-------
would be lower. The termination point of a gravity collec-
tion system would be just north of Post Falls Dam. Con-
veyance from this point to any of the proposed treatment
plant sites would require additional pipeline, and for all
sites except T-4, would require pumping. LePard and Frame
has developed interceptor routes to treatment sites T-l,
T-lA, T-5 and T-6 and disposal area S-l only (Figure 1-2).
Construction of the collection system would be divided
into phases. The original facilities plan proposal was to
construct the majority of the system by 1987 (Phase I). The
availability of funds, however, has required this approach
to be modified. Project phasing is discussed more fully
at the end of this chapter. A layout of the proposed collec-
tion system and the original Phase I area is presented as
Figure 1-1.
Treatment Plant Site Alternatives
LePard and Frame has considered seven potential treat-
ment plant sites. The locations of these sites are shown
in Figure 1-2 and general characteristics of each are shown
in Table 1-1. With the exception of T-4 each of the sites
selected is large enough for ultimate requirements.
Criteria which were used by LePard and Frame to compare
and evaluate potential sites were:
1.	The site should allow as much gravity flow as
possible, and minimize the requirement for pumping.
2.	The site should be large enough to serve the pro-
jected population at least 20 years into the future.
Sufficient land should also be available for con-
struction of additional facilities if treatment
requirements become more stringent in the future.
3.	Land acquisition should be easily secured, preferably
as one parcel, and the cost of the land should be
relatively low.
4.	The site should preferably not be prime agricultural
farmland.
5.	Displacement of existing residences should be mini-
mized and the site should not be near areas which
are presently developed or are areas of future growth.
In the preliminary draft facilities plan, LePard and
Frame identified four potential treatment plant sites (T-l
through T-4). Their initial evaluation indicated Site T-l
26

-------

20
East Grcenacrea i
^	SchV »
A
BM 2147
Gr»«*l
Pit
RATH
Cloverle*f
Grange
7134
-
£
i;t »erg'e*n
BM 2123
0
21 !« W l.rnxj~'
Junction	P
	

i S-2
cGuire
21 78 i
i"j sr(
JffTTMcGuir
U I B*
interim
I CITY
Stale Una
VilUn
//OUTFM^N
: Huetter
'V>
dBRifc VlSM



I II®
vyr
-LEGEND-
BASE MAP-FROM USGS I-24,000 COEUR d' ALENE, IDAHO £ GREENACRES, WASH. QUAD
INTERCEPTOR
IRRIGATION DISPOSAL SITE
TREATMENT PLANT SITE
FIGURE 1-2. POST FALLS PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT SITE &
DISPOSAL AREA ALTERNATIVES

-------
Table 1-1. Characteristics of Potential Treatment Plant Sites
Site
T— 1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-1A
Present Use
Irrigated agriculture
Irrigated agriculture
Agriculture, rural
residential
None
Irrigated agriculture
Grazing
Irrigated agriculture
Probable Future Use
Irrigated agriculture
Industrial
Agriculture, rural
residential
None
Commercial, industrial
Grazing
Industrial
Close to Existing
Residential Development
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

-------
was the best. It was the preferred site described during
the city's bond election campaign. However, recent complaints
expressed by residents across Pleasantview Road from Site T-l
have led LePard and Frame to investigate three more sites,
T-1A, T-5 and T-6. On October 10, 1980, the facilities plan
citizens' steering committee and the Post Falls City Council
accepted a recommendation by the facilities planners to use
Site T-5.
River Discharge Location Alternatives
Considerations which affect the selection of a location
for an outfall to the Spokane River include the impact of
the discharge on river water quality, the proximity of the
outfall to the proposed treatment plant site and the proximity
of the discharge to riverside development. Outfall locations
above the dam were not considered for two reasons. First,
during certain times of the year, effluent would be warmer
than the river water and effluent would tend to rise to the
surface, thereby causing aesthetic and potential public health
problems due to the concentrated use of the area behind the
dam for swimming and other recreational activities. A second
reason for rejection of outfall locations above the dam is
that pumping would be required from all six of the potential
treatment plant sites, and significant lengths of force main
would be required in most cases.
For an outfall below the dam, the most logical location
is adjacent to the plant site, or a location which can be
reached from the plant site by gravity flow. Only one per-
manent river discharge location has been described by LePard
and Frame to date (Figure 1-2). This was originally intended
to be used in conjunction with treatment Site T-l. The pre-
ferred treatment site has now been changed, but this outfall
site is still considered the most appropriate. Because of
funding limitations, however, LePard and Frame has identified
an interim outfall site to be used in conjunction with treat-
ment Site T-5 (see Figure 1-2).
Land Application Site Alternatives
Three areas were selected for detailed evaluation as
potential land application sites and the principal factors
which were included in the evaluation are items 2, 3, 4,
and 5 which were previously listed under Treatment Plant
Site Alternatives. Characteristics of the proposed sites
are shown in Table 1-2, and locations of the three land applica-
tion sites considered are shown in Figure 1-2.
29

-------
Table 1-2. Characteristics of Potential Land Application Sites
Site
Present Use
Probable Future Use
Adjacent to Existing
Residential Development
S-l
Grazing
Grazing, gravel
No
S-2
Irrigated agriculture
Industrial
Yes
S-3
Irrigated agriculture
Residential, industrial
No

-------
Site S-l is the land application site which has been
tentatively selected by LePard and Frame, principally because
it is available and is not near existing development. The
present landowner of S-2 does not want to sell; the site is
a potential location for an industrial park. Site S-3 was
also initially rejected because the owner does not currently
wish to sell, and because it is considered to be prime
riverfront property which would have a high acquisition cost.
Total Wastewater System Alternatives
The Draft and Final Draft Post Falls Facilities Plans
prepared by LePard and Frame fT980) and 1980a) present three
alternative wastewater management plans to serve Post Falls,
and a "no-action" plan in accordance with EPA regulations.
The alternative concepts which are included in the facilities
plan are discussed in the following subsections. The reader
should bear in mind that although the alternatives in the
facilities plan are based on 2.4 MGD capacity, the state has
recommended 1.5 MGD capacity. (See Project Size and Phasing,
Page 9). Following this presentation of alternatives, sections
are included on alternatives which were considered and then
deleted, and on project phasing.
No-Action Alternative
This concept would be the continuation of the current
use of septic tanks and other on-site systems in Post Falls.
No central wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal
facilities would be constructed. Nitrate contamination of
the groundwater would continue, and could be expected to
worsen as growth within Post Falls continues. It is possible
that the State of Idaho would impose growth control measures
in Post Falls if this alternative were followed. A no-action
alternative would not follow policy of the Panhandle Health
District (PHD), which allows high density development as
an interim measure only until a sewerage collection system
is constructed. The estimated cost to existing septic tank
users would average $81 per year for periodic drain field
replacement and septic tank pumping.
Alternative A -Mechanical Biological Treatment with Seasonal
Land and River Discharge
This alternative would require a 2.4 MGD extended aera-
tion activated sludge plant which would be constructed on
about 15 acres of land. A schematic flow diagram showing
the principal treatment processes is shown in Figure 1-3.
Between roughly April 15 and October 15 effluent would be
applied to agricultural land, and between October 31 and
April 1, effluent would be discharged to the Spokane River
31

-------
AIR
FEED
1
AIR
FEED
AERATED
GRIT
CHAMBER
INFLUENT
HEADWORKS
FEED
FLOW


EQUAL


-IZATION
—o-»
STORAGE

k
BASINS


0.7 MG
4
k
AERATION
BASINS
2.4 MS
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
0.5MG EA.	CHLORINE
FEED
(OPTIONAL)
HIGH RATE
ILTERS ,
4gpm{ft2|_^ ¦
RETURN
4.	4—
ACTIVATED
~
U!
KJ
t
OVERFLOW
1	4	~ —
SLUDGE
FLOW
MEASUREMENT
SULFER
DIOXIDE
FEED
rmi
DIFFUSER
SUPERNATENT
- 4	 4	4	
r
a
SLUDGE
STORAGE
6 MONTH
54 0,000GAL
FEED
100/X)0 GAL.
X CHLORINE
T CONTACT
| CHAMBER
J
BACKWASH
GRAVITY THICKENER
5LB/DAY/FT2
400 FT2
WASTE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE 27o2000LB/DAY
//
(2X2)
SLUDGE HAULING
TO CROP LAND
I.I M GAL./YEAR (6°7o)
COVERED
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
15 DAY AT
180,000 GAL.
357.RED VSS
ACRES
y
BN/ACfiE^ <(D
ISPOKANE
RIVER
STORAGE LAGOON
1-3
LAND DISPOSAL
CENTER PIVOT
APRIL 15- OCT. 15
Figure
FLOW SCHEMATIC
2.4 MGD
ALTERNATIVE (A)
MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT WITH SEASONAL LAND DISPOSAL
AND DISCHARGE TO SPOKANE RIVER DURING THE NON GROWING SEASON.
SOURCE: LePard and Frame 1980a.

-------
(without phosphorus removal). For two 15-day periods, April 1
to April 15, and October 15 to October 31, effluent would
be stored in a 15-day retention pond at the irrigation area.
The agricultural land application site requirements
are 380 acres. On this 380-acre site, 362 acres would be
used for growth of green chop forage (probably orchard grass
and alfalfa), and the remaining 18 acres would be comprised
of a buffer zone with an average width of 75 feet. The purpose
of the buffer zone would be to control aerosol drift. The
wastewater application rate proposed in the draft facilities
plan was governed by a nitrogen loading rate designed to
prevent degradation of the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. During
the 6-month period of application, 3.6 feet of wastewater
would be applied, and an estimated 6 tons per acre per year
of green chop could be produced at an average value of $20
per ton (Kimball, pers. comm.).
The treatment process to be used in Alternative A is
extended aeration activated sludge, followed by filtration,
chlorination, and dechlorination (when discharge is to the
river during low flow periods). Flow equalization would
be used prior to the activated sludge process to improve
overall efficiency, and a 15-day storage lagoon would be
available for use during agricultural harvesting. Sludge
would be aerobically digested on-site and would be stored
on-site until it could be applied to agricultural land.
The filtration and dechlorination processes are con-
sidered supplemental to conventional secondary treatment;
therefore, they can be funded by EPA only after it is ade-
quately documented that the extra treatment is necessary
to meet water quality standards.
Alternative B - Mechanical Biological Treatment and Continuous
River Discharge
Treatment in Alternative B would be similar to the treat-
ment in Alternative A, with the major exception that alum
and polymer would be added during treatment between April 1
and October 31 in order to precipitate up to 85 percent of
the phosphorus in the raw wastewater. During the April-
October river discharge, the chlorine dosage would be high
to assure a high level of disinfection. A reduction in the
effluent chlorine residual would be achieved by addition
of sulfur dioxide during low river flows. The specific flow
condition that would be used as a starting point for dechlorina-
tion has not been described in the facilities plan. A schematic
flow diagram of Alternative B is shown in Figure 1-4.
33

-------
AIR
FEED
1
AIR
FEED
SECONDARY
CLARIFIERS
0.5 MG. EA
INFLUENT
AERATED
GRIT
CHAMBER
HEADWORKS
FLOW

EQUAL

-IZATION

STORAGE
r
1
BASINS
0.7 MG
i
I
AERATION
BASINS
2.4 MG
	ALUM
3850 LB/DAY
RETURN
u,	
activated
u>
SLUDGE
(OPTIONAL)
HIGH RATE
FILTERS 100,000 GAL
CHLORINE
-440 ft2
_JIU
OVERFLOW
SUPERNATENT
T
Cg	
SLUDGE HAULING
TO CROP LAND
1.3M GAL/YEAR(6^)
SLUDGE
STORAGE
6 MONTH
540POOGAL.
AfR
FEED
hil
CONTACT
CHAMBER
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
FEED
CHLORINE
| FEED
.~ActfwAsi/
\ GRAVITY THICKENER
—f • J SLEpDAY/FT2
480 FT2
I WASTE ACTIVATED ,
SLUDGE 4% 2420LB DAY (WITH ALUM)
f	2% 2000LB/DAY (W/0 ALUM)
DIFFUSER
SPOKANE
RIVER
COVERED
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
I 5 DAY AT
180,000 GAL.
35*k RED VSS
Figure 1-4
FLOW SCHEMATIC
2.4MGD
ALTERNATIVE IB)
MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT WITH SEASONAL CHEMICAL
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL AND CONTINOUS RIVER DISCHARGE.
SOURCE: LePard and Frame 1980a.

-------
A larger quantity of sludge would be produced in Alter-
native B because of the chemicals added for phosphorus removal.
Sludge disposal would follow the same concept as Alternative A.
Alternative C - Aerated Lagoon Treatment with Seasonal Land
and River Discharge
For Alternative C, two aerated lagoons would be used
for treatment. Each lagoon would provide 15 days of detention
time at the design flow of 2.4 MGD, and the overall area
covered by the treatment plant site would be 40 acres.
Following the aerated lagoons, a flotation/filtration process
would be used during the river discharge mode to remove algae
and other suspended solids, and then the flow would be chlorinated
for disinfection purposes. Dechlorination of the effluent
would be practiced when discharging to the river in low flows.
Between April 15 and October 15, the treated wastewater would
be sprinkler irrigated on land as described for Alternative A.
In the April 1 to April 15 and October 15 to October 31 periods,
the wastewater would be stored in one of the aerated lagoons.
It would subsequently be released back into the disposal
system. A schematic flow diagram of the major treatment
process components is shown in Figure 1-5.
The majority of the biological cells produced during
treatment are retained in the aerated lagoons, and are aero-
bically digested in the lagoons. Solid material removed
during the flotation/filtration process would be digested
in a small aerobic digester, and the product from the digester
would be disposed of on agricultural land.
Wastewater Management Alternatives
Considered and Deleted
LePard and Frame, in conjunction with Brown and Caldwell,
the facilities plan consultants for Coeur d'Alene, developed
an alternative concept which would serve both Post Falls
and Coeur d'Alene. The alternative would not require any
changes in the wastewater collection system of either town
(except some parts of the Post Falls system would have to
be larger to accommodate the conveyance of the Coeur d'Alene
flows). Wastewater from Coeur d'Alene would be conveyed
to Post Falls by both force main and gravity flow. Three
pumping stations would be required, one at the existing Coeur
d'Alene plant site, and two between Coeur d'Alene and Post
Falls. The total pipeline distance between the existing
Coeur d'Alene plant site and treatment plant Site T-l is
approximately 11 miles.
35

-------
AIR
FEED
AIR
FEED
INFLUENT
@
HEADWORKS
OJ
-------
The alternative was developed using average daily dry
weather flows of 2.4 MGD for Post Falls and 6.0 MGD for Coeur
d'Alene. The alternative assumed year-round discharge of
flow to the Spokane River, with a requirement for 85 percent
phosphorus removal between April 1 and October 31.
This alternative was deleted from detailed consideration
because the initial cost estimates indicated it was signifi-
cantly more expensive than Alternatives A, B and C, and also
because neither Post Falls nor Coeur d'Alene was supportive
of a regional solution to wastewater management.
LePard and Frame also initially considered an alter-
native that would transfer Post Falls' untreated wastewater
to the proposed Liberty Lake, Washington treatment plant.
The Liberty Lake site is 5.5 miles west of Post Falls' treat-
ment Site T-l. The Liberty Lake plant will discharge effluent
to the Spokane River, without removing phosphorus. LePard
and Frame dropped this alternative due to high costs and
likely problems with phosphorus removal requirements on flows
exceeding 1 MGD. A 1 MGD Liberty Lake plant is now under
construction.
The final alternative which was dropped involved an
aerated lagoon with continuous year-round discharge to the
Spokane River. Flotation/filtration would be utilized similar
to Alternative C, but the flotation/filtration would have
to remove phosphorus as well as suspended solids and BOD.
This alternative was dropped because of the unproven large-
scale applicability of flotation/filtration for phosphorus
removal.
Project Phasing and Proposed City Action
The first draft of the Post Falls facilities plan (LePard
and Frame 1980) proposed constructing the wastewater facili-
ties in several phases. The first phase would supply a collec-
tion system, treatment plant and disposal mode for up to
1.2 MGD of flow. This would accommodate a population of
13,600 and would meet demands through 1987. Additional faci-
lities would be added in 5-year increments, with a year 2002
capacity of 2.4 MGD and a design population of 26,840.
Since issuance of the first draft, several factors have
caused the facilities planners to adjust this phasing. It
now appears that state grant money and loans needed to finance
both the collection system and the treatment plant are not
going to be available in the amounts originally estimated.
It has also become apparent that state and federal grant
funds will not be made available for the high population
37
-------
and flow forecasts presented in the draft facilities plan.
The state has recommended planning for a 20-year waste flow
of 1.5 MGD rather than the 2.4 MGD proposed by LePard and
Frame.
As a result, LePard and Frame has made some revisions
to its proposed Phase I project. Some of these revisions
are reflected in the final draft facilities plan (LePard
and Frame 1980a) and some are yet to be incorporated. The
current recommended plan is to construct a 1.0 MGD treat-
ment plant at treatment Site T-5. A scaled-down first phase
collection system would also be constructed, and an interim
river outfall would carry effluent to the river just below
Post Falls Dam year-round (Figure 1-2). The area to be pro-
vided collection service in this first phase has not yet been
identified. The 1.0 MGD plant size is intended to avoid the
immediate need for phosphorus removal facilities. The collec-
tion system would be enlarged in about 3 years as more financing
became available, and the river discharge point would be
moved to a permanent location farther downstream. The summer
land application facilities prescribed for Alternative A
would also be constructed and put into operation.
The second phase of treatment plant construction is
not clear at this time. Its size and timing depends on the
rate of growth in the Post Falls area and the progression
of collection system expansion. Population projections
approved by the state would allow eventual expansion to
1.5 MGD to meet the 20-year treatment needs of the Post Falls
area.
This revised project phasing is being considered as
a means to implement Alternative A in this Draft EIS. It
should be noted, however, that the city may in the future
decide that state and federal regulation of land application
of wastewater over the aquifer make it too costly to operate
an irrigation disposal system. In this case, phosphorus
removal equipment could be added to the treatment plant and
the year-round river discharge could be permanent. This
is the Alternative B facilities plan proposal.
38
-------
CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ALTERNATIVES
-------
Chapter 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
This chapter of the report discusses the major environ-
mental issues associated with the City of Post Falls' pro-
posed wastewater facilities plans. The issues have been
identified through the planning process and by discussing
the project with government agency personnel, local resi-
dents and other concerned individuals. Each subsection
deals with an individual issue. The issue is identified,
pertinent background data are presented or cited, the relation-
ship of each facilities plan alternative to the issue is
discussed and mitigation measures are suggested where signifi-
cant adverse environmental impacts have been identified.
Construction Disruptions of Significance
Construction of wastewater facilities typically results
in an assortment of short-term nuisance impacts to man. This
includes the production of noise, dust and aesthetic disruptions
as well as creation of temporary access problems and safety
hazards. These impacts are usually insignificant and readily
mitigable. Occasionally more significant impacts are created;
this might include destruction or disturbance to valuable
wildlife habitat, historic or cultural resources, agricultural
land, scenic vistas or major recreation areas. The significant
construction impacts identified after reviewing the Post
Falls facilities plan alternatives are described below.
Treatment Plant Construction
Seven potential treatment plant sites have been investiga-
ted by the City of Post Falls (T-l through T-6 and T-1A).
The original recommendation of the facilities planners was
Site T-l, but subsequent protests by local residents resulted
in identification of a new preferred site, T-5 (See Figure 1-2).
Construction at Site T-l would remove 15-40 acres of
irrigated agricultural land now being used for qrass seed
production. The land qualifies as prime agricultural land
under the U. S. Soil Conservation Service Land Inventory
and Monitoring Memorandum (LIM) definition (U. S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service, pers. comm.). The Garrison gravelly silt loam
39
-------
(0-7 percent slopes) found on the site is considered prime
if slopes are less than 5 percent and it is irrigated. Fifteen
acres would be required for Alternatives A and B, and 40
acres would be required for Alternative C. Land grading
and the operation of heavy equipment during construction
would create short-term noise, dust and visual impacts on
residents of the housing development located across Pleasant-
view Road to the northeast of T-l. These impacts could be
kept to a minimum by initiating standard construction miti-
gation techniques. However, the presence of heavy trucks
on Pleasantview Road and heavy equipment across from the
residential area could create a serious safety hazard. Trucks
passing through the one-lane railroad undercrossing north
of Site T-l could be especially hazardous to auto traffic
and pedestrians.
Site T-1A is located just one-quarter mile west of Site T-l
(see Figure 1-2). Its use would remove prime farmland of the
same quality as at T-l (Garrison gravelly silt loam 0-7 percent
slopes). Other construction-related impacts would be reduced,
however, because it is further removed from the Pleasantview
Road residential area. The construction activity would be
less visible from Pleasantview Road residents, but would
be more visible to persons driving on Interstate 90. Truck
traffic moving to and from the construction zone would use
only a small length of Pleasantview Road and would not have to
pass through the one-lane railroad undercrossing. Frontage
Road A would be the principal access. The construction-
related safety hazard, and noise and dust impacts would there-
fore be relatively minor. Traffic moving to and from the
Jacklin Seed processing complex to the west of Site T-1A
would be subject to temporary truck traffic hazards and possibly
occasional traffic delays.
Use of Site T-2 would have noise, dust and visual problems
similar to Site T-l. Residents living just east of Chase
Road and persons frequenting the commercial establishments
south of the site would be affected by these short-term nuisances.
Truck traffic and the visual disturbances would affect persons
using Chase Road and Mullan Avenue, a main Post Falls thorough-
fare. The 15 to 40 acres of land that would be converted
to wastewater facilities is also prime farmland under the
U. S. Soil Conservation Service definition (Garrison gravelly
silt loam, 0-7 percent slopes).
Site T-3 is located within a rural residential neighborhood
and would therefore create serious construction-period disrup-
tions. Several dwellings would be removed and the residents
displaced. Persons living in adjacent residences would suffer
significant noise nuisances, traffic hazards and perhaps
temporary access disruptions. The truck traffic hazards
40
-------
would exist on Spokane Road, Corbin Road and Frontage Road A.
Construction at T-3 would create the most significant short-
term disturbances of any proposed treatment plant site.
Treatment site T-4 occupies a patch of open land immediately
adjacent to Post Falls Dam. While it is not immediately
adjacent to residential or commercial areas, it is much too
small an area to accommodate the proposed treatment facilities.
Therefore, it is not a truly viable alternative and should
not be given further detailed consideration as a treatment
site.
Construction at Site T-5 would remove prime farmland
just as at Sites T-l, T-2 and T-3, and would be highly visible
from both Interstate 90 and U. S. Highway 10. Truck traffic
to and from the site could use Highway 10 and therefore should
not create a significant safety hazard. There are no large
residential areas near Site T-5 that would be affected by
the noise, dust or traffic associated with construction.
Alternative Site T-6 is the most isolated of the seven
sites investigated by the project engineers. Construction
at this location would therefore create the fewest short-
term nuisance impacts (noise, dust, aesthetics) and would
not present a significant safety hazard. Truck access to
the site would be by U. S. Highway 10 and Beck Road. The
added traffic on these roads would not pose a significant
hazard. There are no 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.
Spray Disposal Area Construction
Alternatives A and C would require installation of a
sprinkler irrigation system on 380 acres of open land.
Alternative A would also require construction of a 20-acre
storage pond at this irrigation area. Le Pard and Frame
investigated three possible sites for irrigation disposal.
Site S-l, listed as the preferred site in the preliminary
draft of the facilities plan, is located 2.5 miles west of
Post Falls, just north of U. S. Highway 10 (Figure 1-2).
Any site preparation, trenching or grading at this location
should not create a significant nuisance or safety hazard,
as the adjacent land uses are agricultural. The land is
not prime farmland, so the storage pond construction would
not remove a valuable soil resource.
41
-------
Irrigation Sites S-2 and S-3 both occupy prime agricultural
land (Garrison gravelly silt loam, 0-7 percent slopes), so
storage pond construction would remove a significant soil
resource. Site S-2 is just one mile west of downtown Post
Falls and is adjacent to developing residential and commercial
areas (Figure 1-2). Even though construction activity at the
irrigation disposal site would be minimal, the nuisance and
safety hazard impacts at S-2 would be greater than those
at S-l. Scattered residences are located both east and west
of S-2. In addition, East Greenacres East Ditch, which passes
through S-2, is mapped as a Zone A (100-year floodplain)
flood hazard area on the U. S. Federal Insurance Administration
preliminary flood insurance rate map for Kootenai County
(U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal
Insurance Administration 1980). Any facilities constructed
in this zone would have to be designed to avoid damage from
periodic flooding.
Site S-3 is about 2.5 miles southwest of downtown Post
Falls on the north bank of the Spokane River. Construction
at this site would temporarily affect residents living just
east of Pleasantview Road. The noise and dust impacts would
be relatively minor, but construction-related traffic on
Pleasantview Road could present a safety hazard to both auto-
mobiles and pedestrians. This impact could be minimized
if proper safety precautions were used by truck drivers and
other construction personnel.
Pipeline Construction
A major part of the project-related construction activity
would be spread throughout Post Falls by wastewater collector
and interceptor installation. Figure 1-1 maps the proposed
collection system. The major interceptors that would carry
the consolidated wastewater flow to the treatment plant
and disposal area are mapped in Figure 1-2. The construction
of these lines would be required for each project alternative
except "no-action" and would involve excavation, pipe-laying
and covering operations. Truck traffic, heavy equipment
operation, grading and repaving would occur along each new
line. Nearly every resident in Post Falls would be affected
in one way or another by the construction.
As with most pipe-laying operations, the impacts would
be primarily short-term nuisances. Noise, dust, access dis-
ruption and traffic delays could be expected throughout the
area. Most of the lines would follow existing roads or rights-
of-way, but several would cut across presently undeveloped
land (see Figure 1-1). There are several routes that warrant
specific mention. The pipeline that crosses the Spokane
River just upstream from Post Falls Dam should be hung from
42
-------
the bridge rather than placed on the bottom of the stream
so that leaks could be readily detected and repaired, and
the river environment would not have to be disturbed. The
several lines that cross Interstate 90 should be bored under
the road surface so that the construction operation does
not create a significant traffic hazard. Finally, con-
struction of the main interceptor that extends westward along
Fourth Street and across Spokane Street would cross open land
just north of Post Falls Dam. Archaeological site 10-KA-44
is near this pipeline route and should be located and protected
from any defacement or damage during construction. A report
prepared by the University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology
states that this site appears eligible for nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix A).
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
requires the head of any federal agency with jurisdiction
over a proposed federal or federally-assisted project to
consider the impact of the project on sites, districts or
structures included on or eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places prior to taking action
on the project. The federal agency must also provide the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity
to review the cultural and historic implications of the
proposed project prior to action.
Regulations implementing Section 106 identify the
procedure for evaluating potential impacts on properties
on or eligible for the National Register. This includes:
1)	identifying properties within the project's area of impact
that are on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places (this includes consulting the National
Register and the State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO]);
2)	determining whether properties on or eligible for the
National Register might be affected by the project; 3) deter-
mining if the effect is adverse; 4) notifying the Advisory
Council and the SHPO of the findings of the impact analysis;
and 5) proceeding with the consultation process if an adverse
effect is anticipated.
Steps 1 and 2 of the above process have been completed.
The Idaho SHPO has been consulted (see letter in Appendix A)
and it has been determined that only Site 10-KA-44 could
be possibly affected. A full determination of impact can
only be made after the proposed interceptor routes are
surveyed. It appears from preliminary route maps that an
adverse impact can be avoided. A final determination will
be made prior to completion of a Final EIS.
43
-------
Outfall Construction
Two outfall locations have been identified by LePard
and Frame. One is an interim site and one is expected to
be permanent (see Figure 1-2). The interim site is imme-
diately below Post Falls, while the permanent site is just
downstream from Corbin Park near the end of Spokane Road.
Placement of a pipeline and diffuser along the bottom of the
river would undoubtedly create some short-term turbidity in
the stream. Construction equipment might also pose a short-
term hazard to boaters or rafters on the river. An effort
should be made to disturb as little of the stream bank and
bottom as possible during construction so that turbid condi-
tions and downstream sedimentation are minimized. Bank re-
stabilization and revegetation should be employed to reduce
the chances of long-term erosion and sedimentation along
the outfall routes.
Mitigation Measures
Most construction-related impacts, whether caused by
treatment plant, storage pond or pipeline construction, could
be readily reduced to acceptable levels by sensible operational
techniques. Noise and dust suppression measures have become
standard operational procedures in most areas. Working hours
should be limited to the 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. period of
weekdays; all graded and excavated surfaces should be periodi-
cally watered to reduce nuisance dust, and disturbed surfaces
should be compacted and covered or revegetated to avoid subse-
quent wind or rain erosion. Truck traffic moving to and
from construction zones should use extreme caution in residential
or recreational areas. Open trenches and surface disturbances
should be properly marked with warning signs. Heavy equipment
and hazardous building materials should be stored in a fenced
corporation yard after working hours to avoid creating a
safety hazard.
In order to avoid the permanent loss of 15-40 acres
of prime agricultural land due to treatment plant construction,
it would be necessary to select treatment site T-3, T-4 or T-6.
These sites, however, have other impacts associated with
their use that must be considered when selecting a treat-
ment plant location.
Surface Water Quality Implications
Existing Water Quality
Water quality in the Spokane River at the site of the
proposed Post Falls wastewater treatment facility can be
44
-------
characterized as satisfactory (Table 2-1). The principal
nutrient compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus are present
in very low concentrations, while dissolved oxygen/percent
saturation levels are optimal for maintenance of freshwater
lif e.
Heavy metals exist in concentrations which occasionally
exceed minimum recommended criteria. Zinc, originating
predominantly from upstream mine tailings (Reid 1961), generally
presents the most significant impairment to the continued
productivity of sensitive aquatic life. Mean concentrations
of zinc for both th$ November-April (N-A) and May-October
(M-0) periods exceed the 0.05 mg/1 safety criteria (U. S.
EPA 1976) to an alarming degree (Table 2-1). The muscle
tissues of certain Spokane River fish contain zinc concen-
trations three times greater than fish from unpolluted streams
in the Coeur d'Alene drainage basin (Funk et al. 1975). Mean
copper and lead concentrations in the river occasionally
exceed the minimum recommended criteria of 0.01 mg/1 and
0.05 mg/1, respectively (U. S. EPA 1976). Data from 1974-
1979 (USGS 1974-1979) indicate that a few abnormally high
monthly concentrations in 1977 are primarily responsible
for the relatively high mean values.
Fecal coliform bacteria counts have exceeded the Idaho
standard of 500/100 ml (not to be exceeded by any sample)
for primary contact recreation on infrequent sampling dates
(USGS 1975-1979). Although the mean concentration (Table 2-1)
is well within the state's monthly geometric mean standard
of 50/100 ml, Funk et al. (1975) maintain that fecal coli-
form counts are consistently the highest of any point on
the river upstream from Spokane.
Impact of the Proposed Waste Treatment Facility on Existing
Water Quality
Estimates of the waste discharge characteristics of
the proposed facility were provided by LePard and Frame,
Inc. (pers. comm.) (Table 2-2). Resultant concentration
increases of selected parameters in the Spokane River
(Tables 2-3 and 2-4) were calculated by dividing the
combined effluent and background river load (USGS 1975-
1979) by their respective total volumes. Concentration
and load increases were tabulated seasonally because
treatment Alternatives A and C do not discharge into the
river during the M-O period, whereas Alternative B discharges
year-round. Mean river flow and 07-15 (7-day 15-year low
flow) values (1965-1979) were used in the calculations to
provide a comparison between potential average and worst
case situations (Tables 2-3 through 2-6).
45
-------
Table 2-1. Selected water quality parameters for the Spokane River near Post Falls, Idaho
(mean monthly concentration in mg/1)*
NOVEMBER-APRIL	MAY-OCTOBER
PARAMETERS
MEAN
RANGE
MEAN
RANGE
Total Phosphorus
.020
0.0 - .060
. 020
0.0
.090
Ortho Phosphorus
.010
0.0 - .040
.010
0.0
.030
Total Nitrogen
. 280
.030- 2.30
. 310
.05
- 1. 50
Total Ammonia ^
.010
0.0 - .050
.010
0.0
.040
Unionized Ammonia
.003
0.0 - .014
.004
0.0
.026
Nitrate + Nitrite
.040
0.0 - .110
.010
0.0
.080
Cadmium
.008
0.0 - .011
.010
0.0
.022
Lead
.087
0.0 - .100
.080
0.0
. 250
Zinc
.231
.120- .560
. 154
.0 90
. 675
Copper 2
.044
.004- .330
.039
0.0
. 280
Fecal Coliforms
20. 5
0-236
19.6
0
-256
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
1.06
o
00
•
1—1
1
o
CM
1.14
0.5
- 1. 90
Chlorine
	
