Document Moscow_doc_ffceeb8b04

C H A P T E R f i v e 5.1 Moscow Comprehensive Plan 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates the City’s projected growth in light of its available water supply, public facilities, infrastructure, services, and available land for development and redevelopment. This effort is guided by the following general goals:  Provide for sustainable growth while conserving natural resources and enhancing the character of the community and region.  Provide for the orderly and efficient delivery and location of public facilities, utilities, and services to the residents and businesses within the community.  Advocate and practice the sustainable management and development of local and regional water resources and supplies to meet the needs of both current and future residents.  Direct growth to areas that can be most efficiently and economically served with public services and utilities while planning for future capacity needs. 5.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT 5.2.1 Population of Moscow and Latah County Moscow is the county seat and largest city in Latah County. As of 2017, the U.S. Census estimated that Moscow is home to over 64% percent of the total population of Latah County. Moscow is one of relatively few cities set in a rural context that has consistently increased its share of county population for more than 100 years. In 1900, Moscow’s 2,484 residents comprised just over 18% percent of the overall County population of 13,451. Since then, Moscow’s population has multiplied by a factor of ten, while the County’s population (including the unincorporated County and all cities except Moscow) has only grown 29.4 percent during the last 117 years – an annual growth rate of approximately 21 one-hundredths of one percent. See Figure 5.1, Growth of Moscow Relative to Latah County, (next page). Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.2 5.2.2 Regional Water and Sewer Infrastructure The first goal of Latah County’s comprehensive plan calls for the unincorporated County to preserve its rural character, with most growth to be accommodated in and around incorporated cities. As the County’s most populated city, Moscow is the logical place for most of the County’s growth to occur. Therefore, Moscow’s ability to provide water and sewer service to new development is critical to its role as a growth center. Water and sewer services within the region are generally provided via individual private wells and septic systems, or by publicly or privately owned systems. Each of the county’s nine municipalities has water and sewer services available to their residents. Several small, privately-owned water and sewer systems operate within the County to serve mobile home parks and other unincorporated developments. The Southeast Moscow Water and Sewer District is the only nearby independent water and sewer district that is connected to the Moscow Water Reclamation Conveyance system and Water Reclamation & Reuse Facility. The University of Idaho operates its own water system and sewer collection system, but does not offer service off-campus. Moscow’s Water Reclamation & Reuse Facility receives and treats the University’s wastewater and returns a portion of it to the University for reuse for irrigation during the growing season. 5.3 POTABLE WATER 5.3.1 Generally The City provides potable water service to its residents and businesses. Groundwater is the sole source of the City’s potable water supply which comes from both the Wanapum (shallow) and Grande Ronde (deep) aquifers. These aquifers are currently reached by five operating wells. Combined, these wells currently have the potential to produce up to 8.5 million gallons per day (MGD). Moscow’s water consistently meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for quality, although some taste and odor issues (e.g. iron) have been identified, especially within the Wanapum aquifer. In 2012 the City adopted a Comprehensive Water System Plan which details all the components of the drinking water system (supply, treatment, storage, and distribution). Key water system issues affecting growth that are general enough to be addressed by this Plan include: Figure 5.1: Growth of Moscow Relative to Latah County 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1900 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Population Year City of Moscow Latah County (except Moscow) ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.3 Moscow Comprehensive Plan  Moscow relies on groundwater as its sole source of drinking water. The aquifers below Moscow have historically experienced a decline in water levels which might limit growth if additional supply and conservation measures are not implemented.  Supply, treatment, distribution, and storage facilities are aging and will need to be replaced, and new components will need to be added to the water system as Moscow grows. 5.3.2 Supply The City, University of Idaho, and Latah County are users of both the Grande Ronde and Wanapum aquifers. The city of Pullman, Washington State University and other cities and towns outside Latah County also use the Grande Ronde Aquifer. While the aquifers have been the subject of many studies over the last fifty years, there are still data gaps that need to be filled. The most current evidence suggests that the Grande Ronde aquifer does not experience significant recharge likely due to the thick basalt layers and sedimentary interbeds between the aquifer and the ground surface. See Figure 5.2, Hydrogeology of the Palouse Basin. By contrast, the Wanapum aquifer does experience recharge, but the recharge rates and locations are not yet well understood. Ultimately, the City may need to rely more heavily on the Wanapum aquifer or other sources (yet to be identified and/or developed) for its potable water supply. There have been recent discussions regarding the potential development of a surface water storage reservoir that could be utilized Figure 5.2: Hydrogeology of the Palouse Basin Palouse loess soils are soils composed of fine-grain silt that was deposited in the region by wind. Sediments of Bovill are subsurface soils composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These deposits can be as much as 40 feet thick. Basalt layers are relatively solid masses of rock that formed as lava cooled. Vantage members are subsurface soils composed of interlayered sand, silt, and clay. Coarse grains of quartz and feldspar are common, as are wood fragments. Vantage members are up to 300 feet thick under Moscow, and thin to approximately 20 feet thick under Pullman, Washington. ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.4 for direct treatment and consumption, or active aquifer recharge enhancement to supplement drinking water supply. A feasibility study for surface water storage was completed in 2013 and the topic continues to be studied. The City currently obtains water from five groundwater wells with a new well, No. 10, currently under development. See Figure 5.3, Water Well. The three primary wells, No. 6, No. 8, and No. 9, are deep wells that tap the Grande Ronde aquifer (the deeper of the two regional aquifers). Currently, the Grande Ronde wells produce approximately 65 to 70 percent of the City’s water. Wells No. 2 and No. 3 are located within the Wanapum aquifer (the shallower of the two regional aquifers). These wells are 200 feet or more below ground level and produce water generally of lesser quality than that of the Grande Ronde. The City’s current operating wells are capable of producing approximately a combined 5,895 gallons per minute (gpm), or about 8.5 MGD. Individual production rates vary from 825 gpm to 2,300 gpm. See Table 5.1, Individual Well Production. Water demand varies considerably from year to year and does not necessarily correlate with population. The highest demand is in the summer months when a large portion of the water is being used for irrigation. Yearly production has ranged from 822 million gallons per year (MGY) to 878 MGY in the period between 2012 and 2017. Maximum daily demands for the same period ranged from 4.6 MGD to 5.2 MGD. See Table 5.2, Total Water Production (next page). The City’s current production capacity exceeds the maximum daily demand when all wells are operational. During peak irrigation months (July and August), demand is approximately 4.5-5 MGD. At present there are theoretically three Table 5.1 Individual Well Production Well Instantaneous Production (gpm) 1 Maximum Potential Daily Production (gallons) Well No. 2 825 1,188,000 Well No. 3 1,000 1,440,000 Well No. 6 920 1,324,800 Well No. 8 850 1,224,000 Well No. 9 2,300 3,312,000 TOTAL WELL PRODUCTION 5,895 8,488,800 1 Instantaneous production estimated from 2017 production data. Figure 5.3: Water Well Source: J-U-B Engineers, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.5 Moscow Comprehensive Plan MGD of potential excess water production. However, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requires capacity to be calculated based on all sources, with the largest source out of service. When well No. 9 (the City’s largest source) is removed from production, the production capacity is reduced to 5.17 MGD, leaving only 0.58 MGD of excess production capacity. Therefore, if well No. 9 becomes inoperable, production must be nearly fully utilized to meet current maximum daily demand. To address this production limitation, the City began development of well No. 10 in 2015. Well drilling was completed in 2016 and early production testing indicated a production capacity in excess of 3,200 gallons per minute making it the highest production well in the City’s system. 5.3.3 Aquifer Recharge Although the location of natural recharge areas to the Wanapum aquifer are not yet known, it is anticipated that continuing study may eventually identify these recharge areas. The City should work closely with Latah County to promote development regulations that preserve open space to facilitate natural recharge such as requiring clustered development with preserved common open space and encouraging green infrastructure where appropriate. See Figure 5.4, Clustering to Preserve Open Space. 5.3.4 Storage Moscow has four storage reservoirs with a combined total storage of 4.8 million gallons. The reservoirs consist of two elevated storage tanks and two ground- level storage reservoirs. See Figure 5.5, Water Storage (next page). While storage capacity is adequate to meet current demands, a detailed analysis of the storage volume should be completed as part of the comprehensive water master plan. Table 5.2 Total Water Production 1 Year Annual Production (MG) Maximum Daily Production (MG) 2012 861 4.6 2013 851 5.2 2014 864 4.9 2015 878 5.2 2016 844 4.8 2017 822 5.2 1 Source: City of Moscow production data Lawn areas are typically less pervious than natural areas. They are also often treated with fertilizers and pesticides. The clustered development pattern allows for 40 percent of the site to remain in its natural state. Source: Kendig Keast Collaborative Figure 5.4: Clustering to Preserve Open Space ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.6 5.3.5 Treatment All water produced by the City is disinfected with chlorine. Additionally, the City currently treats water from wells No. 2 and No. 3 to remove high levels of iron and manganese using a sand filter system. A 2004 water quality assessment identified several potential taste and odor contributors including sulfates, iron, and manganese (from wells No. 6, No. 8, and No. 9) and the presence of biofilm in the distribution system.1 Although the taste and odor problems are not known to present any health risks, their presence does generate some customer complaints. Complaints about taste and odor continue to decline because the City conducts system-wide flushing twice a year, and also has automatic flushing stations throughout the distribution system that flush more frequently to prevent taste issues associated with iron. 5.3.6 Distribution City water is distributed in mains ranging from 6 to 24 inches in diameter, although the majority of the lines are 6 inches in diameter. A large portion of the system is served by gravity, but there are a number of higher elevation developments that require booster stations to maintain minimum pressure and fire flow requirements. It is generally preferable to promote the development of areas that can be efficiently and economically served by existing utilities over areas that cannot. As such, when development requires booster stations and other infrastructure enhancements to support water distribution, the cost of those improvements should be borne by the developer. It is also the City’s policy to require developers to extend utility lines to the boundaries of adjacent properties to ensure logical and orderly development of the City’s utility systems. 5.3.7 Water Rights The constitution and statutes of the State of Idaho declare that all of the waters of the State, when flowing in their natural channels, are public waters.2 The right to the “beneficial use” of water is a property right that can be held by a private 1 City of Moscow, Distribution System Water Quality Assessment & Review of Opera- tional Practices, Technical Memorandum No. 1, J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 2004. 2 This includes the waters of all natural springs and lakes within the boundaries of the state, and ground waters of the state. Figure 5.5: Water Storage Source: J-U-B Engineers, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.7 Moscow Comprehensive Plan party like any other property right. The so- called “water right” is the right to divert public waters and put them to a beneficial use, in accordance with one’s priority date (the date of the authorized diversion). This doctrine, called prior appropriation or “first in time - first in right,” is the basis for administering water rights in Idaho. Generally, water rights to cities are granted and allocated by the State. The last time the State granted a water right to Moscow was 1980. 5.3.8 Pullman-Moscow Ground Water Management Plan (Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee) Aquifer water-level decline has been observed for decades within the Palouse Basin. Groundwater withdrawals by all users must be managed in order to keep the aquifers available for continued use. To this end, the City has participated in the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee (PBAC) for over 30 years. The purpose of this group is to share information among major water users and develop groundwater management strategies. In 1992, PBAC set target limits for its members of one percent growth, compounded yearly, with pumping increases based on a five-year moving average starting with the 1982 to 1986 period, and a cap of 125 percent of the 1981 to 1985 production average. These numbers are set out in the Pullman- Moscow Ground Water Management Plan (1992), which also includes a number of other actions that Moscow agreed to take with regard to water conservation. See Figure 5.6, Water Action Plan. The 125 percent cap in the action plan is approximately 875 MGY. Over the five-year period between 2010 and 2015, Moscow’s Figure 5.6: Water Action Plan 1. Attempt to limit annual aquifer pumping increases to one percent of the pumping volume based on a five year moving average of the pumping starting with 1986 (745mgy). Attempt to limit the accumulated total pumping to a targeted maximum of 125% of the 1981-1985 average (increase from 700 mgy to 875 mgy). 