Approved Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
October 7, 2010
9:30 am-3:30 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Charleen Greenhalgh, Hunt Durey, Steve Block, Steve Spear, Hillary Greenberg (arrived late)
Members Absent: Gary Joseph
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Tara Nye, Shelley Hall, Don Palladino. John Portnoy, Pat Weslowski, Bill Burke, Kirsten Chmielewski, Holly Herbster
Administration/Coordination:
Communications/Coordination with the Friends of Herring River: Don Palladino reported that the Friends are working on a video project to educate the public about the value of salt marshes, using the history of the Herring River as an example. The Friends will sign a letter of agreement with videographer Rachel Smith to develop the video. He noted that they have identified 26 foundations that are potential funding sources for this project. Eric Derleth suggested that the photographs that John Portnoy has collected for the video project might be useful for the Cultural Resources analysis (Section 106 Phase 1A Study). Holly Herbster of the Public Archaeology Lab (PAL) agreed to coordinate with John Portnoy, noting that the Friends could help out with the public education component of the analysis.
Wellfleet Harbor Conference: HRRC is scheduled for a 30-minute presentation at the Harbor Conference on November 6, 2010. Tim Smith and Steve Spear will develop a presentation for the Conference.
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the draft meeting minutes for September 16, 2010 with corrections from Tim Smith.
Schedule Next Meetings: The Committee agreed that future meetings would start at 9:30 am and conclude in mid-afternoon.
Monthly HRRC meetings are scheduled for:
November 4, 2010
December 2, 2010
January 6, 2010
Presentation and Discussion:
Public Archaeology Lab (PAL): Section 106 Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study: Holly Herbster of PAL provided a presentation on the draft Cultural Resources study. PAL conducted archival research from a variety of available sources including state and town records, National Park Service (NPS) records, previous cultural resources studies and environmental studies. The PAL draft report looks at two key time periods: Pre- and Post European Contact. PAL identified 37 sites within the river basin from the Pre-Contact period, all but one of which are located in upland areas surrounding the estuary. There is one Native American site within the floodplain near the Chequessett Neck Road dike. Sixteen sites from the Post-Contact period were identified. These fall into two general categories: Industrial uses (such as salt
works, fishing weirs, windmills, etc.) and transportation uses (such as roads and railroad infrastructure). PAL developed draft sensitivity maps for both the Pre- and Post Contact periods. The next steps are to complete the draft report, refine the information and maps for review by NPS staff and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). The Phase 1A Report will include recommendations for needed future work. Holly Herbster estimated that PAL would complete the Report by the end of 2010.
The Committee discussed how the Cultural Resources Study would be coordinated with preparation of the EIS/EIR for the Restoration Project. There are two levels of review: Reconnaissance (Phase 1A) and Identification (Phase 1B). Subsurface investigations might be needed in the Identification phase. The Phase 1A Study should provide sufficient information for the draft EIS/EIR, but ground surveys might be needed once the Preferred Alternative is selected. Ongoing consultation with MHC will be needed. Bill Burke suggested that the Park Service could make a programmatic agreement with MHC (similar to what was done for the Highland Center) that sets thresholds for when consultation is needed.
The group discussed some relevant policy issues. Hunt Durey raised the question of whether tidal inundation would be considered disturbance to historic or archaeological resources. Holly Herbster noted that water level rise could actually help preserve cultural resources, and could be considered a positive impact in that it restores historic conditions in the estuary. Steve Spear asked whether filling is considered a positive or negative impact. This depends on how it is done-fill can help protect subsurface resources but it has to be applied carefully to prevent compaction of soils.
Informational Updates:
Update for Truro Selectmen: Charleen Greenhalgh, Tim Smith and Margo Fenn provided an update on the Restoration Project for the Truro Selectmen at their September 21, 2010 meeting. The Board was generally supportive of the project and asked to be kept informed as work progresses on the EIS/EIR.
Woods Hole Group (WHG) Hydrodynamic/Sediment Modeling: Tim Smith reported that the NPS tide log information would be reported to WHG this week. Once WHG reviews the data, the HRRC needs to review and confirm the scope of work for the next hydrodynamic modeling runs. HRCC is also waiting for a proposal from WHG to perform the next sediment modeling steps.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Watershed Plan Funding for Project Coordination: The existing Project Coordination contract among the HRRC, the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) and the Coastal America Foundation (CAF) has been extended to allow the remaining funds to be expended prior to billing against the new NRCS funds. Steve Spear provided a copy of the new agreement between the Cape Cod Conservation District (CCCD), HRRC and APCC to Hillary Greenberg for the Town of Wellfleet files.
Hunt Durey reported that NRCS has tentatively approved the HRRC’s request for approximately $110,000 in additional funding for some of the needed technical studies (e.g. sediment modeling, Phase 1B Cultural Resources analysis) that the Committee had identified.
TNC/CYCC/NPS Land Plan and Appraisal: Tim Smith reported that the Nature Conservancy (TNC) has been working with Department of Interior officials to develop a scope of work for a land appraisal for 13 acres of land that the Club may wish to sell to the National Park Service. Once the scope of work is finalized, TNC will contract with a qualified land planning consultant and appraiser to do the work. The appraisal will take several months to complete.
Legal Update: Tim Smith provided the results of his Chapter 91 research to Robin Lepore in the Department of Interior Solicitors office. Ms. Lepore is interested in consulting state attorneys concerning some of the legal questions that the Committee has posed. Hunt Durey offered to coordinate with Robin Lepore to arrange for consultations with appropriate state legal experts.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Update: Tim Smith, Hunt Durey, Steve Spear, and Chris Feeney of LBG will meet with FEMA officials in Boston on October 12, 2010 to explore issues related to flood zone mapping and the Restoration Project.
