urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags013fWellfleet Herring River Technical Meeting
October 26, 2006, Wellfleet Town Library
12:12 Meeting Convenes pg 1 of 18
In attendance: Gordon Peabody, John Reihl, Joel Fox, Carl Breivolgel, Stephan Spear, Steve Block, Eric Derleth, Tim Smith, Jack Whalen, Robert Hubby, and John Portnoy, Diane Murphy, Hillary Greenberg. Absent: Andy Koch, Gary Palmer
The Chair asked if everyone reviewed email corrected minutes from last meeting. Steve Block has found a mistake in his presentation (page 3, paragraph 2). He asks that the words cannot be changed to can in regards to matching volunteer time for grants.
Chair entertains a motion to accepted minutes as corrected.
Robert Hubby moves, Joel Fox 2nd; passed unanimous at 12:14pm
Announcements
Wellfleet State of the Harbor conference is Saturday, Nov. 4th 2006. John Riehl passes around poster
Chair presents Letter of Appreciation, to Christine Bates, former recording secretary.
Chair presents Letter of Appreciation, to Joy Cumming, of Architects Studio in South Wellfleet, for donation of recording and mailing services during the summer of 2006.
Floor is opened for Public Comments @ 12:21pm
Beth Brehmer of 336 Main Street, Wellfleet (behind town hall), did not receive an abutter’s letter and she is worried because her house is set very low.
John Portnoy explains that the Squires Pond area was not initially included in the restoration site but it will be included in further investigation. He and Hillary will identify abutters in that area.
HRTC, 10/26/06 pg 2 of 18
Harvey Schwallie, addressStreetMill Creek Lane (off of Cheq. Neck,
addressStreetPO Box 13, 02667)- is concerned about the many trees, shrubs, and flowers in lower lane. He is also concerned that the surface of his garage floor is only 1ft 8inches above the bottom of the foundation and what erosion might occur there. Chair states that it is too early in the research stage of planning to begin addressing specific impacts out of sequence. Chair assures him there are very effective options being developed for any potential impacts on property.
Mr. Schwallie requests that some type of engineering study be done to see that area would not cave in.
Stephen Spear reassures Mr. Schwallie that private property mitigation is a part of the plan. Before flooding begins an intense study of the area will conducted.
Chair reminds Mr. Schwallie that any restoration would be a slow, watchful process.
Mr. Schwallie is also concerned for his well. Chair replies that extensive data indicates the lens is strong and will remain so but that each property requires individual assessment.
Mr. Schwallie says according to the map he is located at headwater (Mill Creek basin). Mr. Schawallie points out that there is a gut in the opposite direction; wants to know if a dam can be put in there to protect his property and that of a neighbor. He requests that the committee look into it.
Chair states that there can be no public discussion of a specific neighbor’s property without the neighbor being notified, prior to the meeting. There are many issues involving any structure that property owners have built in the flood plain, that need to be studied. There are also a wide variety of options for resolving concerns about restoration issues and impacts. The Chair added that he doesn’t feel he can respond without knowing more.
John Portnoy says he will get Mr. Schwallie a report regarding wells and expected impacts. He states that it should be recorded as part of the assessment process.
HRTC 10/26/06 pg 3 of 18
Pat Berry, resident of Wellfleet, asks if a rough time
line in relation to goals and processes. Chair explains that there is no solid time line, lots of work ahead of them, moving as fast as a volunteer board can be expected. Permitting can be 18 months.
Chair calls on the consultant group ENSR at 12:45 pm.
Dennis Lowry introduces himself and rest of his team: Firooz Panah, Matt Kennedy and Mike Ball.
Overview Outline is handed out, focused on three primary areas
1. Tide Gate Concept
2. Low-lying roadways (awaiting additional information from survey and mapping)
3. Conceptual Restoration Plan presented by Matt Kennedy
Flags are in place at site indicating different delineations. Slade Associates are a couple weeks off from topographical mapping.