	
	
-
—
Dissolved 00/% saturation
A*
12.4/106
10.3-13.9/91-116
9.8/104
7.7-13.
3/91-125
1.	Calculated from total ammonia concentration, pH, and temperature using conversion table
in Willingham (1976).
2.	Concentration /100 ml.
* USGS 1975-1979.
-------
Table 2-2. Estimated Quality of Post Falls
Wastewater Effluent Discharged to the
Spokane Riverl
Parameter
Nov-Apr
Alternatives
A, B, C
May-Oct
Alternative
B
Total Phosphorus
Ortho Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Total Ammonia
Un-ionized Ammonia
Nitrate and Nitrite
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Fecal Coliforms
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chlorine
12.0 mg/1
8.55 mg/1
38.2 mg/1
30.0 mg/1
.044 mg/1-
2.0 mg/1
.020 mg/1
.050 mg/1
.232 mg/1
.0 54 mg/1
200/100 ml
20-30 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
1.8 mg/1
.514 mg/1
33.7 mg/1
5-15 mg/1^
.0195 mg/1
1.7 mg/1
.020 mg/1
.050 mg/1
.2 32 mg/1
.0 54 mg/1
200/100 ml
20-30 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
1.	Source: LePard and Frame, Inc., pers. comm.
2.	15 mg/1 for May and October, 5 mg/1 for	June through
September.
3.	Estimated by Jones & Stokes Associates,	Inc., using
temperature and pH data from LePard and	Frame.
47
-------
Table 2-3. Potential concentration increases (mg/1) under mean flow (1965-1979) conditions
of selected water quality parameters in the Spokane River near Post Falls, Idaho.


NOVEMBER-APRIL


MAY-OCTOBER

Existing


Existing


Conditions
With Alt. A,

Conditions
With Alt. B

Mean Flow.
B or C Waste
Percent
Mean Flow.
Waste
Parameters
7,202 cfs
Discharge-*
Change
6,250 cfs
Discharge1-'5
Total Phosphorus
.0 20
.026
30
.070
.021
Ortho Phosphorus
.010
.014
40
.010
.010
Total Nitrogen
. 280
. 300
7
. 310
. 330
Total Ammonia
.010
.025
150
.010
.015
Un-ionized Anmonia
.003
.003
trace
.004
.004
Nitrate + Nitrite
.040
.041
3
.010
.011
Cadmium
.008
. 008
trace
.010
.010
Lead
.087
.087
trace
.080
.080
Zinc
.2 31
. 231
trace
.154
.154
Copper 2
.044
.044
trace
.039
.039
Fecal Coliforms
20. 5
20. 6
trace
19.6
19.7
Biochesuical Oxygen Demand
1.06
1.08
2
1.14
1.1-6
Chlorine
	
.0005
	
	
0.0
Percent
Change
5
3
6
50
trace
10
trace
trace
trace
trace
1
2
1.	Alternatives A and C have no summer discharge.
2.	Concentration/100 ml.
3.	Dechlorination with sulfur dioxide.
4.	See Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for sources.
5.	All waste discharges were considered to be 2.4 MGD.
-------
Table 2-4. Potential concentration increases (mg/1) under Q7.-15"'" (1965-1979) flow conditions
of selected water quality parameters in the Spokane" River near Post Falls, Idaho.


NOVEMBER-APRIL


MAY-OCTOBER


Existing


Existing



Conditions
With Alt. A,

Conditions
With Alt. B


07-15 Flow
1,414 cfs
B or C Waste
Percent
Q7-I5 Flow
Waste
Percent
Parameters
Discharge^
Change
113 cfs5
Discharge '
Change
Total Phosphorus
.0 20
.051
155
.020
.080
300
Ortho Phosphorus
.010
.0 30
200
.010
.026
267
Total Nitrogen
. 280
. 380
36
. 310
1. 417
357
Total Ammonia
.010
.089
790
.010
. 284
284
Un-ionized Armenia
.003
.003
4
.004
.004
20
Nitrate + Nitrite
.0 40
.045
13
.010
.066
560
Cadmium
. 008
.008
trace
.010
.011
10
Lead
. 087
.087
trace
.080
.082
3
Zinc
. 231
. 232
trace
.154
. 163
6
Copper ^
.044
.044
trace
.039
.041
5
Fecal Colifonrts
20. 5
21.0
2
19.6
26.1
33
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
1.06
1.14
8
1.14
2.12
86
Chlorine
	
.0026
	
	
(4)
	
1.	07-15 refers to the lowest 7-day average flow condition recorded in the river
over a 15-year period of record.
2.	Alternatives A and C have no summer discharge.
3.	Concentration/100 ml.
4.	Dechlorination with sulfur dioxide.
5.	See Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for sources.
6.	All waste discharges were considered to be 2.4 MGD.
-------
Table 2-5. Potential load increases (lbs/day) under mean flow
(1965-1979) conditions of selected water quality
parameters in the Spokane River near
Post Falls, Idaho
November-April		May-October

Existing


Existing



Conditions
With Alt. A,

Conditions
With Alt. B


Mean Flow
B or C Waste
Percent
Mean Flow
Waste
Percent
Parameters
7,202 cfs
Discharge4
Change
6,250 cfs
Discharge^'4
Chanqe
Total Phosphorus
776
1,016
31
674
710
5
Ortho Phosphorus
388
559
44
337
347
3
Total Nitrogen
10,869
11,634
7
10,443
11,118
6
Total fttimonia
388
988
155
337
504
50
Un-ionized Armenia
116
117
1
135
136
1
Nitrate + Nitrite
1,553
1,593
3
337
371
10
Cadmium
310
311
trace
336
337
trace
Lead
3,377
3,378
trace
2,695
2,696
trace
Zinc
8,967
8,972
trace
5,188
5,193
trace
Copper 2
1,708
1,709
trace
1,314
1,315
trace
Fecal Coliforms
	
	
	
	
	
	
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
41,148
41,748
1
38,404
39,004
2
Chlorine
	
20
	
	
(3)
	
1.	Alternatives A and C have no summer discharge.
2.	Concentration /100 ml.
3.	Dechlorination with sulfur dioxide.
Loading in lbs/day = concentration (mg/1) x flew (cfs) x 5.39
e.g., 10,869 lbs/day = 0.280 mg/1 x 7,202 x 5.39
4.	All waste discharges were considered to be 2.4 MGD.
-------
Table 2-6. Potential load increases (lbs/day) under 07-15
(1965-1979) flow conditions of selected water
quality parameters in the Spokane River
near Post Falls, Idaho
Par aire ters
Existing
Conditions
07-15 Flow
1,414 cfs
November-April
With Alt. A,
B or C Waste
Discharge^
Percent
Change
May-October
Existing
Conditions
07-15 Flew
113 cfs
With Alt. B
Waste
Discharge^ '4
Percent
Change
Total Phosphorus
Ortho Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Total Anmonia
Un-ionized Ammonia
Nitrate + Nitrite
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper	_
Fecal Coliforms
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chlorine
152	392	158
76	247	225
2,134	2,899	36
76	676	789
23	24	4
305	345	13
60	61	2
663	664	trace
1,761	1,766	trace
335	336	trace
8,079	8,679	7
		20 	
12	48	300
6	16	267
189	863	357
6	173	278
2	2.4	20
6	40	567
6	6	7
49	50	2
94	99	5
24	25	4
694	1,294	86
	(3)
1.	Alternatives A and C have no simmer discharge.
2.	Concentration/100 ml.
3.	Dechlorination with sulfur dioxide.
4.	All waste discharges considered to be 2.4 MGD.
-------
Nutrients. The eutrophication (nutrient enrichment)
of the river and the ensuing increase in primary production
is primarily due to two elements, nitrogen and phosphorus,
providing trace elements are not limiting to growth. A number
of proposals are made in the literature concerning the impor-
tance of nitrogen and phosphorus, and reported concentrations
are used for establishing critical concentrations and maximum
permissible loads to prevent nuisance algal growth. These
critical values, however, cannot be applied without qualifi-
cation, because the complex trophic conditions that exist
in each case are determined by hydrological, morphometric,
optical, and climatic factors, other important nutrients,
and other factors (Vollenweider 1968). The effects of these
factors are not fully understood and cannot as yet be reduced
to a quantitative formula which is sufficiently meaningful
to precisely describe the majority of cases in a comprehensive
manner. However, the use of established nutrient concentration
and load standards, if kept in perspective, is the best tool
presently available for providing a reasonable estimate of
the effects of nutrient increases (Wetzel 1975) . The Washington
Department of Ecology is presently preparing nutrient load
allocation estimates for the river.
Phosphorus Increase. In the majority of freshwater
systems phosphorus is much less abundant than nitrogen, exist-
ing in both organic and inorganic, soluble and insoluble
forms (Hynes 1970). The inorganic, soluble phosphorus com-
pound (PC>4-orthophosphate) is the most important for plant
nutrition. However, the organic form is readily converted
to orthophosphate via bacterial degradation pathways; hence,
both parameters are important in predicting nuisance algal
growth (Wetzel 1975).
Algal species present in the Spokane River below Post
Falls consist primarily of diatoms (Tabellaria sp., Synedra sp.,
Melosira sp.) during the fall, winter, and spring months;
a carpet of filamentous green algae (Ulothrix sp. and Cladophora
sp.) exists throughout the summer (Funk et al. 1975). Pri-
mary productivity at Post Falls is the highest on the river
upstream of Spokane, ostensibly due to a combination of factors:
nutrient releases from Lake Coeur d'Alene, the upstream waste
treatment plant, and the impoundment above Post Falls (Funk
et al. 1975).
Algal growth potential in the river due to increased
nutrient loads from the proposed wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) depends primarily on whether existing species are
phosphorus and/or nitrogen limited and the extent of the
increase. The low inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate ratio
(5:1 N-A, 2:1 M-O) combined with observations by Soltero
et al. (1975) indicate that nitrogen is the predominate factor
52
-------
limiting algal growth. An increase in nitrogen would stimulate
growth until a ratio of about 10:1 is reached; thereafter,
the phosphorus input would further stimulate growth. An
increase in phosphorus coincident with the nitrogen increase
would undoubtedly stimulate benthic primary productivity
below the treatment plant outfall to the point where phosphorus
becomes the limiting nutrient.
Ortho/total phosphorus concentrations and load increases
at mean summer flow periods would not exceed 5 percent of
total background levels (Tables 2-3 and 2-5) if Alternative B
(phosphorus removal) . is adopted. The estimated concentration
in the river would be considerably below the 0.1 mg/1 level
suggested to prevent development of nuisance algal growth
in receiving water (U. S. EPA 1976). Many studies (Maloney
et al. 1956; Soltero et al. 1975) indicate a highly signifi-
cant correlation between phosphorus concentrations and algal
productivity. The increase in phosphorus to the river would
thus, presumably result in a slight increase in algal growth
in the river.
Phosphorus uptake velocity by microphytes is a function
of both internal cell concentration and external water concen-
tration, indicating that any additional phosphorus discharged
in a phosphorus-limited system would be quickly removed to
background river concentrations. Mackenthun et al. (1960)
found that soluble phosphorus concentrations decreased 27
percent 4 miles downstream from a waste treatment plant dis-
charge and a 36 percent reduction occurred 12 miles downstream.
Eventually a portion of the additional phosphorus taken up
by algae will be recycled and flushed downstream while some
will permanently leave the system via algal grazing inverte-
brates and fish (Wetzel 1975).
These results indicate that the amount of phosphorus
originating from the WWTP and reaching Long Lake, 40 miles
downstream, may be a small fraction of the total load entering
the lake. Nuisance algal blooms and increased eutrophication
of Long Lake (Soltero et al. 1975), however, make imperative
the need to reduce phosphorus loading to the Spokane River.
Studies are currently in progress which hopefully will clearly
identify maximum permissible upstream nutrient loading and
its effect on Long Lake and also the most cost-effective
way to reduce the load on Long Lake. This study is being
conducted under the guidance of the Washington Department
of Ecology and is expected to aid EPA and state decisions
on wastewater treatment needs. If it is found that the Spokane
River is at or near its maximum acceptable phosphorus loading,
wastewater discharge phosphorus limitations could be quite
restrictive in both Idaho and Washington.
53
-------
Nitrogen Increase. The inorganic compounds ammonia,
nitrate, and nitrite are the most biologically significant
of the nitrogenous effluent components (Hynes 1970). Nitrate
is generally recognized as the most available form of inorganic
nitrogen for algal production (Wetzel 197 5) although Flagg
and Reid (1954) stated that at concentrations up to 15 mg/1
there was no significant difference in the utilization of
the three inorganic nitrogen forms by stream algae.
Nitrite-nitrate and ammonia concentrations and loads
show significant summer increases under mean flow and Q7--15
conditions (Tables 2-3 to 2-6)• The high percentage increases
reflect the initial low background concentrations in the
Spokane River below Post Falls. The resulting combined con-
centration values are substantially less than suggested
threshold levels for prevention of injurious algal growth
(0.3 mg/l-nitrate-N, 2.6 mg/l-total ammonia-N, 0.6 mg/1-
total nitrogen; Muller 1953; Mackenthun and Ingram 1967).
Pacific Environmental Laboratory (1978), using AGP tests,
found no algal growth test response to inorganic nitrogen
at levels below 0.3 mg/1 in the Truckee River, Nevada, a
value rarely exceeded even during extreme low flow periods
in the Spokane River (Tables 2-1 and 2-4).
The ultimate effect of increased nitrogen loads on indige-
nous algal species is primarily determined by whether the
existing low background nitrogen levels are limiting growth.
Even though the phosphorus to nitrogen ratio is extremely
low in the Spokane River, Lider et al. (19 80) found that
this phenomenon in the Truckee River did not preclude nitrogen
from being a limiting nutrient. Consequently, even though
the nutrient load from the WWTP is small, a substantial in-
crease in primary productivity below the outfall is likely.
Inorganic nitrogen, like phosphorus, is rapidly taken
up by aquatic microphytes. Mackenthun et al. (1960) found
that inorganic nitrogen concentrations decreased 16 percent
4 miles below an effluent discharge site and a 36 percent
reduction occurred 12 miles downstream. Thus, the concen-
tration increases resulting from the Post Falls WWTP would
most likely be reduced to nearly present concentrations within
a relatively short distance downstream. This additional
nitrogen will be continuously stored and released in a spiraling
process downstream, eventually entering Long Lake. Groundwater
recharge may reduce some of the phosphorus load. The increased
amount actually entering Long Lake is expected to be small
when compared to the total load, although this conclusion
is very speculative. Additional research is required.
Summary and Conclusions. An important question is how
much additional enrichment of the river is acceptable, because
any increase in nutrients will support additional biological
production. Nutrient increases during the M-0 period when
nuisance algal growth potential is highest would be relatively
54
-------
small, with the resulting river concentrations and loads
well within acceptable threshold limits. Thus, the primary
effect of implementing Alternative B would be an increased
"fertilization" of existing algae below the treatment plant
outfall resulting in an increase in primary production. This
increase should not deleteriously affect river conditions
but provide additional food and habitat for the many stream
invertebrates inhabiting the river (Funk et al. 1975), thus
providing additional food for existing fish.
The long-term effects downstream on Long Lake are uncer-
tain. A high percentage of the additional nutrients will
be taken up by stream algae within a few miles downstream,
gradually being recycled downstream or permanently lost.
The nutrient load increase associated with Alternative B
will contribute to the nutrient load entering Long Lake during
the growing season. Alternatives A and C both provide for
no river discharge during the M-0 period and consequently
would have less effect on Long Lake or the Spokane River.
It is the long-term influences of wastewater discharges
above Long Lake that are being considered in the Washington
Department of Ecology waste load allocation study now in
progress. This study is designed to help decide how much
phosphorus must be removed from upstream treatment plant
discharges to maintain water quality in Long Lake. Until
that study is completed, EPA feels it is necessary to con-
tinue to plan for phosphorus removal.
Heavy Metals. It is assumed that concentrations of
zinc and copper in the river often exceed typical threshold
levels for toxic effect. Some increase in tolerance has
probably occurred through adaptation or acclimation, but
this phenomenon is undefined. Therefore, any significant
increase in the concentration of heavy metals may have an
adverse impact on existing fish and invertebrate populations.
Aquatic microphytes (primarily diatoms) may also be selectively
affected. During the summer months when primary production
is the highest (Funk et al. 1975), mean flow concentration in-
creases of any metal in the effluent do not exceed 1 percent and
never more than 10 percent during the extreme low flow period
(Tables 2-3 and 2-4). These low level additions to the back-
ground river load, combined with the observation of Green
et al. (197 5) that indigenous algae in the Spokane River
basin have adapted to high metal concentrations, warrant the
conclusion that heavy metals from the waste treatment facility
will have a negligible adverse effect on microphytic growth.
55
-------
Impact of Proposed First Phase Project
As discussed at the end of Chapter 1, LePard and Frame
has recently proposed a phased implementation of wastewater
facilities for Post Falls. The first phase proposes an in-
terim 1 MGD discharge 1.7 miles upstream from the proposed
Alternatives A, B, and C outfall site and 1.3 miles upstream
from Corbin Park. This interim facility would operate for
3 years, after which either Alternatives A or B would be
implemented and the outfall moved downstream. Because the
effluent volume of this phase would be less than that used
to assess the three full alternative projects (2.4 MGD),
no seasonal phosphorus removal is planned in this first phase.
Phosphorus Increase. Under mean flow conditions, total
phosphorus concentrations in the river immediately downstream
from the outfall site would increase from 0.0 20 mg/1 to
0.0 23 mg/1 (15 percent) during both the November-April and
May-October periods. Total phosphorus loading to the river
would be approximately 100 pounds per day. This increase
is less than that projected for Alternatives A, B, and C
during the November-April period, principally because of
the smaller effluent volume. During the May-October period,
however, when algal growth potential is greatest, river con-
centrations and loading would be 10 percent higher than with
Alternative B and 15 percent higher than with Alternatives
A and C, which do not discharge during this period.
Under	flow conditions, river concentrations would
increase from 0.020-0.033 mg/1 (65 percent) during the November-
April period and from 0.020-0.182 mg/1 (810 percent) during
the May-October period. Increases would be 510 percent higher
than Alternative B during the May-October period.
Orthophosphorus concentrations in the river immediately
downstream from the proposed outfall site would increase
20 percent (0.010-0.012 mg/1) throughout the year under mean
flow conditions. This increase is 20 percent less than Alter-
natives A, B, and C during the November-April period (Table
2-3), but 17 percent higher than Alternative B during the
more critical May-October period. Additional loading to
the river would be 71 pounds per day.
Under Q715 flow conditions, river concentrations would
increase from 0.010 mg/1 to 0.019 mg/1 (90 percent) during
the November-April period and from 0.010 mg/1 to 0.126 mg/1
(1,160 percent) during the May-October period. Orthophos-
phorus concentrations and loading would be 893 percent higher
than Alternative B (Table 2-6).
The primary impact on the river during the May-October
period would be a proportionate increase in algal growth
56
-------
immediately downstream from the outfall site. Relatively
faster current velocities at the Phase I discharge site due
to the proximity to the falls could actually inhibit pro-
duction of aquatic macrophytes. Fish production would not
be significantly impaired, but could actually be enhanced
by increased benthic invertebrate populations due to addi-
tional algal growth. In comparison to the fully-developed
alternatives, placement of the outfall 1 mile upstream would
alter the site of localized effects. However, no other sig-
nificant impacts on river water quality would ensue as no
major changes in river morphology exist between the Phase I
interim discharge si,te and the eventual discharge site.
The effect on Long Lake approximately 4 2 miles down-
stream, would depend primarily on whether the additional
phosphorus load is exerted prior to entering the lake. Long
Lake is currently in a state of delicate balance and any
increases in phosphorus loading to the river may have sig-
nificant adverse impacts on existing water quality (Soltero
pers. comm.). Whether the additional phosphorus loading
under this phase during the May-October period is acceptable
will ultimately be determined by the Washington Department
of Ecology waste load allocation study which will establish
maximum permissible loading on a per day basis.
Metals, Toxins, and Additional Nutrients. Effluent
quality would be similar to Alternatives A, B, and C (Table 2-2),
but effluent volume would be reduced. This 58 percent re-
duction in volume would proportionally decrease any adverse
localized effects mentioned previously.
Impact of Water Quality Changes on the Existing Fishery
Published reports indicate a diverse mix of fish species
exist in the Spokane River including Kokanee salmon, brook
trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, largemouth bass, pumpkin-
seed, yellow perch, black crappie, black bullhead, squawfish,
and various sucker species (Funk et al. 1975; U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1976; Mitchell pers. comm.). The con-
tinued existence of a viable sports fishery is dependent
on the maintenance of good water quality by treating waste-
water effluents to levels consistent with the needs of fish
and other beneficial uses. Effluent components that present
a direct risk to the fish species include: 1) heavy metals -
zinc and copper, 2) un-ionized ammonia, and 3) residual
chlorine.
57
-------
Heavy Metals
Toxic effects of metals are generally most severe in
the early life history stages, e.g., egg hatching and fry
survival (U. S. EPA 1976). Recent studies (Funk pers. comm.)
indicate that optimal nesting habitat exists for indigenous
species downstream from Post Falls. Even moderate concentration
increases in the relatively soft water of the Spokane River
(16-23 mg/1 CaCC>3) can alter both young and adult physiology
and behavior to the extent of reducing viability and, ultimately,
population size.
Background cadmium concentrations are very low (Table 2-1),
well below the minimum recommended criteria of 0.1 mg/1 sug-
gested for maintenance of freshwater life (U. S. EPA 1976).
The minimal increases due to the WWTP present no potential
hazard to fish (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). Although mean lead
and copper concentrations exceed the 0.05 mg/1 and 0.01 mg/1
criteria, respectively, most monthly values over the 5-
year monitoring period (1975-1979) were well within acceptable
limits with only a few unexplained high values in 1977 creating
the high mean figure. A number of studies (Soltero 1976;
Funx et al. 1975) support the assessment that concentration
increases due to the WWTP would be negligible even at Q-7_15
flows (Tables 2-3 and 2-4), indicating that no additional
deleterious effects would ensue beyond existing conditions.
Mean zinc concentrations in the affected area are very
high, well in excess of the 0.1 mg/1 minimum safety criteria
(U. S. EPA 1976). Acute toxicity levels (96 TLM) for the
coldwater fish species (cutthroat, rainbow and brook trout
[Holcombe and Benoit n.d.]) are already exceeded by back-
ground levels indicating that populations of fish in the
river have probably developed a tolerance to high zinc levels
(Funk et al. 1975). The proposed additional input to the
river will increase concentrations by less than 1 percent
under mean flow conditions throughout the year, which suggests
that fish survival would not be diminished beyond present
levels. However, early life history stages developing
immediately downstream from the sewage outfall may incur
increased mortality with any additional zinc input.
Ammonia
The un-ionized form of ammonia (NH3) is generally recognized
as the molecule toxic to fish. It exists in equilibrium
with ionized ammonia (NH4), which is thought to have little
adverse physiological effects on aquatic life (Willingham
1976). Because of the equilibrium relationship between NH3
and NH4, the toxicity of ammonia is very much dependent on
58
-------
pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and total dissolved solids
as well as the concentration of total ammonia (Willingham
1976) -
Background un-ionized ammonia concentrations range from
0.0-0.26 mg/1 with a mean of 0.003 mg/1 for the N-A period
and 0.004 mg/1 for the M-0 period (Table 2-1). This is well
below the 0.02 mg/1 recommended criteria suggested for the
maintenance of coldwater fish populations (U. S. EPA 1976).
Expected concentration increases due to the WWTP, as
well as the addition of other abiotic factors affecting un-ionized
ammonia toxicity, will not significantly raise current river
concentrations, even during low flow periods.
Chlorine
Chlorine concentrations at Post Falls were assumed to
be nondetectable because: 1) chlorine is not a natural con-
stituent of rivers; 2) the only major source would be
the Coeur d'Alene WWTP, many miles upstream; and 3) chlorine
undergoes numerous chemical reactions in the river converting
it to other forms (U. S. EPA 1976).
Assuming that background levels are negligible, resultant
increases are expected to be well below the 0.002-0.005 mg/1
safety range proposed by the EPA (1976) for protection of
the most sensitive freshwater fish (Tables 2-3 and 2-4).
Potential hazards do exist if the proposed 1.0 mg/1 discharge
is not effectively diffused into the receiving water. Any
fish encountering a minimally-diluted pulse of chlorine would
suffer immediate harmful effects. A multiple outlet diffuser
meeting Idaho state standards for chlorine discharge is proposed
in the WWTP design (Kimball pers. comm.), and should be suffi-
cient to mitigate prospective dangers even during extreme
low flow conditions. Proposed dechlorination with sulfur
dioxide during the low flow summer months (Alternative B)
and the high dilution ratio in the N-A period (Alterna-
tives A, B and C) should effectively mitigate any signifi-
cant adverse effects on fish.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
BOD represents the measure of the quantity of dissolved
oxygen necessary for decomposition of organic matter by micro-
organisms such as bacteria. Resultant concentration increases
produced by the WWTP are minimal during both seasonal periods,
easily within established safety guidelines (Mackenthun and
Ingram 1967) . Thus, significant oxygen depletion which would
59
-------
adversely affect fish is unlikely, as background dissolved
oxygen per percent saturation is optimal for freshwater life
(Table 2-1) (U. S. EPA 1976), and major flow reductions below
Post Falls (which decrease oxygen concentrations) are non-
existent .
Summary and Conclusions
Waste constituent concentration increases due to the
proposed Post Falls waste treatment facility generally would
be small, primarily due to the relatively small effluent
volume of the facility (2.4 MGD) and the high mean discharge
of the Spokane River. In addition, the proposed multiport
diffuser will facilitate mixing below the point of effluent
discharge, thus mitigating any adverse impact on fish imme-
diately downstream. Summer effluent discharge (Alternative B)
would create no significant additional hazard to existing
fish under mean flow conditions, with only minimal adverse
impacts during flows approaching the	value. Fish species
potentially affected during this period include the trout,
which are generally recognized as less tolerant of heavy
metals, chlorine, and un-ionized ammonia. Those species
whose diet consists mainly of benthic invertebrates, where
heavy metals are highly concentrated (Funk et al. 1975),
also may be harmed. Alternatives A and C provide for no
discharge into the Spokane River during the May-October period
and consequently would present no significant additional
adverse effects on existing fish species.
Impact on Uses of the Spokane River
Introduction
The Spokane River and adjacent lands from Post Falls
to the Idaho-Washington state line are a recreational and
economic resource for local residents and visitors to the
area. Some of the more common water and shoreline activities
and potential impacts of the wastewater system alternatives
are discussed below. Figure 2-1 plots the seasonality of
various beneficial river uses in comparison to the expected
fluctuations in Post Falls wastewater discharges.
Water Contact Recreation
Swimming. Below Post Falls, Corbin Park is a favorite
area for local and out-of-state swimming enthusiasts. Approxi-
mately 12-25 people use the park facilities during a summer
60
-------
RIVER USES
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
SWIMMING, SKIING

















