-------
FINAL
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE SITE
REDDING, CALIFORNIA
November 1983
EPA 07.9V17.0
-------
CONTENTS
Section
A INTRODUCTION
B COMMUNITY RELATIONS BACKGROUND
Site Description
History of Community Relations
Activities
Community Relations Issues
Community Relations Particpants
C COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES
AND TECHNIQUES
Community Relations Objectives
Community Relations Techniques
D COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN
Community Relations Tasks
Staffing Allocation
Budget
Summary (Table 1)
Schedule (Figure 1)
APPENDICES
A MAILING LIST
Agencies and Local Elected
Officials
Interested Groups and Individuals
State and Federal Elected
Officials
Media
B TECHNICAL SCHEDULE
(to be inserted)
Page
A- 1
B- 1
B- 1
B- 2
B- 7
B- 9
C- 1
C- 1
C- 2
D- 1
D- 2
D- 8
D-12
D-13
D-14
App. A-l
App. A-l
App. A-3
App. A-5
App. A-6
App. B-l
PDR108.084.1
-------
Section A
¦ ¦ INTRODUCTION
This community relations plan has been prepared for Phase I
(Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study) of a remedial
response for the Iron Mountain Mine site in Redding, Cali-
fornia. The plan is intended to be a working document, and
is divided into the following sections to facilitate refer-
ence and use:
A. Introduction
B. Community Relations Background
C. Community Relations Objectives and Techniques
D. Community Relations Work Plan
Appendices
The community relations background provides a site descrip-
tion, a history of community relations activities, and the
participants and issues surrounding the site. This informa-
tion was used to design community relations objectives and
techniques appropriate to the site. Development of these
two sections was based on discussions with the following
agency personnel, local officials, and representatives of
interest groups:
• Tom Mix, USEPA, Region 9
• Mark Galloway, California Department of Health
Services
• Jim Pedri and Dennis Heiman, Regional Water Quality
Control Board
• John Reginato, Shasta Wonderland Association
• Steve Swendiman, Shasta County Supervisor
• Dr. Steve Plank, County Health Officer
• Ralph Tetrault, County Health Department
• Arthur Pugh, Vice-Mayor, City of Redding
• Francie Sullivan, Linda Wright, and Bette Dotty,
Redding League of Women Voters
Addresses and telephone numbers for these persons are in-
cluded in Appendix A.
The community relations work plan designates specific tasks
to be undertaken during the remedial investigation and fea-
sibility study (RI/FS). These tasks are outlined in se-
quence and correspond to related technical work activities.
PDR108.074
A-l (11/14/83)
-------
Staff allocations are shown by task, and an overall budget
is provided. The RI/FS and corresponding community re-
lations activities are currently scheduled to occur from
December 1983 to June 1985, with the Record of Decision an-
ticipated to be around October 1985.
Appendix A includes mailing lists for agencies and local
elected officials; state and federal elected officials; in-
terested groups and individuals; and the media. Appendix B
contains a detailed technical work schedule.
USEPA Region 9 will be responsible for the conduct of all
community relations activities. The Zone II contractor will
be retained to prepare written materials, including fact
sheets, public notices, report summaries, and meeting hand-
outs; assist EPA with preparations for public meetings, in-
cluding presentation materials, if required; and assist EPA
with preparation of the mailing lists. EPA staff will main-
tain responsibility for reviewing all written materials,
briefing local officials, and responding to public and media
inquiries. EPA Office of Public Affairs staff will prepare
all press releases.
Jim Pedri, Regional Water Quality Control Board staff (see
Community Relations Background section), will continue to be
an important information source for local officials and in-
terested parties. The Project Manager will ensure that
Mr. Pedri is well-informed on project activities so he can
continue to be a local source of accurate information.
This work plan is not a static document; its object is to
respond to site conditions as they occur. It will therefore
be reviewed periodically during the RI/FS, and will be re-
vised as appropriate to reflect schedule and activity changes,
new technical findings, and emerging public concerns and
information needs.
PDR108.074
A-2 (11/14/83)
-------
¦¦ Section B
¦ ¦ COMMUNITY RELATIONS BACKGROUND
SITE DESCRIPTION
Iron Mountain Mine is located in the Klamath Mountains of
Shasta County, California, 15 miles northwest of the city of
Redding. Mining began at the site in the late 1800's and
continued until the early 1960's. The principal ore miner-
als were pyrite, chalcopyrite, and sphalerite. Gold and
silver were extracted from the gossan overlying the massive
sulfide ore deposits.
Waste mine waters and runoff from tailings piles are cur-
rently reaching Boulder and Slickrock Creeks, which drain
into Spring Creek. Spring Creek drains into Keswick Reservoir
(Sacramento River), which is formed by Keswick Dam. Water
intakes for the City of Redding are located 2 miles south of
Keswick Dam.
Runoff from Iron Mountain Mine produces mine waters laden
with cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, arsenic, lead, and alumi-
num. Spring and Flat Creeks are almost devoid of aquatic
life. Reports of fish kills and high metals levels in the
Sacramento River near Iron Mountain Mine have been document-
ed since the 1950's.
The State of California has pursued enforcement against Iron
Mountain Mine since 1977. A chronology of the state activ-
ities is included in the following section.
PDR108.085
B-l (11/14/83)
-------
HISTORY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Local residents and officials have been aware of the Iron
Mountain Mine problem for many years. The Shasta Wonderland
Association documents its earliest involvement back to 1955,
when it became concerned over fish kills resulting from the
mine waste runoff.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board became involved at
the site in 1976 and has pursued cleanup vigorously since
that time. It has hosted numerous public and agency meetings
concerning the site as part of both its regulatory and study
activities. A chronology of meetings and other related
community activities pertinent to the Iron Mountain Mine
site follows:
Date
Location
Activity
October 1976
Redding
Report to Regional Water
Quality Control Board on
mine waste problems in
Sacramento River.
