Laclede Water District

Laclede Water District Laclede, daho

DRAFT Water Facilities Plan Revised April 2021

Prepared By

7950 N. Meadowlark Way, Suite A Coeur d Alene, D 83815 Office (208) 762-3644 2020 - En ineers, Inc

ll ri

ts reser ed

Laclede Water District Laclede, daho

DRAFT

Water Facilities Plan Revised April 2021

Prepared By

7950 N. Meadowlark Way, Suite A Coeur d Alene, D 83815 Office (208) 762-3644

2020 - En ineers, Inc

ll ri

ts reser ed

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

1.

2.

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1.

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 1

1.2.

Plan of Study ...................................................................................................... 1

1.3.

Background ........................................................................................................ 1

Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 2 2.1.

Planning and Project Area Boundaries .............................................................. 2

2.2.

Existing Environmental Conditions ..................................................................... 2

2.2.1.

Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils .......................................... 2

2.2.2.

Surface and Ground Water Hydrology ......................................................... 3

2.2.3.

Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities ...................................................... 3

2.2.4.

Housing, Industrial, and Commercial Development ..................................... 4

2.2.5.

Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 4

2.2.6.

Utility Use .................................................................................................... 5

2.2.7.

Floodplains/Wetlands .................................................................................. 5

2.2.8.

Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................ 5

2.2.9.

Public Health and Water Quality Considerations ......................................... 5

2.2.10.

Important Farmlands Protection ............................................................... 6

2.2.11.

Proximity to Sole Source Aquifer .............................................................. 6

2.2.12.

Land Use and Development ..................................................................... 6

2.2.13.

Precipitation, Temperature, and Prevailing Winds.................................... 7

2.2.14.

Air Quality and Noise ................................................................................ 7

2.2.15.

Energy Production and Consumption ....................................................... 7

2.2.16.

Socioeconomic Profile of the Affected Community ................................... 8

2.3.

Existing Water System ....................................................................................... 8

2.3.1.

Water Source............................................................................................... 8

2.3.2.

Intake Pump System ................................................................................... 8

2.3.3.

Water Treatment Facility.............................................................................. 9

2.3.3.1.

Treatment Site ........................................................................................ 10

2.3.3.2.

Filter Chambers ...................................................................................... 10

2.3.3.3.

Flow Control ........................................................................................... 10

T-O Engineers

i

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

2.3.3.4.

Backwash System .................................................................................. 11

2.3.3.5.

Chemical Injection System ..................................................................... 11

2.3.3.6.

Treated Water Transfer Pumps .............................................................. 12

2.3.3.7.

Disinfection ............................................................................................. 12

2.3.4.

Distribution System .................................................................................... 13

2.3.4.1.

Storage Reservoirs................................................................................. 13

2.3.4.2.

Water Mains ........................................................................................... 14

2.3.4.3.

Pumping Stations ................................................................................... 15

2.3.4.4.

Water Meters .......................................................................................... 16

2.3.5.

Electrical and Control Systems .................................................................. 16

2.3.6.

Water Demand .......................................................................................... 16

2.3.7.

Water Quality ............................................................................................. 19

2.3.8.

Sanitary Survey ......................................................................................... 19

2.3.9.

Hydraulic Analysis ..................................................................................... 19

2.3.10.

User Charges and Budget ...................................................................... 20

2.3.11.

Violations of Safe Drinking Water Act and Idaho Water Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems ......................................................................................... 20 2.3.12.

3.

4.

List and Status of Defects or Deficiencies .............................................. 21

Future Conditions ................................................................................................... 22 3.1.

Projected Growth ............................................................................................. 22

3.2.

Forecast of Demand (20-year period) .............................................................. 23

3.3.

Forecast of Demand (Build-Out) ...................................................................... 23

3.4.

Drinking Water Facilities Needed (20-year Period) .......................................... 24

3.5.

Future Conditions without Improvements ......................................................... 25

Development of Alternatives ................................................................................... 25 4.1.

Intake System Alternatives ............................................................................... 26

4.1.1.

Intake System Alternative 1 (I1) – No Action Alternative ........................... 26

4.1.2. Intake System Alternative 2 (I2) – Increased Capacity with Electrical/Control Upgrades and Standby Power ................................................................................ 26 4.1.3.

4.2.

Intake System Alternative 3 (I3) – New Onshore Intake System ............... 27

Treatment System Alternatives ........................................................................ 27

T-O Engineers

ii

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

4.2.1.

Treatment System Alternative 1 (T1) – No Action Alternative.................... 30

4.2.2.

Treatment System Alternative 2 (T2) – Ultrafiltration Membrane Plant ...... 30

4.2.3.

Treatment System Alternative 3 (T3) – Slow Sand Filter Plant .................. 31

4.3.

5.

4.3.1.

Distribution System Alternative 1 (D1) – No Action Alternative.................. 32

4.3.2.

Distribution System Alternative 2 (D2) – New Reservoir............................ 32

4.3.3.

Distribution System Alternative 3 (D3) – New Reservoir and Booster ....... 32

4.3.4.

Distribution System Alternative 4 (D4) – D3 Plus Fire Flow ....................... 33

Final Screening of Principle Alternatives ................................................................ 33 5.1.

Evaluation of Costs .......................................................................................... 33

5.1.1.

Capital Costs ............................................................................................. 33

5.1.2.

Operation and Maintenance Costs ............................................................ 34

5.1.3.

Present Worth Analysis ............................................................................. 35

5.1.4.

Reliability of Alternatives............................................................................ 36

5.1.5.

Ability to Implement ................................................................................... 36

5.1.6.

Funding Sources and Repayment Mechanisms ........................................ 36

5.1.6.1.

Funding Source ...................................................................................... 37

5.1.6.2.

Repayment Mechanisms ........................................................................ 37

5.2.

6.

Distribution System Alternatives....................................................................... 31

General Public Input ......................................................................................... 38

Selected Plan Description and Implementation ...................................................... 38 6.1.

Justification and Description of Selected Plan.................................................. 38

6.2.

Preliminary Design of Selected Plan ................................................................ 38

6.2.1.

Intake System ............................................................................................ 38

6.2.2.

Treatment System ..................................................................................... 38

6.2.3.

Distribution System .................................................................................... 39

6.3.

Implementation................................................................................................. 39

6.3.1.

Construction Phasing ................................................................................ 39

6.3.2.

Financing Arrangements............................................................................ 39

6.3.3.

Operation and Maintenance Requirements ............................................... 39

6.3.4.

Phase 1 Project Schedule ......................................................................... 39

T-O Engineers

iii

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendices Appendix 1.3.1.

Appendix 2.2.1.

Appendix 2.2.2.

Appendix 2.2.3.

Appendix 2.2.5.

Appendix 2.2.7.

Appendix 2.3.2.

Appendix 2.3.3.1.

Appendix 2.3.5.

Appendix 2.3.7.

Appendix 2.3.8.

Appendix 2.3.9.

Appendix 2.3.12.

Appendix 3.1.

Appendix 3.3.1.

Appendix 3.3.2.

Appendix 4.3.4.

Appendix 5.1.1.

T-O Engineers

Water System Map and Schematic NRCS Web Soil Survey Source Water Assessment and Score Details USFWS Environmental Conservation List Historic Places and Indian Reservation Map of Idaho FEMA Flood Zones and National Wetlands Inventory Discharge Permit and Fact Sheet Excerpts Reservoir Structural Report Electrical and Control System Analysis Memo 2018 CCR Report 2018 Sanitary Survey JAS 2000 Water System Improvements PER – Hydraulic Excerpt Security Vulnerability Assessment Historical Usage Figures Reservoir Calcs Fire District Letter Water Main Up-Sizing for District Wide Fire Flow Cost Estimates

iv

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose and Need The purpose of this report is to review and evaluate the Laclede Water District’s (LWD) drinking water system (PWS #ID1090073) and develop alternatives to resolve any problems and meet the long-term needs of the community. The primary focus of this report is to develop a long-term plan that ensures compliance with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Rules, preserve the health of the public, and result in an overall benefit to the community.

1.2. Plan of Study This facilities plan identifies alternatives to address deficiencies found with the existing surface water intake, treatment and distribution system and provides guidance for future projects to accommodate growth. It has been prepared utilizing the IDEQ Facility Plan Outline and Checklist and covers the following items which are broken down in the table of contents: • • • • •

Existing Conditions Existing Water System Future Conditions Development and Screening of Alternatives Selected Plan Description and Implementation

1.3. Background The LWD was formed in 1976 to serve the unincorporated area of Laclede. LWD is governed by a board of five members. The original water treatment plant was constructed in 1979. The plant is supplied by one pumped surface water intake from the Pend Oreille River. The original treatment system consists of direct filtration within a packaged plant.

Water is transferred to the distribution system via treated water transfer pumps within the treatment building. In 1997, a 64,000-gallon chlorine contact chamber was installed and the ability to filter to waste was added to the plant. Several other upgrades occurred in 2001 including installation of a booster station, flow meters in the treatment plant, a PLC to automate the plant and a new concrete reservoir bringing total storage volume to 300,000 gallons. LWD was under a voluntary consent order (VCO) to bring their water treatment into compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule from 1994 to 2003.

The major improvement in 2001 brought them into compliance and the VCO was terminated. Current distribution mains total approximately 7.5 miles in length. The system has a total of 259 residential connections but data for 2019 indicates that only 242

T-O Engineers

1

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

are active, therefore 242 will be considered the current ERU count. An estimated population of 615 is served as well as connections to Riley Creek Recreational Area and the Idaho Forest Group’s Laclede Mill. See Appendix 1.3.1 for a Vicinity Map and Schematic Diagram of the water system.

2. Existing Conditions 2.1. Planning and Project Area Boundaries The planning and project area includes the unincorporated area of Laclede, which encompass an area of approximately 1.6-square miles. Laclede is located approximately 12 miles southwest of Sandpoint along the Pend Oreille River in Bonner County, Idaho.

The existing District boundary will be the project planning area and the District has no plans to expand their existing boundary. See Appendix 1.3.1 for a map showing the existing District boundary.

2.2. Existing Environmental Conditions 2.2.1.

Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils

The project planning area consists of the entire LWD service area and assumes no significant expansion of the service area. The LWD service area is split into two areas by Highway 2 and the BNSF railroad. The southern portion lies along the Pend Oreille River and is primarily flat. The northern portion is both flat and hilly in areas and follows the Manly Creek and Riley Creek drainages to the north. The southern portion serves industrial, recreational and residential customers while the northern portion is primarily residential. The total area of the service area is 1052-acres. The principal mountain ranges trend northward while the river valley trends southwest and northeast. The mountains rise in many places to altitudes of about 6,000 feet, but only a few peaks reach altitudes above 7,000 feet; valley floors are at altitudes between 2,000 and 2,500 feet.

The entire area has been glaciated, so that the mountains are rounded, and the valleys contain thick deposits of unconsolidated sediments.

LWD’s service area is primarily within the greater Sandpoint lowland area. In general, the region comprises two main geologic elements: the older consolidated formations, which compose the bedrock that crops out in the mountains and underlies the valleys at depth, and the unconsolidated materials of Pleistocene and Recent age, which occur as valley fill (Walker, Groundwater in the Sandpoint Region, Bonner County, Idaho, USGS Report Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1964).

T-O Engineers

2

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps and soil descriptions indicate that the majority of the planning area consists of Mission Silt Loam (approximately 54%) and Bonner gravelly ashy silt loam (approximately 20%). Both of these soils are located in the relatively flat areas (0-2% slope). The steeper areas are dominated by Pend Oreille silt loam (9% of site, 5-45% slopes). See Appendix 2.2.1 for a soil map of the planning area and soils information generated by NCRS Web Soil Survey.

2.2.2.

Surface and Ground Water Hydrology

The Pend Oreille River serves as the source of the LWD’s water, which is in turn fed by Lake Pend Oreille. Lake inflow from the Clark Fork River and outflow through the Pend Oreille River are regulated by hydroelectric dams. Cabinet Gorge Dam, constructed in 1951, is operated by Avista Corporation and regulates inflows from the Clark Fork River at the Montana border. Lake outflow is controlled by the Albeni Falls Dam, operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Pend Oreille River near the Idaho-Washington border. There are currently draft Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Idaho portion of the river for both Temperature and Total Dissolved Gas (TDG). The Washington State Department of Ecology lists the Pend Oreille River on its 1998 list of impaired water bodies (303(d) List) for Temperature and TDG. Manly Creek and Riley Creek both run through LWD and discharge to the Pend Oreille River.

Lake levels fluctuate 10 to 12 ft annually (Falter et al., 1992). In summer, lake levels are controlled at 2,063 feet above mean sea level (TSWQC, 2001). Drawdowns begin after Labor Day and lake levels reach a minimum around December 1. This minimum level is normally maintained through winter and early spring. Annual snowmelt returns lake levels in the spring to their summer high elevation.

IDEQ was tasked by the EPA to rate all public water system sources. The Source Water Assessment Summary Report and Score Results can be seen in Appendix 2.2.2. There has been confirmed detection of Inorganic Chemicals, Soluble Organic Chemicals and Mircrobes above the MCL. Effluent is monitored for IOCs and Total Coliform to ensure treated water is below the MCLs. 2.2.3.

Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities

The Laclede area is primarily a mixture of farmland and forest. The forested areas are generally, dominated by Douglas fir and pine in the steeper higher-elevation areas around the perimeter of the project planning area. Frequent low intensity fires created open stands of large ponderosa pine with a grass dominated understory of pinegrass. Patches of Douglas-fir regeneration are present. Areas where forest fires have been less frequent have a patchy mosaic of older, large trees with patches of regeneration, pole stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and a mixture of shrubs, grasses and forbs. Bark beetle T-O Engineers

3

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

and root disease mortality create snags and woody debris. Severe stand replacing fires can result in ceanothus shrub fields dominating for several years until natural regeneration of pine and Douglas-fir reclaim the site. In other less severely burned areas, grass and sedge species dominate along with sprouting shrubs like ninebark, oceanspray, and snowberry.

Bonner County supports general wildlife species including deer, moose, small mammals and songbirds. A Threatened and Endangered Species list for general Laclede area was obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation website. An informational report from this site can be seen in Appendix 2.2.3. According to the database, there are no endangered species in the area. Threatened species include the Bull Trout, Grizzly Bear, and Canada Lynx. Candidate species include the Whitebark pine and North American wolverine. The Gray Wolf is the only species whose population is listed as being in recovery. There are no critical habitats or refuges listed in the project planning area. A total of 4 migratory birds of conservation concern are listed.

2.2.4.

Housing, Industrial, and Commercial Development

Connections to the LWD include commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential. The major industrial user in the area is the Laclede Mill which is owned and operated by the Idaho Forest Group. Riley Creek Recreation Area, a campground managed and owned

by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is also served by LWD. Housing is primarily composed of single-family residences with a few multifamily units. Commercial users are limited and include a gas station, church, post office and restaurant. Due to the limited commercial users, they have been combined with residential for analyses contained in this plan.

2.2.5.

Cultural Resources

There are no known historic resources within the existing or proposed planning area. A search of the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places website for Bonner County shows the nearest sites are located in Sandpoint and Priest River. A copy the map of the locations on that list in the area is included in Appendix 2.2.5.

The nearest tribal lands include the Kootenai Indian Reservation, approximately 40 miles to the northeast, the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation approximately 45 miles to the south and the Kalispell Indian Reservation 26 miles to the west. Federal Lands and Indian Reservation maps of Idaho and Washington can be seen in Appendix 2.2.5. Indians often camped near the intake structure as it was an important early crossing point before white men discovered the area. Later, in the gold rush days, a ferry at Laclede served a major wagon trail from Walla Walla to British Columbia. There are no known archaeological resources within the project planning area.

T-O Engineers

4

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

2.2.6.

Utility Use

LWD is the water provider for most of the planning area. The only utilities utilized by the treatment and distribution system are power and communication, which are supplied by Northern Lights Incorporated and Ziply Fiber. Electric power is used to drive the pumping, treatment, and monitoring systems. There is no sewer system in the project planning area as all homes are on individual septic systems. Some lots within the project planning area use individual domestic groundwater wells for water supply and are not on LWD’s water system. Natural gas distribution lines are not present in the project planning area.

2.2.7.

Floodplains/Wetlands

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are utilized to determine if any of the existing or proposed planning area is within a designated floodplain. From this interactive map, it is apparent that the shoreline portions of the planning area are located within Flood Zone A. A copy of the FEMA map for the Laclede area can be found in Appendix 2.2.7.

An interactive on-line mapper from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory has been utilized to determine the location of designated wetlands within the project area. This map indicates that freshwater emergent and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands as well as and freshwater ponds exist within the boundary of the project planning area. However, wetlands are not present in areas where changes are proposed for any of the alternatives presented in this report, nor are they present on the existing LWD water treatment facility property. See Appendix 2.2.7. for a copy of this map. The USFWS Wetlands Inventory map shows a freshwater pond near the treatment facility, but this is actually IFG’s mill pond which holds water for watering the logs prior to processing.

2.2.8.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Congress established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1968 as a program through which rivers in the United States may be identified and protected (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271-1287)). According to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website, none of the rivers designated as wild or scenic in the United States are near the project planning area. The nearest river with such a designation is the Saint Joe River, located 80 miles to the southeast (NWSRA 2015).

2.2.9.

Public Health and Water Quality Considerations

Protection of the Pend Oreille River, as the source water for the LWD, will be considered during construction of any proposed improvements. Protection of existing water mains and other water infrastructure from contamination during construction will also be

T-O Engineers

5

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

considered. Construction practices including flushing, disinfection and bacteriological testing of new water mains and facilities will be implemented.

2.2.10.

Important Farmlands Protection

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq, implementing regulations 7 CFR Part 658, of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, as amended) was created to minimize the effect of Federal programs on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Land that meets the definition of prime or unique farmlands or is determined to be of statewide or local significance is subject to the Act. According to the NCRS web soil survey, Appendix 2.2.1, several portions of the LWD are considered prime farmland if drained. The proposed projects will not convert any of these areas from their existing uses.

2.2.11.

Proximity to Sole Source Aquifer

A sole source aquifer (SSA), as defined by EPA, is the principal or sole source of groundwater for the area which overlays the designated aquifer and supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in a specified area. These designated areas (SSAs) may also have no alternative source of drinking water available. The SSA designation is authorized by section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.). The EPA has designated 14 SSAs in Region 10, a region which includes the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie SSA northern boundary is located approximately 10 miles south of the LWD project planning area and therefore is not located near the project site.

2.2.12.

Land Use and Development

There are four zoning districts within LWD, including: • • • •

Rural 5 Suburban Rural Service Center Industrial

The treatment system is located within land zoned as suburban. Much of the Suburban and Rural 5 areas still have room for substantial development.. See Section 3.3 for more discussion on potential land use and development.

Though not technically within the boundaries of LWD, the Riley Creek Recreation Area is also served by LWD. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns the site. The area has 67 developed camp sites for RVs or tent campers with water and electrical hookups available at each site as well as communal restrooms with showers, sinks and flushing toilets. A RV dump site is also available onsite for campers and the general public.

T-O Engineers

6

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

2.2.13.

Precipitation, Temperature, and Prevailing Winds

Weather data from the Sandpoint Experiment Station - located 13 miles northeast of Laclede - indicates that the area has a cool, temperate climate that includes long winters and a short growing season averaging about 113 days, from about the middle of May to early September. During the period of record (1911-2010), the annual precipitation has averaged 33.9 inches of rainfall and 58 inches of snowfall. The lowest average minimum temperature of 22° F occurs in January and the highest average maximum temperature of 82° F occurs in July and August.

2.2.14.

Air Quality and Noise

Based upon levels of air pollutants, geographic areas are classified by EPA as attainment or nonattainment areas. A geographic area that meets or has pollutant levels below the NAAQS (U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards) is called an attainment area. An area with persistent air quality problems is designated a nonattainment area. This means that the area has violated federal health-based standards for outdoor air pollution. Each nonattainment area is declared for a specific pollutant.

In addition to areas classified as attainment and nonattainment, some areas are described as maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are those geographic areas that were classified as nonattainment but are now consistently meeting the NAAQS. Maintenance areas have been redesignated by the EPA from nonattainment to attainment with a maintenance plan; commonly called maintenance areas. These areas have demonstrated through monitoring and modeling they have sufficient controls in place to meet and maintain the NAAQS. In 1997, Sandpoint, located 12 miles northeast of the project planning area, was designated moderate PM10 nonattainment, and an emissions inventory identified the primary PM10 source as residential wood burning. Fugitive road dust and some industrial sources were also considered significant contributors. The topography influences much of the PM buildup in the area. In April 2013, EPA approved in part and disapproved in part a Sandpoint PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan and redesignated the Sandpoint area to attainment for PM10.

The proposed project planning area is not located in a nonattainment area or area of concern. However, due to its proximity to Sandpoint, dust control will be required and implemented during construction as necessary to maintain acceptable air quality.

2.2.15.

Energy Production and Consumption

The project area is served by Northern Lights Inc. for all electrical power. Power is required for surface water intake pumps, treatment system, transfer pumps and booster

T-O Engineers

7

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

pump stations, as well as for all monitoring equipment. Minimizing electrical consumption will be an important consideration during design of system expansion and upgrades.

There are no energy recovery elements included with the proposed projects.

2.2.16.

Socioeconomic Profile of the Affected Community

The U.S. Census Bureau provides socioeconomic data for Bonner County, the most recent of which averages data for the years 2014-2018. That data is summarized below: • • • • • • • • •

Median Household Income (2018 dollars) - $48,710 Persons Below Poverty Level – 14.1% Persons Per Household – 2.40 White (not Hispanic or Latino) – 95.5% Hispanic or Latino – 3.2% Foreign-Born Persons – 2.3% Percentage of Population (Age 16+) in the Labor Force – 52.1% High School Graduate or Higher – 90.8% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher – 23.1%

Bonner County has a lower median household income level and higher poverty level than the Idaho state average.

2.3. Existing Water System 2.3.1. Water Source The source of water for LWD is the Pend Oreille River. Source water is usually of high quality and abundant during all seasons. LWD has not had a major violation within the last five years, owing in part, to the superior source water quality. Development of a new water source is not considered within this document due to the relative abundance and historically good quality of the existing water source.

IDEQ’s Sanitary Survey (2018) mentions that Eurasian milfoil has become established along the shoreline near the intake. To control the milfoil, aquatic herbicides are applied annually. LWD coordinates communications between applicators and IDEQ to ensure monitoring occurs and the supply pumps are not used during application.

2.3.2. Intake Pump System The original intake was installed in 1979. Several upgrades and replacements have taken place since then. The District’s raw water intake is located near the history ferry crossing approximately 65 feet from the shoreline at a depth below water surface of approximately 33-42 feet depending on water elevation. The source water pump station consists of two

T-O Engineers

8

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

10 HP submersible pumps located in the river at the intake with Johnson well screens. A vault structure with isolation valves is located onshore beneath the parking area. A common header joins the pump intake discharge lines. The pumps discharge into 4-inch HDPE lines that run to the valve vault. A 6-inch PVC conveyance line (replaced in 2012) transfers raw water approximately 1,700-feet to the water treatment plant. The screens are inspected annually by divers. The intake pumps operate on a lead/lag alternation through manual control, which is changed weekly. The older intake pump has a capacity of 220-gpm, while the newer pump has a capacity of 260-gpm, but is throttled down to 240-gpm. The pumps are controlled by level sensors within the treatment process. There is currently no backup power generator for the intake pump system. During a power failure, water is supplied to LWD via the gravity feed from the reservoirs. Due to the location of the pumps, they require specialized divers to be serviced.

2.3.3. Water Treatment Facility Water treatment is completed via a Keystone rapid sand filtration system installed in 1979 with several upgrades in 2001. Water treatment consists of aluminum sulfate coagulation within four (4) reaction chambers, two (2) filter media chambers followed with chlorination by sodium hypochlorite injection. Treatment consists of the following elements and flows in the following order: 1. Raw water inflow from the surface water intake pumps with flow measured by instantaneous and totalizing meter.

2. Continuous raw water turbidity monitoring (Hach 1720E).

3. A pre-chlorination port is available for future use.

4. A polymer coagulant port is available for future use.

5. Inline static mixing (Koch SMVL) with removable mixing fins (Removed in 2020).

6. Aluminum sulfate coagulant injection at the static mixer (Wallchem E-Class).

7. Streaming current monitoring (Milton Roy SC4200). This unit does not feature automatic feedback adjustment for aluminum sulfate dosing.

8. Filter unit reaction chambers (4).

9. Filter unit media chambers (2) through downflow (rapid rate gravity) filter media. Media chambers are backwashed with finished water from distribution through a flow control valve.

10. Continuous finished water turbidity monitoring (Unit #1=Hach TU5300, Unit #2=Hach TU5300, Combined=Hach TU5300).

11. Sodium hypochlorite injection.

12. Disinfection with contact time in the large baffled clearwell (62,500 gallon).

13. Disinfection with contact time in the small unbaffled clearwell (10,000 gallon).

14. Continuous filtered water residual chlorine monitoring (Hach CL-17).

15. Discharge to distribution through the treated water transfer pumps.

T-O Engineers

9

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

16. Backwash and filter-to-waste flows are conveyed through a settling pond to river discharge. No processes use recycled flows.

2.3.3.1.

Treatment Site

The treatment site is currently not fenced on all sides. The structure housing the filtration system is an old Quonset hut. The structure is in adequate condition, but is barely large enough to house the filter bays. Replacement of the structure should be considered if substantial improvements are to occur. There is currently no standby power onsite, which would limit fire flow during a power outage.

2.3.3.2.

Filter Chambers

The filter chambers have a total of 72 SF and a max filtration rate of 250 gpm (JAS 2000).

Typical operational rate is 290 gpm with a max of 350 gpm according to the IDEQ 2018 Sanitary Survey. In email correspondence with Jim Williamson of IDEQ, it is not clear where these values come from and unlikely they have ever been run that high as it is above the capacity of the intake pumps. The O&M manual states that the treatment system was designed to treat 250 to 300 gpm. Discussions with the current operator indicate that the treatment system is typically run at 240-gpm or less depending on which intake pump is running. The operator has not pushed it beyond this flow rate and is unsure whether water quality would remain consistent at higher flow rates. Even if the treatment system could treat the maximum specified in the O&M manual of 300-gpm, demand is beginning to exceed this value. Analysis of system capacity within this plan conservatively considers the maximum capacity of the treatment system to be 250-gpm.

The plant is designed to run with both filter bays operating at the same time. It is not possible to run one bay at a time without system modifications, resulting in a lack of redundancy. LWD has not had a major violation for turbidity in the last 5 years.

Stable water levels within the filter beds are control through a modulated level control via float levels and control valves. Table 1 describes the media filter beds. Each filter chamber is equipped with a flow meter.

Table 1. Media Filter Bed Composition Media Anthracite Coat Sand Sand Gravel

2.3.3.3.

Flow Control

Media Diameter (mm) 1.0 0.45 0.80 Varies

Depth (inches) 17 9 3 18-35

The treatment system is operated by float levels within the reservoirs. However, the communication system between the reservoirs and treatment system is prone to failure.

