910/9-81-08CV
6ERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
August 1981
Water
EPA-10-ID-Post Falls-Kootenay-WWTW
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the City of
Post Falls, Idaho
-' &,
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
August 14, 1981
M/S 443
TO: All Interested Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for wastewater treatment facilities for the City of
Post Falls, Idaho.
This EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and implementing Agency regulations (40 CFR Part 6,
November 6, 1979). Availability of the EIS will be announced in the
Federal Register on August 14, 1981; beginning a 30-day comment period
which will close on September 14, 1981. This agency will take no ad-
ministrative action on this project until the close of the comment
period.
We will appreciate your review of this document and any comments you
may have. Please send all comments to Norma Young, M/S 443 at the
above address.
-------
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
CITY OF POST FALLS, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
EPA PROJECT NO. C-16-0309
Prepared by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, WA 98101
With technical assistance from:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Responsible Official'.
L. Edwin Coate
Deputy Regional Administrator
July 7. 1981
Date
-------
PREFACE
On March 6, 1981 the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)* released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the proposed wastewater treatment facilities for
Post Falls, Idaho for public review and comment. The EIS
was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of con-
struction of the proposed wastewater facilities. Three
alternatives in addition to the no-action alternative were
discussed in the Draft EIS. During preparation of the draft
document a regionalization option for joint treatment with
Coeur d'Alene was studied. This study was prompted by the
proximity of the two cities as well as the timing of the
facilities planning efforts. However, the extremely.high
interceptor costs that were predicted caused the regionaliza-
tion concept to be dropped.
The primary goal of sewering the City-of Post Falls
is the elimination of on-site disposal systems over the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. This aquifer has been designated
by EPA as a "sole source" drinking water aquifer. The major
source of protection for the aquifer comes from the waste-
water treatment policies of the Idaho Panhandle Health
District (PHD). Construction of a central wastewater treat-
ment system for Post Falls.will remove a potential threat
to the water quality of the aquifer and comply with PHD pro-
tection policies.
The alternative preferred by the City of Post Falls
is the design and construction of a 1.5 million gallon per
day (MGD) treatment plant at Site T-5 (Alternative B). EPA
agrees with the selection of this alternative. Analysis
shows that it is the most cost-effective and environmentally
sound of the alternatives that were evaluated. As described
in the facilities plan, implementation would be completed
in several phases. Phase 1 of the project was shown to
include a 1.0 MGD capacity extended aeration treatment plant
on the west side of Post Falls and a collection system servim
most of the existing city area. Seasonal phosphorus removal
and dechlorination are included in the plan, with discharge
of effluent to the Spokane River downstream from Corbin Park
*A list of acronyms and abbreviations is included at the
back of this report.
-------
Funding 'limitations have caused Phase 1 of the project
to be scaled down to a smaller collection and treatment system,
with an interim outfall for discharge of effluent upstream
of Corbin Park. When funds become availablef" the city would
relocate the outfall downstream of Corbin Park. Seasonal
phosphorus removal and dechlorination will not be implemented
at this time. Sludge disposal will be by injection into
agricultural land near Post Falls. At a later date, under
Phase 2, the collection system would be expanded and the
treatment plant would be enlarged to 1.5 MGD capacity. Sea-
sonal phosphorus removal and dechlorination would be necessary
at that time.
EPA recommends that funding be provided for construction
of Alternative B, which has evolved as the cost-effective
alternative. The project will be constructed in phases
because of insufficient local, state, and federal funds to
allow for full construction. A factor supporting Alter-
native B as the cost-effective alternative is that it will
allow less costly phasing than the other two alternatives
evaluated.
On April 6, 1981 EPA held a public hearing on the Draft
EIS. The record of this public hearing is presented in Chapter 2,
Comments received on the Draft EIS during the 45-day comment
period indicate that there is concern by a number of residents
of the McGuire area that the location of the proposed outfall
would be a health hazard for the River Ranchettes Community
and the McGuire Recreational Area. This concern was also
voiced at the facilities plan public hearing on May 27, 1981.
At that time it was pointed out that the outfall is temporary,
and it is expected that revenue provided from new hookups
to the system will provide enough money to extend the out-
fall downstream or allow the city to switch over to land
application. The State Health and Welfare Department (IDHW)
has indicated that effluent limitations for the proposed
discharge are sufficient to protect the river for domestic
use. In addition, IDHW has requested a more stringent total
coliform limitation (23MPN/ml) for the discharge. The City
of Post Falls must request a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination .-System (NPDES) permit from EPA. Prior to issuance
of the permit, EPA will hold a public hearing to provide an
opportunity for comment on the permit that is proposed. Public
comments will receive further consideration before a decision
is made on the permit.
Although EPA concurs with the city's selection of Alter-
native B as the environmentally acceptable and cost-effective
solution to the city's wastewater treatment needs, it is
considering the following grant conditions:
11
-------
o Sizing of all area interceptors must be limited to
the 20-year design population and distribution densi-
ties as presented in the facility plan and associated
documents. Any significant deviation from this restric-
tion must be adequately justified, based on consideration
of cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts of
such sizing deviations.
o Detailed design criteria for the proposed treatment
facilities as well as the criteria for sizing all
interceptors and collectors will be presented to
the IDHW, Division of Environment, for their approval
no later than the 10 percent design completion point
of the project. Final sizing and design criteria
will be determined at that time.
A decision on award of a Clean Water Act Section 201
construction grant to the City of Post Falls for design and
construction of the selected alternative will not be made
by the EPA Regional Administrator until the close of the
30-day comment period on this Final EIS.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Project Need 1
Project Funding 1
Project Alternative Selected by the City of
Post Falls 2
Environmental Impacts of Alternative B 6
EPA's Recommended Action 9
Coordination 12
CHAPTER 1 - LETTERS OF COMMENT ON THE DRAFT EIS
AND EPA RESPONSES 13
Introduction 13
List of Individuals and Agencies Submitting
Written Comments on the Draft EIS 13
CHAPTER 2 - ORAL TESTIMONY ON THE DRAFT EIS AND
EPA RESPONSES 49
Introduction 49
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS 73
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 75
POST FALLS, IDAHO DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 76
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Final Environmental Impact Statement
Type of Action: Administrative
Project Need
The City of Post Falls, Idaho is the largest city in
Idaho without centralized wastewater collection treatment
and disposal facilities.. Each home or business relies on
a septic tank or other type of individual on-site' system
for wastewater treatment and disposal.
It has been determined that these on-site waste disposal
systems are contributing pollutants to the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer. The aquifer is of high quality and serves as a
major drinking water source for over 340,000 people in the
Spokane River basin. Because of its value as a drinking "
water source, EPA designated the aquifer a "sole source aquifer"
under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in 1978. The Idaho
Panhandle Health District (PHD) has the responsibility for
protection of the aquifer. Construction of a central waste-
water treatment system would comply with the aquifer, pro-
tection policies of the PHD and would allow additional resi-
dential and commercial development in the area.
Project Funding
The City of Post Falls applied to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for funds to develop a facilities
plan for the design and construction of a central wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal system to serve city
residents and adjacent urbanizing unincorporated areas. Treat-
ment facilities and interceptors are typically eligible for
a 75 percent federal grant and 15 percent state grant. The
city passed a bond issue in November 1979 to finance the
local share of the project. The amount of bonds that will
be offered for sale will be based upon final project costs.
Pursuant to Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
has awarded Step I planning funds. Before additional funds
for design and construction of a selected project can be awarded
to the city, EPA must complete an environmental review of
-------
potential impacts of the project. This review must meet
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires
that federal agencies ensure that any action taken does not
lead directly or indirectly to contamination tha-1-. would create
a significant health hazard in a "sole source aquifer". To
comply with these requirements, EPA has prepared a Draft
and this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate-
the consequences of the construction of the proposed wastewater
treatment facility.
The State of Idaho priority list for financial assistance
includes $315,000 in fiscal year 1981 for Post Falls facilities
design (Step II). The city has applied for an additional
$4,033,000 for facilities construction (Step III) in fiscal
year 1982. The priority list and funding availability have
not yet been determined for 1982. Post Falls will become
eligible for the $315,000 grant once this EIS is completed
and the facilities plan has received final approval.
Project Alternative Selected by the City of Post Falls
The city has selected Alternative B with treatment facili-
ties at Site T-5, as the preferred wastewater management
plan. A general description of the treatment plant design
and location, effluent discharge site, selection criteria
and rationale, and the environmental impacts follow.
Treatment Plant Design
Liquid waste arriving at the treatment plant will undergo
mechanical biological treatment (extended aeration). This
process requires construction of a concrete aeration basin
with 24-hour detention time. The raw sewage receives comminu-
tion and grit removal prior to discharge to the aeration
basin. The organic material in the sewage is oxidized aero-
bically by a suspended culture of micro-organisms called
activated sludge. Oxygen necessary for bacterial respiration
is supplied by compressed air discharged at the bottom of
the aeration tank through diffusers. The activated sludge
is separa'ted from the suspension in a clarifier and recycled
back to the aeration basin to remove the waste material again.
The overflow from the clarifier will be chlorinated prior
to discharge to the river to reduce bacteria, virus, and
parasite concentrations to acceptable levels.
Due to the reduced biological activity in the cool winter
months, waste sludge from the treatment plant will require
additional treatment in aerobic digesters. A concrete tank
will be utilized which can be readily expanded for future
-------
upgrading and also designed to allow conversion to an anaerobic
digester at a future date. The tanks will be covered and
insulated to reduce temperature loss in the winter months.
Decanting facilities will be provided to remove the super-
natant and to thicken the sludge. Supernatant will be returned
to the headworks for treatment.
Digested sludge will be stored during the winter in
earthen lagoons. During the dry periods of spring, summer,
and fall the sludge will be trucked to agricultural .land
and injected subsurface as a soil conditioner and fertilizer.
At the present time, a specific disposal site has not been
identi-f ied.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Advanced treatment technology is designed to remove
pollutants which are not adequately removed by secondary
treatment processes.
Phosphorus Removal. Phase 1 (1.0 MGD capacity) of the
project preferred by the city will not provide for removal
of influent phosphorus during any period of the year. However,
when Phase 2 (1.5 MGD) is implemented, seasonal phosphorus
removal of 85 percent would be required. The proposed method
of phosphorus removal is by alum addition to the aeration
basins.
Dechlorination. Dechlorination will not be implemented
under the "initial project". A monitoring program, including
bioassays, should-'be established which samples water quality
downstream from-the waste treatment facilities. If it is
determined that-acceptable levels of chlorine are being
exceeded, dechlorination will be initiated. The method of
dechlorination will be with sulfur dioxide.
Project Phasing
The 20-year design flow capacity of the proposed Post
Falls wastewater treatment facilities is 1.5 MGD. The Draft
Facilities Plan proposes design and construction of the
facilities in several phases. Phase 1 would provide for
a collection system, a 1.0 MGD treatment plant, and a disposal
mode to accommodate the design flow. Effluent would be dis-
charged to the river year-round at a point downstream from
Corbin Park.
-------
Phase 1 of the project has been scaled down, however,
from the capacity proposed in the Draft Facilities Plan because
funds will not be available in the amounts originally anticipated,
The "initial project" to be implemented differs from the
Phase 1 project in that the proposed collection system will
be reduced in size and an interim effluent dischargesite
will be located upstream from Corbin Park. When funds become
available, the outfall site will be relocated downstream
from the park.
Phase 2 of the project will provide for expansion of
the treatment facility to accommodate a maximum flow of
1.5 MGD and extension of the collection system. The state
has indicated that a design flow of 1.5 MGD corresponds with
approved population projections and should provide satisfactory
capacity for the 20-year planning period.
Treatment Facility Site
The treatment plant will be located on the site designated
T-5 in the facilities plan. This site is just west of the
city limits, bounded by Interstate 90 to the south and State
Highway 10 to the north. The county zoning designation for
the portion of the property outside the city limits is agri-
cultural suburban and commercial; the portion of the property
within the city limits is designated'industrial. The site
is currently being used to grow grass crops.
Outfall Site
During the "initial project" phase of Phase 1, an inter-
ceptor will be constructed from the T-5 site directly south
to the Spokane River. This outfall site is downstream from
the Post Falls Dam but, 1.3 miles upstream from Corbin Park
and the Riverside"residential development.
The outfall site will be relocated when funds become
available to a site near the end of Spokane Road, downstream
from Corbin Park.
Collection System
Due to the nature of the terrain in and around Post
Falls, a conventional gravity sewer system will be constructed.
The original Phase 1 service area included the central portion
of Post Falls, bounded by the river to the south, Pole Line
Road to the north, Nelson Street to the west, and Idaho Street
to the east. In addition, it extended eastward between the
-------
river and Interstate 90 as far as Pinevilla Estates. During
the "initial project" phase of Phase 1 the collection system
is now expected to serve only the central portion of Post
Falls as described above. The service area will be expanded
when Phase 2 of the project is implemented. Boundary desig-
nations are illustrated in the Draft EIS (EPA 1981, Figure 2).
