Silver Creek = Watershed Stakeholders=92 Group

Silver Creek=20 Watershed Stakeholders=92 Group

Friday,=20 January 13, 2006 = =96 1-4 = pm

Park City=20 Library Meeting Room

Draft Meeting Summary

Meeting=20 Attendees

Chris=20 Morley

DOI/Solicitor

801-524-5677=20 x. 236

Mike=20 Nelson

BLM

Mike_Nelson@blm.gov

Mark=20 Fitch

U=20 Missouri=20 / Rolla

mfitch@umr.edu

Al=20 Mattes

Nature=20 Works

almattes@rogers.com

Lee=20 Duncan

UACD

lee.duncan@ut.nacdnet.net

Jeff=20 Schoenbacher

Park=20 City

mailto:mschoenbacher@parkcity.= org

Chris=20 Cline

US=20 FWS

chris_cline@fws.gov=20

Bob=20 Wells

Deer=20 Valley=20 Resort

bwells@deervalley.com

Muhammed=20 Slam

UDEQ

mslam@utah.gov

Dave=20 Allison

UDEQ

dallison@utah.gov=

John=20 Knudson

UT=20 State Parks

JohnKnudson@utah.gov<= /SPAN>

Jennifer=20 Chergo

EPA

chergo.jennifer@epa.gov<= /o:p>

Peggy=20 Churchill

EPA

churchill.peggy@epa.gov<= /o:p>

John=20 Whitehead

UDEQ=20 / MDWQ

jwhitehead@utah.gov

Dana=20 Williams

Park=20 City

dana@parkcity.org=

Tom=20 Bakaly

Park=20 City

tom@parkcity.org

Kerry=20 C. Gee

United=20 Park=20 City=20 Mines

kcgee@unitedpark.com<= /SPAN>

Carl=20 Adams

UDEQ=20 / WQ

carladams@utah.gov

Brent=20 Giles

Park=20 City=20 Resort

brentg@pcski.com

Bill=20 Duncan

Nature=20 Works

wfadunc@telus.net=

Jim=20 Fricke

UPCM=20 Consultant

jim@ermc-ut.com

Ron=20 Ivie

Park=20 City

rivie@parkcity.org

Scott=20 Miller

UPCM=20 Consultant

smiller@golden.com

Julie=20 Zamora

United=20 Park=20 City=20 Mines

juliez@unitedpark.com=20

Michele=20 Straube

Facilitator

mstraube@mindspring.com=20

Stakeholders=92=20 Group Goals Review

The=20 full stakeholders=92 group had not met for a year. The group was started in = 1999. There has been turnover for = many of the=20 stakeholders. Many = environmental=20 improvements have been accomplished, while many are still to come. The focus of the group is = moving=20 downstream in the watershed. = Ms.=20 Straube asked the group to revisit the stakeholder group goals that were = developed in 1999, to see whether they continue to be relevant and=20 complete. The goals can = be viewed=20 in their entirety at http://www.silvercreekpc.o= rg/goal.htm=20 .

The=20 group felt the goals were still appropriate, but might benefit from some = fine-tuning. Anyone with = specific=20 suggestions on changes / improvements to the goals should e-mail them to = Michele=20 Straube. Updating the = goals will be=20 an agenda item for the next full stakeholders=92 group=20 meeting.

Update=20 on Schedule for Watershed Cleanup

Peggy=20 Churchill and Jennifer Chergo are drafting an annual fact sheet, which = will=20 contain a summary of progress in the watershed and a general schedule = for the=20 future. They expect the = draft to be=20 ready by the end of February. = It=20 will be circulated to the full stakeholders=92 group for review before = being=20 finalized, and then will be posted on the website and placed in the site = administrative record.

