Approved Meeting Minutes
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
March 6, 2013
9:30 am-5:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Steve Spear, Steve Block (by phone), Charleen Greenhalgh
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Don Palladino, Jason Taylor, John Portnoy
Administration/Coordination:
Tim Smith introduced Jason Taylor, the new Cape Cod National Seashore (NPS) Natural Resources Chief. Jason Taylor gave the Committee an overview of his background and the Committee members introduced themselves and described their roles in the Herring River Restoration Project.
Communications with the Friends of Herring River (FHR): Don Palladino reported that FHR is starting its spring herring count program, in cooperation with the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC). He noted that the most recent FHR electronic newsletter provided updates on grant applications, the HRRC’s work and outreach efforts to low-lying property owners. FHR has been awarded a Massachusetts Bay Program (MBP) grant to fund hydrodynamic modeling of incremental tide gate openings for the proposed new bridge at Chequessett Neck Road. Tim Smith and Don Palladino met with MBP staff to discuss the grant contract. FHR plans to contract with the Woods Hole Group (WHG) to perform the work. Work under the grant cannot begin until a contract is signed and must be completed by December 31, 2013. Tim Smith agreed to check with
Kirk Bosma and Fuss & O’Neill to confirm the grant deadlines and finalize the contract scope of work.
FHR is also working on a Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET) grant application in coordination with the HRRC. This grant would fund the 25% design of the Chequessett Neck Road (CNR) bridge and tide gates. Tim Smith noted that there is geotechnical work that needs to be done prior to the engineering design. Steve Block asked if this work would meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) protocols. The HRRC needs to decide if the CNR bridge will be designed to meet FEMA flood control standards.
Tim Smith agreed to check with Hunt Durey to determine whether the MA Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) can fund the needed geotechnical work. The grant deadline is March 15, 2013.
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2013 meeting.
Schedule of Meetings: The Committee agreed on the following schedule for upcoming meetings:
March 14, 2013: MOU III Working Group Meeting
March 21, 2013: HRRC representatives meet with MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) officials
April 4, 2013: Regular HRRC meeting
April 11, 2013 MOU III Working Group Meeting
April 24, 2013: Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting (tentative)
May 9, 2013: Regular HRRC meeting
Due to weather concerns, the HRRC and NPS agreed to postpone the March 7, 2013 meeting with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) until a later date. HRRC will also schedule a consultation meeting with MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Cultural Resources: Tim Smith updated the Committee on recent discussions with NPS historic and archaeological staff and the Public Archaeology Lab (PAL) regarding the development of a Programmatic Agreement between NPS and MHC. This group has been discussing how to refine the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Restoration Project. NPS Archaeologist Jim Harmon and PAL officials have acknowledged that inundation of the Herring River floodplain may not pose a significant impact to archaeological resources in areas where the flooding is infrequent, and the flow is shallow and slow. The Programmatic Agreement could allow for a phased approach to needed archaeological investigations keyed to incremental increases in tide gate openings and water levels in the estuary.
HRRC members noted that there should be ongoing consultation with the Mashpee and Aquinnah Wampanoag tribes. It is important to know if there are any additional areas of archaeological concern. Representatives of the tribes have been invited to participate in the meeting with Jonathan Patton of MHC.
NOAA Grant Application: The Friends of Herring River (FHR) submitted a grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in February to cover key engineering and design tasks needed for the next phase of the Restoration Project. Steve Block confirmed that the application was successfully transmitted to the NOAA office in DC through the grants.gov electronic system and was one of 135 received nationwide. It will likely be several months before grant awards will be determined.
Woods Hole Group Final Modeling Report: Steve Spear reported that he had contacted modeling experts at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) about the possibility of providing peer review of the WHG final report. Jason Taylor noted that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) might also be able to provide this service. HRRC members agreed to explore several different options for this potential work.
Steve Spear agreed to follow up with NRCS officials about the possibility of a technical review of the WHG final report. Tim Smith will check other options.
