Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 SE48_3115 NCC Questions from meeting 12_3_18         TO:  The  Nantucket  Conservation  Commission   FROM:  The  Nantucket  Coastal  Conservancy  Coordinating  Team   RE:  Questions  and  Comments  for  December  3  Public  Hearing  re  Expansion  of  Geotube  Seawall   DATE:  December  3,  2018     Below  are  a  number  of  questions  and  comments  that  we  respectfully  request  be  addressed  as   part  of  the  record  of  these  hearings.  We  would  like  to  reiterate  that  we  are  not  scientists,  but   interested,  and  fairly  informed,  citizens  who  are  concerned  about  the  impacts  of  this  proposal   on  the  public  beach  below  the  bluff,  a  legacy  to  the  inhabitants  of  Nantucket  from  the   Proprietors  and  held  in  trust  for  them  by  the  Town  of  Nantucket:  a  historic  beach.  While  we   may  not  possess  the  technical  expertise  of  other  commenters,  we  do  have  common  sense.       w  At  the  outset,  we  would  like  to  point  out  that,  in  signing  the  assent  for  the  NOI  for  the   expansion  of  the  temporary  geotube  seawall,  members  of  the  Select  Board  specifically  stated   that  they  were  making  NO  judgment  on  the  merits  of  the  expansion  proposal.  In  fact,  they   said  they  would  be  looking  to  the  Commission  to  advise  the  Town  in  this  regard.  Unlike  the   previous  NOI  for  the  947-­‐foot,  temporary,  emergency  project,  the  Town  is  not  a  co-­‐applicant   for  the  expansion.       w  The  current  installation  and  proposed  expansion  adversely  impact  the  wetland  resources   the  Commission  is  charged  to  protect.  Examples  include:  the  destruction  of  the  beach  habitat   on  which  the  seawall  sits  (multiple  acres);  the  cobble  reef  offshore  (deprived  of  glacial  material   to  replenish  it);  the  public’s  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  beach  for  recreational  purposes  (fishing,   walking,  birding);  transformation  of  the  area  into  a  perpetual  construction  site  since  the   required  mitigation,  maintenance,  and  monitoring  must  continue  in  perpetuity;  and  more.     Cobble  Habitat:  As  we  understand,  the  offshore  cobble  habitat  formed  by  the  eroding  bluff  has   created  a  unique  fish  nursery:  a  reef  of  sorts  unlike  any  other  along  the  eastern  seaboard,   according  to  Nantucket  fishermen.  How  has  walling  off  a  section  of  the  bluff    (so  geologically   significant  that  the  eroding  material  has  a  name  of  its  own,  Sankaty  Sand)  with  geotubes   impacted  the  ongoing  formation  and  condition  of  this  fish  nursery,  which,  without  the  geotube   seawall,  would  have  been  naturally  replenished  with  a  variety  of  glacial  material  during  the  past   five  years  since  the  seawall  was  installed?  Has  this  been  monitored?  Mitigated?  What  will  be   the  impact  on  this  cobble  habitat  if  the  seawall  is  tripled  in  length?              QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        2     Purpose  of  the  Geotube  Seawall:  We  have  heard  representatives  of  the  applicants,  as  well  as   proponents  of  the  project,  state  publicly  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  geotube  seawall,  and   the  proposed  expansion,  is  to  “preserve  the  public  beach.”  [Sic.]  Understanding  as  we  do  the   science  of  how  seawalls  affect  the  beaches  on  which  they  are  built,  can  the  applicants  explain   how  such  a  statement  can  possibly  be  made?  The  Siasconset  Beach  Preservation  Fund  (SBPF)  is   clearly  not  about  preserving  the  beach:  it’s  about  preserving  structures.       Beach  Nourishment:  Why  do  the  SBPF  consultants  refer  to  the  expansion  proposal  as  a  “beach   nourishment”  project  when,  in  fact,  if  left  in  its  natural  state,  the  beach  below  the  bluff  is  not  in   need  of  “nourishment”?  To  quote  Cornelia  Dean,  the  former  Science  Editor  of  the  NY  TIMES   and  author  of  AGAINST  THE  TIDE:  THE  BATTLE  FOR  AMERICA’S  BEACHES  [1999],  as  well  as  a   presenter  on  Nantucket,  “Americans  love  their  beaches.  But  when  storms  threaten,  coastal   construction  —homes  and  businesses  —  takes  precedence  over  the  coastal  environment.  We   rescue  buildings,  even  if  it  means  damaging  the  beach...this  pattern  is  leading  to  the  rapid   degradation  of  our  coast.”       Adverse  Impacts  on  Recreational  Fishing:  Fishing  —  including  surfcasting  and  saltwater  fly-­‐ fishing  —  along  this  particular  part  of  Nantucket’s  coastline  has  a  decades-­‐old  history,  as  do   birding  and  walking.  In  regard  to  the  current,  947-­‐foot  geotube  seawall,  the  Division  of  Marine   Fisheries  (DMF)  stated  in  a  Comment  Letter  to  the  DEP  about  the  947-­‐foot  geotube  proposal:     The  existing  geotube  footprint  restricts  shoreline  access  for  seasonal  recreational  fishing   activity.  While  apparently  graded  at  the  north  and  south  ends  to  allow  access  past  the  structure,   shoreline  access  to  this  immediate  section  of  Siasconset  Beach  at  high  tide  is  limited.  [DMF   Comment  Letter  to  DEP,  2014.  Emphasis  added.]     Has  DMF  commented  on  the  current  proposal  that  will  quadruple  the  seawall  in  length?  The   applicants  are  silent  in  this  regard  in  the  NOI,  except  for  this  comment:     Recreation:  The  Project  will  not  adversely  impact  recreational  uses  along  the  beach  or  in  the   water,  as  it  will  be  located  on  the  coastal  bank  and  a  portion  of  the  coastal  beach.  The  Project   will  maintain  public  access  in  front  of  or  on  top  of  the  geotextile  tubes.  [NOI,  page  5-­‐12.]     Suggesting  that  public  access  would  be  available  “on  top  of  the  geotextile  tubes”  is,  with   respect,  laughable,  in  addition  to  being  dangerous,  as  has  been  the  case  many  times  since  the   installation  of  the  current  project.  We  believe  that  the  past  five  years  have  demonstrated  that   public  access  along  this  public  beach  has  been  adversely  impacted  for  not  only  for  fishing,  but   for  other  recreational  activities  as  well.              QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        3     w  If  the  current  seawall  were  working  and  there  had  been  “zero  erosion,”  why  is  there  the   need  to  add  more  man-­‐made  materials  to  the  ends?  And  if  there  is  now  a  need  to  add  to  each   end,  won’t  more  have  to  be  added  to  the  ends  over  and  over  again  over  time?     Zero  Erosion:  The  applicants  have  also  made  public  statements,  such  as,  “There  has  been  zero   erosion  in  the  area  being  protected  by  the  geotubes.”  [SBPF  handout  at  Special  Town  Meeting,   October  10,  2018.  See  attached.]  And  yet,  this  statement  is  in  direct  contradiction  to   information  contained  in  the  quarterly  reports  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  the  very  same   applicants.     These  two  findings,  contained  in  the  77th  Quarterly  Report  (dated  September  18,  2018),  the   most  recent,  are  typical:  “The  southern  half  of  the  geotube  project  area,  90.95  to  91.2,  eroded   between  -­‐1.7  and  -­‐4.3  ft,  while  the  northern  half,  91.35  to  91.9,  accreted  between  0.5  and  1.6   ft.”  [Page  15,  emphasis  added.]  And  this,  “Since  the  geotubes  were  installed  in  September   2013,  26  of  the  34  profiles  have  reduced  sand  volume  throughout  the  monitoring  area.  Within   the  geotube  project  area,  profiles  90.9  to  91.9,  shoreline  retreat  has  been  the  trend,  to  date.”   [Page  19,  emphasis.]  How  do  the  proponents  reconcile  these  seemingly  contradictory   statements?  How  does  such  a  public  statement  by  the  applicant,  “There  has  been  zero  erosion   in  the  area  being  protected  by  the  geotubes,”  affect  the  Commission’s  decision-­‐making?     