Environmental Assessment for I-90 Beck Road ... - City of Post Falls

I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentPrepared For:Federal Highway Administration&Idaho Transportation DepartmentProject # A010(963); Key Number 010963June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................... 1-11.1 Why Conduct an E nvironmental As ses sment? ............................................................................. 1-11.2 Project B ackground and History ..................................................................................................... 1-11.3 P roject T echnical Advis ory C ommittee .......................................................................................... 1-41.4 P roject T eam ...................................................................................................................................... 1-51.5 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1-51.6 Project Need ...................................................................................................................................... 1-51.7 Interrelated and Interdependent P rojects ....................................................................................... 1-71.7.1 Past, Planned, and On-going Projects ................................................................................................... 1-71.7.2 Local Area Development ....................................................................................................................... 1-9CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ............ 2-12.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2-12.2 Alternatives Development ................................................................................................................ 2-12.2.1 Previous Studies .................................................................................................................................... 2-12.2.2 Alternatives Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 2-32.2.3 Summary of the Alternatives Evaluation ................................................................................................ 2-4Identification of Screening Criteria .................................................................................................. 2-4Level-I Screening Criteria ........................................................................................................ 2-4Level-II Screening Criteria ....................................................................................................... 2-42.2.4 Range of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 2-52.2.5 Screening of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 2-6Level-I Screening ........................................................................................................................... 2-6Level-II Screening .......................................................................................................................... 2-6Alternatives Eliminated ............................................................................................................ 2-6Further Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 2-8Transportation System Management ........................................................................................... 2-102.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed S tudy ......................................................................... 2-102.3.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 2-122.3.2 Proposed Action (Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange Alternative) ................................. 2-12CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, ANDMITIGATION ................................................................................................................................. 3-13.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3-13.2 Cultural R esources ........................................................................................................................... 3-13.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-1Cultural Properties .......................................................................................................................... 3-1Coeur d’Alene Tribe ....................................................................................................................... 3-43.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................... 3-4No-Build.......................................................................................................................................... 3-4Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................. 3-4Direct Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 3-4Indirect Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................. 3-5Mitigation ................................................................................................................................. 3-53.3 S ection 4(f) and S ection 6(f) R esources ......................................................................................... 3-53.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-5Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-5Section 6(f) Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-73.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................... 3-7No-Build.......................................................................................................................................... 3-7Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................. 3-73.4 Wetlands and Waters of the United S tates ..................................................................................... 3-83.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-83.4.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................... 3-9No-Build.......................................................................................................................................... 3-9Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................. 3-9Direct Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 3-9Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-10Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-10I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentiProject No. A010(963)June 2011

Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-103.5 B iological R esources ...................................................................................................................... 3-103.5.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-10Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 3-10Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................................... 3-11Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 3-12Species of Concern ............................................................................................................... 3-12Candidate Species ................................................................................................................ 3-12Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................... 3-12Migratory Bird Act ......................................................................................................................... 3-13Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ............................................................................... 3-133.5.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-13No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-13Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-13Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-13Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-15Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-16Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-163.6 Surface Water, Floodplains, and Groundwater ............................................................................ 3-163.6.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-16Surface Water .............................................................................................................................. 3-16Water Quality Documents and Permits......................................................................................... 3-17Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................................................................. 3-19Stormwater Management ............................................................................................................. 3-19Floodplains ................................................................................................................................... 3-19Groundwater ................................................................................................................................. 3-19Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer ............................................................................. 3-19Potable and Other Water Sources ................................................................................................ 3-233.6.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-25No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-25Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-25Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-25Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-26Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-26Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-283.7 Socioeconomics and Land Use ..................................................................................................... 3-283.7.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-28Population and Economics ........................................................................................................... 3-28Community Cohesion ................................................................................................................... 3-30Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 3-30Public Services ............................................................................................................................. 3-30Transit ................................................................................................................................... 3-30Fire Departments................................................................................................................... 3-30Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 3-30Schools ................................................................................................................................. 3-32Traffic, Access, and Safety ........................................................................................................... 3-33Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 3-333.7.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-36No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-36Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-37Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-37Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-38Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-39Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-393.8 Nois e................................................................................................................................................. 3-403.8.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-403.8.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3-413.8.3 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-46No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-46Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-46Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-46Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-47Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-47I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentiiProject No. A010(963)June 2011

Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-473.9 Prime Farmland ............................................................................................................................... 3-493.9.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-493.9.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-53No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-53Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-53Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-53Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-53Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-53Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-533.10 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 3-533.10.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-533.10.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-54No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-54Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-54Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-54Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-55Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-55Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-563.11 E arth R esources .............................................................................................................................. 3-563.11.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-563.11.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-57No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-57Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-57Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-57Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-57Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-57Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-573.12 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................................... 3-573.12.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-583.12.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-58No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-58Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-58Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-59Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-59Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-59Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-593.13 Visual R esources ............................................................................................................................ 3-603.13.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-60General Landscape Character ..................................................................................................... 3-61Views from I-90 and Centennial Trail ........................................................................................... 3-62Views of I-90 and Beck Road ....................................................................................................... 3-643.13.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-65No-Build........................................................................................................................................ 3-65Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-65Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 3-65Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 3-65Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-65Mitigation ............................................................................................................................... 3-65CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS AND COORDINATION...................................................................... 4-14.1 Public Open Hous e ........................................................................................................................... 4-14.1.1 Notification and Contact ........................................................................................................................ 4-14.1.2 Meeting Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4-14.2 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings ....................................................................................... 4-14.3 Agency Consultation/Coordination ................................................................................................. 4-2CHAPTER 5: DISTRIBUTION LIST .............................................................................................. 5-1CHAPTER 6: LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS AND PREPARERS ..................................................... 6-1CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 7-1I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentiiiProject No. A010(963)June 2011

APPENDIX A – ITD FORMS ......................................................................................................... A-1APPENDIX B – 4(F) DE MINIMIS EVALUATION ......................................................................... B-1APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DATA .......................................................................................... C-1APPENDIX D – SCOPING RESPONSES ..................................................................................... D-1LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1. Project Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-2Figure 1-2. Aerial Photograph of Project Area ................................................................................................................... 1-3Figure 1-3. Projected Population Growth in Post Falls, 2000-2030 .................................................................................... 1-6Figure 1-4. Regional Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvements ......................................................................... 1-10Figure 2-1. Alternatives Screening Process ....................................................................................................................... 2-2Figure 2-2. Alternatives Considered for Level II Screening ................................................................................................ 2-7Figure 2-3. Proposed Action: Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange Alternative ............................................. 2-11Figure 2-4. Proposed Action Interchange Detail: Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange Alternative ............... 2-14Figure 2-5. Proposed Action Typical Cross Sections: Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange Alternative ........ 2-15Figure 3-1. Area of Potential Effect .................................................................................................................................... 3-2Figure 3-2. Centennial Trail south of I-90, looking west ..................................................................................................... 3-7Figure 3-3. Jacklin Seed fire-suppression pond ................................................................................................................. 3-8Figure 3-4. Spokane River south of project area ................................................................................................................ 3-9Figure 3-5. View of Spokane River from project area just south of Jacklin Seed (looking west) ...................................... 3-16Figure 3-6. Surface Water in Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 3-18Figure 3-7. FEMA Floodplains in Project Area ................................................................................................................. 3-21Figure 3-8. Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer in Relation to the Project Area ..................................................... 3-22Figure 3-9. Wells in the Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 3-24Figure 3-10. Water tower near Beck Road ....................................................................................................................... 3-25Figure 3-11. Conceptual-Level Stormwater Management for Proposed Action ............................................................... 3-27Figure 3-12. Unemployment Rates .................................................................................................................................. 3-29Figure 3-13. Neighborhood and Area Services Map ........................................................................................................ 3-31Figure 3-14. Post Falls Future Land Use Map ................................................................................................................. 3-34Figure 3-15. Kootenai County Zoning Map ...................................................................................................................... 3-35Figure 3-16. Noise Monitoring Locations and Noise Prediction (Receptor) Sites ............................................................. 3-43Figure 3-17. NRCS Soil Designations in Project Area ...................................................................................................... 3-52Figure 3-18. Waste storage at Jacklin Seed .................................................................................................................... 3-58Figure 3-19. View looking west from W. Pointe Parkway ................................................................................................. 3-62Figure 3-20. View looking east from W. Pointe Parkway .................................................................................................. 3-62Figure 3-21. Visual Resource Viewpoints ........................................................................................................................ 3-63Figure 3-22. View from Centennial Trail, looking west toward I-90 .................................................................................. 3-64Figure 3-23. View from W. Pointe Parkway, looking north toward N. Beck Road............................................................. 3-64Figure 3-24. Visual Rendering Looking East .................................................................................................................... 3-66Figure 3-25. Visual Rendering Looking West ................................................................................................................... 3-67LIST OF TABLESTable 1-1. Projected 2030 LOS under No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................... 1-7Table 1-2. 2030 Regional Planned Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................. 1-8Table 2-1. Planning Documents Relied Upon in the Alternatives Evaluation ..................................................................... 2-3Table 2-2. Level-I Screening Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 2-4Table 2-3. Level-II Screening Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 2-5Table 2-4. 2030 Traffic Operations Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-9Table 2-5. Proposed Action Roadway Improvements ...................................................................................................... 2-13Table 3-1. Summary of Cultural Resources in the APE ..................................................................................................... 3-3Table 3-2. Noxious Weed Species Known or Reported to Occur in Kootenai County ..................................................... 3-11Table 3-3. Federally-listed ESA Species in Kootenai County (USFWS and NMFS) ........................................................ 3-13Table 3-4. Summary of Wells in the Project Area............................................................................................................. 3-23Table 3-5. Racial Make-up of Population in Post Falls (Census 2005-2009) ................................................................... 3-29Table 3-6. Schools, Parks, and Services near or within Proposed Project ....................................................................... 3-32Table 3-7. FHWA and ITD Noise Abatement Criteria ....................................................................................................... 3-41Table 3-8. Monitored and Predicted Noise Levels in the Project Area ............................................................................. 3-42Table 3-9. Predicted Peak Hour Sound Levels (Leq) for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange Project .................................. 3-44Table 3-10. Summary of Soils and Prime Farmland in the Project Area .......................................................................... 3-51Table 4-1. Comments Received During Scoping Period .................................................................................................... 4-4I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentivProject No. A010(963)June 2011

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAASHTOAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsADAAmericans with Disabilities ActAPEArea of Potential EffectBMPsBest Management PracticesCFRCode of Federal RegulationsdBADecibels, A-ratedDOTU.S. Department of TransportationEAEnvironmental AssessmentEISEnvironmental Impact StatementESAEndangered Species ActFEMAFederal Emergency Management AgencyFHWAFederal Highway AdministrationFIRMsFlood Insurance Rate MapsFONSIFinding of No Significant ImpactHDRHDR Engineering, Inc.I-90 Interstate 90IDAPAIdaho Administrative Procedures ActIDCDCIdaho Conservation Data CenterIDEQIdaho Department of Environmental QualityIDFGIdaho Fish and GameIDWRIdaho Department of Water ResourcesIJRInterchange Justification ReportITDIdaho Transportation DepartmentKMPOKootenai Metropolitan Planning OrganizationL eqContinuous noise level during any one hour periodLOSLevel of ServiceMSATsMobile Source Air ToxicsNACNoise Abatement CriteriaNAAQSNational Ambient Air Quality StandardsNEPANational Environmental Policy ActNMFSNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNPDESNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNRCSNatural Resource Conservation ServiceNRHPNational Register of Historic PlacesPFHDPost Falls Highway DistrictSHState HighwaySHPOState Historic Preservation OfficeSRTCSpokane Regional Transportation CouncilSTARState Tax Anticipated RevenueSTIPStatewide Transportation Improvement ProgramSVRPASpokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie AquiferSWPPPStormwater Pollution Prevention PlanTACTechnical Advisory CommitteeTMDLTotal Maximum Daily LoadTNMTraffic Noise ModelTSMTransportation System ManagementUSACEU.S. Army Corps of EngineersUSEPAU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSFWSU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWSDOTWashington State Department of TransportationI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentvProject No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need1.1 Why Conduct an Environmental Assessment?This document is the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Interstate 90 (I-90) Beck Road Interchangeproject in Post Falls, Idaho. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this EA assessesimpacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action (also referred to as No-Build) Alternative, and cumulativeimpacts that could occur as a result of other past, on-going or planned future projects in the area. NEPAregulations apply when there is a major federal action. For this project, the major federal action is theapproval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of an interchange connecting to an interstatehighway system (I-90).This EA provides evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). It satisfies NEPA disclosure requirements andserves as the NEPA compliance document for the Proposed Action. An EIS would be required if the EAdetermines that implementing the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts.This EA is organized as follows:• Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need• Chapter 2 – Description of Alternatives, Including Proposed Action• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation• Chapter 4 – Comments and Coordination• Chapter 5 – Distribution List• Chapter 6 – List of Contributors and Preparers• Chapter 7 – References1.2 Project Background and HistoryThe I-90 Beck Road Interchange project (Idaho Transportation Department Project No. A010 (963),Key No. 010963) is located at the west end of Post Falls, Idaho (Figure 1-1). An aerial photograph thatillustrates the location of the proposed interchange and its proximity to existing interchanges along I-90 isshown in Figure 1-2. The project site is located approximately 1.2 miles west of the Pleasant View RoadInterchange and approximately 1.2 miles east of the State Line Road Interchange. For purposes of this EA, the“project area” is defined as the Pleasant View Road Interchange to the east, the State Line Road Interchangeto the west, the Spokane River to the south and W. Seltice Way to the north (Figure 1-2). The ‘project site’refers to the proposed interchange location, which is further defined in Chapter 2.Regionally, I-90 connects Kootenai County in Idaho andSpokane County in Washington. The stretch of I-90 inthe project area is a four-lane highway. N. Beck Roadsouth of W. Seltice Way is a north-south unpaved roadclassified by the City of Post Falls as a future minorarterial road (see box for definitions of roadclassifications). North of W. Seltice Way, N. Beck Roadis a paved two-lane road with a rural classification as amajor collector. N. Beck Road is maintained by the PostFalls Highway District (PFHD). W. Pointe Parkway, aneast-west road classified as a proposed minor arterial,provides access between the existing developments inthe project area and would connect to N. Beck Road.Road ClassificationsMajor Collector Road – Designed to collecttraffic from local roads and minor collectors totransmit that traffic onto arterials or the interstate.Major collectors should exhibit moderate speeds,carry between 2,000 and 5,000 vehicles per dayand have low accessibility.Minor Arterial Road – Serve higher trafficvolumes, with increased speeds and lowaccessibility. They should move traffic fromcollector streets, between areas and across acity or region, and are intended to carry between5,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The area north and south of I-90 near N. Beck Road is currently designated as industrial, but is identified as afuture commercial area in the City of Post Falls’ Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes major employmentcenters in the project area. Future commercial land uses are anticipated to extend along I-90 from the stateboundary to the Pleasant View Road Interchange. This planned commercial use, along with regionalemployment and population growth would generate increased demand for access to and from I-90.Topography and the Spokane River limit development south of I-90. The proposed I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project would connect to public roads on both the north and south sides of I-90.An interchange in the N. Beck Road area at I-90 is consistent with local and regional plans including:• Post Falls Transportation Master Plan, 2004• Post Falls Comprehensive Plan, 2010• Kootenai Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, 2007-2030• Idaho Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), FY 2010-2013The project would initially be privately funded by the Pointe LLC, developer of The Pointe at Post Falls, acommercial development on the north side of I-90 in the area of N. Beck Road and W. Pointe Parkway. Underthe State Tax Anticipated Revenue (STAR) Legislation approved by the Idaho legislature in 2007, the privatecompany would be eligible for reimbursement of up to $35 million of project expenses for approvedtransportation improvements using sales tax reimbursements from retail development within the project area.The project is the first in Idaho to utilize the STAR Legislation, and would be the first to benefit from thepublic/private relationship authorized by the legislation.An interchange connecting to an interstatehighway system must obtain federal approvalthrough a needs assessment, as required by theFHWA (see box for explanation of policyrequirements). The I-90 Beck Road InterchangeJustification Report (IJR), which was completedin October 2010 (HDR 2010), concluded thatthere is sufficient justification for a newinterchange that would connect W. PointeParkway (north of I-90) to W. RiverbendAvenue (south of I-90). The IJR alsorecommended a standard diamond interchangeon the W. Pointe Parkway alignment thatincludes related improvements to W. RiverbendAvenue, N. Beck Road, and W. Pointe Parkway.Policy on Access to Interstate SystemThis FHWA policy outlines the justification anddocumentation necessary to substantiate anyproposed changes in access to the interstate system.A new interchange connecting to I-90 must beapproved by FHWA and developed in accordance withfederal laws and regulations as specified in 23 U.S.C.109 and 111, 23 C.F.R. 625.4, and 49 C.F.R.1.48(b)(1). FHWA’s policy can be found at:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/fraccess.cfmThe supporting document for the I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project is the Interstate JustificationReport.The alternatives screening process used in the IJR is described in Chapter 2 of this EA. The FHWA acceptedthe standard diamond interchange on the W. Pointe Parkway alignment, subject to successful completion ofthe NEPA process.1.3 Project Technical Advisory CommitteeThe alternatives for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project were developed and screened with the guidanceof a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) representing a cross-section of local, state, and federal agenciesand regional stakeholders. The TAC provided valuable knowledge and input into the development of the IJRand helped to define the project purpose and need. The TAC members included representatives from thefollowing entities:• FHWA - Idaho• FHWA - Washington• Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-4Project No. A010(963)June 2011

• Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization (KMPO)• Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)• PFHD• Spokane County• City of Post Falls1.4 Project TeamThe project team, consisting of staff from HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and the Pointe LLC, was alsocrucial in shaping and analyzing the alternatives created for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Theproject team facilitated the decision-making process and provided input throughout the planning and analysisphase.1.5 Project PurposeThe project purpose and need were developed with guidance from the IJR, the TAC, and local and regionaltransportation and land-use plans.The purpose of this project is to:Improve regional traffic operations to and from I-90, between and including the Pleasant View Road/I-90 andState Line Road/I-90 interchanges.1.6 Project NeedThe need for this project is based upon the following factor:• Inability of the existing interchanges with I-90 at Pleasant View Road and State Line Road toadequately serve future access and regional connectivity demands.Evidence for defining the need, based on projected population and planned land-use growth, is outlined in theIJR and summarized below.Considerable population growth has occurred in Kootenai County, Idaho over the past decades, with growthin and around the City of Post Falls steadily increasing over the last 20 years. Much of the recent growth inPost Falls is focused largely in the western area. Post Falls has grown from 7,350 residents in 1990 to almost27,000 in 2009. This growth is projected to continue with an estimated 34,000 residents by 2030(Figure 1-3). This population increase correlates with increases in employment in the region and in retailbusinesses to provide goods and services to the population and business community.The increased growth will result in increased pressure on the regional transportation system, including ademand for access to and from I-90 in the project area. A new interchange in this location would also provideregional connectivity via N. Beck Road from W. Seltice Way to State Highway 53 (SH-53) as this areatransitions from rural development to urban including annexation to the City of Post Falls (KMPO 2010) 1 .1 The regional future for N. Beck Road was affirmed in communication with the KMPO (Glenn Miles) dated May 25, 2010 andincluded in Appendix AH of the IJR.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-5Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Figure 1-3. Projected Population Growth in Post Falls, 2000-2030Population35,00033,00031,00029,00027,00025,00023,00021,00019,00017,00015,0002000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030YearSource: 2000-2009 data from U.S. Census Bureau; 2010-2030 projections provided by the City of Post Falls (Melvin 2011).The local roads and their intersections with the two existing interchanges would operate at levels of service(LOS) “F” under the No-Build condition in 2030 (Table 1-1) (see box for explanation of LOS). The PFHDand the KMPO consider an LOS of E or F to be undesirable for transportation planning. The No-Buildcondition refers to no new interchange or no improvements to the existing interchanges (see Chapter 2).Level of Service Rating StandardsLevel of Service (LOS) is a measure used by traffic engineers to describe the quality of service to theroad user in terms of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and travel time. LOS at signalizedintersections is directly related to average delay time. LOS standards consist of the following:LOS A – Free flowing, low traffic densityLOS B – Minimum delay, stable traffic flowLOS C – Stable condition, movements somewhat restricted due to higher volumes, but not objectionablefor motoristLOS D – Movements more restricted, delay may occur during short peaks, but lower demands occur oftenenough to permit clearing, preventing excessive backupsLOS E – Actual capacity of the roadway involves delay to all motorists due to congestionLOS F – Demand volumes greater than capacity, resulting in complete congestionIn addition to the terminal ramps at the interchanges presented in Table 1-1, other intersections in the projectarea were evaluated for traffic effectiveness in 2030 under No-Build conditions (See IJR, Section 1.2, HDR2010). Of the eight signalized intersections in the project area, seven exhibit LOS E or F for the 2030 designyear. Generally, the local roadway facilities and their intersections with the interstate system would operate atunacceptable LOS under the future No-Build condition.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-6Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 1-1. Projected 2030 LOS under No-Build AlternativeIntersectionLOSCurrent Condition (2007) 2030Pleasant View Road/I-90 West Bound Ramp Terminal B FPleasant View Road/I-90 East Bound Ramp Terminal B FState Line Road/I-90 West Bound Ramp Terminal F FState Line Road/I-90 East Bound Ramp Terminal C FSource: I-90 IJR, Appendix AA (HDR 2010); LOS is based on PM (afternoon) peak conditions.1.7 Interrelated and Interdependent ProjectsThis section describes projects that could cause cumulativeeffects (see box for definitions of types of impacts) inconjunction with the construction and operation of the ProposedAction. Federal agencies are required to consider the cumulativeimpacts of their actions through NEPA and the Council onEnvironmental Quality Regulations for Implementing theProcedural Provisions of NEPA (Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Title 40, Parts 1500-1508). Cumulative effects aredefined as the incremental impacts of the action when added topast, on-going, and planned future actions, regardless of whatagency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes suchactions. Cumulative impacts can result from actions that areindividually minor but collectively significant over a period oftime (40 CFR 1508.7).Cumulative impacts are based on the net impacts (i.e. impacts remaining after mitigation has been applied),not gross impacts. If the cumulative impact analysis was based on gross impacts, the actual cumulative impactwould be misrepresented. If the Proposed Action did not impact a resource, there would be no potential formeasuring cumulative impacts.1.7.1 Past, Planned, and On-going ProjectsTypes of ImpactsDirect Impacts – Impacts caused bythe action and occurring at the sametime and place.Indirect Impacts – Impacts caused bythe action and occurring later in time orfarther removed in distance, but stillreasonably foreseeable.Cumulative Impacts – Impacts thatresult from incremental impact of thePreferred Alternative when added toother past, present and reasonablyforeseeable future actions.Past projects include the building of roadway systems in the Post Falls area; residential, commercial andagricultural development; and the construction of I-90. The 2009 aerial photograph in Figure 1-2 provides asnapshot of existing roadways and development.Long-range transportation improvements (beyond 2011) identified for the Kootenai County area are identifiedin the following documents:• Kootenai Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, 2007-2030• Idaho STIP, FY 2010-2013• Washington State Department of Transportation Capitol Improvements and Preservation Program,FY 2009-2011• Post Falls Transportation Master Plan, 2004These documents identify roadway improvements needed to support planned land uses in the study area.Table 1-2 summarizes planned roadway improvements in the study area by 2030. These improvements, alongwith intersection improvements, are illustrated in Figure 1-4.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-7Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 1-2. 2030 Regional Planned Roadway ImprovementsJurisdiction Project Transportation Improvement AssumptionsWSDOTITDProject areaI-90: Harvard Road to State Line Road(improvement extends outside of the projectarea)I-90: State Line Road to Government Way,four to six lanes (improvement extendsoutside of the project area)Six lanesSix lanesPost Falls N. Beck Road: W. Seltice Way to SH 53* Four to five LanesPFHDPost Falls, PFHDPost FallsPost FallsPost Falls, PFHDITD, PFHDPost Falls, PFHDPost FallsPost FallsPost Falls, PFHDPost FallsPFHDPFHDITDBNSF Railroad Main Line Rail Crossing atPrairie Avenue**Chase Road: W. Seltice Way to PrairieAvenueEmpire Center: W. Seltice Way to PolelineAvenueExpo Parkway: Baugh Way to W. PleasantView RoadMcGuire Road: W. Seltice Way to PrairieAvenueN. Pleasant View Road/SH 53 Interchange***N. Pleasant View Road: W. RiverbendAvenue to Prairie AvenuePoleline Avenue: McGuire Road to ChaseRoadJacklin Road: N. Beck Road to W. ExpoParkwayW. Riverbend Avenue: N. Beck Road to S.Pleasant View RoadW. Riverbend Avenue: S. Pleasant ViewRoad to McGuire RoadPrairie Avenue: S. Pleasant View Road to SH41 (improvement extends outside of theproject area)Prairie Avenue: N. Beck Road to N. PleasantView RoadSH53: State Line Road to Rathdrum(improvement extends outside of the projectarea)Close at-grade crossingThree lanesThree lanesNew five-lane segmentThree lanesGrade-separated interchange, replacement ofat-grade rail crossing and intersectionFive lanes on Pleasant View Road from SelticeWay to Prairie AvenueThree lanesThree lanesFive lanesThree lanesFive lanesFive lanesFour lanesPost Falls Spokane St: 15th Avenue to Prairie Avenue Three lanesPost Falls Spokane St: 2nd Avenue to 4th Avenue Five lanesSource: I-90 IJR, Appendix C (HDR 2010);*This improvement is anticipated as this area transitions from rural development to urban and is annexed into the City of Post Falls(KMPO 2010);** Shown as intersection #22 in Figure 1-4;***Shown as intersection #21 in Figure 1-4.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-8Project No. A010(963)June 2011

In addition to the planned roadway improvements listed above, other on-going and future projects near theI-90 Beck Road Interchange project include:• I-90 Washington State Line to Sherman Avenue in Coeur D’Alene (ITD Key # 8651) – Conduct acorridor study to identify existing deficiencies and improvements required to handle future growth.The objective is to plan an infrastructure system in coordination with local and regional planningentities. This study includes the project area for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. This corridorstudy is planned for 11 to 15 years out on ITD’s Long-Range Capital Improvement Program.• I-90 Post Falls Access Improvement Project (ITD) – This on-going project is exploring improvementsto I-90 that would enhance access and mobility in Post Falls. The study area is approximately 3 mileslong and extends from the west terminus of the Spokane Street Interchange to the east terminus of theState Highway (SH) 41 interchange, which constitutes the urbanized area of Post Falls. The Draft EISwas published in 2008. A Final EIS is being finalized.The 2007 KMPO Transportation Improvement Plan identifies the I-90 Beck Road Interchange under ITDjurisdiction on its short-term improvements project list. Also, N. Beck Road is identified for widening to fivelanes from I-90 to W. Seltice Way in the short-term improvements project list designated under the City ofPost Falls jurisdiction. These improvements would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action described inChapter 2.In addition to the future or on-going transportation projects listed above, the project area is undergoingresidential and commercial development, which is further described below.1.7.2 Local Area DevelopmentThe growth of the area in and around the City of Post Falls has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years,with recent growth focused largely in the western area.Figure 1-3 illustrates measured population growth from 1990 to 2009 and projected growth through 2030. Tosupport future growth, the City of Post Falls and the KMPO are considering infrastructure and capacityrelatedimprovements that will benefit and support future populations.Future land-use plans identified in the City of Post Falls Comprehensive Plan will help facilitate projectedpopulation and employment growth in the Post Falls area. The plan identifies considerable commercial andindustrial growth in the project area (Figure 3-14) along the I-90 corridor and also recognizes the need forregional connectivity through quick and easy access to the interstate. According to future employmentdensity projections by the KMPO:• More than 20,000 people are expected to be working in the Post Falls area by 2030, a 157 percentincrease over 2005. Approximately 5,000 new jobs are anticipated in western Post Falls by 2030 (inthe general project area).• Residential units are expected to increase by 172 percent, to 11,077, in the west Post Falls area by2030.This level of growth will result in increased demand for regional access to and from I-90 in the area and willcause increased traffic pressure on the existing interchanges.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment1-9Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives, Including Proposed Action2.1 IntroductionInterchange JustificationReport Open HouseAn I-90 Beck Road Interchangepublic open house was held onJanuary 14, 2009, at the PostFalls City Hall. The purpose ofthis meeting was to gather publicinput on alternatives beingevaluated in the IJR process. Formore information on the openhouse, see Chapter 4.The alternatives described in this chapter include a range ofreasonable actions considered by the TAC and the public during theIJR and scoping processes (further described in Chapter 4). TACmembers representing local, state, and federal agencies and regionalstakeholders provided valuable knowledge and input. Alternativeswere developed through a collaborative process between TACmembers and the project team. A public meeting was held during theIJR process to seek input on alternatives being evaluated and toidentify issues and concerns by the public on the proposed project(see box).To initiate the alternatives development process, the TAC and theproject team first came to a consensus on how to evaluate thealternatives. To ensure that a range of reasonable alternatives was considered and documented, the evaluationwas conducted in two screening levels. The alternatives that met initial (level-I) screening criteria wereforwarded to a level-II analysis (Figure 2-1). The screening criteria and the screening results are described inSection 2.2.2.2 Alternatives Development2.2.1 Previous StudiesAlternatives developed and screened as part of the IJR process relied on a number of regional and localplanning documents (Table 2-1). In addition, the level-II screening process included the 2030 regionalnetwork travel demand modeling by the SRTC and KMPO, as well as operational traffic analysis of the localnetwork by the project team. Details on the traffic modeling approach are presented in Section 1.2 of the IJR(HDR 2010).Additional documents referenced for development of this EA are cited in Chapter 7. A summary of thealternatives evaluation process is presented below. See Section 2.3 of the IJR (HDR 2010) for details on theevaluation process and results.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 2-1. Planning Documents Relied Upon in the Alternatives EvaluationPlanning DocumentDocumentPrepared for:Regional Planning DocumentsPost Falls Transportation Master Plan, May 2004. Availableat:http://www.postfallsidaho.org/PZDept/pzforms/TransportationMasterPlan2004.pdfKootenai Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, 2007-2030.Available at: http://www.kmpo.net/mtp-page.htmlIdaho STIP, FY 2010-2013. Available at:http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/stip/stip2010/Draft%20FY2010%20STIP%20Document%20SLF.pdfI-90 Post Falls Access Improvements Project, Draft EIS.Available at:http://www.postfallsidaho.org/pzdept/Engineering/EngProjects/I_90Impact/Start.pdfCity of PostFallsKootenaiCountyITDITDProject-Specific Documents Prepared by Project TeamI-90 Interchange Justification Report. Project No. A010(963).Key No. 010963. October 2010.Environmental Scan, I-90 Beck Road Interchange Project No.A010(963). Key No. 010963. Updated January 2011.2.2.2 Alternatives EvaluationThe project team developed alternatives based on:FHWA/ITD• NEPA requirements, including advancing the No-Build Alternative• Regional planning documents (Table 2-1)• Input from TAC members, stakeholders, and agencies• Engineering and environmental considerationsITDDescriptionIdentifies N. Beck Road as a logicallocation for a new interchange to servegrowing development in west PostFalls.Identifies I-90 Beck Road Interchangeas a programmed project in KootenaiCounty.Cites I-90 Beck Road Interchange as aregionally significant transportationproject.Outlines environmental conditionsalong the I-90 corridor near N. BeckRoad and cites improvements toadjacent interchanges.Assesses impacts associated with theaddition of a new interchange on I-90near N. Beck Road.Preliminary assessment ofenvironmental issues for a potentialinterchange near N. Beck Road and I-90.As per FHWA guidance, consideration of alternatives includes:• No-Build Alternative• Transportation System Management (TSM) and Mass Transit• Build AlternativesThe process for alternatives screening included (Figure 2-1):1. Identification of alternative screening criteria2. Identification of alternatives3. Level-I screening4. Level-II screeningI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-3Project No. A010(963)June 2011