RAFTING, KAYAKING
























SCUBA DIVING

























BOATING


	






	
	







FISHING
























HUNTING
















CAMPING, PICNICKING



















BIRD WATCHING













LOS TRANSPORT
























IRRIGATION

















POWER GENERATION
























WATER SUPPLY
























-LEGEND-	INDICATES INTERMITTENT USE
5000-1
INDICATES FREQUENT USE
M
o
8 2600-1
* 2200-t

<
u, 600 -1
<9
<
CE
Ul
>
** 200 -1
*
M
O
O
04
*
0
-I
u.
a
iu
*
Ul
fr-
et)
1
tu
o
<
tr
u
>
5550:1
5330 1
2010:
2030:1
1300 1
1290:
-LE6END-
100*1
dilution ratio
AVERAGE RIVER FLOWS
ESTIMATED AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS-2002
* ASSUMES THE SAME SEASONAL FLOW VARIATION AS THE C0EUR d'ALENE WWTP
FIGURE 2-1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPOKANE RIVER BENEFIC
USES & AVERAGE AVAILABLE DILUTION OF WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES TO THE RIVER
I AL
61
-------
weekend (June, July and August) when water and air temperatures
are warmest (Eachon pers. comra). Kootenai County plans
to upgrade the park sanitary and picnic facilities in the
immediate future, which may attract even more visitors.
The permanent outfall site for the proposed treatment
plant at Post Palls is about 0.5 mile downstream from Corbin
Park. Summer river discharge (Alternative B) would have
no apparent inhibitory effect on swimming activity at this
location. However, a popular swimming locale, accessible
via Pleasantview Road, does exist downstream from the pro-
posed outfall site. The Alternative B wastewater discharge
would increase the potential health hazard along this stretch
of the river.
The area of primary concern, from a public health perspec-
tive, is the release of sufficient amounts of contaminated
water to increase the risk of transmitting infectious agents
to swimmers. The generally accepted parameter indicative
of the degree of health risk is the level of fecal coliform
bacteria present in the water (u. S. EPA 1976}. These organisms
are restricted to the intestinal tracts of warm blooded animals
where many enteric microbial pathogens reside.
Existing fecal coliform counts in the Spokane River
were discussed previously (Table 2-1); summer increases
due to the waste treatment plant would be less than 1 percent
under mean flow conditions but approximately 33 percent under
extreme Q>7_^5 conditions (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). The resultant
average concentration is still considerably less than the
restrictive Idaho standard (not to exceed a monthly geome-
tric mean of 50/100 ml or 500/100 ml on any single sample).
The EPA (1976) recommended minimum safety level for bathing
water is substantially higher (200/100 ml).
Aesthetic considerations are also important in deter-
mining the total impact of the proposed waste discharge on
swimming as well as boating and other recreational activities.
Generally, surface waters will be aesthetically pleasing
if they are virtually free of materials attributable to waste
discharge such as substances that will settle to form un-
sightly deposits, floating debris, substances producing
objectionable color, odor, taste or turbidity, and compounds
stimulating nuisance plant growth (National Academy of
Science 1972). The aesthetic appeal of the Spokane River
should not be appreciably diminished by the construction
of the waste treatment plant at the proposed site. Current
velocities below the proposed permanent sewage outfall are
sufficient to prevent accumulation of bottom deposits. The
water surface should be relatively free from detritus as
no floating debris will be discharged into the river. Under
62
-------
mean summer flow conditions, Alternative B would increase
suspended solids less than 1 percent from 7.50-7.52 mg/1,
while under Q__. flow conditions the estimated increase
will be from 7.50-8.48 mg/1 (13 percent). These resultant
concentration increases should not produce any color, odor
or taste problems. As discussed previously, increased algal
growth due to additional nutrient input should in no way
reach nuisance proportions.
Canoeing, Kayaking, and Rafting. Members of the White-
water Northwest Kayak Club run canoes and kayaks from March
through August both above and below Post Falls Dam (Mossman
pers. comm.). A favorite run of some of the approximately
40 members begins around Post Falls and ends 2 miles west
of the state line.
The Spokane Canoe Club holds a yearly summer outing
during which about 100 members float the Spokane River below
Post Falls Dam (O'Hallaran pers. comm.). Individual members
use this stretch year-round but mostly during summer. Rafting
races have been sponsored in the past which began around
Corbin Park and continued into Washington (Morris pers. comm.).
Most of the canoeing and kayaking buffs are aware of
occasional wastewater bypasses from the Coeur d'Alene WWTP
during storms but are not particularly concerned (Morris, pers.
comm.). Thus, no additional anxiety over water quality should
result if Alternative B, with a summer waste discharge, is
adopted.
Scuba Diving. The enrollment of approximately 150 students
per year in the Coeur d'Alene scuba school is evidence of
considerable local interest in the sport. Usually half of
these students remain active in diving (Lee pers. comm.). For
those with the proper gear, diving continues throughout the
year, but most diving is concentrated between May and October.
Visibility in the river below the proposed waste dis-
charge site is characterized as excellent during the summer
months (mean turbidity - 2.5 JTU) (Clegg pers. comm.). The
relatively small volume of effluent to be discharged should
not reduce the clarity of the river to a point of deterring
scuba diving activity.
On-Water Recreation
Boating. Most of the pleasure boating on the Spokane
River occurs in the slower water above Post Falls Dam from
May through August (Clegg pers. comm.). Boating below the
dam is confined more to drift fishing. Increased nutrient
inputs would not encourage plant growth in sufficient amounts
to restrict the boating area.
63
-------
Fishing. Year-round fishing for largemouth bass, yellow
perch, black crappie, and pumpkinseed is enjoyed in the Spokane
River (Goodnight pers. comm.). These species, however,
represent a minor fishery compared to angler effort devoted
to cutthroat trout during May and June and to Kokanee salmon
from April to July. Most angler-days are spent above Post
Falls Dam, but the McGuire access area, Corbin Park and Pleasant-
view Bridge are popular access points below the dam.
As discussed previously, existing fish species should
not be adversely affected by the discharge proposals. The
increased algal growth and warmer-than-ambient temperature
of the effluent may even attract fish around the outfall
site. Fishermen may consider the congregating fish in an
area with good public access a beneficial impact.
Hunting. Duck hunting season in the Post Falls area extends
from the first week in October to the end of December. A few
local hunters may stalk mallards below Post Falls Dam late in the
season (Miller pers. comm.). Effluent discharge below the dam
should not affect this limited hunting activity.
Shoreline Activities
Camping and Picknicking. Although no overnight camping is
allowed at Corbin Park, the barbecue and picnic facilities are
used by as many as 25 people each summer weekend (June and
July) and about 10 people per weekend during the remaining
months (Eachon pers. corara.). The park is the principal public
access point below Post Falls Dam. No reduction in camping
activity is envisioned from resultant water quality changes
created by the proposed Post Falls wastewater discharge.
aird Watching. The Spokane Chapter of the National
Audubon Society surveys the Post Falls area each year. Eagle
censuses have been conducted from Coeur d'Alene Lake to the
stateline as part of a national count (Sturts pers. comm.).
None of the proposed WWTP alternatives would impact this
use of the river shoreline.
Economic Uses
The more important economic uses of the Spokane River,
resort and restaurant operation and electrical power generation
all occur upstream from the proposed WWTP outfall site. River
front property is the most valuable commodity below the Post
Falls Dam. Residential development is currently being planned
immediately downstream from the site of the proposed waste
discharge. In order for property values along the river
64
-------
to be affected, a major decline in the aesthetic quality
of the river (clarity, odor, etc.), would probably be
necessary. These changes are not expected with the treat-
ment level to be provided by the Post Falls plant.
Agricultural Uses
The Jacklin Seed Company diverts water just above stateline
from mid-May to the first of July to irrigate about 200 acres
along the south side of the Spokane River (Beck pers. comm.).
Minor nutrient addition from the proposed WWTP should not
affect this use.
Groundwater Recharge
The Spokane River recharges the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer between Post Falls and Greenacres, Washington
at a rate of about 80 cfs on the average (Drost & Seitz 1978 ) .
Both the aquifer and the river provide domestic water supply
for residents of Idaho and Washington. Even though the recharge
rate is relatively small, any contamination of the river
created by the proposed wastewater discharge would be of
concern. This topic is discussed in detail in the Public
Health Implications section of this chapter.
Impact of Proposed Project Phasing
The above impacts relate to the proposed permanent waste
discharge site below Corbin Park. The facilities planners
have recently proposed a phased development of Alternative A
that would involve an interim, year-round waste discharge
to the river 1.3 miles upstream from Corbin Park (Figure 1-2).
This discharge would be less than 1 MGD and would be present
for only about 3 years. The effluent quality would meet
Idaho state water quality standards for water-contact re-
creation.
This proposed interim waste discharge should not cause
water quality to deteriorate beyond state standards designed
to protect the existing river uses unless treatment plant
malfunctions occur. The likelihood of malfunctions cannot
be calculated, but if inadequately treated wastewater is
discharged from the interim outfall site, the impacts would
be more significant than if the discharge occurred from the
proposed permanent outfall site. This is because the interim
discharge is upstream from developed riverfront property,
and from Corbin Park. It is not known how many of the river-
front homes below the interim outfall are supplied domestic
65
-------
water from the river. The Panhandle Health District (1977a)
reported 10 residences between Post Falls Dam and the state-
line rely on the river for water supply. Inadequately treated
wastewater discharged from the interim site during the summer
would pose a health threat to swimmers at Corbin Park.
Summary and Conclusions
The proposed summer wastewater discharges of Phase I
of Alternative A or the fully implemented Alternative B should
have a minimal impact on the current recreational uses of
the Spokane River. This assumes that the treatment system
is properly operated, the effluent quality is kept within
state mandated limits, and the effluent is thoroughly dis-
infected. Discharge of inadequately treated effluent from
the proposed interim discharge point in the summer months
would affect use of the major river access point (Corbin
Park) between Post Falls and the stateline. Alternatives
A and C, using land disposal during the May-October period,
would have no effect on major recreational activities.
Although water quality changes downstream from the sewage
outfall will rarely be perceivable, the psychological impact
of constructing a waste treatment facility on the river below
Post Falls is unmeasurable. Local opposition from downstream
riverfront homeowners, boating enthusiasts, and upstream park
users will undoubtedly appear in varying degrees regardless
of which WWTP alternative is chosen. Consequently, the unknown
magnitude of unfavorable reaction by the surrounding community
will be an integral factor in determining the total impact of
the proposed waste discharge.
Potential for Public Health Threats in Surface Waters
All of the Post Falls alternatives (except no action)
include discharge of treated effluent to the Spokane River.
This discharge must meet specific water quality standards
established by the IDHW, including limitations on biolog-
ical agents (fecal coliform) and a variety of chemical agents
(metals, nitrates, asbestos, herbicides, pesticides). These
standards have been established to protect the public health
and ensure that designated uses of the river can continue.
The wastewater disinfection planned by Post Falls will
reduce fecal coliform levels to 200 MPN per 100 ml, which,
when dispersed in the river, should meet the primary contact
recreation standard established by the State of Idaho. For
Alternative B, this discharge would occur year-round. For
Alternatives A and C, it would occur only from October 15
66
-------
to April 15. Assuming that the outfall to the river is
designed to achieve thorough mixing, a minimum of about
380:1 dilution will be available for Alternatives A and C
discharges. Complete mixing cannot be expected, but this
gives an indication of the relative volumes of the waste-
water discharge and a low winter period river flow. This
dilution was estimated assuming a wastewater discharge of
2.4 MGD and a low river flow of 1,414 cfs. (2.4 MGD is the
expected year 200 2 average dry weather flow [ADWF] of the
plant and 1,414 cfs is the lowest 7-day flow average recorded
in the winter months below Post Falls over the past 15 years
of record	f°r 1965-1979]). Minimum available dilution
for the Alternative B discharge would be about 30:1 based
on a similar waste discharge and a dry season low flow (Q^_^)
of 113 cfs in the river. Background fecal coliform levels
as recorded at USGS gaging station 12149000 just below Post
Falls Dam, range from less than 1 MPN/100 ml to over 800
MPN/100 ml. Table 2-6 lists coliform measurements for water
years 1975-1976 and 1976-1977.
As mentioned in the beneficial uses discussion of this
chapter, the Spokane River below the proposed outfall is
used for a variety of contact and noncontact recreation.
This occurs primarily in the summer months (see Figure 2-1),
but some contact recreational uses extend into the colder
months (kayaking, scuba diving). The river is also used
to a limited extent for drinking water supply by persons
living immediately along the river. According to a survey
conducted by the Panhandle Health District, 10 dwellings
are drawing utility and/or domestic water from the river.
Domestic water supply is a designated beneficial use of this
stretch of the river. The Spokane River below Post Falls
also recharges the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer (80 cfs average).
Several of the City of Spokane's major domestic water supply
wells draw aquifer water immediately adjacent to the Spokane
River (Well Electric and Baxter Wells).
The proposed wastewater discharge under Alternatives A
and C does not appear to pose a major threat to the health
of recreational users. LePard and Frame expects the proposed
treatment processes to be able to meet the 200 MPN/100 ml
fecal coliform ;limit, which is designed to protect recrea-
tional water uses. The dilution potential during the winter
months is quite high and contact recreational uses are low.
People using the river for direct domestic consumption below
the outfall have more cause for concern. The National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Standards limit fecal coliform levels
in domestic water supplies to 4 MPN/100 ml. Background levels
in the river already exceed this figure regularly (see Table 2-6a)
67
-------
Table 2-6a. Fecal Coliform Levels Measured in the
Spokane River Below Post Falls Dam
(in MPN/100 ml)
	Month	
Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
1975-1976	82 81 81 83 <1 81 82 82 <1 81 816 81
1976-1977	<1 <1 <1 83 83 810 69 <1 <1 <1 822 813
SOURCE: USGS 1976-1978
-------
and the wastewater discharge will add additional biological
agents. Nitrates, metals and various other potential chemical
contaminants will be added in small amounts by the discharge.
For those individuals that are drawing drinking water directly
from the river immediately below the discharge it may be
desirable to locate an alternative water source or ensure
that the water is being treated prior to consumption.
The summer season river discharges of Alternative B pose
a more serious health threat. River flows typically reach
their lowest point in August and recreational uses are at
their highest point (see the Beneficial Uses section for
estimates of numbers of users). Even though the effluent
should continue to meet the NPDES limitation on fecal coliform,
the combination of sluggish river flows, historically high
background coliform levels (see Table 2-6a) and peak water
contact recreational use creates the potential for public
health problems. Recreational users may perceive the river
discharge as a threat even if outbreaks of infection or ill-
ness do not occur.
If treatment plant malfunctions were to occur and Post
Falls discharged partially treated or untreated wastewater
to the river, an immediate public health hazard would be
created, especially in the summer months. Swimmers, rafters
and kayakers would be in danger of being affected. Persons
drawing water from the river for domestic consumption would
have to abandon their water supply. This health risk could
be substantially mitigated or avoided by providing emergency
storage ponds at the treatment plant site.
A final health consideration of the proposed surface
water discharge is the fact that the Spokane River between
Post Falls, Idaho and Greenacres, Washington recharges the
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. According to Drost
and Seitz (1978) the river contributes about 80 cfs to the
aquifer on the average. This interchange is sizeable but
should be compared to other hydrologic factors. The surface
flow of the river below Post Falls has averaged about 6,300 cfs
over a 65-year period of record, and the groundwater flow in
the aquifer at the stateline is estimated at about 960 cfs
(Drost and Seitz 1978). A substantial amount of dilution is
therefore available to a 2.4 MGD (3.7 cfs) waste discharge
placed in the river at Post Falls. The combination of dilution
and the action of sunlight and biological agents should reduce
any public health threat to persons drawing water from the
aquifer to acceptable levels. A further discussion of the
relative health threat of river disposal versus land disposal
is presented in a following section.
69
-------
Impact on the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Water Supply
The effect of the proposed Post Falls facilities plan
on the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer (Figure 2-2) is a major environ-
mental issue of this project. This is due primarily to the
aquifer's status as a designated "sole source" of water supply.
EPA made this designation under authority of the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act in February 1978. As of 1976 the aquifer
was being used as a water source by about 338,000 people in
northern Idaho and eastern Washington (Drost and Seitz 1978).
Character of the Aquifer
The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer was studied
in detail over the past four years. The most comprehensive
physical description was prepared by Drost and Seitz (1978) for
the U. S. Geological Survey. This report should be referred to
for a complete description of the aquifer's character. In
general, the aquifer is composed of unconsolidated glaciofluvial
deposits covering an area of about 350 square miles, stretching
from Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho on the north to the confluence
of the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers west of Spokane,
Washington. Both the surface soils and the underlying deposits
are extremely porous and are capable of rapidly transmitting
water. The underground water body flows southerly then westerly
at a rate of up to 64 feet per day and lies from 40-400 feet
below the surface. The total recharge and discharge of the
aquifer is estimated to be 1,320 cfs (Drost and Seitz 1978).
The present water quality of the aquifer is described as
good, with a very small percentage of water samples showing
contaminants in excess of the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) included in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NIPDWR; 40 CFR 141).
The wastewater land disposal site being given most serious
consideration as part of Alternatives A and C is located about
2.5 miles west of Post Falls and 1 mile east of the Idaho-
Washington state line (see Site S-l in Figure 1-2). It is
rolling grazing land with a surface elevation of about 2,100
feet, mean sea level. Based on well log data compiled from
the IDWR (1979) and the PHD (1977), static water level is
from 117-152 feet below the surface. This portion of the
aquifer is described as the confluence zone by the PHD (1977);
the main arm and the Coeur d'Alene arm of the aquifer converge
and mix in this general area. The direction of groundwater flow
at this point is westerly and the rate of flow is approximately
60 feet per day (Drost and Seitz 1978). Soils overlying the
site are Garrison gravelly silt loam with 0-7 percent slopes
with an estimated permeability of 0.6 to 2.0 inches per hour
(U. S. Soil Conservation Service pers. comm. a).
70
-------
|| COMHt N'h iv'vilH '.,UhfOH 11NG DOCUMLNIAIIONi Af'H IC AUl t
IO PkOIECIS < rj ItIL DfcSK.NAl t D AKEA APE t MCOUKAG6D.
INCOLiM CO.
5 10 IS 20 25
(in miles)
FEDERAL FINANCIALLY ASSISTED PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED
AREA MUST IE DESIONcD AND CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO FIOTECT THE
UtlNKINO WATER OUAUTY Of THE AOUIFER APPUCANTS ARE HEREB Y
NOIIFIED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROIECIION ACENCr. WORKING
THROUGH THE FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCY, MUST APPROVE PROJECTS
PRIOR TO COMMITMENT OF FUNDS
SOLE SOURCE DESIGNATED ARE/
SPOKANE VALLEY
-RATHDRUM PRAIRIE AQUIFER
ro/'cf Oiutile Lake
BONNIR CO
PEND OREILLE
STEVENS CO
Hayden L

