ID variance technical justification

In 1997, EPA promulgated a federal rule which established water quality standards applicable to specific waters in the State of Idaho (40 CFR Part 131.33, Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 147, July 31, 1997) As part of this rule making EPA promulgated a cold water biota beneficial use designation for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. This rule also set forth requirements and a procedure for EPA to grant variances to the water quality standards for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River (40 CFR Part 131.33(d), Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 147, July 31, 1997 page 41188). At present, this federal rulemaking is still effective. Therefore, EPA has the authority to grant variances to water quality standards in the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River.

EPA is following the variance procedures as outlined in 40 CFR at 131.33(d)(4). These procedures, in part, state that EPA’s Regional Administrator will publish notice for a proposed variance once EPA has preliminarily determined that grounds exist for granting a variance. Notice of a final decision to grant a variance will be published and EPA will incorporate the variance and all conditions needed to implement the variance into the permittee’s NPDES permit.

The variances are based on a demonstration that wastewater treatment controls more stringent than those required by technology based requirements would result in substantial and widespread adverse economic and social impacts to these Silver Valley communities. Based on data submitted by the permittees and additional data gathered by EPA, EPA determined that the requirements for obtaining a variance, as required by the federal rule, (40 CFR Part 131.33(d), Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 147, July 31, 1997 page 41188) had been met. Therefore, EPA proposed to grant variances to the permittees by noticing the variance in the draft NPDES permits and providing the basis in a public information document which the Agency prepared and made available to the public.

Draft permits and notice of the proposed variances for the WWTPs were issued for public review and comment from August 28, 2002 to January 13, 2003. The proposed variances and conditions were incorporated into the NPDES permits for these facilities and would authorize the WWTPs to discharge cadmium, lead (except Mullan), and zinc at higher concentrations than those established by Idaho’s water quality criteria for the South Fork for a maximum of five years. A reasonable potential analysis by the permit writer was performed for the discharge of cadmium, lead and zinc from the City of Mullan’s WWTP. This analysis supported the determination that effluent limits, and therefore a variance, for lead are not needed for this facility (Memo from Kelly Huynh to the file, Oct 16, 2003).

A water quality standard variance applies only to the permittee requesting the variance and only to the pollutant(s) specified in the variance for a specific time; the underlying water quality standard otherwise remains in effect. Maintaining the underlying standard rather than changing it assures that reasonable further progress is made towards improving water quality and eventually attaining the water quality standard. Since water quality standards are implemented within National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, reasonable progress toward meeting the standards is required within the permit.

The procedure for granting variances in the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River is identified at 40 CFR131.33(d). The rule provides that a variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates to EPA that attaining the standard is not feasible for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the standard.

2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of the standard.

3. Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the standard and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place.

4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the standard, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result in attainment of the standard.

5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of the standard.

6. Controls more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts.

The rule additionally specifies that a water quality standard variance will not be granted if:

• standards will be attained by implementing the technology-based effluent limitations and implementing reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control or

• the variance would likely jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species critical habitat.

The Page and Mullan wastewater treatment plants are operated by the South Fork Coeur d’Alene Sewer District. The City of Smelterville operates a separate wastewater treatment plant. These three facilities treat domestic sewage from the communities of Kellogg and Mullan. A substantial portion of the infrastructure in the communities of Kellogg and Mullan is built upon historically-deposited tailings materials, which originated from the mining activity of Idaho’s Silver Valley. This includes the collection systems for the sewage treatment plants.

As presented in the following tables, influent data for these facilities indicates that there is a high concentration of metals flowing into these facilities. This is most likely a result of two circumstances. The first being the nature of the surrounding material the collection system piping was constructed in. In many areas the piping was built amongst and in packed historical mine tailings deposits. Metals in these tailings materials leaches out with groundwater and subsurface flow of water through this tailings material. The second is the condition of the collection system piping. This system is old and believed to be cracked in places . As a result of these two conditions, the water which naturally seeps through the surrounding tailings deposits picks up dissolved metals. Subsequently, this metals contaminated water enters the cracked collection system piping and is carried as influent to the treatment plant along with the domestic untreated sewage entering the system also as influent. This suggests that the influent and inflow problems may be a significant contribution of the metals loading into the treatment plants. Thus, EPA determined that the most cost-effective method of attaining the water quality standards for metals would most likely involve additional controls in the form of both improvements to the collection system to reduce seepage into the pipes, and additional treatment technology.