2.2.3 Summary of the Alternatives EvaluationIdentification of Screening CriteriaThe approach used for assessing alternatives during the IJR process involved level-I and level-II screeningcriteria as described below.Level-I Screening CriteriaLevel-I screening was designed to advance alternatives that met general criteria defined during the IJRprocess (Table 2-2). Alternatives that were not screened out in the level-I analysis were moved forward forconsideration in the level-II evaluation.Table 2-2. Level-I Screening CriteriaCriteriaGeneral Compliance withFHWA StandardsGeneral Compliance withITD / WSDOT StandardsHighway Operational andSafety ImpactsImpacts on LocalRoadwaysLocal Plan ConsistencyNatural EnvironmentConcernsSocioeconomic ConcernsCultural ResourceConcernsExplanationDoes the alternative appear capable of meeting the FHWA standards for access? Is thereanything that would clearly require a deviation from those standards?Does the alternative appear capable of meeting the ITD / WSDOT design standards forinterchanges? Is there anything that would clearly require a deviation from those standards?Does the interchange concept allow feasible highway operations? Does the interchangeconcept address existing safety concern? Does the interchange concept present thepotential of creating a future safety concern?Does the alternative create negative impacts for the local roadway system or relieve existingimpacts? Does the alternative fail to enhance local connectivity?Does the alternative appear compatible with the local transportation and land-use plans?Does the alternative appear to have impacts on the natural environment that would need tobe mitigated?Would the alternative appear to involve displacements of people or businesses? Would thealternative substantially change the character of established business or residential areas? Ifthere are possible displacements, do those displacements disproportionately affectresidential or business areas providing for low-income or minority populations(“environmental justice”)?Does the alternative have the potential to adversely affect known national register-eligibleresources?ConstructabilityDoes an alternative appear to be constructible?Source: I-90 IJR, Appendix H (HDR 2010)Level-II Screening CriteriaThe level-II screening criteria (Table 2-3) provided a more detailed evaluation based on FHWA interstateaccess policy guidelines (see box on Page 1-4) and other considerations identified by TAC members. Thisstep in the screening process required technical analysis, including an evaluation of future traffic operations.From the level-II screening, the recommended operationally acceptable alternative (preferred alternative) wasdetermined.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-4Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Category ofEvaluationEvaluation CriteriaTable 2-3. Level-II Screening CriteriaExplanationAccess PointDecision CriteriaOtherConsiderationsConsistency with interstate networkplanningState and local land-use andtransportation plan consistencyService for regional trip purposesCompliance with interstategeometric standardsOperational capability (opening dayand 20-year horizon) of local streetsystem, interchange ramps(existing and proposed), andinterstate mainline *Local system supportLocal connectivityLand-use compatibility and impactsSocioeconomic impactsRight-of-wayNatural environment impactExamination of whether proposed access is recognized on theinterstate network plans.Is the proposed access recognized on local land-use andtransportation plans as a future improvement?Would the new access be used for regional trip purposes (longdistancetrips) versus allowing use of the interstate as a “superarterial”for local trips?Does the alternative appear capable of meeting interstategeometric standards?Does the alternative maintain or improve traffic operations onthe local street system, the interchange ramps, or the interstatemainline? Does the alternative address an existing safetyconcern?Will the local components of the alternative be “delivered”concurrent with the interstate components?Does the alternative improve/restore local street connections?Is the zoning in the immediate area of the alternative consistentwith that alternative?Would the alternative have negative or positive socioeconomicimpacts?Could the alternative be constructed within existing right-ofway?What additional right-of-way is required for alternative?Does the alternative involve a greater potential of wetland,stream bank or habitat impacts?Cultural environment impactAre there cultural resources or public facilities (archeology,historic, parks, etc.) that could be affected by the alternative?Can the alternative be constructed utilizing temporary workConstructabilityzone traffic-control strategies that will not significantly delaytravel?Source: I-90 IJR, Appendix H (HDR 2010); * The interstate mainline refers to the principal travel section of I-90 in the study area.2.2.4 Range of AlternativesThe project team and the TAC met in May 2008 to begin formulating alternatives that would be measuredagainst the screening criteria. Detailed information on alternatives development is provided in Appendix I ofthe IJR (HDR 2010). From this meeting and follow-up discussions, 22 build alternatives emerged for level-1screening in the following categories:• Three were improvements at the adjacent State Line Road Interchange or the Pleasant View RoadInterchange• Seven included modifications to existing interchanges with partial or new interstate accessimprovements• Twelve were various forms of a new interchange, using either N. Beck Road or W. Pointe ParkwayI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-5Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The No-Build Alternative was carried forward throughout the process. A Local Improvement Alternative(further defined in Section 2.2.5) that was added shortly after the level-II screening process was incorporatedinto the IJR.2.2.5 Screening of AlternativesLevel-I ScreeningThe initial 22 build alternatives described above were screened using the criteria outlined in Table 2-2. Level-I Screening Criteria as well as details on the level-I screening process, including rationale for eliminatingalternatives, are provided in Appendix J of the IJR (HDR 2010). The level-I screening process assigned scoresto each of the alternatives based on the criteria listed in Table 2-2. Based on the screening process and inputprovided by TAC and the project team, the following alternatives were advanced for level-II screening(Figure 2-2):• Existing Interchange Improvement Alternatives:• New Road Overcrossing Connecting to Expo Parkway with Improvements to Pleasant ViewRoad Interchange• State Line Road Improvements + New Road Overcrossing Connecting to Expo Parkway +Improvements to Pleasant View Road Interchange• New Interchange Alternatives:• Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange• Pointe Parkway Roundabout Diamond Interchange• Pointe Parkway Single Point Urban Interchange• Beck Road Single Point Urban InterchangeLevel-II ScreeningAlternatives EliminatedAs a first step in the level-II screening, the six alternatives were screened based on their qualitative measures,which resulted in the following alternatives being eliminated:New Road Overcrossing Connecting to Expo Parkway with Improvements to Pleasant View RoadInterchange – This alternative includes reorganization and rerouting of the existing and planned localroadway system. Many of these changes make this alternative inconsistent with the local adoptedtransportation plan. The restriction of intersections on N. Pleasant View Road to right-in/right-out movementscould cause multiple business displacements or disruptions through associated access measures. Moreover,the proposed overcrossing road and its connection south of W. Riverbend Road to Pleasant View Road andthe rest of the transportation system had the potential of causing multiple industrial employmentdisplacements.State Line Road Improvements + New Road Overcrossing Connecting to Expo Parkway +Improvements to Pleasant View Road Interchange – This alternative, which combines the overcrossingalternative described above with major improvements to the State Line Interchange, was eliminated for thesame reasons described above.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-6Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Further AnalysisAfter the first two alternatives were eliminated from further consideration, a detailed traffic operation andtraffic service analysis was conducted to analyze the remaining alternatives. This included travel demandmodeling of the SRTC/KMPO 2030 regional network and operational traffic analysis of the local network.This level of analysis allowed an understanding of future traffic operations, including LOS at localintersections and vehicle travel time and miles traveled for each alternative for the planning year 2030. It alsoprovided valuable input into traffic-related benefits that could result from any of the remaining improvementalternatives. For additional information on travel demand model forecasting and adjustments, see the TravelDemand Model Forecast Procedures Memorandum dated May 21, 2010 (Appendix D in the IJR, HDR 2010).During the development of the IJR, and the ongoing level-II screening, discussions with ITD and FHWA ledto development of a Local Improvement Alternative that would function as a possible substitute for aninterchange build alternative. The Local Improvement Alternative would include improvements to thePleasant View Road Interchange, optimization of traffic signal timing, and improvements on N. and S.Pleasant View Road to interconnect and coordinate traffic operations.The project team completed traffic forecasts and operational analysis for signalized and unsignalizedintersections in the project area for the four remaining interchange alternatives and the Local ImprovementAlternative. This effort included a traffic capacity analysis for I-90 and the merging and diverging ramp areason the State Line Road and Pleasant View Road interchanges. The results of this analysis are presented inSection 2 of the IJR (HDR 2010) and are summarized in the following text.Table 2-4 summarizes the traffic analysis that compares these alternatives and the No-Build Alternative. Asshown in the table, the build alternatives that add access to I-90 enhance the local transportation system byimproving traffic conditions at signalized and unsignalized intersections in the project area. For example,87.5 percent of the signalized intersections in the project area would operate at LOS E or F under the No-Build Alternative compared to 0 percent with the four new interchange alternatives (all operated at LOS D orbetter). The four interchange alternatives also provide more improved traffic operations compared to theLocal Improvement Alternative.The LOS for the I-90 mainline (the principal travel section of I-90) between the new interchange and thePleasant View Road Interchange is reduced from LOS C in the No-Build to LOS D for the build alternatives.As part of the IJR process, ITD accepted a request from the project team to use LOS D as the minimumdesign threshold for the I-90 mainline, since it is in an urban area (ITD 2010). The ITD approval letter for theI-90 mainline LOS is provided in Appendix Y of the IJR.The effects of a new interchange on traffic conditions were analyzed with and without traffic signals on theramp terminus intersections at the existing State Line Road Interchange. These intersections are currentlyunsignalized. As unsignalized intersections, both ramps are predicted to perform poorly (LOS F) underforecasted 2030 peak-hour conditions, with or without the build alternatives. By assuming signalization, thefour new interchange alternatives would improve conditions at the State Line Road Interchange from LOS Fto LOS C or LOS B.The SRTC Metropolitan Transportation Plan identifies these ramp terminus intersections as unfundeddeficiencies in the planning year 2015. Even without signalized intersections, the new interchange alternativeswould delay the urgency of this deficiency beyond the projected 2015 horizon year (it delays the need forsignalization). That additional time would allow the SRTC and its regional partners to find an appropriatefunded solution to this recognized deficiency (See page 3-11 of the IJR, HDR 2010). The acceptableoperation of the interchange alternatives is not dependent upon the provision of improvements at the StateLine Road Interchange and improvements to the State Line Road Interchange are not included in thecommitted improvements for opening day.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-8Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 2-4. 2030 Traffic Operations Comparison of AlternativesSignalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Freeway ComponentsNo-BuildAlternativeTotal(%)8(100%)LOS C*or better(%)0(0%)LOS D(%)1(12.5%)LOS E orF(%)7(87.5%)Total(%)3(100%)LOS C orbetter(%)1(33.3%)LOS D(%)0(0%)LOS E orF(%)2(66.7%)Total(%)16(100%)LOS C orbetter(%)16(100%)LOS D(%)0(0%)LOS E orF(%)0(0%)Local ImprovementAlternative8(100%)4(50%)2(25%)2(25%)3(100%)1(33.3%)0(0%)2(66.7%)16(100%)16(100%)0(0%)0(0%)Pointe ParkwayStandard Diamond12(100%)11(91.7%)1(8.3%)0(0%)4(100%)2(50%)0(0%)2(50%)20(100%)17(85%)3(15%)0(0%)Pointe ParkwayRoundaboutDiamond12(100%)10(83.3%)2(16.7%)0(0%)4(100%)2(50%)0(0%)2(50%)20(100%)17(85%)3(15%)0(0%)Pointe ParkwaySingle Point UrbanInterchange11(100%)10(90.9%)1(9.1%)0(0%)4(100%)2(50%)0(0%)2(50%)20(100%)17(85%)3(15%)0(0%)Beck Road SinglePoint UrbanInterchange12(100%)11(91.7%)1(8.3%)0(0%)2(100%)0 02(100%)20(100%)17(85%)3(15%)0(0%)Source: I-90 Beck Road IJR, Table 27 (HDR 2010)* LOS is based on PM peak hour conditions.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment 2-9Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The four new interchange alternatives listed in Table 2-4 have similar traffic operation effectiveness and allfour provide greater traffic flow benefits compared to the Local Improvement Alternative. The PointeParkway Standard Diamond was recommended in the IJR as the preferred alternative for the followingreasons:• Providing a new interchange is in direct response to predicted regional travel demand from the westPost Falls area, which is expected to grow by nearly 11,077 residential units and over 5,000employees by 2030.• A new interchange in the N. Beck Road vicinity is supported in the regional and local land-use andtransportation plans.• The proposed interchange improves traffic operations over the projected 2030 No-Build Alternativewith 92 percent of the signalized intersections projected at LOS C or better, compared to allsignalized intersections at LOS D or F for the No-Build Alternative.• The standard diamond design can accommodate vehicle, bicycle and pedestrians effectively whileoffering ease of construction and future expandability. The Pointe Parkway design follows generallyaccepted engineering practices for an urban roadway where speeds are controlled by signalizedintersections.• The location on the Pointe Parkway alignment provides increased distance from the Spokane Rivercompared to the Beck Road alignments.Transportation System ManagementTSM refers to a wide-range of traffic engineering measures that can increase the capacity of the existingroadway system. Examples of TSM include improving signal timing, changing lane configurations, rampmetering (the use of traffic signals at interstate on-ramps to manage the rate of automobiles entering theinterstate), carpooling, and mass transit options. Mass transit would consist of providing bus, light rail orother transit options. FHWA guidelines require that TSM is considered in highly urbanized areas before largescalecapital improvements are made.FHWA’s Technical Advisory T6640.8A indicates that alternate means of meeting the project purpose andneed (such as TSM measures) is usually relevant only for major projects proposed in urban areas with apopulation over 200,000. According to official population forecasts published by the KMPO, the entire PostFalls Highway District is expected to have a population of just over 100,000 by 2030. Since this is only halfof the cited threshold, TSM measures are not likely to be an effective replacement for additional access toI-90. Various local improvement alternatives were evaluated in the IJR that included TSM measures such astraffic signal optimization and changing lane configurations. None of these alternatives met the traffic needsfor the study area in 2030. Refer to Section 2.2 of the IJR for additional information on TSM.2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed StudyBased on the screening of a range of alternatives, the project team with input from ITD and FHWArecommended the Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange Alternative (Figure 2-3) as the ProposedAction. This alternative meets the project purpose and need, it provides favorable traffic effectivenesscompared to other alternatives evaluated, and is compatible with regional plans and the transportation networkin the project area. The No-Build Alternative is required to be evaluated under NEPA.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-10Project No. A010(963)June 2011

2.3.1 No-Build AlternativeNo interchange would be built under the No-Build Alternative, which provides a basis for comparing the prosand cons of the Proposed Action. The No-Build Alternative would retain the current W. Pointe Parkway andN. Beck Road configurations without access to I-90 in the N. Beck Road area. Traffic in the project areawould continue to access I-90 via the State Line Road and Pleasant View Road interchanges. Other projectsand local development included in the regional long-range transportation and comprehensive plans would beconstructed (see Section 1.7.1 for a description of these projects).2.3.2 Proposed Action (Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond InterchangeAlternative)The Proposed Action would be connected to the regional roadway system by W. Pointe Parkway and N. BeckRoad to the north of I-90 and by W. Riverbend Avenue to the south of I-90. Logical beginning and endingpoints for the environmental evaluation of the Proposed Action are (Figure 2-3):• Begin Project Terminus: The project begins at the connection of the interchange to W. RiverbendAvenue south of I-90. The terminus would allow for the realignment of W. Riverbend Avenue tothis new intersection and construction of an extension from W. Riverbend Avenue to connectwith properties west of the interchange. This terminus would also provide necessaryimprovements to the North Idaho Centennial Trail (Centennial Trail) multi-use recreational trailsystem, to allow trail users to access the interchange crossing while maintaining uninterruptedtravel along the trail system.• End Project Terminus: The project ends north of I-90 at the intersection of N. Beck Road andW. Seltice Way. This terminus would include improvements to N. Beck Road and the intersectionat N. Beck Road and W. Seltice Way to meet forecasted traffic demand.• The project also includes ramps accessing and exiting I-90 for both directions of travel at theproject location.The Pointe Parkway Standard Diamond Interchange and its ramps would be part of the National HighwaySystem when completed. The proposed improvements would be designed according to American Associationof State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and would meet or exceed ITD andFHWA standards. The concept design has been discussed with the governing agencies (ITD and City of PostFalls) as part of the IJR process. Both agencies are supportive of the design concepts.Interstate ramps are designed to meet the required acceleration/deceleration lengths and provide necessaryspacing for merge and diverge actions between adjacent (existing) interchanges. Local roads and theintersection at N. Beck Road and W. Seltice Way to be improved as part of the Proposed Action would bedesigned in accordance with City of Post Falls, PFHD, Kootenai County, or ITD published standards, asapplicable for the appropriate road jurisdiction.Based on the opening-day analysis, construction of the interchange assumes associated improvements thatwould be in place concurrent with the opening of the interchange. This information is summarized in thedesign features for the Proposed Action in Table 2-5.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-12Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 2-5. Proposed Action Roadway ImprovementsLocationI-90/W. Pointe ParkwayW. Pointe Parkway(I-90 to N. Beck Road)W. Pointe Parkway(I-90 to W. RiverbendAvenue)W. Riverbend Avenue(Existing alignment toPointe Parkway)W. Riverbend AvenueExtensionN. Beck Road (W.Pointe Parkway to W.Seltice Way)Diamond interchange with rampsDescriptionFour-lane minor arterial roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks, turnlanes at ramps and N. Beck Road intersectionFour-lane minor arterial roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks, turnlanes at ramps and the W. Riverbend Avenue intersectionRealign as a two-lane collector road with bike lanes and sidewalks,turn lanes at intersectionsTwo-lane collector road with sidewalk on south side, CentennialTrail on north side, a two-way left-turn lane west of gradeseparation,and turn lanes at intersectionsFive-lane minor arterial roadway with bike lanes and sidewalks, turnlanes at intersectionsNOTE: Pointe LLC, the proponent of the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project, has committed to completingthe improvements listed in this table concurrent with the opening of the project. See Figures 2-4 and 2-5 forProposed Action layout and typical cross sections, respectively.The design speeds for the new roads are based on adjacent roadways. N. Beck Road and W. Pointe Parkwaywould be designed as minor arterials, with a design speed of 35 mph (posted speed 25 mph) and signalizedintersections. W. Riverbend Avenue would be designed as a collector road with a design speed that increasesfrom 25 mph at the W. Pointe Parkway intersection to 35 mph at its connection with the existing alignment(posted speed 25 mph). The W. Riverbend Avenue extension to the west would have a design speed of 35mph (posted speed 25 mph).The Proposed Action interchange detail concept is shown in Figure 2-4. Typical sections are illustrated inFigure 2-5. The proposed interchange concept would include provisions for bicycles and pedestrians. TheCentennial Trail, which runs parallel to I-90 on the south side, would be continued through the interchangearea adjacent to the proposed W. Riverbend Avenue extension that would be grade-separated from the PointeParkway interchange cross-road. The trail would not have any at-grade roadway crossings after constructionof the interchange is complete. Conceptual right-of-way estimates anticipate approximately 15 to 20 acres ofnew right-of-way for the interchange footprint. The right-of-way for N. Beck Road is not included in thismeasurement because it has already been dedicated to the City.Construction requirements for the Centennial Trail would be consistent with City of Post Falls designstandards (12-foot paved, multi-use trail with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - compliant grades). Aconnection between the Centennial Trail and the sidewalk and bike lanes would be constructed onW. Riverbend Avenue and W. Pointe Parkway for non-trail access across I-90. To provide continuousoperation of the Centennial Trail during construction, plans would indicate where temporary connectionswould be constructed.The design concept drawing shown in Figure 2-4 illustrates the conceptual provisions for bicycle andpedestrian facilities. Where possible, pedestrian sidewalks would be 6 feet wide and detached from theroadway. Where right-of-way or other constraints preclude a detached sidewalk, pedestrian sidewalks wouldbe attached to the roadway section. Bicycle travel would be accommodated with 5-foot, on-street bicyclelanes. For both the multi-use trail and sidewalks, ADA-accessible ramps would be provided at all crossings.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment2-13Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 3: Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences,and Mitigation3.1 IntroductionThis chapter describes the affected human environment (baseline conditions) that could be affected byconstruction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Action (Pointe Parkway Standard DiamondInterchange Alternative). It also documents the environmental consequences (impacts) of the Proposed Actionon the quality of the human environment.The “affected environment” describes the existing physical status of the resources in the area influenced bythe project. The “human environment” is defined in this study as all the environmental resources, includingphysical, biological, social, and economic conditions occurring in the project area.This chapter focuses on the environmental elements that are expected to be directly or indirectly andindividually or cumulatively affected by the project.3.2 Cultural ResourcesThis section summarizes compliance with requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic PreservationAct related to baseline conditions and potential effects on cultural resources. This section is based on thefindings presented in the documents, I-90 Beck Road Interchange Cultural Resources Survey (ITD 2008) andArchaeological and Historic Survey Report, I-90 Beck Road Area Interchange Project (TAG 2011). Bothdocuments are available from ITD District 1 upon request.3.2.1 Affected EnvironmentCultural PropertiesSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, requires that federal agencies identify andassess the effects of federally-assisted undertakings on historic resources, archaeological sites, and traditionalcultural properties and consult with others to find acceptable ways to avoid or mitigate adverse effects.Resources protected under Section 106 are those that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Registerof Historic Places (NRHP). Eligible properties generally must be at least 50 years old, possess integrity ofphysical characteristics, and are described as follows:The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, andculture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity oflocation, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.Eligible properties must also meet at least one of four criteria of significance:1. Association with a significant historic event2. Association with any significant person3. Architectural significance4. Likelihood to yield information important to historyThe Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the term used in cultural resource surveys to define the area of detailedstudy. For the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project, the APE is the area of the Proposed Action and adjacentproperty as shown in Figure 3-1.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Two levels of cultural resource surveys were conducted for this project as described below.Cursory-level Survey – The first was a cursory-level survey conducted in 2008 by ITD (ITD 2008) to locatesites and determine probable eligibility for the NRHP. This information was used to support alternativesevaluation activities for the IJR (HDR 2010). The area surveyed encompassed the entire project area: PleasantView Road Interchange to the east, State Line Road Interchange to the west, W. Seltice Way to the north, andthe Spokane River to the south.This initial survey identified thirteen properties within or near the project area as potentially historic structures(no archaeological sites were identified). Six of the thirteen sites were considered probably eligible for theNRHP. One of those six sites, the Old I-90 Bridge that crossed the Spokane River at Appleway Avenue inSpokane County, Washington, was demolished in 2010 due to safety concerns (see Figure 3-1 for location).This bridge is currently being reconstructed by Spokane County. The demolition and reconstruction of thisbridge would change the eligibility of this site. Of the 13 sites, only the Jacklin Seed Company facility islocated within the APE. Refer to the I-90 Beck Road Interchange Environmental Scan (HDR 2010) for the 13potential NRHP sites within or adjacent to the project area.Section 106 Cultural Resources Survey – The second survey was completed after the selection of theProposed Action and is the detailed Section 106 cultural resource survey for the APE (TAG 2011). Thissurvey was conducted in January 2011 to locate, record, and assess any prehistoric and historic or culturalresources. It identified two potentially historic sites within the APE (Figure 3-1):• Coeur d’Alene-Spokane Electric Interurban Railway (currently the Centennial Trail): This siteconsists of an old alignment of the railroad that is now a paved and graded pedestrian and bicyclethoroughfare within the APE. The Coeur d’Alene Spokane Electric Interurban railroad was built in1903, and in 1906 merged with another company to form the Spokane and Inland Empire RailwayCompany. The Interurban line ran between Spokane and Hayden Lake, Idaho, via Post Falls, Gibbs,Coeur d’Alene and Dalton. The 37-mile trail begins in Spokane, where it is known as the SpokaneRiver Centennial Trail. When the trail crosses the Idaho border it becomes the North IdahoCentennial Trail, ending at Coeur d’Alene.The railroad alignment has been recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion Afor its association with events significant to local, regional and national history. However, thesegment within the APE has been paved. No rails, ties, or other railroad-related features wereobserved within or adjacent to the APE. As a result of the disturbance to this segment, it is likelynoncontributing, and would not be eligible for the NRHP (Table 3-1).• Jacklin Seed Company: This site at 5300 W. Riverbend Avenue is associated with Jacklin SeedCompany, which is world-renowned for grass-seed research and production and an important aspectof Kootenai County’s economy in the late twentieth century. The complex is comprised of 22buildings with two buildings more than 50 years old (a cabin and an outhouse are circa 1956). Whilethese two buildings meet the age criteria, they lack integrity of design, workmanship and materials.The site is not significant architecturally and is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (Table 3-1).Table 3-1. Summary of Cultural Resources in the APESite (Site ID No.) Eligible? Proposed ActionCoeur d’Alene-Spokane Electric Interurban Railway –currently the Centennial Trail (10KA392)NoNo EffectJacklin Seed Company (JA001) No No EffectI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-3Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Coeur d’Alene TribeThe project area is in the traditional territory of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe who occupied an area of at least6,200 square miles centered on Lake Coeur d’Alene, its major tributaries, and the Spokane River. Coeurd’Alene villages were formally grouped into three bands: one on the Spokane River, a second on the Coeurd’Alene River, and a third on the St. Joe River. Reportedly the largest Coeur d’Alene village was at the outletof Lake Coeur d’Alene where the Spokane River begins. Another village at Post Falls was called “Q’emiln,”meaning “throat of the river” (TAG 2011).During the winter, the Coeur d’Alene remained in their villages along the major water sources, subsisting ontrout and whitefish, deer, elk, moose, and small animals from the surrounding forests, and roots crops andberries they collected the previous summer. When spring arrived, members of the winter villages set out forthe outlying prairies to gather the root crops, including camas, bitterroot, and cous. By mid-summer and intoearly fall the last of the camas would have been harvested and berry picking would begin.The Coeur d’Alene trekked higher into the hills along the mountain streams to collect well over a dozendifferent types of berries – the most popular being huckleberries, serviceberries, and chokecherries. In latefall, the “water potato” (broad-leafed arrowhead) would be collected from the marshes around Lake Coeurd’Alene. This practice was unique to the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Frey n.d.). When winter began to set in, theCoeur d’Alene returned to their houses along the lake shores and river banks.Coeur d’Alene housing consisted of long communal houses that were essentially lean-to structures up to 90feet long and constructed with poles covered with tulle woven into mats. Each family within the communallodge had their own fire pit. The Coeur d’Alene also occupied cone-shaped, tulle-covered lodges.Lewis and Clark recorded a meeting between traders and the Coeur d’Alene at a Nez Perce camp during the1805 expedition. In 1842 Jesuit missionaries met with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and founded a settlement atthe south end of Lake Coeur d’Alene. In response to Euro-American mining pressures and land reduction ofthe reservation by treaties, the mission was moved twice before being established at DeSmet, Idaho, in the1870s. The Coeur d’Alene Reservation was established in 1873, and opened to non-tribal settlement in 1909.Coeur d’Alene Tribe testimony indicates that the general area (I-90 corridor west of Post Falls) may havebeen used for horse racing. Likely cultural resources associated with this activity might include gamingmarkers, or those associated with camping, or food processing.3.2.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThere would be no impacts on cultural resources under the No-Build Alternative.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsTwo sites identified in the APE for this project, the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane Electric Interurban Railway andthe Jacklin Seed Company, are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Thus, under Section 106 criteria, thereare no effects to cultural resource sites under the Proposed Action. The Idaho State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO) approved these findings by signing the ITD form 1502 - Determination of Significance andEffect included in Appendix A.There are no known prehistoric sites adjacent to or within the APE based on review of documents andinterviews with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. Tribal testimony indicates that there may have been horse racing inthe general area. This activity may include cultural resources such as gaming markers, or items associatedwith camping sites or food preparation areas. The Proposed Action does not encroach on the banks of theI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-4Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Spokane River, where potential prehistoric sites could be found. However, construction activities may resultin the unexpected discovery of buried archaeological or paleontological resources or artifacts. Constructionactivities would be stopped following any such discovery, and the ITD cultural resources staff notified.Consultation with SHPO and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe would be conducted prior to resuming construction.Indirect ImpactsThe National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 applies to federal actions, such as the Proposed Action,but does not apply to private development. Thus, potential impacts to historic structures, such as demolitionof buildings, could occur from interrelated and interdependent development, since there would not be thesame level of protection as with federal projects. The Proposed Action would likely accelerate development(see Section 3.7 for discussion of induced development); however, it is likely that the area would ultimatelybe developed with or without the Proposed Action. Thus, impacts to historic structures (e.g. removing of ahistoric building for a residential development) would likely occur regardless of the Proposed Action.Cumulative ImpactsAs defined in Chapter 2, cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incrementalimpact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,regardless of what agency or person undertakes them. Cumulative impacts on cultural resources areanticipated with planned area-wide development. However, as described above, National HistoricPreservation Act Section 106 does not provide the same level of protection (required mitigation) for privatedevelopment compared to federal projects. While overall development in the area (past, present andforeseeable) may result in impacts to historic properties such as historic buildings (e.g., removing of a historicbuilding for a residential development), it would likely occur regardless of the Proposed Action.MitigationThe Proposed Action would have no effects on NRHP eligible properties. Coeur d’Alene Tribal testimonyindicates that there is potential for tribal related cultural resources in the project area related to horse racing.Likely cultural resources associated with this activity might include gaming markers, or those associated withcamping, or food processing. Because of the potential for tribal cultural resources in the project area, and atthe request of the Tribe, a qualified archeologist will be on-site during project geotechnical soil samplingactivities. The archeologist will evaluate the soil samples on-site for evidence of archaeological orpaleontological artifacts. If artifacts are found, ITD cultural resource staff will be notified. In addition, duringconstruction, if evidence of archeological or paleontological artifacts is discovered, ITD cultural resource staffwill be notified. ITD staff will be responsible for notifying the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and SHPO. The Coeurd’Alene Tribe and ITD will be provided the construction schedule at least 15-days prior to initiation of fieldconstruction activities. In addition, key field personnel for the contractor will participate in a 1- hour culturalresource awareness training conducted by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources3.3.1 Affected EnvironmentSection 4(f) ResourcesThe Department of Transportation Act of 1966 included a special provision – Section 4(f) – which stipulatedthat the FHWA and other U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies cannot use land from publiclyowned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unlessthe following conditions apply:There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of landI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-5Project No. A010(963)June 2011