Again,  if  there  has  been  zero  erosion  and  the  current  seawall  is  working,  why  is  there  a  need  to   extend  the  installation  at  both  ends?     Measuring  Effectiveness  of  the  947-­‐Foot  Geotube  Seawall:  The  applicants  have  been  quick  to   say  that  the  “geotubes  are  working  great.”  How  is  a  statement  like  this  substantiated?     We  thought  that  the  effectiveness  of  a  coastal  engineering  structure  was  measured,  in  part,  by   how  it  performed  during  weather  events.  Since  weather  events  vary  in  frequency,  duration  and   severity,  how  does  the  Commission  assess  the  effectiveness  of  such  a  structure  like  the  current   “temporary”  947-­‐foot  seawall,  especially  in  light  of  what  happened  this  past  winter  when  a   series  of  storms  resulted  in  scouring  at  both  ends  of  the  structure  (especially  on  the  north  end   where  the  tubes  separated  from  the  base  of  the  bluff,  along  with  obvious  flanking),  severely   increased  erosion  in  the  area  of  Hoicks  Hollow  and  the  Sankaty  Beach  Club,  and  the  breaching   of  Sesachacha  Pond  resulting  in  the  over-­‐wash  of  Polpis  Road)?     The  Returns:  During  the  regular  permitting  process  in  2014  for  the  947-­‐foot  seawall  that  had   been  installed  under  an  Emergency  Certificate,  the  returns  were  a  serious  issue  for  the   Commission.  There  was  testimony  before  the  Commission  that  one  of  the  concerns  about   seawalls  was  that  flanking  (scouring)  would  most  likely  occur  on  either  end.  In  response  to  the   questions  raised  by  the  Commissioners,  the  consultants  for  the  applicants  submitted  additional   information  about  the  returns,  as  well  as  revised  drawings.              QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        4   The  Commission  was  assured  that  the  proposed  design  would  prevent  scouring  from  occurring.   (In  fact,  Mr.  Posner,  an  SBPF  principal,  said  that  his  property  was  just  south  of  the  seawall  and   that  if  scouring  happened,  his  property  would  be  the  first  to  be  impacted,  because  if  there  were   any  erosion  issues,  they  would  be  apparent  closest  to  the  ends  of  the  installation,  not   downdrift.  He  went  on  to  say  that  he  was  confident  that  this  would  not  happen.)     Now,  five  years  later,  the  applicants  are  applying  for  an  amended  Order  to  address  what  looks   like  severe  scouring  at  either  end  of  the  947-­‐foot  seawall,  especially  on  the  northern  end.  The   reality  is  that  this  problem  has  been  ongoing  throughout  the  previous  time  period,  as  shown  in   any  number  of  photographs,  despite  the  assurances  of  the  applicants  and  their  consultants  that   such  a  problem  would  not  occur.  (Why  has  this  issue  only  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the   Commission  only  recently?)     As  the  science  has  demonstrated,  time  and  time  again,  once  such  a  situation  occurs,  as  it  is   bound  to  do,  the  contiguous  property  owners  have  no  choice  but  to  attempt  to  install  similar     structures  in  front  of  their  properties.  The  problem  is  then  replicated  along  the  shoreline  in   both  directions,  resulting  eventually  in  one  long  seawall.  If  scouring  and  increased  erosion  could   not  be  avoided  with  the  temporary  947-­‐foot  structure,  what  can  be  anticipated  happening  with   an  expanded  3,800-­‐foot  structure?         w  The  permitting  history  of  the  current  project  is  revealing.  After  two  denials  and  an  appeal   to  the  state,  the  Commission  voted  to  appeal  the  state’s  Superseding  Order.  It  was  only   because  three  members  of  the  Select  Board  refused  to  fund  the  appeal  that  the  ConCom  was   forced  to  settle  and  permit  the  project.  There  were  three  PhD  scientists  on  the  Commission  at   the  time.  We  believe  these  scientists  knew  what  they  were  doing  when  they  voted  to  deny.     