T-O Engineers

10

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Upgrades to the communication system should be considered. Raw water flow rate is controlled through a manually activated butterfly valve and flow meter at the plant. Intake pumps are not equipped with variable frequency drives (VFD’s) and the pumping rate is only adjustable through throttling of valves. Because the plant has been operated at the capacity of the intake pumps, the maximum sustainable capacity of the filter is unknown.

The Cla-Val on the filtered water line does not open to fill the system if there is a pressure drop within the distribution system. There is currently no way to override this valve, so during a large pressure drop, potentially due to a line break, there is no way to replenish the treatment system. In addition to valving issues, the operator noticed a rust hole leak within one of the pipe spools which could be indicative of corrosion throughout the ductile iron piping.

2.3.3.4.

Backwash System

The filter backwash system is controlled through the PLC. Backwash cycles are initiated after a pre-determined filter run time, turbidity exceedance, or differential pressure increase. Filter beds are backwashed by an underdrain system which typically triggered every 24 hours in summer and every 48 – 72 hours in the winter. Backwash water is obtained from treated storage at a flow of approximately 600 gpm according to the sanitary survey (2018). The backwash cycle is controlled by a ASCO control valve which limits flow to the filters. The ASCO valves are prone to getting stuck on coarse sand particles which prevent them from opening fully. This limits the available backwash flow up through the beds and prevents captured particles from being flushed, further reducing the filter’s efficiency. A lack of adequate backwash flow may lead to an increase in backwash frequency. There is no flow measuring device on the backwash water line as required under Idaho Administrative Code 58.01.08.521.11G. Filter backwash is directed through an overflow pipe which leads to a small sedimentation pond adjacent to the plant.

The pond is unlined and challenging to maintain. After settling, backwash water is discharged to the Pend Oreille River under a general discharge permit, NPDES IDG380000. A copy of the permit is included in Appendix 2.3.2.

The entire plant is shutdown during backwash, including the treated water transfer pumps that pull from the clear well. A backwash typically takes 20-30 minutes to complete. This could be troublesome due to reliance on the treated water transfer pumps to maintain adequate fire flow.

2.3.3.5.

Chemical Injection System

Chemical coagulant dosing is controlled through a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC).

The primary coagulant is aluminum sulfate (48% purity). At the time of the 2018 sanitary survey the mixing vanes on the Koch static mixer were removed as they were reported to

T-O Engineers

11

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

have reduced inflow by 50% and required frequent maintenance to remove coagulant build-up. The entire inline mixer was removed in the summer of 2020 and replaced with a piece of PVC pipe as it appeared to be causing a reduction in intake capacity according to the operator. Removal of the mixer has not appeared to impact system capacity or water quality.

2.3.3.6.

Treated Water Transfer Pumps

Two treated water transfer pumps are located within the treatment facility to transfer treated water to the storage tanks. The pumps operate in a duty/standby configuration.

The transfer pumps are controlled by water level sensors within the storage tanks. The transfer pumps consist of 20 hp pumps. The pump tag for Treated Water Pump No. 1 reads 130 gpm at 225 TDH. However, during the site inspection on June 22, 2020 the pump was operating at 260 gpm (per the flow meter) at approximately 90 psi. IDEQ’s Sanitary Survey (2018) notes treated water transfer pump capacity of 240 gpm each.

2.3.3.7.

Disinfection

Disinfection is achieved with 12.5% sodium hypochlorite. The feed pump is automatically controlled with feed rates that are proportional to the measured flow, the chemical feed will stop if flow is not detected. Contact time is achieved through a small clearwell (constructed in 1979) and large clearwell (constructed in 2001) which are hydraulically connected. LWD uses a chlorine residual analyzer to determine the amount of free chlorine which is maintained in the water prior to the distribution system. To verify the amount of disinfectant in the treatment system, the residual is monitored. The chlorine contact time must also be measured before water is sent to distribution. The contact time (CT) must be 30 minutes at peak hour demand with a residual concentration of at least 0.2 ppm chlorine. The calculation for contact time is listed below. 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 (𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔) ÷ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔)

The parameter used for determining the amount of disinfection in a water system is given by the CT value listed in the equation below. 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (

𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (min) 𝐿𝐿

The existing clearwells have the following volumes which were obtained from the engineering report on record (J.A. Sewell 2000). Both clearwells are hydraulically connected leading to a total contact volume of 38,500 gallons, Table 2.

T-O Engineers

12

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Table 2. Existing Clear Well Contact Volume Small Clearwell

Large Clearwell

10,000 0.1 1,000

62,500 0.6 37,500

Total Volume Baffling Factor Contact Volume

Small + Large Clearwell

72,500 0.53 (effective) 38,500

Unit

gals --

gals

Daily monitoring and monthly reporting of treatment process parameters is conducted to satisfy state and local surface water treatment rules. Each day the system must determine the total inactivation of Giardia (minimum 3-log) and viruses (minimum 4-log).

To maintain a minimum contact time of 30 minutes, the maximum allowable flow through the contact basins is 1,283 gpm, Table 3.

Table 3. Clear well contact time.

Flow (gpm) Contact Time (min)

Existing Peak Hour Demand

513 75

Max Allowable Peak Flow

1,283 30

IDEQ’s 2018 sanitary survey recommended improving secondary containment of chemicals in bulk storage as well as access to onsite safety equipment in the incident of exposure to chemicals in toxic concentrations.

2.3.4. Distribution System 2.3.4.1.

Storage Reservoirs

Treated water from the clearwells is pumped from the treatment facility to be stored in two (2) storage tanks. Both tanks are located on the same site and sit at a similar elevation.

The tank site is owned by LWD and accessed by a private, gated road. There is currently no security fencing around the perimeter of the site.

Storage Tank #1 was originally constructed in 1978 and has a capacity of 120,000 gallons. It is located at ground level and made of round welded-steel. The tank sits on a natural landform rise with a base elevation of 2242.68 and an overflow elevation of 2258.93 feet, according to the O&M manual. A transducer level sensor within the tank measures water levels and controls the activation of the clearwell transfer pumps. Jason Erickson of Erickson Engineering investigated the structural integrity of Storage Tank #1 on September 9, 2020 as part of this plan and found the structural condition to be satisfactory. Jason recommended re-coating the lid to avoid corrosion due to buildup of water-saturated debris. A copy of the letter and finding by Erickson Engineering can be found in Appendix 2.3.3.1.

T-O Engineers

13

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Storage Tank #2 is located adjacent to Storage Tank #1 and was constructed to have the same overflow elevation. Storage Tank #2 was constructed in 2001 with a capacity of 180,000 gallons. The tank is located at ground level and made of concrete. The base elevation is 2234.93 and overflow elevation is 2258.93 according to the O&M manual.

Storage Tank #2 also has a transducer level sensor. The level sensor in either tank can be selected as the primary control. The tank has noticeable cracks within mineral seeps but was reported as structurally sound by JAS in a reported dated January 24, 2017. JAS recommended several measures to ensure the tank was not excessively leaking as well as recommendations to repair the leaks. Further inspection of Storage tank #2 by Jason Erickson was completed on September 9, 2020 as part of this plan. Jason’s report recommends removing and replacing the concrete reservoir as the cracks are indicative of significant structural damage. Jason’s report advises against patching and reinforcing of the tank for the purpose of keeping it in service.

The volume within the combined reservoirs is 15,175 gallons per foot for the upper 16 feet. The O&M manual states that the pump off elevation is 2257.7, leaving approximately 21,986 gallons of dead storage between pump off and the overflow. The pump on elevation is stated as 2255.5, which creates an operational storage of 2-feet or 30,750 gallons. Existing equalization storage is calculated as the difference between the water system’s maximum pumping capacity, 220 gpm (intake pumps), and the existing peak hour demand, 538 gpm for 150 minutes as recommended by the Washington Department of Health’s Water System Design Manual 2020 (WSDM). This amounts to 47,700 gallons of equalization storage. Fire suppression storage requirements from the Selkirk Fire District are 1,000-gpm for 2-hours, totaling 120,000 gallons. Total effective storage component requirement of the existing storage system is 236,668 gallons. At no elevation within the reservoir is less than 20 psi of static pressure provided to the highest residence per the WSDM. This is evidenced by the pressure gauge reading of 35 psi at the booster pump station which is higher than the highest residence. Therefore, the only dead storage is the difference between the pump off elevation and the overflow elevation. See Appendix 3.3.1 for Reservoir Calculations.

2.3.4.2.

Water Mains

The distribution system is composed of approximately 7.5-miles of 2-inch to 8-inch PVC pipe. The system is typically flushed annually through the 25 fire hydrants as well as a frost-free hydrant which is located at the high point of the system.

The 2000 PER by JAS proposed installation of approximately 21,300-feet of new 6 and 8-inch water mains in order to provide fire flow of 1,000-gpm while maintaining system pressure above 20-psi. Of that, there is record of roughly 8,950-feet of pipe being replaced.

T-O Engineers

14

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

The main transmission line feeding the system is an 8-inch PVC pipe extending from the treatment facility to the reservoirs and RCRA. The majority of water mains are 6-inch.

Static pressure at the treatment plant is about 80 psi. Older water mains range in size and include 2, 3, and 4 inch.

Analysis of treatment plant water meter data versus user meter data indicates there is currently a 25-gpm loss of treated water within the distribution system. The operations staff pointed out they had noticed a discrepancy between the water produced and the water metered by customers. As part of this plan, we compared the difference between the meter at the treatment plant with the individual meter data from 2015-2019. A monthly comparison does not yield consistent results likely due to timing between individual meter readings and plant meter data as well as reservoir contributions. When the discrepancy is averaged over a year it was consistently found to be a difference of around 25 gpm.

Existing as well as 20-year and build-out water demand projections included this 25-gpm loss. It is likely that through various improvements that these existing water losses can be reduced, but also likely that new losses may form in older portions of the system.

Therefore a 25-gpm loss is included in the demand calculations as a current reality and future possibility.

2.3.4.3.

Pumping Stations

The Upper Pressure Zone is located in the northern most area of the LWD service area.

Services within this zone are fed from a booster pump station that receives water from the primary distribution system. The booster station was constructed in 2002. The pump station consists of two lead-lag alternating 2-HP centrifugal pumps. A series of pressure switches control the pumps according to system demand. In parallel to the pump discharge manifold, four (4) 80-gallon pressure tanks are connected prior to distribution.

There is currently no backup power generator for the booster station. The existing water mains leaving the booster station are 2-inch diameter.

The capacity is not explicitly defined within any of the design documents, but the sanitary survey states that it is sufficient for approximately 10 connections. During a site visit conducted on June 22, 2020 the pressure reading ahead of the booster pumps and directly after were noted at 35 and 57 psi, respectively. A 2-HP pump creating a 22-psi pressure differential could supply up to 109 gpm assuming 70% efficiency. However, to maintain a minimum pressure of 40 psi to the house at the highest/furthest point served by the booster station (approximately 30-feet higher in elevation with 2,400-feet of 2-inch PVC), a maximum pumping capacity of 7.4 gpm is currently available. The maximum connections for the booster station to maintain 40-psi at a PHD of 1.64 gpm/ERU is 4 connections. It is not currently known exactly which homes are served by the booster station, but best approximation is 10 ERUs. If the water mains leaving the booster station were upsized to 4-inch diameter, the existing booster system could provide approximately T-O Engineers

15

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

40-gpm while maintaining 40 psi. This would allow for service of 24 ERUs from the booster station assuming the elevation of the water main is not increased. It is recommended that the booster station be incorporated within a comprehensive hydraulic model, at the preliminary design stage, before any major modifications are designed. The water main leaving the booster station will likely need to be upsized in order to be in compliance if major modifications are made to the water system.

2.3.4.4.

Water Meters

Many old and faulty meters exist throughout the water system. Currently snow accumulation prevents access to meters during the winter months so they are only read in the summer. LWD is currently in the process of replacing all meters with the ability to radio transmit the meter readings. Installation of the radio-read meters will allow reading of meters throughout the year.

2.3.5. Electrical and Control Systems Review of the electrical and control system was completed by Trindera Engineers and reported to T-O within a memo dated August 14th, 2020. The memo is included in Appendix 2.3.5 and includes deficiencies noted during a site visit on June 22, 2020 as well as recommended improvements. The memo findings are summarized in the following discussion.

Recent improvements were made to the intake pump station, but improvements do not meet all the requirements of the 2016 Idaho Amendments to the National Electrical Code Article 682 for submersible pumps installed in bodies of water. There is currently no signaling apparatus or remote monitoring of the pump intake and booster station to notify operators of interruptions per IDAPA 58.01.28, 01.

Within the treatment plant, corrosion was noticed on some elements of the electrical system. The receptables did not all have ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) protection which should be included in any indoor wet locations per NEC Article 2108.8, (B), (6).

Existing pump motor starters and control panels are located inside the Filter Room where they are in contact with corrosive agents used for disinfection. The reservoir system communication to the treatment plant is via buried underground electrical wire that is prone to failure.

2.3.6. Water Demand Monthly water usage data for 2010-2019 was provided for estimating current water demands. A summary of the annual and max monthly data can be found in Table 4. The annual average day demand per ERU was calculated as the total residential water usage divided by the amount of active connections and days within a year. LWD has 259 T-O Engineers

16

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

residential meter connections, but not all of these meters were active every year.

Calculations were based on active meters for a given year. Active meters ranged from 232 to244 and was 242 in 2019. The number of ERUs for existing usage is based on the 242 of active connections in 2019. The year with the highest average day demand was 183-gpd per ERU and occurred in 2010. The maximum month for the data analyzed occurred in September 2017 resulting in a maximum month’s average day demand (MMADD) of 588 gpd/ERU. Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and Peak Hour Demand (PHD) can be estimated based on peaking factors. Peaking factors were taken from the Washington Department of Health’s Water System Design Manual 2020 (WSDM). MDD is estimated based on MMADD. MDD for systems serving less than 1,000 people is 1.64 times MMADD. The PHD was calculated using WSDM Equation 3.1. Table 5 displays the demands estimated from the data that will be utilized for planning purposes.

Equation 3-1 is outlined below. ERUMDD is the max day demand per ERU, C and F are coefficients based on the number of ERUs available from Table 3-1 in the DOH WSDM, and N is the number of ERUs. An example calculation for the existing PHD is given below. Note that C and F change to 1.8 and 125, respectively, for ERUs between 250 and 500 which is the case for 20-year and build out conditions.

WSDM WA DOH Equation 3-1 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = (

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = (

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 ) (𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝑁𝑁 + 𝐹𝐹) + 18 1440

971 ) (2 ∗ 242 + 75) + 18 = 394.88 1440

Commercial users include a bar/restaurant, gas station, church and post office. It is assumed that the commercial users do not vary significantly from the range of residential usage amounts and have therefore been grouped with residential users for the purposes of this report.

The largest single user is Idaho Forest Group’s Laclede Lumber Mill (IFG). IFG produces boards from five different species of tree at the mill. Their usage pattern is generally consistent throughout the work week as they run both day and night shifts but can be variable on the weekends. Treated water is used throughout the plant for a wide variety of processes, primarily make-up water for the boiler and cooling water for the saws. IFG utilizes raw water from a separate intake system for watering logs during the summer.

IFG reportedly does not have any major changes to operations in the near-term but envisions steady growth at a similar rate as has been seen over the past few years.

From an analysis of the past ten years, it appears that usage at the mill has increased consistently by approximately one million gallons per year. This increase in usage has primarily been seen during the winter months. Max month usage has risen by about T-O Engineers

17

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

100,000 gallons per year and generally occurs at the same time as residential max month usage during the summer. There are no known published peaking factors for lumber mills and the variability between mills would likely make any peaking factors unreliable. In order to estimate MDD, it was assumed that the mill primarily uses water five days a week creating a peaking factor of 7/5=1.4 for MDD/MMADD. The flow is likely fairly steady to the mill but there is undoubtedly some variability throughout the day though likely less than that of residences. Therefore, a less conservative peaking factor of 1.5 was applied for the PHD/MDD value.

The next largest single user is Riley Creek Recreation Area (RCRA) operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is assumed that RCRA will not experience any significant growth and will continue to use a similar amount of water for the extent of the planning period outlined in this report. It is assumed that the campground will have similar water usage patterns as residential systems, therefore the same peaking factor of 1.64 times the MMADD was applied to obtain the MDD. This value is considered conservative as it is significantly higher than that of the MDD calculated based on the values presented in WSDM Table 3-2: Guide for Maximum Daily Demand on Nonresidential Users for Park – RV/Trailer with sewer hookups. The PHD was similarly estimated based on the same equation, WSDM Equation 3-1, used for the residential system as if each of the 67 campsites represented an ERU. Here C and F are equal to 2.5 and 25, respectively.

Table 4. Summary of meter data from 2010 to 2019 Year

Annual (gallons)

Max Month (gallons)

Residential

Recreational

Industrial

Residential

Recreational

Industrial

2010

16,078,936

442,700

1,733,840

2,551,207

183,000

343,490

2011

9,642,487

556,000

2,370,370

3,153,241

192,400

571,810

2012

8,274,476

572,300

2,704,890

2,401,248

233,200

1,150,640

2013

9,736,150

531,300

7,163,666

2,293,663

193,000

1,002,206

2014

9,029,042

617,900

7,368,520

2,625,330

210,200

1,181,850

2015

12,894,490

219,700

8,732,690

3,368,680

219,700

-

2016

8,406,758

-

5,782,220

3,906,698

-

736,460

2017

12,498,800

677,200

6,827,540

4,218,760

222,300

1,493,070

2018

12,390,300

582,700

10,005,160

3,322,570

196,000

1,363,670

2019

12,014,624

447,600

11,952,450

3,318,860

208,800

1,588,070

Max

16,078,936

677,200

11,952,450

4,218,760

233,200

1,588,070

Average

11,096,606

464,740

6,464,135

3,116,026

206,511

1,047,918

T-O Engineers

18

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Table 5. Existing Usage Residential (per ERU)*

Recreational (RCRA)

Industrial (IFG)

Total

Annual Average Day Demand (gpd)

44,052 (183/ERU)

1,855

32,746

78,654

Maximum Month Average Day Demand (gpd)

140,625 (588/ERU)

7,773

52,936

201,334

Maximum Day Demand (gpd)

232,032 (971/ERU)

12,826

74,110

354,968

Peak Hour Demand (gpm)

394.88 (1.64/ERU)

43.59

77.20

541

Scenario

*

Current residential ERUs is 242, based on active connections in 2019.

Loss (25 gpm)

36,000

25

2.3.7. Water Quality Daily monitoring at the treatment plant includes turbidity, pH, temperature and chlorine residual.

Turbidity levels are monitored continuously using two Hach TU5300 turbidimeters. Turbidity levels are required to be maintained at or below 0.3 NTU. If levels exceed 0.3 NTU then weekly total coliform sampling is required. A review of IDEQ records shows no positive Total Coliform results within the water system and no water quality violations over the previous year.

All community drinking water systems must provide customers with an annual report of drinking water quality. A copy of the Report on Quality of Drinking Water in 2018 can be found in Appendix 2.3.7. There are no current persistent water customer complaints.

2.3.8. Sanitary Survey The last sanitary survey completed by IDEQ for the LWD water system was conducted October 24, 2018. Previous surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2008 by IDEQ. Several of the recommendations from these sanitary surveys are considered and addressed in this facility plan. A copy of the Sanitary Survey can be found in Appendix 2.3.8.

2.3.9. Hydraulic Analysis LWD’s distribution system is characterized by two pressure zones. The lower pressure zone is fed directly from the transfer pumps located within the treatment facility. Water that is not taken by customers eventually flows from the transfer pumps into the storage tanks. When the transfer pumps are not running the lower zone is fed directly by the storage tanks. The Upper Pressure Zone is located in the northern most area of the LWD service area. Services within the Upper Zone are fed from a booster pump station that receives water from the storage tanks and/or the transfer pumps. There are currently approximately 10 services fed by the booster station.

T-O Engineers

19

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

A hydraulic analysis for LWD was completed by JAS as part of the 2000 Water System Improvements PER, Appendix 2.3.9.

The JAS analysis proposed significant improvements through upsizing of water mains and adding hydrants to achieve fire flows throughout the system. The recommended improvements consisted of upsizing approximately 21,300 lineal feet of water mains and adding hydrants to achieve 1,000 gpm fire flow throughout the District. Roughly 8,950 lineal feet of water main has been upsized and ten (hydrants) added to date, according to documents found in researching this plan. The 2000 JAS analysis indicated that areas of the system, with the recommended improvements, would be able to maintain fire flow of 1,000-gpm and a system pressure of 20 psi only if the transfer pumps were operating. When the transfer pumps are not in operation and fire flow is strictly from the reservoirs, only a few hydrants are able to maintain adequate fire flow with a minimum system pressure of 20 psi. Further hydraulic analysis and development of an updated model is recommended as part of the design process for any major distribution system improvements.

2.3.10. User Charges and Budget The LWD currently charges a monthly base rate of $45.84 per 5,000 gallons. Overage charges for usage above the base consist of $2.02 per 1,000 gallons up to 20,000 gallons and $3.02 per 1,000 gallons over 20,000 gallons. New water service connection fees are $10,000. LWD serves several users that purchase water at a higher base rate. Higher base rates are multiples of the monthly base rate. For example, some users have a base rate of $91.68 ($45.84x2) and 10,000 gallons. Notably, RCRA is based on 36 campsites at $45.84 per site for the base of $1,650.24 for 180,000 gallons and IFG has 7 different meters and two different base rates, $91.68 at 10,000 gallons and $320.88 at 35,000 gallons for its office and industrial uses, respectively.

LWD’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget projects $203,800 in total water revenues. Total projected expenses are $161,741. This excludes capitalization projects, depreciation and capital carry over, but includes a $30,341 annual payment on their USDA Rural Development loan. LWD currently has approximately $460,000 in savings and approximately $270,000 in outstanding debt. According to their proposed budget for FY 2020, approximately $91,500 of the total income of $203,800 was allocated to operations and maintenance.

2.3.11. Violations of Safe Drinking Water Act and Idaho Water Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems The 2018 sanitary survey noted that the only recent violation occurred in February 2015 for failure to provide adequate turbidity levels. The water system quickly returned to compliance. There are no other known violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems within the last 5 years.

T-O Engineers

20

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

2.3.12. List and Status of Defects or Deficiencies Following is a list of treatment and distribution system deficiencies identified in previous sections. Problems identified with the existing system include: •

• •

•

• • •

•

The raw water intake pumping system requires upgrades to meet the new Division of Building Safety (DBS) requirements for the permanent installation of directly connected submersible pumps in bodies of water.

The intake pump system does not allow for the pumps to be removed from water for maintenance without the use of a diver.

The direct filtration system package plant is almost 40 years old. Corroded ductile iron pipe has been found within the building. Valves controlling backwash are prone to getting stuck due to sand particles. The valves controlling operation of the plant cannot function if a pressure drop or line break, occurs. The entire plant is shut down for treatment system cleanings leaving only the reservoirs to serve demand. While the system currently provides adequate treatment, it can be difficult to operate and will require significant upgrades to maintain proper function. The age and remaining capacity of the system warrant investigation into treatment system replacement to serve future water demand within LWD. The treatment system is run based on water levels within the storage facilities.

However, the communication system is prone to failure leaving the operators with no way of controlling the treatment system.

The existing structure housing the filtration system is too small to house any significant improvements.

The settling pond for wastage from the filtration system is in poor shape and should be rehabilitated.

Security improvements should be included to better protect the intake, treatment and storage facilities. The treatment facility is not fenced on all sides and improved alarming and security is needed to protect the facility. There is no security fencing at the reservoir site other than a gate on the road. These and other potential vulnerabilities were outlined in a Security and Vulnerability SelfAssessment completed for the District in 2018, included as Appendix 2.3.12.

There is currently no standby or backup power system at the intake, treatment or booster pumping facilities. Installation of a backup generator system to provide power to the pumping systems during outages will be analyzed. This is of particular importance considering that not all hydrants are able to meet fire flow requirements when the transfer pumps are not running.

T-O Engineers

21

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

•

•

• •

The reservoirs are aged and have visible cracks, seeps and evidence of leakage. A structural evaluation conducted by Jason Erickson of Erickson Engineering indicates that the concrete reservoir should be removed and replaced, but the steel tank is in good shape.

The 2-inch water line running from the booster station to Riley Creek Road and Manly Creek Road is not mapped and is prone to leakage and failure.

Replacement of this line should be evaluated.

Much of the waterline upsizes proposed by JAS in 2000 were not completed leaving existing portions of the District without fire hydrants or available fire flow.

There is currently an estimated 25-gpm of water loss within the system. It is recommended that further leak detection analyses be performed to minimize or eliminate this loss.

3. Future Conditions 3.1. Projected Growth No major developments are anticipated within the planning area, but there is significant room for growth. It is unlikely that growth will be limited by available land over the next 20-years and will therefore be based on unrestricted population growth. U.S. Census 2019 population data for Bonner County indicates an 11.9% change in population from 2010 to 2019, a 10-year period. This amounts to an annual growth rate of 1.26%. Laclede currently has a population of 615 and 242 ERUs which equates to 2.54 persons/ERU. A growth rate of 1.26% for 20-years will lead to a population of 789 and total of 311 ERUs served by LWD. This averages out to 3.4 ERUs per year. This is slightly higher than historic values and is therefore considered conservative. For comparison JAS estimated 190 ERUs within the 2000 PER and currently there are 242 ERUS within the system which averages 2.7 additional ERUs per year. The more conservative growth rate of 3.4 ERUs per year will be utilized within this plan.

Nonresidential growth and usage projections present much more uncertainty. Historic data for RCRA has shown a decrease in water usage over the last 3 years and max monthly usage has shown no consistent trend, though it may be slightly decreasing. To be conservative, it is assumed that RCRA usage will maintain at the highest recorded values during the 2010-2019 period. IFG growth is dependent on economic trends and business decisions that cannot be known twenty years in advance. In discussions with the IFG, the current growth over the past 10 years is thought to be a sustainable growth rate. From a plot of the IFG meter data, the max month usage has increased approximately 107,000 gallons/year. This value was assumed to remain constant over

T-O Engineers

22

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

the next 20-years. gallons/year.

Annual usage increases are assumed to grow by 989,300

3.2. Forecast of Demand (20-year period) Forecast of demand for a 20-year period considers a projected population of 789 as 311 ERUs for LWD. The following Table 6 provides a summary of projected design flows based on this 20-year forecast.

Table 6. 20-year demand projections Scenario Annual Average Day Demand (gpd) Maximum Month Average Day Demand (gpd) Maximum Day Demand (gpd)

Residential Recreational (per ERU)* (RCRA) 56,847 (183/ERU) 1,855

Industrial (IFG) 87,541

Total 182,243

Loss (25 gpm)

182,989 7,773 123,984 350,746 36,000 (588/ERU) 301,933 12,826 173,577 524,336 (971/ERU) Peak Hour Demand (gpm) 480 (1.64/ERU) 44 181 729 25 *Based on projected 311 Residential Connections (ERUs).

Figures and charts summarizing historical and projected water usage trends can be seen in Appendix 3.1.

3.3. Forecast of Demand (Build-Out) The District consists of approximately 1052 acres, which is broken into Suburban, Rural 5, Rural Service Center and Industrial zoning categories. The minimum lot size with no bonuses for Suburban and Rural 5 zoned areas is 2 and 5 acres, respectively. The Rural Service Area is nearly completely developed, and it is unlikely to see additional service connections within any of the industrial area. Many lots within the District are currently vacant and several lots could potentially be developed based on size. The existing vacant lots and potential lots were manually counted assuming the minimum lot sizes listed above to determine there are potentially 220 available lots. It is unlikely that all lots will be developed at down to the minimum lot size, however some developments will likely occur at lower than the standard minimum within the Suburban zone. Therefore, it is feasible that the two scenarios will balance out. If each potential lot becomes an ERU, at the existing household size of 2.54 persons/ERU, this equates to 1174 users within the district and a total 462 service connections.

At current growth rates, this level of development would occur in the year 2071. IFG growth was assumed to remain constant to the year 2071 for usage projections. Table 7 summarizes the usage projections for build-out.

T-O Engineers

23

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Table 7. Build-out demand projections Scenario

Residential Recreational (per ERU)* (RCRA) 84,448 (183/ERU) 1,855

Industrial (IFG) 175,212

Total

Loss (25 gpm)

Annual Average Day Demand 297,516 (gpd) Maximum Month Average Day 271,836 (588/ERU) 7,773 237,660 553,270 36,000 Demand (gpd) Maximum Day Demand (gpd) 448,530 (971/ERU) 12,826 332,725 830,081 Peak Hour Demand (gpm) 663 (1.64/ERU) 44 347 1,078 25 *Based on projected 462 Residential Connections (ERUs).

Figures and charts summarizing historical and projected water usage trends can be seen in Appendix 3.1.

3.4. Drinking Water Facilities Needed (20-year Period) The existing system has four different potential areas of limitation. Required capacity for the intake, treatment and transfer system is based on the MDD as they will have adequate equalization storage. The reservoirs are the only one of these areas that have sufficient capacity for the 20-year projections, but capacity will be exceeded at the projected buildout conditions, as summarized in Table 8.

1. Intake Pumps: Each of the two (2) existing raw water intake pumps have a pumping capacity of 240-gpm. The current pump system only allows for one of the pumps to be operated at a given time and to account for redundancy, only the capacity of a single pump is considered, which amounts to 345,600-gpd.

Estimated capacity of the 6” raw water line from the intake to the treatment plant is 600 gpm or 864,000 gpd which will likely be sufficient through projected buildout.

2. Treatment Facility: For the purposes of this report, we will assume the existing treatment facility has a total capacity of 250-gpm (360,000-gpd) with both filter bays on-line. Current IDEQ Rules require that one filter bay be considered off-line for redundancy when performing capacity calculations. However, for the purpose of existing capacity analysis, full capacity of the filter with both bays operating is considered.

3. Treated Water Transfer Pumps: Each of the two (2) existing treated water transfer pumps have a pumping capacity of 260-gpm. Only the capacity of a single pump is considered for redundancy, which amounts to 374,400-gpd.

4. Reservoir Capacity: Reservoir demand was calculated in accordance with Section 7.1 of the WSDM. See Appendix 3.3.1. for reservoir sizing calculations.

The analysis considers operational storage, equalization storage, standby storage, and fire suppression storage requirements for existing, 20-year and build-out conditions. The fire flow rate in portions of the District with hydrants is 1,000-gpm

T-O Engineers

24

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

for a duration of two hours (120,000 gallons total) per an email from Dale Hopkins.

Fire flow requirements could be increased to 1,500 gpm in the future if large structures are built without automatic sprinkler systems. No large structures are currently planned, so 1,000 gpm is assumed to be adequate. See Appendix 3.3.2. for a copy of the correspondence with Selkirk Fire District.

Table 8 - Drinking Water Facility Needs (Existing and 20 year) Treatment Intake Transfer Scenario Available Capacity (gpd) Existing System Capacity 360,000 345,600 374,400 Required Capacity (gpd) Existing Usage 354,968 20-year Usage Projections 524,336 Build-Out Usage Projections 830,081

Reservoir 282,311 236,668 287,848 378,622

3.5. Future Conditions without Improvements LWD has sufficient capacity to meet current demands; however, if a permanent solution is not found the District will have periods of inadequate supply in the near term. These periods will become more frequent as the District’s customer base continues to expand and water demand from the mill continues to increase. In addition, LWD does not have a way to supply water during a sustained power outage.

4. Development of Alternatives Due to the anticipated growth of the residential population and water system demand, the system will qualify as being substantially modified. All presented alternatives are developed to current rules and the capital improvement plan (CIP) presented in Section 6 was developed to bring the existing infrastructure into compliance per IDAPA 58.01.08.003.136. A technical, financial and managerial (TFM) document may also be required due to the substantial modifications. As a Water District, LWD is subject to Title 42, Chapter 32 of Idaho Code which dictates how they are to be managed, financed and operated. LWD is subject to annual audits of all financial affairs and they are required to adopt an annual budget, subject to public hearing. They are also subject to specific requirements for incurring debt. If a TFM is required, it will be submitted as part of the loan application.

Key deficiencies within the system have been outlined within Section 2.3.12. Due to the breadth of these deficiencies, the alternatives have been broken into three categories – intake system, treatment system, and distribution system. The intake pumps, treatment facilities and transfer pumps have all been sized to meet the MDD of 365 gpm and the

T-O Engineers

25

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

existing and proposed storage system will include the required equalization storage per IDAPA 58.01.08.501.03.

4.1. Intake System Alternatives Intake system issues are summarized below. Table 9 summarizes which items will be covered in the alternatives.

• • •

• •

Capacity - The intake system is currently under capacity for the 20-year flow projections.

Communication - There is no alarm system or communication system between the intake and treatment center to communicate if a problem arises.

Panel Compliance - The control panels need to be upgraded to meet DBS requirements as described in the Electrical and Control Systems Technical Memorandum prepared by Trindera Engineering, included in Appendix 2.3.5.

Backup Power - There is no backup power for the intake system.

Maintenance Access - The existing pumps are located offshore requiring a specialized diver for maintenance.

Table 9. Summary of Intake System Alternatives.

Intake Solutions Intake Alternative I2 Intake Alternative I3 Two (2) new 365-GPM VFD pumps Capacity New radio telemetry system Communication Upgrade existing panels Panel compliance with DBS Backup generator Backup power New Land Based Pump Not Addressed Lack of maintenance access System ESTIMATED COST $440,000 $640,000

Intake System Issues

4.1.1. Intake System Alternative 1 (I1) – No Action Alternative The existing intake system capacity will be exceeded shortly according to demand projections. The no action alternative is not considered a feasible alternative as it will lead to inadequate capacity within the near future.

4.1.2. Intake System Alternative 2 (I2) – Increased Capacity with Electrical/Control Upgrades and Standby Power Alternative I2 will increase the intake system capacity to the MDD of 365 gpm by replacing the existing intake pumps with new pumps and VFDs. Two pumps will be installed in the same location as the existing pumps utilizing as much of the existing intake system as possible. While redundancy of a surface water source is not required each of the new

T-O Engineers

26

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

pumps will have a capacity of 365 gpm.. A new radio telemetry system will be installed to communicate with a central SCADA system at the treatment plant. Existing control panels will be upgraded to comply with DBS requirements. A generator will be installed to provide backup power. The pumps will remain in the existing location and therefore a specialized diver will still be required for maintenance.

4.1.3. Intake System Alternative 3 (I3) – New Onshore Intake System Alternative I3 will include everything discussed in in alternative I2, but will also include a new onshore intake system. The new intake system will consist of a 12-inch diameter gravity line feeding water from the Pend Oreille River to an onshore wet well that houses the new pumps. An onshore intake system will allow LWD staff to access and maintain the pumps themselves.

4.2. Treatment System Alternatives Treatment system issues are summarized below. Table 10 summarizes which items will be covered in the alternatives.

•

• • • • • •

Capacity – The existing treatment system and treated water transfer pump capacity will not be adequate for the next 20-years and is already beginning to be exceeded during high demand periods Valving – There are various valving issues throughout the treatment system. See Section 2.3.2. for further discussion.

Redundancy – The existing treatment system does not allow for redundancy.

Corrosion – There is signs of internal corrosion within the ductile piping throughout the treatment system.

Backup Power – There is no backup power for the treatment system.

Settling Pond – The existing settling pond is challenging to maintain.

Electrical and Control – Corroded equipment and other electrical and control issues exist at the plant as further described in the Electrical and Control Systems Technical Memorandum prepared by Trindera Engineering, included in Appendix 2.3.5.

Table 10. Summary of Treatment System Alternatives.

Treatment Issues

Treatment Solutions Treatment Alternative T2 Treatment Alternative T3

Capacity New Ultrafiltration Membrane New Slow Sand Filter Treatment Valving Treatment Plant with New Plant with New Treated Water Lack of redundancy Treated Water Transfer Pumps Transfer Pumps Corrosion in piping Backup generator Backup power Settling pond maintenance Rehab settling pond Decommission settling pond COST $2.84 Million $1.96 Million

T-O Engineers

27

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

The primary issue with the existing water treatment system is the lack of capacity. Without major reductions to water system demand a new treatment facility will be needed. New or upgraded water treatment systems must meet all MCLs for inorganic contaminants, organic contaminants, turbidity, radionuclides, microbiological contaminants, disinfection byproducts (DBP) and residual disinfectant levels. These MCLs are mandated in Idaho Administrative Code 58.010.08. Because a surface water source is being used, filtration and disinfection are necessary. Both treatment methods would be needed to remove turbidity and kill or inactivate microbiological contaminants. New and existing treatment technologies are being considered to replace or upgrade the water treatment plant. The two treatment techniques considered as alternatives include an ultrafiltration membrane and slow sand filter (SSF).

Filtration is the process of removing particulate matter from water by passing it through a porous media. The LWD water plant uses conventional direct filtration with the use of a granular media. Conventional filtration is a well-established technology yet is labor intensive. Significant equipment is involved which can make maintenance costly and timely. As solids accumulate and reach a point where head loss through the bed becomes excessive, the filter is backwashed by fluidizing the bed and filtering the solids. The filtered solids flow stream (backwash), which is significant, must be handled, treated and/or disposed of. LWD has achieved good success with rapid filtration technology and has sustained only a handful of drinking water violations within the last ten years. The Installation of new conventional direct filtration facilities was explored in the preliminary stage of this analysis. The cost of either a packaged or designed direct filtration system landed between the Slow Sand Filter (SSF) and the membrane alternatives outlined below. The District and operation staff prefer either a SSF or membrane, so conventional rapid filtration was not explored further and is not included as an alternative.

Slow sand filtration (SSF) has largely superseded conventional filtration during the twentieth century. SSFs have advantages over rapid filtration due to their simplistic operation. In SSF, influent steps downward by gravity through a submerged sand bed three to five feet deep. The low filtration rate and smaller sand particles cause the surface of the sand bed to build up a mat of material called a schmutzdecke. The schmutzdecke forms a biological complex that degrades and captures organic matter. SSFs are not backwashed and do not require coagulation pretreatment if source waters are less than 10 NTU. SSFs cannot treat source water with high levels of colloids such as clay without pretreatment; however, the Pend Oreille River is generally of high-quality year-round with limited turbidity impairment. Occasionally turbidity spikes of up to 20-30 NTU are observed, primarily during the spring months, but these occurrences do not last long. The primary benefit of SSF is that the filters are simple to operate because there are no coagulation requirements or backwash operation. This can be particularly attractive to small communities which do not have the resources for highly trained, full-time operators.

T-O Engineers

28

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Membrane filtration is another filtration method growing in popularity due to low maintenance requirements, high effluent quality and superior ability to filter bacteria, viruses and protozoa from the source water. Membrane processes include microfiltration, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and coagulation-assisted membrane filtration. Influent water is pumped at high pressure through a selectively permeable membrane where dissolved constituents and microbes are removed through diffusion.

Membrane types are categorized according to their relative pore size.

Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis methods are often used to remove ionic species such as magnesium and arsenic. Membranes’ enhanced ability to remove biological contaminants is significant because it decreases the level of disinfection required in the following treatment stages. Membranes provide a physical barrier for filtration whereas media filtration does not. Media filters are also susceptible to biological contamination due to “breakthrough” whereas membranes are not unless there is a tear in one of the membranes. Breakthrough is caused when water passes through the filter, the floc is sometimes torn apart into smaller particles that penetrate into the filter media causing a turbidity breakthrough. This requires a frequent backwash cycle to release floc that has penetrated the bed.

Membranes are periodically backpulsed to detach trapped material. The selection of a filtration process influences the degree of disinfection required. A “credit” is given for various filtration equipment manufacturers that demonstrate a validated log removal of Giardia, viruses and Cryptosporidium. For the LWD application, membrane filtration providers would likely receive a 3-log credit for Giardia and Cryptosporidium and a 0.5log credit for viruses based on a microfiltration membrane. Other filtration processes provide a higher credit for removal of these microorganisms due to an order of magnitude decrease in pore size.

T-O Engineers

29

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Table 11. Advantages and Disadvantages of Water Treatment Alternatives.

Alternative

Advantages

Disadvantages

T2 - Membrane Ultrafiltration

▪ More compact than granular filtration plants ▪ Superior water quality ▪ Log removal credit available ▪ Highly automated process, lower operator involvement ▪ Easily expandable with additional membrane units

▪ Requires highly trained operators ▪ Residuals (backwash) handling requirements ▪ Higher O&M and operating costs than SSF alternative

T3 - Slow Sand Filtration

▪ Simple system requiring no coagulant or backwashing ▪ Filter can run without constant supervision ▪ Maximum log removal credit of 2.0 for Giardia, Viruses and Cryptosporidium at a flux of 0.1 gpm/ft2 ▪ Low operating costs

▪ Requires significantly more space due to the lower filtration rate ▪ High capital costs to construct the reinforced concrete filter bays ▪ Higher capital costs to expand beyond 20year projections ▪ Requires significant labor during cleanings.

▪ No pretreatment means SSF’s cannot treat poor quality surface waters >10 NTU. Coagulation assisted treatment is required under these circumstances

4.2.1. Treatment System Alternative 1 (T1) – No Action Alternative The existing treatment system maximum day demand capacity is likely being exceeded during current peak usage periods with flows made up by the reservoir. The no action alternative is not considered a feasible alternative as it will lead to inadequate capacity within the near future.

4.2.2. Treatment System Alternative 2 (T2) – Ultrafiltration Membrane Plant Alternative T2 includes installation of a new ultrafiltration membrane water treatment plant with capacity to treat the 20-year projected MDD with adequate equalization storage available in the reservoirs. The new plant will be installed in a new building with space for inclusion of another membrane unit that will create capacity up to the build-out projections. A new plant will address the capacity, valving, lack of redundancy and corrosion in the piping at the existing treatment system. A backup generator will be installed to allow for backup power. The settling pond will be rehabilitated and utilized to help remove suspended solids from the membrane backwash water before discharging.

The existing lot with the treatment system has enough space for installation of a new membrane plant.

T-O Engineers

30

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

4.2.3. Treatment System Alternative 3 (T3) – Slow Sand Filter Plant Alternative T3 includes installation of a new slow sand filter water treatment plant with capacity to treat the 20-year projected MDD with adequate equalization storage available in the reservoirs. A new plant will address the capacity, valving, lack of redundancy and corrosion in the piping at the existing treatment system. A backup generator will be installed to allow for backup power. The settling pond will be removed as there will be no waste discharge from the SSF. The existing lot with the treatment system has enough space for installation of a new SSF plant.

4.3. Distribution System Alternatives Distribution system issues are summarized below. Table 12 summarizes which items will be covered in the alternatives.

• • • • •

•

•

Reservoir condition – the existing concrete reservoir shows signs of structural damage and is in need of replacement.

Reservoir communication – the communication system between the treatment plant and the reservoir controls when water is treated, but is prone to failure.

Booster station backup power – the booster station has no backup power and could lead to water loss for several residences in the event of a power failure.

Booster station alarm notification – there is currently no notification if the booster station has failed leading to delayed maintenance response times.

Booster station capacity – the booster station appears to be nearing capacity. It is not clear what the impact of additional connections would be on flow and pressure requirements.

Water mains – the water main between Lower Manly Creek Road and the booster station is prone to leaks and is undersized. The other mains leading to and from the booster station will be undersized if the booster station capacity is increased and may need to be upsized to increase the capacity of the booster station.

Fire flow – All of the improvements recommended by JAS (2000) have not been implemented leaving portions of the District without fire flow.

T-O Engineers

31

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Table 12. Summary of Distribution System Alternatives.

Distribution System Issues Steel Reservoir Concrete Reservoir Failing Communication with Treatment Plant Backup Power Alarm Notification

Reservoir

Booster Station

Capacity Water Mains Fire Flow

Distribution Solutions Distribution Distribution Distribution Alternative D2 Alternative D3 Alternative D4 Re-coat Reservoir Top New 200,000 gallon Concrete Reservoir New radio telemetry system

Backup generator New radio telemetry system New 1000-GPM New 6-HP Booster (fire flow) Capacity Not Addressed Station Booster Station Replace Lower Alt. 1 + upsize lines to and from booster Manly Cr. to Booster station Complete the remaining JAS Not Addressed 2000 Facility Plan Recommendations COST $1.24 Million $1.84 Million $3.39 Million Light On Building

4.3.1. Distribution System Alternative 1 (D1) – No Action Alternative A lack of action would leave the system vulnerable to a failing reservoir, lack of communication between the reservoir, booster station and treatment plant, and no backup power at the booster station.

4.3.2. Distribution System Alternative 2 (D2) – New Reservoir Alternative D2 includes re-coating the steel reservoir lid to avoid potential corrosion issues. A new 200,000-gallon reservoir will be constructed, and the existing concrete reservoir will be removed. The new reservoir will increase the overall storage volume to 320,000 gallons which will be sufficient for projected demands at build-out. A new radio telemetry system installed at the reservoir to improve communication between the reservoir and the treatment plant. A backup generator will be installed at the booster station to ensure water is still available in the event of a power failure. A light will be installed on the booster station building indicating if there is an issue with the booster pumps. The existing 2-inch line running between Lower Manly Creek Road and the booster station, approximately 3,400-LF, will be replaced with a 4-inch PVC line.

4.3.3. Distribution System Alternative 3 (D3) – New Reservoir and Booster Alternative D3 includes everything listed within D2, with additional improvements. A new booster station with two 6-HP booster pumps will be installed with capacity for a total 70T-O Engineers

32

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

gpm at 40 psi, or 42 ERUs, with an additional 90 feet of water main elevation possible.

According to an analysis of the current properties served by the booster station and their zoning, this will be adequate for build-out conditions. To provide adequate flow to and from the booster station, approximately 4,000-LF of existing lines will be upsized to 4-inch PVC. 4.3.4. Distribution System Alternative 4 (D4) – D3 Plus Fire Flow Alternative D4 includes everything listed in D2 and D3 with additional improvements that will provide fire flow throughout LWD. The booster station will be upsized to provide 1,000-gpm and the lines to and from the booster station will be upsized to handle this additional flow. This alternative also includes implementation of the remaining improvements recommended by JAS (2000) to provide hydrants and fire flow throughout the District. Appendix 4.3.4. includes a figure outlining the water mains that remain to be upsized for this alternative. This alternative is deemed to be prohibitively expensive and is not considered a viable alternative, especially when considering the District’s needs and costs related to upgrading the intake and treatment systems.

5. Final Screening of Principle Alternatives The District has demonstrated responsibility for future water projects by engaging in the facility planning process, including meeting several times to specifically discuss the water facility plan and the most ideal path forward to meet their needs. They have also submitted a Letter of Interest for a $5.3 million IDEQ Drinking Water Loan to complete the anticipated selected alternatives. The District has only one employee to handle bookkeeping. Any technical experience necessary to complete the projects will be contracted during the design and construction phase to ensure any projects are carried out according to schedule.

5.1. Evaluation of Costs Preliminary cost estimates in terms of capital were developed for each alternative and have been provided within Appendix 5.1.1. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and present values were developed for three alternative packages deemed most viable and are discussed further within the following sections.

5.1.1. Capital Costs Capital cost is the one-time cost to construct the proposed facility improvements and excludes operation and maintenance. The estimated capital cost of each alternative

T-O Engineers

33

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

including engineering, administration and an added contingency amount is summarized in the following Table 13.

Table 13. Capital cost for each alternative Alternative I2 – Upgrade Pumps I3 – Upgrade Pumps and Intake Structure T2 – Ultrafiltration Membrane Facility T3 – Slow Sand Filter Facility D2 – New Reservoir D3 – New Booster Pumps and Reservoir D4 – D3 Plus Fire Flow

Capital Cost $0.44 M $0.64 M $2.84 M $1.96 M $1.24 M $1.84 M $3.39 M

5.1.2. Operation and Maintenance Costs Operation and Maintenance costs (O&M) were developed based on the existing O&M costs plus added or reduced costs for each of the alternative packages described in Section 5.1.3. These costs are summarized in Table 14. Some cost savings are anticipated including a reduction in maintenance expenses.

Operating costs for the membrane will involve the use of cleaning chemicals and membrane pumps. Ultrafiltration systems do not typically use much more electricity than granular rapid filtration plants. Typically, a dilute solution of sodium hypochlorite (12.5%) is used to clean membrane fibers through in situ backpulsing. This occurs approximately every one to two days. A monthly extended clean in place event is initiated by the operators and involves the recirculation of hypochlorite and citric acid through the membranes for a deep clean. Additionally, membranes should be recovery cleaned by removing modules one to two times per year and placing them in a deep cleaning solution overnight. The typical lifespan for membranes is 10 years. Depending on the source water quality and adherence to appropriate operating and maintenance procedures, the lifetime can be extended past 10 years.

Coagulation pretreatment will likely not be required for SSF operation due to superior water quality of the Pend Oreille; however, the existing coagulant pumps should be retained for use during a source water high turbidity event. There is no backwashing or high-pressure pumping required for SSF’s. Sand is typically added every few years to build the filter back up to its original filtration depth and needs to be replaced every 10 years. This can be a significant operational cost. Filter sand must have a specific gradation, uniformity coefficient and NSF approval. Sand replacement requires removal of the first few inches of sand called the Schmutzdecke, which is a biological treatment layer. New sand is added to build the filter back up and the Schmutzdecke is eventually returned to the top layer.

T-O Engineers

34

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Table 14. O&M Cost for Alternative Packages O&M Expense Description Admin. Payroll Office Expenses Legal Services Fees/Dues/Travel/Rent/Education Engineering Services Maintenance, Repairs and Supplies Contract Licensed Operator Laboratory Testing Chemicals Power Internet for SCADA Insurance Membrane Filter Replacements (Annualized) Filter Sand Replacement (Annualized) Capital Improvement/Depreciation Totals

Alternative Package (AP) AP1 AP2 AP3 (I2, T2, D2) (I3, T2, D3) (I2, T3, D2) $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $18,000 $20,000 $45,000 $45,000 $50,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $20,000 $22,000 $10,000 $10,000 $13,000 $10,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $192,000 $195,000 $186,000

5.1.3. Present Worth Analysis Present worth is used to compare alternatives with differing O&M and capital costs. The present worth for each alternative includes the capital cost plus the O&M costs over a 20year period. The estimate assumes an interest/discounting rate of 3% which can be compared to an inflation rate in this application. No salvage or return values were assumed for this analysis. The present worth analysis was performed for three alternative packages that include a combination of intake, treatment and distribution alternatives.

The packages include the alternatives deemed most important to the LWD board and most necessary for maintaining adequate supply and quality of drinking water for the next 20-years. Alternative Package 1 (AP1) includes alternatives I2, T2, and D2, Alternative Package 2 (AP2) includes alternatives I3, T2, and D3 and Alternative Package 3 (AP3) includes I2, T3, and D2. The results are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15. Present worth analysis.

Alternative Packages Capital Cost AP1 (I2, T2, D2) AP2 (I3, T2, D3) AP3 (I2, T3, D2)

T-O Engineers

$4.52 M $5.32 M $3.64 M

O&M (annual) $192,000 $195,000 $186,000

Present Value (20-year) $7.38 M $8.22 M $6.41 M

35

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

5.1.4. Reliability of Alternatives All alternatives would enhance the existing system to supply and produce a finished water product meeting state and federal water quality requirements.

5.1.5. Ability to Implement A significant drawback with SSF treatment alternative is amount of space required to accommodate the treatment system. The Bonner County GIS website was reviewed to determine the availability of space for an SSF treatment system. The City’s property extends to the wooded area just east of the backwash pond. The property line is approximately 90 feet from the east pond edge. The northern property boundary extends from the edge of Riley Creek Park Drive right of way to 100 feet north. The available treatment space is an approximate 90x100 foot area, which is sufficient to accommodate the proposed SSF treatment system.

The spatial requirements for a membrane treatment system are significantly less than an SSF system. A new ultrafiltration membrane system that meets build-out demand will likely be able to fit in a building that is less than half the size of a comparable structure to house the SSF. Many membrane plants come in pre-plumbed and pre-packaged systems which simplifies the installation process. A membrane plant for the District would fit within a30’ x 40’ building.

There appears to be adequate space for installation of a new reservoir at the location of the existing reservoir and LWD currently owns the property. The size of the easement for the booster pump station is not known. Additional easement may be necessary to acquire from a private owner. If a new onshore intake system is constructed additional easement area may be necessary to acquire from state owned property.

5.1.6. Funding Sources and Repayment Mechanisms The District is exploring funding through an IDEQ Drinking Water Loan with payback through an LID, bond or rate increase. The following is a list of funding sources being considered for system improvements. To keep user rates affordable and comparable to similar rural communities, District expansion will need to be financed by low-interest loans and grants. Multiple state and federal agencies have financing programs to assist rural communities with infrastructure expansion.

State and federal funding programs require that every water connection receive equitable benefit regardless of economic status. Equitable distribution of debt from any improvements should consider who is benefited by the upgrades. Most of the upgrades will benefit the entire system. However, upgrades to water mains and the booster station

T-O Engineers

36

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

will not benefit all users. It may be worthwhile to set up LIDs composed of users benefited to fund improvements that do not benefit all users.

5.1.6.1.

Funding Source

IDEQ Drinking Water Loan Fund IDEQ's Drinking Water Loan Fund provides below-market-rate interest loans to help repair or build new facilities. Loans of up to 100 percent of project costs may be awarded for project design and/or construction.

For fiscal year 2021 (July 1, 2020-June 30, 2021), the interest rate for loans ranges from 1.75% to 3.00%. These loans must be fully repaid within 20 to 30 years of project completion. However, 30-year loan terms are only available if users pay more than 1.5% of median household income for wastewater services.

5.1.6.2.

Repayment Mechanisms

Local Improvement District (LID) A LID is a specific geographic boundary encompassing a neighborhood or business district and formed by a group of property owners working together to bring about needed capital improvements within that boundary, IDAPA 50-17. A LID provides a funding mechanism to property owners for the design and construction of desired improvements that solely benefit that area.

The LID process requires a petition to be signed by at least 60 percent of the resident owners, or 2/3 of the owners of property subject to assessment, authorizing the District to charge the petitioners fees to cover expenses. After initiation, the District adopts a resolution giving notice of its intention to create the LID, to make improvements, and to levy assessments.

The LID would likely be financed by USDA Rural Development or IDEQ in the form of a low-interest loan. Both of these agencies are familiar with projects that utilize LIDs, although each scenario is unique, and the District should consult directly with a Loan Specialist from the USDA Rural Development and IDEQ offices in Coeur d’Alene.

