERIAL CAPABILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

SECTION VIII - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 1 - Summary of Current Wastewater Flows

REVISED March 21, 2001

January 8, 2001 iii

Figure 1 - Study Area, Service Area and Project Location Map

SECTION I - PROJECT LOCATION

A. Existing Service Area

The proposed Luce Township Regional Sewer District encompasses an area of

B. Twenty Year Study Area and Twenty Year Service Area

SECTION II - CURRENT SITUATION

A. Description of Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment System

1. Existing Wastewater Collection System

2. Wastewater Treatment System

All of the wastewater flow collected by the proposed project will be

B. Current Wastewater Flows

In Table 1 of Appendix B-Tables we show the current estimated

C. Current Operating Problems

D. Significant Wastewater Contributors

As noted previously, the Luce Elementary School is the only significant

SECTION III - FUTURE SITUATION

The current population of Luce Township is estimated to be 3109 persons. The

Figure 2 in Appendix A shows the projected Service Area population in a

C. Proposed Design Wastewater Flows

Table 3 in Appendix B provides the projected wastewater flows generated from

These projected flows are shown graphically in Figure 3 of Appendix A.

The projected wasteloads are shown in Table 3A in Appendix B.

D. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Limits

E. Evaluation of Ability to Transport and Treat Wastewater Flows

REVISED March 21, 2001

SECTION IV - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. Description of Alternatives Considered

The following alternatives were considered to resolve the problems described in

Description of Alternatives Reviewed in Detail

Alternative Title Brief Description

For alternatives B through G listed above, we also considered various service

B. Rationale for Selection of Recommended Alternative

We have developed cost estimates and conducted cost-effectiveness analyses

SECTION V - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTATION

In developing the Luce Township Regional Sewer District Wastewater Collection

B. Land and Land Impacts

2. Prime Agricultural Land

Portions of the Project will not be constructed in or across prime farmland

The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Project will be built

Figures 1, 4A - 4D, 5A - 5D, 6A - 6D, 7A - 7D, 8A - 8C, 9, 10, 11, 12,

REVISED September 24, 2001

REVISED September 24, 2001

4. Topography and Elevations

C. Surface Water Hydrology

1. Outstanding State Resources Waters, Exceptional Use Streams and

There are no outstanding state resources waters in Spencer County.

We reviewed the National Wetlands Inventory Maps of the Service Area

As can be seen in Figures 4A through 4D, a small portion of the 12-inch

Mitigation measures to lessen wetland impacts cited in comment letters