oeur d Aieno

Spokane
,<\U 49
COOUr
SPOKANE CO
KOOTENAI CO.
Coeur
aAlene
L ake
WHITMAN
CO
BENEWAH CO
LATAH CO.
FIGURE 2-2
SOLE SOURCE AREA
NOTE;
Of SIGNATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
SECTION 1424U) OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (PI 93-523)
(FEDERAL REGISTER, VOt 4 3, NO. 28-THURSDAY FEBRUARY 9, 1978}
SEPA
FOR THE
SPOKANE VALLEY-RATHDRUM PRAIRIE AQUIFER
-------
Present Health Threat
The estimated 1978 population of the City of Post Falls
was 4,850 (City of Post Falls 1978). The entire Post Falls
facilities planning area included 10,736 persons in 1978
(LePard and Frame 1980). All of these persons are utilizing
on-site sewage disposal facilities of some sort and all of
these systems overlie the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. The
highly permeable nature of the soils and subsurface alluvial
deposits over the aquifer have prompted recent studies to
investigate whether or not the domestic wastes are degrading
the water quality of the aquifer. The most comprehensive
investigation, the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer 208 study, con-
cluded that nitrates from the on-site disposal systems were
migrating through the soil into the aquifer. This is
evidenced by elevated and apparently increasing nitrate levels
in wells in and downgradient from areas that have a high
density of housing (PAC 1978). Nitrates are used here only
as an indicator of the public health risk. Other substances
known to occur in domestic wastewater (e.g., biological agents,
metals, pesticides, complex organic and inorganic chemicals)
are also of concern to people drawing water from the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer.
Wallace (1979) compiled data from the PHD (1977) in
order to describe current nitrate levels in the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer near Post Falls. His data are reproduced
in Table 2-7. Nitrate levels are elevated below the city
when compared to upgradient agricultural areas, but the levels
are still well below the NIPDWR limits of 10 mg NO3-N (45 mg/1
as NO_). The concern is due to the trend of rapid population
growth over the aquifer (therefore rapid increases in use
of on-site waste disposal systems) and the apparently rapid
increase in nitrate levels over the past few years. Wells
in Post Falls that reported .80 mg/1 NO.. (as NO ) or less
prior to 1965 are now reporting levels as high as 8.0 mg/1 NO^
(PAC 1978, Table 7). More recent water quality monitoring
conducted by EPA has found synthetic organic chemicals in small
concentrations at several locations in the aquifer. As an
example, a Post Falls well on Spokane Street was found to
contain 16 parts per billion (ppb) 1,1,1, Trichloroethane
(Burd pers. comm.). This substance is listed as a hazardous
waste in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976. Similar compounds are considered carcinogenic in
concentrations as low as 100 ppb. While the recently measured
contaminant levels do not represent an imminent health hazard,
the presence of these man-made chemicals indicates that man's
activities over the aquifer are influencing the quality of
drinking water supplies, and local efforts to control, the
handling and disposal of hazardous materials is advisable.
72
-------
Table 2-7. Nitrate Levels for Selected Areas
Within Rathdrum Aquifer (mg/1)
	Range			Mean	
Location	NO^	NO^-N	NO^	NO^-N
Upgradient from Post Falls	.88-1.76*	.2- .4*	1.32	.3
Beneath Post Falls	3.96-8.8	.0-2.0	7.48	1.7
Beneath land disposal site S-l	2.2 -6.16	.5-1.4	3.52	.8
SOURCE: Wallace (1979).
*The NIPDWR limit is 10 mg/1 for NO^-N an
-------
Resultant Regulatory Controls
A variety of local, state and federal regulations have
been spawned by concern for the aquifer. On a local level,
the PHD has implemented a number of aquifer protection regula-
tions as a result of the 208 study. The Idaho Code, Title 39,
Chapter 4 gave the PHD authority to adopt and enforce rules
and regulations for sewage disposal on the Rathdrum Prairie
in Kootenai County, Idaho. These regulations in effect dis-
courage construction of on-site wastewater disposal systems
over the aquifer on parcels of less than 5 acres, unless
the land is located within the proposed sewer service area
of a city or district with a sewer management plan approved
by the PHD Board of Health. There are exceptions to this 5-acre
limitation, but the net effect of the PHD regulations has
been to channel most growth over the aquifer into areas that
are likely to be served by a central sewage collection and
treatment system. The City of Post Falls entered into an
agreement with the PHD on May 17, 1979 which obligated the
city to proceed on planning for a central sewage collection,
treatment and disposal facility. The boundaries of that
sewer service responsibility have been defined as the pro-
posed Phase I service area shown in Figure 2. Developments
within the city are subject to review by PHD to ensure that
on-site disposal facilities are properly designed and that
new subdivisions have included wet or dry sewers that may be
readily integrated into a central collection system.
The water quality management plan for the Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer included 30 policies aimed at protecting the aquifer
from various sources of pollution. The policy that deals
specifically with land application for disposal of wastewater
requires that such application must be designed "to prevent
the movement of nutrients or other pollutants off the site
and into surface waters, or beyond the subsurface pollutant
removal zone and into the aquifer" (PAC 1978).
Several state regulations are designed to protect the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer and therefore will affect Post Falls'
project. Idaho has designated the aquifer as a domestic
water source and therefore must ensure that proposed projects
will not cause violations of the NIPDWR. The aquifer is also
classified as a Special Resource Water. Under recent re-
visions to the state water quality standard, (Section 1-2300.06)
the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer cannot be lowered in quality
unless and until it is proven to the IDHW and EPA that the
change is justifiable for economic and social reasons and
that assigned and possible uses of the water will not be
injured.
74
-------
The Idaho water quality standards also place some limits
on land treatment and disposal of wastewater. Section XI,
Part A of the standards require that sprayed effluent be
retained on the designated disposal site or a waste discharge
permit must be obtained. It also requires that 1) groundwater
be monitored in the area, 2) no groundwater mound or salt
buildup be created on another person's property, and 3) no
public health hazard, nuisance condition or air pollution
problem be created.
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act allows
the EPA Administrator to designate an aquifer as a sole source
of drinking water for an area. The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer was designated as such in February 1978.
This designation requires that EPA not commit federal financial
assistance to any project or action that may contaminate
a sole source aquifer and result in a significant hazard
to public health. A "significant hazard to public health"
is defined as any level of contaminant which causes or may
cause the aquifer to exceed any MCL set forth in any promulga-
ted NIPDWR standard at any point where the water may be used
for drinking purposes or which may otherwise adversely affect
the health of persons, or which may require a public water
system to install additional treatment to prevent such adverse
effect. The NIPDWR standards (40 CFR 141) place maximum
acceptable levels on a wide variety of water contaminants,
including a number that are typically found in domestic waste-
water (see Appendix B for NIPDWR standards).
"No-Action" Situation
If Post Falls fails to implement a centralized wastewater
collection and treatment program, the residents of the service
area will continue to rely on individual on-site waste disposal.
These individual systems will continue to contribute wastewater
contaminants to the aquifer. The size of the waste contribution
is unknown because no attempts have been made to measure
the influence of an individual septic tank in the area. How-
ever, evidence gained from groundwater quality monitoring
(PAC 1978) does indicate that septic tanks are contributing
to groundwater degradation in the Post Falls area. Walker,
et al. (1973) estimated that the average family of four contri-
buted 7 3 pounds of NO -N to the groundwater each year through
septic tanks in sandy Wisconsin soils. While this number
may have no direct application to the Post Falls area, it
does indicate that the nitrate contamination of aquifers
in areas of coarse soils can be sizeable. The cause for
concern is heightened when you consider the urban densities
that exist in Post Falls.
75
-------
If the PHD invoked its regulatory powers in the absence
of new Post Falls wastewater facilities and restricted develop-
ment densities to 1 unit per 5 acres in the Post Falls planning
area, the groundwater quality problem probably would not
increase rapidly. if, for any reason, the septic tank use
restrictions of the PHD were removed under "no-action", and
local planning agencies did not adopt similar development
restrictions over the aquifer, it is likely that subsequent
increases in septic tank use would result in a significant
contamination of the aquifer water supply.
Impact of Wastewater Facilities Alternatives
Alternative C.
Wastewater Irrigation. Facilities plan Alternative C
includes land application of wastewater at Site S-l (Figure 1-2)
from mid-April to mid-October. The water would be sprinkler-
irrigated at a uniform rate of 7.25 inches per month on an
orchard grass and alfalfa crop that would be harvested four
to six times a year. At the 20-year 2.4 MGD flow, LePard
and Frame (1980) estimates that 362 acres must be available
for irrigation to dispose of the wastewater. Sludge would
be disposed of by spreading on agricultural land in the vic-
inity of Post Falls. No sludge disposal site has been speci-
fied to date.
The facilities plan provides a lengthy description of
the disposal area site characteristics, the disposal opera-
tional methodology and the potential movement of nitrogen
into the groundwater as a result of the project (LePard and
Frame 1980, pages 5-19 to 5-46). Nitrogen was given the
most thorough analysis because it is a prevalent wastewater
constituent commonly used as a measure of groundwater con-
tamination. LePard and Frame (1980) suggest that irrigation
would average about 7.25 inches per month (Table V-4) or
2.5 inches per setting with a rotation period of 9 days or
less (page 5-28). With 900 pounds of nitrogen in the raw
sewage each day and a 25 percent removal from treatment,
the annual nitrogen loading was estimated to be 335 pounds
per acre. This loading would occur over a 180-day irri-
gation season on 362 acres (page 5-30). LePard and Frame
(1980) estimated that 26 5 pounds of the annual nitrogen load
would be removed through plant uptake and harvesting, and
an additional 15 percent would be lost from denitrification
in the soils and ammonia volatilization during land appli-
cation (pages 5-30 and 5-31). As a result, they calculate
that 20 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year would be lost
to deep percolation. This would be available for eventual
movement into the groundwater. The nitrate content of the
76
-------
percolate was estimated at 2.6 mg/1 as N (page 5-38). Although
no estimate was made of the potential change in nitrate con-
centration in the groundwater below the disposal site, LePard
and Frame (1980) did indicate that the change should be sig-
nificantly less than the theoretical .31 mg/1 (N0_) increase
created by normal fertilizer application procedures on area
grass fields (page 5-46). With the existing 2.2 to 6.16 mg/1
NO^ levels in groundwater below the disposal area and the
NIPDWR standard at 4 5 mg/1 N03, the impact as predicted by
LePard and Frame would seem to be relatively insignificant.
The nitrogen migration analysis conducted by LePard
and Frame has several important shortcomings. First, the
wastewater application schedule is tailored to a uniform
disposal program of 7.2 5 inches per month. It would be more
appropriate to adjust application rates to the actual applied
water demand of irrigated pasture, thereby limiting the amount
of water percolating to the groundwater. If applied water
demand was utilized, the per acre annual application rate
would be reduced by 44 percent from 4 3.5 inches (LePard
and Frame 1980, page 5-29) to about 24.3 inches. This
would require more acres for disposal or more storage capa-
city, but would provide greater protection for the aquifer
and should result in a trouble-free irrigated pasture operation.
The second shortcoming relates to the estimate of 26 5
pounds nitrogen removal per acre by crop uptake (LePard and
Frame 1980, page 5-30). If the wastewater is applied at
a rate in excess of evapotranspiration needs (44 percent
as indicated above), the nitrogen in that excess will not
be taken up by plants, but will simply travel downward toward
the groundwater. It is conceivable that as much as 14 7 of
the estimated 335 pounds of nitrogen applied to each acre
of grassland per year would pass below the root uptake zone
under the proposed uniform application scheme. This would
significantly increase the NO., change in the groundwater
predicted by LePard and Frame.
One additional point deserves mention here. The feasi-
bility analysis of irrigation disposal has focused on NO,
as the main pollutant. It should be pointed out that nation-
wide there is increasing concern for numerous potentially
hazardous substances that may be found in domestic waste-
water. Potentially toxic metals, pesticides, herbicides
and other complex organic and inorganic chemicals are being
found in wastewater effluents and drinking water supplies
taken from underground sources. Many of these materials
are not commonly tested for, and the health effects are not
well understood. This is pointed out because even though
land application can provide additional wastewater treatment
while allowing a recycling of water, the filtering effect
77
-------
of soils and the action of organisms in the aerobic soil
layer may not be as efficient at assimilating and breaking
down some potentially hazardous substances as is discharge
to surface waters. The action of sunlight and the numerous
biological agents in a flowing stream provide a significant
level of treatment that is not available in a subsurface
aquifer.
LePard and Frame (198 0) estimated the mass application
of potentially toxic elements to the land over 20 years of
operating a land disposal system. The accumulated applications
were all within EPA-suggested maximums for land disposal
(LePard and Frame 1980, page 5-33). However, these numbers
were not based on actual measurements, but instead on estimates
of effluent concentration found in various sources. Also,
the list of parameters did not include any of the complex
organic and inorganic chemicals that are now being discovered
in water supplies and are known to be hazardous to human
health. These agents are of greater concern than nitrates
because they are often difficult to detect, difficult to
degrade and seldom monitored. EPA would require additional
effluent quality data before a land application scheme would
receive design and construction funding.
Sludge Disposal. Treatment processes for Alternative C
would generate 165,000 pounds of dry solids annually (1.1
million gallons at 6 percent solids). This material would
be trucked to agricultural land and injected subsurface as
a soil conditioner and fertilizer. LePard and Frame (1980)
estimates that this would require 37 acres of land, with
an application rate of 4,460 pounds of solids per acre annually
(200 pounds total nitrogen). A specific disposal site has
not been located, but it would probably be in the Post Falls
area and therefore over the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. The
nitrogen loading rate is considerably below that proposed
for the wastewater application area (335 pounds per acre)
and nitrogen is not likely to create a significant health
impact. However, heavy metals and other pollutants in waste-
water tend to accumulate in sludge. The annual heavy metal
loadings predicted by LePard and Frame (1980, page 5-60)
are within EPA sludge treatment and disposal guidelines,
but because of the sole source aquifer designation it would
be valuable to monitor shallow subsurface groundwater in
the vicinity of the sludge disposal area so that long-term
changes in groundwater quality could be detected. If indus-
trial or commercial process waste streams become a significant
portion of the Post Falls wastewater flow, it will be especially
important to periodically test the pollutant concentrations
in sludge being applied over the aquifer. Sludge disposal
restrictions are discussed in greater depth in a following
section.
78
-------
Storage of Wastewater Over the Aquifer. One additional
groundwater contamination risk created by Alternative C is
the use of large, open ponds for the treatment and storage of
wastewater. The aerated lagoon treatment system will eventu-
ally include four large ponds, each with an 18-million-gallon
capacity. These ponds will be in use throughout the year
for either treatment or storage. All of the proposed treatment
locations are over the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. The ponds
will be constructed with a double seal, using both a membrane
and clay layer. This should restrict movement of wastewater
from the ponds to underlying groundwater, but there will
always be the risk of leakage. Groundwater monitoring on
the perimeter of the lagoons should be used to detect leakage.
Elimination of Septic Tanks. The most positive public
health effect of Alternative C would be the sewering of all
residences that currently exist in the Phase I service area and
elimination of all on-site systems for wastewater disposal.
As indicated before, 208 water quality management studies
in the area have identified septic tanks and cesspools as
a significant source of groundwater pollution. This ground-
water is being used as a drinking water supply by thousands
of people downgradient from Post Falls. Using Walker et al.'s
(1973) estimate that 73 pounds NO^-N per year can be contributed
to groundwater by a family of four hooked to a septic tank, the
total NO..-N loading on the aquifer could be reduced by more
than 146,000 pounds annually after Phase I construction and
hook-up of all residents in the Phase I service area. This
number is strictly hypothetical, but gives some indication
of the size of the load reduction. The change this is likely
to create in aquifer water quality has not been calculated.
It would depend in part on what land use and sewering changes
occur upgradient from the Post Falls area. However, the
impact would undoubtedly be positive. Wastewater that is
presently being carried below surface year-round with only
minimal treatment and little chance for plant uptake would
instead be treated to a secondary level, disinfected and
allowed to percolate through the biologically-active upper
soil layer. The removal of wastewater pollutants would
obviously be enhanced by this change in treatment and disposal.
Alternative A. Alternative A proposes the same basic
seasonal land application and river discharge disposal process
as Alternative C. However, the treatment process would be
a mechanical extended aeration system rather than an aerated
lagoon system. The groundwater impact from land application
of liquid effluent should be similar to Alternative C, but
Alternative A would have a much higher annual production
of sludge. The extended aeration process would produce 550,000
pounds of dry solids annually (24,800 pounds total N) or
330,000 gallons of liquid sludge at 6 percent solids (LePard
79
-------
and Frame 1980, page 5-58). This larger volume of sludge
would require a minimum of 124 acres for the sludge injection
operation. If the sludge is applied uniformly to the land
and the necessary acreage is available at all times, the
impact on the groundwater should not be significantly different
than Alternative C. However, if land availability becomes
a problem and the sludge is applied at a per acre rate greater
than Alternative C, the chances for eventual movement of
wastewater constituents into the groundwater would increase.
Alternative A would not require a large complex of earthen
lagoons for wastewater treatment as would Alternative C. The
treatment process would occur in much smaller concrete aeration
basins. The only earthen holding structures would be a 540,000-
gallon sludge storage lagoon at the treatment site and a 20-
acre emergency effluent storage pond at the irrigation disposal
site. These structures would be double-sealed. The smaller
acreage of earthen lagoons would reduce the chance of affecting
the aquifer through pond leakage.
The positive public health implications of eliminating
on-site waste disposal systems in the Post Falls area would
be the same for Alternatives A, B and C.
Alternative B. Alternative B includes mechanical extended
aeration treatment of Post Falls wastewater with seasonal
phosphorus removal and year-round discharge to the Spokane
River. The potential groundwater quality impacts of this
alternative are considerably less than Alternatives A and C.
There would be no land application or storage of effluent
over the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. The treatment level
would be similar to Alternatives A and C in the winter, but
would be improved by phosphorus removal between April 1 and
October 31.
All effluent would be discharged to the Spokane River.
The fact that the Spokane River recharges the Rathdrum Prairie
aquifer between Post Falls and Greenacres, Washington is
the only item of concern. According to Drost and Seitz (19 78),
the river contributes about 80 cfs to the aquifer on the
average. This interchange is sizeable but should be compared
to other hydrologic factors. First, even during the lowest
recorded flow situation, the 2.4 mgd (3.7 cfs) wastewater
discharge would be dispersed in a river discharge of 113 cfs
(the summer period Q7_i5 flow). With a properly designed
diffuser this could provide an initial dilution of as much
as 30:1. In practice, the river is not allowed to drop
below 300 cfs, and the 65-year recorded average flow is about
6,300 cfs. In addition, the 80 cfs interchange between the
river and the aquifer is a relatively small percentage of
the total aquifer flow of about 960 cfs at the state line
80
-------
(Drost and Seitz 1978). A substantial amount of dilution
is therefore available to a 2.4 MGD waste discharge placed
in the river at Post Falls. Table 2-4 indicates that the
Alternative B summer discharge would increase the nitrate
plus nitrite concentration in the Spokane River during Q_ ^
flow conditions by .056 mg/1. In addition, any pollutants
discharged to the river would be exposed to the action of
sunlight and biological agents present in the stream.
The sludge volume produced by Alternative B would be
greater than Alternatives A and C. Annual sludge production
is estimated at 1.3 million gallons or 630,000 pounds of
dry solids (24,800 pounds of total nitrogen). The larger
volume of sludge is created by the addition of large amounts
of alum for phosphorus removal. The alum precipitates out
with other waste solids and therefore must be disposed of
with the sludge. While this large increase in sludge adds
to the cost of sludge handling and disposal, it should not
create any new threat of groundwater contamination beyond
that described for Alternative A. Because the total nitrogen
content of the sludge would be the same as Alternative A,
the land requirement for disposal would be the same, 124
acres (LePard and Frame 1980, page 5-59).
Use of Other Treatment and Disposal Sites. The groundwater
quality impacts described above have been based on the use
of treatment plant site T-l and disposal area S-l (see Figure
1-2). The impact from using other treatment and.disposal sites
would not be significantly different, as nearly all of the
sites (except T-4 and T-6) are covered by the same soil type
(Garrison gravelly silt loam, 0-7 percent slopes) and all
overlie the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Depth to groundwater
is probably less at Sites T-l, T-3, T-4 and S-3 due to their
proximity to the Spokane River, but the exact differences
are unknown. Use of Site S-3 as a spray disposal area might
increase the chances of groundwater contamination because of
this elevational difference. The number of local wells that
could eventually be affected by the land application of efflu-
ent would be increased by selecting Site S-2 for disposal
because it is closer to town and upgradient from the other
two proposed sites (see Figure 1-2).
Risk Analysis
The fact that both land application or river discharge
of Post Falls' wastewater could ultimately degrade a major
drinking water source (Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie aquifer)
to some degree, makes it especially important to consider
the risks involved with each alternative. As noted above,
it is difficult to quantify the impact of disposal alternatives.
81
-------
There are insufficient data on actual effluent quality and
local groundwater hydrology to place specific numbers in
the impact discussion. Therefore, it is valuable to briefly
describe the various subjective elements of risk that can
be associated with each disposal mode.
Benefits of Land Application vs. River Discharge. The
obvious benefit of the year-round river discharge alternative
(Alternative B) is its lower capital cost when compared to
the two land application schemes (Alternatives A and C).
Alternative B has an estimated Phase I capital cost of
$2,028,000 less than Alternative A (see Table 2-15). This
includes the cost of land.
The land disposal scheme reuses the wastewater and re-
cycles a portion of the nutrients into crops. It should
be noted, however, that there is not a shortage of water
in the Post Falls area, and the water would probably be applied
to an area that is not currently irrigated or fertilized.
The reuse would therefore not be reducing existing water
demand.
An additional benefit of summer irrigation of effluent
would be a reduction in the waste load to the Spokane River.
As noted in the Surface Water Quality Implications section
of this chapter, the adverse implications of a summer discharge
are judged to be minimal, but there would be some obvious
aesthetic and psychological benefits accrued by recreational
users of the Spokane River below the proposed outfall if
a summer discharge did not occur.
Knowledge of Contamination Mechanism. Technical know-
ledge of the real health risks created by contamination of
water supplies with elements and compounds labeled as hazardous
is relatively incomplete. Many water contaminants have been
labeled as hazardous after relatively brief laboratory testing
on animals. However, public health testing must be stringent
and is designed to provide maximum protection to the public.
Testing results have provided sufficient proof that a hazard
to man exists if hazardous materials are ingested by drinking
the water. In addition, knowledge is very limited regarding
the quantity and numbers of hazardous wastes likely to be
in the Post Falls effluent. In light of this imperfect
technical knowledge, we must discern whether it is better
to dispose of the effluent on the land or in the river. To
help define this issue, the relative knowledge of pollutant
transfer from disposal area to drinking water supply can
be compared.
82
-------
The transfer or convergence of wastewater constituents
from a sewage outfall to the river is easily understood,
and the levels of contamination can be easily estimated and
measured downstream.
In comparison, the transfer of pollutants from a land
application site to the groundwater is not as well understood
and definitely less observable or measurable. Some information
is available about the filtering ability of soils, but this
pertains primarily to classic pollutants, such as nitrate,
bacteria, viruses and heavy metals. Relatively little is
known about the fate of the many complex organic compounds
now being produced by man and considered hazardous. In addi-
tion, the actual hydraulic relationship between land-applied
wastewater and the underlying aquifer is only speculative.
The ability to monitor and detect the transfer of pollutants
at a land disposl site is poor compared to river discharge.
Probability and Cost of a Catastrophic Impact. Probably
the most severe or catastrophic event that could be associated
with disposal of Post Falls' wastewater would be an un-
controlled discharge of untreated and/or highly toxic materials.
This could be created by an undetected release of toxic
materials into the city's waste stream. This worst-case
scenario would not be a serious public health threat unless
discharge contaminated a drinking water supply or water
contact recreational waterway.
If such an event were to occur in a Spokane River dis-
charge, the river itself would immediately be a health threat
to those persons drawing drinking water from the river and
those water contact recreationists using the river downstream.
Some portion of the contaminant could also eventually move
into the aquifer through the river's recharge zone and
threaten major groundwater supplies downgradient. The posi-
tive aspects of the river discharge option is that the chance
of early detection of the hazardous discharge is much greater
than with land disposal. Cleanup of the river would also
proceed more rapidly due to the natural cleansing action
of sunlight and the biological activity normally found in
a stream. Until the contamination was cleaned up, the com-
paratively small number of persons using the river as drinking
water would have to seek another water source. Contact re-
creationists would have to avoid the river.
If a hazardous discharge occurred at a land disposal
site, there would probably be no immediately recognized public
health threat. Depending on the nature of the contaminant
and its propensity for uptake by plants afc adsorption to
soil particles, there is the possibility that it would not
migrate to the groundwater supply. The negative side of
83
-------
land discharge is that once any hazardous material moved
below the aerobic soil layer, it would be exposed to little
or no biological modification and could not be cleaned up
by human action. If an acute or chronic discharge of toxic
materials did enter the groundwater and create a public health
hazard, an extremely large segment of the area's population
(in the Post Falls area and eastern Washington) might have
to seek a new water source.
Latency. The actual health effects of groundwater con-
tamination, if it were to occur, might not be felt for many
years, and might never be positively traceable. This is
due, in part, to the fact that some waste materials are
hazardous only after chronic exposure over relatively long
time periods. It might also take a considerable amount of
time for hazardous materials to migrate from the disposal
area to a portion of the groundwater that is being used domes-
tically. The travel time would be much slower from the irri-
gation disposal operation, but the latency of effect could
be true for either land disposal or river discharge. Tracing
a hazardous discharge and assigning liability for it would
be easier with a river discharge of wastewater than with
land application.
Irreversibility. Water contamination created by a
surface water waste discharge would be much easier to correct
than one created by an irrigation disposal operation. A
surface water contamination can be detected more readily.
It is also usually subject to greater diffusion and dilution,
and it is more accessible to natural or human cleanup. In
the case of a discharge to the Spokane River at Post Falls,
it might also have an impact on the groundwater downgradient.
The City of Spokane's Well Electric, a major domestic water
supplier, is located adjacent to the river 24 miles down-
stream. . It draws groundwater downgradient from where the
Spokane River recharges the aquifer. The major impact, however,
would remain in the stream environment.
Summary of Risk Assessment. There are several elements
of risk that should be summarized from the preceding dis-
cussion. First, the probability of the Post Falls waste
discharge containing materials that pose a serious public
health threat is very speculative. Local, state, and federal
regulation of wastewater treatment facilities are aimed at
avoiding any hazardous waste discharges. If, however, hazardous
materials were carried in the effluent, the detection and
cleanup would be easier with a year-round river discharge.
In addition, prediction of the eventual effects of a discharge
to surface waters is more likely to be valid than prediction
of subsurface changes and movements of materials in the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer. Finally, even if the low probability of
84
-------
creating a serious public health threat supports selection
of seasonal land disposal, Post Falls and its residents
could be paying a higher cost for wastewater service if land
disposal was implemented. The users of the Spokane Valley-
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer below Post Falls would have the
low probability risk of exposure to a public health hazard,
should hazardous wastes enter the aquifer from either a river
or land disposal.
Mitigation of Potential Groundwater Quality Impacts
Legal Authority for Mitigation. There are a number
of federal laws and regulations which allow EPA to reduce
the probability that a groundwater-related health hazard
would be created by disposal of Post Falls' wastewater.
The Clean Water Act, which gives EPA permit authority over
any wastewater discharge to surface waters of the United
States, is the major tool. The EPA-issued NPDES permit will
specify the level of wastewater contaminants (5 conventional
plus any of over 65 priority pollutants) that can be con-
tained in any effluent discharged to surface waters (33 USC
1251 Sec. 402[a]). In addition, the Clean Water Act allows
EPA to require an inventory of significant industrial or
commercial waste stream sources and a pretreatment ordinance
for waste streams containing a toxic pollutant (33 USC 1251
Sec. 40 2[b] [8]).
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which gave EPA
the authority to designate the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer as
a "sole source" water supply, also prohibits EPA from funding
a project which would create a significant health hazard
in the aquifer (42 USC 300f, 300h Sec. 1424[e]). To meet
this legal requirement, EPA can place conditions (i.e., moni-
toring requirements, operational requirements, etc.), on
the grant to Post Falls for design and construction of
its treatment plant and disposal system.
A third source of influence EPA can utilize as a basis
for mitigation is the aquifer protection policy of the
federally-adopted 20 8 water quality management plan for the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. It requires protection of the
aquifer from land application of wastewater (see EPA
Mitigation Strategy, below).
Finally, EPA can indirectly identify potential water
quality problems through the RCRA (1976). This act allows
EPA to inventory and establish storage, treatment and dis-
posal regulations for over 85 waste streams and 400 chemical
discards. These regulations are aimed primarily at control
of industrial and commercial operations dealing with hazardous
85
-------
wastes. Domestic wastewater is excluded from RCRA control,
but sludges are not. All industries in the Post Falls area
that generate, store, treat or dispose of any of these hazar-
dous wastes must register with EPA. This registration pro-
cess, along with an inventory of industrial and commercial
wastewater hookups, would allow EPA to identify potentially
hazardous materials in wastewater effluent.
EPA Mitigation Strategy. There are no formal federal
regulations or EPA policies for control of wastewater disposal
over a sole source aquifer. Regulations are being developed
on a national level but are incomplete. There is a set of
general regulations for land disposal of wastewater over
a subsurface water supply (Alternative Waste Management
Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology,
Federal Register, February 11, 1976), which establishes mini-
mum protection of a sole source water supply. In response
to a letter from the PAC regarding Coeur d'Alene's facilities
planning, EPA Region 10 issued preliminary guidance for entities
seeking to dispose of wastewater on lands over the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer (Burd pers. comm. a). This guidance,
in effect, establishes a mitigation scheme for potential
groundwater quality impacts. The contents of this guidance
are summarized as follows:
o In the facilities plan, describe ambient groundwater
quality data relative to the MCLs in the NIPDWR
and other pollutants of concern.
o Identify recent surface activities upgradient from
the proposed disposal site that might have later
adverse effects on groundwater quality.
o Plan for effluent quality monitoring prior to land
disposal.
o Establish and maintain an industrial connections
inventory consistent with EPA's pretreatment re-
quirements .
o Establish EPA-approved monitoring wells - one up-
gradient and two downgradient from disposal site.
o Sample monitoring wells for all MCLs and other
identified pollutants from the priority pollutant
list prior to land discharge (see Appendix B
for priority pollutants).
o Monitor wells quarterly (or less often if justified)
for MCLs, total trihalomethane potential or tri-
halomethanes (if effluent chlorinated), and other
priority pollutants found in initial effluent moni-
toring .
86
-------
o Monitor for all priority pollutants at each well
once annually.
o Monitoring program is to be continuous throughout
the life of the project.
o Monitoring program developed by the city must be
approved by EPA prior to award of Step 3 grant.
o Facilities plan must predict the soil treatment
capabilities of the unsaturated zone at the pro-
posed disposal site.
o Comply with Clean Water Act pretreatment require-
ments and control all industrial or other waste
discharges that might impact MCLs or priority
pollutant parameters.
o Wastewater application rates not to exceed 2.3 inches
per week (applied over a period of days).
o If sludge is applied to land over the aquifer,
groundwater quality monitoring similar to that
described above would be required.
If the above-described monitoring program indicated
that degradation was occurring, EPA would require added treat-
ment, tighter controls over dischargers to the system, pro-
hibition of certain surface activities, or provision of an
alternative effluent disposal system.
It should also be noted that the list of MCLs may be
expanded in the future and the pending sole source regu-
lations may place more stringent control on federally-
funded land application systems (Burd pers. comm. a).
Public Health Risks on and Around the Spray Disposal Area
Spray disposal of treated wastewater can create a health
risk to persons on or adjacent to the disposal area. Biological
agents (virus, bacteria) typically found in treated wastewater
can cause illness or disease if ingested by humans. The two
most typical means of infection are inadvertent ingestion of
wastewater or inhalation of wastewater aerosols created
during spraying. Inadvertent ingestion (e.g., drinking) can be
effectively avoided in most cases by fencing disposal areas and
posting signs that warn of the hazard. All water spigots, pipes
and nozzles can be marked with warnings. The site can also be
designed to keep wastewater runoff from leaving the area. The
chance of persons accidentally or intentionally wandering onto a
87
-------
spray site can also be reduced by selecting an isolated disposal
area. Land disposal Site S-l is the most isolated of the three
proposed alternatives (see Figure 1-2). Site S-2 is in a
developing area and a potential flood hazard area, and Site S-3
is located adjacent to a residential area and the Spokane River,
a popular site for recreational activities.
The health risk from aerosols is more difficult to control.
Isolation, use of vegetative screens, maintaining buffer strips
and fencing of the spray area are the most effective safeguards.
Again, Site S-l appears to be the best from this perspective.
The nearest developments are a farm about 1,000 feet to the
west, a hardtop racing track 1,500 feet to the west, a storage
elevator complex immediately adjacent to the southern perimeter,
and a housing development 1,000 feet to the east. Additional
protection can be achieved by a variety of operational measures:
all wastewater should be properly disinfected prior to irriga-
tion; low trajectory and low pressure sprinkler heads should
be used to keep fine aerosols from forming and drifting off of
the site; irrigation should cease during periods of high winds.
This latter measure would be especially important because the
prevailing wind direction is from the west and southwest; this
would carry aerosols toward the residential areas nearest each
proposed disposal site.
Influence on Soils and Crops
Alternatives A and C both involve irrigation disposal of
Post Falls' wastewater from April 15 to October 15 of each
year. This wastewater will contain a variety of salts, metals
and organic materials that could influence the ability of
the disposal site soils to support crops over the 20-year
planning period of the wastewater project.
Three potential irrigation disposal sites have been
identified in the facilities plan (see Figure 1-2). Each of
these sites is covered predominantly by Garrison soils.
This soil type has a low clay and organic matter content,
a coarse texture and a moderate permeability. The project
engineers have estimated that up to 7.25 inches of wastewater
would be applied to the land each month from the middle of
April to the middle of October. A combination of orchard
grass and alfalfa would be grown on the irrigated area and
periodically harvested.
The major soil-related concern over this wastewater
application is whether the various constituents in the waste-
water would eventually limit the soil's ability to support
crops. Wastewater application can increase soil salinity,
decrease permeability or result in specific ion build-up in the
88
-------
soil that eventually reduces crop yields or becomes phytotoxic.
Table 2-8 lists some key effluent quality parameters estimated
for Post Falls by Le Pard and Frame.
To determine the potential for soil and crop damage, the
effluent quality predicted by Le Pard and Frame (Table 2-8)
has been compared to irrigation water quality guidelines
developed by the University of California Committee of Consul-
tants and reported in Ayers (1977). Salinity and permeability
do not appear to be a problem, as the estimated electrical
conductance of 0.625 mmhos/cm and sodium adsorption ratio
of 3 are within the "no problem" category of the irrigation
guidelines (see Appendix B). Anticipated sodium (58 mg/1)
and boron (0.4 mg/1) concentrations are also well below those
levels that are reported to be toxic through root or foliar
uptake. The specific crops that are planned for use on the
irrigation areas (orchard grass and alfalfa) are relatively
tolerant according to charts presented in Ayers (1977). The
coarse soil textures found in the area (gravelly silt loam
and very gravelly silt loam) and the low estimated solids
content of the effluent indicate that soil clogging should
not be a significant problem.
Assuming that effluent quality data presented in the
facilities plan are a true measure of actual Post Falls eff-
luent, it appears that soils and crops would not be signi-
ficantly degraded by the planned irrigation scheme. However,
in order to assure that long-term damage does not occur,
effluent quality should be closely monitored for the key
parameters listed in Table 2-8. The irrigation schedule
should also be closely regulated so that sufficient drying
periods are allowed to avoid soil pore clogging. Also, suffi-
cient water should be applied to avoid salt build-up in the
upper effective rooting zone of the grass crops.
Land Use Conflicts
Introduction
An important issue in this EIS is the identification
of potential land use conflicts associated with the facilities
plan alternatives. This section describes the existing land
uses of the proposed wastewater treatment plant and land appli-
cation sites and evaluates the potential land use conflicts
involved with each alternative site.
89
-------
Table 2-8.* Estimated Post
Falls Effluent Quality
Total dissolved solids (mg/1)
400
Electrical conductance (mmhos/cm)
0. 625
Sodium adsorption ratio
3
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/1)
30
Boron (mg/1)
0.4
Sodium (mg/1)
58
Calcium (mg/1)
52
Manganese (mg/1)
42
*Source: Modified from Le Pard and Frame, Inc. 1980.
90
-------
Land Use Characteristics of Proposed Sites
Location. The location of the seven alternative treatment
plant and land application sites is shown in Figure 1-2.
All of the sites, with the exception of T-4 and a section
of T-5, are located in the unincorporated portion of Kootenai
County. The sites are located in primarily uninhabited areas.
It should be noted that most of the interceptor routes
in Figure 1-2 are designated within an existing right-of-
way. Although some construction-related adverse impacts
have been identified, potential land use conflicts are not
considered significant.
Existing Land Use Conditions. The existing land use
conditions of the proposed treatment plant and land application
sites are identified in Tables 2-9 and 2-10, respectively.
Zoning designations have been indicated to signal potential
land use conflicts. The surrounding land use conditions provide
the framework for evaluation of potential land use conflicts.
Treatment Plants. All of the treatment plant sites,
except T-4, are zoned primarily as "agricultural" or "agri-
cultural suburban" by Kootenai County. Site T-4 is designated
as open space in the City of Post Falls zoning ordinance.
A zoning change would be necessary to locate a treatment plant
at any of the sites.
All of the treatment plant sites, except T-4, are currently
used for agricultural purposes. A discussion of the direct
construction impacts on agricultural land was presented earlier
in this chapter.
Land Application Sites. The three alternative land appli-
cation sites are zoned for either "agricultural" or "agri-
cultural suburban" by Kootenai County. Since spray irrigation
operations are generally compatible with agricultural use,
no zone change would appear necessary. All of the land appli-
cation sites are currently in agricultural use, with the excep-
tion of a few rural residences in the southern portion of
S-3.
Land Requirement. Land requirements for the proposed
treatment plants depend on the treatment process selected.
Table 2-11 presents the land requirements for treatment of
2.4 MGD of flow by extended aeration and aerated lagoons.
An extended aeration/activated sludge plant would require
15 acres for the plant and related uses (i.e., roads and buffer
zone) (Alternative B). If a seasonal land application site
is selected for effluent disposal, an additional 400 acres
would be necessary (Alternative A). An aerated lagoon plant
91
-------
Table 2-9. Land Use Characteristics and Zoning Classification
of Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
Proposed
Treatment
Plant
Sites		Zoning
T-l	Agricultural
suburban
T—2	Agricultural
suburban
T-3	Agricultural
suburban,
Commercial,
T-4	Open space
T-1A	Agricultural,
Agricultural
suburban
Land Use Characteristics
of Treatment Plant Site
Agricultural use - grass seed
Agricultural use - field crops
Rural residential/low density
Vacant land
Agricultural use - grass seed
Land Use Characteristics
of Adjacent Area	
East - small tree farm
Northeast - rural resi-
dential across road/low
density
Remaining area - agri-
cultural
East - scattered resi-
dential
Southeast - commercial
Remaining area - agri-
cultural or vacant
Scattered rural resi-
dential
Southeast - lumbermill
North - railroad and high-
way right-of-way
South - Spokane River near
Post Falls Dam
West - Jacklin seed pro-
cessing plant
North - Interstate 90
Remaining area - agri-
cultural
-------
Table 2-9 Cont'd.
Proposed
Treatment
Plant
Sites
Zoning
Land Use Characteristics
of Treatment Plant Site
Land Use Characteristics
of Adjacent Area	
T-5
T-6
Agricultural
suburban,
Commercial
(county),
Industrial
(city)
Agricultural
Agricultural use - field crops
Commercial
Agricultural use and vacant
land
South - Interstate 90,
auto dealer
North - state highway
Remaining area - agri-
cultural and vacant
South - state highway
Northeast - racing
facility
Remaining area - agri-
cultural
\D
-------
Table 2-10. Land Use Characteristics and Zoning Classification
of Proposed Land Application Sites
Proposed
Land
Application
Sites	
S-l
S-2
S-3
Zoning
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture,
Agricultural
suburban
Land Use Characteristics of
Land Application Site	
Agricultural use - grazing
Agricultural use - grassland
Agricultural use - grassland
A few rural residences in
the southern portion
Land Use Characteristics
of Adjacent Area	
South - agricultural
storage facility
East - within .25 mile of
trailer park and a few
rural residences
Remaining area - agri-
culture
West - scattered rural
residences
East - residential
South - state highway
North - agriculture
South - river
East - scattered residences
North - Interstate 90 and
railroad
-------
Table 2-11. Land Requirements of Alternatives
Alternative
Treatment Plant
Type
(2.4 MGD)
Land Requirements
for Treatment Plant
(acres)
Land
Land
Requirements for
Application Site
(acres)
Total Land
Requirements
(acres)
A
Extended aeration/
activated sludge
15

400
415
B
Extended aeration/
activated sludge
15

0
15
C
Aerated lagoons
40

380
420
SOURCE: LePard and Frame 1980.
-------
would require 4 0 acres for treatment with an additional 380
acres for land application (Alternative C). All of the land
application sites and treatment plant sites, with the excep-
tion of T-4, are of sufficient size to locate either type
of treatment plant.
Because the project is going to be implemented in phases,
the initial development of land will be less than that des-
cribed above. The final draft of the facilities plan, however,
does not specify the land requirements of the first phase
at the 2.4 MGD planning level. This would depend to some
degree on the availability of project funding.
Potential Land Use Conflicts
The surrounding land use of the alternative treatment
plant and land application sites is presented in Tables 2-9
and 2-10. The operation of a treatment plant or land appli-
cation site poses direct impacts on the human environment.
These impacts include odor, noise, and visual aesthetics.
The following section describes these factors and evaluates
the potential impact associated with each alternative site.
In addition, potential mitigation measures are discussed.
Direct Environmental Factors.
Odor Generation. In general, the main source of concern
with wastewater treatment plants is odor. Odors can result
from different odor-producing points at the plant, such as
headworks, aerated lagoons or a sludge-handling facility.
However, proper design and operation are principal factors
in determining if a treatment plant will emit odors. In
general, lagoon treatment systems have a greater chance of
creating odor problems than mechanical systems because it
is more difficult to maintain the proper level of wastewater
aeration in a lagoon. Anaerobic decomposition of organic
matter produces more objectionable odors than does aerobic
decomposition.
The impact of odors is largely determined by prevailing
winds. In the Post Falls region, winds from the west and
southwest are predominant, especially in summer when high
temperatures present additional odor problems. Winds from
the northeast are prevalent sometimes in winter months (U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1976, Appendix E).
Noise Generation. Typically, adverse noise impacts are
associated with the operation of treatment plants. Objectionable
noise levels result primarily from trucking activity to and
from the plant. As with odor impacts, prevailing winds
96
-------
play a key role in the degree of impact. Other factors such
as frequency of noise impact, level of noise impact, and
individual perception are important considerations.
Visual Appearance. Wastewater treatment plants often
impose adverse visual impacts on surrounding areas. Although
the degree of impact is dependent on individual perception,
the visual appearance of treatment plants is often in contrast
to the surrounding environment. This can result in an adverse
aesthetic impact on a neighborhood or nearby road.
Site Evaluation. Table 2-12 identifies the potential
impact associated with each treatment plant and land application
site. The sites were evaluated in terms of odor, noise and
visual impacts. The degree of impact was determined primarily
by evaluating the proximity of sites to residential and highway
uses and the potential frequency of impact.
As shown in Table 2-12, Site T-6 has the least potential
for land use conflict of the alternative treatment plant sites
considered. The remoteness of the site from other human
activities accounts for this designation. The site with the
highest potential for land use conflict is T-2 due to its
proximity to residences and commercial activities. In general,
the remaining treatment plant sites represent a more moderate
potential for adverse land use impacts. All the land applica-
tion sites have a low potential for land use conflict due
to the compatible existing land use activities.
It should be noted that the preceding analysis examined
potential land use conflicts from the viewpoint of existing
land uses. If near-term land use planning is considered,
certain potential conflicts are apparent. At Site T-1A,
industrial and commercial use are proposed for some of the
adjacent land. A zoning change would be required which could
result in the entire area being rezoned for commercial and
industrial purposes. Another site with proposed land use
changes is S-l. On a portion of the site a gravel pit opera-
tion has been proposed. In addition, a main thoroughfare
which would pass adjacent to Site S-l is under consideration.
Mitigation Measures. The adverse environmental factors
identified in Table 2-12 can be controlled. This would
minimize objections to the treatment plant and land applica-
tion operations. In many cases, the direct adverse effects
can be significantly reduced by buffer zones. Buffer zones
alleviate adverse visual impacts and help dissipate undesirable
noise and odors. In other cases, however, additional measures
would be necessary. Table 2-13 identifies other potential
mitigation measures.
97
-------
Table 2-12. Potential Impact of Alternative Treatment Plant and
Land Application Sites on Human Environment
Direct Environmental Factors
Treatment
Plant
Site	
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-l A
T-5
T-6

X
X
Odor Impact
Mod.
x
X
X
X
	 	Noise Impact
Low	High	Mod.
x
X
X
Low
X
X
X
X
	Visual Impact
High	Mod. Low
x
X
x
X
Land
Application
Sites
S-l
S-2
S-3
x
X
X
NA'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1	Only odor generation applicable for adverse impacts. Odor generation could result from
over-application and build-up of treated effluent.
2
Not applicable.
-------
Table 2-13. Potential Mitigation Measures
Odor Reduction
1. Ensure that all facilities are properly maintained
including all odor control equipment#
2. Establish a means of monitoring plant odor pro-
duction so that any off-site impacts can be
rapidly detected and corrective action can be
taken.
Noise Reduction
1.	Restrict truck traffic to the hours between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
2.	Enclose all pumps and motors in acoustically
designed structures.
3.	Maintain a berm around all treatment facilities.
Visual
1.	Maintain a berm around all treatment facilities.
2.	Plant shrubs and trees around treatment facilities
-------
Energy Consumption
Wastewater treatment in the Post Falls area is currently
provided by septic tanks with drainfields, cesspools and
other on-site systems. These facilities do not utilize an
external power source to treat the wastewater. The wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal system proposed for Post
Falls will require a significant energy input in the form
of electricity to run pump stations, treatment plant equipment
and, with Alternatives A and C, an irrigation disposal system.
The extent of the energy needed varies from one proposed
alternative to the next and from one treatment plant site
and disposal area location to the next.
LePard and Frame (19S0) calculated both primary and
secondary energy requirements for each of the three project
alternatives considered in the facilities plan. These numbers
are presented in Table 2-14.
Table 2-14
Alternative Project Energy Requirements
(per year at 2.4 mgd flow)
1
Energy
2
Primary
Kwh
106BTU
Secondary"
Kwh
106BTU
Alternative Alternative Alternative
ABC
1,525,100
660
1,200
1,116,300
880
1,232
320
1,372,600
460
1,200
TOTAL (in 10 BTU)
5,872
5,016
5,151
Source: modified from LePard and Frame, Inc. 1980.
Energy used in transport, treatment and disposal of wastewater.
Energy required to produce the chemicals used in wastewater
treatment.
100
-------
All energy calculations were based on use of treatment
plant Site T-l and disposal Site S-l. No estimates were
made for use of other disposal sites, but communications
with the facilities plan engineers (LePard and Frame, Inc.
pers. comm.) indicate use of treatment Site T-1A would increase
annual electrical demand by 22,000 Kwh and use of Site T-6
would increase demand by 400,000 Kwh. No increase would
be expected with Site T-5. Estimates were not made for Sites
T-2, T-3 or T-4. If the disposal site was changed, there
could also be a change in energy demand, but the extent of
the change would depend upon the ultimate location of the
treatment plant. Disposal area S-2 is slightly higher in
elevation than S-l so would probably require an extra increment
of energy, while Site S-3 is lower in elevation and could
probably be serviced by gravity feed from the treatment sites.
As the figures in Table 2-14 indicate, Alternative B
would require the smallest amount of primary electrical energy.
This is because effluent would be gravity fed to the river
year-round, rather than pumped up to a land disposal area and
sprinkler irrigated during the summer as in Alternatives A and
C. Alternative C has a slightly lower electrical requirement
than A because the treatment process (aerated lagoons) utilizes
less mechanical equipment. Primary energy consumption expressed
in BTUs relates to treatment plant heating needs, yard mainten-
ance and fuel consumption in digesting and transporting sludge.
Alternative B, which would generate the most sludge, therefore
has the highest consumption rate in this category. Alternative
C has the lowest primary BTU requirement because it generates
the least sludge.
Secondary energy requirements relate to the power used
in producing treatment chemicals. Since Alternative B includes
use of aluminum sulfate for phosphorus removal and sulfur
dioxide for summer dechlorination of effluent, it has the
highest secondary energy requirement. Alternatives A and C,
which use chlorine for disinfection, have basically the same
secondary energy demand.
If all of these energy use categories are converted
to a common BTU denominator and summed, Alternative A shows
the highest overall energy demand by some 721,000,000 BTUs
annually (see Table 2-14). Alternative B has the lowest
total demand, 135,000,000 BTUs less than Alternative C.
The Washington Water Power Company (WWP), which supplies
electrical and natural gas energy to the area, should be
able to provide the necessary power. However, because WWP
has not been able to increase its hydroelectric power generat-
ing capacity in recent years, its electrical energy supplies
have been stretched quite thin, especially in dry years
(Witter pers. comm.). For this reason, WWP has encouraged
101
-------
installation of utilities that use natural gas wherever pos-
sible. The area's natural gas supply, primarily from Canada,
is presently much more capable of absorbing demand increases.
The overall project energy demands can be kept to a
minimum by selecting treatment processes and disposal modes
with the lowest power requirements. Alternative B requires
the least electricity and the least total energy (in terms
of BTUs). Secondary energy demands can be minimized by
closely monitoring chemical dosing rates so that chemical
consumption is kept as small as possible.
Project Costs
Total Cost Comparison of Alternatives
The Post Falls draft facilities plan (LePard and Frame
1980) presented cost summaries for Alternatives A, B and C
in a series of tables (V-ll to V-18). The numbers were developed
using cost curves presented in EPA manuals and assumed initial
construction of a 2.4 MGD facility.
After review of the draft facilities plan, the IDHW
and EPA requested that new estimates be made based on a smaller
20-year planning population, and therefore a smaller sized
wastewater system (1.5 MGD). The final draft facilities
plan (LePard and Frame 1980a) presented revised numbers;
Tables 2-15 and 2-16 have been taken from the final draft
facilities plan and indicate the capital cost and equivalent
annual cost differences of the three alternatives at the
1.5 MGD planned capacity level. Use of treatment plant
Site T-5 was assumed for Alternatives A and B, while Site T-6
was assumed for Alternative C. The capital costs include
interceptors, but do not include the large collection system
that is to be built.
As the analysis in Table 2-16 indicates, Alternative B
has the lowest present worth capital cost ($6,975,000) and
total present worth cost ($8,674,000). Alternative A has
the highest costs ($10,617,000 total present worth). This
present worth cost summary is required by EPA to identify
the least costly project when considering the full 20-year
planning period. The Table 2-16 costs, however, do not take
into consideration the 15 percent cost preference given by
EPA to facilities that qualify as innovative or alternative
technology. The land application disposal of Alternatives A
and C could qualify for this 15 percent preference. If it
does, Alternative C could qualify for federal funding even
though the cost analysis does not identify it as the most
102
-------
TABLE 2-15
ALTERNATIVE PLAN COST SUMMARY
Clow growth rate)
IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
1.5 MGD
CAPITAL1
TREATMENT SITE
S RIGHT-OF-WAY2
LAND
DISPOSAL SITE3
TOTAL
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
TOTAL COST
LESS INCOME
NET COST
ALTERNATIVE (A}
PHASE PHASE
I	II
6380 2165
190
665
7235
195
-13
332
2497
280
-27
ALTERNATIVE (B)|
PHASE PHASE
I	II
5017
190
52 07
177 253
"WITHOUT PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL = 145
209
209
1768
1768
305
3 0 5 =
ALTERNATIVE (C)
PHASE PHASE
I	II
6568
129
630
173
-18
155
1847
332
7327 2197 = 9524
228
-27
201
'INCLUDES NON-CONSTRUCTION, CONTINGENCY AND INTERCEPTOR AND OUTFALL
15 ACRES ALTERNATIVES (A) AND (B) AT $ 10 , 000/ACRE; 25 ACRES ALTER-
NATIVE (C) AT $3/500/ACRE FOR PHASE I AND 5 ACRES AT $3,500/ACRE
FOR PHASE II
190 ACRES ALTERNATIVE CA) PHASE I, INCLUDING STORAGE; 90 ACRES
ALTERNATIVE CC) PHASE II; 180 ACRES ALTERNATIVE (C) PHASE I AND
90 ACRES PHASE II
SOURCE: LEPARD AND FRAME 1(^80A. lQ3
-------
TABLE 2-15
ALTERNATIVE PLAN EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS
CIN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Clow growth rate)
1.5 MGD
CAP ITAL
SALVAGE
VALUE
OPERATION S
maintenance
TOTAL COST
PRESENT ANNUAL PRESENT ANNUAL PRESENT ANNUAL PRESENT ANNUAL
WORTH COST1 WORTH2 COST1 WORTH3 COST WORTH COST
ALTERNATIVE (A)
EXTENDED AERATION
W/SEASONAL LAND
APPLICATION
ALTERNATIVE CB)
EXTENDED AERATION
W/SEASONAL CHEMICAL
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
PHOSPHORUS INCREMENT
ALTERNATIVE CO
AERATED LAGCCN
W/SEASONAL LAND
APPLICATION
9732
928
-1248
-119
2133
203
10617
1012
6975
665
-830
-79
2529
241
8674
827
137
13
-14
-1
783
75
906
87
9524
907
-1487
-142
1786
170
9823
935
Capital recovery factor at 7-1/3% and 20 years = .0953
2SINGLE PAYMENT PRESENT WORTH FACTOR AT 7 -1 /SV AND 20 YEARS = 0.2 5 2 5
LAND APPRECIATED AT 3%/YEAR, 6 G V RES I DUAL VALUE INTERCEPTORS AND
40% RESIDUAL VALUE TREATMENT FACILITIES
3VARIABLE OSM COST PRESENT WORTH CALCULATED BY USE OF GRADIENT SERIES
SOURCE: LEPARD AND FRAME 1980A.
104
-------
cost-effective. It should also be noted, however, that
the Alternatives A and C cost analyses assumed an irriga-
tion application rate that may not be acceptable to the IDHW.
If the application rate was decreased, additional land would
be needed and the costs of the two land disposal alternatives
would increase. The unknown factors in this cost analysis
must be resolved prior to EPA action on Post Falls' requests
for additional project funding.
The cost of treatment and disposal facilities and main
interceptor are expected to be financed through federal and
state grants and sale of local bonds. The size and timing
of the grants is yet to be determined, but treatment facilities
and interceptors are typically eligible for a 75 percent
federal grant under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, and
a 15 percent state grant. The land application facilities
(if they are constructed) could be eligible for an additional
4 percent grant from the federal government. The final draft
facilities plan (LePard and Frame 1980a, page 7-6) listed
the local share of Phase I project costs at $830,600 for
Alternative A, $691,700 for Alternative^, and $803,100 for
Alternative C. These estimates will be refined before a
final facilities plan is adopted.
The cost of the local collection system will be the
same regardless of which treatment and disposal alternative
is implemented. These cost and funding mechanisms for the
collection system are still being developed by LePard and
Frame, but the latest estimates indicate the total collection
system, including service lines to all houses connected to
the system, is expected to cost $6,162,870. The sources
of funding are expected to be a state grant, a Farmers Home
Administration grant, and a Farmers Home Administration loan
to cover the local share of the cost (Kimball pers. comm. a).
The collection system will be constructed in several
increments as money is available. The first phase is ex-
pected to cost $1,692,000 and will serve 720 dwellings and
the main commercial area in central Post Falls (Kimball
pers. comm. a).
Cost to Wastewater System Users
The final draft facilities plan included a user fee
analysis for Phase I of Alternatives A, B and C (LePard and
Frame 1980a). The analysis, however, considered only the
local cost of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities
and the main interceptor. The cost of constructing a collec-
tion system, which is not eligible for federal funding under
the Clean Water Act, was excluded. In addition, the elements
105
-------
of the Phase I project have been modified since publication
of the final draft facilities plan. Therefore, a complete
and up-to-date user fee analysis is not available.
In order to give some indication of how the alternatives
compare, the final draft facilities plan indicated monthly
user fees would range from $7.10 for Alternative C, to $8.65
for Alternative B. The Alternative A monthly fee was listed
as $7.90. This assumed Post Falls would receive a 5 percent
loan from the Farmers Home Administration to fund the local
share of capital costs and the user fee would be collected
from 2,490 equivalent dwelling units (LePard and Frame 1980a).
This fee would not cover the cost of the collection system.
Since issuance of the final draft facilities plan, the
Phase I treatment facility has been scaled down from 1.2 to 1.0
MGD and other modifications have been made. The size of the
first phase collection system has also been reduced. LePard
and Frame now expect to serve 720 equivalent dwelling units
with the initial collection system. The $50,000 annual
operation and maintenance cost for the first phase wastewater
system would result in a $5.80 per month charge to the 720
dwelling units. The added user cost necessary to repay bonds
for the local share of the treatment and collection system
costs will depend on what type of grants and loans are
ultimately received. The facilities planners are seeking to
keep the user cost under the $12.00 estimated prior to passage
of the wastewater system bond issue in Post Falls in November 1979.
If Post Falls fails to construct a central wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal system, the existing residents
of Post Falls will continue to rely on septic tanks, drainfields
and cesspools for wastewater disposal. The existing systems
have not required a significant amount of maintenance; septic
tanks must be pumped out once every 5 years for a charge of
between $75.00 to $100.00 (Kimball pers. comm.). This is
equivalent to a monthly cost of between $1.25 and $1.67 for
maintenance. There are no costs for operation. New Post Falls
residents would be required to install septic tanks and
drainfields for about $1,200 rather than paying a fee to hook
up to the city collection system. However, new septic tanks
could be limited to one per 5 acres if the central treatment
system is not constructed and existing PHD regulations for
protection of the aquifer are enforced.
106
-------
Growth Implications
Introduction
The following growth impact analysis considers the
facilities planners original population estimates for the
Post Falls planning area. This estimate assumed a contin-
uation of the rapid population increases experienced in Post
Falls over the last few years. The IDHW, however, has recently
indicated that grant funding for wastewater facilities is
not available for this large increase in population. The
facilities planners have been asked to plan for a 20-year
wastewater flow of 1.5 MGD rather than the 2.4 MGD originally
envisioned. This growth analysis has not been revised to
reflect the fundable population estimate prepared by the Idaho
Dept. of Health and Welfare. The impacts of a less rapid
population growth rate would be reduced from those described
below.
Analysis of Facilities Plan Population Projections
The facilities plan population projections are dependent
on certain key assumptions regarding growth. In this section,
local population projections are compared, facilities plan
population projections are examined, and growth trends and
assumptions are evaluated.
Comparison of Local Population Projections. Table 2-17
presents alternative population projections for Kootenai
County and the City of Post Falls. As part of the Kootenai
County General Plan, population projections were prepared
using a straight line (arithmetic) approach, a geometric
approach employing increasing growth rates, and a cohort
survival approach. In addition, the Idaho Department of
Water Resources (IDWR), in conjunction with Boise State Uni-
versity, has prepared projections using a population and
employment forecast model. The other county projection in
Table 2-17 was developed as part of a county fiscal forecasting
project (Seidman and Seidman 1978) and uses an average of
arithmetic and geometric projections. The projected average
annual growth rates for 1975 to 1985 range from 3.6% to 7.1%.
The City of Post Falls Comprehensive Plan presents a
series of population projections based on building permit
forecasts, arithmetic projections and geometric projections
based on average annual growth rates from 1940 to 1976.
Additional projections which have been developed for the
city are a straight line projection in the county comprehensive
plan and a projection from the fiscal forecasting project. The
projected average annual growth rate for 1976 to 1985 range
from 4.2% to 6.5%.
107
-------
Table 2-17. Alternative Population Projections for
Kootenai County and the City of Post Falls
Average Annual
growth rate
Population Projections	1970 1975 1976 1977 1980 1985 1990 2000 1975-1985
Kootenai County (1970 Census) 35,332
-County Plan, Straightline
47,863

60,370
72,804
85,337
NA
4.3
-County Plan, Geometric
47,863

65,651
94,251
NA
NA
7.0
-County Plan, Cohort-Survival
47,863

62,763
78,349
NA
NA
5.1
-DWR
40,640

50,140
59,940
67,120
88,120
3.6
-Seidman and Seidman

61,700
77,300
111,300
NA
NA
*8.8
-1980 Census (Preliminary)


