Herring River Technical Committee Minutes
January 16, 2007, Public Library, Wellfleet, MA
Corrected and Approved on date2February 22, 2007
Present: Carl Breivogel; Steve Block: Tim Smith; Eric Derleth; Stephen Spear; Jack Whelan; Robert Hubby; John Riehl; Gary Palmer; John Portnoy; Gordon Peabody.
Absent/notification: Diane Murphy; Hillary Greenberg; Joel Fox. Absent: Andy Koch.
Also present: Peter Watts, Stakeholder Committee Chair
Carrie Phillips, CCNS Nat. Resources; Ira Wood, Wellfleet Selectman; Tara Nye, APCC
Chair called meeting to order 1:16 pm.
The Chair stated goals for this meeting: First will be to provide a sense of context and flow for restoration planning; Second is to have a full and robust discussion for the restoration alternatives; Third is to review of the Conceptual Restoration Plan draft.
Chair entertained motion to approve corrected HRTC meeting minutes from 11/30/06.
Steve Block so moved, Bob Hubby seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Chair entertained motion to approve corrected 10/26/06 HRTC meeting minutes.
Steve Block so moved, Bob Hubby seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Chair opened public comment portion of meeting.
Helen Miranda Wilson commented that it might be better to wait till end of meeting to open floor to public.
Chair opened floor to announcements. John Portnoy told the Committee that the National Park Service will fund EIS preparation up to $150,000.
The Chair introduced Megan Eckhardt, acting Committee secretary. Megan has a background in biology and chemistry.
The Chair asked Tim Smith for a brief presentation on the new Herring River restoration project brochures. Tim said he had brought 3 boxes of brochures for Committee members and more were on the way. The Wellfleet Conservation Trust has already received one box. There are 1,100 per box.
The Chair acknowledged the role CZM, Tim Smith and the WCT played in the brochure process. The Chair thanked Tim for the successful production of an informational brochure that honors the restoration efforts.
The Chair will draft a letter of thanks to the WCT (which donated $2,000) and the MA Corporate Wetlands Restoration Program (which provided an additional $500), acknowledging their supportive role in the restoration process.
Chair introduced Dennis Lowry from ENSR. Dennis presents the expanded outline of the Conceptual Restoration Plan.
Dennis Lowry introduces Firooz Panah, a bridge engineer, to present restoration alternatives at the Dike off of urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags013fplacePlaceNameHerring PlaceTypeRiver Technical Committee Minutes
dateYear2007Day16Month1January 16, 2007, Public Library, placeCityWellfleet, StateMA
Corrected and Approved on dateYear2007Day22Month2February 22, 2007
Present: Carl Breivogel; Steve Block: Tim Smith; Eric Derleth; Stephen Spear; Jack Whelan; Robert Hubby; John Riehl; Gary Palmer; John Portnoy; Gordon Peabody.
Absent/notification: Diane Murphy; Hillary Greenberg; Joel Fox. Absent: Andy Koch.
Also present: Peter Watts, Stakeholder Committee Chair
Carrie Phillips, CCNS Nat. Resources; Ira Wood, Wellfleet Selectman; Tara Nye, APCC
Chair called meeting to order timeMinute16Hour131:16 pm.
The Chair stated goals for this meeting: First will be to provide a sense of context and flow for restoration planning; Second is to have a full and robust discussion for the restoration alternatives; Third is to review of the Conceptual Restoration Plan draft.
Chair entertained motion to approve corrected HRTC meeting minutes from dateYear2006Day30Month1111/30/06.
Steve Block so moved, Bob Hubby seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Chair entertained motion to approve corrected dateYear2006Day26Month1010/26/06 HRTC meeting minutes.
Steve Block so moved, Bob Hubby seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Chair opened public comment portion of meeting.
Helen Miranda Wilson commented that it might be better to wait till end of meeting to open floor to public.
Chair opened floor to announcements. John Portnoy told the Committee that the National Park Service will fund EIS preparation up to $150,000.
The Chair introduced Megan Eckhardt, acting Committee secretary. Megan has a background in biology and chemistry.
The Chair asked Tim Smith for a brief presentation on the new placePlaceNameHerring PlaceTypeRiver restoration project brochures. Tim said he had brought 3 boxes of brochures for Committee members and more were on the way. The Wellfleet Conservation Trust has already received one box. There are 1,100 per box.
The Chair acknowledged the role CZM, Tim Smith and the WCT played in the brochure process. The Chair thanked Tim for the successful production of an informational brochure that honors the restoration efforts.
The Chair will draft a letter of thanks to the WCT (which donated $2,000) and the MA Corporate Wetlands Restoration Program (which provided an additional $500), acknowledging their supportive role in the restoration process.
Chair introduced Dennis Lowry from ENSR. Dennis presents the expanded outline of the Conceptual Restoration Plan.
Dennis Lowry introduces Firooz Panah, a bridge engineer, to present restoration alternatives at the Dike off of addressStreetChequessett Neck Road. Firooz presents specific conditions for modified tide control at that dike with 3 options. These were narrowed down from the original four options. The third option became a hybrid of the original third option, combined with the fourth option. Options would need to consider modified alternative to have an open flow bridge at the dike and tide controls at addressStreetHigh Toss Road and Mill Creek.
