EPA-910/9-76-027
EPA-IO-ID-JEROME-JEROME WWTW-7
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
M
.m
, V
.«"».* *^
."* _,,_/. C 'i ^x
V ,«^J4"
?>,
.>-?,/-»»*«**.
"fiS«|Si^5;-^V
.^^f^^,^***
./i '
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CITY OF JEROME WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT
JEROME COUNTY, IDAHO
EPA Project No. C-160179
EPA-10-ID-Jerome-Jerome WWTW-76
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
With the Assistance of
R.W. Beck and Associates
200 Tower Building
Seattle, Washington 98101
P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
March 29, 1977
Date
-------
PREFACE
Upon the completion of an environmental review of the City
of Jerome's Draft Facilities Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was
required to meet Federal regulations. The City of Jerome had applied
to EPA for grant assistance for construction of a sewage treatment
facility, with potential Federal funding of 75% of eligible costs.
On August 20, 1976, EPA released the Draft EIS on the proposed action
for public review and comment, and a public hearing was held in Jerome,
Idaho on September 17, 1976. This Final EIS is submitted for additional
public review and comment.
EPA's Final EIS evaluates the environmental impacts associated
with the eight alternatives presented in the Draft EIS. During this
evaluation, it became apparent that more detailed cost information on
the treatment alternatives was needed. This additional information,
requested from the City's facilities planning consultant, CH2M/Hill,
resulted in the preparation of an Addendum to the Facilities Plan. A
cost analysis, using current pricing information and consistent cost
factors for all alternatives, revealed that Alternative 4, the construc-
tion of a new treatment plant on the Near-West Site, is the most cost-
effective alternative. A matrix of the cost, environmental, legal
and overall rankings of all alternatives can be found in Section III,
page 46. It should be noted that although Alternative 4 ranks Number 1
environmentally, other alternatives which include construction of a
new treatment plant at the Near-West Site; construction of a new treat-
ment plant on the existing site; or rehabilitation of the existing
plant are also within range of environmental impact acceptability.
The environmental quality objectives providing guidance to EPA in the
selection of these alternatives are those specified in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and implementing Federal regulations.
During the 45-day Draft EIS review period, EPA received a
number of letters on the proposed project. The letters and EPA's
responses are reproduced in Section VIII. This Section also includes
a summary of the Public Hearing Record. All comments received on the
draft have been considered in EPA's decision-making process, and
appropriate corrections or revisions to the statement have been made.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that
Alternative 4, the most cost effective of the alternatives, should be
constructed. However, cost information for this selection is subject
to change. The design flow rate used for each alternative included
wastewater flow from Ida-Gem Dairy. Since release of the Draft EIS the
Dairy has announced closure, and its future use is not known. If waste-
water loads are eliminated or significantly reduced because of the
Dairy closure, all environmentally acceptable alternatives would need
to be re-examined for relative costs.
-------
In expectation of variations in final costs* EPA will prepare
an Addendum to this Final EIS. Using reevaluated cost data, EPA will
select an Alternative for grant funding based on a cost-effective
ranking of environmentally acceptable alternatives. The Addendum will
include EPA's final recommendation, revised cost data and environ-
mental impact changes, if any. Federal, State and local agencies
and interested individuals will be allowed to comment during a 30 day
review period. Upon completion of the Addendum review period and
evaluation of comments received, the Regional Administrator will make
a final decision concerning a grant for the City of Jerome's proposed
sewerage treatment system.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Section
Number
Title
PREFACE
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Appendices
SUMMARY
1. Type of Statement
2. Type of Action
3. Description of Action
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts
and Adverse Environmental Effects
5. Alternatives Considered
6. Organizations Invited to Comment
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
Background of Past Events
Important Issues and Considerations
Interrelationships With Other Projects
Environmental Setting
Location
Climate
Air Quality
Water Resources
Surface Water
Groundwater
Soils
Fish and Wildlife
Population
Economic Development
Employment
Income Levels
Industry
Airport Regional Plans
Land Use
Public Service and Utilities
Solid Waste Management
Sewage Facilities and Services
Storm Sewers
Transportation
Water Supply
Electricity
State and Federal Agencies
Recreation
Page
Number
iii
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xv
xv
xv
xv
xvi
xvii
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-9
1-9
1-9
1-10
1-13
I_13
1-14
1-16
1-16
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-18
1-19
1-19
1-19
1-23
1-23
1-23
1-23
1-24
1-24
iii
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Title Number
I (continued)
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Sites 1-25
Calvary Episcopal Church 1-25
Clark Heiss House 1-25
Gilbert White House 1-25
Jerome Cooperative Creamery 1-25
Jerome County Courthouse 1-26
Jerome First Baptist Church 1-26
Jerome First Presbyterian Church 1-26
Lincoln School 1-26
St. Jerome Roman Catholic Church 1-26
St. Jerome Parish Hall 1-26
II ALTERNATIVES
Facilities Description II-l
"No Action" Alternative II-l
Action Alternatives 2 Through 8 II-3
Alternative 1 - "No Action" Alternative II-3
Service Area II-3
Interceptors II-3
Treatment Process II-4
Receiving Stream II-5
The Site II-9
Alternative 2 - Secondary Plant at Far-West
Site with Discharge to "N-3" Canal II-9
Service Area II-9
Interceptors 11-10
Phase 1 11-10
Phase 2 11-10
Phase 3 II-ll
Treatment Process II-ll
The Site 11-12
Alternative 3 - Secondary Plant at Far-West
Site with Discharge to Snake River 11-12
Alternative 4 - New Secondary Plant at
Near-West Site with Discharge to "J" Canal 11-15
Service Area 11-15
Interceptors 11-15
Phase 1 11-15
Phase 2 11-15
Phase 3 11-19
Treatment Process 11-19
The Site 11-19
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued.)
Section Page
Number Title Number
II (continued)
Alternative 5 - New Secondary Plant at
Near-West Site with Discharge to Snake River 11-20
Alternative 6 - Jerome-Twin Palls Regional
Treatment Plant 11-20
Alternative 7 - Spray Irrigation 11-25
Alternative 8 - Upgrading of Existing Treat-
ment Plant with Discharge to "J" Canal 11-26
Cost and Resource Commitments 11-27
III ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Impact Common to All Alternatives III-l
Primary Impacts III-l
Air Quality III-l
Impacts III-l
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-2
Land Use III-3
Impacts III-3
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-ll
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources III-ll
Taxes 111-12
Unique Land Features 111-12
Personal Incomes 111-12
Impacts 111-12
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures 111-13
Public Utilities 111-13
Secondary Impacts 111-13
Population and Economic Growth 111-13
Redevelopment and Construction in Built-Up
Areas 111-14
Impacts 111-14
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures 111-14
Alternative 1 - "No Action" Alternative III-15
Odors 111-15
Impacts 111-15
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-]7
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Tit le Number
III (continued)
Noise III-17
Water Resources III-19
Surface Waters III-19
Impacts III-19
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-24
Groundwater III-24
Impacts III-24
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-24
Soils and Hydrology III-26
Impacts III-26
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-26
Fish and Wildlife III-26
Historicj Architectural and Archaeological
Resources III- 26
Aesthetics III-26
Impacts III-26
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-27
Land Use III-27
Recreation III-27
Alternative 2 - Secondary Plant at Far-West
Site with Discharge to "N-3" Canal III-27
Odors III-27
Impacts III-27
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-28
Noise III-28
Impacts III-28
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 30
Water Resources III-30
Surface Water III-30
Groundwater III-31
Fish and Wildlife III-31
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources III-31
vi
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Title Number
III (continued)
Aesthetics III-3Z
Impacts 111-32
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-32
Land Use III-32
Impacts III-32
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-32
Recreation III-32
Alternative 3 - Secondary Plant at Far-West
Site with Discharge to Snake River III-33
Surface Water Resources III-33
Impacts III-33
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-33
Fish and Wildlife III-34
Impacts III-34
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 34
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources III- 34
Unique Land Features III- 35
Impacts III- 35
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 35
Alternative 4 - Secondary Plant at Near-West
Site with Discharge to "J" Canal III-35
Odors III- 35
Impacts III- 35
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 35
Noise III- 36
Impacts III- 36
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 36
Water Resources III- 37
Surface Water III- 37
Groundwater III- 37
vii
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Title Number
III (continued)
Pish and Wildlife 111-37
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources 111-37
Aesthetics 111-37
Impacts 111-37
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures 111-37
Land Use III-37
Impacts III-37
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-38
Recreation III-38
Alternative 5 - Secondary Plant at Near-West
Site with Discharge to Snake River III-38
Impacts III-38
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-39
Alternative 6 - Jerome-Twin Falls Regional Treat-
ment Plant III-39
Noise III- 39
Impacts III- 39
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 39
Recreation III-40
Fish and Wildlife III- 40
Impacts III- 40
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-40
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources III- 40
Unique Land Features and Aesthetics III- 40
Impacts III- 40
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 41
Alternative 7 - Spray Irrigation III- 41
Odors III- 41
Noise III- 41
Impacts III- 41
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 41
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Title Number
III (continued)
Water Resources 111-41
Impacts 111-41
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures 111-42
Soils and Hydrology 111-42
Impacts 111-42
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures 111-42
Pish and Wildlife 111-43
Impacts III-43
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-43
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources 111-43
Aesthetics III-43
Impacts III-43
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-43
Land Use III-43
Recreation III-43
Alternative 8 - Upgrading of Existing Treatment
Plant with Discharge to "J" Canal III-44
Odors III-44
Impacts III-44
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III-44
Noise III-44
Water Resources III-44
Surface Water III-44
Groundwater III-44
Fish and Wildlife III-45
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources III-45
Aesthetics III-45
Impacts III-45
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 45
Land Use III- 45
Impacts III- 45
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures III- 45
Recreation III- 45
Environmental Risk Summary III- 45
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Title Number
IV PROPOSED PROJECT
Introduction IV-1
Project Description IV-1
Service Area IV-1
Interceptors IV-5
Phase 1 IV-5
Phase 2 IV-6
Phase 3 IV-6
Treatment Process IV-6
The Site IV-7
Interaction with Other Plans IV-8
Project Costs and Resource Commitments IV-9
Environmental Impacts IV-9
Primary Impacts IV-9
Air Quality IV-9
Impacts IV-9
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV-11
Odors IV-11
Impacts IV-11
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV-12
Noise IV-12
Impacts IV-12
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV-12
Water Resources IV-13
Surface Water IV-13
Groundwater IV-14
Soils and Hydrology IV-14
Pish and Wildlife IV-14
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological
Resources IV- 14
Aesthetics IV-14
Impacts IV- 14
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV- 15
Land Use IV- 15
Impacts IV- 15
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV- 17
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Page
Number Title Number
IV (continued)
Unique Land Features IV-17
Taxes IV-17
Personal Incomes IV-18
Impacts IV-18
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV-18
Public Utilities IV-18
Recreation IV-19
Secondary Impacts IV-19
Population and Economic Growth IV-19
Redevelopment and Construction in Built-
Up Areas IV-19
Impacts IV-19
Remedial Protective and Mitigative
Measures IV-20
V UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS V-l
VI THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCE-
MENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Physical Impacts VI-1
Resource Impacts VI-1
Socio-Economic and Cultural Impacts VI-1
Secondary and Growth-Inducing Impacts VI-2
VII IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES VII-1
VIII PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS VIII-1
Public Meeting Results VIII-1
Public Hearings VIII-2
Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement VIII-3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Number Title Number
I.I Jerome Area Water Quality 1-11
1.2 Quality of Groundwater, City of Jerome, Idaho 1-12
1.3 A Partial Checklist of Birdlife Found in the
Jerome Area 1-15
II.1 Interceptor System Capital Cost Estimate -
Alternatives 2, 3, 6 and 7 (Far-West Site) 11-28
II.2 Interceptor System Capital Cost Estimate -
Alternatives 4, 5 and 8 (Near-West and Existing
Treatment Plant Site) 11-29
II.3 Capital Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 2
Secondary Treatment - Far-West Site, Canal
Discharge 11-30
II.4 Capital Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 3
Secondary Treatment - Far-West Site, Snake
River Discharge 11-31
II.5 Capital Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 4
Near-West Site, Canal Discharge 11-32
II.6 Capital Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 5
Secondary Treatment - Near-West, Snake River
Discharge 11-33
II.7 Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 6
Treatment at Twin Falls 11-34
II.8 Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 7
Treatment - Storage - Spray Irrigation 11-34
II.9 Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 8
Upgrade Existing Plant, Canal Discharge 11-35
11.10 Cost Summary 11-36
11.11 Resource Commitments 11-38
III.l Odor Concentrations and Intensities Associated
With Sewage Treatment Processes 111-16
III.2 Typical Noise Levels by Land Use Type 111-20
III.3 Existing Plant Water Quality Conditions 111-21
III.4 Conformance with Recommended Water Quality
Standards for Irrigation and Stockwatering 111-22
III.5 City of Jerome Compliance with Federal and
State Discharge Standards 111-23
III.6 Domestic Water Use Water Quality Information 111-25
III.7 Noise Level (dbA) at 50 Feet 111-29
IV.1 Net Present Worth of the Proposed Project,
Alternative 4, Treatment at Near-West Site
Canal Discharge IV-10
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Number Title Number
I.I Generalized Land Use Map for the Jerome, Idaho
Wastewater Facilities Service Area 1-7
1.2 Existing Service Area and Collection System 1-21
II.1 City of Jerome Existing Treatment Plant Flow
Diagram II-2
II.2 Interceptor System for Far-West Plant Site II-?
II.3 Treatment Plant and Outfall Locations 11-13
II.4 Interceptor System for Near-West Plant Site 11-17
II.5 New Treatment Plant at Near-West Site with
Outfall on Snake River 11-21
II.6 Pipeline Route to Twin Falls 11-23
III.l Areas of Conflicting Land Use for the Jerome,
Idaho Wastewater Facilities Service Area III-5
III.2 Proposed Area of City Impact for the Jerome,
Idaho Wastewater Facilities Service Area III-9
III.3 Wind Rose for the Area of Jerome, Idaho 111-18
III.4 Environmental Impact Potential of Alternatives 111-47
IV.1 Proposed Wastewater Facilities Plan IV-3
xiii
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
AGENCY POSITION STATEMENTS
Section Title
Letter from Jerome County Planning and Zoning
Commission
Letter from State Historic Preservation Officer
Page
Number
A-l
A-3
APPENDIX B
ODOR CONTROL MEASURES
A Summary by the U.S. Environmental Protective Agency
Page
Section Title Number
Oxidation/Disinfection B-l
Chlorination B-2
Ozonation B-2
Hydrogen Peroxide B-3
Sodium Permanganate B-3
Raising the Orp B-3
Air B-3
Oxygen B-4
Nitrate B-4
pH Control B-4
Absorption/Scrubbing B-4
Adsorption B-5
Incineration-Catalytic and Direct Flame B-6
Design Measures B-6
APPENDIX C
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Page
Section Title Number
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination C-l
System Permit for Jerome, Idaho C-6
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE
Page
Section Title Number
1. The Meeting D-l
2. The Project D-l
3. Public Participation D-3
4. The Need for an Environmental Impact
Statement D-2
5. The Process D-2
6. Project Timing D-2
7. Questionnaire D-3
xiv
-------
SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
JEROME, IDAHO WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement; Draft ( ) Final (X)
2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
3. Description of Action:
The EPA action that requires this Environmental Impact
Statement is the awarding of grant funds to provide an adequate
wastewater treatment and disposal program for the City of Jerome,
Idaho, located near the Snake River in Jerome County, Idaho. This
Statement identifies alternatives and proposes that a recommended al-
ternative be constructed to provide the City with wastewater faci-
lities designed to meet the needs of the residents and maintain
environmental quality. The City service area presently consists
of approximately 1,170 acres of land and has a present population
of approximately 5,625 residents. The Project will expand the
service area to 5,030 acres to serve a forecasted population of
12,000 people by the year 1995.
Most of the major treatment units of the existing treat-
ment plant are over 20 years old and in poor condition. The faci-
lity is unable to treat existing wastewater to meet Federal and
State discharge requirements. Hydraulic and organic overloads at
the plant have caused concern about aesthetic and health conditions.
During 1973 through 1976, the City prepared a Wastewater
Facilities Plan identifying a number of alternatives for providing
sewerage service to the City and areas adjacent to the City.
4. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental
Effects
The impacts and magnitude of the impacts of the proposed
action vary and include both beneficial and adverse impacts.
Short-term impacts will include the temporary loss of
vegetation, disruption of wildlife, traffic problems, sewer ser-
vice utility disruption, soil erosion, air pollution from parti-
culates, visual impacts and noise.
Long-term impacts will include protection of ground and
surface waters, the elimination of odor impacts, impacts upon vege-
tation and wildlife, changes in the visual character, increased
xv
-------
recreational facilities and consumption of resources. Adverse im-
pacts upon land use and land use planning, population densities, and
redevelopment and potential income-buying power reduction for in-
dividuals on fixed incomes are also anticipated.
5. Alternatives Considered
Numerous alternatives were considered in the facilities
plan and were grouped into eight general alternative categories
as follows:
Alternative 1 - Alternative 1, "No Action" Alternative,
proposed to continue to operate the existing plant without modifi-
cation.
Alternative 2 - Construction of a new complete mix acti-
vated sludge plant at the Far-West Site with discharge to the "N-3"
Canal. Total present worth - $5,574,000.
Alternative 3 - Identical to Alternative 2 except that
a pump station and a 5-1/2 mile force main would be constructed
from the new treatment plant site to the Snake River to discharge
effluent. Total present worth - $6,634,000.
Alternative 4 - Construction of a new complete mix acti-
vated sludge plant at the Near-West Site immediately adjacent to
and northwest of the existing treatment plant site. The effluent
discharge from the new plant would continue to be into the "J"
Canal. This is the recommended alternative. Total present worth -
$5,539,000.
Alternative 5 - Identical to Alternative 4 except that
a pump station and 7-1/2 mile force main would be constructed to
discharge effluent into the Snake River. Total present worth -
$6,992,000.
Alternative 6 - A Jerome-Twin Falls regional treatment
plant including a pump station and a 12-mile force main to trans-
port untreated sewage from the City to the existing Twin Falls
Sewage Treatment Plant. Total present worth - $6,585,000.
Alternative J - Spray irrigation. This alternative pro-
poses to build a complete mix activated sludge plant at the Far-
West Site; a pump station and 3-mile force main; and a 360-acre
spray irrigation disposal site. In addition to the irrigation
equipment, storage lagoons would be built to store the treated ef-
fluent for approximately 7 months; this is necessary because spray
irrigation can only be accomplished in the Jerome area during the
late spring through early fall months when the weather is hot and
dry. Total present worth - $8,508,000.
xv i
-------
Alternative 8 - Upgrading of existing treatment plant
facilities at the existing site. This alternative would replace
and repair worn-out units and construct new units where necessary.
The discharge from this plant would continue to be into the "J"
Canal adjacent to the existing site. Total present worth - $5,97^,000,
6. Organizations Invited to Comment
The following State, Federal and local agencies and in-
terested groups were invited to comment on this Environmental Im-
pact Statement as follows:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Frank Church Steve Symms
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives
James A. McClure George Hansen
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives
STATE
Governor of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Idaho State Clearinghouse Department of Parks and Recreation
Division of Budget, Policy, Department of Lands
Planning and Coordination
Department of Fish and Game
xvii
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
Mayor, City of Jerome
Jerome County Planning and
Zoning Commission
Board of County Commissioners
North Side Canal Company, Ltd.
Rotary Club of Jerome
Idaho Environmental Council
Frank Davis
Karen L. James
B. Roy Prescott
Charles E. Henley
Mr. & Mrs. James R. Prunty
Mr. & Mrs. D. L. Hendry
Frederick F. Plankey
Mr. & Mrs. James Underwood
William B. Holland
John D. Webster
A. L. Blades
Herman Jacobsen
Gorman Miracle
Staples
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
& Mrs.
& Mrs.
& Mrs.
& Mrs.
& Mrs.
Michael K.
Sonnich Sonnichsen
Mary H. Mann
Bernice Johnson
Mr. & Mrs. Edwin Nutsch
Albert M. Dalton
Claude R. & Leona Norman
Jerome Planning Council
Jerome City Planning and
Zoning Commission
Idaho Wildlife Federation
CHgM/Hill, Inc.
Jerome Chamber of Commerce
Jack Allison
Charles Ireton
Mr. & Mrs. Hollis V. Neal
Mr. & Mrs. Leonard B. Scheer
Bill Morgan
Mr. & Mrs. Laurel D. Ploss
Mr. & Mrs. Keith Lierman
Patrick D. McCoid
Mr. & Mrs. George McCormack
John A. Dalton
Mrs. Jay Overmon
Bob Berentz
Mr. & Mrs. Allen P. Burnham
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Staples
Mr. & Mrs. John Miller
V. E. Camozzi
Forrest P. Hymas
Ken Baumgartner
Dr. Jack N. Adams
This Final Environmental Impact Statement was made avail-
able to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Public
on April 20, 1977.
xviii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
-------
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) re-
quires that all agencies of the Federal government prepare Environ-
mental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects that may significantly
affect the quality of the human environment. NEPA requires that
agencies include in their decision-making processes all considera-
tions of environmental aspects of proposed actions, the environ-
mental impacts of the proposed project and its alternatives, and
a discussion of the ways to avoid or minimize adverse effects.
This Environmental Impact Statement for the Jerome, Idaho Waste-
water Facilities Project is intended to be a full disclosure docu-
ment following the specific regulatory requirements as contained
in 40 CFR, Part 6, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 40,
No. 172, April 14, 1975.
Because the eligible costs of the treatment and inter-
ceptor components of Jerome's Wastewater Facilities Project are
fundable by a 75% grant to the City of Jerome, as authorized by
the Construction Grants Program (Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 - PL 92-500), NEPA action is required.
After reviewing the proposed Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome,
Idaho, it was decided by EPA that an EIS was needed based on the
degree of expected growth in the area, the effect of this growth
on present agricultural or undeveloped lands, the potential con-
version of approximately 40 acres of existing agricultural land
for use as the proposed new treatment plant facility site, (EPA
Regulation 40 CFR, Part 6) and because of concerns and objections
raised by some local citizens. EPA's regulations under 40 CFR
36.200(b) direct EPA to prepare an environmental impact statement
when environmental impacts of a proposed EPA action are likely to
be controversial.
Data for this EIS have been compiled from various exist-
ing studies in the Jerome area: the Jerome, Idaho Wastewater
Facilities Plan; field reconnaissance; and numerous personal con-
tacts with involved individuals. A complete listing of references
is contained in the bibliography portion*
The EIS process encouraged public input into the deci-
sion-making process. On May 25, 1976 at 8:15 p.m. in the Jerome
Jr. High School Auditorium, the Environmental Protection Agency,
in cooperation with the City of Jerome, held a public information
-------
1-2
meeting to inform concerned members of the public in the Greater
Jerome Area of the environmental impact statement process, the
EIS timing, and their opportunities to provide input into the
EIS process. The Environmental Impact Statement was then prepared
in draft form and widely circulated for public comments. A public
hearing was held on September 16, 1976 to solicit comments and
responses. A summary of the public hearing and written comments
received during the 45-day comment period can be found in Section
VIII. In this Final EIS, the EPA Regional Administrator has
recommended selection of Alternative No. 4. A discussion of the
recommended Alternative is presented in Section IV.
BACKGROUND OF PAST EVENTS
In the early 1930!s the City of Jerome began sewerage
service for the City. The sewer was originally of wood-stave and
Orangeburg pipe. In 1949, the wood-stave and Orangeburg pipe were
replaced with concrete pipe and service was extended to the entire
City. In 1950, the existing treatment plant was constructed on
the present site. Today it is a conventional trickling filter sys-
tem modified in 1962 by the addition of a grit chamber preceding
the comminutor and in 1969, by addition of an activated biological
filter tower, one filter pump station, and one aerated lagoon. The
majority of the existing treatment units at the treatment plant
site are over 20 years old and are generally in poor physical con-
dition. Presently, the facility is unable to treat existing
wastewater at a level of efficiency that meets National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Hydraulic and
organic overloads have caused concern about aesthetics and other
problems associated with non-compliance discharges. Because of
the poor condition and need of repairs at the treatment plant,
there was a general need for an adequately-functioning sewer sys-
tem in the City of Jerome and, in May of 1973, the City of Jerome
authorized the firm of CH2M/H111 Inc. of Boise, Idaho, to develop
a Wastewater Facilities Plan for the City of Jerome.
In May of 1975, the Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome,
Idaho was completed and forwarded to the Environmental Protection
Agency. Preceding the publication of the Wastewater Facilities
Plan, two public meetings and two public hearings were held on
November 21, 1974; January 29, 1975; February 20, 1975; and
February 28, 1975. The results of public input were utilized in
developing the list of issues described in the "Important Issues
and Considerations" segment of this section.
-------
1-3
During the review of the Wastewater Facilities Plan by
the Environmental Protection Agency, it became evident that an
environmental impact statement should be prepared for the proposed
project. On January 19, 1976 EPA issued a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS. On May 10, 1976 work began on the Impact State-
ment, with the first public information meeting held on May 25,
1976. Work proceeded on the Environmental Impact Statement through
July and culminated in production of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on August 20, 1976. Review of the Draft proceeded through
the beginning of 1977 and comments will be received for 30 days
after publication of this Final EIS.
IMPORTANT ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS
In the course of preparing this Environmental Impact
Statement, it became evident that several key environmental issues
relate to the construction of the proposed Wastewater Facilities
Project in the Jerome, Idaho area. These issues were identified
through discussions with involved City of Jerome and Jerome County
residents and personnel of various local, State and Federal agen-
cies having an interest in the project. Issues of particular im-
portance, listed below and identified and evaluated in the "En-
vironmental Setting" portion of this section and in Section III,
"Environmental Impacts of Alternatives," are as follows:
1. The effect the proposed Wastewater Facilities Project
may have in the conversion of agricultural and undevelop-
ed lands to residential and other more urban uses.
2. Conversion of approximately 40 acres of existing agri-
cultural cropland for use as the proposed new treatment
plant site.
3. The land use compatibility of the proposed action and
the effect of the proposed project on land use and land
use planning in general. The potential impacts upon
aesthetics by the location of the plant and any associat-
ed impact generators such as noise or odor.
4. The effect upon groundwater of the spray irrigation al-
ternative .
5. Potential impacts associated with discharging of treated
wastewaters into the irrigation canal system.
6. Operation and maintenance of the new plant after con-
struction .
-------
INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER PROJECTS
The Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome, Idaho^ ' was
one of several planning projects undertaken by the City of Jerome
within the past two years. In addition to the Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan, the City of Jerome has prepared a plan for, and is now
constructing, a Water System Improvement Program. Additionally,
the City of Jerome is in the process of completing a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for the City. The City's Land Use Plan is proceed-
ing concurrently with the re-evaluation of the Jerome County Com-
prehensive Land Use Plan.
A review of the City of Jerome Water System Improvement
(2)
Program Study and the Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City
( 0}
of Jerome , in comparison with the Wastewater Facilities Plan,
showed that sufficient service area was allowed to more than ac-
commodate the service area proposed in the Water System Improve-
ment Program and the planning area proposed in the City of Jerome
Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Potential impacts and in-
consistencies are discussed later in the Land Use portion of Sec-
tion III, "Environmental Impact Alternatives."
Two planning studies prepared by the State of Idaho ad-
dress concerns associated with the Jerome Wastewater Facilities
(h
Project, the State of Idaho 303(e) Water Quality Management Planv
and the State of Idaho Water Plan for the Snake River Basin. '
A review of the 303(e) Water Quality Management Plan
showed that a wastewater facilities project in Jerome is necessary
and called for in the Plan. However, the implementation of such
a wastewater facilities project for the City of Jerome is behind
schedule according to the State's Plan.
The State Water Plan includes discussion of groundwater
and agricultural land development. The proposed Wastewater Faci-
lities Project is in conformance with the State Water Plan. More
detailed discussions of the relationships of the Jerome Wastewater
Facilities Project to the State Water Plan are included in the
"Groundwater" and "Land Use" portions of Section III, "Environmen-
tal Impacts of Alternatives."
Jerome County has two existing studies that relate to
the Wastewater Facilities Project, the existing Comprehensive Zon-
ing Plan and the Jerome County Comprehensive Rural Water and
(7)
Sewerage Planning Study. ' The Zoning Plan has been adopted by
-------
1-5
the Jerome County Board of Commissioners. Additionally, the Coun-
ty is presently engaged in a Comprehensive Land Use Planning Study
which will update the existing Zoning Plan to conform to the new
Land Use Planning Act, Chapter 65, Title 6? of the Idaho Code.
Impacts and relationships of the Jerome Wastewater Facilities Proj-
ect to the County Zoning and Land Use Plans are discussed in the
"Land Use" portion of Section III.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Location
As stated in the Wastewater Facilities Plan, the Jerome
study area lies in an elongated-intermountain basin which trends
from east to west with slopes from the northeast to the southwest.
The major water body in the area is the Snake River which is to
the south and is downcut several hundred feet below the plateau.
In this area the Snake River flows to the west. The terrain of
the study area is generally a smooth-rolling alluvial surface bro-
ken by small escarpments, called buttes, and outcrops of volcanic
material.
The study areas lies within the jurisdictional boundar-
ies of both the City of Jerome and Jerome County. Jerome County
consists of approximately 379,520 acres located in the upper Snake
drainage in the center of the Magic Valley area of Central Idaho.
The County area affected by the Wastewater Facilities Plan general-
ly lies within a 1-1/2 mile perimeter of the City limits to the
north, west and east within approximately 3 miles of the City
limits to the south (Figure I.I). The City of Jerome, located in the
western portion of the County, due north of the City of Twin Falls,
is adjacent to the Snake River and Interstate 5- With an eleva-
tion of approximately 3,750 feet above sea level, it has a popula-
tion of approximately 5,625 people (197*0 and serves as a region-
al center for the County, providing principal retail services and
farm equipment maintenance.
Climate
The Jerome area is located within a semi-arid steppe
type of climate. This type of climate is relatively warm and dry
with a mean annual precipitation of 8.73 inches and a winter snow-
fall totalling approximately 2^ inches per year. Temperatures
vary from a January mean low of 27°F to a July mean high of 91°F.
The growing season, or frost-free period, averages approximately
125 to 135 days. The growing season (less than 1^5 days) is the
reason that there are no Class I agricultural lands located within
/ o \
Jerome County according to the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
-------
/ AREA BOUNDARY
prepored by R.W.Beck and Associates
SOURCE: CITY OF JEROME, AND JEROME COUNTY LAND use AND ZONING MAPS i9T6
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Public Lands
FIGURE 1.1
GENERALIZED LAND USE MAP
FOR THE
JEROME, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES SERVICE AREA
-------
1-9
The frost-free period usually lasts from late April or early May
to October or early November. The U.S. Department of Commerce,
ESSA, Environmental Data Services reports that the predominant
wind direction in the Jerome-Twin Palls area is from the west; how-
ever, during the months of February, November and December predomi-
nant wind direction is from the east, and during the months of July,
August and Setpember the predominant wind direction is from the
south. Approximately 70$ of the winds are less than 12 mph in
velocity. The highest wind velocities occur in April and May
(q\
reaching wind speeds of 20 to 30 knots and higher. '
Air Quality
The air quality of the Greater Jerome Area is generally
excellent, with no recorded ambient air quality standard viola-
tions. According to an air quality report completed by Region X
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' excellent air
quality in the rural areas of Idaho is a common occurrence. How-
ever, in areas of rapid urbanization, such as the Twin Palls area
to the south, urban sources of particulate matter can cause the
Federal ambient air quality standards for particulates to be ex-
ceeded. For this reason, even though the air quality of the
Greater Jerome Area at present is considered excellent, if rapid
urbanization continues in the area, there may be potential for air
quality degradation from particulate sources.
Water Resources
Surface Water - The study area contains no perennial
streams other than the Snake River which borders it on the south.
The water resources in the area consist of the Snake River and tri-
butary springs and the Northside Canal and Irrigation systems.
The canal and irrigation systems provide water for irrigation and
stock watering during the months of April through early December,
with flows varying from 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 380 cfs
in the "N" Canal, and 20 cfs to 70 cfs in the "J" Canal. Many of
the natural drainages In the near proximity of the study area have
been modified so as to be incorporated by the District into the
canal system. The "N" Canal travels south and a little west, tra-
versing through an area that is rapidly converting to rural homes
and ranchettes. This urbanization trend will probably continue
and result in increased numbers of small animals, livestock and
animals. The source of water for the Northside Canal District is
Milner Dam located upstream on the Snake River in Jerome County.
The Northside Irrigation District diverts approximately 1.7 mil-
lion acre-feet from the Milner Dam into and through Jerome County.
-------
1-10
The water quality of both the canals and the Snake River
is poor. Poor water quality occurs primarily because of the
pollution condition in Milner Reservoir. Federal recommended am-
bient water quality standards are periodically violated for dis-
solved oxygen, turbidity and coliform bacteria. The sources of
pollution include industrial, municipal, nonpoint, and agricultural
irrigation return flow discharges. Water quality in the Snake
River south of the City is also poor, with concentrations of dis-
solved oxygen, turbidity, and coliform bacteria periodically pre-
sent at non-recommended levels. The sources of pollution to the
Snake River in this area include polluted small creeks , municipal
nonpoint and irrigation return flow sources. Table I.I illus-
trates concentrations of various chemical and biological water
quality parameters in the canals and Snake River.
Groundwater - The groundwater resources underlying the
study area are described by the U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho De-
partment of Recreation^ ' to be part of Idaho's largest and high-
est-yielding aquifer. The Snake River Plain Aquifer is comprised
of a series of basaltic lava and sedimentary rock forms which un-
derlay the soils in Jerome County. These massive basalt geologic
forms have few if any interconnected pore spaces and therefore are
practically impermeable. For these reasons, groundwater movement
is largely in and related to interflow zones, cracks or openings
in the basalt bedrock layer. These permeable openings may range
in size from large cracks or fissures to capillary openings in
sedimentary interbeds . These interflow zones are not completely
separated from one another but are interconnected along vertical
rock joints or along fault zones.
The depth to the groundwater in the study area normally
ranges between about 200 and 500 feet. However, to the southwest
of the City of Jerome some wells are operating at depths as shal-
low as 130 feet. Most irrigation wells penetrating the aquifer
produce more than 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) . The water
quality of the groundwater in the Jerome area is of high quality
(12")
and is reported by the Water Resources Board to be suitable
for domestic irrigation and industrial use. The USGS^' reports
that the primary recharge for the Snake River Plain Aquifer is
percolation, through unsaturated soils and indiscriminate flow;
however, the Snake River recharges the aquifer in those stretches
where springs do not occur. Downward rate of percolation and thus,
rate of recharge, is unknown because of the extreme amount of perch-
ed water in the main aquifer area. Table 1.2 illustrates measured
water quality of the groundwater.
-------
TABLE I.I
JEROME AREA WATER QUALITY
1-11
Parameter
Snake River(a) Snake River (a) Milner (b) Northslde (b)
Above Jerome Below Jerome Dam Main Canal
pH
Suspended Solids (ppm)
CaC03 (ALK, mg/1)
CaCO, (Hardness mg/1)
N03 (mg/1)
NH3 (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
DO
Fecal Coli (MPN/100 ml)
Total Coli (MPN/100 ml)
7.7
NA(c)
180
220
1.45
0.31
NA
NA
9.2(b)
NA
NA
7.6
NA
152
180
2.50
0.30
NA
NA
9.5(b)
NA
NA
8.3
NA
182
228
0.3
0.6
2.9
0.5
10
1,330
14,607
8.2
39(d)
138
NA
0.1
1.3
8.7
68.0
9.2
NA
NA
Source:
(a) - Reference 1
(b) - Environmental Protection Agency Storet Retrieval System, Region X,
Seattle, Washington 1976.
(c) - Not Available
(d) - Source: M.J. Brown; D. L. Carter, and J. A. Bonderant, Sediment in
Irrigation and Drainage Waters and Sediment Inputs and Outputs for Two
Large Tracts in Southern Idaho, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 3,
No. 4, Oct.-Dec., 1974.
-------
1-12
TABLE 1.2
QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER
'CITY OF JEROME, IDAHO
Test Parameter
PH
Turbidity (JTU)
TDS (mg/1)
(ALK)
CaCO (Hardness)
Ca (mg/1)
Mg (mg/1)
FE (mg/1)
Mn (mg/1)
Na (mg/1)
Cl (mg/1)
(mg/1)
NH3 - N (mg/1)
(a) - Source: Reference 1
Jerome
Groundwater
Public Supply
6/02/53(a)
7.7
265
176
41.0
18
0.07
21
25
41.0
2.00
31.0
-------
1-13
Soils
The soils of the study area have been classified by the
Soil Conservation Service^ ^' to be predominantly Class 4 soils,
with some classified as high as Class 2 and as low as Class 6.
Despite the fact that the soils of the study area have only a
moderate cultivability classification, these soils are one of the
major resources of the area, and the economic base of the Greater
Jerome Area. The soils of the study area consist mainly of wind
deposited sandy and silt loams of varying depths over underlying
basalt bedrock. The average soil mantle depth throughout the area
averages less than 40 inches.
Soil conditions that pose potential hazards include dis-
turbed soils along hillside slopes, uncovered irrigation ditches,
and areas where soils have been removed during construction or
mining activities. Additionally, two areas near the City having
slopes between 0 and 30%, which are primarily outcrop areas, also
are unsuitable for many building types. Flood hazards have occur-
red, primarily caused from snowmelt and water runoff from Flat Top
Butte located approximately 5 miles east of the City. This butte
has caused flood conditions in the early spring and winter months
primarily in the area of M-Coulee, a major lateral for the North-
side Canal District running east to west through the City through
6th and 7th Avenues. ^)
The soils of the Jerome area are not generally suited
for even moderately-dense concentrations of septic tanks and drain-
M in
fields. Septic tank effluents can become suspended in the soil,
plugging soil pores and causing blockages of drainfields. This
results in outbreaks of sewage on the ground surface.
Additionally, the State of Idaho in its Idaho Environ-
mental Overview^ ^' has defined the soils of the Twin Falls, Cas-
sia, Jerome, Monodoka and Elaine County areas as sensitive soil
areas. In these areas mismanaged or mistreated soils stand a
moderate risk of being eroded and transported as blowing dust or
through runoff systems, potentially decreasing soil productivity,
water quality, aquatic habitats, and general aesthetics of the
area.
Fish and Wildlife
Because most of the study area has been modified from
its original wild condition through either agricultural or urban
use, only a few small game animals appear to depend upon specific
sites within the study area for support. Alfalfa and corn fields
furnish excellent cover and food during the summer months for
populations of Hungarian partridge, pheasants, and several species
-------
1-14
of ducks. Additionally, a considerable number of waterfowl spe-
cies nest and raise their broods in and adjacent to the many canal
systems in the area, including mallards, teal, pintails, widgeons,
shovelers, scaup, coots, sora rails, common snipe and others. A
variety of shore birds also use the canals for nesting and feeding.
A partial listing of bird life in the area is included in Table 1.3-
There is a State Game Farm located within the study area.
This farm has been operated by the Idaho Fish and Game Department
since the 1930's and is the only game farm in Idaho that hatches
pheasants. The 40-acre property is located one mile south and
one mile east of the City center. The farm contains 18 acres un-
der wire and two 6-acre fields for raising feed. The property in-
cludes three brooder houses and one residence. On the average,
some 16,000 pheasants and 1,000 chukars are raised on the farm
each year. From April until mid-June there are many public tours
to see the chicks.
Due to the shortage of streams in the area, the most
important nearby fishery is in the main Snake River. Game fish
found in this section of the Snake River include rainbow trout,
cutthroat trout, brown trout, whitefish, largemouth and smallmouth
bass, channel catfish, bullhead catfish, bluegill, yellow perch
and white sturgeon. Large hatcheries are located to the south and
downstream on the Snake River and rear over 70% of the commercially-
marketed trout in the U.S.
The State of Idaho has classified the Snake River adja-
cent to Jerome as a significant habitat area for white sturgeon
and cutthroat trout. Additionally, the Snake River Canyon in the
vicinity of Jerome has been designated as the State potential bald
eagle habitat; bald eagles are a rare and endangered species. The
State has also identified the Greater Jerome Area as a mule-deer
habitat and potential water fowl production area.
