Herring River Technical Committee, Wellfleet, MA, 02667
Thurs. Feb. 22, 2007 at Wellfleet Council on Aging Center
Corrected Minutes approved March 19, 2007
Members Present: Jack Whalen, John Portnoy, Eric Derleth, Gordon Peabody, Hillary Greenberg, John Riehl, Diane Murphy, Tim Smith, Stephen Spear.
Members Absent: Carl Breivogel, Steve Block, Joel Fox, Robert Hubby, Andy Koch, and Gary Palmer
Meeting called to order by chair at 1:06 pm
Chair entertained a motion to approve corrected minutes from 1/16/07 HRTC meeting. Motion made by John Portnoy, seconded by John Riehl passed unanimously at 1:07 pm.
Public Comments: Jeff Hughes gave briefing about fish ecology in the freshwater area above Route 6. Expressed gratitude for help and work in the area. There are positive changes being made and the water has been able to be cleaned and open to herring.
Diane Murphy asked in addition to herring, what other species Jeff had documented in the HR system. Jeff Hughes said that he has kept a mental journal of sightings but hadn’t really documented anything. Discussed species he has witnessed. Hughes provided cell phone number with questions (508-237-5463). John Hughes said that he is currently working closely with Carl Breivogel. Helen Wilson asked if there is any regular communication between the committee and the board of selectmen. Chair said that he had discussed the option was given the impression that unless there is a problem, that no communication would be necessary.
Public Announcements: March 5th, 2007, John Portnoy and Gordon Peabody are going to make a presentation to Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission.
Chair presented Dennis O’Connell & Peter Hall from the Wellfleet Conservation Trust with a letter of gratitude for help with printing of brochure for Herring River Restoration Project. Dennis O’Connell & Peter Hall graciously accepted the letter on behalf of the Wellfleet Conservation Trust. Chair extended thanks to Tim Smith and other organizations that enabled brochure to be created.
Chair opened up discussion about community outreach. Interest expressed in opportunities for slide shows & field trips of HR.
John Portnoy thought that CCNS had an existing program that provided pre-scheduled tours/presentations of resource area(s).
Chair asked about doing a presentation to the boards of selectmen, DPW and Conservation Commissions of both towns.
John Riehl was asked by the Chair to contact the head of each DPW to extend an invitation to each group to attend an informative meeting about the project.
Chair opened up discussion about committee membership. Chair asked about the process of replacement committee members being sworn-in. Helen Wilson said that any new committee member would have to be sworn in through the selectmen after the current sworn-in member resigns. The resignation must be submitted in writing according to Dennis O’Connell. Chair expressed concern about missing attendance from the shellfish committee members, with Joel Fox on vacation and Andy Koch frequently absent. A meeting with the shellfish advisory committee was suggested to address any current concerns.
Helen Wilson stated that she attends the meeting on behalf of shellfish advisory committee;
Diane Murphy also expressed that she is here on behalf of the shellfish community as well.
Chair expressed concern that there is a need to have a voting member on the Wellfleet shellfish committee, not just a representative, at the HRTC meetings.
Stephen Spear offered the idea of having an alternate voting member for the shellfish advisory committee, in case the primary voting member is unable to attend.
Chair opened up discussion about the newsletter (draft newsletter sent around to committee members). Stephen Spear said that he had problems opening newsletter in a readable format (draft copy from Chair). Eric Derleth expressed similar problems. Tim Smith said that he revamped the draft initially sent by the chair.
Chair reminded Committee that there was the goal of having an e-newsletter available for distribution by next Committee meeting. Chair opened up floor for discussion of ideas for newsletter.
Tim Smith thought that offering up more general ideas and background info for initial newsletter so that following newsletters will act more as a technical update on information with project.
Eric Derleth thought Tim Smith’s ideas for newsletter were great. He also stated that since ENSR is still actively involved in project that having information about their role in the project may be helpful. Chair asked Eric Derleth to write up a small paragraph about ENSR. Eric Derleth agreed to do so. Chair suggested having contact information such as an email address to subscribe/ask questions about newsletter.
