Approved Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
April 6, 2011
9:30 am-5:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Spear, Steve Block, Hillary Greenberg, and Charleen Greenhalgh
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Shelley Hall, Tara Nye, John Riehl, John Portnoy
Louis Berger Group (LBG) staff and Mark Husbands of EQD participated in the afternoon session.
HRRC Review of WHG Modeling Results and Project Alternatives:
Tim Smith reported that the Woods Hole Group (WHG) was still completing model runs for the river basins, because the first time they did it, they ran the scenarios with all the culverts in place. They are now doing the runs for the 3 ft and 10 ft openings with all the tidal obstructions removed. There is a detailed table for each basin showing the results for the full range of sluice gate openings at the Chequessett Neck Road dike.
The Committee reviewed the Lower Herring River Basin table. Tim Smith noted that the possible tidal range under the different openings is substantially narrower than the “placeholder” numbers that were used to develop draft alternatives. The draft Alternatives had proposed to manage for a 4-6 maximum foot high tide (Alternative B) and a 6-9 foot high tide (Alternative C) in the Lower Herring River. The mean high water level needed to achieve minimal high marsh restoration objectives would be 4-5 feet; this level requires at least a 3-foot sluice gate opening. The model shows that even with the maximum sluice gate opening (10 feet) at the Chequessett Neck Road dike, the highest possible tide would be 7.5 feet. The Committee discussed the results and agreed that it would make sense to combine Alternatives B
and C into one Alternative for the main river basin and analyze the impacts of the “book-ends” of that projected tidal range, i.e. the least impacts vs. most impacts under the permanent condition (after adaptive management period reaches final tide gate opening):
Least Impacts (in Lower Herring River basin): Tide gates open 3 feet
§ MHW: 4.07
§ MHWS: 4.80
§ Annual HW: 5.10
§ 100 year storm: 5.97
Most Impacts (in Lower Herring River basin): Tide gates open 10 feet
§ MHW: 4.30
§ MHWS: 5.59
§ Annual HW: 6.08
§ 100 year storm: 7.48
The remaining Alternatives would focus on Mill Creek options. The reconfigured Alternatives would be as follows:
Alternative A: No Action
Alternative B: Restore tides up to a level where all flood mitigation can be achieved without a dike at Mill Creek (currently assumed to equal maximum water surface elevation in lower Herring River basin of 6 feet with a 3-foot sluice gate opening). This Alternative would require flood mitigation in Mill Creek, including either elevating or relocating the CYCC golf course fairways.
Alternative C: Restore tides up to a maximum Chequessett Neck Road dike capacity (10-foot sluice gate opening) with a new dike at Mill Creek that blocks all tidal influence in Mill Creek. There would be no restoration (and therefore no flood mitigation) in Mill Creek.
Alternative D: Restore tides up to the maximum Chequessett Neck Road dike capacity (10-foot sluice gate opening) with a new dike at Mill Creek that allows Mill Creek tides up the maximum level that can be achieved with flood mitigation to CYCC golf course and other low-lying properties, including either elevating or relocating the fairways.
Charleen Greenhalgh informed the group that the towns had been notified that that draft FIRM Flood Maps were decertified by FEMA. The existing maps will continue to be used. FEMA anticipates June 30, 2012 as the new date for certification.
Steve Spear distributed a comparison sheet that he prepared, looking at how the Chequessett Neck Road sluice gate openings would affect water surface elevations in Mill Creek. The sheet also compares acres of restoration in Mill Creek and the rest of the river and looks at comparative costs. He stressed that sea level rise still needs to be addressed. Tim Smith noted that there would be a separate section of the EIS/EIR to deal with sea level rise.
The Committee noted that the WHG model output will be useful for Adaptive Management, but the tables provide more detail than is necessary for the EIS/EIR analysis. The Committee discussed how to consolidate the most useful information for the impact analysis and agreed that the key information needed would be the water surface elevations and salinity levels for each tidal benchmark under the 3-foot and 10-foot openings.
Tim Smith agreed to combine the data tables into a more consolidated set, showing this information, and provide that information to the Louis Berger Group (LBG) for the EIS/EIR analysis.
The Committee discussed how to work with the EIS/EIR consultants on the impact analysis. The Committee agreed that it would be helpful to have LBG staff prepare a sample impact analysis for at least one of the basins so that the Committee could review their approach. It is critical that the impact analysis be undertaken soon, so that a basic impact matrix can be ready prior to the June Value Assessment Workshop. The group consulted Mark Husbands of EQD by phone about this, and after discussing it further, agreed that it would be helpful to see a sample impact matrix from another LBG project. Prior to its May meeting, HRRC would like LBG to prepare a preliminary impact matrix for the Committee to review.
Meeting with Louis Berger Group:
After a lunch break, LBG staff joined the meeting by telephone. HRRC members reviewed with them the modeling results and the proposed changes to the Project Alternatives (described above). The group discussed what would be the meaningful benchmark numbers to use for the different impact topics. While storm tides may be of most relevance for most socioeconomic impacts, other benchmarks (e.g. mean high water/mean high water spring) may be more meaningful for ecological changes.
Louis Berger Group staff agreed to coordinate with Tim Smith to identify the key benchmarks for each impact topic.
Hunt Durey noted that the Value Assessment (VA) Workshop was scheduled for June 1-3, 2011. Because much of the VA will focus on options for Mill Creek, the HRRC would like to see a draft impact matrix for Mill Creek well prior to that workshop. The Committee and the consultant need to agree on the information that is needed for the VA workshop. Jacklyn Bryant noted that they would need the modeling results and “order of magnitude” cost estimates for the main infrastructure elements such as the Chequessett Neck Road dike, Mill Creek dike, golf course reconstruction and roadway changes.
Tim Smith agreed to provide the critical modeling information (both maps and tables) to LBG as soon as possible. Louis Berger Group will provide HRRC with a sample impact matrix from another project in the next week or so. LBG also agreed to provide a draft impact matrix for Mill Creek to HRRC for review at least four days prior to the May 12, 2011 meeting.
Steven Kirk will facilitate the VA Workshop. Kirk will provide the Committee with a draft agenda for the VA workshop prior to the May HRRC meeting.
The Committee discussed with LBG some loose ends from the March 10, 2011 meeting regarding the approach to the EIS/EIR impact assessment. Metrics for water quality analysis should include: Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, Fecal Coliform, pH, Metals, Total Suspended Solids, CL, SO4, Reactive Sulfide, Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, P-PO4, N-NH4, NO3, DIN, TFe, Fe2, plus water column and sediment metals from 2007 and water column pesticides from 2007. Bernward Hay agreed to consult with Tim Smith about how to synthesize this information.
Regarding vegetative changes, Tim Smith noted that the NPS Vegetation map is not the only data source available. NPS transect data could be used to refine cover types. The EIS/EIR analysis should not focus on wetland versus upland communities, but simply describe the cover types and how they would change with saltwater inundation. The EIS/EIR analysis should not focus on wetland jurisdictional questions. The entire floodplain should be regarded and characterized as degraded wetlands.
Craig Wood asked about divisions in the model results within basins. Tim Smith and Craig Wood agreed to consult Kirk Bosma about how to handle this.
The group discussed how to address low-lying properties in the EIS/EIR. HRRC members suggested that for each sub-basin, the EIS/EIR should include a general list of the types of structures/facilities affected and outline the range of solutions that could be used to mitigate the impacts. The EIS/EIR should note that the HRRC is working with individual property owners to resolve issues on their lands but the document should not identify individual properties by name or street addresses. The only exception would be the CYCC, where mitigation actions are part of the Alternatives analysis.
The group discussed how to define the study area for the Affected Environment (Chapter 3 of the EIS/EIR). Hunt Durey suggested calculating the area within the projected 100- year flood zone under the 10-foot dike opening scenario. The group agreed that the ponds east of Route 6 should be included in the broadest delineation of the study area, but it should be made clear that no direct or indirect physical changes are going to occur as far upstream as the ponds.
