Approved Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
February 10, 2011
9:30 am-4:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Spear, Gary Joseph, Steve Block, and Charleen Greenhalgh
Members Absent: Hillary Greenberg
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Tara Nye, Shelley Hall, and Don Palladino
Administration/Coordination:
Communications/Coordination with the Friends of Herring River: Don Palladino reported on the activities of the Friends of Herring River. He noted that the Town of Wellfleet would have a housekeeping article in the Annual Town Meeting to rescind the previous funding authorization for open space associated with the Herring River Restoration Project. He reported that the Friends did not get a Temper of the Times grant, but would be seeking other sources of funding for the educational video project. The Friends sponsored a successful brush-clearing project this week with local high school students and Americorps volunteers. They are planning a number of other projects this year including kayak trips, herring counts, newsletter updates and public presentations.
The Committee discussed how to keep the public updated on the project. Briefings for town Selectmen and state and federal elected officials may be needed. The group considered whether the Alternatives brochure created for the 2010 Friends Annual meeting should be updated, as the Project Alternatives have been further refined.
Margo Fenn agreed to set up a Communications Committee meeting (tentatively scheduled for March 18 at 1:00 pm) to explore these matters further. Fenn also offered to contact Congressman Keating’s staff to set up a time to brief the Congressman on the HR Restoration Project. Ideally, this would include key state legislators as well: State Senator Dan Wolf and State Representative Sarah Peake.
Hunt Durey stressed that the HRRC needs to develop a long-term funding strategy to address project permitting and construction. The group briefly discussed long-term project management options. Steve Block suggested that the Penobscot River Trust might be a good model for project funding and management. Don Palladino offered to research the Penobscot River Trust and report back to the HRRC on this.
The Committee also discussed the role of the Herring River Stakeholder Group that was created under the first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of Wellfleet and the National Park Service (NPS). It might be useful to reconvene the group to review the DEIS before it is released to the public, perhaps through a joint meeting of the Stakeholder Group and the HRRC. Margo Fenn agreed to review the Conceptual Restoration Plan, the MOUs, and the questions prepared by the Stakeholder Group, and report back to the HRRC.
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the draft meeting minutes for January 6, 2010.
Schedule Next Meetings:
Monthly HRRC meetings are scheduled for:
March 10, 2011
April 7, 2011
The Technical Working Group (TWG) is scheduled to meet on April 13, 2011, July 13, 2011 and October 12, 2011.
Informational Updates:
LBG EIS/EIR Outline and Impact Analysis: Tim Smith and Eric Derleth reported on a recent meeting with the Louis Berger Group (LBG) and the Woods Hole Group (WHG) to review the impact topics and needed data for preparation of the EIS/EIR. At that meeting Kirk Bosma of WHG provided a presentation on the proposed standardized outputs of the hydrodynamic modeling effort. The consultants reviewed a draft impact matrix prepared by Tim Smith to review what issues need to be covered under each impact topic.
Tim Smith requested that the LBG team attend the March 10, 2011 HRRC meeting to provide a preview of the impact analysis and a synopsis of the key findings for each impact topic. This would give the Committee an opportunity to review the analysis and make sure that it is on-track. Margo Fenn also noted that the draft Chapters 2 and 3 of the EIS/EIR are due to be delivered to the Committee prior to the March meeting. Pat Weslowski agreed to check with the LBG team about attending the March 10, 2011 HRRC meeting to provide an overview of how Berger technical staff propose to interpret the data and conduct the impact analyses.
The Committee also discussed how to integrate the NEPA and MEPA/CCC requirements in the EIS/EIR Outline. Margo Fenn reported that this was discussed at the February 9, 2011 Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting. MEPA and CCC officials suggested providing an appendix that cross-references the requirements of the MEPA scope with the EIS/EIR text. Holly Johnson of MEPA offered to provide a model for how to do this.
Hunt Durey noted that this sounds like a good approach but there are still procedural and regulatory issues that will need to be addressed with MEPA and the Cape Cod Commission. Margo Fenn offered to follow up with LBG and MEPA and CCC staff to set up a meeting to discuss state and regional procedural and regulatory requirements.
The Committee discussed the Project Alternatives and how best to describe the Action Alternatives. Alternative B is designed to manage for monthly spring high tides while Alternative C is designed to accommodate storm tides of an as yet unspecified intensity.
The clearest way to present these objectives may be to use the projected water surface elevation numbers (in the lower river basin) for each of the Alternatives. Those numbers will be available soon from the hydrodynamic model. Committee members noted that the impacts of the two Action Alternatives would be similar for some topics, and different for others. Impacts would be assessed for the highest achievable tides under each Alternative. Interim impacts would be handled through Adaptive Management.
The Committee reviewed the latest version of the EIS/EIR Outline, noting that there have been some small changes in impact topics and organization. The Committee also discussed the EIS/EIR schedule, noting that a Strategy Meeting with the LBG team was tentatively scheduled for March 29, 2011. This meeting will cover organizational and procedural issues such as the final Alternatives description, the impact topics and thresholds, the EIS/EIR format, and the internal DEIS/EIR review process. Committee members asked if this meeting could be postponed a week to either April 6th or 8th, as the HRRC is meeting on April 7, 2011 and more members may be able to participate if the two meetings are on consecutive days.
Value Analysis (VA): The Environmental Quality Division (EQD) of the National Park Service (NPS) has recommended that the HRRC conduct a Value Analysis as part of preparing the EIS/EIR. This is typically a multi-day workshop that evaluates the benefits and costs of the Action Alternatives. Mark Husbands of EQD joined the HRRC meeting by phone and gave an overview of the VA process, noting that it is a structured way of:
-Examining Alternatives to ensure they represent a sufficient range of solutions
-Looking for ways to improve the value of those Alternatives
-Recommending an Alternative to decision makers that represent the best-value solution to a given problem
NPS typically uses the Choosing By Advantages (CBA) system. CBA is basically a matrix scoring system that uses factors closely related to the environmental impact analysis. After scoring the environmental factors, the costs are considered using a marginal analysis to see what additional spending increments produce in terms of project benefits.
The Committee discussed who could be involved in the VA process; only government employees can participate in the scoring process. The group agreed that it would be very important for the towns of Wellfleet and Truro to be represented. An experienced facilitator would lead the VA workshop. LBG has subcontracted with Kirk Associates to do this. The Committee discussed what elements of the project should be included in this process. Mark Husbands suggested that all project elements should be included but with a central focus on options for Mill Creek. HRRC members noted that we do not have good cost information for all aspects of the infrastructure elements. For example, the cost of raising or relocating some of the roads has not yet been estimated.
The Committee discussed potential dates for the VA workshop and noted that it would be important for the HRRC to consult with Kirk Associates in planning the workshop agenda. The group tentatively suggested May 11, 12, and 13, 2011 as potential dates for the workshop. This would be in lieu of the regular HRRC meeting that month.
Mark Husbands of EQD is working with LBG and Kirk Associates to develop a more specific agenda for the VA workshop. This will include consultation with the HRRC to ensure that the workshop is structured to focus on key project elements and issues.
Cost-Sharing for proposed CYCC Golf Course Renovation: Margo Fenn updated the Committee on recent meetings with the Chequessett Golf and Country Club (CYCC). Representatives of the HRRC had met with CYCC representatives to discuss the golf course reconstruction plans and cost estimates prepared by the Louis Berger Group and Howard Maurer Group. The purpose of these meetings was to clarify views on both sides about what elements of the proposed golf course reconfiguration work would be needed for flood protection (i.e. mitigation for the proposed Herring River Tidal Restoration Project) versus what elements would be considered improvements to the golf course that are unrelated to the Herring River Project. The two groups were able to agree on some issues but had some areas where there are differences of opinion about
appropriate cost allocations. There are detailed Meeting Notes (reviewed and approved by both HRRC and CYCC participants) for the January 14, 2011 meeting that outline these discussions.
HRRC members discussed how to handle the CYCC golf course issues in the DEIS/EIR. It is not clear whether this work should be presented in the Alternatives as a related action to the Restoration Project, or as proposed mitigation. The group agreed that a conference call with MEPA, Cape Cod Commission, LBG and the NPS Environmental Quality Division (EQD) is needed to resolve this question.
