2008, 10-07 Study Session MinutesMayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Present:
Councilmembers:
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Staff:
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner
Mary Kate Martin, Building Official
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bill Miller, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Munson asked for council indulgence to move agenda item #9 to agenda item #2; then to carry on
with the remaining agenda items in order, and said because he is not feeling well, that he would likely
leave after discussion of the transportation agenda item. There was no objection.
1. International Trade Alliance (ITA) Sister City Proposal — Mark Peters
Mr. Peters explained that he was invited to provide information regarding a future opportunity for our
City to participate in the establishment of a Sister Cities Relationship; that the ITA is working in
partnership with the Sister Cities Association of Spokane in developing a program that will serve as the
prototype on the municipal approach to climate change; and mentioned that other local community
organizations will be partners in this venture as well; that Spokane's Sister City program has established
relationships with cities in Japan, China, Ireland, and Korea; that this program would connect like- minded
leaders from the Inland Northwest and Asia, and said that the ITA would organize and facilitate the peer -
to -peer exchanges and business development missions for community stakeholders; that participants
would share best practices in municipal planning and development; promote training programs for green
collar jobs; and expand business relationships relating to clean technology. Mr. Peters mentioned that the
Asia - Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate brings together seven major Asia - Pacific
countries that collectively account for more than half of the world's economy, population and energy use;
that the Partnership builds on the foundation of existing bilateral and multilateral initiatives, an is
consistent with and contributes to Partners' efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, and complements but does not replace the Kyoto Protocol; that the program is funded by
the U.S. Congress; and funds are used for community leaders to visit other areas and bring in delegations;
and he then introduced Jenifer Priest of his office.
Ms. Priest, current Chair of the Board of Directors for the City of Spokane Sister Cities Organization,
explained that Spokane has been at the forefront of the Sister Cities Program which began over fifty years
ago; she mentioned Spokane's relationship with Japan and of the societies and umbrella group for those
societies, and said she serves as liaison between the Mayor's office and the Sister Cities Societies. Ms.
Priest explained that in 2005, Spokane hosted the International Conference, which is usually done via a
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -07 -08 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08
grass roots level organization with support of the Mayor's office; that overseas these programs are driven
by City Halls or the Mayor's Office whereas in the United States, it is done at more of a grass roots level.
She explained that this is a great opportunity for the region to look at how to use those relationships for
economic good and development of companies; that they do some simple, modest fundraising such as
dinners, with the estimated $2,500 proceeds being used as matching grants to individual societies to fund
their travel or for scholarship programs. Mr. Peters added that this could also be an opportunity to
promote trade, and said that ITA might be able to support the establishment of that activity, but added he
sees this as having a small impact on the City. Ms. Priest said that the time spent by staff is very little as
the majority of the work is designated through the Sister City Association, which works on behalf of the
mayor. Mr. Peters mentioned the possibility of financial support by ITA; as they would be part of the
outreach as long as the focus is on business development.
Councilmember Wilhite suggested having an interested citizen group to form a Sister City Relationship as
she would look to the community to see if there is any interest in a particular country; and that perhaps
Council could assist with support by such things as invitations; that she has been active in the Japanese
Sister Cities and the functions are well attended; and that she would want to examine such proposal from
a business aspect as well. Mayor Munson stated he would like to get more information on the federal
programs, and Mr. Peters indicated he was hopeful to have further information in December.