FEMA Update: Kirk Bosma joined the meeting by phone. FEMA representatives recently met with town officials on Cape Cod to present some preliminary draft flood maps. The official Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps will be issued to communities in April 2013. Towns are expected to notify affected property owners about the new maps. A Letter of Final Determination would be issued in December 2013, which could be used by the communities for their Warrant for Spring 2014 Town Meetings, establishing effective maps in June 2014.
The Committee discussed the changes in the maps. There is some confusion about the flood elevations shown on the old and new maps. While the base flood elevations (BFEs) appear to have changed dramatically in most locations, the boundaries of the flood zones have not changed significantly. Kirk Bosma noted that this due to labeling errors in the old maps, where BFEs in AH zones were labeled as elevations when the values were intended to indicate ponding depth. Bosma explained that when you figure in ground surface elevation, conversion from NGVD to NAVD, new FEMA-modeled 100 year forcing, and new FEMA modeling requirements, then add the 3ft depth of ponding, the old AH flood level is probably equivalent to 10-11 feet, compared to 12-13 feet in the new AE zones (AH is no longer used and is replaced by AE on the new maps),
hence the modest increase in the extent of flooding.
Neither the old FEMA maps nor the new ones treat the Chequessett Neck Road dike as a flood control structure. In both analyses, the dike is factored in as an embankment, and is overtopped by the FEMA modeled 100-yr design storm (despite that it has never been known to go under during any actual storm). In order for the dike to be certified and incorporated into the FEMA flood study, it would require certification by both the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA. However, Kirk Bosma noted that constructing a flood-certified structure at CNR may have limited value because the current FEMA modeling also predicts overwash at Duck Harbor during their modeled 100-yr event, meaning the Herring River flood plain would remain exposed to the FEMA mapped 100-yr flood plain whether the CNR dike was certified or not.
FEMA uses a “540 rule” to calculate whether dunes will serve as effective barriers to storm surges. FEMA 540-rule definition states: "primary frontal dunes will not be considered as effective barriers to base flood storm surges and associated wave action where the cross-sectional area of the primary frontal dune, as measured perpendicular to the shoreline and above the 100-year stillwater flood elevation and seaward of the dune crest, is equal to, or less than, 540 square feet." The Committee discussed whether it would be useful to conduct this analysis for the Duck Harbor area, using Lidar and other site-specific data.
The Committee noted that there are several possible approaches to providing flood protection for increased tidal range resulting from the restoration project, including possible certification of flood control structures at Chequessett Neck, or Mill Creek and Pole Dike Creek, and/or flood prevention measures for individual properties. The group had numerous questions about the changes in the FEMA maps. Bosma agreed to take a list of HRRC questions to colleagues working with FEMA on the new maps and informally seek clarification on some of the issues. Some of these issues will affect the planned geotechnical and engineering work for the CNR and Mill Creek dikes, so the HRRC needs guidance about this soon. This potentially will include more formal consultation with FEMA and MEMA.
MOU III Development: Margo Fenn noted that at the February 14, 2013 MOU III Working Group meeting, the group had reviewed some models for third-party management entities including the Penobscot River Trust, the Elkhorn Slough Foundation and the Boston Harbor Islands Alliance. Another potential model to consider might be the Point Reyes National Seashore Association in California. This non-profit organization has worked with the National Park Service to implement a large wetland restoration project adjacent to Point Reyes National Seashore.
The Committee discussed the agenda for the March Working Group meeting and agreed that it should cover the following topics:
-Review of Low-Lying Property Impacts/Risk Management
-Updated FEMA Mapping
-Review of Partnership Models: Giacomini Wetland Restoration
-Discussion of Key Management Issues:
-Discussion of Operations, Management and Maintenance of Project Infrastructure
-Legal/Technical Issues
Don Palladino agreed to contact the Point Reyes National Seashore Association to find out more about its structure and working relationship with the National Park Service. Tim Smith offered to contact NPS officials to find out more about this as well.