Option 1-Box culverts would be part of an opening width of 30 Meters…potentially 40 Meters. Advantages would be low maintenance and conventional. Longer construction period was a disadvantage.
Steve Block had a question about construction period for a 30 Meter culvert. Firooz said that it could still be done in one season.
Chair brought up point about continuing efforts to investigate using a bypass road during construction to save over a million dollars. If town closed the dike road it would also speed up construction.
Option 2-Precaset-2 span arch culvert could be spanned in 2-48 M spans, The panels come in 8 – 12 ft. width for easy transport. They can be erected fairly quickly. Esthetically, it is better looking than alt. 1 (box culvert).
Steve Block asked how the gates were installed on this option vs. option 1.
Firooz referred to handout: construction is separate; locks are not attached to precast. The hydrostatic pressure needs to be transferred from lock walls to locks.
John Portnoy asked if the tide gate assembly could be removed at some point in time without causing structure damage.
Firooz Yes, connections can be developed so that the locks can be removed from structure. Part of casting can be removed further if needed for boats, etc.
Option 3-similar to option 2 in terms of opening but there is more flexibility for opening size (making spans longer) than option 2. More conventional and has a more options for the superstructure such as steel or precast. More geotechnical research needed to see if foundation needed additional support. Advantages would be the easiest to open up, easy to inspect, nicer esthetically than option 1 but not 2. Disadvantages are that it is longer construction period than option 2 but can still be constructed in 1 season.
John Riehl asked what a “season” means? Means being closed 6-9 month time frame.
Chair asks if there is a potential passage alternative for herring migration, if needed, during construction time? Yes. On the East side of the existing structure, the culvert, which is there, would be kept open.
Stephen Spear asked if we discussed the option of centering the bridge on the existing culverts? The existing tide gate structure could be removed if needed, but there are limiting factors for option 3.
Steve Block asked what would be the disposition of the existing tide gate structure? If the structure is in good condition, Firooz Panah said that the existing structure would be used/kept. Carl Breivogel asked as to why the measurements for the catwalk is the size it is for opt. 1(is it too small for fishing)? Would it be less expensive to build a fishing platform than to build a catwalk? Firooz Panah said needs to have access for both sides, pushing towards a catwalk but they think that maybe even a 4 ft. wide catwalk may not be enough. Reasons asked about width, that a catwalk might need fill to support structure vs. platform. The Catwalk would be built on top of the walls so no fill needed according to Firooz Panah (ENSR).
Steve Block: In option 2, with gate dimensions, if we want to make them higher vertically, how does that affect restoration alternatives?
Matt Kennedy (ENSR), there might not be as much opening on the end of the openings (width), but there is room for addition vertical height. If it is determined through modeling that there isn’t enough opening width, than option 3 would be better than opt. 2. Steve Block asks how big can the spans be for option 3? They can go up to 80-90 ft. but the structure’s depth, or thickness would be deeper the bigger it gets. It is possible to make it shallower, but it would cost more. Depth vs. span ratio is a major aspect of study. It may be more economical to have a 1 span structure but the additional pier in a 2 span structure will help transfer the hydrostatic pressure. Unsure which would be better.
Stephen Spear asked if the deck could be raised in option 3?
Firooz Yes, it can be..
Eric Derleth: With option 2 &3: What actively controls the depth levels? Firooz answers that the support structure attaches to the gate; if the water levels goes up, the structure behind the gate helps to control it. Steve Block: what are relative construction costs between the three options? Firooz Panah: At the level that they are presented they are within 3-4% of each other.
The Chair advised the Committee that cost projections would be affected by possible use of High Toss bypass during construction.
Eric Derleth: for option 2, going to the 40 Meter option, is the cost a wash like 30 Meter bridge?
Firooz It isn’t. As the span gets bigger Option 3 becomes more economical and more attractive option because at 40 meters, a 3rd arch would have to be installed.
Stephen Spear: Can you give us an idea of life cycle cost comparison?
Firooz: The cost estimate for the life cycle of alternative. 1 & 2 are low but opt. 3 would be the highest. After about 20 or 25 years on option 3 would require routine maintenance. Such as replace deck, ball bearings for gate, etc.
Stephen Spear: When we get to the finish point here, would you be able to quantify it more closely (Cost efficiency)? Would you be able to give us a better estimate?
Firooz Panah yes.
Dennis Lowry was unsure if the State takes on cost for bridge maintenance.
John Riehl: How do the costs bear on permitting and funding?
Eric Derleth: for funding proposals you use your estimated costs as developed through the design process. Each project proposal gets rated on its own merits that determine funding. We need to come up with th best alternative.
Stephen Spear: Funding may be based on the least funded alternative, based on each alternative that would be equally good.
Chair mentions that this is too early to get into that discussion.
