The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04082013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes 1 MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – April 8th, 2013 PRESENT: Sarah Oktay, Carl Borchert, Jamie Feeley, John Stover, and Emily MacKinnon ALSO PRESENT: Dave Fronzuto, Steve McKenna and Jeff Carlson Meeting called to order at 5:12 pm Approval of Agenda: The agenda was unanimously approved with a motion by Carl and second by Jamie. Review and Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the March 25, 2013 CMPWG meeting as drafted by Emily were reviewed by the Committee. Sarah noted that “born” should be changed to “borne”. John reminded the Committee of discussions at the previous meeting regarding a searchable database that could be established for all survey and monitoring data accumulated by the Con Com or other boards regarding coastal management projects. He asked if this database should be noted as a resource in all those sections of the Plan requiring surveys, or if it should only be mentioned under “Data Accessibility” as it appears in Emily’s minutes and most recent Draft. Jeff noted that in most cases previous surveys will only be partially applicable to a new project and applicants will likely need to conduct their own research. Applicants wishing to use previously conducted surveys or data will still be required to resubmit it in reference to their own projects. Dave suggested that a footnote be added to each of the sections requiring a survey that states other studies may be applicable or available. The Committee agreed to include such a footnote in the “Habitat”, “Fisheries” and “Offshore Resources” sections stating that “..use of existing data may be acceptable”. The minutes were approved with a motion from John and a second from Carl. Upcoming Meetings: Sarah announced that the Civic League will be hosting a coastal erosion forum on Monday April 22, at the Atheneum Great Hall. The Committee agreed to attend the forum in place of a regular CMP meeting. The April 22 forum will be held from 4:30-6:00pm. Meetings for May will tentatively be scheduled for Monday, May 6 at the 4 Fairgrounds Road Training Room from 5-7pm. An additional meeting could be scheduled for Monday, May 13. The Committee will confirm the dates of the May meeting(s) at its April 22 meeting. Public Hearing for Sector 4 and Sector 5: Sarah asked Dave if he had any news on NILB involvement in the CMP? Dave was still not clear but will email Eric Savetsky directly to ask him about their inclusion in the process. Dave presented some slides from Julia Knisel’s presentation on shoreline change, reminding the Committee that these sectors include some of the most dynamic areas of shoreline change. He also pointed out that the new FEMA flood maps show the entire island of Muskeget under water in a flooded/inundated state because of the increase in flood elevations. The Committee acknowledged that there is technically no Town owned land on Tuckernuck or Muskeget Islands (Sectors 4 & 5). However, Jeff reminded the Committee that the entire area from Mean High Water out to 1500 feet is technically under the Town’s jurisdiction per the MA Ocean Management Plan. There was some discussion of the public’s ability to “fish, fowl and navigate” between Mean Low Water and Mean High Water, except in the case of some very old colonial deeds that extend down to Mean Low Water. There was also some discussion on the ownership of Whale Point/Island on Tuckernuck, the conclusion being that its ownership is still not clear. 2 Dave discussed the Town’s emergency management perspective of Tuckernuck. The Town still has a responsibility to provide emergency services/response to Tuckernuck (and Muskeget). There is a need to relocate one of the docks in the primary lagoon of Tuckernuck to make it more accessible in emergencies and to decrease the impacts to sensitive resource areas. MA DEP has been working on this issue. Jeff and Dave encouraged the Committee to keep Sectors 4 and 5 in the Plan because it is always possible that the Town could own land on Tuckernuck or Muskeget at some point in the future and because of the Town’s responsibility for the offshore areas. Jeff also reminded the Committee that both Tuckernuck and Muskeget are still subject to all of the same rules and regulations as Nantucket Island. Sarah brought up Bam’s previous concern regarding future access to Tuckernuck from Madaket for Tuckernuck property owners. Dave reminded the Committee of a land use agreement that the Town has for property at Jackson Point prohibiting its use for 10 years. This time period is almost up and there is potential for additional parking facilities at this Jackson Point property in the future. The Committee agreed to add a statement to the Public Access section of Sector 3 relative to providing public access/parking for Tuckernuck residents into the future. Dave suggested that when the final Plan is put together the Committee should include maps of each Sector identifying important reference points and properties that may be referred to within the Plan. Jeff added that these maps should also identify all public coastal infrastructure. The Committee decided to include all of the general “bold” statements from Sectors 1 and 2 in the draft for Sectors 4 and 5. Sarah and Steve McKenna added that the gray seal breeding colony should be mentioned within the plan and the Marine Mammal Protection Act should be referenced. This federally recognized habitat should be identified within the Habitat section. Emily added that nesting habitat for the federally listed shorebirds should also be mentioned within the same section. Review of Sector 2 Final Draft: Dave suggested including the shoreline change maps and data for each Sector as Julia had presented and suggested that CZM could produce for the Committee. The Committee discussed the “Sector Trends” slide from Julia’s presentation with some confusion about what the numbers actually represent. Emily will contact Julia for more information on this slide. Sarah and Emily suggested that the Committee hold off on voting to accept the drafts of Sectors 2 and 3 until Bobby and Kirk had an opportunity to review them. Jamie raised a concern regarding the language within the “Erosion Control” section of each draft. The Committee had agreed to remove the “no adverse impact” language from this section, and instead referenced CZM’s No Adverse Impact (NAI) approach as defined on their Stormsmart Coasts Fact Sheet 1. He was concerned that as defined, this approach is just as restrictive, if not more so, than the “no adverse impact” language the Committee had voted to remove. The Committee discussed the language on Fact Sheet 1. John and Jamie asked if a clear definition was provided for what “NAI” meant according to CZM. Some of the Committee members felt that as defined on the Stormsmart Coasts Fact Sheet 1, the NAI approach was essentially a spectrum of basic, better, no adverse impact that encouraged projects to meet the overall standard of no adverse impacts and minimize or mitigate for any unavoidable impacts as much as 3 possible. Other Committee members read the NAI approach as a requirement for no adverse impacts whatsoever which was too high of a standard for any project applicants to meet. Steve McKenna of CZM commented that he did not believe the NAI approach intended to be so specific. He believed it was intended to be interpreted more broadly. Dave agreed and stated that if “no adverse impacts” was the only option, the concepts of basic and better would not even be explained or discussed in the Fact Sheet. The Committee came to an agreement to attempt to draft their own No Adverse Impacts approach that will more clearly represent and consider a spectrum of project impacts. Jeff suggested changing CZM’s phrase “no adverse impacts” to “best”. The Committee will all consider what should be included in this approach to reviewing/evaluating erosion control projects and will bring notes to the next meeting for discussion. John added that some areas/Sectors will need more protection than others because of specific resources. Jamie added that it is also important not to lose site of the value of the infrastructure that some projects will be trying to protect. Public Comment: None The Committee agreed to discuss Sector 2 and 3 drafts and the No Adverse Impact approach at the May 6, 2013 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:04pm with a motion from Carl and a second from Jamie. Respectfully submitted, Emily MacKinnon