Bond Issuance Water or sewer subdistricts may incur debt and issue bonds for the purpose of acquiring, purchasing, or improving a water or sewer site or sites, and acquiring or constructing new water or sewer facilities per IDAPA 42-3218D. The governing body of a water or sewer subdistrict may submit to the qualified electors of the water or sewer subdistrict the question of whether the governing body of the water or sewer subdistrict shall be

T-O Engineers

37

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

empowered to issue negotiable bonds of the water or sewer subdistrict in an amount and for a period of time to be named in the notice of election. Notice of the bond election shall be given, the election shall be conducted and the returns thereof counted to determine whether the bond shall be accepted by the electors.

Judicial Confirmation As the governing body of a political subdivision, the District may in its discretion file a petition at any time asking for a judicial examination and determination of the validity of any bond or obligation or of any agreement per IDAPA 7-1304. The filing of the petition shall have been authorized by the governing body having adopted a resolution or ordinance authorizing such filing after conducting a public hearing as defined in IDAPA 7-1304. Such petition shall make a clear statement of the legal authority for the proposed expenditure, shall set forth the facts on which the validity of such bond or obligation is founded and shall be verified by the executive officer of the political subdivision.

Utilizing the Judicial Confirmation, the District can incur debt and levy a bond to the electors of the District without conducting an election. The fact that the system is at capacity and the reservoir has structural damage validates the need for these improvements.

5.2. General Public Input There are no current persistent customer complaints of the existing water system.

[To be completed following Public Review and Comment Period]

6. Selected Plan Description and Implementation [Section 6 to be completed following Public Review and Comment and selection of final Alternative] 6.1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan 6.2. Preliminary Design of Selected Plan 6.2.1. Intake System 6.2.2. Treatment System

T-O Engineers

38

DRAFT - Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

6.2.3. Distribution System 6.3. Implementation 6.3.1. Construction Phasing 6.3.2. Financing Arrangements 6.3.3. Operation and Maintenance Requirements 6.3.4. Phase 1 Project Schedule

T-O Engineers

39

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 1.3.1. Water System Map

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.2.1. NRCS Web Soil Survey

T-O Engineers

United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a oint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for Bonner County Area, Idaho, Parts of Bonner and Boundary Counties

April 16, 2020

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

2

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3

Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map (Laclede Water District)......................................................................... 9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend (Laclede Water District).......................................................... 11 Map Unit Descriptions (Laclede Water District).................................................. 11 Bonner County Area, Idaho, Parts of Bonner and Boundary Counties...........13 2—Bonner gravelly ashy silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes............................13 15—Hoodoo silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...............................................14 28—Lenz-Rock outcrop association, 30 to 65 percent slopes.................... 15 31—Mission silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................... 16 35—Pend Oreille silt loam, 5 to 45 percent slopes..................................... 17 46—Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex.....................................................19 64—Wrencoe silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes.............................................19 65—Water................................................................................................... 20 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................21 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................21 Land Classifications........................................................................................ 21 Farmland Classification (Laclede Water District).........................................21 References............................................................................................................27

4

How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

5

Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

6

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

7

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

8

516900

517400

517900

518400

518900

116° 43' 48'' W

116° 46' 33'' W

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map (Laclede Water District) 519400

519900

48° 11' 40'' N

5333700

5333700

5334200

5334200

5334700

5334700

5335200

5335200

5335700

5335700

5336200

5336200

5336700

5336700

5337200

5337200

5337700

5337700

48° 11' 40'' N

48° 9' 14'' N

48° 9' 14'' N

517400

517900

518400

Map Scale: 1:21,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

N

518900

Meters 1800 Feet 0 1000 2000 4000 6000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84

0

300

600

1200

9

519400

519900 116° 43' 48'' W

116° 46' 33'' W

516900

Soil Map Unit Points

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Polygons

uarry

10

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Saline Spot

Sodic Spot

Slide or Slip

Sinkhole

Severely Eroded Spot

Sandy Spot

Rock Outcrop

May 7, 2013 Nov 4,

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 50,000 or larger.

Soil Survey Area Bonner County Area, daho, Parts of Bonner and Boundary Counties Survey Area Data Version 15, Sep 16, 2019

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator pro ection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A pro ection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic pro ection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

Source of Map Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL Coordinate System Web Mercator (EPSG 3857)

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

The soil surveys that comprise your AO were mapped at 1 24,000.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed 2016

Aerial Photography

Bac ground

Local Roads

Ma or Roads

US Routes

nterstate Highways

Rails

Transportation

Streams and Canals

Water Features

Special Line Features

Other

Wet Spot

Very Stony Spot

Stony Spot

Spoil Area

MAP INFORMATION

Perennial Water

Miscellaneous Water

Mine or

Marsh or swamp

Lava Flow

Landfill

Gravelly Spot

Gravel Pit

Closed Depression

Clay Spot

Borrow Pit

Blowout

Special Point Features

Soils

Area of nterest (AO )

Area of Interest (AOI)

MAP LE END

Custom Soil Resource Report

Custom Soil Resource Report

Map Unit Legend (Laclede Water District) Map Unit Symbol

Map Unit Name

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI

2

Bonner gravelly ashy silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes

223.7

20.3%

15

Hoodoo silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

49.7

4.5%

28

Lenz-Rock outcrop association, 30 to 65 percent slopes

19.2

1.7%

31

Mission silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

596.4

54.1%

35

Pend Oreille silt loam, 5 to 45 percent slopes

102.3

9.3%

46

Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex

27.7

2.5%

64

Wrencoe silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes

55.1

5.0%

65

Water

28.9

2.6%

1,102.9

100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest

Map Unit Descriptions (Laclede Water District) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the

11

Custom Soil Resource Report scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

12

Custom Soil Resource Report

Bonner County Area, Idaho, Parts of Bonner and Boundary Counties 2—Bonner gravelly ashy silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 545n Elevation: 2,000 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 120 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Bonner and similar soils: 85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Bonner Setting Landform: Outwash terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Thick mantle of volcanic ash and/or loess over outwash derived from granite and/or schist and/or gneiss Typical profile Oi - 0 to 1 inches: slightly decomposed plant material A - 1 to 6 inches: gravelly ashy silt loam Bw - 6 to 22 inches: gravelly ashy silt loam 2BC - 22 to 30 inches: gravelly loam 3C - 30 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.43 to 2.13 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Other vegetative classification: grand fir/twinflower (CN590) Hydric soil rating: No

13

Custom Soil Resource Report

15—Hoodoo silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 545h Elevation: 2,000 to 4,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 45 inches Mean annual air temperature: 41 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 60 to 120 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Hoodoo and similar soils: 70 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hoodoo Setting Landform: Flood plains, drainageways Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Volcanic ash and/or mixed alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 15 inches: ashy silt loam Cg1 - 15 to 52 inches: silt loam 2Cg2 - 52 to 60 inches: very cobbly silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to abrupt textural change Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: Occasional Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Ecological site: WET MEADOW 16-24 PZ (R044XY601WA) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Capehorn Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Other vegetative classification: western redcedar/ladyfern (CN540) 14

Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: Yes Hoodoo, peat substratum Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Pywell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Wrencoe Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

28—Lenz-Rock outcrop association, 30 to 65 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 545y Elevation: 2,500 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 130 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Lenz, stony surface, and similar soils: 45 percent Rock outcrop: 25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Lenz, Stony Surface Setting Landform: Mountains Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Loess over bedrock derived from granite and/or gneiss and/or schist Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam Bw - 7 to 24 inches: very gravelly sandy loam R - 24 to 34 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 65 percent Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 0.1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock

15

Custom Soil Resource Report Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Warm-Frigid, Xeric, Loamy Slopes, low AWC subsoils (Douglas Fir/Warm Dry Shrub) Pseudotsuga menziesii / Physocarpus malvaceus Symphoricarpos albus (F043AY519WA) Other vegetative classification: Douglas-fir/ninebark (CN260) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop Typical profile R - 0 to 60 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

31—Mission silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 5462 Elevation: 2,000 to 2,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 38 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 120 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Mission and similar soils: 75 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Mission Setting Landform: Terraces

16

Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Volcanic ash and loess over silty glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile Oi - 0 to 1 inches: slightly decomposed plant material A - 1 to 3 inches: silt loam Bw - 3 to 12 inches: silt loam 2Btx - 12 to 21 inches: silt loam 2E - 21 to 33 inches: silt 2Bt - 33 to 48 inches: silt loam 3C - 48 to 67 inches: fine sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to fragipan Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 6e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: western redcedar/queencup beadlily (CN530) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hoodoo Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flood plains, drainageways Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: Yes Odenson Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

35—Pend Oreille silt loam, 5 to 45 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 5466

17

Custom Soil Resource Report Elevation: 2,000 to 3,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 38 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 70 to 110 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Pend oreille and similar soils: 70 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Pend Oreille Setting Landform: Mountains Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Volcanic ash and/or loess over till derived from granite and/or metamorphic rock Typical profile Oi - 0 to 2 inches: slightly decomposed plant material A - 2 to 6 inches: ashy silt loam Bw - 6 to 19 inches: gravelly loam 2Bt - 19 to 43 inches: gravelly sandy loam 2C - 43 to 60 inches: very cobbly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 45 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Other vegetative classification: western hemlock/queencup beadlily (CN570) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hoodoo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

18

Custom Soil Resource Report

46—Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex Map Unit Composition Rock outcrop: 55 percent Rubble land: 45 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Rock Outcrop Typical profile R - 0 to 60 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rubble Land Typical profile C - 0 to 60 inches: stones, boulders Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No

64—Wrencoe silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 5477 Elevation: 2,000 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 38 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 120 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Wrencoe and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

19

Custom Soil Resource Report

Description of Wrencoe Setting Landform: Stream terraces, flood plains Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Lacustrine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silty clay Btg1 - 10 to 50 inches: silty clay Btg2 - 50 to 60 inches: silty clay Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 5w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Other vegetative classification: beaked sedge h.t. (HP500) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Pywell Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flood plains Hydric soil rating: Yes Hoodoo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes

65—Water Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

20

Soil Information for All Uses Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation.

Land Classifications Land Classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behavior for specified practices. Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly influence the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site classification, farmland classification, irrigated and nonirrigated land capability classification, and hydric rating.

Farmland Classification (Laclede Water District) Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.

21

516900

517400

Custom Soil Resource Report Farmland Classification (Laclede Water District) 517900

518400

518900

116° 43' 48'' W

116° 46' 33'' W

Map

519400

519900

48° 11' 40'' N

5333700

5333700

5334200

5334200

5334700

5334700

5335200

5335200

5335700

5335700

5336200

5336200

5336700

5336700

5337200

5337200

5337700

5337700

48° 11' 40'' N

48° 9' 14'' N

48° 9' 14'' N

517400

517900

518400

Map Scale: 1:21,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

N

518900

Meters 1800 Feet 0 1000 2000 4000 6000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84

0

300

600

1200

22

519400

519900 116° 43' 48'' W

116° 46' 33'' W

516900

Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if irrigated and drained

Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if irrigated

Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if drained

All areas are prime farmland

Not prime farmland

Soil Rating Polygons

Soils

Area of nterest (AO )

Area of Interest (AOI)

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated

Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained

Farmland of statewide importance

Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium

Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer

23

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

MAP LE END

Custom Soil Resource Report

Farmland of local importance, if irrigated

Farmland of local importance

Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed

Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough

Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium

Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if irrigated and drained

Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if irrigated

Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if drained

All areas are prime farmland

Not prime farmland

Soil Rating Lines

Not rated or not available

Farmland of unique importance

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated

Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained

Farmland of statewide importance

Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium

Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

24

Farmland of local importance, if irrigated

Farmland of local importance

Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed

Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough

Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium

Custom Soil Resource Report

Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated

Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Prime farmland if irrigated and drained Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained

Farmland of statewide importance

Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium

Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer

Prime farmland if irrigated

Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Prime farmland if drained

All areas are prime farmland

Not prime farmland

Soil Rating Points

Not rated or not available

Farmland of unique importance

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60

Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of local importance, if irrigated

Farmland of local importance

Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed

Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough

Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium

25

Aerial Photography

Bac ground

Local Roads

Ma or Roads

US Routes

nterstate Highways

Rails

Transportation

Streams and Canals

Water Features

Not rated or not available

Farmland of unique importance

Custom Soil Resource Report

May 7, 2013 Nov

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed 4, 2016

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 50,000 or larger.

Soil Survey Area Bonner County Area, daho, Parts of Bonner and Boundary Counties Survey Area Data Version 15, Sep 16, 2019

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator pro ection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A pro ection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic pro ection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

Source of Map Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL Coordinate System Web Mercator (EPSG 3857)

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

The soil surveys that comprise your AO were mapped at 1 24,000.

Custom Soil Resource Report

Table—Farmland Classification (Laclede Water District) Map unit symbol

Map unit name

Rating

2

Bonner gravelly ashy silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes

All areas are prime farmland

15

Hoodoo silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

28

Acres in AOI

Percent of AOI 223.7

20.3%

Prime farmland if drained

49.7

4.5%

Lenz-Rock outcrop association, 30 to 65 percent slopes

Not prime farmland

19.2

1.7%

31

Mission silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Prime farmland if drained

596.4

54.1%

35

Pend Oreille silt loam, 5 to 45 percent slopes

Not prime farmland

102.3

9.3%

46

Rock outcrop-Rubble land complex

Not prime farmland

27.7

2.5%

64

Wrencoe silty clay, 0 to 2 Farmland of statewide percent slopes importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season

55.1

5.0%

65

Water

28.9

2.6%

1,102.9

100.0%

Not prime farmland

Totals for Area of Interest

Rating Options—Farmland Classification (Laclede Water District) Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary Tie-break Rule: Lower

26

References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

27

Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

28

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.2.2. Source Water Assessment and Score Details

T-O Engineers

Source Water Assessment Summary Report: LACLEDE WATER DIST (PWS# ID1090073) PEND OREILLE R E0005121 Introducon Source water is untreated ground water (aquifers and springs) and surface waters (rivers, streams, and lakes) used to supply drinking water for public water systems. In Idaho there are approximately 1,960 public water systems providing water to almost 1.5 million people. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to assess every public water system source (well, spring, or surface water intake) in Idaho for its relative susceptibility to contaminants that are regulated by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. There are approximately 3,500 active sources in Idaho. DEQ conducts source water assessments based on an inventory of potential contaminants and land uses within the delineated source water assessment area and construction of the surface water intake. The ultimate goal of each source water assessment is to provide data that communities can use to develop protection strategies for their drinking water sources (source water protection).

The resources and time available to accomplish source water assessments are limited. Therefore, an indepth, site-specific investigation to identify each significant potential source of contamination for every public water system source is not possible. Instead, DEQ uses computer databases and geographic information system (GIS) maps to produce a potential contaminant inventory that can then be verified by the system or other stakeholders with an on-the-ground investigation. If any additional potential contaminants are identified, the system can create a potential contaminant enhanced inventory.

The results of source water assessments should not be used as an absolute measure of risk, nor should they be used to undermine public confidence in the public water system. A particular susceptibility score does not imply any regulatory or safety violations exist or contamination will occur. This report summarizes information about public water systems in Idaho. Using or distributing the data in this report in any other form may inaccurately portray the data.

DEQ strongly encourages each public water system and community to use its source water assessments, combined with local knowledge and concerns, to develop source water protection strategies. Multiple resources are available to help communities implement source water protection programs, including DEQ’s Source Water Protection Activity Guide and Source Water Protection Plan Template.

The protection of source water involves many partners. Various governmental entities and organizations play a role in protecting drinking water sources in Idaho and can be a resource for protection efforts. Source water protection activities should be coordinated with these entities to leverage resources and maximize results. For example, activities related to agricultural practices should be coordinated with the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission, local Soil and Water Conservation District, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Visit the Idaho Source Water Collaborative website for more information on potential partners and resources.

For assistance in developing protection strategies, contact DEQ's Coeur D Alene Regional Office or the Idaho Rural Water Association.

This report was completed October 22, 2001. Potential contaminant information was updated on December 10, 2018. Confirmed detections noted in the susceptibility report were updated January 2019 for community

and NTNC sources active at the time of the update. (This could result in a change to a source's final susceptibility ranking.)

What Was Assessed This report evaluates LACLEDE WATER DIST (PWS# ID1090073) PEND OREILLE R E0005121 located in BONNER county. The system serves approximately 615 people through 259 connections.

Defining the Source Water Assessment Area The first step of a source water assessment is to delineate the source water assessment area. The delineation process establishes the physical area around the surface water source that will become the focal point of the source water assessment. DEQ uses either the watershed boundary or the buffer method to create source water assessment delineations for surface water sources. The amount of available data and the size of the drainage basin determine which delineation approach to use. Smaller drainage basins are delineated using the watershed boundary. Larger water bodies with extensive drainage basins are segmented into smaller areas using the buffer method for the purpose of developing a cost-effective and manageable source water assessment delineation.

The watershed boundary defines the boundaries for the entire drainage basin upstream from each surface water intake. DEQ creates the delineation by mapping the boundary of the entire drainage basin upstream from the intake structure to the watershed divide, as defined by the topography. The location of the surface water intake will be the most downstream point of the watershed boundary.

The buffer method delineates buffer zones around the surface water sources within the watershed boundary (lakes and rivers) that contribute to the surface water source. At a minimum, the width of a river or lake buffer zone will extend out 500 feet parallel to the river bank or shoreline.

Source water assessment delineations for rivers are established using a 500-foot wide buffer on each side of a river that extends from the intake to 25 miles upstream or to the 4-hour streamflow time-oftravel (TOT) boundary, whichever is greater. This 4-hour streamflow is calculated from the 10-year flood event. River buffer zones will also extend up tributaries to the remainder of the 25-mile boundary, or the 4-hour streamflow TOT boundary, whichever is greater.

Source water assessment delineations for lakes are established using a buffer of 500 feet minimum that extends inland from the shoreline of the total circumference of the lake. In addition to the buffer zone around the lake itself, streams and rivers that discharge within the 500-foot buffer zone will also have a buffer zone delineated. This buffer zone will extend from where the stream or river flows into the lake, as outlined above in the river buffer zone section.

The source water assessment for PEND OREILLE R was done using the Buffer Method method and is illustrated in the map provided. The data used to determine the source water assessment delineation for PEND OREILLE R are included in the References section or available from DEQ upon request.

Suscepbility Analysis The susceptibility analysis provides an estimate of the likelihood that the water supply will become contaminated. For each surface water intake in a public water system, susceptibility to contamination is

scored as high, moderate, or low. Susceptibility scores for surface water intakes take into account two factors, which are described in more detail in later sections: 1. System Construction: Construction of the surface water intake being assessed.

2. Potential Contaminant Inventory/Land Use: Potentially significant sources of contamination to the source water and land use characteristics within 1,000 feet of the surface water intake and the delineated area.

Each of the factors listed above receives a score of high, medium, or low to reflect how susceptible it is to allowing contamination of the source water. Note that deriving susceptibility scores is a qualitative, screening-level step that, in many cases, uses generalized assumptions and best professional judgment. Once completed, susceptibility scores are updated upon request by the public water system.

PCI/land use scores and final susceptibility scores consist of four individual scores, one for each of four categories of contaminants: Inorganic chemicals (IOC) Volatile organic chemicals (VOC) Synthetic organic chemicals (SOC) Microbial contaminants Surface water intakes and ground water sources under the direct influence of surface water automatically rank high for microbial contaminants due to the inherent nature of surface water bodies as wildlife habitat and residence for various microorganisms. Microorganisms are diverse and include bacteria, protozoa, fungi, algae, microscopic plants and animals, and viruses. Bacteria such as coliform are of particular concern as they are found in the digestive tracts of mammals and in their wastes. Microorganisms also have the potential to impact ground water sources of drinking water, but the risk is more dependent on land uses and potential contaminants within the protection area.

High susceptibility to one potential contaminant does not mean that the water system is at the same risk for all other potential contaminants. The susceptibility scores for PEND OREILLE R are shown in the table below.

Click here for full susceptibility score details.

Susceptibility Scores for LACLEDE WATER DIST (PWS# ID1090073) PEND OREILLE R E0005121 System Construction

M

Potential Contaminant Inventory / Land Use IOC

VOC

SOC

Microbials

M

M

M

M

Hydrologic Sensitivity

n/a

Final Susceptibility Ranking IOC

VOC

SOC

Microbials

Auto High

Moderate

Auto High

Auto High

H = High Susceptibility, M = Moderate Susceptibility, L = Low Susceptibility. System Construction refers to the well, spring, or surface water intake.

Auto High - see below.*

Report Date: 10/22/2001

Click for Map

Click for details

*Auto-High Score: Three situations cause automatic assignment of a high susceptibility score: (1) any detection of a VOC or SOC, (2) detection of an IOC at a concentration greater than the drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by EPA, and (3) the presence of potential contaminant sources within 1,000 feet upstream of a surface water intake. Additionally, surface water intakes and ground water sources under the direct influence of surface water automatically rank high for microbial contaminants due to the inherent nature of surface water bodies as wildlife habitat and residence for various microorganisms. Any of the first two situations will trigger an autohigh score because a pathway for contamination already exists. Note that MCLs, detections, and potential contaminants can change over time and are not automatically updated in the score. Refer to the susceptibility score details page for more information on the contaminant source or detections resulting in an auto-high score.

System Construcon Score The first of the two factors scored in a source water assessment for surface water sources is system construction. System construction refers to the construction of the surface water intake that serves as the drinking water source. A surface water intake's construction directly affects its ability to protect the surface water from contaminants. System construction scores are lower when information shows that the design and integrity of the surface water intake can help prevent potential contaminants from reaching the drinking water supply. The system construction score depends on these components: 1. Surface water intake is properly constructed.

2. Surface water intake is in direct contact with an infiltration gallery. Any amount of soil, riverbed, or lakebed material between the source water and the intake may add some level of protection from potential contaminants.

Your system construction score may also be higher if adequate information about the surface water intake being assessed is not available. Refer to the susceptibility score details page for more information about the construction of the surface water intake assessed in this report.

Potenal Contaminant Inventory/Land Use Scores The other factor scored in a source water assessment for surface water sources is the potential contaminant inventory (PCI)/land use. A potential contaminant is defined as any facility or activity that meets these criteria: Stores, uses, or produces, as a product or by-product, the contaminants regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Has a potential of releasing the contaminants at levels that could potentially harm drinking water sources.

As part of each source water assessment, DEQ conducts an inventory of potential sources of contamination.

The goal of the inventory is to locate and describe facilities, land uses, and environmental conditions that are potential sources of surface water contamination.

The inventory is a two-step process. First, DEQ identifies and documents potential contaminant sources in the source water assessment area using computer databases and GIS maps developed by DEQ and various state and federal agencies. Although DEQ uses the best information available, DEQ does not make any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of any information or data provided. For example, DEQ may not be able to obtain the exact location for each potential contaminant or may not be notified immediately of new sites or changes to existing sites. DEQ updates PCIs when new information warrants an update. The exact date inventories are updated is found in the PCI table. Second, the public water system receives a draft copy of the source water assessment and can provide comments to DEQ to correct or expand on the inventory. Although the public water system is only contacted by DEQ after the initial PCI is conducted, the public water system can review the PCI and submit corrections to DEQ at any time.

When agriculture is the predominant land use within the delineation, the likelihood of agricultural chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, running off into the surface water body may increase. This results in more points assessed for the IOC and SOC categories. Additionally, depending on the percentage of agricultural land in the delineated area, PCI/land use susceptibility scores may be influenced.

Understanding Potenal Contaminant Source Informaon The presence of a potential source of contamination means that the potential for contamination exists due to the nature of the business, industry, or operation. A release is less likely to occur from a potential source of contamination, when the facility or landowner uses best management practices to manage the potential contaminant. Many potential sources of contamination are regulated at the federal or state level, or both, to reduce the risk of release. Therefore, when businesses, facilities, or properties are identified as potential contaminant sources, it does not mean that they are violating any local, state, or federal environmental law or regulation.

The table below lists the potential contaminants for PEND OREILLE R public water system. The public water system is not located within a nitrate priority area.

PWS Name: LACLEDE WATER DIST (PWS# ID1090073) Source Number: E0005121 Source Name: PEND OREILLE R Potential Contaminants: Export PCI Table TOT *

Description of Potential Contaminant Source 1, 4

Surface Water

Surface Water

Surface Water

Major And Minor Roads

Surface Water

NPDES Location

Surface Water

Deep Injection Well

Surface Water

Mine Site

Surface Water

Underground Storage Tank (UST)

Surface Water

Leaking Underground Storage Tank

Surface Water

Brownfield Site

Surface Water

General Waste Site

Surface Water

Shallow Injection Well

Surface Water

Tier II (Formerly CAMEO)

Surface Water

RCRA Site

Surface Water

Wastewater Lagoon

Surface Water

Water Reuse Area

Surface Water

Railroad

Potential Contaminant(s)

Site specific

Name

Interstate Concrete & Asphalt Company - Dover

Data Source 2

GIS

Date Updated 3

11/26/2019

TOT *

Description of Potential Contaminant Source 1, 4

Potential Contaminant(s)

Name

Data Source 2

Date Updated 3

Footnotes: 1. The GIS datasets used to identify potential contaminants are gathered from various state and federal agencies and are updated on different intervals.

2. Date Updated refers to the most recent date each potential contaminant was last verified within the GIS datasets. PCIs are updated when new information warrants an update. Potential contaminants identified through aerial photos or enhanced inventories are updated less often.

3. Restriction of Liability for GIS Data: Neither the State of Idaho nor DEQ, nor any of their employees make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information or data provided. Metadata are provided for all datasets, and no data should be used without first reading and understanding its limitations. The data could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. DEQ may update, modify, or revise the data used at any time, without notice.

* TOT = time of travel zone IOC = inorganic chemical, VOC = volatile organic chemical, SOC = synthetic organic chemical Refer to the susceptibility score details page for more information about the potential contaminants and land use within this delineation.

Conclusion Local communities can use the information gathered through the assessment process to create a broader source water protection program to address current problems and prevent future threats to the quality of their drinking water supplies. Preventing contaminants from entering the public water system source can minimize health risks, expanded drinking water monitoring requirements, additional water treatment requirements, or expensive environmental cleanup activities. For assistance developing protection strategies, contact DEQ's Coeur D Alene Regional Office or the Idaho Rural Water Association. Also consider the following resources: Idaho Source Water Protection Website Idaho Source Water Protection Activities Guide Idaho Source Water Protection Planning Tool www.protectthesource.org

List of Acronyms and Abbreviaons/Glossary Acronyms and Abbreviations/Glossary

References ID1090073 Pend Oreille River 2001 SWA Report.pdf ID1090073, Source E0005121 Sampling History.pdf

Map The public water system is not located within a nitrate priority area.

Click here for dynamic map.

To save the map or legend right click on the images below and select save as.

(This map may take several seconds to load. We appreciate your patience.)



DEQ Intranet DEQ Website Copyright © 2020 State of Idaho, All rights reserved.

