7.25.06 HRTC Draft minutes page 1 of 8
PRESENT: Gordon Peabody; John Portnoy; Stephen Spear; Tim Smith; John Rhiel; Joel Fox; Carl Brievogel; Diane Murphy; Hillary Greenberg; Bob Hubby.
ABSENT: Andy Koch; Jack Whelan.
Advisors: Steve Block, NOAA; Eric Derlith, USF&W.
11:14 Gordon Peabody called the meeting to order
Peabody thanked Architects Studio of South Wellfleet for becoming a restoration partner by donating office services to provide minutes for this meeting.
Previous meeting was 7/11/06, Hillary took minutes
Motion to accept minutes, seconded, passed
Public statements: none
Commission business: goals: overall process towards successful restoration concept; interaction w consultant, review working group recommendations; stakeholder resolution
Tim Smith brought Coastlines magazines with Herring River article.
Peabody asked Committee members to excerpt article statements appropriate for poster by next meeting.
Recording minutes
Town resources no longer available
Letter to thank Chris for her work, Peabody to draft
Motion 11:27 by Bob Hubby – Second – Joel Fox, passed
Motion 11:28 by Peabody to send letter thanking the consultants that had not been chosen
For their participation in the process and their presentations.
Second – John Riehl, passed
Peabody passed out written notes from 2 hr, working group phone conference: Eric Derlith USF&W; Steve BlockNOAA; John Portnoy CCNS; Carrie Phillips CCNS; and Peabody HRTC Chair. Included was a draft motion “Modified tasking and deliverables” revised consultant request.
Considerations included in notes: for MEPA review we have to present several alternatives. Concern was expressed about appearing as having made a selection already, which violates MEPA guidelines. Tim explained challenge of creating comprehensive plan, which may appear premature. Should think about producing basic conceptual plan with framework & alternatives, but leave tech details to oversight committee.
Process for selecting dike design alternatives explained by Peabody: Committee needs to select 3 of 5 alternatives for TSmith to express to consultants.
TSmith explained: we’ll pick 3, they’ll do basic work, and then we pick 1
Peabody discussed need for revised deliverables from ENSR page 2 of 8
consultants, as detailed in his draft motion.
Under #1, re. Low-lying roadways, A – we will need a catalogue. (Per map provided by HRTC. B – subset of most-traveled roads. C - collect survey data. D – present survey data for roads in subset. Not asking for designs or how to address them, yet.
JPortnoy: used map to designate most traveled roads.
Low areas: Pole Dike Road; Coles Neck Road; Bound Brook Island Road; Merrick Island ; Flood plain; Old County Road; Bound Brook itself; Paradise Valley; Lombard Hollow; High Toss Road; (Old) Snake Creek Road.
(Need official road map from assessor’s office)
Peabody – we need to quantify this is writing
TSmith – we have it on a map & can reference it
SSpear – need to talk to highway dept and fire dept to determine names of old/new roads, etc. Will need to get proportions, linear feet, etc.
GP – what should the timing of that need be?
SSpear – before Tim goes to consultants, so can have a number on it
Peabody – We need a volunteer to go to assessor/highway/fire depts. and get names?
JFox & JRiehl volunteered for this (11:57 AM)
JRiehl – also ID the ownership – are any private or are they all town roads?
JPortnoy – complicated (re. High Toss Road)
JFox – we need to find out if someone lives there
SSpear – we need all info relevant for access, not necessarily passage. Need to limit this, somehow
CBrievogel – some paved roads have danger of water moving over road at high velocity, some are less of a priority. Maybe that could save money.
GP – 12:02, need to move on #1 – We will refer to refer to our marked map. JFox & JRiehl will investigate 3 areas: High Toss Road, Old Chequessett Neck Road, and the Old County roadway string with other names.
Revised Consultant Tasking #2 – 12:03, under #2, part A, will ask consultants to review all subcommittee reports (14 of them). B – compile catalogue of pre-existing Herring River materials. C – produce draft outline of conceptual restoration plan for HRTC review. D – interact w/HRTC to modify outline. E - produce draft CRP for HRTC review. F - interact w/HRTC to modify draft. G- produces CRP for HRTC review and comment. H- produce conceptual restoration plan.