Population
A special City of Jerome Census dated September 30, 1974
reports a population in 1974 of 5,625 people. This figure repre-
sents an increase of 34.5$ in four years for an average annual in-
crease of approximately 8.6%. If this growth rate were to contin-
ue, the population of Jerome would reach approximately 44,500
people by the year 2000. While increases in the Jerome population
over the past four years have been dramatic, it is unrealistic to
believe that growth can continue at its present rate.
-------
TABLE 1.3
A PARTIAL CHECKLIST OF BIRDLIFE FOUND
IN THE JEROME AREA
Common Name Scientific Name
Rough-legged hawk Buteo Lagopus
Sparrow hawk Falco sparverius
Swainson hawk Buteo swainsoni
Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus
Hungarian partridge Perdix perdix
Mallard Anus platyrynchos
Magpie Pica pica
Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura
Oregon junco Junco organuus
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Source: Reference 1
-------
1-16
Several studies have been done for the City of Jerome
in recent years, with population estimates for the year 1990 vary-
ing from a low projection of 10,000 in the year 1990 by the Water
(7}
Resources Boardvl/ to a high of 19,700 projected by the Idaho Hous-
ing Agency for the year 1980.^ ^ The most recent study^ '', con-
ducted by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Boise
State University for the Idaho Department of Water Resources and
utilizing summary output for the population employment forecast-
ing model, projects that Jerome County will obtain a population of
20,220 by the year 1990. According to the U.S. Census data, as-
suming that the population distribution in the City and the County
will remain the same as it has for the last 20 years, the popula-
tion of the City of Jerome is estimated to reach 8,300 by the
year 1990. Because of the rapid growth rate and wide range of
population estimates by various credible agencies, the CHpM/Hill
estimate of approximately 12,000 people by 1995 seems to be rea-
sonable .
Economic Development
An analysis of the economic base of the area by the City
f-3 )
of Jerome Planning Departmentv ' indicates positive growth in all
the economic indicators surveyed. Three new industries have locat-
ed in Jerome since the 1970 Census. The construction industry is
booming, the City's assessed value shows a steady climb, and total
sales in the County report a consistent upswing.
Employment - In 1970, the Department of Employment re-
ports surveyed by the City of Jerome^-5' showed a total work force
for Jerome County of 3,850 and an unemployment rate of 4.8$. Jobs
were categorized with agricultural employment totalling 1,700 work-
ers and non-agricultural employment having 1,9^0 workers. Accord-
ing to the State of Idaho Department of Employment records, fiscal
year 1975 unemployment in Jerome County peaked at 7.8$ in
January of 1975 and the lowest rate was recorded in October of
1974, when only 3-3$ of the labor force was unemployed. Fiscal
year 1975 ended with a rate of 4.3$ unemployed.
A recent Manpower Planning report, published by the
/ -i O N
Idaho State Department of Employment, stated that the labor
force in Jerome County continued to show strong growth in 1975.
Most of the expansion was centered in the service-oriented busi-
nesses. New businesses included a bank, a survey and loan company,
a grocery store, a farm implement retail store, a diesel repair shop,
several general retail stores, and a professional medical building.
-------
1-17
Income Levels - Idaho State Department of Employment
data report that the median family income in 1969 was $6,600 but
the mean family income was $7,531, a significant spread. The 1970
Census data listed the total number of families for the County at
2,706 with 336 families (or 12.4$ of all families) having incomes
less than the poverty level.
Industry - Agriculture provides the economic base in
Tl 9)
the Jerome area. Gross farm income has been steadily rising
for the County, as shown by crop and livestock summaries since
1970:
Year Total Crop
1970 $24,546,978.00
1971 25,791,199.20
1972 28,829,302.00
1973 43,963,840.00
1974 66,578,482.50
Total Livestock
$ 9,783,300.00
14,043,420.00
16,596,657.00
12,140,500.00
10,020,975.00
Gross Farm Income
$29,390,661.00
31,819,663.00
36,616,759.00
45,079,580.00
54,470,652.50
Six major industries in the Jerome area are the Ida-Gem
Dairymen, Inc. Creamery; Moore Business Forms, Inc.; the Tupper-
ware Company; Volco Inc. (building materials); Watts Manufactur-
ing (farm implement manufacturing); and Western Farm Service (ir-
rigation equipment sales)
Airport Regional Plans - For general aviation, Jerome
is served by the Jerome County Airport, just over three miles east
of the City off State Highway 25. The facility has one east-west
paved runway that is 3,317 feet long and 40 feet wide and provides
11 hangers and 8 tie-downs. The Idaho Airport Systenr ' calls
for $70,425 worth of improvements by 1977, including purchase of
15 acres of land, pavement, repair, enlargement of paved apron,
and relocation and construction of hangers and fencing. By 1982,
the Plan suggests extending and paving the runway. Principal
traffic at the airport is agriculture and business-related.
Now in the master plan stage^ is a proposed regional
airport to be located about six miles south and four miles east
of the City. Both the City and County are part of the Regional
Airport Authority and the site under consideration is bounded by
the Snake River Canyon on the south, Interstate 80N on the north
and U.S. Highway 93 on the west. When constructed, the regional
airport can be expected to alleviate the problems of inadequate
air freight and passenger service. It can be anticipated that
the economic and growth impacts on the City and County will also
be significant in the future, as the master plan moves into the
construction phase.
-------
1-18
The Wastewater Facilities Plan considers serving the
proposed airport in the Jerome-Twin Falls regional alternative.
Land Use
While most of the area within the City is low-density
urban, the general land use character of the County is agricultur-
al, with irrigation being used extensively. In the County over
150,000 acres are presently irrigated, and an additional 40,000 to
/-] O \
50,000 acres are designated for potential application. JJ How-
ever, farm population has been diminishing in the County. Domes-
tic crop production is principally alfalfa, with addition of wheat,
barley, corn, potatoes and beans. Jerome County has the following
land use distribution:
Private Land 215,133 Acres
Cropland 158,100
Permanent Pasture 7,000
Range 33,333
Miscellaneous 16,700
Federal Land 151*, 7^0
Urban or Buildup Area 7,747
Water 1,900
379,520 Acres
The private land is managed by approximately 1,200
operating units. The private land acreage will increase due to
the Desert Entry Act and the irrigated cropland will increase due
C 2] }
to the deep well method of obtaining water. '
With agriculture being the main land use, only 8% of
the County is utilized for urban uses, with the remaining 35 to
40% undeveloped. The density of the unincorporated area equals
about 10 people per square mile in contrast to the City of Jerome
which attains a density of 3,000+ per square mile.
The land use of the proposed service area is diverse and
includes the following approximate land use acreages as illustrat-
ed in Figure I.I.
Agricultural Lands 2,835 Acres
Residential 1,135 Acres
Commercial 700 Acres
Industrial 320 Acres
Public Lands 40 Acres
TOTAL 5, 03 0 Acres
-------
1-19
The County and City are both currently involved in com-
pleting separate comprehensive land use plans. The County's Plan-
ning Study is to serve as an update to their existing Comprehen-
sive Zoning Plan and Regulations. Zoning is presently utilized
to implement land use policies, and ultimate growth bounds have
been established by the City. The City's Proposed Comprehensive
Plan effectively treats both Jerome access points from Interstate
80 in addition to existing industrial facilities, the core area,
and new residential development. Early development of new housing
immediately north and east of the City is recognized in the Land
Use and Facilities Plans as the first area for service. Urban
services are believed to be important in maintaining the City's
continuity and reducing pressure to move into adjoining farmlands.
Public Service and Utilities
Solid Waste Management - The City of Jerome contracts
with a private firm for refuse pickup. The waste is hauled and
dumped at the Jerome County landfill northeast of the City near
Highway 93. The open pit landfill is covered daily and has separ-
ate areas to dispose of old car bodies, trees, and brush. No dead
animals can be disposed of at the site. The landfill is inspect-
ed by the South Central Health Department.
Sewage Facilities and Services - The Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan states that the City is served by a wastewater collec-
tion system, a portion of which is gravity flow and 1,170 acres
which require two lift stations. Of the six major industries men-
tioned previously, only Ida-Gem Dairymen, Inc. discharges process
wastewater to the municipal system. The existing facilities are
illustrated in Figure 1.2.
The existing treatment plant was constructed in 1950.
It is a conventional trickling filter system, modified by the addi-
tion of a grit chamber preceding the comminutor in 1962. Further
modifications were made in 1969 with the addition of one activated
biological filter tower, one filter pump station and one aerated
lagoon. The majority of the existing major treatment units are
over 20 years old and are generally in poor physical condition.
The facility is unable to treat existing wastewater at a level of
efficiency that meets discharge requirements, and hydraulic and
organic overloads have caused concern about aesthetics and health
conditions. The sewer system was installed in the early 1930's;
in 19^9 the original wood-stave and Orangeburg pipe were replaced
with concrete pipe and service was extended to the entire town-
site .
Effluent from this plant flows through approximately 18
miles of canal before discharging into the Snake River. Although
between December and April treatment plant effluent is the only
flow in the canals, no significant health problems have resulted
-------
-------
FIGURE 1.2
EXISTING SERVICE AREA
AND COLLECTION SYSTEM
LEGEND
GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE AREA LIMITS
PUMP STATION
(~) TREATMENT PLANT
^=* DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW
SOURCE:REFERENCE t
VB 8039.0
-------
-------
1-23
specifically from the canal system. Odors which emanate from the
plant and discharge of wastewater into a dry canal are causes for
environmental and health concerns. There is a potential for nui-
sance and health hazard conditions because of slime growth, odors
and algae blooms in the canals.
Storm Sewers - Storm sewers exist in the City in areas
where collection of runoff water is a necessity, specifically in
the northeast section. Developers are being required to install
storm sewers, as needed, in new developments. The City hopes to
install a storm drain system with curb and gutter installation in
the southwest and northwest sections of Jerome if local and grant
monies become available. The sewers are needed to control surface
runoff, to prevent flooding of property.
Transportation - Primary transportation is highway
oriented with good immediate access to Interstate 80 and County
arterials. In 1970, the Interstate maintained an average of 6,516
vehicles per day near the two Jerome interchanges and conveyed
3,071 vehicles per day on State Highway 25 in Jerome. A new re-
gional Airport is being planned near Twin Falls about 12 miles
(->)
south of Jerome.
Water Supply - The original central water system for
Jerome was established in 1907 by the Jerome Water Company. '^
The system provides services to the entire community, with sources
of supply being five wells, two in the northern section and three
along the eastern boundary. The Water Resources Board reported
that "These wells produce a good quality of water but collectively
have insufficient pumping capability to meet the future water de-
mands . "
Storage of the water is supplied by a 50,000-gallon
elevated tank and a 100,000-gallon ground level concrete reservoir
as an emergency unit. The Water Resource Board commented, "This
storage capacity is quite inadequate to provide for the projected
peak demands."
Recently, the City of Jerome authorized a water study
which made specific recommendations for upgrading the water sys-
tem by constructing a new reservoir on 10th Avenue E. and by in-
stalling some 2,900 feet of new water mains at a cost of over
$100,000. The project cost is covered by local water funds and
revenue sharing and it is presently under construction.
Electricity - The Idaho Power Company serves the City
of Jerome and surrounding rural areas. The power supply sources
are all hydroelectric with the exception of a small amount of power
-------
1-24
purchased from Puget Power and Light Company and Idaho Power Com-
(22}
pany's Wood River oil and gas combined turbine plants.
Within the City, the Power Company has one power station;
five substations are located in the rural area of Jerome. The
firm employs twelve people. Company policy has been to bury elec-
trical cable in subdivisions of more than six lots and in mobile
court areas. Plans for expansion are unannounced.
State and Federal Agencies - The following State agen-
cies provide services in Jerome: Department of Highways, State
Department of Employment, Department of Fish and Game, Department
of Health and Welfare, and the National Guard. Federal agencies
with Jerome offices are Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Stabilization Conservation Commission, Farmers Home Administration,
Soil Conservation Service and the Post Office.
Recreation - According to the City of Jerome Proposed
rT)
Comprehensive PlanVJ , the City Council's inventory of existing
recreational sites lists the City Park on 1st Street, 2.5 acres;
North Park, 2 acres; South Park, 2 acres; and the proposed Magic
Meadows Park to be developed on 2.3 acres of land donated by the
subdivision developer in the northeast part of the City. The City
is awaiting $21,000 requested funding from the Idaho State Parks
Department to develop Magic Meadows Park. In addition, the City
owns Pioneer Community Hall (on North Lincoln), which is slated
for remodeling in 1977- The County fairgrounds, located on a 38-
acre site, are available for recreational needs. Future plans for
a City Park at the new Jerome High School include construction of
a new swimming pool. A private golf course and a private bowling
alley are available in the area.
The Tupperware plant operates a recreation center that
has become a community resource. The 25-acre site includes two
multi-purpose tennis/basketball courts, playground equipment, pic-
nic area, two baseball diamonds and one softball diamond. The
center is open to employees and guests but also cooperates with the
City Recreation Department in the use of a softball diamond. An
Olympic swimming pool is open to children of the community. Tup-
perware also plans to create a game preserve on some 12 to 14 acres
east of their plant.
According to the Idaho State Parks and Recreation Depart-
(23)
ment, in a Jerome Park Model Assessment Study , there is a
future need of six mini-parks and one neighborhood park of up to
10 acres that could provide various recreational needs. The study
suggests that the immediate future recreational demands in Jerome
could be met by acquiring the following properties:
-------
1-25
1. Property on 10th Avenue (2-3 acres near telephone ex-
change) for a mini-park.
2. Property along Teton Drive at Fillmore (6-7 acres) for
a neighborhood park.
3. Property at Cleveland Street and Avenue I (2-3 acres)
for a mini-park.
The Jerome County Planning Council, in an April 1975
report, proposed a recreational multipurpose complex, approxi-
mately 75 by 100 feet. The complex would include a multipurpose
room with stage, indoor areas to accommodate reading, cards, chess,
and checkers. An open air balcony is also proposed. Outdoor areas
would be planned for roller and ice skating, fireplaces, basket-
ball, tennis, miniature golf, volleyball, badminton and shuffle-
board .
HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
The following sites were listed on the State Registry of
Historic Sites by the Idaho Historical Society in Boise on June 3,
1976:
Calvary Episcopal Church
A small wooden church with shingled steeple and tiny
windows .
Clark Heiss House
At 400 East Avenue A, an example of "modern" style with
features (inspired by the Chicago World's Pair of 1933) such as
glass brick inserts in rounded corners, parallel horizontal
"streamlining" in brick courses and metal railings.
Gilbert White House
At 401 East Avenue A, a "modern" white house is an ex-
cellent example of the style with interior detail including stair
railings, light fixtures, fireplace and hearth. Built about 1939,
the house is now owned by the Henry Pharrises.
Jerome Cooperative Creamery (now Ida-Gem Dairymen, Inc.)
This two-part stone factory building made of local
materials is a distinctive and impressive structure. The style
of the first structure was repeated in the second addition nine
years later.
-------
1-26
Jerome County Courthouse
Architects Sundberg and Sundberg designed this two-
story brick modern courthouse. Decorative accents are vertical
with terra cotta ornament contrasting with the brick.
Jerome First Baptist Church
T. C. Miller and Ed Gill designed and built this lava
rock church with a single frontal tower, constructed about 1910.
The church has a rough reddish volcanic stone exterior. The entry
is at the base of a three-story square castle keep. Windows are
on the sides and to the rear are rectangular double-hung sash win-
dows, the rear sports a gable.
Jerome First Presbyterian Church
A large brick church in Renaissance style.
Lincoln School
A large red brick school of two stories with wide over-
hanging eaves, built in 1908.
St. Jerome Roman Catholic Church
A brick church in Tudor style, trimmed in terra cotta.
St. Jerome Parish Hall
A wooden frame church of great simplicity constructed
about 1908. The church was never used as a Parish Hall and was
moved to Shoshone.
The Jerome County Planning Council lists the First Se-
curity Bank Building, Heiss Building and the Jerome Abstract and
Title Building in addition to the Jerome City Library, Washington
School and Pioneer Hall as buildings of distinct architectural
character.
There are at least 25 lava rock structures in the City
and County areas. These rock structures were built previous to
1930, from volcanic rocks uncovered from the soil, usually during
plowing and cultivating.
-------
1-27
SECTION I
FOOTNOTES
(1) CH2M/Hill, Inc. Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome, Idaho,
1975.
(2) CH2M/Hill, Inc. City of Jerome Water System Improvement Program,
Boise, Idaho 1974.
(3) City of Jerome, Idaho Planning Department, Proposed Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, 1975.
(4) Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Draft 303e Water Quality
Management Plan for the State of Idaho, Boise,Idaho, 1976.
(5) Idaho Water Resources Board, State of Idaho Water Plan - Volume
rr, Boise, Idaho, 1975.
(6) Jerome County, Idaho, Ordinance Establishing a Comprehensive
Zoning Plan and Regulations,as amended,Jerome,Idaho,1973
(7) Idaho Water Resources Board, Comprehensive Rural Water and
Sewerage Planning Study for Jerome County, Boise, Idaho, 1973-
(8) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Jerome Area Interim Soil Survey Report, detailed information
and criteria used in its development, Jerome, Idaho, 1973.
(9) R. Rocenwall, One Year Wind Study for the Twin Falls-Southern
Idaho Regional Airport, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Weather Service, 1973.
(10) Findley, Charles E. and Bray, David C., Attainment of Ambient
Particulate Matter Standards in Idaho, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington, 1973.
(11) R. F. Norvitch, C. A. Thomas, and R. J. Madison, Artificial
Recharge to the Snake Plain Aquifer in Idaho; An Evaluation of
Potential Effect,U.S.Geological Survey and Idaho Department
of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho, 1969.
(12) Idaho Department of Water Resources, State Water Plan - Part
III, Technical Data Report, Boise, Idaho, 1976.
(13) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Jerome Area Interim Soil Survey Report, Jerome, Idaho, 1973.
(14) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Septic Tank Soil Suitability (Map), Jerome, Idaho, June, 1976.
(15) Idaho Department of Water Resources et. al, Idaho Environmental
Overview, Boise, Idaho, 1975.
-------
1-28
(16) Idaho Housing Agency, Idaho's Housing Needs Analysis, Boise,
Idaho, 1975.
(17) Boise State University, Center for Business and Economic
Research, Summary Output for Population and Employment Model
Boise, Idaho, 1975.
(18) Idaho Department of Employment, Bureau of Research Analysis,
Annual Manpower Planning Report - Fiscal Year 1976 (Twin Falls),
Boise, Idaho, 1975.
(19) Idaho, University Cooperative Extension Service, General hand-
outs and tables, Jerome, Idaho, 1976.
(20) T.A.P. Inc., Idaho Airport System Plan, Airports Supplement,
Bozeman, Montana, 1973.
(21) Idaho Water Resource Board, Potentially Irrigable Lands in
Idaho, Boise, Idaho, 1970.
(22) "Electrical World", Directory of Electric Utilities, McGraw-
Hill, Inc., New York, 1975.
(23) Idaho Parks and Recreation Department, Park Model Assessment
Jerome, Idaho, Boise, Idaho, 197*1.
(24) Jerome County, Idaho Planning Council, Comprehensive Recrea-
tion Plan, Jerome, Idaho, 1975.
-------
II. ALTERNATIVES
t:, i
,.';*r": .-».;*/.vy ^v'^Sv-'.^
.y«v*'v i.'V£:*.
-------
-------
SECTION II
ALTERNATIVES
The Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome prepared by
CH2M/Hill, dated May 1975, contains four waste treatment alter-
natives in the cost-effective analysis. The plan was updated by
(2}
an addendum dated December 16, 1976v ' which included eight addi-
tional, modified alternatives. The final recommendation described
in the addendum is that a new wastewater treatment plant be con-
structed at a new site just north and west of the City's existing
plant (Figure II.1). This treatment plant would employ an ex-
tended aeration activated sludge system, with discharge of the
treated effluent to the "J" Canal. Additionally, a Twin Falls
regional treatment alternative, a spray irrigation alternative
and a river discharge alternative are discussed in the two facil-
ity plan reports.
If the City of Jerome discharges to the canal system
during the winter months the discharge would have to meet, in ad-
dition to the other Federal and State discharge standards, more
stringent water quality standards for coliforms (50 MPN/100 ml).
If the discharge meets these standards, winter storage would not
be required. However, if the discharge does not meet the standards,
winter storage will have to be provided.
During the public information portion of this Environ-
mental Assessment, citizens suggested that this EIS also look at
an upgrade of the existing treatment plant; a new treatment plant
at the existing site to discharge to the Snake River; and a new
treatment plant at the existing site to discharge into the "J"
Canal. Additionally, it was suggested that the two pump stations
on the existing interceptor system could be eliminated. All of
these alternatives are discussed in the Facilities Plan Addendum
and in this EIS.
One additional alternative was also considered in this
EIS to ensure that Federal guidelines are met: a "No Action" Al-
ternative .
FACILITIES DESCRIPTION
The following alternatives in some respects are very
similar. It will be helpful to the readers if the following simi-
larities are kept in mind.
"No Action" Alternative
The "No Action" Alternative system is the same as the
existing system.
-------
CO
.
ss
-------
II-3
Action Alternatives 2 Through 8
1. All action alternatives have the same service area.
2. There are only two proposed Interceptor systems, one
for the Far-West Site alternatives and the second for
existing and Near-West Plant Site alternatives. Alter-
natives 2, 3, 6, and 7 have the Par-West Plant Site in-
terceptors and Alternatives 4, 5 and 8 have the second
type of interceptors.
3- The construction time phasing is directly related to
interceptor construction and therefore Alternatives 2,
3, 6 and 7 have one construction time phasing program
and Alternatives 4, 5 and 8 all have a second type of
construction time phasing.
Alternative 1 - "No Action" Alternative A
L
The "No Action" Alternative continues to operate the y
existing facility in its present state without further action to |r
upgrade or improve its operation. It is also assumed that no ac- p
tion will be taken to accommodate the demand which will be generat- j^
ed by the expected growth of the area. ^
The following summary of the existing facilities was i
(1)
abstracted from the Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome. ' V
E
Service Area - The present service area, 1,170 acres,
is principally the City limits of Jerome and a small perimeter im- 1
mediately adjacent to the City of Jerome. This perimeter varies
from approximately 35000 feet from the Jerome City boundary to
the northeast to an average of less than 500 feet along the east,
west and south City limits of the City of Jerome (Figure I.I).
Interceptors - The Jerome collection system is composed
mainly of 8-inch diameter pipes which convey wastewater flow from
east to west across the present service area. The flow from the
8-inch pipes is then collected into larger 12- to 24-inch diameter
pipes running north and south along the eastern edge of the ser-
vice area, and is carried to the existing treatment plant. The
existing system serves an area of approximately 1,170 acres.
Figure I.I shows features and the general layout of the existing
collection system and service area.
The portion of the existing service area which is north
of Avenue E and the railroad tracks is served by gravity flow.
A 300 gpm pump station is presently being installed to provide
service to the Magic Meadows Subdivision located in the northeast
-------
II-4
corner of the service area. As development occurs to the west of
this area and new sewer pipes are constructed, this area can be
served by gravity flow and use of the pump station can be discon-
tinued .
To provide service to the remaining portion of the ser-
vice area south of Avenue E and the railroad tracks, two lift sta-
tions are required. Lift Station No. 1, located just off Elm
Street between Avenue C and Avenue D, has a capacity of 500 gpm.
Lift Station No. 2, located on Elm Street between Avenue F and
Avenue G, has a capacity of 225 gpm. The original pumps in both
stations were replaced with new pumps in 1973.
Because of the generally steep slopes and relatively
minor infiltration, most of the system has adequate capacity for
present needs, as well as capacity for additional flow from fringe
areas to the east of the City, which are yet to be developed. The
only exception to this is the 8-inch diameter pipe which runs east
along 10th Avenue from Buchanan Street, south along Birch Street
to 8th Avenue and east along 8th Avenue to Elm Street. This pipe
collects flow from the northeast portion of the existing service
area and is presently overloaded during peak flow periods.
Treatment Process - The initial construction of the ex-
isting wastewater treatment plant was completed in 1950. It was
a conventional trickling filter system designed to treat domestic
wastewater, and included the following major units:
1. Comminutor
2. Primary clarifier
3. Rock media trickling filter
4. Secondary clarifier
5. Chlorine contact basin
6. Anaerobic digester
7. Three sludge drying beds
The system was modified in 1962 with the addition of a grit cham-
ber preceding the comminutor.
Further modifications were made in 1969. These changes
included the addition of the following units:
1. One oxidation tower
2. One filter pump station
3. One aerated lagoon
Figure II.2 illustrates the existing treatment plant layout.
-------
II-5
The incoming wastewater flows initially through the grit
chamber for removal of heavy solids such as sand, glass, etc. The
large solids remaining in the wastewater flow are then broken down
in the comminutor. Following the comminutor, the wastewater is
pumped to the primary clarifier, where solids are settled out and
wasted to the anaerobic digester for stabilization. The stabiliz-
ed sludge is dried on drying beds, with final disposal of the dried
sludge on land.
Following primary clarification, the wastewater is pump-
ed to the oxidation tower. The wastewater then flows by gravity
to the secondary clarifiers where the biological solids settle.
The settled solids are recycled back into the system to increase
the solids concentration. Further biological treatment is provid-
ed for secondary clarifier effluent by the trickling filter. A
portion of the effluent from the trickling filter is recycled back
into the system. The trickling filter is followed by an aerated
lagoon. A portion of the lagoon is isolated by baffling and uti-
lized as a chlorine contact basin for disinfection prior to final
discharge to the "J" Canal. Some of the existing mechanical equip-
ment is in fair to poor condition and is creating operational
problems.
The existing grit chamber is presently hydraulically
overloaded, resulting in the discharge of large amounts of grit
into the primary clarifier, where it settles and is eventually
wasted to the anaerobic digester. The grit is unaffected by the
digestion process, but uses up digester volume, causing reduced
sludge stabilization efficiencies.
The existing final clarifier is also heavily overloaded,
resulting in large volumes of diluted waste solids being discharg-
ed to the trickling filter and eventually to the aerated lagoon.
At present, a mixture of waste activated sludge and pri-
mary sludge is wasted to the anaerobic digester. This mixture of
waste sludge contains a high percentage of silt which uses up di-
gester volume without being affected by the digestion process.
Single-stage anaerobic digesters, by nature, are not as efficient
as two-stage digesters, and loss of digester sludge volume to grit
reduces the detention time and results in an even lower stabiliza-
tion efficiency. Odors are given off when the partially stabiliz-
ed sludge is transferred to the drying beds. Digester supernatant
from partially stabilized sludge is odorous. The floating cover
to the digester leaks, allowing odorous gases produced in the un-
stable digestion process to escape.
Receiving Stream - Effluent from the Jerome Wastewater
Treatment Plant is discharged into the "J" Canal north where it
branches into the "J" and "N" Canals. Information about the canal
-------
-------
FIGURE IT. 3
TREATMENT PLANT AND
OUTFALL LOCATIONS
SOURCE: REFERENCE)
V B 8039.0
-------
-------
11-15
Alternative 4 - New Secondary Plant at Near-West Site with A
Discharge to "J" CanaTL
T
The interceptor alternative serving the existing site E
as described in the City of Jerome Wastewater Facilities Plan has R
been modified in the Addendum to eliminate the need for two exist- N
ing pump stations located near Elm Street, now part of the exist- A
ing sewerage for the City of Jerome. These modifications have T
caused the construction time phasing for the service area to change I
slightly, as well as the total cost of the facilities to be de- V
creased slightly. E
This treatment alternative, while not discussed in the 4
published Facilities Plan, was analyzed by the City and its Con-
sultant in preparation of the Facilities Plan Addendum.
Service Area - Total service area for Alternative 4 is
the same as for Alternative 2.
Interceptors - To provide a system of interceptor and
main sewer lines to conduct wastewater to the Near-West Plant Site
for treatment, the study area was divided into three subareas or
phases. Based on current development trends, it is expected that
the systems in Phases 1 through 3 will be required in consecutive
order as development occurs in each area. Figure II.4 shows the
proposed interceptor system for each phase.
Phase 1 - New development is predominantly on the
northeastern side of the City. Under Phase 1, the North Intercep-
tor would provide service by gravity flow to this service area of
1,445 acres. Some portions of this area, along the eastern boun-
dary of the existing service area, are presently developing. These
fringe areas can best be served by connecting to the existing 8-
inch sewers, which flow westerly through the City. The capacity
of the existing system is limited, however, and the majority of
the flow from the Phase 1 area would have to be carried by the
North Interceptor. Additionally, to eliminate the two existing
pumping stations, 4,000 feet of the South Interceptor nearest the
treatment plant would have to be built during Phase 1. Phase 1
construction is proposed to begin in 1978.
Phase 2 - Under Phase 2, the southeastern and west-
ern portions of the study area would be served. The southeastern
portion would be served by gravity flow to the plant site. Flow
from this area would be carried by Main S, the South Trunk and
the portions of the South Interceptor between Main S and the treat-
ment plant.
-------
-------
24" . 1 y -. /,'( \
PHASE 1 SERVICE AREA
1976
PHASE 2 SERVICE AREA
1986
PHASE 3 SERVICE AREA
1991
EXISTING TREATMENT
PLANT
D PUMP STATION
!! STUDY BOUNDARY
^M GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
i PRESSURE LINE
., EXISTING PUMP STATION
EXISTING SEWER
.' SERVICE AREA LIMITS
m
$ m -n
sis
? 3 3
g 3 *
H m
(o 2
m
-------
-------
11-19
To provide sewer service to the western portion of the study area
two pump stations would be required. Pump Station No. 3 would pump
flow collected by gravity flow from the portion of the service area
?hfqo^h ? £reeway> thr°ugh Pressure Line No. 3, discharging in?o
^S h o« erCeptSr< The estlmated capacity of the pump station
would be 935 gpm. Pump Station No. 4 would have an estimated capa-
city of 1 960 gpm. Wastewater collected by gravity flow from the
northeast of the freeway would Se cSn-
rtM e cn
ducted by the Northwest Trunk and the West Trunk to the pump sta-
tion The wastewater flow would then be pumped through Pressure
Line No. 4, discharging into the headworks at the treatment plant.
Fhase 3 - The southern portion of the study area
surrounding the south freeway interchange would be served under
Phase 3. This service area is 1,000 acres.
Two pump stations would be required to provide service
t?matedPnow of^n' PU?P Statlon No' 1 would Pump a maximum es-
timated flow of 870 gpm from the area south of the freeway throueh
£«MnreMLlnS No-^ Discharging into the South Interceptor ?ump
Station No. 2 would have a capacity of approximately 590 gpm and
?i5 5? 10?ated ?°rth °f the free^y- Plow from this stf Won
would flow through Pressure Line No. 2 discharging into the South
thr°USh the South
3 faci-
, , . .Treatment Process - The treatment process and treatment
plant design in Alternative 4 are identical to those proposed in
Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would completely replace the exist-
SS nf ^±t±eS ^lh & t0tally new fa^l"y atthePNea?-w2st Si?e.
The discharge of treated effluent would be to the »J» Canal As
Mp^n?1"^1^ 24 sli?!?t modifications in the chlorination facili
ties of the plant would be completed to prevent treated effluent
concentrations of fecal coliforms exceeding 50 MPN per 100 milli-
irrigation canalsC°mPllanCe W±th St&te dlscharSe standards, into
The S^te - The proposed 40-acre site is adjacent to the
existing plant to the northwest across from the "J" Canal. This
land is presently in alfalfa fields, and is basically level with
a mild slope to the west. Immediately adjacent and to the east
n T an.?ld r°Ck slaughterhouse. Three residents and
are to the west« To the southeast
-------
11-20
The soils of the area, as classified by the Soil Conser-
(3)
vation Service , are portino-type soils which are silty loam
types of soils with a surface depth of 0 to 28 inches. The culti-
vability classification of these soils is Class 4.
The land use around the existing site is residential to
the east and northeast and agricultural to the west, northwest and
southwest. Industrial lands are to the south, and the County Fair-
grounds are immediately adjacent to the treatment plant site to
the southwest.
All other environmental baseline characteristics of the
existing site are typical of the study area as described in the
"Environmental Setting" portion of Section 1.
Alternative 5 - New Secondary Plant at Near-West
Site with Discharge to Snake River
A
|_ The service area is identical to Alternative 2. Con-
T struction phasing, treatment facilities, and site characteristics
E are as described in Alternative 4, with the exception of treated
R effluent. Under Alternative 5, a pump station and pressure line
N would be added. The 12-inch pressure line would be extended south-
A westerly from the existing treatment plant under the 1-5 freeway
T and westerly to an outfall location on the Snake River (see Figure
I II.5). On the west side of the freeway and approximately two miles
V south of the existing treatment plant, it is anticipated that ac-
E cess for the pressure line into the Snake River Canyon could be
5 provided along a road maintained by the Fish and Game Department.
However, because this is not the recommended alternative, an ap-
plication for right-of-way along this road has not been made to
the Department of Fish and Game or any other agency.
Alternative 6 - Jerome-Twin Falls Regional Treatment Plant
A
j_ The service area construction phasing and interceptor
-|- systems for Alternative 6 are identical to those proposed in Al-
|r ternatives 2 and 3. This alternative involves construction of a
R pump station and pipeline to transport Jerome's untreated waste-
N water to the Twin Falls plant for treatment and subsequent dis-
A charge to the Snake River.
T
I The pump station would be located in the area near the
V west boundary of the study area (in about the same area as the
E Far-West plant site proposed in Alternative 2), with the West In-
g terceptor transporting the wastewater by gravity flow to the pump
station (see Figure II.6). The wastewater would then be pumped
through a 16-inch buried pressure pipeline to the Twin Falls
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Approximately one acre of land would
-------
11-25
be needed for the pump station facility. The pipeline route would
run from the pump station south along the Two-Mile Road (200 West)
for about five miles, then east to Highway 93, then south and east
along Highway 93 for about three miles, then south into the can-
yon, across the river, and into the treatment plant.
An expansion of the Twin Palls Wastewater Treatment Plant
has recently been completed. Based on the design capacity of the
plant, it appears that there would be adequate capacity to accept
wastewater from Jerome. The addition of Jerome to the Twin Falls
plant would reduce the reserve capacity and the design life of the
expanded plant from the present 20 years to an estimated 10 years.
As a result, further expansion of the Twin Palls Treatment Facili-
ties would be necessary in about 10 years, when the treatment plant's
design capacity would be reached.
Alternative 7 - Spray Irrigation .
The service area, construction scheduling treatment pro- -b
cess, and interceptor facilities for Alternative 7 are identical i
to those proposed in Alternative 2. A specific site for the spray- JEJ
fields has not been selected at this time, and the descriptions H
and costs assume that one could be located within a three-mile ^
radius from the Far-West Treatment Plant Site. The method of spray y
irrigation assumed to be used is a set spray irrigation system. A j
set spray irrigation system is a system with sprinkler irrigation y
heads and piping facilities permanently installed in a cropland £
or field. The effluents are then spray-irrigated on the field's _
crop cover.
A good crop cover is an essential part of any irrigation
field. The crop cover protects the soil from compaction, can be
a significant nutrient-removal system, and through crop harvesting
serves to indefinitely prolong the life of a wastewater irrigation
field. The crop cover increases the surface area available for
rapid transpiration of the wastewater and provides additional stor-
age capacity for the water. Finally, the root system controls
erosion of the soil and aids in the prevention of excessive soil
loss. Wastewater irrigation has the opposite objective usually
obtained by agricultural irrigation. Wastewater irrigation at-
tempts to use a maximum amount of water application without damag-
ing the crop cover or reducing the capacity of the land to absorb
water.
The total acreage needed for Alternative 7 is approxi-
mately 360 acres. This includes area for the treatment plant,
spray site, 80 acres of storage pond, and buffer zones approxi-
mately 150 to 300 feet wide around the site to isolate the treat-
ment and disposal facilities from the surrounding area.
-------
11-26
The operation of the plant would be limited to the warmer
spring, summer and fall months when maximum nutrient uptake by
the cover crop occurs. There is approximately a five-month period
when spray irrigation cannot occur, and the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare requires that the wastewater be stored. This
requirement is what creates the need for 80 acres of storage ponds.
Alternative 8 - Upgrading of Existing Treatment Plant
A with Discharge to "J" Canal
T The service area for Alternative 8 is identical to Al-
E ternative 2. Construction scheduling and interceptor facilities
R are as described in Alternative 4. Alternative 8 is an upgrade
N of the existing facilities on the existing site. The site descrip-
A tion is the same as for the "No Action" Alternative, Alternative 1.
I Discharge would also be to the "J" Canal.
P Three upgrade alternatives for the existing Jerome Waste-
water Facilities Plant were considered as follows:
o
8a extended aeration
8b activated biological filter/activated sludge
with anaerobic/aerobic digestion
8c activated biological filter/activated sludge with
anaerobic digestion alternative
The existing site is identical to that site described in Alterna-
tive 1, the "No-Action" Alternative. The interceptor facilities
serving the site and construction scheduling are the same as those
described in Alternative 4 and all three alternatives would dis-
charge to the "J" Canal. The first two alternatives would also
require 28 acres of land at the Near-West Site (see Alternative 4
discussion). The extended aeration alternative was found to be
cost-effective. Treatment process, unit layouts and costs were,pv
all included in the Jerome Wastewater Facilities Plan Addendum. '
These three alternatives vary slightly in their cost-ef-
fectiveness and environmental impacts. However, because the en-
vironmental differences are very small, the most cost-effective
alternative is presented here. Thus, the costs and descriptions
included in this Final EIS describe the most cost-effective of the
three alternatives, Alternative 8a, the extended aeration alterna-
tive. If, as discussed in the Preface, wastewater contributions
for the Ida-Gem plant are elminated or reduced, the cost-effective-
ness of these alternatives could also change. In fact, any of
these three alternatives could potentially replace Alternative 4
as the most cost-effective alternative, depending on what flow is
contributed to the plant.
-------
11-27
The extended aeration alternative has the same service
area as all the alternatives, has the same interceptor system as
Alternative 4, is identical to that kind of treatment described
in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, utilizes the existing site and an
additional 28 acres of the Near-West Site and discharges to the
"J" Canal.
COSTS AND RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
Detailed construction costs for the interceptors are
listed in Tables II.1 and II.2. Treatment plant construction costs
are shown in Tables II.3 through II.9. Table 11.10 is a summary
cost table, which includes interceptor, treatment plant outfall,
operation and maintenance and total cost for each alternative.
The alternatives ranked in order of least cost are as follows:
Present
Worth
Alternative Cost Ranking
#1 No Action $ 832,000 1
#4 Secondary, Near-West Site,
Canal Discharge 5,539,000 2
#2 Secondary, Far-West Site,
Canal Discharge 5,574,000 3
#8 Upgrading of Existing Plant 5,974,000 4
#6 Jerome-Twin Palls Regional 6,585,000 5
#3 Secondary, Par-West Site, Snake
River Discharge 6,766,000 6
#5 Secondary, Near-West Site, Snake
River Discharge 6,992,000 7
#7 Spray Irrigation 8,508,000 8
The recommended method of financing for 86% of the con-
(? 1
struction costs are through State and Federal grants. ' User
charges would finance the remaining construction, operation and
maintenance costs. A typical present user fee for the City of
Jerome is approximately $2.50 per month. The user charges for Al-
ternative 3 are estimated at $5.60 per month. ' This constitutes
an annual rate, present worth cost ratio of 1:1,184,785. Apply-
ing this ratio to other alternatives, the approximate user costs
would be as follows:
-------
11-28
TABLE II.1
INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM, v
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATED '
ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, 6 and 7
(FAR-WEST SITE)
Interceptors
(b)
1976
Phase 1
1986
Phase 2
West Interceptor $ 300,000
North Interceptor 449,500
West Trunk 91,000
Southwest Interceptor $327,000
South Trunk 146,500
Main S 40,500
South Interceptor
Pressure Line No. 1
Pressure Line No. 2
Pump Stations
Pump Station No. 1
Pump Station No. 2
Subtotal $ 840,500 $514,000
Contingencies, Legal, Administration
and Engineering (35%) 294,000 180.000
Total Capital Cost $1,134,500 $694,000
Total Interceptor Cost » $2,478,500
(c)
1991
Phase 3
$267,000
69,000
15,500
75,000
55.000
$481,500
168.500
$650,000
Present Worth
$1,723,000
(a)
(b)
(c)
ENR Construction Cost Index = 2400.
Capital costs for interceptors include a 35 percent allowance
for rock excavation.
