EPA 910/9-80-076
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
December 1980
           Water
                                EPA-10-ID-Coeurd'Alene-Kootenai-WWTW-80
           Draft Environmental
           Impact Statement

           Wastewater Treatment
           Facilities for the City of
           Coeur d'Alene, Idaho


-------
                    Draft
       Environmental Impact Statement
            City of Coeur d'Alene
         Wastewater Facilities Plan
                Prepared by:

     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Region 10
          Seattle, Washington  98101
        With technical assistance from:

        Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
                 2321 P Street
         Sacramento, California  95816
             In association with:

               Culp-Wesner-Culp
University of Idaho, Laboratory of Anthropology
                                        ficial:
                             laid P- Dubois
                          Regional Administrator

                           December 10, 1980	
                          Date

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                        vii

     Purpose and Need for Action                         vii
     Project Alternatives                               viii
     Summary Comparison of Alternatives                 xxiv
     Coordination                                        xxv

CHAPTER 1 - EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES    1

     Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant                   1
     Alternative Wastewater Treatment Concepts             4
     Action Proposed by the City of Coeur d'Alene         17

CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ALTERNATIVES                                       19

     Introduction                                         19
     Significant Construction Impacts                     19
     Surface Water Quality Changes                        24
     Effects of Surface Water Quality Changes on
      River Uses                                          38
     Influence of Water Quality Changes on Spokane
      River Fishery                                       51
     Impact on the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Water
      Supply                                              58
     Land Use Conflicts                                   77
     Influence on Soils and Crops                         83
     Public Health Risks on and Around the Spray
      Disposal Area                                       85
     Project Economic Influences                          88
     Use of Scarce Resources                              92
     Archeological Resources                              95
     Growth Implications                                  97

CHAPTER 3 - COORDINATION                                 125

     Introduction                                        125
     Coordination Efforts to Date                        125
     Suggestions and Objections Received Through
      Coordination                                       126
     Continuing Coordination Efforts                     128

-------
                                                          Page

LIST OF  REPORT PREPARERS                                  129

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS                                131

BIBLIOGRAPHY                                              133

APPENDIX A - HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
REPORT,  UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO LABORATORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY   141

APPENDIX B - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS                      153

APPENDIX C - EIS  DISTRIBUTION LIST                        159
                              11

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                   Page

  1       Impacts Common to the Three-Action
          Alternatives                                    xv

  2       No-Action Impacts and Mitigations             xvii

  3       Alternative B Impacts and Mitigations        xviii

  4       Alternative E Impacts and Mitigations           xx

  5       Alternative G Impacts and Mitigations         xxii

 1-1      Existing Effluent Quality                        5

 1-2      Interceptor Extension Costs and Sizes           16

 2-1      Selected Water Quality Parameters for the
          Spokane River near Coeur d'Alene                25

 2-2      Effluent Concentration and Loading for
          Each Proposed Alternative                       28

 2-3      Potential Concentration Increases Under
          Mean Flow Conditions                            29

 2-4      Potential Concentration Increases Under
          0-7-10 Flow Conditions                           30

 2-5      Potential Load Increases Under Mean Flow
          Conditions                                      31

 2-6      Potential Load Increases Under 07-10
          Flow Conditions                                 32

 2-7      Post Falls Irrigation District Water
          Withdrawals                                     43

 2-8      Spokane River at Post Falls - Average
          Monthly Flows in cfs                            43

 2-9      Estimated Soil Loading Rates for Potentially
          Toxic Elements                                  69

 2-10     Land Use Characteristics of Proposal Waste-
          water Treatment Sites                           78

 2-11     Potential Direct Land Use Conflicts Associated
          with the Operation of the Proposed Treatment
          Facilities                                      82

                             iii

-------
Table

 2-12     Potential Mitigation Measures for Land
          Use Conflicts                                   84

 2-13     Irrigation Water Quality Guidelines             86

 2-14     Capital Cost of Facilities  to Provide
          Capacity to 2005                                89

 2-15     Present Worth Cost  of  Capital Facilities
          and Operation and Maintenance                   90

 2-16     Projected Electrical Energy Consumption          92

 2-17     Projected Chemical  Usage                         94

 2-18     Alternative  Population Projections  for the
          City of  Coeur  d'Alene                            98

 2-19     Summary  of Total  Suspended Particulate
          Measurements  in  the Coeur d'Alene Area
          1970-1979                                       119

 2-20      Areal Runoff Loading Rates Selected
          for Spokane                                     123
                            IV

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                  Page

  1       Regional Setting                                ix

  2       Schematic Diagrams of the Project Alternatives xii

 1-1      Existing Treatment Plant Location and Site
          Plan                                             2

 1-2      Alternative B Process Schematic and Site
          Plan                                            10

 1-3      Alternative E Treatment Plant Site
          Alternatives                                    11

 1-4      Alternative E Process Schematic and Site Plan   12

 1-5      Alternative G Lagoon Site Alternatives and
          Potential Irrigation Disposal Area              13

 1-6      Proposed Interceptor System Extensions          15

 2-1      Relationship Between Spokane River Beneficial
          Uses and Average Available Dilution of Waste-
          water Discharges to the River                   39

 2-2      Sole Source Area for the Spokane Valley -
          Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer                        59

 2-3      City of Coeur d'Alene Comprehensive Land
          Use Plan Map                                   103

 2-4      Coeur d'Alene Sewer System Subareas            107

 2-5      Prime Agricultural Lands Within the Planning
          Area                                           108

-------
                      EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY


 (X)  Draft Environmental  Impact  Statement

 (  )  Final Environmental  Impact  Statement

Type of Action:  Administrative


                 Purpose  and Need  for Action

     The City of Coeur d'Alene has applied to the U. S. Environ-
 mental Protection  Agency  (EPA*)  for  Section  201  (Clean  Water
Act) funds for upgrading  the city's  sewage treatment facilities.
Wastewater treatment improvements  are needed to comply  with
the city's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 (NPDES) permit effluent quality  requirements.  Coeur d'Alene's
sewage treatment plant is near capacity and is in a generally
deteriorated condition, periodically failing to meet NPDES
limits on suspended solids.  EPA has awarded Section 201
Step 1 funds to the city  to develop  a facilities plan for
needed improvements to the treatment plant.  The upgraded
facilities would improve  effluent  quality and expand service
to city residents  and residents  of adjacent urbanizing
unincorporated areas.

     Protection of the Rathdrum  Prairie aquifer, which  lies
beneath Coeur d'Alene, is also a concern.  The aquifer  is
of high quality and serves as the  drinking water supply for
over 330,000 people who live in  the  Spokane River basin.
Because of the aquifer's value as  a  domestic water supply,
EPA designated it  as "sole source" under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)  in 1978.   The Idaho Panhandle Health
District (PHD) has been given responsibility for the preserva-
tion of this valuable water source.  Improvements in Coeur
d'Alene's wastewater treatment system will comply with  the
PHD's aquifer protection policies  and will provide capacity
to eliminate a large number of septic tank wastewater treat-
ment systems over  the aquifer.

     Before additional Section 201 funds for design (Step 2)
and construction (Step 3)  of a selected project can be  awarded
to the city,  EPA must complete an environmental review  of
potential impacts of the proposed project.  This review must
meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).   In addition,  the SDWA requires that federal
agencies ensure that any action  taken does not lead, directly
*A list of abbreviations and acronyms is found on page  131,

                             vii

-------
 or indirectly,  to contamination  that  would  create  a  significant
 health hazard in  a "sole  source"  aquifer.   EPA  has prepared
 this  Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) to  comply  with
 these requirements by  evaluating  the  consequences  of the
 construction of the city's  proposed wastewater  treatment
 facilities.


                     Project Alternatives


 Background

      The  City of  Coeur d'Alene is a community of approximately
 20,000 people,  located in Kootenai County in  the Idaho  Pan-
 handle.   It  is  280 miles  north of Boise, the  state capital,
 26 miles  east of  Spokane, Washington, and 90 miles south
 of the United States/Canadian border.  The  city lies on the
 northern  shore  of  Lake Coeur d'Alene, where the Spokane River
 flows out of the  lake and onto the Rathdrum Prairie.  Terrain
 to the east  and south is  mountainous, but the prairie to
 the north and west is open  and gently rolling agricultural
 land  (Figure 1).

      Coeur d'Alene,  like  much of  northern Idaho, has exper-
 ienced a  rapid  population increase in the last  5-10  years.
 It has grown from 16,228  in 1970  to over 20,000 according
 to preliminary  1980  census  figures.   This rapid growth  has
 placed a  heavy  burden on  local public services, including
 schools,  water  supply, and  wastewater treatment.   The existing
 city  wastewater treatment plant occasionally  experiences
 hydraulic overloads.  This  has resulted in  restrictions on
 sewer system expansion and  hookups imposed  by the  Idaho Depart-
 ment  of Health  and Welfare.  The  use  of on-site waste disposal
 systems is still  common in  Coeur  d'Alene, and is the principal
 wastewater treatment technique in surrounding unincorporated
 areas.  The  city's facilities planning consultant, Brown
 and Caldwell  (1980), estimates that there are 10,000  residents
 using  on-site systems within the facilities planning area.
 The continued use  of these  systems is of concern because
 of the unusual geologic and hydrologic character of  the Rathdrum
 Prairie, on which Coeur d'Alene lies.

     The Rathdrum  Prairie is part of a glaciofluvial  outwash
 plain  that stretches from Lake Pend Oreille on the north
 to Spokane,  Washington on the west.   This 350-square-mile
 plain  is underlain by a large underground body of  fresh
water  known as the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer in Idaho  and
 the Spokane Valley aquifer  in Washington.   Water flows  south
and then west through the coarse aquifer material,  eventually
 surfacing as  springs and surface flow near the junction of
 the Spokane and Little  Spokane Rivers, 6 miles west of Spokane.
                             VI 1 1

-------
       Pltofanf Prairie.' i
BASE: U.S.G.S. I-.ESO.OOO SPOKANE QUAD
             FIGURE  1.  REGIONAL   SETTING

-------
     Because of the aquifer's value as a drinking water source
and its designation by EPA as a "sole source" domestic water
supply for the Spokane Valley, there have been numerous studies
to describe its physical character, monitor its water quality,
and develop strategies to protect it from degradation.  Water
quality management plans, financed under Section 208 of the
federal Clean Water Act in both Idaho and Washington  (Panhandle
Area Council, 1978; Spokane County Office of County Engineer,
1979), are the principal policy-development documents being
used to implement aquifer protection.  Both studies indicated
septic tank waste disposal systems used over the aquifer
were contributing to deterioration of groundwater quality.

     To rectify this situation, the State of Idaho empowered
the PHD to develop regulations and policies to control the
proliferation of on-site disposal systems and encourage the
sewering of residences already using on-site systems.  The
PHD established a sewer management plan (SMP) agreement with
Coeur d'Alene in May 1979.  As part of this agreement, Coeur
d'Alene was to develop and implement plans to provide improved
wastewater service to residents within the SMP boundaries.
Improved wastewater facilities would also provide capacity
for expected population increases.  The facilities plan analyzed
in this EIS was prepared to meet the terms of this agreement
and to comply with water quality goals of the Clean Water
Act.
No Action

     Federal regulations (40 CFR, Part 6) require that all
EISs consider the impacts of continued use of the wastewater
treatment and disposal methods currently serving area residents.
This is the "no-action" alternative.  For Coeur d'Alene,
this would mean that the existing wastewater facilities would
continue to operate as is,  with occasional hydraulic overloads
and violations of NPDES suspended solids limits.  No state,
federal or local funds would be allocated to design and con-
struction of new facilities.  Most of the approximately 10,000
Coeur d'Alene area residents now using septic tanks would
continue to do so and wastewater contamination of the aquifer
would continue.  The city would be unable to extend central
wastewater service to new residential, commercial or industrial
development.                   '


Alternative B

     Alternative B is a plan to upgrade existing city waste-
water facilities and construct additional facilities on 8
acres of vacant land immediately east of the present plant
site.  Activated sludge treatment would be added to the present
trickling filter system and plant capacity would be increased
from 2.5 to 4.2 million gallons per day  (MGD) in 1985.  In

                               x

-------
1995, the capacity would again be increased to 6.0 MGD.  A
wasteload allocations study is being done on the Spokane
River by the State of Washington, Department of Ecology.
If the study indicates that phosphorus should be removed
from the effluent, approximately 85 percent of the influent
phosphorus load would be removed between May and October.
Effluent would be discharged throughout the year to the Spokane
River.  Sludge would be dewatered mechanically and trucked
to a site near the city landfill.  Figure 2 diagrams this
alternative.
Alternative E

     Alternative E proposes closure of the existing treatment
plant and construction of a new trickling filter/activated
sludge plant 1-2 miles downstream on the north bank of the
Spokane River.  The new plant would occupy one of three possible
12-acre sites and would have an initial capacity of 4.2 MGD;
as in Alternative B, capacity would be expanded to 6.0 MGD
in 1995.  All city wastewater would be pumped to this site
and discharged to the river after treatment.  As with Alterna-
tive B, phosphorus removal would occur between May and October
(see Figure 2).  Sludge also would be handled as in Alternative B
or would be incinerated in a proposed wastewood-fired power plant
on adjacent property.


Alternative G

     Two treatment plants would be used in Alternative G.
The existing plant would be upgraded but not expanded and
would continue to serve the southern portion of the city.
Phosphorus removal would be added to the treatment process,
if necessary, but the capacity of the plant would remain
about 2.2 MGD.  River discharge of the effluent would continue.

     The second treatment facility would be a series of aerated
lagoons located 1-2 miles north of Coeur d'Alene.  Wastewater
from the northern part of town would be pumped to the lagoon
system for biological secondary treatment.  Initial capacity
would be 2.0 MGD but would be expanded eventually to 3.8
MGD.   During November-April, treated effluent would be piped
to the Spokane River for discharge near Atlas.  No phosphorus
removal would be involved.  From May-October, effluent would
be treated and sprinkler irrigated on a grass seed or alfalfa
crop (see Figure 2).  Sludge disposal from the downtown plant
site would occur as described for Alternative B.  Sludge would
accumulate on the bottom of the ponds and would be dried
and scraped out once every 5 or 6 years.  Disposal would
then occur as in Alternative B.
                              XI

-------
ALTERNATIVE  *
                                           ALTERNATIVE   *
ALTERNATIVE
                                                                                                                                            AS LAND IRRIGATION
                                                                NEW  DOWNRIVER
       EX I STING
                                                                                                                                              NEW  NORTH   AREA   SITE
                                                                                                                                      EXISTING  PLANT  SITE
                                          STORAGE
                                           NEAR
                                         LANDFILL
                                                                                                     BIOLOGICAL^
                                                                                                     SECONDARY'
                                                                                                     TREATMENT* 'a.
                                                                                                      INFLUENT
                                                                                                      (ENTIRE
                                                                                                      SERVICE
                                                                                                       AREA)
                                                                                                                                                    INFLUENT
                                                                                                                                                    (SOUTH AHEi)
INFLUENT
(ENTIRE SERVICE AREA)
                       FIGURE   2.   SCHEMATIC   DIAGRAMS   OF  THE   PROJECT  ALTERNATIVES

-------
Sewer System Extensions

     A number of sewer interceptor extensions also are being
planned.  These would occur regardless of the treatment
alternative selected.  Extensions have been divided into
short- and long-term projects, with the short-term aimed
at sewering areas now using septic tanks.  Most of the new
lines would be in the northern section of town.  These would
be financed entirely with local funds, probably through forma-
tion of local improvement districts (LIDs).


Other Alternatives Considered

     A number of other wastewater system alternatives were
considered in the early planning stages but were dropped
for a variety of economic and engineering reasons.  There
were originally six basic strategies plus "no-action".  The
action strategies each had four suboptions.  Three alternatives
that were dropped included a split plant concept  (Alternative C),
two plants on the river  (Alternative D), and regionalization
with Post Falls (Alternative F).

     Facilities plan engineers eliminated these options with
the aid of a local Citizens Advisory Committee.  Alternative C
was dropped because the split plant would be too costly to
construct and would pose operation and maintenance problems.
Alternative D was eliminated because of the high cost of
operating and maintaining two separate treatment facilities.
The regionalization option (Alternative F) was given detailed
analysis but was dropped because of the high cost of conveying
Coeur d'Alene's wastewater to the Post Falls area, and because
the interlocal coordination and necessary agreements were
judged to be a potentially delaying factor.  EPA had requested
that this option be given serious consideration due to the
proximity of the two cities, the close timing of their facilities
planning efforts,  and the similarity of their concerns for
water quality in the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer and the Spokane
River.
Alternatives Available to EPA

     EPA's principal roles in this project are to provide
an environmental review and to administer design and con-
struction funds available through Section 201 of the Clean
Water Act.  EPA has a number of options available in acting
on the grant applicant's (Coeur d'Alene) request for federal
funding of the wastewater project.  In terms of the structural
configuration of treatment and disposal processes, EPA could
offer funds for a combination of processes not currently
included in a single alternative in the facilities plan.
Although this is unlikely,  it could be done for environmental
or economic reasons.  In terms of administrative actions,
                            Xlll

-------
after review of the facilities plan and the environmental
impacts of construction of the proposed project, EPA could:
1) fund the project as described and recommended by the city,
2) not fund the project, 3) provide funding at a level below
that requested by the city, 4) provide funding in excess
of the level requested by the city, 5) fund the project in
stages, or 6) fund the project only after attaching certain
conditions to the grant award.  These administrative actions
would be in response to regulatory requirements, funding
availability, environmental concerns or some combination
of all three.

     If EPA determines that the project selected by the City
of Coeur d'Alene was excessive in cost or would result in
adverse environmental impacts which could be mitigated, it
may wish to remedy these problems by placing conditions on
the award of subsequent grants rather than supporting a
different alternative or modifying-the funding.  EPA admini-
strative procedures allow this mitigation approach and place
the burden of action on the grant applicant.  Grant conditions
can include.specific monitoring requirements, requests for
supporting ordinances, or a variety of other controls on
the construction and operation of wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities.


City and Citizens Advisory Committee Recommendations

     The" City of Coeur d'Alene and the Citizens Advisory
Committee prefer Alternative E (a new site with year-round
river discharge).  Reasons for this preference given by the
advisory committee include reduced potential contamination
of the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, elimination of land use
conflicts, impractical rehabilitation of equipment at the
present treatment site, and beneficial environmental and
aesthetic considerations.
Impacts of the Individual Alternatives

     The environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures
for each project alternative are summarized in the following
tables. .-Only the more significant impacts have been summarized.
The first table lists impacts common to each of the action
project alternatives (B, E, and G).  Separate tables follow
with impacts specific to individual alternatives.  Following
the tables is a short narrative comparison of these impacts.

     The mitigation measures listed are possible methods
of avoiding or reducing the severity of adverse impacts.
Mitigations are not necessarily those that will be implemented
should a project be constructed.  The adopted mitigation
measures will be included in EPA's Record of Decision on
the project, which will be prepared after completion of the


                             xiv

-------
                     Table 1.  Impacts Cotmon to the Three Action Alternatives  (B, E, G)
Area of Impact
Groundwater quality
Description of Impact
Eventual elimination of on-site waste-
water disposal systems serving 5,000
residents now contaminating the aquifer.
Centralised treatment capacity for new
residents over the aquifer.
Possible Mitigation Measures

None needed
                                 Possible groundwater contamination from
                                 sludge dewatering over aquifer
                                             Relocate sludge disposal to
                                             a site off of the aquifer

                                             Seal sludge drying beds

                                             Mechanically dewater sludge

                                             Monitor disposal area leachate
Surface water quality
Elimination of occasional wastewater
discharges to the Spokane River that
violate state and federal waste dis-
charge requirements
                                                                              None needed
Costs
Interceptor system capital cost of
$5,179,000  (locally funded)
                                                                              None
Growth implications
Approximately 2,300 urban acres
added in the Coeur d'Alene area by
2005
                                 Facilities plan land use pattern is
                                 consistent with city comp plan, but
                                 assumes build-out in the unincorpo-
                                 rated part of the facilities plan-
                                 ning area will occur sooner than in
                                 city or county comp plans
                                 Conversion of 440 acres of prime
                                 agricultural land to urban uses
                                 Indirectly accommodates development
                                 within 100-year floodplain (Black-
                                 well Island)
                                 Indirectly accommodates development
                                 that may affect wetlands (Blackwell
                                 Island)'
Encourage infill and higher-
than-present urban densities
                                             More coordination between city
                                             and county planning efforts

                                             Strengthened city infill
                                             policies

                                             Increase allowable urban den-
                                             sities in cits-
                                             Stronger local restrictions on
                                             agricultural land development

                                             Preferential property tax
                                             assessment

                                             Purchase of development rights
                                             Conduct environmental assess-
                                             ment of new interceptors
                                             serving prime farmland areas
                                             prior to construction
                                             Eliminate sewering of Blackwell
                                             Island

                                             Ensure development meets construc-
                                             tion and safety requirements of

                                             City provide assurance that
                                             island development will not
                                             violate EPA flcodplain pro-
                                             tection police-
                                                    island development plans

                                             City provide assurance that
                                             island development will not
                                             result in wetland loss, in
                                             violation of EPA wetland pro-
                                             tection policy

                                             Conduct wetlands/floodplains
                                             assessment

-------
Description of Impact
Possible Mitigation Measures
Level of most public services cur-
rently being provided will decrease
in the near term
Encourage infill

Increase developer-financing
of public service

Rely more heavily on user cost
financing of services

More coordination of intracity
planning
Problematical fiscal impact
None
Problematical air quality impact
None
Increased urban runoff from 2,300
new urban acres
Identify and plan for control'of
nonpoint pollution sources through
ongoing 208 planning
Increasing demand for electrical
and gas supplies
Increase local conservation efforts

Modify building codes to improve
energy efficiency of new struc-
tures
Indirectly accommodate development
that may affect archeological
resources
City provide assurance that
archeological assessments
will be conducted prior to
development of Blackwell
Island and vacant land adja-
cent to city treatment plant
                    xvi

-------
                                 Table  2.  No-Action  Impacts  and Mitigations
Area of  Impact
Construction losses
 Description  of  Impact
 Possible Mitigation Measures
                                 None
 Surface water  quality
 Occasional elevated BOD,  nutrient and
 pathogen  levels  in river  due  to
 discharge of poorly treated or
 untreated wastewater
 Improve  stormwater  separation
 Add emergency  storage capacity
 on-site
 Spokane  River  fishery
 Intermittent  discharge  of poorly
 treated  or  untreated wastewater could
 result in lethal  contact concentrations
 of  ammonia  and  chlorine, resulting  in
 fish kills
 Improve  stormwater  separation
 Add emergency  storage capacity
 on-site
 Spokane River uses
 Swimming  and  scuba diving discouraged
 immediately below outfall; continued
 health threat to 164 residences extract-
 ing  domestic  water frcm river
Improve  stormwater separation
Add emergency  storage capacity
on-site
Improve  disinfection
Alternative drinking water
sources
 Groundwater quality
Continued groundwater contamination
 (nitrates and possible other hazardous
wastes)  from use of 10,000 on-site
disposal systems in planning area
                                                                              None
                                 Possible groundwater contamination from
                                 sludge dewatering over aquifer
                                             Relocate sludge disposal to
                                             a site off of the aquifer
                                             Seal sludge drying beds
                                             Mechanically dewater sludge

                                             Monitor disposal area leachate
land  use conflicts
Growth implications
Increasing odor and visual complaints
from present and planned residents
near treatment plant
Restrict residential or com-
mercial development of adjacent
open land
Improve plant odor control
techniques
Plant a vegetative screen around
treatment facilities
Spray area health threat
Costs
Resource use
Archeological resources
None
Monthly user cost remains at $4.48
Possible fines for NPDES permit
violations
Continued use of 500,000 Kwh of
electricity per year at treatment
plant
Continued use of 24,000 pounds of
chlorine per year at treatment plant
None

None
None



Improve stormwater separation
Use alternative
medium
None
disinfection

Local growth could be reduced or halted
by PHD aquifer protection policies
in absence of wastewater system
improvements
Allow development to continue
as at present with dry sewers
and pursue system improvements
at a later date
Allow increased urban densities
within existing sewer service
area
                                                     xvn

-------
                               Table 3.  Alternative B Impacts and Mitigations
Area of Impact
Construction losses
Description of Impact
Construction within a zone B flood
hazard zone

Conversion of up to 8.7 acres of
vacant land to treatment facilities
Possible Mitigation'Measures

Meet building requirements of
Coeur d'Alene and Federal  .
Insurance Administration
Surface water quality
Probable increased algal production
immediately downstream of outfall_
in summer months

Shall ammonia and BOD increases could
aggravate existing DO sag near Post
Falls   '
Increase treatment level to
full nutrient removal during
the simmer
Spokane River fishery
Small concentration increases in
heavy metals and toxins may affect
egg and larval stages of existing
fish downstream fran outfall
None
Spokane River uses
Increased numbers of pathogens in
river below outfall, further dis-
couraging water-contact recreation
in that area
Improve disinfection

Maximize dilution through
diffuser design
                                 Increased health hazard to 164
                                 residences extracting domestic water
                                 from river due to increased dis-
                                 charge
                                             Improve disinfection

                                             Maximize dilution through
                                             diffuser design

                                             Use alternative drinking water
                                             source

                                             Increase water quality moni-
                                             toring below discharge point
Groundwater quality
Possible groundwater contamination
from increased volume of sludge
dewatered over aquifer
Relocate sludge disposal to a
site off of the aquifer

Seal sludge drying beds

Maximize degree of mechanical
dewatering

Monitor disposal area leachate
Land use conflicts
Conflicts with condominium/commer-
cial development plans on land
designated for plant expansion
                                                                              None
                                 Possible conflict with NIC plans
                                 to expand north of River Avenue
                                             Revise NIC expansion :plans
                                 Would probably discourage residen-
                                 tial/commercial development on adja-
                                 cent land to the north and east
                                             Restrict future adjacent uses
                                             •to manufacturing/industrial
                                 Increasing odor and visual complaints
                                 from present and planned residents
                                 near treatment plant
                                             Restrict residential or commer-
                                             cial development of adjacent
                                             open land

                                             Improve plant odor control
                                             techniques

                                             Plant a vegetative screen'
                                             around treatment facilities
Spray area health threat
None
Costs
Monthly user costs of $11.59 by 1983
 (includes phosphorus removal costs)
                                 Treatment system capital cost of
                                 $20,240,000, initial local share of
                                 $1,775,000
                                             None
                                                     xviii

-------
Area of Inpact                  Description of Inpact                        Possible Mitigation Measures
Resource use                     Electrical consumption of 935,000 JCvvh        Improve stormwater separation
                                 per year by 1995                             Purchase energy-efficient
                                                                              equipment

                                 Chemical usage increased to 41,600           Closely monitor dosing
                                 pounds per year chloride and 139,000         Use alternative disijlfection
                                 gallons per year alum by 1995                irediums

Archeological resources          Possible disturbance of archeological        Select alternate treatment  site
                                 resources associated with Site 10-KA-
                                 4g                                           Conduct test excavation and
                                                                              salvage if necessary
                                                    xix

-------
                               Table 4.  Alternative E Impacts and Mitigations
Area of  impact
Construction losses
Description of Impact
Conversion of up to 12 acres of open
space or mined land to treatment facilities
Possible Mitigation Measures
                                                                              None
                                 Possible removal of 6-8 acres of pine
                                 trees  (Sites 1 and 3)
                                             Place treatment plant in
                                             Site 2
Surface water quality
Probable increased algal production
immediately downstream of outfall in
summer months
Increase treatment level to
full nutrient removal during
the summer
                                 Elimination of wastewater influence
                                 on a 1-mile stretch of the Spokane
                                 River below present outfall
                                             None
                                 Small ammonia and BOD increases could
                                 aggravate existing DO sag near Post
                                 Falls
                                             Increase treatment level to
                                             full nutrient removal during
                                             the summer
Spokane River fishery
Small concentration increases in heavy
metals and toxins may affect egg and
larval stages of existing fish down-
stream from outfall
                                                                              None
                                 Wastewater removal from 1 mile stretch
                                 of river; seasonally occupied by
                                 migrating fish
                                             None
Spokane River uses
Wastewater discharge moved 1-2 miles
closer to major water contact recrea-
tion areas in river, possibly dis-
couraging use
Improve disinfection

Maximize dilution through
diffuser design
Discourage water contact uses by
limiting river access

Encourage water contact uses
upstream from discharge
                                 Increased health hazard to 164
                                 residences extracting domestic water
                                 from river due to increased discharge
                                 and closer proximity to outfall
                                             Use alternative drinking water
                                             source

                                             Increase water quality monitoring
                                             below discharge point
Groundwater quality
Possible groundwater contamination
from increased volume of sludge
dewatered over aquifer
Relocate sludge disposal to a
site off of the aquifer

Seal sludge drying beds

Maximize degree of mechanical
dewatering

Monitor disposal area leachate

Incinerate sludge in wood-powerec
steam generator  (if constructed)
Land use conflicts
No conflicts unless residential/
ccranercial development allowed into
industrial zones on adjacent land
Restrict adjacent uses to
industrial or open space
                                 Eliminates existing land use con-
                                 flicts at present treatment plant
                                 site
                                                                              None
Spray area health threat
None
Costs
Monthly user cost of $12.16 by 1983
(includes phosphorus removal costs)
None
                                 Treatment system capital cost of
                                 $22,180,000; initial local share of
                                 $1,948,000
                                             None
Resource use
Electrical consumption of 1,135,000
Kwh per year by 1995
Improve stormwater separation

Purchase energy- efficient
equipment
                                 Chemical usage increased to 41,600
                                 pounds per year of chlorine and
                                 139,000 gallons per year of alum
                                 by 1995
                                             Closely monitor dosing

                                             Use alternative disinfection
                                             medium
                                                    xx

-------
 Area of Dipact                   Description of Impact                       Possible Mitigation Measures

Archeological resources          No adversa impact, at proposed gravel         Construct facilities at gravel
                                 pit site; possible disturbance of            pit site (Site 2)
                                 archeological resources at other two         Excavate only in presence of
                                 potential plant sites                        qualified archeologist
                                                     XXI

-------
                               Table 5.   Alternative G Impacts and Mitigations
Area of Impact
Construction losses
Description of Impact
Conversion of up to 53 acres of prime
agricultural land to treatment and
storage lagoons
Possible Mitigation Measures

Locate facilities on Ramsey
Road site which has no
prime agricultural land
Surface water quality
Increased BOD load to the river
during winter months only
                                                                              None
Spokane River fishery
Small concentration increases in
heavy metals and toxins may affect
egg and larval stages of existing
fish downstream from outfall
                                                                              None
Spokane River uses
Increased health hazard to 164
residences extracting domestic water
from river due to increased winter
discharge and closer proximity to
outfall
Use alternative drinking water
source
Increase water quality moni-
toring below discharge point
Groundwater quality
Possible groundwater contamination
from increased volume of sludge
dewatered over aquifer
                                 Increase in groundwater nitrate
                                 levels and potential contamination
                                 with other hazardous wastes from
                                 irrigation disposal
Relocate sludge disposal to a
site off of the aquifer

Seal sludge drying beds

Maximize degree of mechanical
dewatering
Monitor disposal area leachate
                                             Increase irrigated acreage so
                                             that annual loading per acre is
                                             reduced

                                             Inventory industrial and com-
                                             mercial dischargers
                                             Comply with CWA pretreatment
                                             requirements

                                             Monitor effluent quality prior
                                             to land disposal
                                             Predict treatment capabilities
                                             of soil
                                             Establish and monitor well net-
                                             work at disposal site
                                             Apply wastewater at a rate not
                                             to exceed 2.3 inches per week
Land use conflicts
Continued odor and visual complaints
from present and planned residents
near existing treatment plant
                                 Possible future conflicts near
                                 aerated lagoon and irrigation
                                 disposal systems if residential
                                 or conmercial development occurs
                                 on adjacent land
Restrict residential or com-
mercial development adjacent to
existing plant

Improve plant odor control
techniques

Plant a vegetative screen
around treatment plant
                                             Restrict residential and com-
                                             mercial development adjacent
                                             to new facilities
                                             Use Huetter Road treatment
                                             site and northwest portion of
                                             irrigation area
                                             Plant a vegetative screen around
                                             treatment plant
                                             Use best available odor control
                                             techniques
Spray area health threat
Health risk on lands adjacent to
irrigation area due to wastewater
aerosol drift
Thoroughly disinfect wastewater

Plant vegetative  screen around
irrigation area
Maintain buffer strip around
spray area perimeter
Use low trajectory, low pres-
sure sprinklers

Cease irrigation  in high winds
                                                   xxn

-------
Area of Impact
Costs~~
Description of Impact
Monthly user cost of $16.10
(includes phosphorus removal costs)
                                 Treatment system capital cost of
                                 $26,870,000; initial local share
                                 of $3,175,000
Possible Mitigation Measures
None
                                             None
Resource use
Electrical consumption of 2,523,000
Kwh per year by 1995
                                 Chemical usage increased to 41,600
                                 pounds per year of chlorine and
                                 65,500 gallons per year of alum
                                 by 1995
                                                                              Improve stormwater separation

                                                                              Purchase energy-efficient
                                                                              equipment

                                                                              Use lagoon and irrigation
                                                                              disposal sites closest to
                                                                              Coeur d'Alene
                                             Closely monitor dosing

                                             Use alternative disinfection
                                             medium
Archeological resources
No evidence of archeological resources
at construction sites
Consult qualified archeologist
should artifacts be unearthed
                                                     xxn i

-------
 Final  EIS.   EPA will  not be  responsible  for  all mitigations
 required.   Local,  regional,  and  state agencies will be  called
 upon to  initiate  those mitigations that  are  within their
 respective  functional capacities.


              Summary  Comparison  of Alternatives

     Under  the  "no-action" alternative,  the  chances of  occa-
 sional discharges  of  poorly  treated or untreated wastewater
 from the Coeur  d'Alene plant would increase.  These dis-
 charges  could lead to fish mortality under certain hydrologic
 conditions  and  would  increase the health risk to persons
 drawing  domestic water from  the  Spokane River downstream
 of  Coeur d'Alene.   In addition,  the groundwater contamination
 that occurs  from  septic tank use in the area would not  be
 alleviated.   Capital  outlay  for  new facilities would be avoided,
 and local growth would continue  to be restrained by a lack
 of  sewer service capacity-

     Construction  of  either  Alternative B or E would effectively
 eliminate untreated wastewater discharges.   This would  benefit
 both the river  fishery and human use of the  river.  These
 alternatives, however, allow for a gradual increase in  the
 volume of treated  wastewater discharged to the river.   During
 low river flow  conditions, increased discharges would pose
 a continuing  health threat to water-contact  recreationists
 and persons drawing domestic water from the  river.  Alternative E
 would  relocate  that discharge 1-2 miles closer to the main
 domestic use  and water contact areas.

     Alternative B poses continuing land use conflicts  due
 to  its proximity to existing and planned residential develop-
 ment.   It does, however, require the lowest  capital outlay
 of  the action alternatives and would cost the citizens  of
 Coeur d'Alene the  least.  It also has the lowest chemical
 and energy demand.  Alternative  E would move the treatment
 facilities to an area free of current land use conflicts
 and would allow the present  plant to be removed.  Relocation
 would cost $1,940,000 more than Alternative  B (in terms of
 capital  cost).  The energy requirements of E would also be
 slightly higher than  B.

     Both Alternatives B and E pose problems to the cultural
 resources of the area.  Use  of the river and lake shore near
Alternatives B and E  by the  Coeur d'Alene tribe is well docu-
mented;  of this riverfront area  at least part may be eligible
 for the National Register of Historic Places.  In contrast,
there  is no evidence  of cultural heritage resources near
proposed sites for Alternative G.
                            XXIV

-------
     Alternative G would have the most positive effect on
surface water quality.  It would leave summer discharges
at present levels, but the reliability of the plant and the
quality of the effluent would be significantly improved.
This would improve conditions for both the river fishery and
the various beneficial uses of the river.  Conflicts between
wastewater facilities and adjacent land uses would not be
significantly modified.  The costs and energy requirements
for achieving water quality improvement are high.  Alternative G
has a capital cost $6,630,000 higher than Alternative B.
Energy demands are 2.5 times greater.  In addition, the summer
irrigation disposal operation poses a potential contamination
threat to the area's principal water supply, the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer.

     Each of the three alternatives would allow for sewering
of up to 5,000 residents currently using septic tanks over
the aquifer.  Wastewater treatment capacity increases and
the planned sewer extensions would accommodate 32,400 new
residents in the Coeur d'Alene area by the year 2005.  The
indirect environmental implications of this growth would
be the same for each of these three alternatives.
                        Coordination

     Public participation and coordination for the Coeur
d'Alene facilities plan began with an EIS scoping meeting
held in Coeur d'Alene on June 4, 1979.  The meeting was attended
by 19 interested individuals and public agency staff.  On
June 27, 1979, EPA published the official Notice of Intent
(NOI) to prepare an EIS on the project.  Since that time,
EPA staff and consultants have made frequent contact with
local, state, and federal agencies and private citizens in
an effort to define project-related environmental issues
and collect background data.

     Since November 1979, EPA regularly has attended monthly
Coeur d'Alene facilities plan Citizens Advisory Committee
meetings.  This forum has been useful in identifying project-
related environmental issues, discussing facilities plans
and EIS progress, and presenting EPA preliminary impact assess-
ments.  On September 30, 1980, a public meeting was sponsored
by EPA to discuss preliminary findings of the EIS.  The final
three project alternatives being considered in the facilities
plan also were described and discussed.

     As a result of this coordination, a variety of project
options were generated and some were dropped from considera-
tion.  The feasibility of a joint Post Falls-Coeur d'Alene
treatment system was given the closest scrutiny, but was
eventually dropped for economic and institutional reasons.
In addition, the coordination efforts have allowed EPA to
identify and focus on the key environmental issues in this
EIS.
                             xxv

-------
     Further EIS coordination is planned.   EPA will conduct
a public hearing on the Draft EIS at 7:30  p.m. on February 18,
1981 in the Coeur d'Alene City Council Chambers.   All interested
citizens are invited to attend.   EPA will  respond to comment
in the Final EIS.  All comments  received will be  given con-
sideration before EPA makes a decision on  providing funding
to the city for design and construction of the proposed
facilities.
                           XXVI

-------
CHAPTER 1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES
                        -


-------
                          Chapter 1


         EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES


             Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant


Treatment Processes

     The existing wastewater treatment plant site is located
on the Spokane River, downstream of the North Idaho College,
and just west of Northwest Boulevard.  The site is designated
manufacturing-commercial in the city's land use comprehensive
plan.  The site location is shown in Figure 1-1.

     The site has been used for wastewater treatment since
1939, when a small trickling filter plant was constructed.
In 1974, this small plant was expanded into the 2.5 MGD
trickling filter plant which now serves the needs of the
city.  The existing plant consists of the following unit
processes:

     Influent Screening and Pumping - raw wastewater passes
     through a comminutor, which macerates oversized particles
     Pumps then lift the wastewater to ground level.

     Preliminary Treatment - grit is removed in a single
     basin and the wastewater is preaerated.

     Primary Treatment - heavy organic solids settle in a
     60-foot diameter circular basin; settled material is
     called primary sludge.

     Trickling Filter - A 165-foot diameter circular structure
     is filled with rocks to a depth of 7 feet.  Wastewater
     is distributed at the surface of the rocks by a rotating
     distributor and trickles down over the rocks.  Organic
     matter is removed from the wastewater by micro-organisms
     growing on the surface of the rocks.

     Secondary Sedimentation - a circular tank settles out
     biological cell material which "sloughs" from the
     surface of the rocks in the trickling filter.

     Chlorine Contact - chlorine is added to the treated
     wastewater to provide disinfection prior to discharge.
     Contact time in the chlorine contact basin is approxi-
     mately 1 hour.

-------
                             CITY  OF
                         COEUR D'ALENE
                             SEWAGE
                            TREATMENT
                              PLANT
                              KEY
           1  INFLUENT PUMPING STATION
           2  GRIT REMOVAL / PREAERATION TANK
           3  PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
           4  FILTER FEED CHAMBER
           5  TRICKLING FILTER
           6  SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
           7  CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
           8  SLUDGE PUMP HOUSE
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
10 PRIMARY DIGESTER
11 SECONDARY DIGESTER
12 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK
13 CHLORINE BUILDING
14 OFFICE / LABORATORY / GARAGE
15 MAINTENANCE BUILDING
                          SOURCE: BROWN 6.  CALDWELL 1980
FIGURE   l-l.   EXISTING   TREATMENT  PLANT
LOCATION   AND   SITE   PLAN

-------
     Sludge Treatment - sludge removed in the secondary clari-
     fier is pumped to the head of the preaeration basin
     and is removed from the primary clarifier.   Sludge treat-
     ment consists of gravity thickening and two-stage
     anaerobic digestion.   Digested sludge is stored on-
     site and disposed of on agricultural land or in a
     landfill.
Problems at the Existing Wastewater Plant

     Problems at the existing plant are attributable to
deterioration of some physical structures due to age (almost
40 years for some facilities) and due to flows in excess
of plant capacity during wet weather conditions.  Problem
areas are summarized as follows:

     High Wastewater Flow During Precipitation - this con-
     dition results from excessive inflow into the sewer
     system from stormwater.  Sewer separation is presently
     underway in the fort grounds area near the treatment
     plant.  In addition, a number of stormwater catch basins
     are being removed from the sanitary sewers throughout
     the city.  These measures are expected to result in
     significant reductions in wet weather flow.

     Insufficient Raw Wastewater Pumping Capacity - the raw
     wastewater pumping station has four pumps.  Proper
     operation would be for three pumps to handle peak wet
     weather flow, with the largest pump remaining on stand-
     by in case of failure of one of the other three pumps.
     At present, however, all four pumps must be used during
     peak wet weather conditions, leaving no standby pump
     for emergencies.

     Preliminary Treatment - the outlet pipe between preliminary
     treatment and the primary clarifier is inadequate to
     handle peak wet weather flows and creates surcharging
     of the preliminary treatment basin.  In addition,  problems
     have arisen with the pumps that remove grit from the
     bottom of the preaeration basin.

     Secondary Sedimentation Tank - the principal problem
     with this basin is its shallow depth, which prevents
     proper settling of biological material that "sloughs"
     from the surface of the rocks in the trickling filter.
     Recently, the outlet has been temporarily modified to
     increase the water depth.

     General - due to a combination of age and severe winter
     weather, some structures are in poor condition.  The
     primary clarifier has experienced freeze-thaw spalling
     and structural cracking, the preaeration tank has a
     leak at its base, and the brick covering the older digesters
     has deteriorated.

-------
 Existing Effluent Quality

      Existing effluent  quality meets  the NPDES  limits  for
 all parameters except suspended  solids, which occasionally
 exceed the 30 mg/1 limit.  Averages of effluent quality  analyses
 for January-April 1980  are shown in Table  1-1.


           Alternative Wastewater Treatment Concepts


 Introduction

      Initially in the facilities planning  process, a number
 of  viable alternatives  were formulated for evaluation.   Alter-
 natives  initially developed were:

      Alternative  A - no action

      Alternative  B - expand plant at  existing site

      Alternative  C - split plant - existing site with  down-
      stream advanced treatment plant

      Alternative  D - two plants  on river

      Alternative  E - new downstream plant, abandon existing
      plant

      Alternative  F - regionalization  with  Post  Falls

      Alternative  G - two plants  - irrigation disposal  at
      north site and river disposal at existing  site

      With  the  exception of Alternative A,  the other six  con-
 cepts  had  various  treatment suboptions.  These  suboptions
 were:  1)  secondary treatment only, 2) secondary treatment
 plus  phosphorus removal, 3) nitrifying secondary treatment
 plus  phosphorus removal, and 4)  secondary  treatment with
 land  application.

      Three different treatment plant  sites were used in  these
 evaluations:   1)  the existing plant site,  2) a  new downstream
 site  located on the river, and 3) a new site located north
 of the city.   Following is a brief description  of the  alterna-
 tives which were  considered initially in the facilities  plan
 and the rationale  for eliminating certain  alternatives prior
 to detailed evaluation.
Alternative A - No Action

     No expansion of treatment facilities would take place,
and only limited new hookups to the sewer system would be
allowed.

-------
            Table  1-1.  Average Effluent Analyses
                           January-April, 1980
Parameter                                       Concentration

BOD - mg/11                                         15.8
Suspended solids - mg/1                             30.8
Ammonia N - mg/1                                     9.3
Nitrite N - mg/1                                     0.09
Nitrate N - mg/1                                     4.8
Total phosphorus P - mg/1                            7.7
Orthophosphate - P - mg/1                            7.1
Specific conductance - ymhos/cm                     453
•"•Coeur d'Alene NPDES  discharge permit stipulates that BOD
 and suspended solids not  exceed a daily average of 30 mg/1.
SOURCE:  Idaho Department  of  Health and Welfare, pers. comm. b

-------
 Alternative B -  Expand  Plant  at  Existing  Site

      The existing  plant would be expanded from  its  present
 capacity of 2.5  MGD  to  a new  capacity  of  6.0 MGD.   Suboptions
 were :

      B-l -  secondary treatment - river discharge

      B-2 -  secondary plus phosphorus removal -  river  discharge

      B-3 -  nitrifying secondary  plus phosphorus removal  -
      river  discharge

      B-4 -  secondary treatment - irrigation disposal

      B-l was  dropped due to probable discharge  limitations,
 B-3 was  dropped  because  nitrification probably would  not
 be required for  river discharge,  and B-4  was dropped  due
 to cost  and operational  limitations.  Only Alternative B-2
 was retained  for more detailed evaluation.
 Alternative C -  Split Plant - Existing Site with Downstream
 Advanced  Treatment Plant

     The  existing plant would provide 2.5 MGD of treatment
 capacity  with an additional 3.5 MGD provided at a downstream
 treatment site.  Suboptions of this alternative were:

     C-l  - secondary treatment - downstream river discharge

     C-2  - secondary plus phosphorus removal - downstream
     river discharge

     C-3  - nitrifying secondary plus phosphorus removal -
     downstream river discharge

     C-4  - secondary treatment - irrigation disposal

     All  of these alternatives were dropped during the initial
 screening process because of potential operating problems
 and high  cost.   Alternative C-3 was dropped because nitrifi-
 cation probably would not be required for river discharge.


Alternative D - Two Plants on River

     Two  treatment plants would be utilized.  The existing
plant would operate at 2.1 MGD and a second plant operating
at 3.9 MGD would be located downstream.   Suboptions of the
basic alternative were:

     D-l - secondary treatment at both sites

     D-2 - secondary treatment at existing site and secondary
     plus phosphorus removal downstream

-------
     D-3 - secondary treatment plus phosphorus removal at
     both sites

     D-4 - secondary treatment with phosphorus removal at
     existing site and nitrified secondary plus phosphorus
     removal downstream

     D-5 - nitrified secondary plus phosphorus removal at
     both sites

     Alternative D-l was dropped because of probable discharge
limitations, while D-2, D-3, D-4, and D-5 were dropped due
to operational problems and high cost.  After screening these
alternatives it was concluded that treatment at two different
locations was not cost-effective.
Alternative E - New Downstream Plant, Abandon Existing Plant

     All treatment would be accomplished at a new treatment
plant located 1-2 miles downstream, and the existing facilities
would be abandoned.  Suboptions of this alternative were:

     E-l - secondary treatment - river discharge

     E-2 - secondary treatment plus phosphorus removal -
     river discharge

     E-3 - nitrifying secondary plus phosphorus removal -
     river discharge

     E-4 - secondary treatment - irrigation disposal

     Of these, only E-2 was retained for detailed evaluation.
E-l was dropped due to probable discharge limitations, E-3
was dropped because nitrification probably would not be required,
and E-4 was dropped due to land area requirements.


Alternative F - Regionalization With Post Falls

     Raw wastewater would be conveyed to an expanded Post
Falls treatment plant, which would have a capacity of 8.4
MGD.  Of this 8.4 MGD, 6.0 would be for Coeur d'Alene and
2.4 would be for Post Falls.  Suboptions involving river
discharge and irrigation were evaluated; due to high cost,
however, all regionalization alternatives were deleted from
further consideration.
Alternative G - Two Plants - River Site and Site North of
     Two treatment facilities would be used.  One site would
be north of town and would use irrigation for effluent disposal.

                              7

-------
 The second site would be  on  the  river  at  either  the  existing
 or the downstream site.   Suboptions  of this  alternative  were:

      G-l and G-3 - secondary treatment at both locations

      G-2 - secondary treatment at north site and secondary
      plus phosphorus removal at  downstream site

      G-4 - secondary treatment at north site and secondary
      plus phosphorus removal at  the  existing site

      G-5 - secondary treatment at north site and nitrified
      secondary  plus  phosphorus removal at downstream river
      site

      Of these five alternatives, only  G-2 was retained for
 detailed evaluation.   The remaining  four  alternatives were
 dropped from consideration due to water quality  requirements,
 potential operating  difficulties, and  cost.


 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation

      Of the  27  alternatives  developed  during the initial
 screening process, four were selected  for detailed economic,
 operational  and environmental evaluation.  These were the
 no-action alternative and Alternatives B-2,  E-2,  and G-2
 (henceforth  referred to as Alternatives B, "E, and G) .  Each
 of  these alternatives is discussed in  detail in  the  following
 sections.

      Alternative A -  No Action.  This  concept is a continuation
 of  the  present  practice.  Several areas would continue to
 contribute wastewater to the existing  2.5 MGD wastewater
 facility.  No changes would  be made  in the facility  either
 to  increase  its capacity or  to correct existing  problems.
 Areas of Coeur  d'Alene which are not sewered would continue
 to  rely  on septic  tanks and  would continue to add nitrate
 to  the  groundwater.

      In  all  likelihood, the  limitation on sewer  line extensions
 imposed  by the  Idaho  Department  of Health and Welfare (IDHW)
 would continue.   No  expansions to the  sewer  system would
 be  allowed, with the  exception of the  Interceptor A  project,
 and no new connections to the sewer  system would  be  allowed
 except for homes adjacent to existing  sewer  mains.   The  IDHW
 has indicated that this suspension would  remain  in effect
 until additional treatment capacity  is  made  available.   One
method of achieving  additional capacity without  expanding
or modifying the treatment facility  is  reduction  of  stormwater
inflow.   Separation  of the stormwater  and sanitary sewer
 systems  is presently  underway in various  parts of the city
and will result in the reduction of  stormwater inflow.   Sepa-
ration of those  systems will  allow additional treatment  plant


                              8

-------
capacity for new connections to the sanitary sewer system.
Estimated cost of this alternative would be $81 per year
for existing homes on septic tanks.  This cost would cover
periodic drainfield replacement and septic tank pumping.

     The city presently has an agreement with the Panhandle
Health District  (PHD) which restricts any new annexation
until design work on new sewage treatment facilities is under-
way.  Under a no-action alternative, it is expected that
this agreement would continue to remain in force.

     Alternative B - Expand Plant at Existing Site.  Under
Alternative B, all wastewater treatment facilities would
be located at the existing plant site.  Treatment would con-
sist of trickling filtration followed by activated sludge.
Phosphorus removal would be accomplished on a seasonal basis,
probably by the addition of alum.  The ultimate capacity
of the plant would be 6.0 MGD by the year 2005, with 4.2
MGD constructed initially and an additional 1.8 MGD constructed
in 1995.  A schematic flow diagram and proposed layout of
the treatment facilities are shown in Figure 1-2.

     The estimated total present worth cost for this alter-
native, constructed to a capacity of 6.0 MGD, is $22,100,000.
Annual operation and maintenance costs (expressed in 1980
dollars) in year 1990 would be $714,000 per year.

     Alternative E - New Downstream Plant, Abandon Existing
Plant.  Under this alternative, all wastewater facilities
at the existing treatment plant would be abandoned and demolished,
A new 4.2 MGD treatment facility would be constructed at
the downstream site shown in Figure 1-3.   In 1995, the plant
would be expanded to 6.0 MGD.  Discharge would be directly
to the Spokane River on a year-round basis.

     The treatment process would consist of trickling fil-
tration followed by activated sludge.  Alum addition would
be used from May 1 to October 31, to enhance phosphorus
removal.  Plant layout and a schematic flow diagram of the
treatment process are shown in Figure 1-4.

     It is estimated that the total present worth cost for
Alternative E (6.0 MGD)  would be $25,070,000.  Annual opera-
tion and maintenance costs (in 1980 dollars)  for year 1990
would be $738,000.

     Alternative G - Two Plants - Irrigation Disposal at
North Site and River Disposal at Downstream Site.  Two treat-
ment plants would be utilized.  One plant would be a new
3.8 MGD (2.0 MGD constructed initially) secondary plant at
a site north of the city, as shown in Figure 1-5.  During
the growing season, discharge from this plant would be used
to irrigate agricultural crops.  During the winter months,
effluent would be discharged to the Spokane River.  The second

-------
                 KEY
INFLUENT PUMPING STATION
GRIT REMOVAL / PREAERATION TANK
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
FILTER  FEED CHAMBER
TRICKLING  FILTER
SECONDARY  SEDIMENTATION TANK
CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
SLUDGE PUMP HOUSE
GRAVITY THICKENER
10  PRIMARY DIGESTER
II  SECONDARY DIGESTER
12  SLUDGE STORAGE TANK
13  BLOWERS CHLORINATION
14  ADMINISTRATION/LABORATORY
15  MAINTENANCE SHOP
16  ELECTRICAL STRUCTURE
17  SOLIDS DEWATERING BUILDING
IB  SOLIDS CONTACT  CHANNEL
                SOURCE'- BROWN &  CALDWELL , 1980
I  /EXISTIM;  \  '     /tnsti'ic
1	1 SEC'j't&Afir  1  I	••( c»*yirr
                                                                         WASTtWATH
                                                                         SLUG'S
                    FIGURE  1-2.   ALTERNATIVE   B  SCHEMATIC
                    DIAGRAM   &   SITE   PLAN

-------
      SOURCE-' MODIFIED FROM BROWN & CALDWELL, 1980
FIGURE 1-3.  ALTERNATIVE  E TREATMENT
PLANT SITE  ALTERNATIVES
                 11.

-------
                                                     I  nmm
                                                     \
                                                           KEY

                                            I  INFLUENT PUMPING STATION
                                            2  GRIT REMOVAL / PRE AERATION TANK
                                            3  PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
                                            4  FILTER FEED STATION
                                            5  TRICKLING FILTER
                                            6  SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
                                            7  CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
                                            8  SLUDGE PUMP HOUSE
9 PRIMARY DIGESTER
10 SECONDARY OI6E3TER
II CHLORINE BUILDING
12 OFFICE/LABORATORr/MAINTENflNCE
13 SOLIDS DEWATERIN8 BUILDING
14 SOLIDS CONTACT CHANNEL
15 GARAGE
                 SOURCE- BROWN & CALDWELL,1980
FIGURE  1-4.    ALTERNATIVE    E  PROCESS   SCHEMATIC
DIAGRAM   AND  SITE   PLAN

-------
                            IRRIGATION   AREA
                                     V    -»      • •- ,   0>-»
                                    •i   ,„• =      ;•    .12-
                           ^•J JO, _ ij, - .^ j., • j. .^j.t ^.  t^	. ^. •
                              •'^o         •      21
                           HUETTER ROAD...  ,-,™;:
                                          ASS	

                           PRAIRIE AVENUE
                           SITE
                                                           25 -ft«^-_

                                                  ;'/'   \  Daiton : : .-j  ;;   :•• ^&«
                                                  :'    I  Gardens' . ••  ••   *=JJlo -----
                                                     ,^      • -•
                                                                 : AREA
                                                          "BOUNDARY.  V
                                                          - .' • E  : *: " •   r *   •

FIGURE  1-5. ALTERNATIVE   G
LAGOON  SITE  ALTERNATIVES  &
POTENTIAL  IRRIGATION  DISPOSAL
AREA
     SOURCE-' MODIFIED  FROM BROWN
             &  CALDWELL, 1980

-------
 plant would be a 2.2 MGD facility at the existing plant site,
 and discharge would be directly to the river  throughout the
 year.  The existing plant would be improved to  provide secondary
 treatment, with seasonal use of alum for phosphorus removal.
 Schematic flow diagrams of Alternative G have not. been pre-
 pared, but the existing plant would remain as shown in
 Figure 1-1.

      Estimated total present worth cost of the  new facilities
 and modification of the old facilities is $27,280,000.  At
 the midpoint of the first phase planning period (1990), esti-
 mated operation and maintenance costs, expressed  in 1980
 dollars,  would be $899,000 per year.
 Sewer System Extensions

      As a part of the overall facilities plan, extensions
 of  the existing sewer system are proposed.  These  extensions
 are divided into near-term projects which will pick  up  existing
 waste loads currently served by septic tank systems,  and
 long-term projects which would be required as the  city  grows
 and the city comprehensive plan densities are reached.   All
 of  the wastewater treatment alternatives previously  described
 include sewer system extensions.

      The general locations of these extension projects  are
 shown in Figure 1-6.   Table 1-2 lists the probable projects
 and the projected sewer diameters and lengths.


 Probable Effluent Limitations

      At the present time, it is not certain what the  effluent
 limitations will be for Alternatives B, E, and G.  Based upon
 knowledge of water quality-related issues, probable  effluent
 limitations are as shown below:
                                     Alternative
                                                    G (Land
                        B         EG (River)   Application)


BOD5 - mg/1
   May 1 to Oct 21      10         10        10         30
   Nov 1 to Apr 30      30         30        30         30
SS - mg/1             30         30        30         30
Total phosphorus - mg/1 85% removal 85% removal 85% removal No limit
 (Apr to Oct)
Fecal coliform         200        200       200        No limit
 (No/100 ml)

NOTE:  All figures are daily averages.


                               14

-------
                                                      tSTUDY  AREA
                                                      'BOUNDARY
-LEGEND-
                                                                                       	EXISTING  GRAVITY SEWERdO"
                                                                                           OR LARGER)
                                                                                           EXISTING  FORCE MAIN
                                                                                           PROPOSED SEWER EXTENSION

                                                                                           EXISTING  OUTFALL

                                                                                           EXISTING  TREATMENT PLANT

                                                                                           EXISTING  PUMP STATION
                                                                                           PROPOSED  PUMP STATION
INTERCEPTOR  A PROJECT
COMMITTED TO CONSTRUCTION
    ABANDON EXISTING
    TEMPORARY PUMP STATION
    CONSTRUCT NEW PUMP STATION,
    FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER
    AS SHOWN
               BLACKWELL ISLAND
               PUMP STATION
               BLACKWELL ISLAND
               CONNECTION
                                                                                      SOURCE' BROWN
                   CALDWELL , 1980
         FIGURE  1-6.    PROPOSED   INTERCEPTOR   SYSTEM   EXTENSION

-------
       Table 1-2.   Interceptor  Extension Costs and  Sizes

Facility element
Near-Term Projects
15th Avenue Extension

Honeysuckle Interceptor
North Government Way Interceptor
Ramsey Road, Phase I
Northeast Ramsey Interceptor
Fairvay/Northview Interceptor
(to Atlas Road)
Subtotal — Near-Term
Lona-Term Projects
Nettleton Interceptor
Thomas Garden Interceptor

Ramsey Road, Phase II
Northeast Ramsey Interceptor,
Phase II



North Ramsey Road Interceptor
Northwest Ramsey Interceptor


Fairway/Northview Interceptor,
Phase II

Huetter Trunk

Blackwell Island Connection


Subtotal — Long-Term
Diameter ,
inches

10
8
10
8
12
10
21
18
15



10
12
10
15

18
15
12
10
10
15
12
10
15
12
10
12
10
0.5 mgd p
Length,
feet

2200
2750
2500
2800
2800
1800
3150
3000
5650



3000
4350
1000
1800

2200
2000
1000
1000
1600
3000
1350
1500
7350
1200
1600
2400
1400
ump static
with 1300 feet of
force main/sewer


TOTAL
Cost estimate
$1 ,000

280

296
298
331
270
441

1,916

180
356

140


A 0 "5
** D 2.

96

414


751

*y A ~i
^ *] /
n
597

3,263
5,179
     ENR-CCI 3500, includes allowance for engineering and contingencies.
SOURCE:   Brown and Caldwell, 1980
                                  16

-------
        Action Proposed by the City of Coeur d'Alene

     The city and the Coeur d'Alene Citizens Advisory Committee
have selected Alternative E as the preferred alternative.
This plan provides for the construction of a new treatment
plant 1-2 miles downstream from the existing plant, with
year-round discharge to the Spokane River.  The Citizens
Advisory Committee rejected Alternative G  (treatment lagoons
and land discharge) because of the risk of contaminating
the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer  (Thompson, pers. comm.).   The
committee also felt that moving the treatment plant from
its present site would improve environmental and aesthetic
qualities of the area and provide a site compatible with
the city's comprehensive land use plan and future develop-
ment.  The age and deteriorated condition of equipment at
the present treatment plant contributed to the selection
of Alternative E over Alternative B (expanding existing
facilities).
                             17

-------
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ALTERNATIVES


-------
                          Chapter 2
           ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES
                     OF THE ALTERNATIVES
                        Introduction

     This chapter discusses major environmental issues asso-
ciated with the City of Coeur d'Alene's proposed wastewater
facilities plan.  The issues have been identified through
the planning process and by discussing the project with govern-
ment agency personnel, local residents and other concerned
individuals.  Each subsection deals with an individual issue.
The issue is identified, pertinent environmental setting
data are presented or cited, the relationship of each facilities
plan alternative to the issue is discussed and mitigation
measures are suggested where significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified.


              Significant Construction Impacts

     Construction of wastewater facilities typically results
in an assortment of short-term nuisance impacts to man.  This
includes the production of noise, dust and aesthetic dis-
ruptions as well as creation of temporary access problems
and safety hazards.  These impacts are usually insignificant
and readily mitigable.  Occasionally more significant impacts
are created; these might include destruction of or disturbance
to valuable wildlife habitat, historic or cultural resources,
agricultural land, scenic vistas or major recreation areas.
Significant construction impacts identified after re-
viewing the Coeur d'Alene facilities plan alternatives are
described below.  The no-action alternative would have no
significant construction disruptions.


Treatment Plant Construction

     Coeur d'Alene has investigated several sites that could
be used for expanded wastewater treatment facilities.  Facilities
plan Alternative B calls for expansion of facilities to the
north and east of the existing treatment plant (see Figure 1-2).
Some of this land is currently vacant while other parts are
used for log storage.  The site is bisected by a railroad spur
that services the lumber mill to the south of the treatment
plant site.   Construction at the site could create several
                              19

-------
 short-term  problems.  First, access  to the  site would pro-
 bably be via  River and Hubbard Avenues.  These are narrow
 streets, so construction-related truck traffic could easily
 create  congestion and a  safety hazard.  Construction traffic
 also would  add  to noise  along a small piece of Lincoln Way
 and on  Hubbard  and River Avenues.  This would affect residents
 on these streets.

     Actual on-site construction would create temporary
 noise,  dust and visual impacts to residents southeast of
 the proposed  expansion on River Avenue and Military Drive.
 It could also disrupt rail service to the adjacent lumber
 mill.   Construction" is planned on both sides of the Spokane
 International Railroad Company line  that passes along the
 eastern edge  of the existing treatment plant.  This rail
 is used once  a  day  (Monday through Friday) to service the
 lumber  mill (Spokane International Railroad Company, pers.
 comm.).  If this line were blocked for any reason during
 the construction period, it could create a hardship for the
 mill.   Finally, the construction activity would be highly
 visible to  persons passing along Northwest Boulevard.

     Treatment  plant construction for Alternative B would
 not affect  significant wildlife habitat, threatened or en-
 dangered plants or animals, wetlands, or valuable agricultural
 land.   However, the site is within a flood hazard zone,
 according to  initial maps prepared by the U. S. Federal
 Insurance Administration (FIA)  in 1976.  Any new structures
 constructed in  the area would have to meet flood protection
 specifications  of the City of Coeur  d'Alene and the FIA.

     Three  separate treatment plant  sites have been con-
 sidered for Alternative E.   Each is  between U. S. Highway 10
 and the Spokane River near Atlas (see Figure 1-3).  Con-
 struction at  Sites 1 and 2 would have few significant impacts
 on adjacent land uses because they are primarily industrial,
 transportation-related or vacant.  Access for construction
 equipment might pose a problem, as Burlington Northern Rail-
 road tracks would have to be crossed.  This could be accom-
 plished via existing crossings at the Central Pre-Mix gravel
 operation to  the north.   Site preparation at Site 1 might
 require cutting 6-8 acres of pine trees; there is already
 a cleared area on the site, but there is also a sizable stand
 of pines.   The amount of tree removal would depend on the
 actual  location of new structures.    Few if any trees would
 have to be cut  if Site 2 were to be  used, as it is a mined
 gravel area.  Construction at Site 3, a mile further down-
 stream,  would also have few impacts  on adjacent land uses.
Lumber operations are located both east and west, the river
borders the property on the south,  and U. S. Highway 10
runs along the northern edge.  Construction traffic could
                              20

-------
utilize Highway 10 and dirt access roads that already enter
the property.  A large number of pine trees would have to
be cleared from the site, as it is covered by a scattered
stand of timber.  Movement of trucks and logs also could
be temporarily interrupted at Site 3, as it is criss-crossed
by numerous dirt haul roads leading from the river log storage
area to the lumber operations.

     No significant wildlife habitat, rare or endangered
plants or animals, wetlands, prime agricultural land or flood-
plain areas would be affected by construction on any of the
Alternative E treatment plant sites.

     Treatment plant construction for Alternative G would
involve two separate locations.  The existing Coeur d'Alene
treatment plant would be renovated but not expanded, so
construction impacts at that site would be insignificant.
Some construction-related traffic could be expected on River
and Hubbard Avenues.

     The second treatment site would be located north of
Coeur d'Alene on one of three potential parcels.  The aerated
lagoon treatment system would ultimately use 53 acres of
land.  All three proposed sites are currently used for growing
grass seed.

     Construction at the Ramsey Road site  (Figure 1-5) would
be visible from Ramsey Road and probably from Atlas Road
and Prairie Avenue.  Approximately 6-8 homes to the north
of the site and two to the east of the site would be directly
affected by the noise, dust and visual detraction normally
associated with land grading and construction activity.  These
would be short-term nuisances and could be mitigated by proper
construction practices.  Construction traffic access would
probably be via Ramsey Road, which is a relatively narrow,
two-lane county road.  Special provisions would have to be
made to ensure safe movement of trucks on and off of this
road.  One soil type covers the Ramsey Road site - McGuire-
Marble Association.  It is not considered prime agricultural
soil.

     The Prairie Avenue lagoon site is a 320-acre parcel
south of Prairie Road between Atlas and Huetter Roads.  Con-
struction activity at this site would create temporary
noise and dust nuisances to about four residences across
the street to the north and five or six homes to the east.
Construction access would be easily accomplished from either
Prairie Avenue, Huetter Road or Atlas Road.  Avonville fine
gravelly silt loam soils cover the northern and western two-
thirds of the site.  If the 53 acres of lagoons were con-
structed in this area, prime farmland would be lost.  The
                              21

-------
 Avonville  gravelly  coarse  sandy  loam  that  covers  the  south-
 eastern  portion  of  the  site  is not  considered  prime.

      The Huetter Road site is immediately  north of  the  Prairie
 Avenue site  (Figure  1-5).  Nuisance noise  and  dust  from con-
 struction  activity  possibly  would affect about five houses
 on  the southern  perimeter  of the site  and  two  or  three  houses
 on  the northern  edges of the site.  The 320-acre  Huetter Road
 site  is  covered  almost  entirely by prime agricultural soils  -
 Avonville  fine gravelly silt loam.  Small  islands of  Narcissi
 silt  loam  are also  present,  but they  are not considered prime
 land.  Construction  at  this  site could remove  up  to 53  acres
 of  prime farmland from  production.

      None  of the Alternative G treatment lagoon sites in-
 clude significant wildlife habitat, rare or endangered  plant
 species, floodplains or wetlands.


 Spray Disposal Area Construction

     No  significant direct impacts are expected to  result
 from  installation of a  spray irrigation system for  disposal
 of  effluent as planned  in Alternative  G (Figure 1-5).   Specific
 locations  for pipes and pumps have not been identified,  but
 the amount of construction activity would be small  and  pro-
 bably would not  affect  adjacent residences or  traffic.


 Pipeline Construction

     The facilities plan identifies a  number of wastewater
 interceptor system extensions that would be needed  to provide
 central wastewater treatment service to the unsewered parts
 of  the planning  area (Figure 1-6).   These extensions would
 be  constructed in a sequence determined by the City of
 Coeur d'Alene.   Nearly  all of the routes follow existing
 roads or rail lines.  Pipelines would  be constructed
 within those rights-of-way.  Pipelines would be con-
 structed regardless of which project alternative  is imple-
 mented,  except for "no-action".

     As with most pipe-laying operations,  impacts would
 be primarily short-term nuisances.   Noise,  dust,   access  dis-
 ruption,  and traffic delays could be expected  along all  routes.
 Construction of the line out to Blackwell Island could create
more significant impacts, depending upon whether the pipe
 is placed along the bottom of the river or hung from the
Highway 95 bridge.  If  it is hung from the  bridge, some  traffic
delays could be expected on the highway.   However, if the
pipeline  is placed in the river,  a temporary navigational
                              22

-------
hazard would be created and river turbidity would undoubtedly
increase.  A Section 404 permit would be needed for any dredging
or filling within the stream or wetland areas on the perimeter
of the island.  A temporary increase in turbidity would also
be likely to occur in the river.


Outfall Construction

     Each alternative would require at least one discharge
line in the Spokane River.  Under Alternative B, the existing
outfall would be abandoned and a new one would be extended
farther into the river.  It would include a diffuser system.
Alternative E would require a similar outfall, but it would
be located downstream opposite the new treatment plant site.
Alternative G would use two outfalls; a new one at the present
treatment plant site and a new one located in the vicinity
of Atlas for the winter discharge from the north treatment
plant.  Placement of the pipeline and the diffuser along
the bottom of the river would undoubtedly create some short-
term turbidity in the stream.  Construction equipment might
also pose a short-term hazard to boaters or rafters on the
river.  An effort should be made to disturb as little of
the stream bank and bottom as possible during construction
so that turbid conditions and downstream sedimentation are
minimized.  Bank restabilization and revegetation should be
employed to reduce the chances of long-term erosion and sedi-
mentation along the outfall route.
Mitigation Measures

     Most construction-related impacts, whether caused by
treatment plant or pipeline construction, could be readily
reduced to acceptable levels by sensible operational techni-
ques.  Noise and dust suppression measures have become stan-
dard operational procedures in most areas.  Working hours
should be limited to the 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. period of
weekdays; all graded and excavated surfaces should be periodi-
cally watered to reduce nuisance dust, and disturbed surfaces
should be compacted and covered or revegetated to avoid sub-
sequent wind or rain erosion.  Truck traffic moving to and
from construction zones should use extreme caution in resi-
dential or recreational areas.  Open trenches and surface
disturbances should be properly marked with warning signs.
Heavy equipment and hazardous building materials should be
stored in a fenced corporation yard after working hours to
avoid creating a safety hazard.
                              23

-------
      Alternative G is the only alternative that would directly
 remove prime farmland from production.   If one of the other
 alternatives is selected, there will be no direct loss.   How-
 ever, if Alternative G is selected,  the impact could still
 be avoided by using the Ramsey Road  lagoon site rather than
 the Prairie Avenue or Huetter Road sites.

      If the pipeline to Blackwell Island is built, construction-
 related river turbidity and wetlands encroachment could be
 avoided by hanging the pipe on the U.  S.  Highway 95 bridge
 rather than placing it in the water.


                 Surface Water Quality  Changes


 Existing Water Quality

      Available records indicate that water quality in the
 Spokane River between Coeur d'Alene  and Post Falls (Table
 2-1)  is satisfactory although several  parameters are not
 in compliance with proposed draft EPA  water quality criteria
 (Federal Register).   Various factors  influence the level
 of pollutants in the river during any  given period of time.
 These include the  quality of water leaving Lake Coeur d'Alene,
 substances discharged into the  river by industrial and muni-
 cipal concerns,  urban and agricultural  drainage,  log storage,
 and impoundment  structures.   Intense public concern in the
 region not only  focuses  on the  effect  these factors have
 on river water quality but also on water quality of the
 Rathdrum Prairie aquifer  and the  eutrophication of Long  Lake
 downstream in Washington.

      Previous studies have identified  parameters which either
 exceed existing  water quality  criteria  (U.  S.  EPA, 1976)
 or are  of  general  concern (Yearsley, 1980;  Funk,  1976).   Bac-
 terial  concentrations;  elevated zinc,  lead,  and copper con-
 centrations;  oxygen  depressions  downstream of  the immediate
 study  area; nutrients  and toxins  are the primary areas mentioned.
 Current  mean  bacterial  concentrations measured as fecal  coli-
 form  counts  (U.  S. EPA,  1976) meet the  Class A Idaho standard
 of  50/100  ml  (Table  2-1),  although concentrations exceed
 100/100  ml during  the  low flow  summer months (Funk,  1976).
 Zinc  concentrations  due  to  past and present mining activity
 on  the south  fork  of  the  Coeur  d'Alene  River (Reid,  1961)
 are high,  especially  during  spring runoff.   The  mean  con-
 centration of  0.245 mg/1  exceeds  criteria  for  protection
 of  freshwater  organisms  (.05 mg/1) but  not  criteria  for  domestic
water supplies (5.0 mg/1)  (U.  S.  EPA,  1976).
                               24

-------
     Table 2-1.   Selected Water Quality Parameters for the Spokane
        River near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (Concentration in mg/1)
Parameter
Total phosphorus (P)1'2
Orthophosphorus (P)1'2
Total nitrogen (N) x ' 2
Total ammonia1
Unionized ammonia1'4
Nitrate + nitrite1
Cadmium1 ' 3
Lead1 ' 3
Zinc1'3
Copper1 ' 3
Arsenic1
Mercury1
Chlorine
BOD lr ?
•J --f
DO/% saturation1'2
Fecal coliforms /I 00 ml1'3
Mean
.028
.020
. 470
.003
.001
.012
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001

1. 580
10.1/96%
20.2
Range
.010-. 050
0-.040
.160-. 840
0-.070
0--002
0-.060
.001--004
.002-. 038
.120-. 581
0-.004
.001-. 002
0-.001

1. 370-3.500
2.8/2. 3%-ll. 3/108%
0-133.0
1USGS Provisional Records (1980)
2Yearsley (1980)
3Funk,  et al.  (1975)
^Calculated  from mean temperature and pH (Willingham, 1976)
                                   25

-------
      Recent  studies indicate there are low dissolved oxygen
 (DO)  concentrations in the impounded portion of  the river
 downstream from Coeur d'Alene  (Yearsley, 1980).  Under proposed
 water quality  standard revisions, the DO criteria for the
 Spokane River  will be 90 percent saturation during salmonid
 spawning  and 7.0 mg/1 daily average for other  periods with
 the daily minimum not to fall below 6.0 mg/1.  Mean DO con-_
 centrations and percent saturation do not meet these criteria
 during the summer months due to elevated temperatures and
 reduced stream flow  (Yearsley, 1980).  Percent saturation
 in deep pools  upstream from Post Falls was as  low as 33 per-
 cent  during July 1980 and fell to 2.3 percent  at certain
 downstream stations during August 1980.  DO concentrations
 at these  sites were reduced to less than 3.0 mg/1  (Yearsley,
 1980).

