HomeMy WebLinkAbout51 SE48_3115 NCC FINAL COMMENTS 4_22_19
NCC
COMMENTS:
SBPF
NOI
RE
EXPANSION
OF
GEOTUBES
Conservation
Commission
Public
Hearing
Monday,
April
22,
2019
¡
FIRST
POINT:
THERE
ARE
IMPORTANT
ITEMS
IN
NEED
OF
CLARIFICATION
FOR
THE
RECORD.
HERE
ARE
FIVE.
ONE:
The
current
structure
was
intended
to
be
temporary.
The
current
900-‐foot
geotube
seawall
was
and
always
has
been
considered
TEMPORARY.
It
was
represented
as
temporary
by
the
Town’s
consultants
(Milone
and
MacBroom)
and
also
in
the
NOI
submitted
to
the
Conservation
Commission;
it
was
permitted
as
temporary
by
both
the
Commission
and
DEP
(see
Superseding
Order
of
Conditions,
Special
Condition
#19).
It
was
NEVER
considered
to
be
a
pilot
project:
not
by
the
Town
(the
co-‐applicant),
not
by
the
permitting
bodies
(Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
and
DEP),
and
not
by
the
public.
The
fact
that
the
applicants
intended
to
apply
to
quadruple
the
temporary
structure
at
some
point
in
the
future
does
not
make
the
original
installation
any
less
temporary;
otherwise
the
information
submitted
by
the
co-‐applicants
to
the
permitting
bodies
was,
in
fact,
duplicitous.
[Illustration:
Cover
Page
from
NOI.]
TWO:
Alternative
access
is
not
predicated
on
permitting
the
expansion.
Alternative
access
to
the
threatened
section
of
Baxter
Road
north
of
Bayberry
does
NOT
depend
on
whether
or
not
the
expansion
is
permitted.
Both
the
Select
Board
and
the
Commission
have
asked
Town
Counsel
to
correct
this
misrepresentation
in
writing.
THREE:
The
number
of
days
the
geotubes
were
uncovered
remains
unknown.
Information
submitted
during
the
public
hearings
about
how
long
the
geotubes
have
been
exposed
is
incomplete;
the
focus
has
been
on
March
2018
and
a
series
of
storms
that
occurred
during
that
month.
However,
we
have
photos
showing
the
tubes
uncovered
at
many,
many
other
times.
Example:
photos
from
December
2017
through
February
2018.
These
pictures
were
taken
at
random
times.
They
accurately
depict
the
condition
of
the
installation
at
the
times
they
were
taken.
To
this
day,
five
years
after
the
project
was
installed,
the
applicants
cannot
tell
the
Commission
—
or
the
public
—
for
how
many
days
and/or
tide
cycles
the
tubes
have
been
uncovered.
[Illustration:
Two
selections
from
Susan’s
Photos,
January
2018
and
February
2018.
Entire
series
on
NCC
website,
https://peterb-‐
brace.squarespace.com/siasconset]
NCC
COMMENTS
2
FOUR:
The
number
of
days
a
walkable
beach
was
maintained
remains
unknown.
Information
submitted
during
the
hearings
about
the
maintenance
of
a
walkable
beach
is
incomplete.
The
applicants
have
not
provided
data
to
quantify
the
number
of
days
and/or
tide
cycles
during
which
there
has
not
been
a
walkable
beach
seaward
of
the
geotubes.
Again,
photos
taken
at
random
times
indicate
that
there
have,
in
fact,
been
numerous
times
when
there
was
no
walkable
beach
seaward
of
the
geotubes.
[Illustration:
One
of
Susan’s
photos,
January
2017,
showing
wrack
line
indicating
no
walkable
beach.]
FIVE:
NLC
consultants
have
testified
that
the
rate
of
erosion
has
increased
since
geotubes
were
installed.
Information
provided
during
the
hearings
and
to
the
public
(at
Special
Town
Meeting,
October
2018)
that
the
geotubes
have
been
successful
in
that
there
has
been
**no**
erosion
is
contradicted
by
statements
submitted
by
Applied
Coastal,
on
the
record.
Applied
Coastal
has
indicated
that
the
rate
of
erosion
throughout
the
project
area
has
**increased**
during
the
time
the
900-‐foot
installation
has
been
in
place.
