Approved Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
February 2, 2012
9:30 am-5:00 pm
Members Present: Gary Joseph, Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Block, Steve Spear, Hillary Greenberg, Charleen Greenhalgh
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Don Palladino, Tara Nye, Shelley Hall
Administration/Coordination:
Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2012 meeting.
Next Meetings: The Committee agreed to the following meeting schedule:
HRRC: March 1, 2012
April 4, 2012
April 5, 2012
TWG: February 29, 2012
April 11, 2012
Several HRRC members agreed to meet with staff of the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program on February 7, 2012.
Informational Updates:
Mass Environmental Trust (MET) Grant Application: Don Palladino updated the Committee on the status of the Friends of Herring River’s MET grant application. Palladino has been working with numerous project partners and supporters to prepare letters of support for the grant, including: The towns of Wellfleet and Truro, state and federal elected officials, the National Park Service, the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), and the MA Division of Ecological Restoration. He has also developed a draft scope of work and budget for the grant. The Committee discussed the draft scope of work and budget and made a number of suggestions to improve clarity. The group agreed that it is important to distinguish between those tasks where the Friends will provide project coordination and those where the
Friends will directly produce the deliverables. Don Palladino noted that MET staff had advised him to include the proposed project coordination consultant’s resume in the application, so that they can ascertain the individual’s qualifications. The Committee suggested appending the scopes of work for the RAE/NOAA grant and the NPS Adaptive Management Plan to the grant application.
Don Palladino agreed to redraft the grant proposal, combining the narrative and scope of work sections.
Legal Update: Hunt Durey reported that the first phase of the legal research project undertaken by the Conservation Law Foundation and Rubin and Rudman was nearing completion. The legal team met twice, first to define the scope of work for the project and second, to review the legal landscape-i.e. identification and analysis of the relevant statutes, regulations, case law, and general causes of action and defenses associated with the key areas of law. The second phase of the legal analysis should be completed by the end of February.
The Committee discussed the process for reviewing the legal analysis and agreed to have a preliminary discussion of the findings at its regular March meeting. Then each agency representative will need to confer with his/her own legal counsel during the month of March. The HRRC agreed to hold a special meeting in early April to develop its outreach strategy to low-lying property owners, based on the consensus guidance provided by the legal team.
Coordination with the Wellfleet Selectmen: The Committee discussed what to cover in its February 3, 2012 workshop session with the Wellfleet Selectmen. Gary Joseph agreed to summarize the background of the project partnership, and Tim Smith and agreed to present the modeling results and the Project Alternatives. The Committee agreed to review with the Selectmen the list of management questions outlined in the draft workshop agenda. The group reviewed those questions and discussed the process for getting public input on them, noting that it will be important to involve town staff (such as the Department of Public Works, public safety officials and others) in that process.
APCC Project Coordination Contract: Steve Spear reported that he had met with Rick Devergileo at the Cape Cod Conservation District to review available funds for Herring River Project Coordination and other modeling work by the Woods Hole Group. He reviewed estimates of the funds remaining and suggested that a new APCC contract be prepared to cover the April 1-September 30, 2012 time period, assuming 23 weeks @ 20 hours/week of work @ $65/hr. Any surplus funds could be used for further contract work with the Woods Hole Group, perhaps, contracted through APCC.
Steve Spear agreed to provide the cost estimates to the HRRC members by email and work with Rick Devergilio and Ed DeWitt to prepare a new Project Coordination contract with APCC.
RAE/NOAA Grant: Steve Block reported that he had drafted some tasks for an RFP but due to other work commitments, had not had time to prepare the full RFP. Steve Block and Steve Spear agreed to work together to prepare a draft RFP for the Committee to review at its March meeting.
TNC/CYCC/NPS Land Plan and Appraisal: Committee members had a conference call with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in January to get an update on this project. The appraisal report is nearing completion. There will be a final project meeting with CYCC representatives when the plans and appraisal report are complete.
Discussion:
DEIS/EIR: Chapter 4 Review: Tim Smith provided the Committee with an update on the edits to Chapter 4. Because the salinity analysis had been modified, many of the other ecological impact topics also had to be reworked. The Water Quality, Aquatic Species and Wetlands and Vegetation sections are close to completion. Tim Smith described the revised approach to the Vegetation analysis, noting that using salinity data, changes in vegetation can be more accurately described for the different sub-basins. There will be extensive changes in the lower river basins, but very limited changes in the upper reaches of the estuary. He noted that the wildlife habitat sections would also need to be modified, taking into account the projected changes in vegetation. The Sediment section also needs to be
rewritten.
Charleen Greenhalgh and Hunt Durey had edited the Socioeconomic impacts section, but they noted that there may need to be more analysis of Alternative A (No Action). Tim Smith also noted that the low-lying roads analysis of the Socioeconomic impact topic needs work.
Tim Smith agreed to complete edits of the ecological impact topics and provide the revised text to the Committee, Louis Berger Group and the Environmental Quality Division(EQD) of NPS by mid-February 2012. Charleen Greenhalgh offered to review the socioeconomic section and provide any further edits to Margo Fenn and Tim Smith. Tim Smith will edit the low-lying roads analysis as well. Margo Fenn agreed to incorporate Jim Harmon’s comments into the Cultural Resources section. The goal is to get the entire edited chapter back to Louis Berger Group (LBG) by mid-February.
Mark Husbands of EQD joined the meeting by phone. Tim Smith noted that he had found some mistakes in the latest draft of Chapter 2. The earlier chapters will need to be reviewed again to make sure that they are internally consistent with the material presented in Chapter 4. The Committee discussed how to handle the Cumulative Impact Analysis in Chapter 4 as well. Many of the projects included in the list may only have impacts for one or two impact topics; some may not pose any cumulative impacts. Mark Husbands suggested including a section for cumulative impacts under each impact topic. If there are no cumulative impacts, the text can just explain that. He also suggested that Table 4.1.2 be replaced with a table or text that lists the related projects first, and then indicates what (if any) impact topics might be
affected by that project.
Hunt Durey stressed that the version of Chapter 4 that will be completed by the Committee should be treated as the final narrative. LBG should not further edit this section except to add graphics and improve layout.
Tim Smith inquired about what “Significance Criteria” should be used in Chapter 4. Mark Husbands suggested using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) criteria (attached for reference at the end of these minutes) to make the determination of significance.
Mark Husbands agreed to set up a conference call to review the criteria for determining signficance of impacts after Chapter 4 edits are completed,. After receiving the edited Chapter 4, LBG will review Chapters 1-4 to ensure that the Chapters are internally consistent and that the data presented is accurate.
DEIS/EIR Chapter 5: Regulatory Permitting Strategy: The Committee is also waiting for a revised version of Chapter 5 from LBG that incorporates the regulatory compliance issues discussed at the last Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting. The TWG members stressed that that the regulatory section of the EIS/EIR should include not just “boilerplate” language about the applicable regulations, but should also explain how the project would comply with those regulations, going forward. Committee members suggested that Craig Wood be involved in drafting these sections, since he is familiar with MA environmental requirements. Hunt Durey drafted an introduction to this Chapter for the Committee to review. The introduction provides an overview of the proposed permitting strategy for the
Restoration Project. The Committee plans to review Chapter 5 with the TWG on February 29, 2012, and would like to send it to them at least a week prior to that meeting.
HRRC members agreed to review the draft permitting strategy and get comments to Margo Fenn and Tim Smith no later than February 10, 2012. Mark Husbands offered to check to see if LBG needs further information from HRRC to complete Chapter 5. LBG will redraft Chapter 5 and provide it to the Committee by February 10, 2012. The Committee will then review and edit this Chapter and send it to the TWG by February 22, 2012. Mark Husbands also agreed to inquire about LBG’s timetable for preparing the Appendices for the DEIS/EIR.
DEIS/EIR Schedule: The Committee discussed the next steps in the DEIS/EIR process and reviewed a draft list of loose ends for the DEIS/EIR prepared by Margo Fenn. Mark Husbands noted that there would be an 8-12 week lead-time needed to file the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. Margo Fenn noted that the Committee will also need to prepare an updated abutters list for the Cape Cod Commission public hearing notice. Mark Husbands agreed to prepare a draft NOA with sufficient lead-time to accommodate the goal of holding public hearings in mid-June 2012.
Adaptive Management: Eric Derleth reported that he had located an Adaptive Management expert who may be able to help with preparation of the Adaptive Management Plan. He has sent him a request for services and asked him to review the work that the Committee and NPS have done so far on Adaptive Management. Steve Spear noted that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has hired a wetlands restoration engineer who may be able to provide some peer review on the Restoration Project in the future.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm.
Documents Referred to in the Meeting:
-Minutes of the January 5, 2012 Meeting
-Draft Chapter 5 Regulatory Strategy, 2/1/12
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
Attachment:
CEQ - Regulations for Implementing NEPA |
Sec. 1508.27 Significantly. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity: ? (a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the
locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic
area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect
districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. [43 FR 56003, Nov. 29, 1978; 44 FR 874, Jan. 3, 1979] |
| 