EPA 910/9-82-088
&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water
Region 10
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
January. 1982
EPA-10-1 D-Coeur d'Alene-Kootenai-WWTW-81
Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the City of
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
/>> ^^ 'T 1200 SIXTH AVENUE
| SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
February 12, 1982
REPLY TO
OF: M/s 443
TO: All Interested Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for wastewater treatment facilities for the City of
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho."
This EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and implementing Agency regulations (40 CFR Part 6,
November 6, 1979). Availability of the EIS will be announced in the
Federal Register on February 12, 1982, beginning a 30-day comment period
which will close on March 15, 1982. This agency will take no administra-
tive action on this project until the close of the comment period.
We will appreciate your review of this document and any comments you
may have. Please send all comments to Norma Young, M/S 443 at the
above address.
Chicago, !L 6060^-3590
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
EPA PROJECT NO. C-16-0300
Prepared By:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance From:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
Responsible Official:
R. Spencer
Regional Administrator
January 12, 1982
Date
-------
PREFACE
On January 16, 1981, the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) released for public review and comment a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which evaluated the en-
vironmental impacts of construction of the proposed improve-
ments to the Coeur d'Alene sewage treatment system. EPA has
prepared this Final EIS to respond to the comments received
and to present EPA's recommended action on the City of
Coeur d'Alene's application for further grant assistance on
the project.
Improvements to the City's wastewater treatment system
are needed to upgrade effluent quality and expand service
to City residents and to residents of adjacent urbanizing
unincorporated areas. The wastewater facilities plan for the
upgrade of the system was prepared by Brown and Caldwell,
with the assistance of Meckel Engineering and Surveying. The
Draft EIS was prepared concurrently with the City's Facilities
Plan in order to avoid unnecessary delay.
The Draft EIS evaluated four alternatives, the "no action"
alternative and three "build" alternatives. Early planning
involved the screening of a large number of alternatives.
Among the alternatives considered was a regionalization alter-
native for joint treatment with the City of Post Falls. EPA
requested that this alternative be investigated because of
the proximity of the two cities on the Spokane River and the
timing of the planning efforts. Extremely high interceptor
costs were predicted, however, and the joint treatment alter-
native was eliminated. With the aid of a local Citizens Advisory
Committee, three action alternatives were selected for detailed
evaluation. The "no action" alternative served as a baseline
for comparison but was not acceptable because the sewage treat-
ment plant would continue to suffer occasional hydraulic overloads
and violations of the City's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit (NPDES) suspended solids limits.
The three remaining action alternatives evaluated were: up_g_rade
of the existing treatment plant (Alternative B); construction
of a new plant at a site downstream from the existing plant
(Alternative E); and upgrade of the existing plant (without
expansion) and construction of a second treatment facility
1-2 miles north of the City (Alternative G).
The preferred alternative identified by the City and
the Citizens Advisory Committee was Alternative E, construction
of a new plant on a new downstream site. This selection was
reported in the Draft EIS. Although EPA agrees that Alternative E
would provide a number of beneficial impacts, it would cost
-------
$3 million more to construct and operate a new plant than
to upgrade the existing facility. Rehabilitation of equipment
at the present plant and expansion of plant capacity will
greatly improve effluent quality and will reduce potential
contamination of the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer. In addition,
Alternative B is environmentally acceptable and the most cost-
effective alternative. EPA does not consider that the benefits
of building a new plant are sufficient to warrant expenditure
of an additional $3 million to solve existing problems. EPA,
therefore, recommends implementation of Alternative B and
has so indicated to the City. With the prospect of a reduced
amount of available federal grant funds, the City and Citizens
Advisory Committee have agreed that upgrade of the existing
plant is acceptable, and the City has applied for funds to
design and build a new clarifier on the existing site.
As discussed in the Draft EIS, the wastewater facilities
plan indicates that future development is planned on Blackwell
Island. Growth is also projected in the general vicinity
of Nettleton Gulch. Both of these areas lie in a designated
floodplain, and 15 acres of wetland are located on Blackwell
Island. The wastewater facilities plan includes capacity
that could be utilized for developments on the Island. While
EPA will not participate in financing the interceptor connection
to Blackwell Island, the award of funds would provide treatment
plant capacity for this development.
EPA regulations implementing Section 201 of the Clean
Water Aci restrict federal grants where capacity would be
utilized for development of environmentally sensitive lands.
Inasmuch as sewage treatment capacity for eventual extension
of sewage service to Blackwell Island is included in the proposed
interceptor system, EPA will require the City to take action
as necessary to assure that no_wetlands^pr^flopdplains will
be impacted in violation of federal protection policies as
a result of expanding the City's wastewater treatment capacity.
This can be accomplished by assessing the extent of the environ-
mentally sensitive areas on Blackwell Island and by requiring
environmental assessments for any proposed developments that
would adversely affect these areas. EPA grant awards for
design and construction of the wastewater facilities will
require the City's assurance that these areas will be afforded
proper consideration and/or protection. The City, in fulfilling
this requirement, should coordinate its activities with the
U. S. Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Health and Welfare
and EPA.
A final decision on the award of a Clean Water Act Section
201 construction grant to the City of Coeur d'Alene for design
and construction of the selected alternative will not be made
by the EPA Regional Administrator until the close of the 30-day
comment period on this Final EIS.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Project Need 1
Project Funding 1
Alternative Selected by the City of Coeur d'Alene 2
Environmental Impacts of the Selected Alternative 7
EPA1s Recommended Action 11
Coordination 11
CHAPTER 1 - LETTERS OF COMMENT ON THE DRAFT EIS AND
EPA RESPONSES 13
CHAPTER 2 - ORAL TESTIMONY ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA
RESPONSES 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY 81
LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS 83
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 85
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Draft EIS Distribution List 87
Appendix B - Cultural Resources Correspondence 91
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(x) Final Environmental Impact Statement
Type of Action: Administrative
Project Need
The City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho wastewater treatment
system provides secondary treatment and discharge to the
SpoR'arie River. The treatment plant is currently judged to
be at its effective capacity. Occasional hydraulic overloading
and the deteriorated condition of some of the treatment units
have led to violations of the City's National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES)* permit effluent limitations.
This in turn has resulted in issuance of an EPA compliance
order and has stimulated the Coeur d'Alene City Council to
place a temporary moratorium on new sewer hookups, pending
improvements in the wastewater facilities. In addition, pro-
posed new discharge requirements for Coeur d'Alene specify
an improved level of treatment to reduce discharge of pollutants
to the Spokane River.
Project Funding
In order to improve its wastewater treatment capabilities,
Coeur d'Alene contracted with Brown and Caldwell of Seattle
and Meckel Engineering and Surveying of Coeur d'Alene to prepare
a Step I wastewater facilities plan. The EPA administers
grant funds for such planning efforts under Section 201 of
the Federal Clean Water Act. The planning, design and construc-
tion of facilities improvements can receive up to 75 percent
federal and 15 percent state funding.
EPA issued a Step I planning grant of $158,088 to Coeur
d'Alene in May 1979. Before additional funds for design and
construction of a selected project can be awarded, EPA is
required to complete an environmental review of potential
impacts of the project. This review must meet the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition,
the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that federal agencies
ensure that any action taken does not lead directly or indirectly
to contamination that would create a significant health hazard
in a "sole source aquifer".
To comply with these requirements, EPA has prepared a
Draft and this Final EIS to evaluate the consequences of the
* A list of acronyms and abbreviations is included on Page 85.
I
-------
construction of Coour d'Alcno's proposed long-term wastewater
treatment solution. Prior to issuing this Final EIS, EPA
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for Coeur
d'Alene's proposed interim facilities improvements. Issuance
of the FNSI has allowed Coeur d'Alene to apply for fiscal
year 1981 grant funds prior to completion of this Final EIS
on the 20-year facility plan.
The State of Idaho priority list for financial assistance
included $830,000 in fiscal year 1981 for Coeur d'Alene interim
project design and construction (Steps II and III). It is
estimated that an additional $2,625,000 in federal and $525,000
in state funds will be sought by the City to complete the
first stage of its wastewater facilities project. The availa-
bility of these funds is unknown, as fiscal year 1982 grant
funds have not yet been determined. The local share of Stage 1
funding is expected to be approximately $456,000 (expressed
in 1981 dollars [Brown and Caldwell 1981]).
Alternative Selected by the City of Coeur d'Alene
Coeur d'Alene has selected Alternative Bl as its preferred
option. This includes a staged upgrading and expanding of
wastewater facilities at the existing treatment plant site
adjacent to the Spokane River. It is a modification of the
Alternative B described in the Draft EIS. Rather than expand-
ing the plant to the east, across the Burlington Northern
railway tracks, all new' facilities would be constructed on
the existing City wastewater treatment plant property. This
revised Alternative B was developed subsequent to issuance
of the Draft EIS, in response to reduced levels of federal
and state funding and less stringent effluent quality require-
ments .
The proposed project has been divided into two stages.
The first would enlarge and upgrade the facility to a 4.2
million gallons per day (mgd) capacity. The second stage
would expand the plant to a 6.0 mgd capacity. Because of
funding limitations, the first stage has now been broken into
two phases. The first phase, entitled "Interim Improvements",
will increase plant capacity to 3.0 mgd. >.
Interim Improvements - Phase 1 of Stage 1 \j
The issuance of a FNSI by EPA will allow Coeur d'Alene
to use $830,000 in fiscal year 1981 grant funds to increase
its wastewater clarifier capacity. This segment of the treatment
system is currently at capacity. The interim improvements
will include construction of a secondary sedimentation tank
immediately north of the existing trickling filter at the
-------
Coeur d'Alene plant site. New on-site piping will be added
to connect the clarifier with the outfall. If sufficient
funds are available, the plant's chlorination equipment will
also be improved. The clarifier capacity is needed to consis-
tently meet NPDES waste discharge limitations and allow a
lifting of the sewer system hookup ban. Plant capacity will
be increased to 3.0 mgd.
All wastewater will continue to receive biological
secondary treatment and will be discharged to the Spokane
River through the existing outfall. Sludge will be disposed
of at the presently used location.
Phase 2 of Stage 1
In the second phase of Stage 1, treatment capacity will
be expanded to 4_. 2 mgd. This is expected to provide sufficient
capacity through 19^92. Additional secondary sedimentation
capacity will be added and a variety of other on-site modifi-
cations are planned. Dechlorination and phosphorus removal
capabilities will be added on the existing plant site. When
the NPDES permit is rewritten for Coeur d'Alene it is antici-
pated" that eighty-five percent phosphorus removal will be required
on a seasonal basis (April 1 to October 31). Dechlorination
will occur year round. The existing trickling filter will
be improved by adding additional rock media; this will increase
waste oxidation capabilities without requiring additional space.
Figure 1 diagrams the preliminary site layout of Alternative Bl
and Table 1 includes the preliminary design criteria.
The timing of second phase construction is unknown at
present, but if federal and state grant funds are made
available, design could start in 1982. Total Stage 1 costs
are estimated at $4,090,000 (Brown and Caldwell 1981).
In Stage 2, clarification capacity will again be increased
by adding a third secondary sedimentation tank. The trickling
filter will be increased in height and converted to a synthetic
media filter tower to keep the plant's space requirements to a
minimum. Chlorination and sludge digestion capabilities will
also be increased in Stage 2,. (See Table 1) . No change in
sludge or wastewater disposal mode is expected.
After all Stage 2 modifications are complete, the Coeur
d'Alene plant will have a 6.0 mgd capacity. This is expected
to provide service to the City through the year 2002. The
Stage 2 cost is estimated at $6,129,000; the total project
cost is $10,689,000 (Brown and Caldwell 1981).
-------
CONSTRUCT 2-72'
DIAMETER
SECONDARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANKS WS 2137
INCREASE MEDIA
HEIGHT TO 8 5 FT
ADD 7 5 FT PLASTIC
MEDIA FUTURE
REHAB DIGESTER
DEMOLISH
2 DIGESTERS
FUTURE
OUTFALL
CHLORINE TANK
CHLORINE
OPERATIONS
FUTURE 3rd
SECONDARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
DISTRIBUTION.
SLUDGE PUMPING
FUTURE TFSC
CONTACT
CHANNELS
FUTURE
SLUDGE
PUMP
STATION
FUTURE TFSC PUMP
AND RECIRCULATION
STATION
FUTURE PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
DEMOLISH EXISTING
PREAERATION
.TANK FUTURE
NEW THICKENER
SOURCE: BROWN & CALDWELL, 1931
FIGURE 1. ALTERNATIVE
B-1--SITE LAYOUT
-------
Table 1. Recommended Plan—Preliminary
Design Criteria
Design basis
INFLUENT
Flow, mgd
BOD, mg/1
SS, mg/1
MECHANICALLY CLEANED BAR SCREEN
Velocity, ft/sec
GRIT REMOVAL TANKS
Detention time, min
Grit pumps
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS
Overflow rate, gal/ft2/day ADWF
TRICKLING FILTER RECIRCULATION PUMPS
Number
TRICKLING FILTER CARBONACEOUS OXIDATION
Number ,
BOD/1,000 ft
Diameter, ft
Depth (ft) /media
SOLIDS CONTACT CHAMBER
Number
Detention time, min
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
Number j
Overflow rate, gal/ft /day
CHLORINE CONTACT
Number
Detention time, hr
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS (Alum sludge included)
Number ,
Loading, Ib VSS/1,000 ft /day
Hydraulic detention time, days
BELT FILTER PRESS
Number
Feed rate, gpm at 3 percent solids
First stage
4.2
215
215
1
1.8
1
20
1
1
950
2
1
35
165
7/rock
1
10
3
550
3
1
3
0.04
33
1
125
Second stage
6.0
215
215
1
1.8
1
20
1
1
780
2
1
20
165
18/synthetic
1
10
4
550
4
1
5
0.04
30
1
125
Source: Brown and Caldwell 1981
-------
Sewer System Extensions
The sewer system improvements and extensions described
in the facilities plan are to be implemented independently
of wastewater treatment facility improvements. Brown and
Caldwell has divided the work into two groups: near-term
projects and long-term projects. The near-term projects
seek to connect existing urbanized areas relying on septic
tanks; this includes the high school and the county fairgrounds.
The long-term projects will be constructed as local growth
patterns require. No specifc construction time frame has
been developed; Brown and Caldwell (1981) suggests that a
schedule for the near-term projects be developed by the Panhandle
Health District.
The near-term collection system improvements are estimated
to cost $1,916,000; the long-term projects will cost a total
of $3,263,000 (Brown and Caldwell 1981). These improvements
will be financed through formation of local utility improvement
districts. The amount of federal and state grant support
available for interceptor construction is unknown.
Rationale for Selection of Alternative Bl
Chapter 10 of the wastewater facilities plan (Brown
and Caldwell 1981) presents an evaluation of the three primary
alternatives considered by the City of Coeur d'Alene. Cost
criteria, performance criteria and environmental criteria
are discussed in this alternatives evaluation. Alternative
B is described as the least costly and least energy intensive
of the three options. Its total present worth cost is approx-
imately $3 million lower than Alternative E (relocation of the
plant downstream) and $4.3 million lower than Alternative G
(seasonal land disposal north of Coeur d'Alene).
Of the two Alternative B sub-options identified in the
facilities plan, Alternative B2 has a lower capital cost -
$8.8 million compared to the $10.2 million of Alternative Bl.
In terms of operation and maintenance costs, however, Bl
is lower than B2 - $245,000 annually for secondary treatment
compared to $325,000 annually (Brown and Caldwell 1981).
The remainder of the alternatives evaluation showed
Alternative Bl with favorable ratings for reliability, and
protection of surface and groundwater, sensitive areas, terres-
trial habitat, and recreational use. It did not rank as high
in terms of reclamation potential, cultural resource and
air quality protection, and aesthetics.
-------
In the final facilities plan evaluation, Alternative E
was identified as the environmentally preferable alternative
because it would remove the treatment plant from an urbanizing
area and provide room for future expansion. Due to funding
limitations, however, Alternative Bl was selected as the
preferred alternative due to its low cost and its ability
to be staged. The environmental benefits of E were not con-
sidered sufficient to warrant the extra cost.
Environmental Impacts of the Selected Alternative
Impacts to the Spokane River
Construction of wastewater facilities improvements under
Alternative Bl will eliminate the occasional discharge of
wastewater that fails to meet the effluent limits of Coeur
d'Alene's NPDES permit. This will be accomplished by increasing
the amount of trickling filter media and the amount of clarifier
capacity at the plant. As flows through the plant increase
from about 2 mgd to 6 mgd, however, the added biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia loads entering the river
could aggravate the low dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions
that exist in summer months just upstream from Post Falls
Dam. This may eventually lead to added treatment requirements,
but this is unknown at present. The gradual increase in
waste nutrients added to the river (nitrogen and phosphorus)
may also stimulate an increase in algal production below
the Coeur d'Alene outfall.
Heavy metals and other toxins present in small concentra-
tions in the wastewater will be discharged in increasing amounts
as flows through the plant increase." These constituents
may affect egg and larval stages of fish downstream from
the outfall. Existing levels of zinc and copper in the Spokane
River"already exceed EPA recommended criteria for protection
of freshwater biota, but impacts on the local fishery are
undocumented.
Persons drawing domestic water supplies from the Spokane
River downstream from the Coeur d'Alene outfall will face
an increasing health risk from the increasing waste discharges.
There are an estimated T64 residences being supplied drinking
water from the river in a 12-mile stretch below the Coeur
d'Alene outfall. The NPDES permit disinfection requirements
and monitoring of effluent quality will help to reduce the
risk of contaminating the domestic water supplies.
-------
Impacts to the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
The construction of added wastewater treatment capacity
will allow Coeur d'Alene to gradually hook up septic tanks
that are now contributing to Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer contami-
nations. Over the 20-year planning period, 5,000 existing
residents are expected to be converted from septic tank use
to collection system hookups. This is a major benefit of
the wastewater facilities proposal, as the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer has been designated a "sole source" aquifer under
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The increasing waste flows accommodated by Alternative Bl
will in turn generate greater volumes of sewage sludge. A
300 percent increase is anticipated by 1995. This sludge
will be mechanically dewatered at the plant site and trucked
to the existing disposal site at the Coeur d'Alene landfill.
This disposal site is over the aquifer and therefore poses
a long-term threat to groundwater quality and public health.
Migration of leachate from the sludge disposal site is possible
due to the coarse nature of the substrate in the vicinity
of the landfill. Sludge leachate characteristically contains
high levels of nitrates and also may contain significant
amounts of heavy metals.
Land Use Conflicts
Expansion of wastewater facilities at the existing treatment
plant site will aggravate existing land use conflicts between
the treatment facilities and adjacent residential and institu-
tional uses. Odor and aesthetic complaints are occasionally
voiced by North Idaho College and residents to the southeast
of the plant. The college would like to expand to the north,
closer to the plant, and condominium and commercial development
is planned for vacant land north and east of the plant. Therefore,
odor and aesthetic complaints are likely to increase as the
treatment facilities expand and urbanization of surrounding
land continues.
Impacts, on Archeological Resources
The land adjacent to the Spokane River in the vicinity
of the proposed treatment plant expansion was once the site
of a major Coeur d'Alene Indian village. While the exact
boundaries of the settlement are not known, the general area
has been designated Site 10-KA-48 in state archeological
site survey records. An analysis of the Alternative Bl
expansion site conducted by the University of Idaho Laboratory
of Anthropology, however, concluded that no significant cultural
materials would be affected by plant construction. (See
relevant correspondence in Appendix B.)
-------
Cost
Alternative B was the lowest cost alternative (other
than "no action") analyzed in the Coeur d'Alene facilities
plan. The revised final analysis of Alternative Bl, contained
in Chapter 10 of the facilities plan (Brown and Caldwell 1981),
lists the present worth of the project as $12,200,000. This
does not include construction of interceptor extensions. The
initial phase of construction is expected to cost $1,060,000
with $830,000 coming from federal grant funds. The entire
first stage of the project, expanding the plant to 4.2 mgd,
will cost $4,560,000 with $456,000 coming from local funds
(costs listed in 1981 dollars). This assumes 75 percent federal
and 15 percent state grant support will be available for most
elements of the first stage (Brown and Caldwell 1981). These
costs are slightly higher than would be the case if Stage 1
could be constructed in a single phase. Construction mobiliza-
tion and start-up inefficiencies make a two-phase Stage 1 more
costly.
User fees within the Coeur d'Alene wastewater service
area are expected to increase from approximately $4.50 per
month to $6.50 per month to finance the first stage (4.2 mgd
facility) of the project (Brown and Caldwell 1981).
Financing of interceptor extensions under Alternative Bi
will probably come primarily from local funds. While EPA
rules allow for funding of some interceptors, they are currently
of a lower priority than treatment facilities. The present
shortage of grant funds makes the EPA financing of interceptors
unlikely in the near future. Near-term interceptor construction
is estimated to cost $1,900,000. The long-term interceptor
projects will cost another $3,200,000 (Brown and Caldwell 1981).
These improvements will probably be financed through formation
of local utility improvement districts. Persons served by
the interceptors will therefore pay for the service.
Major Growth Implications
The additional wastewater capacity at the Coeur d'Alene
treatment plant will indirectly support the development of
an estimated 2,300 urban acres in the Coeur d'Alene area by
the year 2005. If development proceeds as currently indicated
by the Coeur d'Alene general plan, this will include 440 acres
of prime agricultural land. It is also expected to serve
development of Blackwell Island; this lowland area across
the river from the treatment plant is within the designated
100-year floodplain of the Spokane River and contains natural
wetland areas. It is also part of archeological Site 10-KA-48,
which may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places.
-------
The addition of 2,300 urban acres in the Coeur d'Alene
area will increase the amount of urban runoff percolating
into the surface over the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. This
has the potential for affecting the quality of drinking water
supplies extracted from the aquifer in the area.
Impact Mitigation Measures
Many of the impacts listed above will be reduced in severity
or eliminated if planned mitigation measures are implemented.
The surface water quality impacts associated with increasing
volumes of wastewater discharged to the river will be reduced
by the addition of phosphorus removal processes in the second
phase of project construction. In addition, water quality
monitoring requirements of Coeur d'Alene's NPDES permit will
reduce the chance of undetected contamination of downstream
water supplies due to inadequate wastewater treatment *
Mechanical dewatering of sludge at the treatment plant
site will reduce the chances that leachate from the sludge
drying beds near the Coeur d'Alene landfill will adversely
affect aquifer water quality. EPA recommends that a regular
groundwater quality monitoring program be established at the
sludge disposal site if it continues as the principal sludge
drying area for Coeur d'Alene.
Land use conflicts at the treatment plant site have been
reduced somewhat by modifying Alternative B so that only city-
owned property is needed for facilities expansion. This will
avoid direct competition for sg>ace between different land
use proposals. Aesthetics complaints could be reduced by
planting a vegetative buffer between the plant and adjacent
properties.
Project cost impacts have been minimized by selecting
the least costly alternative.
10
-------
EPA's Recommended Action
EPA concurs with the City of Coeur d'Alene that Alterna-
tive Bl is the preferred wastewater management plan. It is
the most cost-effective alternative and is environmentally
acceptable. EPA does not consider that the benefits of building
a new treatment plant (Alternative E) are sufficient to warrant
expenditure of an additional $3 million to solve existing
water quality problems.
In order to facilitate the earliest possible remedying
of discharge permit violations, EPA has issued a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FNSI) for the proposed interim project
improvements. This has allowed EPA and the State of Idaho
to award $830,000 in assigned grant funds to Coeur d'Alene
to begin treatment plant improvements. Before additional
grant awards for design and construction of facilities can
proceed, however, review of this Final EIS must be completed
and a Record of Decision must be issued. In addition, further
action on grant requests are contingent on the City's efforts
to assure that extension of a wastewater interceptor to Blackwell
Island (proposed in the facilities plan) will be assessed
and that the City will take action to assure that no wetlands
or floodplains will be impacted in violations of federal protection
policies as a result of this interceptor extension.
Coordination
Since initiation of this EIS in June 1979, there has
been an EIS scoping meeting (June 4, 1979 in Coeur d'Alene)
and numerous meetings of the facilities plan Citizens Advisory
Committee, which EPA regularly attended. In addition, there
has been frequent EPA contact with local and state agencies
and private citizens. These efforts sought to identify environ-
mental issues related to the wastewater facilities plan and
to collect background environmental data for use in preparation
of the EIS.
The Draft EIS was distributed for public review on
January 16, 1981. A public hearing was held on the draft
document on February 18, 1981 in Coeur d'Alene, and the official
comment period extended to March 15, 1981. All written and
oral comments received on the Draft EIS have been responded
to in this Final EIS. Persons wishing to comment on the Final
EIS should submit their material to Ms. Norma Young, M/S 443,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue
11
-------
Seattle, Washington, 98101 no later than March 15, 1982.
All comments received prior to that date will be considered
by EPA before action is taken on Clean Water Section 20JL_
requests from the City of Coeur d'Alene. After close "of
the comment period, the EPA Regional Administrator will make
a final decision on funding of the proposed project in a
Record of Decision. A list of persons receiving the Draft
EIS is included at the back of this Final EIS.
12
-------
Chapter 1
LETTERS OF COMMENT ON THE
DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES
Introduction
The Coeur d'Alene facilities plan Draft EIS was available
for public review from January 16, 1981 to March 2, 1981.
During this 'period, EPA, Region 10 in Seattle, Washington
received nine letters of comment on the document (see listing
below). The letters are presented on the following pages.
Each comment that has been marked and numbered in the left
hand margin has received a response, which can be found imme-
diately following the comment letter.
Table 2. Agencies Submitting Written
Comments on the Draft EIS
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service-
Boise Office
U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers-Seattle
District Office
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Seattle
Office
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-Portland
Office
U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary-
Pacific Northwest Region
State Agencies
Idaho Department of Fish and Game-Region 1
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment-
Boise Office
Idaho Division of Economic and Community Affairs-Boise Office
13
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street, NW Reply to: Lake Plaza South, Suite 616
Washington. DC 20005 44 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, CO 80228
January 26, 1981
Ms. Norma Young M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
The Council has reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for Waste-
water Treatment Facilities for the City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, circulated
for comment pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act. We note that the undertaking may affect archeological properties which
the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer deems eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. Circulation of a draft environmental
impact statement, however, does not fulfill your agency's responsibilities
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
Sec. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320).
Prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds or prior to the
granting of any license, permit, or other approval for an undertaking, Federal
agencies must afford the Council an opportunity to comment on the effect of the
undertaking on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places in accordance with the Council's regulations, "Pro-
tection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800). Until these
requirements are met, the Council considers the draft environmental statement
incomplete in its treatment of historical, archeological, architectural, and
cultural resources. You should obtain the Council's substantive comments
through the process outlined in 36 CFR Sec. 800.9 if an alternative is
chosen which will affect these archeological properties. These comments
should then be incorporated into any subsequent documents prepared to meet
requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act. Brit Allan Storey
may be contacted at (303) 234-4946 for further assistance.
Sincerely,
o
Louis S. Wall
Chief, Western Division
of Project Review
14
-------
Response to Comments From the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1. The University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology has
conducted a thorough investigation of the area that
will be affected by Coeur d'Alene's proposed wastewater
improvements (Alternative Bl) and determined that no
cultural resources on or eligible for inclusion on
the National Register of Historic Places would be
adversely affected by the project. The Idaho State
Historic Preservation Office has subsequently issued
a letter indicating the planned improvements to the
City's treatment facility will have no effect on sig-
nificant archeological or historic properties. Letters
to this effect are included in Appendix B.
15
-------
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
Room 345
304 North 8th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
March 3, 1981
Norma Young M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho. There are no comments forthcoming from our office at this
time.
Si
Amos I. Garrison, Jr.
State Conservationist
1981
ENVHttftKNTM.
BRANCH
The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency ol the
Department ot Agriculture
16
SCS-AS-1
10-79
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX C-3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER 6FEB1931
Ms. Norm Young M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for the City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, with respect
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood
control, navigation, and regulatory functions. We have the following
comments:
a. Development in the flood plain should be avoided. If there
is no practicable alternative, development should be constructed to
avoid serious damage or health hazards during a 100-year flood, as
stated, but should also be designed to avoid aggravation of flooding to
other property.
b. Page 23, line 2. The sentence on Section 404 requirements
should read as follows: A Section 404 permit would be required for
placing fill material in the river in conjunction with the pipeline
installation unless the work is authorized by a nationwide permit. Any
other type of filling in the river or on adjacent wetlands would require
a Section 404 permit.
c. Tables and references to heavy metals should identify the
parameters as either dissolved or total concentrations; for example,
.245 mg/1 dissolved zinc or .245 mg/1 total zinc.
d. Page 53, first paragraph. Zinc is identified as exceeding
Redbook and Fisheries Society criterion, although there appears to be
no detrimental impact to aquatic organisms. This raises a question
regarding the applicability of the criterion to any and all ecosystems
and to its validity in general. Because of this question, should zinc
be described as a metal of concern, or treated according to existing
conditions? r=~
17
-------
NPSEN-PL-ER
Ms. Norma Young
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. If you have
any questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206)
764-3624, of my staff.
Sincerely,
KNUTSON, P.L
Ant Gaat, Engineering Division
18
-------
Response to Comments From the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1. Before EPA will make grant awards for wastewater faci-
lities construction in the 100-year floodplain of the
Spokane River, the City of Coeur d'Alene must make
written assurances that any new or renovated structures
are either expendable (in cost-effective terms) or are
adequately protected by elevation, diking or similar
physical means. Any improvements over $10,000 in value
must be covered by flood insurance both during and
after construction. This insurance must be acquired
prior to issuance of a Step III grant.
2. The Draft EIS should be revised to reflect this state-
ment on Section 404 permit requirements of the Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. All heavy metals, including zinc, are reported as total
concentrations.
4. The apparent contradiction between productive fish
populations and zinc concentrations which exceed water
quality criteria can be explained by one of three
factors or a combination thereof. These factors are:
1) reported zinc concentrations are not in a form toxic
to fish, 2) indigenous fish species have adapted to
high zinc levels, or 3) laboratory tests used to develop
water quality criteria are not applicable to field popu-
lations. EPA responds to the third assertion by stating
that laboratory toxicity tests are useful predictors
of what will happen in field situations (Federal Register
45, 231, November 28, 1980). In what is probably the
most extensive comparison available of laboratory and
field data (Geckler et al. 1976) it was found that
effects observed in laboratory exposures were also
observed in field exposures. However, avoidance, which
was not studied in laboratory exposures, was observed
in the field exposures.
There is some validty to the first assertion that total
zinc concentrations in the Spokane River are not in
a form toxic to fish. Zinc was reported as "total
recoverable zinc" which, consists of both dissolved and
suspended fractions. As a general rule, if a substance
is not dissolved, it is not biologically or toxicologically
available. In many situations the dissolved fraction
comprises the majority of the "total recoverable zinc"
measured. USGS has recently begun to report zinc con-
centrations in the Spokane River as both total recover-
able and dissolved. The dissolved fraction comprises
anywhere from 22 percent to 100 percent of the total
recoverable zinc with most values exceeding 60 percent.
19
-------
The assertion that indigenous fish have acclimated to
existing conditions is in all likelihood valid. However,
the apparent lack of reduced fish productivity is not
based on hard scientific data but more on general ob-
servations of fish catches and the absence of large
die-offs. It is possible that subtle changes in be-
havior and physiology may be occurring but are going
undetected.
Bioassay studies on Spokane River fish are obviously
preferable to single factor criteria for all water
courses, but until such studies are conducted and resul-
tant criteria formulated, zinc should still be identified
as a metal of concern.
20
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
January 28, 1981
REGION X IN REPLY REFER TO:
IOC
Ms. Norma Young
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, M/S 443
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the
City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
We have reviewed your statement submitted with your January 5, 1981
letter.
Since our Portland Area Office has jurisdiction over HUD programs in
Idaho, they have also reviewed the statement and their comments are
attached.
We certainly support economic as well as physical growth on a planned
basis and that are consistent with locally developed comprehensive
plans. However, we believe environmental impacts including secondary
impacts should be addressed at the time growth inducing projects such
as wastewater treatment plants or expansion of such plants are proposed.
We further believe that EPA by doing so would make the compliance of
follow-up projects with environmental regulations much easier and
make for implementation of better projects.
We would also like to add that we are supportive of this project since
we are fully aware of the importance of protecting the sole source
aquifer.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on your statement.
Sincerely,
v$sj-"w|"l'<«3
Gordon N. Johnston
Regional Administrator J^ c^
Attachment ...
21
AREA OFFICES
Portland, Oregon • Seattle, Washington • Anchorage, Alaska • Boise, Idaho
Insuring Office
Spokane, Washington
-------
Memorandum
To
From
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
January 22, 1981
Robert C. Scalia, Director, Regional Office of
Community Planning and Development
IOC
Attn: Ry Tanino, Environmental Standard Officer
Clifford T. Safranski, 10.2S
Subject: Review of the EPA-DEIS
Waste Water Treatment Facilities for the
City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Page 101 GROWTH INDUCEMENT AND LAND USE IMPACTS
Protection of Prime Farmland, floodplain and wetland values, aquifer pro-
tection from urban runoff and fiscal constraints including property tax
limitations and archeological concerns suggest more definitive plans and/or
agreements may be necessary.
In addition, the induced growth impact on police and fire protection, ex-
pansion of schools, increased streets, increased solid waste, increased
water supply and replacement of 36 miles of wooden pipes and other services
and facilities are left for the locality to resolve.
We would anticipate the generation of serious requests for HUD Community
Development Block Grant funds, HUD/FHA mortgage insurance and requests to
other Federal agencies for assistance in addressing needs generated by the
induced growth that would be locally unmanageable without additional funding.
Under current and anticipated budgetary constraints we are unable to fund
all the applicants with existing needs. Additional needs generated would be
added to the competitive rating system and, if funded, displace another
applicant.
The economics of scale may prohibit phasing of the sewage system from the
standpoint of construction and maybe even for operating costs. However, if
economics are achieved for one element at the expense of other elements,
the cost effectiveness needs to be evaluated.
Regional or shared systems by localities within reasonable proximity has been
a longtime goal and seems to offer more flexibility in timing of local
impacts including dispersed costs.
ll'i
OAS -.. :/:
22
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
HUD-96 (7-75)
-------
Although the DEIS suggests this was not considered popular and each locality
wants its own facility, a full exploration of cost-benefit and public explanation
of impacts may revive a regional system as an alternative worth considering.
Thank you for the opportunity to concient.
Environmental Clearance Officer
23
-------
Response to Comments From the
U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development - Portland
1. Comments noted.
2. The treatment plant expansion is currently planned to
occur in several phases, as described in the EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY. The cost-effectiveness of this phased approach
has been thoroughly analyzed in the Coeur d'Alene Waste-
water Facility Plan (Chapter 9) published by Brown and
Caldwell (1981) in July 1981.
3. EPA agrees that local interest in regional solutions
to wastewater treatment may increase in the future.
The engineering and institutional analyses conducted
by the Cities of Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, however,
indicated that a joint or regional solution was not
desirable economically or politically at this time.
The current funding situation has encouraged individual
solutions for near-term wastewater facilities needs.
24
-------
United States Department of
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
SOO N.E. Multnomah Street, Suite 1692, Portland, Oregon 97232
Djjiisniw
the Interioi(f\S^^^^
ii»v i Co 2fi 1QDI
26 1981
February 24, 1981
ER 81/30
Norma Young M/S 433
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental state-
ment for Wastewater Treatment Facilities for the City of Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho. The following comments are offered for your consideration in pre-
paring the final statement.
General Comments
I Recreation
Alternative G is preferred due to the finding of no significant increase
in the discharge of pathogenic organisms during the heavy recreation use
season. Selection of Alternative G would not impact existing recreation
activities such as swimming, scuba diving and water skiing. Selection
of Alternative A or E would cause an increase in fecal coliform counts
and bacterial counts, especially during the peak summer recreation season
when the river is low and less dilution is available. Swimming and water
skiing near the outfalls would be discouraged under Alternatives A and E
and recreational use downstream would decline as the water quality deterio-
rates, as stated on page 47 of the statement.
Cultural Resources
In accordance with the findings of the archeological resources investi-
gation, conducted by Jones arid Stokes Associates, we prefer Alternative G.
No evidence of significant cultural resources was found near the Alterna-
tive G site or its associated irrigation sites. It is stated on page 95
that although no mitigations are currently anticipated for the Alterna-
tive G site, any excavation or ground-disturbing activity could potentially
reveal significant archeological resources, and if this occurs, excavation
should cease until a qualified archeologist is consulted. We would like to
see this statement strengthened by saying excavation would cease if cultural
resources are discovered. We were pleased to note that it has been recom-
25
-------
2|mended that an archeologist be present during excavation of the interceptor
I routes north of the city, to determine presence or absence of artifacts.
Alternative B, extension of the present treatment plant, is not preferred,
because it is within the heart of the most culturally sensitive area of the
surrounding region (page 146-Appendix A). The loss of this area could not
be fully mitigated. This is also true of site options 1 and 3 of Alterna-
tive E, which seem to have extensive intact cultural records.
Concern has been expressed about the quality of the river and the Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer and about eutrophication of Long Lake (page 24). We sug-
gest that treatment should be considered for abandoned onsite sewage sys-
tems following completion of the proposed wastewater facilities. Treat-
ment would minimize any long-term contamination of ground- and surface-
water resources that may result from the migration of toxic substances
draining from improperly abandoned septic systems.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Politika
Regional Environmental Officer
26
-------
Response to Comments From the
U. S. Department of Interior,
Office of the Secretary
1. Alternative G would have fewer potential surface water
quality impacts than B or E, but it was determined
that the added cost of Alternative G was not justified
by the reduced impact. Proper treatment and disinfection
under Alternative Bl will protect the beneficial uses
of the Spokane River.
2. The City's preferred alternative, Alternative Bl, will
not affect archeological resources at the Alternative G
disposal sites. EPA recommends, however, that similar
steps be taken during construction at the Alternative Bl
site if archeological materials are discovered during
excavation.
3. See the response to the Advisory Council on Historic Pre-
servation's letter for a description of a more recent
archeological analysis of the Alternative Bl construction
site.
4. EPA concurs that all abandoned on-site waste disposal
systems should be properly pumped out and treated
This cleanup is the responsibility of the City of
Coeur d'Alene.
