EPA-9O8/ 5-77-OO2
 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 JACKSON WASTEWATER  TREATMENT SYSTEM
       TOWN OF JACKSON,  WYOMING
                   MAY 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION VIII, DENVER, COLORADO
80203

-------
         EPA - 908/5-77-002
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
 JACKSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
      TOWN OF JACKSON, WYOMING
             Prepared By

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Region VIII
         1860 Lincoln Street
       Denver, Colorado  80295
                  Approved by:	
                                    ional Administrator
                  Date:          May> 1977

-------
                              SUMMARY SHEET

                     Environmental Impact Statement

                   Jackson Wastewater Treatment System
                        Town of Jackson, Wyoming
 (X)  Draft
 (  )  Final
Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rocky Mountain Prairie
Region, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado with the assistance of James M.
Montgomery Engineers, Inc., Boise, Idaho.

A.  Type of Action:   (X) Administrative
                      ( ) Legislative

B.  Brief Description of the Proposal:

     The Region VTII Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency intends to fund Federal matching funds for wastewater treatment
for the Town of Jackson, Wyoming, through the authority of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (as amended, 1972).  The purpose of this draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required of Federal agencies under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969) is to notify governmental
agencies and the public of this impending project.

     The problem is that the present facility does not have sufficient
capacity to treat present or future wastewater flows adequately to meet
prescribed discharge permit limitations developed under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.  Flat Creek currently receives wastewater from the
existing plant and in-stream standards are being exceeded for bacterial con-
tamination.  Dissolved oxygen is sufficient presently to protect fish life
but will not remain so if additional oxygen demanding wastes were dis-
charged to the stream.

     The Town of Jackson proposes to build a stabilization lagoon system
in the State-owned South Park Elk Feedground five miles south of the
town.  Because this option has major legal difficulties in acquiring the
land from the state, would adversely affect the elk herd, is located
in a flood plain, and would have substantial secondary impact (the long
sewer line, or interceptor would facilitate growth), EPA has decided
not to fund this option.

C.  Alternatives Considered:

     Alternative systems include lagoon systems located at three other
sites other than the Elk Feedground.  Mechanical plants are evaluated
including upgrading at the existing site or building a new mechanical plant
approximately two miles west of the town.  Another option of upgrading
the existing plant to meet standards but with no reserve capacity is also
considered.  The No Action alternative is also evaluated as to costs
and environmental impacts.

-------
 D.   Environmental  Impacts:

     Water Quality of Plat Creek is being degraded by discharge from the
 present plant.  This  can be improved either by moving the discharge point
 to  the  Snake  River where dilutional flow is available or by upgrading
 the quality of  the effluent to Flat Creek.  Land development in South
 Park is presently  limited  due to a high ground water table which limits
 the closeness of septic tank systems.  The alternatives differ greatly as
 to  the  amount of land potentially developable along the central sewer and
 hence the  secondary growth impacts of the various alternatives is of great
 importance. ^  Protecting the scenic attributes of the pastoral setting of
 South Park is also an important objective and will be affected by the choice
 of  alternatives.   Construction of an outfall line to the Snake River (neces-
 sary for 5 of the  7 alternatives)  is a major problem since the River is
 proposed for Wild  and Scenic designation and the need to keep such a
 facility hidden from  river users is considered necessary.  Odor problems
 exist with the lagoon system since these systems will have noticeable
 odors especially during spring thaw.

E.  Distribution:

     The draft EIS is being provided to the following:

     Local Agencies

     Town of Jackson
     Teton County 208 Planning Agency
     Teton County Conservation District
     Teton County Planning Conmission
     Jackson Planning Commission
     Teton County Public Health Office

     State Agencies

     State Clearing House
     Department  of Environmental Quality
     State Water Engineer
     Wyoming Gams  and Fish Department
     State  Archeologist
     University  of  Wyoming

     Federal Agencies

     U.S. Soil Conservation Service
    Agricultural Stabilization and  Conservation Service

-------
Federal Agencies (Oont'd.)

U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pacific Northwest River Basin Commssion
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Energy Research and Development
Federal Energy Administration
U.S. Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
National Council on Environmental Quality
National Technical Information Service

Private Organizations

Wyoming Environmental Institute
The Nature Conservancy-Jackson Hole Project
Wyoming Field Institute
Jackson Hole Guide
Jackson Hole News
Sierra Club
Rocky Mountain Center on the Environment
Trout Unlimited
Colorado Open Space Council
The Wilderness Society
National Wildlife Federation
The Denver Post
The Rocky Mountain News
Livingston and Associates
James M. Montgomery Engineers
Nelson, Hayley, Patterson, and Quirk

Individuals

Jill Bamburg                           Bruce Dietz
Dale Kains                             Julie Scarlett
Garvice Roby                           B.C. Raynes
Jon Erickson                           Vera Cheney
Norman Mellor                          Barbara Ahr
Byron Jenkins                          Mary F. Moore
Mike Wardell                           Paul Von Gontard
Paul Brown                             Buf fy Hogue
Jack Griset                            Leslie Peterson

-------
Cyndie Griggs
Tessa Johnson
Rose Preite
Lois Lasle
Pam McCool
A.B. Wbrmald
Individuals  (Cont'd.)

     Pete Jorgensen
     Victoria Seidner
     Maggie Miller
     Tom Johnson
     Skip Wright-Clark
     Eugene Hoffman
     Jolynn Coonce

F.  Acknowledgements

     Many people were helpful in the preparation of this EIS and EPA
wishes to extend its appreciation to all who aided in its developinent.
We would like to give special thanks to Ed Cryer of Montgomery Engineers,
Duane Wroe and Don Stocker of the Town of Jackson, Gene Zeizel and Bob
Abondi of the 208 Planning Agency, Don Armstrong of the Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality and the concerned citizens of Jackson and Teton
County.

G.  Draft Environmental irpact Statement filed with the National Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on:

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                      Page No,

  I.  INTRODUCTION                                       I- 1

      Location and Setting                               I- 1
      Water Quality Management                           I- 2
      Proposed Project by the Town of  Jackson            I- 4
      EPA Decision and Responsibility                    I- 6


 II.  EXISTING ENVIRONMENT                              II- 1

      Physiography                                      II- 1
      Geology                                           II- 2
      Soils                                             II- 7
      Climatology                                       II- 8
      Acoustic Conditions                               II- 9
      Air Quality                                       11-10
      Aesthetic and Visual Characteristics              11-11
      Cultural and Historic/Archeologic
        Resources                                       11-16
      Water Quality                                     11-17
      Teton County Water Quality                        11-21
      General Hydrologic Condition                      11-28
      Nonpoint Sources                                  11-32
      Flood Hazards                                     11-34
      Natural Communities                               11-40
      Lard Use Planning                                    11-44
      Population                                          11-53
      Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities                 11-60

III.  PROJECT PROPOSED BY THE TOWN OF  JACKSON          III- 1

      Design Criteria and Consideration                III- 2


 IV.  ALTERNATIVES                                      IV- 1

      Description of Alternatives                       IV- 1
      Economic Evaluation of Proposed  Project
        and Alternatives                                IV- 6


  V.  IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT                    V- 1

      Natural Environment Impacts                        V- 1
      Water Quality Impacts                              V- 2
      Air Quality                                        V- 8
      Wildlife Habitat                                   V-10
      Natural Hazards                                    V-12
      Economic Impacts                                   V-14

-------
                                                      Page No.

       Socio-Cultural Impacts                            V-19
       Land Use Impacts                                  V-22
       Secondary Impact Analysis                         V-25
  VI.  UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL
         MITIGATION MEASURES                            VI-  1

       General                                          VI-  1
       Short Term Construction                          VI-  1
       Long Term Construction                           VI-  2
       Operational                                      VI-  2
 VII.  IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE
         COMMITMENTS                                   VII-  1
VIII.  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF
         THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE OR
         ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
         OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE
         ALTERNATIVES                                 VIII-  1

       Proposed Project (South Park Elk Feedground
         Stabilization Pond)                          VIII-  1
       Alternative A-l (New Mechanical Plant at
         Existing Site)                               VIII-  2
       Alterantives A-2,  A-3, and A-4  (Boyles
         Hill Mechanical Plant, Boyles Hill
         Stabilization Pond, Mid-South Park
         Stabilization Pond)                          VIII-  2
       Alternative A-5 (South Park Road
         Stabilization Pond)                          VIII-  2
       Alternative A-6 (Interim Upgrading of
         Existing Treatment Plant)                    VIII-  2
       Alternative A-7 (No Action)                    VIII-  3
  IX.   EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
         ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES                         IX-  1

       General                                           IX-  1
       Summary Evaluation                                IX-  2
       REFERENCES


       APPENDICES

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES


Table                                                 Page No.

  1      Visual Absorption Capability Ratings           11-13

  2      Attributes and Management Objectives of
           the Three River Classifications for
           Inclusion in the National Wild and
           Scenic River System                          11-15

  3      Flat Creek Stream Profile                      11-24

  4      Snake River Water Quality                      11-27

  5      Groundwater Quality                            11-31

  6      Estimated Peak Discharges for the
           Snake River at Wilson Bridge                 11-37

  7      Teton County Land Ownership and Management     11-46

  8      Land Use of Private Lands                      11-46

  9      Projected Population                           11-56

 10      Town of Jackson Population Projections         11-57

 11      Peak Non-Resident Population                   11-60

 12      Flat Creek Water Quality                       11-64

 13      Population and Flow Estimates                 III- 3

 14      Cost Estimate Proposed Project -
           Site A South Park Elk Feedground             IV- 8

 15      Cost Estimate Proposed Project -
           Site B South Park Elk Feedground             IV- 9

 16      Cost Estimate Alternative A-l                  IV-11

 17      Cost Estimate Alternative A-2                  IV-12

 18      Cost Estimate Alternative A-3a                 IV-13

 19      Cost Estimate Alternative A-3b                 IV-14

 20      Cost Estimate Alternative A-3c                 IV-15

 21      Cost Estimate Alternative A-4                  IV-17

-------
Table                                                 Page No.

 22      Cost Estimate Alternative A-5                  IV-18

 23      Cost Estimate Summary of Alternatives          IV-19

 24      Cost Estimate Alternative A-6                  IV-21

 25      Calculated Instream Concentration               V- 3

 26      Captial Cost - Comparison of  Alternatives        V-16

 27      Environmental Evaluation Matrix              Following
                                                        IX- 3

-------
                        LIST OF FIGURES

                                                      Following
Figure                                                Page No.

   1     General Location Map                            I" 1

   2     Vicinity Map                                    I~ 1

   3     Probable Fault Zone Areas                      II- 3

   4     Geomorphic Units                               II- 4

   5     Groundwater Categories                         II- 5

   6     Average Monthly Precipitation and
           Temperature, Jackson, Wyoming                II- 9

   7     Landscape Units and Vegetation                 11-13

   8     Flood Plain                                    11-36

   9     Flood Hazards                                  11-38

  10     Big Game Distribution South Park               11-42

  11     Land Use                                       11-52

  12     Proposed Land Use Town of Jackson              11-52

  13     Town of Jackson Resident Population Growth     11-54

  14     Total Visits Grand Teton National Park         11-59

  15     Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
           Town of Jackson                              11-60

  16     Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant
           Influent Quality                             11-62

  17     Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant
           Daily Flow                                   11-62

  18     Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant
           Effluent Quality                             11-63

  19     State Elk Feeding Refuge Sites Proposed
           Project                                     III- 4

  20     Proposed Expanded Plant Layout                 IV- 2

  21     Boyles Hill Alternative Sites A-2 & A-3        IV- 2

  22     South Park Alternative Sites A-4 & A-5         IV- 3

  23      Boyles Hill Alternatives 3a, 3b, & 3c                IV- 10

-------
SECTION    I

-------
SNAKE RIVER FLOOD PLAIN

-------
                             SECTION I
                            INTRODUCTION
LOCATION AND SETTING


     The Town of Jackson is located in Teton County, east of the
Idaho-Wyoming state line (Figures 1 & 2) in a valley generally known
since the days of the early trappers as Jackson Hole.  The valley is
roughly delineated by Yellowstone Park to the north, Hoback Canyon
to the south and the Teton and Gros Ventre mountain ranges on the
west and east, respectively.

     The region, as has been pointed out by numerous authors, offers
one of the most spectacular visual experiences found anywhere in
the United States.  The most predominant features of the area are
the Teton Mountains, which tower over the valley in a panorama of
stark precipitous rocky forms, and a rich variety of subtle colors.
The valley of Jackson Hole is approximately eighty miles long and
fifteen miles wide offering a relatively smooth expanse of land cut
by the Snake River, numerous creeks and subdrainages.  Six morain
lakes, Jackson Lake, Leigh Lake, Jenny Lake, Bradley Lake, Taggart
Lake and Phelps Lake, are the result of glacial action and lie along
the base of the mountains.

     The service area for the Town of Jackson considered in this
Study constitutes those areas presently serviced by the existing
treatment facility and adjacent lands the town may wish to include
after completion of the ongoing comprehensive planning study.  Several
serviceable growth areas adjacent to the town have been considered
and are discussed in Section II under Land Use Planning.

     The existing sewage collection system flows by gravity to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)  southwest of town.  (See Figure 2)

     Transportation to and from Jackson is available only by highway
and air.  Five general highway routes provide Jackson with a major
link to the rest of the country—State Highway 22 from Idaho, U.S. 89
South, U.S. 189-187 East, U.S. 289-28 East and U.S. 287-89 North.
One commercial airline has regularly scheduled flights to Teton
County Airport.   These flights, however, are restricted to smaller
planes (approximately 50 passenger)   due to the limited facilities
at the Teton County Airport.   There are no rail lines to provide
bulk carrier services in the immediate area.

     The economic activity of Jackson and vicinity is based primarily
on tourism (scenic experiences, skiing, hunting and fishing) and
agriculture.   The two National parks in the area, Teton and Yellow-
stone, and Teton-Bridger National Forest draw visitors from all over
the nation with the Town of Jackson providing the bulk of the
necessary services.  Agriculture,  and ranching in particular, while
                                1-1

-------
   ADO
  'PUEBLO
GENERAL   LOCATION
         MAP
                    Figure 1

-------
                                                                             '«'    /
                                                                                    / *M)
—*
                                          -•* ,.—~. ' ' . '    J
                                                                                          Vicinity   Map
        SCALE I WOOO
           0

'OQP_   OOC 2OQP 3000 4COO
                                                                        IMLI
                                                                                                              Figure 2
                                                                    7OOOFHT

-------

-------
smaller in total economic scope, is the traditional livelihood  of
the area, and in some form or other encompasses much of the privately
held land in the valley.  There are no significant industrial manu-
facturers in the community-  The nontourist commercial activity is
basically for support and maintenance of the resident population.


WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

Present System Inadequacies

     The Town of Jackson, in cooperation with Teton County, is
currently in the final stages of developing their comprehensive plan
to provide guidance for growth and development.  A planning period
of fifteen years (1990) was selected as a manageable time  increment
for generating an economic and environmentally sound plan  for direct-
ing land uses in Teton County.  In considering the difficulty of
predicting growth and the pressures for development in an  area  such
as Jackson, it was decided by EPA to utilize two alternative waste-
water planning periods, fifteen and twenty years  (1990 and 1995).

     At present, only the Town of Jackson and limited areas to  the
southwest are provided with municipal wastewater services.  The
collection system was inspected in 1975 for inflow and infiltration,
and it was determined by EPA that it would be cost effective to
correct approximately 600,000 gal/day of the peak infiltration
rather than consider providing capacity in any new facilities.
Construction to eliminate approximately 75% of the infiltration
and inflow will begin in the summer of 1977.

     The existing treatment plant (discussed in detail in  Section II)
is an activated sludge extended aeration system designed for 0.8
million gallons per day (mgd) at ultimate capacity with effluent
discharged to Flat Creek.  The plant was to be upgraded in stages
with sludge digestion and disinfection to be added when the system
reached the necessary capacity.  These additions were never made.
A report on sewage facilities for the Town of Jackson prepared  by
R. D. Connell in 1973 concluded that given the existing hydraulic
and organic capacity of the system, it was already overloaded with
a maximum day flow of 1.34 mgd and a corresponding influent BOD
of 130 mg/1.  In 1976, the flow had exceeded 1.7 mgd (average day
peak month) with a raw BOD over 120 mg/1.  Connell's report pointed
out a number of deficiencies in the system and suggested corrective
actions, but no significant inplant modifications have been made.

     In terms of instream water quality, three major problems or
inadequacies with the present system are contributing to the de-
gradation of Flat Creek.  While these are discussed in more detail
later,  they include:  1) the inability to waste excess sludge from
the clarifiers,  2)  carryover of solid and organic matter from the
polishing pond and 3)  carryover of bacterial contamination.  The
State of Wyoming has recommended to the Town that several  interim
improvements be made to correct the causes of these three  conditions.
These interim modifications are discussed in Section IV.


                                1-2

-------
Potential Problems

     Teton County is undergoing growth pressures of the type seen
in other recreation oriented communities across the country.  The
comprehensive plan, being prepared for the Town and County, is
dJrecting the majority of the new higher density residential growth
in an area adjacent to the Town of Jackson.  (In order to develop
to the proposed densities, it will be necessary to provide centralized
wastewater services.)   High groundwater conditions, prevalent in
most of the county, could create contamination and possible health
problems in areas where septic systems and domestic water wells are
in close proximity  (i.e., high density nonsewered residential areas).
Any additional flow to the existing system would only aggravate an
already serious overloaded condition at the treatment facility and
further endanger the water quality of Flat Creek.  Therefore signif-
icant growth and expansion in Teton County is dependent upon the
availability of new or expanded wastewater services.


Flat Creek Water Quality

     Water quality information for Flat Creek has been available
on a continuing basis only since the initiation of the Teton County
208 Project in the fall of 1975.  This is areawide water quality
planning funded by EPA under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972.  The State has, through their
303(e) basin planning process, classified all major streams  (includ-
ing Flat Creek) in Teton County as Class 1 (suitable for a cold water
game fishery), the highest possible designation.  As stated in
the Snake River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, "Flat Creek ...
is the most critical stream segment in the Snake River Basin in
terms of possible impairment of water quality."  A number of poten-
tially degrading point (direct discharges) and nonpoint source
(diverse, indiscrete discharges) discharges threaten the stream
quality from the National Elk Refuge north of Town throughout its
entire length to the confluence with the Snake River along the
southern edge of South Park.  It was concluded in the State's analysis
that at present the water quality of Flat Creek is quite high except
directly below the sewage treatment plant, and that water quality
throughout the immediate study area is exceptional.

     The ongoing 208 project water quality monitoring activities
have shown that the in-stream standards assigned to Flat Creek are
being maintained with the exception of the coliform bacteria require-
ment which has exceeded the 1000 colonies/100 ml limitation at a
South Park sampling point immediately below the treatment plant.

     Flat Creek is considered by the Wyoming Department of Game
and Fish as a stable cold water fishery.  Little information is
available as to its value, carrying capacity, or fisherman use,
and since major access is limited by private land bordering the
Creek, the Department does not try to manage its fishery resources
as they would on waters open to the public.


                                1-3

-------
      It  should  also  be  noted that  while available water quality
 records  do  not  indicate any  major  degradation except below the
 treatment plant,  studies now in  progress on agricultural and urban
 nonpoint problems may provide evidence  of sporadic increases in
 pollutants  from storm runoff and spring overland flow.   A more
 detailed discussion  of  Flat  Creek  water quality is presented in
 Section  II.


 Snake River  Water Quality

      The water  quality  of the Snake  River,  according to the State's
 basin management plan summary, is  excellent in all streams within
 the Snake River Basin and meets  or exceeds  Wyoming's water quality
 standards.   The main stem of the Snake  River appears,  from the
 limited  data, to suffer some "slight deterioration"  in  a downstream
 direction.   A combination of both  natural and man oriented or at
 least aggravated activities  have been pointed to as  being the source
 of this  degradation.  In particular,  the Water Quality  Division of
 the Wyoming  Department  of Environmental Quality has  recorded a
 number of water quality violations of the fecal coliform require-
 ment (200 colonies/100  ml) below the confluence of Flat Creek.
 The overloaded  condition of  the  Jackson wastewater treatment plant
 and its  nondisinfected  effluent  discharging into Flat Creek  are
 cited as the probable cause  for  these sporadic summer violations.

      The Snake  River, along  its  Wyoming course,  has  been nominated
 for inclusion in the National Wild and  Scenic River  System (P.L.90-
 542).  The U.S.  Forest  Service,  as lead agency,  is initiating studies
 to determine if the  Snake qualifies  and what,  if any, designation
 will be  applied (i.e.,  wild,  scenic,  or recreational).   If the
 river were  to be classified  under  this  system,  a number of require-
 ments and controls would be  applied,  including establishment of water
 quality  standards that  may exceed  those of  the State's,  and re-
 striction of construction projects (including municipal)  that would
 impact on the scenic resources.  It  will  be necessary that any
 wastewater facility  (structures, outfalls,  etc.),  proposed by the
 Town of  Jackson,  be  carefully reviewed  by the USFS in order to
 determine if it would affect  the potential  classification and use
 of the Snake River as defined by P.L. 90-542.   Their study is
 scheduled to be  completed in  1979.


 PROPOSED PROJECT  BY  THE  TOWN  OF  JACKSON

     The existing wastewater  treatment  facilities  for the Town  of
 Jackson were constructed  in  1969 for  a  peak design population of
 5,000.  Excess  summer infiltration,  the addition of  new service
 areas, and the popularity  of  Jackson  as  a vacation resort area  have
 all contributed in exceeding  design  capacity in  early 1971.   Aggra-
vating this  situation was  the lack of solids and  sludge  handling
units, which were proposed for the existing facility but  never
completed.   A 1973 report  (R. D.  Connell) was  prepared  for  the
Town detailing what modifications  could be  made  to bring  the  system
                                1-4

-------
into proper operating order for a proposed 1985 population equiv-
alent.  This report recommended that the Town install aeration
equipment in the existing polishing pond, reduce infiltration, over-
haul the raw sewage pumps, install skimmers and construct sludge
beds.  While several sludge bed modifications and a small mechanical
aerator were installed subsequent to these recommendations, they
really only compounded an already difficult problem.  Funds were
expended by the Town, but no significant improvement to the opera-
tion or treatment efficiency of the system was realized.  The sludge
beds were incapable of handling raw primary sludge at the necessary
rate and the polishing pond aeration unit was too small and ineffec-
tive to do anything but disperse the solids accumulating in the pond,

     In 1974, the Town, in seeking funding assistance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, prepared a Facility Plan detailing
the improvements necessary for the wastewater systems.  Two signif-
icant actions resulted from this study.  EPA agreed to fund a study
of the inflow/infiltration problems of the collection system.  This
study was completed in 1975 and resulted in a federal grant to
modify and improve the system which should eliminate up to 75% of
the known infiltration.  The second major action resulting from this
report was the town council's rejection of the consulting engineers'
recommendations to revise and upgrade the existing plant, and the
preference of the council for a more capital expensive (e.g., 1975
Supplemental Report to the Facility Plan) alternative of an aerated
lagoon in the South Park Elk Feedground.

     As a result of this decision by the Town and the subsequent
controversy this has created, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has found it necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed project and its alternatives.  The major
controversies which have arisen include:

     1.  Use of the South Park Elk Feedground site and the probable
         impacts this may create.

     2.  The secondary growth that the interceptor running through
         South Park may facilitate.

     3.  The impact the proposed project would have on the county
         comprehensive planning effort now being prepared.

     4.  The validity of the cost of the proposed project presented
         in the 1975 supplement to the facility plan and the cost
         effectiveness of a lagoon at the South Park Elk Feedground.

     This document examines the proposed project and the likely
and feasible alternatives in terms of their environmental, social,
cultural and economic impacts on the Jackson area.  It presents
the necessary information required by the National Environmental
Policy Act through which a decision can be made as to whether the
federal government can assist in funding the proposed facility -
The Environmental Impact Statement process, and the assessment of


                                1-5

-------
environmental impacts must not be an end  in  themselves,  but  a  logical
and reasonable step in the planning and deliberation  leading to a
final decision to protect water quality and  public  health  in the
Jackson area.
EPA DECISION AND RESPONSIBILITY

EPA and State of Wyoming Authority

     EPA approval of the facility plan and this EIS will mean  that
75% of all eligible costs will be made available to the Town of
Jackson under provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500.  The State of Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) must approve of the discharge  limi-
tations and issue a permit under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System  (NPDES)  to assure compliance with  such  limitations
and with a compliance schedule for completing construction.  The
Wyoming DEQ must also certify the facility plan and transmit it to
EPA for funding.  Therefore, both EPA and the state DEQ will have
to concur on the decision in order to fund Jackson's  sewage treatment
facility-


History of Events Regarding The Jackson Facility Plan

     This section outlines the state, local, and EPA  actions re-
garding this facility plan and the decision to prepare an  environ-
mental impact statement.

     A Step I grant to the Town of Jackson authorizing the develop-
ment of a facility plan was approved by EPA in March, 1974, in the
amount of $46,500.  The firm of Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk,
Inc.,  (NHPQ) was hired by the town to complete this function.  Their
initial studies indicated the need for an extensive inflow and
infiltration (I/I) study to analyze sewer line problems.   An addi-
tional $47,250 was authorized by EPA for this purpose—total Step I
funds were $87,750.

     By October, 1974, the plan was completed and delivered to the
city.  The plan, which only analyzed treatment needs  to 1985,  rec-
ommended as the most cost-effective alternative an extended aeration
treatment plant at the present plant site, approximate capital cost
of $1.5 million.  The plan recommended as the second  preferred option
a similar plant west of the town near Boyle's Hill, approximate
cost $2.9 million.  As a third option, the plan stated a waste
stabilization lagoon could be built 4.5 miles south of town which
would allow gravity service to all of the undeveloped South Park,
approximate cost $1.8 million.  This site is located  in the Snake
River floodplain on the Wyoming State Elk Feedground.  The plan
by NHPQ fully recognized the disadvantages of this South Park  site.
Among these arc:  1)  adverse impact to the elk feeding area and
the controversy of securing Wyoming Game and Fish property; and
                                1-6

-------
2)  interceptor placement in the undeveloped, uniquely scenic South
Park, creating growth pressure.

     After the city's November, 1974 hearing on the plan, the city
requested NHPQ to re-evaluate the comparative costs of the treat-
ment plant at the present site versus the South Park lagoon.  NHPQ's
January 5, 1975 facility plan supplement stated the South Park site
would suffer a 17% inflation cost because it would be constructed
at a later date than other alternatives.  The supplement concluded
that the total annual equivalent costs  (all operation and maintenance
costs plus debt retirement) of upgrading the existing treatment
plant were less expensive than the South Park lagoon.

     A letter to the city from EPA in October, 1974 indicated that
an EIS would probably be required if the decision were to  use tne
South Park Elk Feedground location.  The city received the January,
1975 supplement but was unable to make an immediate decision con-
cerning alternative selection.

     An NPDES wastewater discharge permit was issued to the Town of
Jackson on April 30, 1974 by the Wyoming DEQ.  One of the require-
ments of the permit was the submittal of a compliance schedule which
outlined steps to be taken to meet permit effluent limitations
which are the attainment of secondary treatment by July 1, 1977
as mandated by P.L. 92-500.

     Jackson's compliance schedule was approved by the State of
Wyoming on March 24, 1975 as follows:

     (1) Preliminary Plans - June 1975;
     (2) Final Plans - September 1975;
     (3) Award Contract - October 1975;
     (4) Commence Construction (on/or before) - April 1976;
     (5) Complete Major Construction - June 1976;
     (6) Complete All Construction - August 1976; and
     (7) Operational Status - September 1976.

     Following delays in submittal by the city, the State of Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality issued a Notice of Violation to
Jackson on November 4, 1975 requiring the submittal of items (1)
and  (2) of the above schedule within thirty  (30)  days.

     The Town of Jackson replied to the State-issued Notice in a
letter dated November 18, 1975.  Jackson's reply indicated that the
Town Council did not agree with the Step I Facility Plan prepared
by their consulting engineer, NHPQ, and that the Town Council had
approved the South Park location on or near the State Elk Feedground.

     EPA officially received the facility plan and the city's rec-
ommended alternative on January 3, 1976.  EPA's Operation and Main-
tenance staff completed an inspection of the facility on January 15,
1976.  On January 30, 1976, EPA's Regional Administrator, Mr. John A.
Green,  gave his approval to prepare an environmental impact statement
                                1-7

-------
based on the expected public controversy and expected adverse en-
vironmental impacts regarding the approval of the South Park Elk
Feedground site.

     In February, 1976 during consideration as to when an EIS for
the Jackson facility plan should begin, EPA was informed that a
county-wide comprehensive plan was currently under preparation.
In July, 1975 EPA authorized a grant to Teton County under Section
208 of P.L. 92-500 for the purpose of developing areawide wastewater
control plans.  Since these two studies were currently underway
and a decision of new or expanded facilities partly depended upon
the results of these studies, EPA decided to delay the EIS so that
data from the 208 Study and Comprehensive Plan would be available.
Consequently, on July 23, 1976, EPA hired the firm of James M.
Montgomery Engineers of Boise, Idaho to assist the agency in pre-
paring the EIS.  The total contract cost to Montgomery Engineers
for this EIS was $38,500.  A "Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS"
was issued by EPA on August 26, 1976 and mailed to all interested
individuals and agencies.

     EPA and the State agreed to separate the approval of funds for
the rehabilitation of Jackson's sewers (i.e., the correction of
infiltration-inflow problems) from the EIS.  This was done since
the sewer rehabilitation portion of the project was not controversial
and was necessary regardless of the final selected alternative.
Consequently, on June 9, 1976, EPA issued a negative declaration
on the sewer rehabilitation portion of the project and a Step II
grant was awarded on June 30, 1976, in the amount of $28,125.


Determination of Site Selection and Treatment Capacity

     The Town of Jackson has asked EPA to approve its site selection
in the State Elk Feedground at a capacity sufficient to handle ex-
pected 1985 flows.  Based on the known environmental and public
controversy associated with this site, EPA determined that an en-
vironmental impact statement was needed.   This draft EIS is issued
to facilitate public views on the project, to update engineering
cost data from the out-of-date 1974 facility plan, and to include
several other site alternatives.  It is the intention of EPA to
obtain a concensus decision on the treatment alternative from the
majority of the public, the city, the Wyoming Department of Environ-
mental Quality, and concerned local, state, and federal agencies.


Options Available to the Town of Jackson

     A.  Maintain choice of South Park Elk Feedground site but
update design capacity to either 1990 or 1995 flows and request
EPA funding.

     B.  Select another of the five alternative site options at
either the 1990 or 1995 flow design capacity and request EPA funding.
                                1-8

-------
     C.  Decide only on interim upgrading of the existing site to
meet 1977 permit conditions and request EPA funding.

     D.  Decide to build or expand a wastewater treatment plant
at their own expense.

     E.  Decide to take no action to expand or upgrade the facility.


Options Available to the State of Wyoming

     A.  Approve the Town's proposed plant site and reissue compliance
schedule and new NPDES permit.

     B.  Deny approval of the Town's proposed plant site based on
adverse environmental impacts or unsound engineering but still
issue new NPDES permit with new compliance schedule.

     C.  Approve one of the five alternatives or inter jjn upqra,d-
ing and reissue NPDES permit with new compliance schedule.

     D.  If the Town cannot or will not meet new NPDES permit and
compliance schedules, issue a tap ban on new construction and/or
daily fines until the Town does so comply.


Options Available to EPA

     A.  Approve the South Park Elk Feedground site.  Approval of
this site would mean some adverse impact to the elk herd wintered
there, requiring a complicated and controversial land exchange,
require construction in the 100-year flood plain and has the second-
ary effect of facilitating growth in the scenic South Park area.
EPA does not intend to approve this site location at this time.

     B.  Approve another of the five alternative site options at
1990 or 1995 capacity.  If there were still a significant amount
of adverse secondary impacts due to residential growth associated
with the site selection following evaluation of agreed-to mitigation
measures, EPA could suggest re-evaluation of the site.  If EPA agreed
that mitigation measures were sufficient to protect from adverse
growth effects, EPA could approve the site.  If EPA determined that
proposed mitigating measures by the community are insufficient,
then EPA could impose grant restrictions  (such as limiting residential
taps along the interceptor)  and then approve the site.

     C.  EPA could approve funding for population projections for
1990, 1995, or some other year.  These population projections are
based on an historically very rapid rate of growth of 6%  per year.
If EPA determined that the city's request was for unjustified excess
capacity, EPA could set the design year flow.
                                1-9

-------
     D.  If the preceding options were not acceptable to the Town of Jackson,
EPA could deny funding.  If there were still substantial adverse impacts
following an evaluation of all agreed-to mitigation measures and none of the
preceding options were acceptable to the Town of Jackson, EPA could deny
funding of the project.  Since the Wyoming DEQ is likely to pursue permit
compliance, such an action would possibly force 100% local funding.  If 100%
funding were unavailable and no action were taken, the cortrnunity would not
meet water quality objectives.

     If EPA is unable to achieve a concensus, EPA will make it known what
treatment options are environmentally, engineeringly, and economically
feasible.  The Wyoming DEQ will then be able to reissue the notice of
schedule of compliance, and the city will have to select one of the approved
alternatives.  If the city is unable to make a selection, EPA will notify
them which solution is preferable to EPA and the town will be asked to
respond.  EPA would only approve the facility plan following at a minimum
of 30 days after issuance of the final EIS, provided that the city agrees to
one of the feasible alternatives.  This action will allow the city to re-
quest funds to design the facility.  Following EPA and State approval of
design work, the city will be authorized to let construction bids.  Seventy-
five percent of costs eligible items will be paid to the city for both
design and construction of the sewage treatment facilities.  If current
schedules are met, construction could start the spring of 1978 and the plant
could begin operations by late 1979 or early 1980.
                                    1-10

-------
SECTION   II

-------
FLAT CREEK

-------
                             SECTION II
                        EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
PHYSIOGRAPHY

     Teton County is located in northwestern Wyoming, and is bounded
on the east by Park and Fremont Counties, on the south by Sublette
and Lincoln, on the north by Yellowstone Park, and on the west by
the State of Idaho.  The County contains a land area of approximately
2,873 square miles.

     The physiography or land surface of the County is the result
of geologically controlled phenomena, which continue to shape the
land even today (Love and Reed, 1968).  The Teton Range which lies
on the western side of the County, is a product of four geologic
factors:  a) hard granitic rocks; b)  vertical uplift; c) recent
mountain-making movement; and d) the dynamic forces of wind, water
and temperature.  The Range is short, narrow and jagged, forming
the western rim of Jackson Hole.

     Other mountainous areas include the Yellowstone Plateau to
the north, Pinyon Peak and Mount Leidy Highlands to the northeast,
the Gros Ventre Range to the south and east, and the Hoback and Snake
River Ranges to the south.

     Jackson Hole lies in the center of Teton County.  Surrounded
by mountains, the basin was formed by land movements along faults
such as the Teton Fault  (Love and Reed, 1968).  The basin is orient-
ed in a north-south direction, sloping from 7,000 feet in the north
to 6,000 feet in the south.

     Most of the valley floor in Jackson Hole, because it is sur-
rounded by mountains, was formed by deposition of gravel from alluvial
outwash.  Other lands like the low terraces near Wilson and the
Snake River flood plain are relatively recent flood plains still
being modified by the Snake River.

     The town of Jackson is located in the southeast corner of
Jackson Hole.  Most of the population and activity of the County
are located here.   The valley floor is crossed by the Snake and
Gros Ventre Rivers near Jackson.  The valley also contains the larg-
est, and some of the most scenic lakes found in the state.  Jackson
Lake, located just north of Jackson,  is the third largest lake in
the state with a capacity of some 846,000 acre feet.  Jenny Lake,
Leigh Lake, Taggart Lake and Phelps Lake, are all within Grand Teton
National Park and all are the result of glacial activity, and en-
hance the area's scenic attributes.
                                II-l

-------
GEOLOGY

     The geologic background of the Jackson Hole area, although
relatively new, is diverse and complex.  The Tetons were probably
formed between eight and ten million years ago, carved from a seg-
ment of the earth's crust that had been uplifted along the Teton
Fault.  Numerous active faults traverse the Jackson Hole area, as
evidenced by frequent small earthquakes in the Teton region.  These
mountains border the west side of the study area, rising to eleva-
tions in excess of  13,770 feet.

     The Teton Range is composed mainly of crystalline and meta-
sedimentary rocks of Precambrian age (hard metamorphic and igneous
rocks), flanked by Palezoic and Carboniferous sedimentary rocks
including limestones, shales and sandstone  (Love and Reed, 1968).
Younger Mesozoic sedimentary rocks occur in the Buffalo and Gros
Ventre River drainages which form the mountains and highlands to
the east of Jackson Hole, including the Mount Leidy Highlands and
the Gros Ventre Mountains, while the East and West Gros Ventre Buttes
are remnants of the older Teton-Gros Ventre Mountain range which
was fractured and destroyed by the faulting of the more recent Teton
Mountains.

     Glaciers sculptured all sides of Jackson Hole.  The glacial
features and the evidence of glacial remains are still prominent
in the area.  Downfaulted Jackson Hole is floored with Cretaceous
and Tertiary rocks, which are covered at the north end by glacial
till and outwash.  These glacial materials were deposited by at
least two sets of glaciers:  the alpine glaciers flowing-from the
Teton Mountains and the intermontane glaciers which moved south
from the Yellowstone Plateau.  The oldest glaciation was the most
widespread, and the ice in many places was 2,000 feet thick.  Later
glaciations eroded or covered parts of the deposits of earlier ones.
Even today, the "Hole" continues to drop and tilt; gravel covered
surfaces that originally sloped southward are now tilting westward
toward the mountains.


Hazardous Geological Conditions

     Although geologic records indicate that the origin of the
Tetons began about nine million years ago, the violent geologic pro-
cesses which shaped the physiography of the Teton Range and Jackson
Hole continue to exert their dynamic influence on the physical
character of the area.  Teton Glacier,  for example, moves nearly
30 feet each year, scouring the valley bottom and walls.  Water pours
from melting ice near the lower end of the glacier, depositing out-
wash onto the valley floor.  The Teton and other numerous faults
which break the valley floor between the Gros Ventre River and the
Town of Jackson remain active, as evidenced by frequent small earth-
quakes in the area.  The Snake River west of Jackson co^ inues to
meander westwardly toward the town of Wilson.  All of these processes
exemplify the continuing geologic activity in the area.  These
                                II-2

-------
processes also present a constant reminder of the geological hazards
which confront development in the Jackson Hole area.

     Physical hazards that exist in the study area are generally
of four types and include:  1) faults and associated seismic dan-
gers; 2) slope stability; 3) high ground water problems; and 4)
flooding.


Fault Zones and Seismic Risk
     Seismic risk is the most difficult to evaluate of all the geo-
logic hazards.  Earthquakes cannot be prevented or predicted in
terms of frequency or intensity-

     The Jackson Hole area is considered among the most active
regions in the United States in terms of seismic activity.  The
"Hole" was formed by land movements along faults such as the Teton
Fault, which runs south from Jackson Lake along the Snake River
flood plain.  The area is also characterized by a number of active
and inactive faults which criss-cross the valley floor, including
the Flat Creek Fault which runs in a southwesterly direction along
the Flat Creek flood plain through the town of Jackson, and the
Buck Mountain Fault which lies west of the main peaks of the Teton
Range.

     The Jackson area has been subjected to numerous minor quakes,
along with several major activities.  These include the 1927 event
which centered near Kelly resulting in six deaths and total destruc-
tion of the town by flooding and the 1959 Yellowstone disaster
which inflicted major damage and caused 28 deaths.  According to
U.S. Geological Survey data supplied by the NOAA Environmental Data
Service in Boulder, Colorado the area within a 100 mile (160 km)
radius of Jackson has been subjected to 28 earthquakes of the mag-
nitude of V or greater (Modified Mercalli Scale) in the past 70
years.  Earthquakes of this magnitude, although depending on a
number of factors including distance from the epicenter and distance
to the surface, can generate ground motions sufficiently severe
to be potentially damaging to structures.  For magnitudes less
than V the ground motion is unlikely to be damaging because of
very short duration and moderate acceleration.

     Leopold and Twiss (1975)  in compiling information for the
comprehensive land use plan have identified the major fault zones
occurring in the study area to be considered in future land use/
development decisions (Figure 3).  In general, faults in the Jackson
area are usually located adjacent to slopes, as shown in the map-
ping.  Zone widths of 1000 feet have been identified as areas where
damage can be expected should there be movement along an existing
fault.  Expected losses along these zones include direct damage
to structures, utilities and roads, structural collapse and settle-
ment, and most importantly high danger to occupants.  Although the
map is somewhat general, the information should be considered in
any planning, design and development in the Jackson Study Area.
                                II-3

-------
*  ••^r*&-'<.-r
                                                                                                                                                                              -

-------
PROBABLE  FAULT ZONE AREAS
    Source, Livingston and Associates, 1976
                                    Figure 3

-------
For example, seismic damage can be reduced by avoiding development
on fault zones and steep slopes, and by requiring minimum materials
standards for foundations and structures as identified in the 1976
Uniform Building Code.  Hospitals, schools, public utilities, fire
stations, and bulk storage facilities for liquid flammable substances
should be designed to exceed minimum standards.


Slope Stability
     Slope stability is a complex function of geologic structure
and geomorphic processes.  These processes can exert an influence
so great that the inherent properties of rocks are altered suf-
ficiently to cause slope failure.

     Slope failures in the Jackson area, not related to earthquakes
or flooding, occur in response to internal and external factors
that can act separately or in combination with sufficient magnitude
to overcome the cohesional strength of the material.  Internal
factors include the inherent strength of the rock type and volume
percent of swelling clay materials present, and degree of saturation
and consolidation of the material.  External factors include effects
of erosion, amount of precipitation and infiltration, natural or
artificial over-steepening or heightening of slopes, and removal
of support at the base or toe of slopes.

     Problems in the study area caused by action of these factors
include rock falls and avalanching of bedrock on slopes steeper than
30%, and massive erosion in similar areas where vegetation has been
disturbed by roads constructed without taking proper measures to
control soil erosion and localize slope failure (Haible, 1976).
These areas lie primarily west and southwest of Jackson, near Boyles
Hill and the bench east of Flat Creek.  Many naturally unstable
slopes also exist along the east flank of the Snake River below
South Park and near Hoback Junction.  These slopes have been iden-
tified in mapping prepared by Haible  (Figure 4) and generally are
not suitable for any land use which disrupts the vegetation, soil,
or natural drainage system.

     Slope failures in the Jackson area induced by earthquakes, as
previously mentioned, are commonly initiated in direct response to
earthquake shocks of an intensity of V or greater.  Failures caused
by seismic activity in the study area, although potentially wide-
spread, have in general been limited to bedrock slopes greater
than 30% and Quaternary alluvial slopes which run along the bench
south of Jackson and east of Flat Creek (Haible, 1976).  These
areas correspond with the fault zones delineated by Leopold and
Twiss (1975).  Any development proposed for the areas should be
limited and subject to detailed site investigation prior to es-
tablishing firm design criteria.


High Groundwater
     The geologic hazards occurring in the Jackson Study area that
relate to groundwater exist primarily in the form of moderate to


                                II-4

-------
                                           GEOMORPHIC UNITS

                              1  LOW GRADIENT UPLANDS

                                ALLUVIAL FANS

                              1  HIGH TERRACES
                  BEDROCK SLOPES STEEPER THAN 30 PER CENT

              ^1 QUATERNARY SLOPES . POTENTIALLY UNSTA-
              - -I BLE IF DISTURBED
                  QUATERNARY SLOPES , PROBABLY UNSTABLE
                  IN NATURAL STATE
     SCALE i 240OO
          0
Source,  Livingston and Associates, 1976

-------
poorly drained soils in the lowland areas south of Jackson where
groundwater levels are less than five feet below the ground sur-
face.  Saturated or near-saturated soil conditions in those areas
immediately adjacent to and within the Flat Creek and Snake River
flood plains have created some water quality problems due to mal-
functioning septic tanks.  Individual waste disposal in those areas
serviced by conventional septic tanks with soil absorption systems
or leach fields can create two kinds of environmental problems.
First, if wastewater is added to the local groundwater at a rate
faster than the groundwater is naturally drained out of the drain-
fields by subsurface flow, the local groundwater level will rise
and prevent proper treatment of the wastewater.  Second, if waste-
water disposed of in these systems is not completely treated bio-
logically and chemically before it joins the groundwater, contamina-
tion of the shallow groundwater aquifer, adjacent surface water and
possibly even the regional groundwater reservoir could result.

     Haible (1976), utilizing data from the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, has mapped the Jackson Study
area  (Figure 5).  He classified four categories of groundwater levels
existing at or near the surface and differentiated suitable from
unsuitable areas for septic tank operation.  Much of the area des-
ignated as poorly drained lowlands with ground water levels generally
less than three feet below the surface is located in the study
area.  Haible indicates that in addition to the shallow ground water
in these areas, the physical features of the region including thin,
poorly drained soils and inadequately low soil percolation rates
may preclude these areas from consideration in developing high
concentration of individual soil absorption systems.  It should
also be noted that officials from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)  have
indicated some concern over locating pipelines in these areas with-
out taking into consideration frost problems and potential break-
age associated with "wet zones" in these poorly drained soils.


Flooding
     Floods are a natural and normal occurrence.  Typically, a
stream will occupy some portion of its flood plain area about once
every two or three years, while greater floods occur on less fre-
quent intervals.

     Increasing urbanization throughout the United States has con-
tinued to result in urban development being allowed to pre-empt
the natural floodways and flood plains of streams and rivers, often
without regard to flood hazards and concomitant dangers to property,
health and life.  This trend is evidenced by the fact that while
over $25 billion have been spent on structural flood control measures
since 1920, national losses have continued at an increasing pace.

     The Snake River dominates the western portion of the Jackson
study area.  While its waters are important to the area for irri-
gation and recreation and provide an important element of the scenic
                                II-5

-------

-------
3o6c6c666oooooc)  E>i' -, ^
lODOogeggoooood	DcXxi1


              (OOOOOOOOOC
 JOGCrftopOOOOOOQCOOOOOOOOOC _^
  :>ooTOooooooocoo6t: _^
   ~ pooooooocxfiuDOooooooooooooT
    '  JOOOOO^TTitpOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC
foooouooj
 COOOOOQf
 ooooocCn
 QOOOGC
         3OOOOGOOOOOOC
         3OOOOOOOOC
               5oooooooooo\;'!i?l
              Joooooooooool1 ' •'

                                                                                                                                   * «t

                                                                                                         OQQC
          riOOOOOOOOTiuW&^VOOOOOOOOC
          DOOOOOOOOOOOOO€g»OOOOOOOOC
           7OOOOOOOOOOOOO30QOOOOOOC ,,
           joocoooooooooooooooooooo*
           Booooooooooooooooooooooofi i i|i i
           5OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO411' 111' i' i
           5oogooo5oooooooooooooooog
           pGOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr
                 " looooooooooooooj;






                               '•;'' '• 'l.^i^!jlGC

                                                                                                                                   OOOQ((
                                                                                                                                   OOOCT

                                                                                                                                   8§P
                                                                                                                                                                        . 5OOOC
                                                                                                                                                                       . 5OOTOJ
                                                                                                                                                                       3OOC
                                                                                                                                                                     roooc
                                                                                                              I  'i'
                                                                                                                  I'-
                                                                                                                       '' I
                                                                                                                        1

                                                                          I'W
                                                                                   +'•,-
        JOOOOOOOOOOS.
      . _ oooooooooooc., ,  ,.,
?ooooooooooooooooooai i  II'T
>OOOOOOOOOOC c2%T'OOOOO\ ' i  I I IX
IPQC^^sapooooqjKooooooliiit'i i!i,™
      '^oooc^toooooo^lVj1 ^
                                                                                                                                    III
                                                                                                                                    I l>
                                                                                                                             I i'llpl
                                                                                                                                               :;-4
                                                                                                                                                 .•i '' I
                                              JOOOOO
                                               OOOOO
                                                     '! i1!!!'!1!'!1"!'!'
                                                     """!!'if
                                                                                         TTT'I
                                                                                                                                                 !  ii:
                                                                                                                                           &
                                                                                                                                                 !:
                                                                                                                                           IM  I l'l J
                                                                                                                                                        }•!'!•
                                                                                                                                                       III!
                                                                                                                                                          «l<
                5O66OOOC,
               Pooooooog
               DOOOOOOOd
               Dooooooog
               Doooooooq

;;f;;.  ,1,1,1 1.111,111111 IT
                                                 1111111III III
                                                 ,  I ifl I I I  I I I I I  I
                                                                ,
                                                                                                 lit;
                                                                ,'  '!'!'   r  T^r I'i'i1!1!'!1!1!1!1!1
                                                               1   III        I  II11111111
                                                              j!1  !!i;:
                                                              >!'!  1M        i
                                                           'I!!!!::  iii'L^1   :,, ,..

                                                                                                        ,

                                                                                                                    w
                                                                                                                                                                 oo,
                                                                                                                                                                         _
                                                                                                                                                                     5OOOO



                                                                                                                                                               JOCC
                                                                                                                  JV
                                                                                                                          71 I
                                                                                                                                              JD'or
                                                                                                                ''I'i'i'i'i1!1!1
                                                                                                                          .
                                                                                                                  i|iji;r''
                                                                                                                                   tcc
                                                                                                                                         50O04
                                                                                                                                          oo«
                                                                                                                                                 »DOC

R!!|liti1lliiilili'iItrilil
     iiiliii!'?''1'1'1^
             I'll I I  I
                       r'--''M  ,-*Ł!>*!i***»i ,../:•<:•<•:,•<•'.<
                       ^^^i^k^i^^'^ltiiS
                       S 4^^^^^^^
v<,-','M,^:-;-:.:,,,%^
                '  j • i  ,  t


                                            'Ml
                                                                                                               LlAl
                                                                                                                          JOOOOO
                                                                                                                          DOOOOu _
                                                                                                                          3OOOOOOOO'
                                                                                                                                    OOOOOOO'
                                                                                                                        OOOOOOOi,
                                                                                                                        ""OOOOOC
                                                                                                                                                5OOC
                                                                                                                                               3OC
                                                                                                                                                      )OOC
                                                                                                                                           ooa.
                                                                                                                                           oooc
                                                                                                                                                                   K  '
                                                                                                                                                             :>oo
                                                                                                                                                      v
                                                                                                                                                     p
                                                                                                                      WELL DRAINED HILLSLOPES WITH SLIGHTLY TO

                                                                                                                      HIGHLY PERMEABLE SOILS AND WITH GROUND

                                                                                                                      WATER LEVELS GENERALLY MORE THAN FIVE

                                                                                                                      FEET BELOW THE SURFACE


                                                                                                                      WELL DRAINED LANDS UNDER 10 PER CENT

                                                                                                                      SLOPE WITH MODERATELY TO HIGHLY PERME-

                                                                                                                      ABLE SOILS, AND WITH GROUND WATER LEVELS

                                                                                                                      GENERALLY MORE THAN FIVE FEET BELOW THE

                                                                                                                      SURFACE
                                                                                                                                      GROUND WATER CATEGORIES


                                                                                                                                                   ED
                                                                                                                                                                                       m
                                                                                                                                               MODERATELY DRAINED, NEARLY LEVEL LOW-

                                                                                                                                               LANDS WITH MODERATELY PERMEABLE SOILS ,

                                                                                                                                               AND WITH GROUND WATER LEVELS GENERALLY

                                                                                                                                               THREE TO FIVE FEET BELOW THE SURFACE


                                                                                                                                               POORLY DRAINED , NEARLY LEVEL LOWLANDS

                                                                                                                                               WITH LOW SOIL PERMEABILITY , AND WITH

                                                                                                                                               GROUND WATER LEVELS GENERALLY LESS THAN

                                                                                                                                               THREE FEET BELOW THE SURFACE
                                                                                                                                         Source, Livingston and Associates, 1976
                                                                                                                                                                                Figure  5

-------
qualities of Jackson Hole, a major portion of the land west and a
relatively wide area east of the River are subject to flooding.
Portions of Flat Creek which runs south through the Town of Jackson
are^also subject to less frequent but periodic winter flooding caused
by ice blockages.  Because of the frequency and severity of flood-
ing in portions of the Jackson Study Area  the flooding situation
and flood hazards will be discussed in detail later in this report.