Chair requests John Portnoy contact Slade Assoc., on behalf of the full Committee, to communicate importance of timely information
Firooz Panah presents Tide Gate alternatives
ü Alt #1. Cast-in-place box culvert (similar to existing)
ü Alt #2. Pre-cast Arches
ü Alt #3. Bridge alternative
ü Alt #4. Trestle alternative
Major assumptions were made for all 4 alternatives
1) existing structure will be kept in place. Culvert is in good condition, needs to be inspected from inside, rehab if necessary. Dennis Lowry points out sketch of existing culverts on plans and the relation the new alternatives have to them. Concept is allocated for 30-40 meters.
2) they will build to the east side of the existing structure because it is less expensive.
3) road way will be closed entirely.
4) 6 feet for opening height, width less that 10 feet. We may find out we can have gates that are wider, less expensive.
HRTC 10/26/06 pg 4 of 18
Figure 1/Alt.1 Cast-In-Place Box Culvert- 11 cells,
6x8 feet give opening they desire
John Portnoy - how long the road would be closed?
Firooz Panah – it is hard to say. The goal is to do it in one season; there is work that needs to be done before and after that, 6 months.
Sheathing retains earth, divert water, construct in dry environment. Pre-cast is possible but they are very heavy, difficult to transport.
Steve Block- how long of a construction process are we looking at? Six months (approximately).
Firooz Panah - alternative 2 (Pre-cast arches) is the fastest. It is a patented system, must buy from company in Salem, NH. Can produce Arches at various length max is 48 feet. That is what they propose two 48-foot arches. Once foundation is set can be place very quickly, weeks. Can adjust the length, can have three smaller cells if want it longer. Need to look at transportation of arches by land or barge. Elevation shows two views, both sides, open and closed. A cross section (figure 5) shows road way and barriers, the channel and gate are shown with buttress behind gateAlt 3. Bridge Alternative
Similar to sheathing on either side, two abutments, build cast-in-place with channels that house a sluice gate. Again two views, both side, open and closed is shown. Construction time depends on foundation; we may need deep foundation piles. Figure 6 shows cross section, pre-cast concrete gerders. Possible to slice gerders if necessary
Alt 4. Trestle is similar to bridge except extending channel walls higher to support structure. Allows a thinner, less expensive structure at the top. Points out different views. Need a concrete pavement on the floor, help with hydraulics and opening, preferable to having pavers. Buttress serves 2 purpose, supports gate, as water rises will be higher than 100 year flood to be sure water never overflows
John Portnoy- asks about water overflowing when gates are closed
HRTC 10/26/06 pg 5 of 18
Matt Kennedy says wall will be close to roadway height
Firooz Panah - it is possible to operate gate and still being able to view the arch? Not sure what happened here
Surface grades are at about 12 so they wont go greater
Tim Smith- are we sure that will word
Matt Kennedy- if it is wider it will keep a lower flow. It is above the low end of the low tide
Stephen Spear- what about road width,
Same as existing
Firooz Panah - figure 1 is no different, figure 2 road way has 5’ shoulder on each side, figure 5 shows it better, two lanes each 12 feet and 5’ on either side. There are flexibilities in the plan, a lot of details that can be worked out for fishing, pedestrian and parking. These are the things we need to discuss and think about.
Stephen Spear asks about existing roadway width
Figure 2 has an error should say 8’ not 5’. Will get a shoulder within 5-8ft. Will look at it more
Eric Derleth asks about figure 4, width of structures, weight baring concrete wall 1ft
Carl Breivolgel- each one of the openings will create frictional losses to tidal flow
Firooz Panah - we need to work with Matt to find tune opening based on frictional loss. Are they flat maybe we can make them round, little bit of structural hydraulics?
Matt Kennedy- practicality wise 8-12 foot to operate on single stem. Maybe need to add an additional 10% to compensate for frictional losses. Once you get into final design they will want to do another hydraulic model.
John Reihl asks about absolute costs.
Mr. Panah- For the accuracy we have for this stage all alternatives are with in 5% of one another.
Tim Smith- which one is most vulnerable to cost increases?
Firooz Pahah- Alt. 1 very simple, lots of concrete HRTC p 6 of 18
and rebar, it is a very simple structure but intricate to construct.
