Approved Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC) Meeting
and
Special Meeting with the Wellfleet Board of Selectmen and Town Officials
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
December 12, 2012
9:30 am-5:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Spear, Steve Block, Charleen Greenhalgh
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Don Palladino
Administration/Coordination:
Communications with the Friends of Herring River (FHR): Don Palladino reported that FHR had signed contracts with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the MA Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) to provide on-going project coordination. The HRRC needs to review and approve FHR invoices before they are sent to CLF and DER for payment. Tim Smith and Steve Block agreed to review the monthly invoices. FHR will provide a joint invoice to both organizations each month.
Grant Opportunities: Don Palladino reported that there was no news yet about the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET) or Massachusetts Bay Program (MPB) grants. The Committee discussed the upcoming National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grant announcement. This is a multi-year grant program that is seeking applications for large, regionally important projects. Applications are due February 19, 2013. Municipalities (such as the Town of Wellfleet) and non-profit organizations (such as FHR) are eligible to apply. This grant could provide funding for a myriad of activities in the next phase of the project, including but not limited to engineering design, permitting, design of mitigation for low-lying properties and project coordination.
The Committee briefly discussed the options for what entity should apply. All agreed that it is critical to have strong support from the Town of Wellfleet for a NOAA grant application, but the town does not have to be the applicant. The FHR could apply, or it could be a joint application between the FHR and the town. The grant could provide funding for a grant administrator, who could prepare needed Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for engineering and technical work. This would be a way to build some organizational capacity for the Restoration Project in the town or FHR.
The group briefly reviewed the NOAA grant requirements. While matching funds are not required, some form of match is needed in order to make the application competitive. The group agreed to discuss the scope of work for a potential grant application at its December 13, 2012 meeting.
Approval of Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2012 public hearing. The Committee also voted to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2012 and November 29, 2012 HRRC meetings with one correction (Charleen Greenhalgh did not attend on November 29, 2012).
Schedule Next Meetings: The Committee agreed upon the following schedule for upcoming meetings:
• December 13, 2012 (regular meeting)
• January 10, 2013 (regular meeting)
• January 30, 2013 (Technical Working Group Meeting)
• February 7, 2012 (regular meeting)
Woods Hole Group (WHG) Final Modeling Report: The final report has not yet been submitted to the HRRC. The Committee agreed to talk to Kirk Bosma about it later in the meeting. The group briefly discussed some of the salinity simulations that WHG developed as part of the modeling effort. Tim Smith noted that WHG has prepared some revised marsh receptor data. These data show higher levels of spring tide salinity in some of the upper basins than were reported in preliminary data sets. The Committee will need to discuss how this information will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report (FEIS/EIR).
The Committee reviewed some recent data that WHG prepared showing simulated water surface elevations for individual model grid cells and discussed how this information could be used to more accurately predict potential impacts to low-lying properties. The group discussed the idea of overlaying the model elevations with Lidar-derived topography. The Committee agreed that for most properties with structural impacts (e.g. to buildings, driveways, wells or septic systems) on-site surveys will be needed to better assess impacts. Hunt Durey offered to compare the topographic information from the aerial photogrammetry with the available Lidar information and report back to the HRRC.
During the afternoon session of the meeting, Kirk Bosma of the WHG agreed to run the cell data elevations for all parcels that will experience inundation effects.
DEIS/EIR Public Hearing Follow Up: Margo Fenn reported that the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) Subcommittee had met on December 3, 2012 and voted to send the CCC staff report to MEPA. Tim Smith reported that there had been approximately 37 comment letters submitted following the public hearing. Smith is working with Mark Husbands to upload all of the comment letters to the National Park Service PEPC system. He agreed to provide copies of the letters to the HRRC members as soon as they are compiled.
Process and Schedule for MOU III Development: The Committee discussed how to structure the process for developing a third Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with the project partners. The DER and RAE-NOAA grants call for a preliminary draft to be completed by June 30, 2012 and a final draft to be ready by September 30, 2012. The Final EIS/EIR also needs to better define the relationships among the project partners. The Committee proposed that a working group be created with representatives of the Towns of Wellfleet and Truro Selectmen and Town Administrators/Managers, NPS officials and HRRC members.