      Nutrient  input (phosphorus and nitrogen)  more than any
 other factor is responsible for the nuisance algal problems
 in the Spokane River, including Long Lake (Soltero, 1979).
 Concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen are  generally low
 throughout the Spokane River from the outlet of Lake Coeur
 d'Alene to the Post Falls Dam (Yearsley, 1980).  Total phos-
 phorus, though at low concentrations, was substantially higher
 downstream from the Coeur d'Alene's waste treatment facility
 than  it was upstream.

      Concentration and load criteria for any water quality
 parameter have inherent limitations, especially in the area
 of nutrient effects on potential plant growth  (Vollenweider,
 1970).  Bearing this in mind these criteria are the only
 acceptable methods available for assessing water quality
 impacts.  Published criteria for prevention of nuisance algal
 growth in streams (Muller, 1953; Macenthun, 1967) suggest
 concentrations of 0.3 mg/1 nitrate, 2.6 mg/1 total ammonia
 and 0.6 mg/1 for total nitrogen.  Criteria for orthophos-
 phorus range from .02-.05 mg/1  (U.  S. EPA, 1976).  Contrary
 to these  findings, the American Fisheries Society  (1979)
 states that an attempt to establish single value critical
 concentrations is not in accord with the information pre-
 sently available on the role of nitrogen and phosphorus
 in causing fertilization problems in water bodies.

     Toxins present in the Spokane River which exceed EPA
proposed water quality criteria include beryllium  (>.053
 yg/1), silver  (>.009 yg/1), and arsenic (>.02  yg/1), pri-
marily due to both industrial and municipal point source
dischargers.   Mercury levels (>-08 ug/D are due only to
industrial dischargers (U. S.  EPA,  1980).
                              26

-------
Impacts of the Proposed Waste Treatment Facility on Existing
Water Quality

     Water quality impact analysis was based on projected
effluent concentrations, effluent discharge, and proposed outfall
site of each alternative (no action, B, E, and G).  Resultant
concentration and load increases were calculated by dividing
combined effluent and background river load by their res-
pective total volumes.  Effluent characteristics (Table 2-2)
were provided by Brown and Caldwell and U. S. Geological
Survey  (USGS) effluent monitoring studies conducted at the
existing Coeur d'Alene treatment plant.  River volume data
were obtained from USGS records on the Spokane River near
Post Falls (1965-1979) as credible long-term data upstream
from Post Falls were unavailable.  A study is currently in
progress monitoring river volume near Coeur d'Alene.  At the
present time, however, only two sets of measurements have
been taken,  one invalidated by extremely low current velocity
 (Jones, pers. comm.).

     River volume in the immediate study area should not
be  significantly different than at Post Falls if diversions
and groundwater losses are considered  (Gudenberger, pers.
comm.).  Thus, mean and 7-day 10-year low flow  (QT.IQ worse
case basis)  were calculated by totaling river volume at Post
Falls, diversions for irrigation use in the Rathdrum Prairie
Project  (46  cfs) and water lost to groundwater  (150 cfs)
between Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls  (Yearsley, 1980).  Loading
and concentration increases were tabulated seasonally  (Novem-
ber-April  [N-A], May-October  [M-0]) as Alternative G proposes
no  discharge and Alternatives B and E propose reduced phos-
phorus effluent concentrations during the M-O period.

     All three alternatives propose a 6 MGD effluent dis-
charge by the year 2005 at different localities on the Spokane
River.  Disregarding outfall location, the resulting effect
on  water quality will be equivalent during the N-A period
for all three plant alternatives.  Concentration and load
increases were thus incorporated into single tables  (Tables 2-3
to  2-6); M-O increases are not applicable to Alternative G.
As  baseline water quality data were obtained downstream from
the existing 2.2 MGD treatment plant at Coeur d'Alene, its
effects must be considered in assessment of future impacts.
Consequently, all three alternatives were evaluated as if
a 3.8 MGD  (6.0-2.2) effluent discharge were being proposed.
This procedure makes two unavoidable assumptions:  1) the
existing Coeur d'Alene treatment plant is operating at full
capacity year-round, and 2) effluent characteristics at the
existing plant will be equivalent to the proposed facilities
in  the three alternatives.  Neither of these assumptions
should significantly affect assessment of future impacts.
                               27

-------
                                 Table 2-2.  Effluent Concentration and  Loading  for  Each  Proposed
                                      Alternative  (Concentration  in mg/1. Loading  in Ibs/day)

Alternative B
Concentration
Parameter N-AH
Total phosphorus2 7
Orthophosphorus 2 6.5
Total nitrogen2
Total ammonia2
Unionized ammonia2'3 .02
Nitrate + nitrite1
Cadmium1
Lead1
Zinc1
Copper1
Arsenic1
Mercury1
Chlorine 2
BOD 2
Fecal coliforms/100 ml2
M-04 N-A
1. 5 221. 9
1.4 206.1
20.0
13.5
.03 0.6
5.8
< .005
< .050
.293
.035
< .01
< .0005
0. 5
15
200

Load
M-0
47.6
44.4
634.0
428.0
1.0
183.9
0. 2
1.6
9.3
1.1
0.3
0.02
15.9
475.5
6,340
Alternative E

Concentration Load
N-A M-O N-A
7 1.5 221.9
6.5 1.4 206.1
20.0
13. 5
.02 .03 0.6
5.8
< .005
< .050
.293
.035
c .01
< .0005
0.5
15
200
Alternative G
M-0 Concentration
47.6
44.4
634.0
428.0
1.0
183.9
0.2
1.6
9. 3
1. 1
0.3
0.02
15. 9
475.5
6,340
7
6. 5
20.0
13.5
.02
5. 8
< .005
< .050
.293
.035
< .01
< .0005
0. 5
30
200
Load
221. 9
206.1
634.0
428.0
0. 6
183. 9
0.2
1 . 6
9.3
1. 1
0. 3
0.02
15.9
951 .0
6,340
1IDHW (1980)
2Brown and Caldwell (1980)
^Calculated from mean effluent temperature and pH  (Willingham,  1976)
''N-A -- November-April, M-O = March-October

-------
                    Table 2-3.   Potential Concentration Increases  (mg/1) Under Mean Flow Conditions of Selected
                              Water Quality Parameters in the Spokane River near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Parameter
Total phosphorus (P)
Orthophosphorus (P)
Total nitrogen (N)
Total ammonia
Unionized ammonia
Nitrate /nitrite
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Arsenic
Mercury
Chlorine
BOD (Alt. B&E)
BOD5 (Alt. G)
Fecal coliforms/100 ml
Mean Flow
7,352 cfs
.028
.020
.470
.003
.001
.012
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001

1.580
1.580
20.2
Nov-Apr
Increase
.034
.025
.486
.014
.001
.017
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001
.001
1.591
1.603
20.3
Percent
Change
21.4
25.0
3.4
366, 7
Trace
41.7
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace

0.7
1.5
0.5
Mean Flow
6,446 cfs
.028
.020
.470
.003
.001
.012
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001

1.580
1.580*
20.2
May-Oct
Increase
.029
.021
.488
.015
.001
.017
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001
Trace
1.591
1.580
20.4
Percent
Change
3.6
5.0
3.8
400.0
Trace
41.7
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
0.7
0.0
1.0
*No summer discharge

-------
                         Table 2-4.  Potential Concentration  Increases  (mg/1)  under  Q7_ln  Flow  Conditions  of  Selected
                                   Water Quality Parameters in  the  Spokane  River  near  COeur  d'Alene,  Idaho
OJ
o
Parameter
Total phosphorus (P)
Orthophosphorus (P)
Total nitrogen (N)
Total ammonia
Unionized ammonia
Nitrate/nitrite
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Arsenic
Mercury
Chlorine
DOD5 (Alt. B&E)
BOD5 (Alt. G)
Fecal coliforms/100 ml
Q7_i0 Flow
1 , 564 cf s
.028
.020
.470
.003
.001
.012
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001

1.580
1.580
20.2
Nov-Apr
Increase
.054
.044
.543
.054
.001
.034
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001
.002
1.630
1.686
20.9
Percent
Change
92.3
110.0
15.5
1,700.0
Trace
183. 3
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace

3.2
6.7
3.5
Q- -0 Flow
0.28
.020
.470
.003
.001
.012
.003
.006
.245
.001
.001
.001

1. 580
1.580*
20.2
May-Oct
Increase
.055
.046
. 835
. 255
.002
.120
.003
.007
.246
.002
.001
.001
.009
1.831
1.580
23.6
Percent
Change
96. 4
130.0
77.7
8,400.0
100.0
900.0
Trace
16. 7
0. 4
100.0
Trace
Trace

15. 9
0.0
16.8
     *No summer discharge

-------
                       Table 2-5.  Potential Load Increases  (Ibs/day) Under Mean Flow Conditions of Selected
                              Water Quality Parameters in the Spokane River near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Parameter
Total phosphorus (P)
Orthophosphorus (P)
Total nitrogen (N)
Total ammonia
Unionized ammonia
Nitrate /nitrite
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Arsenic
Mercury
Chlorine
BOD (Alt. B&E)
BOD5 (Alt. G)
Mean Flow
7,352 cfs
1,109.6
792.5
18,624.8
118.9
39.6
475.5
118.9
237.8
9,708.7
39.6
39.6
39.6
0.0
62,611.1
62,611.1
Nov-Apr
Increase
1,331.5
998.6
19,258.8
546.9
40.2
659.4
119.1
239.4
9,718.0
40.7
39.9
39.62
15.9
63,086.6
63,562.1
Percent
Change
20.0
26.0
3.4
360.0
1.5
38.7
0.2
0.7
0.1
2.8
0.8
0.1

0.8
1.5
Mean Flow
6,446 cfs
972.8
694.9
16,329.6
104.2
34.7
416.9
104.2
208.5
8,512.3
34.7
34.7
34.7
0.0
54,855.4
54,855.4*
May-Oct
Increase
1,020.4
739.3
16,963.6
532.2
35.7
600.8
104.4
210.1
8,521.6
35.8
40.0
34.72
15.9
55,330.9
54,855.4
Percent
Change
4.9
6.4
3.9
410.7
2.9
44.1
0.2
0. 8
0.1
2.9
0.9
0.1

0.9
0.0
*No summer discharge

-------
                       Table 2-6.  Potential Load Increases (Ibs/day) Under Q     Flow Conditions of Selected
                              Water Quality Parameters in the Spokane River Near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Parameter
Total phosphorus (P)
Orthophosphorus (P)
Total nitrogen (N)
Total ammonia
Unionized ammonia
Nitrate /nitrite
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Arsenic
Mercury
Chlorine
BOD (Alt. B&E)
BOD (Alt. G)
Qj .„ Flow
1 , 364 cfs
236.
168.
3,962.
25.
8.
101.
25.
50.
2,065.
8.
8.
8.

13,319.
13,319.
0
6
1
3
4
2
3
6
4
4
4
4

4
4
Nov-Apr

Increase
457.
374.
4,596.
453.
9.
285.
25.
52.
2,074.
9.
8.
8.
15.
13,794.
14,270.
9
7
1
3
0
1
5
2
7
5
7
42
9
9
4
Percent
Change
94
122
16
1,691
5
181
0
3
0
13
3
0

3
7
.0
. 4
.0
. 7
.0
.7
.8
.2
.5
.1
.6
.2

.6
.1
Q7. .n Flow
30Vcfs
46
33
782
5
1
20
5
10
408
1
1
1

2,631
2,631
.6
.3
.8
.0
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.7
.7
. 7

. 5
.5*
May-Oct
Increase
94
77
1,416
433
2
203
5
11
417
2
2
1
15
3,107
2,631
. 2
. 7
.8
.0
. 7
. 9
. 2
.6
. 3
.8
.0
.72
. 9
.0
.5
Percent
Change
102.1
133.3
81.0
8, 560.0
58. 8
919. 5
4.0
16.0
2.3
64.7
17.6
1. 2

18.1
0.0
*No summer discharge

-------
     No-Action Alternative.  This alternative proposes the
continued operation of the existing waste treatment plant
at Coeur d'Alene.  Thus, existing water quality conditions
 (Table 2-1) would continue if the current level of wastewater
treatment efficiency is maintained.  The plant is currently
meeting all NPDES requirements except for concentrations
of suspended solids.  Recent investigations indicate, how-
ever, that the deterioration of the physical plant structures
due to aging and influent volume beyond present capacity
during wet weather conditions will result in future degrada-
tion of water quality.  A pulse of untreated waste due to
treatment plant capacity exceedence imposes additional stress
on aquatic life over and above the effects of reduced water
quality.  The continued operation of this facility would
create the possibility of adverse effects, increasing with
time, on fish productivity and domestic water use, while
increasing the possibility of nuisance plant growth.

     Alternative B.  Alternative B proposes expanding the
existing plant at Coeur d'Alene from its present capacity
to 6 MGD, along with phosphorus removal during the M-0 period.

     Nutrient Increases - Phosphorus.  Orthophosphate (in-
organic soluble) is the most important parameter in reference
to increased primary productivity.  Total phosphorus is con-
verted to orthophosphate by various biological pathways,
hence both are indicators of algal growth potential.  Total
and orthophosphorus mean flow concentration and load in-
creases are 20-25 percent during the N-A period and less
than 5 percent during the M-0 period  (Tables 2-3 and 2-5) .
The latter represents the months of highest algal growth
potential due primarily to increased sunlight and elevated
temperatures.  Algal composition during this period is domi-
nated by long strands of the filamentous algae (Ulothrix sp.,
Cladocera sp.) which carpet the bottom, thereby reducing
aesthetic appeal in the river.  Species present during the
remainder of the year consist primarily of epiphytic and
epiletic diatoms which are not as detractive as the summer
periphyton growth.  Funk (1976)  reports that late October
1971 populations consisted mainly of the diatom Tabellaria
fenestrata.  The diatom, Melosira italica dominated from
mid-winter to early summer in 1972, with smaller populations
of Fragilaria sp. and Tabellaria fenestra primarily restricted
to pools.  In late summer and early fall the blue greens
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Oscillatoria sp. appeared along
with the diatoms Fragillaria sp., Melosira italica, and a
yellow-green algae, Tribonema sp.

     These algal species, present during the more critical
M-O period, would only experience a 5 percent increase in
phosphorus over existing low concentrations.  One factor
indicative of algal growth potential is a determination that
a certain algal species growth is limited by a particular
                              33

-------
nutrient.  The low inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate ratio
 (about  2:1)  suggests that increased nitrogen might stimulate
algal growth.  In the study area, however, concentrations
of both nitrogen and orthophosphate are low.  Under these
conditions,  increased orthophosphate may stimulate algal
growth.  The effects would be a localized fertilization of
algae below  the treatment plant outfall and for a distance
downstream.  The potential for increased algal growth below
the outfall  is highest during late summer prior to fall turn-
over of Lake Coeur d'Alene.  Phosphorus concentrations are
low at this  time.  The increase in phosphorus concentrations
under Q7-10  conditions (Table 2-4) indicate that enhanced
algal production below the outfall and for a distance down-
stream is highly probable.

     Algal growth approaching nuisance levels has the highest
probability  of occurrence in slow moving or impounded waters
 (Hynes, 1970).  Total phosphorus and orthophosphate loading
to a water body is a more indicative factor of long-term
effects than concentration increases  (Vollenweider, 1970).
Under mean flow conditions, total phosphorus and orthophos-
phate would  be discharged at a rate of 2,200 pounds per day.
Currently the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is conducting
an extensive waste allocation study on the Spokane River.  Results
will provide clear guidelines for maximum allowable nutrient
loading to the river based on plant flow, season, and/or
stream flow.  Upon completion of this study an ultimate deter-
mination can be made of the potential effects of projected
nutrient loads under Alternative B.

     Nitrogen Increases.   The inorganic nitrogen compounds
ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite are the most biologically sig-
nificant of  the nitrogenous effluent components  (Hynes, 1970).
Nitrate is generally regarded as the most available form
of inorganic nitrogen for algal growth (Wetzel, 1975)  al-
though Flagg and Reid (1954)  found that at concentrations
less than 15 mg/1 there was no significant difference in
the utilization of the three nitrogen forms by stream algae.

     Total nitrogen concentration increases during the M-0
period under mean flow conditions are less than 4 percent.
The limited concentration increase may not preclude an in-
crease in primary productivity below the outfall, as nitrogen
may also be in such low concentrations as to be growth limiting.
Evaluation of any nutrient increases are complicated by the
possible presence of substances inhibiting algal growth such
as zinc (Yearsley, 1980;  Funk, et al., 1975).  A localized fertili
zation effect below the outfall is most probable during the
low flow late summer months.

     Nitrate/nitrite concentrations increased about 42 percent
under mean flow conditions during the M-0 period.  The re-
sultant concentration (Table 2-3)  is below established criteria
for protection of nuisance algal growth in streams.  This

                              34

-------
reflects the low background river concentrations.  Total
ammonia concentrations substantially  increase  under mean
flow conditions  (367 percent).  The actual  resultant  con-
centration, however, is very  low  (0.01 mg/1),  again indicating
low river concentrations.

     Downstream effects on standing waters  can only be con-
clusively assessed upon the completion of the  DOE waste allo-
cation study discussed above.  Load increases  under mean
flow conditions during the M-0 period will  be  634 pounds
per day total nitrogen, 428 pounds per day  total ammonia,
and 184 pounds per day nitrate/nitrite (Table  2-5).

     D-issolved Oxygen Decreases.  The impact of the Alter-
native B effluent discharge on DO concentrations depends
primarily on the deoxygenation rates and reaeration rates
of the river.  At present, there are few data  on these
parameters in the Spokane River between Coeur  d'Alene and
Post Falls.  The BODs and total ammonia components of the
effluent are the most important factors affecting the
deoxygenation rate.  6005 represents the measure of the
quantity of DO necessary for  decomposition  of  organic matter
by micro-organisms such as bacteria.  Under aerobic condi-
tions, ammonia is readily oxidized to nitrate  (N02>, which
is then oxidized to nitrate (N03).  The rate at which ammonia
is oxidized to nitrite and ultimately nitrate  depends upon
environmental conditions.  Unlike carbonaceous BOD5, which
is generally oxidized by a spectrum of heterotrophic bacteria
in the water column, ammonia  is oxidized by a  few specialized
genera of bacteria.  These nitrifiers typically are attached
to some substrate.  Therefore, nitrification rate is a function
of river bottom area, water volume ratios,  and substrate type.
On the other hand, the reaeration rate is affected by river
depth, current velocity, and  other miscellaneous factors
such as wind action.

     The increase in BOD5 during the more critical M-0 period,
when higher water temperatures mean reduced DO concentrations,
is about 1 percent and only 16 percent under Qy-io conditions,
(Table 2-4).  Thus, oxidizable material contained in the
proportionally low volume discharge is highly  diluted by
the high volume of the Spokane River.   Total ammonia con-
centrations under mean flow conditions increase over 400
percent but only to .015 mg/1.  The reaeration rate will
be highly influenced by the rate of flow out of the impounded
area of Post Falls.  Current  uncertainty as to these critical
parameters precludes a complete analysis of adverse impacts.

     Increases in mean BOD5 loading during  the M-0 period
are 476 pounds per day.  Mean ammonia loading  increases during
the M-0 period are 428 pounds per day and nitrate/nitrite
loading increases are 184 pounds per day (Table 2-3).  Based
on all available data,  the resultant load increases should
                              35

-------
 not  significantly affect DO concentrations in  flowing waters.
 However,  during  the  low flow summer months, DO concentrations
 in areas  of minimal  water circulation  (e.g., deep pools)
 could  decrease below the already low existing  concentrations.

     Heavy Metals and Toxins.  Year-round concentration  in-
 creases for all  metals and toxins under mean flow conditions
 are  in trace  (<.0005 mg/1)amounts, undetectable by conven-
 tional laboratory analysis.  The ramifications of metal  and
 toxin  increases  will be discussed in the fisheries section.

     Alternative E.  This alternative proposes a 6 MGD dis-
 charge with seasonal phosphorus removal as does Alternative B,
 hence  the concentration and load increases are equivalent
 (Tables 2-3 to 2-6).  The fundamental difference between
 alternatives  is  the  location of the effluent outfall.  The
 three  sites selected for Alternative E are about 1 mile  and
 2 miles,  respectively, downstream from the outfall site  of
 Alternative B.

     Nutrient Increases.  Potential localized  fertilization
 effects will be  similar to those discussed previously for
 Alternative B as long as there are no significant differences
 in substrate characteristics below the outfalls.  The effects
 on downstream areas  of slow moving or standing water may
 be different due to  the closer proximity of Alternative E.

     The retention time for nutrients would be less as the
 distance between the point of discharge and outflow from
 the  impounded area at Post Falls is decreased.  This re-
 duced  distance would allow nutrients to "leave the system"
 quickly, thereby mitigating any adverse effects on areas of
 slow moving or still water.  Conversely, the reduced exposure
 period means there is a decreased possibility of nutrients
 being  eliminated or  rendered inert by various  biological pro-
 cesses .

     Dissolved Oxygen Decreases.   The decreased retention
 time of Alternative  E results in diminished dilution of BOD
 and  total ammonia loads.  Any subsequent effects on DO con-
 centrations would be most apparent during the summer low
 flow periods.   Current velocity and depth measurements up-
 stream from the Alternative E sites indicate that waters
 reaching the impoundment at Post Falls will undergo a higher
 degree of reaeration if discharged at the Alternative B
 site.  Conversely,  a decreased retention time means oxidizable
matter will be transported out of the Post Falls impoundment
area faster,  thus utilizing oxygen further downstream where
oxygen depressions  are not as acute.
                               36

-------
     Heavy Metals and Toxins.  Placement of the outfall site
further downstream in Alternative E reduces the chance of
effluent encounter by game fish migrating out of Lake Coeur
d'Alene.  The potential for adverse effects is increased
if game species are spawning in the upper reaches of the
river, as younger fish are generally more susceptible to
metals and toxins.  These points will be further discussed
in the fisheries section.

     Alternative G.  Alternative G provides for no additional
discharge above existing levels during the M-O period.  The
absence of summer and fall discharge increases (except the
existing 2.2 MGD discharge) eliminates any adverse effects
that would be created by Alternatives B and E discussed above.
There is no additional possibility of summertime nuisance
algal growth both instream and at slow moving or standing
water sites downstream.  Deoxygenation of downstream areas
will not increase in severity nor will game fish productivity
be reduced below present levels.  The absence of summer dis-
charge makes this alternative the most attractive from a
water quality perspective.

     The 3.8 MGD discharge site during the N-A period is
located in the vicinity of the Alternative E outfall', thus,
effects on water quality will be similar but not equivalent.
A different treatment process is proposed which will increase
BOD  loading 100 percent over Alternatives B and E.  This
additional input will increase concentrations 1.5 percent
under mean flow conditions and 6.7 percent under Q7_in condi-
tions.  The slight addition to existing river concentrations
will not be measurable with the current accuracy of BOD,-
analysis and should not create a significantly greater adverse
impact than the previous two alternatives.


Mitigation Measures

     All proposed alternatives should utilize a diffused
outfall that reduces localized water quality problems.  A
variety of other water quality-related mitigation measures
are suggested in the fisheries and beneficial river uses
sections of this chapter.
                               37

-------
               Effects  of  Surface Water  Quality
                     Changes  on  River'Uses
 Introduction
      A wide  range  of  "beneficial  uses" have  been  identified
 on  the Spokane  River,  from the mouth of  the  river  to  the
 Idaho/Washington State border.  The most important water
 quality  dependent  uses are recreational,  economic  and aes-
 thetic .

      The following pages describe existing river  uses.  How
 these beneficial uses would be affected  by different  alter-
 natives  of the  proposed project are discussed  later,  based
 primarily on interviews with individuals  representing the
 various  uses.   Figure  2-1 graphs beneficial  uses  in relation
 to  Spokane River flows and wastewater dilution potential.


 Existing Recreation Uses

      Water Contact Recreation.

      Swimming and  Waterskiing.  Swimming  and waterskiing
 are both popular recreational pursuits for locals  and out-
 of-state enthusiasts on this stretch of the river.  A few
 brave the cold waters in wet suits to extend the season,
 but most activity occurs in the warmer summer months, June
 through  September.   The entire length of  this stretch is used
 for waterskiing; it becomes crowded at peak times, particularly
 around Harbor Island and Greenberry Bay  (Anderson, pers.
 comm.).  Corbin Park, Post Falls Park, and the NIC beaches
 are the  main  swimming areas, the latter having 3,000-4,000
 people per day in the summer (Clegg, pers. comm.).  There
 are two  church camps situated on the river, the Baptist
 Church Camp and Millwood Presbyterian Church Camp.  The Baptist
 Camp had 1,300 children and 1,400 adults  staying between
 January  and September 1980, many of whom  swam near Black
 Bay (Baptist Church, pers. comm.).  The Presbyterian  Camp
 has 100  children per month who swim in the river from May
 through  September.

     Scuba Diving.   In Coeur d'Alene there is a scuba school
with an  annual enrollment of 150 students.  Because of poor
visibility,  however, only a handful of divers use  the river.
The only areas of interest are under the  bridges at Post
Falls, Coeur d'Alene, and around the marinas (Lee, pers.
comm.).
                               38

-------
Figure 2-1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPOKANE RIVER BENEFICIAL
USES 6, AVERAGE AVAILABLE DILUTION OF
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES TO THE RIVER
RIVER USES
SWIMMING, SKIING
RAFTING, KAYAKING
SCUBA DIVING
JAN





FEB





MAR





APR





MAY






JUN






JUL






AUG






SEP






OCT



	
NOV





DEC



	

BOATING
FISHING
HUNTING





























































CAMPING, PICNICKING
BIRD WATCHING












































LOG TRANSPORT
IRRIGATION
POWER GENERATION
WATER SUPPLY
-LEGEND 	
3000-1
0
01
- 2600-1
i
tr
u
1-
^, 2200-1
I-
- z
= 1400-1 ~ 4.3-
Q a
£ 47-
UJ ^
3 1000-1 o 4.1-
_j -J
< d n -
> a. 4.0
< u
u, 600-1 < 3.9-
o *
S « 3.8-
_ ^
** 200-1 * 3.7-
o
2 3.6-
UJ

























































































INDICATES INTERMITTENT USE 	 INDICATES FREQUENT USE

-— •_
**

_^^
1

^
^
1
^


x-*
V
V
N
^ 	
s
\
\
— -—"
\
^

/
18,000-
16,000-
5 14,000-
m
Q
" 12,000-
33
m
3J
_„ 10,000-
o
i B.OOO-
t*
6,000-
2,000-
-LEGEND- ___ DILUTION RATIO
— -^ AVERAGE RIVER FLOWS
x- 	 ESTIMATED AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS - 1905

39

-------
      Rafting,  Canoeing.,  and Kayaking.  Canoeing  and kayaking
 enthusiasts  use this  stretch of the river  throughout  the
 year, with most activity occurring between March and  August.
 Two  organizations, the Spokane Canoe Club  and the North Idaho
 White Water  Association  (NIWWA), provide most of the  use;
 the  latter club has 35 members (Mossman, pers. comm.).  The
 river provides ideal  conditions for canoeing, particularly
 between Post Falls and Sullivan Road  (several miles west
 of the Idaho/Washington border).   Along this stretch,  Spokane
 Canoe Club holds an annual event usually attracting 100 com-
 petitors.  The Baptist Church Camp also provides canoes for
 use  near Black Bay.   From Corbin Park downstream, raft races
 are  held in  the summer and people have fun inner tubing.

     On-Water Recreation.

     Boating.  Boating is becoming increasingly  popular in
 this area.   Approximately 1,000 boats are  found  on the water
 between Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene.  Of  these,  600  are
 usually moored (Clegg, pers. comm.).  A large number  of houses
 have private moorings and there are two marinas,  one  at the
 mouth of the river and one at a new condominium  complex at
 Post Falls (Anderson, pers. comm.).

     The most popular area for boating is  near Post Falls
 Park, where  boats are launched for pleasure cruising.  On
 summer weekends,  this stretch of  river is  often  crowded and
 bustling with activity.  Sailing is limited by the physical
 constraints  of the river channel  and, although Spokane Yacht
 Club is situated on the river,  most sailing occurs on  the
 lake.  During the first few months of the  year,  one finds
 a few fishing boats at the mouth of the river.

     Ice Skating.   Between December and February, when the
 river freezes,  a few people skate in the sheltered bays.

     Duck Hunting.   Duck hunting  is of little importance
 on most of the river,  and there are no hunting clubs  located
 in the area.   The only activity,  averaging 25-50 man days,
 occurs late  in the season when mallards are hunted near Post
 Falls Dam (Miller,  pers.  comm.).

     Fishing.  Largemouth bass, yellow perch, black crappie
 and pumpkinseed are fished throughout the  year.  This fishing
 is incidental compared to seasonal fishing for cutthroat
 trout from May to June and kokanee salmon  from April to July.
From the mouth of the lake to Post Falls Dam, an estimated
 1,000 angler days per year have been recorded,  of which 200
are used in the first weekend of  the season (Goodnight, pers.
comm.).   The  estimate from Post Falls Dam  to the state line
is 500 angler days  per year.
                               40

-------
     Shoreline Activities.

     Camping and Picnicking.  Although there are a number
of possible camp sites along the river shore, camping is
restricted to the two church camps, the Baptist Foundation
Camp and Millwood Presbyterian Camp.  The latter covers an
area of 25 acres and is visited by  100 people per month during
the summer.  Between January and September 1980, the Baptist
Foundation Camp accommodated 1,300  children and 1,400 adults.

     There are numerous picnicking  sites, all of which are
well used.  In Post Falls 22,111 people visited Post Falls
Park between July 10 and August 5,  1978  (Harmon, pers. comm.).
Many benefited from the park's picnicking facilities.  At
Corbin Park, picnic tables and barbecues are provided.
In the summer, approximately 25 people visit each weekend.
During the rest of the year, this declines to 10 people per
weekend (Eachon, pers. comm.).  NIC is another popular pic-
nicking site.  It is visited by 3,000-4,000 people a day in
the summer  (Clegg, pers. comm.).  There are plans to upgrade
the facilities near the college; this will lead to more use
in the future (Kootenai County Planning Commission, 1977).

     Bird Watching.   This stretch of river has a wealth of
bird life.  The Audubon Society visits the area once a year
in late fall and an eagle census has been conducted from
the lake to the stateline as part of the 1979 national count.
Eagles are present in the winter but no nests have been
identified.  There are osprey nests on pilings at the lake
outlet near Post Falls and downstream from Blackwell Island.
Common bird species found along the river include:  mergansers,
wood ducks, mallards, and Hungarian partridge (Sturts, pers.
comm.).
Economic Uses

     Water Withdrawal.

     Agriculture and Industry.  Industrial water withdrawals
are negligible.  The main industry along the river is log
milling.  This industry uses water for processing, for steam
generation in boilers, and for fire protection.  Fire pro-
tection is the only use in which water is withdrawn directly
from the river.  The other uses require good quality, sediment-
free water which is obtained from the city water supply and
wells  (Diamond International, pers. comm.).

     The major agricultural withdrawal is by Post Falls Irri-
gation District  (PFID), which draws water directly from the
river using a pump just north of Harbor Island.  The
                               41

-------
water is used  to  irrigate approximately 3,000 acres of grass,
beans, and peas from May to September.  Recent withdrawals
are  listed in  Table  2-7.

     The difference  between the value for extraction and
the  amount delivered is  a result of evaporation and leakage
from the irrigation  system (Jaeger, pers. comm.).  There
are  two other  minor  agricultural withdrawals.  Jacklin Seed
diverts enough water to  irrigate approximately 80 acres of
land at Holland Park (Jacklin,  pers.  comm.).  A smaller with-
drawal to irrigate 40  acres occurs upstream from Post Falls
(Beck, pers. comm.).

     Domestic  Consumption.   A comprehensive survey of the
Spokane River  shoreline  carried out by the PHD has identified
residents who  use river  water for domestic and utility
consumption.   Two hundred and seventy-nine primary plots
were surveyed  and it was determined that 59 percent of the
domestic water used  for  utilities and drinking water was
withdrawn directly from  the river.   The study region has
been subdivided into three areas below for more detail:
                Percent of Residents Using  Number of Households Using
River Stretch     River for Domestic Water    River for Domestic Water
Mouth to
Post Falls Dam              69                      129

Post Falls Dam
to Stateline                27                       10

Harbor Island               45                       25
SOURCE:  PHD, 1977.

     Power Generation.  The WWP  diverts water from the Spokane
River to generate power.  Maximum power production is about
13,000 kw  (Clegg, pers. comm.).   Flows through the plant
vary considerably, with a self-imposed minimum flow of 300
cfs to minimize wastewater-related river quality problems
downstream in Washington.  The average regulated flows through
Post Falls Dam are summarized in Table 2-8.
                               42

-------
                               Table  2-7.  Post Falls  Irrigation District
                                            River Withdrawals
Feet Per Acre
Irrigated Pumped
Acreage From River
1978 2,268 3.9
1979 2,950 4.4
Feet Per Acre Acre-feet Drawn
Delivered From River
2.7 8,845
3.3 12,980
                 SOURCE:  Modified  from:   Jaeger,  pers.  comm.


*>
OJ
                      Table 2-8.  Spokane  River at Post  Falls - Average Monthly
                                    Flows in Cubic  Feet per Second
     Jul     Aug   Sep   Oct     Nov     Dec     Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr      May     Jun


     1,650   670   750   1,010   2,490   3,920   3,870   3,910   5,930   16,530   18,030  6,87
     SOURCE Clegg, pers. comm.

-------
     Groundwater Recharge.  The Spokane River recharges the
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer between Post Falls
and Greenacres, Washington at an average rate of 80 cfs
 (Drost and Seitz, 1978).  Therefore, surface waters of the
Spokane River contribute to the underground drinking water
supplies of the residents of the Spokane, Washington area.
Any changes in water quality of the river would affect the
quality of the aquifer.

     Navigation and Transportation.  The river is used as
a major transportation artery for moving logs from the mouth
of the river to Post Falls.  One hundred million board feet
of logs are moved downstream each year  (Haglund, pers. comm.).
Most of the movement occurs in the summer, but it is a year-
.round operation, limited only by ice.  Logs are stored in
the river periodically near Huetter, Gibbs and Blackwell
Island.

     Proposed Commercial Development.  A new marina and
business complex is proposed bordering the treatment plant
to the north and the west.  The site will have three large
office buildings, a condominium complex and an 86-berth marina
with a proposed restaurant.  A new development is also pro-
posed across the river from the Coeur d'Alene treatment plant.
This would consist of protected open space, condominiums,
a motor hotel, specialty shops and offices with water access.


Impacts of Surface Water Quality Changes

     A description of the waste discharge changes that would
occur for each alternative is given below.  This is followed
by a description of the impacts of these changes on the bene-
ficial uses of the Spokane River.

     Changes Resulting From Each Alternative.

     No Action.

     I.  Present wastewater treatment capacity of 2.5 MGD
         would be maintained.

     2.  The existing plant would continue to contribute
         to bacteria and viral counts in the river.

     3.  Under extreme conditions, for example when spring
         rains combine with snowmelt, the existing capa-
         city would be insufficient, resulting in occasional
         overflow events .
                               44

-------
Alternative B.

1.  Increases treatment capacity to 6.0 MGD.  This
    would occur in two stages.  By 1985 the capacity
    would be 4.2 MGD; this would be increased to
    6.0 MGD by the year 1995.  This would result in
    increased discharge to the river.

2.  Increased reliability of treatment would result
    from increasing plant capacity and improving
    existing facilities.

3.  An improved outfall diffuser system would give a
    better initial dilution to the wastewater.

4.  The discharge would be located near a proposed
    marina.

5.  Most of the phosphorus in the wastewater would be
    removed during the summer.

Alternative E.

1.  Increases treatment capacity to 6.0 MGD, resulting
    in increased discharge to the river.

2.  Increased reliability of treatment, as a result
    of increased capacity and replacement of old
    equipment.

3.  Site of new plant would be located closer to the
    majority of people who extract water directly from
    the river for domestic use.  This location allows
    less time for the wastes to be diluted before
    reaching domestic water intakes.

4.  Site of new plant would be located further down-
    stream, thereby improving the river's water quality
    from the present discharge point to the new site.

5.  Most of the phosphorus in the wastewater would be
    removed during the summer.

Alternative G.

1.  No increase in present wastewater discharge during
    the summer.  Winter discharge would eventually
    reach 6.0 MGD, with two points of discharge; a
    2.2 MGD discharge from the existing site and a
    3.8 MGD discharge 1 mile downstream.
                          45

-------
      2.   Phosphorus removal would  occur  during  the  summer.

      Impacts  on Recreational  Uses.

      To pursue recreational activities,  the  river water  must
 conform to three general conditions.

      1.   It must be reasonably free  from pathogenic  organisms.

      2.   It must contain no toxic  substances which would
          lead to a health problem.

      3.   It must be aesthetically  enjoyable.

      The  standard for these conditions depends  on the  type  of
 recreational  use.  For contact recreation  (including swimming,
 waterskiing,  and scuba diving) stricter  standards are  reqaired
 than  for  shoreline activities  (including camping, picnicking
 and birdwatching).

      Each general condition will be  described and its  impacts
 on the different alternatives will be discussed.

      Pathogenic Organisms.   Contamination of water by  patho-
 genic organisms is normally monitored by testing for the
 presence of fecal coliform bacteria.  High levels indicate
 the potential for a significant health hazard.