Dennis Lowry: would like to start the discussion on the open bridge restoration alternative, looking at some gradients further up on the watershed. Recreational advantages for having the Chequesset Neck dike open to the harbor itself. It raises a lot of other considerations for tidal flood control. Maintenance and management concerns of tidal gates are considered, in not having gates there. Cost for just building a bridge without tidal gates is still costly. Under Option 1: Mill creek (no good mapping) has 500 ft. wide opening on the south side and would have to be built to elevation 11 or 12, with side slopes, with tide gate controls built in to prevent tidal flooding above elevation 6. Would be significant. Construction costly (totaling around $1 million).
Eric Derleth: would you have to build above the 100 yr. flood plain?
Dennis Lowry: Yes.
John Riehl: What the purpose of old dike at Mill Creek?
Eric Derleth: it used to be tidal gristmill.
Robert Hubby: How much money would be tied up in the gates at the dike at Chequessett Neck? Rough # is ½ million dollars.
John Portnoy: What about the advantages of open dike, doesn’t the incremental restoration get us there eventually? Confused about long-term advantages?
Matt Kennedy & Dennis Lowry: cost of flood control further up the floodplain would be less than if done at Chequessett Neck, due to low lying roads, etc.
Stephen Spear: access, cost and the lower basin could receive water flow as advantages. Dennis says that it would be wise to continue to consider option 1.
Chair: It is important to consider the Selectmen of Wellfleet, they were asked to approve an incremental plan for restoration.
Dennis says that all these plans can be made incremental.
Carl Breivogel: What if the marsh is too low to adapt to a full opening?
John Protnoy: It’s too low to be able to take on full flow.
John Riehl spoke of sedimentation concerns.
Chair: Have we been able to determine what needs to be added at High Toss road, because if the roadway were raised at all then it would be acting as a dam?
Dennis Lowry and Matt Kennedy said that options need to be explored. Some kind of opening will be needed eventually. addressStreetPole Dike Road flood protection measures were discussed; if no flood protection was put in at Mill Creek or Chequessett Neck, there may be a need at addressStreetPole Dike Road. Without control further down the system: Old county road North may need discussion on option for flood control. Virtually all wetland areas are below elevation 6. Even with scenario where the tide would be brought up above elevation 6, infrastructure protection would need to be taken.
John Portnoy: Are there rules about roads and tidal height?
Matt Kennedy: No real rule, but good idea for access point and maintenance. Points out that roads be above the 100 yr. flood mark.
Chair: What is the historical record for responding to tidal flow impacting preexisting roadways prior to diking?
John Portnoy: patience allowed people to wait for tide to go down.
Carl Breivogel: “Where would water be allowed to flow through roadways via culverts? Specifically: area on addressStreetOld County Rd. N near placePlaceNameMerrick PlaceTypeIsland. Concerned that fish may get trapped in a marsh as the tide goes out.”
Stephen Spear: May have to go beyond the flood stage on the road either by requirements or by prudence.
Break at timeMinute48Hour142:48 pm. Reconvened at timeMinute54Hour142:54 pm.
Chair asks for discussion on concerns for Option of free flow plan.
Carl Breivogel: Doesn’t see the merit in it.
Steve Block: Unsure if there would be enough control elsewhere. Needs more information.
Tim Smith: Needs more information. A control at the mouth may be thought of as temporary.
Eric Derleth: Keep it for now, but as more info comes it review the options.
Stephen Spear: In agreement with Eric.
Robert Hubby: Keep it going for consideration, I welcomes new info.
John Riehl: Has concerns about raising the road at addressStreetHigh Toss Road, but keep it going for consideration.
Jack Whalen: Concerns about the golf course.
John Portnoy: Has outstanding concern about high toss road becoming a diking structure and an eyesore.
Chair: There would be another level of abutters with the potential of higher level. We also haven’t looked at cost concerns about 2 spanning structures vs.one, with subsequent public safety issues. Less concerned about free flow if restoration would be incremental
Dennis Lowry: Opens discussion about Conceptual Restoration Plan’s forthcoming steps and relative time frames. Looking for direction from committee about the direction of the draft.
Discussed role that Cape Cod Commission has in MEPA review. Options discussed for submitting ENF. Even though a lot of work has been done, a draft and final copy of an ENF will be needed. Eric Derleth: What kind of relationship between EIS and MEPA? Dennis Lowry: The documents run in sequence, but unsure of relationship at the MEPA level. ENF will need to be done first.
Stephen Spear: Who oversees MEPA? Each agency (regional) oversees MEPA. Is there a public meeting between both gov’t agencies? Dennis: MEPA doesn’t hold hearings.
John Riehl: When do local agencies get involved? At what point?
Dennis: When it comes to permitting, there is a permit required by the DEP, but the beginning step is with the individual Con Com.
Chair: Will the committee need MOU to establish lead agency? Dennis: Yes.
Steve Block: What makes you use variance?
Dennis: The process is complicated and the requirements to fulfill vary.
Tim Smith: the DEP wetland variance is complex.
Chair: In Sec. 3 of work to be completed– Is ground truthing necessary for survey results with the mapping requirements?
Dennis: No, that refers to future work and not current survey.
Eric Derleth: Everything is progressing on an equal timeline basis for the MEPA, should that be a concern?