Although these facilities were never specifically designed to treat and remove metals in the influent, some, although very limited, removal of metals does occur as a by product of the sewage treatment process. For example, metals will bind to the sewage solids which are then removed by settling and separation of solids prior to the discharge of the liquid effluent.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 present the existing metals influent and effluent data for the facilities along with the percent of metals removed from the effluent as a result of the current treatment. As the data show, there is a significant amount of variability in both influent and effluent concentration for all three metals.

Influent, Effluent and Percent Removal for the Page Wastewater Treatment Plant

Influent, Effluent and Percent Removal for the Mullan Wastewater Treatment Plant

As highlighted in Table 4 below, Mullan, Smelterville and Page have unusually high levels of metals in their effluent when compared to a typical sewage treatment plant in the region (ie., the City of Coeur d’Alene).

Comparison of Average Metals Concentrations from Three Silver Valley Treatment Plants and the City of Coeur d’Alene (Values in ug/L)

- Values based on 10 samples from March 1999 through August 199 for Page and Mullan, 9 samples from February through June 1999 for Smelterville and 10 samples from December 1997 through June 1998 for Coeur d’Alene

- Sources: South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District, Cities of Smelterville and Coeur d’Alene; Technical Support Document, Coeur d’Alene River Basin TMDL (August 2000)

Table 5 presents a comparison of the metals limits based on the Idaho’s site-specific criteria, which EPA approved in February 2003, and current discharges. Without additional controls for metals removal, the effluent from the facilities would not meet the water quality-based NPDES permit limits. Page, Mullan, and Smelterville would be required to reduce the metals concentrations by approximately 83% to 98%. In order to accomplish these reductions expensive metals removal treatment along with corrections to the piping system would need to be installed at each facility.

Comparison of Average Monthly Current Discharges with Water Quality-based Effluent Limits (values in ug/L)

- The actual discharge concentrations were calculated using 10 samples from March 1999 through August 1999 for Page and Mullan and 43 samples from October 1993 through June 1999 for Smelterville.

The permittees requested a variance based on a demonstration that the costs associated with a proposal for additional controls to meet Idaho’s water quality criteria for specific metals would result in substantial and widespread adverse economic and social impacts. EPA has evaluated these costs and related socioeconomic information based on EPA’s Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook, (“EPA’s Interim Economic Guidance”) (EPA, March 1995).

Given the information provided in the permittee’s submissions along with additional estimates of alternative treatment costs provided by EPA, EPA’s Regional Economist concurred with each permittee’s conclusion, namely that there would be significant adverse economic impacts if the permittees have to install the necessary wastewater treatment technology and address all infiltration and inflow into the system in order to comply with water quality criteria for specific metals. (See memo from Elliot Rosenberg, EPA, Regional Economist, to Lisa Macchio, EPA Water Quality Standards Coordinator, March 20, 2002.)

In addition, the qualitative issues enumerated in the permittee’s submissions further supports the conclusion that there would be widespread adverse social and economic impacts if the Page, Mullen and Smelterville Wastewater Treatment Plants have to implement the proposed metals treatment and reduce infiltration and inflow into the system in order to comply with the water quality criteria.

Substantial Adverse Economic Impacts (from EPA’s Interim Economic Guidance Workbook, Chapter 2.0)

In order to evaluate whether or not a community or communities will incur substantial adverse impacts as a result of implementing the pollution controls, the following five steps are followed:

· Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual Cost of the Pollution Control Project

Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual Cost of the Pollution Control Project

Proposed project costs associated with the necessary additional controls that were submitted by the permittees were reviewed by EPA and found to be reasonable.

