HRTC Meeting:
Wellfleet Senior Center
September 5, 2006
Present: Gordon Peabody; Gary Palmer; Joel Fox; Diane Murphy; Eric Derleth; Steve Block; John Portnoy; Hillary Greenberg; Andy Koch; John Riehl; Tim Smith; Carl Breivolgel; Stephen Spear; Robert Hubby; Jack Whelan.
Meeting Called to Order @ 1:12pm
Gary Palmer is present as the Truro BOS liaison to the Herring River Technical Committee
On Sept. 12, Chair will attend Wellfleet Selectmen’s meeting, when HRTC request for three replacement members is an agenda item.
1:16PM Motion to accept minutes. Second page correction, adding Truro to BOS reference. Motion to accept Minutes @ 1:17, Moved by Joel Fox, Second by John Portnoy.
Unanimous Vote
Public Comment: Peter Watts- Chairman of Stakeholder committee. He brought up issues from the abutter’s meeting in the Wellfleet Public Library; letter read into record from property owner at 10 Pheasant Run, concerned about mosquitoes impacting her property; Peter asked for a meeting between the Stakeholders and the Technical committee following the draft of a Restoration Plan. Peter Hall represents the Wellfleet Conservation Trust; he informed the Committee that the Wellfleet Trust wanted to offer support for a newsletter. -Amazed at how naive people were-said we needed something to help educate people about what’s going on, instead of simply updates. Maybe a brochure.
Committee Business:
Chair and Hillary applied for a County grant to cover recording meeting minutes, which failed
Chair will present budget request for copying, mailing and recording minutes to town administrator.
Safe Harbor and Architects Studio have provided donations to fund several previous recordings
John Portnoy said Park Headquarters willing to mass mail things out.
Steve Block brought up possible options for funding.
Newsletter draft passed out by John Portnoy
Chair brought up questions, asked for people’s thoughts on the letter. The Chair suggested attribution be included, Address and E-mail should be included. Chair stated there is a great need to respect the interactive potential of the restoration project, through a newsletter. Reference to website
Putting Conservation agent's number on the newsletter (Hillary Greenberg)
Everyone Agrees. Tim Smith feels more background is needed, less words, more of a basic introduction to the problem. John Portnoy agrees that more background needs to be put into the beginning do to the potential naiveté of the audience. Chair asks whom are we targeting? Who will be on the list? -Mailing Lists; -Abutter Lists; -Groups involved; Granting Partners.
Carl Breivolgel brings up point about naming the newsletter "Wellfleet Herring River..." to fix any confusion with other same named rivers. The Chair passes out an early Wellfleet land grant map, showing historic (late 1600’s) river boundary.
The Chair appointed a Working Group to finish and get the newsletter out. Stephen Spear, Tim Smith (CZM), John Portnoy and the Chair will participate. They are to communicate electronically.
John Portney brings up idea of a brochure to describe and promote the project.
Peter Hall states The Conservation Trust would be willing to help put such a brochure together and to help anyway they can with printing and distribution.
Steve Block suggests we track hours so they may be applied to grant money
Include as agenda items next meeting about how to match funds with work etc. The Chair asks Steve to prepare Committee guidelines, to be presented at our next meeting, regarding “In Time” records.
Abutter notification protocol, for residents with structures that have been studied. John Portney reported that he looked at the levels that water would rise and which houses would be affected. John proposed a letter be sent to each property to inform them of specific results. We are looking at 14 houses. The Chair asks who will draft letter to inform these people? Stephen Spear brings up point that we should inform people this is for planning only. The Chair requests this letter get out before our next meeting.
The Chair and John Portnoy will work together in drafting and mailing the information letters. The Chair will contact Hillary Greenberg regarding mailing envelopes with Town return stamp.
John Portnoy reports the Park Service will be funding additional research in Truro and Pole Dike areas by Larry Martin, hydro-geologist.
The Chair mentions we will be discussing a Grant opportunity for $70,000.00 later on.
The Chair introduces the Restoration Plan Consultants and Engineers from ENSR
Three Primary Tasks
1. Low lying roadways
Existing Base Map; -Need of full blown ground survey of ground area; initial foundation of low lying roads already exists from 2005; - Boulders are main concern at the dike area; - Is there a period of time the roadway could be shut down? Can we look at how to protect public safety while saving substantial time and money? Public safety officials should be consulted regarding possible options. Time frame for bridge? -Looking at 6 months for construction time.
The Chair appoints a working group: John Riehl; John Portnoy; Joel Fox and the Chair, to report back to the Committee on feasibility details of “the By Pass” option. Including: Time envelope needed; What changes need to be made to existing road being considered for By Pass; The effect on residents; (financially, socially, and environmental); List of affected homes on Griffin Island and to meet with public safety officials to identify issues regarding the By Pass concept.
2. The dike ENSR Engineers discuss the
need for interactive ability between Structure and Hydrology.
Scenarios: Keeping Existing Structures adding holes; 30-meter bridge w/structures on either side. Either option could work. Just Opening the current structures would not be enough to get achieve the desired affect. Steve Block recommends opening the full 40 meters instead of 30 meters.
Break @ 2:40
Return @ 2:48
ENSR asks about the timeframe.
The Chair says we need to be careful, take time. We are still looking at incremental restoration (potentially 6 inches at a time) so structures and controls need to be durable,
ENSR Engineers say they need this information, because it affects the design of their adaptive structure. What level does flooding need to stop at?
Do we want to have the ability to limit the flood level by width and height?