Project Selection Criteria and Rationale
The alternatives comparison in the facilities plan
(LePard and Frame, Inc. 1980) was based on the evaluation
of several general criteria. These included cost, flexibility,
resource requirements, reliability, public health, residual
waste, and implementation capability. Based on these criteria
Alternative B, located at Site T-5, was chosen as the most
desirable waste management plan.
A primary factor in selection of this alternative was
the lower capital expenditure. Alternative C is within the
15 percent envelope which is allowed for land application
projects. However, acquisition of a noncontroversial' lagoon
site could increase Alternative C costs beyond the 15 percent
allowed. Cost-effective analyses also indicate that Alter-
native B would be the least expensive alternative to'imple-
ment in phases. A breakdown of costs for each proposed alter-
native is tabulated in the section entitled Environmental
Impacts.
The project site for Alternative B is immediately avail-
able for construction, whereas the land application site
designated in Alternatives A and C may not be available on
terms acceptable to the city and/or regulatory agencies.
The final draft facilities plan also indicates that, on an
annual basis, Alternative B would require less energy to
operate (LePard and Frame, Inc. 1980).
From a health perspective, Alternative B, unlike Alterna-
tives A and C, would not require land irrigation disposal.
Irrigation disposal could increase groundwater levels of
nitrates and other toxic pollutants. The health risk on
lands adjacent to the irrigation area due to wastewater aerosol
drift is also eliminated. A more complete discussion of
environmental impacts is contained in the following sections.
-------
Environmental Impacts of Alternative B
Impacts to the Spokane River
Effluent discharged to the Spokane River would result
in small increases in nutrients, toxins, and heavy metals.
The nutrient increases would probably enhance algal produc-
tion during the summer months immediately downstream from
the outfall site as well as in downstream impounded areas.
The toxins and heavy metals could potentially reduce fish
productivity, especially in the less mobile early life
history stages of fish.
A conceivable health risk to water-contact recreationists
exists downstream from the effluent discharge site. The
"initial project" phase of Phase 1 provides for the outfall
site to be located upstream from Corbin Park, a popular
recreational site. Adequate disinfection of the wastewater
prior to discharge should alleviate any potential problems.
Persons drawing domestic water supplies from the Spokane
River downstream from the outfall also face a potential health
risk. There are an estimated 12 residences drawing drinking
water from the river immediately downstream from the proposed
interim outfall site. If alternate water supplies cannot
be located for these people, disinfection of wastewater
should.be monitored closely.
The possibility of treatment plant malfunction is always
present. Serious health problems as well as injury to the
fishery could result from a discharge of untreated sewage
into the river. Treatment plant storage capacity will be
provided within the system for this contingency.
Impacts to the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
Increases in groundwater nitrate as well as other pollu-
tant concentrations are possible due to interchange with
the Spokane River below the outfall. A monitoring program
designed to assess pollutant concentrations in the effluent
on a regular basis would aid in identifying and subsequently
reducing adverse impacts.
Treatment processes will generate in excess of 600,000
pounds (dry weight) of sludge annually. Although a specific
disposal site has not been selected, it will presumably be
over the aquifer. Even if the sludge is applied uniformly
to the land and the necessary acreage is available, the
potential for groundwater pollution exists. Thus, shallow
-------
groundwater should be monitored in the vicinity of the disposal
area to assess long-term groundwater degradation. If indus-
trial or commercial flow becomes a significant part of the
total Post Falls wastewater flow, pollutant concentrations
in the sludge should be periodically tested.
Land Use Conflicts
The principal impacts to residents in proximity to the
treatment facility include odor and noise generation as- well
as the visual appearance of the facility itself. Odors can'
be reduced by ensuring that all treatment plant structures
are properly maintained, including all odor control equip-
ment. A monitoring program should be established so that
off-site impacts can be rapidly detected and corrective action
can be undertaken.
Noise can be reduced by restricting truck traffic to
the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Another mitigation
measure would be to construct a berm or vegetative screen
around the treatment facility. This would also reduce the
visual impact to motorists on the nearby highways.
Major Growth Implications
Much of the prime agricultural land in the facility
planning area is under cultivation, with grass seed and
alfalfa comprising the major crops. It appears that growth
accommodated by wastewater facilities could facilitate the
conversion of some prime agricultural lands to urban uses.
Potential mitigations include the enactment of stronger local
restrictions on agricultural land development and preferential
property tax assessment to encourage continued agricultural
production.
Based on projected new acreage required to accommodate
future populations in the Post Falls area, urban runoff could
increase to levels which threaten further degradation of
the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Local ordinances and ongoing
208 water quality management planning are necessary to ensure
control of these nonpoint pollution sources.
Costs
The original present worth cost comparison of the three
major project alternatives is illustrated in Table 1. The
total cost is based on the sum of capital required for
facilities construction, 20 years of operation and maintenance
costs, minus the present worth salvage value. Alternative B
is the most cost-effective alternative.
-------
Table 1. Total Present Worth Cost Comparison of Alternatives
00
Alternative
A
B
C
Capital
$9,732,000
6,975,000
9,524,000
Salvage
Value
-$1,248,000
-830,000
-1,487,000
Operation
and
Maintenance
$2,133,000
2,529,000
1,786,000
Total
$10,617,000
8,674,000
9,823,000
SOURCE: LePard and Frame, Inc. 1980, Table V-18.
-------
The total cost of the full Phase 1 project would be
$14,666,870. The local community would be required to con-
tribute $2,998,794 of this amount (Table 2). The cost for
the "initial project" phase of Phase 1 now being considered
would be $5,747,000 with the local share amounting to $1,085,200
(Table 2). Projected monthly user fees are illustrated in
Table 3.
EPA's Recommended Action
EPA concurs with the City of Post Falls that Alterna-
tive B is the preferred wastewater management plan. It
is the environmentally preferable alternative and is also
the most cost-effective alternative. Before grant funds
can be distributed for implementation of Steps II and III,
however, EPA is considering several conditions .which would
require compliance by the City of Post Falls.
o Sizing of all area interceptors must be limited
to the 20-year design population and distribution
densities as presented in the facility plan and -
associated documents. Any significant deviation
from this restriction must be adequately justified ,
based on consideration of cost-effectiveness and
environmental impacts of such sizing deviations.
o Detailed design criteria for the proposed treatment
facilities as well as the criteria for sizing all
interceptors and collectors will be presented to
the IDHW, Division of Environment, for their approval
no later than the 10 percent design completion point
of the project. Final sizing and design criteria
will be determined at that time.
In addition, EPA recommends that the following measures
to mitigate potential impacts of the project be investigated:
o As soon as additional funding becomes available the
outfall should be relocated to its originally intended
location downstream from Corbin Park.
o A program should be initiated to monitor river con-
centrations of residual chlorine, un-ionized ammonia,
fecal coliform bacteria, and phosphorus. Sampling
stations should be located immediately downstream
as well as upstream from the effluent discharge site.
o An investigation should be conducted to determine
if an alternate water supply exists for those
persons using the Spokane River downstream from Post
Falls Dam as a source of drinking water.
-------
Table 2. Phase 1 and Initial Project Costs - Alternative B
Phase 1 Initial Project3
Total Local Share Total Local Share
Treatment facility,
interceptors, outfall $ 5,017 ,000* $ 691, 7001 $4,313,000 $ 462,800
Collection system 9,649,8702 2,307,094" 1,434,000 622,400
TOTAL $14,666,870 $2,998,794 $5,747,000 $1,085,200
and Frame, Inc. 1980, Table VII-1.
2LePard and Frame, Inc. 1980, Table V
3LePard and Frame, Inc. pers. comm.
"Calculated from data presented in LePard and Frame, Inc. 1980, Table V.
-------
Table 3. Monthly User Fees - Alternative B1
Bond repayment
Operation & maintenance
TOTAL
Phase I2
$1.65
7.00
$8.65
Initial Project
$ 6.20
7.80
$14.00
"^LePard and Frame, Inc. pers. comm.
2Does not include cost of funding collection system construction.
3Includes collection system funding; also includes cost of phosphorus removal
operation and maintenance.
-------
o Urban* runoff control measures should be developed
and implemented through the 208 program.
o Groundwater should be monitored in the vicinity of
the sludge disposal site.
o If industrial or commercial flows become a signi-
ficant percentage of the total wastewater flow,
the sludge should be periodically tested for the
presence of hazardous wastes.
o A pretreatment ordinance, as required by the Clean
Water Act, should be developed if industrial and
commercial wastes are intercepted by the cities'
collection system.
o Strict odor control measures should be implemented
in the treatment plant design and operation.
o A berm or vegetative screen should be constructed
around the treatment facility.
o Prime agricultural land in the proposed service
area should be protected to the extent possible.
Coordination
Since Initiation of this EIS in June 1979, there has
been an EIS scoping meeting (June 4, 1979 in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho) and frequent EPA contact with local and state agencies
and private-citizens. These efforts have sought to identify
environmental issues related to the wastewater facilities
plan and to collect background environmental data for use
in preparation of the EIS.
The Draft EIS was distributed for public review on March 6,
1981. A public hearing was held on the draft document on
April 6, 1981 in Post Falls, and the official comment period
extended to April 20, 1981. All written and oral comments
received on the Draft EIS have been responded to in this
Final EIS. Persons wishing to comment on the Final EIS should
submit their.-material to Ms. Norma Young, M/S 443, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, 98101 no later than September 14, 1981. All
comments received prior to that date will be considered by
EPA before action is taken on Clean Water Section 201 requests
from the City of Post Falls. After close of the comment
period, the EPA Regional Administrator will make a final
decision on funding of the proposed project in a Record of
Decision. A list of persons receiving the Draft EIS is in-
at the back of this Final EIS.
12
-------
Chapter 1
LETTERS OF COMMENT ON THE DRAFT EIS
AND EPA RESPONSES
Introduction
The Post Falls Draft EIS was available for public review
from March 6, 1981 to April 20, 1981. During this period
EPA, Region 10 received 10 letters of comment on the document
(see listing below).
The letters are presented on the following pages. Each
comment that has been marked and numbered in the left hand
margin has received a response, which can be found immediately
following the comment letter.
List of Individuals and Agencies Submitting
Written Comments on the Draft EIS
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Boise Office
U. S. Dept. of Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
U. S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Seattle
Regional Office
U. S. Dept. of Interior, Office of the Secretary, Pacific
Northwest Region
State Agencies
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Region 1
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment
Idaho Division of Economic and Community Affairs
Local Agencies and,Individuals
East Greenacres Irrigation District
River Ranchettes Community - L. D. McChesney
13
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street, NW Reply to: Lake Plaza South, Suite 616
Washington, DC 20005 44 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, CO 80228
,.y(
'
April 22, 1981
Mr. Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 - 1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Dubois:
The Council has reviewed your draft environmental impact statement
(DES) for the City of Port Falls, Idaho wastewater facilities plan,
circulated for comment pursuant to Section 102 (2) (c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Your DES appears adequate concerning our
area of interest. Our only comment concerns archeological site 10-
KA-44, located by the University of Idaho, Laboratory of Public
Archeology. If it proves impossible to avoid either direct or
indirect impacts to this site, then EPA must seek a determination of
the site's eligibility for inclusion with the National Register of
Historic Places, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 1204 and then comply
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) and the Council's
regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36
CFR Part 800), as appropriate.
If you have any questions or require assistance, please contact
Marjorie Ingle of my staff at (303) 234-4946, an FTS number.
Sincerely,
i Louis' S. Wal
Chief, Western Division
of Project Review
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
BRANCH
14
-------
Response to Comments From Advisory'Council on Historic
Preservation
1. EP.A does not anticipate direct or indirect impacts to
site 10-KA-44. The City of Post Falls must ensure, during
the project's design phase, that interceptor construction
will not encroach on site 10-KA-44. If impacts cannot be
avoided, the steps mentioned will be completed by EPA.
15
-------
United States Soil Room 345
Department of Conservation 304 North 8th Street
Agriculture Service Boise, Idaho 83702
April 1, 1981
Ms. Norma Young APR o jqft
Environmental Protection Agency , ^^
Region X, 1200 Sixth Avenue .
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
The following comments are made in regards to the DEIS, Wastewater Treatment
Facilities - Post Falls, Idaho:
1. Soil is suitable to all alternatives.
2. The flat and gentle slopes will give only minor problems of erosion
and run-off. The soil is medium textured, therefore, minor wind
and water erosion is anticipated during construction.
3. Disturbed areas are to be seeded to grass so this will provide soil
erosion protection of the sites.
4. No anticipated flooding problems.
5. There is'no planned work that will disrupt the natural drainage
patterns.
6. Treatment plant site will be revegetated.
7. There will be a small impact of agricultural production on prime
agricultural land.
Land Disposal Site'
a) Production will be changed only from rotation of crops to
a crop for forage.
b) Only involves a small amount of agricultural land.
Treatment Plant Site
a) Only a few acres involved.
b) Location is near city so there is less chance of it
staying in agricultural production anyhow.
A
The Soil Conservation Service 16
is an agency of the SCS-AS-1
Department of Agriculture 10-79
-------
Ms. Norma Young
04/01/81, Page 2
8. The land use change will have little effect on the plant community,
wildlife, and aesthetic values. Wildlife could be improved by the
change.
