HomeMy WebLinkAbout08262013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes
1
MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – August 26, 2013
PRESENT: Sarah Oktay, Carl Borchert, John Stover, Jamie Feeley, and Emily MacKinnon
Also Present: Dave Fronzuto, Jeff Carlson and Rebecca Haney
Meeting called to order at 5:01 pm
Agenda: The Agenda was approved with a motion from Emily and a second from Carl.
Announcements: The next Conservation Commission public hearing for SBPF’s Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff Storm
Damage Prevention Project will be held this Wednesday, 8/28 at 4pm at 4 Fairgrounds Road.
Dave also announced that he and Rebecca began evaluating a couple of the Town owned public access sites
experiencing erosion and they will be able to assist the Committee in making recommendations to the BOS for the
maintenance of these public access points into the future.
Minutes: The Committee voted on the minutes from 8/12/13 as corrected by Julia and they were approved with a
motion from John and a second from Carl. Jamie abstained as he was not present for the 8/12 meeting.
Rebecca Haney, a Coastal Geologist with MA Coastal Zone Management, made a presentation on “Public Shoreline
Management Alternatives” with a specific focus on Town/public properties and their future management. She provided
a framework for evaluating alternatives for specific sites in each Sector. First the cause(s) of erosion should be
determined at a given site (use of area by the public, upland land uses, etc). Next the options to address each cause can
be evaluated based on the management goals for that site as well as information about the impacts, benefits and costs
of each alternative. Those options include: Shore Parallel Structures such as vertical seawalls and sloping rock
revetments (when developing management plans involving these structures the impacts of typical daily conditions such
as currents and littoral drift must be evaluated along with impacts of storm events), Shore Perpendicular Structures
such as groins, Offshore Breakwaters (The Army Corps of Engineers has a coastal engineering manual with design
guidelines for these structures), Sand Filled Bags, Bioengineering: Coir Rolls & Vegetation (Coir rolls may have only
been used on island once before, Bioengineering: Natural Fiber Blankets (Synthetic materials not recommended and
typically no longer allowed), Vegetation (CZM has a coastal landscaping website with information about what plants
work best in which environments for erosion control), Nourishment of beaches, dunes and nearshore areas (DEP and
CZM have developed a Best Management Practices Guide for Beach Nourishment in MA and the Army Corps also has
design guidance for beach fill), Dune Nourishment & Artificial Dunes (sometimes coarser grained sediment is used for
increased longevity), Runoff Control (pavement at the end of eroding roads, vegetated or unvegetated areas sloping
towards the beach, dune or top of a bank), Sand Fencing (Rebecca’s research has shown that having a ratio of 1:1 for
pickets to space is the most effective fencing design to trap sand, sometimes the sturdier constructed fences can cause
more erosion around them).
John asked if the Committee was working towards a Plan at the scale that the BOS are expecting. Rebecca responded
that CZM will be able to help us make some specific recommendations at some specific sites while others will take more
long term analysis and research than the Committee may be able to provide in a short time frame.
Rebecca emphasized during her presentation that as a hotspot or an area of concern is being evaluated, ALL erosion
causes must be considered and addressed in order to achieve desired results. These include runoff, invasive species, etc.
The Committee can make a list of priority sites around the island that they want the Plan to address. It should be
2
determined for each site if the goal is to stop erosion altogether or simply slow/alleviate the retreat of the beach or
bank. Then the causes of erosion can be addressed to pro-actively reduce or eliminate erosion pressure(s).
Dave asked Rebecca if she was aware of any sites around the state where a channel has been dredged and the spoils
have been stored somewhere for future use? Rebecca responded that typically the spoils are “used” at the time of
dredging, but they can also be stockpiled for future use. Dave mentioned that the Town is moving towards dredging
Polpis Harbor channel again and that the spoils from this area are typically always placed on the same historic site, but
that really they should be stored somewhere for future use as nourishment.
Sarah asked if the Committee was going to need to get into a cost analysis of all of the different alternatives at each
site? Emily mentioned the fact sheets that CZM was producing on the “relative” costs of each alternative that may be
useful for the Committee and the Plan. Sarah suggested that costs on Nantucket may be quite different and Rebecca
agreed that every site is going to be different.
Rebecca and Dave discussed their visits to the end of Madaket and Hummock Pond Roads where erosion has slowly
been impacting the public access points at the ends of the roads. Some simple pro-active management measures to
reduce the erosion in these locations are to 1) pull back the pavement enough to allow more infiltration of runoff at the
end of the road before it hits the eroding coastal bank 2) Construct a berm could also before the end of the pavement to
redirect runoff into drainage swales to increase infiltration further before reaching the bank, 3) foot traffic/public access
could be channeled to a smaller area instead of spread out across the entire road, as has been done in Dionis, and 4)
Vegetate the areas around the access path each spring with native, salt-tolerant species such as beach grass to slow
erosion.