Empire=20 Canyon

Kerry=20 Gee updated the group on the past year=92s activities in Empire = Canyon, which=20 included:

=B7 =20 Second=20 year of stream restoration

=B7 =20 One=20 quasi-municipal storm drain project

=B7 =20 Stormwater=20 retention pond created as part of Empire Pass = project

=B7 =20 Stream=20 channel restoration completed (Empire=20 Canyon, Walker and Webster=20 Gulches)

=B7 =20 Beginning=20 June 2006, small boulder walls will be built along restored stream=20 channel

A=20 stakeholder group tour of the Empire Canyon restoration activities is = being=20 considered for Fall 2006.

Richardson=20 Flats

Peggy=20 Churchill gave a regulatory update:

=B7 =20 The=20 Record of Decision (ROD) has been written

=B7 =20 A=20 Department of Justice attorney has been assigned to negotiate the Consent Decree(s) that will = formalize=20 the ROD and settle past costs

=B7 =20 A=20 Remedial Design / Remedial Action (RD/RA) will be developed from the ROD = and=20 will form the basis of the work plan

=B7 =20 Work=20 is planned to start this summer

Kerry=20 Gee updated the group on the past year=92s activities relating to = Richardson=20 Flats:

=B7 =20 Tailings=20 were moved from Daly West to Richardson Flats

=B7 =20 Screening=20 of materials to construct a wedge buttress has = begun

=B7 =20 Other=20 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have been contacted to = participate in=20 negotiations with DOJ about past costs

=B7 =20 A=20 consultant has prepared a draft RD/RA, which is currently undergoing = internal=20 UPCM review

=B7 =20 Work=20 is planned to start this summer

The=20 following points were made in response to = questions:

=B7 =20 9,000=20 gal/min were flowing through the wetland at Richardson Flats in spring = 2005; the=20 wetland hosted many ducks and birds, including white-faced=20 ibis

=B7 =20 Construction=20 at Richardson Flats will be a 3-year process

=B7 =20 Richardson=20 Flats has been offered as a repository for tailings from other parts of=20 Park=20 City, including=20 contaminated materials from Prospector

=B7 =20 The=20 rail trail will reopen through the Richardson Flats area once = remediation has=20 been completed

=B7 =20 Ownership=20 of the rail trail has transferred from State Parks to Summit and Wasatch Counties

Soils=20 Ordinance Area / EMS = Update

Jeff=20 Schoenbacher provided the following updates about the past year=92s = activities=20 under the ordinance and EMS:

=B7 =20 The=20 soils ordinance boundaries were expanded to include additional = properties with=20 mine tailing impacts, and will be expanded again in spring=20 2006

=B7 =20 At=20 least 38 additional properties in the original and expanded ordinance = area were=20 capped last year; 255 = properties=20 are now compliant with the ordinance

=B7 =20 Many=20 capped properties were soil tested; the few properties that failed have = either=20 completed corrective actions or are under a schedule to do=20 so

=B7 =20 Various=20 education and awareness-raising efforts about the ordinance and its = requirements=20 are ongoing

=B7 =20 The=20 topsoil assistance program provided over $21,000 to 46 property=20 owners

In=20 response to a question: = The soils=20 ordinance program does not address water infiltration in the soils = ordinance=20 area, whether from precipitation or surface flow.

Status=20 of Delisting of Prospector

Peggy=20 Churchill gave a long-awaited announcement =96 the Prospector area has = been=20 archived from EPA=92s CERCLIS database. =20 She also = reflected on=20 the following:

=B7 =20 The=20 Park=20 City soils = ordinance is one=20 of the best institutional control programs in the country and serves as = a model=20 for other communities

=B7 =20 The=20 soils ordinance work group=92s efforts and the resulting EMS program are a good example of people working = collaboratively through conflict

Middle=20 Reach Silver Creek

For=20 discussion purposes, the Middle Reach of Silver Creek includes the = general area=20 by the drain at Prospector=20 Square to the far boundary of Richardson = Flats,=20 including Silver Maple Claim which is listed in the CERCLIS = database. Interim properties are = probably=20 contaminated with floodplain tailings, but they are not officially a = CERCLA=20 site. A smaller group of = Middle=20 Reach stakeholders has met in the past year to explore goals for = remediation /=20 restoration of the Middle Reach. = A=20 general consensus has been reached to approach this on a stream = segment-wide=20 basis, rather than property owner by property owner.