9. There is no major SCS project affected by the proposals. Assistance
to the individual land owners would be only slightly affected.
Sincerely,
'Amos I. Garrison, Jr.
State Conservationist
17
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX C-3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER
17 APR 1981
Ms. Norma Young
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for wastewater
treatment facilities for the city of Post Falls, Idaho, with respect to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood control,
navigation, and regulatory functions.
We suggest including a section titled "Laws, Rules, and Policies Affecting
the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plan," and incorporating the following
statement: A Department of the Army permit may be required for the dis-
charge of fili(s) in and/or on wetlands adjacent to waters of the United
States in the proposed project area, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. If you have any
questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206) 764-3624, of
my staff.
Sincerely,
SIDNEY KNUTSON, P.E.
Assl Chief, Engineering Division
18
-------
Response to Comments From U. S. Department of Army, Corps
of Engineers
1. Laws and regulations are discussed in the text of the
impact sections of the Draft EIS, where appropriate. Your
comment has been incorporated into this Final EIS. The City
of Post Falls should contact the Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District, prior to excavation or filling in or adjacent to
the Spokane River to determine if a Section 404 permit is
required.
19
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING. 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
May 13, 1981
REGION X IN REPLY REFER TO!
IOC
fAAY f v
Ms. Norma Young 16 1981
Environmental Protection
Agency, M/S 443
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement - Post Falls, Idaho
I am sending you comments that we have received from our Portland
Area Office.
Although the review period has expired, I would appreciate your
consideration of these comments.
cc: Nile Pafcll, HUD Portland
Cliff/safranski, HUD Portland
AREA OFFICES
Portland, Oregon Seattle, Washington Anchorage, Alaska Boise, Idaho
20
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
Memorandum HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
TO : Robert C. Scalia, Regional Director, CPD, SRO DATE: 05/08/81
Attention: Ry Tanino
FROM : Clifford T. Safranski, Environmental Division, PAD, 10.25
SUBJECT: DEIS - Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Post Falls, Idaho
Priority was given to CDBG application reviews but these comments may still be of
value.
The City of Post Falls has grown from less than 2,400 people in 1970 to 5,650 in
1980 without the benefit of an urban sewer system. Various population
projections an d consequent treatment plant capacities needed vary from 1.0 MGD
to 2.4 MGD. This treatment plant range provides for a capacity variance of
almost 2 1/2 times. This has obvious implications on the population supportable.
Since the sanitary sewer system is a growth inducing factor its capacity and
placement will exert development pressures in a given pattern."
Page 9 states, "Funding will be available only for the population level
acceptable to the State, which is a 20-year design project of'16,000 persons or
approximately 1.5 MGD capacity."
It was stated that the EIS was not revised to refleect acceptable population
levels, so essentially the 2.4 MGD capacity provided the basic data.
Page 10 states, "Mitigations are not necessarily those that will be implemented
should a project be constructed." This statement negates much of the value in
reviewing them.
Page 23 states, "Wastewater flow projections developed by the facilities planners
indicate that this l.OMGD limit could be reached by 1982." The project is almost
too late.
Page 26 for treatment plant sites criteria states "5. Displacement of existing
residences should be minimized and the site should not be near areas which are
presently developed or are areas of future growth." Site T-l was rejected by
neighboring residents.
Page 37 evaluated a regional facility based on 2.4 MGD for Post Falls and 6.0 MGD
for Coeur d'Alene. The Coeur d'Alene plant would be 11 miles away, a Liberty
Lake plant would be 5.5 miles west. Both these alternatives were dropped because
they would cost more than alternatives A, B or C. Were a combined plant
construction cost and 20 year operating costs' weighed against 2 or 3 separate
plants?
Page 37 states, "It now appears state grant money and loans needed to finance
both the collection system and the treatment plant are not going to be available
in the amount originally estimated." Is this the primary factor in reducing the
scale from 2.4 MGD and a design population of 26,840?
21 HUD-96 (7-75)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
Page 38 states, -"The state has recommended planning for a 20-year waste flow of
1.5 MGD. As a result, LePard and Frame has made some revisions...reflected in
the final draft facilties plan. The current recommended plan is to construct a
1.0 MGD treatment plant at site T-5." "The 1.0 MGD plant size is intended to
avoid the immediate need for phospherous removal facilties." "The second phase
of treatment plant construction is not clear at this time." "This project
phasing is being considered, as a means to implement alternative A in this Draft
EIS."
Page 41 states, "Construction at Site T-5 would remove prime farmland..." "There
are not residential or commercial land uses in the vicinity of Site T-6. In
addition, the soils on this site do not qualify as prime farmland according to
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service." Does site T-6 have some unstated problems?
Page 41 lists the preferred site for spray disposal as Site S-l and states it is
not prime farmland. In addition, the other sites proposed were ajacent to
developing residential uses or were in the 100 year flood plain.
Pages 46, 47, and 48 Tables could be improved by adding a column with recognized
National or alternative acceptable standards. The section on Pages 44 to 60
appear too technical for public review of the DEIS. A more succinct and
simplified version would help the public understand and technical papers could be
in the appendix.
Page 67 states, "Background fecal coliform levels as recorded at USGS gaging
station 1214900 just below Post Falls Dam range from less than 1MPN/100 ml to
over 800MPN/100 ml. This ranges well above the 200MPN/100 ml fecal coliform
limit. In addition, "The National Iterim Primary Drinking Water Standards limit
fecal coliform levels in domestic water supplies to 4MPN/100 ml."
It appears that untreated domestic water supplies should not be drawn from the
river even in the absence of a catastrophic event or treatment plant malfunction.
Pages 81-84
The DEIS effectively makes a case for discharging treated effluent into the
Spokane River and using the aquifer for the drinking water source. A lined
holding pond as a back-up to allow time for clean-up of the river in case of
malfunction and a water storage tank for emergency water supply seem to be
necessary precautions.
Page 88
Land disposal Site S-l appears to be the only site acceptable of the 3
alternatives studied. However, some questions seem to be unresolved about the
eventual impact on the aquifer, the destruction of the soil and the
impermeability buildup of the soil which would lead to run off, etc. In
addition, Site S-l is near a trailer court.
22
-------
Pages 89-97
I In terms of land use, only Site T-6 appears to not conflict with zoning or other
I development potential.
None of the land application sites seem appropriate since they are all near
residential uses which may require relocation.
Page 101
Table 2-15 seems to assume the land disposal sites will be operable for the
twenty year period without replacement and without "in lieu of taxes" expenses.
Page 105
II The local collection system is estimated to cost $6,162,870. Is there a
timetable and funding plan developed? What are the user fees estimated to be for
the collection system? Total monthly user fees would provide more information on
impacts. If grants are not available and/or the bonding markets not receptive
the costs would significantly increase.
Page 113
IJtllt seems incongruous that the growth is predicated on and even directed in a
"contiguous corridor connecting Post Falls, Coeur d'Alene and Hayden without a
more intensive study of a regional facility in the corridor.
Page 118 seems to reflect local inconsistency, "...county policies support the
protection of agricultural lands in current production." However, "...since most
of this area is designated as transition in the Kootenani County land use plan,
additional residential development is likely." "It appears therefore that
continued agricultural use in this area has been precluded by development and
that growth accomodated by wastewater facilities will facilitate the conversion
of prime agricultural lands to urban uses."
It is understandable that zoning would need to be changed to accomodate an
unplanned for treatment plant, fit is more difficult to understand following a
plan that seems to be internally inconsistent with its own policy.
Page 121
It is difficult to accept that no air quality problems exist when primary
standards have been exceeded 5 of 10 years and secondary standards have been
exceeded the other 5 years. The population increase projected from less than
2,400 in 1970 up to 26,000 in the year 2,000 (over 1000% increase) for the
23
-------
|<|| service area may warrant a closer look, bven the 1.5 MGD capacity is almost a
I 300 % increase in the 1980 population. However, if this is consistent with the
I S.I. P. it does seem acceptable.
However, page 125 suggests a 16,100 person increase so the serviced population
would be about 21,000.
Pages 120-125
The significant increase in urban storm water runoff generated by the increased
development appears to place responsibility for mitigation measures on the
locality. More intensive development at higher densities reduces the opportunity
for open space to absorb. That means either storm sewers or street drainageways
can be expected to contribute to degradation of water quality. Oil skimmers and
settling basins could provide substantial mitigation if properly designed and
constructed.
(5"
17
Page 125
The increases in electrical and gas consumption are predicated on a 3 person
household while census data reflects a 2.5 person household so estimates may be
about 20% low.
It would be interesting to see figures based on the 5 acre residences, a
moratorium and the urban density facilitated by the wastewater treatment plant to
compare effects.
Incidentially,.the 2.5 figure would produce 6,400 DU's as opposed to the 5,367
DU's derived from the 3.0 per household figure.
Page 127
It appears that water supply and distribution is a current problem. Was a cost
determined or estimated for adequate service to the 16,100 added population?
For some reason many parts of the DEIS seemed to read more like a justification
for a selection rather than an open analysis.
Many sections seemed to be oriented to support a specific alternative as in the
case of making the selection of Site T-5 work or quickly discarding the need for
evaluating other alternatives to S-l.
In other sections the highly technical writing style would seem to preclude
analysis by the general public.
The need for the treatment plant is obvious and overdue and the community has
been made aware that secondary impacts can be expected to be substantial. The
community may also want to take responsible action to restrict or phase
24
-------
development to be consistent with other needed facilities and services. Although
sanitary sewer capacity would no longer be a constraint to development, the water
supply or storm water systems may remain constraints until provision is scheduled
for them.-
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Environmental Clearance Officer
25
-------
Response to Comments From U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
1. Cost comparisons were made between separate plants at
Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, or a single regional plant
serving both cities. A regional plant for all three com-
munities was not considered because of expected institutional
problems caused by crossing state lines.
2. The primary reason for reducing the plant's design capacity
from 2.4 to 1.5 MGD was that the facilities plan 20-year
population estimate greatly exceeded the projections acceptable
to EPA and the State of Idaho for wastewater facilities plan-
ning. Funding limitations have further reduced the size
of Phase 1 of project construction.
3. The city's preferred alternative is B, which has condi-
tional approval by EPA.
4. Yes. The advantages of Site T-6 are offset by the high
construction and operating costs due to the relatively great
distance between the treatment plant site and the city. Land
availability is also in question at Site T-6.
5. We agree. The relevant water quality standards were
mentioned in the text; however, an inclusion in the tables
would have made analysis much easier.
A meaningful water quality analysis cannot be presented
without use of some technical information. This information
has been presented as clearly as possible to allow compre-
hension without losing usefulness to the general public and
to regulatory agencies. It would not be proper to put the
technical information in the appendix because this information
is indispensable for proper review of the water quality section.
6. The fecal coliform standard of 200 MPN/100 ml is deter-
mined as an average. Background levels in the river do exceed
this limit; however, the standard is not violated because
the mean values (^20 MPN/100 ml) are well below the required
limit (Table 2-1 of the Draft EIS). Background levels in
the river regularly exceed the drinking water standard of
4 MPN/100 ml. EPA agrees that a fecal coliform problem
exists with respect to drinking water.
7. The proposed treatment piant will contain storage capacity
for use in the event of a plant malfunction. EPA agrees
that an emergency or alternative water source should be found
for persons drawing domestic water from the river below Post
Falls Dam as a necessary precaution.
26
-------
8. Land disposal is not being pursued at this time. Treat-
ment Site T-5 has been selected by the city and the engineers
because it is readily available and close to the city, thereby
minimizing interceptor construction costs. The land use
conflicts of Site T-5 can be minimized with proper mitiga-
tion measures (see EPA recommended action).
9. The city is not considering land application at this
time; therefore, no conflict is expected.
10. This is correct.
11. A funding plan has been formulated by the city for phased
development. The timetable has not been set. The user fees
are estimated by Lepard and Frame to be $14 per month for
the initial construction project. This includes treatment
plant, outfall, interceptors and collection'system. It also
assumes considerable grant aid from the state and federal
governments and a low interest loan from the Farmers Home
Administration. If the grants or loans are not received
as expected, the monthly user fees would have to be much
higher.
12. A preliminary look at a regional facility for Post Falls
and Coeur d'Alene was made but the monetary costs were found
to be too high. EPA will continue to review the growth impli-
cations and regional treatment feasibility of the three
facilities planning efforts during the Hayden and Hayden
Lake facilities planning EIS process. The timing of waste-
water facilities needs has been a principal hindrance to
consideration of regional treatment facilities.
13. Comment noted.
14. EPA does not believe a significant air quality problem
exists. Table 2-20 in the Draft EIS shows the total suspended
particulate values have decreased or remained constant despite
population growth during the last 10 years. Few primary
standards have been violated within the last 5 years. In
addition, Table 2-20 may be misleading because the number
of standard violations per year would give a better indica-
tion of air quality problems than the yearly averages given.
15. If the lower persons per dwelling unit figure is used,
annual electrical demand would be expected to increase by
91.69 million Kwh and annual gas demand would increase by
6.21 million therms.
27
-------
16. The determination of costs for the water supply and
distribution is the responsibility of the City Public Works
Department. Specific costs for the 16,100 new residents
were not available for this Draft EIS. A report prepared
for the city in 1979, however, estimated that $2,540,000
in water supply system improvements were needed to meet the
expected service demands to the year 2000 (LePard and Frame,
Inc. 1979). This was expected to service a population of
14,000.
17. EPA has conducted an open analysis of all alternatives.
Sites T-5 and S-l are both relatively attractive sites based
on the information available. We do not believe that our
analysis directs that any alternative should be chosen without
a fair evaluation of all alternatives.
18. Comment noted.
28
-------
United States Department of the Interior APR 1 7 1981
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY RFGiOUAL ADMIN 1 SI.
-------
discharge would increase the potential health hazard along this stretch
of the river (page 62). Mitigation measures to compensate for the loss
of this swimming area should be outlined in the final Draft Environmental
Impact Statement if alternative B is selected.
The potential for additional recreation and open space opportunities at
the project site should also be analyzed. Section 13, entitled "Recrea-
tion and Open Space" of the Clean Water Act of 1977 amends Section 201(g)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by adding the following amend-
ment:
Recreation and Open Space
Sec. 13. Section 101(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
"(6) The Administrator shall not make grants from
funds authorized for any fiscal year beginning after -
0 September 30, 1978, to any State, municipality, or inter-
municipal or interstate agency for the erection, building,
acquisition, alteration, remodeling; improvement, or ex-
tension of treatment works unless the grant applicant has
satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that the
applicant has analyzed the potential recreation and open
space opportunities in the planning of the proposed treat-
ment works."
Discussion of new recreation opportunities or a statement explaining the
lack of such opportunities would satisfy the requirements of the Clean
Water Act of 1977.
Because results of monitoring ground-water quality indicate that septic
tanks are contributing to degradation (page 75), we suggest that the
proposed plan should consider measures for the proper abandonment of
septic-tank facilities following installation of the wastewater treat-
ment system. §uch action would minimize any long-term effects on ground-
and surface-water quality that may result from improperly abandoned septic
systems.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Polityka "
Regional Environmental Officer
30
-------
Response to Comments From U. S. Department of the Interior
1. EPA agrees that the SHPO must be contacted if cultural
materials are unearthed during construction.
2. EPA believes there should be no significant increase
in the potential health hazard along this stretch of river.
In order to ensure that health hazards are not created, how-
ever, strict disinfection standards are being placed .on the
waste discharge. Please see more extensive comments in res-
ponse to the River Ranchettes Community letter of comment.
3. No additional recreation and open space opportunities
would be created by this proposed project. It does not
include creation of new water impoundments or,rights-of-
way that might be of some recreational value.
4. Comment noted.
31
-------
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION i
2320 GOVERNMENT WAY
COEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO 83814
March 20, 1981
MAR 25 1981
Ms. Nornia Young
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Reference: M/S 443
DEIS Wastewater Treatment Facilities
City of Post Falls, Idaho
Dear Ms. Young:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS for Post Falls waste-
water treament facilities.
The reference to personal communications (Goodnight, Page 64) is in error.
Those species .mentioned refer to the Spokane River above the dam. Most angler
days do not occur above the dam, but rather below the dam (Bailey, 1980).
The imapct statement fails to relate the significance of the trout fishery which
exists in the Spokane River. A study conducted by Washington State University
(Bailey, 1980) indicates anglers harvested 6,508 wild trout between April 20,
1980 and September 30, 1980 within the Idaho reach of the river. This represents
only a portion of the harvest since the river is open to fishing year-round and
the winter harvest is not included in this total. Both the Idaho and Washington
reaches support trophy-sized rainbow up to 10 pounds.
It is doubtful that fish will congregate near the outfall as claimed (Page 64)
rather, there will likely be significant avoidance.
The conclusion that fish production would not be impaired with an 1160% increase
in orthophosphorus concentrations during low flow periods is optimistic and the
prediction of enhancement is ludicrous (page 67). Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
problems are discounted on the premise that major flow reductions below Post
Falls are non-existant. Major flow reductions below Post Falls are common! Fish
are subjected to minimum flows and discussion of project impacts on fisheries in
terms of mean flows simply does not provide a meaningful analysis. Minimizing
the importance of impacts as occurring only when flows approach the Qy-is value
(Page 60) is misleading since flows below 200 cfs regularly occur.
I We find Table 1 very intriguing. The impacts of no action reveal only the danger
to the aquifer. The. action alternatives involve direct surface water impacts
32
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
01
-------
Ms. Norma Young
Page 2
March 20, 1981
(| I which to some degree influence the aquifer eventually since the river below the
| proposed discharge point recharges the aquifer.
We oppose summer discharge of wastewater in the Spokane River. Although Phase I
calls for eventual implementation of Alternative A, we fear that funding limitations
may make (summer discharge) a permanent fixture of the facility.
Sincerely,
David S. Neider, Regional Supervisor
Region 1
cc Bureau of Fisheries
Bureau of Program Coordination
33
-------
Response to Comments From State of Idaho, Department of Fish
and Game
1. Statements made about angler use were based on data avail-
able at the time of publication. The 1980 fishery data under-
score the importance of the Spokane River fishery, especially
below the dam.
2. The effluent outfall.may attract warmwater species of
fish. There will likely be significant avoidance by trout.
Ammonia from the outfall may attract some fish soecies (Hynes
1976).
3. Orthophosphorus is not generally regarded as a signi-
ficant impairment to fish productivity (U. S. EPA 1976).
The projected concentrations should enhance algal production
downstream from the outfall. Numerous authors have found
high positive correlations between aquatic macrophytes and
invertebrate populations (Barber and Kevern 1973; Cudney
and Wallace 1980). As benthic invertebrates comprise a large
percentage of the diet of resident fish species, increased
fish productivity would be a possibility provided other toxic
compound concentrations do not reach deleterious levels.
Significant BOD problems should not occur due to reduced
flows downstream from Post Falls Dam. Table 2-4 in the Draft
EIS shows that at Q7_15 flows of 1,414 cfs during the winter
months and 113 cfs during the summer months the BOD will
be 1.14 and 2.12, respectively. Due to the optimal range
of recorded dissolved oxygen concentrations and the morphology
of the river downstream from the dam, these BOD loads should
be effected without reduction of dissolved oxygen to critical
levels.
Recently, Washington Water and Power along with the
Washington Department of Ecology and the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game' informally agreed that the minimum .flow
release at Post Falls Dam would be 300 cfs. Thus, flows
below 200 cfs will not occur regularly as claimed. The his-
toric Q7 , summer flow value of 113 cfs was used to provide
a very conservative estimate of resultant conditions.
4. 'Alternatives A, B, and C contain a potential health
risk due to groundwater contamination (Tables 3, 4, 5). Since
this impact is common to all three action alternatives it
should also have been included in Table 2.
34
-------
STATE OB IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT
AND WELFARE
April 20, 1981
Ms. Nor ma Young
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U. S. EPA
Region X - M/S 443
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
The Division of Environment, Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, has reviewed the draft EIS Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities FOP The City Of Post Falls, Idaho, and
wishes to submit the following comments:
1) Page 4 - Please explain how "future growth and develop-
ment of the area would have to be curtailed" under
implementation of the no-action alternative. Is not
growth a negative impact, except when mitigated by
implementation of city and county land use plans?
2) Page 8 - (Phasing) This office requested the City to
downsize the plant from 2.4 MGD to 1.5 MGD to correspond
with approved population projections. It had nothing to
do with staging or limitations on funding.
3 13) Page 9 - The approach approved by the Steering Committee
I on October 10, 1980 (actually October 8) included the
I cost for seasonal phosphorus removal.
4) Page 10 - We disagree that an interim discharge of
secondary effluent above Corbin Park will posxe a
public health threat to swimmers. Properly treated and
disinfected wastewater should present no health threat
to swimmers .
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
BRANCH
35
-------
Ms. Norma Young
April 20, 1981
Page 2
5) Page 11 - Recent funding trends indicate that full
implementation of the selected alternative will
occur after several years. The impacts of the
"no-action alternative" are likely to result,
although at a lesser degree. Nevertheless, the
commencement of design will "begin the process
of eliminating septic tank and cesspool use over
the Aquifer". As long as the cities continue to
proceed with implementation, there will be no re-
strictions on development within the cities. There-
fore, development would not be "halted" as feared by
the EPA report.
* 16) Page 24 - It is the EPA that cannot grant a waiver
to the seasonal phosphorus limitations.
7 7) Page 77 - The Division is also concerned of the threat
due to the "numerous toxic substances that could be
found in the City's domestic wastewater". The City
of Post Falls encourages industrial development to
stimulate the economy and to avoid becoming a bedroom
community for Spokane. Therefore, the City must adopt
and enforce a strong industrial waste ordinance for
the prevention of these toxic wastes in the sewer
system. The ordinance should include pretreatment
requirements for the different categories of sources.
The City must provide enforcement authority to over-
see operation and maintenance of industrial pre-
treatment facilities. Unless the City can provide
this assurance, the Division could not approve funding
of a land .application scheme.
8) Page 82 - Most of the farmland is currently under
irrigation or fertilization, as water must be pumped
from wells. At one time, water was transported to
the area via canals originating from Hayden Lake.
Reuse would save farmers power costs for pumping.
Most farmers, particularly grass growers, fertilize
their crops.
*l 9) Page 96 - What is the "availability" of each treat-
ment and disposal site? In other words, have the
present landowners been contacted and asked whether
they would be willing to sell? There are other areas
36
-------
Ms. Norma Young
April 20, 1981
Page 3
of open lands that could be considered for the
land treatment site;
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Environmental
Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
t/Lee W. Stokes, Ph.D.
Administrator
LWS/b
37
-------
Response to Comments From State of Idaho, Department of Health
and Welfare
1. If the no-action alternative were implemented, allowable
housing densities for new development could be reduced to
one dwelling unit per 5 acres or more, pursuant to PHD regu-
lations. Under these regulations, new development could
be priced out of the market in Post Falls unless special
provisions for on-site or community wastewater systems were
implemented. Yes, growth without proper planning may create
negative impacts. Refer to pages 112-118 of the Draft EIS
for a discussion of growth-induced impacts and implications.
2. Comment noted.
3. The cost for seasonal phosphorus removal equipment was
included; however, chemical and equipment maintenance costs
were not (Kimball pers. comm.).
4. EPA agrees that an additional public health threat is
unlikely. Please see more extensive comments in response
to the River Ranchettes Community.
5. The prediction that growth might be halted is in response
to implementation of the no-action alternative (see Response
Number 1). No action implies that even planning for facilities
would not proceed.
6. Seasonal phosphorus limitations should be established
cooperatively by the IDHW and EPA.
7. EPA supports a city ordinance which includes pretreat-
ment requirements for the different categories of pollutant
sources. EPA agrees that the city should provide enforcement
authority to oversee operation and maintenance of industrial
pretreatment facilities.
i
8. The site proposed for irrigation disposal by Post Falls
(S-l) is not actively irrigated or fertilized. Use of waste-
water would reduce power costs for pumping if the land were
put under irrigation. However, the savings would likely
be offset by costs incurred for pumping the wastewater to
the farm site. These costs have not been described by the
facilities planners.
9. It is not known if the facility planners have contacted
all landowners about their willingess to sell land-. The
owners of the three sites described in the Draft EIS were
contacted. The city is no longer actively considering land
disposal, so additional contacts in the near future are un-
likely.
38
-------
John V. Evans, Governor \3iX&y StatC Capito1 BuildinS
Daniel T. Emborg, Administrator NQ|^||X Boise, Idaho 83720
DIVISION OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
April 13, 1981
Donald P. Dubois
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Dubois,
The Idaho State Clearinghouse has completed its review on the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES CITY OF POST FALLS - SAI #00215506. The following
agencies were contacted for their review and comment:
Panhandle Area Council
Idaho Historical Society
Department of Transportation/Division of Highways
Department of Health and Welfare/Division of Environment
Division of Economic and Community Affairs
At the time of this sign-off, we have received no comments from
the above listed reviewing agencies. Any late comments recievec'
will be forwarded to your agency.
Thank you for letting us be of assistance on this DEIS
review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact myself or Lois Wade at 208-334-4718.
Sincerely,
Gloria Mabbutt, Coordinator
Idaho State Clearinghouse
GM/lw
39
IDAHO
A Land For All Season*
-------
East Greenacres Irrigation District
P 0 Box 896
Post Falls, Idaho 83854
March 25, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attn: Ms. Norma Young (M/S 443)
Dear Ms. Young:
We would like to submit this letter as comment upon the DEIS for the wastewater
treatment facilities for the City of Post Falls, Idaho.
Basically we would like to clarify two statements made in the DEIS. The first
concerns the reference to "prime farm land". We provide irrigation water to most
of the land referred to as prime farm land. Our land classification maps show
most of the farm land being Class 3 Land, which results from the rocky ground
conditions and'the short growing season. We feel, as do the farmers in the area,
that the farm land in our immediate area is not prime farm land and is in fact
marginal land for farm production.
