Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee
January 13, 2010
12:00 pm
CCNS Headquarters
Members Present: Charleen Greenhalgh, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Block, Steve Spear, Mark Adams, Hillary Greenberg, Tim Smith
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Pat Weslowski (LBG), Maggie Geist, and Don Palladino
Administration/ Coordination:
Communication / Coordination with Friends of Herring River
Don Palladino reported that historic pictures of the river have been posted on the Friends' website and the public is sending in comments. At the Friends' last meeting potential events were lined up for 2010, including: Talks on the history of the herring run in Wellfleet, herring counts, kayak trips, a visit to Hatch’s Harbor, presentations at the Harbor Conference and the brush burn. Another initiative, which was put on hold last year, is to develop a video to illustrate how the estuary will look after the restoration is complete. The membership of the Friends group keeps growing. There are over 300 members and the newsletter goes to over 400 people.
Approval of Draft Minutes
November 18, 2009-Unanimous Approval
December 16, 2009-Unanimous Approval with abstentions from Spear and Greenberg
Schedule Next Meeting
February 17, 2010
Discussion Items:
Revised Project Alternatives
Lindsay Gillham of the National Park Service Environmental Quality Division (EQD) was on conference call. Tim Smith had circulated a draft document (dated December 29, 2009) with assumptions, annotations, and terminology used in the draft Alternatives. Comments were solicited from the HRRC. Steve Spear thought there had been some big improvements in the Alternatives; however, he thought there were problems with clarity and consistency in presentation. Discussion ensued on the Alternatives, process, and terminology. Lindsay Gillham suggested making a chart to assess how alternatives were addressed. She advised that if Alternatives have been dismissed during a meeting, clear records should indicate when and why this occurred. The Alternatives describe the end result and the not the steps required to reach the end point. Fenn asked Gillham how
much more is needed to advance to the next step in the process. Lindsay suggested having a conference call with a few members of the Committee to repackage the options into a more concise and clear document that is easy to understand. She suggested that that the Committee use a “parking lot” (a flip chart or similar method of recording) at each meeting to outline the Alternatives and document any items that have been dismissed. At this point the Committee should have distinct alternatives with different outcomes. Lindsay noted that the Alternatives development process can be time-consuming and painful, but that this is sometimes necessary to work through the options.
Hunt Durey suggested that Alternative A be modified some to allow for some tide control at the existing dike location due to sea level rise. He noted that tide control might be needed to restore salt marsh in the lower river basin. Lindsay recommended polling individual Committee members about the current draft Alternatives. This exercise was then carried out. The majority of members supported Alternative A as drafted. It was agreed that all Alternatives would need to accommodate sea level rise.
Lindsay Gillham of EQD suggested that she work with a subcommittee of the group to repackage the Alternatives to ensure that they are laid out in a consistent way.
Tim Smith, Steve Spear and Margo Fenn agreed to participate in an Alternatives subcommittee. Lindsay Gillham offered to prepare a revised package and email it to the subcommittee by January 19, 2010. The subcommittee would then hold a conference call at 1:00 pm on Monday, January 25, 2010 to review Lindsay’s draft. The revised Alternatives package would be presented to the Technical Working Group (TWG) on January 27, 2010. Following the TWG meeting, the subcommittee would convene again by conference call on to discuss the TWG response and comments. The revised Alternatives package would be reviewed by the full HRRC at its February 17, 2010 meeting.
The Committee also reviewed some tidal flow diagrams prepared by the Louis Berger Group (LBG) to illustrate each of the Alternatives. The Committee asked that the subcommittee coordinate with LBG to ensure that the graphic diagrams are consistent with the agreed upon Alternatives package.
Tim Smith developed and circulated a draft matrix to evaluate the impacts of each Alternative. Focused thought needs to be given to each impact topic. There is room in the matrix for a description of the Alternative, the likely impacts, the data needs, and comments. Tim Smith and Margo Fenn will assign individuals to populate the matrix after the Alternatives have been repackaged.
One sample section (Wetlands) of the draft Data Sources Review by Berger was reviewed by Tim Smith; he suggested LBG should do another sample section such as water quality, which has a lot of information already compiled.
Future Work Plan: LBG Road Map and Coordination with EQD
Next Steps / Work Assignments
Margo Fenn sought guidance from Lindsay Gillham on how to move forward in the NEPA process. The Committee reviewed a draft outline “Next Steps for the Herring River Restoration Plan / EIS January 2010” drafted by EQD. Lindsay Gillham commented that any needed feasibility studies should be conducted now so as not to set the completion date back for the entire document. The EIS/EIR should include a comprehensive list of properties that might be affected. Mitigation techniques can be packaged into a toolbox and listed as ways to offset impacts to potentially affected properties. Some of the studies still needed include: Mill Creek dike feasibility, sediment transport modeling, and cultural (historic and archaeological) resources review. HRRC should shoot for completion of such studies by December 2010 in order to meet a DEIS/DEIR
completion date of Spring 2011.
Project Management
Margo Fenn asked each of the Committee members to comment on process issues. The Committee discussed project management and brainstormed ideas for how to work together more effectively. Some members felt that stronger “quarter-backing” was needed by APCC; others noted that the National Park Service is the lead federal agency and thus is the logical entity to manage the project. Members agreed that the following steps would help:
1. More regular involvement and consultation with EQD: Lindsay Gillham offered to provide regular advice and guidance to the group including monthly conference calls with Margo Fenn and Tim Smith prior to HRRC meetings to help plan to agenda and work program, and call-in participation in HRRC meetings, as needed.
2. Better representation for the towns of Wellfleet and Truro: Margo Fenn, Tim Smith and Hillary Greenberg will consult with Gary Joseph to determine how best to ensure that the towns are well-represented and kept well-informed about the project. This might involve having alternate appointees from the towns and/ or providing regular briefings for Selectmen. Margo Fenn will contact Gary Joseph to set up a meeting to discuss this.
3. Committee members agreed to try to be more disciplined in their discussions, holding back extraneous comments so as not to get sidetracked from the subject at hand. In this regard several specific tools might help:
a. Stronger facilitation by the Project Coordinator-willingness to intervene in non-pertinent discussions/soliciting comments from all members.
b. Use of a “parking lot” (flip chart or bookmarks in the minutes) for issues that are important to take up at another time.
c. More detailed agendas to focus discussion.
4. Spreading the workload more equitably by assigning individual members to lead specific aspects of the project work (for example, hydrodynamic modeling, low-lying properties, cultural resource review, etc.) Actual assignments need further discussion.
5. Seeking additional capacity for administrative work, especially recording and preparation of meeting minutes-perhaps through either the NPS or APCC.
6. Laying out a work program with short-term goals (perhaps quarterly) and deadlines.
7. Deciding upon and actively using a project tracking system (perhaps converting from Liquid Planner to the NPS PEPC system). Tim Smith will obtain password access for Margo Fenn and Maggie Geist to explore this option.
Informational Updates:
NRCS Funding: Steve Spear and Hunt Durey provided the Committee with an update on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Watershed Plan funding. HRRC submitted a list of priority projects for this funding last summer. Legal issues and hydrodynamic modeling were at the top of the list. Approximately $5 million will be available for Cape Cod projects as part of the stimulus package; funds must be fully spent by December 30, 2011. Money will become available in the next couple of weeks; NRCS will develop cooperative agreements with eligible recipients.
Low Lying Properties Working Group
Mark Adams emailed a draft report on Low Lying Properties to the Committee and asked that members comment back to him prior to the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm.
| 