2. Continue a conservation based rate structure for single family residential customers. 3. Promote programs to encourage conservation and sustainable water use by multi-family residential and commercial uses. 4. Continue the formal Conservation Program which includes actions such as offering free water conserving devices to customers and consider adding a toilet replacement rebate program. 5. Continue membership in COMMITTEE with funding for studies and research projects as authorized by the City Council. 6. Continue program to update failing consumer water meters. 7. Continue to participate in education programs (i.e. schools, bill stuffers, cable TV) 8. Encourage water recycling at building permit level for major water users. 9. Continue to make city wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent available to the University of Idaho in accordance with the City’s agreement with the University. 10. Continue use of WWTP effluent for irrigation at WWTP in accordance with the City’s agreement with the University. 11. Continue 24-hour daily recordings of water levels and production. 12. Continue input to the COMMITTEE of City’s monitoring efforts. 13. Comply with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, storm water disposal, solid waste disposal, sewage sludge disposal, non-point source, household contributions, and well construction and abandonment. 14. Explore possible expansion of WWTP effluent reuse. 15. Continue examination of alternate water supply options as approved by the City Council. Source: Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.8 production exceeded 875 MGY only in 2015, when the City pumped 878 MGY. See Figure 5.7, Moscow Water Production History. While it is anticipated that the City will have sufficient production capacity to meet current and future demands after the development of well No. 10, the City’s recent production rates over the last four years have been just below the City’s PBAC voluntary production limit. Water demand correlates only loosely to population, but 864 million gallons pumped in 2014 served a population of approximately 24,923 people. Of course, some 1,800 or so lived on-campus, and as a result, did not use City water all of the time. To account for the fact that some of the student water demand was drawn from the City, this analysis will use an estimated figure of 23,123 people who were served by City water in 2014. The result is about 37,365 gallons per person per year. At a voluntary production cap of 875 MGY, the City can only reasonably accommodate a limited amount of new residential growth without reducing the per capita water consumption in some manner. Of course, per capita water demand for one year is not an adequate measure for planning purposes due to seasonal changes in irrigation needs, varying commercial and industrial demands, and fire suppression which can have significant impacts on overall water consumption. However, the calculation does suggest that the City should aggressively pursue additional water conservation and the development of supplemental water supplies to meet future needs. Therefore, if the City wishes to maintain the existing voluntary production limits, providing for future growth will require additional conservation, the expansion of effluent irrigation, and the investigation of alternate supply (such as surface Source: Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee Figure 5.7: Moscow Water Production History ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.9 Moscow Comprehensive Plan water sources and/or aquifer storage and recharge) to reduce per capita consumption and maintain a reliable and sustainable source of water. 5.3.9 Water Conservation Strategies Since the City has agreed to restrict its aquifer withdrawals to levels that are near what it is currently utilizing, perhaps the best and most economical way to increase the capacity of the City to accommodate growth is to use its existing water resources more efficiently. The City currently invests $140,000 annually to promote water conservation activities within the City including lawn reduction (“irrigation efficient”) and low-flow toilet rebate programs. Additionally, since 2004 a revised City ordinance has limited the permitted times for irrigation activities during the watering season and prohibited water-wasting activities such as watering impervious surfaces. The City has also enhanced metering activities and implemented leak detection and repair programs to minimize unaccounted water losses within the system. Available evidence suggests that during the last four years, total water use in the City has held relatively steady, even in the face of population growth, new development, and declining rainfall during the peak irrigation season. See Figure 5.8, Moscow Precipitation, 2012-2015. While the City has successfully reduced water usage for irrigation in recent years, land development patterns that reduce the need for irrigation could also assist in promoting efficient water use. Clustering suburban and rural development on small lots surrounded by large areas of preserved open space can reduce irrigation demands if the preserved open space is planted with native, drought-tolerant species. The City should consider the development of zoning provisions that allow for residential clustering in rural and suburban districts. Voluntary Approaches. The City provides tips on indoor and outdoor water conservation, conducts free irrigation audits, formally recognizes water- Source: PRISM database (http://prism.oregonstate.edu/) Figure 5.8: Moscow Precipitation, 2012-2015 PRECIPITATION SUMMARY Year Average Precipitation Average Precipitation During Irrigation Season (Apr. 1 to Oct. 31) 2012 2.46 in. 1.62 in. 2013 1.48 in. 1.33 in. 2014 1.87 in. 0.96 in. 2015 1.95 in. 1.01 in. ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.10 conserving landscapes, and gives away water-saving devices to municipal water customers all in order to reduce water demand. Additionally, rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse for irrigation purposes should be promoted as means to reduce potable water consumption. Effluent Reuse. Effluent reuse systems are water systems that re-use treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plant for irrigation and other uses that do not require potable water. As a result, groundwater can be used twice before it is returned to the environment at the surface. The increase in efficiency reduces the need to draw water from the aquifer. Along with well-designed irrigation systems, effluent re-use can also help to reduce nutrient loads on streams because the wastewater is applied to land (where plants can consume the nutrients) instead of directly into a stream. The City currently supplies the University of Idaho with effluent for irrigation purposes. However, there is potential to expand this system to reach other areas of the City. As part of the comprehensive water master plan, the City should consider the feasibility of installing a wider network for the effluent re-use distribution system. Education. The City has beautiful Wisescape