Draft Restoration Plan for Use of Remaining Funds 1998 Saginaw River and Bay Settlement Saginaw River & Bay Trustee Council November 20, 2020
Transcript
Draft Restoration Planfor
Use of Remaining Funds1998
Saginaw River and Bay Settlement
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
November 20, 2020
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Good afternoon everyone! I am Clark McCreedy, US Fish and Wildlife Service, coming to you from my basement office... I would vastly prefer to be meeting in person and to be able to talk face to face – hopefully that is something we can look forward to in the at least the foreseeable future. There are several familiar faces on the call so I am hoping that today we will have a mostly informal, informative, conversation today. That’s my plan. So, to get started…
House-keeping
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• Series of short presentations • Presentations followed by discussion• Webinar recorded and will be posted
www.fws.gov/midwest/es/ec/nrda/SaginawNRDA
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Today’s presentation, with speaker’s notes will also be posted on the Saginaw NRDA web page.
House-keeping
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• The Teams Focus feature• Participants muted to start• Ask questions using the hand icon• Or, use the chat feature• Questions by email at any time!
The Focus feature in Teams will allow you to enlarge the presentation screen, hiding the thumbnails of the participants!
Overview
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• The 1998 Settlement & Funding• Trustee Councils and NRDAR• The Plan & Preferred Alternative• Comment & Collaboration
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Presentation divided into four parts, discussion or questions following each section. How we got here Who we are and how we operate What we are proposing How you can participate and partner
The 1998 Settlement
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Dredging and Dredging Design 10.90
Land Acquisition/Conveyance 7.70
Resource Restoration and Protection 4.60
Public Access to Natural Resources 3.02
Cost Reimbursement to Trustees 2.00
TOTAL (Millions) $28.22
Presenter
Presentation Notes
So, components of the 1998 Settlement, In millions of dollars (in 1998). Memorialized in a Consent Judgment – that is, an order of the Court. Trivia: Name an individual who served on the 1998 Saginaw River and Bay Trustee Council (Answer: Lisa Williams, current member of the Saginaw River and Bay Trustee Council). So, some genuine continuity in this process – start to finish. And, just another historic note, this settlement was the first time a Trustee Council was formed in the State of Michigan to work on a NRDA case.
The 1998 SettlementRemaining Funds
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Dredging and Dredging Design 2.70
Land Acquisition/Conveyance
Resource Restoration and Protection 3.00
Public Access to Natural Resources (0.50)
Cost Reimbursement to Trustees
TOTAL (Millions) $5.70
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This slide depicts remaining funds available to the Trustees that may be used for additional restorations. Significant savings were realized in implementing the dredging of contaminated sediments, approximately $2.7 million dollars remains from the original allocation of $10.9 million dollars for dredging. Approximately $3.0 million dollars remains in the fund set aside for resource restoration, protection, and monitoring. An additional $0.5 million dollars remains in a fund that was set aside, identified within the Consent Judgment, for restoration at the Green Point Area within the Shiawassee National Refuge. Those funds are dedicated to that effort and may not be used for other purposes. So, approximately $5.7 million dollars remains that the Trustees may direct to additional restoration actions in the Saginaw River and Bay.
The 1998 Settlement in 2020 - Why now?
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• A difficult year, a difficult decade• Competing cases in Michigan• Staffing for the federal Trustee• EPA Response actions in the area
Presenter
Presentation Notes
It has been a difficult year, but the decade has had challenges of its own that have impinged on the capacity of the Trustees to take on the task of restoration planning in the Saginaw River and Bay - 2010 Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill 2010 Enbridge Oil Spill – perhaps a landmark event in terms of recognition that NRDA plays a valuable role in natural resource management Actually two cases in the Kalamazoo – Enbridge Oil Spill, and in the lower river, another CERCLA Case (PCBs), the Dow - Tittabawassee Case which has recently reached settlement and implementation of restorations are set to begin. And, the Saginaw River and Bay case. Substantial progress on these cases… An additional staff position dedicated to NRDA for the federal Trustee a somewhat recent event. EPA Response Action working its way down the Tittabawassee River in the proximity of the Green Point Area of the Shiawassee NWR – which we’ll talk about more in a moment. In short – these other issues competing for the attention of the Trustees – have reached their own significant milestones – particularly response actions in the Tittabawassee, making the timing right to revisit the Saginaw River and Bay.
