Approved Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee Meeting
December 16, 2009
Members present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Charleen Greenhalgh, Steve Block, and Mark Adams
Others present: Don Palladino of the Friends of Herring River, Craig Wood and Pat Weslowski of the Louis Berger Group, and Margo Fenn, APCC Project Coordinator.
The meeting was called to order at 12:15 pm.
Communications/Coordination with the Friends of Herring River: Don Palladino reported that the Wellfleet Harbor conference was a success and resulted in some new members for the Friends. Over 300 people are now getting the newsletter. About 45 people participated in the Herring River walk during the conference weekend. Don noted that the website has been updated and soon a new page for photos will be included. There is also the potential for doing a video about the estuary with historical photos in the spring. He noted that the Friends have also committed to doing the herring count with APCC in 2010, and will work with the Boy Scouts to clear brush from the river in the spring. Tim Smith noted that the leader of the Scout troop is a columnist from the Boston Globe.
Minutes and Meeting Schedules: The November 18, 2009 minutes were not ready for review at this time and will be provided to the Committee for review and approval in January.
The next HRRC meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2009. The Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting is January 27, 2010. The group agreed to meet on February 17, 2010 as well.
Coordination with the Environmental Quality Division (EQD) of the National Park Service (NPS): Margo Fenn provided an update on two phone consultations that she and Tim Smith have had with officials at EQD. She noted that for most NPS projects, EQD is directly involved in the NEPA process. They are willing to provide assistance as needed for the placePlaceNameHerring PlaceTypeRiver restoration. She suggested that they attend the January 13, 2010 meeting. The “road map” drafted by LBG will be discussed at that time. Copies of draft materials have been sent to EQD to get them up to speed on work completed to date. Tim Smith noted that other CCNS staff would also attend the January meeting. Margo Fenn and Tim Smith met with George Price and other CCNS staff to update them on the project.
Revised Alternatives Concepts: Tim Smith and Margo Fenn presented an overview of the revised draft Project Alternatives dated December 7, 2009. Tim Smith noted that the two areas where we potentially have the most concerns about private property impacts are not in the main river basin but in side-tributaries of the river (Mill Creek and Pole Dike Creek); therefore we need to consider specific solutions for these tributaries. He also noted that in order to meet our restoration goals for the river, we must remove the tidal restriction at High Toss Road. The modeling shows that above High Toss Road the only basin that may require tide control to prevent private property impacts is Pole Dike Creek. It
would be far simpler and more effective to design a solution for Pole Dike than to try to install tide controls at the low, wide opening at High Toss. For this reason, the revised draft Alternatives assume that we will not consider High Toss as a location for tide control but we will remove the tidal restriction there, through either a larger culvert opening or an open channel. Decisions about whether to remove or raise High Toss Road could be evaluated based on transportation/access issues but the ecological goals of achieving maximum flow through this location would be assured.
This approach focuses the main action Alternatives back on Chequessett Neck Dike and allows the Committee to consider some sub-options for that location and the two tributaries where there are private property concerns. It simplifies and reduces the number of options to evaluate: Alternative A -Culverts with permanent tide control at Chequessett Neck. Under this option the tidal range for the entire estuary would be permanently controlled to a pre-determined level at Chequessett Neck. Alternative B – No tide control at Chequessett Neck but upstream tide controls at Mill Creek and Pole Dike Creek. Alternative B would have four possible sub-options.
The Committee discussed the draft Alternatives package and raised several questions that will need to be answered, as the Alternatives are refined: What maximum tide elevation would have to be achieved to make this a worthwhile project? Would we need storm controls at Chequessett Neck even if there were tide control structures at Mill Creek and Pole Dike Creek? What further hydrodynamic modeling would be needed to evaluate the options? Is tide control needed to protect salt marsh in the face of sea level rise? Is it technically feasible to dike Mill Creek?
Don Palladino suggested outlining the assumptions that underlie the proposed Alternatives, and evaluating the Alternatives against the Project Purpose and Need. Tim Smith reminded the group that the restoration process would be incremental. Adaptive management could allow the hydrology to adapt to absorb storm surges. The Committee reviewed written comments received from Steve Spear and it was the consensus of the group to move forward with the general package as proposed in the December 7, 2009 draft. Tim Smith noted that it is important to use consistent terminology in discussing the options. He agreed to outline the underlying assumptions, clarify the language and provide the draft Alternatives to officials at EQD for their review and comments for the January meeting. HRRC will review the draft package with EQD at the January 13,
2010 meeting and present the Alternatives to the Technical Working Group (TWG) at its January 27, 2010 meeting.
The Louis Berger Group (LBG) prepared some graphics to illustrate the proposed Alternatives. The Committee reviewed the draft graphics and made some recommendations for clarifications and changes. These will be helpful for the presentation to the TWG. Craig Wood offered to prepare an overview “lay of the land” graphic to help TWG members get oriented. Graphics for the sub-options would also be developed. Craig Wood agreed to work on this with Tim Smith. LBG also prepared a 4-page model Alternatives summary, which could be used as a newsletter or meeting handout. Don Palladino commented that there needs to be a public presentation of the Alternatives so that people know the project is still being worked on and it is still viable. Tim Smith agreed to do some more refining and to work with Berger on the
graphics. He will send the refined version to the rest of the Committee after the first of the year and to EQD as well.
Data Sources Review: HRRC members reviewed the November draft of the Data Sources Review prepared by LBG. Margo Fenn commented that there was a communications glitch about the purpose of the document. Tim Smith outlined what this document is supposed to include using an example from the Sears Point Restoration project. There should be a brief introduction for each impact topic, a list of the existing data sources, a list of what additional data is needed and an explanation of why it’s needed. He noted that this document is not intended to be part of the EIS/EIR; this is more of an internal document for the Committee’s use. Craig Wood suggested selecting one of the topics and going through this exercise, getting back to the group to see if this is what is expected. The Committee agreed to this approach.
