Herring River Technical Committee Meeting
Corrected and approved May 8, 2007 meeting minutes
Held at Wellfleet Council on Aging, Wellfleet, MA
Attendees: Hillary Greenberg, Stephen Spear, John Portnoy, Steve Block, Eric Derleth, Joel Fox, John Riehl, Tim Smith, Robert Hubby, Jack Whelan. Jeff Hughes, Herring Warden.
Meeting convened by Chair, Gordon Peabody, at 12:40 p.m.
Absences
Carl Breivogel was unable to attend, having been called to Maine on short notice. Andy Koch, shellfish warden was also unable to attend, due to increasing demands on his time in the field. Mr. Koch, the shellfish warden was appointed to the committee by Selectmen, and given permission to miss meetings if attendance impinged on job duties.
John Portnoy, however, indicated that the shellfish community was increasingly in support of the project.
Public Introductions
Steve Tucker, formerly of Cape Cod Commission, now representing Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, introduced himself as an interested party. Now working on general policy issues and access to fisheries. Lara Slifka, also from CCCHFA, has been attending but was unable to attend this meeting.
Jeff Hughes, Wellfleet Herring Warden, came in support of the project, having read recent reports and expressed appreciation for the work that has been submitted.
Review of the Minutes
Joel Fox to correct sufficiency of gallons on tank located on page 6 from 40,000 gallons to 20,000.
Chair entertains motion to approve minutes as corrected. Motion made by Joel Fox. John Riehl seconds; all in favor by voice. Steve Block abstains. At 12:43 motion approved.
New Business:
Joel Fox inquired as to anything being done on a protection fund if things should go wrong; shell fishermen would like some assurances if the project would forestall seasons, etc. Generally, fishermen would like some idea as to how long a transition of saltwater to fresh water will take? Fishermen however, are encouraged by the fact that efforts were made to see that the transition takes place in the “off – season” in January and February, and when harvesting is limited to Chipman’s Cove. Concern was expressed as to who would cover a loss to the shell fishermen during the project?
Hydrology Report Introduced
John Portnoy introduced the new hydrology report for Phase 1. Included were assessments of wellheads with the tidal restoration, and an overview of salt and fresh groundwater relationships, the relationship of floodplains, and the potential for saltwater intrusion. Hydrologist, Larry Martin will be coming this summer to begin Phase 2 of the project to look at sensitive site locations.
Low Lying Roadways Report
Tim Smith reported that comments received did not indicate any corrections or revision. Indicated that the upshot of the report was the vertical data, and recommended that the survey data not be changed. He recommended that the committee begin thinking of the tidal restoration project in terms of a maximum high tide elevation of 5.2 ft-NAVD-88 during spring-tide periods.
A new report will indicate the changed elevations by color in the coded road section, and will just present elevations. Frequency of flooding will be removed, and replaced with a new map showing color-coding on 1’ elevations with a range in different color display. Survey data and accompanying narrative will be consistently referenced to NAVD-88 as the base datum.
Tim indicated to Stephen Spear that the new plans would come with a scale showing a reference to the two data systems. John Portnoy indicated that the new datum resolution would mean less frequent flooding than shown on the first draft of the survey of low-lying roads by ENSR.
Gordon Peabody indicated a need for developing a new educational tool to eliminate confusion.
John Riehl asked whether the map should show mean high water mark; did the 5’2 mark indicate mean high level water mark? Tim answered no, that the mean high water mark would work out to be 6’, and that the plans should indicate flooding below structures up to the mean high tide. This is confused, understandably! I think that John R’s question is faithfully reported, but the answer was that 5.2 ft NAVD88 would be the height of spring high tides with restoration.
Joel Fox asked if the water would be at the same depth and elevation during the spring high tides. John Portnoy asked if THE final explanation would indicate the difference between spring high tide and mean high tide. Tim indicated that the modeling would demonstrate this when completed. John Riehl said this would be OK.
Gordon Peabody indicated that terminology for inland uses differed from coastal language. Stephen said that mean low water should use tidal reference language.
Tim indicated that both datum’s referenced the mean low water at 0.
Working committee – Road Prioritization Report
John Riehl will contact the Wellfleet DPW, Gordon will contact Truro DPW, and J Portnoy will contact the Seashore Maintenance Chief Ben Pearson about meeting together to discuss the disposition of low-lying roads with tidal restoration.
Question was raised as to whether or not Paul Morris got a chance to look at the report. Committee members felt that he could use their information in replacing culverts, etc. Decision was made to get stream crossing materials to him. Question was raised as to how much modeling exists in Truro; at some point it would become relevant to the project. The working group will be attending the next meeting (Joel Fox, John Riehl and Gordon Peabody); others are invited to attend. Efforts are being made to establish protocols for working with the town of placeCityTruro’s DPW, and questions were raised as to when this should happen, before or after the restoration project. Stephen indicated that he would be happy to help with the sizing of culverts for a salt marsh restoration. Gordon
Peabody asked when modeling would be completed for this type of project in Wellfleet, and Tim responded at end of calendar year. John Portnoy indicated that the culvert in question was only eight inches in diameter.
Gordon Peabody indicated that the establishment of a protocol was necessary to bring efforts to bear in a coordinated way so that a working group could review which roads would need to be kept and maintained.
Guidelines for culvert design by the state. However Steve Block indicated that these guidelines mentioned are for freshwater and not saltwater. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate culvert size, relative to upstream marsh area; Tim Smith said that it should be more like 2’ or so per acre….
Steve Block indicated that if you were going to advise the Town about culvert design, he would suggest you hold off until the modeling is completed.
Joel Fox then indicated that replacing sections of the old railroad might be cheaper than working with the road. The railroad grade is higher than when the dike was put in, and it would at least be a good idea to have the engineers look at it. In some parts it would be easier to use the RR grade because the roads will be flooded.
PersonNameGordon Peabody asked about ownership. John Riehl indicated that from Wellfleet to the town line is mostly public, question as to what is owned by the Park.
Jeff Hughes indicated that there were two bridges to consider. Asked about how much work would need to be done on other roads? John Portnoy indicated that either way the road must cross the stream in tow places Joel Fox said that we should have an engineer take a look at it and not lose track of it. Gordon indicated that many people have mentioned it.
Joel Fox asked what would be done with the pole dike? He said that if you go straight across the railroad grade there, it would also give the pole dike a little circle for fresh water to go.
John Portnoy indicated that Kevin Cahoon (Wellfleet DPW) had suggested it
John Riehl stated that a cost effectiveness study should be done to determine if it would be cheaper than lifting the road. Gordon said it’s less the lifting of the road, than the spread for flooding. The next phase of the project should have a cost phase benefit.
Joel Fox stated that at high tide that whole road is going to be flooded, and it would be les work to go along the foot of the hill.
Stephen Spear asked if this would be a difficult issue with the seashore? John Portnoy answered that the problem with widening the railroad grid would be the impact on adjacent wetlands. It may be less of an impact than raising a windy road. Ownership however, would not be as much of a problem.
Joel Fox asked what needs to be done to go forward on this? John Riehl said that 2 driveways would need to be relocated, yet the house would remain private. Gordon Peabody indicated that this would be resolved as we moved forward.
Steve Block indicated at this time that it would be a good idea to have a map to point to. John Portnoy then brought out the large map. Locations were found for the railroad, the pole dike, placements for temporary control valves, etc.
Hillary Greenberg recommended a site visit before our next meeting. Stephen S. felt this should only take place after problem areas have been corrected. Joel Fox also asked for a site visit. Gordon indicated that slides might be a preferable option, for people who come a great distance to attend these meetings. Gordon and Hillary will get together to prepare something. Steve Block mentioned that Tim also had access to aerial photos that might be helpful.
Tim referred to the area just spoke of on the map, and pointed to a house just across from Merrick Island. John Portnoy, rhetorically speaking, asked if widening the road would give access to Brook Island, and eliminate the extension of Old County Road. Asked why we need this section of roadway?
John Riehl answered that Beth Chapman’s house would be affected, and Portnoy indicated there would still be access from the North. At which point, it was pointed out that the success of the project overall would have to include stakeholders. Eric Derleth indicated that the low lying road subcommittee could broach options with stakeholders. John Portnoy stated that you will still have to have access to Bound Brook Island. Joel Fox indicated that you could still cross at Bound Brook Island where the old trestle is.
Chequesset Neck
Working group was asked to look for ways of saving money to provide public safety and water supply on Griffin Island. Robert Hubby found that a 20,000-gallon tank would meet the requirements, and its cost would be 23, 390.55 plus 4% (delivered and not installed). Corporate donors were not available. Susan Redlich does not have access to those types of clients. The trouble would be with the installation costs, and the drawings that would need to be done prior to installation.
Joel Fox contacted the fire department, and the DPW. He also found Robert Our Company installed the tanks for the WHAT theater. He was told that the pit would have to be shored with steel before bringing in the crane as an additional cost.
