Approved Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
May 10, 2012
9:30 am-5:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Block, Steve Spear, Gary Joseph, Charleen Greehalgh
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Don Palladino, John Portnoy, Ed DeWitt
Administration/Coordination:
Communication/Coordination with Friends of Herring River (FHR): Don Palladino reported that he had not yet heard anything about the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET) grant. The FHR has received its Certificate of Solicitation from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Palladino noted that there are two new selectmen in Wellfleet and suggested that the HRRC set up a time to brief them on the project. He provided a summary of the Annual Town Meeting and stressed that it is very important to consult all concerned agencies before bringing an article to town meeting. It is also important to have specific answers for likely questions. The FHR is sponsoring a tour of Hatches Harbor on May 12, 2012 and is also preparing a short educational video about the value of restoring tidal flow to the Herring River.
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2012 and April 5, 2012 meetings.
Schedule of HRRC Meetings: The Committee agreed to the following meeting schedule:
HRRC: June 6, 2012 (Adaptive Management –special meeting)
June 7, 2012 (regular meeting)
July 12, 2012 (regular meeting)
There had been a Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting scheduled for July 11, 2012 but the Committee agreed that this meeting should be cancelled. It may be necessary to schedule a special meeting of the TWG later in the summer. TWG members will have an opportunity to review Version 2 of the DEIS/EIR during the month of June and provide written comments.
Informational Updates:
TNC/CYCC/NPS Land Plan and Appraisal: Margo Fenn reported that the appraisal report was not yet complete. David McGowan of The Nature Conservancy plans to set up a meeting with HRRC and CYCC representatives when the report is ready.
Cultural Resources: Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC): Margo Fenn and Eric Derleth provided some editing suggestions to the draft PA to Bill Burke. Burke is consulting with NPS Archaeologist, Jim Harmon on this matter.
RAE-NOAA Grant: RFP Process: Steve Block reported that the Request for Proposals (RFP) had been sent out at the end of April to 14 engineering consulting firms. There will be a bidders conference on May 15, 2012 at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) office in Boston. Proposals are due at the end of May. The HRRC review team (Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Steve Block and Steve Spear) will select three firms to interview. Interviews will be scheduled for June 14, 2012 and the selected contractor should begin work in early July. Steve Block prepared some draft rating criteria for the proposals, which the Committee approved.
Discussion:
DEIS/EIR Graphics: Following the April HRRC meeting, Tim Smith provided Mark Husbands at the Environmental Quality Division (EQD) of the National Park Service (NPS) and Louis Berger Group (LBG) with comments on the draft maps and tables for the DEIS/EIR. Committee members noted that they would like to see a revised draft template for the maps to be used in the DEIS/EIR. The group also agreed that LBG should not change the edited text of the draft chapters without consulting the Committee.
Hunt Durey requested that LBG prepare new project schedule, reflecting the remaining steps in the process.
The Committee had a number of process questions for Mark Husbands that were deferred until he joined the meeting by phone (see discussion below).
Review of Low-Lying Properties (LLP) Case Studies: Following the April 5, 2012 meeting, the Committee prepared some sample maps of LLP for Rubin and Rudman to use in order to determine what types of changes in regulatory jurisdiction might need to be assessed. The Committee briefly reviewed the maps and discussed what additional GIS analysis might be needed. The DEIS/EIR includes a summary table of the types of physical impacts that might occur. The group discussed whether a similar table should be included to address regulatory impacts.
Eric Derleth noted that there could be regulatory implications to the No Action Alternative as well as for the Action Alternatives. This needs to be factored into the DEIS/EIR narrative.
Tim Smith agreed to redraft the LLP section to include discussion of potential changes in regulatory jurisdiction, and circulate this section for HRRC review. Hunt Durey offered to contact the Department of Environmental Protection to determine whether there would be grandfathering protections for properties affected by the change in Rivers Act jurisdiction.
Development of Outreach Plan for Low-Lying Property Owners: The Committee discussed contacting landowners by letter and whether individual letters should be developed to address specific impacts on specific properties. Before any contact with property owners is made, the Committee will further evaluate the likely impacts to specific properties so it has a comprehensive understanding of anticipated physical and regulatory impacts to all affected properties. The Committee agreed to set aside time at its June meeting to discuss this in greater detail.
Tim Smith agreed to refine the GIS database to include potential changes in regulatory jurisdictions. Margo Fenn agreed to prepare some recommendations regarding the process for reaching out to affected property owners. Hunt Durey will also review likely questions and issues that need to be addressed by the HRRC.