Report on the TWG Canoe Trip
Tim Smith reported that there was a good turn out for the November 19, 2009 canoe trip. It was especially helpful to have State Representative Sarah Peake, and some key people from DEP participate. Most of the federal and state agencies on the TWG were represented. Eric Derleth suggested that perhaps in the future a walk would also be helpful, as you can’t physically see Mill Creek from the Herring River. Those in attendance on the trip will also be sent a notice of the TWG meeting.
Technical Working Group: The Committee discussed what should be on the agenda for the January 27, 2010 meeting of the TWG. There will be a presentation and discussion of the Alternatives. In addition, Hunt Durey and Tim Smith are working on a list of regulatory issues to discuss with the TWG. This list needs to be refined before presenting it to the TWG. The federal agencies also should be invited to become cooperating agencies. This includes US Fish and Wildlife, NOAA, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (NRCS has already agreed to be a cooperating agency).
The Committee briefly discussed possible models for permitting the project using adaptive management. Margo Fenn suggested that the Development Agreement process under the Cape Cod Commission Act is one approach to consider. It could create a contractual agreement among the regulatory agencies that stipulates how the project may proceed. Others suggested that a Generic EIS/EIR approach might make sense, given that there are multiple project activities that will need to be implemented incrementally. A Memorandum of Understanding among the regulatory agencies could establish an oversight committee to review and approve specific activities in the future.
Craig Wood offered to attend the TWG meeting. Tim Smith will work with Superintendent George Price to craft a letter of invitation from the CCNS to the federal agencies to become cooperating agencies. Margo Fenn agreed to send out a reminder notice to the TWG, requesting that members consult with their respective agencies to explore methods for coordinated, streamlined permitting for the project.
PEPC Access/Use: Tim Smith provided the Committee with a brief overview of the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) system. He noted that the system has both a public site (for anyone to get information on a project and make public comments) and a private section where only authorized users may access it. CCNS could provide log-on passwords for HRRC members and consultants if the group is interested in using the system. The system is good for project tracking, and has other features as well (meeting/scheduling, calendar, document storage, etc.)
The National Park Service uses PEPC to keep the official Administrative Record in the NEPA process. This system could replace Liquid Planner if the Committee wants to use it. The Committee discussed the pros and cons of Liquid Planner. If HRRC wanted to use PEPC instead, we would need to decide who should have access to upload and edit documents and information on the site. It would be helpful to have EQD input on the most efficient way to utilize this system. Tim Smith and Margo Fenn agreed to look closely at the system and discuss options for admiation. Tim will request log-on authorizations for Margo Fenn and Maggie Geist. Use of PEPC will be put on the next agenda for further discussion.
Low-Lying Properties Working Group: Mark Adams provided an update on work completed to date. Mark and his intern, Karen Lovely have created a database of all properties that touch the 10 foot contour (NAVD88). It contains multiple fields such as assessor’s map and parcel number, owner, street address, owner’s mailing address, parcel size, lowest elevation on site, percentage of site below the 10’ contour, state land use class code, assessed value, zoning, and CR protections, if any. Properties above Rte 6 have been added. The previous study completed by ENSR has been incorporated. The new analysis adds 20 structures to the ENSR list as well as 18 drive/access ways. Mark will be adding all the other features that were discussed previously. Karen has documented her methods for
creating the database.
The next step is to mesh this with the hydrodynamic model results. The towns of Wellfleet and Truro have been asked to provide available site plans for specific properties. Mark overlaid the database mapping with “Google Earth” to show the land features better. The Committee discussed how best to merge the hydrodynamic model results with the GIS database. Mark is checking some of the elevation numbers with the Woods Hole Group (WHG). The original ENSR study results appear to be confirmed by the work thus far. Septic system and well information from the Towns will help to address other questions. Mark agreed to provide a draft report to the HRRC for its January 13, 2010 meeting.
Hydrodynamic Modeling-Next Steps: Tim Smith reported that there would be a daylong modeling workshop at CCNS Headquarters on January 28, 2010. Numerous scientists and specialists have been invited to participate, along with members of the Committee. Woods Hole Group will also attend. The purpose is to look back at what’s been accomplished to date and determine where we need to go next. The existing WHG report need to be finalized and the model outputs need to be presented in a consistent way so that results of different model runs can be compared. Looking forward, we need to outline the next scope of work and prioritize future modeling efforts. Key questions include: What model runs are needed to evaluate the proposed Alternatives; what runs are needed to evaluate impacts to low lying
properties; what is needed to evaluate sediment transport. Regarding sediment transport, Eric Derleth asked what point in time we should be modeling, i.e. changes right after gates are opened or end conditions?
CYCC Update: The Committee briefly discussed the status of the routing plan for CYCC golf course. Hunt Durey had requested by email that CYCC confirm its interest in pursuing the filling option for the golf course but had not yet received a reply. The Committee agreed to invite CYCC and others to a morning meeting before January HRRC meeting to discuss next steps for golf course routing plans, the potential for a park boundary change and possible land conservation for the upland area of the CYCC property. Margo Fenn agreed to contact Don Palladino to try to set up a meeting with CYCC and town/conservation officials on January 13, 2010.
Other Business: Margo Fenn suggested that the Committee should also discuss a funding strategy for the different components of the project. There are numerous possible federal sources of funds. There are pros and cons to using these different sources. The town and the Committee need to agree on what course of action would be most effective.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
| 