Alt 2 done by conspan, advantage faster construction,
unknown geo tech, have to do some borings anyway so we can find out. If you don’t have to do a deep foundation there is no unknown. Unknowns are interaction of hydraulics and structures.
Eric Derlether- is the instillation of sluice and cells pretty similar?
Team is not sure and will check on this
Firooz Panah- the advantages of 1 is low maintenance, cost effective. Alternative 2 is the fastest to construct, alternative 3 would be the second fastest, then trestle, and then culvert.
Chair- what do you think our savings would be to build on east side verses rebuilding all of it?
Firooz Panah- Once you get into construction, the major cost in doing what you have to do anyway verse cost of doing a little more. Need to consider how may arches, make this a little bigger…need to look at inherent cost plus a little more… Difficult questions, new structures have to last 75 years at least. What is the remaining life of the existing culvert? How much extra for center build vs. east build? Having that information in hand we can make a better decision.
Chair- we are investigating the use of a bypass during construction. What do you think the cost savings will be?
Firooz Panah- to be honest I have to look into it. If I had to guess I’d say 15-20%
Matt Kennedy- culvert will keep water flowing during construction
John Reihl- what do you need from us today?
Dennis Lowry- Speaking personally I would want to take this away and look at it. We aren’t expecting a decision spontaneously
Stephen Spear adds to advantages and disadvantage.
1 & 4 are going to have structures that run the whole length; the others have obstructions for the herring. I would suggest 2 &3 are better for herring. Does that make sense?
Carl Breivolgel- Herring can get through HRTC pg 7 of 18
very small spaces but it does bring up water velocity standards. Any of the options would be less velocity than what it is now.
Chair- The Herring migrations are driving our time windows. Granting partners can’t come aboard if we don’t respect Herring.
Fish experts on ENSR team will take this into consideration.
Stephen Spear- we should look beyond the herring and look at all marine travelers. If we keep culvert they have a passageway.
John Riel- the other creature we need to consider is a terrapin.
Chair- is it my understanding that we will maintain current flow through construction process until gates are in place?
Carl Breivolgel- I highly recommend you stay in contact with Phil Brady, with Marine Fisheries, for velocity specs.
Chair- Very impressed with work and presentation, I would like to go around the table and hear your (HRTC Committee) thoughts…
Hillary Greenberg- presentation was great. I wasn’t expecting a plan I could take home. I am most impressed with arch design.
Joel Fox- presentation was great; I question how the gates operate
Carl Breivolgel- impressed by the options, operations are question.
Stephen Spear- would Alt. 2 be easiest if we keep road way open.
Firooz Panah- It would be closed for a shorter time period. Problem with keeping traffic would need longituditate shielding as well. If you can ship all pre-cast at same time, better and cheaper-slight advantage. If we keep half the road open it will take longer
Steve Block questions the water amount flowing over the culvert will there be enough for fish passage during all or most tides?
Eric Derleth - no questions
Tim Smith- no questions
JohnWhalen- glad they kept to 6 feet
Diane Murphy- great presentation. What happens if existing footing are found not to be able to support any of these structures
Firooz Panah- if the soil is not good Alt 2&4 would have bigger footings; doubt that we would need deep foundations. With bridge option we know we will probably need ties. Because the load is more spread with bridge. Remains to be seen.
Eric Derleth- big difference between may and HRTC pg 8 of 18
probably need…if we need pile foundation, does that effect cost?
Firooz Panah- 10-15%
John Portnoy- what’s the height when gates fully open?
Opening is actually 6 feet with the gate is fully open
Min. would be 6 ft ultimate could be 10.
John Riel- nice job. I would like to know what are the options to protect the CYCC at 6 feet. My assumption was that we could build on the existing structure. I would like you to brainstorm, if we had temp structures that could be removed for full opening.
Matt Kennedy- 50K per gate
Stephen Spear- do all need to be gates if we want a base flow?
Matt Kennedy- the more you leave open the less control you have. You would have to ratchet it down in the event of floodwaters. If you have a certain number of gates open even at high tide you wouldn’t have 6 feet because the water can’t get through.
