Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutBCAG_Meeting3_Summary_FinalApril 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 1 Brewster Coastal Advisory Group: Developing a Coastal Adaptation Strategy For Brewster Meeting Three Summary April 6, 2016 | 5:30 – 8:30 PM Brewster Town Hall Rooms A&B | Brewster, MA Overview As it prepares for future coastal change, sea level rise, and shoreline erosion, and seeks to meet coastal access needs of the community, the Town of Brewster is supporting a public engagement process to develop a coastal adaptation strategy based on sound coastal science and public values and interests. The strategy will guide future decision- making in Brewster’s coastal areas. The Town of Brewster and its consultants, the project team, will develop the strategy by reviewing relevant scientific data and collecting input and guidance from the public and the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group. The project team consists of a public engagement team led by the Consensus Building Institute and a scientific and technical team led by Horsley Witten Group. The objectives of the third meeting of the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (the group) were to: • Identify the most useful data queries/analysis to be completed with the Beach Access Survey data. • Seek agreement on the assumptions made in the Sea Level Rise scenarios, decide which scenarios to present at the public visioning workshop, and provide input on how to present the data during the visioning workshop. • Seek agreement on the objectives, discussions and format of the public visioning workshop. • Solicit input on the workshop announcement distribution plan. Materials reviewed and discussed during the April 6th meeting included: a meeting agenda, the draft February 18 meeting summary, the draft March 7 meeting summary, Brewster Beach Survey summary data, a draft public visioning workshop agenda, a draft visioning workshop announcement, a draft visioning workshop distribution plan, and a revised draft work plan. A presentation titled Brewster’s Coastal Risks Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow as presented. Meeting materials, presentations, and a video of the meeting are available on the project website: www.cbuilding.org/project/brewstercoast. Members who were present included: Abigail Archer, Ryan Burch, Matt Cannon, Ruth Courtnell, Tom Devane, Max Dwyer, Bob Dwyer, James Goodrich, Howard Hayes, Kyle Hinkle, Bud Johnson, John Lamb, Stephen McKenna, Mary O’Neil, David Peterson, Donald Poole, Chris Powicki, Jonathan Rice, Joe Rinaldi, and Cindy Roth. April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 2 Advisory group liaisons who were present included: Pat Hughes, Chris Miller, Hal Minis, and Elizabeth Taylor. Decisions and Action Items The group made the following decisions at the meeting: • The group approved the February 18 and March 7 meeting summaries with inclusion of additional revisions suggested at the meeting. • The group agreed to send suggested data queries for the Beach Access Survey data to Stacie and Eric to forward to Tonna-Maria Surgeon-Rogers, who would see if they are possible to complete. • The group agreed to use the sea level rise scenarios from the current presentation for the public visioning meeting. • The group decided to present some slides illustrating historic shoreline data (that includes 2014 LIDAR data), and to highlight the uncertainties and high degree of variability in the predicted shoreline location map (map forthcoming). • The group agreed on the objectives of the public visioning workshop (see below) with inclusion of addition revisions suggested at the meeting. • The group decided to hold the visioning workshop at the Town Hall on Tuesday April 26, and to use keypad polling to understand who is participating in the workshop in-person or remotely. • The group suggested that CBI develop a shorter, pithier flyer for the public visioning workshop, which CBI would send and receive feedback on before finalizing. Action Items from the April 6 meeting included the following: • Group Members to o Send to Eric and Stacie: additional suggested data queries for the Beach Access Survey Data; additional questions to use with key pad polling at the workshop; additional questions for small group discussions, and; additional locations to post workshop announcements. o Post and distribute the announcement throughout town and to the lists or groups your affiliated with. • CBI o Forward suggested data queries to Tonna-Maria Surgeon-Rogers to see if they can be completed. o Collect, review and select additional questions for key pad polling and small group discussions and revise the workshop agenda. o Work with the Technical Team to refine the presentation on historic shoreline data. o Revise and create a shorter, pithier flyer for public visioning workshop and distribute it to . o Draft meeting summary. April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 3 Welcome and Opening Business: Eric Roberts, facilitator, opened the meeting, reviewed the meeting guidelines and objectives, and the agenda. He presented the revisions made to the February 19 and March 7 draft meeting summaries. A member suggested revising the title of the March 7 meeting from meeting one to meeting two. The group approved both meeting summaries with the additional suggested revision to the March 7 summary. Stacie Smith, facilitator, commented on the project timeline found on the revised draft tentative work plan, which now shows the process extending beyond June and into September. The revision of the work plan and timeline was based on group member suggestions that more time was needed to prepare for the pubic visioning session and to complete the project overall. The project team and the town are seeking a project extension from the state and additional funding, which are yet not confirmed. Beach Survey Data Review and Discussion Group members discussed the Brewster Beach access survey data and the potential data queries/analysis. Participants expressed appreciation at receiving access to all the data, though some noted that it was difficult for them to identify themes in the