There are no municipal wastewater treatment plants in Idaho with facilities designed specifically to remove metals from domestic sewage. Based on mining-related studies, EPA believes that there are several treatment processes capable of reducing metals concentrations (to levels required by the water quality standards). In order to select a particular treatment process and system design, it is necessary to conduct laboratory treatability tests of candidate technologies. At this time, no treatability studies are available for Page, Mullan or Smelterville. Nevertheless, it is possible to estimate the costs of a system capable of achieving state water quality standards in the absence of site-specific treatability studies.

EPA reviewed and considered two independent approaches to estimating the cost of additional controls for the three municipal facilities. Under the first approach, CH2M Hill cost evaluations for the Bunker Hill facility were scaled, using the relative flow rates at Bunker Hill and the sewage treatment plants to estimate costs at the municipal plants. This approach was used by J–U-B Engineers (consultants to the Sewer District) and Idaho DEQ to estimate treatment costs as well as costs to reduce infiltration and inflow into the system.

Under the second approach, EPA cost estimation guidance (“Estimating Water Treatment Costs”, EPA-600/2-79-162b) was used to estimate costs of each component of the treatment system based on assumed design parameters. EPA developed alternative estimated costs using this document, with costs adjusted to 2001 dollars. (See memo from Ben Cope, EPA to the file, Re: Cost Estimates for Metals Treatment at Page Mullan and Smelterville). Additionally EPA utilized the cost estimates for reducing infiltration and inflow ( ie., pipe replacement and repair) of metals to the system provided by J-U-B Engineers (Environmental Report for South Fork of the Coeur D’Alene River Sewer District, April 2000).

CH2M Hill has conducted treatability studies for EPA at the Bunker Hill Central Treatment Plant to evaluate candidate technologies for metals removal (CH2M Hill 2000). While recognizing that the Bunker Hill work was conducted on mine drainage and not treated sewage, EPA and the Idaho DEQ believe that this work provides valuable screening information on the costs and performance of candidate technologies. CH2M Hill’s Bunker Hill evaluations indicate that sulfide precipitation/filtration is an effective process to reduce metals to meet state water quality standards. EPA believes that it is reasonable to assume for the purpose of this variance evaluation that treatment equivalent to sulfide precipitation/filtration in addition to infiltration and inflow reduction would be needed at the Page, Mullan and Smelterville plants to achieve the water quality criteria.

The primary annual pollution control costs for the projects are shown in Table 6.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

** Based on EPA estimate for alternative option for metals removal at Page facility.

In addition, EPA subsequently provided the costs associated with an alternative pollution control process, as shown in Table 7, one purpose being to test how these alternative costs would impact the communities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This calculation provides a means to assess the financial burden on each household as a result of the proposed project, as shown in Table 8.

To calculate the Average Total Pollution Costs per Household, EPA started with the total proposed project capital cost, and after deducting any grant monies towards these capital costs, calculated an Annualized Capital Cost. Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs were also annualized. The annualized capital and O&M costs for the proposed project were added together and that total amount multiplied by the proportion of households in the community expected to pay for this project. The resulting figure is the annual cost per household for this proposed project. Added to this figure is the annual cost per household for current pollution costs. The total of the annual cost per household for both the current pollution control costs and the proposed project costs is the Total Annual Cost of Pollution Control per Household. The Total Annual Pollution Control Costs per Household (Table 8, line 9) will be used in the next section to help determine whether a community is expected to incur little, mid-range or substantial economic impacts resulting from the proposed project.

The Municipal Preliminary Screener is one of two tests that are used to determine whether a community can pay for the project without incurring any substantial adverse impacts and includes looking at the total annual pollution costs per household and Median Household Income. The screener value is derived as follows:

Municipal Preliminary Screener (MPS) = Average Total Pollution Control Cost per Household

Total Annual Pollution Control Costs per Household as a Percentage of Median Household Income

If the average annual cost per household exceeds 2.0 percent of median household income, then the project may place an unreasonable financial burden on many of the households within the community and the community should then proceed to the Secondary Test (in the next section.) Where the screener value falls between 1.0 and 2.0 percent (i.e., the mid-range), there could be a mid-range impact and here too the community should also perform the Secondary Test.