Matt Kennedy- if you only have the ability to shut 2/3 off you need to make sure it doesn’t rise the 6 feet. Not significant cost saving for the risk you’d be taken.
Chair comments on design questions- Not surprising that some details need to be looked at. Walk way width, geotechnical information for footing, herring interaction and scouring. Is any one of these structures friendlier for scouring or would scouring be in issue for all of them?
Firooz Panah- Culvert very rarely scours. Other three alternatives we’ll have to analyze hydraulics and take measures to make sure not a problem.
Because we have concrete pavement, scouring would be less.
Chair calls for a break at 2:12pm.
Chair reconvenes meeting at 2:30pm
Dennis Lowry hands out Sluice Gate Schematic
Matt Kennedy- First page shows schematic of typical cast iron sluice gate, operated by a screw mechanically. Can be made out of a couple different materials.Certain ways to treat HRTC p 9 of 18 cast iron steel…generally you prefer a single stem to operate gate, more than one gets tricky. 8 feet is a reasonable opening, but can be fairly flexible. Technology has been used for 100 years.
Question is raised: How would gates be operated?
Matt Kennedy- Manual crank wheel is one option, problem is that we'll have 10-12 gates requiring 600 turns for each one. Two challenges are the weight of gate and water pushing against weight. There are two gear speeds for manual crank.
Chair- is there a mechanism where water flow would operate gates
Matt Kennedy- no. Each stem could have electric motor but you would need back up power. A hydraulic motor is possible but you’d need to run one for each stem. Hydraulic accumulators, a bladder tank that uses pressure, would be a good solution.
Chair- is that a temperature sensitive process?
Matt Kennedy- given the scenario of opening structure a little more, the manual wheel is fine. The condition you need to rapidly close 12 gates you could have generator but could still have crank. Level sensor could be incorporated with electric motors. Some kind of sluce gate with riser stem and power actuator.
Carl Breivolgel - would there be zincs you’d have to maintain?
Matt Kennedy- it depends on the design.
Eric Derleth- when you were figuring the cost were you figuring on one of these actuators?
Matt Kennedy- a manual version was assumed and one powered actuator. Relative cost depending on what design you choose.
Eric Derleth- what would the savings be on a manual screw?
Matt Kennedy- tough to say. That is something we will look into more as we get into the conceptual design.
Joel Fox- could it be made wider to reduce the height?
Matt Kennedy- we would need bigger structure adding cost.
Joel Fox- what is there now is hidden by the road way
Matt Kennedy- you are going to add complexity to your structure by hiding them in roadway, more cost.
As far as the gate is concerned we can’t do too much pg 10 of 18
about it. It is a lower profile, you see the esthetic opportunity is really the buttress behind the slice gate, we could make it a curved structure so if all the gates are closed we can see the top of the arch, a three dimensional structures.
Matt Kennedy- it would be a custom design so cost is impacted
Stephen Spear is there a garage door type, rolls back horizontal?
Matt Kennedy- we haven’t seen any but we discussed it.
John Portnoy- to clarify, when the gates are wide open it will obstruct the view of the arch?
Matt Kennedy- I would like to know the height of the arch, if the arch can extend over the top of the gates you would see the tops.
Question is raised if height is limited to grade, can go a little higher
Matt Kennedy- it is possible. We don’t have a hard survey of all the elevations,
Chair- in terms of cost I think we can arrive at better specificity as the process continues.
Matt Kennedy- it is a pretty substantial effort to make these gates work. We’re pushing towards powered gates
Robert Hubbey- what is the stroke time in the operating of the gates? We probably want to shut gates in a sequence.
Matt- can do it a few ways. Close half then the other
ENSR Next step in evaluation of alternatives is to develop these concepts and preferred alternatives.
Record will show that you reviewed the alternatives
Tim Smith- we can present the public with our preferred choice
Chair- can I poll the committee on whether we are ready to make a decision or need to ask more questions
John Reihl- how much further do we have to push it at this point?
Dennis Lowry- don’t have to be at 25% you can push it to 10%
John Reihl- won’t get passed with wishy-washy figures
Chair- are you (the committee) ready to try and make a decision?
John Riel- I would like to mull it over, address it in next meeting.
