Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03112013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes 1 MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – March 11th, 2013 PRESENT: Sarah Oktay, Carl Borchert, Jamie Feeley, Kirk Riden, Bobby DeCosta, and Emily MacKinnon ALSO PRESENT: Dave Fronzuto and Jeff Carlson Meeting called to order at 5:05 pm The agenda was approved with an amendment to add the item, Review of Sector 2 DRAFT, with a motion by Carl and second by Jamie. The minutes of the February 11, 2013 meeting were approved with a motion by Carl and a second by Kirk. The Committee reviewed and worked on revising/drafting Sector 2 (see text of DRAFT #2 in italics below and revised DRAFT (#3) attached to these minutes). Statements shown in bold text below are intended to be included in every Sector of the CMP. NOTE: The revised Sector 3 draft attached to these minutes had not been reviewed by the Committee prior to the approval of these minutes. The Committee and the public thanked Dave Fronzuto for his work during last week’s storm. By way of an update, Dave informed the Committee that FEMA would be visiting the island to wrap up evaluation of damage and relief for Hurricane Sandy. He also mentioned that the Army Corps of Engineers is on board with proposed improvements to the Jetties and that Kennedy and Warren have approved $150,000.00 for the engineering and planning of the repair work. If the budget is approved work could begin as soon as 2015. Water Quality: DRAFT 1) All coastal erosion control projects should be reviewed for impacts to water quality. In the event that any portion of a proposed project may have a negative impact to water quality an appropriate monitoring plan should be required that will evaluate specified parameters pre, during and post construction of the project. 2) As recommended in the Harbor Plan (HP), it is here recommended that the Town should establish a pond management committee or water quality management committee to address the Town’s fresh and coastal water quality needs. The Committee determined that Statement 2 does not apply to the south shore or any sector outside of Nantucket and Madaket Harbors so it should not be in bold. Habitat: DRAFT 1) All coastal projects should be evaluated for impacts to rare, endangered or locally important species and habitat. All necessary permits must be obtained from all state and local agencies as required by law. See Appendix for list of agencies with coastal jurisdiction. 2) Any projects proposed in areas of mapped or identified rare, endangered or locally important species or habitat should require a survey of these resources, especially those that propose nourishment and/or dredging activities. 3) Offshore of Sector 2 in the vicinity of 40th Pole Beach there exist extensive eelgrass beds which provide important shellfish and finfish habitat. These areas should be protected from coastal management projects. 2 4) The Town has documented nesting shorebird habitat within Sector 2 and this habitat should be considered relative to coastal management projects, keeping in mind that some nourishment projects have been found to enhance shorebird habitat. Statement 3 should be edited, striking “should be protected from coastal management projects” and adding, “projects should be designed to have no adverse impact on habitat”. Statement 4 should be bold and applied to all Sectors. Bobby raised the concern that habitat surveys should be required by a third party at the expense of the project applicant. Kirk asked if specific survey requirements should be included with minimum requirements? Jeff suggested that the Con Com and BOS will end up having a say on this on a case by case basis and sometimes being too specific can be more limiting than desired. Jamie identified a number of questions that come up with a survey requirement such as how long surveys of a specific area would be good for? He made the point that a general survey requirement is very vague and doesn’t necessarily give potential project applicants a clear idea of what to expect. It was decided that language requiring a third party survey at the expense of the applicant would be placed under the Offshore Resources section of the Plan as Land Under the Ocean is the resource area of primary concern. Coastal Hazards: DRAFT 1) The Town should make it a priority to continue working with appropriate state agencies and with the Army Corps of Engineers to raise the Jetties. This is necessary for improved navigation, safety and maintenance of the Nantucket Harbor channel as well as for improved water quality and to alleviate flooding of the downtown area during storm events. 2) The Town owns coastal infrastructure within Sector 2, such as but not limited to roads, beach stairs and bathrooms. Should any of this infrastructure become damaged in coastal storms, the Department of Public Works should implement clean up and removal of any debris that may become a hazard to vessels, the public or natural resources. 3) The Town Bylaw should be amended to require escrow accounts be set up by any and all parties that receive permits to construct or maintain any existing coastal management or erosion control projects. These accounts will provide funding for the removal or clean up of any debris that becomes hazardous to vessels, the public or natural resources. The Committee decided that the suggestion for a regulation change requiring escrow accounts to be set up as described in Statement 3 should be removed from this section and added to a list of general recommendations and action items in a Performance Matrix to go along with the overall Plan. Statement 3 in this section should state that any license granted by the Town for coastal projects should include a requirement for some kind of insurance bond(s) or account(s) to be established for the clean up, stabilization or removal of any debris that threatens safety of any vessels, the public, infrastructure, or other natural resources. This satisfies concerns from Jamie on how to limit $$ requirements in escrow accounts to keep it realistic for applicants, and concerns from Bobby on how to make the applicant liable for maintenance of a project before it is deemed to be unsafe and ordered to be removed. Erosion Control: DRAFT 1) Any projects that are considered on Town property within Sector 2 shall be reviewed using CZM’s No Adverse Impact approach. It shall be required that they do not have direct or indirect negative consequences on the 3 surrounding natural resource areas, adjacent private or public property, or the public’s right to access a Town property/beach (see Stormsmart Coasts fact sheet 1). The long-term viability or sustainability of such projects must also be carefully considered. 