Protecting Public Health and the Environment I dah o

Department of Environmental Quality

SWA Online

Home

About

Acyronyms And Glossary

Contacts

Surface Water Susceptibility Scoring Results

Surface Water Susceptibility Report Report Date:

October 22, 2001

Sanitary Survey Date:

Unknown

PWS Number:

ID1090073

Tag Number:

E0005121

Public Water System Name:

LACLEDE WATER DIST

System Construction Intake structure properly constructed

No

Surface water intake in direct contact with infiltration gallery

No

Sanitary Survey (if yes, date of survey used)

Unknown

System Construction Ranking

Potential Contaminant Source / Land Use

M

IOC

VOC

Land Use

SOC

Microbe

Undeveloped

Farm chemical use high

No

No

No

n/a

Contaminant source onshore within 500 ft of source water and within 1,000 ft of intake, or any source suspended above the surface of the source water

No

No

No

No

Type of source: Confirmed detection of VOC or SOC; or IOC detection over MCL

n/a Yes

Type of source: Number of contaminant sources within 500ft of source water and 4-hr time of travel based on 10-hr flood flow records

No

Yes

See attached list 4

4

4

Agricultural land within 500ft of source water and 4-hr time of travel based on 10-hr flood records

4

<25% ag

Three or more contaminant sources elsewhere in delineated source water area

Yes

Source of turbidity in the watershed such as road building or other construction activities

Yes

Scoring

Yes

IOC

VOC

Final System Construction Ranking

SOC

Microbe

M

Final PCI / Land Use Ranking

M

M

M

M

Final Susceptibility Ranking

Auto High

Moderate

Auto High

Auto High

Technical Notes:

DEQ Intranet DEQ Website Copyright © 2020 State of Idaho, All rights reserved.

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.2.3. USFWS Environmental Conservation List

T-O Engineers

IPaC: Explore Location

1 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

2 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

3 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

4 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

5 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

6 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

7 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

IPaC: Explore Location

8 of 8

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/GEFIVGVKNBGSZCKQL7GNVT...

4/1/2020, 3:50 PM

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.2.5. Historic Places and Indian Reservation Map of Idaho

T-O Engineers

75

100

TM

OREGON

Kaniksu NF Kootenai NWR

Kaniksu Kootenai NF IR Kootenai National Forest

Kaniksu NF

Wallace

Lake Pend Oreille

Sandpoint Kanik su NF

Coeur d'Alene National Forest

Kellogg St Maries

Nez Perce NHP

r

Clearw ater Dw orshak National Forest Reservoir

Saint Joe National Forest

Nez Perce IR

Nezperce National Forest

Riv e Payette National Forest

Bitterroot NF

Salmon NF

Salmon

American Falls Reservoir

MO NTANA

Blackfoot

Fort Hall IR

Pocatel lo Downey Caribou NF

Preston

Carib ou Natio nal Forest

Bear Lake NWR

Blackf oot Reserv oir

Cach e NF

Soda Springs

Caribou NF

Grays Lake NWR

Salmon Yello w ston e Cascade National Forest Reservoir Nati onal Park Dubois Challis Cascade Deadw ood Station ent Experim Sheep Challis Saw tooth Reservoir Boise NF Targhee NF Targhee NF Challis NF Island Park Dubois Reserv oir National Forest NF Saw tooth Boise St Anthon y Camas NRA National Forest NWR Challis Idaho City Arrow rock Idaho Rexburg NF Reservoir Nation al Engineering Ketchum Sun Valley tory Saw tooth Arco Labora National Forest Lucky Peak Falls Idaho Hailey Lake Palisades Craters of the Moon Anderson Ranch Little Wood Reservoi r Reservoir National Monument Reservoir

New Meadows McCall

Salmon

Nez Perce NHP

Weiser Black Canyon Reservo ir

Caldwell Deer Flat NWR

Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument

Curlew NG

IDAHO

W YO M IN G

pagefed_id6.pdf INTERIOR-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA-2003

R

The National Atlas of the United States of AmericaO

City of Rocks National Reserve

Saw tooth NF

Rupert

Minidoka NWR

Burley Saw tooth NF

Snak e Twin Falls

Mountain Home Air Force Base

Duck Valley Indian Reservati on

Saylor Creek Air Force Range

Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area

Mountain Home Small Arms Range Annex

Boise

Payette NF

Hells Canyon NRA

Lewist on

Nez Perce Moscow NHP

Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservat ion

Coeur d'Alene

WASH INGTO N

nationalatlas.gov Where We Are FEDERAL LANDS AND INDIAN RESERVATIONS Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management / Wilderness Bureau of Reclamation Department of Defense (includes Army Corps of Engineers lakes) Fish and Wildlife Service / Wilderness Forest Service / Wilderness National Park Service / Wilderness Other agencies

MILES 50

Indian Reservation National Forest National Grassland National Historic Park National Recreation Area National Wildlife Refuge

Abbreviations

Albers equal area projection

25

Some small sites are not shown, especially in urban areas.

0

IR NF NG NHP NRA NWR

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

ve r

Ri

6/20/2018

Search Results

Na� onal Register of Historic Places

Digital Archive on NP�allery (h� p�//npgallery�nps�gov)

Your search returned 17 results, Showing page 1 of 1, Items 1 through 17

List View

Photos

Text

Name Lake Pend Oreille Lime and Cement Industry Historic District

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=a85f2e8d-94d4448d-b051-0ab5106afec6)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=994b856b-1cb14307-8164-f94b6997c7b4) Vinther and Nelson Cabin

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? (/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=c218b95f-fe13-4e5d- assetID=5fca7e49-b722-442cbe9f-e�a7797648f) 92f4-f19f6c639baa) Dover Church

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? (/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=bf5e1de7-35fa-40eb- assetID=5cf9b6d9-fef2-42e79d7e-c4efa3062239) 9715-6dd0b639f70a) Hotel Charbonneau

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=63d5632f-e80d427e-8395-79affddca747)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=d59af9c0-e8e6-4fd18968-8f5f75d0ebac)

https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults/1aefcadc7f8242d09f17b91923f5b71f?view=list

1/4

6/20/2018

Search Results Lamb Creek School

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=6c0856d8-1388468e-bb6d-2296e0dd7f4a)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=a9e0dd81-9883474b-bb4d-f026bdcc2488) Priest River Commercial Core Historic District

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=de1159da-9b2c4783-a862-91e92e62aebb)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=5692b0e9-8250-4f7fb3b5-852319b86f58) Priest River High School

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? (/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=5149e88f-15e0-462f- assetID=8eb9f792-0b59b5c5-1b24167ef13a) 4900-8eeb-f1611c1c5f24) Se�lemen t School

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=bc269ba0-0eca44b3-a3f0-10d117440e85)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=fe994dcc-0f01-49899c0f-f8708a794369) Bernd, W. A., Building

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=f3d4087e-8c81475a-b6bf-f3f9518ddcbc)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=4e05014f-646f-4ebf8e1f-8a13cd8eabed) Nesbi�, Amanda, House

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? (/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=f6378312-e9bd-4�5-assetID=3824cf48-2238-4e�b1e2-31d5b3b82005) 865a-ea9c668f9a63)

https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults/1aefcadc7f8242d09f17b91923f5b71f?view=list

2/4

6/20/2018

Search Results Olson, Charles A. and Mary, House

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=e5ee5f5a-67424ada-9ee0-59d409a3c788)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=a0f078fc-edd3-46d59b0b-4c816b2afa69) Priest River Experimental Forest

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=5d32c3c9-45654d70-9816-9f6cce1512e4)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=a3ea6ffd-4b9f-45f28cc1-01a91e53d7c4) Sandpoint Burlington Northern Rail�ay Sta�on

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=a88a3505-eddf4747-916c-6c31fe3b527e)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=56cf61f0-971e-4934b461-9e4fd3bc587f) Sandpoint Community Hall

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=1696c905-fd504e40-978d-bc09bde17c58)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=24cc4c48-d27b-4fac8�e-6604b33057e7) Sandpoint Federal Building

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=26d0c15e-11e3465f-9b00-dd6d570b1f6e)

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=598281a7-3a0c40bc-b2ac-85c1ce68b371) Sandpoint High School

(/NRHP/AssetDetail? (/NRHP/AssetDetail? assetID=9eed2f42-5aa2-49c0-assetID=702b736b-cd2faacd-abbc30c74546) 472e-b793-d1a1450a1e6b)

https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults/1aefcadc7f8242d09f17b91923f5b71f?view=list

3/4

6/20/2018

Search Results and oint istoric istrict

( R P sset etail assetI =6c933143-3d184180-a662-3c� 4ac5665)

(

( R P sset etail assetI =83 0d244-a4914884- 88c-5857a11e053a)

CCE I ILI n s o a outus accessi ility t ) ICE ( E R C (

 (

CE s

n s o a outus noces doi o

ace oo co

 I E ( itunes a le co e cc=us id=216751324)

PRI t )

eeo no- ear-act)

naonal ar jects

n s o a outus ri acy t ) n s o a outus disclai er t )

C

n s o a outus contactus t )

(

 I ER ( s t i er co a ie  I

I (

I CL I ER ( C

ser ice)

tore oa

C (

 LIC R rs( tLes acy R

(

ic r co s

otos naonal ar insta ra

co

ser ice)

naonal ar

https //npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults/1aefcadc7f8242d09f17b91923f5b71f view list

n s o a outus oia index t

(

)

n s o a outus a s t ) (

 (

natl ar ser ice)

National Park Service (//www.nps.gov) ( n s o ) U.S. Department of the nterior (//www.doi.gov)

usa o )

E youtu e co

naonal ar

ser ice)

 RELE E ( s n s o a outus ne s ne sreleases t ) ser ice )

4/4

National Register of Historic Places

https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a...

Na�onal Register of Historic Places

Na�onal Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Public, non-restricted data depic�ng Na�onal Register spa�al data processed by the Cultural Resourc…

3000 � ps.gov/npmap/disclaimer/) | Geocoding by Esri | © Mapbox (h�ps://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/) © OpenStreetMap (h�ps://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright) contributors

1 of 2

Home (h�ps://www.nps.gov)

Frequently Asked Ques�ons (h�ps://www.nps.gov/faqs.htm)

Website Policies (h�ps://www.nps.gov/aboutus/website-policies.htm)

4/1/2020, 4:40 PM

National Register of Historic Places

2 of 2

https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a...

Contact Us (h�ps://www.nps.gov/contacts.htm)

4/1/2020, 4:40 PM

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.2.7. FEMA Flood Zones and National Wetlands Inventory

T-O Engineers

0

0 0.75

0.5

April 2, 2020 Wetlands

1

1:57,741 1.5

2 mi 3 km

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Riverine

Other

Lake

This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov

Laclede Water District

Freshwater Pond

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.2. Discharge Permit and Fact Sheet

T-O Engineers

NPDES Fact Sheet

Idaho Drinking Water Treatment Facilities General Permit

Page 1 of 51

IDG380000

FACT SHEET

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to issue a

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit to discharge

pollutants pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC §1251 et seq to:

Idaho Drinking Water Treatment Facilities

Permit Number: IDG380000

Public Comment Period Start Date: April 25, 2016 End Date: May 25, 2016 Technical Contact Contact: Kai Shum Email: shum.kai@epa.gov Phone: (206) 553-0060 EPA PROPOSES NPDES PERMIT ISSUANCE The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to issue the NPDES General Permit to discharge pollutants from Drinking Water Treatment Facilities to waters of the United States (U.S.) in Idaho. In order to ensure the protection of water quality and human health, the General Permit establishes limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged as well as other conditions on facilities authorized to discharge under the Permit.

This Fact Sheet includes:  information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures;  descriptions of the types of facilities and discharges covered under the General Permit;  a listing of proposed effluent limitations and other conditions; and  technical material supporting the conditions in the Permit

NPDES Fact Sheet

Page 35 of 51

IDG380000

Idaho Drinking Water Treatment Facilities General Permit

APPENDIX A. EXISTING CONVENTIONAL FILTRATION DISCHARGERS The following are facilities that EPA intends to provide coverage for under the DWGP. Each of these facilities currently has administrative coverage under an individual permit. Some of the facilities have sufficient dilution to have TBELs for total residual chlorine, with their previously determined dilution factors as shown below.

Table A-1: Existing Water Treatment Facilities Water Treatment Facility

Outfall

NPDES Number

Latitude

Longitude

City of Bonners Ferry WTP

ID0020451

48º 41’ 44”

116º 18’ 13”

City of Sandpoint Sand Creek WTP

ID0024350

48º 19’ 13”

116º 34’ 14”

Laclede Water District WTP

ID0027944

48º 9’ 41”

City of Lewiston WTP

ID0026531

City of Pierce WTP

Max. Daily Effluent Flow1,2 (gpd)

Dilution Factors at 25% MZ Acute

Chronic

5,375

5,537

152,000 (was 77,950)

1

1

116º 45’ 14”

53,000 (was 20,000)

14,578

16,343

46º 25’ 15”

116º 59’ 24”

1,820,000 (was 550,000)

200.4

219.9

ID0020893

46º 29’ 43”

115º 47’ 49”

108,000 (was 36,000)

1

1

City of Weiser WTP 2

ID0001155

44º 14’ 22”

116º 58’ 16”

736,0002 (was 185,000)

5,172

5,370

Wilderness Ranch WTP 3

ID0028312

43º 40’ 23”

115º 58’ 51”

No Data (was previously 20,000)

200

219.5

131,100 (was 30,000)

Notes: 1. Maximum Daily Effluent Flow based on Discharge Monitoring Reports during the previous permit cycle, and information from the permittee.

2. City of Weiser WTP was upgraded in 2007, currently discharges only for backup purposes. 736,000 gallons per day was discharged for a day in Aug. 2009 due to an operating systems failure.

3. Maximum Daily Effluent Flow for Wilderness Ranch WTP is based on the previous fact sheet. The facility did not report any value in the previous permit cycle DMRs, and estimates that any discharge is very small. 20,000 gpd is a conservative assumption for this facility.

4. Dilution Factors are based on 25% Mixing Zone, and Maximum Daily Effluent Flow.

NPDES Fact Sheet

Page 36 of 51

IDG380000

Idaho Drinking Water Treatment Facilities General Permit

Table A-2: Receiving Water Information Receiving Water

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)

Tribal Waters

Beneficial Uses

Impairment

City of Bonners Ferry WTP

Kootenai River

17010104 P-29

No

cold, ss, pcr, dws

Temperature

City of Sandpoint Sand Creek WTP

Little Sand Creek

17010214 P-53

No

cold, pcr

Pend Oreille River, sediment

Laclede Water District WTP

Pend Oreille River

17010214 P-2

No

cold, pcr, dws

Pend Oreille River, sediment, temperature, total dissolved gas

City of Lewiston WTP

Clearwater River

17060306 C-1

No

cold, pcr, dws

Not Listed – Tier II Waters

City of Pierce WTP

Canal Creek

17060306

No

cold, pcr

Not Listed – Tier II Waters

Facility

Nutrients, TSS TMDL Complete

City of Weiser WTP

Snake River

1705115 SW-1

No

cold, pcr, dws

https://www.deq.idaho.gov/med ia/454498snake_river_hells_canyon_entir e.pdf

Wilderness Ranch WTP

Mores Creek 17050112 SW-9

No

cold, ss, pcr, dws

Temperature and sediment

Beneficial Uses: cold = cold water aquatic life, ss = salmonid spawning, pcr = primary contact recreation, dws = drinking water source

Table A-3: Receiving Water Low Flows Information Facility

Information Source

1Q10 (cfs)

7Q10 (cfs)

City of Bonners Ferry WTP

Upstream USGS Gauge: #12305000

4,360

4,500

City of Sandpoint Sand Creek WTP

None Available

---

---

Laclede Water District WTP

Upstream USGS Gauge: #12395500

4,790

5,370

NPDES Fact Sheet

Page 37 of 51

IDG380000

Idaho Drinking Water Treatment Facilities General Permit City of Lewiston WTP

Upstream USGS Gauge: #3342500

2,250

2,470

City of Pierce WTP

Not Available

---

---

City of Weiser WTP

Downstream USGS Gauge: #13269000

5,900

6,126

Wilderness Ranch WTP

Downstream USGS Gauge: #13200000

6.2

6.8

Table A-4: Proposed Total Residual Chlorine Effluent Limitations System Name

Total Residual Chlorine Effluent Limitations (mg/l) Average Monthly Limit

Maximum Daily Limit

City of Bonners Ferry WTP

0.3

0.5

City of Sandpoint Sand Creek WTP

0.01

0.02

Laclede Water District WTP

0.3

0.5

City of Lewiston WTP

0.3

0.5

0.01

0.02

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

City of Pierce WTP City of Weiser WTP Wilderness Ranch WTP Note:

1. No mixing zone authorized for City of Sandpoint Sand Creek WTP, and City of Pierce WTP from Idaho DEQ.

NPDES Permit Wastewater Discharges from Drinking Water Treatment Facilities

IDG380000

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98101-3140 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM FOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FROM IDAHO DRINKING WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4 (hereafter CWA), the owners and operators of Drinking Water Treatment facilities in Idaho are authorized to discharge to waters of the United States in accordance with the Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements, effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein.

A COPY OF THIS GENERAL PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON SITE AT ALL DRINKING WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES COVERED BY THIS PERMIT.

This Permit shall become effective November 1, 2016.

This Permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, October 31, 2021.

Each Permittee shall reapply for a reauthorization to discharge on or before May 4, 2021, 180 days before the expiration of this Permit, if the Permittee intends to continue operations and discharges at the facility beyond the term of this Permit.

Signed this 16th day of August, 2016. ____/s/ ________________ Daniel D. Opalski, Director Office of Water and Watersheds

1

NPDES Permit Wastewater Discharges from Drinking Water Treatment Facilities 4.

5.

6.

IDG380000

Monitoring only required where alum is used in the drinking water treatment process.

Metals include: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. These parameters must be measured and reported as total recoverable.

For TTHMs – Quarterly monitoring, with a minimum of 10 samples required within 5 years. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Quarters are defined as: January to March; April to June; July to September; and, October to December.

Table 5. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for City of Sandpoint, Sand Creek WTP Parameter Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Residual Chlorine1 pH Flow2 Hardness3 Aluminum4 Metals5 Temperature Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs)6 Turbidity 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Units

Effluent Limitations Average Maximum Monthly Daily

Monitoring Requirements Sample Sample Type Frequency

mg/L

30

45

1/Month

Grab

mg/L

0.01

0.02

1/Week

Grab

1/Week 1/Day

Grab Estimate

standard units gpd mg/l as CaCO3 µg/L µg/L ˚C

Within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 ----

--

1/Month

Grab

----

----

1/Year 1/Year 1/Week

Grab Grab Grab

µg/L

--

--

1/Quarter

Grab

NTUs

--

--

1/Month

Grab

The limits for chlorine are not quantifiable using EPA-approved analytical methods. The minimum level (ML) for chlorine is 50µg/l for this parameter. The EPA will use 50 µg/l as the compliance evaluation level for this parameter. The permittee will be in compliance with the total residual chlorine limitations if the average monthly and maximum daily concentrations are less than 50 µg/l.

Flow estimate based on facility operation (i.e. backwash volume and frequency, etc.). Report average monthly and maximum daily gpd.

Hardness shall be sampled at the same time metal samples are collected.

Monitoring only required where alum is used in the drinking water treatment process.

Metals include: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. These parameters must be measured and reported as total recoverable.

For TTHMs – Quarterly monitoring, with a minimum of 10 samples required within 5 years. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Quarters are defined as: January to March; April to June; July to September; and, October to December.

Table 6. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for Laclede Water District WTP Parameter Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Residual Chlorine1 pH Flow2 Hardness3

Units

Effluent Limitations Average Maximum Monthly Daily

Monitoring Requirements Sample Sample Type Frequency

mg/L

30

45

1/Month

Grab

mg/L

0.3

0.5

1/Week

Grab

1/Week 1/Day

Grab Estimate

1/Month

Grab

standard units gpd mg/l as CaCO3

Within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 ----

--

20

NPDES Permit Wastewater Discharges from Drinking Water Treatment Facilities Aluminum4 Metals5 Temperature Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs)6 Turbidity 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

IDG380000

µg/L µg/L ˚C

----

----

1/Year 1/Year 1/Week

Grab Grab Grab

µg/L

--

--

1/Quarter

Grab

NTUs

--

--

1/Month

Grab

The limits for chlorine are not quantifiable using EPA-approved analytical methods. The minimum level (ML) for chlorine is 50µg/l for this parameter. The EPA will use 50 µg/l as the compliance evaluation level for this parameter. The permittee will be in compliance with the total residual chlorine limitations if the average monthly and maximum daily concentrations are less than 50 µg/l.

Flow estimate based on facility operation (i.e. backwash volume and frequency, etc.). Report average monthly and maximum daily gpd.

Hardness shall be sampled at the same time metal samples are collected.

Monitoring only required where alum is used in the drinking water treatment process.

Metals include: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. These parameters must be measured and reported as total recoverable.

For TTHMs – Quarterly monitoring, with a minimum of 10 samples required within 5 years. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Quarters are defined as: January to March; April to June; July to September; and, October to December.

Table 7. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for City of Pierce WTP Parameter Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Residual Chlorine1 pH Flow2 Hardness3 Aluminum4 Metals5 Temperature Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs)6 Turbidity 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Units

Effluent Limitations Average Maximum Monthly Daily

Monitoring Requirements Sample Sample Type Frequency

mg/L

30

45

1/Month

Grab

mg/L

0.01

0.02

1/Week

Grab

1/Week 1/Day

Grab Estimate

standard units gpd mg/l as CaCO3 µg/L µg/L ˚C

Within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 ----

--

1/Month

Grab

----

----

1/Year 1/Year 1/Week

Grab Grab Grab

µg/L

--

--

1/Quarter

Grab

NTUs

--

--

1/Month

Grab

The limits for chlorine are not quantifiable using EPA-approved analytical methods. The minimum level (ML) for chlorine is 50µg/l for this parameter. The EPA will use 50 µg/l as the compliance evaluation level for this parameter. The permittee will be in compliance with the total residual chlorine limitations if the average monthly and maximum daily concentrations are less than 50 µg/l.

Flow estimate based on facility operation (i.e. backwash volume and frequency, etc.). Report average monthly and maximum daily gpd.

Hardness shall be sampled at the same time metal samples are collected.

Monitoring only required where alum is used in the drinking water treatment process.

Metals include: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. These parameters must be measured and reported as total recoverable.

For TTHMs – Quarterly monitoring, with a minimum of 10 samples required within 5 years. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Analysis for chloroform, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorobromomethane, and bromoform. Quarters are defined as: January to March; April to June; July to September; and, October to December.

21

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.3.1.

T-O Engineers

Reservoir Structural Report

ERICKSON ENGINEERING REPORT LETTER October 7, 2020 T-O Engineers, Inc. Attn: Scott McNee, Project Manager Re:

Laclede Water District Reservoir Structural Observation

Dear Scott: In accordance with your request, we conducted a structural observation of two Laclede Water District (LWD) storage tanks (one constructed of concrete, and the other steel) at Laclede, Idaho, on September 9, 2020. The purpose of my observation was to assess the structural condition and serviceability of each of the tanks, and to provide for you a summary of noted deficiencies after conducting our structural observation.

I met with Mike Wade (Laclede Water District) on-site, who gave us access to the tanks.

In the course of my observations, I noted the following: 1. The cylindrical concrete tank is approximately 36 feet in diameter, with concrete lid.

2. The water level in the tank was approximately 15 feet at the time of my visit, and was clear with no visible suspended or floating material, or buildup on the bottom of the tank.

3. The tank’s concrete lid exhibited some radial cracking, particularly near the center, and appeared to have been coated with a grey paint or sealant, which was severely weathered and covered less than 20% of the lid at the time of my visit. I noted no indication of pooling of rain water on the lid. I noted no indication of any structural failure of the lid.

4. The tank wall exhibited horizontal and vertical cracking all around, with heavy accumulation of white and brown mineral deposits at several of the cracks, and tracking down from the cracks. I noted no leaking at the time of my visit. Mike Wade stated that he has noted that the cracks tend to exhibit water leaking during periods of changing weather patterns.

(208) 661-0890 jericksonengineering@gmail.com

October 7, 2020

5. The cylindrical steel tank which sits approximately 20 feet to the west of the concrete tank, which is approximately 35 feet in diameter, appeared in good condition, with no noted leaking, cracking, or any other signs of structural issues. The water in the steel tank was clear with no visible suspended or floating material, or buildup on the bottom of the tank.

6. I noted no indications of buckling, sagging or other structural issues in the lid of the steel tank, and I found all of the seams in the rectangular steel lid panels intact with no visible indications of any corrosion, holes or leaks. I noted that needles and debris from nearby trees had accumulated in several locations over the lid of the tank.

I recommend removing and replacing the concrete tank with a new tank which is constructed in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified Professional Engineer, and sized according to the current and/or projected demands of the system, determined by the Laclede Water District.

I do not recommend attempting to patch or reinforce the concrete tank for the purpose of keeping it in service for the future. I believe the cracking is indicative of significant structural damage which will necessitate the discontinuation of its use.

I believe the structural condition of the steel tank is satisfactory and that it may be kept in service if no non-structural issues are found which would make it unusable. I recommend re-coating the lid of the steel tank with paint or coating which will protect the lid from corrosion due to buildup of water-saturated debris.

I also recommend that you retain a qualified Professional Engineer to fully review the water supply system and provide you with recommendations for addressing any noted deficiencies.

We trust this letter provides additional information that you need to make a decision on this matter. This letter relates only to the stated purpose of this observation/investigation. Conclusions drawn in this report are based on observations and on information available, known and declared at the date of investigation and/or the time of preparation of this report. Calculations and testing were not performed. Repair recommendations and details are beyond the scope of this letter. Erickson Engineering reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this letter in the event that additional information, documentation or evidence becomes available. Erickson Engineering assumes no responsibility or liability for any use of this report by other parties.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

2

October 7, 2020

Sincerely, Erickson Engineering By:_______________________

October 7, 2020

3

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.5. Elictrical and Control System Analysis Memo

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District ELEC RIC L

C

R L

E

EC

IC L

E

R

rindera LLC 1130

E E, E , I 83835

2020.8.13 Laclede Water Dist Elec

E 101

Control System Tech Memorandum i

Varela

Associates, nc.

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ...............................................................................1

2.0

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE REVIEW .....................................................................................1

3.0

STATE OF IDAHO RULES FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS REVIEW ...............................4

4.0

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Placeholder LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Water Treatment Plant Corrosion Figure 2 – Water Treatment Plant Receptacles Figure 3 – Water Treatment Plant Light Fixture ATTACHMENTS Electrical Construction Cost Estimate – Revision 0

Trindera

ii

August 2020

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

1.0

PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

The Laclede Water District (LWD) requested an evaluation of their water treatment, storage and distribution systems for future budgetary planning from the river pump station to the treatment facility, the reservoirs, and booster pump station. This memorandum will specifically address the electrical and control infrastructure for the system.

The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is the following: 1. To summarize evaluation of the existing river pump station, water treatment plant, reservoirs, and booster station electrical and control systems with respect to National and State Code requirements.

2. To provide recommendations for improvements.

3. To provide a cost estimate for implementation of the recommended improvements.

2.0

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE REVIEW

The following codes and standards were primarily considered in the electrical evaluation process: •

National Electrical Code (NFPA 70 – 2017)

At minimum the following codes, standards, associations and agencies, and their relevant subsequent standards and codes will be utilized in the evaluation process: • • • •

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA)

Site: Raw Water Intake Pump Station The raw water intake pump station electrical equipment had been recently upgraded including a new service meter, new pump starter panels, a new pump control panel, and new and surge protection. All equipment was in very good condition.