• The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from useWhile a Section 4(f) evaluation is a separate and distinct legal requirement, FHWA incorporates the 4(f)evaluation into its environmental documents as required by federal regulations (23 CFR §§ 771.105(a) and771.135(i)).Section 4(f) resources can include publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge,or any land of historic significance. Potential 4(f) sites were considered when defining and evaluatingalternatives for the project. Federal code defines several uses of land or resources that may be subject toSection 4(f) requirements. They include:• A use that can occur when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility or whenthere is a temporary occupancy of the land that is adverse to a 4(f) resource.• A use that can also occur (called a “constructive use”) when a project’s proximity impacts are sosevere that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under4(f) are “substantially impacted” (e.g., by noise, aesthetic impairment, diminished wildlife habitat)Under Section 4(f), a feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the use of Section 4(f) resources must besought. If such an alternative cannot be developed, the alternative that does the least harm to Section 4(f)resources must be chosen. To choose this alternative, an evaluation of the relative importance of the resourcesbeing used and the relative severity of the uses is required.In August 2005, Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act:A Legacy for Users was the first substantive revision to Section 4(f) since 1966. Section 6009, whichamended existing Section 4(f) legislation at both Title 49 U.S. Code Section 303 and Title 23 U.S. CodeSection 138, simplified the process and approval of projects that have only de minimis (insignificant) impactson lands impacted by Section 4(f).Under the new provisions, once the DOT determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property resultsin an insignificant impact, analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the Section 4(f) evaluationprocess is complete. On March 12, 2008 FHWA issued a Final Rule on Section 4(f) that clarifies the 4(f)approval process and simplifies its regulatory requirements, and provides guidance for determining deminimis impacts. The Final Rule also moved the Section 4(f) regulation to 23 CFR 774. The de minimiscriteria for parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are met when:1. The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance,minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does notadversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection underSection 4(f);2. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA’s intent to make the deminimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affectthe activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f); and3. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project onthe protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource.The project team conducted land-use reviews to determine the presence of potential protected Section 4(f)resources within the project area. The land-use review consisted of field observations for parks, recreationareas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges and a Section 106 cultural resources survey.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-6Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The Centennial Trail (Figure 3-2), located on the south sideof I-90, is the only 4(f) property within the footprint of oradjacent to the Proposed Action. The portion of the trail in thearea of the Proposed Action is managed by Kootenai CountyParks and Recreation and is considered a recreationalresource. The trail is a non-motorized, multi-use recreationaltrail, which starts at Higgins Point (adjacent to Lake Coeurd’Alene Idaho) and meanders for 24 miles to theIdaho/Washington state line. The trail continues another 37miles into Washington to Nine Mile Falls.The Centennial Trail is ADA-compliant. The trail attractsmany recreationists, including in the late fall and early winterfor those hoping to view bald eagles as they migrate south.The trail, which was built by dedicated public funds, hasreceived national acclaim and was designated a MillenniumTrail by Hillary Clinton in 1999. The portion of the trail in theproject area is paved and follows the south side of I-90.Figure 3-2. Centennial Trail south of I-90,looking westSection 6(f) ResourcesSection 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Funds Act applies to all projects that impact recreationallands purchased or improved with land and water conservation funds. The Secretary of the Interior mustapprove any conversion of property acquired or developed with assistance under this act to other than public,outdoor recreation use (ITD 2011). No Section 6(f) resources occur in the project area.3.3.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThere would be no impacts on Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources under the No-Build Alternative becausethe Centennial Trail would continue to function as it does today.Proposed ActionThe Proposed Action would include the re-alignment of the Centennial Trail where the interchange connectsto W. Riverbend Avenue (Figure 2-4). At the interchange, the trail would be diverted to the south where itwould pass under the interchange structure (undercrossing) and then be diverted back to the original pathparallel with I-90. The trail also would be connected to a shared-use sidewalk that provides direct access tothe interchange and W. Pointe Parkway and N. Beck Road north of I-90.The proposed Centennial Trail re-alignment would not cross any roads and does not impact the continuity ofthe trail for users (e.g., there would be no stop signs or at grade road crossings). The re-alignment of the trailwould be consistent with the City of Post Falls and Kootenai County design standards (12-foot, paved, multiusetrail with ADA-compliant grades). The Centennial Trail will remain open during construction, but somedisruption of trail access such as temporary detours, gravel/dirt resurfacing and flagging could occur. Everyattempt would be made to minimize disruption, and construction plans would clearly indicate locations fortemporary connections. The activities, features, and attributes of the current trail system that qualify thisresource for protection under Section 4(f) would be restored once construction is complete.Kootenai County and the North Idaho Centennial Trail Foundation, which have jurisdiction over theCentennial Trail in the project area, have both concurred in writing that the Proposed Action would notadversely affect the activities, features or attributes of the trail that qualify it as a 4(f) resource. Furthermore,I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-7Project No. A010(963)June 2011

the connection of the trail system to the proposed interchange is viewed as an enhancement that provides trailusers access to and from areas north of I-90. County and foundation officials were notified that, based on thatconcurrence, FHWA intends to make a finding of de minimis impact (no adverse impact) on the trail. A 4(f)de minimis finding that further describes these conclusions is presented in Appendix B.Since no Section 6(f) resources are present in the project area, the Proposed Action would have no impact onthese resources.3.4 Wetlands and Waters of the United StatesThis section describes existing wetlands and open waters and evaluates impacts of the Proposed Action onthese resources.3.4.1 Affected EnvironmentAssessments of the Waters of the U.S. and associated wetlands were conducted by the project team in 2007and 2011 in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Wetlands DelineationManual. The requirements for such delineation are contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, whichrequires authorization through the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all Waters of theU.S., including wetlands. Waters of the U.S. is defined by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)on their website: http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html.In addition to the USACE regulations, Executive Order 11990 (applies to all federal agencies) and 23 CFR777 (applies to FHWA projects) requires that agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall avoid undertakingor providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands (both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictionalwetlands) unless the head of the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction,and (2) that the Proposed Action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that mayresult from such use.The project team conducted field surveys to identify and assess Waters of the U.S. and associated specialaquatic sites within the area that would be potentially impacted by the Proposed Action. Identified waters inthe project area have been divided into two categories: natural waters and stormwater-related waters.The 2007 and 2011 field surveys were conducted in the area of the Proposed Action (same general footprintas presented for the cultural resource APE in Figure 3-1) to assess the presence of wetlands. No evidence wasfound of wetland vegetation and/or saturated soils that could support wetlands. The area north of I-90, whichhad been in agricultural production, was re-graded in recent years for commercial and industrial development,including stormwater controls. The area south of I-90 isdeveloped with roads, parking areas, and buildings.Stormwater drainages north of I-90 are localized (they do notcross south of I-90) and there is no evidence that they leaddirectly to the Spokane River in the area of the ProposedAction. USACE verified in a letter dated May 17, 2011 thatthe project site does not contain wetlands or waters of theU.S. A copy of the letter is presented in Appendix D.Figure 3-3. Jacklin Seed fire-suppressionpondI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentA man-made fire-suppression pond is located on the JacklinSeed Company property south of I-90 within the footprint ofthe Proposed Action (Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-6). Thegeotextile-lined pond is about 530 feet from the SpokaneRiver and is not hydrologically connected. It has novegetation on or near its banks and there is no evidence ofseepage. The area surrounding the pond has been graded andis largely disturbed by operations of the adjacent commercial3-8Project No. A010(963)June 2011

facilities.Officials with the City of Post Falls and Jacklin Seed indicated that the pond is no longer in use. Jacklin hadconstructed the pond before it was served by the city’s potable water system, and needed a water supply forfire protection. A pump station associated with the pond isbeing dismantled by Jacklin Seed.The Spokane River flows from east to west on the south sideof the project area and is the only natural drainage in theproject area (Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-6). The river isapproximately 100 miles long, beginning as the outlet forLake Coeur d’Alene and ending as a tributary to theColumbia River. The River drains from the northwest cornerof Lake Coeur d’Alene near the City of Coeur d'Alene andflows west approximately 25 miles into east centralWashington through the suburban Spokane Valley toSpokane. The Spokane River is a Water of the U.S. and anywetlands or waters hydraulically connected to the river arealso Waters of the U.S. Additional information on theSpokane River is provided in Section 3.6 of this report.The southernmost boundary of the Proposed Action is a driveway that is proposed to connect the interchangeto the Jacklin Seed property (Figure 2-4). The gravel driveway is approximately 90 feet from the banks of theSpokane River and is approximately 60 feet higher in elevation. Jacklin Seed uses this area for parking andstorage.3.4.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThere would be no direct or indirect impacts on open water or wetlands under the No-Build Alternative.Future open water and wetland conditions in the project area would remain largely the same as today. Therecould be impacts associated with development, which is expected to continue under the No-Build Alternative.Developers would be required to follow the Clean Water Act requirements for wetlands and waters underU.S. protection.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsFigure 3-4. Spokane River south ofproject areaStormwater runoff from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be designed to beretained on-site. No direct stormwater discharge from the Proposed Action to the river would occur. Forconstruction, the project would obtain a stormwater permit and develop and implement a StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Final design specifications would include necessary stormwater andemergency response permits and programs. With stormwater retention on-site, implementation of stormwaterBest Management Practices (BMPs), including filtering of sediment, direct impacts to the Spokane Riverwould not occur under the Proposed Action.There would be no direct wetland impacts in the area of the Proposed Action because there are no wetlands.The Proposed Action would have a direct impact on the fire-suppression pond at the Jacklin Seed facility.However, this lined, man-made pond has no hydraulic connection to the Spokane River, and has novegetation. Since the pond is no longer in use or required by facilities on W. Riverbend Avenue, it would notbe replaced.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-9Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Indirect ImpactsThe Proposed Action would likely accelerate development in the area, but the area is expected to ultimatelybe developed with or without the Proposed Action. Development could result in the loss of wetlands and openwater. However, all construction projects (private or federal actions) would be required to obtain a Section404 permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Such apermit would address minimizing impacts and mitigation if impacts occur.A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit is required forprojects that disturb more than 1 acre of soil and could have the potential to discharge stormwater to Watersof the U.S. This permit will address controlling stormwater runoff from construction activities. Withappropriate design specifications, on-site stormwater retention, stormwater and emergency response permitsand programs, and implementation of stormwater BMPs, there would be no indirect impacts to the SpokaneRiver.Cumulative ImpactsThere would be no cumulative impacts for wetlands or Waters of the U.S. because the Proposed Action doesnot disturb these resources. While the fire-suppression pond would be impacted by the Proposed Action, thisfeature is neither a wetland nor a Water of the U.S. Additionally, development in the area would be requiredto comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and mitigate for any wetlands or Waters of the U.S.impacts.MitigationNo direct impacts on wetlands or Waters of the U.S. would occur under the Proposed Action. No mitigationwould be required for the fire-suppression pond at Jacklin Seed because it is no longer in use or required, andofficials with the City of Post Falls and Jacklin Seed have confirmed that no mitigation would be required.For construction practices, measures to minimize potential secondary impacts on the Spokane River are asfollows:• Procedures to protect the Spokane River and adjacent properties during construction will be addressedin the Construction General Permit, local stormwater permits and the SWPPP.3.5 Biological ResourcesThis section describes the affected biological environment and evaluates impacts on vegetation, fish, andwildlife, including threatened and endangered species under the Proposed Action. The biological reviewconsisted of a request for information from the Idaho Conservation Data Center (IDCDC), a review of thelatest threatened and endangered species lists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and a review of pertinent species information for the area.3.5.1 Affected EnvironmentVegetationThe land surface in the area of the Proposed Action has been mostly disturbed (Figure 1-2). Vegetation northof I-90 is mostly weed species with some native grasses and forbs. This area was once under agriculturalproduction, but is now being developed and much of the ground surface has been graded (re-sloped). South ofI-90, the project area is developed into roads, parking lots, and buildings with some landscaping. No naturalvegetation is present. Some wetland vegetation occurs near the edges of the Spokane River.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-10Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Noxious WeedsNoxious weeds degrade natural habitat, choke streams, crowd native plants, create fire hazards, poison andinjure livestock and humans, and foul recreation sites. Areas that have been disturbed are at particular risk ofweed encroachment. Information on Idaho’s noxious weed for Kootenai County is available on their website.According to the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Idaho has 64 species of weeds that are designatednoxious by state law. The Kootenai County Noxious Weed Control Department reports 23 noxious weeds, 20of which are also on the state list. Table 3-2 lists the noxious weed species that are known or reported tooccur in Kootenai County.Table 3-2. Noxious Weed Species Known or Reported to Occur in Kootenai CountyCommonSpecies NameScientificWeed List SourceBlueweed Echium vulgare Kootenai County/State of IdahoCommon tansy Tanacetum vulgare Kootenai CountyEurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatu Kootenai County/State of IdahoField bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Kootenai County/State of IdahoOrange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacu Kootenai County/State of IdahoYellow hawkweed Hieracium pratense Kootenai County/State of IdahoHoundstongue Sismgrium altissimum Kootenai County/State of IdahoSpotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Kootenai County/State of IdahoJapanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Kootenai County/State of IdahoKochia Kochia scoparia Kootenai CountyLeafy spurge Euphorbia esula Kootenai County/State of IdahoOxeye daisy Chrysantemum leucant Kootenai County/State of IdahoPoison hemlock Conium maculatum Kootenai County/State of IdahoPurple loosestrife Lythrum salicara Kootenai County/State of IdahoRush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Kootenai County/State of IdahoScotch broom Cytisus scoparius Kootenai County/State of IdahoSt. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Kootenai CountyTansy Ragwort Senecio jacobaea Kootenai County/State of IdahoCanada thistle Cirsium arvense Kootenai County/State of IdahoScotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Kootenai County/State of IdahoDalmatian toadflax Linaria damartica Kootenai County/State of IdahoYellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Kootenai County/State of IdahoYellow starthistle Centaurea solstitias Kootenai County/State of IdahoI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-11Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Fish and WildlifeSpecies of ConcernSpecies of concern are native species that are not listed as threatened or endangered but have been identifiedby IDCDC as being low in numbers, limited in distribution, or having suffered habitat loss. IDCDC lists thefollowing aquatic species of concern for the segment of the Spokane River adjacent to the I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project:• Brook trout• Rainbow trout• Brown trout• Cutthroat trout• Pumpkinseed sunfish• Yellow perch• Largemouth bass• Dace (small fish)• Speckled DaceCandidate SpeciesCandidate species are plants and animals for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their biologicalstatus and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), butfor which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.Categorization of a species as a candidate is strong evidence that the species is of special concern, and may besubject to the full protection of the listing process in the future. No consultation or conference is required forcandidate species. If a candidate species becomes listed before or during construction, biological evaluationand determination of effect would be necessary before construction could proceed.Appendix C presents Idaho’s ESA-listed species under USFWS jurisdiction (dated May 5, 2011), includingcandidate species. The following candidate species are listed by USFWS in Kootenai County:• Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)• Wolverine (Gulo gulo)Threatened and Endangered SpeciesThe threatened and endangered species literature resource review included the USFWS list of threatened andendangered species that receive protection under the ESA. An endangered species is one that is in danger ofextinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely tobecome endangered in the foreseeable future.Appendix C presents Idaho’s ESA-listed species under USFWS jurisdiction (dated May 5, 2011) and byNMFS (dated July 1, 2009), which is summarized in Table 3-3. This table shows federally-listed endangeredand threatened species for Kootenai County, followed by a summary of each species’ status.NMFS lists anadromous fish species by river basin. No ESA federally-listed anadromous fish species underNMFS jurisdiction are listed for the Spokane River, the only natural drainage in the project area.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-12Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 3-3. Federally-listed ESA Species in Kootenai County (USFWS and NMFS)Scientific Name Common Name StatusLynx Canadensis Canada Lynx Listed ThreatenedSalvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Listed Threatened, Designated Critical HabitatHowellia aquatilis Water Howellia Listed ThreatenedSilene spaldingii Spalding’s Catchfly Listed ThreatenedMigratory Bird ActThis federal law, administered by the USFWS, makes it unlawful to take, import, export, possess, sell,purchase, or barter any migratory bird, with the exception of the taking of game birds during establishedhunting seasons. The law also applies to feathers, eggs, nests, and products made from migratory birds. Fortransportation projects, this law can be a concern when the project disturbs migratory bird nests such asremoving nests or disturbing nesting habitats (e.g., vibration noise from machinery).Migratory birds are found in the project area, especially given the proximately of the Spokane River, whichwould attract water fowl, and the availability of food (e.g., rodents) associated with fields, which wouldattract birds of prey. During site surveys, no bird nests (ground or in trees) were observed in the footprint oradjacent to the Proposed Action.Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection ActThis federal law, administered by the USFWS, makes it unlawful to take, import, export, sell, purchase, orbarter any bald or golden eagle, their parts, products, nests, or eggs. Take includes pursuing, shooting,poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting, or disturbing the eagles. Fortransportation projects, the law can be a concern when eagle nests are near projects sites and constructionactivities or the built project disturbs the nesting habits of the eagles.During site surveys, no large bird nests were observed in the project area, though bald eagles likely perchalong the Spokane River during the winter months in the project area.3.5.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildUnder the No-Build Alternative, impacts on biological resources in the project area would be limited tocontinued development, periodic herbicide applications, mowing, and surface-water runoff from developmentand roads.Proposed ActionConsequences to biological resources under the Proposed Action are described in the following sections.Direct ImpactsPotential impacts to vegetation could result from habitat loss or from disturbance during construction of theroadway. Based on preliminary design estimates, construction of the Proposed Action would cover about 17acres of land with pavement (impervious surfaces). Additional areas that would be disturbed fromconstruction activities would be re-vegetated. The areas that would be permanently disturbed adjacent to W.Pointe Parkway and N. Beck Road are already disturbed by grading of development sites. Land south of I-90is developed, with little to no remaining natural vegetation or habitat.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-13Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Potential impacts on fish and wildlife in the project area could result from habitat loss or from disturbance,injury, or mortality during construction and use of the roadway. Construction activities have the potential todisturb or destroy individual passerine (perching and song birds), small mammal, reptile, and amphibian nestsites or dens and less mobile animals unable to escape the path of construction equipment. Other temporaryconstruction-related effects include the disruption of normal wildlife activities because of construction noise,presence of personnel, and heavy equipment operations. During construction, upland game birds wouldmainly disperse to nearby habitat, leading to increased competition for resources and the possible permanentdisplacement of some individuals. The net effects of such activities are not considered to be significant at thepopulation level anticipated in the project area.The IDCDC list of Idaho species of concern was reviewed to determine if the Proposed Action posed any riskto these species. Species of concern in the project area were limited to aquatic species in the Spokane River.The project would have no direct impacts on the Spokane River and would therefore have no impact onaquatic species.The potential impacts of the Proposed Action on candidate species are as follows:Yellow-billed Cuckoo. The yellow-billed cuckoo is a long-distance migrant. Breeding habitat includes openwoodland, parks, deciduous riparian woodland, tall cottonwood and willow riparian woodland, deciduouswoodlands, moist thickets, orchards, and overgrown pastures. Non-breeding habitat includes forest,woodland, and scrub. The yellow-billed cuckoo eats mainly caterpillars. Other food sources include otherinsects, some fruits, small lizards, frogs, and bird eggs (IDFG 2005). Given its habitat preferences, it isunlikely the yellow-billed cuckoo would be found in the project area. Therefore, the Proposed Action wouldhave no impact on the yellow-billed cuckoo.Wolverine. Wolverine populations in Idaho are centered in the Selkirk Mountains, Lochsa and Kelly Creekdrainages, and the Smoky Mountain complex of the Sawtooth Mountains (IDFG 2005). A September 2005IDCDC map shows a small predicted distribution area for wolverines approximately 5 miles south of theproject area. The nearest point location, or confirmed sighting, is greater than 10 miles north of the projectarea. Studies suggest that wolverines are sensitive to human disturbance. It is expected that no wolverineswould use the project area given the developed nature of the area and the presence of I-90. Due to thesensitivity to human disturbance and lack of habitat in the project area, the Proposed Action would have noimpact on the wolverine.The status of USFWS federally-listed endangered and threatened species in Kootenai County and thepotential effects of the Proposed Action on those species are presented below.Canada Lynx. Canada lynx, west of the Continental Divide, generally occur in sub-alpine forests between4,000 and 7,050 feet in elevation in stands composed of pure lodgepole pine, but also mixed stands ofsubalpine fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, grand fir, western larch and hardwoods. They typically avoid largeopenings, but often hunt along edges of areas of dense cover. Habitat for the Canada lynx is not present in theproject area due to lack of sub-alpine forest (IDFG 2005). Therefore, this species is considered absent and theProposed Action would have no effect on the Canada lynx.Bull Trout. Bull trout normally prefer temperatures of less than 54 degrees F (IDFG 2005). Juveniles useruns, riffles and pocket water, but fish over a year old generally select deeper pools while resting. Informationfrom the IDCDC indicates that bull trout are present in the segment of the Spokane River south of the projectarea. While critical habitat has been designated for bull trout in Kootenai County, it does not include theSpokane River, and there are no other natural drainages in the project area. The Proposed Action would haveno direct or indirect impacts on the Spokane River. Stormwater from construction and operation of theProposed Action would be contained and managed without discharge to the river. In addition, timber alongthe river banks that may provide shady habitat for fish in the river would not be impacted by the ProposedAction (there are few trees along the banks of the river in the project area). Therefore, the Proposed ActionI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-14Project No. A010(963)June 2011

would have no effect on bull trout. Personal communication with Bob Kibler, a biologist with the USFWS onFebruary 7, 2011, supported this determination.Water Howellia. Water howellia is a winter annual aquatic plant that grows 4 to 24 inches high. It is limitedto six clusters of populations in California, Washington, Idaho and Montana. The entire species occupies atotal area of less than 200 acres, with most sites less than 1 acre (USFWS 2006). The species is distinctiveenough that it is the only member of its genus. Water howellia is restricted to small pothole ponds ororphaned river oxbows. Ponds are almost always surrounded by broadleaf deciduous trees. Since seedsgerminate in the fall and overwinter as seedlings, the species only grows in zones within wetlands that areseasonally inundated, yet dry out in late summer or early fall. Habitat for the water howellia is not present inthe project area, and the species is considered absent. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no effect onwater howellia.Spalding’s Catchfly. Spalding’s catchfly is a leafy, perennial plant that is endemic to mesic grasslands of thePalouse Prairie region in eastern Washington and adjacent portions of northeastern Oregon and north-centralIdaho. Throughout its range, much of the Palouse Prairie grassland habitat of Silene spaldingii has beenconverted to crop agriculture or pastureland. In Idaho, it is associated with relatively undisturbed slopes orflats in swales and drainages, upper canyon slopes, and in small strips of native vegetation surrounded bycultivated fields. Sites often occur near lower treeline or scattered ponderosa trees. There are only 10 knownoccurrences in Idaho. Since the area within the footprint of the Proposed Action is disturbed with no nativevegetation, habitat for the Spalding’s catchfly does not exist. It may be possible for Spalding’s catchfly toexist in undisturbed areas of grasslands along the banks of the Spokane River south of Jacklin Seed outside ofthe Proposed Action footprint (IDFG 2007). However, the Proposed Action would have no direct impacts onthe Spokane River, its banks, or the area south of the river. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have noeffect on the Spalding’s catchfly. Personal communication with Bob Kibler, a biologist with the USFWS onFebruary 7, 2011, supported this determination.During site surveys, no bird nests were observed within the footprint of, or adjacent to, the Proposed Action.Furthermore, no eagle nests are found in the project area. Thus, the Proposed Action meets the conditions ofthe Migratory Bird Act and the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act.Indirect ImpactsThe Proposed Action has the potential to indirectly impact existing vegetation and wildlife habitat by theintroduction and invasion of noxious weed species. Invasive plant species, including weeds, have the potentialto overrun more desirable species and can significantly reduce the productivity of croplands and wildlifehabitats. Disturbance associated with construction can create conditions favorable to the establishment ofweed populations that are in the area and have potential for invasion. In addition, construction vehicles andpersonnel can inadvertently bring weed seeds and other weed parts into the area, assisting in their spread.Since a weed-control plan would be developed as part of the design and implemented during construction andduring vegetation establishment of disturbed areas, the invasion of noxious weeds should be minimal. Thedisturbed areas north of I-90 are currently covered by potentially invasive weed species. By re-seeding orlandscaping these disturbed areas as development occurs, the natural vegetation habitat would be improved.The listed species of concern in the project area are aquatic species in the Spokane River. The ProposedAction would not have direct impacts on the Spokane River. As described in Section 3.6, measures would betaken to manage stormwater runoff during construction, contain stormwater on-site, and have sufficientstormwater control to prevent impacts on the river.No impacts to threatened and endangered species would occur. Interrelated and interdependent actions areassociated with this project that could result in indirect impacts to fish, wildlife and associated habitat.Potential impacts from development could include removal or disturbance of vegetation and loss of wildlifehabitat. The sponsors of these development projects are responsible for complying with environmentalresource regulations, which includes the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle and Golden EagleI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-15Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Protection Act, ESA, and the Clean Water Act 404 permitting. The sponsor would be required to mitigate ifadverse impacts occur.Cumulative ImpactsMeasures of cumulative impacts for wildlife in the area include loss of habitat, loss of function, and changesin the distribution of habitat. Within the general area, habitat has been diminishing due to historic activities(within the past 100 years), including clearing of vegetation for agriculture and construction of roads. Morerecently, habitat has been affected due to residential and commercial development, which can produce anindirect effect of introducing more people into the area. Since the Proposed Action would have no impact onthreatened and endangered species, no cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species wouldoccur.MitigationDisturbed vegetated areas that are not covered by the roadway or interchange will be re-seeded with weedfreevegetation. In addition, a weed control plan will be developed by the contractor that addressesminimizing introduction and spreading of noxious weeds. Off-site use areas such as source, waste, andstaging sites will be reviewed for threatened and endangered species. If potential effects are identified,consultation will be coordinated with USFWS.3.6 Surface Water, Floodplains, and GroundwaterThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates impacts on surface water, floodplains, andgroundwater.3.6.1 Affected EnvironmentSurface WaterThe surface-water resource review consisted of a site visit, a request for information from the IdahoDepartment of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and USEPA, and a review of pertinent water qualitydocuments (cited below) for the Spokane River. As discussed in Section 3.4, the Spokane River is the onlywaterway in the project area.Figure 3-5. View of Spokane River from projectarea just south of Jacklin Seed (looking west)The Spokane River flows east to west on the southside of the project area (Figure 3-5). The river isabout 100 miles long, beginning as the outlet for LakeCoeur d’Alene, and ending as a tributary to theColumbia River. It is the only watercourse over theSpokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (SVRPA)that remains on the surface for an extended distance.The Jacklin Seed fire suppression pond described inSection 3.4.1 is located on the Jacklin Seed Companyproperty south of I-90 within the footprint of theProposed Action. Additional surface water featuresin the project area include Skalan Creek and CableCreek, which are both located south of the SpokaneRiver. A large pond area is also identified south of the Spokane River, just northwest of W. Laura Lane(Figure 3-6).The flow of the Spokane River is regulated by the Post Falls Dam, a hydroelectric development located nearPost Falls (just east of Spokane Street south of I-90) where the Spokane River divides and flows through threeI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-16Project No. A010(963)June 2011

edrock channels. Each channel contains a dam. The Post Falls Dam began operating between 1906 and 1908and generates electricity while helping to regulate flooding, store irrigation water, and provide waterrecreation. During most years, the dam gates are left open from December through June, and the flow oftenmimics inflows into the Coeur d’Alene Lake from snowmelt runoff. During most of the summer, however,the gates are set to maintain specific water levels in Coeur d’Alene Lake (Hortness 2005).Water Quality Documents and PermitsSection 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires Idaho to develop a list of water bodies, subject toUSEPA approval, that do not meet water quality standards. States and tribes must periodically publish apriority list of impaired waters, currently every two years. When water quality fails to meet state water qualitystandards, IDEQ determines the causes and sources of pollutants in a subbasin assessment and sets maximumpollutant levels called total maximum daily loads (TMDL). For waters identified on this list, states and tribesmust develop water quality improvement plans for TMDLs that establish allowable pollutant loads set atlevels to achieve water quality standards.A TMDL sets maximum pollutant levels in a watershed and becomes the basis for implementation plans torestore water quality to a level that supports its designated beneficial uses. The implementation plans identifyand describe pollutant controls and management measures (such as BMPs), the mechanisms by which theselected measures would be put into action, and the individuals and entities responsible for implementationprojects.IDEQ’s 2008 Integrated 303(d)/305(b) Report for Idaho lists the Spokane River watershed from the Post FallsDam to the Washington state line (5.67 miles), which includes the portion of the river that passes south of theproject area. This segment is listed as impaired for exceedance of water quality criteria for cadmium, lead,zinc, and total phosphorus. The presence of the cadmium, lead, and zinc in this section of the river isattributed to sediment washed down from upstream historic mining operations in the Silver Valley area.Phosphorus is attributed to non-point sources such as agriculture, septic tanks, and point discharges such asthe City of Coeur d’Alene wastewater treatment plant.A TMDL for total phosphorus was developed for the upper Spokane River and approved by USEPA inJanuary 2001. An implementation plan is under development, and construction practices would have tocomply with requirements of an implementation plan if put in place. A TMDL for metals is also beingdeveloped.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-17Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Wild and Scenic RiversRiver systems were also reviewed to determine whether they were eligible for protection under the Wild andScenic Rivers Act. Created by Congress in 1968, this law provides protection of selected rivers and theirimmediate environments if they possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish andwildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. A Wild and Scenic River status has not been designated forthe Spokane River (NPS 2007).Stormwater ManagementThe NPDES program regulates discharge of stormwater into surface waters. An NPDES Construction GeneralPermit is required for projects that disturb more than 1 acre of soil and could have the potential to dischargestormwater to Waters of the U.S.Current roadway drainages in the area of the Proposed Action infiltrate into soils along roadside ditches andswales with little evidence of conveyance of stormwater. While the I-90 Beck Road Interchange projectwould not encroach on the Spokane River, stormwater control for surface-water protection would be animportant consideration for this project. Concept-level design for stormwater management under the ProposedAction is further discussed under Environmental Consequences (Section 3.6.2).FloodplainsFloodplains are land areas adjacent to rivers and streams that are subject to recurring inundation. Because oftheir connection to river systems, floodplains often contain wetlands and other areas vital to a diverse andhealthy ecosystem. Floodways are channels of a river or watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must bereserved to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation morethan 1 foot. Floodways are only delineated in communities where detailed hydraulic analyses have beencompleted. The floodway is contained within the floodplain.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) define theregulatory boundaries of floodplains along rivers or streams where FIRM studies have been conducted. Thesestudies are maintained by FEMA to determine the “existence and severity of flood hazards” and helpadminister the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.FIRMs identify several types of flood zones in the project area (Figure 3-7). The floodplain associated withthe Spokane River is designated Zone A5, which means it is an area inundated by 100-year flooding, but nobase flood elevations have been established. The river is located down a steep grade on the south side of theproposed interchange. The footprint of the Proposed Action is outside the 100-year floodplain.GroundwaterSpokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie AquiferThe project area overlies the SVRPA, which is a designated sole-source aquifer. Sole-source aquiferdesignations are used to identify aquifers that should receive special protection because they are a drinkingwater supply in areas with few or no alternative sources to groundwater, and where using an alternativesource would be extremely expensive if the aquifer were contaminated. The USEPA administers the SoleSource Aquifer Protection Program under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The USEPA definesa sole- or principal-source aquifer as one that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed inthe area overlying the aquifer.The SVRPA provides the sole source of water for most of Spokane County, Washington, and KootenaiCounty, Idaho. It extends south from the Bonner-Kootenai County boundary toward the cities of Coeurd'Alene and Post Falls and west into Washington to Spokane Lake (Figure 3-8). At least 500,000 peopleI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-19Project No. A010(963)June 2011

depend on the aquifer for potable water supply. It covers 370 square miles and has one of the fastest flowrates in the nation, flowing as much as 60 feet per day in some areas (compared to a typical daily flow rate ofa quarter inch to 5 feet for most aquifers). The SVRPA is comprised of highly permeable boulders, gravel,and sands, overlain by permeable soils, which makes the aquifer susceptible to contamination from thesurface. Water recharges the SVRPA through precipitation, runoff from the surrounding upland areas, andleakage from surrounding lakes (IDEQ 2011).As the population of the area grows, groundwater in the SVRPA is used more for domestic supply andindustry, with less agriculture use. Not only are populations growing, but the economic focus of communitiesin the area is becoming less agricultural, which means less water is needed for irrigation. This is changing thewater quality in the SVRPA.While there is some evidence of contamination, mainly in the top few feet of the SVRPA from industrial,agricultural, and domestic sewage sources, the water quality is generally considered to be in good condition.Risks to the aquifer include untreated stormwater, septic tank leachate, fertilizer leachate, and leakingunderground storage tanks (MacInnis et. al., 2004).According to the 2000 Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas (MacInnis et. al., 2004):“The aquifer is highly vulnerable to contamination from activities on the ground surface. Unlikemany other aquifers, the aquifer does not have protective layers of clay to deter infiltration ofsurface contaminants. The soil layer on top of the aquifer is relatively thin in most areas, andfluids readily infiltrate into the porous sands and gravel that comprise the aquifer soils. Potentialcontamination is perhaps the most important aquifer issue that must be addressed in order topreserve and maintain the aquifer as a regional drinking water resource.”Because the project area overlays the SVRPA, stormwater control for groundwater protection is an importantconsideration for this project.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-20Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Potable and Other Water SourcesThe Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) database for driller wells logs was reviewed for theproject area. The well search is summarized in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-9.WellNo.160203272758272841273635273847274339Table 3-4. Summary of Wells in the Project AreaLocation Owner UseWest of Cabela’s,on north side of riverCentennial Trail atstate lineNorth side of river,near state lineNorth side ofhighwayN. Pleasant ViewRoad5300 W. RiverbendAvenueWA State Dept ofHwysKootenai CountyStatic WaterLevel (feet belowground surface)YearConstructedUnknown Unknown UnknownDomestic(Trail rest stop)95 1995Bruce Jenson Domestic 90 1995Jacklin Land Co LtdPartnershipIrrigation Unknown 1992Larry Gutzmer Domestic 47 1993Jacklin Seed Co Commercial Unknown Unknown275030 S. Clearwater Loop Jacklin Seed Co Commercial 139 1988275031 Expo Building Jacklin Seed Co Domestic 139 1988275412 S. Clearwater Loop Mike R Ward Domestic 50 1984276680 W. Pointe Parkway Jacklin Seed Co Domestic 131 1952276687North side ofhighwayOwen F Jacklin Irrigation 128 1957276801N. Pleasant ViewRoadLarry Easterly Domestic 60 1996276862N. Pleasant ViewRoadElmer L Pierson Domestic 89 1969335183335186335190335192337570338597S. Clearwater LoopBldg 104S. Clearwater LoopBldg 104S. Clearwater LoopBldg 104S. Clearwater LoopBldg 104S. Pleasant ViewRoadS. Pleasant ViewRoadAvistaCommunicationsAvistaCommunicationsAvistaCommunicationsAvistaCommunicationsUniversity of IDResearch ParkUniversity of IDResearch ParkCathodic Protection Unknown 2000Unknown Unknown 2000Cathodic Protection Unknown 2000Cathodic Protection Unknown 2000Monitoring Unknown 2000Monitoring 32 2000418258 SYSCO Building City of Post Falls Test 160 20074233986902 W. SelticeWayCab Inc Monitoring 115 2008427588 SYSCO Building City of Post Falls Municipal 150 2007I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-23Project No. A010(963)June 2011

