HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180417_NantucketCoastalConservancy_Email_re_InkyArticleFrom:danneatherton@comcast.net
To:Florencia Rullo; Dawn Hill Holdgate; Matt Fee; Rita Higgins; Jim Kelly; Libby Gibson
Cc:Erika Mooney
Subject:FOCUS ON THE FACTS
Date:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:06:57 AM
Attachments:FOCUS ON THE FACTS 4.13.18.pdf
TO: MEMBERS OF THE SB AND TOWN MANAGER
FROM: D. ANNE/NCC TEAM
RE: FOCUS ON THE FACTS
Please see attached for corrected information about an article that ran in last Thursday’s INQUIRER AND MIRROR
with an inaccurate headline, along with other misinformation.
We believe it is important for you, as you consider the request from SBPF, to have the facts about this complex
issue.
Hopefully you have received clarification from the Conservation Commission.
If you can please include this in the information provided to the public for the SB discussion on this matter
scheduled for tomorrow, April 18, we would appreciate it, Erika.
Thank you.
D. Anne
for the
NCC TEAM
ATTACHMENT: FOCUS ON THE FACTS
FOCUS
ON
THE
FACTS
In
an
effort
to
assist
interested
citizens
obtain
accurate
information
about
coastal
matters,
especially
the
controversial
geotube
project
installed
on
the
Town-‐owned
beach
below
the
bluff
in
Sconset,
we
will
resume
our
FOCUS
ON
THE
FACTS
series.
STATEMENT:
“ConCom
agrees
bluff
project
did
its
job
in
2017”
was
the
headline
in
the
April
12
issue
of
the
INQUIRER
AND
MIRROR
about
the
Conservation
Commission
Special
Hearing
held
on
March
28
for
the
presentation
of
the
2017
Annual
Monitoring
Report
about
the
geotubes.
The
Report
was
prepared
for
SBPF
(Siasconset
Beach
Preservation
Fund)
by
their
consultants,
Epsilon
Associates.
FACT:
This
headline
is
erroneous.
The
Commission
made
no
finding
as
to
the
contents
or
conclusions
of
the
report.
The
motion
made,
seconded
and
unanimously
adopted
by
the
Commission
was
to
“to
accept
the
Annual
Report
into
the
record.”
Three
of
the
Commissioners
asked
questions
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hour-‐and-‐a-‐half
presentation
by
the
SBPF
consultant,
but
no
discussion
ensued
as
to
its
contents
or
conclusions.
The
proposed
minutes
of
the
March
28
meeting
are
available
on
the
Town
website.
The
2017
Annual
Report
presented
by
the
SBPF
consultant
did
not
cover
the
2018
storm
season.
The
Commission
agreed
to
hear
the
Major
Post-‐Storm
Report,
filed
by
SBPF
after
the
“significant”
March
13
event,
at
its
regularly
scheduled
meeting
on
April
25.
The
Major
Post-‐Storm
Report
with
photos
is
also
available
on
the
Town
website.
STATEMENT:
In
the
I&M
article
cited
above,
it
states,
referring
to
the
Nantucket
Coastal
Conservancy
and
its
spokesperson,
D.
Anne
Atherton,
"Atherton
and
her
group
have
stressed
that
because
all
beaches
on
Nantucket
are
public
and
publicly
owned
below
the
mean
high-‐water
mark,
any
project
that
inhibits
passage
should
not
be
undertaken.
Under
an
order
of
conditions
laid
out
three
years
ago
by
the
ConCom,
the
beach
must
be
passable
most
of
the
time."
FACT:
All
beaches
on
Nantucket
are
not
public.
However,
the
stretch
of
beach
below
the
bluff
in
Sconset
on
which
the
geotubes
have
been
installed
is
owned
by
the
Town.
This
beach
is
comprised
of
two
parcels
of
land
(49.9
and
48.8)
held
by
the
Proprietors
and
their
successors
in
trust
forever
for
the
inhabitants
of
Nantucket.
The
assessed
value
of
these
two
parcels,
as
posted
on
the
Town
website,
is
approximately
$9.3
million.
The
issue
cited
by
the
Coastal
Conservancy
above
is
unrelated
to
the
right
of
the
public
to
pass
across
the
intertidal
area
between
the
high
and
low
tide
marks.
The
Order
of
Conditions
for
the
geotubes
contains
a
provision
that
a
“walkable
beach”
be
maintained
seaward
of
the
geotubes
installation
even
at
high
tide.
This
provision
pertains
to
“dry”
beach
on
public
land,
not
the
inter-‐tidal
zone
between
the
high
and
low
water
marks.
According
to
the
public
trust
doctrine
that
dates
back
to
before
colonial
times,
the
public
in
Massachusetts
has
the
right
to
pass
across
the
intertidal
zone
for
the
purposes
of
“fishing,
fowling
and
navigation.”
April
13,
2018