Revised Consultant Tasking #3 – leave as written, but exclude High Toss (engineering). Focusing on dike.
CBrievogel – re: previous consultant tasking list #5 (fish habitat) – do we still want to include this?
Peabody – premature to specify now, we have a preliminary page 3 of 8
subcommittee report from Migrations, but we need a more complete catalogue of all migrating fish. Looking at timelines of migration windows (including return windows). These can then be presented as recommendation of Migration subcommittee to the future oversight committee.
CBrievogel – if I’m no longer member of the committee, I’m still available to meet
TSmith – how much flexibility do I have?
Peabody – you are not authorized to change tasking, but can certainly provide elucidation.
TSmith – can we transpose 2 and 3?
Peabody – yes
JPortnoy – have we excluded “high toss engineering”
Peabody – yes
12:17 PM Peabody – I will entertain a motion to accept the re-tasking as specified
And to authorize TSmith of CZM to begin negotiations with ENSR consultants.
BHubby – move
Jfox - second
Pass, unanimous
Peabody - we will need to give these people some time. 3 weeks,
Peabody - I want to thank BHubby & JRiehl, regarding their work on stakeholder issues.
BHubby distributes draft responses to stakeholder management questions
BHubby – has not been able to incorporate JPortnoy’s comments into this document as computer died.
Admin. SubCom met with natl park svc, we are waiting for comments about section 10 (admin oversight) of this report. Met in early May.
JPortnoy – got email from George Price, superintendent, re. Who’s doing what. Thought BHubby was copied on email, thinks may have forgotten to pass along & will check on it.
BHubby – wants JPortnoy’s comments & section 10 comments sent to Kathy.hubby@verizon.net. Needs Hillary to forward original email from 7/13/06 with all its attachments to same email, so he can merge all info and send official report. Will incorporate all changes, as well as add today’s meeting info.
Will add “work ongoing by the HRTC” to report to indicate we’re not at the end of the road.
JRiehl – doesn’t want them to read answer and lock into it when we’re not at an end point.
Peabody – stakeholders could have this as a draft with clarifications BHubby mentioned.
JFox – need to mention marina with this, harbormaster could monitor sediment changes, dredging.
Peabody – are we encouraging people to make assumption that marina will be affected by this project?
JFox – no, so we have data to back up any future claims page 4 of 8
that restoration project affects marina
DMurphy – they may not need that info at this point
SSpear – some of the stakeholder answers we have written are fairly final.
Peabody – I spoke with stakeholder committee chair that believes members of his committee have specific interests. These people have limited interest. Maybe not interested in mgmt issues except as it applies to their particular issue. I want to communicate sense that mgmt issues are being looked at. Maybe we should wait until next meeting to release stakeholder report.
BHubby – can we resolve JFox’s comment regarding marina sedimentation issue? (#24)
JPortnoy – the marina is too remote from project. What would we measure?
JFox – accumulation
JPortnoy – millimeters only. Based on the research, it’s very unlikely it will affect harbor.
BHubby – so why don’t we simply say sedimentation is being monitored by harbormaster and will continue.
DMurphy – how can we deal with how it relates to Herring River? It doesn’t relate.
Peabody – the concern is valid, even though we know it may not be accurate. We need to address this issue. “We may be fairly certain that nothing will happen, but we need to address level of concern by stating that the harbormaster is measuring sediment build up”
SSpear – acknowledge concern with reassurance
DMurphy – concerned people will draw conclusions where none exist, out of fear.
JRiehl – sedimentation base lines have been established on Egg Island.
CBrievogel – who will monitor sediment changes in the harbor (that doesn’t exclude marina)? Doesn’t cost anything to have harbormaster do it.
BHubby – “Harbormaster monitors marina harbor situation. This monitoring will continue.”
JRiehl – Do they even do this in a way that works? I doubt it.
JFox – I don’t see the problem here.
SSpear – how about adding, “restoration is not expected to affect the gut (?)…”
BHubby – okay
JRiehl – I’m concerned about communicating anything in finality. Wants to say some management issues are in flux.
BHubby – tell me what those issues in flux are.
Peabody – I will
JRiehl – I will, too
Peabody – is Wednesday, 8/16, 1 PM, good for the next meeting?