data. Group members commented on the data. One member noted that many respondents commented on shuttle services, and it was clear that respondents do not support a shuttle. Another member noted some comments supported the use of shuttles, and then highlighted three themes she saw in the data: 1) comments seeking increased beach access juxtaposed with other comments for limiting easier beach access due to limited beach space; 2) comments about access for dogs versus limiting access for dogs, and; 3) comments about providing residents priority access to the beaches versus the economic impact of tourists and need to provide beach access to tourists. Another member said the survey was extensive and a job well done. The group discussed the demographics of the respondents. A member said the respondents’ age distribution tracks closely to the age distribution of the town. Pat Hughes, Board of Selectmen Liaison, said the survey was sent to both year-round and seasonal taxpayers, and that approximately 2600 people responded to the survey resulting in a 29 percent response rate. Approximately half of the respondents were year-round residents and half were part-time residents – similar proportions to the population. 139 visitors received the survey, as well as visitors on Nickerson State Park’s email list. The number of emails on state park address list was unknown. A participant asked whether each response was a unique response, and whether or not a group could have submitted repeated responses to sway the survey results. Ms. Hughes said the survey group had discussed this issue and decided not to put April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 4 restrictions on submissions so that multiple people could submit a survey from the same computer (e.g. a computer in a public library or if three members of a family wanted to respond). She added that initial analysis suggests that responses are individual unique responses. The group discussed potential data queries and analysis. Some members said they wished they had the time, skills, and knowledge to analyze the data and produce valid results. A member asked when the group would see interpreted data since there appears to be some confusion in the responses. For example, many respondents said they prefer to visit Paine’s Creek and Crosby Landing, but parking is sparse in these locations. Additionally, the respondents indicated they might like a shuttle to Paine’s Creek and Breakwater Landing, the latter of which is confusing if more people said they want to visit Paine’s Creek and Crosby Landing. Stacie noted that Tonna-Marie Surgeon- Rogers Coastal Training Program Coordinator at the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, who has expertise in survey analysis expertise and helped to create the survey, offered to assist with analyses for the group, and added that the goal of the discussion is to identify which questions the group would like to try to answer with the available data. Participants suggested the following potential data queries/analysis: • Conduct key word searches of the open-ended responses to identify what topics were most frequently mentioned. For example, search all comments for “parking.” Stacie noted that the Survey Monkey program can create word clouds to show which words were most frequently used; however, this doesn’t tell us whether the comments were supportive of or opposed to the particular idea represented by the word. She also noted it would be time-intensive to key-word code the data, and better if it could be automated. • Of the people who said they would not take a shuttle, how many of those people live within walking distance of the beach? This query might provide insight that they would not take a shuttle because they are able to walk to the beach, or they drive and drop people off. • Of the people who said it was a challenge finding parking, how many responded they would or would not take a shuttle? This query might show whether or not they are interested in a shuttle. • For any query, it might be helpful to know how many responses came from visitors versus residents. Stacie noted that the number of visitor respondents was minimal, and the survey appears to be mostly residents. Stacie suggested a few other potential queries: Of the most frequented beaches, how do the respondents say they arrive at those locations? How many respondents report have difficulty finding parking at the beaches the respondents visit most frequently? Of the most frequented beaches, do the respondents who like those beaches support shuttle use? Or, for those who like the shuttle, which beaches do they prefer to visit? April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 5 Several members suggested questions that may be more appropriate at later meetings when the public is considering alternatives. They suggested asking people about whether or not they would use a shuttle under specific conditions, knowing that parking might not be available with sea level rise. Others suggested asking for preferences about adaptation strategies. The facilitators reminded the group that future public meetings will focus on these types of questions, once some options for adaptation are on the table, and that the visioning workshop is to identify what people care about most at Brewster’s public beaches and landings and why they care about it. The group also identified additional information that might be useful to collect either in a future survey, or possibly during the public visioning workshop: • Responses from visitors to Brewster’s public beaches and landings. • Regarding the shuttle, it would be helpful to know respondent’s tolerance level for waiting for a parking space to become available before the respondent gives up or goes elsewhere. • Identify the strategies people use to deal with the lack of parking (e.g. where do they park if they cannot find parking at the landing of their choice). The group suggested key ideas to convey while presenting the data at the public visioning workshop: • Describe some of the commonalities in responses. For example, 93 percent of respondents said Brewster’s beaches were excellent or good (page 164 of the survey data). Most respondents are aware of the erosion problem but they are not aware that sea level rise is an issue (page 156 of the survey data). • Highlight the diversity of responses, the importance of considering all perspectives, and the reason for the BCAG. The beach access survey shows there is great diversity in opinions about Brewster’s coastal areas, how people use the areas, when they use them, etc. and this diversity of opinions makes it difficult to decide how to manage the coastal areas. However, considering the diversity of viewpoints is critical when developing the adaptation strategy and, ultimately, when decision-makers make site-specific plans. Thus, the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group was formed to help consider all these perspectives and develop strategies taking them into account. • Describe the limitations of the survey and the conclusions that can be made. For example, the beach survey only asked about summer beach usage; it did not ask about beach usage in the spring, fall, or winter. The survey included very few visitor responses; the conclusions are mostly about seasonal and full-time residents. If possible, it would be useful to solicit responses from more visitors compare the visitor and resident responses. Technical Presentation and Discussion April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 6 Geraldine Camilli, technical team member from Horsley Witten Group, presented a draft overview of sea level rise (SLR) and storm surge and how they relate to tidal changes already occurring today. She also described the uncertainty in predicting the location of shorelines in the future, and several SLR and storm surge scenarios that could be presented at the public visioning workshop. Highlights from her presentation included: Tidal Predictions and Historic Storm Surges Tidal predictions provide a range in which the tide is likely to fall. A tidal gauge located in Sesuit Harbor is the nearest gauge to Brewster. This gauge indicates that the tidal range near Brewster is, on average, approximately 10 feet between high tide and low tide. The Mean High Water (MHW) line is considered to be the shoreline, and currently, 58% of the high tides in Brewster are above MHW each year. At present, approximately 41 high tides per year (or approximately 6% of the yearly high tides) are two or more feet above MHW. Two feet above MHW is the equivalent of two feet of SLR. Historic storms surges recorded on the gauge in Boston Harbor range from approximately 3.7 feet to 4.9 feet. The Boston Harbor gauge is protected from waves and represents the best local data currently available; the data from the Boston gauge is representative of what would be expected along Brewster’s coastline. For purposes of this analysis, the technical team assumed a storm surge of 4 feet to represent the average Nor’easter in the scenarios (see below). SLR Scenarios and Shoreline Change Over Time The SLR scenarios were revised based on the group input from second group meeting. The next SLR scenarios show 2 feet or 4 feet of SLR over 40 or 60-year time horizons, respectively. Additionally, they show the context of what could happen today by including an example of a nor’easter with four feet of storm surge. The new SLR scenarios included: A. SLR of 2 feet above the current MHW – This scenario already occurs 41 times per year in Brewster and is expected to occur more frequently in the next 20 years. Under this scenario, the sea level would be two feet greater than the current MHW on a daily basis. B. SLR of 4 feet above the current MHW – Under this scenario, the sea level would be four feet greater than the current MHW line on a daily basis. This scenario is also roughly equivalent to a Nor’easter with four feet of storm surge that could occur as a singular event today. Current king tides, which happen about 3 times per year, would also fall within the range of this scenario. The SLR would be a new, daily occurrence in approximately 60 years, whereas the Nor’easter with four feet of storm surge could impact Brewster tomorrow. C. SLR of 4 feet above the current MHW plus 4 feet of storm surge – This scenario represents potential conditions if the sea level were to rise four feet above the current MHW and if a 4-foot storm surge also were to occur. April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 7 Geraldine showed a series of maps illustrating shoreline conditions at five times over approximately 100 years to explain that coastal change is highly variable over time and space, which makes it difficult to predict future shoreline locations. Variability in coastal change over time may show that a shoreline is accreting in the short-term (e.g. if reviewing two data points taken 15 years apart); however, if looking at 5 data points over 100 years, the data may show that, overall, the same area is eroding over the long- term. Spatially, variability is also significant. For example, two beach locations (e.g. Little Breakwater and Breakwater) separated by a distance of several hundred feet may show opposite effects with one beach area accreting and the other eroding over the same time period. The built environment may also impact shoreline change rates. The technical team is working to produce a map that will show an area along the shoreline (illustrated on the map as a band of space) in which the shoreline might possibly be located in 10 years time; there will be a lot of uncertainty in the map. Geraldine presented maps and a summary table of the aforementioned SLR scenarios that described the scenarios that might impact beach area, landings or access to the landings. The table shows the number of parking spots available at each landing, and the SLR scenario that would initially impact either the parking at the landing or the access to the parking area. For example, parking at Paine’s Creek would be impacted starting with the MHW plus 4 feet of SLR scenario (a.k.a four feet of storm surge from a Nor’easter) and access to the parking area would be impacted by the MHW plus 4 feet of SLR plus a four feet of storm surge. As another example: access to Little Breakwater would be impacted by MHW plus 4 feet of SLR but the parking lot would not be