Approved Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
March 10, 2011 9:30 am-5:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Spear, Gary Joseph, Steve Block, Hillary Greenberg and Charleen Greenhalgh
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Shelley Hall, Holly Herbster, Bill Burke, Sue Moynihan, Frederica Dimmick, Jack Whalen
Louis Berger Group (LBG) staff and National Park Service (NPS) staff attended the afternoon session, including:
Pat Weslowski, Craig Wood, Spence Smith, and Bernward Hay of LBG
Bob Cook, Judith Oset, Krista Lee, Kelly Medeiros, Holly Bayley, Mark Adams, Megan Tyrrell and Steve Smith of NPS
Administration/Coordination:
Communications/Coordination with Friends of Herring River: Margo Fenn noted that Don Palladino was out of town but that there would be a Joint Communications meeting with the Friends on March 18, 2011 at 1:00 pm at CCNS Headquarters.
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2011 meeting.
Schedule Next Meetings:
Monthly HRRC meetings are scheduled for:
April 7, 2011
June 16, 2011
There will be an EIS/EIR Strategy Session on April 6, 2011.
The Value Assessment Workshop is scheduled for May 11, 12, and 13, 2011.
Informational Updates:
Briefing for Congressman Keating: The HRRC and the Friends of Herring River will provide a briefing on the Restoration Project for Congressman Bill Keating on Thursday, March 24, 2011.
Public Outreach/Long-Term Management Issues: Margo Fenn reported that following the February HRRC meeting she checked the minutes from the 2005 Stakeholder meetings and reviewed the two Herring River Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). The Stakeholders Group was created under the first MOU but was not carried forward in the second one. ~So, the group could be "reconstituted" informally but their formal role was completed with the creation of the Conceptual Restoration Plan (CRP). ~Some of the members do not live here anymore-but presumably new representatives could take the place of those who have moved on.
The CRP contains two lists of questions that came out of their process (located in the full report of the Technical Committee in the CRP Appendix). ~There is a list of technical questions that comprise many of the issues that the HRRC has been working on. However, the many of the management questions that they posed have not yet been addressed. ~The Committee needs to revisit these and think about how to handle them.
MOU II calls for the HRRC to develop a third MOU for project implementation. Presumably, this MOU would address all of the long-range management issues.
Don Palladino did some research on potential models for long-term project management including the Penobscot River Trust and the Elkhorn Slough Foundation. He prepared a preliminary summary sheet describing these organizations that was emailed to HRRC members. Steve Block noted that he was particularly interesting in learning about the fundraising strategies employed by these organizations.
HRRC members agreed to review the Stakeholder Group management questions and the Penobscot/Elkhorn summary sheet and have a discussion of the long-term management issues at the April 7, 2011 meeting.
Section 106 Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study-Draft Report: Bill Burke introduced Holly Herbster of the Public Archaeology Lab (PAL). Holly Herbster provided an overview of PAL’s draft Cultural Resources (Phase 1A) Study Report. She noted that the Phase 1A Study Area (defined by the 10-foot contour elevation surrounding the estuary) might be larger than the final Area of Potential Effect (APE). She acknowledged that the Woods Hole Group’s (WHG) hydrodynamic modeling results could provide a more accurate boundary for areas of potential inundation. The APE would include the areas of inundation plus any areas of construction disturbance. She commented that changes in water levels are unlikely to affect archaeological resources except where soils may be eroded by the flow.
The draft Study Report provides a sensitivity assessment, mapping areas of high and moderate historic and archaeological sensitivity. If there were project activities that would disturb the soil in any of the areas of high or moderate sensitivity, further investigations (such as test pits) would likely be needed. PAL and the National Park Service (NPS) must consult with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to determine the scope of work for any further investigations (e.g. Phase 1B or Phase 2 Studies). The Committee discussed the process and timeline for consulting with MHC, noting that NPS is the lead agency for this work. HRRC needs to provide information to the Louis Berger Group (LBG) for the impact assessment in the Draft EIS/EIR soon.
