Silver
Creek Watershed Stakeholders Group
Lower
Silver Creek Work Group
Convening
Report and Proposed Process Design
Introduction
The Silver Creek Watershed Stakeholders’ Group was started
in 1999. The group initially focused on
the upper portion of the watershed, and many environmental improvements have
been accomplished in that section of the watershed. The group has had some meetings to explore
investigation and remediation options in the middle reach of Silver Creek. More
information about the full stakeholder group and its activities can be found at
www.silvercreekpc.org.
The Stakeholders’ Group was initially convened and the group
process designed by an independent third party facilitator -- Mike Hughes, then
with RESOLVE. After the first year or
so, the full group conducted its meetings without a facilitator until
recently. A local independent third
party facilitator – Michele Straube with CommUnity Resolution, Inc. – was hired
in 2001 to convene and design a collaborative process for a stakeholder work
group focused on soils issues in the
At its
Michele Straube met, by telephone and in person, with
stakeholders in the full watershed group and other people to gather needed
information for creating an effective Lower Silver Creek work group. She asked questions about what interests and
individuals should be included in the work group, and what some of the
potential issues were likely
to be. Landowners, as
well as known developers, for this portion of Lower Silver Creek were
identified, but no effort has been made yet to contact them personally.[1]
Based on that information and on
independent research, this convening report summarizes what Ms. Straube learned
and her process suggestions for the work group’s first two meetings and beyond.
Geographic Boundary
The relevant geographic reach for the Lower Silver Creek
work group is a matter of interpretation.
Everyone agrees that the upstream end begins at Utah State Route 248
(aka the northern end of Richardson Flats).
The full Stakeholders Group asserted at their January 2006 meeting that
the relevant “Lower Silver Creek” area ended at “the dairy” (aka Atkinson, this
stream segment is also sometimes referred to as the southern portion of Lower
Silver Creek), and most interviewees have agreed with that boundary. One interviewee suggested that there is known
contamination from mining in Silver Creek all the way from Route 248 to the
Silver Creek / Weber River confluence in Wanship, and that therefore this
entire reach should be a part of the work group’s discussions.
An innovative site assessment conducted by UDEQ in 2001/2002
collected analytical samples from Route 248 to the confluence in Wanship, and concluded
that all of the Lower Silver Creek area (southern and northern portions) should
be placed on the CERCLIS list for further investigation and possible
remediation under Superfund. A visual
reconnaissance of the area confirms that the topography changes drastically at
Atkinson, with the northern portion of Lower Silver Creek being confined within
canyon walls, along with the rail trail and the I-80 highway corridor. Thus, the conditions possibly affecting
Silver Creek stream quality (mine tailings, land use, infiltration, etc.), the
options for remediation / restoration, and the stakeholders who will have control
over and/or be affected by any remediation / restoration appear to be quite
different in the southern and northern portions of Lower Silver Creek.
For these reasons, Ms. Straube recommends that the
geographic boundary of the Lower Silver Creek work group be initially limited
from Route 248 to the area referred to as “the dairy” or “Atkinson” (the
southern portion of Lower Silver Creek).
The work group should revisit this recommendation in its first meeting,
and if confirmed, can expand its focus and geographic boundary to include the northern
portion of Lower Silver Creek at a later time when sufficient progress has been
made on investigating and remediating / restoring the southern portion.
The remainder of this convening report assumes that the work
group will initially address the southern portion of Lower Silver Creek, as
described above.
Potential Issues and Challenges
The southern portion of Lower Silver Creek was historically
used for mining-related activities. The
Big Four Mill operated until 1918. In
the mid-1900s, some tailings were moved and removed off-site for re-processing. In 2002, UDEQ conducted an innovative site
assessment and recommended that the site be included on CERCLIS for further
investigation under the Superfund program.
This recommendation has not yet been implemented.
The riparian landscape in this portion of Lower Silver Creek
has been described as including many non-vegetated tailings piles and numerous jurisdictional
wetlands areas. Development interest is
growing:
·
Some commercial development exists
upland on the west side of the stream.