How We Got Here
Discussion – Questions?
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Green Point Environmental Learning Center
Cass AvenueBoat Launch
Edward M. Golson Boat Launch
And Nature Park
Saginaw River Dredging
Jones Road Boat Launch/Park
City ofBay City
City of Saginaw
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I hope this has been a good, quick overview of the background related to the Saginaw River and Bay case…Questions?, Discussion?
Trustee Councils & NRDA
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Natural Resource Trustees are the entities that have some recognized authority for the management of natural resources. This includes:
• State Governors• Tribal Governments• Federal Departments
This is defined by statute and regulation
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Governors delegate to their agencies by way of Executive Order Similarly, Tribal Governments designate their representatives Federal government represented by departments such as Interior, Commerce, Agriculture Consequently, who can serve on a Trustee Council is fairly well-defined, determined by statute, regulation, executive order. Our mission is always to represent the interests of the public with respect to natural resource injury and restoration.
Trustee Councils & NRDA
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
For the Saginaw River and Bay:• Michigan Department of Attorney General• Michigan Department of Natural Resources• Michigan Department of the Environment, Great
Lakes, and Energy• The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Presenter
Presentation Notes
That said, we have tended to be inclusive in terms of representation and welcoming input. These are the agencies and entities that make up the Saginaw River and Bay Trustee Council…
Trustee Councils & NRDA
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
For the Saginaw River and Bay:• Megen Miller (MDAG)• Nate Levitte, Jeremiah Heise (MDNR)• John Riley (EGLE)• Sally Kniffen, Carey Paquette, Troy Techlin (SCIT)• Lisa Williams, Clark McCreedy (USFWS)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
And, Additional contributions from: Charlie Bauer (EGLE), a familiar participant in conservation related issues in the area. Chase Stevens from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
Trustee Councils & NRDA
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Characteristics of Trustee Councils:
• Formal agreement to work collaboratively• Usually a lead administrative trustee• Not a democracy, operate by consensus • Decisions formalized in written resolutions
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The lead administrative Trustee’s role is to shepherd the activities and compile the record of the activities of the Trustee Council. It is a position of responsibility as opposed to any kind of authority. This characteristic of operating by consensus is somewhat unique. None of the Trustees has any more authority than any other Trustee – which means discussions may be vigorous, but we don’t move forward until we have reached agreement, which is a unique collaborative way to do business. Our decisions are formalized in written resolutions that are signed by the respective administrative official, or their designee, for each of the Trustee agencies. These form part of the record of the activities of the Trustee Council.
Trustee Councils & NRDA
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
The work of the Trustee Council is compiled into an administrative record which is publicly available
In addition to statute and regulation, documentation that directs the Council:
Consent Judgment – a Court Order (1998) Restoration Plan – durable direction for the Council
Resolution – formal decisions of the Council
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The administrative record is housed on the web at the Service’s Saginaw NRDA website. Google ‘Saginaw’ ‘NRDA’ or ‘SaginawNRDA’ and you will immediately find the web site. Restoration plans are required by statute. Before we can spend monies, we have to have a plan that directs those expenditures. Moreover, the public must have the opportunity to review and contribute to the plan This presentation will become part of the administrative record. The administrative record for the 1998 Saginaw River and Bay Settlement is also available on the case web site.
Trustee Councils & NRDA
Discussion – Questions?
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I hope this provides you some insight into who we are and how we operate – any questions related to the Trustee Council ad how we do business?
The Plan & Preferred Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
“…the Trustees shall use such funds in the Assessment Area and/or its watershed.”
1998 Consent Judgment Section 8.6(d)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Geographic scope for the use of remaining funds, as identified within the 1998 Consent Judgment: Assessment Area: Saginaw River to the confluence with the Tittabawassee – out to the Bay to the two points at the outer entrance of the Bay. But, the Consent Judgment somewhat expands this by identifying the Saginaw River and Bay watershed as the geographic scope in which the Trustees may work. This provides the Trustees a broad geographic scope within which to work: the Saginaw River & Bay Watershed.
The Plan & Preferred AlternativeUse of Remaining Funds
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
1998 Consent Judgment Section 8.6(d)
I. …dredging or disposal of contaminated sediment…
II. ...future monitoring, modeling, and studies of the Assessment Area...
III. Purchase and restoration of lands within the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay watershed.
IV. Activities to enhance the containment within the CDF of contaminated sediment or to otherwise enhance the environmental value of the CDF…
V. Other natural resource restoration projects designed to protect, restore, replace, enhance, or acquire the equivalent natural resources, including, but not limited to Tribal Resources in and near the Assessment Area.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Consent Judgment was remarkably forward looking – over 22 years ago, the Trustees contemplated the likelihood that there may be remaining funds that might be put to use in the Saginaw River and Bay. And, they identified those possible uses: dredging or disposal of contaminated sediment (not contemplated in the plan) future monitoring, modeling, and studies of the Assessment Area (an integral component of the plan) Purchase of lands not identified within the plan; restoration certainly identified within the plan. Enhancement of the Confined Disposal Facility is not identified within the plan, but remains a strong interest of the Trustees. The CDF provides substantial natural resource value with respect to colonial nesting birds. Discussions with the primary stakeholders are on-going with the intent of shaping the future natural resource value of the facility. Other restorations…In other words, broad ecological scope is within the scope of activities available to the Trustees.
The Trustees use a suite of criteria to evaluate plan alternatives, or suites of projects. These are identified and expanded upon within the draft restoration plan. The Trustee-defined criteria address issues related to the long-term maintenance of desired condition of restoration projects. This has historically received perhaps les attention than it should. You will see the issue of maintenance addressed extensively in the draft plan. Partnership is something the Trustees hope to emphasize which is something of a standard of practice among stakeholders in the Saginaw Bay Area. Strategic leveraging refers to how we invest in conservation on the landscape. Ideally, we will support actions where the benefit of the action extends well beyond the project boundary. For example, when a restoration action results in connecting isolated parcels of habitat to create a larger contiguous area of restored habitat.
The Plan & Preferred Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Four Restoration Alternatives Considered:• No Action (because we have to)• Stewardship Alternative• Stakeholder Alternative• Collaborative Conservation Alternative
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Four alternatives to direct the actions of the Trustee Council are presented and evaluated in the draft plan. The Collaborative Conservation Alternative has been identified by the Trustees as their preferred Alternative.
The No Action Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• Requirement to consider this alternative• Limited Green Point restoration• Continued limited monitoring• Investment of funds• Oversight costs low
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Long-term investment of funds = limited interest, variable period of investment, Treasury Bonds. So, we have some opportunity to invest funds, but not the breadth of opportunity available to individuals. Common to all the alternatives. To a substantial degree, the Trustees have implemented a No Action Alternative, as the most appropriate course of action, so as to avoid complicating restoration actions with an EPA-led remedial action within the floodplain of the Tittabawassee River, particularly at the Green Point Area, which is likely to be used as an equipment staging area for the response action.
The Stewardship Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Focus on 1998 restoration actions:
SaganingRiver MouthRestoration Project
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Stewardship Alternative focuses on the stewardship of projects implemented as a result of the 1998 settlement. This includes funds to implement primary restoration and funds to maintain the desired condition of the restorations. In terms of substantial or unique habitats, it is not every day that we get to contemplate the restoration of a coastal wetland river mouth habitat. Moreover, the property has unique cultural value to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. This proposal focuses on building the capacity of the Tribe to accomplish the restoration of conservation lands. And, the Tribe has already begun the work of restoration having successfully funded a substantial portion of their original proposal by way of a successful grant. They have acquired machinery essential to the restoration work and the proposal within the plan supports this effort by providing additional staff, training, supplies, and maintenance funding to achieve the restoration.
The Stewardship Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Focus on 1998 restoration actions:
Green Point AreaRestoration Project
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I like to refer to the Green Point Project as a legacy project. Probably all of you know, this property lies immediately adjacent to the southeast neighborhood association of the City of Saginaw. The Shiawassee is one of the nation’s few genuinely urban wildlife refuges, and represents a tremendous asset to the larger Saginaw Community. The Green Point Area was included in the 1998 Consent Judgment – and, not too terribly long ago, the Refuge inherited the former Germania Golf Course, adding to the Green Point Area. The Restoration project intends to take this highly manipulated and artificial landscape, restore native habitats, while providing related opportunity for the community to connect to nature. So, this is a project of obvious ecological and social benefit.
The Stewardship Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Focus on 1998 restoration actions:
Acquired Recreation & Conservation PropertiesState of Michigan
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This project focuses on adding capacity to the MDNR to enable them to advance restoration of conservation and recreation properties that occur throughout the Saginaw Bay Area. Approximately 1415 acres were added to the inventory of conservation and recreation properties that receive substantial public use from both residents and visitors to the area.
The Charity Islands were acquisitions added to the Michigan Islands NWR as part of the 1998 Settlement. Little Charity Island provides essential nesting habitat for colonial nesting waterbirds; Big Charity Island provides habitat for one of Michigan’s federally threatened species – the Pitcher’s thistle. And, I suspect that the islands provide unique habitats during seasonal migrations of both passerine birds and probably Midwest forest bats. The conservation values of the island are substantial. This project supports those on-going efforts to conserve species, control non-native invasive species, and to monitor the ecological condition of the islands.
The Stewardship Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Focus on 1998 restoration actions:
Contaminant Monitoring in the Saginaw River & Bay
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Contaminant monitoring is a critical component of efforts to track the efficacy of restoration in the Saginaw River and Bay – something that the Trustee Council continues to support. Moreover, this supports the efforts of the Areas of Concern Program, which the Trustees believe is a valuable contribution to conservation in the Great Lakes. Breakdown: Total Funding$5,700,000 Implementation of Restoration$2,600,000 Contaminant Monitoring$1,100,000 Administration & Contingency $700,000 Balance of Funds$1,300,000 Maintenance / Year $33,000 Years of Maintenance 40
The Stakeholder Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• Rely on Stakeholders to identify actions
• Develop proposals with the Trustees
• Restoration criteria used to evaluate
• Stewardship projects likely considered
• Contaminant monitoring to occur
• Contingency & administration
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Given the substantial interest among stakeholders regarding the ecological condition of the Saginaw River and Bay, the Trustees anticipate that there will be substantial interest in use of the remaining funds. This alternative would rely on solicitation and development of proposals with stakeholders, evaluation of the proposals using the same criteria detailed in the restoration plan. The Trustees anticipate that remaining funds would be depleted over five to ten years, depending on the types of projects selected and their respective maintenance requirements as identified by the stakeholders. Total Funding $5,700,000 Implementation$3,900,000 Contaminant Monitoring$1,100,000 Administration & Contingency $700,000 Balance of Funds $0
The Collaborative Conservation Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
• Implementation of the Stewardship projects• Annual maintenance of the Stewardship Projects• Proposed maintenance allocation of $550,000• Proposed Stakeholder allocation of $750,000
This alternative integrates elements of both the Stewardship and Stakeholder alternatives while retaining a commitment to support monitoring in the Saginaw River and Bay.
The Trustees hope to garner feedback from the public regarding their proposed funding allocations to maintenance and stakeholder projects
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This alternative includes implementation of restoration of the 1998 stewardship projects, annual maintenance of the stewardship projects, and an allocation of funding to allow for consideration of restoration projects developed collaboratively with stakeholders. Assuming an initial allocation of $550,000, dedicated for the future maintenance of the stewardship projects, this would result in approximately $750,000 that could be used at the Trustees’ discretion for the future collaborative development of stakeholder identified restoration projects. Dedicated maintenance funding, in the amount of $550,000, would be sufficient to maintain the desired condition of the stewardship projects for approximately 17 years.
Collaborative Conservation Alternative Graph
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The graph depicts this proposed allocation along with two alternative allocations to display the relationship between stakeholder project funding and funds available to maintain the condition of the stewardship projects. Proposed Funding Allocation $5,700,000 Stewardship Implementation $2,600,000 Contaminant Monitoring$1,100,000 Administration & Contingency $700,000 Stakeholder Projects $750,000 Balance of Funds $550,000 Maintenance / Year $33,000 Years of Maintenance 17 Another point that needs to be emphasized, and then emphasized again is that NRDA dollars are not federal dollars. Which is to say that they can be used as matching funds. So, if a project proponent out there has an exceptional project, but needs to be able to demonstrate matching funds, that is a possible use of these funds. Something for stakeholders to keep in mind. The allocation of funding between maintenance and stakeholder actions is something that the Trustees hope that the public will review and provide the Trustees their comment.
The Plan & Preferred Alternative
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Discussion – Questions?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This has been a brief overview of the alternatives – more detail is provided in the draft plan. Questions? Discussion?
The Trustees are genuine in their interest in review of the draft plan by the public. For example – public comment received for the 1998 restoration effort resulted in the redesign of the Tobico Marsh Project. In the absence of public participation, this project would have faced substantial redesign after implementation – public input was integral to producing a worthwhile outcome. The Trustees recognize that there is a wealth of experience and interest among stakeholders and that comment from stakeholders invested in the Saginaw River and Bay has value.
Comment and Collaboration
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Stakeholder Identified Restorations:• Project Abstract• Project Map• Point of Contact
Provide as comment for the Restoration Plan!
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Trustees are hoping that stakeholders will share their ideas for potential restoration actions with the Trustees during the public comment period for the draft plan. This will help the Trustees formulate their future engagement and development of proposals with stakeholders. These will be added to the final plan as comment, and similarly will become part of our administrative record.
Comment and Collaboration
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Example:
Aerial Treatment of European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
in Floodplain Forest of the Shiawassee NWR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
An example stakeholder project description: Paragraphs include descriptions of: Current Condition and Proposed Action; Environmental Compliance; Actions & Best Management Practices; Intended Outcomes; Project Schedule, Monitoring, and Reporting; Simple Budget and Matching Contribution All there in a single page. And then a project map and complete contact information. This example is actually part of the Green Point Area Restoration Project that has been pulled from that project to provide an example.
Common Constraints
Saginaw River & BayTrustee Council
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
• Directs natural resource Trustees to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured natural resources and their associated services.
• Often referred to as the ‘Restoration – Injury Handshake’.
• The remedy or restoration proposed must have some well-defined relationship to the injury.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Just a reminder – Fundamental consideration regarding the appropriateness of any particular restoration action to be considered by the Trustees. The restoration proposed must address the injury to natural resources that has occurred, or the loss of services related to resource injury. In shorthand, the remedy must right the wrong. This is reflected in the evaluation criteria.
By postal service:Clark D. McCreedyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMichigan Ecological Services Field Office2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101East Lansing, MI 48823
Comment period ends December 18, 2020!
Presenter
Presentation Notes
To provide comment – this is also detailed in the draft restoration plan as well.
