Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMeeting_4_BCAG_SummaryMay 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 1 Brewster Coastal Advisory Group: Developing a Coastal Adaptation Strategy For Brewster Meeting Four Summary May 18, 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 Brewster Coastal Advisory Group will review relevant scientific data and public input to develop recommendations to include in the coastal adaptation strategy, which the Town of Brewster and its consultants (the project team) will draft. 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: • Review and synthesize information gathered from the visioning workshop • Seek agreement on guiding principles and evaluation criteria • Learn about the range of management strategies to address potential changes to Brewster’s coastline. Materials reviewed and discussed during the May 18 meeting included: draft meeting summaries from the group meeting on April 6 and the public visioning workshop on April 26, draft guiding principles, and written input from John Lamb on one of the agenda items. A presentation titled Brewster’s Landings, Coastal Change and Adaptation was 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, James Goodrich, Mary O’Neil, Donald Poole, Chris Powicki, Joe Rinaldi, and Cindy Roth. 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: May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 2 • The group approved the April 6 and April 26 meeting and workshop summaries with inclusion of additional revisions suggested at the meeting. Action Items from the April 6 meeting included the following: • Group Members o Think about potential creative public engagement activities to launch in July to solicit public and visitor input; come prepared to present the idea at the June 1 meeting. • CBI/HW/Town o Distribute the shuttle study document to the BCAG o Revise April 6 and April 26 meeting summaries and distribute o Put together materials, including beach profiles, to inform the June 1 discussion o Provide information on the bikeway plan o Look into status of DCR/Crosby parking review project approved by Town Meeting o Identify new Board of Selectmen liaison o Look into utilizing Americorp volunteers for July outreach efforts Welcome and Opening Business: Ms. Stacie Smith, facilitator, opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. She reviewed the agenda and meeting guidelines. Mr. Eric Roberts, facilitator, sought feedback on the draft summaries from the April 6 meeting and April 26 public workshop. Members suggested a spelling change to the April 6 meeting summary and requested the addition of the map activity data to the workshop summary. The group approved both meeting and workshop summaries with the additional suggested revisions or additions. BCAG Input on Approved Coastal Projects The facilitators added the topic of BCAG input on approved coastal projects to the agenda because several group members had contacted the facilitators to express concern about approved town coastal projects that were now going forward. Some of the members also inquired about the relationship between the group and other town decisions that are already in the pipeline and moving forward. Before opening the topic to group discussion, Ms. Smith stressed the following: • Part of the reason Town Meeting supported this group was to change the nature of conversations about controversial projects taking place in the town. • To build trust and collaborate effectively and respectfully, this group needs to talk about the topics and issues that matter to group members and the public. If the process does not allow an opportunity to talk about those topics, even if the topics are outside the group’s mandate, then those conversations are moved May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 3 outside of the group’s collaborative, safe, space and into an area where the conversations may become negative, engender mistrust, and could be harmful to the group’s ultimate success. • This group should not seek to relitigate decisions about projects that were already approved by Town Meeting. However, allowing open discussion about those projects and people’s views on them could provide the group with useful lessons learned. Group members discussed the topic. A member who could not attend the meeting submitted comments for inclusion in the discussion. Those comments are available in Appendix A. Group members made the following comments: • The grant that funds this project was submitted in June of 2015 at a time of divisive debate over Breakwater landing. At that time, the town proposed moving forward with this grant, committed to consensus building, and the Board of Selectmen said the goal was to avoid divisiveness in the future. Afterward, things happened with the Special Town Meeting and projects were put forward for funding either fully developed or in the concept stage. I would argue that the commitment to consensus building happened before those projects were funded. And I would listen to the voices of the selectmen who were most supportive of consensus building in the future; their recent votes on postponing implementation of the Crosby Project suggested the town should not pursue the project until our work is completed. • The situation with the Crosby project raises concerns about how the decision is implemented and if the project design makes sense given