The second item concerns the reference to the 100 year flood plane. The old open
East Greenacres Irrigation Canals, which originally carried irrigation water
through lands within our District, have not been utilized since 1975. All of the
canal property has been deeded back to the land owners and has not carried any
irrigation water since. 'Therefore, there:should be no reason for classifying any
of the land within our District or the immediate area as aT"flood plane".
We hope this information will be of some interest to you.
Sincerely,
Robert 0. Ashcraft
Manager
ROA:j m
N,-"' "VALUATION
40
-------
Response to Comments From East Greenacres Irrigation District
1. The Avonville fine gravelly silt loam and Garrison gravelly
silt loam soil types have been determined to have the necessary
characteristics to be classified as prime agricultural land
by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service office in Boise (Archibald
pers. comm.). These two soil types dominate the land surface
immediately east and west of Post Falls (refer to Figure 2-3
in the Draft EIS).
Prime farmland is land which can economically produce
sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed,
including water management, using acceptable farming methods.
The factors used to judge whether land is prime farmland are soil
quality, growing season, and water supply. The current land
use is not considered in classifying prime farmland. Class 3
land may also be classified as prime farmland under the current
Soil Conservation Service definition.
Prime farmland is a nonrenewable resource; its conversion
to urban uses is essentially an irreversible process. There-
fore, EPA is committed to encouraging the retention of prime
farmland.
2. An area within the East Greenacres Irrigation District
is currently designated as a flood hazard area based on pre-
liminary flood hazard boundary maps issued by the U. S. Housing
and Urban Development Federal Insurance Administration. These
maps will undergo public and local agency review before Flood
Hazard Rate Maps are completed. This review could lead
to a determination that the East Greenacres irrigation canals
should not constitute a flood hazard area.
41
-------
To: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Subject: The proposed interim discharge point for the Post Falls,
Idaho sewage treatment planfi. This point is described in the
Dregft Environmental Impact Statement as being 1.3 miles uprivefe-
from Corbin Park.
We are deeply concerned about this proposed location. If situated
as described it would be upriver from and very close to over a
dozen riverfront homes in the River Ranchettes area, and the
McGuire Public Access Recreational area. Most of these homes
use water directly from the Spokane river for drinking and/or
domestic use,and the wells in the area obtain water by seepage
from the river, according to the Geological Survey Team (1978).
As there is no alternate source of water available in River
Ranchettes, in case of contamination these homes would be
left without water.
This stretch of the river is also used extensively for recreation
during the summer months by people from nearby areas because it
is easy to reach via the McGuire Public Access. It is a popular
area on both sides of the river for picnics, fishing, swimming and
rafting.
We feel the interim discharge point as proposed would be a health
hazard for the River Ranchettes Community and to the many users
of the' McGuire Recreational Area.
. D.Mcfihesnay
. 1910 Breezyway
iver Ranchett^
20
-------
To: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
I have read the attached letter and agree with the views expressed
regarding the possible health hazards to the users of the McGuire
Public Access recreational area,, and River Ranchettes homes.
3S
^^J^tfTS^Jf,^
UJ <
Q
/ > /-
A
M 7 / ^..,. ^ /*/ XV,
/i/
43
-------
^<^bfyu^
4^f.
u7^
./
I have read and agree with the views expressed/in/Jbhe
-"
33
ied letter
s$-> RJiQuk
w
// 95"
-------
I have read and agree with the views.expressed in the attached letter.
;.^uu .b. }LU> n, Si ^c^nt- 't
5
, a.
/I c
-------
To: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
V1 5/1 981
Subject: The proposed interim discharge point for the Post Falls,
Idaho sewage treatment plant. This point is described in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement as being 1.3 miles upriver
from Corbin Park.
We are deeply concerned about this proposed location. If situated
as described it would be upriver from and very close to over a
dozen riverfront homes in the River Ranchettes development, where
we reside. Most of these homes use water directly from the
Spokane river for drinking and/or domestic use. According to
the Geological Survey Team (1978) the homes which do have wells
obtain water by seepage from the river. As there is no alternate
source of water available in River Ranchettes, in case of
contamination these homes would be left without wate§.
This stretch of the river is also extensively used for recreation
during the summer months, because it is easy to reach via the
McGuire Public Access* It is a popular area on both sides of the
river for picnics, fishing, swimming and rafting.
We feel the interim discharge point as proposed would be a health
hazard for the River Ranchettes community and the many users of
the McGuire recreational area. -
East Jall.s
u/- 1 1°
-------
To: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
I have read the attached letter and agree with the views expressed
regarding the possible health hazards to the River Ranchettes homes
H
and McGuire Public Access reereational area.
1^^==^^=*=^^^ L^-ajLOL^LJ^==g:Jar^i LA.) Q^I
/
r ft
M-
L
hi /
*=> * -2.
tO
/5
47
-------
Response to C6mments From River Ranchettes Community -
L. D. McChesney
1. EPA feels that it is unlikely that a significant health
hazard will be created by the proposed interim wastewater
discharge .above Corbin Park. Howeyer, we understand -the
concerns of the River Ranchettes Community and the users
of the McGuire Recreational Area regarding possible con-
tamination of drinking water and contact recreational waters.
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is considering
a fecal colifqrm.effluent standard (NPDES permit) of 23 MPN/
100 ml. This'is a strict limit which will ensure that no
increase in health hazard will occur due to the interim dis-
charge. *
A plant, malfunction should not result in any increased
health hazard. The proposed plant will be built with emer-
gency storage capacity as a necessary precaution. If for
any reason the plant's biological treatment process does*
not function properly, the degree of disinfection can be
increased to prevent water contamination by biological
agents.
EPA is recommending two further actions to reduce the
chances of a public health threat to the people of the River
Ranchettes area. The City of Post Falls should investigate
the feasibility of supplying water to the Ranchettes area
from an alternative source. This could include new wells
or water piped from an existing adjacent water supply system.
It is also recommended that the outfall be relocated down-
stream to its originally intended discharge point as soon
as the necessary funds are available.
48
-------
Chapter 2
ORAL TESTIMONY ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES
Introduction
A public hearing on the Post Falls Facilities Plan Draft
EIS was held in Post Falls, Idaho on April 6, 1981. The
following pages contain the transcript of the oral testimony
presented at that hearing. Each comment requiring a response
has been identified by a line and a number in the left-hand
margin of the transcript. Following the transcript, each
comment has been responded to in numerical order.' If the
comment has been responded to in the text of an earlier chapter,
the reader is referred to that chapter.
49
-------
1
2
3
-1
5
(i
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
U
is
16
17
1H
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
Taken at: Post Falls, Idaho
Date Reported: April 6, 1981
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PURSUANT TO NOTICE, a Public Hearing was held before
Charlotte R. Crouch, a Notary Public, at the Multipurpose
Room of Fredrick Post Elementary School, 201 W. Hullan
Avenue, Post Falls, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,
April 6, 1981.
Speakers present were:
Ms. Debrah Wolin Gates, Hearing Officer,
Ms. Norma Young, Project Manager.
Mr . kJirn Kimball , Le Pard & Frame .
Mr. Michael Rushton, uones & Stokes Associates/ Inc.
Mr. Mike Coony, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare.
The Public Hearing was reported in stenograph by the
Notary Public, Charlotte- R. Crouch, of the firm of Heston S
Howell Reporting Service, 816 Sherman Avenue, Cceur d'.'-iene,
Idaho, 83814, and by her later transcribed.
WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had and
testimony given, to-wit:
- 2 -
-------
INDEX
PRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Jim Kimball
Mr. Michael-Rush ton
Mr. Mike Coony
INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
PAGE
9
14
21
23
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. GATES: Will you please come to order. * My nair.e is ;
Debrah Gates, and I am an attorney with the Unit.ed States ;
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Office in Seattle,c
Washington. Donald Dubois, our Regional Administrator, has i
i
designated me as Hearing Officer for this hearing . '
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you
all here this evening. We appreciate your attendance and
taking the time to come here and share your views with us. ,
I realize that many of the issues to be discussed are of |
interest to you. j
i
The purpose of this meeting is to receive citizen j
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- or j
j
for short E.I.S. concerning the construction of the v;aste I
water treatment facilities for Post Falls, Idaho. '
For the record, I would like to note that this j
i
hearing on the E.P.A.'s Draft E.I.S. concerning the construe-j
tion of the waste water treatment facilities for Post Falls j
was convened at 7:43 p.m. at the Fredrick Post Elementary
School, 201 West Mvftlan Avenue, Post Falls, Idaho. i
I want to make it clear from the beginning that even [
though a number of people from different organizations will I
participate in the discussion of the Draft E.I.S., this
hearing is within the jurisdiction of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and is to be conducted by me
on behalf of the E.P.A.
- 4 -
-------
to
As Hearing Officer I would like to tell you the
purpose of the hearing, maintain an agenda which will lead to
orderly presentations by those participating, and to
prescribe a few rules of procedure ground rules for the
hearing. This public hearing is being held to allow the
local citizens the opportunity to comment on E.P.A.'s
recently published E.I.S. for Post Falls waste water
treatment facilities. The E.I.S. was prepared pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act or for short, NEPA.
Under NEPA any Federal agency contemplating an action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
must prepare a detailed statement addressing the following
factors. The factors are:
1. The environmental impact of the purpose action;
2. ^ Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
.avoided should the proposal be implemented;
3. Alternatives to the proposed action;
4. The relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment, and the making or enhancements
of long-term productivity;
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which are involved in the proposed action should it
be implemented.
The Federal action in this case would be an E.P.A.
grant for Post Falls under the Clean Water Act, which covers
- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2-1
25
75 per cent of the eligible cost of the planning, design, anai
construction of the project. Thus, before any additional '
I
funds for design and construction of the selected projects
can be awarded to Post Falls, the NEPA process must be ;
i
completed. This process involves review by E.P.A. of :
comments received on the Draft E.I.S., both at this hearing
and through written submissions, preparation of a final E.I.S
and a 30-day public review period following publication of
the final document. The Draft E.I.S., which is the subject
of this hearing, identifies and discusses the environmental
impacts of the waste water system alternatives. The no
action alternative, which would be the original state, v.ill
also be evaluated. ;
i
We are going to -limit the scope of your inquiries i
and input to the Draft E.I.S. document under review hern
tonight. The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate the
t
Draft E.I.S., which examines in detai". the potential
environmental impact of the various alternatives and efforts ,
!
to avoid or minimize any adverse impact that may result. |
Those wishing to testify at this public hearing have '
been encouraged to review the Draft E.I.S., which has buen onj
I
file at the Post Falls Public Library, the Post rails City ]
i
Hall, and E.P.A.'s offices since March 6, 1981. Copies were '.
t i
also mailed to State and local officials and citizens of the ;
area. \
- 6 -
-------
9
10
1!
12
13
M
15
I
16
i
17 I
18 I
19
20
21
22
23
2-f
25
Note that cards have been passed to you by Ms. Norraa
Young sitting on my left. If you wish to make a statement,
you must have written down your name, address, and the
affiliation, and have returned the card to Ms. Young who has
collected them. Persons unable to testify at the hearing
tonight or wish to furnish comment after the hearing may do
so by writing Norma Young, Environmental Evaluation Branch,
The Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Stop 443, 1200 6th
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The deadline for comments
is April 20, 1931.
I would like to mention at this time that all
questions from the floor are to be held until the third stage
of this hearing. The discussion and question period will be
held after the comment portion of the hearing.
Now, let me give you the agenda for the rest of the
hearing program. Following me, we will have on the first
portion of the hearing Jim Kimball of Le Pard & Frame who
will give a presentation on the facility planning, and second
"you will have Mike Rushton of Jones & Stokes Associates who
will give a presentation on the impact of the various
alternatives.
Ih the second part of the hearing we will have oral
presentation. It will occur in the following order: First,
other Federal representatives, then State representatives,
County, City, and finally individual comments. I will read
- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
off each individual name from the cards that have been
submitted. Note that I will limit your presentation to ten
minutes at maximum.
The third portion of the hearing will proceed as
follows: If time allows, we will have a discussion and
question period. Questions may be asked of the panel through
me. The panel consists of the following people: Jim Kimball
of Le Pard & Frame; Mike Rushton of Jones & Stokes; Horma
Young of the E.P.A. Environmental Evaluation Branch who is
j
the E.I.S. Project Monitor; and Mike Coony, Division of j
Environment, State of Idaho. j
As the Hearing Officer, I reserve the right to limit
questioning, to call recesses, and adjourn and convene the !
hearing. As I mentioned before, I ask that individual '
presentations be limited to less than ten minutes. Written '
I
materials should be left with me following your presentation. !
However, note that you are under no obligation to submit |
written material. !
As a record of this hearing is being made by a j
court reporter, I ask that you clearly state your name, !
address, and affiliation, if any, before you speak. I also !
V :
ask that anyone who wants to make a statement to come forward i
up here so that your comments will be heard by the reporter, j
Copies of this transcript of this hearing will be j
made available for your inspection and copying at E.P.A.