Tim Smith stated that he had volunteered to gather email addresses for people that want to subscribe to the newsletter. He also offered his email address to act as the contact person for newsletter.
Committee Secretary suggested a generic email address that everyone on committee had access to so responsibility of responding to emails/inquiries would not fall on only one person.
Tim Smith will research this idea at request of Chair.
Chair stated that initial newsletter would be ready for posting by next meeting date. Chair will draft up letter for those currently on mailing list for newsletter informing them that a newsletter will be coming shortly.
Stephen Spear reminded committee that there were thoughts about having the newsletter that could easily be printed for distribution. Chair opened floor for discussion on topics for newsletter.
Diane Murphy stated importance of background information in initial newsletter.
Stephen Spear stated importance of putting project link from town of Wellfleet website.
John Riehl thought that putting a step-by-step production of the project would be valuable. Also talking about the dike itself would be valuable. Hillary Greenberg thought a brief synopsis of the website would be helpful. Diane Murphy thought having the scope of the project would be beneficial. Chair agreed, and asked John Portnoy to do a write up on the scope of the project.
John Portnoy suggested that having one side of the newsletter being a background information letter and having the other side be a map of the project/scope with major landmarks identified.
Chair asked John Portnoy to work with Tim Smith to come up with a suitable map to use for newsletter.
Stephen Spear expressed concerns that the newsletter is getting a little big. He suggested having a link offering more information.
Eric Derleth thought that providing some insight into the decision-making process would be beneficial.
Tim Smith thought having a theme to each newsletter would disclose information better. Also having some natural history focus for the newsletter would be beneficial.
Chair reminded Stephen Spear of his idea about having a little blurb about interesting facts in each newsletter. Stephen Spear suggested that the initial newsletter might not have all the great ideas that were mentioned but the following newsletter will/should include all a fore- mentioned topics.
John Portnoy opened discussion about mosquito control. Draft document written by John Portnoy (with the help of others from NPS) was handed out at beginning of meeting. Review of document followed; document discussed idea of how to make idea of mosquito control less of a problem for resource area. It also discussed the limitations that the CCNS/NPS, as well as the rest of the public, to control native existing insect species, including mosquitoes. The document also included information about how the Herring River Restoration Project could positively impact a natural control of the mosquito population. Document also included mitigations for project to limit further problems with mosquitoes.
Chair asked if the Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project had received and reviewed the document. John Portnoy said yes.
John Riehl had a question about the wording of one of the points of the document; he questioned using the word “substantial.”
John Portnoy answered that all changes would take time and that positive corrections would not happen instantaneously because of the gradual increase in tidal flow.
John Riehl is concerned about commitment document creates.
John Portnoy offered to give the project a timeline to diminish it.
Jack Whalen suggested that having a line or two added about whose jurisdiction it falls under would be beneficial.
Tim Smith agreed and added that having a line about who is overseeing general oversight of project would be beneficial.
John Portnoy cited an example how the Mosquito Control Project acquired a permit on a previous project to act as the general oversight for the project.
Helen Wilson asked about permitting process for the resource area.
Tim Smith said permit would come from Army Corp of Engineers.
Helen Wilson asked who would be funding this project.
John Portnoy said that the CCMCP would fund the project.
Stephen Spear reminded committee that the CCMCP already had an Army Corp of Engineers general permit. Gabrielle Salkowsky of CCMCP has told us they could probably handle the expense of monitoring and treatment but they would need some help if it turns out that a lot of ditching necessary. Perhaps funding requests could include a way to “hire” CCMCP to do the work?
Chair called for a short break at 2:41 pm.
Committee reconvened at 2:51 pm.
Discussion about mosquito control resumed after break. John Portnoy and Eric Derleth had a discussion regarding filtering out ideas and discussing management as an ongoing process.
John Portnoy suggested mosquito control might not require a permit.
Eric Derleth added that simplifying the objectives might be better.
Chair stated that if there were no flushing then there would continue to be a problem with mosquitoes.
John Portnoy suggested that tweaking the language of the document would be beneficial.
