Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutBCAG_Meeting2_SummaryMarch 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 1 Brewster Coastal Advisory Group: Developing a Coastal Adaptation Strategy For Brewster Meeting Two Summary March 7, 2016 | 5:30 – 8:30 PM Cape Cod Museum of Natural History | 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 through review of relevant scientific data and extensive 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 second meeting of the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (the group) were to: • Clarify the tasks and final product of the Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy process • Present and discuss potential impacts along the coastline and other data to inform the coastal adaptation strategy • Prepare for the Public Visioning Session and schedule future meetings. Materials reviewed during the March 7th meeting included: an agenda, a draft adaptation strategy strawman outline, and preliminary data of the Brewster Beach Access Survey. A presentation on the risks to Brewster’s coastline was delivered. 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: Ryan Burch, Matt Cannon, Alex Carlson, Ruth Courtnell, Tom Devane, Max Dwyer, Bob Dwyer, Claire Gradone, Howard Hayes, John Lamb, Mary O’Neil, David Peterson, Donald Poole, Chris Powicki, Jonathan Rice, and Joe Rinaldi. Advisory group liaisons who were present included: Gary Christen, Charles DeVito, Eric Levy, Chris Miller, and Andrea Nevins. The group made the following decisions at the meeting: • The group decided the town-wide GIS analysis is more useful than the site-specific visualizations. • The group decided to hold a 2-hour public visioning session instead of a 3-hour session. Welcome, Introductions, and Summary Review Eric J. Roberts, facilitator from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), called the meeting to order, reviewed the agenda and meeting guidelines, and led introductions. He briefly reviewed the draft February 18 meeting summary, which is intended to accurately summarize the main points of comments, questions, and conversations that occur during the meeting. He requested the group review the draft summary and submit suggested clarifications and revisions by the end of the day March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 2 on Friday March 11. After collecting and integrating suggested revisions, the group will review and decide whether or not to approve the draft summary at the next meeting. Review and Refine the Group Task Stacie Smith, facilitator from CBI, clarified the difference between a strategy and a plan. A strategy is a high-level description of overall goals and objectives and an explanation of why something will be done. Strategies inform and provide guidance to more detailed, project-specific plans. A plan includes a thorough explanation about what will be done and when it will be done, who will do it, and how it will be completed to achieve the overarching strategy. The group will help to create the Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy, which will provide town boards and committees with guidance on future planning and decision-making that could impact the town’s coastal areas and landings. Chris Miller, Town of Brewster Department of Natural Resources, introduced a draft “strawman” outline of a Brewster Coastal Advisory Strategy that the town and the technical consultants created. The draft outline is a starting point for discussion and identifies some of the topics to address between now and the conclusion of the project in June. The group will continue to refine and flesh out the details of the outline over the course of the project. Chris reminded the group that the town received a state grant to help the town to better understand the processes occurring in the coastal areas, the risks posed by those processes, and the public’s goals and values related to the coastal areas, all of which will inform the strategy. He added that the Board of Selectmen will review and approve the strategy produced by the group. Chris responded to a question about land acquisition in the scope section of the draft outline. He said the group will identify and discuss a range of adaptation strategies and may decide to recommend, for example, that the town consider acquiring land along the shoreline in areas where land acquisition might provide a solution to a problem. The group is not expected to identify specific land parcels for the town to acquire. A participant asked how the Resource Management Plan relates to the coastal adaptation strategy. Chris responded that the resource management plan will be a follow up process, and that input from the group will be provided to the Board of Selectmen, which will decide how to develop the Resource Management Plan. He added that if this group is successful, he hopes the Selectmen would empower another group to develop the Resource Management Plan. Several participants identified the absence of specific information or elements in the draft, and suggested the following additions. Facilitator or presenter responses are italicized. • Prioritization – A participant noted that priority setting is usually included in a strategy, but isn’t apparent in the draft outline. He added that since a vulnerability assessment will be completed to identify risks, the group could use that information to prioritize what to address, and to give specific guidance. For example, instead of generically saying “Sea level rise is a concern,” the group could say “Mant’s Landing is at risk of being lost and this is what we could do about it.” Stacie