In 2016, the state of Idaho amended National Electrical Code Article 682 with specific rules that apply to submersible pumps installed in bodies of water. It was observed that the station as currently configured does need meet all of the requirements of the policy.

Recommended improvements: It is recommended that the pump station electrical system be modified to include elements required by amended Article 682. These requirements will also be in effect should any repairs to the system be undertaken. Improvements generally include individual pump ground fault monitoring for the purpose of automatic circuit interruption in the event of a ground fault and readily accessible and properly identified pump disconnecting means.

Trindera

1

August 2020

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Site: Water Treatment Plant Some elements of the electrical system were corroded. See Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 – Water Treatment Plant Corrosion It was observed that receptacles in the Treatment Room of the Water Treatment Facility did not include Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter (GFCI) protection. See Figure 2 Below. Per NEC Article 210.8, (B), (6), indoor wet locations, defined as locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, should include GFCI protection.

Figure 2 – Water Treatment Plant Receptacles

Trindera

2

August 2020

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Per NEC Article 210.8, (B), (6), indoor wet locations, defined as locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, should include GFCI protection.

Lighting in the Water Treatment Facility Treatment Room includes T8/T12 fluorescent fixtures.

Bulbs in two lamp fixtures were observed to be 60 Watts. See Figure 3 below. More energy efficient LED fixtures with better quality light are currently available. Fixtures were also not wet or damp area rated.

s Figure 3 – Water Treatment Plant Light Fixture

Trindera

3

August 2020

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Recommended improvements: It is recommended that elements of the Water Treatment Plant showing signs of corrosion be replaced. Including wall mounted pump starters. NEC Article 110.12 (B) requires that there shall be no damaged parts…that may adversely affect the mechanical strength of equipment such as parts that are…deteriorated by corrosion.

It is recommended that receptacles or circuits installed in wet areas be modified to include GFCI protection.

It is recommended that T8 or T12 fluorescent lighting, be replaced with more energy efficient LED lighting. For example the two (2) bulb 120 Watt fixture could be replaced with a fixture that has similar light output, that would only require only 31 Watts of power to operate.

It recommended that pump motor starters and control panels be re-located outside of the Filter Room to the greatest extent possible to prevent ongoing damage from water or other corrosive agents used for disinfection.

Site: Reservoirs No electrical code issues were observed at the reservoir.

Site: Booster Station The booster station electrical system was observed to be in good condition. No electrical code issues were observed.

Recommended improvements: It is recommended that fluorescent light fixtures be replaced with new energy efficient LED fixtures.

3.0

STATE OF IDAHO RULES FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS REVIEW

The following codes and standards were primarily considered in the electrical pre-design evaluation process: •

Administrative Code of Idaho, IDAPA 58.01.08

Site: Raw Water Intake Pump Station Remote alarming and monitoring systems were not observed at the site.

Recommended improvements: The raw water intake pump station includes individual pump call to run circuits from the water treatment plant. The call to run circuits utilize capacitive longdistance relay circuits via buried underground conductors.

If modifications required by NEC Article 682 are implemented, the probability of pump interruption may be increased. It is recommended that remote monitoring of pump status including

Trindera

4

August 2020

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

pump faults and pump shutdowns be added to the pump station in order to more quickly receive notification and respond to interruptions in raw water availability. This could also be used a primary or secondary option for pump control. Options could include a radio communication system. At minimum raw water flows could also be monitored at the plant to determine if pumps are not operational when called to run.

The addition of site lighting should also be considered for security and maintenance purposes.

Site: Water Treatment Plant The main plant programmable logic controller (PLC) was observed to be an Allen-Bradley CompactLogix processer installed remote from an Allen-Bradley SLC 500 chassis and SLC 500 I/O modules. This appears to be a migration from what was a SLC 500 based processor system due to the obsolescence of the SLC 500 and ongoing reduction in availability and support from the manufacturer for this platform.

The autodialer was observed to be Zetron SentriDial system.

Recommended improvements: It recommended that if process modifications take place, the entire PLC control system be migrated to the CompactLogix platform.

It is recommended the Zetron autodialer be replaced with software based autodialer system.

Site: Reservoirs It was observed that reservoir level is being monitored via a 24 Volt DC analog circuit, via a buried underground electrical wire between the Reservoirs and Water Treatment Plant. The wire appears to be buried telephone line which previously was connected to capacitive level monitoring system.

The telephone lines typically do not have the same signal noise immunity that dedicated 24 Volt DC analog circuit wiring incorporates.

It is recommended that an alternative level monitoring method such as radio be explored. This would provide a control option should the land line be damaged or degrade over time.

Site: Booster Station IDAPA 58.01.28, 01., m. requirements for Pump House(s) states that all remote control stations shall be electronically operated and controlled and shall have signaling apparatus of proven performance. Signaling apparatus shall report automatically when the station is out of service.

No signaling apparatus was observed at the Booster Station.

Recommended improvements: It is recommended that signaling apparatus be added to the Booster Station. If continual observation of signaling apparatus is not present it recommended that remote monitoring/signaling be implemented.

Trindera

5

August 2020

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT– ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Site: All Electrical safety issues evaluated at the facilities include the following considerations.

IDAPA 17.10.01, 004.01 requires that Every employer shall furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards which may cause serious injury or death to employees. Recognized hazards are those identified by state adopted and nationally recognized codes and standards.

NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, recognizes arc flash a hazard. Section 110.6 requires labelling on equipment likely to require examination, adjustment, service or maintenance while energized, including but not limited to switchboards, panelboards, motor control centers, and industrial control panels.

NFPA 70, recognizes implementation NFPA 70E standard approach for arc flash labelling to meet these requirements.

It is recommended that arc flash analysis and arc flash labeling be installed on all electrical power distribution and control panels.

4.0

Trindera

REFERENCES

6

August 2020

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.7. 2018 CCR Report

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.8. 2018 Sanitary Survey

T-O Engineers

STATE OF IDA AHO

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONM MENTAL QU UALITY

2110 0 Ironwood Parkway, Coeur d’Ale ene, ID 83814 (2 208) 769-1422

C. L. “Butch” Otter, Governor John H. Tippetts, Director

Novembeer 23, 2018 W Districct Laclede Water Robert Hansen, Admiinistrative Co ontact 67 Wild Horse H Trail Sandpoin nt, ID, 83864 Subject:

or Laclede Water W District,, ID1090073 Sanitaary Survey fo Survey y Date: Octo ober 24, 2018 8 Lastt Survey Datee: August 6, 2013

b: Dear Bob I thank yo ou, Mike Waade, and Gen ne Courtney for assisting me in the fieeld inspectioon for the Sannitary Survey th hat is normallly required every three yeears for this ppublic water supply systeem.

The purpose of the Saanitary Surveey is to docum ment a detaileed record of the water sysstem, evaluatte perating proccedures, prov vide recommeendations, annd identify deeficiencies thhat require current op correction n. The Sanittary Survey Report R is encllosed for youur files consisting of 18 ppages of narraative descriptio on including this cover lettter and 15 pages of photoographic doccumentation.

Requirem ments and reecommenda ations are listted on page((s) 17-18 in oorder to proteect public health, prevent future fu problem ms, minimizee contaminatiion potentiall, maximize ssafety, and prromote effective system op peration. The water systeem is advised d to implemeent solutions tto these issuees as soon ass practical. bstantial com mpliance w with Idaho Departmen nt of The watter system appears to be in sub Environm mental Quallity (DEQ) Rules R for Pub blic Drinkin ng Water Syystems (Rulees). b glad to asssist you with any question ns or concernns regarding tthis report.

I would be y, Sincerely Jim Williiamson Drinking Water Analy yst Jim.Williiamson@deq q.idaho.gov enclosurees c:

Anna A Moody, Drinking Water W Program m Manager, aanna.moody@ @deq.idaho.ggov Gene G Courtneey, Operation ns Manager, gr8escpe1@g g gmail.com EDMS E file: 20 018ACA9589

DRIN NKING WAT TER SUPPL LY REPOR RT IDA AHO DEPAR RTMENT OF O ENVIRON NMENTAL L QUALITY Y System: Laclede Waater District County: Bonner PWS #: # ID10900733 Survey D Date: Octobber 24, 2018 Surveyor(s): Jim Wiilliamson Primary y Source: Su urface Waterr Sourcees: Pend Oreille River PWS Ty ype: Commu unity Population: 615 6 Connecttions: 259 AERIAL L VICINITY Y MAP N O R T H

WATER R MAIN LOCATIO ONS ARE APPROX XIMATE

INTA AKE TREA ATMENT PLAN NT STOR RAGE #1 & #2 2

BOO OSTER PUMPS S LSAS S DRAINFIELD D RILE EY CREEK RECREATION AR REA

W WATER MAIN, V VARIOUS SIZES 6--IN RAW TRAN NSMISSION M MAIN

OVERA ALL SYSTE EM FACILITIES D servees the uninco orporated areea of Lacledde and is govverned by a bboard The Lacllede Water District with fivee members. The T drinking g water systeem is supplieed by one puumped surfaace water intake on the Peend Oreille River.

R Treattment consistts of direct ffiltration in a packaged pplant, and disinfectiion contact time t is proviided in two clearwells c addjacent to the water treattment plant.

Storage floats f on the system and is provided in two storaage tanks totaaling 300,0000 gallons. O One

Page 2 of 18

transfer pump station conveys water into distribution, and one booster pump station maintains pressure in distribution. Distribution mains total nearly 7.5 miles in length. In general, water system infrastructure is aging with major upgrades in 1979, 1985, 1995, and 2000.

WATER SYSTEM HISTORY The Laclede area is located on the Pend Oreille River approximately 10 air miles southwest of Sandpoint, Idaho. The Pend Oreille River is a reservoir-like body of water due to Albeni Falls Dam, which in conjunction with Cabinet Gorge Dam on the Clark Fork, regulates minimum and maximum water levels in Lake Pend Oreille. The Laclede Water District water system serves the majority of the residents in Laclede as well as several commercial and industrial sites.

The water district was formed in July 1976, and three small water systems (Laclede Water Club, Brand S Corporation, and Sandpoint Realty Company) were in use at the time. A detailed description of these water system facilities is documented in Department files within the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared by J-U-B Engineers, October 1976.

The original water filtration plant for the newly formed district was constructed by 1979 on Riley Creek Park Road in the southeast quadrant of the Riley Creek Mill property. Land for the treatment facility was donated by Brand S Sawmill, the predecessor of Riley Creek Lumber. In 2008 Riley Creek Lumber and Bennett Forest Industries merged into the Idaho Forest Group, which presently operates the Laclede Mill.

Following implementation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Laclede Water District entered into a voluntary consent order (VCO) with DEQ in order to bring the water plant into compliance with the SWTR. Originally entered into by the District and DEQ on February 18, 1994, the VCO was amended in 1996, 1998, and 2001. In 1997, a 64,000 gallon chlorine contact chamber was constructed next to the plant, and the plant was also configured to filter to waste.

In 2001, major upgrades included the construction of a concrete reservoir and booster station, installation of flow meters in the treatment plant, as well as installing a PLC to automate the plant. Improvements completed at the treatment plant between 1994 and 2002 satisfied the VCO and the VCO was terminated on January 15, 2003.

SYSTEM CHANGES SINCE LAST SANITARY SURVEY The water system had minor modifications since the last sanitary survey in 2013.

Surface Water Intake: 1) New control panels, a security fence, and piping vault improvements were completed onshore at the intake area.

Surface Water Treatment Plant: 1) New instrumentation for process monitoring was installed.

2) Routine maintenance throughout the plant that had been deferred was caught up.

Page 3 of 18

Finished Water Storage: 1) Storage Tank #2 was structurally inspected, and found to be structurally sound.

2) Level sensor transducers were replaced in storage tanks.

3) Overflow levels were verified.

Management and Operation: 1) Doug Carothers resigned as operator in February 2015. Water Systems Management, Inc. and Bob Hansen subsequently assumed responsible charge operator duties.

SOURCE FACILITIES Pend Oreille Surface Water Intake Original Construction Date: 1979 The surface water intake is the only source in the potable drinking water system. The intake is located near the historic ferry crossing approximately 65 feet offshore at a depth of 33-42 feet depending on seasonal water level control. Two 10 HP submersible pumps are located in the river at the intake with Johnson well screens, and a vault structure with isolation valves is located onshore under the parking area. A common header joins the pump intake discharge lines, and a 6-inch PVC conveyance line (replaced in 2012) transfers raw water approximately 1,700 feet to the water treatment plant. Divers inspect the intake screens annually.

Pumps operate in lead / lag alternation through manual control, changed weekly. Each pump is capable of approximately 290 gpm, and pump activation is controlled according to level sensors in the treatment process.

Eurasian milfoil has become established along the shoreline near the intake, and aquatic herbicides are applied annually. The District facilitates communications with applicators and DEQ to coordinate monitoring and supply pump activation.

Emergency Power: No provision to operate the intake pumps with backup emergency power is apparent.

TREATMENT FACILITIES Surface Water Filtration Plant Original Construction Date: 1979 Upgrade Construction Date: 1985, 2001

Lat / Long: 48.16440 / -116.75808

Page 4 of 18

The water treatment plant is located near the sharp bend of Riley Creek Road on the south border of the Laclede Mill. The plant building houses filtration equipment, a clearwell, the finished water transfer pumps, and a small water lab.

Treatment Process: Sheet 6 of 25 in the as-built plan set prepared by J.A. Sewell & Associates and titled Water System Improvement Project 2000, Volume II of II is a detailed process schematic for the water treatment plant operation. Treatment is in the following order and consists of: 1) Raw water inflow from the surface water intake pumps with flow measured by instantaneous & totalizing meter.

2) Continuous raw water turbidity monitoring (Hach 1720E).

3) A pre-chlorination port is available for future use.

4) A polymer coagulant port is available for future use.

5) Inline static mixing (Koch SMVL) with removable mixing fins.

6) Aluminum sulfate coagulant injection at the static mixer (Wallchem E-Class).

7) Streaming current monitoring (Milton Roy SC4200). This unit does not feature automatic feedback adjustment for aluminum sulfate dosing.

8) Filter unit reaction chambers (4).

9) Filter unit media chambers (2) through downflow (rapid rate gravity) filter media. Media chambers are backwashed with finished water from distribution through a flow control valve.

10) Continuous finished water turbidity monitoring (Unit #1=Hach TU5300, Unit #2=Hach TU5300, Combined=Hach TU5300).

11) Sodium hypochlorite injection.

12) Disinfection with contact time in the large baffled clearwell (62,500 gallon).

13) Disinfection with contact time in the small unbaffled clearwell (10,000 gallon).

14) Continuous filtered water residual chlorine monitoring (Hach CL-17) 15) Discharge to distribution through the finished water transfer pumps.

16) Backwash and filter-to-waste flows are conveyed through a settling pond to river discharge. No processes use recycled flows.

Chemical Treatment: The chemical treatment process features coagulant injection, inline static mixing, ports for chemical injection, ports for process sampling, and control through the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC).

Aluminum sulfate (48%, Univar brand, certified to meet the ANSI/NSF 60 standard) is used as a primary coagulant in the process stream. The chemical coagulant process consists of chemical storage in one polyethylene storage tanks, chemical feed through a metering pump (Wallchem EClass), injection into the raw water stream in a static mixer port, and streaming current monitoring (Milton Roy SC4200).

At the time of the survey, the mixing fins for the Koch static mixing unit were removed from service. The fins have been reported to reduce inflows by approximately 50%, frequent

Page 5 of 18

maintenance was required in the past to clean accumulations, and removal of the fin insert did not appear to have a measureable adverse impact on finished water turbidities. Alternatively, the water system may find the addition of a polymer coagulant in place of alum may alleviate buildup on the fins.

Filtration Sequence: Filtration units are located on the main floor of the treatment plant building adjacent to the small clear well. The physical orientation is described below: W End Reaction Chamber Filter #1

Flow-to-Waste Piping Filter #2 E End

The packaged filtration plant features a reaction chamber on the west end with four subchambers. Flows are directed in the reaction sub-chambers to provide increased time (approximately 6 minutes) for coagulation and flocculation. The reaction chamber water is transferred through the filter inlet manifold to the media chambers. The media filter process consists of a coarse anthracite layer over sand and gravel that removes remaining particles.

Finished water is collected in the underdrain system at the bottom of the subfill. Filter effluent is then discharged through modulated level control (float valves and control valves) that maintains a stable water level in the filter. After this, the filtered water discharges from the treatment units through piping to the disinfection process.

Media Filter Chambers (Filter #1 + Filter #2) Combined Area: 72 SF Filter Rate: Max = 4.9 gpm/SF = 350 gpm Typical = 4.0 gpm/SF = 290 gpm Backwash Rate: Typical = 8.3 gpm/SF = 600 gpm Backwash Volume: Typical = 5,400 gallons at 9 minutes Backwash Source Finished water from distribution and storage Media Filter Bed Anthracite Coal (1.0mm): Sand (0.45mm): Sand (0.80mm): Gravel (Increasing Size): Underdrain:

17 inches 9 inches 3 inches 18.5 inches Trunk line with laterals

Backwash Sequence: Filter backwash sequences are controlled by the PLC with an option for manual initiation by the operator. The media filter chamber is backwashed (at approximately 600 gpm) with finished water from distribution and storage. The backwash sequence is triggered by maximum service time (24 hours in summer and 48 to 72 hours in winter) as other methods (pressure differential and turbidity) have been unreliable. Media filter chambers are backwashed consecutively with rotating spray arms, followed by a resting period and forward wash filter-to-waste cycles before producing finished water.

Page 6 of 18

Flow-to-waste piping discharges to an uncovered settling pond located adjacent to the treatment plant building on the east side. The pond area is surrounded by security fencing with entrance points for access and maintenance. A pond overflow structure has been graded into the east embankment, and flows are discharged in one outfall to the Pend Oreille River under a general discharge permit.

At the time of the survey, spray arms rotated without interference, anthracite media appeared to be reasonably clean on the surface, bed expansion appeared to be uniform, no evidence of air binding was noted, and excessive flocculation or mudballs were not evident. The reduced pressure zone (RPZ) backflow prevention assembly on the backwash line was current with annual testing by a certified tester. In general, the filtration units appeared to be functioning adequately.

Disinfection: Disinfection is accomplished with sodium hypochlorite (12.5%, Liquichlor brand, certified to meet the ANSI/NSF 60 standard) introduced into the process stream after filtration and before the clearwells. Hypochlorite is stored undiluted in the original polyethylene barrels adjacent to the filter units. Diluted hypochlorite is injected with a metering pump (Walchem E-Class), and a replacement pump is available for unplanned failures. The chemical feed pump is automatically controlled with feedrates that are proportional to measured flow, and chemical feed will stop if flow is not detected.

Disinfection contact time is accomplished through the large clearwell (constructed 2001) and the small clearwell (constructed 1979). The small and large clearwells are hydraulically connected, and the large clearwell was constructed with baffling to increase contact time. According to the engineering report (J.A. Sewell, 2000) on file with DEQ, contact time calculations (utilizing the stated clearwell volumes and finished water pump capacity) are detailed below: Small Clearwell Total Volume: 10,000 gallons Baffling Factor: 0.10 Contact Volume: 1,000 gallons Contact Time @ 240 gpm: 4 minutes

Large Clearwell 62,500 gallons 0.60 37,500 gallons 156 minutes

Small+Large Combined 72,500 gallons 0.53 (effective) 38,500 gallons 160 minutes

It is apparent that minimal measures are in place for secondary containment of chemical bulk storage. Sodium hypochlorite and aluminum sulfate are incompatible and would release toxic chlorine gas if mixed, potentially resulting in severe injury or fatal exposure. In addition, chemically exposed personnel should have immediate access to onsite safety equipment and should not be required to travel long distances or around obstacles and barriers in the event of an exposure. Operating personnel are reminded to implement the highest practical safety standards.

Page 7 of 18

Treatment Monitoring and Reporting: Daily monitoring and monthly reporting of treatment process parameters is conducted to satisfy filtration and disinfection requirements in State and Federal surface water treatment rules. Each day the system is in operation, the water system must determine the total inactivation of Giardia (minimum 99.9%, 3-log) and viruses (minimum 99.99%, 4-log). Monthly operating reports (MOR) are submitted to DEQ no later than the 10th of the month following the reporting period.

Continuous turbidity monitoring is accomplished through Hach TU5300 turbidimeters installed on individual and combined filter effluent lines. Turbidimeter calibrations are performed quarterly with the appropriate standards according to the manufacturer’s guidelines.

Continuous chlorine disinfectant residual monitoring is accomplished through a Hach CL17 online analyzer. A probe for the chlorine analyzer is located in the discharge piping of the small clearwell. A chorine test kit is available to verify the accuracy of the CL17 measurements.

Monitoring pH for compliance is accomplished by grab sample from the lab sink (after disinfection contact time) at least one time each day.

Monitoring temperature for compliance is accomplished by probe placed in the middle of the small clearwell. While this is technically not after disinfection contact time, the operator reports it is more representative of finished water as other locations downstream are not stable or reliable.

Filter Maintenance: Frequent observation of the media beds during filtration and especially backwash processes is an important operator practice. Any unusual appearances such as uneven filter surface, slugs of air during backwash, or uneven distribution of backwash water may indicate that significant problems have developed.

1) Both the filter and underdrain system should be checked annually at a minimum.

2) Filter media loss should be less than 1 inch per year when compared to original depths.

3) Backwash water only should be used to refill a filter after water levels have drained below the top of the media bed.

4) Mudballs. Mudballs are formed when grains of filter media are not cleaned thoroughly; the sticky floc residue forces the grains to clump together. As the mudballs grow, their weight causes them to sink into the filter bed during backwashing. Mudballs clog the filter bed, altering normal filtration. As water continues to flow through the filter, the filtration rate in areas that are not clogged by mudballs increases to make up for the inactivity in the clogged areas. The water that is forced through the filter at an accelerated rate is not filtered as effectively as it would be at the optimum filtration rate. This causes poor effluent quality, early floc breakthrough, and short filter runs.

5) Cracks and Separation. When the filter bed becomes excessively dirty, it compacts, causing small cracks in the bed and separation of the media from the filter walls. Water flows rapidly through the resulting cracks, receiving little or no filtration. Well maintained beds don’t compact because the grains of media rest directly against each

Page 8 of 18

other. Larger cracks occur when the filter media is compacted, then backwashed without auxilliary wash. The media tends to heave upward as a unit, then crack. The backwash water then flows through the crack rather than acting to disintegrate the mud accumulation.

6) Holes. The appearance of holes in the surface of a filter following a backwash is an indication of serious subfill or underdrain damage. Holes usually occur when media is lost through a displaced area of the subfill or through a break in the underdrain. The hole may disappear after the next backwash, then reappear during the service run.

Treatment requirements were noted at the time of inspection: Install secondary containment under bulk chemical containers in order to prevent mixing of incompatible chemicals (aluminum sulfate and sodium hypochlorite).

Repair gaskets as necessary on clearwell hatches.

Treatment recommendations were noted at the time of inspection: Consider re-installing static mixing fins if it does not lead to excessively frequent cleaning.

FINISHED WATER STORAGE FACILITIES Storage Tank #1 Original Construction Date: 1978 Type: Ground-level Steel

Capacity: 120,000 gallons

Storage Tank #1 is located on a landform rise at an overflow elevation of 2258.93 feet north of Highway 2 and east of Riley Creek Road. The storage tank site is located on land owned by the District with private roadway access and a locked gate. The site is not secured by perimeter fencing.

The round welded-steel tank features a crowned roof, two access points, a central roof vent, a locked ladder access, and an internal overflow. The storage tank is understood to functionally float on the distribution system with a common inlet / outlet. The vent on the tank roof is double screened with both large grid and fine mesh screening. The man-way access on the roof is an overlapping shoebox style hatch that projected a couple inches above the roof.

A transducer level sensor mounted inside the tank measures tank levels and controls the activation of the clearwell transfer pumps with conveyance of finished water from the clearwell.

Storage Tank #2 has a redundant transducer level sensor, and either tank can be selected at the site for primary control.

Storage Tank #2 Original Construction Date: 2001 Type: Ground-level Concrete

Capacity: 180,000 GAL

Page 9 of 18

Storage Tank #2 is located adjacent to Storage Tank #1, and is constructed to overflow at the same elevation.

The round concrete tank features a crowned roof, 4 central roof vents, a locked ladder access, and an internal overflow that joins with Storage Tank #1’s overflow for a common screened discharge point. The storage tank is understood to functionally float on the distribution system with a common inlet / outlet. The man-way access on the roof is an overlapping shoebox style hatch that projects a couple inches above the roof.

Cracks with mineral deposit seeps are evident on significant portions of the tank wall, although a structural inspection of the tank reportedly indicates the structure is sound.

Storage requirements were noted at the time of inspection: Repair gaskets as necessary on storage tank hatches Storage recommendations were noted at the time of inspection: Evaluate the pooling of water at the edges of Storage Tank #1, which may be an indication of roofing member settlement or other structural issues.

Inspect the visible exterior features of storage facilities quarterly. Inspect the interior features and clean the storage facilities every five years or more frequently as necessary. Utilize different inspection strategies to evaluate both below the water line and above the water line. Repair corroded surfaces and other defects as they are identified.

PUMPS AND CONTROL FACILITIES There are three basic mechanisms that maintain and control pressure in the water system: 1) Transfer pumps convey finished or stored water through distribution to storage tanks at higher elevations.

2) Storage tanks float on the distribution system and maintain adequate pressures from an elevation above most service areas.

3) A pump station boosts pressure in service areas that are not adequately served by storage.

In more specific detail, the District’s distribution system is characterized by two pressure zones: Lower Pressure Zone The Lower Pressure Zone is the majority of the service area south of the storage tank site.

Finished water is conveyed by transfer pumps from the clearwell to services through the lower distribution system with eventual storage in Storage Tank #1 and Storage Tank #2. Filter unit backwash water is also supplied from distribution and storage.

Page 10 of 18

The finished water transfer pumps are located in the water treatment plant adjacent to the filtration units. Pump equipment consists of two lead-lag alternating vertical turbine pumps rated for 240 GPM each. DEQ records indicate both pumps were rebuilt between 1998 and 2001.

Upper Pressure Zone The Upper Pressure Zone is the northern portion of the service area, and the Booster Pump Station #1 is located in the pump station structure adjacent to Riley Creek Road and north of the storage tanks. Storage Tank #1 and #2 supply finished water to the booster pump station, and pressure is maintained by the pumps in the Upper Pressure Zone. DEQ files indicate the booster pump station was constructed in 2002, and may adequately serve up to approximately ten service connections. The structure is secured with a locked door, and the site is surrounded by perimeter fencing with a locked gate.

Pump equipment consists of two lead-lag alternating 2 HP centrifugal pumps. Pump appurtenances include PVC piping, isolation valves, check valves, pressure gauges, pressure switches, captive air (bladder) tanks, and a control panel with alarm status.