HGreenberg – no
Peabody – Tuesday, 8/15?
HGreenberg – yes
Peabody – we have to become more effective and find a way to transition from our Committee into the next stage.
GP – 12:46 – let’s break for lunch until 1:20 or 1:30
1:30 – meeting reconvenes (without Bob Hubby, previous engagement) page 5 of 8
Private property reports
JPortnoy – Mark Adams got list from Slade Associates of all properties within and abutting flood plain in Wellfleet and Truro. Gave it to Hillary & she will get names and addresses and send letter to appropriate people.
Need to ask help of Truro BOS.
JPortnoy passes out draft letter to landowners with property within or adjacent to the Herring River flood plain, Wellfleet and Truro.
DMurphy – are you saying this list excludes structures/water supply/well/septic?
JRiehl – Are we sure they are not affected?
JPortnoy – hydrological studies we have done show they would not be affected, based on sensitive areas like Chequessett Neck, Newcomb Heights, etc. Only one other area we need to have looked at more is Pole Dike Road by Route 6 (by Moby Dick’s, etc.)
JRiehl – What is strategy of letter? Keep it simple. Let them know we’ve taken care to communicate with them, and get them to come to a meeting. Hard to anticipate all questions.
TSmith – maybe strike line about “but not structures, etc.” and send it to everyone
JFox – because in many cases there’s a house that wouldn’t be affected but the well or septic could be
JPortnoy – fine with me
HGreenberg – concerned we haven’t identified septic systems that are already too close to groundwater. Did Slade identify septic info on original list?
JPortnoy – they identified land surface over the leach field. Every developed property that fell below 10’ elevation
SSpear – how about “a number of areas have been investigated… and none is expected.” To provide some reassurance.
Peabody – we have very clear data on this from JPortnoy
HGreenberg – exactly, just septic systems could alter. Don’t know that I want responsibility of identifying which properties are at risk and which aren’t
Peabody – so now we’re looking for ownership and addresses. Do we need to modify letter?
SSpear – weren’t we going to include our report? Questions and answers? Probably something in there about ground water and septic, etc.
TSmith – keep it simple, an invitation to a meeting and hand out Q&A’s then. Anyone who can’t come, send to them. Concerned with people getting something in writing and then not coming to meeting and understanding fully. Ideally they’d all come, but probably won’t.
JRiehl – I agree letter should go out with appended Q&A
CBrievogel – I think property means houses, sheds, etc. whereas land is land. Change to letter to “property owners with land…?
JPortnoy – how about “land owners with land…”
CBrievogel – agrees page 6 of 8
Peabody – considering vacationing and absentee property owners in the summer timeframe, who’s doing legwork?
JRiehl – if we’re having a public meeting and want all property owners, we need to do it before Labor Day, send letter this week
Peabody – we have to get plenty of legwork done, finding all those addresses
JPortnoy – assessor offered to help
HGreenberg – assessor forgot she’d offered to help. She said she’d do a list of addresses, but I could do that from my offices. Perhaps the elderly could help with volunteer work. Do we want to mail it certified to safeguard the town?
Peabody – we need to find a way to cover costs: research; physical component; money for copies; money for mailing; chain of custody for return receipts, etc. Who’s doing what? Let’s start with letter?
JPortnoy – happy with changes added
SSpear – just need to include Q&A and add highlight about research on septic and groundwater, one sentence.
HGreenberg – how about “more info is available” (internet, mailing, meeting) rather than mail thick packet of paper
Peabody – good idea. If we want their support, we need to give them access to us addressing their concerns. Letter is just the first step. We need to respect the process.
SSpear – just add, “studies have indicated there will be no effect on your land” (paraphrase)
JPortnoy – depends on whether you’re mentioning septic and well. There will be vegetation changes
SSpear – if you think that’s technically accurate
HGreenberg – I feel we’re doing work of tech committee and stakeholder committee
Peabody – according to stakeholder chairman, his committee people have minimal interest in process other than how it affects them directly. We have a commitment and a vision and we can use it to fill these gaps. I think it’s wise to do the letter now.
2:13 PM Peabody entertained a motion to approve and distribute the edited letter to property owners from the HRTC.