- 8 -
-------
y
10
n
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
Seattle offices.
Now, let me introduce Jim Kimball who will give a
brief presentation on facility planning, and Mike Rushton
who will give a presentation on the impact of the various
alternatives.
MR. KIMBALL: The City is in the final phases of the
201 Facilities Plan, and I will briefly start way back. A
201 Facilities Plan is a study to determine the most cost-
effective method of collecting and treating the waste water
from a particular area.
Now, the City of Post Falls is'situated over a sole-
source aquifer as determined by the'Environmental Protection
Agency. It is the primary source -r actually, I think it is
the sole source of drinking water for the City because they
have their wells that penetrate the aquifer. The aquifer has
been identified as becoming polluted by septic tanks and
drain fields, and when I say polluted it is not to the point
that it is exceeding the standard,' it is showing degradation,
but they are showing that septic tank effluent is leaking down
into the aquifer, and eventually you will have problems with
your drinking water. . .
The Department of Health and Welfare in the State
just decided that the City should install a sewer system and
has allowed the City to proceed with development with interim
use of septic tanks and drain fields as long as the City
- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proceeds with studying and implementation of a waste water
and collection and treatment system as long as new develop- '
ment installs dry sewers. So, if a new subdivision goes in,
i
they have to install the sewer lines up and down the streets.1
Now, this collection system is one of the major costs;
of any treatment system. I will give you an exarnple: Over !
|
in the Spokane Valley they were in the same place we are ;
quite a few years ago studying the aquifer, and they decided i
to go ahead and let development proceed without any dry j
sewers. Now they are looking at sewering the villey, and it !
is going to cost around $366.00 per year per house just for j
i
the collection system. That's about $30.00 a month. If we |
dry sewer, we take that big portion of the cost of the system]
out. There, treatment interceptor cost is only around !
$10.00 a month. So, you can see we have taken a good step
here by planning ahead, by installing dry sewers, ,
i
One big program we have come up with, and that is i
if we do collect the waste water we have to treat it and '.
I
dispose of it. We looked at several alternatives initially ]
and narrowed it down to three different treatment techniques.!
Number one was a mechanical biological treatment plant with i
!
land application in the summer and a discharge into the j
Spokane River in the wintertime. The Department of Health -]
I
and Welfare establishes the effluent limit in conjuntion with I
the E.P.A., and they tell us that if we build a treatment j
- 10 -
-------
IS
HI
2-1
25
plant what quality of effluent we have to discharge to the
river or what type of criteria we have to pretreat it before j
we apply it to the land. We've had quite a few delays getting
along here, and we still don't know what specific effluent |
limits we are going to have for the Spokane River. They are
completing a study on the Spokane River now called the Waste
Water Allocation. I think you've probably read in the paper
about the problems Spokane had, and they are looking at
phosphorus removal, and so we considered that the City of
Post Falls if we build a plant of over one million gallons
per day would have to go to phosphorus removal if they go to
discharge during the summertime. The advantages of Alternative
1 is that during the low flow in the summertime you would
apply the treated effluent to agricultural land, and it would
be applied at a rate that was compatible with the land, and
it would absorb the nitrogen and bacteria so that by the time
it got through the upper soil layer it would be essentially
of drinking water quality.
The second alternative we had was to build a chemical
biological treatment plant and install phosphorus removal
facilities and discharge year round to the Spokane River.
This process is similar to what the City of Coeur d'Alene is
looking at, and the City of Spokane now is practicing:
phosphorus removal.
The third alternative was to construct a lagoon and
- 11 -
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apply the waste water to the land in the summer -ssnd discharge.-'
j
to the Spokane River again in the wintertime. '
I'll go over here and point out the different treat-
ment plant sites that we looked at. Site T-l initially was ;
situated just west of the Pleasant View Subdivision, ju-jt ;
south of the freeway exchange. We moved that to Site V-1A
which is further to the west and is just iri-betv^en
Pleasant View and the Jacklin Seed Complex out in the iv.iddle
of that grass field. We moved it at the request of tliu
people at the Pleasant View Development. !
Another site we looked at, Site T-2 was Jocated just
across Seltice, and the land just west of Nelson Road, :
probably it would be just north of the Slab Inn, that urea,
and possibly looking at land application north c£ that in
this big, section of land.
Site T-3 is located, oh, I think just w^st of McGuiro j
and south of the railroad.
Site T-4 was a small site down by the Washington
Water Power Bridge, and down by the rocks that 1-liey have -- ;
I can't think of the name of the archaeological r.ite they
have here. \ |
I
And Site T-5 is located at the property just west of ',
I
Frontier Leasing. !
Site T-6 is located jus^t over the hill from the plant !
food center, and then to the west down by the Beck property. !
- 12 -
-------
CTi
Those are the treatment plant sites, land application
sites, and we looked at several of those. We looked at the
Schneidmiller property here. We looked at the Beck property.
We looked at the Jacklin property. We developed cost for the
different sites. We eliminated Site T-l, T-3, T-4, and T-2
\
because of various concerns. So, that narrowed it down to
Site T-1A, T-5, and T-6 that we did a thorough analysis on
and reviewed those alternatives with the Citizen's Advisory
Group which was formed by the City of Post Falls.
The originally proposed Site T-1A, that became
unavailable, so we narrowed it down to a selected I'll say
a recommended site of T-5 by the Citizen's Advisory Group and
the City Council. This had the least overall cost and was
the easiest to implement.
Now, this picture of what we narrowed it down to --
originally, we would have liked to have funded the entire
collection system for the entire city. This would cost
approximately $'18 million to build a collection system, a
complete interceptor system, a line out to a discharge point
down by just north of the existing east of the Pleasant
View project. Due to funding limitations we have cut the
scope of Phase 1 back to a collection system which we could
fund by a$1.6 million grant from the State, and approximately
$4 million from the Department of Health and Welfare and
E.P.A. Grant Program and that's the hearing that we are having
- 13 -
7 \
a
9
10
ii
12
13
1.1
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21 i
22
23 i
2.1
25
now which covers the availability of the'se fund;i for which j
alternative you have.
Now, the State and E.P.A. may select a different
alternative than we have. They may disagree with our
analysis. The final selected' alternative will come out of '
the E.I.S. hearing and negotiations with the State and other .
considerations before we actually implement anything, ,i::l
that will come up in a Step 2 phase, which is design. !-'e i
have not designed anything, we're still in the preliminary !
planning, and we have this hearing to take public input to !
determine if there are other concerns and maybe other j
alternatives we should look at.
MR. RUSUTON: HelloT I'm Mike Rushton with Jones t, '
Stokes Associates. We are an environmental con;: siting firm
under contract to E.P.A. in Seattle to prepare m. environment.-'
al Impact statement such as this in the Northwest. i
We actually started on this project and began uorking
on this E.I.S. back in June of 1979 when the City of Coeur !
d'Alene started up with a facility planning process, and ;
E.P.A. decided that at that time because Post Fails and
Coeur d'Alene were both in the facilities planning process ;
we would prepare an environmental impact statement ,
simultaneously on both projects. The first year of our !
endeavor was actually following the two facility plans j
- 14 -
-------
I j simultaneously, getting familiar with the area, collecting
j
- j background information, going to Advisory Committee meetings,
3 and this sort of thing. After about a year of following the
i project, E.P.A. decided that the issues were sufficiently
s ' different in Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene that they would
|
o | split the two E.I.S.'s and have two separate documents.
" Over the last six months or so we have completed a work on
s I the Draft E.I.'s. for Post Falls, published it, and got it
0 out to the public.
1'' I I would like now briefly to go over what I think are
11 j the most significant findings that are environmental impact
'2 ! findings that are included in that document. Each of the
I
11 [ three alternatives that Jim Kimball mentioned would accomplisl
li I the primary objectives of the City of Post Falls in the
15 j environmental concerns. It would start the process of
i
I|J 1 getting rid of some of the septic tanks and cesspools that
17 j are identified by the Panhandle Health District as slowly
I* I contaminating the sole source aquifer here in Idaho and on
into Washington.
Any of the three alternatives would also allow the
City of Post Falls to continue with development plans without
relying on interim or dual waste water systems, and this is
an obvious economic benefit in building new construction in
the area. If any of those three alternatives were constructed
at the size originally planned for in the Facilities Plan,
- 15 -
8
9
10
1 t
12
13
M
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which was originally I think going to be a 2.4 .-i.illion gallon1
I
per day plant with the capacity to eventually accommodate
about 26,800 people, that type of development, 'regardless of i
which alternative, would result in approximately 4,700 acres ;
of newly developed urban acres in the Post Falls area l.y the ,
year 2000. Much of that development would take place 01= what:
the Soil Conservation' Service in this area identified as ;
primary agriculture land both west and east of t.i.e City. In ,
addition, the City's own water system, public schools, tire :
and police protection, and other such services, would have to:
be expanded by at least twice their present level to supply I
that level of development.
Just prior to us publishing the Draft E.I.S., the j
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare indicated that Post
Falls' Facilities Plan should not be planned for a 2.4 uillio:}
gallon size. It was in fact identified that a smaller size !
of approximately 1.5 million gallon per day capacity would be.
acceptable to the State, and that would service approxinately
16,000 people rather than 26,800.
The growth impact of that type of development would
obviously be much smaller than most of the impacts that are
reported in the E.I.S. that you've reviewed. Th^re are
serious other impacts that are common to all three alterna-
tives that have been described. For example, the collection
system, I believe, this was the first phase collection system
- 16 -
-------
I I
Ul
CO
7
8
lu
II
12
13
M
18
iy !
24
25
cost at about $6.1 million. That would be common to all
three of the alternatives that we discussed. Also, all three
alternatives included a wintertime discharge to the Spokane
River which would add some nutrients, heavy metals, and so
forth, to the Spokane River during that period. And it's
also likely that that discharge, regardless of the alterna-
tive, would be considered undesirable by water contact users
downstream from the outfall. Each of those alternatives also
have a few impacts that are peculiar to themselves.
Alternative A, which we mentioned was a mechanical secondary
treatment plant with a seasonal land application and
seasonal river discharge, the treatment plant size that we
selected for that site was Site T-5, which he mentioned was
out here just a little bit west of town. That site would
require removal of about 15 acres of prime agricultural land
if it were used. The irrigation of the effluent during
summer months would pose a potential health threat to persons
distracting domestic water from the aquifer down grade from
that disposal -site. The site that he was identifying as the
first site is Site S-l, the furthest to the west on this map.
I'll point that out, (speaker indicating on map) it's fairly
important. This is the disposal site that he was recommend-
ing for Alternative A, so basically waters.washed downriver
from this site would have a potential for long-term
degradation from the irrigation effluent on that site. And
- 17 -
1
2
3
6,
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
that potential would become much more se'rious in the ey<=s of I
the E.P.A. if industrial type development were eventually '
* i
hooked into the City system because quite often the waste
water of industrial sources have much more potentially
adverse contaminants in them.' ' :
Another impact from that particular land disposal
operation would be the threat of aerosol drift r;:om the spray
irrigation area. The design of that system would be such
that it would minimize any blowing mist and aerosol fror. the
area because of bacterial and viral contamination that can
occur in those sorts of operations. The treatment plant sit
at T-5 would also have some minor odor and visual impact
associated with it because it is so close into town. And in
a facilities plan the-unstaged present worth cost of this
alternative was listed at $10.6 million with a user fee of
about $7.90 per month. Those costs did not include any of
the collection system costs. That's iust simply for treat-
ment and disposal costs.
Alternative B, which was year-round discharge of
waste water discharge to the Spokane River with season
phosphorus removal also using Site 5 Site T-5 as the
treatment plant location, would have basically the s'ame *
agricultural landMoss, odor, and visual impacts that 1
described for A. With the discharge to the river in the
summer months when the river i-s in a low state and the
- 18 -
-------
17
,8 |
I
19
20
i
21 !
i
22
23
2-i
25
river is warmer, you have a much greater chance of inducing
bacterial growth below the discharge point of the river
and that's discussed in further detail in the Draft E.I.S.
again, a potential health risk to persons drawing domestic
water out of the river in the summer months. There are just
a limited number of people downstream from Post Falls that
draw that domestic water supply from the river, but those
would be .endangered in the summer months when the flow is
low.
And finally, Alternative B had an estimated cost of
8.7 million, and a monthly user fee of about $8.65 excluding
collection system costs, again.
Finally, Alternative C, which was a lagoon treatment
system lagoon secondary treatment system with seasonal
land application and seasonal river discharge, the largest
potential impact from that, again, would be the threat to the
ground water posed by the irrigation operation itself. And
again, the same location. Site S-l, would be involved in
-that irrigation scheme. That irrigation operation would have
also the aerosol drift problem, but there would be no major
land use conflicts using the site preferred for Alternative
C. The treatment plant itself would be located out near S-l,
quite a ways outside the City, out in the agricultural land.
And the cost of Alternative C identified in the Facilities
Plan were $9.8 million, and a user cost of about $7.10 per
- 19 -
1
2
3
1
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
month.