A series of pressure switches control the pumps according to system demand and alarm condition. PS-1 is a lead pump pressure switch setting that activates a pressure cycle between 55-75 psi. PS-2 is a lag pump pressure switch setting that activates a pressure cycle between 4060 psi when the lead pump does not satisfy system demand. PS-4 is a high pressure alarm setting at 85 psi. PS-3 is a low pressure alarm setting to indicate pressure at 20 psi or less. PS-5 is a low pressure alarm setting with automatic shutoff at 5 psi. An autodialer actively alerts operators with alarms.

Four captive air (bladder) tanks are connected in parallel to the pump discharge manifold prior to distribution. All tanks are 80-gallon capacity and feature isolation valves for independent service and repair while avoiding system depressurization.

At the time of the survey, the booster station structure, pumps, and bladder tanks appeared to be in good condition. Bladder tank inspection and testing is recommended on a minimum annual basis.

Emergency Power No emergency power is provided at the booster station.

Pump and control recommendations were noted at the time of inspection: Bladder tank inspection and testing is recommended on an annual basis.

DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES The distribution system consists of approximately 7.5 miles of 2-inch to 8-inch PVC water main pipe. Individual service connections are metered. There are no apparent automatic air / vacuum

Page 11 of 18

relief valves in distribution, but approximately 19 fire hydrants are installed throughout the system. A frost free hydrant is available at the highest point in distribution, and the operator manually flushes this location at a regular frequency. Remaining dead-end distribution branch services terminate with flushing hydrants, and the distribution system is typically flushed at least annually. Valves in distribution are exercised annually on a rotating basis.

Major services in distribution include the Riley Creek Recreation Area and the Laclede Mill.

The recreation area is served with one 3-inch service line that features a sample tap, control valve, meter, isolation valves, and a reduced pressure zone (RPZ) backflow prevention assembly inside a locked structure with a mechanical room. The mill is served with one service that features a reduced pressure zone (RPZ) backflow prevention assembly in a shed adjacent to the water treatment plant. Both backflow prevention assemblies are tested by a licensed tester on an annual basis.

MONITORING, REPORTING, AND DATA VERIFICATION Monitoring Schedule This water system is classified as a community public water system with a population of 3,300 or less. EPA’s current standard monitoring framework is within the Third Cycle (2011-2019) and the 3rd Period (2017-20196).

Online tools for reviewing currently updated monitoring schedules are available for viewing on the web: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/drinking-water/pws-switchboard.aspx Water systems are encouraged to review their monitoring schedules on a quarterly or annual basis.

It is important to note that monitoring schedules may be changed or modified by DEQ as required. Before sampling, water system operators are advised to revisit both monitoring schedule tools and review the most current requirements in order to ensure compliance.

Lead and copper monitoring in tap water has special requirements. Sample sites must be residential service taps at highest risk of contamination and may not have point-of-use treatment.

Lead and copper samples must be first draw collections (including the first drop) from the coldwater kitchen or bathroom tap after a motionless period in the plumbing system of at least 6 hours. Samples must be collected every third calendar year between June 1 and September 30 in the year they are collected. This water system last collected lead and copper tap water samples in 2016 and the next samples are due in 2019. Please note there is no benefit to sampling prior to the scheduled year.

Sample Type

Frequency

Lead and Copper 10 every 3rd year

Sample Location Distribution Taps

Remark Jun 1 to Sep 30

Page 12 of 18

Disinfection Byproducts monitoring has special requirements. Samples must be collected between July 1 and September 30 in the year they are collected. Sample site locations are specific to the water system.

Sample Type Disinfection Byproducts (Stage 2 DBP)

Frequency 1 every year

Sample Location 591 Laclede Shores Drive

Remark Jul 1 to Sep 30

This system is required to sample for SOC 2,4-D herbicide due to a previous detection of this contaminant. Monitoring history indicates the analyte was detected but has reliably and consistently remained below the MCL. Samples must be collected in the third quarter.

Sample Type

Frequency

SOC 2,4-D

1 every year

Sample Location Entry Point

Remark Jul 1 to Sep 30

Monitoring Violations There were treatment technique (TT) monitoring violations on record in the past three years.

Feb 2015

Failure to provide adequate turbidity levels under the Surface Water Treatment Rule. The water system returned to compliance.

Recordkeeping The water system is reminded to maintain accurate and complete testing records, and to make these available to DEQ upon request. Per Idaho Rules for Public Water Systems and Federal CFR 141.33, records of bacteriological analyses are to be kept for not less than five years, and records of chemical analyses are to be kept for not less than ten years. The water system is advised to review all applicable statutes for additional requirements.

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION Fees The Laclede Water District currently bills water users for a variety of water services. Base monthly user fees are billed at $45.84 for 5,000 gallons base. Additional charges consist of $2.02 per 1,000 gallons up to 20,000 gallons and $3.02 per 1,000 gallons over 20,000 gallons. New water service connection fees are $10,000. Sewer monthly fees are billed separately.

The water system appears to be current with drinking water program fees paid annually to DEQ.

Page 13 of 18

Cross Connection Control Program The water system has an active Cross Connection Control (CCC) program required by Department Rules to protect the water system against contamination and pollution from cross connections. The following are minimum standards required of Community water systems per IDAPA 58.01.08(552)(06): a) An inspection program to locate cross connections and determine suitable protection; b) Installation and operation of adequate backflow prevention assemblies; c) Annual inspections and testing of installed assemblies by a licensed tester; d) Discontinue service where suitable protection is absent for a cross connection; e) Repair, replace, or isolate failed or defective assemblies within ten business days.

The water system may find these measures to be helpful in keeping the cross connection control program actively implemented: 1) Train operators and board members to be familiar with Pacific Northwest Cross Connection Control Manual, American Water Works Association, University of Southern California, and Uniform Plumbing Code guidance documents; 2) Train operators to understand backflow prevention measures and to properly determine adequate protections; 3) Follow up and act upon issues of non-compliance; 4) Maintain adequate records of all program activities and results; 5) Periodically evaluate existing resolutions, ordinances, and/or bylaws for compliance with current Department Rules.

Safety Training Water system operation and maintenance may require climbing structures or confined space entry into storage tanks, clearwells, or pump houses. Because of the potential safety issues involved with climbing and confined space entry, adequate implementation of policy and procedures are important and OSHA training should be obtained or maintained for all involved personnel. In particular, unaccompanied entry into confined spaces should not be attempted, and the even presence of another person without rescue equipment may not be adequate to physically remove a person who has been injured or remains unconscious in the confined space.

Treatment plant personnel must be thoroughly familiar with the chemicals they utilize, and should always use rubber gloves, boots, aprons, goggles, and coverings on the arms and head to protect themselves from splashes and sprays. Suggested sources for further reading include AWWA-M3 booklet titled “Safety Practice for Water Utilities” and AWWA Sections B200 B700 with regard to application of commonly used water treatment chemicals. At a minimum, operators should be aware of the basic first aid that is recommended by the filter unit manufacturer: Aluminum Sulfate: Skin irritation and mild burns from alum should be treated as an acid burn. Wash the affected area with warm water and soap. Do not allow any dust to remain in contact with the skin for any length of time. Take a thorough shower as soon as possible. If aluminum sulfate gets into the eyes, flush with large quantities of warm water. If irritation

Page 14 of 18

continues, consult a physician. Irritation of the mouth and nasal passages should be treated by irrigating them freely with warm water.

Sodium Hypochlorite: If chlorine has contaminated the skin or clothing, the emergency shower or any other means of washing with copious amounts of water should be used immediately. Contaminated clothing should be removed under the shower and the chlorine should be washed off with very large quantities of water. Skin areas should be washed with large quantities of soap and water. Never attempt to neutralize the chlorine with chemicals.

Salves or ointments should not be applied unless directed by a physician. If even minute quantities of liquid chlorine enter the eyes, they should be flushed immediately with copious quantities of running water for at least 15 minutes. Never attempt to neutralize with chemicals. The eyelids should be held apart during this period to insure contact of water with all accessible tissues of the eyes and lids.

Management requirements were noted at the time of inspection: Process cross connection control program property surveys and continue to actively implement all program elements.

OPERATOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS Department Rules require that all community public drinking water systems and distribution facilities be classified based on indicators of potential health risk. Criteria used to determine the potential health risks include the system's complexity, size, and source water for treatment facilities; complexity and size of distribution systems; and other criteria deemed appropriate.

The Rules also require that public drinking water systems be staffed by licensed operators based on the system classification. Every five years, the water system is required to complete and submit a classification worksheet to DEQ. The water system is currently classified as a Class 2 Treatment system and a Class 1 Distribution system.

Water system owners are responsible for ensuring that public drinking water systems are adequately supervised by properly licensed operators, and it is DEQ’s responsibility to provide oversight. The Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses (IBOL) is responsible for administering the system of licensure for public drinking water operators.

Department database records indicate Robert Hansen (License #DWT2-10694 and #DWD213440) is the responsible charge operator for the drinking water system, and IBOL database records indicate that he is currently and adequately licensed to operate the water system.

Additional operators include Jay Solomon (License #DWT2-22260 and #DWD1-21363), Claire Hansen (License #DWT2-13372 and #DWD1-12984), Mike Wade (License #DWT1-20838 and #BAT-19947), Edward Huckaby (License #DWT1-10804, #DWD2-14276, and #BAT-992), and Stacey Rucker (License #DWT1-13361 and #DWD1-13777).

Page 15 of 18

OTHER ELEMENTS Source Water Assessment Plan The Source Water Assessment describes the public drinking water wells, the well recharge zones, and potential contaminant sites located inside the recharge zone boundaries for a public water supply. This assessment, taken into account with local knowledge and concerns, should be used as a planning tool to develop and implement appropriate protection measures for the public water system. The Laclede Water District (PWS No. 1090073), Source Water Assessment Report was created October 22, 2001 with updated information on December 15, 2011. It contains information for the Pend Oreille River.

Drinking Water Protection Plan: Source water protection is a voluntary effort a community can implement to help prevent contamination of the source water that supplies its public water system. The drinking water protection plan outlines the management tools local committees can use to protect drinking water sources, and describes the implementation of regulatory and/or non-regulatory management practices.

1) Regulatory tools include items such as zoning ordinances, overlay districts, or site plan review requirements.

2) Non-regulatory tools include items such as educational or pollution prevention activities and implementation of Best Management Practices.

3) Every plan should also include a public education and information component.

A community can gain official recognition for its source water protection plan by pursuing state certification through DEQ. The Laclede Water District Drinking Water Protection Plan was prepared by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in 2006. The certification covers a five-year period, after which re-certification may be pursued. The Drinking Water Protection Plan was due in 2011 for recertification with DEQ. Other recommendations were noted at the time of inspection: Update and recertify a Drinking Water Protection Plan through DEQ. Contact John Jose in the Coeur d’ Alene regional office at (208) 666-4620 for additional information.

Page 16 of 18

SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES Significant Deficiency. As identified during a sanitary survey, any defect in a system’s design, operation, maintenance, or administration, as well as any failure or malfunction of any system component, that DEQ or its agent determines to cause, or have potential to cause, risk to health or safety, or that could affect the reliable delivery of safe drinking water. See also the definition of Health Hazards.

No Significant Deficiencies were noted at the time of inspection.

End of Section: Significant Deficiencies RULE REQUIREMENTS Scope: The purpose of the Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems rules is to control and regulate the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and quality control of public drinking water systems to provide a degree of assurance that such systems are protected from contamination and maintained free from contaminants which may injure the health of the consumer.

Treatment: 1) Install secondary containment under bulk chemical containers in order to prevent mixing of incompatible chemicals (aluminum sulfate and sodium hypochlorite).

2) Repair gaskets as necessary on clearwell hatches.

Storage: 1) Repair gaskets as necessary on storage tank hatches.

Management: 1) Process cross connection control program property surveys and continue to actively implement all program elements.

End of Section: Rule Requirements RECOMMENDATIONS: Treatment: 1) Consider re-installing static mixing fins if it does not lead to excessively frequent cleaning.

Storage: 1) Evaluate the pooling of water at the edges of Storage Tank #1, which may be an indication of roofing member settlement or other structural issues.

2) Inspect the visible exterior features of storage facilities quarterly. Inspect the interior features and clean the storage facilities every five years or more frequently as necessary.

Page 17 of 18

Utilize different inspection strategies to evaluate both below the water line and above the water line. Repair corroded surfaces and other defects as they are identified.

Pumps and Controls: 1) Bladder tank inspection and testing is recommended on an annual basis.

Other: 1) Update and recertify a Drinking Water Protection Plan through DEQ. Contact John Jose in the Coeur d’ Alene regional office at (208) 666-4620 for additional information.

End of Section: Recommendations

Page 18 of 18

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.9. JAS 2000 PER Water System Improvements – Hydraulic Analysis Excerpt

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 2.3.12.

T-O Engineers

Security Vulnerability Assessment

Security Vulnerability SelfAssessment Guide for Water Systems

Rural Community Assistance Corporation www.rcac.org

Produced for the Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) National Network

by Rural Community Assistance Corporation, Western RCAP RCAP Safety and Security Education Program

Security Vulnerability SelfAssessment Guide for Water Systems RCAP Regional Offices:

If you need technical assistance to complete your Security Vulnerability Assessment, please contact one of our regional offices listed below.

Midwest RCAP

Western RCAP

Northeast RCAP Great Lakes RCAP RCAP National Office Southeast RCAP

Southern RCAP

Regional Offices RCAP National Office Western RCAP Southeast RCAP Great Lakes RCAP Southern RCAP Northeast RCAP Midwest RCAP

Contact Number 888/321-7227 916/447-2854 866/928-3731 800/775-9767 479/443-2700 800/488-1969 952/758-4334

Web Address www.rcap.org www.rcac.org www.southeastrcap.org www.glrcap.org www.crg.org www.rcapsolutions.org www.map-inc.org

This material is based upon work supported in part under a grant by the Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Rural Utilities Service. Additional funding provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and revised by RCAC (August 2005) based on materials developed by the Washington State Department of Health, Training and Outreach Section, Division of Drinking Water.

For additional copies of this publication, call 888/321-7227or visit RCAP’s web site at www.rcap.org.

This publication is being distributed under the auspices of Rural Community Assistance Partnership.

Contents Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems ...................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2 HOW TO USE THIS SELF-ASSESSMENT GUIDE ............................................................................... 2 KEEP THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................................................. 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 INVENTORY OF SMALL W ATER SYSTEM CRITICAL COMPONENTS ..................................................... 3 Attachment 1. Prioritization of Needed Actions ....................................................................18 Attachment 2: Threat Identification Checklists .....................................................................19 WATER SYSTEM TELEPHONE THREAT IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST.................................................19 WATER SYSTEM REPORT OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY ......................................................................21 Attachment 3: Certificate of Completion ...............................................................................23

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 1

Security Vulnerability SelfAssessment Guide for Water Systems Introduction

This Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide is designed to help small water systems determine possible vulnerable components and identify security measures that should be considered. A “vulnerability assessment” is the identification of weaknesses in water system security, focusing on defined threats that could compromise its ability to provide adequate potable water, and/or water for firefighting. This document is designed particularly for systems that serve populations of 3,300 or fewer.

The Self-Assessment Guide has a simple design. Answers to assessment questions are “yes” or “no.” For any “no” answer, refer to the “comment” column and/or contact your drinking water primacy agency. Then complete the “Prioritization of Needed Actions” form (see Attachment 1) to identify and prioritize needed actions based on your assessment.

How to Use this Self-Assessment Guide

This document is designed for use by water system personnel. Physical facilities pose a high degree of exposure to any security threat. This self-assessment should be conducted on all components of your system (wellhead or surface water intake, treatment plant, storage tank(s), pumps, distribution system, and other important components of your system).

You can obtain an Emergency Response Plan manual and template from Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. (RCAP) at: 888/321-7227 or on line at http://www.rcap.org.

Security is everyone’s responsibility. We hope this document helps you to increase the awareness of all your employees, governing officials, and customers about security issues.

Once you have completed this document, review the actions you need to take to improve your system’s security. Make sure to prioritize your actions based on the most likely threats and their potential impact.

The Requirement for a Security Vulnerability Assessment

The United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (USDA/RD) is requiring that all systems that receive USDA/RD funding must complete a Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and Emergency Response Plan (ERP). In addition to the USDA/RD requirements, the preparation of a SVA and ERP will help improve the management of the water system and increases the ability of the system to respond to emergencies.

Keep this Document This is a working document. Its purpose is to start your process of security vulnerability assessment and security enhancements. Security is not an end point, but a goal that can be achieved only through continued efforts to assess and upgrade your system.

Don’t forget that this is a sensitive document. It should be stored separately in a secure place at your water system. A duplicate copy should also be retained at a secure off-site location.

Access to this document should be limited to key water system personnel and local officials as well as the drinking water primacy agency and others on a need-to-know basis.

Acknowledgments Revised by RCAC, this guide is based on materials developed by the result of collaboration among the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the U.S. EPA Drinking Water Academy, and the National Rural Water Association (NRWA).

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 2

Inventory of Water System Critical Components Component Source Water Type Ground Water Surface Water Ground Water Under Direct Influence of Surface Water Mixed Ground and Surface Water Purchased Treatment Plant Buildings Pumps Treatment Equipment (e.g., basin, clearwell, filter)

Number & Location (if applicable)

Description

Process Controls Treatment Chemicals and Storage Laboratory Chemicals and Storage Storage Storage Tanks Pressure Tanks Power Primary Power Auxiliary Power Distribution System Pumps Pipes Valves Appurtenances (e.g., flush hydrants, backflow preventers, meters) Other Vulnerable Points Offices Buildings Computers Files Transportation/ Work Vehicles Communications Telephone Cell Phone Radio Computer Control Systems (SCADA) Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 3

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment for Water Systems General Questions for the Entire Water System The first 13 questions in this vulnerability self-assessment are general questions designed to apply to all components of your system (wellhead or surface water intake, treatment plant, storage tank(s), pumps, distribution system, and offices). These are followed by more specific questions that look at individual system components in greater detail.

QUESTION ANSWER COMMENT 1. Do you have a written emergency response plan (ERP)?

Yes N/A

No

It is essential that you have an ERP. If you do not have an ERP, you can obtain a sample from RCAP or your drinking water primacy agency.

As a first step in developing your ERP, you should develop your Emergency Contact List. A plan is vital in case there is an incident that requires immediate response. Your plan should be reviewed at least annually (or more frequently if necessary) to ensure it is up-to-date and addresses security emergencies.

Insert Comments Here

2. Is access to the critical components of the water system (i.e., a part of the physical infrastructure of the system that is essential for water flow and/or water quality) restricted to authorized personnel only?

Yes N/A

No

You should restrict or limit access to the critical components of your water system to authorized personnel only. This is the first step in security enhancement for your water system. Consider the following:  Issue water system photo identification cards for employees, and require them to be displayed within the restricted area at all times.  Post signs restricting entry to authorized personnel and ensure that assigned staff will escort people without proper ID. Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 4

QUESTION

ANSWER

COMMENT

3. Are facilities fenced, including well houses and pump pits, and are gates locked where appropriate?

Yes N/A

Ideally, all facilities should have a security fence around the perimeter.

No

The fence perimeter should be walked periodically to check for breaches and maintenance needs. All gates should be locked with chains and a tamperproof padlock that at a minimum protects the shank.

Other barriers such as concrete "jersey" barriers should be considered to guard certain critical components from accidental or intentional vehicle intrusion.

Insert Comments Here

4. Are your doors, windows, and other points of entry such as tank and roof hatches and vents kept closed and locked?

Yes N/A

No

Lock all building doors and windows, hatches and vents, gates, and other points of entry to prevent access by unauthorized personnel. Check locks regularly. Dead bolt locks and lock guards provide a high level of security for the cost.

A daily check of critical system components enhances security and ensures that an unauthorized entry has not taken place.

Doors and hinges to critical facilities should be constructed of heavy-duty reinforced material.

Hinges on all outside doors should be located on the inside.

To limit access to water systems, all windows should be locked and reinforced with wire mesh or iron bars, and bolted on the inside or install alarms.

Systems should ensure that this type of security meets with the requirements of any fire codes.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 5

QUESTION

ANSWER

COMMENT

5. Is there external lighting around the critical components of your water system?

Yes N/A

Adequate lighting of the exterior of water systems’ critical components is a good deterrent to unauthorized access and may result in the detection or deterrence of trespassers. Motion detectors that activate switches that turn lights on or trigger alarms also enhance security.

No

Insert Comments Here

6. Are warning signs (tampering, unauthorized access, etc.) posted on all critical components of your water system? (For example, well houses and storage tanks.)

Yes N/A

No



Warning signs are an effective means to deter unauthorized access.

“Warning - Tampering with this facility is a federal offense” should be posted on all water facilities.

These are available from your state Rural Water Association.

“Authorized Personnel Only,” “Unauthorized Access Prohibited,” and “Employees Only” are examples of other signs that may be useful.

Insert Comments Here

7. Do you patrol and inspect your source intake, buildings, storage tanks, equipment, and other critical components?

Yes N/A



No

Frequent and random patrolling of the water system by utility staff and local law enforcement agency may discourage potential tampering. It may also help identify problems that may have arisen since the previous patrol.

Insert Comments Here

8. Is the area around the critical components of your water system free of objects that may be used for breaking and entering?

Yes N/A



No

When assessing the area around your water system’s critical components, look for objects that could be used to gain entry (e.g., large rocks, cement blocks, pieces of wood, ladders, valve keys, and other tools).

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 6

QUESTION

ANSWER

COMMENT

9. Are the entry points to your water system easily seen?

Yes N/A

Trim or avoid landscaping that will block your view or permit trespassers to hide, conduct unnoticed suspicious activities, or allow easy access to your system’s critical components

No

If possible, park vehicles and equipment in places where they do not block the view of your water system’s critical components.

Insert Comments Here

10. Do you have an alarm system that will detect unauthorized entry or attempted entry at critical components?

Yes N/A

No

Consider installing an alarm system that notifies the proper authorities or your water system’s designated contact for emergencies when there has been a breach of security.

You should also have an audible alarm at the site as a deterrent and to notify neighbors of a potential threat.

Insert Comments Here

11. Do you have a key control and accountability policy?

Yes N/A

No

Keep a record of locks and associated keys, and to whom the keys have been assigned. This record will facilitate lock replacement and key management (e.g., after employee turnover or loss of keys).

Vehicle and building keys should be kept in a lockbox when not in use.

You should have all keys stamped (engraved) “DO NOT DUPLICATE.” Insert Comments Here

12. Are entry codes and keys limited to water system personnel only?

Yes N/A

No

Suppliers and personnel from co-located organizations should be denied access to codes and/or keys. Codes should be changed frequently if possible. Entry into any building should always be under the direct control of water system personnel.

Insert Comments Here

13. Do you have a neighborhood watch program for your water system?

Yes N/A

No

Watchful neighbors can be very helpful to a security program. Make sure they know who to call in the event of an emergency or suspicious activity.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 7

Water Sources In addition to the above general checklist for your entire water system (questions 1-13), you should give special attention to the following issues, presented in separate tables, related to various water system components.

Your water sources (surface water intakes or wells) should be secured. Surface water supplies present the greatest challenge. Typically they encompass large land areas. Where areas cannot be secured, steps should be taken to initiate or increase law enforcement patrols. Pay particular attention to surface water intakes. Ask the public to be vigilant and report suspicious activity.

QUESTION ANSWER COMMENT 14. Are your wellheads sealed properly?

Yes N/A

No

A properly sealed wellhead decreases the opportunity for the introduction of contaminants. If you are not sure whether your wellhead is properly sealed, contact your well drilling/maintenance company, your drinking water primacy agency, or other technical assistance providers.

Insert Comments Here

15. Are well vents and caps screened and securely attached?

Yes N/A

No

Properly installed vents and caps can help prevent the introduction of a contaminant into the water supply.

Ensure that vents and caps serve their purpose, and cannot be easily breached or removed.

Insert Comments Here

16. Are observation/test and abandoned wells properly secured to prevent tampering?

Yes N/A

No

All observation/test and abandoned wells should be properly capped or secured to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the aquifer or water supply. Abandoned wells should be destroyed according to state regulations.

Insert Comments Here

17. Is your surface water source secured with fences or gates? Do water system personnel visit the source?

Yes N/A

No

Surface water supplies present the greatest challenge to secure. Often, they encompass large land areas. Where areas cannot be secured, steps should be taken to initiate or increase patrols by water utility personnel and law enforcement agents.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 8

Treatment Plant and Suppliers Some small systems provide easy access to their water system for suppliers of equipment, chemicals, and other materials for the convenience of both parties. This practice should be discontinued.

QUESTION

ANSWER

COMMENT

18. Are deliveries of chemicals and other supplies made in the presence of water system personnel?

Yes N/A

Establish a policy that an authorized person, designated by the water system, must accompany all deliveries. Verify the credentials of all drivers.

This prevents unauthorized personnel from having access to the water system.

No

Insert Comments Here

19. Have you discussed with your supplier(s) procedures to ensure the security of their products?

Yes N/A

No

Verify that your suppliers take precautions to ensure that their products are not contaminated. Chain of custody procedures for delivery of chemicals should be reviewed. You should inspect chemicals and other supplies at the time of delivery to verify they are sealed and in unopened containers. Match all delivered goods with purchase orders to ensure that they were, in fact, ordered by your water system.

You should keep a log or journal of deliveries. It should include the driver’s name (taken from the driver’s photo I.D.), date, time, material delivered, and the supplier’s name.

Insert Comments Here

20. Are chemicals, particularly those that are potentially hazardous or flammable, properly stored in a secure area?

Yes N/A

No

All chemicals should be stored in an area designated for their storage only, and the area should be secure and access to the area restricted.

Access to chemical storage should be available only to authorized employees.

You should have tools and equipment on site (such as a fire extinguisher, drysweep, etc.) to take immediate actions when responding to an emergency.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 9

QUESTION

21. Do you monitor raw and treated water so that you can detect changes in water quality?

ANSWER

COMMENT

Yes N/A

Monitoring of raw and treated water can establish a baseline that may allow you to know if there has been a contamination incident.

No

Some parameters for raw water include pH, turbidity, total and fecal coliform, total organic carbon, specific conductivity, ultraviolet adsorption, color, and odor.

Routine parameters for finished water and distribution systems include free and total chlorine residual, heterotrophic plate count (HPC), total and fecal coliform, pH, specific conductivity, color, taste, odor, and system pressure.

Insert Comments Here

22. Are tank ladders, access hatches, and entry points secured?

Yes N/A

No

The use of tamper-proof padlocks at entry points (hatches, vents, and ladder enclosures) will reduce the potential for unauthorized entry.

If you have towers, consider putting physical barriers on the legs to prevent unauthorized climbing.

Insert Comments Here

23. Are vents and overflow pipes properly protected with screens and/or grates?

Yes N/A

No

Air vents and overflow pipes are direct conduits to the finished water in storage facilities. Secure all vents and overflow pipes with heavy-duty screens and/or grates.

Insert Comments Here

24. Can you isolate the storage tank from the rest of the system?

Yes N/A

No

A water system should be able to take its storage tank(s) out of operation or drain its storage tank(s) if there is a contamination problem or structural damage.

Install shut-off or bypass valves to allow you to isolate the storage tank in the case of a contamination problem or structural damage.