·
The Promontory Development has already
completed extensive construction in the upland areas on the east side of the
stream. They are in the process of
building an equestrian center, also some distance from the stream and known
tailings materials.
·
A major development, Silver Gate
Ranches, was just approved by the Summit County Commission in mid March 2006. The exact location and timing of their
construction plans is currently unknown, but can be expected to be imminent.
·
Development plans in this area proposed
by Anderson Development have not been approved and are currently in
litigation.
·
It is our understanding that an
environmental site assessment is being conducted for land east of Richardson
Flats, but no specific details of the precipitating transaction are known.
We are unaware of any
other existing or currently planned development in the riparian areas of this
portion of Lower Silver Creek.
The rail trail, well-used by the public, follows along the
stream through this entire section.
As of 2002, two active drinking water wells existed in the
southern portion of Lower Silver Creek, operated by Mountain Regional SSD.
Silver Creek was listed on
Both history and the present day may present challenges for
the Lower Silver Creek work group, which process design should attempt to
address.
Current Status of Development Plans. The Summit County Commission approved the Silver
Gate Ranches development at its
Similarly, the
existing Promontory development is expanding somewhat closer to the
stream. Based on the distance from the
stream, potential impact (if any) of tailings-related contamination is thought
to be unlikely.
There are current
discussions about possible wetland restoration work in the meadow area near the
concrete plant.
The coordination of
future development and other activities within the Lower Silver Creek work
group area with environmental investigation and possible remediation /
restoration of this area is critical.
The work group will need to educate itself quickly about the
relationship between planned development and areas within Lower Silver Creek that may
pose a risk to human health and the environment.
Historical Reaction to Regulatory Agencies. The greater
The larger Silver
Creek Watershed Stakeholders Group has worked together over the past five years
to build working relationships between previously conflicting interests, and to
encourage an attitude of collaboration and innovation, rather than regulation
and resistance. It is hoped that the
participants in the Lower Silver Creek work group who come from the full Stakeholders
Group will bring that learning with them and will encourage any new
participants who retain the historical resistance to regulatory agencies to
keep an open mind. In addition, design
of the process to encourage joint fact-finding and exploration of innovative
solutions, as well as facilitation of the process by an independent third party
(the facilitator), should provide reassurance to reluctant participants.
Landowner Cooperation. There are numerous (over 20) private
landowners potentially affected by any investigation and possible remediation /
restoration in the southern portion of Lower Silver Creek, some of whom have
already established relationships with potential developers. Not all private landowners agreed to provide
access to their land for sampling in 2001 when UDEQ was conducting its
innovative site assessment. It is
believed that some of these entities are philosophically opposed to any land
use or other controls on development, and regularly challenge county land use
decisions. We do not mention this to question the
validity of these entities’ actions, but merely to highlight the potential
resistance that some interests may exhibit to the work group’s efforts.
Landowner cooperation
will likely be essential, however, for any further investigations within Lower
Silver Creek and any potential future remediation / restoration. At a minimum, access to property will be
necessary. At a maximum, landowner/developer
participation in any remediation /restoration may be essential to the effort’s
success.
The practical import
of these facts cannot be determined until more information is available that
correlates potential contamination sources and areas possibly requiring
remediation / restoration with land ownership and development plans. The Lower Silver Creek work group process
must be open, transparent, and sensitive to keeping all landowners and known
developers fully informed of its activities, to avoid surprises and
misinterpretation to the extent possible.
The large number of
landowners, the uniqueness of their individual property interests, and the need
for cooperation from individual landowners makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to select a “representative” of this interest to participate in the
work group process.[2] The process should be designed to offer all
landowners the opportunity to participate as fully as they wish in work group
activities that may affect their property interest and/or that may require
their cooperation. Process design must
also be sensitive, however, to the logistical difficulty of working with large
groups (greater than 20-25 members), as well as the respectful and efficient
use of work group participants’ time.