Quite
frankly,
such
dissembling
should
be
unacceptable.
Period.
[Illustration:
Chart
from
comments
submitted
by
Applied
Coastal
AND
one
page
of
SBPF
handout
from
Special
Town
Meeting,
October
10.]
¡
SECOND
POINT:
THE
EXPANSION
WOULD
HAVE
SEVERE
ADVERSE
IMPACTS.
HERE
ARE
FOUR.
In
order
to
permit
the
project,
the
Commission
will
have
to
find
that
that
the
expansion
would
cause
no
adverse
impacts
on
the
resources
protected
by
law.
The
record
indicates
that
such
is
not
the
case.
There
will
be
adverse
impacts
on
protected
resources
if
the
project
is
constructed.
As
citizens
(not
scientists,
nor
attorneys)
we
cite
just
four
of
those
adverse
impacts
here.
ONE:
THE
PUBLIC
BEACH
WOULD
NARROW
AND
EVENTUALLY
DISAPPEAR
One
overriding
adverse
impact
to
keep
in
mind
was
put
simply
in
a
letter
(dated
November
5,
2013)
from
Dr.
Robert
Young,
Director,
Program
for
the
Study
of
Developed
Shorelines,
a
joint
venture
of
Duke
and
Western
Carolina
Universities;
the
letter
was
submitted
as
testimony
for
the
record.
Dr.
Young
wrote,
“When
placed
on
an
eroding
or
retreating
beach
or
bluff,
geotubes
will
cause
that
beach
to
narrow
and
eventually
disappear.”
The
science
is
irrefutable.
There
has
been
no
mitigation
plan
put
forward
by
the
applicant
to
ensure
that
a
walkable
beach
will
be
maintained
or
to
specify
a
width
for
that
beach.
As
long
as
erosion
continues
and
the
geotubes
remain
in
place,
the
beach
will
narrow
and
disappear,
just
as
the
science
says
it
will.
NCC
COMMENTS
3
TWO:
ACRES
OF
BEACH
HABITAT
WOULD
IMMEDIATELY
BE
DESTROYED
Immediately
upon
construction
about
3
additional
acres
of
pristine
beach
habitat
(on
which
the
new
geotubes
will
sit)
would
be
destroyed.
There
has
been
NO
proposal
by
the
applicant
to
mitigate
for
this
loss
of
protected
habitat.
THREE:
END
SCOUR
WOULD
CONTINUE,
RESULTING
IN
A
NEED
TO
EXTEND
THE
INSTALLATION
The
Commission's
independent
reviewer,
Greg
Berman,
has
stated
on
the
record
that
end
scour
would
continue
and
that
over
time
the
project
would
have
to
be
extended.
FOUR:
THE
BEACH
WOULD
BECOME
A
CONTINUAL
CONSTRUCTION
SITE
As
Dr.
Young
testified
five
years
ago,
a
geotube
project
of
this
kind
would
require
mitigation,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
FOREVER,
turning
the
site
into
a
continual
construction
site.
The
applicants
have
conceded
as
much,
stating
that
a
dedicated
bulldozer
will
be
purchased
to
facilitate
the
mitigation
and
maintenance
that
will
be
necessary.
¡
THIRD
POINT:
THERE
ARE
REASONABLE
ALTERNATIVES
TO
HARD-‐ARMORING
ALMOST
4,000
FEET
OF
BEACH.
HERE
ARE
FOUR.
In
order
to
permit
the
project,
the
Commission
will
have
to
find
that
that
there
are
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
hard-‐armoring
almost
4,000
linear
feet
of
beach.
The
record
of
this
public
hearing
indicates
that
such
is
simply
not
the
case.
There
are
clearly
documented
reasonable
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project.
We
cite
just
four
(4)
of
these
alternatives
here.
ONE:
USE
THE
SOFT
ALTERNATIVE
Soft,
less
harmful
methods
of
erosion-‐control
are
available
to
the
applicant.
In
fact,
such
projects
have
been
in
place
on
the
beach
below
the
same
bluff
for
some
time.