      In Idaho, the water quality standard for contact  re-
 creation is a monthly geometric mean of  50/100  ml fecal  coli-
 forms, based  on a minimum of five  samples taken over a 30-
 day period from May 1 to September 30.   For noncontact
 recreation the standards are less  stringent, being 200/100
ml under the  same conditions  (IDHW, pers. comm.).  The pre-
 sent mean coliform value in the Spokane River from May to
October is 20.4/100 ml.   This mean is expected  to increase
 to 23.6/100 ml during Q7_1Q flow conditions under all of
 the action alternatives.   Although the mean given is below
the standard, on many days the count does exceed the  standard.
Values as high as 133/100 ml have been recorded and  the
 situation is thought to be  getting worse (Funk, et al.,  1975).
The highest counts have been recorded near the present
Coeur d'Alene treatment plant.  As the water moves downstream,
wastes become more dilute and the coliform count drops.  Under
the "no action" alternative, the following impacts are expected

     1.   No significant increase in the discharge of patho-
         genic organisms  would occur.

     2.   Swimming and scuba diving in the immediate area
         and downstream would continue to be discouraged.
                               46

-------
     Under Alternatives B and E the following  impacts are
expected:

     1.  With an increased discharge, the  fecal coliform
         counts would increase.

     2.  Increased bacterial counts would  be greatest during
         the busy recreational summer months,  when the river
         flow is low and less dilution is  available.

     3.  Swimming and waterskiing near the outfalls would
         be discouraged; a gradual decline in  recreational
         use downstream could occur as the water quality
         deteriorates.

     Under Alternative G, the following impacts are expected:

     1.  No significant increase in the discharge of patho-
         genic organisms would occur in the heavy recreation
         use period.

     Toxic Substances.  There is little evidence that toxic
substances currently have a detrimental effect on Spokane
River uses.  Levels of pesticides, heavy metals, and other
organic compounds have not been recorded in excess of re-
creational standards, even under Q7_-, n flow conditions.  High
concentrations of zinc, however, are apparent, and have
harmful affects on fish  (see fish section).  No other re-
creational activities are known to be affected by toxic
substances and this situation should not be changed by the
different alternatives.

     Aesthet-ics.   Water quality conditions that can affect
aesthetics enjoyment are visible floating  objects, sus-
pended solids, sludge banks, slime infestations, heavy growth
of plants, algal blooms and reduced water  clarity from ex-
cessive sewage.

     For contact recreation, the water should  be free of
debris, have no unpleasant odors, color or taste, and have
limited algal growth and good water clarity.

     Floating debris is found in the river.  This is primarily
from logging operations along the river from Coeur d'Alene
to Post Falls.  Although this influences contact recreation,
it is not directly related to the sewage treatment plant.
No problem of odor, color, or taste has been recorded.  The
water clarity has been measured by the secchi  disk method.
The results show that the water is fairly clear.  However,
a discussion with a scuba diver in the area emphasized that
at certain times  visibility was low.  This is  related in
part to logging activities and the sewage treatment plant.
                               47

-------
     The main aesthetic effect on boating is algal growth.
Algae can grow on the bottom of boats, and aquatic weeds
can fill bays, restricting their use.  As the concentration
of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water increases, growth
is stimulated.  Tests taken of the Spokane River indicate
that it is moderately productive based on a productivity
classification linked to the 14-day standing crop of S.
capricornutum by Miller, Maloney and Green, 1974  (Miller, et al.,
1975).  Equisetum, slimes, and diatoms are the species which
predominate.  They are found in highest concentration in
the summer, when the nutrient levels are highest, near the
sewage treatment outfall.  There have been occasions when
algal growth has affected boating; however, a number of variables
are involved and it is difficult to conclude whether this
is a result of the sewage outfall alone.

     Fish distribution is greatly affected by the presence
of nutrients, which stimulate primary productivity.  Near
the outfall, where the water temperatures are slightly higher
and the water is nutrient-rich, some fish species congregate
to feed.  This is beneficial to fishermen seeking those species.

     The "no action" alternative should not have a significant
effect on the river's aesthetic value, unless discharges
of poorly treated or untreated wastes increase as treatment
equipment deteriorates.   The various contact and noncontact
recreational uses should therefore not be significantly affected.

     The action alternatives (B, E, and G)  would increase
the volume of waste discharged to the river and Alternatives
E and G would relocate portions of the discharge.  Even though
phosphorus removal would be used, increased algal production
should result.  Changes in water clarity may discourage some
contact and noncontact recreational uses (swimming, waterskiing,
boating) and the relocation of the outfall farther downstream
under Alternative E may cause contact recreational activities
to relocate in response to this change.

     Aesthetic enjoyment is also important for other re-
creational uses mentioned, including picnicking,  camping,
birdwatching, duck hunting, and ice skating.   It is thought
that the impact on these uses from the different alternatives
will be negligible.

     Impacts on Economic Uses.   There are five economic uses
of the river that will be affected by the wastewater facilities
alternatives:

     1.   Agricultural water.

     2.   Domestic water.
                               48

-------
     3.  Groundwater recharge.

     4.  Proposed commercial development.

     5.  Industry, power generation, navigation and
         transport.

     Agricultural Water.  Water extracted from the river
for agricultural use is used entirely for irrigation.  In
any discussion on the quality of water for irrigation, it
is necessary to consider how the constituents affect both
the soil and the plants grown.  Many variables influence
these parameters including, salinity, sodium content, and
toxic metal concentration.  Although there would be a slight
increase in nutrients, which would influence plant growth,
there are no other elements in the wastewater likely to alter
the irrigation use of the water.  Alternative E is situated
nearest to the PFID extraction and would be the only alter-
native likely to have any impact.  This is thought to be mini-
mal .

     Domes-tie Water.  The use of water for drinking and other
domestic purposes requires the highest degree of sanitary
protection.  To determine a suitable standard, three aspects
are considered:

     1.  Bacterial quality, which includes fecal coliform
         levels.

     2.  Physical characteristics, including color and
         clarity.

     3.  Chemical characteristics, particularly heavy metal
         concentrations.

     Under present conditions, the levels of heavy metals
pose no problem.  Similarly, physical characteristics are
acceptable.  Fecal coliform counts, however, often exceed
the drinking water standards.  This is of particular importance
considering the number of people extracting drinking water
directly from the river.

     The "no action" alternative should not alter current
drinking water quality.  Alternatives B, E, and G would in-
crease the discharge of pathogenic agents and increase algal
levels in the river.  Both of these factors are of concern
to those drawing drinking water directly from the river.
This is especially true under summer low flow conditions
when dilution potential is at its lowest point and algal
growth potential is at its highest.
                               49

-------
     The increased discharge under Alternative B would still
have considerable time for dilution and natural die-off before
it reaches most domestic users around Harbor Island and farther
downstream.  Alternative E would move the discharge 1-2 miles
closer to these domestic users.   The potential for a con-
tamination of drinking water would therefore be much greater,
especially if treatment malfunctions or wastewater bypasses
were to occur.  The increased waste flow under Alternative G
would occur in the winter months when river flows are higher,
so the contamination potential would be less than under
Alternative E.

     Groundvater Recharge.  If the potability of Spokane
River surface waters is degraded by the various project alter-
natives, a similar impact could be expected on drinking water
extracted from the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer downstream from
Post Falls.  As mentioned earlier, the river recharges the
aquifer at a rate of 80 cfs between Post Falls and Greenacres,
Washington.  With wastewater disinfection and dilution in
the surface and subsurface flows, the pathogenic organism
content of major water supply wells in Washington should
not be affected.  Rural domestic well extractions in the
Post Falls area could be affected, however, especially if
treatment plant bypasses or malfunctions occur.  This
potential contamination, however, is much less significant
than the surface water contamination problem.  Alternative E
would pose the biggest threat because its discharge is farther
downstream and therefore closer to the zone of groundwater
recharge.

     Proposed Commerc-Lal Development.  A marina and resi-
dential/commercial development has been proposed for con-
struction adjacent to the site of the present Coeur d'Alene
treatment plant.  Its construction will be influenced by
the wastewater alternative taken.

     Under Alternative G and "no action" the plans for develop-
ment should not be altered from present conditions.  If the
plant was moved down river, as proposed in Alternative E,
the development plans would be enhanced by the demolition
of the existing plant.  If the plant was to expand as pro-
posed in Alternative B, development might be precluded.  The
plant expansion is planned for the same land area as part
of the residential/commercial development.

     Industry., Power Generation and Navigation and Transport.
The different alternatives would not affect these beneficial
uses.
                               50

-------
Mitigation Measures

     To mitigate impacts on domestic water use, the quantity
of domestic water pumped from the river could be reduced.
To compensate for this reduction, new wells could be in-
stalled and old ones improved.

     To mitigate impacts on recreational uses, access to
the river for swimming and boating could be limited near
the outfalls.  This could be achieved by preferentially im-
proving areas downstream toward Post Falls rather than the
areas near the discharge sites.

     The river should be carefully monitored at a number
of locations below the planned discharges.  This would help
to assure that water quality is maintained at an acceptable
level for all beneficial uses.  Emergency storage ponds should
be installed at all treatment plant locations.  This would
increase protection from discharge of poorly treated or un-
treated wastewater.  In addition, an efficient outfall diffusion
technique should be used to substantially increase the dilution
rate at the point of discharge.
             Influence of Water Quality Changes
                  on Spokane River Fishery


Existing Fishery

     Fish species present in the Spokane River between Coeur
d'Alene and Post Falls include cutthroat trout, rainbow trout,
kokanee salmon, largemouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow
perch, black crappie, tench, northern squawfish, mountain
whitefish, brown bullhead, and various sucker species  (Good-
night, pers. comm.).  Fish of significant interest to local
anglers include the trout and salmon species which are
primarily confined to Lake Coeur d'Alene and the upper
reaches of the river-

     Preliminary results from an ongoing study  (Falter and
Mitchell, 1980) indicate that kokanee salmon are not found
in areas more than 2 miles downstream from the lake outlet
and cutthroat trout are restricted to areas upstream from
the U. S. 95 bridge.  These two species were observed in
the river during the May sampling periods coincident with
sucker spawning but not during the August sampling periods.
Concerted movement during the spring months into the river
may be for initiation of spawning activity.  However, most
local experts  (Goodnight, Falter, and Mitchell, pers. comm.)
have indicated that this movement may only be for feeding
in response to sucker spawning, as fish captured during this
period possessed guts distended with eggs.

                               51

-------
     A warmwater fishery (bass, sunfish, black crappie) exists
between Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls; presumably, spawning
activity occurs in this area.  The consequences of spawning
downstream of the outfall sites will be discussed subsequently-
Pumpkinseed sunfish, yellow perch, brown bullhead, and suckers
were found throughout this area whereas northern squawfish
and black crappie were found exclusively at the downstream
sampling stations (Falter and Mitchell, pers. comm.).


Impacts of the Proposed Waste Treatment Facility on the Existing
Fishery

     No Action Alternative.  Under this alternative, existing
water quality conditions will continue subject to a gradual
reduction in the level of effluent treatment due to over-
loading and aging of the facility discussed previously.

     Heavy Metals.   The toxic effects of these compounds on
fish depend on a variety of factors, including temperature,
DO concentration, water hardness, and the species itself.
Generally, an elevation in temperature and reduction in DO
increases the toxicity, especially to the more susceptible
trout and salmon species (U.S. EPA, 1976).  The conclusion
of these observations is that discharge of heavy metals during
the low flow summer months creates the highest probability
of adversely affecting fish productivity.

     Toxicity of heavy metals to fish is also influenced
by water hardness.   The harder the water the higher the con-
centration of compounds capable of complexing heavy metals,
thereby reducing their harmful effects on fish.  Consideration
of this factor is important in assessing impacts in the Spokane
River as water is classified as soft  (0-50 mg/1 CaCO.J (U. S.
EPA, 1976).                                         6

     Mean lead concentrations  (.006 mg/1) do not exceed EPA
(1976)  criteria for protection of freshwater organisms (.01-
.025 mg/1).  This figure, however, is occasionally exceeded
during periods of high flows coincident with runoff in the
Coeur d'Alene River basin.   Suggested criteria for cadmium
(American Fisheries Society, 1979) range from .0004-.001 mg/1
for protection of salmonid species; these concentrations
currently are exceeded under both mean flow and Q7_iQ condi-
tions (Tables 2-3 and 2-4).  Past water quality studies  (Funk,
1976)  have indicated that these same cadmium concentrations
were not harmful to fish.  This discrepancy in conclusions
is due to the wide divergence of opinion in the literature
as to the actual values of toxic concentrations (U.  S. EPA,
1976).   Mean copper concentrations  (.01 mg/1) are at the
extreme lower range of concentrations necessary for protection
of salmonid fish species (American Fisheries Society, 1979).
                              52

-------
     The metal of principal concern is zinc; mean concentrations
(.245 mg/1) greatly exceed criteria established by the majority
of researchers for the protection of freshwater organisms
(American Fisheries Society, 1979; U. S. EPA, 1976), IDHW,
1976).   Funk  (1976) concludes that fish in the Spokane River
have either adapted to high zinc concentrations or the zinc
compounds measured are in a nontoxic form.

     Concentrations of mercury never exceed  .001 mg/1  (Table
2-1), a level generally regarded as not significantly harmful
to fish (American Fisheries Society, 1979).  The EPA pro-
posed criterion  (Federal Register, 1980) for protection of
freshwater organisms, however, is .0005 mg/1, a level at which
accurate measurement is currently infeasible, especially
considering the several aqueous chemical forms in which mercury
exists.

     Toxic Compounds.  EPA proposed water quality criteria
(Federal Register, March 15 and July 25, 1980) are exceeded
by beryllium, arsenic, and silver concentrations in the Spokane
River.   Discharge from industrial and municipal concerns
is primarily responsible for existing river concentrations.
The American Fisheries Society (1979) has established much
less stringent criteria for these elements and the compounds
they form.  Consequently established concentrations for the
protection of freshwater species are not exceeded during
any period throughout the year.

     Background chlorine concentrations are not presented
(Table 2-1) as no known studies have monitored this para-
meter  (Gudenberger, pers. comm.).  The existing Coeur d'Alene
treatment plant discharges about 9 pounds per day which, under
Qn_n. flow conditions during the N-A period  (worst case basis),
results in a  .001 mg/1 river concentration.  This is well
below current water quality criteria (U.S. EPA, 1976).

     Mean unionized ammonia concentrations do not currently
exceed EPA (1976) criteria  (.02 mg/1) for protection of salmonid
fish species.  The unionized form of ammonia  (NH ) is generally
recognized as the molecule toxic to fish.  It exists in equili-
brium with ionized ammonia  (NH.).  Because of this relation-
ship the concentration of unionized ammonia is affected by
pH,  temperature and hardness,  as  well as total ammonia  con-
centration .

     Preliminary findings (Falter and Mitchell, pers. comm.)
show that the fish density and species composition immediately
below the existing Coeur d'Alene treatment plant outfall
site are not appreciably different than above the outfall
site.  This observation is one indication that the current
concentrations of heavy metals and toxins discharged into
the  river are not significantly affecting fish productivity.
                              53

-------
     Dissolved Oxygen Decreases.  Mean DO concentrations
are currently in excess of minimum concentrations necessary
to maintain good fish populations  (Table 2-1}.  These measure-
ments, however, were generally taken near the water's surface
and in areas of moving water.  Thus, oxygen depressions down-
stream in slow moving and standing waters discussed pre-
viously were not considered.

     Fish embryonic and larval stages are especailly vul-
nerable to reduced DO concentrations because their ability
to extract oxygen from the water is not fully developed and
they cannot move away from adverse conditions (U.S. EPA,
1976).  This is especially true of the salmonids which bury
their fertilized eggs in gravel.  The flow through gravel
is often slow, especially if siltation has occurred.  If
it is slow enough, the developing fish and other benthic
organisms can easily deplete the oxygen supply enough
to cause damage, especially if the concentration in the water
is relatively low before it enters the gravel (Cooper, 1965).
The ongoing Spokane River study  (Falter and Mitchell) should
establish the extent of game fish spawning in the river,
thereby determining any adverse effects on fish productivity
due to decreased DO concentrations.

     Warmwater species generally spawn in late spring and
summer when temperatures are increased along with the con-
comitant DO decrease.  Yearsly  (1980) reports that vertical
depression of DO was as much as 7.4 mg/1 and average longi-
tudinal depression as much as 2.0 mg/1 during this period.
Although many species can develop at DO concentrations as
low as 2.5-3.0 mg/1, the effects of a reduced concentration
even as high as 5 or 6 mg/1 can cause a partial mortality
or at least retard development  (Brungs, 1971).

     As discussed previously, treatment plant malfunctions
are inevitable under the no-action alternative.   Concentrations
of unionized ammonia and chlorine,  currently well below criteria
standards, could increase to lethal contact concentrations
resulting in substantial fish kills if untreated waste is
discharged.   The general reduction in overall water quality
makes this alternative the most likely to adversely affect
fish productivity.

     Alternative B.

     Heavy Metals.  Concentration increases for all heavy
metals under mean flow conditions will be in trace amounts
(< ,0005 mg/1).  The coldwater fish species are generally
more susceptible to additional heavy metal inputs; however,
as resultant concentrations represent such a slight increase
over existing concentrations, adult fish productivity should
not be significantly affected.  A properly diffused discharge
should mitigate any localized effects below the outfall.


                               54

-------
     Deleterious effects of metals on fish are generally
more severe in the embryo and fry stages  (U. S. EPA,  1976) .
The 96-hour median tolerance limit  (TLM)  for fry of cut-
throat trout has been reported to be as low as .09 mg/1  zinc
 (Rabe and Sapington, 1970) and 0.1 mg/1 for chinook salmon
 (Chapman).  Both values are greatly exceeded by river con-
centrations.  Both copper and lead concentrations also exceed
reported 96 TLM values for coldwater game fish (McKim and
Benoit, 1971).  Values for brook trout fingerlings in soft
water are about 0.1 mg/1 copper with chinook salmon as low
as  .02 mg/1 copper.  Five-week posthatch  coho salmon  96 TLM
values for lead are 0.8 mg/1.

     Increased mercury concentrations, although at barely
detectable levels, exceed 96 TLM criteria for many game species.
Matida, et al.  (1971) found that median toxicity limits for
phenyl mercuric acetate, methyl mercuric  chloride and mercuric
chloride with rainbow trout fingerlings were .009, .03, and
0.3 mg/1, respectively.  Wobeser  (1973) examined the toxicity
of methylmercuric chloride to two life stages of rainbow
trout.  The 96-hour TLM for newly hatched sac fry was .024
mg/1 of mercury, while rainbow trout fingerlings had a 96 TLM
value of .042 mg/1.

     Alternative B resultant concentration increases for all
heavy metals are minute.  Existing river  concentrations,
however, exceed 96 TLM values for the early life history
stages of many fish species.  The magnitude of the concentration
increase alone would suggest that no significant reduction
in present fish productivity would occur.  Because toxicity
values are influenced by a multitude of environmental factors,
however, any conclusions on productivity  that are based on
these values are tentative.

     Chlorine.   The resultant increases under mean flow con-
ditions  (Table 2-3) are below EPA (1976)  criteria of  .003-
.005 mg/1, assuming of course that the existing treatment
plant at Coeur d'Alene is the only source of chlorine in
the river.  Criteria are exceeded under Q7_-,r) flow conditions.
Localized effects of chlorine discharges, if not properly
diffused, could produce adverse impacts even at these low
concentrations.  The high river volume to effluent discharge
ratio, in conjunction with the proposed standard of effluent
diffusion, should significantly reduce the impacts of addi-
tional chlorine.

     Unionized Ammonia.   Actual concentration increases are
very small although total ammonia percentage increases under
mean flow conditions exceed 300 percent.  This reflects the
low background concentrations.  The assimilative capacity
of the river again should significantly reduce any adverse
effects on fish productivity.
                               55

-------
     Dissolved Oxygen.  BOD^ and total ammonia increases
should have no significant effects on DO concentrations in
the flowing sections of the river.  As discussed previously,
however, DO concentrations in downstream sections of slow
flow or standing water may decrease below already low existing
concentrations.  Adult fish, repelled by low oxygen concen-
trations, particularly at high temperatures  (Jones, 1952),
can simply avoid those areas.  Embryonic and larval stages,
in contrast, cannot usually move away.  Coldwater and many
of the warmwater species generally spawn in shallow waters
(kokanee salmon 0.1-1.8 inches, cutthroat trout 0.2-1.4 inches)
(Bovee, 1978).  This behavior would avoid exposure of young
fish to the deep pool areas where DO concentrations are below
recommended criteria.  The minimal likelihood of game fish
occurrence in downstream areas subject to DO depressions,
combined with the natural proclivity of fish to avoid these
areas, suggests that decreased DO concentrations due to addi-
tional BOD and total ammonia will not significantly reduce
fish productivity.

     Alternative E.  Alternative E would have the same effects
on water quality as Alternative B discussed previously.  The
outfall site being 1-2 miles downstream will only change
the location of any localized effects in the river.  Species
migrating from Lake Coeur d'Alene to feed or spawn will en-
counter a larger expanse of river free of any adverse effects
of treatment plant discharge.  Thus, exposure to increased
concentrations of heavy metals and toxic substances will be
eliminated in this area.  The reduced retention time between the
Alternative E site and Post Falls, however, indicates that or-
ganic material and ammonia will undergo oxidation further down-
stream, possibly in areas of reduced DO concentrations.  This
would further restrict available spawning habitat for some
freshwater fish species.

     Alternative G.  Localized and general water quality
impacts on fish productivity would be similar to those of
Alternative E during the N-A period.  The absence of addi-
tional summer discharge above existing levels  (Table 2-2)
would eliminate any adverse impacts of Alternatives B and E
during the months when impacts are most probable  (M-0).

     Early life history stages of the warmwater fish species
would not be exposed to concentrations of heavy metals and
toxins above current levels.  The trout and salmon generally
do not spawn during the M-0 period,hence Alternative G would
not be as advantageous to those species.  From a fisheries
perspective, Alternative G has the least potential for adverse
impacts of all the alternatives considered.
Mitigation Measures

     The following list includes potential water quality
and fishery impact mitigation measures.

                               56

-------
Continuation of Ongoing Studies

     o  Water quality studies by the USGS should continue
        to supplement the small amount of data available
        on the Spokane River between Coeur d'Alene and
        Post Falls.

     o  The State of Washington waste allocation study
        should establish specific loading limits for the
        Spokane River upstream of the Idaho/Washington
        state line.

     o  IDHW effluent monitoring studies at Coeur d'Alene
        should continue to quantify any increases in con-
        centrations of toxic substances.

     o  The fisheries study  (Falter and Mitchell) should
        identify species density and composition and the
        extent of fish movement and spawning in the
        Spokane River.
Initiation of Future Studies

     o  Water quality immediately below the outfall of all
        municipal and industrial point source discharges
        on the Spokane River should be periodically sampled.

     o  The source of those heavy metals and toxins exceeding
        EPA proposed water quality guidelines should be
        identified.

     o  Re-aeration and dilution rates in the river below
        Coeur d'Alene should be calculated to enable better
        assessment of future discharges on water quality.

     o  A determination should be made as to whether river
        activities, such as log storage or riverside urban
        development, are hindering spawning activity or des-
        troying potential spawning sites.

     o  Fish bioassays should be periodically conducted to
        determine if metal and/or toxin levels are excessive.
General Measures

     o  Effluent discharged into the river should be adequately
        diffused to alleviate any localized effects.

     o  If determined that metal or toxin concentrations
        are reducing fish productivity below acceptable
        levels, effluent should be disposed of on land sites
        or additional treatment should be required.


                              57

-------
     o  If determined that phosphorus or nitrogen loading
        is in excess of maximum permissible levels, effluent
        should be disposed of on land sites or additional
        treatment should be required.

     o  Once the source of heavy metals and toxins is dis-
        covered, plans should be implemented to achieve EPA
        proposed water quality guidelines.


     Impact on the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Water Supply

     The effect of the proposed Coeur d'Alene facilities
plan on the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer (Figure 2-2)  is one
of the major environmental issues of this project.  This
is due primarily to the aquifer's status as a designated
"sole source" of water supply.  EPA made this designation
under authority of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in
February 1978.  As of 1976 the aquifer was being used as
a water source by about 338,000 people in northern Idaho
and eastern Washington (Drost and Seitz, 1978).


Character of the Aquifer

     The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer was studied
in detail over the past 4 years.  The most comprehensive
physical description was prepared by Drost and Seitz (1978)
for the USGS.  This report should be referred to for a com-
plete description of the aquifer's character.  In general,
the aquifer is composed of unconsolidated glaciofluvial
deposits covering an area of about 350 square miles, stret-
ching from Pend Oreille Lake, Idaho on the north to the con-
fluence of the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers west of Spokane,
Washington.  Both the surface soils and the underlying de-
posits are extremely porous and are capable of rapidly trans-
mitting water.  The underground water body flows southerly
then westerly at a rate of up to 64 feet per day and lies
from 40-400 feet below the surface.  The total recharge and
discharge of the aquifer is estimated to be 1,320 cfs (Drost
and Seitz, 1978).  The present water quality of the aquifer
is described as good, with a very small percentage of water
samples showing contaminants in excess of the maximum con-
taminant levels  (MCLs) included in the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR; 40 CFR 141).

     The City of Coeur d'Alene is located over the south-
east corner of the aquifer.  The groundwater in this area
flows out north of Lake Coeur d'Alene and then turns west
toward Post Falls where it eventually merges with the main
arm of the aquifer.   This Coeur d'Alene arm has a relatively
low hardness, ranging from 88.7-114.5 mg/1.  Nitrate levels
in the Coeur d'Alene arm recorded in 1976 ranged from 1.2
                              58

-------
    )  COMMENTS (WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION) APPLICAfelE
      TO  PROJECTS IN THE DESIGNATED AREA ARE ENCOURAGED.
                                                                                     Luko
                                                                                                             FEDERAL FINANCIALLY ASSISTED PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED
                                                                                                             AREA MUST BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO PROTECT THE
                                                                                                             DRINKING WATER QUALITY OF THE AQUIFER. APPLICANTS ARE HEREBY
                                                                                                             NOIIFIED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WORKING
                                                                                                             THROUGH THE FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCY, MUST APPROVE PROJECTS
                                                                                                             PRIOR TO COMMITMENT OF FUNDS
                                                                                                                               SOLE SOURCE DESIGNATED ARE/
                                                                                                                            ^ SPOKANE VALLEY
                                                                                                                                -RATHDRUM  PRAIRIE AQUIFER
tn
   LINCOLN CO.
                            SCALE
                 0    5    10    15   20   25
                         (in miles)
                                                                           FIGURE 2-2
                                                                  SOLE  SOURCE AREA
                                                                                                                            NOTE
                                                                                                                 DESIGNATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
                                                                                                         SECTION U24|e) OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (PL 93-5231
                                                                                                         (FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. 28-THURSDAY FEBRUARY 9,1978)
SEPA
                                                                          FOR THE
                                             SPOKANE VALLEY-RATHDRUM PRAIRIE AQUIFER

-------
mg/1  (as NC>3) on the western edge of Coeur d'Alene  to  8.0 mg/1
 (as N03) near Post Falls  (the original federal drinking water
standard for nitrate was  45 mg/1, measured as NC^;  the current
NIPDWR nitrate standard is 10 mg/1 measured as N).  The increasing
nitrate levels are ascribed to septic tank use in this urbanizing
area  (PHD, 1977).  The aquifer is from 150-200 feet below the
ground surface in the Coeur d'Alene area.

     The area selected for possible irrigation disposal of
wastewater (Alternative G) is located from 1-5 miles north
of Coeur d'Alene  (Figure  1-5) straddling the mixing zone
between the Coeur d'Alene and main arms of the aquifer.
Groundwater in this area  flows generally west and southwest.
Water from the main arm mixes with outflow from both Lake
Coeur d'Alene and Hayden  Lake in the southern portion of
this irrigation area.  The northern two-thirds of the area
is underlain by the main  arm of the aquifer, which  has a
hardness ranging from 123.7-154.7 mg/1.  The area to the
south that is strongly influenced by Hayden Lake outflow
has a much lower hardness, as low as 77.1 mg/1 (PHD, 1977).
Nitrate levels have not been monitored below the irrigation
area, but levels recorded in the main arm of the aquifer
are generally lower than  those in the Coeur d'Alene arm.  Mean
nitrate levels in the Dalton Gardens area, however, were
8.3 mg/1 (as NC>3) in 1976 (PHD, 1977).   This is just east of
the southern portion of the irrigation area.   Groundwater is
from 250-320 feet below the ground surface in this  area
 (Idaho Department of Water Resources, pers. comm.).


Present Health Threat

     According to preliminary 1980 census data, the City
of Coeur d'Alene has a population of 20,019.   Brown and Caldwell
 (1980) estimates that 5,800 of these residents use  septic
tank and leachfield systems for wastewater disposal.  An
additional 4,200 people living within the planning  area but
outside the city also rely on septic tanks for wastewater
treatment.   These systems are located over the Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer.  The highly permeable nature of the soils  and sub-
surface alluvial deposits over the aquifer have prompted
recent studies to investigate whether or not the domestic
wastes are degrading the water quality of the aquifer.  The
most comprehensive investigation, the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
Water Quality Management Plan, concluded that nitrates from
the on-site disposal systems were migrating through the soil
into the aquifer.  This was evidenced by elevated and
apparently increasing nitrate (NO )  levels in wells in and
downgradient  from areas that have a high density of housing
(PAC, 1978).   Nitrates are used here only as an indicator
of the public health risk.  Other substances known  to occur
in domestic wastewater (e.g., biological agents,  metals,
pesticides,  complex organic and inorganic chemicals) are
also of concern to people drawing water from the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer.

                               60

-------
     The PHD analyzed a large number of well water samples
as part of the Rathdrum Aquifer Water Quality Management
Plan (frequently referred to as the 208 plan because the
effort was initiated and funded under Section 208 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act).  The sampling results
were reported both in PAC  (1978) and PHD  (1977).  Nitrate
levels in the groundwater on the northern and western fringes
of Coeur d'Alene ranged from 1.7-3.7 mg/1  (as NO-,).  The
NO-, levels showed a gradual increase in a westerly direction
with levels as high as 8.0 mg/1  (as NC>3) near Ross Point.

     These NO, levels are well within the mandatory drinking
water standard of 45 mg/1 NO., listed in the NIPDWR.  The
concern is due to the trend of rapid population growth over
the aquifer (therefore rapid increases in use of on-site
waste disposal systems) and the apparently rapid increase
in NO., levels over the past few years.  Wells in Post Falls
that reported .80 mg/1 nitrate  (as N03)  or less prior to 1965
are now reporting levels as high as 8.0 mg/1  (as N03)  (PAC, 1978;
Table 7).  More recent water quality monitoring conducted
by EPA has found synthetic organic chemicals in small concen-
trations at several locations in the aquifer.  As an example,
a Post Falls well on Spokane Street was found to contain
16 parts per billion  (ppb) 1,1,1, Trichloroethane  (U.  S.
EPA, pers. comm.).  This substance is listed as a hazardous
waste in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976.  Similar compounds are considered carcinogenic in
concentrations as low as 100 ppb.  A sample from the City
of Coeur d'Alene Atlas well contained 0.1 ppb chloroform.
While the recently measured contaminant levels do not re-
present an imminent health hazard, the presence of these
man-made chemicals indicates that man's activities over the
aquifer are influencing the quality of drinking water supplies.

     The City of Coeur d'Alene is concerned about this
existing health threat because it draws the majority of its
drinking water from the aquifer below the city.  Three of
its wells are located in the north-central part of the city
and two are located in the northwest extremity.  The two
northwest wells (Atlas and Country Club) are downgradient
from the large number of septic tanks in northern Coeur d'Alene
and Dalton Gardens.

     Both Idaho and Washington 208 studies over the aquifer
have identified septic tanks and cesspools as a primary cause
of elevated nitrate levels in the groundwater  (PAC, 1978;
Esvelt, 1978).   Both reports also list specific instances
where industrial waste disposal has contributed hazardous
materials to the groundwater.  EPA has adopted these 208
plans and supports local efforts to continue with water quality
management work.  EPA also supports local efforts to reduce
the existing water quality threats.  Additional work is being
conducted by the USGS to assist in understanding the rela-
tionship between septic tank effluent, nonpoint pollutant
sources and aquifer water quality.

                               61

-------
Resultant Regulatory Controls

     A variety of local, state and federal regulations have
been spawned by concern for the aquifer.  On a local level,
the PHD has implemented a number of aquifer protection
regulations as a result of the 208 study.  The Idaho Code,
Title 39, Chapter 4 gave the PHD authority to adopt and
enforce rules and regulations for sewage disposal on the
Rathdrum Prairie in Kootenai County, Idaho.  These regula-
tions in effect discourage construction of on-site waste-
water disposal systems over the aquifer on parcels of less
than 5 acres, unless the land is located within the proposed
sewer service area of a city or district with a sewer manage-
ment plan approved by PHD Board of Health.  There are ex-
ceptions to this 5-acre limitation, but the net effect of
the PHD regulations has been to channel most growth over
the aquifer into areas that are likely to be served by a
central sewage collection and treatment system.  The City
of Coeur d'Alene entered into an agreement with the PHD on
May 1, 1979 which obligated the city to proceed on planning
for an expanded central sewage collection, treatment and
disposal facility.  The boundaries of sewer service res-
ponsibility were defined and are nearly the same as the
existing city limits.  Developments within the city are subject
to review by PHD to ensure that on-site disposal facilities
are properly designed and that new subdivisions are either
tied directly into the city collection system, or have in-
cluded dry sewers that may be readily integrated into a
central collection system.

     The water quality management plan for the Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer included 30 policies aimed at protecting the aquifer
from various sources of pollution.  The policy that deals
specifically with land application for disposal of waste-
water requires that such application be designed "to prevent
the movement of nutrients or other pollutants off the site
and into surface waters, or beyond the subsurface pollutant
removal zone and into the aquifer" (PAC, 1978) .

     Several state regulations are designed to protect the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer and therefore will affect Coeur
d'Alene's project.  Idaho has designated the aquifer as a
domestic water source and therefore must ensure that pro-
posed projects will not cause violations of the NIPDWR.  The
aquifer is also classified as an Outstanding Resource Water.
Under recent revisions to the state water quality standards,
this means that the state's anti-degradation policy applies.
This policy specifies that special resource waters cannot
be lowered in quality unless and until it is proven to the
IDHW and EPA that the change is justifiable for economic
and social reasons and that assigned and possible uses of
the water will not be injured.
                               62

-------
     The Idaho water quality standards also place some limits
on land treatment and disposal of wastewater.  Section XI,
Part A of the standards require that sprayed effluent be
retained on the designated disposal site or a waste discharge
permit must be obtained.  It also requires that:  1) ground-
water be monitored in the area, 2) no groundwater mound or
salt buildup be created on another person's property, and
3) no public health hazard, nuisance condition or air pollu-
tion problem be created.

     Section 1424 (e)  of the Safe Drinking Water Act allows
the EPA Administrator to designate an aquifer as a sole
source of drinking water for an area.  The Spokane Valley-
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer was designated as such in February
1978.  This designation requires that all federal agencies
ensure that they do not provide federal financial assistance
to any project or action that may contaminate a sole source
aquifer and result in a significant hazard to public health.
A "significant hazard to public health" is defined as any
level of contaminant which causes or may cause the aquifer
to exceed any MCL set forth in any promulgated NIPDWR standard
at any point where the water may be used for drinking purposes;
or which may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons;
or which may require a public water system to install addi-
tional treatment to prevent such adverse effect.  The NIPDWR
standards (40 CFR 141)  place maximum acceptable levels on
a wide variety of water contaminants, including a number
that are typically found in domestic wastewater (see Appendix B
for NIPDWR standards).

     In the absence of federal regulations and formal guidance
regarding land treatment of wastewater in sole source aquifer
areas, EPA Region 10  developed preliminary guidance  for the
City of Coeur d'Alene.   This guidance indicates that land
application projects  over the aquifer will require thorough
monitoring of both effluent and percolate from the irrigation
area  (U. S. EPA, pers.  comm.).  The details of this guidance
are discussed in the mitigation portion of this section.


Impact of Wastewater  Facilities Alternatives

     "No Action".  If the city takes no action to improve
and expand wastewater service, most residents in the area
now using septic tanks will continue using them.  New con-
struction allowed by the city and county will probably also
rely on septic tank disposal of wastewater, at least as an
interim solution.  These individual systems will continue
to contribute wastewater contaminants to the Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer.
                               63

-------
     The actual size of this waste contribution has not been
measured, but evidence gained from groundwater quality moni-
toring  (PAC, 1978) does indicate that septic tanks are con-
tributing to groundwater degradation in the Coeur d'Alene-
Post Falls area.  Brown and Caldwell (1980) has estimated
that 5,800 residents of Coeur d'Alene and  4,200 residents
of the county within the facilities planning area are pre-
sently using some type of on-site waste disposal system.
These numbers would be expected to gradually increase under
the "no action" alternative.

     Walker, et al. (1973)  estimated that  the average family
of four contributed 73 pounds of NC>3-N  (nitrate measured
as nitrogen) to the groundwater each year  through septic
tanks in sandy Wisconsin soils.  This number may not be di-
rectly applicable to the Coeur d'Alene area because ground-
water depths differ between the areas and  the similarity
of soil conditions is not known, other than that coarse glacial
soils are found at both locations.  The Walker study does
indicate, nonetheless, that the NC>3 contamination of aquifers
in areas of coarse soils can be sizable.   The cause for concern
is heightened when the urban densities in  the Coeur d'Alene
area are considered.

     The PHD regulations that restrict development densities
to 1 unit per 5 acres outside the Coeur d'Alene Sewer Manage-
ment Plan (SMP)  boundaries and the SMP itself should restrict
septic tank proliferation under the "no action" option.  The
groundwater contamination problems, therefore, would not
rapidly increase.  It is possible, however, that without
new central wastewater facilities in the Coeur d'Alene area,
development pressures could result in a modification of the
PHD density restrictions; or, development  might be pushed
to other parts of Kootenai County when wastewater facilities
are more readily available.  If septic tank use restrictions
were eased,  serious contamination of the aquifer would be
likely to occur.

     Elimination of Septic Tanks.  Each of the three action
alternatives (B, E, and G)  would provide the treatment capa-
city and interceptor system to hook up planning area residences
now using septic tanks.  Construction of one of these alter-
natives would also ensure that new residences in the area
would not have to rely on septic tanks.  Brown and Caldwell
(1980)  estimated that there are now 10,000 unsewered resi-
dents in the planning area and that 5,000  of these would
eventually hook up to an expanded city wastewater system.
This would be a significant public health  benefit, as septic
tank contamination of the aquifer would be reduced.
                              64

-------
     Using Walker's, et al.  (1973) estimate  that  73 pounds
•NCU-N per year can be contributed  to groundwater  by a  family
of four' using a septic tank,  the total NO^-N loading on  the
aquifer could be reduced by more than 91,000 pounds annually
by hooking up these  5,000 unsewered residents.  This number
is strictly hypothetical, but gives some  indication of the
possible size of the load reduction.

     The change this is likely to  create  in  aquifer water
quality has not been calculated.   It would depend in part
on what land use and sewering changes occur  in  the Dalton
Gardens and Hayden areas.  The impact, however, undoubtedly
would be positive.  Waste constituents, including nitrates,
pathogenic organisms and other potentially harmful agents
that are presently being carried  underground with
only minimal treatment, would instead receive biological
secondary treatment and be discharged to  the Spokane River
 (or to the land under Alternative  G).  The removal of waste-
water pollutants would obviously be enhanced by this change
in treatment and disposal for 5,000 residents living over
the aquifer.

     Sludge Disposal.  Each of the alternatives would generate
waste sludges that must be processed and  discarded or recycled
Currently, the city plant generates about 90,000  pounds of
sludge per month  (on a dry weight  basis).  This material
is trucked to an area near the city landfill 1 mile north
of town and dewatered in shallow drying beds.   It is later
scraped from the beds, mixed  with  soil and leaf mulch, and
stockpiled on-site.  In the past,  this material has been
hauled to Canada and used in  a soil-building operation.  Some
is also used as a soil amendment by local residents (Brown
and Caldwell, 1980).  The water in the sludge either eva-
porates or percolates through the  soil into  the subsurface.
There is no drainage system to catch percolate  from the  site.

     Under the "no action" alternative, this sludge disposal
method would continue.  Sludge volumes would remain about
the same.  Leachate from the  existing drying area has not
been monitored, but it is undoubtedly carrying  some waste-
water constituents into the aquifer.  The 208 study monitored
a well on the city landfill site and recorded a groundwater
NO., mean concentration of .1  mg/1  from six samples in  1976.
"The static water level in the well was about 160  and samples
were being drawn from about 170 (PHD, 1977).  No  serious
contamination of the monitoring well had  occurred at that
time.  Site-specific  groundwater  flow characteristics and
percolate dispersal mechanics are  not known  well  enough,
however, to conclude that the sludge drying  operation  is
not seriously affecting the aquifer.  As  mentioned earlier,
groundwater NO, levels do increase gradually downgradient
                              65

-------
 (to the west) of Coeur d'Alene.  Brown and Caldwell  (1980)
 states that the IDHW finds these present sludge disposal
 practices acceptable.  The PHD, however, has encouraged the
 city to relocate its sludge disposal operation to the PHD-
 approved septage disposal site east of Round Mountain  (Lustig,
 pers. comm.).  This is about 13 miles north of Coeur d'Alene.

     The three action alternatives would result in a major
 increase in sludge volumes.  The combination of increased
 wastewater flows and chemical removal of phosphorus would
 stimulate these increases.  Brown and Caldwell  (1980) estimates
 that the volume of sludge generated could increase by as
 much as 300 percent by 1995 under Alternatives B and E.  The
 exact amount would depend upon the number of new sewer hookups
 and the phosphorus removal requirements of the NPDES permit.
 Alternative G would generate a much smaller increase because
 aerated lagoons effectively produce no sludge.  Solids accu-
 mulate on the bottom of the lagoons and are removed only
 once every 5 or 6 years.

     A 300 percent increase in sludge on a dry weight basis
 would mean that 1,620 tons would be produced annually.  Both
 Alternatives B and E propose mechanical dewatering of sludge
 rather than the present method of dewatering near the landfill.
 If the sludge is dewatered to 20 percent solids, approximately
 8,100 tons of sludge would be produced annually.  Under
 Alternative B, this material would be trucked to the existing
 disposal site at the city landfill.  This increase in volume
 could create a capacity problem at the landfill, especially
 during winter months.  The volume of percolate moving down
 into the aquifer would also increase significantly.

     The concern over the percolate is due not only to the
 nitrates that might enter the aquifer but also heavy metals
 and other contaminants that are likely to be present.  Heavy
 metals contained in wastewater tend to accumulate in sludge.
 There is very little information on the metals content of
 Coeur d'Alene sludge, but sludge supernatant samples analyzed
 by the IDHW in August 1975 contained 0.04 rag/1 cadmium and
 0.86 mg/1 lead.   The NIPDWR maximum contaminant levels for
 these two inorganic chemicals in a community water system
 are 0.010 and 0.05 mg/1, respectively.

     These limited data are not sufficient to warrant immediate
 concern for the proposed sludge disposal practice, but it
 does indicate that closer scrutiny of the proposal is justified.
 The city's Atlas and Country Club water supply wells both
 draw water from the aquifer less than 2 miles east of the
 sludge drying facilities.   Section 1424 (e)  of the Safe Drinking
Water Act prohibits federal grant assistance of projects
which the EPA Administrator determines might create a
                              66

-------
significant health hazard within a sole source aquifer.  In
addition, proposed rules for implementation of the federal
RCRA prohibit disposal of a hazardous waste in the recharge
zone of a sole source aquifer unless it can be demonstrated
that the disposal does not endanger the aquifer  (40 CFR
250.43-1[g]).  Municipal wastewater sludge can be desig-
nated a hazardous waste under RCRA if it is found to contain
high levels of any of the over 400 hazardous materials pre-
sently listed in RCRA.

     Sludge disposal under Alternative E could occur just
as proposed for B; the impacts would therefore be similar.
Brown and Caldwell has also investigated an alternative
method.  There is the possibility that Idaho Forest Industries,
which operates a lumber mill near the Alternative E treat-
ment plant sites, may construct a waste wood-fired electrical
generating facility in that area.  Definite plans have not
been made, but Brown and Caldwell has made initial inquiries
into the feasibility of incinerating partially dewatered
sewage sludge in that new 1F1 facility.  The proximity of
the 1F1 operation and the Alternative E plant sites would
make this a possibility.  If this disposal mode was used,
there would be no potential groundwater impact from sludge
disposal.

     Under Alternative G, there would be only about half
as much sludge generated as Alternatives B and E.  This is
due to the fact that about 2.0 MGD of the 4.2 MGD wastewater
generated in the Coeur d'Alene system by 1995 would be treated
in lagoons north of town.  This treatment mode collects waste
solids on the bottom of the lagoons, and requires disposal
only once every 5 or 6 years.  Groundwater quality concerns
would be similar to those described for Alternative B, but
on a smaller scale.

     Land Disposal of Wastewater.  Alternative G proposes
land disposal of a portion of Coeur d'Alene's wastewater
between April 15 and October 15 of each year.   Of the 6.0
MGD of wastewater expected to be generated by 2005, 3.8 MGD
would be applied to the land.  This wastewater would receive
secondary treatment in aerated lagoons, be disinfected, and
sprinkler irrigated on grass or alfalfa crops north of Coeur
d'Alene  (Figure 1-5).  Up to 850 acres of land would eventually
be irrigated.  The dominant soils in this disposal area are
Avonville fine gravelly silt loam and McGuire-Marble Association,
These coarse soils have a moderate to rapid permeability
and an extremely low available water capacity.  This indicates
that water applied to the soils will rapidly percolate through
to underlying substrate.
                              67

-------
     Although Alternative G was selected for detailed con-
sideration in the facilities plan, the plan provides only
a limited amount of information on the irrigation disposal
operation.  Brown and Caldwell  (1980) concluded that the
alternative's high cost, the potential health threat to the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, and EPA's detailed monitoring re-
quirements make the alternative unacceptable.

     The information that was developed includes an effluent
application rate of 30 inches per acre over the 6-month irri-
gation season for an average of 5 inches per acre per month.
The estimated nitrogen loading rate would be 200 pounds per
acre per year  (Brown and Caldwell, pers. comm.).  Nonfood
crops such as grass seed or alfalfa would be grown and
harvested on the irrigated acreage.  No data were developed
to describe the monthly or annual loading rates of other
wastewater constituents of interest, including heavy metals,
or the various other inorganic and organic materials con-
sidered potentially hazardous under the NIPDWR or the Clean
Water Act.  Also, there was no attempt to assess the possi-
bility that any of these materials might reach and contaminate
the underlying aquifer.

     Data collected by the IDHW were used to estimate the
daily loading of several Coeur d'Alene wastewater constituents
in the surface water quality section of this report (see
Table 2-2).   Table 2-9 modifies that data and compares the
estimated 20-year soil loading rates that might occur under
Alternative G with suggested maximum accumulated application
loadings listed in the EPA land application process design
manual.  None of the parameters for which data are available
would be exceeded under Alternative G.

     No attempt has been made to calculate what percentage
of the applied wastewater constituents, including nitrogen
would eventually reach the groundwater below the irrigation
areas.  This would depend upon a variety of operational factors
which have not been specified in the facilities plan,  in-
cluding whether or not the irrigation schedule would be uniform
or tailored to evapotranspiration potential.  Evapotrans-
piration potential fluctuates through the 6-month period.
It also depends on the frequency and method of removing crops.
A high percentage of the nitrogen could be removed through
volatilization and crop uptake if the irrigation scheme was
properly devised.

     Although groundwater immediately below the irrigation
area has not been closely monitored, samples analyzed from
wells both east and south of the area have not contained
pollutant concentrations that exceed NIPDWR maximum contam-
nation levels.  Nitrate levels in the Dalton Gardens well
                               68

-------
                    Table 2-9.  Estimated  Soil  Loading Rates
                         for Potentially Toxic  Elements
Parameter
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Arsenic
Estimated Effluent
Concentration mg/11
< .005
< .050
.293
.035
< .01
20-Year Mass
Application to Soil
Pounds Per Acre
.68
6. 8
39.8
4.7
1.4
Suggested Maximum
20-Year Application2
Pounds Per Acre
8
4,080
1,640
164
82
^DHW, 1980.

2U.  S. EPA, 1977.

-------
registered as high as 8.3 mg/1  (as NC>3) in 1976 according
to the PHD (1977).   Wells to the south, however, contained
much lower N03 concentrations  (1.7-3.7 mg/1).  It is likely
that NC>3 levels below the irrigation area would gradually
increase as nitrogen from the wastewater percolated through
the soil into the subsurface.

     This irrigation contribution might never cause the NIPDWR
NO-, standard of 45 mg/1 to be exceeded.  It should be pointed
out, however, that nationwide there is increasing concern
for other potentially hazardous substances that are being
found in domestic wastewater.  Potentially toxic metals,
pesticides, herbicides and other complex organic and in-
organic chemicals are being found in wastewater effluents
and drinking water supplies taken from underground sources.
Many of these materials are not commonly tested for, and
the health effects are not well understood.  This is pointed
out because even through land application can provide addi-
tional wastewater treatment while allowing a recycling of
water, the filtering effect of soils and the action of or-
ganisms in the aerobic soil layer may not be as efficient
at assimilating and breaking down some potentially hazardous
substances as is discharge to surface waters.  The action
of sunlight and the numerous biological agents in a flowing
stream provide a significant level of treatment that is not
available in a subsurface aquifer.

     These potential groundwater impacts are of concern
because, as mentioned before, the aquifer in the area has
been given a sole source designation by EPA.  This requires
careful consideration of any actions which might degrade
aquifer quality.  In addition, there are 15-20 domestic water
supply wells in the immediate vicinity of the irrigation
area  (Idaho Department of Water Resources, pers. comm.).
While most of these wells are drawing water from depths
greater than 250 feet below the surface the chance for con-
tamination exists.

     The bulk of this irrigation disposal analysis has focused
on its potential negative impacts.  There are two positive
aspects.  First, the nitrogen and phosphorus present in
wastewater effluent is valuable as a crop fertilizer.  Use
of the effluent would reduce applied fertilizer demands to
some degree.   Second, the wastewater irrigation represents
a reuse of water.  Pumped groundwater demands would be reduced
in the area irrigated.  However, there is currently no water
shortage in the area and much of the groundwater pumping
energy savings that might be realized would be lost to the
pumping needed to move effluent north from Coeur d'Alene
to the proposed irrigation area.
                              70

-------
Risk Analysis - Land Disposal vs. River Disposal

     The fact that both land application or river discharge
of Coeur d'Alene's wastewater could ultimately degrade a
major drinking water source  (Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer) to some degree, makes it especially important to
consider the risks involved with each alternative.  As noted
earlier, it is difficult to quantify the impact of either
alternative.  There are insufficient data on actual effluent
quality and local groundwater hydrology to place specific
numbers in the impact discussion.  Therefore, it is valuable
to describe the various subjective elements of risk that
can be associated with each disposal mode.

     Comparative Benefits.  The most obvious benefit of river
disposal compared to land disposal is cost.  The capital
cost of Alternative B is $6.4 million lower than Alternative G.
In local costs, Alternative B is about $1.4 million less
costly to Coeur d'Alene in the initial construction phase
than Alternative G.  Finally, in terms of estimated user
cost increases. Alternative B would be lower than Alter-
native G by $4.31 per month in 1983  (Brown and Caldwell,
1980).  The river discharge options  (Alternatives B and E)
require less energy to operate annually and Alternative E
might actually encourage some power generation through in-
cineration of sludge.

     In contrast, the land disposal proposal provides a re-
cycling of nutrients and water.  VJith the irrigation operation
at its design capacity of 3.8 MGD, it would supply 634 pounds
per day of nitrogen and 222 pounds per day of phosphorus.
The 3.8 MGD of wastewater would replace the pumped groundwater
needs for 850 acres of cropland.  There is no shortage
of water in the irrigation area, however, so the reuse would
not release a supply needed for a higher use (e.g., domestic
water supply).

     An additional benefit of the land application option
would be a reduction in the waste load to the Spokane River.
As indicated in the surface water quality section, the impact
of the summer discharge to the river is not totally definable,
but some increases in algae production are expected.  Some
obvious public health, aesthetic and psychological benefits
would also accrue to recreational users and persons that
draw domestic water supplies from the river below the dis-
charges of Alternatives B and E.

     Knowledge of Contamination Mechanism.  Technical know-
ledge of the real health risks created by contamination of
water supplies with elements and compounds labeled as hazardous
is relatively incomplete.  Many water contaminants have been
                               71

-------
labeled as hazardous after relatively brief laboratory testing
on animals.  However, public health testing must be stringent
and is designed to provide maximum protection to the public.
Testing results have provided sufficient proof that a hazard
to man exists if hazardous materials are ingested by drinking
the water.  In addition, knowledge is very limited regarding
the quantity and numbers of hazardous wastes likely to be
in the Coeur d'Alene effluent.  In light of this imperfect
technical knowledge, we must discern whether it is better
to dispose of the effluent on the land or in the river.  To
help define this issue, the relative knowledge of pollutant
transfer from disposal area to drinking water supply can
be compared.

     The transfer or convergence of wastewater constituents
from a sewage outfall to the river is easily understood,
and the levels of contamination can be easily estimated and
measured downstream.

     In comparison, the transfer of pollutants from a land
application site to the groundwater is not as well understood
and definitely less observable or measurable.  Some information
is available about the filtering ability of soils, but this
pertains primarily to classic pollutants, such as nitrate,
bacteria, viruses and heavy metals.  Relatively little is
known about the fate of the many complex organic compounds
now being produced by man and considered hazardous.  In addi-
tion, the actual hydraulic relationship between land-applied
wastewater and the underlying aquifer is only speculative.
The ability to monitor and detect the transfer of pollutants
at a land disposl site is poor compared to river discharge.

     Probability and Cost of a Catastrophic Impact.  Probably
the most severe or catastrophic event that could be associated
with disposal of Coeur d'Alene's wastewater would be an un-
controlled discharge of untreated and/or highly toxic materials,
This could be created by an undetected release of toxic
materials into the city's waste stream.  This worst-case
scenario would not be a serious public health threat unless
discharge contaminated a drinking water supply or water
contact recreational waterway.

     If such an event were to occur in a Spokane River dis-
charge, the river itself would immediately be a health threat
to those persons drawing drinking water from the river and
those water contact recreationists using the river downstream.
Some portion of the contaminant could also eventually move
into the aquifer through the river's recharge zone and
threaten major groundwater water supplies downgradient.  The
positive aspect of the river discharge option is that the
chance of early detection of the hazardous discharge is much
                              72

-------
greater than with land disposal.  Cleanup of the river would
also proceed more rapidly due to the natural cleansing action
of sunlight and the biological activity normally found in
a stream.  Until the contamination was cleaned up, the com-
paratively small number of persons using the river as drinking
water would have to seek another water source.  Contact re-
creationists would have to avoid the river.

     If a hazardous discharge occurred at a land disposal
site, there would probably be no immediately recognized public
health threat.  Depending on the nature of the contaminant
and its propensity for uptake by plants or adsorption to
soil particles, there is the possibility that it would not
migrate to the groundwater supply.  The negative side of
land discharge is that once any hazardous material moved
below the aerobic soil layer, it would be exposed to little
or no biological modification and could not be cleaned up
by human action.  If an acute or chronic discharge of toxic
materials did enter the groundwater and create a public health
hazard, an extremely large segment of the area's population
(in the Post Falls area and eastern Washington)  might have
to seek a new water source.

     Latency.  The actual health effects of groundwater con-
tamination, if it were to occur, might not be felt for many
years, and might never be positively traceable.   This is
due, in part, to the fact that some waste materials are
hazardous only after chronic exposure over relatively long
time periods.  It might also take a considerable amount of
time for hazardous materials to migrate from the disposal
area to a portion of the groundwater that is being used domes-
tically.  The travel time would be much slower from the irri-
gation disposal operation, but the latency of effect could
be true for either land disposal or river discharge.  Tracing
a hazardous discharge and assigning liability for it would
be easier with a river discharge of wastewater than with
land application.

     Irreversibility-   Water contamination created by a
surface water waste discharge would be much easier to correct
than one created by an irrigation disposal operation.  A
surface water contamination can be detected more readily.
It is also usually subject to greater diffusion and dilution,
and it is more accessible to natural or human cleanup.  In
the case of a discharge to the Spokane River at Coeur d'Alene,
it might also have an impact on the groundwater downgradient.
The City of Spokane's Well Electric, a major domestic water
supplier, is located adjacent to the river 30 miles down-
stream.  It draws groundwater downgradient from where the
Spokane River recharges the aquifer.  The major impact, however,
would remain in the stream environment.

     Summary of Risk Assessment.  There are several elements
of rish that should be summarized from the preceding dis-
cussion.  First, the probability of the Coeur d'Alene waste

                              73

-------
discharge containing materials that pose a serious public
health threat is very speculative.  Local, state, and federal
regulation of wastewater treatment facilities are aimed at
avoiding any hazardous waste discharges.  If, however, hazardous
materials were carried in the effluent, the detection and
cleanup would be easier with a year-round river discharge.
In addition, prediction of the eventual effects of a discharge
to surface waters is more likely to be valid than prediction
of subsurface changes and movements of materials in the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer.  Finally, even if the low probability of
creating a serious public health threat supports selection
of seasonal land disposal, Coeur d'Alene and its residents
would be paying a higher cost for wastewater service if land
disposal was implemented.  The users of the Spokane Valley-
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer below Coeur d'Alene would have the
low probability risk of exposure,'to a public health hazard,
should hazardous wastes enter the aquifer from either a river
or land disposal.


Mitigation of Potential Groundwater Quality Impacts

     Legal Authority for Mitigation.  There are a number
of federal laws and regulations which allow EPA to reduce
the probability that a groundwater-related health hazard
would be created by disposal of Coeur d'Alene wastewater.
The Clean Water Act, which gives EPA permit authority over
any wastewater discharge to surface waters of the United
States, is the major tool.  The EPA-issued NPDES permit will
specify the level of wastewater contaminants (5 conventional
plus any of over 65 priority pollutants) that can be con-
tained in any effluent discharged to surface waters (33 USC
1251 Sec. 402[a]).  In addition, the Clean Water Act allows
EPA to require an inventory of significant industrial or
commercial waste stream sources and a pretreatment ordinance
for waste streams containing a toxic pollutant (33 USC 1251
Sec. 402[b]  [8]).

     The federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which gave EPA
the authority to designate the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer as
a "sole source" water supply, also prohibits EPA from funding
a project which would create a significant health hazard
in the aquifer  (42 USC 300f, 300h Sec. 1424[e]).   To meet
this legal requirement, EPA can place conditions (i.e., moni-
toring requirements, operational requirements, etc.),  on
the grant to Coeur d'Alene for design and construction of
its treatment plant and disposal system.

     A third source of influence EPA can utilize as a basis
for mitigation is the aquifer protection policy of the
federally-adopted 208 water quality management plan for the
                              74

-------
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer.  It requires protection of the
aquifer from land application of wastewater (see EPA
Mitigation Strategy, below).

     Finally, EPA can indirectly identify potential water
quality problems through the RCRA  (1976).  This act allows
EPA to inventory and establish storage, treatment and dis-
posal regulations for over 85 waste streams and 400 chemical
discards.  These regulations are aimed primarily at control
of industrial and commercial operations dealing with hazardous
wastes.  Domestic wastewater is excluded from RCRA control,
but sludges are not.  All industries in the Coeur d'Alene
area that generate, store, treat or dispose of any of these
hazardous wastes must register with EPA.  This registration
process, along with Coeur d'Alene's inventory of industrial
and commercial wastewater hookups, will allow EPA to identify
potentially hazardous materials in wastewater effluent.

     EPA Mitigation Strategy-  There are no formal federal
regulations or EPA policies for control of wastewater disposal
over a sole source aquifer.  Regulations are being developed
on a national level but are incomplete.  There is a set of
general regulations for land disposal of wastewater over
a subsurface water supply  (Alternative Waste Management
Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology,
Federal Register, February 11, 1976), which establishes mini-
mum protection of a sole source water supply.   In response
to a letter from the PAC regarding Coeur d'Alene's facilities
planning, EPA Region X issued preliminary guidance for entities
seeking to dispose of wastewater on lands over the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer  (U. S. EPA, pers. comm.).  This guidance,
in effect, establishes a mitigation scheme for potential
groundwater quality impacts.   The contents of this guidance
are summarized as follows:

     o  In the facilities plan, present ambient groundwater
        quality data relative to the MCLs in the NIPDWR
        and other pollutants of concern.

     o  Identify recent surface activities upgradient from
        the proposed disposal site that might have later
        adverse effects on groundwater quality.

     o  Plan for effluent quality monitoring prior to land
        disposal.

     o  Establish and maintain an industrial connections
        inventory consistent with EPA's pretreatment re-
        quirements .

     o  Establish EPA-approved monitoring wells - one up-
        gradient and two downgradient from disposal site.
                               75

-------
     o  Sample monitoring wells for all MCLs and other
        identified pollutants from the priority pollutant
        list prior to land discharge  (see Appendix B
        for priority pollutants).

     o  Monitor wells quarterly (or less often if justified)
        for MCLs, total trihalomethane potential or tri-
        halomethanes (if effluent chlorinated), and other
        priority pollutants found in initial effluent moni-
        toring.

     o  Monitor for all priority pollutants at each well
        once annually.

     o  Monitoring program is to be continuous throughout
        the life of the project.

     o  Monitoring program developed by the city must be
        approved by EPA prior to award of Step 3 grant.

     o  Facilities plan must predict the soil treatment
        capabilities of the unsaturated zone at the pro-
        posed disposal site.

     o  Comply with Clean Water Act pretreatment require-
        ments and control all industrial or other waste
        discharges that might impact MCLs or priority
        pollutant parameters.

     o  Wastewater application rates not to exceed 2.3 inches
        per week (applied over a period of days).

     If the above-described monitoring program indicated
that degradation was occurring, EPA would require added treat-
ment, tighter controls over dischargers to the system, pro-
hibition of certain surface activities, or provision of an
alternative effluent disposal system  (U. S. EPA,  pers. comm.)

     It should also be noted that the list of MCLs may be
expanded in the future and the pending sole source regu-
lations may place more stringent control on federally-
funded land application systems (U. S. EPA, pers. comm.).
                              76

-------
                     Land Use Conflicts


Introduct ion

     Potential land use conflicts associated with the proposed
wastewater treatment sites and the spray irrigation site
are an important issue in this EIS.  This section describes
the existing land use conditions of the proposed sites and
evaluates the potential land use conflicts associated with
each site.


Land Use Characteristics of Proposed Sites

     Alternative B.  The site for Alternative B is in the
city's manufacturing/commercial zone adjacent to the Spokane
River  (Figure 1-2).  The city's existing treatment plant
is located on a portion of the proposed site.  Expansion
of the plant site from the existing 3.3 acres to 12 acres
would be required under Alternative B.  Purchase of private
land to the east of the existing site would accommodate the
expansion plans.  Currently used railroad tracks would
separate the two sites.

     Although expansion of the present plant site would be
compatible with the city comprehensive plan manufacturing/
commercial land use designation, other land use demands
in the area present potential problems.  The city's recent
annexation of 8.42 acres to the immediate north and east
of the plant for purposes of an office/condominium complex
conflicts with plant expansion into the same area.  Another
potential incompatible land use would result if NIC pursues
plans to expand north of River Avenue, adjacent to the treat-
ment facilities.  In summary, it appears that expansion at
the present plant site would discourage residential/commercial
use of adjacent vacant land in the future.  Table 2-10 summarizes
Site B land use characteristics.

     Alternative E.  The three potential sites in Alter-
native E are shown on Figure 1-3.  All three sites are located
within the industrial land use designation of the county
comprehensive plan.  These three sites are located in primarily
uninhabited areas adjacent to the Spokane River.  Site E-l
is in a forested area with a large clearing in the middle
of the site (see Table 2-10).  Site E-2 rests on the southern
section of an adjacent gravel pit.  Both Sites E-l and E-2
have potential access problems as a result of railroad tracks
and rugged terrain separating the sites from the highway.
Site E-3, located approximately 1 mile downriver, is also
situated in a stand of trees.  The site nevertheless has
good access to adjacent Highway 10.
                               77

-------
                         Table 2-10.   Land Use  Characteristics of Proposed
                                     Wastewater Treatment  Sites
     Proposed Treatment
     Site
Planned Land Use
Designation
Land Use Characteristics
of Site
Land Use Characteristics
of Adjacent Area
            B
Manufacturing/
commercial
           E-l
Industrial
CO
           E-2
Industrial
           E-3
Industrial
Existing treatment plant/
vacant land, log storage
Forested area with
clearing
Gravel pit
Forested Area
Northeast - vacant land
East - railroad tracks/
vacant land
South - mill
West - Spokane River

North - railroad tracks/
vacant lands
Northwest - gravel pit
Southwest - Spokane
River
South and east - open
field

North - railroad tracks/
vacant land
Northwest - gravel pit
operations
East - forested area
Southwest - Spokane
River

North - Highway 10
West - open land/lumber
operations
South - Spokane River
East - forested and va-
cant .area

-------
Proposed Treatment
Site
Planned Land Use
Designation
Land Use Characteristics
of Site
Land Use Characteristics
of Adjacent Area
G - Ramsey Road
G - Prairie Ave.
G - Huetter Road
Transition
Transition/
agriculture
Agriculture
Alfalfa and grass seed
cropland
Alfalfa and grass seed
cropland transected by
irrigation ditch

Alfalfa and grass seed
cropland transected by
irrigation ditch
Sparsely scattered
residences on all
sides

Sparsely scattered
residences on all
sides

Sparsely scattered
residences on all
sides

-------
     Future land use between these sites is expected to be
industrial according to the county comprehensive plan.  The
construction of a new wastewater treatment plant at any of
these sites should therefore be compatible with adjacent
land uses.  It should be recognized, however, that other
types of uses might occur on this riverfront property.
Residential and commercial uses are now being planned along
the river just 1 mile upstream.  If this type of development
continues to be attracted to riverfront property, land use
conflicts similar to those now being experienced at the present
treatment plant could eventually occur at the Alternative E
sites.  The long-term plans for riverfront areas adjacent
to the Alternative E sites should therefore be considered
before moving the plant to this area.

     Alternative G.  Under Alternative G, one of three proposed
treatment and storage sites as well as spray irrigation site
would be used in conjunction with the existing treatment
plant.  The proposed sites are located primarily outside
the facility planning area in unincorporated rural Kootenai
County  (Figure 1-5).  All of the proposed sites  (Ramsey Road,
Prairie Avenue, Huetter Road and the spray irrigation site)
are currently under agricultural production  (mainly alfalfa
and grass seed production).  Scattered residences are located
adjacent to the sites.

     Wastewater treatment ponds and spray irrigation on the
proposed sites would be compatible with the county compre-
hensive plan agricultural and industrial land use desig-
nations in the airport area, but could conflict with the
transition zone lying west of Ramsey Road.  Transition areas
could eventually be developed for residential use.  In addi-
tion, continued use of the existing treatment site under
this alternative could discourage future commercial/resi-
dential use of adjacent vacant land in that area.


Potential Land Use Conflicts

     The land uses surrounding the proposed wastewater treat-
ment and spray irrigation sites are presented in Table 2-10.
The operation of treatment and disposal facilities could
result in adverse impacts to humans using adjacent land.
The environmental impacts include:  odor generation, noise
generation, and visual appearance.  The following section
describes these factors and evaluates the potential impact
associated with each proposed site.  In addition, potential
mitigation measures are discussed.
                               80

-------
     Direct Environmental Factors.

     Odor Generation.  In general, the main source of conflict
with wastewater treatment plants is odor generation.  Odors
can emanate from different odor-producing points at the plant,
such as headworks, treatment basins or sludge-handling
facilities.  Proper design and operation are principal
factors in determining if a treatment plant will emit odors.
The degree of obnoxiousness of odors depends not only on
the concentration of the odor and on the person exposed to
the odor but also on the intensity of the odor-

     The impact of odors is largely determined by prevailing
winds.  In the Coeur d'Alene region, winds from the west
and southwest are predominant, especially in summer when
high temperatures present additional odor problems.  Winds
from the northeast often occur in winter months (U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1976, Appendix E).

     Noise Generation.  Typically, adverse noise impacts
are associated with the operation of treatment plants.  Ob-
jectionable noise levels result primarily from trucking
activity to and from the plant.  Similar to odor impacts,
prevailing winds play a key role in the degree of impact.
Other factors such as frequency of noise impact, level of
noise impact, and individual perception are important con-
siderations .

     Visual Appearance.  Wastewater treatment plants often
impose adverse visual impacts on surrounding areas.  Although
the degree of impact is dependent on individual perception,
the visual appearance of treatment plants is often in contrast
to the surrounding environment.  This can result in an adverse
aesthetic impact on a neighborhood or nearby road.

     Site Evaluation.  The potential direct land use conflicts
associated with each proposed treatment site are presented
in Table 2-11.  The  sites were evaluated in terms of odor
noise, and visual impacts.  The degree of impact  (i.e., high,
moderate or low) was based on the proximity of the sites
to existing residential and highway uses and the potential
frequency of impact.

     As indicated in Table 2-11, all of the proposed treatment
sites, with the exception of Site B, have a relatively low
potential for direct land use conflict.  The remoteness of
these sites from other human activities accounts for the
"low" designations.  On the other hand, expansion of treat-
ment facilities at Site B would likely aggravate existing
odor problems and aesthetic detractions.  Expansion of the
plant would encroach upon a nearby residential area and would
probably result in an increase of odor complaints.
                               81

-------
                Table 2-11.  Potential Direct Land Use Conflicts Associated With  the
                           Operation of the Proposed Treatment Facilities
CO
to
Treatment
Facility Site
B
E-l
E-2
Direct Environmental
Odor Impact Noise Impact
High Medium Low High Medium
X X
X
X
Factors
Visual Impact
Low High Medium Low
X
X X
X X
E-3

G - Ramsey Road*

G - Prairie Ave.

G - Huetter Road
                                     x
                                             X
                                             X
                                             X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                       X
                                                                                              X
                                                                                              X
                                                                                              X
                                                                                              X
     *G - sites only consider treatment ponds and storage.

-------
     The preceding analysis examined potential land use con-
flicts from the viewpoint of existing land uses.  If potential
land use changes are considered, certain other conflicts
become apparent.  As mentioned, future land use demands in
the area surrounding the existing treatment plant could result
in additional land use conflicts if Alternative B is selected.
Similarly, land use conflicts could develop at the downriver
sites in 10 or 15 years as a result of competing land use
demands and continued downzoning practices.  It appears,
therefore, that even though the selection of Alternative B
would present some immediate land use problems, selection
of one of the Alternative E downriver sites might also result
in land use conflicts in the long term.

     Mitigation Measures.  The adverse environmental factors
identified in Table 2-11 can be controlled.  This would mini-
mize objections to the treatment facilities.  In some cases
direct adverse effects can be significantly reduced by buffer
zones.  This could alleviate adverse visual impacts and help
dissipate undesirable noise and odors.  In other cases, how-
ever, additional measures are necessary-   Table 2-12 identifies
other potential mitigation measures.
                Influence on Soils and Crops

     Alternative G calls for irrigation of wastewater between
mid-April and mid-October of each year north of Coeur d'Alene
 (Figure 1-5).  The new north area treatment lagoon complex
would provide secondary treatment for about 2.2 MGD of waste-
water in the initial project phase.  In 1995 the capacity
would be increased to 3.8 MGD.  The total irrigated acreage
would eventually reach about 850 acres, with the estimated
effluent application rate of 5 inches per month or 30 inches
per season.  The annual nitrogen loading is estimated to be
200 pounds per acre per year.  The wastewater would be applied
to a field crop, probably grass, for either seed or hay pro-
duction  (Brown and Caldwell, pers. comm.).

     This type of wastewater reuse can lead to eventual soil
and crop damage from a build-up of salts or other dissolved
materials.  Wastewater contains much higher concentrations
of salts than local well water.  The critical water quality
parameters for most agricultural irrigation, according
to the University of California Committee of Consultants,
includes electrical conductance, sodium adsorption ratio
 (SAR), sodium, chloride, boron, ammonia, nitrate and bicar-
bonate (Ayers, 1977).   Neither the city nor the IDHW regularly
monitor the city's effluent for most of these parameters.
                              83

-------
          Table  2-12.   Potential Mitigation Measures
                    for Land Use Conflicts
Odor Reduction

     1.  Ensure that all facilities are properly maintained,
         including all odor control equipment  (digester
         covers,  etc.).

     2.  Establish a means of monitoring plant odor pro-
         duction so that any off-site impacts can be
         rapidly detected and corrective action can be
         taken.

     3.  Locate treatment plant away from residential
         and commercial areas.

Noise Reduction

     1.  Restrict truck traffic to the hours between
         9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

     2.  Enclose all pumps and motors in acoustically
         designed structures.

     3.  Maintain a berm around all treatment facilities.

Visual

     1.  Maintain a berm around all treatment facilities.

     2.  Plant shrubs  and trees around treatment facilities.
                               84

-------
Data are  available  only  for  electrical  conductance,  ammonia
and nitrate.  The city's  facilities  plan  does  not  predict
effluent  quality for  these parameters under  Alternative  G
treatment because Alternative  G  is not  being actively  pursued
by the  facilities planners.  Table 2-13 summarizes existing
effluent  data and the  irrigation water  quality guidelines.

     Because the effluent data are so limited,  it  is diffi-
cult to predict the soil  and crop impacts created  by Alter-
native G.  The low  level  of  salts in the  present Coeur d'Alene
effluent, the high quality of  local  water supplies, and  the
extremely porous nature of the disposal area soils suggest
that the  irrigation scheme would not lead to a  sharp loss
in soil permeability or result in salt  damage  to the grass  or
hay crop.  Even though the expected  nitrate  +  ammonia  levels
fall in the general guidelines category of increasing  problems,
grass and hay crops are not  extremely sensitive to nitrogen
compounds.  A review of local  water  supply quality data  (Pan-
handle Health District, 1977)  indicates that boron, sodium
and chloride would probably  not  occur in  Coeur d'Alene's
effluent  in quantities large enough  to  damage grass crops,
but this  is speculative without  actual  effluent quality data.

     Even though it is not likely that  the irrigation  proposal
would cause crop or soil damage, there  are several steps
that could be taken to further ensure a successful operation
if Alternative G were  implemented.   The effluent application
rate should not exceed the area's normal  evapotranspiration
rate by more than 25 percent.  This  will  reduce the chances
of creating a shallow water  table.   The 5-inch per month
application rate described by  Brown  and Caldwell meets this
stipulation.  Also, sufficient drying periods should be allowed
so that root saturation or soil  clogging  do  not become a
hazard to the crop.  It would  also be valuable to  test the
Coeur d'Alene effluent for boron, sodium  and chloride  prior
to pursuing Alternative G, so  that the  potential soil  and
crop impacts could be more accurately predicted.