Bill Burke noted that NPS must also consult with the Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag Tribes about the Cultural Resources Study. The tribes were notified when the Restoration Project began the MEPA process but they need to be updated on the Project Alternatives and the Cultural Resources Study. Holly Herbster suggested providing the tribes with the draft Phase 1A Study Report and an update on the Project Alternatives. The Draft EIS/EIR would include the Phase 1A Study and comments received on it.
Eric Derleth asked how NPS intends to address impacts outside the CCNS boundary. Bill Burke indicated that NPS would make recommendations about needed further work throughout the APE. Derleth noted that HRRC still has to find a funding source for the Phase 1B work, so developing a scope of work and cost estimate is critical since there is a time limit on how long these funds will be available.
Tim Smith provided PAL with maps showing the rough locations of expected construction disturbance, noting that many decisions about raising and relocating roads have not yet been made. Holly Herbster commented that to the greatest extent possible, access points, construction, and staging areas should be planned in areas of low sensitivity. Tim Smith noted that whether there is greater potential for archaeological disturbance in relocating roads versus raising them in place would be a factor in determining a preferred alternative. Holly Herbster commented that filling and raising grade is not usually considered to be a detrimental impact; however, excavating soil could cause detrimental impacts. This could be a concern on the CYCC golf course.
Tim Smith agreed to provide the WHG modeling results to PAL as soon as they are available. Bill Burke offered to coordinate with NPS Cultural Resources staff and HRRC to set up a meeting with the Wampanoag Tribes. NPS staff will work with PAL to modify the Draft Phase 1A Report to incorporate the modeling and construction information, with a goal of completing the Phase 1A Report by mid-April, and beginning the consultation with MHC.
Natural Heritage Issues and Mapping: Tim Smith reported that he had met with officials at the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) to discuss how to handle rare/endangered species in the Herring River EIS/EIR. NHESP suggested seeking an exemption through the development of a habitat management plan as an alternative to seeking standard MESA permit. This is a flexible process that would allow rare species issues to be addressed as part of a plan for holistic habitat management of the flood plain.
As a result of new MESA regulations adopted in October, NHESP is in the process of developing a statewide conservation plan for eastern box turtles. As part of this process, NHESP’s Estimated and Priority Habitat maps will be modified and it is very likely that the Chequessett Yacht and Country Club (CYCC) property will no longer be classified as priority habitat for this species. This has important implications for Herring River Project Alternatives, because it means that the earlier proposal to move the lower golf course holes to the CYCC upland area could be a viable option again. This information is not public yet, but NHESP will be holding public hearings later in the year to propose the mapping changes. Such changes would probably not become official until late summer.
The timing of the habitat mapping changes is awkward for the Herring River EIS/EIR because it creates a possible new option for Mill Creek under the Project Alternatives. It also changes the assumptions that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) would need to use in preparing a land plan and appraisal of the CYCC property. David McGowan of TNC has not yet issued a notice to proceed on the land plan/appraisal work. The appraisal was to look at values of three different scenarios:
-14 acres along the river that CYCC may wish to sell to the National Park Service
-House lots along Chequessett Neck Road
-CR on the entire CYCC property, excluding the clubhouse
Before authorizing the work to go forward, McGowan wants to meet with CYCC and find out what they would like to do.
The Committee discussed the implications of the mapping change for the EIS/EIR and the land plan/appraisal. The group agreed that the EIS/EIR needs to analyze more options for the CYCC golf course if the upland area is no longer mapped as rare species habitat. It might make sense to include the option of moving the lower fairways of the golf course to the upland as a sub-option of the “No dike” option.
Tim Smith agreed to draft an amended version of the Project Alternatives to include the upland sub-option for the CYCC golf course.
HRRC also needs to understand the regulatory implications of the proposed mapping change: It would affect the Cape Cod Commission’s open space requirements; it could affect the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) willingness to permit filling on the lower golf course holes; and it also could substantially expand the scope of needed archaeological investigations on the CYCC upland parcel (Phase 1B Study). Eric Derleth suggested that PAL be notified of this potential mapping change, and provided with both the “raise and fill” plan and the earlier golf course routing plan, showing the upland option.