Tim suggested that perhaps Susan R might be able to solicit engineering solutions for donations, as she has a long list of environmental consultants willing to donate services.
Hillary G. indicated that the Fire Department did this before on Lieutenant’s Island, and how did they do it then? Joel said Mike Winkler’s crane service had done the installing before, and maybe somebody could give Mike a call? Perhaps John Portnoy? Joel indicated that that fire department had installed the last tank, and wouldn’t want to do it on the bank.
John Riehl pointed out that maybe we should stop now, and that this matter wasn’t part of the conceptual phase. Gordon brought the subject of the tank to a close for now, but left it with Tim to pursue a cost estimate of the upfront and installation costs associated with the tank.
Eric Derleth questioned how we should go forward with levels of approval; what protocols would need to be established for excavations at the town, and park levels? He indicated that this should be done before the completion of the CRP. Gordon asked if John Riehl and Joel Fox could do this before the next meeting.
Statement was made that the committee would not be looking for matching DPW funds any longer, and that an outside vendor would have to provide for the installation of the tank. Joel said that they would still have to hire Winkler or somebody with a crane. And John Riehl said that if DPW managed the process, using the Clerk of Works could still mean some matching money. Stephen Spears asked if a donation of land for the placement of the tank could be considered a matching donation for ½ an acre of land overlooking CCB!
Joel Fox and Bob will work on investigating abutter ownership with the help of Hillary Greenberg. John Portnoy will do same with CCNS. Gordon and Joel asked that Tommy Ferreira come in for the next meeting (FD?) Someone should go to town hall to see who owns the small triangle piece of land, and ask Tommy if an east or south side placement was necessary for the tank? John Portnoy will see if seashore would have any problems with installation on town owned land adjacent to the park.
Collaborative Nature Conservancy grant
Tim indicated that grant collaboration with the Nature Conservancy is complicated and an appraisal would have to be acquired by the town prior to pursuing the USFWS grant.
Memorandum of Understanding
John Portnoy has come up with a draft memorandum of understanding letter. The working group still needs to address this letter, and will meet later this week. Drafting of this letter is socially, politically and legally complicated, and all must be respectful of these situations. Gary Palmer from the Selectmen’s office was not able to attend today’s meeting, but has been in attendance at the working group meeting. Wellfleet Selectmen have not been coming but staff have been allowed to attend.
The working group is looking to dovetail their report with the issue of the Conceptual Restoration Project report. Signing of the MOU2 by selectmen is a good sign. Situation is more political with Wellfleet, but opportunities appear to exist. The finished copy of the draft will be furnished to the Committee members at the latest on Saturday.
Mill Creek Stakeholders
Committee members – Tim Smith, John Portnoy, Robert Hubby, Hillary Greenberg, Stephen Spear.
Stephen Spear wasn’t aware the report was due today; John Portnoy has drafted a letter to the abutters, decisions discussed as to when to have the next meeting – sooner rather than later? Larry Martin, the hydrologist, needs some lead time to schedule a trip coming from Fort Collins, CO. His primary purpose is to look at sensitive properties on this trip.
Steve Block asked what is the purpose of his meeting with abutters? And JP indicated it was to give background on the question of saltwater intrusion, effect on the hydrological system, potential for affects on private wells, and to allow abutters to ask questions.
Steve Block indicated that important topography was missing now, and completed modeling should be before the meeting. John Portnoy indicated that waiting for modeling would put the project forward almost a year. Time now should be used to let them know we are developing information.
Stephen Spear said we could contact them after elevation survey was done at the end of July. Tim stated that we have a lot of information on all low lying structures for Mill Creek, but not continuous survey information – most of what was surveyed is close to the main dike in that high profile area – Gordon asked if this was the area impacted in the phase 1 information. Information in this area is special and the committee needs to be pro-active on key decisions with thoughts towards results.
John Riehl said the meetings should be held sooner rather than later, as selectmen are the face and voice of public opinion. They are looking to their constituents for answers to questions. Steven Block agreed that it might be better to do it sooner, but after topographical and summer people.
Gordon Peabody advocated that a sooner time frame would give us time to develop a body of information to share with the maximum # of abutters. The problem being that the information we have is not bad information, only partial information. We shouldn’t make mistakes by saying something we don’t believe in. We should inform that studies are continually underway, and that stakeholders will be contacted as the study proceeds.
Jack Whalen brought up that people are going to ask very specific questions, such as “are you going to flood my well? …who will be responsible?”