the scientific data and public input we’ve received as part of this group. It raises the question of how the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group is going to interact with the town and have input to make sure projects are implemented in ways that are congruent with the guiding principles of this group and the science we have learned. I request a future agenda item to cover this topic and suggest town officials be included in the discussion. • I’m offended this topic was raised in light of the Town Meeting vote and that someone would use this group as an excuse to not move forward with a project. People should not be using this group to try to stop decisions of the Board of Selectmen. The details of every project are beyond our scope and I’ll leave the group if we go that route. Out task is strategic planning. Trying to govern individual projects, in light of the Town Meeting vote, is out of line. The group should not decide if a vote at Town Meeting is right or wrong. • There is still a lot of information for us to review before making recommendations for strategic guidance, and it doesn’t seem possible for us to comment or make recommendations on a specific project when we still have so much work to do. Ms. Smith summarized the group member’s comments. She noted the different perspectives about whether or not the group should talk about project implementation May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 4 and that an outstanding question of the group has been how detailed and specific the strategy’s recommendations will be. At the next meeting, the group will begin looking at opportunities for addressing the adaptation and access risks landing by landing, as well as town-wide. The group will have the opportunity to evaluate alternatives and identify the pros and cons of taking various approaches. She added that the facilitators will think more about this topic and figure out how to bring it back to the group in a way that respects the two perspectives we heard—that of the group’s strategic role and that of providing guidance on implementation and setting a smooth process for communication between this group and the town. Several members of the public provided comments on the topic. The following is a summary of the main ideas they shared: • Charlie Sumner – I looked at the member comments that were handed out and saw some problematic words that are inappropriate to use when referring to our Board of Selectmen. The other issue is whether or not this group should be discussing issues decided at Town Meeting. It was said that we applied for the consensus building grant because of the citizen petition; in fact, we’d applied for the grant well before that citizen’s petition developed. There were lots of comments on Article 10, which included nine projects. Only one, the Crosby Lane project, continues as topic of conversation today. If this conversation occurred right after Town Meeting and looked at all projects in Article 10, you might say they are concerned about a lot of broad issues. The project in question was overwhelmingly supported by Town Meeting. The vote was clear—the voters wanted to do this project. • Richard Koch – I came to speak to the member who submitted comments and remind him of the history I have with him about these issues, which is important for the other members to understand. He has dismissed or criticized all the data collection and efforts we’ve put into projects. It is easy to tear down but hard to build. We’ve gone through the DCR and completed all the necessary permits. Opponents have called all the agencies to complain about aspects of the project. The town’s process to pursue the project at Crosby has been open and honest and we are doing the best we can. • Peter Johnson – Thank you all for the work you are doing. From my perspective as a citizen, I certainly hope and expect some real value to come from this group. I think it is worthwhile and would find it hard to imagine there won’t be good listening and interaction with the town and its boards in terms of the recommendations this group proposes. I think this group will be taken seriously and look forward to your report. I agree with the point that the Town Meeting decisions are committed and that it has been an open process. Keep doing the work you’re doing. Ms. Smith reminded participants and audience members of the goal to shift the way they think and respond to each other and the assumptions they have about one another’s motivations, since these can stand in the way of collaboration and the May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 5 commonalities they shared. She suggested that the group could create a framework to guide good decisions that balances the many perspectives and concerns that people have, and creating this framework would leave the town in a better place. Group members made the following comments: • A member suggested that no one person speak for or represent the group at any meeting. Ms. Smith agreed, and added that if it isn’t in the operating protocols already, it should be.1 Group members are allowed to speak from their perspective but not on behalf of the group. • A member clarified that he was not suggesting the grant for this project was submitted in response to the citizen’s petition; the grant was submitted in June and the petition started in July, and the Crosby project was designed around