Lower Silver = Creek Convening

Silver Creek=20 Watershed Stakeholders Group

Lower Silver=20 Creek Work Group

Convening=20 Report and Proposed Process Design

April 24,=20 2006

Introduction

The=20 Silver Creek Watershed Stakeholders=92 Group was started in 1999. The group initially focused on = the upper=20 portion of the watershed, and many environmental improvements have been=20 accomplished in that section of the watershed. The group has had some = meetings to=20 explore investigation and remediation options in the middle reach of = Silver=20 Creek. More information about the full = stakeholder group and its activities can be found at http://www.silvercreekpc.org/.=

The=20 Stakeholders=92 Group was initially convened and the group process = designed by an=20 independent third party facilitator -- Mike Hughes, then with = RESOLVE. After the first year or = so, the=20 full group conducted its meetings without a facilitator until = recently. A local independent third = party=20 facilitator =96 Michele Straube with CommUnity Resolution, Inc. =96 was = hired in=20 2001 to convene and design a collaborative process for a stakeholder = work group=20 focused on soils issues in the Prospector Square area. The soils work group met for = several=20 years and successfully completed its work in spring 2004. In 2006, Ms. Straube began = facilitating=20 the full Stakeholders=92 Group. = Third=20 party facilitation services are being paid for by EPA Region=20 VIII.

At=20 its January = 13,=20 2006 meeting, the full Stakeholders=92 Group tasked the = facilitator to=20 convene a work group to focus specifically on Lower Silver Creek. Several stakeholders indicated = that=20 current and future development plans for properties abutting Lower = Silver Creek=20 make it timely to identify and address any remediation / restoration=20 requirements in this lower stream segment.

Michele=20 Straube met, by telephone and in person, with stakeholders in the full = watershed=20 group and other people to gather needed information for creating an = effective=20 Lower Silver Creek work group. = She=20 asked questions about what interests and individuals should be included = in the=20 work group, and what some of the potential issues were likely=20

to=20 be. Landowners, as well = as known=20 developers, for this portion of Lower Silver Creek were identified, but = no=20 effort has been made yet to contact them personally.[1]=20 Based on that information = and on=20 independent research, this convening report summarizes what Ms. Straube = learned=20 and her process suggestions for the work group=92s first two meetings = and=20 beyond.

Geographic=20 Boundary

The=20 relevant geographic reach for the Lower Silver Creek work group is a = matter of=20 interpretation. Everyone = agrees=20 that the upstream end begins at Utah State Route 248 (aka the northern = end of=20 Richardson Flats). The = full=20 Stakeholders Group asserted at their January 2006 meeting that the = relevant=20 =93Lower Silver Creek=94 area ended at =93the dairy=94 (aka Atkinson, = this stream=20 segment is also sometimes referred to as the southern portion of Lower = Silver=20 Creek), and most interviewees have agreed with that boundary. One interviewee suggested that = there is=20 known contamination from mining in Silver Creek all the way from Route = 248 to=20 the Silver Creek / Weber River confluence in Wanship, and that therefore = this=20 entire reach should be a part of the work group=92s=20 discussions.

An=20 innovative site assessment conducted by UDEQ in 2001/2002 collected = analytical=20 samples from Route 248 to the confluence in Wanship, and concluded that = all of=20 the Lower Silver Creek area (southern and northern portions) should be = placed on=20 the CERCLIS list for further investigation and possible remediation = under=20 Superfund. A visual = reconnaissance of the area confirms that the topography changes = drastically at=20 Atkinson, with the northern portion of Lower Silver Creek being confined = within=20 canyon walls, along with the rail trail and the I-80 highway = corridor. Thus, the conditions possibly = affecting=20 Silver Creek stream quality (mine tailings, land use, infiltration, = etc.), the=20 options for remediation / restoration, and the stakeholders who will = have=20 control over and/or be affected by any remediation / restoration appear = to be=20 quite different in the southern and northern portions of Lower Silver=20 Creek.

