Approved Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
July 7, 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, Don Palladino, John Portnoy, Mark Adams, Jim Harmon
Administration/Coordination:
Communications/Coordination with Friends of Herring River: John Portnoy reported that the Friends had led a kayak trip down the Herring River and a visit to Hatches Harbor during the past month. The Friends Board is planning its Annual Meeting for Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm. HRRC members are invited to attend and participate in a panel to answer questions about the project. Tim Smith, Steve Spear and Hillary Greenberg offered to participate. Steve Spear suggested that the Friends reach out to former Congressman Bill Delahunt, as he has expressed a continuing interest in working on salt marsh restoration in his new consulting business. John Portnoy agreed to convey this suggestion to the Friends’ Board.
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2011 meeting.
Schedule Next Meetings: The HRRC will meet on August 17 and 18, 2011 to review the revised draft Impact Matrix to be prepared by Louis Berger Group (LBG) and other business. The Woods Hole Group (WHG) is due to provide the remaining hydrodynamic and sediment modeling results to the HRRC by July 29, 2011. The modeling subcommittee will meet on August 1, 2011 to review this material and will provide a package of information for LBG to use in preparing the EIS/EIR on August 3, 2011.
LBG will prepare a revised Impact Matrix after receiving all of the modeling results and will deliver the revised Matrix to the HRRC by close of business on August 16, 2011. The HRRC will review this material as a group on August 17th and meet with the LBG team (by phone) on August 18, 2011 to review it.
The Committee discussed the process for reviewing draft documents prepared by LBG. The agreed-upon approach is for Tim Smith, Mark Husbands and Margo Fenn to screen draft documents and then circulate them to the full Committee for comments. Rather than using track changes with multiple reviewers, Committee members will use an excel spreadsheet that references page and line numbers to record their comments. Fenn, Smith and Husbands will consolidate the Committee’s comments into one document for LBG to use in making revisions.
Informational Updates:
RAE-NOAA Grant Application: Grant awards have not yet been decided. A decision is expected by the end of July 2011. Eric Derleth asked if these grant funds could be used for doing Phase 1B Cultural Resources work. This may be possible, but it would require a modification of the proposed scope of work.
TNC/CYCC/NPS Land Plan and Appraisal: The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has issued a Notice to Proceed for the land plan and appraisal work for the Chequessett Yacht and Country Club (CYCC) property. A kick-off meeting is planned for July 18, 2011 to meet with the consultants and representatives of the Club.
Legal Update: The Committee is still waiting for a written legal opinion from the Department of Interior (DOI) Solicitors Office.
Wetlands Jurisdiction: The Committee has not yet received a response from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding wetlands jurisdictional issues.
Hunt Durey offered to contact DEP officials to request a response prior to the July 13, 2011 Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting.
Presentation and Discussion:
Low-Lying Property Analysis/Outreach Strategy: Mark Adams and Tim Smith presented the database of low-lying properties that they had developed. Mark Adams noted that most of the information is based on the hydrodynamic model; site specific information from the 2004 Slade Associates survey is available for only about 20 of the 290 +/- properties that are adjacent to the project area. Tim Smith noted that the model results coincide well with the DEP mapped wetland boundary. The database classifies each property according to the type of impact. There are about 24 properties that could experience significant impacts.
The Committee discussed the types of impacts that would require mitigation. Tim Smith suggested that most properties should not need mitigation. For others, the Committee needs to work with the landowners and offer appropriate mitigation. For example, if periodic flooding could damage existing gardens, lawns, or plantings, it might be appropriate to replant salt-intolerant shrubs and trees elsewhere on the property. If structures (such as buildings or wells) would be affected, mitigation could involve moving or flood-proofing those structures. Mark Adams noted that there is an opportunity here to educate landowners about the value of the floodplain and provide planting guidelines for these habitat areas. Eric Derleth noted that because the restoration will be carried out incrementally, impacts will not
happen overnight; water levels will be monitored and adverse impacts can be prevented.
The Committee discussed options for how to reach out to potentially affected landowners. Options include contacting them by letter, holding group meetings and/or individual meetings. After considerable discussion, the group agreed that the EIS/EIR should list the number of properties in each category of impact, but not list the individual street addresses, owner names or assessor parcel numbers. The EIS/EIR should outline the types of possible mitigation for different types of impact and commit to working with the property owners individually. In some cases, it may be necessary to do additional survey work to determine the extent of impact; this would require the permission of the owners. Steve Block also noted that if vegetation management is needed on any of the private property abutting the estuary,
this would also require landowner permission.
The Committee agreed that it would be helpful to have web-accessible information that provides key information about the project to landowners, including:
-The purpose and objectives of the restoration project (ecological benefits)
-The types of potential property impacts and numbers of properties affected
-Mitigation options
-An explanation of the Adaptive Management approach
The Committee agreed that a letter should be sent to landowners explaining the project and the EIS/EIR process, and inviting them to work with the Committee representatives regarding any questions or issues specific to their properties. This letter should go out before the draft EIS/EIR is released for public comment. Tim Smith agreed to prepare a draft letter to landowners for the Committee to review at its next meeting.
Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study: Final PAL Report: Jim Harmon provided a brief overview of the findings of the Public Archaeology Lab’s (PAL) Final Report. He noted that the report identified five broad categories of historic resources in the study area including:
-Wharves and docks
-Extractive industries
-Mills and windmills
-Fishing stations and weirs
-Transportation corridors (such as the railroad line)
The report also found 25 Native American sites within the study area.
Harmon outlined the next critical tasks in the Cultural Resources analysis as follows:
-Finalize the Area of Potential Effect (APE) by providing a clear GIS map showing the boundaries of the modeled areas of inundation (worst case) and areas of construction disturbance;
-Define a specific course of action of the seven major construction areas identified on page 77 of the PAL Final Report (i.e. a specific description of activities in these locations);
-Define specific survey and/or mapping strategies for the high and moderate sensitivity areas identified in the Phase 1A Study (what methods will be used, where will work take place);
-Summarize the Phase 1B effort and communicate that proposal to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Harmon stressed that the purpose of the project is tidal restoration and that the cultural resources work should focus on areas of archaeological/historic sensitivity. HRRC and the National Park Service (NPS) may need to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SHPO in order to allow for modifications in the project over time. Harmon recommended that the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe be invited to the consultation meeting with SHPO and noted that they may want to be a party to the MOU.
The best time to do the fieldwork would be in the fall, after the leaves are off the trees. In order for the work to go forward in 2011, NPS would need to develop a Phase 1B Plan and seek an MOU with SHPO. Jim Harmon offered to work with Bill Burke to develop a Phase 1B Plan. He suggested that HRRC prepare a short briefing paper on the project for the cultural resources staff, and that a briefing call with the new NPS NE Region Chief Archaeologist might be helpful.
Eric Derleth noted that part of the APE falls outside the boundaries of Cape Cod National Seashore-including some of identified sensitive areas such as the CYCC property.
Jim Harmon agreed to check with NPS officials about how to handle the boundary issue.
Hunt Durey asked how much cultural resource analysis would be needed in order to reach a Record of Decision (ROD) in the EIS process. At a minimum, NPS would need an inventory of cultural resources and a commitment to treat them appropriately. HRRC does not have a cost estimate or a funding source for the Phase 1B work at this time.
The Committee discussed the question of whether inundation would constitute an adverse impact. Jim Harmon noted that while inundation in unlikely to cause detrimental impacts to archaeological resources, that might not hold true for some of the historic resources.
Tim Smith agreed to contact Bill Burke to plan next steps in the cultural resources process, including preparing a Phase 1B Plan, a timeline for doing the fieldwork, consultation with SHPO and the Tribes, and identifying potential funding sources.
WHG Modeling Results/Implications: The Committee discussed the schedule for modeling deliverables from the Woods Hole Group. There was not time in this meeting agenda to have an in-depth discussion of the model information.
Tim Smith agreed to provide the model results to the Modeling Subcommittee as he receives them from WHG. The Modeling Subcommittee will review this data and prepare a list of key questions that need to be addressed for both the Impact Matrix and Adaptive Management. The Committee will meet on August 1, 2011 to review the full package of model information.
Value Assessment Workshop-Draft Report: The Committee briefly discussed the draft report on the Value Assessment Workshop prepared by facilitator Stephen Kirk. The group agreed to send written comments on the draft report to Margo Fenn and Tim Smith by July 15, 2011.
Adaptive Management: Tim Smith provided an update on the Adaptive Management Plan. Smith and Eric Derleth conferred with experts at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center about screening criteria for Adaptive Management Objectives. In addition to the “SMART” criteria that the HRRC used to develop the draft Objectives, additional criteria were suggested.
Using these criteria, Smith and Derleth further refined the Objectives to four key topics, (including sediment processes, estuarine vegetation, water quality and mosquito control) and began the process of breaking each objective into its physical, biological and chemical elements. For each Objective, the Adaptive Management Plan will identify the types of changes that would trigger management actions, and outline what those management actions might be.