DEIS/EIR Response to comments and MEPA Scope: Tim Smith, Margo Fenn and Mark Husbands prepared a summary of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/EIR) for the HRRC to review. The summary breaks the comments into different topics (e.g. Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Impact Topics, etc.) and provides several different categories for response, including:
1. Can be addressed with a written response/change in the EIS/EIR (no further analysis needed)
2. Requires a change to the EIS/EIR needing further study or analysis
3. Requires further consultation with other agencies to determine appropriate response
4. Issue is not substantive/legitimate-can be dismissed
5. Issue will be addressed in the permitting process
The Committee reviewed the list, going item by item and made suggestions about how to respond to each comment or set of comments. The group noted that in many cases, the information already exists in the DEIS/EIR to address the concerns that were raised. However, some clarifications may be needed to make sure that commenters understand the information presented. There are a number of comments that will require consultations with other agencies to address. HRRC is already in the process of setting up consultations with the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), the MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). Other comments may require further study or analysis to address.
Tim Smith and Margo Fenn agreed to refine the summary list of comments, based on the Committee’s discussion. The HRRC will determine the process for preparing responses to comments at an upcoming meeting.
Draft Public Outreach and Landowner Engagement Plan: Margo Fenn and Don Palladino prepared a draft Public Outreach and Landowner Engagement Plan (O&E Plan) for the HRRC to consider. The O&E Plan has two parts: There is a brief text section, which includes the following elements:
Goals
Audience
Communication Channels
Activities and Materials
Partnerships
Landowner Engagement Process
Implementation
Evaluation
The second part of the plan is a matrix that outlines:
-List of key activities
-How those activities serve the Plan Goals
-Timing of activities and key milestones
-Support materials needed
-Steps needed to complete each activity
-Budget/staffing needed
-Priorities
The Committee discussed the draft O&E Plan and made a number of suggestions for additions and clarifications. Margo Fenn noted that the Friends of Herring River would be responsible for leading the broad public outreach efforts and the HRRC would be responsible for overseeing landowner engagement. The Friends of Herring River has already begun drafting some educational fact sheets about key topics of interest such as odors from restoration activities, mosquitoes, shellfish, and related issues. The Committee agreed that these fact sheets could be very useful materials and stressed that they should include good graphics to make them interesting.
Don Palladino noted that some outreach activities are event-driven and others are ongoing. He suggested that the next step should be to think through what activities should be undertaken for each milestone event. HRRC members noted that the O&E Plan is ambitious and it will not be possible to do everything proposed without additional resources. Don Palladino noted that the FHR could seek outside resources to aide in the outreach efforts. The FHR Board will review the O&E Plan at its March meeting. He noted that Mass Audubon has offered to assist in refining the Plan.
Margo Fenn agreed to incorporate the changes suggested by the HRRC in the O&E Plan. Margo Fenn and Don Palladino will also review specific activities needed for milestone events.
Low-Lying Properties: Margo Fenn noted that the HRRC should consider next steps in its outreach efforts to low-lying property owners. The Committee needs to determine a method for follow up with structurally affected landowners, conduct needed on-site surveying and engineering, and develop a process for formal mitigation agreements with landowners. Committee agencies need to seek legal counsel regarding the form for agreements with landowners. Tim Smith suggested walking through the process with a supportive and willing landowner. Eric Derleth offered to provide a sample landowner agreement for the Committee to review. The Committee agreed interest from landowners may spike in the spring and that a new round of meetings and site visits with landowners should begin.
Adaptive Management: Tim Smith and Eric Derleth reported that they are reviewing two proposals for conducting a landscape modeling workshop to support the AM process. The workshop design and content needs further refinement. Tim Smith suggested that an understanding of Adaptive Management is lacking at the MOU III work group meetings and that this should be addressed at its April meeting.
Amendment to Fuss and O’Neill Contract: The Committee briefly discussed the Fuss and O’Neill proposal for design of the Mill Creek dike and agreed that this contract should move forward, contingent on available funding.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm
Documents referred to in the meeting:
-Minutes of the February 7, 2013 HRRC Meeting
-Draft Summary of DEIS Issues, March 5, 2013
-Draft Public Outreach and Landowner Engagement Plan, Text and Summary Table, March 12, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 