27
-------
g STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION i
2320 GOVERNMENT WAY
COEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO 83814
February 24, 1981
Ms. Norma Young
Environmental Evaluation Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Reference: M/S 443 Draft EIS
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
City of Coeur d'Alene
Dear Ms. Young
From the standpoint of fish and wildlife resources, those alternatives which
would relieve nutrient loading in the Spokane River would be preferable. Of
those alternatives considered Alternative G would have eliminated for the most
part, summer loading in the river and greatly enhanced salmonid habitat.
Alternative E would provide the benefit of relieving the upper reaches of the
Spokane River from current and future effluent impacts. This would be
advantageous to cutthroat trout populations which seasonally use the upper
mile of the river.
Should Alternative E become impractical from a standpoint of funding, our
department would encourage the most cost effective approach to future wastewater
treatment which would meet the projected water quality requirements of the US
Environmental Protection Agency and Idaho Division of Environment. Should this
involve expansion or alteration and use of the current wastewater treatment
plant, we would encourage a design which would facilitate future incorporation
of advanced treatment(s) which may become necessary.
Sincerely,
David S. Neider, Regional Supervisor
Region 1
cc Bureau of Fisheries
Bureau of Program Coordination " " pgg £6 1981
28
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ENVIFK
-------
Response to Comments From the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
While Alternative G would have the greatest positive
impact on Spokane River fish and wildlife resources,
its high cost is not warranted by the environmental
benefits it would provide. In order to reduce the
impact of the Alternative Bl waste discharge on the
Spokane River, it is expected that when the City's NPDES
permit is rewritten seasonal removal of phosphorus and
year-round dechlorination of effluent will be required.
While these advanced treatment processes are not to be
part of the initial wastewater system improvements,
they are to be added as soon as funding becomes availa-
ble.
29
-------
John V. Evans, Governor TFZSimi!$V State CaPito1 BuildinS
Daniel T. Emborg, Administrator x^gplfx Boise, Idaho 83720
DIVISION OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
February 9, 1981
Donald P. Dubois
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Dubois:
The Idaho State Clearinghouse has completed its review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR
THE CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE - SAI #00115340. The following agencies
were contacted for their review and comment:
Panhandle Area Council
Department of Health and Welfare/Division of Environment
Department of Transportation/Division of Highways
Idaho Historical Society
Department of Fish and Game
The Department of Health and Welfare/Division of Environment stated
comments will be made to EPA through their normal channels. A copy
of their comments is attached for your perusal. Comments were not
received from the other reviewing agencies. Any late comments received,
will be forwarded to your office.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in the review of your Draft
Environmental Statement. Please send us a copy of your Final Environmental
Impact Statement when it is completed. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call either myself or Lois Wade at 308-334-4718.
Sincerely,
to
Gloria Mabbutt, Coordinator
Idaho State Clearinghouse
GM/lw
enclosure
30 EN* ^MKH
A Land For All Seasons
-------
STATE OF II
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND WELFARE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
March 20, 1981
Ms. Norma Young
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U. S. EPA
Region X - M/S 443
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
The Division of Environment, Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, has reviewed the draft EIS Waste-water Treat-
ment Facilities For The City of Coeur d' Alene3 Idaho and
wishes to submit the following comments:
1)
MAR 23 1981
01
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
BRANCH
2)
3)
Pg. xiv, 1st paragraph - EPA only offers
funding options. It is ultimately the"Grantee'ft
decision to implement a project.
Pg. xiv, 3rd paragraph - The EIS lists impractical
rehabilitation of equipment at the present treatment
site as one reason the Citizen's Advisory Committee
preferred Alternative E. This is not entirely correct.
If rehabilitation were impractical, Alternative B would
not have been the least cost alternative.
Pg. 14, Probable Effluent Limitations - The heading
and wording of this should be rewritten. Effluent
limits are currently available and have been since
February, 1980. The heading for this section should
merely be Effluent Limits, and should point out the
following:
Before Coeur d1 Alene began facilities planning,
when initial limitations were being developed,
EPA conducted its own studies on the Spokane
River and developed a model to evaluate the im-
pact of the Coeur d' Alene and possible Post
Falls discharges. In February, 1980 after the
facility planning had started, the final effluent
limitations were given to Coeur d1 Alene based on
the EPA studies.
31
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Ms. Norma Young
March 20, 1981
Page 2
At the time the facilities planning began the State
of Washington was required to conduct a waste load
allocation study on the Spokane River. As a spin
off of their study, Idaho was offered a small 208
Grant to supplement the Washington study and to
provide additional information to enhance the EPA
model. Possible modifications in the EPA model may
allow a relaxation in the present effluent limitations.
4) Pg. 14, Effluent Limitations - Alternative G (Land
Application)may not be required to achieve 30-30.
The land is serving as partial treatment.
5) Pg. 17, Action Proposed by the City of Coeur d' Alene -
The statement that Alternative G was rejected because
of the risk of contaminating the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer
(Thompson pers. comm.) may not be entirely correct. The
Citizen's Advisory Committee, at the direction of Bruce
Thompson, requested effluent limits of EPA for land
application over the aquifer. EPA (Bob Burd^ Wbs not the
appropriate agency to produce these limits, as they weie
being developed by our department at the time in accordance
with Idaho Water Quality Standards & Wastewater Treatment
Requirements. Bob Burd did, however, respond to Mr.
Thompson and detailed all possible protection measures
that may be required of a sole source aquifer. EPA could
not give definite parameters since the sole source regu-
lations have not been finalized.
The vague requirements detailed by EPA in their August
6, 1980 letter to Bruce Thompson (Committee Coordinator)
suggested to the Advisory Committee many uncertainties
as to future regulations and requirements that may be
attached to their land application site. This, rather
than fear of contaminating the aquifer, steered the
Committee away from Alternative G.
6) Pg. 24, Existing Water Quality - The following sentence
needs to be clarified:"Available records indicate that
water quality in the Spokane River between Coeur d1 Alene
and Post Falls (Table 2 - 1) is satisfactory although
several parameters are not in compliance with proposed
draft EPA water quality criteria (Federal Register)."
32
-------
Ms. Norma Young
March 20, 1981
Page 3
7)
8)
9)
10)
Pg. 58, Character of the Aquifer - States: "The present
water quality of the aquifer is described as good, with
a very small percentage of water samples showing contam-
inants in excess of the maximum contaminant levels."
The EIS should continue here to detail what MCL's have
been exceeded and at what location in the aquifer.
Pg. 62, Resultant Regulatory Controls - 3rd paragraph -
The Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer is classified
as a Special Resource Water. The State Water Quality
Standards no longer have an antidegradation policy. The
present Water Quality Standards state:
The waters of the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, as described by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency in its designation as a "sole source"
aquifer under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, must not be lowered in quality,as relates
to appropriate beneficial uses, as a result of a point
source or non-point source activity unless it is demon-
strated by the person proposing the aciivixy r.hat such
change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic
or social development.
Pg. 75, EPA Mitigation Strategy - The guidance summarized
under this section was only first cut recommendations by
EPA, i.e. a place to begin negotiations. IDHW has since,
in conjunction with EPA, significantly reduced and refined
specific requirements for land application over the Spokane
Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
Pg. 101, 1st paragraph - The State will not allocate
projected population increases to specific areas of the
county. This should ultimately come out of the 208 Study
or through county allocations. These projections cannot,
however, exceed State projections for total populations
in unincorporated areas. The final numbers should pro-
bably be a result of coordination between IDHW, 208, and
the county.
33
-------
Ms. Norma Young
March 20, 1981
Page 4
11)
12)
Pg. 109, paragraph 3 - States: "The City of Coeur d' Alene
should conduct an environmental assessment of prime
agricultural land losses prior to constructing new waste-
water interceptors into the prime farm land areas."
Since portions of these interceptors are allowable under
this project, why does this EIS not cover the environ-
mental effects of prime agricultural land losses?
Pg. Ill, 1st paragraph - IDHW-DOE should be consulted in
the environmental assessment of the Blackwell Island
Development.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Environmental
Impact Statement.
Since,
'Lee W. Stokes, Ph.D.
Administrator
LWS/WH/b
34
-------
Response to Comments From the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
1. This is correct; EPA only offers grant funds to local
jurisdictions. It is the local jurisdiction's option
whether or not to accept the funds under specified
conditions.
2. The reasons for preferring Alternative E that are listed
on page xiv are those of the Advisory Committee and
the City, not EPA. The validity of these reasons was
not assessed in the EIS.
3. The Draft EIS should be revised to reflect the suggested
rewording of the section on Effluent Limits.
4. Comment noted. Alternative G is no longer being con-
sidered by the City of Coeur d'Alene.
5. The threat of aquifer contamination was stated by
Mr. Thompson as a concern of the Citizen's Advisory
Committee. While the uncertainty of future regulatory
requirements was also undoubtedly a factor in the
decision to pursue Alternatives B and E rather than
Alternative G, aquifer contamination was considered
a significant issue by the Advisory Commit Lee^
6. Surface water quality data reported for the Spokane
River near Coeur d'Alene show levels of zinc and copper
that exceed EPA recommended criteria for the protection
of freshwater biota. These criteria were reported in
the Federal Register on November 11, 1980 (Federal
Register 45 [231] FR 79318-79323; Section 307 [a] [i]).
While the heavy metals levels exceed criteria for pro-
tection of freshwater biota, the river water quality
does not currently pose a threat to human health.
7. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation
MCLs have been exceeded for nitrate, arsenic, lead,
chromium, mercury, turbidity and microbiological agents
(coliform bacteria) in the Spokane, Washington area.
Nitrates have also exceeded MCLs near Dalton Gardens
and Rathdrum, Idaho. High levels, however, were reported
in a very small percentage of the water samples analyzed
(Esvelt 1978; Drost and Seitz 1978). Groundwater from
the urban-industrial portions of central Spokane Valley
contained the majority of the high readings.
8. Comment noted.
35
-------
9. The mitigations suggested on pages 75 and 76 of the
Draft EIS were identified as preliminary guidance; more
formal requirements were being developed by EPA and
the State of Idaho.
10. EPA agrees that allocation of unincorporated area
populations in Kootenai County should be a combined
effort of IDHW, the county and 208 plan staff.
11. The Draft EIS identified the potential for prime
agricultural land losses due to planned urbanization.
The suggestion that the City conduct environmental
assessments of interceptors prior to their construc-
tion was based on the fact that the timing of their
construction and the sources of funding were not known
at that time. As these interceptors are further plan-
ned, the City should investigate ways to avoid urbaniza-
tion of prime farmland if at all possible.
12. EPA concurs that the IDHW should be consulted in any
environmental assessment of the Blackwell Island
development.
36
-------
Chapter 2
ORAL TESTIMONY ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES
Introduction
A public hearing on the Coeur d'Alene Facilities Plan
Draft EIS was held in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho on February 18,
1981. The following pages contain the transcript of the
oral testimony presented at that hearing. Each comment re-
quiring a response has been identified by a line and a number
in the left-hand margin of the transcript. Following the
transcript, each comment has been responded to in numerical
order. If the comment has been responded to in the text
of an earlier chapter, the reader is referred to that chapter.
37
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
U)
00
PUBLIC HEARING
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Taken at: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Date Reported: February 18, 1981
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICF
Irl l?ll«| IV, I Ml
A Public Hearing was held in the matter of thf> Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, before
Charlotte R. Crouch, a Notary Public, at the Coeur d'Alene
City Council Chambers, Coeur d 'Alene,.Idaho, at the hour of
7:30 p.m., February 18, 1981.
Appearances were:
Mr. Roger Mochnick, Hearing Officer, EIS Preparation
Coordinator, Environmental Evaluation Branch, Seattle,
Washington.
Mrs. Norma Young, Project Monitor, U.S. F.nvironnent-al
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
j Washington, 98101.
Mr. Richard C. Bain, Jr., Vice President of Brown (.
Caldwell, Consulting Engineers, 100 West Harrison Street,
Seattle, Washington, 98119.
Mr. Michael D. Rushton, Jones s Stokes Associates, Inc.,
105 South Main Street, Suite 203, Seattle, Washington, 9810-5.
The Public Hearing was reported in stenograph by the
Notary Public, Charlotte R. Crouch, of the firm of Heston 4
Howell Reporting Service, 816 Sherman Avenue, Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho, 83814, and by her later transcribed.
WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had and
testimony given, to-wit:
- 2 -
HESTON and Hi1' riL
RIPORTING SfRVItT
r. M!t,l St rt''lll,t I't,. ' r
h * A"i ill I, ' fM Ml. ! HI
-------
INDEX
PAGE
ri":sr::TATJOt;s BY:
ROCFR MOCHNICK 4
PICHARD BAIN, JR 9
MICHAEL RUSHTON 15
RAY KOEP 21
EARL A. FERRIF.R 24
I
BARRY G. SCHULER 26
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 29
- 3 -
HESTQN and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
OHififfl <",fni'1hin(l linpnili"^
lr»iMw M [70»| '« 1311
CmiuilAlcnt W (7"8I 6r,7 8214
MR. MOCHNICK: My name is Roger Mochnick, and I am with j
the Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle, Wnshinaton. ]
Mr. Donald Dubois, our Regional Administrator/ has delegated
me to be your Hearing Officer for tonight's proceedings. We
appreciate your attendance tonight, and we are glad that you
are here to discuss the many issues associated with the City
of Coeur d'Alene Wastewater Treatment Works Project.
For purposes of the hearing record, I would like to
note that this public hearing was convened at 7:36 p.m.,
February 18th, 1981 in the City Council Chamber of the City of ;
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. j
As Hearing Officer, I would like to take a few
minutes to tell you the purpose of tonight's hearing,
describe the hearing agenda, which will lead to orderly
presentations by each of us here. Even though this is an
informal public hearing, I would also like to pass along a
few rules of procedure which will assist us in making sure
that everyone has the opportunity to participate in the
discussion. Our primary purpose tonight is to provide the
opportunity for local citizens to comment on the recently
published documents, the City of Coeur d'Alene's Draft
Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and EPA's
(Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The City has applied to the Environmental Protection
[Agency for grant assistance in accordance with Section 201 of
HESTCH and HH»ELL
, REPORTING 5CRVICF
~ r,iil,.i 'I -I".'!'' r-n 'i'""
I,,.i • ., M i IIBI Mi, ! Ill
-------
the Clran Water Act for purposes of upgrading the City's
sowaqe treatment facilities. Wastewater treatment improve-
ments are needed for the City to comply with its National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for affluent
requirement;;. EPA has previously awarded to the City a Step
1 Planning Grant to develop the facilities plan, which
*
outlines a number of alternatives for improving the affluent
quality and for expanding service to City residents, and
residentr, of the adjacent urbanizing areas.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been
prepared by EPA. It consists of a»t eo^tjual-iBa'iion. of each of
the alternatives identified in the City's facilities plan.
Thr TIS has been prepared pursuant to the National Environment
al Policy Act. The EPA is required to prepare such statements
on major Federal actions which could have a significant impact
on the quality of the environment. The Federal action in this
case would be an EPA grant to the City of Coeur d'Alene, which
along with the State of Idaho grant funds would assist the
City in Step 2: designing the selected facility; and Step 3:
actually constructing the selected facility. However, before
any decision can be made regarding the award of additional
qrant funds for this project, the EIS process must be
completed. The remaining steps in the process include receipt
and review of public comments on the Draft Facility Plan and
FIS, both at this public hearing and through written
- 5 -
MESTON and H DWELL
REPORTING SCRVICE
IK
submissions. Preparation of a final Environmental Impact j
Statement and receipt of comments during a 30-day review
period following publication of that EIS.
For those of you who need a detailed account of the
EIS process, it is sometimes complex and I will be hero and
be more than willing to discuss it with you later this evening.
Again, let me emphasize that the purpose of tonight's,
hearing is to receive oral comments on the Citj's facility :
plans and EPA's EIS. We are not qoing to try to limit th<5
scope of your inquiries or your input, but I hope that each
of you in your comments and statements will keep our purpose
in mind.
i
Those wishing to testifying at this public hearing
i
j have been sncouraqed to review the draft documents. ns has I
\ \
been on file at the Coeur d'Alene Public Library since
1 January 1981. Copies were also mailed to State and local
,officials, and to numerous citizens of the area. Persons
unable to testify at tonight's hearing or wish to furnish l
cowments after the hearing may do so by writing Korma Young at
EPA's Regional Headquarters, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
;Washington 98101. The close of comment period is March 2nd of
1981. Norma Young is the Project Monitor on this FIS for the
EPA. She is sitting on my far left. If you need that address,
we will be glad to give it to you a little later on.
I would also like to make mention now at this time I
- 6 -
HCS1 ON and H'HELL
RFPPIU ING 51 ('VICE
-------
" " " " ~ " "" "1
! that all questions from the floor are to be held until the
third stage of this hearing. A question and answer period
will be held after all interested parties have had the
opportunity to present oral comments. And given the amount of
people we have so far who have signed up to make presentation
we should have sufficient time to answer all your questions.
I'd like to next give you the agenda for this hearing
and introduce the two other people sitting with me. On my
?»vtM«sV-
right is Mr. Richard Bain from Caldwell Consulting Engineers.
Mr. Bain will give a brief presentation on the various
I
alternatives and costs which are included in the facility's
plan. Brown and Caldwell are consultants to the City who
prepared the facility's plan.
On my left is Mr. Michael Rushton of Jones and Stokes
Associates. Mr. Rushton will give a brief presentation out-
lining the more significant environmental impact associated
with the alternatives. Jones and Stokes are the consultants
who assisted EPA in the preparation of the EIS.
After these two short presentations, we will receive
oral comments on the project and documents. I will call on
the individuals in the order that I have received their cards.
Following the presentation of testimony, we will begin the
question and answer period. I am aware that there are recent
i developments of important issues associated with this project,
and I am sure you will want to discuss them. Please hold
- 7 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REROUTING SERVICE
frrlilii'il U-ilHn'1 Rr-iiruWi
l»(H'lnn Id (?'im 1W, 1HI
(will il/Uiw I.I (?'!«) OB) MM
10
11
12
n
those questions until the latter stage of this hearing. !
Questions may be asked of Mr. Bain or Mr. Rushton through me.
As Hearing Officer, I reserve the right to limit questioning,
call recesses, adjourn, and reconvene the meeting. I am going
to ask that presentations be limited to ten to fifteen minutes.
Written material should be left with me following your '
presentation or sent to Mrs. Young at EPA's Regional Office '
in Seattle for inclusion in the record. You are under no
obligation to submit written material. A written account '
would help us consider your statement more fully and keep our
record in order. Written comments received on or before the
i
close of comment period on March 2nd will be responded to in
the final EIS.
A record of the hearing is being made by the court
reporter, therefore, I ask that when you speak, you speak
clearly, state your name, address, and affiliation, if any.
Also, it will be helpful if you would come forward so that
the audience may hear your comments and you will be more
easily picked up by the court reporter and I think this would
be the podium right here, if you would.
Copies of this transcript will be made available for
your inspection at the EPA's office, of course, in Seattle,
but also the City library and the offices of the City here in
Coeur d'Alene.
Are there any questions as to the procedures that we
- 8 -
HESTOH and HOWELL
REPORTINIi SERVICE
-------
j are following tonight?
{NO RESPONSE.)
, Okay, Dick Bain.