58,000




-Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare

47,274



101,609

City of Post Falls (1970 Census)
2,371






-City Plan, Building Permit***

4,362
5,715
7,406


**6.1
-City Plan, Arithmetic***

4,362
5,234
6,324


**4.2
-City Plan, Geometric***

4,362
5,422
6,748


**5.0
-County Plan, Straightline
4,030

5,684
7,338
8,992

6.2
-Seidman and Seidman

4,600
5,700
8,100


**6.5
-1980 Census (Preliminary)


5,283




-Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare

4,402
5,392

7,871
10,344

Sources: Kootenai County 1976, Tables IIC, I IE.
3DWR 1978.
Seidman and Seidman 1978, Exhibit 7-1.
City of Post Falls 1978.
U. S. Bureau of the Census, pers. ccrm.
IDHW, pers. carrm.
* 1977-1985
** 1976-1985
*** These are "medium" projections; low and high projections using each methodology
also appear in the city plan.
-------
Description of EPA-Approved Population Projections for
201 Facilities Plans. Disaggregated statewide projections
for Kootenai County were approved by EPA in 1979 and appear
in Table 2-17. These IDHW projections are interim projections
and are being revised using 1980 census data. The projections
show a county population of 47,274 in 1976 and a year 2000
population of 101,609. In the City of Post Falls, the 1976
population is 4,402 and increases to 10,344 by the year 2000.
These projections were determined by calculating the 1970-
1976 county annual growth rates from available census data
and extrapolating to the years 1980, 1990 and 2000 for urban
areas. These population projections are to be used by EPA
and IDHW in allocating wastewater facilities grant funds
under Section 201 of the federal Clean Water Act.
Facility Planning Area Existing Population and Population
Projections. The facility planning area includes the City of
Post Falls and a portion of the county. In order to determine
the existing population in the facility planning area, Le Pard
and Frame disaggregated the county population. The number of
housing units in the facility planning area was calculated and
multiplied by 3.04, the estimated overall rate of persons per
dwelling unit in the county. This figure (4,906) was added to
the estimated population in the City of Post Falls, which
resulted in a total population of 10,736 in 1978 (Kimball pers.
comm.).
The Post Falls facilities plan includes separate projec-
tions for the facilities planning study area and the Phase I
service area. The facilities planning area is projected to
increase from 10,736 in 1978 to 26,840 in the year 2000, an
increase of 2.5 times. The Phase I service area is projected
to increase from 6,272 in 1978 to 9,662 in the year 1982 and to
13,600 in the year 1987.
Comparison of facilities plan population projections with
alternative projections is difficult due to inconsistencies in
population projection boundaries. Since the facilities planning
area includes only a portion of the county, in addition to the
City of Post Falls, state (IDHW) projections as well as other
projections for the county and cities do not correspond to the
facility planning area. Therefore, analysis of the facilities
plan population projections must rely on evaluation of the
growth assumptions.
Evaluation of Growth Trends, Assumptions and Population
Projections. Local population projections involve the system-
atic extension of statistical trends into the future. This
requires assumptions that certain factors which created a
particular pattern of population change in the past will con-
tinue to have a similar effect on future conditions. This
109
-------
section evaluates recent growth trends, examines present growth
conditions and analyzes the impact of different growth assump-
tions on facility plan population projections.
Recent Growth Trends. As shown in Table 2-18, the Post
Falls area has experienced a high rate of population growth in
recent years. In general, the recent high growth rates have
been a result of regional economic expansion, favorable
housing conditions and lifestyle preferences. One important
factor has been the financing of low interest loans on new
homes by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) program. In
addition, expansion in lumber and timber operations has created
many new employment opportunities.
Although the population of Kootenai County has increased
rapidly from 1970, the City of Post Falls has grown even
more significantly (Table 2-18). All of the projections
in Table 2-18, except those prepared by the facilities plan-
ners, indicate that future growth rates for both the county
and the city will be much lower than recent growth rates.
The growth rates being projected by LePard and Frame for
the facilities plan service area are considerably higher
than either recent trends or alternative local projections.
Present Growth Conditions. In the past few years, certain
changes in growth conditions in the Post Falls region have
occurred. Of particular significance is the trend toward
decreasing family size. Preliminary data from the 1980 census
indicate that 2.5 is the 1980 county-wide average in persons
per dwelling unit. This sharply contrasts with the assumed
facilities plan estimate of 3.04 persons per dwelling unit.
Another important factor influencing recent growth rates is the
nationwide economic slowdown. This has severely affected the
construction and wood products industry, which provides the
economic base of the region. Additionally, the recent discon-
tinuance of the FmHA low interest loan program in Post Falls is
expected to adversely impact the local housing market.
Impaot of Changes in Growth Assumptions on Population
Projections. The impact of recent growth trends on population
projections should be viewed in terms of short-term and long-
term implications. In most population projections, short-term
fluctuations in growth trends are implicit in the assumed
growth rate. Only growth factors with long-term implications
are thus considered potentially significant to population
projections.
The sensitivity of the facilities plan population projec-
tions to recent changes in growth conditions is uncertain. From
a regional perspective, recent economic developments are short-
term, and, to a large degree, relatively insignificant to
110
-------
Table 2-18. Comparison of Average
Annual Growth Rates
Projections
Years
Average Annual
Growth Rate, %
Trend
City of Post Falls
Kootenai County
1970-1980*
1970-1980*
8.5
5.1
Facilities Plan Projections
Phase I Service Area
Phase I Service Area
Facilities Planning Area
1978-1982	11.4
1978-1987	9.0
1978-2000	4.3
Alternative Local Projections
City of Post Falls	1976-1985	4.2-6.2
Kootenai County	1975-1985	3.6-7.0
EPA-Approved IDHW Projections
City of Post Falls	1976-2000	3.6
Kootenai County	1976-2000	3.2
* Based on preliminary 1980 census data.
Ill
-------
population projections. At the local level, however, a
combination of unfavorable economic conditions has potentially
significant long-term impacts on growth trends.
The effect of decreasing family size has important implica-
tions on the accuracy of facilities plan population projections.
The county estimate of 3.04 persons per dwelling unit is
considerably higher than preliminary data from the 1980 census
(2.5 persons per dwelling unit). This results in a 9% over-
statement of facility planning area population projections.
As stated earlier, the IDHW has recently prepared its own
estimate of likely population growth in the Post Falls area,
taking into account these most recent trends. This
state projection will be used to determine the grant eligible
size of wastewater facilities for Post Falls.
Growth-Inducing Implications of Post Falls Wastewater Facilities
Wastewater facilities are commonly recognized as a major
factor in influencing the timing and location of population
growth. Other factors such as local land use plans, water
supply and roads may be equally or more important in influenc-
ing growth in some situations.
The Post Falls facility planning area has grown rapidly
in the 1970s with the expectation that sewers would be
installed when housing densities became great enough to
finance the sewers. The projected high growth rates for the
facilities planning area are predicated on the existence of
a sewer system. If sewering plans are not implemented, allow-
able housing densities for new development would be reduced
to one dwelling unit per 5 acres or more, pursuant to PHD
regulations. 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.
In order to evaluate the implications of the Post Falls
wastewater facilities on growth, a geographic frame of
reference is needed. From the local perspective, the con-
struction of a sewer system for Post Falls can be considered
growth-inducing in that projected growth rates, especially in
the near-term, would be significantly lower in the absence of
a sewer system. The construction of the Post Falls wastewater
facilities can thus be seen as the removal of a local con-
straint to growth. From a regional perspective, however, the
Post Falls wastewater facilities should have little effect on
the overall rate or amount of growth. If the economic condi-
tions and local aesthetic amenities continue to draw people to
the area as they have in the last decade, the absence of adc-
112
-------
quate wastewater facilities in Post Falls would simply cause
people to locate in other communities or unincorporated areas
of Kootenai County where a full array of public services are
available.
Future Land Use
An important concern of this EIS is how the existing land
use conditions will change as a result of future development
accommodated by the facilities plan. This section examines
the plans and policies which will guide future development and
evaluates the expected trend of growth and its impact on future
land use.
Land Use Plans and Policies. The four government agencies
with the greatest effect on land use policy in the Post Falls
planning area are Kootenai County, the City of Post Falls, the
Panhandle Area Council and the Panhandle Health District.
Land use plans and policies of these agencies are summarized
below.
Kootenai County. The Kootenai County Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in December 1977 and is currently being updated.
The plan includes time-phased population projections and a
land capability analysis.
The county plan presents few specific land use policies,
but it does contain broad goals and objectives. Several of
these goals and objectives encourage the retention of
agricultural land in agricultural use; one objective encourages
productive agricultural land to be protected by selectively
eliminating the availability of public utilities (water and
sewer) to agricultural areas. Other plan goals and objectives
encourage development within and contiguous to existing urban
areas, and encourage planning for water and wastewater facili-
ties to be consistent with anticipated population growth.
The generalized land use plan map appended to the plan
incorporates the land use policies of the plan, and is intended
to guide land use decisions. This map shows continued growth
along the Post Falls-Coeur d1Alene-Hayden L-shaped corridor.
The currently vacant land between the Cities of Post Falls and
Coeur d'Alene is shown as either urbanized or in an urban
"transition area." Agricultural land north of Poleline Road
is shown as generally remaining in agricultural use.
City of Post Falls. The City of Post Falls Comprehensive
Plan, prepared with the technical assistance of Panhandle Area
Council staff, was adopted in January 1979. The Post Falls
plan contains time-phased population projections and a land use
113
-------
element with land capability analyses and land use recommenda-
tions for eight separate neighborhoods. The area of city
impact delineated in the plan does not extend as far east as
does the Post Falls facilities planning area.
Policies in the plan relevant to this EIS include the
interim sewerage system policy recommendations, which recommend
installation of dry sewers until a sewer system is installed,
and the continued use by developers of septic tanks and drain
fields. Other utility policies in the plan recommend provision
of service to existing residents as a higher priority than
servicing new developments outside the city. Generally, land
use policies in the Post Falls plan encourage growth within
the existing urbanizing Post Falls corridor.
The city plan's land use maps, intended to guide land use
decisions, are too detailed to be reviewed here. The major
uses accommodated by the plan maps are residential and support-
ing commercial uses; the development of a stronger and more
viable central business district is also envisioned.
Panhandle Area Counail. The Panhandle Area Council is a
voluntary association of local governments, functioning as a
regional planning and coordinating agency, within the five
counties in the Idaho Panhandle. The Panhandle Area Council
is the designated 208 agency for the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer.
The initial 20 8 plan, completed in cooperation with the PHD
and the IDHW, sets forth 30 policies for the Rathdrum aquifer,
several of which are directly related to land use and growth.
These policies encourage growth to locate within designated
community service areas or other areas programmed for future
sewer service.
Other aquifer protection policies pertain to floodplain
and open space areas. Development using on-site systems is
discouraged from locating in the 100-year floodway, and
development in the 100-year flood "fringe areas" is encouraged
only when it can be sewered by centralized sewerage systems.
New developments on the aquifer are encouraged to retain the
maximum amount of open space in order to enhance ground-
water recharge and minimize impacts of urban runoff. Sewer
interceptors and treatment plants are encouraged to locate
so that agricultural, recreational, or open space lands are
not prematurely opened to development; if these facilities
must be located through such areas, then prohibition of
lateral sewer connections is encouraged.
Panhandle Health District. The PHD has become involved
in land use policy in the planning area primarily through its
Rules and Regulations Governing Sewage Disposal on the Rathdrum
Prairie. The regulations are intended to direct development to
114
-------
areas with current or planned centralized sewerage service in
order to protect the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. Under these
regulations, until the new sewer system is completed, on-site
systems on parcels less than 5 acres can be installed only
within the city limits of Post Falls, or within other areas
identified as the Phase 1 service area in the Post Falls
facilities plan. This is an agreement between the district and
Post Falls.
The PHD's regulations are an outgrowth of 208 planning
in the area, and represent a major step forward in protecting
the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer from contamination from scattered
development using on-site systems. Two factors, however,
may operate to limit the immediate achievement of the regu-
lations' intent. First, the regulations do not apply to
dwelling units or subdivisions approved or plotted prior
to adoption of the regulations; thus, certain developments
with less than 5-acre parcels located outside established
service areas are currently being "grandfathered in". Second,
the regulations allow for development of new subdivisions
within approved sewer service areas even though they must
rely on septic tank systems as interim waste disposal faci-
lities. This added aquifer pollution is allowed because
it is assumed that development density must be increased
before central wastewater collection systems can be afforded
in some areas.
Land Use Impacts of Growth Accommodated by Wastewater
Facilities.
Estimates of Added Urban Aoves. In the City of Post
Falls, approximately 36% of the land is undeveloped. Most of
the undeveloped land is located east of Spokane Street between
1-90 and the Spokane River; this land is designated for
development in the Post Falls comprehensive plan. In addition,
many parcels are scattered throughout the developed part of the
city. Within the unincorporated portion of the facility
planning area, most of the land is underdeveloped. Significant
growth has occurred in the area north and east of Post Falls
between Poleline Road, Highway 41 and the Post Falls city
boundary.
Table 2-19 presents estimates of added urban acres result-
ing from added population projected in the Post Falls facilities
plan; these estimates were calculated using ratios of existing
land absorption in the Post Falls comprehensive plan, and thus
assume that future population densities in the planning area
will be similar to existing population densities within the
city. As shown, by 1982, 1,003 urban acres would be added to
the Phase I service area; by 1987, this figure would increase
to 2,169 urban acres. Those projections imply that, by 1987,
115
-------
Table 2-19. Estimates of Added Urban Acres:
Post Falls Facilities Plan Population Projections
Added
Planning Area	Years	Population	Added Urban Acres*
Phase I Service Area	1978-1982	3,386	1,003
1978-1987	7,324	2,169
Facilities Planning Area	1978-2000	16,104	4,768
*Assumes 8.68 persons per residential acre, and 1.57 nonresidential developed acres
(e.g., commercial, industrial) for each residential acre.
SOURCES: City of Post Falls Comprehensive Plan (Post Falls, City of, 1978)
Post Falls 201 Facilities Plan (Le Pard and Frame, Inc. 1980)
-------
virtually all the remaining undeveloped land in the City of Post
Falls (761 acres) would be urbanized, and that virtually all the
Phase I service area (total area equals 2,550 acres) would be
urbanized as well. For the facilities planning area, it is
projected that, by the year 2000, 4,768 urban acres would be
added.
This estimate is subject to certain qualifications.
First, it is likely that there will be less commercial and
industrial development in the county portion of the facilities
planning area than there is in the city. Therefore, using
the city plan's land absorption rates for the county portions
of the facilities planning area results in a slight over-
estimate of new urban acres. This overestimate is offset
somewhat by the use of family size estimates (3.04 persons
per dwelling unit) that are larger than recent census infor-
mation indicates is occurring (2.5 persons per dwelling unit).
If fewer people occupy each new dwelling unit, more dwelling
units are needed to accommodate the expected population in-
crease; therefore, more urban acres are needed. The final
qualifying factor is that housing densities are assumed to
remain the same. This may not actually occur, as there is
a trend toward more dense development in order to minimize
land costs and costs of providing essential public services.
All of these factors should be kept in mind when analyzing
the urban acre estimates in Table 2-19.
Consistency of Future Growth with Land Use Plans and Poli-
cies . In general, the local land use plans and policies
previously reviewed encourage continued growth along the Post
Falls-Coeur d'Alene corridor and discourage development of
agricultural lands north of Poleline Road. The recent (1979)
agreement between the City of Post Falls and the Panhandle
Health District that allows on-site sewer systems on only parcels
of 5 acres or less unless it is within the sewer management
plant boundary, further defines and strengthens local growth
policies. The Phase II service area boundary also appears
to be supportive of growth policies. However, the rate of
growth used for the facilities plan 1982 and 1987 population
projections exceeds the rate of growth projected in the City
of Post Falls and Kootenai County comprehensive plans, and
thus, must be considered inconsistent with local plans.
Potential Impact on Agricultural Lands and Floodplains.
In accordance with EPA policy concerning protection of agricul-
tural lands and floodplains from growth-related impacts
accommodated by wastewater facilities, this section identifies
agricultural lands and floodplains in the Post Falls facility
planning area and evaluates the potential impact of growth on
these areas.
117
-------
Agricultural Lands. As shown in Figure 2-3, most of the
U. S. Soil Conservation Service designated prime agricultural
lands in the study area are located north of the Northern
Pacific right-of-way which bisects the facility planning area.
Prime agricultural land predominates in both an easterly and
westerly direction from the city limits. Scattered parcels of
prime farmland can be found adjacent to the southern bank of
the Spokane River.
Much of the prime agricultural land in the facility
planning area is under cultivation with grass seed and
alfalfa comprising the main crops. As previously stated,
county policies support the protection of agricultural lands
in current production. However, scattered residential
development can be found throughout many of these areas, a land
use which conflicts with the economics of crop production.
In addition, since most of this area is designated as "transi-
tion" in the Kootenai 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 accommodated by wastewater
facilities will facilitate the conversion of prime agricultural
lands to urban uses.
Floodplains. Within the facility planning area, the
Spokane River, which bisects the southern portion of the
planning area, and the East Greenacres east ditch, which
traverses the western border of the City of Post Falls, are
potential flood hazard areas. In general, development in the
floodplain adjacent to these waterways is discouraged in the
Kootenai County comprehensive plan. Special building eleva-
tions are required as part of the National Flood Insurance
Program. In addition, on-site sewer restrictions in the
floodplain "fringe areas" have been supported by the Panhandle
Area Council in aquifer protection policies. It does not
appear that any significant growth accommodated by the proposed
project would locate in the flood hazard areas.
Air Quality
Current Air Quality Conditions. Air quality in the
Post Falls area is quite good most of the year. Favorable
wind patterns and the relatively low population density of
the area combine to create this condition. The only readily
apparent air quality problem occurs in late summer when the
grass fields on the Rathdrum Prairie arc burned after harvest.
During this 4-6 week burning period, dense smoke can envelope
the urban areas on the edge of the prairie. This includes
Post Falls.
118
-------
^sm ?i29 Ctoverteaf a
J.Grang* ^ 28 V
IH 21*4
.:£»t'g'Pfn
»M 2123