2) A process should be established to ensure notification is made to the Town when a coastal erosion control project is proposed on property adjacent to a one big beach easement or other property in which the Town holds an interest. The Committee discussed the language in Statement 1 (above) and decided that requiring “…no direct or indirect negative consequences on the surrounding natural resource areas…” does not reflect the previous requirement to review projects using CZM’s No Adverse Impact approach. The reference to CZM’s No Adverse Impact approach will remain and the requirement for “…no direct or indirect…” impacts will be stricken from Statement 1. The Committee had a discussion on how to address previous concerns regarding cumulative impacts of erosion control structures. There was no consensus of how to appropriately address these concerns here so the Committee chose to move on and come back to the discussion in the future if someone generates an idea of how to properly address it. Offshore Resources: DRAFT 1) The Town is responsible for resources out to 1500 feet. Within Sector 2 this includes but is not limited to shellfish beds, eelgrass beds, conchs, and finfish. 2) Any coastal projects that propose work in land under the ocean should require a detailed underwater survey of all resources present that could be impacted by proposed work. 3) Refer to the MA Ocean Management Plan for identified preferred dredging sites and restrict dredging to these areas (except in the event of an extreme navigational emergency as identified by the Town). Dave suggested adding to Statement 1 that the Town’s responsibility to 1500 feet is an identified jurisdiction in the Ocean Management Plan. Jeff suggested that Statement 1 could be bold and applied to all Sectors, striking “Within Sector 2”. Revisions will be made to Statement 2 as described above under Habitat. Dave suggested in Statement 3 that “dredging sites” be changed to “borrow sites”. Public Access: DRAFT 1) Any time a coastal erosion control project is constructed, public access to all public beaches must be maintained. Bobby suggested adding another action item to a Performance Matrix that would recommend a regulation change to require that if a project is proposed on a property with a one big beach easement, the easement must be maintained by the property owner. Questions arose about who’s responsibility it really would be to maintain the easement? The Committee decided that Andrew Vorce should be invited to a CMP meeting from the Planning Department to discuss these one big beach easement issues with the Committee. 4 Beach Access: DRAFT 1) Town beaches within Sector 2 include: Jetties Beach, Jefferson Ave Beach, Steps Beach, Water Tower Beach, Dionis Beach, 40th Pole Beach. 2) Refer to Beach Management Plan where applicable. Homeland Security: DRAFT 1) In the event of a catastrophic failure of the main channel there is a possibility that Jetties Beach could be used as an alternative landing location. Alternative Energy: DRAFT 1) The exploration of alternative energy is an allowed activity in Sector 2 (including tidal, wave, wind, etc). The Committee decided to make Statement 1 bold and apply it to all sectors provided we include the caveat, “…if all other permits are acquired”. Fisheries: DRAFT 1) All coastal management and erosion control projects that propose work in land under the ocean should consider potential impacts to fisheries and extensive surveying should be required when necessary to assure no adverse impacts. Bobby suggested adding the stipulation that a third party independent survey be required at the expense of the applicant, under Statement 1 of this section as well. The Committee agreed. Jamie suggested changing the phrase “extensive surveying” to “sufficient surveying”, and to change “…to assure no adverse impacts” to “…to minimize adverse impacts”. The Committee agreed. Data Accessibility: DRAFT 1) List current policies and plans that include available data on resources within Sector 2 (including Town of Nantucket GIS). Consistency: DRAFT 1) All coastal management and erosion control projects must be consistent with all local, state and federal laws. All permits must be acquired by the Town or any applicant wishing to work on Town property, as required by law. Integration with Municipal Harbor Plan: DRAFT 1) Reference sections of Municipal Harbor Plan as it relates to Jetties Beach and those portions of Eel Point found within Sector 2. Public Comment: Sandra passed around a couple of relevant articles from the New York Times. 5 The Committee agreed that the next meeting will be held on March 25, 2013 at 2 Fairgrounds Road to work on drafting Sector 3. Another meeting will be held on April 8, 2013 at 4 Fairgrounds Road and will be a public hear ing for Sectors 4 & 5 which includes Tuckernuck and Muskeget Islands. The meeting was adjourned at 7:04pm with a motion from Bobby and a second from Carl. Respectfully submitted, Emily MacKinnon 6 The following DRAFT had not been reviewed by the Committee at the time these minutes were approved. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN: SECTOR 2, DRAFT 3 (as amended March 11, 2013) Water Quality 1) All coastal erosion control projects should be reviewed for impacts to water quality. In the event that any portion of a proposed project may have a negative impact to water quality an appropriate monitoring plan should be required that will evaluate specified parameters pre, during and post construction of the project. 2) As recommended in the Harbor Plan (HP), it is here recommended that the Town should establish a pond management committee or water quality management committee to address the Town’s f resh and coastal water quality needs. Habitat 1) All coastal projects should be evaluated for impacts to rare, endangered or locally important species and habitat. All necessary permits must be obtained from all state and local agencies as required by law. See Appendix for list of agencies with coastal jurisdiction. 2) Any projects proposed in areas of mapped or identified rare, endangered or locally important species or habitat should require a survey of these resources, especially those that propose nouri shment and/or dredging activities. 3) Offshore of Sector 2 in the vicinity of 40 th Pole Beach there exist extensive eelgrass beds which provide important shellfish and finfish habitat. Surveys should be conducted to identify these areas and projects should be designed to have no adverse impacts on this habitat. 4) The Town has documented nesting shorebird habitat within Sector 2 and this habitat should be considered relative to coastal management projects, keeping in mind that some nourishment projects have been found to enhance shorebird habitat. Coastal Hazards 1) The Town should make it a priority to continue working with appropriate state agencies and with the Army Corps of Engineers to raise the Jetties. This is necessary for improved navigation, safety and maintenance of the Nantucket Harbor channel as well as for improved water quality and to alleviate flooding of the downtown area during storm events. 7 2) The Town owns coastal infrastructure within Sector 2, such as but not limited to roads, beach stairs, bathrooms and utilities (including both above and be low ground infrastructure). Should any of this infrastructure become damaged in coastal storms, the Department of Public Works should implement clean up and removal of any debris and take action to prevent it from becoming a hazard to vessels, the public, natural resources or other infrastructure. 3) Any license granted for the use of Town land to construct or maintain coastal management or erosion control projects shall include a requirement that the applicant establish insurance such as bond(s) or escrow account(s). These accounts will provide funding for any action necessary to stabilize the site or for the removal or clean up of any debris that becomes hazardous to vessels, the public or natural resources. Erosion Control 1) Any projects that are considered on Town property within Sector 2 shall be reviewed using CZM’s No Adverse Impact approach (see Stormsmart Coasts fact sheet 1). The long-term viability or sustainability of such projects must also be carefully considered. 2) A process should be established to ensure notification is made to the Town when a coastal erosion control project is proposed on property adjacent to a one big beach easement or other property in which the Town holds an interest. Harbors Not Applicable Public Access Policy 1) Any time a coastal erosion control project is constructed public access to all public beaches must be maintained. Beach Access Policy 1) Town beaches within Sector 2 include: Jetties Beach, Jefferson Ave Beach, Steps Beach, Water Tower Beach, Dionis Beach, 40th Pole Beach. 2) Refer to Beach Management Plan where applicable. Offshore Resources 1) The Town is responsible for resources out to 1500 feet (as identified by the Ocean Management Plan). This includes but is not limited to shellfish beds, eelgrass beds, c onchs, and finfish. 2) Any coastal projects that propose work in land under the ocean should require a detailed underwater survey of all resources present by an independent third party and the cost of such survey(s) shall be incurred by the project applicant. 8 3) Refer to the MA Ocean Management Plan for identified preferred borrow sites and restrict dredging to these areas (except in the event of an extreme navigational emergency as identified by the Town). Homeland Security 1) In the event of a catastrophic failure of the main channel there is a possibility that Jetties Beach could be used as an alternative landing location. Alternative Energy 1) The exploration of alternative energy is an allowed activity (including tidal, wave, wind, etc), provided all necessary permits are secured. Fisheries 1) All coastal management and erosion control projects that propose work in land under the ocean should consider potential impacts to fisheries and sufficient surveying should be required when necessary to minimize adverse impacts. Survey(s) shall be provided by an independent third party and the cost of such survey(s) shall be incurred by the project applicant. Data Accessibility 1) List current policies and plans that include available data on resources within Secto r 2 (including Town of Nantucket GIS). Consistency 1) All coastal management and erosion control projects must be consistent with all local, state and federal laws. All permits must be acquired by the Town or any applicant wishing to work on Town property, as required by law. Integration with Municipal Harbor Plan 1) Reference sections of Municipal Harbor Plan as it relates to Jetties Beach and those portions of Eel Point found within Sector 2. 9 Performance Matrix 1) As recommended in the Harbor Plan (HP), it is here recommended that the Town should establish a pond management committee or water quality management committee to address the Town’s fresh and coastal water quality needs. 2) The Town should make it a priority to continue working with appropriate state agencies and with the Army Corps of Engineers to raise the Jetties. This is necessary for improved navigation, safety and maintenance of the Nantucket Harbor channel as well as for improved water quality and to alleviate flooding of the downtow n area during storm events. 3) A regulation should be established to require insurance (in the form of bond(s), escrow account(s) or the like) of any and all parties that receive permits to construct or maintain any existing coastal management or erosion control projects. These accounts will provide funding for any action necessary to stabilize the site or for the removal or clean up of any debris that becomes hazardous to vessels, the public or natural resources. 4) In the event that a coastal erosion project is proposed on a property containing a One Big Beach easement, the easement/public access must be maintained by the property owner (??).