              Public Health Risks On and Around
                   the Spray Disposal Area

     Facilities plan Alternative G includes  spray  disposal
of a portion of Coeur d'Alene's wastewater on agricultural
land north of the city (Figure 1-5).   Up to  5 inches per
acre per month would be sprayed over a  grass crop,  from mid-
April to mid-October.   None of the other project alternatives
propose this land application process.
                              85

-------
                          Table  2-13.   Irrigation Water Quality Guidelines
CO
                                  Irrigation Water
                                 Quality Guidelines1
Present Effluent
Predicted Alternative G
Parameter
Electrical con-
ductance (mmhos/
cm)
SAR (adj) ^
Sodium (mg/1) 5
Chloride (mg/1) 5
NH4-N + NO-^-N6
(mg/1)
HCO, (mg/1)
J
Boron (mg/1)
No Problem
< 0.15
<6.0
< 69
< 106
< 5
<90
< 0. 5
Increasing Problems Quality'' Effluent Quality
0.75-3.0 .45
6.0-9.0
>69
>106
5-30 14.2 12-15
90-520
0. 5-2.0
     *Ayers,  1977.
     2 Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, pers. comm. (average of 6 individual samples taken
      from January  1980 to June 1980).
     3Bain, pers. comm.
     4Sodium adsorption ratio.
     5Specific toxicity from foliar absorption.
     6Recommended  limits for sensitive  crops.

-------
     Spray disposal of treated wastewater can create a health
risk to persons on or adjacent to the disposal area.  Biological
agents (virus, bacteria)  typically found in treated wastewater
can cause illness or disease in humans.  The two most typical
means of infection are inadvertent ingestion by drinking
water contaminated by wastewater and inhalation of wastewater
aerosols created during spraying.

     Inadvertent ingestion (e.g., drinking)  can be effectively
avoided in most cases by fencing disposal areas and posting
signs that warn of the hazard.   All water spigots, pipes
and nozzles can be marked with warnings.  The site can also
be designed to keep wastewater runoff from leaving the area.
The chance of persons accidentally or intentionally wandering
onto a spray site can also be reduced by selecting an isolated
disposal area.  The facilities plan identifies a large acreage
north of Coeur d'Alene and west of Hayden that could be used
for irrigation disposal of effluent.   Eventually 1,000 acres
would be needed to dispose of the expected flow (maximum
of 3.8 MGD).  The farther north and west the irrigation
site, the more isolated it would be from residential areas.
The land west of the airport would be the most buffered from
existing and proposed development.

     The health risk from aerosols is more difficult to control.
Isolation, use of vegetative screens, maintaining buffer
strips, fencing of the spray area and adequate disinfection
of the wastewater are the most effective safeguards.

     Studies by Sepp (1971)  found that aerosols from typical
sprinkler systems can travel over 500 feet in 6-7 mile per
hour winds.  The distance increases to about 1,300 feet in
11-mile-per-hour winds.  Most of the mists fall out within
half of these maximum distances.  Many of the pathogens found
in wastewater are capable of surviving in these aerosols,
so the importance of isolation and buffer strips are evident.

     Additional protection from aerosol drift can be achieved
by a variety of operational measures:  low trajectory and
low pressure sprinkler heads should be used to keep fine
aerosols from forming and drifting off of the site; irrigation
should cease during periods of high winds.  This latter measure
would be especially important because the prevailing wind
direction is from the west and southwest; this would carry
aerosols toward the populated areas which are generally
to the east of the proposed irrigation area.  Again, the
land to the west of the airport would provide the greatest
buffer between the irrigation operations and developed or
potentially developed land.
                              87

-------
                 Project Economic Influences

Direct Project Costs

     If no new wastewater facilities are constructed for
Coeur d'Alene, no immediate increases in capital expenditures
would be incurred.  The city would continue to operate its
present plant at an estimated annual operation and maintenance
cost of $346,000 per year.  The monthly user charge for this
wastewater service is $4.48 (Brown and Caldwell, 1980).  How-
ever, if flows into the plant increase with no improvement
in the structural integrity or capacity of the plant, waste-
water discharge violations are likely to increase.  This
could ultimately lead to fines and/or flow restrictions enforced
by IDHW or EPA.  The fiscal implications of this type of
regulatory action could eventually affect the entire community.

     Capital costs of facilities required for the action
alternatives through year 2005 are shown in Table 2-14.  As
shown, Alternative B has the lowest capital cost, Alter-
native E the next lowest, and Alternative G, the highest
capital cost.  The local share of the initial construction
cost is estimated to be  (for secondary treatment only)  $1,775,000
for Alternative B, $1,948,000 for Alternative E, and $3,175,000
for Alternative G.  Local share capital costs with phosphorus
removal added were not shown in the facilities plan (Brown
and Caldwell, 1980) .

     Present worth costs, which express the present worth cost
of constructing and operating the facilities until year 2005
are shown in Table 2-15.

     The estimated monthly user costs for each of the alter-
natives in year 1983 are:  Alternative B - $11.59 per month;
Alternative E - $12.16 per month; and Alternative G - $16.10
per month.  These costs include an increment for the cost
of phosphorus removal facilities (Brown and Caldwell,  1980).

     Brown and Caldwell  (1980) has recommended that the local
share of treatment system construction costs be financed
by selling general obligation bonds.  They suggest that if
Alternative E is to be implemented, approximately $2.5 million
in bonds should be sold.  The pay-back period would be 20
years.  The cost of bond repayment, as well as the cost of
treatment system operation and maintenance, is reflected
in the monthly user charges listed above.

     The facilities plan intentionally separated treatment
plant cost considerations from the cost of improving and
expanding the city's wastewater interceptor network.  The
plant identifies $1.9 million in near-term and $3.2 million
in long-term collection system costs  (Brown and Caldwell,
1980).  These costs are in addition to those described in
the previous narrative and tables.  The various interceptor
segments and costs are listed in Table 1-2.  The interceptor
extensions are mapped in Figure 1-6.

-------
                         Table  2-14.   Capital  Cost of Facilities to Provide
                               Capacity to 2005 (Millions of Dollars)
oo
    Item
  B
    Total project  cost  -  secondary  + phosphorus removal
     + nitrification
                                                                           Alternative
Treatment facilities
Upgrade existing plant
1985 new facilities
1995 new facilities
Treatment plant site
Effluent disposal
Outfalls and land
1985 irrigation equipment
1995 irrigation equipment
Collection system
Pump stations, storage
Force mains
Gravity
Total project cost - secondary treatment
Phosphorus removal - additional cost (1985)
Total project cost - secondary + phosphorus removal
Nitrification - additional cost (1985 + 1995)

1.01
12. 33
6.44
0.06

0.12
	
	

	
	
	
19.96
.28
20.24
.98

	
12.32
6.44
0.60

0.14
	
	

1.82
. 58
	
21.90
. 28
22.18
. 98

4.09
3.15
2.10
1.12

5.65
2.79
1.55

2.79
1.32
2.17
26.73
.14
26.87
	
21.22
23.16
26. 87
    SOURCE:  Modified  from Brown  and Caldwell,  1980.

-------
                     Table  2-15.   Present  Worth  Cost  of  Capital  Facilities  and
                           Operation  and Maintenance  (Millions of  Dollars)
Item
Secondary treatment
Phosphorus removal
Subtotal - secondary
Nitrification
Subtotal - secondary
nitrification


+ phosphorus removal
+ phosphorus removal +
Alternative
BEG
20.19 23.16 26.57
1.91 1.91 0.71
22.10 25.07 27.28
.88 .88 0
22.98 25.95 27.28
o   SOURCE:   Modified  from  Brown  and  Caldwell,  1980

-------
     Wastewater collection system extensions are typically
financed solely by the local entity.  State and federal grants
are seldom involved.  However, Brown and Caldwell  (1980)
has suggested that federal and state grant assistance might
be available for those interceptors picking up existing waste
flows that might be adversely affecting the Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer.  This includes interceptors to the local high school
and the fairgrounds.  A decision has not yet been made on
the grant eligibility of these elements.  The local cost
of interceptors will probably be financed by forming local
utility improvement districts, so that those benefiting from
the extension of sewers in specific locations will also pay
for the service.
Economic Impact on Property Values

     Wastewater facilities have both direct and indirect
economic impacts on property values.  Direct economic impacts
occur where property values are affected by the property's
proximity to wastewater treatment plants.  Residential property
values are most affected since residential land uses are
generally incompatible with treatment plant operations.  Negative
externalities associated with the operation of treatment
plants include odor generation, noise generation, and visual
detraction.  Properties located in closest proximity to the
plant and in the direction of prevailing winds are most impacted.

     In the Coeur d'Alene planning area, residential properties
adjacent to the existing treatment plant are subject to adverse
environmental impacts.  Expansion of the plant under Alter-
native B would likely increase the extent of adverse impacts.
As a result additional negative economic impact on surrounding
property values would occur.  The property value of the indus-
trial area surrounding the proposed sites in Alternative E
would appear to be unaffected.  The impact on property values
adjacent to Alternative G sites would probably be minimal,
if any, assuming existing land use conditions persist.

     Indirect economic impacts on property value occur as
a result of the impact of sewer availability on the develop-
ment potential of an area.   In general, public investments
have significant positive effects on land values since, in
the absence of such investments, development potential is
limited.  Where property values increase because of sewer
availability, indirect public benefits result.

     The increase in property values creates additional wealth
for an area and stimulates local economic activity.  As a
result incomes increase, which provides additional tax revenues
and results in improved government services to the community.
Therefore,  a decrease in property value of residential land
near the treatment plant should be evaluated in relation
to increased land values in other parts of the area.

                              91

-------
                    Use  of  Scarce Resources

     Conventional  centralized wastewater treatment systems
use energy  in  the  form  of  electricity and natural gas and
consume certain  chemicals  in treating and disinfecting waste-
water.  This use of often  scarce energy and chemicals is
important because  the production of these materials in turn
requires both  financial and energy expenditures.  Their pro-
duction also creates a  variety of impacts on the environment,
Therefore,  it  is advantageous to consider the use of energy
and chemicals  when evaluating wastewater alternatives.
Energy

     The Coeur d'Aiene  wastewater plant is presently using
about 500,000 Kwh of  electricity annually (Brown and Caldwell,
1980).  The Washington  Water  Power Company supplies this
power.  Under the "no-action"  alternative, this energy use
would continue into the future,  as wastewater flows would
increase only slightly  due  to  plant capacity limitations.
The projected electrical energy  consumption of the action
alternatives is summarized  below.

                          Table  2-16

           Projected  Electrical  Energy Consumption
                          (Kwh/year)

Alternative      1985        1990       1995       2000       2005

    B          556,000     738,000    955,000  1,208,000   1,482,000
    E          655,000     861,000  1,135,000  1,443,000   1,798,000
    G         1,256,000   1,865,000  2,523,000  3,271,000   4,442,000
SOURCE:  Lange, pers. comm.

     The totals in Table 2-16  are  just for secondary treatment,
but only minor increases would be  needed for phosphorus removal
or nitrification processes  because pumping requirements are
not significantly different (Brown and Caldwell, 1980).

     Alternative B, which requires the least amount of waste-
water pumping, has the  lowest  electrical energy demand.  Alter-
native E is slightly  higher because wastewater must be pumped
downriver to the new  treatment site.   Alternative G has by
far the greatest demand because  a  large volume of wastewater
must be pumped up to  the Hayden  area and wastewater must
be pumped into the irrigation  system to provide adequate
spraying pressure.

     Brown and Caldwell  (1980) also estimated the total energy
demand for each alternative.   This includes  both direct elec-
trical use and the energy required to produce and transfer
                              92

-------
energy and chemicals  to  the  treatment  site.   Specific numbers
were not listed, but  the requirements  were  graphed.   A rough
estimation of those total numbers  for  1985  and 2005  follows:

                              Energy Required Annually in BTU x 109

                                  1985                2005
Alternative A                        6.25                6.25
Alternative B                        6.875              17.5
Alternative E                       10                 30
Alternative G                       13.75               45

Again, Alternative B  shows the  lowest  demand  and  G shows
the highest demand of the action alternatives.

     The Washington Water Power Company  (WWP),  which  supplies
electrical and natural gas energy  to the  area,  should be
able to provide the necessary power.   However,  because WWP
has not been able to  increase its  hydroelectric power generat-
ing capacity in recent years, its  electrical  energy  supplies
have been stretched quite thin, especially  in dry years
(Witter, pers. comm.).   For  this reason,  WWP  has  encouraged
installation of utilities that  use natural  gas  wherever pos-
sible.  The area's natural gas  supply, which  is primarily
from Canada, is presently more  capable of meeting demand
increases.

     Treatment-related demands  on  outside energy  sources
can be kept to a minimum in  a variety  of  ways.  The most
obvious is to select  treatment  processes  and  plant locations
that generate the least  demand.  As stated  above  Alternative B
has the lowest demand.   Other actions  can also  reduce  demand.
Energy-efficient equipment can  be  purchased.   Methane  gas
generated during sludge  digestion  can  be  used to  meet plant
natural gas requirements.  Chemical dosing  can  be closely
monitored to limit chemical  use, thereby  indirectly reducing
energy consumption.  Brown and  Caldwell has identified another
potential energy mitigation  for Alternative E.  Idaho  Forest
Industries is considering construction of a wastewood-fired
steam generating plant near  Atlas.  If this was eventually
constructed and the treatment plant was moved to  that area, the
sewage sludge might be incinerated with the woodwaste.   This
could increase the energy output of the generator and reduce
the energy needed to dewater and haul  sludge  to the  landfill
site.  This possibility  is only speculative at  this point.
Chemicals

     Each of the project alternatives,  including  "no-action",
would use chlorine for wastewater disinfection  and  Alterna-
tives B, E, and G would use alum for removing phosphorus.
Presently, the Coeur d'Alene plant uses  24,000  pounds  of
chlorine per year  (Brown and Caldwell,  1980).   Alum is not

                               93

-------
used.  Under the  "no-action" option, this situation  would
remain the same.   Projected chemical use under  the action
alternatives is summarized below.

                             Table 2-17
                   Projected Chemical Usage
Alternative

 Chlorine-Ibs/yr

       B
       E
       G

 Alum-gal/yr

       B
       E
       G
 1985
25,000
25,000
25,000
84,000
84,000
47,000
 1990
 32,000
 32,000
 32,000
106,000
106,000
 55,000
  1995
 41,600
 41,600
 41,600
139,000
139,000
 65,500
  2000
 51,500
 51,500
 51,500
172,000
172,000
 76,000
  2005
 61,300
 61,300
 61,300
204,000
204,000
 84,000
SOURCE:  Lange, pers. comm.
     Chlorine  usage would be the same for each  action alternative
because  disinfection of all wastewater would  be necessary
regardless  of  the treatment process or disposal mode.  Alum
requirements are  similar for Alternatives B and E  because
year-round  river  discharge of wastes would occur with both
alternatives and  phosphorus removal would be  necessary from
mid-April to mid-October.   Under Alternative  G,  wastewater
from the north  section  of  town would be disposed of  on land
during the  summer.   This increment of flow  (3.8  MGD  by 2005)
would not need  to be treated for phosphorus removal.   Therefore,
the alum requirement would be lower.

     Chemical use can be kept to a minimum by closely moni-
toring dosing and using only the amount needed  to  meet NPDES
effluent quality  requirements.  If alternative  disinfection
or phosphorus removal methods were used, the  need  for chlorine
and alum might  be eliminated, but other resources  would probably
be used instead.   The proposed treatment methods have been
recommended by  the  facilities plan engineers  as  the  most
reliable and cost-effective.
                               94

-------
                   Archeological Resources


Cultural Resources Survey

     Significant archeological property is located adjacent
to the Spokane River at Coeur d'Alene, near proposed sites
for Alternative B and probably E.  An historic cultural site,
including the largest traditional head village of the Coeur
d'Alene tribe, is situated at the junction of the river and
Cougar Bay.  The site extends downstream for an undetermined
distance along the shore.  The extent of habitation downstream
is difficult to determine, because "on navigable water, every
beach is a site" (Moratto, 1979).  It is known, however,
that three villages (in addition to the head village)  were
located along the first several miles of river.

     Native use of the river and lake shore near proposed
Sites B and E is well documented.  The area was an important
fishing and fish processing center, and several burials have
been unearthed in the vicinity.  Test excavations on the
North Idaho College campus and Blackwell Island indicate
cultural deposits up to 39 inches in depth; most areas adja-
cent to the river probably contain a prolific cultural record.
Fort Sherman recently was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places, and a second property  (prehistoric Site
10-KA-48) located at the mouth of the Spokane River appears
to be eligible for the register.  In contrast, there is no
evidence of significant cultural resources near proposed
Alternative G or its associated  irrigation sites.


Mitigation

     Although no mitigations are currently anticipated for
the Alternative G Site, any excavation or ground-disturbing
activity could potentially reveal significant archeological
resources.  Should cultural materials be unearthed, excavation
should cease until a qualified archeologist is consulted.
It also is recommended that an archeologist be present during
excavation of the interceptor routes north of the city, until
the presence or absence of artifacts can be determined.

     For Alternative E, Site option 2 (now a quarry) would
require no mitigation because most original site materials
already have been lost.  Site options 1 and 3, however, probably
have extensive intact cultural records.   It is recommended
that these areas be left undisturbed or that test excavations
be conducted to determine appropriate mitigative actions.
The interceptor route parallel to the river also would require
additional investigation.
                              95

-------
     The University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology,
which conducted the archeological survey, suggests that dis-
turbance of land planned for Alternative B should be avoided
if at all possible.  If B is selected for implementation,
an extensive testing program should first be conducted to
evaluate eligibility of the site for the National Register of
Historic Places.

     Coordination of the archeological resources investigations
with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer, as required
by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
is documented in Appendix A.
                              96

-------
                     Growth Implications


Introduction

     This section of the report describes the population
growth assumptions used in the facilities plan, compares
those assumptions with other local and state population pro-
jections, and indicates the type of indirect environmental
impact that may result if growth occurs as described in the
facilities plan.


Analysis of Facilities Plan Population Projections

     Introduction.  Population projections prepared as part
of 201 facility plans are used to determine projected flows
which are the basis for the sizing of wastewater treatment
facilities.  In addition, grant funds from state and federal
sources are dependent on these projections.  Since 20 years
of growth are planned for in facility plans, many assumptions
about future population conditions must be made.  It is im-
portant to employ sound analytical methods so that pro-
jections are as reliable as possible.

     Comparison of Alternative Local Population Projections
for Coeur d'Alene.  Population projections for the Coeur d'Alene
area have been prepared by Kootenai County, Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare  (IDHW), Coeur d'Alene Planning Depart-
ment, Panhandle Area Council, and Seidman and Seidman for
the Idaho Bureau  of State Planning and Community Affairs.
These projections are presented in Table  2-18.  In addition,
preliminary 1980  census figures are presented.

     A variety of projection techniques were used in the
preparation of the projections in Table 2-18.  For example,
Kootenai County used an arithmetic  (straight-line) approach;
based on a constant population increase, the IDHW used a
population and employment forecast model; and the Coeur d'Alene
Planning Department applied a geometric progression method
based on two different growth rates.  Each projection method
was based on certain key assumptions about growth.

     Description of Facilities Plan Population Projections.
The method used to project population for the facilities
planning area incorporates independent projections for the
City of Coeur d'Alene and the unincorporated portion of the
planning area.  For the City of Coeur d'Alene, projections
prepared by the city planning department in 1977 were found
to be most accurate in comparison to a dwelling unit count
conducted by the city in 1979.   Therefore, city planning
department projections based on a geometric increase of about
2.3 percent per year were used.   This resulted in a population
projection of 33,590 for Coeur d'Alene in the year 2000.

                              97

-------
                         Table 2-18.  Alternative Population Projections
                                   for the City of Coeur d'Alene
CO
Population
Projection 1975 1976
IDHW 18,194
County 17,994
City 17,994
- straight 2.8%
- straight 2.2%
- geometric
PAC (208) plan 17,994
Seidman and Seidman
1980 census (pre-
liminary)
1977 1980
22,288
19,761
20,658
19,964
20,333
19,761
20,500 22,400
20,019
1985 1990
32,531
21,528 23,295
'27,228
24,576
26,306
21,528 23,295
25,500

1995 2000
42,755

33,590
25,062


    SOURCES:  IDHW, pers. comm.; Kootenai County,  1977, Table  I1C; City  of  Coeur d'Alene,
              pers. comm.,; PAC, 1978; Seidman and  Seidman,  1978, Exhibit  7-1.

-------
     To project the population for the unincorporated portion
of the planning area, the growth rates from 1970-1977 in
the three encompassing county enumeration districts were
first determined.  The combined growth rate was estimated
at 130 percent during that period.  On an annual basis, this
represents a 12.5 geometric increase or an 18-3 percent
arithmetic increase.  These annual rates were then applied
over a 20-year period to the existing population  (4,160)
determined from a 1979 dwelling unit count by Kootenai
County.  This resulted in a range from 19,400 persons  (arith-
metic) to 43,900 persons  (geometric) in the year 2000 for
the unincorporated portion of the planning area.

     To avoid double counting of projected populations in
the planning area as a result of additional annexations,
municipal boundaries in the year 2000 needed to be specified.
Since the existing population density  (2,880 persons per
square mile) was assumed to be desirable and appropriate
for the year 2000, the projected increase in the city's
population  (12,100 persons) would consume (based on existing
population density) an additional 4.2 square miles of the
unincorporated portion of the planning area by the year 2000.

     The annexation of 4.2 square miles (assumed to occur
adjacent to city boundaries) accounts for 39 percent of the
10.75 square miles in the unincorporated portion of the planning
area.  Based on present densities and on conversations with
local planning agencies, the facility planners considered
50,000 to be a reasonable projection for the planning area
for the year 2000.  This estimate results in 16,410 persons
residing in 6.55 square miles of the unincorporated portion
of the planning area in 2000.

     Analysis of Methods.  The selection of a 2.3 percent
growth rate in the facilities plan for population projections
in the city appears reasonable in relation to past growth
rates.  However, it is important that this growth rate
accurately reflect future growth conditions.   Preliminary
results from the 1980 census show that population growth
in Coeur d'Alene has slowed.  Projections in the facilities
plan used base population data of 21,400 persons (1979)  sup-
plied by the city planning department.   Recent census informa-
tion shows a 1980 population of 20,019 or approximately 7
percent fewer persons 1 year later.  The impact of this lower
actual population on the selected projection method would
be to decrease the growth rate to 2.2 percent.  This would
result in a year 2000 population of 30,669 or 2,921 fewer
persons.   This translates into a 24 percent reduction of
the projected population increase (12,190)  over the 20-year
period.
                              99

-------
     The economic slowdown has been identified as a major
cause in the recent dip in population growth rate.  If  the
impacts of the slowdown prove to be only  short term,  and
a high level of economic growth returns,  then the projected
growth levels would result.

     For the unincorporated portion of the planning area,
extrapolation of past growth trends for 20 years hence  does
not appear reasonable.  Although the encompassing county
enumeration districts did experience a 130 percent increase
or 12.5 percent annual increase in population from 1970-
1977, this rate can be discounted for future use for  several
reasons.  First, this rate reflects an increase from  a
relatively small population base (3,048)  in 1970 to 6,946
in 1977 for an absolute increase of 3,898 for the 7-year
period.  For growth to continue at this exponential rate,
the factors which stimulated the initial  growth such  as jobs,
housing, and other amenities must also continue to increase
at a similar rate (12.5 percent) over the 20-year period.
This appears to be unlikely.  Second, rapid short-term  growth
in the unincorporated portion of the planning area is con-
strained by existing development policies designed to protect
the water quality of the aquifer.  Presently, densities are
restricted to one unit per 5 acres outside the approximate
city limits.  These density limitations are planned to be
removed only gradually as infill occurs.

     Consistency of Facilities Plan Population Projections
with EPA-Approved Population Projections.   EPA's policy on
funding wastewater treatment facilities requires that facility
plans be consistent with population projections used  in approved
areawide water quality management plans or those projections
developed by the state.   The population projections prepared
for the areawide water quality management plan were determined
by the PAC to be out-of-date.   Therefore,  consistency of
the facilities plan population projections with state pro-
jections is examined.

     The EPA-approved state projections were prepared by
the IDHW.   The IDHW projection for the City of Coeur d'Alene
in the year 2000 is 42,755 (Table 2-18).  The facilities plan
projection for the City of Coeur d'Alene  in the year  2000
is 33,590.   The discrepancy is explained  as the result of
different levels of annexations.  Although these two pro-
jections are inconsistent, EPA policy only requires that
the facilities plan projections be equal  to or lower  than
state projections;  therefore,  the consistency requirement
has been met.

     A problem arises, however, when the population projections
for the total  facility planning area are considered.   The
facilities  planners estimate that approximately 16,000 persons
out of a total of 50,000 will reside in the unincorporated
portion of  the facilities planning area in the year 2000.

                             100

-------
For the state projections to be consistent with facilities
plan projections, it must be assumed that approximately 7,000
of the 23,500 persons that the state has projected to reside
in the unincorporated portions of Kootenai County in the
year 2000 would be allocated to the area outside of the Coeur
d'Alene city limits but within the facilities planning area.
Although it has allocated a population increase of 23,500
to the unincorporated areas, the state has not specified
as yet the actual location of these new residents.  This
assumption, therefore, cannot be verified until the state
completes allocation of the projected population increase
to specific areas of the county.


Growth Inducement and Land Use Impacts

     Introduction.   Projected growth over the next 20 years
in the facilities planning area is predicated on the existence
of certain growth factors.  One important factor is the avail-
ability of sewer service.  To evaluate the effect of sewer
extension on projected growth, likely growth conditions in
the absence of sewers should be considered.  If sewers are
not extended in the Coeur d'Alene facility planning area,
allowable housing densities would be maintained at a maximum
of one dwelling unit per 5 acres outside the SMP area, according
to PHD regulations.  This would significantly reduce development
potential.

     From a local perspective, the sewer system expansion
for the City of Coeur d'Alene can be considered growth-inducing
in that projected growth rates would be significantly lower
in the absence of a sewer system.  The extension of the sewer
system can thus be considered as the removal of a local con-
straint to growth.   From a regional perspective, Coeur d'Alene
is viewed as the economic center of the region.  If the
sewer system is not expanded, growth in the Coeur d'Alene
planning area would be significantly lower.  It is unlikely
that the other urban areas in the region could attract or
accommodate all the growth projected for the Coeur d'Alene
planning area.  Some of the projected growth, therefore,
would be likely to move out of the region, possibly to the
Spokane area.  The extension of sewers in the Coeur d'Alene
planning area can therefore be considered growth-inducing
on a regional level.

     Land Use Plans and Policies.  The four government agencies
with the greatest effect on land use policy in the Coeur
d'Alene planning area are the City of Coeur d'Alene, Kootenai
County, the PAC, and the PHD.  Land use plans and policies
of these agencies are summarized below.
                             101

-------
      City  of  Coeur  d'Alene.   The  City  of  Coeur  d'Alene  Com-
 prehensive Plan  was prepared  originally in  1977 but  has re-
 cently  been revised (adopted  in August 1980).   The compre-
 hensive plan  is  essentially a policy plan with  a map deli-
 neating land  use classifications  and allowable  densities
 (Figure 2-3).  The  area  identified  in  the map is the area
 of  city impact and  closely corresponds with Coeur d'Alene's
 facility planning area.   The  land use  map will  be reviewed
 in  the  following section.

      Policies in the plan of  particular importance to future
 growth  and land  use conditions include annexation policies.
 These policies recommend  that expansion of  the  city  be  in
 conformance with the urban service  area.  In addition,  policies
 on  the  provision of sewer service recommend that existing
 areas within  the city be  given priority in  sewer service.
 These policies also recommend that  a consistent policy  be
 formulated for serving areas  outside of present city limits
 but within the city impact area.

      Kootenai County.  The Kootenai County  Comprehensive
 Plan  was adopted in December  1977 and  is  currently being
 updated.   The plan  includes time-phased population pro-
 jections and  a land capability analysis.

      The county  plan presents  few specific  land use  policies,
 but it  does contain broad goals and objectives.   Several
 of  these goals and  objectives encourage the  retention of
 agricultural  land in agricultural use; one  objective en-
 courages productive agricultural  land  protection by
 selectively eliminating the availability  of  public utilities
 (water  and sewer) to agricultural areas.  Other plan goals
 and objectives encourage development within  and contiguous
 to  existing urban areas, and  encourage planning for  water
 and wastewater facilities to  be consistent  with anticipated
 population growth.

      The generalized land use plan  map appended to the plan
 incorporates the  land use policies  and is intended to guide
 land  use decisions.   This map shows continued growth along
 the Post Falls-Coeur d'Alene-Hayden L-shaped corridor.   The
 currently  vacant  land between the Cities  of  Post  Falls and
 Coeur d'Alene is  shown as either  urbanized  or in  an  urban
 "transition area".

      Panhandle Area  Council.   The PAC  is  a  voluntary asso-
 ciation  of  local  governments, functioning as a  regional
 planning and coordinating agency, within  the five counties
 in the  Idaho Panhandle.   The PAC  is the designated 208 agency
 for the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer.   The initial  208 plan,
completed  in cooperation with the PHD and the IDHW,  con-
 tains 30 policies for the aquifer,  several of which  are
directly related to  land use and  growth.   These policies
encourage growth to  locate within designated community
service areas or other areas programmed for future sewer
service.                     1Q2

-------
o
CO
 FIGURE  2-3. CITY OF  COEUR  d'ALENE COMPREHENSI
 LAND USE  PLAN  MAP

-------
     Other aquifer protection policies pertain to floodplain
and open space areas.  Development using on-site systems
is discouraged from locating in the 100-year floodway-
Development in the 100-year flood "fringe areas" is encouraged
only when it can be sewered by centralized sewerage systems.
New developments on the aquifer are encouraged to retain
the maximum amount of open space to enhance groundwater
recharge and minimize impacts of urban runoff.  Sewer inter-
ceptors and treatment plants are encouraged to locate so
that agricultural, recreational or open space lands are not
prematurely open to development.  If facilities must be located
through these areas, then prohibition of lateral sewer con-
nections is encouraged.

     Panhandle Health District.   The PHD is involved in land
use policy in the planning area primarily through its rules
and regulations governing sewage disposal on the Rathdrum
Prairie.  Regulations are intended to direct development
to areas with current or planned centralized sewerage service
to protect the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer.  Under these regula-
tions, on-site systems on parcels less than 5 acres can be
installed only within the sewer management planning (SMP)
area which roughly corresponds to the existing city limits.
As infill occurs and densities increase, the SMP area could
be extended.

     Analysis of Existing and Projected Land Use Conditions.
Future land use patterns in the facility planning area will
emerge as the existing sewer system is extended.  This sec-
tion describes existing land use conditions, evaluates the
potential impact on land use as a result of projected growth,
and examines the consistency of the projected growth pattern
with land use plans.

     Existing Land Use.  The facility planning area encom-
passes approximately 17 square miles.   This includes 6.5
square miles for the City of Coeur d'Alene and about 10.75
square miles for the unincorporated portion of the planning
area (including Fernan Lake).   Presently, the unincorporated
portion of the planning area is primarily rural with scattered
residences.   By the year 2000, much of the facility planning
area is projected to have a land use pattern similar to the
existing pattern in Coeur d'Alene.

     According to  a  1976  land use survey prepared by  the
City of Coeur d'Alene,  approximately  43  percent of  total
land use  in Coeur  d'Alene  is  residential.  Residential
areas  are located  primarily south of  1-90  (Figure  2-3) .   Most
of the recent growth,  however,  has occurred north of  1-90
where  generally  large  parcels of  land are  available.  Most
new single-family  developments  are averaging densities  in
                              104

-------
the range of 3-4 units per acre in the northern part of town
and 7-8 units per acre for infill developments.  Condominiums
and multifamily development are averaging approximately 9
units per acre and 18-20 units per acre, respectively  (City
of Coeur d'Alene Planning Department, pers. comm.).  In the
last few years, construction of multiple family developments
has increased significantly.

     Commercial land uses are located primarily in two areas:
the downtown area, especially along Sherman Avenue, and the
Appleway Corridor.  The downtown area has generally attracted
commercial services and recreational activities while trade
and wholesale uses have mainly located in the Appleway Corridor.
In recent years, land use for commercial services has shown the
most significant increase in commercial land uses  (Coeur
d'Alene Planning Department, pers. comm.).

     Industrial land is used mainly by the forest products
industries.  Nearly all of the industrial land is along the
Spokane River.  Exceptions are:  a few gravel pits north
of 1-90 on Ramsey Road, an industrial park in the northwest
corner of the planning area, and a lumber mill on Lake Coeur
d'Alene.  The vast majority of industrial land uses are located
in the unincorporated portion of the planning area.

     Major public and semipublic lands include NIC at the
outlet of Lake Coeur d'Alene, Tubbs Hill Park, the golf course,
a waterfront park at the west end of Sherman Avenue, the
county fairgrounds, and several smaller schools and parks.

     The City of Coeur d'Alene Planning Department is pre-
sently updating its inventory of land uses.  Results should
be available in December 1980.

     Future Land Use.   The supply of available unconstrained
land in the facility planning area appears sufficient to
accommodate projected population growth.  Market forces in
conjunction with land use constraints will determine where
the development occurs.

     Population projections prepared as part of the facilities
plan were developed,  based on observations regarding developable
land and the city's comprehensive land use plan.   For each
sewer subarea identified in Figure 2-4, developable acreage
was estimated by calculating the total land acreage and sub-
tracting undevelopable acreage (e.g., city park,  schools,
and golf courses).   The estimated developable land was then
reduced by 30 percent to account for street and roadway
requirements.  Commercial and industrial uses were also con-
sidered.   The remaining acres were those available for resi-
dential use.  The population of each subarea was determined
by comparing the developable acreage with density designations
in the city comprehensive land use plan.
                             105

-------
     The subareas closest to the city center were allocated
the majority of the population in the first 5-10 years.  As
the city expands, outlying areas were assumed to accommo-
date an increasing share of the population until densities
reflected in the comprehensive plan were reached.  Although
possible changes in zoning or changes in development pressure
were recognized, the impact of these changes was not con-
sidered .

     Analysis of Cons-is ten ay of Projected Growth With Land
Use Plans.  The distribution of future growth as projected
in the  facilities plan considered land use classifications
and allowable densities in the Coeur d'Alene comprehensive
plan.  The pattern of urban expansion from the central area
to the outlying areas is consistent with the city's concept
for expansion.  The projected rate and extent to which the
urbanization of outlying areas will occur, however, is some-
what questionable in light of existing city, county, and
PHD development policies.

     Of the growth projected between 1980 and 1985, approxi-
mately  24 percent is assumed to occur in sewer subareas
(Figure 2-4) located fully outside the existing SMP area.
An additional 43 percent of the anticipated 1980-1985 growth
is projected to occur in sewer subareas which are only par-
tially within the SMP area.  Since city and county land use
policies strongly encourage infill development, and since
the PHD limits development outside SMPs to one unit per 5
acres, it is questionable whether this level of near-term
urbanization in the outlying areas could occur.

     Longer term land use problems associated with the pro-
jected levels of growth will be the management of future
populations in the unincorporated portion of the planning
area.  If growth occurs as projected, over 16,000 persons
would be located in the unincorporated portion of the planning
area at the year 2000.   This projected population is much
higher than the level of growth for which Kootenai County
is currently planning.

     Potential Impact on Agricultural Lands, Wetlands and
Floodplains.  In accordance with EPA policy concerning pro-
tection of agricultural lands, wetlands, and floodplains
from growth-related impacts accommodated by wastewater faci-
lities, this section identifies agricultural lands, wetlands,
and floodplains in the Coeur d'Alene planning area and eva-
luates the potential impact of growth on these areas.

     Agricultural Lands.   Prime agricultural land as desig-
nated by the U.  S.  Soil Conservation Service is found
in three areas within the facility planning area (Figure
2-5):  the Nettleton Gulch area, the county fairgrounds and
adjacent areas,  and the area east and west of Ramsey Road
north of Highway 10.   These areas are located in the unin-
corporated portion of the county.

                              106

-------
                                STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
SOURCE-BROWN 6. CALDWELL , 1980
                                                          A
                                                          n

                                                          C
  FIGURE  2-4.   COEUR D'ALENE  SEWER  SYSTEM  SUB-AREAS

-------
                     . JCO

                      4
                              ' COEUR D'ALENE
                               AIR TERMINAL
                                                            '"
                                    Be.coo.i^^ mid.. Uk. Ppl. I LU_- '?._ !_^ S'WT '  ^  '''
                                        -,-.-, ") - .".. . ---+-. -T*r •.>--:-- --*~,'m*  -f •>

                                                              A—'?j &
A
N
I
                                                       BOUNDARY. V'
                                           ^T- /?'ftIMQvAGR'ICULTURAL
FIGURE 2-5.  PRIME  AGRICULTURAL
LANDS  WITHIN  THE  PLANNING
AREA

-------
     Most of  the  prime  agricultural  land  presently  is  under
production.   Grass  seed and  alfalfa  are the  main  crops.
Scattered residences, however,  are  found  throughout most
of these areas.   In addition,  the county  fairgrounds and
the high school are located  in  prime agricultural areas.

     Although Kootenai  County  has policies that support
protection of agricultural lands in  current  production,
the county land use map designates  these  prime agricultural
areas  for eventual  urban use.   In the city comprehensive
plan,  the Nettleton Gulch and  county fairgrounds  areas
are designated high density  residential.  The Ramsey
Road prime agricultural area is designated commercial/in-
dustrial .