Demonstration Projects which surround public buildings. The City should continue to promote these projects to encourage homeowners to landscape in a manner that reduces water demands. Festivals and events should be held several times per year to bring people to the Wisescape Gardens and educate them about xeriscape techniques and other water conservation measures. Public-Private Cooperation. The City should work with developers to identify locations for new wells and storage facilities to serve new development. It should also explore the feasibility of rainwater and snowmelt harvesting for large commercial buildings. This would involve capturing the runoff from building roofs by channeling it into storage tanks that connect to the irrigation system. This may present some challenges as the vast majority of precipitation events in Moscow occur outside of the typical irrigation season, and therefore, such systems may require very large storage systems to be an effective water conservation measure. If deemed feasible, the City could encourage rainwater/ snowmelt harvesting through rebates, tiered rate structures that make harvesting economically attractive, and/or direct participation in financing through low- interest loans, rebates, LIDs, or other financial devices. 5.4 SANITARY SEWER 5.4.1 Generally The City provides sanitary sewer service to its residents and businesses through the operation of a single Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility (WRRF) located on the west side of the City along Paradise Creek. After treatment, the City’s ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.11 Moscow Comprehensive Plan waste water effluent is discharged to Paradise Creek under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or diverted to the University of Idaho for land application on the campus. Moscow last prepared a Comprehensive Sewer System Plan in 2011 in anticipation of required improvements at the Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility (WRRF) and water reclamation conveyance system to meet capacity and regulatory requirements. The plan identified five phases of construction, four of which have been completed with the fifth phase currently under study, pending potential revisions to temperature standards for Paradise Creek. The Comprehensive Sewer System Plan identified four specific areas that have capacity issues. One of the largest areas of capacity constraint was the parallel trunk lines that lead from the WRRF to the area near the intersection of the Troy Highway and U.S. 95. This section of sewer main was replaced in the fall of 2017. 5.4.2 Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility (WRRF) Moscow has spent the last 15 years modifying and upgrading the WRRF to meet current needs and plan for future growth. See Figure 5.9, Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility Diagram. The design capacity of Moscow’s sewer plant is 4 MGD, with a peak capacity of 10 MGD. The current average existing flow received by the plant ranges between 2 and 2.25 MGD or approximately 56 percent of the design capacity. Although the City’s stormwater conveyance system is separate from its sewer system, infiltration and inflow of stormwater remains an issue throughout the City as rain and snowmelt enters the sanitary sewer collection system and increases the flow into the WRRF. For example, when a six-inch snowfall is followed by a day of rain, flows into the WRRF have been observed to Influent comes from drains in homes, businesses, and institutions. The treatment process begins at the preliminary treatment building, in which large debris is shredded and removed. The remaining sewage is pumped into basins, where anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that do not “like” oxygen) consume nutrients in the sewage. From the basins, the sewage flows to the train, where aerators add oxygen and aerobic bacteria (bacteria that “like” oxygen) continue to consume nutrients. From the train, the sewage flows to the clarifiers, where the bacteria settle and clear liquid forms at the surface. From the clarifiers, the clear liquid flows to the disinfection facility, where it is disinfected and discharged as effluent. Source: City of Moscow Public Works Dept.; J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Figure 5.9: Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility Diagram ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.12 double – from 2.25 MGD to 5.5 MGD. Continued efforts to reduce infiltration into the sanitary sewers will help extend the plant’s functional capacity to serve Moscow’s residents. 5.4.3 Collection Sewage collection is accomplished principally by a gravity-fed system, with mains ranging between 6 and 24 inches in diameter. A pump station located south of Palouse River Drive pumps sewage from the area south of Lauder Avenue through a pressure line to Main Street and Taylor Avenue. Studies in the early and mid 1990s evaluated the inflow and infiltration into the sewer system. At that time, there was significant inflow and infiltration into the collection system after storms and significant snow melts. Numerous improvements were completed based on this evaluation, and the City continues to replace sewer mains and manholes to prevent inflow and infiltration of stormwater. In addition to the problem of inflow and infiltration, there are many miles of old, structurally deficient pipe in the system that is in need of replacement. According to the 2011 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan, capacity challenges in the collection system include:  The trunk line from Eighth and Jackson Street to the WRRF (increased capacity currently under construction).  The collector on White Avenue between Blaine and the Troy Highway.  The collectors leading from the intersection of North Polk and Public Street to Main Street following Van Buren, Morton, Adams, and E Streets.  The collectors on Sweet Avenue between U.S. 95 and Railroad Street. Some of the future growth areas identified in this Plan will be served by the areas where the collection system currently faces capacity challenges. These challenges must ultimately be resolved in accordance with the Comprehensive Sewer System Plan to accommodate anticipated growth. 5.5 STORMWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 5.5.1 Generally The City collects and conveys stormwater through an extensive system of curbs, gutters, catchment basins, and public storm sewers throughout the City. This storm sewer system collects and conveys stormwater into local waterways, including Paradise Creek and the South Fork of the Palouse River. Newer development is served by similar curb, gutter, and storm sewer systems, but also includes detention facilities that reduce stormwater runoff rate and provide some treatment to the water before it is discharged to local waterways. Figure 5.10, Stormwater System Statistics (next page), describes the details of the City’s stormwater system as of October 2018. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.13 Moscow Comprehensive Plan The City does not currently have a comprehensive stormwater management plan. In the absence of this plan, the focus of evaluation of stormwater impacts has generally been limited to the area of proposed growth. Existing bottlenecks, stormwater quality regulations, and flood mitigation measures are challenges that must be addressed with regard to stormwater collection and treatment facilities in existing areas, as well as areas of new growth. Therefore, it is recommended that the City develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan. 5.5.2. Problematic Areas The City has identified two areas that regularly have stormwater drainage issues:  Sixth Street from Main Street to the discharge at Paradise Creek in the vicinity of Deakin Street regularly exceeds its hydraulic capacity and causes ponding at the intersections of Sixth Street and Main Street and Sixth Street and Jackson Street.  