For=20 these reasons, Ms. Straube recommends that the geographic boundary of = the Lower=20 Silver Creek work group be initially limited from Route 248 to the area = referred=20 to as =93the dairy=94 or =93Atkinson=94 (the southern portion of Lower = Silver=20 Creek). The work group = should=20 revisit this recommendation in its first meeting, and if confirmed, can = expand=20 its focus and geographic boundary to include the northern portion of = Lower=20 Silver Creek at a later time when sufficient progress has been made on=20 investigating and remediating / restoring the southern portion.=20

The=20 remainder of this convening report assumes that the work group will = initially=20 address the southern portion of Lower Silver Creek, as described=20 above.

Potential=20 Issues and Challenges

The=20 southern portion of Lower Silver Creek was historically used for = mining-related=20 activities. The Big = Four Mill=20 operated until 1918. = In the=20 mid-1900s, some tailings were moved and removed off-site for = re-processing. In 2002, UDEQ conducted an = innovative=20 site assessment and recommended that the site be included on CERCLIS for = further=20 investigation under the Superfund program. =20 This recommendation has not yet been implemented.

The=20 riparian landscape in this portion of Lower Silver Creek has been = described as=20 including many non-vegetated tailings piles and numerous jurisdictional = wetlands=20 areas. Development = interest=20 is growing:

=B7 =20 Some=20 commercial development exists upland on the west side of the = stream.

=B7 =20 The=20 Promontory Development has already completed extensive construction in = the=20 upland areas on the east side of the stream. They are in the process of = building an=20 equestrian center, also some distance from the stream and known tailings = materials.

=B7 =20 A=20 major development, Silver Gate Ranches, was just approved by the Summit = County=20 Commission in mid March 2006. =20 The exact location and timing of their construction plans is = currently=20 unknown, but can be expected to be imminent.

=B7 =20 Development=20 plans in this area proposed by Anderson Development have not been = approved and=20 are currently in litigation. =20

=B7 =20 It=20 is our understanding that an environmental site assessment is being = conducted=20 for land east of Richardson Flats, but no specific details of the = precipitating=20 transaction are known.

We=20 are unaware of any other existing or currently planned development in = the=20 riparian areas of this portion of Lower Silver Creek.

The=20 rail trail, well-used by the public, follows along the stream through = this=20 entire section.

As=20 of 2002, two active drinking water wells existed in the southern portion = of=20 Lower Silver Creek, operated by Mountain Regional = SSD.

Silver=20 Creek was listed on Utah=92s 1998, 2000, and 2002 303(d) = list of=20 impaired waterways for zinc and cadmium contamination. There has been a fish = consumption=20 advisory posted since 2004 for all of Silver Creek, including this lower = reach,=20 based on elevated arsenic levels in trout. =20 A TMDL (total maximum daily load) has been established for = dissolved zinc=20 and cadmium for Silver Creek, which some interviewees believe is = extremely=20 stringent and difficult to attain. =20

Both=20 history and the present day may present challenges for the Lower Silver = Creek=20 work group, which process design should attempt to=20 address.

Current=20 Status of Development Plans. The Summit County Commission = approved=20 the Silver Gate Ranches development at its March 15, 2006 meeting. Since no construction permits = have been=20 issued yet, we do not know the timing or location of intended = construction, or=20 the potential impact (if any) of tailings-related contamination.

Similarly,=20 the existing Promontory development is expanding somewhat closer to the=20 stream. Based on the = distance from=20 the stream, potential impact (if any) of tailings-related contamination = is=20 thought to be unlikely.