Tim Smith: Suggestions of pre-application meeting with all the agencies before filing ENF. Having town officials able to meet with MEPA officials.
Stephen Spear: Knowledge of when there is a possible meeting with placePlaceTypeGulf of PlaceNameMaine officials?
Chair: I believe we have a mutual acknowledgement of timeline: when would be the optimum time for this committee to morph into the next committee?
Dennis: Up to step 4A.
Eric Derleth: Committee makes recommendation to Selectmen. They are where the final actions are made.
Stephen Spear: Is the timeline out of order? Specifically step 2? Dennis: No.
Steve Block & John Reihl offer clarification to Stephen Spear. John Riehl: believes that permitting order is correct. Towns stay active in the MEPA process along with the committee applying. Stephen Spear: Are the towns expected to make any kind of decision by getting the Conceptual Restoration Plan? If yes, is it relevant to know what MEPA thinks?
Chair: The three entities should be involved together.
From the audience-Helen Miranda placeCityWilson: Thinking carefully before bringing up ideas/options to Selectmen needs to happen.
Steven Spear: The entities should be involved before MEPA.
John Portnoy: How do you want comments sent to you about the Draft Conceptual restoration Plan outline?
Dennis: via email.
Steve Block suggest that either Tim Smith or the Chair collect copies of comments then they would get sent on to ENSR.
Chair: Do we have info on “bridge” maintenance responsibilities?
Block: Is placePlaceNameMass. PlaceTypeState going to be involved in the permitting?
Chair: Should we ask surveyor to get info to ENSR?
Dennis: We’re already working on it, they said two more weeks.
John Riehl: Will we have a revised CRP for our next meeting?
Dennis: Depends.
John Riehl: would like to see revisions after comments at gathered and additional info about role of individual Con Coms, sec. 6.
Steve Spear: when the permitting process, everyone on all levels should be involved and concerns can be shared.
Chair asked for any questions before ENSR leaves.
Carl Breivogel thinks that the MEPA process can do a lot.
Steve Block: what is the next step as far as restoration alternatives? Dennis: this is what we are anticipating. That’s it.
Tim Smith: Are we at the end of the funding from the $41 K granted to start researching alternatives?
Dennis: Yes.
Steve Block: Is the revised draft concept. restoration plan the next deliverable?
Dennis: Yes.
Tim Smith: How much effort has ENSR put in on another draft of an outline than jumping on ahead? This draft/narrative about restoration alternatives?
Eric Derleth: including all 4 options as deliverables to proceed?
Dennis: Yes.
John Portnoy: No indication of the goals of habitat restoration in draft CRP outline. These need to be clear for permitting and grants.
Chair: happy with good info but less clear about coordinated permitting. Would like more info about that. Where are we going to see the transition in the committee into a different group of committee members?
Chair: we will also have to have a representative from the shell fishing community on this committee. Lack of representation creates a perception of bypassing concerns and not communicating. We will have to contact shellfish representatives to see where they stand.
Break at timeMinute7Hour164:07 pm. Break ends timeMinute15Hour164:15 pm
Chair: What is the news on our “placePlaceTypeGulf of PlaceNameMaine Grant”?
Tim Smith: The review process for placePlaceTypeGulf of PlaceNameMaine grant is a bit behind schedule. Originally expected review and announcement to be done late Jan. Aerial mapping should be done in April. But because of the delay by the grant and the costliness of the aerial mapping it would cause the town to be strained financially. The state CZM would contract for the mapping to allow it to be completed in an orderly/timely manner and then get grant announcement later (swapping the two tasks). If it works out, MA CZM will start the process to map out area. Most likely will contract ENSR to do mapping. When the money does become available to town, then CZM will work with town to get hydrodynamic model underway.
John Portnoy: how much will the modeling cost:
Tim Smith: about $50K.
Steve Block: Modeling costs is dependent on what all you want included in the model.
Tim Smith: We need to go over what exactly needs to be mapped.
Chair: I’d suggest that to the 10 foot contour would be sufficient.
John Portnoy: I agree I think we can delineate it as well.
John Riehl: Is it smart to squeeze more area in now rather than go back and do it?
Tim Smith: Yes, because still need to survey the area. It may just be as cost efficient to continue to take pictures because of the complexity of the floodplain.
Chair: asks members for suggestions on brochure distribution.
John Riehl can arrange to have displayed at Audubon and to get them to every member of the town government.
John Portnoy will contact non-resident taxpayers assoc. and Salt Pond Visitor’s Center.
Robert Hubby suggests local government agencies (Town hall, Chamber Commerce).
Stephen Spear: send to larger government officials (State Rep, Governor, etc.).
Eric Derleth: Given away free to anyone whom applies for a state fishing license or shell fishing license.
Tim Smith: Store a box temporarily with him at his office – will distribute to individuals that he sees fit.
Steve Block: suggests that they should accompany all grant applications.
Carl Breivogel suggests that every member should carry some in.
Chair: suggests distributing brochures to abutters, liaisons, and schools.