John Portnoy- I would need to understand better HRTC p 11 of 18 if people would have a place to fish from.
Matt Kennedy- would that need to be on one side or the other?
Joel Fox- Fishing on the bay side. Right now fishing on the fresh waterside would be a license issue.
Firooz Panah- does the fishing platform need to be over the flow?
Chair- this doesn’t have to be the main consideration, but it is one.
Stephen Spear- perhaps the platform could hide gates when up.
Firooz Panah- refers to catwalk in figure 5. Maybe we could put it in front of the gate
Joel Fox- that’s a bad idea. You have 40 guys up their trying to cast, you need a platform
Diane Murphy- If cat walk was elevated you would have that space
Firooz Panah- on the bayside that would obstruct the arch and there would need to be a railing. There are visual issues.
Diane Murphy- are we being silly esthetic wise?
Firooz Panah- there is merit in what you say, there is balance
Diane Murphy- a straight square is cheaper and better for fishing
Firooz Panah- that is true and we can look into that; can people fish if this is a platform?
Chair- people are forgetting that once we start seeing some flow we are going to see a dynamic shift in where the fish are. The fish are going to be up in Truro. I don’t want to see an element that will be changing, be too strong an element in consideration.
Faros Panache- something may be done to build a semi circular platform from which people can fish
Carl Breivolgel - I agree that it is going to be a different regime, but I think that will always be a popular spot. What I think is important to consider is a long linear platform for casting.
Stephen Spear- I would suggest when Farooz looks at this buttress he takes that into consideration
Eric Derleth- convinced we could mitigate fishing. I sense we don’t have a completed conceptual design and will get more information for a preferred plan. The delineation integrating the survey and building that into what we are seeing now.
Tim Smith- we don’t have enough information to pg 12 of 18
make a good decision; we need to determine the decision process.
Eric Derleth- do we have enough information to have an in-depth conversation among ourselves to make a decision?
Firooz Panah- as we work on a final report we will submit a draft with more information building on today.
John Reihl- I agree that we aren’t ready to pick one but can we eliminate any to help you focus?
Dennis Lowry- we are at a point now, beyond sketches, it would be useful to get some direction in terms of advancing.
Eric Derleth- its what we all agreed to, it would be a good thing.
Bob Hubby- Can we go around and narrow down the process?
Chair- I rated these myself during the presentation, Alternatives 2 & 3 were alternatives I’d like to see in the plan.
John Riel- 2 &3 highest, number one lowest due to risk and esthetics. Number 4 is my third choice.
J Portnoy- agrees with Bob Hubby. What information are we going to gain that we don’t have already. Other wise I don’t have any basis for selecting one over the others. I don’t care for number one. Like the look of the arch but what other information will we get to choose one over the other? I would like it before the next meeting so we can make a decision
Diane Murphy- If I needed to choose I would eliminate #1; I like the arch but would like to see similar construction but not arch to gain function and save cost.
Firooz Panah- Arches are inherently stronger structures, if you want to make it two spans but not pre-cast. We are speaking of alt 3 with a pier in the middle
Bob Hubby- inclined to alt 2. One solution is to have three arches to match up arch sizes with span. Least like the culverts, number 1
Jack Whalen- are there pre cast box culverts?
Pirooz Panah- yes but one cell is very heavy, they would need to be spliced, little bit of complication, faster construction. placeLot of pieces to transport. Arches come in 8-foot sections and are thinner so they aren’t as difficult to transport.
Steve Block- you eliminated that because HRTC pg 13 of 18 of logistical issues? Likes two and four.
Firooz Panah- it is not eliminated but it is difficult. We could give contractor the option of pre cast or poor in place.
Tim Smith- deselect 1, had a hard time choosing between 3 &4. For 2 want to know how gate interferes with arch. Over all he is most concerned with types of sluice gates
Eric Derleth- would eliminate one, hoping for more information and a good professional narrative of pros and cons. Must address potential of keeping one lane open, what that means in cost/time
Dennis Lowry- what is the process to determine closing the road?