For Page and Mullan, the screener value using the communities’ data is 2.84% and the screener value based on EPA’s estimate for costs is 2.0%. Both screener values indicate that these two communities could face an unreasonable financial burden by implementing the project. The screener value calculated by the City of Smelterville is 1.54%, a mid-range value. However, when EPA used a more current Median Household Income figure then originally provided by the communities the screener value increased to 1.74%, indicating an increased probability for an adverse impact. When EPA’s estimates are used the resulting screener value is 6.98%, far exceeding the 2.0% threshold for that may indicate the project may place an unreasonable burden on the City of Smelterville.

The Secondary Test is used to indicate the community’s ability to obtain financing for the proposed project and describes the community’s financial health. Six indicators are used:

· Overall Net Debt as a Percent of Full Market Value of Taxable Property - a measure of debt burden on the community’s residents

· Property Tax Revenue as a Percent of Full Market value of Taxable Property - a measure of the funding capacity available to support debt based on the wealth of the community

· Property Tax Collection Rate - a measure of how well local government is administered

When completed, each indicator is then assessed against a scoring table where that indicator is assigned a value: 1 if the indicator is judged to be weak, 2 if the indicator is judged to be mid-range, and 3 for a strong indicator. The values are then added and the sum divided by six (the number of indicators) to get an average score. The Secondary Test scores for the communities are shown in Table 10.

Community

Average Score

Page and Mullan

1.83

Smelterville

1.67

In order to determine if there will be substantial adverse impacts to the community from the proposed project, the results of the Municipal Preliminary Score and the Secondary Test Score are evaluated together within the Assessment of Substantial Impacts Matrix. In this matrix the Municipal Preliminary Score determines the column and the Secondary Test Score determines the row. The intersection of the two scores defines a box, and the relative location of that box within the Matrix (according to the EPA Interim Economic Guidance) indicates the relative magnitude of the impact due to the project, i.e., the impact will not likely be substantial, it will likely be substantial, or the impact is not clear. As shown in Table 11, the matrix indicates that substantial adverse impacts will occur for Page and Mullan. For Smelterville, while the initial indication in the matrix is that the impact is unclear, moving to the next closest box in the matrix based on the screening scores indicates that substantial impacts are likely to occur. The EPA calculation draws the same conclusion from the matrix.

EPA’s Regional Economist concurred with the findings of the communities. When corrections were made for mathematical errors or more current and relevant information was substituted, the findings based on the matrix more strongly supported the conclusion that substantial adverse impacts may occur if the proposed projects were implemented.

In the previous sections the discussion focused on the communities with the conclusion that they would have difficulty paying for their respective proposed projects. This part of the analysis is performed to demonstrate that there will be widespread adverse impacts on the community/communities and the surrounding areas. This is a qualitative analysis, looking at issues such as relative magnitudes of indicators such as levels of unemployment in the community compared the state level, losses to the local economy, decreases in tax revenues, indirect effects on other businesses, and how increases in water treatment fees impact the remaining private entities. The analysis, at a minimum, must define the affected geographic area, consider the baseline economic health of the community and assess how the project will affect the socioeconomic well-being of the community.

The submissions from Page Mullan and Smelterville contained estimates, as required in Worksheet E of the Interim Economic Guidance, of median household income, the community unemployment rate and overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property. These values were used in the analysis and determination of widespread impacts along with qualitative information. The submissions also contained qualitative statements related to the depressed economy in the geographic area and the added costs to doing business in the area resulting from higher sewer rates if the permit limits are to be met, thereby making it more difficult to attract new business or retain existing businesses. Without new businesses entering the area’s market place, income and unemployment were not likely to improve and therefore a further increase in net debt as a percentage of full market value of taxable property would change to a lower rating. Also, a continued weak local economy could cause property values to fall due to a decrease in the demand for housing.

Taking the above information into consideration, EPA concurred with the communities’ finding that widespread adverse socioeconomic impacts may occur at this time if the facilities had to comply with water quality standards for metals.

The variances are conditioned on several requirements. First, alternate treatment discharge limitations for metals are established to insure that facilities discharge at or below current metals concentrations and loadings, while making reasonable progress towards the eventual goal of complying with the final discharge limitations. Second, specific actions which would constitute reasonable progress towards attainment of the final discharge limits and therefore the water quality standards, are conditions for the variance and include reducing inflow and infiltration of metals into the treatment plants

Because current effluent monitoring information is limited (ten samples for each facility), EPA used statistical procedures to characterize the potential range of metals concentrations in discharges from these facilities. Specifically, EPA used a procedure from the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) (EPA 1991) to estimate maximum potential effluent discharges in terms of pollutant concentration. (See Memo from Ben Cope to Lisa Macchio, August 26, 2002)

One simple option for setting a discharge limit for metals is to set the limit at the maximum measured discharge on record. This approach is reasonable and appropriate to use when there is a significant amount of data to estimate the current discharge level. However, because effluent monitoring information is limited to approximately 10 samples for each Silver Valley facility, it is likely that setting a limit based on this small data set would not accurately reflect either the current or maximum discharge concentrations of metals that can be expected. In addition the data has a large range of variability. Therefore, because the data set is both small and variable the degree of confidence that the data is representative of the actual range of the discharge level is quite low. In order to establish limits that reasonably and accurately reflect the limitations and variability of the available data, a different approach is needed.

The permitting program of EPA Region 10 uses a procedure from the TSD to estimate maximum discharges from limited effluent data when determining whether a water quality-based limitation is warranted for a pollutant of concern. The calculation is based on available sampling information and the desired level of confidence in the estimates of maximum potential discharge. These statistical elements are combined to produce a dimensionless factor (referred to as a “reasonable potential multiplying factor”). This factor is multiplied by the maximum historic discharge to provide an estimate of the maximum potential discharge. The calculation is based on available sampling information, effluent variability and the desired level of confidence in the estimate. The resulting estimates, which EPA will use as permit limitations for the term of the variance, are shown in Table 12.

- Discharge concentrations calculated using “reasonable potential” calculation from Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA 1991). Number of samples = 10, Coefficient of Variation = 0.6.

- Sources: South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District, City of Smelterville

The proposed Superfund program cleanup plan for the Coeur d’Alene Basin indicates that attainment of the water quality criteria for cadmium, lead and zinc will be a long term effort (on the order of decades). These variances do not preclude the achievement of water quality standards by these facilities over the long term. The initial variance is for 5 years, after which, the facilities will need to reapply and qualify in order to obtain a renewal of the variance. EPA and the State of Idaho will continue to review the environmental and socio-economic conditions in the Basin when considering future variance renewals and establishing future NPDES permit conditions. Variance renewals will be contingent upon the facilities achieving reasonable progress toward water quality standards attainment over time.

The effluent limitations contained in the NPDES permits, during the term of the variances, are designed to insure that the facilities discharge at or below current metals concentrations and loadings. EPA determined that it is reasonable to allow the facilities to discharge at current levels while they make progress on addressing infrastructure upgrades to address the most significant I/I problems with their collection systems and investigate treatment. EPA based this determination on the following:

Ambient water quality data for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River indicate that the water quality criteria for cadmium, lead and zinc are not currently attained. Both point and nonpoint sources contribute to the impairment of the surface water quality.

Information gathered and developed as a part of the Superfund program cleanup strategy for the Coeur d’Alene Basin indicates that attainment of the water quality criteria for cadmium, lead and zinc will be a long term effort. Attaining the water quality criteria for these metals is one of the long term goals of the Superfund cleanup strategy.

Conditions of the Variance include Reasonable Further Progress Towards Achieving Water Quality Standards

EPA guidance for variances in the Water Quality Standards Handbook (Section 5.3) recommends that dischargers applying for a variance be required to demonstrate “reasonable further progress” toward achieving the standard. EPA has included conditions in the permits which are directly related to achieving progress towards meeting the water quality standards. These conditions are focused on implementation of inflow/infiltration (I/I) controls which include specific requirements and milestones because reduction in I/I is expected to reduce the metals loadings entering the treatment plant.

