Herring River Technical Committee
Corrected minutes from August 30, 2007
1 pm @ the Wellfleet Council on Aging Center
Members Present: John Portnoy, Bob Hubby, Joel Fox, Steven Spear, Eric Derleth, John Riehl, Gordon Peabody, Tim Smith, Carl Breivogel, Jack Whalen, Hillary Greenberg
Members Absent: Andy Koch, Diane Murphy, Gary Palmer, and Steve Block
Chair called meeting to order at 1:05 pm.
Chair opened the floor to corrections of previous meeting minutes. On page 6, Joel Fox would like to change the comment about contamination of oyster beds; he would like that comment to be changed: the area below the dike has a substantial amount of adult oysters, while they are contaminated with coliform they are a big asset to spawning/reproductive process.
At 1:09 pm Joel Fox entertained a motion to approve meeting minutes. Bob Hubby seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously at 1:09 pm.
At 1:11 pm Joel Fox entertained a motion to allow the Chair to draft a letter of appreciation for the committee secretary Megan Eckhardt. Bob Hubby seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously at 1:11 pm.
No public comments at this time.
Chair thanked John Portnoy for his contributions for the presentation to the Audubon Society. The presentation was given by the Chair, Gordon Peabody, & John Portnoy. Bob Hubby added that there would be a walking tour on Sept. 15th, with contributions being made by John Portnoy, Evan Gwilliam and Steven Smith for the tour. Ira Wood added that the Wellfleet Finance Committee would be interested in a presentation because of the addition of new members that are not yet familiar with the project.
Chair opened discussion on the CRP issued by ENSR. John Riehl expressed frustration with lack of effort by ENSR to include comments. Joel Fox also expressed frustration on missing elements that should be included that includes discussion over the shellfish communities. On page 39, figures 10 & 11A-C have problems. In the legend in figure 10, there needs to be a new color code to differentiate between those areas that are closed seasonally and those that are closed permanently. And figure 10’s title should be changed as well. Figure 11A should be retitled as “existing wild shellfishery habitat”. Bob Hubby mentioned that on page 78, the pH should be listed at 8 not 4 in sec.7.2.1.2. John Portnoy expressed disappointment in the lack of
thoroughness to include comments/corrections throughout the document. He also stated that there were many typos as well. John Portnoy suggested that the more complex, formatting corrections that need to be made should be done by ENSR then that document should be given to the committee in a digital form so that the committee would be able to reword, edit, etc. sections that need to be redone. Bob Hubby suggested that hand-marking the document from start to end so that any/all corrections can be seen and also if they work with one another. John Riehl agreed with Bob Hubby’s suggestion but didn’t think it would be wise for the committee to revisit the entire document at another meeting
Carl Breivogel suggested that in sec. 6.2.5.5, that since this is a one-time operation that holding them back with a fish gate would be a viable option. On page 75, under adaptive management, Carl had a question about water quality not being included. John Portnoy stated that it should be included under that section, but later noted that water quality cannot be directly managed, as can the other topics listed in the figure.
Eric Derleth expressed disconcertment over the lack of effort by ENSR to include the edits/comments given by the committee. He echoed the idea that John Portnoy stated earlier about leaving the formatting corrections to ENSR but the other corrections to the committee. Tim Smith agreed with everyone’s idea as well and expressed similar feelings. He suggested that doing another round of comments and sending them to ENSR would be a good idea, but better organization is a must. He also suggested that the committee should demand professional editing/proofreading from ENSR on any printed copy of the CRP before submitting it to the committee. Bob Hubby made the suggestion that this correction process be broken up into two phases. The first phase being marking up the document with
things that need to be changed & adding the comments. The second phases being the submission to ENSR of the corrected document for further ‘polishing’ (editing/proofreading). Jack Whalen expressed concern over the list of things that aren’t included in this document. Hillary Greenberg expressed similar concerns and agreed with the ideas stated by other committee members.
Stephen Spear expressed disappointment in the lack of effort by ENSR to include any comments. And questioned the capabilities of ENSR to produce a final draft that is suitable by the committee standards. He believed that it would be much more efficient for the committee to make the corrections rather than ENSR.
The Chair, Gordon Peabody, acknowledged the hard work and effort put into this document, but expressed the same frustrations as other committee members over the lack of compliance from ENSR to incorporate the committee’s suggestions and comments. The Chair did have a conversation with Dennis Lowry from ENSR to make sure that the committee’s comments/ideas were included in the revised document.
John Portnoy questioned whether the committee should ask ENSR to send the document to an copy editor prior to being revised or after all the revisions should be made. He’s leaning towards after the revisions would be made then sending to a copy editor. Stephen Spear suggested that all formatting corrections, corrections to any figure/graph/map should be submitted to ENSR because those need to be included.
Also Stephen Spear suggested that on page 75 the word ‘preparation’ should be omitted and the subject of water quality should be included. John Riehl stated that the committee needs to be cautious with things that MUST be corrected verses those that the committee would like to be corrected; that the committee needs to have this document finished and ready by the next meeting (essentially a month) therefore all corrections need to be considered on a certain level of importance. The Chair suggested 5 weeks as a suitable timeframe for the corrections/editing. Eric Derleth asked the Chair about the conversation with Dennis Lowry from ENSR. The Chair stated that Dennis Lowry said that while the document isn’t complete that he will still work on the document to finish it.
