Approved
Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
August 17, 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
Review of LBG Draft Impact Matrix: The Committee spent the first hour of the meeting reading through the Draft Impact Matrix prepared by the Louis Berger Group (LBG), and then agreed to review the document page by page. Tim Smith made notes within the Draft Matrix during the discussion. The annotated version of the document is attached to these Minutes to provide a detailed record of the Committee’s comments. These comments were discussed by phone with LBG staff during the HRRC’s August 18, 2011 meeting. What follows here is a summary of some of the major discussion points of both the August 17th and 18th meetings regarding the Draft Impact Matrix:
General Comments:
The description of the Project Alternatives on page 1 should be consistent with the recently revised text of EIS/EIR Chapters 1& 2.
The Committee noted that the Draft Impact Matrix does not consistently describe both the positive and adverse impacts of the Restoration Project. The descriptions of impacts under Alternative A (No Action) need to make it clear what the existing problems are. Likewise, the impact descriptions under the Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) need to include both the beneficial and adverse effects of the Project.
There was some confusion about the restoration acreage numbers used in different sections of the Matrix. The Committee agreed that it would be helpful to list the total restored acres for each Action Alternative at the top of each column, so that the other benchmark measures can be compared with these totals.
The Matrix should differentiate the impacts of the Action Alternatives. For example, under the Water and Sediment Quality section, if there is greater salinity penetration under Alternatives C and D than in Alternative B, then there would likely be differences among the Alternatives for some of the other water quality measures, such as dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform.
Each column of the Matrix should describe the acres affected for that Alternative, not just the relative differences from the previous column. In other words, it is important to compare the Alternatives but it is also important to have a stand-alone description of the impacts of each.
Avoid using terms like “converting freshwater wetlands to salt marsh”-this conveys the impression that healthy freshwater marshes are being lost. It is more accurate to talk about “restoring tidal wetlands” and “restoring former salt marsh, degraded estuarine habitat , etc.”.
HRRC members suggested reordering the Impact Topics to put Wetlands and Vegetation first. LBG staff suggested that the existing order be maintained in order to make the text of the EIS/EIR flow smoothly.
There may be a need for an Impact Topic on Flood Mapping-to explain the flood protection and insurance issues related to FEMA’s remapping and expected review of the Chequessett Neck Road dike. This issue could be considered under Cumulative Impacts. This issue needs further discussion.
Specific Comments:
Water and Sediment Quality:
-The Matrix should differentiate the impacts of the Action Alternatives (see example cited above) and note that there is a range of salinities from the lower river to the upstream areas.
-The description of the No Action Alternative (Alt A) should include stronger language about the degraded conditions that exist in the estuary as a result of diking.
-Metals and pH impacts need to be correlated to those areas where acid sulfate soils exist.
-Matrix needs to distinguish between nutrient cycling and nutrient loading.
Tim Smith noted that the NPS will test for pesticides in the river sediments, but this information may not be available in time for inclusion in the DEIS/EIR.
Erosion of Tidal Channels: The Committee commented that the title and text of this section leave the impression that erosion is a negative impact, when in fact, erosion and formation of tidal channels is a positive thing.
-The title should be modified (see attached annotated matrix)
-The text also needs to acknowledge that the Herring River is a flood-dominant system, i.e. that the net sediment transport is upstream. Committee members also noted that the sediment model can be used to determine areas of erosion and deposition, but that it is not designed to determine depth of deposition.
-The Matrix should differentiate the impacts of the Action Alternatives.
Changes in Marsh Surface Elevations:
-Matrix should describe subsidence issues-Under Alt C, subsidence will continue in Mill Creek.
-There is no additional sediment information expected from WHG.
-Need to explain the incremental process of rebuilding the marsh surface. The Committee discussed the issue of sub-tidal areas that may be created by restoring tides to the estuary. While the hydrodynamic model shows substantial areas of ponding, this represents only the beginning of the restoration process. Over time, natural processes (such as sediment accretion and restoration of the peat) and management actions (such as reestablishing historic channels) will cause these areas to transition to inter-tidal resource areas. The EIS/EIR needs to explain the incremental process of rebuilding the marsh surface and describe the range of possible sub-tidal acreage. Also, the modeling results will need to be explained very clearly and describe how the results presented in the EIS are artificial and not fully
indicative of the actual conditions which will be encountered when the project achieves the tidal elevations prescribed in the alternatives.
Wetlands and Vegetation:
-This section needs to be restructured to focus on the three different zones: sub-tidal, inter-tidal and transitional. The Matrix should describe how many acres exist in each category under No Action, then describe what would happen under each Action Alternative.
-Delete Freshwater Marsh, Shrublands, and Woodlands from Impact Topics.
-Make Invasive Species a separate Impact Topic; discuss Phragmites in this section.
-Use salinity data to predict upstream risk of Phragmites invasion.
Fish and Invertebrates:
-Remove references to tidal benchmarks (MHW); instead refer to sub- and inter-tidal zone.
-List total acreage for each Alternative. Use river miles of restored habitat and connection to ponds for catadromous species.
-Note lack of diversity of fish species under Alternative A.
-Stress access to spawning habitat for anadromous and catadromous species; compare actual APCC counts with potential carrying capacity of ponds.
-Make impact analysis consistent among the Alternatives (discuss highest priority species for each Alternative).
-Delete p. 8 paragraphs under Alt B (see attached annotated Impact Matrix).
-Move construction impact discussion to Construction Phase section.
-Note differences among Alternatives for potential shellfish habitat.
-Move shellfish harvest information to the Socioeconomics section.
-Move Essential Fish Habitat discussion to Chapter 5 or regulatory appendix. Make corrections indicated on annotated Impact Matrix.
Wildlife:
-Reorganize this section to make separate rows for each of the State-listed species, and the other Wildlife categories, so that impacts can be compared consistently among the Alternatives. HRRC will need to review this again since it was difficult to follow in the original format
-List both positive and adverse impacts to wildlife species.
Cultural Resources:
-Need to distinguish between pre-and post-contact impacts (Note: Filling is not generally considered to be an adverse impact for archaeological resources but may be for historic resources.)
-Need to address all impacts-not just CYCC property.
-Check numbers in Impact Matrix against the Value Analysis and the Final PAL Report
-Note that a borrow pit would be needed to raise the CYCC fairways, creating about 5 acres of upland disturbance.
-This section should be reviewed by NPS cultural resources staff
Tim Smith agreed to provide LBG with a copy of the Final PAL Phase 1A Report.
Socioeconomics:
-The Low-lying Property analysis needs to be updated using the latest NPS analysis. This includes a different classification system for affected properties.
Tim Smith agreed to provide LBG with the NPS low-lying property analysis, including the description of property classifications.
-The Committee noted that salt marsh frontage and water views were likely to have a positive impact on property values.
-The Committee was concerned that using ArcGIS Streets to determine affected road segments could be misleading, as this data layer does not show true elevations. Members suggested using the Slade Associates surveyed road centerlines with the model results instead. This road analysis should use the same benchmarks as the CLE Engineering Report: AHW and 100 year flood.
-Under Shellfishing and Aquaculture, in Alternative A, note the acres closed to shellfishing in the harbor and the river; under other Alternatives, note that these areas could be reopened if water quality is improved.
-The Committee questioned including cost estimates for roads and all the other project elements in the EIS/EIR. The Committee also noted that the numbers presented in the Draft Matrix are not consistent with those in the VA Report.
Tim Smith and Jacklyn Bryant agreed to consult with Mark Husbands about whether to include the cost figures. If costs are to be included in the EIS (which the HRRC does not recommend) LBG will check the cost figures to make sure they are consistent with the VA Report and any updated information.
Other Impact Topics:
-The Committee suggested changing the title of the “Environmental Values” topic to “Ecosystem Services and Social Values”.
-The Committee questioned the dismissal of the “Visitor Experience” and Health and Human Services” topics. While visitor experiences could be dealt with under “Socioeconomics”, there may be safety issues associated with tidal control structures that need to be addressed in the EIS/EIR.
Tim Smith and Jacklyn Bryant agreed to consult with Mark Husbands of EQD about what topics should be dismissed.
Graphics for Chapters 1 & 2 of the EIS/EIR: The Committee discussed what types of graphics would be most useful for the revised draft Chapters 1 & 2 of the EIS/EIR. Tim Smith showed some examples maps, tables and bar charts to illustrate habitats restored under each Alternative. The Committee agreed to provide these as models for LBG to use in developing the graphics for these Chapters.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Documents Referenced in the Meeting:
LBG: Herring River Draft Impact Matrix, August 16, 2011 (attached below)
Regards,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 