The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12092013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes 1 MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – December 09, 2013 PRESENT: Bobby DeCosta, Sarah Oktay, Carl Borchert, Jamie Feeley, Kirk Riden and Emily MacKinnon Also Present: Dave Fronzuto and Jeff Carlson Meeting called to order at 5:04pm Agenda: The agenda was approved unanimously. Sarah discussed future meetings and had tentatively scheduled January 6th and 20th to finish reviewing the draft plan. Sarah mentioned that the 20th is Martin Luther King Jr day and the building will not be open. The Committee decided to push the second January meeting to the 27th. Sarah mentioned that the Civic League will be meeting on the 27th and had contemplated having a panel discussion and presentation of the draft Plan at that meeting. The Committee discussed this and decided that it would be better not to plan any additional public hearings until the draft is completed. Bobby suggested that upon completion the draft can be submitted to the Board of Selectmen who will likely be holding their own public hearing prior to adopting the Plan. Sarah mentioned that the next Civic League meeting would be the 3rd Monday of February. It was decided to not schedule any public hearings or presentations at this time and focus on completing the Plan in a timely manner. Minutes: The minutes from November 18 were approved unanimously with a grammatical correction. Draft Plan: Jamie commented on the formatting of the draft and suggested that all of the bold sections pertaining to ALL Sectors be listed at the beginning and any additional items specific to a particular Sector be listed separately. This will avoid repeating all of the bold sections 10 times throughout the draft. The Committee agreed. Carl made the point that the Committee had still not come to a conclusion regarding language for the Erosion Control section and whether or not to reference CZM’s NAI approach. Bobby emphasized his desire to have us write our own language. Dave agreed that based on discussions with Jim Mahala from DEP, it seems more appropriate to encourage minimized adverse impacts rather than using language that states no adverse impacts. The Committee re-read the language submitted by Jamie at the last meeting and generally agreed that it was appropriate. “All erosion control projects and structures will minimize any adverse impacts to the extent that they can, relative to the nature of these structures and the requirements of their installations”. Emily suggested that perhaps somewhere else in the Plan the Committee may want to include the concepts of not permitting projects that would “…1) pose a threat to public safety, 2) increase flood or storm damage to public or private property, and/or 3) strain municipal budgets by raising community expenditures for storm damage mitigation, stormwater management, emergency services, and disaster recovery efforts…” (as written in CZM’s fact sheet 1). Emily thought it just made sense for the Town to adopt that general policy. 2 Bobby felt that using this language and the NAI policy would make it too easy to say no to anything because of a potential impact and that there are solutions to many of the concerns surrounding erosion control projects. CZM’s NAI policy ties the Town’s hands too much for alternative ideas that should be options now and in the future. Emily thought that the “good neighbor policy” or the NAI approach was generally a good one for the Town to adopt in some way from a legal liability standpoint and that maybe it should just be referenced somewhere else and not so specifically as it relates to erosion control projects. Dave asked if the Committee wanted to just reference CZM’s Stormsmart program and fact sheets in the appendix of the document? Jeff supported using it as an appendix and didn’t think it was necessary to reference it in the plan if the Committee did not want to. Kirk asked Jamie to elaborate on what he meant by “…relative to the nature of these structures…”. Jamie responded that different coastal erosion structures require a certain amount of impact to install them. For example the placement of a structure on the beach may require a certain area of beach to be excavated. This may be seen as an impact while it is a necessary part of the structure’s installation. Kirk asked the Committee what the driving force really is behind the adverse impacts of such structures from the Town’s perspective. He pointed out that Jamie’s language says “…ANY adverse impact…” and suggested being more specific if the concerns were about public safety or any of the other concepts listed by CZM. Emily suggested that CZM’s three kinds of impacts could be inserted into Jamie’s language. Bobby was especially concerned about the third concept “3) strain municipal budgets by raising community expenditures for storm damage mitigation, stormwater management, emergency services, and disaster recovery efforts…” because it is so broad. Jamie suggested that as written the language leaves more elbow room and is less limiting. It is open to more interpretation and potentially more protection for the Town. Emily reminded the Committee that this is not regulatory language. Bobby agreed that it was really only philosophical, but that when lawyers and courts get hold of it the meaning may completely change. Jeff echoed this and stated that all projects are still going to be reviewed by regulatory agencies and that this is just a plan and not a regulatory document. The Committee agreed to insert Jamie’s language into the Erosion Control section and not reference CZM’s NAI approach or fact sheets. Those will be added as an appendix to the document. The first statement of the Erosion Control section will read: “An erosion control project considered on Town property will minimize any adverse impacts to the extent that they can, relative to the nature of these structures and the requirements of their installations. The long-term viability or sustainability of such projects must also be carefully considered”. Sarah suggested that in an introduction or executive summary the plan could mention a concern for impacts to public safety and increased flood or storm damage to neighboring properties. Or 3 she suggested that these general principles at least be included somewhere as having been a contributing factor in the drafting of the plan. Bobby raised a concern regarding statement 2 in the Offshore Resources section. He originally suggested this statement to make sure that if a private party was asking to do work on Town owned property that a third party consultant would be involved in ensuring the Town that the surveys conducted to evaluate impacts to offshore resources were adequate. His concern was that as written the statement implies that even the Town would be required to hire a third party to review their own surveys if they were proposing a project on Town land. Jeff suggested inserting language that specifies “…any coastal projects, not applied for by a governmental agency…”. The Committee agreed to insert this language in statement 2 of Offshore Resources. Jamie asked if private parties will then be required to do one survey for their initial proposal and a second survey to later review their first one. Jeff and the Committee agreed that the third party review was intended to be more of a “verification” of any surveys conducted by a private applicant. The Committee agreed to change the language of this statement to: “Any coastal projects not applied for by a governmental agency that propose work in land under the ocean, should require a detailed underwater survey of all resources; this should be reviewed by an independent third party and the cost of such survey(s) shall be borne by the project applicant”. Public Comment: Bam raised concerns regarding Sectors 4 and 5 (Tuckernuck and Muskeget Islands). He stated that the majority of the language contained in the draft is directly related to erosion control or other coastal projects that are just not going to take place on Tuckernuck. The Committee agreed, but instead of excluding Sector 4 (Tuckernuck) decided not to include the statements made for the other Sectors and to highlight the language currently under Erosion Control 1A, “Tuckernuck Island is a minimally developed and ecologically important island. As such, the use of coastal erosion control structures is not recommended”. Bam also suggested that the Committee include a statement for Sector 5 (Muskeget) regarding Microtus breweri, the Muskeget beach vole under the habitat section. The Committee agreed to do so. Committee members will get further comments or suggestions on the Draft that was distributed to Jeff by December 20. He and Emily will then meet to compile them into an updated document. Sarah will begin working on an introduction and/or executive summary of the Plan. The next meeting will be held on Monday, 01/06/13 at 4 Fairgrounds Road from 5-7pm. (Dave will confirm). The meeting was adjourned at 6:39pm with a motion by Jamie and a second by Bobby. Respectfully submitted, Emily MacKinnon