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
------- |