Assuming an interest rate of 7 percent, and implementation of
Phase 1 in 1976, Phase 2 in 1986 and Phase 3 in 1991 (no in-
flation allowance is included).
-------
11-29
D '
TABLE II. 2
INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM,
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVES 4, 5 AND 8
(NEAR-WEST AND EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT SITE)
1976
Phase 1
1986
Phase 2
1991
Phase 3
Interceptors
(b)
North Interceptor ...................... $449 , 500
South Interceptor ...................... 180,000
South Trunk ............................
Main S .................................
South Interceptor ......................
Pressure Line No. 1 ....................
Pressure Line No. 2 ....................
Northwest Trunk ........................
West Trunk .............................
Pressure Line No . 3 ....................
Pressure Line No . 4 ....................
Pump Stations
Pump Station No . 1 .....................
Pump Station No. 2 .....................
Pump Station No. 3 .....................
Pump Station No . 4 ..................... _
Subtotal ......................... $658,500
Contingencies, Legal,
Administration and
Engineering (35%) .................... 220.500
Total Capital Cost ............... $889,000
Total Interceptor Cost = $3,015,500
(c)
Present Worth v ' = $1,854,000
$ 233,000
158 , 000
19,500
65 , 000
213 , 000
148 , 000
75,000
100,000
$1,011,000
354.000
$1,365,500
$245 , 000
82,000
31,500
65,000
75 , 000
65,000
$563,500
197.500
$761,000
(a)
v
(c)
ENR Construction Cost Index = 2400.
Capital costs for interceptors include a 35 percent allowance
for rock excavation.
Assuming an interest rate of 7 percent and implementation of
Phase 1 in 1976, Phase 2 in 1986, and Phase 3 in 1991. (No
inflation allowance included.)
-------
11-30
TABLE II.3 , v
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATED
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
SECONDARY TREATMENT - FAR-WEST SITE, CANAL DISCHARGE
Item
Bond and Insurance $ 24,000
Move In and Temporary Facilities 30,000
Influent Pump Station 194,000
Screening and Shredding 44,500
Aeration Basins 320,000
Secondary Clarifiers 199,500
Flow Measurement 20,500
Chlorine Contact Channels 96,000
Sludge Pumping Building 137,500
Humus Ponds 132,500
Aerobic Digester 199,000
Chlorine Building 89,500
Administration Building 100,000
Access Road 15,500
Electrical 170,000
Yard Work 403,500
Miscellaneous 250,500
Subtotal $2,426,500
Plus 35 Percent(b) 849.500
Subtotal $3,276,000
Land (40 Acres) 80,000
Convert existing site to park 46,000
Treatment Subtotal $3,402,000
Outfall $ 92,500
Plus 35 Percent(b) 32,500
Outfall Subtotal $ 125,000
West Interceptor $ 300,000
Plus 35 Percent(b) 105.000
West Interceptor Subtotal $ 405,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST $3,932,000
(a)
(b)
Estimated ENR Construction Cost Index = 2400.
Contingencies, Legal, Administration and Engineering.
-------
11-31
,00
TABLE II.4
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE'
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
SECONDARY TREATMENT - FAR-WEST SITE, SNAKE RIVER DISCHARGE
Item
Bond and Insurance $ 24,000
Move In and Temporary Facilities 30,000
Influent Pump Station 194,000
Screening and Shredding 44,500
Aeration Basins 320,000
Secondary Clarifiers 199,500
Flow Measurement 20,500
Chlorine Contact Channels 96,000
Effluent Pump Station 162,000
Sludge Pumping Building 137,500
Humus Ponds 132,500
Aerobic Digester 199,000
Chlorine Building 89,500
Administration Building 100,000
Access Road 15,500
Electrical 170,000
Yard Work 403,500
Miscellaneous 249.000
Subtotal $2,587,000
Plus 35 Percent(b) 905.000
Subtotal $3,492,000
Land (40 Acres) 80.000
Treatment Subtotal $3,572,000
Outfall $ 874,000
Plus 35 Percent(b) 306.000
Outfall Subtotal $1,180,000
West Interceptor $ 300,000
Plus 35 Percent(b) 105.000
West Interceptor Subtotal $ 405.000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST $5,157,000
(a)
(b)
Estimated ENR Construction Cost Index = 2400.
Contingencies, Legal, Administration and Engineering.
-------
11-32
.(a)
TABLE II.5
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE'
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
SECONDARY TREATMENT - NEAR-WEST SITE, CANAL DISCHARGE
Item
Bond and Insurance $ 24,000
Move In and Temporary Facilities 30,000
Influent Pump Station 194,000
Screening and Shredding 44,500
Aeration Basins 320,000
Secondary Clarifiers 199,500
Flow Measurement 20,500
Chlorine Contact Channels 96,000
Sludge Pumping Building 137,500
Humus Ponds 132,500
Aerobic Digester 199,000
Chlorine Building 89,500
Administration Building 100,000
Access Road 15,500
Electrical 170,000
Yard Work 436,500
Miscellaneous 250,500
Subtotal $2,459,500
Plus 35 Percent(b) 860.500
Subtotal $3,320,000
Land (40 Acres) 160,000
Convert existing site to park 46,000
Treatment Subtotal $3,320,000
Outfall $ 20,000
Plus 35 Percent (b) 7.000
Outfall Subtotal $ 27.000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST $3,553,000
(a)
(b)
Estimated ENR Construction Cost Index = 2400.
Contingencies, Legal, Administration and Engineering.
-------
11-33
TABLE II.6 , v
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATEU'
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
SECONDARY TREATMENT - NEAR-WEST SITE SNAKE RIVER DISCHARGE
Item
Bond and Insurance $ 24,000
Move In and Temporary Facilities 30,000
Influent Pump Station 194,000
Screening and Shredding 44,500
Aeration Basins 320,000
Secondary Clarifiers 199,500
Flow Measurement 20,500
Chlorine Contact Channels 96,000
Sludge Pumping Building 137,500
Humus Ponds 132,500
Aerobic Digester 199,000
Chlorine Building 89,500
Administration Building 100,000
Access Road 15,500
Electrical 170,000
Yard Work 436,500
Miscellaneous 250,000
Subtotal $2,454,500
Plus 35 Percent(b) 860,500
Subtotal $3,320,000
Land (40 Acres) 160,000
Convert existing site to park 46,000
Treatment Subtotal $3,320,000
Outfall $1,055,000
Plus 35 Percent(b) 369,000
Outfall Subtotal $1,424,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL COST $4,744,000
(a)
(b)
Estimated ENR Construction Cost Index = 2400.
Contingencies, Legal, Administration and Engineering.
-------
11-34
TABLE II.7
COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
TREATMENT AT TWIN FALLS
Capital Costs Total
Treatment Cost $1,453,000
Pump Station 378,000
Pipeline to
Twin Falls 3,190,000
West Interceptor 405,000
Total $5,426,000
TABLE II.8
COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
TREATMENT - STORAGE - SPRAY IRRIGATION
Capital Costs Total
Treatment Plant $3,618,000
Pipeline(a) 447,000
Storage Lagoons 1,390,000
Spray Irrigation 1,678,000
West Interceptor 405,000
Total $6,686,000
(a)
Assumes 3 mile pipeline to storage
and spray site.
-------
11-35
TABLE II.9
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE NO, 8
UPGRADE AT EXISTING PLANT SITE, ' CANAL DISCHARGE
Item Cost
Bond and Insurance $ 24,000
Move In and Temporary Facilities 230,000
Influent Pump Station 194,000
Screening and Shredding Structure 44,500
Aeration Basins 320,000
Secondary Clarifiers 199,500
Flow Measurement 20,500
Chlorine Contact Channels 96,000
Pump Station at Humus Ponds 30,000
Sludge Pumping Building 137,500
Humus Ponds 132,500
Aerobic Digester 199,000
Chlorine Building 89,500
Administration Building 100,000
Access Road 15,500
Electrical 170,000
Yard Work 513,500
Miscellaneous 275,000
Subtotal $2,791,000
Plus 35 Percent(b) 977.000
Treatment Subtotal $3,768,000
Land (28 Acres) 100,000
Outfall ,,} $ 20,000
Plus 35 Percent ^ } 7.000
Outfall Subtotal $ 27.000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PHASE 1 CAPITAL COST $3,895,000
(a)
Estimated ENR Construction Cost Index = 2,400.
(b)
Contingencies, Legal, Administration, and Engineering.
-------
TABLE H.10_i
COST SUMMARY^ ;
Alternative
Interceptor(b)(h)
Treatment(c)
Plant
None
Alternative No. 1
No Action
Alternative No. 2
Secondary at Far-West Site
Discharge to "N-3" Canal . $1,723,000
Alternative No. 3
Secondary at Far-West Site
Discharge to Snake River 1,723,000
1,859,000
Alternative No. 4
Secondary at Near-West Site
Discharge to "J" Canal ...
Alternative No. 5
Secondary at Near-West Site
Snake River Discharge .... 1,859,000
Alternative No. 6
Jerome-Twin Falls Regional 1,723,000
1,723,000
Alternative No. 7
Spray Irrigation
Alternative No. 8
Upgrade at Existing Plant
Site
None
$2,296,000
2,437,000
2,348,000
2,348,000
229,000
(e)
1,859,000
2,218,000
2,691,000
(f)
Costs($)
Outfall
None
$ 125,000
1,180,000
27,000
1,424,000
3,568,000
2,875,000
27,000
Operation and
Maintenance(b)(h)
(O&M) Total Cost Cost-Effective Ranking
i
GO
T-$ 832,000
$1,305,000
1,294,000
1,305,000
1,361,000
1,066,000
1,692,000
1,305,000
$ 832,000
5,574,000
6,634,000
5,539,000
6,992,000
6,585,000
8,508,000
5,974,000
NA
(g)
' 1
6
4
7
(a)
Source: Reference 1.
In present worth value for 20-year planning period as 1976 dollars.
(c)
I=includes credit for salvage value.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Ed Evans, Public Works Director, Jerome, Idaho, June 9, 1976, reported as annual cost of $73,257.
Pump Station and pipeline to Twin Falls Treatment Plant.
Outfall, spray irrigation equipment and storage lagoons.
To be cost-effective the alternative must be legal. This Alternative violates the Federal and State
Water Quality Laws.
Costs conform to EPA's mandatory 6-1/8Z discount rate for present worth costs.
-------
11-37
Alternative
#1 No Action
#2 Secondary, Far-west site,
Canal Discharge
#3 Secondary, Far-West, Snake
River
#4 Secondary, Near-West Site,
Canal Discharge
#5 Secondary, Near-West Site,
Snake River Discharge
#6 Jerome-Twin Falls Regional
#7 Spray Irrigation
#8 Upgrading of Existing Plant
Monthly Rate
$ 2.50
4.70
5.60
4.70
5.90
5.55
7.15
5.00
Least Cost
Ranking
1
2
6
2
7
5
8
H
The resources that will be committed to the construction
and operation of the alternatives include land, electric power,
fuel, oil, construction materials and manpower. Utilizing current
estimating techniques, available literature and data sources, only
electric power, fuel oil and manpower resources for operation and
maintenance and land resources can be estimated individually.
Table 11.11 shows these resource commitments.
-------
11-38
TABLE 11.11
RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
Total Operation and Maintenance for Project Life
Land
Alternative (Acres)
1 10
2 40
3 40
4 40
5 40
6 1
7 360
8 38
Labor
(Man Yrs)
60
80
80
80
80
30
120
72
Electricity
(MWh)
23,000
57,500
63,000
57,500
63,500
37,500
73,000
57,500
Fuel Oil
(Gallons)
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
NA
107,000
80,000
Natural Gas
(100 Cubic Feet)
2,270
NA^a'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ranking
2
4
6
4
7
1
8
3
(a)
NA = Not Applicable.
-------
11-39
SECTION II
FOOTNOTES
(1) CHpM/Hill, Inc., Wastewater Facilities Flan for Jerome, Idaho,
Boise, Idaho, 1975-
(2) CHpM/Hill, Inc., Addendum to Wastewater Facilities Plan, City
of Jerome, Idaho, Boise, Idaho, 1976.
(3) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Jerome Area Interim Soil Survey Report, Jerome, Idaho, 1973-
-------
-------
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
-------
SECTION III
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
As the following discussion will illustrate, neither
primary nor secondary impacts of the proposed eight alternatives
will vary significantly in some categories. This is true for aes-
thetics, air quality, population and economic growth, historic,
architectural and archaeological resources, redevelopment and con-
struction in built-up areas, taxes, personal incomes, and public
utilities (other than sewage facilities). The major potential im-
pacts of all the alternatives upon land uses are basically similar
and are described in this section. There is, however, some vari-
ability among the impacts upon land use, especially in the area
of mitigation. For this reason, land use will also be discussed
under each alternative.
Primary and secondary impacts are discussed in this sec-
tion. Impacts are changes, either beneficial or adverse, imposed
upon a component of the physical or social environment. A primary
impact is directly imposed, while a secondary impact is a change
brought about or caused by one or more primary impacts.
PRIMARY IMPACTS
Air Quality
Impacts - Because no incineration of sludges is to occur
under any of the alternatives, the major types of potential air
pollutants are: particulates during the construction of the faci-
lities; off gases; increases in pollutants caused by switching
from natural gas to fuel oil consumption at the plant; and vehi-
cle emissions from sludge transport and personnel commuting.
Construction activities pose the greatest potential
threat of air quality impacts. In a study conducted by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency construction activities in the
Twin Falls area were found to cause violations of the primary 24-
hour standard for particulates of 260 micrograms per cubic meter.
Types of construction most typically causing the standards to be
violated were street and road construction, often involving earth
moving, grading, and other activities which disturb the soil. Be-
cause it will be necessary to conduct similar activities during
the construction of treatment facilities, ambient air standards
for particulates may be violated intermittently over a period of
weeks or months. However, since this is not a permanent condition,
-------
III-2
no long-term or highly degradative effects are expected other
than nuisances caused by dust. It should be noted that the "No
Action" Alternative would not have any impacts associated with
particulate generation caused by construction.
Potential gas emissions from wastewater treatment works
include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monox-
C p")
ide, and oxides of nitrogen sulfur and phosphorus . However,
such gases are usually a greater potential hazard within the struc-
ture than in areas outside of it. For this reason, the design
criteria expected to be employed during the detailed specifications
and design of any treatment plant alternative (Step II in the EPA
grant process), are expected to make any potential degradation of
air quality highly improbable. Additionally, operation of the
existing plant has not been known to emit any significant concen-
trations of these compounds, except to produce odors. Thus it is
expected that continuance of the existing plant has a very low
probability of emitting significant concentrations of these gases.
Odors are discussed in more detail under "Odor" impacts later in
this section.
The utilization of fuel oil and discontinuance of natur-
al gas will increase air pollution loadings as follows:
Particulates 0.5 Ibs/day
Sulfur Oxides 2.3 Ibs/day
Carbon Monoxide 1.2 Ibs/day
Hydro Carbons 0.8 Ibs/day
Nitrous Oxides 0.6 Ibs/day
These figures are for Alternative 7, the alternative which utili-
zes more fuel than any other. Thus, this is equal to the maximum
amount of pollution expected from any of the alternatives. When
the large mixing area and good mixing conditions^ ' available
in the basin are considered, these low-emission factors seem un-
likely to cause significant air quality degradation. Therefore,
no alternatives are expected to have significant impact upon the
air quality because of use of fuel oils.
Because the emission loadings caused by the increase of
vehicular traffic from additional sludge loadings and one to two
man-trips to the plant for operation are even less than those
caused by the consumption of fuel oils, no impact is expected from
increased vehicular traffic.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Particu-
late matter, mostly in the form of dust, generated during grading
and earth moving is the major, primary adverse impact. The basic
means of mitigation is efficient application of construction
-------
III-3
methods to minimize the amount of land disturbed, and to utilize
a mobile sprayer to spray water on excavation sites to control
dust generation.
Land Use
Impacts - The proposed service area conflicts (in the
County areas; with the existing Jerome County Comprehensive Zon-
(Q)
ing Plan. ' This conflict is caused by the extension of the ser-
vice area boundary and proposed construction of interceptors to
land presently zoned as agricultural. Agricultural lands do not
create enough demand to cost-effectively sewer these areas. Addi-
tionally, the construction of sewer facilities in this area could
create a land use change, resulting in more dense or more urban
use. Figure III.l illustrates those portions of the service area
that are in conflict with the County's Comprehensive Zoning Plan
and Regulations.
EPA cannot participate in funding an alternative not in
agreement with a duly-adopted plan. However, Jerome County is
presently in the process of updating the existing Comprehensive
Zoning Plan and Regulations. Thus, the land use conflicts des-
cribed above are expected to be resolved prior to the estimated
start-up date of February 1978 for construction of the treatment
plant. A letter from the Jerome County Planning and Zoning Admi-
nistrator describing the current land use planning status, as it
affects the facilities plan, is presented in Appendix A.
Both the Far-West and Near-West Sites are County land
zoned agricultural. A review of the County's Comprehensive Zon-
ing Plan and Regulations shows that a treatment plant does not fit
any of the definitions of uses allowed in agricultural zones.
However, the County updated Comprehensive Zoning Plan is expected
to contain provisions for allowing wastewater treatment plants in
the County by conditional use permit. The permit would require a
public hearing before approval (see Appendix A).
The City has contacted the County to begin negotiating
the establishment of a City Impact Zone. A City Impact Zone is
authorized under the State Land Use Planning Bill (Chapter 65 of
the Idaho Code Section 67-6526) and is basically an area outside
of the City limits for which the City has control over land use
planning and other development considerations. The proposed Im-
pact Zone would increase the City's planning, zoning and building
code enforcement power one mile outside the existing City limits,
plus one-quarter mile on either side of Highway 79 from the City
(4)
limits to one and one-half mile south of the 1-90 interchange. '
-------
-------
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
^jj Public Lands
Conflicting Areas
prepared by RW.Beck and Associates
SOURCE: CITY OF JEROME , AND JEROME COUNTY LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS 1976
FIGURE 2E.I
AREAS OF CONFLICTING LAND USE
FOR THE
JEROME, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES SERVICE AREA
-------
-------
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Public Lands
f f f City Impact Area Boundary
FIGUREBI.2
PROPOSED AREA OF CITY IMPACT
FOR THE
JEROME, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES SERVICE AREA
prepared by R.W.Beck and Associates
SOURCE: CITY OF JEROME , AND JEROME COUNTY LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS ISTS
-------
FIGURE BT.1
PROPOSED
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
SOURCE.REFERENCE 13
-------
III-7
If the Impact Zone as proposed (see Figure III.2) is approved, the
proposed facilities service area would be in conformance with the
County's land use planning policies. The City would have all zon-
ing, building permit and subdivision development authority, includ-
ing the ability to make subdivision specifications meet the City's
building ordinance. Since both sites would be located within this
impact area, it is expected that either treatment plant location
would then be acceptable.
It is important to note, however, that the proposed Im-
pact Zone is, at this time, only a proposal and not an adopted
part of the County's Comprehensive Zoning Plan. To date, the
Facilities Plan is in conflict with current adopted local land use
policies and acceptance of the proposal appears doubtful (see Ap-
pendix A).
There appear to be potential adverse land use impacts
caused by changes in population densities. The existing service
area of approximately 1,170 acres serves a population of approxi-
mately 5,625 persons and associated industry, commercial estab-
lishments and public services. The proposed service area would
include nearly 5,030 acres, with a population of 12,000 persons
by 1995> as well as associated industry, commercial and governmen-
tal services. Based upon this information, the existing popula-
tion density per acre of the service area is 4.8 persons. The
proposed service area would have an approximate density of only
2.4 persons per acre (approximately half of the existing density).
It appears that a service area of only 2,500 acres would maintain
population densities at their present levels.
It may be advantageous to maintain densities at present
levels or above 4.8 persons per acre. It has been the experience
of some study team members that some areas of the country have
not required sewer service until densities exceeded 9 persons per
acre. Low densities such as 2.4 persons per acre may not only
cause diseconomies in the construction, operation and maintenance
of facilities, but they may also inhibit the orderly and efficient
implementation of land use planning goals and objectives.
Based on the agricultural land planning done by the
( Cj1)
Idaho Department of Water Resources in their State Water Planx ,
there appear to be no significant adverse impacts caused by the
loss of agricultural lands in the Jerome area. The report states
that it will be necessary to develop approximately 1,200,000 acres
of new agricultural land in the State of Idaho by 2020, allowing
for loss of agricultural lands caused by expected increases in
urbanization. The report states that there are approximately
7,400,000 acres of irrigable lands and recommends methods to de-
velop the 1,200,000 acres of land necessary by the year 2020.
-------
III-ll
Based on the findings of this report, there appear to be no sig-
nificant adverse impacts associated with the loss of agricultural
land, assuming that more agricultural acres are developed and that
land uses with greater economic productivity such as residential,
commercial and industrial replace those acres lost to urbanization.
Because of the apparent conflicts with local planning
and the threat of decreased population densities apparent in the
existing Facility Plan, it must be concluded that serious poten-
tial impacts upon land use exist with all of the proposed alterna-
tives except the "No Action" Alternative which would maintain the
present service area at its present size. Other impacts and con-
cerns such as mitigative measures through phasing of facilities
construction, are discussed for each alternative later in this sec-
tion.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Current
planning programs in the Greater Jerome Area provide an excellent
forum for mitigating the potential adverse land use impacts of the
proposed alternatives. It is suggested that during the planning
process the present service area be reassessed in terms of popula-
tion densities and mitigating sprawl as well as indiscriminate
spotty development.
In addition, the proposed Impact Zone criteria and the
policies concerned with land use controls in the area of the Im-
pact Zone should be addressed by both the County and the City of
Jerome. In so doing, one suggested alternative that may be re-
viewed is that the proposed service area be reduced within the
proposed Impact Zone, to control densities and spotty development.
Once these policies and service area determinations have
been made by the City and County planning and elected officials,
the service area can be specifically defined in terms of existing
policies, and then construction time-phasing can also be finalized.
As discussed in the "Alternative Impact" sections, the major form of
mitigation is time phasing of interceptor facilities, with dis-
tinct differences between the Par-West Site and the Near-West Site.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
No historic, architectural or archaeological sites des-
cribed in the "Environmental Setting" section are known to be locat-
ed in any of the proposed rights-of-way or on any of the proposed
sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consulted
with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer to establish
the need for archaeological surveys before constructing any of the
proposed alternatives. A letter from the Idaho State Historical
Preservation Officer is included in Appendix A of this EIS. The
results of these consultations have concluded that an archeological
survey would not be necessary for Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 8.
-------
111-12
While there has been some concern of potential impacts
to rock houses and other unclassified structures in the general
area by local citizens, none of these structures are close enough
to either site to be impacted by the construction, operation or
maintenance of a treatment plant. The closest rock structure to
any of the sites is an abandoned slaughterhouse, which is present-
ly about 250 yards from the existing treatment plant site. No
data or observations could be located that substantiate any type
of impact upon this structure caused by the existing treatment
plant. For these reasons, there are no anticipated impacts upon
known historic, architectural and archaeological sites.
Taxes
The potential primary impacts to tax structures and tax
bases are increased taxes needed to finance construction and opera-
tion of facilities. Because the proposed facilities are to be fi-
nanced through user charges, there are no potential adverse impacts
upon the taxes of the area.
Another means by which tax bases and taxes can be impact-
ed by facilities plans is by conversion of taxable land to non-
taxable land through public acquisition. Both of the proposed
new sites are located outside of the City limits on County land.
The potential losses of 28 to 50 acres of taxable land, when com-
pared to 215,133 acres, does not appear to have a significant fi-
nancial impact upon the overall tax base of the County. For the
reasons stated above, none of the alternatives are expected to
have a significant adverse financial impact upon the taxes and tax
base of the local area.
Unique Land Features
Unique land features are discussed under Alternatives 3>
5 and 6, because these are the only alternatives involving a uni-
que feature that may be impacted by current proposals.
Personal Incomes
Impacts - The range of annual user service charges for
Jerome's proposed facilities fall within the range of typical re-
sidential sewer service charges ($30 to $84 a year) as shown in the
City's Wastewater Facility Plan. Because these charges fall into
the typical range, and because sewer service is now required in
most urban areas by law and is an expected expense, a sewer ser-
vice charge of $2.50 to $7.50 per month in the Jerome area is not
expected to have significant adverse impacts upon personal incomes.
-------
111-13
One exception to the above statement is for persons on
fixed incomes, such as retired persons. There is a potential for
these persons to be adversely impacted by increases in user charg-
es. The degree of impact is directly related to the cost increase
of the service. Alternative 1 which has no increased cost (in
terms of present worth) would have the least impact; spray irriga-
tion carries the highest expected increase in cost and would have
the most adverse impact.
Remedial Protective and Mltigative Measures - The poten-
tial adverse impacts upon fixed incomes described above can be mi-
tigated through special provisions incorporated into the fee sche-
dules for retired citizens and other individuals on fixed incomes.
To accomplish this, an analysis of their purchasing power, and the
affect of rate increases on purchasing power would have to be com-
pleted in detail, so that effective rates for fixed income persons
could be established. This task is outside of the scope of the
EIS.
Public Utilities
The only existing public facilities to be impacted by
any of the proposed alternatives are solid waste facilities. As
described earlier in the "Environmental Setting" portion of this
report, solid waste is collected and transported by a private con-
tractor to a disposal site owned and operated by the private con-
tractor. It is anticipated by the City and its contractor that
there is sufficient capacity in the site to handle the projected
sludge waste loads through the planning period. The Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare reported no potential adverse impacts
on the operation of the site. ' The small amounts of water,
electricity and fuel oil consumed by the alternatives (see Table
11.11) are not expected to significantly impact the availability
of these resources.
One private utility, the Northside Canal Company, which
operates and maintains the irrigation supply system, may be im-
pacted by some of the proposed alternatives. These impacts are
described in the "Water Resources" section of the alternative impact
descriptions.
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Population and Economic Growth
Population and economic growth over the past four years
in the Greater Jerome Area has been dramatic. New industries have
located in the area, payrolls and production have increased, and
the population has grown at an average annual rate of approximate-
ly 8.5%. During this period, the existing Jerome facility has
failed to operate effectively to treat the City's waste. Some of
-------
111-14
the equipment and major treatment units of the treatment plant are
over 20 years old and are in fair to poor physical condition. It
has been difficult for the plant to perform adequately, and there
have been many operational problems.
The City as a whole has been aware of the malfunctioning
of the plant, primarily due to odors and discharges to the canal
of the area. Growth has continued despite sewerage inefficiencies
because (1) industries interested in the area have been able to
locate by providing their own facilities or are not the type of in-
dustry using large quantities of water; (2) there are no restric-
tions on septic tanks if a percolation test comes out positive, and
(3) the capacity of the existing collectors has been able to ac-
cept hookups without causing overloads, except at the plant. It
is anticipated that growth in the Greater Jerome Area will continue
at its present rate whether or not it is served by a properly func-
tioning sewage treatment plant. No other growth limiting factors,
such as shortages of water supply, transportation, land availabili-
ty, or solid waste disposal facilities, are foreseeable at this
time.
Redevelopment and Construction in Built-Up Areas
Impacts - Because of the potential land use and density
impacts described in the Land Use section above, there appears to
be significant impact potential caused by the lack of redevelop-
ment and construction in existing developmental areas. A large
low-density service area, including approximately 4,000 acres of
relatively flat agricultural lands, appears to provide adequate
land area to allow indiscriminate satellite or spotty residential,
industrial and commercial development.
What can occur in cities with low-use densities is that
rehabilitation costs for older areas may be greater than replace-
ment costs, due to low land costs created by adequate or more-than-
adequate land availability. This can cause a destruction of aes-
thetics, efficient circulation and facilities utilization. It in-
creases traffic and congestion, and a general breakdown of a uni-
fied, efficient community behavioral pattern may occur. In fact,
this is why most governments including the State of Idaho, through
passage of its Land Use Planning Act, require that Land Use Plans
be developed to mitigate or prevent these types of occurrences.
For these reasons, there appear to be significant potential im-
pacts to redevelopment and construction in existing urban areas.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Through
adequate reassessment of the land use planning goals, objectives,
policies, and service areas as proposed above, the potential ad-
verse impacts upon redevelopment and construction in built-up and
-------
111-15
urban areas in the City of Jerome can be mitigated. During the
planning analysis, special considerations should be given to poli-
cies for directing service area growth, potential population den-
sities, and existing areas of social or economic importance that
are in need of rehabilitation or upgrading.
The following sections of the report examine the alterna-
tive specific impacts and present mitigation measures.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE .
A
The principal cause of adverse impacts to the environ- }-
ment by the "No Action" Alternative is the present operating con- T
dition of the plant. This facility is not currently capable of £
achieving Federal and State discharge standards, due to the general "
condition of most of the process units. At this study's public N
information meeting, Federal, State and local officials, and the A
City's consulting engineer all basically concluded that the City '
was doing a good job in maintaining the discharges at their present I
levels, despite the fact that they were not meeting standards. V
Thus, the "No Action" Alternative would permit the existing plant E
to continue to operate below standards. As sewage loads increased,
caused by the population and economic development in the area, the "I
discharge violations would also increase. The "No Action" Alter-
native, even though discussed, is not a practical alternative be-
cause it conflicts with Federal and State pollution control laws.
Odors
Impacts - As discussed earlier in the alternative des-
criptions, odors are given off at the existing plant during trans-
fer of sludge from the digester to the drying beds and from the
digester itself. A site inspection of the plant during the pre-
paration of this Environmental Impact Statement confirmed these
observations. According to the City staff and citizens living in
the immediate area of the existing treatment plant, the occurrence
of odors has increased as the demands upon the treatment plant have
increased and the equipment has deteriorated. As shown by Table
III.l, odors associated with sludges have the highest odor inten-
sity, a measure of degree of detection by human smell sensors, and
the highest concentration of odor units. Thus, the problem with
the existing treatment plant's sludge digestion system is that
odors are being emitted at maximum or at near-the-maximum inten-
sity.
Utilizing odor-dispersion estimating procedures developed
(.2}
by the Environmental Protection Agencyv , and assuming a worst-
case condition of 4,100 odor units, it is estimated that odors
-------
111-16
TABLE III.I
ODOR CONCENTRATIONS AND INTENSITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH SEWAGE TREATMENT PROCESSES
Source of Odor
Intensity
(Olfactories)
Raw Sewage - Fresh 5 to 6
Raw Sewage - Stale 6 to 11
Screenings - Fresh 5
Affluent From Biological
Treatment Works 3
Plain Sedimentation
Sludge 4
Activated Sludge 1
Sludge Gases 15 to 60°C ... 4 to 25
Digested Sludge 15°C 5 to 12
Odor
Limits
32 to 64
64 to 2,000
32
16
2
17
32 to 4,100
Character
of Odor
Dishwater
Putrid of H-S
Putrid
Dishwater &
Earthy
Putrid
Earthy
Putrid
Tary to Putrid
Source: Reference (7).
* Odor units are a relative measure of odor in terms of odor in 1 cubic meter
of wastewater that are discharged into cubic meter of air.
-------
111-17
during the day can be detected within 3,000 feet of the existing
treatment plant, and that during the evening, odors can be detect-
ed within a radius of 1.5 miles of the treatment plant. The typi-
cal wind speeds of less than 7 miles per hour in the Greater Jer-
ome Area and the high frequency of sunny days tend to decrease de-
tectable odors during the day. At night, the effects of sunlight
are reduced and odors can be detected at a greater distance.
At present, the plant may not be producing odors at the
maximum level of 4,100 odor units; however, a field survey of the
site detected strong odors within a quarter-mile and downwind from
the plant. It is expected that increased loadings caused by area
growth and further deterioration of the equipment will cause the
plant to emit typical maximum odor concentrations within the 20-
year planning period. For this reason, adverse odor impacts are
expected to occur at least intermittently during the 20-year plan-
ning period within 3,000 feet of the plant during the day and 1.5
miles of the plant during the nighttime hours.
Based on the wind rose data illustrated in Figure III.3
and because of the residential areas immediately adjacent to the
existing plant site to the east, it is anticipated that signifi-
cant and major odor impacts would occur under the "No Action" Al-
ternative. Because the wind blows to the east approximately 51%
of the time, the residences to the east of the plant site will
receive a majority of the odor impacts.
Because the areas to the north, northeast and east of
the plant are zoned and used as residential areas, homes located
there may continue to have their property values jeopardized by
odor impacts.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The only
effective way to mitigate the odor problem at the existing City
of Jerome sewage treatment plant is to upgrade it or to design and
construct an effective, operable and maintainable sewage treatment
plant as proposed in the other seven alternatives. A summary of
possible odor control measures that have been proven effective
through implementation and practice is included in Appendix B.
Noise
Noise at the existing treatment plant is principally
caused by the 13 pumps used in plant operation. These 13 pumps
typically operate at a noise level of approximately 7 decibels per
C21
unit. ' If an individual were to stand within 50 feet of all the
pumps during their simultaneous operation, the noise heard would
be approximately 79 decibels. If that person were to move 150
feet from these pumps the decibel level would drop to approximate-
ly 43 decibels, which is less than the typical decibel level found
-------
FIGURE m.3
WIND ROSE FOR THE AREA OF JEROME, IDAHO
N* &/ ,*|f
0.8% ?7 ''
W'9°/c
5I%E
sw
22%
SOURCE: R. Rocenwoll, One Yeor Wind Study for the Twin Falls - Southern Idaho
Regional Airport. National Weather Service,1973.(Data for wind
speeds less than 12 MPHwere extrapolated)
-------
111-19
in low-density residential areas (see Table III.2). Because all
residences adjacent to the plant are greater than 150 feet from
these pumps, no anticipated noise impacts are expected to occur by
implementing this alternative.
Additional noise impacts can be generated from traffic
caused by hauling sludges and by operation personnel commuter trips,
However, because the site is presently used by the City as an equip-
ment and vehicle storage area, traffic generated by this use far ex-
ceeds traffic generated solely by the treatment plant. Because of
this situation, it is anticipated that the increase of a maximum of
four or five trips per day, caused by increased sludge loads, would
not even be noticed by most of the people living in the proximity
of the treatment plant. For these reasons, it is not anticipated
that this alternative will have any significant noise impacts.
Water Resources
The "No Action" Alternative has significant potential
adverse impacts upon both surface and groundwaters.
Surface Waters
Impacts - Table III.3 shows that the existing aver-
age discharge from the Jerome plant is greater in concentrations
of suspended solids and biological oxygen demanding materials (BOD)
than the "J" Canal receiving water. However, the canal water down-
stream from the plant appears to be generally unaffected by these
loadings. Additionally, the water quality of the canal water is
well within the standards for irrigation and stock watering use,
as is evidenced in Table III.4, even though the present discharge
violates State and Federal discharge requirements (see Table III.5).
Because of periodic problems and malfunctions of the
existing plant, large slugs of pollutants greatly exceeding the
values listed in Table III.3 can be discharged to the canal. This
is because the present plant is in poor condition and subject to
periodic malfunctioning. As the loading upon the plant increases,
these types of mishaps resulting in discharge of slug or concen-
trated pollutants into the canal are expected to increase. Such
periodic pollution could potentially impact the water of the canal
to such an extent that some impact upon the water users could oc-
cur. For this reason, it is anticipated that there is some signi-
ficant adverse impact potential to the surface water resources of
the Jerome area with the "No Action" Alternative.
One additional concern is the possibility that some per-
sons may potentially use canal water for domestic purposes. In a
letter to Mr. S.N. Weeks, President of the Jerome City Council,
dated October 22, 1974, from Mr. John A. Resholt, attorney for the
-------
111-20
TABLE III.2
TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
BY LAND USE TYPE
Typical Average
Range L , L dg
Description dB dn,
Quiet suburban residential 48-52 50
Normal suburban residential 53-57 55
Urban residential 58-62 60
Noisy urban residential 63-67 65
Very noisy urban residential 68-72 70
Source: Reference (2)
-------
TABLE III.3
EXISTING PLANT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
Parameter
Plant(a) J Canal 30 yd(b)
Discharge Above Plant
N Canal 10 yd(b) N Canal 1/2 mi(b) J Canal 1/2 mi(b)
Below Plant Below Plant Below Plant
Flow (mgd) 0.58
Suspended Solids (ppm) 321
BOD (mg/1) 305
COD (mg/1) NA
DO (mg/1)
pH 7.3
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/100 ml) 17
(a) - U.S. Environmental Protection
290 (c)
79
8.7(d)
15
8
8.2(d)
24
Agency, City of Jerome
Region X Office, Seattle, Washington 1976.
(b) - City of Jerome Grab Sample Data File, Jerome, Idaho
(c) - Northside Canal Company, Flow
(d) - From Table 1-1
(e) - Not Available
Record Files, Jerome,
245
50
NA(e)
36
7.8
NA(e)
NA(e)
Compliance
1975.
Idaho 1976
245
105
NA(e)
22
8.0
NA(e)
16
Monitoring Data File,
45
74
NA(e)
28
7.7
NA(e)
11
I
ro
-------
111-22
TABLE III.4
CONFORMANCE WITH RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR IRRIGATION AND STOCKWATERING
Canal Concentration
Standards(a)
Parameter
N Canal
1/2 Ml.
Below Plant
J Canal
1/2 Ml.
Below Plant
Irrigation
Stockwater
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/100 ml)
Total Coliform
(MPN/100 ml)
PH
16
NA
8.2
11
NA
8.2
1,000
1,000
None 5,000
4.5-9.0 None
(a) - Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Criteria for
Water Quality, Volume I, Washington D. C., 1973.
(b) - From Table I.I.
-------
111-23
TABLE III.5
CITY OF JEROME COMPLIANCE WITH
FEDERAL AND STATE DISCHARGE STANDARDS
Parameter
Suspended Solids
(ppm)
BOD (mg/1)
Existing Jerome
Discharge
(Average)
321
305
Fecal Coliform
(Canal Discharge) 17
Fecal Coliform
(River Discharge) NA(a)
pH 7.3
Proposed Jerome
Discharge
30
30
50
200
7.3
Idaho
Standard
Federal Standard (Average
(Average Monthly) Monthly)
30
30
200
200
6-9
30
30
50
200
6-9
(a) - Not Applicable
-------
111-24
Northside Canal Company, Mr. Rosholt stated, "Although probably the
situation does not persist with such prevalence as in the past,
canal water is used for domestic purposes." As illustrated in
Table III.6, neither "N" Canal, "J" Canal, the existing treatment
plant discharge, the proposed discharge, nor Lake Milner (the
source of the canal water) can meet the proposed Federal drinking
water standards nor the existing State of Idaho Standards for tur-
bidity and coliform bacteria. Thus, regardless of whether or not
the treatment plant effluent is discharged to the canal, the canal
will not meet the drinking water standards. Because these stan-
dards were developed based on public health information, any use
of canal water for domestic purposes constitutes a health risk.
The canal water should not be used for domestic purposes without
being treated prior to use. The State Standards are identical to
the Federal Standards of July, 1976.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - These
potential impacts would be mitigated by the construction of an
operational sewage treatment plant in conformance with State and
Federal water quality standards. As illustrated in Tables III.4
and III.53 if State and Federal discharge levels are maintained,
the canal water quality is more than adequate for irrigation and
stock watering.
Groundwater
Impacts - Impacts are discussed in the "Soils and
Hydrology" section. Indiscriminate and high-volume increases in
the number of existing septic tanks in the Jerome area could po-
tentially pollute the groundwater of the Snake River aquifer. This
aquifer underlies the entire Jerome study area (see "Environmental
Setting" Section I). The existence of perched or percolating con-
taminated groundwater flows could eventually contaminate well sup-
plies and degrade the water quality of the wells. For these rea-
sons, the "No Action" Alternative also has significant adverse im-
pact potential upon the groundwater resources of the area.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - To
mitigate adverse impacts upon groundwater, it will be necessary
to reduce the demands for septic tanks generated by the "No Action"
Alternative. The most effective method of doing this is construc-
tion of a sewer wastewater treatment plant in the Greater Jerome
Area. By reducing septic tank densities, the possibility of soil
saturation and, thus, the probability of polluted groundwaters
seeping down through the basalt layer, would be signfleantly re-
duced. Alternatives 2 through 8 propose such a facility.