Geohydrology

     Groundwater is used in the Jackson area for irrigation, domestic
and industrial supplies.  Most of the irrigated area lies east of
the Snake River and southwest of Jackson.  Although most of the
Jackson area farmland is irrigated by surface waters, irrigation
water is also pumped from two irrigation wells near Jackson (Cox,
1975).  Domestic water is pumped from three wells northeast of the
Town of Jackson.  Rural residences divert water from springs and pump
water from wells.  Water for the Jackson Fish Hatchery is pumped
from wells and piped from nearby springs.

     Aquifers in the Jackson area are recharged by precipitation and
by waters from streams.  Snowmelt and precipitation percolate to
the water table and during periods of high runoff recharge the
aquifer.  As streamflow declines, the hydraulic gradient reverses
adjacent to gaining streams but remains toward the aquifer adjacent
to losing streams.  Recharge to the groundwater systems is greatest
in late spring and summer, owing to the combination of melting snow,
rainfall and high streamflow-  Recharge also occurs in the southern
portion of the Jackson study area in the form of percolation from
irrigated lands, canal and ditch leakage.  Aquifers in the Jackson
area are also recharged from discharge of one aquifer to another,
particularly in faulted areas.

     Groundwater  movement in the Jackson area is downgradient from
areas of recharge to areas of discharge, according to Cox (1974) .
Groundwater in alluvium and glacial deposits in the Jackson Study Area
moves toward the Snake River, but parallel to or away from Cottonwood
and Fish Creeks and the Gros Ventre River.  Stream gains generally
occur upstream of Jackson, gradually decreasing as surface eleva-
tions decrease and the valley floor narrows in the lower South Park
area.

     Although the alluvial groundwater deposits are over several
hundred feet in many portions of Jackson Hole, as mentioned earlier
in this discussion, an important consideration relative to ground-
water as it pertains to planning and design projects is the high
groundwater levels in the poorly drained soils and lowland areas
southwest of Jackson.   Shallow groundwater areas of levels less
than 3 feet near and around Jackson have been identified by Haible
(1976).  Consideration of groundwater conditions is essential for
protection of water supplies and water quality in providing for
municipal wastewater disposal.
                                II-6

-------
SOILS

General

     The Jackson Hole area is a geologically young area.  Soil
types are diverse and immature.  Although numerous soil types are
found in the study area, they can be grouped and studied according
to their geologic origin to assess development constraints and to
determine appropriate land uses.  Soil factors which should be con-
sidered in planning have been identified from U.S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service data by Livingston and Associates (1976).   These factors
include:  vulnerability to erosion, suitability for septic tanks,
value for agricultural production and potential for revegetation.

     The soil of the Jackson Hole floor is sand,  gravel, and talus,
including glacial outwash and materials deposited by existing stream
flow.  These soils range from well- to poorly-drained,  depending on
elevation and groundwater conditions.  Some wind swept deposits
of silt carried in from the west are also present.  These soils
are common on hill slopes along the west side of Jackson Hole and
on lower butte slopes.

     The predominant soil type in the area of fine loamy to loamy-
skeletal mixed soils.  These soils are found on low mountains,
alluvial fans and uplands where elevations range from 6,000 to
12,000 feet, according to the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality (1976).  Parent materials are alluvium sedimentary and
igneous rocks and volcanic material.  Soils range in depth from
10 to 60 inches.  Natural water tables fluctuate in depth causing
some soils to be beneficially subirrigated and others to be some-
what poorly drained.

     Much of the study area is irrigated, adding to the problem
of poor drainage.


Soils and Development Considerations

     Shallow soils are located on steep hillsides which form the
southeast border of the study area along U.S. Highway 189, and
the butte slopes near Boyles Hill west of Jackson.  These soils
are derived from hard bedrock (i.e., granite and limestone), are
generally less than ten inches in depth and are usually sandy and
poorly consolidated.  On the steeper slopes  (those exceeding 30%),
vegetation is sparse and soils are easily eroded.  Where slopes
have been cut for roads or building sites in these soil types, such
as along the east face of East Gros Ventre Butte, soil cuts are
eroding and revegetation is difficult.  Conditions for septic tanks
in these soil types are limited, and erosion control measures should
be incorporated in development designs.

     Soils on the gentle sloping hillsides south and west of South
Park and the Gros Ventre Range are fine-textured with low to high
water-holding capacities, and support a wide range of vegetation


                                II-7

-------
types.  Septic tank conditions in these areas are generally favor-
able, and development can be accommodated if reasonable erosion
control practices are utilized.  These soils, however, can erode
rapidly if vegetation is removed, particularly on steeper slopes.

     Most of the cropland in the study area is found southwest of
Jackson on alluvial fans, glacial outwash plains, and floodplains
at elevations ranging from 6,000 to 6,200 feet.  Soils consist of
fine to coarse loams and fine to coarse silts and mixed soils, and
are developed to depths of 60 inches.   The alluvial fan areas on
the east side of Jackson Hole are generally well-drained because
of the topography, while fans in the study area are wetter because
of snowmelt and support grassland vegetation.  The major limitation
to development for soils on alluvial fans is their permeability
which should be investigated prior to development.  Septic tank
conditions on the glacial outwash areas of the valley floor are
generally satisfactory, but can become marginal or require relatively
large leach fields when near the head of the outwash in coarser
soils.  Construction in these areas can also be hindered by coarse
rock and boulders, according to Livingston (1976) .  The floodplains
around Jackson are characterized by fine-grained material lying on
top of or mixed with gravel and sand deposits.  Soils are gravelly,
but valuable as pasture land and for hay production because they
also have a significant portion of clay and silt.  These soils range
from poorly to well-drained, and a relatively low annual precipi-
tation (approximately 15 inches)  dictates that most crops require
irrigation.  The major soil problems in portions of the agriculture
area are related to water saturation in areas of high groundwater.
Poorly drained lowlands with soils of low permeability and high
groundwater have been identified by Livingston (1976).  Although
these soils preclude the use of septic tank leach fields for res-
idential development, the areas are some of the most productive
ranch lands in Teton County.


CLIMATOLOGY

     The climate in Teton County and the Jackson Study Area is a
combined product of latitude, elevation and topography.  The area
is predominately mountainous and characterized by comparatively
harsh, long winters and cool, dry and short summers.  The basin
is in the latitudes of prevailing westerlies, with a predominance
of maritime Pacific air which has generally been modified by passage
over several mountain ranges between the Pacific Ocean and the
Wyoming Snake River Basin.  The Teton Range,  on the western side
of the County, has perhaps the most predominant influence on Jackson
climate.   Altitudes vary from 9,000 to above 13,000 feet, with Grand
Teton being the highest peak at 13,770 feet.   Precipitation in the
mountainous areas of Teton County often exceeds 70 inches annually,
the Teton range causing most of this precipitation coming from
the west to fall on the western side of the basin.  Winters are long
and cold, with over 60% of the annual precipitation that occurs in
                                II-8

-------
the region occurring as snow.  On the average, it snows 80 to 120
days per year.

     The elevation at Jackson is approximately 6,244 feet.  The
climate is characterized by cool summers and cold winters, although
extremely cold temperatures are generally blocked by the mountains
to the north and west.  The average annual temperature in Jackson
is 37.7°F.  July is the warmest month of the year with temperatures
averaging 60.9°F, according to information supplied by the National
Park Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce (1975).  January
is the coldest month with temperatures averaging 14.2°F.  The high-
est recorded temperature of 101°F occurred in Jackson in 1934.
The record low of -48°F occurred in 1933.

     Precipitation patterns throughout the region vary dramatically
with elevation and  topography.  Average annual precipitation in
Jackson is 15.22 inches according to data from the National Weather
Service (1976), with an average of 75 inches of snow per year account-
ing for nearly three-fourths of this precipitation.  In Moose, lo-
cated 12 miles north of Jackson, annual precipitation averages 21
inches.  Average monthly precipitation for Jackson is highest during
the winter months of January and February and the spring months of
May and June  (Figure 6) .

     Sunshine is abundant throughout the Wyoming Snake River Basin
and the Jackson Study Area, especially during the summer.  It is
estimated that sunshine averages about 60% on an annual basis, rang-
ing from 40% in the winter to 80% in the summer.

     Average relative humidity for Jackson ranges from 55% to 60%
annually,  the highs occurring in the winter (65%-75%), and the lows
occurring during the summer months of July and August (34%-45%).

     Wind patterns in the Jackson area prevail from the southwest.
Daytime winds are generally stronger than nocturnal winds.  Although
strong gusts may occur during severe summer thunderstorms, damaging
winds are rare with wind speeds generally falling below 15 miles
per hour on the valley floor.  Stronger winds characterize the
surrounding mountains, with gusts exceeding 100 miles per hour
recorded on numerous occasions.
ACOUSTIC CONDITIONS

     The Jackson area is characterized by several small communities
and sparse development.  Ambient noise levels are generally low,
but increase over natural levels along the South Park Highway  (U.S.
Highway 26-89-187), State Route 22, and the Town of Jackson.  Highway-
road vehicles are considered the major noise source in the study
area.  The Jackson Hole Airport in Grand Teton National Park is per-
haps the most intense intermittent noise source in the study area.
                                II-9

-------
      AVERAGE  MONTHLY  PRECIPITATION a TEMPERTURE, JACKSON  Wyo.
1  5
c
o
|4
'o
S.  2
4>
O>

I   '















•111
Average



IBB
Annual




Predpitc




t»n=l5.




22 inch



s







lumiinl
niii III










       Oct    Nov   Dec    Jan    Feb   Mar   Apr    May   Jun   Jul     Aug   Sep
                          PRECI  PI TATION
          | SOURCE : NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE RECORDS (1941-1970 AVERAGE VALUES)
  100

   90

   80

^  70
v>
a>
%  60
o
•-  50
h_
3
I  40

"z,  ^
s
|  20
a>
z  10
a>
>
     0
                Average Annual Temperature = 37.7° F
      Oct    Nov    Dec   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr    May   Jun    Jul   Aug    Sep
                             TEM  PERATURE
                                                                              FIGURE 6

-------

-------
     Heavy equipment and accompanying construction activities will
undoubtedly generate the major increases in noise levels during
the construction phase of the proposed project.  The impact of con-
struction noise will vary with the proposed alternatives in relation
to proximity to population centers and wildlife habitat areas.
Numerous studies indicate that where construction activities might
be carried out within 500 feet of houses or other buildings, noise
impact of protracted operations could reach unacceptable levels.
Noise impact on wildlife is probably more acute.  These impacts will
be collectively evaluated in the "Environmental Impacts of Alterna-
tives" section of this report.
AIR QUALITY

     Local topography and meteorological conditions have a major
influence upon air quality patterns in any region.  In general,
deep valleys similar to the Jackson Hole area are characterized by
channeling wind flow along the valley axis, and development of
stable drainage winds during calm night time conditions, resulting
in higher pollutant concentrations along the valley floor.

     When compared with cities having a higher population density
and emission generating industries, the Jackson area, although it
does experience substantial seasonal influxes of automobiles due
to the tourism, has relatively clear air.  This statement must,
however, be tempered by the fact that monitoring data for the area
is very limited and is available only for particulate concentrations.
Information is not available for carbon monoxide (CO),  the primary
constituent of incomplete combustion and carbonaceous fuels burned
in the automobile (approximately 90% of all CO emissions come from
transportation sources).   There is no data available for nitrogen
oxides  (NOX) or hydrocarbon (HC) concentrations.  Both nitrogen
oxide and hydrocarbon levels are closely related to automobile use
and power production.  Sulfur dioxides (802), a primary by-product
of the combustion of sulfur-containing fuel in stationary sources,
also has not been monitored in the Jackson area.

     Existing air quality sampling and analyses for the Jackson
Study Area have been collected by the Wyoming Department of Environ-
mental Quality.  Monitoring data is limited to particulate concen-
trations sampled by the WDEQ,  Air Quality Section.  According to
WDEQ officials, air samples were collected at the town of Kelly
located ten miles northeast of Jackson over a five month period
(8/10/75 - 12/26/75).  These samples are thought to be indicative
of conditions which would be experienced in Jackson.  Samples were
collected using a Hi-Vol  sampler on a six day schedule.  All samples
were 24-hour composites.   The average values for the sampling period
(approximately 25 samples)  showed a geometric mean of 11.0 mg/m3,
with a high value of 33 mg/m3 and a low of 4 mg/m3.  These values
fall well below Wyoming State Standards and EPA's National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for particulate concentrations which are
60 mg per cubic meter (annual geometric mean) and 150 mg per cubic
                               11-10

-------
meter (maximum 24 hour concentration not to be exceeded more than
once per year).

     Although information on inversion frequency was not available
through the National Climatic Center (Jackson has no upper air ob-
serving capability), personnel at the Center and the Wyoming DEQ
indicated the area is subject to frequent inversion.  However,
WDEQ officials did emphasize that air quality conditions in the
area were generally good.  WDEQ also stated that the main concern
for the area in terms of air quality maintenance as related to the
proposed Jackson wastewater facility would be the control of
fugitive dust caused by construction.  Compliance with State
particulate standards will undoubtedly require that reasonable
precautions are taken to inhibit dust from becoming airborne
during the construction phase of any approved project.

     An additional source of air pollution, is the noxious odors
that emanate from the existing wastewater facilities during the
warmer months.  The polishing pond and the sludge drying beds are
the primary sources of these odors that are generated from the
decay of organic material under anaerobic conditions.  While these
are somewhat confined to the areas adjacent to South Park, they
do present a definite problem in the proposed residential/commercial
growth areas.


AESTHETIC AND VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS

General

     The Jackson Hole area is world reknown for its spectacular
scenic beauty-  This is attested to by the vast number of people
who flock to the area each year to enjoy the relatively unspoiled
outdoor experience the region offers.  While such landmarks as the
Teton Mountains, Grand Teton National Park, Jackson Lake, Snake
River excursions, and Yellowstone National Park are the primary
destinations for this yearly influx of visitors, it is the valley's
overall composition that creates the setting through which these
attributes can be experienced.

     While the secondary impact of expanded wastewater facilities
can be widespread in allowing growth in numerous areas, the primary
geographic unit that may be affected by the proposed project and
solution-oriented alternative is South Park.  This is because of
two main constraints:  the majority of the developable private land
in the county is in South Park, and the direction of the compre-
hensive planning effort is to funnel growth into those areas that
can be serviced by Jackson's municipal facilities.

     Preserving the aesthetic and visual characteristics of Jackson
is a prime concern for most of the area's residents along with
the federal and state agencies operating in the area.  The ques-
tionnaire distributed through the Comprehensive Planning Study to
                               11-11

-------
survey desires and needs of the resident population concerning the
major land use and development issues in the County revealed that
over eighty percent of those responding felt that the preservation
of scenic values should take precedence over private development
rights.  While the results of this inventory may be subject to a
great deal of rebuttal and criticism, it is basically true that
for various personal and economic reasons (tourist industry forms
a dominant portion of the area's economy), maintaining this exist-
ing refined but outdoor oriented philosophy and life style through
the area's scenic grandeur is important to the people of Jackson,
and one of the main attractions that holds and draws individuals to
the area.  The results of the Comprehensive Plan questionnaire pro-
vide not only a documentation of this thesis, but a rather over-
whelming public declaration supporting it.

     A number of recent planning and scenic preservation efforts
are being pursued in the immediate study area including Teton National
Park Expansion Study and Master Plan, the Scenic Corridor and Reserve
Concept of the Nature Conservacy, the Town/County Comprehensive
Plan, and the Wild and Scenic River Study on the Snake River.  While
each of these is important, the two that may directly effect a
decision on the Jackson Wastewater Project are the Comprehensive
Planning Study and the Wild and Scenic River classification
investigation.


Comprehensive Planning Study

     One of the outputs of the Comprehensive Planning and 208 Study
contract was the development of a Report on Visual Analysis for
Teton County.  This study conducted by the U.S. Forest Service
classified the nonfederal land in the County in terms of its scenic
and visual values and proposed planning guidelines to mitigate and
reduce the visual impact of development.  Figure 7, Landscape Units
and Vegetation, presents the results of the report.  The study
characterizes the County into landscape units and comments on types
of introduced elements which may be appropriate and what aesthetic
impacts various types of development generally have on people.  It
presents the results in terms of a unit's Visual Absorption Capability
(VAC), which is an index that results "from rating five factors
which are responsible for a landscape's ability to accept change
while remaining visually strong."  The factor includes slope, di-
versity, screening, revegetation potential,  and color contrast.
Based on this study, three different landscape units have been de-
scribed for the area of primary impact resulting from the waste-
water project.  The unit classifications are presented in Table 1.
However, a complete description is found in Appendix K of the Teton
County Growth and Development Alternatives (Livingston and Associates,
1976).  The VAC rating measures an area's ability to accept changes
in the landscape.  A high VAC indicates an area can absorb change
better than one with a low VAC.  Generally,  with the exception of
the Boyles Hill area, South Park has an average VAC.
                               11-12

-------
                       TABLE 1
         VISUAL ABSORPTION CAPABILITY RATINGS







H
H
1
M

Landscape
Unit
Number
3
4
5
6
7


8
9


Slope
1
1
1
2
2


3
3


Diversity
3
1
1
1
1


2
1


Screening
2
3
1
2
2


1
1

Revegetation
Potential
2
3
1
1
1


2
2
Soil
Color
Contrast
2
2
1
1
1


2
2

Total
Index
10
10
5
7
7


10
9
Individual Items

1 = Low VAC
2 = Average VAC
3 = High VAC
Total Index

5-7 = Low VAC
8-12 = Average VAC
13-1.5 = High VAC

-------

-------
       LANDSCAPE UNITS AND VEGETATION
             CROPPED LAND WITH HARDWOODS ALONG
             STREAMS
             MOSTLY SAGE AND WILLOW WITH SOME HARD-
             WOODS
          Source, Livingston and Associates, 1974

i ML I

                                                      Figure 7

-------
     While this may provide a useful diagnostic tool for planners,
it must be pointed out that even in areas with a high VAC, the type
and extent of the development is the major influencing factor.
Urban sprawl across the flat bottom land of South Park would have
significant scenic and visual impact for those approaching Jackson
from the south.  Any treatment facility would require landscaping
and architectural mitigation in order to be unobtrusive on the
landscape.


Wild and Scenic River Study

     The Wild and Scenic River Act  (P.L. 90-542) of October 1968
directed the Department of the Interior to classify and preserve:

     "Certain selected rivers of the nation which, with their
     immediate environment, possess outstandingly remarkable
     scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, his-
     toric cultural or other similar values."

     The section of the Snake River flowing from Teton National
Park to Palisades Reservoir is a candidate for classification, and
is the subject of a current study with the U.S. Forest Service
acting as lead agency.  The results and recommendations of the
classification investigation are not expected to be complete until
1979.  In the meantime, one of the responsibilities of the lead
agency, according to the Teton Forest Supervisor, is "to assure
that during the interim of the study, and eventual determination,
that federal and federally assisted projects that could have a direct
or adverse effect on the river's special values are properly eval-
uated as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act."

     In regard to federally funded projects, such as the proposed
wastewater facilities, the act states that:

     "No department or agency of the U.S. shall, during the
     periods hereandbefore specified [Section 7(i)] , recommend
     authorization of any water resources project on any such
     river, or request appropriations to begin construction of
     any such project, whether heretofor or hereafter authorized,
     without advising the Secretary of the Interior and, where
     National Forest lands are involved, the Secretary of
     Agriculture, in writing of its intention so to do at least
     sixty days in advance of doing so, and without specifically
     reporting to the Congress in writing, at the time it makes
     its recommendation or request, in what respect construction
     of such project would be in conflict with the purposes of
     this Act and would affect the component and the values to
     be protected by it under this Act."

     It therefore remains the lead agency's responsibility, as agent
for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, to evaluate
                              11-14

-------
                                                                      TABLE  2
                                           Attributes and management objectives of the three river classifications for
                                                     inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System
                                             Wild
                                                                              Scenic
                                                                                                                 Recreation
H
H
 I
M
cn
                      Attributes
                     Management
                      objectives
                                  1. Free-flowing. Low dams, diversion
                                  works or other minor  structures which
                                  do not inundate the natural riverbank
                                  may not bar consideration as wild.
                                  Future construction restricted.
                                  2. Generally inaccessible by road.
                                  One or two inconspicuous roads to the
                                  area may be permissible.
3.  Shorelines essentially primitive.
One or two inconspicuous dwellings
and land devoted to production of hay
may be permitted.  Watershed natural-
like in appearance.
4.  Water quality meets minimum cri-
teria for primary contact recreation
except where such criteria would be
exceeded by natural background condi-
tions and esthetics 2/and capable of
supporting propagation of aquatic life
normally adapted to habitat of the
stream.
1.  Limited motorized land travel in
area.
2.  No unharrnonious or new habitations
or improvements permitted.
3.  Only primitive-type public use
provided.

4.  New structures and improvement
of old ones prohibited if not in keeping
with overall objectives.
5.  Unobtrusive fences,  gauging sta-
tions and other management facilities
maybe permitted if no significant ad-
verse effect on natural character of
area.
6.  Limited range of agriculture and
other resource uses permitted.
1. Free-flowing. Low dams, diversion
works or other minor structures which
do not inundate the natural riverbank
may not bar consideration.  Future
construction restricted.
2.  Accessible by roads which may
occasionally bridge the river area.
Short stretches of conspicuous or
longer stretches of inconspicuous and
well-screened roads or railroads
paralleling river area may be permitted.
3.  Shoreline largely primitive.  Small
communitieslirnitedto short reaches
of  total area. Agricultural practices
which do not adversely affect river
area may be permitted.
4.  Water quality should meet minimum
criteria for desired types of recrea-
tion except where such criteria would
be exceeded by natural background
conditions and esthetics 2/and capable
of  supporting propagation of aquatic
life normally adapted lo habitat of the
stream,  or is capable of and is  being
restored to that quality.
1.  Motorized vehicles allowed on land
area.
2.  No unharmonious improvements and
few habitations permitted.
3.  Limited modern screened public
use facilities permitted, i. e. camp-
grounds, visitor centers, etc.
4.  Some new facilities allowed, • such
as unobtrusive marinas.

5.  Unobtrusive fences, gauging stations
and other management facilities may
be permitted if no significant adverse
effect on natural character of area.
                                                                    6. Wide range of agriculture and
                                                                    resource uses may be permitted.
                                                                     1. May have undergone some impound-
                                                                     ment or diversion in the past. Water
                                                                     should not have characteristics of an
                                                                     impoundment for any significant dis-
                                                                     tance. Future construction restricted.
                                                                     2. Readily accessible, with likelihood
                                                                     of paralleling roads or railroads
                                                                     along river banks and  bridge crossings.
                                                                                                      3. Shoreline may be extensively
                                                                                                      developed.
4.  Water quality should meet minimum
criteria for desired types of recreation
except where such criteria would be ex-
ceeded by natural background condi-
tions and esthetics 2/ and capable of
supporting propagation  of aquatic life
normally adapted to habitat of the stream
or is capable of and is being restored
to  that quality.
1.  Optimum accessibility by motorized
vehicle.
2.  May be densely settled in places.

3.  Public use areas may be in close
proximity to river.

4.  New structures allowed for both hab-
itation andfor intensive recreation use.

5.  Management practice facilities
permitted.
                             other) 6.  Full range of agriculture and other
                                  resource uses may be permitted.
                      2/ Federal Water Pollution Control Administration's Water Quality Criteria,  April 1, 1968.
                     For  a  complete  explanation  see  Guidelines   for  Evaluation  Wild,  Scenic

                     and  Recreational  River  Areas   Proposed  for  Inclusion  in  the  National
                     Wild  and   Scenic  River  System   under  Section  2,  Public  Law   90-542   (1970)

-------
what impacts a project may have on the eventual classification
for the river.  The agency can then, through the Secretary recommend
what mitigation measures may be necessary or even if a project
should be allowed to proceed.

     Water resource and wastewater projects have, under the condi-
tions of the Act, been shown to be compatible.  This has in in-
stances required the incorporation of both design and regulatory
mitigation to offset the impacts of construction and operation of
a facility.

     It would be anticipated that any proposed wastewater construc-
tion activities along the course of the Snake River would be sub-
ject to the approval of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agri-
culture.  Table 2 presents a summary of the general criteria utilized
in the Wild and Scenic Classification System.  These criteria would
need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine their
applicability in each application, and may be altered to suit a
particular river.  Regarding the proposed project and all its
practical alternatives, with the exception of maintaining the exist-
ing site, an outfall line to the Snake River would be required for
effluent disposal.  The impacts this line would have during con-
struction and on long term aesthetic values and water quality would
require review in terms of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.


CULTURAL AND HISTORIC/ARCHEOLOGIC RESOURCES

     Sometime around 1829, the valley of Jackson Hole was named
for the trapper, David E. Jackson.  Although the fur trading business
played a major role in the eventual settling of the Jackson area,
trappers were by no means the first inhabitants of the area, accord-
ing to Haden  (1969).  Many years earlier, the Shoshone Indians
looking up from the valley floor on one of their annual hunting
pilgrimages had called the majestic Tetons "Teewinot", or pinnacles.
Traces of the camps made by these Indians can be found throughout
Jackson Hole, and excavations for ditches and dwellings are turn-
ing up additional information.

     Permanent settlement of Jackson Hole began about 1878 as trappers
decided to settle in the area instead of trapping intermittently.
Through the 1880's a number of families came into the valley as
homesteading began to replace trapping as the main livelihood, and
in 1890 Wyoming became a state.  Many remnants of these activities
can still be found throughout the area.

     About 1900, cattle ranching became the chief industry.  This
surge, however, was short-lived with a sudden growth in the tourist
business.  Increased tourist activity remains the chief industry
for the Jackson area today.

     Based on existing records and reports and correspondence with
various state agencies and groups, including the Wyoming Recreation
                               11-16

-------
Commission and the Wyoming State Archives and Historical Department and State
Archeologist, there are no historic sites currently enrolled in the National
Register of Historic Places or currently in nomination for such enrollment
that would be located on the proposed treatment plant sites or pipeline routes.
Similarly, no sites are affected which appear on the Wyoming Inventory of
Historic Places.

     Discussions with the Wyoming Recreation Corrmission and the University
of Wyoming Department of Anthropology indicate that no known archeologic sites
would be affected by the proposed alternatives for the new wastewater treat-
ment facility for the Town of Jackson.  However, it should be noted that a
number of significant archeological findings have been uncovered in the general
study area.  The South Park area  (west and south of Jackson) has not been
subjected to extensive archeological survey.  Since a primary portion of
the proposed project will involve ditching, the State Archeologist recommends
that a field survey be initiated prior to construction, and that a member
of his staff be available during ditching, should the survey indicate potential
finds.  EPA has determined that, while a pre-construction field survey will
be done, EPA does not believe that the cost of an on-site archeologist is
warranted unless the field survey shows a high potential for archeological finds.
Any newly discovered sites will be reported to the State Archeologist for fur-
ther evaluation.
WATER QUALITY

Water Quality Standards

     The assessment of current water quality conditions in the study area
and the evaluation of the proposed alternatives in terms of impacts on local
water quality in the study area are dependent on the classification of specific
waters, and the development of criteria based on downstream use.  This in-
formation provides a basis for the subsequent assessment of existing water
quality conditions in Flat Creek and the Snake River.  The information also
provides the foundation for evaluation of the proposed Jackson Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant alternatives in terms of compliance with present and future treatment
needs, discharge requirements, and potential impacts on Flat Creek, surrounding
tributaries, and the Snake River.

     Water quality standards applicable to the streams in the Jackson Study
Area are set forth by the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish and the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality.  The standards are divided into two
main categories which include a water use classification (based on fish sup-
porting capabilities) and specific water quality parameter standards.

     Chapter I of "Water Quality Standards for Wyoming" designates all Wyoming
waters as belonging to one of the following three classes:

     Class I - Those waters which, based on information supplied by
     the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, are determined to
                                      11-17

-------
     be presently supporting game fish or have the hydrologic and
     natural quality potential to support game fish.

     Class II - Those waters which,  based on information supplied
     by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department,  are determined to
     be presently supporting non-game fish,  or have the hydrologic
     and natural water quality potential to  support non-game fish.

     Class III - Those waters which,  based on information supplied
     by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department,  are determined as
     not having the hydrologic or natural water quality potential
     to support fish.

     The Standards also indicate that the actual classification of
specific waters will be updated every three  years and presented to
the public.

     All major streams in Teton County and the Jackson Study Area
have been assigned the highest quality classification (Class I)
according to information supplied by the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.  The State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
has also established standards based on the  type of water use,
existing water quality, and the source of pollutants  for fifteen
physical, chemical, biological, radiological and general parameters.
Quality standards for Class I waters  in the  study area are divided
into physical, chemical, biological,  radiological and general param-
eters,  and are presented below, as  outlined by Ablondi (1976):

Physical;

     1.  Settleable Solids.  Waters  shall be free from substances
         of other than natural origin that will settle to form
         sludge, bank or bottom deposits.

     2.  Floating Solids.  Waters shall be free from  floating debris,
         scum and other floating materials of  other than natural
         origin in amounts sufficient to be  unsightly.

     3.  Taste, odor, color.  Waters  shall be  free from substances
         of other than natural origin which  produce taste, odor,
         and color.

     4.  Turbidity-  In all waters,  wastes of  other than natural
         origin shall not cause the  natural  turbidity of the water
         to be increased by more than ten (10)  Jackson Turbidity
         Units.  In addition, waters  designated for full body con-
         tact recreation (swimming,  water skiing, etc.), wastes
         of other than natural origin shall  not be discharged in
         amounts which will increase turbidity to the extent that
         a Secchi disc is not visible at a depth of one (1)  meter.

     5.  Temperature.  In all waters,  wastes of other than natural
         origin shall not be discharged in amounts which raise
                               11-18

-------
         natural ambient water temperatures to levels which are
         deemed to be harmful to existing aquatic life.  As most
         natural stream temperatures in the Jackson area do not
         exceed 68OF  (20°C), wastes of other than natural origin
         shall not be discharged in amounts which will result in
         a change of more than 2°F  (l.ioc) over the maximum daily
         stream temperature.  No induced temperature change will
         be allowed over fish spawning areas except for experi-
         mental purposes.
Chemical:
     1.  Dissolved Oxygen.  In all waters, wastes of other than
         natural origin shall not be discharged in amounts which
         will result in death or injury to existing aquatic life
         and which will result in a dissolved oxygen content of
         less than 6.0 mg/1 (ppm) at any time.

     2.  pH.  For all waters,  wastes of other than natural origin
         shall not cause the pH to be less than 6.5 or greater
         than 8.5.

     3.  Oil and Grease.  In all waters, wastes of other than
         natural origin shall not be discharged which will cause
         the oil and grease content to exceed 10.0 mg/1, formation
         of visible oil film or globules, discoloration of the
         surface, or a formation of visible deposits on the bottom
         or shoreline.

     4.  Total Gas Pressure.  Discharges from impoundments or other
         sources shall not cause the total dissolved gas pressure
         to exceed 110 percent of existing atmospheric pressure.

     5.  Salinity.  High salinity (Total Dissolved Solids)  is
         recognized as an important, water quality parameter which
         may in some cases cause adverse physical and economic
         impact on water users.  Emphasis will be given to manage-
         ment methods which improve salinity and control the accumu-
         lation of dissolved solids in water.  However no upper
         limit of salinity exists for waters in Teton County.
Biological:
         Coliform Bacteria.   The following limitation applies to
         still water bodies  (lakes,  impoundments,  etc.)  which lie
         at an altitude of less than 7,000 feet above sea level
         and the waters of the Snake River commencing at the south
         boundary of Yellowstone Park downstream to the Wyoming-
         Idaho state line.
              During the recreation  season, (May 1 through September
         30),  wastes of other than natural origin shall not be dis-
         charged in amounts  which will cause fecal coliform con-
         centrations to exceed a geometric mean of 200 fecal coliform
                               11-19

-------
         groups per 100 milliliters based on a minimum of five sam-
         ples obtained during separate 24-hour periods for any 30-
         day period.   Ten percent of the samples shall not exceed
         400 groups per 100 milliliters during any 30-day period.
              The following limit applies to all other waters in the
         Jackson area.  During the recreation season (May 1 through
         September 30), fecal coliform concentrations shall not ex-
         ceed a geometric mean of 1,000 fecal coliform groups per
         100 milliliters based on a minimum of five samples obtained
         during separate 24-hour periods for any 30-day period.
         Ten percent of the samples shall not exceed 2,000 groups
         per 100 milliliters during any 30-day period.

     2.   Undesirable Aquatic Life.  All waters shall be free from
         substances and conditions which are attributable to munic-
         ipal, industrial, or other discharges or agricultural prac-
         tices which produce undesirable aquatic life.
Radiological:
         Radioactive Material.   In all waters,  radioactive material
         of other than natural  origin shall not exceed a concentration
         of 3 pCi/1* of Radium  226,  10 pCi/1 of Strontium 90 or
         the limits established in the most recent Federal Drinking
         Water Standards.   Radiological material shall not be present
         in any amount which reflects failure in any case to apply
         all controls which are physically and  economically feasible.
General:
     1.  Public Water Supply-   When public water supply is a desig-
         nated use,  water quality will be such that after conventional
         water treatment, the  treated water will meet the most recent
         Federal Drinking Water Standards.

     2.  Toxic Material.   All  waters shall be free from toxic,
         corrosive,  or other deleterious substances of other than
         natural origin in concentrations or combinations which are
         toxic to human,  animal, plant, or aquatic life.


Monitoring Data

     Water quality data for the study area has been collected by
four agencies.  The U.S.  Geological Survey Water Resources Division,
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Bridger-Teton National
Forest, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality maintain
96 monitoring stations located throughout Teton County.  The monitoring
*pCi-picrocurie-10-12 curies where a curie is defined as 3.7xl010
 disintegrations per second.
                                11-20

-------
network includes permanent  trend  stations and  "problem oriented"
stations.  Additional monitoring  stations have also been  established
by the Teton County  208 Planning  Agency, in  cooperation with  the
WDEQ.  Data from this network  forms  the basis  for the discussion
on Flat Creek and Snake River  water  quality  that follows.


TETON COUNTY WATER QUALITY

     Teton County constitutes  the major portion of land area  for
the Snake River Basin of Wyoming, encompassing some 5,139  square
miles in the western portion of the  State.   The County ranks  fourth
statewide in terms of surface  water  acreage, with the Snake River
and Jackson Lake Reservoir  accounting  for the majority of  this
area.  Jackson Lake  Reservoir  alone  accounts for approximately
25,500 acres of the  43,300  surface water acres in Teton County.

     Relatively high amounts of precipitation  and extensive snow-
packs in the mountains, coupled with a gradual release of  water
from snowmelt  continuing through the  summer support continuing
perennial stream flows for  all the major streams within the Snake
River Basin.  The Basin provides  sufficient water quality  for
municipal, recreational, agricultural  and industrial uses, with
the average annual flow originating  in the Wyoming portion of the
Basin estimated at 4,721,650 acre-feet.  Although a significant
quantity of this supply is  used for  irrigation in the Basin
 (approximately 83,700 acre  feet), the  Wyoming  Department of En-
vironmental Quality has estimated that some  4,632,500 acre-feet
of water leaves the Wyoming Snake River Basin  each year.

     The major hydrologic systems, located in  the immediate study
area likely to be affected  by  the proposed project, include the
Snake River and Flat Creek.  Existing  water  quality conditions
for these water courses will be discussed in detail.  The  discussion
will form the basis  for evaluating water quality impacts of the
proposed alternatives in the "Environmental  Impacts of Alternatives"
section of the report.  Other  tributaries to the Snake for which
data are available include  (by downstream order):  Gros Ventre
River, Fish Creek, Cache Creek, and  Hoback River.  Water quality
conditions for these tributaries  will  also be discussed collectively
in general terms where existing information  allows.

     Existing data indicate that  water quality for most streams in
Teton County is generally good.   Exceptions are watercourses  adja-
cent to higher density population centers including Flat Creek near
Jackson where the stream receives treated effluent from the Jackson
sewage treatment plant and  stormwater  runoff from the urbanized
area; and Fish Creek between Teton Village and Wilson where rapid
growth of homesites,  gravel mining operations and occasional  and
intermittent poorer quality effluent from the Teton Village sewage
treatment plant can seriously  degrade  water quality.  The  Hoback
River,  which lies immediately  south of the study area, also ex-
periences increases in conductivity, salinity, turbidity and  pH
due primarily to natural erosion  and  mineral spring discharges.


                               11-21

-------
     In general, the flow regimes  for most  of the streams in the
study area follow a general pattern of  high flows in the spring
and early summer with increased snowmelt  and releases from Jackson
Reservoir, gradually decreasing over the  summer and early fall.
Total dissolved solids  (TDS) range between  100 milligrams per liter
(mg/1) and 250 mg/1 for most streams, with  concentrations increas-
ing downstream from Jackson Lake  (Ablondi,  1976).


     Water temperatures remain relatively constant for most of
the streams throughout the County, increasing slightly in a down-
stream direction with increases in ambient  air temperatures and
water use, and decreases in elevation.  This is important as tem-
perature is a prime regulator of natural  processes within the
water environment, particularly as related  to the physiological
functions of organisms.

     Dissolved oxygen  (D.O.) content, perhaps the most important
indicator of the water's condition, is  generally high ranging from
9.0 to 13.0 mg/1 for most of the streams  where data is available.
The parameter consistently exceeds the  minimum standard of 6.0 mg/1
established for Class I waters.

     pH values range between 6.5 and 8.5, the range for most pro-
ductive natural fresh waters.  Higher values are attributed to areas
of limestone deposit in the underlying  geology.   Such is the case
for Cache Creek, where the mean pH is 8.3 (WDEQ,  1976).

     Chloride (Cl) and sulfate  (804) concentrations measured by
the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service and the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department range between  0.0  and 21.0 mg/1, and 5.0
and 50 mg/1, respectively in most  streams in Teton County.  Ex-
ceptions include the Hoback River, where  SO^ levels exceeding
240 mg/1 have been observed  (Ablondi, 1976).

     Nitrate nitrogen  (NC>3) concentrations,  an important limiting
factor in the growth of all plants, reached a high of 0.18 mg/1
below the Jackson treatment plant, but  generally did not exceed
0.1 mg/1 according to information  gathered  by the 208 agency.
Total phosphate levels are also relatively  low throughout Teton
County.  Flat Creek phosphate values range  from a high of 1.8 mg/1
(expressed as total P) below the treatment  plant on Flat Creek
to less than 0.01 mg/1 above Jackson near the National Fish Hatchery
during the sampling conducted by the 208  agency in 1976.

     Coliform bacteria forms the basis  for  indirect bacteriologic
water quality examination.  The presence  of coliform bacteria
indicates recent discharges from warm blooded animals.  Absence irnnlies
Sct^f -1Srr^ °f ***"***•  ^nitoring information SS IScal^Uform.
bacteria 1S limted for Teton County.  Geometric  mean concentrations for
the major watercourses, however, generally fall below 50 colonies/100 ml
                               11-22

-------
occur in the summer months at the peak of  tourist activity  imme-
diately downstream from the Jackson sewage treatment plant.


Flat Creek

     Flat Creek originates in the Gros Ventre Range, flows  through
the National Elk Refuge where approximately  8,000 head of elk  are
wintered annually, then turns south flowing  through the  Town of
Jackson.  Below Jackson, the river receives  effluent from the
Jackson sewage treatment plant.  The river is also impacted by
discharge from the Jackson National Fish Hatchery, septic tank
seepage, and urban storm and  runoff from corrals.  Based upon only.
one year of data the average annual flow is approximately 110 cfs,  and
the low flow is approximately 50 cfs.

     Flat Creek is considered a stable cold  water fishery by the
Wyoming Department of Game and Fish.  Little information is avail-
able as to its value, carrying capacity, or  fisherman use in the
South Park Area.  Since major access is limited by private  land
bordering the Creek, the Department does not try to manage  the
fishery as they would for waters open to the public.

     Water quality information for Flat Creek has been available
on a continuing basis since the initiation of the Teton  County
208 Study in the fall of 1975.  As a result  of information  and
additional data collected under the "Snake River Basin Water
Quality Management Plan," Flat Creek has been designated "the  most
critical stream segment in the Snake River Basin in terms of
possible impairment of water quality."  Because of this  designa-
tion, a stream segment profile was performed by the WDEQ in
November, 1975 (Table 3).

     Table 3 shows Flat Creek water quality  as generally good
throughout the upper portion of the study  area.  Dissolved  oxygen
concentrations are high ranging from 11.0  to 12.4 mg/1.  Turbidity
and total dissolved solids range between 1.5 and 3.4 JTU, and  130
and 187 mg/1, respectively.  Nitrate nitrogen levels average about
0.5 mg/1; and total phosphate levels average 0.03 mg/1,  both well
below U.S.P.H.S. recommended Drinking Water  Standards, and  those
levels thought to facilitate nuisance algae  growths  (Water  Quality
Criteria, 1963).  Below the sewage treatment outfall south  of
Jackson, however, BOD and COD levels increase appreciably,  demon-
strating the effects of the Jackson sewage treatment outfall and
nearby cattle grazing operations.  Nitrate nitrogen levels  double
from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/1 at this sampling station.  Likewise, total
phosphate levels increase by a factor of eight, from 0.03 to
0.26 mg/1.   Turbidity and total dissolved  solids show a  substantial
two-fold increase.  These increases do not exceed State  standards.
Fecal coliform numbers also show a substantial increase  jumping
from a mean value of less than one (1) colony/100 ml to  120
colonies/100 ml.
                              11-23

-------
            TABLE  3.   FLAT CREEK STREAM PROFILE  (November 3-7, 1975)*
issolved
Q
11
11
12
12
11
11
12
12
14
H
G
Q)
tn
X
O
.0
.8
.4
.0
.2
.3
.4
.0
.1
ecal Coliform
(#/100 ml)
tn
Q
O
PM 03
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
120
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
.7
.7
.5
.5
.5
.3
.8
.3
.5
rH
tn
J!
Q
O
O
13
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
20
D
a
0,
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
5
2
8
8
9
9
0
4
7
emperature
EH
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
(WC)
itrate-N
(mg/1)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.

5
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
0
otal Phosphate
(mg/1)
EH
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
urbidity
(JTU)
EH
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
26
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
6
.5
.4
.1
.4
.8
.6
.4
.1
.2
otal Dissolved
olids (mg/1)
EH CO
130
155
177
168
168
187
186
176
489
pecif ic
onductivity
umho/cmC 25°C)
co u ^
218
295
295
295
295
289
283
354
332
        STATION
Above Fish
  Hatchery Discharge

At U.S. Highway 26
  Crossing, north of
  Jackson

Wooden Access Bridge
  behind Indep. Oil Co.   12.4

Wooden Access Bridge
  near Millward St.

Wooden Access Bridge
  near Gill St.

U.S. Highway 26 near
  Jackson Food Market

Wooden Access Bridge
  behind Virginian

U.S. Highway 26
  south of Jackson

South Park Bridge
  3.5 miles below
  sewer discharge
                        *Information from Ablondi (1976)

-------
     Ongoing water quality monitoring activities presently being performed
for the Teton County 208 Study further indicate that instream standards assigned
to Flat Creek are being maintained, except for coliform bacteria (recontrended
standard by the 208 Agency is 200 colonies/100 ml) which has been exceeded
immediately below the treatment plant.  Samples collected above and below the
treatment plant on 7/6/76, for example, show high D.O. concentrations of
9.3 mg/1 (standard is 6.0 mg/1) .  COD and BOD elevate slighly below the
treatment plant, increasing from 13.0 and 2.0 to 15.0 and 2.7 mg/1, respectively.
Ammonia nitrogen levels show a dramatic increase, jumping from 0.002 to .286 mg/1.
Although relatively low in terms of toxic unionized ammonia, this elevation is
indicative of effluent discharge from sewage treatment plants.  Total phosphate
levels also demonstrate an increase from 0.05 mg/1 at Flat Creek Bridge crossing
south of Jackson above the treatment plant to 0.15 mg/1 at Flat Creek 1000 feet"
below the outfall.  With ideal physical conditions (temperature, streamflow,
sunlight, etc.), algal blooms have been observed at concentrations as low
as 0.001 mg/1  (Water Quality Criteria, 1963).  Fecal coliform counts showed
the most substantial elevation between the two sampling stations, increasing
from 30 colonies/100 ml above the plant to over 1800 colonies at the site below
the outfall.  It should be noted that this data represents only one sampling.
Although the Wyoming Water Quality Standards applicable to Flat Creek dictate
that the geometric mean of 1000 fecal coliform groups per 100 ml based on
five (5) samples obtained during separate 24-hour periods for any 30-day period
shall not be exceeded, the sampling is indicative of degraded water quality.

     In summary, Flat Creek maintains generally good water quality, except
below the outfall of the Jackson municipal wastewater treatment facility.  A
number of potentially degrading point (direct discharge) and nonpoint (diverse,
indiscreet discharges) pollution sources threaten the stream quality from the
National Elk Refuge north of town to the confluence with the Snake.  Studies
now in progress on the Elk Refuge and agricultural and urban nonpoint problems
will better identify the significance of these sources.


Snake River

     The Snake River flows westward along the southern portion of Yellowstone
National Park, turns southward crossing the Park boundary, and enters Jackson
Lake Reservoir.  Below the reservoir the river flows southerly through Jackson
Hole out of Teton County into Palisades Reservoir in southeast Idaho.

     Snake River water quality in the Wyoming Snake River Basin is good, due
to relatively sparse development and the occurrence of a more natural watershed.
The main stem of the Snake does, however, appear from limited data to suffer "slight
deterioration" in a downstream direction with increasing urban development.
                                      11-25

-------
     The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality maintains
a monitoring station  on the Snake River above  Flat Creek.  The
purpose of the  station  is to provide natural background data for
the river before it receives flow from Flat Creek.   As previously
mentioned, Flat Creek receives effluent from the  Jackson sewage
treatment plant.   Samples are obtained on a quarterly basis  and
analyzed for fecal coliform, total dissolved solids, nutrients,
radiochemical constituents, and standard field determinations
including pH, dissolved oxygen, water temperature,  specific
conductance and turbidity-

     At this station  water quality is good, with  no violations
of Wyoming Water Quality Standards observed during a six-month
sampling period performed by the WDEQ (Table 4).   Dissolved oxygen
values range from  8.0 to 13.2 mg/1, averaging  9.7 mg/1,  (standard is
6.0 tna/l).  Fecal  coliform counts do not exceed 172 colonies/100 ml, below
State standards of 1000 colonies per 100 ml.  Subsequent sampling performed
under the Teton County 208 Study at the same site over  a six (6) month period
(3/15/76 - 9/9/76) further substantiate these findings.  COD and BOD measure-
ments fall well below levels established by public health officials.  Nitrate
nitrogen and total phosphate concentrations also fall below State standards, with
respective maximum values of 0.18 and 0.14 mg/1 measured on 6/1/76.  Fecal
coliform counts are also  consistently below State standards.


     The impact of the  overloaded Jackson sewage  treatment facility
on Snake River  water  quality is apparent below the confluence of
Flat Creek and  the Snake River from fecal coliform data collected
between August, 1968  and December, 1971.  Approximately 38 samples
were collected  and analyzed for fecal coliform by the WDEQ.  During
the study period,  the mean recorded value for  fecal coliform was
195 colonies/100 ml.  A maximum concentration  of  5,420 colonies/
100 ml was recorded on  7/28/69  (WDEQ, 1976) , exceeding State VJater
 Quality Standards.

     Four  (4) similar violations were also registered during the
period of record.  It should be noted, however, that it is extremely
difficult to determine  whether these violations are due to effluent
from the Jackson treatment plant, or in part to natural background
pollutants and  numerous diverse, nonpoint pollution sources.

     Additional information on Snake River water  quality also  in-
dicates that conditions continue to deteriorate slightly in a  down-
stream direction,  particularly in terms of increased sediment
loading.  Much  of  this  increased load is attributed to the Hoback
River which confluences with the Snake River,  approximately 12 miles
below the Flat  Creek/Snake River Station.

     Existing water quality conditions in the  main stem of the
Snake River through the study area can generally  be summed up  as
good.  Quality  slightly deteriorates in a downstream direction,
due primarily to inadequately treated effluent from the Jackson
wastewater treatment  plant, agricultural activities and extreme
                               11-26

-------
                             TABLE 4







                    SNAKE RIVER WATER QUALITY




                (November, 1973 - November, 1975)
Parameter                             Mean     Maximum     Minimum




Dissolved oxygen  (mg/1)               9.70       13.20        8.00




Specific conductivity  (umhos)       148.00      231.00      110.00




Turbidity (JTU)                       7.70       27.00        0.40




pH (S.U.)                             8.10        8.40        7.60




Fecal coliform  (colonies/100 ml)     40.50      172.00        0.00




N03 (mg/1)*                           0.20        0.40        0.10




P04 (mg/1)**                          0.04        0.06        0.03








* 1972-1973 only




**1976
                               11-27

-------
sedimentation in the Hoback  River.   In a few isolated cases,
standards are violated.  Additional monitoring conducted by  the
ongoing Teton County 208 Study is specific problem-oriented.   This
data will provide a more representative data base for future waste
load determinations and stream segment analyses.

     An additional consideration in analyzing the overall water
quality of the Snake River is  the operation and management of
Jackson Lake Dam.  Since irrigation diversions often deplete the
flow of the Gros Ventre River,  the releases from Jackson Lake  are
essential in maintaining the environmental condition of the  Snake
River.  The 1976 Snake River Management Plan identified almost
200 instances when flows in  the Upper Snake have been reduced  to
less than 100 cfs  (range 0.30  - 97 cfs)  due to the dam's operation.
If the Snake River was to be considered as a potential site  for
the disposal of treated effluent, the maintenance of an adequate
flow for dilution would have to be assured in order to protect
the River and the aquatic habitat.   The duration of these reduced
flow periods is unknown.