There=20 are current discussions about possible wetland restoration work in the = meadow=20 area near the concrete plant. =20

The=20 coordination of future development and other activities within the Lower = Silver=20 Creek work group area with environmental investigation and possible = remediation=20 / restoration of this area is critical. =20 The work group will need to educate itself quickly about the = relationship=20 between planned development and=20 areas within Lower Silver Creek that may pose a risk to human health and = the=20 environment. =20

Historical=20 Reaction to Regulatory Agencies. The greater = Park = City area has a long history of = resistance=20 to regulatory approaches to local environmental problems, accompanied = more=20 recently by successful innovative local solutions. The Prospector Square area is = the only=20 area in the United States that Congress has ever exempted from placement = on the=20 National Priorities List under Superfund (at Park City=92s request), yet = its local=20 soils ordinance and environmental management system approach to = preventing human=20 exposure to contaminated tailings (known as =93institutional = controls=94) has=20 received national recognition. =20

The=20 larger Silver Creek Watershed Stakeholders Group has worked together = over the=20 past five years to build working relationships between previously = conflicting=20 interests, and to encourage an attitude of collaboration and innovation, = rather=20 than regulation and resistance. = It=20 is hoped that the participants in the Lower Silver Creek work group who = come=20 from the full Stakeholders Group will bring that learning with them and = will=20 encourage any new participants who retain the historical resistance to=20 regulatory agencies to keep an open mind. =20 In addition, design of the process to encourage joint = fact-finding and=20 exploration of innovative solutions, as well as facilitation of the = process by=20 an independent third party (the facilitator), should provide reassurance = to=20 reluctant participants.

Landowner=20 Cooperation. There are numerous = (over=20 20) = private landowners potentially affected by any investigation = and=20 possible remediation / restoration in the southern portion of Lower = Silver=20 Creek, some of whom have already established relationships with = potential=20 developers. Not all = private=20 landowners agreed to provide access to their land for sampling in 2001 = when UDEQ=20 was conducting its innovative site assessment. It is believed that some of = these=20 entities are philosophically opposed to any land use or other controls = on=20 development, and regularly challenge county land use decisions. We do not mention this to = question the=20 validity of these entities=92 actions, but merely to highlight the = potential=20 resistance that some interests may exhibit to the work group=92s=20 efforts.

Landowner=20 cooperation will likely be essential, however, for any further = investigations=20 within Lower Silver Creek and any potential future remediation /=20 restoration. At a = minimum, access=20 to property will be necessary. = At a=20 maximum, landowner/developer participation in any remediation = /restoration may=20 be essential to the effort=92s success.

The=20 practical import of these facts cannot be determined until more = information is=20 available that correlates potential contamination sources and areas = possibly=20 requiring remediation / restoration with land ownership and development=20 plans. The Lower Silver = Creek work=20 group process must be open, transparent, and sensitive to keeping all = landowners=20 and known developers fully informed of its activities, to avoid = surprises and=20 misinterpretation to the extent possible. =20

The=20 large number of landowners, the uniqueness of their individual property=20 interests, and the need for cooperation from individual landowners makes = it=20 difficult, if not impossible, to select a =93representative=94 of this = interest to=20 participate in the work group process.[2] The process should be designed = to offer=20 all landowners the opportunity to participate as fully as they wish in = work=20 group activities that may affect their property interest and/or that may = require=20 their cooperation. = Process design=20 must also be sensitive, however, to the logistical difficulty of working = with=20 large groups (greater than 20-25 members), as well as the respectful and = efficient use of work group participants=92 time.

Multiplicity=20 of Entities Potentially Responsible For and/or Capable of Taking Action. = By=20 contrast to some other portions of the Silver Creek watershed, there = does not=20 appear to be one financially capable entity that could be considered = legally=20 responsible for addressing any contamination found and performing = remediation /=20 restoration in Lower Silver Creek. (I.e., there does not appear to = be one=20 viable =93potentially responsible party=94 under Superfund.) In addition, the landowners = often do not=20 undertake development of their property themselves. This means that the developer = may be the=20 entity that has relevant knowledge and/or technical capacity to conduct=20 investigation and/or remediation / restoration on a given landowner=92s=20 property. At a minimum, = the=20 developers should be a part of the work group = process.