-------
TABLE III.6
DOMESTIC WATER USE WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
Parameter
Turbidity (JTU's)
Fecal Coliforms
(MPN)
Total Coliform
(MPN)
Pesticides (mg/1)
Chloradone
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindone
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Chemicals (mg/1)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium
Silver
Proposed
Federal
Standards
(c)
NE(a)
4
0.003
0.0002
0.0001
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.1
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.05
0.002
10
0.01
0.05
(d)
Idaho
Standards
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.05
NE
10
0.01
0.05
Existing
Treatment
Plant
Discharge
UK(b)
17
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
(e)
Proposed
Plant
Discharge
UK
L50
L50
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
''Existing
N Canal
(e)
UK
16
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
0.1
UK
UK
Existing
J Canal
(e)
UK
11
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
Existing
Lake
Milner
11.4
1,330
14,607
0.0002
0.000002
0.000001
0.000001
UK
0.00006
UK
UK
0.002
0.048
0.004
0.015
0.016
0.018
0.2
0.02
UK
(f)
(a) - None Established
(b) - Unknown
(c) - Federal Register, "Water Pollution, Safe Drinking Water, Interim Primary Standards",
Vol. 40, No. 51, March 14, 1975.
(d) - Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Standards for Individual Water Supply
Systems, Boise, Idaho, 1967.
(e) - Table III.3.
(f) - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, STORET Data Retrieval System, Region X,
Seattle, Washington, 1976.
ro
en
-------
111-26
Soils and Hydrology
Impacts - An adverse impact of an improperly-functioning
treatment plant in the Jerome area may be increased septic tank
use and septic tank densities in the area. As reported in the
"Environmental Setting" portion of Section I, the soils of the
Jerome area have been classified by the State of Idaho in its En-
vironmental Overview Report and by the Soil Convervation Service
to be sensitive soils, not generally suited for septic tank drain-
fields. This results in outbreaks of sewage on the surface of
the ground, posing potential health hazards. Additionally, soils
can become saturated in certain areas, and wastes can percolate
down through these shallow soils to the underlying bedrock of
basalt. While basalt is generally impervious, it does contain
fissures or openings, which transport groundwater in the area of
the Snake River aquifer. If polluted effluents were to reach
these openings in the basalt, they could very rapidly, in the case
of cracks or fissures, or slowly over time, in the case of small
interstices, pollute the groundwater resource.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Potential
adverse impacts on soils and hydrology of the Greater Jerome Area
could be mitigated by the construction of a wastewater treatment
plant.
Fish and Wildlife
There are no potential impacts anticipated upon the fish
and wildlife of the area by the proposed "No Action" Alternative.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Alternative 1, "No Action" Alternative, was not consid-
/ o \
ered in the analysis by the Idaho Historical Society.
Aesthetics
Impacts - The primary impact upon aesthetics of the area
by the "No Action" Alternative is expected to be the continuation
of unpleasant odors. Odors will make the residential areas imme-
diately northeast and east of the existing site unpleasant, espe-
cially during the evening when odors may reach into the center of
the City of Jerome. Because there are no landscaping or buffer
areas, the residents to the west and near the plant to the north,
northeast and southeast, have a direct view of the treatment plant
that can be construed by some to be unaesthetic. Under the "No
Action" Alternative, these impacts upon the aesthetics of the en-
vironment would be continued.
-------
111-27
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The aes-
thetic impacts from the "No Action" Alternative can be eliminated
by the construction of an adequate wastewater facilities plant.
Land Use
There are no significant impacts expected on land use
for the reasons previously discussed. The long-term degradation
of some environmental resources of the area could cause the Jerome
area to increase in its attractiveness to immigrating persons and
businesses, while mitigative actions could maintain Jerome's at-
tractiveness, population and economic growth.
Recreation
No impacts upon recreation are anticipated from this Al-
ternative.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - SECONDARY PLANT AT PAR-WEST SITE WITH DISCHARGE TO
"N-3" CANAL
As described in the Section II "Alternatives, " Alter-
native 2 would construct a new total mix activated sludge process
on a new site located southwest of the City. In this alternative
the present treatment facilities at the existing site would be
abandoned, and no treatment of waste would be done at the current
site. Treated effluents would be discharged to the "N-3" Canal.
Odors
Impacts - Because a new facility would be designed and
constructed, odor problems at the existing site are expected to
be eliminated. Well-designed and operated activated sludge plants
normally do not discharge significant amounts of odors or gases
into the environment, so that they can be detected outside the
boundaries of the treatment plant site. Assuming, for purposes of
analysis only, that due to operation and maintenance problems, the
plant intermittently emitted odors at concentrations of 100 odor
units, it would then utilize the odor dispersion techniques develop-
C ?\
ed by the Environmental Protection Agency.^ ' It is estimated
that these odors would be non-detectable during the daytime hours
and non-detectable during the nighttime hours at distances greater
than 600 feet from the plant. However, it should be emphasized
that there are no odor emissions expected with a properly function-
ing plant. For these reasons, no odor impacts are expected by the
proposed Alternative 2.
-------
111-28
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - During the
engineering and design phase of the project construction process
(Step II), odor-reduction design and facility measures, as des-
cribed in Appendix B, can be evaluated and applied where appropri-
ate.
Noise
Impacts - The greatest amount of noise is expected to
occur during the construction of the treatment plant facilities.
Table III.7 shows the degree of noise, in decibels, associated
with various types of construction equipment. Utilizing the data
in Table III.7, it is estimated that the noise level at the con-
struction site will be less than 105 decibels. Using a worst-case
value of 105 decibels, it is estimated that 150 feet away from the
construction site, the noise level will be 67 decibels, correspond-
ing to noise levels typically found in noisy urban residential areas
At a distance of 250 feet from the construction site, the noise
caused by construction activities is expected to be approximately
30 decibels, a noise level corresponding to a typical bedroom at
night .<-2)
Another source of noise will be the pumps and aerators
needed to run the plant. Nine more pumps are required to operate
this plant than are required to operate Alternative 1, for a total
of 22 pumps and aerators. It is estimated that a person standing
within 50 feet of all pumps and aerators operating simultaneously
would hear a noise level of approximately 8l decibels. If that
person were to move to a distance of 150 feet from all of the
pumps and aerators, the noise level would be reduced to 50 deci-
bels, a noise level typical of low-density residential neighbor-
hoods (see Table III.2).
Because of the low noise levels at distances greater
than 300 feet from the plant and the location of the nearest resi-
dences, approximately one-quarter mile away, no noise impacts upon
the residents of these areas are anticipated either during construc-
tion or operation of the plant.
One additional potential source of noise impact is traf-
fic using rural roads for access to the treatment plant site. It
is assumed that the access to the treatment plant would be by the
access road just west of the main street overpass over 1-5. This
road is a dirt road and passes in front of three residences. The
increased traffic on this road will create increases in noise in
the area and may impact these residences. The major noise impact
is expected to occur during construction and be greatly diminished
during operation of the plant.
-------
111-29
TABLE III. 7
NOISE LEVEL (dbA) AT 50 FEET
60 70 8
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines j
Impact ;
Earth Moving
Materials Handling
Stationary
s
3
w
0)
0
Compacters
Front Loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, Graders
Pavers
Trucks
Concrete Mixers
Concrete Pumps
Cranes (Movable)
Cranes (Derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic Wrenches
Jack Hammers & Drills
Pile Drivers (Peaks)
Vibrator
Saws
0 9,
0 100 11
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, Technical Report, Direct Environmental Factors at
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works - Evaluation and Control
of Site Aesthetics, Air Pollutants, Noise and Other Operations and
Construction Factors, Washington, D. C. , 1976.
-------
111-30
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Noise im-
pacts can be reduced by properly maintaining the number of passes
necessary, through efficient construction management techniques.
Paving of the access road would be ideal, and it would also help
to mitigate other aesthetic impacts such as dust during both con-
struction and operation of the treatment plant.
Water Resources
Surface Water - The construction of an adequately-de-
signed, maintained and operated treatment plant for the City of
Jerome will solve the problems with the existing treatment plant
which currently cause intermittent, but frequent, discharge viola-
tions of effluents into the irrigation canal system. Once this
proposed treatment plant is constructed, it is believed that the
Jerome sewage treatment facility can be and will be operated pro-
perly so as to maintain effluent concentrations within State and
Federal discharge standards. This assumption is based on three
criteria: (1) the sincere interest of the City to operate and
maintain the plant properly to allow economic and population growth
and development; (2) the high success records of recently-construct-
ed sewage treatment facilities; and (3) the fairly intense amount of
surveillance, testing, regulation, and enforcement of operating
treatment plants done by the State of Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare and the Environmental Protection Agency (see Appendix
C).
Table III.5 illustrates the proposed Jerome wastewater
discharge from the new plant proposed in Alternative 2 and the
existing Federal and State standards. This table illustrates that
the proposed standards are in conformance with State and Federal
regulations.
Table III.3 shows the existing concentrations of various
water quality parameters found in the "N" Canal. This table il-
lustrates that the concentrations of suspended solids from the new
plant (30 mg/1) will be less than currently found in the "N" Canal,
but fecal coliform (50 MPN/100 ml) concentrations will be somewhat
higher. However, Table III.4 illustrates that both the concentra-
tion of the treatment plant effluent discharge and of the canal are
within the suggested or recommended Federal standards for irriga-
tion and stock water use. It is further anticipated that the flow
of the "N" Canal being over 400 times that of the existing discharge
and 150 times that of the proposed 1995 treatment plant discharge
of 1.6 mgd, will adequately assimilate, mix, and dilute the waste
flow, so that added concentrations of suspended solids, BOD, and
fecal coliform will be insignificant.
-------
111-31
Based on the above information, it is expected that the
treatment plant discharge will have no detrimental effect upon the
irrigation and stock water contained in the canal system. The
construction of a new plant will mitigate existing slug or high-
concentration discharges intermittently discharged into the canal
system by the existing plant. This mitigative action will signi-
ficantly reduce the chance of these slug discharges impacting the
water use of the canal system. Thus, it is anticipated that this
alternative will have beneficial impacts upon the surface water
resources of the area, by reducing the chance of water quality
degradation from existing sewage treatment plant failures.
Groundwater - As previously suggested in the Alternative
1 discussion, one means to mitigate potential groundwater contami-
nation caused by the high level usage of septic tanks, is to build
a wastewater facilities plant. This alternative does precisely
that, and by reducing the potential for septic tank use in moderate
and high-density areas of the City and County, it is anticipated
that the corresponding pollution potential to groundwater resources
will also be diminished. Thus, the potential impacts of Alternative
2 upon the groundwater are beneficial since this alternative re-
duces the threat of groundwater pollution. Adequately designed and
constructed plants sufficiently contain sewage so that potential
discharge to, and associated impacts upon, groundwater are negli-
gible.
Fish and Wildlife
The establishment of buffer zones of trees and other
bushy types of foliage, if planned properly, can increase avail-
able cover for wildlife in the area and even provide additional
breeding and hatching areas for game species of birds such as
pheasant and quail. If buffer zones are established, it is anti-
cipated that the potential impacts upon the wildlife of the area
could be beneficial, since the number of species may increase. If
buffer zones are not established, it is anticipated that there will
be no significant impacts upon fish and wildlife resources of the
area. However, the conversion of agricultural land (50 acres)
would necessitate some migration or displacement of small animals
and rodents such as field mice and shrews. The elimination of
small sections of fence rows would reduce cover for racoon, skunk,
mice, gopher, and some rabbits.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Archaeological survey work would not be necessary (see
Appendix A). The new treatment plant is adjacent to I-80N. This
( Q\
ground was surveyed by the State Highway Archaeologist.
-------
111-32
Aesthetics
Impacts - The major adverse impact of aesthetics would
be upon the four farming residents within visual proximity of the
treatment plant. While the treatment plant may be aesthetically
non-pleasing, this can be mitigated by planning buffer zones and
buffer strips with tall, dense foliage to obscure the identity of
the treatment plant. If this is done, it will not be obvious
that the facility is a sewage treatment plant. One other impact
upon aesthetics may be caused by traffic on the access road. Dur-
ing the commuting hours, 8 a.m., 12 p.m., 1 p.m. and 5 p.m., three
or four vehicles traveling in succession could create significant
amounts of dust. Because of the rural location of the area which
contains similar structures and equipment, such as large buildings,
irrigation pumps, and other power equipment associated with farming,
and because of the small number of residents in the area, it is an-
ticipated that the adverse aesthetic impacts upon the area will be
negligible.
Remedial Protective and Mltigative Measures - The pri-
mary methods of mitigating impacts are buffer zones to mitigate
visual impacts and paving of the access road to mitigate dust and
noise problems caused by traffic.
Land Use
Impacts - Because the phasing for construction is more
immediate than for any other alternative, the potential impacts
upon land use are the greatest. Phase 1 in this alternative will
serve 2,755 acres which is equal to 45$ of the proposed service
area and 250 acres more than may be needed, based on the land use
analysis completed at the beginning of this section. Also, this
growth would be to the west, north and east of the areas present-
ly zoned agricultural and in the opposite direction of the planned
growth to the south. For these reasons, this alternative is con-
sidered to have the most potential for significant adverse impacts
upon land use.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The methods
for Alternative 2 were previously discussed with the impacts com-
mon to all alternatives.
Recreation
In this alternative the existing treatment plant site
would be converted into a park. Because of the site's proximity
to residential areas in the City of Jerome, the park is expected
to create beneficial impacts upon recreation.
-------
111-33
ALTERNATIVE 3 - SECONDARY PLANT AT FAR-WEST SITE WITH DISCHARGE TO
SNAKE RIVER
Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 except that
the treated wastewater is discharged through a pipeline to the
Snake River. For this reason, all of the impacts of this alter-
native and proposed mitigative measures are the same except for
those dealing or caused specifically by the pipeline and discharge
of effluents into the Snake River. These impacts are discussed in
the following sections. Also mitigative measures for the treatment
plant are the same as those measures described in Alternative 2.
The following discusses mitigative measures specific to the pipe-
line to the Snake River.
Surface Water Resources
Impacts - Alternative 3 would effectively reduce any
potential water quality problems associated with discharge of ef-
fluents to the canal system, by eliminating the existing treat-
ment plant's discharge to the "J" Canal. If wastewater is treated
in conformance with secondary discharge standards, as required by
Federal and State governments (see Table III.5), the Snake River
is expected to have adequate assimilative analysis to accept these
wastes without significant changes in water quality. When the pro-
posed discharges from the treatment plant are compared to reported
instream concentrations of some water quality parameters found on
the Snake River at Milner Dam, it appears that the water quality
of the effluent may be of higher quality than the Snake River (see
Table III.6). For these reasons, no significant water quality im-
pacts are anticipated from the discharge to the Snake River.
As described in the "Environmental Setting" section, the
State of Idaho has identified a portion of the Snake River south
of Jerome as an area of water quality problems caused by sediments
and turbidity. Thus, any additional discharge of sediment-produc-
ing materials into the river could degrade the water quality fur-
ther. Unless sufficient care is given to soil and rock stability
during the construction of the outfall, water quality impacts could
occur.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The poten-
tial adverse impacts to surface water resources could be mitigated
through the selection of an outfall site in an area of the most
stable soil and geologic conditions. Sediment catchments and tem-
porary retaining walls could be constructed beneath areas of the
Snake River Canyon where excavation and construction activities are
to occur. These catchments could be designed so as to stop fall-
ing soil, rock and other debris before it entered the river. Care,
deliberation and the application of impact minimizing construction
methods can be implemented when working within the Snake River
Canyon.
-------
111-34
Fish and Wildlife
Impacts - Potential adverse impacts upon fish and wild-
life related to effluent discharges to the Snake River are asso-
ciated with fish and bald eagles. Adverse impacts upon fish could
be caused by increased sediments through improper construction
techniques. Increased sediment loads, combined with the existing
high sediment loads in the river, would potentially degrade fish
habitat further by degrading respiration, food chain organism
populations, habitat and spawning areas. Placement of the outfall
pipe near the river and Snake River Canyon Wall would also require
special treatment, to reduce vegetation loss, minimize erosion,
and bypass small fishing areas and ponds.
The most significant adverse impacts upon wildlife would
be improper location of the outfall so as to destroy bald eagle
rookeries. As described in the "Environmental Setting" portion
of Section I, the Snake River Canyon has been identified by the
State of Idaho as potential bald eagle habitat. While there are
no known rookeries in the immediate area of the proposed outfall
site, potential rookeries may exist. If the outfall site were to
be located upon a potential rookery, or near enough to one so as
to frighten the birds from using it, significant impacts upon bald
eagle populations of the area could occur. Bald eagles are a rare
and endangered species and, thus, any adverse impact upon their
population caused by decreased reproduction levels would be a sig-
nificant impact.
The extended outfall pipeline to reach the Snake River
would require some disruption of biota adjoining existing roadways,
Roadside vegetation, short grass, and scrub growth would be tem-
porarily displaced, causing a reduction in habitat for some small
animals. Game animals and unique species are not expected to be
affected.
Remedial Protective and Mitlgative Measures - If the
mitigation measures proposed for surface water resources are im-
plemented for soil and geologic debris, and the water quality is
protected, fish and wildlife resources will also be protected.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Immediately east of the Twin Falls treatment plant, near
the Snake River, there are a number of archaeological sites. It
is likely that prehistoric habitation exists on any section of the
Snake River. For these reasons, it is necessary that an archaeo-
logical survey with a pipeline be made near the Snake River. This
is necessary even though most of the pipeline follows existing
right-of-way.^
-------
111-35
Unique Land Features
Impacts - Because the Snake River Canyon is a unique
land feature, any degradation caused by construction activity
such as increased erosion or fracturing of the canyon walls, would
be an adverse impact upon a unique land feature. The degree of
impact would depend upon the permanency of the impact and the ex-
tent of degradation caused by improper construction safeguards
during construction of the outfall. Because the canyon structure
is primarily basalt, a very sturdy and rugged material, significant
long-term adverse impacts are not anticipated. In the short-term,
the presence of construction equipment and excavations may mar the
scenic quality of the canyon.
Remedial Protective and Mitigatlve Measures - During the
site selection, geology of the canyon must be considered so as to
locate areas where the geologic function and structure of the can-
yon are capable of supporting the pipe and outfall to avoid long-
term degradation to the canyon. Excavations should be as small as
possible and refilled before construction is completed.
ALTERNATIVE 4 - SECONDARY PLANT AT NEAR-WEST SITE WITH DISCHARGE
TO "J" CANAL
As described in Section II "Alternatives", Alternative
4 would construct a new total mix activated sludge process on the
existing site, totally replacing the existing treatment plant.
Treated effluent would be discharged into the "J" Canal.
Odors
Impacts - A new treatment plant is expected to abate all
of the existing odor problems associated with the malfunctioning,
deteriorated equipment at the existing site. Assuming a worst-
case condition during the nighttime hours, it would be possible
for odors to be detected within 600 feet of the plant. Because
of the proximity of the site to the fairgrounds and to several re-
sidences, during nighttime hours some very infrequenct odor prob-
lems may be detected. Because of any odor causes an adverse im-
pact on theuse or desirability for use of residences and the fair-
grounds, very infrequent and minimally-significant adverse impacts
may exist during a worst-case condition, such as a plant breakdown.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - If proper
consideration is given to odor containment in the construction of
this facility, odors should not be a problem, as the new plant is
proposed to have backup power facilities, alternative routing
schemes, and other fail-safe equipment, so that major plant fail-
ures are highly unlikely.
-------
111-36
Noise
Impacts - Even though the fairgrounds are within 250
feet of the plant boundary, adverse noise impacts upon them are
considered to be negligible. This is because noise levels at ty-
pical fair or recreational-type activities usually exist at levels
of 67 decibels or greater. The residences located within 200 feet
of the plant construction area may experience noise impacts during
the construction of the plant. During its operation no potential
noise impacts are expected outside the boundaries of the treatment
plant because of the low noise level, approximately 50 decibels,
generated beyond 150 feet of the plant.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The miti-
gative and control measures described below have been analyzed by
EPA and found to be effective in controlling noise during construe-
tion.<2)
Construction equipment, with built-in noise controls as well
as operational management, may sufficiently control noise
output to meet environmental noise requirements in most cases.
Noise may be measured at the borders of the construction site,
to determine limits of maximum flexibility of operation on-
site, while meeting noise standards off-site.
Design considerations to reduce equipment noise include:
exhaust mufflers, intake silencers, engine enclosures, proper
cooling system, and fan design. Other techniques to be con-
sidered include: replacing individual operations and techni-
ques by less noisy ones (e.g., using welding instead of rivet-
ing, mixing concrete off-site instead of on-site; and employ-
ing prefabricated structures instead of building them on-site)
and selecting ir,he quietest alternative items of equipment
(e.g., electric instead of diesel-powered equipment, hydraulic
tools instead of pneumatic impact tools).
Earth-moving equipment noises are associated predominantly
with exhaust and inlet noise. Other sources include mechani-
cal and hydraulic transmission and actuation systems and cool-
ing fans. Mufflers offer the greatest potential for noise
abatement. Also, when possible, locating haul roads behind
natural earth berms or embankments has been found to be ef-
fective .
Most of the noise from material handling equipment, such as
cranes, concrete mixers, and concrete pumps, is generated by
the engine. The greatest potential abatement is via engine
quieting. Where necessary, stationary equipment, such as
pumpsj generatorsi and compressors, can be quieted by mufflers
and enclosures.
-------
111-37
The Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has several
publications and other information on reducing noise during con-
struction activities.
Water Resources
Surface Water - There are no anticipated significant ad-
verse impacts upon the water quality of surface waters. Because
the flow of "J" Canal is approximately 28 times greater than that
of the proposed 1990 discharge, dilution is expected to be suffi-
cient; thus, the adverse impact potential is lessened. Addition-
ally, as previously discussed, the water quality of the proposed
plant will be of higher quality for suspended solids that the canal,
This alternative will also effectively eliminate the periodic dis-
charge of highly concentrated wastes into the canal system.
Groundwater - The anticipated impacts upon groundwater
are beneficial in that potential sources of contamination from
septic tanks are eliminated.
Fish and Wildlife
Despite the loss of some small rodents, the potential
impacts upon fish and wildlife are also beneficial in that buffer
zones provide habitat for game birds and other small animal brow-
sers, such as rabbits.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
No archaeological survey work is required.
Aesthetics
Impacts - The potential adverse aesthetic impacts of in-
creased traffic volumes caused by additional noise from commuter
trips of operating personnel and sludge transport are considered
to be negligible, if they occur at all, as discussed in the "No
Action" Alternative, Alternative 1.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - As pre-
viously discussed in Alternative 2, proposed buffer areas for the
treatment plant are anticipated to mitigate or reduce the adverse
visual impacts of this alternative.
Land Use
Impacts - Alternative 4 appears to have little adverse
impact because of the potential for mitigation of the interceptor
construction phasing. Phase one is a smaller area in this alter-
native; however, it does not conform to present land use policies
-------
111-38
(see Figures II. 3 and III.2). Phases 2, 3 and 4 remain in major
contradiction to the County's zoning ordinance.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The methods
of mitigating adverse land use impacts include building Phase 1 of
the proposed interceptor construction only after review of the ser-
vice area by the Jerome County Planning Department and elected
officials. The western portion of Phase 2 is not in conformance
with current land use plans and, thus, may impact land use adverse-
ly. However, because the Phase 2 facilities area originally pro-
(9)
posed in the Facilities Plan was basically in conformance with
the County's Land Use Plan, facilities in the conforming portion
of the Phase 2 service area could be moved up and constructed ear-
lier. Phases 3 and 4, both proposed for construction after 1985,
are far enough into the future that time allows for analysis and
modification of these areas through regular planning activities,
so as to conform to land use policies.
Recreation
Because this alternative will replace the existing treat-
ment plant with a park, it is expected to have beneficial impacts
upon recreation as previously outlined in the discussion for Alter-
native 2.
A ALTERNATIVE 5 - SECONDARY PLANT AT NEAR-WEST SITE WITH DISCHARGE
|_ TO SNAKE RIVER
E Impact s
p
... Alternative 5 is identical to Alternative 4 except that
"a" the discharge of treated effluents will be to the Snake River
O rather than to the "J" Canal. To discharge to the Snake River,
as described in the "Alternatives" section (Section II), it is
.. necessary to construct a pump station and a 12-inch pressure line
P westerly and southerly to the Snake River. Because the treatment
^ plant is the same as Alternative 4, except for the construction
_ of the pump station and pressure line outfall, the impacts will be
** the same, except for those that specifically relate to the outfall.
The proposed outfall pipeline is the same as the one proposed in
Alternative 3, except for approximately 1-1/4 mile of line heading
west from the existing plant site to just west of 1-80 and just
south of Main Street. However, because an interceptor will be
constructed in Alternative 5, the potential impacts of the two
alternatives are the same. For the reasons discussed in Alterna-
tive 3, archaeological survey work is required for the pipeline
near the Snake River.
-------
111-39
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures
Because the adverse impacts of the plant are identical
in this alternative to those of Alternative 4, the adverse impacts
associated with the outfall of this alternative are identical to
those discussed previously in Alternative 3- Also, the mitigative
measures for the outfall are identical to those previously describ-
ed under Alternative 3-
ALTERNATIVE 6 - JEROME-TWIN FALLS REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
The adverse impacts common to all alternatives and land
use impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are also true for Alternative
6. This is because the service area construction scheduling and
interceptor system are the same for both alternatives. There are
no additional impacts anticipated with the operation of the plant.
The only adverse impacts to be discussed below will be
concerned with the construction of the regional interceptor con-
necting the City of Jerome sewer system and the Twin Falls treat-
ment plant. All the potential adverse impacts of the other alter-
natives concerning noise and odor would be effectively transferred
to the Twin Falls plant. The new Twin Falls treatment plant is
discharging effluent into the Snake River in conformance with
State and Federal standards, and no significant water quality de-
gradation has occurred to this time. Thus, it is anticipated that
modifications to the existing Twin Falls treatment plant, as pro-
posed in this alternative, would be sufficient to continue the ef-
fective operation of the plant to protect water quality.
Noise
Impacts - Because most of the construction would occur
outside of densely populated areas and at distances greater than
200 feet from most residences, it is anticipated that the noise
impacts of this alternative would be very minimal and insignifi-
cant. Only intermittent noise impacts would occur when it was
necessary for some reason, such as for construction equipment to
pass very near to existing residences, which is expected to be in-
frequently.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The poten-
tial adverse noise impacts anticipated with Alternative 6 are
expected to occur during construction and can be mitigated by
avoiding operation of heavy equipment within 300 feet of occupied
buildings and residences.
-------
111-40
Recreation
This alternative will also have beneficial impacts upon
recreation since the existing treatment plant will be replaced
with a park, as discussed for Alternative 2.
Fish and Wildlife
Impacts - Because the regional interceptor would have to
go through the Snake River Canyon and over, or under, the Snake
River to reach the Twin Falls treatment plant, potential adverse
impacts during the construction phase upon fish and wildlife are
considered to be significant. Potential impacts on fish and wild-
life originate from possible sediment loadings into the Snake River
caused by construction activities. There will be temporary dis-
placement of vegetation, especially short grasses and shrub growth
supplying habitat and cover for small animals along the entire
length of the proposed pipeline (approximately 13 miles). Also,
the Snake River Canyon is a-potential bald eagle habitat, and ad-
verse impact potentials exist for the bald eagle populations if
rookeries or potential rookery areas should be disturbed during
construction of the outfall pipeline.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Minimizing
the destruction of existing vegetation cover during the construc-
tion phase would reduce the impacts upon wildlife. Care and ef-
ficiency in operation should be exercised during construction to
avoid disturbing as little land as possible.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
For the reasons discussed in Alternative 3, archaeologi-
f Q\
cal survey work is required.
Unique Land Features and Aesthetics
Impacts - As discussed in Alternative 3} the Snake River
Canyon is a unique land feature. There are significant potential
adverse impacts associated with construction equipment marring
the scenic quality of the canyon in the short-term. However,
long-term adverse impacts are not expected, if proper care is used
during construction. A bridge or pipeline suspension would add a
structure crossing the river in an area where two bridges current-
ly exist. The cluttering of structures will degrade the aesthetic
quality of the canyon. However, this area of the canyon is with-
in a developing urban area, with developments such as the treat-
ment plant already existing on the canyon floor. Therefore, the
adverse aesthetic impact upon the Snake River Canyon is expected
to be low.
-------
111-41
Remedial Protective and Mitigatlve Measures - Facilities
should be designed and constructed in balance with the soil and
geologic conditions prevailing in the Snake River Canyon. Aesthe-
tic impacts could be mitigated by an underground and underwater
pipeline. However, the problems associated with underwater con-
struction in the river may potentially cause adverse impacts great-
er than those from building an over-water structure.
ALTERNATIVE 7 - SPRAY IRRIGATION
A
As described in the "Alternatives" Section, Alternative "-
7 would construct interceptor facilities and a treatment plant, T
similar to those constructed in Alternative 2, at the Far-West E
Site. The sprayfields would be located somewhere within a three- R
mile radius of the City and would utilize 360 acres of land to N
spray irrigate effluents during the late spring, summer, and early A
fall months. During the remaining months (approximately seven) of J
the year the effluents would be stored. Because no site has been '
specified for the sprayfield, nor the storage area, it is impossi- ^
ble to totally assess the potential impacts of this alternative. ^
However, a general impact assessment can be made. The impacts
caused by the service area, construction scheduling, interceptors '
and treatment plant will be identical to those of Alternatives 2
and 3. Thus, the only impacts discussed below are associated with
the spray irrigation.
Odors
Odors are not expected to create significant adverse im-
pacts if the storage area and associated irrigation fields are
located at distances greater than 600 feet from existing residences.
Noise
Impacts - Because the site is expected to be located at
distances greater than 300 feet from occupied structures, it is
not anticipated that noise would have significant adverse impacts,
even during construction.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - To effec-
tively abate noise from the area, sprayfield facilities should be
located at distances greater than 300 feet from any occupied struc-
ture or residence.
Water Resources
Impacts - Since there is no discharge to surface water,
the impact potential for degradation of surface water quality is
practically non-existent. However, the adverse impact potential
to the quality of groundwater is significant. Large quantities
-------
111-42
of treated wastewater will be discharged to a relatively small
area of land, approximately 360 acres. If during site selection,
attention is not given to the fissures or other water-conducting
pores or holes in the underlying basalt, water could percolate
through these openings and into the groundwater. Because this
plant will discharge disinfected wastes once contaminated with
pathogenic organisms, there is some potential for biological con-
tamination of groundwater. However, it should be noted that usu-
ally groundwater movement is very slow, and for these reasons, or-
ganisms would probably die off before reaching water supply sources
for wells. However, if large cracks or fissures do exist in the
underlying basalt, the transport of percolating water to ground-
water could be fairly rapid and under some conditions potentially
contaminate the groundwater.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - To avoid
contamination of groundwater resources, an intensive geologic and
bedrock permeability analysis should be conducted before the loca-
tion of the 360-acre sprayfield is finalized. During this analy-
sis, efforts should be directed toward finding a location where the
underlying bedrock of basalt is impermeable or where groundwater
penetration and movement is very slow.
Soils and Hydrology
Impacts - Land disposal technology is very new. Because
of this, some problems associated with implementation of land
disposal exist; they include supersaturation and clogging of soils,
salt buildup, and water penetration. These problems typically oc-
cur in shallow soils and in areas with an unusually-large propor-
tion of cloudy days. While the cloud cover of the Greater Jerome
Area is no problem, the soils are shallow and unsuitable for sep-
tic tanks in large densities. For the same reasons that the soils
cause septic tank limitations, they also could create potential
problems of supersaturating the soil, causing clogging, salinity
problems, compaction, and, over a longer period of time, degrada-
tion of the spray irrigation land. While these problems are high-
ly unlikely, there is a slight potential for significant adverse
impacts caused by spray irrigation.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - To abate
any potential adverse impacts upon soils and hydrology, a site
with soils as deep as possible should be selected. However, be-
cause the average soil depth is 40 inches, it may be impossible
to find soils that are much deeper than that. A crop cover should
be established that maximizes evapotranspiration (the ability to
take water from the soil and disperse it to the air). These ac-
tions combined with adequate monitoring and surveillance to detect
super-saturation of the soils and to allow the system to be shut-
down when saturated soil exists, should provide adequate mitigative
measures to protect the soils and hydrology of the area.
-------
111-43
Fish and Wildlife
Impacts - The extended three-mile pipeline to the spray
irrigation site would require some disruption of biota adjoining
existing roadways and fields. Vegetation, short grass, and scrub
growth would be temporarily displaced, causing a reduction in
habitat for some small animals. Game animals and unique species
are not expected to be affected.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - During the
construction of the three-mile pipeline from the proposed treat-
ment plant to the spray irrigation facility, efficient construction
techniques should be applied to minimize the destruction of land
and vegetation that provide cover for wildlife.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Before a preliminary determination can be made for the
need of an archaeological survey, it is necessary to specify the
specific location of the sprayfield site and the storage ponds.' '
Aesthetics
Impacts - The spray irrigation site will be agricultural
in nature, and the storage reservoir and accompanying structures
may have a visual impact on the area.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The struc-
tures can be buffered by trees and plants to obscure the view of
the structures, so that all of the facilities, including the spray
irrigation systems, could take on a rural character. Also, the
land area to be utilized will be in some type of crop and, thus,
is expected to blend well into the agricultural community.
Land Use
The impacts and mitigative potential upon land use are
the same for this alternative as they are for Alternatives 2 and
3, the alternatives proposing a secondary plant at a new site
southwest of the City.
Recreation
The impacts of this alternative upon recreation will be
beneficial for the reasons previously described in the impact dis-
cussion for Alternative 2.
-------
111-44
A ALTERNATIVE 8 - UPGRADING OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT WITH
L DISCHARGE TO "J" CANAL
T
E This alternative would upgrade the existing treatment
R plant, with discharge of treated wastewater into the "J" Canal.
N
A Odors
T
I Impacts - The upgrading of this plant is specifically
V designed to mitigate odors; however, because of its proximity to
E the fairgrounds and to residential areas adjacent to the existing
site, there is a small potential of intermittent adverse odor im-
8 pacts during unexpected operational problems. The potential im-
pacts are identical to those previously discussed in Alternative
4.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Because
this alternative is specifically planned to mitigate odors and
other existing problems with the plant, it is believed that all
mitigative measures previously described in other alternatives and
in Appendix B should be investigated during design of this proposed
plant.
Noise
Because this alternative occupies 28 acres of the Near-
West Site, noise impacts of this alternative are expected to be
essentially the same as previously described for Alternative 4.
Water Resources
Surface Water - The quality of the effluent of this al-
ternative is the same as for Alternatives 2 through 7, and the dis-
charge location is the "J" Canal. The potential negative impacts
to water quality are considered insignificant because of dilution
of the effluent in the flow of the "J" Canal. In fact, the net
impact of this alternative on water quality is beneficial, because
it eliminates the intermittent slug discharges of the existing
plant.
Groundwater - The potential for reduction of septic tank
usage in the Greater Jerome Area is also a. factor in this alterna-
tive. For this reason, beneficial impacts through the protection
of potential soil and groundwater impacts, as previously discussed,
are also expected to be a result of the implementation of this
alternative.
-------
111-45
Fish and Wildlife
Because of the buffering areas planned in this alterna-
tive, it is anticipated that potential impacts upon fish and wild-
life will be beneficial, by providing additional cover, breeding
and hatching areas for small game birds.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
/ Q \
No archaeological survey work is required (see Appen-
dix A) .
Aesthetics
Impacts - Upgrading the existing treatment plant by eli-
minating odors, providing buffer areas of tree plantings and land-
scaping will have beneficial impacts upon the site. Although
there may be additional traffic due to increased commuter trips
by operating personnel and trips for sludge transport, it is not
anticipated that these will create significant adverse impacts.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The pro-
posed buffer areas for the plant are believed to be sufficient to
mitigate problems of visual aesthetics at the plant site.
Land Use
Impacts - Alternative 8 is similar to Alternatives 4 and
5 in that the same interceptor network is used to transport sew-
age to the plant. Thus, the interceptor system for Alternative 8
has the least land use impact and no additional land for the treat-
ment plant is necessary for Alternative 8 as proposed.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Mitigative
measures for Alternative 8 are the same as for Alternative 4.
Recreation
Implementation of this alternative will not produce sig-
nificant impacts upon recreation.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SUMMARY
To assist in summarizing the environmental impact poten-
tial of the eight proposed wastewater alternatives, and to deter-
mine an environmental acceptability ranking for the alternatives,
a matrix was used. In a matrix the alternatives are listed at
the top of the matrix and the environmental resources to the side.
Lines are drawn to make small boxes to illustrate where alterna-
tives will impact resources. Then, based on the preceding dis-
cussion of environmental impacts, each alternative is ranked from
-------
111-46
the most beneficial, or best, environmentally-suitable alterna-
tive to the worst. This value is entered into each box. The pro-
cess was completed for each alternative and each environmental re-
source, as illustrated in Figure III.4. Based on this analysis,
the final environmental suitability ranking is as follows:
Ranking Alternative
1 Alternative 4 - New Secondary Plant at Near-West Site
with Discharge to "J" Canal
2 Alternative 8 - Upgrading of Existing Treatment Plant
with Discharge to "J" Canal
3 Alternative 2 - Secondary Plant at Par-West Site with
Discharge to "N-3" Canal
4 Alternative 6 - Jerome-Twin Falls Regional Treatment
5 Alternative 5 - Secondary Plant at Near-West Site with
Discharge to Snake River
6 Alternative 3 - Secondary Plant at Far-West with Dis-
charge to the Snake River
7 Alternative 1 - "No Action" Alternative
8 Alternative 7 - Spray Irrigation
As illustrated in the matrix, the alternative with the
least environmental risk is Alternative 4, having the largest num-
ber of best scores. Alternative 8 is ranked a very close second.
However, if Alternative 8 is modified, because of the elimination
or significant reduction of Ida-Gem wastewater flows, these modi-
fications could cause a shift in the environmental rankings of Al-
ternatives 4 and 8.
To finally assess the environmental and cost-effective-
ness rating for the alternatives, the cost, legality, and environ-
mental impact potential of each alternative were evaluated. The
final, legal, cost-effective and environmental impact potential
rankings for each alternative are listed as follows:
Final Cost Environmental Legal
Alternative Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
4 1st 2 1 1
8 2nd(a) 421
2 3rd 3 3 1
6 4th 4 4 1
5 5th 5 5 1
3 6th 6 6 1
7 7th 7 8 1
1 8th 1 7 8
(a) Because the cost differences between Alternatives 8 and 2
were less than 10% and the environmental ranking differences
were greater than 10%, Alternative 8 was selected as the number
2 alternative.
-------
FIGURE III.4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Air Quality
Noise
Odor
Surface Water
Groundwater
Hydrology
Soils
Fish
Wildlife
Aesthetics
Unique Land Features
Population and Economic
Growth
Land Use
Recreation
Redevelopment
Taxes
Personal Incomes
Public Utilities
Secondary Impacts
Resource Utilitization*
FINAL RANKING
Alternatives
1
B
B
W
W
W
W
W
B
4
W
B
S
2
7
S
B
B
S
S
2
2
2
2
2
B
B
B
B
B
B
2
B
S
W
B
S
6
2
S
S
5
3
2
2
2
6
B
B
4
W
5
4
6
S
W
B
S
6
6
S
S
7
4
2
2
4
B
B
B
B
B
B
2
B
S
2
B
S
4
2
S
S
4
5
2
2
4
6
B
B
4
W
5
4
6
S
2
B
S
4
7
S
S
6
6
2
2
B
4
B
B
4
W
W
B
W
S
5
B
S
2
5
S
S
1
7
2
2
7
4
7
7
7
B
W
6
B
S
6
B
S
W
W
S
S
8
8
2
2
4
B
B
B
B
B
B
2
B
S
B
7
S
3
4
S
S
3
ALTERNATIVES !
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
"No Action" Alternative
New Treatment Plant at Far-West
with Discharge to "N-3" Canal,
New Treatment Plant at Far-West
with Discharge to Snake River.
New Treatment Plant at Near-West
Discharged to "J" Canal.
New Treatment Plant at Near-West
with Discharge to Snake River.
Twin Falls Regional Treatment.
Spray Irrigation Alternative.
Site
Site
Site
Site
8. Upgrade of Existing Treatment Plant
Discharge to "J" Canal.
*See Section II, Alternatives
KEY:
W
B
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
Worst
Best
Second Best
Third Best
Fourth Best
Fifth Best
Sixth Best
Seventh Best
All Alternatives are Equal
-------
111-48
SECTION III
FOOTNOTES
(1) Findley, Charles E. and Bray, David C., Attainment of Ambient
Particulate Matter Standards in Idaho, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973-
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Opera-
tions, Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works, Washington D.C., 1976.
(3) Jerome County, Idaho, Ordinance Establishing a Comprehensive
Zoning Plan and Regulations, amended, Jerome, Idaho, 1973-
(4) Hancock, Charles, Mayor, City of Jerome, Letter to the Jerome
County, Idaho Board of Commissioners and the Jerome County
Planning and Zoning Commission, Jerome, Idaho, 1976.
(5) Idaho Department of Water Resources, State Water Plan -
Part II, Boise, Idaho, 1976.
(6) Idaho Department of Water Resources, et., al., Idaho Environ-
mental Overview, Boise, Idaho, 1975.
(7) Hux, Ronald, "Odor Control and Wastewater Treatment Systems",
Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress,
Academic Press, New York, 1971.
(8) Green, Thomas J., Acting State Archaeologist, Idaho Historical
Society, Letters to Ms. Divola Nettles, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Idaho Operations Office, Boise, Idaho,
July 15, 1976.
(9) CHpM/Hill, Inc., Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome, Idaho,
Boise, Idaho, 1975-
-------
'
'
" ^ "' i ""* . *' M
V-*'
p, ,,
'to?
\
I-'.
-------
SECTION IV
PROPOSED PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The alternative selected as the proposed project is Al-
ternative No. 4. The proposed project is to build a new extended
aeration activated sludge treatment plant upon the Near-West Site,
a new 40-acre site immediately northwest of the existing treatment
plant site. The treated effluents from the plant will be discharg-
ed into the "J" Canal. During the facilities planning process this
alternative was determined to be the most cost-effective. Addition-
ally, the Environmental Impact Statement found this alternative to
have the highest environmental ranking of any of the eight alterna-
tives considered. As part of the proposed action, the existing
treatment plant site will be converted into a park.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Service Area - During the preparation of the Facilities Plan,
a new sewer service area was proposed for the City. This new ser-
vice area extends the perimeter of land serviced by sewers outside
of the City limits by approximately 1-1/2 miles to the northwest
and east. The perimeter will be extended approximately 3 miles to
the south of the City and will vary from 1 to 2 miles west of 1-5
(Figure IV-1).
The service area was developed by CH2M/Hill, Inc., the
engineering consultants for the City of Jerome, with the coopera-
tion of the Jerome City Planning Commission and the Jerome City
Council. Selection of the service area was based upon historic
trends, as well as community objectives, which are to meet the
present and future needs of the projected population growth of
12,000 people by 1995 in the Greater Jerome Area.
The estimated future population growth for the City of
Jerome of 4 percent per year by the Idaho Water Resource Board is
higher than the statewide average of 1 percent. The population
density throughout the service area is estimated to average only
about 2 people per acre in 20 years. The interceptor sewer costs
have been based on 9 people per acre in each particular service
area at saturation density.
-------
IV-7
The flow through the treatment plant would begin with
the incoming wastewater as it enters the pump station, where pumps
would lift the wastewater up to pass through solids grinders or a
bypass bar screen in the headworks. From there, the wastewater
would flow by gravity to two aeration basins, where the incoming
flow would be mixed throughout the basins. The aeration basin con-
tents would flow by gravity to secondary clarifiers where the bio-
logical solids would settle. Most of the settled solids would be
pumped back to the aeration basins to sustain the aeration basin
solids concentration and to maintain the process efficiency. The
remaining settled solids would be pumped to the aerobic digester
for stabilization. Digested solids would be pumped to humus ponds,
where they would be dried. After drying, the solids would be de-
posited in the privately-operated sanitary landfill serving the
City of Jerome.
This plant will completely replace the existing plant
with a totally new facility. Because the treated effluent will
be discharged into the "J" Canal, adjacent and to the west of the
existing site, slight improvements in the chlorination facilities
of the plant would be designed to prevent treated effluent concen-
trations of fecal conforms exceeding 50 MPN per 100 milliliter
sample, in compliance with State discharge standards, into irriga-
tion canals.
The Site - The proposed 40-acre site is adjacent to the ex-
isting plant to the northwest across the "J" Canal. This land is
presently in alfalfa fields and is basically level with a mild
slope to the west. Immediately adjacent and to the east of the
site is an old rock slaughterhouse. Three residents and the new
Jerome radio station are to the west. To the southeast of this
40-acre parcel is a disturbed area used as a sand and gravel exca-
vation site.
The soils of the area, as classified by the Soil Conser-
(3)
vation Service , are portino-type soils which are silty loam
types of soils with a surface depth of 0 to 28 inches. The culti-
vability classification of these soils is Class 4.
The land use around the existing site is residential to
the east and northeast and agricultural to the west, northwest and
southwest. Industrial lands are to the south, and the County Fair-
grounds are immediately adjacent to the treatment plant site to the
southwest.
All other environmental baseline characteristics of the
existing site are typical of the study area as described in the
"Environmental Setting" portion of Section I.
-------
IV-8
INTERACTION WITH OTHER PLANS
The Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome, Idaho was
one of several planning projects undertaken by the City of Jerome
within the past two years. In addition to the Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan, the City of Jerome has prepared a plan for, and is now
constructing, a Water System Improvement Program. Additionally,
the City of Jerome is in the process of completing a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for the City. The City's Land Use Plan is proceed-
ing concurrently with the re-evaluation of the Jerome County Com-
prehensive Land Use Plan.
A review of the City of Jerome Water System Improvement
(2}
Program Study and the Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City
of Jerome , in comparison with the Wastewater Facilities Plan,
showed that sufficient service area was allowed to more than ac-
commodate the service area proposed in the Water System Improve-
ment Program and the planning area proposed in the City of Jerome
Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Potential impacts and in-
consistencies are discussed in the "Land Use" portion of Section
III, "Environmental Impacts of Alternatives."
Two planning studies prepared by the State of Idaho ad-
dress concerns associated with the Jerome Wastewater Facilities
(k)
Project, the State of Idaho 303(e) Water Quality Management Planv '
(5)
and the State of Idaho Water Plan for the Snake River Basin. '
A review of the 303(e) Water Quality Management Plan showed that
a wastewater facilities project in Jerome is necessary and called
for in the Plan. However, the implementation of such a wastewater
facilities project for the City of Jerome is behind schedule ac-
cording to the State's Plan. The State Water Plan includes dis-
cussion of groundwater and agricultural land development. The
proposed Wastewater Facilities Project is in conformance with the
State Water Plan.
Jerome County has two existing studies that relate to
the Wastewater Facilities Project, the existing Comprehensive Zon-
ing Plan and the Jerome County Comprehensive Rural Water and
(7)
Sewerage Planning Study. The Zoning Plan has been adopted by
the Jerome County Board of Commissioners. Additionally, the Coun-
ty is presently engaged in a Comprehensive Land Use Planning Study
which will update the existing Zoning Plan to conform to the new
Land Use Planning Act, Chapter 65, Title 67 of the Idaho Code. At
present the proposed action is not in conformance with the County's
Comprehensive Zoning Plan. However, these discrepancies are expect-
ed to be resolved in the updated Plan (see Appendix A). No con-
struction of the proposed facilities will commence until the land
use impacts are resolved.
-------
IV-9
PROJECT COSTS AND RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
Table IV.1 summarizes the costs of the proposed project.
The recommended method of financing for Q6% of the construction
costs is through State and Federal grants. User charges would
finance the remaining construction operation and maintenance costs.
User fees for the new system after Phase 1 is constructed are es-
timated at approximately $5.00 per month (as 1975 dollars).
The resources that will be committed to the construction
and operation of the proposed action include land, electric power,
fuel, oil, construction materials and manpower. Utilizing current
estimating techniques, available literature and data sources, only
electric power, fuel oil and manpower resources for operation and
maintenance and land resources can be estimated individually.
These resource commitments for the project's life are estimated as
follows:
Land 40 acres
Labor 80 man years
Electricity 57,500MWh
Fuel Oil 80,000 gallons
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Primary Impacts
Air Quality
Impacts - Because no incineration of sludges is to
occur under the proposed action, the major types of potential air
pollutants are: particulates during the construction of the faci-
lities; off gases; increases in pollutants caused by switching
from natural gas to fuel oil consumption at the plant; and vehicle
emissions from sludge transport and personnel commuting.
Construction activities pose the greatest potential threat
of air quality impacts. In a study conducted by the Environmental
Protection Agency construction activities in the Twin Falls
area were found to cause violations of the primary 2il-hour stan-
dard for particulates of 260 micrograms per cubic meter. Types
of construction most typically causing the standards to be violat-
ed were street and road construction, often involving earth moving,
grading, and other activities which disturb the soil. Because it
will be necessary to conduct similar activities during the con-
struction of treatment facilities, ambient air standards for par-
ticulates may be violated intermittently over a period of weeks
or months. However, since this is not a permanent condition, no
long-term or highly degradative effects are expected other than
nuisances caused by dust.
-------
IV-10
TABLE IV.1
NET PRESENT WORTH OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
TREATMENT AT NEAR-WEST SITE
CANAL DISCHARGE(1)
Capital
Cost Items
Treatment Plant
Park
Outfall to Canal
Interceptors
Land
Total
Total
Present Worth
Labor(a)
Electrical Power
Chlorine
Water and Fuel
Equipment Maintenance(b)
Miscellaneous(c)
Fund(d)
Salvage Value
Present Worth
Total Annual O&M $ 123,200
Present Worth (O&M)
USPWF 7%-20 yrs. = 10.594)
TOTAL NET PRESENT WORTH
Net Cost
Present Worth
$3,320,000
46,000
27,000
1,859,000
160,000
$5,412,000
: Cost Items
:(b)
Subtotal
Sinking
$ 411,000
6,000
4,000
597,000
160,000
$1,178,000
Annual Cost
$ 47,000
21,000
1,200
3,000
10,000
6,000
$ 88,200
35,000
$2,909,000
40,000
23,000
1,262,000
$4,234,000
$1.305.000
$5,539,000
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Includes payroll overhead and insurance at 25 percent of payroll.
Based on 2 percent of major equipment cost per year.
Includes other salaries, small tools, meeting, communications, and
miscellaneous supplies.
Equipment replacement at 7 percent of major equipment cost per year.
-------
IV-11
Potential gas emissions from wastewater treatment works
include chlorine, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monox-
(2)
ide, and oxides of nitrogen sulfur and phosphorus. However, such
gases are usually a greater potential hazard within the structure
than in areas outside of it. For this reason, the design criteria
expected to be employed during the detailed specifications and de-
sign of the proposed action's treatment plant (Step II in the EPA
grant process), are expected to make any potential degradation of
air quality highly improbable. Additionally, operation of the
existing plant has not been known to emit any significant concen-
trations of these gases. Odors are discussed in more detail under
"Odor" impacts later in this section. When the large mixing area
and good mixing conditions available in the basin are con-
sidered, the small pollutant emissions from the burning of fuel
oil are not expected to cause significant air quality degradation.
Because the emission loadings caused by the increase of
vehicular traffic from additional sludge loadings and one to two
man-trips to the plant for operation are even less than those
caused by the consumption of fuel oils, no impact is expected from
increased vehicular traffic.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Particulate
matter, mostly in the form of dust, generated during grading and
earth moving is the major, primary adverse impact. The basic means
of mitigation is efficient application of construction methods to
minimize the amount of land disturbed, and to utilize a mobile spray-
er to spray water on excavation sites to control dust generation.
Odors
Impacts - Because a new facility would be designed
and constructed, odor problems from the existing plant are expect-
ed to be eliminated. Well-designed and operated activated sludge
plants normally do not discharge significant amounts of odors or
gases into the environment, so that they can be detected outside
the boundaries of the treatment plant site. Assuming, for purpos-
es of analysis only, that due to operation and maintenance problems,
the plant intermittently emitted odors at concentrations of 100 odor
units, it would then utilize the odor dispersion techniques devel-
(9)
oped by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is estimated
that these odors would be non-detectable during the daytime hours
and non-detectable during the nighttime hours at distances greater
than 600 feet from the plant. However, it should be emphasized
that there are no odor emissions expected with a properly function-
ing plant. For these reasons, no odor impacts are expected by the
proposed action.
-------
IV-12
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Dur-
ing the engineering and design phase of the project construction
process (Step II), odor-reducing design and facility measures, as
described in Appendix B, can be evaluated and applied where appro-
priate.
Noise
Impacts - The greatest amount of noise is expected
to occur during the construction of the treatment plant facilities.
Using a worst-case value of 105 decibels, it is estimated that
150 feet away from the construction site, the noise level will be
67 decibels, corresponding to noise levels typically found in noisy
urban residential areas. At a distance of 250 feet from the con-
struction site, the noise caused by construction activities is ex-
pected to be approximately 30 decibels, a noise level correspond-
(2)
ing to a typical bedroom at night.
Another source of noise will be the pumps and aerators
needed to run the plant. Nine more pumps are required to operate
this plant than are required to operate the existing plant, for a
total of 22 pumps and aerators. It is estimated that a person
standing within 50 feet of all pumps and aerators operating simul-
taneously would hear a noise level of approximately 8l decibels.
If that person were to move to a distance of 150 feet from all of
the pumps and aerators, the noise level would be reduced to 50
decibels, a noise level typical of low-density residential neigh-
borhoods (see Table III.2).
Even though the fairgrounds are within 250 feet of the
plant boundary, adverse noise impacts upon them are considered to
be negligible. This is because noise levels at typical fair or
recreational-type activities usually exist at levels of 67 deci-
bels or greater. The residences located within 200 feet of the
plant construction area may experience noise impacts during the
construction of the plant. During its operation no potential noise
impacts are expected outside the boundaries of the treatment plant
because of the low noise level, approximately 50 decibels, generat-
ed beyond 150 feet of the plant.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - The
mitigative and control measures described below have been analyzed
by EPA and found to be effective in controlling noise during con-
(Q)
struction.
Construction equipment, with built-in noise controls as well
as operational management, may sufficiently control noise
output to meet environmental noise requirements in most cases.
-------
IV-13
Noise may be measured at the borders of the construction site,
to determine limits of maximum flexibility of operation on-
site, while meeting noise standards off-site.
Design considerations to reduce equipment noise include: ex-
haust mufflers, intake silencers, engine enclosures, proper
cooling system, and fan design. Other techniques to be con-
sidered include: replacing individual operations and tech-
niques by less noisy ones (e.g., using welding instead of
riveting, mixing concrete off-site instead of on-site, and
employing prefabricated structures instead of building them
on-site) and selecting the quietest alternative items of
equipment (e.g., electric instead of diesel-powered equipment,
hydraulic tools instead of pneumatic impact tools).
Earth-moving equipment noises are associated predominantly
with exhaust and inlet noise. Other sources include mechani-
cal and hydraulic transmission and actuation systems and cool-
ing fans. Mufflers offer the greatest potential for noise
abatement. Also, when possible, locating haul roads behind
natural earth berms or embankments has been found to be ef-
fective .
Most of the noise from material handling equipment, such as
cranes, concrete mixers, and concrete pumps, is generated by
the engine. The greatest potential abatement is via engine
quieting. Where necessary, stationary equipment, such as
pumps, generators, and compressors can be quieted by mufflers
and enclosures.
The Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has several
publications and other information on reducing noise during con-
struction activities.
Water Resources
Surface Water - The construction of an adequately
designed, maintained and operated treatment plant for the City of
Jerome will solve the problems of the existing treatment plant
which currently cause intermittent, but frequent, discharge viola-
tions of effluents into the irrigation canal system. Once this
proposed treatment plant is constructed, it is believed that the
Jerome Sewage Treatment Facility can be and will be operated pro-
perly so as to maintain effluent concentrations within State and
Federal discharge standards. This assumption is based on three
criteria: (8) the sincere interest of the City to operate and
maintain the plant properly to allow economic and population growth
and development; (9) the high success records of recently-construct-
ed sewage treatment facilities; and (10) the fairly intense amount
-------
IV-14
of surveillance, testing, regulation, and enforcement of operating
treatment plants done by the State of Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare and the Environmental Protection Agency (see Appendix
C).
Based on the above information, the proposed treatment
plant discharge is expected to have a beneficial impact upon the
irrigation and stock water contained in the canal system. The
construction of a new plant will mitigate existing slug or high-
concentration discharges intermittently discharged into the canal
system by the existing plant. Thus, the probability of the water
quality violating State and Federal water quality standards for
irrigation and stock water will be significantly reduced.
Groundwater - The anticipated impacts upon ground-
water are beneficial in that potential sources of contamination
from septic tanks are eliminated.
Soils and Hydrology
The proposed project is expected to have insignificant
impacts upon soils and hydrology. During construction, excava-
tions and land clearing will make the soil susceptible to erosion
from wind and rain. However, because of the small amounts of acre-
ages involved and the short time they are expected to be unprotect-
ed, these impacts are also expected to be insignificant.
Fish and Wildlife
Despite the loss of some small rodents, the potential
impacts upon fish and wildlife from the proposed action are bene-
ficial in that the proposed buffer zones will provide habitat for
game birds and other small animal browsers, such as rabbits. How-
ever, these beneficial effects are expected to be insignificant
because of the small numbers of animals affected.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
No archaeological survey work is required and no impacts
are expected (see Appendix A).
Aesthetics
Impacts - The potential adverse aesthetic impacts
of increased traffic volumes caused by additional noise from com-
muter trips of operating personnel and sludge transport, are con-
sidered to be insignificant if they are noticed at all.
-------
IV-15
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - As
previously discussed in Alternative 2, proposed buffer areas for
the treatment plant are anticipated to mitigate or reduce the ad-
verse visual impacts of this proposed action.
Land Use
Impacts - The proposed service area conflicts (in
the County areas) with the existing Jerome County Comprehensive
Zoning Plan. This conflict is caused by the extension of the
service area boundary and proposed construction of interceptors
to land presently zoned as agricultural. Agricultural lands do
not create enough demand to cost-effectively sewer these areas.
Additionally, the construction of sewer facilities in this area
could create a land use change, resulting in more dense or more
urban use. Figure III.l illustrates those portions of the service
area that are in conflict with the County's Comprehensive Zoning
Plan and Regulations.
EPA cannot participate in funding a proposed action not
in agreement with a duly-adopted plan. However, Jerome County is
presently in the process of updating the existing Comprehensive
Zoning Plan and Regulations. Thus, the land use conflicts des-
cribed above are expected to be resolved prior to the estimated
start-up date of February 1978 for construction of the treatment
plant. A letter from Jerome County Planning and Zoning Adminis-
trator describing the current land use planning status, as it af-
fects the Facilities Plan, is presented in Appendix A.
A review of the County's Comprehensive Zoning Plan and
Regulations shows that a treatment plant does not fit any of the
definitions of uses allowed in agricultural zones. However, the
County updated Comprehensive Zoning Plan is expected to contain
provisions for allowing wastewater treatment plants in the County
by conditional use permit. The permit would require a public hear-
ing before approval (see Appendix A).
The City has contacted the County to begin negotiating
the establishment of a City Impact Zone. A City Impact Zone is
authorized under the State Land Use Planning Bill (Chapter 65 of
the Idaho Code Section 67-6526) and is basically an area outside
of the City limits for which the City has control over land use
planning and other development considerations. The proposed Im-
pact Zone would increase the City's planning, zoning and building
code enforcement powers one mile outside the existing City limits
to one and one-half mile south of the 1-90 interchange. If
the Impact Zone as proposed (see Figure III. 2) is approved, the
-------
IV-16
proposed facilities service area would be in conformance with the
County's land use planning policies. The City would have all zon-
ing, building permit, and subdivision development authority, in-
cluding the ability to make subdivision specifications meet the
City's building ordinance. Since both sites would be located with-
in this impact area, it is expected that either treatment plant
location would then be acceptable.
It is important to note, however, that the proposed Im-
pact Zone is, at this time, only a proposal and not an adopted
part of the County's Comprehensive Zoning Plan. To date, the Faci-
lities Plan is in conflict with current adopted local land use
policies and acceptance of the proposal appears doubtful (see Ap-
pendix A).
There appear to be potential adverse land use impacts
caused by changes in population densities. The existing service
area of approximately 1,170 acres serves a population of approxi-
mately 5,625 persons and associated industry, commercial establish-
ments and public services. The proposed service area would include
nearly 5,030 acres, with a population of 12,000 persons by 1995,
as well as associated industry, commercial and governmental ser-
vices. Based upon this information, the existing population den-
sity per acre of the service area is 4.8 persons. The proposed
service area would have an approximate density of only 2.4 persons
per acre (approximately half of the existing density). It appears
that a service area of only 2,500 acres would maintain population
densities at their present levels.
It may be advantageous to maintain densities at present
levels or above 4.8 persons per acre. It has been the experience
of some study team members that some areas of the country have not
required sewer service until densities exceeded 9 persons per acre.
Low densities such as 2.4 persons per acre may not only cause dis-
economies in the construction, operation and maintenance of faci-
lities, but they may also inhibit the orderly and efficient imple-
mentation of land use planning goals and objectives.
Based on the agricultural land planning done by the Ida-
(5)
ho Department of Water Resources in their State Water Plan ,
there appear to be no significant adverse impacts caused by the
loss of agricultural lands in the Jerome area. The report states
that it will be necessary to develop approximately 1,200,000 acres
of new agricultural land in the State of Idaho by 2020, allowing
for loss of agricultural lands caused by expected increases in ur-
banization. The report states that there are approximately
7,400,000 acres of irrigable lands and recommends methods to de-
velop the 1,200,000 acres of land necessary by the year 2020.
-------
IV-17
Based on the findings of this report, there appear to be no sig-
nigicant adverse impacts associated with the loss of agricultural
land, assuming that more agricultural acres are developed and that
land uses with greater economic productivity such as residential,
commercial and industrial replace those acres lost to urbanization.
Remedial Protective and Mitigatlve Measures - Cur-
rent planning programs in the Greater Jerome Area provide an excel-
lent forum for mitigating the potential adverse land use impacts
of the proposed action. It is suggested that during the planning
process the present service area be reassessed in terms of popula-
tion densities and mitigating sprawl as well as indiscriminate
spotty development.
In addition, the proposed Impact Zone criteria and the
policies concerned with land use controls in the area of the Im-
pact Zone should be addressed by both the County and the City of
Jerome. In so doing, one suggested alternative that may be re-
viewed is that the proposed service area be reduced within the pro-
posed Impact Zone, to control densities and spotty development.
Once these policies and service area determinations have
been made by the City and County planning and elected officials,
the service area can be specifically defined in terms of the exist-
ing policies, and then construction time-phasing can also be final-
ized.
Unique Land Features
No unique land features are expected to be impacted by
the proposed action.
Taxes
The potential primary impacts to tax structures and tax
bases may occur through increased taxes to finance construction
and operation of facilities. Because the proposed facilities are
to be financed through user charges, there are no potential adverse
impacts upon the taxes of the area.
Another means by which tax bases and taxes can be impact-
ed by facilities plans is by conversion of taxable land to non-
taxable land through public acquisition. Because the proposed
site is located outside of the City limits, the potential loss
of 28 to 50 acres of taxable land, when compared to 215,133 acres,
does not appear to have significant financial impact upon the over-
all tax base of the County. For the reasons stated above, the
proposed action is not expected to have a significant adverse fi-
nancial impact upon the taxes and tax base of the local area.
-------
IV-18
Personal Incomes
Impacts - The estimated annual user service charges
of $68.00 for Jerome's proposed facilities fall within the range
of typical residential sewer service charges ($30 to $84 a year)
as shown in the City's Wastewater Facility Plan. Because these
charges fall into the typical range, and because sewer service is
not required in most urban areas by law and is an expected expense,
a sewer service charge of $5.00 per month in the Jerome area is
not expected to have significant adverse impacts upon personal in-
comes.
One exception to the above statement is for persons on
fixed incomes, such as retired persons. There is a potential for
these persons to be adversely impacted by increases in user charg-
es. The degree of impact is directly related to the cost increase
of the service.
Remedial Protective and Mitlgative Measures - The
potential adverse impacts upon fixed incomes described above, can
be mitigated through special provisions incorporated into the fee
schedules for retired citizens and other individuals on fixed in-
comes. To accomplish this, an analysis of their purchasing power,
and the effect of rate increases on purchasing power would have to
be completed in detail, so that effective rates for fixed income
persons could be established. This task is properly outside of
the EIS.
Public Utilities
The only existing public facilities to be impacted by
the proposed project are solid waste facilities. As described
earlier in the "Environmental Setting" portion of this report,
solid waste is collected and transported by a private contractor
to a disposal site owned and operated by the private contractor.
It is anticipated by the City and its contractor that there is
sufficient capacity in the site to handle the projected sludge
waste loads through the planning period. The Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare reported no potential adverse impacts on the
(12)
operation of the site. The small amounts of water, electri-
ity and fuel oil consumed by the alternatives are not expected to
significantly impact the availability of these resources.
One private utility, the Northside Canal Company, which
operates and maintains the irrigation supply system, is expected
to be impacted beneficially by the proposed action. These impacts
are described in the "Water Resources" section of the alternative
impact descriptions.
-------
IV-19
Recreation
In this proposed action the existing treatment plant
site would be converted into a park. Because of the site's proxi-
mity to residential areas in the City of Jerome, the park is ex-
pected to create beneficial impacts upon recreation.
Secondary Impacts
Population and Economic Growth
Population and economic growth over the past four years
in the Greater Jerome Area has been dramatic. New industries have
located, payrolls and production have increased, and the population
has grown at an average annual rate of approximately 8.5$. During
this period, the existing Jerome facility has failed to operate
effectively to treat the City's waste. Some of the equipment and
major treatment units of the treatment plant are over 20 years old
and are in fair to poor physical condition. It has been difficult
for the plant to perform adequately, and there have been many opera-
tional problems.
The City as a whole has been aware of the malfunctioning
of the plant, primarily due to odors and discharges to the canal
system; however, this has not affected the population economic
growth of the area. Growth has continued despite sewerage inef-
ficiencies because (1) industries interested in the area have been
able to locate by providing their own facilities or are not the
type of industry using large quantities of water; (2) there are no
restrictions on septic tanks if a percolation test comes out posi-
tive, and (3) the capacity of the existing collectors has been able
to accept hookups without causing overloads, except at the plant.
It is anticipated that growth in the Greater Jerome Area will con-
tinue at its present rate whether or not it is served by a proper-
ly functioning sewage treatment plant. No other growth limiting
factors, such as shortages of water supply, transportation, land
availability, or solid waste disposal facilities, are foreseeable
at this time.
Redevelopment and Construction in Built-Up Areas
Impacts - Because of the potential land use and den-
sity impacts described in the "Land Use" section above, there ap-
pears to be significant impact potential caused by the lack of re-
development and construction in existing developmental areas. A
large low-density service area, including approximately 4,000 acres
of relatively flat agricultural lands, appears to provide adequate
land area to allow indiscriminate satellite or spotty residential,
industrial and commercial development.
-------
IV-20
What can occur in cities with low-use densities is that
rehabilitation costs for older areas may be greater than replace-
ment costs, due to low land costs created by adequate or more-
than-adequate land availability. This can cause a destruction of
aesthetics, efficient circulation and facilities utilization. It
increases traffic and congestion, and a general breakdown of a
unified, efficient community behavioral pattern may occur. In
fact, this is why most governments including the State of Idaho,
through passage of its Land Use Planning Act, require that land
use plans be developed to mitigate or prevent exactly these types
of occurrences. For these reasons, there appear to be significant
potential impacts to the redevelopment and construction in exist-
ing urban areas.
Remedial Protective and Mitigative Measures - Through
adequate reassessment of the land use planning goals, objectives,
policies, and service areas as proposed above, the potential ad-
verse impacts upon redevelopment and construction in built-up and
urban areas in the City of Jerome can be mitigated. During the
planning analysis, special consideration should be given to poli-
cies for directing service area growth, the potential population
densities, and existing areas of social or economic importance
that are in need of rehabilitation or upgrading.
-------
IV-21
SECTION IV
FOOTNOTES
(1) CHpM/Hill, Inc. Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome, Idaho,
Boise, Idaho, 1975.
(2) CHpM/Hill, Inc. City of Jerome Water System Improvement Pro-
gram, Boise, Idaho, 1974.
(3) City of Jerome, Idaho, Planning Department, Proposed Compre-
hensive Land Use Plan, 1975-
(4) Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Draft 303e Water
Quality Management Plan for the State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho,
1976.
(5) Idaho Water Resources Board, State of Idaho Water Plan -
Volume II, Boise, Idaho, 1975-
(6) Jerome County, Idaho, Ordinance Establishing a Comprehensive
Zoning Plan and Regulations, as amended, Jerome, Idaho, 1973.
(7) Idaho Water Resources Board, Comprehensive Rural Water and
Sewerage Planning Study for Jerome County, Boise, Idaho, 1973-
(8) Findley, Charles E. and Bray, David C., Attainment of Ambient
Particulate Matter Standards in Idaho, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973-
(9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Opera-
tions, Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal'Wastewater
Treatment Works, Washington D.C., 1976.
(10) Jerome County, Idaho, Ordinance Establishing a Comprehensive
Zoning Plan and Regulations, amended, Jerome, Idaho, 1973.
(11) Hancock, Charles, Mayor, City of Jerome, Letter to the Jerome
County, Idaho Board of Commissioners and the Jerome County
Planning and Zoning Commission, Jerome, Idaho, 1976.
(12) Idaho Department of Water Resources, et., al., Idaho Environ-
mental Overview, Boise, Idaho, 1975-
(13) CHpM/Hill, Inc. Addendum to Wastewater Facilities Plan, City
of Jerome, Idaho, Boise, Idaho, 1976.
-------
V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
*fet
w/5?
we*
X
'&
,->
-------
SECTION V
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the pro-
posed Action, Alternative 4, are primarily concerned with construc-
tion. During construction, temporary impacts will be associated
with excavation of ground, clearing of cover and vegetation, dust
and noise. During construction and during operation maintenance
of the facilities, energy resources, building materials and re-
placement materials, manpower and energy resources will have to
be consumed. While buffering vegetation and other techniques to
reduce the visual impacts upon the area are expected to occur,
there will be some aesthetic impacts associated with construction.
These aesthetic impacts will be most significant to the people
living nearest the Near-West Site.
The unavoidable beneficial impacts of the proposed alter-
native will reduce the risk of surface water contamination, odors
and septic tanks causing problems for soils, hydrology, and ground-
water. In addition, the aesthetics of the existing plant site will
be improved after its conversion to a park. The creation of a new
park within the City limits of Jerome is considered a beneficial
impact upon recreation.
The socio-economic and cultural considerations and jus-
tifications for the above unavoidable adverse impacts are discuss-
ed in more detail in Section VI.
-------
^^ao:^*r^al
£gS£=s=-Y
-------
SECTION VI
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OP
THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
The negative short-term physical impacts of the proposed
project will be more than offset by the future benefits. Negative
impacts can be reduced to temporary disruption (one to ten years)
of present types and quantities of vegetation along pipeline routes
and to minor decreases in the aesthetic appeal adjacent to the
Near-West Site. The aesthetic impacts would be primarily confined
to the four residences west of the plant. There will also be con-
struction impacts which will include some traffic impacts from
construction workers and material hauling and noise. Construction
along the interceptor routes may temporarily impact the flow of
traffic where pipelines are in the right-of-ways of highways and
streets.
Benefits to the physical environment would occur in vary-
ing degrees. Major physical impacts would reduce odor and surface
water impacts caused by the existing treatment plant. Other moder-
ate beneficial impacts would include the reduction of potential
contamination to groundwater and degradation to soils caused by
moderate concentrations of septic tanks. Other positive impacts
of lesser degree would include aesthetic improvements and increased
cover for game birds. The plant would also be operating legally,
in conformance with Federal and State water pollution discharge
standards.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The proposed action will require fuel, electricity, and
manpower to operate and maintain the plant as follows:
Land Labor Electricity Fuel Oil
(Acres) (Man Yrs.) (MWh) (Gallons)
40 80 57,500 80,000
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPACTS
The principal impact of the proposed action is the ef-
fect upon land use. As previously discussed, the proposed action
is not in compliance with existing land use and zoning policies.
However, as has been previously pointed out, both the City and
the County are currently updating their land use plans and poli-
cies and it is anticipated that policies will be developed which
will allow this plant to conform to existing land use policies and
goals (see Appendix A).
-------
VI-2
Economic impacts include increased user costs which are
expected to create insignificant impacts, except potentially to
persons with fixed incomes. Loss of tax generating land is also
considered to be an insignificant impact.
SECONDARY AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed action is not anticipated to have any sig-
nificant impacts on the growth and development of the Greater Jer-
ome Area, except for impacts associated with reduced population
densities. In fact, it is anticipated that this proposed action
will constitute a mitigative action to help stem the potential im-
pacts upon ground and surface waters and odors currently existing
in the area.
Impacts associated with reduced population densities,
caused by the large service area, are expected to be adverse, af-
fecting redevelopment and cost-effectiveness of public utilities
as described in Section III of this EIS.
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
-------
SECTION VII
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
There will be minor and major irreversible and irretriev-
able commitments of renewable and non-renewable resources. Signi-
ficant commitments of general irrecoverable resources, i.e., time,
building materials and energy, will be required during construc-
tion of the proposed treatment action. After construction, opera-
tion of the treatment plant will require irrecoverable resources
such as time, chemicals, energy and maintenance materials. The
identifiable resource commitments were listed in Section VI.
The secondary effects of population growth will result
in the conversion of open, natural land to urban development; re-
duction in air quality; increased use of water, electricity, pe-
troleum products, timber and food; and increased demand for social
services. If growth occurs in a reasonably well conceived manner,
none of these effects are forecast to be significantly adverse.
However, much of the area is not planned to obtain the best fore-
seeable growth uses, and unless this situation is altered, adverse
impacts are more likely to occur. However, it should be remember-
ed that the secondary impacts are expected to remain the same re-
gardless of which alternative is chosen, including Alternative 1 -
"No Action".
-------
VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
RESPONSE TOJbotMMB:
-------
SECTION VIII
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS
On Tuesday, May 25, 1976, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), in cooperation with the City of Jerome, conducted a
public information meeting concerning the preparation of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Jerome Wastewater
Facilities Project. The meeting was held at the Jerome Jr. High
School at approximately 8:15 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was
to provide information about the Environmental Impact Statement
Process for the project to concerned and interested citizens in
the Greater Jerome Area. The specific objectives of the meeting
were as follows:
1. Notify the public that an Environmental Impact Statement
is being prepared for the Jerome Wastewater Facilities
Project.
2. Explain the process for preparing the Environmental Im-
pact Statement.
3- Answer questions from interested citizens.
4. Provide a forum for discussion of the issues concerning
the development of the Environmental Impact Statement.
5. Distribute to the public a Public Information Question-
naire to obtain their written views and opinions (see
Appendix D).
The EPA project staff attending the meeting included the
following:
Dick Thiel
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X Office
Seattle, Washington
Warren T. McFall
Project Engineer
Jerome, Idaho Wastewater Facilities Project
EPA, Idaho Operations Office
Boise, Idaho
-------
VIII-2
Norma Young
EPA Project Manager
Jerome, EIS
Region X Office
Seattle, Washington
Hayden L. Street
Project Manager
R. W. Beck and Associates
The meeting lasted approximately 2-1/2 hours with much
exchange between members of the audience and the project staff.
The meeting began with a brief presentation by the EPA project
staff describing the purpose of the meeting and the Environmental
Impact Process. After these brief introductory remarks, much dis-
cussion occurred with the members of the audience raising many is-
sues and asking a broad spectrum of questions ranging from the
legality of the proposed project, to operation and maintenance of
new plants, to specific questions about the Environmental Impact
Process. The specific questions, topics and issues brought up at
the meeting are summarized in the "Issues" portion of Section I
of this Final EIS and specifically addressed in the text. Addi-
tionally, technical questions were evaluated in Section II of this
report under the descriptions of the "Alternatives" and changes
made where necessary.
EPA in Seattle received approximately 25 completed ques-
tionnaires, letters, or letters and questionnaires addressing spe-
cific issues and concerns of the proposed Wastewater Facilities
Project for the City of Jerome. These concerns are also addressed
in this Final Impact Statement Report.
The meeting was considered by the EPA project staff to
be very successful because of the comments and issues raised by
the citizens of the Greater Jerome Area and because of the public
notification of the Impact Statement through the newspaper, radio,
and word-of-mouth. Also, the project staff was very pleased with
the turnout for the meeting, numbering over 100 at one point.
PUBLIC HEARING
The Environmental Protection Agency held a public hear-
ing of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of
Jerome Wastewater Facilities Project on September 16, 1976. The
hearing was held at the auditorium of the Central Elementary School
in Jerome, Idaho and attended by over 100 people. Because of the
length of the official hearing record and the cost involved, we
have not reproduced the document here. It is available for public
review at the Jerome Public Library and at EPA's Region X Office
in Seattle, Washington.
-------
VIII-3
The major concerns expressed at the public hearing in-
cluded the following:
1. The most cost-effective alternative would be selected.
2. The facility would be capable of handling future growth
and development of the area.
3. Impacts upon the agricultural lands would be minimized.
4. Odors would be controlled.
5. Discharge of effluents into the irrigation canals would
not harm crops or livestock.
6. That the new plant would be operated and maintained pro-
perly.
Following the formal Public Hearing a question and answer
period was conducted to enable the attendees to clarify issues of
interest or concern. The issues and concerns addressed during
this period were the same as those addressed during the hearing,
as listed above.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region X wishes to
express its appreciation to all commenting agencies, groups and
individuals for the time and effort spent in reviewing the Draft
EIS. All comments were presented to the Regional Administrator
and were considered by him in EPA's preparation of the Rural EIS.
COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The following includes copies of all written comments
to the Draft EIS received by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Where appropriate, comments in need of a response have been iden-
tified by line and number immediately adjacent to the comment.
Immediately following the last page of each comment submittal will
be the written response of EPA. A log of the written comments re-
ceived and the topics addressed by each is included.
-------
LU
O
DATE
RFC'D
9/15
9/16
9/17
9/22
9/24
9/30
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/12
DEIS COMMENTS RECEIVED
CITY OF JEROME STP, IDAHO
FROM
Soil Conservation Service, Boise
CH2M Hill
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
Bernice Johnson
HUD - Seattle, WA
Office of Secretary
Dept. of Interior, Portland, OR
Idaho Fish & Game Dept.
Mr. & Mrs. Edwin Nutsch
Mr. & Mrs. Laurel Ploss
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Morgan
Albert M. Dalton
Mr. & Mrs. Gorman Miracle
Mr. & Mrs. David L. Hendry
Claude R. and Leona Norman
James R. and Carmen G. Prunty
Frederick F. Plankey
Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare
EIS
PAGE
NO.
VIII-6
VIII-9
VI 11-27
VI 11-30
VIII-33
VIII-35
VI 1 1-38
VIII-41
VIII-42
VIII-43
VI 1 1-44
VIII-45
VIII-46
VIII-47
VIII-48
VIII-52
VIII-56
POP.PROJECTION/GROWT
X
C3
^
O
r-j
LU
00
^
O
^
=c
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
REGIONALIZATION
oo
h-
oo
0
o
X
X
X
X
>-
h-
1
<:
Cf
a:
LU
=t
3
X
X
X
X
LU
LJ_
3
o3
n:
oo
U-
X
CO
LU
1
5
LU
h-
X
X
X
X
(S
\-
c_
=t
d
S
h
z.
1
H
5
1-
o"
z
c.
(_
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
oo
LU
o;
U"
ei
LU
^r
LU
1
C£
H-
s:
HIST. /ARCHAEOLOGICAL
X
X
oo
ce
0
Q
0
1
>-
I
i i
_1
-
i
cc
eC
i i
LL
CtL
OO
oo
-
C3
OL
LU
z.
LU
X
PROJECT DELAY
X.
<
i i
i i
i i
1
-F*
-------
8/16
8/30
9/9
9/13
9/27
in/4
EPA PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS
Mrs. Brenda Overmen
Mr. & Mrs. David L. Hendry
Mr. & Mrs. Keith W. Lierman
Charles E. Henley
VIII-59
VIII-60
VIII-61
VIII-62
Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Scheer VI 1 1-63
Mr. & Mrs. James R. Pruntv VIII-64
X
X
X
Y
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
'
<=:
» i
i i
» i
i
01
-
-------
VIII-6
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 345, 304 North 8th Street, Boise, Idaho 83702
September 13, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dr-^r-,»,r-
Region X RECEIVED
1200 Sixth Avenue < -0 1 r Q
Seattle, Washington 98101 '"'- ij Iy'u
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, City of Jerome. The document appears to have identified
all the viable alternatives and assessed their potential impacts. We
would offer the following comments for your consideration.