Consider installing a sampling tap on the storage tank outlet to test water in the tank for possible contamination.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 10

Distribution Hydrants are highly visible and convenient entry points into the distribution system. Maintaining and monitoring positive pressure in your system is important to provide fire protection and prevent introduction of contaminants.

QUESTION

ANSWER

COMMENT

25. Do you control the use of hydrants and valves?

Yes N/A

Your water system should have a policy that regulates the authorized use of hydrants for purposes other than fire protection. Require authorization and backflow devices if a hydrant is used for any purpose other than fire fighting.

No

Consider designating specific hydrants for use as filling station(s) with proper backflow prevention (e.g., to meet the needs of construction firms).

Then, notify local law enforcement officials and the public that these are the only sites designated for this use.

Flush hydrants should be kept locked to prevent contaminants from being introduced into the distribution system, and to prevent improper use.

Insert Comments Here

26. Does your system monitor for, and maintain, positive pressure?

Yes N/A

No



Positive pressure is essential for fire fighting and for preventing backsiphonage that may contaminate finished water in the distribution system. Refer to your state primacy agency for minimum drinking water pressure requirements.

Insert Comments Here

27. Has your system implemented a backflow prevention program?

Yes N/A

No

In addition to maintaining positive pressure, backflow prevention programs provide an added margin of safety by helping to prevent the intentional introduction of contaminants. If you need information on backflow prevention programs, contact your drinking water primacy agency.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 11

Personnel You should add security procedures to your personnel policies.

QUESTION 28. When hiring personnel, do you request that local police perform a criminal background check, and do you verify employment eligibility (as required by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Form I-9)?

ANSWER

COMMENT

Yes N/A

It is good practice to have all job candidates fill out an employment application. You should verify professional references. Background checks conducted during the hiring process may prevent potential employee-related security issues.

No

If you use contract personnel, check on the personnel practices of all providers to ensure that their hiring practices are consistent with good security practices.

Insert Comments Here

29. Are your personnel issued photoidentification cards?

Yes N/A

No

For positive identification, all personnel should be issued water system photo-identification cards and be required to display them at all times.

Photo identification will also facilitate identification of authorized water system personnel in the event of an emergency.

Insert Comments Here

30. When terminating employment, do you require employees to turn in photo IDs, keys, access codes, and other securityrelated items?

Yes N/A

No

Former or disgruntled employees have knowledge about the operation of your water system, and could have both the intent and physical capability to harm your system. Requiring employees who will no longer be working at your water system to turn in their IDs, keys, and access codes helps limit these types of security breaches.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 12

QUESTION 31. Do you use uniforms and vehicles with your water system name prominently displayed?

ANSWER

COMMENT

Yes N/A

Requiring personnel to wear uniforms, and requiring that all vehicles prominently display the water system name, helps inform the public when water system staff is working on the system. Any observed activity by personnel without uniforms should be regarded as suspicious. The public should be encouraged to report suspicious activity to law enforcement authorities.

No

Insert Comments Here

32. Have water system personnel been advised to report security vulnerability concerns and to report suspicious activity?

Yes N/A

No

Your personnel should be trained and knowledgeable about security issues at your facility, what to look for, and how to report any suspicious events or activity.

Periodic meetings of authorized personnel should be held to discuss security issues.

Insert Comments Here

33. Do your personnel have a checklist to use for threats or suspicious calls or to report suspicious activity?

Yes N/A

No

To properly document suspicious or threatening phone calls or reports of suspicious activity, a simple checklist can be used to record and report all pertinent information. Calls should be reported immediately to appropriate law enforcement officials. Checklists should be available at every telephone.

Also consider installing caller ID on your telephone system to keep a record of incoming calls.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 13

Information storage/computers/controls/maps Security of the system, including computerized controls like a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, goes beyond the physical aspects of operation. It also includes records and critical information that could be used by someone planning to disrupt or contaminate your water system.

QUESTION ANSWER COMMENT 34. Is computer access “password protected?”

Is virus protection installed and software upgraded regularly and are your virus definitions updated at least daily? Do you have Internet firewall software installed on your computer? Do you have a plan to back up your computers?

Yes N/A

No

All computer access should be password protected. Passwords should be changed every 90 days and (as needed) following employee turnover.

When possible, each individual should have a unique password that is not shared with others. If you have Internet access, a firewall protection program should be installed on your computer.

Also consider contacting a virus protection company and subscribing to a virus update program to protect your records.

Backing up computers regularly will help prevent the loss of data in the event that your computer is damaged or breaks. Backup copies of computer data should be made routinely and stored at a secure off-site location.

Insert Comments Here

35. Is there information on the Web that can be used to disrupt your system or contaminate your water?

Yes N/A

No

Posting detailed information about your water system on a Web site may make the system more vulnerable to attack. Web sites should be examined to determine whether they contain critical information that should be removed.

You should do a Web search (using a search engine such as Google, Yahoo!, or Lycos) using key words related to your water supply to find any published data on the Web that is easily accessible by someone who may want to damage your water supply.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 14

QUESTION 36. Are maps, records, and other information stored in a secure location?

ANSWER

COMMENT

Yes N/A

Records, maps, and other information should be stored in a secure location when not in use. Access should be limited to authorized personnel only.

No

You should make back-up copies of all data and sensitive documents. These should be stored in a secure off-site location on a regular basis.

Insert Comments Here

37. Are copies of records, maps, and other sensitive information labeled confidential, and are all copies controlled and returned to the water system?

Yes N/A

No

Sensitive documents (e.g., schematics, maps, and plans and specifications) distributed for construction projects or other uses should be recorded and recovered after use. You should discuss measures to safeguard your documents with bidders for new projects.

Insert Comments Here

38. Are vehicles locked and secured at all times?

Yes N/A

No

Vehicles are essential to any water system. They typically contain maps and other information about the operation of the water system. Water system personnel should exercise caution to ensure that this information is secure.

Water system vehicles should be locked when they are not in use or are left unattended.

Remove any critical information about the system before parking vehicles for the night.

Vehicles also usually contain tools (e.g., valve wrenches) that could be used to access critical components of your water system. These tools should be secured and accounted for daily.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 15

Public Relations You should educate your customers about your system. You should encourage them to be alert and to report any suspicious activity to law enforcement authorities.

QUESTION

ANSWER

COMMENT

39. Do you have a program to educate and encourage the public to be vigilant and report suspicious activity to assist in the security protection of your water system?

Yes N/A

Advise your customers and the public that your system has increased preventive security measures to protect the water supply from vandalism. Ask for their help. Provide customers with your telephone number and the telephone number of the local law enforcement authority so that they can report suspicious activities. The telephone number can be made available through direct mail, billing inserts, notices on community bulletin boards, flyers, and consumer confidence reports.

No

Insert Comments Here

40. Does your water system have a procedure to deal with public information requests, and to restrict distribution of sensitive information?

Yes N/A

No

You should have a procedure for personnel to follow when you receive an inquiry about the water system or its operation from the press, customers, or the general public.

Your personnel should be advised not to speak to the media on behalf of the water system. Only one person should be designated as the spokesperson for the water system. Only that person should respond to media inquiries. You should establish a process for responding to inquiries from your customers and the general public.

Insert Comments Here

41. Do you have a procedure in place to receive notification of a suspected outbreak of a disease immediately after discovery by local health agencies?

Yes N/A

No

It is critical to be able to receive information about suspected problems with the water at any time and respond to them quickly. Procedures should be developed in advance with your drinking water primacy agency, local health agencies, and your local emergency planning committee.

Insert Comments Here

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 16

QUESTION 42. Do you have a procedure in place to advise the community of contamination immediately after discovery?

ANSWER

COMMENT

Yes N/A

As soon as possible after confirming contamination, you should notify testing personnel and your laboratory of the incident. In incidences caused by microbial or chemical contaminants, it is critical to discover the type of contaminant and its method of transport (water, food, etc.). Active testing of your water supply will enable your laboratory, working in conjunction with public health officials, to determine if there are any unique (and possibly lethal) chemicals or disease organisms in your water supply.

No

It is critical to be able to get the word out to your customers as soon as possible after discovering a health hazard in your water supply. In addition to your responsibility to protect public health, you must also comply with the requirements of the Public Notification Rule. Some simple methods include announcements via radio or television, door-to-door notification, a phone tree, and posting notices in public places. The announcement should include accepted uses for the water and advice on where to obtain safe drinking water. Call large facilities that have large populations of people who might be particularly threatened by the outbreak: hospitals, nursing homes, the school district, jails, large public buildings, and large companies. Enlist the support of local emergency response personnel to assist in the effort.

Insert Comments Here

43. Do you have a procedure in place to respond immediately to a customer complaint about a new taste, odor, color, or other physical change (oily, filmy, burns on contact with skin)?

Yes N/A

No

It is critical to be able to respond to and quickly identify potential water quality problems reported by customers. Procedures should be developed in advance to investigate and identify the cause of the problem, as well as to alert local health agencies, your drinking water primacy agency, and your local emergency planning committee if you discover a problem.

Insert Comments Here

Now that you have completed the “Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems,” review your needed actions and then prioritize them based on the most likely threats. A table to assist you in prioritizing actions is provided in Attachment 1.

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Page 17

Attachment 1. Prioritization of Needed Actions Once you have completed the “Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Drinking Water Systems,” review the actions you need to take to improve your system’s security. Note the questions to which you answered “no” on this worksheet. You can use it to summarize the areas where your system has vulnerability concerns. It can also help you prioritize the actions you should take to protect your system from vulnerabilities. Make sure to prioritize your actions based on the most likely threats to your water system and the magnitude of their risks to public health.

Question

Needed Action

Scheduled

Number

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Water Systems

Completion

Page 18

Attachment 2: Threat Identification Checklists Water System Telephone Threat Identification Checklist n the event your water system receives a threatening phone call, remain calm and try to keep the caller on the line. Use the following checklist to collect as much detail as possible about the nature of the threat and the description of the caller.

1.

Types of Tampering Threat

Bombs, explosives, etc.

2.

Water System Identification

Name Address Telephone PWS Owner or Manager s Name 3. Alternate Water Source Available

es No

If yes, give name and location

4. Location of Tampering Line

Facilities

Plant

(explain) 5.

Contaminant Source and Quantity

7.

Date and Time of Tampering Threat

8. Caller s Name Alias, Address, and Telephone Number

9.

Is the Caller (chec all that apply)

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems

Page 19

10.

Is the Caller s oice (chec all that apply) Calm

Angry

Slow

Rapid

Loud

Laughing

Crying

Normal

Deep

Nasal

Clear

Lisping

Stuttering

Old

High

Cracking

Excited

oung

Familiar (who did it sound like ) Accented (which nationality or region ) 11.

Is the Connection Clear (Could it have been a wireless or cell phone )

12.

Are There Bac ground Noises Street noises (what kind ) Machinery (what type ) Voices (describe) Children (describe) Animals (what kind ) Computer eyboard, Office Motors (describe) Music (what kind ) Other

13. Call Received By (Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Date Call Received Time of Call 14.

Call Reported to

15.

Action(s) Ta en Following Receipt of Call

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems

Date Time

Page 20

Water System Report of Suspicious Activity n the event personnel from your water system (or neighbors of your water system) observe suspicious activity, use the following checklist to collect as much detail as possible about the nature of the activity.

1. Types of Suspicious Activity  Breach of security systems (e.g., lock cut, door forced open)   Unauthorized personnel on water system property.    Presence of personnel at the water system at unusual hours 2.

 Changes in water quality noticed by customers (e.g., change in color, odor, taste) that were not planned or announced by the water system  Breach of computer security (describe)  Other (explain)

Water System Identification

Name Address Telephone PWS Owner or Manager s Name

3. Alternate Water Source Available

es No

If yes, give name and location

4. Location of Suspicious Activity Facilities

Chemicals

(explain)

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems

Page 21

5. If Breach of Security, What was the Nature of the Breach Lock was cut or broken, permitting unauthorized entry.

Specify location Lock was tampered with, but not sufficiently to allow unauthorized entry.

Specify location Door, gate, window, or any other point of entry (vent, hatch, etc.) was open and unsecured.

Specify location Other Specify nature and location

. Unauthorized personnel on site Where were these people Specify location What made them suspicious Not wearing water system uniforms Something else (Specify) What were they doing

7. Please describe these personnel (height, weight, hair color, clothes, facial hair, any distinguishing mar s) 8. Call Received By (Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Date Call Received Time of Call 9. Call Reported to

Date Time

10. Action(s) Ta en Following Receipt of Call

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems

Page 22

Disclaimer This document contains information on how to plan for protection of the assets of your water system. The work necessarily addresses problems in a general nature. You should review local, state, tribal (if applicable), and federal laws and regulations to see how they apply to your specific situation.

Knowledgeable professionals prepared this document using current information. The authors make no representation, expressed or implied, that this information is suitable for any specific situation. The authors have no obligation to update this work or to make notification of any changes in statutes, regulations, information, or programs described in this document.

Publication of this document does not replace the duty of water systems to warn and properly train their employees and others concerning health and safety risks and necessary precautions at their water systems.

Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. assumes no liability resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, guidance, suggestions, conclusions, or opinions contained in this document.

Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. 1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 888/321-7227

Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems

Page 24

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 3.1.

T-O Engineers

Historical Usage Figures

Laclede Water District Facility Plan Historical and Project Water Usage Figures December 2020

Historical water usages 4,500,000 Maximum Month Usage (gal.)

Annual Water Usage (gal.)

14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 y = 989358x - 2E+09

4,000,000 2,000,000 2008

2010 2012 Residential Recreational

2014

2016 2018 2020 Industrial Linear (Industrial)

4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 2008

2010 2012 Residential Recreational

2014

Percent of total Maximum Day Demand

Current

2010

10%

Residential Recreational Industrial Loss

20-year Projection

8% 5%

7%

18% 21% 69%

65% 4%

33%

2%

58%

2016 Indu Line

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 3.3.1. Reservoir Calcs y = 106959x - 2E+08

2018 2020 ustrial ear (Industrial)

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan - 2021 Calculations Performed by: Brent Deyo Calculations Checked by: Scott McNee

Without Improvements With Improvements 20-yr Projection Build-Out 20-yr Projection Build-Out 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 184,297 184,297 200,000 200,000 304,297 304,297 320,000 320,000

Total Storage Reservoir = #1 Reservoir = #2 Total Storage =

Existing 120,000 184,297 304,297

**Source Capacity = ***Fire= Flow **Fire Duration =

220 1000 2

220 1000 2

220 1000 2

360 1000 2

345 114,654 354,968 538

535 182,243 524,336 729

879 297,516 830,081 1078

535 182,243 524,336 729

879 297,516 830,081 1078

Operational Storage Pump Cycle Height (ft) * Vol/ft,= OS

30,750

30,750

30,750

30,750

30,750 gal.

Equalization Storage ES =

47,700

76,350

128,700

55,350

107,700 gal.

Fire Suppression Storage FSS =

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000

120,000 gal.

Standby Storage = SB

38,218

60,748

99,172

Effective Storage Required

236,668

287,848

378,622

206,100

258,450 gal.

Dead Storage Pump off to overflow, DS =

21,986

21,986

21,986

21,986

21,986 gal.

Total Storage Less Dead Storage

282,311

282,311

282,311

298,014

298,014

5,536

96,311

(91,914)

(39,564) gal.

Demand = Average Day Demand = Maximum Day Demand = Peak Hour Demand =

Additional Storage Needed

(45,643)

-

Units gal. gal. gal.

360 gpm 1000 gpm 2 hours

-

ERUs, Res. & Ind. gal/day gal/day gal/min

gal.

Assumptions: Calculations based on guidance from the Washington Department of Health Water System Design Manual, October 2019 *With Improvements analysis assumes installation of standby power throughout system and redundancy within pumping and treatment systems.

Therefore, no standby storage is required. **Source capacity based on capacity of the intake pumps as they are the limiting element of the system. ***Fire flow requirements are assumed to remain at 1,000 gpm for 2 hours for 20-year and build-out conditions.

T-O Engineers

Page 1 of 3

T-O Engineers

Page 2 of 3

T-O Engineers

Page 3 of 3

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 3.3.2. Fire District Letter

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 4.3.4. Water Main Upsizing for District Wide Fire Flow

T-O Engineers

Laclede Water District Water Facilities Plan 2021

Appendix 5.1.1. Cost Estimates

T-O Engineers

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Treatment Alternative #2 - Ultrafiltration Membrane DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Mobilization (5%) Ultrafiltration Membranes Ultrafiltration Membrane Skids Feed and Backwash Pumps and VFDs Electrical/I&C Mechanical Piping, valves, joints and accessories

Quantity Units 1 LS

Unit Price $105,000.00

Amount $105,000.00

1 2 1 1 1

LS EA LS LS LS

$900,000.00 $10,000.00 $225,000.00 $125,000.00 $50,000.00 Subtotal

$900,000.00 $20,000.00 $225,000.00 $125,000.00 $50,000.00 $1,320,000.00

2

EA

$80,000.00 Subtotal

$160,000.00 $160,000.00

2000 1 1400 600 1

SY LS SF LF LS

Communication Upgrades Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Plant SCADA Package and Setup Programming

$6.00 $20,000.00 $225.00 $30.00 $10,000.00 Subtotal

$12,000.00 $20,000.00 $315,000.00 $18,000.00 $10,000.00 $375,000.00

1 1 1 1

EA LS LS LS

Backup Power Generator

$30,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 Subtotal

$30,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $100,000.00

1

EA.

$40,000.00 Subtotal

$40,000.00 $40,000.00

Treated Water Transfer Pumps Pump, Motors, and VFDs Site Improvments Clearing, Grubbing and Topsoil Removal Site Work Metal Building - Finished Perimeter Fence Rehab Settling Pond

Subtotal Construction Costs Contingency (15%) Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) Total Cost

T-O Engineers

$2,100,000.00 $315,000.00 $420,000.00 $2,835,000.00

Page 1 of 7

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Treatment Alternative #3 - Slow Sand Filter DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Mobilization (5%) Slow Sand Filters Concrete Basins Filter Sand Delivery and Installation Electrical/I&C Mechanical Piping, valves, joints, meters and accessories

Quantity 1

Units LS

Unit Price $73,000.00

Amount $73,000.00

4 1 1 1 1

EA LS LS LS LS

$40,000.00 $220,000.00 $140,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 Subtotal

$160,000.00 $220,000.00 $140,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $770,000.00

2

EA

$80,000.00 Subtotal

$160,000.00 $160,000.00

2000 1 200 5700 600

SY LS SF SF LF

Communication Upgrades Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Plant SCADA Package and Setup Programming

$10.00 $20,000.00 $250.00 $35.00 $30.00 Subtotal

$20,000.00 $20,000.00 $50,000.00 $199,500.00 $18,000.00 $307,500.00

1 1 1 1

EA LS LS LS

Backup Power Generator

$30,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 Subtotal

$30,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $100,000.00

1

EA.

$40,000.00 Subtotal

$40,000.00 $40,000.00

Treated Water Transfer Pumps Pump, Motors, and VFDs Site Improvments Clearing, Grubbing and Topsoil Removal Site Work Metal Building - Finished Metal Building - Unfinished Perimeter Fence

Subtotal Construction Costs Contingency (15%) Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) Total Cost

T-O Engineers

$1,450,500.00 $217,575.00 $290,100.00 $1,958,175.00

Page 2 of 7

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Intake Alternative #2 - Upgrade Existing DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Mobilization (5%) Intake System Improvements Directional Drilling for Electrical Conduit (2") Intake Screen Intake Manifold New Pump Wiring

Quantity 1

Units LS

Unit Price $17,000.00

Amount $17,000.00

220 1 1 440

LF LS LS LF

Intake Pumps Pump, Motors, and VFDs

$30.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $10.00 Subtotal

$6,600.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,400.00 $36,000.00

2

EA

Electrical, Control and Communication System VFD Pump Control Panel Power Equipment Upgrades Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Programming

$52,000.00 Subtotal

$104,000.00 $104,000.00

1 1 1 1 1

LS LS EA LS LS

Backup Power Generator

$60,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 Subtotal

$60,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $140,000.00

1

EA.

$30,000.00 Subtotal

$30,000.00 $30,000.00

Subtotal Construction Costs $327,000.00 Contingency (15%) $49,050.00 Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) $65,400.00 Total Cost $441,450.00

T-O Engineers

Page 3 of 7

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Intake Alternative #3 - New Intake System DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Mobilization (5%) Intake System Improvements Trenching and Backfill Dewatering Cofferdam Silt Fence Concrete Wet Well 12" HDPE Intake Pipe 6" Pump Discharge Pipeline 1.5" Backwash Line Existing Valve Vault Modifications Imported Pipe Bedding Concrete Pipe Anchors Intake Screen Intake Manifold Arch. Survey and Monitoring

Quantity 1

Units LS

Unit Price $24,000.00

Amount $24,000.00

220 7 390 200 1 220 60 220 1 220 20 1 1 1

LF Day LF LF EA LF LF LF LS LF EA LS LS LS

Intake Pumps Pump, Motors, and VFDs

$30.00 $800.00 $50.00 $4.00 $60,000.00 $70.00 $60.00 $6.00 $25,000.00 $5.00 $180.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 Subtotal

$6,600.00 $5,600.00 $19,500.00 $800.00 $60,000.00 $15,400.00 $3,600.00 $1,320.00 $25,000.00 $1,100.00 $3,600.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $177,520.00

2

EA

Electrical, Control and Communication System VFD Pump Control Panel Power Equipment Upgrades Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Programming

$52,000.00 Subtotal

$104,000.00 $104,000.00

1 1 1 1 1

LS LS EA LS LS

Backup Power Generator

$60,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 Subtotal

$60,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $140,000.00

1

EA.

T-O Engineers

$30,000.00 $30,000.00 Subtotal $30,000.00 Subtotal Construction Costs $475,520.00 Contingency (15%) $71,328.00 Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) $95,104.00 Total Cost $641,952.00

Page 4 of 7

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Distribution Alternative #2 - New Reservoir DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Mobilization (5%) Leak Detection Survey and Repairs Leak Detection Survey Water Main Repairs (per location)

Quantity 1

Units LS

Unit Price $16,000.00

Amount $16,000.00

5 10

days EA.

$1,500.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal

$7,500.00 $25,000.00 $32,500.00

3400

LF

Reservoir Repairs and Improvements New Concrete Reservoir, 200,000 gallons Site Work Demo of Existing Concrete Reservoir Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Steel Tank Cleaning and Re-coating

$35.00 Subtotal

$119,000.00 $119,000.00

1 1 1 1 1 1

LS LS LS EA LS LS

Booster Station Improvements Backup Power Generator Alarm Light

$575,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 Subtotal

$575,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 $700,000.00

1 1

EA. LS

$20,000.00 $2,000.00 Subtotal

$20,000.00 $2,000.00 $22,000.00

Water Main Replacement Lower Manly Creek - 4" PVC

Subtotal Construction Costs Contingency (15%) Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) Total Cost

T-O Engineers

$922,000.00 $138,300.00 $184,400.00 $1,244,700.00

Page 5 of 7

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Distribution Alternative #3 - New Reservoir and Booster Station DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Mobilization (5%) Leak Detection Survey and Repairs Leak Detection Survey Water Main Repairs (per location) Water Main Replacement Lower Manly Creek - Upsize to 4" PVC Reservoir to Booster Station - Upsize to 4" PVC Riley Creek Road North of Booster - Upsize to 4" PVC Reservoir Repairs and Improvements New Concrete Reservoir Site Work Demo of Existing Concrete Reservoir Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Steel Tank Cleaning and Re-coating New Booster Station - No Fire Flow 6 HP Residential Demand Pumps New Booster Pump Building Building HVAC/Plumbing Building Site Work New Mechanical Piping and Valves Flow Meter Pressure Tank System 4" C900 PVC Pipe w/ Fittings to Existing Main 4" Gate Valve Erosion Control Measures Electrical/Control SCADA Panel and Programming Standby Generator Communication System

Quantity 1

Units LS

Unit Price $66,000.00

Amount $66,000.00

5 10

days EA.

$1,500.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal

$7,500.00 $25,000.00 $32,500.00

3400 1600 2400

LF LF LF

$35.00 $35.00 $35.00 Subtotal

$119,000.00 $56,000.00 $84,000.00 $259,000.00

1 1 1 1 1 1

LS LS LS EA LS LS

$575,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 Subtotal

$575,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 $700,000.00

2 250 1 1 1 1 1 100 2 1 1 1 1 1

EA. SF LS LS LS EA. LS LF EA. LS LS LS EA. LS

$10,000.00 $200.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $4,000.00 $10,000.00 $25.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Subtotal

$20,000.00 $50,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $4,000.00 $10,000.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $272,500.00

Subtotal Construction Costs Contingency (15%) Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) Total Cost

T-O Engineers

$1,362,500.00 $204,375.00 $272,500.00 $1,839,375.00

Page 6 of 7

LACLEDE WATER DISTRICT - WATER FACILITIES PLAN Distribution Alternative #4 - Alternative #3 with Fire Flow Throughout System DRAFT Engineer's Opinion of Probably Construction Cost March 2021

Item Description Quantity Mobilization (5%) 1 Water Main Replacement Lower Manly Creek - Upsize to 8" PVC 3400 Reservoir to Booster Station - Upsize to 8" PVC 1600 Riley Creek Road North of Booster - Upsize to 8" PVC 2400 Additional Replacements Identified in JAS 2000 Water Facilities Plan 8" Water Main 5044 6" Water Main 7285 Gate Valves - 8" 5 Gate Valves - 6" 10 Fire Hydrant Assembly 35 Service Reconnection 94 Connect to Existing 8" Water Main 4 Connect to Existing 6" Water Main 4 Connect to Existing 4" Water Main 1 Connect to Existing 3" Water Main 1 Connect to Existing 2" Water Main 4 Reservoir Repairs and Improvements New Concrete Reservoir Site Work Demo of Existing Concrete Reservoir Radio Telemetry Control Panel Radio Telemetry Equipment Steel Tank Cleaning and Re-coating New Booster Station with Fire Flow 20 HP High Demand Pumps 6 HP Residential Demand Pumps New Booster Pump Building Building HVAC/Plumbing Building Site Work New Mechanical Piping and Valves Flow Meter Pressure Tank System 8" C900 PVC Pipe w/ Fittings to Existing Main 8" Gate Valve Erosion Control Measures Electrical/Control SCADA Panel and Programming Standby Generator Communication System

Units LS

Unit Price $128,000.00

Amount $128,000.00

LF LF LF

$50.00 $50.00 $50.00

$170,000.00 $80,000.00 $120,000.00

LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA

$50.00 $45.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $750.00 Subtotal

$252,200.00 $327,825.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $210,000.00 $94,000.00 $12,000.00 $4,800.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $3,000.00 $1,300,725.00

1 1 1 1 1 1

LS LS LS EA LS LS

$575,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 Subtotal

$575,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 $700,000.00

2 2 250 1 1 1 1 1 100 2 1 1 1 1 1

EA. EA. SF LS LS LS EA. LS LF EA. LS LS LS EA. LS

$30,000.00 $10,000.00 $200.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $35,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $35.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 Subtotal

$60,000.00 $20,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $35,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $382,500.00

Subtotal Construction Costs Contingency (15%) Engineering/Survey/Admin. (20%) Total Cost

T-O Engineers

$2,511,225.00 $376,683.75 $502,245.00 $3,390,153.75

Page 7 of 7