Silver Creek Watershed Stakeholders’ Group

Friday, January 13, 20061-4 pm

Park City Library Meeting Room

 

Draft  Meeting  Summary

 

 

 

Meeting Attendees

 

Chris Morley

DOI/Solicitor

801-524-5677 x. 236

Mike Nelson

BLM

Mike_Nelson@blm.gov

Mark Fitch

U Missouri / Rolla

mfitch@umr.edu

Al Mattes

Nature Works

almattes@rogers.com

Lee Duncan

UACD

lee.duncan@ut.nacdnet.net

Jeff Schoenbacher

Park City

jschoenbacher@parkcity.org

Chris Cline

US FWS

chris_cline@fws.gov

Bob Wells

Deer Valley Resort

bwells@deervalley.com

Muhammed Slam

UDEQ

mslam@utah.gov

Dave Allison

UDEQ

dallison@utah.gov

John Knudson

UT State Parks

JohnKnudson@utah.gov

Jennifer Chergo

EPA

chergo.jennifer@epa.gov

Peggy Churchill

EPA

churchill.peggy@epa.gov

John Whitehead

UDEQ / MDWQ

jwhitehead@utah.gov

Dana Williams

Park City

dana@parkcity.org

Tom Bakaly

Park City

tom@parkcity.org

Kerry C. Gee

United Park City Mines

kcgee@unitedpark.com

Carl Adams

UDEQ / WQ

carladams@utah.gov

Brent Giles

Park City Resort

brentg@pcski.com

Bill Duncan

Nature Works

wfadunc@telus.net

Jim Fricke

UPCM Consultant

jim@ermc-ut.com

Ron Ivie

Park City

rivie@parkcity.org

Scott Miller

UPCM Consultant

smiller@golden.com

Julie Zamora

United Park City Mines

juliez@unitedpark.com

Michele Straube

Facilitator

mstraube@mindspring.com

 

 

Stakeholders’ Group Goals Review

 

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

 

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

 

Update on Schedule for Watershed Cleanup

 

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

 

Empire Canyon

 

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

 

·        Second year of stream restoration

·        One quasi-municipal storm drain project

·        Stormwater retention pond created as part of Empire Pass project

·        Stream channel restoration completed (Empire Canyon, Walker and Webster Gulches)

·        Beginning June 2006, small boulder walls will be built along restored stream channel

 

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

 

Richardson Flats

 

Peggy Churchill gave a regulatory update:

 

·        The Record of Decision (ROD) has been written

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

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

·        Work is planned to start this summer

 

Kerry Gee updated the group on the past year’s activities relating to Richardson Flats:

 

·        Tailings were moved from Daly West to Richardson Flats

·        Screening of materials to construct a wedge buttress has begun

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

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

·        Work is planned to start this summer

 


The following points were made in response to questions:

 

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

·        Construction at Richardson Flats will be a 3-year process

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

·        The rail trail will reopen through the Richardson Flats area once remediation has been completed

·        Ownership of the rail trail has transferred from State Parks to Summit and Wasatch Counties

 

Soils Ordinance Area / EMS Update

 

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

 

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

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

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

·        Various education and awareness-raising efforts about the ordinance and its requirements are ongoing

·        The topsoil assistance program provided over $21,000 to 46 property owners

 

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

 

Status of Delisting of Prospector

 

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

 

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

·        The soils ordinance work group’s efforts and the resulting EMS program are a good example of people working collaboratively through conflict

 


Middle Reach Silver Creek

 

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

 

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

 

FWS Natural Resource Damage Assessment

 

Chris Cline gave the update:

 

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

·        FWS anticipates working cooperatively with UPCM

·        Current stage of NRDA is preliminary assessment

 

Lower Silver Creek

 

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

 

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

 

Park City Biocell Project

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·        What are the ramifications, if any, of phasing the proposal?

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

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

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

Next Meeting

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