Phase 4 EIS/EIR Contract with Louis Berger Group (LBG): The Committee reviewed a draft project schedule for Phase 4 of the EIS/EIR prepared by LBG and Mark Husbands of EQD. Members had a number of questions about the proposed schedule:
-What technical studies need to be completed prior to preparation of the impact analysis (Chapter 4) of the EIS/EIR? Hydrodynamic modeling is the most important study to complete for the impact analysis, but there might be some other issues as well such as more detailed survey information for some low-lying properties.
-Why not work on Chapters 1 (Purpose and Need) and 3 (Affected Environment) first? The information is available to prepare these chapters; this work could be completed while the hydrodynamic and sediment modeling is underway. Chapter 2 (Alternatives) could also be updated now, but it might need to be revised if the modeling results in changes to the Project Alternatives.
-How will consultation with the HRRC be built into the process? The schedule is fairly ambitious and might not allow enough time for HRRC review of draft documents. Pat Weslowski noted that while the proposed schedule does not envision review cycles for subsections of chapters or multiple review cycles of each chapter, it will be important to establish clear protocols and expectations for document. It is critical that the HRRC convey its expectations to EQD and the consultants. Detailed chapter outlines might help to clarify what is expected for format, structure and content.
-When is the best time to hold public hearings on the draft EIS/EIR? The draft schedule proposes hearings in late July/early August of 2011. Committee members commented that while it is good to get input from summer residents, it is critically important to ensure that year-round residents can participate. High summer is not the time for locals to attend public meetings.
Shelley Hall suggested that George Price be consulted regarding the timetable. There will be a conference call with the consultants (LBG) and EQD officials on October 19, 2010 to “kick off” the Phase 4 work.
Other Discussion Items:
EIS/EIR Adaptive Management Plan: Tim Smith and Margo Fenn updated the group on a September 23, 2010 Adaptive Management Planning Workshop. Tim Smith provided a short refresher course on the steps in the Adaptive Management (AM) process, referencing the September 13, 2010 “white paper” that he prepared, as well as two other key documents: A DOI Adaptive Management Manual and a draft paper provided by Hilary Neckles of the United States Geological Survey describing a structured decision-making process for managing salt marshes at U.S. Fish and Wildlife coastal refuges.
Tim Smith noted that there are parts of the project that are fairly straightforward and lend themselves to traditional EIS/EIR analysis. Examples include rebuilding the Chequessett Neck Road dike, building a dike at Mill Creek, replacing culverts in key locations and elevating or rerouting roads. However, the system responses (e.g. vegetation changes, fish and wildlife responses, etc.) resulting from the operation of these new structures (i.e. opening tide gates) carry varying degrees of uncertainty. Thus, it’s appropriate to include an Adaptive Management approach as part of the EIS/EIR analysis.
Hunt Durey asked how the state and federal regulatory agencies would respond to a proposed Adaptive Management approach. Margo Fenn noted that TWG members have suggested that system impacts be “bracketed” –i.e. the EIS/EIR should present the projected best and worst case impacts of each Alternative for each impact topic, then use an Adaptive Management approach to model, monitor and manage the system responses over time.
One of the key steps in the AM process is making sure that the Project Objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented and time-fixed. He noted feedback from the 9/23 AM workshop suggested that the Fundamental Project Objective (an overall goal for the ecosystem) should probably address both environmental and social concerns. As the FWS plan fundamental objective provided by Neckles relied on agency goals, it was also suggested that the NPS mission statement or the Cape Cod National Seashore General Management Plan might provide a helpful guide as to how to simultaneously address these concerns. Tim Smith led the group in an exercise to review and modify the wording of the Project Objectives (as articulated in the draft Chapter 1 of the EIS/EIR) using these criteria and examples from the Neckles et al
draft paper.
Louis Berger Group (LBG) Studies:
-Mill Creek Dike
-High Toss Road Conceptual Designs
-CYCC Golf Course Grading Plan
The Committee reviewed the Mill Creek Dike designs and cost estimates at its September meeting. There are no results for High Toss Road yet. LBG and Howard Maurer are working on a cost estimate for the golf course grading plan. The Committee discussed the golf course plan, noting that the proposed new irrigation system alone could cost almost $1 million. The Committee cannot determine a reasonable cost sharing approach until it has a breakdown of the needed improvements for the course. Hunt Durey suggested that it might be helpful to have a third-party mediator to help work through cost sharing issues with the CYCC. This idea could be proposed to the Club once better information is available about golf course renovation costs, and the land appraisal is available.
The Committee also discussed the feasibility of diking Mill Creek. LBG has come up with feasible dike designs but further work is needed to determine how to effectively handle freshwater drainage in Mill Creek. It might be possible to increase the storage capacity of the lower river basin to prevent freshwater buildup in Mill Creek. Further modeling work would be needed to determine this. Both golf course reconstruction and diking of Mill Creek must be evaluated in the EIS/EIR in order to determine the preferred approach to mitigation.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.
Documents referenced in the meeting:
-Minutes of the September 16, 2010 HRRC Meeting
-PAL, Draft Phase 1A Archaeological Background Research and Sensitivity Assessment Summary Memorandum, October 2010
-October 2010 Project Coordination Contract between USDA (NRCS) and APCC
-CACO Herring River EIS Schedule v2, October 4, 2010
-September 13, 2010 Draft Adaptive Management Strategy (white paper)
-Neckles et al: Salt Marsh SDM Workshop Draft Report November 2008
-September 14, 2010 LBG Report re Mill Creek Dike Alternatives
| 