|
Herring River Restoration Committee (HRRC)
Cape Cod National Seashore Headquarters
Wellfleet, MA
January 6, 2011
9:30 am-4:00 pm
Members Present: Tim Smith, Eric Derleth, Hunt Durey, Steve Spear, Gary Joseph, Charleen Greenhalgh, and Hillary Greenberg
Members Absent: Steve Block
Others Present: Margo Fenn, Tara Nye, Shelley Hall, John Portnoy, Pat Weslowski, Bill Burke
Administration/Coordination:
Communications/Coordination with the Friends of Herring River: John Portnoy reported on the activities of the Friends. The Friends received a family foundation grant of $5000 and expect to hear from Temper of the Times Foundation later this month on their proposal to develop an educational video about the Herring River.~ They are seeking other funding sources, and any help by HRRC members would be appreciated. They have half the needed funds for the pre-production work (development of the concept, research, some interviews, preliminary scripting, etc.) but will need funding to complete that work and get into production.~
~
At the January meeting, the Friends plan to develop objectives for the year, including events similar to what they’ve done in the past such as~working on the burn with the Seashore, tours of the estuary and perhaps a kayak trip in the spring, participation in the Harbor Conference and Oyster Fest, the herring count and other events to generate news on the project.
~
Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the draft meeting minutes for December 2, 2010.
Schedule Next Meetings:
Monthly HRRC meetings are scheduled for:
February 10, 2011
March 10, 2011
April 7, 2011
The Technical Working Group (TWG) is scheduled to meet on January 12, 2011 and April 13, 2011.
Presentation and Discussion:
EIS/EIR Alternatives: The Committee reviewed a revised spreadsheet on the Project Action Alternatives. The spreadsheet repackages the Action Alternatives to focus more on restoration goals and less on the infrastructure changes. The spreadsheet identifies tidal restoration goals for each Alternative and lists the actions that will be needed to achieve those goals at key locations throughout the estuary.
Alternative A is still the No Action Alternative. Alternative B (formerly described as a Single Point of Tide Control at Chequessett Neck Road) seeks to achieve a high tide of 4-6 feet NAVD in the lower river basin. Alternative C seeks to achieve a high tide of 6-9 feet NAVD in the lower basin. This Alternative merges the previous Alternatives C and D into one. Both new Alternatives B and C would still include the option of diking Mill Creek to either exclude or manage tide heights in this basin. The size of any Mill Creek dike would be determined by the targeted restoration tide heights. Another way to describe the new Alternatives is to say that Alternative B is designed to manage for monthly Spring high tides while Alternative C is designed to accommodate storm tides of an as yet unspecified
intensity.
The Committee discussed the proposed new way of presenting the Alternatives. This framework would provide analysis of the full range of potential impacts, i.e. Alternative B would provide the minimum amount of restoration to meet project objectives with the least flooding impact; Alternative C would provide the maximum amount of tidal restoration with the maximum tolerable flooding impacts.
A discussion ensued regarding whether the separation distances between projected water levels in Mill Creek and the playable areas of the CYCC golf course were adequate in Alternative B. Water heights in Mill Creek will be limited under any of the scenarios. It was noted that the numbers in the draft spreadsheet are placeholders and will need to be refined, based on the hydrodynamic modeling results. However, if the golf course is to be elevated, in any case the goal is to achieve a minimum two-foot separation between projected Mill Creek high tide levels and the playable areas of the course.
The Committee also discussed the potential design requirements for reconstruction of the Chequessett Neck Road dike and potential new construction of a dike at Mill Creek under the different Action Alternatives. If the Chequessett Neck Road dike were reconstructed to FEMA standards, a dike at Mill Creek might be considered a secondary flood control structure. HRRC will need to consult the Army Corps and Engineers and FEMA to determine this. In any case, the No Action Alternative in the EIS/EIR should describe the status of the existing dike under FEMA rules.
The Committee made a number of editing changes to improve the clarity of the spreadsheet.
Woods Hole Group (WHG) Hydrodynamic and Sediment Modeling: Kirk Bosma provided the Committee with an update on the WHG’s modeling efforts. The first level Sediment Analysis is complete and WHG has submitted a proposal to HRRC for the next phase of work. The recalibration of the hydrodynamic model (using 2010 data) is complete. WHG has been working on several new hydrodynamic modeling scenarios including storm surges, sea level rise, various dike openings, and vegetative changes. They have also been evaluating Mill Creek, looking at the No Action Alternative, sea level rise, and related changes in groundwater levels.
Bosma noted that the recalibrated model indicates that water levels will be approximately 6/10 of a foot higher in the lower basin than previously projected. However, this does not change the projections regarding optimal opening widths for the Chequessett Neck Road dike. A fifty meter (165 feet wide) opening is still considered optimal for achieving water surface elevation and salinity goals. WHG has been evaluating sluice gate heights to determine the optimal design.
Bosma reviewed the proposed standardized outputs from the model with the Committee to determine what types of data would be most useful for the preparation of the EIS/EIR and the Adaptive Management Plan. WHG proposes to provide tables for each of the seven sub-basins of the river showing key benchmarks (e.g. mean high tide, mean low tide, mean high tide spring, annual high water, 100 year storm, etc.). There would also be tables showing mean and maximum salinity, hydro-period and percentage of tides wetting.
Other outputs would include maps (graphics and shape files) showing each of the tidal benchmarks, and salinity penetration. There will be model animations showing water surface elevations, salinity and velocities at key locations. There will be an analysis of tide flushing (residence time). There will also be interactive Google Earth files. Bosma presented some examples of the tables and maps for the Committee to review. Margo Fenn suggested that since the Louis Berger Group (LBG) is responsible for analyzing the impacts of predicted tide-height and salinity changes in the EIS/EIR, staff at LBG should be consulted about the modeling outputs.