that time. Visioning Workshop Debrief and Guiding Principle Development The group identified some of the insights they gleaned from the public visioning workshop and review of the workshop meeting summary. They made the following comments: • It was helpful to read the well-written summary. I was glad to see the list of what people loved included in the summary because we talked more about our concerns than about what we loved in my group. • Members suggested the following additional information would be helpful: o Input from parents with kids to learn how they access the beach and what is important to them o Input and data from businesses and owners that rely on the beaches (e.g. hotels, bed and breakfasts, etc.) o A presentation from the Bikeways Committee so we know how their plan intersects with our work o Additional analysis of the beach access survey data o Information from summer visitors • I was impressed by the genuine sincerity with which the people approached the questions. • Workshop participants underscored the importance of the aquifer, the marshes, and other natural resources and the whole coastal system as opposed to just the beach. • Participant suggested we take the time to look for innovative solutions. • We need to start thinking about what is going on at private properties and to look beyond our landings to make sure things that are upstream or further inland (e.g. septic systems) don’t impact water quality. Homeowners need to start thinking how SLR or storm surge might impact their septic systems. • The public needs to be involved early and often in these decisions. 1 This principle is included in the group’s operating protocols. May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 6 Members made the following comments regarding the workshop outreach, the agenda/structure of the workshop, and other public engagement: • Overall, it was well done--thumbs-up. Only heard positive comments. People were appreciative of the involvement. • A member wished more town officials would participate in the process to develop the Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy. • A member suggested utilizing the Chamber of Commerce more and possibly working with the Inns (e.g. provide a short survey for when guests check in) or the department that sells beach stickers (provide information when people buy their beach stickers). • For July public engagement, consider setting up a booth at the Brewster Conservation Day (July 9). • Approach the Shellfish Department, which has a program where people must stop and check in for compliance. They could complete a brief survey at that time. Group members were asked to think about how to get visitor input in July for discussion at the next meeting on June 1. Mr. Roberts presented the draft guiding principles for review and discussion. Group members made the following comments: • Everything on here is good, but add two more items: Acknowledge the economic significance of the coastal areas, and add something about maintaining or enhancing safety (e.g. traffic patterns, bikes, kids running around.) • Add or revise to include access for all ages and all types of access (visual, recreation, etc.) and in all seasons. • The Warrant Article 9 from Town Meeting offers some guiding principles that could be incorporated. • The draft strawman guiding principles are important on their own or added to this document: using best available science, building community consensus on vulnerabilities and options for action, etc. • Add statement on environmental and fiscal sustainability. • Incorporate the idea of achievable and reasonable. Overview of Impacts and Management Strategy Options Ms. Geraldine Camilli, technical team member from Horsley Witten Group, presented the potential impacts of sea level rise, storm surge, and shoreline change in Brewster landing by landing, as well as adaption strategy options for consideration in the Coastal Adaptation Strategy. Highlights from her presentation included the following. Please see the presentation slide deck for details. May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 7 • We evaluated what might happen in the future at each landing and summarized how the resource, parking, and access might be affected under different sea level rise scenarios. At the next meeting, we’ll look at strategies to adapt to the threats posed by SLR at each landing. • Stretches of the Brewster shoreline eroded or accreted at different rates between 1951 and 2009. The area with the most erosion is just east of Paine’s Creek and Mant’s Landing. The area near Crosby tended to grow. Along many stretches of the coast, there is a significant amount of uncertainty in the measurements and a lot of movement is possible in these areas. • A variety of preliminary adaptive measures could be pursued individually or as a multi-faceted approach. Preliminary adaptive measures include: o Do nothing o Managed retreat o Protect the landing using a variety of approaches including native vegetation, beach nourishment, sand fencing, re-grading/cleaning up after storms, fiber rolls/coir envelopes, etc. Nearly all of these approaches require permitting; however the approaches listed to protect landings are temporary approaches and are not considered coastal engineering structures. o Providing alternative access (e.g. shuttle, bike, etc.) • New coastal engineering structures (CES) are not typically allowed