On page 1-13, we would recommend substituting, "Farm population has been
diminishing in the County with conversion of many existing farms from
cropland to pasture and grazing." The farm population has decreased but
not because of the conversion to livestock operations. Note that this
is borne out in the table on the same page by the significant decline in
cash receipts from livestock since 1972.
None of the alternatives proposed will withdraw a large enough area of
agricultural land to be significant nor is the proposed land of a unique
nature.
In Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 8, discharge will be maae into the North Side
Canal System in either the N or J Canals. With the exception of Altern-
ative 1 (the no action alternative), the newly built, properly functioning
plant will discharge effluent that will have no detrimental effects on
agriculture. If, however, the plant malfunctions or breaks down, effluent
could be discharged into the canal system that could be detrimental to
livestock and agricultural land.
Not mentioned in the Environmental Impact Statement is the fact that from
the City of Jerome, the N Canal travels south and a little west. It
traverses through the area that is rapidly converting to rural homes and
ranchettes. This trend will probably continue and with it will be increas-
ing numbers of small animals, livestock and children.
Also, except for a small amount of runoff, the N Canal has almost no flow
from December through April. Thus discharged effluents could possibly
build up and become more concentrated during these months. It would be
advisable to discharge effluent into the J Canal which has a higher flow
during these months.
-------
VIII-7
Richard R. Thiel
9/13/76 - Page 2
Alternatives 3, 5 and 6 appear to have no detrimental effects to agricul-
tural land except for the possibility of contamination caused by leakage
or a puncture in the high pressure pipeline.
Alternative 7 offers some definite advantages in that no effluent would
be discharged into any water courses. The key to this alternative would
be locating a site suitable for an eighty acre storage pond or a combina-
tion of ponds that would provide the required storage. Because of the
varying soil depth and rolling topography, a feasible site may be diffi-
cult to locate within the three mile radius.
Regardless of the alternative chosen, proper construction methods and
conservation practices need to be followed to prevent wind and water
erosion and to prevent siltation of canals and water courses. Following
construction, all disturbed areas need to be shaped and then seeded with
adapted grasses and/or shrubs.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,/
(Acting)
Amos Or. Garrison, Jr.
State Conservationist
-------
VIII-8
Response to Comments from United States Department of Agriculture
1. Your comments have been incorporated into the text of
Section I.
2. Assuming that your comments address the land requirements
for treatment plants only, we concur.
3. We concur.
4. Your comments have been incorporated into the text of
Section I.
5. We concur.
6. We concur.
7. Comment noted.
8. We concur.
-------
CH2M
HILL
engineers
. planners - 16 September 1976
economists
scientists B8039.60
Richard R, Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Dick:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City
of Jerome Wastewater Facilities Project
This letter summarizes our review of your draft EIS report
for the City of Jerome wastewater facilities project on
behalf of the City of Jerome,
Comments are presented below along with references to your
draft EIS report.
1. Page 2 ? A11ernative 4. The new activated sludge
plant would be located "adjacent to" the existing
plantr not "at" the existing treatment plant site.
The new plant would be on the opposite side of the
"N" Canal from the existing plant.
2. Page 2, Alternative 8. The total present worth-
cost estimate for this alternative was not pro-
pared on the same basis as the other alternatives,
and therefore, should not be used for comparison
with other alternatives. This present worth coijt
estimate includes a treatment plant modification
construction cost estimate (prepared by the EPA),
which does not include a sufficient quantj ty oi" .,
treatment units to satisfy EPA's own requirements.
"Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Flood System
and Component Reliability,'1 U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.,
EPA-430-99-74-001 (1974).
RECEIVED
Boise Ollicc 700 Cleaiwater Lane, PO Box 8748 Boise, Idaho 83707 208/M5-5JIO
-------
VIII-10
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 2
16 September 1976
B8039.60
The State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(H&W) has confirmed that Reliability Class II
(discharge to recreational waters) is required for
the City of Jerome Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharge. Reliability Class I requires the
highest degree of treatment. Reliability Class II
was used in preparing cost estimates for Alter-
natives 2 through 7. Alternative 8 was reportedly3
prepared for Reliability Class II; however, it:
appears that it was prepared for a reliability
class less than Reliability Class III. This is
evidenced by the fact that the alternative only
includes one primary clarifier, one aeration
basin, and one chlorine contact basin, while
Reliability Class III requires two primary clarifiers,
one aeration basin, and two chlorine contact
channels. Reliability Class II requires two units
for each of these treatment components.
A construction cost estimate for Alternative 8 in
accordance with Reliability Class IT. is provided
in attached Table 1. The design factors uoon
which this cost estimate is jjasad are shown in
attached Table 2.
The corrected present, worth cost estimate for
Alternative 8 should bs $7,597,000, based on
attached Table 1 and draft EIS Table II. 10 values
for interceptor, operation ar.cl maintenance cosLs.
Page 3 . Organ i za t i o n s Inyited _to__C_o_mji^nt:.. it
would bo interesting to know how che list of
interested individual was developed. Many other
individuals have indicated their interest in the
project by signing one of roar petitions against
constructing a new plant at a new site west of the
City, constructing a new plant adjacent to the
existing plant, or modifying the existing plant.
Only a small .number of the petitioners are included
on the EPA's selected list.
2
Personal communication with David Sanders on 15 September
1976.
Personal communication with Tom Johnson on 7 September
1976.
-------
vm-n
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 3
16 September 1976
B8039.60
4- Page I--2, Background of Past Events, Paragraph 2.
Two public hearings and two public meetings were
held, not four public hearings.
5« Page II-3, Paragraph 1. An additional sentence
should advise that new plant site interceptors
require two pump stations and the existing site
area interceptors require four pump stations.
6. Figure II.2, After Page II-4. This flow diagram
is confusing.
7. Pages 11-17 and II-1_8, Alternative 8. The existing
influent pump station is not. properly located on
the treatment plant site to allov-7 effective plant
expansion and renovation. This is shown on
attached Figure 1. A new pump station is required.
The existing grit removal facility only has a
capacity of about 0.5 ragd compared to a design
flow of 1.6 nigd. The facility should be replaced
with a new aerated grit chamber to reduce the
quantity of grit whicn is currently carried over
to the primary elarifier. The grit is pumped from
the. primary clarifier to the anaerobic digester,
from which it is expensive Lo remove.
The existing primary clarifier is not properly
located to alxow effective plant expansion and
renovation (attached Figure 1). The existing
primary clarifier is 30 years old cmcl in poor
physical condition. Two new primary clarifiers
must be added.
The existing filter tower is not large enough, nor
located properly to be used in plant expansion and
renovation (attached Figure 1). A slightly
larger new filter tower shouJd be added.
Two new aeration basins must be provided. The
existing tricxling filter is not large enough,
deep enough, or properly located to be converted
to an aeration basin, as recommended by the EPA.
-------
VIII-12
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 4
16 September 1976
B8039.60
The existing secondary clarifier is not properly
located to allow effective plant expansion and
renovation (attached Figure 1). Two new secondary
clarifiers are required. /
Two new primary anaerobic digesters with a digester
control building must be added. The existing
digester can be converted to a secondary digester
with a new floating cover.
8. Page 11-18, Costs and Resource Development. The ,
Alternative ~8~~present worth cost should .oe $7,597,00'
as discussed in Comment 2, thereby dropping this g
alternative from a ranking of 2 to a ranking of 4.
9. Page 11-19, Paragraph 1. The monthly rate charge
for Alternative 8 should be increased to reflect
revised construction costs. The corrected value
would be about $5 per month.
10. Page 11-25, Table II.6. The title for this table I /c
should indicate river discharge.
11 Page 11-27, Table II-9. This table should be //
repTaced with attached" Table 1 , as discussed in '
Comment 2.
12. Table 11.10, After Page I3>27. Th~ Alternative 8
tFeatraeni: plant cost "should ba $4,305,000, not
$1,929,000". The outfall cost should be $32,000,
not $125,000. The total cost should be $7,597,000,
not $5,314,000. These changes are explained in
Comment 2.
13. Pago 11-29, Table 11.11. Alternative 8 land
requirements should be 25 acres, net 10 acres.
Labor should be at least 80 (equal tc Alternatives 2
through 5), because it would be a much more complex
plant to operate th&n Alternatives 2 through b.
/alternative 8 would require 70,600 MWh, including
pump station power usage, not 20,424.
14. Page 111^2 , Land Use _,__ImpactLs . Any development
withTrT the agricultural zone around Jerome will
/3
-------
VIII-13
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 5
16 September 1976
B8039.60
require some rezoning action by. the County.
Location of a new wastewater treatment plant in
the agricultural zone will also require rezoning
by the County.
15. Page III-4, Last Paragraph. Preliminary inter-
ceptor sizing has assumed nine people per acre;
although by 1995, the average density is expected
to only be 2.4 people per acre. Interceptor
construction has been assumed to be constructed in
phases (3 or 4) . New interceptors would not be
expected to be constructed until the population in
the area served by the interceptor justifies
construction .
16. Page I II- 1 6 , Table I I I . 3 . Plant discharge values
for BOD ana suspended solids are obviously in
error.
17> Page HI-1 S _, , Tajx! e III . 5 . Existing Jerome discharge
values for "BOD and suspended solids are obviously
in error,
18. I-age. 111-26, Land Use, Impacts. Although immediate
interceptor construction has been assumed to be
accelerated for new plant site alternatives (which
may or may not materialize) , the ultimate land use
impact of the alternative is tied to the service
area boundary and should be about the same for alX
of the alternatives.
1 9 . Ps9eJ H-36 , Alternative 8, Odors, Impacts. The
is-
_
potential for odors from the upgraded plant
alternative (ABF/activated sludge process with
anaerobic digestion) is equal to the other
alternatives because of its coinp] axity and the
fact that it utilizes anaerobic sludge digestion,
as opposed to aerobic sludge digestion.
20 Page 111-36, Alternative 8 , Fish and Wildlife.
This alternative lias much less buizer zone than
any of the other alternatives (2 through 7) .
n
-------
VIII-14
*.\
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 6
16 September 1976
B8039.60
21. Page 111-37, Land Use Impacts. Land use impacts
for this alternative are nearly the same as for
Alternatives 4 and 5. Twenty-five acres of new
land will be required for new sludge drying beds.
22. Page 111-38, Table III.4. While the natural noise
level may appear to be lower for an expanded and
upgraded plant at the existing site, the new plant
alternatives (2 through 5) can be designed to pro-
vide about 45 dB-A at the property line. This
level can be compared to about 74 dB-A 300 feet
from the freeway (Alternatives 2 and 3) during
normal traffic hours. The freeway noise would
mask out the new treatment plant noise during
normal daytime traffic. Nighttime noise is expected
to be about 5 dB-A above present levels at the
property line.
Odor potential for Alternatives 4 and 5 should be
the same as Alternatives 2 and 3 at a level of
second best.
Land use for Alternatives 1, 4, 5, and 8 should be
about the same as discussed in Comment 21.
Aesthetics of Alternative 8 should be about fourth
best, not second best. The upgraded existing
plant site would be crowded and not nearly as
attractive as Alternatives 2 through 5.
Taxes' and personal incomes' values should be | 2>5~
adjusted to compensate for the revised costs of
Alternative 8.
The final ranking should show that Alternatives 2
and 4 are equally better than all other alternatives,
23. Page 111-39, Paragraph 1. The alternatives with
"the least environmental risk are Alternatives 2
and 4, not Alternative 8, as discussed in Comment 2.2,
24. Page 111-40, Final Ranking Table. The cost ranking
should "be revisea to show Alternative 2 and 4 as
tied for first and Alternative 8 as third.
-------
VIII-15
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 7
16 September 1976
B8039.60
The environmental ranking should be revised to f ,
show Alternatives 2 and 4 as tied for first and I-*'"
Alternative 8 as third.
The legal ranking should be explained further to
allow better identification of ranking criteria
and its importance compared to the cost and
environmental rankings.
The final ranking should be revised to reflect the
changes in the other three rankings.
25. Page V-1, Resource Impacts. The labor and e3.ec- ~
tricity values for Alternative 8 should be revised
in accordance with Comment 13.
In summary, we believe that the information provided in this
letter supports Alternatives 2 and 4 as the most environmentally
sound alternative for the City of Jerome to pursue.
Alternative 2 will allow almost total gravity flow to the
proposed plant site from the entire service area, compared
to Alternative 4, which will require that about 20 percent
of the service area wastewater be pumped. The two additional
pump stations required for existing plant site alternatives
would require an annual operation and maintenance cost
equivalent to sewer service charges for over 400 houses.
The possibility of Ida-Gem Dairy permanently discontinuing
operation and dropping out of the municipal sewerage system
has recently developed. At. this time, we believe the resulti
reduction in load will reduce the size of a new or expanded
treatment facility, but that there will be no significant
change in the relative cost and environmental rankings as
identified in this letter.
ig
30
-------
VIII-16
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Page 8
16 September 1976
B8039.60
We recommend that Alternative 2 be selected as the final EIS
recommendation .
Very truly yours,
Glenn A. Richter
The City officials have read the contents of this letter and
are in agreement with it.
dx/2
Attachments
Director of Public Works
-------
TABLE 1 , .
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATEv;
ABF/ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PLANT
VIII-17
Item
Bond and Insurance
Move-In and Temporary Facilities
Influent Pump Station
Screening and Shredding Structure
Aerated Grit Chamber
Aeration Basins
Secondary Clarifiers
Flow Measurement
Chlorine Contact Chambers
Filter Pump Station
Solids Handling Building
Sludge Drying Beds
Primary Anaerobic Digestion
Chlorine Building
Administration Building
Filter Tower
Electrical
Yard Work
Miscellaneous Structures
Primary Clarifiers
Upgrade Secondary Digester
Subtotal
Plus 35 Percent
(b)
Treatment Subtotal
Outfall
35% contingency
Outfall Subtotal
Land (25 acres)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
24
230
194
44
63
196
160
22
40
40
495
61
263
89
100
145
235
370
123
196
60
,000
,000
,000
,500
,000
,000
,000
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,000
,000
,100
,000
,000
,000
, OOP
$3,151,600
1 ,103,100
$4,254,700
$ 24,000
$ __ 8,000
$ 32,000
$ 50,000
$4,336,700
^
Estimated ENR Construction Cost Index = 2,400
Contingencies, Legal, /idministration, and Engineering
-------
VIII-18
TABLE 2
ABF/ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EXISTING PLANT MODIFICATIONS
DESIGN FACTORS
Item
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
No . of Pumps
Type
Capacity, Each
SCREENING & SHREDDING
No. of Comminutors
Type
Size
Equipment
Required
3
Centr .
2 @ 1.75
1 @ 0.75
1
Worthington
15"
Existing
Equipment
Available
1
0.72 mgd
New
Equipment
Needed
2
1.75 mgd
1
Worthington
15"
GRIT CHAMBERS
No. of Units
Type
Capacity, Each
Grit Pumps
Classifier
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
Ho. of Units
Size
SKD
Mechanism Type
2
Aerated
1.2
2
1
2 1
45' 0 45' 0
10 8
Plow Plow
Design Detention
Time, Hr. 1.78
Design, Overflow
Rate with 1 Unit
Down 1,010
Peak Overflow Rate 800
1.42
1,000
Asrated
1.2
2
1
2
45'
10
Plow
1.78
1,010
800
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
VIII-19
Item
ABF TOWER PUMP STATION
No. of Pumps
Type
Capacity of Each
Equipment
Required
3
Centr.
2 @ 3.4 mgd
1 @ 1.7 mgd
Existing
Equipment
Available
New
Equipment
Needed
3
Centr.
2 @ 3.4 mgd
1 @ 1.7 mgd
ABF TOWER
No. of Units
Size
Depth of Media
Media Type
Media Volume
BOD Loading
lb/1,000 cf/d
AERATION BASINS
No. of Units
Volume - Cu. Ft.
- Gallon
Dike Inside Slope
Lining
Detention Time
BOD Loading
(lb/1,000 cf/d)
Basin Dim. @ Wall
SWD
Basin Depth
No. of Aerators
Size
Type
Total
Power Level
(hp/mg)
Freeboard
1
40' 0
21
Redwood
24,100
150
2
40,000
300,000
2:1
Cone.
9 Hrs.
68
88 x 53
12
16
4
25 hp
2 sp. slow
100
167
4'
32' 0
Plastic
17,300
210
40' 0
21
Redwood
24,100
150
2
40,000
300,000
2:1
Cone.
9 Hrs.
68
88 x 53
12
16
4
25 hp
2 sp. slow
100
167
4'
-------
VIII-20
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Item
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
No. of Units
Size
SWD
Equipment
Required
2
40' 0
11
Existing
Equipment
Available
New
Equipment
Needed
2
40' 0
11
Design Overflow
Rate 640
(gal/sf/d)
Design Solids
Loading Rate
(Ib/sf/d) 25
FLOW MEASUREMENT STRUCTURE
No. of Units
Type
Size
Method of
Me as.
Parshall Flume
0'-9"
Ultrasonic
Probe
640
25
Parshall Flume
9"
Ultrasonic
Probe
CHLORINE CONTACT CHANNELS
No. of Units
Size
Side Slopes
Volume - Cu. Ft.
- Gallons
Design Detention
Time
24 x 24 x 8
4,600
34,400
1 Hr.
24 x 24 x 8
4,600
34,400
1 Hr.
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
No. RSS Pumps
Capacity Each
Total
Type
No. WSS Pumps
Capacity Each
Total
Type
3
555 gpm
1,665 gpm
Centr .
2
135 gpm
270 gpm
Centr.
3
555 gpm
1,665 gpm
Centr.
2
135 gpm
270 gpm
Centr.
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
VIII-21
Item
No. PS Pumps
Capacity Each
Total
Type
No. Centrifuges
Capacity Each
Total
Type
RSS Flow Measure-
ment
Size
WASS Flow Measure-
ment
Size
No.
Equipment
Required
2
55 gpm
110 gpm
Pos. Displ.
2
50 gpm
100 gpm
Basket
Parshall Flume
9"
Mag Flow Meter
6"0
4
Existing
Equipment
Available
New
Equipment
Needed
2
55 gpm
110 gpm
Pos. Displ.
2
50 gpm
100 gpm
Basket
Parshall Flume
9"
Mag Flow Meter
6"0
4
PRIMARY DIGESTERS
No. of Units
Size
SWD
Volume - Cu. Ft.
- Gallons
Design Detention
Time
No. of Mixers
Type
Size
Head Exch.
Recycle Pumps
No. Sludge Transfer
Pumps
Capacity Each
Total
Type
2
45' 0
25
71,500
534,800
20 days
2
Gas
10,835 cu. ft./d.
3
3
2
30 gpm
60 gpm
Pos. Displ.
2
45' 0
25 SWD
71,500
534,800
20 days
2
Gas
10,835 cu.
3
3
2
30 gpm
60 gpm
Pos. Displ.
-------
VIII-22
TABLE 2 (cont.)
Item
Equipment
Required
Existing
Equipment
Available
New
Equipment
Needed
No. Sludge Recirc.
Pumps
Capacity Each
Total
Type
SECONDARY DIGESTER
No. of Units
Size
SWD
Volume - cu. ft.
- gallons
Design Detention
Time
No. Digested
Sludge Pumps
Capacity Each
Total
Type
Scum Pump
No.
2
60 gpm
120 gpm
Centr.
1
40' 0
20'
25,120
183,000
11 days
2
60 gpm
120 gpm
Pos. Displ.
1
40' 0
20'
25,120
188,000
11 days
2
60 gpm
120 gpm
Centr.
2
60 gpm
120 gpm
Pos. Displ.
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
No.
Size Each
Total
Loading Rate
35
100 x 18
63,000 SP
20 Ib/SF/yr
100 x 18
5,400
20 Ib/SF/yr
35
100 x 18
57,600
20 Ib/SF/yr
-------
\ A -INFLUENT
\ *\ PUMP STA.
SECONDARY
CLARIFIES
NO.2
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
NO. J
^->l
FLOUT
MEASUREMENT
1
I
AERATION
BASIN
.NO.2
N
AERATION
BASIN
NO. 1
SCREENING*
SHREDDING
GRIT
CHAMBER
PUMP STA.J
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
NO.2
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
NO. 1
ABF
TOWER
PUMP STi\.
ADMINISTRATION
SOLIDS
HANDLING
BUILDING
FIGURE 1
UPGRADING EXISTING PLANT
i
ro
OJ
JEROME, IDAHO
CH2MI
SSHILLi
DASH5D LINES INDICATE EXISTING STRUCTURES
-------
VIII-24
Response to Comments from CH 2 M/Hill
1. The following correction has been incorporated into the
Final EIS: A new activated sludge plant would be located on the
Near-West Site immediately to the northwest of the existing plant
site and across from the "J" Canal.
2. The Alternative 8 included in this Final EIS is the most
cost-effective alternative of the three existing plant upgrade al-
ternatives evaluated in the Addendum to the Wastewater Facilities
Plan, City of Jerome, Idaho, as prepared by CH-M/Hill, December,
1976. All alternatives discussed in this Final EIS were engineer-
ed and costed, based upon the State of Idaho Reliability Class II
Treatment Requirements. The present worth cost of Alternative 8
is estimated by CH^M/Hill in the Facilities Plan Addendum at
$5,539,000.
3. The names that are listed in the Summary of the EIS are
those of interested individuals who returned the questionnaires
distributed at the public information meeting held in Jerome on
May 26, 1976 or who contacted EPA directly regarding the proposed
project. These persons were the nucleus of the local citizen mail-
ing list for distribution of the Draft EIS. In addition, the Draft
was placed in the Jerome Civic Club Memorial Library and was avail-
able for review. Copies were mailed to all who requested them, and
those who requested the Draft will receive copies of the Final EIS.
4. We concur with your comment and we have made the correc-
tion in this Final EIS.
5. We concur with your comment and we have made the correc-
tion in this Final EIS.
6. Comment noted.
7. The Alternative 8 originally included in the draft has
been replaced (see response to comment #2 above).
8. The rankings in this Final EIS have been adjusted to re-
flect the engineering changes made in the Addendum to the Facili-
ties Plan. The cost-effect ranking of Alternative 8 included in
the Final EIS is third most cost-effective (see response to com-
ment #2 above).
9. The approximate monthly service charge rate for Alterna-
tive 8 is $5.00 (see response to comment #2 above).
-------
VIII-25
10. We concur and the correction has been made.
11. This table and the cost within have been replaced with
a table from the Addendum to the Facilities Plan (see response to
comment #2 above).
12. See response to comment #11 above.
13. These values have been corrected using information from
the Addendum to the Facilities Plan (see response to comment #2
above).
14. We concur. See Appendix A.
15. Comment noted.
16. We can find no error.
17. The construction time phasing of interceptors affects
the potential for mitigation of land use impacts, as described in
the "Land Use" discussion in Section III, "Environmental Impacts".
18. We concur with your statement.
19. Comment noted.
20. This section of the report has been updated using infor-
mation from the Addendum to the Facilities Plan.
21. Comment noted.
22. We concur with your statement.
23. See response to comment #21.
24. Aesthetics were evaluated from views outside the plant
site, such as from residences, automobiles and from other public
use areas.
25. These adjustments have been made in accordance with the
Addendum to the Facilities Plan (see response to comment #2).
-------
VIII-26
26. The final rankings are as follows:
Final Cost Environmental Legal
Alternative Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
4 1st 21 1
8 2nd(a) 42 1
2 3rd 3 3 1
6 4th 4 4 1
5 5th 5 5 1
3 6th 66 1
7 7th 7 8 1
1 8th 1 7 8
Tal
Because the cost differences between Alternatives 2, 4 and
8 were less than 10$ and the difference in environmental
ranking score was greater than 10$, emphasis was placed on
the environmental ranking.
27. The only difference in legal rankings on the Final EIS
is that Alternative 1 does not meet the Federal Regulations for
Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments, or State laws regulating the discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
28. These adjustments have been made in accordance with the
Addendum to the Facilities Plan (see response to comment #2 above),
29. Comment noted.
30. The possibility of Ida-Gem Dairy closure and subsequent
reduced wastewater load to the treatment plant is discussed in the
Preface of this EIS.
-------
VIII-27
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
September 9, 1976
Mr. Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
Region X \\\\ iQ7a
U.S. Environmental Protection u^-» Cj£pl,Gl3'0
Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Dubois:
This is in response to your request of August 9, 1976 for comments
on the draft environmental statement (DBS) for the Wastewater
Facilities Project, Jerome, Idaho.
We note from our review of the DES that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), in consultation with the Idaho State Historical
Society, has determined that should alternatives 1, 2, 4, or 8 be
selected, the proposed undertaking would not affect properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places,
We note that additional cultural resource studies would be necessary
should alternatives 3, 5, 6, or 7 be selected. Accordingly, we wish
to remind EPA that should alternatives 3, 5, 6, or 7 be selected and
it is subsequently determined the undertaking will affect cultural
resources included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, it must afford the Advisory Council an opportunity to comment
pursuant to the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800).
In addition, the final environmental statement for this project should
contain the comments of the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer
who is Dr. Merle W. Wells, Idaho Historical Society, 610 North Julia
Davis Drive, Boise, Idaho 83706.
Should you have questions or require assistance, please contact Brit
Allan Storey of the Advisory Council staff at P. 0. Box 25085, Denver,
The Council is an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the federal Government charged by the Act of
October 15, 1966 to advise the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.
-------
VIII-28
Page 2
September 9, 1976
Mr. Donald P. Dubois
Wastewater Facilities Project
Colorado 80225, or (FTS) 234-4946.
Sincerely yours',
Louis S. Wall
Assistant Director, Office
of Review and Compliance
-------
VJII-29
Response to Comments from Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1. We concur (see Appendix A).
-------
VIII-30
September 16, 1976
Environmental Impact RECEIVED
Section, U.S. EPA, 1200 c "-390
Sixth Avenue '£' <>"
Seattle, Washington 9&101
Gentlemen:
I am deeply concerned over the fact that a handfull
of people can defer or affect the entire decision of EPA
or any other group of Federal or State officials. Especially,
for so long a period of time and to the point that it is
costing the tax payers of this city or any other area con-
siderable sums of money and loss of valuble time, when time
is of an essence, as is in the case of rebuilding a new
sewer plant here in the city of Jerome.
It seems there is no doubt that the best place for the
new sewer site is southwest of the City. Not only for the
present time but more so in the future, if Jerome keeps
growing and expanding the way it has the past five years
and if we want industry to continue to come into our
community.
One of the most important factors, seemingly, over-
looked by EPA officials, especially, at a time when great
emphasis is being placed upon the country's energy shortage
is the great amount of energy which will be unnecessarily
used to operate these expensive lift stations to carry the
city's efflueient to the present site compared to the amount
of energy required where gravity flow is present.
What is wrong with our democracy when the minority
wins over the majority? I seem to recall not too many years
back when it was the other way around. (How things does
change).
It seems according to EPA reports there will be no
visible odors, noise or unsightness. So what is really
the complaint of this handfull of people about or against
this purposed plant site? What are they trying to prove?
When the livelihood of so many people is at stake. Lets
say there will be some of the not so pleasent undesireables
mentioned above in this paragraph. It would certainly affect
far less residents at the proposed new site than at the
present location. (Not to Mention the heart of the city).
Possibly some of my views are a little selfish, since
I live Norhtwest of town not to far from the present site.
But I say, regardless of me, you or any other individual,
the most important factor or thing is the City itself.
-------
VIII-31
What is best for the City, not just for the present but
for many years to come. After all this plant is going
to cost city tax payers a lot of hard earned tax dollars,
so why build or upgrade something that will not take care
of the City's needs for a long time.
It seems the following factors should rule over some-
ones desires or whims:
1. What is best for the City as a whole.
2. Which location would better serve the city
and surrounding community.
3. Which location will better serve the present
industries as well as invite and attract new
industry and developments.
4. Which location will cost tax payers less money
to maintain and operate after its initial con-
struction cost.
5. Which location will take less of our precious
energy.
6. How far do we project into the future.
7. Do we want this same problem to face us or
our children within the next 15 or 20 years.
These are just a few of the facts which should be considered
before any decision is made as to which avenue to take and
it seems the answer is quite clear and has been proven, by
the city's private engineering firm, CH2M of Boise.
EPA, Friend or Foe, is any-bodys guess. What started
out intentionally to be a good thing and a guide line for
rules and regulations has turned out to be a monster. If
we, the people don't fight it while there still is a chance
we will all be devoured by it's regulations, unfair demands
and pressures. They tell us what to do. How to do it. Where
and when and if that's not enough, they even pull our purse
strings. I call that digging hard and deep into our rights
as a citizen as well as into our pockets. That hurts most
of us, don't you think.
Very truly yours,
f^ -
Bernice
cc. Jerome City Council
Mayor Hancock
-------
VIII-32
Response to Comments from Bernice Johnson
We understand your concern with delay in improving
Jerome's Sewage Treatment System; however, certain procedures
are required to satisfy environmental laws. The City of Jerome
has applied for grant assistance for construction of Jerome's
Sewage Treatment Plant, as authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This grant would
provide 75% of funds needed for eligible costs of planning,
design and construction of Jerome's sewage treatment plant.
However, EPA regulations and the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) where projects may significantly affect
the quality of the human environment. Upon review of Jerome's
proposed Wastewater Facilities Plan, EPA determined that an
EIS was needed to satisfy NEPA and EPA regulations because of
the expected growth in the area, the subsequent effect of this
growth on agricultural or undeveloped land, and the concern of
potential conversion of agricultural land to use as a site for
the treatment facility.
Regarding energy consumption, the alternatives at the
Far-West Site will ultimately require two pump stations and the
alternatives at the Near-West Site four pump stations. All the
alternatives, except the "No Action" Alternative, will do away
with the two existing pump stations in the proximity of Elm
Street.
Appendix C presents a discussion of good operation and
maintenance of sewage treatment plants, which is the key to
prevention of odor problems. The new sewage treatment plant for
Jerome must receive good operation and maintenance to avoid odor
nuisance. Buffering and landscaping will reduce noise and
improve aesthetics of the site area.
-------
VIII-33
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE
'°b'*1"o"1*** SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
September 22, 1976
REGION X IN REPLY REFER TO:
Office of Community
Planning & Development RECEIVED
^P ;j4 rj/b
EPA-r-
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Facilities
Jerome, Idaho
We have reviewed the statement submitted with your August 9, 1976
letter.
The proposed action is to provide an adequate wastewater treatment
and disposal program for the city of Jerome, Idaho.
We do not believe the proposed program would adversely affect areas
of our concern. Any program selected should be in conformance with
the city's comprehensive plan so that other facilities are also planned
for to meet the growth potential. Perhaps the re-evaluation of the
Jerome County comprehensive plan should be completed prior to final
selection of a program. We defer to the agencies to comment on areas
not within our expertise.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
S
Robert C.
Assistant Regional Administrator
AREA OFFICES
PORTLAND, OREGON. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Insuring Offices
Anchorage, Alaska * Boise, Idaho Spokane, Washington
-------
VIII-34
Response to Comments from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
1. We concur that the Facilities Plan should be in confer-
mance with both the City's and County's Comprehensive Land Use
Plans.
-------
VIII-35
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
September 27, 1976
ER-76/785
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
This in in response to your request that the Department of the Interior
review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for City
of Jerome Wastewater Facilities Project, Jerome County, Idaho.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The statement expresses considerable concern over impacts of the various
alternatives on ground water. However, there is no analysis of exfiltra-
tion in the existing or proposed systems. Possibly the depth to water
is sufficiently great (p. 1-3) that infiltration is no problem, unless
perched water is encountered. Because of the nature of the basaltic
aquiferexcept in areas of very deep organic soilthere is potential
for quick access of pollutants to the ground water reservoir. Since much
of the area has only thin soilstoo thin for proper functioning of sep-
tic tanksanalysis of exfiltration seems especially appropriate (p. III-34J
The statement does not indicate compliance with section 106 of the Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act or Executive Order 11593, "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment." To comply, it is necessary to
consult the "National Register of Historic Places" and the Idaho State
Historic Preservation Officer for information on historic properties with-
in the project zone. This information should be included in the statement.
If possible, the Final Environmental Statement should contain an explana-
tion of any new developments regarding conflicts between alternatives and
the County Zoning Plan. Perhaps it should be pointed out what the advan-
tages are, if any, of Alternative #2, since it currently is recommended
by the city of Jerome.
-------
VIII-36
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 1-18 and 1-19 The historical properties listed should be evaluated I a.
for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. If they are eligible, |
they should be nominated.
Page II-9, Alternative 3 This alternative may be undesirable if it I 5*
could diminish the esthetic values of the Snake River Canyon. I
Page 11-13, next-to-last paragraph A sand and gravel excavation site oc-
curs southeast of the 35-acre parcel recommended under this alternative for
expanding the existing plant site. The sand and gravel pit and other mineral
operations will not be adversely affected by this project.
Page 111-34, last paragraph More specific criteria as to the depth and I *
type of soil that would be required should be included in the statement. |
Page 111-38, Figure III-4 Considering its "worst" rating for "land use",
perhaps the time-phasing of construction, or the service area for each phase,
should be reassessed for Alternative #2, if it is selected.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.
Sincerelv-iyours,
Charles T. Hoyt
Special Assistant to the Secretary
-2-
-------
VIII-37
Response to Comments from U.S. Department of Interior
1. All new construction of grant eligible sewer lines will
be tested to make sure that infiltration (measured as exfiltra-
tion) will not exceed the Federal and State standards of 200 gal-
lons per inch of diameter and mile of length in one day. While
the Facilities Plan and Inflow and Infiltration (I and I) Analysis
was completed on all existing sewers, no I and I problems were
identified.
2. See Appendix A.
3. See Appendix A.
4. We concur. However, nomination of such properties is
properly outside of the scope of an EIS.
5. We concur.
6. Comment noted.
7. Alternative 7 has been eliminated as a cost-effective
alternative. Thus, further analysis of this alternative would not
be cost-effective.
8. Comment noted.
-------
VIII-38
CECIL D ANQRUS, Governor
COMMISSION
ROBERT G THOMAS, Coeur d'Aiene
PAUL C KEETON, Uewislon
JOHN EATON, Cascade
JACK HEMINGWAY, Sun Valley
H JACK ALVORD, Pocatelfo
IDAHO FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
Region 4
868 East Main Street
P.O. Box 428
Jerome, Idaho 83338
324-4350
JOSEPH C GREENLEY
Director
POST OFFICE BOX 25
600 SOUTH WALNUT STREET
BOISE, IDAHO 83707
October 1, 1976
RECEIVED
OCT 41976
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: Draft EIS for the proposed City of Jerome Waste Water Treatment Plant
Gentlemen:
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft EIS for the City of
Jerome Wastewater Facilities project and offers the following comments:
1. Page 1-10, Fish and Wildlife. Paragraph 1, Line 5. We suggest
changing "partridge" to Hungarian partridge and "mallard ducks" to
several species of ducks.
2. Page 1-10, Fish and Wildlife, Paragraph 1. Considerable numbers
of waterfowl species nest and raise their broods in and adjacent to
the many canal systems in the area. These include mallards, teal,
pintails, widgeons, shovelers, scaup, coots, sora rails, common snipe
and others. A variety of shore birds also use the canals for nesting
and feeding.
3. Page 1-10, Fish and Wildlife. Paragraph 2, Line 7. "Chuckers"
should be chukars.
4. Page 1-10, Fish and Wildlife, Paragraph 3, Line 1-2. The first
two sentences in the third paragraph read as follows: "Due to the
lack of surface flow or streams, the only nearby fishery is in the
Snake River. Rainbow trout are taken in addition to bottom fish such
as channel catfish, carp, chiselmouth and bridge-lip sucker." We
recommend these sentences be changed to read as follows: "Due to the
shortage of streams in the area, the most important nearby fishery is
-------
VIII-39
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 1, 1976
Page 2
in the main Snake River. Game fish found in this section of the
Snake River include rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brown trout,
whitefish, largemouth and smallmouth bass, channel catfish, bullhead
catfish, bluegill, yellow perch and white sturgeon."
5. We anticipate no significant detrimental impact on wildlife
values associated with either of the eight alternatives. Alternative
8, given a Final Ranking, Cost Ranking, Environmental Ranking and
Legal Ranking of "one" would have very little, if any, adverse impact
on wildlife.
6. For whichever Alternative is finally selected, it is recommended
the project area or areas be landscaped with buffer zones to provide
a diversity of vegetative types and ecologic niches for wildlife
species.
Sincerely,
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Joseph C. Greenley, Director
William E. Webb
Region 4 Supervisor
WEWrpkk
cc: Environmental Services
-------
VIII-40
Response to Comments from Idaho Department of Fish and Game
1. The suggested corrections in comments 1-4 were incorpor-
ated into the text of Section I.
2. We concur.
3. We concur.
-------
VIII-41
Jerome, Idaho
September 29, 1976
Mrs. Norma Young,
Environmental Imoact Section
EPA,
Seattle, Washington
Dear Frs. Young,
Our farm property is located West of Jerome, North and West of the Floss farm
where the initial draft by CH2M engineers proposed a sewer system to serve the
city of Jerome, the discharge to be sprinkled on farm land in that area.
We have opposed, and still oppose, any plan to move the sewer from its present
location to the agricultural area, for divers reasons, many of them expressed
through petitions over the months past.
We are particularly distressed by the manner in which the City of Jerome has
used the canal system. More than once sewage has been dumped into the system
during the summer months to cause much concern and even hamper irrigation
operations; also, down through the years youngsters have swam in the canals,
or floated in them with the aid of innertubes. Last winter our children came
home after "skating" on the canal, displaying evidence of the content of the
frozen material on which they had been skating. The health hazard aspect
of using the canal system for sewage discharge is one which should be given
consideration.
We believe the city would avoid future controversy with the rural segment
if the plant is built in the area of its present location, with discharge
piped to the canyon, or other untenable area as a protection to both city
and country dwellers.
Sincerely,
i £"C.'C»^~W1 x^.X-t-'l
Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Mutsch
RECEIVED
-------
VIII-42
Jerome, Idaho
Sept. 29, 1976
STATEMENT CONCERNING JEROME SEWER PR OJECT
We wish to express our sincere thanks for the EIS, and for the con-
sideration shown us at the hearing held September 16th. We appreciate the
time and effort you have spent on this.
Since we have heretofore expressed to you our concerns, we wish to
reaffirm the positions taken in opposition to any plan which would necessi-
tate moving the Jerome sewer system into '}>'- H^ricul tiavil urea.
We feel the freeway should be kept as the dividing line between
urban growth and the agricultural community* thus making a more attractive
approach to Jerome for those using the freeway.
Respectfully submitte
Mr. and Mrs. Laurel Ploss
RECEIVED
CCT 41976
-------
VIII-43
Jerome, Idaho
Route 2,
September 28, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
Attention: Mrs. Norma Young
Dear Mrs. Young,
Since the controversy over the Jerome sewer developed almost two years ago,
we have signed numerous petitions and letters in an effort to express dis-
approval of any plans on the part of the City of Jerome to locate its proposed
new sewer in the agricultural area Southwest of Jerome. We reassert our
position in such opposition, believing a site at the present location or
immediately adjacent thereto, will adequately serve the city.
The EIS you recently released was in most instances a vindication of the
position taken by the rural community. Once last summer, and again
this summer, sewage has been dumped into the canals serving our area,
and we believe the health of livestock and youngsters using the canals
for swimming and floating, etc., may be endangered. The city has shown
no inclination to protect the rural community in this respect, and we
therefore believe, since the city is reluctant to give us or the North
Side Canal Company, any guarantees of any kind, that future plans should
be to build a system East of the freeway, and pump the discharge to the
canyon as it is done in some places.
Yours truly,
Mr. and Mrs. Bill Morgan
RECEIVED
COT 419
-------
VIII-44
Route 3,
Jerome, Idaho
September 29, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Impact Section,
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
Gentlement
Since the September 16th hearing on the EIS came at a time it was impossible for
us to attend, we submit this statement. Like most of our neighbors, the harvest
season is upon us. We live in the area 5 miles South and 1 1/2 miles West of
Jerome, and operate a 200 acre farm there. There are two sets of good improve-
ments on our property. Some of the land is irrigated with surface irrigation,
some of it by sprinkler.
We wish to express opposition to any plan to move the Jerome city sewage system
to the agricultural area, Southwest of town, as has been proposed. Let those
who use the sewer system take any chances as to its future operation.