This=20 situation will also require flexibility and innovation on the part of = the work=20 group participants to take responsibility for and find funding for any = work that=20 needs to be done. A = stakeholder=20 process, where all potentially affected interests work together to = create a=20 vision for the area, gather needed information, and make joint decisions = to=20 implement that vision, is ideally suited to deal with this type of=20 situation. =

Who=20 Needs/Wants to be Involved

Based=20 on the interviews conducted as part of this convening, Chart 1 reflects = our=20 identification of individuals and entities that may have an interest in = the=20 Lower Silver Creek work group=92s activities and discussions. This listing will need = to be=20 revisited periodically as more is learned about the nature and extent of = contamination, as well as the nature and extent of remediation / = restoration=20 options. In particular, = more or=20 different landowners and/or developers may need to be included in the = work group=20 discussions as the focus of the group sharpens.

CHART=20 1:[3]

Name

Agency

Part=20 of Full

Stakeholder=20

Group=20 ??

Nature=20 of Interest

Suggested=20 as Work Group Member

KathrynHernandez

EPA=20 Region 8

Yes

Superfund=20 site project manager

Yes

Mo=20 Slam

Ty=20 Howard

UDEQ=20 / DERR

Yes

Superfund=20 site project manager

Yes

John=20 Whitehead

Kari=20 Lundeen

UDEQ=20 / DWQ

Yes

TMDL=20 / watershed coordinator

Yes

Brent=20 Ovard

Summit=20 County=20 Health Dept

Yes

County=20 Health Department

Yes

Sally=20 Elliott

Summit=20 County=20 Commission

<= /TD>

Yes

-=20 Co. = Commissioner

-citizen=20 on SH group

Yes

Michele=20 Devaney

Denise=20 Hytonen

Summit=20 County=20 Comm.Development

Planning=20 / zoning agency

Yes

Chris=20 Cline

US=20 Fish & Wildlife

Yes

Natural=20 resource damages

Yes

Pam=20 Kramer

UT=20 Div Wildlife Resources

Wildlife=20 habitat

Yes

Jason=20 Gipson

US=20 Corps of Engineers

Jurisdictional=20 wetlands

Yes

Kerry=20 Gee

United=20 Park=20 City=20 Mines

Yes

-=20 Coordination with UPCM-led activities

-=20 Watershed vision

Yes

John=20 Knudson

UT=20 Dept of Natural Resources / Parks

Yes

Owns=20 rail trail

Yes

Jeff=20 Schoenbacher

Tom=20 Bakaly

Park=20 City=20 Mun.Corporation

Yes

LSC=20 landowner

Yes

20+=20 Landowners

LSC=20 landowners

Yes

Jeramy=20 Green

Promontory=20 Development =20

LSC=20 developer

Yes

Walt=20 Plum

Silver=20 GateRanches

LSC=20 developer

Yes

Not=20 yet identified

LSC=20 developers, but not landowners

Yes

John=20 Tuerff

Citizens=20 for Responsible Growth

???[4]

Citizen=20 advocacy on development issues

Yes

Jennifer=20 Chergo

EPA=20 Region 8

Yes

Community=20 involvement

Resource

Dave=20 Allison

UDEQ=20 / DERR

Yes

Community=20 involvement

Resource

Senta=20 Beyer

Snyderville=20 Basin Recreation District

Maintains=20 /develops trails that intersect with rail = trail

Resource

Chris=20 Donaldson

Kimber=20 Gabryszak

Basin=20 Open Space Advisory Committee

$10=20 million bond to protect and acquire open = space

Resource

Barbara=20 Carey

RC&D=20 Coordinator

Uinta=20 Headwaters Resource Conservation & Development=20 Council

Possible=20 funding and planning resource

Resource

We=20 suggest that the interests identified as =93resource=94 be regularly = informed of the=20 work group=92s efforts and be invited to specific meetings at which they = can be=20 used as a resource for discrete work group discussions.