due to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, although they may be allowed in select circumstances (e.g. a building built before 1978 is at risk). None of Brewster’s landings or parking lots meet the requirements of the select circumstances. If homeowners or others who own buildings built pre-1978, they may apply for CESs, which would alter the evolution of the shoreline. • All proposed CESs would be reviewed by the Brewster Conservation Commission and could potentially be reviewed by the state if certain circumstances are met or if state-owned property could be impacted. Property owners would have to receive the proper permits before constructing the CES. • The town has utilized some of the aforementioned adaptive measures. The town retreated at Paine’s Creek and at Breakwater to avoid repeated storm damage. Coastal dunes were restored to protect the parking lot at Breakwater. The town has also implemented beach nourishment and dune plantings in locations. • Ms. Camilli reviewed the initial assessments of each landing describing the general condition of the landing and surrounding environment, and the water level that would cause impacts to the resource, the access, and/or parking facilities. Please see the slides for details of each landing’s assessment. Group Discussion Group members and participants made the following comments during or after the presentation: May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 8 • We should consider adding mitigating risks as an adaptation option. For example, we could change asphalt to permeable pavers and increase resiliency in doing so. It may allow us to manage water quality concerns from storm drains or upstream septic systems. • Improving existing access and broadening access could also be included in the adaptation strategies. For example, repairing the little bridge at Paine’s Creek and erecting signage would encourage people to access a part of the beach that is not currently frequented. Or, adding bike trails to access different public beaches. • The group briefly discussed interactions between town property and private property and offered additional options to add to the list of adaptation strategies: A participant noted that many of the town landings are down-drift from hardened structures, which impact town landings and suggested the group consider how the town will want to deal with those structures overtime as a prevention method. Ms. Camilli commented that it would be difficult to propose removing a structure from private property. Another member suggested adding joint management or collaborative management options between private property owners and the town as another adaptation option, and noted that this approach might work in cases where the property owner cannot afford to install and manage structures. • It would be helpful to consider what access is currently like at each landing before we consider management or adaptation options. For example, what options are available to access the site, how much is the beach utilized, or what types of access occurs or is available (e.g. shell fishermen use landing to get on the water). • We should increase our scenarios to MHW+12 feet of SLR or MHW+6 feet of SLR and 6 feet of storm surge because the current scenarios do not capture wave action and show where water would be lapping. The concern with the current scenarios is that we are only seeing the inundation but we are not seeing what will with that inundation if you have four feet of storm surge with waves. We should also consider the prospect of a hurricane. A monster storm like Sandy is out there, and it will have a generational impact on the coast once it strikes. Ms. Camilli said she could add the additional MHW+12 feet SLR to the slides for the next meeting. The group discussed additional information that would be useful for the landing-by- landing exercise proposed for the next meeting. The following information was suggested: • It would be useful to categorize areas where access is lost in scenarios and figure out how access could be provided (e.g. Wing’s Island walking path) • Shellfishing use areas • Number of parking spaces • Linear feet of beach May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 9 • Data about which beaches have bike access (a trail, path, or something that enables safe bike access) • Number of handicap parking spots at each landing, and the other handicap facilities available at the landing • Property values • Levels of access or types of access • Brewster “Beach Atlas” • Stormwater discharge locations near beaches • Neighborhoods that might flood and create water quality impacts The group discussed developing beach profiles to guide their deliberation of options: • A member commented that seeing these “beach profiles” with as much information as possible will help members to understand the character of the landings and which adaptation options may or may not be appropriate. She added that the beach profile could be an updateable product that would be useful for town staff going forward, and which could be updated over time. • Ms. Smith said that profiles similar to those that Ms. Camilli presented would be provided at the next meeting to help spur small group discussion about adaptation options at each landing. In addition to the data on the maps already, the maps and profiles will show locations marshes, wetlands, land restrictions, town-owned