Since the City has taken a rank advantage in recent months, through dumping of
sewage into the canals serving the area Southwest of town, we believe any future
difficulties may be avoided if the city builds whatever is needed at or near the
present plant, and pipes its sewage to the canyon, or some desert area, as it is
done in many areas.
Respectfully,
DALTON FARMS
RECEIVED
-------
VIII-45
Jerome, Idaho
Route 2
September 29, 1976
To tfte Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
STATEMENT INTENDED FOR EIS HEARING
We are owners of an eighty acre farm almost directly. South of the Overman
property on which the City of Jerome holds an option to build its proposed sewer
system in the rural area Southwes t of the City. There is a fine old home, built
of native rock, one of the first so constructed at the time the tract was opened,
located on our property.
We believe any plan being submitted to the EPA by the City of Jerome should
respect the wishes of the agricultural community in opposing any type of in-
stallation in the rural area West of the freeway.
The canal system serving the farming community has long been used by the city
as a means of disposing of sewage, supposedly adequately treated. However, in
recent months there has been much complaint by canal company stockholders, both
during the irrigation season and during winter months when stock might be ad-
versely affected because of the type of discharge being put into the canals;
certainly it is hazardous*
May toe go on record in opposition to any plan to locate the sewer in the
agricultural sector. Anything the city could build in the area Southwest of
town in the agricultural commimity could be built in the area of the present plant*
It would be in the best interests of those using the system, as well as those
whose who make no use of the system and whose rights might be jeopardized*
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. and Mrs. Gorman Miracle
RECEIVED
COT 4ii,/
r~ - '
-------
VIII-46
R. 2, Box 116,
Jerome, Idaho 83338
Sept. 28, 1976
To Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, Washington STATEtffiNT
Except for a period of 25 years spent in Boise and Emmett, Idaho, we have been native
to the Jerome area since the late 1920*s. In 1965 we resettled in Jerome to "retire,"
after purchasing an 80 acre farm Southwest of town, on which is situate one of the
first homes built on the tract (1917), which we renovated, and have owned with pride.
Before purchasing, we had the well tested, since both of us were suffering from arth-
ritis, brought on by a whiplash injury, and doctors recommended a source of p ure
drinking water* We have a fine deep well, periodically tested, and maintain a good
septic tank system for disposal of our sewage. It operates efficiently, necessitating
only one call for a septic tank pump during an 11 year period. We pay for our own
maintenance of pump and sewer disposal system. We paid a premium price for our farm;
rural property in the proximity of the existing sewer system could have been purchased
at a much lower figure.
Since late November, 1974, when we first became aware of plans to move the city sewer
system to the rural area, in ovr vkhuty, we have consistently expressed opposition,
believing whatever plan of sewer was devised for the city should be located in the
area of the existing plant, or immediately adjacent thereto, on property East of the
freeway. We still maintain that position.
Initially, since the canals of the North Side Canal Company in the southwest area had
accommodated the effluent from the city sewer, we were not averse to a continuance of
this procedure, providing both the Canal Company and rural residents through whose
properties the canals run, be given adequate guarantees by the city of Jerome as to
contamination of vwlls or groundwater, odors, aesthetics, property develaation, etc.
We have been repeatedly bold by city officials that such guarantees could not be given
us by said City. Since we feel there has been considerable abuse of the canal system
since this controversy began in 1974, we now believe that to avert any further diffi-
culties, the interests of both city and country dwellers would best be served by
building whatever is necessary to serve the City of Jerome in the area of the exist-
ing plant, with the effluent to be piped to the canyon through a route running as
nearly directly South of the plant as possible.
We strongly oppose any type of installation which would place the sewer in the rural
area West of the freeway; or an$ other location infringing on the rights of the
agricultural community which is not served by such system.
Mr. and Mrs. D*vid L. Hendry
RECEIVED
POT '1 V37G
F.PA-n-
-------
VIII-47
September 28, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attn: Ms. Norraa Young, Project Manager
Re: City of Jerome Wastewater Facilities Project,
Jerome County, Idaho
Dear Ms. Young:
With reference to the above matter, we wish
to state that we are of the opinion that the City
of Jerome's new wastewater facility should either be
constructed at the existing site or else the present
facility upgraded.
Will you please mail us a copy of your final
EIS?
Thank you, //~) ;
Claude R. and Leona Norman
Route # 2
Jerome, Idaho 83338
RECEIVED
r:;T 41376
rp1 .
-------
VIII-48
September 29, 1976
RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443 - '^ '' i: '"'
Environmental Protection Agency .
1200 Sixth Avenue r
Seattle, Washington 98101
Re: City of Jerome Wastewater
ATTN: Ms. Norma Young, Project Manager Facilities Project,
Jerome County, Idaho
Dear Ms. Young:
With reference to the above-entitled matter, we wish to once
again state our views.
We feel that the City of Jerome should either re-build the sewer
facility at the present site, and, in the event additional land is
needed, this land is available immediately adjacent to the present site.
This site can not be so far out of place as the City Council seems to
feel, as it wasn't many years ago that the sewer facility was built at
the present "bcation, and, several years ago, it was "upgraded" (this
upgrading, incidentally, is still being paid for, as I know you are aware
of, and will not be paid off till the year 1989). At any rate, this site
was felt at that time to be adequate by the City's engineers and, if was
an adequate site at that time, why isn't it considered adequate now?
The City of Jerome has not grown rapidly since the upgrading of
the present system, and with Ida-Gem Dairymen creamery closing down, its
needs will not be considered with respect to the amount of effluent being
discharged into the system, not to mention the fact that there will pro-
bably be many families moving from Jerome to gain employment at other
creameries.
With respect to the comments at the last meeting concerning this
project here in Jerome, we feel sympathy for the people who have homes
in the Northwest section of town, as it certainly is undesirable to live
so close to a sewer facility, and we are certain that their property values
have been adversely affected, in fact, I know this to be true, as I am
a licensed realtor and can speak from experience. HOWEVER, when these
people purchased their homes they surely must have realized that they
were purchasing near the sewer facility, or perhaps the fact that they
paid a depressed price for their property for that very reason was motive
enough for them to "overlook" the sewer and its undesirable qualities.
Now, they seem to think it should be moved so their property values will
increase.
We realize that this letter does not sound businesslike, and coldly
factual, which is what you probably expected, but, forgive us, as we
don't feel "coldly factual and businesslike" on this matter. We purchased
-------
VIII-49
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443 September 29, 1976
ATTN: Ms. Norma Young
Page Two
our little farm nineteen years ago, after looking at various farms and
locations for quite a few years. At the time we purchased our farm, we
did not purchase near a sewer, and would not have purchased near a
sewer had there been a sewer facility One-half mile from our farm. Con-
sequently, we paid a substantial price for our farm, as it was a nice
little place and the location (which means a great deal in the event of
re-sale), was desirable. We have worked hard all these years to improve
and make our payments and now, due to the increase in property values,
we feel that we really have made a good investment and all the years of
work and worry have begun to pay off, and we have planned on having a
good, desirable piece of property as security for our old age. However,
if the sewer is one-half mile from our farm, we know the property will
decrease considerably in value.
We speak not only for ourselves, but for our neighbors, who will
likewise suffer decreases in their property values. We do not feel this
is fair for the farmers southwest of Jerome to have to pay a price like
this for the townspeople when it is possible for them to have a facility
at the present location.
When the figures were discussed concerning the various locations
and types of facilities, not too much was said about the addition of the
$102,000.00 which it will take to exercise the City's Option with Lloyd
Overmen for his 51 acres, in the event the sewer is located southwest of
town. This additional figure would boost the cost of the new facility
considerably, and, contrary to how so many people think, the government
grant for the sewer facility is merely the people paying this, and I
do mean all us taxpayers.
So far, our wells have been tested and proven pure; however, we
are very concerned about the consequences of perhaps finding in the
future that our water supply has been contaminated. I realize, at this
last meeting, that it was mentioned that the farmers would have recourse
along this line by bringing suit against the City if our wells should
become contaminated. However, having been employed as a legal secretary
for the past few years, I also realize that you have to obtain definite
proof of the source of contamination, and this is sometimes impossible
to prove beyond a doubt as far as the Court is concerned.
The matter of maintenance and operation of the facility is also
of concern. We feel that, since it has only been since early 1970 that
the City upgraded the present facility and now, in their words, it is
"completely shot", and everything needs to be replaced, how can it be
that this facility is in such a terrible condition now? Was it not
properly operated and maintained? We believe that if the City has not
-------
VIII-50
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443 September 29, 1976
ATTN: Ms. Norma Young
Page Three
property operated and maintained this facility when it is located inside
City limits that they will care even less if the sewer is relocated out-
side of town.
As stated at the last meeting, there are times that the water in
our canal runs black, as a result of improper, or lack of, treatment at
the sewer facility. We realize this need of proper treatment only too
well, since it is we, the users of the canal water, who irrigate our crops
and water our livestock with the effluent.
Yes, a sewer facility is needed and since there is adequate space
at the present site or perhaps by purchasing some of the land immediately
adjacent to the present site, this is where the new facility should be
constructed.
As far as the possibility of a subdivision being located at some
time in the future out West of town, and concerning the necessity at that
time of extra lift, or pumping, stations, cannot the land developer install
these stations and charge a fee to the people purchasing in his subdi-
vision to cover the cost of purchasing and maintaining these stations?
I understand that this is the way other developers handle the situation.
Let the persons making the money and the persons using the stations do the
paying.
Thank you so much for reading this lengthy letter. We hope and
pray you will give us your earnest consideration before making your final
decision.
Thank you also for all the help you have been and for conducting
your meeting in a purely impartial manner. This is the first meeting that
the landowners southwest of town have not been somewhat ostracized, and we
do appreciate it.
Will you please mail us your final EIS? Also, if we can be of any
help to you please let us know.
Yours very truly,
James R. Prunty and
Carmen G. Prunty
Route # 2 Box 318
Jerome, Idaho 83338
-------
VIII-51
Response to Comments from Interested Citizens:
Mr. & Mrs. Edwin Nutsch; Mr. & Mrs. Laurel Ploss; Mr. & Mrs. Bill Morgan;
Albert M. Dalton; Mr. & Mrs. Gorman Miracle; Mr. & Mrs. David L. Hendry;
Claude R. & Leona Norman; and James R. and Carmen G. Prunty:
We believe your concerns have been satisfied; the Far West site is not
the recommended alternative.
-------
RECEIVED
VLwkey, Joknson, Xvanvu, & Stoker ^ 4 19/D
ATTORNEYS AT LAW PPA C.i'^
1292 ADDISON AVENUE EAST
P. O. BOX K
TWIN FALLS. IDAHO 833OI
FREDERICK F. PLANKEY PHONE 734-5 6OO
TERRY LEE JOHNSON October 1,
RUSSELL G. KVANVIG
RANDY J. STOKER
i-ir. Dick Thiel, Chief Environmental Impact Section
i'ls. .Jorwa Young, Project Manager
Jerome, Idaho Environmental Impact Statement
b. a. J'Jnvironmental Protection Agency
;-iU/443"Ke
-------
VIII-53
Mr. Dick Thiel
Ms. Norma Young 2 October 1, ID76
has taught us, it is a very long, expensive and frustrating
alternative to correct by lawsuit, that which should have not
occurred in the first place.
If the facility remains at the existing site, the city
is going to be more likely to make sure that such a new and
updated facility would be maintained properly as compared
to a facility such as alternative 2 which would allow the
city to in effect turn up their nose to any problem that
might occur from lack of proper maintenance.
The primary difficulty from a legal standpoint
with the adoption of alternative 2 is of course, the zoning
issue. The land proposed for the new site is zoned agricul-
tural and there is no city impact zone yet accepted by the
county nor is there a comprehensive plan by the county
which would rezone or propose to rezone that area to include
a waste water system such as that proposed.
There was some speculation at the September 16, 1976
public hearing by the CH2M representative that the county
would go along with the city in seeing that rezoning would be
easily accomplished. It is my understanding from talking
to several people that this is not the case at this time and
there is no indication that the county is going to recommend
it in the future. Therefore, I do not think that the KPA
should -)t much iight on the fact that rezoning might be
changed and that therefore, alternative 2 might become more
advantageous than before. Even if the zoning problem was
removed a.'; an issue, alternative 8 still ranks number 1 over
all of the other alternative from an environmental standpoint.
Perhapo the factor which most strongly Supports
adoption of alternative 3 as opposed to alternative 2 is the
absence of economic land waste if the presently located
facilities are utilized. Alternative 8 requires no additional
or new land for tiie primary facilities. Alternative 2, on the
other hand, requires not only disruption of a new environment
but also diseconomies of land use by abandonment of the existing
site. .vhile the area of land to be used under alternative 2 is
minir.ial in comparison to the total usable land in Jerome County,
there is no good reason for simple exchange of land use of
alternative 2 in the absence of substantial and adverse environ-
mental impacts. Since the £13 draft in analyzing the major
environmental factors places alternative 2 in no better than
second position under any circumstances, there is no valid
reason to further Jisru.pt the above described land economics
with the adoption of alternative 2.
-------
VIII-54
Mr. Dick Thiel
Ms . .Jorma Young 3 October 1, 1976
It appears that the R. W. Beck company has taken
into consideration all factors related to this situation.
Their findings seem to be in the best interests of the
residents of the city of Jerome by providing them with a
facility that will take care of their waste problem.
The statements made at the September 16 public
hearing by the CH2M representative who was hired by the
city and who is not an independent consultant show the
obvious bias of his presentation. He tried to make the
new site alternative the only choice without coming forth
with any substantial reasons why alterantive 8 should not
be the final decision. The conclusion reached by the
CH2M representative that the EPA has not taken sufficient
time to prepare their EIS and that alternative 8 does not
meet water treatment standards required by the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare puzzles us since on page
III - 40 of the UIG it states, "Legal consideration included
Federal and State water quality laws and regulations and
local land use ordinances. EPVs construction grant
regulations require that projects comply with all pertinent
requirements of applicable Federal, State and local environ-
mental laws and regulations.'' It is from such example that
it would appear the CH2M is merely grasping at straws to try
and push the project outside the city limits as I am sure they
were hired to do.
\-!Q appreciate the unbiased approach taken by the
EPA in this controversy and hope that the final Environmental
Impact Statement v;ill recommend a solution which is both
environmentally sound and economically practicable.
Sincerely yours,
FFP.cm
-------
VIII-55
Response to Comments from Plankey, Johnson, Kuanlg & Stoker
1. We concur. See Appendix A for County position.
2. For the County's position regarding land use see Appen-
dix A.
Based on additional information provided in the Addendum
to the Facilities Plan, prepared by CH2M/Hill, December, 1976, Al-
ternative 4 is ranked first environmentally and Alternative 8
second.
-------
VIII-56
STATE OIF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT
AND WELFARE
September 30, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X RECEIVED
1200 Sixth Avenue .
Seattle, Washington 98101 Lol 1 <;
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement F.FV""1
City of Jerome C-16 0179
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the draft EIS concerning the proposed Jerome waste-
water treatment plant and have the following comments:
1. Our department will require the proposed Jerome sewage treatment
plant to meet Reliability Class II requirements. The costs for
all alternatives should be based on a sewage treatment plant
which meets these requirements.
2. On page 1 of Section II it is stated that Idaho's requirement for
winter storage of treated effluent has been eliminated. We feel
that this statement needs further clarification. If the City of
Jerome discharged to the Snake River via a canal during the winter
months, the discharge would have to meet water quality standards.
If the discharge met water quality standards, winter storage would
not be required. However, if the discharge would not meet water
quality standards, winter storage would have to be provided.
3. The fourth paragraph on page III-24 appears to indicate that the
fecal coliform standard for discharging to the "J" canal is
200 MPN/100 ml. However, as indicated in Table III.5, the standard
should be 50 MPN/100 ml.
4. On page III-34, it is indicated that sewage effluent spray irrigated
on land could contain 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml. This is not
correct. While our regulations do not specifically state the number
of fecal coliform bacteria which could be allowed, our department
uses the California spray irrigation regulations as guidelines.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Richard R. Thiel
September 30, 1976
Page Two
The fecal coliform limit in these regulations varies depending upon
the type of cover crop and the use of the land. However, in most
instances, the fecal coliform limit is more stringent than 200 MPN/100 ml.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EIS.
Sincerely ,
LWS/WHR/br
cc: Walt Jaspers, EPA-Seattle
EPA, Idaho Operations Office
David Sanders, IDHW
Wayne Heiskari, IDHW
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
/ WELFARE
Lee W. Stokes, Ph.D., Administrator
Division of Environment
-------
VIII-58
Response to Comments from State of Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
1. This Information has been taken into consideration in
the Addendum to the Facilities prepared by CH^M/Hill, December,
1976. The results of this additional engineering analysis were
analyzed in this Final EIS.
2. Your comments have been incorporated into Section II.
3. We concur that the Standard is 50 MPN/lOOml and have
made the appropriate corrections in the text.
4. We have made corrections so as not to make this inference.
-------
E.I.S. TITLE:
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
-^L Ct'G-tJlL-aAi. -Jt^J^lk^
(Refer to front cover)
What k your opinion of this E.I.S.?
COMMENT
.OUTSTANDING
ABOVE AVERAGE
AVERAGE
LJ BELOW AVERAGE
LJ UNACCEPTABLE
7
<''{).* -/A+^L 'ft
i'-^A. /m^O 0*
0;/^9,1
Whal is your opinion of the value
of this project?
y&l WORTHWHILE
LJ ACCEPTABLE
L_] MARGINAL
LJ UNACCEPTABLE
RECEIVED
AUG1G 1375
EPA-r"-
What {if any) reservation! do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
LJ ALTERNATIVES
LJ LAND USE
I I GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
O ECONOMICS/COSTS
D ENERGY CONSUMPTION
D WATER QUALITY
LJ AIR QUALITY
CD NOISF
D FISH & WILDLIFE
CD GEOLOGY/SOILS
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citiiens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
LJ RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
I I WILD & SCENIC AREA
LJ WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
LJ FLOODPLAINS
LJ AGRICULTURAL LAND
LJ CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
LJ PARKS/RECREATION
D SLUDGE DISPOSAL
OTHER Jf^a^t^ ^n<*j*J-
2nd FOLD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PKNALTY FOH PHIVATY U». UQO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98HH
TAPE/STAPLE HERE
1st FOLD
IF YOU WOULD LUCE A COPY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ON THIS PROJECT. PLEASE fJKW^ YOUR NAME AND ADRESS BELOW
SIGNATURE
(ANONYMOUS COMMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED)
I
cn
vo
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
E.I.S. TITlt: City of Jtrone Ma»t«««t«T Facilities Protect, Jeront County. Idaho
(Refer to front cover)
CT>
O
What it your opinion of this E.I.S.?
RECEIVED
AUG 30 1575
LJU OUTSTANDING
LJ ABOVE AVERAGE
LJ AVERAGE EPA-P"-
I 1 BELOW AVERAGE
LJ UNACCEPTABLL 8/25/76
COMMENT We believe your accoapanytng letter, signed by Donald F. Dubois, sthould
be sent to both the North Side News, Jerome, Idaho, and the Tines-News, Twin Falls,
Idaho, with the request that it be published in its entirety, ao that citizens will
know where they can go to study the EIS in its entirety. To date no reference has been
made in the new* a*dla as to Jerone Civic Club Memorial Library having a copy. Unices
there If publicity as to the Sept. 16th public hearing, the rural comunity, particularly,
will not hear of itt also you Bight send (7"] official notices to Radio
What is your opinion of the value II WORTHWHILE KA8I< jerome, KTFI Green-
... . ,, I I ..rrci-nnai L cree Broadcasting Co., 341
of this pro,ect? LJ ACCEPTABLE M.^, Ave, w.. Iwiti Falls,
I I MARGINAL »"<* to **& Elizabeth Blvd.
at Ea»tlanY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ON THIS PROJECT, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADRESS BELOW
_ Mr. and Mr». David L. Hendry _
_ K. 2, «o* 116, _
83336 -
(ANONYMOUS COMMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED)
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
E.I.S. TITLE: *^
s"1:« t <-<^
c/
front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S.?
. OUTSTANDING
O ABOVE AVERAGE
LJ AVERAGE
CD BELOW AVERAGE
LJ UNACCEPTABLE
RECEIVED
iV'o
2nd FOLD
COMMENT
What is your opinion of the value
of this project?
liSJ WORTHWHILE
LJ ACCEPTABLE
LJ MARGINAL
Cl UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
LJ ALTERNATIVES '
D LAND USE
f~1 GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
[~] ECONOMICS/COSTS
LJ ENERGY CONSUMPTION
LJ WATER QUALITY
LJ AIR QUALITY
LJ NOISE
CD FISH & WILDLIFE
LJ GFOLOGY/SOILS
(This format has boen developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
LJ RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
LJ WILD & SCENIC AREA
D WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
I I FLOODPLAINS
D AGRICULTURAL LAND
f~l CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
l~~! PARKS/RECREATION
L~H SLUDGE DISPOSAL
D OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
120O SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 8BIOI
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USK. «MO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1700 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TAPE/STAPLE HERE
1st FOLD
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ON THIS PROJECT. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADRESS BELOW
Keith
,<-/- 3
63
Jerome /do ho S3 33 9
SIGNATURE
(ANONYMOUS COMMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED)
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
E.I.S. TITLED
I
CTi
ro
(Refer le front cover)
What is your opinion of this E.I.S. ?
CD OUTSTANDING
CD ABOVE AVERAGE
FVl
l/y AVERAGE
CD BELOW AVERAGE
CD UNACCEPTABLE
^COMMENT /T»v /r..re* ±;~i/'A, jf/^.J ;r f?/,.t,y t.'iAWii »1 f, ;,j*< & /.*/£; -
2nd FOLD
Whul is your opinion of the value
of this project?
WORTHWHILE
LJ ACCEPTABLE
Lj MARGINAL
CD UNACCEPTABLE
RECEIVED
I i? 131976
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
I I RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
Q WILD & SCENIC AREA
LJ WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
I I FLOODPLAINS
I I AGRICULTURAL LAND
LZ] ALTERNATIVES
L&J LAND USE
Pffi GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
g ECONOMICS/COSTS
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
I I WATER QUALITY
CD AIR QUALITY
CD NOISE
CD FISH & WILDLIFE
LJ GEOLOGY/SOUS
(This format hat been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
I 1 CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
CD PARKS/RECREATION
d SLUDGE DISPOSAL
CH OTHER _
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
liOO SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981O1
"
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE U0E. «OQ
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TAPE/STAPLE HERE
hi fOLO
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ON THIS PROJECT. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADRESS BELOW
SIGNATURE .
" T'
(ANONYMOUS COMMENTS CANNOT
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
f.l.S. TITLE:
. .
/ /
n
Vrs
(Refer to front cover)
What
of this E.I.S.?
CD OUTSTANDING
D ABOVE AVERAGE
CD AVERAGE
I I BELOW AVERAGE
15] UNACCEPTABLE
Jnd FOLD
COMMENT
ft
^
i Tf / s w / c J
a r- o (.
-------
E.I.S. TITLE: .
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
CITY OF JEROME WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT, JEROME COUNTY,
(Refer to front cover)
3AHO
is your opinion of this E.I.S.? II
Whot is your opinion of this E.I.S.? I I OUTSTANDING
SI ABOVE AVERAGE
LJ AVERAGE
II BELOW AVERAGE
II UNACCEPTABLE
COMMENT O'jr letter is enclosed.
RECEIVED
What is your opinion of the value
of this project?
1 I WORTHWHILE
L& ACCEPTABLE
[_] MAI1GINAI
i_J UNACCEPTABLE
What (if any) reservations do you have about the impacts of this project?
(Please check where appropriate)
I I RARE & ENDANGERED SPECIES
[ I WHO 8, SCENIC AREA
LJ WETLANDS/ESTUARIES
( I FLOODPLAINS
pS AGRICULTURAL LAND
PI CULTURAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
CD PADKS/RECREATION
CD SLUDGE D'SPOSAL
I I OTHER ,
PLI ALTERNATIVES
H LAND USE
I3(] GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
L\1 ECONOMICS/COSTS
I I ENERGY CONSUMPTION
S WATER QUALITY
nC{ AIR QUALITY
CD NOISE
I I EISH S> WILDLIFE
LJ GEOLOGY/SOILS _____ ^_
(This format has been developed to facilitate the submission and evaluation of
comments by interested citizens. Anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
Use/enclose additional pages if necessary.)
FOLD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
12OO SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9BIO<
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PKNALTV FO* PRIVATE USE. SaaO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION M/S 443 ^
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^'
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98105
TAPE/STAPLE HERE
1st FOLD
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ON TH'S PROJECT. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND AORFSS BELOW
Mr. and Mrs. Janes R. Prunty
Route t ? Box 318
Jerome, Idaho 8333B
SIGNATURE .
(ANONYMOUS COMMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED
-------
9/17
Public Hearing Testimony
Speakers
B. Roy Prescott
Charles Hancock
Glenn Richter
Weldon Weiqle
John E. Miller
Marshall Everheart
Mrs. Marjorie Titus
Mrs. Veronica Lierman
Will iam A. Kersey
Laurel D. Ploss
Mrs. Laurel D. Ploss
Forrest P. Hymas
Bill Priest
A petition bearing 117 signatures
supporting the location of Jerome's new
treatment facility at the site southwest
of the City was received by EPA at the
Public Hearing and made part of the
official record.
0>
in
Z3
T3
c
ro
1
X
X
X
X
X
,
+J
r
I
-Q
(O
i
01
C£
i i
K- 1
in
in
re
c3
X
X
X
Pump Stations '
X
X
X
X
X
4->
3
O
1
>,
ro
4J
C
ro
rx
X
Treatment Process
X
X
X
>,
en
S-
Ol
c
LlJ
X
X
1
O)
in
0
X
X
X
en
c
1
.^
c
(O
CC
sz
o
S-
>
c
LU
X
01
+j
to
^
c
ro
51
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-t->
c
ro
o3
C
O
+J
ro
i.
01
Q.
O
X
X
X
X
£>
i
ro
3
o-
i.
5.
i.
o
x>
o
X
X
X
X
X
Population Growth
X
X
X
X
Time Schedule
X
X
1/5
O>
<0
>
-a
c
ro
_l
X
X
X
JC
+J
ro
O)
o3
C
O
4->
ra
4->
C
ro
1/1
X
<,
t 1
»~ i
1
CTi
Ol
-------
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bethea, R. M., Murphy, B. N. , and Carey, D. R., "Odor Controls
for Rendering Plants", Environmental Science and Technology,
June, 1973.
Boise State University, Center for Business and Economic Research,
Summary Output for Population and Employment Model, Boise, Idaho,
1975-
Brown, M. J., Carter, D. L., and Bonderant , J.A., "Sediment in
Irrigation and Drainage Waters and Sediment Inputs and Outputs
for Two Large Tracts in Southern Idaho", Journal of Environmen-
tal Quality, Vol. 3, No. 4, Oct. -Dec., "
Carlson, D. A. and Leiser, C. P., "Soil Beds for Control of Sewage
Odors", Journal WPCF, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 829-840, May, 1966.
CHpM/Hill, Inc., City of Jerome Water System Improvement Program,
Boise, Idaho, 1974.
, Inc., Wastewater Facilities Plan for Jerome, Idaho,
Boise, Idaho, 1974.
CHpM/Hill, Inc., Addendum to Wastewater Facilities Plan, City of
Jerome, Idaho, Boise, Idaho, 1976.
City of Jerome, Grab Sample Data File, Jerome, Idaho, 1975.
Cross, F. L. , Air Pollution Odor Control Primer, Technomic Pub-
lishing Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1973.
Dague, R. R. , "Fundamental of Odor Control" Journal WPCF, Vol. 44,
No. 4, pp. 583-594, April, 1972.
Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, National Cen-
ter for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
"Electrical World", Directory of Electric Utilities, McGraw-Hill,
Inc. , New York, 1975.
Federal Register, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources"! Vol. 39, No. 47, Part II, Subchapter C - Air Programs,
March 8, 1974.
-------
Bibliography
Page 2
Federal Register, "Water Pollution, Safe Drinking Water, Interim
Primary Standards", Vol. 40, No. 51, March 14, 1975.
Findley, Charles E. and Bray, D. C., Attainment of Ambient Parti-
culate Matter Standards in Idaho, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1973-
Green, Thomas J., Acting State Archaeologist, Idaho Historical
Society, Letters to Ms. Divola Nettles, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Idaho Operations Office, Boise, Idaho, July 16,
1976.
Hancock, Charles, Mayor, City of Jerome, Idaho, Letter to the
Jerome County Board of Commissioners and the Jerome County Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission, Jerome, Idaho, 1976.
Herr, E. and Poltorak, R. K., "Program Goal - No Plant Odors",
Water and Sewage Works, October,
Hux, Ronald, "Odor Control and Wastewater Treatment Systems",
Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air Congress,
Academic Press, New York, New York, 1971.
Idaho Department of Employment, Bureau of Research Analysis,
Annual Manpower Planning Report - Fiscal Year 1976 (Twin Falls),
Boise, Idaho, 1975.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Draft 303e Water Quality
Management Plan for the State of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, 1976-
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Standards for Individual
Water Supply Systems, Boise, Idaho, 1967
Idaho Housing Agency, Idaho's Housing Needs Analysis, Boise, Idaho,
1975.
Idaho Department of Water Resources et . al., Idaho Environmental
Overview, Boise, Idaho, 1975.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, State Water Plan - Part II,
Boise, Idaho, 1976.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, State Water Plan - Part III,
Boise, Idaho, 1976.
Idaho Parks and Recreation Department, Park Model Assessment,
Jerome, Idaho, Boise, Idaho,
-------
Bibliography
Page 3
Idaho, University Cooperative Extension Service, General handouts
and tables, Jerome, Idaho, 1976.
Idaho Water Resources Board, Comprehensive Rural Water and Sewer-
age Planning Study for Jerome County, Boise, Idaho, 1973.
Idaho Water Resources Board, Potentially Irrigable Lands in Idaho,
Boise, Idaho, 1970.
Idaho Water Resources Board, State of Idaho Water Plan - Vol. II,
Boise, Idaho, 1975.
Jerome, Idaho, Planning Department, Proposed Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, Jerome, Idaho, 1975-
Jerome County, Idaho, Ordinance Establishing a Comprehensive Zon-
ing Plan and Regulations, as amended, Jerome, Idaho, 1973-
Jerome County, Idaho, Planning Council, Comprehensive Recreation
Plan, Jerome, Idaho, 1975-
Keller, P.J. and Cole, C.A., "H202 Controls Bulking", Water and
Wastes Engineering, September, 1973-
Newfeld, R. N., "Wastewater Treatment Plant Odors: A Continuing
Enigma", Public Works, March, 1975-
Northside Canal Company, Flow Record Files, Jerome, Idaho, 1976.
Norvitch, R. F., Thomas, C. A. and Madison, R. J. Artificial Re-
charge to the Snake Plain Aquifer in Idaho; An Evaluation of
Potential Effect. U.S. Geological Survey and Idaho Department
of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho, 1969-
Osag, T. R. and Crane, G. B., Control of Odors from Inedibles -
Rendering Plants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Wastes Management, July, 1974.
Rocenwall, R., One Year Wind Study for the Twin Falls - Southern
Idaho Regional Airport, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Weather Service, 1973-
Santry, I. W. Jr., "Hydrogen Sulfide Odor Control Measures",
-Journal WPCF, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 459-463, March, 1966.
Sax, I. L., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Reinhold,
New York, 1963.
-------
Bibliography
Page A
Shepard, J.A. and Hobbs, M.F., "Control of Hydrogen Sulfide with
Hydrogen Peroxide", Water and Sewage Works, August, 1973-
Shepherd, J. A. and Shreve, E. C. Jr., "Odor Control with Hydrogen
Peroxide", WPCF Deeds and Data, April, 1973-
Silvey, J. K. G., Abshire, R. L., and Nunez, W. J. Ill, "Bacterio-
logy of Chlorinated and Unchlorinated Wastewater Effluents",
Journal WPCF, Vol. 46, No. 9, September, 197^.
Stone, R., Newton, L. C. and Rowlands J., "Wastewater Pumping Sta-
tion Designed to Avoid Odor Problems", Public Works, January,
1975.
T. A. P. Inc., Idaho Airport System Plan, Airports Supplement,
Bozeman, Montana, 1973-
Unangst, P. C. and Nebel, C. A., "Ozone Treatment of Sewage Plant
Odors", Water and Sewage Works, Reference No. 1971> Vol. 118,
pp. R-42, 43, August, 1971.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Jerome
Area Interim Soil Survey Report, detailed information and cri-
teria used in its development, Jerome, Idaho, 1973-
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Jerome
Area Interim Soil Survey Report, Jerome, Idaho, 1973-
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Septic
Tank Soil Suitability (map) Jerome, Idaho, June, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, City of Jerome Compliance
Monitoring Data File, Region X Office, Seattle, Washington, 1976,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Criteria for Water
Quality, Volume I, Washington D. C., 1973-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, STORET Data Retrieval Sys-
tem, Region X, Seattle, Washington, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works, Washington, D.C., 1976.
-------
Bibliography
Page 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, Technical Report, Direct Environmental Factors at
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works - Evaluation and Control of
Site Aesthetics, Air Pollutants, Noise and Other Operations and
Construction Factors, Washington, P.O.,1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Trans-
fer, Design Manual for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants, (At
PressT!
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Process Design Manual for Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage
Systems, October, 197**.
-------
CO
W
U
><
Q
fc
-------
APPENDIX A
Jerome County
Planning and Zoning Administration
JEROME COUNTY COURTHOUSE
JEROME IDAHO 83338
November 1, 1976
Richard R. Thiel
Chief, Knvironrnentdl Impact Section U.S.E.P.A. RECEIVED
12UO 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 pp.\, -
Re: M- S443 po-. r--
Dear Mr. Thiel:
In response to your inquiries concerning planning and
zoning procedures affecting the proposed Jerome waste water
treatment facility, please be advised that:
(1) There is very little chance that the city of Jerome
will be given planning and zoning responsibilities
in the quote " Impact Area", surrounding the city of
Jerome, other than the processing of residential
subdivision plats in accordance with existing state
law. This appears to be, at present, the mutual
agreement of city and county officials.
(2) Under present county ordinances, no procedure what
so ever is prescribed for granting permits for
constructing a waste water treatment facility.
However, we are presently engaged in preparing a new
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and revision of
the zoning ordinance which will be completed in the
near future. As presently contemplated, the revised
ordinance would provide by conditional use permit,
for a waste water treatment "sewage" facility to be
located of ground zoned Agricultural. This permit
granting process would require public hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners, after due notice
had been given and the recommendation of Planning
Zoning Commission concerning the permit received.
Of course, the possibility of applying for such a
permit does not mean that it would be automatically
granted.
(3) The proposed Comprehensive Plan in its current draft,
seeks to encourage development around areas where
public services are available.
-------
A-2
I cannot, at this time give any better answer to your
first question concerning service, impact and planning areas other
than to reiterate the previous sentences. I hope these answers are
beneficial to you.
Sincerely yours,
/ /^ ^- -; 'S f ^ *- ^^-^^' "i f
Chairman, £./ Tioy Pres^^ott
Jerome County Planning and
Zoning Commission
BRP/jl
-------
A-3
IDAHO STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
610 NORTH JULIA DAVIS DRIVE BOISE, IDAHO 83706
« mjmmvzajitfwr v
STATE MUSEUM
January 10, 1977
RECEIVED
'AN 1 2 1977
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington, 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Re: M/S 443
Assuming that your Jerome Wastewater facilities project uses only
alternatives 1, 2, 4, or 8, the proposal will not affect the possible
eligibility of any property that may be considered for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. Under 36 CFR 800. 8 you
will not need to request comment from the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation concerning this project.
Sincerely yours,
Merle W. Wells
State Historic Preservation Officer
dm
-------
APPENDIX B
ODOR CONTROL MEASURES
A Summary by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Odor control measures should take into account the following: (a)
completely aerobic oxidation of organic matter prevents the formation of odorous
compounds of sulfur and nitrogen; (b) slime buildup on conduit and tank walls,
and sludge or organic waste deposits, will almost always produce some H S and
other odorants; and (c) H?S and other odorants will be released from wastewater
at points of turbulence, particularly where freefall occurs.
(2)
Dague listed the various factors which should be considered in
the control of wastewater odors: (a) all normal people can smell; (b) some sub-
stances are odorous, others are not; (c) we can smell at a distance; (d) sub-
stances of different chemical constitution may have similar odors; (e) substances
of similar constitution usually have similar odors (however, isomers or even
stereoisomers may have different odors); (f) substances of high molecular weight
are usually not odorous and often nonvolatile or insoluble; (g) the quality as
well as the strength of an odor may change on dilution; (h) the sense of smell
is rapidly fatigued; (i) fatigue for one odor will not affect the perception of
other dissimilar odors but may interfere with the perception of similar odors ;
(j) two or more odorous substances may cancel each other out (on the other hand,
two or more mildly odorous substances may add together to form a very odorous
substance); and (k) odors travel downwind.
Measures which have been successful in the prevention or control of
odors generated at wastewater facilities are described in the following paragraphs,
OXIDATION/DISINFECTION
This is usually accomplished with such chemicals as chlorine, ozone,
hydrogen peroxide, and sodium permanganate.
-------
B-2
Chlorinatlon
Chlorine gas and hypochlorite solutions have been successfully used
to stop the action of odorant producing bacteria and to oxidize odorants such
as H S and mercaptans , by injection chlorine or hypochlorite into waste-
water or by passing collected odorous air through a chlorine solution in a tank.
It takes about 5g (2.1 to 8.87g) of chlorine to Ig of H S to inhibit odor pro-
//-\ 2-
duction and often as much as 10 to 15g to convert all the sulfur to sulfates,
(4)
because of the other more easily oxidizable compounds present . If Cl« do-
sages are down to about 2.1g/g of H~S hydrochloric acid is formed; if Cl_ do-
sages are up to about 8.4g/g of H_S, both hydrochloric and sulfuric acids are
formed. Each of these is very corrosive. In many locations, to prevent damage
to downstream ecological systems, it may be necessary to dechlorinate and remove
those chlorinated compounds which are toxic before the treated wastewater is dis-
charged. Some odors are not removed by chlorination. If the odorous compound
concentration is above the design concentration, other odorous compounds may be
formed. Chlorine supresses bacterial activity even in a combined form, but most
bacterial populations, including the coliform population, will often be regenerat-
ed shortly after the chlorine residual disappears . For more information on
odor control with chlorine, see Reference (4). Chlorine application is discus-
sed in Reference (8).
Ozonation
Ozone is used to oxidize odorants in air, collected from above waste-
water processes, before discharge to the atmosphere . Ozonation of waste-
water has not been practiced to a great extent in the past; however, recent de-
velopments, including the possible dangers of chlorine compounds and the reduc-
ed costs of newer ozonators, make the use of ozone in place of chlorine feasible
for both odor control and disinfection, particularly if the wastewater must also
be dechlorinated. Active research is being sponsored by the EPA, to develop bet-
ter design criteria for the safe use of ozone. Oxidation of airborne odorants
with ozone may present a hazard if ozone remains in the treated air in concen-
trations above 0.2 mg/m of air at the time of discharge . Further informa-
tion on odor control with ozone is contained in reference (11). Ozone applica-
tion is discussed in reference (8).
-------
B-3
Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide is another oxidant used to destroy sulfate-reduc-
(12)(13)
ing bacteria in sewers and to oxidize any sulfides present . In recent
years, hydrogen peroxide has been used in place of prechlorination, to prevent
hydrogen sulfide buildup in transmission lines and pumping stations, and to pre-
(4)
vent hydrogen sulfide problems in wet wells . It is usually necessary to
first condition (oxidize slimes and organic deposits on walls) the pipes and tanks
in which the wastewater is to be treated by one or more dosages of 50 mg/1 for
4 to 8 hours. Following one or more of these massive treatments, dosages can
be lowered to 5 to 10 mg/1 to prevent H«S formation. Between 1 and 2 pounds of
(6)
H«07 are needed per pound of H^S after the slug dosages . H_0?, like ozone,
raises the dissolved oxygen content of the wastewater in addition to killing
sulfate-reducers and reducing odors. H_09 is competitive in price with chlo-
( 6)
rine for control of H S( .
Sodium Permanganate
Sodium permanganate, like ozone and H_0«, is a significantly more
active oxidizing agent than chlorine. However, it is generally not competitive
with respect to cost with other oxidizing agents . In some cases, the
manganese content of the water may be increased to a troublesom level.