Rebecca added that for the evaluation of each specific site the following should be considered: Shoreline Change Rate
(short and long term trends), Flood Zone (e.g., v-zone, a-zone), Dry Beach Width, Resource Type (beach, bank, dune),
Function of the resource area.
The Committee decided that the best course of action is to go Sector by Sector and compile a priority list of public sites
using the trigger questions Rebecca has provided and make recommendations regarding those sites for future
management. Rebecca offered to help with the review of each site.
Carl asked who paid for the recent foundation removal from Madaket Beach? Dave responded that the Town did. The
Committee discussed this issue of abandonment by property owners once their houses are lost to erosion. There is a
desire to deal with these structures with the property owners so that they don’t become the Town’s problem, but Town
Council needs to provide some guidance on how to address this as it also involves insurance guidelines.
Jamie suggested that in addition to hearing Rebecca and CZM’s presentations on shoreline management alternatives,
the Committee may want to invite a coastal engineer to talk about the other side of the issue (engineering alternatives
and how and where they work, etc).
Rebecca mentioned that the key to any site for the Committee is to identify what the goals are for it in the future and
whether there is an interest in holding the line or simply slowing down erosion. She suggested that the Committee not
get into trying to design or engineer specific alternatives at this point in the planning process.
John said he was interested on hearing more input on some more structural methods of erosion control.
3
Carl suggested that the Committee may not want to go too deep into evaluating erosion control methods because there
are many other remaining issues still left to consider within the Plan as part of the group’s charge.
D. Anne stated that if a coastal engineer is invited by the Committee they should consider balancing their view of
function with an awareness of environmental factors and may want to invite someone else with a different background.
Sarah added that she was interested in learning/hearing more about offshore or more innovative technologies that
could be included in the Plan.
Jeff suggested that rather than having a coastal engineer present to the Committee about specific structures,
revetments, etc, it may be more useful to have a coastal engineer or consultant speak about the evaluation of a site and
what steps to take to choose the best option(s) for that site. Jamie agreed and thought a coastal engineer could have a
valuable perspective on the process of planning or determining what should be done at a site.
Emily stated that the Committee should avoid a debate on whether or not revetments or other methods are good or bad
or can or can’t work and she questioned whether the Committee wants to get more input now or first work around the
island to come up with a list of priority sites so that they can be considered while getting more input in the future…Dave
mentioned that he already had a list of 12 sites.
Carl thought the Committee should continue working through the Sectors first.
Carol Dunton opined that it would be more valuable for the Committee to make its way around the island Sectors first.
Jamie was concerned about not getting additional input at this stage as the Committee had it on today’s agenda to
prioritize or rank coastal erosion control methods. Emily shared that from her perspective that plan was somewhat
irrelevant now because any general “rank” of methods is essentially meaningless as each different site has its own
conditions to address. As the Committee identifies sites of concern, specific management options can be recommended
to the BOS and Town for further investigation and analysis in the future.
Jamie proposed that he would make a motion about inviting coastal engineers out to speak to the Committee.
Rebecca informed the Committee that two coastal engineers had been consulted in creating the framework for
evaluating alternative shoreline management strategies for sites that she had just presented.
Dave mentioned that the Town is about to hire an engineer and suggested that the Town consider looking for someone
with some background in coastal engineering.
Rick suggested that the Committee could first start by getting a list of firms or engineers that could be invited to talk to
us.
Carl and Emily expressed that with the presentations that CZM has made to the Committee they feel they have a good
working knowledge of what methods and alternatives exist and feel comfortable moving forward with the Sectors.
D. Anne asked if she could submit additional names for the Committee to consider inviting. The Committee agreed.
Jamie made a motion that the Committee invite erosion control expert(s) to present what systems may work effectively
and/or may not work effectively, at sites with varying conditions such as those on Nantucket, at some point in the
future. He suggested Tom Herrington and Michael Bruno.
4
The Committee unanimously agreed.
Bam suggested that the Committee try to find examples of hard structures that have actually been used successfully in
scenarios similar to Nantucket’s East and South facing shores…
Rebecca suggested possibly inviting someone who has done projects on island and has considered a range of
alternatives in these exact locations.
John agreed that it would be appropriate to have more than one person present to the Committee, perhaps as a panel
discussion and that perhaps CZM would like to be a part of that discussion.
The next CMPWG meeting will be held Monday, September 9th at 5pm at 4 Fairground Road in the Training Room.
The Committee will discuss Sector 6. Emily cannot attend this meeting. The following CMPWG meeting will be held
Monday September 23rd at 5pm at 4 Fairgrounds Road in the Training Room. Sarah cannot attend this meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:28pm with a motion from Sarah and a second from Carl.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily MacKinnon