Tim Smith: wants to remind members about “Herring River News”
Chair: I am shooting for a draft copy of a Herring River Newsletter for the next meeting with a final Newsletter being approved in the following meeting thereafter.
Helen Miranda Wilson spoke of concerns that not enough voters will get brochure even if every measure spoke of previous was taken to distribute brochure.
Robert Hubby: I have a 31 page submission for achieves. If any member has anything that is significant. that needs to be included in the archives, to email it to Robert.
Chair: MOU working group: Meeting at 10 am (John Portnoy, Gary Palmer, Carrie Phillips, Hillary Greenberg, Gordon Peabody and Rex Peterson) sometime next week.
Steve Block: What is the next step in deliverable to the town for the next step forward? Should we file the ENF or does the town?
Steve Spear: We need to get the MOU from the town
Tim Smith: The ENF and the plan go together…. can’t have ENF without the plan. Recommends possibly filing the two together (ENF and MOU) to the town.
John Riehl: What would be the harm in going ahead with an ENF?
John Portnoy: Switch the two around, the MOU should be developed and submitted to the towns and Seashore before the ENF is submitted.
Steve Block: Without mapping and modeling, what comfort level is possible for the town before a final restoration plan is decided? Would it be acceptable to present things in a conceptual manner to the board of Selectmen? If we can build a process into the next committee (which needs to approve a new MOU), then it may be sufficient to present to the board with goals in mind.
Steve Spear: This committee dissolves into the next one, but the MOU separates it. Has a problem submitting the ENF because of costs. If submitted, submit with all options available to selectmen.
Eric Derleth: Would like to see public involvement. Could use MOU and ENF to gain public involvement. Wonders if information will ever be complete enough. He would like to start process earlier rather than later.
Eric Derleth: Suggests preparing ENF but not calling it ENF until town approves MOU so they can sign off on ENF. A 60- day window from proper filing with the selectmen would allow the selectmen an opportunity to easily approve the documents.
Helen Miranda Wilson: Concerns that Truro may not have enough time to discuss and review options of diking where Wellfleet has and the problems that may arise.
Tim Smith: feels that the conceptual design needs to be worked on. ENSR has expended what they can expend from the monies allocated; now all the money is going to finalized reports.
Chair: We need to consider our next meeting time. Meeting date will be dateYear2007Day22Month22-22-07 at timeMinute0Hour131pm. John R. will check on locations.
Chair: I want to thank everyone for great meeting. Everyone to review CRP draft to send me comments by Jan. 26.
Chair: entertains motion to adjourn. Steve Block so moves, John Portnoy seconds motion. Unanimous at timeMinute24Hour175:24 PM, adjourned
Submitted by PersonNameGordon Peabody, Chair
Chequessett Neck Road. Firooz presents specific conditions for modified tide control at that dike with 3 options. These were narrowed down from the original four options. The third option became a hybrid of the original third option, combined with the fourth option. Options would need to consider modified alternative to have an open flow bridge at the dike and tide controls at addressStreetHigh Toss Road and Mill Creek.
Option 1-Box culverts would be part of an opening width of 30 Meters…potentially 40 Meters. Advantages would be low maintenance and conventional. Longer construction period was a disadvantage.
Steve Block had a question about construction period for a 30 Meter culvert. Firooz said that it could still be done in one season.
Chair brought up point about continuing efforts to investigate using a bypass road during construction to save over a million dollars. If town closed the dike road it would also speed up construction.
Option 2-Precaset-2 span arch culvert could be spanned in 2-48 M spans, The panels come in 8 – 12 ft. width for easy transport. They can be erected fairly quickly. Esthetically, it is better looking than alt. 1 (box culvert).
Steve Block asked how the gates were installed on this option vs. option 1.
Firooz referred to handout: construction is separate; locks are not attached to precast. The hydrostatic pressure needs to be transferred from lock walls to locks.
John Portnoy asked if the tide gate assembly could be removed at some point in time without causing structure damage.
Firooz Yes, connections can be developed so that the locks can be removed from structure. Part of casting can be removed further if needed for boats, etc.
Option 3-similar to option 2 in terms of opening but there is more flexibility for opening size (making spans longer) than option 2. More conventional and has a more options for the superstructure such as steel or precast. More geotechnical research needed to see if foundation needed additional support. Advantages would be the easiest to open up, easy to inspect, nicer esthetically than option 1 but not 2. Disadvantages are that it is longer construction period than option 2 but can still be constructed in 1 season.
John Riehl asked what a “season” means? Means being closed 6-9 month time frame.
Chair asks if there is a potential passage alternative for herring migration, if needed, during construction time? Yes. On the East side of the existing structure, the culvert, which is there, would be kept open.
Stephen Spear asked if we discussed the option of centering the bridge on the existing culverts? The existing tide gate structure could be removed if needed, but there are limiting factors for option 3.