impacted. It was assumed that after parking or access to parking is initially impacted under a scenario, scenarios with greater SLR or storm surge would cause additional impact. Additionally, any parking area or access road that is impacted by MHW plus 4 feet of SLR could be impacted today or tomorrow by a nor’easter producing 4 feet of storm surge. Geraldine also noted that impacts to the beaches themselves, which are not included in the table, may occur before the parking lots or access roads are impacted. For example, the MHW plus 4 feet of SLR scenario would inundate much of the beach area at Paine’s Creek and reduce the amount of useable beach. Group Discussion Members discussed the scenarios, maps, and table. Several members said the table and maps were very useful. In particular, the table provides a helpful snapshot of how parking and access might be affected. A member suggested it would be useful to know when beach areas would be impacted too. Another member said the information might be difficult for people to accept, but it is important because it shows that Brewster has only 4 landings that would not be impacted by MHW plus 4 feet of SLR. Additionally, the information will help the group to prioritize interventions and management strategies. April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 8 The group discussed current and future impacts to beaches and coastal features. A member said Paine’s Creek, Mant’s Landing, and Breakwater are all impacted now by large storms, and it might be good to describe these impacts too. Another member said it would be useful to describe how the scenarios impact other coastal features such as the dunes, and that property owners will be wondering if the town will consider how to protect their homes. Mark Nelson, a member of the technical team from Horsley Whitten Group, responded that it will be hard to predict how the shoreline or dunes will shift under the scenarios, as evidenced by the high variability in the shoreline location data that was presented tonight. Additionally, it is unknown how the flats will be impacted, which is something the technical team plans to investigate. The group discussed which scenarios to present at the workshop and ultimately decided to present the aforementioned scenarios. However, the following caveats were raised. Some organizations, including Woods Hole Research Center, think the currently accepted SLR scenarios used by many governments (including the scenarios used by the US government which inform this project) are low estimates of SLR because the Greenland ice sheet and permafrost are melting faster than anticipated. A member questioned whether the group should be considering more extreme SLR scenarios given this information. Mark Borelli, a member of the technical team, commented that the projections include a lot of uncertainty and suggested the group pick a water level to plan for and not let the uncertainty slow the group’s work. A liaison added that a lot of the variability is in the timeframe of the SLR—it could be faster or slower than projected, but it will happen eventually. In response to a question about whether or not to map the potential impact of category four hurricanes, Geraldine said that potential impacts from a category four hurricane happening today would fall within the range of the scenario of MHW plus four feet of SLR plus four feet of storm surge. Members made the following suggestions for presenting the data at the public visioning workshop. Responses from the technical team are italicized: • Consider providing the table (Table 1) as a handout to workshop participants. • Clearly state that wave action occurs anytime there is storm surge, and that these images are static images but the process is dynamic, which means that if the sea level illustrated on a map barely meets the edge of a parking lot, wave action could still undermine and/or overtop the parking lot. • It would be useful to express impacts more directly, such as the Cape Cod Chronicle article did for Chatham. The article read “One foot of sea level rise will submerge 17% of the town, isolate 3.8 miles of roadway, and make the rest of the community more vulnerable to floods…” Geraldine responded that it might be possible to provide that context, and luckily for Brewster it is more limited. • The group discussed the usefulness of creating a map of the entire coastline showing one-foot increments of SLR in different colors to help people understand the context. It was suggested that a few large maps of this information would be useful for the public visioning workshop. Geraldine said they have that data and could work with the Town GIS department to put it April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 9 online where people could turn the layers on and off. She added that she could bring to the workshop the large, town-wide maps displayed at the last meeting. • The group discussed whether or not to show the historic shoreline data at the visioning workshop. Several members said it would be useful to show the historic shoreline data to emphasize the variability in shoreline movement over the short and long terms and the difficulty in making predictions. Others suggested it isn’t useful to show the historic shoreline data because the methodology used to collect some of the historic data isn’t known. They stated that people know the shoreline moves a great deal, and suggested what participants need to understand more is the SLR scenarios. The group agreed to present some historic shoreline data (that includes 2014 LIDAR data) to provide context, while highlighting the uncertainties and high degree of variability in the predicted shoreline location. The facilitation and technical teams will work together to achieve this balance in the information that will be presented. • A member suggested that many older residents would be more interested in the impacts that could occur today and those that might happen in the next 20 years, rather than 60 years from now. • Starting the presentation with historic storm data, as done at this meeting, is useful. Draft Public Visioning Workshop Agenda and Objectives The group reviewed the draft public visioning