HomeMy WebLinkAbout56 SE48_3115 NCC Comments 05_01_19
TO:
MEMBERS
OF
THE
CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
FROM:
D.
ANNE
ATHERTON
AND
MAUREEN
PHILLIPS/NCC
TEAM
RE:
CORRECTING
THE
RECORD
RE
NOI
SUBMITTED
BY
SBPF
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBES
DATE:
MAY
1,
2019
Steven
Cohen,
attorney
for
the
applicants,
stated
several
times
during
the
April
22
public
hearing
that
the
issue
of
the
timing
(when
mitigation
sand
is
available
to
the
littoral
system
to
prevent
adverse
impacts)
is
a
“false
test.”
He
went
on
to
say
that,
yes,
his
clients
recognized
the
importance
of
the
mitigation
sand,
“But
it’s
the
volume
of
the
sand
not
the
timing,”
that
matters.1
Dwight
Dunk,
of
Epsilon
Associates,
joined
Mr.
Cohen
in
referring
to
statements
apparently
made
by
independent
reviewer
Greg
Berman
to
the
effect
that
“the
timing
of
the
availability
of
mitigation
sand
is
not
critical
for
protecting
downdrift
beaches
and
dunes.”2
We
would
like
to
point
out
to
the
Commission
that
there
is
expert
testimony
on
the
record
that
directly
contradicts
these
statements.
In
addition,
we
cannot
find
any
statement
supposedly
made
by
Mr.
Berman
in
his
written
submission
to
the
Commission
that
documents
the
assertions
of
Messrs.
Cohen
and
Dunk.
We
refer
specifically
to
the
letter,
dated
November
4,
2013,
submitted
by
Coastal
Geologist/Coastal
Land-‐Use
Specialist
Jim
O’Connell
on
behalf
of
the
Quidnet
Squam
(QS)
residents.
Dirk
Roggeveen,
attorney
for
the
QS
property
owners,
requested
that
Mr.
O’Connell’s
letter,
originally
written
in
regard
to
the
900-‐foot
project,
be
entered
into
the
record
of
the
current
proceedings.
In
his
12-‐page
letter,
Mr.
O’Connell
mentions
the
importance
for
the
system
of
the
timing
of
the
availability
of
mitigation
sand
in
six
(6)
instances.
Here
is
one
example,
found
on
page
3.
Thus,
the
eastern
shore
of
Nantucket
can
be
considered
a
‘littoral
cell’.
As
such,
the
coastal
banks,
coastal
beach,
coastal
dunes,
barrier
beaches
and
near-‐shore
areas
are
an
interactive
system:
Any
interruption
in
the
volume
and
timing
of
the
sediment
supply
from
the
coastal
bank
to
the
areas
to
the
north
can
potentially
result
in
adverse
impacts
in
terms
of
accelerated
erosion
and
storm
damage
to
the
beaches,
dunes,
and
barrier
beach,
and
as
a
result
possible
damage
to
landward
developed
property.
[Note:
Bold
emphasis
added,
while
the
italics
and
underlining
are
Mr.
O’Connell’s.]
Main
Point:
Contrary
to
statements
made
by
SBPF
representatives,
the
evidence
indicates
that
the
timing
of
the
availability
of
mitigation
sand
into
the
system
is
key
to
preventing
adverse
impacts.
And
further,
based
on
the
performance
of
the
current
geotube
project
over
the
past
five
years,
the
applicants
have
demonstrated
their
inability
to
introduce
mitigation
sand
into
the
system
when
it
is
needed
to
prevent
potential
adverse
impacts.
This
is
a
matter
of
fact
that
will
have
to
be
considered
in
any
finding
by
the
Commission
for
this
much
larger
project.
1
See
the
video
of
the
hearing
available
at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwZLFXB8UvU.
A
number
of
Mr.
Cohen’s
statements
come
at
about
the
1:32
mark.
2
See
Letter
to
the
Conservation
Commission,
Response
to
Greg
Berman
Comments
on
the
Expanded
Baxter
Road
and
Sconset
Bluff
Storm
Damage
Prevention
Project,
February
7,
2019
from
Dwight
Dunk,
page
2.
https://www.nantucket-‐
ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23517/SPBF-‐Response-‐to-‐G-‐Berman-‐Review-‐02_07_2019