Permitting  History:  In  its  presentation  to  the  Commission,  the  applicant  showed  a  slide  that   reviewed  the  “Permitting  History”  of  the  current  947-­‐foot  geotube  seawall.       It  is  helpful  for  the  current  Commissioners  to  note  that  the  Nantucket  Conservation   Commission  denied  to  permit  the  project  in  November  2013  under  an  emergency  order  that   was  subsequently  appealed  by  the  applicant  and  overruled  by  the  State.  The  Commission  then   approved  the  emergency  request,  reluctantly,  after  being  told  that  there  was  “no  jute  available   outside  of  India.”  Under  the  regular  permitting  process  that  followed,  the  Commission  voted   again  to  deny  the  project,  after  seven  months  of  hearings.  Upon  appeal  by  the  applicant  to  the   State,  a  superseding  order  was  issued.  The  Commission  voted  a  third  time:  this  time  to  appeal   the  decision  to  Superior  Court.  It  was  only  because  a  majority  of  the  Board  of  Selectmen   refused  to  fund  that  appeal,  that  the  Commission  was  compelled  to  settle  and  finally  voted  to   permit  the  project.              QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        5     The  point  is  that  that  the  Nantucket  Conservation  Commission  was  consistent  and  steadfast  in   finding  that  the  project,  as  proposed,  would  have  harmful  impacts  and  that  there  were   reasonable  alternatives  to  the  geotubes.  It  would  be  informative  for  the  present  Commission   to  review  the  Denial  Order  of  Conditions  issued  by  the  previous  Commission,  which  was,  in  fact,   for  a  project  virtually  identical  to  the  expansion  proposal,  only  one  quarter  the  size.     Interestingly,  Dr.  Robert  Young,  Director  for  the  Study  of  Developed  Shorelines,  a  joint  venture   of  Duke  and  Western  Carolina  Universities  who  has  been  a  presenter  on  Nantucket  for  a   number  of  erosion  forums,  stated  in  written  testimony  to  the  Commission,       Many  very  bad  coastal  engineering  projects  have  been  permitted  during  emergency   orders,  general  orders,  or  in  other  such  situations.  I  recently  watched  the  construction  of   the  largest  rock  revetment  ever  constructed  to  protect  one  home.  The  structure  was  built   with  almost  no  review  on  Long  Island  following  Hurricane  Sandy.  Local  Town  Trustees   opposed  it,  but  were  powerless  to  stop  it.    The  structure  would  never  have  been  permitted   by  New  York  DEC  during  the  standard  permitting  process.  [Emphasis  added.]       w  Requesting  simple  and  direct  answers,  we  have  repeatedly  asked  important  questions   about  monitoring  and  impacts,  such  as  how  many  days  have  the  geotubes  been  uncovered?   How  many  days  has  the  beach  in  front  of  the  geotubes  been  impassable?  We  have  not   received  specific  answers  that  we  can  understand  to  the  questions.       w  Uncovered  geotubes  act  as  a  hard  structure  and  don’t  provide  sand  to  the  system.  The   current  geotubes  have  been  uncovered  far  too  often,  threatening  downdrift  resource  areas.     Transferring  Risk:  One  doesn’t  have  to  be  a  scientist  to  understand  that,  when  comparing  coir   bags  to  geotubes,  the  risk  with  the  former  is  to  the  property  owner,  while  the  risk  of  the  latter   is  to  others.     Why?  Because  with  coir  bags,  designed  to  open  during  a  storm  event  and  provide  sand  to  the   littoral  drift,  there  are  times  when  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  get  down  to  the  beach  to   repair  and  refill  the  bags  before  the  next  storm  event,  as  explained  in  multiple  alternative   analyses  by  the  applicants.  During  these  intervals,  the  bluff  is  at  risk  of  eroding  and  the  toe  is  at   risk  of  slumping  and  causing  damage  above.       However,  when  the  geotubes  become  uncovered  for  whatever  reason,  and  it  is  difficult  or   impossible  for  them  to  be  recovered  with  mitigation  sand  right  away,  it  is  the  downdrift  system                QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        6   that  is  at  risk,  rather  than  the  immediate  property  owners.  