Multiplicity of Entities Potentially Responsible For and/or
Capable of Taking Action. By
contrast to some other portions of the Silver Creek watershed, there does not
appear to be one financially capable entity that could be considered legally
responsible for addressing any contamination found and performing remediation /
restoration in Lower Silver Creek. (I.e., there does not appear to be one viable
“potentially responsible party” under Superfund.) In
addition, the landowners often do not undertake development of their property
themselves. This means that the
developer may be the entity that has relevant knowledge and/or technical
capacity to conduct investigation and/or remediation / restoration on a given
landowner’s property. At a minimum, the
developers should be a part of the work group process.
This situation will also
require flexibility and innovation on the part of the work group participants
to take responsibility for and find funding for any work that needs to be
done. A stakeholder process, where all
potentially affected interests work together to create a vision for the area, gather
needed information, and make joint decisions to implement that vision, is
ideally suited to deal with this type of situation.
Who Needs/Wants to be Involved
Based on the interviews conducted as part of this convening,
Chart 1 reflects our identification of individuals and entities that may have
an interest in the Lower Silver Creek work group’s activities and discussions. This listing will need to be revisited
periodically as more is learned about the nature and extent of contamination,
as well as the nature and extent of remediation / restoration options. In particular, more or different landowners and/or
developers may need to be included in the work group discussions as the focus
of the group sharpens.
CHART 1:[3]
|
Name |
Agency |
Part
of Full Stakeholder
Group
?? |
Nature
of Interest |
Suggested
as Work Group Member |
|
KathrynHernandez |
EPA Region 8 |
Yes |
Superfund site project manager |
Yes |
|
Mo Slam Ty Howard |
UDEQ / DERR |
Yes |
Superfund site project manager |
Yes |
|
John Whitehead Kari Lundeen |
UDEQ / DWQ |
Yes |
TMDL / watershed coordinator |
Yes |
|
Brent Ovard |
|
Yes |
County Health Department |
Yes |
|
Sally Elliott |
|
Yes |
- -citizen on SH group |
Yes |
|
Michele Devaney Denise Hytonen |
|
No |
Planning / zoning agency |
Yes |
|
Chris Cline |
US Fish & Wildlife |
Yes |
Natural resource damages |
Yes |
|
Pam Kramer |
UT Div Wildlife Resources |
No |
Wildlife habitat |
Yes |
|
Jason Gipson |
US Corps of Engineers |
No |
Jurisdictional wetlands |
Yes |
|
Kerry Gee |
United |
Yes |
- Coordination with UPCM-led
activities - Watershed vision |
Yes |
|
John Knudson |
UT Dept of Natural Resources / Parks |
Yes |
Owns rail trail |
Yes |
|
Jeff Schoenbacher Tom Bakaly |
|
Yes |
LSC landowner |
Yes |
|
20+ Landowners |
|
No |
LSC landowners |
Yes |
|
Jeramy Green |
Promontory Development |
No |
LSC developer |
Yes |
|
Walt Plum |
Silver GateRanches |
No |
LSC developer |
Yes |
|
Not yet identified |
Not yet identified |
No |
LSC developers, but not landowners |
Yes |
|
John Tuerff |
Citizens for Responsible Growth |
???[4] |
Citizen advocacy on development
issues |
Yes |
|
Jennifer Chergo |
EPA Region 8 |
Yes |
Community involvement |
Resource |
|
Dave Allison |
UDEQ / DERR |
Yes |
Community involvement |
Resource |
|
Senta Beyer |
Snyderville Basin Recreation District |
No |
Maintains /develops trails that
intersect with rail trail |
Resource |
|
Chris Donaldson Kimber Gabryszak |
Basin Open Space Advisory Committee |
No |
$10 million bond to protect and
acquire open space |
Resource |
|
Barbara Carey RC&D Coordinator |
Uinta Headwaters Resource
Conservation & Development Council |
No |
Possible funding and planning
resource |
Resource |
We suggest that the interests identified as “resource” be regularly
informed of the work group’s efforts and be invited to specific meetings at
which they can be used as a resource for discrete work group discussions.