Louis Berger staff asked about how to address FEMA flood zone issues, noting that if the Chequessett Neck dike is de-certified for flood protection by FEMA, the No Action Alternative could result in changes to the flood zone mapping. The group agreed that the No Action Alternative explain how FEMA flood mapping might affect the Herring River flood plain. While we don’t yet know whether the new dike would be built to new FEMA specifications, all of the options for the Chequessett Neck Road dike should be described in the EIS/EIR-both in the Alternatives description and in the socioeconomic analysis.
The group discussed potential impacts of the Restoration Project to property values. Increased marsh and water views could add to property values. A literature search might yield information on this. Committee members suggested that LBG contact the Wellfleet Deputy Assessor to discuss Department of Revenue standards for valuing waterfront/waterview properties.
EIS/EIR Schedule and Deliverables: The group discussed the schedule for completing Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the EIS/EIR. Jacklyn Bryant noted that LBG is currently reworking Chapter 3, based on the comments provided by Tim Smith and Mark Husbands. She said that LBG needs the final Alternatives to complete Chapter 2. The Committee responded that the Alternatives should now be firm, based on today’s discussion. Craig Wood noted that LBG still needs WHG’s analysis of groundwater issues in Mill Creek to confirm whether a pump will be needed with a Mill Creek dike.
EIS/EIR Alternatives: Later in the afternoon, Mark Husbands provided the Committee with a draft document, which highlighted the modeling results to be used for each of the Alternatives, and provided a narrative description of each Alternative. The Committee concurred with his recommendations. Tim Smith agreed to recombine the data into new tables for LBG to use in the impact analysis and refine the narrative description. The final narrative description of the Action Alternatives is as follows:
Alternative B would restore tides up to the level where all flood mitigation can be achieved without a dike at Mill Creek. This is assumed to be associated with a 3-foot high tide gate opening at Chequessett Neck Road.
This alternative would allow a uniform restoration solution in all sub-basins and would not require the construction or cost of a dike at Mill Creek sub-basin. It would impose flood-proofing costs for CYCC and other low-lying properties. Also, it would forego the ability to pursue higher inundation levels (beyond that associated with the 3-foot opening) in the estuary as part of the adaptive management process. This would limit both horizontal effects (acreage) and vertical effects (long-term marsh elevation).
The data points for all locations are associated with the 3-foot data column for each tidal benchmark.
Alternative C would restore tides up to the maximum Chequessett Neck Road dike capacity (10-foot tide gate opening) with a new dike at Mill Creek that blocks all tidal influence.
This alternative would maximize restoration (horizontally and vertically) in all sub-basins except Mill Creek (where no restoration would occur). The Project would bear the cost of secondary Mill Creek dike construction but would not bear the cost of other flood-proofing measures in Mill Creek (e.g. golf course raising/relocation, well relocation). No significant changes would be expected in the Mill Creek sub-basin, but subtle groundwater effects could occur; these could be mitigated by pumping impounded water from the Mill Creek sub-basin.
The data points for tidal benchmarks in Mill Creek are associated with the existing condition column. For all other locations, data points are associated with the 10-foot data column for each tidal benchmark.
Alternative D would restore tides up to a maximum Chequessett Neck Road dike capacity (10-foot tide gate opening) with a new dike at Mill Creek that allows Mill Creek tides up to the maximum level that can be achieved with flood-proofing to CYCC and other low-lying properties.
This alternative would maximize restoration (horizontally and vertically) in all sub-basins including partial tidal restoration in Mill Creek (as we assume that at higher Mill Creek inundation levels, flood-proofing is not feasible). The project would bear the cost of secondary Mill Creek dike construction and would bear the cost of other flood-proofing measures in Mill Creek (e.g. golf course raising/reconstruction, well relocation).
The data points for tidal benchmarks in Mill Creek are associated with the 3-foot data column. For all other locations, data points are associated with the 10-foot data column for each tidal benchmark.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Documents referenced in the meeting:
-April 2011 Modeling and Alternatives Power-point Slides
-Lower Herring River Tidal Benchmarks Spreadsheet
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 