session agenda and objectives. The BCAG will be considered the workshop sponsor and BCAG members will serve as small group facilitators. An adapted version of the technical presentation delivered at the April 6 meeting will be delivered at the visioning workshop, in addition to some information presented during previous BCAG meetings. Additionally, the results of the beach access survey data queries will be presented. Members made the following suggestions about the workshop objectives: • Add an objective to explain the mandate of the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group and what the group will produce. • Reframe the objective starting “Learn about…” to “Engage the public in…” In addition to the above suggestions about the presentations, members discussed and offered the following suggestions about the workshop and the agenda: • Display posters showing SLR along the entire Brewster coastline. • The group discussed the use of keypad polling, and ultimately decided to use the technology to learn about who is attending (or participating remotely in) the workshop. Gathering responses from remote participants in real-time will require holding the workshop at the Town Hall. Stacie clarified some of the benefits and limitations of keypad polling: strengths included that it can give everyone a sense of what others are thinking in real-time and anonymously. It is April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 10 also a fun, engaging, participatory activity. Response to questions can be cross tabulated later. Limitations include that questions can only be multiple choice or simple ranking questions and we won’t be able to understand why people choose what they choose. Only 125 people can use the polling devices at one time. Group members suggested using the technology to ask a few demographic questions to understand who is in the room, and to not to spend too much time polling. Some suggested asking a few questions similar to the questions from the beach access survey to be able to compare responses. Questions they suggested asking included: why did the participant attend the workshop, how far they live from the coastline, how do they get to the beach, how do they feel about dogs on the beach. The group also decided to send additional potential questions to the facilitators, who will then send a draft of potential questions based on group suggestions. • Post all materials on-line in advance so people can review it in advance and come prepared. • It would be good to provide a data slide about the scale of the access challenges. This could include the number of parking stickers sold compared to the number of existing parking spaces, how many people in the survey raised finding a parking spot as an issue, etc. The group discussed the questions to ask participants during the small group discussions, and decided to submit additional questions to the facilitators in advance of the workshop. Several group members suggested asking questions about specific adaptation strategies or preferences. Stacie reminded the group that the goal of the small group discussions is to learn what people care about the most and what concerns and priorities they have for the coastal areas. This information will then be used as a measure to evaluate adaptation approaches to manage shoreline change. She added that people will not be informed about the various adaptation strategies at this meeting, and that public meetings in July will focus on soliciting the public’s input on their preferred strategies. Some participants liked the draft questions. Participants suggested the following revisions or additional questions: • Add questions to understand their concerns: What are you most concerned about or afraid of happening in the coastal areas? What overwhelms you? • What do you have most trouble with in the coastal areas? • Combine the first two questions into one. • Do people want to preserve parking or let the parking lots go and look at satellite parking options? • How important is beachside parking compared to a shuttle to and from satellite parking? • What would you do or change about Brewster’s beach and public landings if you could change one thing about current conditions? Draft Public Visioning Workshop Announcement and Announcement Distribution Plan April 6, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 11 The group reviewed and commented on the draft workshop announcement. Many people suggested shortening the announcement, incorporating graphics, and including a hook that makes people interested. One person suggested indicating that the beach access survey data would be presented. They also suggested adding information about the ability to watch on public television and participate remotely. CBI agreed to revise the announcement into a short, graphic flyer that can grab attention and be easily absorbed. The group reviewed and commented on the announcement distribution plan. They suggested posting physical copies of the announcement at the following locations: the post office, library, Ferretti’s Market, the entrance to the Department of Public Works transfer service, the Brewster Store, the Council on Aging, Snowy Owl, Chocolate Sparrow, Jo Mama’s, churches, Brewster Farmer’s Market. Several members agreed to post the announcements in these locations. The group discussed other avenues to advertise the workshop and suggested the following: • Promote the event at Earth Day events. • Distribute the announcement through the Brewster Ponds Coalition listserv. • Contact the Fire Department to have the announcement included on the electronic sign. • Distribute the announcement through the Brewster Community Network and announce it at the community forum. Next Steps Stacie reiterated that the draft work plan is tentative and not approved yet; the facilitators will provide updates on the work plan as they become available. Scheduling polls will be distributed to set the next meetings and the meeting summary from this meeting will be drafted and distributed as soon as possible. The facilitators closed the meeting. The next group meeting is the Public Visioning Workshop to be held on Tuesday April 26, from 6 to 8 pm at the Town Hall.