The Committee briefly discussed the relationship between the Adaptive Management Plan and the Operations and Management (O&M) Plan. This topic needs further discussion. The Technical Working Group will discuss Adaptive Management further at its July 13, 2011 meeting.
LBG Draft EIS Chapters 1 & 2: The Committee discussed review of draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2 by phone with Mark Husbands of the Environmental Quality Division (EQD) of the National Park Service.
HRRC members agreed to use the excel spreadsheet to provide detailed comments on the draft Chapters 1 & 2 and provide those comments to Tim Smith and Margo Fenn by July 15, 2011. Fenn, Smith and Husbands will consolidate those comments into one document and provide it to LBG.
Phone Consultation with LBG and EQD: Jacklyn Bryant and Pat Weslowski of LBG joined the meeting by phone. The group discussed production of a brochure/newsletter to update the public on the Project Alternatives and the EIS/EIR process. Louis Berger Group has developed a proposed scope of work with EQD to develop the brochure, using language and graphics approved by the HRRC from the draft Chapter 2 materials. HRRC members agreed to review the Alternatives description during the current meeting and provide that language to LBG as soon as possible.
LBG offered provide a mock-up of a four-page brochure/newsletter for HRRC review by July 15, 2011. Once the content is reviewed and approved by HRRC, LBG will produce the brochure and provide it to EQD for printing and mailing. The HRRC will provide a mailing list to EQD and the brochures will be mailed out in early August.
The Committee described the agreed-upon review process (see above) for the draft VA Report and draft Chapters 1 & 2 to LBG staff. The Committee also confirmed with LBG the plan for the August HRRC meetings as follows:
LBG agreed to provide the revised draft Impact Matrix to HRRC by close of business on August 16, 2011. The HRRC will meet to review the Impact Matrix on August 17, 2011 and will meet (by conference phone) with LBG staff on August 18, 2011 to discuss the Matrix.
Brochure Language: The Committee reviewed the titles/descriptions of the Project Alternatives in the draft Chapter 2, noting that the brochure/newsletter needs to be consistent with the EIS/EIR language. After considerable debate, the group agreed upon the following language:
Alternative A: No Action/No Restoration-Retain existing Tide Control Structure at Chequessett Neck Road (CNR)
Alternative B: New Tide Control Structure at CNR without a Mill Creek dike
Alternative C: New Tide Control Structure at CNR with a Mill Creek dike that excludes tidal flow
Alternative D: New Tide Control Structure at CNR with a Mill Creek dike that limits tidal flow
The Committee noted that tide elevations mentioned in the description of the Alternatives need to be referenced to NAVD 88. Language also needs to be added to explain that in each Alternative, upstream tide elevations will be lower than the estimated levels in the Lower Herring basin. The group also agreed that the paragraph from Chapter 2 explaining the “book-end” approach to the Alternatives should be included in the brochure.
The Committee briefly discussed plans for the August 16, 2011 Friends of Herring River Annual Meeting. Don Palladino indicated that the Friends could provide an update on the project using material from the brochure. Members of HRRC could participate in a panel to answer questions.
Conceptual Engineering for Low-Lying Roads: CLE Final Report: The Committee discussed CLE Engineering’s Conceptual Engineering Report, which outlines options for raising and/or relocating portions of Bound Brook Island, Old County and Pole Dike Roads. Hard copies of the report were provided to Hillary Greenberg (for review by the Wellfleet DPW) and Steve Spear, as NRCS funded the study. The Report found that relocating portions of the road to the railroad right-of-way might be a viable option. Steve Spear noted that there are some inconsistencies between the summary cost tables and the detailed cost breakdowns.
Steve Spear offered to contact Jeff Oakes at CLE to clear up any questions about the Final Report. Once the Report is in final form, the HRRC needs to schedule a meeting with Wellfleet town officials to discuss the road options.
Long-term Funding Needs/Strategies: Tim Smith suggested that the Committee consider whether there are ways to phase and/or segment the project if funding opportunities are limited. This is an item for further discussion at a future meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Documents referenced in the meeting:
-Minutes of the May 12, 2011 HRRC Meeting
-Phase 1A Archaeology Final Report, Public Archaeology Lab (PAL)
-Draft Value Analysis Workshop Report, Kirk Associates, June 2011
-Draft EIS/EIR Chapters 1 & 2, LBG, June 2011
-CLE Engineering, Final Low-lying Road Report, June 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg
| 