Steve Block asked what would be the disposition of the existing tide gate structure? If the structure is in good condition, Firooz Panah said that the existing structure would be used/kept. Carl Breivogel asked as to why the measurements for the catwalk is the size it is for opt. 1(is it too small for fishing)? Would it be less expensive to build a fishing platform than to build a catwalk? Firooz Panah said needs to have access for both sides, pushing towards a catwalk but they think that maybe even a 4 ft. wide catwalk may not be enough. Reasons asked about width, that a catwalk might need fill to support structure vs. platform. The Catwalk would be built on top of the walls so no fill needed according to Firooz Panah (ENSR).
Steve Block: In option 2, with gate dimensions, if we want to make them higher vertically, how does that affect restoration alternatives?
Matt Kennedy (ENSR), there might not be as much opening on the end of the openings (width), but there is room for addition vertical height. If it is determined through modeling that there isn’t enough opening width, than option 3 would be better than opt. 2. Steve Block asks how big can the spans be for option 3? They can go up to 80-90 ft. but the structure’s depth, or thickness would be deeper the bigger it gets. It is possible to make it shallower, but it would cost more. Depth vs. span ratio is a major aspect of study. It may be more economical to have a 1 span structure but the additional pier in a 2 span structure will help transfer the hydrostatic pressure. Unsure which would be better.
Stephen Spear asked if the deck could be raised in option 3?
Firooz Yes, it can be..
Eric Derleth: With option 2 &3: What actively controls the depth levels? Firooz answers that the support structure attaches to the gate; if the water levels goes up, the structure behind the gate helps to control it. Steve Block: what are relative construction costs between the three options? Firooz Panah: At the level that they are presented they are within 3-4% of each other.
The Chair advised the Committee that cost projections would be affected by possible use of High Toss bypass during construction.
Eric Derleth: for option 2, going to the 40 Meter option, is the cost a wash like 30 Meter bridge?
Firooz It isn’t. As the span gets bigger Option 3 becomes more economical and more attractive option because at 40 meters, a 3rd arch would have to be installed.
Stephen Spear: Can you give us an idea of life cycle cost comparison?
Firooz: The cost estimate for the life cycle of alternative. 1 & 2 are low but opt. 3 would be the highest. After about 20 or 25 years on option 3 would require routine maintenance. Such as replace deck, ball bearings for gate, etc.
Stephen Spear: When we get to the finish point here, would you be able to quantify it more closely (Cost efficiency)? Would you be able to give us a better estimate?
Firooz Panah yes.
Dennis Lowry was unsure if the State takes on cost for bridge maintenance.
John Riehl: How do the costs bear on permitting and funding?
Eric Derleth: for funding proposals you use your estimated costs as developed through the design process. Each project proposal gets rated on its own merits that determine funding. We need to come up with th best alternative.
Stephen Spear: Funding may be based on the least funded alternative, based on each alternative that would be equally good.
Chair mentions that this is too early to get into that discussion.
Dennis Lowry: would like to start the discussion on the open bridge restoration alternative, looking at some gradients further up on the watershed. Recreational advantages for having the Chequesset Neck dike open to the harbor itself. It raises a lot of other considerations for tidal flood control. Maintenance and management concerns of tidal gates are considered, in not having gates there. Cost for just building a bridge without tidal gates is still costly. Under Option 1: Mill creek (no good mapping) has 500 ft. wide opening on the south side and would have to be built to elevation 11 or 12, with side slopes, with tide gate controls built in to prevent tidal flooding above elevation 6. Would be significant. Construction costly (totaling around $1 million).
Eric Derleth: would you have to build above the 100 yr. flood plain?
Dennis Lowry: Yes.
John Riehl: What the purpose of old dike at Mill Creek?
Eric Derleth: it used to be tidal gristmill.
Robert Hubby: How much money would be tied up in the gates at the dike at Chequessett Neck? Rough # is ½ million dollars.
John Portnoy: What about the advantages of open dike, doesn’t the incremental restoration get us there eventually? Confused about long-term advantages?
Matt Kennedy & Dennis Lowry: cost of flood control further up the floodplain would be less than if done at Chequessett Neck, due to low lying roads, etc.
Stephen Spear: access, cost and the lower basin could receive water flow as advantages. Dennis says that it would be wise to continue to consider option 1.
Chair: It is important to consider the Selectmen of Wellfleet, they were asked to approve an incremental plan for restoration.
Dennis says that all these plans can be made incremental.
Carl Breivogel: What if the marsh is too low to adapt to a full opening?
John Protnoy: It’s too low to be able to take on full flow.
John Riehl spoke of sedimentation concerns.
Chair: Have we been able to determine what needs to be added at High Toss road, because if the roadway were raised at all then it would be acting as a dam?
Dennis Lowry and Matt Kennedy said that options need to be explored. Some kind of opening will be needed eventually. Pole Dike Road flood protection measures were discussed; if no flood protection was put in at Mill Creek or Chequessett Neck, there may be a need at addressStreetPole Dike Road. Without control further down the system: Old county road North may need discussion on option for flood control. Virtually all wetland areas are below elevation 6. Even with scenario where the tide would be brought up above elevation 6, infrastructure protection would need to be taken.
John Portnoy: Are there rules about roads and tidal height?
Matt Kennedy: No real rule, but good idea for access point and maintenance. Points out that roads be above the 100 yr. flood mark.
Chair: What is the historical record for responding to tidal flow impacting preexisting roadways prior to diking?
John Portnoy: patience allowed people to wait for tide to go down.
Carl Breivogel: “Where would water be allowed to flow through roadways via culverts? Specifically: area on Old County Rd. N near Merrick Island. Concerned that fish may get trapped in a marsh as the tide goes out.”
Stephen Spear: May have to go beyond the flood stage on the road either by requirements or by prudence.
Break at 2:48 pm. Reconvened at 2:54 pm.
Chair asks for discussion on concerns for Option of free flow plan.
Carl Breivogel: Doesn’t see the merit in it.
Steve Block: Unsure if there would be enough control elsewhere. Needs more information.
Tim Smith: Needs more information. A control at the mouth may be thought of as temporary.
Eric Derleth: Keep it for now, but as more info comes it review the options.
Stephen Spear: In agreement with Eric.
Robert Hubby: Keep it going for consideration, I welcomes new info.
John Riehl: Has concerns about raising the road at High Toss Road, but keep it going for consideration.
Jack Whalen: Concerns about the golf course.
John Portnoy: Has outstanding concern about high toss road becoming a diking structure and an eyesore.
Chair: There would be another level of abutters with the potential of higher level. We also haven’t looked at cost concerns about 2 spanning structures vs.one, with subsequent public safety issues. Less concerned about free flow if restoration would be incremental
Dennis Lowry: Opens discussion about Conceptual Restoration Plan’s forthcoming steps and relative time frames. Looking for direction from committee about the direction of the draft.
Discussed role that Cape Cod Commission has in MEPA review. Options discussed for submitting ENF. Even though a lot of work has been done, a draft and final copy of an ENF will be needed. Eric Derleth: What kind of relationship between EIS and MEPA? Dennis Lowry: The documents run in sequence, but unsure of relationship at the MEPA level. ENF will need to be done first.
Stephen Spear: Who oversees MEPA? Each agency (regional) oversees MEPA. Is there a public meeting between both gov’t agencies? Dennis: MEPA doesn’t hold hearings.
John Riehl: When do local agencies get involved? At what point?
Dennis: When it comes to permitting, there is a permit required by the DEP, but the beginning step is with the individual Con Com.
Chair: Will the committee need MOU to establish lead agency? Dennis: Yes.
Steve Block: What makes you use variance?
Dennis: The process is complicated and the requirements to fulfill vary.
Tim Smith: the DEP wetland variance is complex.
Chair: In Sec. 3 of work to be completed– Is ground truthing necessary for survey results with the mapping requirements?
Dennis: No, that refers to future work and not current survey.
Eric Derleth: Everything is progressing on an equal timeline basis for the MEPA, should that be a concern?
Tim Smith: Suggestions of pre-application meeting with all the agencies before filing ENF. Having town officials able to meet with MEPA officials.
Stephen Spear: Knowledge of when there is a possible meeting with Gulf of Maine officials?
Chair: I believe we have a mutual acknowledgement of timeline: when would be the optimum time for this committee to morph into the next committee?
Dennis: Up to step 4A.
Eric Derleth: Committee makes recommendation to Selectmen. They are where the final actions are made.
Stephen Spear: Is the timeline out of order? Specifically step 2? Dennis: No.
Steve Block & John Reihl offer clarification to Stephen Spear. John Riehl: believes that permitting order is correct. Towns stay active in the MEPA process along with the committee applying. Stephen Spear: Are the towns expected to make any kind of decision by getting the Conceptual Restoration Plan? If yes, is it relevant to know what MEPA thinks?
Chair: The three entities should be involved together.
From the audience-Helen Miranda Wilson: Thinking carefully before bringing up ideas/options to Selectmen needs to happen.
Steven Spear: The entities should be involved before MEPA.
John Portnoy: How do you want comments sent to you about the Draft Conceptual restoration Plan outline?
Dennis: via email.
Steve Block suggest that either Tim Smith or the Chair collect copies of comments then they would get sent on to ENSR.
Chair: Do we have info on “bridge” maintenance responsibilities?
Block: Is Mass. State going to be involved in the permitting?
Chair: Should we ask surveyor to get info to ENSR?
Dennis: We’re already working on it, they said two more weeks.
John Riehl: Will we have a revised CRP for our next meeting?
Dennis: Depends.
John Riehl: would like to see revisions after comments at gathered and additional info about role of individual Con Coms, sec. 6.
Steve Spear: when the permitting process, everyone on all levels should be involved and concerns can be shared.
Chair asked for any questions before ENSR leaves.
Carl Breivogel thinks that the MEPA process can do a lot.
Steve Block: what is the next step as far as restoration alternatives? Dennis: this is what we are anticipating. That’s it.
Tim Smith: Are we at the end of the funding from the $41 K granted to start researching alternatives?
Dennis: Yes.
Steve Block: Is the revised draft concept. restoration plan the next deliverable?
Dennis: Yes.
Tim Smith: How much effort has ENSR put in on another draft of an outline than jumping on ahead? This draft/narrative about restoration alternatives?