lands, state-owned lands, etc. to help inform the retreat options the group considers. • Ms. Camilli said landings could be grouped by threat, since a discussion about no parking or no access may lead to a very different conversation. A member supported this idea and said that assigning threat levels would help to better quantify which parking lots are good or bad investments under various scenarios. The group briefly discussed wave action and the SLOSH model. • A member suggested it may be useful for decision makers if the group were to catalog the data that is available for review (e.g. NOAA data on a Category 4 storm in the Bay). Later in the meeting, he returned to this topic to clarify his point, noting that an important element of a strategy is knowing what information is available, and by looking at the available information one is able to determine what is achievable. He added that part of the strategy should recognize that conditions will look different in 10 years. • Mr. Mark Borelli, technical team, commented that SLOSH models are designed for areas of open ocean with steep slopes, which is very different than the conditions in Brewster. He suggested the best option for the group is to look at inundation and where water will end up. • A member suggested the reason for requesting a higher scenario, such as MHW+12, is to accommodate the fact that wave driven water will bring the water further inland. Mr. Borelli gave thumbs up to this idea. May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 10 The group discussed different types of access. Ms. Smith commented that it seems the group might need to think about access in a few ways. One is visual access profile from the parking lot, and where visual access can or cannot be preserved. Another is a public access profile to see things like the proximity of bike paths or handicap accessibility. Chris Miller, Town liaison, commented on the idea of visual access. He noted the group had thus far focused on sandy beach access, and suggested that if the group looks at visual access, it could broaden the scope to include other properties in town that have vistas. He added that future visual accessibility could also be a consideration as some marshes might eventually flood and become sandy beaches with a view. The group discussed stormwater discharges and flooding of private property septic systems. A member suggested identifying stormwater discharge locations at beaches (e.g. Considine Ditch) that pose water quality concerns, or neighborhoods at risk for flooding and impacts to septic systems. Ms. Smith said the focus of this strategy is primarily on landings given the scope of the project, but these types of impacts are important to recognize. The member suggested the group could denote this as an issue to think about going forward, and note in the beach profile that this data is absent and will need to be collected. A member commented on the retreat option in relation to the group conversations at the next meeting. He suggested that when talking about retreat, the group will need criteria for how to decide when to retreat. For example, it could be level of flooding, or level of risk. Additionally, criteria would be needed to decide how to retreat. For example, it could be moving back the parking space, changing the substrate of the parking area, sacrificing parking and moving to a shuttle system, etc. A member expressed uncertainty about how to address long term risks posed by sea level rise, with short term needs such as access during the peak summer months, while also being fiscally responsible. Stacie suggested this will play out when options are evaluated and the group identifies the pros and cons or costs and benefits of various options. She noted that the group may not be able to agree on how to prioritize since some value access during the peak season more than others. The goal will be to understand the tradeoffs in the big picture. A member asked Chris Miller for an update on portion of a warrant at Town Meeting that suggested reviewing all parking options for Crosby across the DCR property. Mr. Miller said he was not aware of what had been done in this regard since it was being implemented by the Board of Selectmen. The member suggested there might be a lot of different alternative access options that could be considered. Ms. Smith suggested that the consultant team could try to find out about the status of this effort and at what point it might inform the work of this group. Next Steps May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 11 The budget for the July and August meetings were approved at the Town Meeting. The state is still reviewing the proposal of how the deliverables are changing. The group will proceed according to the work plan that was previously distributed on April 6. The next and fifth meeting will be on June 1 and the sixth meeting will be on June 22, then public engagement will be done in July and this group will reconvene in September to review what was learned from the public and pull together the strategy. The June 1 and June 22 meetings will help us prepare for the July public engagement. On June 1, group members will work in small groups to start to evaluate adaptation options landing by landing. The June 22 meeting will advance the work started on June 1. During the meetings, it may be useful to think about strategies both landing-by- landing