Loading...
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.]