Tim Smith, Hunt Durey, Charleen Greenhalgh, Margo Fenn and Don Palladino agreed to participate in the working group. The HRRC will propose that town officials meet with them on a monthly basis over the coming months to craft the MOU.
Workshop Session with Wellfleet Town Officials and NPS Staff: Following the lunch break, engineering consultants from Fuss & O’Neill (F&O) and the Woods Hole Group joined the meeting. The group reviewed the outline of a PowerPoint Slide presentation describing F&O’s analysis of dike/bridge and tide gate options for the Chequessett Neck Road dike and made some suggestions of material to cover in the workshop discussion with Wellfleet town officials.
At 2:00 pm, NPS and Wellfleet town officials joined the meeting (see attached participants list). Participants introduced themselves and Margo Fenn explained the purpose of the workshop session was to update town officials on critical next steps with the Restoration Project and solicit their input on recent engineering work regarding design of a new Chequessett Neck Road dike/bridge.
MOU III Development/Coordination: Margo Fenn reminded the group that the Restoration Project is a joint initiative of the Towns of Wellfleet and Truro and Cape Cod National Seashore, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed in 2007. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/EIR) for the project was released for public review in October and the HRRC will be reviewing the public comments on the DEIS/EIR and preparing the Final EIS/EIR during the coming year.
One of the critical next steps in the process is to develop a new MOU to guide the Project through permitting, final engineering design, construction and implementation. This MOU (MOU III) must define roles and responsibilities among the Project proponents including ownership, maintenance, and operations of the tidal control infrastructure. The HRRC provided the town officials with a one-page handout outlining the management decisions to be addressed in MOU III (see attached Herring River MOU III Management Decisions).
HRRC members proposed setting up a working group with representatives of the Selectmen from both Wellfleet and Truro, the two town managers and Cape Cod National Seashore officials to meet with HRRC representatives on a regular basis during the coming months. The goal is to prepare a preliminary draft MOU by early summer and a have a final draft ready by the end of September so that a description of the management roles and relationships can be included in the Final EIS/EIR and Record of Decision.
Paul Pilcher noted that town meeting action might be needed to review and approve a new MOU. If town meeting action is warranted, a special town meeting in the fall of 2013 might be needed. John Morrissey asked if the MOU would be legally binding. Harry Terkanian noted that MOUs generally set forth good faith agreements. Hunt Durey agreed, noting that the idea is to lay out a management path forward for the Restoration Project. Formal intergovernmental agreements might be needed at a later date to make the provisions of the MOU legally binding.
Participants generally agreed that it made sense to set up a working group to draft the MOU, and that the working group should meet at least monthly. The Selectmen noted that they would need to discuss this further and decide whom to appoint. Paul Pilcher cautioned that there are some very important and complex issues to address in the MOU, especially financial and legal issues related to long-term maintenance of the project infrastructure. HRRC members noted that there is an important funding opportunity coming up soon: The NOAA grant program. This is a multi-year grant program that is seeking applications for large, regionally important projects. Applications are due February 19, 2013. Municipalities (such as the Town of Wellfleet) and non-profit organizations (such as FHR) are eligible to apply. This grant could provide
funding for a myriad of activities in the next phase of the project, including but not limited to engineering design, permitting, design of mitigation for low-lying properties and project coordination.
The Wellfleet Selectmen agreed to discuss the working group proposal for MOU III at their January 7, 2013 meeting. Charleen Greenhalgh reported that the Truro Selectmen would also discuss the matter at an upcoming meeting. It was the consensus of the group to schedule a MOU III working group meeting for mid-January.
Fuss and O’Neill Technical Report: Engineering Alternatives for the Chequessett Neck Road Dike and Tide Gates: The largest and most important component of the proposed Herring River tide control infrastructure is the Chequessett Neck Road dike. For that reason, the HRRC engaged the engineering firm of Fuss & O'Neill to develop some design alternatives for the dike/bridge and tide gates. Fuss & O'Neill developed a draft technical memorandum evaluating the relative costs and benefits of several different dike and tidal control alternatives for the Chequessett Neck Road location, including options for the physical configuration of the new dike/bridge and tidal control mechanisms, and other elements which require input from town officials such as fishing/viewing piers, improved parking areas, sidewalks and other public
amenities.
