|
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
May 12, 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, John Riehl, Don Palladino, Pat Weslowski
Administration/Coordination:
Communications/Coordination with Friends of Herring River: Don Palladino provided an update on the activities of the Friends. The annual herring count is underway and the Friends plan to have a booth at the Wellfleet Harbor Festival in June. The Friends will participate in a May 26, 2011 Open Space Forum with other interested groups. The Friends also will schedule a meeting of other organizations that have an interest in Wellfleet Harbor and the Herring River, such as Mass Audubon, the Wellfleet Conservation Trust, the Shellfish Advisory Committee, and other related organizations. The purpose of the meeting is to share information about what each of the organizations are working on, and in
particular, educate stakeholders about the Restoration Project.
The Committee agreed that Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm would be a good time for this meeting. Tim Smith agreed to prepare a presentation of the status of the restoration project for that meeting.
Approval of Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2011 and April 7, 2011 meetings.
Schedule Next HRRC Meetings: The next regular meetings of the HRRC were scheduled for Thursday, July 7, 2011 and Thursday, August 18, 2011.
The Value Assessment (VA) Workshop has been scheduled for June 1st-3rd, 2011.
Value Assessment Workshop (VA): The Committee discussed the draft agenda for the VA. Participants will include HRRC members plus other National Park Service (NPS) and NOAA staff. Jeff Oakes of CLE will attend to present the results of the road engineering work, which is currently in progress. Don Palladino and John Portnoy will also try to attend.
Hunt Durey asked how much budget information would be needed for the VA. Tim Smith has “order of magnitude” numbers for the major project components, including:
-Chequessett Neck Road dike
-High Toss Road
-Mill Creek dike
-Upstream Culverts
-CYCC Golf Course Flood Proofing
-Other Mill Creek Flood Proofing
-Monitoring and Adaptive Management
-Engineering and Permits
This information will be used for the VA Workshop. Steve Spear noted that it would be possible to estimate costs per acre for vegetation management. Hillary Greenberg agreed to check on the costs of replacing private wells.
The group discussed who would be key project stakeholders and how to best identify those parties. Tim Smith noted that the draft Adaptive Management Plan had identified key stakeholders as follows:
-Landowners and abutters within the flood plain (private, town, Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS))
-Commercial shellfishermen in Wellfleet Harbor
-Recreational fishermen (shell and finfish)
-Residents and Seashore visitors (hiking, canoeing/kayaking, birding, hunting, etc.)
-CCNS Staff and Cooperators (rangers, interpreters, researchers)
-Department of Interior/National Park Service (NPS) Management (EIS review, CCNS management, planning)
-Resource/regulatory agencies (municipal, county, state, federal)
-Granting agencies and other funders (public and private sectors)
The Committee agreed that this is a good list, but suggested adding elected (local, state, federal) officials and also non-resident taxpayers to the list.
The Committee discussed how to reach out to the newly elected Selectmen in Wellfleet and Truro and agreed that it would make sense to provide a briefing for them on the project when the EIS/EIR is further along. Don Palladino offered to set up a briefing for the new Selectmen sometime after the VA Workshop. Several HRRC members pointed out that a logical time to make a presentation would be when there is new information to convey, compared to what was presented to them in 2010. This is likely later in the EIS preparation process.
Conceptual Engineering for Roads: Tim Smith reported that CLE Engineering is preparing different conceptual road designs for three major low-lying roads in the estuary (Pole Dike Creek Road and 2 segments of Bound Brook Island/Old County Road), using the WHG modeling information for the proposed 3 ft and 10 ft openings in the Chequessett Neck Road dike. This information will be presented at the June 1 VA Workshop. Hunt Durey asked if the analysis would take sea level rise into account. The Committee affirmed that the Chequessett Neck Road dike would manage sea level rise impacts for the whole estuary. HRRC representatives plan to meet with town officials to discuss the road options, once the engineering analysis is available. John Riehl noted that this would be an important issue for citizens in Truro and
Wellfleet.
Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study/Tribal Consultation: The hydrodynamic model results that define the project area have been provided to the Public Archaeology Lab (PAL) but the final Phase 1A Report has not yet been received. HRRC representatives and NPS staff met with Chuckie Green of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe on April 28 to give him an update on the project. Green was generally supportive of the project but cautioned that the Tribe regards the upland of the CYCC property to have high archaeological sensitivity and that any disturbance of would be of concern. This includes the any area that could be used for a borrow pit for filling the lower fairways of the golf course. He believes significant archeological research, fieldwork, and consultation would be needed before any work could take place in
that area. Steve Spear noted that the HRRC needs a better understanding of the costs of required archaeological work: How many test pits would be needed and how much would each pit cost? How much for potential Phase 2 work?
Pat Weslowski offered to check with LBG to get an estimate of Phase 1B study costs, based on the earlier Phase 1A study that LBG did of the CYCC property.
NPS staff discussed with Chuckie Green the range of possible alternatives for the Mill Creek basin. They also discussed the idea of a boundary change so that some or all of the CYCC upland area could be considered for purchase by the National Park Service. Green said that this would likely be the best option for protection of the cultural resources and remarked that the Tribe would have interest in helping make the acquisition happen.
The Committee discussed the next steps in the Cultural Resources analysis. Once the Final Draft Phase 1A Study is submitted to NPS, Park Service staff will consult the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Wetlands Jurisdiction (DEP Consultation): HRRC has not received a response yet from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding wetlands jurisdictional issues. Tim Smith reported that he had met with Army Corps of Engineers officials (John Sargent, Karen Adams and Ruth Ladd) to discuss some similar jurisdictional questions. Corps officials generally supported the approach that HRRC proposed to DEP (generally approaching the broad project area as “disturbed” wetland with no large conversion of “upland” to “wetland” and focusing on direct wetland impacts associated with construction). They indicated that the Section 404 application (under the Clean Water Act) should be filed with the Final EIS/EIR, at the latest (404 apps are often included with a
DEIS). Tim Smith noted that the Corps’ review would focus on the impacts of any proposed filling below mean high water. The Corps will not set the design requirements for the Chequessett Neck Road dike; the Town of Wellfleet can choose what kind of structure it wishes to construct, taking into account the flood insurance implications of different design criteria. Further discussion with the Corps is needed to determine how to permit any fill on the CYCC land.
TNC/CYCC/NPS Land Plan and Appraisal: David McGowan of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has awarded a contract to prepare a land plan and appraisal for the Chequessett Yacht and Country Club (CYCC) property. The work is expected to take three to five months to complete. The Committee discussed what effect archaeological investigations might have on the valuation of the land. Since the Louis Berger Group will be preparing the land plan, the Committee asked Pat Weslowski to convey this concern to the LBG staff working on the land plan.
Legal Update: Shelley Hall reported that she had gotten an email from Department of Interior legal counsel, Robin Lepore regarding the HRRC’s legal questions. Hall indicated that there were some misunderstandings in the email that need to be clarified so Tim Smith will respond in writing. At this point, these emails are all internal NPS documents, but Lepore indicated that she hoped to have some legal interns to help craft a formal written opinion this summer.
Long-term Funding Needs/Strategies:
Restore America’s Estuaries/National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Grant Application: Hunt Durey reported that the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) had requested that the Herring River Restoration Committee submit a proposal for funding under the 2011 RAE/NOAA Grant Program. CLF is a member of RAE and would be the grant applicant. A preliminary application seeking funds to complete a number of engineering/technical studies necessary for permitting, continued project planning and fund-raising was submitted in April. These would include engineering/design for the Chequessett Neck Road dike, Mill Creek dike and possibly other upstream culverts. The full grant proposal is due to CLF on May 24, 2011.
Hunt Durey agreed to take the lead in preparing the grant application with assistance from others. Tim Smith offered to refine the scope of work and timeline and provide that information to Durey.
There is a requirement for a non-federal match, including both cash contributions to the restoration project and in-kind contributions. This could include time commitments among the non-federal members of the Committee, the Friends of Herring River, APCC and other groups.
Penobscot River Trust Model: Don Palladino reported that he had talked with the Executive Director of the Penobscot River Trust about the Trust’s approach to fundraising. He noted that the Trust has a legal agreement with multiple entities, including hydroelectric power companies, local Indian Tribes, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, The Audubon Society and others. Thus far, they have raised approximately $14 million from the public sector and $10 million from private sources. The Committee discussed how to cultivate interest in the Herring River Restoration Project and develop a fundraising strategy.
Don Palladino agreed to discuss a fundraising strategy with the Friends’ Board, to include public and private funding, a proposed timeline, resources and other related matters. HRCC must also develop a strategy for each of the participating public agencies.
LBG Draft Impact Matrix: Pat Weslowski presented the LBG draft Impact Matrix, noting that it is incomplete at this time. The draft only covers some of the impact topics; LBG staff is still completing the matrix for the other topics. The purpose of the matrix is to summarize and compare the impacts of the different Project Alternatives. LBG is seeking input on whether the format works: Does it provide sufficient detail/are the numbers right?
Eric Derleth noted that he had some “big picture” comments. While the EIS/EIR analysis will look at the end result of the 3’ and 10’ openings at the Chequessett Neck dike, these are the “book-ends” for assessing impacts. People reviewing the EIS/EIR need to understand that restoration will be done incrementally, and the system changes might not be immediate. Also, using Adaptive Management, adjustments can be made, if needed to avoid adverse impacts. Shelley Hall noted that the impact matrix table will not stand alone-it must be viewed in the context of the full EIS/EIR analysis.
Committee members noted that the draft matrix does not always follow the agreed-upon outline of impact topics. For example, there is a confusing section on Flood Risk Mapping-which was not one of the impact topics. The matrix indicates that there are currently private properties in the FEMA 100 year flood plain; this is incorrect. Eric Derleth noted that a 100-year storm in Wellfleet Harbor would not be manifested fully in the river because the Chequessett Neck Road dike could control storm surges.
Tim Smith commented that the numbers in the matrix for low-lying properties do not make sense-they need to be ground-truthed. More local knowledge and judgment needs to be applied for this analysis to be meaningful. Charleen Greenhalgh and Hillary Greenberg offered to do a parcel-by-parcel analysis. The Committee discussed what criteria should be used to categorize impacts to private properties. There are degrees of impact, depending on whether structures, landscaped areas, and/or undeveloped land would be affected. Tim Smith offered to work with NPS GIS specialist Mark Adams to develop the criteria and do the analysis. The Committee agreed that this approach make sense.
The Committee discussed how to address low-lying roads. The matrix should quantify the linear feet of roadways affected under each of the Alternatives. It would also be helpful to distinguish unpaved and paved roads. Tim Smith noted that while we do not have GIS files for the road data, the detailed ground survey of the road centerlines was sent to LBG with all the other important background material and that was intended and should be used to identify and measure affected road segments.
The Committee discussed how to distill the matrix information into a format that is useable for the VA Workshop. Louis Berger Group is completing the detailed analysis now (Note: Committee members had not had time to review the partial draft prior to the meeting so it is likely that they will have further comments on the existing draft). Once the detailed version is complete, LBG will create a condensed version that focuses on those impact topics where there are significant differences between the Project Alternatives. Committee members stressed that HRRC needs to review that document prior to the VA Workshop.
Pat Weslowski indicated that LBG would provide the both the full draft impact matrix and condensed version to HRRC on May 20, 2011. The matrix will be updated following the VA Workshop.
EIS/EIR Schedule: Mark Husbands of the Environmental Quality Division (EQD) of NPS joined the meeting by phone to discuss a revised EIS/EIR schedule. LBG and EQD prepared two possible revised schedules (purple and green color-coding), proposing to hold hearings on the Draft EIS/EIR in January 2012 (green schedule) and April 2012 (purple schedule). Husbands noted that there are a number of reasons for the delays in the schedule, most notably that the hydrodynamic modeling results had come in later than expected. He said that CCNS Superintendent George Price did not think it was appropriate to hold the hearings in January or February. Husbands also noted that NPS internal noticing requirements could cause delays. Thus, the public presentation of the DEIS/EIR would need to be delayed until spring of 2012.
The Committee discussed this and expressed frustration with the delay, but acknowledged that winter is not a good time to hold public hearings, as many people are away and weather can be a problem. The Committee discussed the idea of releasing the Draft EIS/EIR earlier than proposed on the purple schedule, in order to give the public a longer time to review it prior to the hearings. Mark Husbands indicated that this would be possible.
Hunt Durey asked if it would be possible to start filing permit applications prior to the Record of Decision (ROD), in order to make up some of the time that has been lost with delays in the EIS/EIR schedule. Steve Block responded that HRRC needs to get public feedback on the Draft EIS/EIR first, to see if we are on the right track. If the draft document is well received, HRRC could begin work on permit applications while the Final EIS/EIR is being developed.
The group discussed how the NPS Preferred Alternative, selected in the Value Analysis Workshop would relate to the full EIS/EIR analysis. Mark Husbands commented that the two processes should be consistent, but acknowledged that the Herring River project has multiple sponsors. Ultimately, all the project partners must agree on a Preferred Alternative in order for the project to go forward. The towns and the other involved agencies will have an opportunity to comment on the recommended Preferred Alternative through the NEPA/MEPA process.
The Committee discussed the idea of having a joint meeting with the Wellfleet and Truro Boards of Selectmen after the VA Workshop. This would be an opportunity to brief them on the project and get their input. It is likely that the Selectmen will want to hear comments from the public prior to taking a position on the Preferred Alternative.
Hydrodynamic Modeling Results: The Committee had a brief discussion of the materials received from the Woods Hole Group (WHG). Tim Smith noted that he was sending out tables and maps to the Committee as he gets them from WHG. There is a lot of material to digest, and due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee did not have time to have an in-depth discussion. Hunt Durey asked for clarification on how the data for sensitive receptors was presented. This will be reviewed at a future meeting.
Adaptive Management: Tim Smith and Eric Derleth reported that they had discussions with experts from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to refine the Adaptive Management Objectives. They have pared down the number of Objectives to streamline the analysis and focus on where monitoring outcomes would affect management strategies. The Committee will review this at an upcoming meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Documents Referenced in the Meeting:
-Minutes of the April 6th and 7th, 2011 HHRC Meetings
-Louis Berger Group Draft Impact Matrix, May 9, 2011
-Louis Berger Group Revised Draft EIS Schedules (green and purple), May 9, 2011
| 