MR. BAIK: I'll briefly outline the facility planning
work that was done last year, and then try to bring you up to
date a little bit on where we are, given the funding situation!
that all of you are aware of. This is the facility plan
document in draft form that was submitted to the City last !
I
November. I'd like to briefly go over all the alternatives '
described in that, and some of the assumptions used at that \
time, and discuss briefly those costs that we had developed |
at that time, and then switch to the present situation in order
to bring you up to date on the situations that relate to
funding and options that might now be available to the City,
given the reduced funding that's been announced. j
This map here, which you can look at at your leisure j
after the meeting, but I think most of us will recognize that ]
this is the City of Coeur d'Alene planning area of the City !
i
rioht here, and the Spokane River flowing here (indicating).
In developing the facility plan, we first had to become
acquainted with the existing facility, which is located in
this area near the Fort Grounds. It's currently a secondary
treatment plant which is processing approximately two million
gallons of water each day during the peak summer months. The
flows in the wintertime do get higher than this flow because
HFSTON 3i"i HOWCI.L
REPORTING SERVICE
f,,!,!,,'!.,,,,,,, ,„„,;,,,„>,,
ir.,,, i™. in ('"U! MI, mi
of the direct inflow connections from rain water in City
streets and off roof tops.
As we looked at alternatives, we had to first
consider the population of the area and what forcasted growth '
we could see in a 20-year period beginning in about 1985
through to the year 2005. Vie translated these projections to
flows, and we're dealing with approximately six million gallons
i in the year 2005 for our sizing of our facilities. Because
this represented rapid growth, it was necessary to stage our
plan and consider a ten year increment, something that would
take us approximately to 1995, which we were using as 4.2
million gallons. Those are the numbers that we used to
generate the sizing of the sites and plan facilities
necessary for the City's population. |
[
The other issue that we had to deal with was: What 1
other requirement were we to meet? Was it to continue to
discharge at the present level of treatment, which is a basic ,
secondary treatment, or to some higher level of treatment, i
! which was being suggested by regulatory authorities last year.
j These higher levels of treatment involved increased processing
from reduced oxygen consuming substances, increased treatment
to reduce other substances involving ammonia compound so that
the ammonia in the waste would be oxidized, and the probability
of a future requirement for phosphorus removal because of
issues across the state line in Long Lake which the State of
HESrO'i 3 iil HU*ELL
REPORTING SFRVICE
-------
OJ
Washington and others suggested would require controls in the
' I State of Idaho. We received guidance last year on what these
' j limits would he. As a result of not having prescribed
affluent specifications, but rather some guidance, we had to
( look at a worst-case analysis for what treatment processes we
i were going to consider. So, we had to look at high-side or
worst-case situations as in regards to the facilities because
1 we had to look at the worst case in the affluent prescriptions
and that caused the cost to be high.
We had 27 options that we looked at with the
committee initially, and I won't go through all of those. I
: tliink that's too many for this meeting, but there is some
11 discussion of that in the EIS, and in the facility plan. We
!• narrowed that down to basically four: Alternative A, which
basically is a no-action alternative, to stay where we are,
not expand, and to basically rely on septic tanks; an action
; that's not currently acceptable to the regulatory authorities,
" but is base case, if you will. Therefore, there are no,
i capital costs associated with that. It's just where we are,
' continuing to operate.
1 I The second alternative that survived the screening
process was to expand at the existing site or adjacent to the
existing site and still continue to discharge to the Spokane
' (River. We call this Alternative B, and it did involve a plant
which ultimately, out in the future, could cost on the order of
- 11 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
16
17
1H
?2
$19 million when you consider the six million gallon flow that;
I mentioned, and the worst-case situation. In fact, that was
for secondary. A strict level of secondary, there were some i
additive costs with phosphorus removal and ammonia nitrifica- '
tion.
The other alternative that survived was Alternative i
E, which involved a down-river plant. In other words, ceasing
the treatment function at this point and putting in a pump
station and pipeline, moving our treatment plant function to |
some point down river, a mile or so. Three sites were
identified for this alternative. We developed costs for this,
and they continued to run about two million more than
Alternative B. Somewhere in the order of $21 million for the
full planning period, that's including both stages. This
alternative would — the basic difference was the pipeline and j
i
the fact that we had to abandon existing structures at the j
present site.
!
The fourth alternative, which was looked at for a j
while and is covered in the EIS, involved retaining the
existing site, retaining the existing treatment plant with
some improvements, but modest improvements, and going to some ;
form of affluent irrigation after basic treatment with aerated i
lagoons, somewhere here in the north (indicating). We called i
this Alternative G, and it involved aerated lagoon treatment |
with storage and land irrigation, with discharge of the waste-
HESTON an1 HO»fLL
REPORTING SCRVK.E
-------
water in the wintertime back to tne river, and retention of
tins existing plant with discharge to the river all year from
that small plant. This plant would have served the northern
part of town in the north, and the southern part of the i
i
existing site. That alternative received a lot of discussion !
because of potential effects on the aquifer, which I will
refer to the EIS writers. It had a cost on the order of $26 ,
million, considerably more than the others, and also some '
controversy related to the aquifer. Now, those costs and
those requirements are little bit passe right now because of
two thinqs. One: Some discussions with regulatory agencies
which would appear to lead us to at least near term considera-j
tion of less requirements, requirements that are more close to |
what we call basic secondary treatment, at least that
possibility is there. It's not official, we don't have it in
writing, but there's some possibility that some lesser
stringency could occur in the next five years. However, there
is still a likelihood for phosphorus removal down the road and
additional treatment down the road for removal of ammonia
nitrogen. In addition to that, the money available to fund
these projects, which is usually in the past — recent past —
have been on a formula of 75 per cent of the capital cost being1
from the Federal grant, 15 per cent being from a State grant,
and 10 per cfnt raised locally for the construction and related
design. The Federal grant program is being cut back, we are
- 13 -
HFSTflN and HOWELL
RrPOFUINU SERVICE
i,.','«! Mi '!' i ,,
in MI, ii \>i'*\ />, mi
(Vui -i t.,,, M i-'iiii r,<; S711
trying to keep up with this. The latest I have today would i
indicate that there may not be any money for the next year or
at least if there is, it will be sometime before we know
i
whether there will be any money for Coeur d'Alene. It's
doubtful whether there will be any money for Coeur d'Alene
next year at best. There is a little money this year, and
perhaps some money further down the road in "80 or '85, but
I
| it's still very much up in the air. Because of this and
because of the changes in affluent prescriptions, we are look-
ing now at several options that would involve use of the
existing site trying to get as much capacity as we car. on that
i
|site, and see what the cost would be for either minor upgrade
of the existing plant or installation of new structures,
i whether those be tailored structures to fit in with the exist-
ing configuration or a separate plan such as a package-type I
plan that would exist just down river from the present trick-
ling filter, which is the large structure on that site. Ke
are preparing a report in dealing with the regulatory agencies
and bringing the information on a process evaluation to the
City after we talk this over again with the regulatory people
and with the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the City staff.
So, this will be occurring in the next month or so, a month or
six weeks.
So, that's the new business. Them will be ,1 grontly
reduced scale on the cost somewhere in the order of anywhere
- 14 -
HESTON anil III)*1 ELL
XEPl'lUING STRVICF
-------
U1
from $500,000 to less than $2 million. That's the sort of
numbers we are looking at as being attainable to get some
capacity to allow the moratorium to be lifted. I think that's
the- first order of business, to get some additional capacity
no th.it the moratorium can be lifted and so then that other
improvements could then follow in due course.
That's an update. It's hard to predict all the
funding issues, but that's my summary for now, Roger.
MR. MOCHHICK: Mr. Michael Rushton of Jones and Stokes
will be giving a presentation on the Environmental Impact
Stater.ent.
MR. RUSHTON: I'll be brief in this discussion. I just
wanted to first mention what the process that we have gone
through has been. We started work on this environmental
review back in June of 1979 when the facility planning got
underway, and for the first year of your involvement we pretty
much checked the background data in the area and attended the
Citizen's Advisory Committee meetings that were held for the
facility's planning process, and we also in that role gave
advice and discussed at several of the meetings the environmen
al concerns that we saw that were coming up from the various
alternatives that Dick Bain's firm were developing for the
City.
Finally, we participated in the screening of the
project alternatives that got down to the three basic alterna-
- 15 -
HESTON and IIOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
CM !n'1 M'c'lh-iii'l IH'O'lPr',
IfHH'nn III (?I]P| 1'V, IT)!
l>m
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
21
21
21)
tives that were analyzed in the facility plan. In the last
six months we've been putting together the Drnft
Environmental Impact Statement, which the hearing is on
tonight.
Once this hearing is over we will continue, and our
next objective will be to compile all the comments on tho
EIS, both written and oral, and prepare n final Environmental
Impact Statement that will address all those comments anci
concerns on the Draft EIS. Approximately a month after the
final EIS is published, EPA will be free to make some sort of
decision on the funding of the facility in the City of Coeur
d'Alene.
I'd like to briefly run through some of the major
environmental concerns that are discussed in the Draft EIS.
These first few are common to all of the major project j
I
alternatives that Dick Bain identified: Alternatives B, E, ]
and G. First, all of the major project alternative's would
eliminate the occasional discharge of poorly or untreated
wastewater that occurs from the City's treatment plant when
there's a hydraulic overflow during rainy periods or snow
melts'in the area. All of these alternatives would also allow
new development in the City to be hooked into the City system,
and growth to occur. They would also eliminate existing
septic tanks over the Rathdrum aquifer that are now serving
approximately 5,000 people. This would occur over a period of
- 16 -
HESTON and HO*F LL
RETORTING SFRVICE
-------
(Ti
! timo. These septic tanks would be eliminated as the people
would be hooked into the new expanded system. These septic
1 tanks and draining systems are now contaminating the aquifer
' which is the principal water supply Cor this area and for
dov/nstream areas in the State of Washington.
If the wastewater facilities are constructed as
nlanned as described in the facility's plan, and the Coeur
I
d'Alene area grows as envisioned in wastewater facility's j
I
plan and the local land-use plans, there would be approximately
2,300 new urban acres added to the City of Coeur d'Alene by j
the year 2005. Some of this planned development as envisioned;
1 in the City plan would occur in environmental sensitive areas.i
The areas that we discussed most heavily in the Environmental
1 Inpact Statement were prime agricultural losses that would
occur from this development. Also, some commercial and
residential development that was planned in flood plain areas
1 and wet areas, and also some development that would occur in
areas of cultural resources along the banks of the Coeur
1 d'Alene River.
EPA is responsible for protecting the natural
resources like wetlands and prime agricultural lands, and
these other cultural resources such as archaeological
materials. Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency is
concerned about these losses that would occur and would hope
1 ' to discuss those things with the City before providing grant
- 17 -
IIESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
(VMilH r,!inr!l.rf"ll Id 11"'.
l«w
-------
resolve in the future here.
Alternative E, which would be moving the plant down-
stream to one of three possible locations, has no major land-
use conflict that we could identify. It would, in fact,
rornedy existing conflicts at the treatment plant site that you
have now. There would be archaeological disturbances that we
could identify if the middle of the three sites were selected.
The middle site is an existing gravel pit, and that site has
been disturbed heavily already, and, therefore, would not
involve any possible loss of any archaeological resources if
it were used. This move would obviously move the waste
discharge the rivec about one mile down, further downstream
from the City. This moves it away from the City, but it moves
it about a mile closer to what the Panhandle Health District
has identified as approximately 160 people that draw domestic
water from the river down between the City of Coeur d'Alene
and the state line. The local share cost of that alternative
was identified as about $1.94 million.
&
And the final alternative. Alternative ,15, which has
two treatment plant sites maintaining the existing site and
building lagoons in the north area for a portion of the flow,
: the major alternatives we discussed for that alternative were:
continued land-use conflict at the existing site, the treatmen
plant closely located to residential and developing areas,
I
' possible land-use conflicts in the proposed lagoon areas. The
- 19 -
IIESTON anti HOWEU
REPORTING SERVICE
{.cililrcil 'oliO'Hian't ppixirtm
!<•>•, l.,n M [,W| 71fi 1111
Our itMpn* M t;nn)f,r,) 8?«
H)
I I
P
n
1 {
1=1
16
17
1R
1')
2i >
21
2?
,M
24
County's comprehensive plan shows this particular portion of
the County as a transition zone between agricultural and
residential areas with possible residential development in
the long-term in that area. There were no significant
archaeological impacts identified with Alternative G. As far
as water quality goes, that alternative would keep summer
discharge to the river at its present volume level, and its
present location in the winter. However, you would have the
discharge of the expanded area to the river down here
(indicating) if you were about a mile downstream from the
existing plant, proposing the same general public health
concerns I mentioned for Alternative B with the site moved
closer to those domestic water users downstream.
Finally, Alternative G with its spray irrigation
disposal of the wastewater in the summer up here (indicating)
poses a potential threat to the ground water quality and
integrity of the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, which underlies
this large agricultural area to the north of Coeur d'Alene.
The local share cost of the alternative was identified as
about $3.17 million.
That basically summarizes the major environmental
concerns that we put in the Draft EIS. I'll turn the hearing
back over to Roger.
MR. MOCHNICK: Thank you. Okay, with that, I think we
can proceed now to those people who would like to make
- 20 -
HE SI ON and HOtfELL
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
CO
presentation on either the facility plan or the EIS, and the
first name we have is Mr. Ray Koep.
MR. KOEP: I'm Ray Koep. I'm a Coeur d'Alene City
Councilman, and Chairman of the Public Works Committee. I've
been dealing with the sewer problem of Coeur d"Alene now for
about right years. I learned something last night, however.
I thought all the wastewater overrun and high water went into
the Spokane River, and I understand some of it ends up in the
bathtrbs in the Fort Grounds, and the lady that made that
point was very concerned that we might be adding an eleven
story building into the system. She felt sure that that wouldi
fill her house, not just the bathtub, and that highlights a
concern that I have as a councilman, and I would like to speak
to that for just a moment.
For the sake of brevity, I straightened out the
Spokane River here (indicating on chalkboard), and this might
be Snndpoint, this is the far side of the City of Spokane,
this might be Athol, and Coeur d'Alene, state line, and the
city limits of Spokane. Until you get to Coeur d'Alene — oh,
incidentally, I'd like to say that that overburden — and I'm
going to be talking in real round numbers because there could
be some mistake on this, but that overburden of debris that
caine down with that dam breakage 10,000 years ago left about
400 feet of overburden in — this is really exaggerated — in
Eandpoint, and something like 325, say for numbers in Athol,
- 21 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
and 250 in Coeur d'Alene, at the state line about 125. I I
think at the city limits of Spokane it runs from 50 to 75 ]
feet. I read a handout at the Health and Welfare office in I
Boise a while back.
Another point I'd like to make is that in 1950 there
were five sewer treatment systems in the State of Idaho, and
Coeur d'Alene was one of them. Boise had the most expeditious,
they dumped the water in the Boise River at the time, but \ve 1
at that time had been treating sewage, I guess, for 15 years i
or something like that. We'd been in the business, we'd been
working hard and spending a lot of Coeur d'Alene taxpayer's
money to get this job done, and we keep working at it.
Now, back to this thing: Until you get near Coeur
d'Alene there's virtually no pollution down through this
water flow down here. Simply because there is not much ]
industry and there's very little pollution. t/hen you get to
the state line — let's see, we have sewer treatment in the
City of Spokane. Incidentally, this overburden comes down
here, and this area on the west side of Spokane is surfacing
i
of that water system, that sole-water source. This area here j
is treated. Now, this is an area that I have concern with,
from here to here (indicating). Estimated -- and these are
very rough estimations -- that there are more people here
polluting the aquifer than there is all the way from Pend
Orielle Lake to that area. It has to be in the order of a j
- 22 -
HES1 Oil 3T) H'HEll.
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
hundred thousand people, and there isn't a piece of pipe in
the ground in this area, and from what we can see — and our
concerns are political because we have businesses and
taxpayers, people wanting to develop and live1 here, they |
cannot develop because of tight restrictions that exist here I
in Cocur d'Alene. And when you get to the state line, from what
we can see, there are no restrictions, at least our people
who would like to build in Coeur d'Alene must go across the
LL n (csh > <'t]^
state line where they have wvferaveled building, and we don't
understand that: Why there is a different standard here
where the chance for pollution is much heavier, the ease of
1 pollution, because the overburden certainly appears to be a
lot worse. We even halfway between here have the City of
Post Falls and another problem, another thing that we can't
understand is this particular city has been deemed to be an
imminent health threat to this aquifer, and we have honestly
endeavored to find out why that was. The best we can find
out is that it was -- and don't misunderstand me. I certainly
don't bearudge the City of Post Falls what they are getting,
they need it, and they have worked hard for it. They are
fine people, and we support them, but I understand that there
i was an involvement with their water supply. Now, to my
knowledge, at least, they haven't had to close their water
; supply. We in Coeur d'Alene have had our biggest water supply
i
our Fourth Street well has been down, and I'm not sure if it's
- 23 -
HES70N and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
OiM'i-d V'-iMliii"] HrfuMfr,
lf»i l-n 'il 1/081 Mfi I )j!
("(•'if d AI'Tie Id C'UH) fiO/ H?11
a year or a year and a half, something like that, but it's
been totally back into the system again because we think we
have determined the source of pollution and have cut it off.
We believe that to be the case, and we are back using the
well, but we did have the involvement, yet, somehow we don't
seem to qualify. We are not enough of a hazard, apparently,
to be qualified as an imminent health threat, which we think
would give us more support in our applications. On the other
hand, we seem to be somewhat of a threat because we have an
imposed moratorium by the Health authorities. I'm not
questioning that; I mean, this certainly should be able to
be substantiated why they have come at that, but I just can't
understand the dichotomy of the thing, and it just doesn't
make any sense that we would be riding the fence like that.
So, I would hope that we'd see a solution where we would
either have someone acknowledge the fact that we are actually
a health hazard or deny it and allow us accordingly to
continue with our development.
That's about all I have.
MR. MOCHNICK: Thank you, Mr. Koep.
Earl A. Ferrier. Is it F-E-R-R-I-E-R?
MR. FERRIER: That's correct.
I live down the river about two and a half miles at
Harbor Island. Now, this condition that we have on the river j
i
doesn't occur every day, but every time it rains in Coeur j
- 24 -
HESICN anil HOAFLl
REPORTING SF.RVICE
-------
Ul
o
I d'Alene, why, we get your raw sewaqe from Coeur d'Alene. Now,
i this is -- I don't think it can be disputed because that
. river has been tested, and sometime ago it was ascertained
• that it was raw sewage being put in the river, and there was
a big fuss at that time. The superintendent resigned, and
he'd been falsifying the records.
Now, there's a whole lot — there is several people
on the island that take their water off the river, and I'm
sure they must chlorinate it or flse they'd be taking a heck |
of a chance. On down, there's a whole— about possibly a mile
and a half down, there is the Green Ferry Water District. It i
takes all their water from the river. Now, is there any i
I
reason that we should — that Coeur d'Alene should be allowed
to dunp raw sewage against the laws and rules of the EPA?
Mow, they've already told them this.
t!ow, you keep talking about money up here. Well,
Copur d'Alene should generate the money and take care of this
sewage, not dump it in the river. Spokane has.
I want to remind you that the people in Long Lake
won a suit against the City of Spokane because they dumped raw
sewage in the river.
