Herring River Technical Committee Meeting June 4th, 2007 @ 10:30 am at the Wellfleet Council on Aging Center
Corrected and approved Minutes
Members in Attendance: Jack Whalen, Stephen Spear, Robert Hubby, John Riehl, Steve Block, Eric Derleth, Tim Smith, Hillary Greenberg, Carl Breivogel, Gordon Peabody, Diane Murphy, John Portnoy
Members Absent: Joel Fox, Andy Koch, and Gary Palmer
Public in Attendance: Ira Wood (Wellfleet Board of Selectmen), Helen Miranda Wilson
Chair called meeting to order at 10:33 am.
Chair thanked John Portnoy for helping to condense and correct the meeting minutes.
Chair asked for any correction to previous meeting minutes: John Portnoy: 1st pg, 4th paragraph – Jeff Hughes is the Wellfleet herring warden. Carl Breivogel stated that Jeff is not a voting member yet, but will be able to be considered a voting member in the future. Hilary Greenberg: Page 3, 3rd paragraph from the bottom: Name is Kevin Cahoon. Bob Hubby: Page 4, Susan Redlich. Page 8, 5th paragraph: Chair strikes fifth paragraph down due to confusion and lack of clarity with issues. Tim Smith: Pg 2, paragraph 3 strike sentence involving Tim Smith and mapping. Page 5, paragraph 2, correction emailed to Chair from Joel Fox – “Winkler, doing the installing before” Page 5, paragraph 2, “wouldn’t do
it in the bank.” Page 5, paragraph 4, hire Winkler or somebody with a crane.” Page 5, sixth paragraph, John Portnoy – delete statement in bracket.
Motion entertained @ 10:42 am to approve corrected meeting minutes by Eric Derleth, seconded by Bob Hubby. Passed unanimously at 10:42 am.
Chair opened floor up to public comments. Ira (Wellfleet board of selectmen) stated that the board of selectmen is still supportive of the committee. Carl Breivogel stated a new email address for him: herring@cape.com
Tim Smith: RFP for modeling consultant is open, proposals are due June. 22nd. John Portnoy reported that a school of blue fish was seen at East Harbor Lagoon. The school gained access through culverts.
Chair welcomed Dennis Lowry and Mike Ball from ENSR and opened the discussion to review the draft Conceptual Restoration Plan. Dennis Lowry discussed the differences in the outline and table of contents from the previous outline and the current outline given to the committee. He explained the reasons for the changes; the committee stated through feedback that the document needs to be a readable document. Steve Block asked why two of the documents had different covers. Mike Ball stated that there were slight differences between the word formatted document and the pdf document. Chair asked that all documents in the future be generated as pdf documents. Mike Ball stated that most likely further documents that are transmitted would be pdf documents. Tim Smith suggested we figure
out a way to get comments to ENSR & have ENSR be able to make corrections in an efficient way in coordination with the committee.
Chair opened floor up for discussion about possible corrections & helpful suggestions to the CRP draft by ENSR: Sec. 1, pg 2 talked about changing language concerning fish, specifically herring; estuary fish, migratory fish, and river herring (“improvement of estuarine and migratory fish access including anadromous river herring”). Dennis Lowry suggested rewording it to state: …river herring and other migratory fish (anadromous).
John Riehl stated that the first paragraph should be a clear indicator of what the goal of this project is. He doesn’t feel that, currently, the first paragraph does. John Portnoy stated that there should be an executive summary before all the technical aspects are addressed. Eric Derleth stated that the idea of an executive summary needs to be fleshed out a little more. Stephen Spear suggested using context and vision to put together an executive summary and that maybe it should be done once the document itself is put together; doing is last. Chair stated it is important to address the audience that will be reading this document. Dennis Lowry asked if there was a consensus if there should be an executive summary. Bob Hubby stated that there was never a debate as to
whether there should be one, it was a matter of timing when should it be written. Dennis Lowry then brought up the matter of where it should go in the proposal. Stephen Spear stated that it might best suit the readers to have it in the beginning. Chair stated that the report should be done first then the executive summary would be created; the committee agreed.
Eric Derleth stated that language should be added that the role of the town of Wellfleet be equal to the Nat’l Park Service. John Portoy stated that there is a correction to the diagram on page 2; that ‘avifauna’ should read ‘bird’.
Dennis Lowry asked about the language used to the outline the dike. John Riehl stated the importance of defining it clearly to the reading audience. Eric Derleth suggested using describing the current/future management of the dike.
Tim Smith suggested changing the language to include talk about restoring the Gulf of Maine and other restoration efforts; to inspire the reading audience to want to do something to make a difference. John Portnoy also pointed out that presenting facts in the proper way without flowery language would also add to the inspiration. Stephen Spear suggested breaking down the project management in an easy to see/read manner such as a chart/graph. Eric Derleth said that using words such as ‘flexible’ and ‘gradual’ outline the management as the salt marsh starts to change/improve. Bob Hubby suggested having an acronym list/key to define common acronyms so that it clarifies things for the reader.
Stephen Spear stated that section 2 should be at the end although the information about the MOU should be further up. Tim Smith stated that it shouldn’t be lengthy; Eric Derleth agreed with Tim but also stated that the history is important because it states gives a reason behind the restoration efforts but also can be talked about at great lengths. John Portnoy suggested maybe putting it in an appendix due to its importance. Steve Block suggested that maybe if its going to get an appendix, that it should have a mention of it in the introduction. Ira stated that you need to give people the interesting story to pull them into reading document and supporting the purpose. Chair stated the importance of having references to the appendices.
John Riehl commented on section 2.1.3; clarifying funding from the towns would be a key part of the document. Steve Block asked ENSR about their reasoning/purpose behind this particular section in the document. Dennis Lowry stated that its importance and maybe that it doesn’t belong where it is in the order of the report but that it needs to be included. John Riehl suggested maybe putting in near the end but resounded its importance to the report. Eric Derleth suggested partitioning it and stating the efforts to move forward with the funding. Eric Derleth stated that maybe there needs to be a synthesis from ENSR about funding rather that just spitting out a financial report. Dennis Lowry agreed but also stated that there are various aspects that they wouldn’t be comfortable
or capable of doing because of the information that they are not privy to. Eric Derleth stated that doing what they can and getting guidance from the committee on those parts where they aren’t clear on, might be a good way to address those issues. Chair stated the importance of the audience dynamic to the approval of the concept. The Chair also stated that the audience also needs to know that approval won’t come at a cost to them; that approval won’t rely on payment/money from the audience. The audience can approve the concept with having to be concerned with how it will be paid for. Bob Hubby suggested that bringing light to the role and importance of the stakeholder’s role in the funding would be a good idea. Dennis Lowry stated that changing the title might be a good idea. Tim Smith agreed with Steve Block about putting a mention of it in the introduction but then combining section 4 with this section to cover the
importance. Eric Derleth also suggested adding an appendix to outline the various groups’ roles into the funding process, meanwhile not naming names in the section but rather make reference to the appendix that could put into context each group’s role. Bob Hubby also supported Eric Derleth’s comment/suggestion. John Portnoy stated that stating some of the history about section 4 before merging in with section 2 & 3; Stephen Spear agreed with John Portnoy’s idea. Tim Smith suggested that the flow of merging the section kind of puts the discussion of funding into a separate section; doesn’t quite fit in with the statement/idea of ecology/impacts & history of those. John Portnoy and Tim Smith also agreed with Ira’s comment about creating an interesting story. John Portnoy gave Dennis Lowry ideas on where to start and how to start when explaining tidal ecology and dysfunction. Stephen Spear added to
the conversation of how/where to explain the ecology. Steve Block agreed in the separation of history, ecology/impact, and funding and commented further about how to address each. John Riehl expressed concern about dwelling on the history rather than talking about the future. Keeping the history and explanations of salt marsh ecology, etc. to a simple and short format. Carl Breivogel agreed with some of John Riehl’s comments but stated that the audience is constantly growing and changing and the information stated needs to be stated to inform the new audience. Dennis Lowry suggested that writing the intro in an overview format might enable there to be room for further explanation later. Bob Hubby suggested having an appendices that the Board of Selectmen approve so that the general report isn’t bogged down but things that are constantly be restated. John Riehl still stated concern for lack of clarity about moving forward.