Stephen Spear read the document as making mosquito control a part of the restoration project; merging the two together.
Chair suggested that getting a final draft together for the next meeting would be beneficial. It can be approved and things would move forward.
Chair opened discussion about endangered species.
Chair stated it would be beneficial to have a working group. Chair asked Steve Block, Tim Smith, John Portnoy, and Eric Derleth to be part of the liaison-working group.
Tim Smith reported they had met with representatives from Natural Heritage. Four-toed salamander & water willow moth within the past year were found in resource area and it would require a permit for the project. Natural heritage was concerned about the amt. of time elapsed from when the tide was initially increased to the animals (adjustment period). It seemed that there would be some loss. Natural Heritage did express support of objective and goals of project though. Tim Smith thought they would be pretty amenable to working closely with committee.
Eric Derleth: Natural heritage want a list of impacts to existing species including the size of the area from the project. They are looking for some discrete impacts.
John Portnoy said that they also wanted monitoring of endangered species during the range of the project.
John Riehl expressed concern that as more salt water is allowed in the resource area that the freshwater would be pushed further up-river. He asked if new habitat would be created.
According to Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, and John Portnoy, the answer is yes.
Stephen Spear asked John Portnoy if any of the listed species are present on the on the other side of Rt. 6. John Portnoy: Yes.
John Portnoy feels that diamond-back terrapins would also start nests on/around dike.
Stephen Spears asked if there would be more freshwater elevation changes that would be beneficial to the endangered species.
John Portnoy: Yes, there would be elevation changes so technically it could increase its usefulness to various species.
Chair asked what would be the next step for endangered species permitting.
Tim Smith stated that Natural Heritage would like a joint meeting with DEP to discuss further concerns. He also said that if there was an executive committee to spearhead endangered species permitting that NHESP would like to be an active part of committee.
Eric Derleth said their next meeting would be when there is a final CRP model.
Chair opened discussion on CRP (conceptual restoration plan) draft outline. Due to lack of time for review, the Chair decided that discussing document would be better if done at the next HRTC meeting.
John Riehl asked what the process is between the outline and full plan.
Tim Smith: once outline is approved, then the full plan would be available. Eric Derleth said that a new contract with ENSR would have to be entered due to financial concerns.
Stephen Spear asked if the text of the full plan would be received in outline form first as well. Tim Smith: Yes.
Chair asked Tim Smith if more feedback is expected from the committee by ENSR. Tim Smith thinks that would be wise to give ENSR more feedback. Tim Smith talked about protocol of work with ENSR and results to be provided by ENSR.
John Riehl asked if there was a timeframe included with contract with ENSR. Tim Smith/Eric Derleth: Yes.
Tim Smith went over timeline from ENSR with committee.
Carrie Phillips (CCNS) stated that getting the MOU II and the CRP done/approved is more important than getting the ENF done.
Helen Miranda Wilson asked when the stakeholder committee would be asked to become involved again. Chair said that both HRTC chair and the stakeholder chair have been in touch and agreed that the stakeholders committee will become involved again when we get to the next stage.
Tim Smith/Eric Derleth/Chair stated that we are not to that point yet. Stephen Spear asked if there should be some input from stakeholders, selectmen, etc. on the draft.
Chair agreed that it would be beneficial and referred back to the educational outreach mentioned at the beginning of the meeting.
John Riehl expressed concern that more public input is needed before going much further (approval of ENF, environmental notification form).
Eric Derleth stated that having subcommittees and the MOU II work allows for they’re to be input from political/public interests.
Stephen Spear proposed a question if the committee should open up the draft to public access or if the public should be allowed access once the committee has finalized things.
Helen Miranda Wilson suggested the importance of having either in the newsletter or someplace else in public a date and time where public input will be available.
Jack Whalen expressed concern over the timeline.
Eric Derleth stated that the ENSR timeline isn’t set through them; it is set by the HRTC, so there is room for change.
John Riehl expressed further concern about informing the public in the CRP stage rather than during the permitting stage.