Now, if anybody can dispute that there is not raw
sewage going in, they should have looked at the river this
norning. Half an inch of rain last night, and the river was
a foam on top this morning. Now, was there no water — no
- 25 -
and HOVrELL
REPORTING SLRVICF.
Oilr'i»r1 Minll'jnil R-v'trr
Ir.iilnn I.I |,"I3] 71C, ! t1!
r. ,>,„ (I nil m \<[ (,»iKt M,' 4714
sewage went in last night? I don't know. Go see along that
valve down there.
That's all I have.
MR. MOCHNICK: Thank you very much.
Barry G. Schuler.
MR. SCHULER: I'm Barry Schuler, President of north
Idaho College and I am here to reiterate our position on this
matter, and that is that Alternative B, which would involve
any expanding of the existing site, we are very much opposed
to. For obvious reasons, our expansion, our future growth
must be in that direction. We already don't like the nearness
to the present plant facility. We object to the offensive
odors, particularly in the summertime, but I think it should
be pointed out that we have obtained Federal funds recently to
develop now the whole beach area as a major recreational site.
The north end of that area would be very close to the present
plant. We are putting in restrooms, bicycle paths, picnic
tables, those sorts of things to now make that beach more
useful to the general public.
Also, obviously, the existing situation is not very
ideal for the college campus itself. The students in good
weather are out of doors involved in sports in the athletic
field very near to that site if you get down to the northern
end of that field. The dormitory is not too far away, also.
It's on that end of the campus, and all these things are
- 26 -
HEUON and M IH F L L
REPORTING SFPVICE
-------
objectionable already to the facility as it now exists, and
we certainly do not want to expand it.
I think you need to know that North Idaho College is
Idaho's fastest growing institution of higher education. We
have grown an average of nine per cent per year since 1976 in
our full-time equivalent student body. We presently serve on
the Coeur d'Alene campus over 2,000 students. This is our
largest semester ever. We grew even over the fall semester,
which is a rather unusual occurrence. So, we are now serving
over 2,000 students on the Coeur d'Alene campus this semester,
and that does not count the satellite campuses that we operate
in other counties in the area. Therefore, we must look to the
north for our future expansion. We have every reason to
believe that this growth is going to continue as the populatior
increase continues in Kootenai County. And we can't go to the
east very well since you are talking about a residential area
that exists there. We obviously can't go to the south or to
the west because we are bound by the lake and the river on
those sides. Our only possibility for the future is to go to
the north. So, we were rather pleased when we heard that
Alternative E was the one that would probably be selected
because it was our anticipation that that would then free up
some land that we could purchase from the City of Coeur d'Alene
to add to our campus needs.
i The thing that I think you could be rather certain of
- 27 -
HEUON ant MOWELL
REPORTING SFRVICE
111
I I
\2
M
1 '<
1^
Id
r
18
is that if it were necessary to pass a bond issue to expand |
]
the plant at the present site, there would be a lot of
people opposing that particular bond issue, which could '
1
i
jeopardize its success at the polls. It seems to us that the i
very logical solution to this is take the money, the next
dollars that are available for the sewage treatment and the !
i
establishment of a plant, and to begin the new facility down- !
stream as is proposed in Alternative E. Acquire the land,
i
and design it so that it can be readily expanded in the '
future. Then, leave the plant in operation, and as the money
becomes available in increments, continue to expand that
plant as proposed under Alternative E until such time as you
no longer need this planl; and it becomes a pumping station |
sending that sewage to be treated up there to the plant
further down the stream, and the other good part of that is
that then you would already start bringing your lines in from
the northern end of the City where the growth is taking place,|
I
and you would start bringing those main trunk lines into what
t
will become the new main plant, and you would not go to all
the expense of bringing those lines way down to the Fort i
Grounds area and involve all that investment of capital outlay'
only to eventually have to change it over to a plant further '
downstream. It seems very logical that there's a very good j
alternative to the proposal just to expand on the present site
in accordance with Plan B.
- 28 -
HtUOtl lit HI1* HA
REPORTING SI HVIC.E
-------
Ul
KJ
Thank you. That's all I want to say.
I1R. MOCHNICK: Thank you very much.
Elton E. Bentley?
MP. BENTLEY: I think there's a question mark after that
I think I'll remain silent.
1TR. MOCHNICK: Okay. Thank you very much. The other
one with a question mark is George Gumprecht?
MR. GUMPRECHT: I'll wait for questions later.
MR. MOCiltlICK: And Mr. McAdama?
MR. McADAMS: Mine are primarily questions as well.
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay. Is there anyone who had filled out
a card and had checked the square that they did not want to
make a presentation who have changed their mind?
(NO RESPONSE.)
All right. We can then proceed to the last stage of
the public hearing, which is the question and answer period.
I would ask that you would ask your questions through me to
either Mr. Bain or Mr. Rushton. We're open for questions.
MR. JONES: My name is Ed Jones. I am a City Councilman,!
and I would like to know if Mr. Bain can give us the facts --
and I know we put smoke through the sewers — if we were able
to separate the storm sewers from the sanitary sewers, how
much would that reduce our load on our plant presently?
j MR. BAIN: Okay, let me go from memory, and then I can
get specifics, if you like, from the report.
- 29 -
HHTON and HOWCI.L
REPORTING SF.RVICF
(f.l fi. ! V illl'XM R. I^It.-r.
In.. Inn h 1,'l'i] IV. \ H|
ff."ir .|A • M I7.1»| IS'»; 11
There was a smoke testing program carried out last
summer. In the Fort Grounds area we did do that type of i
testing, and in our evaluation of those flows from the sewers,
we had this condition: We have a ten-inch pipe, which flows
from the Fort Grounds area to the plant, and that's a bottle-
neck. If we look at the flow to that pipe, we can normally
i get about eight-tenths of a million gallons, I believe is the
figure, through that pipe unless there is surcharge which
\ sometimes happens when water stands in the streets. So, you
' can get a surcharge of maybe five feet, and I think that will
! put about 1.1 million gallons into the plant. So, that's
!about how much you can get from the Fort Grounds under the
worst of conditions, okay.
If you were to separate that, obviously, you could
cut back a lot of that flow, certainly back down to something
more normal like maybe a couple of tenths of a million gallons
So, it's probably worth something like .75 million gallons to
the plant flow.
Now, when you look at the plant record — well, just
take last week. I just talked to the treatment plant operator
about this kind of problem, asking him the questions I think
you are suggesting is what did he see as the impact of sone;
of the separation that's already occurred because you've done
a little bit of it already because of work that was done a
year or so ago. He thinks he does see a little improvement,
- 30 -
HE^ fUN and H"*F LL
RtroRtmn Brevier
-------
en
U)
but with a pretty good storm on the 13th of February, for
example, arid we did get a peak flow that reached, I think,
i 3.8 million oallons. The plant, when you are operating all
the numps, can get about 4.3 or 4.4 million gallons to it,
okay. What's happening during the really severe storms,
which have to be pretty severe, when they are severe you'll
get what you can to the plant, but the Fort Grounds area,
. which can only get certain amounts through the sewer, will
just overflow to the river and not get into the sewage treat-
ment plant. So, the question that came up from the gentleman
from Harbor Island isn't necessarily that there is waste
that's coming from the treatment plant, it's waste that never
even got to the treatment plant. It's of equal concern, but
it's arriving by running off the flooded area. That's about
what it's worth, about .75 million gallons.
Now, downtown you've got some roof drains that also
are direct connections and you get a fair bit through them.
Overall, now, though, when you look at a wet day like the 13th
of — Friday the 13th, I guess it was, we had about 2.4 millior
gallons through the plant even though we had a peak of 3.8.
So, it tends to average out, and when you look at the data,
we had a lot of days — normally, even in a wet month, you
don't average much over 2 million gallons a day, but during
the really intense long rains you can get up to four that I
talked about, but if you corrected all the Fort Grounds, you
- 31 -
HESTON and MOWELL
REPORTING SFHVICE
H.
17
18
10
wouldn't bring that four down to two. You'll bring it down ]
to 3.2, maybe.
MR. JONES: What about the, say, downtown and the other •
i
MR. BAIN: The downtown area, if I recall right, is
i
worth another approximately .75 million gallons. Let me
check that for you. I just don't like to be too flippant ,
about that number. I had just studied the one on the Fort i
Grounds, so I recall it. i
MR. JONES: We have been turned down on the grant twice.,
MR. BAIN: I understand, and from what I heard on
television, there might not be a EDA anymore.
Well, I'll have to just go through this and perhaps
I can answer your question in a little bit. I'll just study
this and find the answer.
MR. MOCHNICK: Sir?
MR.. GUMPRECHT: Donald Gumprecht, a Coeur d'Alene |
[
resident. ,
What you're saying, then, is that the reason for raw I
[
sewage overflow into the Spokane River is primarily the bottle-j
neck, and that you don't necessarily have to go through the i
processes of separating sewers to prevent that; is that what
you are saying?
MR, BAIN: Well, you either have to separate them to
what the present course is or provide for flow, relieve the
bottleneck and get that flow to the plant, and unfortunately
- 32 -
HIS TON and HOWFLL
REPORTING URVICF.
-------
Ul
tho plant can't take much more, so you have to do one or the
other. If you take more flow to the plant, it worsens our
problem with the plant, so I would encourage the City to
continue on their course to separate the waste because that
wi: 1 solve the problem for the down river people and for the
Fort Ground people not to experience that flooding, and also
keep a little more flow out of the plant.
The problem is funding that, and the City had
trouble getting grants for that work, which is, I think,
estimated at about three quarters of a million dollars.
MR. MOCHNICK: Are there any other questions, sir?
MR. McADAMS: My name is Gene McAdams. I'm employed by
the City of Coeur d'Alene.
I'm interested in the archaeological considerations,
first, in relation to Alternative E, which is the downstream
site or the new site that was selected by the City Council and
by the Citizen's Advisory Committee. The environmental
engineers indicated that two sites could involve archaeological
considerations. Those archaeological considerations are ;
primarily Indian burial grounds or possible Indian relic areas
'or I don't know what the description is, but what I'm
interested specifically in is this: If that is suspected, if
that is a fact and it bears out as a fact, how does the City
mitigate that and build upon one of those sites?
MR. MOCHNICK: Maybe I'll start off and answer that
- 33 -
HESfON and HOWFLL
prponritir, SFIIVICF.
question, and Mike can add some things.
As a result of the Historic Preservation Act, there
are regulations that have been prepared by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and it details out what
Federal agencies have to do prior to giving a permit or giving
money or some action that would cause an impact on either an
historic site or a cultural site. In this case, what we have
iov^
down is we have had to contact the Idaho State Historic
Preservation Office and to ask them if there have been
surveys of the area. If there have been surveys, what have
they found. If not, then the City would be required to do a
detail extensive survey as part of their whole grant applica-
] tion. It's easier to take a site if there — if we're talking
I
: about a cultural resource, and if you have an historic build-
I I
ing, it's very difficult. What normally happens is it's up
to the city, the state, and the EPA to come to agreement on
the mitigation measure that can be taken to excavating the
site. Sites can be taken, but quite often one of the
mitigation measures is an agreement to allow a professional
archaeologist to come to the site and go through the excavated
material. The extent of that, we don't know because we don't
Iknow the level of detail of any of those sites, but to be fair
and honest with you, that can be an expensive process aiven the
I
iway that archaeologist — I think it depends on what kind of
site they have to go about excavating the material. Sometimes
- 34 -
HTSTflN and HO»FLL
rrroiiTiNG SERVICE
-------
U1
when they look at it, they just simply like to register what
it was, where it was, and they don't need to go into it. It
sometimes provides — and this is my interpretation, I'm not
I
an historian or archaeologist, but I think it sometimes
provides the same type of cultural resources that they have,
' and they don't go into the expense of excavating.
So, I don't know if that answers your question, but
that would be the process that would be remained if — when a
nite is selected, a survey would have to be done if not
already done, and then, mitigation worked out with the State
on how that site would be taken.
MR. McADAMS: Okay, then, that site, then, or those
sites, I presume that work is grant eligible; is that correct?
MR. MOCHNICK: Yes, it is.
' MR. McADAMS: I presume that there are no alternatives
, to handling it other than through that process. In other
words, if we had an extremely adverse situation as an example,
and the Federal government was not going to fund an
i
appreciable portion to the wastewater treatment plant, and
the City took it upon itself to build the plant, I presume
that if the City expected State and Federal participation that
it would be necessary to fully mitigate the archaeological
concerns according to the process that you've defined?
i MR. MOCHNICK: That's correct. If it's a private
venture that does not require certain Federal funds, none of
- 35 -
HE'STON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
C"iltli"rl Muirthpnd Rciiivtcts
iPW'liip hi l?l)8) MS 1131
8
9
II)
II
12
n
11
- 15
16
17
1R
19
20
?l
2-1
2-i
those requirements need be met, I don't know whether you j
locally have some requirements to be met, but it's quite often
i
brought up as an unfair technique when a developer can build '
on a site and a Federal project finds itself in much
difficulty in getting project going. i
MR. McADAMS: And I didn't ask the question for you to |
i
respond or assume responsibility for State funds, either. I
i
I would like to ask. this then: In terms of I
archaeological considerations, I understand from the Draft
j
Environmental Impact Statement that there was no problem at !
Alternative B, and then when I listened to the description a
little bit earlier, I surmised that there might be. I'm
interested in a specific answer. Is that an issue with
Alternative Bj that's the alternative that expanded at the
plant at the present site.
MR. RUSHTON: That's the primary area which is
Alternative B. That's an identified registered site in that
area.
MR. McADAMS: So, therefore, we would probably assume,
then — speaking from the historic preservation or
archaeological point of view, that Alternative B would be more
difficult to mitigate than Alternative E, or if it's about the
same, say so, but I'm trying to weigh a degree here between
the two alternatives.
MR. RUSHTON: I think that would depend on work that
- 36 -
HE5TOII and HOULL
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
01
i you'd have to do after deqiding on a site. That site is
1 already identified. There may be similar resources, that's
i
1 what the archaeologists believe. There may be similar
resources that would be unearthed in the ground at the site
of E, but you wouldn't really know that until somebody comes
back and actually digs some test excavations.
MR. MOCHNICK: Are we saying that the area where the
gravel pit is, that is --
MR. RUSHTOtJ: They did say that specifically that the
gravel pit site of E, which has already been disturbed,
obviously, and is now a hole in the ground would not have any
remaining resources, but the two undeveloped sites that were
part of E are relatively undisturbed land and may contain
resources similar to what they know is in the area of
Alternative B.
MR. McADAMS: I was under the false assumption that
with all of the activity that had taken place with the rail-
road, with the construction of the present plant, and the
adjoining property around there that that property at
Alternative B had been pretty well scratched over — if you
will — by now, but that's not the case as far as you are
concerned?
MR. RUSHTON: That wasn't the archaeologists' opinion.
Their opinion was that it was still a significant resource,
there could be a significant resource.
- 37 -
HESTON and MOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
r>lil.viy«ii'ri«iv1 II,-i wins
ltwi''on 111 irOK! IV mi
O'lr r|»lin" H l?!r«l f'.lt?H
I 7
IS
1"
20
MR. McADAMS: Okay. i
MR. MOCHNICK: We will take Mayor Johnston. ,
MR. JOHNSTON: Don Johnston, Mayor of Coeur d'Alene.
With regard to this, what I was concerned about,
Roger, is: Are we able to challenge whoever it was that
i
identified that as an archaeological site? I'm — being a
life-long native, I'm not convinced that there is a problem
there, and I agree that it's been scraped over enough that
it just amazing to me that — and as I read this report, some
guy from Texas made the determination. I don't understand.
Would we be able to challenge that determination that that is
an archaeological site?
MR. MOCHNICK: Yes, I'm sure that iou can challenge that
The eventual challenge, I suppose, would go to the Idaho State
Historic Preservation Office. However, I don't want to nake
j it sound as if there are -- you know, great delays and lots of
people out digging up that site to find all the archaeological
resources. We quite often have archaeological resources in
many of our projects simply by their location next to the
waterways. They are usually not a problem. We have been
able to work on a grant condition where the City allows, as I
say, an archaeologist — or sometimes as the construction is
going on with the site, if something is uncovered they will
call the archaeologist who the State recommends one for you
that you can use, and he will be able to come down and take a
- 38 -
HFSTON aid HOtELl
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
j look at it and see what it is, and only if it was something —
I think rare or unusual circumstances would they actually
| stop construction. And I would say in our region, I don't
I
I know of nnywhere we have stopped construction because of an
archaeological site. We have had problems, as I said, with
historic buildings, but that's a whole other story.
Maybe — Roger Tinkey is here from the State of Idaho
I don't know how closely you work with the State Historic
Preservation officer. Do you have anything to add to that?
MR. TINKEY: I can't recall where we've ever stopped
construction on a job as a result of that.
MR. HcADAMS: One final question is: Is contesting
; these kinds of things -- I presume the City takes it on
• itself or does — do our State and Federal friends — or
Federal friends help us with the cost of those expensive kinds
of projects?
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, that's a complicated question. I
, don't know whether I understood it. Take on the cost of it?
MR. McADAMS: In other words, as the Mayor said — let's
just make a statement: We challenge the efficacy of the
archaeologist's report. All right. And we want to proceed
with that challenge. Is that cause grant eligible?
MR. MOCHNICK: I would say no. That is not grant
eligible. In the way of helping you, I suppose it would
depend on the challenge — it would depend on what kind of
- 39 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
Colt'"'I Shinlhsiul Rpi'tirtPrs
l?*t \w W l?l)R) Mfi U^l
rm-iii (JAnvif 111 17081 IWW'I'I
20
71
data you have in the way of your challenge. Again, I don't
know that it would be that big of a problem, but it could be >
something that's faced later. !
Warren McFall, who is also in the audience, is the
EPA's Project Engineer on this, and is out of the EPA's Boise '
office. j
Warren, do you have something to add?
MR. McFALL: I was just going to say regarding the
difficulty in mitigating the archaeological aspect of it, we
do have some recent experience down in the area where
there was identified an Indian burial ground in the riverbed
where they were supposed to build a treatment plant. The
mitigation measures there were merely to have an archaeologist
on the site during the construction period and during the
excavation period. It wasn't a long complicated drawn out
affair, it was a matter of just having an archaeologist there, j
Yes, it did cost some money. I think the cost of I
having him there was something in the neighborhood of eight or !
ten thousand dollars during the period of construction. !
MR. MOCHNICK: He was physically there? !
MR. McFALL: He was physically there during all j
construction, and the project hasn't been completed yet, and ;
as far as I Xnow nothing has been uncovered yet. :
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, I believe Dick has an answer to the
earlier question.
- 40 -
HESTON and HOAfU
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
oo
j MR. BAIN: Regarding the question about roof tops in
' the downtown area and the amount of flow attributable to the
I
rain water that might get into the sewer system from roof '
drains and other related connections, there is about 250,000
square feet of roof area down there that we were able to
confirm is connected to the sanitary sewer. It might be a
little higher figure because at the time we were doing this
some of them were plugged from volcanic ash. We estimate
somewhere between 600,000 and 900,000 gallons per day. That
would be about 750,000 gallons --
MR. JONES: So, we would have one and a half million
gallons, then, we could cut down?
HP.. EAI1J: From those two sources, at least, yes. From
those two sources — as far as extraneous winter flow.