9. Regional Transportation Projects Legislative Agenda — Mayor Munson
Mayor Munson brought Council attention to the additional handout entitled "Regional Transportation
Meeting Summary," a summary of the September 24, 2008 meeting of a self - selected group of business,
civic, and elected officials, which was attended by Councilmember Wilhite. Councilmember Wilhite
explained that the meeting, held at the Spokane Regional Chamber of Commerce and attended by
members of Greater Spokane, Inc. and community leaders and elected officials, got together to discuss,
and reached agreement on, a list of priority road, transit and study projects that this region can advocate
for in the 2009 Legislative Session; and said that the group also reached consensus on options to pursue
for funding of street maintenance and operation, as well as matching funds for capital; as the rationale is
if the region can come up with a project program, funding chances would be greater as the individual
entities would not be competing against each other. Councilmember Wilhite said that Judy Cowles gave
a presentation on the corridor study and of what they're trying to do regarding transportation from Canada
through Idaho and into Washington, and how to connect that with the North /South Corridor; and said
funding was also discussed. Councilmember Wilhite further stated that Senator Marr was also in
attendance and he mentioned at that meeting that communities need to provide some funding in order to
get the legislature to more completely fund the programs; and there was agreement from the cities to form
a Regional Transportation District, but not to implement it until there is a better idea of the individual
cities' needs. Ms. Wilhite also reported that she attended a meeting with Representative Timm Ormsby,
and the question came up about the shortfall of the State and how decisions would be made regarding the
capital budget. She reported that Representative Ormsby said he would like to see more capital project
dollars spent on infrastructure projects like sewer, water and roads, and said that with the current
economy, these are the projects that provide jobs; and he said that the funding from the gas tax has been
lowered also increasing the difficulty in getting funding for projects. Mayor Munson invited Jim
Huttenmaier of the Greater Spokane, Inc. to share his views of the meeting.
Mr. Huttenmaier explained that he attended the meeting as well, and said there is difficulty with funding
at all levels; that the 2009 Legislative session will show a tremendous shortfall of funds which some have
estimated as high as $3.2 billion; that there will be little if any additional dollars for any projects; that this
region has been asked by Senators and Representatives to come together to decide as a region, if possible,
what projects, particularly transportation capital projects, we can agree on and ask for those to be
advocated for on our behalf; that all the communities were asked to submit projects with the criteria that
it would be regional in significance and could be construction ready by the time the funding became
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -07 -08 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08
available July 1, 2009; and that such projects should also direct climate change issues, such as limiting the
vehicle trips, emissions, etc. He stated that fifteen projects were submitted and members of all
communities scored the projects and the result is the priority list before Council; and added that the
leaders reached consensus that this is a good list of projects and they feel comfortable in taking it to the
legislators; and that the Spokane Valley Chamber, the West Plains Chamber, and the Greater Spokane,
Inc endorsed this list.
Discussion then ensued concerning a lack of time to allow elected officials to give sufficient and
significant input on these projects; mention that the list includes those projects already approved by the
various elected officials through the TIP (six -year Transportation Improvement Plan) process; mention
from Mayor Munson that he attended a meeting last Wednesday called by County Commissioner Mager
to discuss what occurred at what is now referred to as the "little tent" meeting (September 24, 2008), and
the consensus in that room was there is not enough time to review this list, and that Cheney submitted
nothing as they don't have the staff to address this; and Mayor Munson said he did not want to indicate
support of this project without bringing this before Council; and that the hopeful outcome would be
voicing a decision on supporting the formulation of a County Transportation Benefit District (TBD) in the
future. Mayor Munson added that the feeling is the voters would vote down such a TBD, and in the
interim it would be good to explain to the public why this is needed; that entities agreed the City's
maintenance and operational needs (M &O) must be met before regional funding; and the details will be in
the interlocal agreement developed and approved by each entity; and said there were was discussion of
forming a TBD but not to implement it yet; which would likely raise expectations that such would fail
when brought to the voters.
Other areas of discussion included mention of how a street utility tax would fit into a regional TBD;
problems associated with a TBD such as no inflationary calculations; the need for staff and council
interaction; mention of specific projects such as Barker Road and if that project would best fit the criteria
or would others; changing the criteria so other projects might fit better; and if there was more time
projects could be designed with the criteria in mind, thus assuring higher scoring of the project; and a
reminder that being "shovel ready" was a top criteria for projects. Mayor Munson asked for a consensus
to agree to the list of priorities, but no consensus was given at that point, as discussion continued
concerning specific projects. Mayor Munson asked if Council would like to more time to re- evaluate the
list and there was a general consensus more time is needed. Other discussion points included mention
that federal funding should be used for such projects as the North/South Corridor; an interest was shown
in forming a county -wide TBD but it was mentioned that a lot depends on how the City of Spokane feels
about doing so; and the idea of having thirty- second sound bites for the public to be informed on this
process. Mayor Munson said he would bring back that we would support the projects as stated; there is
support for some day forming a county -wide TBD if interlocal agreements state local needs are first
regarding funding, and to specify projects.
Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:00 p.m., and he excused himself from the meeting.
Councilmember Schimmels excused himself from the meeting as well due to family health matters.
Deputy Mayor Denenny reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m., noting that both Mayor Munson and
Councilmember Schimmels have excused themselves from the remainder of the meeting.
2. Community Re Licensing — Cary Driskell /Jim Bledsoe
Deputy City Attorney Driskell gave a brief summary of the program and of the 2008 grant funds which
staff was authorized to apply for in partnership with the City of Spokane and Spokane County to
implement the Community Relicensing Program, and he then introduced Spokane Prosecuting Attorney
Mr. Jim Bledsoe who went through his PowerPoint presentation giving an update of the Community
Relicensing Program. Mr. Bledsoe explained the purpose of the project and how it operates, who would
qualify to participate and who would not, and a synopsis of the project's success to date. Mr. Driskell
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -07 -08 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08
advised that now is the time to apply for 2009 funding; and Council concurred that this project may be
placed on the next Council's consent agenda for council approval consideration.
3. Uniform Development Code Batch Code Proposed Amendments — Christina Janssen /Greg
McCormick
Assistant Planner Janssen gave an overview of the proposed amendments as listed on her October 7, 2008
Request for Council Action form, explaining that the ten separate proposed changes are as a result of
items which were incorrect, impractical, or which had been inadvertently omitted. Discussion which
generated as a result of these proposals included asking for a definition of "duplex" and where duplexes
are allowed, and the difference between a "duplex" and a "townhouse;" comparing the proposals to what
is currently in the code; mention that problems dealing with lighting infringing on neighbor's properties
would be complaint driven; that buffering refuse storage need not be expensive and could be done by
fencing; that the Planning Commission has reviewed each of these proposals and they recommend
approval, and that as the proposals must first be submitted to CTED (Community Trade and Economic
Development); these amendments are not scheduled to come before Council until mid November.
4. Shannon Avenue Parking — Inga Note /Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained that staff received a request from the East Valley School
District to restrict parking in the Shannon Avenue cul -de -sac east of Pines Road as their larger school
buses have difficulty maneuvering in the cul -de -sac when parked vehicles are present; and added it could
be seen as a fire safety issue as well; that there should be adequate parking within the nearby apartment
complex, and as this request would exceed 100 feet, it must be authorized by Council. Mr. Kersten said
the no parking zone would be for 330 feet. Deputy Mayor Denenny asked about notifying residents and
Mr. Kersten said notification is not required. It was determined that this item should be placed on the
next regular council agenda for motion consideration (not consent agenda).
5. Appeal Procedures — Cary Driskell
Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that when Council adopted the UDC in 2007, the rules for
appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions to the Council was erroneously identified as Appendix B
rather than Appendix C, and such appendix was not attached; that omission was recently discovered when
an appeal was filed, and staff now seeks to remedy that omission. There was Council consensus to bring
this forward on the October 14 agenda for a first reading.
6. Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Ken Thompson
Finance Director Thompson explained that next week Council will see the draft fee resolution showing
proposed changes; that members of staff are present tonight to explain any of the noted changes; and as
noted, many of the changes are new, with the exception of adding an overall 10% increase as Mr.