The last alternative that we discussed in detail in
the Draft E.I.S. was the No Action Alternative, and that
would mean basically doing nothing about the wa;;te water
treatment problem in Post Falls. The most obvious impact of
that proceeding on that alternative would be a continued
threat to the ground water in this area from thv many septic
tanks and cesspools that are now in use over your water
supply. The cost impact of no action would be at the outset
relatively minor. People would continue to pay for their
own installation, maintenance, and so forth, but' it's also
possible under a Mo Action Alternative that the aquifer-
protection policy of the Panhandle Health District wouM
eventually severely restrict further development planning in
the Post|Falls area due to the lack of what they say is
adequate waste water facilities.
Those are the major environmental impacts that are
discussed in the Draft E.I.S. I'd like to just mention
briefly what our process is in the E.I.S. from this point on.
We will take the public testimony given at this hearing and
anything that is received in writing, and respond to that in
writing for a final environmental impact statement. The
close of public comment oh the Draft E.I.S. is April 20,
anything received in writing or verbal before that time will
be responded to in the final E.I.S. After that, if there are
- 20 -
-------
s
9
10
11
12
13
1".
16
17
18
19
2"
21
1 j no major adjustments made in the facilities planning itself,
we will prepare the final E.l.s. and publish it in the
Federal register and distribute it for public review. Thirty.
days after that document appears in the Federal register,
E.P.A. can make a decision on its funding of. further
construction or design grants for the City of Post Falls.
MS. GATES: This concludes the first portion of the
hearing. We will now have the second portion which consists
of oral presentations. Are there any other Federal
representatives here who would like to make a. statement at
this time?
(NO RESPONSE.)
Any State representatives?
MR. COONY: I'd like to make a brief statement.
MS. GATES: All right. Please come forward.
MR. COONY: Hi, my name is Mike Coony and I'm with the
Division of Environment right here in Coeur d'Alene, and I've
been on this project for about a year and a half, pretty much
reviewing the work that Jim Kimball and Mike Rushton both have
done, and I've just got a couple brief comments.
Number one: The.effluent limitations for discharge
to the Spokane River, the requirements for phosphorus removal
have always been as given in the facilities planning process.
In other words, during facilities planning it is always been
- 21 -
1 I
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
assumed that phosphorus will be required'. And any alterna-
tives that are considered must include phosphorus, and iny
of the projects that have been considered do include th<-
phosphorus removal.
The second point I'd like to raake is that any
discharge to the river will be disinfected. It is just part
of the requirements of providing a good effluent. This is
secondary treated quality, but in this case pho^Oiorus removal
is being considered. i
Third is the funding, and probably a lot of you are !
probably wondering what the funding the futuri of funding :
is for this project. Now, I know this is really not a
consideration in the environmental impact here tut I think I :
!
ought to kind of mention-to you that funding, at: least from
the E.P.A. and the State, is somewhat questionable at ti.is
time due to the recent or new administration; that ii, |
President Reagan and the budget cut hr- has presented to \
Congress. ;
On the wall over there you see how much money will be ,
required of the City for certain portions of the project, and;
they are outlined up there. That is concerning the first j
phase, and that's considered a start considering the funding ;
constraints that are proposed. This is what we think that we '
I
will be able to provide to get ^ou going. The 1-J81 cost you !
see up there is for design of that system, and the 1982 cost
- 22 -
-------
K
0
10
12
H
1 i
1?
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is for the construction. The funding for 1982 probably will
not come until late '82 this is the earliest I would
guess October or November of 1982 considering what Congress
will be doing.
That's all I have.
MS. GATES: Are there any City representatives here who
would like to make a statement?
(NO RESPONSE.)
Any County representatives?
(NO RESPONSE.)
All right. Now we will now proceed to individual
comments. I'll read off each individual name, each individual
name from the cards submitted. Again, I'm going to limit
your presentation to ten minutes at maximum.
Will Bruce Shadduck please come forward?
MR. EHADDUCK: Well, what I was wondering is on all
this on the environmental impact, and have we got it okayed
to go ahead or are we just still waiting? Does anybody know?
MS. GATES: ' We will have a question and discussion
period later on.
MR. SHADDUCK: Well, I mean, this is what I'm interested
in is we are sitting here spinning our wheels and we are still
not getting anywhere, and why, what are we doing? Now, that's'
a good question.
MS. GATES: Would Paul Hoskins please come forward?
- 23 -
r
MR. HOSKINS: Paul Hoskins, homeowner. !
There are a couple of comments I wanted to make in !
reviewing this statement. It does not apply to the pro.-sent :
planned facility. In other words, it was designed -- the '
State was considering a 26,000 population, as 1 understood
it, and now they are considering a 16,000 population as I :
understand it. I'm curious as to why we can't consider a '
10,000? I understand our present population is slightly ever
5,000, and if we plan for doubling that population and v.e i
pay in advance for doubling that population, it seems like it;
is quite a penalty to put on the present people to pay for :
the other half that may come along. i
Now, this isn't the total cost because oar cost also :
will include additional schooling and all this sort of thing i
when we .talk about doubling the population. If we talk about,
tripling the population the 16,000 figure -- that means we
are going to pay in advance three times our actual cost per !
individual. Right now it seems like the cost, if it did i
turn out to be approximately $12.00 per month -- that would j
be SISO.'OO a year for each homeowner. And that is in advance,:
we voted for it. I sincerely hope that we don't get this !
cart running for too many years before we get the sewer '
I
running. !
MS. GATES: All right. Thank you. :
!
Gary Schneidmiller? j
j
- 24 -
-------
MR. SCHNEIDMILLER: My name is Gary Schneidmiller, my
address is North 5521 Chase Road, Post Falls, Idaho.
There are two issues that I'd like to point out.
Both issues are discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on Page 118. The first one is specific to
agricultural land. Again, Page 118, Paragraph 1, and I
would like to read from the study: "Prime agricultural land
predominates in both an easterly and westerly direction from
the City limits." And then, prior to that and following that
subsequently there are also other comments. I would like to,
I guess, take issue with the subject of prime agricultural
land in terms of future development of that property and how
that sort of reference may or may not be appropriate. My
question first of all would be the..-- well, it certainly
clearly indicates that the source is from personal communica-
tion from a representative of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. I would like, I guess, to suggest and ask
reconsideration as to number one: The source and what
standard is used in making that determination. I would like
to point out that primarily in Kootenai County I'm wondering
if we have any prime agricultural lands. Number one, we have
primarily a one-crop agricultural system that's been applied
to prairie land. I'd point out that there's considerable
rock, and I would point out also that the water source that's
been supplied to these lands as well as other lands in the
- 25 -
county are of an artificial nature, and so again, I'm not \
sure what standard is used. I don't think that* a normal |
standard that is considered identifying property as prirse
agricultural land is appropriate, and I would request and !
recommend a review of this particular issue that is brought
forth, and request deletion of any reference to prime ;
agricultural land in terms of the facilities planning area '
that's identified. _ :
I
Secondary, I'd also like to point out v/ith regard to '
flood plains. Once again, on Page 118, Paragraph 3 -- and I ;
would once again read from the Draft: "Within the facilities!
planning area, the Spokane River, which bisects the southern ]
portion of the planning area, and the East Greenacres east i
ditch, which traverses western border of the City of Post
Falls, are potential flood hazard areas." I think specific
to the East Greenacres District and the East Greenacres i
east ditch, that's probably an inacqu-ite statement in terms ;
of its potential flood damage possibility. Number one, that
ditch was abandoned probably five years ago and it essentially
no longer exists. For that reason, I don't think that
probably that reference is any longer appropriate. I would
further point out that I believe that there should be
forthcoming, if not already received, a letter from East
Greenacres Water District specifically with regard to flood
f
plain and/or specifically that^ditch.
- 26 -
-------
9
10
II
12
13
I-I
15
16
r
18
19
20
21
2-1
In that regard, I would again request and
recommend reconsideration and reclassification speaking to
flood plains within the facilities planning area.
MS. GATES: Okay, we will now have a discussion and
question period. Questions may be asked of the panel through
me. As I mentioned before, the panel consists of Jim
Kimball, Mike Rushton, Norma Young, and Mike Coony. Are
there any questions at this time?
MS. YOUNG: How about the gentleman over there? I
forget your name.
MR. SHADDUCK: I had a question as to whether the
Environmental Protection Agency had okayed these places out
here for us or are we still pending?
MS. YOUNG: The reason that we have the Environmental
Impact Statement is to discuss all the alternatives. Now,
your Advisory Committee has recommended and has discussed
with Mr. Kimball a certain alternative, which I understand
is mechanical treatment, and I believe we described it as
'Alternative B. Is that not right, Jim?
Now, the reason we put out this Environmental Impact
Statement is to bring out all the facts on all the alterna-
tives. After we have completed this comment period that we
have here and responded to all the comments of people that
are here, we will put out a final E.I.S. At this time E.P.A.
will indicate whether they want to fund or want to go along
- 27 -
with the recommendations of the City. i
MR. SHADDUCK: Well, that is what I was trying to point \
out is if and when we do get our sewer system started. We !
voted for it in 1979, and now it's 1981. And so, now here \
i
we sit now. We don't know what the cost is, if it is Lnis j
much higher or that much higher or any higher. And the
people that live in Post Falls I don't think are going to !
go for it. You know, I mean it's going to have to come back '.
for another bond election or whatever to go through because !
the old bond election as far as I am concerned now is -- we i
are spinning our wheels on it because our cost escalation has, i
gone clear out. '
i
MS. YOUNG: We would hope to complete this U.I.S. procei;:)
by probably late summer and get it into the Federal register, :
and then you have a thirty day period then, you see, for more
comments, which you should direct to me if you v.-ant to write
them before we make a final decision, and the Regional
Administrator of E.P.A. decides on a final action. So, that
would mean that you probably would not be able to go on to
design until I don't know how long it takes to get those
things going after you have finally completed that process.
Couple of months or so? ,
MR. KIMBALL: We planned on initiating the j.rocess to
allow us to proceed with design as soon as the E.I.S. process
is done. So, we can start the paperwork now so that the
i
- 28 -
-------
I minute that E.P.A. says everything is fine, we can start
with design.
MR. SHADDUCK: But what are you going to do about it,
are we going to have to have another bond election or
MR. KIMBALL: Well, we are going to look at the
different financing, but when we determine the source of
funds and we're looking at probably another year before
we have everything wrapped up the State we had to cut
C) out some funds from the State Department of Health and
10 Welfare, we're looking at Farm Home. We will stick with the
proposed $12.00 per month fee as long as we can, but if we
find that it's jeopardizing the project if those funds
grant funds we anticipated getting are not available, we
will go back to the people for another bond election when we
1s determine the final cost. You know, when we find out who is
going to give us what, if it's 12, 15 or 20. We go back to
;
the people and have another bond election before we proceed
IS beyond any design or you can't go to construction unless
19 you have a bond election, so but we don't want to stop
:o I everything and wait until everything is lined up because it
21 j is a problem getting E.P.A. and Farm Home and the State and
22
24
25
everybody at one time. We've got to proceed ahead.
MR. SHADDUCK: That's all I have.
MS. GATES: Yes, please come forward and state your
name.
- 29 -
MR. SMITH: My name is Jack Smith, P.O. Box 905, Post
Falls.
To Jim Kimball, if I may. On the selecitid site --
was it T-2, to the west of
MR. KIMBALL: T-5 is what we selected.
MR. SMITH: Oh, T-5. Is that the one west of the
Leasing?
MR. KIMBALL: Yes..
MR. SMITH: Oh, is there any beautification involved in
that or is it just going to sit next to the freeway with just
bare open or how does that work?
MR. KIMBALL: Part of the program does include land-
scaping so that when the plant is constructed actually,
it will have modern architecture and look like some of the
structures we have around now, some of the newer treatment
system plants. I think you'll see Liberty Lake in now, and
it will be similar to it, and it will be done in probably
another six months. You'll have a good picture of what we'll
look like beside the freeway, too. .And we have landscaping
plans, we'll have a buffer strip around it so that -- the
newer treatment plants, you know, we can design them to be
odor free, but we still can't stop operator errors. So, you
might have a problem, but we anticipate we will try to cover
everything we can, and we will not be building a lagoon there
It will be a mechanical treatment plant, and they have much
- 30 -
-------
CM
Ul
less susceptibility for odors than a lagoon system.
Now, I would like to take a minute to respond to the
gentleman's comment about the phasing. When we started out
with the facilities plans, the City was growing at
approximately 11 per cent per year. So, we looked at a
continuation of that growth if it did occur just to cover
or should growth continue at that rate, say if we had a
doubling every ten years or even more than that, we could
I
9 I end up with 26,000 people. However, we wouldn't want to
10 build a facility for 26,000 if we only have 5,000 people.