HRRC members requested that the WHG merge the information from the earlier hydrodynamic modeling report with the technical memos summarizing the more recent work so that there would be one final report that summarizes all the findings.
Section 106 Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study: Bill Burke reported that he had not received any new materials from the Public Archaeology Lab (PAL). Review of the final Cultural Resources report will be rescheduled to the February HRRC meeting.
LBG EIS/EIR Impact Thresholds: Pat Weslowski presented an overview of a draft document outlining proposed impact threshold definitions for the EIS/EIR. The document presents proposed impact intensity definitions, reviews how to quantify impacts with regard to context, duration and intensity, and outlines needed data. There are four proposed levels of impact: Negligible, minor, moderate and major.
Weslowski posed several questions for the Committee:
-How shall duration of impacts be addressed? Because implementation will take several years, shall short-term be used to describe the implementation period, with long-term used to describe the restoration period?
-Shall sea level rise be addressed in the analysis, or as a contribution to the cumulative impacts scenario?
She presented a couple of examples of impact thresholds-looking at Water Quality and Visitor Experience. The Committee discussed these examples and noted that some of the suggested definitions are not a good fit for the Herring River Project. Many of the anticipated impacts of the Project would be beneficial but the proposed thresholds don't make that clear. Tim Smith noted that some of the data that is listed as "needed" had already been provided to Louis Berger Group (LBG). Shelley Hall commented that the thresholds may be too specific, and suggested taking a more general approach to the definitions.
The Committee discussed the question of how to define short and long- term impacts. There will be three broad phases of implementation: Construction, Adaptive Management, and Long-term/Permanent Condition. There will be short-term impacts directly related to construction. There will also be short-term system changes related to the reintroduction of tidal flow. However, many of the system changes will take years to reach equilibrium.
The Committee agreed that the document would need more work before it is presented to the Technical Working Group. Tim Smith suggested consulting Mark Husbands of EQD to determine how to approach the issue of impact thresholds. Steve Spear suggested listing the variables to be measured without making any value judgments about adverse or beneficial impacts. This is similar to the approach taken in the Adaptive Management summary table.
A separate meeting with MEPA and Cape Cod Commission (CCC) officials may be needed to review the proposed EIS/EIR timeline and procedural requirements of the agencies. Margo Fenn and LBG staff agreed to consult with MEPA and CCC officials on this.
Adaptive Management: Tim Smith reviewed a draft Adaptive Management summary table that was distributed to HRRC members prior to the meeting. This table presents the agreed-upon twelve Adaptive Management objectives and provides a brief analysis of each including the following elements:
Restoration Target (changes in the system we are seeking)
Measurable Variables (factors that can be measured to monitor changes)
Decision Timeframe (expected timeframe for observable changes)
Working Hypotheses (expected system responses to increased tidal inundation)
Predictive Model Considerations (available models for predicting system change)
Management Triggers (unexpected system responses that require management actions)
Potential Management Actions (examples of steps to respond to unanticipated adverse impacts)
The table provides a framework for the Adaptive Management Plan. Tim Smith suggested convening a workshop of science experts to help flesh out the Adaptive Management Plan and needed models. The Committee discussed the table and asked some questions. Eric Derleth asked whether the restoration targets should vary by sub-basin. Tim Smith did not think that this made sense as hydrologic changes in the lower basin will determine what happens upstream. The group agreed that the Adaptive Management monitoring plan would certainly have to evaluate system responses in the different sub-basins; for example, salinity levels will be different in the upper and lower parts of the estuary. Since Committee members had not had time to review the table carefully, the group agreed to discuss it further at the February
meeting.
Technical Services Needs and Funding Sources: The Committee briefly discussed the draft list of technical service needs prepared by Tara Nye and Tim Smith. The list needs to be updated, given that the Numerical Sediment Modeling will not be needed. This could free up some of the NRCS funding for other needed work.
Tim Smith and Tara Nye agreed to revise the Technical Services Needs list for the February HRRC meeting.
Cost Sharing for proposed CYCC Golf Course Plan: Margo Fenn reported that the planned meeting with CYCC representatives was postponed. CYCC officials submitted a letter from a USGA official to document their argument that there is a “domino effect” in making changes to the course. The HRRC subcommittee will meet with CYCC in the near future to discuss this.
Land Plan and Appraisal: Tim Smith noted that the Nature Conservancy had issued a RFP for consulting services to prepare a land plan and appraisal for a potential sale of CYCC upland to the National Park Service. Once an appraiser and land planner are selected, the work should require about three months to complete.
FEMA Update: There was no new information to report.
Legal Update: There was no new information to report.
High Toss Road Cost Estimates: The Committee briefly reviewed the costs estimates for design changes to High Toss Road prepared by NRCS engineering staff. The group noted that the least expensive option would be to remove the road, but all options need to be reviewed and discussed with NPS and Town of Wellfleet officials. The Town Planning Board and Board of Selectmen need to be consulted.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.
Documents referenced in the meeting:
-Minutes of the December 2, 2010 HRRC Meeting
-Revised HR Alternatives, January 3, 2011
-Draft Impact Thresholds, January 4, 2011
-Draft Adaptive Management Objectives Summary Table, January 3, 2011
-High Toss Road Cost Estimate, January 3, 2011
Respectfully Submitted,
Hillary Greenberg-Lemos
| 