Chair called a brief recess at 12:12 pm. Meeting reconvened at 12:23 pm.
Chair reopened discussion with ENSR regarding the draft CRP.
Eric Derleth discussed importance of MEPA/NEPA involvement. He suggested including it in the intro at the end.
Discussion on section 3.1.2 was opened by Stephen Spear. He suggested that making the language clear concerning 100 yr flood, etc. Steve Block asked about the hydrodynamic modeling and the description. John Portnoy agreed with Steve Block’s statement. Steve Block & Eric Derleth both stated that if the current tidal flow with restrictions was stated it would be clear to the reader. John Riehl stated that he has concern over the reader not being able to understand the flow with restriction. Steve Block agreed, but said that the hydrodynamic modeling & the discussion around it, doesn’t belong under current conditions section. Stephen Spear also expressed concern over making this current conditions section bogged down by unnecessary &/or misplaced information. Eric Derleth suggested a synthesis of the data collected being added but putting reference to an appendix so that the audience can research further if desired.
Discussion continued to more of section 3. John Portnoy suggested clarifying vegetative communities by including sedimentation, pH levels, etc. John Riehl commented on various things that are included, but there seems to be a lack of reference to birds. Eric Derleth stated the subsidence and current conditions should be mentioned. Dennis Lowry asked John Portnoy if the certain diagrams/research should be consolidated in this section. John Portnoy thought they should. Stephen Spear suggested stating various research in a various area on an
individual basis; highlighting individual areas of importance, but group together overall effects to the general area. Mike Ball was in agreement.
The Chair felt it important to describe the overall abiotic, biotic, and social elements of each basin. Eric Derleth discussed the vegetative topics included in section 3.2.1.5. Cattails are currently mentioned in the invasive species list, but stated that as the tidal flows are increased (as more salt water is let in) that they will die off, so their status will be changing as the ecosystem will change. Diane Murphy had a correction to section 3.2.1.3 the name for eelgrass should be Zostera marina. Carl Breivogel expressed concern over the growth of watercress due to harmful effects on the fish due to dense growth. The Chair stated that it might be beneficial to state an informative blurb about the subject in section 3. Steve Block had questions about the classification of
what area is classified as what. Steve Block also suggested classifying abbreviations before stating them. Eric Derleth suggested excluding the life history of various species and just focusing on what current conditions are. Mike Ball agreed that it could use a some thinning out. Eric Derleth also added that while herring is a main focus, other fish species need to be mentioned and a statement needs to be made as to the impacts on them if there is mention of herring. John Portnoy cited some research to add to the impacts. Stephen Spear stated that clarification in section 3.2.2.2 concerning the American eel is needed.
Eric Derleth stated that the ramifications of the restoration need to be addressed for both freshwater and saltwater species throughout the project. Carl Breivogel suggests a correction to 3.2.2.1; he felt that the population of herring could be summarized as significantly declined rather than be wordy on the subject.
Diane Murphy had correction to 3.2.2.3; its low pH, anoxic sediment, not just coliform that prevents harvesting. Stephen Spear suggests using the word anthropogenic involving the discussion of coliform as well as expanding a bit on the subject. Diane Murphy stated that there are shellfish resources just beyond the dike, and while they may not be able to be harvested, they act as a spawning sanctuary. Discussion moved to the effect of septic systems to the coliform problem. Hillary Greenberg stated that while that there are a few septic systems failing, she is unaware of evidence that they are contributing to the coliform. Stephen Spear suggested that unless we can elaborate on the subject, that skipping it would be wise. John Portnoy agreed. Helen Miranda Wilson expressed concern
over the growing area closed to fishing in Wellfleet Harbor due to E.coli. The Chair stated we should mention that without flushing and salinity, a thriving environment is created for bacteria.
John Riehl stated concern in section 3.2 about Audubon Society bird research. Eric Derleth mentioned that more should be included before section 3.2.5.