Hogg Creek drains the area between U.S. 95 and Mountain View Road north of the center of town. Improvements to drainage in this area must be considered and addressed as properties to the north are developed. See Map 5.1, Potential Stormwater Constraint Areas. Most of the areas identified for growth to the south, east, and northeast of the City are very consistent in nature. These areas are in gentle to relatively steep slopes ranging from 3 to 25 percent grade. Soils are generally silty loam, which tends to have low permeability rates. See Map 5.2, Growth Areas. Most areas will require moderate earth-moving activities to develop roads and housing sites. Stormwater collection systems should be relatively simple to construct, as most sites are in somewhat close proximity to a natural waterway. The local waterways, Paradise Creek and the South Fork of the Palouse River, are key elements in the City’s stormwater system. As the primary drainage way, care needs to be taken not to hydraulically overload the waterways. Both are susceptible to flooding during peak runoff events. Paradise Creek is the most heavily developed watershed within the City. Homes in many of the older neighborhoods are developed up to the channel’s edge thus limiting the possibility of widening the channel to increase capacity. As one of the anticipated future development areas exists upstream from these presently developed areas, stormwater runoff from future development within the Paradise Creek drainage must be detained in accordance with the City’s requirements to minimize the potential for increased flooding and property damage. Figure 5.10: Stormwater System Statistics The City owns and operates 63.7 miles of stormwater mains, which are accessed by 974 manholes. The drainage system also includes 7.56 miles of other drainage ways, 24 detention facilities and 2,044 catch basins. The City’s maintenance facilities include an operations/shop facility, three sweepers, and a flush truck. Source: City of Moscow Public Works Dept. ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.14 The City has received notice by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicating that the City of Moscow has been listed as a Phase II Stormwater program entity under the Clean Water Act NPDES system. Under this listing, it will require that stormwater quality meet minimum requirements for new and existing discharges to Paradise Creek and the South Fork of the Palouse River. It is anticipated that the cost of meeting stormwater program requirements will be significant. A comprehensive stormwater management plan for the entire City should include an examination of water quality issues. In order to comply with the Phase II program requirements, the City anticipates the need to expend several million dollars in stormwater infrastructure improvements and supporting facilities, vehicles, and equipment. 5.5.3 Development Patterns and Runoff The pattern of development affects the total amount of stormwater runoff. Figure 5.11, Density and Stormwater Runoff, shows how relatively dense development results in less stormwater runoff on a per-dwelling-unit basis. Although the conventional wisdom is that larger lots are better from a stormwater management perspective because of their comparably larger permeable area, on a large scale, the more important factor is the amount of runoff per dwelling unit. For example, 100 dwelling units developed at three units per acre results in an average of 713,300 cubic feet of stormwater runoff and consumes just over 33 acres. By comparison, 100 dwelling units at nine units per acre results in an average of 476,700 cubic feet of stormwater runoff and consumes only more than 11 acres. As such, a higher density development pattern is more efficient, it also produces 43 percent less runoff. Moreover, if only 100 dwelling units are needed to accommodate growth, and those dwelling units use only 11 acres (as opposed to, say, 33), then 22 acres can remain as permeable open space. Not only does the cluster development pattern save potable water compared to large-lot development, it also reduces stormwater runoff. Figure 5.11: Density and Stormwater Runoff Community A: 1 Acre, 3 Houses Stormwater Runoff: 21,400 ft.3 per acre; or 7,133 ft.3 per unit. Community B: 1 Acre; 9 Houses Stormwater Runoff: 42,900 ft.3 per acre; or 4,767 ft.3 per unit (better). Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.15 Moscow Comprehensive Plan 5.5.4 Detention, Retention, and Treatment Detention/Retention. Detention and retention are two ways to reduce the flow of stormwater runoff by detaining it temporarily or retaining it in a basin. When stormwater runoff is slowed down, erosion is reduced and pollutants have an opportunity to settle out. Due to the relatively limited permeability of the soils in the area, retention is generally not a feasible option. However, the City does currently require stormwater detention for all new developments and redevelopment projects that include over 5,000 square feet of impermeable surface area. Such detained stormwater must be released at a rate no greater than the predevelopment condition. Stormwater detention should continue to be required either on-site or in a regional facility. Bioswales and Constructed Wetlands. Bioswales and constructed wetlands are natural approaches to treating stormwater runoff. Both use plants to take up nutrients from the runoff and to trap other pollutants before water is released into streams and rivers. Constructed wetlands can also be built on the edges of retention basin as riparian zones. Trees slow the impact of rain by capturing rainfall in their canopy which can decrease storm water surge. The City should encourage the planting of large trees as part of stormwater mitigation. 5.6 PUBLIC SAFETY 5.6.1 Law Enforcement The Moscow Police Department is a community-oriented police organization that provides around-the-clock law enforcement in the City and on the University of Idaho campus. The department currently employs 35 commissioned officers (a ratio of 1.4 officers per 1,000 population) and eight civilian employees, and enjoys the support of many volunteers. The officer-to-citizen ratio is equal to comparably sized communities in western mountain states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming).3 Moscow has historically enjoyed a very low crime rate. 5.6.2 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services For more than a century, the Moscow Volunteer Fire Department (MVFD) has provided fire protection for the City. In addition, the Moscow Rural Fire Department provides service to approximately 128 square miles of Latah County. 3 See FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2006. Table 71, Full-Time Law Enforcement Officers by Geographic Region and Division by Population Group Number and Rate per 1,000 Inhabitants, 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.16 The City has a Class Three fire rating,4 which translates into greater safety and lower fire insurance premiums than many communities of similar size. See Figure 5.12, ISO Fire Rating System Factors. The Department’s response time is less than four minutes for 90 percent of its calls. The City’s three fire stations are located within 1.5 miles of each other. See Map 5.3, Public Safety Facilities.  