     Continued agricultural  use in  these  prime agricultural
areas  is jeopardized by anticipated  growth accommodated by
wastewater facilities expansion.  At present, local policies
to protect agricultural resources are ineffective.   Since
much of  this  prime  agricultural land is located away from
projected near-term growth areas, mitigation measures  could
be effective. In addition to  stronger local restrictions
on agricultural land development, other mitigation  measures
include:  1)  preferential property  tax assessments, 2) purchase
of development rights,  3) agricultural districting, 4) transfer
of development rights,  5) stricter  state  control  of prime
agricultural  land development,  and  6)  201 grant conditions
requiring prime agricultural land protection.  There are
many more potential  mitigation  measures.  The City  of Coeur
d'Alene should conduct  an environmental assessment  of prime
agricultural  land losses  prior  to constructing new  wastewater
interceptors  into the prime  farmland areas.

     Floodplains.    Within the facility planning area, two
potential flood hazard  areas can be  found.   They  are the Spokane
River  area and the  Nettleton Gulch area.  The area  adjacent
to the Spokane River begins where the  river  leaves  Lake Coeur
d'Alene and borders  the river along  the southwestern portion
of the planning area.   It is designated by the National Flood
Insurance Program as a  100-year flood  hazard area.   The area
adjacent to Nettleton Gulch, which is  an  intermittent drainageway,
has also been  designated as a 100-year flood hazard area.

     In general,  development in the  floodplain adjacent
to these waterways  is discouraged in the  Kootenai County
Comprehensive  Plan by a requirement  for special building
permits as part of  the National Flood  Insurance Program.
In addition,   on-site sewer restrictions in floodplain "fringe
areas"  have been supported by the PAC  in  aquifer  protection
policies.
                             109

-------
     Urban development planned for Blackwell Island in the
Spokane River is within the 100-year flood hazard zone and
is expected to be served by the new wastewater facilities.
In addition, growth is projected in the general vicinity
of Nettleton Gulch.  To the extent that existing regulations
are effective, the potential for adverse impacts will be
reduced.  Buildings in these areas must be constructed so
as to avoid serious damage or health hazards during the
100-year flood.

     Wetlands.  Coeur d'Alene's facilities plans call for
eventual connection of Blackwell Island to the city sewer
system.  This is included because of plans to construct a
hotel, condominiums, specialty shops, office space and
restaurants on undeveloped portions of the island.  Blackwell
Island is located within the Spokane River floodplain
where the river flows out of Lake Coeur d'Alene.  It is a
lowlying area and portions of it were filled in the past.
The proposed developer states that there are 15 acres of
wetlands on the island.  Wetland boundaries were surveyed
by the local engineering firm of LePard and Frame (Brown,
pers. comm.).  Cursory field reconnaissance of the island
verified the presence of wetlands, but neither the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service nor the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game have officially mapped the island's wetlands.

     EPA regulations implementing Section 201 of the Clean
Water Act state that federal grants for new sewer collection
systems cannot be made unless the Regional Administrator
finds that the system ''would not provide capacity for new
habitations or other establishments to be located on environ-
mentally sensitive land such as wetlands, floodplains or
prime agricultural lands.  Appropriate and effective grant
conditions, (e.g., restricted sewer hookup)  should be used
where necessary to protect these resources from new develop-
ment" (40 CFR 35.925-14).  Federal grants are not expected
to be used for collection system construction.  EPA regulations
implementing NEPA, however, also contain strong language
regarding protection of wetland and floodplains.  The intro-
ductory policy statement of the Procedures on Floodplains
Management and Wetlands is as follows:  "the Agency shall
avoid wherever possible the long- and short-term impacts
associated with the destruction of wetlands and the occupancy
and modification of floodplains and wetlands, and avoid direct
and indirect support of floodplains and wetland development
wherever there is a practicable alternative" (40 CFR 6,
Appendix A).  While EPA will not participate in financing
the interceptor connection to Blackwell Island, the agency
is considering award of funds that would provide the waste-
water treatment capacity for development of Blackwell Island.
                             110

-------
     Island  development  plans  have  not  been  reviewed,  but
the developer  has  stated that  wetlands  will  not  be  filled
and no building  foundations  or structures  will be placed
on wetlands.   He also  indicated that  the flood hazard  will
be avoided by  raising  the level of  the  island above the 100-
year floodplain  in those areas with structures for  human
habitation  (Brown,  pers.  comm.).  EPA has  not conducted its
own wetlands assessment  of Blackwell  Island  because the develop-
ment plans have  not been available.   Therefore,  EPA intends
to place a condition on  its  wastewater  facilities grant award
to the city.   Before receiving a Step 2 grant award for
facilities design,  the city  must assure EPA  that no wetlands
or 100-year  floodplains  will be developed  in violation of
federal protection policies  as a result of expanding the
city's wastewater  treatment  capacity.   This  should  be  accom-
plished by conducting  an environmental  assessment of the
Blackwell Island development.   The  U. S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, the U.  S. Fish  and Wildlife  Service,  the  Idaho  Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, and EPA should be consulted  in  this
assessment.

     Conclusion.   Extension  of the  existing  sewer system
will accommodate anticipated growth in  the Coeur d'Alene
facility planning  area.   The distribution of future popula-
tions as projected in  the facilities  plan should roughly
correspond to  the  land use pattern  presented in  the  Coeur
d'Alene comprehensive plan.  The  extent of projected growth,
however, approaches the  buildout capacity of the facility
planning area  by the year 2005.   Based  on local  land use
plans and policies, the  level  of  growth projected in the
facilities plan  exceeds  local  expectations.


Implications of  Growth on Key  Public  Services

     Continued rapid growth  in the Coeur d'Alene area  will
result in increasing demands on  the public service  system.
Revenues generated  by additional  economic activity  will offset
to a certain extent the  costs  of  providing these services.
Implementation of  fiscal  constraints, however, will  limit
the ability of local public  service agencies to  finance historic
levels of service.

     The following  sections  examine the present  capabilities
of key public  services emphasizing the  impact of the 1 percent
law.   In addition, the potential  impact of near-term growth
on public services is assessed.

     The Present Condition of  Public  Services.

     Sahools.  The Coeur  d'Alene planning area is within
Coeur d'Alene  School District  271.  Other communities  within
District 271 include Dalton  Gardens,  Hayden, and Hayden Lake.
The District 271 facilities  consist of  nine elementary schools,
one special education school,  two junior high schools, and

                             111

-------
one senior high school.  These schools are located within
the Coeur d'Alene planning area, except for two elementary
schools located in Hayden Lake.  Enrollment in 1978-1979
was 7,029 students, up from 6,477 in 1977-1978 and 6,268
in 1976-1977  (Coeur d'Alene School District 271, pers. corran.).
According to the Superintendent of District 271, overcrowding
currently is a problem in some schools, especially at the
secondary level (Steim, pers. comm.).

     NIC, a community college located in Coeur d'Alene, had
an enrollment of 1,750 day students in 1979-1980.  The college
is expecting a 5 percent annual increase in enrollment through
the 1986-1987 academic year.  In addition to daytime enroll-
ment, the college accommodates 800-1,000 students in noncredit
evening courses.  This figure is expected to double in the
next 5-7 years  (NIC, pers. comm.).

     The impact of the 1 percent law has been primarily to
curtail program expansion.  Although no layoffs have occurred,
some personnel have been lost through attrition.  Future needs,
in order of priority, include:  a second high school, ex-
pansion of the northern junior high school, and a new elemen-
tary school in the northern portion of the district (Steim,
pers. comm.).

     Police.   Police protection in the study area is provided
by the Coeur d'Alene Police Department and the Kootenai County
Sheriffs.  Due to the passage of the 1 percent law, the city
department lost two positions.  The 1980-1981 budget, however,
recently adopted by the city council, restored these positions and
added five new patrol cars.  Major adverse impacts of the
1 percent law include postponed implementation of new pre-
vention programs and delayed attempts to shorten patrolmen's
response time.

     Fire.   Fire protection in the study area is provided
by the city fire department and Kootenai County Fire Protection
District No.  1.   The city fire department maintains a primary
station and a  substation.   Fire protection in the City of
Coeur d'Alene  is considered very good based on their fire
insurance rating (Coeur d'Alene Fire Department, pers.  comm.).

     Although the city fire department has not lost any man-
power as a result of the 1 percent initiative, implementation
of most fire prevention programs has been postponed.  Upkeep
of trucks and equipment is considered a top priority.
                              112

-------
     Water Supply.  Coeur d'Alene operates its own municipal
water system.  This system depends on groundwater for its
main supply and uses lake water for meeting peak  (summer)
demands.  The system includes five wells and six lake pumps
and is capable of producing 30 MGD, well above normal daily
requirements  (about 16 MGD).  Water storage capacity for
the city is considered inadequate and in need of expansion.
In addition, there are 36 miles of wooden pipes in the system
which need replacement.  Overall, the capacity of the system
is somewhat ahead of design plans based on anticipated need
(Coeur d'Alene Department of Public Works, pers. comm.).

     Transportation.  Two major highways transect the planning
area.  Interstate 90, running east-west, connects the planning
area with Spokane on the west and Missoula on the east.  U. S.
Route 95, running north-south, connects the planning area
with Canada on the north and southwestern Idaho on the south.
Bus and rail lines also serve the area.

     Air service to the planning area is provided by the
800-acre Coeur d'Alene air terminal, located 5 miles northwest
of the city.  Although the airport currently serves only
small planes, future expansion plans would accommodate larger
commercial planes.

     Within the planning area, Coeur d'Alene operates its
own street department which is responsible for city street
maintenance, and Kootenai County services a highway district.
Both the street department and highway district have con-
siderable need for new equipment and facilities.  Circulation
in the downtown area is an additional problem which will
be compounded by anticipated growth.

     Recreation.  Within the planning area, many recreational
opportunities are available to both visitors and residents.
Coeur d'Alene Lake  (with numerous campgrounds and picnic
areas) provides the major focus for recreational activities.
In the City of Coeur d'Alene, the amount of park area pre-
sently exceeds national standards established by the National
Recreation Park Association  (Halpern, pers. comm.).

     The 1 percent law has resulted in a 25 percent decrease
in the city Recreation and Parks Department budget since
1978.  Three full-time positions have been eliminated.
Most impact from personnel cutbacks has been on maintenance
programs.  This problem has been aggravated by declining
personnel quality due to hourly wage reduction of CETA em-
ployees .
                              113

-------
     Solid Waste.  Solid waste is collected by private firms
under contract to the City of Coeur d'Alene and the county.
A sanitary landfill outside of Coeur d'Alene separates the
wastes and then compacts and buries putrescible garbage.
The life of the landfill is estimated to be 5-7 years if
the baling process is continued.  As yet, no future site
has been secured although a site adjacent to the present land-
fill is under consideration.  Potential threats to the aquifer
eliminates many sites from consideration.

     Summary of Capabilities of Public Service System and
Potential Impact of Near-Term Growth.  Most public service
agencies in the City of Coeur d'Alene and adjacent areas
of Kootenai County are experiencing difficulties in meeting
the service requirements of existing populations.  Rapid
population growth during the 1970s is likely the major cause
of these service shortfalls.  In addition, recent fiscal
constraints, coupled with high inflation, have further hindered
the delivery of historic levels of service.

     Additional near-term growth will likely aggravate pre-
sent deficiencies unless growth occurs in an area already
served by an existing system.  From 1980-1985 approximately
4,400 additional persons are projected to locate within the
facility planning area.  With most public services already
in a "catch up" position as a result of past rapid growth,
this new influx of population will present additional demands,
which will compound existing deficiencies.  Public services
most likely to be impacted are service-oriented, such as
police and fire protection.  The projected distribution of
new growth could severely tax the ability of these agencies
to maintain existing levels of public safety-  Schools could
be severely impacted also if incoming residents consist of
high number of children, especially at the secondary level.
The longer-term growth impacts will impinge on public services
which need costly investments for infrastructure expansion.
This includes primarily water supply and transportation
improvements.

     In conclusion, the impact of projected growth on
public service systems will depend on the ability of
local jurisdictions to finance expansion of service and needed
capital improvements.   The following section reviews existing
fiscal capabilities to meet additional growth demands.


Fiscal Implications of Growth

     Fiscal Overview-   Rapid growth is expected to continue
in the Coeur d'Alene area.  This growth will require signi-
ficant private and public expenditures.   In this section,
the ability of local public service agencies to pay the future
costs of growth is evaluated.
                              114

-------
     Public Services and Revenue Sources.

     Service Provisions.  Within the facility planning irea,
public services are provided in some cases by the City of
Coeur d'Alene and Kootenai County and in other cases by special
purpose districts.  In the City of Coeur d'Alene, virtually
all public services are provided by the city, except for public
education, which is provided by the school districts.  Through-
out the county, most services are provided by special districts.

     This variation suggests the difficulties in generalizing
about either service provision or cost/revenue issues.  Depend-
ing on the location of a residence or business, a different
package of services from a different set of service providers
can result.  With many different public agencies involved,
each assuming independent service responsibilities and taxing
authority, analysis of the public service outlook is difficult.

     Revenue Sources.   Property taxes have long been the
main source of local government finance in Idaho.  Historically,
property taxes have been used to balance the budget.  This
dependence has been declining throughout the 1970s, and
the 1 percent initiative seems likely to further reduce local
agencies' reliance on property tax.

     Other taxes may be imposed at local option if authorized
by the state legislature.  The sales tax, which is a major
source of revenues in some states, provides only a
small contribution to local tax coffers, although a local
sales tax could be added to the state's 3 percent rate with
state approval.  Additional revenue sources include federal
and state grants and revenue sharing, fees, fines, reim-
bursements for services, licenses and permits, interest,
rents, and other miscellaneous sources.  Bonding, which is
commonly used throughout the nation to finance capital
facilities, has not been used extensively in Idaho due
to a tradition of pay-as-you-go financing.

     Fiscal Outlook.   The fiscal outlook for the City of
Coeur d'Alene and Kootenai County is similar:  a decline
in the short-term in revenues and consequently a need to
alter the revenue structure and/or the level of service
delivered.

     Declining Revenues.  The impact of the 1 percent law
on the City of Coeur d'Alene has been to freeze property
tax revenues at their 1978 levels.   (The major effect of
this freeze has been on the general fund revenues.)  Property
taxes, however, are not the only revenues that have declined.
With the recent downturn in economic activity, development-
related fees have also been reduced.  As a result of revenue
decreases, competition for state and federal assistance has
increased.
                               115

-------
     Public services most dependent on property tax revenues
are likely to experience the most severe revenue problems.
These impacts will depend to a significant degree on the
implementation of the 1 percent law by the state legislature.
Public education historically has relied on property taxes
to offset differences between other revenue sources and costs.
To partially offset the current fiscal plight, a portion
of the state sales tax has been earmarked for public education.
In addition to schools, police services and transportation
services impose major revenue requirements on property taxes.

     Fiscal Response.   As a result of the 1 percent law,
Coeur d'Alene's budget was frozen during the 1978-1979 and
1979-1980 fiscal years.  Coupled with the impact of inflation,
the frozen budget has impeded expected fiscal growth.   How-
ever, the 1980-1981 budget, recently adopted by the city
council, represents a 26 percent increase over the previous
year.  A number of factors contributed to the budget increase.
They include:  a large beginning balance from the previous year,
accurately estimating revenues and expenditures, and major
increases in the special funds portion of the budget.   Increases
in service charges for water and sewer and the availability
of grant money for wastewater treatment plant facilities
account for the increases in special funds.

     Unless the 1 percent property tax initiative is over-
ridden in the state legislature, property tax will provide
a decreasing proportion of local government revenues.   Other
sources of revenues, such as general obligation bonds, local
option taxes and state payments in lieu of taxes, are com-
monly suggested as alternative sources to property taxes.
In addition, increased user charges and growth management
fees have been suggested as a means to finance future resi-
dential development.

     In some cases, a number of services can be (and fre-
quently are) performed by private entities rather than by
public agencies.   These include solid waste disposal (where
an individual hauls his own or contracts a private firm to
provide the service) and water (on-site wells or private
services).   If the costs of providing a public service system
thus appear prohibitive, the responsibility could in some
cases be passed on to the developer or individual householder.

     The benefits of comprehensive land use planning are
often associated with a reduction in public service costs.
Implementation of land use policies can minimize costly
extensions of public service networks.  Some approaches
include:  tie new development to existing infrastructure,
require infill and contiguous development, approach annexa-
tion cautiously,  and emphasize development phasing.
                              116

-------
     Conclusions.  A reassessment of growth and planning
policies is occurring in Coeur d'Alene.  The recent economic
slowdown has provided some breathing time to adjust growth
policies to new and expected fiscal constraints.  Future
growth will likely need to be concentrated in or adjacent
to urban areas where efficiency in urban service delivery
can be achieved.  If the quality of municipal services
deteriorates considerably, the long-term implications to
economic development could become significant.  To offset
anticipated reductions in property tax revenues, other sources
of revenues will increasingly need to be explored.


Electricity and Gas

     Continued rapid growth in the Coeur d'Alene area will
result in increased consumption of electricity and gas.
According to Washington Water Power Company (WWP), the
principal supplier of electricity and natural gas in the area,
electrical supplies have been critically short in the past,
and the outlook for improvement in the near future is not bright,
Demand has been increasing by about 5 percent per year, but
generation capacity is not increasing  (Witter, pers. comm.).
Gas supplies from Canada are adequate, but electrical genera-
tion has remained fixed in recent years because new projects
have been slow to receive approval.  Most electric generation
comes from hydroelectric plants; therefore, in drought years
there has been a serious reduction in generation capacity.
As a result, WWP has been encouraging use of gas as the major
energy source for new development in the Coeur d'Alene-Post
Falls area (Pierce, pers. comm.).  Continued rapid growth
in the Coeur d'Alene area will place an additional strain
on WWP supplies.

     Potential impacts on energy supplies can be con-
trolled to a degree by initiating simple conservation-oriented
planning policies on a local scale.  This could include in-
corporating energy conservation requirements into building
codes, publicizing household-oriented energy and resource
conservation techniques in schools and through the local
media, and conducting local energy education campaigns.  Energy
fairs and workshops have been valuable in disseminating con-
servation information that can both reduce demand and save
consumer dollars on utility bills.
Air Quality

     Current Air Quality Conditions.  Air quality in the
Coeur d'Alene area is quite good most of the year.  Favorable
wind patterns and the relatively low population density of
the area combine to create this condition.  The only readily
apparent air quality problem occurs in late summer when the
grass fields on the Rathdrum Prairie are burned after harvest.
During this 4-6 week burning period, dense smoke can envelope
the urban areas on the edge of the prairie.  This includes
Coeur d'Alene.

-------
     Because there have been few indications of serious  air
quality problems in the area, the State of  Idaho has not
established a broad air quality monitoring  program.  Currently,
one monitoring station is operating in downtown Coeur d'Alene.
It monitors only total suspended particulates  (TSP).  A  second
TSP station has operated at the airport near Hayden, but
it is presently closed.

     The 1970-1979 TSP monitoring results for the Coeur  d'Alene
and Hayden stations are presented in Table  2-19.  The primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard  (NAAQS), in terms  of
annual geometric mean, has been exceeded only once, in the
area.  That was in 1976 in Coeur d'Alene.   The 24-hour standard
has been exceeded 10 times in the 1970-1979 period  (IDHW
Air Quality Bureau, 1979).  Violations of the 24-hour standard
have historically been attributed to agricultural burning.
There are numerous other sources of particulates in the  Coeur
d'Alene area.  Wood-waste burners at area lumber mills,  sand
and gravel mining operations, construction  and demolition
operations, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, and street
dust are all contributors to local particulate levels.   A
source inventory that quantifies these contributions has
not been developed.

     Motor vehicle-related pollutants  (carbon monoxide,  nitrogen
dioxide, hydrocarbons, lead) have not been monitored near
Coeur d'Alene because it is felt that a vehicle-related  air
quality problem does not exist.  Currently, Kootenai County
is classified as an attainment area for all air pollutants
under the federal Clean Air Act (Pfander, pers. comm.).

     Transportation Planning.  To date there has been no
comprehensive transportation planning in the Coeur d'Alene
area.  Therefore, there has been no transportation modeling
that would give an estimate of daily vehicle miles traveled
(VMTs)  in and around Coeur d'Alene.  The State of Idaho  Depart-
ment of Transportation, District 5, plans for physical roadway
improvements, but they are concerned only with Interstate
90 and U. S. Highway 95.   Traffic volume counts are recorded
and highway improvements are made when funds are available,
but VMT estimates that could be used for air quality analyses
are not developed (Ross,  pers.  comm.).

     The City of Coeur d'Alene maintains its own street  system,
but is just now beginning to develop a transportation plan
to deal with long-term traffic needs.   The  city is currently
planning a number of intersection improvements and road
widenings,  but must receive federal aid funds to implement
its plans.   Traffic statistics and projections are not main-
tained (Markley,  pers. comm.).
                              118

-------
             Table 2-19.  Summary of Total Suspended Particulate Measurements
                       in the Coeur d'Alene Area, 1970-1979  (yg/m3)
                         1970   1971   1972   1973   1974    1975    1976    1977   1978   1979
Annual Geometric Mean1
Coeur d'Alene
Hayden
Maximum Value2

63 65 65 71 71 54 77 58 63
52 44 45

 Coeur d'Alene            382    292    254    270     393    272     190     201    159    174

 Hayden                                                                     503    370    137


^•National ambient air quality primary standard is 75 yg/m3, secondary standard  is  60  yg/m3.

2National ambient air quality primary standard is 260  yg/m3, secondary standard  is  150  yg/m3


SOURCE:  IDHW Air Quality Bureau, 1979.

-------
     Influence of Alternative Wastewater Projects.  If no
wastewater facilities improvements are made in Coeur d'Alene
 (the "no-action" alternative), the city's anticipated popula-
tion growth will not occur.  IDHW restrictions on new
sewer extensions and PHD restrictions on septic tank use
over the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer would combine to limit
Coeur d'Alene's growth.  Under these conditions it is unlikely
that vehicle traffic would increase sufficiently to cause
violation in the NAAQS.  This conclusion is speculative because
current levels of auto-related pollutants are unknown.  There
is presently no evidence, however, that an air pollution
problem exists in the area, and the small population increases
in the area that are likely under the "no action" option
should not change this situation.

     Population in the planning area is expected to increase
from the present 25,500 to 58,000 in 2005 under the three action
alternatives.  The new wastewater facilities would accommodate
this level of growth.  It is impossible to predict whether
air quality will be degraded to the point of NAAQS violations
by this growth, because current conditions are unknown.  The
federal vehicle emission control program should offset some
of the air pollutant emissions resulting from the population
increase, but whether the total increase would be offset
is unknown.  There are insufficient data on existing and future
vehicle travel to make a prediction.  Particulate levels
will increase with increases in construction activity, traffic,
home woodburning, sand and gravel mining and development-
related soil erosion.

     Mitigation.  As the population of the Coeur d'Alene
urban area increases, positive steps should be taken to anti-
cipate and restrict a gradual deterioration in air quality.
Monitoring of vehicle-related air pollutants in the downtown
area should be initiated at some point so that the existing
air quality situation can be determined.  The City of Coeur
d'Alene's transportation planning efforts should be encouraged.
This planning should eventually lead to estimations of daily
vehicle traffic in the area and predictions of future vehicle
traffic.  With this information, it will be possible to predict
whether or not growth in the Coeur d'Alene area could even-
tually produce violations of national air quality standards.
If a potential problem is identified, additional mitigative
steps can be taken.

     Particulate problems in the Coeur d'Alene area are now
being controlled at least in part by regulation of grass
burning by the IDHW.  The IDHW is using meteorologic data
from the prairie to more accurately assess weather conditions
and therefore restrict burning to periods when smoke can
be rapidly dispersed and particulate fallout in urban areas
can be minimized.  Additional control strategies could in-
clude stricter regulation of sand and gravel mining and lumber
milling operations, thorough street cleaning and tighter
controls on dust production at construction sites.

                              120

-------
Water Quality

     The conversion of land to industrial, commercial and
residential uses can increase water quality problems as well
as problems with water supply-  The two most obvious concerns
are increased urban runoff and soil erosion.  As agricultural
or undeveloped land is covered by buildings and pavement,
the amount of precipitation that runs off as overland flow
increases.  Oil and grease and the wide variety of chemicals
that are used around dwellings are carried in greater quan-
tites into storm drains and surface waters.  Where soils
have been disturbed during construction, the heavier runoff
carries soil and silt with it; this affects both the quality
of surface waters and their value as wildlife habitat.   Most
urban runoff enters storm drains or natural drainageways;
it therefore passes untreated into the surface and ground-
waters.

     Control of urban runoff and erosion has received little
attention in the past, mainly because neither has contributed
to the wastewater treatment problems of local agencies.  Section
208 of the federal Clean Water Act provides the impetus and
means for development of plans to control these nonpoint
sources of pollution.  The 208 planning in the Coeur d'Alene
area would therefore be the normal vehicle for this nonpoint
pollution control planning.  However, the pressing concern
for wastewater contamination of the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer
has been the first priority, and most of the 208 effort has
dealt with on-site wastewater disposal and its effects on
the aquifer.

     Policy 14 of the 208 water quality management plan
does address nonpoint sources of pollution.  It states:  "New
development should be planned, designed, constructed and
maintained to involve the minimum feasible amounts of im-
pervious cover as a means of enhancing the retention of open
space for aquifer recharge while minimizing the impact of
harmful constituents contained in urban stormwater runoff
on the aquifer.  Oil skimming basins will be required in
areas that oil waste products are anticipated.  Dry wells
should be prohibited at gas stations" (PAC, 1978).

     This 208 policy along with local land use planning policies
can act as the basis for nonpoint pollution control action
by local and state agencies with either direct or indirect
water quality management responsibility.  This includes the
City of Coeur d'Alene, Kootenai County, the PHD and the IDHW.
                              121

-------
     The growth-related land use impacts section of this
chapter discusses the land use conversions required to accom-
modate the populations projected in the wastewater facilities
plan.  Approximately 2,300 new urban acres will be needed
within the 20-year planning period.  Percent land coverage
has not been estimated, but the facilities plan assumed that
new development on the fringes of Coeur d'Alene would include
the same number of persons per acre as is currently the case
within the city.  Increasing urban runoff is a real threat
to water quality both in the Spokane River and the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer if some control actions are not taken in
the future.

     The 208 plan for Spokane County, Washington, which also
overlies the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, deals in some depth
with the types and volumes of nonpoint source pollutants
that can be generated by urbanization.  Table 2-20 presents
areal pollutant loading rates selected as representative
of the Spokane area.  While the Coeur d'Alene urban area
is considerably less densely developed than Spokane and has
much less industrial development, the pollutant loadings
in the table give an indication of the potential for water
quality deterioration that can accompany urbanization.  The
pollutants which are typically contained in urban runoff
can become groundwater and surface water contaminants in
the Coeur d'Alene area unless control measures are adopted.
Urban runoff presently goes untreated, the majority per-
colating through the coarse soils of the area and into the
groundwater.

     Control and mitigation of growth-related nonpoint source
pollutants can be achieved in a variety of ways.  The res-
ponsibility for identification and implementation of control
measures lies with local and state government through ongoing
208 water quality management planning.  Continued planning
in this regard is encouraged by EPA.
Cultural Resources

     As stated in the floodplains and wetlands discussion,
the Coeur d'Alene treatment plant expansion would include
capacity for wastewater flows from Blackwell Island.  The
plans for development of Blackwell Island have not been
reviewed, but it is possible that construction activity on
the island could disturb cultural resources.  Past archeo-
logical excavations have found cultural deposits on the island
to a depth of 39 inches (for details see Appendix A).   The
treatment plant would also provide wastewater service for
commercial and residential development of vacant land bordering
the existing city treatment plant.  Archeological Site 10-
KA-48, which appears to be eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places, may extend over this
area.


                              122

-------
                                     Table 2-20.   Areal Runoff Loading  Rates  Selected
                                                    for  Spokane  (Ibs/acre/year)
   Open
     la.hlMrijI
LO
   WHS
o u
ft*
C O
*J -—
0 41
V. >
a- u
a. ^

S6
J4
:
n


3
fc»
— O


o o
•— o-»
75
400
ROD
noo
400
545
5(»)
£
u*
••- o
*1 —

O O
*— vA
10
120
200
:on
100
15.1




Q
o
(U
5
50
70
;o
40
57
SO



a
o

25
200
300
4 00
300
246
240
c
•— o
•q u

o -
*— z
1.5
4.8
3.5
3.4
1.8
4.0
4.5
1 C
•o O

fcl »J

= —
0.4
1.3
1.6
0.8
0.6
I.J
0.6
3
u
C
— a.
« w*
" O
u c
t~ a.

4.1
2.1
ND
NO
3.3

U
1 C
o u.
*; t*
• ' O
L. C
o a.
0,3
1.7
1.0
2.0
1.3
1.5
1.0
u
u
O


0
0.3
4.2
2.1
2.1
1.4
3.2


-• c 1
•03 -

•— O 0
DO 4
ft I/I U
5xlO-5
0.006
0.002
0.01
0.004
25 3.0 0.0046

6
3
e
o
u
c

4x10-
0.4
0.2
0.42
0.3
0.40


i.
v
ex
ci
o


0.19
0.06
0.20
0.11
0.14

*




-1
IxlO'1
2.9
1.5
0.5
1.2
2.2
0.5

—



X

0.06
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.04



u
c

T
2x10-'
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
                                                                                                          o   — *—
                                                                                                      0.1  0.4  0.01
                                                                                                   I.6.1012   l.5«10"

                                                                                                   3.6x10"   3.7*10'°


                                                                                                   1.5xl012   1.1x10"


                                                                                                   3.9x10"   8.6xl010

                                                                                                 12 l.lxlO12   1.1x10"    0.
            for
t 1,1 1 . Conmerc i
                                     Industrial and lledvy [ndu^trijl weighted by percent of total
       SOURCE:  Spokane County,  Office of County Engineers, pers.  comm.

-------
     Before EPA awards a Step 2 construction grant for waste-
water facilities design, the City of Coeur d'Alene must provide
assurance that archeological resource assessments will precede
development of these properties.   These assessments should
be conducted in cooperation with the Idaho State Historic
Preservation Officer and EPA, Region 10 in Seattle, Washington.
                             124

-------
CHAPTER 3
COORDINATION
         *••>•

-------
                          Chapter 3
                        COORDINATION
                        Introduction

     Section 6.203 of the EPA procedures for implementation
of the National Environmental Policy Act (Federal Register,
Vol. 44, No. 216, November 6, 1979) requires that all EISs
discuss the extent and results of coordination activities
conducted prior to publication of EISs.  This chapter describes
the involvement of government agencies, special interest
groups and the public in determining the scope and content
of this EIS.  It also describes how, when,  and where coordina-
tion efforts will continue.
                Coordination Efforts to Date

     EPA efforts to determine the interests of government
and public groups regarding Coeur d'Alene wastewater faci-
lities planning were started with a project scoping meeting
held in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho on June 4, 1979.   The original
intent of EPA was to consider both the Post Falls and Coeur
d'Alene projects in a single EIS, so the scoping meeting
dealt with both communities.  The meeting notice was sent
to 12 individuals and agencies and 19 persons attended.  The
discussion centered around several key issues:  1) schedule
for completion of both facilities plans, 2) alternatives
being considered in the Post Falls project, 3) relationship
of Hayden and Hayden Lake facilities planning to the Post
Falls and Coeur d'Alene work, 4)  water quality and algal
assay work on the Spokane River,  5)  public participation
in the Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene projects,  6)  need for
development and consideration of joint wastewater schemes
involving Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, 7) need for a popula-
tion projections' review by the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, and 8) scope of the EIS air quality analysis.

     As a result of this meeting, it was decided that:
1) the Post Falls alternatives could be completely described
by the end of June 1979, 2) Post Falls was considering three
basic project alternatives, 3) Hayden and Hayden Lake plan-
ning efforts would be considered in a separate environmental
analysis, 4) the Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene EIS public
participation would be combined,  5) the facilities plan
engineering firms for Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene would
combine efforts to investigate the feasibility of joint waste-
water alternatives, and 6) air quality did not appear to
be a major environmental issue in the Coeur d'Alene-Post
Falls area.
                              125

-------
     On June 27, 1979, official notice of EPA's intent to
prepare an EIS on the Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls projects
was published in the Federal Register.  This notice was issued
to state and local government agencies and public interest
groups.

     Since the scoping meeting EPA has contacted a variety
of individuals and agencies to collect background data and
define project-related environmental issues.  Contacts have
been made in person, by phone, and through correspondence.
A mailing list of individuals and agencies contacted in pre-
paring this Draft EIS is included in Appendix C.  In addition,
EPA has actively participated in the facilities plan public
participation effort.  Monthly meetings of the facilities
plan citizens advisory committee have been attended by EPA
representatives and have been used as a forum for discussing
projected-related environmental issues.  Advisory committee
meetings began in November 1979 and have continued to the
present.  At several meetings EPA made formal presentations
on issues identified, the status of EIS preparation, and
agency policy regarding wastewater disposal methods.  All
advisory committee meetings have been advertised locally
and were open to the general public.

     On September 30, 1980, EPA sponsored a public meeting
to discuss the final three wastewater alternatives being
considered by Coeur d'Alene.  The alternatives were described
and a preliminary list of impacts was presented.  Approxi-
mately 20 people attended the meeting and a number of questions
and concerns were voiced.  Topics that received the most
attention were:  1)  the relative timing of issuing the Draft
EIS and the selection of a preferred alternative by the citizens
advisory committee,  2) the rate of population growth being
used for planning purposes, 3) wastewater treatment and water
quality requirements that might be imposed by the IDHW or
EPA, 4)  funding methods and timing for interceptor construction,
5) source of aquifer water quality data, 6) joint wastewater
solutions for Coeur d'Alene and Hayden, and 7) the viability
of irrigation disposal over the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer.
Each of these topics had been raised at some point earlier
in the facilities planning process and therefore did not
stimulate a change in the scope of the Draft EIS.


             Suggestions and Objections Received
                    Through Coordination

     EPA has received several suggestions and objections
through its coordination efforts that have influenced the
content of this Draft EIS.  The most important are summarized
below.
                              126

-------
Alternatives Coverage

     Early in the Coeur d'Alene facilities planning process,
representatives of the Panhandle Area Council  (PAC) and the
Panhandle Health District  (PHD) requested that regional solu-
tions to Kootenai County's wastewater disposal problems be
investigated.  The communities of Post Falls,  Coeur d'Alene,
Hayden and Hayden Lake all needed to improve wastewater treat-
ment methods.  The close proximity of the communities encouraged
joint planning.  It became apparent, however,  that individual
cities did not wish to encumber their own projects by planning
jointly with adjacent communities.  Post Falls and Coeur
d'Alene made a brief analysis of a joint wastewater project,
but wastewater conveyance  costs and potential  institutional
complexities discouraged serious consideration of that
alternative.  Although joint projects were discussed at a
number of the facilities plan citizens advisory committee
meetings and in correspondence between EPA and the cities,
all joint or regional alternatives eventually  were eliminated
from Coeur d'Alene's project planning.  Joint  or regional alternatives,
therefore, have been eliminated from this environmental analysis.
Chapter 9 of the draft wastewater facilities plan  (Brown
and Caldwell, 1980)  contains a detailed description of the
alternatives considered and dropped during the early stages
of facilities planning.


Issues Coverage

     The discussion of environmental issues presented in
this Draft EIS has been shaped to a large degree by consulting
with numerous government agencies and individuals.  The scope
and content of the surface and groundwater quality impact
sections were discussed on numerous occasions  with staff of
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environ-
ment, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Panhandle
Health District, the Idaho Department of Fish  and Game, the
City of Coeur d'Alene and the City of Post Falls.  While
specific changes in EIS content cannot be attributed to any
individual coordination effort, each discussion had some
influence on the content of the water quality  analyses.  The
discussions of growth and  land use compatibility were strongly
influenced by coordination with the City of Coeur d'Alene,
the Kootenai County Planning Department, the Panhandle Area
Council, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
Additional instances where coordination has shaped the content
of this EIS are summarized below.

     The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service area  office in Boise,
Idaho was contacted to determine if any wildlife or plant
species on the federal threatened or endangered lists were
known to occur in the Coeur d'Alene facilities planning area.
                              127

-------
The Fish and Wildlife  Service replied that only the endangered
bald eagle was known to occur in the area  (Gore, pers. comm.).
As a result of this exchange, the biological  impacts dis-
cussion in the EIS was narrowed.

     Facilities plan Alternative B, which would expand waste-
water  facilities at the existing Coeur  d'Alene treatment
plant  site, has generated considerable  interest by adjacent
landowners.  At the May 1980 facilities plan  advisory com-
mittee meeting, Dr. Barry Schuler, president  of North Idaho
College, stated that the college is opposed to further expansion
of wastewater facilities at the present plant site.  The
existing plant creates occasional odor  problems on the college
campus to the south and the school would, in  the future,
like to expand northward toward the plant.  Adjacent landowners,
Heutly and Hebner, attended the same meeting.  They indicated
that plant expansion might impact plans for developing property
north  and east of the plant.  As a result of  these discussions,
the land use compatibility section of the Draft EIS was expanded.


               Continuing Coordination  Efforts

     This Draft EIS has been forwarded  to numerous federal,
state, and local agencies, special interest groups, and private
citizens.  It is an informational document for review and comment
on the proposed wastewater project.  The distribution list
is included as Appendix C.  The document has  been forwarded
to public libraries in the Coeur d'Alene area to enable con-
cerned residents to review potential impacts  of the project.