One of the wells in the project area listed in Table 3-4 is located near the footprint of the Proposed Action(Well # 276680 in Figure 3-9). This well is owned by JacklinSeed Company and is located just south of the existingW. Pointe Parkway alignment, slightly west of N. Beck Road.The well is 16 inches in diameter and approximately 168 feetdeep; static water is reported at 131 feet below ground surface.Since the Proposed Action is located along the current W.Pointe Parkway alignment, it is not anticipated this well wouldbe impacted. The well would be identified in construction plansand contractors instructed to avoid disturbing it or storingconstruction materials within 100 feet of it.A large water tower, part of the Post Falls water system, islocated on the south side of W. Seltice Way, west of N. BeckRoad in the project area (Figure 3-10). The water tower islocated approximately 500 feet west of the Proposed Actionright-of-way for N. Beck Road.3.6.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThe area would continue to develop under the No-Build Alternative, which could impact surface water andthe aquifer associated with such development. Developers would be required to comply with the Clean WaterAct or other federal, state, or local water resource protection rules.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsFigure 3-10. Water tower near BeckRoadIncreases in impervious surface and clearing of vegetation are the two most prominent actions that couldaffect water quality under the Proposed Action. Widening and paving N. Beck Road, constructing aninterchange and associated ramps, and improvements to W. Riverside Avenue would increase impervioussurfaces and stormwater runoff quantity. Construction would require an NPDES Construction General Permit,development of a SWPPP, and implementation of BMPs to control stormwater runoff and sediment erosion.Runoff from the interchange and local roads in the area would be directed to stormwater swales and otherretention structures along both sides of the roadways for stormwater treatment (Figure 3-11). In the northernportion of the project area, the paving and widening of N. Beck Road would use low-impact stormwatermanagement systems consisting of vegetated swales or vegetated filter strips to treat roadway drainage. Avegetated swale is a broad, shallow channel with a dense stand of vegetation covering the side slopes andbottom. Swales can be natural or manmade, and are designed to trap particulate pollutants (suspended solidsand trace metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of stormwater runoff.A vegetated filter strip is an area of planted vegetation, typically grass, and a flat cross slope to maintain sheetflow and remove particulate pollutants from runoff coming directly off pavement. In the southern portion ofthe project area, a stormwater retention pond would collect stormwater from the interchange and W. RiversideAvenue (Figure 3-11).Pollutants in stormwater associated with construction activities and transportation facilities could includegasoline, oil, hydraulic fluids, tire and brake particulates (including metals), litter, non-airborne vehicleexhaust particles, dust, salt, sand, and de-icing chemicals associated with general winter road maintenance. Ifnot captured and treated through stormwater BMPs, these constituents could contribute to water qualityI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-25Project No. A010(963)June 2011

degradation to surface and/or groundwater. With the addition of an interchange and associated ramps andconnecting facilities, there is a greater potential risk of hazardous materials accidents and spills from vehicles.The USEPA is required to review projects located above sole-source aquifers for groundwater protection ifthe project receives federal financial assistance (USEPA 2010). Federal funds would not be used for the I-90Beck Road Interchange project. As described in Chapter 1, construction would be funded by a privatedeveloper, who would be repaid through the STAR program, using sales tax reimbursements from retaildevelopment within the project area. Therefore, USEPA’s review of the project under sole-source aquiferregulations is not required. Susan Ennes of USEPA Region 10 confirmed that no review was necessary viapersonal communication January 27, 2011, and February 2, 2011. Nonetheless, aquifer protection would be apriority for this project and stormwater BMPs would be implemented to provide aquifer protection.The Panhandle Health District also protects groundwater resources in the project area. Jay Loveland of thePanhandle Health District confirmed that the project would require their involvement if shallow injectionwells were constructed (e.g., as part of stormwater management system). According to Idaho AdministrativeProcedures Act (IDAPA) 37.03.03, Rules and Minimum Standards for the Construction and Use of InjectionWells, an injection well is defined as any excavation or artificial opening into the ground that meets thefollowing three criteria:a. It is a bored, drilled, or dug hole, or is a driven mine shaft or a driven well pointb. It is deeper than its largest straight-line surface dimensionc. It is used for or intended to be used for injectionShallow injection wells are less than or equal to 18 feet in vertical depth below land surface.Post Falls City Ordinance 17.28.070, Storm Drainage, specifies requirements for stormwater management fordevelopments in Post Falls. Per the ordinance, stormwater management must comply with IDEQ BMPs forthe SVRPA, primarily by using grassy swales designed to overflow into shallow injection wells. If shallowinjection wells were to be used for the Proposed Action to control stormwater, proper design and permittingrequirements would be followed under the jurisdiction of the Panhandle Health District. In addition, theKootenai County Stormwater Technical Advisory Committee developed a swale BMP for the SVRPA. TheBMP was completed in December 2000 for inclusion in the Catalog of Best Management Practices for IdahoCities and Counties (BMP 2 – Bioinfiltration Swale).The project would avoid disturbing identified wells in the project area. If the Proposed Action requiresdisplacement of any wells, they would be closed according to applicable regulations and replaced. The watertower located approximately 500 feet west of the Proposed Action right-of-way for N. Beck Road would notbe impacted by the project.Indirect ImpactsIndirect impacts would include potential sediment deposition from construction and sanding operations. Inaddition, construction of the roadway has the potential to alter drainage patterns by changing flow patterns inthe area. The Proposed Action would likely accelerate development in the area, but the area is expected toultimately be developed with or without the Proposed Action. Development in the area would be required tocomply with federal and local regulations pertaining to stormwater management, including the developmentof SWPPP and BMPs.Cumulative ImpactsWater quality could be affected with changes in human activity in the west Post Falls area. Severalintersection and roadway improvements are planned by the PFHD in the area that could help improve waterquality through additional stormwater management.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-26Project No. A010(963)June 2011

MitigationWith implementation of the SWPPP, BMPs, and controls, no short-term or long-term impacts on waterquality are anticipated. Specific provisions are as follows:• The contractor will be required to obtain a stormwater Construction General Permit that includes thedevelopment of a SWPPP.• Erosion-control BMPs will be implemented in areas disturbed during construction of project features.ITD’s specifications and policies for BMPs will be followed including timelines for implementingsuch actions. The contractor will be required to restore disturbed surfaces, through seeding, applyingsoil stabilizers, or other means to avoid and minimize erosion. Areas waiting to be seeded will bemaintained to prevent weed invasion.• Prior to construction, sediment controls will be installed along the edge of disturbed areas whereoffsite stormwater runoff is possible• Runoff from the road will be directed into roadside ditches and stormwater retention structures wherethe water can be retained and treated (Figure 3-11).• Any drainage easements or co-mingling of stormwater within PFHD right-of-way would requireagreements with the District regarding maintenance and control.• Refueling areas will be identified in the SWPPP and containment systems will be implemented tominimize risk of contaminating surface waters. Fueling and maintenance of equipment will occurmore than 100 feet from the Spokane River.• Well 276680 (Figure 3-9) will be protected by placing a protective crash barrier around the well headand also ensuring that stormwater from construction activities is conveyed away from the wellheadarea. Refueling areas will be kept a minimum of 100 feet from the wellhead.• A consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court of Idaho in 2006 states specific environmentalregulatory requirements regarding stormwater discharge for ITD construction projects. Because the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project is privately funded and constructed, the conditions of the consentdecree do not apply to this project.3.7 Socioeconomics and Land UseThis section describes the affected environment andevaluates impacts of the Proposed Action on socioeconomicsand land use, including community cohesion, economicvitality, displacements, environmental justice, safety andtraffic, and conformity to regional and local planningdocuments.3.7.1 Affected EnvironmentPopulation and EconomicsIdaho has experienced rapid population growth in recentdecades. Growth in and around the City of Post Falls has alsobeen steadily increasing over the last 20 years, with recentSocioeconomics and Land UseDefinitionsSocioeconomics generally deals witheconomics, emergency vehicle access,community cohesiveness, safety andtraffic, displacements, relocation anddisadvantaged groups.Land Use focuses on consistency of theProposed Action with transportationplans and comprehensive plans adoptedfor the area. It also addresses induceddevelopment as a secondary impact.growth focused largely in the west side of the city, including the project area. The city has grown from 7,350residents in 1990 to almost 27,000 residents in 2009. The population is projected to be more than 34,000 in2030, a nearly 90 percent increase over 1990 (Figure 1-3).I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-28Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The City of Post Falls annual unemployment rate for 2009 was 9.7 percent compared to 8.0 percent for theState of Idaho. As of November 2010, the city’s unemployment rate was 11.5 percent, more than 2 percenthigher than the state unemployment rate of 9.4 percent (Figure 3-12).The KMPO projects that about 5,000 new jobs would be created in the project area by 2030. To supportfuture growth in population and employment, the City of Post Falls and the KMPO are consideringinfrastructure and capacity-related improvements that would benefit and support economic development.1211Figure 3-12. Unemployment RatesUnemployment Rate1098765200920104State of Idaho Kootenai County Post FallsSource: Idaho Department of Labor, 2010The median household income based on Census data collected from 2005 to 2009 was $45,994 compared tothe national average of $51,425. As of 2005, the industries in Post Falls with the most employment were salesand office-related occupations at 30.1 percent, management and professional occupations at 25.7 percent,service occupations at 15.9 percent and product transportation and material moving occupations at 15.1percent.Minority populations in Idaho are lower than the national average. The racial make-up of the population inPost Falls based on Census data collected from 2005-2009 is shown in Table 3-5.Table 3-5. Racial Make-up of Population in Post Falls (Census 2005-2009)Race Population in Post Falls (%)White 95.7%Black or African American 0.3%Asian 0.5%American Indian and Alaskan Native 0.2%Other 0.5%Two or more races 2.8%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population data collected from 2005-2009In 2008, Kootenai County’s poverty rate was 9.4 percent, compared to 12.5 percent statewide and 13.2nationally. While the national poverty rates for 2009 are not yet available, Kootenai County’s 2009 povertyrate has been estimated at 13.8 percent, compared to 14.4 percent statewide. The increase from 9.4 to 13.8percent between 2008 and 2009 is attributed to the economic downturn during that time period.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-29Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Community CohesionTwo neighborhoods lie within the project area (Figure 3-13). The Woodbridge Park residential neighborhoodis in the northeast portion of the project area (south of W. Seltice Way) about 620 feet east of N. Beck Road.This subdivision has about 275 single-family homes and was platted between 2001 and 2004. In 2010, theaverage assessed value of homes in the subdivision was approximately $142,000.The Eastland subdivision, located in Spokane County immediately west of State Line Road, is about 1 milewest of N. Beck Road (Figure 3-13). The subdivision has 107 single family homes and was platted in theearly 1970s. The average assessed value of homes in 2010 was about $135,000.Environmental JusticeExecutive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by the President on February 11, 1994, directs federal agencies to identify andaddress disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including theinterrelated and social and economic effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority and lowincomepopulations in the United States. The Proposed Action is in a commercial/industrial area and there areno residents within or adjacent to the project footprint. The closest residents are in the Woodbridge Park andEastland Subdivisions.Public ServicesMost public services provided by the City of Post Falls are located east of the project area, near SpokaneStreet and the city center. The city center area includes a public library, elementary schools, middle schools,high schools, and two branches of the Northwest Specialty Hospital east of Spokane Street.TransitCitylink transit, launched in 2005, provides public bus service to Kootenai and Benewah counties on fiveroutes, 22 hours a day, seven days a week. The Citylink Red A-Line bus is an express service via I-90 to thepark-n-ride facility at W. Pointe Parkway. The route takes W. Seltice Way to Bay Street east of the projectarea, where a rider can transfer to a bus service bound for Hayden, Idaho (north of the project area).The short-range transportation plans of the two metropolitan planning organizations of the region (SRTC andKMPO) have identified a project to develop transit service between Spokane and Coeur d’Alene. The natureand service provider has not been determined, but initial consideration has suggested it would start with anexpress commuter service that would likely include a Park-n-Ride lot near the intersection of N. PleasantView Road and I-90.Fire DepartmentsThe Kootenai County Fire and Rescue Department provides fire protection and emergency services to theCity of Post Falls and Kootenai County. Fire stations within or adjacent to the project area are illustrated inFigure 3-13. The closest fire station to the Proposed Action is Station 2, located on W. Seltice Way.Law EnforcementThe Post Falls police station is located east of Spokane Street near the city center. The Idaho State Police,Region 1, located in Coeur d’Alene, is responsible for patrolling I-90 and major crime investigations andforensic services in the region.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-30Project No. A010(963)June 2011

SchoolsThe project area is located in the Post Falls School District in Idaho and the East Valley School District inWashington. Post Falls School District enrollment reached 5,620 students in 2010, an increase of 1,164students over 2000. East Valley enrollment dropped from 4,837 students in 2000 to 4,486 in 2010. TheRiverbend Professional Technical Academy is the only school located within the project area (Figure 3-13).Our Lady Victory School, a private catholic school, is located south of I-90 close to the Pleasant View RoadInterchange.Table 3-6 lists schools, parks, and services in the vicinity of the proposed interchange. This list was compiledusing current information from the Chamber of Commerce, school districts, City of Post Falls, and the IdahoDepartment of Commerce and Labor.Table 3-6. Schools, Parks, and Services near or within Proposed ProjectSchoolsAddressSchools near Project AreaRiverbend Professional Technical Academy525 S. Clearwater Loop, Post Falls, IDOur Lady of Victory (St Michael) School421 S. Lochsa St., Post Falls, IDSchools in the General Project VicinitySeltice ElementaryPrairie View ElementaryPost Falls Middle SchoolNew Vision High SchoolMullan Trail ElementaryRiver City Middle SchoolPost Falls High SchoolEast Farms ElementaryMountain View Middle and Junior HighParksGateway Conservation AreaGateway Regional ParkWoodbridge ParkPublic ServicesKootenai Co. Fire and Rescue Department – Station 2Citylink Bus ServiceCity of Post Falls Public Services DepartmentCity of Post Falls Water DivisionCity of Post Falls Water Reclamation DivisionCoeur d'Alene Garbage Service/Post Falls SanitationPost Falls Police Department1101 N. Chase Road, Post Falls, ID2478 E. Poleline Avenue, Post Falls, ID301 E. 16th Avenue, Post Falls, ID201 W. Mullan Avenue, Post Falls, ID300 W. Cherry Avenue, Post Falls, ID1505 N. Fir St., Post Falls, ID2832 E. Poleline Road, Post Falls, IDE. 26203 Rowan Avenue, Newman Lake, WA6011 N. Chase Road, Newman Lake, WAAddressBetween State Line Road Interchange and the SpokaneRiverBetween State Line Road Interchange and the SpokaneRiverW. Seltice Way and Silkwood DriveAddress4320 W. Seltice Way, Post Falls, IDVaries408 N. Spokane St., Post Falls, ID2002 W. Seltice Way, Post Falls, ID2002 W. Seltice Way, Post Falls, ID1820 N. Highway 41, Post Falls, ID1717 E. Polston Avenue, Post Falls, IDI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-32Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Traffic, Access, and SafetyThe SRTC developed and modeled future traffic scenarios for alternatives developed for the I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project. The baseline travel demand model was used to forecast traffic volumes for 2012 (openingday of a new interchange) and the 2030 design year. This model was modified to forecast volumes for thefollowing traffic scenarios:• 2012 Opening Day of New Interchange• 2030 No-Build• 2030 Local Improvements Only• 2030 Existing Interchange Modifications• 2030 New Interchange AlternativesThe forecast results were used to support the IJR analysis, project purpose and need (Chapter 1), and designof intersections and roadways under the Proposed Action. Details on model assumptions and results arepresented in Appendix D of the IJR (HDR 2010).The Centennial Trail occurs south of I-90, which provides non-motorized transportation access to the area.The trail is detached from W. Riverbend Avenue and provides a safe travel route for pedestrians andbicyclists on the path.Land UseThe land use evaluation focuses on the consistency of the Proposed Action with local and regionaltransportation plans and comprehensive plans. As described in Chapter 2, several transportation andcomprehensive plans identified the need for an interchange near N. Beck Road. Current City of Post Fallszoning for the area identifies the land surrounding N. Beck Road south of W. Seltice Way as industrial andCommunity Commercial Services. The Community Commercial Services zone supports uses that includeretail sales or performance of consumer services and permits a variety of retail, professional, or servicebusinesses. Similar to other commercial zoned designations, residential uses can be incorporated into aCommunity and Commercial Services zone only by a special use permit granted by the City. The Citygranted a special use permit for the N. Beck Road area that would allow for the use of mixed use includingresidential. While a permit has been issued, according to the City no plans have been submitted for this area,as the permit was requested as a future development option. Kootenai County has the area south of I-90zoned for industrial uses.The City of Post Falls has recognized the need for planning near N. Beck Road by adopting the followingpolicy in its comprehensive plan:“The city will work with ITD and other agencies on providing new interchanges along I-90 atGreensferry and Beck Road, as well as maintaining and expanding the I-90 corridorincluding interchanges.” (Post Falls Comprehensive Plan 2010).Future land-use designations in the Post Falls Comprehensive Plan identify commercial and industrial landuses in the project area (Figure 3-14) along the I-90 corridor to manage high traffic volumes and offer quickand easy access onto the interstate for regional connectivity.The area north of W. Seltice Way is currently under Kootenai County jurisdiction. The county’s zoningregulation designates the area along N. Beck Road north of W. Seltice Way as industrial land (Figure 3-15).This classification extends from W. Seltice Way for about 1.5 miles along N. Beck Road to about 1,000 feetsouth of Poleline Avenue.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-33Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Potential new development and associated travel would be a secondary impact of a new interchange. To betterunderstand land-use and development impacts of the Proposed Action, the project team interviewed the Cityof Post Falls planner and public works director on February 2, 2011. The following questions were presentedto the city staff:• Is the Proposed Action consistent with local land-use plans and zoning regulations?• How would the Proposed Action affect the location, patterns and pace of residential, commercial, andindustrial development in the project area, especially north of W. Seltice Way (a largely undevelopedarea)?• How would land-use development and traffic patterns change with or without the interchange?The responses from city staff are captured in the environmental consequences section that follows.3.7.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildA proposed interchange is part of the Post Falls Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan, theKMPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and is cited in the ITD STIP 2010-2013. Thus, if the project werenot built, there would be a negative impact on the planned community vision, economic growth, publicservices, and overall land use in the project area.The local and regional planning documents noted above recognize the need for an interchange to meet traveldemands associated with current and projected development in the project area and overall regionalpopulation and employment growth. The City of Post Falls would be responsible for considering andapproving development in the area consistent with the city’s plans and requirements. It is possible that certaintypes of developments would not occur due to inadequate transportation facilities if the interchange were notbuilt. While the anticipated land uses would likely occur over time without a new interchange, particularlygiven the existence of anchor stores in the project area, such development would take longer and possibly bedeveloped at a lower density (Melvin 2011).Furthermore, if the No-Build Alternative is chosen, property values in the project area could decline asproperty would revert from the more valuable commercial and higher-end industrial development to lowintensityindustrial and commercial development.Under the No-Build Alternative, no adverse effects would occur on minority or low income populations perExecutive Order 12898.The proposed interchange provides additional options for emergency vehicles to access local roads from theinterchange and to respond to Interstate accidents. Without additional access to I-90 near N. Beck Road,emergency services responders would be limited to existing local roads and access at adjacent interchanges,which would be more congested compared to the Proposed Action.Under the No-Build Alternative, travel patterns would continue to access I-90 at adjacent interchanges. Thewestbound ramp terminal at the State Line Road interchange currently operates at LOS F (Table 1-1).UnderNo-Build conditions, both existing interchange terminal ramps (Pleasant View Road and State Line Road)would operate at LOS F by 2030. An additional five intersections in the project area would also exhibitunacceptable LOS E or F, including those near the existing Pleasant View Road Interchange. The CentennialTrail would continue to operate in its current condition without improvements or without connections acrossI-90.The No-Build Alternative would not be consistent with area-wide planning documents. Post Falls and thecounty would need to adjust land-use plans to reflect the absence of the planned interchange, includingadjusting development density in response to traffic-volume concerns on local roads and the existingI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-36Project No. A010(963)June 2011

interchanges. The project team conducted interviews with City of Post Falls officials to assess socioeconomicimpacts and the potential for induced development associated with the project (Melvin 2011). For the No-Build Alternative, the findings included:• If the interchange were not built: 1) the zoning of this area would remain the same and the areawould likely develop, but at a slower pace, 2) the type of businesses and industry might change; forexample, a business that depends on high truck-traffic volume may not choose to locate in this area ifthere was not easy access to and from the Interstate, 3) the density of development may change in thearea due to traffic congestion concerns.• If the interchange were not built, land-use development patterns north of W. Seltice Way wouldlikely not change, but the pace of development might be slowed.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsThe Proposed Action would have a direct impact on area economics by creating construction jobs andinterrelated and interdependent development. No minority or low-income populations have been identifiedthat would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action. Therefore, this project will not havedisproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or low income populations per Executive Order 12898.The Post Falls Comprehensive Plan identifies the area north of I-90 in the project area for current and futurecommercial and industrial uses. Development is already underway with Cabela’s and Walmart retail facilities,which are considered anchor stores for future commercial developments. Easy access to and from I-90 underthe Proposed Action would benefit current and future businesses in the project area and provide greaterregional connectivity to neighborhoods as well as commercial and industrial properties.N. Beck Road between the proposed interchange and W. Seltice Way would be a five-lane, minor arterialroad that would provide improved access to W. Seltice Way and areas north. The PFHD’s long-range plansinclude improvements to N. Beck Road north of W. Seltice Way, which would provide greater regionalconnectivity north toward SH-53.Existing businesses south of I-90, including Jacklin Seed and the Greyhound Park and Event Center, would beimpacted during construction activities that might include access delays. Portions of both properties would beobtained for project right-of-way, but permanent access would be maintained (Figure 2-4). Current access toboth businesses is via W. Riverbend Avenue to the Pleasant View Road Interchange. With the newinterchange, both would have close and easy access to I-90.The project would not cause any displacements. The Centennial Trail would continue through the interchangeparallel to I-90 on the proposed W. Riverbend Avenue extension and would remain open throughout theconstruction period. Construction impacts associated with the Centennial Trail are provided in Section 3.3.2of this EA. After construction, the trail would be continuous and have no at-grade crossings. A connectionbetween the Centennial Trail and the sidewalk and bike lanes would be constructed on W. Riverbend Avenueand W. Pointe Parkway for non-trail access across I-90. The two neighborhoods in the project area would notbe directly affected by the Proposed Action, though residents of both neighborhoods would benefit by havingimproved access to I-90.The Proposed Action is expected to provide improved response times for emergency vehicles through greateraccess to and from I-90. Kootenai County Fire and Rescue indicated that a new interchange would enhanceaccess to commercial and industrial areas for emergency responses.The Proposed Action would improve access to I-90 and reduce delays at the Pleasant View Road Interchangeand a number of local intersections. As described in Chapter 2, the traffic service levels of the interstate in theI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-37Project No. A010(963)June 2011

project area would be reduced from LOS C to LOS D, which has been deemed acceptable by ITD (ITD 2010).The project would accommodate anticipated travel demand through the year 2030.Direct access would be provided to the Jacklin Seed property via the W. Riverbend Avenue extension and atthe W. Riverbend Avenue and W. Pointe Parkway intersection. Jacklin Seed’s signage would be impacted bythe W. Riverbend Avenue extension. The Greyhound Park and Event Center currently has three accesses ontoW. Riverbend Avenue. The westernmost access to the Greyhound Park and Event Center would need to beclosed after construction is complete to support connectivity and required design queue lengths for theproposed Pointe Parkway and W. Riverbend Avenue intersection south of the interchange (Figure 2-4). TheGreyhound Park and Event Center parking lot and business signage would be impacted by the W. RiverbendAvenue extension. The interchange would provide access to commercial and industrial businesses north of I-90, including Cabela’s, Walmart, and Sysco Foods as well as to future commercial and industrial businesseszoned in this area.The Proposed Action is consistent with local and regional planning documents. The Proposed Action wouldserve planned development north and south of I-90, including providing regional connectivity via N. BeckRoad north of W. Seltice Way to SH-53. Such connectivity supports the regional benefits of the ProposedProject and is consistent with land use jurisdiction plans for future development in the area.Indirect ImpactsBesides the direct economic benefits of the Proposed Action described above, interrelated and interdependentprojects in the area would provide economic benefits to the area through construction jobs and permanentjobs. These jobs, along with new businesses in the area, would bring increased tax revenue to the area tosupport community needs such as schools and emergency services.While some area roads would experience increased traffic volumes after construction (e.g., N. Beck Road thatis currently unpaved), none of this would be through-traffic in residential neighborhoods. Enhanced regionalconnectivity would provide better access to the Interstate for local and regional travel and improve overalltraffic conditions compared to the No-Build Alternative.The planned developments in the project area would potentially require increased law enforcement presenceand fire protection in the project area. As the population of the area grows, the fire department woulddetermine if and where new emergency response centers would be needed to maintain adequate responsetimes.Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Proposed Action provides for overall improvements in trafficeffectiveness for the region (see discussion in Chapter 2). The Proposed Action would not result in anychange in safety for the Centennial Trail, which provides non-motorized access to the area. The ProposedAction would provide uninterrupted travel through the interchange area and provides connectivity north of I-90.The project team conducted interviews with City of Post Falls officials to assess induced developmentassociated with the project (Melvin 2011). A summary of findings is presented below:• The City representatives verified that the Proposed Action is consistent with land-use and zoningregulation and that the need for an interchange has been identified in numerous planning documents.• The area north of I-90 and south of W. Seltice Way is zoned Community Commercial Services. Theinterchange is an important planned element in providing access to these developments. The localroadway jurisdiction has long-range plans for improving N. Beck Road north of W. Seltice Way toSH-53 as the area transitions from rural to urban and is annexed to the City of Post Falls (KMPO2010). The current industrial zoning for the area north of W. Seltice Way along N. Beck Road is notanticipated to change. Zoning for areas further north are currently rural and outside the City of PostFalls limits. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to change the industrial land-use zoning for thisI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-38Project No. A010(963)June 2011

area. The viability of commercial use on the north side of the W. Seltice Way and N. Beck Roadintersection is restricted by a steep grade.Logical beginning and ending points (termini) for the Proposed Action, which are defined in Chapter 1,should ensure the “independent utility” of the project. The project must “stand alone” and should not triggeran immediate need for additional improvements elsewhere. If the project triggers an immediate need forimprovements elsewhere, the logical termini were not defined correctly and the Proposed Action shouldaddress these needed improvements.Future traffic was modeled for project alternatives to evaluate if building an I-90 Beck Road Interchangeproject would trigger the immediate need for transportation improvements beyond the defined logical termini.The traffic was modeled for the year 2012, the assumed construction completion year for the project. Thetraffic model shows no additional road improvements would be needed in 2012, including roads north of W.Seltice Way on N. Beck Road, in response to the Proposed Action. As a result, the project has independentutility.Correspondence with KMPO staff, who maintains the regional traffic model, verified that N. Beck Road,north of W. Seltice Way would be expanded by the City of Post Falls as the areas transitions from urban torural development and is annexed into the City of Post Falls (KMPO 2010). This need is projected to be 20 to30 years out.Cumulative ImpactsCumulative impacts are similar to secondary impacts in that the accumulation of projects would result inincreased population, need for greater services, increased economic development, and subsequent increases inemployment.The PFHD has projects planned for the area of the proposed I-90 Beck Road Interchange, which, whencombined with the Proposed Action, would improve traffic movement in the area. Many of the projectsinclude pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would improve movement and safety throughout the area.MitigationBicycle and pedestrian connectivity will be maintained through the project area by providing an uninterruptedCentennial Trail (both during and after construction). The Centennial Trail would be impacted byconstruction activities of the interchange, but will remain open. During construction, access to the CentennialTrail could be disrupted and pedestrian or bicyclists may have to travel through unpaved areas or temporarilywait for passage through the construction area. Where feasible, temporary detours will be identified tofacilitate connectivity of the trail during construction.After construction, the Centennial Trail will have connectivity to the developed areas north of I-90, byproviding bike lanes or multi-use paths as appropriate on the proposed roadways.It is anticipated that construction of the new interchange would require temporary lane closure and possiblytemporary detours. N. Beck Road will not be disrupted during construction since it is currently unpaved andnot used as an everyday transportation facility. I-90 and W. Riverbend Avenue would be impacted duringconstruction. During final design, project-specific traffic-control plans and special provisions would bedeveloped in conformance with ITD standards, City of Post Falls requirements, and the Manual on UniformTraffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Along with the ITD standard plans and specifications, thetraffic-control plans would provide the contractor with the minimum standards for maintaining traffic.Anticipated property impacts that will occur to the Jacklin Seed and Greyhound Parks and Event Centerfacilities have been discussed with property owners. Property agreements will be negotiated with propertyowners subject to final design requirements of the project. Detailed design issues will be discussed withI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-39Project No. A010(963)June 2011

