HomeMy WebLinkAbout09232013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes
1
MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – September 23, 2013
PRESENT: Carl Borchert, Kirk Riden, John Stover, Bobby DeCosta, Jamie Feeley and Emily MacKinnon
Also Present: Noah Karberg, Environmental Agent for the Nantucket Airport
Meeting called to order at 5:06 pm Bobby chaired the meeting as Sarah was away.
Agenda: The Agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
Minutes: The Committee voted to approve the minutes from 9/09/13 with a motion from Carl and a second by Kirk.
Emily and Bobby abstained as they were not present for the meeting.
Sector 7: Sector 7 starts at the point of breakers includes the sewer beds and ends at Codfish Park (see Sector Map)
The Committee discussed which Town properties are found within Sector 7. They include the navy base properties,
multiple NILB properties are found within Sector 7, multiple access points along surfside beach and nobadeer beach, and
multiple one big beach easements. These will be included under the Public Access and Beach Access portions of the
draft.
Water Quality
The plan should include the same provisions as drafted in previous sectors.
Habitat
The plan should include the same provisions as drafted in previous sectors.
Coastal Hazards
The plan should include the same provisions as drafted in previous sectors.
Erosion Control
The primary issues of concern within Sector 7 are the Sconset Sewer Beds and the Airport Runway. Noah was asked if
the airport has any room to push back or retreat from the beach and he responded that they can only move so far
towards Milestone Road, but he knows that they do own parcels on the other side of Milestone Road for noise
abatement. Rick Atherton asked if the airport could move back 300 yards or so towards the road? Noah suggested that
he could approach the FAA to find out what restrictions or abilities are for the airport to retreat.
Bobby and Rick asked Noah how much beach was required to have at the southern end of the runway? Noah responded
200-300 yards and that the lighting system needs to be accommodated. He said that the issue is written into the Master
Planning process but is not of immediate concern to the FAA.
Bobby suggested that this portion of the south shore is the perfect place for beach nourishment projects because the
offshore habitat is primarily sandy bottom. Rick suggested that this could be a plan recommendation for protecting the
runway. John stated that retreat for the airport would likely be a very expensive alternative and that other more
aggressive options should be considered such as offshore breakwaters. Emily suggested that as the runway is not
immediately threatened there may be sufficient time to plan and experiment with different less aggressive alternatives.
Bobby compared Sectors 6 and 7 which are similar in type of beach and habitat. He suggested that one or a combination
of alternatives could be used without having to use hard armoring structures.
2
Kirk asked if breakwaters were considered preferable as an alternative? Bobby responded that yes they may be
preferable to hard armoring along the south shore. John again emphasized that relocating the airport should be
considered a last resort. Bobby suggested that the Plan should recommend closely monitoring the erosion along airport
runways and that specific erosion distances should serve as triggers to take some action rather than allowing it to reach
an emergency status.
D Anne asked Noah how the community can interface with the FAA and their Master Planning process. Noah stated that
they were in the process of putting together a contact list of interested parties for the Master Plan process. Bobby
questioned whether we would even be allowed to be involved with the FAA but Rick suggested the FAA was often very
inclusive and open to community involvement.
Beach Access
Maintain beach driving.
Offshore Resources/Alternative Energy
Wave energy investigations should be allowed along Sector 7.
Homeland Security
This section should reflect airport security.
D Anne inquired about the previous proposal for an offshore fuel depot and whether any studies were done during that
time on habitat in this area? Bobby responded that National Grid may have done some studies leading up to that
proposal and the Committee can ask Dave if he knows of any information left over from the fuel depot proposal. He
added that Joe Ferrell installed tidal monitors off the south shore and that he may have some information on longshore
drift, etc. Bobby will ask Joe if that information is available.
Carl asked the Committee if everyone felt that retreat should not be an option considered in the area of the airport?
John responded that he thought it should be a very last resort. Bobby agreed and included the Sconset sewer
beds…these two areas have limited area available for retreat. John added that these are two pieces of infrastructure
where retreat is simply a last resort and that they need to be maintained. Emily stated that she was not comfortable
explicitly listing retreat as a total last resort and that All options should be considered.
Emily asked if the Committee agreed that the remainder of Sector 7 outside of the sewer beds and airport runways
should mimic that which was discussed for Sector 6 in the 9/9/13 minutes? The Committee agreed.
D Anne asked the Committee if there was an agreement with DEP when the sewer beds were first permitted that
addressed future erosion? The Committee agreed that this is worth exploring.
Noah added that he used to work at the Sewer Treatment Plant and he physically used to take measurements to the
bank and that in some areas erosion had decreased that area to less than 100 yards.
Bobby suggested that the Committee invite Kara in to address these questions.
D Anne raised the consideration of addressing asphalt roads at Town owned access points as the Committee had done
for Sector 6. John agreed because runoff impacts can exacerbate erosion. Bobby suggested that the former navy base
was a perfect example of this with the asphalt crumbling directly at the top of the bank.