MR. JONES: Which is what we're —
MR. BAIN: You're concerned about that, certainly.
MR. JONES: In restricted financing, it's something
worth looking at.
MR. GUMPRECHT: Why aren't the roof tops connected?
MR. BAIN: The roof tops from decisions years ago, many
of the roof top drains are connected not to a storm sewer, but
to the sanitary sewer. It's an artifact of history. It's —
it wouldn't be present code.
j MR. GUMPRECHT: Correct me if I'm wrong. A year ago we
were discussing a Federal grant to rectify some of our
- 41 -
HESTCIN and linwELL
RfPORTIKG SERVICE
M (/CXI IK H1I
lll- 111 I'OSI Sl,lfl?1
difficulties, and that grant involved tearing up streets in !
I
the Fort Grounds area, to which I'm opposed or at least I'd '
i
like to see a minimized impact in that regard, and there are ;
two problems. One is the water flow, and the other was the
raw sewage, so from what I've heard tonight, it sounds like if
private building owners were able to alter their connections
we would save as much water overflow as was proposed for the i
Federal grant last year by tearing up the streets in the Fort
Grounds. If you're saying it's going to save .9 million
gallons, that's the same as the Fort Grounds, roughly, and if
we just increase the width of the pipe from ten inches, then
we save that raw sewage.
MR. BAIN: Let me go through that kind of carefully
i
because I don't fully agree with everything you said. }
What I said was: There's about -- we'll use the high
figure. We'll use the 900,000 gallon figure as what would
come from roof drains into the sanitary sewer destined to
eventually get to the sewage treatment plant. If that wore
removed from — the roof drain connections were moved, it would
go into a storm sewer which would get eventually into the lake.'
Now, when we use the figure of say 750,000 gallons that I was
attributing from the Fort Grounds, that's the amount that --
because of the bottleneck, the amount of total storm water
flow in the Fort Grounds which contributes to the flooding
would be a larger figure. I'm saying a lot of that doesn't
- 42 -
HFSTON ji,d HOm L
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
vo
ever get to the plant. Now, if you make the pipe bigger so
that it can, that aggravates the plant problem, and, in fact,
in several ways.
MR. GUMPRECHT: You don't have, any estimate of what
that would be?
MR. BAIN: Well, we have an estimation for the separa-
tion at the Fort Ground of being on the order of $750,000.
That's separation at the present —
MR. GUMPRECHT: I'm talking about volume, not dollars.
MR. BAIN: Oh, the total volume of storm water in the
Fort Grounds? I don't, but, Jim, if you did any work on that
storm drain you're more directly connected with that. Is that
a fair question for you?
MR. KIMBALL: Well, we calculated at one time a peak
hydraulic run-off of — I think we sized the pump for around
10,000 gallons per minute, and you can run that out, and that1
'a lot of water.
'MR. BAIN: A lot more than what we were talking about
' going through that ten-inch pipe?
; MR. KIMBALL: Yes, you bet.
MR. MOCHNICK: Do we have some other questions?
i MR. McADAMS: Yes, I have another. In relation to a
statement made on Page 57 of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, one can interpret the continuation — it's under
the section "Continuation of Ongoing Studies". It says that,
- 43 -
HESTOII and HOWtLL
REPORTING SF.KVICE
Ot1|l|«"l MiMllMml pritiiMi'i',
Ipwislofi I.I I7IWI Mr, I III
COHIII iHkn. Id |2i)PlM/»7M
"The State of Washington waste allocation study should I
establish specific loading limits for the Spokane River ;
upstream of the Idaho/Washington state line."
I
I think that Mr. Koep earlier described his under- i
standing of the situation in terms of the Rathdrum aquifer ;
i
which is sole source designated now, and we are very concerned
that Washington not establish or unduly influence the '
!
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
requirements, and we are also concerned because as Mr. Koep
said, it appears that the controls are very stringent in this
part of the country and there's much, much less control across
the state line, and I'm interested in any comments that you
might have in relation to equivalency, if you will, in terms
of the degree of treatment required in Coeur d'Alene versus
the Spokane Valley.
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, I cannot answer that question. I
will start out, and maybe some other people will offer some
assistance.
I think that we at EPA have heard your concerns and
realize that all concerns you have are based on the allocation
study that is presently being done, I understand that there
has not been, at least in the City's point of view, there has
not been good coordination at this point with the Department
of Ecology in Washington on this study. EPA has, I think,
committed itself to Mayor Johnston to try to coordinate better
- 44 -
HCSTON and MUt'FLL
REPORTING SfKVICF.
-------
i the roles of the Waste Allocation Study, and I know that that
is one of the things that we will be doing to make sure that
! specifically the City of Coeur d'Alene has some involvement
, as far as where this Waste Load Allocation Study is and where
it's going.
As far as the treatment levels and requirements, the
V.'asto Load Allocation Study is not completed yet, at least
that's my understanding. We will be looking for some numbers,
I think, out in the next month or so. 1 believe those are
even draft numbers. I don't know what it's going to say.
HP. IlcADAMS: Well, what I'm really trying to indicate
to you is that the Mayor and the City Council has never
indicated anything other than assuming their fair share of the
load, but I do believe that they had legitimate concern when
we read these statements, and because it can be interpreted in
a nunber of ways, and then when we are advised by some of our
local developers, for example, that in order to continue with
their occupation the only opportunity that they have — well,
I should rephrase that: The best opportunity that they have
is to expand their operations in the State of Washington, and
I just think that that's a problem.
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, I think we have heard that comment,
and I think that EPA will be working with you to try to
• rectify some of that problem and get information back to you,
' and I don't know if anyone has anything to add to that.
- 45 -
HF.STON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
Cnn.lirrl r.h [hind Pr^rlPrs
M l
I r.M R
Warren or Roger? i
MR. McFALL: Well, not perhaps on the growth issue, but
as far as the Waste Load Allocation Study, I think it should •
i
be pointed out that although Washington is conducting the
study, it's being conducted through Washington funds primarily.
The study is not strictly Washington telling Idaho what's
going to be acceptable to the river. There's going to be \
information that's going to be collected during the study ,
| which will be utilized by our agency, and as far as I can see,
it's an interstate situation, and Washington doesn't really
have the authority to tell Idaho what it can discharge, and so
our agency, EPA, is going to have to get involved and
!negotiate these waste load allocations with both states, but
maybe this — you're getting carried on by the fact that it's •
I
called the Washington Wastewater Load Allocation Study or '
Spokane River Allocation Study by the Department of Ecology,
but we really suspect that information will be used by our
'agency to work with both Idaho and Washington to negotiate out
i the actual allocations.
! MR. GUMPRECHT; As a citizen, I'd like to amplify what
i
the Mayor and Mr. Koep and Mr. McAdams said, and that is seems
ridiculous to be talking to Federal officials here if we're
talking about such discrepancies across the state line because
the whole point of having a Federal agency, it seems to me, is
to take care of a problem that is apparently a common problem
- 46 -
HESTON and HnwEU
IUPORTING SIRVICF
-------
state to state, and it's absolutely preposterous that you can
j come ur here as Federal officials and tell us that you don't
j have an answer on what's going on over there, and you don't
i
1 have any ready answer for the questions, and that you don't
jhave any well worked-out plan of coordinating things. The
whole point there being a Federal agency is to smooth things
out in situations that are between states.
' MR. MOCHNICK: And I would agree, and when I said I
didn't have an answer, what I meant was we don't know what the
Waste Allocation Study is saying, and I think Mr. McAdams'
question was dealing more with the treatment level —
MR. GUMPRECHT: But it sounds like you don't really have
a way of coordinating things right now.
MR. MOCHNICK: Well, I'm not the person probably to ask.
I'm not involved with the Waste Load Allocation Study, I'm
involved with EIS on the Coeur d'Alene Wastewater treatment
plant. There are people in EPA, in fact, who are on the
review committee of that Waste Load Allocation Study, and it's
my understanding that there has been some coordination with the
State of Idaho in the Waste Load Allocation Study. I don't
know that there has been any coordination with the City of
Coeur d'Alene, if Mr. Tinkey can add to that and tell us what's
going on with the State of Idaho with the Waste Load Allocation
Study. I do not know if they have contacted the City of
Coeur d'Alene, but I imagine the State has worked with them.
- 47 -
MESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
Iwilii'il Mioilliinil Bc-i'Oflm
|p*nlc.n W I/II8I IK 1111
Ow iHLnf M (;ra|C6'«W
MR. TINKEY: Well, the first phase of the Waste Load
Allocation is for an assessment of the river and the impact ^
on Long Lake. The second phase that hasn't been started yet
will be to work out various methods for allocating the waste j
!
loads. That hasn't even really started yet.
MR. GUMPRECHT: Yes, but there's been a clamp placed on
sewage hook-ups in this area.
MR. HOCHNICK: Hot because of the Waste Load Allocation .
Study? '
MR. JONES: What I think he's getting at is in our area i
there is a clamp, unless you have five acres you don't put
down a septic tank over the aquifer. In Spokane Valley there >
is no such clamp that I know of. In fact, the Spokesman
Review spoke to it, and said they ought to do something, but
nobody is, and we get blamed for it and they're doing it. j
That's what we're getting at. j
MR. WELLS: My name is Tom Wells, I'm an employee with i
the City of Coeur d'Alene. j
Several weeks ago I attended a meeting in Washington r
or in Spokane of that waste load allocation rule. At that j
meeting the State of Washington -- and what was of even more
concern to me was the City of Spokane were directly discussing
how to allocate waste loads, and were talking about what Idaho
and Coeur d'Alene in particular would be allowed to discharge
to the river. So, I think the City's concern is that not only
- 48 -
HESTON ind IIO#tLL
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
K)
that we be kept informed of what's happening, but that we be
given the same opportunity to participate that the City of
Spokane has.
MR. MOCHNICK: I would agree.
Al'l :e AVi-.oi
MR. MeWilS: My name is Ed Morris, and I'm a resident of
Coeur d'Alene.
I would certainly agree with everything that Tom
Wells just said, and I think over about the past year I've
served on a 201 Study Committee for the City of Coeur d'Alene.
At different, times we were led to believe that at least the
assessment for discharge into the Spokane River and the Waste
Load Allocation Study had been completed, and perhaps some
discharge criteria or some guidelines had been drawn up, and
I think maybe Boise had a lot of input into that, and maybe
the EPA did, and maybe the Department of Ecology, and the City
of Spokane, but it doesn't take a real smart individual to
look at a map and see that the people that are impacted
directly, and the people that really have a vested interest
and the people that live along that river where it's behind
the dam are the people from Coeur d'Alene down to Post Falls
dam. Those are the people that should be involved in that
Waste Load Allocation Study. They should be — they should
have an input, they should have the input into the design
'criteria, and to the best of my knowledge those people have
had no input whatsoever. It's kind of a farce to let
- 49 -
IIFSFON and IIOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
1R
Washington draw up a Waste Load Allocation Study and tell j
Coeur d'Alene and Idaho what it is or to let some Boise
officials have a little bit of input into it, and then we have
to live with it. So, I would certainly encourage you people, '
first of all, go back and sidetrack that study and reassess
some of your conclusions in view of that, realizing the very
limited data input that you have. '
i
MR. MOCHNICK: May I ask you a question? What .
conclusions did you find that EPA is using as a result of
that Waste Load Allocation Study?
MR. I^G&RJifi-: Well, I think some of the discharge |
criteria for the sewer plant are based upon discharge levels ]
j
arrived at under the Waste Load Allocation Study. i
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, the Waste Load Allocation Study, '
however, is not completed, and I would say that at this point
that the numbers that have come out were — could be estimates ,
in the State of Idaho and have not been based on that, but I i
agree with you on your other concerns as far as the impact it i
could have and the need certainly for coordination with the j
State of Washington. !
MR. MeRftls: Well, then, I think many of us have been i
lead to believe that there are at least some discharge
criteria that are guidelires because where we originally
started out with the design for a sewer plant was: What is
our discharge criteria? And we asked the EPA, and we couldn't
- 50 -
HFMOM and H()»FLL
REPORTING 'ERVICt
-------
U)
get a definite answer; and we asked the State of Idaho, and
we couldn't get a definite answer; and I think that probably
the last meeting that we had we found out that we've got some
I
' rough guidelines, and some parameters to work within as those
criteria seem to be changing now in view of the budgetary and
; nonetary constraints which I don't think is necessarily a
good policy. That means if you've got money, then you design
| for the most stringent criteria, and if you don't have the
money, then, gosh, what can you do for us? Why don't we sit
down and find out what we really need in terms of discharge
criteria, and only make the people of Coeur d'Alene build to
those standards and let's quit trying to fool somebody. Let's
lay all the cards out on the table, and nobody's willing to
do that with the City of Coeur d'Alene. They want them to
' build a new plant, but they don't want to give them any
discharge criteria or involve them in that discharge criteria
or involve them in a Waste Load Allocation Study.
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, Dick, would you like to speak to
that?
MR. BAIN: I'll just read the record. We did — as a
facility planning engineers and discussed this with the
\ Citizen's Committee — received guidance on February 13, 1980
from the State of Idaho, Division of Environment, and in a
| meeting which was also attended by EPA, these facts: "The
i total phosphorus limitations based on the present State of
- 51 -
HESTON and HOWFLL
REPORTING SERVICE
OHi''."l "a.m'luml Mr|«»1rit
Ir«.'Inn I'l I/UK] Mf> IHI
Oui tl MOW. W (;l*l SSJ B2M
8
q
1(1
11
1_>
15
!•(
15
16
i;
18
19
2d
21
M
Washington policy for the Spokane River which requires 85 |
per cent removal of total phosphorus for discharges over one
million gallons per day, the policy has been established to ]
reduce putrefaction problems in Long Lake below the City of '
Spokane. When the joint Washington, EPA, and Idaho Waste
Load Allocation Study is completed, the State of Idaho will '
be expected to control their phosphorus sources of which Post ;
Falls and Coeur d'Alene are the most significant." |
That written statement, which was provided to us and j
to the Committee at that time, was reiterated later by EPA,
Region 10 in a letter dated August 6, 1980. So, I think it's
a matter of record that we've had that kind of guidance, and
it has been limited to the Waste Load Allocation Study.
MR. GUMPRECHT: But that's exactly my point. You still
haven't involved Coeur d'Alene in those studies. However,
you've told them that: By the way, the State is involved, and
EPA and the Department of Ecology in Washington are going to
draw up these standards, but they are not involving anybody
else in them, and no input as to what they are. Yet, I agree.
You've told the City and you've told the citizens: Yo\i are
going to be held to those standards. And you've given nobody
input into drawing up those standards. You've merely told
them that they are going to be held to the Department of
Ecology standards in Washington.
MR. MOCHNICK: Do we have some other questions?
- 52 -
HFSTON and HOWPLL
REPORTING SFRVICE
i ,-.1.1.1' I '', I'h.r, I I . |."l, ,',
N'VM li"i I.' |, I.J| /'(. ! Ml
-------
MR. McADAMS: Gene McAdams, again.
This is related obliquely to environmental considera-
I tions, I believe, but the philosophy that we've been operating
on here in the City is that — it's been in the Federal
registry, and I haven't read it for the last couple of years,
i
1 but I think that the intent of Public Law No. 92-500, however,
was to inprove the quality of the water in the streams in the
country, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The intent of that
legislation also required that any grant that was to be
received by any community would be for all practical purposes
a one-tine grant. In other words, the local community would
j get the project together, they would build it, and then after
it was built would assess an adequate monthly service charge
or some form of generating money to guarantee that the future
rebuilding of that plant would be built with the community
resources and without accessing the Federal government. We've
been building under the assumption that the grant that would
be allocated for all practical purposes to the City of Coeur
d'Alene would be a one-time grant, and, of course, when we
talked about 75 per cent Federal money, 15 per cent State
money, the objectives of the Mayor and the Council has been to
build the best plant possible that will last for the long term,|
that could be added to flexible -- et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera.
When we started out, the first phase of the project
- 53 -
HESTON and HOWELI.
RCPORTING SERVICE
O'MiM Mi'"ll tf«1 ('"ii'xtfr.
irmjm M m*i MII mi
(oriuilMint. M IW «>' H/"H
for the selected alternative, which is Alternative E, was a j
4.2 million-gallons-per-day plant at a cost of — gross cost
of just under $15 million. We were advised because the United
States Congress was not able — for a variety of reasons —
to provide sufficient funds to the State of Idaho so this
project could be funded, that we would be required to build a |
2.1 MGD plant. Our estimated cost of that was about 11 million.
We're now advised that — and only speaking now not to growth •
cost, but to the Federal participation of the project, we've
jbeen informed that's in the neighborhood of 3.27 million for
the Federal government's 75 per cent share. I think in the
consideration of this project, and in relation to the considera-
tion of archaeological environmental impacts, it's very
relevant to know specifically if any grant given the City of j
Coeur d'Alene at this time will be considered a one-tirne grant |
or if it's funded at this reduced level if it will be [
considered as a temporary fix, and whether or not the City will
be entitled to start over again at a future date because of
today's funding shortages.
MR. MOCHNICK: I'd like to have Mr. McFall respond to '
that or Mr. Tinkey.
MR. McFALL: Well, the one-time nature that you question,
if it turns out that the funds aren't available, there's |
nothing that EPA can do about it. The only thing we can do is i
itake the funds that are allocated to Idaho, let Idaho I
- 54 -
HESTON and l
RFPORTING 5FKVICF
-------
1
(Ti
Ul
i designate which cities are going to get the funds for the
particular year in question, and then go through the
administrative processes of allocating these — or obligating
those grants to those communities, and at the current time
I
you're talking about $3.2 million. I think you're talking
i
j about 1982 money. 1982 money hasn't been authorized by
Congress. 1981 money is currently available, and we're
talking about, I think, the project priority list for the
City of Coeur d'Alene has something like $800,000 on there
for design money, Step 2 money. So, anything beyond — well,
let me draw a precaution there because we've heard some
rumblings that there may be some constraints placed on FY
. '81 money, and further constraints on FY '82 to the extent
! I*-
i that there may be no FY '-80" money at all. So, when you say,
l you know, is this going to be a one-time grant, well, I think
in light of today's political and economic climate, you know,
whatever comes down the road, we can't promise anything beyond
that, and we hope that what's on the priority list will be
available when you are ready to use it. I don't know how we
can say anything much beyond --
i MR. McADAMS: Warren, .1 recognize that, but as far as
I
I we are concerned, the project that's under consideration now
is a -- if you will — a Band-Aid expansion, possibly at the
j present site, and I don't know what that entails, but I'm
' concerned that the City has one nickel to spend, for example,
- 55 -
HESfON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
luMiM Shc.illumi R^nKm
Iranian 1(1 |?08| /4C 1J3I
Cofur il Alrne, III |208) 667 8?41
8
9
JO
11
12
13
1 i
15
16
P
18
19
20
21
??
7?
71
and if we're only funded one time, and if. that one-time
nickel expenditure is going to be the Federal entitlement for .
evermore, one alternative that could be considered, perhaps,
is to do nothing until such time as the discharge permit
requirements are lessened. Until such time as more funding
is available or until such time the pressure gets so great or
you've re-evaluated the sole source designation on the
Rathdrum aquifer, that you will allow a development here |
similar to that that allegedly is taking place in Washington. !