Gordon Peabody advocated that we proceed on a case by case basis, at this point in time and on what land are the options for resolving negative impacts? As a committee of individuals we can’t pre-address situations; it is the confidence level that needs to be addressed. You can’t address perceived issues with anything other than real information.
GP felt addressing stakeholders sooner expressed intent that concerns are not forgotten.
Joel Fox asked if a well was destroyed in the past, what was the previous procedure? Cited a property where trees were damaged when saltwater invasion occurred, and indicated two homes above that area. What would happen to them? What would be their concerns? Portnoy indicated that one of the two, and the larger landowner of both, were supportive of the project and might not contest solutions.
Portnoy did indicate that at the 5’2 figure salt would most likely hit those streams and water would have to be found for those people. Joel Fox said a strategy should be developed for if this – then that. Portnoy indicated that the hydrology study would indicate alternate sites for those wells impacted.
Gordon Peabody noted that the shape of the water table will change. Ryder Hollow lens is less than 10’ - and easements were found for wells on someone else’s property. Ryder Hollow itself is impacted by salt water even in the rain. Joel felt that the seashore superiors should be contacted to see if easements could be found on park property if the necessity arose.
Jeff Hughes noted that technological innovations have answered some of these problems in the past. For instance Neil Gadway has experimented with sideway wells that stayed in the lens.
John Riehl also brought up the problem of septic placements, and leach fields. These would be harder to relocate, and could be potentially quite expensive. Hillary G. said that mounds could be built, and Riehl replied, at a significant cost.
Gordon indicated that previous answers to issues may/may not be appropriate for another situation.
John Riehl asked if the meeting should be before or after the CRP and MOU2 are approved? If after the CPR there might not be a political advantage. Gordon indicated that this is under a separate designation of timing.
Steve Block said we should have baseline information before proceeding – should we have elevations and septic information? John Portnoy indicated that Hillary’s office could supply some well site data, however they are not plotted. Hillary said she could pull all the records she has and have them mapped up the 250’buffer indicated on page 35. She could pull all the septic files together by map and parcel. John Portnoy said this could be done up to the 6’ contours, but that displaying the data was not part of Martin’s hydrological study. Locations could be plotted on a map and color codes could indicate the levels at the bottom of the leach fields.
John Portnoy said that Slade (?) did a survey of structures, SAS systems within the 10’ contours. Eric said he had seen these. Some materials already exist, and these could be cross-referenced with town references. Hillary said these were only for 10-13 properties. Portnoy said he would get the pages from the assessor’s offices.
Joel and Eric said that berms had been used in some instances, and Stephen Spear also indicated that all problems would be solved if water level were at 4’2 and not 5’2. Eric said these were all solutions, but they didn’t have all the information on wellheads, low lying buildings, etc. before the 5’2 NAVD. Steve Block said we could GPS gardens, etc. anything of concern to stakeholders. Eric said that costs to horticulture were one thing, and costs to septic could be really expensive. Joel Fox suggested we walk around the various properties. Question is to when? Before or after details?
Gordon suggested we contact the Mill Creek abutters. Portnoy asked when would we have a meeting? Tim disagreed with contacting abutters too soon, and said telling them information being gathered is prior to investigation. He felt that feedback is the primary goal of hearing concerns.
Gordon also noted that access to properties must be respectful of laws – some committee members serve on other state committees. Gordon Peabody asked whether abutter list developed enough to include the 250’ abutters? Tim, Bob, Stephen S and Hillary will all work to get the addresses, and John will continue to work with the letter to go out under the Chair’s signature.
Steve Block said he would support a meeting at a late date in July – and suggested asking abutters to sign a letter at the meeting giving permission to investigate property. It was agreed that a Tuesday night meeting, on alternate of selectmen meeting night, at timeMinute0Hour197pm would be a good time to meet with stakeholders. John Portnoy would try to get Larry Martin here for the 24th of July, and would circulate the abutter letter for 3 days. Joel was asked if he could please check on space for an abutter’s meeting.
Gordon Peabody mentioned that all of our meetings are open to abutters.
Discussion at this point reverted to septic and mapping…
Information still pending should be considered prior to this meeting – septic and wellheads below 5.2 ft-NAVD (Eric) -- figure out all yellow dots on maps and see if they fall into seashore boundaries – Hillary’s information from the mid 80’s to now – Eric asked if we would be gathering all septic structures? Our intent is to establish due diligence.
Tim felt the meeting should focus on Mill Creek; there are potential issues in that area. Other dispositions can be determined on how this project proceeds.
