Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998.12.07 J Ditch Winter Storage lagoonsCITY OF MC CALL SUMMARY Special Public Meeting City Of McCall Monday — December 7, 1998 Table Of Contents Discussion 2 J Ditch Phase II Winter Storage lagoons l� SUMMARY IJ Ditch Phase II — Winter Storage Lagoons I ATTENDEES Larry Peterson — DEQ Jack Gantz — DEQ Steve West — DEQ Tonya Dumbrowski — DEQ Joe King - DEQ Dave Hollingshead — IDWR Steve Dunn — BOR Ron Golus — BOR Joe Squire — Kleinfelder Rick Ballard — RH2 Gene Peterson — RH2 Andy Locke opened the meeting at 7:15 PM. He stated that each agency would be giving a brief rundown on the project. Mr. Locke turned the meeting over to Gene Peterson. Mr. Olson informed the public that several documents were available to the public at City Hall. He briefly described the four documents - J Ditch Phase II Site Appraisal Matrix - City of McCall J Ditch project Timeline - Newspaper Articles Listing - Confidential Timeline Of Events Associated With NPDES Permit Mr. Peterson RH2 - reported that he would be coordinating the documentation that will be submitted for funding on this project. Reports will be compiled and submitted to DE Q and BOR within about one month for review. The major issue that is being addressed pertains to any wetlands involved. Rick Ballard, RH2 - spoke on site and lagoon location. Steve West, DEQ - described the role of DEQ and responsibilities. He reviewed how the City got into the current position and DEQ involvement. He stated that DEQ had been working for some time with City to deal with long term winter storage in conjunction with the J Ditch . He expressed DEQ's desire to be in a supportive role in assisting the City with eliminating discharge into the river. Ron Golus, BOR — noted that the project was a City of McCall project. Congress through the BOR has provided financial assistance to the City. The grant agreement is cooperative. BOR has some oversight as to what is being accomplished since it is a cooperative agreement. Funds were given to the City to assist with removing 100 percent of the discharge into the river. Steve Dunn, BOR — stated he has responsibility related to the Environmental Quality Act. He will be working with DEQ to put together the necessary documents. Dave Hollingshead, IDWR — will be responsible for review of the design of the facility. IDWR regulates impoundment structures. He commented that the project proposed has to be designed to State standards. Joe Squire, Kleinfelder — reported on the status of the Geotech. The first draft document is about ready to be sent to RH2. He stated the primary review was done with IDWR. Also review with DEQ was complete. Stability needed to be insured of the proposed 3 to 1 slopes on the sides of lagoon in the design. Used modeling to investigate failure and stability. Under leaky and dynamic condition still found sides to be stable. Final form and documents will be completed Dec 15th There was discussion on the impact to area wells, the DEQ requirement to make sure the bottom of the pond liner is above natural ground water, the key component to the system to make it pump free — gravity feed, plans to have no pumping so will have a fixed bottom depth, the various ground water levels in the area, etc. Bill McCurdy, attorney — highlighted the process under Idaho law where government is allowed to condemn property, but for a fair price. Documents have been filed. Bezates has hired an attorney. He stated the matter was in the appraisal process now and within the next week or so a followup offer would be presented to Bezates. If declined, the matter will go to public hearing. The judge will then determine if the City has a need for condemnation and what a fair offer would be. The public was then invited to ask any questions of the agency members. It was asked why the original site, after this long, was abandoned. DEQ stated that research was done on that site but pieces of needed information were missing. He spoke on the Ten State Standards pertaining to the side slopes of the lagoon. If there was a deviation from the 3 to 1 slope a lot more information was required as was the case on the Seubert site. In addition, excavation of the site was an issue. Until the pre geotech work was done information was not available. Once more information was available dam safety issues became apparent. Bottom line consideration was cost for a facility that would best resolve the problem. The City made the decision to seek an alternative site not at the direction of the DEQ, but the agency definitely support the decision. Cost associated with the Seubert and the Bezates site was discussed. DEQ was not comfortable with the design on the Seubert site as presented. With opportunities to go elsewhere the decision was made to do so. Mr. West commented there were no real cost figures that there would be savings to stay with the old site. Mr. Ballard commented that there was a cost estimate for the proposed project on the old site, but with the change in side slope the cost would increase. Thus, the cost projection was not valid. Mr. Olson commented on costs associated with the Seubert site and