property owners as part of right-of-way negotiations. These agreements will address right-of-way andcompensation, easements, liability, business impacts and signage, and local connectivity.3.8 NoiseThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates noise impacts from the Proposed Action.3.8.1 Affected EnvironmentA Noise Assessment Technical Report was completed for theproject to identify existing and future predicted traffic noiselevels (HDR 2011a). The noise analysis was completed priorto the adoption of ITD’s 2011 Traffic Noise Policy, but wasrevisited to verify compliance with the updated policy. TheWhat is Noise?Noise is an unwanted sound and ismeasured in A-weighted decibels(dBA).The decibel scale corresponds tothe sensitivity range for human hearing.noise analysis remains valid and complies with the 2011 ITD Traffic Noise Policy. The updated NoiseAbatement checklists were utilized for the analysis.Noise studies must be prepared for all federal-aid highway construction projects that construct new highwaysor reconstruct existing highways by significantly changing either the horizontal or vertical alignment or byincreasing the number of through travel lanes (designated as “Type 1” projects by FHWA). All federal-aidhighway noise analyses must be prepared in conformance with FHWA Procedures for Abatement of HighwayTraffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR Part 772). The I-90 Beck Road Interchange project results innew highway construction and significant changes in horizontal and vertical alignments and, as a result,triggers the requirement for a detailed traffic noise analysis.The project study area for this noise analysis encompassed the area north and south of I-90 where the newinterchange would be constructed, the area adjacent to the new connection between the proposed interchangeand the intersection with W. Pointe Parkway, and the area adjacent to N. Beck Road between the intersectionwith W. Pointe Parkway and the intersection with W. Seltice Way.FHWA noise criteria and standards, called noise abatement criteria (NAC) are shown in Table 3-7. TheseNAC represent the maximum traffic noise levels that allow uninterrupted use within each activity category.The land use categories included in the FHWA NAC and the continuous noise level during any one-hourperiod (Leq) are associated with each activity category.In determining and abating traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is given to exterior areas. ITD definesa traffic noise impact in Section 1300 of the Environmental Process Manual. The definition contains twocriteria; only one has to be met for defining a traffic noise impact. Traffic noise impacts are defined asfollows:• A “relative” noise impact occurs when the predicted noise levels for the design year exceed theexisting traffic noise levels by 15 dBA (see box for definition) or more, even if it does not approach orexceed the “absolute” NAC; or,• Determine the “absolute” impact by comparing the predicted noise levels for the design year to thenoise “abatement criteria” levels in Table 3-7 for various land use activity categories and determine ifthe criteria are approached or exceeded. Approach means within 1 dBA.The applicable ITD NAC for residential and commercial properties is 66 dBA and 71 dBA.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-40Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 3-7. FHWA and ITD Noise Abatement CriteriaActivityCategoryLand Use – Primary ActivityFHWA NoiseAbatementCriteria(dBA)ITD NoiseAbatementCriteria(dBA)ABCDESubstantialincreaseLand on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinarysignificance and serve an important need and wherethe preservation of those qualities is essential if thearea is to continue to serve its intended purpose.Picnic areas, recreation areas, parks, residences,motels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals.Properties/activities that are not included in CategoriesA or B (e.g., most commercial and industrial activities).Undeveloped lands (no established noise levelguidelines).Interior noise levels for picnic areas, recreation areas,parks, residences, motels, schools, churches, librariesand hospitals.A substantial increase of 15 dBA over the existingnoise level57 5667 6672 71-- --52 (interior) 51 (interior)15 15Traffic noise levels for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project were calculated using FHWA’s Traffic NoiseModel (TNM ® Version 2.5). The TNM computes highway traffic noise at nearby receivers and aids in thedesign of mitigation measures. Inputs to the model include three-dimensional descriptions of road alignments,vehicle volumes in defined vehicle classes, vehicle speeds, traffic control devices, and data on thecharacteristics and locations of specific ground types, topographical features, and other features likely toinfluence the propagation of vehicle noise between the roadway and the receiver.Noise levels were measured using a Larson Davis 820 noise meter and Larson Davis CAL 150 calibrator. Themeter was set at a height of approximately 5 feet for all measurements. The microphone was covered with awindscreen. The noise meter was calibrated before, during, and after field measurements. Measurements weretaken in terms of Leq. Concurrent traffic counts were taken during the noise level monitoring. The TNMmodel input/output and traffic data used in the analysis, including volumes in each modeled vehicle class andposted speeds, are included in Appendix C.Existing conditions (2011), No-Build conditions, and Proposed Action conditions were modeled. The No-Build condition assumes full build-out of planned future development in the area north of I-90 without thenew interchange. The Proposed Action condition includes planned future development, the new interchangeand associated connections as described in Section 2.3.2.3.8.2 Existing ConditionsIf monitored and modeled results are within 3 dBA, the model is considered to be reasonably accurate inpredicting noise levels. The results of the model calibration show that modeled and measured noise levelsagree within 3 or less dBA.Existing noise levels were monitored at seven locations within the project area in February 2011 for thepurpose of validating the noise model (i.e., ensuring that the model accurately estimates existing traffic noiseduring the monitoring period), and providing a general indication of existing noise levels. The results of theI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-41Project No. A010(963)June 2011

model calibration show that modeled and measured noise levels agree within 3 or less dBA. A comparison ofthe noise levels predicted using the noise model to the noise levels measured in the field is shown inTable 3-8.Table 3-8. Monitored and Predicted Noise Levels in the Project AreaMonitoringPointMeasuredLevel(Leq – dBA)ModeledLevel(Leq – dBA)Difference(Leq – dBA)M1 74 72 2M2 52 53 1M3 48 51 3M4 44 45 1M5 70 71 1M6 57 55 2M7 56 58 2Following validation of the noise model, existing sound levels were modeled at 36 receptors (noise predictionsites). Sound levels were predicted at 5 feet above ground level. The monitoring locations, noise receptor orprediction sites, and roadway configurations are shown in Figure 3-16. Receptor locations where selected torepresent both existing noise receptors (Jacklin Seed Co., Greyhound Park and Event Center, Sysco Foods,and the Woodbridge Subdivision) and future noise receptors (future development along N. Beck Road).Predicted existing peak hour sound levels at receptors are listed in Table 3-9. The traffic data is based onforecast analysis conducted to support the IJR for this project (HDR 2010).Under existing conditions, modeled noise levels range from 47 dBA to 78 dBA. Predicted exceedances ofnoise levels that approach the absolute NAC (i.e., the 66 NAC for category B land uses, and the 71 dBANAC for category C land uses) are shown in shaded cells. The existing conditions modeling shows that trafficnoise levels in the project study area are generally below the NAC, except at locations very close to I-90where existing noise levels are in the low 70 dBAs. These receptors include R6, R9, R11, and R12. Two ofthese receptors are on the Centennial Trail, which runs just south of I-90.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-42Project No. A010(963)June 2011

ReceiverCurrent LandUseTable 3-9. Predicted Peak Hour Sound Levels (Leq) for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange ProjectFuture LandUse 1NACActivityCategoryDistancefrom NearestRoadwayCenterline(feet)NearestRoadwayNumber ofResidentialUnitsNoiseAbatementCriteria(dBA)Existing(2010) No-Build NoiseLevels(dBA) 3Future(2030) No-BuildNoiseLevels(dBA) 3Future(2030) BuildNoiseLevels(dBA) 3R1 Commercial Commercial C 640 I-90 EB — 71 61 64 64R2 Commercial Commercial C 990 I-90 EB — 71 57 59 62R3 Commercial Commercial C 940 I-90 EB — 71 56 59 60R4 Commercial Commercial C 780 I-90 EB — 71 57 60 59R5 Commercial Commercial C 220 I-90 EB — 71 68 71 66R6 Recreational Recreational B 110 I-90 EB — 66 78 80 80R7 2 Undeveloped Recreational B 255 I-90 EB — 66 - - 63R8 2 Undeveloped Recreational B 125 I-90 EB — 66 - - 68R9 Recreational Recreational B 90 I-90 EB — 66 72 74 73R10 Undeveloped Commercial C 245 I-90 WB — 71 66 68 64R11 Undeveloped Commercial C 160 I-90 WB — 71 73 76 73R12 Undeveloped Commercial C 155 I-90 WB — 71 75 78 77R13 Undeveloped Commercial C 605 I-90 WB — 71 59 69 72R14 Undeveloped Commercial C 325 I-90 WB — 71 65 69 68R15 Undeveloped Commercial C 575 I-90 WB — 71 62 65 65R16 Undeveloped Commercial C 555 I-90 WB — 71 61 64 72R17 Undeveloped Commercial C 705 I-90 WB — 71 58 70 74R18 Undeveloped Commercial C 770 I-90 WB — 71 56 69 73R19 Commercial Commercial C 1055 I-90 WB — 71 55 63 65R20 Undeveloped Commercial C 1020 I-90 WB — 71 55 69 70R21 Undeveloped Commercial C 1375 I-90 WB — 71 53 69 70R22 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 1490 Seltice Way — 71 50 70 71R23 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 1175 Seltice Way — 71 48 70 70R24 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 835 Seltice Way — 71 47 62 63I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-44Project No. A010(963)June 2011

ReceiverCurrent LandUseFuture LandUse 1NACActivityCategoryDistancefrom NearestRoadwayCenterline(feet)NearestRoadwayNumber ofResidentialUnitsNoiseAbatementCriteria(dBA)Existing(2010) No-Build NoiseLevels(dBA) 3Future(2030) No-BuildNoiseLevels(dBA) 3Future(2030) BuildNoiseLevels(dBA) 3R25 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 660 Seltice Way — 71 48 58 58R26 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 645 Seltice Way — 71 48 62 64R27 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 965 Seltice Way — 71 48 63 64R28 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 750 Seltice Way — 71 48 62 63R29 4 Undeveloped Commercial C 510 Seltice Way — 71 50 68 67R30 Residential Residential B 715 Seltice Way 2 66 48 60 58R31 Residential Residential B 570 Seltice Way 2 66 48 56 55R32 Residential Residential B 475 Seltice Way 1 66 49 56 55R33 Residential Residential B 395 Seltice Way 2 66 51 57 56R34 Residential Residential B 300 Seltice Way 1 66 53 58 57R35 Residential Residential B 235 Seltice Way 1 66 56 59 59R36 Residential Residential B 135 Seltice Way 1 66 63 65 651Future commercial development is planned for the area between I-90 and W. Seltice Way in the project area. The noise analysis considers this development as plannedby the City; however, construction of this development has not yet begun, nor are there any building permits issued for this area.2Note that Receptors 7 and 8 represent the proposed realignment of Centennial Trail. Existing and future No-Build noise levels on the Centennial Trail are provided byReceptors 6 and 9.3 Predicted noise levels that are shaded represent values that approach the absolute NAC; numbers in bold represent values predicted to be 15 dBA or more aboveexisting noise levels.4A special use permit has been approved by the City of Post Falls that would allow mixed land uses with some multi-family development near receptors 22-29 along N.Beck Road. The current zoning for this area remains Community Commercial Services and no building permits have been issued and no development plans have beensubmitted to the City.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-45Project No. A010(963)June 2011

3.8.3 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThe No-Build Alternative noise modeling results are summarized in Table 3-9. No-Build noise levels arepredicted to range from 56 to 80 dBA. The results of the No-Build condition analysis also show that changesin noise levels when compared to the existing condition are predicted to range from a reduction of 2 dBA toan increase of 22 dBA. Increases in noise levels between the existing and No-Build conditions are partly dueto natural traffic volume increases over time, but predominantly due to the construction of planned futuredevelopment north of I-90. The analysis assumes that by 2030, full build-out of this area will have occurred,and traffic volumes on surface streets in this area reflect this level of development. Decreases in noise levels,where predicted, are due to changes in traffic patterns as a result of new roadways associated with plannedfuture development.Increases in noise levels over the existing condition of up to 22 dBA occur at areas that are undeveloped atthis time and, as a result, currently experience relatively low ambient noise levels. It should be noted thatfuture noise levels at these receptors are not in exceedance of the absolute ITD NAC activity category C forcommercial developments (71 dBA), and that the traffic volumes that create these increases are a direct resultof future development.The No-Build analysis predicts that exceedance of the ITD NAC would occur at the Centennial Trail (NACactivity category B), and at three receptors (NAC activity category C) adjacent to I-90. In addition, increasednoise would occur at receptors (NAC activity category C) adjacent to N. Beck Road. However, as previouslynoted, these commercial structures have not yet been constructed and no building permits have been issued.Noise impacts are not anticipated to existing or planned residential development under the No-Buildcondition.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsThe results for the future (2030) Build condition analysis are shown in Table 3-9.The Proposed Action noiselevels range from 55 to 80 dBA. Predicted exceedances of the absolute NAC are shown in shaded cells. Noiselevels predicted to be 15 dBA or more above existing noise levels are shown in bold typeface. Predicted levelsunder the Proposed Action reflect noise level changes similar to the No-Build condition that result fromannual traffic growth on I-90 as well as traffic volume increases from the planned development in the projectarea, combined with noise contributions from the new interchange and associated changes in traffic patternsthat result from the new I-90 interchange. Impacted receptors include R13, R16, R17, R20, R21, R22, R23,R24, R26, R27, R28, and R29.The results of the Build condition analysis show that changes in noise levels when compared to the existingcondition are the same as are predicted under the No-Build condition (i.e., changes range between a reductionof 2 dBA to an increase of 22 dBA). However, the magnitude of noise levels at specific locations under theBuild condition vary somewhat from the No-Build due to changes in traffic patterns (i.e. changes in trafficdistribution on the roadway network; particularly with the construction of the new I-90 interchange), andchanges in shielding (i.e., topography that can block noise, such as fill used to build interchange ramps). TheBuild condition analysis shows that changes in noise levels when compared to the No-Build condition rangebetween a reduction of 5 dBA to an increase of 8 dBA.The Build analysis predicts that exceedances of the NAC would occur at the Centennial Trail (NAC activitycategory B), at two receptors (NAC activity category C) directly north of I-90, and at four future receptors(NAC activity category C) adjacent to N. Beck Road. In addition, substantial increases would occur for futureI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-46Project No. A010(963)June 2011

eceptors (NAC activity category C) adjacent to N. Beck Road. No noise impacts to existing residentialdevelopments are predicted under the Build condition and no building permits have been issued.The changes in noise levels that occur at receptors due to the project would occur in the context of the broadernoise environment and would be cumulative relative to other changes that may occur. The general noiseenvironment in the project area includes:• Traffic noise from I-90, W. Seltice Way, and adjacent roadways• Train noise from the railway line and at-grade railroad crossings north of W. Seltice Way• Noise from local industrial and commercial activities• Noise from residential developments in the general vicinityConstruction of the project could be expected to cause short-term noise impacts in areas directly adjacent toconstruction activity. Construction equipment noise levels are usually measured at 50 feet from the source.Construction equipment noise levels decrease 6 dBA per doubling of distance because of geometricdivergence alone, provided there is a clear line of sight to the equipment. For example, a bulldozer creating 80dBA of noise at 50 feet will have an observed value of 74 dBA at 100 feet and 68 dBA at 200 feet.Indirect ImpactsAs described above, the Proposed Action is associated to land use changes from undeveloped land to a moresuburban setting with commercial and industrial developments. This change in land use would result ingreater noise in the area associated with increases in people and vehicles. In addition, temporary noiseimpacts associated with construction activities are expected. Using standard specifications for control of noisesources during construction can minimize construction impacts.Cumulative ImpactsThe changes in noise levels that occur at individual properties due to the project would occur in the context ofthe broader noise environment and would be cumulative relative to other changes that may occur. The generalnoise environment in the project area includes traffic noise from I-90 and W. Seltice Way, from the railwayline and an at-grade railroad crossing north of W. Seltice Way, from local industrial and commercialactivities, as well as from residential developments in the general vicinity.Noise in the area is likely to gradually increase over time as road capacities are expanded and developmentoccurs. Noise studies would be conducted for transportation projects that receive federal funding andmitigation would be considered following state and federal guidelines. When transportation projects aredeveloped with federal monies, cities and counties are provided with noise transects (noise levels at a givendistance) to help them in establishing setback requirements. Noise from construction of other projects andincreased human presence in the area due to development can also be expected.In an effort to provide local officials with information to prevent future traffic noise impacts on currentlyundeveloped lands in conformance with 23 CFR 772.15, ten-point transects were modeled for I-90 andN. Beck Road to give an indication of future (2030) Proposed Action condition noise levels at distances of 50,75, 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, and 800 feet from roadway centerlines. This information can be foundin the Technical Noise Report (HDR 2011a).MitigationUnder the 23 CFR 772, NAC require that if noise impacts are identified (i.e. a receptor approaches or exceedsFHWA NAC), abatement measures must be considered. Those considerations, when they are determined tobe both reasonable and feasible, are to be incorporated into the project.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-47Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The six considerations for mitigation are as follows:• Traffic management measures• Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments• Acquisition of property rights for construction of noise barriers• Construction of Noise Barriers• Acquisition of real property or interests therein for buffer zones includes landscaping for aestheticpurposes (in or out of R/W)• Noise insulation of public use or non-profit institutional structuresThe ITD Noise Policy (ITD 2007) states that ITD will consider abatement measures to alleviate traffic noiseimpacts adjacent to Type 1 projects (which includes the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project). ITD’s policyalso states that while ITD will consider all six abatement measures described in 23 CFR 772.13(c), ITDconsiders that, typically, noise barriers are primarily the only feasible and reasonable noise abatementmeasure. Further, ITD’s policy states that it will consider existing or approved residences and other sensitiveland uses to be reasonable candidates for the construction of noise walls. ITD considers parking lots, highwaybusinesses, and other commercial or industrial enterprises as uses typically located adjacent to highways forexposure purposes and highly dependent on transportation access; therefore, they are considered noisetolerantreceptors and given less emphasis for traffic noise abatement. In fact, ITD prefers these types of usesare located adjacent to higher volume roads as a noise buffer to the more sensitive uses such as residentialdevelopments.The impacted noise receptors occur along N. Beck Road between W. Pointe Parkway and W. Seltice Way orat the intersection of N. Beck Road and W. Pointe Parkway. According to 23 CFR 772.13(b), noise abatementmeasures will only be approved along lands where land development predates the existence of the project or ifthe granting of a building permit on impacted property occurs prior to FONSI approval. None of the parcels inthe project area adjacent to the remaining impacted noise receptors are developed. Bill Melvin, the CityEngineer at the City of Post Falls was contacted to identify if there are any active building permits for theimpacted receptor locations in the project vicinity (Melvin 2011). Mr. Melvin verified that no active buildingpermits are currently being processed by the City of Post Falls for this area. A special use permit was recentlyapproved by the City of Post Falls that would allow mixed land uses with some multi-family developmentalong N. Beck Road north of W. Expo Parkway. The current zoning for this area remains CommunityCommercial Services (retail, professional, and consumer services), no building permits have been issued andno development plans for N. Beck Road have been received by the City.For the Centennial Trail receptors (R6, R7, R8 and R9), an ITD Noise Barrier Abatement Checklist wascompleted to assess the feasibility of a barrier for sound level reduction (Appendix A). For barrier feasibility,criteria number 3 was answered as a “no” indicating that a barrier is not feasible, where criteria 3 states:Can an effective barrier be constructed considering the existing site characteristics and topography, andwithout reconfiguring the site or neighborhood (not including minor access modifications)?The Centennial Trail would likely have to be shifted to accommodate a noise barrier in this location.Moreover, the effectiveness of a noise barrier is uncertain because it would only block noise for a small extentof the Centennial Trail that follows I-90 for a considerable distance.With the exception of noise impacts to the Centennial Trail (a recreational use and NAC activity category B),all noise impacts associated with the Proposed Action are predicted at properties with CommunityCommercial Services zoning (NAC activity category C). All noise impacts are predicted at receptorsrepresentative of future development sites. In the majority of cases, substantial noise increases at plannedfuture development locations occur as a result of the development (i.e. increased traffic generated byI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-48Project No. A010(963)June 2011

commerce as part of the No-Build condition), rather than the construction of the Proposed Action andassociated roadway connections. Further, although future development is planned in these areas, none of theseproperties are built today. Due to the type of land use zoning in this area, noise mitigation for predicted noiseimpacts is not recommended based on ITD policy. The future land uses and building permits granted for theseparcels will be subject to City of Post Falls approval. The city will be notified of the projected impactsoutlined in this document.FHWA outlines physical techniques to reduce noise impacts such as increasing the distance between the noisesource and the receiver or through other acoustical site planning techniques (FHWA 2011). In the futuredevelopment areas where noise impacts are projected to occur, ensuring appropriate land uses and regulatingbuilding setbacks or building orientation should be considered via local zoning code to provide mitigation fornoise impacts. Information from the Noise Technical Report for this project will be provided to local officialsto notify them of these impacts (HDR 2011a).Noise impacts at the Centennial Trail are a result of traffic on I-90 and not related to the project. Table 3-9shows that noise impacts would occur on the trail with or without the project (monitoring point M5) due tothe proximity to I-90 and W. Riverbend Avenue. In some locations, fill associated with the proposedinterchange would result in lower future noise levels on the Centennial Trail in the project area. In addition,there are no areas on the trail in the project area where users would tend to spend any extended length of time(such as seating or picnic areas). As a result, noise mitigation for the Centennial Trail is not recommended.The project is not located in or directly adjacent to an existing residential area and is therefore not subject toCity of Post Falls construction activity noise requirements (see City of Post Falls, 1992). Construction noisecan be reduced by using enclosures or walls to surround noisy equipment, installing mufflers on engines,substituting quieter equipment or construction methods, minimizing time of operation, and locatingequipment farther from sensitive receptors. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, the followingmitigation measures could be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications:• Construction equipment engines will be equipped with adequate mufflers, intake silencers, and engineenclosures when feasible• Construction equipment will be turned off during prolonged periods of nonuse• Equipment will be maintained and equipment operators will be trained to reduce noise levels andincrease efficiency of operation.• Stationary equipment will be located away from receiving properties to decrease noise to the extentpracticable.3.9 Prime FarmlandThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates the impacts of the Proposed Action onfarmlands that are classified as prime, unique, or of statewide or local importance.3.9.1 Affected EnvironmentAs set forth by the farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, federal programs are required to minimizeunnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and should be compatible withpolicies to protect farmland. Thus, prime and unique farmlands are reviewed as part of the EA process.Farmlands are classified as prime, unique, or of statewide or local importance and are defined below.Prime farmland:• Has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage,fiber, and oilseed crops.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-49Project No. A010(963)June 2011

• Is available for other uses like cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, and other agriculturalcrops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soilerosion.• Has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustainedhigh yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptablefarming methods.Unique farmlands:• Is land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-value food and fibercrops.• Has the special combination of soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply temperature,humidity, air drainage, elevation, and aspect to economically produce sustained high-quality or highyields of specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods (NRCS2008).Farmland of statewide or local importance:• Is farmland, other than prime or unique farmland, that is important for the production of food, feed,fiber, forage, or oil-seed crops, as determined by the state or local government agency or agencies,using U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines (NRCS 2008).Table 3-10 summarizes soils mapped in the project area and whether they are classified as suitable forsupporting prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. Figure 3-17 depicts thesoil designations in the project area.The soils and farmland resource review for the project consisted of compiling soil information from theNatural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey and conducting a Farmland ConversionImpact Rating with the Idaho state office of the NRCS. According to the Web Soil Survey, approximately 77percent of the project area is comprised of Garrison gravelly silt loam, which is considered to be PrimeFarmland, if irrigated (NRCS 2007). This soil type is located on both sides of N. Beck Road, north of theinterstate (see Web Soil Survey in Appendix C). As shown in the aerial photograph in Figure 1-2, most ofthis area has been rezoned and developed or has been graded and/or filled and is no longer available for use asfarmland.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-50Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 3-10. Summary of Soils and Prime Farmland in the Project AreaMapUnitSymbolMap Unit NameAcres inArea ofInterestPercentof Area ofInterestPrime Farmland?Kootenai County Area, Idaho101 Aquic xerofluvents, nearly level 11.5

3.9.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThe farmland in the N. Beck Road area is no longer zoned agricultural and is not currently being cultivatedfor agricultural purposes. Under the No-Build Alternative this area would continue to be developed.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsThe Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on unnecessaryand irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural purposes. None of the land in the project area iscurrently used for agricultural purposes. Most of the land that would include the footprint of the ProposedAction is adjacent to N. Beck Road and I-90, and is reserved and graded for future development.Hal Swenson of the Idaho state office of the NRCS was consulted for the Farmland Conversion Impact Ratingfor the project, which is required for all federal projects. Mr. Swenson stated that if none of the area impactedby the project is currently used for agriculture and if it is already committed to urban land use, then the projectwould not be considered to be converting farmland. The completed impact rating, received from Mr. Swensonon February 3, 2011, indicated that there was no farmland in the project corridor, and therefore, none could beconverted by the project (Appendix C).Indirect ImpactsThe interchange would likely influence the rate of development in the area. However, none of the land in thearea is currently being cultivated for farmland.Land use, including changes from undeveloped land to residential, commercial or industrial uses, areidentified in locally- and regionally-approved planning documents. These documents assume the presence ofan interchange near N. Beck Road and encourage commercial and industrial development. Thus, the ProposedAction does not contribute to indirect impacts on farmland.Cumulative ImpactsThe Proposed Action would have no direct impact to farmland, and therefore, no cumulative impacts tofarmland.MitigationNo mitigation is required because the Proposed Action would have no effects on farmlands.3.10 Air QualityThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates potential impacts of the Proposed Action on airquality in the project area.3.10.1 Affected EnvironmentThe framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act(Public Law 91-604), as amended in 1977 and 1990. The Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho are inIDAPA 58.01.01.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-53Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The air-quality review for the Proposed Action evaluated air quality attainment areas listed by IDEQ at:(http://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/data_reports/monitoring/overview.cfm). USEPA uses the following three airqualityclassifications for geographic areas based on air-pollutant levels (See box):• Attainment Area• Non-attainment Area• Maintenance AreaThe City of Post Falls is in attainment, so animplementation plan is not necessary to meet airqualitystandards.The USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards has set National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutantscalled "criteria" pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead,nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, andsulfur dioxide. USEPA also regulates mobilesourceair toxics (MSATs), which includecompounds emitted from highway vehicles andnon-road equipment. These are further discussedbelow.3.10.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildNone of the emissions expected from future activities along the existing N. Beck Road and I-90 corridors areexpected to cause adverse impacts on air quality or public health, or violate the NAAQS. Under the No-BuildAlternative, traffic congestion and emissions would be greater compared to the Proposed Action. Greateremissions, however, would likely be offset by future tighter vehicle-emission standards.Proposed ActionPotential effects on air quality as a result of the Proposed Action are described in the following sections.Direct ImpactsITD’s Air Screening Policy (ITD 2007) outlines requirements for air analysis for transportation projects inIdaho receiving federal actions. The project is not within a federally designated air quality non-attainment ormaintenance area nor is it within an IDEQ air quality area ofconcern. Therefore, air quality impacts were not required to beevaluated in this EA. However, consideration is given to airquality impacts and mitigation measures are outlined below.Because the proposed interchange would include traffic signalsand create new queuing areas, air-quality changes caused byadditional idling may occur. Additionally, USEPA isincreasingly concerned about MSATs, which are compoundsemitted from vehicles and other equipment that are known orsuspected to cause cancer or other serious health andenvironmental effects (see box).Air Quality ClassificationAttainment Area – A geographic area with pollutantlevels at or below the National Ambient Air QualityStandards.Non-attainment Area – An area with persistent airqualityproblems (the area has violated federalhealth-based standards for outdoor air pollution).Non-attainment areas are declared for specificpollutants.Maintenance Area – An area that has been redesignatedby the USEPA from non-attainment toattainment as a result of both a 10-year record ofmonitored attainment (no exceedances of standards)and an USEPA-approved maintenance plan.Mobile-Source Air ToxicsMSATs are toxic compounds emittedfrom highway vehicles and non-roadequipment that are known or suspectedto cause cancer or other serious healthand environmental effects. Some arepresent in fuel and emitted into the air;others are emitted from the incompletecombustion of fuels, as secondarycombustion products, or as metaltoxics from engine wear or impurities inoil or gasoline.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-54Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted into the air when fuel evaporates or passes throughthe engine unburned. Others are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustionproducts. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or impurities in oil or gasoline.Currently, no known models are available to adequately predict changes in MSATs as a result of the I-90Beck Road Interchange project. FHWA guidance suggests a three-tiered approach to analyzing the effects of atransportation project in terms of public exposure to MSATs (FHWA 2009):1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSATs effects2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential for MSATs effects3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential for mobile-sourceair toxicsThe Proposed Action would enhance access and cross-freeway mobility, improve the level of service fortraffic in the project area, and provide safe and efficient movement of traffic. The Proposed Action is notexpected to cause a meaningful increase in emissions effects compared to the No-Build Alternative.Therefore, FHWA has determined that the Proposed Action does not cause any special concerns for MSATs.In addition, vehicle emissions would likely be lower than current levels for design year 2030 as a result ofUSEPA national air pollution control programs that are projected to reduce MSATs by 57 to 87 percentbetween 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections due to fleet mix andturnover, vehicle miles growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the USEPAprojectedreductions is so great (even after accounting for potential vehicle-use growth) that MSATsemissions in the project area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. Based on current bestavailable information, the project would have no significant adverse impact on air quality because of MSATsemissions.Under the Proposed Action, short-term construction-related emissions would result from exhaust pollutantsgenerated by heavy construction vehicles and equipment on and off-site over the construction period.Construction traffic and lane closures could increase congestion in the area, causing a temporary increase inemissions.Construction-related fugitive dust and particulate emissions could occur during construction of the proposedinterchange. Fugitive dust consists of small airborne particles from non-point sources such as unpaved roads,cropland, and construction sites. Sources include unpaved roads, cropland, and construction sites. Fugitivedust could occur during activities such as:• Cut-and-fill activities• Operating rock crushers and sorters for aggregate sizing• Extraction and processing of borrow material• Operation of vehicles and equipment• Clearing vegetationIndirect ImpactsPlanned development in the project area could cause some localized, short-term air quality impacts if severalprojects were under construction simultaneously. However, none of the expected commercial or industrialdevelopment in the area is expected to contribute to poor air quality once under operation. Therefore, theProposed Action would have no long-term indirect impacts on air quality.Cumulative ImpactsOngoing and planned future projects in the area may produce localized, short-term impacts such asconstruction related fugitive dust emissions. Such impacts would have minimal effect on the area’s overall airquality. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no long-term cumulative impacts on air quality.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-55Project No. A010(963)June 2011