In regard to section 3.2.3, Tim Smith asked who prohibits shell fishing upstream; Helen Miranda Wilson state the DNF does. John Portnoy stated that E. coli doesn’t need to be mentioned unless it is related to shellfish harvesting.
In regard to section 3.2.4, Eric Derleth said that statements about particular species, such as endangered species, need to show documentation about their occurrence in various areas of the resource area. Tim Smith suggested that stating the research is within the NPS park boundary and all other areas outside are unknown.
Stephen Spear stated that the words “rare & endangered” needs to be added before the word insects in section 3.2.8.
Eric Derleth that section 3.2.8 would be a good place to introduce that there is more discussion on various species of insects, not just mosquitoes. But he does think there needs to be a special section about mosquitoes. Stephen Spear agreed.
Eric Derleth stated in section 3.3.1 that low-lying structures need to be defined and elaborated on. The term ‘low-laying’ was to be omitted in future documents. Eric Derleth stated that it would be important that the DPW & NPS would be willing to say that they would abandon low-lying roadways if need-be. He also suggested that putting a sentence in about future negotiations would be wise.
Stephen Spear asked if there was a reason why there were only two roads mentioned in this section. John Riehl suggested that it is because they are the two roads that are most likely to be raised. Mike Ball stated that the reasoning behind these two roads being stated and no other roadways is because they actually cross the Herring River. Stephen Spear then suggested adding a sentence stating just that. Eric Derleth asked if mosquito ditching & channelized main-stem should be described under existing conditions since they are man-made conditions. The Chair thinks that it would be beneficial to document anthropogenic alterations. Helen Miranda Wilson suggested that since Pole Dike is considered by many to be part of the river, Pole Dike Road should be mentioned as well.
John Riehl moved discussion toward section 3.3.4.1. Since the properties listed are private properties (Nieski & Rosenburg properties), mentioning names would not be necessary and should be taken out. Rather stating something that negotiations are in process and moving along. Tim Smith agreed with John Riehl. He does think that an appendix should be created to involve septic systems, wells, etc. as well as another appendix to list the efforts by these property owners to comply with the general goal. Eric Derleth also suggested getting permission from the property owners to be listed in this section of the CRP but he also stated that the existing conditions of the properties do need to be stated.
Jack Whalen brought up discussion over section 3.3.5. He stated that there needs to be a statement about CYCC being cooperative with NPS and moving towards a common goal. Also John Riehl suggested changing the term ‘palastrine’ to ‘freshwater’ for easier understanding.
Chair called a brief recess at 2:23 pm. Meeting reconvened at 2:35 pm.
In regards to section 5.1, Tim Smith stated that the language needs to be polished up (i.e. measurements); change ‘flood water’ to ‘tide heights’ & ‘planned’ should be changed proposed.’ John Riehl stated that limiting tidal height was regulated to protect the CYCC; he felt it needed to be stated. Eric Derleth stated that the specifics of the tidal height needs to be changed. Dennis Lowry agreed that the specifics need to be cleaned up and polished more.
In regards to section 5.2, Steve Block suggested that it should be moved to a completely different section. The committee was in agreement. Mike Ball asked if he should condense this all sections that make up 5.2 or if he should leave is. John Portnoy also stated the more citations were needs in all sections in 5.2 for research documented.
Eric Derleth stated that there needs to be mention of the modifications in section 5.3. Steve Block stated that he felt that section 5.3 needs more work. ENSR representatives said that this section is still under work. Eric Derleth stated that a sentence at the beginning of section 5.3 to state generalizations (as an introductory paragraph to the section) of each alternative. John Portnoy thinks that section 5.3.3.1 it could better be written; acknowledge public concerns but show scientific research about it. Eric Derleth suggested that offering estimated financial cost for each of the options (sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.3) to provide better understanding for each option. John Riehl stated that more is needed than just another piece of technical information in section
5.3.6. Jack Whalen stated that not knowing the cost for an open bridge needs to be addressed. Stephen Spear agreed; Eric Derleth asked if why we can’t just say that we don’t know – be up front.