The Committee discussed the issue of wetlands jurisdiction, noting that the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) for the CYCC property had expired in 2009. The Wellfleet Conservation Commission and DEP would need to review again the findings of the 2006 Horsley Witten Group wetland delineation study, documenting the case for why this area is not jurisdictional under MA DEP wetland regulations. Jim Sprague of DEP has already requested copies of the golf course “raise and fill” plan to seek internal DEP guidance on how to handle this issue.
Hunt Durey offered to set up a meeting with DEP officials to discuss wetlands jurisdiction prior to the next Technical Working Group meeting (April 13, 2011).
Technical Services Needs and Funding Sources: The Committee discussed a recent proposal in the U.S. Senate to cut funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The Senate voted against a Continuing Resolution (CR) that would have eliminated funding for the NRCS' national Watershed Operations Program and that would have prevented the NRCS from working on currently funded projects, including the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project. HRRC is currently using these funds for hydrodynamic/sediment modeling and Project Coordination (APCC’s contract).
It is anticipated that the U.S. House leadership will put forward a new CR to keep the government running into April; this might again eliminate NRCS funding. NRCS is requiring a clause in new contracts that would nullify these contracts, in the event that funding is cut. This would affect the pending contract with the Woods Hole Group for Mill Creek modeling work. There is approximately $47,000 left of the NRCS funds appropriated last year. The Committee agreed that, if available, these funds should be used for conceptual engineering work for raising/moving roads within the estuary, and for a cost estimate for rebuilding the Chequessett Neck Road dike.
Legal Update: Shelley Hall reported that the NPS is still waiting for a written legal opinion from the Department of Interior Solicitor’s Office. HRRC members noted that the EIS/EIR cannot go forward without the review of the DOI Solicitors.
Woods Hole Group (WHG) Modeling Update: Margo Fenn reported on the latest schedule for modeling deliverables.
Louis Berger Group: Proposed Impact Assessment Overview: Pat Weslowski distributed copies of the March 4, 2011 draft Impact Assessment Matrix and introduced the LBG team. The following is a summary of the discussion of each impact topic:
Water Quality: Bernward Hay briefly outlined potential impacts, noting that for Groundwater, there may be private wells affected under the different Alternatives. The analysis will rely on Larry Martin’s 2007 study. For Surface Water in the Estuary, impacts are likely to be positive under both Alternatives. For Receiving Waters, he expects rapid dilution, though there may be temporary turbidity increases with Alternative C.
Eric Derleth asked if there would be temporal differences between the Alternatives-i.e. how long would it take for the system to reach a new equilibrium under each Alternative?
Tim Smith asked how they intended to summarize, interpret, and/or present the extensive water quality monitoring data that had been provided. Bernward Hay replied that while those data would be useful for tracking improvements as the project is implemented, the EIS/EIR would only provide a general discussion of basic water quality improvements. He noted that since the impacts are generally positive, a detailed analysis is not needed.
HRRC members did not completely agree that detailed, quantitative analysis would not be needed for generally positive water quality impacts.
Wetlands and Vegetation: Craig Wood said that there are two themes under this topic: wetlands jurisdiction and habitat conversion. He noted that the NPS vegetation map and the MA DEP Wetlands GIS layer would be used as the baseline for describing existing conditions. He anticipated that there would be some increase in wetland area, i.e. a conversion of current “uplands” to jurisdictional state and federal wetlands. HRRC members disputed this, noting that both the HRRC and former HRTC had come to a consensus after long debate that the current condition should be considered “wetland” and that no “new” wetlands would be created by tidal restoration. Mark Adams suggested using soils and historic topographic maps to establish the baseline condition as “degraded wetland”. The HRRC insisted that the discussion of wetlands jurisdiction should be handled in the regulatory appendix to the EIS/EIR and that only the ecological consequences of wetland-type change, along associated vegetation
change, should be included in the impact analysis as reflected in the draft EIS outline agreed upon several weeks ago. Hunt Durey noted that further discussion is needed to decide on how to determine the baseline wetland delineation.