The federal rule ((40 CFR Part 131.33(d), Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 147, July 31, 1997 page 41188) which set forth the requirements and a procedure for EPA to grant these variances also states that renewal of the variance may be denied if the applicants do not comply with the conditions of the variance.

EPA believes that improvements in the collection system to reduce I/I flows are expected to reduce metals in the treatment plant effluent. Implementation of I/I controls will also provide additional benefits:

(1) Improved treatment performance and compliance with limitations for other non-metal pollutants in the wastewater, particularly during high flow events.

In order to qualify for a renewal of a variance the facilities must demonstrate reasonable and further progress has been made towards attaining the water quality standards. EPA believes that this is best accomplished by investigating and identifying I/I flows, and other sources which may be significant contributors of metals to the treatment plants and determining how best to correct these deficiencies.

The NPDES permits include specific requirements identified in the final permits designed to achieve reasonable and further progress towards meeting the water quality standards by requiring improvements in I/I controls. (See City of Page permit p.17 , City of Mullan permit p.10, and City of Smelterville permit p. 10).

The term of these variance are five years from the effective date or upon one day prior to the expiration date of the National Permits Discharge Elimination System permits (ID-002130-0 Page, ID-002129-6 Mullan, and ID-002011-7 Smelterville). At that time, if EPA’s water quality standards are still the applicable water quality standards, the variances may be renewed if the applicants reapply and demonstrate that the use is still not attainable, the metals criteria still can not be achieved, they have met the conditions in the variance and have made reasonable progress towards achieving the water quality standards.

The State of Idaho adopted revisions to their water quality standards which have applicability to the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. The provision which has relevance to the variance are Idaho’s adoption of a beneficial use designation of cold water for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. This water quality standard revision was submitted by IDEQ to EPA on August 5, 2002 for review and approval action. This revision is only effective once EPA has formally approved it. Once the cold water beneficial use designation is approved, EPA will then withdraw the federal rule for cold water as a beneficial use designation for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River by publication in the Federal Register. Subsequent to this action, Idaho will have the authority to act on future variance requests to the water quality standards in the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River.

It is expected that within the next year, Idaho’s water quality standards will be the applicable water quality standards and therefore Idaho DEQ will have the authority for granting the variances to the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. As required by the Idaho water quality standards for variances, Idaho DEQ will need to reevaluate the technical basis for the variance and evaluate opportunities for continued progress toward achievement of water quality standards for cadmium, lead and zinc. Renewal of the variance may be denied if the applicant did not comply with the conditions of the original variance.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions could beneficially or adversely affect any threatened or endangered species.

EPA requested lists of threatened and endangered species from both NMFS and USFWS in letters dated May 22, 2000. In a letter dated June 28, 2000, the USFWS identified the Gray wolf (Canis lupus) as endangered and the Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) as threatened. NMFS indicated that there are no threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species listed for the SFCDA River. An updated list was obtained from the USFWS in March 2004, which contained the same species as provided in the May 2000 list. EPA confirmed with NMFS that as indicated earlier, there are still no species listed under ESA for the SFCDA River which are under NMFS jurisdiction.

EPA evaluated the potential impacts of EPA’s action of the issuance of the variances on these species and determined that the action would have no effect on bull trout, bald eagle and Ute ladies’-tresses. This evaluation is documented in a memorandum to the file (Memo to the file Re: Endangered Species Act Compliance for EPA’s Issuance of Water Quality Standards Variances and Reissuance of NPDES Permits for the Wastewater Treatment Plants of Page, Mullan, and Smelterville , from Patti McGrath, NPDES Permit Unit, March 2, 2004). A “no- effect” determination in this case does not require EPA to consult with USFWS.

Based on EPA’s review of the data related to the costs of pollution controls necessary to achieve water quality standards for metals, and the impacts of those costs on the applicant communities, EPA has determined, consistent with EPA’s Interim Economic Guidance and 40 CFR Part 131.33(d), that attaining the water quality standards is not feasible because “controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact” to these communities, as put forth in 131.33(d)(3) (vi).

