HomeMy Public PortalAboutBox 502 - Bureau of Rec Financial AssistanceDecision Document
for Bureau of Reclamation Financial Assistance
for the City of McCall Idaho's Waste vatcr Treatment Facility
1. Purpose of this Decision Document
The purpose of this decision document is to provide updated information in support and
confirmation of a 1996 Finding of No Significant Impact (PN-FONSI 96-05) issued by the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for Reclamation to provide financial assistance to the City of McCall. Idaho (City) for
construction of the City's wvastewalcr treatment facility. This document provides only a brief
review of the chronology of the NEPA compliance process for this project. More detailed
descriptions and analyses are found in other referenced documents.
2. Background
Congress has authorized Reclamation to assist the City in constructing a l%as1c\vnter treatment
facility to completely eliminate t17e City's wastewater di..char4g s into the North Fork Payette
River as required under the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (N1'DES)
Permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Congress appropriated S6,100.000
to Reclamation for this purpose.
The City developed a plan in 1996 known as the J-Ditch project which allows mixing of the
City's treated effluent with irrigation eater and applying it to farmland south of the City
(Parse 1) and construction of a �toraEte facility for effluent generated outside of -the irri�c,ation
season (Phase I1). The winter storage facility proposed was a 358 million gallon pond tentatively
located on a 50-acre site in an active gravel pit immediately south of the City's existing
wastewater treatment plant. i'his site is known as the Scubert site.
Phase I of the J-Ditch Project was completed and functioning during the irrigation season in
1998. Phase II is the subject of this document.
2.1 Reelamation's 1996 FONSI
Reclamation issued PN-FONS1 96-05 on I)ccernher 13, 1996 based upon an environmental
assessment (EA) prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in June 1996.
1
The storage facility at the Scubert site was only discussed in general terms. in [he FA. however
the EA identified the following issues and adverse environmental effects from construction at
this site:
Wetlands - A loss of 1.4 acres of wetlands. The City proposed to create 4 acres of
wetlands as itlitigation.
Threatened and Fndangered Specieti - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
concurred with the finding in a hiological assessment prepared by DEQ which determined the
project "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagle as long as specified
management actions are implemented. One of the management actions specified was preparation
of a bald eagle management plan for the McCall Airport bald eagle nesting territory. This plan
was completed in March 1999. The other mana!genrent actions were to inventory the North Fork
Payette River for active bald eagle nests prior to construction and monitor eagles if occupied: and
monitor the storage reservoir for wildlife mortalities. The biological assessment also determined
the gray wolf would not he affected.
2.2 1999 Supplemental EAIEID and FONSI for the Berates Site
The City conducted gcotechnical. financial. engineering and permitting evaluations of the
Seubcrt site in 1997 and 1998. These evaluations indicated that facility construction at this site
would be more cosll\ than previously thought and in e,ecss of the Federal funds available for
conti[ruction. There were also doubts about the ability to obtain required permits within the time
allotted for compliance with the C itv'sNPI)FS permit and a Consent Order issued by DEQ.
Other concerns involved terms of the purchase agreement for the land and indirect effects of
rcloca[ing the gra\ el and asphalt operation cuncntly on the Seubert site to make way for
in,.tallation of the win[er treated effluent storage facility. As a result cif these Factors, the City
determined the Seuhcrt site was not f.eashIc.
A new site for the winter storage facility VL iti needed. and the City's Facilit\ Plan had to be
updated. \ Iter re\ iev ing 1d pre\ iou,ly identified sites and one nevy Site for feasibilit\. the City
determined that a new ,1tc referred to as the "Ionics site" was the only site feasible ,ivcn the
schedule and fundin{, limitations.
Because of the changgc in sites for [he storage facility from that evaluated in the 1996 EA and
FONS1, a Supplemental Environmental A,sc,smcnt•t En\ ironincntal lnformation Document
(SEAIEIU) was prepared by Reclamation and DEQ \which addressed the impacts of constructing
Phase II of the project on the Berates site.
During public scoping for the SE:\:EID Reclamation and the City learned there was strong
opposition to the proposed storage facility from adjacent residents (West Side Coalition) and a
developer (M Resorts) who was constructing a golf resort which borders the Beza[es site. :A
lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in February 1999 by the West Side Coalition acainst the City,
Reclamation and 1)1-.Q seeking a temporary restraining. order in order to stop the project until a
final en\ ironntental impact statement was approved "Pie motion for temporary restraining order
was denied April 7. 1990.
The Draft SE:\ EID was made a\ailablc for a 45-dav public comment period beginning February
4. 1999. During the public comment period Reclamation received numerous comment letters in
opposition to the project and critical of the NEPA document. Most of the public opposition
concerned socioeconomic and esthetic impacts from building the facility close to residences and
the resort.
Reclamation issued a FONSI based on the SFAIEID on May 25. 1999. Although the SE'AIEID
disclosed that there would be adverse socioeconomic -and esthetic impacts to adjacent property
ov ners, it concluded that overall in a broader regional context. the elimination of the
discharge to the river and Lake Cascade would provide socioeconomic benefits.
2.3 NI Resorts Lawsuit and C'ih's Citizen C'ermmittee Decision
in Nlay 1999, M Resorts filed a suit in District Court appealing the Conditional Use Permit
issued by the City for construction of the winter storage facility on the 13ezates site. The Court
ordered a stay ofeonstniction until the appeal could be reviewed. Since the judicial review could
not he scheduled until !ate July. the 1999 construction season was lost. This led to the City
fonnino a citizen steering committee in July 1999 w ith the task of solving, the City-s dilemma on
whether to continue to pursue the unpopular ]iezates site or re-evaluate the original Seuhen site.
This committee ultimately \ nted to re-evaluate the Sctibert site and continue with the preIiminary
design work there that was halted in 1998.
4. Current Proposal
i be preliminary design prepared by the Lit■ is to construct a 268 million gallon storage laiilit�
on the Seuhcrt site. This is approximately 90 million gallons smaller than the projects evaluated
in the 1996 and 1999 NEPA documents. In order to satisfy the conditions of DEQ's modified
Consent Order with the City. the storage f-acilit\ would be constructed and operational by
November 2. 2' 00. The pond and embankments would co\ er approximately 25 acres. mostly
within the existing gravel pit. Ftnhankment heights above existing ground surface would range
from 0 to 16 feet on the south end near residences to more than SC) feet on the east end. The pond
would he lined with an impermeable polyethylene liner, and an undcrdrain system would he
constructed beneath the liner to maintain a 2-foot separation between the liner and groundwater.
In addition to the storaloe pond, excess material excavated for the pond would he stockpiled for
future use by the sand and gravel operator_ The stockpile would he located to the vest ofthe
pond, would he » feet tall, and would cover about 5 acres
The cap,ieity of the storage facility proposed is based upon the cn�ginecr,s` estimate of what can
he constructed on the Seubert site with funding available to the City. It is possible that the
capacity could be as much as ?85 million gallons, which is the Iimit of the site. It is also possible
that a facility smaller than 268 million gallons may he built if construction bids execed the
engineers- estimate. Hie C.'lty estllnates that 268 million gallons would prevent discharges into
the river for at least live Years. Beyond five years the City \you'd have to implement other
measures to reduce affluent gencratcd. expand the site on the Seubert property. or use other
approved means such as additional land application to prevent discharges into the river.
In order to mitigate for the loss of upland l cgctation and provide a visual harrier het -weer, the
pond and adjacent residences to the south. the embankments and other disturbed areas would be
reveuetatcd using native grasses and trees. If feasible, trees would he transplanted from the
upland construction areas to the southern boundary and irrigated for a minimum of one growing
season until they become established. The east end of the facility would also be revcaetated with
native grasses and wildflowers.
4.1 Scoping and Public Involvement
During the facility planning process prior to 1996, there were several public meetings concerning
the J-Ditch Project as a whole and siting of the storage pond. At that time DEQ and the City
received no indication that there was public opposition to locating the pond on the Seubert site.
most likely due to the fact that it was already considerably disturbed with the ongoing sand and
gravel operation.
Public invo1 cnlent rcearding the C'it\'s decision in 1998-1999 to move the facility to the
Berates site is documented in the 1999 Final SEATID. "There has been tliorounh coverage of the
siting issues for the storage facility in both local papers. The Long I "alley Advocate and Star-
1'cux. "This coyera,,c undoubtedly increased Idea] public awiareness of and interest in the siting
of the facility.
the City'; public involvement for the latest proposal to construct the facility at the Seubert site
has included meetings with o\vncrs of property located near the proposed facility, numerous
notices and articles in the two local papers, and a public nteetin�g held January 12, 200() to
present the proposal, answer questions. and record issues and concenls. This meeting was
attended by approximately 30 people. Issues and concerns expressed by the public have centered
around the esthetie'visuaI screening concerns from adjacent residents and related devaluation of
their property; and the reduced size of the facility and how long it could store all of the Yvinter
effluent given the City's projected growth.
In Fehruary 2000, the City-s consultant. J-1_U-B Engineers. Inc prepared Supplemental w2
Environmental Impact Document (SEII) No. 2) which analyzes the environmental effects of
constructing the currently proposed storage facility on the Seubert site. The SEM No 2 along
NVith I)I;Q's draft FONSI was available for public review from March 15 to April 3, 2000 with
notices of availability published in both local newspapers and The Idaho Statesman.
4