MR. McFALL: Those are all good concerns, and all good
possibilities. I mean, you could consider all those.
MR. McADAMS: I can remember when I used to go to the
store with my nickel and I was very careful as to what I was
going to spend it for because that's all I was going to get
that week.
MR. McFALL: I think as we discussed before, I think
that's a very important part, I think. You know, it's one
thing that when we're talking about not an unlimited source
of funds, but certainly a solid source of funds, and we can
look ahead for the 20-year project life, and we can plan for
20 years down the road and be relatively assured that the !
funds will be forthcoming if we stage this project five years !
at a time or whatever it might be. But we're suggesting here
looking at a very risky situation from the funding standpoint,
and I think your idea about looking at what you can buy with
- 56 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
-------
cr\
en
that nickel is the way to. go. I think you have to look at
the increment which you can buy for that amount of funds, and
if all you get is a small amount of money put aside to build
! a facility, then I think it behooves you — it behooves all
i of us as public officials to assure that the project con-
structed is the most project for the least amount of money.
MR. McADAMS: All I want said is simply this: That the
project contemplated is temporary, and it wouldn't take our
nickel.
MR. McFALL: Are you trying to qualify your project as a
temporary project? I don't understand.
j MR. MOCHNICK: Could we have one person at a time,
1 please.
Vlarren, do you want to —
MR. McFALL: I was trying to understand Mr. McAdams'
question with regard to the temporary nature of --
i MR. McADAMS: I'll expand that a little bit. I think
from my viewpoint that Alternative B is in an area of the
City that will have demands upon it to expand. You've already
heard from North Idaho College, their proposal for development
there, their plans to move some of the manufacturing operation
from that area. I believe that the Citizen's Advisory
Committee and the City Council have gone on record and have
stilted that the most desirable permanent site is Alternative
E, that is, down river. And what I'm trying to say is that
- 57 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
(pil.ln'l Miinlln'iil HI'ILKI. r.
|p»i'iim H (PHI) Mf- I III
«! M', I'll
-------
reconvene the meeting at 9:21 p.m. We will continue with our
question and answer section, but before we do, one quick
announcement: For those of you who have not read the EIS —
most of you seem to be very familiar with it — there are
A*.
some summary documents of EIS up here at the front table, and
if you'd like to have one of those, be sure to pick one up.
MR. BAIN: I have a carry-on question to take up where
we'd left off. I want to rephrase Gene McAdams' question to
you, Warren, and see if we can get an answer that I think is
real. Basically, if the City were to take the existing site
and do what I'll call a quick fix or a — I don't want to
. use the term Band-Aid, but some sort of minimal improvement
to get to capacity and was looking at that as an interim
; measure, and it had to go to another plant later, and they
. got grant money for this quick fix, could they, if the grant
. program cranks up again in a few years, is it possible for
[
', them to at least be considered for grant money in the future
to move down river? I guess that's the essence of the
question as I understood it.
MR. MeADAMS: Yes. You did a better job.
i MR. BAIN: Is it possible or are they administratively
out?
MR. McFALL: I may have to ask some questions or do
some supposing before I answer because it depends on whether
or not that segment that's constructed meets the ultimate
- 59 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
Oitiliptf Shorthand l'r|i'*rtprs
Ipwi-lnn III (?08| ?)6 1311
CnratdMriM W (?
-------
CXI
concerned about that. And that's where we are coming from.
| t!R. McFALL: I would like to carry that on because I
] put that supposition in there that if it did make the
Affluent limitations that we wouldn't be prejudiced, but the
other thing is, obviously: Well, what if it doesn't? Okay,
what if your first piece of work just provides, let's say,
secondary treatment for an additional growth increment, and
the Affluent limitations would be for something a little bit
nore stringert than secondary treatment, then in that case
we would consider that increment — that construction
increment wouldn't be -noofo-iatp the Affluent limitations, and,
; therefore, it would be only a segment of the total facility,
and in that case we would have to get a schedule for the
remaining segment to bring it up to the water quality
standards. We would need a schedule or basically a
corraitment from the City that those additional facilities
would be constructed to bring the project up to a full
operating treatment plant that would meet the water quality
standards.
i
Does that complete the picture?
MR. JOHNSTON: Basically, yes, but you know, we've
hired Brown and Caldwell to get us at that point in view of
what you've said about FY '81 being even cut back, FY '82
possibly not even being. We've asked Brown and Caldwell to
get us the best plant for the money that we could possibly
- 61 -
MCSTON and HOWELL
RFP0RTING SFHVICE
r.ciMi.'rt Viuillidiifl Id intiV'K
iKHlin III I/II8I I'd IHI
Com, if Alrnr III |?I|P| H,l 8,M1
attain, and I have recognized what you said, but I still say
we have to also be assured that that isn't our last chance
because for the last three years we've been marching toward
that ultimate goal of what we both want, and that was the
best and largest and most cost-effective plant that was
attainable.
MR. McFALL: Okay, then I don't mean to step backward
and change hats or change stories, but I guess I have to ask
you a little more, then. I guess I thought you were saying
you were changing your favorite alternative -- your favorite
alternative was to expand at the existing site.
MR. JOHNSTON: No, Alternative E is still our ultimate
goal, but we recognize that as unattainable.
MR. McFALL: In that case, I guess we will have some
trouble because it wouldn't fit into the total picture of the
two-year projections.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's why we've hired our consulting
engineers. He is going to be working with the 201 Advisory
Committee, and we hope that we can arrive at a solution with
the money available that will speak to some program, which I
don't know at this time. We hope that the Advisory Committee
with the assistance of the consulting engineers can come UD
with this solution that is going to get us to the most cost-
effective plant and the highest level of treatment available
with«'the existing funds available.
- 62 -
HF.STON anil H (H F L I
RFPOIUIir. 5FRVICI
-------
(Ti
HR. MOCHNICK: We have someone who might want to add to
this.
MR. THOMPSON: My name is Bruce Thompson, a resident of
, Coeur d'Alene.
Warren, I've got to ask you another question that's
' going to duplicate one you've just been asked, but I didn't
understand your response. Let me put it this way: If the
City does fix up the existing wastewater plant at the present
site, and those repair jobs do raise the quality of the
Affluent, and it does meet the permit limitations say for the
next five to ten years, my question is this.— it relates
back to the one time only funding — if the City does, in
fact, meet the Affluent limitations with the Band-Aiding,
' then I would say that EPA would not participate again in
i
funding a plant at site "E because those repairs are meeting
the Affluent limitations. Why would you come back in and
fund it another time? I thought your answer was going to be:
Ho, we won't fund it again since the fix-up does, in fact,
i meet the water quality standards for the river. But you said
something different, and it confused me. What were you saying
in fact? Was it that or something else?
i MR. McFALL: Well, if I can try to answer that: It may
be that my answer is coming across slightly confused because
', I am thinking out loud now because this is a new area, but
what — I think the key thing that we've got to concentrate
- 63 -
HESTON and IIDWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
td Vwtlmirt Ri-iiofleis
l»«-l»i III (7081 H6 1311
fn-m rt»inif> 111 |?0«| KIM**
7
8
q
10
11
12
n
H
i?
16
P
IB
19
22
n
on is: What is the project that we are focusing on for the
20 years, okay? Our rules right now say that if we are to
going to fund the project, you must specify what is the cost
effective solution for this 20-year picture. Now, of that
selected project, we can fund any increment of that, all right?
We can fund it on incremental basis and funds being available,
we can come back and fund the next increment. Now, if you
determine that your selected alternative is Alternative E,
then you want funding to build on Alternative B, then we've
got a problem because then you're saying: Let's put Federal
and State and local funds in other than the cost effective
alternative.
Now, there's only one situation where I know that we
can help you on that, and that is where we provide interim
emergency-type funding, which we have done in the past, and
I've never seen a project here in Idaho that's been funded
under that, but we have provided emergency-type funding as a
get-by solution, a Band-Aid solution — that word has been
used — that just recognizes that there is some cost to just
get you by, but I can't give you any guideline. If that's
what you are proposing, then I can't answer your question. |
MR. JOHNSTON: But you're asking us to commit to 20 [
years, and you're telling us you are not even going to commit
one year.
MR. McFALL: I'm not asking you to commit to 20 years.
. i
- 64 -
HFSTON and HOWFLL
REPORTING StRVICE
Ulliliul Sh'i 'I!'!"'1 Ni'p f1«",
II«.'|,>M 1,1 I.,if! '".' 1)31
-------
You've instructed your engineer, he's using our guidelines;
j our guidelines say that if we are to provide funding for a
j project, it must be shown to be part of the 20-year package.
I'm not saying that you need to commit for the full 20 years
I'm saying what you need to do is determine what alternative
you are going to select based on looking at the alternatives
over 20 years; not over two years, not over five years, but
over 20 years, and then once you select that alternative, then
let's start funding it in phases and stages, but if we select
that one alternative we can't jump to another one and then
fund that one. That's the problem we're having, you see.
The only way we can do that is on an interim emergency-type
basis .
MR. JOHNSTON: Can I finish up by just saying this:
What I hear you saying is that you are not saying that if we -
because of the lack of funding — take something on this year
that that is our last shot?
MR. McFALL: Unless —
j MR. JOHNSTON: Well, now you get another "unless" in
there.
MR. McFALL: I'm saying what you want to do, if you
i want to fund the Alternative B, and if that is what you've
selected for your 20-year alternative, I don't see any
problem, but when you select Alternative E and then want to
' fund B, then we've got a problem.
- 65 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
r I Mrlii'd Viii'lli.!'!'] l<.'|iiiiti"',
iM.Unn i.I |?i)8| MM HI
(orII' •! AI-MP M l?M\ f'U h?M
M
MR. MOCHNICK: May I ask a question, Warren? How about
Alternative E under a phased situation? I think that's what
the Mayor was saying.
MR. JOHNSTON: Wei:., except, Roger, I think I recognize
that under Alternative E you can't build a nev; treatment
plant, you can't put in a clarifier and let it sit there for
five years until you get money to put in a trickling filter or
whatever — and here I'm getting in a technical area I don't
know much about — but you've got to build a whole plant.
That's what I hear; is that correct?
MR. TINKEY: You should build an operable fraction.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I didn't understand that you could
build operable fractions and have a working plant and meet the
guidelines for the discharge permits and the rest. I didn't
understand that that was available.
MR. McFALL: If you're talking about building a naw
plant at a new site, then you'd have to commit to an operable
facility which would eventually take you through the Affluent
limitations, but you can build it in segments if you wanted.
We have been told that we can award a grant on anything that
you can write a contract for. Okay, so we can build it in as
many segments as you want, but if we are talking about a
segmented facility, you're going to have to — in thnt case,
there needs to be a commitment on meeting the A
limitations. I can see your confusion.
- 66 -
HT.SIOH ,ind HlaELL
FiEPORIINd SERVICE
-------
I MR. MOCHNICK: We have another question. Sir?
I MR. EEHTLEY: I'm Elton Bentley, and I'm on the Citizen'
Advisory Committee.
I'm interested in the term "operable fraction"; is
that it? Could we consider Option B as an operable fraction
of the total picture?
Now, I promised myself I wouldn't say anything
tonight, but I think in more simpler terms, and I will have
to admit that I get quite confused on some of this discussion
here on what we can do and can't do. Could we consider the
present site as a fraction of the total solution for our
sewerage disposal problem?
MR. MOCHNICK: Warren, would you like to respond to
that?
MR. McFALL: I think probably Dick Bain ought to answer
that. I mean, really, because it's really a design question.
It's a question that relates — that your engineer should
answer because if he's determined that the existing facility
can fit into the total cost-effective alternative, then it
can.
MR. BAIN: If you take it simplistically, and say
I Alternative E is our goal, Alternative E, by definition, does
i
not involve any facility at the existing site. If you say
Alternative E is our goal but we can't get there from here
because of money, we want to someday, and meanwhile we've got
- 67 -
HESTON and HOWELL
RFI'OIUINfi SERVICE
Cnl'lint Muitlti l"itns
11.,.,'Inn III Midi MO 1311
rcp,ir il fUcii" M (70?) fir,/ R/4-1
10
11
1?
M
M
r.
16
17
IB
10
?(>
21
72
an existing plant, let's make use of it and hope for the best
in terms of two things: One, a grant program in the future;
and two, some income from hook-ups. Then one way to get
there is start raising some revenue and hoping for a grant
program in which case some improvement in terms of capacity,
now, at the existing site would allow you to stay in
compliance, which is important to the City and the EPA, and
allow you a way to provide some income to the City that we I
could net in a reserve fund for future expansion either there ;
or some other place. And three, the hope that the grant i
program will come down back to life, and if it does, then !
i
they wouldn't then be barricaded from a future appeal to move .
down river and then abandon it. So, it's just an implementa-
tion step. You could lay it out in a schedule, that's the
only way to get there because there's no money, but if we are j
told that anything you do at the existing site is by defini-
tion a departure on another trail, then you are obviously shot
down from a future grant, and that would worry the City.
If you've got to take some action, then, you don't
have enough money to commit to a down river situation unless
the City is willing to pass a rather large bond issue and
commit to a future action without a grant, since they can't
be served another grant.
MR. MOCHNICK: Mr. Tinkey?
MR. TINKEY: This would work in one way: We've been
- 68 -
HESTON .mii HOWCLL
KEI'dRllNfi SERVICE
(••(I'lKi! Mi -I I I •'(. ,', •
l.ci 1,11 1,1 I HI •••, I Ml
-------
| talking about whether you can dump money in the other
I solution, if we put a limited amount of funds into Alternative!
i |
B, and it only bought you five years capacity, and at the end >
of the five years the grant program became available again and
you used up your capacity, sure, you'd be eligible for new
funding at the new site. Of course you would, because you'd
be in need again. What EPA doesn't want to do is waste money
building capacity just to abandon it.
MR, McFALL: Do you have anything to lose by telling
yourselves that what you want to put your money in on now is
the existing plant, and somewhere down the road we might
change our mind, but to make sure that we have got a project
that is compatible with the future needs — if in fact the
grant program isn't available — and we don't get a lot of
funding, do you have anything to lose by just saying: Well,
let's say today that Alternative E looks like the best way to
go, and for the 20-year haul we're going to go with
Alternative B. Okay, do you have anything to lose from that
standpoint? From our standpoint, if that's what — and like
Roger was saying — if you build a five-year facility, it is
fuJly operated and meets the .affluent limitations, five years
down the road you re-examine your alternative and decide:
Well, although five years ago it looked like over the 20-year
haul siting at this existing site was the way we wanted to go,
but today we decided that, well, we want to — I can see where,
- 69 -
HESTON surf HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
O;i Itfl '.hirUm.'! l'i |n,M. •>,
lc*i I'iri hi (,TI1'| IV, I l!l
Cnruf tl Akiic Itl |/[)R| ! 8?M
you know, you could change courses. But, see, our problem — i
j
and I hate to throw a bunch of red tape here, but if you
start funding something that is not the 20-year solution, [
we've got a problem. That isn't part of the 20-year solution.!
MR. MOCHNICK: I think that we've probably discussed
that one question, that we didn't have an answer for, at
length. Let's move on to — maybe Warren can get together — i
and I'm sure we will be getting together with the City of
Coeur d'Alene to discuss future grants, and certainly new !
alternatives and some other costs, and go into it then.
Do we have any other questions?
MR. SCHULER: I want to — on the-basis of this
I
discussion, I want to re-emphasize again, though, the j
situation that the college is in. I hope that you are all
aware that the replacement value of that college campus and
the buildings on it is today well over $20 million. In other
words, much more than what the plant was supposed to cost on
site E. We have no alternative.- With that kind of investment
and commitment having already been made in that area, the
State, the Federal government, the local taxpayers have all
contributed to that development. Amortization schedule on
the buildings is 50 or 75 years on the newest ones, so they
are going to be a long-time there. I dor. "t think that the
State is going to be willing to commit on a second campus site
to serve the students of this area in five northern counties.
- 70 -
HESTON and HO.iflL
REPORTING M RVICt
-------
Ul
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think we all have to
i
keep in mind that that is the only place we have to grow.
The Coeur d'Alene sewage plant today is effectively
i amortized, it's life expectancy has been lived out. They now
; have the alternative or the option to go to a different site
and commit the millions of dollars that will be necessary to
, build another plant at that site. We don't have that option
| anymore because our funds have already been expended. So, I
| think we really have to look at Site E, and I can't emphasize
that strongly enough.
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: I have a question for Mike. It deals
with one of the recent impacts on the City with this project.
| It would seem to me that sometime ago, eight months, ten
i
months, twelve months ago people in higher positions had to
be aware of this funding crunch that was coming. It's not
created all this consternation on this project, it's probably
'• the most significant impact that we now have on the City, just
' the fact that the money is not there. I can't fathom or
1 'believe someone, some people, or some group didn't know a year
' ago at the time that we were approaching this problem now that
we can't seem to deal with very effectively, and I don't know
[if anybody knew that a'long-time ago or if they did, why the
'' iinformation didn't get to the Citizen's Committee or the
jengineers or someone because we all did go down a certain path
- 71 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
CerhM Shorthand Ri'i»ml»is
Initlon. M |?l») 7«f.n31
Co'ui d Unit M 1203) fifj'SPM
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
1?
M
Is-
16
17
18
19
70
21
22
assuming certain things would happen, and they didn't
materialize, and here we are. And I just can't believe that I
we didn't — someone didn't know that we were going to have I
this terrific funding crisis that's now upon us.
MR. MOCHNICK: Mr. Tinkey, would you like to respond to
that?
MR. TINKEY: I just wanted to know who he voted for for
President.
MR. THOMPSON: That's not answering my question.
MR. MOCHNICK: No, but as far as being in upper
positions, I think we have found out -- tonight on the six
o'clock show of President Reagan, I think all kinds of things
will come out of that as far as funding goes. I don't know
that EPA heard any rumor about funds months ago. We're
hearing one that Warren mentioned a minute ago that there
might not be any construction grant money. We don't know,
and that's as a result of the last few days, that I started
hearing that rumor, and I think that that will probably —
something like that could very well happen, and the next few
days should tell us.
What I guess — in answer to your question, yes, I
think it can happen that overnight you may find funds,
Federal funds disappearing, and that is not necessarily
something that's known for many years down the road in advance
of how a program is going.
- 72 -
HESTON and HOKELL
REPORTING SERVICE
CfrMu'd M><.ithvvl l;<-pi '"'•
lr« <,![«! Ul |,.WI III 11)1
riirin il»Wi. I.I ('ill'] I1 . H '!
-------
MR. BENTLEY: Elton. Bentley, again.
I'd just like tc change the formula from what we can
do to what we can't do to simplify it a great deal, and just
admit we can't continue to dump untreated sewage into the
: Spokane River, and then go on from there. That wouldn't be
; half as confusing to me as some of these things that we've
been discussing, what we can do. We might go back to
outhouses.
: MR. HOCHNICK: Okay, do we have some other questions?
Mayor Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: In the Environmental Impact Statement
I you have already addressed items based upon previous
suppositions. Alternative E, B, G, the rest. Is this
j Environmental Impact Statement now going to readjust and
1 speak to the issues that have been spoken here tonight and in
effect reduce funding, is your Environmental Impact
: Statement going to respond to that so that we don't get down
I the road and get caught going through another environmental
i
I impact public hearing? Have I made that clear enough?
