EPA reviewing bypass work compliance
SANDPOINT — The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing whether construction of the U.S. Highway 95 bypass is in compliance with federal regulations and a judicial decree governing off-season highway construction projects in the Panhandle.
An EPA compliance officer conducted an on-site inspection on Monday, after concerns were raised about alleged stormwater pollution problems resulting from work on the Sand Creek Byway. The review will determine if the Idaho Transportation Department and the project’s lead contractor, Parsons RCI, are in compliance with a federal construction permit and the consent decree.
“Their compliance status is under review and we don’t know the outcome of that review yet,” Kristine Karlson, a compliance and enforcement official with the EPA in Seattle, said on Friday.
If ITD is found to have violated the consent decree, it could face automatic penalties of $1,500 for each day the offending activities occurred. If ITD and Parsons violated the construction permit, they could be subject to penalties of up to $32,500 per day, per violation, according to an EPA e-mail advising ITD of the compliance review.
The 2006 consent decree was implemented by a federal judge in an EPA lawsuit against ITD over highway work which spewed tons of sediment into Lake Coeur d’Alene’s Mica Bay.
The decree forbids ITD from conducting ground-disturbing activities on projects between October and April unless it obtains waivers from the EPA.
The North Idaho Community Action Network, which is challenging the highway realignment project to preserve Sandpoint’s waterfront, contends ITD’s alleged violation of the consent decree illustrates a pattern of indifference in protecting the environment.
“In knowingly violating a court-ordered consent decree, ITD has once again demonstrated its ongoing disregard for legal requirements that exist to prevent damage to the public’s waterways and water quality,” NICAN executive director Liz Sedler said in a statement.
Barbara Babic, ITD’s District 1 spokeswoman, emphasized that the allegations remain under review and that EPA has taken no formal action against the state or the bypass contractor.
“We have received no formal communication from the EPA, and, if and when we do, we will have an opportunity to respond to it,” she said.
Babic characterized the Jan. 29 e-mail from EPA to ITD as “staff-to-staff” communication between the agencies.
Karlson declined to discuss the nature of the alleged violations, but her e-mail to ITD project engineer Ken Sorensen indicates the state obtained a waiver to begin work on a test embankment and sought another waiver to clear and uproot vegetation along Sand Creek north of Cedar Street Bridge.
Permission was granted to commence work on the test embankment, but a waiver for the clearing and grubbing was pending, the e-mail said. However, the site inspection revealed that a significant portion of the creek bank had already been cleared and grubbed, while work on the test embankment had yet to start.
Babic also declined to discuss the specifics of the review.
“We realize that this project is under intense scrutiny, but we believe we are working within all the permits and we’re acting in good faith,” Babic said.
Sedler pointed out that taxpayers will be the ones footing the bill if fines are levied.
“Though a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated $150 million total cost of the 2-mile, two-lane project, the fines were easily avoidable and will increase the cost of the project,” Sedler’s statement said. “And this is only the beginning.”