agreed, and noted that prioritization would occur during the evaluation of coastal adaptation strategies, and suggested that this could be made more March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 3 explicit in the outline. Chris commented that the group would identify which landings may be more or less resilient and pose greater or lesser short-term risks. • Beach Access – Some participants suggested the draft outline should include beach access issues. It was suggested that pairing an analysis of beach access demand and parking supply with the erosion data would show how the public’s needs could be met. Another participant suggested the group might need to know how much beach space is actually available for use at each landing. Chris commented that the strategy must be done by June and that it is not the final step, but will lay the foundation and provide a framework to guide additional planning. He added the town ultimately wants to include perspectives from people who visit in the summer, too, who might not be around to participate in this process. Stacie said the goal is to integrate parking supply and beach access demand to the extent that it can be fit into the strategy. • Community perspectives – A member said that in addition to the scientific perspective, the outline should include community perspectives, and that the community perspective could be included by adding reference to the beach access survey. • Predictions about the future – A participant suggested that the BCAG should recommend assumptions about the amount of sea level rise to anticipate in the strategy. • Project Goals – A participant asked what the town would find most useful coming from this group’s work. Chris said that serving as community outreach, raising the public’s awareness of the issues, getting the public involved, and gathering public input on what is most important to them in relation to the coastal areas would be useful. He added that he hopes to use conservative estimates of SLR and the group can discuss those, and to keep in mind that the strategy can be adapted as new information emerges. • Guiding Principles – A participant reiterated the importance of including guiding principles in the strategy and suggested reviewing the guiding principles in the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. Stacie agreed that guiding principles are central to the process, were included in the strawman outline, and that the public visioning meeting will help to identify the principles to use. • Relationship between beach access and vulnerability – A member commented that the group should identify and discuss the relationship between beach access and vulnerability instead of addressing them as parallel issues. Risks to Brewster’s Public Coastline Geraldine Camilli, Horsley Witten Group, presented visual renderings and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) analysis of estimated sea level rise (SLR) and storm surge at several town landings. Her presentation is summarized below. For more detail, see the presentation slide deck, Risks to Brewster’s Public Coastline.1 Mant’s and Crosby Landing Renderings – The Sea, Lakes, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model was used to create renderings showing the current Mean High Water (MHW) line the following four scenarios at Mant’s and Crosby Landings (as the group decided during the first 1 Slides for the Risks to Brewster’s Public Coastline presentation: http://www.cbuilding.org/sites/default/files/160304_BCAG_March7.pdf March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 4 meeting): • MHW plus 2 feet of SLR • MHW plus 4 feet of SLR • MHW plus 2 feet of SLR and 6 feet of storm surge • MHW plus 4 feet of SLR and 6 feet of storm surge The rendering at Mant’s landing shows partial or full inundation of the parking area would occur under all of the scenarios except the MHW plus 2 feet of SLR scenario. The rendering at Crosby Landing shows that partial or full inundation of the landing would occur under all the scenarios except the MHW plus 2 feet of SLR scenario. Geraldine commented that the renderings are interpretations of the GIS data that are drawn to fit the image. Due to this, they may not be as accurate as the GIS. She also noted that SLR could cause groundwater to rise in some areas with inland ponds or wetlands but the model used to create the renderings and GIS analysis does not take that into account. GIS Analysis – GIS data was used to show town parcels (outlined with a green line), the locations of freshwater wetlands, and FEMA flood zones. The following preliminary SLR and storm surge scenarios were completed for Paine’s Creek, Mant’s Landing, and Wing Island; Linnell and Crosby Landings; Little Breakwater and Breakwater; and Ellis Landing: • Current Mean High Water • MHW plus 2 feet of SLR • MHW plus 4 feet of SLR • MHW plus 2 feet of SLR and 6 feet of storm surge • MHW plus 4 feet of SLR and 6 feet of storm surge • MHW plus 2 feet of SLR and 10 feet of storm surge. The two-foot and four-foot scenarios were used to represent the 20-year and 60-year low, medium, and high SLR projections. Two-feet of SLR is the predicted “high” level in 20-years, and also the predicted “medium” level in 60 years. Four-feet of SLR is the predicted “high” level in 60 years. A 10-foot storm surge would be the equivalent of a category three hurricane. Other SLR and storm surge scenarios, or the influence of a Nor’easter, could also be analyzed and included. The group discussed the model and data. A participant asked for clarification on the expected rate of increase for SLR and commented that he