Thompson mentioned such has never been done. Mr. Thompson also suggested Council might want to
consider either raising the special event fee of $5.00, (which fee originated from a discussion concerning
National Night Out block parties); or not charging a fee as processing a $5.00 fee would cost more then
the fee itself. Discussion ensued regarding what would trigger the need for a special event permit; and
how that differs from a gathering of 200 or more people; that $50.00 would be more in line with actual
costs, but would be cost prohibitive to many wanting to have such special event; the idea of separating the
National Night Out event from other special events; or changing the fee to $15.00; that there are very few
special events per year and of the suggestion of suspending the fee for this year and re- examining it next
year to see how many events we would process. There was also discussion on the overall fee increase of
10% and it was mentioned that our fees are generally lower then Spokane City, but higher then Spokane
County. It was determined these issues will be addressed when the track - change version comes back
before council, and that council would like to see the fee changes that have occurred over the last several
years in order to see how things have changed prior to implementing an overall 10% increase.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -07 -08 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08
7. Swimming Pool Update — Mike Stone
Via his PowerPoint presentation, Parks and Recreation Director Stone gave an update on the pool projects
and mentioned a potential site acquisition project adjacent to the Park Road property, which is under
consideration for the legislative agenda; and said such would double the size of the facility and would be
able to be developed as a neighborhood park, adding that property owners are very interested in such a
proposal. Mr. Stone added that the school district has been storing their seasonal equipment at the pool
house during the fall, which all sets the ground for a cooperative agreement to help funding.
8. General Budget Discussion — Mike Jackson
Deputy City Manager Jackson mentioned that this is the last general discussion prior to the final public
hearing, followed by the ordinance readings to adopt the budget; that regarding the setting of the property
tax rate for property taxes, the amount of $1.53 was previously discussed but Mr. Thompson indicated
that is now likely closer to $1.49, which is essentially the same as the current rate; that the current trend
says we can anticipate another 2% decrease in sales tax over what was previously predicted, amounting to
a potential $300,000 deficit; and such will be monitored by Mr. Thompson, and that there is some cushion
in the budget under contingencies and reserves, and that $300,000 may not make a large difference as
typically there is greater return in unspent appropriated funds to the budget. Councilmember Taylor said
he would like to see the amounts budgeted for particular studies or consultant work over the next year, as
well as what is budgeted for travel, conferences, association dues, etc., and would like that information
brought back for council review so Council can look at possible areas to trim if such would become
necessary.
10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson The advance agenda was not discussed.
11. Information Only: The Argonne /Knox Intersection, Senior Center Demolition Bid Award, and
Interim Emergency Code Ordinance Amendment were for information only and were not discussed or
reported.
12. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson
The Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan discussion from last week was mentioned and of upcoming
further discussion on the exterior improvements meeting the 20% threshold and whether 20% was too
restrictive.
13. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson
Deputy City Manager Jackson mentioned the Park Road pool property and said that acquisition is one of
the legislative items adopted by council, that this was sent to our Lobbyist and we will be requesting
$300,000; that Mayor Munson is scheduled to make a presentation October 9 to Greater Spokane Inc. to
include mention of the development fund of $200,000 for Greenacres; $300,000 for this acquisition; and
that we are informing our Lobbyist of the need for $700,000 total to complete Greenacres Park.
14. Executive Session: Land Acquisition There was no executive session.
There being no further business, Deputy Mayor Denenny adjourned the
ATTES
•
liristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
eeting at 8:58 p.m.
nson, Mayor
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 10 -07 -08 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: 10 -14 -08
Regional Transportation Meeting Summary F itx G --
On September 24, 2008, a self - selected group of business, civic, and state, county and local elected (2' -
representatives reached agreement on a list of priority road, transit, and study projects that this region can advocate
for in the 2009 Legislative Session. The group also reached consensus on options to pursue for funding of street
maintenance and operation, as well as matching funds for capital projects.
Priority Road, Transit and Study Projects:
Glenn Miles of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council reviewed the Regional Project Prioritization Criteria —
how it was developed, call for projects, review, scoring, and ranking of the projects by SRTC's Transportation
Technical Committee and community representatives. The primary criteria being: regionally significant and shovel
ready. The top category priority projects include:
Capital Road Projects:
#1 - North Spokane Corridor
#2 — CheneylSpokane Road Interchange over US 195
#3 — Barker Road Overpass (Bridging the Valley)
Non - Motorized/Transit:
#1 — Fish Lake Trail
#2 — Vanpool Expansion for STA
Studies:
#1 — Northwest Connector Study — an arterial road connection between north
Spokane County and the West Plains area.