     Palisades Reservoir, which is fed by the Snake River, is
currently under consideration  for lake restoration.  The EPA's
Lake and Reservoir Assessment  (1976)  classifies Palisades as being
mesotrophic  (in the earlier  stages of the eutrophication) and  as
a "lake cleanup" candidate as  determined by the study-  Since
phosphate concentrations and phosphorus  to nitrogen ratios  are
normally the limiting nutrient in Western water bodies, any  increases
in point and non-point source  to the Snake need to be analyzed
in terms of its eventual impact on Palisades.  A preliminary survey
of nutrient loading on Palisades Reservoir conducted jointly by EPA laboratories
at Corvallis, Oregon,  and las Vegas,  Nevada, concludes that nonpoint sources
contributed essentially all the known phosphorus and nitrogen loading (see
Appendix 4).  Jackson's current wastewater treatment plant produces less than
three percent of the total annual phosphorus and nitrogen loading on the reservoir.


GENERAL HYDROLOGIC CONDITION

     In the Snake River Basin,  which encompasses approximately
5,139 square miles in western  Wyoming,  streamflow discharge  is
directly related to spring and early summer snowmelt.  On unreg-
ulated streams, an excess of 50 percent of the runoff occurs during
periods of peak snowpack melt  in May and June.  Flows during the
remainder of the year are augmented by precipitation, inflow through
soil, and groundwater from aquifer systems.

     Aquifers in alluvium and  glacial deposits in the study  area
are recharged by precipitation and surface water percolation.
Although precipitation is greatest in winter and spring, recharge
is greatest in spring and summer when snow is melting, precipitation
is occurring as rain, and streamflow is highest.  Recharge also
occurs during this period from irrigated lands and canal and ditch
leakage.  Aquifers in other  than alluvium and glacial deposits are
                              11-28

-------
also recharged by precipitation.  Recharge in these types of rock
may also occur by discharge from one aquifer to another, partic-
ularly in faulted areas.  Groundwater in the study area moves from
areas of recharge to areas of discharge.  The flow of surface
waters may be increased significantly where groundwater discharges
to streams (Cox, 1974).


Surface Water

     The study area is drained by the Snake River system, which
heads into Teton County above Jackson Lake Reservoir, flows south
across the county through Jackson Hole just west of the Town of
Jackson and into Idaho at Alpine.  Most of the streams in the
Jackson area originate in the uplands surrounding Jackson Hole
and flow to the Snake River.  Major tributaries to the Snake River
in the study area in terms of discharge by downstream order include:
Pacific Creek, Buffalo Fork, Spread Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Gros
Ventre, Fish Creek, Flat Creek and Hoback River.

     Streamflow characteristics for the surface waters in the
Jackson Study Area vary in a wide range because of climate, topo-
graphic and geologic features discussed in other sections of this
report.  Since precipitation is relatively light in the immediate
study area (approximately 15 inches annually), these features have
great impact on streamflow.  Practically all streamflow is associated
with snowmelt.  In general, reaches of streams in Jackson Hole that
are topographically high lose water and those that are topographically
low gain water.  Rainfall on snowpack  and intense rainfall during
summer thunderstorms further contribute to stream flows.  In some
streams like Mosquito and Spring Creeks, flow may be augmented
from groundwater during certain times of the year.  In other streams,
such as the Gros Ventre River, flow  may be dramatically reduced
in the summer by irrigation diversions.

     Streamflow data has been collected by several agencies for
several streams in the study area.  Although most of the data are
on larger streams, generalizations can be made on streamflow
characteristics for most of the streams in the Jackson area from
information supplied in reports by Cox  (1974, 1975) and the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality (1976).

     Approximately 4,632,500 acre-feet of surface water flow leave
the Snake River Basin annually, according to the Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality (1976).  Jackson Lake Reservoir is the key
storage reservoir.  It is estimated that some 83,700 acre-feet of
surface water are consumed by irrigation, 50 acre-feet per year
by the timber industry, 700 acre-feet per year by municipal, domestic
and stock water uses, and 4,700 acre-feet per year by reservoir
evaporation.

     Surface water quality in the Snake River Basin is generally
good.  Surface water quality in the immediate study area is discussed
in detail in the preceeding section of this report.
                              11-29

-------
Groundwater

     Groundwater conditions in the Snake River Basin  are  the  result
of climate, topography, geology and the activities of man.  The
primary sources of groundwater in the Jackson Study Area  are  pre-
cipitation and infiltration from surface streams, lakes and irrigated
lands, with depth to groundwater varying from zero in swampy  areas
to nearly 200 feet along the front of the Gros Ventre Range.   Depth
to groundwater in the Snake River flood plain is extremely variable,
with reported well fluctuations of from one to sixteen feet occurring
in response to changes in river stages.

     Groundwater, mostly from wells in alluvium and glacial deposits,
provides water for municipal, domestic, fish-rearing, commercial
and recreation uses.  Very little groundwater is pumped for irriga-
tion because surface water supplies are more economically avail-
able.  Groundwater depletions for the Snake River Basin in 1970
were estimated at 1,430 acre-feet for municipal, domestic, commercial
and recreation uses, and 680 acre-feet for irrigation.  Irrigated
lands were largely within Star Valley, according to the WDEQ  (1976).
It is anticipated that groundwater development will continue  to
grow with tourism and population growth.  Although supply is  gen-
erally considered adequate, some  drawdown may be evidenced as the
number of wells and groundwater withdrawals increase.

     Although monitoring data is limited for the deep aquifer
systems in the study area  (particularly for biological parameters),
existing information indicates that groundwater quality in the
Snake River Basin is generally good.  Water is of a Calcium bi-
carbonate type; moderately hard to very hard varying  with geologic
and hydrologic processes.  Yields of wells range from a few gallons
per minute for many private domestic wells to 2,000 gallons per
minute for three large municipal wells near Jackson.  According
to permits issued by the State Engineer's office, approximately
600 wells have been drilled in Teton County (Ablondi, 1976).   It
is estimated that at least this many more were drilled prior  to
requiring permits.

     The chemical quality of groundwater in Jackson Hole  is affected
by the quality of water in nearby streams, according  to Cox (1974).
In general, groundwater is of excellent quality on the west side
of the valley as is the quality of the streams flowing from the
Teton Range.  On the east side of the valley near Jackson and the
Gros Ventre River, groundwater is higher in dissolved solids.
Groundwater systems near the Snake River are generally of good
quality.

     Table 5 presents a comparison of selected chemical parameters
from two  fairly representative sampling stations in Teton County
with recommended U.S.  Public Health Service Drinking Water Stan-
dards (1962).   This comparison provides a general indication  of
existing  groundwater quality in the study area.
                              11-30

-------
                             TABLE 5

                       GROUNDWATER QUALITY

          A Comparison of Selected Chemical Parameters Monitored
          at the Jackson Well  (October 31, 1973) and Buffalo Fork
          Station (November 17, 1971) with Recommended U.S. Public
          Health Service Standards.*
                                                   Recommended U.S.
                                                     Public Health
                              Level Observed       Service Standards
Constituent               Buffalo Fork    Jackson       mg/1

Chloride (Cl)                10.000           -        250.0

Floride (F)                   0.270          0.3         1.7 - 2.4

Iron (Fe)                      0.019           -          0.3

Nitrate (N03)                 1.000          2.4        45.0

Sulfate (S04)                25.000         55.0       250.0

Dissolved Solids            136.000        247.0       500.0
*Information from Ablondi  (1976) and Cox  (1974).
                               11-31

-------
     Levels observed for all six of  the  selected parameters  fall
well below recommended U.S. Public Health Service Standards.   It
should be noted,  however, that this  comparison is general in nature.
Wells throughout  the study area,  and  particularly in densely  pop-
ulated shallow  groundwater areas near  Jackson and Wilson, have
shown the presence  of coliform bacteria  as the result of septic
tank contamination.   Chemical and biological constituents in ground-
water samples collected throughout the study area will vary  with
aquifer systems and hydrologic and geologic processes.

     Relatively few known problems of  well contamination have
occurred in Teton County-  Contamination of domestic wells in  Jackson
Hole, however,  has  become increasingly prevalent in the past five
years.  In one  study conducted by the  County Sanitarian, approx-
imately 30 wells  have been classified  as "unsafe" and nearly 50
as "atypical."  A later well sampling  program conducted by the
208 agency  (1976) failed to reveal contamination of domestic wells,
but these programs  were conducted in different areas, at a different
time of year, utilizing modified techniques.   Factors contributing
to these findings are somewhat localized and include contamination
from improperly functioning septic tank  systems,  poorly sealed
well casings, drilling wells into unsafe aquifers,  and the fluc-
tuating level of  localized aquifers.


NONPOINT SOURCES

     Information  on nonpoint source pollution in the Jackson Study
Area is limited,  although it is anticipated that additional  data
will be collected through several of the Teton County areawide
208 waste treatment management studies presently underway.   These
studies include an  evaluation of the effect of elk and cattle
wastes on Flat  Creek and Spring Creek, an extensive investigation
of the effects  of silviculture activities on the area's water
quality, and a  study to determine the  effects of urban runoff  on
Jackson and vicinity water quality.


    The "Snake River Basin Water Quality Management Plan" prepared by the
WDEQ in February 1976 identifies erosion as the  most serious potential
nonpoint pollution source in the Jackson area.  Although many of the ero-
sion problems in the study area are attributed to natural causes, human
activities  (including land development, construction, irrigation, live-
stock grazing and  recreational activities) contribute somewhat to in-
creased sedimentation of local streams.

    The high natural erosion rates in the Gros  Ventre River drainage
and the practice of  discharging irrigation water from the Gros Ventre
                           11-32

-------
to Flat Creek can,  during spring runoff, add substantial amounts
of sediment to Flat Creek.   Levee construction and maintenance
on the^Snake River  have also resulted in sporadic increases in
turbidity and sediment  loading to these water courses.  These ac-
tivities will undoubtedly continue to affect water quality in the
drainages until  such time as existing water use and water quality
protection practices are improved.

     Grazing and farming can also contribute to water degradation
in Teton County  and the study area.   It has been estimated by the
U.S. Soil Conservation  Service that erosion losses associated with
improper application of water to farmlands in the study area may
exceed 20 tons of soil  per acre per year in the Snake River Basin.
Soil erosion maps have  been prepared for the basin by the S.C.S.
Highest erosion  rates are found in the drainage of the upper Hoback
and Salt Rivers.  Dry cropland farming is considered the most
erosive practice.   Grazing, because it is better administered and
less intensive,  is  generally considered least erosive.  Pasturing
stock along streams in  meadows and irrigated grassland has been
indicated as a possible source of increased turbidity in the study
area.  Runoff from  corrals and grazing areas has been considered
as a source of increased nutrient loading, but no definitive evi-
dence has been developed.

     Another minor   nonpoint pollution source identified in the
report is the National  Elk Refuge located in the Flat Creek Drainage.
The Refuge occupies approximately 24,000 acres of land adjacent
to the Town of Jackson.   The Refuge feeds some 60 percent  (8,000 head)
of the Jackson Hole elk herd during the winter months.  As part
of the 208 agency's work plan, data on the relationship between
the winter elk herd and water quality was collected.  Very little
increase in degradation was shown to be directly attributable to
the elk herd.  The  State of Wyoming owned South Park Elk Feedground
lies approximately  eight miles south of Jackson along the north
bank of the Snake River.   The site occupies 636 acres of land and
feeds approximately 800 - 1,000 elk through five months of winter.
The unit is being considered for the location of sewerage lagoons
in the Jackson Facilities Plan alternatives.  Most of the unit is
situated in the  flood plain of Flat Creek and the Snake River.
Along with possible elk-generated bacterial, nutrient and sediment.pollutants,
the unit is also thought to contribute, though not significantly, to the area's
water pollution problems in terms of recreational use and activities.  During
the past five years, the unit has averaged 13,705 visitor days annually.  The
impact of the National  Elk Refuge on local water quality is undergoing ex-
tensive study under the Teton County 208 program, as mentioned earlier.


     Ground and  surface water contamination from individual waste
disposal systems  has also been shown in the study area.  Numerous
shallow wells in  the densely populated Jackson area have demon-
strated coliform bacteria levels exceeding U.S. Public Health
Service Drinking  Water  Standards.  This problem is magnified in
areas of high groundwater where a continuous aquifer receives septic
tank effluents and  also supplies domestic water from wells
(Ablondi,  1976).


                               11-33

-------
     A number of nonpoint source water quality problems exist in
the 310,443 acre Grand Teton National Park.  During the past seven
years the number of visitors to the park has ranged from 2.8 -
3.3 million, according to the National Park Service (1976).  This
number is expected to increase to 5.5 million by 1979, representing
a population of some sixteen times the total of Wyoming.  Tourist
activities include float trips, boating, hiking, fishing and camp-
ing.  All of these activities can contribute to water quality
degradation in the form of increased nutrients, coliform bacteria,
oils and grease, and sedimentation in lakes and streams.  Indirect
activities including construction of additional park facilities,
roads and parking facilities, accelerated erosion from fire control,
and revegetation projects also affect water quality in the Jackson
area.

     Silviculture is another important nonpoint pollution source
in the Wyoming Snake River Basin.  Approximately 76  percent of
the acreage in the basin is managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
Physical processes including surface erosion, mass soil movement,
channel erosion, organic composition and stream temperature are
all affected by timber management practices.  These processes in
turn affect water quality in the Jackson area in terms of additional
sediment loads and organic matter; increased levels of forest
chemicals including pesticides, fertilizers and fire retardants;
increased nutrient and pathogen levels; and temperature regime
fluctuations caused by reduction of shade by streamside vegetation
removal.  The magnitude of the effects of silviculture on water
quality in the Jackson area have not been fully determined.  The
Teton County 208 Program will be studying this potential impact.


FLOOD HAZARDS

     Floods are a natural and recurring process.  Streams and
rivers periodically overflow their banks taking possession of
some portion of their natural flood plains and floodways about
once every two or three years.  Greater floods which occupy larger
portions of the flood plain occur less frequently-

     Inundation of natural floodlands occurs when the amount of
water entering the stream channel is greater than the hydraulic
capacity of the channel.  Floods will vary in area inundated,
suddenness, duration, and frequency with natural and certain man-
made conditions.  The natural conditions include the total amount
of rainfall and snowmelt, the intensity and geographic distribution
of that rainfall and snowmelt, storm patterns, preceeding moisture
conditions, temperature and season of the year.  Physical features
such as watershed configuration, topography, soils, geology and
drainage patterns also influence flood conditions.  The man-made
conditions include land use changes, alteration of drainage
patterns and various other factors that affect storm-water runoff.
As urbanization has proceeded, encroachment on the flood plain
of many incompatible land uses has occurred.  While many of the
original settlements were located on high ground near rivers and
                              11-34

-------
creeks, settlements soon spread to nearby areas including low-
lying floodlands; and urban development occurred either to take
advantage of level lands or to capitalize on close-in sites.

     Flooding in the Jackson Study Area occurs annually, primarily as
the result of spring snowmelt.  The extent of this flooding depends
on the quantity of snow cover and rate of melting which is directly
affected by spring temperatures.  Spring snow or rainstorms can
also augment snowmelt and compound the flooding situation.

     The Snake River originates in the high plateaus of Yellowstone
Park and flows south through Jackson Hole west of the Town of
Jackson.  The river drains some 1,878 square miles above the mouth
of the Gros Ventre River and 2,500 square miles at the Wilson
Bridge near Wilson, Wyoming (Corps of Engineers, 1976).  The mean
basic elevation upstream from the Wilson Bridge is about  6,200
feet above sea level  with an average stream slope of about 19
feet per mile through the study area.

     The history of flooding through the study area is well known
to local residents.  Annual flood damage is sufficient to require
construction of the Jackson Hole Flood Control Project, completed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1964.  The Project consists
of operating the Jackson Lake Dam and Reservoir for flood control
and irrigation and a series of levees which contain the Snake
River from river mile 974.4 (11.2 miles above the Wilson Bridge)
to river mile 959.0 about four miles below the Wilson Bridge.
In addition, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department constructed
800 feet of levees to protect the South Park Elk Feedground.

     Jackson Lake was originally a natural lake.  Prior to the
Jackson Hole Flood Control Project, the control structure was
operated primarily for irrigation.  The Lake now contains approx-
imately 25 percent of the flood control storage for Palisades
Reservoir and will regulate the 100-Year Flood.  The 100-Year
Flood is that flood which has an average frequency occurrence
of once every 100 years, or a one percent chance of occurring in
a given year.  However, it is important to note that this flood
may occur more than once in 100 years, on successive years, and
more than once in a given year.

     The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has established
the 100-Year Flood as the basis for determining minimum land use
measures for new construction or substantial improvements to ex-
isting development in flood hazard areas.  The NFIP requires that
communities notified of potential flood hazard and participating
in the program impose minimum land use/construction requirements
on development in the flood plain, insuring that the proposed
development is "reasonably safe" from flooding.  The program also
requires purchase of flood insurance for all acquisition and new
construction in special flood hazard areas that are federally
financed.  Federal financing restrictions include restrictions
on all federal programs involving building  (i.e., SBA, Hill Burton
Act, EDA, EPA, etc.), housing financing (i.e., VA, BIA, etc.),


                              11-35

-------
mortgage insurance programs (i.e., FHA, VA, FmHA, etc.), and all
conventional lending backed by FDIC, FSLIC, etc.  The Town of
Jackson is presently participating in the program, while Teton
County and Wilson are not.  The implications of the NFIP are dis-
cussed in more detail in the land use section of this report.

     The 100-Year Flood discharge for the Snake River is 23,300 cfs.
Boundaries of the 100- and 500-Year flood plain are shown in Figure 8.
Since 1890, there have been seven years in which major floods
(flows of 22,000 cfs or more)  have occurred.  The peak discharges
at the Wilson Bridge for these floods as estimated by the Corps
of Engineers are shown in Table 6.

     Velocities in the river channel through the Jackson Study
Area range up to 14 feet per second.  Low velocities occur in
shallow depths and in ponding areas, while higher velocities occur
in the main channel.  Velocities over three feet per second combined
with flood depths of three feet or more are generally considered
potentially hazardous in terms of flood damage.

     Flood duration in the reach of the Snake River flowing through
the study area is approximately 30 days, according to the Corps
of Engineers (1976).  Flood stages characteristically rise and
recede slowly in the study area.

     The levee portion of the project, since completion in 1964,
has provided some protection against annual flooding to the Town
of Wilson.  Although originally designed to accommodate flows of the
500-Year Flood (45,000 cfs), annual maintenance and repair have
been necessary to contain flows of the 50-Year Flood.  Costs for
annual maintenance of the system presently amount to approximately
$70,000 according to information supplied by the Corps of Engineers.
These costs apply to the mean annual flood flow of 13,000 cfs
(Haible, 1976).  The local/federal contributions for annual main-
tenance are approximately $25,000/$45,000 respectively.  These
estimates compare to an average annual loss of some $26,000 for
the portion of the Snake River flood plain from the Park to the
lower highway bridge.

     Because of the concern that the levees will not contain the
50- or 100- and perhaps even the 25-Year Flood, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is presently preparing a "Levee System Design Deficiency
Report, Snake River, Jackson,  Wyoming."  Although not complete,
discussions with the Corps of  Engineers indicate that the study is
considering a number of alternative actions for the levee system
ranging from present partial rehabilitation and annual maintenance
to complete rehabilitation to original design standards at an
estimated cost of some $15,000,000.  High costs for total renno-
vation are escalated because of the problem of lateral erosion which
is characteristic of levees built on braided or wide, shallow
sandbed streams.   In these situations, levees fail due to the
undercutting action of the shallow flows rather than from over-
topping.  The problem of maintenance is also compounded by lack of,
                              11-36

-------
FLOOD  PLAIN
      500  YEAR FLOOD PLAIN'
      (CORPS OF ENGINEERS
      FLOOD SURVEY 1976)
                                            Figure  8

-------
                        TABLE 6

                ESTIMATED PEAK DISCHARGES

         FOR THE SNAKE RIVER AT WILSON BRIDGE*





         Year             Peak Discharge (cfs)

         1894                  41,000

         1918                  32,500

         1904                  28,500

         1909                  25,900

         1917                  23,400

         1927                  22,900

         1943                  22,800
*Information from Special Flood Hazard Information, Snake
 River, Wilson, Wyoming and Vicinity, February, 1976, U.S.
 Army Corps of Engineers.

-------
and costs for maintaining access roads.  The high costs are most
directly associated with the costs of providing high grade rip-rap.

     As previously mentioned, the Jackson Hole area is an area
of high seismic activity.  Another important consideration related
to flood hazard along the Snake River is the possibility of severe
flooding downstream from Jackson Lake Dam in the event of a severe
earthquake and dam failure.  The U.S. Geological Survey has analyzed
the potential impacts of such an event in their recent report:
"Hydrologic Effects of Hypothetical Earthquake-Caused Floods Below
Jackson Lake, Northwestern Wyoming"  (1976).  In this report,
variations of dam and outlet structure failure were examined, peak
discharges were calculated and an inundation map prepared.  Effects
of the most extensive flooding (that experienced with instantaneous
destruction  of the entire dam) included extensive scour, fill
and re-position of the channel, destruction of buildings  (partic-
ularly in the Town of Wilson) and flood plain vegetation, and
possible contamination of domestic wells.  Areas subject to innun-
dation by flooding which would result from this catastrophic event,
similar to the 500-Year Flood, are shown on Figure 8.

     The reach of Flat Creek from the Town of Jackson to South
Park Road (Figure 9) is also subject to periodic flooding during
the winter months.  Flat Creek presently receives treated effluent
from the Jackson sewage treatment plant.  Localized flooding caused
by ice blockage can occur, with water depths varying from ten (10)
to two (2) feet or less on the flat lands.  Flooding generally
occurs between December and March, presenting hazard to livestock
and agricultural facilities in the area.

     Flooding along Flat Creek, because of its nature, is not sub-
ject to the same analysis as flooding caused by runoff in stream
channels.  Flat Creek is the only stream in the region known to
flood in this manner, according to Haible (1976).  According to
information supplied by the Corps of Engineers, however, detailed
data does exist for a portion of Flat Creek in the form of a special
flood hazard survey performed in October, 1976.  This survey includes
a portion of the creek through the Town of Jackson.  A Flood Hazard
Boundary Map (revised 4/16/76) has also been prepared for the
Town of Jackson by the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
delineating the limits of the 100-Year Flood.  This map is pres-
ently  utilized by lenders to determine flood insurance require-
ments for new construction in Jackson.

     EPA policy, as directed by Executive Order 11296, indicates
treatment facilities funded by the government will be evaluated
for flood hazard.  The regulatory principle used for the evaluation
is the flood having a 100-year recurrence interval.  It is therefore
likely that any alternative site for the Jackson sewage treatment
facility located in the 100-Year flood plain would be required to
incorporate flood-proofing and/or elevation provisions in design
which minimize flood hazards.  (Costs associated with flood-proofing
the Jackson facility to the level of the 100-Year Flood have not
been included in cost evaluation analysis of the alternatives.)


                              11-38

-------

                                     MAJOR RIVER AND STREAM CHANNELS AND
                                     ADJACENT LOW LAND SUBJECT TO SPRING
                                     RUNOFF FLOODING ONCE EVERY 10 YEARS
                                     LOW TERRACE LANDS ALONG THE SNAKE RIVER
                                     SUBJECT TO SPRING RUNOFF FLOODING ONCE
                                     EVERY 25-50 YEARS DUE TO POSSIBLE FAIL-
                                     URES IN THE PRESENT FLOOD CONTROL PRO-
                                     JECT LEVEES
                                     LANDS ALONG FLAT CREEK FREQUENTLY FLOOD
                                     ED DURING THE WINTER DUE TO STREAMFLOW
                                     DIVERSION AROUND ICE BLOCKAGE
                                  Source,  Livingston and Associates,  1976
..XX)

                                                                                                Figure  9

-------
These costs will vary considerably with location and are dependent
on elevation information presently being developed by the Corps of
Engineers.

     The final EPA grant regulations concerning evaluation of flood
hazard for wastewater treatment construction grants were published
in the Federal Register on May 8, 1974  (40CRF 30.405-10), and are
also included in EPA Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) No. 75-28.
Effective July 1, 1975  (or one year after a community's notification
as a flood-prone community, whichever is later), EPA is prohibited
by law from making any grant for acquisition or construction pur-
poses in a flood hazard area unless the community in which the
project is located is participating in the flood insurance program,
and flood insurance is purchased by the grantee.  Participation
must begin with construction and continue for the entire useful
life of the project.  The amount of insurance required is the
total project cost, excluding facilities which are uninsurable
under the NFIP (in the case of sewage treatment works,  eligible
facilities are generally restricted to building structures, as
defined by HUD)  and the cost of land; or the maximum limit of
coverage made available to the grantee under the program, which-
ever is less.  The required insurance premium for the period of
construction, whether assumed by the grantee or the contractor,
is an allowable project cost.  The list of communities determined
as "flood prone" is published on a monthly basis by HUD.

     The maximum insurance coverage for all types of buildings
other than residential under the Emergency Program of the NFIP
is $100,000 per building, at a federally subsidized rate of
40Ł/$100 coverage per year.  Once Flood Hazard Rate Maps have been
prepared and the community has entered the Regular Program of the
NFIP, maximum insurance coverage of $200,000 per building for
actuarial rates (proportionate to the flood hazard)  is  available.

     In the case of the Jackson was.tewater treatment facility,
the Town of Jackson is participating in the Emergency Program of
the NFIP.  However, flood-prone areas for Teton County have not
been identified by HUD,  and the county is not participating in
the program.   Although EPA regulations prohibit making any grant
for acquisition or construction in a flood hazard area unless the
community in which the project is located is participating in
the NFIP and flood insurance is purchased, these regulations would
not mandate purchase of flood insurance for the proposed Jackson
treatment facility prior to making a grant because Teton County
has not been notified by HUD of flood hazard.  EPA cannot require
a community by virtue of funding regulations, as in the case of
Jackson,  to enter the NFIP in order to receive a grant.  If, however,
Teton County were in the program, the Town of Jackson would be
required to purchase flood insurance as a provision of grant approval
Under the Emergency Program, the Town would be required to purchase
$100,000 coverage at the subsidized rate of 40Ł/$100 and annual
cost of $400.   Once Teton County entered the Regular Program,
the amount of available and required coverage would increase to
                              11-39

-------
$200,000.  However, the actuarial rate  (based on discussions with
HUD) would probably decrease to about 20
-------
predominant species  in the valley  floor are the big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata) and crested wheat grass  (Ayropyron spicatum)
according to Shaw  (1974).  This  cover  type, when undisturbed, has
a moderate capacity  for  intercepting rainfall and decreasing sur-
face runoff and erosion.

     The South Park  Study Area is  characterized by agricultural
cover types including grass and  alfalfa hay and pasture.  The
greatest percentage  of these agricultural lands were once riparian,
marshland and sagebrush-grass types.   This change to an agriculture
ground cover provides only a low interception capacity and a low
impedance to surface runoff.

     The area is also characterized by riparian vegetative types
including cottonwoods  (Populus deltoides) and dwarf maple (Acer sp.)
along the Gros Ventre and Snake  Rivers and the marshland cover
types (cattails, rushes  and sedges) which emerge along Flat Creek.
Aspen also occurs  along  the transitional slopes of the study area,
although a recent  decline has been observed in the region (Lower
Valley Power and Light,  Inc., 1974).   Riparian vegetative types
usually provide high erosion protection and capacity for filtering
out sediment from  overland flows.  Maintenance of the cover is
naturally important  for  sediment control and streambank protection.

     A conifer type  cover characterizes the upper hillslopes and
steeper sloping topography which surrounds the study area.  Lodge-
pole pine (Pinus contorta) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
are the predominant  forest types in the area.  Douglas fir may
reach an age of 400  to 600 years,  with maximum diameters of four
to five feet according to Shaw (1974).  Limber pine (Pinus flexilus)
are also found on  these  hillslopes and in the lower valley area.
Dominant understory  plants in the  higher elevations include pine-
grass (Calamagrostis rubescens), wild  rye (Elymus glauca) and big
whortleberry (Vaccinium  sp.).  This cover type has a high capacity
for intercepting precipitation and retarding surface flow.  In
most cases,  the conifer  type cover protects the ground from erosion.
However, water concentrated by construction activities may develop
enough force to destroy  this protective cover.

     The impact of development on  the  Jackson Study Area vegeta-
tion is an important consideration for the proposed project.  Per-
haps the most important  aspect of  this consideration in terms of
the project is the loss  of vegetation  on the valley floor and
the increase in areas covered by impervious surfaces associated
with urban development (parking  areas, rooftops, roads, etc.)
made possible by the availability  of the proposed facility.  This
activity can cause a decrease in the overall watershed capacity
of the watershed soils,  as stated  by Livingston  (1976), which in
turn lead to increased flows in  stream channels and increased
stream channel erosion.  Increased storm runoff to stream channels
with resultant erosion and bank  slippage has occurred in portions
of the study area, particularly  on Mosquito, Cottonwood, and Crane
Creeks.   The streams are characterized by gentle sloping and steep
sides, streambank vegetation not only  stabilizing the streambank,


                              11-41

-------
but also providing a buffer to trap sediment washing downslope
and affording shade for game fish rearing.  This potential to de-
grade water and stream channel quality should be considered in
any future development of the area.


Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat

     Within the South Park Study Area and the neighboring lands
several outstanding wildlife habitats exist.  While the majority
of this region, as one looks across the flat valley bottom, has
been placed in agriculture, the fence row bordering flood plains
and forested hillsides all provide a stable and supporting environ-
ment for a number of seasonal and resident species.  Two areas
of particular wildlife significance, in terms of their carrying
capacity and importance during the critical winter months, are
the Snake River flood plain and channel meanders and the State's
South Park Elk Feedground.  Both areas provide a wintering area
for the predominant big game species of the region, elk, moose,
and deer (Figure 10).

     In general not a great deal of information is available on
the species diversity or habitat conditions within the project
area.  A number of studies and articles have been published cover-
ing the flora and fauna of Jackson Hole, but these (discussing
the area in question) pertain to the entire valley.  The Wyoming
Department of Game and Fish has detailed records on the types
and numbers of game species and has classified the general ranges
of these animals and their critical and winter habitat.  A habitat
analysis for the South Park Elk Feedground and adjacent South
Park lands was initiated but has not been finalized for distri-
bution at the time of this printing.

     Within Jackson Hole it is possible to encounter a number of
non-game mammalian and avian species including black bear, mountain
lion, bobcat, Canadian lynx, wolverine, and beaver.  Other smaller
species include otter, raccoon, marmot, chipmunk, red squirrel,
badger, weasel, ground squirrel, and skunk.

     A variety of avian species migrate through the region each
year.  Geese, trumpeter swan, a variety of ducks (teal, mallards,
goldeneye,  etc.) and wading birds inhabit the lakes and rivers
during their yearly migrations.  Raptors including osprey and
bald eagles nest and fish along the Snake River.  The peregrine
falcon and other more common hawks and falcons can be observed
hunting in the area along with a number of other interesting species
including the gray jay, horned owl, magpie, tanager, and mountain
blue bird.

     While all the wildlife species are important in terms of
the general environmental balance of the region, the effects that
any proposed development would have on big game of the region
are particularly significant.  Historically a good portion of
the economy of the Jackson area has been dependent upon the local


                              11-42

-------

' »* A V *^^:%^^§^S^r^~^~^~>--^~*-~^-'' -*- -MB
 111.^ \^^~^-%-^-^-^^l?Ł~^Ą^-t-^~^~-^^                                       -»-* .
                                                                                     Y»V.
BIG  GAME  DISTRIBUTION  SOUTH PARK
                                                                                              [^	^J CRITICAL MOOSE HABITAT


                                                                                              LfJUH CRITICAL ELK WINTERIMG

                                                                                              K22 HABITAT



                                                                                              p-Z-ij ELK WIVTERIVG HABITAT


                                                                                              jf|||I CRITICAL DEER WINTERING
                                    DEER WINTERIMG HABITAT


                                    STATE ELK FEEDING REFUGE


                                    GAME MIGRATION ROUTE
                                                                                                                           SOURCE WOY. SAME
                                                                                                                                          FISH

                                                                                                                                                   Figure  10

-------
residents acting as hunting guides for out-of-state hunters.  It
has also been noted by several authors that the wintering elk herds
have been a special emotional tie for the local residents since
the turn of the century.  The acquisition of land for the present
National Elk Refuge (not to be confused with the South Park Elk
Feedground) north of Jackson was initiated in 1911 to protect and
manage the Yellowstone elk herds.  It annually winters"over 8,000-
10,000 head.

     The South Park Elk Feedground was established in 1939 and,
following the acquisition of several additional land parcels, con-
tains 636 acres at the narrow end of the valley.  Appendix 1 contains
a comprehensive summary and description of the site prepared for
the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission pursuant to the request by
the Town of Jackson for a long term lease.

     The basic purpose of the South Park Elk Feedground is to
provide for the maintenance of approximately 800-1,000 head of elk.
Animals that would either starve during hard winters or damage
surrounding ranch property in their search for winter forage are
fed first on the natural vegetation on the unit and later on im-
ported hay as the winter snow builds up.

     On the average an elk spends 149 days on the Feedground at a
cost to the State of Wyoming of $41.50 per season.  The purchase
of local supplemental feed accounts for a large portion of the
$38,000 a year operating budget.

     •The site serves as an ideal habitat for the animals that
inhabit the unit.  The combination of open grass/meadows and the
dense stands of cottonwoods provides both food and protection.
A necessary amount of open-space is available as required as a
buffer zone between the elk and adjacent human activities.  The
flood plain corridor created by the Snake River enables animals to
migrate on and off the Feedground without undue harassment.
According to the Department of Game and Fish, without feeding
grounds of this nature the elk herd would not have sufficient
winter range to survive since historical winter ranges and migration
routes have been used for other purposes or blocked by the pro-
gress of civilization.

     Since most of the unit is situated  in the known flood plains
of Flat Creek and the Snake River, the Department of Game and Fish
built over 800 feet of dike in 1957-1958 to keep the Snake from
flooding into Flat Creek and inundating the unit.  Even though
the area is protected from human intrusion during the winter, it
provides a great deal of recreational opportunities the other
seven months of the year.  Over  1,727 hunter days are sustained
as a result of management goals for the herd; between 500-1,200
fishermen used Flat Creek during 1974; and the unit has averaged
over 13,705 visitor days and 1,000 camper days per season.

     In addition to the elk, other species of wildlife such as
moose, deer, raptor, water fowl, and upland game birds are also
present.

                              11-43

-------
Aquatic Habitat

     Both Plat Creek and the Snake River are known to support an
active self-sustaining cold water fishery.  The Snake River is a
trophy stream known to sportsmen throughout the country.  A number
of guides and river boatmen work out of Jackson during the summer
and early fall offering scenic trips and fishing expeditions.  The
Wyoming Department of Game and Fish manages the fishery of the
Snake River in terms of establishing and regulating bag limits.

     Very little is known about the fishery potential of the lower
reaches of Flat Creek below the Town of Jackson.  The area in
question is exclusively private with the only public access at
the South Park Elk Feedground.  Fishing in town is usually limited
to children and the elderly, and fishing access to Flat Creek as
it crosses the National Elk Refuge is controlled and limited to
late summer.  Within the South Park Study Area, Flat Creek is not
considered to be of particular importance as a public fish resource
due to the lack of access points and availability of other high
quality streams in the area.  The discharges from the existing
wastewater treatment facility, according to recent data (see
Section on Water Quality), do not present a fishery limiting pro-
blem as a result of either oxygen depletion or ammonia toxicity.


Rare and Endangered Species

     The Endangered Species Act of 1973 authorized the Secretary
of the Interior to designate threatened as well as endangered
animals and plants.  The Act officially recognizes two categories:
1) Endangered Species and 2) Threatened Species.  The endangered
list has been completed but no official list of threatened species
has been promulgated.  According to information published by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, both the American peregrine falcon
and the blackfoot ferret may be found as either transient or res-
ident in the South Park area.  In addition, both the Canadian lynx
and wolverine, considered threatened in the Western United States
by most experts, have been seen in the study area.

     No plant species have yet been declared threatened or endangered
under the terms of the 1973 Act.  In 1974, the Smithsonian Institute
submitted a list of 2,099 plants in the Continental United States
for consideration as provided by the Act.  No plant species on
this list or the 57 additional plants added later are known to
occur in the study area.
LAND USE PLANNING

     The use of land is perhaps the most basic of all environmental
issues.  Sound land use is fundamental both to preserving stable
ecosystems and to controlling pollution.
                              11-44

-------
     As with highways, the construction of sewers can have a ma-
jor effect on local land use.  Impacts represent real costs to
the community—costs that may be reduced by proper land use con-
trols and public facilities planning.

     Because of the scenic grandeur and environmental sensitivity
of the Jackson area, the link between sound land use and public
facilities planning is particularly important.  The environmental
impacts for the proposed Town of Jackson sewage treatment plant
will vary according to how much development occurs, the spatial
pattern and density in which it emerges, the speed at which it
progresses and the natural characteristics of the site.  This
section investigates this relationship by reviewing existing land
use and the status of current land use planning in the Jackson
Study Area and analyzing the proposed "Teton County Comprehensive
Plan" and its relationships to wastewater facilities planning.


Existing Land Use

     Teton County is sparsely settled.  The existing population
is largely concentrated in a few areas and fluctuates seasonally.
The county contains a land area of approximately 2,873 square
miles.  Land is of two general types:  mountainous areas and the
central Jackson Hole valley floor.  Teton County contains approx-
imately 1,838,720 acres, including some 1,795,328 acres of land
surface and about 43,392 acres of water surface.  About 97 per-
cent of the land area in the county is government owned.  Approx-
imately 75,000 acres are privately owned.  Most of this land is
located in the Jackson Hole area.  This scarcity of private land
dictates that what land is available must be used wisely.  Table 7
provides a general breakdown of this ownership.

     The land use of private lands in Teton County in 1968 is
shown in Table 8.  In 1969 there were about 64,403 acres of farm-
land in the county, an increase of some 1,000 acres over the 1968
estimate (U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1969).  As indicated from
the data, agriculture accounts for nearly 85 percent of the pri-
vate land uses in the county.  About half of the agricultural
land is rangeland.  The remaining agricultural lands are primarily
irrigated and cultivated farmland (Teton County Soil and Water
Conservation District, 1970).

     The 1970 population of Teton County was approximately 6,000
people.  This population represents a 77 percent increase  (1,583
people) over the 1960 census.  The 1975 population was estimated
at about 7,300.  The Town of Jackson's estimated population for
1975 was 4,150 (Livingston, 1976).

     The four basic categories of development in Teton County
include the relatively urbanized areas centered around the towns
of Jackson and Moose, mixed urban/agricultural areas of Alta and
Wilson, predominant agricultural and rural residential areas of
Jackson Hole, and scattered commercial uses at highway junctxons


                              11-45

-------
                             TABLE 7

            TETON COUNTY LAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT*
Ownership

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Park Service

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and
   Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land
   Management and State of Wyoming

Private
*Information from Lower Valley Power and Light  (1974)
                             TABLE 8

                 LAND USE OF PRIVATE LANDS (1968)
              Percent

                77.0

                16.5
                 4.0

                 2.5
                                                        100.0
Land Use

Urban - Developed

Agriculture

Woodland

Vacant - Undeveloped

     TOTAL
 Acres
Percent
980
63,369
1,175
9,534
1.3
84.4
1.6
12.7
75,058
 100.0
                              11-46

-------
and strip commercial development  along highway frontages.  Resi-
dential uses are generally of  relatively high quality, while
commercial uses often violate  sound  planning concepts  (Planning
and Research Associates,  Inc.,  1970).

     Current economic information is not presently available for
Teton County-  The County has,  however, recently contracted with
the University of Wyoming to prepare a regional economic base
study.

     Existing information indicates  that tourism-recreation is
the dominant industry in  the study area.  This industry has been
the primary impetus to population growth.  Agriculture is second
to tourism and recreation in its  influence on the economy of the
area.  Both of these economies  have  shown stabilizing increases in
both_population and personal incomes during the past five years,
despite a continuing decrease  in  acreage available to private
agricultural operators  (Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc., 1974).
It is anticipated that much of  the existing agricultural land
will be converted to other uses as development pressures increase.
Another important source  of the local economy in the study area
is government employment  and expenditures.  In 1969, for example,
the government sector of  the economy was more than $5,000,000.
This income is expected to continue  to increase.

     Transportation circulation in the study area is channeled
through the long valley floor by  U.S. Highway 26, 89 and 187.  In
1970 this major roadway averaged  between 1,500 and 3,800 vehicles
per day at Hoback Junction  (Master Plan for Teton County, 1970).
Counts taken outside Jackson indicate this daily average is ex-
ceeded frequently, as evidenced by congestion on Highway 26, 89
and 187.  State Highway 22 has been  improved in recent years and
provides major access from Jackson to Idaho cities to the west.
Internal circulation in the study area is provided by a fairly
adequate system of federal, state and county roads.  The Jackson
Airport also plays a continually  increasing and important role
in accommodating commercial and private air traffic.


Legal and Political Considerations

     As in many parts of  the western United States, the questions
of land use and land use  planning are in the legal/political arena
in Teton County.  Views on the benefits of land use planning for
the area appear to be polarized,  with many of the larger land owners
opposing land use regulation for  the land they own.  However, the
results of recent public  opinion  surveys by Livingston & Associates,
the planning consultant working for  Teton County, indicate that
a surprisingly large majority of  the public in the County favor
what many would consider  strong land use controls to protect the
various resources of the  County.   Eighty to 84 percent of the
respondents favored limiting development of private lands because
of natural hazards including areas of high water table unsuitable
for septic tanks; protecting terrain, vegetation and wildlife;


                              11-47

-------
and protecting scenic values.  Eighty-one percent favored land
use regulations to preserve water quality even if the business or
ranching operation or lifestyle at home would be affected.  Over
two-thirds favored limiting the pace of growth in the years ahead.

     Results from a second questionnaire developed by Livingston &
Associates and the University of Wyoming Water Resources Institute,
"Proposed County Plan and Action Program," further substantiated
these findings (Livingston & Associates, 1977).  In summary, over
80 percent of the respondents strongly supported the retention of
the "essential character" and environmental quality of the Jackson
Hole area.  Strong support for protection of outstanding sensitive
environmental and scenic resources including wildlife habitats
was also expressed; with mixed support for preservation of agri-
cultural lands for ranching and providing land and supporting pub-
lic services to accommodate new residential development.  In terms
of land use/water quality questions, respondents (86 percent)
favored concentrating future residential development around pres-
ently developed areas and 86 percent favored discouraging strip
commercial development along highway routes to Jackson.  First
priority for scenic preservation was given to private lands in
the Snake River and Gros Ventre River flood plains.   Potential
high density development area preferences included the existing
towns of Jackson and Wilson and the Skyline Ranch,  Snake River-
Fish Creek, and Moose-Wilson Road suburban residential areas.
Indications from the initial survey that conventional zoning is
largely unacceptable to Teton County residents were not verified.
However, a majority of the residents responding did indicate sup-
port of enactment of environmental protection regulations.

     Although the County does have a planning commission, created
in 1968 to develop a master plan, it does not currently have an
updated set of planning and zoning provisions.  The County is
currently operating on a master plan developed in 1970 by Planning
and Research Associates, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.  The plan is
considered law where specific.  The County also enforces subdivision
regulation and neighborhood density guidelines.  To prevent in-
appropriate development from occurring while the "Comprehensive
Plan and Implementation Program" are being prepared and adopted,
the County has also enacted interim "Development Regulations"
which require permits for most new developments.  The regulations
call for positive findings to be made on 25 different factors in-
cluding environmental and visual impacts, water supply, waste
disposal, access, public services, agriculture, and nuisances
before a permit can be granted.  Decisions are made on a project-
by-project basis.


Status of Current Planning

     The consulting planning firm of Livingston & Associates is
currently under contract with Teton County to develop alternatives
for a county land use plan, as directed by state legislation en-
acted in 1975.  This legislation requires counties to develop


                              11-48

-------
comprehensive plans.  The legislation does not require implemen-
tation of the plans.  It is anticipated that final adoption of
the Teton County plan will occur during the next eight to ten
months.  It is not likely, however, that the plan will be adopted
prior to completion of the final EIS and approval by EPA of the
facilities plan for a new wastewater treatment plant.

     Livingston & Associates is also developing a land use element
for_the Town of Jackson.  Concurrently, Jackson is updating its
zoning ordinance.  Jackson currently has jurisdiction for develop-
ment occurring within a one  (1) mile radius of the corporate limits
of the town.

     Under the Teton County 208 Study, the firm of Nelson, Haley,
Patterson and Quirk, Inc. (NHPQ) is evaluating alternative waste-
water treatment systems for the Jackson-Wilson-Teton Village area.
This evaluation concentrates on the concept of cost-effective
wastewater treatment systems.  To date, two working papers have
been completed.  The study considers individual waste disposal,
aerated lagoons, land application systems for the Jackson-Wilson-
Teton Village area and compares these systems to central wastewater
treatment facilities in terms of costs and operation.  Among the
alternatives originally considered was to connect these scattered
communities to the proposed Jackson plant.  A preliminary study
of the economic feasibility of centralizing these facilities is
underway through the 208 program.  This study has not been con-
sidered further in this analysis.

     Because the relationships between wastewater systems and
land use planning for the County and the Town of Jackson are in-
timately related, an assumption must be made that the general
theme of the proposed comprehensive plan, or something very similar,
will be adopted in the near future.  However, it should be empha-
sized that this EIS primarily concerns only the proposed wastewater
systems  and not the land use in general.


Proposed Comprehensive Plan

     In general, the comprehensive plan presently being formulated
consists of a land use element assumed to be implemented primarily
by regulation  and a scenic preservation element assumed to be
achieved primarily by purchase.  Although the proposed plan could
easily be adapted to implementation by conventional zoning, the
County has directed the consultant to emphasize implementation
approaches that do not deal with this type of regulation.  The
plan, as presently proposed, also does not deal with development
location or growth rate controls.  Certain basic physical land
use constraints are used to determine maximum development densities.

     The environmental protection element of the proposed plan would
classify all private lands in Teton County in one or more of eight
districts including:  Flood Protection Districts; Watercourse
Protection Districts; Groundwater Protection Districts; Hillside


                              11-49

-------
Protection Districts; Suburban Development Districts; Low Density
Cluster Districts; Medium Density Cluster Districts; and Urban
Development Districts.  A land parcel could fall within several
of these districts, and in this case presumably would be subject
to the most stringent regulation.  Compensation to land owners
adversely affected by environmental regulation is also proposed
in the form of "development rights transfer."  Development rights
transfer, or "density transfer," involves assignment by local
government of rights to landowners of land which is regulated.
Owners can then transfer these rights to other lands or sell them
to owners of land designated for more intensive development.

     The scenic preservation element of the proposed plan assumes
that it will be necessary to establish preservation priorities
according to the degree of impact inharmonious development would
create.  The element establishes four priority levels for the
purchase of scenic easements on the basis of environmental sen-
sitivity of the various lacations, the degree of control necessary
to achieve the aims of the program, and the best timing strategy-

Factors Considered
     In summary, the comprehensive plan as presently formulated
considers the 10-Year  and 25- to 50-Year flood plains, slope
stability due to vegetation and geology, and water table consider-
ations particularly as they affect septic tank utilization.  Spe-
cifically, the proposed plan considers the following factors.

     Geomorphic units.  This category primarily deals with
     the stability of various land units due to soil and
     geologic considerations.

     Groundwater categories.  This category deals with the
     permeability drainage characteristics and groundwater
     levels.

     Flood hazards.  Primary consideration is given to the
     10-Year Flood,  where development is proposed to be
     prohibited, and to the 25- to 50-Year flood plain where
     certain residential developments are allowed, but high-
     density residential commercial development prohibited.

     Landscape units and vegetation maps.  This category
     primarily deals with the type of vegetation cover as
     related to the particular type of,landscape unit
     (e.g., river, terraces and flood plains).

     It is also important for the purposes of this EIS to under-
stand the significance of factors not directly considered in the
proposed plan.  Wildlife habitat units,  migration routes and
fisheries, for example, are not directly considered in the planning
approach, but are said to be "implicit"  in the plan.  Although
many wildlife considerations are addressed in the protection of
steep slopes and flood plains, the Wyoming Department of Game and
Fish maintains there are certain wildlife considerations not
                              11-50

-------
integrated into the proposed comprehensive plan  (i.e., protection
of migration routes and buffer areas).

     A scenic study element of the plan was prepared by the U.S.
Forest Service.  However,- this study is based on the general de-
scription of units, rather than a specific mapping of important
scenic vistas.

     Although_special attention was given to prevention of bac-
terial contamination of groundwater, nonpathogenic water quality
considerations  (nutrients) were not considered in the plan.  Since
nitrates, for example, are not generally absorbed by the soil
media, they will move from the septic tanks with the groundwater
until they emerge in a surface water body and are eventually taken
up as part of the biomass.  Such nitrates can act as biostimulants.
In some cases this might be beneficial if the population of de-
sirable forms of aquatic life including certain macroinvertebrates
and fish species are increased.  However, the more common situation
is for water degrading forms such as algae to be stimulated in
the form of nuisance algal blooms.

     An important factor to consider in comprehensive planning
is the economic feasibility of wastewater collection, treatment
and disposal systems; transportation systems; educational fa-
cilities; domestic water systems and police and fire protection.
Assuming various growth levels, the cost of the needed utilities
and facilities greatly depends on the location of development and
the configuration and density of the growth pattern.  This aspect
is not included in the proposed plan as presently formulated.

     Prohibiting development in the 10-Year flood plain is a
good, but somewhat outdated approach.  Ultimately, Teton County
may decide, as the Town of Jackson, to enter the National Flood
Insurance Program.  Land use and construction control measures
under this program equate to the "floodway" and the 100-Year
flood plain and prohibit construction of structures in delineated
floodways.  The 100-year criteria are also consistent with the
levee studies presently being performed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.  It should also be noted that while the proposed
plan would prohibit locating sewage treatment facilities in the
10- and 25- to 50-Year flood plain areas, EPA policy requires
flood-proofing and/or elevation of sewage treatment plants to
the level of the 100-Year flood plain, as discussed earlier in
this report.

     Finally, the proposed comprehensive plan does not include
a transportation element.  Considering the potential impacts of
transportation systems on wastewater treatment planning, and
conversely the impacts of wastewater treatment facilities on
growth and transportation needs, the factor should be considered
significant.
                              11-51

-------
Land Use Element

     The portion of the proposed "Teton County Comprehensive
Plan" for the study area is shown in Figure 11.  The plan, in
effect, assumes that some form of residential, commercial- or
industrial development is possible for the entire 75,000 acres
of private land, with the exception of the  10-Year flood plain
areas.

     The residential area densities proposed for the Town of Jack-
son and vicinity vary from ten units per acre to one unit per ten
acres  (Figure 12).   Residential dwelling types include single and
multi-family, townhouses and low rise apartments.  In total, the
proposed plan shows residential areas including approximately
650 acres with a total saturation capacity of some 17,875 people.
Proposed residential densities for Teton Village located approx-
imately nine miles northwest of Jackson range up to 20 units per
acre.

