TITTABAWASSEE RIVER FLOODPLAIN STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH SUM M ARY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River & Bay Site TITTABAWASSEE RIVER FLOODPLAIN STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH SUM M ARY Diane Russell – U.S. EPA CAG M eeting November 18, 2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Outreach Goals • Outreach M ethods • Results Summary – Goal #1 – Goal #2 – Goal #3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• The goals of this outreach effort were to: – Understand community values about the current state of the floodplain & desires for future conditions and uses. – Obtain feedback on the possible tradeoffs that come with the cleanup options. – Identify what other information may be needed by the community. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

OUTREACH M ETHODS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• The “ Tier” indicates the outreach commitment for EPA based on how critical the group’s input is. Priority Group Description 1 st Tier The individuals and groups that will be most directly affected by EP A’s Tittabawassee floodplain cleanup decision 2 nd Tier Groups that are important because of the nature of their impact on the community and concerns regarding EP A’s cleanup decisions 3 rd Tier Groups that are important in the community but may not be directly affected by EP A’s Tittabawassee floodplain cleanup decision NOTE: Input from other groups or individuals will be welcome at any time

1 st Tier 2 nd Tier 3 rd Tier Tittabawassee River Floodplain Elected Officials/ Local Sportsman Organizations Homeowners Government Bodies (except river fisherman) Tittabawassee River Floodplain Tribe Civic Organizations Farmers/ Agricultural Groups Tittabawassee-Saginaw Rivers Non-governmental Tittabawassee River Floodplain Community Advisory Group Organizations Businesses Environmental Groups Real Estate Agents Park and Recreation Departments managing parks along Chamber of Commerce/ Student Groups Tittabawassee River Better Business Bureau Unions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sportsmen (river fisherman) Service/ Shiawassee NWR Environmental Justice Groups U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

RESULTS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1 st Tier Stakeholders: • – Held 16 meetings for residential, agricultural and commercial owners • Held meetings from M arch - September at 5 different locations throughout the floodplain community. – Conducted best efforts to maximize participation • People were mailed multiple invitations • Called over half of all invitee’s to inform them of upcoming meeting(s). – Held 5 meetings with local parks, recreational departments and the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2 nd Tier Stakeholders: • – All elected officials were informed of our outreach plans – M eet with 4 groups including the CAG • M ade efforts to engage other 2 nd tier stakeholders 3 rd Tier Stakeholders: • – No groups came forward to request a meeting. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• For residential, agricultural and commercial property owners, small informal meetings were held throughout the community where they were invited to; – Learn about cleanup options and tradeoffs. – Provided feedback to EPA and share of questions and/ or concerns. • For local parks and recreation departments, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge and 2 nd Tier groups, one-on-one meetings were held. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• The results presented in following slides are based on interactive exercises conducted during meetings held with residential, agricultural and commercial property owners. – CAG results are also included where available. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GOAL #1: Understand community values about the current state of the floodplain & desires for future conditions and uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Commercial Public parks 5% 3% Active agriculture 18% Undeveloped/ Residential low use/ maintained natural 5% 54% Shiawassee NWR 15%

Land Use Increase Decrease Same No opinion Undeveloped/ natural ecosystem Residential Shiawassee NWR Active agriculture Commercial Public parks

Views on Future Land Use of the Tittabawassee River Floodplain Increase Decrease Same No Opinion Undeveloped/ 52% 3% 44% 1% natural ecosystem Public Parks 52% 5% 41% 2% Shiawassee NWR 49% 4% 40% 7% Active Agriculture 26% 23% 49% 2% Residential 17% 23% 56% 4% Commercial 5% 44% 36% 14% U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GOAL #2: Obtain feedback on the possible tradeoffs that come with the cleanup options. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• The cleanup options being considered are: – Soil Removal – Soil Cover – Land-use M anagement • Other things to consider: – Each option can protect people and the environment under the right conditions. – All have some tradeoffs or impacts to consider. – A mixed approach combining the options may provide the best balance among the tradeoffs for the floodplain cleanup. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CLEANUP OPTIONS LAND USE SOIL COVER SOIL REM OVAL TRADEOFFS M ANAGEM ENT AND DISPOSAL Flexibility for future Least flexible Somewhat flexible M ost flexible land use Impacts to existing Least impact M ore impact M ost impact ecosystem Time to implement and Least time to M ore time to M ost time to achieve protection implement implement implement Reliance on monitoring Reliance on Reliance on Least to no and maintenance monitoring both monitoring reliance on and maintenance monitoring Short-term worker and Least short-term M ore short-term M ost short-term community impacts impacts impacts impacts Cost Least cost M ore cost M ost cost

RESULTS FROM FEEDBACK ON CLEANUP OPTION TRADEOFFS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Percentage of Votes in Each Trade-off Category Other 0% Cost Flexibility 17% 14% Ecosystems Short-term 20% Impacts 21% M onitoring & Time M aintenance 16% 12%

0% Percentage of Votes in Each Trade-off Category Flexibility for Future Land Use Other 27% 36% 0% 10% Cost Flexibility 17% 14% 36% 10% 35% CAG Results #1 - I support the most flexibility for how the floodplain could be used in the future. Ecosystems Short-term 20% Impacts #2 - I support limiting building or other development within the floodplain. 21% 45% #3 - There are specific areas within the M onitoring & floodplain where flexibility in land use Time should be maintained.* M aintenance 16% 12% #4 - There are specific areas where future land use should be controlled.* *#3 areas identified by owners: bike paths & parks, homeowners, wildlife & recreation, river edge *#4 areas identified by owners: where human and animal exposures would be present

Impacts to Existing Ecosystems 4% 12% 15% 19% 27% 16% 18% 23% CAG Results #5 - I am willing to live with the disruption to 7% the ecosystem, if I get the cleanup I want. #6 - I want to leave the ecosystem alone. 18% #7 - I want to lessen ecosystem damage by focusing construction work to the most contaminated areas. 28% #8 - I believe that the ecosystem can recover sufficiently from construction impacts. 13% #9 - I want to protect the current floodplain ecosystem to the extent possible. #10 - I want to enhance the floodplain ecosystem to make it better. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Time to Implement/ Achieve Protection 13% 7% 53% 27% 25% CAG Results 34% #11 - It would be good to have this done as soon as possible. #12 - I can accept a longer cleanup, if I get 13% the cleanup I want. #13 - I can accept a longer cleanup if there is less disruption to the community (i.e. limited 28% work on nights or weekends, traffic limits). #14 - Some areas should be prioritized for *#14 areas identified by owners: residential areas & parks cleanup sooner.* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency *#14 areas identified by CAG: high concentration, high use

0% Reliance on M onitoring & M aintenance 13% 33% 7% 53% 13% CAG Results 40% #15 - I don’t believe that cleanups that leave contamination in the floodplain can be reliable in the long-term. #16 - I believe that monitoring and maintenance can be effective. 41% #17 - The most contaminated areas should rely less on monitoring and maintenance. #18 - Specific areas should or should not rely on monitoring and maintenance.* *#18 areas identified by owners: areas with most human interaction U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

5% CAG Results Short-term Impacts 14% 14% #19 - I don’t want a lot of noise, lights, or truck traffic. 19% 38% 10% 2% #20 - I can accept some noise, lights, or truck 0% traffic, but want limits (i.e. nights and weekends) even if that lengthens the cleanup. #21 - I am willing to live with noise, lights and 18% 15% truck traffic if I get the cleanup I want. #22 - Additional short-term pollution and resource use (water, fuel, energy) caused by the cleanup is a reasonable tradeoff. 20% #23 - Short-term pollution and resource use (water, fuel, energy) should be lessened and 25% "green" cleanup approaches used as much as possible. #24 - I want to make sure that the community is protected during the work. 8% 12% #25 - I want to make sure that the workers are protected during the work. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency