Herring River Technical Committee Meeting
November 30, 2006, Wellfleet Public Library, Wellfleet, MA
Present: Joel Fox, Stephen Spear, Steve Block, Carl Breivogel, Robert Hubby, Gordon Peabody, Eric Derleth, Tim Smith, Jack Whalen, Diane Murphy, John Riehl, Hillary Greenberg.
Absent with notification: Gary Palmer, John Portnoy
Absent: Andy Koch
In attendance: Carrie Phillips and Evan Gwilliam (CCNS) and George Price (superintendent of CCNS)
12:17 PM Chair calls meeting to order
Chair asks for corrections of October meeting minutes
Steve Block motions that October minutes approval be delayed.
Hubby seconds. Eric Derleth and Jack Whalen express concern that minutes will not be available till next month.
Carl Breivogel suggests that a notice be put on the website saying they are going to be posted later. Eric Derleth suggests that in the future the committee be more diligent in reviewing the minutes.
Vote for the motion carries 7 to 2. (Minutes for October meeting were 18 pages, due to content and importance of discussions)
Public Comments 12:20pm
Helen Miranda Wilson: hopes that there will be some serious discussion on tailoring project around rising sea level
Also, Town proposal to draw public water from east of highway may impact water table
Carl Breivolgel: I have significant concerns over withdrawals of water thru municipal well and how it might affect anadromous fish runs, particularly upstream of route 6. Important to look up stream, make sure they don’t neglect unknowns further upstream.
12:25 Chair asks Tim Smith for update on Gulf of Maine grant, ”Done & submitted, waiting to hear back”.
Chair: Additional Grant invitation was received. Group discussion regarding elements of previously scope of our work that were eliminated from ENSR budget. Maybe we should consider applying for funds from new grant invitation for items that were cut. Chair will collect suggestions for grant from Committee and circulate same, discussing them at December meeting.
Chair reads letter from Dennis Lowry, ENSR, requesting Committee response to delaying 25% engineering design for previous alternatives while considering new alternate Restoration concept of free flow to High Toss, with a bridge at Chequessett Neck and tide gates at Mill Creek and High Toss Road.
Joel Fox: doing that, from High Toss down to the basin, would allow free access to boating and fishing, Mill Creek will require a structure. A bridge at Chequessett Neck Road could come out of a federal transportation bill
Stephen Spear- I’ve heard this discussed at prior meetings. I think it is ripening nicely. We would be paying a lot less, width wise, to put the controls there.
Steve Block- agrees with ENSR that we should not go to 25%
Carl Breivolgel- doesn’t know why we haven’t thought of it sooner than now. Nuts and bolts of High Toss as a control structure may not be as much to raise roadway, needs engineering anyway.
Eric Derleth- interesting alternatives that need to be fleshed out. Triggers a whole lot of issues that were dismissed years ago. It may end up saving money, additional sources i.e. highway funds but potentially we now have a bridge and two complex structures. What do we need to do with ENSR to modify current scope?
Tim Smith- everything needs to be modified, beyond the scope of what they are contracted to do. I think it warrants being looked at. My mind is spinning with all that needs to be looked at to determine if it is possible. The number of issues we’ve addressed by saying it is an incremental process
Jack Whalen:Makes no difference w/me
Bob Hubby- this alternative looks attractive, most serious problem is how to deal with contractor.
Other members don’t think it will be a problem
Hillary Greenberg- still thinking it through, doesn’t know yet
Chair- likes that the golf course could be controlled, doesn’t like instant restoration in main basin. Good concept of gate at Mill Creek but must take in financial and social implications at golf course and High Toss, need more data. How do we retask ENSR?
Carrie Phillips- Federal must look at all alternatives, wants to make sure some information doesn’t make process step back. Not sure what it would do to current funding, all technical points will need to be looked at. Another way to think is if we precede to 25% what alternatives will be evaluated. Alternative analysis will help.
Evan Gwilliam- if there are no controls and it is just a bridge, more hydrologic information is warranted. Doesn’t like the idea of instant restoration in lower basin. Incremental flooding has been successful, keystone of projects in past.
Discussion regarding elevation of basin and smaller controls at High Toss and Mill Creek.
Stephen Spear- there are ways to do incremental approach and still have this…if the dike was removed small portions out at a time. Eric Derleth- we may want to provide pros and cons to ENSR
1:17pm Steve Block motions to contact ENSR ask them not proceed to 25% of plan, but to include conceptual plans for tidal control at High Toss Road and Mill Creek as they have suggested
Joel Fox Seconds. Discussion on motion, clarification as to impact on golf course. ENSR will continue to develop alternatives discussed last meeting as well as new alternatives.
Vote on motion: unanimously passed with John Riehl abstaining
Chair asks Tim Smith if ENSR contract needs to be re-tasked.
Hillary Greenberg delivers physical and mailing addresses for abutters in Wellfleet. She is working with the Truro Health and
Conservation Agent to do it in Truro. The Chair asks to be kept informed because the addresses are overdue being sent to ENSR.
Eric Derleth- does our considering changing the plan to the alternative, with 10 feet, mean the abutter list would be affected?
Evan Gwilliam- a very good point, we shouldn’t leave anyone out.
John Riehl presents report on insurance questions
Steve Block- I set an email through the restoration center, checking restorations all over the United States, only one reply.
Stephen Spear- in the event that a well is damaged and there is no other space for a well it will be more expensive…
Eric Derleth- if we use the science and go forward on faith in that science, if something goes wrong we fix it.
Discussion that insurance is more of a social political issue, for confidence with public.
Helen Miranda Wilson- we should look into shellfish assurances from the state. Second, you are employees of the town so unless you violate someone’s civil rights you aren’t liable.
Brochure Report from Tim Smith. He hands out sample brochure. The Chair will show the sample to WCT and coordinate corrections from Committee members to Tim. The Brochure sample will be reviewed by Committee members during this meeting and we will vote on it at the end of our meeting.
Chair presents 25 points for discussion on Restoration Newsletter. Chair asks what the life cycle of the newsletter should be. Tim Smith suggests that it be written as long as there is new information to share
Chair asks for comments
Carl Breivolgel- we should state who ENSR is, what they are.
Tim Smith- suggests that we develop banner or headline, logo of project. Also, a template for email of newsletter is available.
1:55 pm Bob Hubby presents Archives Sub Com Report
Chair asks Committee to strike September 18, 2006 portion of report as redundant and subsequently incorporated in November 21, 2006 Archives Sub Com draft.
Chair states the Email policy was developed to define guidelines for Archives, with reference to Public Records, Open Meeting and Freedom of Information laws.
Bob Hubby entertains motion that email policy be approved as written. Joel Fox moves. Jack Whalen 2nd, unanimously 2 PM.
Recess called at 2:08pm, Reconvened at 2:23pm
Chair opens discussion on Management Committee Responsibility. A group discussion begins…who will hire the project manager? Which agency or administration would govern the project manager? What will the Project Manager’s duties be?
Steve Block says he sees two groups with different skills.
Once we have conceptual restoration plan filed to MEPA, this group dissolves and another gets developed and they take it from conceptual to make the Restoration happen.
John Riehl: after the second MOU is approved another takes over.
Stephen Spear- adds: to obtain permits
Tim Smith- why are granting partners limited to 3? People showing up with money seem to be the last thing to limit.
The number three is stricken from the granting partners portion.
Chair- include town of Truro Stakeholders after Wellfleet.
Discussion as to the value of a Cape Cod or County representative; we need to be cautious not to create too large a committee. Large committee could be broken into review/approval and core, decision-making group but would still benefit from resources of a large board. More and more members start to become unwieldy.
Eric Derleth expresses concern that being too specific will limit interest; people won’t want to come on board at this stage.
Carrie Phillips- Federal Compliance will already be enforced- don’t need to include an entity for Federal Compliance.
.
Stephen Spear: HRTC dynamic should be model for the management and administrative group.