The Chair moved the discussion to section 6. Eric Derleth stated he thought there were too many examples; he thinks getting rid of 2 of the examples would be wise. Also changing the sizes of the culverts would be wise as well. Diane Murphy and Stephen Spear stated that concerns over restoration efforts at Bridge Creek might have a negative impact towards our project. The lessons learned need to be addressed in this section according to both. The Chair expressed concerns over the East Harbor being compared to the Herring River. John Portnoy explained the situation and expounded on differences due to the flushing rate. Eric Derleth also suggest that the tense of section 6 needs to be changed to past tense.
The Chair asked about the title on section 7.2; he would prefer it be change to tidal flooding rather than ‘inundation.’ Stephen Spear expressed concern over the 3rd paragraph in section 7.2 & the harsh language. The committee agreed and Mike Ball will regulate the language in this section. John Riehl asked if 7.2.1.1 there was going to an inclusion about woody vegetation under 3 in. Mike Ball said that he would go back and revise that section. John Portnoy suggested elaborating or deleted the second paragraph at section 7.2. Tim Smith stated that titling this section as ‘mitigations’ may not be the best title to encompass the subjects covered in section 7. Both Carl Breivogel and Eric Derleth voiced their agreement
with Tim’s comment on the title. Steve Block suggested to John Portnoy & John Riehl about moving part about woody vegetation to section 5. John Portnoy was in agreement. Stephen Spear would like to see the title as management impacts – take out the word vegetative.
In section 7.2.1.1. John Portnoy said that using the term systematically before biodegradable doesn’t translate well. He suggested eliminating the term systematically. In section 7.2.4.1, John Riehl stated that there needed to be an explanation of how the shellfish community is going to be protected.
Helen Miranda Wilson suggested changing the word ‘protected’ to ‘considered’; Stephen Spear was in agreement. Eric Derleth stated that the word ‘mitigation’ needs to be changed in the sections of 7.5.2.
The discussion moved to section 8.
The Chair stated that the CRP & the MOU II would be moved along to approval stage at the same time. John Riehl had questions about section 8.2 – the need to explain the plan of action for the floodgates. Tim Smith & John Portnoy stated that the modeling would provide data for how far the gates are open initially. Herring River Oversight Committee, which was in section 8, the committee needs to be defined according to Eric Derleth.
In section 9, Stephen Spear suggested defining the monitoring better. Tim Smith stated that the committee should discuss this option further before having ENSR revise this section. John Riehl pointed out some inconsistency through out this document in section 9.1.1.11; monitoring birds is part of the plan yet there has been lacking reference to birds in parts of the CRP.
The Chair moved the discussion to the appendices. Steve Block suggested the section on funding might be best utilized after section 9 to make it section 10.
It was decided upon that the committee would discuss and work on section 8.1 & 8.2 while ENSR works on updating the draft CRP. The next meeting will be scheduled for July 12th, 2007 @ 10:00 am with ENSR. The Chair stated that comments should be generated 10 days post-meeting (all comments should be submitted by July 23 to ENSR). The Chair thanked Dennis Lowry and Mike Ball for all their hard work & participation.
The Chair moved discussion onto next meeting topic: MOU II document. Helen Miranda Wilson stated that lead agencies in each town are and the lead group to the project need to be stated in the MOU II. Also agencies that have voting members (such as NOAA) need to have a statement saying that there are voting members involved in the process. Also the committee that takes over from the previous committee needs to be named. Also there needs to be language included that protects the towns.
Stephen Spear suggested that adding CZM to the list of alliances that we have listed on the MOU II. Replacing agencies with entities or signatories was suggested by Stephen as well. The Chair reminded the committee that this document is a draft document. Hillary Greenberg suggested sending comments of the MOU II to one person who would circulate them through the HRTC. The Chair was in agreement and offered to take on comments before the June 12th MOU II subcommittee meeting.
The Chair suspended the rest of the meeting agenda until next meeting. The Chair thanked everyone for their involvement and dedication.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn. Jack Whalen so moved. John Riehl seconded it. Motion passed unanimously at 5:16pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Megan Eckhardt.
| 