Chair- my understanding is we’d need to make it a recommendation for the impact report; we haven’t pursued the issue of a secondary water source for the fire department. It isn’t a stumbling block it is a delaying point. There are concerns we can address. Need enough room to turn at the end of High Toss, the bridge may need to be reinforced, brush needs clearing. One side bar issue is that the road is not where it is indicated on the map, it is more on Seashore Property.
Dennis Lowry- I am just concerned about proceeding with a conceptual plan without that decision
Eric Derleth- perhaps you can present with and without the bypass as an option. Also, we were looking at 40 meters and the numbers aren’t adding up. I guess we should be giving you guidance on if we should maintain the structure shouldn’t we. We had a side bar about building over the culvert and taking it out later.
Chair- hydrodynamic model indicates using smaller opening
John Portnoy- that was before we added the upper Pole Dike.
Chair- one of the things we needed to work on if opening to 40 meters is pursuing the High Toss bypass
Steve Block- If you were to provide us with a recommendation…
Firooz Panah- Alt 2, it is quicker and esthetics.
Eric Derleth- if you had to eliminated which one?
Firooz Panah- 3 and 4 are similar I’d drop 4. Pg 14 of 18
Matt Kennedy- agrees with Panah 1, 2 &3
Stephen Spear- doesn’t like 1, there are more benefits to Alt 2. Less maintenance, most flexible, do something with existing structure and it can be replicated in smaller form at other areas.
Carl Breivolgel- Include 1,2 & 3 number 2 favorite. Drop 4. A look at three arches to get 40 meters, 3 will give flexibility.
Stephen Spear- middle could be bigger or smaller
Joel Fox- drop 4, like to see 3 built like 4, it would take a lot to maintain long span.
Firooz Panah- it would cost a little more for the substructure, the only thing we need to consider is the girders would need to change
Joel Fox- favorite openness of 3
Least favorites- 6 vote to choose 4, 7 vote to choose 1
Eric Derleth- based on the engineering analysis, let investigate the concrete box; pre-cast or cast in place.
Dennis Lowry- suggests combine 3&4 into a two span.
Firooz Panah- Alt.3 as a soft alternative with two spans can consider it as number three
Eric Derleth- could you build the span over the existing colvert
Firooz Pahan- advantage to bridge over culvert than arch
Stephen Spear- why would you want to keep alt. 1
Eric Derleth- intuitively it seems that it would be cheaper to build than the bridge or arch.
Firooz Panah- we can attach this
Joel Fox- I move that we delete number four
Steve block –seconds
Unanimously passes to disregard number four
John Portnoy- have we given clear directions for additional information? on opening size?
Chair- 40 meters
John Riel- elevations?
Dennis Lowry- must integrate survey data with designs. Studies are two weeks out as of yesterday
Firooz Panah- if the opening is up to 40 meters pg 15 of 18
the cost of number two will be more than a bridge opening
Tim Smith-do any of these raise MA highway issues and costs?
Firooz Pahan- in terms of maintenance, bridges must be inspected every two years. In this situation I am not sure who will be inspecting it. Culverts must be inspected if they are over 10 feet. Typically there is less concern with arch or culvert. But he would like to look into it
Chair- what is the best way to integrate Herring Migration concern so it will be shown that we have incorporated state regulations?
Carl Breivolgel takes responsibility for communicating w/ENSR.
Firooz Panah- are we going to keep existing culvert.
Chair- at the very least we would keep it through construction, but long term none of us know
John Riel- your recommendation to keep the culvert is based on control of water?
Firooz Panah- and cost
Stephen Spear- another piece of info we’ll need is a number in cost of maintenance. May off set cost of building.
Firooz Panah- life cycle cost. True, we can consider and add that, bring it to present.
Dennis Lowry- was the decision to go from 30 to 40 meters discussed with Spaulding?
John Portnoy- yes
From the audience
Jim Whiggley- resident of Wellfleet. Based upon the dynamics recommends that what you do on one side for the fisherman you do it on the other side
Helen Miranda Wilson- which of these designs will best withstand the inevitable rise in sea level?
Firooz Panah- culvert, alternative one. Need to do an analysis to be sure. Other alternative is to design then to with stand the pressure. In effect they will be acting like a dam.