and at a broader, coast-wide level too. Mr. Hal Minus, Bikeways Committee Liaison, offered to present the bike strategy that the Board of Selectmen adopted. The group discussed Board of Selectmen representation at the meetings. Ms. Pat Hughes will no longer be the liaison. Ms. Hughes noted that the Board of Selectmen will be appointing another liaison.2 Group members thanked Ms. Hughes for her work. The group briefly discussed a presentation about shuttle options. A member noted that Cape Cod National Seashore completed a study on shuttle options, and it includes some information that is very useful for the group. She noted that it appears shuttle development is a complex endeavor. CBI will distribute the report. A member suggested that the group consider all the possible meanings the term shuttle, and said she thinks of a small trolley-like vehicle as opposed to a bus of some kind. The facilitators asked the group to think about potential creative public engagement activities to launch in July to solicit public and visitor input and come prepared to present the idea at the June 1 meeting. Activities could possibly include drop by workshops, a website tool, open house, beach walks, etc. Consider what days of the week, and times of day might be best too. Public Comment The following public comment was made: • Judy Scherzo – Maybe we could survey people on the beaches and talk to folks one-on-one to gather their input? 2 It was clarified during the June 1 meeting that a new liaison would be appointed on June 6. May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 12 Members noted one-on-one beach outreach was how the Special Town Meeting was convened. Another member suggested that if the group explores this option, it might be possible to utilize Americorps Volunteers before the end of July. May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 13 Appendix A: Submitted Comments on the agenda item, BCAG Input on Approved Coastal Projects Hi everyone! I'm very sorry I can't be here. I remain with you in spirit! I had a long- standing commitment, indicated in all “doodle” polls. Please consider my thoughts on this topic … I'll be back! I'm quite concerned. A majority of our select-board decided to snub the consensus process last month in a critical beach access decision. It voted to create a new car park with a wide new double entrance opposite a private driveway on Crosby Lane, in a box turtle/otter habitat coastal transition area. This isn't in DCR's 10-year Nickerson action plan, completed after a consensus process last year, and it is the kind of radical action that could be better addressed by our initiative. Our consensus-building was created to bridge the chasm after the disconnect over the beach access initiatives that triggered a 500+ citizens' petition. 87% of Town Meeting last September supported it – 633-98 of citizens – including the Selectmen. The Crosby project then was vague – not surveyed and the full cost was not shared. It is based on a very specific adaptation strategy that may not be our consensus. And it has changed substantially since. The new parking is on broken hardtop and trees - former courts being reclaimed by nature for over 30 years. More than half the broken hardtop the cars would use is within the 100 ft of coastal wetlands. It is all within 200 ft of a perennial brook. It slopes towards the wetlands and the brook. A Conservation Commission review is being avoided by saying cars will only use the remaining hardtop areas ... but if it rains, their run-off will track down the slopes, and they will not be ticketed for straying closer to the wetlands! Also two short sloping connecting roads have to be cut through woodland. Three selectmen selected a voice/show of hands vote, close to 50-50, taken with many fewer peo ple at the end of Town Meeting, as their justification for this, rather than the 87% petition vote of many more people, which included our consensus process. They ignored the adjacent parking alternative, on existing clear area, agreed in a consensus process with Ben deRuyter, DPW, and residents last May. These Selectmen authorized the new parking against the recommendation of our Board liaison Pat Hughes, and in opposition to the chair, Ben De Ruyter. This should worry us, as Selectmen usually follow the lead of their appointed liaison. After yesterday's election, neither Pat nor Ben remain on the Board. The Selectmen who disregarded the opportunity this process presents were not interviewed by CBI as we started – they were represented in the interviews by Pat and Ben. We also heard from Chris Miller that the Town's expectation for this process is that more people build a better understanding of what is happening and needs to be done, not that the Town wants to hear the people and adjust to reach a true consensus. I don't want to pre-judge any specific decision we may make, but I don't believe three May 18, 2016 – Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 14 selectmen should either. They supposedly committed to this consensus process last September with the rest of us. I see no point in continuing if the three selectmen who control all decisions aren't engaged effectively. We are all investing a lot of our time. I wonder, should we ask for clarification, or should we respectfully suggest that they suspend the Crosby decision for a few months to show good faith, as Pat Hughes recommended?