Why?  Because  the  sand  that  would   normally  be  contributed  to  the  system  is  no  longer  available.  The  risk  is  no  longer  to  the   immediate  property  owners,  but  to  downdrift  areas.  Also,  the  immediate  property  owners   don’t  have  the  same  incentive  to  repair  and/or  re-­‐cover  the  geotubes  as  quickly  as  they  would   to  repair  and  refill  the  coir  bags  because  their  properties  are  not  the  ones  in  immediate  danger.   Is  this  fair?  [For  a  detailed  assessment  about  possible  impacts  to  downdrift  areas  to  the  north,   see  Comment  Letter  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  Quidnet  Squam  Association  by  Jim  O’Connell,   Coastal  Geologist.]     As  former  Commissioner,  Dr.  Sarah  Oktay,  has  said  many  times,  the  challenge  in  replicating  how   the  natural  bluff  would  contribute  sediment  to  the  system  involves  not  only  the  amount  of  sand   required,  but  also  the  timing,  having  that  sand  available  when  it  is  needed  by  the  system.  The   applicant  has  NOT  demonstrated  during  the  past  five  years  that  it  can  accomplish  such   replication  through  mitigation.       w  The  present  project  was  permitted  as  a  temporary  project  to  abate  an  emergency.  The   emergency  has  been  abated.  There  are  now  shovel-­‐ready  plans  for  alternative  access  to  the   northern  section  of  Baxter  Road.       w    Putting  the  size  of  the  project  into  perspective  is  helpful.  The  expanded  project  is  longer   than  any  we  know  of,  and  the  amount  of  sand  required  each  year  (as  shown  in  the   calculations  submitted  to  the  Select  Board)  is  enormous,  requiring  thousands  of  dump  trucks   on  our  roads,  at  a  cost  of  several  million  dollars  each  year  in  sand  alone.  The  calculations   given  to  the  SB  do  not  attempt  to  quantify  the  substantial  costs  of  repairing  the  wear  and   tear  on  our  roads  caused  by  the  dump  trucks  and  the  impact  on  sand  cost  and  availability  for   other  uses  on  the  island.     Scope  of  Proposal:  How  can  the  Commission,  and  Nantucket  citizens,  put  the  proposal  for  an   almost  3,800-­‐foot  long  geotube  seawall  in  perspective?    Have  there  been  any  other  coastal   engineering  structures  (CES)  of  this  size  built  —  or  proposed  to  be  built  —  on  a  previously   unarmored,  natural  beach  in  the  Commonwealth  since  such  structures  were  prohibited  in   1978?  In  New  England?  If  yes,  where?  If  yes,  what  kind  of  mitigation  was  required?    (For   comparison,  the  East  and  West  Jetties,  both  of  which  were  recently  re-­‐constructed  by  the  Army   Corps  of  Engineers  [ACOE],  are  4,100  and  5,360  in  length,  respectively.)     Another  way  to  get  a  sense  of  the  size  of  the  proposed  seawall  is  to  calculate  the  amount  of   mitigation  sand  that  would  be  required,  if  the  same  amount  per  linear  foot  were  to  be  required   each  year  for  the  expansion  as  is  required  for  the  947-­‐foot  structure.              QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        7     Using  the  figures  supplied  by  the  applicants,  and  ignoring  the  rising  cost  of  sand,  the  mitigation   sand  for  the  current  947-­‐foot  seawall  amounts  (at  a  minimum)  to  20,834  cubic  yards  annually   which  necessitates  1,042  dump-­‐truck  loads  of  sand  be  transported  to  Sconset  and  back  (for  a   total  of  2,084  one-­‐way  trips)  at  a  conservatively  estimated  annual  sand  cost  of  $625,020.  The   expanded  seawall  would  require  about  83,600  cubic  yards  of  mitigation  sand,  which  would   necessitate  that  approximately  4,180  dump-­‐truck  loads  of  sand  be  transported  to  Sconset  and   back  (for  a  total  of  8,360  one-­‐way  trips)  at  a  conservatively  estimated  cost  of  $2,508,000.   (These  figures  do  not  include  the  costs  to  the  Town  of  repairing/maintaining  of  roads  after  the   extra  damage/wear-­‐and-­‐tear  caused  by  the  heavy  trucks  of  sand.  The  figures  for  the  expansion   do  not  include  the  sand  for  the  initial  construction  or  the  cost  of  that  sand.)       Many  believe  that  this  amount  of  mitigation  is  simply  environmentally  and  financially   unsustainable.       w  We  find  it  ironic  that,  at  a  time  when  coastal  communities  are  adopting  coastal  resiliency   strategies  to  create  undeveloped  waterfront  areas  to  buffer  the  impacts  of  increasing  storm   events,  we  are  seriously  considering  just  the  opposite:  the  hard-­‐armoring  of  3,800  linear  feet   of  a  natural  beach  below  a  geologically  significant  eroding  headland.     Undeveloped  Buffer  Areas  Needed  to  Lessen  Storm  Impact:  The  Town  of  Nantucket  is  about  to   hold  a  community  workshop  (endorsed  and  funded  by  a  grant  from  CZM)  on  coastal  resilience   (January  8)  using  materials  developed  by  the  Nature  Conservancy.  One  of  the  tasks  for  the   group  will  be  to  create  a  risk  matrix  for  Nantucket  that  identifies  “maintaining  existing  beaches   and  dunes”  as  one  action  plan  to  increase  resiliency  in  a  time  of  climate  change  and  rising  sea   level.       w  We  recommend  assessment  of  the  proposal  for  expansion  in  two  sections:  north  of   Bayberry  and  south  of  Bayberry.  Differences  between  the  two  areas  include  degree  of  threat   from  erosion,  existence  of  access  points  provided  by  lateral  ways,  and  availability  of   reasonable  alternatives  to  the  installation  of  a  3,800-­‐foot  seawall  on  a  public  beach.     Two  Sections:  Why?  First  and  foremost,  because  the  area  south  of  Bayberry  Lane  is  not   presently  threatened  by  erosion.  Also,  there  are  several  reasonable  alternatives  south  of   Bayberry  Lane,  made  possible  by  the  number  of  lateral  ways  that  connect  Sankaty  Road  with   Baxter  Road,  as  well  as  other  factors.  Such  lateral  roads  do  not  exist  north  of  Bayberry  Lane.              QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        8         North  of  Bayberry  Lane:  (North  of  Bayberry  (73  to  119  Baxter  Road)  is  the  most  threatened   section  and  is  the  location  of  the  current  947-­‐foot  seawall,  installed  to  abate  an  emergency  in   winter  2012  and  2014.  The  reason  for  the  temporary  installation  was  to  give  the  Town  time  to   secure  alternative  access  in  the  area,  should  it  be  needed.  As  we  understand,  the  Town  now  has   “shovel  ready”  plans  to  install  this  access  if  necessary,  providing  a  reasonable  alternative  to  the   proposed  geotube  expansion  north  of  Bayberry.  This  alternative  is  one  of  a  number  of   alternatives  that  will  not  have  the  adverse  impacts  of  the  expanded  geotube  seawall.  [See   below  for  further  discussion  of  reasonable  alternatives.]     w  An  analysis  of  the  properties  on  the  east  side  of  Baxter  Road  north  of  Bayberry  Lane   reveals  the  following:     ·∙  There  are  21  properties  between  Bayberry  Lane  and  the  Sconset  Trust  property  on  the  north.   ·∙  Of  these  21  properties,  10  consist  of  vacant  land,  or  48%  of  the  total  number  of  properties.   ·∙  Of  these  21  properties,  11  have  structures  on  them,  or  52%  of  the  total  number  of  properties.     ·∙  Of  these  11  structures,  5  do  not  quality  for  pre-­‐1978  protection,  or  45%  of  the  total  number  of  structures.   ·∙  Of  these  11  structures,  6  do  qualify  for  pre-­‐1978  protection,  or  55%  of  the  total  number  of  structures.     ·∙  Of  the  11  structures,  8  were  purchased  since  20011,  and  3  were  purchased  prior  to  2001.   ·∙  Of  the  3  structures  purchased  prior  to  2001,  2  of  the  owners2  own  vacant  lots  on  the  west  side  of  Baxter  Road.     In  summary,  of  the  11  structures  north  of  Bayberry  on  the  east  side  of  Baxter  Road,  8  have   been  purchased  since  2001,  when  erosion  in  the  area  had  been  well  known  for  some  time.  Of   the  3  structures  purchased  prior  to  2001,  2  are  owned  by  individuals  who  also  own  vacant  lots   on  the  west  side  of  Baxter  Road.     Erosion  has  been  a  fact  of  life  on  Baxter  Road  for  decades.  Why  should  a  3,800-­‐foot  stretch  of   natural  beach  habitat  owned  by  the  public  be  degraded  and  destroyed  in  an  attempt  to   provide  “protection”  for  risky  real-­‐estate  investments  made  by  private  parties?  (The  assessed   value  of  the  three  Town-­‐owned  beach  parcels,  48.6,  48.8  and  49.9,  on  which  the  seawall  will  be   constructed  is  $9,922,200  million.  These  parcels  are  zoned  LUG-­‐3.)                                                                                                                        1  Of  the  8  structures  purchased  since  2001,  one  (109  Baxter)  was  bought  as  recently  as  November  2016,   according  to  Town  records.   2  Messers  Weymar  and  Posner,  both  SBPF  principals.          QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        9     w  The  Alternative  Analysis  contained  in  the  NOI  for  the  expansion  project  is  incomplete.       Reasonable  Alternatives  Exist:  As  has  been  pointed  out  many  times,  owners  of  pre-­‐1978   structures  do  NOT  have  an  inalienable  right  to  install  hard  armoring  in  front  of  their  properties.   Sea  walls  to  “protect”  pre-­‐1978  structures  are  permitted  ONLY  under  certain  conditions.  One  of   these  conditions  is  that  there  are  no  reasonable  alternatives.  The  reality  is  that  there  are  a   number  of  reasonable  alternatives  for  the  structures  on  the  east  side  of  Baxter  Road,  both   north  and  south  of  Bayberry.  Unfortunately,  the  Alternative  Analysis  section  in  the  Notice  of   Intent  (NOI)  presented  to  the  Commission  on  behalf  of  the  applicants  for  the  expansion  of  the   seawall  is  woefully  incomplete  and  doesn’t  even  include  some  of  them.3       w  Soft  installations  that  have  been  in  place  for  some  time  have  had  five  additional  years  to   demonstrate  their  effectiveness  side-­‐by-­‐side  with  the  geotubes,  but  this  matter  has  been   ignored  by  the  applicant.       Soft  Installations:  Soft  erosion-­‐control  projects  have  been  in  use  along  the  beach  at  the  toe  of   the  bluff  for  many  years  now.  They  have  proven  to  be  effective.  Yes,  they  do  open,  as  designed,   during  storm  events  to  supply  sand  for  the  littoral  system,  and  they  have  to  be  repaired  and   refilled  afterwards.  It  is  not  always  easy  to  access  the  bluff  to  do  the  needed  repair  following  a   storm.  But  that’s  extremely  similar  to  the  situation  of  having  to  cover  geotubes  with  mitigation   sand  after  a  storm,  as  has  been  demonstrated  during  the  past  five  years:  the  difficulty  of   accessing  the  beach  following  a  storm  event.  However,  in  one  case  (the  sand-­‐filled  jute  bags),   the  risk  is  with  the  private  property  being  “protected,”  and  in  the  other  (the  geotube  seawall),   the  risk  is  to  downdrift  properties  and  the  beach.       w  There  are  now  two  (2)  additional  relocation  alternatives:  the  relocation  of  northern  Baxter   Road  and  related  utilities,  if  necessary,  as  the  Town  has  shovel-­‐ready  plans  in  hand;  and  the   relocation  of  structures  on  the  east  side  of  Baxter  Road  landward  out  of  harm’s  way  into  a   portion  of  the  60-­‐foot  road  layout  owned  by  the  Town,  as  successfully  demonstrated  by  the   property  owner  at  109  Baxter  Road.  The  latter  is  a  reasonable  alternative  for  any  structure  on   the  east  side  of  Baxter  Road  throughout  the  entire  length  of  the  proposed  project.  In   addition,  when  leasing  the  road  layout  for  this  purpose,  the  Town  can  acquire  One  Big  Beach   Easements  for  the  land  below  the  bluff  that  may  be  privately  owned,  as  it  did  with  the  owner   of  109.                                                                                                                     3  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  an  alternative  analysis  in  a  previous  NOI,  this  time  for  a  rock  revetment   in  the  same  location,  this  applicant  argued  that  “Geotextile  tubes  are  not  well-­‐suited  to  a  high  energy   environment  like  Sconset.”  See  NOI,  Baxter  Road  and  Sconset  Bluff  Storm  Damage  Project,  July  2,  2013,   p.  6.          QUESTIONS  AND  COMMENTS  RE  NOI  TO  EXPAND  GEOTUBE  SEAWALL        10   Relocation:  This  alternative  is  clearly  the  most  preferable,  especially  for  the  properties  north  of   Bayberry.  Although  the  applicants  —  who  dismiss  retreat  as  “doing  nothing”  —  continue  to   resist  it  and  do  not  even  include  it  as  an  alternative  in  its  analysis,  it  can  be  a  win-­‐win,  especially   for  the  resource  areas  protected  by  local  and  State  laws.  As  Dr.  Young  has  said  many  times  (to   paraphrase),  “Planning  to  move  a  structure  back  out  of  harm’s  way  is  not  doing  nothing.”     What  makes  this  alternative  so  reasonable  now  is  that  Town  of  Nantucket  finally  has   engineering  plans  in  hand  to  relocate  the  northern,  most  threatened,  section  of  Baxter  Road   and  is,  in  fact,  “waiting  for  bidding  documents,”  according  to  the  Town  Manager.  [See   attached.]  This  is  why  the  temporary  947-­‐foot  seawall  was  installed  in  the  first  place  five  years   ago:  to  give  the  Town  time  to  develop  plans  to  relocate  Baxter  Road  and  related  infrastructure   and  to  acquire  the  necessary  easements  from  the  property  owners  to  do  so.     In  addition  there  is  the  alternative  to  relocate  the  structure  into  the  road  layout,  for  the   properties  on  which  there  is  no  more  space  to  move  landward.     The  advantages  of  relocation  were  demonstrated  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Sconset  Trust  several   years  ago  when  they  made  the  decision  to  move  the  iconic  Sankaty  Lighthouse  landward  out  of   harm’s  way.  The  project  was  immensely  successful:  a  one-­‐time  event,  with  a  known  cost,  little   or  no  environmental  damage,  and,  most  advantageous  of  all,  the  historic  structure  is  safe.       w  Promises  were  made  by  the  applicants  in  2013  that  every  effort  would  be  made  to  restore   the  Bluff  Walk  in  the  area  of  the  current  project.  No  attempt  that  we  know  of  was  ever  made   to  accomplish  this  restoration  during  the  past  five  years.  The  existing  Bluff  Walk  below  its   northern-­‐most  point  at  67  Baxter  Road  has  been  stable  for  many  years.     For  additional  information  about  the  Bluff  Walk,  see  the  Report  of  the  Sconset  Foot-­‐Path  Public   Access  Subcommittee  of  Roads  and  Right  of  Way  (2010)  to  the  Select  Board.  At  the  time  that   report  was  written  and  adopted  by  the  Board,  the  northern  terminus  of  the  foot-­‐path  was   where  it  is  today.     When  the  original  developer  of  the  Baxter  Road  area,  William  J.  Flagg,  laid  out  the  lots  in  the   late  1890s,  he  and  the  Proprietors  agreed  to  not  only  secure  an  easement  for  the  Bluff  Walk  for   the  use  of  the  public  in  perpetuity,  but  also  to  preserve  the  bluff  and  the  beach  below  it  for  the   inhabitants  of  Nantucket,  to  be  held  in  trust  by  the  Town,  also  in  perpetuity.  In  this  regard,  the   beach  on  which  the  applicants  propose  to  construct  a  seawall  is  also  historic,  just  as  much  as   the  Bluff  Walk,  the  Sankaty  Lighthouse,  and  some  of  the  original  homes  in  the  area.  Isn’t  it   worthy  of  preservation?     Unlike  the  others,  the  beach  cannot  be  relocated.       ATTACHMENT  (3  PP)