Matt Kennedy- 1 or 2 feet wouldn’t be a HRTC pg 16 of 18
big deal but 12 or more the road would be under water.
Dennis Lowry directs attention to using lidar NAVD mapping.
Matt Kennedy- red areas are going to flood probably daily, yellow monthly, green hardly ever.
Some of the data seems to be incorrect;
John Portnoy- what frequency the elevations are taken at?
Matt Kennedy- 50ft.
Joel Fox points out a few points he believes are incorrect on Map
Stephen Spear- if I am reading correctly we have about 5 miles of road to raise
John Riel- should we consider abandoning some of these roads or should we have a control at High Toss?
Matt Kennedy- to control at High Toss you’d have to raise it.
John Reihl- we have to have the right data to make those decisions
Mike Ball passes out draft outline of conceptual restoration plan. He has received 6 of 14 sub committee reports; 5 are pending.
Lot of gaps to fill in but he wanted to give something for them to take home. Task is to decide what stays in and what to leave out.
Chair- we have 5 areas for clarification…additional geotech information, 40 meter opening, additional survey data with design, Mass highways jurisdiction, and Herring Passage details.
Chair- almost our entire next meeting is going to be about management and administrative information. I would like to forward you a draft of what the committee will be reviewing. We can look at what you’ve given us but can’t offer insights without reviewing it. What do you see as possible “choke points” for the restoration?
Dennis Lowry- this process is the most open and effective process he has seen. Well along in the process and can’t think of any significant choke points
Mike Ball- We haven’t seen the remaining SubCom pg 17 of 18
reports (which would be later approved that day). Mike and the Chair discuss outstanding reports and timeline for completion.
A break is called at 4:38pm.
Meeting called back to order at 4:44pm
Chair passes out HRTC Access Sub Committee report
John Riel- before this is final I would like to include fishing on the dike and other spots. We need to balance access to boating and will need a committee to manage these issues. Would like to submit with the addendum for river access.
Joel Fox- you may want to add hunting, another recreational attribute
Chair- entertains motion to accept report
Joel Fox so moved
John Portnoy- seconded. Passes unanimous at 4:48
Chair- distributes outreach subcommittee report
John Riel- outreach for 2 volunteer organizations. Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod and Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary may provide resources.
Steve Block- under APCC change to program from fund. Audubon include what service-bird monitoring
Eric Derleth- add water monitoring and soil monitoring
Chair entertains a motion to approve with changes discussed
Joel Fox- so moves
John Portnoy seconds, passes unanimously 4:53pm
Chair distributes Lessons Learned (from Restoration Histories) Report
Chair and Tim Smith sort through a question on ethics regarding identifiable specifics contained in one page. Three documents in appendix, including Special Order of Conditions, Hatches Harbor ConCom chair notes, Management Plan.
HRTC 10/26/06 Pg 18 of 18
Chair entertains a motion to accept the Lessons Learned Sub Com Report as corrected, (removing identifying features of one project).
Joel Fox- moves
Bob Hubby- seconds Passed, 1 abstaining at 5:00pm
Tim Smith will get updated material to Chair via electronic mail.
Chair presents interim Impacts SubCommittee Report.
J Riel- if Snake Creek Road is as it was shown on previous map w/ lidar data, it might affect other abutters.
This report is interim and will not be voted on, pending inclusion of pending working group research.
Tim Smith passes out Granting & Budget SubCom report.
Following discussion and minor correction.
Chair entertains motion to accept as corrected
J Riel so moved
J Fox- second, unanimous w/Steve Block abstaining
Eric- we are going to get some fish passage dollars if the Presidents bill doesn’t change, this should be viewed as a living document that ebbs and changes.
Chair points out that this is more of a catalog of resources available and no decisions are really being made based on this material.
Tim Smith distributes the Permitting Report
Following discussion, the Chair entertains a motion that the report be accepted as presented.
John Riel- so moved
John Portnoy second
5:10 PM vote unanimous, Steve Block abstains
5:30 PM adjournment by unanimous vote
Corrected minutes submitted 12/27/06, by Gordon Peabody, Chair
| 