Does it need to be possible to limit the tidal range, or close back up again?
John Portnoy points out the system with the Provincetown airport is being used as a model.
5.4 is the mean high tide level. 8.4 at the 100-year flood level. We are looking at 6 foot maximum.
Jack Whelan brought up the needs of the golf course. Carl Breivolgel points out that with an extreme surge occurring, the water would potentially rise at some levels of the golf course, but would also quickly clear out before doing damage.
ENSR Gates of structure could be set to close off once the elevation reaches the springtime height.
Would be a good idea to agree on the level of tide. Structure that can be always operated to keep the springtime high at a level of 6 feet. What do we need to consider?
The Chair says we would need an operation, maintenance, and a contingency plan set in stone as well as knowledge of the design life expectancy.
ENSR We would need to operate several times a year to keep the high tide at 6 feet.
Looking like a highly complicated automated system. One opening could be fully open with a secondary adjustable opening. Drainage would not be an issue, but the problem was brought up.
Looking at parallels to the Hatches Harbor Dike versus this proposed one. We are looking at being able to still act as a dike in a potential 100-year event.
The Chair cites the classic characteristics of such an “Armageddon Storm”: barometric pressure in the 880 millibar range, creating maximum surge potential; a slow moving system, with residence time overwhelming tide cycles (contrary to normally fast moving storms at this latitude); and finally, a storm tracking just west of the outer Cape, with the Cape being impacted by southerly winds from the most powerful, leading, forward quadrant of the storm.
ENSR -Ownership- Concerns about Mass Highways role in the area, due to their need to review each part of the process. Does the design need to go through the tight study review process review with the Mass Highway? Engineers agreed to take responsibility for finding out that information.
The Chair mentioned the essential issues of funding, and ownership. Whoever funds and maintains the rebuilt dike structure itself, might need to “own” it.
ENSR- Boat Access-We need to look at cost options as to whether this is at all conceivable.
Chair-Access subcommittee thinking of moving the human boating and shellfishing needs to designated areas so the impacts can be planned, controlled and mitigated.
Tim Smith asks if the engineers really have enough information to move forward with the design?
ENSR- Schedule- Engineers will be back in late October with progress plans. ENSR will begin developing the 25% model and keep in contact with the Committee. We still need ground truthing and ground data, LIDAR data. The existing data can be extrapolated into more complicated maps needed to get started.
3. Starting Restoration Plan
what is the definitive plan on the height that is being decided upon? Need to identify which roads would go under water and how often: 10 year storm? 100, 500.
-Sequences Phasing and Implementation plan is important to keep in mind
-We need to look at primary and secondary access ways during construction
-Will return Late October with progress on LIDAR mapping and talk with surveyor.
The Chair asks ENSR to maintain a catalogue of documents received from any Committee members or the Chair, used as reference resources in developing the Restoration plan.
The chair will set up scheduling with the ENSR Engineers for the late October Meeting.
Monitoring SubCom Report Diane Murphy presents the final Monitoring Needs Report. Using John Portnoy’s information regarding monitoring going back several years. County has offered to continue with shellfish
monitoring assessment (shellfish placed in some river areas have dissolved). Inventory of shellfish above and below the dike. Establish monitoring stations above and below the dike. Concern of sedimentation expressed from shell fisherman. Knowledge of underwater vegetation (eel grass). Vernal Pools: Mass Audubon produced maps of current and potential pools and if it’s useful for monitoring their status as things move forward. Not sure if they are in the flood plain, isolated.
Motion to accept report at 3:53 PM, Moved by Joel Fox and Robert Hubby, Seconded by Jack Whelan. Unanimous Vote
Migration Issues SubCom Report Carl Breivogal presents the final Migration Issues Report.
The Chair Requested Contact Information for resource and jurisdictional parties be included. Motion to accept report at 3:58 PM. Moved by Robert Hubby, Second Joel Fox, Unanimous Vote
Break @ 4:13
Back @ 4:22
Grant Opportunity Report
Presented by Tim Smith, Gulf of Main grant letter proposal. Partnered with NOAA for restoration projects in the Gulf of Maine. Requires at least a one to one match, Funds available up to 75, 000 dollars. Can encompass any aspect of the work. This grant represents an opportunity to fund modeling and maps to help us make better decisions. They request a letter of intent be submitted by this coming Friday, September 8th. Grant would be due by November 17, with the announcement in January. The best way to submit would be for the committee to apply on behalf of the Town. Tim is willing to work on the technical aspects of the Grant. One foot contours could then be developed with the money. Collating a library of all the info that could be put onto a CD to distribute. This information would
be a valuable resource for many years.
Motion For Approval of draft letter to Granting Entity, signed by Chair, @ 4:33 pm Robert Hubby Moved, John Portnoy Seconded
Discussion of Motion: If town has issue, offer them money to help fund their part of paper work. Grant is on a reimbursement basis and the Town needs to know ahead of time.
Unanimous Vote
Vegetation Management Sub Committee Report
Presentation of the Vegetation Committee Issues Report with Recommendations was made by Gordon Peabody. Steve Block asks that the one-acre reserve areas be changed to transitional areas. Questions on importance of making certain people understand the slow nature of the change
Schedule
looking to meet on the 28th of September (SINCE CHANGED TO 27th)
considering starting the meeting at Noon from this point forward
Motion to Adjourn at 5:04, Moved by Joel Fox, Second by Robert Hubby, UNANIMOUS VOTE!
| 