MitigationConstruction specifications would require contractors to comply with applicable federal, state, and local airqualitystandards and emission limitations of the Clean Air Act. During construction, contractors will berequired to use methods and devices that are available to control, prevent, and otherwise minimizeatmospheric emissions or discharges of atmospheric contaminants.Contractors will be required to reduce dust that originates from construction operations and prevent dust fromdamaging dwellings or causing a nuisance. This will include periodically spraying exposed soils with water.Long-term soil stabilization will be achieved by re-vegetating exposed areas once they are no longer neededfor project construction.General construction requirements and BMPs to prevent fugitive dust and reduce air emissions are outlinedbelow. ITD Standard Specifications and BMPs in the ITD Erosion and Sediment Control manual will befollowed. These measures are in accordance with the IDAPA 58.01.01, Sections 650 through 651 and IDEQguidelines:• Water trucks will be used to control fugitive dust during construction operations.• Open-bodied trucks transporting materials likely to produce fugitive dust will be covered.• Trash and other combustible materials will be disposed of in an approved sanitary landfill.• Asphalt plants and rock crushers will be used in compliance with IDEQ regulatory requirements.Rock crushers must be properly permitted by the IDEQ and the contractor would submit PortableEquipment Relocation Forms when movement of such equipment is necessary. Settling chambersand filters, or other primary or secondary collection devices, may be necessary for particulate control.3.11 Earth ResourcesThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates potential impacts of the Proposed Action on thesoils and geology in the project area (groundwater and surface waters are addressed in Section 3.6).3.11.1 Affected EnvironmentThe proposed interchange site is located in the Spokane Valley on the Rathdrum Prairie, which is composedof ancient geologic features that have been slowly formed by millions of years of water flow toward thePacific Ocean. During the last glacial age, between 12,000 and 1.6 million years ago, a series of catastrophicfloods covered this area as a result of the rapid draining of ancient Lake Missoula in Montana when ice damsbroke. These floods deposited thick layers of coarse sediments (gravels, cobbles, and boulders) in this area.The saturated portion of these sediments, where void spaces are filled with water, comprises the SVRPA.Waters from adjacent lakes, mountain streams, the Spokane River, precipitation, and flow through the floodsediments help replenish the aquifer (MacInnis 2009).The geologic history of the area includes ancient mountain building, basalt lava flows, and some of the largestknown glacial outburst floods (Spokane County 2011). The creation of the SVRPA is defined by three majorgeologic events. The first was the emplacement, metamorphism, and erosion of the Precambrian basementrock; the second was the eruption of Tertiary (Miocene) flood basalts that created the Columbia Plateau; andthe third was the glaciation in the Quaternary Period that first eroded, then filled the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie area with coarse sediments and gravel that formed the aquifer (MacInnis 2009).Bedrock, which includes the Precambrian to Tertiary metamorphic and intrusive igneous rocks and Tertiarybasalt and their interbeds, underlies and laterally bounds the SVRPA. These are generally low-permeabilityrocks (MacInnis 2009). The majority of the project area is characterized by garrison gravelly and stony siltloam soils (Section 3.9.1). The parent material of these soils is volcanic ash and loess and is often located onoutwash terraces.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-56Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The project area overlays Missoula Flood deposits. The western part of Kootenai County, west of Coeurd’Alene Lake and the Rathdrum Prairie belongs to the lower plate of the Priest River core complex. Thenormal fault bounding the uplifted metamorphic rocks of the core complex dips eastward and follows thenorth-trending basin of Lake Coeur d’Alene. The nearest fault line is a normal fault which travels through theCoeur d’Alene Lake and continues northward just east of Coeur d’Alene, approximately 12 miles from theProposed Action.The SVRPA flows beneath a wide valley that slopes downward from Lake Pend Oreille to downtownSpokane – a loss of almost 700 feet in elevation. In the northern part of the aquifer boundary, Five-milePrairie splits the valley and the aquifer flows north from downtown Spokane to the west along the SpokaneRiver. In general, the higher the surface elevation, the greater the depth of the aquifer. The valley above theaquifer covers about 202 square miles in Idaho, including the Rathdrum Prairie, and 120 square miles inWashington, including the Spokane Valley (MacInnis 2009).Most of the Rathdrum Prairie is nearly level (zero to 2 percent grade) to moderately sloping (2 to 7 percent).Most of the water infiltrates rather than runs off, except when the ground is frozen. A few steeper areas alongdrainages and foothills have some runoff (the steeper the slope, the greater the runoff).3.11.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThere would be no impacts to earth resources under the No-Build Alternative.Proposed ActionPotential effects on earth resources as a result of the Proposed Action are described in the following sections.Direct ImpactsThe geologic features of the project site do not present constraints on the selection of a preferred location forthe Proposed Action. There is a terrace that separates the Jacklin Seed Company operation from theGreyhound Park and Event Center. Cut slope and grading of this terrace will be required under the ProposedAction. Embankments will be required for the approach fill of the Proposed Action. Approximately 350,000cubic yards of fill will be furnished by the contractor for project construction.Indirect ImpactsThere would be no indirect impacts to earth resources as a result of the Proposed Action.Cumulative ImpactsThere would be no cumulative impacts to earth resources as a result of the Proposed Action.MitigationThe cut slope of the terrace just east of Jacklin Seed will be designed to ensure the structural integrity of theGreyhound Park and Event Center parking lot and the surrounding bench area.3.12 Hazardous MaterialsThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates potential impacts of the Proposed Action onhazardous materials. The hazardous materials investigation conducted for this project reviewed availablepublic records, including federal and state databases, to help identify the occurrence of known solid wastelandfills, hazardous waste sites, and Superfund sites. A review of the entire study area and adjacent areas wasI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-57Project No. A010(963)June 2011

completed as part of the I-90 Beck Road Interchange Environmental Scan (HDR 2011b). Only sites within ornear the project footprint are discussed in this EA. In addition, the online searchable IDEQ undergroundstorage tank and leaking underground storage tank databases were reviewed. A windshield survey was alsoconducted.3.12.1 Affected EnvironmentThe area surrounding the proposed I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project is commercial and industrial.USEPA and IDEQ databases were searched forpotential hazardous materials and waste sitesduring the Environmental Scan from W. SelticeWay to the Spokane River and from the State LineRoad Interchange to the Pleasant View RoadInterchange. This database search found severalbusinesses on or near W. Riverbend Avenue, S.Clearwater Loop, N. Pleasant View Road, and onW. Seltice Way. For the EA, the search wasnarrowed to the area within or adjacent to thefootprint of the Proposed Action. Only onebusiness, Jacklin Seed Company (also listed asJacklin Plant Food Center) was located within orFigure 3-18. Waste storage at Jacklin Seed adjacent to this footprint.The Jacklin Seed facility was listed in the following databases:• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – This listing involves a cleanup for a dry well containingpesticides. The cleanup began in October 1995 and was listed as completed in April 1998.• Underground Storage Tank – Four tanks (one 10,000-gallon diesel, two 6,000-gallon gasoline, one10,000-gallon gasoline) were listed for the property. The status of the tanks was “permanently out ofuse.” The tanks were installed in the 1970s. No known leaks have occurred from these tanks.Windshield surveys (visual observation) of the project area were conducted on September 19, 2007 andJanuary 25, 2011. At the Jacklin Seed facility, evidence of debris and old machinery was observed in thesoutheastern corner of the property (Figure 3-18). No soil staining or other evidence of spills orcontamination were observed. Outside of the Jacklin Seed facility, no signs of hazardous materials storage,hazardous waste contamination, or past uses of property involving potential hazardous materials or wasteswere observed.3.12.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildThe No-Build Alternative would not cause construction disturbance to potential hazardous materials areas,nor would it pose a potential for spills during construction. If hazardous materials were present in the projectarea, continued business operations and future disturbances to currently undeveloped areas could spreadpotential contamination without formal mitigation strategies.Proposed ActionConsequences for hazardous materials conditions in the project area as a result of the Proposed Action aredescribed in the following sections.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-58Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Direct ImpactsBased on the complete review of properties presented in the Environmental Scan (HDR 2011b), the ProposedAction would not impact hazardous materials or waste sites. The Proposed Action involves acquisition ofportions of properties for proposed right-of-way. Environmental site assessments are commonly conductedprior to acquisition of sites that may have a history of hazardous materials use. The purpose of suchassessments is to identify existing recognized environmental conditions that would limit the buyer’s liabilityfor past actions resulting in contamination. An environmental site assessment would likely be conducted forright-of-way to be acquired for the Proposed Action from the Jacklin Seed facility. If environmental siteassessments identify hazardous materials or areas of concern, these areas would be cleaned up prior to rightof-wayacquisition.The Proposed Action would not displace residences or remove structures and therefore would not requirepotential disposal of asbestos and lead paint containing materials. If these materials were encountered, theywould be disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local laws at the time of demolition.Hazardous materials can affect road construction projects in two ways:• The discovery of previously unknown hazardous materials during construction• The impacts of hazardous material releases from construction operationsDiscovery of contamination can stop a project until the contamination is defined and mitigation is determined.It is important not to make any contamination worse by spreading the material to non-impacted areas.Construction activities can result in hazardous material releases, such asa rupture in a hydraulic fuel line or an accidental overflow duringequipment fueling. The potential for releases can be avoided orminimized by implementing BMPs, such as regular equipmentmaintenance and checks, and having secondary containment aroundfuel tanks and other stored chemicals at the job site. Oil storage at theconstruction site may also be subject to 40 CFR 112, Oil PollutionPrevention, which requires a Spill Prevention, Control, andCountermeasure Plan for sites meeting certain criteria.Secondary ContainmentSecondary containment is acontainer or structural barrierplaced under or around avessel to contain the contentsof the vessel in the event of anaccidental spill or leak.Indirect ImpactsThe Proposed Action may affect the rate of development in the project area. Construction for thisdevelopment would be required to follow applicable laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials.There would be no indirect hazardous materials impacts under the Proposed Action.Cumulative ImpactsThe Proposed Action would have no direct impacts to hazardous materials, and therefore would have nocumulative impacts to hazardous materials.MitigationEnvironmental commitments for hazardous materials would be as follows:• If required, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan will be prepared and followed formanagement of fuels and used in response to accidental petroleum releases in accordance withapplicable federal and state regulations. A specific area would be designated for equipment repair andfuel storage.• The contractor would immediately notify the project sponsor if an underground storage tank, burieddrum, contaminated soil, or hazardous materials or debris not scheduled for removal under theI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-59Project No. A010(963)June 2011

contract is discovered during construction. In turn, the sponsor would follow procedures in place fornotification or IDEQ, the Panhandle Health District, and other agencies required for notice dependingon the severity of the discovery.• If a hazardous material spill occurs as part of the construction process or in the construction area, thecontractor will immediately notify the project sponsor. If necessary, the sponsor will call the IdahoState Communication Public Health Paging System at 1-800-632-8000 to activate the responsesystem. The contractor would be required, at a minimum, to ensure the spill is contained immediately.If hazardous material enters a stormwater conveyance (ditch, culvert, or basin) with the potential toreach surface waters, that conveyance system would be blocked, dammed, or diked.• Contractors will be required to comply with the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Regulationsestablished under the authority of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.3.13 Visual ResourcesThis section describes the affected environment and evaluates potential impacts of the Proposed Action onvisual resources in the project area.3.13.1 Affected EnvironmentFHWA’s manual, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA 1981) provides guidance forassessing visual impacts and was used in this visual analysis. The FHWA process involves describing thevisual character and quality of existing visual resources based on distance zones and viewer exposuresensitivity.What is a Viewshed?The FHWA defines a viewshed asall of the surface area visible froma particular location (e.g., anoverlook) or sequence oflocations (e.g., a roadway or trail).The dimensions and perimeter of a viewshed vary depending onterrain and vegetation or structures that may screen views of a projectarea. Because there are potentially an infinite number of viewinglocations within the viewshed of a project, analyses are typicallyconducted from a limited number of key observation points atparticularly sensitive locations to represent the most important viewsof the proposed project.The visual affected environment is characterized by a combination of the quality of the existing landscape andthe sensitivity of likely viewers to visual change. An additional factor is the capacity of the characteristiclandscape to absorb visual changes. The visual effects of a proposed project typically are evaluated based onthe degree to which project disturbance and facilities would contrast with the existing landscape.Visual quality is somewhat subjective and dependent on context. For example, a small, tree-lined lake wouldhave greater visual importance in the dry semi desert areas of southern Idaho, than in the northern IdahoPanhandle where these features are more common. In general, visual quality is a function of scenicattractiveness, variety, and the uniqueness of the characteristic landscape. A landscape with greater variety inlandform, linear features, color, or vegetation type generally is considered higher quality than one with littlediversity. A particular landscape that is similar in character to a large portion of the surrounding lands isconsidered lesser quality than one with unique, attractive features.Visual impacts are addressed based on distance zones – foreground, middleground, and background – whichare used to describe distance relationships between an observer and visual resources. The distinguishingcharacteristic that separates these three zones is the relative amount of detail that is normally perceived byviewers. Most of the landscape near bridges, freeways and arterial roadways is either foreground ormiddleground. Foreground is the view to a distance of about 1/4 mile (all visual patterns in the foreground areeasily seen), and middleground is the view from 1/4 to 3 miles away (line, form and color are easily seen, butthe texture of visual objects is not perceptible). Details of roadway features are not perceptible at theI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-60Project No. A010(963)June 2011

ackground distance beyond 3 miles. Views are considered looking at the roadway features and from theroadway.Visual sensitivity is generally a function of the number of people who will view a landscape, the duration oftheir views and proximity to the subject landscape, and the reason they are in a position to observe the views.For example, a tourist stopping for a leisurely lunch at a scenic overlook is considered to be more sensitive tothe visual environment than a commuter driving by the same location on their way to work. A viewpointhosting 1,000 visitors per day throughout the summer and fall is considered more sensitive than one visited byjust a few people on occasional holiday weekends. Viewers within a quarter mile of a particular landscape(foreground) are considered to be more sensitive to visual effects than viewers 3 miles away (middleground).Visually sensitive areas are typically primary travel routes, residential communities, and designated recreationfacilities.The I-90 Beck Road Interchange project area would fall into the lowest sensitivity category due to the extentof existing disturbance from development, I-90, and the man-made environment (described below).The major viewer groups are roadway users and roadway viewers. Roadway users include drivers, passengers,bicyclists, and pedestrians who have views of the roadway and from the roadway of the surroundinglandscape. Roadway viewers include pedestrians, residents, recreational users, businesses, visitors, and otherswho have views of the roadway in a landscape setting.Generally speaking, these two viewer groups have different sensitivities to the visual environment. Forexample, roadway users in heavy traffic are often focused on their immediate surroundings, traffic, and theroadway, and may not perceive the surrounding built environment or landscape. Roadway viewers tend tohave a more comprehensive field of vision, time to observe the visual environment, a desire for visual interestor detail, and higher sensitivity to changes in visual quality.General Landscape CharacterGenerally, the existing landscape is disturbed throughout the project area (Figure 3-19 and Figure 3-20).Distinct alterations in the viewshed include previously disturbed ground, the I-90, Centennial Trail, dirt andpaved roadways including N. Beck Road, commercial and industrial development, overhead power lines,water tower, right-of-way fencing, and billboards.Figure 3-19 shows the view looking west from W. Pointe Parkway toward commercial development in thenorthwest project area. Previously disturbed ground vegetated by weedy species is visible in the foregroundand middleground. Mountains are visible in the background distance zone. These photos were selected todisplay the general landscape characteristics in the area including; the flat topography, vegetation type,disturbance and the mountains in the background.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-61Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Figure 3-19. View looking west from W. Pointe ParkwayFigure 3-20 shows the view looking east from W. Pointe Parkway at commercial development and presentlyundeveloped land along the I-90 corridor. The landscape consists of disturbed ground and weedy herbaceousvegetation.Views from I-90 and Centennial TrailFigure 3-20. View looking east from W. Pointe ParkwayThe views from I-90 and the adjacent Centennial Trail looking at the project area are typical of views fromthe interstate that passes through a partially developed commercial strip adjacent to the freeway. Box-typestores are interspersed with commercial or industrial warehouses through this area. The terrain is mostly flatand covered with weedy herbaceous vegetation. The characteristic landscape has little capability to absorbnew structures because of the lack of relief in the existing topography and lack of trees and shrubs to screennew features. Two key observation points were selected to represent views from I-90 and the Centennial Trail(Figure 3-21).I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-62Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Views of I-90 and Beck RoadThe foreground views of I-90 are typical of a four-lane, divided highway in the area (Figure 3-22). Thefreeway forms a relatively straight line in the landscape, with cars and trucks visible as they travel the route.Similarly, the views of N. Beck Road from the project area are typical of an undeveloped dirt road with littleassociated infrastructure (Figure 3-23).Figure 3-22. View from Centennial Trail, looking west toward I-90Figure 3-23. View from W. Pointe Parkway, looking north toward N. Beck RoadI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-64Project No. A010(963)June 2011

3.13.2 Environmental ConsequencesNo-BuildNo interchange would be constructed under the No-Build Alternative. The existing configuration of I-90,N. Beck Road and the Centennial Trail would not change. The visual environment in the project area couldchange due to new development which is expected to continue under the No-Build Alternative.Proposed ActionDirect ImpactsConstruction of the proposed interchange and associated features would result in permanent visual changes inthe immediate area surrounding the interstate and N. Beck Road. Visual effects of the Proposed Action wouldresult from construction and use of the interchange and associated features. The main visual elements of theproposed project would include:• Introduction of new landforms, including roadway, interchange embankments, and a stormwatercollection pond that would contrast with existing topography• Introduction of new structural elements, including the interchange bridge, traffic signals, right-of-wayfences, and traffic signs that would contrast with the existing characteristic landscape on the basis ofform, line, color, and texture• Removal of vegetation• The addition of lighting at night (that presently does not exist), which would be most noticeable totravelers in the immediate vicinity of the project but may also appear as a glow to more distantviewersFigures 3-24 and 3-25 are renderings of the Proposed Action design and proposed Centennial Trailunderpass that show the expected visual changes as a result of interchange build-out in the project area. Theseviews show the foreground to middleground view for those traveling on the Centennial Trail. Views fromI-90 would be very similar.During construction, temporary visual impacts would occur from equipment operating in the area andpotential dust from construction operations. Areas next to the interchange would likely be used for staging ofmaterials, which would also add to temporary visual contrasts.Indirect ImpactsWith the likelihood of increased development, the area could see an increase in commercial construction.Views in the surrounding area would likely change to a denser mix of development following completion ofthe interchange.Cumulative ImpactsConstruction of the interchange would add to existing visual changes in the area from past activities,including land-clearing, development of commercial and industrial complexes, and construction of I-90 androads in the area.MitigationMitigation measures to reduce visual impacts would include:• Areas disturbed by project construction activities would be landscaped or improved over existingvegetation characteristics.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment3-65Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 4: Comments and CoordinationStakeholders in the project area were invited to attend a public open house for the I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project on January 14, 2009. The open house provided information on the interchange approvalprocess, alternatives evaluation, the surrounding roadways and future interchange features, and environmentalissues. The open house also provided an opportunity for public commentary. To further support stakeholderinvolvement in the project, the TAC was formed to provide technical assistance to the project team during theIJR process.Copies of meeting agendas, advertisements, and meeting summaries are available from ITD District 1 uponrequest.4.1 Public Open House4.1.1 Notification and ContactStakeholders, including the public, were contacted and notified of the public open house for the project. Forthe open house, emails, postcards, meeting notices, and newspaper advertisements were used to inviteattendees. Approximately 575 postcard notices were mailed. Stakeholders identified as key agencies, activelyparticipating individuals, businesses, and community members received a formal email invitation before theopen house. Media involvement included a news release and brochure that was delivered to local businessesto set on their counters.4.1.2 Meeting SummaryThe Public open house was conducted to notify stakeholders and the public of project purpose and need, thealternatives considered, the surrounding roadways and future interchange features, and environmental issues.The open house was held on January 14, 2009 at the City of Post Falls City Hall. A total of 53 peopleattended the open house. Attendees had the opportunity to visit project stations that provided information on:• Interchange alternatives• Interchange and roadway features• Project process• The IJR• The NEPA ProcessDuring the meeting, technical experts were available to explain project specifics and to answer questions.Participants had the opportunity to complete comment sheets and provide input on the project. Participantswere encouraged to visit stations representing information about the project and provide commentsafterwards. Eleven comment sheets were submitted during the open house and two formal comment letterswere submitted after the open house by the close of the comment period. The majority of comments expressedgeneral concerns such as traffic function, business and neighborhood impacts, economics, and the projectschedule. Comments were compiled and summarized by the project team.4.2 Technical Advisory Committee MeetingsThe TAC was created to provide support and insight to the project team during the IJR process (see Section1.3). The committee consisted of representatives from the following agencies:• FHWA• ITD• WSDOT• SRTC/KMPOI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment4-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

City of Post FallsPFHDSpokane CountyA description of TAC input into the development of the IJR is outlined in the Alternatives Development andScreening Memorandums provided in Appendices H-K of the IJR (HDR 2010). All TAC meetings took placeat ITD offices in Coeur D’ Alene, Idaho except for two meetings in January 2008 that were teleconferencemeetings. TAC meetings were held on: September 7, 2007 November 13, 2007 January 11, 2008 January 23, 2008 May 19, 20 & 21, 2008 June 25 & 26, 2008 October 1, 2008Objectives during the meetings included:Compiling existing information and knowledge about the projectIdentification of the study areaInput into design and evaluation criteriaIdentification of alternatives evaluation criteriaIdentification of alternativesInitial alternatives screeningProject scheduling4.3 Agency Consultation/CoordinationAn Environmental Scan was conducted for the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project in October 2007, andupdated in April 2010 and January 2011. The purpose of an Environmental Scan was to provide preliminaryinformation on environmental resources in the project area. The scan provided support for evaluatingalternatives as part of the IJR. The Environmental Scan process included letter correspondence with agencyrepresentatives in October 2007. Letters were sent to the following agencies:FHWAUSACEUSFWSUSEPANRCSWSDOTITDIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)IDEQIdaho Department of LandsIDWRSHPOKootenai CountySpokane CountyCity of Post FallsPFHDSRTCResponses were received from IDEQ, City of Post Falls, USACE, and WSDOT. Copies of thiscorrespondence are included in Appendix D.As part of the project scoping process for the EA, letters were sent out to resource and regulatory agencies inJanuary 2011, as well as stakeholders and Indian tribes to re-introduce the project and to solicit comments onissues and concerns within and adjacent to the project area. Approximately 60 scoping letters were sent out tovarious federal, state, and local agencies as well as stakeholders and property owners in the project area. Tenfederal agencies, 24 state agencies and 26 local agencies, property owners and stakeholders were contacted.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment 4-2Project No. A010(963)June 2011

The following agencies responded in writing to the January 2011 scoping letter:• Post Falls Urban Renewal Agency• Post Falls School District• Kootenai County Fire and Rescue• PFHD• WSDOT• Hanson Industries• Greyhound Park and Event Center• Jacklin Land Company• USEPA• USACEI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment4-3Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Table 4-1 summarizes the comments received from the agencies as of March 31, 2011. Responses to scopingcomments are presented in Appendix D. All agencies will be notified of the availability of the EA once it isfinalized. Each of the agencies identified in Chapter 5 will receive copies of this EA for review and comment.Table 4-1. Comments Received During Scoping PeriodRespondent Date CommentPost Falls UrbanRenewal AgencyKootenai County Fire &RescuePost Falls SchoolDistrict2/01/20112/04/20112/11/2011PFHD 2/16/2011WSDOT 2/17/2011Hanson Industries 2/21/2011Greyhound Park andEvent Center2/21/2011Jacklin Land Company 3/28/2011USACE 3/30/2011USACE 5/17/11USEPA 3/31/2011SHPO 5/13/11Coeur D’Alene Tribe 5/13/11Provided comments on traffic and access, the Centennial Trail,potable water, and surface water management.They are the emergency service provider in the project area.They feel that the Beck Road project will enhance access into thecommercial/industrial area.The Post Falls School District supports the interchange plan forthe area.Expressed concerns with connectivity of W. Riverbend Avenueboth during and after construction, improvements to N. BeckRoad north of Seltice Way, Centennial Trail construction,stormwater treatment, and improvements to the N. Beck Roadand W. Seltice Way intersection.Expressed concerns with the projected traffic operation (LOS) ofthe I-90 State Line Road Interchange. Additional information onthe impacts and the proposed mitigation for the Beck Roadinterchange were requested.Expressed concerns with project stormwater treatment, W.Riverbend Avenue improvements and access west of theinterchange, and interchange signalization plans.Expressed interest in identifying a right-of-way agreement, andclarifying property access and signage impacts.Expressed interest in reaching agreement on issues such asright-of-way compensation, easements, liability, utilities, impactsto business, and local connectivity.Identified the potential for wetlands in the project area andrequested a wetland and waters of the US determination for theproject.Verified that the project site does not contain wetlands or watersof the U.S.Recommended information to be analyzed in the EA including airquality/air toxics and diesel particulates, construction mitigation,stimulated travel and growth, aquatic resources and ecologicalconnectivity.Provided concurrence with the determination of no historicproperties affected by the project.Confirmed review of the cultural resources report and requestednotification of the construction schedule of the project andrequested the opportunity to inspect soils during construction.Offered a free one hour cultural resource awareness training tothe implementation contractor.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment4-4Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 5: Distribution ListNumber of Copies* Receiving Organization Organization’s Address1 Idaho State Historical Society1 Idaho Department of Fish & Game2 Idaho Department of Water Resources2 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality22U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSnake River Basin OfficeEnvironmental Protection AgencyIdaho Operations Office2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers3 City of Post Falls1 Kootenai County3 Idaho State Library*Some copies may be provided electronically.Travis PitkinIdaho State Historical Society210 Main St.Boise, Idaho 83702Chip CorsiIdaho Fish & Game DepartmentPanhandle Region2885 W. Kathleen Ave.Coeur D Alene, Idaho 83815Mary McGown & Aaron GolartDepartment of Water Resources322 E Front St.Boise, Idaho 83705Toni Hardesty and Dan Redline1410 North HiltonBoise, Idaho 83706-1255Mr. Mark Robertson & Mr. Brian KellyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSnake River Basin Office1387 Vinnell Way, Room 368Boise, Idaho 83709Mr. John Olson & Mr. Jim WerntzEnvironmental Protection AgencyIdaho Operations Office1435 N. OrchardBoise, Idaho 83706Ms. Nicholle Braspennickx & Leroy PhillipsU.S. Army Corps of Engineers10095 W. EmeraldBoise, Idaho 83704Eric Keck, Bill Melvin, Jon ManleyCity of Post Falls408 N Spokane St.Post Falls, Idaho 83854Scott ClarkKootenai County Planning451 Government WayCoeur d Alene, Idaho 83814325 W. State StreetP.O. Box 83720Boise, Idaho 83702I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment5-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 6: List of Contributors and PreparersAnalysis TeamIdaho Transportation DepartmentJason Minzghor – Project Development EngineerMike Porcelli – Traffic EngineerMichael Hartz – Environmental PlannerGreg Brands – Staff EngineerVictoria Jewell Guerra – Senior Environmental PlannerMarc Munch – ArcheologistFederal Highway AdministrationJohn Perry – Field Operations EngineerBrent Inghram – Field Operations EngineerDean Moberg – Area EngineerKyle Holman – Operations EngineerHDR Engineering, Inc.Karen Doherty – Project ManagerMichael Murray – Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Assessment Contributing AuthorCorrinna Hugaboom – Environmental Assessment Contributing AuthorJed Glavin – Environmental Assessment Contributing AuthorDiane Holloran – GISRick Lovel – 3D VisualizationCheryl Zorn – Project EngineerChristine Whittaker – Visual AssessmentCraig Milliken – NoiseJinxiang Ren – TrafficTAGBarbara Perry Bauer – HistorianI-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment6-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Chapter 7: ReferencesCity of Post Falls. City Code. Ordinance Title 8.04.020: Construction Activity Prohibited During CertainHours. Available at: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=350. 1992.City of Post Falls. “Post Falls Comprehensive Plan.” Text only version.http://postfallsidaho.org/pzdept/Comp%20Plan.pdf. 2003.Federal Highway Administration. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement; I-90 Post Falls AccessImprovements Project.” FHWA-ID-EIS-08-01-D. ITD No. IM-90-1(220)6, 08920. August 2008.Federal Highway Administration. “Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis inNEPA.” Memorandum from April Marchese, Director, Office of Natural and Human Environment toDivision Administrators, Federal Lands Highway Division, Engineers. September 30, 2009.Federal Highway Administration. “Physical Techniques to Reduce Noise Impacts.”http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/audible/al4.htm. Accessed March 24, 2011.Federal Highway Administration. “Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.” FHWA Publication No.HI-88-054, 1983.HDR Engineering, Inc. “A Five-Minute Look at Section 4(f).” Published in HDR Intranet. August 31, 2006.HDR Engineering, Inc. “Draft I-90 Interchange Justification Report.” October, 2010.HDR Engineering, Inc. “I-90 Beck Road Interchange Noise Technical Assessment Report.” March, 2011a.HDR Engineering, Inc. “I-90 Beck Road Interchange Project Environmental Scan.” January, 2011b.Hortness, J.E., and J.J. Covert. “Streamflow Trends in the Spokane River and Tributaries, SpokaneValley/Rathdrum Prairie, Idaho and Washington”. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Reston, Virginia, 17 p. 2005.Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Database query: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/Applications/WDI/.Accessed September 2007 and December 2010.Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. “Groundwater in Idaho: Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.”http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/prog_issues/ground_water/rathdrum_prairie_aquifer/index.cfm.Accessed January 31, 2011.Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. “Surface Water Quality: Subbasin Assessments, TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and Implementation Plans.”http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/tmdls/sba_tmdl_master_list.cfm. AccessedDecember 2010.Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. “Working Principles and Policies for the2008 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report.” May 22, 2009.Idaho Department of Fish and Game: Idaho Conservation Data Center. “Appendix F: Species Accounts andDistribution Maps for Idaho Species of Greatest Conservation Need.” 2005.http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/cwcs/index.cfm. Accessed December 2010.Idaho Department of Fish and Game: Idaho Conservation Data Center. “Idaho's Special Status Plants.”http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/plants/. Accessed October 2007.Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2007. Listing of Driller Reports, T50N, R5W, Sections 6 and 7 andT50N, R6W, Sections 1 and 12. October 2007.Idaho Museum of Natural History. Digital Atlas of Idaho. Geology of Kootenai County.http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/counties/geomaps/geomap.htm. Compiled by Idaho Geological Survey,September 2002.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment7-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Idaho Transportation Department. “Air Screening Policy.” December 2007.Idaho Transportation Department. “Cultural Resources Survey Report, I-90 Beck Road Interchange.” ProjectNo. A010(963), Key No. 10963. October 2008.Idaho Transportation Department. “Environmental Process Manual.”http://www.itd.idaho.gov/manuals/Online_Manuals/Environmental/Environmental.htm. Accessed July2007 and December 2010. January 2011.Idaho Transportation Department. Letter from Mike Porcelli, District 1. “I-90 Level of Service Justification.”June 3, 2010.Idaho Transportation Department. Traffic Noise Policy. May 2011.Kootenai County Noxious Weed Control. Noxious Weed List. http://www.kcweeds.com. Accessed December2010.Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization. “Existing Conditions & Needs Assessment Report for PublicTransportation in the Kootenai Metropolitan Area.” July 7, 2004.Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization. “Kootenai County Coordinated Public Transit, HumanServices Transportation Plan.” June 7, 2007.Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization. Letter from Glenn Miles recognizing regional significance ofNorth Beck Road. May 24, 2010.Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization. “Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2007-2030.” October 4,2007.Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization. “Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2010-2035.” December 2,2010.MacInnis, J.D., Jr., Lackaff, B.B., Boese, R.M., Stevens, G., King, S., Lindsay, R.C. “TheSpokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas 2009.” Spokane, Washington, City of Spokane. 30p.2000 and 2009.MacInnis, J.D., B.B. Lackaff, J.P. Buchanan, R.M. Boese, J. McHugh, G. Harvey, R. Higdem, and G.Stevens. 2004. The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas. Spokane Aquifer Joint Board.Melvin, Bill. Telephone Interview with Miguel Gaddi of HDR. City of Post Falls City Engineer. January2011.Melvin, Bill. Telephone Record with Jed Glavin of HDR: I-90 Beck Road Interchange Project Noise AnalysisBuilding Permits Conversation. April 5, 2011.Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. “Montana’s Threatened and Endangered Species.”http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/tande/default.html. Accessed August 29, 2006.National Marine Fisheries Service. “Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead.”http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/upload/snapshot-7-09.pdf. July 1, 2009.National Park Service. “National Register Criteria for Evaluation.”http://www.cr.nps.gov/NR/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm. Accessed October 11, 2006.National Park Service. “Wild and Scenic Rivers by State: Idaho and Oregon.”http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html#id. Accessed September 2007.Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Prime and Other Important Farmland Definitions.” Updated June13, 2008. http://www.pr.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soil_survey/primefarmdefs.htm. Accessed March 24,2011Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Soil Data Mart, Prime Farmland Reports for Kootenai and SpokaneCounties.” October 2007.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment7-2Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey 2.0. National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS).September 2007.National Response Center. Data query. http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foiatxt.htm. Accessed October 2007.Schmidt. Angie. Email from IDFG, IDCDC to HDR Engineering. “post falls interchange data request.”January 2011.Spokane County. Atlas. “Geology.” http://www.spokanecounty.org/wqmp/atlas/page%2011-screen.pdf.Accessed January 31, 2011.TAG Historical Research & Consulting. “Cultural Resource Survey for the Beck Road Interchange Project.”February 2011.U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts database query.http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.waste. Accessed September 2007 and December 2010.U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Sole Source Aquifer Program,http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/SSA, viewed January 2010.U.S Environmental Protection Agency. “Surf Your Watershed.”http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/state.cfm?statepostal=ID. Accessed September 2007.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Candidate Species; Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act”, a fact sheetfrom the Endangered Species Act Document Library. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esalibrary/pdf/candidate_species.pdfAccessed May 2011.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office “Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, andCandidate Species With Associated Proposed and Critical Habitats.”http://www.fws.gov/idaho/species/IdahoSpeciesList.pdf. Updated May 5, 2011.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information page on Water Howellia.http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2RM. Accessed September 2006.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Telephone conversation between Bob Kibler and Corrie Hugaboom (HDR).February 7, 2011.Washington Department of Ecology. Fact Sheet. “Spokane River Metals, CommentsSought on Construction Documents for Island Complex and Murray Road Recreation Areas.” June2007.Washington State Department of Transportation. “2011-2013 Capital Improvement and PreservationProgram; Project Detail” by Paula J. Hammond, P.E. September 2010.I-90 Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental Assessment7-3Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Appendix A. ITD FormsI-90, Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentA-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