Tim Smith added that while it is important to make needed changes that this document is a CRP and missing pieces aren’t unacceptable necessarily. He also suggested forming a small group of no more than 3 to work very closely with ENSR to ensure that the missing pieces are included and that this project is finished in a timely manner (within a month). Stephen Spear stated that maybe that small group would go to ENSR’s office to sit with the working group and make the necessary changes together.
The Chair asked the committee whether the copy-editing should happen before or after the revisions. The committee had a basic consensus that the copy-editing should happen after the revisions were made. Bob Hubby suggested that handing ENSR one marked up/revised document from the committee that includes all revisions/corrections would be the best way; that way the document could go straight to copy-editing. Eric Derleth suggested breaking the entire document down into manageable small fragments that would allow each member of the committee to make changes needed. Then submit the revised sections back to ENSR for the final technical editing. While ENSR should be responsible for the final corrections/additions because of their contract with the committee, Eric Derleth felt that as long as the
concepts/ideas remained in tact, that sending the revised copy to ENSR for technical editing would be wise. Stephen Spear felt strongly that they should be responsible for the changes in the figures/charts/maps, etc. but also for the copy-editing.
Bob Hubby stated that the table of contents will be affected by every comment be incorporated.
John Portnoy stated that figures and text should be separated and every figure should be numbered and labeled in the text with a caption explaining its purpose in the report; i.e. each figure should be self-explanatory Also a list of the figures (numbers & captions) needs to be sent to committee members so that each can be referenced in the revised text. Then all corrections are sent back to ENSR for technical editing and formatting. After all that is completed, ENSR should submit the corrected copy to a small subcommittee before a final copy of the revised document is issued to all committee members.
Motion to allow the chair to dictate the above-mentioned plan to ENSR entertained by Jack Whalen at 2:45pm. Seconded by Bob Hubby. Motion passed unanimously at 2:46pm.
Chair called for a brief recess at 2:47pm.
Meeting reconvened at 3:00 pm.
The chair asked for volunteers to be a part of the small working group that would receive the revised copy of the CRP from ENSR that includes all of the committee’s suggestions. Stephen Spear, John Portnoy, John Riehl, Bob Hubby and Eric Derleth all volunteered to be apart of the CRP working group. The CRP working group would be in charge of gathering all comments from committee members, comparing those comments to those that were already included or excluded. Then compiling all the comments into one document that would be sent to ENSR.
Tim Smith presented a new one-foot contour LIDAR mapping of the Herring River in Wellfleet, MA.
The Chair opened floor to the Mill Creek Stakeholders report. Both Tim Smith & Eric Derelth felt that the meeting went well. It was a good time to inform people of what is really going on and to squash myths/rumors of things that may happen or have happened. John Riehl thought the meeting went well. Nearly everyone is in favor of the concept of the project but want to know how it will affect him or her. He also stated that “compensation” was mentioned by one attendee, and recommended that the committee continue, as it has, to focus more on remediation for affected areas, rather than compensation.
The Chair opened discussion on MOU II responses. Ira Wood stated that there should be another whereas. While the general consensus from the town is positive, he strongly urges the committee to find funding elsewhere due to the financial burden that the town carries. Discussion on this topic will continue at the next meeting. The chair also stated that topic number 8 (CRP/Stakeholder/Abutter protocols) would be discussed at the next meeting.
New Committee Business: Jeff Hughes (Wellfleet Herring Warden) stated that he is looking for guidance/input for the area east of Rt. 6 in freshwater non-title marsh. He gave each member a handout of issues/projects that need to be addresses. Stephen Spear stated that there may be funding from the USDA available for item #2. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife may be able to help with items #1 & #2 according to Eric Derleth.
John Portnoy brought up the topic of a newsletter for the restoration project. Beth Chapman whom is a stakeholder that owns property in both Truro & Wellfleet is eager to volunteer her time & talents as a public relations representative to produce a newsletter for the technical committee; Beth Chapman has been a public relations representative for various financial management groups for over 16 years. She would produce and compose a newsletter to inform the public of what is really going on and how it will affect them. She would also be willing to provide local newspapers with information to be printed. The committee welcomed her help and thanked her for her future contributions. She will be working closely with the Chair, Gordon Peabody, to create a newsletter.
CRP additional discussion:
Joel Fox & Eric Derleth had concern over the open bridge option at Chequesett Neck (?) & tidal height/dike option at Mill Creek. Stephen Spear stated that he had included comment to ENSR about both topics that have yet to be included in the CRP. Stephen Spear stated that maybe to solve the issue that there could be statement that further tidal control may be needed further up the river at such places as Mill Creek.
Next meeting date is Thurs. Oct. 4th, 2007 at the Wellfleet Council on Aging Center in Wellfleet, MA at 1pm.
Motion to adjourn meeting entertained by John Riehl at 4:38 pm. Seconded by Bob Hubby. Motion passed unanimously at 4:38 pm.
Meeting adjourned at 4:38 pm.
Respectfully,
Megan Eckhardt
Herring River Technical Committee Secretary
| 