-Slil* Un«
VilUo
BASE MAP-FROM U3GS !• 24,000 COEUR d' AlENE, IDAHO 6 GREENACRES, WASH. QUAD
——• PLANNING ARIA
^ PRIME AQRICULTURAL LANO(BASEO ON OATA
FROM U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE,
PERS. COMM.)
FIGURE 2-3. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE
FACILITIES PLANNING AREA
-------
Because there have been few indications of serious air
quality problems in the area, the State of Idaho has not
established a broad air quality monitoring program. Currently,
one monitoring station is operating in downtown Coeur d'Alene.
It monitors only total suspended particulates (TSP). A second
TSP station has operated at the airport near Hayden, but
it is presently closed.
The 1970-1979 TSP monitoring results for the Coeur d'Alene
and Hayden stations are presented in Table 2-20. The primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), in terms of
annual geometric mean, has been exceeded only once, in the
area. That was in 1976 in Coeur d'Alene. The 24-hour standard
has been exceeded 10 times in the 1970-1979 period (IDHW
Air Quality Bureau, 1979). Violations of the 24-hour standard
have historically been attributed to agricultural burning.
There are numerous other sources of particulates in the Post
Falls area. Wood-waste burners at area lumber mills, sand
and gravel mining operations, construction and demolition
operations, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, and street
dust are all contributors to local particulate levels. A
source inventory that quantifies these contributions has
not been developed.
Motor vehicle-related pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, hydrocarbons, lead) have not been monitored near
Post Falls because it is felt that a vehicle-related air
quality problem does not exist. Currently, Kootenai County
is classified as an attainment area for all air pollutants
under the federal Clean Air Act (Pfander, pers. comm.).
Transportation Planning. To date there has been no
comprehensive transportation planning in the Post Falls
area. Therefore, there has been no transportation modeling
that would give an estimate of daily vehicle miles traveled
(VMTs) in and around Post Falls. The State of Idaho Depart-
ment of Transportation, District 5, plans for physical roadway
improvements, but they are concerned only with Interstate
90 and U. S. Highway 95. Traffic volume counts are recorded
and highway improvements are made when funds are available,
but VMT estimates that could be used for air quality analyses
are not developed (Ross, pers. comm.).
Water Quality
The conversion of land to industrial, commercial and
residential uses can increase water quality problems as well
as problems with water supply. The two most obvious con-
cerns are increased urban runoff and soil erosion. As agri-
cultural or undeveloped land is covered by buildings and
pavement, the amount of precipitation that runs off as overland
120
-------
Table 2-20. Summary of Total Suspended Particulate Measurements
in the Post Falls Area, 1970-1979 (ug/m3)
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974	1975 1976 1977 1978	1979
Annual Geometric Mean1
Coeur d'Alene 63 65 65 71 71	54 77 58	63
Hayden	52 44	45
Maximum Value2
Coeur d'Alene 382 292 254 270 393	272 190 201 159	174
Hayden	503 370	137
'•National ambient air quality primary standard is 75 jig/m3,	secondary standard is 60	ug/m3.
2National ambient air quality primary standard is 260 pg/m3, secondary standard is 150 yg/m3
SOURCE: IDHW Air Quality Bureau, 1979.
-------
flow increases. Oil and grease and the wide variety of
chemicals that are used around dwellings are carried in
greater quantities into storm drains and surface waters.
Where soils have been disturbed during construction, the
heavier runoff carries soil and silt with it; this affects
both the quality of surface waters and their value as wildlife
habitat. Most urban runoff enters storm drains or natural
drainageways; it therefore passes untreated into the surface
and groundwaters.
Control of urban runoff and erosion has received little
attention in the past, mainly because neither has contributed
to the wastewater treatment problems of local agencies. Section
208 of the federal Clean Water Act provides the impetus and
means for development of plans to control these nonpoint
sources of pollution. The 208 planning in the Post Falls-
Coeur d'Alene area would therefore be the normal vehicle
for this nonpoint pollution control planning. However, the
pressing concern for wastewater contamination of the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer has been the first priority, and most of
the 208 effort has dealt with on-site wastewater disposal
and its effects on the aquifer.
Policy 14 of the 208 water quality management plan, does
address nonpoint sources of pollution, however. It states:
"New development should be planned, designed, constructed and
maintained to involve the minimum feasible amounts of impervious
cover as a means of enhancing the retention of open space for
aquifer recharge while minimizing the impact of harmful constitu-
ents contained in urban stormwater runoff on the aquifer. Oil
skimming basins will be required in areas that oil waste products
are anticipated. Dry wells should be prohibited at gas stations"
(Panhandle Area Council 1978).
This 208 policy along with local land use planning
policies can act as the basis for nonpoint pollution control
action by local and state agencies with either direct or indirect
water quality management responsibility. This includes the City
of Post Falls, Kootenai County, the PHD and the IDHW.
The growth-related land use impacts section of this chapter
provides estimates of new urban acreage required to accommodate
the populations projected in the wastewater facilities plan.
That estimate includes 4,768 acres of new urban land, within
the 20-year planning period. Development density and percent
land coverage have not been estimated, but they are likely to
be higher than they are now because sewers will be available
and the trend in housing is toward more concentrated develop-
ment. Increasing urban runoff could therefore become a real
threat to water quality both in the Spokane River and the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer if some control actions are not
taken in the future.
122
-------
The 20 8 plan for Spokane County, Washington, which also
overlies the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, deals in some depth with
the types and volumes of nonpoint source pollutants that can be
generated by urbanization. Table 2-21 presents areal pollutant
loading rates selected as representative of the Spokane area.
While the Post Falls urban area is considerably less densely
developed than Spokane and has much less industrial development,
the pollutant loadings in the table give an indication of the
potential for water quality deterioration that can accompany
urbanization. The pollutants which are typically contained in
urban runoff can become groundwater and surface water contamin-
ants in the Post Falls area unless control measures are adopted.
Urban runoff presently goes untreated, the majority per-
colating through the coarse soils of the area and into the
groundwater.
Control and mitigation of growth-related nonpoint source
pollutants can be achieved in a variety of ways. The respon-
sibility for identification and implementation of control
measures lies with local and state government through ongoing
208 water quality management planning. Continued planning in
this regard is encouraged by EPA.
Scarce Resources
Continued rapid growth in the Post Falls area will require
additional use and consumption of a variety of scarce natural
resources. This includes wood products, sand and gravel and
energy supplies. Timberland and sand and gravel are in short
supply on a national level but appear to be plentiful in the
Post Falls-Coeur d'Alene area. Planned growth in Post Falls
will not remove significant timber-producing areas from produc-
tion and will not hinder access to major sand and gravel
deposits. Energy supplies are of greater concern.
According to Washington Water Power Company (WWP), the
principal supplier of electricity and natural gas in the area,
electrical supplies have been critically short in the past, and
promises for an improvement in the near future are not bright.
Demand has been increasing by about 5 percent per year but
generation capacity is not increasing (Witter pers. comm.).
Gas supplies from Canada are adequate but electrical generation
has remained fixed in recent years because new projects have
been slow to receive approval. Most of the electric supply
comes from hydroelectric plants; therefore, in drought years
there has been a serious reduction in generation capacity. As
a result, WWP has been encouraging use of gas as the major
energy source for new development in the Coeur d'Alene-Post
Falls area (Pierce pers. comm.). Continued rapid growth in the
Post Falls area will place an additional strain on WWP supplies.
123
-------
Table 2-21. Areal Runoff Loading Rates Selected for Spokane
lbs/acre/year
NJ
iVrn c>(MCH
f.", Iilent l jl
f nci'n'rc • d I
I < 'jf> t
! n.lus t r t ,i 1
IIpiv'
I ...it, , ' i 1.1 1
i-in lei!
WWS '
56
34
75
aoo
ROll
10
l?0
200
hoo ro«i
••r,0
S JS
SIX)
too
ISO
5
so
10
25
>00
300
30
57
SO
1.5
4.8
3.5
300
246
241)
4 0
0.4
1.3
1.6
;0 400 3.4 0.8
I R OS
I . 3
4.1
2.1
NO
NO
3 3
0 3
1.?
1.0
4.5 0.6
1.3
1.5
1.0
0.3
4.2
2. )
2.0 2.1
! 4
3.2
25 3.0
5»I0"5
0.006
0.D02
0 01
0.004
0.0046
4x10"
0.4
0.2
0.42
0.3
0 . 40
0 19
o.os
1*10"
2.9
1.5
0.20 0.5
on
0.14
1.2
2.2
0.5
2* 10-
0.06 0.7
0.02 0.2
0.06 0.6
0.04
0 04
0.3
0.5
U. 6
0.1 0.4 0.0!
12
•O —
U <—
u o
bxlO*
I.6*1012 1.
3.6*10" 3.
3*10*
5*10'1
7*1010
1.5*10" 1.1*10'
3.9x10" 8
1.UI012 I
.6x10'°
.1*10"
0 \L
' Nti'dti^r I Af r+/year .
/»!<»»>«, for P^si'lpnlui, ConiMprc \, liqht Industrial and Heavy Industrial weighted by percent Of total developed.
»»• i-mhuip 9.
SOURCE: Spokane County, Office of County Engineers 1979.
-------
If growth proceeds within the facilities planning area as
predicted in the facilities plan, there will be a 16,100-person
increase between 1978 and 2000. Assuming a density of three
persons per dwelling unit and an energy demand similar to that
of the August 1978 to August 1979 period (14,328 Kwh per customer
and 971 therms per customer [Pierce pers. comm.]), the annual
demand for electricity will increase by 76,898,000 Kwh and the
annual demand for natural gas will increase by 5,211,000 therms.
These potential impacts on energy supplies can be controlled
to a degree by initiating simple conservation-oriented planning
policies on a local scale. This could include incorporating
energy conservation requirements into building codes, publicizing
household-oriented energy and resource conservation techniques
in schools and through the local media, and conducting local energy
education campaigns. Energy fairs and workshops have proven to
be valuable in disseminating conservation information that can
both reduce demand and save consumers dollars on their utility
bills.
Archeoloqical and Historic Resources
Research conducted by the University of Idaho Laboratory
of Anthropology indicates that there is little likelihood that
continued growth in the Post Falls area will adversely affect
known or previously undiscovered archeological or historic
resources. A records search of the National Register of Historic
Places and the Idaho Historic Survey found no designated or
nominated sites in the Post Falls area. Archeological site
survey records of the Idaho Archeological Survey list three
prehistoric sites near Post Falls, but none is expected to be
affected by planned urbanization. Field surveys of areas
directly impacted by wastewater facilities construction also
failed to turn up previously unrecorded archeological resources.
While the possibility exists that undiscovered archeologi-
cal resources may still exist within the proposed sewer service
area, the existing record does not indicate an abundance of
archeological sites. Therefore, it does not appear that
mitigation of potential impacts is necessary at this time.
The archeological report prepared by the University of Idaho
Department of Anthropology is attached as Appendix A. This
report has been forwarded to the Idaho State Historic Preserva-
tion Office in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. A letter from the State Historic
Preservation Office indicating no adverse impacts are expected
is also contained in Appendix A.
125
-------
Imoacts of Growth on Public Services
In this section the impacts of continued high population
growth rates upon key Post Falls public services are assessed.
A qualitative assessment of the impacts of growth on the
service capabilities of schools, transportation, police and
fire, water supply, and recreation is provided.
Schools. The Post Falls planning area is within Post
Falls School District 273. District 273 facilities consist
of 3 elementary schools, 1 junior high school and 1 senior
high school, all located in the City of Post Falls. The
enrollment of District 273 in 1978-1979 was 2,719 students,
up from 2,531 in 1977-1978 and 2,352 in 1976-1977 (Post Falls
School District 273 pers. comm.)
At present, District 273 schools are significantly over-
crowded, necessitating double shifts in the junior high school.
Seidman and Seidman (1978) find that school area per student
is about 50 percent below state standards, and that school
officials have had difficulty securing public authorization
to raise funds to reduce overcrowding.
In April 1980, a $2.75 million school bond issue was
passed which will fund the construction of new facilities.
The construction involves 16 more classrooms for the high
school, a 12-room addition to Ponderosa Elementary School
and 6 classrooms and a multipurpose room for Seltice Elementary.
The new facilities are expected to accommodate student enroll-
ment for the next seven years. Until recently, the completion
date was set for fall 1981. However, the recent downturn
in the bond market has postponed the sale of the bonds, which
could delay the completion of the facilities.
Transportation. The major highway passing through the
Post Falls planning area is Interstate 90, connecting Post
Falls to Spokane on the east and Coeur d'Alene on the west.
Street maintenance in the planning area is the responsibility
of the Post Falls Street Department and a Kootenai County
highway district. Both agencies are considered to have critical
needs for new equipment and facilities (Seidman and Seidman
1978). The City of Post Falls road system is in need of main-
tenance and repair, but these activities are being delayed
pending construction of new water and sewer lines.
Several problems related to local traffic congestion,
accidents, and access have been identified in the Post Falls
general plan. Many of these problems relate to U. S. 10,
the main east-west arterial passing through Post Falls. Con-
tinued high growth rates in the planning area would require
correction of existing problems, construction of additional
roads and widening of existing roads as well as increased street
maintenance due to increased traffic.
126
-------
Police and Fire. Police protection in the Post Falls
planning area is provided by the County Sheriff and by the
Post Falls Police Department. Because of funding limitations,
the number of line officers in both departments is considerably
below national (FBI) standards on a per capita basis (Seidman
and Seidman 1978). The City of Post Falls Fire Department
and the Post Falls Rural Fire District No. 4 provide fire
protection services which are considered adequate. Continued
high growth rates in the facilities planning area would neces-
sitate increased police and fire personnel and facilities.
Water Supply. The City of Post Falls water system is
currently at capacity. The engineering firm of Le Pard and
Frame recently completed (1979) a water study as part of
the development of a water master plan for the city. According
to this study, 17 percent of the city's water is being lost
somewhere within the municipal water system but exactly where
is unknown.
Other problems with the system in addition to inadequate
water supplies include insufficiently sized water lines and
low water pressure in many locations. Low water pressure
presents problems not only to domestic users but also to
local fire departments.
A number of solutions have been proposed to improve
the system's capacity. They include: development of a new
well; installation of water meters; obtaining water supplies
from the East Greenacres Irrigation District; and replacing
valves and water mains. Some city funds ($143,200) have
been earmarked for various projects to upgrade the system
(Coeur d'Alene Press 1980). A rate increase earlier this
year together with increased hook-up charges are expected
to provide additional needed revenues. Continued high growth
in the facilities planning area would require construction
of additional capacity in the City of Post Falls water supply
system.
Recreation. The Post Falls general plan contains a
comprehensive analysis of the city's recreational needs.
Currently, Post Falls has only 18 acres of city parks. Based
on the city's 1978 population estimate of 4,900 and a general
national standard of 10 acres of recreational land per thousand
residents, the city should have 4 9 acres of parks. Continued
high rates of growth in the facilities planning area would
require provision of additional park facilities in addition to
correction of existing deficiencies, in order to bring Post
Falls up to national recreational standards.
127
-------
Fiscal Implications
Fiscal Overview. In the Post Falls region, rapid growth
is predicted to continue. This growth, which would be accom-
modated in part by wastewater facilities, will require
significant private and public expenditures. In this section,
the ability of local public service agencies to pay the future
costs of growth is evaluated.
This issue was the subject of a report entitled What
Will Growth Cost in Kootenai County? completed in 19 78 by
the accounting firm of Seidman and Seidman for Kootenai County.
The study examined the fiscal impacts of future population
growth on the major public services in Kootenai County, Post
Falls and Coeur d'Alene and also attempted to assess the
fiscal impacts of implementing the Kootenai County general
plan. As previously discussed in this EIS, the population
projections used in the Seidman and Seidman report have proved
to be inaccurately high, thereby overestimating significantly
future public service costs.
This analysis does not attempt to recalculate projected
public service costs as a result of recent revisions in existing
populations. Rather, a general framework is provided for
assessing the impacts of growth on the fiscal capability
of general purpose governments in Idaho such as Kootenai
County and the City of Post Falls. Of particular concern is
the effect of the 1978 state referendum (1 percent law) limiting
property taxes to one percent of market value.
Public Services and Revenue Sources.
Sewice Provzsiona. Within the facility planning area,
public services are provided in some cases by the City of
Post Fails and Kootenai County and in other cases by special
purpose districts. In the City of Post Falls, virtually
all public services are provided by the city except for public
education which is provided by the school districts. Through-
out the county, essentially the opposite is true, with most
services provided by special districts.
This variation suggests the difficulties in generalizing
about either service provision or cost/revenue issues. Depend-
ing on the location of a residence or business, a different
package of services from a different set of service providers
can result. With many different public agencies involved,
each assuming independent service responsibilities and taxing
authority, analysis of the public service outlook is difficult.
Revenue _ ,7 < >_.•/ rut a a. Property taxes have long been the main
source of local government finance in Idaho. Historically,
property taxes have been used to balance the budget. This
dependence has been declining throughout the 1970s, and the
1 percent initiative seems likely to further reduce local
agencies' reliance on property tax.
128
-------
Other taxes may be imposed at local option if authorized
by the state legislature. The sales tax, which is a major
source of revenues in some other states, provides only a
small contribution to local tax coffers, although with state
approval, a local sales tax could be added to the state's
3 percent rate. Additional revenue sources include federal
and state grants and revenue sharing; fees; fines; reimburse-
ments for services; licenses and permits; interest; rents;
and other miscellaneous sources. Bonding, which is commonly
used throughout the nation to finance capital facilities,
has not been used too extensively in Idaho due to a tradition
of pay-as-you-go financing.
Fiscal Outlook. The fiscal outlook for Kootenai County
and the City of Post Falls is similar: a sharp decline in
the short term in revenues and consequently a need to alter
the revenue structure and/or the level of service delivered.
Declining Revenues. Initiative 1, as implemented on
an interim basis, has frozen local budgets for a 3-year period
at their 1978 levels. With budgets frozen during an inflation-
ary period, the fiscal impact is more severe than simply
a frozen budget may suggest. Since the cost of providing
public services continues to rise with inflation, the ability
of local governments to finance historic levels of service
within this budget constraint is seriously jeopardized.
Property taxes are not the only revenues that have de-
clined. With the recent downturn in economic activity,
development-related fees have also been reduced. In addition,
competition for federal and state assistance has increased.
It should be noted that public services greatly dependent
on property tax revenues will likely experience the most
severe revenue problems. As shown in Table 2-22, public
education in Kootenai County was the largest single service
area requiring property tax revenues to offset shortages.
The dependence of public education on property tax has in
fact been projected by Seidman and Seidman to increase to
about 50 percent of revenue requirements in 1985. To par-
tially offset the fiscal plight of school districts, a portion
of the state sales tax has been earmarked for public edu-
cation. In addition to schools, police services and trans-
portation services also impose major revenue requirements
on property taxes.
Fisaal Reaponae. In light of current and anticipated
declining revenues, virtually all cities and counties in
Idaho are taking steps to bring their costs in line with
their revenue streams. The following section examines some
of the short- and long-term responses.
129
-------
Table 2-22.
KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO
Property Tax Revenue Requirement by Service Category
($ Thousands)
Public Education
Health & Social Services
General Government
Transportation
Police Protection
Water
Fire
Parks
Solid Waste Disposal
Courts & Civil Protection
Sewer
Community Development
Total
	1977	
% of
Total
3,857
391
(787)
2 ,214
1,846
434
825
766
685
442
282
10 ,955
35.2
3.6
(7.2)
20.2
16.9
4.0
7.5
7.0
6.2
4.0
2.6
100.0
Source: Seidman and Seidman 1978
130
-------
The most immediate response to fiscal problems is the
reduction, to some extent, of costs. This commonly involves
reducing personnel costs, eliminating capital facilities
expenditures (except to those financed by federal funds)
or reducing maintenance expenditures. As a result of these
cost reductions, certain sevices are being spread more thinly
or discontinued altogether. Likely targets for reduction
or elimination in services are those not mandated by state
or federal law (e.g., emergency medical services, public
transportation).
Unless the 1 percent property tax initiative is overridden
in the state legislature, property tax will provide a decreas-
ing proportion of local government revenues as time goes
on. Other sources of revenues, such as general obligation
bonds, local option taxes and state payments in lieu of taxes,
are commonly suggested as alternative sources to property
taxes. In addition, increased user charges and growth manage-
ment fees have been suggested as a means to finance future
residential development which does not "pay its own way."
In some cases, a number of services can be (and frequently
are) performed by private entities rather than by public
agencies. These include solid waste disposal (where an indi-
vidual hauls his own or contracts a private firm to provide
the service) and water (on-site wells or private services).
If the costs- of providing a public service system thus appear
prohibitive, the responsibility could in some cases be passed
on to the developer or individual householder.
The benefits of comprehensive land use planning are
often associated with a reduction in public service costs.
Implementation of certain land use policies can minimize
costly extensions of public service networks. Some approaches
include: tie new development to existing infrastructure;
require infill and contiguous development; approach annexation
cautiously; and emphasize development phasing.
Conolusion. Although the preceding analysis examined
only the framework by which the fiscal capability of the
City of Post Falls and Kootenai County are viewed, it appears
that current and anticipated fiscal conditions are resulting
in a reassessment of growth and planning policies. Future
growth will most likely be concentrated in the more dense
urban areas to facilitate efficiency in urban service delivery
and to minimize average cost. With anticipated reductions
in property tax revenues, other sources will need to be in-
creasingly explored to fill the revenue gap.
131
-------
CHAPTER 3
COORDINATION
-------
Chapter 3
COORDINATION
Introduction
This chapter describes the involvement of government
agencies, special interest groups and the public in general
in determining the scope and content of this EIS. It also
describes how, when and where this involvement will continue
after issuance of the Draft EIS.
Agency and Public Participation to Date
As noted in the Summary, the Post Falls facilities planning
effort was initiated in 1977. LePard and Frame, Inc., the
project engineering consultant, established a citizens' steering
committee to aid its early planning efforts. This committee,
made up of 21 city staff and local residents, met approximately
every 3 months from the summer of 1977 to the fall of 1979
to help the city and its engineers develop alternative waste-
water facilities plans. The majority of this advisory effort
occurred prior to starting the EIS.
On June 27, 1979 EPA Region 10 issued a Notice of Intent
to prepare an EIS for both the Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene
201 projects. At that point the projects were to be discussed
in a single EIS. It was felt that the two cities' proximity
and the similarity of water quality issues would make a single
report desirable. This approach was subsequently changed
after an initial review of joint wastewater treatment indicated
a joint project would have a high initial cost and would
be faced with significant institutional roadblocks.
A project scoping meeting was held in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho on June 4, 1979. The meeting notice was sent to 12
individuals and agencies, and was attended by 19 persons.
The discussion centered around several key issues: 1) schedule
for completion of facilities planning work, 2) alternatives
being considered in the Post Falls project, 3) relationship
of Hayden and Hayden Lake facilities planning to the Post
Falls and Coeur d'Alene work, 4) water quality and algal
assay work being done on the Spokane River, 5) scope of public
participation for the Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene projects,
6) the need for development and consideration of joint waste-
water schemes involving Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, 7) the
133
-------
need for population projections review by the Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare, and 8) the scope of the EIS air
quality analysis.
As a result of this scoping process, it was decided
that: 1) the Post Falls alternatives could be completely
described by the end of June 1979, 2) Post Falls was con-
sidering three basic project alternatives, 3) Hayden and
Hayden Lake planning efforts would be considered in a separate
environmental analysis, 4) the Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene
EIS public participation would be combined, 5) the facilities
plan engineering firms for Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene would
combine efforts to investigate the feasibility of joint waste-
water alternatives, and 6) air quality did not appear to
be a major environmental issue in the Coeur d'Alene-Post
Falls area.
Since the scoping meeting EPA has contacted a wide variety
of individuals and agencies to collect background data and
define project-related environmental issues. These contacts
have been made in person, by phone, and through correspondence.
There have been no additional public meetings held in Post
Falls for the EIS. The following paragraphs summarize the
major influences these coordination efforts have had on the
content and scope of the EIS.
Suggestions and Objections Received Through Coordination
In the process of discussing the Post Falls project
and collecting background data for the EIS, EPA has received
several suggestions and objections that have changed the
content and scope of this Draft EIS. The significant suggestions
and objections, and the subsequent changes in this EIS, are
summarized below.
Alternatives Coverage
LePard and Frame, Inc., the facilities plan engineers,
originally investigated five potential sites for a new waste-
water treatment plant. After a review of these five sites,
the engineers selected Site T-l as their preferred location.
Information for the city's November 1979 wastewater facilities
bond election identified T-l as the selected treatment site.
Local opposition to use of this site surfaced in March 1980.
Thirty residents and/or property owners of a single family
subdivision across Pleasantview Road from Site T-l signed
a letter protesting the proximity of the proposed plant site
134
-------
to the residential area. The letter voiced concerns about
increased truck traffic, subsequent commercial or industrial
development, decreasing property values, public safety hazards
and growth stimuli that might be associated with the plant.
The letter is included in Appendix C. In addition, EPA
received five letters from local residents voicing similar
concerns over use of Site T-l. The letters also indicated
concerns over odors and visual detractions. Subsequently,
representatives of the City of Post Falls, the Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare, and Pleasantview Road homeowners
met to further discuss this issue on April 25, 1980.
As a result of these discussions with local residents,
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare requested that
LePard and Frame, Inc., investigate other potential plant
sites. Three new sites were investigated and have been in-
corporated into the Draft EIS as Sites T-1A, T-5 and T-6.
The environmental concerns of the residents have been dis-
cussed in this Draft EIS.
In the early stages of EIS preparation, the Post Falls
facilities planners were asked to investigate the feasibility
of a joint project with the City of Coeur d'Alene. The City
of Post Falls and City of Coeur d'Alene facilities plan engineers
prepared a brief economic analysis of a joint alternative.
After a discussion of these costs with the two cities and
their engineers, EPA decided to drop this joint alternative
from further consideration in the Post Falls EIS. High costs
and institutional complexities are cited as the reasons for
dropping the alternative.
Issues Coverage
The discussion of environmental issues presented in
this Draft EIS has been shaped to a large degree by consulting
with numerous government agencies and individuals. The
scope and content of the surface and groundwater quality
impact sections was discussed on numerous occasions with
staff of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division
of Environment, the Washington Department of Ecology, the
Panhandle Health District, the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, the City of Coeur d'Alene and the City of Post Falls.
While specific changes in EIS content cannot be attributed
to any individual coordination effort, each discussion had
some influence on the content of the water quality analyses.
The growth and land use compatibility discussions were strongly
influenced by coordination with the City of Post Falls, the
Kootenai County Planning Department, the Panhandle Area Council,
and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
135
-------
In order to comply with the requirements of Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the cultural
resources survey contained in this EIS was closely coor-
dinated with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) . The University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology,
which conducted the survey, contacted the Idaho SHPO both
before and after completing its analysis. The early coor-
dination assured that the proper level of investigation
occurred. Both a records search and intensive field survey
were performed to identify any possible impacts on resources
on or eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places. Correspondence with the Idaho SHPO is con-
tained in Appendix A.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service area office in Boise,
Idaho was contacted to determine if any wildlife or plant
species on the federal threatened or endangered lists were
known to occur in the Post Falls facilities planning area.
The Fish and Wildlife Service replied that only the endangered
bald eagle was known to occur in the area (Gore, pers. comm.).
As a result of this exchange, the biological impacts dis-
cussion in the EIS was narrowed.
Continuing Coordination Efforts
This Draft EIS has been forwarded to numerous federal,
state and local agencies; special interest groups; and private
citizens to act as both an informational document and as
an avenue to comment on the proposed wastewater project.
The distribution list is included as Appendix C. The docu-
ment has been forwarded to public libraries in the Post Falls
area so that other concerned residents can review the poten-
tial impacts of the project.
Individuals or groups that wish to comment on the EIS
may forward written comments to:
Ms. Norma Young, M/S 44 3
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
A public hearing to solicit oral comments on the Draft EIS
o!f the wastewater facilities plan will be held by EPA at:
Frederick Post Elementary School
201 W. Mullan Avenue
Post Falls, Idaho
7:30 p.m., Monday , April 6, 1981
All oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS will
be recorded and responded to in a Final EIS which will be
made available to interested individuals, groups and agencies
approximately 2 months after the public hearing.
136
-------
LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10
Elizabeth Corbyn - Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch;
Seattle, Washington.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Coordinates EIS preparation
efforts with other EPA Region 10 environmental evaluation
functions.
Roger Mochnick - EIS Preparation Coordinator, Environmental
Evaluation Branch; Seattle, Washington.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Oversees all EIS preparation
efforts for EPA Region 10.
Norma Young - Project Monitor, Environmental Evaluation
Branch; Seattle, Washington.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Principal monitor and
reviewer of Post Falls Facilities Plan EIS.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Sacramento, California
Charles R. Hazel - B.S., M.S., and PhD., Fisheries Biology.
Formerly with California Department of Fish and Game
as Director of Water Pollution Control Laboratory. As
Vice-President of Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., has
managed numerous environmental studies and reports
and served as expert consultant in fisheries and water
quality ecology.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Program management.
Michael D. Rushton - B.A. and M.A., Physical Geography. As
staff Environmental Specialist, responsibilities are
project management, coordination of EIS preparation
team efforts, and compilation of EIS. With Jones &
Stokes Associates, Inc., for past 8.5 years preparing
and managing preparation of environmental impact analyses.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Project manager; ground-
water quality, energy consumption, growth implications,
construction disruptions, public health, soils and
crops impacts.
137
-------
Thomas C. WccujC: ~ B.A., Urban Studies; M.S., Environmental
Economics. Environmental economist specializing in
socio-economic impacts of land use changes, cost-benefit
and risk analysis, and energy impact assessment.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Land use, growth implications.
Mark P. Cudney - B.S., Zoology; M.S., Aquatic Ecology. Staff
biologist with previous EIS preparation experience,
including fisheries and water quality analysis.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Surface water quality,
fisheries, beneficial river uses.
Albert Herson - B.A., and M.A., Psychology, M.A., Urban
Planning. As staff environmental planner, responsi-
bilities are project management and preparation of
planning studies, specializing in land use planning, growth
policy, and.public service systems. Formerly water
quality planner for Southern California Association of
Governments. Member, American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP).
Area of EIS Responsibility. Land use, growth implications.
Jeffrey D. Civian - B.S., Renewable Natural Resources.
Environmental specialist experienced in air quality
and noise analyses with emphasis on line source modeling
and emission forecast development.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Air quality impact analysis.
Patricia S. French - B.A., French; M.L.S., Library and
Information Studies. Staff librarian responsible for
acquisition and organization of reference documents.
Conducts literature studies and compiles bibliographies,
and assists in technical editing.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Preparation of reference
listing and index.
Culp-Wesner-Culp, Santa Ana, California
Robert Gumerman - B.S., Civil Engineering; M.S. and PhD.,
Sanitary Engineering. Registered engineer with 10 years
of experience in sanitary engineering; 6 years of experi-
ence reviewing wastewater facilities plans and project
cost analyses as part of EIS preparation team.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Facilities plan review,
project costs, project description.
138
-------
H. Esmaili & Associates, Inc., Berkeley, California
Houshang Esmaili. B.S., Agricultural Engineering; M.S.,
Irrigation Science, Dr. Eng., Water Resources Engi-
neering. Twelve years experience as a consulting
civil and agricultural engineer. As president of
H. Esmaili & Associates, Inc., has supervised the
conduct of over 20 engineering projects and environ-
mental studies.
Area of EIS Responsiblity. Review of facilities plan
land application analysis.
G-oloqical Drafting Service, Sacramento, California
Steve Fleming. Extensive experience preparing maps, charts,
and illustrations for technical reports and documents.
Additional experience preparing cartoons and illustra-
tions for various reports and publications.
Area of EIS Responsiblity. Report graphics.
University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology,
Moscow, Idaho
Ruthann Knudson. PhD., Anthropology (emphasis, archeology).
Research management archeologist for University of Idaho
Laboratory of Anthropology with 16 years experience as
professional archeologist. Has managed and participated
in numerous cultural resource assessments, including
literature searches and field surveys.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Managed cultural resources
assessment and conducted background research.
John Moore. B.A., Anthropology (emphasis archeology).
Graduate student in anthropology at the University
of Idaho. Five years of experience in field
archeology.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Archeological field reconnaissance.
Darby Stapp. B.A., Anthropology. Graduate student in
anthropology at the University of Idaho. Three years
of experience in field archeology.
Area of EIS Responsiblity. Archeological field recon-
naissance .
139
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand
CaCo3 - Calcium carbonate
CWA - Clean Water Act
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIA - U. S. Federal Insurance Administration
FmHA - Farmers Home Administration
HUD - U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IDHW - Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
IDWR - Idaho Department of Water Resources
MCL - maximum contamination level
ng/l - milligrams per liter
mmhos/cm - millimhos per centimeter
MPN - most probable number
N	- nitrogen
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NO3 - nitrate
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NIPDWR - National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
P	- phosphorus
PAC - Panhandle Area Council
PHD - Panhandle Health District I
ppb - parts per billion
Q7-15 - lowest 7-day average flow condition reported over
RCRA
SDWA
SMP
ss
TSp
USGS
USSCS
15 years of record
-	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
-	Safe Drinking Water Act
-	sewer management plan
-	suspended solids
-	total suspended particulates
-	U. S. Geo logical Survey
-	U. S. Soil Conservation Service
141
-------
WWP - Washington Water Power Company
WWTP - wastewater treatment plant
96 TLM - 96-hour tolerance limit median
yg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
142
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References Cited
Ayers, R. S. 1977. Quality of water for irrigation. J. Irriga-
tion and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers
103(lRs):135-154.
Burd, R. 1980. see Personal Communications Section.
Coeur d'Alene Press. 1980. Water system advances outlined.
Articles by Robert Frank, printed April 9, 1980.
Drost, B. W., and H. R. Seitz. 1978. Spokane Valley-Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer, Washington and Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-file Rep. 77-829. 79 pp. + plates.
Esvelt, L. A. 1978. Spokane aquifer cause and effect report:
summary report of '208' water quality results and cause and
effect relationships for water quality in the Spokane-Rathdrum
aquifer. Prepared for Spokane County, Office of County
Engineer. 3 6 pp. + appendices.
Flagg, N. G., and G. W. Reid. 1954. Effects of nitrogenous
compounds on stream conditions. Sewage Indust. Wastes 26(9):
1145-1154.
Funk, W. H., et al. 1975. An integrated study on the impact of
metallic trace element pollution in the Coeur d'Alene-Spokane
River-Lake drainage system. Project completion report to
Office of Water Research and Technology, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior. 332 pp.
Green, J. C., R. A. Soltero, W. E. Miller, A. F. Gasperino, and
T. Shiroyama. 1975. The relationship of laboratory algal assays
to measurements of indigenous phytoplankton in Long Lake,
Washington, a biostimulation and nutrient assessment. Utah
State University.
Holcombe, G., and D. A. Benoit. National Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth, MN. Unpublished data.
Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University
of Toronto Press. 335 pp.
Idaho. Dept. of Health and Welfare. 1979. Idaho ambient air
profile. Prepared by Air Quality Bureau, Boise, ID. 28 pp. +
appendices.
143
-------
I
-------
Panhandle Area Council. 197 8. Water quality management plan:
Rathdrum aquifer. Prepared with Panhandle Health District
I and the Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare.
Panhandle Health District I. 1977. Groundwater quality monitor-
ing, Rathdrum Prairie aquifer: technical report.
	. 1977a. Kootenai County shoreline survey report:
technical report.
Post Falls (City). 1978. Post Falls comprehensive plan.
		. 1979. Zoning ordinance.
Reid, R. R. 1961. Guidebook to the geology of the Coeur d'Alene
mining district. Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Bull. 16.
Seidman and Seidman. 1978. What will growth cost the taxpayers
of Kootenai County? final management summary report. Spokane,
WA. 3 2 pp.
Soltero, R. A., et al. 1975. Response of the Spokane River
periphyton community to primary sewage effluent and continued
investigation of Long Lake. Washington Dept. of Ecology. 117 pp.
Soltero, R. A., D. M. Kruger, A. F. Gasperino, J. G. Griffin,
et al. 197 6. Continued investigation of eutrophication in
Long~Lake, Washington: verification data for Long Lake model:
project completion report. Washington Dept. of Ecology. 64 pp.
Spokane County Office of County Engineers. 1979. The relative
contaminant contributions of domestic waste and urban runoff.
Unpublished task report for the Spokane County 208 water
quality management program.
Thurston, R. V. , R. C. Russo, C. M. Fetterolf, Jr., T. A. Edsall,
and Y. M. Barber, Jr., eds. 1979. A review of the EPA red
book: quality criteria for water. Water Quality Section,
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 313 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Metropolitan Spokane region
water resources study, appendix E: environment and recreation.
Seattle.
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration. 1980. Preliminary flood insurance rate map,
Kootenai County, ID, community panel no. 160076 0155A.
145
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria
for water. 256 pp.
		. 1978. Idaho environmental quality profile.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1965-1979. Water resources data for
Washington and Idaho.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutro-
phication of lakes and flowing waters with particular reference
to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 159 pp.
Walker, W. , J. Bouma, D. Kenney, and P. Olcott. 1973. Nitrogen
transformations during subsurface disposal of septic tank
effluent in sands, II: groundwater quality. Environ. Quality
2 (4) : 521-525.
Wallace, A. T. 1979. A proposed methodology for applying the
antidegradation criterion to the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer.
Prepared for the City of Post Falls in cooperation with
LePard and Frame.
Wetzel, R. G. 197 5.	Limnology. W. B. Saunders Company.
7 43 pp.
Willingham, W. 1976.	Ammonia toxicity. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.	EPA 908/3-7 6-001. 19 pp.
Personal Communications
Beck, L. November 1979. U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
Burd, Robert. March 23, 197 9. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Seattle. Letter to Steve Tanner, Panhandle Health
District.
	a. August 6, 198 0. Letter to Bruce Thompson, Panhandle
Area Council.
Clegg, P. August 8, 1980. Sergeant, Kootenai County Sheriffs
Dept., Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
Coony, Mike. July 23, 1980. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare,
Coeur d'Alene. Personal interview.
Eachon, R. August 8, 1980. Supervisor, Tri-County Parks and
Waterways Maintenance, Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
146
-------
Funk, W. September 1980. Professor of Fisheries, Washington
State University, Pullman. Telephone conversation.
Goodnight, W. October 1979. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Coeur
d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
Gore, James F. March 21, 1979. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Boise, ID. Letter to Jones & Stokes Associates.
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare. January 15, 1980. Written
communication from A1 Murray to Robert Burd, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Kimball, J. July 30, 1980. LePard and Frame, Coeur d'Alene.
Telephone conversation.
	a. December 18, 1980. Letter to J. Michels, Idaho
First National Bank.
Lee, T. September 1979. Owner, Lee's Outdoor Outfitters, Coeur
d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
LePard and Frame, Inc. August 8, 1980. Letter from Jim Kimball
to Michael Rushton, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Miller, M. October 1979. Instructor, North Idaho College, Coeur
d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
Mitchell, B. August 1, 1980. Graduate student, University of
Idaho, Moscow. Telephone conversation.
Morris, R. November 1979. Member, Northwest Whitewater Kayak
Association, Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
Mossman, W. November 1979. Member, Northwest Whitewater Kayak
Association, Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
0'Hallaran, F. September 1979. Kayaker, Coeur d'Alene.
Telephone conversation.
Pfanaer, John. December 4, 197 9. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Idaho Region Operations Office, Boise. Telephone
conversation.
Pierce, Jack. September 27, 197 9. Washington Water Power Company,
Coeur d'Alene. Personal interview.
Post Falls School District. September 27, 197 9. Telephone con-
versation.
147
-------
Ross, J. October 20, 1980. Idaho Dept. of Transportation,
Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
Soltero, Raymond. December 198 0. Professor of Biology, Eastern
Washington University, Cheney. Telephone conversation.
Sturts, S. September 1979. Member, National Audubon Society,
Coeur d'Alene. Telephone conversation.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. July 1980. Telephone conversation
with Ruby Sutton, Lewiston, ID, office.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. July 24, 1980. Listing of
prime and borderline prime soils obtained from Coeur d'Alene
office.
		a. July 24, 1980. Unpublished soil series descrip-
tions obtained from Coeur d'Alene office.
Witter, Stan. October 26, 1979. Washington Water Power Company,
Spokane. Telephone conversation.
148
-------
APPENDICES

-------
Appendix A
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORTS, UNIVERISTY
OF IDAHO LABORATORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY, AND
ATTENDANT CORRESPONDENCE
149
-------
.Letter Report .Nq. ,79 -11
Universifyof Idaho
Laboratory of Anthropology
Department of Sociology/Anthropology
Moscow, Idaho 83843
5 November 1979
Dr. Charles Hazel
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
RE: Post Falls, Idaho, Wastewater
Facilities Plan
Dear Dr. Hazel:
This letter is a report on our archaeological and historical resources
assessment of the impact of the proposed wastewater treatment facility for
Post Falls, Idaho. Our assessment is based on a search of existing archaeo-
logical and historic survey records, the literature, and a field reconnais-
sance of the project area.
I have done most of the background research on this matter; I serve as
Research Management Archaeologist for our Laboratory, hold a Ph.D. in
anthropology (emphasis archaeology) from Washington State University [1973]
and have undergraduate and graduate minors in history, have been doing
cultural resource management for five years and professional archaeology for
16 years, and am a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists.
The archaeological field reconnaissance was completed on 28-29 October 1979
by Darby Stapp and John Moore, both research technicians in our Laboratory.
Stapp has a Bachelor's in anthropology from the University of Denver, two
years of graduate work in anthropology (emphasis archaeology) from the
University of Idaho, and three years experience in field archaeology. Moore
has a Bachelor's and two years of graduate work in anthropology (emphasis
archaeology) from the University of Idaho and five years experience in field
archaeology. Both Moore and Stapp have been involved in both prehistoric
and historic archaeology, as have I.
Our research indicates that there is only one presently identifiable
prehistoric or historic resource of significance within your project area
that would be adversely impacted by that project either directly or indirec-
tly, though the indirect impacts are less easy to judge based on the slim
record. In order to reach this conclusion we have searched the records
of the Idaho Archaeological Survey (through lists of both known sites and
those locations thought to have high potential for sites based on some
literary or folk reference), the Idaho Historic Survey, and the National
Register of Historic Places (including a telephone conversation with Larry
Jones of the Idaho State Hi storic Preservation Office who informs us that
no sites in process of eligibility determination or nomination would be
affected), and completed a field reconnaissance of the project areas. Of
these three sites, 10-KA-13 had been identified in the early 1950's when
no precise locational records were maintained; 10-KA-44 was first identi-
fied in the mid-1960's as a rock art site and was recently re-recorded
Tin! University of Idaho is .in Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action fcmployor and Educational Institution.
151
-------
C. Hazel, 5 November 1970
Page 2
by the Survey; and potential site Kootenai 1 was identified by Verne Ray
("Native villages and groupings of the Columbia Basin," Pacific Northwest
Quarterly 27:132 (1939) as his Coeur d'Aleno site 30:
q'ami 1 n ("water falling into a mouth [pothole]")
A small camp, numbering perhaps fifteen people, at Post Falls
on the Spokane River.
No Post Falls sites were listed in the Idaho Historic Survey, or on or
in process of nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition to the records search stapp and Moore spent two days in
the project area, searching the surface of the S,T,I, and 0, areas (as
identified on the map provided to us by your office, and reproduced in the
attachment ot this letter report) as well as the areas of potential growth
around Post Falls. Their survey was a pedestrian reconnaissance of each
area, the two individuals being spaced approximately 40m apart to complete
3-4 swaths across each disposal site. The treatment sites were reviewed
more intensively, and all interceptor lines were walked. A fuller report
of survey methods, local conditions, and activities is on file in the Lab-
oratory for any further reference. As a result of this survey no previously
unrecorded archaeological or historic sites were noted in the areas of
direct project impact, and the amount of modern disturbance in the Phases I
and II growth areas suggests that there is no high probability of undisturbed
cultural resources being remnant there. That is not to say some may not
be found, especially along the river (e.g., rock art sites) but the probab-
ility is not high enough to mitigate against support for development of
the wastewater facilities.
Stapp and Moore did go in search of the previously identified archaeo-
logical sites 10-KA-13, 10-KA-44, and Kootenai 1. Site 10-KA-13 does not
have much information on record about its original location, and it could
not be relocated; if it was not destroyed earlier it probably was during
construction of the interstate highway east of Post Falls. Potential site
Kootenai 1 as noted by Ray also did not have precise locational data
and could not be field-verified; it was somewhere in the vicinity of Post
Falls and was probably destroyed by the development of the modern community
there. Site 10-KA-44, a rock art panel near the Falls, does indeed exist
today and is presently protected by a wood and screen structure in front
of it. That site appears from your map to be slightly to the west of
your proposed treatment plant site T-4, but in enough proximity that it
be avoided in the development of any facilities plan. Though the rock
art at 10-KA-44 has an overlay of modern additions, it does include both
prehistoric and historic markings and appears eligible for nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the site form is at-
tached to this report for your information; we recommend that this form
not be included in the publically available Environmental Impact Statement
To preserve the confidentiality of the locational information in it (in
compliance with Sec. 9(a) of P.L. 95-96, recently promulgated). There is
also a chance that there is more rock art on the river canyon wall just
below your site T-4, but Stapp and Moore could not gain access to that
area and did not have a chance to look it over in detail.
152
-------
C. Hazel, 5 November 1979
Page 3
In conclusion, we found little evidence that construction of any of
the alternative parts of the proposed Post Falls Wastewater Treatment
Facilities would adversely impact the cultural resources of the area either
directly or indirectly, except for the vicinity of T-4. There is also
little evidence that urban growth in the area would be an adverse impact,
since there is already intense modern disturbance around Post Falls
and this had undoubtedly already resulted in the destruction of much of
the archaeological resource base there.
If you have further questions about this project, please call on us;
if you need to check our project records further they are on file in our
office for your inspection. Thank you for coming to us for assistance
on this project, and we hope to work with you again
Sincerely

	 1'
hann Knudson, Ph.D
Ruthann Knudson, Ph.D.
Resource Management Archaeologist
Encl.
cc: Dr. Merle Wells, Idaho SHPO
153
-------
2 9*0 003 Ftu (WA
... , • • '
, "**-	Lino jj
V'' '• , ( T V''" * /
. v *	. -
> ^	- ,'•? r ;v
LH -•	¦ i\ vx	y	, j "¦
. ^	ivi N-	* ; a w
^tfJTTMcGuiri-s p^e'r^s.?*
: iS>o ->a
VI !i*
rSi .5m"
; i b
. Woss Point
33 •,
>. ,
. jforg
..'i'Rock •
- A >J
>'•' . sp°^
\% :,¦«•. ** r v' • '.¦ - •. t ¦ ^
, \r\j'. > W	! - >/' ¦¦ ^ 1/ V
•' ^ Vj"'"! ¦ -^p: j
/ a»;

¦ :/•"'• 'i
< • m.-	i-S v
tV>V:VJ ( ..,^j.
' ;v
; »-";Sr
A 5 ! {
' / - ;'•
, i r'-'
-./> t


V'
7, : •
¦ . />'<

'•/;i . , •/
-S-:'
V
/.' \r i • ' i •	. •1 v i ^
'J '"l ' -v' \1 '¦•/
-«' y,- f ¦ >•