Eric Derleth: including all 4 options as deliverables to proceed?
Dennis: Yes.
John Portnoy: No indication of the goals of habitat restoration in draft CRP outline. These need to be clear for permitting and grants.
Chair: happy with good info but less clear about coordinated permitting. Would like more info about that. Where are we going to see the transition in the committee into a different group of committee members?
Chair: we will also have to have a representative from the shell fishing community on this committee. Lack of representation creates a perception of bypassing concerns and not communicating. We will have to contact shellfish representatives to see where they stand.
Break at 4:07 pm. Break ends 4:15 pm
Chair: What is the news on our “Gulf of Maine Grant”?
Tim Smith: The review process for Gulf of Maine grant is a bit behind schedule. Originally expected review and announcement to be done late Jan. Aerial mapping should be done in April. But because of the delay by the grant and the costliness of the aerial mapping it would cause the town to be strained financially. The state CZM would contract for the mapping to allow it to be completed in an orderly/timely manner and then get grant announcement later (swapping the two tasks). If it works out, MA CZM will start the process to map out area. Most likely will contract ENSR to do mapping. When the money does become available to town, then CZM will work with town to get hydrodynamic model underway.
John Portnoy: how much will the modeling cost:
Tim Smith: about $50K.
Steve Block: Modeling costs is dependent on what all you want included in the model.
Tim Smith: We need to go over what exactly needs to be mapped.
Chair: I’d suggest that to the 10 foot contour would be sufficient.
John Portnoy: I agree I think we can delineate it as well.
John Riehl: Is it smart to squeeze more area in now rather than go back and do it?
Tim Smith: Yes, because still need to survey the area. It may just be as cost efficient to continue to take pictures because of the complexity of the floodplain.
Chair: asks members for suggestions on brochure distribution.
John Riehl can arrange to have displayed at Audubon and to get them to every member of the town government.
John Portnoy will contact non-resident taxpayers assoc. and Salt Pond Visitor’s Center.
Robert Hubby suggests local government agencies (Town hall, Chamber Commerce).
Stephen Spear: send to larger government officials (State Rep, Governor, etc.).
Eric Derleth: Given away free to anyone whom applies for a state fishing license or shell fishing license.
Tim Smith: Store a box temporarily with him at his office – will distribute to individuals that he sees fit.
Steve Block: suggests that they should accompany all grant applications.
Carl Breivogel suggests that every member should carry some in.
Chair: suggests distributing brochures to abutters, liaisons, and schools.
Tim Smith: wants to remind members about “Herring River News”
Chair: I am shooting for a draft copy of a Herring River Newsletter for the next meeting with a final Newsletter being approved in the following meeting thereafter.
Helen Miranda Wilson spoke of concerns that not enough voters will get brochure even if every measure spoke of previous was taken to distribute brochure.
Robert Hubby: I have a 31 page submission for achieves. If any member has anything that is significant. that needs to be included in the archives, to email it to Robert.
Chair: MOU working group: Meeting at 10 am (John Portnoy, Gary Palmer, Carrie Phillips, Hillary Greenberg, Gordon Peabody and Rex Peterson) sometime next week.
Steve Block: What is the next step in deliverable to the town for the next step forward? Should we file the ENF or does the town?
Steve Spear: We need to get the MOU from the town
Tim Smith: The ENF and the plan go together…. can’t have ENF without the plan. Recommends possibly filing the two together (ENF and MOU) to the town.
John Riehl: What would be the harm in going ahead with an ENF?
John Portnoy: Switch the two around, the MOU should be developed and submitted to the towns and Seashore before the ENF is submitted.
Steve Block: Without mapping and modeling, what comfort level is possible for the town before a final restoration plan is decided? Would it be acceptable to present things in a conceptual manner to the board of Selectmen? If we can build a process into the next committee (which needs to approve a new MOU), then it may be sufficient to present to the board with goals in mind.
Steve Spear: This committee dissolves into the next one, but the MOU separates it. Has a problem submitting the ENF because of costs. If submitted, submit with all options available to selectmen.
Eric Derleth: Would like to see public involvement. Could use MOU and ENF to gain public involvement. Wonders if information will ever be complete enough. He would like to start process earlier rather than later.
Eric Derleth: Suggests preparing ENF but not calling it ENF until town approves MOU so they can sign off on ENF. A 60- day window from proper filing with the selectmen would allow the selectmen an opportunity to easily approve the documents.
Helen Miranda Wilson: Concerns that Truro may not have enough time to discuss and review options of diking where Wellfleet has and the problems that may arise.
Tim Smith: feels that the conceptual design needs to be worked on. ENSR has expended what they can expend from the monies allocated; now all the money is going to finalized reports.
Chair: We need to consider our next meeting time. Meeting date will be 2-22-07 at 1:31pm. John R. will check on locations.
Chair: I want to thank everyone for great meeting. Everyone to review CRP draft to send me comments by Jan. 26.
Chair: entertains motion to adjourn. Steve Block so moves, John Portnoy seconds motion. Unanimous at 5:24 PM, adjourned
Submitted by PersonNameGordon Peabody, Chair
| 