     Areas are also established for commercial development in both
the Teton County and Town of Jackson land use elements.  These
areas occur adjacent to existing commercial development.  The plans
suggest continuing existing types of commercial development along
the major highways.  These businesses are highly dependent on and
related to tourism and recreation.

     A limited amount of land south of Jackson is designated for
industrial growth.   Industrial growth is defined as light industrial/
distribution (warehousing).  In general, industrial land use is
designated adjacent to existing industrial uses and along U.S.
Highway 89-18-126 South.


Relationships to Wastewater Facilities

     As previously mentioned, there are no locational controls
in the proposed comprehensive plan.  Although residential develop-
ment densities are specified, almost every acre of land in the
county could conceivably be developed for residential purposes
on central wastewater treatment facilities or specially designed
individual systems.

     Under these planning and control provisions, a number of
development situations can occur.  Several potential situations
include:

     1.  The development may disperse throughout the county so
         randomly that if a problem did occur (i.e., groundwater
         contamination)  a central collection and treatment system
         would not be feasible.

     2.  Development may occur randomly outside the areas logically
         serviceable by a given wastewater treatment plant loca-
         tion.   In the event a central system was  determined


                              11-52

-------
       ooooooooooooc
      t*oooooooooooc
        oooooooooooc
        oooooooooooc
>OOOO<»f»OOOOOOOOOOOOor-jr.
                                    oooooooooooc
                                                      '. •'.' *'•'•'+'T^f'?•*•:.'''v> •'*''•''
                     ooooooooooooooc
               ooooooooooooooooooc
                oooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOfiBSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
                  ooooooooooooooooo
                  ooooooooooooooooo
       oooooooooo
       oooooooooooo
      oooooooooooooo
      ooooooooooooooooooc
                  ooooooooooc

                                                                                                          LAND   USE-PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                   Low gradjenr uplands, alluvial fans, and high t«rac« forested with conifers

                                                                                                                                                                   nr com fers and hardwood*: clustered residential development at not more than

                                                                                                                                                                   2 units per acre with package sewage treatment plant.
                                                                                                      KJ ywr Mood irca^. sleep slopes, jnd njtu»tl) unstable slopes residential

                                                                                                      development at 1 unit per 20 acres or more.
                                                                                                              ;.l ZV'O year flood areas, moderate slopes, potentially unstable slopes, and

                                                                                                                         ' iter less than three feet below the surface not attributable
                                                                                                                                                                   Existing developed areas, residential development at I unit per 1-2







                                                                                                                                                                   Town of Jackson and v.cinitv residential development at 1-lOunitspei
                                                                                                      HiŁh terraces and low terraces with ground water less than i feet below the

                                                                                                      surface possibly attributable to irrigation residential development at not

                                                                                                      than I unit per (i acres, or not more than I unit per 3 acres if ground wall

                                                                                                      level drops below ^ feet uixm removal of irrigation.
                                                                                                                 below the surf ice' residential development at not more than 1 unit per 5 acres.
                                                                                                              ,"j Unforested low gradient uplands flustered residential development at n

                                                                                                                  >re than 1 unit per acre with package sewage treatment plant.
                                                                                      SCALE ' 24OOO
                                                                                                                                      Source, Livingston and Associates, 1976
                                                                                                                                                                                              Figure 11

-------
            PROPOSED LAND USE

               TOWN OF JACKSON
              *~^--s-~ *-J ""J



                  ".--»- ,J

                   J*>VJ
         lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'
         OOOOO_OOOOOOOOOOOOO'_
         •^OaOOO OTOlDQOOOQQQOgl
IS
CTQ'
to

                                                                    I-- '-Ui_, ;"H;
                                                                    "•-' '-s- -  - T--~ -^ 14

                                                       Residential:

                                                       1 unit per  10 acres
Retail/service

commercial
                                                       Residential:

                                                       1-2 units per acre
                                                       Residential:

                                                       3-5 units per acre
                                                    j.- j  Residential:

                                                       6-10 units per acre
                                                i>r.Ł_-I  Visitor commercial
                                                                                                                    DOCJ	
                                                                                                                    DOOUUUO
                                                                                                          	 ___
                                                                                                          oooooooooooooooooooooooq
                                                                                                          oooopooooooooooooooooooq
                                                                                                          •e«>®ec>ooooooooooooooooooo]
                                                                                                          oooooooooooooooooooooooq
                                                                                                          ~ooooooooooooooooooooooc!
                                                                                                           "  ""ooooooooooooooooooq
                                                                                                              oooooooooooooooooog
                                                                                                              •ooooooooooooooooooq
                                                                                                              - - ~-ŁiŁiQ^c?iQ^Łf
                                                       Source, Livingston and Associates, 1976
Light industrial/

distribution



Public utility



School,  public building,

hospital, church, rodeo

grounds, cemetery



Park



Ski slope, other open space

-------
         necessary  (for public health or environmental reasons)
         the location of this development would greatly increase
         the cost of wastewater collection systems for users with-
         in the facility's use area  (the wastewater collection
         system area).

     3.  Development may occur in a few pockets, but outside the
         areas that could be served economically by the more
         logical locations for wastewater treatment systems.

     4.  Development may occur adjacent to the Town in areas
         designated for high density in an orderly manner and
         be economically served by a properly located wastewater
         treatment system.

     Adding to the difficulty is the fact that with certain waste-
water treatment plant sites, it may be erroneously implied that
a certain service area upstream, or upgradient from the treatment
plant, would be economically serviceable with a sewer system.
While a system of this type might be physically possible, the
economics of such servicing depend on the density and actual amount
of development as well as the configuration of the collection
system.

     Another important relationship between the wastewater facil-
ities and land use is that locating a treatment facility in certain
areas may induce development in that direction.  This type of a
situation may not be compatible with other planning considerations
including the location of existing and proposed public facilities
and services, wildlife migration, or aesthetics.


POPULATION

     The population of the areas to be serviced by the proposed
wastewater treatment facility may, for planning purposes, be con-
sidered as being composed of two discreet units.  The resident
population, which while reasonably stable in terms of total max-
imum numbers, is in a constant state of flux due to seasonal in
and out migration, and the tourist or migrant population.  While
these two elements will be considered separately in determining
the contribution of each to the wastewater flows to the Jackson
plant, they are in reality closely related to a town, such as
Jackson, with an economy as highly dependent upon providing tourist
and vacation oriented services.  According to the U.S. Department
of Commerce's 1973 figures on employment in Teton County, nearly
55 percent of the total employment involved some form of trade
and service occupations, which in Jackson's case centers around
seasonal tourism.  Two definite patterns of seasonal activities
have evolved in Teton County:  the summer to early fall family
sightseeing or wilderness experience vacationing, followed by a
limited amount of big game hunting in late fall; and the winter
sport oriented visitors from December to early spring.  This
differential is pointed out for several reasons that will become


                               11-53

-------
important in analyzing use factors and are critical in estimat-
ing the required size of the waste treatment facility-  The summer
use of the Jackson area far exceeds that of the winter activities.
Thus, in developing and projecting a peak or maximum expected
population and consequently the wastewater generated in the Jackson
service area, the existing and potential summer tourist seasons
will be used as an indication of maximum expected flow.


Historic Population

     Past resident population for the Jackson service area is
given in Figure 13.  This figure indicates a steady increase in
the population of the Town between 1940 and 1976.  In the last
five years, the Town's population increased at a rate of 6 per-
cent annually, from 3,196 to 4,150 people.  Livingston's 1976
report listed 979 single-family units, 245 multi-family units
and 265 mobile homes within the confines of the town.


Population Projections

     As stated earlier, there are two separate elements that must
be dealt with in preparing population projections in order to
determine the necessary size of wastewater facilities.  The trend
established for resident population change, in most situations,
is driven by the availability of employment in communities of the
size of Jackson.  The Teton County area provides several exceptions
to this assumption.  The area's scenic grandeur and recreational
opportunities attract a number of people who, because of financial
independence or adoption of alternative life styles, come into
the region regardless of the opportunity for traditional employ-
ment.  A second complicating factor in trying to use available
employment and economic development as a stimulating factor spur-
ring population growth is the number of seasonal and part-time
jobs the area's vacation-oriented businesses offer.  This creates
a situation where high summer tourist use requires an increase
in seasonal resident employment.  While much of the seasonal work
will obviously be picked up by the area's more permanent residents,
it also has the potential of drawing a large number of short-term
residents.  Regardless of their employment status, these individuals
must, in the final analysis, be considered residents in terms of
generated wastewater and use of public facilities.

     A detailed economic analysis of the Jackson area is not pres-
ently available.  The County has recently entered into a contract
through the University of Wyoming to develop an economic study that
will investigate the effects of the various development alterna-
tives to be considered by the county Comprehensive Plan.  The
results of this study are not expected until April, 1977.   There
appears from our investigation to be no economic growth plan or
evaluation of the phasing of regional commercial or industrial
expansion.  Livingston, in developing the county's Comprehensive
Plan, has made an employment forecast of a 5.0 - 7.5 percent


                              11-54

-------
                        TOWN  OF JACKSON RESIDENT POPULATION GROWTH
    18,000
                                Projected From
                                Available Information
co
                                                                            2000

-------

-------
increase in county employment over the next fifteen years.  The
majority of any increase would, in the opinion of the local agencies
and residents queried, be primarily in the trade and service field.

     Livingston  (1976) i has prepared two projections of population
growth in Teton County based upon expected impact of general national
economic prosperity  (Table 9).  A three percent increase assumes
a tight economy, while the five percent "would be about as high
as could reasonably be expected."

     In order to determine the population increase in the Jackson
wastewater service area, it was necessary for facility planning
purposes to determine the maximum reasonable population that could
be expected in the planning period.  In order to disaggregate the
Town of Jackson's resident population from the County's, several
assumptions were made based on the existing information:

        The majority of the proposed development will continue
        to occur in an area that could be serviced by the
        proposed facility.

        Without any evidence to the contrary, Jackson's waste-
        water service area growth will continue at 6% and the
        County at 3.1%

        No major area, outside of that proposed by the Pre-
        liminary Comprehensive Plan, will be included in the
        system prior to 1990 (i.e., no other communities such
        as  Wilson-Teton Village, etc. will be serviced by
        the proposed plant expansion).

     Table 10 presents the disaggregation of the Town of Jackson
and Teton County resident population from 1976 to 1995.  Projections
were based on the known existing populations as presented in the
Teton County Growth and Development Alternative.

     The population projections in the facility plan prepared
in 1975 by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk, Inc. were based on
a substantially lower 3% growth rate based on U.S. Census data.
They projected a 1990 resident population of 4,700, based upon
what appears to be a 1970 census base (2,101).  Figure 13 presents
the historic, proposed, and 1975 Facility Plan population projected
through 1990.  From our evaluation of the available data, Living-
ston's (1976)  information offers a more  up to date base,  while facil-
ity plans disagree with the growth experienced within the last five
years.  For planning and cost estimating purposes this study has
adopted a 1990 population of 9,600 individuals to be serviced by
the proposed facilities.  This corresponds closely to the figures
developed independently by Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk, Inc.
in their analysis of the Wilson-Teton Village Alternative Waste-
water Management Systems (Working Paper No. 2, 1976).  They pro-
jected a 1995 high and low population for the existing Jackson
service area (disaggregated from the County) of 11,593  and 8,045,
                              11-55

-------
                             TABLE 9




                       PROJECTED POPULATION




                           TETON COUNTY
           1977




           1978




           1979




           1980




           1981




           1982




           1983




           1984




           1985




           1986




           1987




           1988




           1989




           1990
@ 3% Increase
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
,622
,851
,086
,329
,579
,836
,101
,374
,655
,945
,243
,551
,867
,193
@ 5% Increase
7,
8,
8,
8,
9,
9,
10,
10,
11,
12,
12,
13,
13,
14,
770
159
566
995
444
917
413
933
480
054
657
289
954
651
Source:   Livingston & Associates
                              11-56

-------
                          TABLE  10

          TOWN OF JACKSON POPULATION PROJECTIONS



             Town @ 6 % *          County @ 3.1%        Total

 1976          4,250                3,137             7,387
 1977          4,505                3,237             7,742
 1978          4,775                3,341             8,116
 1979          5,062                3,448             8,510
 1980          5,365                3,558             8,223
 1981          5,687                3,672             9,352
 1982          6,028                3,790             9,818
 1983          6,390                3,911            10,301
 1984          6,773                4,036            10,809
 1985          7,180                4,165            11,345
 1986          7,610                4,299            11,909
 1987          8,064                4,436            12,500
 1988          8,552                4,578            13,130
 1989          9,065                4,724            13,789
 1990          9,608                4,876            14,484
 1991         10,184                5,027            15,211
 1992         10,796                5,183            15,979
 1993         11,443                5,344            16,787
 1994         12,129                5,510            17,639
 1995         12,857                5,680            18,537
* This includes future population that would reside on the fringe
  areas of Jackson  (those areas slated for high density under the
  proposed land use plan).
                          11-57

-------
respectively; based upon the availability of developable land as
presented in the preliminary land use plan.

     The non-resident or migrant population trends in an area
such as Jackson are difficult to evaluate given the unstable and
somewhat tenuous position of the national economy.  The 1974 fa-
cility plan analyzed the problem in terms of available overnight
accommodations, national park visitations, and traffic flow within
the town.  They concluded that very little increase in seasonal
visitation could be expected and that the "increase in permanent
residents will cause a more rapid increase in P.E. demand loading
on the system than would an increase in seasonal visitors."  This
was based on the decrease in tourism experienced in Grand Teton
National Park between 1969 and 1972, the probable impact of the
then highly publicized "energy crisis," the sharply increasing
cost of automobile travel, and the overall difficulty in reaching
the area by other methods of transportation.  They estimate, using
data from the Wyoming Highway Department's traffic figures, that
up to 14,000 people per day were presently  (1969 data) visiting
Jackson during the summer.

     This study approached the problem of estimating the non-
resident population by analyzing the present contribution this
element of the population makes to the total amount of wastewater
generated.  1976 flow data showed that the peak day flow received
at the plant was in July, approximately 1.84 mgd (July 6th) over
the July 4th holiday week.  To determine what portion of this load
was generated by non-residents it was necessary to subtract out
the known resident population contribution and the known amount
of infiltration.

     The Sewer System Analysis and Evaluation prepared for the
town in December of 1975 documented 853,220 gpd of infiltration
during periods of high ground water (high runoff and irrigation).
The existing resident population serviced by the Jackson system
was given as 4,250.  If it is assumed a per capita daily flow
of 120 gallons  (Section III)  this accounts for 510,000 gallons
of wastewater.  Therefore:

                1,840,000 gallons total peak daily flow
                - 850,000 gallons documented infiltration
                - 510,OOP gallons resident flow

                  480,000 gallons non-resident flow

The non-resident flow contributes 26 percent of the flow or 49
percent of the wastewater entering the system.

     In order to convert non-resident flow to the actual number
of people, several assumptions need to be made.  It is assumed
that each visitor spends the night and has at least two restaurant
meals in town.  From standard USPHS statistics the total contri-
bution percapita would be approximately 50 gallons per day.  This
calculates out to almost 9,600 individuals that used the facilities
                              11-58

-------
of Jackson on that particular peak day.  While this figure does
not agree with the estimated gallons percapita provided for in
the recently completed Water Facilities Investigation  (1976) for
The Town of Jackson  (100 gpcd - non-resident), it provides a better
approximation of actual sewage generated for facility planning
purposes.  The Jackson Chamber of Commerce estimates that the
present available hotel/motel rooms have an overnight carrying
capacity of approximately 6,000 guests while the current 450 com-
mercial trailer and camp sites could accommodate another 1,200
people.  At full occupancy the town could provide a total over-
night capacity of 7,200 individuals.  This figure is up 40 percent
from that estimated in the 1974 report (5,140 individuals).

     Expansion of tourist  services    and the expected impact
on municipal facilities is difficult to predict.  Both national
and regional economic factors tend to control vacation spending.
Analysis of Teton National Park gate information (Figure 14) shows
a decline in visitation over the last few years but a sharp in-
crease during the summer of 1976.  The reason for the decline and
recent resurgence of interest is speculative; the waning of the
energy crisis, economic stability, the Bicentennial, any number
or combination of factors could be responsible for the increase
in area visits.  The Park's Master Plan (1976)  has established a
number of management initiatives including holding the level of
overnight visitor accommodations, visitor conveniences, and wil-
derness trail developments to that established in 1971.

     This will, in effect, force the development of any additional
visitor oriented service elsewhere,  logically a good portion of
which could locate in the Jackson service area given the proximity
of existing facilities and the transportation system.

     Livingston & Associates (1976) projected a 5.0 - 7.5% increase
in employment in Teton County over the next 15 years.  If the
present trends in categories of employment continue and 55 percent
(1973)  of any new jobs were in those areas heavily dependent upon
tourist activity, a steady increase in tourist activity would be
expected.  Based upon the available information and assuming that
employment trends continue, a 2 - 3 percent increase in tourist
and visitor activity could be forecasted.   Due to the economic
uncertainties and the almost assured continued increase in the
price of gasoline, a 2 percent annual increase in summer tourism
was selected for planning purposes.  While this figure may be
challenged by groups favoring or opposed to any further develop-
ment of the Jackson area, based on existing information, it rep-
resents a conservative approach for planning the necessary facil-
ities.   Table 11 shows the projected increase in peak visitor or
non-resident population utilizing the Jackson wastewater facilities
could reach nearly 13,000 in 1990 and 14,000 in 1995.

     It should be emphasized that these figures are based upon the
1976 contribution this segment of the population had on the total
amount  of wastewater generated, and not estimates of actual people
in town.   Extrapolation of future use was made on the basis of
the 1976  peak flow.


                              11-59

-------
                            TOTAL  VISITS GRAND  TETON NATIONAL  PARK
                                          JULY 1966-1976
  IflOOjOOO
.*»
I
*
1
  500,000
I
 a

-------

-------
                             TABLE 11

                   PEAK NON-RESIDENT POPULATION
                      1976            9,600
                      1980           10,391
                      1985           11,473
                      1990           12,920
                      1995           13,985
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES


General

     The existing wastewater treatment facility discharges un-
chlorinated effluent from an activated sludge stabilization  system
into Flat Creek, south of the Town of Jackson.  The present  system
includes the collection lines, an 18" interceptor flowing south
out of town, the treatment plant, and the outfall line.

     The existing plant (Figure 15) was constructed in 1969, but
was never completed.  The extended aeration activated sludge pro-
cess includes:  the headworks with a manually racked bar screen,
a  triplex primary lift station, two aeration basins, two clarifiers
 (operated in parallel), a sludge recycle pump, a polishing pond
to which a small surface aerator was added and a covered and heated
sludge drying bed.  The original construction drawings show  that
only the facilities necessary to accommodate the 0.8 mgd design
flow, according to the design engineer, were constructed in  1969.
This equates to a calculated population equivalent  (P.E.) of 5,000.
Notes on the original drawing stated that to increase the capacity
of the system in order to handle a P.E. of 7,500, greater aeration
would be required and that by adding aerobic sludge digestion a
P.E. of 10,000 could be accommodated.

     The present collection system is composed primarily of  6, 8,
10, 12, 15 and 18 inch vetrified clay sewer mains, manholes  and
appurtenant equipment.  The system services the entire Town  of
Jackson including a small area southwest of the city limits.


Operation

     In a report prepared for the Town of Jackson in 1973 by R.D.
Connell and Associates, Inc. the average flow to the plant was
shown to be in excess of the maximum design peak of 1.2 mgd.


                              11-60

-------
                        EXISTING  WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT TOWN OF JACKSON

                                           CLARIFIED
          • INLET STRUCTURE
            RETURN SLUDGE-
            BOX
                   WET
                     WELL
   CONTROL  PUMP
      STATION
               AEROBIC
              OfcESTER
RCAERAT&N
   BASIN
  AERATION
                                 BASINS
  REAERATION
   BASIN
OUTLET
BOX

CHLORINE-
CONTACT
BASIN
\ /


SLUDGE
BED


/ \




\ /


SLUDGE
BED


/ \
                                                                       POLISHING
                                                                             POND
               proposed construction in orglnal design
                                                                                    EFFLUENT  DISCHARGE
                                                                                           LINE
01

-------


-------
                                          1971 - 1972
                                   Winter             Summer
          Average                 0.850 mgd          1.34 mgd

          Peak                    0.951 mgd          1.59 mgd

          Minimum                 0.543 mgd          1.11 mgd


     In the same report organic loading was calculated at over
2.2 times that for which it was originally designed (1000 Ib. BOD/
24 hr.).  While no design or facility report was available to
verify the criteria to which the plant was constructed, it would
appear that the existing system was badly overloaded less than
three years after completion.

     A major problem that has plagued the operation of the facility
in the last several years is inability of the system to adequately
process grit and sludge.  A portion of sludge material (organic
and inorganic) produced by the biological unit of the plant is,
under ideal operating conditions, recycled to the incoming sewage
which increases the effectiveness of the operation.  The remainder
is "wasted" and disposed of by various means.  This normally entails
a digestion process which will stabilize the biologically active
element of the material in order that it can be dried and safely
disposed of as either land fill  or an agricultural soil aid.
Unless the wasted sludge is digested, it is very difficult to de-
water and dry.  This is particularly so, given Jackson's climate.
With the available equipment the plant operator may require as
much as two months to adequately dry the wasted sludge.  Because
the dried material has not been stabilized, only dried, it still
presents a public health hazard and cannot be disposed of at land-
fill sites or on agricultural land*,  At present, dried sludge is
stockpiled at the treatment plant site, which has created a number
of odor and storage problems.  The local and state health author-
ities have refused to allow the Town to dispose of the material
by conventional methods.  Because drying of unstabilized sludge
is so slow and difficult, the operator has not been able to waste
sludge at a rate which provides proper operation of the plant.
To compensate, sludge which builds up in the clarifier is recycled
to the headworks at a rate far beyond that normally desired.  The
material that cannot be recycled is lost over the clarifier weirs
and accounts for the high suspended solids in the effluent.  Clari-
fier inefficiency, due to this overloading, has resulted in heavy
silting of the polishing pond and the carryover of solids into
the Flat Creek discharge line.

     In addition to the fact that the system is already serving
a larger population equivalent than it was designed for (as great
as 17 percent during the peak summer months), infiltration pro-
blems have a significant impact on the hydraulic capacity of the
system.   A December 1975 sewer system evaluation prepared for the
                              11-61

-------
Town of Jackson, pursuant to an EPA Step  II  Grant, concluded,
through the use of a television inspection, that during the  summer
months over 853,000 gpd enter the system as infiltration.  The
majority of this infiltration is from leaking service  connections,
sewer pipe joints, and manholes.  The Town has received approval
of its grant application to EPA to correct approximately  600,000  gpd
of this infiltration by repairing particularly poor sections through-
out the service area.  This construction will be completed in 1977.
The Town is presently forcing new connections and pipelines  to
abide by more restrictive construction practices by an aggressive
construction inspection policy.

     Figure 16 shows the average monthly characteristics  of  the
plant influent for the last three years.  This indicates  that the
peak summer flow in July is approximately double that  received
during the spring, fall and winter months.  This increase is attrib-
utable in part to the tourist influx during the summer, but  also
to a great degree by the increase in infiltration promoted by
heavy irrigation coinciding with snowpack melt and runoff during
the spring and early summer growing season.  The correlation between
the rise in groundwater levels and the seasonal application  of
irrigation water has been well documented in the area.  These
correspond to the wastewater plant operator's observation that
a marked increase in flow to the facility occurs shortly  after the
beginning of the irrigation season.  Figure 16 also indicates an
extremely variable influent waste strength.  Characteristics varied
as much as 50 mg/1 in BOD5 and Suspended Solids in 1976.  On
August 26 the treatment plant operator took a suspended solids
measurement and flow reading at about 6 a.m., the historic daily  low
flow period for Jackson (Figure 17).  The results of this spot
analysis showed that while the influent flow rate was  1.22 mgd,
the total suspended solids were only 15 mg/1.  Later in the  day
the flow increased to nearly 1.8 mgd and the solids concentration
was well over 100 mg/1.

     While the summer infiltration may be helpful in the  sense
that it provides some dilution, it disrupts the hydraulic flow
of the plant and increases the flushing of solids through the
system and into the effluent discharge.  Figure 16 presents  the
effluent discharge information compiled through the Town's self-
monitoring program.  During the summer months the system  is  achiev-
ing total suspended solids removal rates as low as 43  percent and
BOD removal of about 75 percent.  Over the last few years, the plant
is regularly operating in violation of its National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Permit.   The State of Wyoming, Department
of Environmental Quality,  has indicated that this situation  will
not be allowed to continue.   The State and EPA will require the follow-
ing discharge limits:

     Total Suspended Solids                30 mg/1

     BOD5                                  30 mg/1

     Fecal Coliform                        200 organisms/100  ml
                              11-62

-------
                     JACKSON  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT QUALITY
   -100

   — 50
l-j
rtl
   Lo-
             -1.5
— 1.0
-^0.5
 -o-
/\
            RcwBC
u

                            D
                             A
                             t *v

                             / \
                                       1

                                      r
                             Raw

                                              A
\
  \






/
                                        A
                                                   /Flew
                                                                   A
                                                                   i\

                                                                             .A
                                                                                       A
                                                                        \
                 jAS  OND   JFMA   MJ   JASONDJ   FMAMJ   JA

                                                 1975                              1976

-------
              JACKSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DAILY  FLOW
        i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	r
   Q
   
-------
     In addition,  residual chlorine,  ammonia and/or phosphate
requirements  could be  imposed if the  State determines, based on
the final receiving water, that these are necessary-  As seen in
Figure 18 this  level of  treatment will require significant modi-
fications in  solids processing and improvements of the organic
stabilization efficiency.   In addition,  disinfection will be re-
quired in order  to meet  bacterial contamination requirements.

     The existing  treatment system is generally inadequate.  The
system is unable to efficiently treat the biological or solids load
received at the  plant.   In addition,  primary and secondary solids
generated within the process cannot,  at  present, be safely and
efficiently treated and  disposed.  The existing sludge drying bed
and polishing pond are ineffective and are a primary source of
odors, which  residents have reported  to  be quite noticeable over
past years during  the  summer.

     In addition to the  problems endemic to the existing system
design and operation,  power outages in the Jackson area can have
a disastrous  impact on treatment reliability.  Lower Valley Power
and Light, the  power utility for the  Jackson area, listed 14 power
outages totalling  16 hours and 15 minutes without service from
1972 through  1975.   The  Town is currently exploring measures that
will either reset  the  necessary electrical equipment in the event
of a power failure automatically or alert the operator at home
that the plant  requires  assistance.  Any new EPA funded mechanical
treatment facility or  pump station will  require the installation
of standby power.   This  can be either separate line source or
onsite generating  capacity.


Effect on Receiving Water

     The Teton  County  208  Planning Agency is currently developing
information on  the water quality of Flat Creek and the impacts the
wastewater treatment plant has on the aquatic environment.  In-
stream water  quality standards for Flat  Creek stipulate specific
criteria on five parameters:

     Dissolved Oxygen  -  6.0  ppm
     Total Residual Chlorine - 0.002
     Ammonia  (Unionized) - 0.02 ppm
     Bacteria -  1,000 colonies/100 ml
     pH - 6.0 -  9.0

According to the information  provided by the 208 agency, only fecal coliform
bacteria are presently an immediate potential problem.  Suspended solids, while
not at an alarming level, are generally higher below the treatment plant as are
ammonia and nutrients.


     While monitoring data for the existing plant is complete for
BOD and suspended  solids,  other water quality parameters, which
1)  can leave  a detrimental effect on  water quality, 2)  be controlled
                               11-63

-------
                      JACKSON  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY
a
Ł
3
i—i
00
      t
                                                   Suspends 1
                                                     So/ids
Oct    Nw    Dec    Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr     May    Jun     Jul    Aug     Sap
         30
          20
Aug.   Sep

-------

-------
                             TABLE 12




                     FLAT CREEK WATER QUALITY
Flat Creek Instream
   Above the Town of Jackson
Date
4/14/76
5/12/76
6/09/76
6/30/76
NO-3-N
0.030*
0.018
0.012
0.010
Total
0.053
0.041
0.052
0.060
P




                                0.022




                                0.006




                                0.008




                                0.007
   Below Treatment Plant
4/14/76




5/12/76




6/09/76




6/30/76
0.038




0.026




0.062




0.023
0.119




0.140




0.085




0.134
0.125




0.093




0.016




0.011
*All concentrations in mg/1.
                              11-64

-------
by wastewater facilities, and  3) are costly  to remove, must  be
considered.  These  include the nutrients phosphorous and nitrogen
and the toxic effect of ammonia nitrogen.  The only water  quality
data that would provide a direct indication  of what concentrations
of these materials  the existing plant  is generating was collected
through the efforts of the 208 agency.  The  208 agency sampling
program was not designed specifically  to analyze the impacts of
the plant on Flat Creek so the only sampling stations that include
the plant also include the Town of Jackson and some of the South
Park agricultural land.  It is thought that  a number of non-point
sources as well as  some clandestine point discharges may be  in-
cluded in this data  (Table 12).  The 208 agency collected  the
only known nutrient and ammonia data on quality of the treatment
plant effluent.  This data is presented below.

     Effluent Discharges.  Jackson WWTP

                     Flow     p_H    Temp   NOg-N    Total-P   NH3~N

     One sample     1.84 mgd   7.4   14°C  0.1 mg/1  2.8 mg/1  10 mg/1
     (7/6/76)

The Snake River Water Quality Management Plan (1976) performed
limited water quality sampling on Flat Creek and determined that
the only significant nutrient degradation occured as a result of
the Treatment Plant.  Flat Creek nitrate concentrations doubled
and phosphate increased 8.5 times after confluence with the plant
effluent.

     As indicated, water quality between the Town and below the
plant diminishes.  Nitrate concentrations increase on an average
of 250 percent, total phosphate 235 percent  and ammonia nitrogen
6.20 percent.  Based upon this single effluent sample, taken after
one of the highest  loading period experiences (July 4th weekend),
the mass loading for nutrients and ammonia was estimated at
1.54 Ib/day, total phosphate 43.1 Ib/day and ammonia nitrogen
155 Ib/day.

     Since January of 1977 the Jackson treatment plant operator
has been required to monitor ammonia nitrogen in the effluent to
Flat Creek.  Results of this monitoring activity to date indicate
concentrations range from 15 to 20 mg/1.  A full report will be in the final EIS.

     The potential for biostimulation of aquatic plants as a result
of nutrient enriched wastewater effluent has been raised by land
owners below the plant along Flat Creek.  Field observations of
the area for this study, including low level aerial flights, in-
dicate that while there was a proliferation  of vascular aquatic
plants along several stretches of the Creek  and at times floating
algal mats could be seen on the surface, Flat Creek would not
generally be considered a highly eutrophic watercourse.  Nitrate
and phosphate (two of the most important nutrients found in water)
concentrations in Flat Creek below the treatment plant were low,
                               11-65

-------
ranging from 0.023 to 0.07 mg/1 for nitrate and 0.04 to 0.15 mg/1
for phosphate.   These concentration levels indicate that a major
problem with algal stimulation is unlikely-  Still it should be
noted that even a small increase in available nutrients (especially
phosphate in many waters)  has been shown to be stimulatory.
                              11-66

-------
SEC ION

-------
JACKSON'S EXISTING WASTEWATER_
    TREATMENT  FACILITY

-------
                           SECTION III

             PROJECT PROPOSED BY THE TOWN OF JACKSON


     In 1974 the Town of Jackson retained the firm of Nelson,
Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. to prepare a facility plan for
wastewater management pursuant to a federal grant for construction
of the required facilities as prescribed by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) and EPA
regulations.  In November of that year the results of the study
were presented to the Town Council for consideration.  The engi-
neer addressed a number of alternatives including:

     1.  No action

     2.  A lagoon treatment system on the State of Wyoming South
         Park Elk Feedground

     3.  A lagoon treatment system at the county land-fill site

     4.  A mechanical treatment plant on State owned school land
         near Boyles Hill

     5.  Expansion at the existing site to provide complete sec-
         ondary treatment.

     Upon evaluating the considered alternatives, the engineer
recommended that the Town apply to EPA for a grant for the design
of a complete secondary biological treatment facility to be con-
structed at the site of the existing plant.  The   recommendation
was based upon cost, acceptability, and environmental considerations

     The Town Council, after reviewing the engineer's recommenda-
tion, decided to ask the engineer to prepare a summary supplemental
report identifying and comparing in detail the cost effectiveness
of both the recommended plan and the alternative lagoon on the
South Park Elk Feedground at the southern extent of South Park.

     In January of 1975 Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc.
submitted to the Town a Supplemental Report to the Facilities
Plan.  This report considered capital and operation and maintenance
expenses, as well as public acceptability and the potential for
delay due to conflicts involved in acquiring the South Park Elk
Feedground land.  As a result of this investigation the Town Council
opted to seek a Step II design grant for the construction of a
lagoon on the South Park Elk Feedground.  This decision was based
primarily on three issues.

     1.  The lower operation and maintenance cost for a lagoon.

     2.  The ultimate and unlimited service capacity of a plant
         located at the South Park Elk Feedground site.
                              III-l

-------
     3.   The Council's assumption that being public lands, the
         South Park Elk Feedground site would be available for
         the Town's use.

     As a result of this decision, EPA in compliance with the goal
of the National Environmental Policy Act and internal regulations
required this Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared on
the proposed project and alternatives before any further financial
assistance could be considered.  The EIS requirement was based on
the potential for public controversy and unknown environmental
problems of disturbance of the elk and secondary effects of growth
along the five to six mile long interceptor.


DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSIDERATION

     The project proposed by the Town, as addressed by the facility
plan, envisioned a treatment facility designed to accommodate the
projected 1985 population equivalent of 15,000.  The expected
flows and organic loading were based on normal domestic wastes.
Since industry of any kind is almost nonexistent, no industrial
waste contributions were anticipated.  The design criteria utilized
in the preparation of the facility plan included:

                           Design Data

                 Population          15,000
                 Flow                1.5 mgd
                 BODs(Summer)        3,450 Ib/day @ 15°C
                 BOD5(Winter)        1,725 Ib/day @ 5°C
                 Peak Flow           3.0 mgd
                 Expected Removal    90%

     Since the preparation of the facility plan, the Town and
County have initiated an update of gtheir comprehensive land use
plan.  This revision and the fact that the 1985 planning period
adopted for the original facility report is now insufficient to
adequately plan for future needs  prompted EPA to utilize the
EIS to update the design and cost criteria in the facility plan
for treatment design years of 1990 and 1995.  Interceptor lines
were uniformly sized for the year 2000.  Table 13 presents a
summary of population and flow data utilized in preparing the
necessary revisions based upon information developed subsequent
to the 1974 Facility Plan.

     Organic and solids loading for 1976 (peak tourist months of
the summer), assuming 75 percent correction in known infiltration,
were estimated at approximately 180 mg/1 each.  This calculates
out to a maximum day mass loading of 3,300 Ib/day in 1990 and
3,987 Ib/day in 1995.  These summer loading rates reflect the large
amount of water utilized for washing and cleaning connected with
the commercial tourist business.
                              III-2

-------
                               TABLE 13

                    POPULATION AND FLOW ESTIMATES
 *Resident

  Nonresident

    Total


**Resident Flow mgd (@ 120 gpc)

  Nonresident Flow mgd (@ 50 gpc)

  Noncorrectible Infiltration mgd
   (25% existing or 50 g/c 1976)

  Expected New Infiltration
   (300 g/ac/d @ 380 acres total)

  Total Flow mgd (maximum day)
 1990

 9,600

12,900

22,500


1.15

0.65


0.21


0.12

2.20
 1995

12,850

14,200

27,050


1.54

0.71


0.21


0.16

2.65
 2000

17,200

15,700

32,900


2.06

0.78


0.21


0.20

3.25
  Peak Factor mgd

  Peak Flow on Max-day mgd
1.62

3.60
1.65

4.30
1.68

5.50
  *See discussion on population.

  **120 g/c based upon survey of  surrounding communities,  N.H.P.Q.,
    Inc.,  Personal  Communication.
                                III-3

-------
     Jackson's isolated location and the difficulty and expense
in transporting raw and manufactured goods excludes the area from
ever becoming a significant industrial center.  The wastewater
flows presently experienced and those expected should not normally
contain any refractory or exotic constituents.  It must be noted,
however, that because of the prevalent economic activities in
the area, certain waste problems could occur.  County-wide septic
tank and sanitary vault waste pumping and private discharges of
pesticides, oils and other material may occur and should be antic-
ipated in any design.

     The project proposed by the Town would entail the construction
of a 21 inch interceptor line from the existing wastewater treatment
plant running south to the site selected on the South Park Elk
Feedground.  The alignment proposed in Figure 19 follows South
Park Road starting just west of the existing facility and cuts
overland southeasterly to the facility site at the lower end of
the road as it turns east.  Two potential sites were identified
approximately 7,000 feet apart but both located within the South
Park Elk Feedground.  A 21 inch discharge line would be provided
to the mainstream of the Snake River.

     The favored treatment process, according to the facility
engineers, is a deep (10 feet) three cell stabilization pond.  The
first two cells would be partial mix systems providing enough
aeration to stabilize the organic load in the upper layers, while
the lower portion would remain anaerobic facilitating solids di-
gestion in the warmer months.  The third pond provides final pol-
ishing and, according to the facility engineer, algal removal.

     Systems of the type envisioned typically provide 80 - 90
percent BOD^  (organic)  conversion, but may without further process-
ing be sporadically high in suspended solids.  Since there is little
information on the type of pond operation system proposed by the
facility consultant, EPA concludes that while the system should,
if operated properly, meet the proposed 30 mg/1 BOD standard, it
may require additional treatment in order to consistently meet
the anticipated 30 mg/1 suspended solids requirement.  The decision
as to whether chlorination and possibly dechlorination would be
required for any discharge to the Snake River would need to be
determined by State water quality officials in association with
the Scenic and Wild River Study task force headed by the Forest
Service.

     Several problems are anticipated during the construction phase
of the project.  The entire South Park area has extremely high
groundwater.  Reviewing the Soil Conservation Service's unpublished
information on groundwater levels on and near the proposed plant
site indicates that water may be expected one to three feet'below
the surface.  Two major problems are anticipated as a result of
this extremely high groundwater condition.  The first involves the
construction and final integrity of the interceptor line.  The
second concerns the construction of a subsurface pond system at
the South Park Elk Feedground site.  Trench dewatering, in the
                              III-4

-------
EXISTING WWTP





                                                           i

                                          STATE ELK FEEDING REFUGE SITES
                                                PROPOSED  PROJECT
                                                                           Figure 19

-------
lower reaches of the pipeline alignment could prove extremely
expensive and time consuming.  It should also be remembered that
unless extreme care is taken and very tight construction inspec-
tion is employed, infiltration could become a significant problem.
The approximately 6.5 miles of pipeline, if constructed similar
to much of the existing Jackson system, could be responsible for
extremely high infiltration with the large diameter pipe anticipated.

     Construction of a deep, sealed pond system at the South Park
Elk Feedground site may be impossible given the known groundwater
problems.  Based on soils information available from the Jackson
office of the Soil Conservation Service and in the absence of any
onsite field data, raised (above ground) or mounded ponds may be
the only way to successfully construct and seal the proposed fa-
cilities.  The close proximity of the Snake River and the porous
cobble and gravel soils in the area would make dewatering of any
open excavation very difficult and economically impractical.  It
likewise could create problems in sealing or lining to assure
containment.  It is likely that similar groundwater problems would
be encountered at almost any sites within the study area west of
the South Park Road.  To verify this assumption would require a
detailed soil survey of the area which is outside the scope of
this investigation.  The cost estimates in Section IV are, as
described, based upon normal construction practices.  If it were
necessary to import fill and construct an above ground pond system,
the construction cost for the earthwork portion of the system could
be increased as much as six times, depending upon the availability
of imported fill.

     In addition to the probable groundwater problems, the pro-
posed plant site may be subject to flooding during the 50- and
100-Year Floods.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies  (Special
Flood Hazard Information Snake River, Wilson, Wyoming and Vicinity,
February 1976)  show that proposed site A is out of both the 500-
and 100-Year Floods while, according to the Corps of Engineers'
information, site B is in the 50- and estimated 10-Year Flood
hazard zone.  Cost estimates for flood-proofing to the 100-Year
Flood elevation have not been included because such costs are
dependent on site specific elevation information yet to be devel-
oped by the Corps of Engineers.

     In addition to the physical considerations in installing
the proposed system, a number of procedural political and regu-
latory questions have arisen.  The most significant of these is the
availability of the South Park Elk Feedground land.  A November 24,
1976 letter (Appendix 2)  to Mr. Bill Ashley, Chairman of the Teton
County Board of Commissioners from Earl M.  Thomas, Director of
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, presented the position of
the agency in regard to the lands in question:

     "In view of the amount and type of information we now
     have and after a careful consideration of it, the
     Commission and the Department feels that decisions
     must be made and time is of the essence.  We must,
                              III-5

-------
     therefore,  in fairness to all concerned,  conclude and
     notify you  that the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
     and Department does object to and will oppose fully
     any attempts to place sewerage lagoons or other sewer-
     age facilities on the South Park Elk Feedground."

     The Department based its objection on four categorical issues;
biological and habitat impacts, the legality of any land transfer,
sociological and recreational effects, and the public controversy
that has been generated by the Town's proposal.   The Wyoming Game
and Fish Department has summarized its position on these issues
in the following portion of the aforementioned letter:

     "1.  Biological:  We have serious reservations about
     placing any municipal sewerage facility on a flood plain,
     particularly one on a river with the potential and con-
     sequence of the Snake.  The South Park Elk Feedground
     was initiated in 1939 on a site selected because of
     its unique and highly desirable biological features.
     There are high producing g-rass meadows along Flat Creek
     and on the Snake River bottoms where the elk are fed.
     Immediately adjacent to these meadow areas are large
     stands of mature cottonwood trees with an understory
     of shrubs and herbacious plants which provide cover
     and protection from weather.   The elk can be fed, graze
     and rest relatively free of any harassment and never
     need to leave the Unit to benefit from these features.
     Although every portion of the Unit is not used for the
     feedground or for cover, a measurable amount of open
     space is required to provide a buffer zone between the elk
     and adjacent human activities.  Although the Unit was
     acquired originally primarily for elk, other wildlife
     species inhabit the area in numbers.   These species
     include moose, deer, waterfowl,  raptors,  upland game
     birds, furbearers and song birds.

     2.  Legal:   The enclosed letters from Area Manager
     Rounds, 1973; Assistant Regional Director Lane, March
     and August 1976, are self-explanatory.  The feedground
     was purchased with Federal Aid money-  The Commission
     very definitely cannot declare the property surplus to
     our needs and to simply transfer the land to Jackson
     would constitute a "diversion of funds" and would there-
     by jeopardize the Department's future and continued
     eligibility to receive Federal Aid Funds.

     3.  Sociological:  The subject property is not only
     serving the original purpose for which it was primarily
     purchased,  but also now serves a much greater public
     need.  Camping, boating, dog trials,  hunting, fishing
     and horse backing are among the public uses which con-
     stitute an  average use of 13,705 visitor days for a
     six month period (June through November)  for the past
     five years.
                              III-6

-------
4.  Political:  The report of Nelson, Haley, Patterson
and Quirk, Inc., lists several negative impacts of plac-
ing sewerage facilities at south Park.  Among these
statements is found the following:

     'Any attempt by the Town of Jackson, even with
     County support, to take away land on the elk feed-
     ing area without the consent of wildlife officials
     will result in controversy.  Vocal and powerful
     conservation and environmental groups, both local
     and national, might enter such a battle and delay
     any such action.'

Our files contain many letters from interested citizens
from the Jackson area and elsewhere.  Some are rather
emotional, some are very practical and some are personal;
but, without exception, they are all in opposition to
placing sewerage lagoons on the South Park Feedground.
A review of all the  'public input1 made to us leads us
to question; Who really wants or insists on the facility
being at South Park?"
                           III-7

-------
SI:O ION

-------
BOYLES HILL ALTERNATIVE
         SITE

-------
                            SECTION IV
                           ALTERNATIVES


DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

     The alternatives which were evaluated in detail included
several developed in the original facility plan, as well as new
options not previously considered.  The potential alternative
sites and process methods were discussed on several occasions
with local officials and government personnel, and six realistic
alternatives were developed.  These include:

     A-l  Construction of a new mechanical plant at the site of
          the existing wastewater treatment plant.

     A-2  Construction of a mechanical plant on the Boyles Hill
          school property.

     A-3  A stabilization pond constructed on the royles Hill
          school property-

     A-4  A stabilization pond constructed at a central mid-South
          Park location.

     A-5  A stabilization pond constructed at a South Park location
          adjacent to Lower South Park Road.

     A-6  Interim upgrading of the existing site to provide
          adequate waste treatment for the existing serviceable
          population.

     A-7  No further action on the Town's part to improve waste-
          water treatment.

     While these seven options will not address every possible
combination of actions or specific potential sites, they reason-
ably represent the types of solutions or actions that are engineer-
ingly, economically and environmentally feasible.  Other options
such as land disposal of effluent or advanced biological and/or
chemical treatment were considered; but because of severe clima-
tological and groundwater problems encountered in the area, and
the prohibitive financial demands that would be placed upon the
community, they were not considered further as being practical in
meeting expected discharge standards for the region.


Alternative A-l

     The existing treatment facility would be expanded and improved
to meet the projected demand in the year 1990 or 1995.  The major
                               IV-1

-------
improvement (NHPQ 1974)  would entail the addition of a flow equal-
ization basin conversion or the present extended aeration system
to contact stabilization, secondary clarifiers, aerobic digesters,
sludge handling facilities, disinfection and a number of electrical
pumping, piping and weather protection modifications.  As shown
in Figure 20, only the existing headworks, pump structure, basins,
and ancillary equipment would be salvaged.  In addition, it may be
necessary to provide stand-by power and dechlorination of the
effluent discharged to Flat Creek.

     The existing aeration basins and clarifiers are of the suf-
ficient capacity to allow conversion to the contact stabilization
mode.  The required retention time for both the contact and sta-
bilization phases of the operation would be in excess of those
normally required for the projected 1990 flows.  It is also unlikely
that refractory industrial organic wastes, which would interfere
with the contact stabilization process, would regularly be encoun-
tered in the Jackson area.

     A properly operated contact stabilization system should be
able to provide removal rates of organic contaminants of 80-90%
with a desirable degree of future flexibility.  The facility con-
sultant has proposed to utilize aerobic digestion thickening and
vacuum filtration for stabilization of the approximately 40,000
gallons/day of raw sludge that would be expected at 1990 flows.
Ultimate disposal of digested and stabilized waste sludge would
be to either a solid waste site or agricultural land disposal.

     The existing polishing pond would be abandoned, but the pre-
sent outfall line discharging to the west side of Flat Creek should
be repaired and maintained.  It will be necessary to replace or
rebuild the existing pump's motors and drives, and a fourth stand-by
unit will be needed at ultimate capacity.  The revised cost estimate
in Table 16 utilizes the existing wet well, major influent piping
and laboratory and maintenance buildup.  No additional land re-
quirements are anticipated, and following construction, the site
would be graded and landscaped to conform with the land uses of
the area.
Alternative A-2

     This alternative would entail the construction of an acti-
vated sludge plant located on State school land at the south end
of Boyles Hill (Figure 21) .  This facility would utilize a mini-
mum of space (approximately 3 acres)  and could be landscaped and
concealed to blend into the existing topography  and vegetative
cover.  The land has been utilized within the last year as a gravel
quarry and has undergone extensive surface disruption.  Several
quarry ponds are present on site, verifying the presence of high
groundwater in the area.

     This site would necessitate a transmission line from the
Town to Boyles Hill.  Several alternative configurations are possible
                               IV-2

-------
              PROPOSED
EXPANDED     PLANT
    ALTERNATIVE  AI
            Edge of Bui/ding
               CONTROL BUILDING.
               8 PUMP STATION
INFLUENT
 FLOW
             SCREENING
         FLOW MEASUREMENTS
         AUTOMATIC  SAMPLING
           EQUALIZATION
              BASIN
       4
                                     SLUDGE BED DRAIN
            Edge of Building/)
                  e	.----I	
 <
 cr
.ui
                            Q.
                            13
                            CO
                                   UJ
                                   2
                                   5?
                    1
                           SLUDGE
                           DRYING
                           BEDS
                   VACUUM
                     FILTER
                                           I
                                         AEROBIC
                                        DIGESTER
                                          # I
                                           I
             AEROBC
             DIGESTER
               #2
                           THICKENER
                                            LAYOUT
J
1
*
•*•
-*»


STABILIZATION
TAhJK * 1
, 1
f
STABI
TAN

JZATION
K*2

-^
•^

CONTACT
TANKfrl
CONTACT
TANK* 2

/
m-^
$
                                              OUTLET
                                               BOX\
                                                            FINAL
                                                          CLARIFIER
                                                             •Hf-2
                                                                                   FLOW MEASUREMENT
                                                                                   AUTOMATIC SAMPLING
                                            CHLORINE
                                            ^CONTACT
                                             TANK
                                                      DECHLORINATION
                                                                          SOURCE-NHPQ 1975
                                                                                            Figure 20

-------


     t

.. EXISTING WWTP

                                               BOYLES  HILL ALTERNATIVE  SITES A2&A3

                          SCALE I Z40OO
                             0
                                        •XXJOFICT
                                                                                    Figure 21

-------
and presented along with capital cost in Table 17.  A suitable
access road is available from Highway 189 to the gravel complex
which should in its present form be adequate for both construction
and operation purposes.

     Alternative A-2 will allow the plant to be built on a section
of land with sufficient expansion capabilities to meet any future
requirements with regard to water quality standards and/or growth
in Jackson  (or Teton County) that may be necessary.  While the
facility plan does not go into any detail on process design, it
would be anticipated that aerobic sludge digestion and land dis-
posal of stabilized material would be incorporated.  The biolog-
ically active portion of the system and any open water channels
would need to be enclosed to prevent freezing and decreased
efficiency.

     A gravity outfall line, approximately 7000 feet long, will
be required to the Snake River.  It will be necessary to secure
an outfall right of way; but given that the line will be buried
with only access manholes on the surface, this should pose no
major environmental problems as the land can be reclaimed and
revegetated.


Alternative A-3

     A stabilization pond could be constructed on the Boyles Hill
site.  It has, in the absence of onsite soils and groundwater
information, been assumed that a deep lagoon will be constructed
in order to reduce land requirement.  This would require surface
aerators with higher aeration efficiencies (i.e. increased H.P.
demand)  than indicated in the project report.  While low energy
mechanical surface aerators work well in the more temperate cli-
mates, it is doubtful that they could operate effectively during
Jackson's severe winter climate conditions.  This would likely
require an injector or diffusor type apparatus to sustain treat-
ment under winter ice accumulation.  The Boyles Hill site would
not be considered for facilitative or anaerobic winter operation
due to the proximity of homes in the subdivision north of Boyles
Hill and the probable odors that could be generated during the
spring and fall.

