Approved Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Special Meeting on Adaptive Management
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
June 6, 2012
9:30 am-5:00 pm
HRRC Participants: Tim Smith, Hunt Durey, Hillary Greenberg, Charleen Greenhalgh, Eric Derleth, Steve Block, Steve Spear
Other Participants: Mitch Eaton, John Portnoy, Tara Nye, Margo Fenn, Charlie Roman
Introduction and Overview: Tim Smith introduced Mitch Eaton, who is a Research Ecologist at the USGS Fish and Wildlife Unit at Cornell University. Eaton is working with members of the Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC) on the Adaptive Management Plan.
Tim Smith reviewed the draft agenda, noting that while some of the material to be covered may seem to be repetitive of earlier work that the Committee has done, it is important to revisit some key issues to lay the groundwork for the Adaptive Management Plan. The goal for this special meeting is to define the steps needed to develop the Adaptive Management Plan. Mitch Eaton noted that the usual process for initiating a structured decision-making process of this kind would be to hold a 3-4 day workshop but some of the basic groundwork has already been done by the Committee.
Eaton and Tim Smith developed an Overview of the Adaptive Management process to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Restoration Project. The Overview describes a two-step process for creating an Adaptive Management Plan including a “Set-up” Phase and an “Iterative” Phase. In the Set-up Phase, there are several key tasks including:
-Stakeholder Involvement
-Defining Objectives
-Describing Alternatives/Management Actions
-Predicting Consequences/Modeling
-Designing a Monitoring Plan
In the Iterative Phase, tasks include:
-Decision-making
-Monitoring and assessment
Mitch Eaton explained how these steps could be applied to the Herring River project. He noted that it is important to integrate ecological and socioeconomic objectives in this process. Assumptions used in the analysis need to be identified and weighted, based on their importance to the fundamental objectives.
Stakeholder Outreach: Tim Smith noted that outreach to stakeholders has been undertaken in a number of ways since 2005, when the first Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between the Town of Wellfleet and Cape Cod National Seashore was signed. The MOU created the Herring River Technical Committee (HRTC) and a Stakeholders Committee, leading to the creation of the Conceptual Restoration Plan. With the second MOU, the Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC) was created, representing the towns and key state and federal agencies. The HRRC began the NEPA/MEPA process in 2008 with the filing of an Environmental Notification Form.
Tim Smith presented a draft list of stakeholder concerns and interests. The Committee discussed the list and suggested some clarifications and additions. The edited list includes:
-Impacts to low lying roads, private properties, and the CYCC golf course (physical effects/changes to regulatory jurisdiction/aesthetic changes).
-Potential sediment transport and water quality impacts within Wellfleet Harbor. Define/describe specific concerns.
-Changes to freshwater habitats that have become established in the flood plain since the Chequessett Neck Road dike was constructed. Define/describe specific concerns.
-Obstructions to river herring migration. Other aquatic species?
-Nuisance mosquitoes
-Project costs and timeline. Complexity/logistics and operation of infrastructure. What are concerns re: timeline?
-Impacts occurring during construction. Define/describe specific concerns.
-Aesthetics of vegetation transition (e.g., dead trees, vegetation)
-Access to resources, recreation opportunities (e.g. utilization of restored shellfish beds)
-Impacts to native/endangered species?
-Define interests/concerns regarding restoration of native ecosystem
-Perception of progress (i.e. timeline needed to reach ecological equilibrium)
-Public Safety (e.g. boating, recreation access)
-Archaeological impacts
-Aesthetics of infrastructure (dike/bridge/tide gates)
-Management and control: Who will own, operate, maintain and manage the tide control infrastructure?
The Committee discussed these concerns, noting that some are minor issues and others are very important. Also, while some of the impacts could be adverse, the majority will be positive. Mitch Eaton stressed that the Adaptive Management Plan should be specific and transparent. All potential stakeholder concerns should be included; however, the issues can be weighted to reflect their relative risks and importance.
While stakeholders have already had an active role in the planning and environmental review process for the Restoration Project, they will need to be reengaged as part of developing the Adaptive Management Plan. Decision-makers need to take the stakeholders’ concerns into account in managing the project.