July 1977
Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
adoption of waste dis-
charge requirements for
Iron Mountain Mine.
September 1978
Anderson
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
adoption of NPDES permit
requirements.
January 1979
Sacramento
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
adoption of cease and
desist order.
July 1979 Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board hearing to
refer Iron Mountain Mine,
Inc., to the Attorney
General.
March 1980 Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
report on the memorandum
of understanding between
California Fish and Game,
U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion, and Regional Board
to study solution to Iron
Mountain Mine problem.
PDR108.085 B-2 (11/14/83)
-------
Date
Location
Activity
July 1980
Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control meeting, status
report on Iron Mountain
Mine.
November 1980
Redding
December 1980
Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff par-
ticipated in ^-hour radio
interview on KRCR. All
of interview concerned
Iron Mountain Mine runoff
problems.
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff gave
presentation on Iron
Mountain Mine to the
Redding Water Resources
Council.
March 1981
Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
status report on Iron
Mountain Mine.
July 1981
Dunsmuir
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
adopted order 81-088
finding that condition of
pollution exists and allows
public agency to abate
the condition.
January 1982
Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff made
presentation to Redding
Rotary Club on problems
at Iron Mountain Mine.
February 1982
Sacramento
State Water Resources
Control Board public work-
shop on Regional Board
enforcement order.
June 1982
South Lake
Tahoe
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff pre-
sented material on Iron
Mountain Mine problems to
American Fishery Society
meeting.
PDR108.085
B-3 (11/14/83)
-------
Date Location
July 1982 Anderson
February 1983 Redding
March 1983 Redding
April 1983 Redding
May 19 83 Redding
May 1983 Redding
1976 to present Northern
California
1976 to present Redding
PDR108.085
Activity
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
status report on Iron
Mountain Mine.
Regional Water Quality
Control Board meeting,
acceptance of consultant
report on control of run-
off from mine dumps.
Agency workshop on Iron
Mountain Mine sponsored
by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. Day-long
agency workshop was fol-
lowed by evening public
workshop. Press release
issued in advance advis-
ing of both meetings.
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff pre-
sented lecture at Shasta
Community College on problem
mines in the Redding area.
League of Women Voters
Forum, Hazardous Wastes
in Shasta County; includ-
ed discussion of Iron
Mountain Mine.
Local public television
began five-part series on
mine waste problems in-
cluding extensive cover-
age of Iron Mountain Mine.
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff pro-
vided updates on Iron
Mountain Mine at numerous
meetings of the Northern
California County Super-
visor's Association.
Newspaper articles and
radio/TV interviews re-
garding Iron Mountain
Mine (in excess of 50
articles and interviews).
B-4 (11/14/83)
-------
Date
Location
Activity
1976 to present Redding
Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff pre-
sented Iron Mountain Mine
slide presentation to
numerous local civic and
service organizations.
As evidenced by the above outline, local residents and offi-
cials have had access to numerous public meetings on the
Iron Mountain Mine waste runoff problem. Press coverage of
these meetings has been good, so public awareness of the
runoff problems is high. Public attendance and comment at
the Water Quality Control Board meetings has not been exten-
sive. All persons interviewed attribute this to the pub-
lic's perception that the Water Quality Control Board is
doing what it can to solve the problem; thus, there is no
need for public outcry. A variety of special interest groups,
particularly sport and commercial fishing groups, have par-
ticipated regularly in Board discussions on Iron Mountain
Mine.
As noted above, the local residents have been updated on
site activities through a combination of press coverage,
local meetings, and public presentations. Major press cover-
age has been associated with specific fish kills, announce-
ment of the $16 million fine leveled against Iron Mountain
Mine, Inc., and when the Nation Priority List and state haz-
ardous waste site lists were published. Three local tele-
vision stations have provided regular coverage. These in-
clude two local network affiliates, Chapter 12 in Redding
and Channel 7 in Chico, and an educational station, Chan-
nel 9, in Redding. Local radio stations have also covered
the Iron Mountain Mine site and frequently contact Regional
Water Quality Control Board staff for status reports.
The Record Searchlight is the local Redding newspaper. It
has provided timely coverage of site activities. It is con-
sidered to be a good, credible news source and participants
feel it has provided accurate coverage of site activities.
The current owner of Iron Mountain Mine has written to all
members of the Congressional delegation requesting that the
site be removed from the National Priority List. A few mem-
bers of the delegation have passed that request on to EPA.
No other Congressional inquiries have been received.
Activities surrounding the site have been well publicized
and numerous opportunities for public information and par-
ticipation have been presented at Regional Water Quality
Control Board and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation meetings. Pub-
lic involvement at the site has been minimal to date. Dur-
PDR108.085
B-5 (11/14/83)
-------
ing recent interviews this lack of public involvement was
attributed to the fact that residents believe that the re-
sponsible agencies are pursuing a solution. They believe
that these agencies are doing what can be done to resolve
the long-standing problem of mine waste runoff.
PDR108.085
B-6 (11/14/83)
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ISSUES
FISHERIES
The major issue surrounding the Iron Mountain Mine site is
the impact of mine waste runoff on local fisheries. The
California Department of Fish and Game has estimated that
over the past 20 to 30 years the fall fisheries run in the
Sacramento River has decreased by 36,000 as a result of a
variety of causes. A number of highly publicized fish kills
have been directly attributable to mine waste runoff from
Iron Mountain Mine. These fish kills are of great local
concern since tourism is a major economic force in the
Redding/Shasta County area. Historically the economic base
has been provided by timber, tourism, and agriculture (in
order of importance). Over the past few years tourism has
moved into second position; and in the current economic cli-
mate, has provided a stable economic base, while timber re-
lated activity has decreased significantly. Community and
business leaders view fisheries as an important link in
their future regional development plans.