Technical=20 Information Available

In=20 conducting this convening, Ms. Straube has identified the following = technical=20 information that may be relevant to the Lower Silver Creek work = group=92s=20 efforts:

Innovative=20 Assessment Analytical Results Report,=20 Lower Silver Creek, Summit=20 County, Utah. Prepared by Ann M. Tillia, = Utah=20 Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Environmental = Response and=20 Remediation. = Final dated=20 9/25/02. (Available at=20 UDEQ/DERR)=20
TMDL=20 for Silver Creek.=20 (Available = at: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/TMDL/SilverCreekFinalTMDL_11-15-= 04.pdf=20 )=20
Fish=20 Consumption Advisory for Trout from Silver Creek. Utah Department of = Environmental=20 Quality. 10/27/04. (Available at: http://www.deq.utah.gov/News/2004/fish_advisory_info_sheet_102704.p= df=20 )=20
Water=20 Resources of the Park = City Area, Utah with Emphasis on Ground=20 Water. Utah Department of Natural = Resources=20 (UDEQ/DERR) and US Geological Survey (USGS). Technical Publication = No.=20 85. 1986.=20

(Available=20 at UDEQ/DWQ ??)

Principal=20 Locations of Metal Loading from Floodplain Tailings, Lower Silver Creek, = Utah, April 2004. U.S.=20 Geological Survey (USGS), prepared in cooperation with UDEQ. =20 Draft 2005. = (Currently=20 at UDEQ / DWQ offices; not yet circulated to other agencies or = entities)

Quantification=20 of Metal Loading to Silver Creek Through the Silver Maple Claims Area, = Park=20 City, Utah, May 2002. U.S. Geological Survey = (USGS), prepared=20 in cooperation with BLM and UDEQ. =20 Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4296. 2004. (Available at EPA and=20 UDEQ)

Suggested=20 Process

The=20 Lower Silver Creek Work Group process design we suggest has been = tailored to=20 address the challenges identified in a previous section of this=20 report.

Sponsor: This work group, as an = outgrowth of the=20 existing Silver Creek Watershed Stakeholders Group, should be sponsored = by=20 EPA. As is the case with = the full=20 Stakeholders Group, all entities retain their full decision-making = authority and=20 commit solely to coordinate activities that will impact the Lower Silver = Creek=20 environment to the greatest extent possible. EPA=92s main role as sponsor = of the=20 collaborative effort is to provide funding for the logistics of the = group=92s=20 meetings, including publicity and independent=20 facilitation.

Work=20 Group Membership: Suggested work group = membership is=20 reflected in Chart 1. = While this=20 group size is initially quite large (15 individually identified members = plus 20+ landowners and an = unknown=20 number of developers), the design of the first two work group meetings = is=20 intended to assist the group in honing its focus so that individual = landowners=20 and developers can self-determine whether continued meeting attendance = or simply=20 remaining =93in the loop=94 will be appropriate to meet their = interests. It is anticipated that, based = on the=20 results of the first two meetings, a natural attrition will occur.

Landowners=20 and known developers will be sent a letter from Ms. Straube (by = certified mail)=20 containing an announcement about the Lower Silver Creek work group = process, a=20 description of the first two work group meetings, and a personal = invitation to=20 participate. We = suggest that=20 the invitation to participate come from an independent third party to = emphasize=20 the collaborative non-directive nature of the work group=20 process.

The=20 interests identified on Chart 1 as =93resource=94 will not be an active = part of the=20 work group, but may attend any meetings they are interested in. They can be invited to = participate=20 in specific meetings where their knowledge and expertise will be most=20 helpful. They will be = specifically=20 invited to participate in the second (visioning) work group = meeting. In addition, these entities = will receive=20 all work group meeting summaries. =20 These interests should be encouraged to contact the facilitator = directly=20 at any time with any questions or concerns.