Decision Framework: Refining the Adaptive Management Objectives: The Committee discussed the objectives for the Adaptive Management Plan, using the following illustrative diagram from the A.M. Overview:
Objectives describe the desired future state of the Herring River system, which considers both the ecological state of the watershed and the human values derived from the estuary and its environs. Some of these objectives may be in conflict, necessitating a consideration of the risks and trade-offs between them to arrive a decision that will maximize the overall benefits across objectives.
After lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed that the Adaptive Management Plan needs an overarching fundamental objective to tie together both the ecological and socioeconomic objectives. The group generally agreed on the following statement: “Restore natural functioning estuarine ecosystem in as much of the Herring River floodplain as is practicable”. Below this umbrella objective would be three broad groupings of objectives: Estuarine fauna, estuarine flora and socioeconomic concerns.
The Committee compiled a rough list of socioeconomic means objectives, including:
-Avoid/minimize impacts to private property and public infrastructure
-Minimize threats to public health and safety
-Enhance recreational access and opportunities
-Minimize economic loss
-Minimize project costs
-Minimize impacts to cultural resources
The Committee debated whether protecting aesthetics and viewsheds should be a management objective. Members noted that the socioeconomic objectives could be stated as positives (e.g. “enhance, maximize, improve”) or as constraints (e.g. “minimize, reduce, avoid”). In any case, the importance of these objectives will need to be weighted along with the ecological objectives.
Alternatives: Mitch Eaton pointed out that there are many decisions that will have to be made as part of the Adaptive Management process. After the Preferred Alternative is selected through the NEPA/MEPA process, there are many other alternatives about how to implement it. One key decision is when and how much to open the tide gates. On the first day, the options range from full closure to full opening. The AM team will have to balance benefits and risks to determine the size and frequency of incremental openings.
Steve Spear suggested that the Committee should compile a list of all the considerations (both positive and negative) in determining how large the initial tide gate opening should be. Others noted that there are constraints that limit the options for opening the tide gates such as the completion of needed mitigation for low-lying properties. Adaptive Management cannot begin until these impacts are addressed.
Mitch Eaton provided an example of how to apply the A.M. process for the objective of maximizing native fauna in the Mill Creek sub-basin. He asked the Committee to brainstorm the factors that would influence whether a native plant would be present or absent in a given grid cell. Factors included: Salinity, frequency and duration of flooding, elevation, sediment quality, light and shade, presence of propagules, and stream connectivity. For each of these factors, there are other driving forces. For example, tidal forcing and freshwater discharge will affect salinity; sediment supply and surface roughness will affect elevation, etc. Models can be developed to project what conditions for each of these factors would create conditions conducive for native plants to grow.
Eaton stressed that it is not feasible to model and monitor everything. The Adaptive Management Plan needs to identify where there is uncertainty and monitor those factors over time. He illustrated how equations can predict what combination of conditions for salinity, elevation and propagation would create the best conditions for both native plant survival and colonization. The A.M. Plan would use different models to predict the results, monitor changes over time, then weight the models to refine them based on real-world results.
Charlie Roman noted that there is an available vegetation model that could be run for different dike openings. Hunt Durey expressed concern about the costs and feasibility of the Adaptive Management approach. He questioned how many monitoring samples would be needed to have a valid monitoring plan. Tim Smith noted that the National Park Service already has a robust monitoring plan underway for the Herring River estuary. This program could be streamlined using an Adaptive Management approach. Eric Derleth noted that some of the ecological changes will happen quickly, but others may take years to measure.
Coastal Modeling Expert Workshop: Fall 2012: Tim Smith, Charlie Roman and Mark Borrelli of the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies are working together to plan a fall workshop that would explore modeling options for Adaptive Management. The National Park Service has provided funds for this workshop, which will bring together salt marsh ecologists and modeling experts. The HRRC needs to develop influence diagrams for the key A.M. factors prior to the workshop. The workshop would focus on how to apply and integrate existing models for:
-Hydrodynamics
-Sediment transport
-Vegetation Change
-Sea level rise and marsh response
The Committee discussed how to facilitate the workshop and compile the results of the session. It is possible that a post-doctoral student could be found to write up the findings of the workshop. The group discussed how to organize the workshop and who should participate. HRRC members expressed interest in attending.
Next Steps:
Tim Smith will prepare a report summarizing the A.M. process and laying out a prototype of how this can be done for the Herring River Restoration. Over the next few months, the HRRC will review a series of influence diagrams for the key factors, in preparation for the fall workshop with science and modeling experts.
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 