The primary fisheries issues are centered around three con-
cerns: 1) habitat loss in the Sacramento River watershed,
2) impact on sports fishing in the Redding/Shasta County
region, and 3) impact on commercial fishing for salmon off
of the northern California coast. As discussed in the next
section, resource agencies, sport fishing groups, tourist
related businesses, and commercial fishing groups have all
expressed concern about Iron Mountain Mine's impact on the
regional fishery.
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
The intake for the City of Redding water supply is located
approximately 2 miles below Keswick Dam. Monitoring of
treated water from the plant has not shown the presence of
heavy metals. Therefore, drinking water quality has not
been a significant issue to the Redding community. The Re-
gional Water Quality Control Board staff in Redding reported
that a few local residents have called them with questions
about drinking water quality. They also reported that a
small number of people have raised drinking water quality
concerns at Water Quality Control Board meetings over the
past 7 years. They have responded to these calls and ques-
tions by telephone or in person during the Water Quality
Control Board meetings. If monitoring of samples from the
Redding treatment plant continue to show no contamination,
public concern over drinking water quality is not expected
to become a major issue.
PDR108.085
B-7 (11/14/83)
-------
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Most of the people interviewed during the preparation of
this community relations plan felt that media coverage of
specific events has been widespread and that the public is
aware that a relationship exists between mine waste runoff
and fish kills. However, local officials and agency staff
believe that the public's understanding is superficial and
that many misconceptions exist about the conditions surround-
ing Iron Mountain Mine. They were hopeful that the May 1983
local public television series on mine waste impacts helped,
in part, to educate the Redding community.
GROUNDWATER
Approximately 5 to 10 groundwater wells are located on private
property holdings downstream of the Iron Mountain Mine run-
off. Two property owners have appeared at Regional Board
hearings on a couple of occasions and have called the staff
on occasion to ask specific questions about Iron Mountain
Mine activities and the state's legal action. The Regional
Water Quality Control Board staff believes that the problem
is limited to surface water and has not affected local
groundwater. No groundwater sampling has been requested by
downstream residents.
In addition to the above outlined issues, local officials
reported that they have received infrequent inquiries con-
cerning why Iron Mountain Mine is not paying for the clean-
up. As at many Superfund sites, there is a public concern
that taxpayer's money is being spent to solve a problem
created by someone else. This does not appear to be a
significant issue in the Redding area, but questions have
been raised on occasion. Local officials do not feel that
they have sufficient information to accurately respond to
such questions.
PDR108.085
B-8 (11/14/83)
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PARTICIPANTS
A number of government agencies, interest groups, individuals,
and the media have been involved or interested in the Iron
Mountain Mine site. A description of these participants, who
can be expected to have a continued interest in the site, is
provided below.
MID-VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The Regional Water Quality Control Board began regulatory
review of the Iron Mountain Mine site in 1976. Since that
time their staff has been actively involved in seeking solu-
tions to the water quality problems associated with the site
and in enforcing state water quality standards. Major staff
responsibility has rested by Jim Pedri and Dennis Heiman in
the Redding office. They have participated in numerous Re-
gional Board regulatory hearings and have discussed the Iron
Mountain Mine problems before local and regional civic and
governmental groups. They have also supplied information
for numerous local press and media reports. Mr. Pedri has
been very visible in the local community and is well-
respected. He is viewed as a responsible public official
and as the most credible source for information concerning
the Iron Mountain Mine site.
Regional Water Quality Board involvement at Iron Mountain
Mine was prompted by a series of conditions that occurred in
the mid-1970's: 1) the Regional Board members and staff
became more aware of the magnitude of the mine waste runoff
problem, 2) resource staff began learning more about the
relationship between mine waste and fish kills based on their
experience at other sites, and 3) state water quality policy
shifted towards an emphasis on regulation of non-source wastes,
like mine waste.
Since that time the Regional Water Quality Control Board has
taken the lead in attempts to enforce water quality stan-
dards at the Iron Mountain Mine site. They have fined Iron
Mountain Mine Inc. in excess of $16 million for failure to
comply with state regulations. This fine and subsequent
court action received widespread local and regional press
coverage.
The individuals interviewed for this report believe that the
limited public concern expressed over the site is a result
of the highly visible role that the Regional Water Quality
Control Board has taken. The League of Women Voters repre-
sentatives believe that Mr. Pedri is highly regarded and
that he is a good source of public information. It is their
perception that the general public feels that the Regional
Board is taking care of the problem and that action will
occur soon.
PDR108.085
B-9 (11/14/83)
-------
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
City of Redding and Shasta County government participation
has been minimal to date. County Health Department staff
has assisted the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff
on technical and field issues when needed. Both city and
county governments are strongly committed to site cleanup.
However, they have deferred to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board since the Board is the regulatory authority.
Since a clean environment and good fishing are major corner-
stones of the local tourist industry, the city and county
will continue to follow site cleanup activities closely.
They would like to be briefed on study plans, progress, and
results and have an opportunity to review remedial inves-
tigation and feasibility study findings. The city and county
officials are a good source of public information for local
residents and should be kept abreast of all project activities.
City and county officials routinely receive informal inquiries
on regional activities and can be expected to receive requests
for information and opinions on site cleanup activities.
INTEREST GROUPS
The primary interest groups include the regional sport fish-
ing clubs, regional tourist facilities, and the northern
California commercial fishermen. The concerns of the tour-
ist industry are primarily expressed through the activities
of John Regniato, director of the Shasta Wonderland Associa-
tion. Mr. Regniato is a noted regional sportsman and has
very good contacts with the regional sports fishing groups.
He has been following fisheries issues associated with the
Sacramento River since the mid-1950's. The Shasta Wonder-
land Association and individual tourist facility owners will
continue to follow the Iron Mountain Mine site carefully.
They believe that cleanup of the mine waste runoff is a criti-
cal issue to their long-term economic well-being.
No single sports fishing group has taken the lead in expres-
sing concern over the problems at the Iron Mountain Mine
site. Long-term interest has, however, been expressed by
the following organizations: Shasta Fly Fishers, Sacramento
Salmon and Steelhead, California Trout, and the California
Fisheries Restoration Foundation. These groups have been
represented at Regional Water Quality Control Board hearings
and follow site activity progress through telephone conver-
sations with the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff.
They and other sport fishing organizations should be kept
informed of all future site activities. A listing of the
interested sport fishing groups is included in the preli-
minary mailing list (Appendix A).
Commercial fishermen have not expressed concern over the
mine waste runoff in local or regional meetings. Rather,
their interest has been reflected through the activities of
PDR108.085
B-10 (11/14/83)
-------
the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Competition for use of the salmon fishery
resource in northern California is keen, and the commercial
fishermen can be expected to remain interested in site cleanup
activities.
COMMUNITY GROUPS
In May 1983, the League of Women Voters sponsored a workshop
on hazardous waste in Shasta County. The Iron Mountain Mine
site was discussed at the workshop. While the League has no
specific activities planned relating to the site, they will
follow site cleanup progress with great interest. The League
is viewed as a responsible community group by local offi-
cials, and is the only local community group that has speci-
fically addressed the Iron Mountain Mine site to date.
The Redding/Shasta County area does not appear to be repre-
sented by other active local environmental groups. While
the general level of public environmental concern is viewed
to be high, ad hoc groups seem to come to the forefront in
response to specific issues, rather than on an ongoing basis.
The community has good informal information networks which
seem to center around elected officials and other community
leaders. When specific environmental issues have been raised,
such as nuclear power, very effective local ad-hoc groups
have been formed to mobilize public opinion. As long as the
interested citizens believe that the responsible agencies
are solving the Iron Mountain Mine problem, such community
involvement is not expected to occur.
LOCAL MEDIA
Local press, radio, and television coverage of events sur-
rounding the site has been good. Most observers feel that
the coverage has been accurate and well-presented. The local
newspaper, the Record Searchlight is read by most residents
in the Redding area. Representatives from the League of
Women Voters indicated that most of their information on the
Iron Mountain Mine site came from Mr. Pedri of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board via the Record Searchlight.
They believe that the local paper is a good way to reach
most Redding area residents.
In summary, while the Redding/Shasta County community is
generally environmentally sensitive, they believe that the
responsible public agencies are seeking to solve the Iron
Mountain Mine problem. Unless a failure of public action
convinces them that a more vocal stand is needed, they will
probably continue this low profile. The Redding community
has successfully organized around specific environmental
issues in the past. If actions to resolve the mine waste
runoff question are not forthcoming, the potential exists
for community mobilization.
PDR108.085
B-ll (11/14/83)
-------
¦ B Section C
¦ B COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES AND TECHNIQUES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES
• Keep local officials (City of Redding, Shasta County),
special interest groups (sports fishing groups,
tourist industry, and commercial fishermen), agency
personnel (Regional Water Quality Control Board,
California Department of Fish and Game), and com-
munity groups (League of Women Voters) briefed on
project objectives and upcoming activities.
• Provide clear, consistent information to the above
groups throughout the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Include information about
schedules, work content, progress, and results.
Ensure that identified concerns and information
needs are adequately addressed. Provide the in-
formation in a form that is useful and understand-
able to the lay person.
• Provide the media with timely, accurate informa-
tion about major activities, findings, and decisions.
• Provide residents, officials, agencies, and inter-
ested parties an opportunity to review and comment
on remedial action alternatives identified during
the feasibility study.
• Provide a central information source to answer
questions on project status. Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff will be used to provide local
information as much as possible.
• Remain sensitive to changes in community concerns
as the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
progresses. Significant changes in community con-
cern could occur if impacts on drinking water quality
are discovered.
o Summarize community concerns discovered through
the community relations activities during the Re-
medial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
PDR108.086
C-l (11-14-83)
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES
The techniques listed below will be used to meet the above
community relations objectives. The selection of these
techniques is based on the particular concerns and needs of
those involved at the Iron Mountain Mine site. Many of these
techniques were suggested by officials and interested parties
during interviews with them.
1. Mailing List
A final project mailing list will be prepared. All
parties on the attached draft mailing list will be
contacted to see if they wish to be on the project
mailing list. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors
and Redding City Council will be asked to appoint a
project contact. Interested parties will be asked to
recommend other groups or individuals for inclusion on
the mailing list. Project fact sheets, any meeting
notices, and notice of the public comment period will
be distributed to the mailing list.
2. Central Information Source
USEPA, Region 9 will designate a central information
source for the Iron Mountain Mine project. Early
briefings and press releases will identify the indi-
vidual who will serve in that capacity. Jim Pedri will
continue to be looked to for information by the local
residents and officials. He is a credible information
source and is encouraged to continue in that role.
Communication between EPA and Mr. Pedri will be fre-
quent .
3. Information Repository
A public information repository will be established at
the Redding Center library and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board Office. Copies of relevant technical
reports will be available for public review at these
public locations. Fact sheets, report summaries, and
copies of the RI/FS will be placed in the repositories.
Early briefings and press releases will notify the public
of the location of the information repositories.
4. Briefings of Local Officials and Interested Parties
A list of public officials and interested parties to
receive regular project briefings will be prepared. At
a minimum, the briefing list will include: City of
Redding, Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, California Department of
Fish and Game, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
PDR108.086
C-2 (11-14-83)
-------
Briefings will occur either by telephone or in small
meetings. A general project briefing will be provided
at the outset of the RI/FS. Other briefings will occur
as specific activities are planned or completed. City
and county officials will be briefed prior to the issu-
ance of press releases. In addition, they will be noti-
fied prior to onsite activities.
5. Press Releases
Press releases will be prepared at appropriate times
throughout the RI/FS. These could include:
• At the outset of the RI/FS to explain the Super-
fund program and the work to be done
• At the conclusion of the fast track feasibility
studies if they recommend alternatives that can be
implemented immediately
• When significant test or study results are avail-
able
• To announce the completion of the RI/FS and the
duration of the public comment period
• To announce the selection of a preferred alterna-
tive and record of decision
Press briefings will accompany press releases when sig-
nificant issues are concerned or when highly technical
data is- presented. An early meeting with the managing
editor of the Record Searchlight will be held, since
the newspaper is the major source of public information
in the Redding/Shasta County area. Key radio and tele-
vision personnel will also be briefed at the beginning
of the RI/FS.
6. Fact Sheets
Fact sheets will be prepared as appropriate to provide
more detailed information than can be included in a
press release. Fact sheets will be prepared at the
following times:
• At the outset of the RI/FS to describe the Super-
fund program and upcoming work
• When significant test or study results are avail-
able
• To summarize the record of decision
PDR108.086
C-3 (11-14-83)
-------
Fact sheets will be distributed to persons on the
mailing list before related press issues are released.
7. Community Meetings
Local officials and residents feel that community meet-
ings are not as important as good press coverage and
briefings- However, two community meetings will be
appropriate: at the beginning of the RI/FS to describe
the Superfund program, the work to be done, and the
schedule; and after release of the feasiblity study
report to present the alternative remedies and to
solicit comments. Meetings will be announced in fact
sheets, press releases, and public notices placed in
. the Record Searchlight.
8. Public Comment Period
A 3-week public comment period will be provided after
release of the feasibility study report. Notice of the
comment period and of the availability of the feasibil-
ity study report will be issued 2 weeks before the com-
ment period begins. A summary of the feasibility study
report will be distributed to the project mailing list.
PDR108.086
C-4 (11-14-83)
-------
H Section D
¦ ¦ COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN
The following work plan specifies the community relations
tasks to be completed during the Iron Mountain Mine RI/FS.
The tasks are outlined in sequence and are based on the
technical milestones listed below.* The RI/FS is currently
scheduled to begin in December 1983 and continue through
June 1985. Any changes in the RI/FS schedule will require
corresponding changes in community relations activities.
The work plan also includes staffing allocations by task and
a budget. A summary of community relations activities and a
schedule are contained in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively.
Technical Milestones
• Beginning of Remedial Investigation: December 1,
1983
• Site investigation and analysis: December 1983-
November 1984
• Final Remedial Investigation report: December 1,
1984
• Feasibility Study—development and evaluation of
alternatives: January 1985-June 1985**
• Final Feasibility Study report: July 1, 1985
• Record of Decision: October 1985
*See Appendix B for a detailed technical work schedule.
**Preliminary development and screening of alternatives will
occur from February-September 1984, concurrent with remedial
investigation activities.
PDR108.087
D-l (11-14-83)
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS TASKS
Task 1; Brief Local Officials on Startup of RI/FS.
Briefing A
December 1983
Local officials will be briefed in person on the content and
schedule of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
This will provide an opportunity for EPA project personnel
to meet the local officials and to establish ongoing contact.
Task 2: Establish Media Contacts
December 1983
EPA personnel will visit the managing editor of the Record
Searchlight to describe upcoming RI/FS activities. They
will also meet with key radio and television personnel to
establish future contacts. Since the major communication
source in the area is the local media, it is important that
EPA set up good press relations at the outset of the proj-
ect.
Task 3: Establish and Maintain Local Information Repositories
December 1983
A central repository and information source will be estab-
lished at the Redding Public Library and the office of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Appropriate materials, including technical data, reports,
and fact sheets, will be placed in the repositories through-
out the RI/FS.
Task 4: Establish and Maintain Mailing List
December 198 3
A mailer will be sent to all groups and individuals on the
preliminary mailing list (Appendix A) to determine if they
want to be included on the Iron Mountain Mine project mailing
list. They will also be asked to identify other groups or
individuals that should be placed on the list.
A letter will be sent to the Redding City Council and to the
Shasta County Board of Supervisors asking them to designate
an individual to serve as a liaison between the city/county
and EPA.
PDR108.087
D-2 (11-14-83)
-------
Once the above responses have been received, a final project
mailing list will be prepared. It will include agencies,
elected officials, interested groups and individuals, and
the media. The mailing list will be updated as necessary
throughout the RI/FS.
Task 5: Prepare Fact Sheet Announcing RI/FS and Public
Information Meeting
Fact Sheet A
December 1983
A fact sheet will be distributed to all groups and indi-
viduals on the mailing list. It will provide an overall
description of the RI/FS, including the objectives, process,
content, schedule, and products. It will also announce the
public information meeting (Task 7), identify the local
information repositories, and identify the information
contact person for the project.
Task 6: Issue Press Release and Place Public Notice
Announcing RI/FS and Public Information Meeting
Press Release A
Public Notice A
December 1983
A press release will be issued to announce the startup of
the RI/FS and the public information meeting. It will be
accompanied by the fact sheet described in Task 5. A public
notice will also be placed in the Record Searchlight.
Task 7: Conduct Public Information Meeting
Public Meeting A
January 1984
A public information meeting will be held to provide an over-
all description of the remedial investigation/feasibility
study. It will provide interested parties with an oppor-
tunity to ask questions and offer comments on the upcoming
work.
Task 8: Brief Local Officials throughout RI
Ongoing—January 1984-November 1984
EPA will continue to brief local officials throughout the
remedial investigation. Briefings will occur to share in-
formation on study results, upcoming activities, and study
progress. Local officials will also be notified of any
field activity that may cause public inquiry.
PDR108.087
D-3 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 9: Respond to Public, Media, and Congressional
Inquiries throughout RI
Ongoing—December 1983-December 1984
Throughout the RI, EPA will respond to public, media, and
Congressional inquiries as they arise. Technical inquiries
will be forwarded to the appropriate staff.
Task 10: Prepare Fact Sheets about Technical Study Results
Fact Sheets B and C
As appropriate—January 1984-November 1984
As study/test results become available during the remedial
investigation, fact sheets will be prepared to share the
information with the public. Two fact sheets are assumed;
more will be prepared as appropriate.
Task 11: Issue Press Releases about Technical Study Results
Press Releases B and C
As appropriate—January 1984-November 1984
As study/test results become available during the remedial
investigation, press releases will be prepared to share the
information with the public. Two press releases are as-
sumed; more will be prepared as appropriate.
Task 12: Prepare Summary of Remedial Investigation Report
Technical Summary A
December 1984
A 10- to 20-page summary of the remedial investigation re-
port will be prepared for public distribution. The summary
will be mailed to all groups and individuals on the project
mailing list, and copies will be placed in the local inform-
ation repository.
Task 13: Brief Local Officials on Remedial Investigation
Report
Briefing B
December 1984
EPA will brief local officials and interest groups on the
information contained in the remedial investigation report.
PDR108.087
D-4 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 14; Issue Press Release Announcing Remedial Investiga-
tion Report and Feasibility Study Schedule
Press Release D
December 1984
A press release will be issued announcing the availability
of the remedial investigation report and the feasibility
study schedule. A press briefing to describe the informa-
tion in the remedial investigation will be held if neces-
sary .
Task 15; Brief Local Officials throughout FS
Ongoing—January 1985-June 1985
EPA will continue to brief local officials as appropriate
during the feasibility study.
Task 16; Respond to Public, Media, and Congressional
Inquiries throughout FS
Ongoing—January 1985-June 1985
Throughout the FS, EPA will respond to public, media, and
Congressional inquiries as they arise. Technical inquiries
will be forwarded to the appropriate staff.
Task 17: Prepare Summary of Feasibility Study Report
Technical Summary B
June/July 1985
A 10- to 20-page summary of the feasibility study report
will be prepared for public distribution. It will be mailed
to all groups and individuals on the project mailing list,
and copies will be placed in the local information re-
positories. The summary will emphasize the evaluation of
the alternative remedial actions.
The summary will be accompanied by a cover sheet that ident-
ifies the information repositories, the EPA information
contact person, the public comment period, and the time and
location of the public meeting (Task 20).
Task 18; Brief Local Officials on Feasibility Study Report
Briefing C
June/July 1985
EPA staff will brief local officials and interest groups on
the information contained in the feasibility study report.
PDR108.087
D-5 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 19; Issue Press Release and Place Public Notice
Announcing Feasibility Study Report and Public
Information Meeting
Press Release E
Public Notice B
June/July 1985
A press release will be issued announcing the availability
of the feasibility study report, the location of the local
information repositories, the dates of the public comment
period, and the time and location of the upcoming public
meeting. A public notice will also be placed in the Record
Searchlight. A press briefing to describe the remedial
alternatives evaluation will be held if necessary.
Task 20: Conduct Public Information Meeting on Feasibility
Study
Public Meeting B
July 1985
A public information meeting will be held after release of
the feasibility study report. The evaluation of the remedial
alternatives and the study results will be discussed. Graphic
materials will be used as appropriate. Questions and com-
ments will be sought.
Task 21: Prepare Responsiveness Summary
Technical Summary C
October 1985
A summary of community relations activities conducted during
the RI/FS will be prepared. The summary will also outline
public comments that were received during the RI/FS. The
summary will be sent to local officials on the mailing list
along with the fact sheet described in Task 22.
Task 22: Prepare Fact Sheet Describing Record of Decision
Fact Sheet D
October 1985
A fact sheet announcing the record of decision, describing
the preferred alternative, and outlining the upcoming re-
medial action schedule will be mailed to all groups and
individuals on the mailing list.
PDR108.087
D-6 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 23: Brief Local Officials about Record of Decision
Briefing D
October 1985
In addition to receiving a fact sheet (Task 23), local of-
ficials will be briefed on the record of decision before
issuance of a press release (Task 24).
Task 24: Issue Press Release Announcing Record of Decision
Press Release F
October 1985
EPA will issue a press release announcing the record of
decision and outlining the upcoming remedial action schedule.
Task 25: Update Community Relations Plan for Phase II
Design and Construction
October 1985
The community relations plan will be updated to specify com-
munity relations activities that will be conducted during
Phase II design and construction work.
PDR108.087
D-7 (11-14-83)
-------
STAFFING ALLOCATION
The following staffing allocation includes staff time for
the community relations specialist, technical project man-
ager, and graphics and clerical support.
Task 1: Brief Local Officials on Startup of RI/FS
8 hrs Project Manager
8 hrs Community Relations Specialist
Task 2: Establish Media Contacts
2 hrs Project Manager
4 hrs Community Relations Specialist
Task 3: Establish Local Information Repositories
2 hrs Community Relations Specialist
1 hr Graphics
2 hrs Clerical
Task 4: Establish and Maintain Mailing List
20 hrs Community Relations Specialist
12 hrs Clerical
Task 5: Prepare Fact Sheet Announcing Startup of RI/FS and
Public Information Meeting
2 hrs Project Manager
28 hrs Community Relations Specialist
6 hrs Graphics
8 hrs Clerical
Task 6: Issue Press Release Announcing Startup of RI/FS and
Public Information Meeting
4 hrs Community Relations Specialist
2 hrs Clerical
Task 7: Conduct Public Information Meeting
8 hrs Project Manager
40 hrs Community Relations Specialist
28 hrs Graphics (includes slide show)
4 hrs Clerical
Task 8: Brief Officials throughout RI
Ongoing Project Manager
Ongoing Community Relations Specialist
PDR108.087
D-8 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 9: Respond to Public, Media, and Congressional
Inquiries throughout RI
Ongoing Project Manager
Ongoing Community Relations Specialist
Ongoing Clerical
Task 10: Prepare Fact Sheets about Technical Study Results
(Assumes two fact sheets during RI activities)
4 hrs Project Manager
50 hrs Community Relations Specialist
12 hrs Graphics
16 hrs Clerical
Task 11: Issue Press Releases about Technical Study Results
(Assumes two press releases during RI activities)
8 hrs Community Relations Specialist
4 hrs Clerical
Task 12: Prepare Summary of Remedial Investigation Report
8 hrs Project Manager
50 hrs Community Relations Specialist
20 hrs Graphics
12 hrs Clerical
Task 13: Brief Local Officials on Remedial Investigation
Report
8 hrs Project Manager
8 hrs Community Relations Specialist
Task 14: Issue Press Release Announcing Remedial Investigat
Report and Feasibility Study Schedule
1 hr Project Manager
3 hrs Community Relations Specialist
2 hrs Clerical
Task 15: Brief Local Officials throughout FS
Ongoing Project Manager
Ongoing Community Relations Specialist
Task 16: Respond to Public, Media, and Congressional
Inquiries throughout FS
Ongoing Project Manager
Ongoing Community Relations Specialist
Ongoing Clerical
PDR108.087
D-9 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 17: Prepare Summary of Feasibility Study
10 hrs Project Manager
55 hrs Community Relations Specialist
24 hrs Graphics
16 hrs Clerical
Task 18: Brief Local Officials on Feasibility Study
8 hrs Project Manager
8 hrs Community Relations Specialist
Task 19: Issue Press Release and Place Public Notice
Announcing Feasibility Study and Public
Information Meeting
1 hr Project Manager
6 hrs Community Relations Specialist
4 hrs Graphics
2 hrs Clerical
Task 20: Conduct Public Information Meeting to Review
Feasibility Study
12 hrs Project Manager
50 hrs Community Relations Specialist
24 hrs Graphics
10 hrs Clerical
Task 21: Prepare Responsiveness Summary
4 hrs Project Manager
30 hrs Community Relations Specialist
4 hrs Graphics
12 hrs Clerical
Task 22: Prepare Fact Sheet Describing Record of Decision
2 hrs Project Manager
25 hrs Community Relations Specialist
6 hrs Graphics
8 hrs Clerical
Task 23: Brief Local Officials about Record of Decision
8 hrs Project Manager
8 hrs Community Relations Specialist
Task 24: Issue Press Release Announcing Record of Decision
1 hr Project Manager
3 hrs Community Relations Specialist
2 hrs Clerical
PDR108.087
D-10 (11-14-83)
-------
Task 25: Update Community Relations Plan for Phase II
Design and Construction
4 hrs Project Manager
32 hrs Community Relations Specialist
8 hrs Clerical
PDR108.087
D-ll (11-14-83)
-------
BUDGET
The following budget summarizes the staffing allocations
shown above. A rough estimate of direct expenses, including
typesetting, printing, mailing, and graphic supplies, is
also provided.
• Total Personnel Hours
91 hrs Project Manager
442 hrs Community Relations Specialist
129 hrs Graphics
120 hrs Clerical
782 hrs Total Personnel
The above personnel hours do not include ongoing briefings
and response to inguiries (Tasks 8, 9, 15, and 16), since it
is not possible to anticipate the demand for those services.
• Total Direct Expenses
Travel* $1,500
Printing 2,000
Postage 750
Graphic Supplies 300
Misc., Including Newspaper
Ads 550
Total Direct Expenses $5,100
*2 trips Portland/San Francisco; 2 trips Portland/Redding
PDR108.087 D-12 (11-14-83)
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS TASKS
Beginning of Remedial Investigation
December 1983/January 1984
• Conduct Briefing A (Task 1)
• Establish media contacts (Task 2)
• Establish local information repositories (Task 3)
• Establish mailing list (Task 4)
• Prepare Fact Sheet A (Task 5)
• Issue Press Release A and Public Notice A (Task 6)
• Conduct Public Information Meeting A (Task 7)
Remedial Investigation
December 1983-November 1984
• Brief local officials as appropriate (Task 8)
• Respond to inquiries (Task 9)
• Prepare Fact Sheets B and C (Task 10)
• Issue Press Releases B and C (Task 11)
Final Remedial Investigation Report
December 1984
• Prepare Technical Summary A (Task 12)
• Conduct Briefing B (Task 13)
• Issue Press Release D (Task 14)
Feasibility Study
January 1985-June 1985
• Brief local officials as appropriate (Task 15)
• Respond to inquiries (Task 16)
Final Feasibility Study Report
June/July 1985
• Prepare Technical Summary B (Task 17)
• Conduct Briefing C (Task 18)
• Issue Press Release E and Public Notice B (Task 19)
• Conduct Public Information Meeting B (Task 20)
Record of Decision
October 198 5
• Prepare Technical Summary C—Responsiveness
Summary (Task 21)
• Prepare Fact Sheet D (Task 22)
• Conduct Briefing D (Task 23)
• Issue Press Release F (Task 24)
• Update CRP (Task 25)
PDR108.087
D-13 (11-14-83)
-------
Figure 1
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SCHEDULE
Activity
Briefings
Initial Media
Contacts
Information
Repositories
Mailing List
Fact Sheets
Press Releases
Public Notices
Public Information
Meetings
Response to Inquiries
Technical Summaries
CRP Update
1983
D
X
X
A
A
A
Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study
1984 1985
J/F/M/A/M/J/J/A/S/O/N/D J/F/M/A/M/J/J/A/S/O
as appropriate B C D
on-going
on-going
(B & C as appropriate) D
(B & C as appropriate)D E F
B
-on-going-
A
C
X
PDR108.087
D-14 (11-14-83)
-------
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY MAILING LIST
AGENCIES AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
Tom Mix*
Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
415/974-8150
Mark Gallaway*
Waste Management Engineer
Department of Health Services
Site Clean-up and Emergency Response Section
744 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
916/324-3781
James C. Pedri, P.E.*
Supervising Water Resources
Control Engineer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
100 E. Cypress Avenue
Redding, California 96002
916/246-6376
Dennis Heiman*
Associate Land and Water Use Analyst
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
100 E. Cypress Avenue
Redding, California 96002
916/246-6376
Steve Swendiman*
Shasta County Supervisor
Court House
Court Street
Redding, California 96001
916/246-5631
interviewed for community relations assessment.
PD108.076
App. A-l (11/14/83)
-------
John Strange
Shasta County Supervisor
4559 Hawson Avenue
Redding, California 96001
916/246-5556
Steven J. Plank, M.D.*
Public Health Officer
2650 Hospital Lane
Redding, California 96001
916/246-5591
Ralph C. Tetrault*
Director
Environmental Health Division
Shasta County Health Department
1855 Placer Street
Redding, California 96001
916/246-5787
Archer Pugh*
Vice Mayor
City of Redding
Redding City Hall
Redding, California 96001
916/246-1151
Charley Moss
Chairman
Redding Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1450
Redding, California 96099
916/244-0700
PD108.076 App. A-2 (11/14/83)
-------
INTERESTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
John Reginato, Director*
Shasta Wonderland Association
1250 Park View Avenue
Redding, California 96001
916/243-2643
League of Women Voters:
Linda Wright*
1827 Shasta Pines Way
Redding, California 96002
916/241-2432
Francie Sullivan*
6893 Belmont Drive
Palo Cedro, California 96073
916/547-4353
Bette Dotty*
8193 Riata Drive
Redding, California 96002
916/365-8068
Vie Adkins
Northern California Salmon & Steelhead
c/o Riverview Inn
Ballsferry Road
Anderson, California 96007
916/365-0772
Sacramento River Advisory Committee
c/o Dan Frost, Chairman
P.O. Box 20007
Redding, California 96099
916/241-2432
California Kamloops, Inc.
P.O. Box 133
Redding, California 96099
Shasta Fly Fishers
c/o Fly Shop
4140 Churncreek Road
Redding, California 96002
916/222-3555
Ducks Unlimited
c/o Howard Schlemmer
Howards Bail Bond Agency
1832 Butte Street
Redding, California 96001
916/241-1389
PD108.076
App. A-3 (11/14/83)
-------
California Fisheries Restoration Foundation
c/o Ray Haihe
P.O. Box 725
Dunsmuir, California 96025
916/235-4397
United Anglers
c/o Keith Frazier
San Francisco, California
415/
Redding Gun Club
2201 San Francisco
Redding, California 96001
916/243-5312
Klamath River Fishing Guides
c/o Bill Claypole
Beaver Creek Lodge
Klamath River, California 96050
916/465-2246
Mary Girard (downstream property owner)
Shasta, California 96087
Stan Ross (downstream property owner)
Iron Mountain Road
Redding, California 96001
916/243-6646
Zek Grader (commercial fisherman)
PCFFA
3000 Bridgeway Building, Room 104
Box 1626
Sausalito, California 94965
PD108.076 App. A-4 (11/14/83)
-------
STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
U.S. SENATORS
The Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
SH-112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
One Hallidie Plaza
Room 301
San Francisco, California 94102
The Honorable Pete Wilson
United States Senate
SH-720 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT NO. 1
U.S. Representative
The Honorable Doug Bosco
U.S. House of Representatives
1130 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
State Senator
The Honorable Ray Johnson
555 Rio Lindo Avenue, No. 214
Chico, California 95926
State Assemblymen
The Honorable Stan Statham
1415 Court Street
Redding, California 96001
The Honorable Eugene Chappie
270 E. 4th Street
Chico, California 95926
PD108.07 6
App. A-5 (11/14/83)
-------
MEDIA
KHSL—Channel 12
1135 Pine Street
Redding, California 96001
916/246-1007
KIXE—Channel 9
825 Industrial Street
Redding, California 96099
916/221-5800
KRCR—Seminar TV—Channel 7
2770 Pioneer Drive
Redding, California 96001
916/243-7777
KALF
2051 Hilltop Drive
Redding, California 96002
916/221-7488
KCLM
2235 Cliff Drive
Redding, California 96001
916/246-1330
KPAK
6478-C Westside Road
Redding, California 96001
916/243-0343
KGO
P.O. Box 1918
Redding, California 96099
916/243-1515
The Record Searchlight
1101 Twin View Boulevard
Redding, California 96003
916/243-2424
PD108.076
App. A-6 (11/14/83)
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNICAL PROJECT SCHEDULE
(to be inserted)
PDR108.077
App. B-l (11/14/83)
-------