Tim Smith asked how the site-specific plot/transect vegetation data provided to LBG would be used to quantify vegetation coverage and projected changes. Craig Wood replied that the analysis is elevation-driven. Because the vegetation plots do not include ground surface elevation ("z-values"), the data were not that useful. Tim Smith suggested that detailed elevation data are not necessary for developing a higher resolution analysis, compared to the broad-scale vegetation map. He noted that if elevation data are needed for the analysis, one-foot elevation contours exist for the project area and could easily vertically locate each vegetation plot within a one-foot range. Further discussion is needed to determine how to characterize existing vegetation and predicted vegetation change.
Soils and Sediment: Bernward Hay described the sediment analysis, noting that tidal velocities would be higher on the flood tide than the ebb tide, so sediment is likely to be eroded from the channels and deposited on the marsh surface. Alternative C would likely involve more erosion of the channels because of higher tidal ranges and storm tides. The analysis will rely on the WHG sediment modeling. Eric Derleth cautioned that the analysis should distinguish between effects in the area immediately downstream of the dike and Wellfleet Harbor. He also asked about the comparative timeframe to reach equilibrium under the different Alternatives.
The Committee discussed metal mobilization and pesticides related to the golf course use. Bernward Hay said that the HRRC should consider collecting and analyzing some sediment samples above and below the dike to determine if there are pesticides and metals in the sediment that could be mobilized by erosion.
Fish and Wildlife: Alynda Foreman (on the phone) briefly reviewed potential impacts on northern harrier nesting and feeding and suggested that these impacts are insignificant. Bob Cook suggested that LBG review the work of Bowen, who studied harrier use at CACO. The 2006 paper by Bowen, “Status and Habitat Use of Breeding Northern Harriers at Cape Cod National Seashore”, was part of the original set of Herring River core documents provided to LBG in the summer of 2009. Eric Derleth pointed out that while tidal restoration might impact documented nesting areas, other habitat changes could be positive for this species. Cook noted that there is plenty of foraging habitat for northern harriers in the Seashore but very limited nesting habitat, therefore the effects of tidal restoration should be
considered significant.
Tim Smith described his recent discussions with MA NHESP regarding how to address rare and endangered species in the EIS/EIR (see discussion above in these notes). Tim Smith and LBG staff will need to discuss this approach in greater detail. Smith noted that prior observations for state-listed marsh birds (rails, bitterns) do not meet NHESP mapping criteria and thus did not show up in their query of the Element Occurrence database for the Herring River. As part of the project’s Habitat Management Plan, another survey would likely be needed prior to project implementation.
The group briefly reviewed the matrix comments on the eastern spadefoot toad and eastern box turtle, noting that the matrix entries need to be reorganized to correspond to the right topics. Bob Cook noted e.s. toad does not typically occur in the Herring River project area and could be dismissed as a species of concern and that some species of birds, mammals and reptiles/amphibians would likely shift their ranges as the habitat changes. Cook’s view of e.s. toad in consistent with Smith’s discussion with NHESP on this species.
Spence Smith predicted improved habitat for fish and shellfish with better tidal flushing and higher levels of salinity. The closed shellfishing area below the dike could serve as a nursery for increased populations in the river. NPS staff suggested careful monitoring of sediment transport, dissolved oxygen and temperature to determine how far up the river shellfish may penetrate. Steve Smith raised the issue of herbivorous crabs moving into the river from the area below the dike. This could affect the restoration of salt marsh vegetation. Spence Smith suggested that HRRC have a meeting to update representatives of the shellfishing community once the sediment modeling results are available.
The Committee discussed how to quantify potential improvements for finfish. Steve Block suggested that LBG use Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) spawning ratios for the ponds. The USGS has prepared a proposal to do a baseline study of herring use of the Herring River.
