HomeMy WebLinkAbout01142013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes1
MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – January 14th, 2013
Approved unanimously on January 28th, 2013
PRESENT: Sarah Oktay, Carl Borchert, John Stover, Jamie Feeley, Bobby DeCosta (arrived at 5:13)
ALSO PRESENT: Sandra Welsh, D. Anne Atherton, 1-2 other public members
Meeting called to order at 5:06 pm
The agenda was approved as amended with a motion by John and second by Carl
Read over the minutes from November 19th and December 10th, 2013. John Stover moved to pass the minutes of
November 19th. There was no quorum on December 10th so those minutes will not be reviewed or used.
Chair report: New CMP member will be selected on January 4th
Discussed minutes from December 10th and reviewed what we still needed to add to our matrix and written sections.
The list of definitions, what we consider erosion control infrastructure or current allowable projects, and how we
prioritize projects from least impact to most impact. Bobby suggested we do something from a 1 to 5 favorably rating
without precluding anything. In some parts of the island we may decide the town infrastructure to be approved is
important enough to warrant coastal protection that other areas would not warrant. And as usual, we are only talking
about town owned land, not precluding private efforts which are controlled by the Conservation Commission.
Several projects in sector 2 are renourished frequently; how does that frequent sand addition factor into our decision
making or advisory process?
We should draw up a list of 20 (approx. number) erosion control structures (some of which would not exist here) and
then rank them in order of preference. Discussion on whether this suggestion is the right way to go.
Long discussion on One Big Beach Easements and how they factor into decision making process for allowing or not
allowing certain types of erosion control projects. Although normally designated on private land, a One Big Beach
Easement given to the town transfers right of egress to the public (which can be both horizontally or perpendicularly to
the beach) in exchange for various tax benefits or other benefits. We need to ensure that the public’s access and rights
(as negotiated) in these areas are maintained in the event that the homeowner installs an erosion control project.
Currently there is no provision for the ConCom to enforce these rights and ensure they are protected. In some cases this
would be simply providing access over the structure or another access route.
John S.: Back to ranking out various erosion control options, do we do it as a continuum or as best better good, typically
except in a handful of cases, the request would come from the Town of Nantucket directly. What we the TON do for
instance on an area like the Jetties if something like Superstorm Sandy removed the beach; would the TON renourish it?
Bobby also noted that for many nearby coastal projects such as the redredging of the Polpis Harbor entrance (current
capital request) that we have something in the plan that say the TON needs to check if there is scallop seeds or adults or
other fishery resources that should be moved or protected. He went on to note that fortunately, when we do, do
underwater construction like the dredging of hither creek, it heals very quickly. Don’t want to eliminate options, but do
want to steer it in right direction. We should identify areas like part of the south shore which have huge populations of
surf clams. No one has done a survey of our shellfish resources other than the scallops (and even that is more anecdotal
than mapped). For instance there may be resources that were affected by the loose bags at the Ratner property.
2
Need a higher level of scrutiny in various areas around the island.
Going back to Sector 2 we have in essence a “gap lot” where town land or town resources is bordered/surrounded by
erosion control projects on both sides. We have a One Big Beach Easement on the right (east) of a paper road that goes
down the middle, and then private property to the left (west).
In the case of “gap lots” owned by the town between two proposed projects we should have the option of installing
similar erosion control (as opposed to loosing land from any end scour effects) or installing stairs or renourishment or
anything else that needs to be done to protect the town’s interests.
Write into the plan: “If we are the abutter, the Town needs to be contacted (currently not always the case) when
projects are brought forward to the Planning Board, Conservation Commission or Historic District Commission. When
there is an erosion control project being done, the TON needs to be notified so they can weigh in. We need to establish
that a One Big Beach easement also qualifies for this type of notice and attention so that public access can be
maintained. One Big Beach easements are still being signed by private individuals and the town as of January 2013.
Discussed the role of the Roads and Right of ways Committee. Andrew brings forward 1BB and other issues to the ROW
before going to BOS. It is understood that a Paper road does not count as an “abutter”- may need to be revisited.
Discussed specifically 93 and 99 Eel point road.
Jeff Carlson will compile all the One Big Beach easements into one document so that we know which ones are in which
sectors. Areas like Surfside to Nobadeer have many 1BB easements; Sankaty, Cisco, 40th Pole, etc. Some are adjacent to
Land Bank land, the 1BB easement does not allow for beach driving.
The general section that contains definitions and information on how we rated our priorities and other things that apply
to all the sectors will likely be the longest, For instance we need a generic paragraph on overlapping between sections
and language for offshore resources copied into each section.
Need a definition for a barrier beach, coastal dune, and coastal bank.
Discussed some of Sector 3 namely Hither Creek; if we lose that barrier beach-like southern portion, that would be
extremely expensive and dire for the TON to lose essentially the bridge to Smith’s point. Hard armoring should be a last
resort but we may find areas where that is the only solution to maintain critical services. Should also make it clear that
we used available information at the time of the writing of the report using language such as “as of December 2013,
using information found in TON resource X we believe Y to be the best course of action”
Public Comment period:
D. Anne Atherton “ I am troubled that we are willing to accept erosion control projects as a status quo without also
considering things such as retreat as being a viable course of action. Nantucket’s natural beaches are a resource and an
economic driver for the Town and we should not be so willing to accept that engineering structures are the only way to
go. In some areas it is a folly to try and use an erosional control structure to try and mitigate inevitable loss of beach. “
John Stover “ There are some things we have not thought about that can better control how beaches are maintained or
protected such as offshore (nearby) alternative energy projects.”
Carl B.: “We are charged with being more unbiased, jetties may erode and we would think it important to renourish
where as other areas may be more appropriate to allow to erode with no protection. Some town owned land may have
a higher economic or habitat value intact.”
3
Sarah: “What is important is to be fair and intelligent about our recommendations”
Need to rebuild areas deliberately and thoughtfully and not rebuild or protect if it causes greater adverse impacts
remember the CZM’s advise of Good, Better, Best.
Reminder that we will make sure to have a specific public comment period in the summer for people not on island now.
Adjourned at 6:30 pm (a couple of members had to leave to go to PB meeting).
Respectively submitted by Sarah Oktay acting as temporary secretary