that addressing the slope issue would increase the cost by $1 Million. The gravel material would not be stable and this would also produce cost overruns. Mr. Squire spoke on stability of slopes. He stated soils on Bezates site were similar to those on Seubert and some tests had been run. Safety under static conditions was not a factor with 30 ft slope structure with no reinforcement. On the Seubert site there was a lot of work needed to determine the site would be stable during earthquake or liquifaction state. It was asked if there was 100 percent guarantee the Bezates site would work. Mr. West stated the City has chosen the Bezates site and DEQ would support the City 100 percent. All the agencies are involved in the planning stage of the project and it was felt that the current plan would work better for the City. Mr. West commented that it was the best professional decision of those involved that the Bezates site is doable. Mr. Golus stated the deadline is Sept 30, 1999 for project and if under construction this coming summer, he would take a deadline extension request to his supervisor. Mr. West stated if the project was under construction and moving forward, his prior experience is that a funding extension was permitted. Mr. Locke commented on the rezoning application issue pertaining to the move of the asphalt plant and storage of materials excavated. This involved wetlands and thus a more difficult permitting process. There was a suggestion by Seubert of storing gravel in various locations so this would not disturb the wetlands. Scott Gallina, attorney working with Dwayne Nelson, stated there were numerous documents to review. He stated this meeting was scheduled without consideration given to Mr. Nelson. He commented that the entire purpose of scheduling this meeting in November was to have an independent review done and provide input from the review of documents and voice concerns and findings of data to this panel. However, he stated records were not available for Mr. Nelson's review before this meeting. He asked for a commitment from City to afford Mr. Nelson the opportunity to present concerns. It was requested the hearing be continued at a later date to hear the concerns of the citizens. Mr. Peterson commented that the timing on this project was very tight and the City could not afford delaying this project. Mr. Peterson offered to assist Nelson on collecting documents, but was declined. Scott noted that agencies had been responsive in getting documents to Mr. Nelson, but some were not available until Dec 2nd It was noted that this meeting was not a hearing but a public meeting. Question — was there any data on leakage into ground water that would affect wells. Mr. West reported there is a great deal of data and projects must meet requirements. Mr. Squire stated within the Bezates site 12 to 13 monitor wells were installed on request of DEQ. There will also be a drainage ditch / trench around the pond. Should any water go through liner, it will go into the trench. A monitoring system will be in place. Mr. Squire explained the flow of trench water. In worse case the water would move so fast and runs off system that there would be some natural protection. Nitrates are the major concern. Trench flow will run away from Blue Jay subdivision. Mr. Gantz explained permit provisions for cases when there is a wet year and the ponds can not hold all the effluent water. It allowed the effluent to be discharged into the river for that period. Mr. Ballard mentioned developing more farm land as a contingency for the wet years that would take care of the situation. Mr. Olson stated after this first year of discharge, there was a more favorable attitude from the farmers and some more interest from them to get on the system. Mr. Gantz stated no environmental impact statement was required. There will be an operating plan and monitoring of system required. The FONSI determination is to be made based on no significant impact. There is an on going sampling program on the wells in the J Ditch area. Mr. Martins inquired if panel members were involved in the FONSI study. Mr. Gantz stated that FONSI documents do not deal with safety and cost. Question - did panel look at any other sites that would be of less impact on homeowners. Mr. Gantz reported he had personally toured two sites and was involved in meetings where other sites were considered. A citizen commented he hoped that the issue was being looked at as what was best for the citizens and what was needed down the road 15 — 20 years to prevent from being in the same position then. He hoped there would be room for expansion. Ted Whiteman stated the J Ditch was a pioneer project and other cities dump effluent into rivers. He asked if other cities will have to face getting 100 percent effluent out of the river. Mr. West stated the J Ditch is not unique and farm land application does happen in other parts of the country. This is a way of dealing with McCall's portion of the contribution into the Cascade Reservoir. Mr. West reported that a lot of effort from other groups is being made to address the Cascade issue. Mr. West stressed the importance of moving on and getting the facility built and putting this issue behind the City. Mr. Eimers explained the City was making a best case effort to do what the agencies wanted and to go forward with the project. Should for some reason something happen and the City is unable to go forward, then it would be necessary to go back and reconsider the project. Mr. West stated it falls on DEQ to make the decision if delay is appropriate. Question - if the City does not have the money does the project have to be done. Mr. Eimers explained given the City does not have all the money, could implement doing part of the project. Mr. Olson addressed the cost issue. Language in Consent Order was put in at City's request because of financial burden already on citizens. This burden must be considered if run into problem on project. Question - who was "watching the store" when the water treatment system was undertaken and who is now on the wastewater. Mr. West noted there were regulatory requirements for drinking surface water. Mr. Gantz stated there is a significant difference between lake water and effluent water. He stated the approach being taken on the ponds is proactive and preventative measures. Mr. West stated risk management is consideration on the ponds. The best professional judgment states that if certain requirements in place, monitoring, and consistently checking the system - this will minimize the risk. Mr. Squire drew a diagram of the water flow showing should there be leakage it would flow away from Blue Jay subdivision. He explained the trench design preliminary concept. Trying to create 2 ft gap between bottom of pond and ground water. Will have liner that is extremely durable. He commented if there is water leakage it will hit ground water level and travel with it to designed area. Mr. Squire reported modeling has been done and shows if leak anywhere along pond sides the trench will intercept and carry water to designated area. There was public concern regarding the elevation of the ponds being above grade and in relationship to Blue Jay Subdivision. McCall is in Zone 3 earthquake standards so what happens within 150 ft should there be an earthquake. Mr. Squire commented on safety factors and worse case seismic activity. He noted that the highest side on the West had the highest probability of failure due to wetland encroaching into that area. The soils in that area under worse case have a slight potential to liquefy because of clays in that area. Mr. Squire reported still researching what happens if whole side goes. This information should be available in a week. Indications show it should dump into Williams Creek. Public comment was that all of the structure will be above ground, will be offensive to look at, and there was concern about it being so close should there be a failure. It was stated there would be less concern if there was more of a buffer. Mr. Squire stated with the 3 to 1 slope there should not be need to bring in material and that excavated from one area of pond can be utilized. Question — was any other option for this project proposed. Mr. West stated there had been consideration of rapid infiltration. Mr. Peterson commented and explained the rapid infiltration process where effluent would be put in beds, allowing it to filter through sand and back into ground water. Mr. West stated that the process was to have an engineer look at alternatives and evaluate options. All considerations went into the best course of action for the City. Basically, the ponds were in conjunction with the Phase I J Ditch. Mr. West stated once an effective process and a course of action is taken it is more productive to continue than to second guess what should have been. He stressed moving forward. Mr. Olson commented on the facility plan which was started five or six years ago, the permit, budget, and winter storage of effluent water. Congress now expects the City to do ponds with the 6.1 Million funds and complete the project within a timeframe. He stated that during VE the purpose was to review the project and ask if it was being done the right way. The focus on the project has been on the best solution. Mr. Olson stated the City during negotiations did not come to conclusion to abandon Seubert site, but to look at other sites should it be abandoned. He stated Seubert would have withdrawn his offer to sell if not put into escrow at a certain time, so the City put conditions on the agreement Question — were other possible ways to dispose of the effluent investigated. Mr. West reported that the experts and contractors in this business stated that this was the way to go. Mr. Golus stated when Congress provides money for 1998, they want that money spent. He commented the agency wants this project underway or the City could loose the money. Joe King stated in 1996 when the facility plan was approved by the City and accepted by DEQ, the City agreed to borrow 3.1 million. Idaho had approximately 3.7 Million available for the project. When the City went to bid for J Ditch, they were below the 3.7 Million. The City decided to go with a loan. The J Ditch project was a middle of the road cost solution and was