Eric Derleth said we need to know effectiveness of septic systems – just like wellheads, building 10 mound systems is not inconsequential. He didn’t feel anyone knew the numbers, but should it be asked in the conceptual phase? Joel Fox also felt that the 150 homes in the pole dike area should be considered in the first round of the restoration.
Stephen Spear said the data in Slade’s and Hillary’s offices would be inconclusive – felt they needed to review, and then reconsider how to collect missing information.
John Portnoy said that Slade had conducted an exhaustive search of septic systems and cess pools, Asked if we could determine thicknesses dependant on type of system. Hillary said she would go back to Slade. Stephen said to go within the 250’ buffer, and try to find the septic and wellheads; Eric and Stephen B. felt this would be important for the entire plain, but not for the purposes of this meeting.
WRAP UP
Elements that need to be addressed:
· Hydrology report has been reviewed and accepted and is final; has been peer reviewed, , and is ready for distribution
· Mapping will be complete end of June
· Hydrodynamic modeling – end of calendar year
· Conceptual restoration plan – latest report from Dennis Lowry on May 23 as promised, going is difficult, but will be ready for next meeting
· MOU2 – draft of next meeting – put MOU2 to bed, interaction with other committees and John Portnoy protocol for a review of a final MOU2 –including this committee. Has to go to full working committee, town counsel, interior solicitor for parks, with 3 entities for sign off –
· Establish next meeting for June 5 @10:30 am – determine location
· Develop agenda for next meeting
Presentation at June 5 meeting
· Gordon will get the distribution list and do separate mailings to different members who supplied addresses,
· Get May 23 draft, on June 5, to ENSR. Important to download print, help to deliver hard copies. They will deliver FedEx, hard copies to come on the 24.
· Chair of stakeholder committee should get copy of report; he will be coming to the next meeting. Meetings are public but not publicized, must protect the process – John brings up that we are in the draft process, and drafts are for the committee to make final recommendations.
· John Riehl felt that a series of public meetings was a better way to address public, as most people will not read documents.
· Eric brought up this could satisfy part of MEPA – NEPA reqs.
· Hillary will check with town hall regarding placePlaceNameHerring PlaceTypeRiver account.
· Tim will take responsibility of transferring hydrogeology study to ENSR. He will also see that the mapping of elevations done for June will be part of the CRP report.
· Gordon will send out MOU2 subcommittee draft to all members before June 5.
· John Riehl suggested that all documents be put in public places in town – library, town hall, and repository for public viewing.
· Stephen S. copies should be sent to ex-oficio members of the committee.
· MOU2 is unlikely to be signed until end of August, the committee should give serious thought to recommendations of who will shepherd the project through
· After discussion regarding time, and place of venue for presentation John Riehl suggested that the following scenario be adhered to:
o Meet with stakeholders first
o Present MOU 2 to Selectmen because the committee is chartered through the Select Board
o Public meetings
o Board of Selectmen review – revisit if requested.
Gordon went to all members present asking if this was agreeable. All concurred with the following thoughts:
· Jeff – who are the parties people can go to for questions?
· Have we answered all the stakeholder questions? Robert H. said no, all technical yes, but management, no. Is looking forward to those being addressed in the CRP and the MOU2.
· Tim mentioned that we not get too excited that CRP is going to answer all those.
· Gordon asked if we should consider enlarging the group of stakeholders to abutters. Does this process in place answer all questions?
· John Riehl felt that meeting with Selectmen early- we can opt on Eric’s suggestion of taking direction from them.
· Stephen S. felt that we don’t formally represent all stakeholders. All abutters should be given equal status in the future.
· Purpose of this committee is to start with Mill Creek, begin with specificity, and move into broader circles. We need to develop this protocol.
· Hillary will continue to work with group advising town of Wellfleet.
Newsletter
John Portnoy will bring the map for the newsletter
Final comments:
J. Riehl – good to review what we’ve done
Joel Fox – sees accomplishment, and running smooth
Eric D – pleased, still sees issues, but ok
Steve B – agrees with Eric, and is more comfortable with look at sensitive receptors
Tim – thinks interaction with Mill Creek crucial
Jack W – fine – looking forward to MOU2 chair?
Robert H. – relate CRP to 30 management issues
John P. – good progress after hump of Mill Creek, sensitive receptors, look forward to more enjoyable aspects of the project, including work where there is clear public ownership,
Stephen – Stephen S. looking forward to a good night’s sleep
Hillary G – no additional comments to add
Gordon Peabody set next meeting for June 5, 2007 at 10:30 am. C.O.A., Wellfleet.
Meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Gordon Peabody, Chair
| 