; ) '
r,
6 = proposed wastewater land disposal site
T= proposed treatment plant site
-I = proposed interceptor route
(1-1 follows an existing old aqueduct
or flume; 1-2 follows a railroad right-
of-way)
0= outfall route
= Phase I growth area boundry
—= growth areas added in Phase II
area surveyed
¦' ¦¦' 1 A' •'			'
-------
THE OFFICIAL REPORT CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE SURVEY FORMS
(These have not been included
for general public distribution)
155
-------
Lntt; or Report No. fiO-G
University of Idaho
Laboratory of Anthropology
Department ot Sociology/Anthropolcjy
Moscow, Idaho 83843
3 September 198 0
Dr. Charles Hazel
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
RE: Supplemental Cultural Resources
Reconnaissance, Post Fall, Idaho,
Wastewater Facilities
Dear Dr. Hazel:
This letter is a report of our supplemental archaeological and historical
resources assessment of the impact of the proposed wastewater treatment
facility for Post Falls, Idaho. During this addition work we dealt with
parcels T-lA, T-5, and T-6 of the proposed project. As with the earlier
study, our present assessment is based on a search of the existing archae-
ological and historic survey records, the literature, and a field reconnais-
sance of the three parcels.
Before initiating further field reconnaissance of this project area, we
again reviewed the records of the Idaho Archaeological Survey to ascertain
that there were no previously recorded sites within the parcels under con-
sideration. We also reviewed the Idaho Historic Inventory and the National
Register of Historic Places, and the list of properties determined eligilble
for the Register or under consideration for nomination or eligibility; no
historic properties have been identified in the study parcels. For this
background review we consulted the records here in the Northern Idaho Re-
gional Archaeological Center, Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho;
we have been designated by the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office as
managers of these records for northern Idaho, hence wo had no need to consult
the ISHPO office in Boise.
Subsequent to a review of known historic property records, and again a
search of the literature to find out if any information on the Post Fall
area had become available since we submitted Letter Report No. 79-11, we con-
ducted a field reconnaissance of the study parcels. A copy of the survey
record is attached, for your records. No prehistoric or historic archaeolo-
gical or architectural materials were encountered in any of these study areas,
and there is no information indicating that they are significant to American
Indian religious beliefs. Thus, there is no need for further management con-
sideration of historic values in these areas unless buried archaeological
materials are encountered during project construction.
If you have further questions about this project, please call on us.
We are glad to have been able to be of service again, and hope to work with
you in the future.
The University of Idaho is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and Educational Institution.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Knudson
Resource Management Archaeologist
End.
cc; Tom Green
156
-------
7 Auqu31: J.98U
Ruthann Knudson
Laboratory of Anthropology
Department of Sociology/
Anthropology
University of Idaho
re: Post Falls, Idaho,
wastewater treatment sites
Ruthann
On August 6, 1980, Michael A. Pfeiffer and I conducted a systematic
archaeological survey of the proposed wastewater treatment sites for
Post Falls, Idaho. These three parcels of land are designated T-1A,
T-5, and T-6 on the map of the project area provided by Jones and Stokes
Associates, Inc. No cultural resources were found.
The three project sites are located west of the city of Post Falls,
and east of the Idaho-Washington state line. Parcel T-1A consists of
approximately 20 acres (8 ha) located in the SE1/4SW1/4 and the SW1/4
SE1/4 of Section 6, and in the NW1/4NE1/4 and NE1/4NW1/4 of Section 7,
T.50N., R.5E., B.M. Parcel T-5 is approximately 40 acres (17 ha) located
in the NE1/4NW1/4 of Section 4, T.50N., R.5W., B.M. Parcel T-6 consists
of about 60 acres (24 ha) located in the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 31, T.51N.,
R.5W., and N1/2NW1/4 of Section 6, T.50N., R.5W., B.M. (Maps 1 and 2).
The project parcels are located in the Spokane River valley, appro-
ximately 1-2 miles (2-3 km) north of the river. Soils consist of thin,
sandy and silty loams developed in and over coarse sand and gravels,
deposited by post-glacial floodwaters. A gravel pit adjacent to parcel
T-6 exposes sand and gravel deposits to a depth of at least three meters
(this stratigraphy is typical of the area, as can be seen in sand pits
near Coeur d'Alene, six miles (10 km) to the east). In general, vegeta-
tion in the area consists of ponderosa pine and various forbes and grasses.
Most of the vicinity is under cultivation, including parcels T-1A and T-5.
Visibility at these two parcels was extremely poor due to a thick mat
of grass covering the soil from recent cuttings of the fields. Numerous
granitic boulders present in parcel T-6 precludes much of the area from
cultivation. In this area, vegetative cover consists of widely scattered
fgrbes and grasses, leaving much of the ground surface exposed. The north-
eastern portion of parcel T-6 is under cultivation in wheat, providing
extremely poor ground visibility.
A pedestrian, systematic, partial survey of the three parcels, was
designed to examine the majority of the exposed soils at the sites. In
parcels T-1A and T-5, this consisted of concentrating on the examination
of turnrows and embankments, providing approximately 1 % coverage of the
areas. In parcel T-6, approximately 15% of the total area was examined
by making east-west and north-south,on-foot transects across the area
at intervals of approximately 10 metersfwithin the non-cultivated aresp.
No significant cultural resources were found. A total of 2.5 person days
were expended on this project: 2 in the field and .5 in report preparation.
Daniel M. Mattson
157
-------
CULTURAL RESOURCE RECONI;AISSANCE RECOR
Laboratory of Anthropology
University of Idaho, Moscow [11/79]
PROJECT	f/iU.J,	TXC'A-.sierr
SURVEYORS 'W/^ /f.A..
RECORDER / •
yr- ?
*>f f. '
,7T^j-
DATE (S)	^ '
IDENTIFIED SITES

SURVEY PURPOSE ft $err7r//},-y si/Ai^vy ^ /*4c-r*sj=s> wAr73*it-?t7~£-sr	7-
SPONSOR 7;/><•./	S+kj-
STUDY LOCALITY [verbal desc.]_ 7/7/ frc/e c./	Cost f / <>~f~ f'Jrr*'* />a rc-e/f a 7 '~(
pe//»/> f, a*?/A/tv	i/»t//Vf ''Ww//y ofi ftc/tm 7~
T. So M, ft. re-., /3.az r —" - "¦ t <• < " - - - - - - •¦> " - -r~' - <"--0..
-f-
_£
'•• /yf '-o /kc r-
0
b. UTMG (Zone // ) T-'A: fooo* tr/sz		A'	,* /<¦ 2 vj ?<<>* yy
fc- 9-rrys**,  £/* rfp*1 i>?
	n ,r	/ "'fl' 'r			 / '/ """ / '			 ' 													
ff/f, /#	> <* jCis'f'/f~Z o/~ ~/c/-r ^tfs-e# Us*S C/¦ £ !7yVC '//, 7,7C-'1 /^y £ ls/'/''T?**i
Attach a copy of the appropriate USGS topographic quad sheet to this form, with
study locality boundaries clearly indicated. Either on the topo map or on a
separate sketch map (whichever scale is largest) delineate those areas over which
surveyors actually walked and looked intensively. Include scale, north arrow,
legend for all information on any sketch maps, and note special features useful
as landmarks or relevant to assessment of cultural resource potential in the area.
158
-------
[CULTURAL RESOURCE RECONNAISSANCE RECORD]	Page 2


PROJECT	Lt+*«	/rrz)
ON-SITE VEGETATION, DENSITY r. ¦//, i-*XJ •? '*sr c to*/ 0J£r M/f c/
SURROUNDING VEGETATION [indicate area of reference]	a**/0^£rsA>r,set// / rU^t-c/. -(/*,/ ttf-t e^er/a/a/Jif #/<&/*/-fijrm/ off*ut/dtfer^tz/-
AVAILABLE WATER, Distance	m; Nature S'poA'-^s /f/ise >-	
DIFFICULTY OF ACCESS [by foot] cj(6i^-ecy>z/*-?		
RELEVANT LITERATURE, INFORMANTS /ffy/A,	. /?r ? /0-AA- W r, A 4^
ESTIMATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL [with reasons] />o Unfit/ £n
Co//v>'it/{tZsrn&ci/ttfc/	/-t*^ ~° yoj-e/ p* j-f~4- /v >-1/,^, l*c.-/-/y/-/?tj strt	Cu/?^o r*//s ^o/r-i/esf'r^.c
	/ r~ a*~f out /Xsr-*S	an. e.*i CouT/es-c-t/ dxt/n-* jL fours t
s(/¦/•/'/? etttfr/M	S/l/* ¦	
7 /7 '	7
PHOTOS [No., registration nos., general topics]
B/W	\	
Slides	 rtoxt		
Polaroids			\			
LIST OF APPENDED DOCUMENTS:
MaP	"/		*/•* /°r«/bf <£*uJ/ /v/s^Jy, am*cr */***> active/
Other /		<$/?{/			
159
-------
Posr /a lis Vas
MC/A;r/fj
6 Aosusr /?${?	75-osv, ' .i/'V, sf-Su
•hook:- f i r' <*ash (,•

Kast (Irt*»MuiiTi's |'
Srh;
BM ?\}4
l'J I ^
LlM <>l Jtf
JO
o
X
"X
V
:'v
30
COEUR D'ALENE QUADRANGLE
/try
G RE E N A C.!\ E3 QU A DRA NG LE
'.V A S HIHC, TO N -1 DA HO ft*9
11 MINI) IK 'F'.NIl , rOPOGRAPHICi
IDAHO--KOOTLNAI CO
lb MINUTE SF.PIEiS ^TOPOGRAPHIC)
160
-------
PAKCI'.L T-1A
T.SON.,R.OW.
N
PARCEL T-6
T.51N.,T.SON.,R.5W.
PARCEL T-5
T.50K.,R.5W.

u
/fc r/*+r
/

• * *

SCALE
nQJfCT
I—-—1—-—t
AA*A CV***FP
161
-------
CONTINUATION SHEET
Field tt:
_4?i
State #:
/r/A
Item #
CONTINUED DATA
m
dcstr/fhoH
I w~
U.TMG.
¦Ttc.7^ 3/ . / S7sr: /?. S ~ Us. .	y^uy ^ <>/ T-a.c.7

7"-S~ ¦' 0 ¦ <~g / f  s~* sr-
V £~o/ fop „ f/s~ z z Vs-QQ ^
Q: «ro 2 ^ f;/s-2. y Vzrz>/&

>¦ ¥TV' Qo *. S~/t *(¦ sS-t>^ f
C.' y-f?i-. tr/r?-? f-£~t*ht/r/i	JF-c./ff^ -fi> s~- ///f
Z/'										
r	OrtZf	'	 />/ 1	e h* r*.
•~LZJL£t£-
—	jkcfjtJjc-jA		UL	^£_
__ P«'c+/ r- r	/t/pso	L£,Z	
_ -Ba£uL£zjL	2Vz?Zo	2JL1	<££_
—	-Hl±a	^yr/yv?		z^,.
RECORDER (S)	Q**,*//Mr**,//tf,rL,~/Jl. QATF • 26 Avimir /ffo
162
-------
610 NORTH JULIA DAVIS DRIVE BOISE. 83706
IDAHO STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
STATE MUSEUM
November 26, 1980
Ms. Norma Young
EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
We have reviewed the cultural resource reports on
the Post Falls wastewater treatment facilities prepared
by the Laboratory of Anthropology, University of Idaho.
These are excellent reports and we concur with the
recommendations included. No archaeological or ¦
historic sites were located. Only one site, 10-KA-44,
a rock art site, is in the vicinity of the project
(area T-4). Care should be taken to insure that this
site is not effected by the project. The project
will have no effect on significant archaeological
or historic properties.
Sincerely
'UU2sy7
Thomas J. Green
State Archaeologist
State Historic Preservation Office
cc: Ruthann Knudson
Dr. Charles Hazel
163
-------
Appendix B
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, GUIDELINES AND
REGULATIONS
165
-------
NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Type of
Contaminant
Name of
Contaminant
Type of
Water Svstem
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Inorganic
Chemicals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
33.7°F & below
53.8	- 58.3
58.4 - 63.8
63.9	- 70.6
70.7 - 79.2
79.3 - 90.5
Nitrate (as N)
Community
Community
Community &
Noncommunity
0.05
1.
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
10.
mg/1
Organic
Chemicals Endrin	Community 0.002 mg/1
Lindane	0.004
Methoxychlor	0.1
Toxaphene	0.005
2, 4-D	0.1
2, 4, 5-TP Silvex	Community 0.01
Total trihalomethanes [the sum of the 0.10 mg/1 concentrations of bromodi-
chloromethane, dibromochloromethane, tribromomethane (bromoform) and tri-
chloromethane (chloroform)] 1, 2
Turbidity
Turbidity at
representative
entry point to
distribution
sys tem.
Community &
Noncommunity
1.	Proposed MCL (Maximum contaminant level)
2.	The maximum contaminant level for total trihalomethanes
applies only to community water systems which serve a
population of greater than 75,000 individuals and which adu
a disinfectant to the water in any part of the drinking water
treatment process.
1 TU monthly
average and
5 TU average of
two consecu-
tive days
(5 TU monthly
a"«irage nay
apply at
state optior.)
167
-------
Type of
Contaminant
Name of
Contain inane
Type of
Water Svstem
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Membrane Filter*
Colifarms shall cot
exceed:
1 per 100 ml, cean of
all samples per month
4 per 100 ml in rare
than one sample if
less than 20 samples
collected per month,
or
4	per 100 nil in rare
than 52 of samples
if 20 or more saj^ples
examiined per month.
Fermentation Tube — 10 -1
portion1*
Calif orms shall net be
present in more than
10% of portions per
month,
Not mora than 1 sample
may have 3 or more
portions positive when,
less than 20 samples
are examined per month,
or
Not more than 57. of
samples may have 3 or
more portions positive
when 20 or more sample
are examined per month.
Fermentation Tube - ICQ :
portion"
Coliforms shall not be
present in more than
601 of the portions
per month,
Not more than 1 sample
may have all 5 pernor,
positive when less tha:
5	samples are examined
per month, or
Not more than 20~ of
samples may have all
5 portions positive
when 5 or more samples
are examined per month.
* If sampling rate is leas than 4 per month, compliance shall be based on 3 mcr.ca
period unless state determines chat a 1 month period shall apply.
Microbiological	Colifora	Community &
Bacteria	Noncommunity
168
-------
Type of
Contaminant
Name of
Contaminant
Type of
Water Svstem
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Microbiological
Optional
Chlorine
Residual
Community &
Noncommunity"
Minimum free chlorine
residual throughout
distribution system
0.2 mg/1.
(At state option and
based on sanitary survey,
chlorine residual moni-
toring may be substituted
for not more than 75% of
microbiological samples.)
Radionuclides
Natural
Screening level:
1.	Test for Gross Alpha
2.	If Gross Alpha exceeds
5 pCi/1, test for
Radium 226.
3.	If Radium 226 exceeds
3 pCi/1, test for
Radium 22S.
Community
Gross Alpha	15 pCi/1
Activity
Radium 226 +	5 pCi/1
Radium 228
Man-made	Beta particle	Community	4 millirem/year for total
and photon radio-	body or any internal orga:
activity
Screening level:
Gross Beta Activity 50 pCi/I
Tritium 20,000 pCi/1
Strontium 90 8 pCi/1
If Gross Beta exceeds
50 pCi/1, sample must be
analyzed to determine
major radioactive con-
stitutes present; and the
appropriate organ and total
bod, doses shall be calcu-
lated to determine corr.pl i-
ancc with the A millire:-/
year level.
160
-------
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS LISTED IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Metals (And Metallic Compounds)
Halomethanes
Antimony and compounas
Caroon tetrachloride
Arsenic and compounds
Chloroform
Beryllium and compound!
Other halomethanes
Cadmium and compounds
Phenols
Chromium and compounds
2—chlorophenol
Cooper and compounds
2. 4—dichlorophenol
Lead and compounds
Pentachlorophenol
Mercury and compounds
Other chlorinated ohenols
Nickel and compounds
2,4—dimethylphenol
Selenium ana compounds
Nitrophenols
Silver and compounas
Phenol
Thallium and compounds
Other phenols
Zinc and compounds
Pesticides
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Aldrin/Dieldrin
AcenaDthene
Chlordane and metabolites
Benzene
DDT and metabolites
Eihylbenzene
Endosulfan and metabolites
Fluoranthe.ie
Endrin and metabolites
Naptnaiene
Heptacnlor and metabolites
Toluene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Other aromatic hyorocarpons
Toxaphene
Chlorinated Hydrocaroons
Other pesticides
Chlorinated naohthaienes
Others
Dichlorooenjenes
Acrolein
Other chlorinates benzenes
Acrylonitrile
Oicnloroethylenes
Asbestos
Chlorinated ethanes
Benzidine
Dicnloroprocane and dicnioroaropenes
Chloralkyl ethers
Hexacniorooutaaiene
Cyanides
Hexacnlorocvctopentadiene
Dicnlorobenzidine
PolycMonnated biphenyis
Oinitrotoluene
Tetracnloroethyiene
Oiphenylhydranne
Tnchioroetnyiene
Haloethers
Vinyl cnlarice
Isophorone

Nnrotienzenes

Nirrosomme!

Phth 'late triers

2,3,7.3—tetrar.hlorodibenjo-

p-dio«in (TCDDI
Sal 5
170
-------
UC -1" oci p . Extend Lon
1/15/75
cm of:lines for r\ ;¦ ;_aprei vi ton of quality or water tor irrigation
Interpretations are based on possible effect? of constituents on crops and/or soils.
Guidelines are flexible and should be modified when warranted by local experience or
special conditions of crop, soil, and -net hod of irrigation.
PROBLEM AND RLLAHiD CONSTITUENT
Sa I ini tv
1/
Permeability
ECW of irrigation water, in mmho/cri
adj.SARl/
Specific Ion Toxicity
x'tom^ROOT a_bsorption
Sodium (evaluate by adj.SAR)
Chloride (me/1)
(mg/ I or ppm)
Boron (cig/l or ppn)
£totv_FOL 1 AR £^sorp t ioni.^ (sprinklers)
Sod i um (cic/1)
(tng/1 or pp.n )
Chloride (sie/1)
(ng/I or ppm)
Mi see 1 1 aneous-'
N0j-x} "
¦*	ppn
for sensitive crops
MCO- (cic/1) |only with overhead
(«*/1 ^sprinklers
o r
ppm)
KATFR QUALITY GUIDELINES
No Problem
E C w of irrigation water, in cuilimhos/cm
<0 .7S
>0 . 5
<6.0
< 3
< 4
<142
<0 . 5
<3.0
<69
<3.0
<106
<1.5
<90
Increasing
P rob I cm s
0.75 - 3.0
<0 . S
6.0 - 9 . D
3.0
4 .0
142
0.5
>5.0
>60
>3 .0
>106
9.0
10
355
2.D
50
1.5 - 8 . S
90 - 5 2 0
Severe
Problems
<0 . :
>9 .0
>9.0
>*0
>355
2.0
>8 . 5
>520
10 . 0
pH
nor rial range = 6.5 -
1/ Assures water for crop plus needed water for 1 caching require nent (I. R1 will be applied.
Crops vary in rolcranct- to salinity. Kefer to tables for crop tolcunct: .ind [. R.
(,nir.ho/c-iV640= approximate total dissolved sol lJs (TDS) in no./I or pp:.i; mr.hoXlOPGs aucromh
2/ aJj.SAR (Adjusted Sod:un Ad s or] ..ion Ratio) is calculated from a modified equation
developed bv U.S. Saimif Laboratory to include added effects of precipitation or
dissolution of alci'.n m sq:1s and related to COj * IICO3 c o n c r n t r a t 1 or s .
Va 1	I
To evaluate sodium (p e r rr.e a h ; 1 i t v) ha:ard: adj.SAR 			—7 I 1 ~ (8.4-pHc) j
/Ta *• Mp I	I
pHc i s a calculated value based on total cations, Ca-»Mg, and CO-^-HCO.. Ca k .11 .it 1 n 1;
2nd report in; will b? done by reporting laboratory ,\0TI: : Na, Ca«Mi'", CO 3 *11003
should be in r.e/l.
P c r r: c j L i 1 i t / p rollers:, related to 1 o v. EC or n i 1: h ,ul < . ^ A R of water, can e reduced
if r>ecossjj>- by adding ^ypsun. Usual a e j' 1 i c a t 1 0 r. rate per acre foot of 3ppiicd
water is fror. rOC to about 1000 lbs. (231 lbs. of 100'» kjypsun added to 1 acre
foo: of water will supplv 1 me/1 of crilciun and raise the f:C* about 0.1 nnho)
In r.any cases a soil application -ia\ be needed.
3/ Most tree crop1) and uoodv ornamentals : ;e sensitive to sodium and chloride (use values
shown). Most annual cops arc not soiis.nvc (use * a 1 iu i t y toh-nncc taMe?). For
boron s e r. •; i t 1 v 1 t v¦, refer to boron tolerance tables.
41 Leaf a iras wet b \ sprinklers ( rot :it i n^1 heads) may show a I o :t f burn due to sodium
or chloride abbojption under 1 ow - b 'in. i >1 1 : . , li 1 h v a p o ra t 1 o n c or, d i t 1 (• n s . ( fc \ a p 0 r a l i o r.
iiicrv.iH j ion concentration in water J'il.rij on leaves between roi.il j jn:. of sprinUrr
heads. )
5/ ixcess N may a r f c c t production or quality of certain crop*, c . %. su^.i r beets, citrus,
a v (» c a J 0 , .1 [> r i c of., i; r •• p e oU .
(1 m^/1 VJ--N - . . " 2 lb*.. N/aure foot of applied water).
MCO - with o v e r). t i d sprinkler irrigation r..a y c a u •- v. a « h 1 X e carbonate deposit to tor*;
on inut and 1 cvt i .
S > :.bo 1	Nam"
J C w	U c c l r u* a 1 Conductivity of water
jrnho/cn rnillir.hu per centineter
<	1 e -» * t h .1 n
>	Biorc thin
c jj / i	milligrams per liter
ppm	parts per r: 1 J 1 1 un
LK	l.o del. 1 r\;» Rcqu: rm-int
m t / I	m 1 1 1 1 ( q u 1 v a 1 <• ft t * per liter
TIjS	Total UiSsolvtd bo lids
is ntu) 1
S a rr c

L q u i v . W t .
N 3
5 0 d i t i m

23.00
Ca
C a I c 1 tim

20 . 1)4
v'i'.
Ma )\ n e.. i um

12.10
to 3
C a r b 0 n a t 0

50 . 00
11L 0 -
bicarbonate

fc I .00
;,ov\
Nitrate-ritro
?.cn
14 .00
CI
Chloride

S5 . -IS
17., ppn
• 1 per
gallon

171
-------
Appendix C
COORDINATION RECORD
EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
LIST OF POST FALLS EIS SCOPING MEETING ATTENDEES
PETITION FROM POST FALLS AREA RESIDENTS REGARDING
LOCATION OF PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT
173
-------
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, Education & Welfare
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
Kootenai County Commissioners
Art Manley, State Senator
Gary J. Ingram, State Representative
L. C. Spurgeon, State Representative
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
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.	A1 Farver
Foster & Marshall, Spokane, Washington
Mr.	Steve Frazey
Mr. Phil Frye
Mr.	Marvin Goecke
Mr.	William Goude
Mr.	& Mrs. Jerry Halloran
Mr. Tom Hanson
Mr.	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
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,
175
-------
POST FALLS EIS SCOPING MEETING ATTENDEES
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho City Hall
June 5, 1979
Mayor Don Johnson
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
James Le Pard
Le Pard & Frame, Inc.
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Jim Kimball
Le Pard & Frame, Inc.
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Gene McAdams, City Administrator
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Tom Wells, Public Works Director
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Frank Henderson, Chairman,
Steering Committee
Post Falls, Idaho
Jack C. Ross, Panhandle Health
District
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Warren McFall, EPA, Idaho
Operations Office
Boise, Idaho
Dr. Charles Hazel
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Sacramento, California
Mike Rushton
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Sacramento, California
Mayor Francis Wilhelm
Post Falls, Idaho
Jim Meckel
Meckel Engineering & Surveying
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Jim Fromm, Councilman
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Ray Koep
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Bill Stidham, Public Works
Department
Post Falls, Idaho
Larry Belmont, Panhandle
Health District
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Roger Tinkey
Idaho Health & Welfare Dept.
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Tony Harber
Brown & Caldwell Consulting
Engineers
Seattle, Washington
Norma Young, EPA, Region 10
Seattle, Washington
176
-------
ttarch 15, 1980
r.SCElVED
rr ^ Z ^ 1980
i
Dear Sirs;
' • ^ u
The attached is a letter of position concerning placement of a
sewage treatment plant. All persons contacted by myself were
in agreement with my thinking. I did not contact all peopler-in
the concerned area - if it would be important for me to do so
please let me know and I will. All persons who have signed are
concerned and want to be advised of any meetings, hearings or
findings that may come up on this matter. Please notify me of
any developments and I will pass the word along. If you have
any questions concerning the information contained in the letter
attached address those inquiries to me. Thank you for your
attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jerry Halloran
W. 15951 Primrose Lane
Post Falls, Id. 83854
773-9214 (home)
667-9441 (work)
177
-------
SUBJECT: The proposed location of Post Falls'	•	iJ
sewage treatment plant outside the.,.,
city limits on Pleasantview Road in
the Jacklin Seed tree farm area.	' ' '
We, the citizens as signed hereto, are all residents of Kootenai
County in the state of Idaho. We all live and/or own property in
the area surrounding the tree farm on Pleasantview Road. We do
recognize the need for Post Falls to obtain a central sewage system
but we bitterly oppose any consideration of the Pleasantview Road
site as a location for the treatment facility.
This area is presently zoned Suburban/Agriculture. In the past as
agriculture moved out we saw residential areas come in. The area
is now a prime residential area and the home for some fifty families.
This area does not lend itself to any commercial zoning. Any
expasion, construction or zone changes made in this area should be
made only to attract more stick built - primary residences. To
deviate from this path would have a negative impact on the property
values of all of the exsisting homes. A sewage treatment plant in our
back yard would discourage development by more residential construction
Placement of the plant here would do nothing more than attract still
more commercial enterprise, thus worsening the effect by turning the
entire area into an industrial park. Besides dictating the future
development of the area the mere presence of the plant and the "sewer
stigma" would put downward pressures on the resale value of the cur-
rently exsisting homes.
178
-------
Aside fron the property use aspect there are other drawbacks to
this location. The new truck traffic that would evolve would be a
major problem. Pleasantview Road has a one lane railroad underpass
which all traffic from both directions must use. This would create
hazardous conditions for both driving and pedestrian use. Children
in this area must walk down Pleasantview Road and through the under-
pass for the school bus. They walk this route during the winter
months in the dark with no sidewalks. The added truck traffic would
jeapordize their safety.
We do not wish to see Post Falls sprawl beyond it's city limits and
go into the county with it's problems. This proposed site has been
termed "the most convenient of several locations" by two of the
people in this stage of planning. Let's hope that convenience does
not oversadew intelligence. Placement of the treatment plant on
Pleasantview Road would be detrimental to the betterment of the entire
county. If placed there it would constitute a sharp reversal of the
growth control that has taken place thus far in this part of Kootenai
County. This plant needs to fit into the entire scheme of Kootenai
County, now and in the county of the future. Pleasantview Road is NOT
the place for the sewage treatment plant to be located.
179
-------
Send letter to the attention of;
John	Aguilar
City of Post Falls
408	Spokane
Post Falls, Id 83854
Kootenai Count Commissioners
501 Government Way
Coeur d'Alene, Id 83814
Kike Cooney
State of Idaho
Division of Environment
211 Ironwood Parkway
Coeur d'Alene, Id 83814
Warren Mc Fall
Environmental Protection Agency
422 West Washington
Boise, Id 83702
Art Manley (Senate)
Idaho State Legislature
State Capitol Building
Boise, Id 83720
Gary J. Ingram (House)
Idaho State Legislature
State Capitol Building
Boise, Id 83720
Jim Kinball
Le Para & Frame Inc.
603 N. 4th
Coeur d'Alene, Id 83814
L.C. Spurgeon (House)
Idaho State Legislature
State Capitol Building
Boise, Id 83720
Duane lacklin
Jacklin Seed Company
17300 W. Jacklin Ave
Post Falls, Id 83854
180
-------
I have read the attached letter and find it to be in" agreement
with my thinking. By signing below I am urging all in the power
of controlling the planning stage of the Post Falls sewer system
to omit,as a possible site, the Jacklin Seed tree farm area.
Signature,-
"7/V
Printed name and address
Jerry Halloran .773-9214
W. 15951 Primrose Lane
Post Falls. Id. 83854
it
l]
L(\ i <; i y
W • /S-fS/	LAtn!
;>VT "%UL s
i j	i -
/ ¦? i'5 'J-
! I >
6 ji->d
. / S *? 7 S r>- ' r -rc ^ •'
/,	y(	y C '
I'./ / / >7/* /'
/*; - i '
r/ 5- ? ,r-i
; ' /

7
/
/
/ y
"77^
/
>¦
~\
c\ \ \\ (v As SVvcA^c^
VS&. i	,	\ ,
S\~^sO ^Vfc-C,;, L 3&-r)
Of;
"~a ^ y V. i % .^fwr cws

Vc-'" J"
V


G>'v«\r\N^omV*3
^ ¦ VA-' l' ) P le a s. ru-^T L>^ •
fv - 1 v',. T rf ,Edc-^y
J .-L. V CV, /,
fv:
~v i ^6- c[c via. >\J /.
r~


V
•1
T~?
,£
AI J->- !
> ¦ I,
(IP


-7
//
35 ? ^ /'f
r?
/ /
/' ' /* '
// /'• / '' / ' '
'.Oi. . '	//.	^
//i/ <1^ w-Z--'# r'f i C~» -x ;r,
//•	ff'i'''-ly.i'Vrf
Pr'i-r —<>' •'* .1ft'vfi'f'J-
~7	1 ¦ 			'—
181
-------
I have read the attached latter and find	it to be in agreement
with my thinking. By signing belcw I an	urging all in the cc.ver
of controlling the planning stage of the	Post Falls sewer system
to emit,as a possible site, the Jacklin	Seed tree farm area.
S ignature
Printed name and address
>/¦'.Pii.{,,.-..^
Ar Uo pL&Mfl.frT~
' 0; ^ - x (a}/7^ <¦¦' ''
// P<.-,x /A,*
71 ^ l'./-c\. I'iccfi
/VI a.1-5U .S. MetxJ
fl(i yi.', r '
I -V


O In 1,1 -X
0 U
c~r l i'& L
A. 3-"V/ fi)	Lr„,
Rc /\' AN f A6 u
/'^ ,(-r ¦	ivtA."1 ';-C '* '/
C aac-Ni V A^'L.
JlLcce	LiVot	[all
1


„ - ,5,
/sj. //)	(Pc^y-^
LO-I^Sl'SCL JEkimgf 1 ti,	r£i?
0-2_L±j_rL^£j	PlSiJDdlci£l_L^! A^_i£^ fjsJZ
.V /c. 7^
: i / w::	
a
	
rr
/S'/OC ,¦
-------
I have rsad the attached letter and find it to be in agreement
with my thinking. By signing below I am urging all in the power
of controlling the planning stage of the Post Falls sewer system
to omit,as a possible site, the Jacklin Seed tree farm area.
Signature	Printed name and address
Pt
r>m l«
183
~ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1981-797-168 117
-------