Nils Wiberg of Fuss & O’Neill gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing the dike design criteria, the pros and cons of three different dike/bridge designs and options for different types of tide gates. He explained the options for both manual and automatic operators and showed some conceptual renderings of the different designs. He explained that the HRRC had reviewed the different dike/bridge designs and it was the consensus of the Committee that the best structural option would be the pre-cast concrete box beam bridge. This alternative offers the lowest construction cost, it provides the best conditions for both fish and recreational boat passage, it minimizes environmental disturbance, is more aesthetically pleasing and it offers a simpler method for traffic management during construction. The Selectmen asked about
the comparative costs of the different bridge designs and Nils Wiberg presented some “order of magnitude” cost estimates.
The Selectmen asked some questions about how the bridge design would provide flood protection. HRRC members noted that the tide gates would be opened incrementally over a period of years, so that effects can be carefully monitored. As this process proceeds, project managers will get much better information about how the system functions. It was emphasized that an important objective of the current dike design process was flood protection and that the maximum available opening would still be tidally restrictive and would dampen the effects of large storms within the flood plain without the need for closure of the tide gates.
Nils Wiberg reviewed the road cross-section elements and discussed the options for traffic bypass during construction. There are three basic traffic bypass options: Staging construction to allow traffic to continue to use the road during construction, building a temporary bypass bridge, and building an off-site bypass route. Staging construction would significantly increase the construction time period. Building a temporary bypass bridge would be expensive and would likely cause significant environmental impacts. High Toss Road and Duck Harbor Road have been considered as a bypass route. This would create a four and a half-mile detour, and would necessitate widening and improving approximately one and a half miles of Duck Harbor Road, as it is now just a one-lane dirt road with overhanging vegetation.
Fuss & O’Neill has developed a staged construction sequence that would incorporate a temporary route within the existing dike footprint to divert traffic during construction. Nils Wiberg explained the construction sequence under this option. HRRC members were supportive of this option as it could achieve several objectives including limiting new wetland disturbance, reducing costs and eliminating the need for a costly and lengthy bypass route or separate temporary bridge structure in the adjacent wetland areas. Fire Chief Dan Silverman agreed, noting that it would reduce emergency response time.
The Selectmen had a number of questions about the proposed design elements. The group discussed public safety for boaters, methods for emergency flood control, scour protection requirements, the aesthetics of different types of tide gates and bridge facing materials, and FEMA flood insurance requirements.
Charleen Greenhalgh explained that FEMA is currently updating its flood maps for Barnstable County. The new maps were expected to be released for public review in December of 2012, with a goal of implementing them in July of 2014. As part of this effort, FEMA is evaluating existing flood control structures like the Chequessett Neck Road dike. Tim Smith noted that HRRC members had met with FEMA officials in 2010 and were told that in order for the existing dike to be certified, it would need to:
-Provide at least 2 feet of freeboard above the 100-year flood elevation
-Be in adequate structural condition, and
-Have an approved operations and maintenance (O&M) plan in place.
If these requirements are not met, FEMA would remap areas upstream of the dike as if the dike does not exist, so some additional private property owners in the Herring River basin might have to buy flood insurance. The Restoration Project could help to address this problem by building a new structure at Chequessett Neck Road that could meet FEMA requirements and installing other flood protection measures at specific locations throughout the flood plain. It was also noted that the bridge openings had been sized to provide protection from a 100-year storm without the need for concrete panels to be reinstalled or tide gates to be operated. Replacement of panels or operation of gates would only be needed for protection during an extreme storm event that greatly exceeds the 100-year storm surge levels. During this level storm
event, it is also likely that the barrier beach (facing Cape Cod Bay) and the crest of the dike itself may be overtopped rendering the openings in the dike inconsequential.
Wellfleet officials made several suggestions regarding the road cross-section elements. Harry Terkanian noted that most fishermen like to park on the dike. He thought it would make more sense to allow a shoulder area on the bridge where people could park. Police Chief Ron Fisette concurred, noting that allowing parking on the bridge would alleviate the need to create a long walkway (and retaining wall) to the existing NPS parking area at the west end of the dike. Berta Bruinooge strongly recommended that bridge and tide gates be designed to minimize the visual impacts of the new structure.
The group also discussed options for High Toss Road. The National Park Service owns the road and generally favors the idea of removing it, as part of the Restoration Project. If the road were to be removed, it might be possible to build a boardwalk for pedestrian access to Griffin Island. The road could also be raised and armored, with a new tidal channel or enlarged culvert provided, but this would be more expensive and would incur additional wetland impacts.