ITD 0654 (Rev. 1-08)Environmental EvaluationKey Number Project Number Program Project Name Date10963 A010(963) T071610 Beck Rd Interchange, Kootenai County May 2011District City/County Route Number Beginning Milepost Ending Milepost Program Year1 Post Falls/Kootenai I-90 0.5 1.5 2012Acres of New Public R/W Acres of New Private R/W (Discuss the existing use of R/W to be acquired, plus adjacent land use, zoning,1 14development plans, etc. on attached Environmental Summary Sheet)Tribal ImpactPublic Interest Expected?Cultural Archeological Reservation None Yes NoAir QualityAttainment Area Non-Attainment Area CO PM Exempt Project Yes NoType One Project (i.e., New Location, Substantial Alignment Change, Addition of a Through-Traffic Lane) Yes NoConstruction Impacts Requiring Special Provisions (Enter Details on Reverse Side ) Yes NoProgram YearDesign YearADT DHV % Trucks Posted Speed ADT DHV % Trucks Posted SpeedDistance of Nearest Noise Receptor to CenterlineExisting 235' (to I-90) Proposed 150' (to proposed I-90 off-ramp)Project Purpose and BenefitsDouble mark (xx) only the item that best describes the Primary Reason for Proposing this ProjectSingle mark (x) all Other Relevant Itemsxx Maintain/Improve User Operating Conditions x Enhance Accessibility for the Disabled/Safetyx Maintain/Improve Traffic Flow x Enhance Pedestrian Safety and/or Capacityx Time Savings x Enhance Bicycle Safety and/or Capacityx Increase Capacity Traffic Composition Enhancement (e.g., Truck Route, HOV Lane, Climbing Lane)x Reduce Congestion Visual/Cultural Enhancement (e.g., Landscaping, Historic Preservation)x Reduce Hazard(s) Environmental Enhancement (e.g., Air Quality, Noise Attenuation, Water Quality)Reduce Highway User Operating CostsOther, List (e.g., Driver Convenience and Comfort regarding Rest Area Projects)Economic Prudence (e.g., Repair Less Expensive than Replacement, B/C Ratio)Check Any of the Following That Require Avoidance, Minimization, or Discussion (If Yes, describe in the EnvironmentalDocument or CE)Yes No Yes No1. Noise Criteria Impacts* 17. Threatened/Endangered Species*2. Change in Access or Access Control Listed Proposed3. Change in Travel Patterns 18. Air Quality Impacts4. Neighborhood or Service Impacts 19. Inconsistent With Air Quality Plan5. Economic Disruption SIP TIP6. Inconsistent W/Local or State Planning 20. Stream Alteration/Encroachment**7. Minorities, Low Income Populations IWDR F&G COE (404)8. Displacements* 21. Flood Plain Encroachment*9. Section 4(f) Lands-DOT Act 1966* Longitudinal Traverse(i.e., Public Parks/Rec Areas/Trails,Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuges, Wild orScenic Rivers, Historic Sites/Bridges,Archaeological ResourcesPage 1 of 222. Regulatory FloodwayPE Cert. & FEMA Approval23. Navigable Waters**Revision10. LWCF Recreation Areas/6(f) Lands* CG (Sec 9) COE (Sec 10) Dept. Lands11. Section 106-Nat. Hist. Preserv. Act* 24. Wetlands*12. FAA Airspace Intrusion** Jurisdictional** (404) Non-Jurisdictional13. Visual Impacts 25. Sole Source Aquifer14. Prime Farmland*, Parcel Splits Exempt Project Non-Exempt**15. Known/Suspected "Hazmat" Risks 26. Water Quality, Runoff Impacts16. Wildlife/Fish Resources/Habitat** 27. NPDES-General Permit(If no, complete sediment-erosion control plan)*If yes to these items, supplemental reports or documentation are required (e.g., Relocation Report; Wetlands Determination/Finding; Fish andWildlife Species List Update; SCS Form AD-1006, Biological Assessment, etc.)**If yes to these items, a letter of input is required from the appropriate agency.

Appendix B. 4(f) De Minimis EvaluationI-90, Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentB-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

SECTION 4(F) DE MINIMIS IMPACT FINDINGI-90 BECK ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECTProject No. A010(963)SECTION 4(f) AND DE MINIMIS: 23 USC 138 states: “[T]he Secretary shall not approve any programor project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under Section 204 of this Title) which requiresthe use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge ofnational, state, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State of local officials having jurisdictionthereof, or any land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance as so determined by suchofficials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such programincludes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowlrefuge, or historic site resulting from such use.”The de minimis impact criteria and associated determination requirements specified in Section 6009(a) ofSAFETEA-LU are different for historic sites than for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowlrefuges. De minimis impacts related to historic sites are defined as the determination of either “no adverseeffect” or “no historic properties affected” in compliance with Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA). De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife andwaterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not “adversely affect the activities, features and attributes” ofthe Section 4(f) resource.RESOURCE: A Section 4(f) resource has been identified within the project area. This resource is theNorth Idaho Centennial Trail. The trail is a non-motorized, multi-use recreational trail, which meanders for24 miles from the state line at the Idaho/Washington border to Higgens Point. The trail is said to attractmany recreationists, including in the late fall and early winter for those hoping to view bald eagles as theymigrate south. The portion of the trail in the project area is paved and follows the south side of Interstate 90(I-90). The I-90 Beck Road Interchange project would construct a new interchange on I-90 approximatelyone mile east of the Idaho/Washington border, providing access to businesses on the north and south sidesof the highway. The interchange project would include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, providing enhancedaccess to and from the Centennial Trail. Alignment of the existing trail in the area of the interchange wouldchange slightly, however, design of the project will ensure that overall continuity of the trail would not beimpacted. The trail would be tunneled under the proposed bridge abutments, and no grade crossings wouldbe required. The activities, features, and attributes of the current trail system that qualify this resource forprotection under Section 4(f) would be restored once construction is complete. However, while the trail willremain open during construction, some disruption of trail access such as detours and flaggers would occur.Every attempt would be made to minimize this disruption. Kootenai County, which has jurisdiction over theCentennial Trail in the project area, has concurred in writing that the proposed project will not adverselyaffect the activities, features or attributes of the trail that qualify it as a 4(f) resource. The County officialswere notified that based on that concurrence, FHWA intends to make a finding of de minimis impact onthese parks.IMPACTS TO THE NORTH IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL: Temporary impacts resulting fromconstruction of the interchange project include disrupted trail access, noise from construction equipment,and visual impacts from construction equipment and materials. Following construction, continuity of thetrail would not be impacted by operation of the project. The trail would be tunneled under the proposedbridge abutments, and no grade crossings would be required. Access to the trail from north of the highwaywould be enhanced by pedestrian and bicycle facilities at the new interchange. No park facilities will bedisplaced by the project. The proposed interchange is consistent with community planning documents andis considered an enhancement to the trail.

FINDING FOR NORTH IDAHO CENTENNIAL TRAIL: For the reasons noted above, FHWA hasdetermined that the project will have a de minimus impact to the Section 4(f) resource, the North IdahoCentennial Trail.

Appendix C. Supporting DataI-90, Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentC-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

United States Department of the InteriorIDAHO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368Boise, Idaho 83709Telephone (208) 378-5243http://www.fws.gov/idahoU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Idaho Fish and Wildlife OfficeEndangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate SpeciesWith Associated Proposed and Critical Habitats(Updated May 5, 2011)Federal Agency Assistance and ConsultationSection 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consultwith federal agencies on any proposed actions (direct or indirect) on federal lands that maypotentially affect listed, proposed or candidate species or their habitat.It is the responsibility of federal "action agencies" (or their designated representatives) to obtainan official table ("Species List") of listed, proposed and candidate species that may be presentwhere the proposed activity is to occur. If the project potentially affects the species or its habitat,the federal agency is required to consult with the Service.To assist agencies with this task, the Service prepares and regularly updates Species Lists bycounty. The lists are valid for up to 180 days. Species List areas may be larger than the footprintof the proposed activity. Status changes, such as listings, delistings or critical habitatdesignations, will be updated immediately by the Service so the action agencywill always have access to the most current information for project planning.Obtaining Species Lists for Proposed Federal ActionsThe Fish and Wildlife Service is developing a web-based system that will allow Action Agenciesto generate project-specific Species Lists. We will provide instructions when thenew web-based species list system is launched.Until this system is operational, please use the attached table) for project-specific Species Lists.These county lists will assist with proposed activity consultation. Please print and retain a copy ofthis list with your project records. Because Species List information may change, frequent checksof our website are advised to obtain a most current list (www.fws.gov/idaho/agencies).Before initiating an action, a federal action agency (or their designated representative) that isplanning an activity must obtain a list of species that may be present in the proposed project area.(Please note that the area for which this list is being generated may encompass a larger areathan the footprint of the construction.) The area includes any effects of the action(direct and indirect) that may potentially affect species or habitats.This species/county table meets the Fish and Wildlife Services' regulatory obligation underSection 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to provide federal agencieswith a species list. Please print and retain a copy of this tableand this information sheet with your project records.

Use this information to verify the habitats and/or species present in the areaaffected by the projects you are developing. Any project-specific species list generated from thistable is valid for up to 180 days. Because the information in this tablemay change without notice, you are advised to visit our internet page(www.fws.gov/idaho/agencies) frequently to ensure that your project recordscontain the most current species list. Should your project plans expand or change to includeadditional counties, you will need to download an updated list.When you submit a request for Section 7 Consultation, please include a copy ofyour downloaded species list marked with the date that it was downloaded.This will document your compliance with 50 CFR 402.12(c).If the area affected by the proposed project extends beyond the boundary of the State of Idaho,please contact the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office listed below toobtain a species list for their area of jurisdiction.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ContactsIdaho – Bob Kibler, bob_kibler@fws.gov (208) 378-5255Montana – Montana Ecological Services Field Office (406) 449-5225Nevada – Nevada Fish & Wildlife Office (775) 861-6300Oregon – La Grande Field Office (541) 962-8584Utah – Utah Ecological Service Field Office (801) 975-3330Washington – Spokane Field Office (509) 891-6839Wyoming – Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (307) 772-2374Candidate Species ConservationThough candidate species have no protection under the Act, they are includedin the table for early planning consideration. Candidate species could be proposed or listed duringthe project planning period. The Service advises you to evaluate potential effects to candidatespecies that may occur in the project area. Should the species be listed, this may expedite section7 consultation under the Act.NOAA Fisheries SpeciesListed or proposed species that are under National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NOAA Fisheries)jurisdiction do NOT appear on the Service's Species Lists.In Idaho, please contact NOAA Fisheries at (208) 378-5696 or visit NOAA Fisheries' webpage(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Species-Lists.cfm) for consultation information.2

Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat in Idaho (Last Updated 05/05/2011)Page 1 of 5GroupingCommonNameScientificNameAmphibianColumbia spotted frog-Great Basin populationGreater Sage-GrouseYellow-billed cuckooRana luteiventris Centrocercus urophasiunus Coccyzus americanusBirdStatus [C] [C] [C]Ada x xAdamsxBannock x xBear LakexBenewahBingham x xBlaine x xBoisexBonnerBonneville x xBoundaryButtexCamasxCanyonxCaribouxCassia x xClark x xClearwaterCuster x xElmore x xFranklinxFremont x xGemxGoodingxIdahoxJefferson x xJeromexKootenaixLatahxLemhi x xLewisxLincolnxMadison x xMinidoka x xNez PerceOneidaxOwyhee x x xPayettexPowerxShoshoneTetonTwin Falls x x xValleyWashingtonx[C] Candidate[P] Proposed[T] Threatened[E] Endangered[CH] Designated Critical Habitat[XN] Experimental Nonessential

Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat in Idaho (Last Updated 05/05/2011)Page 2 of 5GroupingCommonNameScientificNameCanada lynxLynx canadensisMammalGrizzly bear Northern Idahoground squirrelUrsus arctoshorribilisSpermophilusbrunneus brunneusSelkirk Mountain caribouRangifer tarandus caribouStatusAdaAdamsBannockBear LakeBenewahBinghamBlaineBoiseBonnerBonnevilleBoundaryButteCamasCanyonCaribouCassiaClarkClearwaterCusterElmoreFranklinFremontGemGoodingIdahoJeffersonJeromeKootenaiLatahLemhiLewisLincolnMadisonMinidokaNez PerceOneidaOwyheePayettePowerShoshoneTetonTwin FallsValleyWashington[T] [CH] [T] [T] [E]xxxxxx x xxxx x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[C] Candidate[P] Proposed[T] Threatened[E] Endangered[CH] Designated Critical Habitat[XN] Experimental Nonessential

Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat in Idaho (Last Updated 05/05/2011)Page 3 of 5GroupingCommonNameScientificNameStatusAdaAdamsBannockBear LakeBenewahBinghamBlaineBoiseBonnerBonnevilleBoundaryButteCamasCanyonCaribouCassiaClarkClearwaterCusterElmoreFranklinFremontGemGoodingIdahoJeffersonJeromeKootenaiLatahLemhiLewisLincolnMadisonMinidokaNez PerceOneidaOwyheePayettePowerShoshoneTetonTwin FallsValleyWashingtonMammalSouthern Idaho ground squirrelSpermophilus brunneus enemicus[C]xxxxWolverineGulo gulo[C]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[C] Candidate[P] Proposed[T] Threatened[E] Endangered[CH] Designated Critical Habitat[XN] Experimental Nonessential

Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat in Idaho (Last Updated 05/05/2011)Page 4 of 5GroupingCommonNameScientificNameBull troutSalvelinusconfluentusFishKootenai River whitesturgeonAcipenser transmontanusBanburySpringsLanx sp .Bliss RapidssnailTalorconchaserpenticolaMolluskBruneau hotspringsnailPyrgolopsisbruneauensisSnake River physasnailHaitia (Physa)natriciniaStatusAdaAdamsBannockBear LakeBenewahBinghamBlaineBoiseBonnerBonnevilleBoundaryButteCamasCanyonCaribouCassiaClarkClearwaterCusterElmoreFranklinFremontGemGoodingIdahoJeffersonJeromeKootenaiLatahLemhiLewisLincolnMadisonMinidokaNez PerceOneidaOwyheePayettePowerShoshoneTetonTwin FallsValleyWashington[T] [CH] [E] [CH] [E] [T] [E] [E]xxx xxxxxxxxxx x x xx xx xx xx xx x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xx x x xxxxxx x xx xx x xxxxxx[C] Candidate[P] Proposed[T] Threatened[E] Endangered[CH] Designated Critical Habitat[XN] Experimental Nonessential

Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat in Idaho (Last Updated 05/05/2011)Page 5 of 5GroupingCommonNameScientificNameStatusAdaAdamsBannockBear LakeBenewahBinghamBlaineBoiseBonnerBonnevilleBoundaryButteCamasCanyonCaribouCassiaClarkClearwaterCusterElmoreFranklinFremontGemGoodingIdahoJeffersonJeromeKootenaiLatahLemhiLewisLincolnMadisonMinidokaNez PerceOneidaOwyheePayettePowerShoshoneTetonTwin FallsValleyWashingtonChrist'spaintbrushCastillejachristiiGoose CreekmilkvetchAstragalusanserrinusMacfarlane'sfour-o'clockMirabilismacfarlaneiPackard'sMilkvetchAstragaluscusickii var.parkardiaeSlickspotpeppergrassLepidiumpapilliferumSpalding'scatchflySilenespaldingiiUte ladies'-tressesSpiranthesediluvialisWaterHowelliaHowelliaaquatilis[C] [C] [T] [C] [T] [T] [T] [T]xxxxxPlantxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[C] Candidate[P] Proposed[T] Threatened[E] Endangered[CH] Designated Critical Habitat[XN] Experimental Nonessential

Sockeye Salmon(Oncorhynchusnerka)Chinook Salmon(O. tshawytscha)Coho Salmon(O. kisutch)Chum Salmon(O. keta)Steelhead(O. mykiss)Pink Salmon(O. gorbuscha)Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead(Updated July 1, 2009)Species 1CurrentEndangeredSpecies ActListing Status 2ESA Listing ActionsUnder Review1 Snake River Endangered2 Ozette Lake Threatened3 Baker River Not Warranted4 Okanogan River Not Warranted5 Lake Wenatchee Not Warranted6 Quinalt Lake Not Warranted7 Lake Pleasant Not Warranted8 Sacramento River Winter-run Endangered9 Upper Columbia River Spring-run Endangered10 Snake River Spring/Summer-run Threatened11 Snake River Fall-run Threatened12 Puget Sound Threatened13 Lower Columbia River Threatened14 Upper Willamette River Threatened15 Central Valley Spring-run Threatened16 California Coastal Threatened17 Central Valley Fall and Late Fall-run Species of Concern18 Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers Not Warranted19 Oregon Coast Not Warranted20 Washington Coast Not Warranted21 Middle Columbia River spring-run Not Warranted22 Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run Not Warranted23 Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast Not Warranted24 Deschutes River summer/fall-run Not Warranted25 Central California Coast Endangered26 Southern Oregon/Northern California Threatened27 Lower Columbia River Threatened Critical habitat28 Oregon Coast Threatened29 Southwest Washington Undetermined30 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Species of Concern31 Olympic Peninsula Not Warranted32 Hood Canal Summer-run Threatened33 Columbia River Threatened34 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Not Warranted35 Pacific Coast Not Warranted36 Southern California Endangered37 Upper Columbia River Threatened38 Central California Coast Threatened39 South Central California Coast Threatened40 Snake River Basin Threatened41 Lower Columbia River Threatened42 California Central Valley Threatened43 Upper Willamette River Threatened44 Middle Columbia River Threatened45 Northern California Threatened46 Oregon Coast Species of Concern47 Southwest Washington Not Warranted48 Olympic Peninsula Not Warranted49 Puget Sound Threatened Critical habitat50 Klamath Mountains Province Not Warranted51 Even-year Not Warranted52 Odd-year Not Warranted1 The ESA defines a “species” to include any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife. For Pacific salmon, NOAAFisheries Service considers an evolutionarily significant unit, or “ESU,” a “species” under the ESA. For Pacific steelhead, NOAA Fisheries Servicehas delineated distinct population segments (DPSs) for consideration as “species” under the ESA.

I90BeckRoadInterchangeTrafficNoiseModelTrafficInputsTable1.2010DHV(ExistingNoBuildCondition)LinkName LinkSegment LinkID DirectionPostedSpeedLimit[miles/hr]AllVehicles[veh/hr]Automobile(%)Automobile(Volume)MediumTruck(%)MediumTruck(Volume)HeavyTruck(%)HeavyTruck(Volume)Bus(%)Bus(Volume)Motorcycle(%)Motorcycle(Volume)I90 Mainline EB 70I90 Mainline WB 703138 95.4% 2994 2.4% 75 2.2% 69 0.0% 0 0.0% 03180 95.4% 3034 2.4% 76 2.2% 70 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SelticeWay EastofBaughWay EB 45ASelticeWay EastofBaughWay WB 45568 93.6% 532 0.5% 3 4.1% 23 1.1% 6 0.8% 5568 94.3% 536 0.3% 2 3.8% 22 0.8% 5 0.9% 5BaughWay SouthofSelticeWay NB 40 241 93.8% 226 1.5% 4IBaughWay SouthofSelticeWaySB 40 253 93.6% 237 1.3% 34.2% 10 0.4% 1 0.1% 03.4% 9 0.2% 1 1.5% 4PointeParkway BaughWaytoBeckRd EB 40 254 89.5% 227 0.8% 2 6.7% 17 1.2% 3 1.9% 5KPointeParkway BaughWaytoBeckRd WB 40 254 89.5% 227 0.8% 2 6.7% 17 1.2% 3 1.9% 5RiverbendAve WestofClearwaterLoop EB 35 351 94.4% 331 1.8% 6 1.8% 6 1.0% 4 1.0% 4J1RiverbendAve WestofClearwaterLoop WB 35 341 95.8% 327 0.5% 2 2.5% 9 0.0% 0 1.2% 4

Table2.2030NoBuildDHV(FutureNoBuildCondition)LinkName LinkSegment LinkID DirectionPostedSpeedLimit[miles/hr]AllVehicles[veh/hr]Automobile(%)Automobile(Volume)MediumTruck(%)MediumTruck(Volume)HeavyTruck(%)HeavyTruck(Volume)Bus(%)Bus(Volume)Motorcycle(%)Motorcycle(Volume)I90 Mainline EB 70 5250 93.5% 4909 3.3%I90 Mainline WB 70 5250 93.5% 4909 3.3%173 3.2% 168 0.0% 0173 3.2% 168 0.0% 00.0%00.0% 0SelticeWay WestofBeckRd EB 45 1144 93.6% 1071 0.5% 6 4.1% 47 1.1% 13 0.8% 9ASelticeWay WestofBeckRd WB 45 1144 94.3% 1079 0.3% 3 3.8% 43 0.8% 9 0.9% 10SelticeWay EastofBeckRd EB 45 904 93.6% 846 0.5% 5 4.1% 37 1.1% 10 0.8% 7BSelticeWay EastofBeckRd WB 45 904 94.3% 852 0.3% 3 3.8% 34 0.8% 7 0.9% 8BaughWay SelticetoPointePkway NB 40 446 93.8% 418 1.5% 7 4.2% 19 0.4% 2 0.1% 0IBaughWay SelticetoPointePkway SB 40 446 93.6% 417 1.3% 6 3.4% 15 0.2% 1 1.5% 7PointePkway BaughWaytoBeckRd EB 40 755 89.5% 676 0.8% 6 6.7% 51 1.2% 9 1.9% 14KPointePkway BaughWaytoBeckRd WB 40 755 89.5% 676 0.8% 6 6.7% 51 1.2% 9 1.9% 14BeckRoadBeckRoadPointePkwaytoExpoPkwayPointePkwaytoExpoPkwayHNB 40 769 89.5% 688 0.8% 6 6.7% 52 1.2% 9 1.9% 15SB 40 769 89.5% 688 0.8% 6 6.7% 52 1.2% 9 1.9% 15BeckRoadBeckRoadExpoPkwaytoJacklinWayExpoPkwaytoJacklinWayFNB 35 180 89.5% 161 0.8% 1 6.7% 12 1.2% 2 1.9% 3SB 35 180 89.5% 161 0.8% 1 6.7% 12 1.2% 2 1.9% 3BeckRoadBeckRoadJacklinWaytoSelticeWayJacklinWaytoSelticeWayDNB 40 568 89.5% 508 0.8% 5SB 40 568 89.5% 508 0.8% 56.7% 38 1.2% 7 1.9% 116.7% 38 1.2% 7 1.9% 11BeckRoad NorthofSelticeWay NB 50 325 89.5% 291 0.8% 3 6.7% 22 1.2% 4 1.9% 6CBeckRoad NorthofSelticeWay SB 50 325 89.5% 291 0.8% 3 6.7% 22 1.2% 4 1.9% 6ExpoPkway EastofBeckRoad EB 35 359 77.4% 278 1.1% 4 18.2% 65 1.2% 4 2.1% 8GExpoPkway EastofBeckRoad WB 35 359 72.0% 258 1.9% 7 16.2% 58 4.5% 16 5.4% 19

LinkName LinkSegment LinkID DirectionPostedSpeedLimit[miles/hr]Table2.2030NoBuildDHV(FutureNoBuildCondition)[Continued]AllVehicles[veh/hr]Automobile(%)Automobile(Volume)MediumTruck(%)MediumTruck(Volume)HeavyTruck(%)HeavyTruck(Volume)Bus(%)Bus(Volume)Motorcycle(%)JacklinWay EastofBeckRoad EB 35 464 93.6% 434 0.5% 2 4.1% 19 1.1% 5 0.8% 4EJacklinWay EastofBeckRoad WB 35 464 93.6% 434 0.5% 2 4.1% 19 1.1% 5 0.8% 4RiverbendAve WestofClearwaterLoop EB 35 483 94.4% 456 1.8% 9 1.8% 9 1.0% 5 1.0% 5J1RiverbendAve WestofClearwaterLoop WB 35 483 95.8% 463 0.5% 2 2.5% 12 0.0% 0 1.2% 6Motorcycle(Volume)LinkName LinkSegment LinkID DirectionI90I90I90I90MainlineWestofEBOffRampMainlineEastofWBOffRampMainlineBetweenInterchangeRampsMainlineBetweenInterchangeRampsPostedSpeedLimit[miles/hr]AllVehicles[veh/hr]Table3.2030BuildDHV(FutureBuildConditions)Automobile(%)Automobile(Volume)MediumTruck(%)MediumTruck(Volume)EB 70 5113 93.5% 4781 3.3% 169WB 70 529993.5%HeavyTruck(%)HeavyTruck(Volume)Bus(%)Bus(Volume)Motorcycle(%)EB 70 4671 93.5% 4367 3.3% 154 3.2% 149 0.0% 0 0.0% 0WB 70 4423 93.5% 4136 3.3%3.2%164Motorcycle(Volume)0.0% 0 0.0% 04955 3.3% 175 3.2% 170 0.0% 0 0.0% 0146 3.2% 142 0.0% 0 0.0% 0I90EBOffRampI90EBOffRamp EB 40 442 93.5%413 3.3% 15 3.2% 140.0% 0 0.0% 0I90EBOnRamp I90EBOnRamp EB 40 115893.5% 1083 3.3% 38 3.2% 37 0.0% 0 0.0%0I90WBOffRamp I90WBOffRamp WB 40 876 93.5% 819 3.3% 29 3.2% 28 0.0% 0 0.0%0I90WBOnRampI90WBOnRampWB 40 993 93.5% 928 3.3% 33 3.2% 32 0.0% 0 0.0% 0SelticeWay WestofBeckRdEB 45 861 93.6% 806 0.5% 4 4.1% 35 1.1% 9 0.8% 7ASelticeWay WestofBeckRd WB 45 861 94.3% 812 0.3% 3 3.8% 33 0.8% 7 0.9% 8SelticeWay EastofBeckRd EB 45 759 93.6% 710 0.5% 4 4.1% 31 1.1% 8 0.8% 6BSelticeWay EastofBeckRd WB 45 759 94.3% 716 0.3% 2 3.8% 29 0.8% 6 0.9% 7BaughWay SelticetoPointePkway NB 40 446 93.8% 418 1.5% 7 4.2% 19 0.4% 2 0.1% 0IBaughWay SelticetoPointePkway SB 40 446 93.6% 417 1.3% 6 3.4% 15 0.2% 1 1.5% 7

Table3.2030BuildDHV(FutureBuildConditions)[Continued]LinkName LinkSegment LinkID DirectionPostedSpeedLimit[miles/hr]AllVehicles[veh/hr]Automobile(%)Automobile(Volume)MediumTruck(%)MediumTruck(Volume)HeavyTruck(%)HeavyTruck(Volume)Bus(%)Bus(Volume)Motorcycle(%)Motorcycle(Volume)PointePkway BaughWaytoBeckRd EB 40 1811 89.5% 1621 0.8% 14 6.7% 121 1.2% 22 1.9% 34KPointePkway BaughWaytoBeckRd WB 40 1811 89.5% 1621 0.8% 14 6.7% 121 1.2% 22 1.9% 34BeckRoadBeckRoadRiverbendAv.toEBRampsRiverbendAv.toEBRampsNNB 40 766 89.5% 686 0.8% 66.7% 51 1.2% 9 1.9% 15SB 40 766 89.5% 686 0.8% 6 6.7% 51 1.2% 9 1.9% 15BeckRoad EBRampstoWBRamps NB 40 1423 89.5% 1274 0.8% 11 6.7% 95 1.2% 17 1.9% 27MBeckRoad EBRampstoWBRamps SB 40 1423 89.5% 1274 0.8% 11 6.7% 95 1.2% 17 1.9% 27BeckRoadBeckRoadWBRampstoPointePkwayIntersectionWBRampstoPointePkwayIntersectionLEB 40 1961 89.5% 1755 0.8% 16 6.7% 131 1.2% 24 1.9% 37WB 40 1961 89.5% 1755 0.8% 16 6.7% 131 1.2% 24 1.9% 37BeckRoadBeckRoadPointePkwaytoExpoPkwayPointePkwaytoExpoPkwayHNB 40 1006 89.5% 900 0.8% 8 6.7% 67 1.2% 12 1.9% 19SB 40 1006 89.5% 900 0.8% 8 6.7% 67 1.2% 12 1.9% 19BeckRoadBeckRoadExpoPkwaytoJacklinWayExpoPkwaytoJacklinWayFNB 35 291 89.5% 260 0.8% 2 6.7% 19 1.2% 3 1.9% 6SB 35 291 89.5% 260 0.8% 2 6.7% 19 1.2% 3 1.9% 6BeckRoadBeckRoadJacklinWaytoSelticeWayJacklinWaytoSelticeWayDNB 40 568 89.5% 508 0.8% 5 6.7% 38 1.2% 7 1.9% 11SB 40 568 89.5% 508 0.8% 5 6.7% 38 1.2% 7 1.9% 11BeckRoad NorthofSelticeWayNB 50 331 89.5% 296 0.8% 3 6.7% 22 1.2% 4 1.9% 6CBeckRoad NorthofSelticeWay SB 50 331 89.5% 296 0.8% 3 6.7% 22 1.2% 4 1.9% 6ExpoPkway EastofBeckRoadEB 35 249 77.4% 193 1.1% 3 18.2% 45 1.2% 3 2.1% 5GExpoPkway EastofBeckRoad WB 35 249 72.0% 179 1.9% 5 16.2% 40 4.5% 11 5.4% 13JacklinWay EastofBeckRoadEB 35 262 93.6% 245 0.5% 1 4.1% 11 1.1% 3 0.8% 2EJacklinWay EastofBeckRoad WB 35 262 93.6% 245 0.5% 1 4.1% 11 1.1% 3 0.8% 2