Work=20 Group Activities: Long term, it is our view that = the work=20 group will need to accomplish the following tasks:

identify=20 existing information about soil and water contamination within the = southern=20 portion of Lower Silver Creek=20
identify=20 data gaps, if any, and ways to gather the additional=20 information=20
create=20 a vision for the future in this section of Lower Silver Creek, = especially the=20 areas containing or impacted by contaminated = tailings=20
identify=20 options for remediation / restoration to meet the = vision=20
assign=20 responsibility for implementation of remediation /restoration to meet = the=20 vision.

These=20 work group tasks will be accomplished over a long period of time, and = the work=20 group process will necessarily be flexible and iterative. We suggest that the work group = begin its=20 efforts with two initial meetings, designed both to outline the = potential scope=20 of its activities and to begin creating the vision for the future that = will=20 serve as a goal for all future activities.

=20 First Meeting. We suggest that the first = meeting be=20 held in early to mid-May. = The=20 primary goal of this meeting will be to identify and integrate known = information=20 about contaminated areas in Lower Silver Creek, the potential source(s) = of=20 contamination, vulnerable resources, and to correlate this information = to land=20 ownership and known development plans. =20

While=20 all members of the work group will be welcome to attend this first = meeting, the=20 following members will be specifically invited (as opposed to given = notice of)=20 the meeting to share whatever relevant data they may = have:

EPA=20
DEQ/DERR=20
DEQ/DWQ=20
Summit=20 County=20 Health=20
Summit=20 County=20 Commission=20
Summit=20 County=20 Community Development=20
US=20 Fish & Wildlife=20
UT=20 Div of Wildlife Resources=20
US=20 Army Corps of Engineers=20
United=20 Park = City Mines=20
UT=20 Dept of Natural Resources / Parks=20
Park=20 City Municipal Corporation

Work=20 group meetings will need to be held in a location that is potentially = large=20 enough to hold 40-45 people, just in case all interested parties choose = to=20 attend. We suggest the=20 Summit County Services Building (Richins Building) in Kimball Junction as = a=20 suitable location.

A=20 tentative agenda for the first work group meeting is attached to this = convening=20 report.

=20 Second Meeting. We suggest that shortly after = the first=20 meeting, but with enough time to gather additional existing information = and=20 prepare visuals if necessary, the second meeting be held. The primary goal of this = second meeting=20 will be to present the known information about contaminated areas and = vulnerable=20 resources in Lower Silver Creek to the full work group, including all = landowners=20 and known developers, and to offer an opportunity for the full group to = share=20 their respective visions for this area. =20 This will help guide the work group=92s next steps in conducting = further=20 investigation, if necessary, and in pursuing remediation / restoration=20 options.

All=20 interests identified on Chart 1 (both work group members and = =93resources=94) should=20 be invited to attend this second meeting and to participate actively in = the=20 visioning part of the meeting. = It=20 is hoped that all landowners and developers will attend this second=20 meeting.

=20 Ongoing Public = Outreach. It is critical that the work = group=92s=20 efforts be open and transparent, to build confidence in both the process = and its=20 outcome(s). = Landowners,=20 developers and the general public should have regular access to the data = and=20 other information that the work group reviews and generates. Activities that will = support=20 transparency include:

Forwarding=20 work group meeting minutes to all work group members and resource=20 interests=20
Updating=20 and maintaining relevant information on the watershed Stakeholder = Group=20 website (http://www.silvercreekpc.org/)= =20
Maintaining=20 an information repository (hard copies) at a central=20 location.

Tentative=20 Agenda for First Work Group Meeting

Suggested=20 Invited Participants: = anyone with=20 knowledge and/or data about existing soil and water contamination within = the=20 southern portion of Lower Silver Creek, potential sources thereof, = and/or=20 vulnerable environmental resources. =20

Suggested=20 Outcomes of Meeting:

Agreement=20 with work group process and approach=20
Consensus=20 on geographic boundary of work group area=20
Identification=20 of additional stakeholders, if any=20
Suggested=20 changes for full Stakeholders=92 Group Statement of Goals to make it = applicable=20 to Lower Silver Creek work group=20
Identification=20 of all known information / data re: contamination, potential sources = and=20 vulnerable resources=20
Assignments=20 re: putting info / visuals together for second work group=20 meeting=20
Assignments=20 of responsibility for ongoing public outreach (could be postponed to a = later=20 meeting, if run out of time)

Suggested=20 Meeting Length: 2-3=20 hours

Suggested=20 Agenda:

o =20 intro=20 and welcome to process =96 EPA

o =20 summary=20 of convening report and suggested process / how this meeting fits into = process =96=20 Facilitator (ground rules = on back=20 of name tents)

o =20 confirm=20 geographic boundary -- Facilitator

o =20 confirm=20 stakeholders included in work group =96 anyone missing? --=20 Facilitator

o =20 go=20 over statement of goals from full Stakeholders Group and suggest = necessary=20 changes for Lower Silver Creek -- Facilitator

o =20 review=20 known information =96 EPA lead, with round robin

o =20 next=20 steps to provide info to full work group in second meeting --=20 Facilitator

=A7 =20 who=20 to present what?

=A7 =20 create=20 info / visuals for second meeting

o =20 assign=20 responsibility for ongoing public outreach (if time permits) --=20 Facilitator

=A7 =20 update=20 and maintain website =96 EPA re-take = responsibility

=A7 =20 information=20 repository

=A7 =20 other=20 suggestions

Tentative=20 Agenda for Second Work Group Meeting

Suggested=20 Invited Participants: all = work=20 group members, including all landowners and known developers, and = =93resource=94=20 interests

Suggested=20 Outcomes of Meeting:

Agreement=20 with work group process and approach=20
Identification=20 of additional stakeholders, if any=20
Consensus=20 on statement of goals (as revised for work group)
- If=20 changes are suggested in this meeting that are major / contentious, = table=20 for full discussion at future meeting
Identification=20 of additional known information, if any=20
Group=20 vision for area =96 or clear idea of where differences are re:=20 vision=20
Next=20 meeting
- When=20
- What=20 to cover / accomplish =20
- Which=20 LOs/developers want to be active participants v. kept=20 informed

Suggested=20 Length for Meeting: half = day (3-4=20 hours)

Suggested=20 Agenda:

o =20 intro=20 and welcome to process =96 EPA

o =20 summary=20 of convening report and suggested process / how this meeting fits into = process =96=20 Facilitator (ground rules = on back=20 of name tents)

o =20 confirm=20 geographic boundary -- Facilitator

o =20 confirm=20 stakeholders included in work group =96 anyone missing? --=20 Facilitator

o =20 go=20 over statement of goals from full SH group and suggested changes for = Lower=20 Silver Creek =96 any comments/concerns -- = Facilitator

o =20 presentation=20 on known information re: contamination, potential sources and vulnerable = resources =96 Presenter(s) to be determined at first = meeting

=A7 =20 anything=20 to be added?

=A7 =20 Q/A

o =20 visioning=20 for area

=A7 =20 brief=20 round robin identification of each participant=92s future plans for = their part of=20 the area (and timing)

=A7 =20 divide=20 participants into pre-selected groups of 8-10 people (a mix of interests = in each=20 group) and have them brainstorm about a vision for the area =96 what = should it=20 look like post-development and post-remediation /=20 restoration

=A7 =20 small=20 groups report back to full group

=A7 =20 clarifying=20 Q/A

o =20 next=20 steps for work group (in future meetings) -- = Facilitator

=A7 =20 if=20 general consensus re: vision for area, identify any additional data = gathering=20 and move on, when ready, to generating options for implementing=20 vision

=A7 =20 if=20 no general consensus re: vision for area, identify any additional data = gathering=20 and explore pros/cons of different visions for = future

o =20 Have=20 LOs self-select who comes to future meetings --=20 Facilitator

o =20 Public=20 outreach / keeping them informed -- Facilitator

=A7 =20 Website

=A7 =20 Preferences?