#2 — University District Pedestrian /Bike Bridge & Division Street Gateway /Streetscape
#3 — Urban Trail: Millwood to Spokane Valley
Funding of Maintenance & Operation 1 Matching Funds for Capital Projects:
Data presented showed a county -wide funding gap of $44 million in annual street maintenance and operation —
which includes general maintenance, street repair & resurfacing, adding turn lanes, traffic signals, lighting, street
cleaning, snow & ice removal, and other items.
The group consensus was to move forward with establishment of a county-wide Transportation Benefit District with
the dual purpose of funding m & o, as well as raising matching funds for capital projects.
The consensus on Street Utility Fee was to gather additional information so that a decision on the path forward for
the 2009 legislative session could be made. Information will include: a draft of the proposed legislation, highlighting
fee calculations and "fixes" for constitutional matters; a review of stakeholder support/opposition, to include but no
be limited to: Assoc. of Washington Cities, Assoc. of Washington Counties, Assoc. of Washington Business,
Bankers Association, Restaurant Assoc. and others.
Next steps:
The action items agreed upon for the group's November meeting:
• Provide details of the street maintenance & operation funding gap
• Provide the refined budget details of the capital project priorities for the 2009 legislative session
• Provide draft proposals of the purpose, scope, and boundary of a Spokane Regional Transportation Benefit
District and next formation steps
• Agree upon the 2009 legislative session forward pathway for the Street Utility, including a current
stakeholder assessment
• Use a presentation on best practices to reach a unified transportation vision, plan, govemance and funding
plan, establish a forward pathway
• Agree upon the communication messages resulting from the meeting
Statement made by Christine Psyk, Associate Director, EPA Region 10,
Office of Water and Watersheds
Spokane River Water Quality —Stakeholder Meeting
September 26, 2008
Greetings, Thank you for coming
We have a prepared statement for you today, and we will offer copies to anyone who
would like'one. _
Today we are meeting to talk about the current status of work by the states of Washington
and Idaho, and EPA, on actions to improve water quality in the Spokane River. Before I
do that however, I want to acknowledge the dedicated people at Ecology who have done
such a great job of developing the Spokane River TMDL. Even though we are here to
talk about a course change, the solid work they accomplished in producing the TMDL is.
• to be commended. I also want to apologize to all those dedicated stakeholders who were
poised to take action to clean up the phosphorus entering the river. I regret that EPA's
decision to change course will result in Ecology and others having to once again revise
the TMDL. I also regret that the course change will mean delay of implementing actions
to reduce phosphorus.
Now to the task at hand. Many of you know that EPA has been heavily involved in the
effort to improve water quality in the Spokane River, and, as you all know, we recently
announced a significant change in course on the Idaho permits which then also affects the
Washington TMDL. I will talk about why we decided to change course. But the purpose
of this meeting is not only to talk about why EPA changed course but, more importantly,
set the stage for moving forward. In fact, that is the primary goal of this meeting. To
accomplish that goal, I believe it is necessary to tell you how and why EPA took the path
it did originally and why we need to change course now.
First, it is safe to say that the Lake Spokanedissolved oxygen problem is serious and
complex. I think it is also appropriate to state that we have a collective goal which is•to .
come up with a set of actions that protects the recreational fishery in Lake Spokane from
harm due to diminished oxygen levels. From a regulatory standpoint, the problem facing
Lake Spokane is one of the most complex issues many of us have ever worked on.
Before I outline what we tried to do to address the problem and remedy the dissolved
oxygen sags in Lake Spokane, I want to first note that we know what causes the problem:
the growing conununities in the Spokane River watershed are discharging too much •
phosphorus and other oxygen demanding pollution into the river, and it is depleting the
oxygen level in Lake Spokane and results in nuisance algae growth. This, coupled with
the fact that the river becomes a lake, results in a system that has very little capacity to
absorb oxygen depleting pollutants. This problem is going to get worse over time unless
wastewater treatment plants dramatically improve treatment of wastewater and discharge
a cleaner effluent into the river that has a lot less phosphorus in it than it does today.