LinkName LinkSegment LinkID DirectionRiverbendAveRiverbendAveRiverbendAveClearwaterLooptoInterchangeClearwaterLooptoInterchangeWestofInterchangeJ1PostedSpeedLimit[miles/hr]Table3.2030BuildDHV(FutureBuildConditions)[Continued]AllVehicles[veh/hr]Automobile(%)Automobile(Volume)EB 35 500 94.4% 472MediumTruck(%)EB 35 225 95.4% 215 0.4%MediumTruck(Volume)HeavyTruck(%)HeavyTruck(Volume)Bus(%)Bus(Volume)Motorcycle(%)Motorcycle(Volume)1 2.6% 6 0.7% 2 0.8% 2J2RiverbendAve WestofInterchange WB 35 225 94.3% 212 0.3% 1 3.8% 9 0.8% 2 0.9% 21.8%9 1.8% 9 1.0% 5 1.0% 5WB 35 500 95.8% 479 0.5% 3 2.5% 13 0.0% 0 1.2% 6

W CLEARWATER LOOPSoil Map–Kootenai County Area, Idaho, and Spokane County, Washington(Beck Road Interchange Project Area)4960004965004970004975004980004985004990004995005000005285000W ELK DR528500052840005284500E FRANCIS AVEN VINCENT RDCHASE RDE ROWAN AVEN IDAHO RDN STATE LINE RDW ANTE RDW SELTICE WAY120N BECK RDW SELTICE BLVD120W JACKLIN RD120N PLEASANT VIEW RD156W 5TH AVEN SPOKANE RDW RAILROAD AVE528400052845005282000528250052830005283500N CHASE RDE WABASH AVEE WELLESLEY AVEN SPOKANE BRIDGE RDE KILDEA AVEN POWELL RDE APPLEWAY AVEE QUEEN AVEGgAE ANTE RDE EASTLAND DRE WABASH AVEE EASTLAND AVEGmBWRhE APPLEWAY AVERhCnBGgA101120156101205121150119S RICHARDS RDS BECK RD120W LAURA LN156205I90W RIVERBEND AVEW SELWAY AVELOCHSA ST205 119S GOLD FINCH RDCLEARWATER CTS PLEASANT VIEW RDBATES LNS PLEASANT LNS MAJESTIC VIEW DRS SPOKANE RDW RIVERVIEW DRCanalMADISON RDMEADOW RD5282000528250052830005283500496000496500497000497500498000Meters0 350700 1,400 2,100Feet0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000498500499000499500500000Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey 2.0National Cooperative Soil Survey9/26/2007Page 1 of 3

Soil Map–Kootenai County Area, Idaho, and Spokane County, Washington(Beck Road Interchange Project Area)MAP LEGENDMAP INFORMATIONArea of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)SoilsSoil Map UnitsSpecial Point FeaturesBlowoutBorrow PitClay SpotClosed DepressionGravel PitGravelly SpotLandfillLava FlowMarshMine or QuarryMiscellaneous WaterPerennial WaterRock OutcropSaline SpotSandy SpotSeverely Eroded SpotSinkholeSlide or SlipSodic SpotSpoil AreaStony SpotVery Stony SpotWet SpotOtherSpecial Line FeaturesGullyShort Steep SlopeOtherPolitical FeaturesMunicipalitiesCitiesUrban AreasWater FeaturesOceansStreams and CanalsTransportationRailsRoadsInterstate HighwaysUS RoutesState HighwaysLocal RoadsOther RoadsOriginal soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale.Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from theoriginal. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for propermap measurements.Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: UTM Zone 11NThis product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ofthe version date(s) listed below.Soil Survey Area: Kootenai County Area, IdahoSurvey Area Data: Version 5, Jan 26, 2007Soil Survey Area: Spokane County, WashingtonSurvey Area Data: Version 1, May 3, 2006Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area.These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, witha different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levelsof detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, andinterpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey areaboundaries.Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 5/22/1992; 6/9/1998The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey 2.0National Cooperative Soil Survey9/26/2007Page 2 of 3

Soil Map–Kootenai County Area, Idaho, and Spokane County, WashingtonBeck Road Interchange Project AreaMap Unit LegendKootenai County Area, Idaho (ID606)Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI101 Aquic Xerofluvents, nearly level 11.5 0.8%119 Garrison gravelly silt loam, 0 to7 percent slopes120 Garrison very stony silt loam, 0to 7 percent slopes1,099.0 77.0%116.6 8.2%121 Pits, gravel 27.8 2.0%150 McGuire-Marble association,20 to 45 percent slopes156 Narcisse silt loam, 0 to 5percent slopes54.6 3.8%8.0 0.6%205 Water 31.0 2.2%Spokane County, Washington (WA063)Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOICnB Cheney and uhlig silt loams, 0to 8 percent slopesGgA Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5percent slopesGmB Garrison very gravelly loam, 0to 8 percent slopes10.0 0.7%20.6 1.4%24.2 1.7%Rh Riverwash 15.3 1.1%W Water 8.0 0.6%Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) 1,426.6 100.0%Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey 2.0National Cooperative Soil Survey9/26/2007Page 3 of 3

Appendix D. Scoping ResponsesI-90, Beck Road InterchangeEnvironmental AssessmentD-1Project No. A010(963)June 2011

Glavin, JedFrom:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Tom Lien [postfallsura@gmail.com]Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:03 PMGlavin, JedBobbi RollinsEA CommentMichael MurrayEnvironmental Manager,HDR EngineeringThank you very much Mike for the information and opportunity to comment on the pending EA for the BeckRoad Interchange. I would comment as follows from the items on your list:#3. Traffic and access - I would expect to see mitigation of access for traffic ingress and egress to the Expodevelopment site which is on the north side of I-90 and on the east side of the interchange. This is an area thatis equally important for development in the area. The proponent should be contacted and assurances made thataccess to that development received positive consideration.#4. On the south side of I-90 there is the Centennial Trail. This is used extensively by foot and bike traffic.Will assurances be made to provide for dust mitigation and protection from construction equipment duringconstruction.#7. Potable water source. To the north of the Interchange, just south of Seltice Way, is a water tower. Will youplease look at that water tower in light of whether it is potable water or just fire suppression. If potable waterand there is a well on-site, how deep is the well and would the source be affected in any way by construction orblasting.#12. Surface water management. In general, all the surface water from this site will flow to the freeway andthence to the west to the Spokane River. Will containment measures be in place to prevent contamination fromthe construction site in case of any storm event.Thank you.Tom LienExecutive Director--Post Falls Urban Renewal AgencyP.O. Box 236 * Post Falls, ID 83877Office 208-777-8151 * Fax 208-777-8117 * Cell 509-844-8720www.pfura.com1

Glavin, JedFrom:Sent:To:Subject:jkeane [jkeane@sd273.com]Friday, February 11, 2011 12:25 PMGlavin, JedBeck Road InterchangePost Falls School District supports the plan as it was shown in your letter dated January 20, 2011. Thanks.Jerry KeaneSuperintendent of SchoolsPost Falls School District # 273www.pfsd.comjkeane@sd273.comph. 208-773-1658fax 208-773-32181

Glavin, JedFrom:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Douglas Okuniewicz [okuniewicz@gmail.com]Monday, February 21, 2011 5:08 PMGlavin, JedErich GrosseI-90/Beck Road Interchange - Greyhound Park and Event CenterMr. Murray,I am responding to your January 20th letter requesting notification of issues or concerns related to the proposedI-90/Beck Road Interchange.1. Enclosed in your January 20th letter was an aerial view photo including a mock up of the interchange that isdifferent than the Pointe Parkway Interchange Standard Diamond Alternative (PP1.1) included in thepreliminarily approved Interstate Justification Report (IJR). The January 20th drawing utilizes substantiallymore area on our property for both the surface streets and the southern driveway circle than in the previouslysubmitted IJR alternative PP1.1.2. As yet we do not have an agreement for right of way.3. Ingress, egress and traffic flow on property.4. Reader board replacement or relocation.Erich Grosse met with me on February 1st to discuss the project and has since provided me with an option for aparking lot layout and ingress/egress.I appreciate all the work the developer and your team are putting forth toward addressing these issues.Sincerely,Doug OkuniewiczGM - Greyhound Park and Event Center1

Glavin, JedFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Somers.Elaine@epamail.epa.govThursday, March 31, 2011 8:04 PMGlavin, JedI-90 Beck Road Interchange ProjectAttn: Michael R. Murray, Environmental Manager HDR Engineering, Inc.Mr. Murray,Thank you for your invitation to submit issues for analysis for the Environmental Assessment(EA) you are preparing for FHWA and ITD's Beck Road/I‐90 Interchange project. If you areable to include them within your study, we would like to recommend adding the followingissues to those listed in your letter of January 20, 2011:Air Quality/Air Toxics and Diesel Particulates The NEPA document should characterize theproject area air quality impacts, particularly the near roadway effects of criteriapollutants and mobile source air toxics (MSATs) that would potentially result from theproject. Identify sensitive receptor locations and populations to air emissions from bothconstruction and operation of the facility.Construction Mitigation Measures. Air toxics emissions, particularly diesel exhaust, areknown or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as respiratory,neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects. We recommend augmenting the standardITD air quality construction specifications to emphasize reducing diesel and other emissionsfrom construction vehicles and equipment. Include and commit to implementing a suite ofconstruction mitigation measures, such as those from the Clean Construction USA Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/construction/. Measures such as diesel engine retrofittechnology in off‐road equipment would greatly help to reduce air toxics and dieselparticulate emissions. Such technology may include diesel oxidation catalyst/dieselparticulate filters, engine upgrades, engine replacements, newer model year equipment, use ofbiodiesel, or combinations of these strategies.Indirect and Cumulative effects ‐‐ Stimulated Travel and Growth When examining existing landuse, zoning, and local land use plans for the project area, we also recommend analysis anddisclosure of the potential for stimulating additional travel and development in the projectvicinity and beyond.Aquatic ResourcesInclude riparian areas and the hyporheic zone of the Spokane River in addition to theanalysis of potential impacts to floodways, floodplains, and wetlands.Ecological ConnectivityAnalyze the potential for fragmentation of habitats and ecological processes. Ensure thatterrestrial and aquatic habitats, hydrology, and other ecological processes remain connectedto enable safe species movement in the landscape and to protect ecosystem structure,function, and services.If you have questions or would like to discuss these comments, please do not hesitate tocontact me at the number or email address below.Sincerely,Elaine Somers1

Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 10 1200‐6th Ave., Suite 900, ETPA‐088 Seattle, WA 98101phone: (206) 553‐2966fax: (206) 553‐6984email: somers.elaine@epa.gov2

April 19, 2011Mr. Tom LienExecutive DirectorPost Falls Urban Renewal AgencyP.O. Box 236Post Falls, ID 83877Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 1, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Lien:We received your email dated February 1, 2011 in response to our scoping letter for the proposedI-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Our response is categorized by your comments.Traffic and Access: The project will provide new access to I-90 as well as associatedimprovements to select surface roads in the project area. It will be the responsibility of individualdevelopers to seek appropriate access to these improvements based on development plans andlocal approval of those plans by the City of Post Falls. It is not within the scope of the project toconstruct additional access and connectivity to future development.Centennial Trail: The North Idaho Centennial Trail will remain open during construction,although some disruption of trail access such as temporary detours, gravel/dirt resurfacing andflaggers may occur. Attempts will be made to minimize disruption of the trail duringconstruction and construction plans will clearly identify temporary connections. Constructionmitigation measures for the Centennial Trail have been outlined in Chapter 3 of the EA.Fugitive Dust: During construction, contractors will be required to use methods and devices thatare available to control, prevent, and otherwise minimize atmospheric emissions or discharges ofatmospheric contaminants. Contractors will be required to reduce dust that originates fromconstruction operations and prevent dust from damaging dwellings or causing a nuisance. Longtermsoil stabilization will be achieved by re-vegetating exposed areas once they are no longerneeded for project construction. Mitigation measures for fugitive dust have been addressed inChapter 3 of the EA.Potable Water Source: Construction of the proposed interchange as well as improvements to N.Beck Road would not impact the water tower in the project area.1 | P age

Mr. Tom LienApril 19, 2011Surface Water: Construction of the project will require a Construction Stormwater GeneralPermit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) program, as well as aStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best managementpractices (BMPs) to control stormwater runoff and sediment erosion. Stormwater runoff from theconstruction and operation of the Proposed Action would be designed to be retained on-site.Concept-level design details on stormwater water management for the project have beenaddressed in Chapter 3 of the EA. No impacts will occur to the Spokane River.The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.032 | P age

April 19, 2011Mr. Ron SampertFire ChiefKootenai County Fire & RescueP.O. Box 2200Post Falls, ID 83877Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 4, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Sampert:We received your email dated February 4, 2011, in response to our scoping letter for theproposed I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Thank you for providing your comments. Yourinput has been considered during the development of the Environmental Assessment (EA).The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.031 | P age

April 19, 2011Mr. Jerry KeaneSuperintendentPost Falls School District #273206 W. Mullan Ave.Post Falls, ID 83877Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 11, 2011 Scoping CommentDear Mr. Keane:We received your email dated February 11, 2011 in response to our scoping letter for theproposed I-90, Beck Road Interchange project. Thank you for providing your support. Yourinput has been documented during the development of the Environmental Assessment (EA).The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.031 | P age

April 19, 2011Mr. Lynn HumphreysChairmanPost Falls Highway District5629 E Seltice WayPost Falls, ID 83854Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 16, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Humphreys:We received your letter dated February 16, 2011, in response to our scoping letter for theproposed I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Our response is categorized by your fivecomments.Item 1: The existing W. Riverbend Avenue will be re-aligned to connect to Pointe Parkway andthe proposed interchange. A W. Riverbend Avenue extension will also provide connectivity westof the interchange, where it will be a two-lane collector road with sidewalk on the south side, atwo-way left turn lane west of the interchange, and turn lanes at the appropriate intersections.Access to existing businesses southwest of the interchange will be maintained duringconstruction of the interchange. The realignment of W. Riverbend Avenue falls within theguidance provided by “Practical Solutions for Highway Design” in that it is local roadway (non-NHS) and the design recognizes constrained right-of-way availability. The proposed designconcept has been discussed with the governing agencies as part of the Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC) process, which included representatives of Post Falls Highway District.Preliminary design details of the Proposed Action are addressed in Chapter 3 of theEnvironmental Assessment (EA).Item 2: Long-range plans for improving N. Beck Road north of W. Seltice Way to SH-53 areanticipated as this area transitions from rural to urban and is developed (as identified in theKootenai Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 2010). These improvements north of W. Seltice Wayare not part of the I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. According to discussions with City ofPost Falls’ staff, the current industrial zoning for the area north of W. Seltice Way along N. BeckRoad is not anticipated to change in the near future. Zoning for areas further north are currentlyrural and outside the City of Post Falls limits. City staff anticipates that the proposed interchangewould not change the industrial land-use zoning for this area. It has also been noted by Post Fallscity staff that commercial land uses on the north side of the W. Seltice Way and N. Beck Roadintersection is restricted by the steep grade.Future traffic was modeled for project alternatives to evaluate if building an I-90 Beck RoadInterchange project would trigger the immediate need for transportation improvements on N.Beck Road, north of W. Seltice Way. The traffic was modeled for the year 2012, the assumedconstruction completion year for the project. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection1 | P age

Mr. Lynn HumphreysApril 19, 2011of N. Beck Road and W. Seltice Way as part of the project. The traffic model shows noadditional road improvements would be needed in 2012 north of W. Seltice Way on N. BeckRoad beyond the new traffic signal as a result of the project. Based on the 2012 Opening Daytraffic analysis conducted for the IJR (page 7-9 of the October 2010 IJR), the intersection of N.Beck Road and W. Seltice Way is projected to operate at LOS B. The 2030 traffic analysis ofthis signalized intersection indicates an LOS C (page 2-9 of the October 2010 IJR). Chapter 3 ofthe EA addresses the impacts of land use and the independent utility of the Proposed Action.Item 3: The North Idaho Centennial Trail will remain open during construction, although somedisruption of trail access such as temporary detours, gravel/dirt resurfacing and flaggers mayoccur. Attempts will be made to minimize disruption of the trail during construction andconstruction plans will clearly identify temporary connections. Construction mitigation measuresfor the Centennial Trail have been addressed in the EA.Item 4: Construction of the project will include a Construction Stormwater General Permit underthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) program, as well as a StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs)to control stormwater runoff and sediment erosion. Stormwater runoff from the construction andoperation of the Proposed Action will be designed to be retained on-site. Concept-level designdetails for stormwater management for the project have been addressed in the EA. The projectproponent and their contractor will coordinate with the Post Falls Highway District to obtainnecessary agreements regarding maintenance and control of stormwater in District right-of-wayor easements.Item 5: A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of N. Beck Road and W. Seltice Wayas part of the project. Improvements to this intersection will be based on traffic engineeringrecommendations and will be coordinated with the City of Post Falls and the Post Falls HighwayDistrict. Refer to item 2 response for additional information on LOS analysis.The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.032 | P age

March 21, 2011Mr. Greg FiggRegion Development ServicesWashington State Department of TransportationEastern Region2714 N. Mayfair StreetSpokane, WA 99207-2050Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 17, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Figg:We received your comments in response to our scoping letter for the proposed I-90 Beck RoadInterchange Project. Our response is categorized by your four comments.Item 1: The project purpose is to improve regional traffic operations to and from I-90, betweenand including the Pleasant View Road/I-90 and State Line Road/I-90 interchanges. Asdemonstrated in the October 2010 Interstate Justification Report (IJR) as provisionally approvedby FHWA, the 2030 peak hour traffic volumes at the State Line Interchange ramp terminiintersections decrease with the addition of the I-90 Beck Road Interchange. The 2030 PM peakhour volumes for the No-Build unsignalized scenario are 2,367 vehicles east bound (totalvehicles at the EB ramp terminus intersection) and 2,445 vehicles west bound (total vehicles atthe WB ramp terminus intersection). Compared to the 2030 PM peak hour volumes for the BeckRoad Standard Diamond Build scenario of 2,032 EB (total vehicles at the EB ramp terminusintersection) and 1,674 WB (total vehicles at the WB ramp terminus intersection), the addition ofthe Beck Road Interchange reduces the PM peak hour volumes by 14% EB and 32% WB fortotal vehicles at the State Line ramp termini intersections. Both scenarios listed above aremodeled with unsignalized intersections at the State Line ramp termini. The project purpose issatisfied through reduction of PM peak hour volume and increase in volume to capacity ratio.(Source - October 2010 IJR, Appendix F, No-Build Traffic Operations Analysis and AppendixU, PP1.1 2030 Operations Analysis, Standard Diamond).During the course of the Summer 2010 IJR revisions, the project purpose was examined giventhe decrease in hourly volumes described above. This decrease in volumes, combined with theanalysis of the State Line ramp terminus intersections as unfunded deficiencies in 2015 by theSpokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Metropolitan Transportation Plan, caused theBeck Road Interchange project to remove the signals from the proposed action.1 | P age

Mr. Greg FiggMarch 21, 2011These facts support Federal Policy Point 3 as noted in the IJR to that “An operational and safetyanalysis has concluded that the proposed change in access does not have a significant adverseimpact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility...”Item 2: The ramp terminal intersections of the State Line Interchange will exhibit poor LOSregardless of the provision of the Beck Road Interchange. The Level of Service (LOS) at the I-90 Stateline interchange ramps will be “F” at design year 2030 without the proposed interchange(Source – October 2010 IJR, Appendix F, No-Build Traffic Operations Analysis). Thisconfiguration includes the revised ramp control from current stop control of Stateline Road tostop control of the ramp movements for the WB ramps as part of the modifications to the Port ofEntry. (Refer to page 1-4 of the October 2010 IJR – Intersection #52 for description of thisintersection.)As unsignalized intersections, these locations are expected to perform poorly under theforecasted 2030 PM peak hour conditions and any effect of adding the Beck Road Interchange isan improvement. The SRTC Metropolitan Transportation Plan identified these ramp terminusintersections as unfunded deficiencies in 2015. The effect of providing the Beck RoadInterchange would be to delay the emergence of this deficiency beyond the projected 2015horizon year. That additional time may allow the SRTC, WSDOT, and its regional partners tofind the appropriate, funded solution to this recognized deficiency.Item 3: The queue length for the eastbound and westbound movements indicates an error in theanalysis due to the LOS “F”. Since this LOS “F” also exists in the No-Build scenario, theproposed interchange does not mitigate for a condition that is pre-existing and already identifiedas an unfunded deficiency. As stated above, the proposed Beck Road Interchange will delay theemergence of this deficiency beyond the projected 2015 horizon year, providing the responsibleagencies additional time to mitigate for thispre-existing deficiency.Item 4: The inconsistency noted regarding the content of the memo in Appendix K is because thememo was written on May 20, 2010, which was prior to the removal of the signalizedimprovements at the State Line intersections. The analyses showing signalized intersectionswere included in the Aug 2010 IJR and were replaced with analyses showing unsignalizedoperations prior to the FHWA provisionally approved October 2010 IJR submittal.The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.2 | P age

Mr. Greg FiggMarch 21, 2011Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Peter Hartman, FHWA Idaho DivisionGus Shanine, FHWA Idaho DivisionYamilee Volcy, FHWA Washington DivisionLoren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQMike Frucci, WSDOTHarold White, WSDOTCharlene Kay, WSDOTErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.033 | P age

April 19, 2011Mr. Doug OkuniewiczPresidentGreyhound Park and Event Center5100 W. Riverbend AvenuePost Falls, ID 83854Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 21, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Okuniewicz:We received your email dated February 21, 2011 in response to our scoping letter for theproposed I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Our responses are outlined below.The updated design supports connectivity and required design queue lengths for the proposedPointe Parkway and W. Riverbend Avenue intersection south of the interchange. Propertyagreements will be negotiated with property owners subject to final design requirements of theproject. Detailed design issues will be discussed with property owners as part of right-of-waynegotiations. Continued coordination will occur with property owners as the project movesforward.The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.031 | P age

April 19, 2011Mr. Robert BoylePresidentHanson Industries, Inc.15807 E. Indiana Ave.Spokane, WA 99216Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to February 21, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Boyle:We received your email dated February 21, 2011, in response to our scoping letter for theproposed I-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Our response is categorized by your fivecomments.Item 1: Construction of the project will require a Construction Stormwater General Permit underthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) program, as well as a StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs)to control stormwater runoff and sediment erosion. Stormwater runoff from the construction andoperation of the Proposed Action would be designed to be retained on-site. Concept-level designdetails on stormwater management for the project have been addressed in Chapter 3 of theEnvironmental Assessment (EA). No impacts will occur to the Spokane River.Item 2: The project includes the construction of an extension of W. Riverbend Avenue west ofthe proposed interchange to connect to properties in that area. It would also provide necessaryimprovements to the North Idaho Centennial Trail. Access to existing businesses southwest ofthe interchange will be maintained during construction of the interchange. Utilities will beaddressed during final design in accordance with the Idaho Transportation Department’s Guidefor Utility Management and City of Post Falls’ standards. Details on the Proposed Action designhave been addressed in Chapter 2 of the EA and potential business impacts have been addressedin Chapter 3 of the EA.Item 3: Several intersections will be signalized as part of the Proposed Action as detailed in theInterchange Justification Report. A visual representation of the Proposed Action includingsignalized intersections has been included in Chapter 2 of the EA.Item 4: The existing W. Riverbend Avenue will be re-aligned to connect to Pointe Parkway andthe interchange. A W. Riverbend Avenue extension will also provide connectivity west of the1 | P age

Mr. Robert BoyleApril 19, 2011interchange, where it will be a two-lane collector road with sidewalk on the south side, a twowayleft turn lane west of the interchange, and turn lanes at the appropriate intersections. Therealignment of Riverbend Avenue falls within the guidance provided by “Practical Solutions forHighway Design” in that it is local roadway (non-NHS) and the design recognizes constrainedright-of-way availability. The proposed design concept has been discussed with the governingagencies during the project planning process.Item 5: Visual resources have been considered and evaluated in the EA. Visual renderings of theinterchange and surrounding area have also been provided in Chapter 3 of the EA.The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.032 | P age

April 19, 2011Mr. Bruce CyrProperty ManagerJacklin Land Co.4752 W. Riverbend AvePost Falls, ID 83854Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to March 28, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Mr. Cyr:We received your email dated March 28, 2011, in response to our scoping letter for the proposedI-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Our response is categorized by the general themes in yourcomments.On-going Negotiations: There are several items that are still in negotiations with neighboringproperty owners; the design team is still evaluating the impacts of several items related to finaldesign. Property agreements will be negotiated with property owners subject to final designrequirements of the project. These agreements will address right-of-way and compensation,easements, liability, business impacts, and local connectivity. Indemnification issues will also beaddressed at that time. Continued coordination will occur with property owners as the projectmoves forward.Right-of-Way and Easements: As stated above, we recognize these issues are still in negotiations.Continued coordination will occur with property owners as the project moves forward.Construction Impacts: The project includes the construction of an extension of W. RiverbendAvenue west of the proposed interchange to connect to properties in that area. It would alsoprovide necessary improvements to the North Idaho Centennial Trail. Access to existingbusinesses southwest of the interchange will be maintained during construction of theinterchange.Utilities and “Late-Comer Fees”: Utilities will be addressed during design in accordance withthe Idaho Transportation Department’s Guide for Utility Management and City of Post Falls’standards.1 | P age

Mr. Bruce CyrApril 19, 2011Encroachment and Detailed Design Features: Detailed design issues, such as retaining walls,entrance road design, signs, flags, gates, fencing, scales, and billboards are not yet finalized andwill be discussed with property owners as part of the final design process and right-of-waynegotiations. Continued coordination will occur with property owners as the project movesforward.The project schedule indicates that the draft EA will be available for review in late Spring 2011.You will receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.032 | P age

April 29, 2011Elaine SomersEnvironmental Review and Sediment Management UnitU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 101200-6th Ave., Suite 900, ETPA-088Seattle, WA 98101Subject:I-90, Beck Road Interchange, Kootenai CountyITD Project No. A010 (963), Key No. 010963Response to March 31, 2011 Scoping Comment LetterDear Ms. Somers:We received your letter dated March 31, 2011, in response to our scoping letter for the proposedI-90 Beck Road Interchange project. Your comments are outlined below in italics and responsesare provided below the comment:Air Quality/Air Toxics and Diesel ParticulatesThe NEPA document should characterize the project area air quality impacts, particularly thenear roadway effects of criteria pollutants and mobile source air toxics (MSATs) that wouldpotentially result from the project. Identify sensitive receptor locations and populations to airemissions from both construction and operation of the facility.Response: The Environmental Assessment (EA) (Section 3.10) addresses air quality impactsassociated with the Proposed Action. The evaluation is consistent with the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) guidance, which includes addressing carbon monoxide, particulatematter, and MSATs. The project is not within a federally designated air quality non-attainmentor maintenance area nor is it within an Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) airquality area of concern.Construction Mitigation MeasuresAir toxics emissions, particularly diesel exhaust, are known or suspected to cause cancer orother serious health effects, such as respiratory, neurological, reproductive, and developmentaleffects. We recommend augmenting the standard ITD air quality construction specifications toemphasize reducing diesel and other emissions from construction vehicles and equipment.Include and commit to implementing a suite of construction mitigation measures, such as thosefrom the Clean Construction USA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/construction/.Measures such as diesel engine retrofit technology in off-road equipment would greatly help toreduce air toxics and diesel particulate emissions. Such technology may include diesel oxidationcatalyst/diesel particulate filters, engine upgrades, engine replacements, newer model yearequipment, use of biodiesel, or combinations of these strategies.1 | P age

Ms. Elaine SomersApril 29, 2011Response: Construction specifications for the project will require contractors to comply withapplicable federal, state, and local air-quality standards and emission limitations of the Clean AirAct. During construction, contractors will be required to use methods and devices that areavailable to control, prevent, and otherwise minimize atmospheric emissions or discharges ofatmospheric contaminants. ITD Standard Specifications and Best Management Practices(BMPs) in the ITD Erosion and Sediment Control manual will be followed. These measures arein accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01, Sections 650through 651 and IDEQ guidelines. Air Quality Mitigation is outlined in Chapter 3.10 of the EA.Indirect and Cumulative Effects: Stimulated Travel and GrowthWhen examining existing land use, zoning, and local land use plans for the project area, we alsorecommend analysis and disclosure of the potential for stimulating additional travel anddevelopment in the project vicinity and beyond.Response: City of Post Falls’ staff was interviewed as part of the EA (Section 3.7Socioeconomics and Land Use) and questions were asked of the staff of their opinion aboutinduced development associated with the project. The general consensus was that the ProposedAction would likely accelerate the pace of commercial development in the project area; however,the area would ultimately be developed with or without the Proposed Action. The ProposedAction provides a benefit for travel overall by reducing congestion on the existing interchangesand also on several of the local roads.Aquatic ResourcesInclude riparian areas and the hyporheic zone of the Spokane River in addition to the analysis ofpotential impacts to floodways, floodplains, and wetlands.Response: The project team conducted field surveys to identify and assess Waters of the U.S.and associated special aquatic sites within the project area that would be potentially impacted bythe Proposed Action. No evidence was found of wetland hydrology, wetland vegetation and/orhydric soils that could support wetlands at the project site or adjacent to the site.The Spokane River flows from east to west on the south side of the interchange and is the onlynatural drainage in the area. The I-90 Beck Road Interchange project would not encroach on theSpokane River, and, with the implementation of stormwater collection measures, no impactswould occur to the Spokane River. The footprint of the Proposed Action is outside of the 100-year floodplain. Chapter 3 of the EA addresses Wetlands and Water of the US and SurfaceWater, Floodplains, and Groundwater.Ecological ConnectivityAnalyze the potential for fragmentation of habitats and ecological processes. Ensure thatterrestrial and aquatic habitats, hydrology, and other ecological processes remain connected toenable safe species movement in the landscape and to protect ecosystem structure, function, andservices.2 | P age

Ms. Elaine SomersApril 29, 2011Response: The project site has little natural habitat, as the area has been disturbed and mostlydeveloped. Vegetation north of I-90 is mostly weed species with some native grasses and forbs.South of I-90, the project area is developed into roads, parking lots, and buildings with little tono remaining natural vegetation or habitat. Section 3.5 of the EA addresses biological resourcesincluding vegetation, Threatened and Endangered Species, and wildlife.The draft EA is expected to be available for review in late spring or early summer 2011. Youwill receive notification of availability at that time.Sincerely,HDR Engineering, Inc.Karen M. Doherty, P.E.Project Managercc:Loren Thomas, ITD, HQDamon Allen, ITD, District 1Sue Sullivan, ITD, HQErich Grosse, Foursquare PropertiesHDR File 67568, 4.4.033 | P age