MR. MOCHNICK: I think so, and I'll try to answer the
question.
There might be two points: One, will the final EIS
reflect the new information that might come out of the new
alternatives? Yes, the final EIS would do that. If a new
alternative, however, is developed that the City is willing
- 73 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
Oll'li,") Mioilhani! Kruuil-i-,
lK.I'lrjll ID |?I|R| 71C, |13|
Conn dAlcne 111 f/(lH|
to select and EPA and the State is willing to fund, in other
words, a good feasible reasonable alternative, a requirement
for another public meeting certainly could be reasonable, and
a meeting would have to be held so that that alternative and
those costs can be given to the public, by virtue of the fact
that at this point we have alternatives and costs that the
public — those ones which attended and came to find out
about, the new alternatives that somebody might be talking
about have not, in my knowledge, been costed out.
MR. JOHNSTON: Would your EIS comment on the fact that
there's been a change in the ball game?
MR. MOCHNICK: Yes, sir, absolutely.
MR. JOHNSTON: And even possibly speak to maybe reducing
regulations to meet the funding or whatever? I don't know
that that's going to happen, but maybe there could be comment
upon it.
MR. MOCHNICK: I would say yes to that.
Do we have any other questions?
MR. McADAMS: I want to ask one quick one, if I may.
Environmentally speaking, would it be better for the
City in view of the size of the Spokane River to consider
possibly two out falls in order to mitigate impact upon the
river, the fish life, epitaph, that kind of thing? In other
words, the Spokane River is not that gigantic a stream, and
I'm wondering if that type of thought process would appear
- 74 -
HESTON and HO«CLL
REPORTING SERVICE
ll« '.II 1,1 I IV| Ml, I II]
'UIUI it 111-.I" I.I I ' -> ^', * " I
-------
: meritorious to particularly to environmental engineering?
, MR. MOCHNICK: Do you want to respond to that, Mike?
I
MR. RUSHTON: Well, I'm not the water quality expert
that worked on this report. I think that there are different
1 environmental factors for the different choices. You are
i
saying either having two separate discharge points or one,
which is the best environmentally?
MR. McADAMS: With the same MGD and the same level of
I
treatment.
i
j MR. RUSHTON: Right. 1 think for the same water quality
parameters the two sites would be obviously givi.ig you better
dilution situation than you'd have with one, and therefore,
j in the immediate areas of those out falls would have less of
! an impact than one large out fall, but in terms of other
water quality situations, maybe further downstream, say the
dissolved oxygen sites that they have up above Post Falls dam,
I don't see how two locations that close together would have
I very much difference in that regard. So, there's different
j situations for different environmental parameters. Also,
I maybe the dilution provided by the two might be better for
I fish life than one large discharge, but it's hard to select
overall which is the best.
MR. McADAMS: Well, what you said is that maybe depend-
i
: ing upon the circumstances; is that what you're saying?
I MR. MOCHNICK: I would think that's right, and I think
- 75 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
CcM'M StimUiantl R<'^n|f>is
l»»isl»n, M (?W| 746 1331
Conn it Alfne, M |208) 66' 8244
•s
6
7
K
9
10
II
12
11
M
15
16
17
18
19
70
?1
22
25
that depends on the water body, it would certainly, and the
location of those out'falls and the amount of Affluent being
discharged, that would be a very good answer.
SPECTATOR: Did I understand correctly that if they
adopted plant E as their ultimate goal but it's going to take
awhile to get there that there's this kind of rare emergency
grant that might be available to keep plant site B going until'
they got there because the City is already in a critical state?
Did I understand that correct? Is that a possibility, and
that wouldn't affect the grant for E?
MR. McFALL: Right, I don't have any personal
experience on working with the project that's used that type
of grant, but I understand it's been awarded before with
other projects in Washington and Oregon.
Are you familiar with any of those, Roger?
MR. MOCHNICK: No, I'm not.
MR. McFALL: But I've heard interim temporary-type
facilities recognized not to be pieces of the total project
just to get them over the hill, I understand that has been
done, but —
MR. MOCHNICK: We've funded interim solutions. I
suppose maybe the one you might be talking about is the Bend,
Oregon project. This is the one where we have funded an
interim Affluent disposal alternative and are now in the
process r- or have been in the process of looking for the
- 76 -
HESTON and HQ#ELL
REPORTING SERVICE
ii.«i.!« M i;i>ni ;i'. I in
rin (I Aldio It (,'fiHi O, ,' H M 1
-------
ultimate solution.
MR. McFALL: Even though that interim solution did not
fit into the total -- you don't know?
MR. MOCHtllCK: We don't know whether it will, but maybe
Roger said earlier we have the interim process there. We
have a treatment plant, but we did a study on /ff fluent
disposal, but it was not emergency funds, it was just some-
, thing that was funded and will continue to be funded, I think,
if it becomes part of the ultimate solution itself/ then all
becomes grant eligible. We are guessing.
| SPECTATOR: Do you know if there was any conditions in
there that if it had to be abandoned whether there'd have to
• be a pay-back or anything, a reduction?
! MR. MOCHMICK: There was no condition —
' MR. McFALL: We can't answer that.
SPECTATOR: It seems to me, though, that's an alterna-
tive that would be well worth looking at, the interim-solution
type thing to use for plant B.
! MB. tlcFALL: I would expect, though, that we would be
willing to go along with that if the cost were not a
significant bunch, and don't try to pin me down on that,
either, but it doesn't seem very prudent to spend a lot of
money on an interim solution when you know in fact it's not
going to be part of the total picture, but in the sake of the
; situation, you know, you can see where for a less significant
- 77 -
HESTON and HOWELu
REPORTING SERVICE
Com dt'*n» M 1708] 66' tWI
amount of bucks it could work.
MR. BAIN: Is that something you could check on or do
you know somebody we could talk to?
MR. McFALL: You could certainly check with Roy
Hllerman. i
MR. MOCHNICK: Okay, do we have any other questions. j
I
MR. McADAMS: I want you to know that I could go on for '
i
another hour or two, but I think everybody is getting tired. <
]
MR. MOCHNICK: Well, thank you very much for coming.
I appreciate your comments and your questions. We will be
responding to these in our final EIS.
I have one written record on a card from a Mrs.
Ferrier that will be put into the record.
Thank you very much for coming. We are adjourned at
9:55 p.m.!
(WHEREUPON THE HEARING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.)
- 78 -
HESTQH ind HO*rLL
REPORTING StRVICE
-------
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
COUNTY OF KOOTENAI )
I, CHARLOTTE R. CROUCH, the undersigned Certified
Shorthand Reporter, hereby certify that I took in stenograph
and thereafter transcribed into the foregoing record the
proceedings in the within entitled cause, and that the said
transcript is a full, true and correct copy of the
proceedings had in the above-entitled cause held at Coeur
d'Alene, on the 18th day of February, 1981.
DATED This iJtL day of jA.4^-.A_ , 19 JT/ .
CHARLOTTE R. CROUCH
Certified Shorthand Reporter
- 79 -
HESTON and HOWELL
REPORTING SERVICE
OM'finl Shurlliaml Pr|jnitr'',
lp«r,loci. M (?U«| Ml))]
Cnnir i! Alrw. M |?OH|60;e?«
-------
Response to Comments Received at the Public
Hearing on the Coeur d'Alene Draft EIS,
February 18, 1981
1. EPA has participated in the funding of 201 (wastewater
facilities planning) and 208 (nonpoint source pollution
control) studies on both the Idaho and Washington sides
of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Both
of the 208 studies concluded that sewering of urbanized
areas and restrictions on proliferation of on-site
waste disposal systems over the aquifer were desirable.
EPA and other federal agencies have encouraged imple-
mentation of strategies to achieve these goals.
While EPA has helped to fund the aquifer protection
planning, it is not responsible for implementation of
protection strategies. In Idaho, the Panhandle Health
District has been given that responsibility and has
established policies that are effectively restricting
the proliferation of on-site waste disposal over the
aquifer. In Washington, a special 208 management pro-
gram has been established in the County Public Works
Department. While the 208 plan has been completed and
a series of aquifer protection policies have been
developed, an implementing agency has not vet been
established. EPA has requested that the Spokane '. oa-ity
Board of County Commissioners act as lead in this effort
until one or more agencies officially accept the re-
sponsibility. In the meantime, EPA has urged local
planning agencies to use the 208 plan findings to
develop more restrictive controls on residential,
commercial and industrial development in unsewered
portions of the Spokane Valley.
2. Refer to Mr. Bain's statements beginning on page 29
of the public hearing transcript for a clarification
of the untreated sewage overflow situation in the Fort
Grounds area. EPA placed a Compliance Order on the
City of Coeur d'Alene in March 1979 so that the un-
treated discharge would be rectified. The Coeur d'Alene
facility planning process was conducted to identify
ways of correcting this hydraulic overload situation.
The City is planning to begin wastewater facilities
improvements in the near future; construction is
expected to begin in the spring of 1982.
3. The Spokane River waste load allocation study is being
conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology,
partially in response to a court ruling regarding the
Liberty Lake wastewater facilities plan. The first
phase of this study, conducted by URS Company, has
78
-------
been completed. The first phase was primarily a data
compilation effort designed to identify sources of
pollutants in the Spokane River and maximum acceptable
loadings of pollutants to Long Lake.
The Phase 1 report also included a method for allocating
phosphorus loads to the various source categories identi-
fied in the data collection effort. An example phos-
phorus allocation was made for the Spokane area waste-
water treatment facilities after making various assump-
tions regarding inputs from the Idaho wastewater sources.
This waste load study is being conducted by the Washington
Department of Ecology to aid them in establishing efflu-
ent limitations for Spokane area wastewater treatment
plants; these NPDES limits are reviewed and approved
by EPA. The State of Washington cannot dictate NPDES
permit conditions in the State of Idaho. EPA has closely
followed and participated in technical review of the
waste load allocation effort in Washington. The infor-
mation generated there is being used along with water
quality data collected in the Idaho section of the
Spokane River to establish NPDES permit requirements
in Idaho.
Effluent limits must respond to localized water quality
conditions as well as basinwide water quality goals;
therefore, effluent limits may vary from one stretch
of river to the next. Dischargers in the State of Idaho,
however, are not being required to meet stricter waste
discharge limits than treatment plants discharging to
the Spokane River further downstream.
The interim improvements described in the Coeur d'Alene
facilities plan are the initial phase of the preferred
alternative, Bl. This alternative has been proposed
as the 20-year solution to Coeur d'Alene's wastewater
treatment needs. EPA is now funding the interim im-
provements because they are a part of the selected
20-year solution. As funds become available, EPA will
accept grant applications for the additional phases
of the selected alternative. If Coeur d'Alene proceeds
with the interim improvements and at a later date de-
cides to pursue a wastewater solution that is not a
part of the approved facilities plan, grant applications
for this new course of action would likely be denied.
79
-------
This Final EIS discusses the implications of a revised
Alternative B (Bl). It has been determined that neither
a Supplemental EIS nor an additional public hearing
are necessary to address the plan changes that have
been made.
80
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown and Caldwell. 1981. City of Coeur d'Alene wastewater
facility plan. Prepared for City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Drost, B., and H. Seitz. 1978. Spokane Valley-Rathdrum
Prairie aquifer, Washington and Idaho. U. S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 77-829. U. S. Geological Survey,
Tacoma, WA. 79 pp. + appendices.
Esvelt, Larry A. 1978. Spokane aquifer cause and effect
report. Summary report of '208' water quality results and
cause and effect relationships for water quality in the
Spokane-Rathdrum aquifer. Spokane County Office of County
Engineer.
Geckler, J. R., et al. 1976. Validity of laboratory tests
for predicting copper toxicity in streams. EPA 600/3-76-116,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. 208 pp.
81
-------
-------
LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Elizabeth Corbyn - Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch;
Seattle, Washington
Roger Mochnick - EIS Preparation Coordinator, Environmental
Evaluation Branch; Seattle, Washington
Norma Young - Project Monitor, Environmental Evaluation
Branch; Seattle, Washington
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Sacramento, California
Charles R. Hazel - Vice President; program management
Michael D. Rushton - Environmental Specialist IV; project
manager
Mark D. Cudney - Environmental Specialist I; wa :er quaj J.ty
83
-------
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand
DO - dissolved oxygen
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FNSI - Finding of No Significant Impact
IDHW - Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
MCL - maximum contaminant level
mgd - million gallons per day
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
85
-------
-------
Appendix A
DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
87
-------
-------
COEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
U. S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
State and Local Officials
Office of the Governor
Donald E. Johnston, Mayor
G. Eugene McAdams, City Administrator
Tom Wells, Director, Public Works
John Carpita, Kootenai County Engineer
Kootenai County Commissioners
Art Manley, State Senator
Gary J. Ingram, State Representative
L. C. Spurgeon, State Representative
Local Distribution
Evalyn Adams
Jerry Adams
Wally Adams
John Aguilar
Eugene M. Ballou
Jim Bellamy
Elton Bentley
Ronald Briggs
Roger Brockhoff
Brown & Caldwell, Seattle, Washington
Jim Burns
Ray Capaul
Marjorie Chadderdon
Coeur d'Alene Press
Coeur d'Alene Public Library
Larry Comer
Lloyd L. Conrad
State Agencies
Idaho Air Quality Bureau
Idaho Division of Environment
Idaho Fish & Game Department
Idano Transportation Department
Panhandle Area Council
Panhandle Health District
State Clearinghouse
Organizations
Idaho Wildlife Society
Kootenai Environmental Alliance
League of Women Voters of Idano
Lee Dean
Bill DeCroff
John DeSelle
Everett Dicksion
Val Dicksion
Ford Dunton
Loren R. Edinger
Frank El kins
Dave Finkle
Art Flagan
Jim Fromm
Jim Fullmer
Bill Goodnight
Russell Greenfield
Joe Haines
Ellen Healy
Kent He liner
89
-------
COEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
Local Distribution (Continued)
Frank Henderson
Martha Higgins
Edwin H. Jones
Lester A. Jones
Kenneth S. Kirking
Ray Koep
KVNI
Lois Land-Albrecht
LePard & Frame, Inc.
Tom Listen
Jim Markley
Bill McFarland
Charles McLain
Brian Meckel
Meckel Engineering & Surveying
Ted Menzel
Rosalie Moore
Ed Morse
Ted Mueller
Ward B. Newcomb
Dan Paulson
Charles Pearson
John A. Pierce
Post Falls Public Library
David Priano
Tom Price
Hester Pulling
Ma^y Lou Reed
Joe Roope
Lester E. Routh
Herb Sanderson
Clifford Schoener
Lorna Sears
Bryan Shertz
Jack Simpson
Elizabeth Sowder
Spokesman-Review
Jack Spurgeon
Jim Stravens
Whitey Swendener
Fay Sweney
David Tyler
URS Company, Spokane, WA
Roy Wargi
Joseph G. Wark, dr
Bill Wassrnuth
Roy WeiIman
Dave Yadon
90
-------
Appendix B
CULTURAL RESOURCES CORRESPONDENCE
91
-------
-------
IDAHO STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
r,10 NORTH JULIA DAVIS DRIVE BOISK. IDAHO 01706
STATE MUSEUM
October 13, 1981
Ms. Norma Young
Environmental Protection Atjcney, Kcyion X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Ms. Young:
We recommend that further evaluation of the Coeur d'Alene
wastewater facility site be conducted. We realize the current pro-
posal is to expand the present wastewater facility plant. We also note
that the current facility is in the "heart" of the sensitive area for
archaeological materials, as defined by the previous (1980) archaeo-
logical research in the area. Therefore, we recommend that an additional
inspection of the proposed construction site be made to determine whether
intact archaeological deposits occur. To do this, it may be necessary
to place small (1X1 meter) test pits in the soil in order to determine
the subsurface nature of the area. If there is evidence that this land
has been substantially altered or if it can be demonstrated that no
archaeological deposits occur at this locality without digging test
pits, then they obviously won't be necessary.
If you have any questions concerning these recommendations,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomao J. Gre.cn
State Archaeologist
State Historic Preservation Office
OCT 15 1981
93
tNVIRONMENTAirvALUAllON
BRANCH
-------
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
"G 12°° SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
443
7 DEC 1S81
Mr. Thomas J. Green
State Historic Preservation Officer
Idaho State Historical Society
610 N. Julia Davis Drive
Boise, Idaho 83706
Dear Mr. Green:
As requested in your letter of October 13, 1981, the further evaluation
of the proposed construction site of the upgrade of the Coeur d'Alene
wastewater treatment plant has been completed by Dr. Roderick Sprague,
Director of the University of Idaho Laboratory of Anthropology.
Enclosed are copies of his clearance letter and a City of Coeur d'Alene
cover letter. Dr. Sprague has confirmed that there are no undisturbed
cultural remains at the site. Will you please send me your final
clearance on the proposed site as soon as possible? We need to include
the clearance in our Final Environmental Impact Statement. We hope to
get the FEIS to the printer by the end of the year.
Sincerely,
Norma A. Young
EIS Project Officer
Attachments
cc: Dick Bain - Brown & Cal dwell
Mike Rushton - Jones & Stokes
94
-------
Qity of Qoewr d'fllene
CITY HALL
8TH & MULLAN
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
Department of Public Works
December 4, 1981
Mrs. Norma Young
EPA
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA. 98101
Subject: Archaeological Survey - Coeur d'Alene Facilities Plan
Dear Norma,
Attached is a letter from the University of Idaho confirming that there are
no significant cultural remains within the fenced area north of the existing
treatment facility.
The fenced area referred to by Mr. Sprague includes ail the property prese^ cly
owned by the City of Coeur d'Alene and, according to the Brown & Caldwell
proposal, is adequate for the full six million gallon per day expansion.
I assume that this letter will suffice as the archaeological review for all
phases of the treatment plant expansion presently proposed under the 291
Facility Plan.
Sincerely,
Tom Wells
Director of Public Works
TW:ho: Attachment
cc: Dick Bain - Brown & Caldwell
Roger Tinkey - Dept. of Health & Welfare, CDA
Warren McFall - US EPA
Gene McAdams - City Administrator
DEC 7 1981
95
ENVIRON - - .VALUATION
tttnnv'ri
-------
grc University of Idaho
Laboratory of Anthropology
Moscow, Idaho 83843
1 December 1981
Dick Stauffer
City of Coeur d'Alene
City Hall
8th and Mullan
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Dear Mr. Stauffer:
A supplemental archaeological survey was conducted on the
additional area to be included in the modified treatment facility
for the city of Coeur d'Alene. Our findings are that the fenced
area north of the existing facility is a fill area and contains
no significant cultural remains.
I again apologize for the delay in response.
Sincerely yours.
Roderick Sprague
Director
RS:cll
96
The University o! Idaho is an equal opportunity ,
-------
IDAHO STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
610 NORTH JULIA DAVIS DRIVE BOISE. 83706
STATE MUSEUM
December 14, 1981
Ms. Norma Young
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Ms. Young,
Thank you for sending a copy of Dr. Roderick
Sprague' s report on the archaeological significance
of the construction site for the improvements to the
Coeur d'Alene wastewater treatment plant. Based on
Dr. Sprague' s report the improvements to the treat-
ment facility will have no effect on significant
archaeological or historic properties.
Sincerely ,
Thomas J. Green
State Archaeologist
State Historic Preservation Office
TJG/kiiih
DEC 15 1881
97
------- |