had not seen data to suggest a 2- or 4-foot increase would occur. He also asked if the group could see how these scenarios were determined. Geraldine said the SLR projections are based on those from a national level report created by several federal agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and added that SLR projections are a combination of factors including ice melting, water temperature increasing (which expands the volume of water), and land subsidence.2 (See materials from the February 18 meeting for additional information on this topic). Group members discussed public review of the data at the visioning session and made the following 2 The report is the Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment found here: http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_SLR_r3_0.pdf March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 5 comments or suggestions. Presenter responses are italicized. • Although SLR and storm surge can be combined into one number to show the inundation impacts, it is useful to keep SLR and storm surge numbers separated, since SLR describes the baseline of what will happen and storm surge occurs during specific events. • It may be useful to replace the 10-foot storm surge scenario with a typical nor’easter scenario. • It is important to be Brewster and Cape Cod specific and consider how a hurricane coming up the seaboard might produce different outcomes than a nor’easter. The approach we’ve taken is a bathtub model to show the full extent of expected flooding and identify the areas that may be vulnerable. The information is linked to the tide gauge in Boston, which has tides similar to Brewster. We are using the Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers base data to model storm surge; additional modeling could be done, but not in the time we have allotted. • It will be helpful to read the legends and point out the differences when presenting each slide to the public. The group discussed the usefulness of the visualizations and the GIS analysis, and indicated that the GIS analysis is the most useful because it provides more robust data. They added that it is important to show the GIS analysis for the entire coastal area, and suggested overlaying the town parcel boundaries with the various SLR and storm surge scenarios and layers of other features. Geraldine commented that additional GIS data layers can be added to the maps if useful to the group, although adding too many layers to one map may make it hard to see what is happening. A group member also suggested posting the maps with the GIS layers to the town or project websites. Geraldine commented on additional analysis. HWG will look at low tide SLR scenarios to help the group identify how the flats might be impacted in that scenario, and they will also review dune migration. This information will be presented at a future meeting. In conclusion, Geraldine said that the types of impact seen along the coastline will vary. Some impacts, such as those from SLR, will be a daily occurrence while other impacts, such as those from storm surge, will be caused by extreme events. Each of the impacts may require different adaptation strategies, which include but are not limited to: doing nothing, vegetation management, re-grading and cleaning up after storm impacts, installing erosion control barriers, conducting beach nourishment, and managed retreat. The group will also need to consider how management strategies may (or may not) comply with regulations such as the wetlands protection act or beach access and parking considerations. Additional Information and Data Mary O’Neil presented a preliminary analysis of data from the Brewster Beach Access Survey. Her main points included the following. For more detail, see the Coastal Beach Access Survey – Preliminary Data presentation.3 3 Coastal Beach Access Survey – Preliminary Data presentation: http://www.cbuilding.org/sites/default/files/Access_Survey.pdf March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 6 The Coastal Beach Access Survey was designed to collect input from community members on beach use, beach access, level of awareness of environmental threats, methods to access the beach, etc. The survey was sent to all taxpayers; approximately 2000 responses were collected. The data needs to be analyzed further, and can be queried and cross-tabulated to identify correlations between responses (e.g. of the people who responded that they have trouble finding parking, which beach did they say they tend to visit). The data could inform the group about the community’s interests and concerns about the town’s coastal areas. Highlights from the preliminary analysis included: • The most frequented beaches were Paine’s Creek and Crosby Landing • Most respondents visit the coastal areas multiple time per week, both during the weekday and during the weekend. Respondents generally seem to visit the beach when it is convenient to do so. • Respondents use the beach for a wide variety of activities (swimming, walking, sunset watching, quiet reflection, etc.) • Respondents like the coastal areas for the tidal flats, the beauty, peacefulness, natural feeling, lack of commercial development, and sense that they are not crowded, among others. • Respondents typically drive 2-3 miles to get to the beach. Most respondents drive the to beach but some walk or bike. • The beach respondents most frequently indicated their favorite beach is Crosby beach. • Many respondents indicated they frequently encounter lack of parking. • Some respondents indicated they would either walk or use a shuttle service from satellite