Dennis Murphy asked about funding for the Project. Hunt Durey noted that the Committee would be seeking funding from a variety of sources including, but not limited to federal and state agencies and private foundations. He stressed that there would likely be match requirements for most government funding sources. The Town of Wellfleet could help out in a number of ways, including providing in-kind match of town officials’ time working on the project, providing town land for storage and staging of equipment during construction, and related activities. Steve Block noted that one immediate need is a letter of support with specific commitments for in-kind contributions from the town for the NOAA grant application.
The group briefly discussed options for long-term ownership and maintenance of the bridge and related infrastructure. Management responsibility could be assumed by an existing entity (such as the state, the town or the National Park Service) or a new entity could be created to handle long-term operations and management. These are issues to be explored in crafting MOU III. Gary Joseph noted that it is essential to have the Selectmen’s participation in the decision-making process, going forward. He supported the idea of establishing a working group to craft a new MOU.
In recapping the discussion, the town officials agreed that the precast concrete box beam bridge with staged construction (incorporating a temporary bridge on the existing dike) would be the best design. Town officials thought it was reasonable to move to the next step in the design process, which is to develop 25% design plans for the bridge. The group also requested that Fuss & O’Neill incorporate some of the discussed changes to the road layout, such providing parking on the bridge shoulder and elimination of the walkway connection to the NPS parking area.
Don Palladino provided copies of the Friends of Herring River’s video to the town officials and encouraged them to use it. Margo Fenn agreed to provide all the meeting participants with a copy of the meeting sign-in sheet with contact information.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Documents Referred to in the Meeting:
-Minutes of the November 28, 2012 HRRC Meeting
-Minutes of the November 29, 2012 HRRC Meeting
Attachments:
A. Meeting Handout: Herring River MOU III Management Decisions
Tasks to be accomplished:
1. Conduct overall project management
2. Determine final Restoration Project elements (Preferred Alternative, Chequessett Neck Road and Mill Creek dikes/tide gates, other road and culvert work, flood mitigation, etc.)
3. Oversee the preparation of regulatory applications and obtain federal, state and local approvals
4. Obtain project funding (project implementation and long term operation and maintenance) and manage financial resources
a. Federal and State appropriated funds
b. Private and institutional fundraising
5. Oversee engineering design and construction
6. Develop and execute adaptive management plan
7. Build and maintain community engagement and support
8. Negotiate flood mitigation agreements with LLP owners
9. Develop and maintain a resource management program (staffing, contract administration, etc.)
10. Develop and execute a long term project management plan to include the following elements:
a. The restoration and protection of natural habitats
b. Scientific monitoring and evaluation
c. Public access and support for recreation – boating, fishing, hiking, birding, etc.
d. Support for commercial and recreational fin and shell fishing in compliance with local regulations
e. Programs that promote conservation, research and education
11. Manage long term operations and maintenance (tidal control structures, other infrastructure, natural resources within the boundaries of the estuary)
12. Provide for project stewardship – public safety, resource preservation, stakeholder engagement, etc.
Criteria for evaluating long-term management responsibilities:
1. Organizational capacity
2. Financial capacity
3. Experience with projects of this type and magnitude
4. Ownership of the existing infrastructure, land or tidal land rights
5. Consistency with organizational mission
6. Ability to start up in a timely manner
7. Access to resources
8. Legal issues (liability, etc.)
9. Willingness to take on role
10. Public support and trust
B. Workshop Session Participants:
Wellfleet Selectmen: Paul Pilcher
Dennis Murphy
Berta Bruinooge
John Morrissey
Other Wellfleet Officials: Dan Silverman, Fire Chief
Ron Fisette, Police Chief
Tim King, Assistant Town Administrator
Harry Terkanian, Town Administrator (newly appointed)
HRRC: Gary Joseph, Chair
Tim Smith
Charleen Greenhalgh
Steve Spear
Eric Derleth
Steve Block
Hunt Durey
FHR: Don Palladino
Margo Fenn
NPS: Lauren McKean
Lindsay Crouch (Americorps)
F&O: Nils Wiberg
Dean Audet
WHG: Kirk Bosma
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos/c
| 