Adaptive Management: Tim Smith and Eric Derleth described their recent work with Mitch Eaton, who is a Research Ecologist at the USGS Fish and Wildlife Unit at Cornell University. Eaton is experienced at structured decision-making, having worked at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland. He is helping the HRRC and the TWG to develop a higher level of understanding of how to use this process for the Herring River Restoration Project. At the April TWG meeting, Mitch Eaton presented an overview of the process of structured decision-making and adaptive management. This is a formal method for analyzing a decision too complex to address just using common sense. The process breaks a decision down into its components, separating values and science, and uses quantitative analysis to develop and refine
management solutions.
Eric Derleth stressed that the AM Plan needs to consider both spatial and temporal issues. The Plan needs to look at effects in the different sub-basins of the estuary and consider the trade-offs of slow vs. rapid restoration. The HRRC has committed to some form of incremental restoration but it could be done in many small increments or in a few larger increments.
Mitch Eaton will help the Committee prepare a description of the Adaptive Management process to include in the DEIS/EIR. He will meet with the HRRC on June 6, 2012 to discuss how to incorporate the interests and values of stakeholders into an ecosystem model. This involves identifying uncertainties and constraints for the different sub-basins, and will include a weighting process similar to what the Committee used in the Value Assessment (VA) workshop.
The Committee discussed what funding would be needed to prepare the full Adaptive Management Plan. The National Park Service has provided $30,000 towards this effort but additional funds will be needed. The NPS has contracted with the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies to conduct a workshop in September with natural resource experts to explore development of an ecosystem model. There will be a conference call in late May or early June to plan the fall workshop. Other potential funding sources for AM could include remaining funds at the Coastal America Foundation (CAF), NPS habitat mapping funds, and possibly a grant from the Corporate Wetlands Restoration Project (CWRP).
Phone Consultation with EQD: Mark Husbands joined the meeting by phone. The Committee asked him to make sure that LBG understands that they should consult Tim Smith before making any substantial changes to the edited DEIS/EIR chapters that HRRC provided to them. The Committee also requested that LBG provide a revised map template for the Committee to see before preparing the maps/graphics for Version 2 of the DEIS/EIR. The Committee requested that LBG prepare an updated project schedule, based on the agreed-upon time frames.
Mark Husbands agreed to clarify the editing and mapping matters with LBG and prepare a revised schedule.
The group discussed the Cumulative Impact Analysis, noting that there was some confusion about who was writing this section. Tim Smith offered to draft a summary section to address Cumulative Impacts.
The Committee discussed how to make a determination of significance for each of the identified impacts. Mark Husbands described the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, and noted that significant impacts could be either beneficial or adverse. Mark Husbands agreed to schedule a conference call to review the determination of significance.
The Committee discussed how to address needed mitigation for adverse impacts and how much detail is needed. Mark Husbands indicated that the DEIS/EIR should describe the range of available tools that can be used to address different types of impacts, but should not describe potential actions for specific properties. This section should be part of the conclusions in Chapter 4. For the Final EIS/EIR, the Committee needs to flesh out the proposed Section 61 Findings.
Ownership, Operation and Maintenance of Project Infrastructure: At its April 5, 2012 meeting, the Committee discussed roles and responsibilities for owning and operating the dike(s), tide gates and related infrastructure. This is an issue that needs to be resolved before the Project can seek permits and funding for construction. Another Memorandum of Understanding (MOU III) will be required to formalize responsibilities for project implementation.
Committee members noted that the Town of Wellfleet and the National Park Service (NPS) are the most likely project proponents, given that the Town owns the Chequessett Neck Road dike and Cape Cod National Seashore owns the majority of land within the estuary. However, Wellfleet Town officials have been clear that, while continued town-ownership of the dike is desired, they do not have either the financial resources or the institutional expertise to fund or manage the Restoration Project. The National Park Service also has very limited resources to construct and manage new infrastructure. It is possible that a cooperative arrangement could be developed, wherein the Town continues to own the dike (and related infrastructure) but management responsibilities are primarily assumed by either the Seashore or a third-party
entity. It is also probable that the Town will need to seek some of the needed permits while the Seashore seeks others.
Don Palladino, Margo Fenn and Tim Smith agreed to set up a meeting with a small group of outside advisors to explore ownership and management options, and report back to the HRRC in June.
Documents Referred to in the Meeting:
-Minutes of the April 4, 2012 and April 5, 2012 Meetings
-Request for Proposals for CNR Dike Engineering, April 13, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 