TNC/CYCC Land Plan and Appraisal: The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has awarded a contract for an appraisal of CYCC property. This effort will evaluate the value of approximately 14 acres of land along the Herring River that the Club may wish to sell to the National Park Service. It will also evaluate the creation of some frontage lots along Chequessett Neck Road, and estimate the value of placing a Conservation Restriction on the remainder of the CYCC property. Louis Berger Group will be a subcontractor to prepare the needed land plans. The work is expected to be complete within 120 days.
Legal Update: Shelley Hall reported that the DOI Solicitors office is working on a legal analysis for the Herring River Project. There is no estimate yet of when that work will be completed.
Presentation and Discussion:
WHG Hydro/Sediment Modeling Results: Kirk Bosma’s presentation on the proposed hydrodynamic model outputs was given to LBG staff in a working meeting earlier in the week, and to the Technical Working Group (TWG) at its Wednesday, February 9th meeting. There was general consensus that the proposed outputs would be satisfactory for both the EIS/EIR analysis and the Adaptive Management Plan. A few new items will be added to the tables to show tide range, benchmarks in Wellfleet harbor and existing conditions in each of the basins.
The Committee reviewed some of the animation products that WHG has developed and discussed how they could be used for public education. Hunt Durey noted that the HRRC needs to decide what types of graphics should be included in the EIS/EIR. This is one of the issues that should be addressed in the upcoming Strategy Meeting. The group also discussed what kind of outreach to property owners would be appropriate. Presenting the modeling information to the Stakeholders Group could be a way to reach out to property owners. The Committee members stressed that the accuracy and limitations of the model need to be very carefully explained so that the information is not misinterpreted.
Adaptive Management: Next Steps: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth and Margo Fenn had a conference call with Charlie Roman (NPS) and Hilary Neckles (USGS) to discuss the next steps in developing the Adaptive Management Plan. Neckles suggested consulting with experts at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, who have had considerable experience with structured decision-making and adaptive management. Charlie Roman suggested setting up a series of small group meetings with science experts to develop measurable variables for each of the management objectives. The HRRC will develop the Adaptive Management Plan, which will be included as an appendix in the DEIS/EIR.
Section 106 Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study: The Public Archaeology Lab (PAL) report was made available to HRRC and TWG members earlier in the week. Most members had not yet had a chance to review it carefully. Eric Derleth noted that NPS Cultural Resources staff would still need to review it and consult with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) about it. The Committee discussed the proposed Area of Potential Affect (APE)- the 10 foot contour NAVD 88. The group agreed that a more accurate APE could be determined using the results of the hydrodynamic model. The maximum extent of flooding under Alternative C plus areas of construction disturbance would likely provide a more realistic boundary for the APE. The Committee also discussed the question of whether MHC would consider tidal inundation to be an
impact. NPS staff believes that it would not be considered an impact but this needs to be confirmed. HRRC members agreed to review the PAL report and provide their comments to Margo Fenn and Tim Smith by February 18, 2011.
Technical Services Needs and Funding Sources: The Committee discussed future funding needs. Tim Smith noted that he had provided LBG with all the data that they had requested for the EIS/EIR. NRCS recently approved a contract with WHG for the next phase of sediment transport modeling. There may be a need for additional hydrodynamic modeling runs, especially for the Mill Creek basin. Funds may also be needed for the Phase 1B Cultural Resources study but the scope for that report is unclear at this point.
Tim Smith noted that LBG estimated that a detailed cost estimate for rebuilding the Chequessett Neck Road dike would cost approximately $30,000. This analysis could look at more design details for the tide gates. Funds could also be used to estimate costs of raising or relocating some of the roads in the estuary, such as Pole Dike, Old County and Bound Brook Roads. Tara Nye offered to update the list of technical services need and funding sources and circulate the revised version to HRRC members.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.
Documents referenced in the meeting:
-Minutes of the January 6, 2011 HRRC Meeting
-Revised HR Alternatives, January 3, 2011
-Draft EIS/EIR Outline, January 7, 2011
-CYCC/HR Meeting Notes, January 14, 2011
-Draft Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment, PAL, January 2011
| 