A=20 subset of the full stakeholders=92 group (including current property = owners Park=20 City, BLM, United Park City Mines and Utah Parks) will continue to meet = to=20 refine the goals for the Middle Reach of Silver Creek, and to develop=20 investigation and remediation / restoration = options.

FWS=20 Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Chris=20 Cline gave the update:

=B7 =20 Impetus=20 for the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) is reaching a = settlement with=20 United Park City Mines for Richardson Flats

=B7 =20 FWS=20 anticipates working cooperatively with UPCM

=B7 =20 Current=20 stage of NRDA is preliminary assessment

Lower=20 Silver Creek

For=20 discussion purposes, Lower Silver Creek runs from Hwy 248 at the edge of = Richardson Flats to the dairy. =20 Several stakeholders indicated that current and future = development plans=20 for properties abutting Lower Silver Creek make it timely to identify = and=20 address any remediation / restoration requirements in this stream=20 segment.

Michele=20 Straube will convene a work group to focus on Lower Silver Creek. This will involve calling = current=20 stakeholders and others to gather information, identifying additional=20 stakeholders as needed and potential issues, and organizing an = introductory work=20 group meeting.

Park=20 City=20 Biocell Project

After=20 considering at least one other option for addressing contaminated flow = from the=20 Prospector drain (a reverse osmosis unit pilot) and rejecting the option = as=20 uneconomical and obtrusive in a park setting, Park = City has been working with Dr. = Mark Fitch=20 and Nature Works to explore the possibility of using a constructed = wetland to=20 treat the drain flow. = Mayor Dana=20 Williams emphasized that the City is looking for an innovative option = that is=20 affordable and will maintain the aesthetics of open space / wetland in = this=20 =93back yard of Park=20 City.=94

Dr.=20 Mark Fitch gave a presentation summarizing the results of Park = City=92s pilot biocell and = describing a=20 phased approach to increasing the biocell capacity. Copies of Dr. Fitch=92s = PowerPoint=20 presentation, along with Park City=92s current proposal, are = available on=20 the stakeholders=92 group website: http://www.silvercreekp= c.org/current.htm=20 .

There=20 was extensive discussion about the proposal, highlights of which=20 include:

=B7 =20 There was a practical = question about=20 how the horizontal wetland would be constructed so that the gravel = and=20 substrate would be kept separate during construction (and possibly = during=20 maintenance).

=B7 =20 There was extensive = discussion about=20 the likelihood of the constructed wetland freezing, and the possible = negative=20 consequences.

=B7 =20 What are the = ramifications, if any,=20 of phasing the proposal?

=B7 =20 The potential was raised = for=20 infiltration of pre-existing contaminated groundwater into the = constructed=20 wetland, causing UPCM to suggest that a clay liner might be advisable to = guarantee that the biocell works as designed.

=B7 =20 Details about the = anticipated=20 concentrations of metals in the outflow from the Phase I biocell were = requested,=20 with specific reference to TMDLs and aquatic toxicity, along with = details of the=20 long-term monitoring.

Dr. Fitch=20 planned to submit an updated biocell proposal to Park = City by the end of the week, = which would=20 be distributed by e-mail to all stakeholders and posted on the = stakeholders=92=20 group website. = [DONE] Park City will accept comments on the = biocell=20 proposal until February 15, and will arrange for a conference call = thereafter=20 for any interested stakeholders to continue the discussion about the=20 proposal.

Next=20 Meeting

The full=20 stakeholders group should meet again in the March / April 2006=20 timeframe.