11 So, what we planned on doing was planning for that amount of
12 people doing an environmental impact now of that large
13 population but cutting back to a realistic number, and we're
1-i looking at around 10,000 or 12,000 initially that we are
I? I going to build a treatment plant for. But it will be sized,
16 | it will be designed such that we can build on up so that, say
17 if we have a high growth rate and we hit 10,000 people in
18 ten years, we don't have to go through this whole process
19 -again of three to five years with environmental impact
20 j statement and everything else. So, we wanted to cover
21 | enough future population so that we don't have to go through
22 a facilities planning process every five or ten years. So,
23 we cut it back to something that's economically realistic and
24 provides enough reserve capacity of about 30 to 40 per cent
25 at the most for future growth so that the people in town
- 31 -
don't have to pay for future growth.
Thank you.
MS. GATES: Are there any other questions?,
MR. HOSKINS: It would appear, then, if I understand
the panel correctly, that with the E.P.A. process completed
and your planning and going on through, if the cost
substantially increased beyond the $12.00 bond that's been
passed at the present time, we will still come up to a go or
no go situation. We will be back to the one alternative of
nothing and no growth or we will be back to a new bond issue;
is that correct?
MR. KIMBALL: Yes. At that point that we find that we
cannot stay within the original budget, and that point
hinders, you know, we will try to get the grant money to
keep it down to $12.00 per month. If all those funds die out
and it looks like it's going to delay the project and we come
up with something that's realistic, we will go beck to the
V
people for another bond election.
Frank, do you have any comment on that? Is that
basically what
MR. HENDERSON: Frank Henderson, Mayor of the City of
Post Falls.
Yes. That's been a major concern to the City
Council is what the lapse of time has done to our estimated
cost. And it's unanimous in the City Council at this time
- 32 -
-------
S
11
10
11
12
13
Iff
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that if those costs get above the $12.00 per month service
fee, which was promoted in the bond election, then we would
go back to the people.
Now, I would add one thing to what Jim said about
phasing is that the City Council now is considering a time
at which this will go into effect is if growth happens in
this city there will be a point in which we will assess a
$1,000 per home hook-up charge, and we will accumulate those
$1,000 in a fund for capital expansion and improvement of
this system so that the folks here in fact do not pay for, the
growth that comes in.
MS. GATES: Are there any other questions?
Yes, please come forward.
MS. HEDRICK: Did I understand you to say that the
future people will pay a thousand dollar hook-up or we will
pay it now within the area?
MS. GATES: Could you state your name, please?
MS. HEDRICK: I'm sorry. Caroline Hedrick, resident.
Because the bond was promoted with free hook-up and
a $12.00 a month fee.
MR. HENDERSON: That's correct, yes. The existing
residences, according to the terms of the bond election,
would be hooked up at no charge. That's correct to your
memory? That's the way it was, presented?
MS. HEDRICK: Yes.
- 33 -
MR. HENDERSON: Okay, at the time that the*sewer service!
becomes available, at that time then any new reaidencec will ;
have to pay the new hook-up charge. Those were the terms of ;
the bond election. ;
MS. GATES: Yes, please come forward and state your
name. j
MS. KELLOGG: Hilda Kellogg, Post Falls. |
I'd like to address a question to the Mayor, if I may;
We talked about the bond election and the service fee j
to the existing residences. Is this also the original j
boundaries or is this the new boundary that you have up on [
the map here for Phase 1? t
i
MR. RUSHTON: I'll have to ask Jim Kimball if that I
boundary is changed. I don't think so. I think the boundary !
is the C,ity limits; isn't that correct? Even though we will
phase the construction within the City, Phase 1 is the City j
limits; is that correct? |
MR. KIMBALL: Yes. We've got different phases, we :
looked at Phase 1 for a treatment plant site which would !
include the existing City limits. As far as the Stage 1 of !
our collection system, though, we based that on the amount of !
grant money that we could get. The State said, well, they'd i
sponsor up to about 1.6 million. So, we had to cut back what i
we could build initially withrh that 1.6 million State money,
and then we added the interceptor systems to go along with '
- 34 -
-------
that.
Now, from here on down (indicating on map) this
interceptor system will primarily serve new developments
I
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
23
2=1
25
j with dry sewers. This development in here, this development,
this development in here, some of this up in here is all dry
sewers. So, once we get this basic system in, extension may
not be too bad of a problem because we have as these areas
develop, we will have a lot of people paying that we don't
have to have a high cost.
The north part, the rest of this up here okay,
now what we have to do is we have to continue to go back, for
additional grant money either through HUD, E.P.A;. or whatever
to complete this area, and some of the older portions in here
MS. KELLOGG: The plan would still be, then, to hook up
without charge?
MR. KIMBALL: That's what the City .will have to go by
here.
I think what they're trying to change in the grant
programs, instead of having a hundred different granting
j agencies they.may consolidate and give the City a block grant
I for 10 million or 5 million, and they'd decide their priori^
I ties. The City will have to decide streets, water, sewer,
! or whatever priority they want.
MS. GATES: Are there any other questions?
(NO RESPONSE.)
j : , __
- 35 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
T}
2.3'
2-1
25
This will conclude the third portion of the hearing.
As I mentioned before, if you wish to submit written corrraents
they must be in to Ms. Norma Young by April 20, 1981.
Thank you all for attending and participating in
this hearing.
For the record, this meeting stands adjourned at
8:37.
- 36 -
-------
0
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17 !
i
18 !
19
20
2\
22
21
24
25
CERT I- F I C A T E
STATE OF IDAHO )
) SS
COUNTY OF KOOTENAI )
I, CHARLOTTE R. CROUCH, the undersigned Certified
Shorthand Reporter, hereby certify that I took in stenograph
and thereafter transcribed into the foregoing record the
proceedings in the within entitled cause, and that the said
transcript is a full, true and correct copy of the
proceedings had in the above-entitled cause held at Post
Falls, Idaho, on April 6, 1981.
DATED This /_7ft- day of _Oujp^
-------
Response to Comments Received at the Public Hearing on
Post Falls Draft BIS, April 6, 1981
1. Mr. Hoskins' question is answered by Mr. Kimball on
page 31 of the Post Falls public hearing transcript
(April 6, 1981).
2. Please see the response to East Greenacres Irriga-
tion District letter of comment in Chapter 1.
3. Mr. Shadduck's questions are answered by Ms. Young and
Mr. Kimball on pages 28-29 of the Post Falls public hearing
transcript (April 6, 1981).
4. Mr. Smith's question is answered by Mr. Kimball on page
30 of the Post Falls public hearing transcript (April 6,
1981).
5. Mr. Hoskins1 question is answered by Mr. Kimball and
Mayor Henderson on pages 32-33 of the Post Falls public
hearing transcript (April 6, 1981).
6. Ms. Hedrick's question is answered by Mayor Henderson
on pages 33-34 of the Post Falls public hearing transcript
(April 6, 1981).
7. Ms. Kellogg?s question is answered by Mr. Rushton
and Mr. Kimball on pages 34-35 of the Post Falls public hearing
transcript (April 6, 1981).
69
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References Cited
Cudney, M. D. , and'J. B. Wallace. 19'80. Life cycles, micro-'
distribution and production dynamics of six species of
net-spinning caddisflies in a large southeastern (U.S.A.)
river. Holarctic Ecology 3:169-182.
Barber, W. E., and N. R. Kevern. 1973. Ecological factors
influencing macroinvertebrate standing crop distribution.
Hydrobiol. 43:53-75.
Hynes, H. B. N. 1976. The ecology of running waters. 3rd
ed. University of Toronto Press. 555 pp.
LePard and Frame, Inc. 1979. Water study for the City of
Post Falls, Idaho. Prepared for City of Post Falls, Idaho.
83 pp.
1980. Final draftCity of Post Falls, step one,
201 facilities plan. Prepared for City of Post Falls,
Idaho.
Personal Communications
Archibald, Boyd. June 21, 1981. U. S. Soil Conservation
Service, Coeur d'Alene Office, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Telephone conversation.
Kimball, Jim. May 18, 1981. LePard and Frame, Inc. Memo.
71
-------
LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10
Elizabeth Corbyn - Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch;
Seattle, Washington
Roger Mochnick - EIS Preparation Coordinator, Environmental
Evaluation Branch; Seattle, Washington
Norma Young - Project Monitor, Environmental Evaluation
Branch; Seattle, Washington
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Sacramento, CA
Charles R. Hazel - Vice President; program management.
Michael D. Rushton - Environmental Specialist IV;
project manager
Dan Meier - Environmental Specialist I; public health,
land use, water quality
Mark D. Cudney - Environmental Specialist I; summary,
fisheries
73
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BOD
CWA
EIS
EPA
FIA
FmHA
IDHW
mg/1
MPN
NAAQS
NEPA
NPDES
NIPDWR
P
PHD
Q-7-15
RCRA
SDWA
USGS
USSCS
WWP
201
Biochemical oxygen demand
Clean Water Act
Environmental Impact Statement
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Federal Insurance Administration
Farmers Home Administration
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
milligrams per liter
most probable number
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
phosphorus
Panhandle Health District I
lowest 7-day average flow condition reported
over 15 years of record
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Washington Water Power Company
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act (wastewater
facilities planning)
75
-------
POST FALLS, 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 and Human Services
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
Frank Henderson, Mayor of Post Falls
City Administrator, Post Falls
John Carpita, Kootenai County Engineer
Kbotenai County Commissioners
Art Manley, State Senator
Gary J. Ingram, State Representative
L. C. Spurgeon, State Representative
Local Distribution
Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Allen
Mr. Rick Barton
Mr. & Mrs. Lei and Bertz
Mr. Roy Bodine
Brown & Caldwell, Seattle, Washington
Mr. Edward Brugeer
Mr. & Mrs. Francis Czapla
Mr. Lee Dean
Mr. Jake Dodge
Mr. & Mrs. Paddy B. Doyle
Mr. Al Farver
Foster & Marshall
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Spokane, Washington
Steve Frazey
Phil Frye
Marvin Goecke
William Goude
& Mrs. Jerry Halloran
Tom Hanson
Jack Hatch, Spokane, Washington
Mr. Kent Helmer
Mr. Dennis Hiatt
Mr. & Mrs. Dale W. Hickman
Ms. Joyce Huson
Idaho Vener Company
Jacklin Seed Company
Mr. Jim Judd
Ms, Hilde Kellogg
Ms. Ruth Ann Knudson, Moscow, Idaho
State Agencies
Idaho Air Quality Bureau
Idaho Division of Environment
Idaho Fish & Game Department
Idaho Transportation Department
Panhandle Area Council
Panhandle Health District
State Clearinghouse
Organizations
Idaho Wildlife Society
Kootenai Environmental Alliance
League of Women Voters of Idaho
Idaho Historical Society
Mr. Les Land
Mr. Clay Larkin
LePard & Frame
Mr. & Mrs/C. S. Lilyquist
Louisiana-Pacific
Ms. Rita Lusk
Mr. Larry Maine
Meckel Engineering & Surveying
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Montague
Mr. Fred Moore
Mr. & Mrs. C. L. Nead
Mr. & Mrs. David Osborn
Mr. Del Ottinger
Mr. Dan Paulson
Post Falls Public Library
Potlatch Corporation
Mr. & Mrs.'D. B. Rumelhart
Mr. Manuel Schneidmiller
Mr. Jack R. Smith
Ms. Elizabeth Sowder
Spokane Chronicle, Spokane, WA
Mr. Pat Tebo
Mr. Francis L. Thompson
Ms. Ellen Tinder
Mr. Jim Todd
Mr. & Mrs. W. P. Watson
Mr. Lonnie Wharf
Mr. & Mrs. James Willard
Spokesman-Review, Coeur d'Alene, ID
76
-------
Local Distribution Continued
Mr. & Mrs. George Reisnaur
Ms. Virginia L. Turner
Mr. Melvin Hendrickson
Mr. Alfred F. Rencher
Mr. & Mrs. James Bair
Mr. & Mrs. Marshall Meeks
Ms. Carrie Hartley
Mr. Thomas G. Insko
Ms. Bertha M. McLean
Mr. & Mrs. Richard A. Frank
Mr. & Mrs. Ben R. Babcock
Messrs. Ron & Robert Zimmermaker
Mr. & Mrs. Howard R. Hastings
Scott Randolph
Mr. & Mrs. S. P. Carr
Mr. & Mrs. K. Reams
Mr. & Mrs. David Westlake
Denise S. Ries
Karen Neel
Robert Bowen
Mr. & Mrs. Robert C. Allen
Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Ballard
Mr. & Mrs. Ray C. McGinnis
Mr. & Mrs. A. A. Shrum
Ms. Margaret Brown
Mr. Stan Rosencranz
Ronald R. Leu
Mr. & Mrs. Eugene R. Leu
Sandy Vig
Mr. & Mrs. Warren G. Little
Halva Blackford
Lynn Dickey
Mr. & Mrs. Harley Collins
Mr. & Mrs. Ed Merrick
Mr. & Mrs. William Rosenberg
James G. Brown
0. L. Holo
Mr. & Mrs. James Meize
Mr. & Mrs. John Miranda
Mr. & Mrs. James R. Stiller
Leo R. Morgan
Donald DuPerault
Dorothy H. Booth
Mr. & Mrs. Tim Waters
Mr. L. D. McChesney
Mae M. DuPerault
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth 0. Lockman
77
* GPO 798 - 671 1981
------- |