parking locations – others reported they would not. • Of those who would use a shuttle, most respondents indicated they would be willing to use a shuttle if the travel time was 5-10 minutes. • Respondents indicated that the top locations for shuttle bus service would be Paine’s Creek and Breakwater. • Respondents indicated that beach and/or dune erosion and storm damage are the top environmental factors that could impact their access to a beach. • Overall, respondents’ experiences at Brewster beaches were excellent or good. • Many open-ended responses need to be analyzed. • Respondent demographic data is available. Respondents self-reported whether or not they considered themselves a full-time or part-time resident, or visitor, etc. Visitor respondents were solicited by emailing the survey to those who acquired beach stickers from town hall and people who visited Nickerson State Park. Overall, the number of visitor responses is pretty low and it could be useful to collect more responses in the summer. Group members made the following comments and suggestions about data collection and analysis: • The number of people that selected Paine’s Creek as their most visited beach is high, and I wonder if there is a link between the number, and the amount of parking at Mant’s landing, and it’s proximity to Paine’s Creek. • It would be helpful to know how many parking spots are available at each of the “favorite” beaches? March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 7 • It might interesting if we look at the most popular beaches, rank them, and then look at which of them will be impacted under the various SLR and storm surge scenarios. This would allow the public to see which beaches will be the most impacted and could help when prioritizing and making recommendations. • It would be useful to look at the preferred beaches and methods of accessing the beaches and see how that might differ between full-time, part-time residents, and visitors. • It would be helpful to know what percentage of town residents responded to the survey. • The survey doesn’t appear to mention aquaculture or shellfishing, which is a big use of the flats. • The town should find a way to encourage homeowners who are only here in the spring and fall (and who rent their home in the summer) complete the survey to ensure their perspective is included. • It would be useful to obtain shuttle operational cost data to compare it to parking cost data. During the conversation about the group task, members also identified the need for the following data and analysis: • Beach parking supply (number of parking spots available at each location and cumulatively) and beach access demand • The amount of realistic space available for people to use at each beach. Public Visioning Session Stacie presented the rationale and assumptions underlying the public visioning session, and described how the session might be organized. When CBI conducted the assessment to design the public engagement, many interviewees suggested that broad public meetings would be needed, in addition to the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group, to ensure the full range of views are included in the final strategy. A public visioning session early in the process would be used to collect input to develop guiding principles, which serve as evaluation criteria to ensure the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group is making good decisions and recommendations. Additionally, engaging the public early might peak people’s interest and encourage them to be more involved throughout the rest of the project. The public visioning session would be an interactive and informational 3-hour event; it would not be only presentations and one-person-at-a-time public comment periods. Participants would learn about the environmental conditions, the vulnerability and risks to coastal areas from SLR and storm surge, and about the problems the town has faced at public landings, including issues of access and parking. Small group activities and discussions would be used to help the participants identify and communicate what they value the most in the town’s coastal areas, or consider the most important aspects of the coastal areas. This information would be used to create guiding principles, and the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group would draw on the public input to guide the prioritization of risks and development of recommended adaptation strategies. Ultimately, the session must be designed to help gather information that would be useful and helpful to guide the group’s decisions and recommendations. Members made the following comments about the public visioning session. Comments are March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 8 summarized by theme: • Session Date and Day of Week – Some thought it was a good idea to hold the session sooner rather than later, but that the March 19 date might be too soon to get on people’s calendars. Given the June deadline set by the grant requirements, consideration will be needed for when it is best to convene the visioning session. Some thought it might be worthwhile to hold another Brewster Coastal Advisory Group meeting prior to the visioning session. The group was split on whether or not to hold the session on a weekend or weekday. Some thought a Saturday session would be better because people visit on the weekends; others suggested people are unwilling to give up their weekends. People did not support a Friday night meeting. CBI will poll the group to identify if there is preference between a weekend or weekday. • Session design considerations – The