Likewise, the public and other entities in the area that collectively contribute the nonpoint
1
load of oxygen depleting pollutants need to use conservation practices that result in less
phosphorus and higher oxygen levels in Lake Spokane.
The goals for water quality in Lake Spokane are set by the Washington state water
quality standards, which were approved by EPA. The standard for dissolved oxygen in
Lake Spokane and other lakes and reservoirs in Washington is very stringent. It requires
oxygen levels almost indistinguishable from the natural condition. Nobody would argue
against a goal that brings us almost to zero pollution. But to achieve an almost zero
impact in a populated watershed like the Spokane is exceedingly difficult. You've all
heard the question: "How clean is clean enough ?" T am sure many people here today
have that question on their minds
Before I go any further, I want to note that not all the news about the effort to clean up
the Spokane River is bad news, despite what you may have in the newspaper. First,
while there are.many legal and policy debates concerning these efforts, the extensive.
scientific work.has been generally accepted by all involved, agencies and stakeholders
alike. The model developed by Portland State University and used in decision - making
has undergone extensive, external peer review by water quality experts.. There is no
debate about the science behind the agency decisions on this project.
Another piece of good news is what we have learned about new phosphorus control
technologies. We now know that the latest technologies can drastically reduce.
phosphorus to levels below what was previously believed to be technologically and
economically feasible. The local communities have stepped up, studied the new
treatment technologies, and are running pilot studies at their plants. The permits we were
proposing in Idaho would have been among the toughest in the nation for phosphorus, six
times lower than levels allowed in Chesapeake Bay. The Idaho communities had agreed
to accept the challenge of those limits, and they should be conunended for that. While
agreement from dischargers on effluent limits is not a pre - condition for moving forward
with permits, it is. good when it happens because it reduces the risk of lawsuits which
result in delays.
So what happened? Why the change? The newspaper headlines said that "EPA made a
mistake." What was the mistake that they are referring to? I want to outline the reason
for our original position on this project and the reason for the change to that position.
Four years ago, this process began with an effort by the.state of Washington to develop a
TMDL for Lake Spokane. We recognized immediately, on first reading the 2004 draft
TMDL, that the standard for Lake Spokane was extremely stringent. Many questioned
whether was possible to meet.
The cities along the river reacted to the stringency of the TMDL by requesting that
Ecology consider a change to the standard. Ecology was opposed to a standards change
prior to a comprehensive attempt to meet the standard. Nevertheless, Ecology held
extensive discussions with the stakeholder community about all aspects of the TMDL,
including efforts to devise a pollution trading mechanism, the delta management concept,
2
load of oxygen depleting pollutants need to use conservation practices that result in less
phosphorus and higher oxygen levels in Lake Spokane.
The goals for water quality in Lake Spokane are set by the Washington state water
quality standards, which were approved by EPA. The standard for dissolved oxygen in
Lake Spokane and other lakes and reservoirs in Washington is very stringent. IC requires
oxygen levels almost indistinguishable from. the natural condition. Nobody would argue
- against a goal that brings us almost to zero pollution. But to achieve an almost zero .
• impact in a populated watershed like the Spokane is exceedingly difficult. Yqu've alt
• heard the question: "Flow clean is clean enough ?" 1 am sure many people here today
have that question on their minds
Before I go any further,1 want to note that not all the news about the effort to clean up
the Spokane River is bad news, despite what you may haveread in the.newspaper. First,
while there are,many legal and policy. debates concerning these efforts, the.extensive,
scientific work.has been generally accepted by'all involved, agencies and stakeholders
alike. The model developed by Portland State University and used in decision- making
has undergone extensive, external peer review by water quality experts.. There is no
debate about the science behind the agency decisions on this project.
Another piece of good news is what we have learned about new phosphorus control
technologies. We now know that the latest technologies can drastically reduce.
phosphorus to levels below what was previously believed to be technologicallyand
economically feasible. The local communities have stepped up, studied the new
treatment technologies, and are running pilot studies at their plants. The permits we were
proposing in Idaho would have been among the toughest in the nation for phosphorus, six
times lower than levels allowed in Chesapeake Bay. The Idaho communities had agreed
to accept the challenge of those limits, and they should be commended for that. While
agreement from dischargers on effluent limits is not a pre - condition for moving forward
with permits, it is -good when it.happens because it reduces the.risk of lawsuits which .
result in delays.
So what happened? Why the change? The newspaper headlines said that 'TPA made a
mistake." What was the mistake that they are referring to? I want to outline the reason
for our original position on this project and the reason for the change to that position.
Four years ago, this process began with an effort by tbe,state of Washington to develop a
1 - ti DL for Lake Spokane. We recognized immediately, on first reading the 2004 draft
TMDL, that the standard for Lake Spokane was extremely stringent. Many questioned
wlietherit was possible to meet. _
The cities along. the river reacted to the stringency of the TMDL by requesting that
Ecology consider a change to the standard. Ecology was opposed to a standards change
prior to a comprehensive attempt to sleet the standard. Nevertheless, Ecology held
extensive discussions with the stakeholder community about all aspects of the TMDL,
including efforts to devise a pollution trading mechanism, the delta management concept,
2
to provide some flexibility for Washington sources over an implementation period of 20
years. At the time, the path forward for that draft TMDL was highly uncertain.
Meanwhile, our job at EPA was to re -issue three permits on, the Idaho side of the border.
Regulations require that NPDES permits for point sources that can affect water quality in
a downstream state have effluent limits that comply with the downstream state's water
quality standards. So, for the Idaho permits, this means that EPA has to write the permits
to ensure that the effluent limits in the permits comply with both Idaho water quality
standards and Washington water.quality standards
In attempting to comply with those regulations, we had a critical decision to make about
the Idaho permits. Do we delay their issuance an unknown length of time until the
Washington TivDL is complete, or do we find a way to set limits independent of the
.TMDL? We chose to detach the Idaho permits from the TMDL and develop a set of
permit limits that we believed would be protective of water quality in both Idaho and
Washington. Lake Spokane was chosen as the point of compliance for both the Idaho
permits and the Washington TMDL because it is the location in the watershed that is
most sensitive to nutrients. So, while on different paths, both the Idaho permits and the
Washington TMDL would be protecting the same most sensitive resource, Lake Spokane.
Why did we do this? Several reasons: First, we had a job to do, and it was and is to issue
permits to the cities in Idaho: Second, our permits program was very unsure about the
schedule of the TMDL, given the legitimate questions about whether it was possible to
achieve the standard. Third, we came up with a set of limits that required installation of
state -of- the -art technology. Fourth, they would be the lowest phosphorus limits in the
country. Fifth, they would result in Idaho having no measureable effect on Lake Spokane
dissolved oxygen; specifically, modeling showed the effect was approximately 0.15
mg/L. And sixth, remarkably, the three cities agreed to these limits.
EPA set effluent limits for the Idaho permits that are so low that the effect on dissolved
oxygen in Lake Spokane would be too small to measure. Concurrently, this enabled
Washington in their draft TMDL to allow pollution sources in the State of Washington to
decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations by the amount allowed under Washington's
water quality standard, which is mg/L.
When EPA issued the Idaho permits for public comment, we received numerous
comments that-took issue with the approach we used to interpret Washington's water
.quality standard and the way we then set the effluents limits for the three point sources in
Idaho. It was pointed out that we failed to fully take into account'the cumulative
contribution of both the Washington sources and the Idaho sources, as required by the
revised Washington.water quality standard. Taken together, the allocations for point
sources and nonpoint sources in both states exceeded the .20 mg/L allowed by the
standard.