     This site (Figure 22) would require an outfall to the Snake
River, disinfection and the flexibility to add additional treat-
ment processes or capacity at a latter date if effluent discharge
requirements were increased, or if the system required expansion.
The alternative interceptor lines to the plant would follow the
same alignment presented in Alternative A-2.   The alternative
costs are presented in Tables 18, 19 and 20.   The groundwater depth
in the Boyles Hill area is approximately 3 to 5 feet.  Any deep
lagoon,  for that matter any lagoon in the Jackson area, would
require a weighted liner or solid sealant to prevent infiltration
and exfiltration.  The development of any structure in this area
                               IV-3

-------
---

-------
                                      SOUTH PARK RD. SITE
 EXISTING WWTP
                                                   '      .«:
                                                   V i
     JL MID SOUTH PARK SITE
     Q.

       X                   /=*••
Łn!^&7\              ,-  '&




                N

                                    SOUTH  PARK ALTERNATIVE SITES A4 &A5
                                                                Figure 22

-------
 would require grading,  landscaping and reclamation of the damage
 caused by the gravel  operation.   This  could be accomplished by
 proper landscaping.

 Alternative A-4

      Alternative A-4  would be a  stabilization pond system located
 at a site midway in the South Park area.   The proposed location
 shown in  Figure  22 was  selected  for planning purposes only.   Ini-
 tial study of this site shows, on the  basis of field  investiga-
 tion, the necessary requirements as far as space  and  cover are
 concerned,  but many other  locations could  provide the same attri-
 butes.  This study did  not investigate the availability of land
 in this area, nor does  it  propose that this site  be pursued over
 other similar tracts  of land.  It will service the area of pro-
 posed development with  a much shorter  pipeline than would be re-
 quired to go to  the Elk Feedground location.   The site would be
 located in an area of high groundwater,  but this  is a condition
 common throughout South Park.

      The  controlling  cost  factor associated with  this system is
 the length of the interceptor line and 1*he cost of land (approx-
 imately 25 acres).  This study has assumed a deep mechanically
 aerated lagoon system to reduce  the surface area  and  land require-
 ments.  The climatic  problems and restraints discussed under
 Alternative A-3  will  also  apply  to this  site,  as  would the re-
 quirements  for an outfall  to  the Snake River.

 Alternative A-5

      Alternative A-5  is similar  to A-4 in  that it would entail the
 construction of  a deep  aerated stabilization pond system in  the
 South Park  area.  This  proposed  location  (Figure  22)  of this  al-
 ternative,  contingent upon available land  and  geologic  and hydro-
 geologic  conditions,  is along the lower end of South  Park Road
 west  of the Jackson Polo Club.   The facility would require an
 outfall line running  south to the main channel of the Snake  River.
 The  siting  of a  plant at this location would have several  con-
 struction  advantages  in terms of available  access and pipeline
 alignments,  and  would immediately open up  a substantially greater
 amount of  land to be  serviced by gravity flow  than Alternative A-4.
 Alternative A-5  could service by gravity flow  almost  as much un-
 developed  land as the proposed South Park  Elk  Feedground site.

Alternative  A-6

      In order  to  bring  the  system up to a higher  degree  of opera-
tion, without  having  to  rely upon the  availability  of federal
funding for  a  complete  new  system,  the State of Wyoming,  Department
of Environmental  Quality,  has recommended an interim  upgrading  of
the existing  system.   It would be possible  under  current  EPA regu-
lations to  break  out  federal funds  to  complete  the  design  and  con-
struction of  these modifications  immediately.   This would  require
essentially  finishing the  plant  as  it was originally  designed


                              IV-4

-------
along with  the  addition of chlorination facilities, and  a  general
maintenance and overhaul.   It has been suggested that this up-
grading be  designed to handle the expected flow from the Town for
the next  5  years (1981) .   This is an arbitrary time frame,  but  it
would allow the phasing of digester construction if the  existing
treatment plant site was eventually selected.

     If this option was selected it would be necessary to  bypass
the polishing pond  and repair the existing outfall to Flat Creek.
The WDEQ  has indicated that it would probably not be necessary  to
provide dechlorination for interim improvements.  The addition  of
the digesters along with the other mechanical improvements would
make it possible for the plant to adequately process secondary
sludge and  meet secondary standards for organics and suspended solids.
These improvements could only be considered temporary.  Unless the  city
adopted a concerted program of growth control, the facility would require
expansion to  accommodate the expected growth of the region.  This latter
expansion could be quite expensive for the Town since P.L. 92-500 funds
will, in all  probability, not be available and inflation will increase the
necessary capital  expenditure.

Alternative A-7

     Under  Alternative A-7 the Town would do nothing further to
improve the condition of their wastewater system and reduce odor
problems  and the water quality degradation that is occurring.   In-
action in finding and developing a solution to the overall  problem
of providing adequate wastewater facilities for the Town will only
complicate  the  existing situations as the area continues to grow
and expand.   Each year's delay has and will continue to  increase
the eventual cost of construction at a rate that is parallel to
the annual   inflation   experienced in the region.  While  the
national  inflation  rate appears to be leveling off, increases in
the construction industry  have not responded as well.  Between
1974 and  1976 there has been a real 17 percent increase  in  costs for
the projects proposed in the 1974 facility plan, and another 10-12
percent can be  expected prior to any construction.

     Beyond the escalation of project cost that would certainly
occur as  a  result of further delays, a deliberate no action stand
could put the Town  of Jackson in violation of state and  federal
laws and  make it subject to court action.  While EPA has only been
forced to resort to this type of procedure on several occasions
nationwide,  the precedents have been set making flagrant violators
of the water quality laws  subject to stiff fines and other  penal-
ties.  While a  no action approach may seem to some members  of the
community a safe and inexpensive method of delay with the  problem
at hand,  in reality,  it cannot be considered an acceptable  al-
ternative.   The lack of a  positive result oriented plan  for pro-
viding the  needed wastewater facilities will only lead to  con-
tinued environmental problems and water quality degradation.  It
is also possible that the  WDEQ could institute a connection ban
restricting  new development in the area.   This would have  the
secondary effect of creating an economic hardship in the community
due to a  lack of incoming  and available capital development funds.


                               IV-5

-------
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES

     Eight possible plant locations and/or pipeline alignments
were considered as to their engineering and economic feasibility.
Five specific sites were investigated, including the existing
wastewater treatment plant, the South Park Elk Feedground, two
South Park sites and a site at Boyles Hill.  Treatment processes
analyzed included renovating the existing treatment plant to pro-
vide contact stabilization and improved sludge handling facilities,
and at the other sites, treatment processes analyzed were aerated
stabilization ponds and mechanical activated sludge systems.

     In addition to these eight major variations of the alternative
new treatment facilities, the interim improvements necessary to
bring the existing wastewater treatment plant to an acceptable
operational level were evaluated.

     Pipeline estimates for the various alternatives assume a
minimum surface cover of five feet for frost protection.  Sizing
and slopes of all gravity sewers allow a minimum velocity of two
feet per second at design flow.  Normal construction techniques
are assumed for pipelines in the Jackson area, except for gravity
outfall lines to the Snake River,  where allowance for extreme wet
and marshy conditions was made.  Sheeting, shoring and other types
of bracing methods for the pipeline trenches were also assumed in
order to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
and other requirements.  The pipelines were designed for a peak
daily flow rate of 5.5 mgd, which is the maximum peak instantaneous
flow rate projected for the year 2000.

     The wastewater treatment plant process alternatives were
investigated for summer maximum daily flow rates of 2.2 mgd in
1990 and 2.6 mgd in 1995.  Adequate operation and maintenance
practice for both wastewater treatment plants and pipelines was
assumed to maximize the useful life of the facilities.

     Except for Alternatives A-l and A-5, all effluent would be
discharged to the Snake River for disposal.  The lower reach of
Flat Creek on the South Park Elk Feedground was initially considered
as a possible disposal point for the discharge of effluent from
the Town's proposed project.  This was later dismissed from further
consideration due to the slow-moving, backwatered condition of
the stream at this point and the potential of nutrient and ammonia
toxicity problems.

     Costs for the various alternatives studied were obtained from
economic curves for the Jackson area, and other data supplied by
either the facility consultant or developed by the EIS consultant
for similar construction projects.  Cost data were then updated
to the date of anticipated design and the start of construction
(1978-1979) by using the Engineering News Record (ENR) method.
For the purpose of this study, the ENR value for the present (late
1976)  was assumed as 2,810, and for the earliest possible con-
struction period in late 1978, the ENR was assumed to be 3,100.
                                IV-6

-------
     Land costs for the Elk Refuge  (exchange) and South Park al-
ternatives were assumed to be $7,000 per acre, and land at the
Boyles Hill site on State school land was assumed to be obtainable
by either direct purchase of an easement or a sublease agreement
with the present lease holder.  The standard lease cost according
to the State Land Officer is five percent of the appraised purchase
price per year.  Easement costs would be a one time payment at the
appraised market value.  The cost of the Boyles Hill land was as-
sumed to be $5,000 per acre.  Pipeline costs were based upon normal
construction costs for the conditions anticipated within the Jackson
area.  While these costs include excavation, normal pipe bedding,
reasonable trench dewatering, sheeting and shoring, etc., they do not
take into consideration such items as cutting and replacing of pave-
ment, repair to private property, and unknown field construction pro-
blems such as unstable soils or deep rock.  Pipeline rights-of-way
or easements were uniformly excluded from analysis of all the al-
ternatives.  Right-of-way and easement costs, if included, would have
the effect of increasing the cost of all alternatives except the
renovation of the existing wastewater treatment plant.

     A present worth analysis was performed on each of the alter-
natives using both a 15 and a 20 year period with an eight percent
compound interest factor.


Proposed Project - South Park Elk Feedground

     Two locations on the South Park Elk Feedground (Section 28,
Township 40 North, Range 116 West) were investigated as alternate
treatment plant sites, as shown in Figure 20.  A 21-inch gravity
sewer was routed from the existing wastewater treatment plant to
the proposed sites.  The wastewater treatment process was assumed
to be aerated stabilization ponds designed for cold weather opera-
tion and utilizing a land area of approximately 25 acres in 1990.
An additional 5 acres of ponds is required to treat the anticipated
flow rate in 1995.  The treated wastewater would discharge into
the Snake River via a 21-inch gravity outfall line.  The estimated
cost for the South Park Elk Feedground alternative for both 1990
and 1995 is shown in Tables 14 and 15.
Alternative A-l - Construction of a New Wastewater Treatment Plant
at the Existing Site

     Various major revisions and modifications at the existing
wastewater treatment plant can bring it up to the desirable level
of operation that has been envisioned for the next several years.
The cost of the revisions required to bring the facility up to
secondary standards for 1990 and 1995 flows were estimated using
several sources (i.e., 1974 Facility Plan, Cost Curves and Esti-
mating Manuals and updated to an ENR of 3,100 for late 1978).
Major revisions, as indicated in the facility plan include in-
stallation of a flow equalization basin, new or reconditioned
sewage lift pumps, modification of the secondary treatment process
to allow for contact stabilization, the construction of a secondary


                               IV-7

-------
                             TABLE 14

                          COST ESTIMATE

                    PROPOSED PROJECT - SITE A

                    SOUTH PARK ELK FEEDGROUND
                              1990
                                 1995
Pipeline, 21"
         (28,600')

W.W.T.P., Lagoons

Land
Outfall, 21"
        (1,000')
     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%

     Subtotal
Escalation to 1978
TOTAL
Capital
$2,216,000
836,000
175,000
86,000
3,356,000
83,900
4,195,000
419,500
Annual
0 & M
$13,150
50,000
-
1,100
64,250
-
64,250
6,425
                                              Capital
                            924,000

                            210,000



                             86,000


                          3,436,000


                            859,000


                          4,295,000


                            429,500
                                        Annual
                                        0 & M
                         $2,216,000     $13,150
55,000
 1,100
69,250
69,250


 6,925
$4,614,500    $70,675    $4,724,500     $76,175
                                IV-f

-------
                             TABLE 15

                          COST ESTIMATE

                    PROPOSED PROJECT - SITE B

                    SOUTH PARK ELK FEEDGROUND
Pipeline, 21"
         (35,600')

W.W.T.P-, Lagoons

Land
                             1990
                     Capital
   836,000

   175,000
              Annual
              0 & M
                                 1995
          Capital
50,000
924,000

210,000
            Annual
            0 & M
$2,629,000    $13,150    $2,629,000     $13,150
55,000
Outfall, 21"
        (3,000')
   216,000
 1,100
216,000
 1,100
     Subtotal
 3,856,000     64,250
           3,979,000
             69,250
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%

     Subtotal
   964,000
             995,000
 4,820,000     64,250     4,974,000
                          69,250
Escalation to 1978
   482,000
 6,425
497,000
 6,925
TOTAL
$5,302,000    $70,675    $5,471,000     $76,175
                               IV-9

-------
clarifier, aerobic digester, and other solids handling, facilities
including an air flotation thickener and vacuum  filtration  and
final effluent chlorination.  In addition, it is quite  likely that
both standby power and dechlorination would be required, which
would add approximately $50,000 to $60,000 to the capital cost.
These costs are presented in Table 16 and were modified from the
preliminary figures presented within the 1974 Facility  Plan.


Alternatives A-2 and A-3 - Boyles Hill

     An alternative treatment plant site at Boyles Hill (Section 36,
Township 41 North, Range 117 West) was investigated with several
subalternates.

Alternative A-2
     This alternative would require construction of an  activated
sludge treatment plant for 1990 or 1995 wastewater flow at  the
Boyles Hill site.  Wastewater was assumed to be  intercepted up-
stream of the existing W.W.T.P. and transported  to the  site via
a 21-inch gravity sewer.  Effluent from the treatment plant would
be discharged to the Snake River via a 24-inch outfall.  The
estimated costs for this alternative are shown in Table 17.

Alternative A-3a
     This alternative again assumes a 21-inch gravity sewer inter-
cepting the Town of Jackson trunk line upstream of the  existing
wastewater treatment plant and running westerly  for 10,500  feet
along a county road, as shown in Figure 21.  At the site of the
existing wastewater treatment plant a small lift station would
be maintained to serve the area downstream from the intercepted
trunk line.  This wastewater would be transported to the Boyles
Hill site via a four-inch force main for a distance of  11,000 feet.
At the Boyles Hill site, this alternative calls for aerated sta-
bilization ponds and a 24-inch gravity sewer outfall to the Snake
River, a distance of 7,000 feet.  The estimated cost for Alter-
native A-3 is presented in Table 18.

Alternative A-3b
     This alternative presents the costs for a 27-inch  gravity
sewer routed from the existing wastewater treatment plant to the
Boyles Hill treatment site, a distance of 11,000 feet and shown
in Figure 21.  The treatment plant process would be aerated sta-
bilization ponds for both 1990 and 1995 wastewater flows, with a
24-inch gravity sewer outfall to the Snake.  A summary  of these
costs is presented in Table 19.

Alternative A-3c
     This alternative investigated the installation of  a lift
station at the existing wastewater treatment plant site, and an
18-inch force main to the Boyles Hill site.  Other conditions
are the same as for those presented above.  A summary of the costs
for this alternative is presented in Table 20.

    Figure 23 shows the three alignments for these interceptor alternatives.

                              IV-10

-------
                             TABLE 16

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-l

                 EXPANSION OF EXISTING PLANT SITE
                     TO CONTACT STABILIZATION
                                  1990
                              1995
Unit Processes
Flow Equalization Basin
By-pass and Abandon
   Comminutor
Renovate Sewage Pumps
Conversion of Aeration
   Tanks and Clarifiers
   to Contact Stabiliza-
   tion Process
Addition of Secondary
   Clarifiers
Addition of Aerobic
   Digesters
Plant Enclosures
Chlorination Facilities
Thickener
Vacuum Filter
Excavation, piping, etc.
Electrical
Landscaping
Contingencies,
   Engineering, admin.,
   legal and inspection

TOTAL
Capital

$  580,000

    19,000
    71,000
    58,000

   233,000

   137,000
   226,000
    72,000
    58,000
   122,000
   393,000
   129,000
    19,000

$2,117,OQO
   508,000
Annual
0 & M
Capital

$  684,000

    19,000
    71,000
              58,000

             325,000

             191,000
             226,000
             101,000
              63,000
             130,000
             410,000
             140,000
              19,000

          $2,457,000
             516,000
Annual
O & M
$2,625,000  $143,000   $2,973,000  $155,000
                                IV-11

-------
                             TABLE 17

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-2

                           BOYLES HILL


                             1990              	1995
Pipeline, 21"

Lift Station

Force Main, 4"

W.W.T.P., Activated
   Sludge

Land

Outfall, 24"


     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%
     Subtotal


Escalation to 1978


TOTAL
Capital
$ 621,500
36,000
99,900
2,000,000
50,000
553,000
3,360,400
840,600
4,200,000
420,000
$4, 620,000
Annual
0 & M Capital
$ 3,100 $ 621,500
2,000 36,000
500 99,900
143,000 2,200,000
50,000
2,800 553,000
151,400 3,560,400
890,100
151,400 4,451,000
15,100 445,000
$166,500 $4,896,000
Annual
0 & M
$ 3,100
2,000
500
155,000
-
2,800
163,400
-
163,400
16,300
$179,700

                               IV-12

-------
                             TABLE 18

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-3a

                           BOYLES HILL
                             1990
                                 1995
Pipeline, 21"

Lift Station
   (0.1 mgd)

Force Main, 4"

W.W.T.P., Lagoons

Land

Outfall, 24"


     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%
     Subtotal
Escalation to 1978
TOTAL
Capital
S 621,500
36,000
99,900
836,000
125,000
553,000
Annual
0 & M
$ 3,100
2,000
500
50,000
-
2,800
Capital
$ 621,500
36,000
99,900
924,000
150,000
553,000
Annual
0 & M
$ 3,100
2,000
500
55,000
-
2,800
 2,271,400     58,400      2,384,400      63,400
   568,000
   284,000
            596,000
5,800
298,000
 2,839,000     58,400     2,980,000     63,400
6,300
$3,123,000    $64,200    $3,278,000    $69,700
                              IV-13

-------
                             TABLE 19

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-3b

                            BOYLES HILL
                             1990
                                 1995
Pipeline, 27"

W.W.T.P-, Lagoons

Land

Outfall,  24"


     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%
     Subtotal
Escalation to 1978
TOTAL
Capital

$  988,000

   836,000

   125,000

   553,000
   626,000
   313,000
Annual
0 & M

$10,000

 50,000



  2,800
Capital

$  988,000

   924,000

   150,000

   553,000
              654,000
  6,300
   327,000
Annual
0 & M

$10,000

 55,000



  2,800
 2,502,000     62,800     2,615,000     67,800
 3,128,000     62,800     3,269,000     67,800
  6,800
$3,441,000    $69,100    $3,596,000    $74,600
                               IV-14

-------
                             TABLE 2 0

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-3c

                           BOYLES HILL
                             1990
                                 1995
                     Capital
Force Main, 18"

Pump Station,
   (5.5 mgd)

W.W.T.P., Lagoons

Land

Outfall, 24"


     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%
     Subtotal
Escalation to 1978
TOTAL
   526,000

   836,000

   125,000

   553,000


 2,463,000



   616,000
   308,000
              Annual
              0 & M
          Capital
14,000

50,000



 2,800


69,000
 6,900
  526,000

  924,000

  150,000

  553,000
 3>079,000     69,000     3,233,000
  323,000
             Annual
             0 & M
$  433,000    $ 2,200    $  433,000    $ 2,200
14,000

55,000



 2,800
2,586,000     74,000
             647,000
                         74,000
 7,400
$3,387,000    $75,900    $3,556,000    $81,400
                              IV-15

-------
Alternatives A-4 and A-5 - South Park

     Two alternative sites were evaluated in the South Park area,
and results are given below.

Alternative A-4
     The first alternative investigated in South Park was a treat-
ment plant located in Section 1, Township 40 North, Range 117 West
in the South Park area, as shown in Figure 22.  A 21-inch pipeline
is routed from the existing wastewater treatment plant for 10,900
feet to the site, which includes stabilization ponds for both 1990
and 1995 wastewater flows.  From the South Park site a 24-inch
gravity outfall line is required to run the 8,000 feet to the Snake
River.  A summary of these costs is presented as Table 21.

Alternative A-5
     The second South Park site evaluated is located in Section 20,
Township 40 North, Range 116 West, as shown in Figure 22.  A 21-inch
gravity sewer runs 24,000 feet from the existing wastewater treat-
ment plant to the site, where treatment via stabilization ponds
is assumed.  An 18-inch outfall runs for 6,000 feet in a southerly
direction to the Snake River.  The estimated costs for this al-
ternative are presented in Table 22.


Summary of Alternative New Systems

     The estimated cost of the eight alternatives studied at the
five potential treatment sites is summarized in Table 23.  The
alternatives for 1990 wastewater flows range in capital cost from
$2.6 million to $5.3 million, with the existing wastewater treat-
ment plant  (Alternative A-l) having the lowest capital cost.
Operation and maintenance costs range from $62,800 to $166,500,
with the Boyles Hill plant stabilization pond  (Alternative A-3a)
lowest.  The large 0 & M values shown for Alternative A-l and A-2,
as compared to the other alternatives studied, is the result of
utilizing an activated sludge process demanding higher energy
needs instead of aerated stabilization ponds.

     The present worth of the alternatives ranges from $3.5 to
$6.0 million for 1990 and $5.2 to $10.4 million for the 1995 al-
ternatives.  The Boyles Hill pond site  (A-3a) has the lowest overall
cost.  It should be noted from the present worth analysis, the
total project costs for the mid-South Park site  (Alternative A-4),
the Boyles Hill site utilizing lagoons and gravity line  (Alternative
A-3b), the Boyles Hill site utilizing pump station and force main
 (Alternative A-3c), and the revisions to the existing plant
 (Alternative A-l), all can be assumed to have essentially the same
total project cost, given the inherent uncertainties of the es-
timating process.  The present worth analysis of the alternatives
shows that an activated sludge plant, at a site other than the
existing wastewater treatment plant, is probably an economically
unfeasible solution in terms of local financing of capital and
0 & M costs.  Likewise a site far removed from the existing

-------
                             TABLE 21

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-4

                        MID-SOUTH PARK
                             1990
                                 1995
Pipeline, 21"

W.W.T.P., Lagoons

Land

Outfall, 24"


     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%
     Subtotal
Escalation to 1978
TOTAL
Capital
$ 776,000
836,000
175,000
632,000
2,419,000
605,000
3,024,000
302,000
Annual
0 & M
$ 3,900
50,000
-
3,200
57,100
-
57,100
5,700
Capital
$ 776,000
924,000
210,000
632,000
2,542,000
636,000
3,178,000
318,000
Annual
O & M
$ 3,900
55,000
-
3,200
62,100
-
62,100
6,200
$3,326,000    $62,800    $3,496,000    $68,300

-------
                             TABLE 22

                          COST ESTIMATE

                         ALTERNATIVE A-5

                         SOUTH PARK ROAD
                             1990
                                 1995
Pipeline, 21"

W.W.T.P., Lagoons

Land

Outfall, 18"


     Subtotal
Admin., Engr., etc.
        @ 25%
     Subtotal
Escalation to 1978
TOTAL
Capital

$1,757,000

   836,000

   175,000

   372,000
   785,000
 3,925,000
   392,00,0
Annual
0 & M

$ 8,800

 50,000



  1,900
  6,100
Capital

$1,757,000

   924,000

   210,000

   372,000
 3,140,000     60,700     3,263,000
              816,000
  6,700     4,079,000
   408,000
Annual
0 & M

$ 8,800

 55,000



  1,900


 65,700
               65,700
  6,600
$4,317,000    $66,800    $4,487,000    $72,300
                               IV-18

-------
                                         TABLE 2 3

                          COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Alt. NO.
Site
1990 Treatment, thousands
         Annual  Present*
Capital  0 & M   Worth	Ranking
1995 Treatment, thousands
          Annual  Present*
Capital   0 & M   Worth   Ranking
Proposed
Project
A-l
A-2
A-3a
A-3b
A-3c
A- 4
A-5
Elk Range-A
Elk Range-B
Existing WWTP
Boyles Hill
Boyles Hill
Boyles Hill
Boyles Hill
South Park #1
South Park #2
$4,615
5,302
2,625
4, 620
3,123
3,441
3, 387
3,326
4,317
70.7
70.7
143.0
166.5
64.2
69.1
75.9
62.8
66.8
$6,
7,
6,
9,
4,
5,
5,
5,
6,
535
222
508
141
866
317
448
031
131

7
6
8
1
3
4
2
5
$4,
5,
2,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
4,
725
471
973
896
278
596
556
496
487

76,2
155.0
179.7
69.7
74.6
81.4
68.3
72.3
$ 8
8
10
13
6
7
6
6
8
,212
,958
,066
,119
,468
,010
,991
,622
,029
6

7
8
1
4
3
2
5
*Capital plus anticipated O & M  (@ 8% annual) for the life of the project
 (assume full 15 and 20 year design).

-------
treatment plant site  (i.e., South Park Elk Feedground) is also
extremely expensive due to the large capital cost of the required
pipeline.


Alternative A-6 - Interim Improvements

     As an alternate to the major capital projects discussed above,
or as a method for staging the major construction of a mechanical
plant at the existing site, a series of interim improvements at
the existing wastewater treatment plant were investigated.  This
includes all the necessary interim improvements that would be
required to bring the system to an efficient operational level
for at least the next five years.  Major items included in the
interim improvements included addition of solids handling via
aerobic digestion, and thickening/filtration, installation of
standby power, and provision for chlorination/dechlorination fa-
cilities.  Facilities were designed for an average daily flow
rate of 1.5 mgd, the value estimated for 1981.  A summary of the
costs and major assumptions for these interim facilities is pre-
sented in Table 24.

     If the existing sludge drying beds were considered sufficient
to provide adequate solids drying for the interim period, approx-
imately $130,000 (thickening and filtration)  could be reduced
from this estimated capital and $9,000 from the operation and
maintenance.  This would reduce the capital outlay to approximately
$240,000 and the ai.nual operation and maintenance to about $6,500
above the existing costs.  As in other agricultural areas, dried
and stabilized sludge could be sold or given to farmers and ranchers
in the area for ultimate disposal if the necessary restrictions
were developed.  This material can be stockpiled until spring and
summer when it could be utilized as soil builder.

-------
                             TABLE 24

                 *COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE A-6

                   INTERIM (5 year) IMPROVEMENTS
Aerobic Digestion

Air Flotation Thickening

Vacuum Filtration

Standby Power

Chlorination

     Subtotal
Administration and
Contingencies @ 15%

TOTAL
Capital

$118,000

  64,000

  68,000

  30,000

  45,000

$325,000



  49,000

$373,000
0 & M

$ 3,500

  3,400

  5,600

Negligible

  3,000

$15,500
$15,500
*A11 costs - ENR for early 1978 2,800

-------
SEC ION«  V

-------
TETON MOUNTAIN

-------
                            SECTION V
        IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES


     The following section analyzes the impacts of the proposed
project and the seven basic alternatives that were described in
detail in preceding sections.  The impact analysis weighs both
the positive and negative characteristics inherent in each alterna-
tive, and presents these first in a narrative description, and
summarized in a later section by a matrix which compares the
attributes and weaknesses of each alternative within several basic
categories.  The narrative description discusses the characteristics
of each option in terms of four impact categories which correspond
to the major topical headings in the background section of this
document  (Section II) within the framework of the existing informa-
tion.  These include the Natural Environment Impacts, Socio-Cultural
Impacts, Economic Impacts, and Land Use Impacts.  The matrix summary
analyzes both objective and subjective impact areas utilizing a
weighting factor to distinguish between the more significant aspects
or values effected by each alternative.

     The evaluation of impacts are directed to those issues which
were considered of major importance, or have become highly controver-
sial.  While the document is comprehensive in terms of its analysis
of the Town's wastewater problem, it is oriented toward providing a
comparative evaluation of these critical issues.

     Primary impacts are considered at the beginning of the section
followed by a summary analysis of the secondary impacts of each
alternative.
                   NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
     Environmental problems selcom stem from simple causes.
Rather, they usually rise out of the interplay of many contributing
circumstances.  Changes in one part of the environment inevitably
trigger changes in other parts.  For this reason, the complex
interactions of environmental processes must be looked at as a
"whole system."

     The following section analyzes the impacts of the proposed
action and the seven basic alternatives on the natural environment
in the Jackson study area.  The discussion considers both primary
and secondary impacts in terms of short term and long term environ-
mental relationships.  While the primary impacts are generally
straightforward, the secondary impacts likely to be facilitated
by implementation of an alternative are extremely difficult to
forecast.   Construction of a wastewater treatment facility, for
example,  can have a direct primary impact of improving water quality


                               V-l

-------
(groundwater or surface water) by providing better treatment
efficiency than existing individual septic tank systems in an
area.  The long range secondary impacts of providing central sewer
to the area, however, may include increased air pollution generated
by the increased population serviced by that centralized system.

     For this reason, the narrative discusses both the positive and
negative characteristics of the alternatives in terms of their
potential impacts on four major areas;   ir quality, water quality,
wildlife habitats, and natural hazards.  The no-action alternative
is included within the evaluation framework where specific impacts
are anticipated.


WATER QUALITY IMPACTS

Impacts of the Proposed Action (South Park Elk Feedground)

     The primary impacts of construction of a lagoon treatment system
at the South Park Elk Feedground on Flat Creek water quality include
significant decreases in fecal coliform, ammonia, nitrate nitrogen,
total phosphate, total dissolved solids and turbidity due to removal
of the Jackson treatment plant discharge to the creek.  With the
construction and operation of the proposed treatment facility
and discharge to the Snake River, increases in these water quality
parameters can be expected for the Snake River downstream from the
sewage outfall.  Nutrient levels will likely demonstrate the most
significant increases because of increased flows facilitated by
additional treatment capacity and the low nutrient removal efficiency
provided by the lagoon system.

     Although Flat Creek is presently classified as a Class I
stream, existing data indicates that water quality is impaired in
the segment of the creek below the Jackson treatment plant.  Snake
River water quality through the Wyoming Snake River Basin is excellent.

     Construction of the proposed project will involve installation
of the 21 inch interceptor, construction of a new outfall, and
discharge to the Snake River.

     In the absence of a detailed analysis of the existing character-
istics of Jackson's wastewater and the alternative treatment plant
design removal efficiencies, several assumptions were prepared in
order to predict the discharge concentration expected from the
1995 flows for total phosphorus,   total nitrogen and ammonia.  These
were developed for both the Snake River and Flat Creek and are pre-
sented at this point in order to facilitate comparison.

     Assuming a medium sewage strength, the influent characteristics
of Jackson's wastewater were assumed (Metcalf & Eddy 1972) at 1995
design flow as follows:

         Total Nitrogen       40 mg/1       886 Ib/day
         Total Phosphorus     10 mg/1       221 Ib/day
         Ammonia Nitrogen       25 mg/1       553 Ib/day


                               V-2

-------
     A conventional activated sludge system without nutrient removal,
ammonia removal, or a biological polishing pond and algal removal
could be expected to remove only about 40 percent of the influent
nitrogen concentration and 20 percent of the phosphate through
bacterial assimilation and sludge removal.

     This will provide an estimated effluent quality of:

         Total Nitrogen        24 mg/1      531 Ib/day
         Total Phosphorus       8 mg/1      177 Ib/day
         Ammonia Nitrogen      15 mg/1      331.8 Ib/day


     A stabilization pond, as proposed by the design engineer,  may
reach higher nutrient removal rates but be subject to more fluctua-
tion.   Removal for some nutrients as high as 75-80 percent (EPA
Lagoon Upgrading 1973)  may be experienced in the summer,  but a  more
conservative estimate of 60 percent for nitrogen and 20 percent
for phosphorus  was used in this analysis.  Utilizing a simple
effluent mass loading this would indicate effluent characteristics
as follows:


         Total Nitrogen        16 mg/1      531 Ib/day
         Total Phosphorus       8 mg/1      177 Ib/day
         Ammonia Nitrogen       6 mg/1      132 Ib/day

     In evaluating what effects these discharges would have on
either Flat Creek or the Snake River, low flows of 50 cfs on Flat
Creek and 1200 cfs  (Wyoming Water Planning Program Report, No.  14,
1975, Discharge Measurements) on the Snake River were assumed.
The following nutrient and ammonia concentrations were calculated
based upon these flows.


                            TABLE 25


                Calculated Instream Concentration

                                                          Total
	Discharge	Total N mg/1   Total P mg/1   Ammonia N mg/1

Flat Creek
  Mechanical                1.6            0.5             1.0

Snake River
  Mechanical                0.07           0.02            0.04

  Stabilization Pond        0.05           0.01            0.03
                                 V-3

-------
      Toxic  ammonia (unionized ammonia) concentration,  based upon
 the  known temperature and pH characteristics at  low  flow were
 calculated  at:


                  Discharge	Toxic NH3  (unionized)

              Flat Creek
                Mechanical                 0.012

              Snake River
                Mechanical                 0.0015

                Stabilization Pond         0.0001


      If,  as indicated in the Snake River Basin Water Quality Man-
 agement Plan (1976),  Snake River flows below Wilson  could reach as
 low  as  100  cfs  for limited periods, when Jackson Dam releases were
 suppressed, the  following concentration could be expected in the
 Snake River at  maximum design flow:

                                                        Toxic
                           Total N   Total P   NH3-N    NH3 (unionized)

      Mechanical           0.80      0.25      0.50     0.016
      Stabilization Pond   0.50      0.17      0.33     0.011


      Water  quality standards for instream nutrient concentrations
 (EPA Quality Criteria for Water 1976)  state that  in order to prevent
 the  development of biological growth and eutrophocation,  phosphorus
 (normally considered  the limiting nutrient in western  waters)
 concentration in any  stream entering any lake should not exceed
 0.05 mg/1.   Since the Snake River enters Palisades Reservoir,  these
 extremely low flows could exceed the desired quality of  the river.
 A number of nonpoint sources enter the Snake River between Jackson and Palisades
 Reservoir making the loading of nutrients on Palisades primarily a nonpoint
 problem  (see  Appendix 4).
    It appears from these estimates that the recommended phosphorus concentra-
tion  for Flat  Creek  instream water quality would be exceeded  by
a conventional activated sludge facility at the design  flow.   The
phosphorus  concentration generated by either of the proposed
treatment facilities discharging to the Snake River would not exceed
either instream or impoundment  protection criteria unless extreme
low flows  (e.g.  100  cfs  or less)  were experienced.

     According to the calculated concentrations it does  not appear
that instream  toxic  ammonia levels for cold water fisheries
(0.02 mg/1 unionized NH3 Ammonia Toxicity 1976)  would be  reached
at either site at design flow.


                                V-4

-------
     It should also be noted that by removing the Jackson treatment
plant effluent discharge to Flat Creek, 1995 flows will be reduced
by as much as 4.0 cfs during certain periods of the year.  Flat
Creek presently has an annual average flow of approximately 100 cfs,
with low flows of 50 cfs measured during February 1976.  A somewhat
less significant but important impact of the proposed action, parti-
cularly for site B in view of its close proximity to the Snake River,
is the increased sediment loadings and turbidity to the river caused
by surface disturbance and disruption during the construction phase
of the proposed project.  A large area will require excavation for
construction of the lagoon system, and placement of the outfall line.
These increased concentrations can be minimized through utilization
of temporary erosion control practices during construction, and
maintenance of a permanent buffer between the lagoon area and the
Snake River.

     Dewatering will be required during pipeline construction and
alignment in areas of high groundwater.  This action will likely
create local turbidity problems in groundwater, and wastewater which
must be removed from the trench.  Proper controls would be exercised
in disposal of this wastewater to prevent adverse effects on nearby
surface waters.  Raised mounded lagoons will require sealing or
lining to insure containment and prevent groundwater contamination.

     Infiltration of groundwater into the interceptor should have an
insignificant effect on the volumes of water which require treatment
if proper materials and methods are used in the construction phase
of the interceptor.  Exfiltration should pose no significant problems
in terms of groundwater contamination if proper design and testing
are utilized.

Impacts of the Alternatives

Alternative A-l (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
     The primary impacts of construction of a new mechanical plant
at the existing treatment plant site will be to improve the Flat
Creek water quality.  At present, the existing plant is hydraulicly
overloaded.  Existing monitoring data indicate the facility is
contributing to the bacteria, sediment and nutrient levels of Flat
Creek, making this stream segment the most critical in Wyoming's
Snake River Basin in terms of water quality impairment.  Expansion
and improvement of the Jackson plant to meet the projected waste
treatment demand for the year 1990 will reduce high fecal coliform,
turbidity and total dissolved solid concentrations presently
contributed by the plant.  Nitrate, ammonia and phosphate not
removed by secondary treatment  will continue to elevate with popula-
tion growth and increased flows.

     Snake River water quality should also show a.^general improvement
in bacteria and sediment concentrations at the confluence with Flat
Creek as a result of improved operation of the Jackson treatment
plant.  The existing interceptor is scheduled to undergo improvements
to correct the existing infiltration program under an EPA grant.
No major adverse water quality impacts are anticipated during this
project which should be completed during the summer 1977.


                               V-5

-------
     Increased sediment levels and turbidity resulting from runoff
from the site during construction will probably be minimal due to
the small amount of land area disturbed.  Proper grading and land-
scaping with a stream buffer zone following construction would
reduce on-site runoff.

Alternative A-2  (Boyles Hill Mechanical Plant)
     The primary impacts of construction of a new mechanical plant
at the Boyles Hill site in the short term/long term would be signifi-
cant decreases in fecal coliform, ammonia, nitrate nitrogen, total
phosphate, total dissolved solids and turbidity water quality para-
meters for Flat Creek due to removal of the Jackson treatment plant
effluent discharge.  A corresponding increase can be expected for
the Snake River downstream from the newly located outfall.  These
impacts, however, will not be as acute due to the substantially
higher flows and dilution provided by the Snake River throughout the
year.

     The primary impacts of this alternative during the construction
phase would be similar to those for Alternative A-l, and include
increased sedimentation to the small tributaries in the area  (Spring
and Crane Creeks) caused by runoff from the site.  These impacts
are short term, and are not expected to be significant.  Dewatering
will be required during pipeline alignment in areas of high ground-
water.  Infiltration and exfiltration problems will be similar to
those discussed for the proposed action, and will require similar
mitigation measures.

Alternative A-3  (Boyles Hill Stabilization Pond)
     The primary and secondary water quality impacts involving
construction of a stabilization pond at the Boyles Hill site would
be similar to those discussed for Alternative A-2.  A significant
improvement in Flat Creek water quality and a corresponding minor
decrease in Snake River water quality below the realigned sewage
outfall would be expected.

     The primary short term adverse impacts on groundwater and surface
water quality could be complicated somewhat by the increased surface
area disturbance required for a lagoon treatment system.  Dewatering
of the pipeline trench and raising and sealing of the lagoons to
insure containment of wastewater would be required.

Alternative A-4  (Mid-South Park Stabilization Pond)
     The primary impacts on Jackson area water quality associated
with this alternative are similar to those discussed for the Boyles
Hill stabilization pond alternative.  Short term surface water and
groundwater quality may be adversely effected by soil dis ^ption
during construction.  Sedimentation and turbidity problems can be
minimized through the use of construction techniques which reduce
soil erosion, ditch bank slumping and control on-site runoff.
Crossing Spring Creek and Crane Creek with the interceptor alignment
may also create some short term adverse impacts.  These impacts
can also be reduced through existing regulations and construction
mitigation procedures.
                               V-6

-------
     Flat Creek water quality will undoubtedly be improved through
implementation of this alternative.  Snake River water quality will
receive no beneficial impacts for reasons discussed under the other
alternatives involving effluent discharge to the river.

Alternative A-5  (South Park Road Stabilization Pond)
     The primary water quality impacts of construction of a stabili-
zation pond system in lower South Park are very similar to those for
the proposed South Park Elk Feedground alternative.  A general
improvement in Flat Creek water quality can be expected.  Conversely,
water quality conditions in the Snake River below the sewage treat-
ment plant outfall can be expected to show some minor deterioration.

     Primary short term construction impacts will also be similar
to the proposed action.  Site planning which includes provisions for
effective erosion and sediment control and storm water management
will minimize these impacts during the construction phase of the
project.  Proper design and testing of the interceptor will reduce
infiltration/exfiltration problems.

Alternative A-6  (Interim Upgrading of Existing Treatment Plant)
     The primary short term impacts of this alternative would be
similar to those discussed for Alternative A-l, and would include
temporary correction of existing hydraulic overload at the plant
and reductions in fecal coliform, turbidity and total solid concen-
trations in Flat Creek.  This improvement, howevt-, is only a short
term solution as the action does not provid^ sufficient additional
treatment capacity to serve the long term needs of the area.

Alternative A-7  (No Action Alternative)
     Impacts on water quality of the "no action" alternative are
dependent on the population growth.  The "no action" alternative
would create no additional primary short term adverse or beneficial
impacts on water quality beyond those currently being experienced
in the Jackson area, providing no extensions or additional hookups
were allowed on the existing system.  Wyoming water quality standards
would continue to be exceeded periodically for fecal coliform in
Flat Creek below the treatment plant outfall, and the plant would
continue to exceed the proposed (July 1, 1977)  discharge standards.
This could result in the Town of Jackson violating their secondary
treatment requirements and being subjected to enforcement sanctions
by the Wyoming DEQ.

     If present population growth continues and the projected popula-
tion is realized, Flat Creek water quality conditions will begin to
deteriorate at an increasing rate.  Violations of additional water
quality parameters including oxygen demanding waste, nutrients and
sediment will occur downstream from the sewage treatment outfall.
Increased nutrient and sediment levels are also likely to occur
further downstream at the confluence of Flat Creek and the Snake
River.
                              V-7

-------
AIR QUALITY

Impact of the Proposed Action (South Park Elk Feedground)

     The primary impacts on air quality in the Jackson, Wyoming
study area for the proposed action would be from the actual construc-
tion and operation of the facilities.  Alignment of the pipeline and
construction of the wastewater treatment plant will result in
increased particulate levels for ambient air quality-  Construction
of a lagoon treatment system alternative will likely result in some
seasonal odor problems.

     Limited monitoring data indicates that existing air quality in
the study area is good.  Construction of the proposed project will
necessitate the removal of vegetation and disruption of soils and
ground area with resultant dust generation during excavation for
the pipeline.  These effects are proportional to the interceptor
length and the land area required for construction of a lagoon
treatment system.  On-site construction impacts will largely be
from fugitive dust as a result of construction equipment operation
and construction activities.  Maximum particulate concentrations
will likely occur during the dry summer months.  These concentrations
can be minimized but not eliminated by restricting the size of
construction easements in critical areas, through dust abatement
practices during construction, and by starting restoration as soon
as possible following construction.

     The overloaded condition of the existing treatment facility
and the fact that the plant was not finished as intended, compounded
by prevailing wind patterns, has resulted in a significant odor
problem for the Town of Jackson.  Although extremely difficult to
quantify, the direct impacts of the proposed system also included
a more pronounced but localized potential for seasonal odor problems
due to the operational mode of the lagoon system.  Because the
proposed treatment system is located in a relatively remote and
sparsely populated area, however, major odor problems are not antici-
pated.  Manholes along the proposed interceptor line could also
create periodic localized odor problems.

Impacts of the Alternatives

Alternative A-l  (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
     A primary impact of construction of a new mechanical facility
at the existing treatment plant site will be increased particulate
levels in the immediate construction area resulting from fugitive
dust generated during construction of the plant.
Dust problems will be short term, and dependent on dust abatement
procedures implemented during the construction phase.

     The most significant primary beneficial affect of the alternative
will be the long term reduction of odor problems resulting from
hydraulic overloading and inadequate sludge handling at the existing
treatment plant.
                               V-8

-------
Alternative A-2 (Boyles Hill Mechanical Plant)
     During construction phase of the project, the primary adverse
short term impacts of the alternative would be similar to those for
Alternative A-l.  This alternative will involve additional disruption
of soils and vegetation for pipeline construction (proportionate
to interceptor and outfall pipe length).   The project will also
create more extensive fugitive dust which would be concentrated in
the immediate vicinity  of construction at intermittent intervals.
Site location and adjacent topography will essentially eliminate
odor problems for the Town of Jackson.  Suburban residential develop-
ment in close proximity to the treatment facility (particularly
the subdivision to the north Skyline Ranch Development) or along the
pipeline alignment will probably be subjected to some increase in
odors.

Alternative A-3 (Boyles Hill Stabilization Pond)
     The primary impacts for the alternative involving construction
of a stabilization pond at the Boyles Hill site would be similar to
those summarized for Alternative A-2 except that the primary odor
problems from a pond system are more serious than those generated by
a mechanical facility.  Additional land area requirements and corres-
ponding disruption during construction for the stabilization pond
system, however, will result in higher localized particulate concen-
trations (fugitive dust).

Alternative A-4 (Mid-South Park Stabilization Pond)
     Short term primary impacts associated with this alternative are
similar to those for the Boyles Hill stabilization pond alternative
and include dust emmission created by earth moving equipment and
vehicles, and exhaust from construction equipment and motor vehicles.
An additional source of particulate concentrations for this alterna-
tive will be the clearing and construction of a necessary maintenance
road.  These pollutants will probably be confined to the immediate
vicinity of the construction site, and occur during intermittent
intervals of the construction phase.  Potential odor emissions will
also be similar to the Boyles Hill stabilization pond alternative,
although existing residential development in the area is more
scattered,  and not located in the vicinity of the proposed site.

     Prevailing wind patterns could create occasional minor odor
problems for the Town of Jackson during spring and fall.  These
problems, however, should not be of major consequence.

Alternative A-5 (South Park Road Stabilization Pond)
     During the construction phase, the primary short term impacts of
the project will be attributable to increased particulate concentra-
tions resulting from soils and vegetation disturbance at the site
of the stabilization pond and along the interceptor route.  These
impacts will be very similar to those discussed under Alternative A-4.
Immediate odor problems resulting from operating the system are not
anticipated to be of major consequence, because of the low density
residential development in the area, but could become more significant
if residential growth were to occur in close proximity to the plant.
                               V-Q

-------
Alternative A-6  (Interim  Upgrading  of  Existing  Treatment  Plant:)
     The  short term primary  impacts associated  with  interim upgrading
of  the  existing  treatment plant  include  increased  localized dust
problems  related to construction of additional  facilities.   These
impacts also  include  elimination of current  nuisance odor problems
currently experienced by  local residents.  It is probable,  however,
that in five  years the  system would be operating at  an  efficiency
similar to the present  system, unless  growth controls were adopted.

Alternative A-7  (No Action Alternative)
     The  "no  action"  alternative impacts on  existing air  quality in
the Jackson study area  would depend on the growth  policy  finally
adopted by the Town of  Jackson and  Teton County-   Assuming a policy
is  adopted similar to the policy being proposed by the  draft
Comprehensive Plan, it  is likely that  population growth will continue,
but at  a  somewhat slower  rate because  of a lack of sewer  capacity
and the implications  of non-compliance with  the Town's  NPDES permit.
No  significant short  term deterioration  of existing  air quality  is
anticipated in the immediate future.   Short  term increases  in parti-
culate  concentrations resulting  from removal of vegetation  and
activity  would not occur.

     Taking no action would  result  in  the primary  impact  of continu-
ing and increasing the  odor  problems caused  by  the present  overload-
ing and sludge disposal problems experienced at the  Jackson treatment
plant.  These would be  compounded as the population  increased.


WILDLIFE  HABITAT


Impacts of the Proposed Project  (South Park  Elk Feedground  Stabiliza-
tion Pond)
     The  major primary  impact that  would result from construction of
aerated stabilization ponds  on the  Elk Feedground  would be  the loss
of  20 plus acres of winter wildlife habitat.  Of the two  Elk Feed-
ground  specific  sites investigated,  Site B,  the less expensive of
the two,  is located in  a  large open area.  The  site  serves  as a
hay production area during the summer  and a  browsing habitat for
elk during the late fall  and early  winter.   Elimination of  the 20
acres would reduce the  carrying  capacity of  the refuge  and  possibly
force Department of Game  and Fish personnel  to  purchase more
supplemental winter feed.

     While it is  unlikely that the  construction operation of
facilities themselves (ponds, aerators,  fencing, etc.)  would
adversely  affect  the  condition of the  wintering elk  herd, the
increase  in human activity (operation  and maintenance personnel)
and the high probability  that at some  time in the  future additional
land and  facilities would be required, may be a significant  adverse
affect on the elk, and  could lead to the eventual  abandonment of
the area by the  herd.   A  stabilization pond  system requires  little
continuous maintenance,  but  if chlorination  facilities and the flow
                               V-10

-------
recording devices were at the lagoon site, several trips a day
through the feedground would be necessary to administer the  facility.
While the Wyoming Game and Fish personnel feel that the lagoon could
"totally eliminate the purpose the land was originally acquired for"
to maintain a thousand head of elk, it appears more probable that
the long term impacts, barring other secondary effects, would be to
reduce the carrying capacity of the area as the elk build up a
buffer zone between themselves and the fenced pond area.  This
reduction in carrying capacity would apply to other species  (deer,
small mammals, etc.) which inhabit the area during the winter.

    If Site B were selected, there would not be a need to  remove any
significant amount of trees.  Interceptor and outfall lines would
require only limited soil disturbance, and it would be necessary to
restore and revegetate those lands impacted.  Construction of the
ponds would necessitate the instillation of an improved road.

     While the American peregrine  falcon which is on the Rare and
Endangered Species List, has been  reported as occuring in the area,
little information is available as to its frequency, use of the area,
or number.  Without any information it is difficult to make an
assumption as to the impact on this species.

     Impacts on the local fishery would, in the long term, be posi-
tive, regardless of the alternative selected.  A  facility designed
and operated to meet Wyoming Class I Water Quality Standards for
the projected 1995 flows would protect the fishery resources of the
Snake River.

Alternative A-l (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
     The only significant impact to the natural community resulting
from this alternative would be the improvement of water quality in
Flat Creek.  This would over the year help protect and maintain the
fishery values and prevent any barrier to fish movement that may be
generated by increasing low quality"effluent discharges.

Alternative A-2 (Mechanical Plant Boyles Hill)
     Alternative A-2 would eliminate a portion of the local environ-
ment surrounding Boyles Hill and displace those species dependent
upon this area.  Since this is not a particularly critical area in
terms of wildlife habitat, and has in the past been subject to severe
land alteration, this impact would be minimal given the extensive
amounts of available high quality habitat.

     If the system were designed and operated to meet Wyoming Class 1
Water Quality Standards as expected, no deterioration in the fishing
potential of the Snake River is expected.  This alternative would
protect Flat Creek from any point  source degradation.

Alternative A-3 (Stabilization Pond  Boyles Hill)
     The expected impact would be  similar to those discussed in
Alternative A-2.
                               V-ll

-------
Alternative A-4  (Mid-South Park Stabilization Pond)
     The impacts from Alternative A-4 would be similar to those at
the Boyles Hill or existing site in terms of its secondary growth
inducing factors.  Primary impact on wildlife would be minor.  With
the application of architectural finishing and landscaping utilizing
trees and other small shrubs, the available habitat for a number of
smaller species would be enhanced.