Cultural Resources: Jacklyn Bryant noted that LBG has the PAL draft Phase 1A Study Report. LBG said they need information regarding elevations of some key archaeological sites and raised an issue about cranberry bogs. The Committee noted that there are no cranberry bogs within the system so this is not an issue. The Committee updated LBG staff on the status of the PAL report (see discussion above in these minutes). Tim Smith agreed to provide LBG with the maps showing the rough locations of areas of construction disturbance.
Visitor Experience and Public Access: LBG stated that they received guidance from CACO and EQD that this topic could be dismissed. NPS staff responded that this was not the case and appears to be a misunderstanding of questions posed to LBG after several confusing requests for information pertaining to these topics. While there is not a lot of data to document numbers of people boating, hiking, hunting, etc, in the area, it is still an important topic. The EIS/EIR may need to rely on more anecdotal information in discussing these topics but they are of concern to the general public. Hillary Greenberg noted that she and NPS Planner Lauren McKean had prepared an inventory of recreational access points within the estuary. Mark Adams noted that it is important to keep the recreational access points
informal. The Seashore does not want to commit to or encourage development of more parking areas.
Socioeconomics: LBG staff noted that the Chequessett Yacht and Country Club would experience a loss of income for at least one season if the golf course were to be moved or reconstructed. Eric Derleth noted, however, that the new course would be better and allow for improved viability long-term. Hunt Durey noted that there is a difference of opinion between HRRC and CYCC regarding what improvements are needed for flood-proofing the golf course. These differences are outlined in the meeting notes from a January 14, 2011 meeting with representatives of the Club.
The Committee discussed how to address potential impacts to other private properties. LBG’s draft matrix suggests that there could be a reduction in property values because of increased flood potential and flood insurance requirements. However, HRRC members noted that FEMA is in the process of remapping the Cape and evaluating existing flood-control structures. It is likely that the Chequessett Neck Road dike will be decertified for flood protection, because it does not have the required free-board above projected flood elevations, and lacks a maintenance and management plan. If this happens, the Herring River 100 year floodplain upstream of the dike would be mapped at a much higher elevation, triggering the requirement for flood insurance for some property owners. The Restoration Project
could actually help reduce flood potential by rebuilding the dike. This issue needs to be carefully described in the No Action Alternative in the EIS/EIR.
The Committee also discussed how much detail to provide about specific private properties that could be affected by the Restoration Project. HRRC discussed outreach to affected property owners before the Draft EIS/EIR is released. The EIS/EIR should certainly identify those properties with structures (buildings, wells, septic systems) that could be affected and propose mitigation measures to address the impacts. There are other properties that may experience landscape changes. Tim Smith reminded the group that there is a survey of all structures below the 10-foot contour line. HRRC members agreed to discuss further how much detail should be provided about individual properties.
The Committee also discussed how to address potential road removal/relocation in the EIS/EIR. The hydrodynamic modeling will clarify what road segments may be affected by the Restoration Project. There are several options for addressing these impacts including abandonment, allowing periodic flooding, raising road elevations and moving road segments. This is an area of uncertainty at this point but the options need to be presented in the EIS/EIR. HRRC needs to meet with Truro and Wellfleet Town officials to discuss the roads issues further.
Health and Human Safety: LBG suggested that this issue might be dismissed. HRRC members disagreed, noting that there are some important issues with emergency access during reconstruction of the Chequessett Neck Road dike and some of the other road segments. Also culvert safety (for boating) needs to be addressed. Health and safety issues need further discussion.
Hunt Durey stressed that the EIS/EIR impact assessment needs to have an overview section that addresses the “big picture” benefits of the project. He also commented that the analysis must quantify the differences between the impacts of the different Project Alternatives so that we can document the reasons for selected a Preferred Alternative.
Shelley Hall suggested that all draft documents (such as the draft Impact Matrix) should be labeled and dated as deliberative documents so there is no confusion about what is considered a public document for distribution.
Pat Weslowski will annotate the draft Impact Matrix based on the Committee’s discussion and distribute a revised version to HRRC members.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Documents referenced in the meeting:
-Minutes of the February 10, 2011 HRRC Meeting
-Draft Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment, PAL, January 2011
-Draft Impact Assessment Matrix, March 4, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 