During
the
five
years
that
the
900-‐foot
geotube
hard
structure
has
been
in
place,
projects
consisting
of
sand-‐
filled
fabric
bags
have
been
in
place
side-‐by-‐side
with
the
geotubes:
they
have
been
continually
maintained
by
property
owners
and
have
apparently
been
effective.
This
period
would
have
been
a
perfect
time
to
compare
the
soft
and
hard
projects
to
assess
their
performances,
but,
unfortunately,
no
such
comparison
has
been
made.
Why?
Because
the
applicants
do
not
want
soft
installations
to
be
considered
to
be
an
alternative.
Nonetheless,
soft
structures
are
in
fact
a
reasonable
alternative.
NCC
COMMENTS
4
TWO:
RELOCATE
THREATENED
STRUCTURES
WESTWARD
INTO
THE
ROAD
LAYOUT
Instead
of
leasing/licensing
Town-‐owned
beach
property
below
the
buff,
the
property
owners
could
lease/license
Town-‐owned
road-‐layout
property
onto
which
they
could
then
move
structures
westward
out
of
harm’s
way.
This
alternative
has
been
demonstrated
successfully
at
109
Baxter
Road.
THREE:
IMPLEMENT
THE
SHOVEL-‐READY
PLANS
FOR
RELOCATION
OF
NORTHERN
BAXTER
ROAD
The
Town
now
has
shovel-‐ready
plans
to
relocate
the
northern
section
of
Baxter
Road,
along
with
the
infrastructure,
should
doing
so
be
necessary.
Relocation
of
the
road
and
utilities
is
not
an
option
the
applicants
want
to
consider;
hence
the
alternative
analysis
submitted
to
the
Commission
contains
NO
RELOCATION
alternatives.
Nonetheless,
relocation
of
the
northern
section
of
the
road,
the
most
threatened
area,
along
with
the
infrastructure
there,
is
now
a
reasonable
alternative;
by
comparison,
it
was
not
a
reasonable
alternative
five
years
ago,
when
the
emergency
existed
and
the
current
structure
was
installed
under
an
Emergency
Order
to
abate
that
emergency
on
a
temporary
basis.
[Illustration:
Engineering
drawing.]
FOUR:
PREPARE
FOR
THE
POSSIBLE
EVENTUAL
RELOCATION
OF
ALL
OF
BAXTER
ROAD
Two
weeks
ago,
the
voters
approved
an
expenditure
of
$500,000
to
begin
planning
for
the
relocation
of
the
entire
length
of
Baxter
Road
as
well
as
the
infrastructure,
including
water
and
sewer.
Baxter
Road
is
not
now
in
danger:
there
is
time
for
the
relocation
planning
to
proceed
and
to
be
in
place
when
and
if
relocation
becomes
necessary.
Relocation
of
the
road
in
the
area
of
the
expansion
is
now
a
reasonable
alternative;
the
Town
intends
to
be
proactive
and
forward
thinking
in
this
regard.
However,
the
Alternative
Analysis
in
the
NOI
is
silent
in
regard
to
this
alternative.
Nonetheless,
it
is
a
reasonable
alternative.
[Illustration:
Expenditure
with
explanation
from
Capital
Program
Committee.]
¡
IN
CLOSING
This
is
not
just
any
beach:
it
is
a
historic
beach,
a
legacy
to
the
inhabitants
of
Nantucket
from
the
Proprietors.
That
it
has
been
preserved
in
its
natural
state
is
a
marvel.
It
sits
below
a
geologically
significant
glacial
headland,
considered
at
the
turn
of
the
century
so
unique
that
it
attracted
scholars
and
visitors
alike.
Offshore
is
a
fish
nursery,
created
over
decades
by
the
cobble
eroding
from
the
bluff:
local
fishermen
say
is
it
is
unlike
any
other
reef
on
the
eastern
coast
of
the
United
States.
A
well-‐known
Nantucket
resident
who
was
born
and
grew
up
here
recently
saw
his
very
first
whale
swimming
and
spouting
just
off
of
this
beach.
Many
believe
this
stretch
of
shoreline,
with
the
celebrated
Sankaty
lighthouse
perched
high
above,
should
be
preserved
forever
as
a
coastal
marine
sanctuary.
And,
indeed,
it
should.
[Illustration:
Photo/s
by
Sharon
Van
Lieu
before
the
geotubes.]