John Riehl stated that having informal, informative meeting geared toward the public would be beneficial.
Jack Whalen stated that having an approved model would be more beneficial because then more questions can be answered than having in during the drafting/approval process.
Carrie Phillips said that informing the public about the process of getting the final ENF might further understanding of the project.
Diane Murphy thinks it would be more efficient if everyone gets together/or if there was an email discussion to discuss the draft outline before submitting questions regarding the draft to ENSR.
Chair agrees but special meeting may not be possible. As a solution, the Chair will gather comment/questions during the next ten days, distribute compilation to committee, and then finalize a copy to send to ENSR for feedback.
Following discussion, Chair asked Tim Smith to form a motion asking the committee to (based on the proposal that ENSR submitted to committee in August) approve sending ENSR the go ahead with deliverable plans #3 & #4. Chair entertained motion; Jack Whalen so moved, John Riehl 2nd .
3:59 pm motion passed unanimously
John Riehl had a question about comments/questions concerning the draft outline. The chair would need comments/questions about draft outline by March 8th.
Chair asked Tim Smith to request ENSR documents in digital form.
Chair opened up discussion on MOU II working group. Chair is optimistic with work being done by working group. Chair explained the goals/progress made at MOU II. Chair also mentioned the MOU II working group meeting groups minutes are available and most recent meeting minutes will be available shortly for distribution to HRTC.
Chair discussed concern developed within working group about having a further working committee/group beyond the HRTC. Chair stated to committee that a draft copy of the MOU II would be available within 30 days.
Chair decided to postpone by-pass working group due to the absence of Robert Hubby and Joel Fox. Chair also said that Robert Hubby researched 40,000 gal. water tank.
Chair discussed options for next meeting date. Next meeting date March 19 at 10:00 am. John Riehl will find a meeting place.
Committee takes a short break at 4:36 pm.
Committee reconvened from break at 4:44 pm.
Chair opened discussion on development of timeline and flow for HRTC. Chair referred to handout in meeting packet. (Order of events was gathered from ENSR document involving forthcoming steps/data collection timeframes).
Chair began outline of structure on flip chart.
Chair requested Carrie Phillips for help in detailing outline.
Committee agreed public outreach be included THROUGHOUT process.
CRP/MOU II NEPA/MEPA ENF/NOI (Scoping/Public Process)
D-EIS/D-EIR Devel. D-EIS/D-EIR
Public Review Develp. DRP (Pref. Alt.).
Monitor/Manage Construction Engineering/Permitting
John Riehl voiced a question about who will manage resource area; what is the role of a successor committee of the technical committee with citizenry on it?
Carrie Phillips suggested contracting someone but other stakeholders may also have some responsibility.
Tim Smith asked who has the formal oversight for NEPA.
Carrie Phillips stated that there is a NEPA advisor.
John Riehl stated that he feels between the CRP/MOU II process and the NEPA/MEPA process that there is no mention of public input. He also feels that there is less and less public input being offered through the rest of the project. He feels that the core group idea is a wise one so that there can be one or two representatives that act as the voice of the people for each entity. Stephen Spear is unsure of who receives the NEPA compliance.
Carrie Phillips/John Portnoy stated that it would be EPA or a core group of a proposed new committee.
Stephen Spear: Do the towns have to be compliant with NEPA? Tim Smith/Eric Derleth/Carrie Phillips: No but the NPS does have to be compliant with NEPA that is why NEPA is an important to the process.
Chair asked who/what determines/names the lead agency; is it going to be something we’ll need in the new MOU?
Eric Derleth: Yes.
Stephen Spear stated that since several agencies have such similar requirements with their permitting process, the agencies might have a joint hearing.
Tim Smith stated that they would already be considering that.
Eric Derleth expressed concern over hiring/paying contractor.
Carrie Phillips stated that through her contracting office in NPS that in order to be able to be this approved this fiscal year that the bid needs to be approved by May.
.
Chair entertained motion to adjourn meeting; John Portnoy so moved.1st, John Riehl 2nd. Vote unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 5:42 pm.
| 