3
The Committee had a discussion on whether working to vegetate the top of banks and the face of banks is helpful to
slow erosion or is only exacerbating erosion when it takes place. Examples were given of both. It was determined that in
certain cases it can be extremely helpful at preserving dunes and banks and protecting landward areas from erosion.
Jamie said that overall he likes the idea of pilot projects being permitted in areas without a great deal of density where
different techniques and alternatives can be experimented with. He suggested that other coastal communities find state
and federal funding for these projects.
Bobby mentioned that Andrew Vorce was going to attend a meeting on Cape Cod to discuss erosion from a planning
perspective.
D Anne voiced concerns around the permitting of geotubes and hard structures along the south shore which could lead
to an environment similar to the New Jersey shoreline. She said there is too much value in Nantucket’s south shore
beaches and they are critical to Nantucket’s tourists and at the essence of why people come here. John and D Anne
agreed that more research should be done on alternatives such as offshore structures that would preserve the beach
resource areas.
Carl and Emily discussed including in Sector 7 provisions or recommendations to address any eroding Town roads by
directing traffic, addressing asphalt, vegetation, gullies, etc… Bobby raised concerns about closing areas off to
pedestrians, not wanting access to be restricted. It was agreed that allowing some areas to revegetate without foot
traffic for a time can be very beneficial to dune fields and the tops of coastal banks.
Kirk commented that the Committee was considering a large spectrum of impacts to beaches by a variety of forces, from
major storms to piping plover footprints. He suggested the Committee focus on what can be addressed the easiest with
the greatest success.
Emily stated that the Conservation Commission Administrator used to authorize the placement of single rows of snow
fencing in areas, specifically dunes, to help accumulate sand. John mentioned that a client of his had installed snow
fencing which subsequently built up a huge dune. He reiterated that retreat is not the answer.
Bobby stated that Cisco and Surfside have become the most popular Nantucket beaches for tourism and that the Town
should maybe experiment with beach nourishment projects in these areas to maintain wide beaches…this should be a
recommendation in the Plan.
Public Comment
Carol Dunton reported on a NY Times article some weeks ago discussing studies that were done using recycled glass as a
supplement to nourishment projects.
Bobby stated that he is aware of problems/concerns with beach nourishment and does not intend to be a total advocate
for the method, but Nantucket has beaches along the south shore that may benefit from it and that the Town should
really consider trying it. The Surf Rider Foundation typically opposes it because it kills the benthic community and when
it is repeated year after year you end up with a dead beach. It also can be very expensive to maintain in areas with high
erosion rates. He added that it will be interesting to see how much of the Brant Point nourishment survives the winter
season.
John clarified that the Plan should include beach nourishment as one option of many, and that some locations with
critical infrastructure such as the airport and sewer beds may require hard engineering solutions.
4
John Merson commented on the irrigation pipes coming out of the top of the bank along Baxter Road from former lawns
and suggested that they are exacerbating the erosion. He has visited beach nourishment sites in Miami Beach where a
variety of grain sizes have been combined and used on beaches, creating a harder crustier beach face. He said you can’t
visually see the difference and it may or may not assist with sand retention, but it is not as natural or pleasant as the
original beach. He suggested that changing conditions such as increasing temperatures and sea level rise mean that our
communities really need to look at moving critical infrastructure back in order to maintain these beaches into the future.
Bobby stated he didn’t believe that it would be necessary to physically move the sewer beds or airport back from the
beach in his lifetime. This plan is more of a 25 year plan and should be reconsidered and rewritten again after that time.
The Committee should continue to focus on what needs to be dealt with in the immediate future. Technologies change
so quickly. The area needed for a plane to land or for sewer technology will be changing faster than we can imagine so it
is pointless for us to plan too far into the future.
Noah clarified that retreat for the airport itself is likely not an option, but shortening or adapting runways instead of
moving buildings is likely the direction FAA will go with this issue.
D Anne stated that Mike Bruno posed the question to the community, “Where do you want to draw your hard
engineering line”? Baxter Road? The Harbor(s)? This is something Nantucket will have to consider.
Bobby made the point that Town land is surrounded by private property that may apply for permitting hard structures.
The Town needs a plan for protecting their properties against impacts from these structures. The do nothing approach
will likely do more harm than good if the surrounding properties are being hard armored.
John Merson pointed out that the “do nothing approach” in that case would be doing the harm, it would be the
neighboring engineering structures doing the harm.
Bobby brought up the Town’s one big beach easements again and expressed concern at how much work has gone into
securing them. He suggested they may need to be written differently in the future. Most of them state that the
easement retreats with the eroding bank/beach, but if the private property owner places a hard structure on the
eroding coastal bank and the beach disappears, the easement/access could be lost.
D Anne suggested that in these cases permits should be issued with conditions requiring a certain beach width to be
maintained.
Bam informed the Committee that just offshore of Sector 7 there have been many sightings of Right and Finback
Whales. This should be included under the Habitat section.
The next two CMPWG meetings will take place on 10/7/13 to discuss Sector 8 and on 10/28/13 to discuss Sector 9.
Both will be held at 4 Fairgrounds Road from 5-7pm.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:36pm with a motion from John and a second from Jamie.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily MacKinnon