BrentAs most know, the city engaged Ann Arbor environmental firm HDR (https://www.hdrinc.com/) to provide a holistic approach to clean up Harbor Island and plan for its future. Most will agree that HDR is on task and doing a good job leading the cleanup effort. A website dedicated to the Harbor Island project is now in place. If you haven’t visited the website, please do. It’s interesting and informative. Revisit it from time to time as activities and events continue to be updated.
https://www.renewharborisland.org
Understandably, HDR’s initial (and primary focus) is the cleanup. Contamination data has and is being gathered. Work with the federal EPA and Michigan EGLE agencies is ongoing. A remediation plan is being developed. Costs for the cleanup will be calculated, with current estimates in the $60-80 million range. The city and HDR have engaged the public with town halls and information sessions in 2023. More are planned for 2024. These are all good efforts.
Interestingly, and predicably, the public is starting to wonder and want more clarity in the future of Harbor Island. With the cleanup moving along, when is it time to also plan for the future? Do we wait until the cleanup is finished in the next 3-5 years? Can we start thinking about future uses even while the cleanup is happening? Can the whole island be in the conversation; or must the focus be limited to only the SIMS site section (sometimes called the “western end” of the island)?
In fairness to HDR, its current engagement with the city deals with the SIMS site cleanup. HDR’s hands are somewhat tied unless (or until) the city raises its HI vision further out in time and scope. The city might want to start crafting an RFP to develop a Master Plan for Harbor Island as a whole, beyond the current SIMS site cleanup focus. Until then, neither HDR nor other consultants can look much further than the current job at hand; namely, the cleanup.
A couple recent, longer range visionary uses of Harbor Island add pressure to needing the city to start looking further out on the island’s horizon.
One recent development is a 2021 report by the National Audubon Society that identified the “Grand River Coastal Corridor” as an ecologically meaningful landscape for visioning and planning. The same report identified Harbor Island as “perhaps the greatest conservation opportunity area” in the Corridor. That is a powerful and significant status of Harbor Island for ecology, birding, plants, and various wildlife.
Another recent development is a 2024 proposed project for the SIMS site that includes nature, community solar power, recreation, and energy battery storage. The proposed project has been submitted, selected, and sent to the EPA as part of the 4 county West Michigan Prioritized Climate Action Plan (https://www.michigan.gov/egle/faqs/climate-and-energy/climate-pollution-reduction-grants). The Grand Valley Metro Council (https://www.gvmc.org/) and KERAMIDA Inc. (https://www.keramida.com/ ) have led this effort. The SIMS solar farm project could supply annual energy of 4 GWh, the equivalent used by about 600 average BLP residential consumers. Bundled with the solar farm could be a 1 MW battery storage, a pollinator garden for birds and butterflies, adjacent recreation, walking paths, and picnic settings along the river. The grant amount based on the estimated SIMS solar garden project cost for solar, battery, and garden/recreational components is estimated at a little over $10 million. The deadline for seeking the grant money, however, is April 2024.
Identifying the scope of a visioning/planning process is typically one of the most important decisions. It often presumes, if not predetermines, the potential outcomes to be identified through the process. In this instance, the narrow definition of the geographic scope will preclude useful discussion of most of the potential future options for the lower Grand River mouth that are of interest to our community.
Regretfully, the proposed visioning process and draft survey are fundamentally flawed with the narrow focus on the “western end” of Harbor Island. The range of future options cannot be circumscribed so narrowly and effective community engagement is unlikely in these circumstances. Community expectations are likely to be disappointed as the effort has been branded to date as “Renew Harbor Island.” Throughout the discussion of the closure of the Sims plant and potential future power-generating uses of the Island, many participants emphasized the need for a wholistic approach.
Getting the scope right is essential to a successful process. I urge reconsideration of the focus for this visioning process and would be happy to work with you and other Citizen Advisory Group members in doing so.