While the impact was predicted by the model to be too small to measure, the limits we
proposed for the Idaho permits did have a mathematical impact on the DO of the lake
3
based on the modeling. Again, that impact was around 0.15 mg/1 (0.2 mg /1 is considered
immeasurable). We viewed that impact a; being so small that Washington could consider
it as virtually identical to natural background, which then allowed Ecology to develop its
TMDL to reduce pollution in Washington and to give the 0.2 mg/1 to the sources in
Washington.
While we thought this was acceptable on policy grounds, our approach Left the door open
to criticism that Idaho's im.measureable.impact of 0:15 mg/1, combined with an
inuneasureable impact from Washington sources of 0.20 mg/l, would result in a
combined impact that would be measureable. Simple addition would estimate the impact
at 0.35 mg/1, but I would note here that we have never run the model with all the limits
for point andnonpoint sources to estimate that precise, combined .impact. So we don't
know the precise.impact of the proposed Idaho permits and Washington TMDL, but
clearly the number would be higher than 0.2 'mg /I, and 0.2 mg/l is the allowable impact in
Washington's standard.
We felt that our low phosphorus limits would satisfy the intent of the standard. For us, it
met the test of "clean enough ". For others, it did not meet that test and they mounted
strong opposition on legal grounds during the public comment period.
Many people. may think that comments they make to the government are not heard. This
is not true. Public continents can really make a difference in what happens and does not
happen in our environment. After a thorough review of public comment and extensive
internal deliberation, we concluded that, from a legal perspective, we had erred in our
interpretation of the Washington water quality standards by not considering the Idaho and
Washington sources cumulatively in determining the effluent limits for the Idaho
dischargers. Therefore, under the current standards, both the TMDL and the Idaho
NPDES permits need to be revised so that, taken together, all sources in Washington and
Idaho are accounted for and appropriate limits set that do not exceed the .20 mg/1
decrease in dissolved oxygen allowed under the Washington dissolved oxygen standard.
At EPA, responding to public comments is an important job. In this case, the legal
concerns about the cross- border pollution have led us ,to change course:
What is the path forward? Frankly, we do not know what the final option will look like,
but we still have three boxes to check off in our decision - making: the legal basis, the
science, and the policy. Clearly, we need to change course on the legal basis for the
Idaho permits and Washington TMDL. This part is straightforward: we must re- connect
the Idaho and Washington sources in a single analysis that results in a combined impact
less than 0.2 mg/1 in Lake Spokane.
The science is also straightforward: We have a good, peer- reviewed model of the system.
Instead of splitting the analysis into.Idaho and Washington impacts, «.e need to start
running the model all the way from Lake Coeur d'Alene to Lake Spokane, and include all
sources in those simulations.. The main issue on the science side is the workload of
running the model, and we will need to be efficient in going about this work.
4
So, the legal and science aspects are fairly straightforward. The policy aspect, on the
other hand, remains a complicated one. It is the same challenge we have all been dealing
with for several years now. I would characterize that challenge as requiring us to grapple
with tough questions on 6 topics:
1) Limits of technology: The standard pushes us beyond the capabilities of
municipal treatment systems built to date.
2) Water quality trading: How can it be used to bridge the gap between what's
technologically achievable and what the standard requires?
3) Regulatory flexibility: The difficulties in making water quality standards
revisions.
4) The role of FERC licensing in TMDL development.
5) Principles and considerations for allocating loads between Idaho and Washington.
6) Agency resources for modeling.
I listed the questions about the limits of technology first for a reason. At this point, the
available data indicate that if all the cities along the river installed state -of -the -art
treatment, the river would still exceed the 0.2 mg/1 of oxygen depletion in Lake Spokane.
This situation looms large over this project, and we need to find a path forward that
addresses this challenge and enables us to move forward with the TMDL and the permits
so that cleanup can commence and phosphorus inputs reduced.
We are open to any ideas that move us forward and bring improvements on the ground as
soon as possible.
Thank you for your attention, and thank you for your efforts to bring cleaner water to
Lake Spokane.
5