     Individuals or groups that wish to comment on the EIS
may forward written comments to:

                  Ms.  Norma Young,  M/S  443
       U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Region 10
                      1200 Sixth Avenue
                  Seattle, Washington 98101

EPA will conduct a public hearing to solicit  oral comments
on the Draft EIS and the wastewater facilities plan at:

             Coeur d'Alene City Council Chambers
                          City Hall
                    Coeur d'Alene,  Idaho
                7:30 p.m., February 18,  1981

All oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS will
be recorded and responded to in a Final EIS which will be
available to interested individuals,  groups, and agencies
approximately 2 months after the public hearing.
                             128

-------
                  LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS
      U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region X

Roger Mochnick - EIS Preparation Coordinator, Environmental
     Evaluation Branch, Seattle, Washington

Norma Young - Project Monitor, Environmental Evaluation Branch;
     Seattle, Washington
               Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.

Charles R. Hazel, Ph.D. - Vice President of Jones & Stokes
     Associates, Inc.; Project Coordinator

Michael Rushton - Environmental Specialist IV; EIS Coordinator;
     technical unit leader for physical environment

Albert Herson - Environmental Specialist IV; technical unit
     leader for socio-economic environment

Thomas Wegge - Environmental Specialist I; socio-economic
     environment

Mark Cudney - Environmental Specialist I; water quality,
     fisheries

Carol Cunningham - Environmental Specialist I; beneficial
     river uses

Jack Whelehan - Editor

Steve Fleming - Graphics

Patricia French - Research, Library Services


                      Culp-Wesner-Culp

Robert Gumerman, Ph.D.,  P.E.  - Principal Sanitary Engineer,
     facilities plan evaluation, sanitary engineering, project
     costs
                              129

-------
       University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology

Ruthann Knudson, Ph.D. - Resource Management Archeologist;
     archeological and historic research

Daniel Mattson - graduate student in archeology

Michael Pfeiffer - graduate student in archeology
                             130

-------
                 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CWA - Clean Water Act
BOD5 - 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
DO - dissolved oxygen
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIA - U. S. Federal Insurance Administration
HUD - U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IDHW - Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
IDWR - Idaho Department of Water Resources
MCL - maximum contamination level
mg/1 - milligrams per liter
mmhos/cm - millimhos per centimeter
M-0 - May to October
MPN - most probable number
N - nitrogen
N-A - November to April
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
N03 - nitrate
   ~N - nitrate measured as N
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NIPDWR - National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
P - phosphorus
PAC - Panhandle Area Council
PHD - Panhandle Health District I
ppb - parts per billion
Q__1   - lowest 7-day average flow condition reported over
         10 years of record
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
SMP - sewer management plan
SS - suspended solids
                             131

-------
TLM - tolerance limit median
TSP - total suspended particulates
USGS - U. S. Geological Survey
USSCS - U. S. Soil Conservation Service
WWP - Washington Water Power Company
WWTP - wastewater treatment plant
                             132

-------
                         BIBLIOGRAPHY


References


American Fisheries Society.  1979.  A review of the EPA red book:
    quality criteria for water.  Prepared by the Water Quality
    Section.  Bethesda, MD.  313 pp.

Ayers, R.  1977.  Quality of water for irrigation.  J. Irrigation
    Drainage Div., American Society of Civil Engineers 103(1R2):
    135-154.

Bovee, K. D.  1978.  Probability-of-use criteria for the family
    salmonidae.  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Instream Flow Infor.
    Pap. 4.  Fort Collins, CO.  80 pp.

Brown and Caldwell Engineers.  1980.  City of Coeur d'Alene waste-
    water facility plan.  Prepared for the City of Coeur d'Alene.

Brungs, W. A.  1971.  Chronic effects of low dissolved oxygen
    concentrations on fathead minnow  (Amephales promelas).  J.
    Fish Res. Board Canada 28:1119-1123.

Cooper, A. C.  1965.  The effect of transported stream sediments
    on the survival of sockeye and pink salmon eggs and alevin.
    Internat. Pacific Salmon Fisheries Comm. Bull. 18:1-71.

Drost, B., and H. Seitz.  1978.  Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie
    aquifer, Washington and Idaho.  U.S. Geological Survey Open
    File Rep. 77-829.  Tacoma, WA.  79 pp. + appendix.

Esvelt, L. A.  1978.  Spokane aquifer cause and effect report:
    summary report of '208' water quality results and cause and
    effect relationships for water quality in the Spokane-Rathdrum
    aquifer.  Spokane County Office of County Engineer.  38 pp. +
    appendices.

Falter, J., and B. Mitchell.  1980.  Spokane River fisheries study-
    Unpublished report.

Flagg, N. G., and G. W. Reid.  1954.  Effects of nitrogenous
    compounds on stream conditions.  Sewage and Industrial Wastes:
    26(9):1145-1154.

Funk, W., F. Rave, and R. Filby.  1975.  An integrated study of the
    impact of metallic trace-element pollution in the Coeur d'Alene
    Spokane River lake drainage system.  U.S.  Dept.  of the  Interior,
    Office of  Water Resources and  Technology.   332 pp.
                               133

-------
Hynes, H. B. N.  1970.  The ecology of running waters.  3rd ed.
    University of Toronto Press.  555pp.

Idaho. Dept. of Health and Welfare.  1976.  Staff evaluation of
    effluent limitations for the City of Coeur d'Alene and City
    of Post Falls.  Coeur d'Alene, ID.  Unpublished report.  21 pp.

             1978.  Staff evaluation on effluent limitations for
    the City of Coeur d'Alene and the City of Post Falls. Coeur
    d'Alene, ID.  Unpublished report.  8 pp. + appendix.

	.   1979.  Idaho ambient air profile, 1979.  Prepared by
    Air Quality Bureau, Boise.  28 pp. + appendices.

Jones, J.  1952.  The reaction of fish to water of low oxygen
    concentration.  J. Exper. Biol. 29(3).

Kootenai County Planning Commission.  1977.  Kootenai County
    comprehensive plan.

Mackenthun,  K. M.  1967.  Nitrogen and phosphorus in water.
    U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.  Ill pp.

Matida, Y.,  et al.  1971.  Toxicity of mercury compounds to
    aquatic organisms and accumulation of the compounds by the
    organisms.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bull.
    Freshwater Res. Lab. 21(2).

McKin. J. M.,  and D. A. Benoit.  1971.  Effects of long term
    exposures of copper on survival, growth, and reproduction of
    brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis.   J. Fish. Res. Board
    Canada 28:655.

Miller, W.,  J. Greene, T. Shiroyama, and E. Merwin.  1975.  The
    use of algal assays to determine effects of waste discharges
    in the Spokane River system.  U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency.   EPA-660/3-75-034.

Moratto, Michael J.  1979.  Cultural site inventory record form,
    site 10-KA-48, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Iri D. M. Mattson and
    M. A. Pfeiffer, Archaeological survey of proposed Coeur
    d'Alene wastewater facilities.  University of Idaho, Moscow.
    Unpublished report.

Muller, W.  1953.  Nitrogen content and pollution in streams.
    Gesundheitsing 74:256.
                                134

-------
Panhandle Area Council.  1978.  Water quality management plan,
    Rathdrum (aquifer.  Coeur d'Alene, ID.  139 pp. + appendices.

Panhandle Health District.  1977.  Groudwater quality monitoring -
    Rathdrum Prairie aquifer: technical report.  Prepared as part
    of Section 208 water quality management plan.  Coeur d'Alene,
    ID.  94 pp.

	.  1977a.  Kootenai and Shoshone Counties shoreline sur-
    vey report: technical report.  Prepared by environmental staff.
    Coeur d'Alene, ID.  102 pp.

Rabe, F. W., and C. W. Sapington.  1970.  The acute toxicity of
    zinc to cutthroat trout Salmo clarki.  Pp. 1-16 in. Biological
    productivity of the Coeur d'Alene River as related to water
    quality-  University of Idaho, Water Resources Research
    Institute, Moscow.

Reid, R. R.  1961.  Guidebook to the geology of the Coeur d'Alene
    mining district.  Idaho Bur. Mines and Geol. Bull. 16.

Seidman and Seidman.  1978.  What will growth cost the taxpayers of
    Kootenai County? final management summary report.  Spokane,
    WA.  32 pp.

Sepp, E.  1971.  The use of sewage for irrigation - a literature
    review.  Calif. Dept. of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary
    Engineering.

Soltero, R.  1979.  The effect of continuous advanced wastewater
    treatment by the City of Spokane on the trophic status at
    Long Lake, WA.  Washington Dept. of Ecology.  95 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  1976.  Metropolitan Spokane water
    resources study: summary report, technical report, and appen-
    dices A-J.  Prepared in cooperation with Kennedy Tudor Engineer'
    ing.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.  Quality criteria
    for water.  Prepared by the Office of Water and Hazardous
    Materials, Washington, D.C.  256 pp.

	 .  1977.  Process design manual for land treatment of
    municipal wastewater.  Washington, D.C.

    	.  1979.  City of Spokane combined sewer overflow abate-
    ment project: draft EIS.  267 pp.
                               135

-------
U.S. Federal Insurance Administration.  1976.  Flood hazard
    boundary maps, community panels 160076 0001-0013.

U.S. Geological Survey.  1980.  Provisional records, water quality
    analysis, Spokane River at Lake Coeur d'Alene outlet.  Unpub-
    lished data.

Vollenweider, R. A.  1970.  Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophica-
    tion of  lakes and flowing waters with particular reference to
    nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication.  Prepared
    for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
    159 pp.

Walker, W., J. Bouma, D. Keney, and P. Olcott.  1973.  Nitrogen
    transformations during subsurface disposal of septic tank
    effluent in sands, II: groundwater quality.  Environ. Quality
    2(4):521-525.

Wetzel, R. G.  1975.  Limnology.  W. B. Saunders Company-  743 pp.

Willingham, W. T.  1976.  Ammonia toxicity.  U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency.  EPA-908/3-76-001.

Wobeser, G. A.  1973.  Aquatic mercury pollution: studies of its
    occurrence and pathological effects on fish and mink.  M.S.
    thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Yearsley,  J. R.  1980.  Water quality studies of the Spokane River
    between Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and Post Falls, Idaho, 1978-
    1979.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle.  EPA
    910/9-80-072.  53 pp.


Personal Communications

Anderson,  M.  October 14, 1980.  Idaho Sheriff's Office.  Telephone
    conversation.

Bain,  R.  October 9, 1980.  Brown and Caldwell Engineers.  Telephone
    conversation.

Baptist Church Camp Director, Post Falls area, Idaho.  October 14,
    1980.   Telephone conversation.

Beck,  L.  November 1979-  U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
    servation Service, Coeur d'Alene.  Telephone conversation.

Brown, W.  B.  October 3, 1980.  Attorney and developer of Blackwell
    Island.  Letter to Mike Rushton, Jones & Stokes Associates.
                                136

-------
Brown and Caldwell Engineers.  September 2, 1980.  Letter to
    Jones & Stokes Associates.

Clegg, J.  October 26, 1979.  Washington Water and Power.  Telephone
    conversation.

Clegg, P.  October 1979.  Sergeant, Kootenai County Sheriff's Dept.
    Telephone conversation.

Coeur d'Alene Dept. of Public Works.  September 1980.  Telephone
    conversation.

Coeur d'Alene Planning Dept.  August 1980.  Personal interview.

	.  September 1980.  Telephone conversation.

Coeur d'Alene Fire Dept.  September 1980.  Telephone conversation.

Coeur d'Alene School District 271.  1979.  Telephone conversation.

Diamond International Inc.  October 15, 1980.  Telephone conversation,

Eachon, R.  August 8, 1980.  Supervisor, Tri-County Parks and
    Waterways Maintenance.  Telephone conversation.

Flater, J., and B. Mitchell.  September 27, 1980.  University of
    Idaho, Moscow.  Telephone conversation.

Goodnight, B.  September 27, 1980.  Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game,
    Coeur d'Alene.  Telephone conversation.

Gore, J.  August 21, 1979.  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered
    Species Unit, Boise.  Letter to Jones & Stokes Associates.

Gudenberger, S.  September  27, 1980.  U.S. Geological Survey, Sand
    Point, ID.  Letter to Jones & Stokes Associates.

Kaglur.d, E.  November 27, 1979.  Lufferty Transportation Company.
    Telephone conversation.

Halpern, Bud.  August 1980.  Director, Parks, Recreation and
    Cemeteries, City of Coeur d'Alene.  Telephone conversation.

Harmon, Larry.  November 27, 1979-  Director, Parks and Recreation
    Dept., City of Post Falls.  Telephone conversation.

Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare.  August 1979.  Unpublished data
    on population,. Coeur d'Alene Office.
             January 30, 1980.  Unpublished draft report, water
    quality standards and wastewater treatment requirements.
                               137

-------
             January 1980-June 1980.  Unpublished water quality
    reports, Coeur d'Alene Office.

Idaho Dept.  of Water Resources.  August 28, 1980.  Well log data.

Jacklin,  Don.  November 27, 1979.  Jacklin Seed Company, Post Falls.
    Telephone conversation.

Jacklin Seed Company, Coeur d'Alene Office.  October 1980.  Tele-
    phone conversation.

Jaeger, R.  June 26, 1980.  Post Falls Irrigation District. Tele-
    phone conversation.

Jones, M.  September 27, 1980.  U.S. Geological Survey, Boise.
    Telephone conversation.

Lange, D.  June 20, 1980.  Brown and Caldwell Engineers, Seattle.
    Telephone conversation.

Lee, Terry,   October 14, 1980.  Scuba School, Coeur d'Alene.
    Telephone conversation.

Lustic, Ken.  October 24, 1980.  Panhandle Health District, Coeur
    d'Alene.  Telephone conversation.

Markley,  J.   October 17, 1980.  Dept. of Public Works, City of Coeur
    d'Alene.  Telephone conversation.

Miller, Mike.  October 11, 1980.  North Idaho College, Coeur d'Alene.
    Telephone conversation.

Mossmor,  W.   October 1980.  Member, Northwest Whitewater Kayak Asso-
    ciation.  Telephone conversation.

North Idaho College.  June 1980.  Telephone conversation.

Pierce, J.  September 27, 1979.  Washington Water and Power Company,
    Coeur d'Alene Office.  Personal interview.

Pfander,  J.   December 4, 1979.  U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency,  Idaho Operations Office.  Telephone conversation.

Ross, J.   October 20, 1980.  Idaho State Dept. of Transportation,
    Coeur d'Alene Office.  Telephone conversation.

Spokane County Office of County Engineers.  April 20, 1980.  Unpub-
    lished task report for Spokane County  '208' water quality
    management plan.
                               138

-------
Spokane International Railroad Company.  September 4, 1980.
    Telephone conversation.

Steim, Barry.  October 1980.  Superintendent, Kootenai County
    School District 271.  Telephone conversation.

Sturts, S.  September 1979.  Member, Spokane Chapter, National
    Audubon Society, Coeur d'Alene.  Telephone conversation.

Thompson, Bruce.  November 25, 1980.  Director, Panhandle Area
    Council.  Telephone conversation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  March 23, 1979.  Letter
    from Robert Burd to Steve Tanner, Panhandle Health District.

Wetter, S.  October 26, 1979.  Public Information Representative,
    Washington Water and Power Company, Spokane.  Telephone conver-
    sation.
                               139

-------
APPENDICES

-------
                   Appendix A
 HISTORIC AND  ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES  REPORT,
UNIVERSITY OF  IDAHO LABORATORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY
                        141

-------
                                                              University of Idaho
                                                              Ljburatuiy ot Anthropology
                                                              Department of Sociology/Anthropology
                                                              Moscow, Idaho 83S43
                                                               30 October 1980
Dr. Merle  Wells
Idaho  State Historical Society
610 North  Julia Davis Drive
Boise,  ID   83702

Dear Merle:

     The University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology has  recently
contracted with Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. of Sacramento,  Calif-
ornia,  to  conduct cultural resource  investigations of proposed
Coeur  d'Alene wastewater facilities.   This survey has been completed,
and the resultant report is enclosed for your review.  Jones  &  Stokes
Associates, Inc. request that you  forward the results of your review to
them at the following address:

                          2321 P  Street
                          Sacramento,  CA  95816

                          Attn:   Charles R. Hazel

     Thank you.

                                      Sincerely,
                                      Daniel M.  Mattson

cc:  Jones  &  Stokes Associates, Inc.
                                       143

 ffTrrbrmrr-S'i-ty "( lrl-.ihu-Lsjn Equ,il Opiiortiiniiv/Affirmuivu Action Employer and Educational Institution.

-------
                                                                 Oefeobeie 1980
                ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF PROPOSED

               COEUR D'ALENE WASTEWATER FACILITIES
                            Abstract
    On October 23 and 28, 1980, Michael A. Pfeiffer and I conducted a
systematic archaeological survey of certain proposed earth-disturbing
sites for Coeur d'Alene wastewater facilities. No new cultural proper-
ties were recorded, although the proposed actions of Alternatives "B"
and "E" will effect a previously recorded archaeological site. It is
recommended that these alternatives be aborted, or that the mitigative
measures detailed in this report be taken.
                 Project Locations and Descriptions


    The project area consists of three alternative areas for ^wastewater
treatment plants, and a proposed system of interceptor routes (Fig. 1).
Treatment site options examined in Alternative "G" consist of three
land parcels located north of the city of Coeur d'Alene, in Township 51
North, Range 4 Nest, Boise Meridian (Fig. 2). The first of these, the
Atlas Road site, consists of the W 1/2 of Section 21. The Prairie Avenue
site consists of the N 1/2 of Section 28. The third, the Ramsey Road site,
is the N 1/2 of Section 34, and the SE 1/4 and S 1/2 NE 1/4 of Section 27.
These three areas are level grass fields, currently under cultivation.
    A number of interceptor routes proposed along streets in the northern
portion of the city, are included in the project (Fig. 3).  A third area
of proposed activity is located adjacent to the Spokane River, on the
western edge of the city  Two treatment plant alternative areas are located
in this vicinity, along with a interceptor route (Fig. 4).  One of these
areas, Alternative "E", consists of three site options. Option 1 is located
on a partly wooded, partly cultivated area overlooking the Spokane River,
in the NE 1/4 of Section 10, T.50 N.,  R.4 W., B.M. Excepting the cultivated
portion of the area, the site appears relatively undisturbed. Option 2 is
also located in the NE 1/4 of Section 10. The area is presently the site
of an extensive sand and gravel quarry. Almost all of the original sediments
have been disturbed or removed. Option 3 is located in a wooded area of
fairly undisturbed land, in the N 1/2 N 1/2 NE 1/4 of Section 9, and the
S 1/2 S 1/2 SE 1/4 of Section 4, T.50 N., R.4 W.,  B.M.
    Alternative "B", located in the SW 1/4 NE 1/4  of Section 14, T.50 N.,
R.4 W., B.M., is a plan to expand the present treatment plant to the east
and north into a relatively undisturbed wooded area. The proposed intercep-
tor route parallels the river from Option site 3 of Alternative "E", to
the existing treatment plant. The exact line of the route has yet to be
determined, but would most likely cross areas of fill material and those
of undisturbed sediments.

    The project  is  located  within  the  flat valley of  the Purcell Trench.
  The  area  falls  within  a ponderosa  pine  vegetation  habitat,  and historically
  supported a dense  forest dominated by  this  species of  coniferous  tree.
  Soils consist of  thin, sandy  loams developed over  deep  deposits of  sands
  and  gravels of  glacial- flood  origin.

                                  144

-------
                   Research  and  Survey  Methodology
     A  thorough examination  of  all  excessible documents relating  to the
 history  and  prehistory  of the  area,  was  conducted before  field investi-
 gation was initiated. This  consisted of  a  search of all state and na-
 tional cultural properties  records,  all  known  ethnographic accounts,
 and  various  historic  records of  the  area.  The  author has  done previous
 research concerning the cultural record  of the area in question, in
 association  with the  Museum of North Idaho in  Coeur d'Alene.

     Field methodology varied throughout  the project. The  large,  open
 parcels  of land in Alternative "G" were  given  an on-foot  examination,
 with transect  intervals of  about 100 feet  providing actual coverage of
 less than 10%  of the  total  surface area. Thick growth of  grasses hindered
 soil visibilty.  All proposed interceptor routes in the northern  portion
 of the city  were driven. As mentioned previouly, these areas are located
 along  paved  streets.  Very little actual  ground surface is visible. The
 Alternative  "E" and "B" areas  adjacent to  the  river were  given about
 10P6  actual coverage,  this being  most of  the exposed ground surface.
 Vegetation and a thick  duff layer  limited  visibility over most of the
 areas. All roadbed cuts were examined, revealing coarse sand and
 gravel material thoughout those  areas. Since the interceptor route
 paralleling  the river was not  staked or  otherwise noted,  no exact coverage
 estimate can be given.  The  entire  eastern  shoreline of the river, from
 Option 3, Alternative "E",  to  its outlet at the lake, was walked during
 the  course of  the survey. Very little original  sediments  were observed,
 as almost the  entire  shoreline of  that part of  the river  has been built
 up with  fill material to provide level platforms for decking logs for the
 numerous lumber mills in the vicinity.
                        Cultural Resources
    No cultural resources were found during investigations of the Alter-
native "G" treatment site options north of the city. Likewise, none were
recorded along the interceptor routes in the northern portions of the
city. However, the most significant archaeological property in the entire
area is located in the vicinity of the proposed actions adjacent to the
river. This cultural site is situated along the outlet of the river from
the lake, and extends for an undetermined distance along the shoreline and
adjacent areas of the river  ( Addendum).

    Ethnographic records indicate this site as the largest and traditional
head village of the Coeur d'Alene tribe (Teit 1930:38). The extent of the
site is difficult to ascertain, as three additional villages or camps were
located alongside the first few miles of the river, in the ethnographic
memory of the Coeur d'Alenes (Teit 1930:39). This was reported to be the
only area in Coeur d'Alene territory where fishing weirs were used on a
large scale, and where the most fish were caught and processed (Teit 1930:
107; Point 1967:62).  Several burials have been unearthed in the area, in-
cluding on the campus of North Idaho College,  south of Alternative site "B"
It is likely that most areas in thu adjacent vicinity of the river contain
a prolific cultural record which probably spans many millennia. The reports
                                 145

-------
of amateur artifact collectors bear witness to this, and local collections
contain many thousands of artifacts found eroded from the river's edges.
Test excavations on the MIC campus and nearby Blackwell Island indicate
cultural deposits up to 39 inches in depth (Miller 1953:389, and 1959:39).
The historic component of the site, Fort Sherman (1878-1901),  has recently
been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. An addendum to
that listing will no doubt also recognize the aboriginal component of the
site .
                          Recommendations
    As mentioned previously, no cultural resources were found on the
Alternative "G" parcels of land, and no further archaeological manage-
ment actions are deemed necessary at this time for these areas. However,
if ground-disturbing activities proceed at these sites, workers should
be made aware of the possibility of unearthing cultural materials. Should
this be the case, excavation work should cease until a qualified archaeo-
logist has been consulted on appropriate procedures.

    The interceptor routes in the northern portions of the city cannot be
adequately accessed at this time. Therefore, it is recommended that a
qualified archaeologist be present during excavation of the lines, until
the presence or absence of integral cultural materials can be established.

    No further archaeological actions are deemed necessary for site option
2 of Alternative "E", due to the almost total loss of original site materials
form quarry activities. However, treatment plant options 1 and 3 in the same
alternative, probably have extensive, intact cultural records. It is recom-
mended that these two areas be left undisturbed. If this is not the case,
then a program of archaeological test excavation is recommended for these
areas, to determine the course of any additional mitigative actions. The
interceptor route paralleling the river will need additional investigation
when, and if,  that proposed route is marked out.

    Alternative "B",  extension of the present treatment plant, should not
be considered as an option of action. This area is within the heart of the
most culturally sensitive area of the surrounding region, and should be left
intact. Failing this, an extensive testing program is deemed necessary to
determine the extent of the archaeological record, for evaluation of National
Register of Historic Places eligibility status.
                                                Daniel M.  Mattson
                                  146

-------
                     References Cited
Miller, Tom O., Jr.

  1953 Four burials from the Coeur d'Alene region, Idaho.
       American Antiquity 18(3): 389-390.


  1959 Archaeological survey of Kootenai County, northern Idaho,
       Tebiwa 2(2): 38-51. Idaho State University Museum.
Point, Nicholas
  1967 Wilderness kingdom, Indian life in the Rocky Mountains: 1840-1847.
       J.P. Donnelly, translator. San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and
       Winston Publishers.
Teit, James
  1930 The Salishan tribes of the western plateaus: the Coeur d'Alenes.
       Forty-fifth Bureau of Ethnology Annual Report.
                      Personnel Qualifications
Daniel M. Mattson
                   B.A. in Anthropology from Texas Tech University
                   M.A. in progress at University of Idaho
                   Five years of professional experience in archaeological
                   survey, excavation, and cultural resource management.
Michael A. Pfeiffer
                   B.A. in Anthropology from University of Nebraska
                   M.A. in progress at University of Idaho
                   Six years of professional experience in archaeological
                   survey, excavation, and cultural resource management;
                   historic archaeology specialty.
                                   147

-------
                                                AI h i t K MI N A
              Archaeological Survey of Proposed

              Coeur d'Alene Wastewater Facilities

                    T.  50,51 N.,  R. 4 W.,  B.M.
                  Project Boundaries •—•
                                                                     Spirit Lake  Quadrangle

                                                                        Idaho   1961  15'
Q}' MILES
                                                                       :"Hiyd«n L»k«
                 i   ••    "'%--ii: „
                 i  ijif-r-V-v!
                4-?:;MJ£-yv i
                 ! JulVife^
                 ;Hayden , -';.?''";
                 ;/Lake r~-~3 Z°
                 '•'  :	• • .i.Vi -c ?
                                                                                             5289000m N.
                                                                    Coeur d'Alene Quadrangle   ;
                                                                       Idaho   1957  15'
                                    Fig.  1.  Project Area.

                                   *•> -   ,    148
Rich,' Hil( — .  / /  \    /
    ^ i '   "   N''^  _

-------
                                                                             .22 A'-. '..Scli .'
Archaeological Survey  of  Proposed
Coeur d'Alene Wastewater  Facilities
      T. 51 N., R. 4 W.,  B.M.
    Project Boundaries ——.
    Area Surveyed :  100 m E-W  Transects
/ .-'  •• -: - -. -v
                      -RM. 213"r  -
            ^iq.  2.  Alternative "G" Treatment  Site  Options.

-------
QI
0:'
          Archaeological Survey of Proposed
          Coeur d'Alene Wastewater Facilities
                T.  50 M., R. 4 W., B.M.
              Project Boundaries «••
              Area  Surveyed '.	'
26
     l.^t.o.. •
     Memorial
     Parki"f"
        ..
                 Coeur d'Alene Quadrangle  N
                    Idaho  1957  15'
                                                        ft


1

1
i

i
' • -"FT
v|: 1;
v. j,
il li
ji -ij
.
*(
.
H
'.""I'^T
• '-^ ':
'ii .1
• '• '
                                                                         56'


-------
               t'H .0
                 I  -
                 '
Archaeological Survey of Proposed
Coeur d'Alene Wastewater Facilities
      T. 50 N., R. 4 W., B.M.
    Project Boundaries———
    Area Surveyed -J ^ J-
                                                                           •I''  • .r:H:'-::iVp''::
                                                                  Coeur d'Alene Quadrangle
                                                                     Idaho  1957 " 15'
=-j=~f!'.'^i^
                            -^ggrj^G^i .'-—-x.  ;>  i^f/t   TV.-X?1
                            ^^^^^^%^S^
                 ^     I -  ^
                  i' J^r&: (
                      Fig.  4.  Alternatives "B" and "E" Treatment Site Options,
                               and  Approximate Location of Interceptor Route.

-------
IDAHO STATE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY
610  NORTH JULIA DAVIS DRIVE   BOISE, 83706
                                                                   STATE  MUSEUM
                          November 26, 1980
 Ms. Norma Young
 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
 1200 6th Avenue South
 Seattle, WA   98101
                                         RE:  Coeur D1 Alene Wastewater
                                              Facilities
 Dear Ms. Young:
 We have reviewed the archaeological survey report for the proposed
 Coeur D" Alene wastewater facilities prepared by the Laboratory of
 Anthropology, University of Idaho.  The report is well documented
 and we generally support its conclusions and recommendations.

 Thus, no further work is necessary for the treatment facility at
 alternative G or site option 2 of alternative E.  Important archaeological
 deposits do occur at options 1 and 3 of alternative E and in the area of
 alternative B.  Also any interceptor or collection pipeline near the
 lake are likely to affect significant archaeological materials.  As
 these areas are eligible/or listed in the National Register a formal
 Section 106 consultation with the Advisory Council is required if these
 areas are affected by sewer construction.  Prior to the formal con-
 sultation with the Advisory Council additional archaeological
 investigations in the areas of alternatives B and E and along the lake
 side interceptor routes should be conducted if these alternatives are
 chosen.  Such investigations would consist of excavating small test
 pits to discover the exact nature of the archaeological deposits.
 The information could then be used to develop alternate mitigation
 procedures required by Advisory Council regulations (36CFR800) .

 If you have any questions concerning these recommendations or EPA's
 responsibilities please contact me (208-334-3847)-
                               Sincerely ,
                               Thomas J. Green
                               State Archaeologist
                               State Historic Preservation Office
 cc:  Dr. Charles Hazel
      Dr. Ruthann Knudson
                                     152

-------
      Appendix B






WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
          153

-------
                              APPENDIX  B

               NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS

Type of
Contaminant
Inorganic
Chemicals
















Organic
Chemicals



Name of Type of
Contaminant Water System

Arsenic Community
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
33.7°F & below
53.8 - 58.3
58.4 - 63.8
63.9 - 70.6
70.7 - 79.2
79.3 - 90.5 Community
Nitrate (as N) Community &
Noncommunity

Endrin Community
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Maximum
Contaminant
Level

0.05 mg/1
1.
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05

2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
10.


0.002 mg/1
0.004
0.1
                       Toxaphene
                       2, 4-D
                       2, 4, 5-TP Silvex
                                               Community
 0.005
 0.1
 0.01
Total trihalomethanes [the sum of the 0.10 mg/1 concentrations of bromodi-
chloromethane, dibromochloromethane, tribromomethane (bromoform)  and tri-
chloromethane (chloroform)]  1,  2
                                               Community &
                                               Noncommunity
Turbidity              Turbidity at
                       representative
                       entry point to
                       distribution
                       system.
1.   Proposed MCL  (Maximum contaminant level)
2.   The maximum contaminant level for total trihalomethanes
    applies only to community water systems which serve a
    population of greater than 75,000 individuals and which add
    a disinfectant to the water in any part of the drinking water
    treatment process.
 1  TU monthly
       average and
 5  TU average of
       two consecu-
       tive days
(5  TU monthly
       average may
       apply at
       state option)
                                    155

-------
  Type of
Contaminant
                       Nam& of
                    Contaminant
  Type of
Water System
  Maximum
Contaminant
   Level
Microbiological
                    Coliform              Community &      Membrane Filter*
                    Bacteria              Noncommunity     Coliforms shall not
                                                            exceed:
                                                         .  1 per 100 ml, mean of
                                                             all samples per month
                                                           4 per 100 ml in more
                                                             than one sample if
                                                             less than 20 samples
                                                             collected per month,
                                                             or
                                                           4 per 100 ml in more
                                                             than 5Z of samples
                                                             if 20 or more samples
                                                             examined per month.

                                                           Fermentation Tube - 10 ml
                                                           portion*
                                                           Coliforms shall not be
                                                            present in more than
                                                            10% of portions per
                                                            month,
                                                           Not more than 1 sample
                                                            may have 3 or more
                                                            portions positive when
                                                            less than 20 samples
                                                            are examined per month,
                                                            or
                                                           Not more than 5% of
                                                            samples may have 3 or
                                                            more portions positive
                                                            when 20 or more sample
                                                            are examined per month.

                                                           Fermentation Tube - 100n
                                                           portion*
                                                           Coliforms shall not be
                                                            present in more than
                                                            60Z of the portions
                                                            per month,
                                                           Not more than 1 sample
                                                            may have all 5 portion
                                                            positive when less thai
                                                            5 samples are examined
                                                            per month, or
                                                           Not more than 20% of
                                                            samples may have all
                                                            5 portions positive
                                                            when 5 or more samples
                                                            are examined per month.
If sampling rate is less than 4 per month, compliance shall be based on 3 month
period unless state determines that a 1 month period shall  apply.
                                    156

-------
  Type of
Contaminant
  Name of
Contaminant
  Type of
Water System
        Maximum
      Contaminant
         Level
Microbiological
Optional
Chlorine
Residual
Community &
Noncommunity
Minimum free chlorine
 residual throughout
 distribution system
 0.2 mg/1.

(At state option and
based on sanitary survey,
chlorine residual moni-
toring may be substituted
for not more than 75% of
microbiological samples.)
Radionuclides

  Natural
                    Community
Gross Alpha
Activity
Radium 226 H
Radium 228
                15 pCi/1

                 5 pCi/1

                Screening level:
                1.  Test for Gross Alpha
                2.  If Gross Alpha exceeds
                    5 pCi/1, test for
                    Radium 226.
                3.  If Radium 226 exceeds
                    3 pCi/1, test for
                    Radium 228.
  Man-made
Beta particle
and photon radio-
activity
Community       4 millirem/year for total
                body or any internal organ

                Screening level:

                Gross Beta Activity 50 pCi/1
                Tritium 20,000 pCi/1
                Strontium 90    8 pCi/1

                If Gross Beta exceeds
                50 pCi/1, sample must be
                analyzed to determine
                major radioactive con-
                stitutes present; and the
                appropriate organ and total
                body doses shall be calcu-
                lated to determine compli-
                ance with the 4 millirem/
                year level.
                                   157

-------
                       PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS  LISTED  IN  THE   CLEAN  WATER  ACT
TYPE 60
                                                                                                         CASE ID.
Metals (And Metallic Compounds)
Antimony and compounds
Arsenic and compounds
Beryllium and compounds
Cadmium and compounds
Chromium and compounds
Copper and compounds
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Nickel and compounds
Selenium and compounds
Silver and compounds
Thallium and compounds
Zinc and compounds
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenapthene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Napthalene
Toluene
Other aromatic hydrocarbons
Chlorinated  Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated naphthalenes
Dichlorobenzenes
Other chlorinated benzenes
Oichloroethylenes
Chlorinated ethanes
Dichloropropane and dichloropropenes
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Polychlormated biphenyls
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Halomethanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Other halomethanes
Phenols
2—cnlorophenol
2,  4—dichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Other chlorinated phenols
2,4—dimethylphenol
Nitrophenols
Phenol
Other phenols
Pesticides
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Chlordane and metabolites
DDT and metabolites
Endosulfan and metabolites
Endrin and metabolites
Heptachlor and metabolites
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Toxaphene
Other pesticides
Othen
Aero le in
Acrylonitrile
Asbestos
Benzidine
Chloralkyl ethers
Cyanides
Dichlorobenzidine
Dinitro toluene
Diphenylhydrazine
Haloethers
Isophorone
Nitrobenzenes
Nitrosamines
Phthalate esters
2.3,7,8—tetrachlorod ibenzo-
p-dioxm (TCDD)
SotS
                                                                   158

-------
     Appendix C






EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
         159

-------
                COEUR d'ALENE,  IDAHO EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
  Farmers Home Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
  National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Defense
  Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
U. S. Department of Interior
  Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Transportation
  Federal Highway Administration

State and Local Officials

Office of the Governor
Donald E. Johnston, Mayor
G. Eugene McAdams, City Administrator
Tom Wells, Director, Public Works
John Carpita, Kootenai County Engineer
Kootenai County Commissioners
Art Manley, State Senator
Gary J. Ingram, State Representative
L. C. Spurgeon, State Representative

Local Distribution
Evalyn Adams
Jerry Adams
Wally Adams
John Aguilar
Eugene M. Ballou
Jim Bellamy
Elton Bentley
Ronald Briggs
Roger Brockhoff
Brown & Caldwell, Seattle, Washington
Jim Burns
Ray Capaul
Marjorie Chadderdon
Coeur d'Alene Press
Coeur d'Alene Public Library
Larry Comer
Lloyd L. Conrad
State Agencies

Idaho Air Quality Bureau
Idaho Division of Environment
Idaho Fish & Game Department
Idano Transportation Department
Panhandle Area Council
Panhandle Health District
State Clearinghouse
Organizations

Idaho Wildlife Society
Kootenai Environmental Alliance
League of Women Voters of Idaho
Lee Dean
Bill DeCroff
John DeSelle
Everett Dicksion
Val Dicksion
Ford Dunton
Loren R. Edinger
Frank Elkins
Dave Finkle
Art Flagan
Jim Fromm
Jim Fullmer
Bill Goodnight
Russell Greenfield
Joe Haines
Ellen Healy
Kent Helmer
                                      161

-------
                 COEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
Local Distribution (Continued)

Frank Henderson
Martha Higgins
Edwin H. Jones
Lester A. Jones
Kenneth S. Kirking
Ray Koep
KVNI
Lois Land-Albrecht
Lepard & Frame, Inc.
Tom Listen
Jim Markley
Bill McFarland
Charles McLain
Brian Meckel
Meckel Engineering & Surveying
Ted Menzel
Rosalie Moore
Ed Morse
Ted Mueller
Ward B. Newcomb
Dan Paulson
Charles Pearson
John A. Pierce
Post Falls Public Library
David Priano
Tom Price
Hester Pulling
Mary Lou Reed
Joe Roope
Lester E. Routh
Herb Sanderson
Clifford Schoener
Lorna Sears
Bryan Shertz
Jack Simpson
Elizabeth Sowder
Spokesman-Review
Jack Spurgeon
Jim Stravens
Whitey Swendener
Fay Sweney
David Tyler
URS Company, Spokane, WA
Roy Wargi
Joseph G. Wark, Jr.
Bill Wassmuth
Roy Wellman
Dave Yadon
                                    162
                                                                      * GPO 796 - 793

-------