Therefore, consistent with the requirements and procedures for obtaining and authorizing a variance, as required by the federal rule, (40 CFR Part 131.33(d), Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 147, July 31, 1997 page 41188), EPA is granting a variance to the water quality standards, more specifically, to the numeric aquatic life criteria for cadmium, lead and zinc to the wastewater treatment plants of Page and Smelterville and is granting a variance to the water quality standards, more specifically, to the numeric aquatic life criteria for cadmium and zinc to the wastewater treatment plant of Mullan.

Letter from City of Smelterville to John Iani, EPA Regional Administrator, Re: NPDES permit Variance Request for City of Smelterville wastewater treatment plant with enclosures. December 7, 2001.

Letter from South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District to John Iani, EPA Regional Administrator, Re: NPDES permit Variance Request for Page and Mullan wastewater treatment plants with enclosures. December 21, 2001.

Memorandum from John C. Tindall, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to Ben Cope, EPA , Re: South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District, Proposed TMDL Metal Limits and Revised Socioeconomic Impact Evaluation. April 11, 2001.

Letter from John Tindall, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to Ben Cope, EPA, Re: City of Smelterville, Impacts from Propsoed TMDL Metal Limits with enclosures. October 26, 2001.

Memorandum from John C. Tindall, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to Ben Cope, EPA , Re: South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District, Impacts from Proposed TMDL Metal Limits with enclosures. April 11, 2001.

Environmental Report for South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District. Prepared by J-U-B Engineers. April 2000.

South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District, I/I Evaluation and Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan. Prepared by J-U-B Engineers. April 2000.

Memo from Elliot Rosenberg, EPA Regional Economist, to Lisa Macchio EPA Water Quality Standards Coordinator. Re: Review of Significant and Widespread Economic Impacts Analysis re: South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Sewer District Water Quality Standards Variance Request for Page and Mullan WWTPs. March 20, 2002.

Memo from Elliot Rosenberg, EPA Regional Economist to Lisa Macchio EPA Water Quality Standards Coordinator, Re: Review of Significant and Widespread Economic Impacts Analysis re: City of Smelterville Water Quality Standards Variance Request for Smelterville WWTP. March 20, 2002.

Memo from Ben Cope, EPA Region 10 Office of Environmental Assessment, to Lisa Macchio EPA, Water Quality Standards Coordinator, Re: Estimation of Variance Limits for Metals. August 26, 2002.

Memo from Ben Cope, EPA Region 10, Environmental Engineer, Office of Environmental Assessment, to the File, Re: Cost Estimates for Metals Treatment at Page, Mullan and Smelterville. August 26, 2002.

Memo from Kelly Huynh, EPA Region 10, NPDES permit writer, Office of Water, to the File, Re: Rationale for why a variance is not needed for lead criteria for City of Mullan WWTP. October 16, 2003.

Memo from Patti McGrath, EPA Region 10 NPDES permit writer, Office of Water, to the File, Re: Endangered Species Act Compliance for EPA’s Issuance of Water Quality Standards Variances and Reissuance of NPDES Permits for the Wastewater Treatment Plants of Page, Mullan, and Smelterville . March 2, 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (1991).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Water Quality Standards Handbook. Second Edition.” (August 1994).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook” (March 1995).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Estimating Water Treatment Costs. Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to 200 mgd Treatment Plants”. (August 1979).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Lead, and Dissolved Zinc in Surface Waters of the Coeur d'Alene River Basin. August 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coeur d’Alene Basin RI/FS, Remedial Investigation Report, Final. October 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coeur d’Alene Basin RI/FS, Feasibility Study Report, Final. October 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Memorandum, Interim Fisheries Benchmarks for the Initial Increment of Remediation in the Coeur d’Alene Basin, Final. September 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coeur d’Alene Basin Proposed Plan. October 29, 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Ecological Risk Assessment, Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Region 10 by CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA, and URS Corp., Seattle WA. May 18, 2001.