Alternative A-5  (South Park Road Stabilization Pond)
     The wildlife and habitat impacts of this alternative are basically
the same as those in the Proposed Project, with the exception that
the Elk Feedgrounds are preserved intact and the elk herd would re-
main uneffected by the facilities.

Alternative A-6  (Interim Upgrading at the Existing Treatment Plant)
     An increase in Flat Creek water quality and protection of the
fishery potential of the stream would be realized by the implementa-
tion of this alternative.  Of course the plant would have to be
expanded to take care of additional flows due to growth, or water
quality would not be protected in the long term.

Alternative 7  (No Action)
     This alternative fails to protect the long term water quality of
Flat Creek and could be expected to lead to the eventual deterioration
of the fishing resources on Flat Creek, due to the expected increase
of the pollutant loading.


NATURAL HAZARDS


Impact of the Proposed Action (South Park Elk Feedground)

     The major natural hazards are related to flooding and earth-
quake hazard.  According to information supplies by the Corps of
Engineers, both South Park Elk Feedground sites are located in the
100-Year Flood plain of the Snake River.  Flooding at these sites
probably exceeds the 100-Year Flood in terms of frequency.  Flood-
related impacts for this alternative are further complicated by the
uncertainties regarding the degree of flood protection provided by
the levee system and periodic winter flooding of Flat Creek caused
by ice blockage.  The sites are not located over known fault zones.

     The primary short term impacts of construction of a stabilization
pond treatment system at either of the South Park Elk Feedground sites
include the potential for periodic inundation by floodwaters from
the Snake River.  During a flood episode, operation of the facility
could be impaired if flood waters overtopped a low profile lagoon
causing a subsequent backup with potential health hazards and adverse
water quality impacts.  Access to the plant may also be temporarily
interrupted if the flood waters reach sufficient velocities to wash
out sections of the service road.  Damage to the outfall may also
occur during flooding.  A "Special Flood Hazard Information Report"
has been prepared by the Corps.   This report discusses Snake River
                               V-12

-------
flooding problems in Teton County, and provides elevation information
for 500, 100, 50 and 10-Year Floods.  Flood-proofing the proposed
facility to the level of the 100-Year Flood will largely reduce flood
damage potential.  Participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program by Teton County would enable the Town of Jackson to purchase
flood insurance covering any structure damage due to flooding.

     Secondary long range impacts of flooding related to the proposed
project include additional potential for flooding and damage to new
residential and other types of development in areas where develop-
ment did not exist prior to sewer availability.  Teton County
presently experiences average annual flood damages in the Snake
River flood plain exceeding $26,000.

Impacts of Alternatives

Alternative A-l  (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
     No major primary natural hazard impacts are anticipated with
construction of a new mechanical plant at the present site.  The
existiig waste treatment plant is located in close proximity to a
probable earthquake fault zone which runs east across the valley
floor and south along Highway 26, 89, 187.  Although information
on the exact location of the fault is limited, minimum building
materials and design standards should be utilized in planning the
facility considering the Jackson area is one of the most seismically
active regions in the United States.

     Flooding and high water table conditions do not appear to be
major problems for construction of a new mechanical plant at the
site.  However, adequate flood-proofing measures should be included
in design of the facility to insure protection from flooding should
Flat Creek experience abnormally high flows.  These measures should
include an auxiliary generating system flood-proofed to the level of
the 100-Year Flood to reduce shut down time in the event a flood
episode did occur.  Additional flows from the treatment plant will
alter the hydrologic regime of Flat Creek.  Winter flooding could
be increased as a larger population is served by the facility.

Alternative A-2  (Boyles Hill Mechanical Plant)
     The major primary impacts associated with implementation of
this alternative are very similar to those discussed for Alterna-
tive A-l.  The proposed construction site is located adjacent to a
probable earth quake fault zone.  Groundwater levels are generally
three to five feet below the surface in the area, and excavation for
pipeline alignment and treatment plant construction may create tempor-
ary turbidity problems in local groundwater aquifers (discussed in
a previous section).  The project site is not subject to the 100-Year
Flood according to available information, although it is located
in the 500-Year Flood plain of the Snake River.  Construction would
not require flood-proofing measures.  However, placement of the out-
fall to the Snake River will need to include flood-proofing consider-
ations.
                               V-13

-------
Alternative A-3  (Boyles Hill Stabilization  Pond)
     The primary and secondary  impacts associated with  construction
and operation of a stabilization pond system  at  the  Boyles  Hill  site
are very similar to those discussed  for Alternative  A-2.  Additional
excavation required for construction of a lagoon system will  prob-
ably have a larger short term effect on groundwater  in  the  area.
The mounded, sealed lagoon system should be flood-proofed to  maintain
operation through the 100-Year  Flood.

Alternative A-4  (Mid-South Park Stabilization Pond)
     The mid-South Park site is not  located over any known  earth-
quake  fault zones.  Depth to groundwater at the  site generally ranges
between three and five feet.  The site is located in the 100-Year
Flood  plain of the Snake River  according to information supplies by
the Corps of Engineers.  The primary short  term  impacts of  flooding
on this alternative are similar to those discussed for  the  proposed
action, and include the potential for periodic flooding and damage,
service disruption and health hazards.  Flood insurance is  not
presently available for the facility structures  because Teton County
is not participating in the National Flood  Insurance Program.  Par-
ticipation would require adoption of standard resolutions which assure
the Flood Insurance Administration that applications for all  new
development or substantial improvements to  existing  development in
the County are reviewed to insure such development is "reasonably
safe"  from flooding.

Alternative A-5  (South Park Road Stabilization Pond)
     The primary and secondary  short term/long term  impacts associated
with implementation of this alternative are similar  to  thos'e  summariz-
ed for the South Park Elk Feedground alternative.  Earthquake hazard
will probably be minimal as the site is not located  over a  known
fault  zone.  The site also is not located in  the 100-Year Flood
plains of the Snake River or Flat Creek;  and the facility  would
not require flood-proofing.

Alternative A-6  (Interim Upgrading of Existing Treatment Plant)
     No major primary natural hazard impacts  are expected with
interim upgrading of the existing treatment plant, although the site
is located in close proximity to a probable earthquake  zone.
Additional flow from the upgraded plant may have a minor impact on
the flooding potential for Flat Creek.


                        ECONOMIC IMPACTS


     The economic burden or value a  particular project  either  imposes
or indirectly bestows upon a community is one of the primary  control-
ling factors that determines what direction that community  may take
in solving a particular municipal problem.  A significant considera-
tion in making a commitment to  one alternative over  another is the
immediate capital that the residents of an  area  will  need to  generate
in order to finance design and  construction.  The second major
expenditure is the yearly operation  and maintenance  costs that are
                               V-14

-------
necessary to maintain the facility at its designed level of efficiency,
While capital construction costs may represent a large initial invest-
ment for a community, and may require either bonded indebtedness or
commitment of accumulated municipal funds, the operation and mainte-
nance of a system may, after utilizing the assistance available
through the EPA Construction Grant Program, be a longterm and equally
significant burden on the residents of the service area.

     A third factor that must be considered in evaluating the
economic impacts of any proposed project are the indirect or secon-
dary costs that are created or facilitated by that project.  This
includes the cost of other municipal facilities and services that
must be supplied when a wastewater project serves to accelerate
growth and development in areas that lack or have inadequate existing
services.  Such items as schools, transportation, road improvements,
police and fire protection, health services, and recreation must be
provided to new residents of an area.  Since the Comprehensive Plan
being developed by the county relies heavily upon natural hazards
(i.e., high groundwater requiring widely spaced individual disposal
systems) to direct and control the density of development, removing
this hazard by providing a centralized wastewater facility may
facilitate major changes in the proposed development plan depending
upon the site and interceptor alignment selected.  The EPA's Construc-
tion Grant Program will fund 75% of the eligible costs for the
design and construction of a municipal wastewater system.  While
eligible costs need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, such
things as land- demolition of abandoned facilities, and providing
excess capacity and a higher degree of treatment than is necessary
are generally excluded.  The direct costs that the Town of Jackson
would have to assume including both capital and operation and main-
tenance, are reflected on Table 26 for each alternative site.

     It is important to note that the EPA portion of any funding is
based upon the availability of federal grant funds.  While Jackson
is presently at the top of the priority funding list, if the Town
cannot decide on a system acceptable to the State and Federal
Government, then money which was designated for the Jackson project
will go to other municipalities.  While the "no action" alternative
may appear economically attractive, it should be pointed out that
the Town will eventually be required to deal with its water quality
problems.  The inability on the part of EPA and the Town of Jackson
to arrive at an equitable and environmentally sound solution at the
time the facility plan was prepared has increased the estimated 1978-
1979 construction cost a minimum of 25-30%, due to inflation.
If after the issuing of the final EIS a recommended project cannot
be developed, these inflation factors can be expected to continue
to increase the eventual cost of construction.  This may impose
both severe economic and water quality impacts on the Jackson
area, at some future date.

     In order to simplify the analysis, only the seven major alterna-
tives were evaluated.  It was assumed that the least expensive
pipeline alignment and specific site (where there was a choice
                               V-15

-------
                                                      TABLE 26

                                 1995 CAPITAL COST  ^COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
South Park Elk
Feedground
(Proposed Project)
Expansion at
Existing Site
Alt. A-l
Boyles Hill
Activated Sludge
Alt. A-2
Boyles Hill
Stabilization Pond
Alt. A- 3
Mid South Park
Stabilization Pond
Alt. A-4
South Park Road Site
Stabilization Pond
Alt. A-5
Interim Improvements
(5 years) Alt. A-6
Capitol
Cost
(millions)

4.724

2.973

4.896


3.278


3.496


4.487
0.373
EPA Share
(Fundable
Under 75%
PL 92-500)
(millions)

3.386

2.230

3.620


2.304


2.465


3.208
0.280
Local Share
(Non-grant
Fundable)
(millions)

1.339

0.743

1.276


0.974


1.032


1.280
0.093
Present
Worth
0 & M
(millions)

3.487

7.093

8.223


3.190


3.126


3.542
0.091
Total
Present
Worth
Town
(millions)

4.826

7.836

9.498


4.168


4.158


4.822
0.184
Peak
Design
P.E.
**

18700

18700

18700


18700


18700


18700
10100***
Life of
Project
Cost Per
Design P.E.
( dollars )

258

419

508


223


222


258
18
Ranking
( Present
Worth to
the Town of
Jackson )

3

4

5


2


1


3

   *0utright  cost no debt  service  or  later  connection  fee
 **The lower the cost per design population equivalent (P
   taxpayer.   A revenue plan is currently being generated
   residential costs.
***Assume no growth restrictions.
assumptions possible at this level of study
,E.), the  lower the monthly cost to the
which will translate these costs  into average

-------
between alternatives) would be recommended on the basis of cost
effectiveness, and these would be utilized in the evaluation of
economic impacts.

Impacts of the Proposed Project  (South Park Elk Feedground)

     Table 26 presents the cost information for the Proposed Project
and the alternatives for a 1995 design flow-  In terms of actual
cost per Population Equivalent (P.E.)(not differentiated between
residential, commercial or tourist) in the Town of Jackson, the
least expensive of the two proposed South Park Elk Feedground
sites ranks tied for third, as the third least costly of the six
alternatives providing complete treatment.  This includes $1.339
million in non-grant fundable capital costs and $3.487 million in
operation and maintenance charges over the 20 year life of the
project.  These figures do not include such items as debt service
on the locally funded capital, salvage values on the existing
plant and land, and other variable costs and credits that would
need to be identified through a local revenue plan once a project
was approved for construction.  Based upon the 1995 design P.E.
(over the 20 year life of the facility), $258 per P.E. would need to
be generated locally to fund and maintain the facility.  It should
be re-emphasized that the $1.339 million would need to be made
available prior to or during construction, but the remaining
$3.487 million would be prorated over the design life of the
facility.

     The costs associated with the tourist or seasonal portion of
the facility could be generated through the use of a local hotel/
motel or restaurant tax or the current sales tax designated for
sewage facility capital expansion, but the resident share would
still require an eventual increase in the residential service
charge.

     The operation of an aerated stabilization pond is, when compared
to a mechanical plant, less expensive due to lower energy require-
ments.  There is also generally  less  repair and preventive maintenance
associated with a pond system.  The proposed gravity interceptor
line would require a certain amount of additional maintenance until
the flow to the plant was large enough to sustain a self flushing
action.  In the years following any construction, and during the off
tourist season it may be necessary to occasionally flush the line
to resuspend settled material.  Interceptor O & M costs are normally
considered to be one-half to one percent of the capital cost annually
depending upon the design and construction.

     Under proper operation sludge disposal is not a problem in a
facultative  (aerobic/anaerobic)  stabilization pond.  Sludge
(primarily inorganic solids, and cellular material) settles to the
anaerobic layer of the pond and the organic portion is decomposed
and stabilized.  A certain amount of  stabilized solids and algae
material wash through the system  and may in some cases require
the addition of advanced treatment (coagulation and settling or
filters)  if it must be removed.
                               V-17

-------
Impacts of the Alternatives

Alternative A-l (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
     The immediate capital that would need to be generated  locally if
this alternative were implemented is approximately  $750,000 (Table 26)
making it the least expensive alternative in terms  of  construction
and design.  However, the 0 & M costs for the life  of  the project
are the second highest of the six complete alternatives  (approximately
7 million dollars over the next 20 years) and give  a combined  ranking
as the fourth least expensive in terms of locally generated funds.

Alternative A-2 (Mechanical Plant at Boyles Hill)
     This alternative is the most expensive of those considered,  both
in terms of capital and 0 & M costs.  The Boyles Hill  site,  while in
some ways ideal for a WWTP, would require the installation  of  addi-
tional sewer lines  (or force mains) and an outfall  to  the Snake River.
The Boyles Hill State School section of land has sufficient room  for
any future expansion and provides a site isolated from the  Town but
capable of servicing the presently anticipated growth  area  by  gravity
sewers and a low volume pump station and force main.

Alternative A-3 (Boyles Hill Stabilization Pond)
     In terms of necessary local capital and 0 & M  costs this
alternative or alternative A-5 would be the least expensive option
the Town could adopt (Table 26) .  The capital cost  of  constructing
deep ponds at the Boyles Hill location could increase  if severe
ground water problems were encountered, but it is not  to be antici-
pated that they would pose the same degree of difficulty as expected
at the South Park Elk Feedground site.  Detailed on-site soils and
ground water analysis would be necessary to establish  the severity of
any construction problems at Boyles Hill.

Alternative A-4 (Mid-South Park Stabilization Pond)
     An aerated stabilization pond at a Mid-South Park location would
be one of the two least costly in terms of local capital and operating
and maintenance expenses (Table 26).  The site would be located at
the southwest peripherial edge of the anticipated higher density  area
being proposed by the Comprehensive Plan, and would service this  area
through a gravity collection and interceptor system.

Alternative A-5 (South Park Road Stabilization Pond)
     The South Park Road site and the Elk Feedground site have
essentially the same local capital and 0 & M cost (Table 26).
While A-5 requires a significantly shorter interceptor line, its
outfall to the Snake is longer,  providing a combined pipeline  cost
which is approximately the same for both sites.

Alternative A-6 (Interim Upgrading of the Existing  Treatment Plant)
     Alternative A-6 provides only a temporary or stop gap  solution
to Jackson's wastewater problems.  When the excess  infiltration is
corrected in Summer of 1977, the plant will still exceed its original
0.80 mgd design capacity during the peak summer tourist season.
As explained earlier, original design notes have indicated  that a
                               V-18

-------
hydraulic loading of 1.6 mgd could be accommodated if an adequate
sludge handling system were installed.  While this may be somewhat
optimistic, the system if improved as indicated should be able to
treat an expected peak summer P.E. up to approximately 10,000.
Once the hydraulic capacity of the system is reached and treatment
effectiveness declines a new facility will be required.  While the
initial cost of this alternative is low (less than $18 per design
P.E.), when the ultimate capacity is reached the Town will have to
make a financial commitment to construct a new plant.  A new plant
constructed 5 to 8 years from now would be significantly more expensive
because of expected inflationary trends.

     When the infiltration is corrected and the plant is improved
with an efficient sludge handling system,  the facility should be
capable of treating the maximum amount of waste generated by an addi-
tional P.E. of approximately 1500.  This is not enough to handle
the expected growth from the proposed expansion area, or provide
for any significant increase in tourist activity-  If the Town were
to impose a policy of growth control in order to maintain the capa-
city of the system, and prolong its usefulness, this may create a
number of economic problems and hardships in the local business
community.

     The interim improvements suggested could, if properly planned,
be incorporated into a complete expansion of the Jackson treatment
plant.  This would require that the Town make a commitment to remain
at the present location.  By doing this the salvage value of the
proposed treatment units are greater and the financial impacts of
having to abandon them some time in the future is reduced.  Mechan-
ical equipment of the type anticipated, if properly maintained, has
a functional life of at least 20 years.


                     SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS


     Socio-Cultural impacts are much more difficult to identify and
quantify than those in any other area.  The impacts a particular
project has on the life style, aesthetic values, and the intrinsic
historic and cultural sites of a particular area will differ between
individuals or groups within the community.  While any ranking or
weighing factor used to differentiate between the potential positive
or negative socio-cultural impacts will be open to controversy, it is
important to attach some relative level of significance in develop-
ing a comprehensive issue-oriented evaluation of the various options.
Three general areas were considered under this section:  social
(i.e., psychological, legal and regulatory) impacts, aesthetic
impacts, and the historic-cultural impacts.

     Based upon the information supplied by the State Archeologist
and Recreation Commission there appears to be little difference in
the historic-cultural impacts between any of the alternatives requir-
ing pipeline work.  The present indication is that a field archeologic
                               V-19

-------
 survey will be required once a site and pipeline alignment is select-
 ed and that the construction specification must require that the
 contractor notify the State Archeologist if any artifacts or items of
 cultural significance are unearthed during construction.  Obviously,
 anytime a project entails extensive earthwork or digging there is a
 potential for disturbing a cultural site.   The extent of this poten-
 tial,  in the absence of other information, roughly is related to the
 amount of necessary earthwork.   In the absence of any definitive
 information, it was impossible to  consider historic-cultural impact
 in further detail.   They are not expected  to be a significant deciding
 factor in the final development of this project.

 Impacts of the Proposed Project (South Park Elk Feedground Stabiliza-
 tion Pond)

      The primary Socio-Cultural impacts associated with the proposed
 project would involve the aesthetic losses associated with construc-
 tion.   While no major disruption in or widespread hardships or incon-
 venience is anticipated as a result of pipeline construction, the
 loss of approximately 20 acres  of  Elk  Feedground would have an impact
 on the scenic and recreational  values  of the State lands.   People
 that have come to regard this area as  a natural or reacreational area
 would  probably find the presence of a  20 acre fenced treatment facility
 incompatible with their needs.

      The position taken by the  Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and
 indirectly the regualtions of the  U.S.  Department of the Interior
 (Fish  and Wildlife  Service)  in  opposing the construction of a treatment
 plant  on the Elk Feedground location,  puts the practical availability
 of these lands in question.   Even  if the Department of Game and Fish
 (WDG&F)  were to decide  to relinquish control of all or part of the
 Feedground  it may constitute a  "diversion  of funds" and hence an
 infraction  of Federal Aid Regulations.   Because there are  no adjacent
 exchange lands with (in the opinion of the WDG&F)  the same wildlife
 values,  it  is unlikely  that the land exchange proposed by  the Town
 would  be approved by  the Fish and  Wildlife Service.   It is quite
 probable that any attempt by the Town  to secure these lands over the
 objections  of the WDG&F would have to  be resolved by the Courts.
 This would  further  delay the project and possibly jeopardize Jackson's
 opportunity to receive  Federal  Grant assistance.

     The  scenic  impacts  a  treatment plant  at either of the proposed
 Elk Feedground sites would  have on the Wild and Scenic River Study
 would be  dependent  upon  the  final  design and placement of  the system.
 The outfall  to  the  Snake  is  the only structure that would  enter the
 river corridor.   While  the  River's  final classification is dependent
 upon the  outcome  of the  Forest  Service Study,  the  outfall  structure
would require  extension  to  the  main channel  and an architectural
 treatment to  reduce its  visibility and intrusiveness.

Impacts of the Alternatives

Alternative A-l  (New Mechanical Plant  at Existing  Site)
     Alternative A-l would  eliminate the majority  of  the noxious  odor


                               V-20

-------
problems that have plagued plant operation in the past, but the plant
would remain in its present location adjacent to the proposed light
industrial and commercial development area.  While the improvement
in the odor problem would have a positive social impact, the presence
of the treatment plant and the attached psychological stigma may
effect the communities interest in developing lands in proximity to
the facility.  The present facility is unsightly, but with the proper
landscaping and architectural mitigation these impacts could be relieved

     Construction activities would be expected to have only a minor
impact since residential and commercial activity in the area is limited.

Alternative A-2 (Mechanical Plant at Boyles Hill)
     This alternative has impacts similar to these associated with
the expansion of the existing facility.  The Boyles Hill site is more
isolated from the expected residential growth areas, but an existing
developed area on the north side of Boyles Hill would be exposed to
any odors, noise, dust generated during construction and long-term
operation.  While a properly designed and operated activated sludge
plant would create only very localized impacts of this nature, the
presence of a facility at this location would be expected to generate
a certain amount of apprehension and anxiety making the local residents
more aware of any change in their environment which could be associated
with the plant.

Alternative A-3 (Stabilization Pond Boyles Hill)
     The social impacts of Alternative A-3 are essentially the same
as A-2 with the exception that the potential for odors from ponds
are much greater than from an efficient mechanical system.  Psycholog-
ical stress and even physical discomfort could result in those areas
subject to constant exposure to the prevailing winds.  This may be
a particular problem when treatment effectiveness is lowest and
anaerobic activity may occur during the early fall and spring.

Alternative A-4 (Mid-South Park Stabilization Pond)
     The only significant difference in social impacts between this
alternative and A-l through A-3 is that the location is farther
removed and not centered in the projected high density development
area.  While there is almost no existing residents in this area of
South Park that could be effected by construction activity, the
operation of the pond could create problems similar to those
identified for Alternative A-3 as the area developed.  The area
that could theoretically be serviced by gravity sewers generally
conforms to the high density growth areas identified in the proposed
comprehensive plan.

Alternative A-5 (South Park Road Stabilization Pond)
     Alternative A-5 has almost the same social cultural impacts as
the Proposed Project.  A slightly smaller  (10%) area is provided
potential service, but the overall growth pattern would be practi-
cally identical.  This alternative does however preserve the South
Park Elk Feedground in its entirety-  The regulatory opposition,
presented by those agencies with an interest in the feedground,
should be eliminated by this alternative.
                                V-21

-------
 Alternative A-6  (Interim Upgrading of the Existing TREATMENT PLANT
      This alternative has the same general impacts as Alternative
 A-l except that unless the Town takes an aggressive approach to
 solving its wastewater problems, Jackson will find itself in the
 same situation it is in now within the next five years.  The
 alternative to providing improved facilities would be to make the
 necessary interim improvement and disallow any additional hookups,
 in essence, adopt a no growth policy.

 Alternative A-7  (No Action)
      The "no action" alternative has really only two significant
 socio-cultural impacts.  The first is that without a new facility
 the Town will remain in violation of its water quality discharge
 permit.  This could put the Town in jeopardy of being assessed a
 fine up to $25,000 a day under State and Federal Law.

      The second impact includes a variety of generally unaesthic
 characteristics that would be allowed to continue and get worse if
 nothing is done.   These include such things as the odors emitting
 from the sludge beds, and polishing ponds during the warmer months,
 the insect and health problems from the accumulating mound of dried
 but undigested sludge which cannot be disposed of, and the general
 unsightliness of  the present plant owning to the land area occupied,
 and lack of landscaping and community interest in improving the
 visual appearance.


                         LAND USE IMPACTS


      Numerous studies have demonstrated that changes in land use do
 occur as extensive and advanced sewerage systems replace septic
 tanks or inadequate existing systems.   New development may be
 attracted  to  areas served  by sewers  for a number of reasons.  In
 the Jackson area,  the primary reason is probably the increasing
 environmental concern for  groundwater  contamination which has focused
 with recent findings  of  possible coliform-contaminated wells.  Second,
 residents  generally prefer houses  with sewer in  terms of maintenance
 responsibilities.   Third,  communities  often find themselves  in a
 position where they must deliberately  attract new development to
 new sewer  service  areas  in order to  pay construction expenses through
 user  charges  and  connection  fees.

      Interceptors  also influence and  even direct land use changes.
 The amount of vacant  land  served by  an interceptor,  and  the  excess
 capacity of the trunk  sewer  and  treatment plant  are  important
 determinants of the amount and  pattern of development occurring  in
 an area.

     In this respect,  the  Town of  Jackson's decision  to  implement
and EPA's decision not to  fund the proposed action may be viewed a
significant "land use" decision.   The  provision of sewers, coupled
with the lack of a well-defined  growth policy can lead to land
development patterns which may,  in the long term, adversely  affect
environmental quality.


                               V-22

-------
Impacts of the Proposed Project  (South Park Elk Feedground Stabiliza-
tion Pond)

     In general, the most extensive impact of sewers on development
patterns throughout the country has been the trend to develop
larger areas of vacant land into single family residential housing.
The "Town of Jackson and Vicinity Land Use Element" identifies 670
acres of developable land east of Boyles Hill.  This area, combined
with the presently undeveloped available land in Jackson, constitutes
a continuous urban growth area capable of accommodating up to 3,300
residential units  (Livingston and Associates, 1976).

     The primary short term/long term land use impact of locating
the proposed treatment facility at the South Park Elk Feedground
would be the removal of approximately 20 acres of land as a wildlife
refuge.  As previously discussed in this report, the action has
drawn significant criticism from the Wyoming Game and Fish Depart-
ment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a number of interested
citizens.  Concensus from a majority of citizens at the second
public workshop on the Jackson treatment facility reaffirmed this
criticism  (Appendix 3).   The legality of locating the stabilization
pond system on Elk Feedground property has not been determined.  In
addition, the Game and Fish Depratment is not aware of any local
property available in the South Park area which could replace the
land lost to the treatment facility.

     The proposed interceptor corridor would avoid highly developed
areas.  No residential relocation is anticipated as a result of
pipeline alignment.  A minimal amount of transportation disruption
and rerouting is anticipated during the construction phase of the
project.  Construction impacts of the interceptor should not exceed
a four-month period.

Impacts of the Alternatives

Alternative A-l (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
     The primary impacts of construction of a new mechanical plant
at the existing treatment plant site probably include a continuation
of the existing land use development pattern in the study area, with
additional emphasis for infilling within the Town of Jackson sewer
service area.  Construction related impacts on local land use will
be reduced by utilizing the existing interceptor right-of-way and
treatment plant location.  No relocation of existing residential
development would be required.  Temporary transportation disruption
or rerouting would be minimal.

     No special land uses (i.e. South Park Elk Feedground) would be
affected by construction of the project.  Operation and maintenance
of the facility would not significantly affect wildlife habitat.

Alternative A-2 (Boyles Hill Mechanical Plant)
     This alternative would not have any significant primary effects
on land use.  The primary short term impact of locating a new
                               V-23

-------
 mechanical  treatment  plant  at  the  Boyles Hill  site would be  restrict-
 ed to temporary disruption  of  traffic during the  construction  phase
 of the project.   The  interceptor route  generally  avoids highly
 developed areas,  minimizing the impact  on  residential  development.
 The project would not immediately  affect existing agriculture  or
 special land uses (i.e.,  wildlife  habitat).

 Alternative A-3  (Boyles Hill Stabilization Pond)
      The primary short term land use impacts involving construction
 of a lagoon system at the Boyles Hill site are similar to  those
 discussed for Alternative A-2.  The immediate  impacts  of construction,
 however,  may be  increased because  the total land  area  which  will be
 disturbed for the lagoon  treatment system  is somewhat  larger
 (20 plus  acres).   Construction activities  may  also result  in tempor-
 ary disruption  of grazing patterns in the  immediate  locality of the
 project.  The site will avoid  the  conflict which  would result  from
 selection of Wyoming  Game and  Fish Department  property at  the  South
 Park Elk  Feedground.   The alternative will not result  in signifi-
 cant damage or  conflict with other native  biotic  communities.
 Adverse visual  impacts would be increased, somewhat, by the  appear-
 ance of a lagoon  system.  Proper grading and landscaping procedures
 would mitigate  these  impacts.

 Alternative A-4  (Mid-South  Park Stabilization  Pond)
      The  primary  impacts  on Jackson area land  use associated with
 construction of  a stabilization pond system at the Mid-South Park
 site are  similar  to those for  Alternative  A-3.  The  construction
 phase would probably  result in some disruption of grazing  activity
 and  patterns, although these impacts should be insignificant.
 Housing relocation is not anticipated.  Some temporary traffic re-
 routing may be required along  South Park Road  during interceptor
 alignment.   This  disruption will also be minor.

Alternative A-5  (South Park ROAD STABILIZATION POND)
      The  primary  impacts  of this alternative on existing land  use
are  very  similar  to the proposed action alternative.   The  proposed
 location  and interceptor  alignment for  this alternative, although
not  in  conflict with  the  position  of the Wyoming  Game  and  Fish
Department  discussed  earlier in the report, would probably involve
other  similar immediate construction-related impacts.  The interceptor
corridor  would avoid  highly developed areas, and  no residential re-
location  is  anticipated as  a result of  the project.  Temporary
transportation disruption is anticipated during interceptor
alignment along portions of  the South Park Road.

Alternative  A-6  (Interim Upgrading of Existing Treatment Plant)
      The  primary  land  use impacts of this alternative will be short
term, and are very similar  to  those for Alternative A-l.    The action
would not require  any major  disruption of the existing or  special
land  uses (wildlife habitats) during upgrading or operation of the
facility.
                               V-24

-------
Alternative A-7  (No Action Alternative)
     The "No Action" alternative will  have  no  significant primary
impacts on land use in the Jackson  area.  No significant short
term changes in existing land use are  anticipated with implementa-
tion of this alternative.  The primary impacts associated with pipe-
line alignment and treatment plant  construction or upgrading includ-
ing the potential for residential relocation,  transportation disrup-
tion and rerouting, and other construction-related impacts will not
occur.
                    SECONDARY  IMPACT ANALYSIS


     Secondary or indirect  impacts  are  those impacts  resulting from
or induced by a particular  action independent  of  its  construction
or capital expenditure impacts.  Such items as accelerated land use
commitments, the cost of providing  community services necessitated
by the growth inducement of a  project,  and increased  runoff or
drainage into a surface water  way following intensified subdivision
activity are all examples of secondary  impacts that may be associated
with a municipal wastewater project.

     The most significant secondary impacts associated with any of
the proposed alternative actions result from their influence on land
utilization and development.   In this analysis only the major second-
ary impacts of each alternative were considered.  While secondary
impacts can effect all facets  of the environment, some are of such
minor or ephemeral nature as not to play a significant role in the
decision making process to which the EPA Construction Grants Program
must adhere.  This section discusses the pertinent secondary impacts
and effects of the Proposed Project and alternatives  in terms of
their general overall impacts  and specific differences.

The Secondary Impacts of the Proposed Project  (South  Park Elk
Feedground Stabilization Pond)

     The secondary impacts  of  the Proposed Project are of a greater
potential consequence than those imposed by construction of the facili-
ty.  The secondary impacts on  Jackson area water  quality are mainly de-
pendent upon the potential population increase which  in turn is
related to the amount of land  area  made developable by the availa-
bility of certral sewer facilities.  By removing  the  primary growth
constraint (vvastewater disposal) , the entire South Park area would
be "opened up" and a less intensive scattered  growth  pattern is
likely to occur.  Lower land costs  and  sewer capacity in the outly-
ing areas of Teton County are  also  likely to make sites originally
unsuitable for construction much more attractive.  The existing
agricultural land uses would largely be replaced  by rural residen-
tial development.

    If inadequate septic systems were allowed to be installed  in anticipation
of connecting to the central sewer at a later date, then groundwater quality
in South Park may be adversely affected during tnis interim period.
                               V-25

-------
 Increased densities potentially served by the extended interceptor
 and central treatment plant and the associated construction and
 paving activity,  will facilitate increased impervious surface
 and storm water flows.   This alteration in the natural topography
 and drainage patterns can also effect the hydrologic regime and
 flooding problems along the Snake River throughout the study area.

      Secondary impacts  of the proposed action on the air and acoustic
 quality in the Jackson  area result from the long-range effects of
 increased population and resultant development patterns on ambient
 environmental quality.   Since sewers,  like highways, can lead to
 the conversion of large areas of land to residential development,
 air and noise pollution will likely be aggravated by the additional
 trips generated and miles traveled to the Town of Jackson employment
 and commercial center as a result of widespread development acitivity.
 The overall increase would be minor in terms of the general back-
 ground levels in  the summers,  but they will be a substantial increase
 over the localized levels in South Park.

      The most significant secondary impacts on wildlife would involve
 the gradual encroachment of residential development throughout South
 Park,  and it's effect on the existing habitat.   While it may take a
 number of years before  any effects are noticed,  the growth promoted
 by the plant and  interceptor would cause an increase in development
 activity in, the area, which tends to displace wildlife and alter
 migration and behavior  patterns  and critical habitats.   It is also
 possible that the additional removal of Elk Feedground land for
 future expansion  could,  during a severe winter,  force animals off
 the refuge and onto private lands in search of forage.

      The major secondary social-cultural  impacts would be those
 associated with the change in  life styles and scenic values that
 would  be forced upon the existing South Park residents and the area
 in general if the proposed interceptor line facilitated high density
 development throughout  the area.   Extension of the interceptor could
 in essence change the remaining  agricultural land of the area into
 a  sprawling residential  subdivision if economic  and development
 pressures  were favorable.

     In  the absence  of  a  detailed local economic study,  a transpor-
 tation plan,  and  other  issue oriented  studies,  it is impossible to
 attach an  absolute  value  to  the  major  land use  related  secondary cost
 impacts  associated with  the  Proposed Project.   In estimating any
 secondary  costs it  is necessary  to  make a number of  assumptions.
 In regard  to  the  Proposed  Project (and other  alternatives)  these
would include:

     1.  The  removal of  South  Park  development constraints  by
         constructing the  interceptor  line  to the Elk Feedground.
         This would open up  essentially the entire area for
         development.

     2.  Development in  South  Park would occur primarily as  single
         family units at medium densities  (1 unit per acre).
                               V-26

-------
     3.  Cost of developing municipal services would be borne by
         the South Park residents through a local agency  (Town or
         County).

     In the publication "The Cost of Sprawl"  (prepared for
 the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 1974) a detailed cost analysis was prepared
for various development patterns.  It was concluded that low to
medium density sprawl type development, which has characterized
the existing development in the South Park area, and which would
be expected to continue if the interceptor line were available to
remove wastewater restraints, is one of the most expensive forms
of residential growth.  Services are difficult and expensive to
supply and total consumption of resources is highest when piece
meal growth occurs.  "Leap frog" development which tends to move
residents farther and farther away from necessary central facilities
is extremely costly for both the individual residents and the
community as a municipal unit.

     Of the various optional sites considered, the Elk Feedground
opens up the most available land for development by providing gravity
wastewater collection and treatment facilities and therefore would
be expected to have the greatest associated secondary costs.  The
actual cost per acre or per development unit would be related to
the amount, location and density to which the land was developed.
Municipal capital development cost figures for the type of low
density mixed sprawl development, which would be expected in the
South Park area if wastewater facilities were available to allow
unlimited growth, run as high as $165 million (The Cost of Sprawl,
1974) for a 10,000 unit residential development.  Annual operating
expenses for such facilities and services would require from
$100,000 to $200,000 for the first 10 years.  While one would not
anticipate 10,000 units developing in South Park in the foresee-
able future, sufficient land could be made available by providing
access to a centralized treatment system, which the proposed plan
would provide.  If additional land is available for development
outside the areas contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, then the
capacity of the system could be exhausted well before the design
period (similar to what occured with the existing system) and the
community would be forced into a premature expansion.  Such an
expansion would be at the Town's expense and could have considerable
economic implications.

     In addition to the obvious secondary economic impacts, the
utilization of 20 plus acres of Elk Feedground land would remove it
from forage and hay production, forcing the Department of Game and
Fish to either purchase more winter hay or reduce the size of the
wintering elk herd.  It would also have a minor impact on the
summer recreational value of the land and may reduce, to a small
extent, the revenues brought into the community from hunting and
fishing.
                               V-27

-------
 Secondary Impacts of the Alternatives

 Alternative A-l  (New Mechanical Plant at Existing Site)
      Maintaining Jackson's wastewater facility at the existing site
 will probably reduce the overall magnitude of its secondary impacts,
 as compared to the Proposed Project, by limiting the amount of land
 serviced by the new facility.  The proposed land use element for
 the "Jackson and Vicinity Comprehensive Plan" has identified pro-
 jected population growth, and developable land within the central
 sewer service area necessary to accommodate the growth.  The pro-
 posed "Teton County Comprehensive Plan" has also identified the
 growth potential and environmental constraints for the county.
 Long term secondary land use impacts of construction of a new mechan-
 ical plant at the existing site will probably include more compact
 growth patterns.  The extent of rural residential development will
 be reduced by existing environmental considerations including steep
 slopes,  flood plains, and high groundwater tables.  By discouraging
 development in these areas,  additional public costs for flood
 protection and other public  services will also be reduced.  Other
 land uses including commercial and industrial will probably be
 encouraged to develop within or adjacent to the Town of Jackson due
 to sewer availability and customer proximity.

      Existing farming and livestock operations would not be subjected
 to major long term impacts.   Irrigated land area and grazing patterns
 probably will not be effected.   Secondary impacts on elk migration
 routes and existing wildlife habitats will also be minimized.

      Although precise impacts on land use and ownerhsip cannot be
 determined from existing information, land values within the sewer
 service  area are likely to increase due to the reduced amount  of
 land available for urban development.  Values  in the outlying  non-
 contiguous areas will probably  remain essentially unchanged, but
 increase as  the population within the sewer service area increases
 and the  service area expands.

      The secondary long term water quality impacts on Flat Creek
 water  quality  are very  difficult to identify because the impact of
 numerous diverse nonpoint sources in the study area have not been
 determined,  and the  Town of  Jackson and Teton  County have not  adopted
 a  well^defined  growth policy.   Higher density  growth will probably
 occur  in and  immediately contiguous to the sewer service area  through
 implementation  of  this  alternative.   This  type of growth pattern,
 if properly phased,  is  likely to improve area  wide surface water
 quality  over the  long term by providing phased and cost  effective
 wastewater treatment.   The potential for health hazards  from septic
 tanks will reduce  as  central  facilities  become available and these
 systems  are phased out.   Groundwater quality will probably be
 improved because of  the  higher  treatment efficiency  provided by a
 central  treatment  system.

     Although it is probable that  localized urban runoff will increase
to Flat Creek with the additional  population serviced by the facility,
the alternative encourages development which is more easily adapt-
able to structural and non-structural  storm runoff controls.  Land


                               V-28

-------
use measures, storm drains, special detention and treatment basins,
proper street cleaning and regulation of construction activities all
facilitated by phased growth, will reduce the potentially adverse
impacts on water quality.

     Long term secondary impacts on air quality, although dependent
on the amount of growth realized, will likely create some increase in
air polutant levels.  Increases in S02 concentrations will probably
be the most significant as a result of more compact growth patterns
and the concurrent increase in stationary fuel combustion sources
(i.e. residential heating systems).  Particulate concentrations will
also increase with projected increases in residential and commercial
stationary sources.  Increases in CO levels resulting from additional
and concentrated automobile use will probably be offset by compact
development which requires less vehicle miles traveled and is more
easily adopted to urban transit modes.

     The only significant impact to the natural community resulting
from this alternative would be the improvement of water quality
in Flat Creek.  Improved Flat Creek water quality would protect and
maintain the fishery values and prevent any barrier to fish move-
ment that may be generated by increasing low quality effluent dis-
charges.

     The secondary economic impacts of this alternative are again
related to the amount of land serviced by the facility-  Alternative
A-l could provide gravity sewer service to the high density areas
proposed by the draft Comprehensive Plan.  Sewer service would not
be available to much of the area south of the plant site without
the addition of pump stations and force mains.  This physical re-
straint would help to maintain and preserve the capacity of the
system for those areas of planned development and restrict any
extensive southward expansion.  Implementation of this alternative
has the practical effect of eliminating the necessity of expanding
municipal services to areas outside the immediate vacinity of
Jackson, but could create the need for an entirely new facility
once the proposed growth area reaches saturation.

Alternative A-2 (Boyles Hill Mechanical Plant)
     During the five year period (1970-1975)  the Town of Jackson's
population increased from 3,196 to 4,150 (Livingston and Associates,
1976).  Projections indicate that this rate of growth will likely
continue.  The major secondary impacts of construction of a mechani-
cal plant at Boyles Hill are similar to Alternative A-l related to
the moderate increase in land area made potentially serviceable by
the facility-  Land use changes are likely to occur more rapidly
in this area with sewer avialability, the population growth poten-
tially occurring at a faster rate.   The most obvious long term land
use change will probably be the gradual conversion of grazing and
irrigated agriculture uses to a somewhat dispersed, rural residen-
tial-type development.  Public costs associated with providing
other urban or semi-urban services will probably increase owing
to the moderately increased land area made serviceable by the
                              V-29

-------
 interceptor extension.  Local residents may also be  subjected  to
 some change in  life style due to increased urban development and
 population in the proposed service area.

     The long term secondary impacts on water quality of  this  alter-
 native  in the Snake River, Spring Creek and Crane Creek are primarily
 related to construction activities, and increased storm runoff peak
 flows associated with additional paved areas, all facilitated  by
 sewer availability-  Secondary impacts of this alternative on  local
 groundwater quality are also related to accompanying land use
 changes.  Groundwater recharge in the area may be reduced, if  the
 area is subjected to extensive suburban development and paving
 without consideration for necessary open space, resulting from
 sewer availability.  The potential for health hazards, however, will
 be reduced with the replacement of individual waste disposal systems
 by central sewer facilities as long as no new development is allowed
 to proceed without being required to connect to a centralized  waste-
 water system (wetline policy).

     Long term secondary impacts on air quality and noise levels
 of this alternative will be similar to Alternative A-l, and include
 increased concentrations for most air quality parameters, and
 increases in background noise levels.  This alternative will likely
 promote additional growth in areas not previously serviced by  central
 sewers.  The result will be slightly longer travel distances to
 the employment and trade center.

     Alternative A-2 will eliminate a portion of the natural environ-
 ment surrounding Boyles Hill and displace those species dependent
 upon this area.  Since this is not a particularly ciritcal area in
 terms of wildlife habitat, and has in the past been subject to
 severe  land alteration, this impact will probably be minimal,  given
 the extensive amounts of available high quality habitat.

     If the system is designed and operated to meet Wyoming Class 1
 Water Quality Standards as expected, no deterioration in  the fishing
 potential of the Snake River is expected.  The alternative would
 protect Flat Creek from any point source degradation.

 Alternative A-3 (Boyles Hill Stabilization Pond)
     The secondary long term land use impacts involving construction
 of a lagoon system at the Boyles Hill site are similar to those
 discussed for Alternative A-2.   Although the overall land requirement
 of this alternative is somewhat larger than the area needed for
 construction of a new mechanical plant, the total area is not
 that significant in terms of long range secondary impacts.

Alternative A-4 (Mid-South Park Stabiiazation Pond)
     The secondary long term impacts on Jackson area land use
associated with construction of a stabilization pond system at the
Mid-South Park  site are similar to but not as extensive as those
for the Proposed Project.   A substantial land area north of the
treatment plant location along the Snake River flood plain will
                               V-30

-------
become potentially developable with the extension of a gravity
sewer system.  A major portion of this area is subject to periodic
inundation by flood waters.  The proposed "Teton County Comprehen-
sive Plan" does not eliminate low density development in the 25
and 50-Year Flood plains.  Sewer extension to these areas could,
in effect negate the limited development constraints proposed for
the flood plain hazard areas.  Flood damages in Teton County
presently amount to some $26,000 annually.  Losses are likely to
increase if additional development is allowed in these areas.
Federal funding assistance for levee maintenance may also be
jeopardized by allowing development in areas subject to extensive
flood damage.

     Secondary impacts resulting from implementation of this alterna-
tive are also related to the amount of vacant land area made avail-
able by providing central sewer service.  In the absence of conven-
tional regulatory mechanisms (i.e., zoning), a realtively large
area of land will become available for residential development with
implementation of this alternative.  Land use changes from pri-
marily agriculture-related to low density residential are likely to
occur.  The demand for additional public services will follow.
Over the long term, costs for providing these facilities and services
may not be justifiable.  In terms of total investment costs, for
example, numerous studies have shown that while the amount of land
used for schools and other public facilities is essentially the
same for all development densities, a higher density more compact
growth pattern uses about half as much land for transportation as
lower density sprawl-type development.  From a sociological stand-
point, increased densities also generally reduce the amount of time
that family members spend traveling to work, school, etc.

     Long term secondary impacts of this alternative on the study
area's surface and groundwater quality and hydrology are related
to the additional land area made serviceable through implementation
of the alternative.  Impacts are similar, but of less magnitude
than those discussed for the proposed action.  Increased flooding
may be experienced in the lower South Park area as new developments
and additional paved surface area occur.  Peak runoffs can be
reduced by maintaining planned open space areas and providing adequate
drainage facilities for any new development.  The impacts on wild-
life and habitat for Alternative A-4 are similar to those for the
Boyles Hill or existing site in terms of secondary growth inducing
factors.  With the application of architectural finishing and land-
scaping utilizing trees and other small shrubs the available habitat
for a number of small species could be improved over the limited
available grassland habitat which currently characterizes the
area.

     The major difference in social impacts between this alternative
and A-l through A-3 is that the location is further removed and not
centered in the projected high density development area.  While
there are almost no existing residential developments in this area
of South Park which would be effected by construction activity, the
                              V-31

-------
operation of  the pond may create minor air  and noise  problems
similar to those identified for Alternative A-3 as  the area  developed

Alternative A-5   (South  Park Road  Stabiliaztion Pond)
      Long term  secondary impacts of  Alternative A-5 in the Jackson
study area are  similar to those for  the proposed action, and include
increased residential development, a gradual reduction in grazing
and  irrigated agriculture land, and  additional development in  the
flood plain areas of the Snake River and Flat Creek.   This type of
development is  likely to result in long range environmental  problems.
The  secondary economic impacts of A-5 are almost identical to  the
Proposed Project.  The amount of private land in South Park  which
is made available for higher density development is approximately
90 percent of that opened up by the  Elk Feedground site.  That
additional 10 percent (roughly 1000  acres)  lies at the southern most
portion of South Park, boardering the Elk Feedground.   Because of
its  relatively  isolated  location and general  topographic features,
this 1000 acres  is least likely to be put into residential develop-
ment.   The economic impacts to local agriculture and recreation
associated with  the loss  of Elk Feedground  potential would not be
a factor if the  A-5 site  were selected.

     The secondary wildlife and habitat inpacts of this alternative are
basically the same as those for the Proposed Project, with the exception
that the Elk Feedgrounds are preserved intact.  Effects on elk migration
routes and behavior patterns can also probably be measured in terms of new
residential development facilitated by the  project.   Since the private polo-
grounds are close to this site, some adverse impact on this recreational
activity could also be expected due to odor or aesthetic appearance.

Alternative A-6 (Interim Upgrading of Existing Treatment Plant)
     Although interim upgrading of the existing facility would initially
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate  current development trends, popu-
lation growth within the Jackson sewer service area will undoubtedly continue
until such time as treatment capacities are again exceeded.  When this capacity
is reached, additional development will probably have to be accommodated
outside the service area on individual waste disposal systems.  The situation
is further complicated by the fact that,  once the Town of Jackson has exercised
its priority in terms  of EPA funding to upgrade the existing plant, it is  un-
likely that additional federal funding assistance will become immediately
available to construct a new facility.  Thus, additional pressures for suburban
"sprawl type" development are likely to result.

     If the projected  1990 high range population of 14,700 for Teton County
is realized, the associated long range environmental and economic inpacts  of
accommodating a significant amount of the population on septic tanks and pro-
viding the necessary public services and facilities will be far-reaching.  There
is presently no reason to believe development in the Jackson area will not
continue.  Additional  sewers and services will be necessary to sustain local
population, tourist, and comnercial growth. The possibility of the
                             V-32

-------
.. EXISTING  WWTP

  I
                                               ALTERNATIVE A-3a 21" GRAVITY
LINE 4"FM
 .INE
                                             "ALTERNATIVE A 3b 27"GRAVITY
                                       	ALTERNATIVE A 3c 18" FM
                          SCALE I Z40OO
                              0
                                         rocoriiT
                                                                                     Figure 23

-------
State requiring the imposition of growth controls  in order to main-
tain the plant within its capabilities may be another major secondary
impact resulting from this alternative.  When the  plants capacity
is again exceeded, the Town will find itself with  Flat Creek water
quality problems, and will undoubtedly be forced by the State of
Wyoming to seek another solution in order to maintain instream water
quality.

Alternative A-7  (No Action)
     Secondary impacts resulting from the implementation of the
"no action" alternative are dependent on the growth policy adopted
by the Town of Jackson and Teton County.  While growth will undoubt-
edly continue throughout the study area, inadequate sewer capacity
within the Town of Jackson sewer service area and  implications of
non-compliance with Town's NPDES permit may direct new residential
development to outlying areas of the County.  It is estimated that
between 1,600 and 2,800 new housing units will be  needed to meet
the projected 1980 Jackson population.  This development would
occur at lower densities serviced by individual waste disposal
systems, as defined in the proposed "Teton County  Comprehensive
Plan" because of environmental constraints already discussed.
This low density sprawl type development, besides  increasing the
potential for ground and surface water contamination, also promotes
higher costs for the eventual servicing with public facilities and
utilities including sewer, water, schools, transportation and police
and fire protection.  Although a moratorium on new construction
in the Town of Jackson is unlikely, some communities have been
forced into similar moratoria actions until additional sewer capacity
is built.
                                      -^  -Jfer^f^t-—•
                                      ^ffrS.*^ •'-•i&yv^-
                                      SK***'. i-^'/W-
                               V-33

-------

-------
SOUTH PARK

-------
                           SECTION VI

                UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
                 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
GENERAL

     This discussion of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Potential
Mitigation Measures is divided into three broad categories:  Short
Term Construction, Long Term Construction and Operational.  This
will provide an overview of the significant impacts and some
possible mitigation measures that could be taken to reduce the
impacts of the Proposed Project and its alternatives.

     Short Term Construction refers to those impacts involving
actual construction of any facilities.  Long Term Construction
includes those residual or chronic impacts that result from the
initial construction but persist after completion of construction.
Operational are impacts resulting from the operation and use of
the facilities.  Since these are essentially the same for most
of the alternatives, they will be discussed under the topic cate-
gories pointing out impacts and important differences.


SHORT TERM CONSTRUCTION

     The Short Term Construction impacts would be generally the
same for all of the projects considered.  Such things as-dust,
noise, and increased traffic congestion from pipeline installation
and movement of construction materials would be a minor problem
connected with any alternative selected.  These impacts are nor-
mally controlled through provisions in the construction specifica-
tions which delineate when and how construction will take place.
When specifications are properly written and enforced, these
impacts are held to a minimum.

     The installation of an outfall line to the Snake River will
require careful coordination with both the Wyoming Department
of Game and Fish and the U.S. Forest Service.  Any vegetation
disturbed or removed during the installation of either the inter-
ceptor or outfall line will require revegetation with native
shrubs and grasses.  Construction should take place after the
irrigation season when flow in the Snake should be at a minimum.
It may be necessary to seek a flow alteration from the Bureau
of Reclamation to minimize the water quality impacts and bottom
disturbance from the placement and securing of a deep channel
outfall.  It is inevitable that some silt and detritus will be
discharged as a result of this construction, but proper timing and
care with instream construction should help reduce its impacts.
Any instream dredging or other hydrologic modifications will re-
quire a Corps of Engineers 404 permit before work could proceed.
                               VI-1

-------
     Any expansion of the existing facility could create some  short
 term water quality problems if it were necessary to  interrupt  ser-
 vice during construction.   Bypassing to the polishing pond or
 directly to Flat Creek would require the prior approval of the
 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and could only be
 considered on a limited basis during interfacing of the new fa-
 cilities with the old.


 LONG TERM CONSTRUCTION

     Long Term Construction impacts differ on a project-by-project
 basis.  While it is difficult to assess the overall impact a waste-
 water  facility has upon a community or groups within the community,
 the long term visual impacts of the plant and its appurtenances
 are related to its proximity and landscaping.  Generally, one would
 assume that the more visual a facility is and the closer it is
 to a residential area, the greater the impact.

     A major problem that must be resolved during the design phase
 of this project will be the proper locating of any Snake River
 outfall in a reliable channel.  Since the river meanders during
 periods of flow fluctuation, the placing of the outfall line to
 receive consistently high effluent dilution will assist in main-
 taining localized water quality-

     The most significant specific long term construction impacts
 involve the loss of land and habitat at the South Park Elk Feed-
 ground, the potential impacts an outfall from any of the alterna-
 tives may have on the Snake River and its potential classification
 in the Wild and Scenic River System,  and the secondary impacts
 of facilitated growth that the two most southern South Park sites
 would entail.  The magnitude of any long term impacts the pro-
 posed outfalls would have on the Snake River could be mitigated
 greatly by the implementation of construction methods and material
 conforming to the local terrain.  Unfortunately, any construction
 on the South Park Elk Feedground represents a loss in habitat
which cannot be readily replaced.  The development of a treatment
 facility and interceptor lines at either the South Park Elk Feed-
ground site or the South Park Road site will relieve the physical
growth restrictions on large areas of land outside the high density
residential areas proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan.   This
action represents a very real negative impact on the Town/County
planning process and goals developed for comprehensive land use
planning.


OPERATIONAL

     While both the proposed project and each of the alternatives
have their individual operation impacts,  these are generally related
to the type of treatment process and efficiency of the transmission
 facilities.
                              VI-2

-------
     The Proposed Project and the South Park Road alternative
both utilize aerated stabilization ponds and require long inter-
ceptor lines.  An aerated stabilization pond has the general
characteristic of requiring little operator attention, lower
energy demands than a full mechanical plant, and is much less
expensive to operate.  These are positive attributes, and where
land and sufficient buffer areas are available and climatic factors
are right, the selection of this type of system is favored.  The
operation of a stabilization pond system has the disadvantages
of low winter efficiency, freezing problems, possible spring and
summer odor problems, and a wide variability in the quality of
the effluent produced depending upon loading, design and climatic
conditions.  Systems that require excessively long pipelines
with initial flows much less than the ultimate design flow have
a number of operational impacts.  These include the potential for
odors escaping from manholes as a result of low velocities and
corresponding long detention times, the problem of solids settling
out in the line, and the eventual need for flushing and cleaning.
As a general rule, a shorter interceptor line in an area with
Jackson's characteristics has fewer associated operating and
maintenance problems.

     A complete mechanical plant, as proposed in Alternatives A-l,
A-2 and the proposed interim improvement A-6, will normally function
on a consistently higher level of efficiency-  A mechanical plant,
however, has operating expenses approximately 2.5 times that of
an aerated stabilization pond.  It also has a significantly high
energy demand and may generate some localized odors.  While much
of the energy needed in space heating can be reduced by enclosing
and insulating the critical areas, the mechanical process is highly
energy dependent.

     The availability of electrical energy has become a critical
issue in Teton County.  Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc., has
stated that without additional transmission capabilities it can
no longer supply the demands of new development.  The existing
treatment plant has difficulty operating reliably during the cold
winter months when residential electrical heating demand is highest.
Electrical power is reduced to a level where the mechanical equip-
ment with a high power demand (aerators and pumps) will not operate
effectively.

     In order to reduce the energy demands and make the system
more energy efficient, several options should be investigated
during the design phase of the project.  Such items as the proper
installation of work areas, local temperature control, and site
selection and orientation for highest solar efficiency should be
incorporated into any design as a standard feature.  The EPA will
also require that consideration of other more innovative energy
solutions be considered.  Energy alternatives such as solar power
for heating and future energy production may or may not be feasible
in the Jackson area at this time.  But regardless of the present
technology, provision should be included in order that these can
be added if perfected at a later date.  The energy alternatives
                              VI-3

-------
such as methane generation through anaerobic sludge digestion,
while technically feasible, cannot be considered a practical
solution from an operations and reliability of treatment efficiency
standpoint.   Anaerobic digesters can be difficult to maintain
for a small community and demand precise temperature control, which
could require the addition of energy from an outside source.

     The County is currently investigating alternative methods
of disposing of solid waste.  One option which has been suggested
by the County's engineers is to incinerate the combustible por-
tion at a site adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant.  Heat
generated during the process could be recycled for space heating
and sludge drying.  This implementation of the plan would depend
upon a number of regulatory and institution agreements along with
the solution to the technical and operations problems.

     If the Town of Jackson wished to pursue an aggressive energy
conservation program which employed exotic or untested technology,
the EPA may not be in a position to fund those portions of the
project under the normal P.L. 92-500 funding process.   The Town
may have to seek research and development funding and  present the
plant as a demonstration project.   A final decision on this would
need to be developed by the EPA Regional Administrator.
                                                         f.
                             VI-4

-------
SECTION

-------
SOUTH PARK

-------
                          SECTION VII

      IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
     There are no truly irreversible or irretrievable primary
environmental impacts or significant resource commitments generated
by either the Proposed Project or its alternatives.  While the
construction of a wastewater treatment facility will utilize and
commit a certain amount of land and building material, any of
the options considered could be demolished or abandoned and returned
to their near original condition at a later date if necessary.

     A buried pipeline of the type proposed utilizes negligible
land area, exerts little restriction on surface development (lo-
cated in an existing highway right-of-way), has little, if any,
effect on natural habitat, and involves no appurtenant structures
that could not be abandoned and removed should the need arise.

     The secondary irreversible impacts are of more significance
and of a less definitive nature.  Commercial and residential de-
velopment, other changes in existing land use and habitat structure
and secondary pollution could all be essentially irreversible and
result in long term effects within the region.  The pattern and
degree of impact exerted within the area would depend upon the
impetus for Jackson's expansion.  If, after the installation of
wastewater facilities, the expected growth did not occur in the
area (due to a variety of previously discussed possibilities),
then the total impact would be minor.  The changes in population
density patterns and land use are the major irreversible commit-
ments that could occur as a result of any of the projects discussed.

     The Proposed Project or its alternatives are of such small
scale that any material resource commitment attributable to it
would be slight.  The use of steel, concrete and other construc-
tion materials may be assumed irreversible given the present
state of recycling technology.  Energy commitments are significant
for the operational needs.  The project would also require rela-
tively minor amounts of fuel during the construction period.

     The "No Action" alternative could have an impact on the
water quality of Flat Creek if the present system were allowed to
continue with the expected population growth.  The fishery in Flat
Creek could be permanently destroyed if the degradation were
allowed to continue.
                              VII-l

-------
SEGTION

-------
JACKSON'S  EXISTING WASTEWATER.
    TREATMENT FACILITY

-------
                          SECTION VIII

    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
  AND THE MAINTENANCE OR ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
          OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE ALTERNATIVES
     The short term uses of the study area in relation to the long
term productivity of the region for the Proposed Project and the
alternatives are described in this section.  in terms of the
general short term uses, both the Proposed Project and its al-
ternative, with the exception of the "no action" option, will
provide the necessary degree of protection to the overall future
water quality of the region, given the expected growth and de-
velopment.

     The long and short term productivity within the study area
is closely related to community and tourist services and resi-
dential development.  Since other land resource potentials are
not of a major importance  (agriculture, timber, mining, etc.),
the uses which can be applied to the region are limited for the
most part to its recreational, agricultural  and residential
holding capabilities, life styles and aesthetic values and are
evaluated under this assumption.

     Basically, the availability of wastewater facilities would
increase the potential for immediate commitment to additional
residential and commercial development, while a lack or delay
in acquiring these facilities would maintain the current charac-
teristics of the area.
PROPOSED PROJECT  (SOUTH PARK ELK FEEDGROUND STABILIZATION POND)

     The Proposed Project will pro0vide the potential for complete
collection and interception of wastewater throughout South Park.
It will eliminate the continued reliance on individual septic tank
systems in the lower South Park area and help protect the ground
water quality of the region.  The project could  (if legal under
the present federal regulations) remove approximately 20 acres
of elk feedground from its original intended purpose and set a
precedent for the appropriation of additional land.

     This proposal would also facilitate suburban development
and commercial growth and could alter present characteristics of
the area and future uses.  As a result of this associated growth,
wastewater loads would increase, and drainage and storm water
runoff could be accelerated due to the removal of existing vege-
tation.  While the project in itself would not significantly
limit the existing or potential uses of the area's resources, the
secondary consequences will allow for additional unplanned growth
within the study area, which could conceivably affect future land
resource uses within the region.  Some individual hardships would
result due to the assessments required to finance the project.
                             VIII-1

-------
Land owners contemplating development of their property would
benefit from the availability of services.  Much of this develop-
ment would not be in accord with the expected local planning goals
and objectives and would occur in areas not anticipated or des-
ignated  for residential/commercial activities.


ALTERNATIVE A-l  (NEW MECHANICAL PLANT AT EXISTING SITE)

     The expansion of the existing facility would limit gravity
interception of wastewater to approximately those areas proposed
for higher density growth in the draft comprehensive plan.  Since
this area is presently more impacted by residential and commercial
development than the rest of South Park, no significant effect on
the long term productivity of the study area is anticipated.


ALTERNATIVES A-2, A-3, AND A-4 (BOYLES HILL MECHANICAL PLANT,
BOYLES HILL STABILIZATION POND, MID-SOUTH PARK STABILIZATION POND)

     These alternatives would result in essentially the same
long term productivity impacts as the expansion of the existing
system.  The same general area can be serviced which corresponds
closely to the proposed residential development area.  Approxi-
mately the same amount of growth can be facilitated.  The existing
proposed growth pattern would be preserved and no commitment to
any additional growth be made.


ALTERNATIVE A-5  (SOUTH PARK ROAD STABILIZATION POND)

     Alternative A-5 has the same type and magnitude of impacts
on long-term productivity as the Proposed Project.  As discussed
in a previous section, slightly less land can be serviced by this
alternative as opposed to the Proposed Project.  However, in general,
the same area would be expected to be placed into residential
or high density development.  This site preserves the long term
values of the Elk Feedground and isolates the sewerable areas to
a region above the South Park Road.  This alternative could remove
the development constraint imposed by individual waste disposal
systems throughout most of South Park.


ALTERNATIVE A-6  (INTERIM UPGRADING OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT)

     Alternative A-6 would serve only in a temporary role, pro-
viding only a minimum of increase capacity after the correction
of the infiltration/inflow problem.  The productivity of the study
area will not be affected by the implementation of this alterna-
tive provided that the city restricts the number of connections
until additional facilities are available.
                             VIII-2

-------
ALTERNATIVE A-7 (NO ACTION)

     If a "No Action" alternative was adopted and the Town of
Jackson was  to continue in its present pattern, the long term
values and productivity of Flat Creek would eventually be de-
stroyed.  The cumulative impacts of point and nonpoint discharges
may require a number of years to become noticeable, but the exist-
ing treatment facility cannot continue to process the expected
wastewater flow at a level necessary to protect public health.
                             VIII-3

-------

-------
FLAT CREEK AT THE SOUTH PARK
     ELK FEEDGROUNDS

-------
                           SECTION IX

        EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
                        AND ALTERNATIVES
GENERAL

     In preparing this document, all feasible and legal options
were evaluated along with a "No Action" alternative.  The deter-
mination of possible alternatives was based upon:

     1.  Existing studies and the existing facility plan for
         the Town of Jackson.

     2.  Discussion with pertinent agency personnel.

     3.  Field review of the study area.

     4.  Consideration of the issues which necessitated the
         writing of this EIS.

     The project originally proposed by the Town and seven al-
ternatives were considered and evaluated relative to natural en-
vironmental resources, social-cultural aesthetic values and
regulations, economic requirements and land use planning.  These
alternatives include:

        Proposed Project - Elk Feedground Stabilization,Pond
        Expansion of the existing facility (A-l)
        Mechanical facility at Boyles Hill (A-2)
        Stabilization Pond Boyles Hill  (A-3)
        Stabilization Pond Mid South Park Site  (A-4)
        Stabilization Pond South Park Road Site  (A-5)
        Interim Modification to the existing facility (A-6)
        No Action (A-7)

     Both the primary and secondary impacts resulting from each
alternative were considered during the preparation of this EIS.
While it provides a comprehensive evaluation of the subject, this
is an issue-oriented document intended to focus on the key pro-
blems, controversies and considerations that have arisen regarding
the proposed project.  The document was not intended to be an all-
inclusive analysis of Teton County, but a succinct discussion of
the alternatives, pertinent issues, and impacts.

     The primary impacts are those resulting directly from im-
plementation of one of the possible alternatives (e.g., elimina-
tion of water quality problems, construction costs, odors, etc.).
Secondary impacts are those arising or resulting from concomitant
or consequential actions (e.g., facilitation of growth in areas
outside a proposed development area, cost of community services
as a result of growth, etc.).
                               IX-1

-------
     Since the existing wastewater facility is not capable of
meeting the proposed discharge requirements, it is considered
critical by both the EPA and Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality that additional treatment capacity be provided.  Because
of a variety of natural environmental constraints  (i.e., shallow
groundwater), individual septic tanks and leach field disposal
systems cannot accommodate the type and density of development
anticipated.

     The project proposed by the Town of Jackson, a South Park
Elk Feedground stabilization pond, has created a great, deal of
controversy and opposition.  This opposition has arisen not only
from organizations and agencies involved in wildlife protection
and management, but from the local citizenry.  It was because of
this opposition and controversy that the EPA decided to prepare
this EIS.
SUMMARY EVALUATION

     A summary of the impact assessment is presented in the
following matrix.  The matrix evaluation is restricted to the
consideration of significant environmental, economic, social-
cultural and land use impacts which are anticipated from each
of the alternatives.  Impacts of little general importance, or
of negligible difference between the alternatives, were excluded
from this summary to avoid unnecessary confusion.  The numbers
 (positive and negative) on the left side of the column or above
the slash represent primary impacts.  Those on the right-hand
side, below the slash, represent secondary impac'  .

     The relative importance of the specific assessment category
to the project area evaluated is assigned a weighting factor
from 1 to 3 and is shown in the right-hand column entitled
"Weighting Factors."

     These weighting factors are explained as follows:

     1.  Little, if any, extraordinary significance in the project
         area (e.g., no significant wilderness resource per se
         exists in the project area or is effected by the pro-
         posed project).

     2.  A significant consideration in the project area (e.g.,
         the South Park Elk Feedground).

     3.  Of extraordinary significance in the project area (e.g.,
         treated effluent discharges).

The number in the center of each rectangle is the product of the
weighting factor times the primary plus secondary impact rating.
                               IX-2

-------
     The matrix is of greatest value in comparing the impacts of
the various alternatives on a given assessment category  (e.g.,
"Wildlife") and in comparing the impacts on general-value cate-
gories (e.g., "Natural Environmental Values").  Its usefulness
is limited for measuring the total numerical impacts of an al-
ternative, and  is  not  intended  to  provide  a  collective  summary  of
the overall impacts.

     Several alternatives were so close in their impact that an
evaluation based solely on the numerical totals would be unjus-
tified.  The differences in numerical totals are within the error
inherent in this subjective evaluation procedure.  However, the
matrix is quite useful in exposing the logic and values assigned
by the assessment team, thereby encouraging a candid discussion
of the impacts.  It also tends to force the individual to con-
sider all the dimensions in assessing environmental impacts.

     The evaluation ratings and weighting factors are described
as follows:

Rating Assignment System for Evaluation Matrix

+5  Major long term, extensive benefit (highest possible rating).

+4  Major benefit, but characterized as either short term or of
    limited extent.

+3  Significant benefit; either long term covering a limited area,
    or short term covering an extensive area.

+2  Minor benefit, but of a long term or extensive nature.

+1  Minor benefit over a limited area.

 0  No impact.

-1  Minor adverse effects over a limited area.

-2  Minor adverse effects, but of a long term or extensive nature.

-3  Significant adverse effects; either long term covering a
    limited area, or short term covering an extensive area.

-4  Major adverse effects but characterized as either short term
    or of limited extent.

-5  Major long term, extensive adverse effects (lowest possible
    rating).
                              IX-3

-------
            TABLE 27




Environmental Evaluation Matrix
Significant Assessment
Categories
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
Air Quality (localized)
Water Quality (surface)
Water Quality (ground)
Wildlife
Fisheries
Vegetation and Habitat
Rare and Endangered Species
Natural Hazards
TOTAL
ECONOMIC
Local Capital Cost
0 & H Cost
Induced Development Costs
Individual Cost
UDSS of Ap . Prnrinp-hi vi t.v

SOCIAL- CULTURAL
Historic-Archaeological
Public Acceptability
Regulatory/Legal
Cultural Pattern (life style)
Aesthetics Values
Recreational Values

LAND USE PLANNING
Adherence to the Planning Proc
Growth Inducement
Growth Regulation
	
Proposed Project

y*A
y*A
y*A
y™A
y*A
y-*/*
y-v*
y-*A
-13

y-*/»
y-i/>
°/-Q/*
-/-*/*
°/-Z/4
22

"I/-} /
/ /z
'Y-^A
Y-*A
V-o,/*,
-y-6 /,
-y-*A
-24

X6X
Q/-s^
°/-s/*
-18
Alternative A-1

y-^A
y*A
y-2-A
y%
y*A
x°x
y%
y*/>
10

•XzX
-XeX
y-*A
-y-i/*
y%
-12

X1X
•1/-1 /n
1/4/<
y*A
YQ/^
1/1^
6

y*/*
°/6/,
y*/*
' 18
Alternative A-2

X-2X
X6X
X2X
X4X
X4X
X4X
x°x
y-2/,
0

"XeX
"XeX
y-2/,
y-*A
y-i^
-22

X1X
-y-2 /n
i/4/r
°/2/r
y*A
y^ /*
6

X4X
°/-*A
X6X
-2
Alternative A-3

X3X
X6X
X2X
X4X
X4X
X4X
X°X
X2X
3

-X4X
-l/o X
/ -2/0
°/2^
X-2^
^•2/1
-12

°/-1 Xf
X1/o
X4X
X2X
0/2 X
1/i/;
7

X4X
y~*A
y*A
-2
Alternative A-4

X3X
X6X
X2X
X4X
X4X
X4X
x°x
X-2X
3

-X4X
X2X
°/-2/4
-y-2/«
X-6 Xa
-16

X1X
1/1 <
y*/
X2X
X2X
1/1 X
9

X4X
°/4/^
y* A
-4
Alternative A-5

X-2X
X3X
X4X
X4X
x°x
X4X
XoX
X2X
-5

X4/
X2X
0/K /
/ -D/3
-1/0 /
/ -2/6
X-sX
-22

-1A/
X2X
y'-z/,
/ /-2
X4X
y~*A.
x°x
-16

X6X
/^6X
XeX
-18
Alternative A-6

x°x
X6X
x°x
x°x
X4X
x°x
x°x
XiX
9

XeX
XoX
°/oX
<^4^
y'o/^
^ -10

XoX
y~i A
X2X
x°x
y~2/o
XoX
-1

XeX
u/-1 /r
y*/2
-3
Alternative A-7

X-3X
X-6X
X4X
x°x
X6X
x°x
x°x
x°x
-19

°/fi X
/~6/X3
XoX
°/oX
X-eX
Xo/^
-12

x°x
X4X
XeX
y~2/o
-V-4 4
y~\/
-17

°^6/<
XoX
XT X
-7
Weighting Factor

1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1


2
2
2
2
2


1
1
2
?
?
1


2
2
2


-------

-------
EXAMPLE OF HOW TO READ THE H-JVIJOMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX

     Consider, for example, the differences under the category "Wildlife"
for the proposed project at the Elk Feedground site and Alternative A-l,
expansion at the existing site.  Under the proposed project the number
-10 appears, while under Alternative A-l the number 0 is in the "wildlife
box."  These numbers were obtained in the following manner:

     The upper left hand corner (in the case of the proposed project, -3)
is an evaluation of the primary impacts.  Since a facility located at the
Elk Feedground site would have a significant adverse effect on the elk herd,
a minus 3 was assigned to this impact (see previous page on rating system) .
The lower right hand corner (in this case, -2) is an evaluation of the secon-
dary impacts.  Since the Elk Feedground site would facilitate induced devel-
opment upon existing wildife habitat, not just elk but other species, notably
water fowl, this category received a minus 2 indicating minor adverse im-
pacts of extensive nature.  Now the total rating, the larger number in each
box, is arrived at with the following formula:

     Total rating = sum of primary impacts and secondary impacts times
the weighting factor.  In this case:

     Total Wildlife Rating
     for the proposed alternative = ±(-3)  + (-2)1x2

     Total Rating = -10

Also, in this example for the wildlife rating of Alternative A-l, both
primary and secondary impacts on wildlife were considered to be zero.  That
is, this alternative has no effect on wildlife since expansion at the existing
site does not affect wildlife, either during construction or by "opening up"
additional land to development that could displace wildlife.  Then, obviously,
the total rating for wildlife for Alternative A-l equals (0 + 0) x 2, which
equals zero.

     The reader should note that both the estimate of numerical values for
the primary and secondary impacts and the weighting factors are very subjective,
and the reader is invited to reassign these numbers in order to make his or
her own evaluation.  For example, it has been suggested to EPA that the follow-
ing categories should have higher weighting factors:  Public Acceptability,
Cultural Pattern, Aesthetics, Recreational Values, Fisheries, and Wildlife.
If this were done, it would increase the negative values for those alternatives
with poor showings in these categories  (the proposed project, South Park Road,
and no action), while increasing those with high positive values (Expansion
at the Existing Site, the Boyle's Hill alternatives, and Mid South Park).
EPA hopes the matrix is useful in summarizing the numerous impacts.
                                  IX-4

-------
REFERENCES

-------
                           REFERENCES
Bridger-Teton National Forest Supervisor;  October 20, 1976.
   Re. Snake River Wild & Scenic River Study - Jackson Wastewater
   Treatment Plant EIS.  Personal Communication.

Driver, B.L.; 1975.  Quantification of Outdoor Recreationists_
   Preferences.  In Research Camping and Environmental Education.
   Univ. Park, Pa~ Penn State HPER Ser. 11, p. 508.

California State Water Resources Control Board; January  1973.
   Water Quality Criteria.

Hayden, E.W.; 1969.  From Trapper to Tourist in Jackson Hole.

Livingston and Associates; January  1977.   Teton County Proposed
   Comprehensive Plan, Implementation Alternatives, and Water
   Quality Management Program.

               ; May 1976.  Teton County Growth and Development
   Alternatives (A Background Report for the Teton County Com-
   prehensive Plan).

               ; 1976.  Proposed County Plan and Action Program.
Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc.; December 1974.  Environmental
   Analysis Teton-Jackson 115,000-Volt Electric Transmission Line.

Love, J.D. and Reed, J.C.; 1971.  Creation of the Teton Landscape,
   Grand Teton Natural History Association.  Moose, Wyoming 83012.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.; 1972.  Wastewater Engineering:  Collection,
   Treatment, Disposal.  McGraw-Hill, New York.

James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.; 1976.  Survey
   of Nonpoint Source Pollution Programs for the State of Idaho
   Department of Health and Welfare.

National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality; April 1967.
   Water Quality Criteria.

Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk, Inc.; September 1976.  Working
   Paper No. 2 Preliminary Analysis of Wastewater Management Systems,

	     ; June 1976.  Water Facilities Investigation for
   the Town of Jackson.
               ; December 1975.  Sewer System Analyses and Evalua-
   tion, Jackson, Wyoming.
               ; January 1975.  Supplemental Report to the Facili-
   ties Plan for the Town of Jackson, Wyoming.

-------
               ; October 1974.  Facilities Plan Jackson, Wyoming.
Real Estate Research Corporation; April 1974.  The Cost of Sprawl -
   Detailed Cost Analysis (Prepared for CEQ, HUD, EPA).

Teton County; July 1970.  Master Plan for Teton County (prepared
   by Planning and Research Associates).

U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Electrification Administration;
   January 1976.  Final Environmental Impact Statement Transmission
   Line Teton to Jackson-115 kv.  USDA-REA-ES (ADM)-75-9-5.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; February 1976.  Special Flood Hazard
   Information - Snake River Wilson, Wyoming and Vicinity.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric
   Administration; 1973.  Earthquake History of the United States.
   Publication 41-1.

 	; 1976.  Earthquake Data File Summary. Document No.5.
               ; 1976.  Earthquake Data File-160-Km Radium Around
   Jackson, Wyoming.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1976.  Pre-publication copy
   Water Quality Criteria.

               ;  1974.  Manual for Preparation of Environmental
   Impact Statement for Wastewater Treatment Works, Facilities
   Plan, and 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII; February 1976.
   Ammonia Toxicity.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X; April 1973.
   Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  Federal In-
   surance Administration; March 1976.  Flood Hazard Boundary
   Map - Town of Jackson, Wyoming (Teton Co.).

U.S. Department of the Interior; February 1970.  Guidelines for
   Evaluating Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Areas.  Proposed
   for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
   Under Section 2, Public Law 90-542.

U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey; 1976.  A Plan
   for Study of Water and Its Relation to Economic Development
   in the Green River and Great Divide Basin in Wyoming.  Open
   File Report 76-349.

	; June 1976.  Hydrologic Effects of Hypothetical
   Earthquake-Caused Floods Below Jackson Lake; Northwest Wyoming.
   Open File Report 76-77.

-------
               ;  1975.   Discharge Measurements and Chemical
   Analysis of Water in Northwestern Wyoming.   Report No. 14.

  	;  August 1975.   Water Resources of Northwestern
   Wyoming.  Open File Report  75-409.

               ;  March 1974.   Water Resources  of Grand Teton
   National Park,  Wyoming.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality;  1976.   Wyoming Air
   Quality Standards and Regulations.

-------
 APPENDIX   1

REPORT BY WYOMING GAME
AND FISH REGARDING LAND
TRANSFER TO THE TOWN
OF JACKSON

-------
The following  information  is  contained  .in  .1  report  dated  February  24,  1976
to the Wyoming Game and  Fish  Commission from Webster  B. Jones with reference
to proposed sewerage  lagoons  on  the South  park  Feedground near  Jackson, Teton
County, Wyoming.

Pursuant to a request by the  Staff of the  Wyoming Game and Fish Department at a.
special Staff Meeting on February 2, 1976, I have compiled this report regarding
the prop-osal of the Town of Jackson, Wyoming to construct two sewage disposal
lagoons on the Department's South Park  Feedground near Jackson.

The purpose of this investigation is to  evaluate the  impact of  the  sewage instal-
lation on the South Park Unit to aid the Department in making an informed, fair
and legal decision.

To better understand  the situation, a basic  understanding of the Units history and
purpose is required.

The South Park Unit lies -eight miles south of Jackson along the north bank of the
Snake River.  The first  land  purchased  by  the Department was 450 acres in 1939 and
the second major acquisition  was 194 acres in 1941.  Acquisition of additional small
tracts through purchase  and exchange have  occurred since  that time bringing the total
to 6-36 acres.  In 1965,  561 acres of federal lands administered by  the Bureau of
t.,and Management were  leased by the Department under the Recreation  and Public Pur-
poses Act within the meander  lines of the  Snake River.  Fee lands owned by the
Department are shown  in pink  on  the map  in Appendix A.  Federal leased lands are
shown in yellow.

The purchase of this property was accomplished  through the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act.  This program allows federal participation up to  75 percent of the
purchase price of lands valuable to wildlife.   In order to receive  these funds, the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department was required by the Act  to enter into a Project
Agreement (Appendix B) stating that the State would use the acquired lands for the
wildlife purposes as outlined in the Project Statement and the Plans and Specifica-
tions.  In this case the Department stated that it planned to enclose the South Park
Feeding Ground with an elk-proof fence which would conserve the pasture for early
winter feed and prevent the elk  from damaging surrounding ranch property during the
winter feeding period.

Since the time of acquisition the feedground has proved to be a wise acquisition.-
At the present time, approximately 1,000 elk spend five months of the winter on the
Unit.  Without feedgrounds of this nature  the elk herds would not have sufficient
winter range to survive since historical winter ranges and migration routes have
been used for other purposes or blocked by the progress of civilization.

Most of the Unit is situated on  the flood plain of Flat Creek and the Snake River.
In 1957-58 the Department built an 800 foot  dike to keep the Snake River from
flooding into Flat Creek and thus inundating much of the Unit.   As may be expected
on an area possessing a high water table, there are high producing grass meadows
along Flat Creek and on the Snake River bottoms where the elk are fed.   Adjacent
to these areas are stands of cottonwood trees with an understory of shrubs and
herbaceous species which provide cover from weather and harassment without the elk
needing to leave the Unit.   Although eve-ry portion of the Unit is not used for the
feeding ground or for cover, a certain amount of open-space is required to provide
a buffer zone between the elk and adjacent human activities.


                                     -1-

-------
The elk-proof fence around the perimeter prevents game damage to adjacent private
lands.  Although the Unit is primarily u.'-.'d for elk, other species of wildlife
such as moose, deer, raptors, waterfowl .-!,-.•! upland game birds are also present.

During the summer months when the elk are on their summer range at higher eleva-
tions, the Unit sustains a high degree of use for public recreation.  Use by  the
general public between June 6th and November 30th has averaged 13,705 visitor days
per year for the last five years.  This does not include persons who walk from  the
highway on to the Unit.   Camps and campers average 1,000 per season.

The Boy Scouts of America use the area for ten weeks with an average of 80 boys
per week or 800 boys per season.

The Fcedground has been used for training for the National Field Dog Trials for
the past ten years.

It is the only free camping area in Jackson Hole and is used regularly by tourists,
residents and various organizations for picnics and overnight camping.

This is one of the few areas boaters can gain access from the highway to the Snake
River.

Approximately three hundred sixty two elk are harvested from this herd each year
providing 1,727 hunter days of recreation, as well as the economic contribution to
the State by  these hunters.  Five to ten deer are harvested from the Unit each year
and the Unit  provides one of the only areas open for waterfowl hunters.  During the
1975 Waterfowl Hunting Season there was an average of 5-10 hunters per day.

In 1975 there was an estimated 397 bank fishermen and 953 boat fishermen using the
Feedground as access to the Snake River during the summer months.  In addition to
this an estimated 500-1,200 fishermen used Flat Creek with two thousand, nine to
sixteen inch  cutthroat trout being stocked during the 1974 season.

On January 11, 1973, the Commission received a letter from Mayor Lester May (Appen-
dix C) proposing that the City of Jackson enter into a long term lease with the
Wyoming Game  and Fish Department to construct two sewage lagoons on fifteen acres
of the South Park Elk Feedground.

A committee of three staff members of the Department was appointed to investigate
the proposal.  They were Rex Corsi, Chief Game Warden; Cliff Bosley, Assistant
Chief Fish Warden; and Jon Ogden, Chief Engineer.  Their findings (Appendix D)
were presented to the Commission on January 17, 1973 where the Commission voted to
deny the request (Appendix E).  A letter (Appendix F) was sent to the City of
Jackson on February 17, 1973 which summarized the findings of the Committee and
notified them of the Commission's action.

On March 21,  1973, President Crowell advised (Appendix G) the new members of the
Commission concerning the previous action of the Commission toward the City of
Jackson proposal.

On April 11, 1973, members of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission met with Mayor
Lester I. May and Councilman Howard Walters .(Appendix II) to clarify the reasons for
the Commission's actions so that there was no misunderstanding.   At that time, it
was explained that Federal Aid Funds had been used to acquire the South Park

-------
Feedground.  Mr. White was directed to m.ii-ict officials of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to ascertain  if the Cor.;:    ;ion could legally sell or lease
the property and, if so, would il be neo   .iry to appraise the property.

On April 16, 1973, a letter of inquiry was written to the Area Manager of the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Mr. Burton W. Rounds (Appendix I).  A
reply was received on April 20, 1973 (Appendix J).  The letter said that:

    "We believe the proposed land transfer to the City of Jackson, Wyoming
     would indeed constitute a 'diversion of funds' within the meaning of
     Section 80.5 of the Federal Aid Manual, unless conditions outlined
     below could be met.  Such diversion would jeopardize your agency's con-
     tinued eligibility to receive Federal Aid funds, as described in Sub-
     section (b) of Section 80.5.

    "As you are aware, it would be necessary for you to submit an amendment
     to project documentation requesting permission to dispose of the land
     parcel in question.  Final approval would need to come from the Regional
     Director, Region 6, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.   Your request
     would need to be predicated on one of two precepts:

          (1) the land involved is no longer serving the purpose
              for which it was originally acquired;

          (2) the entity proposing to acquire the parcel is prepared
              to replace it 'in kind.

    "Regarding the first of these alternatives,  it is our understanding that the
     land in question is indeed serving the purpose for which it was acquired.
     We seriously doubt that our Bureau could approve of disposal as surplus
     to Management Unit needs.  Even if this could be established, it would be
     necessary to conduct a competent land appraisal and to fully reimburse the
     project at current market value.  Appraisal and reimbursement costs would
     need to be borne by a non-Federal interest.

    "Concerning the second alternative, we doubt that suitable replacement
     lands are available in the area.  The burden of locating and obtaining
     control of any replacement lands should properly rest with the City of
     Jackson.  The proposed replacement tract would need to meet your agency's
     criteria for the use intended.   It would,  of course, be necessary to ob-
     tain this Bureau's concurrence in your assessment of wildlife values for
     proposed replacement lands.   It would also  be necessary to provide proof
     of adequate legal control by you over the replacement tract itself.

    "Under these circumstances, we feel the City of Jackson should be encour-
     aged to seek alternative lands as a site for construction of the sewage
     lagoon."

On April 30, 1973 the letter from Mr. Rounds was read to the Commission (Appendix
K) after which Commissioner Hull moved that the  Commission reiterate its refusal
to the Town of Jackson to place a sewage lagoon  on the South Park Feedground for
the reasons previously stated and the additional reason as expressed in the letter
from the BSFW to the effect that such a lease or grant would be contrary to the
purpose for which the lands were acquired and would constitute a jeopardy to further
P-R Funds to the State of Wyoming.   Motion seconded by Commissioner Mankin and
carried.

-------
On May 4, 1973, Mr.  White sent a letter i :> the Town Council advising them of
the position taken by the U.S.F.W.S. in ;  ;vird to their request.

In October of 1974,  Nelson,  Haley,  Patte;.
-------
        Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheri. s and Wildlife are. the final
        agencies deciding on the merit;;   .  any proposed change of use.
        To date neither of these agenci    have approved the proposed
        change and do not intend to chŁm;,c their opinions on this matter.
        Their reasons are as follows:

        1.   The request for a change in  use of approximately 20 acres
            of the feeding site from range to a sewage treatment plant
            site would constitute a diversion of use and diversion
            of funds  from the original intent.

        2.   Any taking of such land for  use as a lagoon treatment site
            would require reimbursement  to both the federal government
            and to the Game Commission.   Reimbursement would have to be
            in the form of direct purchase and/or replacement in kind of
            similar land lost by the diversion of use.  The federal
            government and the Game Commission would have to approve
            any such  transaction with  costs of land appraisals and land
            purchase  borne by the Town of Jackson.

        3.   The present feeding ground supports up  to 2,000 elk during
            the winter months on approximately 636  acres of Game
            Commission land and 561 acres of leased Bureau of Land Manage-
            ment property.  Game Commission biologists consider that
            the site  is already crowded  and that they cannot afford  the
            loss of 20 acres.

        4.   The Game  Commission knows  of no local property available in
            the South Park area which  could replace land lost to the
            treatment facility.  Any such land would have to be along
            established elk migration  routes, and an isolated 20 acre
            site would hardly appear to  be a manageable size for elk
            feeding purposes.

        5.   The Wyoming Game and Fish  Commission must look at the proposed
            Jackson request from the standpoint that approval of such
            action would set a possible  precedent for future "taking"
            of their  lands.   This would  weaken Commission control and
            regulation of all of their lands within the state and compli-
            cate sound, long-range management and planning for such
            property

    (b)   Any attempt  by the Town of Jackson, even with County support,  to
         take away land on the elk feeding area without the consent  of
         wildlife officials  will result  in controversy.   Vocal and powerful
         conservation and environmental  groups, both local and national,
         might enter  such a battle and delay any such action.

In conclusion, the plan states that:

    "In  view of the problems which Alternate 2 (South Park Site)  would  pose
    in terms of land  use and planning  for the South Park Area,  it appears
    that a better site should be found which will minimize some of these
    problems.   Many of the negative effects could be solved with proper
                                   -5-

-------
      planning and  regulations, but as su.-;. action does not appear to be
      soon  forthcoming, a less controvert  i site would be considered which
      will  serve  the Town's needs	 T i   alternate is the less expensive
      of  the  two  alternates using lagoons as treatment processes.  Its cost
      of  $1,564,000  (See Exhibit M) is the second lowest and would rate con-
      sideration  as a viable alternate or even most desirable of all alter-
      nates on strictly a cost basis.  However, environmental and political
      problems that would be encountered placed this alternate third in
      ranking.  Due  to the possibility of the lagoon effluent not meeting
      future  effluent standards without additional equipment, this alternate
      would be questionable to accomplishing contributions to future goals."

The  results  of the plan were presented to the Town Council on November 19, 1974
which recommended expansion of the present facility rather than the South Park
Feedground Site  (Exhibit N).  The Town Council, however, chose the South Park
plan over  the advice of their consultants.

The  proposal was discussed by the Commission again on January 19, 1976 at which
time Governor Herschler informed the Commission that a group from Jackson had
asked to meet with him that week concerning the acquisition of the South Park
Site (Exhibit 0).

At this  time it  is apparent that the Town of Jackson is continuing its quest to
acquire  a site on the South Park Unit from the Department.

There are not too many more points that can be added to those made by Rex Corsi,
Cliff Bosley and Jon Ogden (Exhibit D);  Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk, Inc.,
(Exhibit L); Carvice Roby,  Game Biologist (Exhibit P); or Max D.  Rollefson,  Area
Fisheries Biologist (Exhibit Q),  however, some of their more salient points  con-
cerning  the  impact of the sewage  lagoons  on the feedground  as  well  as  some of my
own  observations are discussed hereinafter.

Legal Aspects

From a legal standpoint it  is impossible for_the Department to sell or lease the
twenty acre  site to the Town of Jackson without the Commission declaring the land
surplus  to the needs of the Department,  advertising it for sale for three consecu-
tive weeks in a newspaper in Teton County and then selling it to the highest bidder
over the appraised value.   This is the procedure for disposing of surplus property
as outlined  by an interpretation  of the State Statute  by the Attorney General.   Ob-
viously a twenty acre tract in the middle of a 636 acre feedground cannot be declared
surplus  to the Department's needs.

Closely coupled to this,  is. the fact that the feedground was purchased with  75 per-
cent participation by the Federal Government through the Federal Aid to Wildlife
Restoration Act.   As interpreted  by the U.S.  Fish and  Wildlife Service (Exhibit J),
a transfer of land to  the Town of Jackson would constitute a "diversion of funds."
Such diversion would jeopardize the Department's continued eligibility to receive
Federal Aid Funds.   Only  two  circumstances exist whereby a "diversion of funds"
could be avoided; (1)  if  the  Department  could prove that the land is no longer
serving the purpose for which it  was originally acquired;  or (2)  if the Town of
Jackson would be  prepared to  replace it  "in kind."

The  first alternative  is  impossible to meet because there  is  no  question that the
twenty acre site  is being used for the purpose for which it  was  acquired and is not
surplus  to the Department's needs.

                                     -6-

-------
The second  alternative is not so "clear '-MI", however, from a practical standpoint
it is impossible  to  find suitable replac   -nt lands in an area around  the perimeter
of the  feedground which would have  the y ,    utility or benefits as  twenty acres in
the middle  of a well "blocked up" unit.  Any lands around the perimeter would tend
to project  out or be isolated from  the present boundary and receive little elk use
yet it  would require a higher maintenance cost because of the added perimeter
fence.  It  would also tend to create undesirable corners and pockets to trap elk.

It should be remembered that the Department  once owned two forty acre  tracts on the
north and west boundaries of the present feedground.  Both were traded for more
desirable lands within the present  unit.

From a  legal standpoint, it is my opinion that no further negotiations are required
with the Town of Jackson.   Even if we wanted to sell the tract,  legally we cannot.

Biological  Aspects

The twenty  acre tract desired by the Town of Jackson for the lagoons lies in the
middle  of an old ox-bow of the Snake River.   It is completely surrounded by cotton-
wood trees  and other shrubs.  This  area, although not used for feeding, is extremely
important for cover from bad weather and harassment of all kinds.   The elk are seen
frequently  in this area after feeding.  It is this cover that tends to create a
quiet setting, a place of refuge for the elk without requiring them to leave the
unit to seek shelter.  When elk leave a Unit of this nature,  a high probability ex-
ists that they may go onto private  lands and damage hay stacks,  etc.

The location of the lagoons in this area would not only eliminate the 20 acres from
use but would have an effect on the elk use of an additional  148 acres because of
the strange appearance,  odor, noise and human activity.   This essentially destroys
the use of  much of the cottonwood cover.

Although it has been said that a daily visit is the only activity which will be re-
quired, this must be assumed to be under ideal conditions.  What about unforeseen
breakdowns, construction and reconstruction during the winter feeding period.   The
proposed pipeline not only traverses the cover area but through  the feedground for
almost  the  full length of the Unit.   What about unforeseen problems with the pipe-
line.  Any  one of these problems could move the elk off of the Unit and keep them
off if  it occurred for a considerable length of time.   It may be noted in Exhibit N
that the EPA official said,  "that if the town expects funds from his agency access
to the  sewer site is an absolute requirement.  If it is the decision of the town to
select  the  South Park site we must have assurances of free undisturbed access  to the
site in our report."  This unrestricted access could be devastating to the South
Park elk feeding program.

Another point which is mentioned on page 46  of the Facilities Plan by Nelson,  Haley,
Patterson & Quirk, Inc.  reads as follows:  "Additional space would  also have been
available for such equipment as clarifiers,  microstrainers,  chorination units  or
even a tertiary treatment  facility if such units were needed  to  meet future effluent
standards."

This statement would lead  me to believe that future requests  for more land could be
expected and after granting  the initial request how could we  find  justification to
refuse additional demands.

This leads into another  important point.   If the Department approves this request
from the Town of Jackson it  would undoubtedly set a precedent for future taking of


                                   -7-

-------
 its lands.   This would weaken  Department,  control  and regulation of all of their
 lands within the State and complicate  son• •'• ,  long-range management and planning
 for such property (see Exhibit R for an  •• ,,iiple) .

 Another observation concerning the biological impact is that if the lagoons-are
 placed on the South Park Unit  it will  tend to encourage development of the lands^
 near the Unit.   This is pointed out in Exhibit L.   Needless  to  say human activities
 along the perimeter would be detrimental  to  the use of  the  feedground.

 Construction of  the lagoons will require  considerable fill  dirt and top soil.   If
 it is planned to remove this from the  adjacent unit lands  this  will have an adverse
 effect on forage and hay production.

 There is some concern that the proposed site  is located on  the  flood plain of  the
 Snake River  and  will be susceptible to flooding which could  flood  the area with
 sewage making it undesirable for wildlife  and human use as well as polluting Flat
 Creek and the Snake River.  The lagoons are definitely  near  the water table of the
 Snake and probably  below the water table of Flat  Creek.  If  the system did not
 function properly,  because of  Icing for example,  pollution of the  streams and
 damage to the fisheries could  occur.

 Although not a primary purpose of the  Unit, summer  recreation is certainly one of
 its principle uses.   The existence of  the  sewage  lagoons would  have an effect  on
 this use through appearance, odors and most definitely  an undesirable psychological
 stigma would be  attached to the location.

 An Approach  to Real Estate Appraisal

 The following is a  discussion  01  an appraisal  approach based on rough unconfirmed
 appraisal data and  is  not  a real  estate appraisal although it may  give a rough  idea
 of the values involved.

 The. most equitable  approach due  to the extensive damages to  the remaining property
 for elk feedground  purposes would be the Before and After Appraisal Technique,  the
 difference between  the  two appraisals being the Value of the Taking and  the Damages
 to the Remainder.

 From rough unconfirmed  appraisal  data it appears that the present  South  Park Feed-
 ground is worth  approximately  $1,748,000.00.   The value of the  land requested by
 the Town of  Jackson is  $60,000,  however,  the  greatest part of just  compensation  is
 the damages  to the  remaining land if it is to have  continued use as  an elk feed-
 ground.

 There  will be a  zone  around the  lagoons,  estimated  to be 500 feet  wide and containing
 65  acres  which will have a 50  percent reduction in  utility to the  elk because of
 appearance,  odor, noise  and the  related human  activity.   This results  in damages to
 this  zone in  an  estimated  amount of $97,500.  There is another  zone  estimated to be
 500  feet wide and containing 83  acres around  the first  zone which will have an es-
 timated  25 percent  reduction in utility by the elk.   The amount of  damages  to  this
 area is estimated to be  $62,250.00.

 Because of approximately 49 percent of  the 150 acres of forest  cover has been taken
 or suffered a loss in utility an imbalance of  49 percent to the excess is  evident in
 the nonfores ted lands of the feedground.   This excess is estimated  to  be worth
 $552,720.  Total Just Compensation to the Department  is  estimated  to be  $772,470.00.
Please refer  to the following summary.

-------
Market Value Before the Taking
     Lands:  526 Ac. at $3,000	    $ 1,578,000.00
              80 Ac. at $1,500	        120,000.00
              30 .Ac. at no value 	        - 0 -
     Improvements		50,000.00

     Total                                                      $ 1,748,000.00

Just Compensation
     Value of the Taking (20 Ac-  X $3,000/Ac)$   60,000.00

     Damages to the Remainder
      Zone No.  1 - 50% reduced utility by
                   elk in a 500 foot strip
                   around the lagoons
                   (65 Ac.  X $3,000 X .50)	$   97,500.00

      Zone No.  2 - reduced utility by
                   elk in a 500 foot strip
                   around Zone No.  1
                   (83 Ac.  X $3,000 X .25)—$   62,250.00

      Reduced utility on 49% of the
      forest cover creates an in-
      balance of 49% of the remaining
      unforested type (.49 X 376 X $3.000)—$  552,720.00

TOTAL JUST COMPENSATION	$   772,470.00

Market Value After the Taking
      Lands:  506 Ac.  at $1,591.96 	$  805,530.00
               80 Ac.  at $1,500.00	   120,000.00
               30 Ac.  at no value  	      - 0 -
      Improvements 	$   50,000.00

Total                                                           $   975,530.00
Although I am part of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, I can understand,  at
least in part,  the problem that the Town of Jackson is facing in securing a site
for their sewage facility.   However, since it is the Department's statutory
mandate to administer the wildlife of Wyoming for the people of Wyoming,  there is
no reason whatsoever to comply with the Town of Jackson's request for land since
it is legally and biologically infeasible and will benefit a greater part of the
public if the present use is retained.
                                    -9-

-------
APPENDIX  2
NOVEMBER 1976 LETTER
FROM WYOMING GAME AND
FISH REGARDING THE
SOUTH PARK ELK
FEEDGROUND SITE

-------
ED HERSCHLER, Governor

A. J. "JACK" HULL. Pres , Laramie
FLOYD CARR, Vice Pres., Sundance
CHARLES H. BROWN. Wheatland
DR. DE WITT DOMINICK. Cody
GENE BONDI, Sheridan
ROGER WEIDNER, Evanston
DAVE WHEELER, Lander
EARL M THOMAS
  Direclor
W. DONALD DEXTER
  Assistant Director

REX CORSI
  Chief Gamo Warden
JOSEPH R WHITE
  Chief Fish Warden

PETER N. TERTIPES
  Chief Fiscal Officer
CHESTER C ANDERSON
  Chief Research & Development
                            GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
                                CHEYENNE 82002

                               November 24, 1976
    Mr. Bill  Ashley, Chairman
    Teton  County Board of Commissioners
    181 King
    Jackson,  Wyoming 83001

    Dear Mr.  Ashley:

    At their  last meeting in Sundance on October 30th,  the Game and Fish
    Commission and staff gave  further consideration  to  the proposal to
    build  an  aerated sewer lagoon  system at the South Park Elk Feedground.
    The November 1976 issue of  the monthly planning  newsletter of the Teton
    County Board of Commissioners  lists the South Park  site as one of five
    alternatives being considered  to alleviate the difficult problem of
    Jackson's currently inadequate sewage disposal system.   The Commission
    understands that the timetable for the EIS is a  completion of the
    preliminary draft in January,  1977 with publication occurring shortly
    thereafter.   Following public  hearings in -March, the final EIS is to
    be published in May, 1977.  After the EIS process is completed, Jackson
    could  be  in a position to  apply for and receive  the "Step II" federal
    grant  to  design a new sewerage facility and construction could possibly
    commence  in the spring of  1978.

    The Boise,  Idaho firm of James M.  Montgomery, Consulting Engineers,
    Inc.,  has been retained to  prepare the necessary Environmental Impact
    Statement and representatives  of this firm have  been in frequent con-
    tact with our Department.   We  have furnished quantities of biological,
    environmental, legal ana managerial information  which we hope will
    substantially assist in preparing a complete and sound assessment of
    all ramifications of the several proposals.  It  is  the South Park Elk
    Feedground site (proposal)  with which we are primarily concerned and
    would  like to address ourselves at this time.

    The Commission is now in possession of complete  investigation reports
    and documents which have been  generated as a result of the Commission
    meeting of January 20, 1976 and the appearance of the Jackson delegation
    which  solicited our cooperation at that time.  I enclose for your

-------
Mr. Bill Ashley
Page 2
November 24, 1976

review and consideration some of the more salient parts of this infor-
mation.  We are also in possession of considerable public and private
comment with reference to the South Park site,  much of which has
received a wide distribution by the commenters.