Technical Information Available
In conducting this convening, Ms. Straube has identified the
following technical information that may be relevant to the Lower Silver Creek
work group’s efforts:
- Innovative
Assessment Analytical Results Report, Lower
Silver Creek,
- TMDL for Silver
Creek. (Available at: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/TMDL/SilverCreekFinalTMDL_11-15-04.pdf
)
- Fish Consumption
Advisory for Trout from Silver Creek. Utah Department of Environmental
Quality.
- Water Resources
of the
(Available at
UDEQ/DWQ ??)
- Principal
Locations of Metal Loading from Floodplain Tailings,
- Quantification
of Metal Loading to Silver Creek Through the Silver Maple Claims Area,
Park City, Utah, May 2002. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), prepared
in cooperation with BLM and UDEQ.
Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4296. 2004.
(Available at EPA and UDEQ)
Suggested Process
The Lower Silver Creek Work Group process design we suggest
has been tailored to address the challenges identified in a previous section of
this report.
Sponsor: This work group, as an outgrowth of the
existing Silver Creek Watershed Stakeholders Group, should be sponsored by
EPA. As is the case with the full
Stakeholders Group, all entities retain their full decision-making authority
and commit solely to coordinate activities that will impact the Lower Silver Creek
environment to the greatest extent possible.
EPA’s main role as sponsor of the collaborative effort is to provide
funding for the logistics of the group’s meetings, including publicity and
independent facilitation.
Work
Group Membership:
Suggested work group membership is reflected in Chart 1. While this group size is initially quite
large (15 individually identified members plus
20+ landowners and an unknown number of developers), the design of the first
two work group meetings is intended to assist the group in honing its focus so
that individual landowners and developers can self-determine whether continued
meeting attendance or simply remaining “in the loop” will be appropriate to
meet their interests. It is anticipated
that, based on the results of the first two meetings, a natural attrition will
occur.
Landowners and known developers will be sent a letter from
Ms. Straube (by certified mail) containing an announcement about the Lower
Silver Creek work group process, a description of the first two work group
meetings, and a personal invitation to participate. We suggest that the invitation to
participate come from an independent third party to emphasize the collaborative
non-directive nature of the work group process.
The interests identified on Chart 1 as “resource” will not
be an active part of the work group, but may attend any meetings they are
interested in. They can be invited to
participate in specific meetings where their knowledge and expertise will be
most helpful. They will be specifically
invited to participate in the second (visioning) work group meeting. In
addition, these entities will receive all work group meeting summaries. These interests should be encouraged to
contact the facilitator directly at any time with any questions or
concerns.
Work
Group Activities:
Long term, it is our view that the work group will need to accomplish
the following tasks:
- identify
existing information about soil and water contamination within the
southern portion of Lower Silver Creek
- identify
data gaps, if any, and ways to gather the additional information
- create
a vision for the future in this section of Lower Silver Creek, especially
the areas containing or impacted by contaminated tailings
- identify
options for remediation / restoration to meet the vision
- assign
responsibility for implementation of remediation /restoration to meet the
vision.
These work group tasks will be accomplished over a long
period of time, and the work group process will necessarily be flexible and
iterative. We suggest that the work
group begin its efforts with two initial meetings, designed both to outline the
potential scope of its activities and to begin creating the vision for the
future that will serve as a goal for all future activities.
First Meeting. We suggest that the first meeting be held in early
to mid-May. The primary goal of this
meeting will be to identify and integrate known information about contaminated
areas in Lower Silver Creek, the potential source(s) of contamination,
vulnerable resources, and to correlate this information to land ownership and
known development plans.
While all members of the work group will be welcome to
attend this first meeting, the following members will be specifically invited (as
opposed to given notice of) the meeting to share whatever relevant data they
may have:
- EPA
- DEQ/DERR
- DEQ/DWQ