Station No. 1, which includes EMS and training offices, is located at 603 South Main Street.  Station No. 2, which includes the Department’s training tower and live burn facility, is located at 1300 East White Avenue. The Moscow Rural Fire Department is co-located at this Station.  Station No. 3, which opened in 2004, includes the Department’s administrative offices. It is located at 229 Pintail Lane. See Figure 5.13, Moscow Volunteer Fire Department Facilities, (next page). To serve new development at the existing level of service, it is anticipated that the Fire Department may have to construct at least one new fire station (equipped with a fire engine and an ambulance) and expand its fire training center in the next ten years. 5.6.3. 911 Dispatch The City currently contracts its dispatching and E-911 responsibilities to the WhitCom Communications Center in Pullman, Washington that also provides these services throughout Whitman 4 The fire rating is ISO’s Public Protection Classification Program. ISO collects information on municipal fire-protection efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data using its Fire Sup pression Rating Schedule. It then assigns a Public Protection Classification from one to ten. Class one represents exemplary public protection, and Class ten indicates that the area’s fire-suppression program does not meet ISO’s minimum criteria. Figure 5.12: ISO Fire Rating System Factors The level of service for fire protection is based on national standards set out by the ISO. The ISO fire rating system is complicated, but in general the rating relates to available water supply, equipment, personnel, training, and alarm and dispatch systems. Of these, water supply is the most important single factor. The rating system compares the water supply available at representative areas of the community with the amount of water that would be needed to fight a building fire there. There are also some specific minimum requirements for water delivery that a jurisdiction must meet to achieve certain ratings. The second most important factor for the fire rating system is fire equipment The rating system considers specific minimum equipment requirements, plus additional equipment standards that are based on the numbers and types of structures in the community, plus regular testing of equipment. The third most important factor is personnel and training and This refers to the number of firefighters that are available for an initial response and the speed at which they can respond. It also refers to the initial and ongoing training of the firefighters. The fourth factor is the alarm and dispatch system Source: League of Minnesota Cities. AD 10% T 9% P 15% E 26% WS 40% ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.17 Moscow Comprehensive Plan County, Washington and Asotin County, Washington. Although WhitCom does not directly coordinate multi-jurisdictional disaster response, it does have the capability to broadcast to all of the jurisdictions it serves, which allows for such a multi-jurisdictional response. 5.7 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING 5.7.1. Solid Waste Latah Sanitation provides solid waste pickup service by contract for residential and commercial customers on rural and urban routes throughout Latah County, including the City of Moscow. The City also operates the Solid Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), a decommissioned landfill that is located five miles east of Moscow on S.H. 8. The SWPF is home to the transfer station operations, an inert construction/demolition landfill, household hazardous waste collection, composting facility, and scrap metal and tire recycling.5 Solid waste that is not recycled or composted is hauled to a regional landfill in Boardman, Oregon, with which the City has a separate disposal contract. To reduce the amount of material that must be landfilled, the City operates a Waste Reduction Education Program, which is coordinated by Moscow Recycling. This community-wide public education program encourages waste reduction, recycling, composting, and the safe disposal of hazardous waste. The program (which targets both residents and businesses) includes a six-part brochure series, a semi-annual newsletter, presentations, public tours, displays, and announcements in community newsletters, local newspapers, radio, and local television. The program also maintains the Waste Reduction Education Library, which contains periodicals, books, curricula, and videos available for 5 Household hazardous waste is collected year-round at the Solid Waste Processing Facility. Station No. 1 603 South Main Street Station No. 2 1300 East White Avenue Station No. 3 229 Pintail Lane Figure 5.13: Moscow Volunteer Fire Department Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.18 loan to students, teachers, and interested individuals. 5.7.2. Recycling Through another public-private partnership, the City contracts out the operation of a full-service recycling center owned by the City. Moscow Recycling currently accepts over 20 commodities at its 24-hour drop- off station, as well as via curbside collection services, and also pays for selected materials through a buy-back service.6 In 2016 the City began a curbside single- stream recycling program intended to increase waste diversion rates. As a result of this program change, the community participation rate increased from 35 percent to 85 percent and the volume of material collected increased over 135 percent. The single-stream program was extended to apartment units and other commercial entities in 2017. The City’s work with Moscow Recycling has resulted in an extraordinary 50 percent diversion of solid waste from containers destined for landfills. In 2018, China implemented new regulations on the import of low-grade and contaminated recycleables which has impacted the domestic recycling market since China has historically imported over 50% of the world’s recycleables. These regulations have required Moscow to make modifications to the single stream recycling program which had resulted in the elimination of some types of low-grade recycleables which were previously accepted. The City’s recycling facility is nearly reaching capacity and expansion has been discussed to improve customer safety and access. As transport and disposal costs are likely to continue to rise into the future, the City should continue to promote and expand waste reduction and diversion programs where feasible. This will require meeting the challenge of balancing the operational costs of a multi- faceted solid waste recycling program with fluctuating regional and national markets for recyclable goods. Additional programs should be considered to further waste reduction including: composting food residuals; encouraging consumers and businesses to reduce the use of ‘single use’ bags and containers; continue to reduce the distribution of printed materials by giving residents digital options; and consider curbside yard waste collection. 5.8 CAPACITY FOR GROWTH 5.8.1 Available Land Versus Expected Demand Moscow is generally surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land, however there are some natural and political boundaries that restrict where Moscow can grow. The most significant political boundary is the Idaho-Washington state 6 On the commercial side, Moscow Recycling’s “Reduce It!” Business Recycling Program has provided collection services for commercial recyclables since 1996. The program col- lects corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans, newspaper, office pack, and magazines. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.19 Moscow Comprehensive Plan line, which is the western boundary of the City. The most significant natural boundary is the local topography which, in limited areas such as the far south and east sides of the City, is too steeply sloped to be efficiently developed. Additionally, the City’s ability to expand is somewhat limited by its current Area of City Impact (ACI). The ACI is the area in which the City is most likely to expand in the future where land use planning is jointly administered by the City and Latah County. Currently, the ACI is 4.4 square miles in area (2,771 acres). That is nearly 65 percent of the land area that is currently within the City limits. Only 9.4 acres in the ACI are located within a mapped 100-year floodplain. Assuming that residential development in the ACI will have an average density in excess of 3.5 units per acre, and that nonresidential development will make up roughly 35 percent of new development in the ACI, the ACI contains sufficient land area to accommodate development through 2030. Table 5.3, Land Demand Scenarios, shows the amount of land that will be needed to ensure a healthy land market in 2030 in accordance with the population growth projection identified in Chapter 1, A Vision for Moscow. The table assumes an average household size of 2.25, and that 70% of the households will be provided by multi-family housing and 30% of the households will be provided in single-family dwellings (the average for the past 20 years), with average densities of 12 units and 3.5 units per gross acre, respectively. The table also assumes no redevelopment that results in density increases, no growth in on-campus student housing, and 50 percent additional land to promote healthy land markets. Of course, all of these factors contribute to a likely over-estimation of the amount of land that will be needed in 2030. While a sufficient quantity of land may be available within the ACI, the exact boundaries of the ACI may not accurately encompass all areas where future growth is anticipated to occur. Therefore, there will likely be a need to amend the ACI boundaries to better reflect where growth is anticipated to occur. 5.8.2 Growth Demand It is anticipated that approximately 1,650 additional housing units will be needed by 2030. Map 2.2, Future Land Use and Growth Plan, shows the potential for approximately 8,568 conventional units and an additional 1,584 “urban” apartments and condominiums in redevelopment areas. There is more than sufficient land area designated for the market to meet housing demands in Table 5.3. Land Demand Scenarios Growth Scenario Residential Nonresidential Total Demand 2030 Population of 28,760 354 Acres 124 Acres 478 Acres ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.20 all sectors through a combination of in-fill development, redevelopment, and expansion into the ACI. It also shows some land outside of the ACI that could be used for residential purposes. This land is designated in order to ensure that developing land is of reasonable size and shape. Table 5.4, Growth Scenarios, shows the amount of development that can be accommodated by the land use designations shown by Map 2.2, Future Land Use and Growth Plan. 5.8.3 Growth Staging Plan Map 5.2, Growth Areas, identifies the undeveloped or underdeveloped land in and around the City that is anticipated to be the areas into which the City will grow over the horizon of this Plan. New development is best accommodated and most economically served where transportation, utility, and other public services are readily available. Development of areas already within the City boundary and closer to developed roadways and public and commercial services should be encouraged prior to development in more outlying areas. Some of the anticipated significant growth areas include:  Redevelopment of the area located between the University of Idaho campus and downtown should be a priority to provide new commercial and residential development in the core of the community. Table 5.4. Growth Scenarios Land Use Acres Dwelling Units Nonresidential Floor Area Total Residential Nonresidential Urban Mixed 18.3 18.3 18.3 (due to vertically mixed uses) 366 (at 20 u/a density) 398,574 sf. (at 0.5 FAR) Business Park 17.8 - 17.8 N/A 230,000 st. (at .3 FAR) Suburban Commercial 9.3 - 9.3 N/A 101,059 sf. (at 0.25 FAR) Urban Residential 87 87 - 864 (at 9.93 u/a density) N/A Auto-Urban Residential 1438 1438 - 5,033 (at 3.5 u/a density) N/A Suburban Residential 115 115 - 155.3 (at 1.35 u/a density) N/A Auto-Urban Commercial 245.8 - 245.8 N/A 4,282,819 sf. (at 0.4 FAR) Industrial 143.6 - 143.6 N/A 3,128,043 sf. (at 0.5 FAR) TOTALS 2,074.8 1,658.3 (includes Urban Mixed) 434.8 (also includes Urban Mixed) 6,418 units 8,140,495 sf. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.21 Moscow Comprehensive Plan  Development of the area between Farm Road and Baker Street north of Street is a logical location for future development in an area with access to existing services that are not constrained by utility system limitations. The completion of Street between Warbonnet Drive and Farm Road would provide the opportunity to serve the university-owned Auto-Urban Commercial property in the western part of the City.  Continued development of the area between the Indian Hills subdivisions and east Palouse River Drive between South Main Street and Carmichael Road would provide opportunities for both residential and commercial development.  Development of the area east of Mountain View between the Moser and Rolling Hills Additions.  Expansion of the industrial park development in the area east of U.S. 95 and south of East Palouse River Drive. Map 5.4, Potential Sewer Constraints, shows areas where the existing capacity of City stormwater, sewer collection, and conveyance systems may be limited. These areas should be studied and addressed, if necessary, before significant new development occurs in areas that are served via these potentially constrained service lines. 5.9 PUBLIC UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND GROWTH CAPACITY 5.9.1 General Goals  Provide for sustainable growth while conserving natural resources, protecting natural features and enhancing the character of the community and region.  Provide for the orderly and efficient delivery and location of public facilities, utilities and services to the residents and businesses within the community.  Advocate and practice the sustainable management and development of local and regional water resources and supplies to meet the needs of both current and future residents.  Direct growth to areas that can be most efficiently and economically served with public services and utilities while planning for future capacity needs. 5.9.2 Potable Water Objective: Provide for a safe and sustainable water supply that meets the current and future needs of the community. Implementation Actions: 1. Identify and develop alternative water supplies, such as surface water impoundments or aquifer storage and recovery. See Section 5.3.2, Supply. ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.22 2. Preserve aquifer recharge areas within the City’s jurisdiction if and when they are identified. See Section 5.3.3, Aquifer Recharge. 