In view of the amount and type of information we now have and after a
careful consideration of it, the Commission and the Department feels
that decisions must be made and time is of the  essence.  We must,
therefore, in fairness to all concerned, conclude and notify you that
the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Department does object to
and will oppose fully any attempts to place sewerage lagoons or other
sewerage facilities on the South Park Elk Feedground.  Our opposition
is based on four categorical considerations:

     1.  Biological;  We have serious reservations about placing any
     municipal sewerage facility on a flood plain, particularly one
     on a river with the potential and consequence of the Snake.
     The South Park Elk Feedground was initiated in 1939 on a site
     selected because of its unique and highly  desirable biological
     features.  There are high producing grass  meadows along Flat
     Creek and on the Snake River bottoms where the elk are fed.
     Immediately adjacent to these meadow areas  are large stands  of
     mature cottonwood trees with an understory of shrubs and herbacious
     plants which provide cover and protection  from weather.   The elk
     can be fed, graze and rest relatively free  of any harassment and
     never need to leave the Unit to benefit from these features.
     Although every portion of the Unit is not  used for the feedground
     or for cover, a measurable amount of open  space is required  to
     provide a buffer zone between the elk and  adjacent human activi-
     ties.  Although the Unit was acquired originally primarily for
     elk, other wildlife species inhabit the area in numbers.  These
     species include moose,  deer, waterfowl,  raptors, upland game
     birds, furbearers and song birds.

     2.  Legal:   The enclosed letters from Area  Manager Rounds, 1973;
     Assistant Regional Director Lane,  March and August 1976, are self-
     explanatory.   The feedground was purchased  with Federal Aid  money.
     The Commission very definitely cannot declare the property surplus
     to our needs  and to simply transfer the land to Jackson would
     constitute a  "diversion of funds"  and would thereby jeopardize
     the Department's future and continued eligibility to receive both
     P.R. and D.J.  Federal Aid Funds.

     3-  Sociological:   The  subject property is  not only serving  the
     original purpose for which it was  primarily purchased, but also
     now serves  a  much greater public need.   Camping, boating,  dog
     trials,  hunting,  fishing and horse backing  are among the public
     uses which  constitute an average use of 13,705 visitor days  for
     a six month period (June through November)  for the past  five
     years.

-------
Mr. Bill Ashley
Page 3
November 24, 1976

     4.   Political :   The report of Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk,
     Inc., lists several negative impacts of placing sewerage facili-
     ties at South Park.  Among these statements is found the following

         "Any attempt by the Town of Jackson, even with County support,
         to take away land on the elk feeding area without the consent
         of wildlife officials will result in controversy.  Vocal
         and powerful conservation and environmental groups, both local
         and national ,  might enter such a battle and delay any such
         action. "

     Our files contain many letters from interested citizens from the
     Jackson area and elsewhere.  Some are rather emotional, some are
     very practical  and some are personal; but, without exception,
     they are all in opposition to placing sewerage lagoons on the
     South Park Feedground.  A review of all the "public input" made
     to us leads us  to a question; Who really wants or insists on the
     facility being  at South Park?

We sincerely hope the foregoing will assist those responsible in
evaluating all planning options available and we appreciate your
consideration of our official position with reference to them.

                                   Sincerely,
                                   EARL M. THOMAS, DIRECTOR
                                   WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
EMT:saw
Enclosures
cc; ^Governor Ed Herschler	
     Mr. Ralph Gill, Jackson Mayor-Elect
     Jack Hull, Commission President
     Darwin Creek, Game and Fish Department
bcc  Edwin T. Cryer

-------
APPENDIX  3
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC
WORKSHOP

-------
     \
     ^     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   REGION VIII

                                I860 LINCOLN STREET

                             DENVER. COLORADO 8O2O3
                    Tabulation of Public Responses

                           Workshop Number 2


                           January 11, 1977
                    Jackson Sewage Treatment System
                 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                           Jackson, Wyoming
Note:  Numbered responses were received from individuals and lettered
       responses were received from one of the eight groups that com-
       pleted the questionnaire.  An individual or group has the same
       designation for all their responses.

-------
            Jackson Wastewater Treatment System
              Environmental Impact Statement
                Summary of Public Workshop

On January 11, 1977, the second of two public workshops was held in
connection with preparation of the draft environmental impact state-
ment on Jackson's wastewater treatment system.  Following an hour-long
presentation on the alternative sewage treatment sites and systems,
the economic costs, and environmental impacts, those attending received
a pamphlet outlining this information and a six-sheet questionnaire.
Eight groups of six to eight people were formed as those attending
randomly seated themselves at different tables.  All eight groups submit-
ted a summary of their discussions.  In addition, fifteen persons sub-
mitted their own individual responses to the questionnaire.   This sum-
mary presents an analysis of both the groups'  and individuals' responses
that were received at the workshop.  A copy of all the responses is attached.

Attendance

Total attendance at the beginning of the workshop was 76 people of which
68 were community residents.  62 Teton County citizens were present during
the group discussion phase.

Content Analysis of Public Opinion

     A.  Group Results

         Seven of eight groups participating in the workshop rejected
the South Park Elk Feedground Site from further consideration.  Six of
the groups also rejected the South Park Road Site (A-5)  and the Mid-South
Park Site (A-4).   Reasons given were the adverse effects of development
created by extending sewers to these sites and the unavailability of land
or high costs of private land.

         Six of the groups also reached a concensus regarding the pre-
ferred solution.   All  six groups'  recommendations include expansion at
the existing Site (A-l), some in combination with Interim Improvements
(A-6).   Four of the groups also wish to retain a Boyle's Hill  site alterna-
tive (A-2 & A-3a) as an option.  Of the two remaining groups, one split
between recommending a lagoon at Boyle's Hill  (A-3a) and expansion at the
existing site (A-l); the other group split between recommending expansion
at the  existing site (A-l)  and selecting the Elk Feedground Site.

Six of the groups considered the question of alternative plant size
and all  agreed that the 1995 design capacity was preferable  to a
smaller (1990)  size.

-------
A majority of the groups expressed reservations as to the acceptance
of lagoons as the method of treatment.  Reasons given emphasized odor
problems, but also included amount of land required and aesthetics.
Two groups felt that the much lower annual operating costs of lagoons
justified selecting a lagoon system.

Regardless of plant location or method of treatment, a plurality of the
groups also expressed a desire for energy conservation and a reduction
if not elimination of odors.

Conclusion on group responses:  The concensus of those attending is to
reject the southernmost sites (South Park Road Site and South Park Elk
Feedground Site) in favor of either Expansion at the Existing Site or
locating a plant at the Boyle's Hill Site.

     B.  Individual Results

         Fifteen individuals submitted responses separate from their
group responses.  All but one felt there was some significant problem
with the Elk Feedground Site with reasons including stimulation of
growth throughout South Park, interference with the elk, unavailability
of the land and conflict with both established use and the proposed land
use plan.  Ten of eleven persons responding believed the South Park Elk
Feedground Site was not compatible with the proposed land use plan.

         These individuals also felt there were problems associated
with Expansion at the Proposed Site (A-l).  These problems included
high operating costs, proximity to the proposed high school and the
settled community, odor problems, and flooding and aquatic life growth
on Flat Creek.  Several individuals expressed strong doubts about lagoon
systems, particularly their odor problems, and others requested energy
conservation regardless of the selected alternative.  The individuals
who responded to the question on whether the estimated growth rate of
six percent per year was reasonable were split evenly, with half believing
this was accurate and the other half claiming this was too high.  All
but one individual felt that having reserve capacity beyond the design
year was a good idea (that is if the rate of growth is not as rapid as
projected there would be reserve capacity beyond the design year).  Only
one individual felt that the "ability to serve growth dangles as an
incentive to have growth...".

Conclusion on individual responses.  The concensus of individuals submitting
questionnaires is to reject the South Park Elk Feedground Site, but they
were split as to their preferred site although a plurality preferred
Expansion at the Existing Site (A-l); others preferred a Mechanical Plant
at Boyle's Hill Site (A-2) or the Mid South Park Lagoon (A-4).

-------
                                 Summary


       Is  there  a  concensus of opinion that certain sites should not. be
  further  considered?  Which ones?

  1     If  Flat Creek empties into the river at elk feedground as an open
       sewer  line,  it is doubtful that the proposed system would pollute
       the river any more.

  5.    Elk refuge;  South Park road site.

  6.    Elk refuge;  South Park road site; mid South Park.

  8.    South  Park  feedground; South Park road.

  9.    Anything  below South Park line; no lagoons.

  11.   All  but the  existing!

  A.    Elk refuge;  South Park.

  B.    Elk refuge  site; mid South Park site.

  C.    Three  southernmost.

  0.    South  Park  elk refuge; South Park road site.

  E.    South  Park  elk refuge; South Park road site.

  F.    A-5; A-4; A-3a; proposed site.

  G.    Boyle's Hill; mid South Park.

  H.    Elk feedground {due  to creating high density); mid South Park;
       Boyle's Hill; polo grounds.
                                     Summary

       Do you have a group's concensus for  a preferred site?

  5.   No; personally felt mechanical at Boyle's Hill or existing site.

  6.   No; personally prefer mechanical at  Boyle's Hill or existing site.

  8.   Mid South Park.

  9.   A-l; mechanical  plant or at Boyle's Heights; no ponds.

  11.  Yes; existing.

  A.   A-l  and A-6 combined; Boyle's Hill.

  B.   A-l  and A-6 combined; Boyle's Hill;  mechanical or aerated lagoon.

  C.   Not  quite;  Boyle's  Hill-mechanical;  existing site-mechanical;
       heavy  commitment  to alternative energy.

  D.   A-l, A-6  combined;  Boyle's  Hill;  should  be tied together instead
       of treated  separately.

  E,   No;  some  mechanical;  some  like lagoon; Boyle's Hill;  existing plant
       using  aeration improvements followed  by  expansion.

  F.    Yes:   A-2,  A-l, A-6         No:  A-5, A-4, A-3.

  G.    Seven  in  group:   three prefer present site;  three  prefer elk  feed-
       ground; one prefers Boyle's  Hill or present  site.

  H.    A-l; expansion at existing  site to 1995.
                                  Summary


     Do you have a concensus  of  opinion regarding the plant size?  What
size does the group prefer?

8.   1995 or laraer;  alternative energy.

9.   1995.

11.  Stupid question  to ask lay  people at a meeting like this.

A.   Full size as projected with flexibility to go higher with population
     growth.

B.   Full size, plus  lots  of  flexibility for enlargement.

C.   1995.

0.   Full size as projected and  future expansion; relate sewage growth
     rate to water usage;  expressed  interest in mechanical; alternative
     energy; cooperation:  city  and  county.

E.   Not considered.

G.   1995 size.

H.   As large as possible  to  effectively take us to the target date.
                       The Proposed Alternative
                    South Park Elk Feedqround Site
                     Aerated Stabilization Laqoon
     What problems do you see in constructina d sewaae treatment plant
at this site?

1.   Very small  compared to others.

2.   Stimulate growth through South  Park; that we don't need hiah cost
     and high water table; uncertain reliability; this is an elk refuqe--
     leave it this way.
4.
     Elk habitat.
5.    State i nterference ;  sportsmen; el k hunters ; fi sh and oame ; hi ah
     H20 table.

6.    Can we get  the land?  Interference from G & F & State; hiah water
     table; opens up South Park for growth.

7.    Facilitates growth in South Park, which I personally do not favor;
     not good for the elk or as a precedent for future wildlife-related
     value choices.

8.    Scenic impact; elk disturbance; increased growth impact in South Park;
     site not available;  flood danger.

9.    Expansion for South  Park.

10.  Elk; increase growth and density; Game and Fish opposed.

11.  The land is not, and will not be, available.

12.  Stimulation of orowth; flood plain, hiah water, etc.

13.  Conflict with established use, i.e., detriment to natural wildlife;
     would open  South Park to high density development; high qroundwater
     would require elevated lagoons and expensive liners.
                                                                                D.
                                                                                    State, Game and  Fish, National opposition; water  table;  raised
                                                                                    1aqoon.
                                                                                E.    State  interference; Fish & Game interference; unknown cost of  raised
                                                                                     laqoon; openina South Park area, along South Park  road, to certain
                                                                                     development  in open untried area; opposed to comprehensive plan.

                                                                                F.    Land acquisition/State F & G doesn't want it; preempts county  planning
                                                                                     options/incentive to growth in South Park; high water table  problems;
                                                                                     smell  at  least 9 months of year; potential problem for Scenic  River
                                                                                     status; laqoons don't work well in Jackson Hole.

-------
                         The Proposed Alternative                                                        T,   n       . .,
                                K                                                                        The Proposed Alternative

15.   Extremely expensive and potentially disruptive to an area already               What benefits?
     recognized as wildlife habitat, agriculturally productive;  and
     scenically valuable.
                                                                                1    All laaoon sights will have to have above ground treatment of
                                                                                     similar cost.

                                                                                2.   Gravity flow to plant; no sludqe removal.

                                                                                4.   No benefits.

                                                                                5.   Growth stimulation; cost; gravity flow.

                                                                                6.   Stimulates qrowth, if that's a benefit; cost is low for operation
                                                                                     and maintenance; gravity flow.

                                                                                7,   If development of South Park is inevitable, then a plant site
                                                                                     in South Park is foresighted.

                                                                                8.   None not available with other sites.

                                                                                9.   Out of sight; handle it all.

                                                                                10.  Maybe lower land cost.

                                                                                11.  None.

                                                                                12.  None at all, except for landowners, who'll  develop South Park and
                                                                                     qet rich,

                                                                                D.   Stimulates growth; gravity flow, no pumping.

                                                                                E.   Gravity flow; low operational cost.

                                                                                F.   Outside further limits of develooable area; out of sight.

                                                                                15.   Far away from main population base;  "out of  sight, out of mind";
                                                                                     perhaps easier to acquire the land than lengthy condemnation pro-
                                                                                     cedures at other sites, but  I doubt  it.
                          The  Proposed Alternative                                                         Tne ProDOSed Alternative

      Do you believe this site is compatible with the proposed compre-                Hhat mitigation measures might be necessary here?  Such as land-
 hensive land use plan?                                                          scaping, fencing, unique architecture, etc.?

 K   Yes'                                                                       1.   Least.

 5.   No, not as presented by them.                                              2_   20 acres of fencingp
      No-
                                                                                 5.   Fencing ; landscaping.
 7.   If the goal of the plan is to limit growth in South Park, no.              6    Fencing Or landscaping
      If, however, the goal is simply to insure that growth does not
      harm the environment (e.g. water), yes, it is compatible.                  ?_   Alternative energy sources.
      Absolutely not.

      No.
                                                                                     Remove the plant.
                                                                                 9.   Little.
 10.  No, more development.                                                      10_  Landscaping.

 11.  No, urban density is not desired except in town of Jackson --              •,•,   p      t anDiv
      see Master Plan adopted.
                                                                                 12.  Drop  the idea.
 12.  Not in the slightest.

 13.  No.

 D<   No>                                                                        D.   Not hard  to conceal.

                                                                                 E.   Raising lagoon.
                                                                                13.  Fencing to keep out elk or other wildlife; should be aesthetically
                                                                                     pleasing to be compatible with surroundings.
E.    No.
 F.   No.
                                                                                 F.   No.
 15.  Not as I understand the overall guiding principles.                          15i   Unique  architecture,  perhaps;  at best,  it  would  still  interfere
                                                                                       with  a  wildlife habitat.

-------
                            The Prooosed  Alternative

        Do you prefer this alternative?  Why?

   1.    Serves the most people.

   2.    No.

   4.    No,  Elk habitat feed grounds.

   5.    No.  Too much population increase  (high  density); aesthetic value.

   6.    No.  Allows for too much growth;  "flavor"  of Jackson will not be
        preserved.

   7.    No.  Encourages growth in South Park.

   8.    Absolutely no.

   9.    No.

   10.   No.

   11.   No.  It is not an  alternative.

   12.   I think it is so bad  it should  no  longer be considered.

   13.   No.  For the above-mentioned  reasons.

   D.    No.  Prefer lower  density;  reduced  visual  impact,

   E.   No.  Invitation  to  high density development in open area; visual
        impact; diminishing effect  on ranching.

   F.   No.

   15.  As a last resort.
                             Alternative A-l
                       Expand at  the  Existing Site
               Expansion  of  the existing mechanical  plant
     What  problems do you see  in constructing a sewage treatment plant
 at  this  site?

 1.   No  consideration.

 2.   None; just complete what  was begun and  left  unfinished.

 2.   High  M  & 0 cost; too close to  high school and  settled  community.

 3.   Problem with dumping into flat creek may be  gravity  feed  to make
     up  date right away to bring sewage treatment up  to date to at
     least handle the problem  for five years while  new one  is  being built.

 4.   Costly.

 5.   Affluence into Flat Creek; high cost of maintenance; proximity of
     town; expanding community.

 6.   High 0  & M cost; effluent into Flat Creek more concentrated;
     handle  just the town.

 7.   Only  problem is that expansion potential is  limited and service
     from South Park would require  energy input;  however, I regard
     those advantages rather than disadvantages.  Also, I dislike
     energy  consumption of a mechanical plant.

 8.   Town Council; higher operating cost.

 9.   None.

 10.  Odor nearer development.

 11.  Only problems of effluent into Flat Creek can be handled  and  addi-
     tional  acreage, which also can be handled — even acreage  for lagoon(s).

 12.  Is  site large enough?

 13.  Requires discharge into Flat Creek; does not allow for a  gravity
     feed to the plant from South Park residents.

 15.  Compounds problem in Flat Creek with accelerated aquatic  life  growth,
     flooding potential, and water  quality degradation.

 0.   Effluents into Flat Creek, unless piped to Snake; high 0  & M;  lots
     of  energy used; proximity to town and expanding community; proximity
     to  school  site.
                              Alternative A-l

E.   Empties into Flat  Creek;  high cost of 0 & M; next to new school  site

F.   Additional  load to Flat Creek; maintenance high energy  demand  high.
                              Alternative A-l

     What benefits?

2.   Make use of the investment now there.

2.   Can utilize some of existing facility.

3.   Use of present pipes in old plant; would only have to build lagoons
     to handle problem; could use the present pumps and pipes that are
     there already; this plant was never finished; no wonder it doesn't
     work now!

5.   Low initial cost; no odor;  effluent better treated; already own land.

6.   Low initial cost; effluent better treated; no odor; already own land.

7.   Makes good use of present capital investment; does not encourage.
     growth, but will accomodate it.

8.   Short interceptor; supportive of master plan; low capital  cost.

9.   Low cost.

10.  Limits growth; density.

11.  Stop the urbanization of the rural countryside south of this site,
     and effectively contain the city in its present limits.

12.  Jax owns land.

13.  Conforms with established use; incorporates existing system;
     mechanical system has proven reliability when properly sized.

15.  Protects original and substantial investment that has already been
     made; effectively limits growth  into scenic South Park area (density
     of development).

D.   Gravity flow; no pumping (ten foot existing lift now?);  short-term
     option if site is kept long-term.

E.   Low initial cost; better treatment; no  odors; gravity flow.

F.   J owns property; already there;  people  used to it there; K cost
     cheapest; can adjust for shifts  in loading (shock loading); fits
     with land use plan; avoids  scattered growth; minimal  odor  problem.

-------
                               Alternative A-l

      Do you believe  this  site  is  compatible with  the  proposed  comprehensive
 land  use  plan?
      Yes.

      Yes.
         ;  according  to  plan,  this would  be  the  most  effective  because
        ,er places would be  limited  by  growth  by the  problem of sewage
Yes;
othe  ,
disposal.
 5.    Yes,  if  it  can  be  pumped.

 6.    Yes,  if  it  can  be  pumped.

 7.    Yes.

 8.    Yes.

 9.    Yes.

 10.   Yes.

 11.   Yes,  it  is  good to remember the work used is; I do not believe Teton
      County will  buy the plan.

 12.   Yes.

 13.   Yes.

 15.   It is a  prior existing use and, as such, is compatible under the
      "grandfather" clause.

 D.    Yes,  would  serve the expanded town.

 E.    Yes.

 F.    Yes.
                              Alternative A-l


     What mitigation measures might be necessary here?  Such as land-
scaping, fencing, unique architecture, etc.?

2.   To some extent.

2.   Lots of landscaping.

3.   Trees and shrubs to do away with some visual  destruction.

5.   All, especially if school is built.

6.   All, especially if school is built.

7.   Alternative energy sources.

8.   As much as possible.

9.   Little.

10.   Landscaping, odor.

11.   Screening will  be necessary (as in  other areas  of the  town  and  county).

12.   All of them —  disguise it.

13.   Nothing out of  the usual; fencing.

15.   All of the above and  more.

D.   In an industrial area, but  also in  town and in  a  high  density area.

E.   Few.

F.   Taking effluent to Snake River.
                              Alternative A-l

     Do you prefer this alternative?  Why?

2.   Yes, mostly because it exists already; there is * large investment
     in it already.

3.   Because they
4.   No.

5.   Yes, site located/benefits above.

6.   This is an O.K. alternative; would limit growth and treat the
     effluent better.  Perhaps effluent pipe to Snake?

7.   This or Boyle's Hill lagoon.

8.   Yes.

9.   Yes, mainly for land use planning.

10.  Yes.

11.  See benefits.

12.  Vaguely.

13.  Yes, the mechanical  system is reliable when properly designed and
     the present site has proven compatible with the community.   This
     alternative allows the town to incorporate the existing system.

15.  While greater 0 & M costs would eradicate any capital  savings between
     this and other alternatives, it is preferable to pass  increased
     costs onto consumers as they consume.   That is, users  should pay as
     they use; capital  improvements benefit everyone and are funded by
     ad valorem taxes;  those who use should pay the freight when they use.
     The property owner should only have to stand for a cost that is  reason-
     ably minimal and yet still  adequate.
D.
     No.   High cost of maintenance;  prefer flow into Snake.

E.   No.   High cost of 0 & M;  flows  into Flat Creek.

F.   Yes.
                                                                                                           Alternative A-2
                                                                                                          Royle's Hill Site
                                                                                                          Activated Sludqe
                                                                                                          Mechanical PI ant

                                                                                   What problems rlo you see in constructing a sewaqe treatment
                                                                              plant at this site?

                                                                              1.  No.

                                                                              2.  High cost Of MSO.

                                                                              4.  Best location.

                                                                              5.  High O&M costs and initial const.  May be problem in getting
                                                                                  land.  Some pumping south plant.

                                                                              6.  High O&M costs and initial construction; may be problem in getting
                                                                                  land; some pumping required.

                                                                              7.  Too expensive.   Energy  consumptive.

                                                                              9.  Pumping  station.

                                                                              10.  Odor oroblem  to  skyline.

                                                                              11.  Bad  (costlv)  sub water  problem.   Should  not  consider this  site
                                                                                  at all.

                                                                              12.  None.

                                                                              13.  None

                                                                               D.  Some  pumping  of  south district;  cost.

                                                                               E.  High  cost  of  construction,  O&M,  some  pumping from down south.

                                                                               F  Most  costly  to operate and overall; land acquisition;  possible
                                                                                  opposition from  neighboring landowners; loss of investment in present
                                                                                   plant;  true  for  not all but not at present site; on road.

                                                                              15.  High costs for  capitalization;  therefore  high  taxes;  high O&M;
                                                                                   therefore, high  user costs.

-------


1
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
D.
E.
F.
15.
Alternative A-2
What benefits?
None.
Rel iable type of plant
Best location.
No odor; better dilution in Snake River; better treated effluent.
Better treated effluent; better dilution in Snake River, no odor.
No answer.
No answer.
It's above South Park; location fairly nood.
Snake River receives effluent.
None.
It's a good position for Livinaston's proposed hiqh density area.
Permits gravity to site (from most of the area); located near
anticipated hiqh density growth area. Reliable system.
Outside town; will serve expanded community; odor free.
Encourage development in an area of least environmental imnact,
no odors, or interference with wildlife.
Minimal smell; fits w. plan; site already disturbed; convenient to
town for maintenance people.
Perhaps easier to acquire land; limits growth potential to south

lai
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
D.
E.
F.
15.

Alternative A-2
Do you believe this site is compatible with the proposed comprehensive
id use plan?
No.
Yes.
Ves.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No answer.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

                              Alternative  A-2

     What mitigation measures might be necessary here?  Such as land-
 scaping, fencing, unique architecture, etc.'

 1.  No answer.

 2.  No answer.

 4.  No answer.

 5.  Well  screened already...few if any.

 6.  Not sure.

 7.  Alt.  energy sources,

 8.  No answer.

 9.  Cosmetics would be needed.

10.  Landscaping.

11.  D.N.A.

12.  All  of them.

13.  No answer.

 D.  Hell  screened by terrain.

 E.  Few or none.

 F.  Screening necessary.

15.  All  of the above,  plus  .
                        Alternative A-2

     Do you prefer this alternative:  Why?

3.  This location is protected.

5.   No, very expensive.

6.   No   rather expensive.

7.   No because of expenses.

8.   No -- but preferable to South Park feed ground.

9.   I find it better than most.

10.  Yes.

11.  No.

12.  Yes -- this, or lagoon, above all others.

13.  Yes, good location for mechanical plant, good system.  I prefer
     expenasion at existing site but this is second favorite.

 D.  No -- expense; OSM.

 E.  No - High Costs - Best second alternative.

 F.  Yes, 5; No. 1

15.  Conceivably, this alternative limits growth to the south, yet
     its costs are high.  I am ambivalent about the trade-offs.

-------
                          Alternative A-3a
                          Royle's Hill  Site
                    Aerated Stabilization Lagoon
     What problems do you see in constructing a sewaqe treatment
 plant at this site?
 7.   Odor from laqoon in residential  area, part,  new proposed expansion
     also.

 9.   Smell  looks area needed.

10.   Odor.

11.   Bad (costly) subwater problem -- site should not even be considered.

12.   Smell  -- takes up a lot of space.

13.   Compatibility with development (lagoons).

 F.   Odor - problem with surrounding  landowners;  land aguisition;
     in flood plain?  extra engineering may be needed; ponds would
     need to be built up; location outfall in Snake River.

15.   Large land requirements may impact area in a less than desirable
     way; some concern about odor and proximity to residential develop-
     ment.
                              Alternati ve A-3a

        What benefits?

    1.   None.

    7.   location good.

    9.   Above  So.  Park (expansion).

   10.   Consistent with  proposed  density  flows  into Snake  River.

   11.   None.

   12.   Same as  A-2.

    F.   Fits with  plan;  cheap  for O&M; cost  effective to FPA.

   15.   Growth is limited to south;  0 a  M is low,  comparatively.
                              Alternative  A-3a

       Do you believe this site is compatible with the proposed compre-
   hensive land use plan?

   1.  No.

   7.  Yes.

   9.  Yes.

  10.  Yes.

  11.  No.

  12.  Yes.

  13.  Yes.

   F.  Yes.

   15.  Yes,  to the degree that scenic areas are preserved.
                           Alternative A-3a

     What mitigation  measures  might  be  necessary here?  Such as land-
 scaping, fencing,  unique  architecture, etc.?

 1    Conspicuous.

 7.   Alt. energy  sources.

 9.   Smell  alone  makes  this type  sight  poor  for this  sight.

10.   Unsscaping.

11.   D.N.A.

F.    Build up and screen.

15.   All of the above, plus.

-------
                                Alternative  A-3a
          Do you  prefer this alternative?  Why?
      1    No.
      7.   Yes,  if odor problem can be resolved.
      8.   No, but preferable to South Park feedqround.
      9.   No, would offend too many nearby residents.
     10.   Yes.
     11.   D.N.A.
     12.   Yes.
     13.   No, I don't feel it is  a good  location  for lagoons.
      F.   Yes, 1.  No. 5.
     15.   I am  ambivalent about this as  well.
                           Alternative A-4
                         Mid  South  Park  Site
                    Aerated Stabilization Lagoon
     What problems do you see  in constructing a sewage  treatment plant
 at this site?
 1   Why spend this money when latteral  transfer of property  is  possible.
 4.  Land owners.
 7.  again, encourages growth  further south.
 8.  Disturbing presently undeveloped areas.
 9.  Purchase of land.
10.  Increases growth; 100-year flood plain.
11.  Urbanization of rural  country - should not happen.
12.  Flood groundwater increase (development).
13.  Groundwater?
15.  Encourages and enables  growth  in an area better left untouched.
 F.  Land acquisition, probable opposition landowners.  Too close to land under
     sceptic easement  now; would encourage scattered growth; same prob-
     lems in general  as  elk  refuge  site.
                             Alternative  A-4
     What benefits?
 9.  Gravitational  theory.
10.  None.
11.  None.
12.  Close to high  density  area but not close enough.
15.  None  readily identifiable.
 F.  One of  cheapest for K  & OSM.
                               Alternative A-4
       Do you believe this site is compatible with the proposed
   comprehensive land use plan?
   7.   Probably.
   8.   No.
   9.   Semi.
  10.   No.
  11.   No.
  12.   Not enough  to  suit  me.
  13.   Yes.
  15.   No.
   F.   Maybe or  No.

-------
                             Alternative A-4

      What  mitigation  measures  might be  necessary  here?   Such  as  land-
  scaping,  fencing,  unique architecture, etc?

  7.   Alt.  Energy sources.

  9.   Again purchase and cosmetic.

 11.   D.N.A.

 15.   All  of this and more besides.

  F.   Not  enough.
                                  Alternative  A-4

      Do you  prefer  this  alternative?  Why?

      4.   To  open.

      7.   Third  choice.

      8.   No.

      9.   No,  but could  accept  it.

     10.   No.

     11.   D.N.A.

     12.   No.   Would encourage  development.

     13.   Not particularly.

     15.   No.

      F.   Yes, 1   No.  6.
                           Alternative A-5
                         South  Park  Road Site
                         (Near  the Polo Club)
                     Aerated Stabilization Lagoon
     What problems  do you see in constructing a sewage treatment  plant
 at this  site?

 1.  No.

 4.  No.

 7.  Opens South  Park to deer.

 9.  Not  consistent with desired plan;  very bad as  far as  vusual.

10.  Increased development -  sewer line in  middle  of South Park.

11.  Urbanization of rural  country --  should not be.

12.  Encourage development.

13.  Possible high  groundwater table;  would serve  to open  South Park  to
     high density development and requires  a humongous interceptor length.

15.  Encourages undesirable growth pattern.

 F.  Same as  Elk  Feed ground  site and  Mid-South Park.   Rad scenic  impact.
                              Alternative A-5

     What benefits?

 1.  No.

 7.  Paul Von Gontard ought to like it.

 9.  None.

10.  None.

11.  None.

12.  Make some landowners  rich when they  develop.

15.  Low  O&M?

 F.  Less of ground water  problem.

-------
                              Alternative A-5

      Do you  believe  this  site  is compatible with the proposed comprehensive
  land use  plan?

  7.   Not particularly.

  9.   No.

 10.   No.

 11.   No.

 12.   No,

 13.   No.

 15.   No.

  F.   No.
                                Alternative A-5
        What mitigation measures might be necessary here?
     caping, fencing, unique architecture, etc.?
                                                           Such as land-
      :aping

    7.  Alt.  energy sources.

    9.  Visual effect - bad!

   10.  Landscaping   fence.

   11.  D.N.A.

   15.  All of above plus	

    F.  Extensive landscaping.
                            Alternative A-5

     Do you  prefer  this  alternative?  Why?

 4.   Too opened.

 7.   No.   Some  development problem.

 8.   No.

 9.   No   bad  location.

10.   No.

11.   No.

12.   No.   Development.

13.   No.   I  do  not  feel  the  lagoon system is reliable and also the costs
     presented  are  substantially lower than the actual costs to be incurred
     with an aerated  lagoon  system.

15.   No.

 F.   Yes , none,  6,  No.
                           Alternative A-6
                        Interim Improvements
                        At the Existing Site
     There is a short-term alternative of improving the existing plant
 to meet water quality standards.   This would have capacity for the design
 year of 1980.   In your opinion,  would it be better to fund this inexpensive
 but short-term solution?

 1    Last Resort.

 2.  Yes   in view of the investment already expended and it would clarify
 matters right now.

 7.  Yes, it would give us more time to make the larger philosophical
 decision.

 9.  I'd  rather build up the existing, but would except this.

10.  No.

11.  Yes, but work towards long-term solutions to keep Jackson plant here.

12.  No.

13.  No.

15.  No, there is so little to be gained that it would be a useless
 exercise.

-------
                              Alternative A-6

       If this option was chosen, what problems would arise when additional
  treatment capacity was needed?

  2.   That might not happen  until 1990 and the whole situation miqht
  be changed.

  7.   Same old battle, but we miqht know more about the scenic area
  proposal and the future of S. Park.

  9.   $$$

 10,   Need to build another  plant.  Additional cost.

 11.   Site expansion is possible, difficult but possible.

 12.   More dull meetings to  qo to.

 13.   Commitment to present  site rehash what we are doinq toniqht.

 15.   Simply a rehashing of  problems currently being experienced,
  Same indecision, same options, only more expensive.

  E.   Higher costs - crash program.
 Alternative  Flow Capacity

     Do you feel  the  estimated  rate  of  qrowth  is  reasonable?  Uhy?

 1    Based on present qrowth  percent and  advertising  on  1-1 basis.

 7.   No -- too hiqh.

 8.   Yes.

 9.   Not entirely -  fuel  for  cars  in future  miaht well decrease touristSj etc.

10.   6% too much.  3% or  less is enouqh

12.   I  expect your fiqs.  are  accurate,  altho like all newcomers,  I'd
     orefer to see it less.

13.   I  feel it is sliqhtly  hiqh  but  reasonable  for  desiqn  purposes.

15.   No, there will  be a  level  beyond which  qrowth  simply  cannot  continue
     as fast.
                        Alternative Flow Capacity

      If the rate of growth is not as rapid as projected, the plant will
  have reserve capacity beyond the desiqn year.   '4hat is your opinion
  on this?

  1.  Excellent.

  7.  That's qreat.

  9.  Better more than enouqh than not enouqh.

 10.  Fine.

 12.  It's an excellent idea.

-13.  Good.

 15.  The ability to serve growth dangles as an  incentive to have qrowth
      whether it  is  advisable or not.   If the capacity exists,  someone  will
      find an excuse to use it.
                       Alternative  Flow  Capacity

     What percent increase  in  sewaqe  plant  capacity  do you prefer,
 275% (1990 desiqn year),  330% {1995  desiqn year)  or  some other percentaae?

 1    330%.

 7.   1995 sounds  cool  to me.

 8.   Personal  preference is for a  reduction  in  capacity  from  present  level--
 and corresponding renovation  in hookups.   How  about  a 6% evacuation  rate?

 9.   1995 design  year.

10,   330%.

12.   1995 desiqn  year.

13.   330%.

15.   20-year planninq is reasonable in terms  of reliable data and financial
     considerations, i.e, most municipal bonds  mature on a  20-7ear cycle.

-------
APPENDIX  4

PRELIMINARY REPORT
PALISADES RESERVOIR
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION
SURVEY

-------
       PRELIMINARY REPORT

               ON

       PALISADES RESERVOIR

    BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO

   AND LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING

         EPA REGION X
            NOTICE

This document is a preliminary
draft.  It has not been formally
released by EPA and should not
at this stage be construed to
represent Agency policy.  It is
being circulated for comment on
its technical accuracy and policy
implications.

National Eutrophication Survey
     CERL, Corvallis, Ore.
     EMSL, Las Vegas, Nev.

-------
PALISADES RESERVOIR

-------
           PRELIMINARY  REPORT ON PALISADES RESERVOIR,  IDAHO
                           STORE! NO. 1610

I.   CONCLUSIONS
     A.   Trophic Condition:*
               On the basis of  Survey  data and  field observations,
          Palisades Reservoir is considered mesotrophic.   Of the 13
          Idaho lakes sampled in 1975, 6  had  higher median total phos-
          phorus (0.024 mg/1) levels,  1 had higher median inorganic
          nitrogen values (0.080 mg/1) and 9  had  higher median ortho-
          phosphorus (0.007 mg/1)  levels  than Palisades Reservoir.
          Chlorophyll a^ levels  ranged  from 0.8  pg/1 to 5.6 yg/1 with
          a mean of 2.1 ug/1.   Potential  for  primary production as
          measured by algal assay  control yields  was generally low.
               Survey limnologists did not observe any problem con-
          ditions during their  visits  to  the  lake. The Idaho Depart-
          ment of Water Resources, et  al. (1975)  reports the stretch
          of the Snake River above Heise  which  includes Palisades
          Reservoir is high quality water, and  in stable condition.
     *See Appendix E

-------
B.   Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
          The algal assay results  indicate that Palisades  Reservoir was
     colimlted during September sampling  (09/18/75) and  phosphorus
     limited during October (10/20/75).   The  reservoir data  suggest
     nitrogen limitation at all  three  sampling times.
C.   Nutrient Controllability:
     1.   Point sources -
               There were no known point  sources  impacting Palisades
          Reservoir during the  1975 sampling  year.
               The calculated annual phosphorus loading  of 6.25 g P/m /yr
          is over three times that proposed by Vollenweider  (1975)  as
          "eutrophic" for a lake with  such volume and retention time.
          If the present loading continues, increasingly undesirable
          responses to enrichment  are  likely  to occur.
     2.   Nonpoint sources -
               Nonpoint sources  contributed all of the  known nutrient
          loading to Palisades  Reservoir  during the sampling year.   The
          Snake River contributed  68.9% of the total  phosphorus load,
          the Greys River contributed  14.9%,  and  Salt River  contributed
          13.0%.  Ungaged drainage areas  were estimated to have con-
          tributed 0.9X of the  total.
               The phosphorus export rates of Greys River were substan-
          tially greater during the sampling  year than  the other tributaries

-------
to Palisades Reservoir (Section IV-D).   This Inflation may be
due to unidentified point sources rather than to nonpolnt source
Inputs, but more extensive sampling 1s  needed to determine the
location and significance of these possible sources.

-------
II.  LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
          Lake and drainage basin characteristics  are Itemized below.
     Lake surface area, mean depth and volume were provided by Martin
     and Hanson (1966).  Tributary flow  data were  provided by the Idaho
     District Office of the U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS).  Outlet
     drainage area Includes the lake  surface area.   Mean hydraulic
     retention time was obtained by dividing the lake volume by mean
     flow of the outlet.   Precipitation  values  are estimated by methods
     as outlined in NES Working Paper No.  175.  A  table of metric/English
     conversions is included as Appendix A.
     A.   Lake Morphometry:
                                     2
          1.   Surface area:   61.31 km.
          2.   Mean depth:   28.2 meters.
          3.   Maximum depth:  ?      fi  ,
          4.   Volume:  1,732.560 x 10°  nT.
          5.   Mean hydraulic retention  time:   108 days.

-------
B.   Tributary and Outlet:
     (See Appendix B  for flow data)

     1.   Tributaries -

                                       Drainage        Mean  flow
          Name                         area(km?)       (mVsec)

          A-2 Snake River               8,984.7          128.99
          B-l Bear Creek                  199.7            2.21
          D-l Big Elk Creek               153.3            1.96
          E-l Indian  Creek                100.5            0.39
          F-l McCoy Creek                 279.7            2.31
          6-1 Salt River                2,198.9           21.42
          H-l Greys River               1,160.3           18.47

          Minor tributaries and
          immediate drainage -            433.4            5.30

                   Total               13,510.5          181.05

     2.   Outlet - A-l Snake River      13,571.6          185.83

C.   Precipitation:

     1.   Year of sampling:  33.3 cm.
     2.   Mean annual:. 27.4 cm.

-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUWIARY
          Palisades  Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-water
     season of 1975  by Beans of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter.  Each
     time, samples for physical and chemical  parameters were collected
     from five stations on the lake and from a number of depths at each
     station (see map, page 1).  During each visit, depth-integrated
     samples were collected from each station for chlorophyll a_ analysis
     and phytoplankton identification and enumeration.  During September
     and October sampling, 18.9-liter depth-integrated samples were
     composited for  al§al assays.  Maximum depths sampled were 16.B meters
     at Station 01,  8.5 meters at Station 02, 45.1 meters at Station 03,
     and 53.3 meters at Stations 04 and 05.  For a more detailed explanation
     of NES methods, see NES Working Paper No. 175.
          The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C and
     are summarized  in III-A for waters at the surface and at the maximum
     depth for each  site.  Results of the phytoplankton counts and-
     chlorophyll  ^determinations are Included in III-B.  Results of the
     limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.

-------
PALISADES RESERV010
STOPET CODE  1610                                      PHYSICAL  AND  CHEMICAL  CHARACTERISTICS

                                  (   8/  S/75  )                         I   9/18/75  I                         <  10/20/7S I
                                               MAX                                  MAX                                  MAX
                                  S*** •  4     DEPTH                   S*** •  4     DEPTH                   S***  •   4     DEPTH
                                               RANGE                                MANGE                                RAN6E
PARAMETER              N*      PANr,E    MEDIAN  (METERS)     N*     RANGE    MEDIAN  (METERS)     N*      RANGE     MEDIAN  (METERS)


TEMPERATURE  (DEO  CENT)
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**

DISSOLVED OXYGEN  I«6/L>
0.-1.5 •• DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**

CONDUCTIVITY  CUMHO'I
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH'*

PH  (STANDARD  UNITS)
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**

TOTAL ALKALINITY  (MO/LI
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
HAX DEPTH**

TOTAL P (MG/L>
O.-l.S » DEPTH         8   0.011-0.082  0.018    0.0-   1.5    8  0.020-0.033  0.028    0.0-  1.5    8  0.012-0.027   0.015    0.0-   l.S
MAX DEPTH**            4   0.013-0.127  0.0?0    8.2- 53.3    4  0.023-0.103  0.051    8.5- 53.3    4  0.012-0.044   0.02S    7.6- 51.8

DISSOLVED OUTHO P  (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH         A   0.003-n.Ole  0.008    0.0-   1.5    8  0.002-0.010  0.003    0.0-  l.S    8  0.005-0.007   0.006    0.0-   1.5
MAX DEPTH**            4   n.012-0.019  0.017    «.2- 53.3    4  0.002-0.023  0.015    8.5- 53.3    4  0.005-0.029   0.007    7.6- 51.8
ft
4
.)
B
n
4
4
I
20.2-
10.0-
5.4-
230.-
190.-
7.8-
98.-
111.-
21.1
18. «•
8.8
265.
9.7
117^
20.             4   1.030-0.060  O.mo   H.2- 53.3   4  0.020-0.050  0.020   8.5- 53.3   4  0.020-0.030  0.025.   7.6- 51.8
KJEL04ML N  (MG/L)
O.-l.S M PEPTH        8  0.?nO-O.JOO  0.200   0.0-  1.5   P  0.200-0.200  0.200   0.0-  1-5   8  0.200-0.zuu  0.200   0.0-  l.S
MIX DEPTH**           4  n.?00-0.200  O.?n0   1.2- 53.3   4  0.200-0.200  0.200   8.5- 53.3   4  0.200-0.200  0.200   7.6- 51.8
SECCHl DISC
                      3    ?.l-  *.fl    ?.7               *    4.0-  5.5    4.6               4    4.6-  6.1



                         • N « NO. OF SABLES
                         •• MAXIMUM DEPTH SAMPLED AT EACH SITE
                         ••• S * NO. OF SITES SAMPLED ON THIS DATE

-------
                                   8
B.   Biological Characteristics:

     1.   Phytoplankton - Not available at this time.

     2.   Chlorophyll a_ -
          Sampling                 Station             Chlorophyll a_
          Date                     Number              (yg/1)

          08/05/75                   01                     0.8
                                     02                     3.1
                                     03                     1.4
                                     04                     1.4
                                     05                     1.0

          09/18/75                   01                     5.6
                                     02                     2.4
                                     03                     1.7
                                     04                     2.4
                                     05                     1.6

          10/20/75                   01                     4.2
                                     02                     2.3
                                     03                     1.3
                                     04                     0.9
                                     05                     0.9

-------
C.   Limiting Nutrient Study:

     1.   Autoclaved,  filtered,  and nutrient spiked -

          a.   09/18/75  Stations 01-03
          Spike (mg/1)
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
Inorganic N
Cone,  (mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N

Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
b. 10/20/75
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
0.015
0.065
0.065
0.015
Stations 04-05
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.005
0.055
0.055
0.005
Stations 01-03
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.005
0.055
0.055
0.005
0.075
0.075
1.075
1.075

Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.050
0.050
1.050
1.050

Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.070
0.070
1.070
1.070
Maximum Yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)

    1.8
    2.4
    6.2
    2.9
                                                      Maximum Yield
                                                      (mg/1-dry wt.)

                                                          0.3
                                                          1.0
                                                         16.8
                                                          0.2
                                                      Maximum Yield
                                                      (mg/1-dry wt.)

                                                          0.3
                                                          2.3
                                                         25.5
                                                          0.3

-------
                                  10
2.   Discussion -
          The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum caprl-
     cornutum. Indicate that the potential  for primary  production 1n
     Palisades Reservoir was low during  September  for sampling
     Stations 04, 05, and during October for "Stations 01-03,  but high 1n
     September for Stations 01-03.   In the  October and  September
     (Stations 04, 05) assays, the  addition of orthophosphorus  alone
     produced a significant increase 1n  yield over that of the  control,
     indicating phosphorus limitation.   The addition of nitrogen alone
     did not result 1n any Increase 1n yield over  that  of the control
     in those samples.  In the September (Stations 01-03) assay, a
     growth increase accompanied the addition of either phosphorus  or
     nitrogen alone, suggesting col imitation by the two nutrients.
          The mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios (N/P)
     in the lake data were less than 13/1 on all sampling occasions,
     suggesting nitrogen limitation in  the  lake  (a mean N/P  ratio of
     14/1 or greater generally reflects  phosphorus limitation).

-------
                                   11
IV.  NUTRIENT LOADIHGS
     (See Appendix 0 for data)
          For the determination of nutrient loadings,  the  Idaho National
     Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
     tributary sites indicated  on the map (page 1),  except for the high
     runoff month of June when  two samples were collected.  Sampling
     was begun in October 1974, and was completed in September 1975.
          Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for  the
     year of sampling and a "normalized" or average  year were provided
     by the Idaho District Office of the USGS for the  tributary sites
     nearest the lake.
          In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
     determined by using a modification of a USGS computer program for
     calculating stream loadings.  Nutrient loads indicated for tributaries
     are those measured minus known point source loads, 1f any.
          Nutrient loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and  immediate
     drainage" ("ZZ" of USGS) were estimated by using  the  mean annual
                             2
     nutrient loads, in kg/km /year, in Big Elk Creek, Indian Creek  and
     McCoy Creek at Stations D-l, E-l and F-l and multiplying the means
                         2
     by the ZZ area 1n km .

-------
                                        12
A.   Waste Sources:

     1.   Known municipal - None
     2.   Known Industrial - None

B.   Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:

     1.   Inputs -
                                                                 % of
          Source                                  kg P/yr        total

          a.   Tributaries (nonpoint load) -

               A-2 Snake River                    263,880         68.9
               B-l Bear Creek                       3,775          1.0
               D-l Big Elk Creek                    1,705          0.4
               E-l Indian Creek                     1,035          0.3
               F-l McCoy Creek                      1,180          0.3
               G-l Salt River                      49,860         13.0
               H-l Greys River                     57,260         14.9

          b.   Minor tributaries and immediate
               drainage (nonpoint load) -           3,465          0.9

          c.   Known municipal STP's - None

          d.   Septic tanks* -                         10         <0.1

          e.   Known industrial - None

          f.   Direct precipitation** -             1,075          0.3

                             Totals               383,245        100.0%

     2.   Output - A-l Snake River                125,270

     3.   Net annual P accumulation -             256,975
    *Estimate based on 30 lakeshore residences and 2 camps.
   **Est1mated  (See NES Working Paper No. 175).

-------
                                   13
C.   Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:

     1.   Inputs -
                                                            X of
          Source                             kg N/yr        total

          a.   Tributaries (nonpolnt load) -

               A-2 Snake River               2,351,245       65.5
               B-l Bear Creek                   24,435        0.7
               D-l Big Elk Creek                26,350        0.7
               E-l Indian Creek                 13,160        0.4
               F-l McCoy Creek                  21,525        0.6
               G-l Salt River                  824,330       23.0
               H-l Greys River                 207,995        5.8

          b.   Minor tributaries and Immediate
               drainage (nonpolnt load) -       55,040        1.5

          c.   Known municipal STP's - None

          d.   Septic tanks* -                     460       <0.1

          e.   Known industrial - None

          f.   Direct precipitation** -         66,190        1.8

                             Totals          3,590,730       I00.OX

     2.   Outputs - A-l Snake River          2,920,000

     3.   Net annual N accumulation -          670,730
     *Estimate based on 30 lakeshore residences and 2 camps.
    **Estimated (See NES Working Paper No.  175).

-------
                                  14
D.   Mean Annual  Nonpolnt Nutrient  Export  by Subdralnage Area:

     Tributary                          kg P/km2/yr    kg  N/km2/yr

     Snake River                            29             262
     Bear Creek                             19             122
     Big Elk Creek                          11             172
     Indian Creek                           10             131
     McCoy Creek                             4              77
     Salt River                             23             375
     Greys River                            49             179

E.   Msan Nutrient Concentrations in  Ungaged Streams:

                                        Mean Total P   Mean Total iN
     Tributary                             (mq/1)          (mg/1)

     C-l Little Elk Creek                 0.020          0.259

-------
                                   15
F.   Yearly Loadings:
          In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading Is
     compared to the relationship proposed by Vollenweider (1975).
     Essentially, his "eutrophic" loading is that at which the receiving
     waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;  his "oligotrophic"
     loading is that which would result in the receiving water remaining
     oligotrophic or becoming oligotrophic if morphometry permitted.  A
     "mesotrophic" loading would be considered one between "eutrophic"
     and "oligotrophic."
          Note that Vollenwieder's model may not be applicable to water
     bodies with very short retention times or in which  light penetration
     1s severely restricted from high concentrations of  suspended solids
     In the surface waters.
                             Total Yearly
                          Phosphorus Loading
                               (g/m2/yr)°
     Estimated loading for Palisades Reservoir                   6.25
     Vollenweider's "eutrophic" loading                          1.84
     Vollenweider's "oligotrophic" loading                       0.92

-------
                                  16
1.   LITERATURE REVIEWED

     Idaho Department of Water Resources,  Department of Health  and Welfare,
       Department of Fish and Game,  and Department of  Budget, Policy
       Planning and Coordination.   1975.   Idaho  Environmental Review.
       Boise, Idaho.

     Martin, R.O.R. and Ronald L.  Hanson.   1966.  Reservoirs in the U.S.,
       Geological Survey Water Supply  Paper No.  1838.   U.S. Government
       Printing Office, Washington,  D.C.

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1975.  National Eutrophica-
       tion Survey Methods 1973-1976.   Working Paper No.  175.   National
       Environmental Research Center,  Las  Vegas, Nevada,  and Pacific
       Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,  Oregon.

     Vollenweider, R. A.  1975.   Input-Output Models With Special,
       Reference to the Phosphorus Loading  Concept in  Limnology.
       Schweiz. Z. Hydro!.  37:53-84.

-------