group thought three hours was too long and agreed that a two-hour was more appropriate and more likely to be attended. It was suggested that a 2-hour session could be advertised, and additional follow-on activities could be planned and completed if people are willing to stay for an optional additional hour. If the session is two hours long, participants suggested it might be useful to scale back the objectives to building awareness and baseline understanding, motivating participation, and identifying guiding principles. More people may be willing to participate if they don’t have to stay the whole time; consider designing a session that would allow us to collect their ideas while enabling people to come and go as they please. • Session Participants – Participants said it is important to engage as much of the public as possible, and acknowledged it may be tough to get people to attend the session. Some suggested only those who are the most interested would show up. Others suggested the framing of advertisements is key to motivate people to attend. Several people noted that part-time residents would not be present at the end of March/early April but it is important to include their perspective. Remote participants, such as part-time residents, could submit comments prior to the session via email, or the session could include an online webinar component or remote polling options. • Session content – Participants suggested it will be necessary to help people clear their mind of previous notions, and understand the questions, challenges, and ecological processes at play to help them start thinking about the future. But, the information must also be presented in a way that doesn’t alarm them. The group suggested the following information be included in the session: analyzed public beach access survey data, previous data on beach impacts the town has experienced, information from the first BCAG meeting (including clearly defined Sea Level Rise scenarios, overview of shoreline processes, etc.), and meteorology to show impacts of a hurricane of a given size. One participant suggested the group decide on representative scenarios to show the public rather than show all the different scenarios, and suggested showing the public one scenario that is expected in most years and one scenario of an extreme event. Another participant suggested the presentations of SLR and beach access survey information should be brief, and more time should be focused on adaptive strategy options and opportunities for participants to develop their vision for the future of Brewster’s shorelines. • Session Advertisement – Members said early and widespread advertisement in newspapers and media outlets (in addition to word of mouth) is needed to give advanced notice. It was suggested the advertisements use language to motivate people to attend (e.g. How will you get to the beach when parking is gone?), give a sense of the agenda, and of the questions March 7, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 9 they will be expected to discuss at the session. They also suggested calling it a workshop instead of a meeting to encourage participation. • Session Location – If televised live, hold the session at Town Hall. Town Hall would allow live broadcast over the Internet. Otherwise, the Brewster’s Ladies Library could work too. The group also briefly discussed the charrette process, the June deadline, and peer information sharing: • Charrette process -- Stacie briefly described the charrette process. The charrette process would include several events or activities held during the course of one week to collect public input on options and alternatives for coastal adaptation. It could include public workshops, an open house, topic-specific focus group meetings, etc. The goal is to collect public input and refine the recommendations in a condensed period of time. • June deadline – A participant commented that a lot of work must be completed by June and wondered if it might be possible to do work (e.g. collecting input from summer visitors) after the June deadline. Chris Miller commented that the group must reach a certain stage by the end of June, but the strategy would be a living document that could include to-do lists indicating the need for additional data collection or other work. • Peer-to-peer information sharing - A participant suggested it would be useful to create an interface between this group and other communities on the Cape that are facing similar issues to share ideas. Chris Miller commented that he was not aware of many other towns approaching the issue like this group and that hopefully this group could serve as a leader and example for other towns. Heather McElroy, Cape Cod Commission, is looking to this group as a potential model to replicate with a grant they recently received to conduct public engagement and outreach on the Cape. Public Comment The following public comments were made: Aaron Brisley, Americorps Volunteer working with the Brewster Natural Resources Department, asked if dune migration would be assessed. Geraldine said they would be reviewing it and presenting it to the group. Wrap Up and Next Steps The facilitators identified the following next steps: • CBI will poll the group to determine whether to hold the visioning session on a weekend or weekday, and to identify future meeting dates. • CBI will present more information about the charrette process at the next meeting. • The technical team will continue to work on the analysis. • Group members to review the draft February 18 meeting summary and provide comments to Eric (eroberts@cbuilding.org) by the end of the week.