3. Continue to participate in Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee in the management of the regional resource. See Section 5.3.8, Pullman-Moscow Ground Water Management Plan (Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee). 4. Promote water-conserving development practices such as clustering on small lots with common open space that is not irrigated, the provision of smaller lot sizes and greater development densities where appropriate. See Section 5.3.9, Water Conservation Strategies. 5. Continue and enhance existing water conservation programs and increase awareness of xeriscaping techniques to reduce irrigation demand. See Section 5.3.9, Water Conservation Strategies. 6. Anticipate Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rulemaking that will address contaminants of emerging concern. 5.9.3 Sanitary Sewer Objective: Plan and provide for the orderly and efficient collection and treatment of waste water services to the community into the future while minimizing adverse impacts to the surrounding natural environment. Implementation Actions: 1. Continue to implement treatment plant upgrades necessary to meet discharge permit requirements. See Section 5.4.2, Water Reclamation and Reuse Facility (WRRF). 2. Plan for the replacement of sewer mains that are known to have limited excess capacity or are in deteriorated condition and have exceeded service life expectancy. See Section 5.4.3, Collection. 3. Continue the systematic replacement of existing sewer mains and manholes to address structural deficiencies and to reduce inflow and infiltration. See Section 5.4.3, Collection. 5.9.4 Storm Water Objective: Provide for the collection, treatment, detention, and conveyance of stormwater within the community to minimize the threat of damage to life and property and minimize the impact of the City upon the receiving natural systems and environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- C H A P T E R f i v e 5.23 Moscow Comprehensive Plan Implementation Actions: 1. Prepare Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan that addresses stormwater quality, conveyance capacity, and flood damage mitigation. See Section 5.5.1, Generally. 2. Implement a stormwater management program to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements for treatment and conveyance of stormwater in compliance with the Clean Water Act. 3. Develop and implement land use and development standards that reduce stormwater runoff and quantity and improve stormwater quality (such as green roofs, water harvesting, bioswales, riparian areas, and constructed wetlands). See Section 5.5.4, Detention, Retention, and Treatment. 4. Integrate passive stormwater treatment facilities into public street standards where feasible to slow and improve stormwater quality from public streets and similar public facilities. 5. Review the City’s current stormwater requirements to examine the feasibility of reducing detention discharge rates. See Section 5.5.4, Detention, Retention, and Treatment. 6. Plan for the replacement of any existing flow-constricting bridges and other flow restrictions to increase hydraulic capacity to meet a minimum of a 100- year flood event. See Section 5.5.2, Problematic Areas. 5.9.5 Emergency Service Objective: Plan for and provide the efficient and effective delivery of emergency police and fire protection and emergency medical services to the community today and in the future. Implementation Actions: 1. Locate, plan, and maintain emergency service facilities and resources necessary to meet the needs of current and future residents of the community. 2. Continue to partner with the Moscow Volunteer Fire Department to ensure that the City maintains or exceeds the existing Class Three ISO rating. See Section 5.6.2, Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. 5.9.6 Waste Management Objectives: A. Provide for the orderly, efficient, and sustainable delivery of sanitation services to the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- comPrehensive P L A N Public Utilities, Services, and Growth Capacity 5.24 B. Reduce the product of municipal waste through the expansion of education, recycling, composting, reuse, and other waste-reducing activities. Implementation Actions: 1. Expand educational efforts and innovative programs to reduce the generation of solid waste. See Section 5.7.1, Solid Waste. 2. Seek funding for the expansion of the recycling center to increase receiving and storage capacity. See Section 5.7.2, Recycling. 3. Consider expansion of new cost-effective recycling and composting programs such as composting food residuals and yard waste collection. See Section 5.7.2, Recycling. ---PAGE BREAK--- D St C St Polk St A St Logan St Polk Rd West Palouse River Dr Line St Sixth St Third St B St South Main St E St Styner Ave West Pullman Rd North Mountain View Rd Joseph St Blake Ave Jackson St Rodeo Dr Indian Hills Dr Hayes St West C St Public Ave Perimeter Dr Farm Rd Troy Rd Warbonnet Dr Washington St Canterwood Rd Fairview Dr Concord Ave Blaine St East Sixth St North Main St Travois Way White Ave State Hwy 8 Third St A St E St Blaine St U V 270 U V 8 U V 8 £ ¤ 95 £ ¤ 95 Potential Stormwater Constraint Areas 0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles 5.1 I Washington Idaho STORMWATER CONSTRAINT AREAS Potential Constraint Areas BOUNDARIES, WATER, & INFRASTRUCTURE City Limits Area of City Impact State Border ---PAGE BREAK--- D St C St Polk St A St Logan St Polk Rd West Palouse River Dr Line St Sixth St Third St B St South Main St E St Styner Ave West Pullman Rd North Mountain View Rd Joseph St Blake Ave Jackson St Rodeo Dr Indian Hills Dr Hayes St West C St Public Ave Perimeter Dr Farm Rd Troy Rd Warbonnet Dr Washington St Canterwood Rd Fairview Dr Concord Ave Blaine St East Sixth St North Main St Travois Way White Ave State Hwy 8 Third St A St E St Blaine St U V 270 U V 8 U V 8 £ ¤ 95 £ ¤ 95 Growth Areas 0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles 5.2 I Washington Idaho BOUNDARIES, WATER, & INFRASTRUCTURE City Limits Area of City Impact GROWTH AREAS Growth Areas State Border ---PAGE BREAK--- a a 8 8 8 a D St C St Polk St A St Logan St Polk Rd West Palouse River Dr Line St Sixth St Third St B St South Main St E St Styner Ave West Pullman Rd North Mountain View Rd Joseph St Blake Ave Jackson St Rodeo Dr Indian Hills Dr Hayes St West C St Public Ave Perimeter Dr Farm Rd Troy Rd Warbonnet Dr Washington St Canterwood Rd Fairview Dr Concord Ave Blaine St East Sixth St North Main St Travois Way White Ave State Hwy 8 Third St A St E St Blaine St U V 270 U V 8 U V 8 £ ¤ 95 £ ¤ 95 Central Police Station Campus Police SubStation Fire Station #2 Fire Station #1 Fire Station #3 Latah Co Sheriff's Office Public Safety Facilities 0 0.3 0.6 0.15 Miles 5.3 I Washington Idaho POLICE & FIRE FACILITIES a Police Facilities 8 Fire Facilities BOUNDARIES, WATER, & INFRASTRUCTURE City Limits Area of City Impact State Border ---PAGE BREAK--- D St C St Polk St A St Logan St Polk Rd West Palouse River Dr Line St Sixth St Third St B St South Main St E St Styner Ave West Pullman Rd North Mountain View Rd Joseph St Blake Ave Jackson St Rodeo Dr Indian Hills Dr Hayes St West C St Public Ave Perimeter Dr Farm Rd Troy Rd Warbonnet Dr Washington St Canterwood Rd Fairview Dr Concord Ave Blaine St East Sixth St North Main St Travois Way White Ave State Hwy 8 Third St A St E St Blaine St U V 270 U V 8 U V 8 £ ¤ 95 £ ¤ 95 Potential Sewer Constraints 0 0.25 0.5 0.125 Miles 5.4 I Washington Idaho Areas of Over 75% Capacity Utilization BOUNDARIES, WATER, & INFRASTRUCTURE City Limits Area of City Impact State Border