JFox - moved
CBrievogel – seconded
Discussion – JReihl – thinks it would be more effective if we put a specific date on the letter for abutters to meet with us.
Peabody– we can include next meeting date?
JFox – don’t want that, yet. Two meetings in august? An evening one?
JPortnoy – not for presentations, just information if they show up
JReihl – not sure about two meetings. Give people possibility to show up
JFox – no one knows when big meeting is, which is why we need this
Peabody – we need stakeholders to have letter by the 10th if meeting is on 15th
JPortnoy – thinks everyone will want to know exactly what’s page 7 of 8
going to happen to his or her property
Peabody – how about the 29th of august?
DMurphy – how long would it take to get addresses? I’ll help to mail them
HGreenberg – have all the info, just need to copy it onto envelope & database.
Peabody – if we want a dedicated informational meeting, we can look at the 22nd of august
JPortnoy – anything
TSmith – willing but unable that week. Away the week of the 22nd
SSpear – I can make it
DMurphy – prefer evening
JReihl – let’s not stretch ourselves thinner
CBrievogel – 22nd is fine with me
JFox – fine
HGreenberg – nervous to commit. Other BOH planning event very large. Maybe.
SSpear – maybe we need to have reg meeting the 15th and then do informational meeting later, since two key people can’t be here
Peabody – include in letter that there will be a meeting the evening of the 22nd and I will provide recording services for that meeting.
JRiehl to learn if room is available for both meetings.
JPortnoy to amend letter and send it to HGreenberg by Friday.
Peabody to sign letter.
Letters to go out second week of August 10th. Gives people 12 days. Not including FAQ
2:41 PM Peabody – we have a pending motion under discussion are we ready to vote: to accept stakeholder letter as modified to be sent to property owners.
Passed unanimously
Peabody – who will be paying for mailing and copies? Can Diane help with research?
HGreenberg – I can do it in my office. We don’t need to certify mailings because that will have to be done for the ConCom hearings anyway.
JFox – finances should be covered for these mailings, etc.
Peabody – I will check at town hall and see what resources we may have available.
JRiehl – We can’t meet at COA on the 22nd because of BOS.
Peabody – could you please check the library?
JRiehl – The Information Meeting will be at Wellfleet Library, Large Room, Monday 8/21/06 from 7-9 pm
Break @ 3:00
Reconvenes at 3:20
Peabody – Passes out Subcommittee report status sheet page 8 of 8
Each SubCom.is reviewed with involved parties. Priority will be to finalize SubCom reports by next meeting so they can be forwarded to consultant as basis of CRP outline draft.
Peabody – introducing Pole Dike salt marsh subset that will potentially be investigated. What percentage is privately owned?
JPortnoy – not sure. About 50 acres of herring river flood plain between gull pond road and route 6. 90% privately owned?
We know a lot about groundwater hydrology, saltwater intrusion into wells, etc. Larry Martin and John Masterson should be contacted. Slade didn’t look at sensitive structures east of route 6.
General discussion regarding options for controlling tidal flow in the Pole Dike area.
3:50 PM JPortnoy motion: Moved that the HRTC recommend, as part of the CRP, 1) that a final decision on tidal control into Upper pole Dike Creek (aka Eel Creek) be deferred until a later phase of restoration, when more information is available on potential impacts; and 2) in the interim, engineering should be undertaken to address the feasibility of a tide-control structure at Pole Dike Road or elsewhere, that allows the full range of tide restoration alternatives and adequate fish passage.
CBrievogal seconded
Passed unanimously
Discussion regarding necessary re-structuring of HRTC to complete Comprehensive Restoration Plan, once the Conceptual (per MOU) Restoration Plan has been approved.
Considerations and discussion on Oversight Committee, Review Committee and Implementation Committee concepts. The necessary inclusion of critical granting partners, entities (Truro) and Administration components were considered.
The roles and responsibilities of each type of Committee were discussed.
4:25 PM JPortnoy proposed a motion dividing responsibilities between a review and implementation committee.
Peabody – lets go around the table and get to some questions about the motion.
A lengthy discussion followed.
No resolution was found among the Committee.
The proponent agreed to postpone the motion until more details would be available at our next meeting
5:02 PM the meeting was adjourned.
| 