RAISING THE ORP
To prevent the production of odorants by sulfate reducers and other
anaerobes, air, nitrates, and pure oxygen have also been added to wastewater to
raise the ORP.
Air
Wastewater is commonly aerated by mechanical aerators, diffusers, a
freefall which causes turbulence, and U-tube aeration. The addition of air to
prevent anaerobic conditions in wastewaters will prevent the production of odor-
ants. The addition of air to anaerobic wastewater may strip out odorants and
-------
B-4
thus cause odor problems if not adequately controlled, particularly at drops or
falls in septic wastewater streams. Sufficient air must be dissolved and con-
fined sufficiently long for oxidation of sulfides to be accomplished. U-tubes
with air addition by aspirators have proved to be an effective and odor-free
method of adding air to wastewater lines. A detailed description of aeration
methods is presented in Reference (4).
Oxygen
If a main has little rise, making air injection relatively feasible,
may be used as an alternative for £
siphons, if the oxygen can be kept in solution
pure oxygen may be used as an alternative for sulfide control in force mains and
(4)
Nitrate
This chemical has been satisfactorily added to wastewater to reduce
and temporarily control odors. Nitrate may serve to prevent sulfide buildup by
preventing sulfate reduction, because nitrate-reducing bacteria can use nitrate
(4)
to oxidize sulfide, if oxygen is not available .
PH CONTROL
If sulfide odors predominate, it is possible to reduce or eliminate
hydrogen sulfide by raising the pH. At pH above 9, H~S is not present, but bio-
/ 1 /; \
logical treatment processes will be substantially impeded . Caustic soda or
quicklime used to raise the pH of wastewater in sewers to 13 will inactivate
(4)
the slime on sewer walls for about 1 week . Because sulfide producers can ad-
just to pH over 10.5, the pH should not be held above 9 for more than 30 minutes.
ABSORPTION/SCRUBBING
Odor removal by reactive scrubbing can be an effective method of
odor control, particularly if followed by activated carbon or ozonation, de-
pending on the odorous components of the gas. Potential scrubbing reagents
-------
B-5
are KMnO., MaClO, C19, C10~, and NaHSO_. However, a single scrubbing agent
(3)
can seldom remove all odorous compounds effectively . The efficiency of
odor removal can often be improved by increasing the pH of the scrubbing so-
(3)
lution . The resulting solution, however, must be amenable to treatment in
a wastewater treatment plant or pretreated to make it so. Scrubbers are best
suited for treating large volumes of air containing relatively low concentra-
tions of odorous contaminants. Possible advantages of scrubbers include:
capability of installation in a low building, because conventional scrubbing
towers are not needed; gravity flow of solution; quiet operation; and reason-
able cost, because this equipment is mass-produced. Possible disadvantages
include: necessity for auxiliary processes such as adsorption or filtration,
corrosion of equipment, and maintenance of minimum concentration of reagent.
See reference (11) for further information on scrubbing. Low concentrations
of odorants may be removed by bubbling the polluted air through activitated
sludge or water with a high dissolved oxygen content.
ADSORPTION
Adsorption with activated carbon can be an effective and econo-
mical odor control method for emissions from wastewater treatment facilities
containing a low concentration of odorous compounds . The odorous gases
and vapors must be collected, as for ozonation, and then passed through the
adsorbent beds of activated carbon. Adsorbent beds should be continuously
monitored, because the activated carbon may have a low capacity for some
odorants and, without regeneration, a short adsorbent life with respect to
those odorants . In Sacramento, where a large treatment plant became
closely surrounded by a better-than-average residential area, it was found
that sodium hypochlorite scrubbers followed by carbon adsorption units suc-
cessfully removed all odors . Further information on odor control using
activated carbon is contained in Reference (11).
Adsorption-absorption using soil beds has proved to be an effec-
tive way of treating odorous gases collected at pumping stations
-------
B-6
A carbon filter was included in one installation for backup but was not needed
(19)
during the first year of operation . Warm
sary for effective odor removal in soil beds.
(19)
during the first year of operation . Warm, moist, loamy soils are neces-
INCINERATION-CATALYTIC AND DIRECT FLAME
Fumes from wastewater treatment works can be deodorized using di-
rect flame. Incineration at an adequate temperature for a sufficient time
oxidizes organic compounds to odorless water and carbon dioxide and relatively
odorless oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. At temperatures below 1,400°F, partial
oxidation may result, with the production of highly odorous gases. To accom-
(2)
plish complete oxidation, 3 seconds at 1,400°F is sufficient detention time
To ensure that all parts of the burning chamber have temperatures above 1,400°F,
it is well to have the control thermostat set to operate between 1,550° and
1,600°F. Above 1,750°F dangerous oxides of nitrogen may be formed and cause
air pollution. Incineration can be effective in controlling highly concentrated
is
(3)(15)
odors in low volumes of air . In some cases, if particulate matter is
present, incineration should be preceded by condensers or dust collectors
Catalytic oxidation operates at temperatures from 1,000° to 1,300°F. The lower
cost for fuel is offset by the catalyst replacement cost, particularly if the
odorous gas is corrosive to the catalyst. Advantages of direct flame incinera-
tion with respect to catalytic oxidation are lower maintenance costs, less down-
time, and better odor destruction. Advantages of catalytic oxidation are lower
temperatures, lower operating cost, lighter construction, and better removal of
particulates and aerosols. Steam plumes from incinerators can be controlled us-
ing condensers or afterburners. Emission standards for wastewater treatment in-
cinerators are contained in Reference (21).
DESIGN MEASURES
Prevention of odor nuisance conditions should be considered in the
design of any conduit or basin which will contain wastewater or sludge. Some
important design elements and operational practices to consider include:
-------
B-7
1. Locate the facility on a well-ventilated site to prevent odor ac-
cumulation, not in a hollow or where it will be surrounded by trees.
2. Provide for sufficient mixing, to ensure scouring velocities over
the entire floor of aeration basins and to prevent sludge accumulation in cor-
ners where velocities are too low.
3. Enclose locations of turbulent flow, where odorants or aerosols
might escape from anaerobic wastewater or sludge, to prevent escape of odor-
ants and to collect them for oxidation before discharge to the atmosphere.
Such locations may include headworks, primary clarifiers, trickling filters,
sludge thickeners, sludge dewatering tanks, and sludge holding tanks.
4. Provide high pressure connections for hoses, for use in the daily
flushing of walls and corners to prevent any accumulation of slime or sludge.
5. Provide adequate slopes in all conduits, whether open or closed,
to ensure scouring velocities once a day.
6. Provide for mechanical cleaning of all closed conduits, if slopes
are not sufficient to ensure daily scouring velocities.
7. Provide for U-tube aeration of anaerobic wastewater in manholes
upstream of pumping stations or treatment facilities, or a means of adding
hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, or hypochlorite, if the sulfide problem is too
much for simple aeration, to prevent escape of odors at the pumping station
or treatment facility headworks.
8. Provide areation in distribution channels, to maintain aerobic
conditions as well as to ensure homogeneity of the organic material in the
wastewater.
9. Provide for returning a portion of the waste activitated sludge
to the headworks, to assist in reducing odors.
-------
B-8
10. Provide for pneumatic or other enclosed transfer of screenings
or other odorous compounds to the disposal point.
11. Provide a vacuum cleaner truck for cleaning grease traps, screen-
ing boxes, scum boxes, and catch basins and carrying their odorous contents in
an enclosed tank to the disposal point.
12. Provide an adequate section in the facility operation and main-
tenance manual on odor control. This should include procedures: for daily
flushing to remove slime and sludge accumulations, for checking for sufficient
conditioning of sludge before its discharge to open drying beds or use as
fertilizer on lawns, for cleaning all sludge discharge pipes and areas imme-
diately after use, for preventing overuse of treated wastewater for irriga-
tion, and for using sulfuric acid or caustic soda for removing slime or lime
encrustations.
13. Provide requirements in the sewer ordinance for removal, or for
reduction to a treatable level, of all industrial waste compounds which might
cause odor problems at a properly operated wastewater facility.
Suggested measures to be considered during design, to prevent odor
and control or reduce the possibility of odor nuisances, are presented in Table
3.2.
-------
B-9
APPENDIX B
FOOTNOTES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,
Direct Environmental Factors of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works,
Washington D. C., 1976.
2. Dague, R. R., "Fundamentals of Odor Control", Journal WPCF, Vol. 44, No. 4,
pp. 583-594, April, 1972.
3. Bethea, R. M., Murphy, B. N., and Carey, D. R., "Odor Controls for Ren-
dering Plants", Environmental Science and Technology, June, 1973.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Process Design Manual for Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems,
October, 1974.
5. Santry, I. W. Jr., "Hydrogen Sulfide Odor Control Measures," Journal
WPCF, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 459-463, March, 1966.
6. Shepherd, J. A. and Hobbs, M. F., "Control of Hydrogen Sulfide With
Hydrogen Peroxide", Water and Sewage Works, August, 1973.
7. Silvey, J. K. G., Abshire, R. L., and Nunez, W. J. Ill, "Bacteriology
of Chlorinated and Unchlorinated Wastewater Effluents", Journal WPCF,
Vol. 46, No. 9, September, 1974.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Design Manual for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants (at press).
9. Unangst, P. C. and Nebel, C. A., "Ozone Treatment of Sewage Plant Odors",
Water and Sewage Works, Reference No. 1971, Vol. 118, pp. R-42,43, August,
1971.
10. Sax, I. L., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Reinhold,
New York, 1963.
11. Cross, F. L., Air Pollution Odor Control Primer, Technomic Publishing
Co., Inc., Westport Connecticut, 1973.
12. Shepherd, J. A. and Shreve, E. C. Jr., "Odor Control With Hydrogen Pe-
roxide", WPCF Deeds and Data, April, 1973.
13. Keller, P. J. and Cole, C. A., "H-O Controls Bulking", Water and Wastes
Engineering, September, 1973.
14. Stone, R., Newton, L. C. and Rowlands, J., "Wastewater Pumping Station
Designed to Avoid Odor Problems", Public Works, January, 1975.
15. Osag, T. R. and Crane, G. B., Control of Odors From Inedibles-Render-
ing Plants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Wastes
Management, July, 1974.
16. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, National Center for
Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967.
-------
B-10
17. Newfeld, R. N., "Wastewater Treatment Plant Odors: A Continuing Enigma",
Public Works, March, 1975.
18. Herr, E. and Poltorak, R. L., "Program Goal - No Plant Odors", Water and
Sewage Works, October, 1974.
19. Stone, R., Newton, L. C. and Rowlands, J., "Wastewater Pumping Station
Designed to Avoid Odor Problems" Public Works, January, 1975.
20. Carlson, D. A. and Leiser, C. P., "Soil Beds for Control of Sewage Odors",
Journal WPCF, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 829-840, May, 1966.
21. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Federal Register,
Vol. 39, No. 47, Part II, Subchapter C - Air Programs, March 8, 1974.
-------
APPENDIX C
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Introduction
Operations and maintenance (O&M) of the Jerome sewage treatment
plant, be it at its existing site or at a new site, was clearly ident-
ified as a major concern during EPA's May 25, 1976 public information
meeting in Jerome. Citizens are keenly aware of the operational pro-
blems of the past which have resulted in significant odor problems
in the vicinity of the existing plant, and in the undesirable appear-
ance of plant effluent, at times, as it was discharged into the canal.
These problems, as expressed at the meeting, have caused many
people to lose faith in the City's ability to properly operate a
sewage treatment plant, and the State and Federal government's interest
in or ability to take the necessary action to require satisfactory
O&M. It is hoped that the following discussion of EPA's O&M program
will help in answering many of the Jerome citizens' concerns over future
operation and maintenance of the City's waste treatment facilities.
Inspection During Construction
Assuming EPA and the State will be participatory in grants that
will result in a construction project, operators of the present Jerome
plant have an excellent opportunity to become intimately familiar
with the construction details of the new or upgraded facilities. For
this reason, EPA encourages the plant superintendent or principal
operators to serve as construction inspectors during the final phases
of the construction project. By serving in this capacity, they not
only protect the owner's (The City of Jerome) interest in getting
good quality work for the money, they also learn how to read and
interpret the detailed construction plans and specifications the
contractor is following. They find out exactly how components of
the plant are put together and where they are located. In over-
coming construction problems as they occur they are gaining invaluable
experience, and confidence, that will help them overcome operational
and maintenance problems later.
Startup Training
Following completion of construction, the consulting engineer who
designed the plant and supervised its construction calls in represen-
tatives of the manufacturers who supplied the plant equipment. The
equipment reps, as they are called, instruct the plant operators in the
proper operation of the equipment. This is termed "startup training".
It may last from a few days to several weeks depending on the piece of
equipment and the treatment process involved. The "bugs" are taken out
of the system, and the various components are made to operate properly.
-------
C-2
Procedures for lubricating, servicing, overhauling and repairing the
components ara also covered. This start-up training, then, gets the oper-
ators initiated in the proper O&M of their new facilities.
0 & M Manual
Prior to making the final grant payment for construction, EPA
requires the grantee to submit for approval a complete and detailed
O&M manual. This manual is the operators "Bible" covering all aspects
of the plant's proper operation and maintenance. Among other things
it contains:
1. schematic diagrams of pipelines, valves and controls.
2. manufacturers' recommended maintenance schedules and lubri-
cation charts.
3. detailed description of treatment processes and operator
control techniques.
4. emergency procedures for plant upsets.
5. laboratory testing and reporting procedures.
6. listing of detailed tasks to be performed, together with
their frequency and duration, for complete plant operations
for all personnel.
This manual is given a careful review by State and EPA personnel prior
to its approval. It is available to all personnel at the treatment
plant for their daily reference.
Operator Training
It is the responsibility of the City of Jerome, with the support
of the Citizenry, to insure that operators' salaries are adequate to
attract qualified personnel. Care must be taken to insure that training
is provided both to upgrade the knowledge and proficiency of operators
and to maintain their proficiency. Regular training has several
benefits: it improves morale and job interest; it reduces manpower
and other budget expenses by improving efficiency; and it results in
a better run treatment plant with a cleaner effluent.
Jerome's Waste Discharge Permit
Section 402 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments provided EPA and State governments a new authority to fully
develop a national waste discharge permit system. Attached to this
Appendix is a copy of the present permit under which Jerome is oper-
ating its sewage treatment plant. Although a new permit will be
issued as a new plant nears completion, the general structure and
provisions will be the same.
-------
C-3
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for
the proposed sewage treatment plant will require the City of Jerome to
operate and maintain the plant as efficiently as possible. The permit
specifically addresses operation and maintenance in Part II A.3.
titled, Facilities Operation,as follows:
"The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facili-
ties or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance
with the terms and conditions of this permit."
Non-compliance with this section would place Jerome in violation of
their NPDES permit and subject to any penalties assessed therein. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act allows for maximum civil penalties
of fines up to $10,000 per day of violation.
EPA's program for assuring compliance with the permit includes
a permittee self monitoring program to determine effluent quality and
also an EPA/State of Idaho inspection program to determine compliance
with other provisions of the permit. There are four types of inspec-
tions which can be conducted on the proposed Jerome facility. Annual
Compliance Evaluation, Reconnaissance Inspection, Discrepancy Inspec-
tion and a Case Preparation Survey. An Annual Compliance Evaluation
is a detailed, on-site, scheduled inspection to review self moni-
toring reports, effluent sampling and testing procedures and the
operation and maintenance program. Any inadequacies not in confor-
mance with permit requirements would be identified and the City would
be required to begin appropriate actions to make the necessary correc-
tions. Annual Compliance Evaluations which are conducted on the
existing Jerome plant, would also be conducted on the proposed treat-
ment plant. Reconnaissance inspections are unscheduled on-site inspec-
tions designed to confirm that a source is continuing to remain in com-
pliance with its permit conditions. The third listed inspection,
the discrepancy inspection, is initiated by an alleged violation of
effluent or other requirements. If, for example, the City of Jerome
were not properly operating or maintaining the plant, then it is quite
likely that the discharge would exceed the effluent limitations.
When EPA or the State of Idaho reviews the self monitoring reports, the
agency may decide that a discrepancy inspection is in order. During
the inspection, all inadequacies would be identified and the City would
be given a specific amount of time to correct the deficiencies. To
ensure proper and timely correction of the deficiencies, EPA may, after
a Discrepancy Inspection, respond to the City with a Section 309 order,
which identified what actions the city must take and the time allowed
for completing these actions. If the City does not properly complete
the necessary actions, then EPA can recommend to the U. S. Attorney
that civil penalties be issued to the City for failure to comply with
the provisions of the NPDES permit. The fourth type of inspection, Case
Preparation Survey, is conducted specifically to gather evidence in
support of an enforcement action. Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per
-------
C-4
day can result. This is the final type action used to ensure the
permittee complies with the NPDES permit requirements.
The inspection program is a joint EPA/State activity. All except
the case preparation survey are conducted by the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare. EPA will assist in those inspections if requested
by the State. EPA believes that this joint EPA/IDHW compliance pro-
gram is adequate to assure that the proposed sewage treatment facili-
ties will meet all permit conditions.
Citizen Responsibility
Efficient plant O&M depends on people - well trained operators and
maintenance men, wise managers and competent supervisors, skilled
laboratory technicians and chemists. Without them the plant would be
useless. Plant efficiency relies on people efficiency.
What makes people work well? Plant personnel need training, tools
and equipment, decent pay and pleasant working conditions. Giving
them these things may cost money, but not giving them would cost more.
Much more, really, considering the immense cost to the environment.
The point is that we can't get our money's worth out of the treatment
plant unless we're willing to make investments in people and provide
them with the things they need to do their jobs. A community may
spend $5 million to build a plant, then give it a yearly budget so
skimpy that adequate O&M is impossible. Look at it this way: Low
budget=poorly paid employees=less trained, fewer qualified employees=
poor 0&M=foul, unsafe waters. Thus, if your water is still polluted,
your investment in a plant has been wasted. Millions of dollars are
wasted this way.
Something else that helps people to do a good job is morale. En-
thusiasm comes from knowing your job is important and your work is appre-
ciated. Employees in a treatment plant know their job is important,
but they may wonder if their work is appreciated. Strange as it
seems, it's possible to perform a vital public service and yet get
little or no recognition for it. This is the way it is for many
treatment plant workers. They're invisible.
When we look at our community, we can easily see the policemen
who fight crime and the firemen who fight fires, but the men and
women who fight pollution aren't nearly as noticeable. They wear no
uniform. Their plant is usually on the outskirts of town, and many
people don't even know they're there.
But things are looking up! Citizens like you are learning that
the fight against pollution, like the fight against crime or fire,
is one we've got to win. This country could lose its war on pollu-
tion if front line troops like the staff at your treatment plant
don't receive the support of the people they protect.
-------
C-5
Don't overlook the very best source of O&M information -
the local plant superintendent or members of his staff. They know -
better than anybody - what it will take to improve O&M at their plants.
And what it takes is your help. You are the voter and citizen; superin-
tendents' bosses are your employees. The people who make the budgets
and arrange the priorities for water pollution control in your community
are responsible to you for their actions. And they know it.
When citizens begin to pay attention to what's going on (O&M) at
their wastewater treatment plants, local officials will respond accord-
ingly. An informed public is the most effective anti-pollution device
of all.
-------
C-6
Permit No. ID-002016-8
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. §1251 et_ s_eg_.; the "Act"),
City of Jerome, Idaho
is authorized to discharge from Sewage Treatment Plant into the North
Side Canal "N" and then into the Snake River
to receiving waters named Snake River, River Kilometer 959.4 (River
Mile 599.6) via North Side Canal "N" at Cedar Draw
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and
ether conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective on December 30, 1974
and shall expire at midnight, June 30, 1977.
Signed this 29th day of November, 1974.
Reg i jxfal AdmTn i s tr
-------
PART I
A.
C-7
Page 2 of 13
Permit No: ID-002016-8
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. Initial Effluent Limitations
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit
and lasting until December 31, 1976, discharges from outfalls shall be
limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
a. The monthly average quantity of effluent discharged from the
wastewater treatment facility shall not exceed 2,650 and (0.7 mgd).
b. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0.
i
c. Tnere shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible
foam other than in trace amounts.
d. The following limitations and monitoring requirements
shall apply:
Effluent
Characteristic
Effluent Concentrations
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5-day)
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Effluent Loadings
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5-day)
Suspended Solids
Monitoring Requirements
Total Flow
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
PH
Residual Chlorine
Unit of
Measurements
mg/1
mg/1
number/100 ml
Monthly
Average
40
45
700
Weekly
Average
60
68
1.500
kg/day(lb/day)
kg/day(lb/day)
Unit of
Measurement
cmd (mgd)
mg/1
mg/1
pH units
mg/1
91(200)
102(225)
Samp! ing
Frequency
continuous
weekly
weekly
daily
daily
136(300)
153(338)
Type of
Sample
--
composite
composite
grab
grab
-------
C"8 PART I
Page 3 of 13
Permit No. ID-002016-8
e. Hi thin 180 days from the effective date of this permit,
the permittee shall develop and institute an ongoing program of monitoring
effluent as follows:
Effluent Unit of Sampling Type of
Characteristic Measurement Frequency Sample
Monitoring Requirements
Fecal Coliform Bacteria number/100 ml monthly grab
2. Final Effluent Limitations
Discharges from the sewage treatment plant after December 31,
1976, will not be allowed.
-------
C-9
PART I
Page 4 of 13
Permit No. ID-002016-8
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent
limitations specified for discharges in accordance with
the following schedule:
Completion of Facilities Plan December 31, 1974
Completion of Plans and Specifications May 31, 1975
Begin Construction July 31, 1975
Progress Report December 31, 1975
End Construction September 30, 1976
No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified
in the above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall
submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a
written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the
latter case, the notice shall include the cause of non- .
compliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability
of meeting the next scheduled requirement.
-------
°-10 PART I
Page 5 of 13
Permit Mo. ID-002016-8
C. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
discharge. The permittee shall take samples and measurements
to meet the monitoring requirements specified herein in the
effluent stream before its discharge to the receiving waters.
2.1 Reporting
Monitoring results shall be summarized each month on a Dis-
charge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1); summary
reports for the previous three months shall be submitted
quarterly and postmarked no later than the 28th day of the
month following the completed quarterly reporting period.
Quarterly reporting periods shall end on the last day of
March, June, September and December. The first quarterly
report is due on April 28, 1975. Duplicate signed copies
of these, and all other reports herein, shall be submitted
to the Regional Administrator and the State agency at the
following addresses.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attn: Enforcement Branch M/S 513
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Environmental Services Division
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
3. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any effluent characteristic identified
in this permit more frequently than required, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of
the values required in the.Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(EPA No. 3320-1). Such increased frequency shall also be indicated,
-------
C-ll
PART I
Page 6 of 13
Permit No.: ID-002016-8
4. Definitions
a. The monthly average, other than for fecal coliform bacteria,
is the arithmetic mean of samples collected during a
calendar month. The monthly average for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of samples collected during
a calendar month.
b. The weekly average, other than for fecal coliform bacteria
is the arithmetic mean of samples collected during a
calendar week. The weekly average for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of samples collected in a
calendar week.
c. Other methods of measuring oxygen demand can be substituted
for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) if the permittee can
demonstrate long-term correlation of these measurements
with BOD5 values. The substituted methods must receive at
least 30 days prior approval from the Regional Administrator.
5. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform
to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Act,
under which such procedures may be required. The permittee shall
submit a description of the sampling and analyses methods it
proposes to use to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of
the effective date of this permit.
6. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements
of this permit, the permittee shall record the following informa-
tion:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The dates -the analyses were performed;
c. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
e. The results of all required analyses.
-------
C-12
PART I
Page 7 of 13
Permit No.: ID-002016-8
7. Records Retention
All records and information resulting from the monitoring-
activities required by this permit including all records of
analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instru-
mentation and recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation
shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if
requested by the Regional Administrator or the State water pollu-
tion control agency.
8." Analytical Quality Control
The permittee shall submit to the Regional Administrator a
summary of the analytical quality control program it proposes
to use within 30 days of the effective date of this permit.
Such summary shall:
a. Specify the appropriate analytical methods and
quality control techniques the permittee proposes
to use. The latter are to be taken from EPA
publication "Handbook for Analytical Quality Con-
trol in Water and Waste Water Laboratories", June
1972;
b. Describe the sample station locations, method and
frequency of collection along with the flow measur-
ing techniques and their level of accuracy;
c. Outline the procedures to be employed in preparing
analytical results for reporting purposes and
subsequent storage.
-------
C-13
Page 8 of 13
PART II
Permit No. ID-002016-3
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the
terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any
pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or
at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a
violation of the permit. Any anticipated facility expansions,
production increases, or process modifications which will
result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants
must be reported by submission of a new NPDES application or,
if such changes will not violate the effluent limitations
specified in this permit, by notice to the permit issuing
authority of such changes. Following such notice, the permit
may be modified to specify and limit any pollutants not pre-
viously limited.
2. Noncompli ance Not ification
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply v/ith or will
be unable to comply with any effluent limitation specified in
this permit, the permittee shall provide the Regional Admin-
istrator and the State with the following information, in
writing, within five (5) days of becoming aware of such condition:
a. A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;
and
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and
times; or if not corrected, the anticipated time the
noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being
taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the
noncomplying discharge.
3. Faci1i ties Operation
The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control
facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to
achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.
-------
C-H
PART II
Page 9 of 13
Permit No.: ID-002016-8
4. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any
adverse impact to navigable waters resulting from noncompliance
with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including
such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to deter-
mine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
5. Bypassing
j.
Any diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to maintain
compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit is pro-
hibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent loss of life .or
severe property damage, or (ii) where excessive storm drainage
or runoff would damage any facilities necessary for compliance
with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this permit.
The permittee shall promptly notify the Regional Administrator
and the State in writing of each such diversion or bypass in
accordance with the procedure specified above for reporting
noncompliance.
6. Removed Substances
Collected screenings, grit, sludges, and other solids removed
in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be
disposed of in a manner such as to prevent entry of those wastes
or run off from such materials into navigable waters.
7. Power Failures
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations
and prohibitions of this permit, the permittee shall either:
a. In accordance with the Schedule of Compliance contained in
Part I, provide an alternative power source sufficient to
operate the wastewater control facilities; or, if such
alternative power source is not in existence, and no date
for its implementation appears in Part I,
b. Halt, reduce or otherwise control all discharges upon the
reduction, loss, or failure of the primary source of power
to the wastewater control facilities.
-------
C-15
PART II
Page 10 of 13
Permit No. ID-002016-8
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the head of the State water pollution
control agency, the Regional Administrator, and/or their
authorized representatives, upon the presentation of credentials:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent
source is located or in which any records are required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
and
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records
required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring
method required in this permit; and to sample any discharge
of pollutants.
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
In the event of any change in control or ownership of facilities
from which the authorized discharges emanate, the permittee shall
notify the succeeding owner or controller of the existence of this
permit by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the
Regional Administrator and the State water pollution control agency.
The new owner or successor shall submit a letter to the State
water pollution control agency and the Regional Administrator
stating that he will comply with the requirements of this permit.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
of the Act, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of
this permit shall be available for public inspection at the
offices of the State water pollution control agency and the
Regional Administrator. As required by the Act, effluent
data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making
a false statement on any such report may result in the
imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in Section
309 of the Act.
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be
modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its
term for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
-------
C-16
PART II
Page 11 of 13
Permit Mo. ID-002016-8
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure
to disclose fully all relevant facts; or
c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary
or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized
discharge.
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Part II, B-4 above, if a toxic effluent standard
or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in
such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under
Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present
in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent
than any limitation for such pollutant in this permit, this permit
shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent
standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II,
A-5) and "Power Failures" (Part II, A-7), nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or
criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject under section 311 of the Act.
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of the Act.
-------
C-17
PART II
Page 12 of 13
Permit No. ID-002016-8
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property, rights
in either real or personal-property, or any exclusive privileges,
nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any
invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal,
State or local laws or regulations.
10. Severability
t
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this
permit, shall not be affected thereby.
11. Notice of New Introduction of Pollutants
The permittee shall provide advance notice to the Regional
Administrator and head of the State water pollution control agency
of:
a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the treatment works
from a source wn'ich would be a new source as defined in
Section 306 of the Act if such source were discharging
pollutants.
b. Any new introduction of pollutants which exceeds 10,000
gallons on any one day into such treatment works from a
source which would be subject to Section 301 of the Act
if such source were discharging pollutants, and
c. Any substantial change in volume or character of pollutants
being introduced into such treatment works by a source intro-
ducing pollutants into such works at the time of issuance of
the permit.
Such notice shall include information on:
a. The quality and quantity of effluent to be introduced into
such treatment works; and,
b. Any anticipated impact of such change in the quantity or
quality of effluent to be discharged from such publicly owned
treatment works.
-------
C-18
PART II
Page 13 of 13
Permit No. ID-002016-
12. Control of Undesirable Pollutants
Under no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction
of the following wastes into the waste treatment system;
a. Wastes which create a fire or explosion hazard in the
treatment works.
b. Wastes which will cause corrosive structural damage to
treatment works, but in no case wastes with a pH lower
than 5.0, unless the works is designed to accommodate
such wastes.
c. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which cause
obstructions to the flow in sewers, or other interference
with the proper operation of the treatment works.
d. Wastewaters at a flow rate and/or pollutant discharge rate
which is excessive over relatively short time periods so
that there is a treatment process upset and subsequent
loss of treatment efficiency.
13. Requirements for Industrial Users of Storm Sewers
The permittee shall require any industrial user of storm sewers
to comply with the requirements of Section 308 of the Act.
14. Requirements for Industrial Users of Treatment Works
The permittee shall require any industrial user of these treatment
works to comply with any applicable requirements of Sections 204(b),
307, and 308 of the Act. The permittee shall require any industrial
user subject to the requirements of Section 307 of the Act to pre-
pare and transmit to the Regional Administrator and the State agency
periodic notice (over intervals not to exceed 9 months) of progress
toward full compliance with Section 307 requirements.
-------
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC INFORMATION BROCHURE
D-l
1-The Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
THE JEROME, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT
On Tuesday, May 25, 1976 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), in cooperation with the City of Jerome, will conduct a public
information meeting concerning the preparation oE an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Jerome, Idaho Wastewater Facilities
Project. The meeting is to be held at the Jerome Jr. High School in
the City of Jerome at approximately 8:15 p.m. The purpose of the
meeting is to provide information about the environmental impact
statement process for the Jerome, Idaho Wastewater facilities Project
to concerned and interested citizens in the Greater Jerome Area. The
specific objectives of the meeting are as follows:
1. Notify the public that an Environmental Impact Statement
is being prepared for the Jerome Wastewater Facilities
Project.
2. Explain the process for preparing the Environmental Im-
pact Statement.
3. Answer questions concerning the preparation of the En-
vironmental Impact Statement from interested citizens.
4. Provide a form for discussion of the issues concerning the
development of the Environmental Impact Statement,
The meeting is sponsored by the City of Jerome. Other agen-
cies attending the meeting to provide information to the public include
the Environmental Protection Agency, who is responsible for com-
pleting the Environmental Impact Statement; R. W. Beck and Asso-
ciates, consultant assisting the Environmental Protection Agency with
the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement; the Idaho De-
partment of Health and Welfare, and CHzM/Hill, consultant to the City
of Jerome, who prepared the Wastewater Facilities Plan.
CONTENTS
I.Tha Meeting
2.The Project
3. Public Participation
4.The Need for an Impact Statement
8. The Proceea
6.Timing
7. Oueetlonnalre
2.The Project
In May 1973 the City of Jerome authorized the Firm of CH2M/
Hill, Inc. of Boise, Idaho to develop a Wastewater Facilities and
Treatment Plan for the City of Jerome. The Plan was prepared and
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency dated May 1975.
The Plan investigated and addressed three waste water management
techniques as well as the location of a new treatment plant in compari-
son with other alternative sites. In conformance with Environmental
Protection Agency guidelines these alternative comparisons stressed
the cost-effectiveness of the systems and their reliability.
The City of Jerome is presently served by a Wastewater collec-
tion system which includes both gravity flow and pumped elements.
Approximately 1,170 acres require two lift stations in order to pro-
vide service. In addition to sewage produced by public use, Ida Gem
Dairymen, Inc. also discharges significant amounts of waste into the
system The existing treatment plant was constructed in I960 and in-
cludes a grit chamber and comminutor, a conventional trickling filter
system, an activated biological filter tower, one filter pump station,
and one aerated lagoon. The majority of the existing major treatment
units are over 20 years old and are generally in poor physical condi-
tion. The facility is unable to treat existing wastewater at a level of
efficiency that meets discharge requirements, and hydraulic and or-
ganic overloads have caused concern about aesthetics and other pro-
blems associated with non-compliance discharges. Because of the
poor condition and needed repairs of the treatment plant causing a
general need for an adequately-functioning sewerage system in the
City of Jerome, the Facilities Plan was undertaken.
PUBLIC MEETING MAY 25,1976
-------
D-2
Actions
Public
Information
and
Data
Collection
ENVIRONMENTAL IMI
FOR TH
JEROME, I
WASTEWATER FACI
PROCESS AND TIM
Impact
Analysis
Preparation of the
Draft EIS
Review of
Draf/JJIS
(111
=ACT STATEMENT
E
DA HO
LITY PROJECT
ING DIAGRAM
Preparation of the
Final EIS
1
1976
Comment
Period
1977
Final
\ctior ,
May
June"
July
August September October
_ _. __ m _ Months of the Year
4.The Need for an Environmentel Impact
Statement
November December January
On January 19, 1976 the Environmental Protection Agenc y issued
a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the Jerome, Idaho Wastewater Facilities Project. This action was
prompted by significant local concerns surrounding the project and its
potential impacts upon the environment. EPA'3 decision to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed action is based on
criteria for determining whether actions will have a significant impact
on the environment as set forth in Federal Regulations appearing in
the Federal Register of April 14, 1975 (40 CFR Part 6). Additionally,
EPA's regulations under 40 CFR 6.510(a) directs the Environmental
ProtectionAgency to evaluate impacts due to changes in land use con-
centration, including vacant land subject to increased development
pressures as a result of treatment works, the increases of population
and changes in population density, and the nature of land use regula-
tions in the affected area and their potential effects on develop-nent.
Federal Regulations 40 CFR 6.5 10(d)(3) directs the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to include in its Environmental Impact Statement pro-
posed effects upon agricultural lands. Because the concerns of the
Jerome area citizens did specifically address these specific issues
and others, the Environmental Protection A gency is developing an
Environmental Impact Statement which will address these and other
concerns.
O.The Procesa
The above graphic illustration attempts to illustrate the syste-
matic process by which the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to
define the issues, alternatives, and social and environmental condi-
tions that will be important in the assessment of the impacts of the
proposed wastewater facilities upon the Greater Jerome Area. The
proposed process is intended to provide a straight-forward, under-
standable, yet scientific approach to the analysis of environmental and
social impacts. The basic steps in completing the Environmental Im-
pact Statement are as follows:
S_teg_l will be to collect information through a public meeting,
review of existing literature and information and discussions
with agencies and public officials to determine the issues and
impact vulnerability of the Greater Jerome Area.
Step 2 will be to define wastewater facilities alternatives and to
assess the environmental and social-economic impact risks of
these alternatives.
Step__3 will be based on the analysis performed inStepZ, to iden-
tify the alternative which will achieve the most cost-effective
level of treatment with the minimum amount of environmental
and socio-economic impact risk.
Step j will be to describe the potential environmental and socio-
economic impacts of this proposed alternative.
Step__5 will be to write up and document these analyses in the
form of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which will be
distributed to the public for their review and comment.
StegJ> will be to conduct a public hearing seeking the comments
from the public on the proposed Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. '
6. Project Timing
The following listing of actions and dates is a tentative time
schedule that the Environmental Protection Agency will attempt to
meet in the preparation of its Environmental Impact Statement. How-
ever, because of the complex nature of environmental impact state-
ments, often it is necessary for the Environmental Protection Agency
to modify its proposed schedules. In this regard, the following sched-
ule can be used only as a guide to inform people of the approximate
timing of study results and products.
Action
Begin preparation of the Envir-
onmental Impact Analysis . . .
Public information meeting . .
Distribution of the Draft Envir-
onmental Impact Statement .
Public hearing on the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement . .
End of comment period by the
public on the Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement
Distribution of the Final Envir-
onmental Impact Statement . . .
Administrative action by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency
on the Jerome, Idaho Wastewater
Facilities Project
Date
May 10, 1976
May 25, 1976
August 20, 1976
September 21, 1976
October 4, 1976
December 1, 1976
January 14, 1977
Step 7 will be to produce
ment.
Final Environmental Impact State-
Thank You for your attendance at our
Public Information Meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION X and
BOISE
OPERATIONS OFFICES
4
,,0
-------
ted Facilities Plan prepared by the City and its con-
of the sludge residuals produced in the treatment process,
However, since the publication of that report a change in the
State of Idaho's requirements fordischarge of treated effluent into ir-
rigation canals has resulted in a change in the reported recommenda-
tion. Because of the elimination of the storage requirement during the
winter months for treated effluent from thetreatment plant the current
recommended alternative is to discharge into the irrigation canal sys-
tem. Thus, the original recommended alternative of CHzM/Hill in tlje
City of Jerome in their facilities planning process has been modified
to construct the new plant at the site west of the City with a discharge
into the irrigation canal system. This alternative and others will be
evaluated in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement.
3. Public Participation
The Environmental Protection Agency welcomes the input of the
public into the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement for
the Jerome, Idaho Wastewater Facilities Project This entire bro-
chure and the public information meeting is designed to assist the
public in understanding how they can input their comments into the
process. The time schedule shows the project timing and deadlines
which can serve as a guide in making information available. In the
general sense the time schedule illustrates that all data information
and suggested issues or topic s should be submitted to the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency before July 1, 1976. These comments will be
considered in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement
if received before that date. After that date the review procedure
will begin, at which time the general public will have access to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement by approximately August 20,
1976, at which time they may read, review, and submit comments re-
garding the Draft EIS.
Comments must be written and may be addressed to any of the
staff participants listed within the Staff section of this brochure. How-
ever, for the purposes of coordination and cost-effectiveness, it is
requested that all comments, suggestions, or criticisms be addressed
to Norma Young of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition
to these mechanisms, in the panel adjacent to this discussion is in-
cluded a questionnaire which is designed to help the Environmental
Protection Agency in defining goals, objectives, concerns and issues
that should be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. It
would be greatly appreciated by the staff if you would please take a
few minutes to complete this questionnaire and include any comments
that you think may be of help to us in preparing the Environmental
Impact Statement. If you need more room to respond to the question-
naire, or if youwould like to supply us with further information, please
enclose this information in an envelope and address it to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency - MS/443. Otherwise, if you can include all
of your information on the questionnaire, simply detach the question-
naire from this brochure and drop in a mailbox. You will notice that
on the othei side of the questionnaire is a prepaid, self-addressed la-
bel that will allow all comments to be received by the Environmental
Protection Agency in Seattle. All comments must be signed to be con-
sidered.
The Environmental Protection Agency and R. W. Beck and Asso-
ciates greatly appreciate your attendance at this meeting and any com-
ments and suggestions that you may have offered during the meeting.
Additionally, if you have specific questions and want to meet with
members of the staff, we would be pleased to meet with you after the
meeting or during the morning of Wednesday, May 26, the day imme-
diately following the meeting. If you wish such a meeting, please
make an appointment immediately after the meeting with one or more
of the study staff. Thank you once again for your concern and coop-
D-3
7. Questionnaire
PUBLIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
JEROME, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT
W
Pi
9
£
u
7.
In your opinion, what is the value of the proposed
Wastewater Facilities Project for Jerome, Idaho?
Worthwhile^) Accept ableQMarginalQUnacceptableQ
What are the issues that you believe should be con-
sidered during the preparation of this Environmental
Impact Statement?
What sources of information do you believe should
be utilized during the preparation of this Environ-
mental Impact Statement ?
What potential impacts do you believe may be
associated with the implementation of the proposed
Wastewater Facilities Project?
What other comments or suggestions do you believe
may be beneficial to the study staff during the prep-
aration of this Environmental Impact Statement?
If you would like a copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Jerome Wastewater
Facilities Project, please print your name and
address below.
Please sign below; anonymous comments cannot be
accepted. Thank you.
Signature
The Environmental Protection Agency appreciates
your time and concern in completing this questionnaire.
------- |