Tim Smith says he doesn’t feel that contractor or engineer should be on management group because they are hired employees.
John Riehl suggests that a member CCMCP be added to the list.
Chair opens discussion on Management Group Requirements.
John Riehl- this group and our charge is planning and marketing, I think the new group has to be doers, plant managers in order to get things done. There is a shift in the skill set level, I feel comfortable on this committee but not on the next one
Stephen Spear clarifies that there is a great mix of abilities and expertise, different hats. Same people can wear different hats
Discussion to bridge small step between conceptual to actual building, the important detailing, and the doers of those particular things. Reformulated group, what do we need to get to that point.
Diane Murphy suggests that chair ask all members of the committee who would be willing to serve in the next stage of development, identify gaps in expertise once HRTC committee members have accepted or declined moving forward.
Chair- what I see happening is that now we are creating a transitional group before the final group, adding complexity.
Stephen Spear suggests modifying HRTC with additions instead of trying to start from scratch, as the project moves forward.
Discussion moves to Project Manager
Tim Smith- I think the person should represent a third party, work with town and park, not for them, know all about the restoration.
Chair- would we need an actual project management team? That is a large shopping list of abilities. Just something to think about.
Break called at 3:30pm, Reconvened @ 3:45pm
Chair opens discussion on Management Plan Components
Pretty much boiler plate, when we review ENSR concept plan some of these may already be included.
John Riehl- I would rephrase number 16, CRP is not only a technical but also a sales document. State overall goals, benefits and concepts and put that first.
Steve Block- There’s nothing in here stating what our plan is, what is our proposal and all different alternatives. That should be included and there should also be a history of the site.
Discussion of different levels of alternatives and presentation.
Carrie Phillips- we are required by law not to make a decision until we have gone through a public process with compliance mechanisms. One possible mechanism is do a conceptual plan, have the town approve it and then move forward investing in the detailed planning phase.
Discussion about public participation and the steps to move forward from a conceptual plan to a comprehensive plan.
Steve Block- In the section on purposed monitoring perhaps adaptive management criteria should be included.
Group Discussion on definition of goals and monitoring criteria.
Steve Block suggests a section regarding regulatory compliance requirements.
Chair reminds committee that this is a fluid process and it will be revisited again as part of the Comprehensive Plan design.
Chair opens discussion on elements of MOU II Draft
Chair asks that a number 5 be added, “Define the overall process of restoration”
Carrie Phillips- what I see, is the MOU II needs to provide for how to get from this plan to the next step. What’s in the plan will determine that. Make sure MOU II is capable of moving process forward. Don’t be afraid to recommend or express any knowledge opposed to an idea in the conceptual plan.
John Riehl- suggests adding # 6 “define outcome and process” (successful negotiation of NEPA MEPA process, prep and approval of comprehensive restoration plan, prep and approval of possible third MOU that describes implementation of plan).
Tim Smith expresses that restoration will be done in different phases; NEPA MEPA might be a clean and easy process.
Chair asks the group to share their thoughts, what are the most important concepts that rise to the top of their list from today’s meeting. Chair makes notes of important follow-up points.
Chair asks Joel Fox to talk with Fire Chief about protocol for a 40K gallon water tank, allowing use of Cheq. Neck Road bypass.
Chair initiates short discussion regarding brochure,
Chair asks Committee members for comments and concerns.
Chair asks Tim Smith to submit corrections for Committee review.
Chair entertains motion directing Tim Smith to move forward with brochure publication, pending WCT and Committee final review.
Steve Block motions, John Riehl seconds, Unanimous at 4:40pm
Chair announces next HRTC meeting is scheduled on December 21, at the library at 12:30pm.
Chair will communicate with ENSR Consultants regarding specifics of today’s discussion.
ENSR will be attending our next meeting and will be prepared to discuss Committee input and development of draft CRP.
Chair reminds Committee members to review ENSR’s current “early draft” of the CRP, so that we will have an informed and productive meeting in December.
Motion to adjourn by Steve Block,
Bob Hubby seconds, unanimously passed at 4:47pm.
| 