Lake Coeur d’Alene’s Sleeping Monster

Washington Department of Ecology joins Sierra Club and others with a forceful critique of a lake cleanup plan that is as short on enforcement as it is on funding.

Despite its beautiful appearance, Lake Coeur d’Alene’s sediments hold up to 83 million tons of heavy metals. A century of mining pollution from Idaho’s Silver Valley bonded to the iron oxide and washed into the lake, creating deposits of lead, zinc, cadmium, and arsenic.

In June, after years of negotiations by the EPA, the State of Idaho, and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe released for public comment the latest version of the Coeur d’Alene Lake Management Plan (LMP), a plan intended to keep phosphorus, nitrogen and other algae-feeding nutrients out of the lake. Septic tanks, fertilizers, erosion and stormwater runoff contribute to the lake’s nutrient levels, encouraging algae and other plant growth. As the plants die and decay, they suck oxygen out of the water. Low oxygen levels in the lake can cause metals in the lake sediments to turn into a toxic solution that resuspends with lake water. Resuspended metals threatens fish, wildlife, and human health both in the lake and in the Spokane River.

In its comments submitted to Idaho and the Tribe, the Washington Department of Ecology filed a surprisingly forceful critique of the LMP.

While the lake’s water quality problems are complex, two of the key issues are toxic metals and nutrients. The specific problem of concern to Ecology officials and others is the potential for increased levels of nutrient pollution in the lake. Higher nutrient levels in the lake would lead to lower dissolved oxygen levels which, in turn, threaten to mobilize the tons of toxic metals currently bound up in the lake bed. The metals are a result of historic mining activity in the Coeur d’Alene mining district east of the lake.

“The establishment of an effective and enforceable LMP remains of particular concern to Ecology,” wrote Michael Hibbler, the manager of the agency’s toxics cleanup program and water quality section manager Jim Bellatty in an August 19th letter. “Actions taken in Idaho to manage both metals and nutrient loading and transport into and out of Coeur d’Alene Lake directly affect the water quality of the Spokane River within Washington and the long-term integrity of Washington’s shoreline cleanup program.”

In addition to advocating the completion of so-called TMDL cleanup plans (remediation plans required by the federal Clean Water Act) for both metals and nutrients in the lake, Ecology raised strong concerns about what it sees as continued shortcomings in the LMP. Those shortcomings include, but are not limited to, deficiencies in compliance activities, monitoring and implementation of the LMP provisions. The other big issue Ecology flagged was the lack of funding commitments to implement the plan, an issue picked up on by Sierra Club’s Upper Columbia River Group, a client of the Center for Justice. Click here to read Sierra Club’s comments.

“Eutrophication of the Lake that would resuspend mine wastes into the lake water column would be disastrous for waters in both states,” wrote Dr. John Osborn on behalf of Sierra Club.

“Success of the LMP will be heavily contingent on a significant amount of funding,” Osborn wrote. “While the Coeur d’Alene Tribe has made commitments to funding activities in the Basin, the State of Idaho has been unwilling to dedicate significant funds for lake cleanup efforts. The LMP should clarify what happens if the State fails to fully fund implementation of cleanup activities. This should include the option of moving the Lake forward toward formal Superfund listing and the development of a ROD [record of decision] that contains cleanup activities for the Lake.”

“We really need a well-funded plan that has some teeth to keep the metals in Lake Coeur d’Alene where they are,” said Rick Eichstaedt, attorney with the Center. “The health of the lake and of our river depends on creating a plan that actually works.”

Comments by Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Barry Rosenberg
Comments by Julie Dalsaso

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply